; 3!

WORKS
BY THE LATE
Professor J. S. CANDLISH, D.D

THE KINGDOM OF GOD: Biblically and Historically
Considered. 8vo, 10s. 6J.
" As to the ability of this volume there can be no question ; it is worthy of
the reputation and position of its author." — Evangelical Magazine.
THE CHRISTIAN SACRAMENTS. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
"An admirable manual; sound, clear, suggestive, and interesting."— Free
Church Monthly.
THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF GOD. Crown 8vo,
Is. 6d.
"To have put all this deeply thought, richly furnished, and wisely ex
pressed matter on the fundamental topic in theology within reach of the
widest Christian public at the extremely modest cost named, must be pro
nounced a triumph of enterprise." — Theological RevUvt.
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
"A masterly, succinct, and suggestive resume of the highest Christian
thought on the personality and office of the Holy Spirit."— Baptist Magazine.
THE BIBLICAL DOCTRINE OF SIN. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
" What Professor Candlish has given us here in such admirable clearness and
welcome brevity is the fruit of the most accomplished modern study."—
Expository Times.
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
"For a cheap commentary there is nothing better. . . . A ripe and beautiful
book." — British Weekly.
THE CHRISTIAN SALVATION: Lectures on The Work
of Christ, Its Appropriation and Its Issues.
[ Just published, 8vo, 7s. 6d.

Edinburgh: T. & T. CLARK, 3S George Street.

THE CHRISTIAN SALVATION

THE

CHRISTIAN SALVATION

LECTURES ON
THE WORK OF CHRIST
ITS APPROPRIATION AND ITS ISSUES

BY THE LATE

JAMES S. CANDLISH, D.D.
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW

EDINBURGH
& T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET
1899

PRINTED BY
MORRISON AND OIBB LIMITED,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH,
LONDON : SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, AND CO. LIMITED.
NEW YORK : CHARLES SCRIBNBR'S SONS.
TORONTO : FLEMING II. REVELL COMPANY.

Hf-rZl c \u

PREFATORY NOTE

Dk. Candlish was for twenty-five years Professor of
Systematic Theology in the Free Church College, Glasgow,
and when he died two years ago there was a widespread
desire among those who knew him that the results of his
lifelong labour in this department should not be lost to the
world. The contents of this volume have been selected, in
response to this desire, from a considerable mass of manuscript
covering the whole field of theology. On most of the great
topics Dr. Candlish had written again and again, in whole or
in part ; and while this made the work of selection somewhat
more difficult, it gives a guarantee that though he did not
himself prepare this volume for the press, it may be regarded
as representing his mature mind on the subjects with which it
deals. The Lectures on the " Work of Christ," which stand
first, were apparently the last continuous piece of work which
he did for his class. Unfortunately the closing lecture on this
subject; — that on the " Intercession of Christ " — could not be
found when it was decided to begin printing; it was only
discovered in time to be inserted at the end of the volume.
The other lectures were chosen, partly because of their
connection with the work of Christ, which it had been
decided should be central, and determine the character of
the volume ; partly because the subjects of which they treat
— the Church, the New Life, the Sacraments, the Last
Things — are, for various reasons, of special interest at the
present time ; but partly also because they illustrate more
completely than most that combination of the biblical, the
historical, and the experimental, which was the characteristic
of all Dr. Candlish's work. JAMES DENNEY.

CONTENTS

THE WORK OF CHRIST
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED IN THE GOSPELS

1. Christ as Prophet
2. Christ as King
3. Christ as Priest .
The Threefold Office of Christ .
The Priestly Office in Particular

I. Atonement Meaning of Sacrifice

1-4

4-6

6-10

10-12

13

13

14-21

II

The New Testament Teaching on the Atonement of Christ
1. Statements of Christ ...... 22-27
2. Teaching of the Apostles —
(1) Paul's Conception of Christ's Death as Redemption from
the Curse of the Law ..... 27-30
(2) Paul's Conception of Christ's Death as a Death to Sin,
in which we share . . . . 30, 31
(3) The Conception of Christ's Death in Hebrews, as giving
us access to God ..... 31-33
(4) View indicated by John, of Christ as our Atonement
through Communion ..... 33-35
Systematic Construction of the Doctrine of Atonement
Classification of Theories ....
Theories of Moral Influence
Objective Theories . ...
Mystical Theories
Intercession —
1. Biblical Foundation of the Doctrine
2. Nature of Christ's Intercession ....
3. Extent of Christ's Intercession .

37-4040-4242-4949-53

255-257 257-261261-263

Vlll

CONTENTS

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
I. Roman Catholic Doctrine
II. Erastian Doctrine ....
III. Evangelical Doctrine ....
Relation of the Church to the Kingdom of God
The Notes of the Church

PACE
54-63
63-66
66-7171-79
79-82

THE NEW LIFE
I. Renewal .
The work of the Holy Spirit
After Christ's likeness
Conditioned by faith .
II . Sanotification — what it is
III. Sanotification — the means of it, and responsibility for it
IV. Sanotification — its degrees —
A. Roman Catholic View ....
B. Antinomian View .....
0. Perfectionism

83-92
87-89
89-91
91, 92
93-100
101-110
110-118 118-125
126-133

THE SACRAMENTS
I. Introductory and Historical
II. Nature and Relations of the Sacraments Baptism
1. Its outward form
2. Its significance
3. Its efficacy ....
Who are to be baptized ? .
Baptism of infants justified
Principle on which the children of believers are baptized
Baptismal Regeneration ...

The Lord's Supper
1. The external sign
2. The significance of the Supper
3. Its efficacy —
A. Roman Catholic Doctrine
B. Lutheran Doctrine
O. Zwinglian Doctrine
D. Reformed Doctrine
Christ's Presence in the Supper
Qualifications for Communion

134-140
140-143

143-148
148-150
150-152
153-169
154-161161-169
169-179

180-185
185-187
187-191
191-194
194, 195
195-200
200, 201
202-204

CONTENTS IX

ESCHATOLOGY

I. Meaning of Life and Death in the New Testament —
1. In the teaching of Jesus ..... 205-210
2. In the Epistle of James . . 210,211
3. In the teaching of Paul . 211-219
4. In the Epistle to the Hebrews . . 219, 220
5. In the First Epistle of Peter . . 220, 221
6. In the Second Epistle of Peter 221, 222
7. In the teaching of John . 222, 223
II. The Intermediate State —
1. Wide difference between the godly and the ungodly . 223-228
2. Conception of penal or purgatorial sufferings for the godly . 228-232
III. The Final States-
General Scope of New Testament language . . . 232-237
1. Universalism . . . 237-241
2. Conditional Immortality . 241-243
3. Mitigations of suffering ... . 244-249
Rewards and activities of the saints in heaven . . 249-254

THE CHRISTIAN SALVATION

THE WORK OF CHRIST
THE FACTS AS PRESENTED IN THE GOSPELS
IN considering the work of Jesus as our Saviour, it is the
actual facts of His life as they are presented to us in
the gospel records that we must study and endeavour to
understand in their meaning and purpose.
1. CHRIST AS PROPHET
Now the most obvious aspect that the life-work of Jesus
of Nazareth presented to the view of His contemporaries,
was that of a prophet or messenger sent by God, like the
prophets of ancient Israel, and His immediate forerunner
John the Baptist. As such Jesus was recognised by all those
who were in any degree favourable to Him at all, — by
Nicodemus when He came to him by night (John 32), by
the blind beggar to whom our Lord gave sight (John 917),
and by the multitudes in Jerusalem on His triumphal
entry into the city (Matt. 21n). "When His miracles were
recognised as really wrought by divine power, this was the
lowest inference that was drawn, and some who did not go
so far as to acknowledge Him to be the Messiah, thought He
might be John the Baptist or one of the old prophets risen
from the dead (Matt. 1614). Our Saviour's office, then, is
undoubtedly that of a prophet or teacher sent from God,
though it is also much more : it includes other functions
besides that of revealing God, and even as a revealer He is

2 THE WOEK OF CHRIST
more than an inspired teacher of divine truth — He is the
light of the world, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom
of the Father, who has declared Him, whom no man hath
seen at any time.
Thus the earthly ministry of our Lord does not include
the whole of His prophetic work, though it is the last and
crowning part of it. He has been the revealer of God all
through the course of human history, by those secret and
scattered intimations of truth conveyed by the light of reason
and conscience, and by that more direct and explicit teaching
given to Israel in the law and the prophets. His direct
personal teaching was more especially linked on to that of
the Old Testament, and confirmed it in its real and intended
meaning. He appealed to the Scriptures believed and
accepted by the Jews as authoritative and as bearing witness
to Him, and the further truths that He had to declare were
not subversive of their principles, but a further development
of them. In this point of view His teaching may be regarded
as falling into the following parts.
I. Correction of the perversions of the divine law that
had grown up in the schools of the scribes and Pharisees.
Jesus strongly condemned, by deed and by word, the spirit
and method in which the Jewish Rabbis had interpreted and
applied the Scriptures, because it was essentially formal and
legal, paying exclusive regard to the letter and often con
tradicting the spirit. His opposition appeared most mani
festly in His disregard of the minute and pedantic rules
about Sabbath observance, by which they had made the day
of rest a burden rather than a delight to men. Against this
He appealed to the principles laid down in the Old Testament
itself, and the examples of its priests and holy men, as well as
to the dictates of reason and conscience. Similarly, He
neglected the traditional rules about washing before meals,
and in the discussions that arose in connection with this, He
showed by other instances, such as the system of Corban
(Matt. 15lfl-), and the casuistic decisions about oaths (Matt.
533L), that they were mere human institutions which ran
counter to the essential moral principles of the law. In all
these matters He was simply acting as a reformer, eritieisinc

CHRIST AS A PROPHET 3
the current legal rules and practices by the principles of the
law itself. He vindicated the authority of the law and the
prophets as against the traditions of the elders, who in their
zeal to maintain the letter as a legal code had greatly
obscured and perverted its real moral meaning and purpose.
But this correction of abuses necessarily implied (II.) a
development of the principles of the earlier revelation. In
vindication of His conduct in reference to the Sabbath, Jesus
had occasion to bring out the subordinate place of ritual and
positive precepts in comparison of those that are moral and
unchangeable. He did not need to state as a new prin
ciple the saying of the Lord by Hosea (66), " I desire
mercy and not sacrifice," a saying which sums up much
other teaching by the prophets, and shows that the scribes
ought to have known better than to interpret the law as
they did. But ritual precepts had a place in the Jewish
covenant more prominent than in the teaching of Jesus ; and
He made more plain and emphatic that they were only means
to an end, and that the whole law is summed up in love to
God and men. The principle involved in His saying, " the
Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath "
(Mark 227), made universal what was contained in germ
in the earlier teaching. So also His declaration of God's
fatherly character and goodwill to all men was based on the
revelation made to Israel, and supported by references to the
grace shown to the widow of Zarephath and the Syrian
Naaman (Luke 425ff-), and by the saying that the temple was
to be a house of prayer for all nations (Mark ll17): but it
was so much more clearly and fully taught by Jesus as to
be practically a new revelation. Another point in which our
Lord developed the Old Testament teaching on its own proper
lines was in His promise of resurrection and eternal life.
That He found in the great initial promise iu virtue of which
Jehovah was the God of Abraham, and of Isaac, and of Jacob,
but He brought out its true and full meaning in a way that
had never been done before (Mark 1218fl-).
But besides thus clearing and developing the earlier
teaching and law, Jesus (III.) also indicated that in some
respects it was of a temporary nature, and destined to pass

4 THE WORK OF CHRIST
away, and give place to what is more perfect. The matter
in which He did this most distinctly was the Jewish law of
marriage. He said 'that the permission of divorce was not m
accordance with the original and ideal relation as instituted
by God at creation, but a temporary permission, owing to the
hardness of men's hearts, and not to be allowed by the perfect
law of God's kingdom (Mark 102ft). Again, in His broad
statement that nothing entering from without can defile a
man, He virtually, as Mark notes, made all meats clean
(Mark 715"19), and so indicated that the whole law of clean
and unclean food, though divinely appointed for a time, was
yet merely positive, and from henceforth to pass away. This
practically involved the abolition of the entire external dis
tinction between Israel as the one holy nation and the
Gentiles. Similarly, in His conversation with the Samaritan
woman, He declared that the special sacredness of any one
place of worship was to be done away, and that the only
requirement for acceptance with God was to worship Him
as the Father, in spirit and in truth (John 423).
2. CHRIST AS KING
These were real alterations in the positive institutions
of the Old Testament religion of which Jesus, as teaching
with divine authority, gave sufficient hints, which were
afterwards applied by His apostles. But while He thus
developed and perfected the revelation given before, of which
He Himself in His pre-incarnate state had been the
Mediator, the great theme of His earthly ministry was the
announcement of its fulfilment in the kingdom of God now
come. In the parts of His teaching already mentioned,
Jesus acted simply as the old prophets had done, but in
proclaiming God's reign already come, in His person, He went
beyond them all, and invited men to Himself in a way none
of them had ever done. " Come unto Me all ye that labour
and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest " ; " How often
would I have gathered you . . . and ye would not '' ; " If
any man thirst, let him come unto Me and drink " ; " Can the
children of the bride-chamber fast while the bridegroom is with

CHRIST AS A KING 0
them ? " These and similar statements show that Jesus was
not merely a teacher of divine truth, but the founder of a new
society, which He called the kingdom of God, in which men
should obey the highest morality as God's will, and enjoy the
truest blessedness in God's fellowship. This is what theo
logians mean by calling Him a king, or at least this is what
there is reason to think He meant when before Pilate He did
not deny that He was the King of the Jews, as He surely
would have done had that been a mere figurative expression,
like the paradox of the Stoics, that the wise man is a king.
He cannot be supposed to have died for a mere metaphor : the
kingship that He claimed must have been a reality, though
it was so different from the kingdoms of this world that Pilate
could not understand it. This is confirmed by the fact that
the great theme of His preaching was the kingdom of God.
That was the subject of His longest public discourse
(Matt. 5-7), and of nearly all His parables (Matt. 13, etc.).
The substance of His teaching was a description of this
kingdom of God or of heaven, the way of entrance into it,
the character, duties, blessings of its subjects, its progress in
the world, and its final consummation. This kingdom, more
over, He connected in a special manner with His own person :
by His advent it was brought near to men, and His work on
earth was the establishment of it. Thus while He was a
prophet, He was also the theme of His own teaching; He
proclaimed Himself in a way no other teacher of religion had
ever done. Moses said, " What are we that ye murmur
against us ? your murmurings are against the Lord " (Ex. 1 67).
John the Baptist said, " I am but a voice crying." Jesus
said, " Come unto Me," " Follow Me," yet was most manifestly
meek and lowly in heart.
While, therefore, the work of Jesus on earth was un
doubtedly that of a prophet, it was something more. He
must be regarded also as a king. While refusing to be made a
king by the people, or set up an earthly reign such as they
expected, He spoke as one having authority : He called men to
follow Him, He formed them into a community of which He
was head and lord, and which was not a mere sect or school
of disciples, but a church or congregation, a religious society,

6 THE WORK OF CHRIST
that has proved world wide. A certain preparation or transition
to this was provided by the condition of the people of Israel
since the Babylonian exile and dispersion. Israel was no longer
an independent nation or political community. Those of the
Jews indeed who had returned to Palestine had a political
organisation of their own, subject to the rule of the successive
Empires of Persia, Syria, and Rome ; but the Jews of the
dispersion were not politically under the magistrates of
Judea, but under the rulers of their respective places of
abode. Yet they were united in religion and national feeling
with their brethren in Judea, and wheresoever they dwelt ;
and they all felt themselves to be the covenant people of
God. Theirs was a unity such as had not been seen in the
world before, intermediate between the old one of nations
and the spiritual one of the Christian Church. They looked
for a restoration of their former political independence, but
Jesus led His disciples away from that idea to the formation
of a perfectly spiritual and therefore universal society. Yet
this was to be so truly a continuation and development of the
old kingdom of God, that He called it the new covenant, or
simply the covenant : it was the perfecting of the true Israel's
relation to God in a new and higher form.1
3. CHRIST AS PRIEST
In this society Jesus reigns as the Messiah sent of God,
and ruling for Him. That He is recognised as king by
multitudes, and that through Him many in all ages have
been brought to recognise and obey the highest laws of
holiness and love, are undoubted facts of history and experi
ence. But what is the power by which He does this 1 It
is not force or civil constraint ; it is not superstitious fear or
selfish hope of rewards in a future life. These means have
1 In the report of Jesus' words at the Supper, Matthew (2638) and Mark (1424.),
according to the best authorities, give only "covenant." Luke (2220) and Paul
(1 Cor. II25) give "new covenant." The reference seems to be to Jeremiah (3131ff-) ;
but according to Old Testament usage the same transaction is sometimes called
a covenant distinct from former ones, and sometimes the renewal of the one
covenant that Jehovah had made with Abraham and confirmed at successive
times following, with various modifications.

CHRIST AS A PRIEST 7
no doubt been employed by many of Christ's professing
disciples as substitutes or aids to the advancement of Chris
tianity, but this has be'en contrary to the spirit of their
Master, and apart from them the genuine precepts of His
teaching have been most really and actively obeyed. The
motive on which Jesus relied, and which has proved the most
powerful, has been love to Him. As it is put in Ecce
Homo, Christ sought and accomplished the moral restoration
of men from sin to holiness by bringing them, under the
strongest motives of love and gratitude, to live a life of
holiness. Now what is this great boon that Christ has bestowed on
men that brings them under a sense of infinite obligation, and
has proved a motive power of sufficient strength to overcome
selfish and worldly influences, and prompt to a life of godliness
and disinterested love to men ? It has had this power, we
must remember, not only over those who lived at the time
and in personal intercourse with the historical Jesus, but over
those multitudes in all succeeding ages who have acknow
ledged Him as their Lord, and lived and died for Him. It
cannot, therefore, be merely the personal human kindness and
grace of His conduct towards them, wonderful as that manifestly
was ; it must be something that He has done equally for those
who believe on Him through the testimony of His immediate
disciples. They also are directly sensible of owing an infinite
blessing to the Lord, giving Himself for them. That blessing
cannot be merely moral renewal or conversion. That is
indeed a great blessing which we owe to Jesus. But it is
effected, as we have seen, through the means of the moral
influence of gratitude awakened by a previous boon which
must be distinct from itself. That previous boon includes the
revelation of God's grace and love to sinners, but not as a
mere theoretic teaching, but as an actual communication ; and
in the New Testament it is constantly represented as forgive
ness of sins or reconciliation to God through the death of
Christ for us.
This is what makes the influence of Jesus specifically
different from that of any other benefactor or elevator of the
race, and entitles Him to be regarded as a priest, not less

8 THE WORK OF CHRIST
really than as a prophet and a king. He not only reveals
the character and will of God, and secures in His disciples
loving obedience to that will, and likeness to that character,
but reconciles men to God by giving them forgiveness for the
sins that separated them from God, and for this end especially
He laid down His life.
He claimed as the Son of Man power to forgive sins
(Mark 26fl-), and said that His blood was shed on behalf of
many unto remission of sins (Matt. 2 6 28), that He was to give
His flesh for the life of the world (John 651), that He was to
be lifted up on the cross that whosoever believeth in Him
should not perish but have eternal life (John 3U), that He
came to give His life a ransom for many (Matt. 2028).
His disciples, though, as we shall see, viewing His work in
different aspects, all agree in the great fundamental belief
that He lived and died that we might be forgiven and recon
ciled to God. Paul says, " He died for our sins "(1 Cor. 15s),
" for us, that we might live together with Him " (1 Thess. 510),
" He was delivered for our trespasses and raised for our justifi
cation " (Rom. 425), " we are reconciled to God by the death of
His Son " (Rom. 510). Peter says Christ " suffered for sins, the
just on behalf of the unjust, that He might bring us to God "
(1 Pet. 318).
John says " our sins are forgiven us for His Name's sake "
(1 John 212).
Our Saviour is not indeed expressly called a priest either
by Himself or by any of His disciples except the author of
the Epistle to the Hebrews, but it is noteworthy that that
writer founds his exposition of that office on a verse in a
Psalm to which Jesus on a memorable occasion appealed as a
Messianic one (Matt. 2241ff-). The elaborate comparison of
His work with that of the Levitical high priest is appropriate
only for Jews and students of the Old Testament, but in the
other epistles His death is frequently described as a sacrifice ;
and when Paul says He gave Himself for us as a sacrifice
(Eph. o2), he virtually describes Him as doing the work of a
priest. In the broad general sense of one who reconciles us to
God, and through whom we are to draw near to God, there

PRIESTHOOD DEFINED 9
can be no doubt that the idea of Christ being a priest is a
New Testament one, and has the sanction of our Saviour
Himself, and it is one that completes and gives coherent
meaning to the other functions that He performs. As prophet
and founder of the kingdom of God, He acts as the repre
sentative of God towards men ; but He is also described, and
describes Himself, as acting for men towards God, and the
only title by which such a function is known in the Bible, or
indeed in literature generally, is that of a priest.
The simplest and most general definition of a priest,
according to the Bible, would seem to be, one who brings men
near to God in worship. This includes two things —
1. He draws near to God himself in worship. His is a
religious function, his official actions are acts of divine
service. This appears from the derivation of the names in
various languages. The Hebrew \ip signifies etymologically
attendant, and so designates the priest simply as the attendant
of God : lepeix; and sacerdos just express the sacred or religious
nature of his functions. This aspect of the office is brought
out in Num. 1 65, where the privileges of the priest of Jehovah
are said to be (a) that he is His, (&) that he is holy, (c) that
he comes near to Him, all describing religious qualities and
functions. 2. But a priest's work is also and more especially to lead
others after and with him in his service to God. It is implied
that the priest has, or obtains, special access to the Deity, and
that others may not come near to worship without his services
on their behalf. This is specially brought out in Heb. 51,
where a priest is said to be appointed virep avOpcoircov ra
7T/30? tov deov — on behalf of men, as to things toward God.
The function, then, of bringing men to God, leading and
encouraging them to worship and serve Him, gathering them
together about His temple and in His presence, is essentially
a priestly work ; and that was what Jesus undertook and
performed by His life and death : a life of obedience and holy
service to God, and a death freely and willingly endured in
submission to God's will and for His glory.
The great reason why the mediation of a priest is needed
is, according to Old Testament ideas, God's holiness and man's

10 THE WORK OF CHRIST
unworthiness to come into His presence because of sin.
Hence forgiveness is a chief blessing obtained through priestly
services ; and we have already seen that that is the benefit
for which Jesus' disciples acknowledge their obligation to
Him, as a constraining motive of gratitude. The ascription
to Him, therefore, of the office of a priest is not a mere figure
of speech based on incidental and unessential likenesses, but
the assertion of a real parallelism in its deepest meaning,
with a function that has been included in nearly all religions
in substantially the same sense.
The Threefold Office of Christ
The representation of the work of Christ under the form
of the threefold function of a Prophet, Priest, or King is not
absolutely necessary for the exhibition of the Scripture
view of His work ; and there have been evangelical divines
who have rejected it as artificial and arbitrary, alleging that
there are various other titles given to Him in Scripture, such
as Shepherd, Leader, Friend, which are overlooked by the
common division, and some of which are better fitted to exhibit
His grace and love.
The customary division, however, has a good deal to
recommend it. For one thing, the notion of office in general,
as a function to which He was called and appointed by God,
serves to bring out the important truth that the work of
salvation is carried on according to the will of God. There
is no separation between the Son and the Father ; there is
not more grace in Christ than in God ; it is according to
the will and appointment of His Father that He acts all
through. Even though one part of His work is the obtain
ing the forgiveness of our sins, yet that is not done at His
own hand, as if He came in to persuade the Father to be
gracious to us. He has been appointed and sent for that
very purpose. This is abundantly testified by the whole
teaching and bearing of Jesus, and by many emphatic
sayings ; it is implied in His being called the Messiah, the
Sent, the Servant of Jehovah.
The three functions of prophecy, priesthood, and king-

THE THREEFOLD OFFICE 11
ship represent great historical agencies in the history of
salvation, that formed the preparation for Christ, and they
are altogether worthy to be ascribed to Him. They are not
mere figures, but actual definite employments. Christ's
work is not indeed exactly the same as that of the prophets,
priests, and kings in Israel; more especially His priesthood
differs from all others in being not ritual only but real : it
is the substance of which the ancient priesthood was but a
shadow. But He was foretold in all the three characters ;
and, as was anciently observed, the anointing which He
received, and in virtue of which He is called Messiah or
Christ, points to these three classes of persons.1
Further, these three functions correspond to three great
wants of our sinful state. The world into which Christ
came is in darkness through ignorance of God, and needs to
be enlightened, and He came to reveal God, and so to be
the light of the world. This is the function of a prophet.
Again, the world is sinful, disobedient to God's will, and
enslaved under the power of sin, needing to be brought back
to allegiance to God and made obedient to His holy will.
To effect this is the work of a king.
But further, the world is guilty, exposed to the holy
anger and righteous condemnation of God, needing to be
reconciled to God, forgiven and accepted in His sight ; and
to obtain this is the work of a priest.
It is to be observed that this division of the work of
Christ is not a chronological one, but a relative one. We
are not to conceive that in one part of His life He executed
the office of a prophet, in another that of a priest, and in
a third of a king.
All through and in the same works He executes them all,
1 That He was predicted and expected as a king is most obvious and un
doubted,— this was the sense generally attached to the name Messiah in Jesus'
time,— but it is also clear that in prophecy the Saviour to come is represented as
a revealer of truth (Isa. 42, 49, til), and was expected as such even in
Samaria (John 425) ; still more distinctly (John 614). He is more rarely
called a priest ; but the name is found in Ps. 110, perhaps is given Him in
Zech. 613, and when it is said of the Servant of Jehovah that He pours out
His soul to death as a guilt - offering and makes intercession for the trans
gressors, priestly functions are ascribed to Him (Isa. 53).

12 THE WORK OF CHRIST
and they are just different aspects in which His work may
be regarded. In His miracles, for instance, He was most
obviously acting as a king, delivering men from evils, but
He also taught important truths as a prophet, and by His
toil and sympathy with suffering He was bearing our sick
nesses as a priest. On the cross He was most conspicuously
offering Himself as a sacrifice, but He was also making the
perfect revelation of God's character, and drawing man to
Him by the power of His love.
Perhaps the old form of representing the offices of
Christ tended to separate them too much, though that was
not the intention of it; and greater unity in our view of
His work may be secured by adopting the view of some
modern theologians, that the kingship is the chief of Christ's
offices, and that the functions of a prophet and of a priest
are implied in and subordinate to that. Jesus' life-task
was the establishment of the kingdom of God, of which He,
as Messiah, was to be the sovereign. Since it is a kingdom,
His functions are regal ; but since it is a kingdom of God,
He has not merely to unite men among themselves, but to
bring them to God : hence He must also have priestly
functions. The representation of Christ's death as a sacrifice is so
frequent and emphatic in Scripture that it can hardly be
denied to be a natural and suitable one, and nearly all
theologians have made use of it. But if we use the notion
of a sacrifice without that of a priest, we run great risk
of contemplating only the passive aspect of Christ's suffering
and death, and laying stress only on what He endured. But,
as we have seen, He Himself and His apostles lay great
stress on the fact that He was active in it all, giving Himself,
laying down His life, offering Himself to God. Hence our
conception of Christ as our sacrifice is not complete unless
we think of Him not merely as one on whom suffering was
laid, and who was put to death, but as giving Himself up
to suffer and die, offering Himself as a sacrifice, i.e., as a
priest as well as a sacrifice.

atonement 1 3
The Prtestly Office in Particular
Since the principal functions of a priest's office in general
are offering sacrifice and making intercession, the priestly
work of our Saviour is naturally divided into two parts,
Atonement and Intercession, the former of which He accom
plished once for all in His life on earth, while the latter He
is continually carrying on.
Atonement in its modern sense seems the best term to
express the idea conveyed by the Greek t\ao-/to? with its
cognates, corresponding to the Hebrew IB? with its cognates,
used to describe the action of sacrifices in the Old Testament,
and applied to our Lord's work by Paul, John, and the writer
to the Hebrews. Etymologically, the English word means
rather to reconcile, to make two parties to be " at one," and
so would correspond to another set of words in the original,
— KaraXkaaaas and its cognates, — which also express an
important biblical idea. But in modern English usage it
has long lost this original sense, and is always understood
to mean, not the reconciliation itself, but the work by which
it is effected or made possible. This notion is expressed in
the English Bible by "propitiation," and by many theo
logians also by " expiation " ; but as these terms seem to
involve questionable theories, atonement is preferable, as
simpler and yet quite definite enough. Reconciliation and
redemption are also precious scriptural ideas applicable to
the saving work of Christ for us which we must also con
sider, but they include more than comes under the priestly
office, though, as we shall see, they are founded and rooted
in that. I. ATONEMENT
Atonement may be most simply described as the work
of a priest offering a sacrifice to obtain the forgiveness and
favour of God for sinners ; and this is an idea that is found in
every form of religion, in all ages and in all races of men —
sometimes, indeed, in very cruel and immoral forms, and
sometimes in very dim and faded outlines ; but very clearly
in the religion of Israel.

14 THE WORK OF CHRIST
When we apply this conception to our Saviour, as the
apostles did, following out the hints of their Master, we
mean that the sacrifice He offered was Himself, His life, His
blood. He gave Himself to God in His whole life on earth ;
He lived to do the will of His Father and finish His work ;
He pleased not Himself, nor came to be ministered to, but to
minister, to be a servant, to seek and to save the lost. This
was the course of His whole life ; it was an unbroken career
of self-denying service of men, in obedience to the will of
God ; and it was crowned by a free and willing giving-up of
His life for the great cause for which He had lived. His
blood, He said, was shed for the remission of sins ; He was to
be lifted up that men might not perish but have eternal life.
This is the great blessed reality which the apostles and their
followers had before their minds when they spoke of Christ
offering Himself a sacrifice for us, and which we must ever
keep in view as we seek to understand how the notion of an
atoning sacrifice is applicable to it, and serves to explain its
meaning. Meaning of Sacrifice
The conception of Christ's work for us as an atoning
sacrifice enables us to compare the Christian doctrine of
atonement with those of other religions, and to examine how
far these were preparations for, or gropings after, the true
way of a sinner's reconciliation to God. For in nearly all
religions the rite of slaying animals as a part of divine wor
ship, and a means of obtaining the favour of the Deity, has
prevailed. The origin and meaning of this remarkable custom
are matters of interest, and it may be of importance, on which
different opinions have been held.
It has been maintained by many theologians that the rite
of animal sacrifice owes its origin to a direct divine appoint
ment after the Fall, whence it has been handed down by
tradition, though with many corruptions, in all nations. This
view is not indeed supported by any express statements of
Scripture, but was deduced inferentially from its representa
tions and the facts of the case.
Since it belongs to God to prescribe the way of a sinner's

MEANING OF SACRIFICE 15
approach to Him, and He is not pleased with any mere
humanly-devised worship, His acceptance of the sacrifices of
Abel, Noah, Job, etc., was thought to imply that He must have
in some way directed this special form of worship.
Again, if it was a mere device of man's superstition, it
would seem unworthy of God to give it such an important
place in the religious institutions of Israel.
It was also argued that the notion of pleasing God by
inflicting pain and death on one of His creatures is so little
suggested by nature or reason, that its independent appearance
in widely distant lands and peoples could only be accounted
for by a positive divine appointment at the first.
On the other hand, there were some, even of the strictest
regard for Scripture, who thought that these reasonings could
not outweigh the silence of the sacred record on a subject of
so great importance ; and in view of modern researches in
Comparative Religion and Biblical Criticism, and the caution
which we should observe in making a literal use of the early
portions of Scripture, it is more difficult than it once seemed
to make out a direct divine origin of sacrifice, and it must be
regarded as at best an obscure and doubtful point.
The narrative of the offerings of Cain and Abel (Gen 41-7)
belongs to the same source (J) as the account of the Fall and
of the first promise, and may therefore be read in connection
with the statement (321) that Jehovah made for Adam and
his wife coats of skin. Whether or not, as some think, the
animals whose skins were thus used were slain in sacrifice, the
statement implies that the guilty shame caused by sin was
covered through the death of innocent beasts ; and when we
are told that Abel came before God with slain lambs, the
meaning seems plainly to be, that he acknowledged himself a
sinner, deserving death, and trusted to the promise on which
God had made man to hope. His worship was like that of
the publican in Christ's parable, while Cain's, a mere expres
sion of thanks, resembled that of the Pharisee ; and if the
ancient record is not so much a literal history as a picture
like that, intended to show in the very beginning of history
the contrast between the humble believer and the self-
righteous, it would not be less worthy of God or less instruc-

16 THE WORK OF CHRIST
tive to us. In any case, the narrative shows that at the time
it was written bloody sacrifices were regarded as more pleasing
to God than were vegetable offerings.
Sacrifice was not prescribed to Israel as a new thing when
they came out of Egypt ; it had been offered by the patriarchs,
and it was taken for granted that it would continue to be
offered in the nation now freed to serve Jehovah. Directions
were given as to what, and where, and how they were to
sacrifice ; and these, which exist in the earliest Codes, are in
the later ones so elaborate, that it is impossible to believe
that it was merely an ancient usage tolerated, like slavery or
divorce, and we must conclude that it was accepted and
sanctioned by God as a suitable form of worship for that time.
The notion of sacrifice is also used implicitly by Jesus Himself
and expressly by His apostles, as an illustration of His work
and death for us. These facts are enough to show that the
inquiry into the meaning of the rite is not one of mere
curiosity, but of real importance as fitted to throw light on
the nature of Christ's salvation.
Three main ideas have been connected with the rite of
sacrifice by the nations that have used it — that of a gift to
the Deity ; that of the infliction of pain and death on a
victim to avert the wrath of the Deity ; and that of life-
fellowship with the Deity.
The most general notion of sacrifice is that of presenting
something to the Deity in token of the adoration of the heart.
As the religious feeling naturally and spontaneously tends to
express itself in words in the form of prayer, so when
especially deep and lively it will seek further expression in
gifts, and so sacrifice has been well described by Hengstenberg
as an embodied prayer (verkbrpertes Gebet). The analogy of
sacrifice and prayer is a real one, and will be found of use to solve
some of the difficulties in the doctrine of Christ's atonement.
Wherever men believe in a God from whom they receive
blessings, the instinct of religion will prompt them to thank
Him for His gifts, and to pray for a continuance and renewal of
His favour, and to express these emotions in the outward
symbolic form of gifts. What they would offer would naturally
be things in which they found pleasure themselves, and the

MEANING OF SACRIFICE 17
simplest and most elementary forms of these would be food
and drink. These might be offered simply as symbols that
they desired to please the Deity, without the notion that He
was really nourished by them ; but since anthropomorphism
has so largely pervaded the religions of mankind, the idea
appears in the popular belief of many nations, even in that
of Israel in early times, that the Deity really partook of the
sacrifices offered, or of the savour that rolled up to heaven along
with the smoke. (See Deut. 3238, Ps. 5013; Homer, Iliad, l317.)
In this stage of religious history the form of sacrifice
would depend on that of the food of the people. If they
were agricultural and their diet vegetable, their offerings
would be of corn, wine, oil, meal, cakes, and the like ; while
if they used animal food, the flesh of slain beasts would be an
equally natural gift.
There was a view widely held by philosophers, and
expressed by Plato, Aristotle, and others, that the earliest
and purest form of religion admitted only unbloody sacrifices,
and that the introduction of bloody sacrifices was a later
corruption. This is not borne out, but contradicted, by
historical and archaeological evidence ; but it seems to contain
recollections of a period of religious reform, associated with
the names of Pythagoras and others, and probably parallel to
the Zoroastrian movement in the East, when an attempt was
made to soften the barbarism and cruelty of older usages by
substituting vegetable for animal sacrifices. Under this
influence, in the early historical period in Greece, unbloody
sacrifices come into the foreground, and it might be expected
that with the advance of refinement they would supersede the
old bloody ones. But this is not the case ; for in the later
age, just before and after the time of Christ, there was a
remarkable revival of the old rites of sacrificial expiation in
their most horrid and revolting forms. This seems to show
that besides the notion of gifts there was embodied in the
animal sacrifices some other idea that lay very deep in the
human heart.
The idea of sacrifices as gifts to the Deity prevailed
especially in anthropomorphic religions, where the powers of
nature were personified and worshipped in human forms.

18 THE WORK OF CHRIST
Thus it appears in the ancient Vedic religion in India, where
the oldest form of sacrifice was not piacular, but consisted in
offerings of food to the gods, which were supposed to nourish
them. Somewhat later, but still in A^edic times, animal
sacrifices appear, and the idea of expiation is connected with
them. There are also in the ancient documents of the Brah-
manas strange legends about the gods themselves having
offered sacrifice to the Supreme Being, and by it obtained
immortality and heaven.
The primitive Aryan religion in India afterwards developed
in two directions — to philosophic Pantheism on the one hand,
and popular polytheistic idolatry on the other. In the latter
the idea of expiation found expression in the grossest and most
cruel forms of sacrifice ; but through the influence of panthe
istic Brahmanism these were mostly confined to the worship
of particular deities (as Kali), or of lower tribes, and the
religion generally prevalent treats sacrifices simply as acts of
homage, and rejects the slaughter of animals and any idea of
expiation. In the Hellenic religion, also, sacrifices were mainly
conceived as gifts, since here especially the deities were
worshipped in human form and conceived as magnified men.
They were thought to be persuaded by gifts to be favourable
to their worshippers. But the idea of expiation for sin by its
penalty being laid on a sacrificial victim is not absent from
the Greek ritual, and there are in their mythology well-known
legends of human sacrifices being offered to avert the wrath
of Heaven. Thus even in those religions where sacrifices are most
distinctly and pre-eminently offered as gifts, the idea of
expiation has always, to some extent, come in, though in some
cases, by reason of the character of the theology, it has not
obtained a lasting or general hold. This appears very dis
tinctly in the custom of human sacrifices, which, unnatural
and cruel though it is, seems not to have been entirely
unknown in any branch of the human race. This cannot be
traced in any way to the notion of a gift to the Deity ; for
though it would be natural to offer the flesh of such animals
as men used for food, it is impossible to suppose that human

SACRIFICE AS COMMUNION WITH A GOD 19
flesh could ever have been offered for such a purpose ; and
where human victims have been sacrificed, it has been fre
quently declared to be to avert the wrath of the Deity from
those who deserved to die.
This piacular idea of sacrifice appears especially in the
Roman, Teutonic, and Celtic religions. The gods of the
Romans were rather abstract moral ideas personified than
deified men, and the ideas of law, judgment, and retribution
were strongly impressed on their minds. In their history we
continually read of appeasing the gods and averting their
anger by sacrifices ; and we meet with stories such as those
of Curtius and the Decii devoting themselves to death and
the lower powers for the safety and victory of their
country. Besides the notion of gifts and that of averting punish
ment by vicarious suffering, a third idea connected with
sacrifice in ancient times is that of mystical communion with
the deity worshipped. This has been brought out, especially
among the Semitic races, by Professor W. Robertson Smith,
and somewhat similar ideas have been traced in other peoples
in rude stages of civilisation. They rest on those primitive
beliefs that led to totemism, that the divine power which was
worshipped in nature showed itself especially in certain forms
of animal life, and that those tribes that belonged to a common
stock were literally descended from and akin to the animals
whose name they bore and whom they reverenced as divine.
Dr. W. R. Smith's conclusion is expressed thus : " We may
now take it as made out that throughout the Semitic field
the fundamental idea of sacrifice is not that of a sacred
tribute, but of communion between the god and his
worshippers by joint participation in the living flesh and
blood of a sacred victim." 1 The animal sacrificed was
thought to be one in which the divine life dwelt, and the
kinship, held to be actually physical, was renewed and
strengthened from time to time by the physical partaking
of the sacred life. When this crude notion of the kinship
of gods, men, and animals ceased to be held and was for
gotten, then, on the one hand, sacrifices became mere sacred
1 The Meligion of the Semites, p. 327.

20 THE WORK OF CHRIST
feasts, in which a part was given to the deity, and men
rejoiced before him; while, on the other hand, for special
atoning purposes sacred animals were slaughtered, though no
longer eaten, but burned or otherwise disposed of, and the
blood sprinkled. While the earlier ideas prevailed, the
animals sacrificed were not regarded as food offered to
the deity, but rather as embodiments of the deity, and the
rite was one of mystic communion. With this conception
the practice of human sacrifices is more explicable than on
the theory of gifts for food, because the divine nature might
be conceived to be embodied in men as well as in animals.
At a time when religion had the form of Animism, or
worship of the soul, believed to be immanent in nature,
kings and priests, usually the same, were regarded as in
carnations of this divine power, and on their being in life
and vigour depended the prosperity of the people. But just
for that reason they were not allowed to die a natural death
through gradual decay, but were killed by violence, that the
divine life might pass in full vigour to their successors.
Then, again, the death of the vegetation in winter and its
revival in spring led to the idea of a periodic death and
rising again of the deity, as seen in the legends of Adonis,
Attis, Dionysos, Osiris, Proserpine, etc.; and the harvest
ritual and customs of many even European countries point
to the notion of the killing of the corn spirit when the corn
is reaped, and its coming back to life in spring. An animal
or human victim sometimes represented the corn spirit, and
its flesh was either eaten or put into the ground along with
the corn sown for the new crop. Afterwards, when anthro
pomorphic deities took the place in men's minds of nature
powers, the animals that had been by old custom sacrificed as
being the embodiments of these powers came to be regarded
as being or representing things hostile to the now personified
god, so that their death tended to appease the anger of those
deities. And as in the progress of refinement animals came
to be substituted for human victims, the idea arose that in all
cases the animal offered took the place of a man at the
altar. That these ideas of mystic life-fellowship with the Deity,

SACRIFICE IN ISRAEL 21
and of the death and revival of the nature spirit, did exist in
connection with sacrificial rites in many races seems un
deniable, however strange and repulsive they seem to us.
Whether they are the most ancient notions connected with
bloody sacrifices, and those to which in all cases they can
be traced back, does not appear equally certain : the facts
have been brought to light comparatively recently, and the
period is one of very great and obscure antiquity.
In the sacrificial ritual of Israel all the three ideas of
gifts, of piacular suffering, and of life-communion are recog
nised and symbolised, yet each is guarded with rules that
tend to prevent the abuses to which it is liable.
The idea of gifts is expressed by the simplest and most
general term, corban, applied to all offerings in general, and by
the presentation of all before Jehovah. But it was made
plain that God was not to be imagined to partake of human
food, by the prohibition of offering some things commonly
used as food, such as leaven and honey (Lev. 211), and, on
the other hand, of eating with blood, which was reserved
entirely for sacrificial use (Lev. 1710). Thus while the altar
was the table of Jehovah, and the sacrifice on it His bread,
a broad and firm distinction was made between its solemn
service and a mere meal.
Again, the idea of expiation was expressed by the fact
that for sins of ignorance pardon was not obtained without
the shedding of the life-blood of a victim ; but the abuses to
which this idea often led were restrained by the absolute
prohibition of human sacrifices ; and that man might not
think of God as a Being who delighted in suffering and
death, they were taught that it was of His grace that
He permitted them to draw near by sacrifice, and that He
had given them the blood to be an atonement for their
souls (Lev. 1711).
Once more, the idea of life-communion with the Deity was
expressed in the sacrificial feast on the flesh of the victim ;
but all the disgusting and cruel practices of eating living-
flesh and blood were dissociated from it, and Israel was
taught that their relation to Jehovah was not of a physical
but of a moral nature.

22 the work of christ
The New Testament Teaching on the Atonement
of Christ
We have now to study, first, those sayings of Jesus Him
self that speak of the purpose of His work and death, and
then the fuller explanations given by His apostles, especially
by Paul, John, and the writer to the Hebrews.
1. STATEMENTS OF CHRIST
From a comparatively early period in His ministry Jesus
gave indications that it would be closed by a violent death,
so that there is reason to believe that He was aware of this
from the first. But up to the time of Peter's confession, near
Cffisarea Philippi, He gave only general and obscure hints
(John 219 3U, Matt. 915, Mark 220, Luke 535), though the
urgency and haste with which He pursued His work of
teaching might indicate a consciousness that it would be
soon stopped by His opponents. After the disciples were
firmly convinced that He was the expected Messiah, He at
once declared plainly to them that He was to be rejected
and slain by His people and raised up the third day
(Matt. 1621). This would at once exclude all ideas of an
earthly Messianic reign, such as even the Twelve might
entertain, and also suggest that His death and resurrection
were not merely incidents in His history, but essential parts
of His work. Thereafter He several times repeated the
announcement, giving more particulars each time, and
declaring that there was a divine necessity in the things
He was to suffer (Matt. 1722 2017, Mark 1033).
Jesus presents His approaching suffering and death in
various aspects. It is the consequence of His faithful witness
to truth and righteousness and, above all, to the love of God,
against the hard legalism and hypocrisy of the predominant
parties in Israel, and so it was analogous to the persecution
and martyrdom of the prophets of old. This He brought
out in the parable of the wicked husbandmen (Matt. 2133"39),
and in various other sayings. It is also an act of obedience
to the will of God ; for He gave Himself up to death freely

Christ's own teaching 23
and voluntarily, and in both these respects, and in the meek
ness and patience with which He suffered, He is an example
to us all. These aspects of His approaching death Jesus
could and did present as soon as He announced it at all ;
but since His disciples were so unwilling and slow to admit
even the fact that He must be rejected and crucified, He
could not fully explain to them the deeper reasons and the
further purposes of these things. Yet He gave from time to
time intimations that His death was no mere accident, but
an essential part of His work, and when the crisis was close
at hand He embodied its meaning in a solemn and significant
rite. Among His sayings to this effect are those in which He
speaks of His sufferings as a baptism with which He has to
be baptized (Luke 1250), and in which those who would share
in His glory must take part (Matt. 2022-23, Mark 1038-39).
This must mean that He should be overwhelmed as by a
flood, but should rise from it with new life ; and in con
nection with this reference Matthew and Mark both report
the memorable saying, " The Son of Man came not to be
ministered unto, but to minister, and to give His life a ransom
for many" (Matt. 2028, Mark 1043). These words convey at
least two weighty assertions — : first, that His death was no
mere passive endurance, but a deliberate action on His part,
the crowning act of the purpose of His whole work. This
is confirmed by sayings recorded in the Fourth Gospel : " the
bread which I will give is My flesh, for the life of the world "
(John 651) ; and, " I lay down My life for the sheep '' ; " no
one taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have
authority to lay it down, and I have authority to take it
again" (John 1015"18). These sayings plainly declare that His
death was a voluntary self-sacrifice on His part for the sake
of men ; and that, attested by Matthew and Mark, implies
also, second, that it was a vicarious act, the giving of a ransom
instead of many. Jesus undoubtedly gave Himself up in
His death to the will of God ; and so, whether He alluded to
the half-shekel of atonement money (Ex. 3 012"16) which He
had just before been asked to pay (Matt. 1724"27), or to the
words of Psalm 497, He must have meant that He was to

24 THE WORK OF CHRIST
give up His life to God, not merely for the good of men but
in their place.
Then, on the eve of His death, we find Jesus significantly
associating it with the Passover (Matt. 262, and perhaps also
Luke 2215), and according to all our authorities instituting an
ordinance, the Lord's Supper, specially in memory of His
death, which shows what an important part of His life-work
He held it to be. His body is represented by bread broken,
His blood by wine poured out, and that is said to have been
" for you," " for many." The blood is further said to be that
of the covenant, or the new covenant, i.e. the perfect relation
of peace with God foretold by the prophets, sometimes as the
restoration of God's ancient covenant, sometimes as the
establishment of a new one. Once more, the purpose of
the blood-shedding is declared to be "unto the remission
of sins," which was a chief blessing of the new covenant
promised through Jeremiah (3133-34). Whether we can rely
on the verbal accuracy of all these statements or not, the
scope of the institution as a whole is plainly this, that Christ
gave Himself up for us to a violent death, in order that
thereby we might be brought into a new relation of covenant
and peace with God.
There are also certain statements ascribed to Jesus in the
Fourth Gospel quite akin to those in the Synoptics already
cited, that should be kept in view in, estimating His testimony
about His death before it took place. In John 1513 He says,
when referring to His love to His disciples, " Greater love
hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his
friends." The preposition rendered here "for" (yirep) does
not necessarily imply substitution, but it does not exclude it,
and it suggests a direct purpose to benefit His friends, such as
a mere martyrdom does not include. Again, in John 1719 He
says, " For their sakes I sanctify (or consecrate) Myself, that
they also may be sanctified in truth." He refers undoubtedly
to His leaving the world by death ; and, as is shown by
Deut. 1519"21, His words mean, I give Myself a sacrifice on
their behalf, as their representative, that they also may be
consecrated as sacrifices to God.
From a consideration of all these testimonies of Jesus

IDEAS COMMON TO ALL NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS 25
taken together, it appears that He regarded His death as far
more than merely a martyrdom, or the endurance of suffering
unto blood, for His faithfulness to the truth of God against the
world's opposition. It was not a mere suffering or cata
strophe that ended His work : it was an integral part of
His work itself, the crowning purpose for which He came,
the fact in His earthly life that He designed to be most
solemnly kept in remembrance by His disciples, a great act
of obedience to His Father's will, which procured for men the
greatest moral blessings, such as forgiveness and eternal life in
covenant with God.
That these are true representations of what our Lord
really taught, and not due merely to the working of the
disciples' minds, putting inferences of their own into their
Master's mouth, is confirmed by two considerations, one
positive and another negative. On the one hand, they are
ideas common to all the New Testament writers, however
different and more extensive their further ideas are. All
alike view Jesus as not merely an example and a martyr, but
as a Saviour, and, with the exception of James, all speak of
His death as accomplishing our redemption, while even he
speaks of our sins being forgiven through prayer in the name
of Jesus (James 514f-), and of our being saved by faith in
Him, when it is living and working. Whence could such an
agreement in a view of our dependence on Jesus as a
redeemer, which was then quite new and original in the world,
have been derived, if not from hints and suggestions by Jesus
Himself, just such as are recorded in the Gospels ?
On the other hand, the teaching ascribed to Jesus is
elementary as compared with the expositions given in several
of the epistles, especially those of Paul and that to the
Hebrews. No full explanation is given by Jesus of why He
must die, or how His death is related to the sin of the world,
or for what reason it obtains forgiveness for men. These
questions inevitably arose, and the apostolic epistles, many of
them written before the Gospels, contain various lines of
thought that contribute to a rationale of the great fact.
Now, if the reports of Christ's sayings had been coloured by
later apostolic thought, we would have found some of these

26 THE WORK OF CHRIST
Pauline or other ideas imported into them ; and since this is
not so, we are led to conclude that the Evangelists have given
us faithful reports of what Jesus taught.
Yet while giving no full theological doctrine of His atone
ment, the sayings of Jesus at different times about His work
and death have this amount of unity among themselves, that
they together represent them under the notion of a sacrifice,
which was then an actual and familiar form of worship not
only among the Jews but in all nations. The term " ransom,"
the analogy to the Passover, the blood of the covenant, the
idea of sanctifying Himself, all point in that direction, and
lead us to think that this was the idea in Jesus' own mind, or
the thing with which He wished His disciples to compare His
work for men. This is confirmed by the fact that the con
ception of Christ's work as a sacrifice is common to those of
the apostles who have each their own distinctive views in
further explanation of it. Paul explains it by reference to the
law and justice of God, and in other places to the mystical union
of believers with Christ ; the writer to the Hebrews, by the holi
ness of God as permitting access to Him only through blood ;
John dwells on our relation to Christ as our life ; but they
all alike, as also Peter, freely use sacrificial language in
reference to the work and death of Christ. This appears as a
commonplace of Christian belief, underlying all the various
forms of thought on the subject, and not needing to be proved
or justified, but assumed as an acknowledged truth. The
most obvious and natural explanation of this is, that it was
derived from Jesus' own teaching.
It should also be noticed that this is not a mere matter
of opinion or belief, but represents a great historical fact in
the progress of religion. Christian worship has been from the
beginning destitute of outward sacrifices, and so formed a
sharp contrast with the rituals to which its converts had been
accustomed, whether in Judaism or in heathenism. Yet it
did not effect this great change by means of any theory that
struck against the idea of sacrifice, as Buddhism, for example,
did. On the contrary, sacrificial ideas and language pervade
all its earliest records. The view expounded in Hebrews,
and tacitly assumed elsewhere, is not that outward sacrifice

TEACHING OF PAUL 27
is a service unworthy of God or unauthorised by Him, but
that, as practised in Israel at least, it was a significant service
suitable to a former time, and foreshadowing the great work
of salvation by the Servant of Jehovah, who made His soul
an offering for sin. The remarkable transition from sacri
ficial cults to a religion in which the holy life and voluntary
death of Jesus were recognised as the perfect and final sacrifice,
was made by the first Christians almost without observation
or opposition, and this great fact can best be explained by the
view given in the Gospels that Jesus Himself led them to
regard His work in that aspect.
2. TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES
While the apostles in their discourses and epistles con
tained in the New Testament nearly all repeat or assume the
elementary teaching about Christ's atonement given in the
sayings of the Master Himself, and confirmed by His history,
that He gave Himself as a sacrifice for us in order to the
forgiveness of our sins, some of them have been led, under
the teaching of the Holy Spirit, to make further explanations
of this great transaction, which show its relation to other
truths of religion, and enable us to understand it better.
This has been done most fully by Paul, to whom we owe the
exposition of two distinct but complementary aspects of it ;
but further contributions to the doctrine have been made by
the writer to the Hebrews, and by John; and all these
deserve careful and distinct consideration.
(1) Paul's Conception of Christ's Death as Redemption from
the Curse of the Law
The idea of redemption in general by Christ's death on the
cross is found also in the epistles of Peter, and is founded on
our Lord's use of the term ransom, and the relation of His
sacrifice to the Passover, and so may be regarded as part of
the elementary, though as yet unexplained, teachings common
to all Christians from the first. But Paul was led by his
experience to give a fuller explanation of its meaning.

28 THE WORK OF CHRIST
Brought up under the law, he had a supreme regard for it as
the expression of the will of God and the duty of man, requir
ing nothing short of perfect obedience, on pain of incurring
God's curse or condemnation ; and with all his efforts to obey,
he could not satisfy his conscience, and felt ever in bondage
under a law that condemned him. But when he saw that
Jesus, who had died the cursed death of the cross, was the
Son of God who freely gave Himself up to that death to save
us, this was to him the redemption that his soul needed.
Thus in Gal. 310~u he puts this in the- form of an argument
against seeking justification by the works of the law. As
many as do so are under the curse, for the law's sentence is
against all who do not render perfect obedience, and this no
man can do. But Christ bought us out from this curse,
becoming a curse for us by hanging on a tree. Here the idea of
substitution is unmistakable. Christ's death comes in place
of the curse due to us. But it is brought into connection
with the further idea of the law. That cannot be broken to
let transgressors free : it receives its due in the death of
Christ, which, as he had said before (219~22), is in a true
sense the death of the believer in and with Him. " I through
the law died to the law," i.e. the law has slain me, and now I
am free. It slew me when it slew Christ, for " I have been
crucified with Christ." Christ's death on the cross, then, was
a fulfilment of the law's sentence against sin : a maintenance of
its inviolability, and homage done to it in place of the sentence
due to us. Christ suffered on our behalf in order that we
might be forgiven and blessed, while yet the law was not
broken. It is no doubt the law of the old covenant as given
to Israel that Paul has directly in view ; but he cannot mean
to say that only Jews needed to be redeemed, or were
redeemed, by Christ. The law of Israel represents for him
the divine law in general, and there is no way for anyone,
whether Jew or Gentile, being freed from its curse but
through Him who was made a curse for us. The whole
argument of this epistle shows that the reason why Christ's
death in our stead was necessary was that the law of God
might be maintained and its claims met.
In the Epistle to the Romans Paul gives substantially the

TEACHING OF PAUL 29
same explanation, only in more general terms, with reference
not merely to God's law, which might be conceived as a
specially Jewish and positive institution, but to His justice,
which is an essential attribute of His being, and His moral
government of all men alike. He shows how all have
incurred God's wrath by sin : the Jews by not having kept the
law in which they boasted, and the Gentiles by transgressing
the law of nature written in their hearts ; how neither can be
justified by works of law, but how both alike may be justified
freely by God's grace, through the redemption that is in
Christ Jesus, whom God has set forth as making atonement1
in His blood, for a demonstration of His righteousness on
account of the passing over of the sins of the past in forbear
ance, with a view to the demonstration of His righteousness
in the present time,2 that He might be just and the justifier
of him who is of faith in Jesus (Rom. 324~26). Here it is
plainly taught that God's justice, in virtue of which He
punishes sin, might seem to be called in question by His
forbearance to sinners and His forgiveness of believers ; but
that by the shedding of Christ's blood, as an atoning sacrifice
to redeem sinners, God is shown to be just in both of these acts
of grace to sinners. This passage, which is the one in which
Paul sets himself most expressly to explain how the work of
Christ saves us, plainly teaches that the shedding of His blood
as an atoning sacrifice and redemption for us showed the
forgiveness of believers in Him to be consistent with the
righteousness of God as the Judge of all the earth. In the
light of this statement we can see what Paul means when he
says repeatedly and in various forms, Christ died, for our sins.
He was delivered on account of our offences (Rom. 425),
i.e., they were the reason why He suffered ; He gave Himself
about our sins (Gal. I4), i.e., they were the business or matter
with which He had to do in His sacrifice ; He died for our
sins (1 Cor. 153), i.e. on behalf of them that they might be
1 It seems simplest and most natural to take VkaaT-qpiov as an adjective, but the
sense is not materially altered by either of the alternative views, a propitiatory
sacrifice, or a propitiatory covering or mercy-seat sprinkled with blood.
2 Hofmann's view that irpbs tt\v tvdei&v should be construed as depending on
Tr&peiriv is favoured by the force of the preposition and the article, and seems to
avoid tautology better than any other.

30 THE WORK OF CHRIST
forgiven : all these aspects are implied in the fuller explana
tions given to the Galatians and to the Romans, and all are
founded on the memorable saying of Jesus, that His blood was
shed on behalf of many unto the remission of sins. Another
remarkable saying of Paul is that in 2 Cor. 521 : " Him who
knew no sin, He made sin on our behalf, that we might be
made the righteousness of God in Him." Here it cannot
possibly be a moral change in Christ that is meant, but it
points to our Saviour having been made the representative of
sin on our behalf, just as in the Levitical law the special sacrifices
for sin and guilt were called by the names " sin " and " guilt "
themselves. The purpose stated, " that we might be made the
righteousness of God in Him," points to our being accepted as
righteous because by faith we are in Him, the Righteous One.
(2) Paul's Conception of Christ's Death as a Death to Sin,
in which we share
Some of the passages already considered show that Paul
was far from viewing our Lord's sacrifice as a thing entirely
outside of us. If His death redeems us from the curse
of the law, it is because we are crucified with Him (Gal. 220,
313) ; if He was made sin that we might be made the righteous
ness of God, this is done to us in Him (2 Cor. 521). This is
what, in the apostle's view, secures our holiness and prevents
the doctrine of redemption from being an encouragement to
sin. Hence he explains it most fully when he is meeting
that objection in Rom. 6, 7, 8. He says of believers, we
died with Christ, were buried with Him, rose with Him, live
with Him ; and this is in virtue of a union with Christ which,
as He teaches elsewhere, is effected by the Spirit of God
through faith on our part (Rom. 89- 10, 1 Cor. 616- 16, Gal. 220,
Eph. 317, etc.). Christ's death is virtually ours ; and as He is
said to have died to sin once for all (Rom. 610), — i.e. not only
to have died by reason of sin, but in respect to sin, so that
sin has no more any claim or power over Him, — so we are
said to have died with Him to sin (Rom. 67- n), and to the
law (Rom. 74). This is explained to mean being justified from
sin, on the ground that the law has dominion over a man

THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 31
only so long as he lives (Rom 71- 2). Christ's death, there
fore, frees us from the law in the same way as our own death
would have done had it been possible for us to have died and
risen again as Christ did ; it frees us because it is in a true
sense our own death, since when we accept Him in faith as
our sacrifice, we truly die with Him to our old life of sin and
condemnation, and being raised with Him to a state of pardon
and peace with God, are enabled and morally constrained
to live a new life of obedience.
This view of Christ's death also underlies the statement in
2 Cor. 516 ; and it implies a mystical oneness between Christ
and His people, so that what He does for them He did
first for Himself. It shows how His sacrifice secures our
holiness as well as our forgiveness, and redeems us from
all iniquity, and purifies us to Himself a people for His
own possession, zealous of good works.
There is no inconsistency, as some have thought, between
this view and that given in the earlier chapters of the Epistle
to the Romans. Both are too fully and earnestly expounded
to permit us to suppose that in either the apostle is merely
adapting his teaching to current ideas ; and though theologians
have often been too narrowly logical to take in both, and have
developed one-sidedly now one and now the other, Paul's
mind was comprehensive enough to find reason for both, and
to him they did not contradict but complement each other.
It is possible, and not very improbable, that the view
of our mystically sharing Christ's death as a death to sin
is implied in 1 Pet. 224 41- 2, though some doubt this, and
it is indeed not so clearly expressed as to make the inter
pretation certain. But as this epistle shows the influence of
some of Paul's late writings, a reference in these places to
the ideas of Rom. 6 seems the most natural explanation
of their striking and suggestive expressions.
(3) The Conception of Christ's Death in Hebrews, as giving us
Access to God
The Epistle to the Hebrews was addressed to Jewish
believers, who were tempted to become dissatisfied with

32 THE WORK OF CHRIST
Christianity because of the lack of the ritual ordinances
to which they had been accustomed. A religion without
visible priest, altar, or sacrifice seemed to them poor and
bare ; and the inspired writer has in view those who not
merely regretted the external splendour of the temple wor
ship, but who had prized its priests and sacrifices because
they had really helped to give them peace of conscience
and access to the presence of God. To such he shows
that in the person of Jesus Christ we have a high priest
far greater than Moses, Aaron, or any of the Levitical
priests — more powerful, more sympathetic, performing a
higher service in a heavenly sanctuary, — and that all the
Old Testament rites were of value only as they were
types and figures of His work. In this exposition he
does not go into minute and arbitrary allegorising after
the manner of Philo, but seizes on the great and simple
religious ideas on account of which his most earnest readers
valued the ritual. The root-conception is the holiness of
God, His absolute separation from all that is unlike His
own pure and perfect goodness. His dwelling is the Holy
of Holies, and the veil separates men, as sinful, from His
presence : they dare not approach, and their conscience is
burdened with a sense of unworthiness and pollution. The
high priest could enter on their behalf, not without blood,
and they might get assurance of forgiveness through sacrifice.
But the sacred writer teaches them that Jesus by the
sacrifice of Himself has entered into the real, holy presence
of God, and by His doing so He has done as much, yea
far more, for us than any animal sacrifices could do. He
really purges our conscience (Heb. 914) as they could only
do in symbol ; He gives us boldness to draw near to God,
and consecrates us for His service. He does this by offering
Himself to bear the sin of many, for the annulling of sin,
through the sacrifice of Himself.
In this form of presentation we have not the legal and
juridical ideas that occur in Paul's epistles, e.g., righteousness,
law, curse, justification, reconciliation, peace with God, but
we have a parallel set of ideas that present the same realities
from a subjective point of view, e.g., the holy place, the

THE TEACHING OF JOHN 33
separating veil, an evil conscience, sprinkling from an evil
conscience, access to the holiest, service of God. We could
translate most of the terms of the one series into correspond
ing terms of the other, and we see that their mutual relations
are the same. There are also certain terms that are common
to both forms of representation, such as sin, death, Christ's
dying for our sins, forgiveness, etc., which occur in the teach
ing of Jesus Himself, and so belong to the common stock
of New Testament theology, the fact of our redemption by
Christ. In Paul's epistles and that to the Hebrews, explana
tions of the fact are given from different points of view, one
more objective, juridical, and ethical ; the other more subjective,
typical, and religious ; — the former viewing it in the light of
God's moral law and government, the latter in that of the
ordinances of worship and religious experience of men. Since
both of these are real and important relations, the views founded
on them are each legitimate, and neither contradicts nor ex
cludes the other, for the great sacrifice of Calvary has not one
only but many bearings on God and man and the universe.
(4) View indicated by John, of Christ as our Atonement
through Communion
The statements on this subject contained in John's
writings are hardly so many or so full as to entitle us
to speak of an explanation or theory given by him, but
they have such a distinct and unique character that they
suggest a view of Christ's atoning work that deserves to be
placed alongside of those already mentioned.
John has given expression to the highest conception of
God as revealed in Christ by his great saying " God is love "
(1 John 4s- 16) ; and while he also says "He is righteous"
(ib. I9 229), and " God is light " (l5), he does not mean to
assert different, far less opposing, attributes of the Divine
Being, but rather to express the same great truth in these
different ways. For righteousness is used by John, not in the
sense of justice as of a moral ruler, but in the way that
is frequent in the Old Testament, for the whole of moral
goodness, and that in his view is summed up in love (see
3

34 THE WORK OF CHRIST
1 John 310"24). Again, the declaration " God is light ''
cannot be taken as indicating His holiness in distinction from
His love, because it is expressly given as the sum of the
revelation made by the Word of life being manifested. Light
must be practically the same as love, and it is mostly in
reference to the divine favour that the figure of light is used
of God in the Old Testament. John does not ascribe separate
attributes to God, but has one single conception of Him — love ;
but a love that is essentially true, pure, and righteous. God
is revealed in this character in the sending of His Son into
the world (1 John 49' 10) ; hence this declaration is the
message of the apostles (l6). The world is in a state of sin,
which is traced back ultimately to the devil (38), the evil one
in whom the whole world lieth (519). Sin is essentially
lawlessness ; but the Son of God is sinless, and was mani
fested to destroy the works of the devil, to take away sins
(35, 8). The expression " to take away sins " cannot, in view
of the context, be limited to the expiation of their guilt, but
must include the entire removal of them from those who are
saved. In this connection John twice uses the sacrificial
term " propitiation " (22 and 410), in both cases applying it
emphatically to the person of Christ rather than to any
specific part of His work. But since it is the ground of His
being our Advocate with the Father when we sin, the pro
pitiation clearly has a God-ward aspect; and it is also said
our sins are forgiven on account of His name (212). There is
special reference to Christ's death when it is said " the blood
of Jesus, God's Son, cleanseth us from all sin" (l7); but the
blood is viewed in 56 not only as shed on the cross, but as
belonging to that true human nature in which He came by
His birth. John regards the whole person of Christ as our
propitiation ; and the way in which we obtain an interest in
it is by personal life-communion with Him. His notion of
salvation seems to rest on that discourse of Jesus in the
synagogue of Capernaum, in which He speaks of giving His
flesh for the life of the world, and says we must eat the flesh
and drink the blood of the Son of Man.
The sacrificial reference seems to point to that form of
offering in which the whole flesh of the victim was eaten

SYSTEMATIC DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT 35
by the worshippers in order to seal their union with the
Deity, a rite of which the Passover was the chief instance
retained in the worship of Israel ; and John conceived Jesus
as the true Passover, and has given a mystical and spiritual
interpretation to what may have been in primitive times a
very rude and barbarous rite.
Christ's death is also represented by John as being the
great example of love and incentive to imitation on our
part (31C1) ; but it would be wrong to think that he ascribes
to it only a subjective moral influence, for he distinctly
represents our Lord's whole life and character as the ground
of our forgiveness and fellowship with God, though he has not
afforded the means of giving a precise answer to the question
why it was necessary that our Saviour should suffer and die.
Systematic Construction of the Doctrine of
Atonement
Such are the outlines of the materials that the New
Testament supplies for a doctrine of the atonement of Christ.
From them the Christian Church has framed statements of
the fact, which is the essential object of her faith, and as
such finds a place in her creeds as accepted by all believers ;
while theologians, in pursuance of their aim and duty to gain
as full an understanding as possible of the meaning of the
fact, have sought to construct an intellectual theory that,
while true to Scripture, may fit into the systematic con
ception of Christianity as a whole.
It is implied in all the apostolic statements, and in the
testimony of Jesus Himself, that His giving Himself up to
suffering and death was on account of our sin, and on our
behalf, and is the ground of our salvation : and this may be
said to have been the testimony of the great body of the
Christian Church in all ages, while various theories were
current as to the mode of this great transaction. In the
Nieene Creed it is said that our Lord became man on account
of us men, and on account of our salvation, and that He was
crucified on our behalf. The Athanasian Creed says that He
suffered for us. Similar and not much more full are the

36 THE WORK OF CHRIST
statements contained in the more elaborate Confessions of
the Roman, Eastern, and Protestant Churches, with the
exception of the Socinian. Even the Westminster Assembly
gives a very simple formula, going beyond the scriptural
statements just mentioned only by adding the technical
phrase " to satisfy divine justice," which, as we shall see, is
of somewhat elastic meaning.
But while the Church has been anxious to express in her
professions of faith the great fact of our salvation through
Christ's death for us, without requiring all her members to
agree in any intellectual explanation of the way of that
salvation, theologians have legitimately and usefully en
deavoured, by means of the biblical representations, to
arrive at such an explanation. For this it is necessary
to compare the various New Testament views, to consider
how they are to be correlated, which are figurative and
employ local or occasional allusions, and what great universal
and perennial relations there are by means of which the
reason of Christ's dying for our salvation can be understood.
In the pursuit of this great aim the Pauline conception
of Redemption has been that most generally employed, and
this not unnaturally or unreasonably, since it is very fully
presented in the New Testament, and contains ideas of
universal validity, and familiar especially to Roman minds.
But at first it was often applied in erroneous ways ; and even
when that was not done, it was sometimes pressed in a
narrow and one-sided manner, to the exclusion of the
complementary views which the New Testament contains.
This led to reactions, to attempts to base a theory of atone
ment entirely on moral or mystical ideas, and to various
modified or intermediate views ; but the result of the long
and varying discussions seems to point to a view which shall
do justice to all the biblical aspects of the truth as that in
which theology shall ultimately acquiesce.
CLASSIFICATION OF THEORIES
It is not very easy to make a satisfactory classification of
the various theories of the atonement that have been held in

THEORIES OF ATONEMENT CLASSIFIED 37
the Church, as may be seen from the very different arrange
ments of them by some of the ablest writers who have
attempted it. This arises from the fact that every theory
includes many points, and may agree with some in one point
and with others in another ; also that the same terms have
often been used in different senses, and the true meaning of
some theories has been disputed or misunderstood. But
since it is useful, in order to get what is good out of various
opinions, to have a correct idea of the mutual relations of
these, we should endeavour to arrange them according to
their natural affinities, making the most important differences
the main lines of division.
Now the most essential question for determining the differ
ence of views as to the death of Christ is, What was its object ?
to what was its efficacy directed ? on whom or on what was
it designed to have an effect ? The answer may be either —
(a) Only towards the sinners who are saved by it
(subjective or man-ward theories) ; or
(6) Also towards God's honour, law, government, or char
acter (objective God-ward theories) ; or
(c) Towards something distinct both from God and man
(objective dualistic theories).
The efficacy towards men is that of moral influence ; towards
God it is expressed by the term satisfaction ; but besides these
there is another view important enough to form another class :
(d) mystical theories, many of which are subjective, though
not all.The earliest attempt at an explanation of how Christ
has redeemed us by His blood is found in the writings of
Irenseus, and though it is not very clear or satisfactory, it
is not so discordant with Scripture as has been supposed by
some. He ascribed the necessity of redemption to the justice
of God, but at the same time he regarded the bondage from
which we are redeemed as a captivity to Satan ; and thus
gave occasion to an idea, that was adopted by many sub
sequent writers in the ancient Church, that Christ gave
Himself a ransom to Satan, the Dualistic theory. But it is
doubtful whether Irenaaus really meant to assert this. He
says, indeed, that Christ redeemed us by His own blood in

38 THE WORK OF CHRIST
a manner consonant to reason, giving Himself as a redemp
tion for those who had been led into captivity by the
apostasy which tyrannised over us; and, he continues, the
Word of God did righteously turn against that apostasy and
redeem from it His own property, not by violent means, but
by means of persuasion (suadela). But it is not clear to
whom this persuasion is meant to refer. If to the apostasy,
then there is taught the view of a ransom to Satan ; and that
is Baur's opinion, who taught that in this connection Irenaaus
was entangled with the Gnostic idea of a distinction between
the God of righteousness, who was but an inferior Demiurge
or world-framer, and the Supreme God of goodness and love.
But Dorner and other equally competent scholars think that
this is not clear, and that the persuasion of which Irenseus
speaks may have been.' meant in reference to men. This
would give a different colour to his statement, which on any
view must be regarded as ambiguous.
But whatever may have been Irenaeus' view, the notion
of Christ's death being a ransom given to Satan was held by
many of the ancient Fathers ; for since our Lord is frequently
said in Scripture to have delivered us from the power of
Satan, and since His death is called a redemption or ransom,
it seemed not unnatural to put these two things together and
to regard Satan as the minister and executioner of divine
justice, an aspect in which he is sometimes presented in
Scripture. But it was impossible to carry out such a view as a
serious explanation of the facts without running into notions
altogether grotesque and unworthy of God, e.g., that Satan
overreached himself, thinking he could retain the Son of
God in his power, or that, by unjustly putting to death
the Sinless One, he lost his right of inflicting death on
sinners. These strange ideas were current in the Church
from an early time down to the eleventh century, though
never to the exclusion of other and more scriptural views,
which were expressed sometimes by the same writers. • Often
they were mere illustrations used for popular impression,
and may be compared with the crude illustrations employed
for the like purpose in modern times. But when the idea
of a ransom to Satan is taken seriously, it is easy to see ,that

EARLIEST THEORIES OF ATONEMENT 39
it implies a dualistic theory, and is utterly inconsistent with
our Lord's own words, who spoke indeed of meeting and
overcoming the prince of this world, but never of yielding His
life up to him, but always of giving it as an absolutely free
act to His Father, doing His will and glorifying Him.
These dualistic theories should warn us of the danger of
pressing too literally the conception of a ransom ; for the
doctrine of Christ's suffering being required by the claims of
eternal justice has seemed to some critics to imply the exist
ence of a law or power distinct from and even above God
Himself. So Principal Simon 1 thinks that Dr. Dale's view,
at least in its earlier form, implies an unconscious or crypto-
dualism. It would perhaps do so if we did not always
remember and make plain to ourselves that, when we speak
of an eternal justice, we mean nothing distinct, still less
separate, from God Himself. No modern theologian deliber
ately means to assert a view of redemption representing it as
given to any other than to God, and any statements that
seem to imply the existence of any power outside God to
which a ransom is paid must be regarded as exaggerated
consequences of extreme and one-sided applications of the
biblical figure of redemption.
Of all the ancient Fathers, Athanasius gives the most
satisfactory account of the reason and purpose of Christ's
death. It was necessary, he says,2 because of the truth of
God, who had threatened death as the punishment of sin ; and
it was a vindication of God's truth in this, because Christ
made Himself entirely one with us, so that His death is
really, though mystically, ours also. While he has some
fanciful ideas, these do not enter into his main statements ;
and he is entirely free from the notion of a ransom to Satan.
The theory of a ransom to Satan was conclusively refuted
by Anselm in his Cur Deus Homo ; for though repeated a little
later by Bernard against Abelard, it passed thereafter into dis
credit and oblivion. In the same work Anselm propounded a
positive explanation of the atonement more complete and
systematic than had ever been given before, so that from this
time the doctrine became a subject of direct discussion, and has
1 The Redemption of Man. 2 On the Incarnation, cap. 6, 7.

40 THE WORK OF CHRIST
never since ceased to be so. In the same century, too, distinct
expression was first given by Abelard to the purely subjective
theory of the atonement, which has ever and again reappeared
in various forms, and is still held by many.
In examining the merits of the different theories of the
Atonement and the elements of truth contained in each, it
will be convenient to begin with —
THEORIES OF MORAL INFLUENCE
Under this name are included all those views that ascribe
only a moral or subjective purpose and effect to our Lord's
sufferings and death, or, in other words, which regard them
as merely designed to have directly or indirectly a salutary
influence on the minds and hearts of men, whereby they may
be turned from sin to God. The peculiarity, and, as most
Christians think, the error, of this view lies entirely in its
assigning this as the only purpose of Christ's death : it has
been regarded as seriously defective, not for what it asserts,
but for what it denies. It is undoubtedly taught in Scrip
ture, and proved by experience, that the sufferings that Jesus
so meekly and patiently endured do tend to melt the hearts
of those who contemplate them, to awaken in them love to
Him, and to lead them to imitate His example of self-sacri
ficing love ; and it follows that they must have been intended
by God to have these effects, and so to contribute, by this
moral influence, an important part in the work of our salva
tion. These truths have been universally admitted, though
sometimes, perhaps, the assertion of the doctrine of redemption
may have tended to throw them too much into the background.
In reality, however, that doctrine, rightly understood, tends
not to obscure but to bring out more clearly and affectingly
the moral influence of the Cross of Christ.
The moral influence theory of the work of Christ has
been very fully expounded and discussed ever since the rise
of the Socinian theology in the sixteenth century, and it has
assumed somewhat different forms in successive periods,
bringing out all the various ways in which our Saviour's
sufferings have a gracious effect on us. Abelard, holding the

MORAL INFLUENCE THEORIES OF ATONEMENT 41
true Deity of Christ, laid chief stress on the fact that His
suffering and death for sinners is a revelation of the love of
God, and so fitted to win our love and gratitude and turn
us from sin. The Socinians, believing our Lord to be a mere
man exalted to supreme dominion as the reward of His work,
held His work on earth to have been only that of a prophet
revealing especially what they called the placability of God,
i.e., His readiness, in pure benevolence, to forgive sinners, on
their repentance and amendment. In connection with this
they ascribed three purposes to Christ's death — (1) As that
of a martyr it sealed His testimony with His blood ; (2) it
gave an example of meekness and patience under suffering
and wrong ; (3) it makes Him capable, in His exaltation, of
sympathising with us, and so more effectually helping us.
The English Unitarians in the end of the eighteenth century
discarded the old Socinian view of the exaltation of Christ,
and hence could not ascribe to His sufferings the third of the
purposes formerly asserted. But they retained the other
two, and they added the idea that the death of Christ was
necessary to His resurrection, and that was the great and
only certain evidence of a future life.
In modern times the moral influence theory has been
held by many who do not, like the Socinians, deny the Deity
of Christ. By them Abelard's view of His sufferings as a
manifestation of the love of God has again been brought into
prominence, and the Socinian ideas of martyrdom, of example,
and of sympathy, have been reproduced, often with more
spiritual insight and depth of feeling, but without adding
anything of essential importance to the earlier representations.
But after all that has been done to exhibit the various
ways in which the death of Christ exercises a moral influence
for good on man, the assertion that this was its only purpose
must be judged to be at variance with the teaching of the
New Testament. To reconcile it with the many and various
statements which have been before cited, requires a mode of
interpretation extremely forced and unnatural, such as the
Socinian expositions in many cases are now acknowledged to
be, or the supposition that the inspired writers were continu
ally using the most far-fetched figurative language.

42 THE WORK OF CHRIST
Another weighty objection is that the denial of all but a
subjective purpose in the 'sufferings of our Saviour makes the
chief reason assigned for them, the revelation of the love of
God, an unintelligible and empty show. Love is indeed
shown in the endurance of self-denial, toil, and suffering for
the sake of others, if there is some independent necessity for
such endurance, or if it secures Some objective benefit for
those for whom they are endured. But when it is denied
that any such necessity existed, or any such benefit is
attained, and the purpose of the endurance is only and
simply the exhibition of love, the transaction is degraded to
a level with the fantastic ideals of mediaeval chivalry, in
which men tried to show their love and devotion by exposing
themselves to needless and useless hardships and dangers.
If we would maintain a worthy view of God's love, as revealed
in the Cross of Christ, we must believe that it was endured not
merely to convince us of His love, but to save us from real and
great evils from which we could not otherwise be delivered.
A third objection is, that all these theories consider only
the subjective aspect of sin, and assume that if we are
delivered from the love and power of it and turned to God,
nothing more is needed for our salvation. But this is to
ignore the bearing of sin on our relation to God, the reality
of which is testified not only by Scripture but by conscience.
There is a sense of guilt and its desert, and of something
being done to make up for the wrong done in the past, the
strength of which is testified by the universal prevalence of
the rite of sacrifice for sin ; there are solemn testimonies of the
holy and just anger of God against sinners, which show that
this aspect of sin is a most real and serious one, and must be
dealt with if our case is to be fully met and our consciences
satisfied ; and the sacrifice of Himself which Christ offered is
represented as doing this, besides its effect in changing our
hearts and lives. OBJECTIVE THEORIES
Since all Dualistic theories of the atonement must be
rejected as radically unchristian, and since those of mere
moral influence, though containing important elements of

OBJECTIVE THEORIES OF ATONEMENT 43
truth in what they assert, are seriously defective by reason of
their negations, it is proper to consider next those explana
tions of our Lord's sufferings and death which ascribe to them
an objective God-ward purpose and effect, holding that they
were designed not merely to exert an influence on men, but
to have a bearing on God or something pertaining to God.
This has been maintained by the great majority of Christian
theologians, at least from the eleventh century onwards ; but
it has been put in various forms. The term that best
designates this class of views as a whole is Satisfaction, taken
in the general sense of the accomplishment of the divine
requirements for the forgiveness and salvation of sinners, but
the word has been somewhat variously understood, and has
been discarded by some who do not essentially differ from
those who use it. The chief point of difference is as to what
is that divine requirement to which satisfaction is made.
The first form in which this view was systematically put
was that expounded by Anselm, in his treatise Cur Deus
Homo, on the necessity of the incarnation and death of the
Son of God ; and in it the requirement was taken to be a
personal one, and the satisfaction to be made to the honour
of God. Anselm regarded sin as not merely a violation of
man's own nature tending to degrade and destroy himself, but
as an offence against God — as being a robbing God of the
honour due to Him from all His rational creatures. What
these all owe to God is to honour Him by a loyal obedience
to His will revealed to them as law. When they fail to do
so, and follow their own will instead, they rob God of His
honour ; and so sin is to be regarded as a debt which has to
be repaid, that God's honour may be restored. When God
punishes sin He forcibly subjects the sinner to His will, and so
recovers the honour of which the insubordination of the
sinner has deprived Him. But God's honour may be restored
in another way, namely, if there could be rendered to Him an
honour as great as that of which man's sin has deprived Him.
This can only be done by the Son of God, who is greater than
all that is not God, giving Himself freely to die for sinners,
and His self-sacrifice is a satisfaction according to the old
sense of that term, i.e. not a penalty, but something offered

44 THE WORK OF CHRIST
and done instead of the penalty. Anselm always clearly
distinguishes the two terms, and says that sin must be
followed either by satisfaction or punishment. In his view,
too, the redemptive element in Christ's work does not lie in
His suffering simply as such, but in His freely undertaking an
act of self-sacrifice to which He was not bound.
This theory contains certain important portions of truth
which have been generally recognised. The general principle
that the necessity of Christ's death lies in God, and the view
of the duty of all to honour God, and the value that God sets
on His honour, are founded on Scripture ; and the conception
of sin as a debt is also a biblical one, but it is employed too
exclusively by Anselm. Thus his explanation is open to the
objection that as it is quite free to a creditor to remit a debt
freely without either payment or satisfaction, it does not
appear why God could not forgive the debt of sin by mere
free grace ; and it is noticeable that, in the last resort,
Anselm falls back on the consideration that it would not be
fitting that sin and obedience should be treated by God in
the same way. Again, while Anselm was right in emphasis
ing the active element as a most essential one in Christ's
sacrifice, his notion of it as a satisfaction for a debt led him
to think only of the greatness of our Saviour as enabling Him
to render to God an honour outweighing the dishonour done
by man's sin : he failed to show any special connection
between Him and those who are to be saved.
The chief general ideas in Anselm's theory have been
accepted by the great body of scriptural theologians in later
time, namely, that sin is to be viewed as an offence against God ;
that the need of satisfaction lies in the claims of God which
cannot be waived ; and that Christ, by His obedience unto
death, has met these claims for us and made our forgiveness
possible. Some even in our own time have thought that not
only in these but in all its details his explanation is satis
factory ; but most have tacitly or openly modified some of
the particulars of Anselm's view. The exclusive reference to
the divine honour and the consequent conception of sin as
simply a debt were open to the objections above mdicated,
and later theologians fell back on Anselm's ultimate suggestion,

ANSELM'S THEORY AND MODIFICATIONS OF IT 45
that sin and obedience must not be treated alike, and so
substituted for the honour of God His justice, as that which
needed to be satisfied. Again, the limitation of the satisfaction
of Christ to what He was not bound to render was an infer
ence from the debt theory, and fell with it as a needless
subtlety. Later schoolmen did not hesitate to say that Christ
bore the punishment of our sins ; and the want in Anselm of
an explanation of the connection between Christ and those
who are redeemed was supplied by Bernard's saying : " the
Head suffered for His own members," and afterwards more
fully by the Reformers' doctrine of our union to Christ by faith.
Thus arose a second form of the theory of satisfaction,
according to which it was made to the justice of God, under
stood in the legal sense as the principle of giving to each
his due. In virtue of this, God cannot allow sin to go un
punished ; but Christ, by His freely enduring sufferings and
death, has borne the punishment that our sin deserved, and
God has been pleased to accept this for us and to forgive
us for His sake. This was the view prevalent at the Reforma
tion both in the Roman Catholic and Protestant Churches,
and afterwards elaborated by the scholastic theologians of the
seventeenth century against the Socinian doctrine of mere
moral influence. It lays chief stress on the passive aspect of
our Lord's work as the endurance of the punishment of sin in
our stead ; and this is indeed a true and scriptural aspect of
it, though there was a danger of going too far in asserting an
exact identity between what Christ suffered and what sinners
have to endure. Further, it makes this whole transaction not
one of private right, as that between a creditor and debtors,
but of public law. God, as the Judge of all, must do right,
and He shows His grace as well as His justice in both
providing and accepting a Substitute to bear the punishment
of sinners. This was in substance, with various modifications,
the doctrine of the great dogmatic writers of the seventeenth
century. It retained the principal points of the Anselmic
theory, but gave up some of its less satisfactory details ; and
it could be, and was, successfully defended against the Socinian
objections that a debt may be forgiven without satisfaction, and
that when payment is made there is no grace in forgiveness.

46 THE WORK OF CHRIST
But certain other criticisms were not so completely
answered. It was urged that Christ cannot be said to have
endured the very punishment that we deserved, nor even a
suffering equivalent to it, especially because His sufferings
were only for a short season, while the doom of sin is eternal ;
and when it was replied that, in virtue of the infinite dignity
of our Saviour as the Son of God, His brief endurance was
equivalent as a vindication of divine justice to the eternal
suffering of sinners, this could hardly avoid the appearance
of bringing in a metaphysical idea to decide a moral question.
Again, the question arose, and has become more pressing with
the growth of enlightened humane jurisprudence, How can
justice, in the strict distributive sense, be manifested by the
punishment of the innocent for the guilty ? It could indeed
be answered negatively, that Jesus suffered with perfect
willingness, so that no injustice was done to Him, and that the
suffering of the holy Son of God is a fact undeniable on any
theory ; but in order to show positively how it satisfied God's
justice, the theologians of that day had recourse to the analogy
of practices such as the punishment of sureties and hostages,
which the jurisprudence of their time approved, but which
are condemned by more enlightened ages.
These considerations, while they do not overthrow the
scriptural evidence for the doctrine of Christ's satisfaction,
make it difficult in the present day to regard as satisfactory
the strict juridical form of it without some modification or
supplement. The sense of this led to a third form of this
doctrine, which is known as the Governmental view, according
to which the satisfaction of Christ is made not to the distribu
tive justice of God, but to what was called public justice, which
has for its aim the maintenance of the moral order of the
universe. This theory is generally traced back to the treatise
of Grotius, de Satisfaction Christi, 1617 ; but the view
expounded there does not really differ essentially from the
juridical one, though one point in it was afterwards developed
into the Governmental theory. He defends the doctrine that
Christ's suffering for our sin was a satisfaction to the justice
of God, as the Supreme Moral Governor, and that He really
bore the punishment of our sin in our place. Only he held

THE THEORY OF GROTIUS 47
that the end of punishment is not the abstract purpose of
rendering to the evil-doer his due, but the maintenance of the
moral order of the universe by preventing offences in future.
The impossibility of sinners being pardoned without satis
faction arises from the danger of crime being encouraged with
impunity and the government of God set at nought, which
would be injurious to the highest interests of the moral
universe. That this is one aim of punishment cannot fairly
be denied. It is recognised in Scripture (Deut. 1311 1920,
Ps. 1253), and must ever be a prominent consideration in
human jurisprudence. But when this is held to be the only
purpose of punishment, there is a tendency to alter the con
ception of justice and to regard it, not as the love of right for
its own sake and the determination to give each his due, but
merely a wise regard for the general virtue and happiness of
the community. Grotius did not go so far as this ; but it
was maintained afterwards by Leibnitz and others, who re
solved all God's moral attributes into benevolence, that
justice is simply benevolence guided by wisdom. Then the
sufferings of Christ came to be regarded as merely exemplary,
intended to show God's hatred of sin and to deter men from
it. This has a certain resemblance to the mere moral
influence theory ; but there is an important difference in this,
that the impression made by these sufferings is held to be
not only on the sinners who are forgiven, but on the whole
moral universe ; so that the effect of the atonement is really
objective, and has regard ultimately to the government of
God. This theory was adopted by many of the later
Arminians, by the theologians of the so-called " Enlighten
ment " on the Continent, by the New School in America, and
by many English divines. The chief objections to it are that
it gives an unworthy representation of God's action in
requiring the sacrifice of Christ, as having regard to the
interests of the creatures rather than to His own character
and glory ; that it makes His purpose to be merely to pro
duce a certain impression on the universe, and so tends to
make the Cross of Christ a mere display, not an actual
exercise of justice and mercy.
Still, though defective and open to grave objections, this

48 THE WORK OF CHRIST
view is not really so great a deviation from the juridical
doctrme as has been thought by many both of the opponents
and supporters of the latter. It ascribes a truly objective
efficacy to the sacrifice of Christ, and it avoids some of the
difficulties of the strict juridical theory. Its supporters can
use with all sincerity the common language of Scripture and
of the Churches' Confessions as to the death of Christ in our
stead and for our sins ; and though their statements are some
what less precise than those which adhere to the older form
of doctrine, they convey the most important points in it. In
a recent American document there is distinct evidence of this.
In 1837 the Presbyterian Church in America divided into
the Old and New Schools, on account of differences on the
atonement and other doctrines. Several errors were charged
against the New School, and to meet these they adopted a
document called, from the place where it was drawn up,
"The Auburn Declaration." In 1868, when a reunion of
these Churches was contemplated, this declaration was
approved by the Old School Assembly, as containing " all the
fundamentals of the Calvinistic Creed," and on this basis the
Churches were united in 1870. Its statement on the atone
ment is : " The sufferings of Christ were not symbolical,
governmental, and instructive only, but were truly vicarious,
i.e., a substitute for the punishment due to transgressors.
And while Christ did not suffer the literal penalty of the
law, including remorse of conscience and the pains of hell, he
did offer a sacrifice which Infinite Wisdom saw to be a full
equivalent. And by virtue of this atonement overtures of
mercy are sincerely made to the race, and salvation secured
to all who believe." 1 This is a very judicious and well-balanced
statement, including elements of all the forms of the objective
view of the atonement and avoiding the excesses of each.
It asserts, with Anselm, the important fact of Christ's action
in giving Himself a sacrifice, without limiting it, as Anselm
did ; it avoids the extreme assertion of many, who held the
juridical view, that Christ suffered the very same penalty as
sinners deserve ; and it guards against the tendency of the
governmental theory to make the Cross a mere unreal display.
1 Auburn "Declaration," § 8, in Schaffs Creeds of Christendom, iii. p. 778.

MYSTICAL THEORIES OF ATONEMENT 49
Still it cannot but be felt that these are largely negative
determinations ; and it may be noticed that all these theories
are founded entirely on two of the sets of statements by the
apostles, Paul's doctrine of redemption, and the sacrificial
explanations in the Epistle to the Hebrews, and have mainly
proceeded on the plan of taking from Scripture the idea of
righteousness, and interpreting this by various philosophic
assumptions, while the series of statements about our union
with Christ in His death have been overlooked or little used.
To this appears to be due a certain hardness in all these
forms of doctrine, as well as some of their theoretical difficulties,
and a natural reaction against these led to the emphasising
of the neglected elements of Pauline and Johannine teaching.
When these were used as superseding or excluding the juridical
element, one-sided mystical theories were the result ; taken
as supplementing that element, they point to the most satis
factory view that seems attainable.
MYSTICAL THEORIES
The term " mystic " is a somewhat vague one, and may
be fairly applied to views that have a very distinct quality
in common, but in other respects are very different. The
common element may be defined as the belief that there are
things which are to be apprehended by feeling, and not either
by sense or reason ; more especially that the soul has a direct
communion with God through the conscience and heart, and
is not limited to sense and reason as its means of communi
cation. This belief can be kept from degenerating into mere
fancy, if it be held that the truths and relations thus directly
apprehended should be verified by their results in experience ;
while if no such test is admitted, the door is open to baseless
subjective imagination. The most spiritual theologians have
always recognised a mystic element in Christianity ; but
when it was exaggerated to an unbridled extreme, a reaction
set in, which sought to eliminate from theology everything
that could not be proved by sense and reason. From this
tendency the expositions of the atonement in the seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries suffered; and Schleiermacher was

50 THE WORK OF CHRIST
led to propound what he called a mystical view, distinct alike
from the Socinian, which he called the empirical, and that
current in the Church, which he designated the magical. On
the Socinian view, the relation of the forgiven sinner to Christ
is merely that of one who has been influenced by His love and
example ; on the Church view, it seemed to be only that of
one who has been brought, by a sovereign appointment of
God, into a legal relation to Christ. Schleiermacher maintained
that he is brought into a life-fellowship with Christ, the one
man whose God-consciousness has been perfect and unbroken ;
that by this union with Christ we receive a new life, which
shall ultimately be perfect ; and that meanwhile God forgives
and accepts us because Christ has thus guaranteed that we
shall at last be freed from sin. But in his explanation of the
suffering of Christ Schleiermacher assumes a real life-union of
our Lord, not only with believers but with the whole human race.
In it, as a whole, there is just as much suffering as sin, and by
suffering the sin is wiped out. But this is only true of the
whole, not of each individual. Jesus, however, being perfectly
holy, introduced no new element of sin, while He bore a large
part of the suffering due to the race, and so took away its
sin. The recognition of the spiritual life-union between
Christ and the believer is a true and valuable element in this
theory ; but still it is a merely subjective one. Christ saves
us by guaranteeing that we shall be perfectly freed from sin,
and no other obstacle to forgiveness is recognised except our
own love of and proneness to sin. Schleiermacher's whole
conception of sin is generally recognised as too subjective, and
few of those who have followed his leading ideas have adopted
all parts of his system. The views of C. J. Nitzsch, Rothe,
and Dorner, while recognising a mystical element, are yet
distinctly objective in their character. So also at bottom are
those of von Hofmann and Ritschl, although they deviate from
the Church doctrine by excluding all juridical and penal ideas.
In Britain the mystical view was advocated by S. T.
Coleridge ; and of his followers F. D. Maurice, Kingsley, and
others pressed it to the exclusion of any God-ward effect of
the atonement ; while M'Leod Campbell and, in a modified
way, Bushnell, retained, in principle, that idea. A mystical

MYSTICAL ASPECT OF THE ATONEMENT 51
theory has also been connected with the view of E. Irvino-,
that Christ assumed our sinful human nature, and by virtue
of His own holiness kept it absolutely free from all personal
sin, and thereby sanctified and made acceptable to God the
whole of that nature.
The mystical theories in general include one important
truth, that our relation to Christ as our Redeemer is not a
mere moral or federal one, but a real spiritual union. But
they are defective and misleading when, by asserting this of
all men alike, they make it a thing not verifiable by its
results, or when they represent redemption as merely a sub
jective change in us, and not also an alteration of our relation
to God. In the latter case they are open to the objections
against the theory of mere moral influence, though in some
respects they are greatly more profound and spiritual.
But when the mystic element is not pushed to such
extremes, and is accepted as supplementing and not super
seding the idea of an objective bearing of the atonement on the
requirements of God's character and law, it is a thing that
has been recognised by the most spiritual Church teachers
in various ages, as Athanasius, Bernard, Luther, Calvin,
Jonathan Edwards ; and it enables us to form a conception of
Christ's work that is free from the one-sidedness of most
other theories, and probably comes as near to doing justice
to the whole teaching of revelation and enabling us to under
stand the great redemption as is possible.
According to the teaching of Christ and of His apostles,
as contained in the New Testament, there is a union of Christ
and His people which is vital and spiritual, and though not
discernible by the senses or demonstrable by reasoning, yet
really apprehended by the soul and verified by its fruits ; and
when this is recognised in connection with the atonement,
along with the corresponding truth of Christ's spiritual one
ness both with God and man in virtue of His incarnation, the
defects of many theories of the atonement may be supplied,
and a more satisfactory explanation approached.
Such recognition avoids the need of regarding Christ's
substitution for sinners as a mere sovereign appointment of
God, or covenant transaction between parties having no closer

o2 THE WORK OF CHRIST
relation. No doubt the supreme authority of God must be
acknowledged as the basis of the whole plan of redemption,
and the notion of a covenant of grace is a scriptural one that
brings out the free mutual consent of God and Christ and
believers ; but, besides these, there is in the mystical union
of Christ with the race, and of believers with Christ, a moral
reason for the substitution of the Saviour for sinners. He
gives His life a ransom in their stead because He is their
representative, and He is their representative because He has
become the Son of Man. His tie to the race is a real and
living one : He not only has taken the same nature, but has
for them all the feelings of a brother. Thus though He does
not share their sin, and cannot feel personal remorse of con
science or repentance, He does share in the shame and grief
that a good man feels for the evil-doing of his family or of
his country; and since He is at the same time one with God in
His abhorrence of these sins, it is by no mere appointment or
covenant that He bears the punishment of them, but is a
natural consequence of His oneness both with God and man.
Being truly human, He feels that nothing human is foreign to
Him ; and, being truly divine, the interests of the divine
holiness are His also.
On the other hand, when believers are forgiven because
of Christ's sacrifice of Himself for them, it is not as if His
merit was ascribed to them by a mere legal fiction, for they
are brought into such a vital union to Christ that His death
is truly, though spiritually, theirs also. They accept His
sacrifice as made on their behalf, acknowledging, in true
penitence, that they have deserved all that He endured ; and,
entering with sympathy into the spirit in which He did so,
they give glory to God by a heartfelt confession of sin, and
faith in Jesus as the sin-bearer. These exercises of our souls
cannot indeed merit forgiveness from God, but they make it
suitable that Christ's obedience and sacrifice should be accepted
for us. He has honoured and fulfilled that holy law of God
that we had disobeyed ; and though we cannot, by any acts of
ours, so honour it, yet when we truly sympathise with Christ's
work in doing so, it is fitting that it should be accepted on
our behalf.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD 53
Again, the recognition of the mystical oneness of Christ
with sinners enables us to give a more biblical explanation of
that justice of God which is said to be satisfied or, in Paul's
language, declared by the propitiation of Christ, than either
the Anselmic notion of commutative justice, analogous to the
payment of a debt, or the seventeenth century notion of dis
tributive justice, rendering to each their due, or yet the
governmental one of public justice, aiming at the prevention
of offences. These are explanations largely coloured by the
views of jurisprudence current in different ages ; but the
biblical idea of justice or righteousness is in most cases a
more comprehensive one, not separated sharply from other
moral qualities, such as godliness, kindness, mercy, faithfulness,
truth, but including the whole of moral goodness and duty.
As ascribed to God in His relation to men, this would mean
His love and approval of all these moral qualities, with
which must be associated His hatred and condemnation of
all that is opposed to them. If sinners were pardoned and
received into His favour by a mere amnesty, or on account
of a repentance that is imperfect and itself mixed with sin,
this attribute would not be manifested, nay, would not be
exercised ; it would be impossible to believe that it exists in
God. But when the holy and sinless Son of God becomes
the Son of Man, making common cause with the sinful race,
and not only honours and obeys the law of God that they
have broken, but, being Himself the Lawgiver, freely and
lovingly bears, to the extent that a sinless one can, all the
sufferings that are the expression of God's holy hatred of sin ;
and when those who accept Him as their representative and
Lord are forgiven and blessed on account of this work that
He has done for them : is not His righteousness, in the biblical
sense, manifested and satisfied in a more perfect and glorious
way than we could else conceive ?

DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
THOSE who are called by the Word and Spirit of God
to union with Christ are represented in Scripture not
merely as a number of individuals, each standing by himself,
but as forming one entire body. It is true that the union
by which they are connected with Christ is an individual
one : each of the saved stands in direct and immediate re
lation to the Saviour. But when they are thus united to
Him, they are also united one to another, and form a collec
tive body of which He is the Head.
On this, as on many other subjects in religion, there are
just three fundamentally different forms of doctrine, all
others being modifications of one or other of these. The
truth as it is in Jesus has always been opposed by two
opposite kinds of error, which have assumed diverse names
and aspects at different times, but against which the Church
has always to be upon her guard. In the days of our Lord's
earthly ministry there were the Pharisees on the one hand
and the Sadducees on the other ; in our day the Pharisees
are represented by the Romanists and Romanising parties in
Protestant Churches, the Sadducees by the Rationalists and
Rationalising school ; while equally distinct from both is the
scriptural and evangelical faith.
I. Roman Catholic Doctrine
In order to bring out more distinctly what we hold to
be the true view of the Church of Christ, I propose to ex
plain, first, the Romish principle and doctrine on the subject,
and then those of the Rationalists. The difference of these
theories turns on the way in which the statements in Scrip
ture in regard to the universal Church of Christ are under-

ROMISH DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 55
stood and explained. For it cannot be denied that there is
presented to our view in the New Testament one universal
holy fellowship of men united to Christ, of which the most
glorious things are spoken, and with which the most precious
blessings are connected. In a word, the teaching of the
ancient Creeds which express a belief of one holy Catholic
Church is unquestionably founded on Scripture : the question
is, what is the nature of that fellowship of which such things
can be said, that " Church which is the body of Christ, the
fulness of Him that filleth all in all " ? More especially,
differences of opinion have turned on the question, in what
sense is the Church of Christ one ?
The Romish mode of answering this question may be best
explained by tracing briefly its actual rise and progress in
the history of the Church.
The company of believers in Jesus, that met first in the
upper chamber at Jerusalem, and was gradually increased by
those who were added on the day of Pentecost and after
wards, might fairly be regarded as realising the idea of the
one holy Church which is the body of Christ. There was
in that society a real living fellowship with the risen
Saviour ; there were blessings enjoyed and hopes cherished
in it to which the outer world were strangers ; there was a
holiness and mutual love that manifestly marked its members
as somewhat different from others. As long as this society
continued to be such that they could have common meetings
and act as one body, no serious difficulty might be found in
working out the idea of the Church.
But as in course of time the number of the disciples
increased, and especially as they were scattered abroad and
came to live in various and widely separated cities and lands,
the question would needs occur: "How is this society now
to maintain its unity? The Church, which is the body of
Christ, must above all things be one as He is one ; but we
are many, and not merely many in one nation, as Israel of
old, but many in all nations, scattered in handfuls here and
there through all the world." The original idea of the
unity of the Church was the common possession by all its
members of the new life to God in Christ. This is the con-

56 THE CHURCH
ception of the apostles and apostolic fathers, and is found as
far down as Origen (c. Cels. vi. 48). Then arose the idea that
unity in doctrine is also required, as appears in the conflict
with the Gnostics, e.g. in Irenaeus and TertuUian ; and then
further, in order to maintain this unity in doctrine, the
episcopal government of the Church was developed, the
bishops being the custodiers of the genuine tradition of
apostolic teaching ; and so a unity of organisation came to be
insisted on, and this ultimately superseded the two former
and more vital kinds of union. The controversies of Cyprian
against Novatian, and of Augustine against the Donatists,
mark the triumphs of this principle. According to it, the way
of maintaining a real unity in such circumstances was to fall
back on the idea of one organisation and government. The
Church, however greatly it may increase, and however widely
it may spread, must still be one ; there cannot be only one
congregation or assembly : let then the various congregations
be linked together in one organised system and under one
government. Each congregation was one whole, because it
was under one pastor and bench of bishops or elders ; and all
the congregations together made one whole, because all alike
were under such bishops, who might meet together from
time to time, as occasion called, in synods or councils. The
development of the episcopal form of Church government was
closely connected with the effort made in early times to
maintain the unity of the Church, and to heal the schisms
that were occasioned or threatened by the different tendencies
among the disciples of Jesus. By this means the Church,
even when spread through all the world, like the tree grown
up from the little grain of mustard-seed, might yet be one,
and all its members might feel themselves joined one to
another as part of one great whole. This Catholic Church is
represented as being one also in point of time, as being in all
ages one and the same ; and as its unity in point of space
came to be regarded as consisting in its being under one
system of government, so its oneness in time is held to
consist in having been always under this government, which
must be preserved in unbroken continuity from the founda
tion of the Church on through all the ages of its history.

ROMISH DOCTRINE OF CHURCH UNITY 57
Each of the Church's ministers must be able to trace his
succession upwards as having been ordained by a bishop, and
he again by one before him, and so on up to the apostles, who
were chosen and ordained by Christ Himself. One govern
ment existing throughout all the world, and carried down
uninterruptedly through all the ages, is the idea of the
Church's unity that has widely prevailed throughout Chris
tendom. But when the unity of the Church was made to consist
in oneness of government and organisation, it was soon felt
that something more was needed than merely being under
the same order of office-bearers. The idea of the uniting
bond of the Church residing in the collective body of bishops
or pastors, which Cyprian seems especially to have main
tained, might suffice for a time, but could not satisfy long.
As each congregation or group of congregations was held to
be one because under one bishop, so the whole Church, if it
was to be one in organisation, must be not merely under one
sort of government but under one actual government. And
as the unity of single congregations or districts had come
to' be sought not in councils or assemblies but in individual
bishops, the wider unity of the Church must be maintained
in the same way. Hence the bishops must be united under
archbishops, and these again under metropolitans or patriarchs,
and these again under one universal bishop, that of the
world's capital, Rome, in whom the government of the whole
Church was to be concentrated and its unity visibly mani
fested. Thus step by step there was developed the Popish
idea of the Church, which is thus defined by Bellarmine :
" Coetus hominum ejusdem Christiana? fidei professione et
eorundem sacramentorum communione colligatus sub re-
gimine legitimorum pastorum ac praecipue unius Christi in
terris vicarii " ; no internal virtue being required to make
one in some sense a member of the Church, which is as
visible and palpable as the kingdom of France or the
republic of Venice {Eccles. milit. c. 2).
To the Church as thus defined, Romanists ascribe all
the glorious things spoken in Scripture of the City of God,
regarding all the promises of perpetuity, guidance, and

58 THE CHURCH
preservation given by Christ to the Church, as belonging to
the external organism of which Rome is the head. It is
believed to be the body of Christ, the family and kingdom of
God, the bride, the Lamb's wife ; in the Church and in it
alone all saving blessings are held to be, and all who are
outside of its pale are regarded as aliens from the common
wealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise,
without God and without hope in the world, while all who
are within the pale are safe for eternity, being fellow-citizens
with the saints and of the household of God. It follows
from these principles, that as all spiritual blessings depend
upon connection with an outward society, so they are com
municated by outward means — by rites and ceremonies, by
sacraments and ordinances ; that the mere performance of
certain works, as such, the simple reception of certain sacra
ments ex opere operato, bestows grace and salvation ; and that
the power to do this belongs to the outward organisation of
the Church, and depends on her ministers being the lineal
successors of the apostles and in communion with the Bishop
of Rome. In a word, the Church as an external society is
on this theory the divinely-appointed institution for convey
ing spiritual and eternal blessings to mankind ; and it does
so by a supernatural power, by means of outward rites and
observances. Thus the whole of this system of religion hangs
together with the theory of the Church : it is all one con
nected and consistent whole, and the idea of the Church as
an external visible society is the centre and heart of it all.
Now this is indeed a very magnificent and imposing idea —
that of a body diffused through all the world, existing in
every land and clime and in all ages, yet everywhere and
always one and the same, acknowledging the same faith and
observing the same divine worship under one vast hierarchical
system, ascending by regular gradation from the parish priest
in the remotest and obscurest corner of the world to the
universal bishop and vicar of Christ, the earthly head of the
whole body. It is an idea that has exercised an almost
magical power over the minds and hearts of mankind,
captivating their imagination and overpowering their reason.
The palmy days of its supremacy were in the Middle Ages,

ROMISH AND HIGH ANGLICAN DOCTRINE COMPARED 59
but it still has to this day no small power of attraction and
fascination to many.
For the view that is widely prevalent and officially
expressed by what is known as the High Church or Ritual
istic party is identical in principle with that of the Church
of Rome, and differs from it only in not making actual
communion with the whole Church and subordination to one
outward government a necessity for salvation. In these
respects it is simply less consistent and logical than Romanism,
being in fact just an imperfect development of the vast idea
of that system.
It agrees with the Romish theory in principle ; for it
makes the Church primarily and essentially an outward
visible society, and this is the -n-pSirov -v|re{)So?, the root and
germ, in theory and in history of the whole Popish doctrine.
It is true many of the High Church party allow the distinc
tion, which is essential to the maintenance of Protestantism,
between the Church visible and invisible ; but this is not
sufficient to make out a radical difference from the Romish
view. For some of the most eminent Romish divines admit
the distinction, and even the formal deliverances of the
Church of Rome involve a recognition of it. Indeed, in the
light of modern discussions some such distinction cannot be
avoided. But the mere recognition of an invisible Church is
of very little avail when the first and chief place is given to
the Church visible. As the distinction, when properly under
stood, is not of two different Churches, but rather of two
aspects of one and the same Church, so everything depends
upon which of the two is the primary and leading one, and
the High Church view agrees thoroughly and formally with
the Romish one in regarding the Church as in the first
instance an outward society. This is clear from the fact that
they regard an outward organisation as an essential mark of
the Church. So thoroughly, indeed, do they subordinate the
invisible to the visible Church, that they regard the former
as entirely included within the latter. They acknowledge
that there are some in the Church visible who are not
members of the Church invisible, but they do not admit that
any can belong to the Church invisible who are not included

60 THE CHURCH
within the bounds of the visible Church. Thus the outward
organism on which they insist, that of episcopal government
with apostolic succession, is to them a mark and limit not only
of the visible but of the invisible Church. Now the real and
vital distinction between the Popish and Protestant views of
the Church is well put in a few words by Mohler : " The differ
ence between the Catholic and the Lutheran view of the Church
can be reduced to a short, accurate, and definite expression.
The Catholics teach that the visible Church is first, then comes
the invisible : the former gives birth to the latter. On the
other hand, the Lutherans say the reverse : from the invisible
emerges the visible Church, and the former is the groundwork
of the latter. In this apparently unimportant opposition a
prodigious difference is avowed {Symbolik, § 48)." On this
all-important point the adherents of the Ritualist or High
Church party range themselves on the side of Rome.1 Some
of them deny that there is a Church invisible distinct from
that which is visible ; and even when they admit this, as some
do, it is with them a mere empty statement which they are
obliged to make and to have recourse to in argument, but
which they practically leave out of sight in the application of
their views. In a Catechism entitled Theophilus Anglicanus,
by Dr. Wordsworth, afterwards Bishop of Lincoln, published
with the sanction of his bishop and archbishop, we read as
follows (p. 26): — " Q. If we desire to be saved, is it neces
sary that, if we are able, we should be members of the
Christian Church ? — A. It is. Q. How does this necessity
appear ? — -A. From the. nature of the case. Christ Himself
has instituted a Society on earth in which men are to receive
the means of grace and salvation, and has revealed no other
way to this end ; they, therefore, who will not enter and con
tinue in this Society exclude themselves from participation in
the privileges of the gospel." There you will observe that the
author, though he has before admitted the distinction of the
Church visible and invisible, speaks of the Church, that
Church out of which is no salvation, as an outward visible
society, thus simply adopting the fundamental principle of
Romanism on this matter.
1 See Church Doctrine Bible Truth, by Eev. M. F. Sadler, p. 42.

ROMISH DOCTRINE CRITICISED 61
Agreeing thus in principle with the Church of Rome, the
High Church party only differ from that Church in the extent
to which they carry the principle. They think that the unity
of the Church is sufficiently maintained by a uniform govern
ment by bishops, who may meet in particular or universal
councils ; whereas Romanists contend that the unity of the
Church demands not merely a uniform but a sole government
in the hands of one supreme universal bishop. Accordingly,
Romanists maintain that none is in the Church of Christ who
is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome ; while the
Anglicans hold that the separation between them and Rome
does not cut off either party from the Catholic Church.
Except this, it would be difficult to point out a single
difference between the two views ; and that the Romish is the
natural development of the Anglican is evident both from
history and reason. The High Anglicans occupy precisely the
position that was taken up by Cyprian and other eminent
Fathers of the third and fourth centuries at a time when the
Romish theory was being developed ; and their doctrine gave
place, in the course of a few generations, to the full-blown
system of Popery, which is the consistent logical issue of the
first principle adopted by both in common.
There is evidence that Christ and His apostles instituted
a government and order in the religious societies which they
founded ; but the thing that would have been most necessary
were this view true — a system by which the several local
communities should be bound into one organism — is precisely
that on which they have given fewest and least definite
instructions. The general principle of the Church being
essentially an external organised society is indeed entirely at
variance with Scripture. The Bible gives us views of the
nature and attributes of the Church that are entirely incon
sistent with this theory of it in either of its forms.
(1) It represents the Church as consisting of saints, of
those who are sanctified or made holy by Christ Jesus, of
believers in Him, or those who have saving faith. Nowhere
are any persons addressed as being members of the Church
without being also addressed as believers or holy brethren.
Thus, to take one example out of a vast number, the Epistle to

62 THE CHURCH
the Ephesians, — -in which so much is said about the Church,
and in which the readers are reminded of their high privi
leges as in the Church which is Christ's body, — is addressed
" to the saints which are at Ephesus and faithful in
Christ Jesus." Now, it cannot be said of any external
society as such, that all who are in it are godly and
believing persons ; hence it is a fundamental principle of
the Romish theory that no internal or spiritual qualifi
cations are needed to determine who are members of the
true Church, but that it is a body consisting of all sorts
of men, holy and wicked, believing and unbelieving, provided
only they are united by a profession of faith and an organised
government. In order to escape the force of these considera
tions, they who adopt this theory are obliged to modify the
notion of holiness as a quality necessarily belonging to the
Church, so as to make it mean not actual moral purity, but
either a mere outward dedication to God, or a profession of
obligation to holiness, or the power of the Church to make
holy. It is only in such senses as these that the Church, on
this view of it, can be said to be holy, not in the natural,
proper, and ordinary sense of the term.
(2) Again, it is plain from Scripture that salvation is not
exclusively confined to any one outward society, however
sacred its character and extensive its precincts. " God is no
respecter of persons, but in every nation he that feareth Him
and worketh righteousness is accepted with Him." Against
this great principle the whole theory of the Church as an
outward organised society rebels, no less than Pharisaic
Judaism of old, for it confines salvation and all spiritual
blessings to one body, and declares that outside of its
pale, however sound in belief, earnest in effort, and holy in
life any one may be, there is for him no salvation or accept
ance with God.
(3) Further, this system necessarily implies that spiritual
blessings are conveyed through certain outward acts ; while it
is most clear, both from Scripture and observation, that this
is not so. It is not by any mere external rite, as by magic,
that grace and salvation are conveyed to men, but by inward,
moral, and spiritual means.

ERASTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 63
If there be a Church all whose members are holy and
heirs of salvation, it is clearly, as both Scripture and
experience teach us, no external society whatever of which
this can be said. To assert that there is, is to overturn the
whole gospel of Christ and put another gospel in its place.
This theory, then, of the One Holy Catholic Church must
be abandoned and condemned as false.
II. Erastianism
When we find that the Romish theory of the Church is
altogether baseless and unscriptural, the question naturally
arises : What are we to put in its place ? what is that body
of which so much is said in Scripture ? Some there are who
think that there is no escape from the doctrine of the Church
of Rome but by going to what may be regarded as an opposite
extreme. Starting as before from the Church as it existed in
apostolic times, as a little company of disciples of Christ, and
following it as it spread and expanded to fill the world, they
differ from the former view in not regarding one organised
government as essential to the unity of the Church, and they
also practically deny or explain away its unity. The Church
is one no doubt, they will say, but it is one only as the whole
human race is one. It is a number of people united by
holding similar views about God and Christ, having the same
principles, the same objects and aims, contending each in His
own way against the same evils ; and united by the sympathy
that naturally arises from their having so much in common,
but not one in any stricter or higher sense. Then, just as the
human race, though in a certain sense one, having one common
humanity and certain sentiments and feelings of universal
sympathy, is not all one nation or empire, but divided into
various States, each having its own political government, so
the unity of the Church does not require one common
government over all its members, but may be consistent with
each part of it having its own distinct organisation. Further,
as there are in the political world different sorts of govern
ment in different countries, according to the circumstances, or
necessities, or likings of the people, — despotism in one, limited

64 THE CHURCH
monarchy in another, aristocracy in a third, and democracy in
a fourth, — so it naturally follows, according to this view, that
it is free to the Church, at different times, and to every part
of it in different places, to adopt any form of government or
organisation that may seem most suited to the times or cir
cumstances in which they are placed. Thus, it would be
natural that the form of government of the Church in any
particular country would be somewhat similar to the political
system established there ; and there is nothing in this view of
the Church that would make it wrong to mould or modify its
institutions in such a way. Still further, if the Church
becomes so much assimilated to the body politic, and if the
nation in which it is becomes largely pervaded with Christian
ideas and feelings, it will come to be very difficult to preserve
a distinct line of demarcation between Church and State.
The idea of identifying or merging them into one will not be
far off. They are societies of the same general nature, ruled
by the same general principles, and having similar ends in
view ; they come to be regarded as one and the same : the
Church is made to be but one particular aspect of the State, or
department of its action ; and just as the nation maintains an
army for defence, and a legal and judicial body for the
administration of justice, so it may maintain an ecclesiastical
body for the promotion of religion. Then as the Church, on
this view, is so flexible in its forms and modes of government,
the State may take upon itself to control and direct it, to
determine what shall be its creed and form of government,
who shall be its ministers and members, and what shall be its
line of action. The various parts of this view of the Church
have not indeed been so completely combined and wrought
into one systematic doctrine as those of the Romish theory,
but they have been separately maintained by influential
thinkers, and some of them at least combined into a unity.
The Erastian theory is so called from Thomas Erastus, a
physician in Heidelberg, who first distinctly propounded it in
the sixteenth century, although it was practically realised in
the relation of the Oriental Church to the Empire, and hence
is sometimes called Byzantine. It maintains that the power of
discipline in the Church is a branch of the power of the State,

ERASTIAN DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH 65
and therefore ought to be directed and controlled by it ; and
those who in modern times have defended this theory have
sometimes gone further, and held that not only is the power
of the Church simply a part of that of the State, but that the
Church itself is identical with the State, and ultimately
destined to be absorbed into it or superseded by it. This
is the view of Hegel, Rothe, and Strauss in Germany, and
of Arnold, Coleridge, and Stanley in England. It is widely
prevalent as a way of thinking and feeling, and often finds
expression in current literature. It is the sort of theory on
which the practical relations of Church and State are worked
out by many minds in the present day ; it harmonises well
with some of the prevailing tendencies of modern thought,
agreeing with the somewhat lofty notions of the day as to
the excellence and perfectibility of human nature, and with
the desire of freedom from the restraint of definite creeds
and laws that characterises our time. Besides these attrac
tions for many, it seems to not a few to be the only alternative
to the Romish theory, and the only refuge against its arrogant
claims. Nevertheless, we do not hesitate to say that this idea of
the Church is as unscriptural as the theory of the Church of
Rome. It does not at all correspond to what is said of the
Church in the New Testament. However we may explain
it, it is not a mere heterogeneous mass of people that is sug
gested to our minds by the statements of Scripture, but a
united living whole ; it is not a body whose form and manner
of being is variable according to the varying will of men or
changes in human society, but one that is ever essentially the
same ; it is not a mere department of some larger and higher
society, to whose laws and orders it is bound to submit, it is
an independent body, divinely instituted and gifted with
certain ordinances and a certain independent freedom and
authority. It is a kingdom not of this world, and not
destined to be swallowed up or lost in any worldly kingdom,
for in the vision of the consummation of all things seen by
John in Patmos, the Church is not seen to disappear from
view or give place to the State as the kingdom of God ; on
the contrary, it appears in a more glorious form than ever,
5

66 THE CHURCH
descending from God out of heaven as a bride adorned for
her husband. The Church is represented in Scripture as the
witness for God in the world, the pillar and ground of the
truth ; but according to this theory, it has no one certain
faith, and proclaims no one uniform truth. In a word, this
view of the Church is closely connected with an entire system
of religion which underrates the importance of the knowledge
and belief of the truth that God has revealed, and the neces
sity of a supernatural work of grace for the conversion and
salvation of sinners. It is the consistent Church theory of
the Rationalistic or Broad Church school, just as the former
is that of the Romanist or High Church party. For the
views that men take of the nature and attributes of the
Church are determined to a large extent by the opinions
they hold as to the whole scheme of divine truth and the
way of salvation for sinners.
III. Evangelical Doctrine
Hence it is to be expected that if there is, as we believe,
a system of truth taught in the Bible different alike from
Romanism and Rationalism, the system of Evangelical Pro
testantism, there will be also a view of the Church capable
of being maintained and worked out in harmony with the
evangelical system, and equally free from the errors of the
two opposite extremes. It is sometimes apt to seem as if
there were no alternative between them : and the adherents
of both are ready to take advantage of this : the Romanist to
urge upon men that if they would have any certainty for
their faith and hope, if they would not be left to the endless
doubts and shifting fancies of Rationalism, they must take
refuge in the friendly bosom of the Church of Rome ; and the
freethinker, on the other hand, assuring them that, unless they
would be the slaves of spiritual despotism, they must cast
aside all authority, and be a creed and a law to themselves.
But, nevertheless, there is a real, consistent, and defensible
position that may be maintained between these two extremes ;
as on other questions of doctrine, so also on this of the nature
of the Church.

evangelical doctrine of the CHURCH 67
The fundamental principle of Evangelical Protestantism is
the recognition of the person and work of the Holy Spirit,
especially as the Spirit of Christ, through whose agency
Christ acts and works on the earth, even though Pie is now
ascended up to heaven. This may be regarded as the key
that solves much of the perplexity in which many controverted
topics are involved by Romanism on the one hand and Rational
ism on the other. Its application to this subject is direct
and obvious.
The Church, says Paul, is the body of Christ (Eph. I23),
and the one body (ib. 44) ; but how is it one body ? Because
it has one Spirit. " There is one body and one Spirit." It
is so in the natural body, from which the image is taken ; the
body consists of many members, — bones and sinews, veins and
arteries, and the like, — and it may be anatomised and divided
into parts ; it seems to be not one but many. Yet it is not
a mere collection of particles of matter, however beautifully
arranged : it is one living whole. Why ? Because it is ani
mated by one spirit. Let the living soul take its flight and
leave the body lifeless, it is no more one : it is a mere heap of
particles of dust, ready to mix with kindred dust. But let it
be animated with the breath of life, and it is a living whole
or unity. So, this figure indicates, and Scripture also teaches
in plain language, the unity of the Church depends upon the
Spirit : it is the unity of the Spirit. Now, it is observable in
both of the theories we have been considering, the Romish
and the Rationalistic, however different and opposite, that in
both alike the work of the Spirit in this matter is ignored.
The Broad Church theory, which makes the bond of union of
the lowest possible kind, manifestly omits to take into account
any special supernatural agency of the Spirit ; and the High
Church theory, though it may professedly acknowledge the
Spirit's agency, yet naturally does away with it by regarding
it as confined to a certain outward organisation, and acting
through certain outward rites. Now, as long as we lose sight
of the work of the Spirit we shall be unable to find any alter
native between these two theories, unless it be some mere modi
fication of one or other of them ; but the moment we recognise
and give its due place to that great work, we see the true

68 the church
idea of the one holy Catholic Church of which these are dis
tortions and counterfeits. " Wherever the Church is, there is
the Spirit," said Cyprian ; and he added, " where the Spirit
is, there is the Church " ; but this was put second, and came
to be very much left out of sight in the times that followed,
when the Papal idea of the Church was gradually built up
on the former half of the maxim. It would have been much
better to have reversed the order and put in the forefront the
motto, " Wherever the Spirit is, there is the Church," leaving
to follow, as a subordinate inference, " Where the Church is,
there is the Spirit."
The Church, says Paul, is the body of Christ (Eph. I23),
and how it is so he explains in what follows. It is His fulness,
i.e. that by which he is filled or made up — His complement,
as it were, for the head is not complete without the body :
the Church is in Christ. But, on the other hand, He is in
the Church : it filleth Him ; but He filleth it as well : He
filleth all; and He filleth the Church, not in the sense of
being in the whole body simply as a whole ; for it is added,
in all He filleth all, by being in all, in every one of the mem
bers, as the soul is in the body, all in the whole and all in
every part.
The twofold bond of our individual union to Christ which
is the result of effectual calling is the agency of the Spirit
on God's part and the exercise of faith on our part, and
this same twofold bond unites all believers to Christ and
establishes the unity of His body, the Church.
That Church is one, because it is in all its members
livingly connected with one Head by one Spirit ; it is holy,
because the Spirit that dwells in all its members is the Holy
Spirit, who makes them all holy ; it is Catholic, because it
consists of the whole of those everywhere throughout the world
who truly believe in Jesus. It is no mere external organised
society, and yet no mere loose collection of individuals : it is
the entire company of those who, in all places, acknowledge
and trust and love the Lord Jesus as their Head and Elder
Brother, and look up to God as their Father in Him. With
this idea all the Protestant definitions of the Church har
monise : they differ somewhat in form, but agree in substance.

the church as invisible and visible 69
Whether we say, with the Westminster Standards, that it is
the whole number of the elect, or, with Amesius, that it is
ccetus vocatorum, or, with the Church of England, that it is
costus fidelium, " a congregation of faithful men," etc. (Art. xix.),
or, with the Lutheran Church, that it is the communion of
saints — we recognise in all these forms of expression that
the Holy Spirit, as applying Christ and His redemption to
us, is the principle of the Church's unity. For effectual
calling, faith and holiness are the effects and results of this
work of the Spirit.
From this recognition of the Spirit as the bond of union
in the body of Christ arises the distinction between the
Church as it is invisible and as it is visible.
Primarily and in its own nature, the Church is invisible.
Not that it does not consist of men and women who are
outwardly seen, and who, for the most part, manifest their
faith and love in their outward lives ; but what makes them
members of Christ and of His Church is not any outward
profession or act of which men can judge, but the inward and
secret state of their hearts, which the Lord alone can discern.
" The Lord knoweth them that are His " ; He alone searches
the hearts and tries the reins of the children of men. But
while He alone can tell with absolute certainty' who are His,
and the only complete assurance we can ever have of our
being in Christ is the inward witness of the Spirit, yet as
the hidden life of faith manifests itself by its fruits, and
believers are commanded to profess their faith and unite
with one another in worship, love, and good works, we
cannot but recognise all who profess their faith and
conform their profession by a consistent walk as brethren
in the Lord, and those who do so form what we call the
Church of Christ visible. (See Confession of Faith, chap.
xxv.) These are not two Churches distinct from each
other, as Romanists accuse us of believing ; they are just two
different aspects of one and the same Church : on the one
hand, as it is seen and known by God only, who knows all
hearts ; and, on the other hand, as it is recognised by us, who
can only judge after the outward appearance. Thus the
distinction of the Church as visible and invisible arises solely

70 THE CHURCH
from the imperfection of our discernment, and is really a
different mode of viewing the same spiritual body. We know
that there is, and ever shall be, a people of God on earth,
elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father,
through sanotification of the Spirit unto obedience and
sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ (1 Pet. I2), and we
are taught many great and precious truths about this true
spiritual Church of Christ ; we must accordingly often think
and speak of it in this, its highest, sense. But at the same
time there are duties that we are commanded to perform
towards the people of God ; and as we cannot certainly know
who are such, we must perform them to those whom we
judge, to the best of our ability, to be truly His, always
remembering that our judgment is a fallible one, and may
very probably be mistaken. The invisible Church is the
ideal which, in the sight of God, is at the same time real ;
the visible Church is for us the concrete reality that repre
sents the ideal. In the end the two will coincide, and all
apparent duality that exists now in our view of the Church
will be merged in absolute unity, when the ideal shall be
realised, and the real raised to the purity and perfection of
the ideal. Sometimes the interest and contendings that men have
for the Church are depreciated by the remark that, on
Protestant principles, it is only the Church visible, not the
Church invisible, the true body of Christ, that these concern :
that, e.g., the freedom for which our fathers contended and
suffered is not the true spiritual freedom of the people of
God, but only an outward ecclesiastical privilege, or that the
union of separated bodies of Christians is not the true
spiritual unity of the body of Christ. But when we bear in
mind that the distinction of the Church invisible and visible
is not one of two separate Churches, we may see that these
representations are mistaken. The Church visible is the
concrete body with which we have to do, and is not to be
despised because it is not identical with the true Church.
It is altogether delusive to fancy that we are showing regard
to the purity, or freedom, or unity of the Church invisible,
while we are caring nothing for these qualities in the Church

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 71
as visible. On the contrary, it is our duty to aim at making
the Church visible, as much as possible, like the Church
invisible. It is no thanks to us that the Church invisible is
one, holy and free : no sin or unfaithfulness of ours can affect
it. But what is given to us to do is to endeavour, as far as
in us lies, to secure that the Church visible have these
excellences and blessings; these may be betrayed by us if we
are careless and unfaithful, or maintained and promoted if we
are diligent and faithful servants of the Lord.
It is ours to seek that the visible Church of Christ be
as much as possible holy as the Church invisible is, that we
and our fellow-disciples be living in faith and following after
holiness. It is ours to maintain, at all costs and in the face
of all opposition, the liberty of the Church visible, as the
Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us
all. It is ours to labour that the divisions in the Church
visible may be healed, and that it may become more and
more like the Church invisible in unity. It is ours to seek
that it may be hke it, too, in catholicity, embracing people of
all nations in its limits, by seeking to spread the glorious
gospel of Jesus Christ among all nations.
RELATION OF THE CHURCH TO THE KINGDOM OF GOD
It may be proper to consider here the relation between
the notion of the Church and that of the kingdom of God,
both of which are important scriptural ideas. In former
times these were apt to be confounded, and it was assumed
that all that is said of the kingdom of God applied to the
Church. In mediaeval times the visible Church was identified
with the kingdom ; and even in the Protestant Churches, when
this error was corrected, the notion of the kingdom of God
was too much ignored or lost sight of. In modern times the
distinction has been observed and applied, though sometimes
in a way that is exaggerated and dangerous. The idea of the
kingdom of God has been used by some to supersede that of
the Church invisible. It is said that this is the true dis
tinction that ought to have been made by the Reformers, and
that only confusion has sprung from the notion of a Church

72 THE CHURCH
invisible.1 That is held to involve a contradiction ; for a
Church, from its very nature, must be an organised society,
whereas the members of the Church invisible are, from the
nature of the case, incapable of being such.2 The Church,
therefore, is on this view essentially visible : an outward
organisation subordinate and preparatory to the kingdom of
God, which is the ideal spiritual body or holy fellowship to
be realised at last. . In reply to this, it may be said that the
term eicKkrjala does not necessarily denote an organised
society, and that if the figure of a body suggests some
organisation, it is not necessarily an outward one, but may
be that formed by the different gifts and capacities of doing
good given by Christ to each of His true disciples. This
rejection of the idea of the Church invisible is connected on
the one hand, as held by such men as Stahl, Delitzsch,3 etc.,
with an exaggerated importance and authority assigned to the
outward organised Church ; and, on the other hand, as held
by Rothe and others, it is associated with a merging of the
Church in the State, and a maintenance of gross Erastianism.
For as the Church is regarded as being primarily and
essentially an outward organised body of this earth, and only
connected with the kingdom of God as being an institution
subordinate and preparatory to it, then either this external
society is regarded as the divine institution for salvation,
out of which none are saved, or else the outward Church is
held to have no essential and necessa.ry connection with
salvation ; and thus there is a plausible ground for holding
that the external institution, like all others of that kind, must
be subject to the supreme authority of the State, and that
such State interference with the Church is no infringement of
the authority of Christ, since it leaves the true spiritual
fellowship of the kingdom of God intact.
Let us see, however, whether the distinction between the
Church and the kingdom of God, as it is grounded on
Scripture, does really lead to such conclusions. That there
1 So Schweizer, quoted and approved by Krauss, Unsichtbare Kirche, pp.
119, 120.
2 Rothe, quoted by Miiller, Dogm. Abh. p. 2S6.
3 lb. pp. 282, 284.

CHURCH AND KINGDOM DISTINCT 73
is such a distinction must be admitted, and some features of
it are obvious. Thus —
(1) There is an obvious difference in the formal character
of the two names. The Church (eV/cX^cria) denotes, and can
denote only, a group or company of persons ; the kingdom of
God or of heaven (fiaa-Ckela tov 6eov, twv ovpav&v), again,
includes much more, and may denote something quite
different. Its leading element is the idea of rule, lordship ;
and it may mean not only the persons who are ruled, but the
authority or the exercise of the rule over them. It may
denote the reign of God, or the sovereignty of God, as
well as the subjects of His rule ; and in fact in many,
perhaps most, of the places where it occurs, it might better
be rendered the reign of God than the kingdom.1 This is
denied by some on the ground that, though the phrase fiaaiXeia
rov 6eov would in itself be ambiguous, history had determined
its meaning to be, not reign but kingdom. But I think the
construction in some places shows that it must mean reign.
(2) Though both of the expressions are to be traced back to
the Old Testament, and explained in the light of Old Testament
ideas, they are founded on two different conceptions. That
of the Church corresponds to the congregation (^np) of Israel,
so often mentioned in the history of the Exodus. The
kingdom of God, again, corresponds to the idea of the
theocracy, the rule of Jehovah over His people, and ultimately
over all the earth. The former is the conception of a people
gathered out from the rest of the world and brought into
special covenant relation to Jehovah ; the latter is that of a
kingship of God, in which His will is to be done, and His
name honoured at last by all. The congregation might continue
to exist even when the Lord's enemies triumphed and cast
off His authority ; 2 the kingdom of God, however, was then
fallen, and could only be looked and hoped for as a thing
of the future, as in the book of Daniel, with which especially
our Lord's teaching on this point is connected.
(3) The Church or congregation of the Lord denotes a
purely religious association of persons, and describes them
1 See Stanton, Jewish and Christian Messiah, p. 217.
2 See, e.g., Ps. lxxiv.

74 THE CHURCH
simply by the relation in which they stand to Him. This is
clearly at least the New Testament idea of the Church : its
members are associated for worship, proclamation of the
gospel, and mutual edification. But the kingdom of God
includes in its functions and activities all that is comprised
in the province of human kingdoms and human life generally.
This is especially clear from the Old Testament descriptions of
it, and it is not contradicted by anything in the New Testa
ment. As J. Miiller puts it,1 " State, science, art, do not fall
within the circle of Church life, the first not at all, the others
only partially, and so that they must retain the independence
of their principles. Yet they all belong to the kingdom of
God, in so far as they have for their foundation the idea of
the living God revealed in Christ. So far as they rest on
that foundation they form, along with the Church, one great
combination of persons, activities, services, under the one
King, Christ."
In a word, the Church is a religious notion ; the kingdom
of God a moral one.
It is in accordance with this distinction that we find Jesus
speaking very often and prominently of the kingdom of God,
and only once or twice of the Church ; while the apostles,
especially Paul, speak much of the ¦ Church, and not so
frequently of the kingdom of God. There was a Church in
existence when our Lord came. The Jewish people was the
congregation of God : they were not a kingdom ; there was
no theocracy or visible kingdom of God on the earth ; there
was an almost universal rebellion against God ; the kingdoms
of the world were in the hands of Satan. Jesus proclaimed
that the reign of God was at hand, and called men to repent,
i.e. to turn from their rebellion, to loyal obedience to God as
their King. The spiritual kingdom of God needed to be
founded, and men needed to be taught that it is a spiritual
kingdom, and not a restoration of the outward kingdom, as
under David or Solomon, or even of the theocracy, as in the
days of Moses. They needed to be called and moved to yield
themselves up to God, and obey and honour Him in all the
spheres of their conduct. Hence the kingdom of God must
1 Dogmatisehe Abhandlungen, p. 310.

CHURCH AND KINGDOM DISTINCT 75
form a large and prominent topic in our Lord's teaching. On
the other hand, the Jewish Church was already in existence,
and what it needed was simply to recognise Jesus as the
promised Messiah. It was only when the great majority,
and their official representatives, failed and refused to do so
that Jesus reconstituted the Church in a new form, on the
basis of the confession that Peter was the first to make :
" Thou art the Christ," etc. As a separate body from the Jewish
Church, though still claiming to be the true circumcision, the
Christian Church came into existence after the ascension of
our Lord, and hence, naturally, is more spoken of by the
apostles than by Jesus Himself.
Further, the Church is the great means for promoting
and extending the kingdom of God. To Peter, as the first of
the living stones of which the Church is composed, Jesus
promised the keys of the kingdom of heaven ; the religious
society is the means of securing the true moral order among
mankind, because religion is the ground and condition of all
true morality. If men are to be brought into right relations
among themselves, they must first be brought into right
relations to God. The Christian TroKiTev/ia is a holy
temple. But while the kingdom of God ought to be recognised as
thus a distinct conception from the Church, I do not think
that the recognition of it can enable us to dispense with the
Reformation distinction of the Church invisible and visible.
For — (1) The Church is spoken of in Scripture in such terms
as can only denote what is meant by the Church invisible,
the body of true believers in Christ. These representations
are especially to be found in the Epistles to the Ephesians
and Colossians and the First to Timothy ; and those who would
entirely banish the idea of the Church invisible from Chris
tianity are almost necessarily constrained to deny the Pauline
authorship of these epistles, and regard them as belonging to the
post-apostolic age, or at least as having less direct authority.
This is a proceeding, however, which does violence to the true
principles of criticism and historical evidence, though this is
not the place to enter on the question. It must, however,

76 THE CHURCH
be admitted that if these books are part of the New Testa
ment, the idea of the Church as invisible is unmistakably
taught there. The Church is not limited to an outwardly
organised society : it is the body of Christ, the whole of those
for whom He gave Himself to redeem them, and whom He
purifies and perfects by His Spirit. This body is from the
nature of the case one not definable by men unless salvation
is made to depend on outward rites.
(2) The same distinction of an outward and inward, a
man-ward and God-ward aspect, is made in Scripture in regard
to the kingdom of God. The parables of the wheat and tares
(Matt. 1 324"30- 37"43) and of the draw net (ib. 47"50) are expressly
said to illustrate the kingdom of heaven : the good seed are
the children of the kingdom, i.e. in the true spiritual sense, in
the eye of God. But they cannot be certainly separated
from the tares until the end of the world, when they that
offend are cast out of the kingdom in which they have
hitherto been, i.e., the kingdom as it is outwardly in the sight
of men. As, then, the Church is presented to us not only as
visible but also as invisible, so, on the other hand, the king
dom of God is represented as not merely invisible but also
visible. In fact, the distinction between visible and invisible
is one not at all peculiar to the Church, but applicable to a
great many other things, and, indeed, one that we cannot
avoid applying to every object, in regard to which our judg
ment may possibly not correspond to the reality. It is simply
the distinction between real and seeming or apparent. This
is very clearly brought out by Jonathan Edwards in his
Inquiry Concerning the Qualifications for Communion, pt. ii. sec.
i. : " We find the word saint, when applied to men, used two
ways in the New Testament. The word in some places is so
used as to mean those who are real saints, who are converted
and are truly gracious persons, as 1 Cor. 62, Eph. I18 317-18,
2 Thess. I10, Rev. 58 84 ll18 1310 1412 198. In other
places the word is so used as to have respect not only
to real saints but to such as were saints in visibility,
appearance, and profession ; and so were outwardly, as to
what concerns their acceptance among men and their out
ward treatment and privileges, of the company of saints. So

RELATION OF INVISIBLE AND VISIBLE CHURCH 77
the word is used in very many places, which it is needless to
mention, as everyone acknowledges it.
" In like manner we find the word Christian used two
ways : the word is used to express the same thing as a
righteous man that shall be saved (1 Pet. 416"18). Elsewhere
it is so used as to take in all who were Christians by pro
fession and outward appearance (Acts ll26). So there is a
twofold use of the word disciples in the New Testament.
There were disciples in name, profession, and appearance,
and there were those whom Christ calls disciples indeed
(John S30- 31, Luke 1425"27, John 158). The same distinction is
signified in the New Testament by those that live, being alive
from the dead, and risen with Christ, and those who have a
name to live . . .
" The distinction of real and visible does not only take
place with regard to saintship or holiness, but with regard to
innumerable other things. There is visible and real truth,
visible and real honesty, visible and real money, visible and
real gold, etc. etc. Visible and real are words that stand
related one to another, as the words real and seeming, or true
and apparent."1
There is one point omitted in this and many similar
representations. The Church invisible is regarded as in
cluded within the visible, whereas in point of fact as there
may be, and are, seeming believers who are not really such, so,
conversely, there may be and are real believers who do not
appear to be such. For aught we know, the membership of
the invisible Church may be far more numerous than of the
visible. I firmly believe that it is ; though from the expres
sions often used, it is sometimes made to appear as if the
opposite were the case. The limitation of the real Church
invisible to the bounds of the visible has indeed been some
times explicitly maintained in connection with the doctrine
of the Lutherans, that the operation of the Spirit is always
through the external call of the gospel. In accordance with
this view, the Church is regarded not merely as the society
of the saved, but as the institution for the salvation of the
world ; not only as the ccetus but as the mater fidelium.
1 This quotation from Edwards is slightly abbreviated.

/ 0 THE CHURCH
Now, there is no doubt that the Church has a function to
discharge in the promotion of God's cause in the world and
the gathering in of sinners to the Saviour, but it is simply
that of witnessing for the truth, and it is no other than
every one has who knows the gospel in any way. " The
Spirit and the bride say come " : there is the Church's work,
but it is also the work of any and every one. " Let him
that heareth say come." We must beware of regarding the
Church as the institution for salvation in such a sense that
men must come through it, or through any ordinances in it,
to Christ. The true Protestant principle is that we come
directly to Christ, and through Him enter into the fellowship
of the Church ; not as Romanists hold, come first to the
Church, and only through the Church and its ordinances
enter into fellowship with Christ.
The reason why it is of some use and importance to con
sider the doctrine of the Church after that of the believer's
union to Christ, and before unfolding the benefits implied in
communion with Him, is not at all that the Church is the
institution through which these benefits are conveyed to the
individual, but, on the one hand, that union to Christ is that
which constitutes the totality of believers, His body ; and, on
the other hand, that that union of the whole body to Christ
as the last Adam is the ground of their being regarded and
dealt with by God as one, and so lays the basis of that im
putation of Christ's righteousness to His people, which forms
an essential part of the blessing of justification. By working
out the conception of the Church as the body of Christ, the
collective mass of those who are united to Him by the Spirit's
work in Effectual Calling, we have gained a view of Christ as
the Head of a new humanity, the second great representative
of the human race. Over against the first man, Adam, and
the race who are all in him, and in him all die, we can now
contemplate Christ with a seed given to Him, a new race of
mankind, the Church, which is spiritually united to Christ as
the race is naturally to Adam.
By conversion wrought by the Holy Spirit a man ceases
to be merely a ^rofo-Adamite, as it has been called, and
becomes a deutero- Adamite : he acquires a new head and

THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH 79
representative ; he ceases to be merely in Adam, he is now in
Christ : not merely united to Him individually, but one of the
great body of which He is the Head and Lord. Or, to express
it otherwise, he passes from the Covenant of Works to that
of Grace, in the former of which he was represented by Adam,
in the latter by Christ.

THE NOTES OF THE CHURCH
There is a topic commonly referred to by theologians in
this connection, the Notes of the Church. By these are
meant certain marks by which the true Church of Christ can
be discerned from any other society or body claiming that
name and honour. These, however, have a meaning and im
portance only on the Roman Catholic theory of the Church.
If that Church, out of which is no salvation, be an external
body, then obviously it is of the utmost importance to be able
to discern what that body is, since from a comparatively
early time there have been various separate communities
calling themselves Christians, and each claiming the adhesion
of believers. In order to meet this difficulty it has been
held that there are certain outstanding marks, called Notce
Ecclesice, by which men may be enabled to recognise the true
Church without requiring to verify every part of its essential
definition. These notes have been variously enumerated.
Bellarmine gives no less than fifteen, most of them of a very
external and accidental character, beginning with the name
Catholic and finishing with infelix exitus adversariorum, a mark
which Rome has done her best to realise. But more generally
the Notes of the Church have been enumerated by Roman
and Anglican writers as four, founded on the epithets given
to the Church in the ancient Creeds, " one Catholic Apostolic
Church" (Symb. Nic), "the holy Catholic Church" (Symb.
Apost.). The notes thus indicated are Unity, Holiness,
Catholicity, Apostolicity. The true Church is recognised by
its being (1) a single external body; (2) holy, in the sense of
being consecrated to God, for in any more inward sense the
Romish doctrine cannot recognise holiness as an attribute of
the Church ; (3) catholic, as embracing Christians in all lands;

80 THE CHURCH
and (4) apostolic, either as holding the doctrines of the
apostles, or as having unbroken apostolic succession in her
ministers. An example of the application made of these
marks, especially the last two, is to be found in J. H. New
man's Apologia, where he describes how at one stage of his
history he hesitated between the claims of the Anglican
Church, as possessing the note of apostolicity, and those of the
Roman Church, as having that of catholicity. Protestants
generally admit that the qualities denoted by these names do
really belong to the Church as invisible, but that they are of
an inward and spiritual nature, and so not fitted to be marks
of an external society : that it is only in their spiritual sense
that they belong essentially to the Church ; and that in the
external significance that Romanists attach to them, they do
not always and exclusively belong to the true Church, and
therefore can be no marks of it. It is not difficult to
make out that the unity, holiness, catholicity and apos
tolicity ascribed in Scripture to the Church are not
external and recognisable qualities, but of a spiritual nature,
and that no such outward notes as can mark out one outward
society as the Church are recognised in the New Testament.
Since the Notes of the Church had become a customary
theological topic, the Reformers and most Protestant theo
logians thought it necessary, or at least undertook, to show
not only that those alleged by Romanists are not really such,
but also what are the true Notes of the Church, i.e. as visible,
for to it they apply. And they were very generally agreed
that they consisted of three —
(1) The preaching of the word, or the gospel of Jesus
Christ. (2) The administration of the sacraments ; to which Calvin
added —
(3) The exercise of ecclesiastical discipline.
Many of the Reformed Confessions include a statement of
the Notes of the Church — the Augsburg Confession, The
Thirty-nine Articles, mentioning (1) and (2) ; the Belgic and
Old Scottish Confessions, adding also (3).
Less importance is attached to them in later Confessions ;
in the Helvetica Posterior they are only slightly alluded to, and

NOTES OF THE CHURCH 81
( 1 ) alone is expressly mentioned ; and in the Westminster
Standards they are not referred to at all.
Dr. Bannerman holds that instead of extending the number
to three, or even two, only the first — the preaching of the word
of God — should be reckoned as a note of the Church.
And this indicates that really this whole idea has not
that meaning and importance in Protestant theology that it
has in the Catholic system. The necessity and use of such
marks arises from the assumption that we have to single out
one outward body, and must have certain palpable marks by
which to distinguish it, these marks being not the essential
qualities of the Church, but certain signs more easily recog
nisable. But if, on the Protestant view, salvation does not
depend on our being connected with any outward body, but
on our being united to Christ by faith, there is no need of
such arbitrary marks ; and what distinguishes the Church is
not any such appointed marks, but simply its own essential
nature. So when Protestants speak of Notes of the Church,
they are really simply giving its definition, or at least its
differentia, and not, as Romanists profess to be, describing
some divinely-appointed tokens by which it is to be recog
nised. If we know what the Church is, we do not need a
separate doctrine of the Notes of the Church, nor has such a
doctrine any substantial meaning for us. The differentia of
the Church may be said to be faith in Jesus Christ, the effect
and end of Effectual Calling. Of the Church as invisible, the
differentia or mark is real living faith in the heart, as known
to God ; of the Church as visible, the mark is professed faith,
showing itself to men by word and deed. The first of the
Protestant Notes of the Church, the preaching of the gospel,
may be said to be in substance just the profession of faith ;
and so it is not so much a separate mark or note, but the
very definition of the Church as visible. It is only in this
sense that it can be safely taken as a note of the Church at
all. Regarded as the teaching of pure doctrine, it is apt to
degenerate into an external mark after all, as it has .done in
the Lutheran Church, where it has sometimes been held that
all who do not hold certain definite doctrines are outside of
the Church. To tie down the Church of Christ to one
6

82 THE CHURCH
particular set of doctrines is an error of the same kind as
to tie it clown to one particular form of government. When
the pure preaching of the gospel is made the chief, or only,
mark of the Church, the only scriptural meaning to be
attached to that is the expression of living faith in Christ ;
that is what makes a man a Christian, and a community a
Christian Church, not the belief of any system of doctrines.

THE NEW LIFE
I. Renewal
THE blessings of salvation may all be summed up in the
biblical conception of communion with Christ flowing
from union to Him. When we investigate them, from the
subjective point of view of the awakened and converted soul,
by inquiring what are the religious needs that such a soul
feels, and what there is in Christ to supply these needs, we
see that when one is brought, by the gracious work of the
Holy Spirit, to right feelings and desires, a primary and most
urgent need that he feels, is the removal of guilt, and that in
a way consistent with the justice of God. This is met by
the free forgiveness and acceptance of the ungodly through
faith in Christ, to whom, as the Lord's righteous servant, we
are united so as to have communion with Him in His
righteousness. This is the Pauhne and Protestant doctrine
of justification by grace, on account of Christ our righteous
ness, received by faith.
But the sense of guilt is not the only feeling of the
quickened soul, nor is forgiveness the only blessing needed,
and felt to be needed. We are sometimes represented as
holding that when God justifies a sinner, He only changes
his state and not his character ; * but that is not our opinion ;
for though we maintain that to justify is not to make a man
righteous, but to pronounce him such, yet we assert, with
equal emphasis, that justification is never without regenera
tion and renewal. If it were, the wants of our souls would
be very imperfectly met. For when the soul is really turned
to God, there is a sense of the pollution and hatefulness of
sin, as well as of its guilt and ill-desert, and of the need of
1 This is stated and met very explicitly by Bishop -Davenant, De Justitia.

84 THE NEW LIFE
being inwardly cleansed, so as to be made morally pure and
good. The blessing by which this need of the soul is met is
that of renewal, or, as it has been generally called by theo
logians, Sanotification. The latter term, in its biblical use, has
a special shade of meaning which I shall explain by and by ;
but before doing so, it will be proper to consider the more
general idea of moral renewal (ava/caivmcrK, Rom. 122) as an
essential part of the Christian salvation.
That this is needed, even after the great change wrought
in the soul by Effectual Calling, may be seen by a considera
tion of the facts of the case. The new birth of the Spirit
imparts to the soul a taste and desire for what is spiritually
good, and a real and earnest hatred of sin and love of God,
which becomes from thenceforth the ruling principle in the
soul. This seems to be the nearest description we can give
of the new life, " the seed of God" (1 John 39), "that which
is born of the Spirit " (John 36), spoken of in Scripture. It is
a principle of godliness, that seeks and desires what is accord
ing to God's character and law, and hates and strives against
whatever is opposed to that.1 The possession of this implies
that the bias and bent of the soul is turned from being
inclined to self and sin, to being inclined to God and good
ness. This is the change implied in conversion, the result of
regeneration. It is a radical and very great change. But it
does not imply that the soul is at once made perfectly good
in all its acts and feelings.
For there are temptations and tendencies to sin that are
not removed by this great change. The deepest and most
powerful cause of sin is no doubt removed — the selfish and
worldly inclination of the natural heart. But there are other
causes of sin that are not affected by the removal of that one,
and that therefore remain even when that is gone. Thus
there are temptations, arising from the fact that 'there are
around us a multitude of objects and occurrences that tend
to arouse in us desires and passions in themselves neither
good nor evil, but such as in many cases cannot be lawfully
1 This is most distinctly brought out in Charnock's Discourses on Megenera-
tion ( Works, iii. pp. 96, 105), and in Edwards, On the Religious Affections,
Part III. § vii.

RENEWAL 8 0
gratified, and so may lead to sin. In this way even a
perfectly holy being may be tempted, as our Saviour was,
and an innocent being, not fortified by habitual goodness,
may fall before temptation. Besides these, there are in our
case tendencies to sin, consisting of habits contracted by
repeated acts, or peculiar dispositions that may be even
stronger than habits. It is obvious that the impartation of
a real and strong hatred of sin and love of goodness will
not of itself remove these temptations and tendencies. A
habitual drunkard, e.g., may be truly converted, so that he
now hates the excess he once delighted in. This change
will make him desire and strive to be free from it. But it
will not make the wine less pleasant to his senses, nor will
it at once destroy the tendency that has been engendered by
a course of indulgence. Now what is notoriously true in this
case is equally true in general of all kinds of temptations and
tendencies to sin.
Thus the change that results in conversion does not make
the soul perfectly holy, or remove all habits or possibilities of
sin. On the contrary, since it awakens a new-born hatred of
sin and love to God, and shows in their true colours what sin
and godliness are, it brings the soul into a state of distress
and grief on account of its own sinfulness. The mind and
conscience are enlightened to see what sin is ; and many acts
and states and feelings are seen to be deeply sinful that did
not seem to be so at all before ; the new love of holiness
impels the believer to strive against these things, and to seek
to have done with them; but he finds that temptation still
has an influence upon him, and habit is still a power within
him, so that he cannot avoid sin or live the pure life he
desires to live.
Thus it is just when a man is born again that he most
feels his need of renewal. Unconverted men are usually
very little concerned about their moral character — at least
about the state of their hearts. They generally think that
they are good enough, and, if only some allowance were made,
could stand God's judgment. But the work of the Holy
Spirit in conversion dispels such fancies ; and so it frequently
happens that, when one is really converted, so far from being

86 THE NEW LIFE
entirely freed from sin, he never saw or felt sin to be so
powerful in him as since he began to hate and oppose it.
This is the account that Paul gives of his own experience
in Rom. 7, and it corresponds with the experience of be
lievers in all ages. In that passage the apostle declares that
the law, or ruling principle, of his mind (i>ow?) is in accord
ance with what is right, for he delights in the law of God
after the inner man ; but there is a law of sin in his
members, or his flesh, warring against it (Rom. 723). This
exactly corresponds with the description that I have just
drawn, from the nature of the case. The mind is the centre
of our being, as appears from its being described as the inner
man, and that has been renewed and turned to God ; but the
members, i.e. the various senses and faculties, have still their
natural relation to external things, which give rise to desires
that may be inordinate and sinful, and are not yet entirely
under the control of the renewed mind. Hence Paul says :
" the motions of sins . . . did work in our members ..."
(Rom. 75), and commands us to " mortify our members " (Col.
35), i.e. to put to death or extirpate those desires and passions,
working through our senses, that lead to sin. Hence, too,
Christians are warned against worldly lusts and carnal lusts,
which need to be denied and avoided.
This view of the state of the regenerate soul, to which we
are led by Scripture as well as by sound psychological
observation, is entirely opposed to the Roman Catholic
doctrine, that in regeneration all that is of the nature of sin
is removed from the soul, so that it is thenceforth perfectly
able to keep all the commandments of God. Romanists are
led to this position by confounding justification and sanotifi
cation, and understanding the texts that speak of the entire
taking away of sin not as denoting the absolute removal of
guilt by a free and full forgiveness, but as including an entire
removal of sinfulness. This is the only scriptural ground
alleged for their doctrine, and it involves a wrong interpreta
tion of these passages. On the other hand, in order to
reconcile their position with the statements of Paul and the
experience of Christians as to indwelling sin, they are obliged
to maintain that the concupiscence (e-n-idv/xca) or lust of the

SIN IN THE REGENERATE 87
flesh, which the apostle expressly calls sin, is not in the
regenerate really of the nature of sin. This assertion is so
inconsistent with the view of the law of God given by our
Saviour, as requiring holiness of heart as well as of life, and
violated even by impure desires, that it must be rejected, and
with it must fall the doctrine that requires it as a support.
The scriptural view is that of Protestants : that while the
sins of believers are entirely forgiven in justification, and
while we are delivered from the dominion of sin by regenera
tion, there is still corruption remaining in the regenerate soul
which needs to be overcome and removed.
But Scripture also teaches that God does renew and
make inherently righteous the souls of His people, and that
this is one of the blessings of Christ's redemption. There is
the great promise of the New Covenant, Jer. 3133, quoted in
Heb. 8, " I will put My law in their inward parts, and write
it in their hearts " ; the still more distinct statement in
Ezek. 3627, where, after saying "A new heart will I give
you " (which specially points to regeneration), the Lord
proceeds, " and I will put My Spirit within you, and cause
you to walk in My statutes " — which describes a continual
process of renewal. So Paul, in Rom. 82, ascribes his deliver
ance from the law of sin and death in his members to the
law of the Spirit of Life in Christ Jesus, and to the in
dwelling of the Spirit of God and of Christ. So, too, in
Phil. 212- 13, urging believers to work out their own salvation,
he adds, " it is God that worketh in you both to will and to
do." Peter prays in full assurance that the God of all grace
would make perfect, stablish, strengthen, settle those whom
He has called (1 Pet. 510) ; and John speaks of Christians as
not only born of God, but also having His Spirit given to
them and dwelling in them.
It thus appears that besides the great work of Effectual
Calling, which is the beginning of the new life, there is a
continuous work of the Spirit by which that life is carried
on to perfection, and this may be taken as the first point in
the doctrine of renewal or sanctification, that it is the work of
the Holy Spirit. Our progressive deliverance from sinfulness
is ascribed to the Holy Spirit dwelling in us. But in what

88 THE NEW LIFE
sense, it may be asked, can this be ? Since the Spirit is a
divine person, He is present everywhere, and His agency
sustains all creatures in life and being. It cannot be in this
sense that His presence is the cause of moral renewal. But
as the Spirit is said to come upon men when He begins to
work in a special way on the soul, whether by gifts of
wisdom, knowledge, and utterance, or by new moral and
religious emotions and volitions, so when He continues to
exercise such special influence, it may be said that the Holy
Spirit abides upon or dwells in men. Thus as the beginning
of our new life is effected by the Holy Spirit inwardly draw
ing us to Christ by the presentation of His grace and love,
and so moving us to turn from sin to God, so the increase
and perfecting of our new character is due to the Spirit con
tinuing to exert His gracious influence, awakening holy
desires and aspirations.
This work, like that of regeneration, is one of which we
are not directly conscious, since it is exerted in those depths
of our nature that lie beneath our consciousness ; but its
reality is known by its fruits ; and as the inward work of
regeneration shows itself in the experience of conversion, so
the continual work of the Spirit in our renewal appears in
the continuance of that turning from sin to God that is the
essence of conversion. Hence exhortations to turn from sin
and put it away are frequently addressed in Scripture to
those who are truly the children of God, or are recognised as
such; and hence, too, even those who may have no distinct
memory of a first turning to God, may have real experience
of this in the continual need they feel of self-denial and
repentance and struggles against remaining tendencies to sin.
As in the natural world the original creative act of divine
power is followed up by the same power preserving all
things, so it is here. The new creation of spiritual life, or
life to God, must be followed up by the continual work of the
same divine Spirit maintaining and developing that life.
This leads us to a second point in regard to the work of
moral renewal. As it is wrought by the same Spirit through
whose agency we are born again, so it is done in the same
way — through the presentation to the soul of Jesus Christ our

RENEWAL INTO CHRISTLIKENESS 89
Saviour. We are not renewed by a magical process or by
one of mere power, but by one that deals with us as rational
and free agents, i.e. by a calling of God in which Christ is
presented to us, and we are invited and persuaded to accept
Him and become one with Him. Thus the work of renewal
is carried on in close connection with the person of Christ.
The Spirit that dwells and works in the believer is the same
that dwelt and wrought in Christ and secured His perfect
purity in a world of sin and temptation. He was conceived
by the power of the Holy Spirit ; He grew and waxed strong
in spirit ; He was anointed with the Spirit for His saving
work, to preach glad tidings and to heal those oppressed of
evil. Now, having thus in His human nature received the
Holy Spirit, He baptizes with the Spirit, and promises the
Spirit as living water to all who, being athirst, will come to
Him and receive Him by faith. Thus our renewal as well as
our justification depends on our union and communion with
Christ ; and as in justification we are partakers with Him in
His righteousness and acceptance with God, so in our renewal
we are partakers with Him in the Holy Spirit, as the author
of all moral goodness and purity.
Then the result of this is, that the character that is
formed in us by this work of the Spirit is after the pattern of
Christ's, and destined to become perfectly like His. He has
left us an example that we should walk in His steps ; the
mind that was in Christ is also to be formed in us ; we are
to walk in love as He has loved us. This is the special type
of Christian holiness — it is Christlikeness. It is like His in
this, that it is attained through struggle and suffering. He,
though Son of God, learned obedience by the things that He
suffered, and so must we. We have a common experience as
well as a common character. His course involved a birth, a
temptation, a work, a suffering, a death, a resurrection, and a
glorification ; and in all these experiences we are called to
share in a moral and spiritual way : we must be born again,
we are tempted as He was, we suffer with Him that we may
be glorified together, we die with Him that we may also live
with Him. More especially, our moral progress is described
as being conformed to the image of His death : dying with

90 THE NEW LIFE
Him to sin, that we may rise with Him to newness of life.
The death of Christ was in its moral aspect the result and
climax of His striving against sin, resisting unto blood. He
might have " saved His life," and lived in comfort and happi
ness, had He tolerated sin, or held back from the work of
taking it away, to which He was called. But just because
He did not thus please Himself or consult for His own
comfort, but made it His supreme and constant purpose to
contend against sin and save sinners, He endured persecution,
contradiction of sinners against Himself, and finally the death
of the cross. That was the consequence of His faithfulness
in reproving sin and resisting temptation.
Now we are moved and enabled by the Holy Spirit to
imitate Christ in this, to take up the cross and to follow
Him ; we are called to put away from us all that is evil ; and
since evil dwells in us, that implies that we put away our
very selves — deny or renounce ourselves, and suffer our old
self to be crucified with Christ. Thus our self-renunciation
and fight against the sin that dwells within us are analogous
to our Lord's self-denial and suffering for sin. By the
working of the same Spirit that dwelt in Christ, we are
enabled to follow Him in this. This is one way in which we
are said to be crucified with Christ, dead with Him to sin.
One way, I say, because there is another sense that these
expressions bear, in which we must first of all make them
our own : that of accepting by faith the sufferings of Christ as
endured for us, and so entering into them, by believing,
appropriation, and trust, that we see our sin cancelled by
His blood, and so receive God's full and free forgiveness and
deliverance from condemnation. It is in this sense that
Christians are called to reckon themselves dead unto sin
by the body of Christ, or with Christ, i.e. freed from the
guilt and curse of sin because one with Him who died unto
sin once. But this legal or ideal dying with Christ by faith
is to be followed up by a moral dying with Him — mortifying
our members, crucifying the flesh with its affections and
lusts. Thus we are not only ideally but really conformed to
Christ's death, and know the fellowship of His sufferings.
But we could not do so unless we were at the same

RENEWAL BY FAITH 91
time made partakers with Him in His resurrection also —
risen with Him, as well as dead with Him. For even in
His own case it was the resurrection and the glory that was
to follow that sustained Him, and enabled Him to resist unto
blood striving against sin. It was for the joy that was set
before Him that He endured the cross. He never announced
His death without at the same time predicting His rising
again ; and when His soul was troubled, and He was fain to
pray to be saved from the hour of darkness, He was sustained
by the thought that by His dying He should bear much fruit,
and His Father's name be glorified. In like manner, it is
Christ's resurrection, and the pledge that gives of the favour
and approval of God even now and His glory hereafter, that
sustains the believer in the work of self-denial and mortifying
the flesh. He is called to this as not only dead with Christ
but risen with Him — risen to a new life in the favour and
fellowship of God and joyful hope of His glory. This
fellowship with Christ as the risen Saviour makes the
believer's life, though it is one of painful struggle against
sin, at the same time one of joy, hope, prayer, and heavenly
aspiration. As risen with Christ, we are called to seek the
things which are above.
Thus thoroughly is our renewal a communion with Christ,
— communion with Him in the indwelling of the Holy Spirit,
which is its cause, in the holiness of heart and life which
results from that, and in the experience by which that
blessed result is attained, a painful death to sin and a joyful
life to God.
Hence we may see also a third point : that our renewal
is by faith as well as our justification. For faith is that by
which, on our part, we are united to Christ ; and this union is
the ground of our renewal, as well as of our forgiveness. As it
is by coming to Christ by faith that we are justified, so it is
by abiding in Him that we are renewed. Only faith does
its work somewhat differently in relation to the two blessings.
We are justified by faith, as it is a giving up of all righteous
ness of our own, and simply relying on Christ as our
righteousness ; we are renewed by faith, as it works by love
and produces as its fruit all Christian virtues. In this

92 THE NEW LIFE
respect we are called to be fellow-workers with God, to work
out our own salvation with fear and trembling, since it is God
who worketh in us both to will and to do of His good
pleasure. It is only in regeneration, or the very beginning
of the new life, that we must exclude all synergistic theories
that would divide the work between God and man; but
when the new life has been implanted, it is scriptural and
true to say we are awepyol to dea> (1 Cor. 39). We are
no longer merely acted upon, but ourselves also active.
Hence our own efforts and works have a place in our
renewal that they have not in justification. We are com
manded to cleanse ourselves and perfect holiness, while at
the same time it is God who cleanses and sanctifies us.
This work, however, is all to be carried on in faith. Faith
in Christ as our righteousness must be the foundation of it ;
for it is only in so far as we lay hold of Him, and receive in
Him the complete forgiveness and acceptance which He
freely offers, that we can have any heart to obey God's law
as it ought to be obeyed. Faith in Christ also as continually
aiding us by His Spirit must go along with the work of
renewal. The mistake is sometimes made of supposing that though
for our forgiveness and deliverance from the guilt of sin
we must look to Christ alone, for our deliverance from its
power we must trust to our own efforts and resolutions.
That is contrary to what the Bible everywhere teaches about
our renewal. We must trust in Christ to make us conformed
to the image of God. Holiness as well as forgiveness is by
faith. Only as holiness must be wrought in us and not
merely given to us, the mode of faith's action is somewhat
different in the two cases. When we trust in Christ for
forgiveness, we simply take God's word that our sins are
forgiven ; when we trust Him for holiness, we are not to
believe that we are holy, but that God is giving us power
to become holy, and if this trust is sincere it will at once
lead to the appropriate action. We are justified by faith
resting on Christ as our righteousness, we are renewed by
faith acting in Christ as our strength.

SANOTIFICATION 9 3
II. Sanotification — What it is
While sanotification has been commonly distinguished by
theologians from regeneration, there is a very close connection
between these divine works which must not be lost sight of.
Any adequate conception of regeneration must lead to the
inference that it implies, if it does not at once accomplish,
an entire change in the character of those who are its
subjects. Accordingly, sanotification, being simply the com
plete renewal of the soul in conformity to the character and
law of God, must be a necessary consequence of regeneration,
and indeed just its full development. Thus, in a true sense,
sanctification may be said to be included in regeneration ;
and this aspect of it is of great importance as determining
the nature of the divine operation in this work, and the way
in which we are to co-operate in it. This is a thoroughly
scriptural view, as appears from the fact that there are
many words and phrases in the Bible about which it is not
easy to say for certain whether they describe the initial
work of regeneration or the subsequent process of sanctification,
e.g., to create a clean heart and renew a right spirit, to put
off the old man and to put on the new.
This relation of these two divine works is most expressly
brought out by John, in a weighty paragraph of his First
Epistle, chap. 34"9- The statements here made, that everyone
that abideth in Christ sinneth not (v.6), and that he that
is born of God cannot sin (v.9), have created much perplexity
to interpreters, because they seem in their obvious sense to
be at variance with experience, and even to contradict what
the apostle writes in the very same epistle with equal
emphasis and solemnity (l8- 10).
Hence some have endeavoured to limit the meaning of
sin as here used, and that in various ways : Roman Catholics
interpreting it of what they call mortal as distinct from
venial sin, others limiting it to known and wilful sin, and
others again, like Beza, rendering afiaprlav ov voiel, peccato
non dat operam ; Luther, persistere in peccato.
But it is now generally admitted by the best interpreters
that all these explanations are arbitrary and unfounded, and

94 the new life
that the true solution of the difficulty is to be found in the
principle indicated in general by Augustine and Jerome : that
the apostle is speaking of the new life in its ideal perfection.
Everyone that abideth in Christ doth not sin, i.e. so long
as he abides in Him, while he does so, and because he does
so. But now this abiding in Christ is a permanent thing ;
it is not a matter of arbitrary and fluctuating choice, that
one may do to-day and cease to do to-morrow: it springs
from seeing and knowing Him, and is the natural and certain
result of that. Therefore John adds, " he that sinneth hath
not seen Him nor known Him." The perfects in this clause
are noteworthy, denoting a past experience continued into
the present — hath not and doth not. His sinning shows that
he doth not now see or know the sinless Saviour, and so
that he never has done so in such a way as to keep him
from this sin. So again (v.9), everyone that hath been
begotten of God, in so far as he is really so, doth not sin and
cannot sin.1 In the fullest actual sense this is true of the
children of God in the final state of perfection in glory, when
we shall be like God, for we shall see Him as He is (v.2).
But in principle that is due to that birth of God which is
realised even now, and implants an abiding seed of God in
the soul. The truth that we may gather from this passage is in
brief this : that sin is inconsistent in principle with the
spiritual life imparted by regeneration. This has at once an
aspect of warning and of encouragement. It warns us most
solemnly that he who would be a child of God must be an
uncompromising foe of sin, and wage an internecine war with
it, as that which, as Owen puts it, will kill him if he does
not kill it. On the other hand, it affords a blessed en
couragement to everyone who is really and earnestly desirous
to be holy, and to avoid sin now and always, to be assured
that his being born of God will assuredly secure this end, and
that if he abide in Christ he will not sin.
Sanctification is thus the complement of regeneration in
1 Calvin's comment is : " Dicit non peccare qui ex Deo sunt geniti. Nunc
videndum est an Deus momento uno nos regeneret. Atqui constat sic inchoari
in nobis regenerationem ut ad mortem usque veteris hominis reliquife maneant. "

BIBLE IDEA OF SANCTIFICATION 95
such a sense that as long as it is not perfect, and sin remains
in the soul, the new life imparted in regeneration must be
held to be imperfect also, i.e., the soul is not thoroughly
pervaded with the principle of spiritual life. The seed of
God is there, but it has not yet grown to its full development,
or assimilated to itself all that it is ultimately destined to do;
the leaven has been hid in the meal, but it has not yet
leavened the whole lump. This organic connection between
regeneration and complete sanctification contributes to the ex
planation of the fact that in the New Testament the latter is
often spoken of as a thing already accomplished in Christians.
They are spoken of as already holy (ayiot), as having been
sanctified (r}yiacrp.6voi, fjiyida-Onre, 1 Cor. I2 6U), and Christ
is said to have been made to them sanctification (1 Cor. I30,
Eph. 526), though in other passages this is spoken of as a
thing to be aimed at (1 Thess. 43), a thing prayed for and
promised (ib. 523), and believers are ayia^ofievot (Heb. 211).
But there is another explanation of these assertions of
believers being already holy, which is the more important
because it throws light on the biblical representation of what
holiness is, and how it is to be attained. Holiness, in modern
religious language, has come to denote simply moral excellence
in relation to God. When contrasted with righteousness, it
describes the fulfilment of the duties man owes to God, as
distinguished from those to his fellow-man ; while, more com
prehensively, it may describe both classes of morality, always
conveying the idea of their being done as to God. Hence
sanctification is commonly conceived and defined simply as
moral renewal — the removal of sinful habits and tendencies, and
the impartation and strengthening of those that are morally
good in accordance with God's character and in obedience to
His law. Now it is true that all this is involved in the
words used in the New Testament, and that it forms a most
important and characteristic element in the ideas represented
by them. But it is also the case that this is not the whole
of what they contain, and that there is another element that
gives a peculiar aspect to their meaning.
The English word "holy" represents two different
words in the original languages of Scripture which are

96 THE NEW LIFE
distinct in meaning and never interchanged, ay to? and
ocrto? in Greek corresponding to ^'i*ip and "Vpn in Hebrew.
oatos is much more akin to our word holy in meaning, for
it signifies pious, godly ; it is always applied to persons in
a moral sense, describing a particular virtue often mentioned
along with others, ayics, on the other hand, is a much more
comprehensive term, and is never used as a particular des
cription along with others, but always in a general sense.
It is also not limited to persons, but frequently used of places
and things, as the temple, the altar, the sacrifice, etc. Now it
is from aytos that the verb ayidfyo and the noun aycae/io? are
derived, whence the term sanctification. It is quite certain
that the notion of moral excellence did not originally belong
to the word ay to? in Greek, and it is somewhat uncertain
that it belonged even to the corresponding tJ>i*lpT in Hebrew.
Anyhow, the word ayio? in classical Greek is never applied
to deity ; and when used of men, it does not denote moral
excellence, but means sacred, set apart or dedicated to the
deity, and so venerable. It is thought to be derived from
a^ofiat, to reverence, and is frequently applied to inanimate
things, iepbv ayi.ov is a peculiarly venerable or sacred temple.
The meaning of the word and its derivatives in the New Testa
ment is, however, to be determined by its relation to W~ipT for
which it is used as an equivalent in the New Testament. That
Hebrew word, also, is often used of lifeless things, as the
temple, the altar, etc. ; and when used of men, has frequently
no reference to moral qualities at all, e.g. Ps. 10616. But
it is the peculiarity of Old Testament language in this con
nection, that the word is very often applied to God, and used
of Him with such emphasis as to be almost a proper name.
There is some doubt as to what is the radical idea of the
word. It seems to be allied with Bnn, new, and to denote
literally that which is new. Some x think that from that it
comes to mean clean, and that its other significations are
derived from that sense ; 2 others, that it denotes separated
from common things ; others,3 again, give it the sense of bright,
1 So Campbell, On Gospels ; Hupfeld, On Psalms.
- So Hofmann, Schriftbeweis.
3 So Cremer, Biblico- Theological Lexicon ; Delitzsch (on Isa. 6) combines both.

BIBLE CONCEPTION OF HOLINESS 97
splendid. Whatever be the precise shade of meaning in the
first application of the word to God, it is clear that it does
not denote one particular attribute of His character, but the
general aspect of it as a whole — the sum of all His excellences,
either as absolutely separate from all else or as infinitely
bright and glorious. The former view, especially, explains the
many places where the holiness of God is described as an
awful aspect of His being, — " holy and reverend is His name,"
— but the latter, while not inconsistent with these, accounts
better for that other set of passages in which God's holiness
is praised as the salvation of His people and as their joy and
song. On this view creatures are called holy not merely in
the sense of being separated from common use, but as partak
ing in the glory of God, either as instruments by which His
purpose of grace and redemption is carried on, or as receiving
the blessings of that work.
In accordance with this primary idea of the adjective is
that of the derivative verb sanctify. It is used either in a
declarative or in a real sense. In the former way, that
which is already holy is sanctified ; and so we pray that God's
name may be sanctified, and are commanded to sanctify the
Lord in our hearts, i.e. to declare and manifest His holiness, to
treat Him and His name as holy, with due reverence and
awe. In the real sense, again, that which is unholy is sancti
fied, i.e. separated from common uses, and brought into such a
relation to God as to partake of His holiness. This separa
tion, again, may be either merely formal and external, as when
lifeless things are consecrated to God, e.g. buildings, altars,
vessels, sacrifices, etc.; or it may be inward and spiritual, when
intelligent moral agents are the objects of it, and then it
implies devotion of spirit and entire dedication to God. Israel
was a holy nation in so far as the Lord had brought them
into a special relation to Himself, taking them to be a peculiar
possession and a kingdom of priests (Ex. 194~6), and the tribe
of Levi and the sons of Aaron, who especially represented
the people in the priestly privilege and work, were pre
eminently holy. But all the people were commanded to
be holy because Jehovah their God is holy (Lev. 192), and
He sanctifies them (Lev. 207- 8 21s). This holiness, how-
7

98 THE NEW LIFE
ever, in the Jewish dispensation consisted largely, if not
entirely, in outward things — separation from other nations and
from bodily pollution. In the New Testament Christ's people
are the spiritual Israel, the royal priesthood, and as such are
ayioi, riyiaafievoi. The name, as applied to them, has a moral
and spiritual import : it denotes not a mere outward ceremonial
separation from the world and consecration to God, but one
that is real and true, in the heart, and not in outward things.
This is indeed the secret of moral purity and perfection.
Still the word, as such, does not directly and immediately
denote moral excellence, but rather nearness to God and
fellowship with him. Christians are k\ijtoI ayioi not so
much because they are morally pure, but because they are
brought near to God. But it is the very revelation made in
the New Testament on this subject : that the pure in heart shall
see God, and without holiness no man shall see the Lord.
Hence Christian virtue, as delineated in the New Testament, has
this peculiar character, that it is a means of drawing near to
God, an act of approach and worship. It is not merely a
duty discharged to Him : it is the exercise of a religious
privilege and performance of a religious service, the offering
of a living sacrifice. From this point of view we can under
stand the direct connection in which sanctification is placed
with the sacrifice of Christ, especially in the Epistle to the
Hebrews (914 1010-14'29).
Without the atonement of Christ as a satisfaction to
divine justice we could not have drawn near to God, nor
could He accept any service or worship from us. Hence
sacrifice is the indispensable preliminary to holy service : it
was by sacrifice that, all the persons and things dedicated to
God in the Old Testament were separated and made holy. The
sacrifice of Christ, as it is perfect and all-sufficient, entirely
removes the obstacle of sin, and makes those who accept it
by faith capable of drawing near to God ; indeed it brings
them near — they are sanctified and holy, i.e. their conscience
is purged from dead works, sins that deserve death, that they
may serve the living God with the spiritual service of new
obedience. It is not quite satisfactory to say that the
sanctification which is described as complete at once and

THE BEATIFIC VISION 99
effected directly by the death of Christ, is something different
from what is meant by the theological use of the term ; it is
indeed a different view of the blessing, but it does really
describe the same thing, and we ought to enlarge and enrich
the theological conception of sanctification so as to include
this scriptural aspect of it. Now, the idea of holiness as a
spiritual service or worship of God enables us to do this.
The object of all real worship is to see God's power and
glory (Ps. 63), to behold the beauty of the Lord, and to
inquire in His temple (Ps. 27). The beatific vision, often
described by old writers as the highest good of man, is a true
and scriptural idea. But holiness is very closely connected
with that as its condition, and the pursuit and practice of
holiness is the way by which we come to see God : it is to
be followed with that in view as the desired and longed-for
good. Now the sight of God, though in its full perfection a
thing to be enjoyed only in the future, is yet in degree
realised by believers in this life. For in the life and work
of Christ, who is the image of the invisible God, we do behold,
as in a glass, the glory of the Lord. We do this, however,
only by faith when we draw near to God by the new and
living way which Christ hath consecrated for us ; and in propor
tion to the strength and purity of our faith is the clearness
of our vision of God. It is important to remember, as a
general principle of practical Christianity, that there is no
spiritual blessing promised in the future life that is not in
some measure realised even here. This appears from the
fact that all spiritual blessings are bestowed in Christ. The
highest promise and hope that He gives to His disciples is to
be with Him where He is, to share the love the Father has
to Him and the glory He has given Him (John 1722- 24- 26).
But the very principle of the gospel is, that we receive Christ
even now, at once and as a free gift ; and therefore we have in
Him already the right of access to God and of all the bless
ings of heaven. We cannot receive Him at all without
really embracing all these, and in principle renouncing all
that is opposed to them ; we cannot draw near to God
even here if we regard any iniquity in our heart ; and so if we

100 THE NEW LIFE
are really Christ's, we may be said to be already holy, sancti
fied, and brought near to God, although we need to have the
life of Christ made perfect in us before we can realise that
nearness as a matter of actual experience. We are therefore
commanded to follow after holiness as that which is necessary
for our seeing God, for which we are admitted into His
presence, on the ground of the work of Christ for us taking
away the guilt of sin from our conscience ; we are made fit for
His presence, and actually brought into it, by the work of the
Spirit in us removing the love of sin from our heart and the
power of it over our will.
It is because we are already reconciled to God by Christ,
and partakers of a new spiritual life in Him, that we are able
thus to go on unto perfection. See Phil. 38-16. It is well
said by Hofmann,1 " that the peculiarity of Christian conduct
consists in this, that the Christian acts as that which he is in
order to become that more and more." He is dead to sin by
the body of Christ ; he is called to mortify his members upon
the earth that he may be so more and more fully ; he is risen
with Christ, and he is called to set his affections on things
above that he may have his treasure and his heart more and
more in heaven, where Christ is ; he has put off the old man,
with his deeds, and therefore is called to renounce his
practices ; he has put on the new man, and is called to put on
the Lord Jesus Christ, and make no provision for the flesh to
fulfil the lusts thereof. He lives by the Spirit, and is called
to walk by the Spirit, that his life may be ever more vigorous
and healthy. The process of sanctification is not the acquiring
by good deeds of a character entirely foreign to the believer :
it is the working out by the obedience of faith of a character
already implanted in germ in the work of regeneration. Even
in the state of innocence man was not called to acquire by
obedience a character that did not belong to him, but only to
develop, under God's training, the inborn germ of original
righteousness to its perfection in confirmed holiness ; and still
more, in the new creation, is there given at the outset the
principle and root of the final perfection to be realised in
glory. 1 Theologisehe Ethilc, p. 91.

THE MEANS OF SANCTIFI CATION lOl
III. Sanctification — Its Means
The process of sanctification carried on in the believer's
soul is, as we have seen, the work of the Spirit of God
developing and maturing the new life implanted in Regenera
tion. In this respect it is a process of which he who is its
subject is not directly conscious, and towards which he does
not put forth direct and conscious efforts. But it is a work
carried on according to the nature of man as an intelligent
and voluntary agent ; and so it is not merely an unconscious
development, but a process in which the active energies of the
soul are called into conscious and purposeful exercise. These
two aspects of sanctification are worthy of closer attention.
Both are clearly recognised in Scripture ; for in one series of
passages believers are represented as growing, being trans
formed into the image of God as by a vital and unconscious
process ; in others they are called to work out their own
salvation — to become holy, to perfect holiness as by direct and
conscious efforts.
I. The process, so far as it is unconscious, consists in the
gradual development of the new principle of spiritual life ;
the Holy Spirit gains more and more possession of the soul,
and moulds it into conformity with the character of Christ.
The means by which this is effected is contemplation of the
glorious and holy character of Christ as the image of God.
This is brought out in 2 Cor. 318, the passage that most
distinctly exhibits the principle of this process ; and the same
thing is indicated in 1 John 32, where the final and
perfect result of the process is described : " We shall be like
Him, for we shall see Him as He is " ; and in proportion as we
see Him, even now, we become like Him. This is in accord
ance with the general law of our moral nature, that when we
habitually contemplate any character with admiration, sym
pathy, and love, we acquire ourselves qualities similar to
those which we admire in our ideal. The working of this
principle is seen in the unconscious influence that persons of
strong and decided character exert over their friends and
admirers, producing in them, in greater or less degree, the
same character as they have themselves. The Spirit of God,

102 THE NEW LIFE
in sanctifying the soul of man, makes use of this general
principle of human nature, since He works not against nature
but rather in its favour. But being divine and having access
to the inmost chamber of the soul, the Holy Spirit can act
far more powerfully, and produce a more thorough and inward
change, than that general law of itself could do. Now, it is
one of the conditions of a healthy development of character
by means of personal influence that it be unconscious, and
not the effect of direct and intentional imitation. One may
indeed deliberately choose to bring himself within the influence
of some great and good personality, by whom he hopes to be
moulded in character in a good direction, but if he were to
make it his deliberate purpose to imitate him in all that he
did, the likelihood would be that he would copy mere external
and accidental circumstances, and perhaps defects, instead of
learning and overtaking the leading principles that guide all the
life and give its character of excellence to his friend's example.
In order to this latter result, it is generally best to let the
character and personality that we admire work unconsciously
on our own, and our conscious effort will be simply to enter
into and maintain friendly relations and converse with him.
So it is also in this part of the process of sanctification. The
believer's direct aim should be simply to live in fellowship with
the Father and His Son Jesus Christ, and to allow the per
ceived beauty of holiness to exert its natural transforming
influence. In this connection we may see the use and appro
priateness of the means of grace, for these are just the instru
mentalities by which the soul's fellowship with' God is main
tained, and the right and diligent use of them tends in this
way to lead to conformity to His image. Here we have —
1. The word of God, which in various places is described
as a means of sanctification. John 1717 has indeed been
interpreted with some variety in details by different expositors ;
but even if iv rfj aXrjdeiq, be taken in the fullest and most
literal sense as denoting not the means but the sphere or
element in which the sanctification is to be carried on, there
can be little doubt that that sphere or element is mentioned
and emphasised by the following clause, just because their
abiding in it is really the means of their sanctification. The

THE WORD OF GOD AND PRAYER 103
word of God, as the truth, is in fact the means of sanctifica
tion ; but it is so as a light that not merely comes into con
tact with them externally, but envelops them and forms the
atmosphere in which they live. Acts 2032 expresses still
more directly the sanctifying power of the word. So also
Eph. 525, where eV prffiari seems most naturally to mean
the word of the gospel ; and even if it be not grammatically
connected with ayuia-g, but rather with KaOaptcra<;, yet the
spirit of the passage plainly warrants our regarding the word
as the means of the subsequent sanctification, as well as of
the initial purification denoted by the latter word. The same
truth is also expressed in various forms in Jas. I21-25,
1 Pet. 22.
The word of God is the permanent and fullest revelation
of His character and work, and it is through it alone that we
have an intelligent acquaintance with Him. In it we learn
to know His character, just as by living with a man and hear
ing his conversation we come to know what manner of man
he is ; and just as the character of a great and good man,
becoming known to us, moulds and influences ours to con
formity with it, so the careful and reverent study of the
word, in which God makes Himself known in Christ, is a
most important and precious means of our sanctification.
2. Prayer is also a means towards the same end. In
this exercise we are speaking to God, as in the study of the
word we are hearing Him speak to us. Now this has the
effect of maintaining the personal character of our relation to
God. The mere study of the word may degenerate into a
contemplation of abstract truth and duty ; and that, however
intently it may be carried on, can never have the power of
personal intercourse. The mere record in a book of a perfect
and attractive character will not exercise that powerful
assimilating influence that the living man himself can have.
Now the combination of prayer with the use of the word
helps to secure that in the Christian life there shall be real
personal intercourse with a living God and Saviour. We are
to be studying the word with the assured belief that its
truths are not merely great realities or revelations to men of
old,but messages from God to ourselves hereandnow — messages

104 THE NEW LIFE
to which we may respond in prayer, and which may be sent
to us as answers to our prayers. To keep up a real fellow
ship with God — a mutual speaking and hearing between Him
and the soul — is one of the great difficulties of the Christian
life. But such a correspondence fixed with heaven is surely
not only a noble anchor to the soul in times of trouble, but a
most precious means of growth and progress in holiness. It
is not merely that prayer expressly made for holiness will be
answered, but that prayer in general, the habit of praying
— of conversing with God and asking of Him the things we
need from time to time, whatever they may be — is a means of
promoting our nearness and likeness to Him. This use and
effect of prayer is indicated in various passages of Scripture.
Jesus says, Luke 2 246, " Rise and pray, lest ye enter into
temptation " ; where the meaning seems to be not, as in ver. 40,
that this should be the contents of their prayer, the thing
prayed for, but that by praying habitually they would be
kept from the danger of entering into temptation. In Eph.
618 prayer is described as a part of the Christian's armour
against the enemies of his soul ; in 1 Thess. 517 it occurs as
one of a series of injunctions closely connected with the
prayer or promise of perfect sanctification in ver. 2 3 ; and a
similar and more explicit mention of its relation to this
occurs in Jude 20.
3. A third means of grace available in this connection is
to be found in the Sacraments, in which the two former may
be said to coalesce. In the word God speaks to us ; in
prayer we speak to God ; in the sacraments there is mutual
communication, sealed by outward symbols. In the right use
of them the word of God and prayer are implied : there must
be a devout listening to the revelation, which is symbolised
and sealed in the sacramental rite, and also a pouring out of
the heart to God in thanksgiving, prayer, and vows. Thus,
therefore, the observance of these ordinances works in the
same way as the word of God and prayer in promoting and
expressing our fellowship with God, and so bringing us more
under the transforming influence of His holy character as
revealed in Christ. So the observance of the sacraments is
described as one of the means by which the spiritual life of

RESPONSIBILITY FOR SANCTIFICATION 105
the first disciples was manifested and promoted (Acts
242-46), and from these passages and others it appears that
the social character of Christian worship has an important
bearing on its efficacy as a means of sanctification. While
Christianity is a personal concern, and much of the believer's
spiritual history and exercise lies wholly between himself and
God, it is also a social religion, and includes duties and
privileges that are to be discharged and enjoyed in common
with others ; and the hearing of the word and prayer along
with the brethren in the assembly of God's people is an
important means of grace.
Of all these means of grace, it will be observed that faith
is the condition and means by which they become effectual
towards sanctification. The word will not profit unless it be
received in faith ; prayer, to be a means of grace, must be
the prayer of faith ; and the sacraments can only be rightly
used in the exercise of faith.
II. But while to a large extent the process of sanctifica
tion is unconscious, and one in which the believer only in
directly acts with deliberate purpose, there is another and
most important relation in which direct and conscious effort
is possible and called for. Besides the series of passages in
which the work is described as a progressive growth, like that
of the seed growing up secretly, so that he that sowed it
knoweth not how it grows, and only tends it by watching and
watering, there are others in which Christians are exhorted
to mould and frame their own characters to the pattern of
holiness. Such are 2 Cor. 7\ Phil. 212, 1 Pet. I14-15, 1 John 33.
We- are not merely to be growing into conformity with
the image of Christ by the unconscious influence of fellowship
with Him, we are also to be purposely and designedly
copying Him, and seeking to acquire a character like His.
This direct and conscious purpose of imitating Christ can only
with safety be applied to the general features and principles
of His character, not to the details of His manner of life and
actions. For in these respects there is an endless difference
in the way in which hohness will show itself in different
persons, times, and circumstances, and the attempt to imitate
the Saviour in the external particulars of His life is a mis-

106 THE NEW LIFE
taken one, and sure to lead to great abuses and evils. In a
certain period of the Church's history this mistake had much
prevalence and destroyed much good. The idea of bringing
back the Church, and especially her ministers, to an imitation
of Christ was one that animated to a large extent the better
minds in the twelfth and following centuries, and those who
lamented, and desired to reform, the corruption of the times.1
But, unhappily, they looked to an imitation of Christ in the
particular form of His life on earth, and so their well-meant
efforts failed to do permanent good, and were even productive
of much harm. A life like that of Christ in His public
ministry could not be led by all, but only by those who could
separate themselves from the ordinary affairs of life ; and so
there was necessarily established a distinction of two classes
of Christians, and the imitation of Christ reserved wholly
for the higher and more select. Hence, also, this movement
fell in with and strengthened the monastic ideas and practices
of the times, and only led to a new development and tem
porary improvement of them by the institution of the two
great mendicant orders.
The only safe imitation of Christ is that which is in the
spirit and not in the letter. We are indeed taught that He
has left us an example, that we should walk in His steps ; but
this is to be done not by copying His outward actions, but by
having the same mind in us that was in Him — " walking in
love as He has loved us, etc." In this sense alone can Christ
be a universal example, to be followed not merely by a few
who can renounce the world and give themselves to the direct
service of God, but by all, even those most engrossed in the
duties of this life. It is for this, as well as other reasons,
that our being conformed to Christ's character must be to
so large an extent Unconscious and without direct effort.
For this reason, also, in our conscious efforts at the
ideal set before us, we must discover and consider the
principle of Christ's life on earth which underlies all the
varied actions that He did. That principle we shall find to
be childlike obedience to the law and will of God. This we
find indicated both by His own sayings (Luke 249, Matt. 315,
1 Such were Arnold of Bres.ia, the Abbot Joachim, etc.

ITS STANDARD 107
John 434) and by the statements of the apostles (Rom. 519,
Phil. 28, Eph. 52, Heb. 58).
It is in this that we are to be followers of Christ, and so
we are taught expressly that it is by obedience that we are
to mould our characters in accordance with the holy pattern
set before us (Phil. 212, 1 Pet. I14).
Hence the importance that the law of God still has for
believers. It is not superseded either by the principle of love
and gratitude as a motive to holiness, nor by the life and
character of Jesus as an example of it. Even with both of
these we still need an express and authoritative declaration
of the path of duty to guide our efforts after holiness. We
are to obey, however, in a spirit of freedom, not of bondage ; it
is as obedient children that we fashion ourselves after the
Holy One who has called us.
The process, as thus carried on, is in accordance with the
principles of our constitution. The great law of habit implies
that the performance of actions of any particular kind tends
to form a character of that kind. The acts become more
easy by repetition, and there is induced also an inclination
to do them, and this process may serve not only to form
a character, that had been neutral or indifferent, into a
special type, but even to overcome an opposite tendency, that
had produced a difficulty and dislike for the actions of obedi
ence. This is the case with the soul in the process of sanctifi
cation. There are evil habits and tendencies to be eradicated
as well as good ones to be cultivated ; but in the course of
time, by the help of God's Spirit, this may and will be accom
plished. The Spirit is operative here in the way of animating
and enabling the soul to each successive act of obedience, by
which the whole character is gradually transformed.
There comes in here the use of various subordinate exercises,
of which it may be useful to speak.
1. Self -discipline and mortification of sin. The need of
this arises from the fact of the corruption of human nature
remaining even in the regenerate. " The flesh lusteth against
the Spirit . . . and they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh,
with its affections and lusts." We are exhorted to mortify
our members which are on the earth, and assured that if we,

108 THE NEW LIFE
through the Spirit, mortify the deeds of the body we shall live.
It must be borne in mind here that it is not the body as such
that is to be mortified, but the deeds of the body — sinful
inclinations, the flesh, with its affections and lusts. It has
been a great and far-reaching mistake in this matter to think
that sin inheres in the body as such, and is to be eradicated
by crushing and deadening all the bodily instincts and affec
tions. This has led to the system of asceticism, with all its
severities and extravagances — a system which held possession
of a great part of the Church from a time soon after the
apostolic age till the Reformation, but which not only led to
the gravest abuses and corruptions, but proved utterly incom
petent even to secure the end it sought.1 It proceeds tacitly
or avowedly on the Gnostic principle of the essential evil of
matter, and assumes that men are to be made holy and
heavenly by means of getting rid of what pertains to the
body. The soul is held to be purified by every way of sub
duing and reducing the body ; and restraint, want, and suffering
are imposed, as being in themselves means of sanctification.
But this is, as Owen 2 puts it, to attack the natural man, not
the old man — the body which is good as a creature of God,
not the body of sin. And the effect is that the extreme and
unnatural rigour put upon the bodily nature tends, by undue
repression, to provoke to excess even those animal passions
against which the system is especially devised. Thus under
the most stern outward asceticism there have often been
burning inwardly the most violent lusts, and evil imaginations
have taken in the breast of hermits the form of Satanic
temptations. At the same time, as there are many forms of
sin not at all affected by such bodily rigour, it allows such
vices as pride, envy, cruelty, etc., to flourish unchecked. Thus
there was produced by this system, even at best, only a false
and spurious kind of holiness, that by its distortion of moral
principles did incalculable mischief in the world.
But there is a true and legitimate self-discipline recog
nised and recommended in Scripture. Jesus says, " If thine
eye offend thee, etc." (Matt. 529), and calls on His disciples to
1 See Isaac Taylor's Ancient Christianity.
2 See Owen on Mortification of Sin.

SELF-DISCIPLINE AND TEMPTATION 109
deny themselves if they would follow Him. Paul summons
Timothy to endure hardness (2 Tim. 23), and says of himself,
" I bring under my body and keep it in subjection, etc."
(1 Cor. 927). But the principle of this discipline is not, that
the infliction of suffering on the body of itself promotes holi
ness, but that when any tendency of our nature, be it bodily
or spiritual, becomes a stumbling-block and would lead us to
sin, it is to be repressed, at whatever cost of suffering or loss.
This self-discipline aims its blows at sin, not at the body as
such ; it does not prescribe irrational and unnatural restraints
or austerities merely for the sake of suffering ; it denies the
legitimate indulgence of any natural desire only when there
is good reason for it in the fact that it would be dangerous to
ourselves or others ; and it strikes at sin of all kinds impartially,
and not merely at those sins that proceed from sensuality.
Thus it is a reasonable, safe, and proper means of cleansing our
selves from all filthiness of the flesh and of the spirit, and
perfecting holiness in the fear of God.
2. Another means to that end is the resisting and over
coming of temptation. Temptation, when rightly met, is a
school and discipline of virtue. Were it not fitted to be so,
we should not understand how it could be appointed or per
mitted by God for innocent or for forgiven creatures. It was by
means of temptation that man was to have risen at first from.
the state of posse non peccare to that of non posse peccare, and
it is by means of it, among other things, that renewed men are
to be made perfect in holiness. Even when they yield to temp
tation, God makes the very falls of His people means of teaching
them humility, watchfulness, and self-denial, and so, indirectly,
of promoting their sanctification. But the way in which He
would have them to use this is not by yielding, but by resist
ing and overcoming the temptation. For this end watchful
ness is specially needed, and often inculcated by our Lord
and His apostles. We ought to have our eyes open to the
dangers that beset us; to learn from self-examination and
memory of our former falls from what side we are liable to
temptation, and how we are apt to fail in duty, and sin against
God ; and to use such means of avoiding temptation, or fortify
ing ourselves against it, as we find to be necessary and suitable.

110 THE NEW LIFE
We have many means of defence ; and Paul's description of
the whole armour of God shows what these are, and how we
are to use them (Eph. 6).
3. Once more, the right use of affliction is a means of
sanctification. This is a truth taught and illustrated in many
places of Scripture, especially Rom. 5s, 2 Cor. 417- 18, Heb.
12*-n i pet. 16-9. Here the Christian has the duty to
perform of humble, patient submission to the will of God ; and
in this, very specially, He has a pattern in Jesus. Without a
right use of it affliction will have no sanctifying effect— it may
even lead to the very opposite result. But it is designed by
God, to try, to exercise, and to perfect the virtues of His people ;
and He makes it effectual for these ends. The way to use
affliction aright, so that it may have this effect, may be learned
by considering the two errors against which we are warned
in Heb. 125.
One is thinking lightly of it — steeling our souls against it
and not allowing it to impress us. This is the extreme to which
strong natures are prone, and others too when the affliction, is
but slight. In this way we are apt to lose any good effect
that it might have had, and was designed to have ; for in order
to have any effect at all, it must be felt.
The opposite extreme is, fainting or losing heart entirely
under affliction, which is the fault of weak natures, and of all
under heavy affliction. In this case the soul is so utterly
overborne that it loses all faith and hope, and sinks into sullen
or hopeless despair.
Now the remedy against both evils is the same — a re
cognition that affliction is sent in love and for a gracious end.
IV. Sanctification — Its Degrees
A. ROMAN CATHOLIC VIEW
The chief doctrinal questions about sanctification have
reference to its perfection in this life. All Christians believe
that it is to be brought to perfection at last when the children
of God shall be holy and without blemish before Him. This
is the intended goal of the work of our renewal. There is a
sense, too, in which it may be said to be complete at once and

CHRISTIAN PERFECTION 111
from the outset ; it extends to the whole of our nature and
affects all its parts. It is not a change merely in the in
tellect, leaving the emotions and affections as they were, nor
a change merely of the feelings, leaving conscience and will
unaffected. If any man is in Christ, he is a new creature —
our old man is crucified with Christ. Inasmuch as man's
nature is a unity, the radical change of heart affects all the
powers and faculties, and is seen in the new and harmonious
working of them all. There are new perceptions of truth in
the intellect, new convictions of truth and duty in the con
science, new affections towards God and Christ in the heart,
and a new inclination and purpose in the will. The entire-
ness of the change in this sense is asserted in the West
minster Confession (chap. xiii. 2), while at the same time it
is declared to be imperfect in degree. This is a real and clear
distinction, which has been expressed by saying that the
believer's renewal has a perfection of parts (perfectio partium)
but not perfection of degrees (perfectio graduum). The
illustration usually given from the natural life is suitable
and simple. A new-born babe may be said, in one view, to
be perfect, because he has all the parts and limbs of a man ;
but in another view is not at all perfect, because not one of
them has reached its full size. So it is with the new
spiritual life : being a birth from God, it is complete and
entire ; but being only a birth, it is at first immature in all
its parts, and gradually grows to perfection.
This view, which is in harmony with Scripture and
spiritual experience, has been denied in various ways, and
more especially in two forms that are found in very opposite
sections of Christendom. It has been denied by the Church
of Rome in a legal way, and by some extreme Protestants in
an antinomian way.
The Roman Catholics hold that the change effected by
regeneration, which they identify with baptism, is so entire
that all that is truly sin is removed from the soul ; a view
based on nothing stronger than a misapplication of certain
Scripture statements, and opposed to the experience of
Christians. We have now to observe the consequences
which they draw from this position in connection with

112 THE NEW LIFE
sanctification, more especially their doctrine of good works.
Holding that nothing really sinful remains in the regenerate,
they maintain that they can perfectly fulfil the law of God,
and that they are required to do so as the condition of the
continued enjoyment of God's favour and final salvation. Thus
they are anew under law to work for the reward.
The Council of Trent declares,1 " that nothing is wanting
to the justified that they should be held fully to have
satisfied the divine law in proportion to the state of this life" ; 2
and Bellarmine discusses the subject more fully under the
title, de Justitia Operum.
His first position under that head is that good works are
necessary to the justified for salvation. This Protestants do not
deny, though they have generally thought it needful to guard
against legalism by saying that they are necessary, not in the
way of merit for acquiring a right to final glory, but as com
manded duties and indispensable means to prepare us for glory.
Bellarmine's second position is that justified men can
fulfil the law of God, not indeed by the mere power of free
will, but by the aid of the grace of God and the spirit of
faith and love infused in justification. Similarly, MShler
states it as a reason why the forgiveness of post-baptismal
sins is more difficult than of those committed before baptism,
that the baptized have received power to fulfil the law of God,
and therefore the guilt of their sins is greater. According to
the Church of Rome all sins committed before baptism are
forgiven in that sacrament, for the efficacy of which it is only
required that the receiver do not put an obstacle in the way
of it. For sins after baptism the sacrament of penance
(pcenitentia) is provided, and for that is needed contrition of
heart, confession to a priest, and satisfaction by works of
penance. The absolution given in this sacrament, however, is
not so complete as that in baptism ; for while the eternal
punishment due to sin is taken away, its temporal punishment
remains to be borne, either by sufferings in this life or in
purgatory after death.
This we believe to be an entirely unscriptural system ;
and the doctrine alleged as a reason for it, that the regenerate
1 Sess. vi. can. xvi. ' Pro hujus vitse statu.

BELLAKMINE ON THE WORKS OF THE JUSTIFIED 1 1 3
are able perfectly to fulfil God's law, we think is also
unfounded. The inspired writers all confess frailties and
failures in duty, and this has been the experience and
acknowledgment of earnest Christians in all ages. This is so
plain, that Roman Catholics are obliged to prop up their
doctrine by a distinction between what they call venial and
mortal sins. The Council of Trent1 admits that " even the
most just and holy men fall sometimes into certain light and
daily sins which are also called venial," but adds that they
may entirely avoid what they call mortal sins.
The distinction, as stated by Thomas Aquinas,2 is that
those sins in which the soul is disordered' to the extent of
aversion from God are mortal, while those in which it is
disordered, yet not made averse to God, are only venial ; and
that only the former deserve death, while the latter deserve
only temporal punishment. But to this it may be replied,
that if God be absolutely holy, any disorder that is really
moral must turn the soul away from Him, so that the
distinction is as destitute of ground in reason as in Scripture,
where the wages of sin, absolutely, and not merely of a
certain kind, of sin, is declared to be death.
But Roman Catholics further maintain, in the language of
Bellarmine's third position on the righteousness of works, that
" the works of the righteous are simply and absolutely
righteous, and also in a sense perfect, though not in such a
sense that they might not be more so, and though they may
be mingled with venial sins " ; and the Council of Trent 3
pronounced an anathema against those " who say that in every
good work a righteous man sins at least venially, or, which is
more intolerable, mortally,- and therefore deserves eternal
punishment, and is not condemned only because God does not
impute them for condemnation." This is an exaggerated and
offensive statement of the Protestant doctrine, and is
palpably incorrect, because it ascribes to them the distinction
of venial and mortal sins, which they entirely reject. The
real view of Protestants on this point is fairly and judiciously
stated in the Confession of Faith, chap. xv. sec. 5. It is not
1 Cone. Trid. Sess. vi. can. xi. 2 Prima Secunda?, Qu. lxxii. art. 5.
3 Sess. vi. can. xxv.

114 THE NEW LIFE
alleged that when a child of God performs an act of obedi
ence to His law, that is to be designated as merely or
properly a sin ; it is not denied that it is really and in the
main good ; it is only maintained that even in the best of such
actions the motive is not purely and entirely that perfect love
to God and holiness that we ought to have, nor is the action
done with that whole-hearted decision and completeness of
moral excellence that it ought to have, and therefore is in
some respect defective as judged by the supreme standard of
absolute holiness. No Christian who earnestly examines him
self can fail to be aware that when he inquires closely into
his best actions he will find them proceeding in part from
doubtful or mixed motives, and that in many ways they
might and should have been better.
Even Bellarmine is fain to admit this, so that the contro
versy very much resolves itself into the question of the
absolute perfection of God's law and the guilt of what Roman
Catholics call venial sins. It is only by lowering the standard
of moral perfection that they are able to maintain their doc
trine of the perfect righteousness of the works of the regenerate.
These doctrines, however, do not completely exhibit the
extent to which Roman Catholics exaggerate human power
and goodness, and encourage men to trust in their own works.
For Bellarmine's fourth proposition under this head is, that
by good works men are really justified, not, indeed, by the first
justification, by which from unjust they are made just, but by
the second, whereby from just they are made more just ; and
he asserts further, when he comes to speak of the merit of
works, that the good works of the justified, being perfect and
free from sin, truly merit the reward of eternal life, and may
be trusted to for that purpose, if pride be avoided ; though, he
adds, in a sort of hesitating way, that it is safer to trust to
the merit of Christ.1 There has indeed been some difference
1 Amesius' remark on this is shrewd and pertinent : "It has happened here
to Bellarmine as to Balaam, who, when brought to curse, after great and various
preparation, and seeking many enchantments, was constrained by God to bless
Israel. In like manner Bellarmine, after spending all efforts through several
whole books in defending human merits by every kind of sophism, here suddenly
changed in the end, takes away all use of merits, and has recourse to grace
alone " (Bellarminus Enervalus, Tom. iv. Disput. 42).

MERIT AND REWARD 115
of opinion in the Roman Catholic Church as to the kind of
merit to be ascribed to the good works of believers ; whether
it is merit in the strict legal sense of condignity as it is
called (meritum de condigno), or only of that lower kind called
merit of congruity (meritum de congruo), i.e., that it is fitting
God should reward them. But since it is generally held by
Romanists that merit of this lower kind belongs even to faith
and other graces preparatory to justification, the more con
sistent Roman Catholic view of the works of Christians is that
which ascribes to them merit in the strict legal sense. This
is Bellarmine's opinion, and it is almost a necessary conse
quence of the doctrine that they can perfectly fulfil the law.
Some plausibility is obtained for this position from those
passages of Scripture that speak of eternal life as a reward, if
these are insisted upon alone and apart from the teaching of
revelation as a whole. But Christ and His apostles frequently
and emphatically teach us that, so far from having any claim
to reward from God, we always need to implore His mercy to
pardon our shortcomings and sins. And reward does not
necessarily imply legal desert or claim as of right ; it may be,
and often is, given of grace and bounty, as when a father
encourages the imperfect efforts of his children to do well and
please him by gifts and praises. So our heavenly Father
deals with us. He has held out to us the blessings of His
house as rewards for our obedience and faithfulness ; but this
is of His own abounding grace, so that when He crowns us it
is not in mere justice, but in loving-kindness and tender
mercy (Ps. 103). Though eternal life is the reward of the
Christian's course, it is not the less the free gift of God. It
is utterly erroneous, therefore, to argue that because life is
offered to us as a reward, therefore we may or must work out
a title of legal right to it ; and it is needless and wrong on the
other side to shrink, as some have been apt to do, from the
Bible statements about rewards as if they tended to encourage
a legal view. They are intended to stimulate and encourage
us to self-denial and perseverance ; and to obey for the sake
of the reward of God's favour and fear of His displeasure is
no proof of a legal or servile frame of mind.
Finally, the top stone is put to the Roman Catholic

116 THE NEW LIFE
edifice of human righteousness and merit by the doctrine of
works of supererogation. This teaches that believers can, not
only do all that the law of God requires, but even perform
more good works than are absolutely necessary for their own
salvation, and so lay up a store of superabundant merit.
The explanation given of this is, that besides the absolute
commands of God, there are in the gospel what are called
evangelical counsels, or counsels of perfection (consilia evan-
gelica. s. perfectionis), things not commanded but recommended
(non mandata, sed commendata), which may be disregarded
without sin, but which, if accepted and obeyed, give a higher
degree of perfection and merit. There are usually reckoned
to be three such counsels, which form the three vows of the
monastic life — (1) Voluntary poverty, (2) celibacy, and (3)
regular obedience.
For (1) there is alleged our Lord's word to the rich young
ruler : " If thou wouldst be perfect, go sell all that thou hast,
and give to the poor," etc. (Matt. 1 921) ; for (2) the state
ments of Paul in 1 Cor. 77- 8- 2C- 32, in which a preference is
given in certain circumstances to celibacy over marriage ; for
(3) there are only general precepts of obedience to those who
are over us in the Lord. But none of these passages really
support the Roman Catholic doctrine. Christ's words to the
rich youth were not spoken in answer to a question how he
might be more perfect than others, but how he should obtain
eternal life ; and they were manifestly intended to test his
earnestness, and to show him that he had not, as he thought,
kept the commandments at all; the preference that Paul
expresses for celibacy is not on the ground of any superior
merit, nor does he hint at its having that ; and the precepts
of submission to our spiritual superiors are addressed as
binding duties to all, and do not imply a blind and absolute
obedience. It is quite true that there are, and are recognised in
Scripture, things morally indifferent, in themselves neither
good nor evil, in regard to which Christians may exercise
liberty, and for which one is not to condemn or despise
another. Paul enlarges on this subject in Rom. 14 and
1 Cor. 7—9. But the meaning is not that we may choose

WORKS OF SUPEREROGATION 117
at our own will to omit what in our position and circum
stances would be a morally good deed ; but simply that there
are acts and courses of conduct which, when viewed in
general and apart from circumstances, cannot be pronounced
either good or evil, so that no universal rule can be laid
down, but each Christian must be guided by a consideration
of what is expedient in his particular case. But that very
expediency is a rule that he is bound to follow, though
another whose circumstances are not the same may be free
and required to take a different course. The act in the
abstract is indifferent, but when it presents itself to each one
in the concrete, clothed in all the circumstances of time,
place, person, relations, etc., it may present a distinct alterna
tive between good and evil, or good and less good. Moral
obligation and moral excellence go together. If there is no
obligation in duty to any action, there can be no moral good
ness in it ; if there be real moral goodness, we are bound in
conscience to do it. " To him that knoweth to do good and
doeth it not, to him it is sin." God's law requires love with
our whole heart, and calls us to be perfect as our Father in
heaven is perfect. The idea of being able to go beyond that
law and do more than our duty, is the most daring perversion
of the principles of Bible teaching and sound ethics.
It is only fair to remark, that the Church of Rome is not
formally committed to the doctrine of works of supererogation,
since it is not expressly taught in her symbolic books ; but she
must be held as really responsible for it, since it is maintained
by her most eminent divines, and forms the basis of her
common and avowed practice of granting indulgences. In
virtue of the communion of saints it is held that all the
works of supererogation done by believers are available, not
only for themselves, but for the whole Church, and form a
treasury of merit which is under the control of the Pope as
head of the Church, and which he applies in the way of
granting indulgences by which men are exempted from the
penances or temporal inflictions due to their sins.
Such is the monstrous system of human ability and
merit that Romanists have built up, perverting the gospel of
Christ, and leading men to self-righteousness and trust in

118 THE NEW LIFE
their own goodness, lowering the standard of the divine law,
extenuating the evil and guilt of sin, and fostering the pride
and self - confidence of the human heart. The amazing
audacity of some of these tenets is only equalled by the
plausibility of others, and the ingenuity with which the
whole system has been constructed and engrafted on the
gospel of God's grace. When they are charged with sub
stituting a scheme of salvation by works for the gospel way
of salvation by grace, they have a ready answer, that all
these propositions about the possibility, merit, and reward
of works apply not to the unregenerate, but only to the
justified who have been renewed by God's free grace, and
that all the power and goodness they have are to be ascribed,
ultimately, not to themselves, but to the Holy Spirit freely
given them of God. Thus they are able in theory to escape
the charge of Pelagianism, and to condemn that as a heresy.
But the practical effect of their system is the same as if they
avowed Pelagian opinions. For they hold that Regeneration
is invariably effected in Baptism by the mere outward act in
all who do not put an obstacle in the way, and therefore
certainly in all who are baptized in infancy. Hence as that
is the case with all born within the pale of the visible
Church, Romanism in effect teaches them that they can and
may obtain a title to heaven by their own works of obedience
to the law of God, and it matters little that theoretically
their power to do so is ascribed to a work of God alleged to
have taken place, but of which they may see no fruit or
evidence. B. ANTINOMIAN VIEW
The degree of sanctification attained at once by believers
has also been exaggerated in another form, the very opposite in
some respects of the Roman Catholic, which turns Christianity
into a legal system. The opposite extreme to this is anti-
nomianism, or the assertion that Christians are no longer under
the law at all ; and the notion of sanctification being perfect at
once has been used to support that doctrine. In the sixteenth
century the doctrine of the Reformers, that sinners are for
given of God's free grace without any works of their own, and

ANTINOMIAN DOCTRINE OF SANCTIFICATION 119
accepted as righteous in God's sight, was pushed by many to
the conclusion that there was no sin in the believer, and that
he did not need to concern himself about obedience to the
divine law. No matter what he was in himself, God looked
on him only in Christ, and could see no sin in him. He who
is born of God does not sin ; that is, said some, whatever he
may do, though it might be sinful in other men is no sin in
him whom God has accepted in Christ. By some this was
combined with pantheistic ideas which subverted the founda
tion of morality : God's power was held to be the cause of all
things, and by regeneration men were thought to be restored
to a paradisaic state of knowing no distinction of good and
evil. These extreme forms of immoral antinomianism were
analogous to the views of the fanatical teachers in the
Apostolic Age, against whom Paul gives warning in his
later Epistles, and who are described in Jude and 2 Peter.
This licentious abuse of the notion that Christians are
perfectly sanctified and free from the law has been universally
discredited and discarded, but these positions are still held by
some in connection with earnest efforts after true and high
holiness. Those who are called Plymouth Brethren often
speak of believers' sanctification as complete and perfect from
the first, though they do not mean thereby to assert absolute
sinlessness. On the contrary, they admit that the old nature
still remains in the regenerate, though it is dead and may be
kept entirely inactive. They seem to take in a literal and
almost material sense Paul's representation of the old man
and the new, the flesh and the spirit, as if they were two
distinct entities or substances, so that the old nature may be
said to be dead to God and to faith, and needing only to be
kept in the place of death while we live in the energy of the
new nature.
But as we cannot suppose that in regeneration any new
substance or faculty is added to the soul, the new nature that
is then imparted must be conceived as a disposition or
principle moving us to use all our natural faculties for God,
and no longer for self or the world. The old nature is
therefore not a substance, but the disposition or tendency to
live for self and sin : and that remains as long as it is

120 THE NEW LIFE
active ; when it can be said to be entirely dead, it has
ceased to exist. Of this old nature Paul says two things —
first, it has been crucified with Christ, believers have put it
off; but, second, they have still to contend against it, and to
be ever putting it off.
The former is spoken of as a thing done at once and once
for all, and is connected with our being made one with Christ
in His death : it means that the selfish tendency that deter
mined our life and conduct before has received a deathblow ;
it is nailed to the cross, but it is not yet entirely dead ; it
remains and struggles against our better self, but it no longer
reigns ; and it shall not have dominion over us, unless by our
unbelief or backsliding we allow it to do so. This is a truth
that has often been practically forgotten, and it is this I
believe that the Plymouthites desire to bring out by speaking
of the old nature being dead and a new one bestowed. But
we must not forget the other side of the matter which Paul
also brings out, that we have still to strive against the ten
dency to sin remaining in us ; and this is not a something that
is separate from us, but belongs to our own very selves. The
old man is the believer himself, and as long as this old man
exists the new man is not yet perfect. These brethren seem
to think that in regeneration we receive an entire and
perfectly holy nature, which ought to expel and exclude the
old nature ; but that it is, as it were, ever coming back, and
our business is simply to keep it out. But the matter is not
quite so simple as that. The old and the new nature are not
things but characters, and the new nature is not perfect till
it has expelled the old and occupied its place. The con
ception that the new nature is perfect even while the old
may coexist with it, leads to the conclusion that it may be
a sufficient rule and guide to the Christian, and that being
led by the Spirit he is no longer under the law in any sense.
Sometimes it is asserted by those of this school that the law
is so severe that it can only condemn us, and sometimes that
the believer is called to walk by a much higher standard
than the law, that of the new nature within him. Thus
this view of entire sanctification is connected with a very
different and opposite doctrine as to the Christian's relation

PLYMOUTHISM ON THE TWO NATURES 121
to the law from that of the Church of Rome. Roman
Catholics hold that believers when reconciled to God are
again put under the law, and required to obey it as the
condition of their continuing to enjoy God's favour and
inheriting eternal life. Plymouthites, on the contrary, say
that they are freed from the law entirely, even as a rule of
life. Now, though their views are confused and erroneous,
we can understand and to some extent sympathise with the
motives that have led many good men to entertain them.
They have been animated by a desire to connect the blessing
of sanctification as well as that of justification directly with
Christ, and not to consider it, as is too often practically done,
merely as a work carried on by a different agency only in
directly connected with Christ. Hence they have come to
regard it as a gift bestowed through Christ, complete and
perfect, which we receive, just like justification, at once by
faith in Christ. Into this notion they may have been led
also in part by the biblical use of sanctification in the sense
of consecration, which is effected directly through the sacrifice
of Christ, and is the beginning of progressive renewal.
Then they have tried to help out this notion, and reconcile
it with the teaching of Scripture and experience as to the
sins of believers, by conceiving of the old and the new nature
as distinct substances in us.
This is a much less dangerous and unscriptural way of
propping up an assertion of perfect sanctification than the
Roman Catholic one of extenuating the claims of the law and
the evil of sin. But it involves a fanciful and unreal view
of human nature, and cannot satisfy any clear thinker. Nor
is there any need to have recourse to any such theory in
order to bring out the connection of sanctification with
Christ. This, as we have seen, can be done in a more sound
and satisfactory way by recognising this blessing as the work
of the same Spirit that dwelt and wrought in Christ, dwelling
also in us when we receive Christ by faith, and producing in
us the same mind and character as was in Jesus.
In regard to the relation of believers to the law, the
question is, in what sense are they free from it ? For there
are passages that speak of them as not under law but under

122 THE NEW LIFE
grace (Rom. 614), dead to the law (ib. 74), delivered from the
law (ib. 76), and elsewhere in Paul's writings ; while in other
places the law is described as still an authority to which
Christians ought to have regard. Jesus said, " Think not I am
come to destroy the law," etc. (Matt. 517) ; and Peter, James,
and John inculcate obedience to the law on their readers.
Nay, even Paul himself does the same in the very Epistles
in which he speaks of believers being free from law. The
difference, therefore, cannot be traced to an opposition between
Paul and the primitive Christian teaching, but there must be
a way of reconciling it.
How this is so we may see if we distinguish the various
elements contained in the complex idea of law. There is, first,
the simplest and probably most original one of divine instruction
as to duty. That is the root meaning of Heb. Tiin, i.e. teaching.
In this view of it the law of God simply sets before us what
is morally good, and He would have us to do and to be.
This is what has been called the matter or contents of the
law ; it is an exhibition of the moral character of God so far
as that can be imitated by us. But a mere exhibition of
this would lack the legislative form of precept which neces
sarily flows from the supreme authority of God, and imposes
obligation on man. Hence a second element in law is that
of command, requiring conformity to the pattern of moral
goodness as a binding duty. The contents of the law are
put in the form of imperatives, Thou shalt, Thou shalt not,
uttered by the authority of ' God. But, further, a third
element is added when the law is clothed with sanctions of
rewards and punishments, so that it says not only Thou
shalt, but The man that doeth these things shall live in them,
The soul that sinneth shall die. In this form the law has
the character of a covenant prescribing to men the terms of
their acceptance with God, offering rewards for obedience,
and threatening punishment for transgression. Once more,
fourth, when the law has been broken, it not only threatens
death as a contingency that will follow on a possible trans
gression, but pronounces it as a doom already incurred — the
element of curse or condemnation is added to the law, and
it must now be regarded not only as teaching, commanding,

ELEMENTS IN THE IDEA OF LAW 123
and governing, but as condemning the sinner, and handing
him over to punishment.
These would seem to be natural and necessary distinctions
in the ideas connected with the conception of law, and they
are recognised in Scripture. Now, by means of them we
can reconcile and reduce to a simple and harmonious system
the apparently opposite statements of the New Testament
that have caused theological controversy. As we are speak
ing here of deliverance from the law, it is natural to begin
with the last of the four elements that we have distinguished
as belonging to it, the condemnation or curse which it pro
nounces on sinners. From that, all Christians recognise
that we are freed by Christ. " Christ has redeemed us from
the curse of the law " (Gal. 313). " There is no condemnation
to them that are in Christ Jesus " (Rom. 81). This is the
blessing implied in forgiveness and justification in the Pro
testant sense. But according to Paul's teaching, we cannot
be free from the curse of the law unless we are free from
the law also as a covenant prescribing the terms of our
acceptance with God. " For," he says, " as many as are of
the works of the law are under a curse " (Gal. 310). By
being of the law, or of works, the apostle means seeking
God's favour and blessing by obedience to the law ; and his
position is that we cannot be free from the curse if we are
still under the law as a covenant. Hence we must say that
believers are free from the law also in the third of the four
aspects mentioned above, as prescribing the terms of our accept
ance with God. This is what Paul means when he says, " Ye
are not under law, but under grace " (Rom. 614) ; i.e. not merely
free from condemnation, but no longer in a legal relation of
servants working for wages, but in one of free favour as
friends and sons of God. This is virtually contradicted by
the Roman Catholic doctrine of good works, which makes
believers to be free indeed from the condemnation of the
law, but still required to obey it as a ground of enjoying
God's favour, and liable to proper punishment, and not
merely to chastisement, when they transgress. Against this
view Protestants object, and hold that according to Scrip
ture believers are freed from the law not only in its con-

124 THE NEW LIFE
demning sentence but in its covenant form, and in a relation
of grace to God in which rewards are promised not of legal
right but of His fatherly love, and sins are visited not with
judicial penalty but with paternal chastisement.
But our freedom from the law in these respects has
been obtained not by any abrogation of it or violence clone
to its requirements, but by the redemption of Christ, in
which He has fully obeyed and honoured the law, and borne
its curse for us. Hence it does not imply that we are freed
from the duty of obeying the law in the prior aspects of it
as the command of God, and as the exhibition of the ideal
of moral goodness. It is on these points that the Anti-
nomian controversy turns.
In the Lutheran Church it took the form of a discussion
on what was called the third use of the law (de tertio usu
legis). It was admitted that the law had, first, the purpose
and use of restraining the open outbreaking of sin in unre
newed men. In this it acted as a bridle (Ziigel) ; and,
second, that of convincing of sin, and so being our school
master to Christ. In this it was said to be a mirror (Spiegel)
in which the sinner was made to see himself to be guilty
and helpless. But some would acknowledge no other use of
the law than these, under the gospel, hence no use at all for
believers. The majority, however, asserted in the Formula
Concordim a third use of the law as a rule (Kegel) for the
believer. Those who deny this manifestly make a very sharp
and broad distinction between the Old and the New Testa
ment, and cannot recognise any continuity between the two.
Hence they could not see the force of the evidence -that has
convinced other Protestants of the right of the children of
believing parents to be baptized ; and that view of the law
is generally held along with Baptist opinions. Hence, too,
they were led to exaggerate the spirituality of the New
Testament Church, though it must be allowed that their
views enabled them to get free from the Old Testament
doctrine of persecution sooner than other Protestants.
The more extreme Antinomians denied altogether that
Christians are under law in any sense, even as an exhibition
of moral goodness ; but this is plainly unscriptural and im-

PERMANENT SIGNIFICANCE OF THE LAW 125
moral. In this aspect the law is unchangeable. It is
impossible that right and wrong can ever cease to be distinct
or can be changed. The eternal verities of moral relations
are immutable ; it must ever be right to love God above
all and our neighbour as ourselves, and wrong to be
unloving. The more temperate Antinomianism of the Quakers,
Plymouthists, and others does not deny that we are under
the law as a revelation of duty, and thus admits it to be bind
ing in the first sense as to the matter or contents of it, but
^denies that we are under its commanding authority. It
appears to them that the new nature that is imparted in
regeneration should be sufficient as a guide and rule to the
child of God, and that the force of an external command is
needless. But, in view of the imperfect degree of our
sanctification, that is a rash conclusion, and there are various
uses that the law of God can serve even to a renewed man.
But even apart from and beyond these uses which the
law has while we are here imperfect in holiness, there is a
ground for its perpetual authority as a rule of life that is
eternal and unchangeable, and which shows that the law of
God shall be gloriously obeyed by saints and angels in the
state of perfect holiness; It is for ever suitable to the
relation that subsists between God and His holy and per
fect creatures, that their goodness should still bear the
character of obedience : " His servants shall serve Him."
Yet the obedience that perfected saints render, and in some
good measure that of believers on earth too, is not like that
which unrenewed men give, extorted by fear against their
will, or yielded in a mercenary spirit for hope of reward :
it is spontaneous and free, springing from love, and per
formed with a hearty delight in all God's precepts. It is a
service of freedom because a service of love ; they walk at
liberty because they seek God's precepts. In this gracious
and glorious way the eternal law of God is ever honoured
and obeyed in heaven. Let us cultivate such a frame of
mind, and seek thus to obey it here on earth, so shall it be
to us a law of liberty, a royal law, the law of our King who
loved us and bought us with His blood.

126 THE NEW LIFE

C. PERFECTIONISM

Besides the extreme exaggerations of the degree of
sanctification which hold it to be perfect at once, whether
in connection with legal or Antinomian views, there remains
to be considered a less extreme form of opinion in the
same direction known by the name of Perfectionism, held by
Wesleyans and by some Presbyterians in America, where it
has been called the Oberlin doctrine, from the College in
the United States in which its advocates taught.
They do not agree with the general opinion of the Re
formed Churches, that sanctification is always imperfect in
degree in this life, but hold that perfection can be and some
times is attained here. There are, indeed, some places where
the word perfect is applied in the Bible to men in this
life, but in none of them does it certainly denote absolute
sinlessness. TeXeto? in the New Testament is sometimes
opposed to vr)-mo<i, meaning of full age, in contrast with
infants or immature (Heb. 513- 14, 1 Cor. 26 31- 2, Phil. 315).
Again, perfect is frequently used to describe entire sincerity
and uprightness in serving God, in reference to men who are
shown by the same record in which such testimonies occur
to be not without sin. So in the case of Noah, Job,
Zacharias. In all the men of God whose lives are narrated with any
fulness, we can see faults and sins, or we have their con
fessions of sins even to the end ; as Paul (Phil. 3), John
(1 John l8- 10).
Nor can any certain evidence of perfection being attained
in this life be drawn from the experience of Christians, which
rather bears out the view that sanctification is always imper
fect up to the end of our earthly course.
The description given of the Christian life is one in
which the flesh wars against the spirit, and we have continual
need to guard against temptation ; and the fact that in the
prayer that Jesus taught His disciples there is a petition for
forgiveness of our sins point in the same direction.
The arguments by which Wesleyans and others support
the possibility of perfect sanctification in this life are mostly

PERFECTIONISM 127
drawn from the promises, the prayers, and the precepts of
perfection contained in Scripture. The former two may be
taken together, as the principle involved in them is precisely
the same ; the precepts must be dealt with separately.
God has in many places promised to sanctify us perfectly,
and He has taught us to desire and pray for this ; and we find
inspired men praying for perfect holiness for themselves and
others. Must it not, then, be a thing possible ? Will not
God fulfil these promises and answer these prayers ? Yes,
we reply, undoubtedly He will. But does it follow that He
will do so during our life here ? That is not specified in any
of the promises or prayers, and we have no right to add any
such definition to them. We believe that they shall all be
perfectly fulfilled at last ; and in several places our being
made perfect and blameless is expressly connected with the
presence of Christ, when He shall come again at the end of
the age. We believe also that so far as God is concerned
there is no reason why the promises of perfect sanctification
should not be fulfilled even now, except our own sin and
unbelief, and that therefore there is a sense in which it is
true that a believer may be rid of sin, i.e., if only he would
resist it as he ought in the strength of the Lord. Our
doctrine on this subject does not imply that we are to regard
our sinning in future as a necessity, far less that we should
have any complacency or acquiescence in it, or make provision
for the flesh. On the contrary, we are to depart from iniquity,
to hate every evil way. " These things write I unto you,"
says John, " that ye sin not " : that is to be our honest effort
and earnest hope ; and we are to believe assuredly that God is
able and willing through Christ to enable us to do that at
once and from henceforth, if only we were earnest and trust
ful enough. There is no natural impossibility, no necessary
barrier, between us and perfection ; the only thing that stands
in the way is the sinfulness and unbelief of our own hearts ;
and since we find from experience that we do come short in
all things, and know that the people of God have always
complained of sin to the end of their days, we do not think
as a matter of fact that we shall be perfectly sanctified in this
life. But though this is so there is nothing to prevent us

128 THE NEW LIFE
striving, praying, and even hoping to be made perfect before
death, though we cannot hope for this with that assured con
fidence with which we look for what God has absolutely
promised. For though He has promised our perfect sanctifi
cation, He has not assured us of it at any definite time ; and
the more we know of the power of indwelling sin, the more
will we see the obstacles to be overcome. We have some
hope of ultimate success, and we are to act on the principle
that if we can believe, all things are possible to him that
believeth. It is to be observed that our doctrine on this subject is,
strictly speaking, a proposition about the past and present,
not, as Perfectionists represent it, about the future. It is
not revealed, as an article of faith, that all Christians, or I in
particular, shall certainly sin in the future ; but that all men,
even believers, do actually fail of perfection, and transgress
God's law. As to the future, we know that we ought to keep
all God's commandments, and that God by His Spirit, given
through Christ, would enable us to do this, so that there is
nothing but our own evil heart of unbelief to hinder us doing it
both now and always. No doubt our doctrine as to the present,
of the imperfection and sinfulness of the best of saints, implies
a general conviction that what is true now will also be true,
as a present statement, a day, or a year, or a generation hence.
Still we do not definitely believe we shall have any definite
sin in the future ; to do so would be .really to consent to it.
We know in some measure wherein we have sinned and failed
in the past ; but we are not required to believe that we shall
fail or sin in the same way in the future. Nay, we are not
permitted to believe that : we are to purpose and resolve that
we shall not sin, and very specially not as we have sinned
before ; and we are to be assured that this is possible to us by
God's grace, though from what we know of the perfection of
God's law and the evil of our own hearts we believe that we
shall still have to acknowledge, as we do now, that if we say
we have no sin we deceive ourselves.
This is the explanation and use of the promises and
prayers for perfection.
In regard to the precepts to be perfect and the like, they

WESLEYAN DOCTRINE OF PERFECTION 129
cannot be made to prove the possibility of actually attaining
perfection here, save on the principle that moral ability is the
measure of duty, and that no command can be given to men
which their own evil hearts prevent them from obeying. Now
this is a principle that cannot be proved, and that is of the
most dangerous tendency. It cannot be shown by any
process of sound reasoning that anything more than natural
ability is necessary to make a creature a responsible subject
of law. Any physical impotence or outward constraint which
makes it impossible for a man to obey even if he would, is
inconsistent with responsibility and precept. But that is not
the sort of impossibility we believe to attach to the believer's
perfectly keeping God's law. Like the inability of sinners in
general, it is of a moral kind, consisting in his own remaining
inclination to sin, and disinclination to self-denial and unworld-
liness. Now this cannot be held to be inconsistent with the
command to be perfect, without sanctioning a principle that
would have a very wide sweep, and destroy the authorit}^ of God's
law over sinners in general. If men cannot be commanded to
do what is morally impossible for them, then sinners cannot be
commanded to repent and believe on Christ ; and all the pre
cepts of God must be modified to suit the depraved condition
of man. Herein lies the danger of this doctrine of Perfec
tionism. It is generally defended on principles which imply
that the standard of the divine law is lowered in order that
it may be within the power of men to obey it, and it naturally
tends to foster that lax notion which teaches men to measure
their duty by their attainments, not by the unchanging law
of God. Thus Arminians and Wesleyans, while maintaining that
believers may and sometimes do attain in this life perfection,
yet admit that this is not complete conformity to the law of
God as given to man at first, but to that new law which, they
conceive, Christ has given in the. gospel. Hence they dis
tinguish Christian or evangelical perfection from legal or
sinless perfection. They hold that the lowering of the
standard by which we are to be judged is due to the media
tion and atonement of Christ, and that our ability to attain
to even that modified standard, Christian perfection, is

130 THE NEW LIFE
due to the work of the Holy Spirit in us. But there is no
hint in Scripture of such a new and modified law. Christ
Himself uniformly vindicated and republished the law of God
as unchanging and eternal, and both He and His apostles
made our ideal of duty higher than it had ever been repre
sented before. The notion of a new or modified law is evidently
only a corollary drawn from certain other positions adopted
to support them ; and it may be shown that the doctrines
which seem to lead to it are distorted representations of truths
which when rightly put lead to no such inference. Thus
the idea that Christ has obtained for us a lower standard of
judgment is just a wrong way of putting the truth that the
good works of believers, though in themselves imperfect and
stained with sin, are accepted for Christ's sake. This is taught
in Scripture and recognised by Reformed theologians, and it
explains how our works are well-pleasing in God's sight without
requiring us to assume either that they are entirely sinless, or
that the law has been relaxed for Christ's sake. That this is
all that is really contended for by Wesleyans appears from
this, that they admit that ultimately in glory the saints shall
reach a higher degree and kind of perfection than what they
call Christian perfection, and hold to be attainable in this
life. The Oberlin form of the doctrine is open to graver
objection; for its advocates hold that the law of God is
modified according to the moral power and circumstances of
those who are under it, and that as a matter of simple equity,
ability is the measure of duty. Thus the lowering of the
standard of perfection is not held to be due at all to the grace
of God in Christ, but to be a mere necessary act of justice.
This, if logically carried out, would go far to exclude grace in
any proper sense from God's dealings with men ; while, at the
same time, it makes the standard of moral law dangerously
lax and variable.
There is, however, one consideration alleged by Wesleyans
in favour of their view with greater plausibility, an examina
tion of which may be useful. It is argued by Richard
Watson, that as it is an axiom of Christian doctrine that
without holiness no man shall see the Lord, if perfect sancti-

WESLEYAN DOCTRINE OF PERFECTION 131
fication be not attainable in this life, then either there must be
some process of purification in the future life, or there must
be something in death that delivers us from sin ; and as
neither of these alternatives is admitted, he infers that sancti
fication must be possible before death.
This argument is ingenious and plausible, but not solid.
In the first place, it assumes that the seeing the Lord for
which sanctification is required is at death, whereas there is
reason to believe that the relevant passages of Scripture refer
to the second coming of Christ. Further, the New Testament
does recognise the power of sin in believers as connected in
such a way with the body that deliverance from it and from
the world of sense would have a very distinct effect in freeing
us from the remains of sin. But, besides, it proceeds on the
tacit assumption that the reason why God's work of sanctifying
our souls is a gradual and long one, is that it must necessarily
be so, and that He uses the means by which it is accomplished
because He could not effect it without them. This alone
gives force to the argument that if perfect sanctification is
never accomplished before the end of this life, it must be
effected either by death or by some purification after death.
But the assumption is neither self-evident nor true. God
uses means here as in general, not because He could not
accomplish His ends without them (for He is almighty), but
because there are good reasons why He should. In this
matter more particularly there is no uniform proportion
observable between the amount of moral renewal and the
time during which it is carried on. We see some who have
been early brought to Christ and never have been outwardly
habitual sinners, spared for forty, fifty, or sixty years, growing in
grace and confessing themselves not yet perfect ; while others
converted after half a lifetime of vice are taken earlier from
the world. There are many mysteries in God's providence,
and doubtless many reasons why some are spared so much
longer than others. We can only very imperfectly tell from
the outward life what the inward growth of the soul is, and
we know that the teaching of the Spirit in a few days may
sometimes be more powerful in moulding the character than
years of less vivid impression. But whatever may be the

132 THE NEW LIFE
reason why the sanctification of the soul is sometimes spread
over a long life, we may be sure it is not this, that God could
not accomplish it sooner.
He could make His people perfect at once were He pleased
to do so, but we can see various good ends served by His
using means and making the process a gradual one. The
faculties of the Christian are called into exercise, and by that
exercise are strengthened and developed ; opportunity is given
for the exercise and cultivation of some grace which would
not be called into play in a perfect state ; and believers
are led to know themselves better, and to feel more deeply
their frailty and dependence on God's grace, which is also
magnified. Now in the same way we can see reasons why this process
should last all our life here. For one thing, a character of
perfect holiness, would most fittingly be placed in a world of
perfect happiness. For one who is justified and made perfect
in holiness, suffering can serve no purpose. It cannot he
penal, for he is forgiven ; it cannot be a chastisement or
a means of discipline if he is perfect. But in the present
world, according to God's dispensation, there can be no perfect
happiness ; it is not, therefore, the suitable place for perfect
holiness. Again, is it not fitting that as long as we are in
this tabernacle we should be specially exercised in that
humility which arises from the imperfections of our nature
and character when these are viewed in a right spirit ? It
would not be suitable that in this vale of tears, where
Christ is so much dishonoured and His cause so much opposed,
His saints should have the triumphant happiness of being free
from all sin. Further, would there not be a danger if some
of the people of God were really perfect in this life that they
would be regarded with idolatrous reverence by the others ?
We know what abuses and superstitions have actually crept
into the Church from reverence paid to men not perfect, some
of them very far from it. Would not these have been tenfold
greater and more difficult to combat, had not the seen or con
fessed failings of the best admonished the Church to look to
God and Christ alone ?
These reasons are only conjectural, but they serve to show

WHY SANCTIFICATION TAKES TIME 133
that it is not from any necessity of time or means that the
work of sanctification is not perfected before death. God
could, if He saw fit, complete it at once ; and perhaps He is
pleased in some cases to do so. It is done by His power in
all cases ; and when He ordains that it take a long time, it is
because He sees it to be best that it should be so. Even
when the progress is most gradual, there is the infinite power
of God's grace working along with the means. Let this
thought encourage us to the use of all diligence both in the
work of our own sanctification, knowing the mighty power
that is working in us, and in seeking the salvation of others,
for none is to be despaired of. The almighty grace that saves
us can save and sanctify the most sinful of our brethren.

THE SACRAMENTS
1. Introductory and Historical
THE Christian religion is distinguished above all others by
its spirituality. It insists on the state of the heart
towards God as the most essential thing : its duties are all
summed up in love to God and man ; its worship does not
require solemn temples, mediating priests, or costly sacrifices;
its ordinances are few and simple, and are chiefly the exercises
of preaching and hearing God's word, prayer, and praise.
But there are two outward actions with material things
that are recorded in the Gospels to have been instituted by
Christ, and have been observed by all Christians (with few
exceptions) all through the ages since Christ's time. These
are Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are not in the New
Testament designated by any specific name, nor even men
tioned together as institutions of the same kind. They were
appointed by Christ at different times, and they are only
referred to by the apostles separately as occasion arose to
speak of each. Since, however, they are both ritual observ
ances, and the only pieces of ritual distinctly appointed by
Christ, it was natural that they should be classed together ;
and since an examination of what is said in the New Testament
of them shows that they are similar in their nature and use,
it is legitimate to regard them as forming a class, the con
ception of which may find place in the system of Christian
doctrine. The name given to them is Sacrament ; and since
these ordinances are represented as connected with spiritual
blessings, the Sacraments have been generally classed under
the more general head of means of grace, as well as under that
of Christian ordinances. In the former view their considera
tion belongs to doctrinal, in the latter to practical theology.
134

THE NAME SACRAMENT 135
The Society of Friends (Quakers) do not think that these
ordinances should be observed, because that seems to them
inconsistent with the pure spirituality of the New Testament
religion, and they consider that they were merely temporary
appointments by way of accommodation to the circumstances
of the time, as a transition from the elaborate ritual of the
Old Testament to the perfect simplicity of the New.
But there is no indication given by Christ or His apostles
of such a temporary character of these ordinances. On the
contrary, He is recorded to have given His disciples the charge
to baptize their converts, along with the assurance that He
would be with them always, even to the end of the age
(Matt. 2820) ; and Paul says that in the Lord's Supper we show
the Lord's death till He come (1 Cor. II26). He would hardly
have given such careful instructions about the observance of it,
or have referred so often both to it and to baptism, without a
hint of their being shortly to be discontinued, if he had not
believed them to be meant for continual observance in the
Church. Nor are such outward ordinances inconsistent with what
Scripture teaches about the spirituality of the New Testament.
The use of symbolic actions is due in general to the constitu
tion of our nature as not merely spiritual but also corporeal,
and God has graciously condescended to speak to us in such
a way as to impress our senses. Since the symbolic rites of
Christianity are simple, universally applicable, and easily
intelligible, they are suitable to a rational and spiritual service.
They have, indeed, in the course of the Church's history been
so overlaid with cumbrous ceremonies and viewed as having
magical powers, that the spirituality of Christian truth and
worship has been impaired ; but this is due to our conceptions
of Christ's institutions, and we ought not to reject these on
that account.
The name sacramentum seems to have been applied to
baptism and the Lord's Supper first by TertuUian, to whom
we owe a number of technical terms in theology. That word
originally meant something consecrated, or the act of con
secration, and was used in Roman law for the money
deposited as a pledge by the parties in a suit, which was

136 THE SACRAMENTS
devoted to sacred or public uses. It was also applied to the
oath of loyalty taken by Roman soldiers at their enlisting.
But in the Christian Church it was employed as the
translation of the Greek /jLvarijpiov in the old Latin version
of the New Testament, and it seems to be in that sense that it
is used by TertuUian. In his treatise de Baptismo, he calls it
the sacrament of our water (felix sacramentum aquce nostrm),
without any reference to the analogy of the military oath.
He probably uses it in the sense of sacred sign. Mvcrrjpiov
sometimes means the hidden meaning of a symbol (Rev. I20
1 77) ; and TertuUian, speaking of the Passover, says, " In this
Moses had declared that there was a sacramentum," i.e. a secret
meaning (adv. Marc. iv. 40). It is by a sort of transposition
of the meaning that it came to be used for the symbol that
contains the meaning, and it was used in a very loose and
wide sense for anything figurative or symbolical.
In some places (de Sped. 24, Scorpiace 4) sacramentum is
used by TertuUian in the sense of the military oath ; and the
reference seems to be to baptism, but that rite is not expressly
mentioned. Augustine formulates more distinctly the notion of
sacraments when he says, " Dicuntur Sacramenta, quia in eis
aliud videtur, aliud intelligitur. Quod videtur speciem habet
corporalem, quod intelligitur fructum habet spiritalem," and
again, " Accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum "
(quotations and references in Hagenbach's Dogmengeschichte,
p. 295). These statements lay down general principles about
the sacraments that have been recognised by Protestants as
scriptural and true —
(1) That there are in each sacrament two things, an
outward sensible sign and a spiritual reality represented
by it. (2) That it is the spiritual reality that benefits our
souls, and the outward sign can only . be said to do so
indirectly in so far as it represents it.
(3) That the word of God, which declares the spiritual
thing signified by the material elements, must be associated
with them to constitute a sacrament.
A more brief and general definition is also given by

EARLY DEFINITIONS 137
Augustine when he calls a sacrament signum rei sacra, and
in this sense he applies the name to a great many different
things, e.g. marriage, the ordination of priests, exorcism, the
Sabbath, new moons, and the sacrifices of the Old Testament.
Accordingly, at and before this period there was no
uniform understanding in the Church as to the number
of the sacraments, some writers reckoning four and others
six, while they varied as to which these were.
In the twelfth century a more precise definition was given
by Hugo of St. Victor : " Sacramentum est corporale vel
materiale elementum foris sensibiliter propositum, ex simili-
tudine reprcesentans, ex institutione significans, et ex sancti-
ficatione continens aliquam invisibilem et spiritalem gratiam "
(Hagenbach, Dogmeng. p. 452). This definition is noteworthy
as containing the three points signalised in the Westminster
definition, " represented, sealed, and applied." The repre
sentation is said to depend simply on the resemblance, the
sealing (significans) on the institution of Christ, and the
applying on sanctification, which is the work of the Spirit.
Also, there is embodied in this definition the notion of
divine institution, which our Catechism makes the foundation
of its view.
Hugo also gave a briefer definition, which was adopted by
Peter Lombard and became most common. " Sacramentum est
visibilis forma invisibilis gratia? in eo collatse " : " ita signum
est gratise Dei et invisibilis gratise forma, ut ejus imaginem
gerat et causa existat " (Lomb. apud Hagenbach, I.e.).
This has formed the groundwork of many subsequent
definitions in different branches of the Church. It omits the
notion of sealing or being a pledge, which was contained in
Hugo's first quoted definition ; and it is noteworthy that the
definition in the Church of England Catechism, which is
founded upon it, adds this idea.
But in the scholastic age chief stress was laid on the
notion that the sacraments contain or confer the grace which
they represent ; and not only was their function as seals or
pledges overlooked, but even the primary notion of represent
ing by resemblance was very much evacuated, and the name
was given to ordinances which contain no such similitude to

138 THE SACRAMENTS
spiritual blessings as would naturally bring them to mind,
e.g. the imposition of hands, or the pronouncing of absolution.
Hence the Roman Catholic definitions are less distinct than
the Protestant. In those days, too, it came to be forgotten that if the
sacraments are said to contain or confer grace, this is as
Hugo expressed it, ex sanctificatione, and it was held instead
to be ex opere operato.
The full definition of a sacrament as given in the Protest
ant Confessions cannot be justified till we have considered
the purpose and efficacy of these ordinances ; but if we take
the general idea in which all the definitions coincide, we can
show that there are certain ordinances to which it applies,
and determine what these are. Such a general idea is
expressed in the Shorter Catechism by the first part of the
definition, " a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in which,
by outward and sensible signs, Christ and the benefits of the
New Covenant are represented." Roman Catholics agree
with this so far as it goes ; and it can be shown from
Scripture that Baptism and the Lord's Supper have all these
marks. This being agreed on all hands, we undertake to show
that no other standing ordinances of Christianity have all
these marks, and in particular not those that the Church of
Rome classes with them.
There is a propriety in limiting the description thus at
this stage of the discussion, because it covers not only the
Zwinglian view of sacraments in general, but the Roman
Catholic view of the sacraments of the Old Testament. For
while their definition of sacraments applies to those of the
New Testament (novcs legis), they do not refuse the name
sacrament to those of the Old Testament.
It was in the twelfth century also that the number of
the sacraments was decided to be the sacred number seven.
In regard to the five additional to Baptism and the
Lord's Supper, we may observe —
1. The rite called Confirmation was in early times a part
of baptism. After the washing with water, the person being
baptized was anointed, and had the hands of the bishop laid

THE FIVE SPURIOUS SACRAMENTS 139
on him in token of his receiving the Holy Spirit. This
custom probably was based upon the New Testament records
of the apostles laying their hands on converts after their
baptism, that they might receive the miraculous gifts of the
Holy Spirit. As the office of baptizing was often delegated
to others, while that of laying on of hands was performed
only by apostles, when bishops came to be considered
successors of the apostles, it was held to be their special
privilege ; and when bishops came to be not congregational but
diocesan, as they could not always be present when baptism
was administered, the imposition of their hands came to be a
separate rite, and was explained as being a confirmation of
the grace given in baptism. But in the New Testament it
was extraordinary gifts, such as prophecy, tongues, powers of
healing that were given by the apostles' hands, and as these
have not been continued there is no evidence that this rite
was meant by Christ to be perpetual in His Church.
2. The practice of auricular or private confession to a
priest was a late corruption of religion ; and the notion that this
can be called a sacrament is so difficult to reconcile with any
feasible definition of a sacrament, that even the schoolmen and
Romanists are at a loss to say what is the outward sign in it,
whether the works of penance or the words of absolution.
So far from being at all analogous to baptism and the Lord's
Supper, this rite is not even an institution of Christ at all,
but one of the worst and most pernicious corruptions of
Christianity. 3. The rite called Extreme Unction is based upon the
passages in the New Testament (Jas. 514, Mark 613) that speak
of the apostles or elders of the Church anointing the sick with
oil in the name of the Lord. But that was plainly done
with a view to their recovery, whether in a miraculous or
medicinal or symbolic way. It came to be used in cases
where recovery was not expected, as not merely a symbol
but a means of communicating grace and help to the dying.
For this there is no scriptural warrant whatever; it is a
perversion of a practice used for quite a different purpose,
and of which there is no evidence that it was meant to be
perpetual.

140 THE SACRAMENTS
4. Ordination is the setting apart of a person for office in
the Church, and in several instances in the New Testament it
appears to have been done by the laying on of hands. But
it cannot be proved that this action was always used or held
to be essential, or that it was meant to be the symbol of
any spiritual thing. It is never explained or alluded to as
baptism and the Supper are, and the action is one used on a
great variety of occasions, in blessing, in presenting sacrifice,
in healing, in bestowing charismata. There is no propriety,
therefore, in regarding this as a sacrament.
5. That marriage should be regarded as a sacrament is
one of the strangest of all the Roman Catholic doctrines, and
is in contradiction to some of their other tenets. It is not a
distinctively Christian institution, but was recognised by
Christ as instituted at creation. He gave no precept as to
the form of its celebration, and all His and the apostles'
teaching about it is simply moral. Its elevation to sacra
mental rank is due to a misapprehension of Eph. 532 " sacra-.
meritum hoc magnum est" where p.va'nqpiov is used in the
sense of secret or figure, but from which it is absurd to
infer that it is a sacrament in the later and technical sense
of the term.
II. Nature and Relations of the Sacraments
It is an important characteristic of the sacraments that
they represent Christ and His work of salvation not merely
objectively in itself, but subjectively in its application to the
believer. This appears even in their outward form. They
are not merely symbolical spectacles to be gazed at ; they
are symbolical acts to be performed by or upon those whom
they are designed to benefit ; and their symbolical import
lies not merely in the things used in them, but chiefly in the
actions by which these things are administered to the receivers.
In this they harmonise with the essential nature of Chris
tianity, as being not a mere set of doctrines to be believed,
but a personal dealing of the soul with God, not a theology
but a religion. When the true idea of faith was lost sight
of in the Church, and mere belief in doctrine took the place of

relation of baptism and the supper 141
trust in Christ, there were introduced beside the sacraments
a multitude of symbols of a merely pictorial nature, such as
crosses, pictures, candles, vestments, and the like, and even
the. sacraments were made to assume the aspect of mere
representations of objective truths and realities, to the neglect
of the actions in them that express our apprehension of these
realities. But when Christianity is apprehended in its true
character as a personal fellowship of trust and love between
man and God through Jesus Christ, then it is seen how
appropriately its outward symbols represent those divine and
human actions by which that life of fellowship is begun and
carried on. Hence in the Protestant Churches all merely
scenic representations are or ought to be discarded, and the
sacraments viewed as representing and confirming not merely
the objective reality, but the application to us of the redemp
tion that is in Christ.1
Now this application has, as we have seen in directly
discussing it, two parts or sides, one in which man is passive
or acted upon by God's Spirit, and the other in which being
acted upon he acts also himself. These two aspects are pre
sented to us in the two sacraments of the New Testament
respectively, and serve to explain their leading differences.
In baptism, as in circumcision, we have an outward action in
which the subject is passive : he is washed with water ; in
the Lord's Supper, as in the Passover, we have one in which
the subject is necessarily active : he eats and drinks. The
former, therefore, approximately represents that moment or
stage in spiritual life in which the soul is simply acted upon
1 Hence Protestants, in opposition to Romanists, maintain as a general
principle, "Nihil liabet rationem sacramcnti extra visum legitimum a Christo
institutum seu extra actionem divinitus institutam" (Form. Cone. Part II.
cap. vii. § 82).
There has been some controversy as to whether the sacraments are more
properly defined as actions or as signs, Romanists and Lutherans holding the
former, and most Reformed divines the latter. But it has been generally
agreed that both views have an element of truth, and that the question is a
minute and comparatively unimportant one. The Westminster divines in the
Confession of Faith retain strictly the definition of them as signs, probably
following the English and Irish Articles ; but in the Catechisms describe them
as ordinances, and declare in regard to each that the sign is an action. (Cf.
Helv. Post.)

142 THE SACRAMENTS
by the Spirit, which is distinctively called regeneration ; the
latter, that in which the soul is active, which is repentance,
faith, the new life. These two are different in some important
respects, and together they give a complete view of the way
in which we are made partakers of Christ and His benefits.
Thus while the objective reality represented is the same in
both sacraments, the Saviour Himself with all His fulness
of blessings, the two different forms in which these are
symbolised represent the two parts or sides of the application
of them to us. Thus there is a propriety in there being two,
and only two such ordinances instituted by Christ ; and some
of their other points of difference are also seen from this point
of view to be appropriate.
Regeneration, or that part of the Spirit's work in which
man is passive, takes place once for all at the beginning
of the spiritual life ; hence baptism, the sacrament which
especially represents this, is administered once only to the
same individual. But the part of the Spirit's work in which
man co-operates with Him is not a momentary act, but a
long process continuing from the beginning of the spiritual
life onwards to its perfection ; therefore the sacrament that
especially represents this is administered not once only, but
frequently to believers in Christ.
Again, the former of these, in the order of nature, precedes
the latter, as the implantation of the new life precedes its
exercise ; hence the sacrament of baptism is first administered,
then that of the Supper.
Once more, regeneration, in which the soul is passive, is a
work of which even infants are capable, and which is
graciously done in many of them before they attain the use
of reason ; but repentance, faith, and new obedience by which
the new life is carried on are not possible till the child comes
to years of understanding. Hence there is a propriety in the
administration of baptism to infants that does not exist in
the case of the Lord's Supper. This is not, indeed, the only
or principal ground of infant baptism. I do not enter on
that subject at present, but simply refer to it as illustrating
the characteristic differences of the two sacraments.
The mutual relation that we have observed between them

THE FORM OF BAPTISM 143
appears also if we view them in connection with the Jewish
ceremonies and ordinances from which the outward forms
were derived. Both have a very close relation to sacrifice.
The Lord's Supper is not a sacrifice, as appears from its first
observance ; yet it presupposes a sacrifice, and is founded upon
it. As the eating of the Passover required beforehand the
sacrificing of it, so the eating of the broken bread and poured
out wine points to the sacrifice of Christ our passover as an
accomplished fact. Baptism is not so obviously connected
with sacrifice ; yet it also has a relation to it, for we are
baptized into Christ's death (Rom. 63). What the sacra
ments represent is chiefly the way in which we are made
partakers of the sacrifice of Christ for us. Now we find
from the Old Testament that there were two principal ways
in which the efficacy of the sacrifices was conveyed to the
people. The one was by the sprinkling of the blood, or
washing with water, in which the ashes of a heifer slain for
sin had been put ; and the other was eating the flesh of the
sacrifice in a sacred meal. These correspond to the outward
symbols in the two Christian sacraments.
Baptism
its form, meaning, and efficacy
Taking up first the sacrament of Baptism, we may
consider —
1. Its outward form. It seems obvious that the essen
tial symbolical import of the ordinance is the cleansing of
the soul from sin. Cleansing was the idea conveyed by the
various washings of the Jews that formed the prototypes of
Christian baptism, and this was recognised in the days of our
Lord (Mark 72"4). This is also alluded to in various
passages in connection with the New Testament rite (Acts
2216, Eph. 526, Tit. 35, Heb. 1022, 1 Pet. 321). There may not
be in all these places an express reference to the sacrament,
but it can hardly be doubted that they allude to it or to the
spiritual reality it signifies, and they show that its idea is
that of a cleansing by washing. This accordingly has been
almost universally recognised as the primary meaning of the

144 THE SACRAMENTS
rite, and from this the inference seems warrantable that in
its administration any mode in which water is applied to the
body of the person to be baptized, whether by sprinkling,
pouring, or dipping, is legitimate as sufficiently indicating the
cleansing use of the element. No doubt the entire immer
sion of the body exhibits this in a more complete and
striking way, but other modes may express it sufficiently,
and reasons of convenience and propriety may warrant their
adoption in preference. This is the position that is main
tained on this point by most Christians except those who are
called Baptists, who contend for immersion as necessary —
not that that is improper, or that sprinkling is absolutely
required ; but that the command is general, and does not
prescribe any particular way of applying the water, while on
grounds of expediency immersion is not suitable in this
country and in the present state of society. The assertion
that /3a7TTt£a> always denotes a particular mode of washing,
namely, by immersion, seems to be absolutely without founda
tion, and is given up by most competent scholars ; nor can it
be shown with any degree of probability that in all the cases of
baptism recorded in the New Testament it was by dipping. On
these points the Baptists seem to be entirely in the wrong.
There is more plausibility in their contention on two other
points : that the general custom of the ancient Church was to
baptize by immersion, and that in one place at least (Rom.
64, Col. 212) Paul alludes to this form as having a spiritual
significance.1 In meeting these arguments some contro
versialists have taken an extreme and untenable position.
They have held that the text in question does not contain
any allusion to the plunging under the water and rising out
of it, as figures of dying and rising with Christ ; that it is a
misunderstanding of the apostle's meaning to interpret it so,
and that this misinterpretation gave rise to the practice of
baptizing by immersion in the ancient Church. Now this
1 In the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, chap, vii., baptism is directed to be
in (els) living water, i.e. running, if possible ; if not, in other water, either cold
or warm ; but if neither can be had, running nor standing, water is to be poured
thrice on the head. Immersion seems to have been the ordinary rule, but when
that cannot be done pouring is allowed.

MODE OF BAPTISM 145
would be a proper line to take if it were necessary to show
that immersion is an improper mode of baptism, and pouring
or sprinkling the only legitimate one. But that is not our
position, and it is not advisable or safe to go so far. It
seems impossible to deny that there is an allusion to the
form of baptism in Rom. 64, and consequently that the
practice of baptizing by immersion was frequently used in the
apostolic age as in subsequent times. All that is necessary
for us to maintain is that this form is not essential to the
validity of the ordinance. It is argued, indeed, that Paul's
reference to it shows that the form has a spiritual signifi
cance, and therefore is an essential part of the sign ; and some
divines (e.g. Luther) in expounding the meaning and effect of
baptism have made this its leading aspect.1 But we have
already seen that undoubtedly the idea of washing is the
primary one in baptism. That is indicated in many
passages of the New Testament, whereas that of dying and
rising with Christ is only connected with baptism in one
or two places in Paul's writings. Now these two ideas
are so different that we cannot suppose that the same
rite was designed directly and properly to represent them
both ; we must conclude, therefore, that the comparison to
Christ's dying and rising again is merely an incidental
allusion, and not the direct and principal significance of the
rite. Had it been so the command must have been more
express and precise to immerse than it can be proved to be.
We seem therefore led to the conclusion above indicated,
that while immersion is a legitimate way of administering
baptism, and one which in some respects brings out more
vividly the idea of washing and cleansing, a mode also which
has been frequently used in the apostolic and primitive times
of the Church, and has given occasion to spiritual applica
tions of its special actions ; yet as the essential idea of the
sacrament is that of cleansing, immersion is not absolutely
necessary for its due administration, and being in certain
circumstances inconvenient, may with advantage be dispensed
1 In the present day Ebrard maintains in his Dogmatik, § 507, that the
true idea of baptism is that of dying and rising to a new life in and with
Christ, and not that of washing at all.

146 THE SACRAMENTS
with.1 This is the true position to take in regard to the
outward form of baptism. It is hardly suitable to the
freedom and spirituality of the New Testament to hold that
we are strictly tied down to one particular method of apply
ing water as a symbol of cleansing, or to imagine that the
acceptability or efficacy of the ordinance depends upon the
precise form of its administration. That would be to attach
an importance to the external and ritual that our Lord and
His apostles never do. We should not, on the other hand,
maintain that sprinkling is per se more proper or consonant
to apostolic usage than dipping, but should frankly say that
the mode is indifferent, and that we adopt sprinkling simply
because it is most convenient in our climate and our manners
and customs. Taking this position, we can freely admit that
in some respects immersion would be a more striking and
expressive form, and can use all those expressions and
allusions in Scripture that imply an entire washing, assuming
that that is the ideal form of the ordinance, though it is not
necessary or suitable to be actually practised among us.
Some scope must be allowed to the imagination in the use
of the sacred signs of the sacraments. They are meant not
to be scenic displays and perfect resemblances, but suggestive
emblems of divine truth.
1 The Church of England in her baptismal service prescribes in the ease of
infants that they shall be dipped in the water as the proper mode, except when
the parents declare that the child is too weak to bear it ; though in the form
for the baptism of those of riper years, dipping and pouring are put simply
as alternatives. Wall in his History of Infant Baptism shows that dipping
was first disused in France about the twelfth century, but continued in England
till the reign of Elizabeth. The disuse of it he ascribes largely to the influence
of divines who had been exiled in the Marian persecution, and become attached
to the views and practices of Calvin and the continental Churches. He lays
stress on the difference between pouring and sprinkling, holding the latter to
be an unauthorised novelty introduced by the Westminster Directory, and he
argues earnestly and quotes Jeremy Taylor and others of the same opinion for
the restoration of the old practice of immersion in all but exceptional cases
(chap. ix.). In this, however, they have not been successful ; and I am not aware
that even the modern Eitualists have revived this ancient practice, which
would be certainly much more scriptural and proper than many they have
adopted. The Church of Scotland seems to have followed the practice adopted
by Calvin and Geneva of making pouring the ordinary method ; but the
Westminster Assembly has simply declared that dipping is not necessary, and
that pouring or sprinkling is sufficient.

ADDITIONS TO THE RITUAL OF BAPTISM 147
In the New Testament there is no evidence of any other
ceremonies in baptism except the washing with water, nor is
there any mention of them in the accounts of the ordinance
in the Didachi or in Justin's Apology. But in course of time
additions came to be made. TertuUian mentions as practised
in his time threefold immersion, tasting a mixture of milk
and honey (de Cor. 3), then anointing with oil, and laying on
of hands by the bishop (de Bapt.) ; but he admits that for
these things there is no direct Scripture authority, and that
they rest on traditional custom. The introduction of them
may have been due to the mysteries which formed an import
ant and attractive part of the heathen religious worship, and
which, after having lost their ancient power on popular faith,
had a remarkable revival in the time of the Roman Empire.
The influence of these remarkable rites probably affected
the Gnostics first, and through them the Catholic Church.
Baptism was looked on as the initiation into a new religious
community, and it seemed proper that it should be accom
panied with ceremonies similar to those by which men were
admitted to the Eleusinian and other mysteries that were so
famous. Language borrowed from these rites came to be
applied to Christian ordinances, and a veil of secrecy, like
that which enveloped the Gentile mysteries, was thrown
around the special Christian services.
This tendency continued and increased along with other
superstitions, and more ceremonies were added to the bap
tismal rite, such as exorcism, breathing on the baptized
person, giving salt, and others.
Of the multifarious additions by which the simple insti
tution of Christ had been overlaid in the Church of Rome,
one, the marking the forehead with the sign of the cross,
has been retained in the Church of England, though it may
be remarked this was done only by a majority of one in the
Convocation in 1562. The rite seems to have arisen from
the practice mentioned by TertuUian (de Cor. 3) of making
the sign of the cross on all sorts of occasions : it is men
tioned by Augustine (Conf. i. 11) as used in baptism, but it
has confessedly no Scripture authority, and on that account
the Puritans and Presbyterians objected to it as tending to

148 THE SACRAMENTS
superstition. The Lutherans have retained not only the sign
of the cross, but also the form of exorcism, though admitting
them to have no divine authority.
In regard to the threefold immersion, there has been a
curious variation in what was deemed the correct practice.
TertuUian mentions the custom of trine immersion (or
aspersion) in his argument against Praxeas (c. 25), for the
distinction of the divine persons. But in the sixth century,
when the Arians in Spain made use of the same rite to
favour their doctrine that the Son and the Spirit are not one
in substance with the Father, the orthodox adopted in opposi
tion to them the practice of a single immersion.
2. As to the significance of baptism, all Christians are
agreed that it is the cleansing of the soul from sin. This is
the natural import of the sign, and it is referred to in various
places of Scripture. The only question under this head is
whether it symbolises only the cleansing of the pollution of
sin by the work of the Spirit, or the removal of its guilt by
the sacrifice of Christ, or both together. The former has
been generally admitted, and on good grounds, since in several
places baptism is connected with regeneration, and the
baptism of water connected or contrasted with that of the
Holy Ghost. Some divines contend that as the same symbol
cannot have two different significations, the meaning of
baptism should be confined to the reference that it con
fessedly has to regeneration, and that it introduces a con
fusion of ideas to see in it also an emblem of the sprinkling
of the blood of Christ. Now this is so far valid that we
ought not to consider the baptismal water as directly and
specifically a type of the blood of Christ. For that there is
no Scripture warrant. But neither should we regard it as
directly and specifically an emblem of the Spirit : that would
be a still more far-fetched comparison. We are not war
ranted to find any special meaning in the water, considered
separately. The significance of the ordinance lies in the
action of washing in which the water is employed. But
when we look at this in its general nature and import we
can hardly limit it to one part of the great blessing of
deliverance from sin bestowed by Christ. We find that it is

SIGNIFICANCE OF BAPTISM 149
connected with the remission of sins, not only by John the
Baptist, but by Peter on the day of Pentecost (Acts 238).
Thus sometimes the one side and sometimes the other of our
salvation is brought out in connection with baptism or with
the figure of washing embodied in it, and there is good ground
for the comprehensive view taken in the Westminster Standards
that baptism represents Christ and all the benefits of the
New Covenant, justification and adoption, as well as regenera
tion and eternal life. Nor does this introduce any confusion
or mixture of figures into the ordinance. For all these
benefits are closely connected, and are all bestowed in Christ
and by the Spirit. Forgiveness is more especially connected
with the blood of Christ and renewal with the work of the
Spirit ; but, on the one hand, forgiveness is applied to us only
by the Spirit working faith in us ; and, on the other hand,
sanctification is wrought in us by the Spirit using the person
and work of Christ as the means of sanctifying us. Each is
but a part or aspect of that one great salvation, meeting all
our manifold needs, that is provided for us by God the Father,
through the Son and by the Holy Ghost. Hence baptism,
though it especially represents the work of the Spirit, is into
the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost.1 The fulness and comprehensiveness of the meaning
conveyed by the rite is emphatically brought out in 1 Cor.
611, when the first clause, " but ye are washed," seems to be
general, comprehending the two following as its parts, " but
ye are sanctified ; but ye are justified " ; and then the
final clauses apply to all together, and indicate the agency
by which this great change is effected : " in the name of the
Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God."2 It is
1 So in other passages Paul connects the significance of baptism with the
person of Christ (Gal. 3'-7), and more particularly with His death (Rom. 63- 4,
Col. 211). These passages afford the warrant for the expression in our Catechism
that "baptism signifies and seals our engrafting into Christ," though I think
that in these places Paul means not the outward rite, which he always called
baptism into the name of Christ, but the spiritual reality which it represents.
We partake of all His benefits when we are really united to Himself, and thus
there is represented in baptism both our forgiveness and our renewal.
2 That the sense of the comprehensive import of baptism was maintained in
the early Church appears from the variety of names and titles by which they
spoke of the ordinance, as (pumirfios, avaKaivurfibs, avaytvvwvt-s, vloirolycns, etc.

150 THE SACRAMENTS
of considerable importance to bear in mind the fulness of
meaning implied in the sacrament of baptism, not only for
practical purposes, that we may exhibit to the people all that
is signified in this divine ordinance, so that they may under
stand and appreciate it, but also on account of its doctrinal
bearing on the efficacy of baptism. For, as we shall see
presently, the theory that assigns a direct and causal efficacy
to the outward rite has often led to a restriction of the
meaning of it, so as to make this theory more consistent with
experience. But we must undoubtedly preserve the unity of
the object of baptism in all its aspects as representing,
sealing, and applying. It cannot represent more or different
things than it seals and applies, or there would be an un
natural combination of heterogeneous elements in the ordin
ance. No indication is given in Scripture of its having
different objects in different respects. Though it is repre
sented as both figuring and also in a sense accomplishing
certain spiritual blessings, these are not separated from one
another. It is by figuring and sealing that it communicates
these blessings ; whatever, therefore, it represents it also
conveys when rightly used. If, therefore, there is reason
to regard it as representing the entire change that God
works in the soul of man through the application of Christ
and His redemption by the Spirit, then its efficacy must be
equally wide and comprehensive. This leads us to consider —
3. The efficacy of baptism. Since, as we have already
seen, all Christians recognise in this ordinance a symbol of
the cleansing of the soul by Christ, all must also agree that
it has the effect that a most significant emblem directly
appointed by Christ and solemnly administered in His name
is naturally fitted to produce, that of keeping alive the
memory of the spiritual washing, and impressing on men's
minds its value and importance ; an effect the same in kind
as that produced, e.g., by the Sabbath as an emblem of God's
rest, or the stones set up at Gilgal in memory of the passage
of the Jordan, or the frontlets and fringes on their garments
that the Israelites were commanded to wear. Nor is this
simplest and most universally admitted effect of the ordin
ance unworthy of consideration ; for though most Christians

EFFICACY OF BAPTISM 151
hold that this is but the lowest of its benefits, yet even this
remembrance of divine truths and promises is of itself a help
to the maintenance of true religion in the soul. This may
not, indeed, appear as a distinct and separate effect of the
sacrament in actual experience, for it is united with, and, as
it were, absorbed in other and more precious influences ; but
it may be distinguished as an element in the complex whole,
when we seek to analyse it into its component parts. Nearly
all Christians, if we except the Socinians,- some Arminians,
and Zwingli in some of his statements, hold that this is not
the whole design and effect of baptism ; but that it does
more than merely represent the cleansing of the soul from
sin. And most would agree further, that one thing more
that it does is to seal (obsignare) by a pledge (pignus) as well
as a sign the gracious blessing that it represents. This idea
of a seal (a<j>payfc) is applied in the New Testament to cir
cumcision (Rom. 411), to which in another place (Col. 2n- 12)
Paul makes baptism correspond ; and therefore, though we do
not find it anywhere expressly declared of the latter, the
analogy of the Old Testament ordinance and the very nature
of the case seems to warrant the connection of the same idea
with baptism.1 It is an outward symbolical ordinance
appointed by Christ as Mediator, and accompanied with a
promise of that which it represents (Acts 239). Now, an
outward thing given as a memorial by one who at the same
time promises a benefit is just what is meant by a seal or
token ; and as these marks are all to be found in this ordin
ance, there can be no objection to giving it that name.
1 The word "seal " seems to have been in common use among the Jews to
describe circumcision, and to have had reference to its impressing a mark on the
body ; and it came afterwards to be used by Christian writers in reference to
baptism, and may have led to the ceremony of signing with the cross. But
when Paul calls circumcision a seal of the righteousness of faith, he seems to
mean simply a token or pledge of it ; and this is the sense in which the
Reformed theologians have generally used the term. The sacraments are some
times called sealing ordinances ; but this is not exactly a scriptural expression :
they are seals or tokens ; but what we are sealed by is the Holy Spirit of God.
The sacraments are not seals or pledges of our faith, as if they give any attesta
tion or guarantee of it ; but of the righteousness of faith, the objective work of
Christ on which our faith rests. Dr. Halley's objections to the idea of their being
seals are only valid against the notion of their attesting our faith or holiness.

152 THE SACRAMENTS
But, further, since He who gives the pledge is the Amen,
the faithful and true witness who cannot lie or deceive, it
follows that He certainly performs what He promises in
baptism whenever His promise is received in faith. When,
therefore, the sign is used in faith, there is bestowed also
that which is signified by it ; and as the body is washed from
the filth of the flesh, the soul seeking after God is purged
from an evil conscience and born again to newness of life.
This must be admitted in substance by all who believe that
it is the work of God's Spirit and not of our own free will
to apply to us the benefits purchased by Christ. Those,
indeed, who think that salvation depends simply on a
man's own choice to believe in Christ or not, can con
sistently hold that there is in baptism nothing more than
a representation and confirmation of the doctrines and pro
mises of the gospel, and a profession of faith in them on
our part. Hence Socinians and some Arminians regard
baptism as a mere sign or mark of our profession as
Christians, or at most a pledge of God's promises to us, and
of our obligation to faith and obedience, but not really a
means of grace.
But we are constrained to take a higher view of the
ordinance, not only by the general principle of our theology,
that it is the Spirit that makes all outward means of grace
effectual, so that if baptism does really confirm our faith as
a sign and seal, it must also, by the agency of the Spirit,
strengthen our spiritual life ; but besides that, by the way
in which baptism is often spoken of in the New Testament.
It is said that by it we are saved (1 Pet. 321). God is said to
save us by the washing of regeneration (Tit. 35), which most
interpreters understand of baptism ; and Christ is said to
cleanse His Church by the washing of water in the word
(Eph. 526). These are strong expressions, and seem at first
sight to give countenance to the doctrine of baptismal re
generation ; and they are certainly inconsistent with any view
that finds less in the ordinance than a means of grace as well
as a sign and seal of it.

WHO ARE TO BE BAPTIZED? 153

ITS SUBJECTS

In regard to the subjects of baptism, it has been the
doctrine and practice of Christians, that those from without
the visible Church who profess their faith in Christ intelli
gently and credibly should be baptized.1 Further, it has
been the opinion of the great majority of Christians that the
rite should be administered also to the infant children of
such persons. But since the Reformation a section of the
Protestant Church, to which many good and some great men
have belonged, have denied this, and held that only those who
being of full age make a profession of their own faith should
be baptized. Those who have held this have generally main
tained also that the ordinance can only be properly admini
stered by entire immersion of the person in water, though
there is no necessary connection between these two points.
Those who held these views were called by their adversaries
Anabaptists, i.e. rebaptizers, because they baptized by immer
sion, on their profession of faith, those who had been baptized
by sprinkling in infancy. They call themselves Baptists, as
if they alone gave true baptism. The former name is oppro
brious and unfair, since they do not any more than other
Christians repeat any baptism that they regard as real ; the
latter name, if strictly taken, conveys an injurious insinua
tion against those who differ from them, but it has been
sanctioned by usage and disjoined from such an idea. The
strictly proper term to designate their opinion as to the
subject of baptism is anti - Paedobaptists, as the body of
Christians who do not agree with them are Paedobaptists.
On this subject there are two distinct questions which it
is well to consider apart and keep separate in our own minds,
for much confusion sometimes arises from mixing them up
together. The one is, what warrant have we for giving the
sacrament of baptism to the infant children of believers ? and
1 Some, e.g. Dr. Halley, think that a profession of faith in Christ is not
necessary for the baptism even of adults, but that it should be given by the
ministers of the gospel to all who are willing to receive it. This is argued
from Matt. 2819, where the object of baptizing is held to be all the nations, and
from the practice of the apostles, who, it is maintained, baptized men at once
when sometimes no profession of faith is mentioned.

154 THE SACRAMENTS
the other is, on what ground or principle is this done ?
These are manifestly quite different questions. The former
inquires into the reason we have for our conduct, and that
must be a direct or indirect command of Christ ; the latter
inquires into the reason of this command itself. For our
warrant in baptizing infants it is sufficient to be able to show
that Christ has appointed us to do so, and this would be a
perfectly good reason even though we could not tell why or
to what end infants are baptized.1 But if we believe that
there is reason and warrant for the practice, it is natural that
we should seek to find out the ground and principle of it ;
and as in general the precepts of the New Testament are not
mere arbitrary appointments, but laws appealing to the
understanding, we may expect to be enabled to perceive on
what grounds the command rests. Hence the two questions
are naturally and closely connected. Still they are distinct
in themselves and have distinct evidence bearing upon each,
and it has sometimes happened that those who have adduced
valid and satisfactory arguments for the right and duty of
baptizing believers' infants have had very erroneous and
untenable ideas of the ground or reason of that appointment.
The two parts, therefore, should be considered separately ; and
the former as the simpler, and the necessary foundation of
the latter, naturally comes first.
I. That the infants of believers are to be baptized
appears from the following line of evidence, which is that
generally employed by Reformed divines : —
1. The New Testament religion is organically connected
with that of the Old Testament, and grew out of it. The
Church is essentially the same in both dispensations. This
has often been overlooked or denied by modern theologians,
and the want of recognition of it has been one chief reason
why some of them have failed to find sufficient evidence in
1 The argument which in point of fact has been most frequently used for
the baptism of infants is that taken from John 35, which has been very often
understood as asserting the absolute necessity of baptism for Christianity. In
that form the argument is untenable, though I think a valid argument can be
drawn from the significance of baptism as a sign of the truth declared in that
passage, as I have endeavoured to show in my handbook on The Christian
Sacraments, Part n. u. iv.

INFANT BAPTISM JUSTIFIED 155
the New Testament or early Church for infant baptism.
Schleiermacher maintained that Christianity stands only in
the same relation to Judaism as to heathenism (Der Christ-
liche Glaube, § 12). But the passages to which he appeals
in support of this view do not really bear it out. They are
those in which Paul speaks of faith in Christ as equally
necessary for Jews and Gentiles (Rom. 211- 12 321-24, 2 Cor.
516. i7) £p]1_ 213-18). In the passages where the first two of
these texts occur Paul is simply proving that the Jews would
not be saved merely because they had the law, and that they
as well as Gentiles were guilty of sin ; in the third it is
manifestly individuals that are spoken of, and the relation of
the two dispensations is not considered at all ; and in the
last quoted passage there is a distinct reference to the
commonwealth of Israel as having the covenants of promise
and the hope of salvation, so that when Christ is said to have
reconciled both Jews and Gentiles to God, that must be
understood of individuals, and not as if the Jewish Church
needed reconciliation as much as Gentile bodies. And that
Paul recognised a Church of God in the Old Testament
essentially the same as that of the New Testament times,
appears from his statements in Rom. H17-21 about the
Gentiles being grafted into the Old Testament olive tree from
which the Jews, the natural branches, were cut off. So also
in Gal. 314- 29 he speaks of Christians as inheriting the promise
made to Abraham, and in Phil. 33 he calls them the true
circumcision (see also Eph. 2U~22). The same thing appears
from the narrative in Acts, where we find that Paul main
tained that he was truly a Jew faithful to the principles of
the law and the prophets. Now, if Paul held this view, much
less can it be doubted that the Twelve did so also, and we
find it very distinctly implied in the Epistles of James and
Peter. It seems, therefore, to be clearly made out as a
matter of history, that though the coming of Christ and the
establishment of the New Covenant did, indeed, make many
important changes in the form and ordinances of the Church,
yet in substance we are to recognise the old Church of God
as continuing down into Christian times. The Jews who
refused to believe in Jesus as the Messiah promised to the

156 THE SACRAMENTS
fathers became apostates from the religion of Israel, and
separated themselves from the true Church of God which
continued to exist among the disciples of Jesus.
2. In the Old Testament the children of God's people were
admitted to circumcision, which was not merely a political
but a religious ordinance, and corresponded to baptism in the
New Testament. This statement is borne out in all its
parts by undeniable facts. It is, of course, well known that
when circumcision was appointed to Abraham as the token
of God's covenant with him, it was commanded to be given
to all the males of his household eight days old. This is a
notorious matter of sacred history. But it is said by those
who object to infant baptism, that circumcision was merely
an external sign belonging to Israel as a nation, having
respect to the temporal promises given to them ; and not
requiring any profession of religious faith on the part of
those who had a right to it, but belonging to all Israelites as
such. Hence it is said it affords no fair analogy to the
ordinance of the new dispensation, which is not national, has
no respect to any earthly inheritance, and implies a profession
of faith in Christ in all who seek it for themselves. Now it
is indeed to be admitted that there are differences between
the two dispensations and their initiatory rites, and that in
the ancient economy the Church of God was bound up with
a particular nation, so that those who were members of the
Church were also members of that body politic. But there
is no doubt that circumcision was a religious ordinance,
symbolising spiritual truths and giving a pledge of spiritual
blessings. It was commanded to Abraham as the token of
God's covenant with him long before there was any nation
or any civil institutions at all connected with the covenant.
Paul declares it to have been a sign and seal of the righteous
ness of faith (Rom. 411), and everywhere speaks of it as a
religious privilege. It is true that circumcision was not so
expressly connected with a profession of faith in God as
baptism in the New Testament is with faith in the Lord Jesus
Christ, but there can be no other idea formed of its meaning
than that it marked out those who received it as the people
of God. And in the case of proselytes it clearly implied

INFANT BAPTISM JUSTIFIED 157
faith in Jehovah as the God of Israel, while those who
belonged to the nation by birth virtually kept up such a
profession by continuing in a community that as such was
dedicated to Jehovah, and looked forward to His promised
salvation. Those who disregarded the laws of the theocracy
were excluded from religious privileges, and those who openly
rebelled against it were put to death. No doubt in practice
these laws were not enforced, for very often the great body
of the people were unfaithful and idolatrous. But such was
the ideal of what Israel was to be, and it is by it that we
must form our conception of its institutions. Circumcision,
moreover, is closely analogous to baptism, not only in its
initiatory character, but also in its symbolic nature and
meaning. It was an emblem of the cleansing and renewing
of the soul, and the giving of a new heart (Deut. 1016 30°,
Jer. 44, Col. 211), which is just what baptism signifies in the
New Testament. The difference between them lies not in
the spiritual things that they represent, nor yet in the
efficacy that belongs to them, but only in the outward sign
by which the renewing of the soul is figured.
Now we do not argue from this analogy directly that
because circumcision was administered to infants, therefore
baptism ought to be given them ; that would be a very weak
and precarious argument. But we say that the fact that the
infant children of God's people were members of the Old
Testament Church, proves that if it had been our Lord's will
that they should not be members of the New Testament
Church, that must have been expressly declared.
We freely concede (to the Baptists) that there might
quite conceivably be a difference between the two dispensa
tions in this respect, only we hold that the connection of the
two, and the identity of the Church in both, makes it certain
that the exclusion of children would have been a change, and
their admission simply the continuance of the old rule. The
burden of proof, therefore, lies with those who refuse infant
baptism. If it could be shown that Christ and His apostles
established a new rule in this matter, then we would at once
admit that the analogy of circumcision was of no avail. But
we contend that a new rule would have to be laid .down to

158 THE SACRAMENTS
exclude infants from Church membership. The identity in
substance of the ordinances in the two dispensations appears
in this, that Paul in Col. 211- 12 calls baptism the circum
cision of Christ. The disciples of Jesus were originally Jews,
brought up in the Jewish Church, and familiar with its
principles and laws. They did not conceive that they left
that Church and entered a new one when they became
followers of Jesus, though many of their old ordinances were
abolished and some new ones appointed. So when Jesus
commanded them to go and make disciples of all nations,
baptizing them, etc., unless they were taught to the contrary
they would certainly conclude that where the head of a family
became a disciple his infant children as well as himself
should be baptized. That had been the rule with regard to
proselytes to Judaism. When any stranger desired to share in
the religous privileges of Israel, especially in the Passover,
the law was " let all his males be circumcised, and then let
him come near and keep it ; and he shall be as one born
in the land" (Ex. 1248). Unless, therefore, there was some
indication to the contrary given by Jesus, the disciples must
have presumed that the same course was to be followed with
converts to Christianity. The burden of proof, therefore, lies
with those who deny baptism to the infant children of pro
fessing Christians.
In Acts 1 51- 5 the Pharisaic party in the Church are
represented as saying, " Except ye be circumcised ye cannot
be saved." The circumcision contemplated was no doubt to
have been performed not only on adult Gentile believers, but
on their children. So Jews would naturally understand
baptizing to include children, unless the opposite was specified.
3. But not only is there not the slightest indication that
they are to be excluded, there are also various things that
point in the other direction. Such are — (1) Our Lord's
reception of infants when the disciples forbade their parents
to bring them that He might lay His hands on them and
bless them. It is true He did not baptize them or order
them to be baptized, and a sufficient reason for that is that
baptism as a Christian sacrament had not yet been instituted.
But He gave them another token of His favour by laying

INFANT BAPTISM JUSTIFIED 159
His hands on them, and He said, tuiv toiovtojv early 17
(3acn\ela twv ovpavmv (Matt. 1914). The word toiovtcop
must refer not as some would have it, to believers as being
like little children, but to infants themselves such as were
then before Him ; and the statement is that the kingdom of
heaven includes them, and is given as the reason why they
should be suffered to come to Jesus. Since infants are in
the kingdom of God, and none can enter it but by the new
birth, they must be capable of regeneration ; and if so, it is
proper that they should receive the sign and token of it.
Can any man forbid water that these should not be baptized
which receive the Holy Spirit as well as us ?
(2) The words of Peter, Acts 239, "For to you is this
promise, and to your children," more naturally refer to the
households of Israel than to succeeding generations.
(3) The instances of the baptism of households by the
apostles (Acts 1615-33, 1 Cor. I16). It is important to
observe the exact use to be made of these notices. It
would be a very weak argument to assume the probability
that there must have been infants in one or more of these
cases, and that therefore they were baptized by Paul and
ought to be baptized by the Church. For it is quite possible
that all the members of these households were adults and all
professed faith in Christ, and the instances are not so many
as to make this a very violent improbability. If the burden
of proof lay on our side, and we had to make out the right
of the children of God's people to the seal of the covenant
as a new thing, then I think these cases would be altogether
worthless. But if our previous reasoning is good, we have
not to make out this, but simply to show that there is no
evidence for the withdrawal of a privilege already recognised
and enjoyed. In that point of view the instances are
significant, for they show us that the apostles acted just
as they would have done if the old right of infants was to be
maintained in the Church. They acted just as they would
have done, on the principle that when anyone wished to
enter the Christian Church he must bring his family with
him : as the rule had been before, let all his males be
circumcised: so it was now, let all his house be baptized.

160 THE SACRAMENTS
We may therefore gather with considerable probability that
this was the principle on which they acted.
(4) In 1 Cor. 714 Paul states as a well-known fact
that the children of believers are ayia, holy, i.e. in out
ward state, and in relation to God ; and he bases this on the
same general principle that the faith of the head of the
house brought the whole family into this relation to God.
Another view has been taken by some of this passage,
who argue that if the children of believers were baptized
Paul would have appealed to that and not merely to their
being holy. But this is at best a mere probability, and Paul
may have used the more general phrase, because in point of
fact when the father was a heathen the children would not
be baptized. (5) Infant baptism is proved by sufficient evidence to
have been the practice of the early Church. There is no
doubt that the custom was universal in the time of Augustine,
that it was common in the time of TertuUian, and that
Origen found it established as an ancient custom, and there
are probable references to it in the writings of Irenajus and
Justin,1 so that we may reasonably infer that it had been
continued from apostolic times. Neander and other modern
Church historians regard it as of later origin; but his opinion
on this point seems to rest upon the circumstance that they
cannot see evidence of it in the New Testament, and that again
is to be traced to overlooking the organic connection and
continuity of the Christian Church with that of the Old
Testament. It is apt to appear as a consideration favourable to
Baptist views that there is no undoubted instance of infant
baptism in the New Testament, whereas there are many cases
recorded of adults baptized. But this is a mistaken view
of the matter. There is really no case clearly decisive
either way. The adults of whose baptism we read were
not children of Christians, but converts from Judaism or
heathenism ; and on both views alike these should be baptized
on their profession of faith. We have no record of a single
1 Justin, Apol. i. 15.

PRINCIPLE OF INFANT BAPTISM 161
case in which a child of believing parents was not baptized
till he grew. up. This would decide the case in favour of the
Baptist view, but the other instances prove nothing for them.
The indications of the practice in regard to baptism given
in the New Testament and early Christian writings seem to
me sufficient to prove the continuance of an old practice,
though they would hardly be satisfactory if we had to show
the establishment of a new thing.
II. Let us inquire now what is the ground or principle on
which the infant children of God's people receive the seal of
the covenant. Some have rested it on the ground that baptism is
absolutely necessary to salvation, and that infants dying
without it would be excluded from heaven. This view was
largely prevalent in the ancient Church, and is held by those
who have an extreme regard for antiquity, and interpret John
35 as referring to baptism.1 This, however, is manifestly a
false and inadequate foundation for the observance. It is
false, for the Bible does not lay it down that the sacrament of
baptism is absolutely necessary to salvation. Further, even if
this idea of the necessity of baptism were true, it would not
afford a sufficient reason for baptizing all the infants of
believers, but only those children, whether of believers or
unbelievers, that seem to be in danger of death. The false
interpretation of John 35 as referring to baptism, and the
use of it, thus understood, as the ground of infant baptism,
prevailed early in the Church ; but this just rendered possible
the position taken up by TertuUian, that infants as a rule
should not be baptized, and that the sacrament may more
wisely be delayed to a maturer age.
The obvious inadequacy of this as a ground of infant
baptism, has led to its being either supplemented or superseded
by another theory, namely, that infants are to be baptized on
the ground of the faith of others instead of their own. From
an early period in the history of the Church sponsors or god
fathers (susceptores, avdlo^ov, sponsores, compatres) appeared
on behalf of those who were to be baptized. They are
1 So Wall, History of Infant Baptism ; and even Goode, Divine Rule of Faith
and Practice. II

162 THE SACRAMENTS
mentioned by TertuUian as a usual custom. Church
historians are divided in opinion as to the origin of this
custom. Neander, who denies the apostolic origin of infant
baptism, thinks that they were introduced along with that.
Mosheim, on the other hand, believes that they were
originally admitted only in the ease of adults, as witness and
securities of the good faith of those who applied for baptism,
and only afterwards allowed in the baptism of infants also.
However this may be, it is certain that the institution ulti
mately took such a form as was adapted only to infant
baptism. The sponsors were called to answer for the child,
and profess faith and obedience on his behalf, and bound to
care for his Christian education, that he might not nullify
these professions when he grew up. In this system the
infant was baptized on the ground of a vicarious profession of
faith, and because, through the care of the sponsors, it was
considered likely that he would himself in due time believe.
Along with this there was combined (e.g. by Augustine and
Aquinas) the idea that the faith not merely of the individual
sponsors, but of the whole Church, was the ground of the bap
tism of infants (Aug. Ep. 9 8 ; Aquinas, quoted in Hagenbach,
Dogmengesch. p. 459). In both of its parts, however, this
notion of a vicarious profession of faith is entirely unfounded
on Scripture ; and when infant baptism is rested on any such
unscriptural and fictitious ground, great advantage is given to
the views of those who deny it altogether.
Another untenable ground for infant baptism is that
adopted by most of the older Lutheran theologians, and by
Ebrard among the Reformed, that infants are capable of a
certain kind of unconscious and germinal faith or repentance,
so that when the sacrament of baptism is administered to
them they may experience a certain germinal regeneration.
This idea seems altogether fanciful, and to be rather the result
of certain theological assumptions than of any observed facts
or testimonies of Scripture.
The truth is, that all these theories are vitiated by the
retention in one form or another of the idea of baptismal
regeneration, whereas it is not till we entirely rid our minds
of all notions of the outward act having as such any spiritual

INFANT BAPTISM JUSTIFIED 163
efficacy, and regard it simply as a sign and seal of the
renewing wrought by the direct agency of the Spirit, that we
can perceive the reason and propriety of its administration to
the infant children of professing Christians. When we take
this simple and scriptural view of the ordinance, then we
perceive —
1. That there is nothing symbolised in it of which infants are
not capable. It represents that part or side of the application
of redemption in which man is passive, namely, regeneration, and
not that in which he is active, namely, faith and repentance.
Now, infants are capable of regeneration, though not of faith.
2. That God's covenant with His people has ever included
their children as well as themselves ; and He has given special
promises that if parents, believing in Christ and walking with
God in Him, faithfully and prayerfully bring up their chil
dren, they too will be regenerated by the Spirit (Prov. 22°, Is.
443"5, Eph. 64.
These promises must not, indeed, be so interpreted as to
limit or fetter the sovereign and free grace of God, who has
mercy on whom He will. But they afford a precious and
blessed encouragement to believing parents in the discharge
of their responsible duties in regard to their children. Indeed,
without some such special assurance that God is willing to
renew their children by His Spirit, it is hard to see how
parents could contemplate with feelings of hope and joy the
birth of children into the world. They know that their chil
dren inherit a corrupt nature, and will certainly commit sins if
spared to grow up ; and the prospect of their future life and
destiny would be altogether a gloomy and sad one were it not
for the assurance that God has a special regard to the chil
dren of His people, and has promised to make them His own
children ; so that if they plead these promises in believing
prayer, and faithfully seek to discharge their duty, they may
humbly but confidently trust that their children will indeed
be born from above. Thus the right of the infants of profess
ing Christians to be regarded as members of the Church
depends not on their baptism, nor on any profession or
promises made on their behalf, but on their birth of believers ;
and they receive baptism, not that they may be made holy, or

164 THE SACRAMENTS
dedicated to God, or admitted to the Church, but because
they are already holy (1 Cor. 714),and members of the Church
visible, in virtue of being the children of believers.
3. We see, further, as stated in the Westminster Confession,
xxviii. 6, that " the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that
moment of time wherein it is administered." This is a very
important principle for the right understanding of the use of
infant baptism, and it is one which depends upon a true con
ception of the efficacy of this sacrament. If the acting of the
sacrament be direct and efficient, so as of itself, or by any
power communicated to it, to produce regeneration or to co
operate to its production, then it is impossible to see how that
power could be exercised at any other time than that of the
action itself. The ordinance, from its very nature, is a
transient act ; and if it has any efficacy in itself at all, it must
be exerted at the time when alone it has any existence.
But if its efficacy be regarded as moral, depending on its
being a sign and seal, the case is otherwise. A significant
act, though it be transient and leave no permanent mark, yet
since it can at any time be reported or remembered, may
serve to recall what it signifies, even at a long distance of
time. This is equally true of the influence such an action
has on the mind as a seal or token of some promise. We
can therefore easily understand how this mental and moral
influence may be exerted by baptism when it is looked back
upon long after its actual administration. Cases in which
this must be its mode of working occur even apart from infant
baptism. A young man may have been baptized after a
profession of faith apparently sincere, and afterwards come to
see that he had not then been truly converted, and may be led
at a later period to a really saving change and a true profession
of faith. In such a case it is universally agreed that he
should not be rebaptized, as that sacrament is not to be
repeated. But as it never can be right to deprive anyone
entitled to it of the spiritual benefit of the ordinance, it
follows that it must be possible for him to derive as much
good from the memory of his former baptism as he could from
a fresh administration of the ordinance. It is as truly to him
a sign and seal of his new birth when he remembers having

NORMAL TYPE OF BAPTISM 165
received it before he was truly converted, as it would be could
he receive it. Just so it is in the case of those who are
baptized in infancy. When they come to believe in the
Lord Jesus Christ, whether in earlier or later years, then
looking back to their baptism in that faith they find in it a
confirmation of God's promises on which they rely, and that
strengthens and increases their faith. They suffer no loss,
therefore, in being baptized in infancy, while as yet incapable
of that faith by which alone the sacrament becomes an
effectual means of grace. Nay, they gain greatly by it. For
the sacrament is a far more significant symbol and a far more
affecting seal of God's grace, just because it is given to infants.
Some evangelical divines maintain, and among them Dr.
Cunningham very strongly, that the normal type of baptism
is to be found in the ordinance as administered to adults, and
that the baptism of infants is to be regarded as an abnormal and
exceptional case, — an administration of it which is warranted
by the word of God, but one in which we cannot so clearly see
the meaning and design of the sacrament. They have been
led to this position by dwelling on the principle that the
sacraments in general are not means of obtaining the spiritual
things signified in them, but seals or confirmations of the fact
that these blessings have been already received. On that
principle it is argued they ought to be given only to those
who have received Christ by faith ; and this is only fully
apparent when a profession of faith precedes their administra
tion. When that is so, we can say that in all cases the
sacrament, if it is not a false profession, seals and confirms
to the receiver the promises of the covenant. This alterna
tive, however, cannot be put in the case of infant baptism.
In it there is no possibility of a false profession on the part
of the receiver, being an infant ; and yet it cannot be said, on
the other hand, that the sacrament is always a seal of grace
actually bestowed. Hence this administration is regarded as
a somewhat exceptional case, -in which the full meaning and
effect of the rite does not clearly appear.
It may be doubted, however, whether it is necessary to
take up this position, and it certainly seems an improbable
thing that our Lord would have made such institutions in

166 THE SACRAMENTS
His Church as led to the result that the way in which the
ordinance is most commonly administered in a body of pro
fessing Christians should be an abnormal form of it that to
some extent disguises or veils its full meaning.
But may not the baptism of infants be regarded as a type
of what is or ought to be the normal state of things in the
Christian Church ? It represents the regeneration of the soul
in infancy : the propriety of the symbol is only justified by
the possibility of that, and the common use of the administra
tion may be held to indicate that in Christian households
that should be the usual case. God's appointment of it may
be taken to convey an assurance of His willingness to take
the children of His people to be His, and to renew and save
them even in their infancy ; and may it not be that when
Christian parents are faithful to their duty in training up
their children for Him, and do this in humble, believing, and
prayerful dependence on His gracious aid, He will not fail in
His part of the covenant, and that they will assuredly be
born again ? Does not the fact that God has appointed as
the ordinary lot of the children of believing parents that
they shall receive the sign of the new birth, seem to indicate
that it is His will that the reality should correspond to the
symbol, and that, as a rule, the children of believers should
be born again in infancy ? May it not be due to the unbelief
and unfaithfulness and want of due care in training their
children that this is not more frequently the case ? And
should not Christian parents pray more earnestly and believ-
ingly than they do that their children may be regenerated
from their birth ; and are they not warranted in humble faith
to bring them up on the presumption that they have been so
born again when dedicated to God, humbly presuming this
when nothing appears to the contrary, not because they have
been baptized or because that rite has any regenerating
power, but because the appointment of it for the children
of His people solemnly declares as a general truth that
God is willing and anxious to have these children as
His own ?
What has been said about the grounds and reasons of
infant baptism may indicate how to answer another question

WHAT INFANTS ARE TO BE BAPTIZED? 167
on which there have been differences of opinion and practice.
Whose children ought to be baptized ? It is clear that if
the principles on which we maintain infant baptism be correct,
it is only the children of those who profess their faith in
Christ that have a right to the ordinance. It is because they
are members of Christian families that they are recognised
as members of the Church visible. Clearly, therefore, their
parents must be such as make a profession of Christianity, or
at least one of them must be such. Paul in 1 Cor. 714 repre
sents a household as sanctified even when the husband or the
wife may be an unbeliever. Hence it has been generally held
by the Reformed Churches that a profession of faith by one
of the parents entitles the children to baptism. It has some
times been held that persons might be regarded as members
of the visible Church even though they do not make a
personal profession of faith, and that all who have been
themselves baptized and not excluded from the Church are
such, and, therefore, their children may be baptized. Some
who are of this opinion hold that for the Lord's Supper a
distinct profession of faith is needed. Others, again, have
maintained that it, too, does not require a profession of faith,
although this latter view is nearly obsolete.
But in either form the theory seems untenable. It pro
ceeds upon the assumption that a profession of faith in those
who are capable of it is not necessary for membership of the
Church visible. Of course, all who maintain infant baptism
admit that the children of believers are in a sense members
of the Church though they do not and cannot profess faith in
Christ ; but that is because they are incapable of doing so,
and because there is from God's covenant promise reason to
believe that they are born again; but with this necessary
exception it is held that membership in the visible Church
implies a profession of faith in all who are capable of it. If
this be not so we make the invisible and visible two different
Churches, an idea of which there is no hint in Scripture, and
which leads to great confusion. The true conception seems
rather to be that there is but one Church which in different
aspects is invisible and visible, as known only to God and as
imperfectly recognised by men. If this be so, then the con-

168 THE SACRAMENTS
dition of membership of the Church visible in the case of
adults is just a profession of what constitutes membership of
the Church invisible, i.e. faith in Christ, and none can be
regarded as members of the Church visible except those who
make such a profession. In accordance with this view the
terms believers, those who profess faith, members of the
Church visible, are used as convertible terms in our
standards. (See Conf. xxviii. 4; Larger Cat. 166; Shorter
Cat. 95.)
I do not here inquire what sort of a profession is to be
made, or what evidence the Church should require of its
sincerity : that is a different point which will come before us
at a later stage. Dr. Hodge, I think, has somewhat con
fused his treatment of the subject by mixing up these two
questions. There are differences of opinion as to what
amount of particularity is required in a profession of faith,
and what rule the Church is to follow in judging of pro
fessions made ; but these are matters of detail and practical
application, and whatever may be said about them it is
important to settle the principle that only those who profess
their faith in Christ are entitled to have their children
baptized. Indeed, it is hard to see how any who do not
do so can undertake the obligations which must necessarily
accompany the ordinance, since it is a sign and seal of the
covenant of grace.
This question is also sometimes confused by being put in
this form : whether only the children of communicants should
be baptized. Most Protestants have held that the qualifica
tions for the two sacraments are the same, and that those
whose children are to be baptized should also be admitted
to the Lord's Supper, and should observe that ordinance.
Some, however, have thought that higher qualifications are
required for the latter sacrament than for the former ; and
many without formally maintaining this in theory act upon
it practically. In such cases, when men' profess intelligently
faith in Christ as their Saviour, and yet for some conscientious
reason abstain from coming to His table, it may not be neces
sary to deal with them strictly in the way of censure. Their
neglect of the Communion may be a sin, yet if it proceed from

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 169
mistaken ideas or scruples it can hardly be regarded as a very
scandalous one ; and in a person whose profession and conduct
are in other respects unexceptionable, it may be best to deal
with it by instruction and persuasion rather than by exclusion
from other privileges. The Communion is not the only mark
of the people of Christ, indeed it is rather a privilege than a
mark. The one essential mark is a profession of faith in
Christ, and that may be made in various ways. A man may
be admitted to Church membership on such a profession by
being himself baptized, or by having his children baptized, or
by receiving a token of admittance to the Lord's table, and
any of these acts gives him a right to all the rest. If he is
himself baptized he acquires the right of coming to the Com
munion and having his children baptized ; if he has a child
baptized he acquires a right to the Communion, and vice versd.
That which really gives him the right is the profession of his
faith, and which of the ordinances he receives in the first
instance depends simply on which of them he is in circum
stances to need. What is important, therefore, is not that
those who receive baptism for their children be actually
communicants, but that they be such as would be admitted to
communion if they desired it, and, of course, also ought to be
exhorted to come forward.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION
Before passing from the subject of the efficacy of baptism,
we must consider more particularly the doctrine of Baptismal
Regeneration, which has been maintained by many divines and
Churches, though in very different senses by some and by others
respectively. From a very early period in the history of the Church the
term regeneration (avayewrjo-K;) was applied to baptism, as
by Justin Martyr describing the Christian worship in his
Apology. The words of Christ in John 35 were understood
of baptism, and it was held to be absolutely necessary for
salvation. There was in the post-apostolic times a strong
tendency to attach undue importance to outward rites, and
to exaggerate the value and powers of the sacraments. Much

170 THE SACRAMENTS
of the language used of them by the Fathers is rhetorical and
somewhat inflated and bombastic; so that we can hardly
gather from their statements any clear and precise doctrine.
It came, however, to be generally maintained that the re
generation spoken of in Scripture is effected in baptism
(hence the phrase baptismal regeneration has much Patristic
authority) ; but there seem to have been very different views
as to what was meant by it. The difference of the views
held generally in the East about grace and free will, from
those of Augustine that prevailed in the West, would neces
sarily imply a different idea of regeneration. There are also
statements in the writings of Origen, Chrysostom, and Basil *
that baptism is a symbol or type of the purification and new
life of the soul, and indications that some at least of the
statements of the Fathers about regeneration by baptism are
to be understood as instances of the figure of putting the sign
for the thing signified. While it must be admitted that the
Fathers generally had an excessive and superstitious idea of
the efficacy of the sacrament, it has been sufficiently proved
that they are not really unanimous in holding baptismal
regeneration, and certainly not in the sense of the later
Church of Rome.
But as the Augustinian doctrine of regeneration was
established as orthodox, while at the same time the ritualistic
tendency steadily increased, there was formed a more definite
doctrine of sacramental efficacy, which was reduced to a
metaphysical system by the scholastic philosophy, and became
the symbolical doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church. That
doctrine is a thoroughly materialistic one, making the effects
of the sacraments exactly analogous to those supposed to be
wrought by magic, in which certain outward things were
believed to be endowed, by certain charms or spells, with the
power of producing wonderful effects. Baptism is declared
to be the instrumental cause of justification and regeneration,
and to produce these results ex opere operato in the case of all
who receive it and do not put an obstacle in the way (non
ponentibus obieem). The scriptural evidence alleged for it is
1 Origen, aiv. Cels. iii., ed. Spencer, p. 142, Eng. trans, c. li. ; Chrysostom,
in Joh. iii. ; Basil, de Spir. S. c. xv.

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 171
John 35, Eph. 526, Tit. 36, Acts 2216, 1 Pet. 321, and it rests
upon a particular interpretation of these texts, especially of
the first. It is assumed that when our Lord said, " Except a man be
born of water," etc., He referred to the sacrament of baptism.
Even this is not certain ; and if any baptism be directly meant,
it can only be that which John and the disciples of Jesus
were then administering. That there may have been an
allusion to this is not improbable ; but what Jesus directly
spoke of was the idea of baptism, or the reality which it
represents. Some think that He declared two things to be
necessary to enter the kingdom of heaven — birth of water,
i.e. baptism, and birth of the Spirit, i.e. regeneration. But
against this is the fact that the preposition is not repeated :
it is simply e£ vBaro'; ical irvev/j.aTos ; and in all the other
forms of the statement in this discourse, only one thing is
mentioned — begotten again, or from above, of Spirit. Jesus
seems therefore to speak of one thing only, that ba.ptism with
the Holy Spirit which John had declared He would bestow
(Matt. 311, John l33). This does not refer to the Christian
ordinance of baptism, as Roman Catholic and Lutheran
expositors groundlessly assume, but to the spiritual renewal
of which baptism was the symbol. Jesus expected Nico-
demus as a teacher of Israel to know the things of which
He was speaking : now he could not have known about a
sacrament not then instituted ; but he might have known
of the needed and promised renewal by the Spirit, from
such passages as Isa. 443, Ezek. 3626- 26, where the Spirit
is metaphorically designated by water. The interpretation
which takes water and Spirit to be one idea = the Spirit
working like water, seems the most natural and suitable to
the context. In Tit. 35 God is said to have saved us Sia Xovrpov
ira\iyyeveaia<;, k.t.X., which contains, I think, a reference to
baptism, though that is not quite certain. But the washing
(or laver) of regeneration does not necessarily mean that
which causes regeneration ; it is analogous to " the baptism
of repentance," and may naturally mean accompanying or
symbolising regeneration.

172 THE SACRAMENTS
Similar is Eph. 526, a highly figurative passage, where
baptism is probably, though not certainly, referred to, and
Christ is said to have cleansed His Church by it in the word.
It is declared here that baptism is a means by which, along
with the word, Christ sanctifies His people ; and this we
cordially believe without holding that the outward ordinance
has any regenerating power.
In 1 Pet. 321 baptism is said to save us ; but it is called
a figure, and the reality is not the putting away of the
filth of the flesh, but the inquiry of a good conscience after
God. In Acts 2216 it is generally assumed that the words, wash
away thy sins, refer to forgiveness. But it seems more in
accordance with the meaning of like exhortations elsewhere
in Scripture to understand them of repentance and forsaking
sin (see Isa. I16, Jas. 48, 2 Cor. 71).
These passages therefore can all be understood in a proper
and natural sense without implying the Romish doctrine of
baptismal regeneration, and therefore cannot be regarded as
proof of it. If it were proved by other evidence they could
be interpreted as declaring it, but they do not necessarily or
naturally touch it. Now, so far from being proved by any
other evidence, the doctrine in question is conclusively
disproved by several considerations.
The great principle that runs through the New Testament,
and is expressly and plainly stated in many places, that
sinners are saved by simple faith in the Lord Jesus Christ,
is diametrically opposed to this Romish doctrine. In the
Epistle to the Romans, Paul emphatically states, and proves
from the Old Testament, that we are justified by faith without
the works of the law, and makes no mention of baptism or
any other rite as necessary until he comes to speak afterwards
incidentally of baptism as pledging the believer to a life of
holiness. Exactly similar is the tenor of his Epistle to the
Galatians, which contains, amid declarations as strong of
salvation by faith, only one solitary allusion (327) to baptism.
So also it is in his other Epistles. John gives as his own, or
reports as his Master's, many precious sayings about salvation
and eternal life by faith in Jesus, and about the new birth of

BAPTISMAL REGENERATION REFUTED 173
God ; but there is not a single reference to baptism in his
writings, save the doubtful one in John 35. The same great
truth of salvation by faith is taught or assumed by the other
New Testament writers. Now this is entirely overthrown by
the Romish doctrine of baptismal regeneration. If it be only
by baptism that the new life is imparted, then it is not true
that whosoever believeth in Jesus shall not perish, but have
eternal life ; and if baptism always regenerates the soul, then
it is not true that he that believeth not the Son shall not see
life. Even the exceptions that Romanists are forced to make
on either side, as that martyrdom or the desire of receiving
baptism suffice without it, and that the purpose of mortal sin
places an obstacle in the way that prevents its efficacy, do not
suffice to bring their doctrine into consistency with the teach
ing of Scripture. For there may be true and great faith
without the desire of baptism, e.g. in Quakers who reject the
ordinance entirely, and one baptized in infancy may never
come to believe in the Saviour. Unless, therefore, we are to
give up the doctrine of salvation by grace through faith, we
must reject that of the Church of Rome on baptismal
regeneration. Experience also witnesses decisively against it. Although
regeneration itself is a secret and mysterious thing, yet
wherever it is real it will and must show itself in its effects
of godliness, purity, and uprightness of life. It is a mere
empty name or imagination if it does not do so. Now the
Romish theory is, that all who are baptized and have not
interposed the obstacle of sin are renewed in heart and life.
We should expect, therefore, to find this manifested in their
character and conduct, and we must bring the doctrine to this
test of experience and fact. No doubt, in the case of those
who have been baptized when of full age, there is always the
possibility of an incalculable element coming in, for we cannot
tell whether or not there was an obstacle put in the way of
the efficacy of the sacrament. But in the vast multitudes
who have been baptized in infancy there is no such un
certainty ; for as infants cannot interpose any obstacle, it is
certain, according to the Church of Rome, that they are all
regenerated in baptism. But what says history and experi-

174 THE SACRAMENTS
ence to this ? Have there not been multitudes baptized in
infancy who have given no evidence whatever of godliness
or practical Christianity, nay, who have been notorious for
vices and crimes of the grossest kind ? One instance, at least,
we have in the New Testament of a man who was certainly
baptized and yet not regenerated, Simon Magus. Of course it
is possible to form a theory to explain such cases — as that the
baptismal grace was very early stifled and destroyed in these
men ; but we appeal to the plain facts of the case, and ask if
it is reasonable to expect us to believe in a change so
momentous as that which is alleged to have taken place
when there are absolutely no traces in the actual facts. We
have no evidence of the reality of regeneration in the history
of the world or the Church, except from what we see of the
fruits of the Spirit as contrasted with the works of the flesh :
we do observe that these are very generally found in connec
tion with the sincere profession of faith in Christ, but we also
find that they are not at all invariably, or even nearly so,
connected with the rite of baptism. We conclude, therefore,
that baptismal regeneration, in the sense of the Church of
Rome, is as much a superstitious fiction as cures by magical
spells or charms.
The practical consequences of this tenet are most mis
chievous, for by means of it all that is good and sound in the
doctrine of original sin and efficacious grace, as held even by
the most Augustinian Romish, divines, is virtually neutralised.
Though it be held in theory that all men are born in sin, and
need a great change before they can be saved or made fit for
heaven ; yet, since it is also taught that that change is effected
in baptism, and in the case of infants without any possible
doubt, then, as all within the external pale of the Church are
baptized in infancy, they are led to regard themselves as free
from all indwelling sin, needing no saving change, and able to
merit God's favour by works of obedience. Thus all the
humbling and alarming power of the doctrine of original sin
is taken away and a basis laid for 'carelessness, low morality,
and presumptuous self-confidence.
This doctrine also tends to make those of original sin and
regeneration appear mere unreal technicalities. For if there

LUTHERAN DOCTRINE OF REGENERATION 175
is no greater difference between men dead in sin and those
born again by the Spirit than there is to be seen between the
baptized and the unbaptized, most people will think that this
is in reality, in many cases, no moral difference at all, and
that these doctrines are mere fictions of theologians, and not
realities of human life and experience. The only way in
which these cardinal doctrines of Christianity can be upheld
is making them correspond to the moral character of men,
and not to their mere ecclesiastical position or reception of
outward rites. If it be held that only those who manifest
Christian virtues can be known to be really born again, and
that all who display an utterly worldly character are unre-
generate whether baptized or not, then we can fully maintain
and prove the doctrines of depravity and regeneration as
great and palpable realities, but not otherwise.
A doctrine of baptismal regeneration is also maintained
in the Lutheran Church, but in a very different sense from
the Romish one, and far less anti-scriptural and dangerous.
There is, however, some difficulty in stating precisely what
the Lutheran view is, for different divines of that Church
have given very diverse statements on the subject, and the
forms of expression used by some are not very clear or intel
ligible. Neither Luther's own statements nor those of the
symbolical books of his Church seem to differ essentially from
the Reformed doctrine, though they emphasise different points
in it. Attaching so much importance to justification by faith,
they naturally deny the magical power that Romanists ascribe
to the rite as a mere outward act ex opere operato, and make
its efficacy to depend entirely on the word of God and the
faith of the receiver. But at the same time they are anxious
to represent it as not a merely subjective and uncertain thing,
but a real objective certainty ; hence they attach great
importance to the word that is associated with the sign in
the sacrament.1 There is the divine word of promise, assur
ing us of forgiveness and regeneration, the outward sign
exhibiting and confirming this, and faith receiving it ; and
when the sign is received in faith upon the word of promise,
the thing signified by it is also certainly received. Thus
1 See Luther's Shorter Catechism, part iv.

176 THE SACRAMENTS
where there is faith the sacraments are always connected
with the spiritual blessings that they represent, and we may
be truly said to be washed from our sins and receive new life
in baptism. This is exactly the doctrine of Calvin and his
disciples, with only this difference, that the Lutherans hold
that in such cases the spiritual blessing is bestowed or con
veyed through the sacramental action, while Calvinists hold
that it is given directly by the Holy Spirit, the sacrament
being only the sign and seal of His work. But this only
applies to the baptism of adults ; while both the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches agreed that infants also are to be baptized,
and a difference of view emerged in regard to them. Luther
attempted to carry out his view of faith being the condition
of the efficacy of baptism by maintaining that infants may
and do have faith, receiving it in answer to the prayer of the
Church ; but this was a position so obviously inconsistent
with fact that it could not be held, except in the modified
form, that they may have the germ or principle of faith,
though incapable of its actual exercise, and in this form it
was not applicable for the purpose designed.1 Hence it came
to be held by later Lutherans that in the case of infants,
baptism is certainly accompanied by regeneration; while it
was still held that in the case of adults it is so only when
they exercise faith in the promises made and sealed in it.
Such is the doctrine, e.g., of Buddeus. But it was evidently
illogical to make so great a distinction between the effect of
baptism in the case of infants and of adults, and the tendency
was to assimilate the latter case to the former, and to hold
that baptism in all cases conveys to the soul a certain spiritual
influence, imparting a new life, unless that is hindered by
positive unbelief. Some modern Lutherans, such as Marten-
sen, hold that baptism effects a regeneration, not, indeed, of the
personal or conscious life of those who receive it, but of the
nature or substance which is beyond the range of conscious-
1 Spanheim says that the questions between Lutherans and Reformed on
baptism are, whether all infants are regenerated by it ? whether it is not merely
a sign and seal and moral instrument of regeneration, but also has a causal
efficacy, and so is ordinarily necessary, not merely as a commanded duty, but
as an indispensable means ?

ANGLICAN VIEWS OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION l77
ness, laying the foundation for the spiritual or glorified cor
poreity that believers look for at the last day. But this idea
has no foundation in Scripture, for there is nothing to indicate
that regeneration or being begotten of God is employed in
two distinct senses there, and the future resurrection and
glorification of the body is connected, not with baptism or
any change effected by that ordinance, but with the indwelling
of the Spirit of Christ in believers (Rom. 8n). It is also, as
Martensen admits, a theory incapable of being verified by
experience. It appears, then, that we must regard this view,
as Oosterzee expresses it, " as extra-scriptural theosophy, not
apostolic theology, and equally not the theology of the Refor
mation" (Dogmatics, § cxxxviii. 4. 10).
It seems to be sufficiently made out that the early divines
of the English Church held substantially the same views on
baptism as those of the Reformed Churches on the Continent.
Their general doctrine was Calvinistic, and on this point they
agreed with Calvin in ascribing as much as possible to baptism
in the way of representing, sealing, and applying the highest
blessings of salvation to believers, while denying to it any in
herent physical or magical efficacy apart from faith. Burnet's
exposition of the article (27) on baptism is substantially
sound and good, and the article itself does not materially
differ from the other Reformed Confessions, nor does the West
minster Confession depart from it in substance. In the
Catechism it is distinctly said that it is not by the outward
sign, but by the inward spiritual grace, that we are made
children of grace, though at the outset the catechumen is
made to say, " In my baptism I was made a member of
Christ, the child of God, and an inheritor of the kingdom
of heaven." But in the offices for the baptism both of infants
and of adults, prayers are offered for their regeneration
before the administration, and thanks given for it after.
These in their most obvious sense seem to imply regenera
tion in baptism, and are perplexing to those who do not
hold that doctrine. The earlier Anglican divines under
stood them as proceeding on the charitable assumption that
the baptized either did, or in due time would believe ; and

178 THE SACRAMENTS
in regard to infants, some of them seem to have held that
when any are regenerated hi infancy this is usually done
at baptism. But in the course of time various tenden
cies came into play, leading men away from this position.
Archbishop Laud and his followers introduced many Roman
ising doctrines and practices, and among these the doctrine
of baptismal regeneration. But it has been held by Anglican
divines in very different and sometimes fluctuating senses.
Some of them, e.g. Jeremy Taylor, seem, at times to coincide
exactly with the Church of Rome, ascribing all the spiritual
blessings of Christianity to the outward rite of baptism,
though at other times they speak of faith, repentance, and
other graces being required as dispositions for it, at least in
the case of adults. The idea seems to be held by some that
though baptism may not always produce the new life, yet
that is not to be had without it ; but Taylor admits that the
blessings of baptism may sometimes be given before the
ordinance, as in the case of -Cornelius, and that in other
instances they may not appear till long after. This seems,
after all, to come back very nearly to Calvin's doctrine, that
baptism does really convey the graces that it signifies when
there is faith, but that its efficacy is not limited to the time
of its administration.
Another class of Anglican divines, of whom Waterland
may be mentioned as an example, make baptismal regenera
tion consist in a relative change, not a real and inward one.1
It is being adopted into the family of God, put into the rela
tion of His children ; but it does not produce any real change
in the disposition or character of the soul. In this way inany
of the difficulties that beset the idea of a spiritual change
being effected by an outward rite are got rid of, and it is
1 There may he said to be three views among Anglicans as to how men are
said to be regenerate in baptism —
1. That they receive a germ of eternal life, which is a faculty only, not
character. Goulbourn, Browne, and High Church writers.
2. That they receive an outward status, ecclesiastical regeneration. Water-
land. 3. That they receive the sign and seal of spiritual regeneration, and arc
said by a figure to receive the thing itself. Usher, Hooker, Moule.

ANGLICAN VIEWS OF BAPTISMAL REGENERATION 179
made more easy to maintain that all who are baptized are in
this sense born again. But it gives a very peculiar and
unnatural sense to the term regeneration, and tends greatly
to obscure and throw into the shade the real doctrine of
Scripture as to that great change. Those who take this view
usually attempt to compare it with the more scriptural idea
of regeneration, and are found passing from one sense of the
word to another, according to the exigencies of their position.
Thus the doctrine of baptismal regeneration in all its
various forms leads either to inextricable confusion or to
anti-scriptural dogmas. But it has really no support in
Scripture. Baptism is the divinely-appointed sign of regenera
tion ; and sometimes our regeneration is called a baptism into
Christ. The sacrament gives us the assurance that God grants
forgiveness and renewal to all who believe in Christ, and is
willing to bestow these blessings on their children also ; and
so it is a blessed help to our faith and progress in holiness.
But it has no magical or mystical efficacy, nor is it indispens
able, so that there can be no regeneration without it.
The Lord's Supper
its form, meaning, and efficacy
In treating of the second of the Christian sacraments,
the Lord's Supper, we may follow the same plan as in the
former, and consider —
I. The external sign in this ordinance. The institution
of it is recorded by the first three evangelists, and by Paul
in 1 Cor. II23. All these narratives agree in telling us that
on the night in which He was betrayed, Jesus took bread,
etc. ; and the statement of Paul plainly shows that this was
meant to be a permanent observance from time to time
among Christians, and was actually kept as such by the early
Churches. Hence it appears that the outward part of the
sacrament consists of the giving and receiving and eating
bread, and the giving and receiving and drinking of a cup of
wine, with thanksgiving to God. There is really little more
to be said positively than this, and this seems perfectly

1 80 THE SACRAMENTS
plain and sufficient. Yet there have been many questions
as to the outward rite.
1. As to the matter of the elements, the Romish Church
holds that the bread must be unleavened, on the ground that
Christ instituted the sacrament after the Passover, when only
unleavened bread was eaten. The Greek Church, on the
contrary, requires the use of leavened bread, holding that
the Supper at which the sacrament was instituted was not
the paschal feast, but one held by anticipation on the day
before it. The historical question is one of those difficult
points, in regard to the details of our Lord's life on earth,
about which the opinions of competent judges are still very
much divided ; but whatever may be the truth, it is obvious
that Jesus did not specially select either the one kind of
bread or the other, but took whichever He used simply
because it was the one then at hand. And as there is no
indication of any spiritual significance being attached to the
kind of bread used, the conclusion seems to be that it is a
matter of indifference whether it be leavened or unleavened,
and that the bread commonly in use where the sacrament
is kept ought to be taken. In like manner, questions were
raised in ancient times, and have been renewed in the present
day, in regard to the cup. There can be no doubt that what
Jesus used was wine, as that was what was drunk in the cup
of blessing at the Passover, and He calls it the fruit of the
vine.1 There were some in the first or second century who
from extreme asceticism thought it their duty to abstain
from all intoxicating drinks, and therefore would not use
wine in the Lord's Supper, but put water in its place.
Hence they were called Hydroparastatse ; and cases are re
ferred to in various ages of individuals who could not bear
the taste or smell of wine. The possibility of such cases is
one of the arguments used by Romanists for refusing the
cup to the laity. The difficulties, therefore, that are raised
by some in the present day as to the use of wine in the
1 It is pretty certain that as used by Jesus it was mixed with water, and
I do not think there can be any objection to that practice if no symbolical
meaning is attached to it, as is done by some in the Church of England.

THE ELEMENTS IN THE LORD'S SUPPER 181
Lord's Supper are not altogether new in the history of the
Church. As to the settlement of such questions, it is plain
that no precise limitation is given as to the nature of the
cup. Our Saviour took that which was in common use at
the time, and we best conform to His example when we use
the wine that is generally drunk as a beverage among us.
To attempt to define the particular kind of wine used by
Him, whether fermented or unfermented, and to insist on the
use of that alone, is just the same unwarranted particularity
as the rules of the Greek and Romish Churches about the
bread. I do not think it necessary to the ordinance that
the wine used should be intoxicating, nor do I inquire
whether the unfermented wine used by some is really wine
at all ; the simple fact that it is not an ordinary drink for
nourishment and refreshment makes it unsuitable for the
ordinance. If those who advocate it could bring it into
common use, then it would be not inappropriate to the
sacrament ; but to use a peculiar drink that no one would
think of taking in ordinary life, is to depart from the
simplicity and significance of the ordinance. As for those
who cannot safely take any wine that has intoxicating
qualities, the number of such can only be very small ; and it
has been held by the best divines that such may use water
or some ordinary beverage, rather than either abstain from
the Supper entirely, or receive the bread only and not the cup
(see De Moor, in March Comp. chap. xxxi. § 6). Such is the
remedy provided for extreme cases ; but surely the danger of
the taste of wine to reclaimed drunkards may be practically
reduced to a nullity by the use of light wine mixed, if need
be, with water, and by the very small sips that each com
municant takes. Those who hold that the use of any in
toxicating drink is absolutely and in itself wrong, are, it is
to be feared, adopting the principles of those ancient heretics
who held similar views ; and these lead to much more serious
errors. To such Manichean principles no concession can be
made ; but to those who abstain on grounds of expediency
and Christian charity every encouragement should be given.
If it should come to be the general practice of professing

182 THE SACRAMENTS
Christians to abstain from wine in common life, then it
might be natural and proper enough to use some other
beverage in the Communion, for the spirit of the institution
is that that be used which is ordinarily drunk for refresh
ment. But on this matter the general arrangements of the
Church must be made in accordance with the views and
practices of the greater part of its members, while special
provision should be made for any exceptional cases that
may occur. We ought, however, carefully to avoid laying
any stress on the precise nature or qualities of the beverage
used, for that is of no consequence to the religious use of the
ordinance, and would only tend to involve men's consciences
in perplexity. It may be better in itself to use purer and
lighter wines than those commonly drunk among us, but the
only safe rule to adopt for the Lord's Supper is to use the
kind that is customary in ordinary life. The appropriateness
of the symbol depends not on its being of any special nature
or colour, but on its being a customary, pleasant, and
refreshing drink.
2. As to the action in the sacrament, there has been
some controversy about the breaking of the bread. Romanists
and Lutherans do not break the bread in the actual admini
stration of the Supper, but have it previously divided into
round cakes or wafers, which they give to the communicants.
The Reformed Churches, however, consider that it is more in
accordance with Christ's example, and the simplicity and
significance of the ordinance, to use just the ordinary bread,
and to break it at the table as part of the sacramental
rite.1 There is also a question which has a historical interest
in the annals of the Scottish Church as to the posture of
1 It has generally been held by Reformed divines that breaking the bread
is a part of the symbolism of the sacrament ; and if our Lord used the expres
sion, Broken for you, in the institution, this would be clearly established. The
word Kkiiiievov, however, in 1 Cor. II24 is of doubtful authenticity, so that we
cannot be absolutely certain on this point ; but it is at least highly probable
that the breaking the bread is a significant action, and ought never to be
omitted. Lutherans hold that the function of the minister is only Consecrare
at distribuere. Buddeus, lib. v. chap. i. § 13. See also Spanheim, Elenchus
Controversiarum.

POSTURE IN CELEBRATING THE SUPPER 183
the communicants. At the last Supper of our Lord and
His disciples they reclined on couches, for that was the usual
attitude at meals and feasts.1 It seems evident also that in
the apostolic age the ordinary posture at table was retained
in the Supper, for that ordinance was observed in connection
with the agapce or love-feasts, which must have been con
ducted after the manner of ordinary entertainments. Paul's
references to the abuses connected with the observance of
the sacrament at Corinth in 1 Cor. 11 all presuppose that it
was kept in this way. A relic or survival of this ancient
usage is to be seen in the fact that even to this day the
Pope communicates sitting. In the third century we have
an indication in an incidental expression of Dionysius of
Alexandria that standing was a customary posture at the
Lord's table (Eus. H. F. vii. 9).2 Afterwards, along with
more superstitious ideas about the sacrament, the custom of
kneeling came in, earlier in the East, where forms of servile
adoration were more common, than in the West ; and this
was finally established in the Church as the proper and
necessary adjunct to the doctrine of Transubstantiation.3 If
the body of our Lord be really present in or under the appear
ance of bread and wine, then clearly it may and should be
worshipped with such adoration as is expressed by kneeling.
It is not easy to say whether the doctrine produced the
attitude, or the posture of worship led to the belief in the
bread being the object of worship; probably the two cor
ruptions went on by degrees hand in hand, and mutually
promoted each other.
At the Reformation the doctrine of Transubstantiation
was exploded by the Reformers, and in most of the Protestant
Churches the attitude connected with it was more or less
modified. The Lutherans adopted the practice of standing
or walking by the table, which was still allowed to have the
1 aveiceiTO (Matt. 2620), aveiretre (Luke 22"). z rpairetv irapaaTavra.
3 It was only made a fixed rule for the whole Church by Pope Honorius ill.
in 1217, two years after the Lateran Council had established the doctrine of
Transubstantiation. Previously it had been the custom in Italy, but not in
Germany. (See Neander, K. G. ii. 515.)

184 THE SACRAMENTS
position and form of an altar ; most of the Reformed Churches,
however, went back to the more primitive form of sitting at
a real table, the minister being at the head of it, hke the
host at a common meal. In the Church of England the
practice of kneeling was retained, though in the earlier times
of the Reformation it was not insisted on. John Knox, for
example, was allowed at Berwick and Newcastle to dispense
the Communion to the people sitting ; but he endeavoured in
vain to get the prescription of kneeling excluded from the
Liturgy, and only succeeded in obtaining the insertion of a
rubric, distinctly guarding against that being supposed to
imply any adoration of the elements. This rubric was
omitted in the revision of the Prayer- Book in the beginning
of Elizabeth's reign, but reinserted after the Restoration in
1660. In the Church of Scotland the sitting posture was
adopted from the beginning of the Reformation. Kneeling
at the Communion was one of the five Articles of Perth
sought to be imposed by the Royal and Prelatical party, but
ever resisted by the Presbyterian ; and this continues to be
the usage in Presbyterian and Congregational Churches to
the present day.
In favour of it are the following considerations : —
(1) It is most conformed to the example of Christ, and
the earliest practice of the Church.
(2) It is most appropriate to the nature of the ordinance
as a feast, and indicates most significantly the freedom and
nearness of access to God that believers enjoy.
(3) The kneeling posture has been closely connected
with false doctrine and idolatry, and the danger of these is
best avoided by the adoption of the older attitude.
In regard to the mode of administering the sacraments
in general, our Church has held strongly the essential prin
ciple that they are not to be dissociated from the preaching
of the word, to which they are to be regarded as appendages.
Hence the normal practice is that they be administered
after sermon ; and when in special circumstances this can
not be, there should at least be some exposition of the

SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUPPER 185
great truths of the gospel. This is a great safeguard against
superstition. II. In regard to the significance of the Lord's Supper,
there is little room for discussion, for it is expressly stated
by our Saviour in the words of institution that the bread
signifies His body and the wine His blood. That this is so
in some sense, whatever more may be true of the sacrament,
is admitted by all. It is to be observed, however, that these
elements do not represent Christ's body and blood abstractly
and in themselves, but His body as broken and His blood as
shed for us. Some writers, in explaining the symbolism of
the ordinance, are led in what I think is a wrong direction
by failing to observe this. They take the bread as repre
senting Christ's body in itself, and often more particularly
His body as it now is glorified in heaven ; and they fancy
that some resemblance or connection is indicated between it
and the material element of bread. Thus Alford, com
menting on the words of institution in Matt. 26, explains the
bread by reference to the truth that in Christ all things
consist, so that literally His glorified body is the staff of life
to the universe. But this is surely a far too general explana
tion of this, the most specifically Christian, ordinance of the
New Testament. It must represent not what Christ's body
is to the world at large, but what it is to His own believing
people. A further objection is, that it destroys the parallelism
of the two parts of the sacrament, for Alford is obliged to
give a quite different explanation of the cup from that which
he gives of the bread.1
The true view of the meaning of the symbols is indicated
by the fact that the body of Christ is represented as broken,
and His blood as poured out, and that Paul declares that in
this ordinance we show the Lord's death. The simple mean
ing of both parts of the sign is to represent the death of
Christ ; His body and blood in this connection stand simply
1 Similarly, Dorner thinks that the symbolising of Christ's death is not the
chief thing, and that the breaking of the bread is rather to be understood of
its distribution (Glaubenslehre, ii. 850, 851). This is the view of the Lutheran
dogmatists. (See Buddeus, lib. v. u. 1, § 13.)

186 THE SACRAMENTS
for His death, as is plain from 1 Cor. 1 127, where guilty of
the body and blood of the Lord can only mean guilty of His
death. This is the view taken by our standards (see Con
fession, xxix. 1, 7 ; Larger Catechism, 168, 170, 174), and
is practically important.
This simple and scriptural view of the meaning of the
elements enables us to see a natural and consistent meaning
in the various other parts of the ordinance. Thus the giving
of the bread and wine represents the presentation of Christ
crucified in the gospel, and shows the freeness of God's offer
of Him to sinners ; the circumstance that it is by the hands
of men that the elements are given, shows the outward means
by which the gospel is made known ; and the custom, which
we believe to be most scriptural, of all the communicants
handing them one to another, and not all receiving them
from the minister, teaches that all believers have a work to
do in testifying of Christ to their brethren, and seeking to
lead them to receive Him. Then the receiving of the elements
represents the faith by which we receive and rest on Christ
as offered to us in the gospel; and the nourishment and
refreshment that bread and wine give to the body symbolise
the spiritual life and blessedness that come through faith in
Christ. Thus the whole ordinance, though as simple as
possible, is yet very rich in spiritual meaning.
III. As to the efficacy of the Lord's Supper, the question
resolves itself into an inquiry about the connection between
the sign and the thing signified ; and the great division of
opinion may be said to be on the point whether that con
nection is bodily or spiritual. Nearly all Christians admit
that there is a real connection, so that the body and blood of
Christ may be said to be really present to believers in the
Supper; but there is a great difference as to the nature of
the presence asserted by different Churches. Pretty early in
the history of the Church exaggerated language came to be
used about this as well as the other sacrament, and effects
and blessings were ascribed to it that properly belong only to
the spiritual realities represented by it. With the increasing
tendency to superstitious and material ideas, these views gained

ROMISH DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER 187
the upper hand, and at the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215
Transubstantiation was decreed as the faith of the Church.

A. ROMAN CATHOLIC DOCTRINE
This doctrine, which was confirmed by the Council of
Trent, may be analysed into the following positions : —
1. That Christ's body and blood are really present,
contained under the appearance of bread and wine, the
substance of the bread being changed into the body, and that
of the wine into the blood of Christ, the accidents of the
bread and wine alone remaining (see Cone. Lot. iv. c. i., apud
Hagenbach, D. G. p. 469). The peculiar form of this doctrine
is due to the fact, that while it was held that the elements
are changed into the body and blood of Christ, it is obvious
that there is no change whatever in the appearance which
they present to the senses. In order to reconcile these two
things, recourse was had to the metaphysical distinction of
substance and accidents. This distinction was understood by
the realistic philosophers of that scholastic age as one of
different parts of things that had each an objective reality,
and might exist apart from one another. The substance or
essence of a thing, the " form " of Aristotle, the " idea " of
Plato, was regarded as a real entity, and hence it was possible
to conceive that it might be removed or changed, though the
accidents, i.e. the non-essential qualities, remained the same.
This is what was held to take place in the consecrated
elements. The accidents or quaUties of whiteness, roundness,
taste, nutritiousness remain, but the substance in which they
inhered is entirely changed, and instead of it there is present
the body and blood of Christ. These accidents, however, do not
properly belong to the body of Christ, and so it has generally
been held that they exist without any subject in which they
properly inhere.1 This doctrine is obviously based entirely
1 This metaphysical subtlety is suriposed to be a, literal interpretation of
Christ's words : "This is My body " !
High Anglicans also profess to give a literal interpretation. AVilberforce,
Doctrine of the Eucharist, says the words assert an identity of subject and
predicate (p. 98) which consists in this, that the subject and predicate make

188 THE SACRAMENTS
on the realistic theory of the real existence of the forms or
essences of things, and its ground is entirely removed if that
theory be not true. But it must appear in the light of
modern philosophy that the theory of Realism has no
evidence to support it. There is, indeed, an intelligible dis
tinction between substance and accident, and in the logical
study of any object of thought or knowledge we must analyse
it into these two. We find in it certain qualities which we
can by abstraction contemplate separately, and we call them
accidents ; but we also find that we cannot conceive of any
of them existing by itself, but must imagine it as inherent in
something, and therefore we say that there is besides the
qualities a something in which they inhere, which we call
substance. But while we can conceive all the qualities of an
object separately, we have no reason to believe that they can
exist separately from the substance. The distinction is entirely
due to our power of abstraction, and consists simply in
different aspects of things ; but the only things that we really
know to exist are not substances and qualities separately, but
substances possessing qualities. A round white piece of
bread we know to exist, and we can think of its roundness,
whiteness, and other qualities separately, and we know also
that there is something that is round, white, etc. ; but we only
know the substance by its qualities, and apart from these we
have no means of distinguishing one substance from another.
2. Transubstantiation is held to be effected by the act of
the priest pronouncing in Latin the words of institution,
Hoc est corpus meum. It only needs that he be duly ordained
by a bishop having unbroken apostolic succession, and that
he have the intention of doing what the Church does in the
sacrament. This assumed power is, indeed, the chief dis-
up together a real but heterogeneous whole (p. 99), so that he who receives
the one receives the other also. So long as we remain in the region of the
senses, and take account only of that which is visible to the outward world,
the sacramentum is all which we know of; but judge of the matter by faith
and revelation, and we are sure that the res sacramenti is present also (p. 102).
Thus, as he says, he differs only verbally from Thomas Aquinas, for by sub
stance he meant, according to the Aristotelian conception, not the material,
but that which is an object only to the intellect, the res sacramenti (p. 108).

TRANSUBSTANTIATION 189
tinction and prerogative of the priestly office, and marks it
out on the Romish theory as an order superior to that of
ordinary Christians. The priest possesses this tremendous
power of making bread into the body of the Lord for the
spiritual life of the people (conficere corpus domini), and the
bishop possesses the still higher prerogative of giving that
power to whom he will. Thus the hierarchy in the Roman
Catholic Church is not a mere titular gradation or distinction
of rank and authority, but a distinction of orders resting on
the possession of mysterious supernatural power. So far all
is consistent. The doctrine of the necessity of the priest's intention,
however, introduces an element of embarrassment. For no
one can possibly be certain of the secret intention of another's
heart ; and yet if the priest go through the outward actions
never so regularly without it, the mysterious change does not
take place, and the bread and wine remain what they were.
Yet on the reality of the change depends the worship that is
given to them. If they are not really transubstantiated, then,
even on the Romish theory, the worship of them would be
idolatry. Hence no Romanist can be absolutely sure that he
is not guilty of that sin, for he can have no certainty as to
the intention of the priest in any particular case. This
inconsistency, however, seems to be inseparable from the
system ; for if once such power is ascribed to the priest, it
would be monstrous to say that he could exercise it against or
without his own will.
3. Another point in the Romish doctrine of the Lord's
Supper is that in it a sacrifice is offered by the priest to God
for the remission of sins. The priest, having changed the
elements into the body and blood of Christ, proceeds to offer
them to God ; and this is held to be a repetition of the sacrifice
of Christ on the Cross, and to procure pardon not only for
those present and joining in the service, but for any for whom
it may be offered, and for the dead as well as the living.
This sacrificial idea harmonises well with that of Transub
stantiation; and though it is of independent origin and
growth, its development seems to have nearly kept pace

190 THE SACRAMENTS
with the other. That, as we have seen, arose from the
gradual materialising of the symbolical meaning of the
sacrament and the words of institution. The doctrine of
the sacrifice in the Eucharist sprang from a perversion of
another Christian idea. The New Testament teaching is that
all believers are priests to God, and as such are called to
offer, not propitiatory, but eucharistic sacrifices. They do
this by dedicating themselves to God (Rom. 121), and also by
offering praise and thanks, and by deeds of benevolence and
charity (Heb. 1315-16). The gifts that they contributed for
pious purposes might, in this sense, be called offerings or
sacrifices ; and in early times, before the language had been
perverted to an unscriptural effect, it was freely used. Now
it was anciently the custom that the bread and wine used in
the Lord's Supper were contributed by the freewill offerings of
the people, as the provisions of the agapoe also were ; and the
presentation of them came to form a part of the worship,
like the offertory in the Church of England, and to be
accompanied with prayers for the acceptance of the gifts as
thank-offerings and expressions of the self- dedication of the
worshippers. This stage in the progress of the worship is
illustrated copiously by Bunsen in his work on Hippolytus
and his age. Gradually, however, the true idea of the
universal priesthood of believers was forgotten, and that of
the priesthood of Christian ministers came in its stead ;
and then the original meaning of the prayers offering the
elements was no longer understood, and they began to be
regarded as sacrifices offered by the clergy as priests ; and as
the prayers of oblation were accompanied with those for for
giveness and other spiritual blessings, the sacrifice came to be
regarded as expiatory. This perversion of scriptural ideas,
harmonising with the idea of the real presence of the body
and blood of Christ, led on to the full-blown Romish doctrine
of the sacrifice of the Mass — a doctrine glaringly inconsistent
with the emphatic statements of Scripture, that there is no
other propitiation for our sins but the one perfect and all-
sufficient sacrifice of Christ. This doctrine of sacrifice may
be said to be the most radical and fatal error in the Romish

SACRIFICIAL INTERPRETATION OF THE SUPPER 191
view of the sacrament. It altogether alters and perverts its
meaning, for it ascribes to it an efficacy quite different from
that which it has as received by communicants. On the
sacrificial theory it has a power not at all of applying Christ's
benefits to us, but of procuring from God these benefits by
an additional offering of Christ, and thus it may benefit those
who do not partake of it at all, but are merely spectators ; nay,
even those who are absent or dead. Anything more entirely
opposed to the nature and character of the ordinance as
represented in Scripture, it is impossible to conceive.
Still further, it is maintained that the true body and
blood of Christ are received by the mouths of the communi
cants; and, finally, that they are received by all alike, whether
good or bad, believing or unbelieving, though they are salutary
only to the former and deadly to the latter. But as these
points are of comparatively less importance in the Romish
system,- while they are maintained also by Lutherans and
play a more leading part in their doctrine, we may defer any
remarks on them till we have examined the principle of the
Lutheran view.

B. LUTHERAN DOCTRINE
Luther, who did such noble service to the cause of pure
Christianity by restoring the great truths of the gospel after
they had been buried for ages in the Roman Catholic Church,
rejected the most . fundamental and dangerous principles of
the Romish doctrine of the Supper, namely, the notion of its
being a sacrifice, the change of the substance of the elements,
and the dependence of the presence of Christ on the act of the
priest. Thus he and all his followers deny the first three of
the positions implied in the Romish doctrine, and by doing so
entirely alter its nature and spirit. The Supper is no longer
regarded as a propitiatory offering or a repetition of the
sacrifice of Christ, it is rather looked on as an act of com
munion with Christ. So far we can perfectly sympathise and
agree with the Lutheran doctrine. It was an immense
improvement on the Romish view, and swept away its most

192 THE SACRAMENTS
uns'criptural parts. But Luther still clung to a real presence
of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament. He held
that the substance of the bread and wine was not indeed
changed, but still remained along with the accidents ; but that
the substance of the body and blood of Christ was also present
in, with, or under the bread and wine. This position is what
is generally described as consubstantiation ; but that term does
not occur in the authorised Lutheran standards, and is re
pudiated by some of their theologians (e.g. Buddeus). Some
thing like the same idea had been maintained by John of
Damascus in the Greek Church before the scholastic doctrme
of Transubstantiation was wrought out. The illustration used
by him and also by Luther is that of the existence of fire in
a live coal where the coal remains what it was, but is not
merely coal but coal with fire in it. There is, however, this
obvious difficulty, that in the consecrated elements there is no
sensible appearance of anything more than bread and wine,
and that if Christ's body be really present it is strange that
it should not be perceptible by any of our senses- What do
we mean when we say that a body is present to us, except
that it presents itself as an object to one or more of our
senses ? The notion of a real but entirely insensible presence
of the body of Christ along with the real bread seems even
more difficult to grasp than that of a presence as the substance
of the accidents of bread. Another difficulty of the Lutheran
notion of the real presence, is how the body of Christ can be
present in so many places when' the sacrament is administered
at once. In order to evade this, Luther and his disciples have
adopted the theory that the divine attribute of ubiquity is
communicated to the human nature of Christ in virtue of the
hypostatic union. This, however, rests upon a wrong view of
the union of deity and humanity in Christ's person, and tends
to destroy the reality of His human nature. Besides, even
if this view of the hypostatic union were true, it would be
inappropriate for the purpose in hand ; for it would manifestly
prove too much, since on that theory Christ's body might be
said to be present everywhere in every piece of bread as well
as in the Supper. The consideration of this might lead us to

LUTHERAN DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER 193
suppose that the Lutherans really meant by the assertion of
the presence of Christ's body in the Supper, that we really
are made partakers of Christ in this ordinance ; and in this
even Zwinglians and Calvinists would agree with them. But
that Luther and his followers meant more than this appears
from their other positions. They maintain —
2. That the body and blood of Christ are received by the
mouths of the communicants (manducatio oralis), and not
simply by faith in their hearts. It is explained, indeed, that
this is not done in an ordinary natural way, but in a super
natural and heavenly manner ; not so that the Saviour's body
is torn by the teeth, but yet so that it is really received by
the mouth in, with, or under the bread and wine. On this
point the Lutherans insist strongly ; also —
3. That not only believers who worthUy partake of the
ordinance in the exercise of faith, but all who receive it even
though they have no faith, receive and eat and drink the real
body and blood of Christ, though it is only when there is faith
in the soul that such reception is profitable and life-giving.
This position they support by the saying of Paul, that he that
eats and drinks unworthUy is guilty of the body and blood of
the Lord, — inferring from that that such a one must really
receive the Lord's body and blood, for unless he did so he
could not be guilty of a sin against them. Then they use
this as a proof of the oral reception ; for they argue, if the
Lord's body be received even by unbelievers it cannot be by
faith that it is received, since they have no faith ; it must
therefore be by the bodily mouth in the act of eating, which
is common to all communicants alike, whether believing or
not. It seems probable that Luther's great aim in retaining so
firmly as he did these points in the previously current doctrine
of the Supper, was to preserve the objective character of the
blessing bestowed in it, which seemed to him to be endangered
by the way in which Zwingli and his friends spoke of it.
When they described the sacrament as a commemoration of
the death of Christ, and said that His body and blood are only
present to our faith, they seemed to Luther to make the
'3

194 THE SACRAMENTS
communion with Christ in the sacrament to depend on our
own subjective thoughts, and so to be merely imaginary.
Perhaps in reality some of their expressions were inadequate,
and gave some occasion to such an idea. But Luther in his
anxiety to maintain a real communion with Christ not de
pendent on our thoughts or feelings, but certain and independent,
thought it necessary to assert a real presence of Christ in the
elements, even to those who have no faith, and from this
flowed the three positions just indicated. The biblical evidence
for them he thought he found in the words of Christ, " This
is My body," which he insisted must be literally understood ;
and all the difficulties and contradictions that his doctrine
was shown to involve he regarded as mere objections of
rationalists, to be met by a simple appeal to the omnipotence
of God, and the fact that there are in His word mysteries
transcending human reason. This, indeed, would be a sufficient
answer to the objections, if the doctrine against which they
are made were certainly taught in Scripture. But the very
question is whether it is so taught, and Luther's argument
constantly turns round in a circle, or assumes what needs to
be proved. C. ZWINGLIAN DOCTRINE
The element that was overlooked by Luther was clearly
and emphatically brought out by Zwingli, that the Lord's
Supper refers to the death of Christ for us. "The fundamental
idea in his teaching is, that the broken bread and outpoured
wine represents the death of Christ ; and in some of his state
ments he did not go beyond this, and asserted, or was under
stood to assert, that the bread and wine are nothing more
than signs of Christ's broken body and shed blood, recalling to
our memory what He has done for us and the blessings He has
obtained. The use of them is simply that they lead us to
think of Christ as our Saviour, and that in them we profess
our faith in Him. This was all the length the Swiss Pro
testants would go at an earlier stage of the discussion, when
the only alternatives present to their minds were the Romish
and Lutheran doctrines, both of which they recognised as

ZWINGLIAN DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER 1 9 5
superstitious, and not founded on Scripture. But afterwards,
when some of the Lutherans, particularly Brentz, Bucer, and
Melancthon, departing from Luther's idea of a local bodily
presence and oral reception of Christ, maintained a spiritual
communion with Him in the Supper ; and when Calvin, whose
views otherwise were akin to theirs, also adopted that inter
mediate idea, the followers of Zwingli came to see that they
could and should recognise the sacraments as not merely signs,
but also seals and means of grace which the Holy Spirit uses to
maintain and promote our real though spiritual communion with
Christ. This view was expressed in the Consensus Tigurinus,
1549, and in most of the Reformed Confessions, though some
of them incline towards ascribing much, and others to ascribing
little, to the sacrament. The old Zwinglian doctrine of their
being mere signs or badges and nothing more, was afterwards
held only by the Socinians and some Arminians, because their
general system of doctrine did not recognise any supernatural
work of the Spirit in the conversion and sanctification of
men. D. REFORMED DOCTRINE
The doctrine in which the great body of the evangelical
Churches have ultimately acquiesced may be best explained
by a brief exposition of the statements of the Westminster
Standards. We may take the Shorter Catechism as the briefest
and most comprehensive. " The Lord's Supper is a sacrament,
wherein by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to
Christ's appointment (the outward action), His death is showed
forth." This is the first object and effect of it, and it is this
commemorative character of the ordinance that was lost sight
of by Luther, and especially brought out by Zwingli. It is
expressly asserted in the very words of the Catechism by Paul
(1 Cor. II26), and it is this aspect of the sacrament as a
commemoration of the one sacrifice of Christ that most
directly excludes the Romish doctrine of its being itself a
sacrifice. But, further, " the worthy receivers are . . . made par
takers of His body and blood, with all His benefits, to their

196 THE SACRAMENTS
spiritual nourishment and growth in grace." This is the
aspect of the Supper that was overlooked by Zwingli and
brought into due recognition especially by Calvin : that in the
ordinance we do not merely commemorate the death of Christ for
us, but also have communion with Him as the food of our souls.
That this also is a true and scriptural idea appears from what
our Lord says in John 6 about our abiding in Him by eating
His flesh and drinking His blood, and also by the words of
Paul (1 Cor. 1016). The Lord's Supper is a means of grace
as well as a sign and seal of the covenant; because in the right
observance of it we do feed upon Christ, and our souls are
nourished by Him as the bread of life.
This is done, the Catechism explains, " not after a corporal
or carnal maimer, but by faith." The negative statement
here excludes the Romish and Lutheran doctrines of a bodily
reception of Christ's body and blood with the mouth, either as
underlying the accidents of the bread and wine, or as locally
present in, with, or under them. In opposition to these
views it is said they are received by faith. Here, however, it
is to be observed, faith is spoken of as the mode of receiving,
in opposition to any corporal or carnal manner, and not as
the power by which the reception is effected. The statement
must be understood in harmony with what the Catechism had
just before said, that the sacraments became effectual by the
blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that
by faith receive them. The faith itself by which we feed
upon Christ is the gift of God and the work of His Spirit,
who in the right use of the sacrament applies to us the
redemption purchased by Christ. It is clear also that on this
view only those who have faith, i.e. the worthy receivers, are
made partakers of Christ ; those who have no faith cannot
receive Him in this spiritual way, and as there is no other
reception of Christ in the sacrament, unbelievers can only
receive the external elements of bread and wine.
So far all the Reformed Churches are agreed, and these
are the most essential points of the doctrine. But there is
among them some difference of view and statement as to what
precisely is meant by the body and blood of Christ which

REFORMED DOCTRINE OF THE SUPPER 19*?
believers are said to receive. There were some who under
stood by this the exalted and glorified humanity of Christ, and
held that in a mysterious way we are made partakers of this ;
not, indeed, as the Lutherans thought, by its being present in,
with, or under the bread and wine, but by a certain virtue or
power flowing from it. This was the opinion of Calvin, and
it was associated by him with a speculation about the essence
of Christ's glorified body consisting of power, so that it could
be said that we are really united to the substance of His flesh
and blood, although He is in heaven and we on earth. Of the
Reformed Confessions, the one which most strongly expresses
this view is the Gallican, Art. xxxvi., and it is worthy of note
that the French National Synod at Rochelle in 1571 refused
to comply with a request to alter the wording of that article
so as to exclude the word substance, though the next Synod
in the following year added an explanation, that they did not
condemn those Churches that could not agree to the state
ment that Christ feeds us with the substance of His flesh and
blood. The Belgic Confession seems also to incline in the
same direction, Art. xxxv. ; but it does not seem to have been
regarded as teaching so exphcitly the doctrine of Calvin as
the Gallican, since it was unanimously approved, without
exception or alteration, at the Synod of Dort, not only by all
the members of the Synod, but by all the representatives of
foreign Churches. The old Scottish Confession of 1560 also
speaks very strongly against the Zwinglian view of the sacra
ments as " nothing else but naked and bare signs," and says
that " as the eternal Godhead has given to the flesh of Christ
Jesus (which of its own condition and nature was mortal and
corruptible) life and immortality, so does Christ's flesh and
blood, eaten and drunken by us, give us the same prerogatives."
But the later Helvetic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism,
the XXXIX. Articles, and the Westminster Standards, contain
another and simpler view of the subject. Instead of under
standing the body and blood of Christ, which, they declare,
believers really receive, to be His glorified humanity in heaven,
they explain it as meaning His body as broken and His blood
as shed for us, i.e. His death. Conf. xxix. 7, " receive and feed

198 THE SACRAMENTS
upon Christ crucified, and all the benefits of His death."
This seems a simpler and more scriptural view of the matter.
The body and blood of Christ means His death ; the com
munion of His body and blood is exactly parallel to the
fellowship of His sufferings, being crucified with Him,
planted together in the likeness of His death, etc. This is
the union with Christ, dwelling in Him and He in us,
which we have by faith through the operation of the Holy
Spirit, and which is represented and sealed to us by the out
ward elements and actions of the Supper.
The various attempts that were made in the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries to effect a union of the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches on the ground of the common principle
above indicated all failed, and all interest in such efforts was
lost in the decay of spiritual life and sound doctrine during
the rationalistic age, when the views of many on the sacra
ments fell back to the Socinian, or to yet lower forms of
opinion. The union of the Churches in Prussia and other
parts of Germany in 1817 was largely a work of statecraft,
and was brought about by simply allowing each body to
retain its own belief and worship. It was not based on any
common principles, even to a limited extent, in regard to the
doctrine of the Supper, and therefore had not directly any
doctrinal significance or importance. But the movement
towards union led many theologians to attempt a reconcilia
tion of the sacramental views of the different Churches, and
to endeavour not only to mark out a foundation of principles
held in common, but to develop a more mature form of the
doctrine than any single one previously held, which might
unite harmoniously the elements of truth contained in each.
Schleiermacher states very clearly and correctly the positions
of the different Churches, and points out the common ground
which they occupy as protesting against Romanism on the
one hand and Socinianism on the other ; and he also indicates
the three different forms of opinion within this common
ground, the Zwinglian and Lutheran being the two more
extreme, and the Calvinistic occupying a central position.
He does not himself attempt the development of a system

LUTHERAN AND REFORMED DOCTRINES COMPARED 199
that could embrace the true points of them all in a higher
unity, but he declares that to be the desideratum and problem
for theology in this department.
Ebrard, in his work on The Doctrine of the Lord's Supper,
has grappled with this problem, and endeavoured to solve it
mainly by a further working out and more distinct articula
tion of Calvin's view ; but his theory has not found acceptance
either with the adherents of the Lutheran doctrine, such as
Kahnis, or with a Presbyterian divine like Dr. Hodge, who
stands substantially and almost literally in the same position
as the Consensus Tigurinus.
Kahnis is not quite a thorough-going adherent of the
Lutheran doctrine on this point, but has been severely
blamed by Hengstenberg for deviating from orthodoxy in
regard to the Lord's Supper as well as other points, and he
admits that the doctrine of Luther has its weak and untenable
side. He holds that the words of institution cannot be inter
preted literally, and that they do not refer to Christ's glorified
body in heaven, but to that which was crucified on Calvary.
He sums up his view thus : " The progress from the symbolical
apprehension (Zwingli) proceeds from the point of view, that
divinely-ordained symbols, which are appropriated to us for
enjoyment, are a visible word of God, i.e. a sacrament.
What is appropriated to us is the death of Christ in its
power, especially forgiveness of sins. While everyone, even
the unworthy, objectively receives this divine pledge of the
sacrificial death of Christ, yet it is only to the believer for the
forgiveness of sins. Only so can the Lutheran determination
of the purpose of the Supper be maintained. But he who
receives the death of Christ in its efficacy, the forgiveness of
sins, enters into mysterious connection with the body of Christ
itself, since the forgiveness of sins is the power inhering in
the body of Christ. Only so, I believe, can the substance of
the Lutheran doctrine of the Supper be maintained ; and if I
am not mistaken there lies herein the possibility of a higher
union of the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine" (Zeugniss
von den Grundwahrheiten des Protestantismus, p. 29).
This seems a better mode of reconciliation than that of

200 THE SACRAMENTS
Ebrard, and, in fact, we could accept almost every word of the
above statement.
That the difference even between the Lutheran and
Reformed Churches is at bottom not so great as it has often
appeared in controversy, may be seen from the interesting
fact observed by Ebrard (Abendmahl, ii. p. 778), that in the
classical hymn of the Lutheran Church (" Schmiicke dich 0
Hebe Seele") the Reformed modes of expressions are used.
The thing that the best Lutheran divines had mainly at
heart was to maintain that the believer's communion with
Christ in the sacrament is a reality, and not a mere imagina
tion or subjective exercise of faith and feeling; but the
form they adopted to express this was a very unfortunate
one, and gave too much countenance to superstitious notions.
We, too, are anxious to maintain that our communion
with Christ in the Supper is not a merely imaginary one, due
merely to the strength and liveliness of our faith, but real
and true, depending on what is sure and certain, apart from
our changing moods. But we think this can be maintained
perfectly well without making the partaking of Christ depend
on the outward elements or actions in the sacrament, by
recognising that it is due to the blessing of Christ at the first
institution of the sacrament and the working of His Spirit in
our hearts. Considerable confusion is caused by the various uses of
the phrases presence, real, objective, subjective, spiritual.
This may be cleared up by asking in each case what is
present ? and when ?
If that which is present be the literal body of Christ, as
now glorified in heaven, then since that body is still material, if
it be really present at all, it must be present in a bodily way ;
it may be said to be a heavenly, mysterious, supernatural
presence, to denote that a special agency of divine power
is at work in it ; but to speak of the spiritual presence of
a body seems utterly meaningless. If the question then
is as to the glorified body of Christ, we should deny its real
presence. But if the question is as to Christ Himself, we maintain

MEANING OF CHRIST'S PRESENCE IN THE SUPPER 201
that He is really present, according to His promise : " Lo, I
am with you always," etc. ; and this presence, though
spiritual, is also objective, and not merely subjective.
We also say that His body and blood are present. If these
words be understood to mean the death of Christ, it is present
to our faith, the evidence of things not seen : this may be
called a subjective presence.
Again, where is the presence ? If it be held to be in the
elements, we deny that it is real ; but if it be in the soul of the
believer when he receives the elements, then we say it is real,
though spiritual ; and this is what is sometimes meant by a
subjective as distinguished from an objective presence. In
this sense, too, we recognise a presence, not only of Christ,
but of His body and blood, i.e. of His death.
In regard to the subjects of the Lord's Supper, or the
persons to whom it should be administered, it follows neces
sarily and obviously from what we have seen to be the
scriptural doctrine of its nature and efficacy, that they are
believers professing their faith in Christ. It is only those
who have faith in the Lord Jesus who really feed upon Him
in the sacrament ; to others it is merely an external rite with
out meaning or use, and their merely formal observance of it
cannot profit them, but tends rather to burden their hearts,
and involves the guilt of despising and abusing a most
significant and solemn ordinance of Christ. It is clear also
from what is recorded of the sacrament in the New Testament
that it is meant for true Christians only.
When it was instituted our Lord was alone with His
disciples, and addressed them as His friends who trusted in
Him as the Messiah and Saviour.
It was observed by the early believers after the day
of Pentecost as a mark and token of their discipleship
(Acts 246); it is the disciples that come together to break
bread (Acts 207) ; and Paul represents the ordinance as bind
ing those who partake of it in a common and holy brother
hood, just as the sacrifices in Jewish and heathen worship
implied that the offerers were of these religious fellowships
(1 Cor. 10lfH21).

202 THE SACRAMENTS
There are doubtless two aspects in which the qualifica
tions necessary for the Lord's Supper may be viewed, and
two different modes of stating them according as we look to
the duty of the individual applicant or at that of the
Church. It is one question, Who ought to come to the Lord's
table, or Ought I, for one, to do so ? and another question,
Who ought to be admitted by the Church ? But the answers
to both questions are closely connected, and both flow from
the same general principle as to the nature and efficacy of
the sacrament. The answer to the former must be that it is
only true behevers that ought to come, and consequently that
the point for everyone to consider for himself is whether he
is truly a believer in Christ or not. This is a matter on
which we believe a man may, by the teaching of the Spirit,
attain a certain knowledge for himself. But it is not
possible for others to know certainly whether he is sincere
and right in his profession or not. Hence, while it is only
true believers in Christ that ought to come to the Lord's
table, yet when the question is, who should be admitted by
the Church, the answer must be, those who make a credible
profession of faith. The difference between the common
principle and practice of the Reformed Churches and those
of the Anabaptists and Plymouthists in the present day con
sists in this, that the former recognise, while the latter do not
recognise, the above distinction. On this question Jonathan
Edwards and the Independents are on the side of the
common Reformed doctrine, and do not deny or ignore the
distinction. On this point, therefore, they do not really
differ from Presbyterians.
Independents do not say that none should be admitted
but those who are really converted, or that the Church can
certainly tell who are so.
Presbyterians do not say that any should be admitted of
whom the Church does not form a judgment that they are
converted. The difference between them is solely as to what is the
ground of this judgment.
Dr. Hodge says (Sysl. Theol. iii. 569) that Edwards in

WHO ARE ENTITLED TO COMMUNICATE? 203
his Essay on the Qualifications for Communion lays down
one proposition and proves another ; that what he proposes
to prove is, that only those who in the judgment of the
Church are godly or gracious persons are to be admitted,
but that all his arguments are directed to prove that those
who come to the Christian sacraments profess to be Chris
tians. This is not the case in point of fact with all his
arguments, for several of them are manifestly directed to
prove the former proposition, and, if they are valid, do prove
it. It is to be observed also that Edwards always joins to
gether profession and visibility, and considers the profession
of the applicant one main ground of the Church's judgment.
Such are his arguments from the representations of the
Church in the parables, and the way the Churches are
addressed in the Epistles. Dr. Hodge does not hold that a
man's own profession is the only ground of his admission, it
must be a credible profession, and the only point of difference
would seem to be what kind or amount of corroboration from
life and character does the profession require. But this is
merely a question of detail, not of principle, as Dr. Hodge
seems to represent it. In fact, Dr. Hodge may much more
plausibly be charged with logical inconsistency here than
Edwards. For once and again in his discussion of the
subject he dwells on the evils and dangers of limiting the
Church to the communicants (pp. 572, 577-579), and
advocates the right of giving baptism to the children of
those themselves baptized though they are not admitted as
communicants. But this can only be done on the assump
tion either that Church membership does not imply a pro
fession of faith, or that the Lord's Supper requires something
more. Yet he does not admit either of these, and, moreover,
he expressly holds that the qualifications for both sacraments
are the same (p. 574). How these positions are to be re
conciled I cannot see.
The general principle held alike by Presbyterians and
Independents seems to be simply this, that those who make a
credible profession of faith are to be treated as true believers
and members of the visible Church, entitled and bound to

204 THE SACRAMENTS
receive the sacraments, and that their children are to be
baptized. It is the duty of the Church to judge of the profession of
applicants, and there is a slight difference of opinion as to
the evidence required to make a profession credible in the
eyes of the Church.

ESCHATOLOGY
I. Meaning of Life and Death in the New Testament
1. IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS
IN several of His sayings recorded in the synoptic Gospels
Jesus associates the idea of life or eternal life with that
of the kingdom of God as parallel and synonymous terms.
This statement in my Cunningham Lectures on The Kingdom
of God (pp. 134, 135) is objected to by Mr. V. H. Stanton
in his work, The Jewish and the Christian Messiah (p. 222 n.),
in which he has expressed very generous appreciation and
agreement with much in my exposition of the biblical notion
of the kingdom of God. He thinks that Matt. 2531ff- is the
only passage which would seem to support so strong a
statement. There the Judge says to those on His right
hand, " Inherit the kingdom prepared for you " (v.34), while
in v.46 it is explained, " The righteous shall go into life
eternal." But is there not the same parallel use of these
expressions in the Sermon on the Mount, since in Matt. 714
Jesus says, " Strait is the gate, and narrow is the way,
that leadeth unto life"; and in v.21, "Not every one that
saith to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven " ;
and again all the synoptic evangelists tell of the rich young
ruler inquiring, " What shall I do that I may inherit eternal
life ? " and Jesus' saying in connection with that incident,
" How hardly shall they that have riches enter the kingdom
of God " ? It might perhaps be thought that these sayings
only refer to eternal life as a future blessing, and connect it
with the kingdom of God in its ultimate manifestation in glory,
but not with that kingdom as already present in Jesus' coming
205

206 ESCIIATOLOGY
and work, and therefore that life is not absolutely identified
with the kingdom. This seems to be Mr. Stanton's view.
But there are other passages where life is not so plainly
connected with the kingdom of God, but where it is opposed
to death in such a way as to show that Jesus spoke of life
as a blessing now enjoyed by those who believed in Him,
in contrast to worldlings.
One of the most striking characteristics of our Lord's
mode of speaking was, that He described bodily death in the
case of His disciples as a sleep (Matt. 924, Mark 539, Luke 862,
John ll11); while, on the other hand, He spoke of some who
were living in this world as dead, or having no life in them.
This latter form of speech occurs repeatedly in the Fourth
Gospel ; in the others the most distinct instance is Jesus'
striking saying to the disciple who asked leave to go and
bury his father before obeying the call to follow Him, " Let
the dead bury their dead " (Matt. 822, Luke 960). The Master
saw the danger of this disciple being drawn back into a
worldly life by what in itself was a proper and dutiful office,
and so He said, Those who are dead to Me and My message
may be left to do such services, there is more urgent and
blessed work which only the living can do ; thou, who hast
received life, art called to follow Me and proclaim the king
dom of God. Here, especially in the form in which Luke
gives the saying, it is implied that the kingdom of God
involves the possession of a life of which the world is
destitute, and the preaching of the kingdom is the spreading
of that life.1 This is in accordance with the sayings re
corded in John 524- 25, " He that heareth My word, and
believeth on Him that sent Me, hath eternal life . . . hath
passed out of death into life . . . the hour cometh, and now
is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God ; and
they that hear shall live"; and that life or eternal life is
only to be had by faith in Christ is also declared in John 541
Qm. 47. 51. 53. 54 10io. 27_ These passages clearly speak of a life
to be received even now, and no otherwise is it meant when
1 There is a temptation to adduce in support of this Luke 510, avSpdnrovs &r?;
£uyptiv, "thou shalt take alive (or possibly revive) men" ; of. 2 Tim. 226 E.v!
But this would be very precarious, and the meaning of 2 Tim. 226 is doubtful.

MEANING OF LIFE IN CHRIST'S TEACHING 207
Jesus, impressing on those who would he His disciples the
necessity of giving up whatever would cause them to offend,
said solemnly, " It is good for thee to enter into life halt or
maimed," etc. (Matt. 188- 9, Mark 943- 45- 47). For it cannot be
supposed that on entering the final glory of the kingdom any
of the saved could be described as halt or maimed ; that must
refer to their now obtaining the true life at the cost of what
would have made their natures full and complete in this
world. But what exactly did Jesus mean by that eternal life, the
absence of which in worldly men He called death ? His sayings
about it show that He regarded it as having relation to God :
" He is not the God of the dead, but of the living : for all live
to Him" (Luke 203S). God is the source of all life ; and that
life only is worthy of the name in which man is united to
God. But this union must be a moral one. According to
the teaching of the law and the prophets, Jesus declared that
to have eternal life we must keep the commandments, the
first and greatest of which is to love God with all the heart,
and the second to love our neighbour as ourself (Luke 1029,
Matt. 1917, and parallels). A soul possessed with supreme
love to God, and with that love to men that is in agreement
with God's regard for them, is united to God by ties of love
and sympathy ; and this fellowship with God is what Jesus
calls life. Where this is absent there is death. So in the
parable of the Prodigal, the younger son while forgetful of
his father, and spending his substance in a way abhorrent
to him, is described as dead, lost, being to his father as if he
were not ; but when he returned with a penitent affection to
his father he is alive again, once more a sharer in the feel
ings and emotions that form the life of the family. Thus we
see how it was that Jesus connected life with the kingdom of
God. For that kingdom was in His view a famUy, its
members are children of the King ; nay, the connection is an
even closer one, for His Spirit is in them, and so they are
partakers of a life which others have not.
This conclusion, drawn from the synoptic Gospels, is in
beautiful accordance with the statement in Jesus' prayer in
John 173, " This is eternal life, that they know Thee the only

208 ESCHATOLOGY
true God, and Him whom Thou hast sent, Jesus Christ." To
know must here mean not merely intellectual knowledge, but
personal acquaintance, such knowledge of the true character
of God as can only be obtained through sympathy and love ;
and it is because Jesus is the perfect revelation of God's
character, and could say, " He that hath seen Me hath seen the
Father," that He could also declare that eternal life included
the knowledge of Himself as well as of His Father.
Here may be considered that memorable saying so often
repeated by Jesus in slightly varying forms, " He that findeth
his life shall lose it ; and he that loseth his life for My sake
shall find it " (Matt. 1 039) ; " Whosoever would save his life
shall lose it ; and whosoever shall lose his life for My sake
shall find it" (Matt. 1626, Mark 835, Luke 925) ; "He that
loveth his life loseth it ; and he that hateth his life in this
world shall keep it unto life eternal " (John 1 226). The last
of these forms of this saying indicates most clearly the key to
its meaning, though that may be gathered from the others also.
For in all alike the word for life is not far], that living which is
opposed to being dead, and which is associated with the king
dom of God, but ^rvxv, the soul, the personal animal life in
which one is conscious of pleasure and pain, joy or sorrow.
But in the saying as given by John it is distinctly Ufe of the
soul in this world that is spoken of in contrast to keeping
the soul unto eternal life (&rj). He that loveth or would
save his life is he who lives for his personal enjoyment of
earthly things, whether pleasure, or honour, or power, or love
from this earth and his fellow-men, and is opposed to him
who hateth and loseth his own enjoyment of such things for
Christ's sake and the gospel's; that is, whose great and all-
absorbing aim is to have Jesus as his Lord and King, and the
glad tidings of God's kingdom as his chief joy. Of the
former Jesus said he shall lose, or even now is losing his life ;
and so regarding what is certain and already begun as
present, He describes the former as actually dead and the
latter as living.
Life, then, in general, we may say, is, according to Christ's
teaching, the conscious exercise of personal activities ; life in
this world is their exercise upon things sensible and intelli-

LIFE IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS 209
gible ; but since all finite things are mutable and pass away,
the activity that is exercised only on them cannot be eternal,
but tends to exhaust and destroy itself. Life to God is the
conscious exercise of the soul's activities towards God in trust,
love, gratitude, praise, prayer, obedience ; and since God is
eternal and infinite, His being, attributes, word and works
afford an everlasting and inexhaustible object for such
activities ; hence the life that consists in them is everlasting.
Addison sings — " Through all eternity to Thee
A joyful song I'll raise,
For, oh, eternity's too short
To utter all Thy praise."
And what he says of praise may be said equally of every
other devout exercise of the soul to God.
But a soul to which sense and the world are the highest
objects of regard is destitute of such exercises towards God ;
and if it has voluntarily forsaken God and turned away from
Him to the world, it is in a state of alienation under His
displeasure, and in this state cannot exercise towards Him
those religious activities in which life to God consists. For
such this life is only possible through a revelation of God,
which will show that sinners who have disobeyed and dis
pleased Him may yet come to Him in humility, contrition of
heart, and trust in His mercy. Now, this is the revelation
that was made dimly and gradually at the beginning, and
perfectly in Jesus Christ.
This conception of life may be applied to the highest life
of all, that of God Himself. " The Father," said Jesus, " hath
life in Himself " (John 526). He hath life, He is the living
Father (John 657), the living and true God ; and as such He is
contrasted in the Old Testament with the dead idols of the
heathen, in that they have no activity, neither see, nor hear,
nor speak, nor do anything (Isa. 4123- 24, Ps. 115, Dan. 523),
whereas the true God knows, and wills, and loves, and speaks,
and acts. But, further, He has this life, this fulness of
activity, in Himself ; He is not dependent as we are on objects
outside of Himself to draw out His activity. " Before the
mountains were brought forth, or ever Thou hadst made the
H

210 ESCHATOLOGY
earth and the world, from everlasting Thou art God," as truly
the living God then as ever after. For, says Jesus, " Thou
lovedst Me before the foundation of the world." "I had
glory with Thee before the world was." The living Father
had an eternal object of His love in the Son, who is one with
Him; and thus He has life in Himself, the most intense
activity of the highest spiritual emotions in the contemplation
and love of Him who is the brightness of His glory and the
express image of His person. He is the fountain of life, for
He hath given to the Son to have life in Himself ; and He
said, " As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the
Father ; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me."
2. IN THE EPISTLE OF JAMES
In the Epistle of James life and death are spoken of
incidentally and without any full explanations, but substan
tially in the same way as in the sayings of Jesus recorded in
the synoptic Gospels. In Jas. I12 we read of " the crown
of life which the Lord promised to them that love Him," the
genitive being that of apposition, the crown which consists of
life ; and in chap. 26 we read, " the kingdom which He promised
to them that love Him." This confirms the identification of
life with the kingdom of God. Again in chap. I15 we find,
" sin when it is full grown bringeth forth death." Thus life
and death seem to be regarded as ultimate results rather than
as present states. Death is the product of the full develop
ment of sin ; life, the crown of tried and tested love. But the
germ of life at least is present in believers, for (l18) God has
" brought us forth by the word of truth," and (l21) " the im
planted word is able to save our souls." The life that we
have in this world is but a vapour that appears for a little
and then vanishes away (414), and the corruption and rust of
earthly riches shaU at last eat into those who have made
them their portion, and the end shall be a day of slaughter
(51-5). On the other hand, he who turns a sinner from the
error of his way shall save his soul out of death (520). Thus
it would appear that even in this world the sinful, ungodly
life is really death, while that which is animated by an active

LIFE AND DEATH IN THE TEACHING OF JAMES 211
faith in God's word of truth is alone really worthy of the
name of life. But it should be observed that while James
emphasises the natural connection of death with sin and life,
with faith and love as each the fruit and development of
these opposite moral states (cf. 311"18), he yet intimates very
plainly that these issues come about not merely by a natural
sequence, but by the supreme authority and will of the just
and gracious God. " There is one lawgiver and judge, who
ia able to save and to destroy " (412). We look for the issue
of our life here as the husbandman does for the harvest, but
also as the coming of the Lord in person : the Judge standeth
before the door (57-9). So in order to be saved from death
it is needful not only that a sinner be turned from the error
of his ways, but that his sins be forgiven him (515) ; and a
Christian brother is not only to endeavour to convert a sinner,
but also to pray for him (516-18).
Altogether the views of life and death implied in the
Epistle of James seem to be as nearly as possible the same
as those in our Lord's discourses in the synoptic Gospels.
3. IN THE TEACHING OF PAUL
In the writings of Paul the use of the terms life and
death is very frequent and somewhat various. To ascertain,
if possible, what precise ideas he attached to them, it will
be best to examine the various passages in which they occur,
in what is most probably the chronological order in which
they were written.
Taking, then, first the earliest of his Epistles, the First to
the Thessalonians, we find in chap. 510 a weighty expression of
the fundamental Christian faith about Christ, " who died for
•us, that whether we wake or sleep, we should live together
with Him." Here we may observe that Paul does not give
the name of death to the believer's end of bodily life, but calls
it sleep, as he does also in chap. 413- 15 and 1 Cor. 1 520, using
in this reference the language of Jesus about Lazarus and
Jairus' daughter; while in other places he speaks of it as
" departing," or " being absent from the body." He does not
entirely avoid the common word death, and he uses it of men

212 ESCHATOLOGY
in general and of the ungodly ; but of Christians he employs
by preference phrases which indicate that in their case death
has been robbed of its sting, and is no longer properly to be
called by that name. It is significant, however, that in the
case of our Saviour here and always where death is mentioned,
it is never said of Him, as of Stephen, He fell asleep ; what
He bore was death in its truest sense. Further, it is to be
noted that Christ gives us a life with Himself that is inde
pendent of the life or death of the body ; a life that we have
here and now while we are awake as to earthly existence, and
that we have equally when the death of the body brings us
into a state of sleep. This is exactly in accordance with
Jesus' words in John ll2s.26. an(j ^ ^8 difficult to avoid the
conclusion that Paul knew of these or similar words, whether
by tradition or otherwise. It may also be observed that in the
preceding verse this life with Christ is identified with salvation
and opposed to wrath, i.e. the wrath of God.
In 2 Thessalonians there is no use of the terms life and
death, but in Gal. 219- 20 an important statement is made :
" I through the law died to the law, that I might live unto
God. I have been crucified with Christ ; yet I live ; no longer
I, but Christ liveth in me." From this text, compared with
the one previously considered, it appears that the life which
was there described simply as living with Christ consists in
having Christ living in us. This is that idea of mystical or
spiritual union with Christ which is so familiar and essential
in the theology of Paul as well as in that of John, and which
is so vividly illustrated in our Lord's images of the Bread of
Life and the True Vine in John 6 and 15. Another point
that this passage adds to the former is, that the believer's life
with Christ is preceded by a death which is also with him,
and is called here a dying to the law. It is not a con
tinuous state, but an event happening once for all : " I died "
(aireOavov) ; and it is effected by being crucified with Christ.
This dying is to the law, i.e. in relation to law, not the Jewish
law in particular, but God's law in general ; it is a final
removal from the dominion of law, for that is the scope of
the apostle's argument. There may be a reference indicated
by the clause " through the law " to the penal character of

LIFE AND DEATH IN PAUL'S EPISTLES 213
death ; but plainly it is not the idea of the suffering involved
in death that is prominent, but that of its being a cessation
of the activities of life : it delivers me from the law, because
it makes me virtually cease to be, so far as the law is con
cerned. In Gal. 321 " to give life " means to give to men spiritually
dead the power of serving and pleasing God, so that they
should be able to attain righteousness ; and in Gal. 68 eternal
life is opposed to <p6opd, corruption, the result of sowing to
the flesh. This latter seems to convey the idea of wasting
away, perishing along with the perishing flesh, in opposition
to enduring everlasting activity in and with the Spirit, which
is eternal. In the Epistles to the Corinthians, as the contents are of
very varied character, so also is the use of the terms life and
death. In 1 Cor. 322 and 2 Cor. 73 they are used in the
ordinary physical sense, and in 1 Cor. 739 and 1518-20 "live"
occurs in this sense, but its opposite is " fall asleep." In the
latter passage (v.18) it is said as one of the consequences of
the denial of Christ's resurrection, " Then they also which
have fallen asleep in Christ have perished," a broad distinc
tion being thus made between the physical death of believers
and that perishing which is elsewhere used as a synonym for
death (2 Cor. 216). As to the important text 1 Cor. 1522,
" As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive,"
interpreters are divided, some taking all in its fullest sense,
and understanding " die " and " be made alive " of physical
death and resurrection ; while others would explain the state
ment to be, " as in Adam all who are in him die, so in Christ
shall all who are in Him be made alive," and understand by
" made alive " the communication of spiritual life. But the
former view seems to be the more natural, and seems to be
required by v.24, where they that are Christ's are mentioned
as one order of those who are to be raised. Further on in
this chapter (v.31) a familiar and easily intelligible use of
" die " occurs, " I die daily," i.e. I am in continual danger of
death ; and the same idiom is found in 2 Cor. I8- 9 410"14 In
this last passage, however, the life that is contrasted with
the continual imminence of bodily death is spiritual, con-

214 ESCHATOLOGY
sisting of the renewal of the inward man in faith and
hope. The statement in 2 Cor. 515, " one died for all, therefore
all died," is of great importance, as it is one of those in
which death is represented as the blessing that Christ has
obtained for us, i.e. dying in and with Him, as Gal. 219- 20.
Here it is not called specifically dying to the law or to any
particular thing, but simply dying in virtue of Christ's death
on our behalf. As united to Him and represented by Him, we
share His death with all its consequences. The meaning of
this is more fully explained in the Epistle to the Romans, to
which we next come.
Here there is at chap. I32 a statement about the heathen
who sin, that they know the judgment of God, that they who
do such things are worthy of death. On the meaning of
" death " here there is considerable difference of opinion ; but
the probability is that it is used in a general sense for
punishment inflicted by God in the future state. Paul is
asserting the moral and religious knowledge that the heathen
had or might have had ; but as this assumed various forms
in the mythology of different peoples, he expresses it
altogether from his own point of view. ' In Rom. 27- 1S he
describes more fully the righteous judgment of God, and
sets " eternal life " (v.7) as the reward of the righteous over
against anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish (v.8), which
is the punishment of the wicked ; and in the following verses
identifies the former with glory, honour, and peace (v.10), and
the latter with perishing (v.12). Here, more distinctly than
anywhere else, Paul associates eternal life with true happi
ness, and perishing with misery, probably on account of the
nature of the subject and the fulness with which he desires
to describe the divine judgment so as to show its impar
tiality. The term death in the important passage, Rom.
512~21, has been variously understood, and some, as Hodge,
take it to denote the penal consequence of sin in general;
but it is more natural, and seems, indeed, to be necessary in
v.14, to understand it of the decease of the body, as Meyer
and Godet take it. So it is parallel to 1 Cor. 1522.
But in the 6th and 7th chapters of this Epistle we find

LIFE AND DEATH IN PAUL'S EPISTLES 215
the fullest exposition of the idea already indicated in those to
the Galatians and Corinthians, that death with Christ is the
great blessing that believers receive. The conception of
death that explains this bold paradox is that of cessation of
all correspondence with the previous environment, or of all
relation to the world in which the life was formerly lived.
So Paul says, " we died to sin" (Rom. 62), and goes on to
explain that this was by becoming one plant with Christ (v.5),
of whom he also says, " He died to sin " (v.10). This shows
that by dying to sin the apostle does not here mean a moral
change, ceasing to love and serve sin, for that never could be
said of Christ ; but a legal change, ceasing to be under its
condemnation, according to the principle stated in v.7, " he
that died has been justified from sin " ; since he has suffered
the last penalty of the law, he is altogether separated from
the sin that condemned him. . Paul's argument is, that since
it is in this way that grace abounds, it cannot legitimately
be made a motive for continuing in sin ; since, if we are
justified only by being separated from sin by the death of
Christ, we cannot willingly keep up any connection with it ;
and since we die with Christ only to live with Him, and His
life is a life to God, our life must henceforth be that also.
In the practical enforcement of this appeal he again speaks
of death as the end and wages of sin (vv.21- 23) in the same
sense as in the 1st and 2nd chapters : and then in chap. 71"6
he gives a further illustration of the believer's death with
Christ, describing it as a death to the law, so as to show how
it is that, as he said before, "we are not under law"(614).
In the illustration, death is used in the ordinary physical
sense ; and in the application, the point of comparison is that
it removes a person from all the relations and obligations of
this world, and makes him as it were non-existent.
The notions of dying and living are applied in a some
what different sense in the subsequent paragraph (78~13), in
which he explains from his own experience how the law
though not itself sin, is yet to fallen man the occasion of sin,
so that we can be freed from sin only by being freed from
the law. " Apart from the law," he says, " sin is dead : and
I was alive apart from the law once ; but when the command-

216 ESCHATOLOGY
ment came sin revived, and I died." To whatever period of
his life Paul refers, it is plain from the previous verse that
he speaks of sin and law as in his own knowledge. He was
not really apart from the law, but he did not know it in its
real meaning and breadth ; and as long as this was so the sin
that was really in him was dead, not putting forth any
activity or energy ; and he was alive with no sense of sin and
confident of God's favour, feeling no hindrance to his activity
in works of obedience. But when the commandment came
home to him sin sprang into life and activity within him, and
he lost his former confidence and became utterly paralysed in
his efforts after holiness. Here as elsewhere the general
idea of life is functional' activity, and of death the absence of
it, while there is included also that of happiness in the
former and misery in the latter.
In the paragraph that describes the believer's deliverance
from sin (81-13), life and death are employed as in Gal. 68 to
express the ultimate consequences of walking after the flesh
and after the Spirit, by reason of the perishable nature of the
one and the divine nature of the other.
The same idea of death and rising again with Christ as
the way of our deliverance, both from the guilt and from the
power of sin, is found in Col. 211— 34 in a more condensed form,
in which a wealth of ideas is so packed into a brief compass
that it is not easy to unfold them all. Christians have been
buried with Christ in baptism (211), they have died with Him
from the rudiments of the world (220), i.e. they have been
delivered from these by being removed out of their sphere.
This has been effected by the death of Christ, into which they
enter by believing acceptance of Him in baptism, and in
which God forgives all their transgressions and cancels the
bond of a condemning law that hindered their efforts after
holiness. But along with this legal deliverance from guilt
there is a spiritual quickening to new life (213) from a death
in sin, which is a state of inability and impotence to true
goodness. This new life is with Christ, nay, it is Christ Him
self living in them (31-4), and shall be fully manifested when
Christ shall be revealed at His coming. This spiritual
quickening, as well as the death in sin out of which it brings

LIFE AND DEATH IN PAUL'S EPISTLES 2 1 7
us, is more fully described in the parallel passage in Eph.
21_1°, where it is not complicated with the deliverance from
law which Paul's special purpose in writing to the Colossians
led him to interweave with it. In a later passage (417"19)
the state of spiritual death is described as involving darkness
of understanding, hardness of heart, loss of feeling, vanity of
mind, i.e. cessation of all the functions of moral and religious
life. In the Epistle to the Philippians and the Pastoral
Epistles, Paul makes many touching references to his own
approaching departure, and uses the words life and death
generally in their common physical sense, while he makes
repeated reference to that eternal life which is the hope and
promise of the gospel. In 1 Tim. 4s godliness is said to
have the promise of this life and of that which is to come,
not in the sense in which we generally use that phrase of the
present and the future time of existence, for the word is not
Biot but £<orj, but rather of life, the exercise of the soul's
highest functions, both now and in a future state. Opposed
to this is the description in chap. 56 of one living in pleasure
as dead while she liveth, which is explained by Eph. 2lff-.
The life that is in Christ is described in 1 Tim. 619 as the
life that is life indeed (6Wgk). Paul's latest Epistle contains
a weighty statement that repeats as it were the keynote
struck on this subject in his earliest (1 Thess. S10)^ when
he says (2 Tim. I10) that Christ Jesus has abolished death
(i.e. disabled it, made it powerless), and brought life and
immortality to light by the gospel.
From this survey of the Pauhne Epistles we may gather
what was the essential idea of life and death in the apostle's
mind. He employs these terms, as we have seen, in a rich
variety of applications, but this gives us all the more cer
tainty in our inference as to the idea he had of them ;
for if we find that one conception is suitable to all these
different applications, there can be little doubt that it is the
true one. Now it is plain (1) that the notion of life being
mere existence, and death non-existence, will not satisfy the
conditions ; for though in a few places this notion might be put
on the terms, consistently with the apostle's meaning, in many

218 ESCHATOLOGY
more it would be quite inapplicable. Those who maintain
what is called the ontological sense of these terms are obliged
either to interpret some passages in a very unnatural way,
especially those in which men living in the world are described
as dead in sins, or else to make the definition of death the
cessation of an activity 1 which we believe is the true con
ception, but is very different from mere existence. If the
ontological sense merely means that existence or non-exist
ence is always included in the idea, that is true, of course,
of life ; but it is not the fact that death in Paul's writings,
always includes the idea of non-existence. But it appears
also (2) that the notion of life being simply holiness or
happiness, and death the absence or opposite of these, is
equally unfounded. There are some passages where such an
explanation might be possible, but it is not suggested by
any, and it would be quite inconsistent with many. Life, no
doubt, is conceived as a blessing and death as an evil, but
we cannot explain away the radical meaning of the words
into these notions.
In distinction from both of these explanations, it appears
that the notion of life in general, with Paul, is the same as
that which we gather from the sayings of Jesus in the
Gospels — the exercise of personal functions and activities,
the nature of these determining the different kinds of life
of which he speaks. The exercise of bodily or animal func
tions, such as respiration, sensibility, movement, constitutes
physical life : when, in addition to these, there is intelligence,
volition, desires, and passions, but no regard for God and
moral goodness, then men though living in the world are
spiritually dead, they are what Paul calls natural (^rv^iKol)
or animal men ; where there is a personal knowledge of God
who is spirit, and a regard for the things of spirit, there is
life in the highest and truest sense ; and since it unites us
to God and Christ, this life is eternal. But Paul also makes
very prominent the penal aspect of death as not only the
consequence, but the judgment and wages of sin ; and in some
1 This definition is given by M. Petavel in his able and thoughtful hook,
The Problem of Immortality, p. 215, although he calls the sense lor which he
contends ontological, as if life were synonymous with existence.

LIFE AND DEATH IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS 219
passages this is the main idea associated with it. This is
so especially where he speaks of the death of Christ for our
sins. There the emphasis lies not on the mere cessation of
physical life-functions, nor on the sufferings He endured in
dying, but on His being made sin, made a curse for us, and
by bearing that death which is the wages of sin, reconciling
us to God.

4. IN THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS
In the Epistle to the Hebrews the most remarkable expres
sion bearing on the usage of the terms life and death is the
phrase " dead works " (veicpSiv epywv), which occurs twice in
that Epistle (61 914), and nowhere else in New Testament.
In the former of these places they are mentioned as needing
to be repented of, and in the latter as what we need to be
cleansed from by the blood of Christ. The first mention is
so incidental that the context affords no light as to the
precise idea conveyed by the epithet " dead " : but in the
other it may be noticed that it is an argument a fortiori
from the efficacy of the Levitical sacrifices within their limited
sphere to the greater power of the blood of Christ, and that
one of the two things named in the former clause, " the
ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean," had special refer
ence (see Num. 19) to the cleansing from pollution caused
by contact with a dead body ; also that the contrast to dead
works is emphatically put as to serve the living God, the
absence of the article — 6eu> %&vti — bringing out the force of the
epithet " living." From these considerations it would appear
that in the mind of the writer dead works are such as belong
to the sphere of death, i.e. the world which is separated from
the living God, and are polluted by the touch of sin — the
soul's death. The view of Trench and others, that the
phrase denotes works of external obedience in which there is
no heart, and so describes an intermediate class between
positively evil and truly good works, though expressing what
is in itself a great truth, and applicable to Heb. 61, is not
suitable to the context in 914, for surely it is meant to
teach that the blood of Christ cleanses from all sin, and not

220 ESCHATOLOGY
merely from that of heartless service. Besides, if this were
the meaning of the term "dead works," we should expect
to find it used much more frequently, since the evil of mere
mechanical heartless obedience is frequently exposed in
Scripture. Generally in this Epistle death is used in its simplest
literal sense, and there is not connected with it that wealth
of ideas that appears in Paul's writings ; but in 214 the devil
is said to have the power of death, and to have been
destroyed, or rather rendered powerless, by Christ through
His death. Here it does not seem necessary or natural to
understand by " death " anything more than physical death ;
and as the sacred writer unquestionably connected death
with sin (see 927- 28), his meaning is that the devil as the
tempter and accuser of men invests death with the power
and terror that it has for the guilty,
5. IN THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER
The First Epistle of Peter has for its keynote that
Christians are the true Israel of God, the people of His own
possession in the new dispensation, though scattered abroad,
strangers and persecuted in the world. This appears in the
salutation (l1, 2) where the mention of obedience and sprink
ling of the blood of Christ alludes to the making of the
covenant with Israel (Ex. 247- 8) ; also very plainly in chap.
29-11, and less obviously but really in other places. It is
also taught that behevers have this position and privilege in
virtue of a new birth (l3- 23 22), and this is connected also
with the death and rising again of Christ. While this
Epistle contains so much that resembles Paul's to the
Ephesians, there is not in it any description of the unre-
generate state as one of death, like that in Eph. 2,1 though its
moral character is described in a very similar way (1 Pet. 43- 4).
The state of the ungodly is conceived as a life of sin from
which we are delivered by a death to sin connected with the
death of Christ. He " bore our sins in His own body upon
1 It is arbitrary and unnatural to interpret vexpols in 4G in that sense,
especially as it would be a solitary example of it in the Epistle.

LIFE AND DEATH IN THE EPISTLES OF PETER 221
(or perhaps ' up to,' as R.V. marg.1) the tree, that we,
having died to sin, might live to righteousness " (224) ; and
since Christ has " suffered in the flesh, we are to arm ourselves
with the same mind : for He that hath suffered in the flesh
hath ceased from sin, in order to live no longer by the lusts
of men, but by the will of God " (41- 2). These statements
are very like Paul's, but it has been questioned whether they
express the same idea of deliverance by death from the guilt
of sin as is conveyed in Rom. 67. But Peter clearly repre
sents Christ's death not merely as our example, but as our
redemption, both from the guilt and power of sin, and His
resurrection as the power that effects our regeneration (l3)
and salvation (321) ; and it seems probable that He as well as
Paul had the idea of the mystical union of believers with
Christ, in virtue of which they are freed from the death
which is the wages of sin, through dying in and with Him,
and raised to a new life of forgiveness and holiness through
His rising from the dead.
6. IN THE SECOND EPISTLE OF PETER
The Second Epistle bearing Peter's name, though it
differs very greatly in many respects from the First, so that
its authenticity on literary grounds cannot be held to be
certain, yet has the same conception of life as given to
Christians by divine power, making them partakers of divine
nature as opposed to the corruption that is in the world
through lust (Is- 4). The physical death of a believer is
spoken of as a departure or a putting off the tabernacle in
which he is here (l14- 15). On the other hand, false teachers
who bring in impious and immoral tenets are described as
bringing upon themselves as a judgment swift destruction
(21- 3). They are compared to irrational brutes that have no
end before them but wasting away (<j>6opd), and the moral
corruption of ungodly men has for its consequence a similar
1 1 prefer this rendering on account of the accusative £i)Xoi<, and consider it
to indicate that Christ was bearing our sins all through His earthly life up to
the Cross, on which He exhausted and made an end of them, dying to sin that
we might do so also.

222 ESCHATOLOGY
complete wasting away (212). The whole world is to pass
away on the day of the Lord's coming and judgment, while
true Christians look for new heavens and a new earth wherein
dweUeth righteousness (310-13). The word death does not
occur in the Epistle, but the opposite of the life which be
hevers receive from God is the destruction which is so often
and solemnly mentioned as both the natural and the judicial
consequence of an impenitent course of life, according to the
impulses of lusts and pleasures.
7. IN THE TEACHING OF JOHN
Of all the New Testament writers, John makes the notions
of life and death the most prominent in his presentation of
the Gospel, for by him Christianity is conceived as being
essentially eternal life. He has intimated very definitely the
purpose of his Gospel and his First Epistle, and in both cases
it has reference to this. Of the Gospel he says (John 2031),
" These are written, that ye may believe that Jesus is the
Christ, the Son of God ; and that believing ye may have life
in His name " ; i.e. his record of the signs by which Jesus
manifested His glory was designed to lead to faith in His
divine nature and mission those who as yet had it not, and
through that faith they would have life in Him. In the
opening of his First Epistle he says, with reference to his
apostolic teaching (1 John l3), " That which we have seen
and heard declare we unto you also, that ye also may have
fellowship with us : yea, and our fellowship is with the Father,
and with His Son Jesus Christ " ; and then he goes on to tell
the purpose of his present letter (v.4) : " And these things
write we unto you, that our joy may be fulfilled," i.e. your
joy and mine together made full.1 How this is to be done
1 Some expositors (e.g. Westcott) take v.3 as well as v.4 to denote the pur
pose of the Epistle ; but there seem to be good reasons for understanding the
former as a reference to the apostle's testimony in general : the aim in Is is
not equivalent to that in 51S ; the Epistle does not consist of testimony to the
life of Christ but of inferences from it, and a needless tautology is avoided by
distinguishing the general purpose of the apostle's ministry in v.s, and the
special aim of the Epistle, v.4. This does not necessarily imply that the Gospel
was written before the Epistle, as the reference may be to oral testimony.

LIFE AND DEATH IN THE WRITINGS OF JOHN 223
he declares more particularly towards the close (513), " These
things have I written unto you, that ye may know that ye
have eternal life; even unto you that believe on the name of
the Son of God." The Epistle, then, is intended for those
who have already received the testimony of the Gospel, and
is designed to show them what is involved in their faith in
Christ ; hence it gives the subjective as the Gospel gives the
objective side of Christianity. Eternal life is obtained by
faith in Christ ; but that faith may not at first be self-con
scious or fully assured, hence believers need to be shown that
they have indeed eternal life in Christ, and the assurance of
this is what completes their joy. Since these three passages
that state the purpose of the Gospel and of the Epistle cor
respond so exactly, it may be safely inferred that the " eternal
life" of John 2131 is the same as "the fellowship with the
Father, and with His Son Jesus Christ," of 1 John l3 ; and this
is confirmed by the fact that Christ has just been described
as " the eternal life which was with the Father, and was
manifested unto us " (v.2). This is otherwise expressed by
saying that " God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is
in His Son " (chap. 511) ; " in Him was life " (John l4). These
statements show that when Jesus is called, and calls Himself,
the life, the meaning is not merely the giver of life, but one
who is essentially living, and whose very presence and recep
tion constitutes the true life of every soul that has it.
II. The Intermediate State
In regard to the intermediate state or condition of souls
after death, there are just two important theological questions ;
the one is, whether there is any possibility of conversion for
the ungodly ; and the other is, whether there are any penal or
purgatorial sufferings for the godly in the unseen world.
These I propose now to consider.
I. The whole representations that Scripture gives of the
state of the dead prove that there is in it a wide difference
between the godly and the ungodly. At • death the spirit
returns to God who gave it ; when we make our bed in Sheol,
God is there. Now, to be ushered into the immediate

224 ESCHATOLOGY
presence of God with consciousness, memory, and conscience in
full and active operation, must needs of itself produce the most
opposite feelings, according as men have been reconciled to
Him here or not. If we are at peace with God, having our
sins forgiven and our hearts turned to Him, to be in His
presence will be the source of comfort and joy ; while for
those who are still His enemies, lying under His holy wrath,
and full of dislike and hatred of His character, the very
presence of God will be a continual torment. Moreover, for
the Christian to depart is to be with Christ, the Saviour
whom he trusts, and whom having not seen he loves ; to be
absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, and that
to him is far better. But for him who has despised and
rejected the Saviour offered in the Gospel, the presence of
Christ will add to the pangs of an evil conscience and enhance
the misery of his state. Thus it is plain, even from the
most general and least figurative descriptions of the unseen
world, that there are in it two opposite states of happiness
or misery appointed for souls, according as they are reconciled
to God or not. So, too, it is said, " The wicked is driven
away in his wickedness : but the righteous hath hope in his
death " (Prov. 1 432). Judas is said on his death to have gone
to his own place ; whUe Jesus said to the penitent robber,
" To-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise." This uniform
strain of scriptural representation is confirmed by our Lord's
parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, when both are described
as being in the place of souls between death and the resurrec
tion, but the one comforted and the other tormented.
Now, the question is, whether there is any possibility of a
change or transition in the other world from the miserable
state of the ungodly to the blessedness of the godly. It has
been the general opinion of the Church that there is not, but
that the condition of each man is finally fixed at death.1
But in modern times some have thought that there are
indications in Scripture that such a change may be possible
1 Even the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory admits this ; for while it
asserts a purifying process for those who, though saved, are not perfectly freed
from sin, it allows no possibility of salvation to those who are not reconciled to
God in this life.

THE RICH MAN AND LAZARUS 225
at least in some cases, and that this affords some relief from
the difficulties of God's providence, since heathens who have
not had the gospel preached to them in this hfe may have an
opportunity of hearing and believing it in the other world.
It cannot be doubted, however, that the general impression
produced by the scriptural statements on the subject favours
what has been the common opinion. In the parable of
Lazarus, Abraham is represented as saying to the rich man,
when he prayed that Lazarus might be sent to him, first, that
he has simply received what he had chosen ; and, second, that
between them is a great gulf fixed, which cannot be crossed
on either side : and though this is a parable, and its imagery
cannot be pressed in detail, this point seems to have a meaning,
and to describe an unchangeable state. There is, indeed,
another view of this parable which makes it teach quite a
different doctrine, which is put briefly and clearly in a letter
of Charles Kingsley's (Life, i. p. 394). "Our Lord represents
Dives as still Abraham's child, under no despair, not cut off
from Abraham's sympathy, and under a direct moral training
of which you see the fruit. ,He is gradually weaned from the
selfish desire of indulgence for himself to live and care for
his brethren, a divine step forward in his life which of itself
proves him not to be lost.1 The impossibility of Lazarus
getting to him, or vice versa, expresses plainly the great truth,
that each being where he ought to be at that time, interchange
of place, i.e. of spiritual state, is impossible. But it says
nothing against Dives rising out of his torment when he has
learnt the lesson of it, and going where he ought to go."
On this I would observe, that the great lesson of the parable
is a warning against that worldliness or unbelief which looks
only to the things .that are seen, and is blind to unseen things ;
and that the rich man's request for his brethren gives no sign
of any change in that respect, but betrays the same exclusive
regard to outward things, so that it can hardly be considered
an indication of a better state of mind ; while the statement
about the great gulf fixed, seems to imply an absolute and final
separation. If we inquire, not what meaning may be put on
the parable, but what it naturally teaches, I think we must
a.See also Plumptre, The Spirits in Prison, p. 60.
*5

226 ESCIIATOLOGY
take the common view of it. But this passage does not
stand alone. We are told (Eccles. 910), " there is no work,
nor device, nor knowledge, nor wisdom, in Sheol, whither thou
goest." "The night cometh, wherein no man can work"
(John 94, cf. 1 19- 10), which seems to imply that there is no
activity in the soul's separate state such as could effect a
change of condition. Further, in all the descriptions of the last
judgment it is for the things done in the body that men are
said to be judged, hence it would appear that nothing that
affects men's eternal destinies takes place in the disembodied
state. Again, our Lord's parable of the barren fig-tree
(Luke 138"9), taken in connection with the incidents that
gave rise to it, the slaying of the Galileans by Herod, and the
eighteen men being killed by the fall of the tower, shows
that death is the cutting down of the tree, the end of its
respite and probation. There are, however, some texts
commonly quoted in support of this, and used even by Hodge
(Syst. Theol. iii. p. 725), that are not applicable: Eccles. II3,
"where the tree falleth, there it shall be"; Matt. 2510, when
the bridegroom comes the door is shut; Rev. 2211, "he that
is unjust, let him be unjust still." The last two passages
refer not to death, but to the coming of Christ. Perhaps also
Heb. 927 is not conclusive.
On the other hand, the possibility of conversion in Hades has
been thought to be impliedin two passages of 1 Pet., 318-20 and 46.
Now, these texts are exceedingly obscure, and beset with
difficulties on every side. All attempted renderings are open
to some objection or other, and take some of the words or
phrases in an unusual or improper sense. The two great
classes of interpretation are those that understand the pas
sage of a personal prea.ching of Christ in the other world, and
those that refer it to His preaching by His Spirit to men in
this world. Now, it is obvious that if any of the latter class
be correct, the passage has no bearing whatever on the state
of the dead. I am inclined, however, to think that it is more
natural to understand the first of the passages in Peter of a
personal preaching by Christ in Hades ; and if so, I think it
must be to those who disobeyed Noah's caU to repentance, and
were destroyed in the Flood.

SCRIPTURE ON THE INTERMEDIATE STATE 227
But this interpretation is not free from very considerable
grammatical difficulties, so that one cannot feel quite certain
of its truth ; and to base on the passage, which, so understood,
refers to a single and unique event, a general doctrine of the
possibility of conversion in Hades, is doubly precarious.
In 1 Pet. 46 I think grammatical and contextual reasons
require us to understand veicpol<; as those who are now dead,
and that the preaching of the gospel spoken of was not after
but before their death, which is referred to in the clause that
declares the purpose of the preaching "va KptOmai, k.t.\.
Our Lord's words in Matt. 1232 have been held by
Augustine and many since to imply that some sins are for
given in the future life; but this is a very precarious inference
indeed. The phrase alcov p.4\\o)v, as Meyer points out, would
not include the state of the dead before the judgment and
second coming of Messiah, and it is doubtful whether it refers
to the future life of individuals at all.
In the parallel passage in Mark 329 the phrase is simply
ek tov alwva. A Umited negative does not always imply that
the affirmative is true beyond the limits mentioned.
It ought, however, to be considered that the teaching of
the sacred writers is designed for those who hear it, and not
necessarily to be applied to those who do not and cannot do
so. They declare that those who reject Christ in this life
cannot hope to be saved by Him in the hfe to come. But
that does not necessarily imply that the same is true of those
who never heard of Him at all. In the case of those of the
kingdom of God who die in infancy, we must suppose that
they come to the knowledge of Christ in the future life, when
or how we know not ; and possibly the same may be the case
with others. The argument from analogy has some force,
that as we do not believe that death interrupts the conscious
ness of the soul, there is reason to believe that it is still
capable of thinking, feeling, willing, and so of repentance and
turning to God. It is clear that Christ and His salvation
are known in the spirit world ; and those who in the darkness
of heathenism have been feeling after God, if haply they might
find Him, and loving and longing for goodness, will assuredly
be drawn to God and Christ, and find peace there. But for those

228 ESCHATOLOGY
who have heard the gospel here and neglected or refused it,
what will there be there to change their hearts ? Jesus gives
solemn warning that in the case of everyone there is a limit
to the day of grace, after which it will be too late. Men
may be so hardened in sin that it is impossible to renew them
again unto repentance : and for such there can be no possibility
of salvation in the life to come.
When the Bible speaks of those who have refused God's
call, calling on Him and not being answered (Prov. I28), of
many seeking to enter the kingdom of God and not being
able because the door is shut (Luke 1324~27), the meaning is
not that true spiritual repentance ever can be in vain, but
that the mere selfish desire of salvation that may arise in the
most wicked soul, when the evil consequences of sin are felt,
will not be accepted by God. In the place of souls it may
well be that the consequences of sin are so keenly felt that
none can but desire deliverance ; but in those who have heard
the gospel message and not obeyed it, this will not produce
real repentance. In the case of all such the parable of
Lazarus and the teaching of Scripture in general seems to
show that a final separation is made at death. In regard
to those whose moral life is not at all developed in this
world we ought not to be so positive, but to acknowledge
that we do not know how God brings them to a personal
decision and faith in Christ, whether immediately at death or
by the revelations of the unseen world.
The question ultimately comes to this, Can there be
genuine repentance in the future life ? for if any soul truly
turns to God anywhere and at any time, we may be sure that
God will grant forgiveness, and the state of misery will be
changed into one of blessedness ; and in the case of those who
have died in ignorance of God and Christ, and come to know
the Saviour first in the future state, repentance may be
possible ; but if men have neglected and refused in this life
to obey God's gracious call, what likelihood is there that they
will comply with it after death, or that God will work more
powerfully on their souls than He has done here ?
II. The other question as to the state of the dead is
whether there are any penal or purgatorial sufferings for the

DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 229
godly in that state. That there are such has been held in
various ways, the most extreme and materialistic one being
the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. That doctrine
rests upon the distinction between the eternal and the
temporal punishment due to sin. All who die in communion
and peace with the Church are held to have the eternal
punishment of their sins remitted, through the merit of
Christ. But there is also held to be a temporal punishment
to be borne by sinners themselves ; and if that is not fully
endured in this life, by sufferings or penances, it must be
expiated by sufferings in the future state. Hence all Chris
tians who are not perfectly sanctified, and have not made
satisfaction for all their venial sins, go to a place or state
called Purgatory, where they suffer, with more or less severity,
for a longer or shorter period, according to their desert. The
Church has power, however, to apply her treasury of merit,
from the good works of the saints, as well as the efficacy of
prayers and sacraments, to mitigate, shorten, or remit their
purgatorial pains.
This is the formal and official doctrine of the Church of
Rome on the subject, which is of faith for her members.
The more particular statements as to the place of Purgatory,
the nature of the sufferings there as by fire, are representations
commonly used and tolerated, if not sanctioned, by the Church.
It is hardly fair to make much of them in controverting the
doctrine, except in so far as they show with what terrible
effect the dogma can be wielded as a weapon to keep men in
subjection to priestly rule.
In regard to this doctrine, even in its more general form,
it may be noted —
1. It is entirely without Scripture support. Even its
advocates do not profess to bring a full and explicit proof
from the Bible, but rest it mainly on tradition and the
authority of the Church, which we cannot admit as sources
of doctrine. The only passages adduced in its support are our
Lord's saying that the sin against the Holy Spirit shall not
be forgiven either in this world or in that which is to come,
— a passage from which, as we have seen, the inference is
precarious to forgiveness at all after death, and doubly so to

230 ESCHATOLOGY
Purgatory ; and Paul's words in 1 Cor. 312-15, where, however,
he is speaking of the work of building up the Church, and
says that if one who is himself a believer is careless how he
does this and brings in those who in the end cannot stand
the test, he shall suffer loss and be saved as through fire, i.e.,
with pain and difficulty. But the day is that of Christ's
coming, and the passage says nothing of the intermediate
state. 2. It is contradicted by the express teaching of Scripture, '
that the souls of believers pass into a state of happiness
immediately on their death. When Paul wrote to the
Philippians, he says that he was not yet perfect (313) ; yet
that for him to die would be to be with Christ, which would
be gain to him (12L 23). The thief on the Cross, converted at
the last hour of a life of sin, was as far from perfect as could
well be conceived ; yet Jesus said to him, " To-day shalt thou
be with Me in paradise" (Luke 2343). Jesus also describes
Lazarus as carried by angels to Abraham's bosom, where he
is comforted (Luke 1622); and John in apocalyptic vision
heard a voice from heaven : " Blessed are the dead," etc.
(Rev. 1413).
3. The doctrine on which Purgatory rests, of the punish
ment of venial sins having to be borne after the eternal
condemnation is removed, is un scriptural and false. It
implies that the sufferings of Christians in this life are
penal inflictions, whereas they are constantly represented
in the Bible as fatherly chastisements ; it assumes that their
repentance, good deeds, and self-denial are truly expiatory,
making atonement for their sins ; while Scripture teaches that
the only sacrifice for sin is that of Christ, and that His
blood cleanses from all sin. Still more unscriptural are the
doctrines of works of supererogation and of the Church's
treasury of merit and power to apply it, which are implied
in the practical use made by Romanists of the doctrine of
Purgatory. The most plausible defence of it is that made by Mohler
and others, that those who are but imperfectly sanctified
in this life must be purified after death, and that this is the
nature and design of the pains of Purgatory. But this

DOCTRINE OF PURGATORY 231
entirely alters the character of the doctrine, and overthrows
its principle. For it is necessary to the Roman Catholic
system that the sufferings be expiatory. If they are not so,
or even if, besides this, they are disciplinary and purifying,
then the whole doctrine of the power of the Church to
mitigate or shorten them falls to the ground. For if they
are necessary in order to remove the remaining stains of sin,
then the merits or sufferings of others can have no fitness
to supply their place, nor would it be any real blessing to
the departed soul to be saved from a process of purification
which, however painful, would be the means, and the only
means, of bringing him to perfection in holiness. The Roman
Catholic doctrine of Purgatory is a corruption of earlier ideas
about the purifying of the soul and the terror of the last
judgment. Clemens Alex. (Strom, vii. 6) speaks of the soul
being purified by spiritual fire, but not in reference to the
future life. Origen connected the purgatorial fire with the
burning up of the world at the last day. Augustine is
generally said to have placed the fire in Hades ; but his views
were doubtful and vacillating. Pope Gregory I. (590) first
distinctly asserted it ; and the pains were at first conceived
as purifying, as they are represented with such moral insight
by Dante. The nature of the doctrine was, however, entirely
changed by the notions of human satisfactions and merits
which arose in the scholastic age ; and the granting of
indulgences from the time of the Crusades onwards led to
gross practical abuses.
Apart from the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory, it
has been thought by some that there must be a process of puri
fication in the state of the dead for those who, though truly
believers in Christ, are not perfect in holiness at their death ;
and that the statement of the Westminster Confession, that
" the souls of the righteous being then made perfect in
holiness, are received into the highest heavens, where they
behold the face of God in light and glory" (xxxii. 1), is exag
gerated, and not borne out by Scripture. Dr. Luckock 1 says
that this, which he admits to be the common belief, " invests
a mere physical process with that sanctifying influence which
1 The Intermediate Stale, p. 61.

232 ESCHATOLOGY
can only be exercised through the operation of the will."
He thinks that if we could remove the subordinate evils
that have made the Roman doctrine of Purgatory a byword ;
and leave only the dominant idea of a progressive cleansing,
commencing immediately after death and lasting on till the
work is complete, a great end would be gained. In this
cleansing the soul must suffer acutely ; but only in a spiritual
way, as in penitential sorrow.
Both this view and that of moral perfection at' death
seem to be inferences from Scripture rather than its direct
teaching. The phrase in Heb. 1 223, " the spirits of just men
made perfect," does not refer to perfection in holiness, but to
the completion of blessedness which the Old Testament saints
received (Heb. II40); and the other passages simply say they
are at rest, with Christ, in paradise. It is inferred from the
statements that they are blessed, and in a state far better
than here, that they must be entirely free from sin ; and, on
the other hand, from the fact that believers are not free
from sin up to death, that they must be purified from it by
a gradual process hereafter, and that this must imply
suffering. Neither inference is certain, and the latter, I
think, the more precarious. III. The Final States
It has been the prevalent belief of the Christian Church
in all ages that after the last judgment the state of men
is inevitably fixed, and that the blessedness of the saved
and the punishment of the lost shall be everlasting or final ;
and this seems to have been due to the general impression
made by the teaching of Scripture on this solemn subject.
There has been no doubt that the happiness of the saints
in heaven shall be eternal ; and' it might be a pleasing task
to attempt to gather from Scripture, and to depict, as far as
our faculties will allow, the nature of their blessedness. But,
unhappily, it is more necessary for the theologian to consider
the darker side of the future state, which is a painful and
terrible subject of contemplation. It is more necessary, not
from the greater importance of the subject, or because it has

THE FINAL STATES 233
been more fully revealed, but merely because it has been
called in question, and because it is needful to consider and
estimate the reasons that have been urged against it. The
belief that some of God's creatures and our fellowmen are
to suffer for ever, that sin and punishment are to be eternal
in the universe of the God of love, is so awful and distressing
to our souls, that if it were possible to avoid it we should
be right glad to adopt an opposite opinion. It is a baseless
calumny on those who maintain it as a Bible doctrine, to
say or insinuate, as is sometimes done, that they have a
malignant or cruel delight in the thought of the endless
suffering of their fellows. The men who have taught it
most earnestly have been in many cases distinguished by the
most self-denying philanthropic zeal for the salvation of lost
sinners. Their very apprehension of the awful doom await
ing the impenitent has quickened their zeal and anxiety to
present the Saviour to them and to lead them to Him.
They feel the awfulness of the doom which they are con
strained to declare, and they are often sorely tempted to
soften down or explain away the teaching of Scripture on
the subject. The various theories that have been adopted
to remove or relieve the burden on the mind and heart that
the ordinary doctrine does certainly impose, present them
selves to our mind in an attractive guise, and we cannot help
feeling a hope that some of them might be found to be true.
The doctrine of eternal punishment presents difficulties both
to our reason and to our feelings. If we were asked to judge
for ourselves what we should think the most fitting issue of
the world's history, we should probably say that it would be
most worthy of a God of infinite power, wisdom, and love to
bring all His creatures ultimately to a state of holiness and
happiness in fellowship with Himself, however far they
might wander from Him at one period of their existence. It
seems more suitable to the unity that we look for in all works
of wisdom, that all things should tend to this single issue of
good in which God would be most highly glorified, than that
there should be a perpetual duality of good and evil in the
world. Thus even our reason left to itself would revolt
from the idea of eternal punishment. Still more do our

234 ESCHATOLOGY
feelings sink oppressed under the weight of the thought of
final and hopeless misery. We can hardly imagine how we
could contemplate such a thing with any composure, or that
any sin could be so great as to make us feel that eternal
punishment is a just and necessary doom. These difficulties
of the head and of the heart do not need to be urged on us
by the opponents of the doctrine, they are ready enough to
present themselves, and hard enough to get rid of even
without that. If it were possible to yield to them without
giving up the essential principles of the gospel, as well as
going against the plain and solemn statements of Scripture,
we should be ready enough to do so. But we must appeal
to the word of God, and be guided by its teaching. Let us
first consider the teaching of Scripture, and then the various
ways in which it has been attempted to get rid of the
difficulties of thought and feeling by denying eternal punish
ment. There are several passages where the adjective at'&iwo? is
applied to the future punishment of the impenitent as well as to
the blessedness of the saved, and these have generally been taken
to imply that both are everlasting. But it is maintained by
Dr. Cox, Dean Farrar, and others, that in the New Testament
alcovLos never means everlasting, but always " of or belonging
to an age," " age-long," " seonian." Now alwv does indeed
generally, and often in the New Testament, mean age, lifetime,
period. But it seems quite clear that the phrases, et? w
alSiva, et? tou? almva<; ra>v ai., are used for Heb. 1JJ1 tbw?3
which mean " for ever," and that ala>vio<; is used for the
adjectival form of rhty, e.g. Ps. 247, so that there does not
seem to be any reason to doubt that it often means everlasting.
This is held by most Greek scholars, and given in the lexicons
as a meaning of alcov and atcuvto? ; and apparently with right.
Plato in a passage expressly treating of the subject (Timasus,
pp. 37, 38), uses alwv for eternity in the strict sense as opposed
to time, and alcLvios as synonymous with at'Sto?. Dean
Farrar quotes a similar passage from Philo (Eternal Hope,
p. 199 ). aldsvtos is freely rendered in Latin by " ;eternus," which
was often used in the strict sense. In some places of the
New Testament the meaning everlasting seems to be necessary

MEANING OF alcbvios 235
(e.g. 2 Cor. 417- 1S, 1 John l2, John 17s), where Dr. Cox's
explanation is very forced and unnatural. The view that it
always means of an age, age-long, requires the assumption of
a doctrine of reons that does not seem to be borne out by
Scripture. The fact that these phrases are sometimes used of
things or relations that are not endless, does not prove that
the words themselves do not properly mean everlasting, because
it is a very common thing in all languages that words denot
ing infinitude should be employed of things that are not
infinite. So aireipo^ undoubtedly means " boundless," although
Homer apphes it to the Hellespont. So in Ex. 215 and
Philem. 15 " for ever " correctly translates D$>1J?$>, et? top aluva,
alwviov, and it would be absurd to say that the English
word " ever " means an age or a lifetime. I think it clear,
therefore, that alwvios may and sometimes does mean eternal,
i.e. either everlasting or independent of time entirely ; and
the statement of Kingsley, endorsed by Cox (Salvator Mundi,
pp. 121, 122), that it never has either of these meanings,
seems entirely untenable. This, however, does not prove that
it always has either of these senses; for, as I have just said, it
is sometimes, like all similar terms, modified by the nature of
what it is applied to, and its real meaning in each place where
it occurs must be determined by the text and context.
Now let us look at the passages in the New Testament where
the future punishment of the ungodly is spoken of. I shall
not refer to two in Matt. 522 and 29- 30, because it seems very
probable that these contain only a figurative allusion to the
valley of Hinnom, where the bodies of malefactors were cast
out to be burned. But Matt. 1028 and Luke 126 undoubtedly
speak of Gehenna as a place of suffering after death. Again,
Matt. 188- 9 speaks of being cast et? to irvp to almvtov, et? rr/v
yeevvav rov 7rupo?, and the parallel passage (Mark 943) speaks
of to Trvp to ao-BecrTov = yeewa. Here it is quite clear alcovios
= ao-ySeo-To?, and cannot mean age-long. Nor do I think that
we can possibly avoid understanding these words of suffering
after death. Though there may be an allusion to the valley
of Hinnom based on Isa 6624, yet the thing shadowed forth
by the figure is the opposite of the life, which is spoken of as
future. The expression Trvp almviov occurs again in Matt.

236 ESCHATOLOGY
2541, in the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, where it is
said to have been prepared for the devil and his angels ; and
is explained in v.46 as Kokaats ala>vto<;, where the same
epithet is applied to the life of the saved. There is nothing
whatever to indicate that alwvios here means age-long ; and
the whole parable suggests the idea of a final judgment.
Much stress is laid by Farrar and Cox on the use of the
word KoXaais here, since, according to the usage of classical
Greek and the definitions of Plato and Aristotle, that word is
distinguished from Ttfiwpia, retributive punishment, as meaning
chastisement or suffering inflicted for the correction and
reformation of the offender. But this distinction seems not
to be observed in biblical Greek, and in the only other place
where icoXaais occurs (1 John 418) it cannot have that mean
ing, nor can the verb KoXd^w in Acts 421 and 2 Pet. 29. The
words iravBevoa and iratSeia seem to have come in New Testa
ment use in place of KoXd%a> and Kokacris.
We have also our Lord's words on the unpardonable sin
(Matt. 1231- 32, Mark 328- 29, cf. 1 John 516).
1 Pet. 417- 18 points to a twofold issue of the history
of mankind, and a terrible doom for the ungodly and
unbelieving. See also 2 Pet. 23- 17- 21 37, Jude 13"15.
Paul's representations on this subject are chiefly two —
(1) That of the day of judgment, when all shall appear before
the tribunal of Christ to receive each according to his deeds,
and where there shall be a separation of men into two great
classes (Rom. 26"9 1410, 2 Cor. 510); (2) that the end of the
rejectors and enemies of Christ is destruction, oXe6po<s, 1 Thess.
53 ; o\e8po<i alwvios, 2 Thess. I9 ; d-rrwXeia, Phil. I28 319. He
speaks repeatedly of those who are being saved (oi aw^ofievoi),
and of those who are perishing (ol dTroXXv/j,evot), 2 Cor. 216
43, and says that to the latter the gospel is a savour of death
unto death ; and that the end and wages of sin is death
(Rom. 621"23).
The Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of some whom it is
impossible to renew again to repentance (64-6), and describes
in terrible terms the doom of apostates (1026-31- 39).
In the Book of Revelation we have presented in vision

UNIVERSALISM 237
the great judgment and the lake of fire; and there are express
statements of the endless nature of the punishment of the
wicked (1411 2010- 15 218), and of the final and unchangeable
state of men (2211).
The attempt to explain these many and varied testimonies
as describing only suffering that is temporary, though it may
be many ages long, and that is ultimately to lead to conversion
and restoration, seems to me on the most careful consideration
to be altogether unsuccessful. They appear plainly and
emphatically to assert a doom that is final and hopeless, and
also one that involves terrible suffering, though whether that
suffering is to be everlasting or to issue in final extinction of
conscious being is not so clear. Some of the passages taken
literally would lead to the former and others to the latter
alternative. Probably none of them ought to be pressed
in their literal sense.

1. UNIVERSALISM
Of the alternative views on this subject the most com
plete and thoroughgoing is that of the ultimate restitution
of all intelligent creatures to fellowship with God, or univer-
salism. The advocates of this view hold that though some
shall be condemned at the judgment as transgressors of the law,
and as not having believed in Christ the Saviour, and though
in consequence of this they shall be consigned to suffering as
the punishment of their sin ; yet sooner or later, it may be
after long ages of misery, they shall be brought to repentance,
and ultimately delivered and saved. It is essential to this
theory, with whatever modifications it may be held, that the
wicked shall be brought to repentance and moral reformation
before their sufferings cease. This is involved in the nature
of restitution, and is indeed seen and felt to be necessary by
all thoughtful and earnest men. However painful the idea
of eternal suffering may be, and undoubtedly is, the notion of
ungodly and wicked creatures being for ever happy is absolutely
intolerable. Indeed, the difficulty connected with the common
doctrine lies as much in the idea of eternal sin as in that of
eternal misery, and the more spiritually-minded of its opponents

238 ESCHATOLOGY
put in the foreground of their attacks the everlasting duration
of moral evil as implying a failure of God's goodness and
victory over His love. The theory of restitution, then, requires
us to believe that all creatures shall ultimately be converted
from sin to God. But now the question arises — By what
means is this to be effected ? Some would answer by saying
that the sufferings inflicted in the future life are themselves
the means of purification, that they are designed and inflicted
for this end, and will lead to it sooner or later in the case of
all. This was the view of Origen, and is the consistent carry
ing out of the doctrine of the universal Fatherhood of God in
its absolute and unrestricted application. All punishment is
regarded as merely disciplinary and corrective, inflicted for
the offender's good, and all properly retributive punishment is
denied. Hence it follows that the final issue of all punish
ment inflicted by God must be the reformation of the
criminal, and that the infliction can in no case be eternal, since
God's punishment must attain its end. But this view is not
consistent with the facts of human nature and divine govern
ment. It is not the case that suffering invariably tends to
moral improvement. In many cases within the range of our
experience it has no such effect, and it is a very shallow view
of man's character to suppose that it can be changed by mere
suffering from the love of sin to the love of goodness and of
God. That may inspire terror and shrinking from the conse
quences of sin, but it cannot of itself produce any real hatred
of sin, or reconciliation to God. Suffering may be used by
God as a means of perfecting the holiness of His people and
overcoming their remaining habits of sin where there has
been first wrought in the soul a real love of holiness and
turning from sin, but it is impossible that by itself it can
effect a change of heart. The idea of suffering being of itself
a converting agency is ably exposed by Julius Miiller in his
work on Sin, who shows how inconsistent that is with the
idea of redemption. For if men could be restored by punish
ments, what need was there of redemption ? Is it to be
supposed that punishment is the means of salvation for those
who refuse to receive the redemption of Christ ? Then
punishment would be a more powerful means of good than

SCUIPTURE EVIDENCE FOR UNIVERSALISM 239
the cross of Christ. But perhaps it may be said that the
restitution of all is to be effected, not by the mere infliction of
punishment, but by moral means, — by the same means as con
version is effected in this life, the offer of the grace of God
in Christ, and the working of the Spirit of God in the sinner's
heart. But if these have been refused and resisted here, what
certainty is there that they shall prove effectual hereafter ?
Whatever view we take of the reason why many are not con
verted here, whether we ascribe it to their own free will or
to the absence of the effectual grace of God, the same reason
may prevent their conversion hereafter. Or can it be said
that a state in which the wicked are finally separated from
the godly, and made to feel the awful effects of separation
from God, is more favourable to their conversion than the
position in which many are in this life under all the influences
of God's grace ? If there is to be any certainty of the final
restitution of all, we seem to be always driven back to the
assumption that suffering itself must have this effect, and that,
accordingly, seems to be what is tacitly presumed even when
not asserted by its advocates.
The theory of universal restitution has been attempted to
be supported by Scripture, and especially by a series of
passages in Paul's writings which it is necessary to examine.
In Rom. 518 the restoration in Christ seems to be made co
extensive with the condemnation in Adam, and both are
said to be et? TrdvTas dvdpanrovs. Most interpreters, how
ever, explain this passage so that it does not affirm universal
salvation ; some, as Meyer, holding that it refers only to the
objective side of redemption, the gracious will of God by
which it is designed for all men, without regard to the condi
tions on which the subjective enjoyment of it depends ; and
others, like Hodge, that by all men here we are to understand
all who are in Adam on the one hand, and all who are in
Christ on the other. Either of these interpretations seems
admissible, while the latter is the more satisfactory. 1 Cor.
1522 is a parallel statement, and in vv.24"28 Paul declares that
Christ must reign till He has put down all authority and
power. This of itself might denote only a triumph over
enemies, destroying for ever their power to rebel, and not

240 ESCHATOLOGY
necessarily a restoration ; but when he says (v.28) that the
end is that God may be all in all, that seems to imply a
spiritual union of all souls to God. So it is understood by
Neander, Pfieiderer, and others. But Meyer, Weiss, and others
hold that the connection of the passage, as well as Paul's
teaching elsewhere, excludes that idea ; since the reign which
God exercises over all can be no other than that which Christ
had, and which consists not in the conversion or annihilation
of all hostile powers, but in their being made powerless and
subjected to His will.
In Rom. II25-32 Paul certainly teaches that during the
time of Israel's unbelief and rejection, the fulness of the
Gentiles is to be brought in, and then all Israel is to be saved.
But that seems clearly to refer to those living at the time of
the fulfilment of the prophecy, and not to those who are
dead before that ; and though v.32 seems to have a more
universal reference, it only declares the gracious design of
God in His providential dealings, without asserting that it
shall be actually accomplished in all men.
The statements in Eph. I10 and Col. I20 speak of God
gathering together all things under Christ as head, which
is simply parallel to 1 Cor. 1 524-27 ; and reconciling all
things to Himself through Christ, which it is very difficult to
explain, since the proper meaning of reconciliation can apply
neither to innocent nor to inanimate beings. But we cannot
let an obscure and doubtful statement neutralise the express
and solemn testimony of so many other places as to the final
condemnation of the wicked. On any view, we must either
limit rd irdvra in some way, or take diroKaTaXXd^ai in an
improper or modified sense ; and if we do not take the latter
alternative, we must regard ra iravra as limited by the
mention of the Church, v.18, which is not an impossible view.
If ra irdvTa be absolutely universal, reconcile must be
used in a very wide sense, including different meanings in
reference to holy angels, redeemed men, and inanimate things.
This is hardly consistent with the continued existence of
devils and men unconverted and suffering punishment, but it
is consistent with their ultimate annihilation. So it is under
stood by Sabatier with much probability.

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY 241

2. CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY

A less extreme and thoroughgoing attempt to remove the
difficulties of the common doctrine is the theory of Anni
hilation or Conditional Immortality ; i.e., that the human soul
is not essentially immortal, but only receives eternal life as a
gift of God, and that those who reject Christ shall sooner or
later cease to exist as conscious and sentient beings. This
view was held in the ancient Church by Arnobius,1 and has
been revived by some modern writers : Samuel Minton, in a
work entitled The Glory of Christ ; Edw. White, Life in Christ ;
Petavel, The Problem of Immortality, and others mentioned
there by him. It has been put in different forms. By some
it has been maintained that there is no future life at all for
the wicked ; but this seems so clearly opposed to the scrip
tural doctrines of the General Resurrection and Last Judgment,
that it has obtained little favour ; and the more usual form of
this theory has been that, after a period of suffering as the
punishment of their sins, the wicked shall cease to exist.
This theory has a good deal to be said for it, and has
seemed to many earnest and reverent minds to alleviate very
much the difficulties of the doctrine of eternal suffering.
Its advocates do not seek to give any limited meaning to
atoiwo?, but admit eternal punishment, holding that, according
to the usage of language, a punishment may be said to be eternal
if it is final and its consequences last for ever. The doom of
the wicked is frequently called in Scripture, and especially by
Paul, 6dvaro<;, oXedpos, d-rrcoXeia ; and these words are taken
on this theory in then- most literal sense, as indicating the
cessation of conscious existence. Death in general, it is held,
denotes the cessation of vital functions and activities ; bodily
death is the cessation of animal life, and spiritual death is the
cessation of the religious life, or fellowship of the soul with
God ; and so, it is inferred, eternal death, or destruction, is
the cessation of all vital functions for ever. This destruction,
doubtless, is accompanied with pain more or less intense, as
the other kinds of death are ; and this explains, on this theory,
the many descriptions of suffering as the punishment of the lost.
1 Adv. Gent. ii. 14.
16

242 ESCHATOLOGY
There is much in the analogy of experience to counten
ance this theory. Sins of sensual indulgence tend to destroy
the health and vitality of the body, and lead to disease, and
in the end to death. Some kinds of sin also derange the
mental powers, and produce imbecility or madness. Indeed,
all ungodliness and unspirituality tends to lower the mental
powers, and to produce stupidity. Death in sin does really
impair the intellectual life of the soul, and tends to reduce a
man to the level of a brute. Is it not in accordance with
these facts that persistent continuance in sin should issue in
the extinction of the soul entirely ?
Now, many of the arguments commonly used against this
theory do not seem to me conclusive. Thus, it is sometimes
said, that we cannot conceive of the annihilation of any
existing thing, since in all changes that we know no single
particle ceases to exist. But this is really just carping at the
word annihilation, for all that is required by the theory is
the cessation of consciousness, and that does not involve the
metaphysical difficulty of annihilation. Nor am I much
impressed with the argument from the natural immortality of
the soul. The eternal life of believers is what is most clearly
taught by Christ, and no philosophic arguments for the soul's
immortality can exclude the possibility of God bringing the
existence of the soul to an end. The question cannot be
settled by metaphysical arguments either one way1 or the
other, but only by an interpretation of the teaching of Scrip
ture. Now, this theory does really give a fair and natural
interpretation of a large number of the passages bearing on
the subject, namely, those in Paul's Epistles. I do not think
that it is the only possible interpretation of them, though it
is the most literal one. On the other hand, there are some,
especially in the Book of Revelation, that speak of the
sufferings of the wicked as eternal, though it is somewhat
precarious to base doctrinal conclusions on the prophetic
representations of that book.
We must depart from the literal interpretation of one or
other of those sets of passages, and the exegetical question is,
which is to be taken in a figurative sense ? Our Lord's words
are, 1 think, consistent with either view.

CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY 243
On the whole, it seems to me that the theory of Annihila
tion is at best only a hypothesis, and that it is impossible to
pronounce with any certainty between it and the more
common view of the everlasting suffering of the lost. These
two views agree in what is most clearly taught in Scrip
ture and is most important, that the punishment of the
finally impenitent shall be final, and in that sense eternal,
whether it is to involve their eternal existence and suffer
ing or not. They also agree in the belief that the doom
of the ungodly shall include awful suffering of unknown
character and intensity, but always justly proportioned to
their guilt.
Considering this view more generally on its merits as a
theory, we may observe (1) that it does not remove the
difficulties of reason attaching to the common doctrine. It
does not, like the theory of restitution, present us with a
uuity in the final issue of God's government : there is still a
twofold end. God's love and purpose of salvation do not
take effect in the case of all men. Nay, so far is this from
being so, that He is represented as finally annihilating some
of the creatures whom He has made capable of eternal hfe.
This leaves the intellectual problem as unsolved as ever.
(2) The burden on our feelings seems to be, to a certain extent,
lightened by this theory, since the dreadful idea of never-
ending suffering is excluded. But, after all, it is only in
degree, and to a limited extent, that this is done. The state
of the lost is still represented as a hopeless one ; and the time
during which their sufferings continue, though not literally
endless, must be regarded as of very great and inconceivable
duration in order to do justice to the language that seems to
assert its absolute eternity. Now, to our minds, there is
hardly any practical difference between the one and the
other. This theory, then, while it is not distinctly opposed to
Scripture, like that of restitution, is also much less effectual
as a relief to the mind and heart from the awfulness of the
ordinary doctrine.

244 ESCHATOLOGY

3. MITIGATIONS OF SUFFERING

Another attempt to evade the difficulty is made by
the supposition that there are mitigations or relaxations of
the sufferings of the lost, or that they are only mental and
not physical. The first of these ideas is said to have been
held by many of the Fathers, and has been maintained in a
somewhat peculiar form by Mr. T. R. Birks.1 He believes,
indeed, that the punishment of the lost is eternal, but holds
that in consequence of Christ's atonement, which he holds to
be absolutely universal in its effect, it is not the unrelieved
suffering originally threatened as the wages of sin, not the
bottomless pit, but the lake of fire, i.e., a bounded and limited
place of suffering, surrounded on all sides by the trophies of
God's grace and love in the redemption and final blessedness
of the saved. In the contemplation of the love of God, and
the happiness of their fellow-men, he thinks the lost may
obtain some solace even in their penal and eternal sufferings.
This theory avowedly rests only on inferences from Scripture,
which are precarious and fanciful, and it is open to serious
objections. To suppose beings capable of such unselfish and
heavenly feelings as to derive comfort from the manifestation
of God's love to the saved, and yet to be themselves under
condemnation for ever, is a notion that shocks the reason and
moral sense even more than the doctrine of eternal punish
ment does the sensibilities. This theory has, therefore, gained
little support.
Dean Farrar's view is somewhat of the same kind
though less definite.2 He objects to the common doctrine in
so far as it asserts (1) physical torments, (2) endless duration
of these -for all the lost, (3) that these are the majority of
mankind, and (4) that their doom is irrevocably fixed at
death. The last two of these points are plainly irrelevant to
the present question. As to the relative proportion of the
lost to the saved, no one can affirm anything, for it has not
been revealed ; and when asked about it Jesus emphatically
1 The Victory of the Divine Goodness, 1867.
1 Eternal Hope.

MITIGATIONS OF SUFFERING 245
declined to answer (Luke 1 323- 24). When we consider the
character and conduct of men, we may well lament that so
few as yet show signs of faith and holiness ; but we are not
their judges, and we know not how it shall be at the day of
judgment. And as to the last point, it belongs to a different subject.
It seems clear that the doom of some is decided in this life,
and any indications of a probation beyond death are infer
ential and uncertain ; but we are certain that whenever it may
be fixed, it -shall be just and equitable.
Farrar depicts in strong language the agonies of remorse and
mental suffering that must be the consequence of unrepented
sin ; but he contends that there may be a possible purification
and conversion of the lost, and that God is ever ready to
forgive them if they repent ; and also that, even apart from
that, there may be certain mitigations of their suffering and
a cessation of agonising remorse, without perfect peace, and
with the loss, possibly for ever, of the beatific vision of God.
Now, in regard to the possibility of repentance for the lost, it
is a fact, as he admits, that the soul may become so hardened
in sin that repentance is impossible, so that even on his view
there may be eternal suffering for such ; and whether that is
to be only mental or also bodily, is surely a question that
involves no principle. We do not know how far the Scripture
statements are figurative, and should not dogmatise either
one way or other. Then as to the mitigations of suffering,
why should we think that there is any need of them ? Are
we to suppose that God first inflicts a doom that is too
terrible to be rigidly enforced, and then in mercy alleviates
it ? Surely it is far more worthy of God to believe that
allowance is made for this from the first, and that nothing
is inflicted that is not perfectly just and absolutely
necessary. These theories seem to arise from allowing the feelings to
guide and control the judgment ; and this, which is dangerous
in any case, is specially so in this matter, because the grounds
and reasons of the final doom of the ungodly can never be
fully known tUl the Last Judgment, the very purpose of which
is to vindicate the justice of God's government. Till then

246 ESCHATOLOGY
we are speculating on the justice of a supposed punishment
before we have heard the trial.
It may be observed that both this notion of mitigations
and the theory of annihilation seek to soften the awful
severity of eternal punishment simply by lessening its- degree,
the one in intensity and the other in duration. Now there is,
it must be admitted, a natural tendency to shrink from the
infliction of suffering ; and this is greater the more severe and
long continued the suffering is. In the presence of such an
infliction we seek something to reconcile our minds' and hearts
to it. But is it a mere diminution in the amount of the
infliction that will really reconcile us to it ? I think not.
Take the case of any suffering that is warrantably and wisely
inflicted by man on his fellow-man, whether it be a painful
surgical operation, or the execution of penal justice, or wounds
given in self-defence or lawful war. Even for such sufferings
we feel sympathy; our heart bleeds for the sufferer, though we
cannot disapprove or forbid the infliction. Now what is it
that reconciles us to the infliction in such cases ? Is it
merely that the suffering is comparatively slight or of short
duration ? Surely not. Such considerations afford an
apparent more than a real relief,- — a relief that arises from
what is defective, not from what is best in our nature. If
we had perfect sympathy; the least and briefest suffering
inflicted needlessly or unjustly on another would pain us as
really as the greatest. On the other hand, we acquiesce, or
at least ought to acquiesce, in the greatest and longest suffer
ing when we are satisfied that it is just and necessary, or that
it tends to the higher good of the sufferer. It is not the
mere slightness or degree that reconciles us to the infiiction of
suffering, but the justice of the cause and the goodness of the
end of the infliction. It is in this direction, accordingly, that
we must seek for relief in regard to the final judgments of God,
not by attempting to persuade ourselves that they are not so
very awful as they seem, but by endeavouring to see how good
is their reason and end. The theory of restitution has at
least the merit of dealing with the question as one of principle
and not of mere degree : it would reconcile us to the severity
of future punishment, not merely by representing it as less in

MITIGATIONS OF SUFFERING 247
degree than eternal, but by holding it to be sent in love and
for a gracious end. But it cannot do this without doing
violence to the solemn statements of Christ and the funda
mental principles of the gospel, and therefore we cannot
accept it. But is there not another way in which we may be
reconciled to suffering besides the assurance that it is
remedial ? We acquiesce not only in the pain caused by the
surgeon's knife, but also in that inflicted by justice on
criminals, for the maintenance of law and the good of society ;
i.e., the circumstance that suffering is justly deserved and
necessarily inflicted satisfies us of its propriety. Now this is
precisely what we believe to be the case with the sufferings of
the lost. However great or long continued they may be, we are
sure that they shall not exceed by a single pang what is deserved
by the sinner, and necessary for the vindication of God's law
and justice. If they are final and eternal, it is because sinful
creatures may become hardened in impenitence, and continue
for ever heaping up guilt on themselves. Scripture plainly
teaches that in the case of some, at least, it is impossible to
renew them again unto repentance (Heb. 66), and we are not
at liberty to explain away these solemn words. What can a
holy and loving God do with such ? He must either terminate
their existence after a sufficient manifestation of His holy
wrath against sin, or they must be for ever miserable ; and in
either case their doom is hopeless.
But as to the nature and amount of the sufferings, we
may leave that in the hand of God. We, who are ourselves
sinners, are very incompetent judges of the desert of sin. We
know not what is its exceeding sinfulness in the eyes of holy
creatures and a holy God ; we know not all the purposes in
the universal government of God that the punishment of
sinners is designed and needed to accomplish. It is not for
us, then, to pronounce dogmatically that any particular degree
or kind of suffering would be inconsistent with His justice
and goodness. We know that the punishment of each soul
will be proportioned to its privileges and to its gudt ; there
will be varieties in the judgment corresponding to every
degree of ill-deserving. We believe that when God's judg
ment is made manifest we shall have such a sight of the

248 ESCHATOLOGY
justice, necessity, and great ends served by the punishment of
the wicked, that we shall be able to say : " Even so, Lord God
Almighty ! true and righteous are Thy judgments." If we
are satisfied of the general principle, that the vindication of
justice may reconcile the most benevolent to the infliction of
suffering ; then we need not be over solicitous to show
positively that the future doom of the wicked shall be just
what they deserve : we may leave that in God's hand, know
ing that the Judge of all the earth will do right. Let us
trust God in this matter ; avoid all speculations as to the pre
cise nature of future suffering, whether with a view to show
positively its consistency with justice and benevolence, or to
heighten its effect on men. The latter tendency has done, per
haps, even more harm than the former. Incalculable damage
has been done to the teaching of Scripture by the too literal
descriptions by good and earnest men of the sufferings of the
lost. The statements of the Bible are all more or less figura
tive, and are intended to produce the impression of something
unspeakably awful ; but when men attempt to frame from
them an exact conception of the reality, it becomes simply
grotesque and horrible. We can form no conception of the
other world, and it is far wisest and best to rest content with
the general views of Scripture. When we deem it necessary
to set before others the awful realities of future punishment,
let it be as far as possible in the very language of Scrip
ture, which will produce the most powerful effect ; and as we
avoid all descriptions of sensual joys in heaven, so let us be
very cautious in using sensible pictures of the woes of hell.
Above all, let us handle this solemn subject with
tenderness and sympathy. Let there be no appearance of
hard insensibility or cruel delight in the sufferings of the
wicked, while there is all faithfulness in warning them of
their danger. It may not be easy always to combine the two,
but it is the thing to be aimed at. And the best way of
attaining it will be to keep ever in mind that this solemn
doctrine concerns ourselves as well as others. It shows us
what even our sin deserves, and therefore ought to humble
us ; it shows us what, if left to ourselves, must be our doom,
and thus should fill us with fear and trembling. If we ever

THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN 249
remember this, we shall be able to speak even of this awful
subject kindly, though solemnly, as sinful men to brother
sinners ; and knowing for ourselves the fear of the Lord, we
shall persuade men to be reconciled to Him.1
REWARDS AND ACTIVITIES OF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN
In regard to the rewards and activities of the perfected
saints in heaven, besides the statements of their blessed
fellowship with God, and exercises of adoration and praise, it
is indicated that they shall receive enlarged powers, and
opportunities of exercising them in the service of God, in pro
portion as they have used their gifts here. This is implied
in our Lord's parables of the Pounds (Luke 1912) and of the
Talents (Matt. 2514). To be placed over many things, to have
authority over cities, must denote to have a position of
honourable work for our fellows as well as for God's glory.
The same thing would seem to be indicated in Jesus' promise
to the Twelve, " that ye may eat and drink with Me in My
kingdom, and sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of
Israel" (Luke 2230), though this saying is highly figurative,
and may possibly refer to privileges enjoyed in this life.
But the promise of sitting on Christ's throne (Rev. 320) seems
clearly to refer to the future state. To that also, it would
seem, must we apply Paul's mysterious statement that the
saints shall judge the world and even angels (1 Cor. 62- 3).
The same apostle also speaks of the Church being the means
of showing to the principalities and powers in the heavenlies
the manifold wisdom of God, and showing in the ages to come
the exceeding riches of His grace (Eph. 27 310).
Thus, though generally in the New Testament the outlook
to the future extends only to the last judgment and a vision
of eternal peace and blessedness beyond, there are various
passages that give us a glimpse of activity in that holy and
happy state. Can we from any of these glimpses, or the
analogy of Scripture, form any notion as to what that activity
may probably be ?
1 White, Life in Christ ; Farrar, Eternal Hope ; Cox, Salvator Mtmdi ;
Clemance, Future Punishment ; Salmond, Doctrine of Immortality.

250 ESCHATOLOGY
The most distinct idea suggested by them is that of kingly
rule ; and we know that the Christian idea of a king is that
he is a minister of God for good to those whom he rules, more
especially guiding and helping those whom he rules to obey
the will of God and enjoy His blessing. Hence it would
seem that the function of the redeemed is to lead other intel
ligent creatures of God to loyal and loving obedience to Him.
Such a task would afford scope for the happy exercise of the
highest intellectual and moral powers, and would be altogether
worthy of God to intrust to those who have been tried on
earth and found faithful.
Now, we may reverently ask, who are those intelligent
creatures of God to whom the redeemed in Christ may be
supposed thus to minister ? Is it likely that they are merely
those angels and men who have already lived, and sinned, and
been condemned at the universal judgment ? Is there any
indication in Scripture that points to this ? or would the
perfected saints in Christ have anything to reveal to such
creatures that they did not already know, or any influence
more powerful to bring to bear on them than they had already
resisted ? To me there seems more probability in the idea to
which some profound thinkers have been led, that the subjects
of the future ministry of the redeemed Church in Christ shall
be intelligences yet to be brought into existence in the ages
to come, and that the great and everlasting increase of the
rational universe and kingdom of God is to take place after
the present dispensation has been wound up at the last judg
ment. This idea enables us to see that the redeemed in
Christ may have a special function in relation to the future
universe, and that they have been elected and saved, not for
their own sakes merely, but to be ministers of holiness and
happiness to millions of other souls. That this has not been
more generally seen and applied as a key to the understand
ing of God's purpose is due, I think, to the fact that one or
other of two extreme opinions has prevailed as to the relation
of God's grace to man's free will, either of which makes
the idea just stated impossible or meaningless. One of these
opinions is that the will of man must always be free to choose
good or evil, and to reject and repel all the influences that the

ACTIVITIES OF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN 251
grace of God can bring to bear on it. If this be so, then in
any future worlds or ages there must be the same possibility
of evil and fall as in the present, and the redeemed Church of
Christ would have no special power to train coming races in a
sure course of obedience and holiness. Hence Origen, though
his wide range of thought extended to ages in the future,
could only conceive of them as repetitions of the course of
things in this world — freedom, fall, chastisement, and
restoration. The opposite opinion is that God has power in all circum
stances, without infringing on the liberty of the will, to prevent
sin if He so pleased, and to turn sinners to Himself. In that
case the entrance of evil in future worlds might be prevented
simply by the gracious will of God ; and the employment of
Christ and His Church for this end would not be needful, or
in any special way efficacious.
Thus, on either of these suppositions, the idea of the
finally saved being employed in ministries of grace to other
souls, though it might be an interesting speculation, could
not form an essential or important part in the general
conception of God's government or plan of the universe.
But if we take an intermediate position, and say that God
can and does secure the conversion of sinners and the
perseverance of believers by means of His love and grace
manifested in Christ's life and death for sinners, but that for
aught we know it may be inconsistent with their free will to
keep new created souls from sinning at first and apart from
the work of Christ, then we can see how the redeemed
Church of Christ may have quite peculiar qualifications for
securing, through their testimony of the love of God in
Christ, that new created worlds be kept from sin at all, and
enabled to serve God freely under the influence of His love
alone. They may thus be fitted for a unique and most
important function in the universe, and that not by any merit
of their own, but by the love and work of Christ that has
redeemed them ; and the future ages may be neither an end
less uniformity nor a mere repetition of the past, but a scene
of constant progress, of revealing the grace and glory of
God to successive ranks of intelligences to be created, whose

252 ESCHATOLOGY
nature and history may be endlessly varied, yet without
sin. Thus, too, we can see the cosmical importance of Christ,
and His redeemed Church as united to Him ; and can meet the
difficulty felt by many, in view of modern astronomy, that it
is hard to believe that the Son of God became incarnate and
died for sin in this earth, so small compared with the vast
orbs and systems of the stellar universe. If this divine
redemption was destined to be the means not only of redeem
ing sinners of mankind, but of preventing the entrance of sin
and misery in numberless other worlds to be peopled with
free and loyal servants of God, could that be said to be
unworthy of God ? Would it not be entirely in harmony
with the Providence that chose the least of all lands as the
scene of His revelation here, and the people that were very
few and strangers in it to be a blessing to all the families of
the earth ?
In the discussion carried on in the last generation about
the plurality of worlds, it was pointed out, in reply to the
argument that it is hard to suppose this globe to be the only
seat of rational life in the universe, that for long ages this
earth was destitute of living and intelligent creatures while
it was in preparation for them, and that so it may be now
with other planets even if they have no inhabitants as yet.
In hke manner the whole long drama of sin, redemption,
salvation, and judgment that is running its course in human
history, may be but the beginning of the eternal process by
which God communicates His holiness and happiness to end
less ages of intelligent creatures.
This may, I think, be what is pointed to in Paul's state
ments about the purpose of God to recapitulate or reconcile
to Himself all things in Christ, both things in earth and
things in heaven. Christ's redemption extends, as the apostle
wrote to the Romans, to the deliverance of the lower creation
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory
of the sons of God ; it may also include the deliverance of all
rational agents that are to be created from the danger of
mutability and apostasy from God. It may be conceived to
do so because the revelation of all God's attributes in the

ACTIVITIES OF THE SAINTS IN HEAVEN 253
redeeming work of Christ shows Him to be so transcendently
good and lovely as to win and keep the love of free intelli
gences from ever wandering away from Him.
For this glorious end it may also have been necessary for
aught we know that there should be a manifestation of the
holiness and justice of God in the just punishment of those
who obstinately refuse to obey His will and to accept His
offered mercy, and that there should be an everlasting
memorial of their righteous doom, though not perhaps that
their conscious suffering should endure for ever.
This whole speculation, which is not a mere fancy, but is
based on certain New Testament statements, implies a view
of the relation of man's will to God's providence and grace
which differs from those that have been generally held, but
which is, I think, countenanced both by reason and Scripture.
Opinion on this subject has generally been divided between
two opposite extremes before referred to, either that the will
of man is endowed with such freedom that it can never be
certainly determined even by the gracious power of God, but
must always have the power of determining itself either for
or against it ; or that the influence of divine grace is so great
that it can always, and in any circumstances, determine the
will of man, though not by co-action or necessity, but so as
to preserve its freedom. Apart from philosophical considera
tions, the former view is, I think, disproved by the biblical
declarations that God creates in us a new heart, draws us to
Christ so that we certainly come, works in us to will and to
do, gives faith and repentance, — declarations which have
been verified in the experience of many. But it does not
follow that because this extreme is not true the opposite is ;
and there are statements in Scripture that cannot easily or
naturally be reconciled with it. Some are described as so
hardened that it is impossible to renew them again unto
repentance (Heb. 64-6) ; over some Jesus wept, because,
though He earnestly desired and sought to save them, they
would not (Luke 1941) ; and the Lord says by Isaiah, "What
could have been done more for My vineyard, that I have not
done in it ? " (Isa. 54). The most obvious significance of these
words is that there are certain conditions in which even divine

254 ESCHATOLOGY
power cannot certainly turn men's will from evil. This must
be, doubtless, because in these cases habit has become as strong
as a second nature ; and though the physical power of God is
infinite, to apply it for this purpose would destroy the essential
nature of the will. The power by which He does convert
sinners is the spiritual one of love, which does, indeed, work
not by mere moral suasion presenting outward motives, but
by bringing the constraining influence of the love of Christ
to bear on the soul. Thus it may be true that sin has
entered the universe because it was not possible at the
outset to prevent new-created moral agents from sinning
without taking away their freedom ; but that through the
love revealed in the redemption of Christ, not only can
sinners be converted and confirmed in holiness and free
obedience, but new orders of rational and moral agents can
be created, who, through the story of that love and redemp
tion being brought home to their minds and hearts, may be
certainly and for ever kept from sinning without any infringe
ment of their liberty. On the other hand, it may be that
none are finally condemned except such as having refused to
obey God's law, or to accept His mercy, have finally so
hardened themselves that it is impossible to renew them to
repentance.

II. THE DOCTRINE OF CHRIST'S INTERCESSION
IT has been generally held by theologians that our Saviour's
work as a Priest includes not only His once offering
Himself a sacrifice, but His making continual intercession
for us, the latter being that part of His priestly office which
He performs in His exaltation as a Priest on His throne.
In order, then, to see whether this representation is well
founded, and what is its true and essential meaning, let us
consider —
1. The biblical foundation of the doctrine. — The following
are the places in Scripture where the word intercede, or
equivalent phrases, are used in reference to Christ : —
(1) In Paul's Epistle to the Romans (834) the verb
ivTvy-^dvet is put as the last of four, describing Christ's work
as the ground of believers' hope : He died, He rose again,
He is at the right hand of God, He makes intercession.
Parallel to this is the use of the term fiecrl,Tw<;, 1 Tim. 25, as
describing a still present function of Jesus, in addition to His
ransom in the past.
(2) In Heb. 725 the same word ivrvy^dveiv is used of
Christ, and further on in the Epistle it is illustrated by the
analogy of the high priest entering the holiest of all on behalf
of the people. In 924 we have ip,j>avicr6r)vai, to appear ; and
in 1 224 we have the title /xecrtV^? given Him as in 1 Tim.
In Heb. 1215 and 1 Pet. 25 we have the idea that Chris
tians' worship is acceptable to God only through Christ.
(3) In 1 John 21 Jesus is called our Advocate (trapd-
kXtjtov) with the Father, i.e. one who appears and pleads for
us, and through whom we obtain forgiveness.
(4) This points back to the discourses in the Fourth
Gospel, where Jesus, while promising to send His disciples
another Comforter, virtually claims to be Himself one (John

256 CHRIST'S INTERCESSION
1416), urges them to pray in His name (1624-27), and offers a
most solemn prayer for and with them (17).
(5) In the discourses of Jesus recorded by Luke, we find
in the parable of the Barren Fig-tree, the vinedresser inter
ceding that it may be spared and get further culture (Luke
138); again, in reference to Peter's approaching fall, Jesus
says, "I have prayed for thee" (eherjdrjv), Luke 2232; and in
2334 we have His intercessory prayer for His murderers.
(6) To these must be added the Old Testament passages
about the priests' service in the holy place, which the writer
to the Hebrews treats as being typical of Christ's priestly
work not less really than their offering sacrifice. Also in the
great prophecy Isa. 5312, the servant of Jehovah who makes
his soul a guilt-offering is also said to make intercession

Now, with these passages before us, is there any reason
to doubt that Jesus Himself taught that He intercedes for us ?
The presumption certainly is that He did, and that -this is not
merely an idea excogitated by His disciples at a later date,
but one which they learned from Himself. For it is ascribed
to Him, not only in the Fourth Gospel, but in that of Luke
also ; and is found not in one only, but in at least three distinct
lines of apostolic teaching : the Pauline, the Johannine, and
the Epistle to the Hebrews.
If it had been only in this last it might possibly be
ascribed to Jewish ideas about the priesthood, but this would
not account for its appearance in Paul's Epistles where Christ
is never called a priest, nor in John's where the form of
expression suggests no such ideas. So far as external evidence
goes, there is every reason to believe that an idea which
appears independently in these different apostolic teachings,
and is ascribed to Jesus by two independent evangelists, did
really proceed from Him and has His authority.
The only thing that could overcome such evidence would
be an inconsistency between the notion of intercession and
Christ's teaching as certainly known, or His idea of God.
Such inconsistency has been alleged ; and if intercession meant
an influence used to persuade God to do something which
He was else unwilling to do, then this would really be

NATURE OF CHRIST'S INTERCESSION 257
inconsistent with Jesus' teaching and idea of God. But this
is not the meaning of intercession any more than it is of
prayer in general, which Jesus most earnestly inculcated at
the very time that He spoke of God's free bounty and
willingness to bestow blessings. If we can form from the
biblical representations an idea of Christ's intercession that
is in harmony with the Christian conception of God, all
reason for refusing to accept it as a part of Jesus' teaching
will disappear.
We are thus led to consider —
2. The nature of Christ's intercession as represented in
Scripture. — As to this, two things may be noticed in the
context of the various texts in which it is mentioned.
(1) In most of them there is also mention made, in close
connection with it, of the love of God as the source of this
and of all saving blessings that come through it. Thus in
Rom. 8, both before and after the statement that Christ
makes intercession for us, there are emphatic assertions of
God's predestination, election, love, as manifested especially
in the gift of Christ. So also in 1 Tim. 2, where Christ is
called Mediator, God's free and universal grace is also
affirmed. Again, in 1 John, where Jesus Christ is called our
Advocate with the Father, there are equally express state
ments of God's readiness to forgive (1°), and of His love in
giving His Son (416).
In His great intercessory prayer (John 17) Jesus is
careful to speak of Himself as sent by the Father, and doing
His will (vers. 2- 6).
In the Epistle to the Hebrews, intercession appears as an
integral part of the priests' functions, and the writer lays
great stress on the point of the priest having to be appointed
by God (chs. 54~6 720~22).
These considerations show negatively that the biblical
conception of Christ's intercession is not that of persuading
an unwilling God to be gracious ; but positively, how inter
cession can find place with God, who is willing to grant it
and has Himself appointed it, will appear from another
circumstance in the scriptural representations,
l7

258 CHRIST'S INTERCESSION
(2) In most of the places in which it is mentioned,
Christ's intercession is connected with His atoning death on
the Cross.
Thus in Rom. 834 the successive acts of the Saviour —
died, rose, is at God's right hand, intercedes — are closely
connected and form a climax.
In 1 John 22 He who is our Advocate is also described
as Himself the propitiation (iXaap,6<;) for our sins : that is the
ground of His advocacy.
In the intercessory prayer, Jesus refers to His consecrat
ing Himself on behalf of His disciples (John 1719) as the
ground of His petitions ; and when He says He had prayed
for Peter, He had just before been instituting the sacrament
that was to commemorate His death for our sins.
In the Epistle to the Hebrews this, like the other point,
is pictorially brought out by the analogy of the priest in the
tabernacle entering in before God for the people with the
blood of the sacrifice.
From these observations we may gather an idea of our
Lord's intercession that might be expressed thus : — Christ's
presenting, according to the will and appointment of His
Father, His own perfect obedience and sacrifice to God as the
ground of the bestowal of forgiveness and all spiritual bless
ings on men. It is thus a part of Christ's priestly office, and
its special purpose is to show, by an actual transaction, the
connection between His sacrifice on the Cross and the salva
tion of His people. That sacrifice was necessary for our
forgiveness ; and God Himself provided it, giving His Son to
die for us. But in the same way it was necessary that
it should be made apparent that it is for the sake of Christ's
sacrifice that sinners are blessed ; hence God has appointed
that Christ should appear before Him, presenting His finished
work and pleading for the bestowal on His people of the
blessings that they need. This argues no unwillingness in
God to grant them, but only a determination that it shall be
seen that He bestows them on account of the propitiation
by which Christ has declared His righteousness in justifying
the ungodly. The propriety of Christ's intercession rests
ultimately on the same ground as that of His atonement,

BASIS OF CHRIST'S INTERCESSION 259
if that have any objective effect at all. Hence a strong
argument for the objective view of the Atonement has been
drawn from the Intercession,1 while those who hold a merely
subjective view find it very difficult to explain the Inter
cession. In another point of view also Christ's intercession may be
seen to be reasonable, inasmuch as it is His requesting as
the God-man, the Head and Representative of His people,
that His obedience and sacrifice be accepted and the great
ends for which He died accomplished, i.e., that He be glorified
in the salvation and blessing of the innumerable company
whom He has redeemed. This aspect of it is vividly brought
out in His farewell discourses and intercessory prayer, in
which all His petitions for His disciples are involved in that
for Himself, that He may be glorified. Such prayer to God is
most suitable to the character and work of Jesus ; indeed, we
cannot conceive Him as truly and perfectly human without
believing that He must have offered such prayers. If, then,
He is truly human still, and also acquainted with all our
circumstances and wants, we conclude that He must be offer
ing those prayers still, as we have seen Scripture represents
Him as doing.
In this aspect Christ's intercession has the same reason
and justification as prayer in general. If that is not incon
sistent, either with the immutability of the divine purpose or
with God's willingness to bestow the things asked for, neither
is the intercession of Christ. God will be inquired of by us
for what He has promised to bestow in order that our faith
and His regard to us may be manifest, and so He says to His
Son, " Ask of Me, and I will give Thee the heathen for Thine
inheritance." More particularly, intercessory prayer or petitions offered
for others is a practice often enjoined and exemplified in the
Bible from the earliest times. We find instances of it in
Abraham (Gen. 18 and 207),in Job (428), in Moses (Ex. 3230),
in Samuel (1 Sam. 1223), in David (2 Sam. 2417), in Jeremiah
(716), in Daniel (9), and very frequently in the New Testa
ment. 1 See Dr. H. Martin. On the Atonement.

260 CHRIST'S INTERCESSION
In regard to the manner of Christ's intercession, we can
say little more than that it is prayer offered on the ground of
a perfect, all-prevailing plea. There has been a tendency, on
the one hand, to an extreme literalism, and on the other
hand to an excessive vagueness in the attempts to conceive
of this precious work of Christ. Some have insisted on His
intercession being oral or vocal — the actual utterance of
articulate prayer as really as on earth. Since our Lord still
possesses a body, spiritual and glorified, this is doubtless
possible, and we cannot certainly say that it is not really so.
But to assert that this must be the manner of Christ's
intercession is not warranted in Scripture, and seems to give
too much importance to what is material.
Others, again, have held it to be simply His presenting
Himself before God as having accomplished the work of our
redemption. This, too, has sometimes been represented in a
very material way, as presenting His body with the marks
of His wounds — nay, with the bleeding wounds themselves —
before God. This is even a more gross materialising of a
spiritual truth than to insist on actually vocal prayer.
These exaggerations of the material side of Christ's in
tercession have been chiefly made by the old Lutheran
dogmatics. See references in Hase, Hutterus Bedivivus, § 101.
Doubtless the simple appearance of Christ before God is
an intercession in the most literal sense of the word; and
in one place it is described as appearing in the presence of
God for us (efi<pavia0f)vat t&> Trpotrdyjrip tov Oeov (nrep rjfiwv,
Heb. 924). But there is no reason to limit His intercession
to this, or to exclude the offering up of His desires to God
in the exercise of that spiritual devotion, aspiration, trust,
love, unselfish benevolence, that are implied in intercessory
prayer in general, whether merely mental or oral. This
seems to be implied in the use of the word ivTvy%dveiv of
Christ, and in itself it is altogether worthy both of God and
of Christ. But Christ's intercession is prayer offered by one who
has a just claim for what He desires, and therefore asks
with full confidence of success. Hence we find that He uses
of Himself not only the verb ahelv, which commonly describes

EXTENT OF THE INTERCESSION 261
our prayers, but epwrav (John 1416 179- 16- 20),a word denoting
more confidence and assurance of request. Also in John
1724 He uses the word deXco, " I will."
He who thus pleads for us is the Son, the Father's Fellow,
and He asks in the full knowledge that the Father heareth
Him always.
It remains now to consider —
3. The extent of Christ's intercession, or the persons for
whom He pleads, in the way Scripture describes Him as
doing ; and in this, as under the former heads, we shall
follow its guidance.
In His solemn and comprehensive intercessory prayer
(John 17), Jesus expressly says that He prays not for the
world, but for those whom the Father has given Him (v.9),
i.e. (v.20) for the disciples who had then believed, and for all
who should hereafter believe through their word. It is true,
as has been pointed out by Alford and others, that this only
means that He was not then praying for the world, and
also that in v.21 He mentions as a consequence or purpose
of what he asks for His own, " that the world may believe
that Thou hast sent Me " ; and so again v.23- Still the
previous statements clearly show that the petitions for the
proper blessings of salvation are offered by Christ specially
and definitely for His people, those given Him by the Father,
who do, or shall, by God's grace believe in Him.
In Rom. 834 it is said He maketh intercession for us, i.e.,
unquestionably, according to the context, God's elect, those
who are foreordained, called, justified, whom nothing can
separate from the love of Christ.
In Heb. 725 His intercession is said to be for all who
come to God through Him, where we see how it is definite
indeed, and yet not so as to exclude any who desire an
interest in it ; for all who desire to approach God, and are
willing to have Him as their Mediator.
Probably the same thing is indicated in 1 John 21, when
it is said, " We have an Advocate with the Father," one who
definitely 'pleads for us who confess our sins, but whom any
man, yea the whole world, may have if they wUl do the same.
It seems clear, therefore, that Christ's intercession, in the

262 CHRIST'S INTERCESSION
full and proper sense, as an authoritative asking of blessings
founded upon His redemption, and as set forth in those
places where it is most fully described, is offered on behalf
of His own people, and has a definite and particular refer
ence to them ; while at the same time this special reference
need be no barrier to any sinner seeking God's face.
Christ's intercession for His own affords hope and encourage
ment to all, since all are invited to come to Him ; and
whatever may be said of the secret purpose of God, we
have His own assurance, " Him that cometh unto Me I will
in nowise cast out."
This view of the extent of Christ's intercession is con
firmed by the fact that, as we have before seen, it is always
effectual. We cannot suppose that in what He asks of the
Father, on the ground of His perfect sacrifice, Christ is ever
refused. When, therefore, He asks for salvation for men, it
must be for those who are actually saved. But I would not
rely on this argument were there not direct Scripture
testimony. Whether there is Scripture evidence also for a universal
intercession of Christ for all men is more doubtful. The
Lutherans hold that there is, while allowing that the passages
just referred to describe a special intercession for the elect.
The chief passage on which they found is Christ's prayer on
the Cross for His murderers (Luke 2334). This was an inter
cession, doubtless, for those who were not then behevers in
Christ ; but many of them certainly became so afterwards on
the day of Pentecost and later, and it is best to regard it as
a prayer that was answered in the conversion and forgive
ness of many who were guilty of His death. In the same
way it is generally and justly believed that the prayer of the
dying Stephen was answered in the conversion of Saul : " Si
Stephanus non orasset, ecclesia Paulum non habuisset." 1
A more pertinent proof may be urged from Luke 138,
where the vinedresser pleads for the barren fig-tree for a
year's respite, taken in connection with the references to the
world in John 1721- 23, as showing that Christ prays on behalf
of all for a time of forbearance and for the knowledge of
1 See Hase, Hutterus Redivivus, % 101, ii.

INTERCESSION GENERAL AND SPECIAL 263
the gospel ; and, as in Rom. 3 the forbearance of Gocl, as
well as His complete forgiveness of sins, is represented as
grounded on the manifestation of God's righteousness in
Christ's propitiation, intercession for that would be grounded
on the sacrifice, and would fulfil the conditions as to the
nature of Christ's intercession. We might, therefore, hold
a twofold reference of Christ's intercession — special, for the
blessings of salvation ; universal, for a day of grace and
means of grace for all men.
Hase says that in the Reformed Dogmatic the intercession
of Christ is little regarded, because the salvation of the elect
is held to be sure from eternity. But here, I think, he is
wrong, both in fact and reason. In point of fact, the doctrine
of Christ's intercession has been greatly used by Calvinists in
defending their view of the nature and extent of the Atone
ment, and has been constantly pressed as an argument against
universal redemption. Nor have their views of predestina
tion made them think it superfluous, but rather the reverse.
Just because in our view salvation depends on the will of
God, through the redemption of Christ, the assurance that
Christ is presenting that redemption, and pleading its merit
for us, has a meaning and a value for us, as I have tried
to show. But on any view that makes salvation depend
ultimately on the will of man, so as to be hindered by its
resistance, it is hard to see how any pleading of Christ
before God, or anything that God may do in response to such
pleading, can secure salvation, or remove the real obstacle.

PRIKTED BY MOBEISON AND C1BB LIMITED, ED1NEUBGH.

PUBLICATIONS OF
T. 8g T. O Xj .A. IR, IEC,
38 GEORGE STREET, EDINBURGH.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LIMITED.

Abbott (T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)— Ephesians and Colossians. (Inter
national Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Adam (J., D.D.)— An Exposition of the Epistle of James. 8vo, 9s.
Adamson (Rev. T., D.D.)— Studies of the Mind in Christ. Post
8vo, 4s. 6d.
 The Spirit of Power. Second Edition. Fcap. 8vo, Is.

Ahlfeld (Dr.), etc. — The Voice from the Cross. Cr. 8vo, price 5s.
Alcock (Deborah) — The Seven Churches of Asia. Is.
Alexander (Prof. W. Lindsay) — Biblical Theology. Two vols. 8 vo, 2 1 s.
Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.) — Christian Institutions. (International
Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Ancient Faith in Modern Light, The. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Andrews (S. J.) — The Life of our Lord. Large post 8vo, 9s.
Ante-Nicene Christian Library — A Collection of all the Works
or the Fathers of the Christian Church prior to the Council or
NicaiA. Twenty-four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £6, 6s. Additional
Volume, containing MSS. discovered since the completion of the Series,
12s. 6d. net.
Augustine's Works — Edited by Marcus Dods, D.D. Fifteen vols.
8vo, Subscription price, £3, 19s. net.
Balfour (R. G., D.D.) — Central Truths and Side Issues. Crown
8vo, 3s. 6d.
Bannerman (Prof.) — The Church of Christ. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Bannennan (D. D., D.D.) — The Doctrine of the Church. 8vo, 12s.
Baumgarten (Professor) — Apostolic History. Three vols. 8vo, 27s.
Bayne (P., LL.D.) — The Free Church of Scotland. Post 8vo,
3s. 6d.
Beck (Dr.) — Outlines of Biblical Psychology. Crown 8vo, 4s.
 Pastoral Theology of the New Testament. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Bengel — Gnomon of the New Testament. With Original Notes,
Explanatory and Illustrative. Five vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 31s. 6d.
Cheaper Edition, the five volumes bound in three, 24s.
Besser's Christ the Life of the World. Price 6s.
Beyschlag (W., D.D.) — New Testament Theology. Two vols.
demy 8vo, 18s. net.
Bible Dictionary. Edited by Jas. Hastings, D.D. Seepage 16. Special
Prospectus on application. Vols. I. and II. now ready.
Bible-Class Handbooks. Crown 8vo. Forty-four Volumes, Is. 3d. to
3s. each. Edited by Prof. Marcus Dods, D.D., and Alex. Whyte, D.D.
Detailed List free on application.

* * Detailed Catalogue free on application.

T. and T. Claris Publications.

Bible-Class Primers. Thirty-four now issued in the Series. Edited
by Princ. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Paper covers, 6d. each ; free by post, 7d.
In cloth, 8d. ; free by post, 9d. Detailed List free on application.
Blaikie (Prof. W. G., D.D.) — The Preachers of Scotland from the
6th to the 19th Century. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Blake (Buchanan, B.D.)— How to Read the Prophets. Part I. —
The Pre-Exilian Minor Prophets (with Joel). Second Edition, 4s. Part II.
— Isaiah (eh. i.-xxxix.). Second Edition, 2s. 6d. Part III. — Jeremiah, 4s.
Part IV. — Ezekiel, 4s. Part V. — Isaiah (ch. xl.-lxvi.), and the Post-Exilian
Prophets. The Series being now complete, Messrs. Clark offer the Set of Five
Volumes for 15s.
Bleek's Introduction to the New Testament. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Briggs (Prof. C. A., D.D.) — General Introduction to the Study
op Holy Scripture (Replacing the Author's 'Biblical Study,' entirely
re-written and greatly enlarged). 8vo, 12s. net.
 Messianic Prophecy. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Messiah of the Apostles. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Messiah of the Gospels. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d.
 The Bible, the Church, and the Reason. Post 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Brockelmann (C.) — Lexicon Syriacum. With a Preface by Professor
T. Noldeke. Crown 4to, 30s. net.
Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.) — The Training of the Twelve ; exhibiting
the Twelve Disciples under Discipline for the Apostleship. Fifth Edition,
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Humiliation of Christ. 3rd Ed., 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Kingdom of God ; or, Christ's Teaching according to the
Synoptical Gospels. New Edition, 7s. 6d.
 Apologetics : or, Christianity Defensively Stated.

(International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
- - St. Paul's Conception of Christianity. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
The Epistle to the Hebrews : The First Apology for

Christianity. Just published. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Bruce (W. S., D.D.) — The Ethics of the Old Testament. Cr. 8vo, 4s.
Buchanan (Professor) — The Doctrine of Justification. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 On Comfort in Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
 On Improvement of Affliction. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Bungener (Felix) — Rome and theCouncil in 19™Century. Cr.8vo,5s.
Burton (Prof. E.) — Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New
Testament Greek. New Edition. Post 8vo, 5s. 6d. net.
Calvin's Institutes of Christian Religion. (Translation. )2 vols. 8vo, 1 4s.
 Commentaries. Forty -five Vols.
Calvini Institutio Christianse Religionis. Curavit A. Tholuck.
Two vols. 8vo, Subscription price, 14s.
Candlish (Prof. J. S., D.D.) — The Kingdom of God, Biblically and
Historically considered. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Caspari (C. E.) — A Chronological and Geographical Introduc
tion to the Life of Christ. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Caspers (A.)— The Footsteps of Christ. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 3
Cassel (Prof.)— Commentary on Esther. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Cave (Principal A., D.D.) — The Scriptural Doctrine of Sacrifice
and Atonement. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 An Introduction to Theology. Second Edition, 8vo, 12s.
Chapman (Principal C, LL.D.)— Pre-Organic Evolution and the
Biblical Idea of God. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Christlieb (Prof. T., D.D.)— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief.
8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Homiletic : Lectures on Preaching. 7s. 6d.
Clark (Professor W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.)— The Anglican Reforma
tion. (Eras of Church History.) 6s.
Clarke (Professor W. N., D.D.)— An Outline of Christian
Theology. Post 8vo, 7s. fid.
Concordance to the Greek Testament — Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and
Geden (A. S., M.A.). Crown 4to, 26s. net.
Crawford (J. H., M.A.) — The Brotherhood of Mankind. Crown
8vo, 5s.
Cremer (Professor) — Biblico-Theological Lexicon of New Testa
ment Greek. Third Edition, with Supplement, demy 4to, 38s.
Crippen (Rev. T. G.) — A Popular Introduction to the History
of Christian Doctrine. 8vo, 9s.
Critical Review of Theological and Philosophical Literature.
Edited by Princ. S. D. F. Salmond, D.D. Quarterly, Is. 6d.
Cunningham (Principal) — Historical Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Curtiss (Dr. S. I.) — The Levitical Priests. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 Franz Delitzsch: A Memorial Tribute. Portrait. Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Dabney (Prof. R. L., D.D.)— The Sensualistic Philosophy of
the Nineteenth Century considered. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Dahle (Bishop) — Life after Death. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Davidson (Prof. A.B., D.D., LL.D.) — An Introductory Hebrew
Grammar. With Progressive Exercises in Reading and Writing. 15th
Edition, 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 A Syntax of the Hebrew Language. 2nd Ed., 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Davidson, Dr. Samuel. Autobiography and Diary. Edited by his
Daughter. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Deane (Wm., M.A.) — Pseudepigrapha : An Account of Certain
Apocryphal Writings of the Jews and Early Christians. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Delitzsch (Prof.)— System of Biblical Psychology, 8vo, 12s.
New Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Psalms, 3 vols., 31s. 6d.
Proverbs, 2 vols'., 21s. ; Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes, 10s. 6d.
Isaiah, Fourth Edition, rewritten, 2 vols., 21s. ; Hebrews, 2 vols., 21s.
Dictionary of the Bible, A. (Seepage 16.)
DiUmann (Prof. A., D.D.) — Genesis : Critical and Exegetical Com
mentary. Two vols. , 21s.
Doedes— Manual of New Testament Hermeneutics. Cr. 8vo, 3s.
Dollinger (Dr.)— Hippolytus and Callistus. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Declarations and Letters on the Vatican Decrees,
1869-1887. Authorised Translation. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Dorner (Professor)— History of the Development of the Doctrine
of the Person of Christ. Five vols. 8vo, £2, 12s. 6d.
 System of Christian Doctrine. 4 vols. 8vo, £2, 2s.

4 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Dorner (Professor) — System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 14s.
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.) — An Introduction to the Literature
of the Old Testament. (International Theological Library.) 7th
Edition, post8vo, 12s.
 ¦ Deuteronomy : A Critical and Exegetical Commentary.
(International Critical Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.) — The Ecumenical Councils. (Eras
of Church History. ) 6s.
Duff (Prof. David, D.D.)— The Early Church. 8vo, 12s.
Dyke (Paul Van) — The Age of the Renascence. With an Intro
duction by Henry Van Dyke. (Eras of Church History.) 6s.
Eadie (Professor) — Commentaries on St. Paul's Epistles to the
Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians. New and Revised Editions, Edited
by Rev. Wm. Young, M.A. Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each ; or set, 18s. net.
Ebrard (Dr. J. H. A.)— The Gospel History. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 ¦ Apologetics. Three vols. 8vo, 3 Is. 6d.
 Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Edgar (R. M'C, D.D.) — The Gospel of a Risen Saviour. Post 8vo,
7s. 6d.
Elliott — On the Inspiration of the Holy Scriptures. 8vo, 6s.
Eras of the Christian Church —
Du Bose (Prof. W. P., D.D.)— The Ecumenical Councils. 6s.
Waterman (L., D.D.) — The Post- Apostolic Age. 6s.
Dyke (Paul Van) — The Age of the Renascence. 6s.
Locke (Clinton, D.D.) — The Age of the Great Western Schism. 6s.
Ludlow (J. M., D.D.) — The Age of the Crusades. 6s.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)— The Age of Hildebrand. 6s.
Clark (Prof. W. R., LL.D., D.C.L.)— The Anglican Reformation. 6s.
Wells (Prof. C. L. ) — The Age of Charlemagne. 6s.
The following Two Volumes, completing the Series, are in preparation —
Bartlet (J. Vernon, M.A.) — The Apostolic Age.
Walker (Prof. W., Ph.D., D.D.)— The Protestant Reformation.
Ernesti — Biblical Interpretation of New Testament. Two vols., 8s.
Ewald (Heinrich) — Hebrew Syntax. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 Revelation: Its Nature and Record. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Old and New Testament Theology. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Expository Times. Edited by James Hastings, D.D. Monthly, 6d.
Pairbairn (Prin.) — The Revelation of Law in Scripture, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Ezekiel and the Book of his Prophecy. 4thEd.,8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Prophecy. Second Edition, 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Pastoral Theology. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.) — History of Christian Doctrine.
(International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Forbes (Prof.) — Symmetrical Structure of Scripture. 8vo, 8s. 6d.
 . Analytical Commentary on Romans. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Studies in the Book of Psalms. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Servant of the Lord in Isaiah xl.-lxvi. Cr. 8vo, 5s.
Foreign Theological Library — For details seep. 13.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Forrest (D. W., D.D.)— The Christ of History and of Ex
perience. 10s. 6d.
Frank (Prof. F. H.)— System of Christian Certainty. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Funcke (Otto) — The World of Faith and the Everyday World,
As displayed in the Footsteps of Abraham. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d. ,
Gebhardt (H.) — The Doctrine of the Apocalypse, and its relation
to the Doctrine of the Gospel and Epistles of John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gerlach — Commentary on the Pentateuch. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gieseler (Dr. J. C. L.) — Ecclesiastical History. Fourvols. 8vo, £2, 2s.
Gifford (Canon) — Voices of the Prophets. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Given (Rev. Prof. J. J.) — The Truth of Scripture in connection
with Revelation, Inspiration, and the Canon. 8vo, 6s.
Gladden (Washington, D.D., LL.D.) The Christian Pastor and
the Working Church. (International Theol. Library.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Glasgow (Prof.) — Apocalypse Translated and Expounded. 8vo, io/6.
Gloag (Paton J., D.D.) — The Messianic Prophecies. Crown 8vo,
7s. 6d.
 Introduction to the Catholic Epistles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Exegetical Studies. Crown 8vo, 5s.
 Introduction to the Synoptic Gospels. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 The Primeval World. Crown 8vo, 3s.
Godet (Prof. F.)— An Introduction to the New Testament : ' The
Epistles of St. Paul.' Authorised Translation. 8vo, 12s. 6d. net.
 Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 Commentary on Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Commentary on 1st Epistle to Corinthians. 2vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Defence of The Christian Faith. Crown 8vo, 4s.
Goebel (Siegfried)— The Parables of Jesus. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Gotthold's Emblems ; or, Invisible Things Understood by Things
that are Made. Crown 8vo, 5s. ,
Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)— St. Mark. (International Critical
Commentary.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Grimm's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, irans-
lated, Revised, and Enlarged by Joseph H. Thayer, D.D. Demy 4to, 36s.
Guyot (Arnold, LL.D.)— Creation; or, The Biblical Cosmogony in the
Light of Modern Science. With Illustrations. Crown 8vo, 5s. 6d.
Hagenbach (Dr. K. R.)— History of Doctrines. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. od.
 History of the Reformation. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Halcombe (Rev. J. J., M.A.)— What Think Ye of the Gospels ? A
Handbook of Gospel Study. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Hall (Newman, D.D.)— The Lord's Prayer. Third Edition, crown
8vo, 4s. 6d. .
 Gethsemane ; or, Leaves of Healing from the Garden of Grief.
Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s.
Divine Brotherhood. Crown 8vo, 4s.

Hamilton (T., D.D.)— Beyond the Stars; or, Heaven, its Inhabitants,
Occupations, and Life. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Harless (Dr. C. A)— System of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

6 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Harris (S., D.D.)— God the Creator and Lord of All. Two
vols, post 8vo, 16s.
Haupt (Erich) — The First Epistle of St. John. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Havernick (H. A. Ch.) — Introduction to Old Testament. 10s. 6d.
Heard (Rev. J. B., M.A.)— The Tripartite Nature of Man— Spirit,
Soul, and Body. Fifth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 • Old and New Theology. AConstructiveCritique. Cr.8vo,6s.
— :  Alexandrian and Carthaginian Theology contrasted.
The Hulsean Lectures, 1892-93. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Hefele (Bishop) — A History of the Councils of the Church.
Vol. I.,toA.D. 325. Vol. II., A.D. 326 to 429. Vol. III., a.d. 431 to the close
of the Council of Chalcedon, 451. Vol. IV., a.d. 451 to 680. Vol. V., a.d.
626 to 787. 8vo, 12s. each.
Hengstenberg (Professor) — Commentary on Psalms, 3 vols. 8vo, 33s. ;
Ecclesiastes, etc., 8vo, 9s. ; Ezekiel, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; The Genuineness
of Daniel, etc., 8vo, 12s. ; History of the Kingdom of God, 2 vols. 8vo,
21s. ; Christology of the Old Testament, 4 vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. ; St.
John's Gospel, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Herzog — Encyclopedia of Living Divines, etc., of all De
nominations in Europe and America. (Supplement to Herzog's Encyclo
paedia.) Imp. 8vo, 8s.
Hill (Rev. J. Hamlyn, D.D.)— The Earliest Life of Christ
ever Compiled from the Four Gospels : Being ' The Diatessaron of
Tatian' Literally Translated from the Arabic Version, and containing the
Four Gospels woven into one Story. With an Historical and Critical
Introduction, Notes, and Appendix. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 St. Ephraem the Syrian. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Hodgson (Principal J. M., M.A., D.Sc, D.D.) — Theologia Pectoris:
Outlines of Religious Faith and Doctrine. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Hutchison (John, D.D.) — Commentary on Thessalonians. 8vo, 9s.
 Commentary on Philippians. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Our Lord's Signs in St. John's Gospel. Demy 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Imies (A. Taylor) — The Trial of Jesus Christ. In its Legal
Aspect. [In the Press.
International Critical Commentary.
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.)— Deuteronomy. Post 8vo, 12s.
Moore (Prof. G. P., D.D.)— Judges. 12s.
Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.)— Samuel. 12s.
Gould (Prof. E. P., D.D.)— St. Mark. 10s. 6d.
Plummer (Alfred, D.D.) — St. Luke. 12s.
Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. C, B.D.)— Romans. 12s.
Abbott (Prof. T. K., B.D., D.Lit.)— Ephesians and Colossians. 10s. 6d.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.)— Philippians and Philemon. 8s. 6d.
For List of future Volumes see p. 15.
International Theological Library.
Driver (Prof. S. R., D.D.) — An Introduction to the Literature of the Old
Testament. Post 8vo, 12s.
Smyth (Newman, D.D.) — Christian Ethics. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Bruce (Prof. A. B., D.D.)— Apologetics. 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

International Theological Library.
Fisher (Prof. G. P., D.D., LL.D.)— History of Christian Doctrine. 12s.
Allen (Prof. A. V. G., D.D.)— Christian Institutions. 12s.
McGiffert (Prof. A. C, Ph.D.)— The Apostolic Age. 12s.
Gladden (Washington, D.D.)— The Christian Pastor. 10s. 6d.
Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.)— The Theology of the New Testament. 12s.
For List of future Volumes see p. 14.
Janet (Paul) — Final Causes. Second Edition, demy 8vo, 12s.
 The Theory of Morals. Demy 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Johnstone (Prof. R., D.D.) — Commentary on 1st Peter. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Jones (E. E. C.) — Elements of Logic 8vo, 7 s. 6d.
Jouffroy — Philosophical Essays. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Kaftan (Prof. J., D.D.) — The Truth of the Christian Religion.
Authorised Translation. 2 vols. 8vo, 16s. net.
Kant — The Metaphysic of Ethics. Crown 8vo, 6s.
 Philosophy of Law. Trans, by W. Hastie, D.D. Cr. 8vo, 5s.
 Principles of Politics, etc. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Keil (Prof.)— Pentateuch, 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d. ; Joshua, Judges,
and Ruth, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Samuel, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Kings, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ;
Chronicles, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther, 8vo, 10s. 6d. ;
Jeremiah, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Ezekiel, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Daniel, 8vo,
10s. 6d. ; Minor Prophets, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ; Introduction to the
Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s. ;
Handbook of Biblical Archeology, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Kennedy (H. A. A., M.A., D. Sc.)— Sources of New Testament
Greek. Post 8vo, 5s.
Keymer (Rev. N., M.A.) — Notes on Genesis. Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
Kidd (James, D.D.) — Morality and Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Killen (Prof.) — The Framework of the Church. 8vo, 9s.
 The Old Catholic Church. 8vo, 9s.
 TheIgnatian Epistles Entirely Spurious. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Kbnig (Dr. Ed.) — The Exiles' Book of Consolation (Deutero-Isaiah).
[In the Press.
Konig (Dr. F. E.)— The Religious History of Israel. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Krummacher (Dr. F. W.) — The Suffering Saviour ; or, Meditations
on the Last Days of the Sufferings of Christ. Eighth Edition, crown 8vo, 6s.
 David, the King of Israel. Second Edition, cr. 8vo, 6s.
 Autobiography. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Kurtz (Prof.)— Handbook of Church History (from 1517). 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 History of the Old Covenant. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Ladd (Prof. G. T.)— The Doctrine of Sacred Scripture: A
Critical, Historical, and Dogmatic Inquiry into the Origin and Nature of the
Old and New Testaments. Two vols. 8vo, 1600 pp., 24s.
Laidlaw (Prof. J., D.D.)— The Bible Doctrine of Man; or, The
Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture. New Edition Revised and
Rearranged, post 8vo, 7s. 6d.

8 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Lane (Laura M.) — Life of Alexander Vinet. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lange (J. P., D.D.) — The Life of our Lord Jesus Christ. Edited
by Marcus Dods, D.D. 2nd Ed., in 4 vols. 8vo, price 28s. net.
—  Commentaries on the Old and New Testaments. Edited
by Philip Schaff, D.D. Old Testament, 14 vols. ; New Testament, 10
vols. ; Apocrypha, 1 vol. Subscription price, net, 15s. each.
¦ St. Matthew and St. Mark, 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.; St. Luke,

2 vols. 8vo, 18s. ; St. John, 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Lechler (Prof. G. V., D.D.) — The Apostolic and Post- Apostolic
Times. Their Diversity and Unity in Life and Doctrine. 2 vols. cr. 8vo, 16s.
Lehmann (Pastor) — Scenes from the Life of Jesus. Cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Lewis (Tayler, LL.D.) — The Six Days of Creation. Cr. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Lichtenberger (F., D.D.) — History of German Theology in the
19th Century. 8vo, 14s.
Lilley (J. P., M.A) — The Lord's Supper : Its Origin, Nature, and
Use. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Lisco (F. G.) — Parables of Jesus Explained. Fcap. 8vo, 5s.
Locke (Clinton, D.D.) — The Age of the Great Western Schism.
(Eras of Church History.) 6s.
Lotze (Hermann) — Microcosmus : An Essay concerning Man and his
relation to the World. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. 8vo (1450 pp.), 24s.
Ludlow (J. M., D.D.)— The Age of the Crusades. (Eras of
Church History. ) 6s.
Luthardt, Kahnis, and Bruckner — The Church. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Luthardt (Prof.) — St. John the Author of theFourth Gospel. 7s.6d.
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. 3 vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
 History of Christian Ethics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Apologetic Lectures on the Fundamental (1 Ed.), Saving
(5 Ed.), Moral Truths of Christianity (4 Ed.). 3 vols. cr. 8vo, 6s. each.
Macdonald — Introduction to Pentateuch. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Creation and Fall. 8vo, 12s.
Macgregor (Rev. Jas., D.D.) — The Apology of the Christian
Religion. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 The Revelation and the Record : Essays on Matters of
Previous Question in the Proof of Christianity. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Studies in the History of New Testament Apologetics.

8vo, 7s. 6d.
Macgregor (Rev. G. H. ft, M.A.) — So Great Salvation. Crown
32mo, Is.
Macpherson (Rev. John, M.A.) — Commentary on the Epistle to
the Ephesians. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Christian Dogmatics. Post 8vo, 9s.
McCosh (James), Life of. 8vo, 9s.
McGiffert (Prof. A. ft, Ph.D.) — History of Christianity in the
Apostolic Age. (International Theological Library.) Post 8vo, :12s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

M'Realsham (E. D.) — Romans Dissected. A Critical Analysis of the
Epistle to the Romans. Crown 8vo, 2s.
Mair (A., D.D.) — Studies in the Christian Evidences. Third
Edition, Revised and Enlarged, crown 8vo, 6s.
Martensen (Bishop)— Christian Dogmatics. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Christian Ethics. (General — Individual — Social.)

Three vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d. each.
Matheson (Geo., D.D.) — Growth of the Spirit of Christianity, from
the First Century to the Dawn of the Lutheran Era. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Meyer (Dr.) — Critical and Exegetical Commentaries on the
New Testament. Twenty vols. 8vo. Subscription Price, £5, 5s. net ;
Non- Subscription Price, 10s. 6d. each volume.
St. Matthew, 2 vols. ; Mark and Luke, 2 vols. ; St. John, 2 vols. ;
Acts, 2 vols. ; Romans, 2 vols. ; Corinthians, 2 vols. ; Galatians, one vol. ;
Ephesians and Philemon, one vol. ; Philippians and Colossians, one vol. ;
Thessalonians (Dr. Liinemann), one vol. ; The Pastoral Epistles (Dr.
Huther), one vol. ; Hebrews (Dr. Liinemann), one vol. ; St. James and St.
John's Epistles (Huther), one vol. ; Peter and Jude (Dr. Huther), one vol.
Michie (Charles, M.A.) — Bible Words and Phrases. 18mo, Is.
Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) — The Resurrection of the Dead.
Second Edition, crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Milligan (Prof. W., D.D.) and Moulton (W. F., D.D.) — Com
mentary on the Gospel of St. John. Imp. 8vo, 9s.
Monrad (Dr. D. G.) — The World of Prayer. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Moore (Prof. G. F., D.D.) — Judges. (International Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Morgan (J., D.D.) — Scripture Testimony to the Holy Spirit. 7s. 6d.
 Exposition of the First Epistle of John. 8vo, 7 s. 6d.
Moulton (W. F., D.D.) and Geden (A. S., M.A.)— A Concordance
to the Greek Testament. Crown 4to, 26s. net, and 31s. 6d. net.
Muir (Sir W.) — Mohammedan Controversy, Etc. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Miiller (Dr. Julius) — The Christian Doctrine of Sin. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Murphy (Professor) — Commentary on the Psalms. 8vo, 12s.
 A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Exodus. 9s.
Naville (Ernest) — The Problem of Evil. Crown 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 The Christ. Translated by Rev. T. J. Despr&3. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
 Modern Physics. Crown 8vo, 5 s.
Neander (Dr.) — Church History. Eight vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. net.
Nicoll (W. Robertson, M.A., LL.D.)— The Incarnate Saviour.
Cheap Edition, price 3s. 6d.
Novalis— Hymns and Thoughts on Religion. Crown 8vo, 4s.
Oehler (Prof.) — Theology of the Old Testament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Olshausen (Dr. H.)— Biblical Commentary on the Gospels and
Acts. Four vols. 8vo, £2, 2s. Clieaper Edition, four vols, crown 8vo, 24s.
 Romans, one vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d. ; Corinthians, one vol. 8vo,
9s. ; Philippians, Titus, and First Timothy, one vol. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Oosterzee (Dr. Van)— The Year of Salvation. 2 vols. 8vo, 6s. each.
 Moses : A Biblical Study. Crown 8vo, 6s.

10 T. and T. Clark 's Publications.
Orelli (Dr. 0. von) — Old Testament Prophecy; Commentary on
Isaiah ; Jeremiah ; The Twelve Minor Prophets. 4 vols. 8vo,
10s. 6d. each.
Owen (Dr. John) — Works. Best and only Complete Edition. Edited
by Rev. Dr. Goold. Twenty -four vols. 8vo, Subscription price, £4, 4s.
The 'Hebrews' may be had separately, in seven vols., £2, 2s. net.
Philippi (F. A.) — Commentary on the Romans. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Piper — Lives of Leaders of Church Universal. Two vols. 8vo, 21 s.
Popular Commentary on the New Testament. Edited by Philip
Schaff, D.D. With Illustrations and Maps. Vol. I. — The Synoptical
Gospels. Vol. II. — St. John's Gospel, and the Acts of the Apostles.
Vol. III. — Romans to Philemon. Vol. IV.— Hebrews to Revelation.
In four vols, imperial 8vo, 12s. 6d. each.
Plummer (Alfred, D.D.) — St. Luke. (International Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Pressense" (Edward de) — The Redeemer : Discourses. Crown 8vo, 6s.
Piinjer (Bernhard) — History of the Christian Philosophy of
Religion from the Reformation to Kant. 8vo, 16s.
Rabiger (Prof.) — Encyclopedia of Theology. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Rainy (Principal) — Delivery and Development of Christian
Doctrine. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Reusch (Prof.) — Nature and the Bible: Lectures on the. Mosaic
History of Creation in Relation to Natural Science. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Reuss (Professor) — History of the Sacred Scriptures of the New
Testament. 640 pp. 8vo, 15s.
Riehm (Dr. E.) — Messianic Prophecy. New Edition. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Ritter (Carl) — Comparative Geography of Palestine. 4 vols. 8vo, 26s.
Robinson (Rev. S., D.D.) — Discourses on Redemption. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Robinson (E., D.D.) — Greek and Eng. Lexicon of the N.Test. 8vo,9s.
Rooke (T. G., B.A.) — Inspiration, and other Lectures. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Ross (C.) — Our Father's Kingdom. Crown 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Rothe (Prof.) — Sermons for the Christian Year. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Saisset — Manual of Modern Pantheism. Two vols. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Salmond (Prof. S. D. F., D.D.)— The Christian Doctrine of
Immortality. 8vo, 14s.
Sanday (Prof. W., D.D.) and Headlam (A. ft, B.D.)— Romans.
(International Critical Commentary. ) Post 8vo, 12s.
Sartorius (Dr. E.)— Doctrine of Divine Love. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Schaff (Professor)— History of the Christian Church. (New
Edition, thoroughly Revised and Enlarged.) Six 'Divisions,' in 2 vols.
each, extra 8vo.
1. Apostolic Christianity, a.d. 1-100, 2 vols. 21s. 2. Ante-Nicene,
a.d. 100-325, 2 vols., 21s. 3. Nioene and Post-Nicene, a.d. 325-600,
2 vols., 21s. 4. Medieval, a.d. 590-1073, 2 vols., 21s. (Completion of
this Period, 1073-1517, in preparation). 5. The Swiss Reformation,
2 vols., extra demy 8vo, 21s. 6. The German Reformation, 2 vols., extra
demy 8vo, 21s.
Schleiermacher's Christmas Eve. Crown 8vo, 2s.
Schmid's Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark 's Publications.

1 1

Schubert (Prof H. Von., D.D.)-The Gospel of St. Peter. Synoptical
Tables. With Translation and Critical Apparatus. 8vo, Is. 6d. net
bchuitz (Hermann)— Old Testament Theology. Two vols. 18s. net
acnurer (Prof.)— History of the Jewish People. 5 vols 8vo 52/6
Schwartzkopff (Dr. P.)— The Prophecies of Jesus Christ. Crown
8vo, 5s.
Scott (Jas., M.A., D.D.)— Principles of New Testament Quotation
Established and Applied to Biblical Criticism. Cr. 8vo, 2nd Edit, 4s.
Sell (K., D.D. )— The Church in the Mirror of History. Cr. 8vo, 3/6.
Shedd— History of Christian Doctrine. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 • Sermons to the Natural Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Sermons to the Spiritual Man. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
 Dogmatic Theology. Three vols. ex. 8vo, 37s. 6d.
Simon (Prof.)— The Bible; An Outgrowth of Theocratic Life. Cr.8vo,4/6.
 The Redemption of Man. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
 Reconciliation by Incarnation. Post 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Skene-BickeU— The Lord's Supper & The Passover Ritual. 8vo, 5s.
Smeaton (Professor)— Doctrine of the Holy Spirit. 2nd Ed., 8vo', 9s.
Smith (Prof. H. P., D.D.)— I. and II. Samuel. (International Critical
Commentary.) Post 8vo, 12s.
Smith (Professor Thos., D.D.)— Medieval Missions. Cr. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Smyth (Newman, D.D.)— Christian Ethics. (International Theo
logical Library.) Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Somerville (Rev. D., D.D.)— St. Paul's Conception of Christ. 9s.
Sta'hlin (Leonh.)— Kant, Lotze, and Ritschl. 8vo, 9s.
Stalker (Jas., D.D.)— Life of Christ. Large Type Ed., cr. 8vo, 3s. 6d.
 Life of St. Paul. Large Type Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Stanton (V. H., D.D.) — The Jewish and The Christian Messiah.
A Study in the Earliest History of Christianity. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stead (F. H.)— The Kingdom of God. Is. 6d.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.)— The Miracles of our Lord. 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Steinmeyer (Dr. F. L.) — The History of the Passion and Resur
rection of our Lord, considered in the Light of Modern Criticism. 8vo,
10s. 6d.
Stevens (Prof. G. B., D.D.) — The Theology of the New Testament.
(International Theological Library. ) Post 8 vo.
Stevenson (Mrs.) — The Symbolic Parables. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Steward (Rev. G.) — Mediatorial Sovereignty. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
 The Argument of the Epistle to the Hebrews. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Stier (Dr. Rudolph) — On the Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight
vols. 8vo, Subscription price of £2, 2s. Separate volumes, price 10s. 6d.
 The Words of the Risen Saviour, and Commentary on
the Epistle of St. James. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
The Words of the Apostles Expounded. 8vo, 10s. 6d.

Stirling (Dr. J. Hutchison) — Philosophy and Theology. Post 8vo, 9s.
 Darwinianism : Workmen and Work. Post 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Tholuck (Prof.) — The Epistle to the Romans. Two vols. fcap. 8vo, 8s.

1 2 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Thomson (J. E. H, B.D.) — Books which Influenced our Lord
and His Apostles. 8vo, 10s. 6d.
Thomson (Rev. E. A.) — Memorials of a Ministry. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Tophel (Pastor G.) — The Work of the Holy Spirit. Cr. 8vo, 2s. 6d.
Troup (Rev. G. Elmslie, M.A.) — Words to Young Christians :
Being Addresses to Young Communicants. On antique laid paper, chaste
binding, fcap. 8vo, 4s. 6d.
Uhlhorn(G.)— Christian Charityin the AncientChurch. Cr. 8vo, 6s.
Ullmann (Dr. Carl) — Reformers before the Reformation, princi
pally in Germany and the Netherlands. Two vols. 8vo, 21s.
Urwick (W., M.A.) — The Servant of Jehovah : A Commentary
upon Isaiah Iii. 13-liii. 12; with Dissertations upon Isaiah xl.-lxvi. 8vo, 3s.
Vinet (Life and Writings of). By L. M. Lane. Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.
Vincent (Prof. M. R., D.D.) — The Age of Hildebrand. (Eras of
Church History.) 6s.
 ¦ Philippians and Philemon. (International Critical Com
mentary.) Post 8vo, 8s. 6d.
Walker (James, of Carnwath) — Essays, Papers, and Sermons.
Post 8vo, 6s.
Walker (J., D.D.) — Theology and Theologians of Scotland.
New Edition, crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Warfield (B. B.)— The Right of Systematic Theology. Crown
8vo, 2s.
Waterman (L., D.D.) — The Post-Apostolic Age. (Eras of Church
History.) 6s.
Watt (W. A.) — The Theory of Contract in its Social Light.
8vo, 3s.
Watts (Professor) — The Newer Criticism and the Analogy of
the Faith. Third Edition, crown 8vo, 5s.
 The Eeign of Causality : A Vindication of the Scientific
Principle of Telic Causal Efficiency. Crown 8vo, 6s.
The New Apologetic. Crown 8vo, 6s.

Weir (J. F., M.A.) — The Way : The Nature and Means of Salvation.
Ex. crown 8vo, 6s. 6d.
Weiss(Prof) — Biblical Theology of NewTestament. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
 Life of Christ. Three vols. 8vo, 31s. 6d.
Wells (Prof. C. L.) — The Age of Charlemagne. (Eras of the
Christian Church.) 6s.
Wendt (H. H., D.D.)— The Teaching of Jesus. 2 vols. 8vo, 21s.
Wenley (R. M.) — Contemporary Theology and Theism. Crown
8vo, 4s. 6d.
White (Rev. M.) — Symbolical Numbers of Scripture. Cr. 8vo, 4s.
Williams (E. F., D.D.) — Christian Life in Germany. Crown 8vo, 5s.
Winer (Dr. G. B.)— A Treatise on the Grammar of New Testa
ment Greek, regarded as the Basis of New Testament Exegesis. Third
Edition, edited by W. F. Moulton, D.D. Ninth English Edition, 8vo, 15s.
 TheDoctrinesandConfessionsofChristendom. 8vo,10s.6d.
Witherow(Prof . T. ,D. D. ) —The Form ofthe Christian Temple. 8vo,io/6.
Woods (F. H., B.D.) — The Hope of Israel. Crown 8vo, 3s. 6d.
Workman (Prof. G. C.) — The Text of Jeremiah; or, A Critical Investi
gation of the Greek and Hebrew, etc. Post 8vo, 9s.
Wright (C. H., D.D.)— Biblical Essays. Crown 8vo, 5s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications. 13.
THE FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.
The following are the Works from which a Selection of Eight Volumes for £2, 2s. (or more at the
same ratio) may be made. (Non-subscription Price within brackets) :—
Baumgarten— The History of the Church in the Apostolic Age. Three Vols. (27s.)
Bleek— Introduction to the New Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
Oassel— Commentary on Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Ohristlieb— Modern Doubt and Christian Belief. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Delitzsch— New Commentary on Genesis. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Proverbs of Solomon. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Song of Solomon and Ecclesiastes. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Prophecies of Isaiah. Last Edition. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Epistle to the Hebrews. Two Vols. (21s.)
 A System of Biblical Psychology. One Vol. (12s.)
DBllinger— Hippolytus and Oallistus ; or, The Church of Rome : A.D. 200-260. One Vol. (7s. 6d.)
Dorner — A System of Christian Doctrine. Four Vols. (42s.)
 History of the Development of the Doctrine of the Person of Christ. Five Vols. (62s. 6d. )
Ebrard — Commentary on the Epistles of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 The Gospel History. One Vol. (103. 6d.) Apologetics. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Ewald— Revelation : Its Nature and Record. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Old and New Testament Theology. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Frank— System of Christian Certainty. One Vol. (10s. 64.)
Gebhardt — Doctrine of the Apocalypse. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gerlach— Commentary on the Pentateuch. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Gieseler— Compendium of Ecclesiastical History : A.D. 451-1409. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Godet— Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on St. John's Gospel. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on 1st Corinthians. Two Vols. (21s.)
Goebel— On the Parables. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Hagenbach — History of the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
 History of Christian Doctrines. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Harless— A System of Christian Ethics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Haupt— Commentary on the First Epistle of St. John. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Havernick— General Introduction to the Old Testament. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Hengstenberg— Christology of the Old Testament. Four Vols. (42s.)
 Commentary on the Psalms. Three Vols. (33s.)
 On the Book of Ecclesiastes, etc. etc. One Vol. (9s.)
 Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Ezekiel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel, etc. One Vol. (12s.)
 The Kingdom of God under the Old Covenant. Two Vols. (21s.)
Keil— Introduction to the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on the Pentateuch. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Joshua, Judges, and Ruth. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Samuel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Kings. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Books of Chronicles. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Ezra, Nehemiah, and Esther. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on Jeremiah and Lamentations. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Commentary on Ezekiel. Two Vols. (21s.) Book of Daniel. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Commentary on the Minor Prophets. Two Vols. (21s.)
 Biblical Archaeology. Two Vols. (21s.)
Kurtz— History of the Old Covenant ; or, Old Testament Dispensation. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Lange-Commentary on the Gospels of St. Matthew and St Mark. Three Vols. (31s 6d.)
-0^- Commentary on the Gospel of St. Luke. Two Vols. (18s.) St. John. Two Vols. (21s.)
Luthardt— Commentary on the Gospel of St. John. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
 History of Christian Ethics to the Reformation. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Macdonald— Introduction to the Pentateuch. Two Vols. (21s.)
Martensen-Christian Dogmatics. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
 Christian Ethics. General— Social— Individual. Three Vols. (31s. 6d.)
Muller— The Christian Doctrine of Sin. Two Vols. (21s.)
Murnhv— Commentarv on the Psalms. To count as Two Volumes. One Vol. (1ZB.)
Kto-GenfralHStory of the Christian Religion and Church Vols. I. to VIII. (60s.)
Oehler-Biblical Theology of the Old Testament. Two Vols. (21s.)
ninhsniami— Commentary on the Gospels and Acts. Four Vols. (42s.)
?^ Comme°nTa^onEVstletothePRomans OneVol (10s.6d.) Corinthians. One Vol. (9s.>
 Commentary on Philippians, Titus, and 1st Timothy One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Orem-Pronnecv regarding Consummation of God's Kingdom. One Vol. (10s 6d )
_l;Vmmentar? on Isaiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.) Jeremiah. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Philippi-Oommentary on Epistle to Romans. Two Vols (21s.)
RSbiger-EneyclopiBdia of Theology. Two Vols. (21s )
Sitter-Comparative Geography of Palestine. Four Vols (26s.)
e;-*nrin= Tho nnrtrine of Divine Love. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
Icftoer-'T^ ^ Jewish 'people in the Time of Christ Five Vols. (10s. 6d. each.)
StalnmThl MiraclW our Lo?d in relation to Modern Criticism. One Vol. (7s. 6d.)
^Z7 Tho Words of the Lord Jesus. Eight Vols. (10s. 6d. per vol.)
Stier-The Words M™^"™ Savlouri a|d Commentary on Epistle of St. James. One Vol. (10s. 6d >
Trie Words of the Apostles Expounded. One Vol. (10s. 6d.)
mi„™» safnnnBr! before the Reformation. Two Vols. (21s.)
^Ss^lwicaTTSogy of the New Testament. sVoIs. (21s.S The Life of Christ. 3 Vols. (31s. 6d.)

M

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

THE INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

The following eminent Scholars have contributed, or are
engaged upon, the Volumes named : —

An Introduction to the Literature of
the Old Testament.
Christian Ethics.
Apologetics.
History of Christian Doctrine.
A History of Christianity in the Apostolic
Age.
Christian Institutions.
The Christian Pastor.
Theology of the New Testament.
Theology of the Old Testament.
An Introduction to the Literature of
the New Testament.
Old Testament History.
Canon and Text of the New Testament.
The Latin Church.
The Ancient Catholic Church.
¦Encyclopsadia. Contemporary History of the Old Testa
ment.
Contemporary History of the New Testa
ment.
Philosophy of Religion.
The Study of the Old Testament.
Rabbinical Literature.
The Life of Christ.
The Christian Preacher.

By S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor
of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church,
Oxford. [Seventh Edition. 12s.
By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of the
First Congregational Church, New Haven,
Conn. [Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
By A. B. Bruce, D.D., Professor of New
Testament Exegesis, Free Church College,
Glasgow. [Third Edition. 10s. 6d.
By G. P. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Ecclesiastical History, Yale University,
New Haven, Conn. [Second Edition. 12s.
By Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D.,
D.D., Professor of Church History, Union
Theological Seminary, New York. [12s.
By A. V. G. Allen, D.D., Professor of
Ecclesiastical History, Episcopal Theo
logical School, Cambridge, Mass. [12s.
By Washington Gladden, D.D., Pastor of
Congregational Church, Columbus, Ohio.
[10s. 6d.
By George B. Stevens, Ph.D., D.D., Pro
fessor of Systematic Theology in Yale
University, U.S.A. [Just published. 12s.
By A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Hebrew, New College, Edinburgh.
By S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal,
and Professor of Systematic Theology and
New Testament Exegesis, Free Church
College, Aberdeen.
By H. P. Smith, D.D., late Professor of
Biblical History and Interpretation,
Amherst College, U.S.A.
By Caspar Rene Gregory, Ph.D., Pro
fessor in the University of Leipzig.
By Archibald Robertson, D.D., Principal
of King's College, London.
By Robert Rainy, D.D., Principal of the
New College, Edinburgh.
By C. A. Briggs, D.D., Professor of Biblical
Theology, Union Theological Seminary,
New York.
By Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of
Hebrewand Cognate Languages, Union
Theological Seminary, New York.
By Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Yale Uni
versity, New Haven, Conn.
By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D., Professor
of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh.
By Herbert E. Ryle, D.D., President of
Queens' College, Cambridge.
By S. Schechter, M. A. , Reader in Talmudic
in the University of Cambridge.
By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D., Lady
Margaret Professor of Divinity, and Canon
of Christ Church, Oxford.
By John Watson, D.D. ('Ian Mac-
laren '), Sefton Park Presbyterian Church
of England, Liverpool.

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

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

15

THE INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL COMMENTARY.
EIGHT VOLUMES NOW READY, viz. :—
Deuteronomy (Dr. Driver), 12s. ; Judges (Dr. Moore), 12s. ; Samuel (Dr. H. P. Smith), 12s. ; S.
Mark (Dr. Gould), 10s. 6d. ; S. Luke (Dr. Plummer), 12s. ; Romans (Dr. Sanday and Mr.
Headlam), 12s. ; Ephesians and Colossians (Dr. T. K. Abbott), 10s. 6d. ; Philippians and
Philemon (Dr. Vincent), 8s. 6d.
The following other Volumes are in course of preparation : —

Genesis.
Exodus. Leviticus.
Numbers.Joshua. Kings.
Isaiah.
Jeremiah.Minor Prophets.
Psalms.
Proverbs. Job. Daniel.Ezra and Nehemiah.
Chronicles.

THE OLD TESTAMENT.
T. K. Cheyne, D.D., Oriel Professor of the Interpretation of Holy
Scripture, Oxford.
A. R. S. Kennedy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
Rev. H. A. White, M.A., Fellow of New College, Oxford, and Theological
Tutor in the University of Durham.
G. Buchanan Gray, M.A., Lecturer in Hebrew, Mansfield College,
Oxford.
George Adam Smith, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,
Glasgow.
Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
A. B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, Free Church College,
Edinburgh.
A. F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Fellow of
Trinity College, Cambridge.
W. R. Harper, Ph.D., President of Chicago University.
C. A. Briogs, D.D., Edward Robinson Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union Theological Seminary, New York.
C. H. Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge,
Massachusets.
S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford.
Rev. John P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity
School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New
York City.
Rev. L. W. Batten, Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School,
Philadelphia.
Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New
Haven, Conn.

Acts. Corinthians. Galatians.
The Pastoral Epistles.
Hebrews.
James.Teter and Jude.
Revelation.

THE NEW TESTAMENT.
Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Christ's College, Cambridge.
Arch. Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's College, London.
Rev. Ernest D. Burton, A.B., Professor of New Testament Literature,
University of Chicago.
Rev. Walter Lock, M.A., Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis, Oxford.
T C. Edwards, D.D., Principal of the Theological College, Bala; late
Principal of University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.
Rev. James H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor in New Testament Criticism in
Harvard University.
Charles Bigg, D.D., Rector of Fenny Compton, Leamington ; Bampton
Leeturer, 1886.
Rev. Robert H. Charles, M.A., Trinity College, Dublin, and Exeter
College, Oxford.
Other engagements will be announced shortly.

EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
LONDON: SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, HAMILTON, KENT, & CO. LTD.

1 6 T. and T. Clark's Publications.

A GREAT BIBLICAL ENCYCLOP/EDIA.
To be completed in Four Volumes, Imperial 8vo.
NOW READY— VOLUMES I. and II.
The Times.—'// the other uolumes come-up to the standard of the first, this Dictionary seems
likely to take its place as the standard authority for biblical students of the present generation. '
The Guardian. — 'The work promises to be, when completed, the best biblical encyclopaedia in-
English.' The Academy. — 'Both the editors and the publishers are to be congratulated upon the appearance
of the first volume of this most excellent work. . . . If the other uolumes keep up to the high leuel of
this one, the editors will haue produced the best biblical Dictionary which has yet appeared.1

Dictionary of the Bible
DEALING WITH ITS LANGUAGE, LITERATURE, & CONTENTS,
INCLUDING THE BIBLICAL THEOLOGY.
Edited by JAMES HASTINGS, M.A., D.D.,
With the Assistance of J. A. SELBIE, M.A., and, chiefly in the Revision of Proofs, of
A. B. DAVIDSON, D.D., LL.D., Edinburgh; S. R. DRIVER, D.D., Litt.D.,
Oxford; H. B. SWETE, D.D., Litt.D., Cambridge.

Full Prospectus, with Specimen Pages, from all Booksellers, or from the Publishers.

Volume l.-A to FEASTS.
Volume ll.-FEIGN to KINSMAN.

Published Price per Volume —
In Cloth, 28s.
In Half- Morocco, 34s.

. . .. ..... .