im:

i*-^- j»j

riT.a^S'rv

«.' ,>'
J
.*^
* '"¦w^
¦.* "'-C t
^ >
x>
.^>"'"^-
;«.(
« ^
^
¦« K
! V
y
: ^.isi
-i^
:r'-^
y--
'
*^ .- *4
4 -T^,. "-A*- r.
'^UfiJ-f' -»'
fafe^J.v^ iivhvrS-^! -^^'¦y/t'^' ^.- > --¦'
Iralfer' :pit['455»vs.' ,0.-/ '-...''. J- ,, '-J , -, -: :.
r/Csw' ji^Saw ¦>«n3af%''k a''."," >. -vx. ••"•••" ¦ •¦ ' ^ ... j'--
YALE
UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

THE DOCTEINE OE THE ATONEMENT.

" Il ne faut point dire : avec beauooup d' autres verites, il y a celle-la dans
I'evangile ; il ne faut pas meme dire : cette verite est la plus importante de
I'evangile ; il faut dire : cette verite est I'evangile meme, et tout le surplus de
I'evangile, si je puis dire ainsi, en est ou la forme, ou la traduction, ou I'appli"
cation. Cette verite est partout presente dans I'evangile, comme le sang est
partout present dans le corps humain. Tout la rapelle, tout la reproduit k celui
qui k compris la verite capitale ; mSme \h oil tout autre ne la soupfonne pas il
la voit, il la seut : de quelque c6te qu' il regarde, h, quelque detail qu' il descende, h,
quelque application qu' il etende son regard, il rencontre, il reconnait la oeoix. "
— ViNET.

THE

DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT,

AS

TAUGHT BY CHEIST HIMSELF;

THE SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT
EXEGETICALLY EXPOUNDED AKD CLASSIFIED.

KEY. GEORGE SMEATON,
rROFESSOK OF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBUKGH.

EDINBUEGH:
T. & T. CLAEK, 38, GEOEGE STEEET.
LONDON : HAMILTON & CO. DUBLIN : JOHN EOBEETSON & CO.
MDCCCLXYIIL

MUEEAY ASD GIBE, EDISEUEGH,
I'EISTEES TO IIEK MAJESTY'S STATIONEUY OFFICE.

PKEFACE.

THE present volume is intended to be the first portion of a
larger whole, which, if completed, will exhibit the entire
New Testament teaching on the subject of the atonement. I
purposed to survey the whole testimony of our Lord and of His
apostles ; beginning with the former as fundamental. But as
the subject grew in my hands, it was found necessary to reserve,
in the meantime, the consideration of the apostolic testimony.
In these pages I have examined, according to the rules of
exact interpretation, what Jesus taught on the subject of the
atonement, and have given a classification of His sayings and
an outline of the doctrine. This seems to be urgently demanded
in our times. The necessity of correctly ascertaining, by the
only means within our reach, what the Lord actually taught on
this point, cannot be overstated, when we direct any meastire
of attention to modern thought, and to the confhcting views,
often as ill-digested by their propounders as perplexing to the
minds of others, which are at present given forth on the nature,
design, and effect of the Lord's death. The one-sided views on
this great theme, held not by scoffers at vital religion, but by
earnest men, actually though not willingly deviating from
biblical truth, are not to be corrected by any human authority,
nor even by an appeal to the Church's past, which yet, as the
voice of our mother, is entitled to some amount of deference.
They can be effectually confronted and silenced only by the
explicit testimony of the Church's Lord. The doctrine wiU

VI PREFACE.

stand there, but will stand nowhere else. And every true
disciple has this distinctive, feature about him, that he hears
the voice of Christ, but a stranger's voice he will not follow.
My task in this work has been simply to determine, by
strict exegetical investigation, the import of Christ's words, and
to reproduce His thoughts by the exact interpretation of lan
guage. I have no other desire than to ascertain what He did
say, and to abide by it ; and the principle on which alone it is
safe to carry on investigations into doctrine on any point, is, I
am fully persuaded, to go to the Scriptures, not for the starting-
point of thought alone, but for the substance of thought as
well, or for the rounded and concrete development of the doc
trine in all its elements : and these will be found in Christ's
sayings, if we but patiently investigate them. It is not, then,
to the Christian consciousness that I appeal with some modern
teachers, nor to Christian feeling and Christian reason with
others, but to the sayings of the Great Teacher, and of His
commissioned servants, employed as His organs of revelation to
the Church of all time.
It is the results of exegesis that are here given, rather than
the philological process, which would have compelled me to over
load the pages with Greek words. With these discussions on
Christ's sayings I have been much engaged in my professional
work, and here reproduce some of them, with this difference,
that I retain only a small portion of the original language, and
give somewhat more of elucidation and enlargement than are
deemed necessary in the class-room. I have endeavoured to
bring out the results of exegetical investigation, not the process,
and to put these within the reach of the educated English
reader, to aid him in the great work of making himself ac
quainted with the Lord's mind, through the medium of the
language of revelation.
During the preparation of this volume, two things came, of
necessity, to be much before my mind. While the main pur
pose, from the nature of the investigation, was to define and

PREFACE. Vll
fix the true idea of the atonement as surveyed from Christ's
own view-point, a second and less direct object, though not
without its importance in the present discussions on the person
and hfe of Christ, came to be frequently presented to the mind :
the objective significance of His whole earthly life was pre
sented to my mind, in a manner which the modern biographies
of Jesus never touch.
It only remains, that I refer briefly to what has been done
on this field by others. In no quarter has the importance of
Christ's own teaching on this article been sufficiently recognised,
nor its fulness, nor its extent, nor its formative character as
regards the apostoHc development. To the latter, attention has
been mainly and often exclusively directed, as if little could be
made of Christ's own teaching on the subject of the atonement ;
and nowhere has any attempt been made to arrange and classify
our Lord's sayings on the subject. It is true that a certain
amount of attention has been directed to our Lord's sayings on
the natiire of His death by writers of an erroneous tendency,
with an obvious desire to get His authority to countenance
their opinions ; and the following may be named as among the
ablest who have discussed a number of those sayings in the
tendency opposed to the vicarious sacrifice — viz. : Flatt,^ De
Wette,' C. L. Grimm," H. Huyser," Hofstede de Groot.s A
much abler writer than any of these — a keen dialectician and
an accomplished exegete — V. Hofmann,'* in a work which may
' PMlosophiscTi - Exegetische untersuchungen uber die Lehre von der Ver-
sohnung Gottes mit den Menschen, van M. C. Christ. Flatt, 1798. He reviews a
number of the texts, explaining them in a moral sense, according to the prin
ciples of the Kantian philosophy. He held that the death of Christ only declared
the remission of sins, and only gave an assurance of grace.
2 De "Wette, De Morte Ohristi Sxpiatoria, Berl. 1830.
5 C. L. Grimm, de Joannem Christologice indole', etc., 1833.
* H. Huyser, Specimen qm Jesu de Morte sua effata coUiguntur et exponuntur,
Gron. 1838.
5 Hofstede de Groot, in the Dutch periodical, Waarheid en Liefde for 1843.
8 Hofmann, Schriftheweis, first edition, 1852. This work has called forth
repHes from Philippi, Thomasius, Ebrard, Delitzsch, "Weber, etc., ou the subject
of the atonement.

viii PREFACE.
be described as a sort of biblical dogmatics, has canvassed the
sayings of Christ as part of the Scripture testimony on the atone
ment; which he expounds in the same tendency with the writers
just named, though with far more of' the evangelical spirit. I
must also mention Prof. Eitschl^ of Bonn, who has examined
the principal sayings of Christ in the same tendency. Though
one is disposed to say of these writers generally, that, with aU
their acknowledged learning and abihty, they have too much
forgotten the simple function of the interpreter, and deposited
their own unsatisfactory opinions or the spirit of the age in
the texts which they professed to expound, this is particularly
true of the last-named writer, whose papers are at once specu
lative in doctrine, and conjectural in philology.
But there are others who have discussed the Lord's sayings
in a general outline of the Scripture testimony to the atone
ment, in a better spirit, and with more success. I refer, first
of aU., to Schmid,^ who treats, in a brief but felicitous way, the
scope and purport of our Lord's teaching on the subject of His
death, — only causing us to regret that his Biblical Theology is
a posthumous work, and put together from imperfect notes,
his own and others. A pretty full collection of Christ's sayings,
in a chronological order, and consequently without any attempt
to distribute them into classes, was attempted by Prof. Gess ^ of
Basel, some years ago, in a series of papers which, with much that
is worthy of attention, are defective in two respects. He repudi
ates the doctrine of the active obedience, and allows it no place as
an element in the atonement ; and then his erroneous depoten-
tiation-theory of the incarnation renders it necessary for him to
assign no influence to the deity of Christ in the matter of the
atonement. I must also allude to a discussion of these sayings
by two learned Dutch writers, who have written with very
1 Prof Ritschl, in the Jahrhucher fiXr Deutsche Theologie for 1863.
2 C. F. Schmid, Biblische Theologie, 1859 (pp. 229-250).
3 Prof Gess of Basel wrote these articles in the Jahrhucher fur Deutsche
Theologie in 1857 and 1858.

PREFACE. IX
different degrees of merit. Professor Vinke's ^ essay, forming
one of the publications of the Hague Society in defence of
the Christian religion, is a valuable collection of most of
Christ's sayings, and also of the apostles' sayings, on the sub
ject of the atonement, with brief comments appended, evincing
a warm attachment to the true doctrine of the atonement.
It is only too brief, from the nature of his plan, and it at
tempts no classification. The other Dutch writer. Van Willes,^
whose work was written for the same society, or at least
by occasion of the prescribed theme, is limited to the eluci
dation of the sayings of Jesus in reference to His sufferings
and death. This acute and ingenious writer devotes atten
tion to a number of philological questions connected with the
sayings of Jesus, and expatiates, with not a little tact, on the
connection between the sayings and the occasion which caUed
them forth. But he does not attempt, in any one case, to bring
out the doctrinal import of the sayings which he undertakes to
elucidate. He stops short at the very point where we wish
him to begin, and gives us nothing but philology or historical
construction. It would be going too far to say that he supports
a wrong tendency ; but he carefully conceals, throughout this
treatise devoted to the sayings of Jesus, what the atonement
is, or what it effects. He gives us language, not doctrine, and
not the exhibition of the thought contained in the language.
These are the principal discussions on the subject under our
consideration ; and I have been at pains to analyze them.
I have only to add, that the preparation of this volume has
given me much pleasant meditation; and I send it forth, with
the prayer that the Great Teacher may use it to turn men's
minds away from improfitable speculation, to listen to His own
voice. ' Prof Vinke of Utrecht, Leer van Jesus en de Apostel aang. zijn Lijden
etc., in's Gravenshage, 1837.
^ Van AVilles, Opheldering van de Gezedgen des Heeren betrelchelijh zijn Lijden
en sterven voor Zondaren, Amsterd. 1837.

CONTENTS.

SECTION I.
PAGE
Preliminary Eemarks on the Nature of our Investigation, . 1
SECTION II.
The Number of our Lord's Testimonies to the Atonement, and the Cir
cumstances connected with them, . . . . 2
SECTION III.
Whether all the Testimonies of Christ on His Atoning Death are
recorded, ........ 7
SECTION IT.
The Method to be followed in evolving the Import of His Sayings, . 9
SECTION Y.
The ImportaJice of Biblical Ideas on Christ's Death, . . 10
SECTION VI.
Divine Love providing the Atonement ; or the Love of God in Harmony
with Justice, as the only Channel of Life, . . . . 13
SECTION VII.
The Influence of Christ's Deity or Incarnation in the matter of the
Atonement, ........ 21
SECTION VIII.
Single Phrases descriptive of the Unique Position of Jesus, or His
Standing between God and Man, ..... 30
SECTION IX.
Sayings of Jesus referring to a Sending by the Father, . . 33

XU CONTENTS.

SECTION X.

Sayings of Christ which assume that He is the Second Adam, and
acting according to a Covenant with the Father in this Atoning
Work,  '40
SECTION XI.
Separate Sayings which affirm or imply the Necessity of the Atone
ment, .....-•• 47
SECTION XII.
The first Classification of the Sayings into those which represent Christ
as the Sin-bearer, and then as the willing Servant, . . 63
SECTION XIII.
The Baptist's Testimony to Jesus as the Sin-bearer, ... 65,
SECTION xiy.
The frequently repeated name, the Son of Man, further exhibiting Him
as the Sin-bearer, ....... 80
SECTION XV.
Christ receiving Baptism as the Conscious Sin-bearer, . . 96
SECTION XYI.
Christ as the Sin-bearer taking on Him, during His earthly Life and
History, the Burdens and Sicknesses of His People, . . 104
SECTION XVII.
The Historic Facts of Christ's Suiferings illustrated by His Sayings, . Ill
SECTION XVIII.
The Sayings of Christ as the Conscious Sin-bearer in prospect of His
Agony, and during it, ..... . 112
SECTION XIX.
Christ the Sin-bearer testifying that He was to be Numbered with
Transgressors during His Ci-ucifixion, . . . .127
SECTION XX,
Single Expressions used by Christ in reference to a Work given Him
^^<"io. • • ¦ • . . . .140

CONTENTS. XIU
SECTION XXI. PAGE
The Classification of Christ's Sayings as they represent the Effects of
His Death, and, in the first place, as they set forth His Death as
the Ground of the Acceptance of our Persons, . . . 147
SECTION XXII.
Christ describing Himself as Dying to be a Ransom for Many, . 1 48
SECTION XXIII.
The Testimony of Christ, that His Death is the Sacrifice of the New
Covenant for the Remission of Sin, . . .165
SECTION XXIV.
Christ Fulfilling the Law for His People, and thus bringing in a
Righteousness or Atonement for them, .... 183
SECTION XXV.
Sayings which represent the Death of Jesus as His Great Act of
Obedience, and as the Righteousness of His People, . . 199
SECTION XXVI.
Christ Offering Himself, that His Followers might be Sanctified in
Truth, ...... .203
SECTION XXVII.
Sayings relative to the subjective Lifegiving Effects of Christ's Death, 213
SECTION XXVIII.
Christ Crucified the Antitype of the Brazen Serpent, and the Lifegiver, 214
SECTION XXIX.
Christ giving His Flesh for the Life of the World, . . 227
SECTION XXX.
Testimonies showing the Relation of the Atonement to other Interests
in the Universe, ....... 238
SECTION XXXI.
The Death of Christ in connection with the Raising of the Temple of

God,

239

XIV CONTENTS.
SECTION XXXII. PAGE
The Atonement of Christ deciding the Judicial Process to whom the
World shall belong, . ¦ • .248
SECTION XXXIII.
Christ, by means of His Atonement, overcoming the World, . . 254
SECTION XXXIV.
The Atonement of Christ denuding Satan of his Dominion in the World, 258
SECTION XXXV.
Christ's Vicarious Death taldng the Sting out of Death, and abolishing it, 265
SECTION XXXVI.
Christ laying down His Life for the Sheep, and thus becoming the
actual Shepherd of the Sheep, . . . 270
SECTION XXXVII.
Sayings which represent Christ's Dominion, both General and Particular,
as the Reward of His Atonement, • . 283
SECTION XXXVIII.
The Influence of the Atonement in procuring the Gift of the Holy Ghost, 291
SECTION XXXIX.
Christ's Abasement as the Second Man opening Heaven, and restoring
the Communion between Men and Angels, . . . 299
SECTION XL.
Sayings of Jesus which represent the Atonement as glorifying God, . 304
SECTION XLI.
The Efficacious Character of the Atonement ; or the Special Reference
of the Death of Christ to a People given Him, . . 312
SECTION XLII.
The Atonement extending to all Times in the World's History, and to
all Nations, . . .... 326
SECTION XLIII.
Sayings which particularly relate to the Application of the Atonement, 329

CONTENTS. XV
SECTION XLIV. PAGE
The Preaching of Forgiveness based on the Atonement, and ever con
nected with the Atonement, . ... 330
SECTION XLV.
The Place which Christ assigns to the Atonement in the Christian
Church, ...... 337
SECTION XLVI.
Christ's Sayings which represent Faith as the Organ or Instrument of
receiving the Atonement, . . . . 341
SECTION XLVII.
Endless Happiness or Irremediable Woe decided by the manner in
which Men welcome or reject the Atonement, . . 346
SECTION XLVIII.
The Influence of the Atonement, correctly understood, on the whole
Domain of Morals and Religion, .... 353

APPENDIX OF NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS.
Note on Sections ii. and hi.
Number of the Sayings on the Subject of His Death, . 359
Note on Section vi. (pp. 13-21).
Harmony of Love and Justice in the Atonement, . . 362
Note on Section vii. (pp. 21-30).
The Influence of Christ's Deity or of the Incarnation on the Atone
ment, ...... . 367
Note on Section x. (pp. 40-46).
Christ acting as the Second Adam, or according to a Covenant with the
Father, in the whole of His Atoning Work, . 372
Note on Section xi. (pp. 47-63).
The Satisfaction to Divine Justice necessary, . . . 378

XVI CONTENTS.
Note on Section xiii. (pp. 65-79).
The Lamb of God bearing Sin, .
Note on Section xiv. (pp. 80-86).
The Title, Son of Man, . . . • •

INDICES.

PAGE 398

402

Note on Section xxii. (pp. 148-164). '
The Son of Man giving His Life a Ransom for Many, . . .407
Note on Section xxiii. (pp. 165-183).
Christ's Blood shed for the Remission of Sins (Historical Sketch), . 414
Note on Sections sxxt. and xxv. (pp. 183-203).
Christ fulfiUing the Law, and bringing in Righteousness, . 437
Note on Sections xxviii. and xxix. (pp. 215-237).
Christ as the Brazen Serpent, the Lifegiver ; and Christ giving His
Flesh for the Life of the World, ..... 444

I. Index to Texts, ....... 453
II. Index to Subjects, . . . 457
III. Index to the Authors adduced, . . 458
IV. Index to Greek Words elucidated, . 460

SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.

SEC. I. — PRELIMINARY EEMARKS ON THE NATURE OF OUR
INVESTIGATION.
THE doctrine of the atonement is put in its proper light,
only when it is regarded as the central truth of Chris
tianity, and the great theme, of Scripture. The principal object
of Eevelation was to unfold this unique method of recon
ciliation by which men, once estranged from God, might be
restored to a right relation, and even to a better than their
primeval standing. But the doctrine is simply revealed, or, in
other words, is taught us by authority alone.
Instead of commencing, according to the common custom,
by fixing a centre and drawing a circumference, we wish to
proceed historically. We shall 'not select a view-point, and then
adduce a number of proof texts merely to confirm it ; and we
¦Jo so for a special reason. It has always seemed to be a point
of weakness in treatises on this subject, that the truth has been
so much argued on abstract grounds, and deduced so largely
from the first principles of the divine government. The im
portance of these must be acknowledged, as they rationalize the
doctrine, and establish it in the convictions of the human mind,
when the fact is once admitted; but they have their proper
force and cogency, only when the truth of the doctrine is based
and accepted on a gTound that is strictly historical. We here
inquire simply what Jesus taught. We do not ask what one
eminent church teacher or another propounded, but what the
A

2 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
great Master said. We turn away our eye from every lower
source of knowledge, whether called Christian consciousness,
feeling, or reason, to the truth embodied in the words of Jesus.
The scope we aim at in the following disquisition, is to
gather out of the sayings of Christ the testimony which He
bears to His own atonement in its necessity, nature, and effect.
And we the rather enter on this inquiry, because the subject,
as a separate topic, has never received the prominence due to
it ; and because, by men of all shades of opinion, the greatest
weight must of necessity be laid on those statements which are
offered by the Lord Himself in reference to His work.
These sayings, beyond doubt, utter His own thoughts on the
subject of His atoning death ; and they announce the design,
aim, and motive from which He acted. That the expression of
them is according to truth, without over-statement on the one
hand, or defect on the other ; that they give not only an objec
tive outline of His work in its nature and results, but also a
glimpse of the very heart of His activity, will be admitted by
every Christian as the most certain of certainties. In this light
these sayings are invaluable, as they disclose His inner thoughts,
and convey the absolute truth upon the subject of the atone
ment, according to that knowledge of His function which was
peculiar to Himself,— for His work was fully and adequately
known only to His own mind. Here, then,. we have perfect
truth : here we may affirm, unless we are ready to give up all
to uncertainty and doubt, that we have the whole truth as to the
nature of the atonement, as well as in reference to the design
and scope for which He gave. Himself up to death for others.
SEC. II. — THE NUMBER OF OUR LORD'S TESTIMONIES TO THE ATONE
MENT, AND THE CIECUMSTANCES CONNECTED WITH THEM.
The number of these sayings, it is true, is smaller than we
should wish ; but the amount of information they convey is
not measured by their number, but by their variety, by their

NUMBER OF OUR LORD'S TESTIMONIES. 3
fulness, and by their range of meaning. They are not to be
numbered, but weighed ; to be traced in their wide ramifications,
not counted in a series. The comprehensiveness, the force, the
pregnancy of meaning which these sayings, taken together,
involve, are of more consideration than the frequency with
which our Lord touched on the theme. They wiU be found to
contain by implication, if not in express terms, almost every
blessing that is connected with the atonement ; and the apostles,
who are commonly spoken of as expanding the doctrine, wiE be
found not so much to develop it, as to apply it to the manifold
phases of opinion and practice encountered by them in the
churches. Thus the legalism of the Jewish converts required
one appEcation of it in Galatia, and the incipient gnosticism in
Colossffi and Asia Minor, another and a different. We cannot,
in this work, investigate aE the applications of it interwoven
in the Epistles, so as to exhibit on every side this grand doc
trine, which, in truth, makes Christianity what it is-^a gospel
for sinners. We single out at present, for separate investigation,
the sayings of Christ HimseE, — a field that demands an accurate
survey. 'No one could say beforehand what would be the peculiar
nature of Christ's testimony to His sacrifice, nor in what precise
form it would be presented to His hearers' minds. His aEusions
to, it are for the most part fitted in to some fact in history, to
some type belonging to the old economy, or to some pecuEar
title or designation, which He appropriated to Himself, and
which often had its root in prophecy. They are all pointed
and sententious ; they are such as are easily recaEed ; and they
seize hold of the mind by some allusion to ordinary things.
He spoke of the atonement according to the docility and free
dom from prejudice, or according to the love of truth and the
capacity to receive it, on the part of those who came to hear
Him. The case of Mcodemus is an instance of this ; and the
instructions communicated to him had the happy effect
of preparing his mind to understand the nature of the

i SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT. ,
Messiah's death, and to take no offence at it when His hour
was come.
We often think, indeed, that an aEusion to His atoning
work is necessary at various turns of His discourse ; and we
expect to find it. We are surprised that the doctrine which
forms the essence of Christianity, and the central topic of the
gospel, should be announced with so much reserve. It seems
strange that parables, such as that of the pubEcan, that of the
two creditors, and the like, meant to teach the gracious way of
acceptance, should contain no allusion to the atonement. And
hence some, unfavourable to the vicarious sacrifice of Christ, think
themselves entitled to draw from this an argument in proof of
their position. But a little reflection is enough to satisfy us that
He had reasons for the sEence. The idea of a suffering Messiah
had grown obsolete: His priestly 'office mentioned in the Psalm
(Ps. ex. 4) was ignored ; there was none among the people, with
the exception of Simeon, Zachariah, and the Baptist, to whom
it seems to have been familiar, or, in the least, acceptable.
Not only so : He had to go back a step, and to take up
opinion at a previous stage, just as the Baptist did to his
hearers, in his preparatory ministry. They must first be taught
the spirituaEty of the law, as He did in the sermon on the
Mount. He found it of absolute necessity to awaken a spiritual
sense for the divine ; to arouse conscience, and to preach re
pentance, because the kingdom was at hand; to assaE their
hoEow, external forms, and the neglect of weightier matters ;
to explode their vain trust in Jewish descent, and the futile
expectation that they would enter the Messianic kingdom, on
the footing of being Abraham's descendants. He had, in a
word, to turn them away from acting to be seen of men, and
from the desire to cleanse the outside of the cup and platter.
They must learn their needs as sinners ; acknowledge their
defects; and have awakened in them a desire for pardon,
before they could learn much of the nature of His vicarious
death, or, indeed, be capable of receiving it.

NUMBER OF OUR LORD S TESTIMONIES. 5
He had next to announce the kingdom of God as having
come, and to describe its nature and its exceEence, the cha
racter of its subjects, and its various aspects in the world.
He had to set forth His divine mission, and to prove it by
His many miracles; His more than human dignity; His
divine Sonship ; His being sealed and sent ; His unique posi
tion in the world as the Great DeEverer and object of promise ;
and the long-desEed one of whom Moses wrote, and whom
Abraham desired to see. His first object was to confirm men's
faith in Him as the promised Christ; to attach them to His
person by a bond which should be strong enough to bear a
pressure ; and to forestaE the hazard of their being offended
at that to which every Jewish mind was most averse. He
sought, in the first place, to bind the disciples to Himself, and
to deepen their faith in Him. This was His paramount and
fundamental aim in His intercourse with the disciples from day
to day. But at this point a new difficulty presented itself. The
disciples who were attached to His person, and received Him
as the Saviour, would hear nothing of His death, — they would
not beEeve it, nor take it in. On the occasion when Peter, in
the name of the rest, declared his beEef in Christ's Messiahship,
and in His divine Sonship (Matt. xvi. 16), we should have
expected fuE submission to every part of His teaching; and
that the explicit statement from the mouth of the Lord Him-
seE as to His death, would have been accepted, in this the
fittest moment, without any doubt. On the contrary, Peter
began to rebuke Him for the language He had held on the
subject of His death, — so possessed were they with preconceived
ideas, and so hard was it to dEect the Jewish mind into a new
channel. They^viewed His kingdom as an everlasting kingdom,
on which He was to enter at once without that atoning death
which was to be its foundation and ground. They dreamed of
places of authority, rank, and honour in the kingdom ; and the
constant topic of dispute among them, even at the Last Supper,

6 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
was, who was to be prime minister of state, and fiE the post
of greatest power. Even His true disciples mingled foreign
elements with thek conceptions of His kingdom. And hence,
to keep His cause free from the risk of those political com
motions, to which an open announcement of His Messiahship
would have given rise, in a community where the true idea
had been lost, we find that our Lord spoke sparingly, and with
reserve; and on one occasion He constrained the disciples to
get into a ship, when ' the excited multitude would have taken
Him by force to make Him a king.
To men thus minded, little could be said on His atonement.
The two ideas — the Messiahship, and the possibility of death
— seemed in the highest degree incompatible. They could not
suppose that the universal conqueror could be the conquered,
even for a moment. They foreclosed inquiry, — they showed
themselves unqualified for further instruction; nor did they,
with teachable minds, apply for the information which He
would have wiEingly supplied. He could leave, therefore, a
record in their memory, only in a more indEect and incidental
way, by means of His sermons in GalEee, and in Jerusalem
(John vi. and x.) ; or by more expressly introducing this truth
in connection with events in His own hfe, or with difficulties
in theks. But it must be aEowed on aE hands, that whEe the
disciples felt their life was bound up with Him, they evaded
the unwelcome fact of His death, although He frequently
announced it, by some explanation of their own; nay, though
it formed the one topic of conversation on the Mount of Trans
figuration between Moses, Ehas, and Christ, the disciples con
trived, on some plea, to explain away the fact. And when the
Lord took them apart, and solemnly announced what was at
hand, they were exceedingly sorry ; but, as E they had found
out some evasion, they are soon engaged in their old dispute
again, And the blank dejection into which they were thrown
by the actual fact of His death, shows how Ettle they were
prepared for it, or understood its meaning. All this tends to

THE TESTIMONIES NOT ALL RECORDED. 7
prove, that as the disciples could not listen caEnly, and without
prejudice, to this topic, till they could look back upon the event
as an accomplished fact; so His teaching could not possibly
have aE the fulness and freedom with which the truth could
be treated after His resurrection from the dead.

SEC. in. — ^WHETHER ALL THE TESTIMONIES OF CHRIST ON HIS
ATONING DEATH ARE RECORDED.
The question may be put, however. May not Christ have
spoken of. His atonement more fuEy and more frequently than
is recorded ? As we have not a complete narrative of His words
or works, may we not hold that He often aEuded to His death,
and to the saving benefits connected with it, when He found
docEe and susceptible minds, to whom it could be unfolded ?
We have nothing beyond probabihties to guide us here.
Plainly, our Lord did not make His sufferings and death the
principal topic of His teaching, or taught in precisely the same
way as the apostles did, when they referred to the finished work
of Christ, and founded churches under the ministration of the
Spirit. But this does not exclude the possibOity of a larger
number of aEusions to His death, when He did meet with
minds that could receive it, as Mcodemus did, in private. Pos
sibly, the men of Sychar, who received Him with the utmost
docEity, heard this doctrine from His Eps, — a doctrine not
withheld from Mc6demus ; for they held language in regard
to Him as " the Saviour of the world," which seems to imply as
much. Not less significant are the words of Christ spoken
with reference to the act of Mary of Bethany, when she anointed
Him with precious ointment : " She did it for my burial" (Matt.
xxvi. 12). She seems to have received instruction from Him
on the subject of His death, and ingenuously to have accepted
the words in theE proper sense. Many wiE have it, that Jesus
was merely pleased to represent the matter in such a Hght, but
that the woman designed nothing of that nature. But that

8 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
comment is not warranted by the language, which rather gives
us a gEmpse into her heart, and indicates that her whole loving
nature was moved. That groundless commentary has been
adopted mainly because her faith was simpler, more enEghtened,
and -more dEect than that of the disciples. But why should
that cause any difficulty, when faith is not always according to-
the opportunities ? Jesus seems to have instructed her in
private as to the nature and efficacy of His death, which she
now regards as certain ; and she had credited His words with
a simpEcity and dEectness which those who dreamed of posts
of honour and distinction did not share. This, then, is almost
a proof of His having given further statements on His death
than is narrated in the gospels.
But after His resurrection our Lord held many conversa
tions on His atoning death, which are not preserved. This
seems to have been one of the principal objects of His sojourn
of forty days. He spake copiously on that theme, to which
they would not listen before ; and He said much that is not
recorded, when He expounded to them in aE the Scriptures the
things concerning HimseE, beginning at Moses and aE the
prophets (Luke xxiv. 27). His words to the two disciples
on the Emmaus road were : " 0 fools, and slow of heart to
beEeve aE that the prophets have spoken ! Ought not Christ to
have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory?" (vers.
25, 26). His great design was to unfold the necessity, nature,
and design of His vicarious death, and to open their under
standings to understand the Scriptures (Luke xxiv. 45) ; and
we cannot but conclude, when we put aE the, hints together,
that Jesus must then have said more to the disciples on the
subject of His death for the remission of sins, than in aE His
previous communications addressed to them. The work was
done, and it could now be fully understood. They knew the
fact of His death, and He introduced them into a fuE acquaint
ance with its design and efficacy in the light of the Old Testa
ment Scriptures. The fuE outline of Bible doctrine, as con-

THE METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED. 9
tained in the law, in the Psalms, and in the prophets, concerning
Christ, was opened up to their wondering gaze, as it had been
fulfiEed (Luke xxiv. 44). Who has not often wished to
possess these unrecorded expositions of the Old Testament
Scriptures ? But though they are doubtless embodied in the
New Testament, it has not seemed meet to the inspEing SpEit
to preserve them in a separate form. The Lord had said, " I
have many things to say to you, but ye cannot bear them now"
(John xvi. 12) ; and they could bear them then.
SEC. IV. — THE METHOD TO BE FOLLOWED IN EVOLVING THE
IMPORT OF HIS SAYINGS.
Our task will be to expound the import of those sayings
which are preserved to us, to coEect their import, to set forth
what they truly mean. We shaE for the present concentrate
our attention on the Lord's own testimony to His death for our
redemption — that is, on His redemption work, active as weE as
passive. We cannot whoEy isolate these sayings from the
old economy which pointed to Christ's coming, nor from the
apostoEc commentary which points back to what He said ;
but we place ourselves upon the gospels, and occupy our
minds with the Eedeemer's thoughts. Of course Moses and
the prophets supplied, even to Him, matter which He received
into His consciousness, and the practical exhibition of which
He embodied in His Efe; and His words thus receive'd a
tincture from the past, as they lend a tincture to that which
was to foEow. But stEl it is the thoughts of Jesus finding
expression in words with which our attention is to be occupied.
We vnR insert nothing; we wiE deposit nothing; but seek
only to evolve the Saviour's meaning, according to the force
of language. .Aad we wish to withhold whatever can be re
garded as ideas foreign to the import of the Saviour's words.
The testimonies of Christ, left to speak for themselves, or
only so far elucidated as to bring out theE import, wiE be

10 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
found to convey such a fuE and rounded outEne of the atone
ment, as to leave almost no corner of the doctrine untouched ;
and in discussing them, it wEl be best to distribute them, and
then notice them, as far as may be, singly and apart. This is
better than to foEow the custom of merely giving them in
chronolpgical order, without attempting to digest them under
any heads or formulae which may classEy them, and which may
be supposed most accurately to comprehend them. The sayings
of Christ, however, on this point, ar^, from theE very nature,
so vast and extensive, that they are Ettle capable of anything
artificial. Our Lord's own testimonies are not only too compre
hensive to be easily treated in this way, but are put by Him in
such a concrete connection with His mission, person, incarnation,.'
and design, that they cannot weE be crystalEzed in the same
way as any- other sayings upon some thread of ours which'
may promise to hold them together. They are, moreover, very
diversified, and may be said to bring before us a new field of
inquiry wherever He touches on the subject. They each give
the key-note, as it were, to a whole series or class of similar-!
sayings in the apostoEc Epistles ; ' which may be said to take
them up and to continue them, according to the practical neces
sities of the churches, or the varying phases of doctrinal opinion
which threatened them. The apostles take up those diversified
sa3dngs, and apply them in aE directions; and they give them
manifold forms of appEcation.
SEC. V. — THE IMPORTANCE OF BIBLICAL IDEAS ON CHRIST'S DEATH.
It is important to form clear and weE-defined ideas of the
atonement from the Lord's own words. When we reflect that
aE His statements are the expression of His own conscious
ness, the Christian entering into their meaning will say, as the
Christian astronomer did w;hen he discovered certain laws of
the solar system : " My God, I think my thoughts with Thee."
This cannot be a trifling matter in theology. Yet many in

IMPORTANCE OF BIBLICAL IDEAS. 11
these days who exalt the inner Efe at the expense of true and
proper doctrine, are not slow to say that it is indifferent whether
the death of Christ be regarded as the procuring cause and
ground of pardon, or as the mere assurance of it. They wUl not
inquire how the atonement was effected; they avoid the de
finition of terms and aE bibEcal precision of thought, as E it
could be of Ettle moment to a Christian, whether the death of
Jesus is considered as a vicarious sacrifice, or an expression of
divine love, — whether it display the evE of sin, or merely stand
on a solemn revocation of the Old Testament sacrifices. They
wEl have it, that these points are but theological debates or
human speculations, from which they do weE to stand aloof in
the discussion of the doctrine. That is a process of unlearning,
or of leaving aE in uncertainty, which does not spring from a
commendable zeal for truth, but from a wish to blunt its edge ;
and it is tantamount to saying, that there is in Scripture no
doctrine on the subject. This is the watchword of a tendency
which is adverse to clearly - defined views of doctrine or of
Scripture truth.
The very reverse of this is 'Our duty. We must acquire, as
much as lies in us, sharply-defined ideas on the atonement from
the gospels themselves ; which, in our judginent, are by this
very topic far elevated above all mere human wisdom. What
ever cannot be asserted from the Scriptures, or is overthrown
by theE -teaching, can easily be sptoed ; and we are willing to
dismiss it. But we must coEect whatever is reaEy taught,
comparing text with text, and the less obvious testimonies with
the more easy and perspicuous, E we would think our thoughts
with God.
Nor is it less common for another school to aEege in our
•day, that the death of Jesus was rather His fate or fortune
than a spontaneous oblation, in the proper sense. These writers
win make Christ faE a victim to His holy and ardent zeal, whEe
preaching religious and moral truth, and discharging a high
commission as the Herald of forgiveness. His death thus

12 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
becomes a merely his'torical event or an occurrence ; which,
however, it is aEeged was the occasion of giving a weighty con-
fEmation to that declaration of absolute forgiveness of which
He was the preacher. That is an insipid haE truth, which is
seemingly right, and essentiaEy wrong. It wiE offer a certain
spEitual phase to those who are hostile to the vicarious sacrifice,
and who wiU see nothing but love in God. They view Jesus
as a mere preacher or herald of salvation, but not as a veritable
Saviour, in the fuE sense of the term. They wiE go farther
than this, and wiE extol Him as the Prince of LEe, and as its
Dispenser ; but it is Life unconnected with the price paid, or
the ransom offered. And the prominence given to Christ's ex
ample, or to the pattern of His Efe, is never free from a certain
influence that operates Eke a snare. We shaE try this view,
which has many pretensions to spEituaEty, by the exphcit
testimonies of our Lord HimseE. But, meanwhile, we indicate j
the danger from which it is not free. It never brings off the .
mind from legaEty, from seE-reliance, and self-dependence. It
perverts the spEitual Efe and the example of the Lord to be a
ground, E not a boldly avowed argument, for fostering a certain
self-justEying confidence. That is the vortex, within the attrac- ;'
tion of which every school is drawn irresistibly, that offers no
objective atonement, or perfect plea on which the soul can
lean. Nothing so effectuaEy carries off the mind from seE-
dependence as the atonement, — nothing so exalts grace, and
humbles the sinner ; and on this account, God appointed that
acceptance and forgiveness of sin should not be given without
a Mediator, and without a dependence upon His merits. Hence
the jealousy of the apostles and of aE Scripture on this point.
The apparent spEituaEty of any tendency wOl be no compensa
tion for this hazard.
Those also who lay the greatest weight of their doctrine on-
the person of Christ, or on His incarnation, often make light
of His cross in the comparison. Seine of them, indeed, concede
a Ettle, and say. If any find benefit from the terms penalty.

LOVE AND JUSTICE IN HARMONY. 13
PRICE, SURETYSHIP, and SATISFACTION to divine justice, let them
take the good of them. But that is said only to caE in question
theE necessity. On the contrary, it wEl be found that in aE
true progress in spEitual knowledge, men will make advances in
the knowledge of His atonement as weE as of His person. The
history of the disciples before and after His crucifixion is a
proof of this. The more fuEy we enter into Christ's truly human
experience, and trace His chequered course of joy and of sor
row, the Evelier wiE be our apprehension of his curse-bearing
Hfe, and of His penal death.
As to the more rationalistic and Socinian phases of opposi
tion to the atonement, they wiE also be kept in view by us.
But we wish to bring out positive truth or edEying doctrine
much more than merely polemical Escussion, — a considerable
part of which may competently, and with more propriety, be
thrown into the notes. Our object is, rather, positive truth than
refutation of error.
In short, we are not to ask what man holds or has pro
pounded, so much as what Christ has said. The examination
of this, and the attempt to enter into His consciousness, must
primarily engage our attention.
SEC. VL — ^DIVINE LOVE PROVIDING THE ATONEMENT ; OR THE LOVE
OF GOD IN HARMONY WITH JUSTICE AS THE ONLY CHANNEL
OF LIFE.
" For God so loved the world, that He gave His only-begotten Son,
that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, hut have
everlasting life." — John Ei. 16.
To a previous saying on the necessity of the atonement
this further testimony is subjoined, in order to make known
more fuEy to Mcodemus the fact of the atonement and its
source in divine love. That it forms part of our Lord's address,
and is not the commentary of the evangeEst, is obvious to every
one who has remarked thepecuEar way in which John ap-

14 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON the atonement.
pends his commentary on the Master's words. It is never left
doubtful (see John vE. 39). The present testimony is intro
duced by the grounding particle for, which shows a continua
tion of the discourse, and gives a reason for the final clause
in the previous verse (ver. 15).
The aEusion to the atonement, with which we have specially
to do, is obvious in the phrase, " He gave His Son." Though
some have explained this as if it were equivalent to being sent,
it rather has the sacrificial sense of being • deEvered or given up
to death. Here it corresponds to the " Efting up " in the pre
vious context. This giving' of the Son does not go back to the
divine purpose, nor go down to the individual's experience when
Christ is given to the beliemer, but denotes a giving up to death.
It is properly the giving up in sacrifice, because the presenta
tion of the victim formed part of the act of sacrifice. The ex
pression. He delivered, or gave, is not infrequent as a description
of God's act of giving His Son to a sacrificial death ; and wher
ever it occurs, whether as denoting the Father's act in giving
the Son (Eom. viE. 32), or the act of the Son in giving Himself
(Matt. XX. 28 ; Gal. i. 4), it is always descriptive of the sacrifice
which He offered to God the Father. The mistake as to the
import of this phrase is enough to show how much of misunder
standing and debate is often due to an inadequate knowledge of
language. It is not unworthy of notice, that some time ago it
was made a question whether this phrase was to be understood!
in the sense of giving into actual possession, or in the sense of
giving in the gospel offer. The dispute arose from regardmg .
the phrase as simply intimating a gEt, with a bestower and a
receiver, apart from the received usage of language in a certain
connection. In truth, it has neither the one sense nor the other,
when used in connection with the death of Christ. For when God
is said " to give His Son," or when the Son is said " to give Him
self," the language must be understood in the sacrificial sense.
Here, therefore, our Lord has in His eye, not so much His
sending or His incarnation, though these are involved, as the

LOVE AND JUSTICE IN HARMONY. 15
-sacrifice of HimseE, when He was Efted up, and was made a
curse for us.
There are a few points here mentioned in connection with
the atonement to which it wEl be necessary to advert.
1. The atonement is here described as emanating from the
love of God. These words of Christ plainly show that the
bibEcal doctrine on this point is not duly exhibited, unless love
receives a special prominence ; and that it would be a misre
presentation against which the bibEcal divine must protest,
E, under the influence of any theory or dogmatic prejuEce, love
is not aEowed to come to its rights. If even justice were made
paramount, the balance of truth would be destroyed. As the
text under our notice ^Eudes to both, or describes love as giving
the only-begotten Son\up to a sacrificial death — which is just
equivalent to the satisfaction of divine justice, — it is here proper
to define' the two. Lov4 then, may be fitly regarded as the com
municative principle of | the divine nature, or as the diffusive
source of blessing; and it receives different names, according
to the modification of the relation in which His creatures
stand to Him, or the varied course of action He pursues toward
them. Justice, again, may be defined as the conservative prin
ciple of the Evine nature or the seE-asserting activity of God,
according to which He maintains the inaEenable rights of the
Godhead. It is just run up to this, that He loves HimseE, and
cannot but delight in His own perfections ; and hence, in de
scribing it, the PsaEnist says, " For the righteous Lord loveth
righteousness" (Ps. xi. 7). In a, just conception of the divine
attributes, none of them can be said to predominate, their equi
poise being so perfect that it could not be Esturbed without
ruin to the universe. It cannot be wondered at, that the
opponents of the vicarious satisfaction repuEate this equipoise
of justice and love in the work of redemption. They caE it
"the duaEsm of the divine attributes," — they would resolve
justice into love. But the one can by no means be subsumed
under the other, They are as distinct as love to Himself, and

16 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
love to mankind, or as giving and retaining. He gives HimseE,
El the exercise of love, to His creatures ; but He does not give
up, and He cannot recede from, those rights which belong in
alienably to HimseE as God. And the same principle is daHy
practised by the man of active benevolence made in the image
of God, and acting Eke God in the communication of diffusive
goodness. He gives ; but when he communicates, he retains
his own proper rights and prerogatives.
With regard to the love of God, several modem wrEers,' ia
describing the divine attributes, avoid calEng love an attribute
at aE; — chosing rather to caE it a definition of God in His whole
procedure toward men, or the united concurrent action of all
the attributes. There seems no ground for this ; but, on the
other hand, the selection of this one perfection as the most de
scriptive name for God by an inspired apostle, furnishes suffi
cient ground for giving a central place to it, and for investmg
it, as it were, with aE the other perfections, E we would arrive
at the most fuE and accurate idea that can be formed of God in
His relation to His church. Were we to invest love with aU
the natural and moral attributes, and speak of omnipotent and
holy love, wise and omnipresent love, we should not mistake
the import of the phrase, God is love (1 John iv. 8). Here
the love is viewed as seE-originated, seE-moving, free and m-
finite ; the text before us, as Luther weE describes it, being a
little Bible in itself. The extent of the divine love delineated
in these words of Jesus, may be surveyed from the three points
here inEcated — the great Giver, the infinite sacrifice of God's
Son, and the unworthy objects.
But it must be further noticed, that when Jesus here sets
forth the divine love in coimection with the atonement, it is not
stated simply to assure us of the divine love ; for He shows that
it mainly consists in the sacrificial giving of the Son ; and this
it is important to apprehend. There is a nacessity on God's
part, as weE as on man's. WhEe the death of Christ, as a
1 E.g. Sartorius, Lehre von der Liebe.

love and JUSTICE TS HARMONY. 1 7
costly declaration of divine love, removes the slavish fear and
distrust which prompt men to flee from God, it does this only
as it meets a necessity on God's part, and provides a vicarious
sacrifice for sin. The text exhibits the harmony of justice and
love — the demand of justice, and the provision of love.
This it is the more necessary to notice, because it is objected,
against any prominence to Evine justice, that this is at the
expense of divine love. The one, however, by no means
excludes the other. If a divine provision is made at aE, it
could proceed from no other source but love ; and the greater
the difficulty to be surmounted, and the more inflexible the
necessity which insists on a satisfaction to justice, beyond the
compass of our own resources, the greater is the display of
love. If love is in proportion to the difficulties to be overcome,
and if redemption could be effected only at the cost of the
himiEiation and crucifixion of the Son of God, the love which
did not aEow itseE to be deterred by such a sacrifice, was in
finite. Then only does. love fuEy come to Eght ; and they who
do, not acknowledge the necessity of the satisfaction can have
no adequate conception of love. Thus the cross displayed the
love of God in providing the substitute, and was the highest
manEestation of its reaEty and greatness. If the demand or
the necessity for such a fact in the moral government of God
resulted from the claims of justice, the source from which it
flowed was self-originated love.
2. But another point made prominent in this text is the
value of the sacrifice from the dignity of the only-begotten
Son. As the Lord in the previous verses designated HimseE
the Son of Man, the title of His humiliation. He here describes
Himself by a title which caEs up before us His divine Egnity ;
and it intimates that such a sacrifice was of infinite value, and
sufficient to cancel sin infinitely great. The divine nature
united to the human, incapable of suffering in itseE, gave to
the suffering of the Mediator an infinite value. The infinite
dignity and worth of His suffering, as the atonement of the

18 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Son of God, had a perfectly expiatory efficacy for the redemp
tion of aE for whom He gave HimseE to death.
The design of this saying is to show that the communication
of the Evine life is attainable only when love and justice
coincide in securing the acceptance of the person, and the
expiation of the Son. AE this is plainly pnt as the preliminary
to Efe. ¦
As to the clause, " He gave His only-begotten Son," the
aEusion, as we have seen, is to the sacrificial death of Christ ;
the very idea of which, while it involves the utmost conceivable
degree of love, impEes that it has the effect of pacifying an
offended God. The thought to which aE these terms point is,
that God cannot forego His inalienable rights when He has
been wronged, but necessarily punishes, as a satisfaction to
HimseE; for He cannot deny Himself.
a. The plain meaning of this clause is repugnant to the
notion, too widely current in our time, that pure love, without
any tincture of wrath, is the sole principle of the divine action
toward man; that we are not to speak of punishment borne,
or of vicarious obedience rendered; that, in a word, it is not
God's relation that is to be changed, but man's. The clause
under consideration teaches the opposite, and shows that the
love of God pecuEarly appears in this, that He provides the^
very atonement which puts Him on a new relation to those
whose sins had incurred His anger. The two principles, love
to the race, and love to Himself, are so far from being incom
patible, that they can be placed together in the atoning work
of Christ. Punitive justice, which is just regard for His per
fections, called for the penalty : love for our race provided the
substitute to bear it. What is there of incompatibility in
these two?
6. But as the atonement is the effect of the divine love
according to this testimony, how is it also the cause of the
divine favour? Does not love so great imply that He is
¦ See sec. vii., on Christ's Deity.

LOVE AND JUSTICE IN HARMONY. ' 19
aEeady reconcEed ? Here we must distinguish between the
moving cause and the meritorious cause. If we look at the
prime source of the atoning work, then the incarnation and
death of Jesus must be regarded as the fruit of love, and not its
cause. But if we look at our actual acceptance, or the enjoy
ment of divine favour, and the new relation on which God
stands to the redeemed, the atonement is as much its cause
as the counterpart FaE was the cause of divine wrath.
c. It may be urged yet further, that God does not hate man
kind. But here, again, we must distinguish. It is the sin He
hates and punishes, though He loves the creature so far as it
is His workmanship; but He cannot impart the effects and
visitations of His love, while the hindrances caused by sin
are unremoved. If men wiE continue to assert . that God,
without the intervention of any reparation or atonement, can
take them into favour, and that He actually does so in the
exercise of pure love, they assert what cannot be deduced from
the divine perfections, which are ever in fuE equipoise, and
what is contradicted by aE the Evine actions, in sending His
Son, and " in giving " Him that we should not perish.
The final clause, introduced by the particle (<W) of design,
intimates that the channel of divine Efe is opened only when
the divine rights have been secured. It is the same clause
which we find in the previous verse, but in a new con
nection. In the former it was placed in relation to the
indispensable necessity of the atonement ; in the present, ' it
is put in connection with the equipoise or adjustment between
love and justice in rectifying men's relation to God, and this
clause indicates that the eternal life flows out of it. It is the
more necessary to put this matter in the proper Eght, because
the parts of modern theology are so disjointed, and so much
out of theE due setting in respect of the Evine life.
Our Lord and His apostles commonly adduce the redemption
or the remission of sins as the immediate end of the death of
Christ. But then the ulterior end of that new and adjusted

20 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
relationship is to secure a further end,— the communicatiQn of
divine lEe. Thus the removal of the guEt of sin opens the way
for the impartation of the eternal Efe, as a further end, and yet
in causal connection with the death of Christ, through the
acceptance of the person. The life is that to which every
man has a right who enjoys the remission of sins; but the
immediate link is the acceptance of the person, or the re
mission of sins, which is in order before the sanctification of
the nature.
It must be kept in view, then, that the design of Christ, m
offering HEnseE a sacrifice, was to free us from sin itself. But
it is also true that this end is reached only through the accept
ance of the person, the immediate fruit of the atonement, and
by means of the Spirit of Efe, for which the death of Christ
paves the way. But neither the present, nor any similar
passage, represents the Efe as the dEect and immediate end
of the death of Christ. To that a man can possess no right
unless the guEt of sin upon the person has been removed. The
person is accepted, and then the nature renewed.
To deduce from this passage and from others similar, that
lEe is first in order, and that the acceptance of the man and the
remission of his sins do not immediately flow from the redemp
tion work of Christ, but immediately from the possession of:
Efe, is to pervert the exposition of language. The final particle
used in such phrases is cogent. The argumentation from the
tenor of the Old Covenant, "do" and "live," taken up and
enforced by the apostles in aE their expositions as the com
petent interpreters of the Eedeemer's words (Eom. v. 17), is
conclusive. The opposite opinion, too common and too much
in vogue, just turns aE upside down. These modern writers
wiE not have a reconciEation through Christ, but in Him, of a
merely mystic nature. They wiU have it that God cannot for
give sin but in a way which is effecting its removal. And
hence, if the latter has precedence, a previous satisfaction or
atonement is superfluous — nay, impossible. But this testimony

INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 21
puts the relation between the atonement and the Efe quite
otherwise.

SEC. Vn. — THE INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY OR INCARNATION IN
THE MATTER OF THE ATONEMENT.
So close is the connection between the doctrine of the
atonement and that of Christ's deity, that they are always
found, as history shows, to be either received together or denied
together. The one is necessary to the other; and hence the
true Church has always in every age confessed to both. The
Lord coimects the two as the two " heavenly things," on which
He lays stress in His interview with Mcodemus (John Ei.
13, 14).
It is the person of Christ, or HimseE as a divine person, in
the performance of a work given Him to do — not His teaching,
merely, or the repubEcation of lost truth — that constitutes the
ransom. And one equal to the task of brmging a satisfaction
or atonement for millions must needs possess a divine dignity.
A mere man could as Ettle redeem the world as he could create
it ; and the Eestorer of man must be the Maker of man. It
does not faE to our present task to refer at large to the proof
of Christ's deity ; for our doctrine presupposes the incarnation,
— the miracle of mEacles, and the grand fact of history. Still
less does it Ee within our plan to notice the recent negative
speculations which look askance on the whole miracle of Christ's
Efe on earth. WhEe they would explode a particular incarna
tion as the unique fact of history, in order to assert a general
one, or an incarnation of the race, their deep error utterly
mistakes the ruin of mankind ; and it assumes the possibility
of access to God, and of reunion to Him, without a mediator.
Our Lord, for obvious reasons, lays great stress on His
coming into the world, or coming in the flesh to do a work
which should at once rectEy men's relation and bring lEe (John
V. 24). His entire teaching proceeds on the supposition that

22 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the primeval harmony between love and holiness in promoting
man's good, which was disturbed by sin, is restored only by
His incarnation and death; not by the incarnation alone—
for then the grain of wheat would have continued to abide
alone,— but by His incarnation and death. Not to speak of
rationaEsm, which always assumes that God is willing, without
any atoning intervention, to receive back the lost son to favour,
the more mystic theories of Christ's work, which lay aE stress
on the feEowship in Christ's lEe, and on the commencement of
a new humanity, are not greatly different. They presuppose
no work for which the incarnation is absolutely necessary, and
which could not be as weE done without it. They seem to say
that the incarnation or the person of the God-man is itseE the
atonement ; and yet it soon appears that for the new humanity
they plead for, the incarnation is very superfluous. That which
places the Church upon Bible Christianity, and severs her from
every phase of rationalism, is the firm belief that the atone
ment of the incarnate Son is a provision offered by the divine
love for the satisfaction of the inflexible claims of divine hoh-
ness and justice.
The point to be noticed here is the influence of Christ's
deity in the matter of the atonement. It may seem at first
sight that our Lord has said extremely little on the subject of
His deity, considered in this light. But the testimonies which
touch it are not few when they are all put together ; and He
has given the germ of aE the subsequent statements made by
the apostles. If we examine the history of Christ's lEe, as
written by inspired men, we find that the two sides of His
person are in a quite peculiar way brought out together ; and
that the scenes which represent Him in His deep abasement
always contain, if we only look for them, discoveries or out-
beamings of the Godhead dweEing in Him bodily. The whole
person, as divine and human, is in some way brought out,— a
peculiarity of the biblical narrative, which is whoEy lost in
human biographies of Christ. They cannot approach it.

INFLUENCE OF CHEIST S DEITY. 23
We meet in aE the words of Christ — as was to be expected
from Him who is one person in two conjoined but distinct
natures — the utterance of one seE-conscious I. It has been
happily said by a modern writer :— " Considered in a purely exe
getical light, there is no more certain or clearer result of Scrip
ture exposition than the position, that the I of Jesus on the
earth is identical with the I who was before in glory with the
Father. Every sundering of the Son speaking on the earth
into two I's, one of whom was the eternaEy glorious Word, and
the other the humanly abased Jesus, is rejected by clear Scrip
ture testimony."^ We everywhere meet with the conscious
utterance of the divine Word made flesh ; and there is a com
munion between the two natures, of such a kind that the pro
perties of either nature belong to the person. Thus the Son of
God knows the human nature as His, and speaks of it as His,
whEe the human nature in like manner speaks to us in the
person of the only-begotten Son, and regards the cEvine nature
as its own. Hence aE that can be affirmed of one nature can
be said of the whole person. And from this flows the infinite
value of aE He did and suffered. We are warned by the whole
mode of speaking foEowed by Christ, to avoid such a notion
of the union as thinks of a person who is neither properly
God nor man, but an undefined third quantity.
The works of Jesus, accordingly, are the works of the person.
The humanity belonged to the Son of God, not to another ; and
the actions He performed were the actions of the Son of God.^
This is assumed in all Christ's words ; and this guiding prin
ciple must be carried with us into our interpretation of all
His language. If we ascribe, then, to the person what belongs
to either nature, as we may and must do, more value attaches
to the obedience and suffering of the Son of God than to the
sinless service of aE creation.
A right view of this important truth will conduct us
1 Liebner, in the Jahrhucher fur Deutsche Theologie, p. 362. 1858.
'^ As the scholastic writers expressed it : actiones sunt suppositi.

24 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
through aE the Eitricacies of this question; and E may be
weE to put E in a clearer Eght from His own expressions.
Thus He speaks of the human nature as " My flesh," which I
will give for the Efe of the world, or the flesh of Him who
came down from heaven (John vi. 51)— meaning that the
humanity is personaEy united to HimseE. If the humanity
was not His own flesh, but that of a man existing apart from the
Son, and therefore independently of Him, however sanctified,.
and however occupied by God, it could avaE nothing. There
would be no merit of more than creature-value in His obedi
ence, no atonement in His blood equivalent to our infinite
guEt. A bibEcal view of this truth is of the greatest importance
for our present discussion ; for the 'foundation of our redemp
tion is overthrown at once by any separation of the natures,
or by any Nestorian division of them. 'When they are looked
at apart in this matter, then we may say, as was once said"- in
the hearing of Nestorius : " Mere man could not save : the
naked Godhead could not suffer." The humanity of Jesus was
not a separate person with, a distinct standing, but was taken
into personal union, and existed in the person of the Son, or
was the Son made flesh. Hence our Lord cOmmonly expresses
Himself in such a way as to show that His humanity was that
of the Son of God, and that the actions which were done in
it possessed, on this account, altogether a pecuEar value. Thus
He speaks of " My body broken for you" — intimating that
the broken body of such a person alone could meritoriously
wash away sin, and save the sinner exposed to deserved punish
ment. If that body did not belong to the Son of God as His
own, and as in His person, the suffering involved in the breaking
of His body, and which was of brief duration, would not have
been an equivalent. Again, when He speaks of His blood as
" My blood," the emphasis laid on the person, and on the blood,
'^ Thus Proclus expressed himself in the large church of Constantinople in the
presence of Nestorius.

INFLUENCE OF CHRIST'S DEITY. 25
as belonging to such a person, and not to another, cannot be
mistaken. The actions are the actions of the person; and
hence the blood was of infinite value, because it was the blood
of the Son of God.
On this point it must be noticed, too, that in the work of
atonement, as weE as in aE other parts of His mediatorial
activity, Christ acted according to both natures. They ever
acted conjointly, but in theE separate spheres. It is important
to keep in mind that they never acted apart in anything that
came within the mediatorial function. And this it is the more
necessary to mention, because the notion has obtained currency
in modern times, that the divine nature was for the most part
in abeyance during His humiliation, just as it was formerly
maintained, under the influence of other theories equaEy un-
scriptural, that the Lord was Mediator only accorEng to one of
His natures, not accorEng to both. But it must be laid down
as an undoubted axiom, that Christ, from the very fact of the
incarnation, did not, in any part of His mediatorial work, act as
man simply, nor as God simply, but as God-man. With this
concurrence of the two natures, however, to the production of
the same result, it was not less one act, because the person was
one, and is caEed one Mediator (1 Tim. ii. 5). It ought to be
further kept in mind, that in aE mediatorial action, the Godhead
is the regulating principle, and that the humanity, as befits the
lower nature, is subservient to the divine, to which it is con
joined. This may be illustrated by the analogy of soul and
body. As the soul acts principaEy, and the body becomes the
subservient part, or instrument which the nobler part directs,
so in aE the official work of Christ, the divine nature is the
principal cause.
These are first principles, which must be carried with us to
dEect us in the conceptions which are formed, and in the
phraseology which is used, in regard to any part of Christ's
mediatorial action, whether we think of Him during His
earthly Efe, or in His present condition. And hence the atone-

26 ¦ SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ment is not apprehended according to His own representation
of it, unless E is seen to flow from the efficacy of Eoth natures
acting each in Es sphere. It is the work of the person which is
one ; and the atonement, as one work or act, is the result of the
concurrent action of the several natures.
Thus the sufferings belonged to the Son of God, just as we
should say of a person suffering in his hands or feet, that it was
borne by the person. The humanity was His, and so was the
agony, though the deity could not agonize nor die. The inti
mate connection of the atoning obedience with HimseE may
be inferred from a more remote union which He also calls
Himself, viz. His redeemed people, who are regarded as His
body or His members. They were caEed so by HimseE, when
He said to Saul the persecutor : " Saul, Saul, why persecutest
thou Me ?" Now, this is a union far less close and intimate than
that of the humanity which he put on. Yet even in reference
to this He designates His people, or the joint heEs with Him
seE, as His body, and Himself. But as His own humanity is
much nearer and more intimately joined to Him, He may affirm,
as Scripture unEormly does, that the humanity is the body of
God's Son ; and that the obedience, suffering, and death are
also His, and thus possessed of aE the value and worth that
properly attach to Himself.
This brings me.more particularly to refer to the influence of
the deity of our Lord upon His work of atonement. Accord-:,,;
ing to the plan we foEow, we shaE not go beyond the limits of
exegetical investigation, nor beyond the import and significance
of Christ's words. We find three effects or consequences de
rived from the influence of His person, either directly taught,
or easily deducible from His words ; and to these we shall
aEude with as much brevity as shaE consist with the exposition :
of the language.
1. As one effect of His incarnation, Jesus had power over
His own Efe : " I have power to lay it down, and I have power
to take it again" (John x. 8). Many doubts, insoluble on mere

INFLUENCE OF CHRIST S DEITY. 27
humanitarian grounds, now disappear at once. We now appre
hend how one could be an atoning surety for millions, and act
a part to which no creature was equal. A mere man, however
endowed, could not act this part ; for he had no right to offer
his own Efe ; and a surety must offer his own, not another's.
Hence no one can be the master of human nature who is not the
supreme God, producing and upholding it by his own power.
But having such a nature in personal union with Himself, and
therefore in a wEolly different relation from that of an ordinary
man or unit of the species. He had power to lay down His life,
in, order to satisfy the law in the room of others. He could
offer the Efe over which He had fuE authority in man's room.
It is assumed that humanity in this union was exempt from
any obligation to punishment or suffering ; and when He did
incur it, it evidently flowed from some compact, with a view to
obtain an end. He who owes nothing on his own account, and
yet pays, must plainly be considered as acting in the room of
others for the purpose of reEeving the insolvent, or of setting
free the captive. It could be given for others, because it was
not requEed for himself; and it was wrought out by such a
person only for this end. Our Lord says in the words adduced,
that He had authority or right to dispose of His humanity;
and He evinced this authority or power when He surrendered
HimSeE into the hands of men, and when He spontaneously
breathed out His Efe on the cross.
2. As another effect of the incarnation, it must be mentioned
that infinite value or merit attaches to Christ's atonement. To
this there .is. an obvious aEusion when our Lord says, " God so
loved the world that He gave His only-begotten Son" (John iii.
16); and the. various aEusions to His mission, to His humi-
Eation as the Son of Man, to His coming into the world, point,
more or less dEectly, to the influence of His deity in connec
tion with His atoning work. From this we understand how
the obedience of Jesus possessed such value in His eyes who
judges according to truth, as to effect the remission of our sins,

28 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and the acceptance of the sinner. It was the obedience of the
Son of God. Considered in this Eght, there are several Estinct
effects which the deity of Christ must be regarded as producing.
a. Such a knowledge of sin must be acquEed as could sprmg
only from a fuE discovery of aE the sins of men, past, present,
and to come, and must stand before His eye at a glance, with a
view to be confessed for us, and expiated in our stead. . This
argues the omniscience of a divine person.
b. Not only so : the endurance of the curse or penalty was
wholly beyond the resources of human weakness. Because the
sufferer was God-man, He was able to make atonement for in
finitely great sin. This involves the coEision of infinitudes—
infinite wrath for a world's guEt to be met by infinite endur
ance ; the curse to be exhausted in order to be changed into a
blessing, — things of such a nature that nothing short of omni
potence could be put into the scale against them. The Evine
nature did not suffer, and could not ; but in vEtue of its union
to the humanity, the latter was able to encounter and bear
more than a mere man could have borne, because supported
and strengthened for that end. It does not foEow, because the
divine nature poured out influences to support the human, and
to prevent it from giving way, that influences of a comforting
character were also given in the same proportion. The opposite
appears from the events in the garden, and from the desertion
on the cross. He knew the infinite hatred of God to sin, and
drunk the cup of merited penalty ; but the influence of divine
nature supported the humanity in suffering through what must
needs be borne. He was deserted, yet sustained.
c. But it must be yet further remarked, that the Godhead
gave infinite value to the suffering. This was due to His being
the God-man. And because His suffering was of infinite value,
it was sufficient to satisfy for aE whose redemption He aimed at.
This is the reason why the sufferings and obedience of Christ
can satisfy for thousands. If He were a mere man. He could
not satisfy for one; but being very God, the dignity of His

INFLUENCE OF CHRIST S DEITY. 29
person not only put the Lord Jesus into a position for surety —
suffering such as no mere man could ever occupy, — ^but has an
influence on the whole obedience. And Scripture accordingly
fixes our attention on the person to deduce from it the value of
His suffering. The suffering of finite creatures coiEd never
offer satisfaction, though their endurance of it were eternal.
But the divine dignity of Christ countervailed the eternal dura
tion of the punishment ; for ,the element of the duration is by
no means essential to the satisfaction. He who can bear the
infinite weight of God's wrath is not subject to its eternal dura
tion. Thus the infinite value of the obedience is traced up to
the divine dignity of His person ; the act of the Son of God in
offering up His humanity being the culmination of His obedi
ence, and constituting merit.
3. Another effect of the incarnation is, that the party
bought must belong to Him who redeems them by the neces
sary law of purchase. But man cannot be lord of man. To
this proprietary right to His own sheep our Lord refers when
He caEs them His sheep (John x. 2), and proceeds to argue on
the ground of His omnipotence and His Father's sovereign
dominion, that none shaE pluck them out of His hand ; and then
subjoins that ever memorable testimony to His Evine'consub-
stantiaEty with the Father as weE as to His distinct per-
sonaEty : " I and the Father are one " (John x. 15, 27, 30).
Thus the influence of Christ's deity in the matter of the
atonement appears in aE conceivable respects according to His
own testimony. The Son of God suffered in our humanity, and
in that humanity was vilified, despised, and crucified, and bore
punishment that must be borne in room of sinners. Thus the
Son of God was by the incarnation put in the position of sin
ners for the endurance of the punishment, supplying by the
dignity of His person what was awanting in the continuance of
the sufferings of thirty-three years, — Christ being no ordinary
man, but the Son of God.

30 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. Vin.— SINGLE PHEASES DESCEIPTIVE OF THE UNIQUE POSITION
OF JESUS, OE HIS STANDING BETWEEN GOD AND MAN.
There are phrases and titles used in regard to Himself which'
argue that He was conscious of a quite unique relation to the
world, or, more strictly, to a flock or people whom He acknow
ledges as His. Of these expressions we shall adduce a few.
The terms commonly used in the doctrinal discussion of the
atonement, and drawn from Bible phraseology, such as Surety,
Mediatoe, High Peiest, Advocate— aE representing Him as
our substitute, who appears ia the presence of God for us, and
conducts our cause, — are not indeed found in the Lord's own
words descriptive of HimseE. But, beyond question, the thmg
is there ; and He acts as fuEy conscious that, except through
HimseE, as Mediator, God could have no intercourse with man,
nor man with God. He understands and consults the best
interests of His people in every respect: He took flesh, and
knows the infirmities of human nature by personal experience,
that He may sympathize with their condition, and compas
sionately conduct their concerns : He was lawfuEy called and
appointed to this function. And not only so: the sacrificial
language, which we find Him so frequently using, impHes a
Priest, though He does not expressly appropriate the term.
These titles, both numerous and various, imply that He had
a relation to mankind which is unique ; that He stood between
God and man ; that He was not an individual unit of the racOj
as aE the negative theology represents Him ; but acting in a
representative capacity for it. He assumes a position that no
one but Himself could dare to occupy. Thus, when He calls
Himself The Way, in the saying, " I am the Way, the Truth,
and the Life" (John xiv. 6), He means that He is the exclusive
Way ; not only paving the way for others, but constituting, in
His own person and work, the only way by which any could
have access to God. That this is the meaning is evident from
the subjoined words, " No man cometh unto the Father but by

UNIQUE position OF JESUS. 31
Me." He on the one hand contrasts HimseE with all other
men; whEe on the other He links HimseE to the lost and
condemned, as their Physician and DeEverer (Matt. ix. 12 ;
Luke xix. 10). And to convey the idea of His unique relation
to mankind. He declares, in reference to all who set up rival
claims : " AE who ever came , before Me were thieves and
robbers" (John x. 8). He stood where no one but Adam ever
stood, acting as one for -many ; offering a ransom as one for
many (Matt. xx. 28); shedding His blood as one for many
(Matt. xxvi. 28).
The title of the Beidegroom, which the Baptist ascribed to
Jesus, and which the Lord also appropriated to HimseE (John
iii. 29 ; Matt. ix. 15), is speciaEy noteworthy, as it exliibits,
with definite clearness, the relation which He occupies to the
Church, considered as a coEective body, as weE as to the
several individuals who compose it. He is designated the
Bridegroom who has the bride, as contrasted with aE mere
ministers as but ministering to her (John iE. 29) ; and the
designation is one which brings out the tender love of Christ to
the Church, as exhibited not only in His whole relation and
course of action towards her, but, above aE, in the fact that He
gave HimseE for. her ; or, in other words, offered Himself
sacrificiaEy, that He might put her in this relation to Himself,
and array her with aE the attractive graces of the SpEit.
We nowhere find, except in the Epistle to the Hebrews,
the term Priest expEcitly applied to our Lord. But that
circumstance by no means forecloses the inquiry, but rather
suggests it, whether there may not occur, in the course of our
Lord's instructions, titles of simEar import, or declarations from
His Eps, where the idea of the Priest and of the priestly sacri
fice, though not caEed so in express terms, must be held to Ee
at the foundation of the thought. And that we do find such
sayings as unmistakeably imply the one High Priest between
God and man is certain. Thus, when He announces that He
came to give His soul or lEe for many, we caimot faE to notice.

32 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
whether we fix our attention upon the word Life or upon the
sacrfficial phrase to give, that He indEectly announces HimseE
as our High Priest (Matt. xx. 28). The same aEusion to a
priestly function comes out in connection with the saying that
the -flesh or sacrifice, which was to be eaten by His followers,
for the enjoyment of SpEitual Efe, was to be " given " by Him
self, or, in other words, was to be offered for the Efe of the
world (John vi. 51). This priestly oblation, in connection
with HimseE, and in which He was to be at once the
Priest and the victim, is nowhere more distinctly stated than
in the words, " For their sakes I sanctEy MyseE " (John xvii
19). I only at present notice these passages as testimonies,-
expEcit enough, though indEect, to His priestly function. They
wEl be considered separately in the sequel.
AE the phrases used by Him disclose a fuE consciousness of
His peculiar and unique relation. Thus He represents Himself
as standing over against the world, and mediating between God
and the world ; in the family as one of it, and yet able, repre
sentatively, to act for it. He is caEed the " Saviour of the
World " — a title which the Samaritans must have learned from
HimseE (John iv. 42); the Light of the World (viii. 12) ; the
Eesurrection and the Life (John xi. 25) ; who. came down from
heaven with a charge to lose none that the Father had given
Him (John vi. 39). And His words indicate that He stood in
a representative relation even to the saints who had trod the
earth before Him — as appears from His discussion with the
Jews as to Abraham's relation to Him (John viii. 53). To the
question, whether He was greater than Abraham, their common
father. He repEed, that the patriarch in two ways rejoiced in
Him — (1) in the far past anticipating His day ; and (2) in
Paradise, when it came. He thus in effect declared that there
was no other name given under heaven among men, whether
they Eved before His day or after it, by which they could he
saved; and that there was salvation in no other. This fact
proves that His mediatorial work was retrospective as well as

the sending of JESUS BY THE FATHER. 33
prospective, and therefore, that it must be something else than
a mere example, however influential, as the latter can only
operate prospectively, or after the event, not conversely. He
showed, in a word, by many titles and expressions, that He
stood in the position of a Mediator between God and man, and
that E men did not beEeve in Him they should perish in their
sins (John viii. 24). But He abstains, for obvious reasons,
from appropriating the title most of aE famiEar to the Jews, —
that of Messiah. He used it only once among the simple and
docile Samaritans (John iv. 26). The Jews had perverted its
meaning ; and the use of it among them would not have con
veyed the meaning He intended. But not only so : it seems
that He could not have used it except at the risk of ci^E. con
fusion and political compEcations, from which He would keep
His cause clear.

SEC. IX. — SAYINGS OF JESUS EEFEEEING TO A SENDING
BY THE FATHER.
There are few expressions more frequent in the mouth of
Jesus than those which refer to His being sent. We find it
used by our Lord in connection with aE the three offices with
which He wg,s invested (John xii 49 ; Luke iv. 18). But we
limit our inquiry, according to the plan prescribed to ourselves,
to the sayings which have a reference to His priestly sacrffice,
or to His work of atonement ; and, considered in this light,
it was meant to represent God in the Eght of the Supreme
DEector and* sole fountain of the redemption-work. To this
view of the sending we shaE limit our attention ; and it wEl be
found that, by the use of this phrase, the Lord unEormly inti
mates that He did not assume or arrogate to HimseE the
dighity or office of being the Eedeemer of sinful men, but
that He was appointed to it, or ordained by God to it.
To show what emphasis the Lord laid on this sending. He
says, " He that sent Me is true" (John vE. 28),— an epithet

34 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which, as the Greek word intimates {a\7j6mg 6 ^rs^^/a? ^s),
does not mean true as contrasted with false, but true as com
prehending everything that constitutes sending in the highest
sense of the word, or as exhibiting the highest ideal of a sender.
It is noteworthy, too, that the title, " The angel of the Lord,"
or, EteraEy, the sent One of Jehovah, is just the Old Testa
ment synonym for this expression. And this phrase, in Christ's
mouth, wiE thus intimate, " I am the Angel of His presence,
who appeared to the patriarchs, and who spoke to Moses at the
bush ; who was the DEector and Guide of Israel's wanderings,
the centre of the Old Testament economy, and now made flesh
to usher in the new covenant, or the new order of things."
We do not in this place consider the sending of Christ in
connection with the thought that it involves the divine Egnity
of His person, and thus giving infinite value and efficacy to His
whole work of atonement. That latter point has been noticed
in its proper place. We limit our attention at present to the
sending, as evincing that THE Eedemption is of God, and the
effect of free, sovereign, and boundless love.
1. If M'e put together a few of the expressions used by
Christ upon this topic, we shaE find that He, first of all, leads
us, by means of this phraseology, to the counsel of peace, oi;
compact between the Father and thfe Son for man's^ redemption.
Thus He says : " Say ye of Him vjhom the Father hath sanctified
and sent into the world. Thou blasphemest ; because I said, I am
the Son of God?" (Johnx. 36). This is quite of the same import
with the declaration of Peter, that He was foreordained before
the foundation of the world. It is plaialy taught there that
Christ was appointed by God from eternity to be the Eedeemer,
or that He was foreordained, and furnished with aE that was
required for His task. By this phrase He would have men feel
that the atonement emanates from God ; that it springs from
seE-moving love; and that He arrogated nothing to HimseE
when He brought it in. For, on the one hand, it could not
have been extorted from God, but must have freely emanated

THE SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. 35
from Him E it was brought in at aE ; and, on the other hand,
it could not have been procured by any finite intelligence.
This realization of His sending, to which our Lord so often
gives expression, was descriptive of His habitual consciousness ;
and the phrase impEes, that because men were involved in
helpless impotence, a divine purpose was formed to deEver
them from ruin and, condemnation ; and that, in the execution
of the plan which had this end in view, the Father held in
His hand the rights of Godhead, and sent His Son, in the
capacity of a voluntary servant, to perform that work of
suffering obedience which was necessary for man's ransom.
To the same purpose are aE those passages in the apostoEc
Epistles in which the atonement is immeEately referred to
God, and represented as emanating from Him, or as an
arrangement appointed and ordained by Him, for the accom-
pEshment of which the Son was sent as the only Mediator.
2. When we foEow the successive steps of this sending —
and it is important to do so, according to the Lord's description,
— we find Him, fEst of aE, aEuding to a charge, commission,
or obEgation, laid upon Him, and which it was incumbent on
the surety to discharge : " / came down from heaven not to do
My own will, but the will of Him that sent Me " (John vi. 38).
This commission, as the context proves, was of a very extensive
nature, comprehending the end as weE as the means, the
atonement and its application to aE who were given to Him.
As to the significance of this senEng, it is not quite identical
with the incarnation, but differs from it as former and latter ;
for God sent Him to be born (John iii. 17); while others can
only be described as born and sent. According to biblical
phraseology, we cannot say that He first received His mission
after He was born, and then addressed HimseE to its duties ;
for God sent His Son — that is, one who already was a person,
and who was the Son, His mission being founded upon His
eternal generation. And though the designation of " the Sent
One " was given to Him anterior to the incarnation — for aE

36 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the appearances of the Angel of the Lord, or of the Angel of
His presence, were only preludes to His coming in the flesh,
—the title was never used Erespective of that atoning work
which was to be brought in by Him in the fulness of time.
Not only so : this sending of the Son impEes a divine counsel
or covenant and a voluntary condescension, but no real in-
equaEty between t.he sender and the sent. His mission differs
from that of His apostles Ei this, that they were sent out as
servants, He as an equal, — an ambassador, indeed, but yet with
fuE equality. Nor does it involve local separation from the
Father ; for He was still in the Father's bosom, while He
trod this world (John i. 18). And the official subordination
was not of such a kind as to carry with it a depotentiation
in any of His inaEenable divine, perfections, but was only a
means to an end, — ^though an end worthy of such stupendous.
means. 3. When we put together some of the many expressions
which feE from Christ's lips upon this topic, in the order of
natural sequence, we find it next said : " God sent not His Son
into the world to condemn the world, hut that the world through
Him might he saved" (John iii. 17). This statement, taken in
connection with the aEusion in the former verse to the giving
of His Son as a propitiation for sin — that is, in the sacrfficial
acceptation, as the phrase implies, — intimates- that He was sent
to he the atonement, and that by this means men are saved; for
the sending was the cause of that effect. These two verses
mutuaEy explain each other ; for the sending comprehended in
it, as its scope or intended object, the sacrificial death. And
these two express, when viewed together, the plan or commission
given, and the end or purpose contemplated, — ^the giving of His
Son for our salvation ; which, as we have aEeady seen, can only
be regarded as sacrificial language.
4. When we advance in the successive steps of this mission,
we next find the Lord Jesus declaring that in no part of His
redemption-work was He left alone (John vui. 29): " And He

THE SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. 37
thai sent Me is with Me : the Father hath not left Me alone ; for
I do always those things that please Him." This remarkable
testimony, from Christ's own consciousness, intimates that He
was continuously upheld as He went from step to step of His
high work; and that the constant assistance, aid, or divine
solace imparted to Him stood in an ineffable co»nection with
His sinless obedience, and, in fact, was a constantly renewed
reward for service done. We here get a gEmpse into the heart
of Christ as the Mediator, and into the perpetual intercourse
between Him and the Father, such as we get nowhere else.
He was at every step anew rewarded.
Thus the " sending " intimates that the work of propitiation
for our sins was aE of God, from first to last. The sanctffica-
tion or caE of such a person for the purpose of being sent into
the world (John x. 36); the commandment or obligation imposed
upon Him, and which fideEty required Him to fulfil (John
vi. 39) ; the divine presence imparted to Him for the fuE dis
charge of His mediatorial work, lest He should faE or be dis
couraged (John viii. 29; Matt. xE. 18); the repeated recognition
of His obedience at different stages, — at His baptism, when His
private Efe lay behind Him, — on the mount of the Transfigura
tion, when His pubEc ministry was drawing to its close, and-
when He must stedfastly set His face to go forward to a cursed
death, — and in Jerusalem, whither He had come up to die
(Matt. Ei. 17, xvE. 5 ; John xE- 28) — not to mention its final
acceptance and endless reward, — aE elucidate the sigmficance of
this sending or mission, the thought of which was never absent
from Christ's mind. And what was in His thoughts came
often to His Eps, as an ever present reaEty.
The great truth intimated by aE these phrases is, that the
redemption is of God ; that the atonement to which the saints
looked forward who were saved before His advent, and to which
all look back who are saved since, was effected according to the
direction or wiE of Him from whom the world had revolted ;
that the sender was the Father personaEy considered; and that

38 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the grand object of the sending was to atone for sin. The
sending is thus an expression of authority, and a manifestation
of every divine attribute working together to a definite object.
But it is speciaEy an exhibition of unmerited love or grace. The ¦
atonement emanated from sovereign grace, and was an expres
sion of the bqundless and incomprehensible love of God's heart
to sinful men ; and we may affirm, in reference to this sending,
that there was a twofold object — a proximate and an ultimate,
— ^first of aE to atone ; and then, by atoning, to secure the end
that of aE whom the Father had given Him He should lose
none (John vi. 39).
5. But the Lord refers also to the reward awaiting Him after
having finished the work given Him to do, when He says, " /
go to Him that sent Me" (John vE. 33). This atoning work
received its meed of reward in a twofold sense, which, indeed, is
one: first, in the personal glory on which He entered; and next,
as He is the forerunner, in that representative capacity which
He occupied for the good of others. And it is in this sense
that certain expressions are to be explained, which would other
wise be far from obvious. And He had the reward always
in view. It may not be inappropriate, in this connection, to give a
brief elucidation of a passage of considerable difficulty, and
which has received very various expositions. I refer to John
vi. 57 : "As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live hy the'
Father [or, better, because of the Father"], so he that eateth Me,
even he shall live -by Me [or, better, on My account, because of
Me\." An examination of aE the Protestant versions, as well
as of the patristic commentators, wiE show the strange per
plexity into which they have all been thrown by this language.
The Greek fathers refer the first clauses to the eternal Sonship,,
and to the divine lEe proper to the Son, by eternal generation.
They thus make these words parallel to John v. 26, which
undoubtedly has that sense. The Protestant versions, and
commentators generaEy, can make nothing of it, except by

THE SENDING OF JESUS BY THE FATHER. . 39
altering the force of the Greek preposition,^ which, when
construed with the accusative, means, and can only mean,
because of, on account of. But the words wiE not be found of
difficult exposition if we only attend to one point, which has
always been missed — the priority of this senEng to the lEe
here mentioned. The life ascribed to the Lord Jesus in this
passage is not that which preceded His being sent, — not that
divine life, therefore, which belonged to Him as the eternal
Son, but that Efe which foEowed His being sent ; or, in other
words, which is the reward aEotted to Him on the consumma
tion of His work. The aEusion is not to the divine Efe prior
to His mission, but to the premial life which foEowed it, and
which comes out in the passage, " This do, and thou shalt live."
And all the mistakes seem to have been owing to not observing
the priority of the sending to the Efe here referred to, which is
certainly taken for granted in our Lord's words. There is
thus no occasion, as there can certainly be no authority, for
altering the force of a preposition to solve a difficulty. The
aEusion is to the meEatorial reward. Life is the reward of
the sending, or, in other words, of the work accomplished ; and
the present tense, / live, is just equal and simEar to the present
tense in " I go to the Father." The verse just intimates that
He Eves, (1) as the reward of His accomplished mission; and
(2) lives, too, as the source of Efe to others, who live only on
His account.
The phrases, however, referring to the sending of Christ are
too numerous to be all noticed in detail ; and they are inter
woven with the texture of Christ's teaching, so that we can
refer to them only in general They aE . imply, that in the
1 S;a rm «xrifM. The Greek commentators explain it, for the most part, "Sii,
TO yivmiimxi \x ZSvns ?rxTfis. The interpreters since the Reformation, "following
Beza, have expounded Sii here construed with the accusative, in the same way
as they would have done had it been construed with the genitive. Beza appeals
to Aristophanes' Plutus, ver. 470. Liicke quotes the Greek scholiast on it, to the
effect that sometimes S;i with the accusative has the same force as it has with
the genitive. We have given the only tenable explanation.

40 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
matter of human redemption, two acting parties are presented
to our minds, and that the Father deputed, commissioned, or
sent the only-begotten Son, and that the Son, in the exercise of
a boundless love, which appears at all points, came to give His
life a ransom for many.
6. When Jesus refers to the acceptance of His mission by
the world. He shows that full confidence in the fact of His
sending by His Father is of absolute necessity to a due recep
tion of Him and of His salvation : " He that receiveth Me, re-
ceiveth Him that sent Me " (Matt. x. 40). If this mission is not
credited by those to whom the testimony comes, then they must
conclude that He came unauthorized, and that the work on
which He entered was planned and executed at His own dis
cretion. He would thus be no Eedeemer, caEed and competent
to atone for men ; for God, in whose hand they are as prisoners,
can alone discharge them, as the competent authority, and only
in a way glorifying to His perfections or name. Hence the im
portance of recognising this mission. It is the badge of true
discipleship ; for they who beEeve on Him, believe on Him
that sent Him (John v. 24). And the object aimed at by the
organization, love, and unity of the Christian Church — at least
one great object outwardly — is, as Christ declares, "that the
world may believe that Thou hast SENT Me '' (John xvii. 21).
SEC. X. — SAYINGS ¦ OF CHRIST WHICH ASSUME THAT HE IS THE
SECOND ADAM, AND ACTING ACCORDING TO A COVENANT WITH
THE FATHER IN THIS ATONING WORK.
In adducing some of those sayings of Jesus which bring out
the idea of a federal transaction in connection with the atone-
inent, I shaE Emit my attention to those which bear more or
less dEectly on the vicarious sacrifice. The deity of Christ
and His personal relation to the Father are of course presup
posed in any aEusion to the covenant; where, as we at once per
ceive, the pessons of the Godhead are found acting according to

THE SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 41
the relation of natural order. A brief allusion to this great
paction or counsel 'of peace wEl enable us to perceive with
greater clearness the sphere in which the surety had to walk. .
That there is such an agreement between the Father who
give a commission involvmg duty, promises, rewards, and the
Son considered as a pubEc person, who appeared as a represen
tative acting in the name of His people, is put beyond aE doubt ;
for it is referred to in various testimonies by Christ HimseE.
The Efe of Christ, it is true, presents to us only the pheno
menal part of the mediatorial scheme, as it requEed certain words
to be spoken, or actions to be done. But aE this emanates from
a covenant which proceeds on the ground that a representative
work was absolutely necessary, as man could be saved on no
other principle than on that which is found in connection with
his faE. It takes for granted, too, the donation of a people in
whose name He acted (John vi. 37). Jesus, knowing that He
came from God and went to God, uses various words which
show a commission and announce the second man.
Though the similarity between the first "and second Adam
is specially developed by the apostles in the fuller outline of
doctrine which they were appointed to give, our Lord's sajdngs
constantly assume an express counterpart or analogy between
the first and second man. He appeals to Himself as " the Son
of Man," a title which, as we shaE afterwards show, brings out
the idea of the second man with a pecuEar modification. He
announces that He Avas come that His people might have life,
and that th6y might have it more abundantly ; which refers
most naturaEy to that more abundant fulness of divine Efe
which was brought in by the second man (John x. 10; Eom.
V. 17). To this correspondence or counterpart relation between, the
first and second Adam it is the more necessary to refer, be
cause almost aE the difficulties and objections urged against the
atonement at the present time, proceed upon incorrect notions
of the primeval constitution given to the human race in a single

42 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
man, or from a denial of that constitution altogether. The doc
trine of the atonement cannot be understood at all, except on
ihe principle that the same constitution is laid at the basis of
that economy by which we are saved, as lay at the basis of that
economy by which we fell. ¦ That constitution was to the effect
that one man was regarded as the race, and that the race is stiU
the one, — a constitution differing from that which was given to
angels, who stood each for himself, or fell each for himself
This seems, clearly enough, deducible from the fact that only a
part feE. It does not fall to man to object to such a constitu
tion given to mankind, when it pleased a sovereign God to
appoint it for reasons, the wisdom and goodness of which we
may not question. Nor does it become us too curiously to in
quire into those reasons : God's wEl is reason enough ; and we
only incur the risk of darkening counsel by words without
knowledge, when we venture on a field beyond our scrutiny.
The objection of self-righteous men against the counterpart
provision of the atonement, has generaEy proceeded from a Es-
position to chaEenge the justice or the goodness of that consti
tution which it has pleased a sovereign God to establish. Of
course the world could be redeemed only on the same principle.
When men, therefore, argue that E their own vEtue cannot save
them, they cannot be benefited by the work of another, how
ever exceEent, they only misunderstand, or faE to take into
account, that peculiar constitution under which the Creator saw
meet to place the race. The salvation of many by the righteous
ness or atonement of Christ as the transaction of one for many,
is not out of keeping with the primeval constitution, according
to which the race stood related to Adam. The right relation of
the man, as such, or of the person, is only in a pubEc represen
tative ; and so long as the person is condemned, of what avail
are aE his actions ? So fuEy are aE the individuals represented
by that one man, that we may say there have been but two
persons in the world, and but two great facts in human history
They who attach themselves to the new theology ignore

THE SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 43
this constitution given to the' race ; or if they nominally
aclinowledge a representative system, it is of such a character
as makes it refer to the nature exclusively, not to the person.
It comes to be a mere individuaEsm, as if the human race were
but a sand-heap or granulated mass, without any public, corpo
rate, or organic unity; and Christ is the mere Lifegiver by
means of a mystic Union to Himself, without any deed of
meritorious obedience as the ground or foundation upon which
premiaEy God bestows that Efe. They take no account of the
person as such, nor of the man in his relative standing, nor in
fact of a moral governor, of law, of guEt, of acceptance through
obedience. AE that Paul sets forth in the fifth chapter of
Eomans is exhibited in the Lord's own sayings, with this ex
ception, that He does not set over against each other, by the
same formal comparison, the disobedience of Adam and the
surety obedience which He Himself was bringing in. He gives
the one side of the parallel, and He leaves us to supplement it,
as the apostle has done by the running analogy or counterpart
of the other. That we receive the justification of lEe by Christ,
is not once, nor obscurely stated ; and that this is of course to
be contrasted with being made sinners by the first man, is
readEy inferred. By the Son of Man we have the ransom
(Matt. XX. 28), the remission (Matt. xxvi. 28), and life (John vi.
51) ; and this leaves us to infer, as aE Scripture teaches, that
we have the opposite by Adam.
The same thing appears from the peculiar engagement or
covenant between the Father and the Son in behaE of a pecuEar
class, who are described as given to Christ, or committed to
Him, with a special charge or command that none of them
should be lost. Thus He says : " This is the will of Him that
sent Me, that of all that He hath given Me I should lose nothing,
but shotEd raise it up again at the last day" (John vi. 39).
That language impEes, beyond all doubt, a commission on
certain conditions, whatever name may be employed to describe
it— covenant, treaty, or compact,— the Father on the one side

44 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
prescribing the duty, and promising the help which should he
required; the Son, on the other side, engaging His heart to
appear before God in the capacity of a surety. The Gospel of
John is so replete with testimonies to this effect on the part
of Christ, that unless we take to our aid the elucidation sup-
pEed by the idea of a covenant, there are many passages where
we can scarcely apprehend the meaning. The whole of His
mediatorial coinmission on the behalf of a multitude given to
Him, and whom He is charged to keep (John vi 39) ; His
subjection mediatoriaEy to His Father, who is from this one
circumstance called greater than He (John xiv. 29) ; His de
claration that He acted from the Father and for His glory
(John vii 16-18); His explanation of the engagement which
bound Him to bring in others who were not of the Jewish fold
(John X. 16); and, in a word. His whole intercessory prayer
(John xvE), — ^proceed so much on the idea of a covenant, and
of a people given to Him on certain terms, that we cannot
understand the language on any other supposition. And it is
evident enough, from reasons drawn aEke from God's moral
government and from man's inability, that but for such a
treaty or agreement on man's behaE, a remedial economy
would have been impossible ; for no covenant between God and
sinners could have been directly formed. Two parties are
plainly brought before us in aE these testimonies, — one party
imposing conditions, and a second undertaking to comply with
certain terms on behaE of a third party. That such a treaty
exists, then, in the counsels of the Godhead, cannot be questioned
by any one who wiU do justice to these words of Jesus. .And
whatever preconceived opinions may be entertained as to what
is fitting or not fitting in the Godhead must be overruled, when
the word of God, as a sentence in a court of last resort, has
actuaEy pronounced upon the point. We must refer to this
covenant as His rule of action.
That covenant rested on this basis, that as God at first had
created man under a representative constitution, or under a

THE SECOND ADAM AND THE COVENANT. 45
system which was that of one for many, so the surety must
come on a footing precisely similar, nay, enter into the very
provisions of that first arrangement (Eom. v. 10). Thus Christ
and His people stand in the eye of law as one single person.
There were, properly speaking, but two persons in the world —
Adam and Christ, — in whom the whole seed, belonging severaEy
to these two, must be considered as contained. On the principle
just laid down, that Christ and His seed are viewed as one
person, it is plain that the salvation of His people was vE-
tuaEy to be wrought out in the obeEence and death of the Son
of God. The covenant rested on this basis, that the Son of
God, condescending to be Son of man, should enter into our
covenant of works, and that aE who were given to Him shordd
enter into the federal reward. That this may be rendered more
clear, it will be necessary to sketch with aE possible succinct
ness the various conEtions prescribed to Him.
1. It was necessary, according to that eternal paction, that
the Son shoidd take a body as an indispensable preEminary to
His subsequent work of obedience, — a humanity that should be
sinless to stand for the sinful, holy to stand for the unholy, and
which could thus hide the stain of our original sin, as weE as
lay a foundation for all the work on which He was to enter.
And the Father, who in every part of this great transaction
must be viewed as at once the lawgiver and fountain of the
covenant, prepared for Him a body (Ps. xl. 6-8).
2. The next thing prescribed according to the covenant was
the peculiar work marked out for the righteous servant. He
must be put under the law, and under that law as broken.
Some would make it appear that He was not necessarily made
under the law in the proper sense. But if it was to be a true
obedience on His side, and a true substitution or vicarious
action for others, He must stand under our covenant — that
is, be made under the law of works, both as to precept and
penalty. 3. I pass from the prescription of duty to the promises of

46 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
assistance in His work, and of reward, when the work was
completed, for HimseE, and for aE whom the Father "gave Him.
These are numerous ; comprehending, among others that might
be named, the promise of unction by the SpEit (Isa. Ixi. 1), of
a seed to serve Him (Isa. EE. 10), and of complete and final
victory (Isa. xlE 1-4).
This covenant on which we have but glanced, exhibiting
the whole economy as springing from the Father's gracious wfll,
and as a scheme of grace, and of nothing but grace, combines
in a vivid way aE the doctrines of special saving grace. It is
pecuEarly valuable as affording a bEd's-eye view of the whole
economy from its commencement to its final consummation.
It is the unrolEng of the map of God's procedure; and in
putting together plan and execution, fact and theory, as we
shaE proceed to do, we obtain a juster view of the grace which
projected the whole. It is of advantage to study in connection
the scheme and the accompEshment ; and when the vast pano
rama passes in review, we gain in comprehensiveness of view
by the sublime and affecting spectacle in reference to all the
work of Christ, and especially in reference to the great work of
atonement. But the covenant, while glorifying aE the persons of the
Godhead and aE the divine attributes, is pecuEarly useful as
exhibiting the humanity of Christ in connection with a work
given Him to do. The foEowing sections wEl exhibit Him
iEling up this plan or scheme as replenished with the Spirit,
and as the perfect representative of what humanity should he.
Before the Eedeemer's merits can be fuUy seen, they must he
read off from the covenant, and be viewed in connection with
it; nay, it may be doubted whether there could be meeit in the
proper acceptation of the term, except on the ground of a com
pact or covenant for the performance of a given work.
This brief outEne of the covenant wEl bring us to the con
sideration of the NECESSITY of the atonement.

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 47
SEC. XI. — SEPARATE SAYINGS WHICH AFFIRM OR IMPLY THE
NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT.
On several occasions the Lord refers to the necessity of His
death, but often stops short at the fact that it had been fore
told. Was there any deeper reason assigned by Him? Yes :
there are various aEusions, dEect and indirect, to a deep inner
necessity for His atoning work which we must now evolve.
And it is the more important to raise the question, why God
could not pass over sin without atonement, and to answer it
from Christ's own conscious-point of view, because not a few
regard the aEeged necessity of the atonement in no other light
than as a semi-phEosophical theory, or as a merely traditional
doctrine that has come down to us. The necessity of the
atonement, or the why in the moral government of God, must,
as far as possible, be assigned.
Our plan leads us to proceed in an exegetical way, and not
to argue from general principles or from mere dogmatic grounds,
except as the discussion of the words of our Lord conducts us
to the confines of that field. Though our object is to investi
gate in what way our Lord speaks of the necessity of atone
ment, yet there are some cb posteriori arguments which may be
noticed at the outset.
We cannot "conceive of such a stupendous economy, E it
were not necessary. There could be no other reason suffi
ciently important for God to abase Himself and to be made in
fashion as a man, and suffer on the cross ; for God would not
subject His Son to such agonies if sin could have been remitted
without satisfaction. To suppose that aE this was appointed
merely to confirm Christ's testimony as a teacher, is a shock to
reason ; for that could have been effected by a martyr's death.
To hold that it was meant to impress the human mind with a
conviction of God's love, is no better ; for the whole historic
basis of Christianity would be Ettle better than a mere drama
or scenic arrangement, intended to make an inward impression.

48 SAYINGS' OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
but nothing real in the moral government of God, E the vicarious
sacrifice were not necessary on God's part for the ransom of
sinners, and to put away theE sin. The facts are too momentous
and solemn, and too closely connected with all the attributes
of God and aE the persons of the Trinity, to be brought down
to the level of an imposing representation. To take this round
about way of making a moral impression, if the death of God's
Son was not necessary, would be repugnant to the divine
goodness and wisdom.^
Our Lord, in addressing a people famUiar with the ideas of
sacrifice, did not deem it necessary to dEate on the necessity of
an atonement, and for the most part narrowed the aEusion to
the sacrffice of Himself, assuming the necessity as an undoubted
truth. God had from the first sought to develop the idea of
SIN among the chosen people, and to keep theE consciences
aEve to the fact, that it must needs be expiated by propitiatory
sacrifices. M.any laws were enacted for the purpose of awaken
ing a sense of want: civE and ecclesiastical privEeges were
withdrawn for the violation of these laws, and many afihctive
visitations were sent. The government of God was ever anew
violated by sinfiE deeds or transgressions of the law, and
feEowship with God was foreclosed. Every Jew was aware
that, in consequence of a transgression, he was Eable to" the
penalty which must foEow ; and, in a word, that there was no
enduring covenant, and no free access to the Holy One, without
a complete fulfibnent of the law. No approach could otherwise
be aEowed to God's presence in the sanctuary services; and
there was, besides, a conscious guilt, which tended to estrange
the sinner from God, and to make him apprehensive. This was
an education of the people in the knowledge of sin.
To meet this deep-felt need of pardon, and as a method of
remitting the penalty incurred by a violation of the letter,
sacrifices were appointed, which operated on the conscience of
1 See Witsius, De Economia Federum (lib. ii. chap, viii.) ; and the Heidel
berg Catechism, question 12, with its expounders.

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 49
the Jew in a pecuEar way. They gave him a vivid view of the
guEt of sin, and of the rectitude and holiness of the divine
government. The whole Old Testament was thus calculated to
bring into prominence the necessity of an atonement, and to
sharpen the conviction that sin required a higher sacrffice;
and the sacrffice, presupposing the sinful, deed, showed the
inviolability of the law and covenant. If the Jewish wor
shippers neglected the sacrffices of atonement, they incurred
the curses of the law. If they brought the sacrifices, they were
purged from their defilement, and had access re-opened to God
in the sanctuary service, without impeEment from without or
fear within.
With this doctrine of sacrifice the Jewish mind was
famEiar. They aE admitted the necessity of a sacrifice of
atonement in order to avert punishment. This was the great
idea, for the fuE development of which the nation had been
pecuEarly separated from other people, and which was to be
learned by them in order to be diffused over the earth. They
acknowledged these atonements as the method of averting the
threatened penalty, however much they perverted them from
the divine purpose by extending their effects to moral tres
passes, instead of Emiting them, as they should have done, to
ceremonial defilement. They held the necessity of expiation;
and our Lord, accorEngly, in speaking to them, proceeds on
this conceded truth. And hence His words take aE this for
granted, wherever He makes reference to His work. With a
deeper reference than was commonly attached to the sacrffices,
and sounding the depths which imderlay them. He throughout
assumed the indispensable necessity of an expiation. AE His
sayings contain this thought in their deeper relation. Thus,
when we read of sin to be borne in a sacrificial sense (John
i. 29); of a ransom to be paid for the purpose of Eberating
captives to divine justice (Matt. xx. 28) ; of the law, both moral
and ceremonial, to l)e embodied in a sinless lEe and exhibited
in a sacrificial death (Matt. v. 1 7) ; of the blood of the covenant

50 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which puts men on a new footing, and in a relation of pardon
and acceptance, to be dissolved no more (Matt. xxvi. 28); — all
these aEusions take for granted that an atonement is indis
pensably necessary, and that the divine claims must be dis
charged in fuE.
When we survey our Lord's teaching on the necessity of
the atonement, we find reference to a subjective and objective
necessity, or to the conscience of man on the one hand, and to
the Evine rights on the other.
1. Conscience demands a satisfaction or atonement. To
this necessity on the side of conscience there are various allu
sions by our Lord, and aE of them fuE of significance. Thus,
when He invites the weary and heavy laden. He plainly alludes
to the state of an awakened conscience desEing a satisfaction !
or atonement which the individual is not able to offer (Matt.
xi. 28). The thirsty invited to come and drink are those who
are in a similar condition (John vii. 37). They who are de
scribed in the Sermon on the Mount as hungering and thEsting
after righteousness are obviously those who feel the oppression of
conscious guEt, and who pant for that immaculate " righteous
ness" or atonement which alone can fiE and satisfy the wants
of human nature (Matt. v. 6). Our Lord's words assume that
such is the harmony between the voice of conscience and the
claims of God, or, in other words, between man made in the
image of God and the rights of Him whose image he bears,
that nothing wiE satisfy conscience that does not satisfy the
perfections and law of God. As God's representative within,
it is taken for granted that conscience will acquit only when
God acquits, and possess peace only when God has spoken
peace through the finished redemption. There is an inner or
subjective necessity which must come to its rights.
Thus conscience acknowledges that wherever sin is, punish- ,
ment ought to be suffered. We see in the old economy the
intense longing of the heart after sacrffices, and a conviction
of theE insufficiency in the ceremonial law. TiE the waters

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 51
of reparation and punishment quench it, guEt burns in the
human heart, — ^nay, it would contmue to burn in the human
heart for ever if there were no sufficient atonement ; so that they
who would have pardon merely by God's retreating from the
demand of satisfaction would be foEowed, if they had their
wish, by the inward pursuer wherever they went. And even as
theE holiness grew, they would be haunted by a keener sense
of guilt, remembering that they were the same person stEl, and
that no reparation had been made. They .would be disturbed
by self-accusations, by shame, and a gnawmg conscience, till
they would long to have the faciEty of memory destroyed.^
We read that they who went to heaven before the finished
redemption rejoiced when Christ's day came (John viii. 56),
and that in some sense, and doubtless in this subjective sense,
they were made perfect by sharing with us in that which we
enjoy (Heb. xi. 40).
Thus it appears from aE history and experience, that con
science is so sensitive, that it wiE reject everything which may
be offered to calm or heal it, tEl-it finds repose and peace in the
vicarious death of Christ ; and no atonement wiU. avail which
is not infinite. Man discovered to himself, and aware of his
wants, will faE into despaE, E the growing sense of guilt is not
stilled by the great redemption of the cross. It is true that
mere conscience cannot of itself teE what is an adequate atone
ment ; that it is a dumb sense of want ; and that it often tries
false remedies and vain reEefs. The man is a prisoner under

1 Marheinecke, in his Fundamental Doctrines of Christian Dogmatics,
p. 284, says : — " Man has the choice of committing sin or not, but he has not
the choice whether he will possess the consciousness of guilt or not, but him
self acknowledges that punishment should be suffered for the sin committed ;
and, as is seen in the case of great criminals, he goes out to meet punishment, and
feels that he who has sin is not able to free himself from its guUt and punish
ment." " Even in the grossest sinner, conscience is so sensitive, that it rejects
everything that is offered to soothe it as a deliverance from punishment, the
clemency of the magistrate, etc. The only thing that man can do is to feel a
desire after a satisfaction which he is not able to offer, — a divine feeling which
lives even in the most degraded sinner."

52 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
guUt, and knows it. God alone knows and provides the ade
quate atonement ; and the unburdened conscience attests that
it is found. But no one can persuade conscience that an atone
ment is unnecessary.
2. There is an objective necessity founded on the divine
rights and man's creaturehood. It would require a separate
treatise to discuss the question of the necessity of the atone
ment against aE the impugners of the doctrine, and agamst the
pantheistic leaven of our age, which is to us just what the leaven
of the Sadducees was in the days of our Lord, which assumes
sin as one of the elements of humanity, and vEtually holds
" whatever is, is right." But as our present undertaking limits
our view to what the great Teacher has said, or, g,t the utmost,
to what His words imply and presuppose, it would carry us
into a wholly different field, were we at any length to discuss,
on abstract grounds, or in a. dogmatic form, the momentous
question of the necessity of the atonement. We shaE merely
glance at some of its elements ; or, as Johnson would have said,
" shine on the angles of the thought.''
The divine rights, to which the question of the necessity of
the atonement must very much be run up, differ in one import
ant respect from human rights. Men can in many cases recede
from the assertion of their rights, whereas the divine rights are
inalienable. The Most High cannot aEow any infraction of
them, any withholding from HimseE of that which is His due,
or any spoEation of that declarative glory for which the uni
verse exists, and which a personal God has an interest in secur
ing to HimseE. The supreme justice, which is no other than
the personal God HimseE, puts forth its highest exercise in
asserting His rights in the universe, which exists not for itself
but for Es Maker. This foEows from the concrete relations of
a personal God ; who could not denu.de Himself of His rights,
or be without the exercise of His justice from the moment a
created being occupies a relation toward Him as Es maker,
governor, and upholder. He has from that moment rights of

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 53
which He cannot denude Himself; for the creature exists not
independently of Him, but for Him.
A right anthropology, that is, a correct conception of the doc
trine of man, also shows the necessity of the atonement. The
inquirer must read it off from human duty and human will.
So far as the conditions of the problem are concerned, the atone
ment is in reality nothing else than the taking up of man's
obligations at the pomt where the primeval man failed, with,
of course, the additional element which his fall had entailed —
the awful fact of sin. We may weE affirm, then, that a correct
anthropology, as weE as a due conception of the attributes and
rights of a personal God, is indispensable to a correct notion of
the necessity of the atonement. This comes to light in the
most emphatic manner in certain portions of the Pauline Epistles,
where the argument proceeds on .the supposition that the second
man must needs enter into the position, obedience, and fuE
responsibility of the fEst man (Eom. v. 12-19). But the same
thought is not . obscurely exhibited in aE those sayings and
phrases where our Lord refers to Himself as the Son of Man.
He intimates that He entered with a true body and soul into
aE the conditions of the problem ; that after the revolution of
ages He took up the task for the reparation of the wrong, and
entered into the conflict where the battle was lost.
The point at which the discussion must begin is the rela
tion which a personal God occupies to Sin. As the entrance of
sm is a spoliation of the tribute or revenue of honour which the
intelligent creature should have rendered to the Creator; as
man was made to render this homage by a pure nature and a
God-glorEying obedience, such as a moral representation of the
divine image in this world alone could render, — a restoration of
this honour to the fuE, nay, to a stiE larger degree, is only
what supreme justice owes to Himself before salvation can be
bestowed. Not that the glory of God essentially is capable
either of addition or of dimimition. But in reference to His
declarative glory — in other words, in reference to what He pro-

54 • SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
posed to make of human nature,— God lost, when His rights were
denied, and God regains when they are restored. Thus the
necessity of the atonement is seen to rest on the divine claims,
and on the concrete relations of a personal God to the world.
But the atonement must not be considered barely in relation
to the consequences of sin, but in relation to SiN itself. And
this leads us to see its absolute necessity, on the supposition
that a redemption was 'to be effected. Sin in its magnitude and
criminaEty is a fact for which an actu.al provision must be
made in some way, — a disharmony in His universe who is the
God of order and not of confusion, and that must be dealt with
in the moral government of God. One grand lesson taught hy
the Old Testament economy, which was not an education for
one people merely, but for mankmd in general, through that
single people, was that sin is such a tremendous evil or disorder
that there is an indispensable necessity for a satisfaction, or for
punishment. Unlike those phases of opinion which set forth
that sin is nothing positive, but only a law of bemg, and owe
their origin to a period of speculation when the idea of a per
sonal God and His relations to the world were forgotten or
disowned, the doctrine of the atonement, as exhibited in the
sayings of Jesus, is based on the magnitude and enormity of sin.
It is the very reverse of those men's theory, too numerous in
our time, who admit imperfection, but not guEt; who ignore
the divine claims, as weE as the holy anger and moral govern
ment of God; who resolve justice into love, and wrath into
benevolence. The entEe elements of this momentous question are put m
their due place, only when a true conception of SiN and of its
infinite evE is adequately apprehended. The atonement is not
a mere governmental display before creation, as E the principal
end of punishment in the government of God were a mere
spectacle to deter from sin. So long as men theorize as to God
acting before a created pubEc, only to impress and awe their
minds, or seek an object apart from God HimseE, they are

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 55
yielding to a course of thought which only tends to subvert or
deny His punitive justice. Such a principle may be caEed into
play in human rule, but has no application in the divine govern
ment, where the only pubEc worthy of regard is God Himself,
and the harmony of His attributes. To hold with certain emi
nent writers, such as MichaeEs, SeEer, and others, that the in
fliction of punishment, though not absolutely necessary, is yet
fitted to serve an important end in deterring other rational
bemgs from sin, is at once destitute of biblical authority, and
puts the question on a false foundation. On this supposition,
punishment is not an end in itseE, but only a means to an end.
On the contrary, as Scripture always puts it, God's moral per
fections demand satisfaction ; justice links the sin and punish
ment together ; and the recompense is uniformly proportioned
to what is deserved. We find the statement adduced again and
again, both in the Old Testament and in the New : " Vengeance
is Mine; I wOl repay, saith the Lord" (Eom. xii. 19; Heb. x.
30). The meaning of that signfficant statement is, that puni
tive justice belongs essentially to God as a perfection of the
divine nature ; that it belongs to no other but to Himself, except
in so far as He has been pleased to delegate it in certain special
cases to the magistrate acting as His representative ; and that
in consequence of this divine perfection, wherever moral evil is
committed, natural evE, or pimishment corresponding to it,
must ensue.
a. But here we are met by the latitudinarian tendencies of
the age, which take exception to the necessity of the atonement,
on the ground that we are to view God only as occupying the
paternal relation to mankind. Not a few repudiate from this
supposed vantage-ground, which has a foothold in Scripture, all
the representations otherwise given of God as a lawgiver and a
judge. They wiE have it, that we are to conceive of God only
as a source of goodness, or as a fountam of influences, but not as
the sovereign Lord or moral Governor ; that His dominion is only
that of a father ; that the divine laws whoEy differ from human

56 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
laws sanctioned by threats and punishments ; and that, when
God does punish in any case, it is as a father, and not as a
judge. By such representations, which are partly the specula
tions of a false phEosophy, partly the after-thoughts of men
writing El the interest of a tendency, the modern assailants of
the necessity of the atonement would change laws into counsels,
and punishments into corrections. They would sunder the link
between sin and punishment, on which, as wiE appear m the
sequel, aE reEgion and aE morals depend ; for nothing could
appear more detrimental to human weEare than the cEcidation
of the doctrine that men are irresponsible to a judge.
The only thing that entitles this speculation to any weight
is, that it professes to have a biblical sanction. Far be it from
our thoughts to ignore the Fatherhead of God and the tender
relation formed by grace between Him and His children ; hut
when men come into this relationship, which henceforth
exempts them from everything properly penal, that is the
privEege of saints, not of natural men. It is a gift of grace,
not a right of nature nor a universal boon ; for aE are by nature
the children of wrath (Eph. ii. 3). It cannot be affirmed that
it belongs indiscriminately to aE men, unless we obEterate the
distinction between converted and unconverted men. But God's
Fatherhead does not exclude His relation as a lawgiver and a
judge. We rather affirm, without entering into a new question
foreign to our undertaking, that the one rests upon the other.
But the answer to aE these modern theories, which are
advocated with the avowed purpose of withdrawing the nund
from the juEcial relations of God, and so impugnmg the
necessity of the atonement, is,^that they run counter to the
entEe scope and spEit of that ancient revelation in which
Jesus was nourished up to manhood, and which He expressly
declares He did not come to destroy, but to fulfil. Unless
men are prepared to make a violent severance between the
Old and New Testament, and bring the one into violent
coEision with the other, to the obvious injury of both, these

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 57
notions must be set aside as whoEy out of keeping with the
Old Testament, and as having no warrant in the New. The
expressions which describe divine justice as a perfection proper
to the Supreme Being, and prompting Him to punish trans
gressors, are pecuEarly emphatic and strong (Gen. xviii. 25 ;
Ps. xi. 5-7; Ps. xcvii 2; Ps. L 21). The divine displeasure at
sin, and His holy hatred of it, are forcibly deKneated as the
impelling cause of punishment (Hab. i 13; Prov. vi. 16).
When He revealed His name and memorial in aE generations.
He designated HimseE as the God who by no means clears the
guEty (Ex. xxxiv. 7) ; and in the immutable law, which is the
transcript of His perfections. He is represented as a jealous
God, visiting iniquity upon them that hate Him (Ex. xx. 5-7).
There are passages which show that God is not only extoEed
by His saints on earth, but by the saints above, for the exercise
of punitive justice (Deut. xxxii 43; Eev. xix. 6).
h. It is further urged, m the interest of the same tendency,
that the visitations commonly caEed punishments are only the
natural consequences of sin. This would indeed overthrow
the necessity of the atonement, and also its possibility; for
it involves the bearing of positive punishment in the room of
others. But the whole Scriptures, from first to last, are replete
with instances of positive punishments. The deluge, the over
throw of Sodom and Gomorraih; the case of Pharaoh, of Nadab
and Abihu, of Korah; the expulsion and destruction of the
Canaanites ; and, in a word, the whole history of God's trans
actions with His .own people and with other nations, contain
the most obvious examples of positive punishments, — not' the
mere consequences or natural concomitants of a course of con
duct. We caE these positive punishments rather than arbitrary ;
which is not so suitable an epithet, nor so applicable.
AE the biblical statements argue the existence of positive
punishments. Thus, when we read of "the wrath to come"
(Matt. iE. 7), which does not foEow sin immeEately, and by
mere natural sequence, we have a proof of positive punish-

58 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ment. When we read oi forgiveness, what does the term imply
but the remission of a certain retributive doom or recompense
which is not the mere natural concomitant of sin ? Without
the idea of positive punishment emanating from the punitive
intervention of God, we could not ex^plain, in any adequate
sense, the doctrine of retribution; for how could there be a
retribution or recompense of reward, E sin were foEowed by no
other consequences than such as are but the natural issues or
results of a course of conduct in the direct order of sequence ?
Does this not properly begin, in the fuE sense, after the great
judgment? The evils which are naturaEy connected with
sin, and which are manEold, are, in truth, of a different sort
from the punishments which are infficted by the intervention
of the judge. To give the name of punishments, indeed, to
the natural consequences of sin, is a faEacious use of language,
and contrary to the dictates of a sound understanding. When
men express themselves loosely, they may so speak of the con
nection between conduct and experience. But m the proper
use of terms we understand by punishment the suffermg which
is dEectly and expressly awarded by the sentence of a judge^
not that which foEows by the mere law of sequence. Hence,
when punishment is justly inflicted, as in the case of the great
retribution awarded by the just Judge, it is for sin committed
or for injury done, by which the moral Governor is aggrieved.
It thus differs from the natural effects of sin. It differs, too,
from correction or chastisement, which aims at something pro
spective in connection with one whom we only seek to impress
with a salutary fear, or to deter from a wayward course.
c. But the same impugners of the necessity of the atonement
take exception to the above-mentioned doctrine at a point still
further back : they argue that God cannot be said to be wronged
or injured. They maintain that this language can be fitly
enough held when it is appEed to an earthly monarch, whose
authority is hurt by the violation of his laws and by the dis
honour done to him, but that the Supreme God is far exalted

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENT. 59
above wrong or injury. There could not exist two opinions
that this is indisputably true, if it were a question of man's
goodness extending to God, or of man's rebellion tending to the
prejudice of God's essential blessedness; but it is a question
of His declarative glory, and of His relation to the world,
existing only to bring back to Hioa a revenue of praise. The
rational mteEigences, created to be a mirror of His perfections,
bring back this revenue of praise by cordial dependence, by
the subjection of theE wiU to the wiE of God, and by being an
eye to trace His wisdom and goodness. Certainly, God cannot
be deprived of anything that is His by the sinner. But it does
not foEow that He does not regard those as offenders who
rebel against Him. His relation to the creature is violated
by sin, and He cannot be an unconcerned spectator of the con
duct of His reasonable creatures ; and sin is in proportion to
the person against whom it is committed. The creature can
form plans and execute purposes which God regards as hateful.
He can do something that is opposed to the Evine will. He
can, however msignificant, insult, offend, and wrong God.
Hence punitive justice, which is an adorable perfection of
the divine nature, and worthy of Him who is infinitely perfect,
demands satisfaction for sin. It is as eternal and necessary as
anything belonging to His seE-existing nature. It must be
mamtained that God punishes sin as a satisfaction which must
needs be made to HimseE; that He punishes out of love to
His own justice, or because the righteous God loveth righteous
ness (Ps. xi. 7), — in other words, that He punishes out of love
to Himself. Nor can the retribution due to sin be omitted
from the very ground that He is possessed of immaculate
justice ; for of God it may be said that He caimot but punish
sin, just as we affirm of Him that He cannot Ee. God is thus
under obEgation to no third party, but to HimseE and to His
own perfections, to exercise punishment ; and He caimot forego
or renounce His right to do so unless there be an atonement
or vicarious sacrifice. But even then sin is duly punished.

60 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
But we must add that, in thus speaking of divine justice,
we must take in the fuE import of the word : we must avoid
one-sidedness. There is a preceptive rectitude, — that is, justice '
in that acceptation of it, whereby He demands what is His
due, or what He has a right to claim, — as weE as a judicial
rectitude. There is a punitive justice, accordmg to which
He punishes disobedience; and a remunerative justice, ac
cording to which He distributes reward, — the two latter
being different sides of the same exercise of this perfection,
This justice is met in both its aspects — in its preceptive as
weE as judicial phase — ^by the active and passive obedience
of Christ, or by a subjection to the law in its precept
as weE as in its penalty. As the rights of God find their
adequate expression in the moral law, it is useful to survey
the doctrine under our consideration in the Eght of the divine
law, as weE as from the more abstract ground of the divine
justice. They cover each other; they explain each other. The
objection is often uttered : " Where does Scripture ever use the
expression current in discussions on the atonement, ' the satis
faction of divine justice ?'" But no one can presume to demand
authority for a phrase with which the former may be alter
nated, and say, " Where do we read of the necessity of ful
filling the divine law ?" After the Socinian discussions began,
and principaEy turned on the point of punitive justice, it be
came common to speak out on the necessity of satisfying divme
justice with more precision than had been used before. "What
the rationaEstic party repudiated, the evangelical Church
asserted as a precious and important truth; and in this way
the phraseology found its way into the Church's symbols, and
into current use. It became in course of time, however, to con
tract a certain one-sidedness, as the course of discussion was
narrowed to the inquEy, whether there was a judicial exercise
of justice. But the language ought to comprehend the function.
of the lawgiver as weE as of the judge ; and hence E is mi-
portant to interchange the expression "the satisfaction of

NECESSITY OF THE ATONEMENTj 61
divine justice" with the equivalent, but commonly less re
stricted, phrase, "the fulfilment of the divine law," — that is,
its fulfilment in the positive precept of love as weE as in the
endurance of the curse. This brings in the law as the true and
exhaustive expression of the divine rights. It is a bibEcal
phraseology somewhat broader, and entitled not indeed to
supersede the use of the former expression, but to be at least
alternated with it.
But we pass now to the inquiry. What express doctrine is
there from the mouth of Christ in regard to the necessity of the
atonement ? There are various aEusions expEcit or indEect to
the necessity of His atoning death.
John iii. 14: " So must the Son of Man he lifted up!' As
this text must be considered by itseE, we Emit our attention
at present to the import of the must here uttered by Christ.
Plainly, the necessity is not to be referred to the fact that the
prophets had foretold it. Though the faithfulness of God must
needs be maintained on account of the type, there was a further
reason, which must be traced up to the divine decree, and to
the diviu'C justice.-' It was not a mere necessity to fulfil the
type, but had its ground in the purpose of redemption, and in
the end to be attained. Some, toning down the language, would
represent it as arising from the present condition of the world,
as if the cross were only an occurrence befalEng Him in a
world of rebels, and where aE was out of course. But that
^ Though some interpreters limit the ^u to the necessity of fulfilling prophecy,
that plainly does not extract its meaning. Others, in a still more superficial
way, as Hofstede de Groot, explain it as a moral must, on account of the sinful
condition of men. He argues that Ssr differs from aviyxn, according to classical
usage. Of course it does : avxyxn would bring in the notion of physical neces
sity or constraint, if we were to follow the classical usage in elucidating the
difference between the two. But according to the language of Revelation, by
which alone we are guided in such questions, Ss7 is often used to denote that a
thing must be according to the faithfulness or justice of God, or word of God
(Matt. xvi. 2 ; Luke xvii. 25). Valckenaer says in his ScJioliai in iV T. : " Ab
ista ligandi virtute fluxit ea quae vulgo viget in Se/" significante decet, oportet. "
Marckius says on Se?: "Ex eterno et immutabili deoreto" {Hist. Exalt. Christi,
lib. i. cap. 10, sec. 15).

62 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
does not approach the meaning ; and the history of Jesus shows
that, except in so far as He chose to subject HimseE to the
course of things. He was exempt from theE power, and beyond
their reach. They could not touch Him tiU. His hour was
come. The words here uttered mean, that in order to heal and
save. He must needs be crucffied, — ^the must Eidicatmg a neces
sity flowing from God's decree, and' from His justice, E men
were to be saved.
There are utterances of Christ not less emphatic, though
spoken from another point of view.
Matt. xxvi. 42 : "If it he possible, let this cup pass from Me"
The argument from this utterance of Christ for the necessity of
His atoning work is of the strongest. There can be no reason
assigned why the cup did not pass from Him, except that the
divine claims required the endurance for the expiation of sin.
The only-begotten Son, notwithstanding this request to the >
Father, who always heard Him, must drink the cup. And to
say that the impossibility of removing it did not spring from
the divine justice, is plainly untenable. It cannot be supposed .
that, except on the ground of indispensable necessity, God
would be so inflexible as to visit His Son with aE that was
comprehended in that cup. The suffering was mdispensahle-<
the atonement was necessary — ^that the cup of suffermg might
pass from His people.'
The same thing is proved by passages which describe the
irremediable consequences of neglecting the atoning work of
Christ. The result of not beEeving on the crucffied Christ is
condemnation (John iii. 18).
Mark viii. 37 : " What shall a man give in exchange [better,
what ransom shaE a man give] for his soul ?" These words occur
in a connection which contains an aEusion to the rejection or
denial of Christ, and are intended to teach that there is a
ransom attainable through the reception of Christ, but no ,
ransom to such as neglect the opportunity, or depart this life
1 See Triglandius, Antapologia, cap. 4, p. 73.

FIRST CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAYINGS. 63
without finding the only sacrffice. He vEtuaEy says, There
is no more sacrifice for sin, since they have denied Me, the only
ransom or means of deliverance. But this indisputably aEudes
to a ransom, and takes for granted its necessity, — implying that
it is only found m Jesus, who has expiated sin, and paid the
ransom m the sinner's place.
The whole question of the necessity of the atonement is
also taken for granted in the Intercession of Christ. He pleads
on a ground of justice as well as mercy, recognising a demand
which had been made, and pleading a satisfaction which had
been rendered.
John xvE. 25 : " 0 righteous Father, the world hath not known
Thee," etc. Our Lord bases His intercession on the rectitude or
justice of God, when He prays that they who had been given
Him might be with Him in His glory. Though there is a
gracious reward conferred upon the saints for every work done,
these words of Christ cannot refer to any recompense of that
nature, because it is not of strict justice. But our Lord can
appeal to justice when He asks the eternal glorffication of His
redeemed and their fellowship with Him where He is ; for He
merited eternal Efe for them, and at the costly price of His
passion. It is righteous that the people of Christ should reign
in Efe with Him and through Him. As the justice of God was
displayed on Christ and satisfied by Him ; as He had met the
demand, " This do, and thou shalt live," He can appeal to the
rectitude of God that His people may be put m possession of
the reward. And this presupposes the necessary demand of
the atonement.
SEC. XII. — THE FIRST CLASSIFICATION OF THE SAYINGS INTO THOSE
WHICH REPRESENT CHRIST AS THE SIN-BEARER, AND THEN AS
THE WILLING SERVANT,
There are undoubtedly two sets of sayings, or two closely
aEied but stiE distinct views of Christ's earthly career, that are

64 SAYmGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
presented to our minds as descriptive of the nature of the
atonement m the sayings which we have now to notice. The
Lord represents Himself just as He was represented both before
and, after His coming, as the curse-bearer, and as the active
doer of a work of obedience. Though these two views, as
different sides of truth, may be said to presuppose and to
imply each other, they must needs be separately apprehended.
His position as a sin-bearer is of course involved in the very
notion of an atonement. But the other side of His mediatorial
work — His position as an active doer of a work of obedience-^'
would have been necessary though man had never fallen ; and
the fact of the faE cannot of course exempt man, or exempt
Christ as our surety, from the obEgation. These two elements
may be and must be distinguished by us in idea, but they
cannot be disjoined or isolated in this great transaction, as if
they were to be represented as separately meritorious. On
the one hand, as the mere active doer of man's primeval work
of obedience. His incarnation would not have reached our
case, or really have availed us, had He not also been, in the
fuEest sense of the term, a sin-bearer. And just as little would
His vicarious suffering, as the sin-bearer, have availed us
without the holy promptitude, and the cordial delight of the
righteous servant in bearing what His Father imposed according
to His divine perfections. The two integral parts of Christ's
work are not to be considered as E they were separately
meritdrious.-' As a curse-bearer Christ is first presented to us. This comes
out, as we shaE see, very clearly in His own consciousness,
His language proving that it was never absent from His mind.
But as this was so essential a point, the Baptist's testimony to
' These two elements of Christ's work are well delineated in their unity in
two recent German works, viz. : Thomasius' Christi Person und Werk, 3te
Theil, 1859 ; and PhUippi's Kirchliche GlavAenslehre, iv., 1863, The work
devolving on Christ as the surety of men, and of sinning men, is undouhfedly ;
twofold. And yet the obedience, far from being divided into two distinct
achievements, is one obedience in the twofold sphere of action and suffering.

THE Sm-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 65
Him, spoken in His hearing, and as an objective echo of Christ's
consciousness, was added to show that Jesus appeared as the
sin-bearer. We shaE begin with this, and next take up Christ's
own testimony from His own consciousness.
SEC. xni. — THE baptist's TESTIMONY TO JESUS AS THE
SIN-BEARER.
" Behold the Lamb of God, which taheth away [better, beareth]
the sin of the world!' — JOHN i. 29.
Here the Baptist, looking upon Jesus coming to him, pomts
Him out to the multitude as the person concernmg whom he
had a commission to preach, and dEects attention to Him as
the heaven-appomted sacrifice that was to expiate the sin, not
of the Jews only, but of the world. It is a testimony that
stands as a heading to the whole series or class of simEar
sayings, which represents the Lord Jesus as bearing our sins in
His own body. ^ To whatever occasion we may trace it, whether
to the pastoral country where it was uttered, or to the recent
baptism of Jesus leading John's mind into a new Ene of in
quEy, or to the passover near at hand — and aE these occasions
have been conjectured, — the thought itseE, that one was to be
a sm-bearer for others, was famiEar to the ancient Church. The
identification of the Lamb of God with Jesus of Nazareth was
the only thing in this testimony of the Baptist specificaEy new ;
and He is called the Lamb of God, just as He is styled " the
Bread OF God " (John vi. 33), partly because He was graciously
provided by God, partly because He was the truth of the types,
or the reaEty of .what was foreshadowed by the Lamb in the
old economy; or, it may be, the Lamb that belongs to God,^
— that is, which is to be offered as a sacrifice to Him.
Whether the entire idea is borrowed from Isa. liE. 7, and ver.

'E.g. 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Isa. liii. 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. U.
' So Storr and Meyer ; the former of whom quotes from the Septnagint, hrixi eicu
(Lev, xxi, 16), E

66 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
12, is a moot pomt, WhEe some affirm this, others caE E in
question, because Isaiah only likens the servant of the Lord to,
a'lamb led to the slaughter, but does not caE Him a sacrificial
lamb. It is not an express quotation, and therefore the ques
tion is not one that caEs for a decision. If it did, we might
perhaps bring the two views together by assuming that it was
the sacrificial lamb to which Isaiah too referred ; but as it is
not a formal quotation, it is unnecessary to pronounce a positive ,
decision upon this point either way.
The question is raised. What particular lamb had the Baptist
in his eye? Some hold that the aEusion is to the paschal
lamb, whEe others have referred it to the daily sacrffice. The
words themselves do not decide the question ; and the difficulty
encountered in this and in aH simEar allusions to the lamb is
due to the theories of commentators, a,nd may be said to arise
in large measure, if not whoEy, from the too artificial distri
bution of the sacrifices to which many expositors have pre
cipitately committed themselves. Thus, under the speE of too
much system, one earnest advocate ^ of the atonement answers
the question what particular lamb is referred to, in this strange
way : — " Not the paschal lamb," says he, " for th9,t had no rela
tion to the bearing of sin ; not the morning and evening sacrifice,,
as that was a burnt-offering ; nor could he have thought of a
sin-offering generaEy, as a lamb was but seldom used for that"
This embarrassment, denying precisely what should be affirmed, ,
grows out of the compEcated sacrfficial system which has been
in vogue for a number of years past. On the contrary, the
aEusion is just to aE those sacrffices where a lamb was slain.
The most natural explanation is, that John aEudes not to any
one particular offering, but, in a comprehensive way, to aU. those
propitiatory sacrffices where a lamb was used to bear or to take
away the penalty of sin. He first of aE included the paschal,
lamb, which was a sin-offering in the fuEest significance of the
1 Prof. Doedes, in Jaarboecken voor Wetenschappelijke Theologie, p. 305.
Utrecht, 1846.

THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 67
word. This offering may be viewed, indeed, as the fundamental
sacrifice of the covenant people. The blood — the principal
matter in it — primarEy referred to sin, and was offered to God
to make atonement, separating Israel from the world to be a
pecuEar people. Next, as to the effect or consequences of the
sacrffice, it secured the safety of theE first-born when divine
judgments feE upon the Egyptian idols and theE votaries, as
weE as gamed for the IsraeEtes theE safe exodus from Egypt,
Nor were the subsequent passovers mere commemorations of
what had been, but continued to secure what was at first con
ferred, and partook of the same character with the first.
The Baptist in this testimony no less included the lamb of
the burnt-offering, or the morning and evening sacrifice, which
was doubled on the Sabbath. Twice every day a lamb was
thus offered in the temple. That the burnt-offermg contained
an atoning element is clear, since it is said to be accepted for a
man to make atonement (Lev. i. 4). As to the difference be
tween it and the sin-offering, it did not Ee in this, that the
burnt-offering was not expiatory, as is too often said, but in
this, that it was not offered for some sms in particular, but for
aE;^ and it was either voluntary or according to divine ap
pointment. Nor did the Baptist less include the lamb of the trespass-
offering, which was offered when some defilement excluded the
worshipper from the congregation of the Lord. We read that
in certain cases a lamb was to be slain as a trespass-offermg
(Lev. xiv. 11 ; Num. vi. 12).
Thus, in the threefold distribution of the sacrffices to which
we have adverted, we find that a lamb was offered to obtain a
legal purffication from ceremonial defilement. The assertion
often made and repeated in the mterest of a certain tendency,
that no lamb was offered in sacrffices which were intended to
make an expiation or atonement for sin, is thus destitute of aE
foundation. 1 See Oehler, in Herzog's Encyclop. u. OpfercuUus.

68 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
But the word in this testimony which has the chief emphasis
is that which is rendered, "taketh away." The majority of
expositors render the phrase, " beareth sin :" some prefer the
rendering, " taketh away ;" ^ others comprehend both, and among
these is Calvin; but the one thought does not exclude the
other. If we render, " that taketh away," we must understand
it thus : that taheth away hy hearing it. If we render, " that
beareth sin," we must understand it thus : that heareth, in order
to talee away. On either view, it is sacrificial language. We ,
prefer heareth.
The two clauses of this statement are so closely connected
and so mutuaEy interwoven both in point of thought and
language, that they cannot be taken apart or construed apart.
To give a complete idea, the one clause is necessary to the other;
and if we take this guiding principle with us to its interpreta
tion, we shaE find that aE the one-sided views which tend to
alter the true meaning and import of the language can be easily
set aside by simply maintaining the connection of the clauses;
thus : —
1, Some hold that in this saying we have nothing beyond a
figure or comparison, and that the aEusion is made simply to
the moral innocence and meekness of Jesus, Such a con
struction might perhaps be aEowed, if Jesus were Ekened or
compared to a lamb ; but the conjunction of these two clauses
cannot be limited to the bare notion of purity or mnocence.
Plainly, the first clause is not a simple comparison, — ^it is the
use of a type ; and such a transfer of names or interchange of
language, natural enough in a divinely-instituted type, is out of
keeping with the language of comparison. The twofold notion
here put together — that of a lamb and that of a sin-bearer—
precludes the supposition that we have brought before us
nothing beyond the idea of a meek and patient person suffering •
under inEgnity a,nd wrong.
^ On the phrase i a'tfm, see Meyer on John i. 29, who prefers the rendering,
' ' who taketh away. "

THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 69
2. Nor can we refer the words to the effects of Christ's in
struction as a good and gentle Teacher. It is not possible, on
any principle of interpretation, to regard these two propositions
or sayings as equivalent : " Christ bears the sin of the world,"
and " Christ has pointed out the way to the world to be on its
guard against sin for the future." The Baptist could not mean
to say that Christ makes men wiser and better by His doctrine,
and that in this manner He takes away or bears the sin of the
world. But suppose such a sense could, without violent strain
ing, be put upon the latter clause, it must be remembered that
it does not stand isolated and apart. If it were for a moment
aEowed that the Lord Jesus could be said to bear sin or to
remove it by dEecting men to the pursuit of virtue, a,nd by
supplying the motives and warnings, the exhortations and
encouragements, which are fully sufficient to turn them away
from evil, it must not be forgotten that He is said to do this
only as the Lamb of God. The language is plainly borrowed
from the Mosaic worship ; and it cannot refer to the moral im
provement resulting from the instructions of a teacher, but to
the effect of a sacrifice or to the merited punishment of sin.
3. Nor wiE this union of the two clauses, so necessary to the
fuE sense, permit us to refer the language to inward deEverance
from sin. This is a sacrificial deEverance from sin ; and how
ever closely the moral, deliverance may stand — and always will
be found to stand — in an inseparable connection with it, it is
not a subjective deEverance alone. And who does not see, in
point of fact, that experience contradicts that moral interpre
tation and shows its incorrectness ? In no such sense has
Christ taken any moral evE from the world, and removed the
weaknesses and imperfections of our faEen nature.
All these comments throw humanity back upon itseE, and
upon its own strength and' resources in the last resort, instead
of presenting to the mind the adequate object of faith; and
therein Ees their danger.
The Baptist, in speaking of sin, speaks of it in the singular,

70 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
" the sin of the world." Not that he had in his eye merely the
root-sin,^ the original sin of the race : rather, the sins of man
kind are viewed as a coEective whole, and regarded as a heavy
burden, and the Lamb of God is said to bear whatever has the
character of sm, or the whole mass and assemblage of it, —
the term " world " comprehending men who Eved before the
nativity of Christ as weE as after it. Some have indeed
taken the word SiN as synonymous with punishment, but the
phrase takes in sin with the guEt and consequences involved
in it. But the phrase, " to bear sin," demands more particular ,
consideration. "Wherever the language occurs, it carries with
it the notion of an oppressive burden, or of penal endurance.
But let us consider the phrase in examples. It occurs, first, in
the sense of living under the frown or punitive hand of God:
thus the Israelites "bore their iniquity" according to the
number of the days in which they had searched out the land,
each day a year (Num. xiv. 34) : it is used as synonymous
with being guEty (Lev. v. 17; Num. v. 31): it is found
as equivalent to being cut off (Lev. xx. 17; Num. ix. 13) : it
occurs in the sense of being punished with death Q^xm.,
xviii. 22, 32. Compare also Ex. xxvEi 43; Lev. xxiv. 15).
In aE these instances "it refers to a person bearing his cm
sin. Where the reference, again, is to the sins of others, it
means to imdergo punishment for them, or to feel the penal
effects and the unpleasant consequences due to the sins of
others (Lam. v. 7 ; Ezek. xviE, 19), Hence, if we abide by the
usage of language, the phrase can only mean, in this passage, to
endure the penal consequences inseparable from the sins of
mankind. And as to the origin of the figure, it is taken from lifting a
burden in order to carry it, or to lay it on one's shoulders. But
as the language is sacrificial, it points to the victim bearing the
sin which the offerer laid upon it, by the laying on of the hand,
1 So Beza unhappily expounds it, referring to Rom, v, 12,

THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 71
The language, rightly understood, can only mean that Jesus
was put in connection with sin ; that He took SiN AS such,
and not the mere consequences of it, or the element of punish
ment alone; that. He bore sin considered as guEt in its relation
to the moral Governor ; that He was made the world's sm, and
bore it, — ^thus becoming, not personaEy but officiaEy, the proper
object of punitive justice, and enduring the penalty due to the
sins of mankind. The words prove that the work of Christ was a
provision for sin as such, — that is, for sin considered as demerit
and guEt ; and only as the atoning work of Christ is adapted
to this end, and divinely accepted, does it reverse the conse
quences of sin. A canon of easy appEcation is, that the inter
position of Christ implies that the burden of sin which was
transferred to Him pressed heavily on the- world, and that
mankind could not rid themselves of it, and could do nothing
to remove it ; and the language implies that the Lamb of God
made it His — His heritage or property, — bearing in His own
person what we had committed.
It must be noticed, further, that the verb heareth, which is
in the present tense, is not used as a prophecy,^ neither as an
aEusion to the constant efficacy of the sacrifice, ^ but as indi
cating that Jesus was even then the sin-bearer. He never in
fact appeared " without sin " during His humiliation (Heb. ix.
28) ; and His coming in the likeness of sinful flesh was at once
a proof that sin was borne by Him, and that this was already
a part of His satisfaction. He was, even then, bearing sin, and
many of the penal effects of it. It is a mistake to say, then,
that the thought of the passage is an aEusion to the aboEtion
of sin ; for the first idea of a sin-offering was not so much the
consuming of moral evE — ^though that undoubtedly foEows, and
is a necessary consequence at the next remove — as the bearing
of guQt. -And an IsraeEte dreading divine wrath ever thought
of the sin-offering in this light, as liberating him from its
burden or its pressure.
1 So Meyer on the verse. ^ So Hengstenberg on the verse.

72 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
As to the purpose for which the Lamb of God bore sin with
respect to mankind, it is not here distinctly stated in express
terms; but it can be easily inferred. With what conceivable
object can He be supposed to have placed HimseE in men's
stead, and to have borne their sin as a piacular victim, but with
a view to free or to redeem His people, and to exempt them from
their burden, — a burden which He bore in theE stead? This is
the obvious inference: any other interpretation is intolerable.
Nothing can be more forced and unnatural as an interpretation,
than to hold that Christ bore the sin of the world for any, other
object than to set His people free from their merited doom or
obligation. The whole burden or penalty and doom of sin
must be seen, accordingly, upon the Lamb of God, and as
borne by Him for others. He is an adequate and sufficient
atonement. Thus the Baptist, looking into the new economy from his
view-point in the Old Testament, fixes attention upon the
important place, or, rather, the paramount place, which the
doctrine of the atonement was to hold in Christianity, To a
religious Jew, indeed, looking for the accomplishment of pro
phecy, and for " the righteous servant " to be the reality of all '
the types and shadows, the new economy would not otherwise
have commended itself. He could not have accepted it unless
it had provided for the expiation of sin, to which the whole
Old Testament pointed. As the preparatory arrangement of
Judaism provided for the expiation of sin annually, so the
Baptist's words pointed to what adequately met this expecta
tion, — with this pecuEar difference, that it was a provision, not
for the Jews -only, but for the world. And it was spoken
probably in Christ's hearing as well as presence.
The atonement was equaEy important for aE mankind; and
hence it is that the Baptist announces with so much emphasis,
that it was a gracious provision, which comprehended a refer
ence to the world at large, wEhout distinction of nationahty,
Christ and His apostles were soon more clearly to unfold the

THE SIN-BEARmG LAMB OF GOD, 73
universaEty of this expiation, as a provision equaEy intended
for every tribe and country. And the exclamation Behold !
was meant to dEect attention to Him, and to invite aE who
were either burdened by a sense of sin, or expecting a vicarious
sacrifice by which it might be borne. This is incontrovertibly
the import of the words accorEng to the significance of
language and the connection of ideas.
To aE this interpretation, however, a twofold objection has
been raised by those who, under the influence of preconceived
ideas or phEosophical reasonings, have adopted views at
variance with the vicarious sacrffice of Christ. One doubt has
reference to the supposed extent of the Baptist's knowledge on
the subject of Christ's death ; and a second exception is taken
to this mode of interpretation, on the ground that this sense
cannot be held to be the uniform and constant import of the
phrase, " to bear sm." We must consider what force, if any,
attaches to these two objections.
1. As to the first objection, taken up and repeated in so
many quarters, it amounts to this: that the doctrine of the
atonement, as theologians now hold it, could not possibly have
been known to the Baptist, when so many of his contemporaries
were ignorant of it. To this objection it may suffice to answer,
that the vicarious sacrffice of the Messiah was weE known to
Isaiah, and to aE the ancient beEevers, who apprehended the
nature and signfficance of the types, or who saw the bearing of
the prophecies. Not only so : we may argue that John the
Baptist was instructed by his father, Zacharias ; and as the
redemption of Israel by a mediator was weE known to the
latter (Luke i. 77), the Baptist may weE be regarded, on this
ground alone, as possessing ¦ clearer and more accurate views
than were current among the Jews of his day, on the whole
subject of the Messiah's person and atonement. Besides, the
Baptist must have been weE acquainted with the Old Testa
ment Scriptures generaEy, and with Isaiah's prophecy in
particular (Isa. Eii.), when his very office was to go before Him

74 SAYINGS, OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
as His herald and forerunner. We should have been surprised
had no such testimony been given by the messenger who was
to go before His face, and who, according to Christ's own words,
was the greatest of those born of 'women. It would seem,
however, that John understood this truth, not merely by a
study of the law, and the prophets testEying to it, but also by
special revelation. And though the atonement is not again so
expressly mentioned by him except on the foEowing day
(John i 36), yet aE his teaching assumes it and presupposes it.
Nor can any doubt be drawn from the subsequent message of
inquEy, when he sent from the prison where he was confined
two of his disciples, to ascertain the Messiahship of Christ from
His own lips. The Baptist might desEe to meet some new
phase of doubt, either in his own mind or in the minds of the
disciples, blinded as they were by many prejudices.
2. The second objection is based upon the aEeged want of
uniformity or constancy of meaning attaching to the words,
" bearing sin," in the foiirfold appEcation in which it occurs.
Thns we find it applied — (1) to the sinner ; (2) to the sacrffice ;
(3) to the priest ; and (4) to God HimseE, As to the two first
there is little difficulty. It is common, however, to explain the
two latter applications, but especiaEy the last, as denoting "to
take away or to pardon sin." With regard to its application to
the priest, there is no cause for deviating from its ordinary
meaning. They were said to bear sin by eating of the sin-
offerings (Lev. X. 17); and the high priest was said to bear the
iniquity of the holy things in vEtue of the inscription. Holiness
TO THE Lord, as shadowing forth the hoEness of Christ engraven
on the plate worn upon his forehead (Ex. xxviii. 38). The
priesthood, holy by separation and by peculiar rites, partook of
the flesh of the sin-offering in order to point out that they
assimilated or incorporated with themselves the sacrifice or sin-
offering laden with the impurity of the worshipper, and which,
passing over to the victim, was thus consumed by being broughV
into connection with a divinely-appointed priesthood. AE this

THE Sm-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 75
pointed to a time when priest and sacrffice should be one.
Thus the phrase, " to bear sin," as applied to the p)riest, has the
same sense as in aE the other applications, though a typical one
adumbratmg a coining reaEty.
The main difficulty, however, connected with the phrase,
"to bear sin," is to determine whether we are able to maintain
this uniform sense, or whether we can show cause for abiding
by the same import of the phrase when it is appEed to God.
How can God be said to bear Sin ? And yet what warrant
have translators and expositors for deviating from the render
ing given to the phrase here and in Isa. liii, as weE as in many
similar passages, with a common consent ? The general inter
pretation of the phrase when it is appEed to God, is, that in
such a usage it can only mean, "to forgive iniquity." The
Septnagint led the way here, and has been implicitly fol
lowed ever since. AEve to the difficulty, it interpreted the
expression in this application of it : " to forgive iniquity ;"
and aE the subsequent expositors and lexicographers in the
Protestant churches, as weE as among the Fathers, foEowed in
the same direction. And thus the authorized EngEsh version
translates the expression, "to forgive iniquity," wherever it
occurs in this usage. (See Ex. xxxiv. 7 ; Mic. vE. 18 ; Ps. xxxii
5, b:xxv. 3 ; Isa, xxxiii. 24 ; Ex. xxxE. 32.) Now, is that a
warrantable interpretation ? Though it is a question which
requires to be weighed with the utmost philological nicety, as
weE as with the utmost caution in a theological point of view,
yet it deserves to be seriously pondered whether preconceived
notions as to what is a fitting or unfitting mode of speech as
appEed to God may not in this case have exercised a mislead
ing influence, and whether that fear Ed not lead to a wrong
decision in the present instajice. It is possible that the ordi
nary solution may turn out to be a wrong one, and may yet
come to be repudiated with as common a consent as it has been
adopted since the Septnagint led the way in introducing it.
On the other hand, it is held by many writers, ancient and

76 sayings of JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
modern, who oppose themselves to the vicarious satisfaction—*
by the Socinians of a former day, and by some eminent names'
in our own time, — ^that the ^.ppEcation of this phrase to God
decides upon its import wherever it occurs. They wiU. have a
uniform and constant interpretation ; and, on this account, they
vehemently urge and maintain that the phrase cannot in any
case mean, to bear sin, to expiate iniquity, or to satisfy for it,
because God cannot be said to bear sin. The opponents of the
vicarious sacrffice or substitution insist on a unEorm mterpre-
tation, because they think, that by this means they have an
incontrovertible argument in their favour.
Most of those who maintain the doctrine of substitution
have felt the difficulty of asserting a unEorm and constant in
terpretation, aflid have distinguished between the sacrffice and
the priest, between the sinner and the pardoner. And even
those ^ who are disposed to abide by some shade of the ordinary
meaning, conclude that in the passages where God is said " to
bear sin," it can only mean a forbearance to punish it, as con
trasted with taking vengeance, or a patient bearing of the wrong
for a time.
One eminent writer,^ whEe discussing the phrase m all
its various applications, contends .for a uniform and constant
sense even in those cases where it is applied to God. (Eder
holds that, so used in the Old Testament, the phrase must he
understood as referring to the Son of God, and to His work as
the bearer of sin. "Ex. xxxiv. 7 is objected," says he," to our
argument, that the adversaries may not seem to have said nothing.
The purport of theE statement is: as the words to hear sin, when
used respecting God, do not mean that He laid them on Him
self to satisfy for them, it foEows that when we read the same
words respecting Christ, they hav.e not this meaning. But if

1 See Hofman's Schriftheweis, vol. ii. p. 285 : "Gott tragtdie Siinde, nimmt
Sie hin, lasst Sie sich gefaUen ohne Sie zu strafen."
2 See Cocceius' Hebrew Lexicon on the word. Compare, too, Stockii Glamt.
3 (Eder in his Refutation of the Bacovian Catechism (Lat), p. 802.

THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 77
you inquire whether the Socinians themselves beEeve that the
signffication of the words take away in John i. 29 is the same as
at Ex. xxxiv. 7, they wEl most certainly deny it ;• for, say they,
God took away sm by forgiving it, Christ by pointing out the
way by which we may deEver ourselves. But yet these men
are not ashamed to object to us a passage which they them
selves understand othervdse. But let us come nearer to the
pomt. I deny, and persist in denying, that the expression, to hear
sin, in Ex. xxxiv. 7, and in such like texts, has any other mean
ing that that which is found in so many passages elsewhere. Nor
does that passage treat of God the Father, but of God the Son,
who is truly the sin-hearer." " We have consulted and weighed
with considerable care aE the passages which contain this phrase,
and that can be referred to in this sense. They are: Mic. vii. 1 8 ;
Ps. xxxii. 5, with which I wordd compare verse 1 and Isa. xxxiE.
24; Ps. Ixxxv. 3; Ex. xxx. 32, — all which are so beautEuEy ex
pounded of Christ the sin-bearer, that nothing can be finer."
This interpretation may not be accepted by aE. It may
seem to some an incongruous phraseology to apply to God
vicarious language of this nature, or it may appear to others
too much of a New Testament view to occur to the be
Eevers in the remote past. But some expressions, long treated
as strong anthropomorphisms, cease to be so when we appre
hend them in connection with the Messiah, who was not only
the angel of the covenant, but Jehovah, God of Israel Thus
the phrase, " they shall look upon Me whom they have pierced,"
was regarded by the Septnagint as only a figure of speech, or
as an obvious anthropomorphism ; and it would have been so
regarded by every one but for the apostoEc commentary^ upon
it; which leaves to the New Testament Church no room to
doubt its Eteral appEcation to the pierced and wounded Saviour.
There are other turns of expression and forms of speech, the
fuE import of which is evolved only by the incarnation and by
the atonement ; and this may be one of them.
' See John xix. 37.

78 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
We have only further to add, in connection with this inter
pretation, that when these words are put together, it will be
found that the Son of God took sin upon Him, and bore it
simultaneously with the taking of the flesh, nay, in a sense
even prior to the actual fact of the incarnation. The pecuEar
character of the Lord's humanity, which was, on the one hand,
pure and holy, and yet, on the other, a curse-bearing humanity,
plainly shows that in some sense He was the sin-bearer from
the moment of His sending, and, therefore, even prior to His
actual incarnation. And when it is said that God sent His Son
in the Ekeness of sinful flesh, and for sin condemned sin m the
flesh, we have the very same thing. Whether, therefore, we
affirm or not that the phrase, " to bear sin," in its application to
God, treats of God the Son, it may suffice to say that it refers to
the God of redew.ption. There is, I think, ground to hold that
the same constant and uniform rendering should be retamed
even in this connection. This wEl intimate that sin was borne
by God, not alone in the sense of forbearance, but in such a
sense that it was laid on the sin-bearer, to be expiated by a
divine fact in the true and proper sense. We assert, then, the
constant and uniform sense of this phraseology in aE its four
fold appEcation ; and when chaUenged to go through with our
interpretation, we reply that we do go through with it. And
certainly this last usage furnishes no loophole through which
its proper force can be evaded, as has been so often attempted
by Socinianizing writers, in former as weE as in more recent
times. Thus the Lamb of God appeared without inherent sin or
taint of any kmd, but never without the sin of others. The sin
of man was not first imputed to Him or borne by Him when
He hung on the cross, but in and with the assumption of man's
nature, or, more precisely, in and with His mission. The very
form of a servant, and His putting on the Ekeness of sinful
flesh, was an argument that sin was aEeady transferred to Him
and borne by Him; and not a single moment of the Lord's

THE SIN-BEARING LAMB OF GOD. 79
earthly life can be conceived of in which He did not feel the
burden of the divine wrath which must otherwise have pressed
on us for ever. Hence, " to bear sin" is^ the phrase of God's
word for freeing us from its punishment.
Because He bore sin, and was never seen without it, it may
be affirmed that the mortaEty which was comprehended in the
words, " Thou shalt surely die " — that is, aE that was summed
up in the wrath and curse of God, — was never reaEy separated
from Him, though it had its hours of culmination and its
abatements. Hence, without referring further at present to the
character of the suffering, it evidently appears that, as the sin-
bearer. He all through lEe discerned and felt the penal charac
ter of sin, the sense of guEt, not personal, but as the surety
could realize it, and the obligation to divme punishment for
sins not His own, but made His own by an official action ; and
they who evacuate of their true significance these deep words,
" that beareth the sms of the world, " aEowing Christ to have
no connection with sin, and only dwelEng on His purity and
spotless innocence as our example — they who wEl not have
Him as a sin-bearer, who took sin to HimseE, and wrapped
Himself in it — are the most sacrilegious of robbers and obscurers
of His grace. This deep abasement is the glory of His in
carnation. If, then, we put together the elements of this testimony to
the Lord's atonement, they are these: (1) It was of God's gracious
appointment — " the Lamb of God ; " (2) it essentially lay in
the vicarious element of the transaction, — it was the bearing of
the sin of others, or of the world; (3) it was a bearing or a
penal endurance ; (4) it was sacrfficial, being the truth of the
shadows in the previous economy ; (5) it was without distinc
tion of nationaEty.
It foEows, that if Christ bore sin. His people do not need to
bear it. It foEows, also, that since God has appomted this
way of deEverance, there is no other way.

80 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
SEC. XrV.— THE FREQUENTLY REPEATED NAME, THE SON OF MAN,
FURTHER EXHIBITING HIM AS THE SIN-BEARER.
This phrase, which has, wherever it occurs, some reference
to a work of substitution, is much in our Lord's mouth. Of all
the titles He assumed, indeed, E is by far the most frequent.
No fewer than eighty instances occur, or, E we deduct the re
petitions, fifty-five instances where He announces HimseE hy
this title. -And it cannot escape observation, that He makes
use of this name not less systematically than He abstains from
the title Messiah. The reason of this wEl perhaps be obvious,
when we ascertain the true import of the phrase by which,
as wEl appear. He eighty times, either more or less dEectly,
refers to some phase of His representative work in itself, or in
respect to its reward. Not to forestaE, however, what must he
proved, we shaE now proceed to investigate its meaning in the
contexts, in the light of the very various comments which
it has received. We select only a "few of the interpretations for
special notice.
1. The expression. Son of Man, cannot be limited to a
description of His person, irrespective of His office. The
patristic writers, and those who foEow them, for the most part.
stop short at this. But the title will be found to be much
wider and more extensive in its meaning. The incarnation is
in it; but that is not aE. It may seem, indeed, that when
Christ calls Himself Son of Man (John Ei. 13), and in the next
verses the Son of God, He means merely to describe His whole
person by one of His natures, the only way by which the God-
man can be spoken of (John iii 16). But that, though plau
sible, wiE be found to be untenable. The phrase, " Son of Man,"
is more than a designation of His person described by its
human side, or by the humanity belonging to it.
2. Nor is it a mere Hebraism or cEcumlocution equivalent
to the simple expression, Man. This sense, though countenanced
by many eminent names of the Eeformation age, can no longer

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 81
be maintained. We find that men and the Son of Man are
ideas too clearly distmguished and contrasted in many passages
by the Lord HimseE, to render this interpretation even probable
(John Ei. 13; Matt. xii. 32). StEl less can the phrase be so
evacuated of significance as to denote merely a certain man,
this man, or the man here present, — comments betraying a low
exegetical sense, and properly the growth of a rationaEstic age.
They have only to be repudiated.
3. Nor can we interpret the phrase as denoting, the man by
eminence — ^the most exceEent of aE men. Modern commen
tators, with whom this is the favourite view, take it for the
most part as a title of dignity and distinction ; and they think
themselves warranted to deduce this comment from Daniel's
vision, where one like the Son of Man is brought near to the
Ancient of days to receive dominion (Dan. vii. 13). But we
shaE find that it is not properly a title of dignity or emmence
at aE, though the latter idea is often mentioned in connection
with it as a reward. And those who Emit the aEusion to
Daniel's vision of His kingdom lose sight of two things, — (1) the
foundation on which this kingdom is reared — His abasement ;
and (2) the important rule of interpretation suppEed to us by
the apostle : " Now that He ascended, what is it but that He
also descended first into the lower parts of the earth ? " (Eph.
iv. 9). Not dignity and eminence, but abasement and mean
ness, are the ideas expressed by the title. Thus, when God
addressed a prophet with the designation " son of man," it was
to remind him of his meanness as dust and ashes, lest he should
be exalted by the revelations made to him.
We may here make one or two ¦preliminary observations, as
elements for dEecting our inquEy, or tending to aid us in
arriving at the import of the phrase.
1. It must strike every one who attentively examines our
Lord's use of this title, that we never find it used after His
resurrection. The reason seems to be, that it was not descrip
tive of His resurrection state ; that it belonged only to the

82 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
days of His flesh'; and that there was no longer any occasion
for using it, when He had left behind Him the servant form in
which He appeared among men. This is further confirmed by
a striking exjpression which He addressed to the disciples in
the hearing of the Pharisees : " The days wiE come when ye
wiE desEe to see one of the days of the Son of Man, and ye shall
not see it " (Luke xvE. 22) ; which can only 'mean one of those
days they then enjoyed, or the days of His flesh. They would
wish them back again. This decides on the meaning of our
phrase. 2. Nor does He ever use the expression. Son of Man, in
His prayers to God, — as E it were not in keeping with the
peculiarly close relation subsisting between Him and God the
Father. 3. Neither does He use it in His capacity of teacher. When
annoimcing any truth, or expounding any principle of duty. He
says, " VerEy, verEy, I say unto you." Nor is it any exception
to this observation, that we find Him saying in the parable of
the tares, " The Sower of the good seed is the Son of Man." For
that aEusion is not to the function or office of a teacher dealing
with aE men indiscriminately, but to the efficacious Ulummation
which the Lord dispenses as the head of His Church, on the
ground or basis of the priestly work which He had already
finished. 4. Another observation forces itseE on the attention of
every one who examines the several passages whete this
phrase occurs. It is a title used only by Christ HimseE. He
is seldom or ever so caEed by His disciples. He appropriates
to HimseE the title, Son of- Man, as the special definition of
His condescending grace; and as displaying to those who
heard Him, not the divine relation, which was natural and
proper to Him, but the new condition which He had taken to
Himself, and into which He had stepped down, for the attain
ment of an object worthy of such abasement. And when
Stephen on one occasion uses the phrase, " Son of Man," he

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 83
nearly quotes our Lord's own words, before the same council, at
His trial (Acts vii. 66). And when John uses it, in Eevelations,
it is only a quotation of Daniel.
As to the origin of the title, there seems no cause to doubt
that it has a primary reference to the words in Ps. vEi. 4 :
" What is man, that Thou art' mindful of him ? and the son of
man, that Thou visitest him?" The word for man in the ori
ginal does not signEy the high and eminent, but the opposite, —
the low, despised, and miserable. The same phrase is foimd in
other passages in this acceptation ; as, for example, in Ps. xlix. 2,
Job xxv. 6. The psalm, as appEed to the second man, means
that he seemed so utterly neglected and abandoned, that there
was no hope of his being ever visited by God or rescued from
the doom into which he had sunk as the substitute of others.
This is plainly the apostoEc comment given in the Epistle to
the Hebrews (Heb. ii. ,9, 10) ; and our Lord's use of the phrase
ology is in harmony with it. The sight of his low condition
caEed forth that language from the psaEnist; and when our
Lord appEes-the language to HimseE as the most descriptive
of all names, it must be understood as akin to the expressions,
" I am a worm and no man" (Ps. xxii. 6) ; "A man of sorrows
and acquainted with grief" (Isa. liE. 3). The expression inti
mates that He was not only man of man, but that " He made
HimseE of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a
servant, and was made in the Ekeness of man ; and being found
in fashion as a man. He humbled Himself, and became obedient
unto death." The phrase, then, is not a mere cEcumlocution nor
a mere synonym for Jesus : it has a proper significance. We
think it wiE be found, on a fuE and accurate examination of aE
the several passages, that the foEowing elements are contained
in this title : true humanity or the real assumption of our natui-e
by the Son of God;, the idea of the second man or second
Adam; the abasement, grief, and shame with which He was
acquainted during His earthly lot.
1. The first of these three ideas is accepted by aE evangeEcal

84 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
men without hesitation, and we do not require to establish it.
To the two latter only we shaE aEude a Ettle more in detail.
2. When Jesus caEed Himself Son of Man, He plainly
taught, under a certain measure of disguise, that He was the
second man or second Adam, who was to bruise the serpent's
head, or, in other words, to destroy the works of the devil.
This aEusion to the second man, or second representative man,
is wider than a mere relation to the Jews, and goes back to the
human race as such. He occupies a simEar relation as the
first man to those who Eved before as weE as after His coming
in the flesh. Against this element of the phrase now widely
recognised among a good school of commentators, no valid ob
jection has ever been advanced : we accept it frankly. But hy
many who accept it, the sense is, we think, unduly extended,
so as to take in His glorified state as weE.
3. This brings us to notice the other idea aEeady referred
to — the mean condition or the curse-bearing Efe, which, we
think, is essentiaEy connected with our Lord's expression, and
contained in it. This idea is perfectly compatible with the
other. The two ideas, so far from being discordant, are the
complement of one another. He could not, in truth, be the
second Adam without being the substitute of sinners.. The
sense wEl be, then, when we put the three ideas together : the
second Adam abased or made a curse for us, and who hid not
His face from shame. We cannot but discern this sense in the
foEowing passages.
Mark ix. 1 2 : " And He answered and told them, Elias verily
cometh first, and restoreth all things; and how it is wriiten [or
better, interrogatively, how is it written T] of the Son of Man, that
He must suffer many things, and he set at nought!' — These words
set forth, with sufficient clearness, two things : that, as the Son
of Man, Christ was the subject of prophecy ; and that, m this
light. He was that great sufferer aEuded to in the psalms and
prophets, whose sorrows alone were of sufficient importance to
mankind to be distinctly foretold. There is here an aEusion

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 85
to Isaiah's prophecy, E not an express quotation of the words,
" despised and rejected of men" (Isa. Hii. 3). Jesus in sub
stance says, I, as the Son of Man, am the man of sorrows of the
prophet. Matt. viii. 20 : " The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air
have nests [better, roosting-places\, hut the Son of Man hath not
where to lay His head!' — A certain scribe had offered to foEow
Jesus wherever He went ; and he was told to count the cost,
and to dispossess his mind of any secret hankering after worldly
wealth or property. Jesus declares that He HimseE was with
out a home or fixed abode, and that He might even be con
trasted with the foxes and bEds of the air, which have a resting-
place in this world, but He had none. Now, as this is said in
connection with His being the Son of Man, it is impossible not
to observe an aEusion to His abasement and to His substitution
in our room; for He endured this only as He led a curse-
bearing life. He was subjected to the consequences of sin, and
was treated as a sinner ; because man, having been disinherited,
had no claim to ought in the world. He who was rich for our
sakes became poor to reinstate us ; and thus the Son of Man
was never seen without sin while He was here.
Matt. XX. 28 : " The Son of Man came not to he ministered
unto, but to minister." — We omit the second clause at present,
as our immediate object is to determine the meanmg of the
phrase. Son of Man. The connection in which it is put with
ministering or serving, proves that it is significant of abase
ment, not of eminence. The Lord frowned on the ambition
of James and John, who wished the seats of honour in His
kingdom, reminding them of His own example, which must be
foEowed, and that, unlike the kingdoms of men, the funda
mental rule of His kingdom was humiEty. But there is a
further thought. Speakmg of HimseE as the second Adam
and the substitute of sinners. He intimates that His work
involved the very opposite of ambition, — man's sin having been
an aspEing to be more than a dependent creature. The second

86 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
man came in the form of a servant, and to do a servant's work
to the souls and bodies of men. Our phrase denotes, then, the
abasement of a substitute.
John V. 27 : " And He [the Father] hath given Him authority
to execute judgment also, because He is the Son of Man." — ^As a
proof how important it is to apprehend this phraseology aright,
it may be noticed that this verse has been generaEy misinter
preted, because the point of this phrase has. been missed.
Thus those patristic commentators who construe the verse as
we do (for some of them divide it in two, and read the last
clause with the foEowing verse), are much at a loss what
meaning to attach to it ; for, according to their interpretation
of this phrase, as only meaning that He had assumed our
nature, it seemed to say that His humanity must get this
authority elsewhere. Others have put upon it the sense, that
man must be judged by man, or by a judge who can be seen.
Others interpret the second clause as, as far as He is the Son of
Man; as E it intimated that He acts as man, but that the
action is reaEy that of the Father in Him. But that comment
misses the import of the causal particle, because. Nor does the
verse convey the sense : this man saves men, this man judges
men. The true explanation is easy when we view the title, .
" Son of Man," as descriptive of abasement. He receives this
authority as a reward : the cross is the foundation of the glory ;
and the authority to judge, the culminating point of His
exaltation, ' is the recompense of His curse-bearing life. It is
just paraEel to the words in PhEippians, " He became obedient
to death ; wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him."
Matt. xi. 19 : " The Son of Man came eating and drinking!'—
This expression is not meant to intimate that our Lord adopted
a freer mode of intercourse than the Baptist, as a mere phase of
teaching, or as a mere example to His foEowers; stUl less
does it indicate, as rationaEsts wiE have it, that He had a
great reEsh for the hEarities of life. The phrase. Son of Man,
intimates that He went there as part of His humiliation, the

the title, son of man. 87
sinless amid the sinful, in the execution of His office. He
used the world as not abusing it, and, by volimtary abasement,
entered into all its spheres, even where temptation was most
rife, and God had been so much dishonoured. His presence
there was a part of His curse-bearing life, but He never was
off His guard ; and so was sanctifying society to His foEowers.
Hence they caEed him a gluttonous man and a wine-bibber.
Luke xix. 10 : " The Son of Man is come to seek and to save
that which was lost." — This title, as has been aEeady noticed, is
always significant, and not a mere expletive or circumlocution.
But for the pecuEar shade of thought derived from this phrase,
which brings in the idea of the surety in His abasement, we
might have referred the language more to the application of
redemption than to its procuring cause. But the title. Son of
Man, with the expression, is come to seek, points out what is the
design of Christ, and proves that He describes His substitution
in the room of others as standing in causal connection with the
seeking and saving of the lost : the former is the basis of the
latter. The aEusion, then, is, not to the kingly office alone, but
to the second man, the humbled substitute in His representa
tive work, — the ground and basis of the other.
Though we cannot adduce aE the passages where the
expression Son of Man occurs, we do not hesitate to affirm that,
wherever it is found — whether referring to His poverty or to
His betrayal — to His condemnation or to His cnicifixion, — it
aEudes to vicarious punishment. The Lord, by means of this
expression, utters. His own consciousness of appearing in v the
likeness of sinful flesh, and states that He passed through the
various grades of a humiliation, which can only be considered
as the steps of a vicarious curse-bearing Efe. He intimates, by
His use of this phrase, that He not only had assumed a true
humanity, but stood in the position of the second man ; in
other words, was the surety seE-emptied and abased. We
may put it in many other forms, but this is the sense.
The same meaning attaches to the expression when the

88 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Lord uses it in coimection with a present exercise of authority.
To some of these cases it may be proper to refer, as they have
been considered by some as adverse to the view aEeady given,
and as lenEng countenance to the opposite opinion, that the
phrase rather contams the notion of dignity or eminence. A
few instances wEl serve to prove that they do not invaEdate,
but confirm the interpretation above given.
Matt. ix. 6 : " That ye may know that the Son of Man hath
power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith He to the sick of the
palsy,) Arise!' — Jesus seeing theE faith, said to the paralytic,
as soon as they brought him into His presence. Thy sins be
forgiven thee ; which only drew down on Him a charge of
blasphemy, because He claimed to HimseE a power competent
to God alone. He uses in reply to them an argument of Ere-
sistible cogency. As aE disease was acknowledged to be the
effect of sin (whether there migEt be any special sin in the
present case or not), the instantaneous removal of the effect
wiE prove that He had power to remove the cause ; and He
declares that He wiE prove His authority to remit sin, and its
actual remission, by making the man perfectly whole. But the
style of language which He uses cannot be interpreted, with
one expositor, as but referring to the power which has its seat
and source in God ; nor can it mean, as another wiE have it,
that He is the authorized representative of God in heaven.
The aEusion to the Son of Man means something more than
the declarative action of a prophet. He means that, as the
second man or substitute. He had power on earth, by anticipa
tion or beforehand, to forgive sins, — an authority which He
possessed, because He was then in process of expiating sin by
His abasement and death. The connection is one of cause and
effect. He had authority not merely to promise forgiveness,
but to bestow it. Just as He said in relation to the judgment,
that He had authority to exercise it, because He was the Son
of Man, so He says in reference to forgiveness, that He had
authority to dispense it even by anticipation, because He was

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 89
the Son of Man. The one is the reward, the other is the pro
curing cause, or the merit by which it is effected ; and this is
always connected in the closest manner with the second man,
the Lord from heaven. Not to mention the general analogy
of Scripture, which uniformly deduces aE the benefits of His
nature from Christ's atoning work, the phrase under considera
tion is in itseE decisive to this effect. Christ's suretyship is
the meritorious or procuring cause of them all.
Mark ii. 28 : " The Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath!'
— Some have explained this verse, on account of the peculiar
connection in which it stands, with the previous verse (v6r. 27),
as intimating that man, as man, is lord of the Sabbath. But
to that interpretation there are two objections : (1) There is
always in our Lord's style a sharp and weE-defined difference
between the two terms, man and the Son of Man. (2) It would
be no valid argument to reason as foEows : The Sabbath was
made for man, not man for the Sabbath; therefore man is
lord also of the Sabbath. Man, or, to go back to the class
who heard Him, Israel, was not lord of the Sabbath, but ser
vant of it, and bound to observe it; whereas Jesus declares
that He was Lord of the Sabbath in a sense in which no other
shared. From the occasion on which the saying was uttered,
the tenor of our Lord's words bears, that as the Sabbath was
not one of the unalterable moral laws, it might be dispensed
with in certain cases of mercy and necessity, for the preserva
tion of life and health ; for these are of paramount importance ;
ahd the Sabbath was made for man, not man for it. That is
maintained in the plainest terms. But we find a sudden turn
given to the expression in the words of Mark : " Therefore the
Son of Man is Lord also of the Sabbath." This train of thought
may be easily explained. Man is warranted in cases of neces
sity to break its rest, on the principle that man was not made
for it, but that it was made for man ; though he cannot on this
account be caEed lord of the Sabbath, because this very per
mission is from the Lord. But Clirist has a dispensing power

90 SAYINGS OF' JESUS ON THE -ATONEMENT.
over it from a ground which is unique and whoEy His own,—
because He is the Son of Man. There is no aEusion to the
other precepts of the decalogue here; nor indeed could this
dispensing power be exercised in reference to them — since they
are the expression of His own divine nature and divine wEl— -
without running counter to HimseE and contraEcting HimseE.
But as the abased and humbled substitute consulting for men's
salvation and for their highest interests. He has been made
Lord of the Sabbath. This is His reward. He had authority
to alter and adjust the Sabbath, and to exercise a dispensmg
power in regard to it, as He deemed best, because He was the
Son of Man. There is no word of abrogating it, but only of
adjusting it, and adapting it in such a way as would be most
conducive to the spiritual interests of His disciples. He, and
He alone, had this authority in the very same way as He had
authority to pardon and authority to exercise judgment, because
He was the Son of Man, or the substitute of sinners, and the
second man. And He showed that He was such a Lord of it,
when He altered the day of the week. He on this occasion
vindicated the disciples who ate the ears of corn ; and not only
so. He had a dispensing power to give them this permission as
Lord also of the Sabbath.
The passages already adduced, and others to be met with
as we proceed, demonstrate that the idea uniformly attached to
the phrase is humiliation or abasement. Nor is this accepta
tion refuted by those texts which at first sight seem to run
counter to it, and involve an aEusion to His glory. On the
contrary, they mean that He who then spoke in the abasement
of the curse would appear in His mediatorial exaltation ; and,
as was natural. His thoughts were much directed to the joy
that was set before Him. Thus, when He told the disciples
that they should be rewarded "when the Son of Man should
sit on the throne of His glory," He intimated that His present
poverty and meanness should give place to infinite glory. At
His trial before the Sanhedrim, when He declared to the high

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 91
priest, " Ye shaE see the Son of Man sitting on the right
hand of power," we have just the same thing. He first
avowed His supreme deity as the Son of God, and then im
mediately reverted to the view-point from which He usuaEy
spake — ^that of the despised and rejected of men, the bearer of
the world's curse. And as they set Him' at nought in His
abasement. He intimates the majesty and glory in which they
should one day behold Him. And the same explanation must
be given of aE the other passages where this title is found in
connection with an allusion to His glory.
The preceEng discussion gives us, so to speak, a biography
of the Lord Jesus from His own consciousness, and, in fact, a
whoEy different view of the Efe of Christ, than we should
otherwise have been led to form. This language proves that
He was fully aware of the fact that He was the sin-bearer, and
called to lead a curse-bearing life, throughout His whole earthly
career. The human biographies of Christ, which in too many
things betray their incompetence to reproduce that wondrous
portrait, are speciaEy defective here. They rarely take account
of this aspect of Christ's earthly lEe, or find any allusion to it
in the Lord's own words. Without this element, however, our
whole view of Christ's Efe is one-sided, and imperfect in the
highest degree. Thus the principal use derived from it by
many men, otherwise sound in the faith, is Emited to His
teaching or to His example, or, at furthest, extended to the
mode in which the Prince of Life communicates the spiritual
life to men, and unites them to HimseE. However true and
important aE these aspects of His lEe may be, they are stiE
defective. Seen from the true view-point, or read off from
the consciousness of the Lord HimseE, His Efe is pervaded
from first to last with another element. He is conscious of
being the. sin-bearer and the curse-bearer; and every utterance
that faEs from His Eps as the Son of Man, discovers that He
reaEzed at eyery step of His arduous work the position of
vicarious suffering and abasement.

92 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
It is important to notice how He came to occupy this
position as the gubstitute of sinful men, and so to act out that
exchange of places which His whole atonement presupposes
and implies. With a view to bring out the truth on this
point, it may be proper to refer, negatively, to some of the
theories current or in vogue on this subject, without entering
very largely into. theE refutation.
1. He did not first take sin upon Him, or was first made
sin, upon the cross. He was not first a man, and at a subse
quent period the sin-bearer or the curse-bearer. What has
been truly and correctly said as to the 'assumption of humanity
may be equally appEed to this. He was not first a man, and
then incarnate, or assumed info the personaEty of the Son ; for
the humanity never existed but in that personal union. In
like manner we may say that the humanity never was without
this imputation of sin; for that assumption of sm by which
He became the sin-bearer, was in, with, by, and under the •
assumption of our nature, though the sin is separable and
distinguishable from the humanity. Nay, we should rather
say that, according to the order of nature, the sin was imputed
and assumed simultaneously with His mission, and therefore,
in a certain sense, prior to the actual incarnation ; though it
became His in point, of fact, only with the possession of a
common nature. They who Emit the sin-bearing to the three
hours on the cross — a too widely diffused notion — have far
diverged from bibEcal language and ideas.
2. Nor did Jesus become the sin-bearer by any necessity
of nature in vEtue of taking the flesh. This was the error of
Menken and Irving, who thought that He assumed sm simply
in virtue of talcing humanity ; as E sin and humanity were one
and the same. Their theory was, that our Lord took to Hun-
self a portion of the lump or mass, and that, in consequence of
this. He personaEy and not officiaEy, by necessity of nature
and not by voluntary consent, came under the obligations of
that humanity of which He had assumed a part. This is a

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 93
confusion of thought, which does not discern the things that
differ, as weE as perilous theology. But sin is not of the
substance of man in such a way that they cannot be disjoined.
They are so interwoven and interpenetrated, indeed, that we
may not be able to sunder the workmanship of God, which
is good, from the corruption which has tainted it. We can
distinguish them, however, in idea ; God distmguishes and
separates in fact. Eedemption, it is obvious, implies this
separation : regeneration impEes it : the incarnation presup
poses it. If it were not so, man's nature could not have
been a capable subject of redemption. And the, fact that the
Son of God entered into humanity by a true incarnation, is a
sufficient proof that sin and humanity are not one and the
same ; for He could not have united HimseE to sin, Christ
became the sin-bearer by free consent, not by necessity of
nature; by voluntary susception, not in consequence of any
indispensable condition adhering to Him in virtue of His
birth. This theory, under any modffications, is a deep untruth,
and carries with it consequences that may weE repel every
Christian mind. Even on the supposition that He took sinless
humanity and only assumed the curse, objectively considered,
by the necessity of nature, it would stEl be a theory which no
bibEcal divine could admit or endure. His death, on this
supposition, would not be an official act, but a personal doom ;
not a free oblation, but a due punishment. The guilt would be
His own, and the curse a necessary debt, which He personaEy
owed. The atonement, if we could still suppose such a trans
action, on that principle, would have been for the race, on a
principle of universalism, without selection or distinction. And
to come under the curse in this way. He must needs have been
Himself in Adam's covenant, — the very thing from which, with
aE its consequences, the supernatural conception was meant to
give Him fuE exemption. The uniform language of Scripture
is opposed to aE this, and is a constant testimony to the fact

94 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
that Christ died solely in the exercise of a priestly obla
tion, without any personal EabEity whatsoever. It was as
bearing sin not His own in consequence of an act of wdl, bijt
not by any inEspensable necessity, that the Lord-, encountered
death. 3. It cannot be maintained, however, that the Lord took
humanity in all respects as it was in Adam before the faE That
is to ignore all the effects and consequences that man's sin neces-
sarEy introduced, and it puts the Lord Jesus outside the family
of man. He took human nature distinct and separate from sin,
which was no part of its essence ; for sin and humanity are
separable quantities. He took humanity also apart from the
imputed guilt of Adam's covenant, descending to Him indi-
viduaEy, as if He weile a mere unit in thei race, and not the
second man. But He took it in such a way as also to assume,
by His voluntary act and at the same moment, the sm of His
people, and the curse, which was its sure attendant ; which is
just what Paul intimates by " the likeness of sinfid flesh,'' or
by His appearing at His first coining with sin, as contrasted
with His "appearing the second time without sin" (Heb. ix. 28).
He must be regarded as bearing the penalty of sin from the
first moment of His incarnation, or even from His sending by
the Father. We cannot survey the meanness and abasement
of His birth, made lower than the angels ; the poverty of His
condition; His manual occupation, — earning His bread with
the sweat of His brow, according to the doom on aE the race ;
His temptation by the foul spirit ; His privations ; His endur
ance of hunger and thEst ; the agony and bloody sweat ; the
arrest; the chains by which He was bound; the trial; the
accusation and rejection by His nation ; the condemnation
pronounced upon Him by the Gentiles ; and the shame of a
public execution, — without the fuE conviction that. aE this was
included in our doom, and related to our punishment. AU
these griefs in the Man of Sorrows tended to the satisfaction
for sin, and were comprehended in the primeval threat of death.

THE TITLE, SON OF MAN. 95
Thus the Lord officiaEy appearing on our world as a sin-
bearer, and not such a person as was innocent and without sin,
must of necessity take a humanity not as He now has it in
heaven, nor even as it was in Adam before the faE : " Because the
brethren were partakers of flesh and blood. He also Himself
likewise took part of the same" (Heb. ii. 14). He assumed
humanity in its meanness, abasement, and poverty, — assumed,
that is, not a mere body and soul, but the form of a servant
under sentence of death.. The only difference was, that He
took our common nature without any of the inEvidual infir
mities found in particular men; that is, without any of the
disorderly mental conditions or any of the germs of sickness
which are either transmitted or developed in the individual.
He was free from disease and free from the incursion of death
according to the ordinary course of nature, — the exemption from
both bemg due to the fact that sin and its consequences did not
belong to Him as a personal thing, but as they were assumed
by His voluntary act.
We now come back to the fact that, as the Son of Man, the
Lord Jesus was never from the very first without sin and its
consequences. He felt aE through His Efe what it is to be made
sin and to be reputed a sinner. And who knows what soul-
trouble, agony, and desertion He endured when no eye but His
Father's and that of worshipping angels saw Him? These
times of agony only, so to speak, crop out here and there in His
recorded lEe ; but He was always as the Son of Man, made sin,
and always suffering'; and aE this abasement was owing to the
fact that He was the Son of Man.
It does not faE within this topic to describe the nature of
this suffering, its ingreEents, or its intensity. It may suffice
to say, that though the Father while acting the part of a judge
did not lay aside the person and relation of a Father, He yet
mfiicted real suffering, penal suffering, which struck the sub
stitute, because it struck upon the sin which He made His ;
and there were gradations, too, in this curse-bearing Efe from

96 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON ITIE ATONEMENT.
the manger to the cross which were just degrees, or descending
steps, in His humiliation. The cross was its culminating point;
but it was by no means Emited to the cross. Though we read
little of His private Efe, or of the way in which His secret
hours were spent. He was, no doubt, in those intervals fre
quently caEed to realize, as the Man of Sorrows, that he was on
the earth in order to bear the sins of many ; and nothing can
be conceived more terrible even to the Son of God than to feel
the loss of God-T-the bitterest ingredient in the cup of woe, —
or to reaEze that He was, in the sense in which the smless one
could be so, the object of the condemnation, loathing, and hatred
due to sin, or worthy in any sense of receiving it. The Son of
Man was treated as if He were the sinners, with whom He had
exchanged places before God.
We have seen, then, from the title. Son of Man, and from
the aEusions which He made to Himself, that Christ's lEe was
from first to last a sin-bearing and a curse-bearing Efe. This
is one essential element of the atonement.

SEC. XV. — CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS THE CONSCIOUS
SIN-BEARER.
" Suffer it to be so now : for thus it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness."- — Matt. iii. 15.
This testimony is replete with meaning, whether we consider
the occasion of it or the import of the terms. It may be called
a key to that large class of passages which speak of Christ's
obedience as the righteousness of His people, or represent Him
as made of God unto us righteousness, because He was first of
aE made sin for us (2 Cor. v. 21).
As to the occasion which caEed forth this saying, we find it
uttered on the memorable day of Christ's baptism, when He
came to the Baptist, the new Elias, the culminating point of the
Old Testament prophecy, and its voice. John may be regarded

CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 97
here as the Eving expression of the law and of the prophets.,
which had during many ages witnessed to the coming Messiah,
and which now, by their greatest representative, were to intro
duce the Christ into His office. As the Lord Jesus recognised
them, so they were to inaugurate Him as the truth of the pro
phecies, and as the substance of the types or shadows. So close
in every point of view is the connection, rightly apprehended,
of the old and new economy, that the one is incomplete
without the other. But though Jesus was fuEy conscious of
His mission from the day when the boy of twelve first trod the
courts of the temple, and declared that He must be about His
Father's business. He would take no step towards the pubEc
discharge of His office till He was formally inaugurated into
it by an authorized prophet on the one hand, and by divine
testimony on the other ; and our Lord well knew that John was
sent on this very mission, by means of which a something was
to be conferred upon Him that He had not before received.
The Baptist, as a simier, feeling that it rather became him to
exchange places with Jesus, and to be not the giver but the
receiver in the interview, refused, for a time, to confer his
baptism on the Eedeemer. He could not conceive what the
Christ had to do with a baptism of repentance for the remission
of sins, — what it was to Him, or He to it. But that reluc
tance was overcome by the explanation which our Lord sub
joined : " Suffer it to be so NOW " ^ — that is (for the now is
emphatic), in my present state of humiliation, and as an action
suited only to my state of substitution in the room of sinners.
And the plural number, " it becometh us," may either refer, as
in some similar cases, to Jesus alone ; or, with a greatly modified
sense, may include a reference also to the Baptist.
But the Lord subjoms an explanation as to the principle and
end for which He sought John's baptism : " For thus it be
cometh us to fulfil aE righteousness." It is not the special act
of baptism to which alone allusion is here made. The language

98 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
is more general, though the occasion was particular. There is
nothing to warrant the limitation of the words, which must be
accepted in the fuE force of the phraseology. The Lord had a
confession to make ; and the words here used furnish a key to
the whole action. We must then, first of aE, notice the import
of these His words of confession : it becometh us to fulfil all
righteousness. The Lord virtually says, " It is not unworthy of
the Son of God to go down so far ; for it is not a question of
dignity or pre-eminence, but of fulfiEing aE righteousness.''
The reception of baptism was only a voluntary act, and not
personaEy necessary or requEed on His own account ; for He
acted of free choice when He became incarnate. But it became
Him to fulfil His undertaking, and in doing so. He was not
free to omit this or any part of His work ; for though He was
under no obEgation to take the flesh, yet there arose a certain
duty from His engagement to the Father, from His mediatorial
office, and from the old prophecies. There was a certain hypo
thetical necessity or propriety which requEed His acting as
He now did, if the end was to be gained. It may be thus
put : " It becometh Me to appear in the Ekeness of a sinner,
and to fulfil aE righteousness."
But, it is further demanded, what significance had baptism
for Christ, and what appEcation could it have to Him ? This
is the very difficulty which presented itself to the mind of the
Baptist, and which is stUl a difficulty to many an expositor
in explaining it. It must be borne in mind, in the first place,
that, as the surety, Jesus was made under the law, and that
sacraments, as prescribed by the second commandment, were
among the duties with which He complied. But while that
side of the question 'is clear enough, the difficulty lies m the
other aspect of a sacrament : how they could be for Him the
outward signs by which the divine promises were sealed and
the faith of the receiver confirmed ; and they undoubtedly were
so to Him.
In this matter it is obvious we must distinguish between

CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 99
the sinless person or indiAddual and the official duty assigned
to the surety, the neglect of which distinction has been the
chief cause of the difficulty. When we speak of Christ's parti
cipation of the sacraments, it must always be on the supposition
that He was actmg as the MeEator between God and man,
and that there is a strict limitation of His actions to a sphere
that excludes not only aE personal taint, but also aE the
mental exercises corresponding to it, — ^which, however, are
involved in our use of the sacraments of the Church. Impurity
of His own He had none. But He had truly entered into
humanity, and come within the bonds of the human family ;
and, according to the law, the person who had but touched an
unclean person, or had been in contact with him, was unclean.
Hence, in submitting HimseE to baptism as Mediator in
an official capacity, the Lord Jesus vEtuaEy said, " Though
sinless in a world of sinners, and without having contracted
any personal taint, I come for baptism ; because, in my pubEc
or official capacity, I am a debtor in the room of many, and
bring with Me the sin of the whole world, for which I am the
propitiation." He was aEeady atoning for sin, and had been
bearing it on His body since He took the flesh ; and in this
mediatorial capacity promises had been made to Him as the
basis of His faith, and as the ground upon which His confidence
was exercised at every step.
It is of course obvious that baptism had not the same signi
ficance to Him as it has to us, and could not have. But it had an
important significance even to Him, — first, officiaEy, and then,
as His faith was thus confirmed and estabEshed, personaEy.
Some writers have perplexed and compEcated this whole
question by drawing a superfluous distinction between the
obedience due by Christ as a rational creature and that which
He owed as the Mediator or Surety acting in the name of His
people, and between the promises made to Him in the one
capacity and those which were made to Him in the other. It
is only an embarrassing distinction, which should be dismissed.

100 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
It is much better to hold that Christ was not made under the
law on His own account, and that humanity, existing in the
person of the Son of God, came under no law, and was bound
to no obedience, except as He spontaneously stooped to becpm,ft
officiaEy the surety of His people. We are not to distinguish
here, as some have unduly done, between the man and the
Mediator. We meet in this whole scene, then, an inward
offering of Himself, or a fuE mental dedication to bear the sm
of the world, and, in so doing, to fulfil aE righteousness. The
administration of the rite, accordingly, was a symbol of the
baptisni of agony which He had yet to be baptized with, and
which, with the utmost promptitude. He here, and. aE through
His history, offered HimseE to imdergo : " I have a baptism to
be baptized with ; and how am I straitened tiE it be accom
plished !" (Luke xii. 50.) And this mental dedication ran
through aE His subsequent career, and ga,ve a tincture to His
entire life, till it confronts us afresh as a completed act upon
the cross. He had fulfiEed aE righteousness tiU now ; and this
gives us a gEmpse into His purpose and resolve for the future.
It consisted of these two parts : that Christ, in the Ekeness of
sinful flesh, should condemn sin, — in other words, that He should
perfectly fulfil the law of love in heart and action as one for
many ; and that, according to the same representative system,
man should "satisfy for man, by fuEy entering into the lot of
sinners under punitive justice. He avowed His, prompt and
cordial wiEingness, aS the physician of the sick, to take upon
Himself their sicknesses and their diseases, though He well
knew that He was now at the threshold of His pubEc ministry^;
and entering on a scene of conflicts and trouble of which
Nazareth had given Him no experience.
It might be added, that this merely mental offering of
Himself in His baptism was crowned with a divine recog
nition (Matt. iii. 16). But on this we do not insist, as it does ,
not come within our purpose. It may suffice to say, that
this divine act of recognition showed that not only was His

CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER, 101
past career well-pleasing, but that this dedication, as a thing
that was to be daily renewed, was peculiarly so, and would
be at the close most gloriously rewarded. The words which
our Lord uses at a later period, " I have a baptism to be
baptized with, and how am I straitened till it be accomplished 1"
discovers in what light Christ wiE have His baptism to be
regarded. It was a symbolic representation of those sufferings
and sorrows to which He must submit as the voluntary sacrifice
in the room of His people, — an emblem of the way in which
He was to bear the floods of wrath in bringing in the ever
lasting righteousness, or in fulfilling aE righteousness. We do
not need, then, to make two things out of the baptism, but
may rest content with the symbol and the reality.
To aE that has just been said, Eowever, there are two
objections, which must now be obviated. It is argued that we
cannot class this passage among thosQ which set forth a meri
torious obedience for man, and in man's stead, for these reasons : —
(1) Christ speaks of Himself and of John together, and the
obeEence of the latter .cannot be held to be meritorious for men ;
and (2) it refers principally to baptism, which was not received
by Christ in man's stead. These objections are easily met and
removed. As to the first objection, that Christ speaks of Himself and
of John together, and that the obedience of the latter cannot
be meritorious, the answer is at hand. It seems to be, as in
many other places, the plural of eminence (comp. John iii. 11).
But if the words do include a reference to John, in a certain
modified sense, the meaning wiE be, that he, the Baptist, had
duly to fulfil the terms of his commission, and not refuse his
baptism to one who sought it, as our Lord now did upon this
occasion. As to the second, the aEusion is not to a single rite or
to any one observance which had been appointed by divine
authority, and the observance of which was a right thing.
That does not by any means exhaust the meaning. The

102 SAYmGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
expression used is, that He must needs fulfil aE righteousness
in a humiliation of which He was not ashamed, and in which
John must acquiesce; and it can only refer to the sinless
One offering in the room of sinners the great atoning act, or
to the whole meEatorial righteousness. His greatness and
His abasement are equaEy brought out in the work to be
done. This wEL help us to understand in what sense it can be said
that Christ, by receiving baptism, " fulfiEed aE righteousness."
This is the point of the passage in reference to the subject for
which we have adduced it ; and it must be precisely appre
hended. The phrase, "to fulfil aE righteousness," can only mean,
in this connection, that by what was here involved and sym
bolized El the rite employed, the Lord Jesus would bring in an
approved fulfilment of the divine law, as the work of one for
many; that there must be an exact correspondence between
that which is requEed and that which is actuaEy rendered, —
a coincidence between the two. Though it is not necessary to
refer to the essential righteousness of God, by which He wills
and loves aE that agrees with His perfections, further than to
say that the creature's righteousness is to be measured on that
attribute, or on the law which is the transcript of it, yet it is
necessary to bear in mmd that this human righteousness is
fulfiEed only when men reflect the image of their Maker in
their heart and nature, in theE Efe and actions. As it was not
a divine righteousness, but a creature righteousness, that was
requEed at our hands, so it was this that the Mediator ren
dered, — in other words, it was the same in kind with ours,
though the person who came to bring it in was possessed of a
divine dignity, which gave His work a validity and value aU its
own. It consisted in' an obedience to the divine law in precept
and in penalty, complete in all its parts, and up to the measure
of man's capacity ; for as nothing less was claimed, so nothing
less was rendered by the Mediator, who was made under the
law as broken, and who acted in the room of others. Thus man

CHRIST RECEIVING BAPTISM AS SIN-BEARER. 103
satisfied for man, and, furthermore, fulfiEed the law of love in
heart and Efe.
We cannot limit the phrase to anything short of fuE obeE
ence to the law, as the rule of righteousness. And when we
look at the terms here used, it wEl be found, that as the epithet
righteous always carries with it the notion that the person so
described is approved by a competent tribunal as following a
line of conduct which is conformable to the law, so righteous
ness ^ is that quaEty, personal or official, which marks one out
as the fit object of that approval The aEusion here is to the
righteousness due from the creature, and exhibited in the great
sacrffice which was here mentaEy offered by the Mediator in
our stead. This is the meaning, as is obvious on many grounds.
Expositors have propounded various other explanations, which
are not tenable.
We may set aside, then, as faulty and inadequate, (1) the
comment that the language is equivalent to saying that Christ
fuEy taught the doctrine of true religion, or that He embodied
in His example an outline of aE He taught to others. As Ettle
wOl it suffice to say, (2) that the phrase means, " it becomes
us to do what is right, or to carry out, even to the smaEest duty,
that which God has appointed." There is as Ettle ground for
the explanation, (3) that humEity is the principal part of
righteousness. The defect of aE these comments is, that they
take no account of Christ's mediatorial position in this act,
without which we cannot understand His words, or see their
proper scope. He was aEeady in this pubEc act mentaEy offer
ing the sacrffice of Himself to the Father, and so fulfiEing all
righteousness. • This is the meaning of hxcwxrini. That the verb tixmrn denotes one who
is acquitted and accepted, is admitted on all hands ; but the mistake too com
monly committed is, that the same meaning has not been carried out to these
cognate words, e.g. itxtxiotrvv^i, Vixitios.

104 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.

SEC. XVI. — CHRIST, AS THE SIN-BEARER, TAKING ON HIM, DURING
HIS EARTHLY LIFE AND HISTORY, THE BURDENS AND SICK
NESSES OF HIS PEOPLE.
In the Gospels there are several passages to be found which
bring out far deeper views on the subject of Christ's curse-
bearing and suffering Efe than have commonly been adopted,
or, at least, than have been taken up in earnest in the Church.
Most readers who merely read the narrative of Christ's life as
they do a common history, see nothing more in these sufferings
than the opposition of ungodly men to the cause of God, or
limit the endurance of the curse on the part of Jesus to the
hours when He hung upon the cross. But the curse-bearing
career of Christ was by no means of that nature, nor limited to
that time.
Neither is it enough to say, as the views of others imply,
that as Jesus endured the coEective elements of the curse on
the cross, it serves no purpose to trace it piecemeal and in
detaE in other spheres and at other times. For on that theory
it would not have been necessary for Christ to be an infant,
chEd, youth, and man, if we are to Emit attention to the one
point which was undoubtedly the cEmax both of the obedience
and of the curse. His previous lEe, considered in the double
Eght of sinless purity and' of curse-bearing endurance, was not
less necessary in the divine economy than the cross, and not
less provided for in the wisdom of the divine counsels. His
entire Efe was pervaded by the curse ; and He encountered it
in every sphere where His people were required to bear it
We may trace from His history how He met it in all those
spheres and departments where the bitter effects of sin, beyond
doubt, assail mankind. The opposite view may seem to have
more simplicity in it; but it overleaps the earthly Efe of
Christ. God's wisdom, however, was plainly different. And
this endurance of the curse from the commencement of His

CHRIST BEARING HIS PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 105
life to its close, in every one of those departments or spheres
"wEere the bitter consequences of sin had entered, must be viewed
as necessary, not only in the way of fitting the Lord Jesus to
become a mercEul and faithful High Priest (Heb. ii. 17), but
also in the moral government of God for the expiation of sin.
As it is easy to err by excess here, many are content to
err by defect. Thus Menken and Irving egregiously erred by
bringing Christ into the circle of human nature as it now is.
But many, on the other hand, have been deterred, in conse
quence of theE mistake, from even venturing to approach the
subject. The regulative principle, however, which is by no
means to be lost sight of at any point, and which wiE guide
us in our inquiry here, is, that sin is not of the essence of
humanity, and that we can distinguish between it and God's
workmanslEp.' While Christ sustained our persons and entered
into our position by a legal exchange of places. He was incar
nate in a humanity accordmg to its idea, and not as it now is
in us. It was not an exchange of either a physical or moral
nature when He officially took our place, and the Sinless One
took the curse upon Himself, and bore it through Efe, solely
by spontaneous choice, and not by necessity of nature. AE
this was voluntarily assumed, not taken by the necessity of
His incarnation. Hence, viewed in the twofold light of the
'¦ One important thought in connection with the incarnation, and capable of
receiving an application to the case in hand, was brought out during the dis
cussions called forth by the theory of Flacius Illyricus, that sin had become of
the essence or substance of humanity. The churches recoiled in horror from
that overdone speculation, and replied that we may and must distinguish
between God's workmanship, which is good, and the miu or defilement which
has invaded it. (See Formula Concordice, de peccato originis.) We can dis
tinguish in idea, and God distinguishes in fact. If it were not so, there could
not have been an incarnation. Humanity could not have been assumed except
on the ground of such a distinction in point of fact. Christ assumed humanity
without its taint ; which indeed was not of its substance, nor essential to it.
And this assumption of our nature according to its idea, rather than according
to what it has become, is quite consistent with the fact that He took on Him,' by
voluntary susception, not only all the parts of our curse in all the spheres where
it is diffused, but also many sinless infirmities, such as hunger and thirst, weari
ness and pain, and sorrow and death.

106 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sin-bearer and of the sinless second man. His entire Efe was
expiatory or atoning. For He was at every moment bearing
the curse of that sphere through which He passed, or in which
He Eved at any given time, and yet fulfiEing in it aE right
eousness, such as man was required to render, or was capable
of rendering. He went through aE Efe in a double capacity,
and must be regarded at every moment as at once the curse-
bearer and the fulfiHer of aE righteousness. We shall notice
some of these spheres, though by no means in an exhaustive way,
Thus Christ's human development took place within the
cEcle of FAMILY LIFE, where the deepest principles of all that
is purely human are called into action. And as the curse hes
there as weE as upon every other human sphere. He lived ia it
to bear this curse, and also to sanctify by His sinless purity
the domestic constitution to aE His foEowers. There are sides
of domestic life which often try the mind and involve a deep
conffict, aE the more trying because the relations are so close;
and from this the Lord Jesus was not exempt. Thus we read
that His brethren did not believe on Him, and therefore could
not comprehend Him (John vii. 1-7).
He entered also, as we have every reason to conclude, into
the PRIMEVAL CURSE OF LABOUR. When we find Him designated ,
not only the carpenter's son, but the carpenter (Mark vi 3), the
language plainly refers to the fact, that during the course of
His private Efe the Lord Jesus foEowed the occupation of a
carpenter. We are constrained, both on exegetical and on
dogmatic grounds, to decide for this interpretation. And there
seems no ground to doubt that Jesus earned His bread by the
sweat of His brow, whether we look at the plain words used hy
the evangeEst, or at the necessity devolving on the substitute
of sinners of entering into every part of our curse. And He
has in consequence transformed the curse of labour into a
blessing, and sanctified not only manual and mental labour
in every form in which it can be viewed, but also the entire
earthly calling to aE His foEowers tiE the end of time.

CHRIST BEARING HIS PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 107
During His private Efe, as well as afterwards in His pubEc
ministry, the Lord Jesus, as the sin-bearer, felt, too, in every
variety, of form, the inffiction of the divine wrath.-' And no
mortal man can conceive through what agony and desertion
He was caEed to pass, or what He may have endured on those
occasions, when it is said that He went apart, or retEed from
the society of man, to wrestle with God m secret. We can only
figure to ourselves what it may have been, and warrantably
conclude that it was simEar to the scenes on record. Nor
need I refer to Christ's Temptation in the wEderness, the
counterpart of Adam's temptation in the garden, further than
to say, that the fact of His being the sin-bearer affords the only
explanation how Satan could obtain such power over Him, or
venture into the presence of the Son of God, and appeal to the
same elements in human nature, though from a whoEy different
point of view, in order to seduce Him, E that were possible. His
position as the curse-bearer can alone explain that marveEous
abasement. There are many other spheres or departments into which
the curse had entered accordmg to the juEcial sentence of
God, such as poverty and pain, hunger and thEst, weariness,
reproach, and sorrow. It may suffice to say, in reference to aE
these parts of the curse, that as Christ's people had given their
members instruments to sin, and had deserved to suffer, so
Christ stepped down into theE place, and bore the wrath of
God for them in every variety of form.
There is one sphere, however, to which I must more particu
larly advert ; and the rather, because it has not received in any
' It is the more necessary to notice this aspect of our Lord's earthly life, in
asmuch as the very best among the biographies of Christ circulating among the
churches give no prominence. to it, if they even allude to it. Their object is to
bring out the active sinless life of Jesus ; and they apprehend this earthly life
only on this side, while they ignore the sin -bearing element. The language of
Ursinus and Olevianus in the Heidelberg Catechism is happy : ' ' eum toto quidem
vitce svxB tempore, quo in terris egit, praecipue vero in ejus extreme, iram Dei
adversus peccatum universi generis humani oorpore et anima sustinuisse. " (See
Quest. 37.)

108 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
quarter the attention due to its importance. I refer to the
sense in which Christ- is said to have taken on Him our sick
nesses AND DISEASES. The question arises: If they are- part of
the curse, can it be said that He took them on Himself; Ed He
bear them to any extent, and in what way ? If diseases are the
effect of sin, and part of the woe which sin has brought into om-
world, in what sense are'we to regard Christ's relation to disease,
or explain His interference with the due infliction of this penal
sentence in the performance of His mEaculous cures? When
we examine His mEaculous cures, several things are evident
That they not only fatigued Him, but cost Him much in the way
of sympathy, and even of endurance, may be inferred from vari
ous incidents, and especiaEy from the fact that He often sighed
in the performance of the cure (Mark vii. 34), and was troubled
(Johnxi. 33) ; and from the fact that He was sensibly conscious
of virtue going out of Him, as if a mutual transfer, in some sort,
took place in every instance of a cure (Mark v. 30).
Now, in the first place, there can be no doubt that the
mEaculous cures were only a result or effect of that ransom
which was to be paid in all the extent to which man was made
subject to the curse. If Christ was to annihilate sin as the
cause, then the effect, as a matter of course, must disappear
whenever He spoke His healing word. He thus removed
disease by anticipation, because, as the surety of sinners. He
undertook, their obligations, and satisfied for aE that was the
cause of the disease. The effect was virtuaEy removed by the
removal of the cause, though in no case was the cure effected
without the actual exercise of His omnipotent fiat.
This brings me to notice, in the next place, the adffitional
idea contained in a remarkable apostolic commentary on
Christ's mEacles. This is exhibited in a somewhat Efficult
passage in Matthew, where Jesus is said to have taken on
Him our sicknesses. The Lord had, during a day of labour,
dispensed blessings to many, and, wearied with incessant
activity. He needed rest. But when evening came, instead

CHRIST BEARING HIS PEOPLE'S BURDENS AND SICKNESSES. 109.
of a season of repose, there came a new company who had
aE manner of diseases and possessions, and He healed them
aE. When Matthew narrates this fact, he subjoins a quotation
to the effect that aE this was the fulfilment of what had been
spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying, " HimseE took our infir
mities and bare our sicknesses" (Matt. viii. 17). The words
of the evangelist must be accepted as an exact quotation of
Isaiah's words, and also as a faithful reproduction or transcript
of the meanmg of the prophet. It is an apostolic commentary,
of which the evangeEsts supply many. The fact that the
inspired writer quotes the words in this connection and with
liis .appended explanation, is conclusive as to their meaning.
Whether the words can bear a wider sense, it does not he
within my present purpose to inquire; and that this is the
meaning, is rendered aE the more certain by the formula of
quotation, " that it might be fulfilled," which wiU not admit
the application of the theory of accommodation which certain
writers use to evacuate a passage of its meaning.
This brmgs out, then, a new thought, which is quite in
harmony with the explanation which has been aEeady given.
If diseases were removed by Christ just because the sin which
was the cause of them was to be expiated by His atonmg
death, and if He could say, "Whether is easier to say. Thy sins
be forgiven thee, or to say. Arise and walk ?" (Matt. ix. 5,) this
additional thought is quite consistent with that view. The con
nection between the atonement and the cure is only further
illustrated by the fact, of which there is little doubt, that it
cost Him something, — in other words, that He suffered in mind
and body when He healed all manner of sickness and disease.
That He took them upon HimseE in some sense, is affirmed
by Matthew in that passage. But in what sense ? Perhaps
as good an answer as has ever been furnished was offered by
Dr. Thomas Goodwin. " Christ," says he,^ " when He came to
1 See Goodwin's treatise, entitled The Heart of Christ in Heaven to Sinners
on Earth, vol. iv. p. 138 ; Edin. Edition. (Eder, in his refutation of the

110 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
an elect chEd of His that was sick, whom He healed, His man
ner was, first, by a sjrmpathy and pity, to afflict HimseE with
theE sickness as if it had been His own. Thus, at the raising
of Lazarus, it is said that ' He groaned in spEit, etc. ; ' and so,
by the merit of taking the disease upon HEnseE, through a
feEow-feeEng of it. He took it off from them, being for them
afflicted as if He HimseE had been sick. And this seems to
be the best interpretation that I have met with of that difficult
place in Matt, viii 16, 17." That Jesus would enter into this-
department of the curse was only what was to be expected,
because it fiEs so large a part of human lEe in the case of
multitudes, and because it extends, in some measure, to every
member of the human famEy. Though disease coiEd not touch
Him as it assaEs mankind in general, in the way of contagion,
it needs no proof that this voluntary assumption, or bearing of
it, in some sense, in His sinless body, or the transfer of it to
HimseE, was of the greatest moment to us. It was spontane
ous, not constrained. But His mEacles alone were so numerous
as to make Him acquainted with all manner of sickness and
disease. He took them on HimseE for us. And may not pious
minds derive the highest comfort from the fact that the Saviour
took upon HimseE not only the sin, which is the cause of
disease, but also the disease itself, in some sense, however
mysterious and undefinable that may be, just as He took
poverty and grief on HimseE for us ? (Comp. Heb. iv. 15.)
Racovian Catechism, p, 806 (Franoofurti, 1739), has some striking remarks on
this topic : "Hie utinam non esset fatendum, in multas vias itum esse ab interpre-
tibus, nostratibus etiam, ut in concordiam redigunt Prophetam et Evangelistam.
Namque iUum primo, de spiritualibus morbis, h. e. peccatis loqui existimant,
turn vero ea ita suscepta esse a Christo, ut proprie ferret, h. e. poenap his debitas
sustineret, Matthseimi contra et de corporis infirmitatibus verba facere, et eas non
a Christo tolerataji sen in ipsum translatas inteUigi velle, sed ablatas sanando, .ut
medicus non in se transfert febrim, qua medicamentis suis eegrotum liberat.
Non satisfecerunt, quod sine vituperatione summorum ingeniorum dictum veUm,
omnes interpretes omnium reUgionum." See the best discussion I know of this
difficult point in that passage of (Eder (pp. 806-820), who maintains that, in some
sense, the diseases were transferred by Christ to Himself. The opposite view is
maintained by Sebastian Schmid in his commentary on Heb. iv. 15.

Christ's sufferings illustrated by his sayings, ill

sec. xvn. — the historic fact of christ s sufferingts
illustrated by his sayings.
The department to which we here aEude is too much
omitted by those who handle the sayings of Christ, or who dis
cuss the question of the atonement. And yet the facts and
history of the Lord's passion must needs be correctly appre
hended in the light of His sayings. TheE fuE meaning, indeed,
cannot be seen from the proper point of view, or thoroughly
ascertamed, unless the import of His sayings as to the doctrine
of the atonement has been correctly understood. On the other
hand, the true doctrine of the atonement, by the aid of the
key thus furnished, may, and must, be read off from the facts
of His suffering and death, if we are to do justice to either.
There is a double line of inquEy here presented to us.
There is one class of facts of a more subjective character,
descriptive of Christ's own feelings, and another class more
objective in its character, which seems to contain only incidents
or events which were permitted to befaE Him. But both
assume that Jesus was the conscious sin-bearer ; and can only
be correctly understood from this point of view.
With regard to the more subjective class of facts, we find
a few utterances of Jesus in the form of exclamations during
His soul-trouble, which bring before us what He felt under the
infliction of His Father's hand and the hiding of his Father's
face. The whole texture of Christ's lEe may be said to consist
of suffering, sorrow, and bitterness. As the curse had diffused
itseE through every scene of Efe, not a sphere can be named,
nor a moment thought of, in which He did not, as the surety
of sinners, feel, more or less, the bitter ingredients of that cup
of woe, which must otherwise have oppressed His people for
ever. The bare fact of taking our nature was an acknowledg
ment of the debt; and as He went about in the likeness of
sinful flesh. His entEe history was a proof that sin was laid on

112 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Him. And these varied sorrows in every sphere in which He
moved, and especially in the exclamations of agony which
burst from Him on different occasions, only prove that Jesus,
in the double capacity of sin-bearer and of sinless second man,
was, in part at least, offering the satisfaction in aE these scenes,
till at last the whole cup of suffering was put into His hand
at once. That this is the meaning of this class of facts cannot
be doubted or denied.
With regard to the more objective class of facts connected
with Christ's experience as the conscious sin-bearer, they are
not less significant. We find a series of historic facts connected
with the arrest, the trial, the sentence, and execution of the
Lord Jesus, which can only be explained on the supposition,
that while the Lord was placed before the bar. of man, He was
really standing before another bar as the sin-bearing representa^
five of His people ; and that the transactions of that earthly
court only exhibited to the eye of man the foreground of the
scene, and gave us the means of apprehending what was taking
place, though invisibly, in the court of heaven.
These two series of historic facts in the course of Christ's
passion are in the highest degree significant, and must be
correctly apprehended, if we would not lose sight of some of
the most essential and indispensable elements in the doctrine
of the atonement.

SEC XVni.— THE SAYINGS OF CHRIST AS THE CONSCIOUS SIN-
BEARER IN PROSPECT OF HIS AGONY, AND DURING IT.
The narrative of the evangelists contains many clear proofs
that our Lord from the first looked forward with deep solemnity
to the period of His sufferings. Nor, in truth, was He ever
without some experience of the curse in the numerous spheres
through which it had diffused Eself, though these sufferings
had theE ebbs and flows. They were not always equally
intense. Thus, in the first stages of His ministry, He speaks

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 113
of His. death with a certain measure of calmness (John iii. 14;
John vi. 51). There can be Ettle doubt, however, that when
He did so speak of His approaching death, there is a certain
measure of the same experience which afterwards reached its
height in the garden and on the cross.
At a further stage His statements are delivered with a
greater amount of feeling ; and they awaken also more atten
tion among the disciples, as well as a certain degree of fear and
awe, because they could not but see a deepening solemnity
upon His mind, and the first traces of something more than
a mere anticipation of the future (Matt. xvii. 17-22; Mark
is. 31). It was in the last journey to Jerusalem that He spake out
with a distinctness and an amount of feeling that impressed
His disciples with fear (Mark x. 32). This was owing to the
way in which He spoke of His death as a cup that He must
drink of, and as a baptism that He must be baptized with
(Matt. XX. 22). And when He says, " How am I straitened
tOl it is accomplished!" (Luke xii. 50,) He intimates that there
was upon His spirit a pressure, anxiety, or straitening, which
it may be difficult for us to define, but which must aEude to .
an inner experience akin to the fact that He was the sin-
bearer. The sufferings of Christ may be distributed into those
which were an immediate infliction upon His soul from the
hand of God, and those in which soul and body aEke shared.
To the former belong aE those exclamations which feE from
Him in society or in soEtude, without any infliction of pain
from, the hands of men. There are at least two of this nature,
where we cannot but trace the evidences of mental agony, — the
soul-trouble manifested in the presence of the inquEing Greeks
on the day of His pubEc entry into Jerusalem (John xii. 27),
and the agony in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. xxvi. 38) ;
to which must be added, as a third, the cry of desertion on the
cross, which, though accompanied with corporeal suffering, arose
H

114 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
mainly from mental distress (Matt, xxvii. 46). One thing is
obvious enough in reference to aE these three exclamations.
They cannot be explained on any supposition which does not
fully admit the vicarious death of Christ. We shaE notice
them separately.
I. Tlie exclamation of the 'sin-bearer on His entry into Jen,-
salem. — The evangelist John alone records this exclamation of
agony and soul-trouble: " Now' is my soul troubled; and what
shall I say ? Father, save Me from this hour : hut for this came
came I unto this hour" (John xii. 27). The trouble of soul
here announced by Christ Himself is not to be explamed by
the mere recoil of sinless nature from the approach of death.
It is to be explained by supernatural causes, — that is, by the
divine anger against sin, as it was borne by the substitute of
sinners ; and the allusion to His death in the prcAdous context
seems to have given the occasion for letting in upon His soul,
by a special avenue, a sense of the divine wrath.
The next words, " Save Me from this hour," convey, in
substance, the same petition that comes before us m the
Gethsemane scene. This request discovers nature as at a loss,
and embarrassed under the pressure of the overwhelming
trouble due to us for sin. Some read this clause interrogatively,
as if Christ were to be regarded as asking whether He should
thus pray, and as E His submission to God lay specially m this,
that He did not so ask of God. But it is better to read it with
out the interrogation, as the latter brings in a train of self-
feflection, which is not appropriate to such a scene of vehement
emotion. We may suppose one of two explanations. We
may either suppose that He does not ask deliverance from the
death, but only from the accessories or accompaniments of it,
which were so overwheEning, that, the horror and anguish
seemed to Him insupportable. It wUl then be a prayer for
such a mitigation of the anguish, that He might finish the
work of human redemption successfully. Or we may suppose
that He prays to be saved from the punitive justice, the cup, .

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 115
or the baptism, within the sphere of which He was now brought.
The latter seems the better exposition, though it has far greater
difficulties, and brings us up at once to the inscrutable mystery
of pure humanity asking with submission, and asking sinlessly,
under the stunning sense of present anguish, whether there was
no possibility of being saved from that hour.
But the next clause points out in what way His mind
returned to its rest : " But for this cause came I unto this
hour." He reverts to the vicarious suffering as the design of
His incarnation, as the very end of His coming. Those expositors
are much mistaken who refer the words to His glorification ; as
if the Lord meant to say that He came- into the world for this
cause, that He might be glorified. The immediate context is,
not that He might be glorified, nor that the world might be
saved, nor that He might be delivered, — aE which ideas have
been offered by commentators as the reason for which He is
here said to have come into the world. The immediate context
is found in " this hour," and the thought is that Jesus came to
endure this hour of suffering.
This whole scene discovers the two great features of the
atonement, — sin-bearing and sinless obedience. The exclama
tion, beyond doubt,' is extorted by the pressure of the divine
wrath. Nor is this invalidated, in any measure, by the fact
that the Scripture represents the Lord Jesus as the object of
the divine complacency and love ; and the more so, because He
laid down His life for the sheep (John x. 17). It is urged by
those who have inadequate views of the vicarious satisfaction,
that the beloved Son could never be the object of the Father's
anger, and, therefore, that this exclamation could never arise
from any such experience. That objection, urged against the
view already given, proceeds on a mistaken view of what is
meant, .and confounds the personal with the official relation of
the Son of God. In His personal capacity He was, and could
never cease to be, the beloved Son. But in His official capacity
He was the substitute of sinners, the sin-bearer and the curse-

116 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
bearer, who came into the world to put away sin by the sacrffice
of Himself; and the personal relation in which He stood to the
Father lent to the official aE its efficacy and value. Nor is
that aE.
Such an exclamation as the present cannot be regarded as
worthy of Christ if His sufferings were not vicarious. On the
supposition that Christ's death was but a martyr's death, it
would be a strange and inexpEcable enigma. Suppose the death
of Christ to have no higher significance than that of attesting
the truth of His doctrine and of serving as an example, we
should have expected to find in Him a bright example of. forti
tude and magnanimity, of patience and composure, of calmness
and triumph, without any tincture of dejection or fear; and
the more so, because He was exalted above aE other witnesses
of the truth by the greatness of His person. And on that
theory of His work, men may weE be astonished to find the
opposite. Whence so many signs of fainting, when no mflic-
tion came from the hand of man, and only a dim anticipation
of something looming in the distance hung over Him on the
theory in question? How shaE we explain His anguish,'
dejection, and fear, more than has been evinced by many of
His own servants and martyrs ? No satisfactory account can
be given of His mental anguish and heaviness E Christ were
but a martyr or an example of patience ; and this gains force
E we add, as we must do on that theory, that (Evine wisdom
actively devised whatever would make His example worthy of
our imitation.
The only position which we can maintain is, that these
exclamations of Christ argue the conscious sin-bearer and a
vicarious suffering.
II. The exclamation of the sin-bearer in Gethsemane. — The
second exclamation, which evinces how Christ's soul wrestled
with a heaviness and agony greater far than any bodily pain
afterwards inflicted, was uttered in Gethsemane. It is thus
given by Matthew : " Then cometh Jesus with them unto a

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 117
place called Gethsemane, and saith unto the disciples. Sit ye
here, while I go and pray yonder. And He took with Him
Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be sorrowful
and very heavy. Then saith He unto them. My soul is exceed
ing sm-rowful, even unto death : tarry ye here, and watch with
Me. And He went a little farther, and feE on His face, and
prayed, saying, 0 my Father, if it he possible, let this cup pass
from Me : nevertheless not as I will, but as Thou wilt. And He
cometh unto the disciples, and findeth them asleep, and saith
unto Peter, What ! could ye not watch with Me one hour ? Watch
and pray, that ye enter not into temptation : the spirit indeed
is willing, but the flesh is weak. He went away again the
second time, and prayed, saying, 0 my Father, if this cup may
¦not pass from Me, except I drink it. Thy will he done. And He
came and found them asleep again : for theE eyes were heavy.
And He left them, and went away again, and prayed the third
time, saying the same words " (Matt. xxvi. 3 6-44) . Many theories
have here been proposed by way of explanation of this scene, —
some referring the sorrow on Christ's mind to a single cause,
others referring it to a variety of concurrmg causes. It seems
more natural to deduce the strong and vehement emotion of
Christ from one cause than from several ; for experience teEs
us, as weE as a right view of the human mmd and of its laws,
that very great emotion is never produced' by a variety of con
current causes.
We must now consider to what the deep agony and sorrow
of our Lord are to be traced. Of the great variety of explana
tions that have been given — some of them so shaEow and
groundless as not to deserve a moment's thought, — there are
three, in particular, that have much more probability. And
among these we must choose.
1. Some ascribe the agony in the garden to the temptations
of Satan. It is argued that Satan, who left Him for a time '
(Luke iv. 13), or, as it may mean, tEl the fit time for renewing

118 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the attack, returned when He was in the garden. It is thought
that there is enough of harmony between the two occasions
to lend countenance to this supposition. But then there are
no hints or intimations of any such thing in the actual narra
tive of the evangelists. It does not clearly appear that the
tempter, after being so completely foiled in the first encounter,
ventured to renew the conflict in the same direct way. It
may be so ; but it is not recorded. And certainly it would
be strange that Luke should mention the appearance of an
angel on the scene, to strengthen and confirm our Lord, and
make no mention of another agent from the invisible world,
if such a hand-to-hand encounter had taken place. Nor does
the language of Jesus on the eve of His going out to the
garden imply a new conffict of temptation: "The prince of
this world cometh" (John xiv. 30). It seems much more cor
rect to say that the prince of this world now came through
the instrumentality of men, imbued with his spirit, and filled
with his influence, to crush the Lord Jesus by violence.
2. Nor can the agony of Christ be traced alone to the vivid
view of His approaching crucifixion. This very common ex
planation assumes nothing but a mere foreboding or anticipa
tion of a dread reality near at hand, biit without any higher
influence. This comment has been propounded in two different
forms, neither of which is satisfactory. The lower theory of
the two is, that all Christ's sufferings came from the hands of
men, and not from any direct infliction at the hand of God ;
and, consequently, that He was, and must be, the object of God's
delight in such a sense that no mysterious extraordinary power
could come from God to aggravate His sorrow.^ On this theory
of Christ's agony in the garden it only remains for expositors
to appeal to the fact, that a violent , death must have been
pecuEarly awful to Christ's pure and tender and sensitive
1 This is the view supported in the two prize essays of Riehm and Van
Wmigen, published in 1831 by the Htjgue Society for the defence of the Chris
tian religion, over het Hooggaande lijden van Jesus in Getlisemane.

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 119
humanity. And though the further thought may here be
added, that death is the divine sentence against sin, and that
Christ realized His death in connection with the why and
wherefore of such a sentence on the world's sin, the whole
theory is highly defective. It does not explain the pertur
bation and sorrow of Christ's mind ; it gives no adequate
explanation of the bloody sweat; and it fails to give any
just account of the other accompaniments recorded in the
Gospels. The other is a deeper theory, but also insufficient, because
it goes no further than mere anticipation or foreboding.-^ This
view takes for granted that the Lord Jesus, without anything
beyond the exercises of His own mind, was filled with heavi
ness and exceeding sorrow even unto death, because a lively
view was presented to Him of the unutterable wrath of God
due to sin, which the surety made His own. But this second
supposition is also defective, because the whole scene on this
theory becomes, to an undue degree, a mere subjective impres
sion. It does not explain the phenomena ; it leads to the
inference that the mind of Jesus was overwhelmed by a fore
boding, which we can scarcely suppose ever rising to such a
climax as threatened to master His perfectly-balanced mind;
it transfers the actual suffering forward to the hours when He
hung on the cross, as if He had none before ; and it assigns no
adequate reason why an angel came to strengthen Him. The
fact of the angel's appearance for such a purpose implies real
and not merely apprehended suffering. And His confirming
message, of whatever kind it was, would at least bring some
thing objective before Him, and point to the joy set before Him,
as well as promise adequate support.
3. Another and a better explanation than either of the two

' See the exposition of the agony in the garden on this principle, in a sermon
by Principal Edwards, of America, which, though it affords a most striking
sketch of the Lord's mental agony, is stOl defective, inasmuch as he regards it
as only prospective, not present.

120 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
former is, that the sorrow of Gethsemane was due to the posi
tive privation of the divine presence, or to the loss of God.^
Of aE the ingredients in the agony of those who encounter the
penalty of sin, this is by far the worst element in theE cup of
suffering. The suffering of Christ in His capacity as substitute
was the same in its character, so far as outward causes are con
cerned, as the penal infliction awaiting the finally condemned.
It was an objective and positive punishment from the hand of
God that feE on the Lord Jesus, who occupied the place of our
representative ; and the exclamation proves that He was the
conscious sin-bearer. The agony did not visit Him as a just
and holy person, but as He was the surety, made sin by His
voluntary act. And it may be added, that these two mental
acts — the sense of the divine wrath, and the utmost fiGlial con
fidence, — though they are distinct, are by no means incompatible.
The one was due to His office as the sin-bearer ; the other was
expressive of His personal relation. Nor are we to suppose
that this penal privation of the divine presence was always
equaEy intense, and that no intervals of reEef were aEowed to
Him; for, in the present case, the opposite appears from the
fact that He returned in such intervals to the disciples, who
were heavy with slumber.
As to the accompaniments of this inscrutable scene, they
were the foEowing: — (1) A sorrow unto death (aSp^jO/Oi'/a), a horror
and oppressive sense of sinking, tOl the functions of the mind
were weE-nigh suspended. It has been Ekened to the stopping
of a clock, not by any intrinsic defect in its mechanism, but hy
the appEcation of an outward force suspending its motion. (2)
The bloody sweat arising from the inconceivable emotions of
' This was the prevailing and common view in former times. 1 may refer to
a remarkable discussion de agonia et desertione Christi, on this acceptation of
it, by Gisbert Voetius in his Selectee Disputationes, vol. ii. pp. 164-188. Among
the more modem writers, Saurin, Disc. t. x. p, 251, Seller, and others, still take
the same view. The recent exegetes who are opposed to the vicarious sacrifice,
object to it as the vicarious Yievf, just as a former generation objected to it as
the supernatural view. But no other is at all tenable, or can be made even
plausible.

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 121
sorrow, dejection, and fear, so strong as to turn the current of
the blood out of its course. (3) The more earnest prayer (Izrs-
Vi(TTBpoi/} occasioned by the amazement and deep perplexity of
His souL AU this shows what He endured as the conscious
sin-bearer from the hand of an angry God, who, whEe He ever
regarded Jesus as His beloved Son, visited sin with its adequate
recompense, i
Though these sufferings partook of the same elements with
the agonies of the finaEy lost, in as far as the external cause
was concerned, there was also a very wide difference. This
comes to light, whether we consider His mental exercises or
His personal relation to the Father. It was a holy endurance
of the penalty without one flaw or taint of imperfection. His
agonies were neither eternal nor accompanied with the worm
of conscience, — ingreEents in the cup of the finaUy condemned.
But no one can peruse the scene in Gethsemane, without com
ing to the conclusion that Christ there suffered immediately in
His soul ; and that the theory which Hmits those sufferings to
His body, whether advocated by Eomanists or by Protestants,
is destitute of scriptural foundation. The principal part of
the agony feE, without doubt, upon the soul of the Lord Jesus,
and comprehended every element of eternal death that could
be endured by such a person, or could justly be exacted from
Him. It belonged to the divine plan that He should experience
the fear of death for us, which we should otherwise have been
obliged to wrestle with all our Efe long. He must have felt
the menaced sentence, and the tormenting execution of it,
" Thou 'shalt surely die." The words of Jesus in Gethsemane
were uttered under a heavmess and fear which seemed to inti-
¦ mate that body and mmd were aEke ready to give way, and
for ever be rendered unfit for discharging the task assigned
Him with the fortitude and stedfastness, the patience and
endurance, that were required.' He felt that humanity could
bear no higher degree of sorrow. Though His humanity was

122 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Strengthened secretly by the support of the divine nature, it
seemed to Him that His mind and body could not bear more,
without dissolution or wholly giving way under the pressure.
He needed an objective something ; and the angel's appearance
seems to have brought it.
But the difficulty arises. Why did He pray that the cup
might pass from Him ? Did He wish to get rid of His media
torial office; and repent of His suretyship ? No ; but though He
knew that He must suffer, the humanity did not know, without
direct and actual experience, either the bitterness of the, cup,
or the extreme to which it must go. As in the former excla
mation, so in this scene in Gethsemane, we may either suppose
that He prayed for an abatement of the agony and for a speedy
termination to it, or that sinless humanity asked with aE sub
mission whether the exaction of punitive justice might not pass
from Him. The latter, though confessedly the comment that
has by far the most difficulties, seems the best adapted to the
occasion. But how, it is asked, can we maintain the infliction of
divine wrath at aE when Jesus was the beloved Son ? Did He
not even here call God Father, and pray with fiEal confidence
and affection ? To this there is an easy answer. Jesus occu
pied, by the very fact of the incarnation, a twofold relation, —
an official relation as well as a personal relation; and unless
He had come to occupy the place of sinners, there was no indis
pensably necessary cause for His incarnation at all. The per
sonal, however, is the basis of the official capacity; and during
the course of His career on earth, these two always presupposed
each other. They were not mutually exclusive; they were
not incompatible in the one person. On the contrary, Jesus,
as the sin-bearer or representative of sinners, regarded God as
a righteous judge, who would visit, and could not but visit, for
sin. But, at the same time. He was conscious of bemg the
only-begotten Son, and of exercising a filial confidence, which
was never abandoned, nor even interrupted, during the severest

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 123
inffiction of wrath due to us for sin. The Gethsemane scene
is memorable, just because it brings out these two points so
vividly : the exclamation of the sin-bearer, and the unswerving
obedience and trust of the Son.
III. The cry of desertion on the cross. — The third exclamation
of the conscious sm-bearer was the cry, " My God, My God ! why
hast Thou forsaken Me V (Matt, xxvii 46.) It was like all His
sayings, according to truth ; and it becomes us carefully to
investigate its import and signfficance. Though it does not faE
withm my present object to refer to the several sayings on the
cross in their order, it is noteworthy, that when Christ had
given utterance to certain sayings that had reference to others,
when He had uttered the comforting promise to the penitent
thief, and had prayed for His persecutors, and had commended
His mother to the care of the beloved disciple. He next turned
to God alone, as E He had now done with man. The remaining
space was to be speciaEy occupied with God alone, as if His
work with men was now done.
No sooner were His mind and attention turned away from
His relation to men aroimd Him, than a striking phenomenon
presented itself. Darkness all of a sudden enveloped the face
of nature, and eternal death seemed to seize hold of Him.
Whatever view may be given of that darkness, it doubtless
stood connected with the chief figure in this whole scene, and
with the mental state through which the substitute of sinners
was now to pass ; and it must plainly be held to be symboEcal
as weE as miraculous. We have not, it is true, any authorita
tive explanation of its meaning in the Scripture. But as the
inner darkness of Christ's soul and that darkness on the face
of the earth were simultaneous, no explanation has so much
probability as that which regards the menacing gloom, as meant
to intimate that our sin had separated between God and the-
surety, and that our iniquities had hid the Father's face from
Him (Isa. Ex. 2). That is every way a better explanation than
the more current one, that it was meant to convey an impres-

124 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sion of the divine displeasure for the indignity offered and the
crime committed by the Jewish nation against the Christ,
But however we interpret the meaning of this mysterious dark
ness, it certainly seems to have had one effect. Under the
awe which it produced, there seems to have been diffused
among the bystanders a death-stOlness, which for the time
freed the sufferer from the scoffs and mockery of the mad
multitude, and left Him alone, and comparatively undistracted,
with God. The sEence was broken at last, after an interval,
by these words of awful import, " My God, My God ! why hast
Thou forsaken Me ?" 'What the Lord Jesus thus uttered was
His actual experience ; and as it was from the faithful witness,
it was according to truth. He who was the light of the world
was under the hiding of His Father's face.
The inquiry into the causes of this peculiar mood of mind,
substantiaEy the same as in the two former exclamations, need not
occupy oiir minds so long. The question is much more narrowed
in this case ; nor is there so much difference of opinion among
divines and expositors. The words to which our Lord gave
utterance are plainly a quotation from the 2 2d Psalm, which
is unquestionably Messianic, whether it had any immediate
reference to the Psalmist or not. As to the interpretation,
much depends on the question whether we take the word
forsake in its fidl significance, or whether we tone down its
meaning to the mere notion of " delay to help." Some even of
those who admit that the death of Christ was a propitiatory
sacrifice, object to the interpretation that our Lord must be
understood as uttering this language as an expression of real
(desertion, and in a moment of real desertion. And according
to them, the words wEl only mean, " Why leavest Thou Me ?"
or, " Why delayest Thou to free Me from my suffermg ? " The
word why is thus an expression of complamt, but involving
a petition. In favour of this interpretation, it is argued that
God is said " to forsake" one, or to be far from one, when He
does not send help, and to "be near" when He delivers.

EXCLAMATIONS OF THE CONSCIOUS SIN-BEARER. 125
Thus, according to this interpretation, there wiE be no particular
emphasis on the word forsake. The whole import of the
exclamation becomes flat and meaningless, according to this
exposition. And the supporters of it, while they do not deny
the atoning sacrifice of Christ, hold merely by one side of the
truth, — namely, that the Father surely loved the Son with
unabated love,- and could not withdraw His favour from His
Son ; nay, that the Son deserved it all the more when He was
brmging His obedience through the deepest humiliation \o its
highest elevation. AE that is true, and not to be questioned
m any quarter.
But aE this is one-sided, and argues much confusion of idea.
It loses sight of the distinction, to which we have aEeady
aEuded, between the personal and official capacity of our Lord ;
and it argues as if the supporters of the penal infliction of the
divine wrath on Jesus as the sin-bearer also maintained the
removal or withdrawal of the Evine favour from Him in a per
sonal point of view. That desertion undoubtedly involved the
privation of the sweet sense of divine love and of the beatffic
vision of God, but no loss of the divme favour, and no with
drawal of the grace resulting from the personal union. It was
not accompanied with a dissolution of the principle of joy,
though it was accompanied with a suspension of the present
experience of joy. It was for a time, not for ever. It was
not attended with despair or doubt, but with the fuE confidence
of faith, as is expressed in the words, " My God." To sum up
aE in. a few words : it was borne in our name, and not for Him
seE, — in the capacity of the sin-bearer or surety, and not in that
of the beloved Son. It was voluntary, and not enforced ; by
the imputation of our sin, and not for anything of His own.
It was not because He had no power to remove it, but out
of love to us. And in that desertion He encountered aE the
elements of eternal death, as far as they could faE on such
a sufferer. It involved the removal not merely of the tokens
of divine love, but the privation of God, or that loss of God,

126 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
which is the very essence of the second death, awaiting the
finaEy lost. Though this departure of God is accompanied,
in the case of the sinner, with despair and with the worm
of, an evE conscience, it could be executed in a somewhat
different way on our sinless Lord. But it must needs be exe
cuted, if He was to occupy the place of a real substitute and
surety for sinful men.
The Lord asks why, with a force and significance which
bring us to the margin of the inscrutable. It may be vriser
to stand and adore than to grope our way into the meamng of
this why} The language certainly does not mean that the
cause of the desertion was unknown to Him as the conscious
sin-bearer, who was passing through- the flaming fire of the
divine wrath for our salvation. But the inquiry, so put, seems
to utter a desEe that He may not be uninformed, but fully
acquainted with the absolute necessity of aE these pangs and
agonies of desertion. He seems desEous to be assured sub
jectively, or convinced within His inmost soul, that aU this
must needs be so. He wishes to rest or anchor His mind in
that conviction of its indispensable necessity.
The vicarious position of Christ during aE these exclama
tions cannot, therefore, be doubtfiE to any one who has duly
understood them. He bore (1) the soul-trouble, that His people
might not bear it ; (2) He drank the cup of the garden, that
they might not drink it ; (3) He was forsaken on the cross, that
they might never know that desertion. He felt what sin is, and
what it is to be severed from God, that we might never taste
^ See Thomasius' Christi Person und Werk, iii. p. 71, and also Philippi's
pamphlet in reply to V. Hofmann on the Versohnungs und Sechtfertigmskhre,
p. 39, 1856. From the latter I shall quote the following sentences :— " Indess
die Hollenstrafe besteht wesenthch und hauptsachlich in der Gottverlassenleit,
und in der positiver Auschliessung und Verstossung ans der Gottesgemeinschaft,
Diese objective gbttliche That reflectirt sich nur subjectiv .bei dem Sunder in dem
bosen Gewissen und der Verzweiflung an der Siidenvergebung, kann aber auoh
ohne diesen subjectiven, Reflex an dem Heiligen sich VoUziehen. Das wanun
des 22 Psalmes bekundet eine unschuldige Gottverlassenheit bei gutem Oe-
wissen."

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 127
it; and He proclaimed with a loud voice the inconceivable
agomes of that desertion, that He might convey to those who
heard Him, or who should afterwards peruse His sufferings
to the end of time, a due impression of the infinite weight of
sin, and of the penal desertion it entails. As to the mental
condition of the Son of God during this penal loss of God,
and retribution for the sin which He made His own, it may
be safely affirmed that He then experienced the essence of
eternal death, or that sense of abandonment which wiE form
the bitterest ingredient in the cup of the finaEy impenitent.
This was the meaning of the sentence, " Thou shalt surely
die." Had the second Adam been a mere man, there could have
been no such vicarious work, because He would have been
bound to fuE obedience on His own account, and that obedi
ence could not have extended to others. But the second man,
being the Son of God, rendered a vicarious obeEence, and en
countered a vicarious suffering, not necessary for Himself, and
of infinite value. And, because of His divme person, the brief
period of His agony was a fuEy adequate and perfect satisfac
tion for the sms of His people, from the infinite (Egnity and
mfinite merit of the sufferer.

SEC. XIX. — CHRIST THE SIN-BEARER TESTIFYING ' THAT HE WAS
TO BE NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS DURING lUS CRUCI
FIXION.
As our plan directs us rather to the doctrine of the atone
ment than to the history of the transaction, so far as man is
concerned, we can bring out the actual history of the crucifixion
scene in only a few of its saEent points; and in doing so, we
shaE refer to the cross only in such a way as shaE connect the
fact and the doctrine together. The simple narrative of the
scenes of Christ's suffermg, as given by the evangelists, is so
limited to the bare facts, and so simply historical in its outline.

128 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
that it requEes to be read with the commentary supplied by
the prophecy of Isaiah on the one hand (Isa. liii. 1-12), and
by the apostoEc Epistles on the other. There we find the
rationale of the whole suffering career of Christ.
But even those outward, scenes, where we see Jesus face to
face with man, must be read off, if we would fuEy understand
them, from the great fact of His substitution in the room of
sinners.-' It must be kept in mind that He was a sacrffice
from the very commencement of His earthly life, and that His
coEective sufferings must be viewed as belonging to His work
of substitution, and as the one discharge of His mediatorial
work. Hence, even in those historical events, which put Him
in connection with a human judge and with a human court of
justice, we are by no means to dismiss the idea of an exchange '
of persons. He was, even then, truly sustaining the person and
occupying the place of the guEty, — that is, was the just in the
room of the unjust, the sinless in the room of the sinful, the
innocent in the room of the guEty. His person wasm the
room of our persons; and such was the exchange, that our
punishment became His.
There are several sayings of Christ descriptive of His
deEvery into the hands of men, and of the . treatment to be
received from them when so deEvered, which proceed upon
the supposition of a very deep and pecuEar relation. These
sayings we must now investigate. All the attempts made
against Him were, up to a definite time, impotent and wholly
futEe. He eased Him of His adversaries by retEing with
' We have followed the example set by V. Hofmann in introducing a refer
ence to the historical facts of Christ's sufferings. He sees in these only a wider-
fahrniss ; we see in them His vicarious work and sacrifice in process of execution.
It is well remarked by^^Wsber in his work, Vom Zome Gottes ; Erlangen, 1862 :
" Mit den selbstaussagen Jesu von der Bedeutung, seines Leidens und Sterhens
vergleichen wir den geschichtlichen Vollzug desselben. Man hat das friiher bei
Ermittlung der Frage, in wiefern Jesus durch sein Leiden imd. sterben uns mit
Gott versbhnt habe, uuterlasseu: aber mit recht hat "V, Hofmann in seiner Dar-
stellung des Versohnungswerkes die Geschichte der Passion vorangesteUt : denn
an ihr muss es sich bewahren, ob die aussagen iiber die Bedeutung des Leidens
Jesu riohtig verstanden worden sind " (p. 244),

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 129
majestic ease beyond the reach of their machinations. Thus
He withdrew from the infuriated men of Nazareth, His feEow-
townsmen, when they attempted to take Him and to cast Him
heacEong from the brow of the hUl whereon theE city was
built (Luke iv. 29), They could not touch Him tiE they
received divme permission. The rulers also sent officers to
seize Him, and they returned paralyzed and conscience-struck,
unable to execute the charge (John vii, 32.) At another time
the assembled crowd whom He adcEessed took up stones to
cast at Him (John viii. 59), and He passed through the midst
of them, and so passed by. In a word, tOl His hour was come,
or, in another form of expressing it, tiE He spontaneously con
sented to be apprehended. He had a perfect immunity from aE
theE violence.
Now the inquiry that confronts us, and which demands an
answer, is this: When He was arrested at last, as the first step to
the violent death which was to be endured, is this to be ascribed
to the ordinary course of events, and to be regarded as His fate ?
By no means. That is, m modern theology, a too common
mode of speech on the part of those who cannot adjust theE
views to the doctrine of the exchange of places, or to the
representative position which Jesus must be regarded as occu-
pymg. That is the' language commonly held at present by the
supporters of a tendency. But they who speak of Christ as
coining withm the ordmary laws of human society and the
ordmary mcidents of Efe, and who describe His death as an
occurrence in the operation of the common course of history,
know not what they say, nor whereof they affirm. They mis
take His position in the world, and they misinterpret the
moral government of God.
He had a double immunity from the common incidents of
life. He had an immunity, first, as the sinless man on whom
the taint of evil had never faEen ; and next, as the Son of God,
from all those consequences of sin and those orEnary incidents
befalEng sinful men m a sinful world. No injury could assail

130 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
Him tiE He was judicially deEvered up as the sin-bearer. He
could be seized only when His hour was come. He was to be
deEvered up only at the time when, having finished His period
of sinless obeEence for the space of a generation, as read off
from the length of human lEe, and having ended His pubhc
ministry. He voluntarily consented as the surety to take our
place, and to sustain our person in His trial and condemnation.
It was the sinner who was there brought up for sentence. It
was not only for sin in a vague, abstract, indeterminate sense
that He was delivered up, but in the room of the smners given
to Him, and whose place He representatively occupied. It was
only in their room and stead that Jesus was placed at the bar
as a criminal. And this was a real transaction before the
tribunal of God, not a semblance of a trial. The sinner was
there, hut Jesus took his place. And only in this way can we
explain either the prophetical sayings which describe Him as
wounded for our transgressions (Isa. liii. 5), or those apostohe
sayings which represent believers as co-crucffied (GaL'ii. 20),
as co-dying (Eom. vi. 8), and as suffering in the flesh (1 Peter
iv. 1), when in point of fact the Lord appears to human view
single and alone in the historic narrative of the evangehsts.
He spontaneously took our place, however, and was acting at
every step as a public person, or as the second Adam.
Unless there had been this voluntaryseE-surrender,no earthly
power could have apprehended Him. Not to refer to His own
divine (Egnity, which sufficiently secured Him, while He willed
it, there could not have happened in the moral government of
God such an anomaly as that of a perfectly pure and sinless
person subjected to any kind or measure of suffermg, except as
He appeared to sustain the person of sinners, and was made
sm by His own consent. Nor was this perfect exemption from
violence or injury at the hand of men a mere isolated fact. It
was part of the general scheme or of the understood relation to
human life occupied by Christ. He was not to dash His foot
against a stone (Ps. xci). Disease in the or(Enary course, or as

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 131
it is commonly contracted, could not touch Him, because He
did not come withm the power of sin in the world ; and hence
we never read of His contractmg any distemper or disease Eke
other men. Nor could death in any of the thousand forms in
which it comes to other men, come to Him, tiE He consented, by
a priestly act of seE-oblation, to lay down His Efe. He who
was exempt on His own account from any part of the curse, came
withm its operation in any sphere only by His own consent ;
and on this footing He came within the curse in every sphere
in which it was diffused. On this general ground, no one, tOl
His hour was come, that is, tiE the appointed time arrived in
the Father's purpose, could put forth a. hand to arrest Him.
This is repeated again , and again, as an explanation why His
enemies had no power oyer Him. A judicial act on His
Father's part, and a voluntary surrender on His own part, were
necessary before He could be delivered into the hands of men.
We find that our Lord brought out this truth very emphati
cally in reply to an arrogant remark of Pilate laying claim to a
power to crucify Christ or to release Him : " Thou coiddst have
no 'power at all against Me, except it were given thee from above "
(John xix. 11). This saying puts our Lord's subjection to
human power m its true and proper light. It has been very
variously mterpreted, and sometimes very superficiaEy. It is
not a general statement spoken with reference to the magistrate
as the minister and deputy of God. Nor is it an aEusion to
the general question of providence, as if Jesus would intimate
that nothmg takes place without the direction of divine provi
dence, and that what befalls the true servants of God takes
place only by divine permission. Nor is it a statement of the
general truth, that in a world of sinners the righteous, possessing
as they do a sinful nature, receive many a wrong and inEgnity,
because they come withm the range of those general laws which
operate in the world. None of these comments which regard
Christ's reply as referrmg to a general truth, touch the real
pomt of His answer ; nay, they pervert it. Pilate had spoken.

132 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
with a specific aEusion to Christ, claiming such judicial autho
rity over Him as was competent to one who had Him wholly
in his power. PEate intimated that it was entirely at his dis
cretion to crucify or to release Him ; and the answer of Christ
is equaEy specific.^ The Lord means that PEate could have no
power at all over Him considered in His proper character as
the Son of God, and as the sinless man. He intimates that the
power which the Eoman governor possessed could be turned
against Him, not absolutely, but simply on the ground that our
Lord was there in a capacity which properly belonged to others,
not to HimseE. He intimates not obscurely that He was there
as the representative of sinners and as the sin-bearer. Hence
the power over Htm was given indeed from above to a human
judge, but given for an end worthy of such abasement on His
part. But because He sustained our person. He is no more to
be treated as E He were innocent. PersonaEy sinless. He
occupies the place of sinners, and sustained theE character by
taking their sins and responsibEities upon Himself. We have
f 0 notice in this light the arrest of Christ and His trial ; for,
as we have already noticed, no power on earth could touch Him
tOl He gave them permission to proceed.
I may here notice another saying of Christ quite analogous
to the former, and containing also a deep signfficance, which can
only be apprehended when we read it in connection with Christ's
suretyship or representative character. He said, before leaving
the upper room, where He celebrated the last supper : "This that
is written of Me must ^ yet be accomplished in Me, And He was
numbered among transgressors" (Luke xxii 37). Now, are we to
' The remarks on this passage by the profound Lutheran divine, Gerhard, in
the Harmonia Evangelica, the joint work of Chemnitz, Lyser, and Gerhard,
1628, are well worthy of being read and pondered. He justly argues for the
specific reference.
^ See some interesting remarks by Weber, Fom Zome Gottes, p. 259, on the
words Ssr riXtaSsis'^' ii ^M't ^s against the notion supported by V. Hofmann, that
Christ's sufferings were merely caused by Satan's infiuence and opposition, and
that they were no more than a vnderfahmiss, and meant to be but a means zw
Bewahrung.

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 133
regard this remark of Christ, which embodies a quotation from
Isaiah's prophecy, as containmg nothing more than a descrip
tion of the opinion entertained by men respecting Him ? Does
it mean that He was treated as if He had been a transgressor,
or in a way which might have led a hasty observer or an undis-
cernmg spectator to conclude that He was, or might be, a trans
gressor ? No ; by no means. Our Lord plainly takes the words
in aE their fulness of signfficance. He uses them not as denot
ing a mere as if, but as descriptive of the real sentence due to
transgressors, and of the doom or punishment consequent on
that righteous sentence carried out against transgressors. That
is the meaning of the words; and the rationale is supplied by
the fact, that the expression occurs in a chapter which, beyond
doubt, predicts the vicarious sufferings of Christ, and repeats
again and again the great thought, " that He bore the sins of
many" (Isa. liii.). No canEd interpreter, interpreting simply
by language, can have any other impression than, this, that the
righteous servant there named delivers many by a vicarious
atonement. And Jesus, by quotmg this statement as awaiting
its accomplishment in HimseE, mamfe'stly appEes that whole
chapter of Isaiah to His own sufferings and death. We can
interpret our Lord's words only in the sense that He was
to be juEciaUy numbered among transgressors, that is, num
bered agreeably to the execution of a judicial sentence with
transgressors. 'When Mark appEes the same quotation to the
position assigned to Christ between the two thieves at His
crucifixion (Mark xv. 28), he brings out its meaning in aE its
compass of allusion. But He by no means excludes the pre
paratory stages of its accomplishment, or that which preceded
the fact adduced as its fulfilment. The words, " He was num
bered with transgressors," were accomplished not only when He
shared a common lot with the malefactors, but also in aE that
preceded the erection of the three crosses on Golgotha, and, in
fact, from the moment of His deEvery into the hands of men.
It was thus a judicial numbering of Christ with transgressors.

134 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
1. The ARREST of Christ in the garden as E He were a
criminal was the first step to the accomplishment of the pre
diction. He was there treated as a seditious man and as a male
factor in the room of us sinners, who had forfeited our freedom.
We are evE-doers in so far as our relation to the city of God
is concerned, that is, men who had renounced their dependence
and aEegiance, and who acted in aE things as disobedient subjects.
That arrest by the hand of justice was a real transaction at the
hand of God, — was, in fact, the arrest of the guilty criminal in
the person of the representative. -Arid if the veil had been
drawn aside, it would have been seen that aE this was in the
room of the sinner who should have been so apprehended.
This is a real, not a symbolical transaction. And if the repre
sentative is seized, they whom He represented must go free.
There is such a meaning in our Lord's words : " Let these ge
free " (John xviii. 8). Our Lord deeply felt, indeed, the rude
arrest in His tender human feelings when He said : " Are ye
come out as against a thief, with swords and with staves to take
Me ? " (Mark xiv. 48.) But He weE knew, that though person
ally sinless. He was there in the room of sinners, and that the
officers, acting as the ministers of God, seized Him as the sinner
should have been seized. But, at the same time, to show how
little human power could have prevailed against Him, unless
He had given His consent, it was deemed fitting to let out
some display or outbeaming of His majesty; and the utterance
of the simple words, ''I am He," prostrated the officers and
band to the ground (John xviii. 6). Though innocent of the
charge of sedition and blasphemy on which He was ostensibly
arrested. His people were not; and hence He must needs he
seized and bound in His capacity as the sinner's representative.
When we see the Son of God bound in chains, what does the
transaction exhibit but the captivity consequent upon our sin,
which He had made His own, or the chain binding the sinner
to the judgment of the great day ? His arrest is His people's
Eberty ; His bonds are theE release.

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 135
2. Not to mention aE the intermediate points in the suc
cessive steps of Christ's sufferings, we shaE notice, next in order.
His TRIAL AND SENTENCE BEFORE THE ECCLESIASTICAL COURT, ON
THE CHARGE OF BLASPHEMY. In this wliolc transaction, when
sentence of death was pronounced by the high priest, we have
but the visible part of the great assize. He must, as the sub
stitute of sinners, be found mnocent, and yet made guilty, — be
proved personaEy spotless, and yet be treated by the sentence
given as one who was to be regarded as officiaEy worthy of
condemnation. And this anomalous trial brings together at aE
pomts these two things. The sentence by which He was con
demned only indicated or announced the sentence passed by
God upon the sin-bearer. The accusation on which He was
tried in the Sanhedrim, as brought against us, is not false.
Moses accuses us, that the revelation given in the name of God
has been disregarded and despised, and that the divme perfec
tions have only been blasphemed by us. The accusation is so
true and so undeniable, that there is no need of witnesses.
The representative of sinners in His official capacity is silent,
and puts in no plea in arrest of judgment. But His personal
innocence must be apparent. And it was only His own true
declaration of what He was as a divme person which brought
down on Him, in lack of other evidence, the sentence that He
was worthy of death.^ He thus appears personaEy innocent,
but representatively guilty ; and unless we carry with us these
two ideas as the key to the whole trial, the narrative will be
inexplicable, and the fact in the moral government of God an
impenetrable mystery. That earthly court, dealmg with the
charge of blasphemy, or dishonour to the name and works and
word of God, sentenced the smner's surety, and pronounced
upon our sm, much in the same way as the shadow on the
sun-dial registers the movements taking place in another sphere.
He was personaEy innocent ; but as He stood there for us. He
1 Weber says, p. 262: " Mit ihnen hat eraUewege nichts zu thun, als das zu
bekennen und zu sagen, was sie treiben wird, ihn zu verurtheUen. "

136 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
was truly chargeable with aE the accusation which was then
adduced. His silence at that tribunal opens our mouth to cry,
" Abba, Father."
3. The MOCKERY, the shame, and the indignity to which
He was subjected, constituted the next part of His vicarious
suffering. They were undeserved by that meek and patient
sufferer, but weE merited by us, in whose name He appeared,
and whose person He bore. The wicked " shaE rise to shame
and everlasting contempt" (Dan. xu. 2). And from that merited
scorn due to sinners from aE holy beings the sinless substitute
was not exempt. He hid not His face from shame and from
spittmg. 4. Omitting the desertion of His disciples and the denial of
Peter, we advance to the next public act m connection with
Christ's sufferings,- — the trial and condemnation at the bar
OF the ROMAN GOVERNOR, ON A CHARGE OF REBELLION OR SEDITIOlf.
This is very much of the same kind with the trial before the
high priest upon a charge of blasphemy, and is to be considered
in a simEar Eght. The course of our Lord's sufferings may
with advantage ¦ be traced, as we have aEeady done, on the
sinner's history, and read off from it. The surety encountered,
at each successive step, what should have taken place m the
history of man's relation to God. For the very same relations,
and not merely analogous ones, were occupied by the surety
when He was tried and sentenced and condemned. It is note
worthy that at PEate's bar Jesus was silent ^ (Matt, xxvii. 14).
The explanation is to be found in the fact, that though per
sonaEy sinless. He reaEy, and not nominally, occupied the
sinner's place. Hence the silence. He puts in no plea in
arrest of judgment or in seE-vindication. He was there not m
His personal capacity, but in His official capacity, as the repre
sentative of sinners and the voluntary sin-bearer. He has
nothmg to adduce in extenuation or in exculpation, since every
mouth must be stopped, and the whole world become guilty
1' " And He answered him to never a word, Sicn ea.uii,i.X,m to» nyifuim X/'»»."

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGRESSORS. 137
before God. He accepts the charge of guilt ; and as the doom
is the sinher's, not His, He submits to it as merited. When
PEate wished to deliver Him, if Jesus would only be aiding
in His own defence, the Lord continued silent before His
accusers, amid aE the accusations adduced agamst Him. He
was then making a real appearance at the bar of God, of
which that earthly court of justice was but the foreground.
He was personaEy innocent, and officiaEy guHty. Hence His
silence. We must notice this anomalous trial specially in connection
with the fact that He was sentenced as guEty while pronounced
innocent.^ The examination of the judge was meant to serve
the important purpose of manifesting the innocence of Jesus,
And the startling fact, that a judge pronounces Him innocent,
but condemns Him as guilty, must be historically brought
about in the adorable providence of God, in order to exhibit
the personal and the official in the Lord Jesus; or, in other
words, to discover the sinless one and the sin-bearer. No man
could more emphatically testify to Christ's mnocence than
Pilate, He had examined the accusations ; he had heard aE
that the witnesses could adduce against Him, and was perfectly
mforme'd of everything in the case; and five times he declared
that he found no fault in Him, This was done, t(Jo, in public,
before His accusers, and in the presence of the vast multitude.
And, not content with that public announcement, he, when he
yielded at last to the clamour for the crucifixion, confirmed his
judicial testimony to His mnocence by the significant symbo
lical action of washing his hands, and declaring that he M'as
innocent of the blood of that just man. It was fitting that all
this should be done by a judge, and from the judicial bench,
that Christ's innocence might be made apparent; and next, tha
' See the Heidelberg Catechism, No. 28, and the numerous expounders of it,
on the reason why Jesus suffered under Pilate, — ^viz.: " Ut innooens coram judice
politico damnatus nos a severo Dei judicio quod omnes manebat, eximerit. "
See also Calvin on Christ's trial and sufi'erings.

138 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the inference might be drawn that the doom of the guilty was
transferred to Him as stanEng in a vicarious position. Thus
He was personaEy innocent, though He was by no means to be
accounted so in that official and vicarious capacity, in which
alone He stood at PEate's bar. There is no way of elucidatiqg
that anomalous trial, which went through the due forms of
law, unless we hold that He was truly innocent, but officially
guilty. 5, The last step of Christ's sufferings, the crucifixion,
immediately foEowed the sentence of Pilate, The mtermediate
details, such as the mockery, scorn, and inEgnity inflicted on
Him in many forms, we shaE omit; though these, too, were
vicarious, as appears from the words, " by His stripes we are
healed," We shaE omit, too, the Lord's words to the daughters
of Jerusalem when they wept for Him tears of sympathy, as
He toiled along the public way under the burden of the cross,
— tears which. He shows them, were out of place as shed for
Him, We shaE limit ourselves to the crucifixion itseE and to
the closing acts of His Efe,
The crucifixion, a Eoman mode of punishment, was not only
peculiarly painful and ignominious in the sight of man, but
was meant to indicate the amazing fact, that Christ, b'y being
suspended on the tree, was made a curse. The words of Moses
quoted by Paul are express to this effect (Gal. iii. 13).^ The
Lord Jesus was thus, personaEy considered, the beloved Son
and the sinless' man, but, officiaEy considered, the curse-bearer
in the room of sinners. The Son of God, truly bearing sin with
a view to condemn it in the flesh, was exhibited as made a
curse by the very fact of enduring this punishment. We have
thus to draw the same distinction, as we already mentioned;
between Christ , considered personaEy and Christ considered
officiaEy. If there ever was a spot where sm could be laid
' The Dutch commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, translated from the
Latin papers of A. Schultens by Barueth, on questions 37, 38, 39, gives some
striking views upon this point.

CHRIST NUMBERED WITH TRANSGEESSORS. 139
without entailing the inevitable doom of a righteous condemna
tion, it was here when it was borne on the sinless humanity of
the incarnate Son; and we see that even there sin was con
demned • in the flesh and righteously visited. The surety was
tried, sentenced, condemned, and made a curse for us, that we
might not come into condemnation.
During those awful hours on the cross when made a curse
for us, the Lord Jesus sustained that desertion, which was just
the endurance of the death of the soul, when sin . separates
between God and the soul, and when God hides His face from
us. To this it is not necessary to refer further, after what was
said in the previous section. The actions of the Lord Jesus
when He hung on the cross, were in the highest degree momen
tous and significant. These expiatory sufferings, " an offering
and sacrifice to God for a sweet-smeEing savour" (Eph. v. 2),
were so efficacious, that they were made the ground of two
signal displays of grace, even while He was on the cross. The
one of these was the salvation of the dying malefactor, who was
made an eminent trophy of His redemption work, and was
enabled to recognise Him as a sufficient Saviour, even in that
deep abasement and humiliation. The other was the prayer
for forgiveness to His crucifiers, whether we regard the scope
of the prayer as comprehending the individuals then before
Him, or as extending to the preservation of the Jewish nation.
After these hours of inconceivable sorrow and desertion on
the cross, under a darkness which just resembled the blackness
awaiting the lost, the Lord felt that His work was accompEshed ;
and He gave utterance to that saying which has brought light,
rest, and Eberty to so many minds : " It is finished " (John
xix. 30).^ He meant that the expiatory sufferings had reached
1 TiTiXtirrxi. This cannot refer merely to the fulfilment of all the prophecies,
as many yet remained to be fulfilled, but specially to the fulfilling of all the
vicarious suffering and meritorious obedience necessary for man's redemption.
This is better than the comment of the modern exegetes, of whom the recent
lexicographer, Cremer, Worterhuch der N. T. Gracitat, 1868, may be taken as
a representative, and who writes: " rsTsXsirTa/ : welches sich somit auf die

140 -SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
theE climax, and were sufficient, that the guilt of mankind was
fuEy atoned for, and that there was nothing left undone. He
felt that God and man were reunited and reconciled ; and now
He had but to resign His spirit into His Father's hands. As
PRIEST AND VICTIM, He had oiily now one act to perform, — to
lay down His life by the priestly act of commendmg His spirit
to God. Nature was not exhausted, nor did life ooze away;
for He stiE had power over His own life, and no man took
it from Him (John x. 18). After having done all and endured
aE, He deemed it fitting, without more delay, to resign His life
or spirit mto His Father's hand as an acceptable sacrffice. It
was the High Priest offering up His soul to God that said,
"Father, into Thy hands I commend my spirit." And He
uttered it with a loud voice, to show that strength stiR remained
in Him, and that, by His own authority. He released the spirit
from the lacerated and wounded body.^
The curse was, " Thou shalt die ;" and now it was exhausted,
and sin annihilated. Now heaven and earth were reunited;
God and man were at one again.
SEC. XX. — SINGLE EXPRESSIONS USED BY CHRIST IN REFERENCE
TO A WORK GIVEN HIM TO DO.
Under this section we may put together some other expres
sions which fell from the lips of Christ in reference to the
second element of the atonement, that is, to the nature of the
VoUstandige ausfuhrung dessen, wodurch die Schrift erfiillt wird bezieht, nicht
erfullen." On the contrary, Wolfius, with much more accuracy, said m his
Curw, 1741: "Interpretes hactenus omnes verbum Ulud de consummatione •
omnium, qua ad salutarem perpessionem pertinebant acceperunt."
I The removal of the desertion and the return of light to Christ's soul before
He expired are affirmed by many great divines. That return of light is not
improbable, though it is not more than a probability. (See Weber, Vom Zone
Gottes,^. 266; Dods on Incarnation ; HulshofF, Sermons, etc., who affirm it)
The desertion may have terminated with the darkness spread over all nature.
But there is one caveat necessary where this is held : the curse was not, ami
could not be, fully exhausted till death ensued— the wages of sin.

SINGLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 141
atonement as a mediatorial work given Him to do. We refer here
to a work of active obedience not coincident with His teaching
on earth, or with His life-communicating activity in heaven.
For both the teaching and the life-giving activity presuppose
that mediatorial work, and proceed upon it.
Such a work of obedience, distmguished from the suffermg
which He bore, may be caEed the obverse of the titles to which
we have already adverted. It is another element or side of
divme truth, and may be regarded as the complement of those
sayings which represent the Lord Jesus as the sin-bearer. He
who bore sin, not on the cross merely, but aE His lEe through,
was, regarded in Himself, the sinless doer of a Evme work,
and one who knew no sin. So little are these two elements
disjoined in fact, though necessaiEy distinguished in idea, that
the sinlessness of the Lord is presupposed in His whole work
of sin-bearing and expiation. He must be holy to stand for
the unholy, pure for the impure, innocent for the guilty. And
these two elements taken together — the curse-bearing life on
the one hand, and the career of unsinning obedience on the
other — furnish the rounded and complete idea of the atoning
work which Christ finished m the days of His fiesh.
It is the more necessary to bring out this side of divine
truth in connection with the atonement, because the whole
subject of Christ's exceEence, as the realized ideal of humanity,
has of late received such copious elucidation. The question,
indeed, was canvassed m another interest than that which now
engages our attention. The reality of this historic person, as
the moral miracle in our world, has been Escussed as the lEe-
question of the Church m our age, in opposition to a negation
that would, if possible, caE it in question. The victory has
been won. The reaEty of His appearance in our world as the
loftiest standard of moral excellence has been established be
yond doubt or cavE.^ Men have been compeEed to confess that
^ We may say that the attacks of Strauss and of the Ttlbingen school of
Baur, and that the weak echo of the same tendency in R^nan, have already

142 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
such an ideal could only exist in the conviction of the Church,
because the actual reality had appeared. And even mmds
estranged from the true sense of Christianity have been sc over
powered by the moral glory of that character as to acknowledge
virtue how lovely, and to express their enthusiastic adnuration
of it. But the matter cannot rest there. The character of Christ
is not a mere spectacle to be gazed upon as the emboEment of
holiness or standard of perfection, without the Eght of whicH
the world would be dark indeed ; nor is it a mere example to
be foEowed, though the Church of aE time will fix her eye
upon it, to ennoble, elevate, and purEy aE her aims. It must
be further regarded as underlying aE His atonement, and as the
work of one for many. The defect in the modern delineatious
of Christ's character is, that while He is represented as the
reaEzed ideal of humanity, it is still too much as if He were
but a umt in the species. Not so does the Lord describe Him
seE. It is worthy of notice, that in every context where He
mentions His work of obedience. He gives indications, more or
less express, that He was conscious of standing m a unique
position between God and man, and of meEating between
them. And He never leaves His hearers to suppose that He
was but one of many. He uniformly speaks of Himself as
performing a work in a mediatorial capacity, and acthig as
one for many.
Having already referred at large to the utterances of Christ
which represent Him as leading a curse-bearing life through
His whole course, we have next to notice His sinless obedience
through the same extent of time, and in the very same actions.
passed into neglect. The historic truth of Christ's appearance and His ideal
moral excellence have been triumphantly established. In the course of the dis
cussion in which Neander, Ullmann, Lange, and many others did good service,
the sinless perfection of Christ, and the function as the life-giver, were set m fall
prominence. (See UUmann's Siindlosigheit Jesu. 1846.) But the defect in
all these delineations was, that they stopped short at this point, as if it were
enough to have a faultless pattern.

SINGLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 143
These are the two sides of His one work, and the one is as
essential as the other for the expiation of sin. Not that there
is a double work, or that these two sides are separately meri
torious ; but the sin-bearer was necessarEy one who knew no
sin, — which, however, could not have Eeen had there been any
sm of omission or of commission. They concur in the one work
of atonement for sin. In entering, then, on this obedience of
three-and-thEty years as an indispensable element in the
atonement, we shall commence at the point where the human
consciousness of Christ first comes to light, as apprehenEng
His work ; and it is descriptive of His whole private life.
Wist ye not that I must he about my Father's business? (Luke
ii. 49.) This first recorded utterance of the Lord shows that
already, at the age of twelve, He knew His pecuEar character.
The fact that the boy lingered in the temple, occupied with
meEtatiohs bearing on His office, hearmg and asking questions
after the parents had set out on their homeward journey, only
discovered His exalted mind, from which aE boyish things
were removed. His deep judgment and quick understanding,
and His ardent desEe to be prepared for the high destiny
before Him. When His mother put Him on His defence,
asking, with a certain measure of complaint, why He had so
dealt with them, the reply was, that there was a sacred must
in it, that His Father's authority was paramount, and that to
Him He owed a higher obedience. It does not alter the
meanmg whether we translate, " in my Father's house," or " in
my Father's things," as the one involves 'the other. This may
be taken, then, as the rule or formula of Christ's subjection
to man. It was controEed or regulated, — sometimes, as in this
case, suspended by the higher claims of His Father's service.^
And. He gently reminds the parents that they should have
known this : wist ye not? They might have known it from
what had been announced to them, in many ways. He thus
^ This is the view commonly given by the Lutheran divines, as Luther,
Chemnitz, etc., and by Riggenbach, more recently.

144 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
showed paramount obedience to His Father above what could
be claimed by man, as E. He would say, " This is no disobedi
ence to you, but only an act of higher obedience to my Father."
It argues holy zeal, an unreserved devotedness to God, and deep
delight in the things of God.
1. The sinless exceEence of Christ was, in one aspect, only
the evolution or acting out of His inner nature. As man,
corresponding to the idea of man. His nature possessed an
intrinsic purity and elevation before any of His deeds were
done. There must be being before doing; and m this light
His deeds and words only revealed what He already was. But
that by no means exhausts the idea of the Lord's sinless obedi
ence, which takes for granted that He was to be proved and
tested ; and hence He is described as learning obedience .by the
things He suffered.
2. / seek not mine own will, but the will of Him that sent
Me (John v. 30). The smgle principle that guided that holy
Efe was obedience to the wEl of God. And never was a step
taken or a moment spent bnt in unconditional subjection to
the will of God, which was more to Him than His necessary
food (John iv. 34). And, notwithstanding the objection taken
by some, and especiaEy by the Eomanists, to the idea that
Jesus exercised faith, it must be maintained, on the clearest
grounds of Scripture, that His whole obedience flowed from
faith and love. They were the root of it. Neither are we to
imagine that, in a world of sin, the sinless obedience of Jesus
could be exercised without a certain measure of conflict with
natural inclination. Possessor of true humanity, and with
feelings far more susceptible than are found in ordmary men.
He naturaEy recoiled, as we do, from pain and suffermg, agony
and woe. But His wiE was ever in subordination to the
Father's wEl, and in harmony with it, notwithstanding the
sinless conflict of natural inclmation which may be traced in
Gethsemane and elsewhere. It only shows, indeed, that He
was very man, with human feelings and susceptibilities. But

to

SINGLE EXPRESSIONS OF CHRIST ABOUT HIS WORK. 145
never was one formed purpose, aspiration, or desire either
entertained or cherished, that was not in full, everlasting,
perfect accord with the wiU of God. And hence His obe(Eence
was ever acceptable and entitled to reward, because it was
never a yielEng to natural liking, or out of keeping with the
appointment of His Father.
3. " / seek not mine own glory" (John viii. 56). In this
humility lies the foundation of Christ's moral exceEence. The
humility of Jesus found expression in a constant renunciation
of His own honour. It shows that He Eved in another element
and before another pubEc than that of human opinion, which
attaches weight only to that which is ostentatious, or comes
recommended by success or marked superiority in the race
of lEe. His pubEc before which He acted was not human
opinion, but the eye of His Father, before whose perfections aE
the distinctions of man, as well as aE their praise and honour,
are Ettle and puny mdeed. He did not wish to rise, but to
abase HimseE: " I am among you as one that serveth." Though
so exalted and exceEent, He was more humble than any crea
ture in the universe.
4. "/ do always those things that please Him" (John
viii. 29). This constant service, uninterrupted in duration and
perfect in degree, is described by Him as extending over aE
the stages of human life, and as flEing aE its spheres. The
history of Jesus of Nazareth brings before us human life in its
fuE-orbed completeness, and in the perfect equipoise of aE the
vEtues. Yet this did not interfere with, but rather helped,
the intense activity and energy in which He passed His Efe.
There was nothmg fitful, nothing done by mere impulse ; and
even the consuming zeal which led Him to cleanse the temple
twice, though it may be caEed an outburst of zeal, was fuE
of calm, coEected majesty. One grace or virtue did not displace
or mar another. In the most distinguished saints some graces
are more fuEy developed, while they are for the most part, in
a number of points, left far behmd by those who have no pre-

146 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
tensions to what ennobles them ; and hence a very different
estimate may be made by the Judge of aE. But in Christ they
are aE found, and aE complete in measure.. The scattered
beauties of aE the saints are jointly found in Him, — tempered,
too, and adjusted to each other in such si way that there is free
play for aE ; and though we discern in His experience a change
of mood or of frame from sorrow to joy, from calm repose to
soul-trouble, the harmony is not broken, nor the balance per
manently (Esturbed. And when we look at the social relations,
we see Him doing the duty of the citizen , and discharging the
duty of the famEy, even to the last hour of Efe.
5. The moral code requEed to be embocEed in a Efe, which
should not only be an example of virtue to engage and win all
hearts, but prove a work of which the intrinsic value should
redound to our account. The life of Christ and the moral
glory of His character are not aright understood, if we merely
rest in it as an ideal or creative pattern, though in that light
it is the most attractive spectacle ever presented to the world,
and for aE time. But that Efe was vicarious as much as His
suffermg, and must be viewed as ours, the obecEence of one for
many ; for perfect obedience in the exercise of holy love was
the great task set before man at the first, and that which the
Son of God came down from heaven to usher in.
Christ often expressed Himself as conscious of having such
a work or task assigned to Him ; and He ever kept it m view
from His first recorded utterance in the temple to the moment
when He said, " It is finished." There is a testimony which
we shaE afterwards consider, and which very emphatically
describes that work: "I have glorffied Thee on the earth: I
have finished the work Thou gavest Me to do" (John xvii, 4),
The same thing is taught under other forms. He calls it
a work (John iv, 34), a commandment (John x, 18), the will
of Him that sent Him (John vi; 39), -AH these expressions
show that the active cannot be separated from the passive '
obedience ; for voluntary obecEence to the Father and ardent

CLASSIFICATION OF CHRIST'S SAYINGS. 147
love to us concur. The sinless obedience underEes the suffer
ing as the two elements of one work.
6. It may be noticed that there was one special act or
culminatmg point in the obedience of Christ ; and this had its
counterpart in that testmg-point in which the whole obedience
of Adam was contained, — the abstaining from the forbidden
tree; for it would appear that a sinless nature with the law
written on the heart must yet have its loyalty tested by some
special act of obeEence, in which aE the elements of submission
may be found to meet, and pure nature fitly express its seE-
denial and aEegiance. The special act of positive obedience
imposed on the Lord Jesus was, to die, as that imposed on
Adam was, to abstain from the tree by an act of self-restraint, —
aE the lines of obedience meeting in that one act, the crowning
act, and the culminatmg point of obedience appomted to com
plete the work.^ Hence the constant aEusion to the death or
blood or sacrifice of the Lord. (Comp. John xvii. 19.)
SEC, XXI, — THE CLASSIFICATION OF CHRIST'S SAYINGS AS THEY
REPRESENT THE EFFECTS OF HIS DEATH, AND, IN THE FIRST
• PLACE, AS THEY SET FORTH HIS DEATH AS THE GROUND OF
THE ACCEPTANCE OF OUR PERSONS,
The Lord's sayings describe His death in connection with
manEold results, effects, or ends which it was appointed to
' Our Christian poet Cowper weU puts this : —
" The Saviour, — what a noble flame
Was kindled in His breast.
When, hasting to Jerusalem, .
He marched before the rest !
" Good-will to man and zeal for God
His every thought engross ;
He longs to be baptized with blood,
He pants to reach the cross,
" With all His sufferings full in view.
And woes to us imknown.
Forth to the task His spirit flew, —
'Twas love that urged Him on.''

148 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
effect. These effects are either objective and immediate, or
subjective and mediate; and we must now consider these in
detaE Some refer to the acceptance of our jSersons, others to
the communication of inward spEitual lEe. Without foEowing
the precise chronological order in which the testimonies were
uttered, it wEl serve our object best to notice first in order
some of those testimonies which bear on the acceptance of our
persons; and after discussing those objective fruits of the
atonement as set forth in the first three Gospels, we shall he
able to foEow more closely, though by no means chronologically,
the order in which the other sayings are found in the Gospel
of John. With regard to the immediate and direct effects of the
atonement, in the first place, they are those which relate to the
acceptance of our persons. There are three sayings in particular
which may be adduced as pecuEarly comprehensive and im
portant : (1) where He speaks of giving HimseE a ransom for
many ; (2) where He speaks of His blood as the sacrifice of the
new covenant for the remission of sins ; (3) where He speaks
of the fulfilling of the law for righteousness. .AH these stand
in relation to a counterpart want in man ; and it is important
to trace them, E we would see their fuE significance and
adaptation, on the dark background of human misery.

SEC. XXIL — CHRIST DESCRIBING HIMSELF AS DYING TO BE A
RANSOM FOR MANY.
«
" The Son of Man came not to he ministered unto [to be
served], but to minister [to serve], and to give His life
[His soul] a ransom for [better, in room of] many!'
(Matt, XX, 28,)
This saymg furnishes a key to a large class of passages
descriptive of Christ's death as the price or purchase of redemp-

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 149
tion.^ Though they may seem to be Old Testament aEusions,
they must also be regarded as based on this text.
As to the occasion of this condensed saying, we find that
our Lord, during His last journey through Perea, took the
disciples apart to teE them of the certainty of His death.
While He was doing so, the train of His remarks was harshly
interrupted by an ambitious request on the part of Salome, to
the effect that the two seats of honour in the Messianic king
dom might be given to her two sons, James and John. The
Lord Jesus repEed that the chief places were not to be bestowed
on such a principle of arbitrary choice, but on whoEy different
grounds. Then, calling His disciples to Him, He took occasion
to refer to His own voluntary abasement, as an example of the
spirit to be breathed by His foEowers, and thus led back the
conversation to His death. He sketches, at the same time, a
brief but comprehensive outEne of the doctrine of the atone
ment : " The Son of Man came not to be served, but to serve,
and to give His soul a ransom in room of many." Every word
in this condensed passage is replete with meaning.
I shaE not dweE on the designation, " Son of Man," which
has already been explained as implying that He who was Son
of God in His own right condescended to become the abased
or curse-bearing second Adam, and the representative of the
sinner. I shall not refer to it further than to say that the
curse-bearmg abasement of this divine person is here emphati
cally placed in connection with His redeeming work. This
thought is the prominent one : that only the Son of Man, or
the Son of God incarnate and abased, could in reality give the
ransom, and be sufficient to give it. He says that He came not
to be ministered to or to receive service at the hand of others,
but to render service, — a phrase which comprehends His whole
humiEation and His voluntary abasement. The last clause,
referring to the nature and purpose of His death, is attached to
the first clause in such a way as to mterpret to us what that
• E.g. 1 Pet. i. 18, 19 ; 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; Gal. iii. 13 ; Rev. v. 9.

150 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
service consisted in — viz. that He so ministered or served, that
He gave His lEe for others. As to the word translated life '
in the- authorized version, it may be interpreted soul or life
or PERSON ; and it matters not in which of the three senses the
word is here actuaEy taken. But the rendering " soul " may be
fitly enough retained as the Eteral meaning of the term.
We must next notice the scope or design of His coming.
The commencing words of the sentence, " the Son of Man
came," is connected with the last clause, " came to give His
lEe a ransom," and sets forth in the clearest manner both the
fact and the purpose of Christ's coming in the flesh. The great
design of the incarnation, or the object which it was intended
to subserve, was the expiation or propitiatory death of the
Messiah. Though Christ's doctrine comes also within the scope
of His mission. He in these words connects His coming with
His redemptive death in such a way that we must regard this
latter as the principal design of the incarnation, and as the
principal object of our faith ; for we cannot interpret the words
as denoting merely " to expose His Efe." He could not' afiSrm
more unambiguously than He does in this passage that He
came into the world to act on the behaE of captives, and with
the definite purpose of dying for the redemption of smners.
Thus His death must not be considered as an accident, nor as
the result of the miscarriage of another plan, nor as the mere
experience of the world's enmity to what is good, but as the
very design of His coming. He came to give His life a
ransom; and hence it appears that not our merits but our
misery brought Him.
In this passage the Lord enunciates three weighty truths
which, though they are aE to be distinctly apprehended by us,
must be regarded as only integral parts of one great thought.
The elements of the statement are, (1) that of His own free
choice He came to give up His soul or His Efe; (2) that He
gave it as a ransom, or in order to have redemptive effects ;

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 151
(3) that in its true character this surrender of His lEe was
a substitution in the room of others. These are the three
precEcates ; and it is plain that either of the latter two would
have^ sufficed to bring out unmistakeably the great idea of a
vicarious death. It would have been enunciated by the use
of the term ransom singly, or by the preposition IN room of,^
as it is here used singly. The combination of these three ideas,
however, expresses the doctrine with a fulness, a force, and an
emphasis which completely remove every shadow of doubt.
We shaE first- consider them apart, and then combine them.
1. The Lord came to give His soul or His Efe, The lan
guage, however, implies that He acted from the free bent of
His- own wiE, without compulsion or constraint of any kind.
And this is a side of truth necessary to give completeness to
the doctrine of the atonement, and especiaEy to other passages
which speak of a work laid upon Christ, and of the Father's
sending Him and giving Him. But what is the precise import
of " giving His soul " or His life ? At first sight it seems
merely to signify,'" to die." But it has a much greater signffi
cance when the language is viewed as adapted to the Hebrew
ideas. The term soul is emphatic; and the reason for declaring
that He came to give His soul will at once appear from the
sacrificial language of the law : " For the soul of the flesh (or
the life of the flesh) is in the blood ; and I have given it to
you upon the altar, to make an atonement for your souls : for it
is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul " (Lev, xvii.
11). Thus the reason why the atonement was effected by the
blood was, as is stated in the first clause of that verse, because
the soul or lEe was in it ; and, accordingly, whenever the blood
was offered, it was mderstood that the soul of the sacrffice was
meant to stand for that of the offerer ; that one soul covered
another; that what was executed on the one was only what
the other had incurred. One life was thus offered in the room
.of another. This was the fundamental idea of sacrifice. The

152 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
words of Christ, considered in this point of view, represent
Him as a Priest, offering to God an atoning sacrffice, and in
this vicarious way giving His Efe for the Efe of men. There
were reasons, doubtless, why our Lord did not dEectly apply
to HimseE in express terms the designation Priest durmg the
days of His flesh, while He openly assumed the title of Prophet
and King. But in the present passage, and in others similar to
it. He beyond question suppEed the germs of aE the copious
sacerdotal phraseology which we find appEed to Him in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. He speaks of HimseE by implication,
though not in express terms, as at once the Priest and the
Sacrifice. 2. The giving of His soul or life was intended to be a ran
som or a price ^ paid for the redemption of captives. Thus the
idea of a sacrffice passes over mto that of a ransom. The one
idea becomes a sort of transition to the other; and it is important
to notice this, that we may not confound two things which are
certainly distinct. The word does not mean the redemption
itseE, but the price of it, or the price given to redeem another.
And it wiE be found that the term " ransom," wherever it is.
used, involves a causal connection between the price paid and
the Eberation effected, — that is, a relation of cause and effect.
It is deliverance, not by a mere remission, in the absolute sense,
but by a redemption price, that the term invariably suggests
wherever it occurs, either among classical or Jewish writers.
Thus among classical writers the word always denotes the
price paid for the Eberation of a prisoner of war or the price
paid for a slave, on condition that the holder shaE forego his
rightful authority or claim to the party in his power. Classical
usage so mdeEbly stamped this meaning upon the word, that
it became the paramount idea, and could not be separated from
it, even when the word was used by Jewish writers,^
2 XuVpa*, Every diligent student of the Septnagint wUl readily discover that
the translators, in their use of this term, felt themselves controlled by a fixed*
usage, and used this word only in those cases where the notion of a price could

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY, 153
Not to speak, then, of the redemption of things (Lev,
xxv, 14), and confimng our attention to persons, this word, as
employed by the Septnagint, is found to be used for " the
ransom" by which a maid was redeemed from slavery (Lev,
xix, 20) ; for " the ransom" of a prisoner of war (Isa, xiv, 13) ;
for "the ransom" of a person who might go mto voluntary
servitude and seE himseE tiU the year of jubilee (Lev, xxv, 51) ;
for " the- ransom" paid to the judges to expiate a fault, of
which one very notable instance occurs in the case of the owner
of a pushing ox (Ex, xxi. 30), If such an ox occasioned death
or happened to klE a human bemg, the law pronounced death
both upon the ox and its owner ; and, to be delivered from the

be naturally attached to it. But they resorted to another Greek word when
a different idea was to be expressed, even though the original might have the
very same term. This is decisive as to the fixed usage of language in this case.
They felt that the language would not bend. We have referred to this fixed
meaning of the word xirpn, because a great amount of needless discussion and
groundless refining has been indulged in -by several writers, who, not content
with a comparison of the Septuagint and Hebrew, argue back again from the
wider meaning of a Hebrew term, as if that alone could warrant a diA'crent
acceptation of the Greek xirfsy. On that groundless theory the notion was
taken up in certain quarters, especially since Grotius led the way (see Grotiiis,
De Satisfactione Christi, cap. viii.), that the word eansom might mean a
victim or. propitiatory sacrifice. But it does not in any case signify immediately
the victim or the sacrifice : it is rather an advance upon the latter idea. The
notion of sacrifice rather passes over into that of the ransom. Nor can this
theory be argued, as Grotius has done, from the import of the Latin word
lustrare (see Grotius, I. c.) ; as if a proof could be drawn from a word of similar
origin in a cognate language, Hofmann, in his Schriftheweis, argues from the
Hebrew word 133, which is translated xirfov by the Septuagint in several
passages (Prov. -vi. 36, xiii. 8 ; Ex. xxi. 30), that we may render the Greek word
Dec&ung. And Ritschl, in JahrhOcher fiir Deutsche TJieologie, ii. Heft, 1863,
maintains that it may be rendered Schutzmittel. But both argue incorrectly
from the broader meaning of the Hebrew word, as if that were enough to control
the meaning of the Greek xirpav. In point of fact, the Greek word was fixed
and inflexible. Just as little can it be argued that the term ransom is capable
of being understood of a delivei;ance which is considered as absolutely irrespec
tive of the idea of a price ; for however men may speculate as to the possibility
of such a meaning, no example of that usage of the word is to be found either
in a Greek -writer or in the Septuagint version. In referring to the Alexandrine
translation, therefore, we shall not complicate the inquiry in the manner already
mentioned, but limit our references to those passages where the same Greek "
word (XvTfav) is used that is here rendered ransom.

154 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
punishment threatened in the law for such a casualty, the
owner might, in certain cases, pay " a ransom" or a pecuniary
fine to save his life. On the other hand, it was provided that
" no ransom" should be accepted for the Efe of a murderer, nor
for one who had fled to his city of refuge (Num. xxxv, 31, 32),
The same term (Xvrpov) is used to denote the price paid for
the Eberation of a man from imminent danger, or the money
given to induce another to recede from the merited or expected
infliction of punishment, injury, or death. Thus it is said, " The
ransom of a man's Efe are his riches" (Prov, xiii, 8), — a state
ment referrmg to the events of common lEe, and intimating
that, by the payment of " a ransom," the rich not unfrequently
free themselves from the dangers, exactions, and oppressions to
which they would otherwise be subjected, or that by means
of these they procure defenders for themselves in courts of law.
Of an injured husband, for example, it is said, " He wffi not
regard any ransom" (Prov. vi. 35), meaning that he wEl not he
pacified by any ransom when his resentment is mflamed against
the violator of domestic purity and honour. These are instances'
of the use of the term (XOrpoi/) in man's relation to man.
But the same term, with the same sense, is also used ui
reference to man's relation to God, The first-born of the family,
for instance, was exempted from attendance on the sanctuary
only by the payment of " a ransom" of five shekels (Num.
xviii. 15). So, too, we find that on the occasion when the
tribe of Levi was accepted in room of the first-born of Israel,
and the attendance of that tribe taken in exchange, " a ransom"
was to be paid for all those persons exceeding the number of
the Levites who took the place of the first-born. And "a
ransom" was paid, accordingly, for 273 persons for whom no
substitute was found provided by the 22,000 Levites (Num.
iii. 49). But of aE the instances of a ransom in money, hy
far the most significant and familiar was the redemption-money
paid by every Hebrew male whose name was registered or
entered on the muster-roU or census of the congregation. This

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 155
ransom was a haE-shekel, — the rich not giving more, and the
poor not givffig less. It was mtended to signify that all who
were of age were thus enroEed as the redeemed of the Lord ;
and the phrase, " redeemed or ransomed" of the Lord, is a com
mon and familiarly used Old Testament phrase (Ps. cvii. 2).
It seems to have been paid as an annual tax or tribute m all
the best times of Jewish history. Though many writers assert
that it was not annuaEy paid, there is no sufficient ground to '
warrant the opinion of those who would Emit it to the first
occasion. The aEusions to this tribute or di(Eachma, which
our Lord on one occasion was asked to pay, and which He
paid (Matt. xvii. 24), suffice to prove that it was claimed from
every male annuaEy, or at least once, when he was enrolled
among the chosen people (2 Kings xii 4 ; 2 Chron. xxiv. 9 ;
Neb. X. 32). Every Israelite seems annuaEy to have given
that haE-shekel or didrachma as a ransom for his soul. And
we know that, as a ransoni, it averted the di'vine displeasure,
whether this was owmg to the fact that it was set apart for
the service of the sanctuary, or as it was a sovereign and mde-
pendent arrangement. And it showed that sinful men could
not come nigh a holy God, or stand before Him, except upon
the ground of a ransom paid for every worshipper (Ex. xxx. 11).
These mstances show that a ransom was necessary in that
typical economy which was to find its reality in Christ.
Now, as to the application of this term to Christ, one thmg
is obvious at first sight. The redemption price is to be traced
up to somethmg which is done by another, and not to any
personal merit on the part of the redeemed ; and it is described
as the act of one for many. There are two questions here to
which an answer, if not expressed, is impEed : To whom was
the ransom paid ? and with what was it paid ?
1. As to the first question, who is the imprisoning party,
or the party demandmg the ransom ? the answer is furnished
by a correct idea of God's relation to His creature, and of the
violated rights and law of God. The captivity is primarily to

156 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
divine justice, and only in the second instance is it a captivity
to Satan, death, and heE; and, accordingly, a satisfaction to
God's injured law and honour ternunated the bondage, the
ransom being paid to God, not to Satan. The captivity presup
posed by the use of the term "ransom" has various elements.
The Judge, by a just sentence, reduced the sinner to a state of
bondage, because every attribute of the Godhead demanded
vindication against him. He was made a captive primarily
to divine justice, and then, secondarEy, to Satan, death, and
heE. The curse affised to sin was death, or separation from
God's countenance and favour. And not only so : Satan oh-
tammg possession of mankind, and holding them by right of
conquest, could be dispossessed only when the necessary ransom
had been paid to that primary fountain of justice and law
which pronounced the separation between God and man as
right, and left the conqueror to hold his conquest. That
captivity is capable of being reversed only by an interposition
which, remountmg to the original cause, altered the relation on
which God stood to sinning man ; and, accordingly, when, the
law was fulfiEed, and the curse exhausted by an adequate
ransom, the bondage terminated. The same Judge who had
pronounced the sentence awardmg captivity, reverses it in the
behaE of aE for whom that ransom was paid, and who put their
trust in it, or in Him who brought it.
2. And as to the second question, with what the ransom
was paid, it cannot be every sort of act, but only a vicarious
death. The captive was held by the inflexible grasp of justice;
and the ransom could only be a death which should be a proper
punishment, or an adequate infliction of aE the curse which
was comprehended in the divine sentence ; or, in other words,
a full equivalent paid by the Son of God, made the second man,
and appointed by the divine commission to act as the represen
tative of man. This is just life for life. The ransom, then, is
a penal infliction in its fuE significance, and spontaneously
undergone. No ransom could be found but in the death of

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 157
Jesus ; or, personally considered, the ransom of the human race
is just the dying Saviour representmg us and acting m our
stead. 3. The thEd element m this proposition is, that it is said
to be in the room of many (kvrl toXKuv). With what are we to
construe these last words ? They are referred by some to the
acting party, or to the subject or person spoken of. They are
connected by others with the object of the proposition, and
placed m apposition to the term "ransom." I rather think
that there is a threefold idea in the proposition, as has been
already hinted, and that the notion (1) of the sacrifice, and
(2) of the ransom, must be both connected with the words, " in
room of many." As the one idea passes over mto the other, —
that is, as our Lord intimates that He offers a priestly sacrffice,
and then adds the idea of a ransom which delivers from
captivity, — ^it is clear that we must construe the words, " m
room of many," with both the ideas. This threefold distribu
tion of the proposition is lost by both the modes of construing
the words to which we have above referred. The Lord offered
a sacrffice as a priest in the room of many. He . paid a ransom
also m the room of many. The one thought passes into the
other as an advance upon it, or as an extension of its mean
ing ; and m both modes of representation the thought unmis
takeably is, that the Lord Jesus was acting m a vicarious
manner. The true import of this phrase here used, as every scholar
mterpretmg by language at once admits,^ is, in room of many.
To adduce a few instances, it may be noticed that it is the same
preposition (acr«) occurring m the phrases, " an eye for an eye ''
(Matt. V. 38) ; " who /or one morsel of meat sold his bEthright"
(Heb. xii. 16) ; " wEl ye for a fish give him a serpent ? " (Luke
xi. 11 ;) " recompense to no man evE for evil" (Eom. xii. 17) ;
' See Meyer's commentary on this preposition as denoting substitution.
Hofmann tries to escape from this, by confounding srsfi foXxZy with ivrl vsXxZt.
(See his Schriftheweis.)

158 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
" Archelaus reigned in his stead " (Matt. E. 22.) In these
instances, and in every other where the preposition is not
used to signEy against, the notion of substitution is the
unEorm and undoubted sense of the phraseologJ^ The words
here used convey the idea, that Christ gave HimseE as a
substitute; that He gave His soul in room of others ; and that
tffis surrender of His Efe for others was further accepted, or
regarded as the price or ransom by which the deEverance was
effected. It is not enough to say that the death of Christ
was for the good of others in some vague, mdefinite, mdeter-
minate sense ; for that is not warranted either by the meaning
of the preposition used, or by the connection of the sentence.
If we would apprehend the Lord's thought without offering
violence to language, we must accept it as conveying the idea
of a vicarious provision, and aEow that the Son of Man under
went the very death that others had mcurred ; subniitting to
the penal infliction which they had deserved, and dying in
theE room that they might be rescued from the punishment.
If it was only for the good of others in a general, mdefinite,
and abstract sense, the same thing might be said of any apostle
or martyr. But E He gave His lEe vicariously, or surrendered
His Hfe in the room of others, what else does this convey but
that He offered HimseE to give death for death, and that He
frees others by taking the punishment upon Himself? The
Son of Man, very God and very man, came to do this m the
room of many.
And as to the many referred to in the phrase, it must be
noticed that He does not say all, which might have been con
sidered as limited merely to aE the disciples present, who were
not many, He speaks not of them alone, as if the efficacy of
His death were confined to the disciples then present; nor of
their nation alone, but of a seed out of every nation, countless
as the stars, or as the sand upon the sea-shore. And He calls
them many, either because He contrasts HimseE with them as
actmg one for many — and so we find a similar phraseology

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 159
in Eom. v. 19, — or rather because He has His eye upon the
multitude out of every tribe and nation who were given Him
by the Father; or, in other words,'' to the elect of God, the
truly saved, or the redeemed from among men, for whom He
offered Himself.
I would now say something by way of obviatmg the
exceptions taken to the sense which we have just put upon
the passage. These objections are prmcipaEy two, and they
are (Erected either agamst the reality of the substitution or
agamst the reaEty of the ransom.
1. With ..regard to the objection made to the reaEty of
the substitution or exchange of persons, it is sometimes of a
more evangeEcal strain. Thus one modern writer^ thinks
himself warranted to object to the idea of substitution as not
expressmg Christ's relation to humanity, because " He is not
' another ' alongside of humanity and outside of humanity, but
the Son of Man, in whom humanity finds its second Adam."
He adds, " It is also not barely a vicarious act by which He
reconciled us to God, — it is not barely through Him, but in
Him, that we are reconciled." This objection may be said to
express the stram of the new theology, or the mystic theory
of the atonement so much m vogue, with aE its one-sided and
subjective bias. But in the words before us we find the Lord
HimseE, with unmistakeable precision, declaring that the sur
render of His Efe was a vicarious act in room of many. And
a death which redeems another under death, and is declared
to be in the room of others, is properly vicarious, E language
is to be the interpreter's guide ; and a redemption merely by
the communication of the mner Hfe, or by umon to the person
of Christ, without any provision legitimately to reverse the
divine sentence pronounced against sm, or to remove the
actual curse, argues a very defective view of the relation
occupied to mankmd, both by the fiorst and second Adam. It
is to make no account of the necessity of personaEy standing
Hofmann, in his Schriftheweis on the passage.

160 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in an accepted righteousness, or of the reversal of the inflicted
curse. It is to ignore the objective relation of our persons,
which is as necessary as the inner nature, and it merges all
that is relative or personal in the spiritual Efe.
The older Socinians, again, with nothing of the evangelical
sentiment which we have just mentioned, repuEated the vicari
ous element, or the substitution of Christ, on whoEy different
grounds. It would be tedious to mention, and to refute in
detail, aE their overdrawn inferences, and aE their exaggerated
difficulties. But to some of them we must refer. Thus they
argue, that in the exchange of prisoners to which the language
must primarEy allude, both parties are freed and restored to
their friends. This of course is true, when both are in the
same condition, and no reconciEation is indispensably required,
as is needful in the sinner's case. But we meet aU these
exaggerated and overdone detaEs at once, by observing; that in
all comparisons, just as in aE parables, it is only one point in
common, or a certain tertium quid, which chaEenges attention;
and in this case it is the exchange of captives. -And when
it is stiE further rejoined, that in such an exchange Christ
must have remained a captive, the reply is at hand, that He
was certamly a captive, nay, aE His life long a captive, tfll
the ransom was completely paid, but that He redeemed us
m such a way as to lead captivity captive, and to set us free.
AR these objections are nothing but the urging of inferential
exaggerations. But the chief argument of this class of writers is, that the
question is somewhat different from an exchange of persons,
and turns not so much on an exchange of persons as on a
commutation between a thing or a price and a person. On
the contrary, the preposition here employed, and the whole
language of Christ in reference to His death, implies a com
mutation of one person for another, — that is, of one person's
suffering for what another should have borne and suffered.
It is the exchange of one person's suffering for another person's

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 161
suffermg, and therefore an exchange of persons, according to
that representative system which must be accepted in the
mediatorial economy, whether we look at the first Adam or at
the second Adam,-^
2, With regard to the second objection aEeady mentioned,
which denies the reaEty of the ransom, and reduces aE to a
mere figure of speech, it is easily obviated. It has always been
mamtamed by Socinian expositors that this whole phraseology,
which is taken from the redemption of a captive, is only a
metaphorical use of language, derived from the custom of
redeeming prisoners of war, but that it means no more than
simply this, that we are discharged. To this we give a general
and a particular reply.
As the language used m reference to a ransom or price has
a weE-defined significance, invariably involving the idea that it
was necessary to pay a price for a captive, it were in reaEty
tantamount to evacuatmg the import of Scripture and the
proper sense of words, to reduce its meaning to a mere figure
of speech. And let this prmciple be fuEy carried out, as it has
been to its legitimate consequences in modern mythism, and
it wOl reduce Christianity to a system of mere ideas, cEssociated
from fact or from any historic basis in actual reality ; and on
this principle of disconnectmg Christianity from the under-
lymg facts, aE becomes notions and ideas and a mere world of
thought. To be consistent, they must hold a figurative or
metaphorical Christ, a figurative or metaphorical mediator, a
figurative or metaphorical salvation. On the contrary, there
is nothffig in the language expressed in the passage that is not
literaEy true. All is reality, not semblance or figure, — ^fact,
not comparison or similitude. So much for the general reply
to this objection.
Agam, to meet this objection more particiEarly and more
in detail, it must be mamtamed, that as men are m a real and
' See Stniingfleet's sermons. On the True Beason of the Sufferings of Christ,
wherein Crellius' Answer to Grotius is considered, pp. 440-450. London, 1669.
L

162 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
not a figurative bondage, so they are delivered by a real and
not a figurative ransom. If the Eedeemer gives His Efe for
others, and gives it, too, as a ransom or as a price for captives,
it foEows, that E the first is a Eteral and r'eal captivity, the
other is not less a Eteral and real ransom for their deEverance.
Nor wEl it avaE to argue, that as the language is unmistakeably
taken from the ancient sacrifices and only accommodated to
Christ, it cannot be pressed any further. To this I reply, the
types take theE colour from the actual event, or from the
reaEty reflectmg its light upon them, not conversely. It was
the coming event that cast its shadow before, and gave its
colom' to the type. It was not the type which gave a metan
phorical representation to the fact.
The aEegation is frequently made, too, that the writers,
of the New Testament use the term ransom for deliverance
simply, without the accessory notion of a price ; and warnings
are frequently addressed to the expositor as to the risk of
insistmg more upon the figure under which the truth is repre
sented than upon the thing itseE. But, plainly, we should
run counter to aE the canons and gui(Eng principles of strict
interpretation, were we to deal with the term ransom either as
if it had not been used at all, or as E it had no precise and
definite meaning. This would introduce the most arbitrary
Ecenco of interpretation, and it would make men expound not
by language, but by preconceived ideas. Some men of name
in theology^ have recently expounded the phrase as E nothing
else were to be found in it {)ut an aEusion to the influence of
Christ's doctrine conflrmed by His death. And what is that
but to reduce Christ to the level of a mere teacher or prophet ?
It is very Ettle different from this to urge, as some others have
done, that Christ, in the use of such language, merely pomts to
' See De Wette, De Morte Christi, p. 139. Ritschl, again, in the Jahrhikhr
fiir Deutsche Tlieologie, 1863, p, 222, sees no more in it than a sort of pro
tection against death for those who fulfil the condition under which alone this
can be available to them.

CHRIST A RANSOM FOR MANY. 163
men's liberation from the bondage of the Mosaic law, and refers
to the fact that He was to set up a purer worship, and to preach
to aE mankmd the absolute and unbought forgiveness of sins.
The laws of sound mterpretation wEl not allow any man to
indulge m such wayward Ecence. The usage of language, and
the full signfficance as weE as connection of the thought, will
aEow an aEusion only to the actual and real issue of Christ's
death. The term ransom denotes not the deEverance itself,
but the price of it ; and the thought is, that mankmd are dis
charged from bondage by a vicarious atonement, — ^the bondage
and the ransom being equaEy real They who contend that
the passage announces redemption but without any allusion to
a redemption price, while the discharge is held to be not less
sure than E a price were actuaEy paid, not only violate Christ's
doctrine, but also the laws of language ; and as to the mter-
preter's fideEty, it may be added that he has no arbitrary (Es-
cretion to change the meanmg of Christ's words. There is no
more arrestmg thought to him than this, how he shaE answer
for it at the bar of Christ, E under any influence or tendency
he has been led on to pervert the meaning of Christ's teaching,
and to evacuate the proper force and import of His language.
And many do so on the preconceived idea that a satisfaction
to (Evine justice is absurd. But, I ask, is it absurd to maintain
that the (Evine law must be fulfilled in precept and m penalty,
which is aE that is impEed in that statement that justice must
be satisfied ?
The other objections to the above given interpretation of
this verse, are only trifling and sporadic; and they may be
here omitted, as they have been anticipated in the previous
exposition of the words. As to the objection, however, that the
notion of a ransom is untenable because no one can be shown
to whom it was paid — and it cannot be supposed now-a-days to
have been paid to Satan, — ^the answer is at hand. It is not
simply the case of a creditor receiving a pecuniary payment,
but that of a criminal guEty of a capital crime, and deserving a

164 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
penal infiiction by which the authority of law is maintained. It
is paid to God, the Judge of aE. (Comp. Eph. v, 2 ; Heb, is, 14.)
We may put together the elements of this passage as fol
lows: (1) the humiliation of a (Evine person, which gives
value to His work ; (2) the priestly act of self-oblation ; (3) the
assumption that men are captives to death ; (4) the ransom,
with its redemptive efficacy ; (5) the persons for whom He was
a substitute ; (6) the necessary effect, — deEverance from death
by the death of such a substitute.
Having determined the import of the ransom, there is little
else caUing for remark. We may notice, finally, as to the signi
ficance of this testimony, that the notion of deEvering a captive
by ransom or commutation is not alien to the thinking or cus
toms of any people, that it underlies aE theology, and that it
commends itself to aE minds.
The ransom is described in these words without any am
biguity. The sacerdotal offering of Christ's Efe as the culmina
tion of His obedience is further represented as the ransom;
and it has a direct or causal connection with present and future
deEverance from divme vraath. The surrender of lEe for hfe
is the only price or compensation to be offered for the sinner ;
and we are taken to hear the expression of Christ's conscious
ness to this effect from His own lips. There is a causal con
nection between the ransom paid and the redemption or deliver
ance effected. This deliverance or redemption has so wide a
scope, that believers are " redeemed from aE evil," present and
to come. The ransom is the meritorious cause of the deliver
ance, just as sm or the faE was the meritorious cause of the
captivity,''- ^ It would be tedious to enumerate all the different -writers -who have dis
cussed this text against the various schools and tendencies which have impugned
the proper notion of the atonement. Thus, against the Socinian school I may
mention Hoombeck, Calo-nus in Socinismus Profligatus, Maresius, Arnold,
Essenius, Turretin, Stein, De Satisfactione. In recent times this text has
received a very satisfactory treatment from Philippi, Delitzsch on Hebrews
(Appendix), Weber, Keil, in the discussions caused by Hofmann's Schriftheweis.
I shall notice it more fuUy in the Appendix; to this volume. But I may here

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT, 165
I may add, the entEe penal evE consequent on sin is denoted
by the term, death, as taken in its fuE significance. The Lord
gave life for life, or, in other words, encountered death m aE
its breadth of meaning, considered both as temporal and eternal,
— thus deprivmg it of its stmg. It henceforth ceased to be death
in the proper import of the word to those who believe on Him
(John vEi, 51), — that is, because the Smless One has died. It
might seem, indeed, as E the atonement, considered as a ransom
from captivity, had no reference to physical evE, because this
is still found in the matter of it entailed upon beEevers after
their acceptance as weE as upon others. But though physical
evE and death are not removed, the change which the atone
ment merits and actuaEy produces is so great m every respect,
that in truth it ceases to be evE when that which is penal is
altogether removed. The ransom changes the entire relation
of the Christian to everything m the moral government of God ;
and with regard to our relation to physical evE and temporal
death, there is no more curse m them, nay, not a drop of
wrath, but only fatherly discipEne and a means of education.
SEC. XXm. — THE TESTIMONY OF CHRIST, THAT HIS DEATH IS THE
' SACRIFICE OF THE NEW COVENANT FOR THE REMISSION OF SIN.
The words of Matt. xxvi. 26-28, Mark xiv. 22-24, Luke
xxii. 19, 20 (comp. 1 Cor. xi. 23-25), may be harmomzed as
follows : —
" And as they vjcre eating, Jesus took bread; and having given
thanks and blessed it. He brake it and gave it to the
quote the happy words of Tittmann, Opusc. Theol, p. 445 : " Igitur in verbis
Christi quando dixit se vitam ponere pretium redemptionis, tria insunt :
(1) Christum mortuum esse nostro loco, nostra -vice ; quam dicere solemus
mortem Christi vicariam ; (2) Christum mortuum esse eo consilio, ut nos
redimeret, peccatorumque veniam Christi jure nostro meritoriam appeUamus ;
(3) Christum solvisse pretium suffioiens, hoc est, mortem Christi sufiicere ad
impetrandam veniam peocatorum, nee opus esse ut aliquid addatur a nobis. "

166 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body which is
given (or broken) for you; this do in remembrance of
Me. And in like manner, after supper, He took, the cup ;
and when He had given thanks. He gave it to them, and
said. Drink ye all of it; and they all drank of it. For,
said He to them, this cup is the new covenant in my blood,
which is shed for you [and] /or many, unto the remission
of sins."
Of aE the saymgs which our Lord uttered on the subject
of His death, there is none which can be regarded as either
more important or more express than that testimony which He
uttered at the institution of the Supper. He had previously
caEed His death " a ransom ; " He had caEed His crucffied
flesh "meat indeed;" and in the present passage He calls
His blood a covenant. This phraseology may be considered
as a key to aE those passages which announce a reconcffiation
to God through Him ; and also a key to aE those passages m
the Epistle to the Hebrews, as weU as elsewhere, wMch speak
of a covenant people as separated and sanctified, as samts and
holy ones, or speak of the Church of God accordmg to the new
covenant relation in which beEevers stand.
With regard to the occasion of this saying, it requEes no
remark. As our Lord drew near His death. His language
constantly became more expEcit and clear in reference both
to the fact of His death and to its nature. A memorial was
to be instituted to commemorate that great fact, which takes
Him whoEy out of the class of mere instructors, and which
gives Him a place apart, and a position whoEy unique, among
mankmd. He used words which, no doubt, recaE the language
and the position of Moses at the founcEng of the Smaitic cove
nant, but which are of a description such as no mere teacher
could ever have ventured to utter. He mtimates that aE ages
onward to the end of time should have an interest m His death
stm more than in His words ; that He instituted the Supper as

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 167
the commemoration of a fact which should be fraught with the
most important consequences ; and that in His death He aimed
at an object such as neither His doctrine nor His example
contemplated. He deemed this symbolic action so important
for aE ages, that He Ed not leave it to His (Esciples to mstitute
it after His departure, as He left many other thmgs for them to
found. He HimseE mstituted this memorial of His historic
Efe and death. The better to inform the Church of His design,
and to cut off every exception from future cavElers, who are
ever ready to affirm that His Esciples made several unwarrant
able additions to His doctrme, and to declare that some undue
and exaggerated importance came to be attached to His death
by those who went forth to preach His gospel, our Lord msti
tuted this memorial HimseE, with His death fuE in view, on
the mght of His betrayal
With respect to the words used at the mstitution of the
Supper, and which are four times given, with only slight
variations, and which' should be accurately compared in the
form m wffich they are given by the three evangeEsts and
by Paul, they convey the most important instruction both
on the nature and on the scope of the Saviour's death. They
concur with the memorial which was then instituted to set
forth the design and the effect of Christ's atonmg death.
The saymg is twofold ; and a certam interval of time . must
have elapsed between the utterance of the two. This, with
other reasons wMch might be adduced, serves to show, that
whEe they properly come within the category of paraEel
passages and under the appeEation of paraEel passages, there
is a somewhat extended sense or further meaning attaching
to the last of them. The one prepared the way for the other.
Both together, m some sort, interweave a historical reference.
The first of the two saymgs undoubtedly aEudes to the paschal
lamb, which was, accordmg to the divine idea, regarded as at
once a ransom to redeem, and as a spEitual food to nourish
the receiver. This is set forth in the words. This is my

168 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
body given for you (Luke xxii 19) ; broken for you (1 Cor.
xi. 24). The second saying, again, is. This cup is the new covenant in
my blood, shed for you, and shed for many (Luke xxii. "20).
This second saying, wMch adds an additional or further
thought, goes back to another event in the history of Israel,
posterior or subsequent to the passover, and yet closely con
nected with it. It aEudes to the Smaitic covenant, wffich was
to be superseded, in due time, with aE its typical arrangements,
and to give place to the better covenant. An obvious enough
Imk of connection bound these two events together — the msti
tution of the passover and the foundmg of the Smaitic covenant
— in the history of the chosen people. As the dEect issue of
the passover, or as the immediate effect consequent upon it,
the IsraeEtes, delivered from the destruction which fell on
Egypt's first-born, were led on to Smai to be taken into a
covenant relationship as a nation, or, in other words, to enter,
in a manner competent only to a redeemed and cleansed com
munity, into a recognised relation to God, such as none else
ever enjoyed. That people was now to be admitted mto the
privEege and dignity of bemg the peculiar people of God.
That was, on the one hand, a true relation to God, but at the
same time, too, a figurative history, which was in both respects
to be • reproduced in the fulness of time with a deeper signifi
cance and with a wider and 'fuEer meaning,^that is, with the
real sacrifice, and not with the mere type. And it is this
second thmg that is represented, as weE as the ffist, m the
memorial of the Lord's Supper, instituted for the Christian
Church, Thus, the sole ground of God's covenant with men
is the great atoning sacrifice by which sin is taken away ; for
God could admit no smner to His feEowship, or to a participa
tion in the standmg of His own covenant people, without an
atonement or satisfaction for sin.
Considered m this Eght, the two saymgs are paraEel; and
yet they are not simply coincident. They do not precisely

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 169
cover each other. The second is rather an advance upon the
first, and passes over into a wider and more enlarged meaning.
And- the two taken together annoimce that Christ gave Him
self for the disciples, with the ulterior purpose or design that
they might be taken mto a new covenant relation and be
God's pecidiar people.
As to the first saying, I need not further advert to it, except
to say that the words, my body given for you, as it is m Lulce,
or, my body broken for you, as it is in Paul, must be taken only
m the acceptation that it is sacrfficial language. We are not to
understand this pecuEar style of language as merely signEymg
a gift to us, but to mterpret it as denoting a sacrifice given
for us. Or as denotmg a victim delivered up to death for us.
No doubt, if we were to expound the proper import of these
sacramental emblems, and to set forth what is represented in
the sacramental invitations, we should have our mmds directed
to the other point, and find a gift to vs. But m the present
elucidation of this testimony I purpose not to deviate from the
question of the atonement; and I shall therefore limit my
attention to the pecuEar import and bearmg of the testimony
here emphatically borne to it. When Christ speaks, then, in
the present passage, of His body given or broken for His
(Esciples, the aEusion is obviously to the fact that the Father
gave Him for us, and that He spontaneously surrendered or
gave HimseE, as an atonement ' or paschal sacrifice, for the
salvation of His people. And once offered. He becomes there
after to His people, onward to the end of time, theE spiritual
food, as they partake of His crucified flesh by faith.
It is on the second saymg, however, that the chief emphasis
may be said to rest m relation to the doctrme of the atonement ;
and it is tffis to wffich our remarks wEl be (Erected, This is
the more fuE and copious saymg of the two, describing, as it
does, the blood of Christ as the basis or con(Etion of the entEe
new covenant. The words here used by Christ are peculiarly
suggestive, as they recaE the blood of sacrifices offered at the

170 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
dedication of the Sinaitic covenant, when Moses sprmkled both
the book and aE the people, saying, " Behold the blood of the
covenant " (Ex. xxiv. 6). That covenant at Sinai was founded
on the blood of a typical atonement, and could have had no
place without that blood. -And in the far deeper sense con
tained m the reaEty as contrasted with the typej the one true
and perfect sacrifice of the Son of God must be viewed as the
foundation of the latter covenant. Christ here describes His
blood, then, from a threefold point of view: (1) as shed or
poured out for His disciples; (2) as the procuring cause of
remission of sins; (3) as the fundamental condition of the
covenant. And we shaE briefly advert to each of these, points
in order. 1. His blood was shed or poured out for many.. Though
the Greek construction in Luke is irregular and somewhat
pecuEar, plainly the participle shed or poured out is connected
with the term blood, just as it is put in Matthew and Mark.
There can be no doubt that this is the connection m point of
thought, E not also in pomt of language.^ It is a sacrfficial
phrase, recaEing how the priest was wont to shed the victnn's
blood, or to pour out the victim's blood, at the ratffication of
the covenant. Blood was shed on the great occasion when the
covenant was first formed, and whenever it was subsequently
to be confirmed and upheld, just as on the day when it was
first founded. It was the blood of sacrffice expiatmg the sins
> of others. Some have alleged, indeed, that it is by no means
of absolute necessity to view that class of sacrffices as expia-
Luke XXll. 20 : Tovro to ^orripiov V] xaivit ^taMxrt Iv ru tctfjta.rt fjLHV, to l^if
li/im, Ixxmi/iivav. This abnormal structure is differently explained. Thus, some
refer the words to imp li//.Zy Ix^f^urofnyov to to ¦roTripiov (Euthymius, Calovius, De
Wette, Winer Gram.). But every one is sensible of the harshness and unnatu-
ralness of the interpretation, "the cup which is poured out for you." However
we explain the grammatical difficulty, there is no doubt that Luke, in point of
thought, meant the participle clause, « ix^mo/ityoy, to be referred to the xl/mn,
though, in strict philology, we should have expected ixxvy/^iyai. (See Bleek,
Synoptisehe ErUarung der drei Ersten Evangelien, vol, ii. p. 416, 1862 ; and
Meyer's Commentary.)

Christ's BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 171
tory which were intended only as the basis of a covenant, and
that they may be regarded as but a covenant sacrifice. But
the answer is obvious: Whenever an occasion occurred for
God to enter into covenant relations with sffiful men who
were relatively severed and estranged from Him, it always was,
and it could only be, upon the footing of a sacrifice of atone
ment. This is based on the relation between sinful men and
a holy God.
We need not here discuss the question whether the best
renderffig is, shed for many, or, poured out for many ; that is,
whether it relates more to the slaying of the victim or to the
sprmkEng of the blood. We may omit tffis discussion,
because, in point of fact, there was no sacrffice where either
. of ¦ these elements could be omitted ; the sprinkEng, as the
more advanced step, havmg a special reference to the appHca-
tion of the atonement. And the remission of sms here men
tioned plainly shows that the aEusion to that latter point of
the sacrificial arrangements is not excluded, but reaEy com
prehended. That which makes the second saymg wider and
more comprehensive in its scope, however, is the unmistakeable
aEusion which is contamed m it to the Sinaitic covenant,
which here gives place to the new and better covenant.
As to the persons with whom the new covenant is under
stood to. be made, they are no further aEuded to than merely
as they are Christ's recognised disciples. It makes no difference
in tffis respect whether they were (Erectly m His immediate
feEowship durmg His earthly career, or m subsequent times are
regarded as belongffig to a pecuEar company who are His own.
His sheep, and here designated many. And the Lord says
absolutely nothmg of any concEtion to be performed on their
side, or of any prerequisite to tffis covenant relation; thus
leaving it to be inferred that the covenant is whoEy gracious
and unconEtionaL
2, The Lord Jesus declares that His blood was shed or
offered m order to obtam for others the remission of sins. And

1 72 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in declaring that it was for, or rather unto} the remission of
sms. He affirms that His blood, or dying obedience, is the pro-
curffig cause, and remission the effect, — that the one is the
direct result of the other. That these words are genume,
though found only m the narrative of Matthew, is a point
beyond suspicion or chaEenge, because they occur in every
manuscript and ancient version.^ And since they contain
Cffiist's own declaration as to the scope and effect of His
death, they prove that His death was intended to be, and
therefore that it truly was, the cause of the remission of sms.
This is the undeniable and obvious import of the language, if
we are content faithfuEy to mterpret words. We have offiy to
observe the coimection and the true force of the preposition
unto or for (s/j), which expresses the object which the Lord
had m view, to perceive that remission of sins is the effect, and
that the blood of Christ is the cause. And no mind unbiassed
and free from prejuclice can fail to admit, that accordmg to the
natural construction of language, a causal connection between
the two is sigmfied.
As to the import of the term remission (sig upsffiv), it uni
formly refers to the remitting of merited pmiishment, whether
that be temporal or eternal. It is a judicial term ; and all the
various modifications of phraseology and of expression by
wffich forgiveness is denoted, unEormly bear this sense. The
special point to wffich the pffiase relates, is deliverance from
aE the punishment due to us for sin, rather than deliverance
from its mward power, whether past or present. The Greek
term rendered " remission " points out much better than our
EngEsh word the immediate effect of the atonement ; implymg
that the sin was canceEed, and no more found, and that the
person upon whom the sentence of acquittal is pronounced is
agam without guEt or charge, because it was put away, and
^ lis oi(pitriy afiapTtuy.
2 The doubts of rationalists and of the laxer school, on mere subjective
grounds {e.g. De Wette, D^ Morte Christi), are unworthy of any attention.

Christ's BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 173
therefore anmhilated by the sacrifice. That the death of Christ
is the direct, sole, and immediate cause of the remission of sins,
without any other mtermediate ground, is proved by the general
tenor of biblical language on this head, by the analogy of the
bloody sacrifices to which this text aEudes, and by the express
terms of the present passage.
3. The Lord Jesus, furthermore, speaks of His blood as the
new covenant, or as constituting its fundamental condition.
The sole ground upon which a covenant in any case is, or can
be, constituted, is that of sacrifice ; without which a smner
coffid not be aEowed to stand m any friendly relation toward
God. We find it was enough to institute a typical sacrffice for
the temporary covenant, but the true sacrifice was mEspensably
necessary for the abiding covenant. At the foundmg of the
two covenants, it appears that somethmg similar took place ;
and we can easily gather from the pecuEarities of the typical
covenant, that the blood of Cffiist must be viewed m the same
light and as serving the same purpose that the blood of buEs
and goats subserved in the mstitution of the covenant at Sinai.
The blood was not a mere martyr's blood to con&m his testi
mony, but the blood of sacrffice. It does not merely seal
Christ's doctrine as true. There is no aEusion, indeed, in
these words of Christ either to His doctrme or to the sealffig of
His doctrme; for a covenant is not to be viewed as consist-
mg ffi bare doctrme. Eather it is the foundmg or erection of
a new relation between God and man ; and in the present case
it was a divme economy, order, or arrangement, by which,
on the ground of Christ's atonmg blood, as shed for the
remission of sms, God becomes our God, and we become His
people. As to the pecuEar nature of this covenant, it had its ob
jective foundation and basis ffi pardon; and m its internal
character it is in several passages contracted with the economy
of the outer letter, and is speciaEy deEneated in the prophet
Jeremiah. The prophet says, " Behold, the days come, saith

174 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the Lord, that I wiH make a new covenant with the house of
Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the
covenant that I made with theE fathers, in the day that I took
them by the hand, to brmg them out of the land of Egypt;
(which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband
unto them, saith the Lord ;) but this shaE be the covenant that
I wiE make with the house of Israel ; after those days, saith
the Lord, I will put my law in theE inward parts, and write
it in theE hearts'; and wOl be theE God, and they shaE be my
people. And they shaE teach no more every man ffis neigh
bour, and every man his brother, saymg. Know the Lord: for
they shaE aE know Me, from the least of them unto the
greatest of them, saith the Lord: for I wiE forgive their
imquity, and I wiU remember theE sin no more.'' (Comp.
Jer. xxxi. 31 with Heb. 'viii. 8.)
The special difference between the two covenants, distin
guished mto old and new, was, that the Sinaitic covenant did
not effectuaEy provide for personal forgiveness ; and that it
was, besides, rather national and Jewish than umversal, — ^rather"
mundane and external in its blessings and promises than
spiritual and transformmg.
Tffis new covenant, so caEed because replacmg a previous
one, is not to be regarded as eqmvalent to the federal trans
action between the Father and the Son. We do not call m
question the bibEcal foundation of that valuable scheme of
thought.^ The language before us, however, does not contrast
the- two Adams, or recaE to us, as some say, the difference
between one covenant made without blood, or with man m his
integrity, and another covenant made with blood, or with man
as faEen. Eather it is the twofold method of admmistermg the
one covenant — to which aEusion is made m the words before
us, — with a special antithesis between the typical or preparatory
economy on the one hand, and with the reaEty or truth as come
at last on the other. The former had for its object to prefigure
' See before, at sec. x.

Christ's BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 175
or foreshadow the blood of the covenant. The blood of the
new covenant is an aEusion to a people purified by an atone
ment, and thus permitted to enter on the enjoyment of fuE for
giveness, wffich constitutes the substance, in no smaE measure,
of the covenant, or at least its basis and its indispensable con
dition on God's side. It is a covenant of umon, or the formation
of a new relation, first based upon the privEege of reconciEation,
and then mvolvmg, as a further step, the inward renovation of
the nature, or the writffig of the law upon the heart. At the
erection of the old covenant there was a maffifold and repeated
sprinkEng of blood, — first the paschal blood, and then the blood
of bulls and goats at Smai; and besides aE this, the annual
pourmg out and sprmkEng of blood upon the great day of
atonement as weE as in the daily sacrffice. But the new
covenant has but one blood of atonement, or one sacrifice, per
fect and complete for ever, by which the covenant is at once
founded, maintaffied, and perpetuated.-^
I must now, however, obviate the current perversions in
reference to both these last-mentioned truths, — the remission
of sms, and the new covenant.
1. The first point — the remission of sins, as here put — has
the greatest moment m the Eght of current thought. The Lord
Jesus, in thus speakmg of the remission of sms as the direct
and imme<Eate effect of His death, did not state, as some wEl
have it, that He contemplated offiy an etffical resffit, or that
He had before His mind no other than a moral redemption.
Neither does He say that His reEgion proclaimed an absolute
remission of sms apart from any expiation by blood. He lends
no countenance to the supposition that pardon is so dispensed
to us, or that His death was meant offiy to con&m the truth of
what He taught, and thus merely to ratEy the promise of an
1 Gess happily refers to the one blood of the new covenant as contrasted -with
the various forms of blood-shedding, which stood connected with the founding
and perpetuation of the old economy. (See his articles in Jahrbiicher fiir
Deutsche Theologie. 1857, 1858.)

176 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
absolute forgiveness. For language cannot be more express,
that Christ's death was a sacrificial death to obtain for us the
forgiveness of sins. Neither can the Lord be represented as
laying aE the weight of His teachffig on the mere possession of
spiritual Efe, while the atonement occupies, in comparison, an
altogether subordinate place. Though many put it in that
light at present, it cannot be proved that Christ ever spoke as
E His dyffig was not of any further moment than merely as it
tended to perfect Him to be the Prmce of Life, and to make
Him the source of aE divme communications to His Church ;
whEe remission of sins only comes m at an after stage, and but
as an incidental thing or accessory boon, for wMch no express
provision was either made or requEed.^ The words of Christ
in this passage are so expEcit in their announcement of the
vicarious sacrifice, that they contain the very opposite of such a
notion, and are whoEy mcompatible with it. Far from speak
ing of the remission of sins — according to the defective teaching
of that school of modern theology which does not call attention
to the acceptance of the person or the acqmttal of the sinner,
but offiy to the communication of Efe — as E pardon were a
mere accompaniment or an attendant blessing which goes along
with the later and riper stages of the Christian Efe, the Lord
Jesus here puts remission of sins in immediate and causal conr
nection with His death. He makes remission of sins a boon of

^ Usteri, a follower of Schleiermacher, and a representative of the new theo
logy to which so many now confess, thus puts the remission of sins in connection
with inward renovation, or with the power of love in the heart, and not with the
sacrificial death of Christ : " Wenn -wir nun Keines von beiden annehmen woUen,
so kommen -wir darauf zuriick, dass die Siindenvergebung sich auf die in der
Gemeinschaft Christi und seines Leibes, der Gliiubigen (verg. Job. xx. 23;
Matt. xvi. 19, xviii. 18), durch die Kraft der Liebe entweder schon hervor-
gebraohte oder noch im Werden begriflfene Sinnesanderung und Umwandlung
{jiiTxMix und xa.Ta,xxxyvt), des Menschen beziehe und diesem nach massgabe seiner
Liebe (Luke -vii. 47), bewusst werde (verg. Schleiermacher's Predigt Tiber den
Ziisammenhang zwischen der Vergebung und der Liebe. Dritte Sammlung, Nr.
xi. ). In diesem Sinne werden wir also auch das Wort Christi fassen mussen, dass '
sein Blut vergossen werde fiir Viele zur Verzeihung der Sundem (Matt. xxvi. 28,
etc.)." {See Entwickelung des Paulimischen Lehrhegriffes, -p. 132. 185L)

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT, 177
primary importance, and the &st ffi order; nay, every true par
taker of the Supper is supposed to possess this remission of sins,
and to be conscious of enjoying it,
Eemission of sins, then, is not dependent on the renova
tion of the nature or on Christian love, however closely and
inseparably they may and must be connected in the human
mmd. These words of Christ emphaticaEy prove that remis
sion is an immediate and dEect frffit of Christ's atonmg death,
and not an effect procured or caused by those amendments.
Eemission of sins rather precedes them as theE cause ; for the
statement of our Lord, as given in this testimony, expEcitly
declares that Christ's blood was shed in order to effect remission
of sms, and that the latter is the immediate fruit or conse
quence or purchase of His death.
We tffink this conclusion may be safely left to every truth-
lovffig mind, takmg Christ's words as they stand, and to the
judgment of every unbiassed mterpreter desEous only to dis
cover what is the undoubted truth of Scripture, The death of
Cffiist is undoubtedly represented in these words as the im
mediate antecedent or cause of the remission of sins, Notffing
even specious has ever been opposed, or can ever be opposed, to
tffis biblical doctrine ; for this is an explanation from Christ's
own Eps both of the nature and effect of His atonmg death.
The Lord Jesus was given for this purpose, as the great mani
festation of the divine love and rectitude for the remission of
sins; and we find nothing ffivolving any difBcffity, when we
deduce from this language that remission of sm is attainable
offiy through the cross, and that God would not, and coffid not,
confer tffis pardon but through the expiatory death of Christ,
regarded as the appomted and accepted substitute of sinners,
2. As to the second pomt, the nature of the new covenant
there are many very superficial comments in circulation as to
the foundation of this covenant, many of wffich are replete
with error. Thus it is aEeged by some mterpreters ^ that the
1 So De Wette, De Morte Christi, p. 141,
M

178 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
language offiy impEes, " this cup is the new reEgion m my blood,
or that by which I seal the new reEgion." It is held by not a
few averse to the vicarious sacrifice, that Jesus simply meant
to say that He died ffi confirmation of His doctrme. These are
aE shaEow interpretations, and are utterly defective and faulty.
They ignore the great idea contained m the Saviour's words ;
which plainly mtimate with aE the perspicuity with which
language can say it, that His blood was shed really, and not
typicaEy, to expiate sin, and that the new" covenant was based
on His death, or, m other words, causaEy connected with it.
The covenant was founded, then, with aE its provisions, in
Christ's atonmg blood. The blood of Christ is the fundamental
condition on wffich it rests. And they who take the emblems
mto theE hands at the Supper do not view Him as a martyr
merely, and as dying simply to con&m His message, but recall
the great fact that Christ's atoning blood was offered, not m a
vague, general, abstract way, but was speciaEy and vicariously
offered for them ; and that they become m consequence a cove
nant people or pecffiiar people.
Thus Christ's blood is the blood of the covenant, not simply
as it attests or coiffirms the truth of the gospel, but as it has an
atoning character ; and the idea is not that Jesus merely ffied
to con&m to us the truth of the proniises, or to seal them, or
to ratify them. Moses did not sprinkle the blood to ratify the
promise,?, but to cleanse the people by ffis atonements. And
the disciples, in like manner, hearmg of a new covenant founded
and set up by the shedding of blood, naturaEy and necessarily
reverted to the erection of the Smai covenant. Christ was the
mediator of the new covenant in a higher sense than Moses was
or coffid be m that covenant which was but typical and transi
tory; and yet the typical mediatorsffip was aE based on the
blood of the covenant (Ex. xxiv. 6). These shaEow comments
on the new covenant are faffity in two respects. They woidd
make the words convey no more than an allusion to a new way
or method of procedure which God introduced among men by

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT. 179
Jesus Christ, without any objective ground or basis on wffich
it can be seen to rest. They aE tend, too, ffi a legal or semi
legal way, to throw men back upon themselves and upon their
own resources, wiE, or strength, ffistead of leaEng them away
from seE-dependehce. For if the human heart does not lean
on Christ's propitiation, it inevitably faEs back, ffi some phase
of it, upon self-dependence. Certainly it is but medieval mys
ticism, at the best without liberty.
With regard to the purport of this most important testi
mony, then, we must understand Christ's language ffi the
followffig way. The means by which the new covenant is
formed with any individual or class of persons, is the real
introduction of the indispensable condition on which it is based,
— the true sacrffice for sin, which pacffies the conscience and
purifies the heaveffiy things themselves. For as to the mere
cup, it coffid neither be nor make the covenant. The covenant
is. here explicitly said to be based or set up in the remission of
sffis, as effected by Cffiist's blood. God did not fonnd the
covenant by merely proclaimmg or publisffing the promise of
pardon, irrespective of the blood of atonement. It. is the latter
alone that could put them in the place of a pecffiiar p)eople or
holy nation. This discharges us from the old covenant ; and
the one true eternal sacrffice for ever keeps up and mamtains
the covenant, which woffid otherwise be daEy violated.
This memorable testimony of Christ, then, decides on certain
poffits of the greatest moment, to which it may be proper to
advert a little more fuEy,
a. The Lord, speaMng from the conscious purpose which
was in a few hours to be accompEshed, puts the remission of
sffis in immediate causal connection with His blood or sacrfficial
death. What is the biblical idea attached to the phrase, " the
remission of sffis ?" It wEl be found to denote, wherever it
occurs ffi the Old Testament, as weE as in the New, deliverance
from the due punishment of sin. And aE the figurative terms
employed to set it forth — and they are numerous and varied.

180 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
— such as, "to pass by" (Mic. vE. 18), "to cover" (Ps. xxxii 1),
"to blot out" (Isa, xEv, 22), "to ffide His face" (Ps, E 11),
"not to impute sffi" (Ps, xxxii, 2), — convey the same thought.
It impEes wrath, or Eability to punishment, which would be
infficted E no provision were made — such as the sffi-offering
ffi the old covenant, and the great atonement of the cross ffi the
new covenant — ^to effect the removal of the penalty threatened
in the law. Our whole mvestigation is at present exegetical ;
and d priori reasoffings, outside the pale of revelation, do not
affect or retard our present ffiquEy. The cavE offiy too com
mon ffi these days, as it was a century ago, that the Deity did
not need to be pacified by the bloody death of a victim, does
not affect us in simply ffivestigatffig what the Saviour taught.
We abide by the import of His language ; and remission of sms
is here described as the design and effect of His death, Nothmg
is plainer than that the forgiveness of sins is here put in the
closest connection with the death of Christ, that is, as effect
and cause,^ That His death is a sacrffice, has been fully proved,
and caimot be impugned. And when we place ourselves on the
view-point of the old sacrificial worsffip, it cannot be doubted
that the forgiveness of sins or the remission of the penalty is
effected by Christ's death without any other ffitervenffig cause.
His blood is the immediate cause of remission, and not a mere
mediate cause ; that is, it was not dependent for its efficacy on
the amendments wffich are the concomitants or attendants of a
' The words of Morns on this passage, in his Dissert. Theol. etPhiiol., vol.
ii. p. 100, 1798, are very striking : " Hsec autem verba . . . hunc sensum habcint,
eas res fieri hoc consilio, ut apiiris sequatur et contingat : sic usurpatus de
hac morte idem loquendi modus eundem sensum teneat necesse est, nisi usum
loquendi velimus per arbitrium mutare. Quod si hunc utique sensum tenere
debemus : exstat vere in sacris libris hsc doctrina, Jesum eo consilio et fnictu
¦vitam depossuisse, ut &(pms cum suis bonis sequeretur et contingeret, ethuno una
cum suis bonis contingere propter iUam mortem cum respectu ad earn. Praeterea
hsec verba, a'lft,cc ixx,vtiy s/s ^ipsmy ad hanc conclusionem ducunt : ergo 'ix'f^" '^"'
i'lpsirii. S,a roZ aiit,a.Tos. Si ex lUa propositione hsec conclusio ducitur : sequitur,
Ola propositione describi mortem, propter quam sequitur et contingit venia, aut
quod idem est, cui hanc acceptam ferimus, sine qua hanc nunc quidem, re sic
instituta, non nanciscimur, cujus respectu hac contingit,"

CHRIST'S BLOOD THE NEW COVENANT, 181
religious Efe, When Christ, therefore, represents His blood as
shed for the remission of sin. He must be understood as saying
that He bore the penalty of sin in order to set us free from it
as a deserved doom. This remission, consisting in nothffig else
than m the liberation of the man, or ffi personal Eberation from
any liability to punishment, is here meritoriously connected with
His sacrificial death as its procuring cause. It is not denied,
but rather assumed and impEed at every step,- that the remis
sion of sins is a benefit to be traced up to God's grace, or to
His gratffitous favour. But it is not the less affirmed that it
is bestowed offiy because the atonement was offered by Christ
as its procurffig or meritorious cause. And remission by this
means takes for granted that God was not a mere inffifferent
spectator of human guEt, but animated by just resentment tiE
sin was expiated by atonement,
b. But a further mquiry confronts us : How do sufferings and
trials that seem to come to us under the guise of punishment,
remaffi after the fuE and complete remission of sins ? why are
the consequences of sffi suffered to remain, if sin is thus com
pletely canceEed ? This fact does not invaEdate the fuE remis
sion of sffis, wffich takes place at once the moment one believes.
The man is perfectly forgiven, and the person fuEy accepted,
and aE that is strictly penal in the consequences of sin is
brought to an end and terminated for ever. These effects of sin
are transformed into a course of discipEne, The sickness, suffer
ing, and death wffich come to us in the ordinary course of thffigs,
and which coffid not be altered without a miracle, stiE remaffi
to the Christian, but they are whoEy changed in theE charac
ter. They are no longer penal, no longer part of the curse,
which was qffite exhausted on Christ, but means of spiritual
improvement, or a part of the Cffiistian's education ffi patience
and hope. Though physical suffering is aEowed to remain in
the ffistory of the redeemed, it is no longer an mffiction of
wrath or a channel of vengeance, but a fatherly chastisement
or a salutary discipEne, and through divme grace richly made

182 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
available for our growth ffi holffiess. For we must always, dis-
tmguish between correction and punishment in the proper
import of the term ; and constant prosperEy is so rarely advan
tageous, that an alternation with the opposite is found profitable
to the Christian.
c. Another point demanding attention is, that the remission
of sins is here represented as the ground or reason of the other
blessings contamed in the covenant. This comes out not only
in the saymg under consideration, but m the words descriptive
of the covenant, as they are given both by Jereiffiah and in the
Epistle to the Hebrews. Forgivffig grace is set forth as the
source of every other benefit. " This is the covenant that I
wEl make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the
Lord ; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in
theE hearts ; and I will be to them ^ God, and they shaE be to
Me a people : and they shaE not teach every man his neighbour,
and every man his brother, saying. Know the Lord : for all shall
know Me, from the least to the greatest. FoR^ I wiE be merci-
fffi to their unrighteousness and theE sffis, and their ffiiquities
will I remember no more," The use of the grounding particle
for (ori) ffitimates- that the promise of forgiveness is not ap
pended at the close as an additional blessffig. On the contrary,
forgiveness is represented as the reason why the other benefits
are conferred, or as the cause, source, and origin from wMch
they flow. It is as if it were said : " The reason or ground of
aE these other blessings, viz, regeneration, illumination, and
fellowsffip, is to be traced to the remission of sins," That is
' Heb, -viii, 12 ; oV; 'Ixiai; 'iirofini. On this clause let me refer to the Com
mentaries of Seb. Schmidt, Alting, D'Outrein, and Piscator, The latter makes
these happy remarks : " Observandum tamen ilia tria apud prophetam proponi
ordine inverso. Naturalis autem ordo hie est qv^d primo omnium Deus dectis re-
mittitpeccata propter satisfacUonem Christi ; deinde donat eis Spiritum Sanctum i
qui primum iUimainat mentes eomm cognitione gratise Dei per satisfactionem
Christi acquisitfe, deinde vero renovat voluntatem ad studium gratitudinis pro
beneficio liberationis sen redemptionis per Christum, Eta, enim remisdonem
peccatorum postremo loco commemorat tamen Ulam prcecedentibus anniclit pr
conjunctionem causalem inquiens, ero enkn," etc, on "Xius.

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. ' 183
the connection ; and it is not hard to trace the Imk between the
two. It was sin that made the separation between God and
man (Isa, Ix. 2), and the remission of sin paves the way for
the new covenant relation. Before any are received, their sin
must be, once for aE, forgiven. And not only so ; but as there
are daily sins and violations of the covenant, there must be a
provision for a daily reconciliation.

SEC, XXIV, — CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW FOR HIS PEOPLE, AND
THUS BRINGING IN A RIGHTEOUSNESS OR ATONEMENT FOR THEM,
" Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets :
I am not come to destroy, hut to fulfil. For verily I say
unto you. Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these least com
mandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the
least in the kingdom of heaven : but whosoever shall do and
teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of
heaven. For I say unto you, Tliat except your righteousness
shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees,
ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven!'
(Matt. v. 17-20.)
This passage brffigs under our notice the active obedience
of Christ, to wffich we aEeady referred in a previous section
(section 20) ; but with this pecuEar difference, that it is here
put in relation to the divine law, and in connection with the
previous economy or arrangements of God. The former eco
nomy was, from the beginning, only a pledge of something yet
to come, or an outEne unfiEed up, whereas the present is its
fffifihnent. And tffis saying of Cffiist impEes that for tffis
event the whole previous ffistory of man waited, and the ffistory
of- Israel was ffi fact a pledge or preparation for its appearance.
He vEtuaEy declares that aE previous ages looked forward to

184 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
tffis day, and that the whole divine economy was constituted
and arranged offiy with a view to E. This saying emphatically
shows that the event here referred to— the coming of the Son
of God to fulffi the law— was the centre-poffit of the world's
history, and therefore carryffig with it retrospective as weE as
prospective consequences.
The testimony under consideration is worthy of attention,
too, as expressing from Christ's own consciousness the great
design which His incarnation had ffi view ffi reference to the
law. It proves that E His whole career was, as we have seen
it was, a curse-bearing Efe, it was not less a siffiess career, or
a Efe which had for its scope, at every step, to fuffil the divme
law by a course of active obedience ; and it was this ffi a
vicarious sense, or in the room of others. This testimony may
therefore be caEed a key to aE those passages, both numerous
and varied, which describe Christ as the end of the law (Eom.
X. 4), or as the counterpart of Adam in ffis act of disobedience
(Eom. V. 19) ; and also to all those passages which represent
the acceptance of our persons as effected by the work of Christ,
and as irrespective of the works of the law (Rom. iE, 28). It
is a pregnant saying, ffidicatffig ffi few words the distffictive
features or the nature of His whole mediatorial work, wMoh
must have been obscure to those who first heard Him, but has
now become, smce its fulfilment, clear enough to aE who can
survey it from &st to last upon the outEne of the divine law
and prophecy.
As to the occasion of tffis testimony, it may be referred
rather to the calumffious accusations of Christ's enemies, who
regarded His mode of teachffig as subversive of the law, than
to the neutral state of some of His disciples desEous to escape
from the yoke of the law. And the Lord enters upon the sub
ject by a sudden break ffi the body of His discourse, — such as
He sometimes uses when He breaks the contffiuity of His dis
course and addresses HimseE to the state of mmd wffich His
omniscient eye detected as prevaiEng among His hearers.

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW, 185
When we inqffire ffi what sense the words of tffis testimony
are to be understood, it wEl be found that the interpretation
of them varies according to the idea which may be formed of
the authority with which Christ contrasts His own authority,
and of the pecuEar teaching to which He opposes His own
teachffig. Thus, it has been held by Sociffians and rationaEsts,
with a general consent, that the teaching with wffich Christ in
this passage contrasts His own statements, is that of the Mosaic
law itseE, or the teachmg of Moses. They wOl have it, that in
the sequel of this chapter the Lord Jesus partly corrects, partly
cancels and abrogates, the teachffig of Moses, and that He puts
a better legislation ffi its place. They woffid thus make Christ
a legislator, not a Saviour, and regard Him as comffig to usher
ffi a new law. And, accordffigly, they render the 17th verse
in tffis way : " I am not come to destroy the law or the pro
phets : I am not come to destroy, but to fiE out or to expand
them,"^ And the same interpretation of the words is held,
though sometimes in a considerably moEfied form, by several
English as weE as German ffiterpreters, who deserve to be
regarded generally as interpreters of an evangeEcal tone and
sentiment. They wEl have it that Christ ffi this section con
trasted HimseE with the confinement and narrow political form
of the Mosaic law, or with the stand-poffit of law as such f
and they contend for the translation, " to fiE out,"
But that ffiterpretation, it is obvious, cannot be maffitaffied,
whether we look at the immediate context ffi wffich the word
occurs, or at the import of language generaEy ; and a few words
wUl suffice conclusively to show this,
1, The immediate context is opposed to that ffiterpretation.
1 This very incorrect rendering is supported by Alford, Meyer, De Wette,
Olshausen, and others ; as if our Lord only meant to say that He came to set
forth the ideal import of the law, or to give a deeper and holier sense to it.
This comment of the modern school is well refuted by Bleek in his Synoptisehe
ErUarung, 1862, p. 248, and also in the Studien und Kritilcen for 1853. Nor
can we regard -with any more favour the comment of Vitringa, who interpreted
wXtipovv docere, from the usage of a Chaldee-Talmudic word.
2 So Neander puts it.

186 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
It woffid be a flagrant self-contradiction, E ffi one verse the
Lord Jesus were to announce that He did not come to destroy
the law, or, ffi other words, to subvert its authority, and then,
in the sequel, proceeded to correct and modify it in many pomts
of the greatest importance, — nay, to go so far as to abrogate
and change it both ffi its principle and in its detaEs, But He
subverts the teacffing to which He refers in the sequel (see
ver. 43). That cannot, therefore, be the divine law wffich He
overthrows at so many points and in a way tantamount to
destroying it ; for He expressly declares that it was no part of
His mission or design -to destroy the law, but rather to fulfil
it. It must, then, have been the traditions of the elders which
He^ overtffiows,
2. The. usage of language is opposed to that ffiterpretation
which here adopts the rendering, to fill out, in preference io fulfil
(TT'ktjpSffai). No example of such a usage can be adduced when
the verb is applied to a law or to an express demand contained
in the spirit of the law ; in which case it uniformly means, "to
fffifil." Thus it is Said, " He that loveth another hath fffifiUed
the law" (vof/iOV TTS'r'Kfipoozs), (Eom. xiii. 8). The ffiflexible usage
of language rules the sense in such a phrase, to the effect that
Christ must be understood to say that He came not to fiE out
or to supplement the law by additional elements, but to fulfil
it by obeying it or by beffig made under it.
But there are other arguments, not less strong, which may
be urged from different points of view against that mode of
rendering. And it may here be proper to adduce them with
as much brevity as we can,
3, We add, then, as another conclusive argument, which may
be adduced against the ffiterpretation aEeady mentioned, that
such a sense as "fiE out" is ffiadmissible as appEed to the
second term or object of the verb ; for Christ did not Come to
1 Lechler shows this from the fact that Jesus does not say in any of the six
examples which He adduces, "Moses said," but always, "ye have heard,"
(See Studien vmd Kritilcen for 1854, p, 804.)

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW, 187
fill out or to expand the prophecies, but simply to fulfil the
prophecies. Wherever, indeed, the word here used is applied
to anytffing prophetical, it is always found in such a connection
that it can mean offiy, " to fulfil ; " and hence we must by no
means deviate from that meaffing here,^
4, Another strong argument may be drawn from the ground
ing verse wffich foEows; for the 18tli verse must be regarded
as grounding or giving a reason for the statement in the pre
vious verse. Now, what sort of reason woffid be given for the
17th verse, E we were to render the connected verses thus :
" I come to fiE out or to supplement the law ; /o?' verily I say
unto you (kiLriv yap >iyiw), TiE heaven and earth pass, one jot or
one tittle shaE in no wise pass from the law, tUl aE be fulfilled ?"
Tffis woffid be illogical and inconsequent in the highest degree ;
and no reverent ffiterpreter wiE wiEingly ascribe such logic to
the Son of God.2 The perpetual duration of the law mentioned
ffi the 18th verse coffid not ground the 17th verse, if we were
to interpret the latter by the rendering, "to fill out;" and
hence that meaning must be held to be untenable.
5. We may argue to the same effect from the nature and
peculiar scope of our Lord's personal ministry. He did not
come in any peculiar sense to preach the law, at least as the
maffi or prominent object of His teaching. But the renderffig
we impugn woffid imply that He came on the errand of fillffig
out or enforcffig and expanding the domain of the law, or of
makffig the law the burden of His ministry; whereas His
errand was, as every one knows, of a different kind — to usher
ffi and to announce an economy of grace. And this very pas
sage, rightly understood, will be found to preach not law, but
grace, (See John i, 17,)
But another ffiquiry confronts us at this poffit: What is the
1 Bleek well argues that the rendering,, "to fill out," is possible only on the
supposition that the vpoip^Tois refers to the legal or moral elements in the pro
phetical -writings.
^ See Phnippi's treatise, Der thatige Oehorsam Christi, 1841, p, 30,

188 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
LAW here mentioned, and ffi what sense is it to be distmguished
from the prophets ? Many expositors are disposed to take these
two words, " the law or the prophets," in the sense of bearmg
reference to the etffical elements of the Old Testament, of wffich
the Decalogue was the source and the prophets the expounders,
just as when the Lord Jesus said in regard to an etffical prin
ciple, " This is the law and the prophets" (Matt. vii. 12),
But that is contrary to the pecuEar language used, and is here
wholly inadmissible ; for here the two terms are not put together .
in such a way as to comprehend a unity, or as merely indicat
ing the spirit of the law by another word. The two terms are
here put together by the disjunctive particle, OR, and therefore
must each indicate distffict ideas famiEar to the hearers,^ It
has been aEeged, indeed, that as there is no further aEusion to
prophecy as such in the entire Sermon on the Mount, tffis dis
tinction between the law and the prophets is not to be admitted.
But whether we have regard to the proper signfficance of the
terms and to the disjunctive particle which separates them, or
to the import of the fulfilling spoken of ffi these two verses,
it is sufficiently proved that prophecy in the proper sense is
here meant. And the design of Christ, therefore, was to inti
mate that the whole Old Testament, in aE its parts and ele
ments, referred to Himself, and was accomplished ffi HimseE
As to the law, agaffi, the Lord means the whole Jewish law.
We are warranted to affirm that our Lord and His apostles
were not in the habit of distffigffishffig, as we commoffiy do,
between what was permanent in the law and what was transi
tory, but that they accepted it as a whole; the moral law
constitutffig the centre of it, or its core. That the allusion
here is to the moral law primarily, may be argued from this,
that the subsequent parts of the Sermon on the Mount Erectly •
' The disjunctive particle H, disjoining the law and the prophets, is utterly
opposed to the notion that we can take the two terms as intimating the moral
elements common to the law and the prophets. It is true, "the law and the
prophets ' are elsewhere put together in this sense (Matt. vii. 12 ; Luke xvi. 16),
but they are here disjoined as distinct ideas.

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 189
and maiffiy refer to it. Bnt we must add that the aEusion is
also to the types or to. the law of sacrifice, and speciaEy to the
sffi-offerffig; for it might weE have been asked, E there had
been no direct fffifihnent of the sacrificial types, what had
become of aE the references ffi the law to the propitiatory
sacrffices generaEy, and to aE the typical system ? If Christ
had not fuffiEed them and offered the reaEty, they woffid have
been an unfulfiEed prophecy or pledge. The language of sacri
fice, ffi fact, gave a sort of prophecy or pledge of a coming
reality. The meaning of the passage, then, is this : The Lord
Jesus came to fulffi the law and the prophets by an appropriate
deed. It was pledge and type before, but became reality in
Cffiist's obedience.
Nor must we omit to notice the significance of the phrase,
" I am come to fulffi." It must be regarded as setting forth
the end of Cffiist's comffig ffito the world, the design and
purpose of the mcarnation. This fffifiUffig of the law was for
man an absolutely necessary, though an undischarged duty.
To Cffiist it was a free act. The perfect harmony of the
human wO with the law of God, or the constant exercise of
holy love ffi the sphere of human obedience, was the great
goal wffich was set before the race of mankmd. And to keep
this thought aEve ffi the human consciousness, we find an
express appomtment to the effect, that the law wffich had grown
dim and scarcely legible in the human heart shoffid be afresh
republished by the hand of Moses. Hence it is that the Lord
of Life here announces that, in His capacity of Mediator, the
special end for wffich He came was to fulffi the law and the
prophets. .He thus points out the grand design or scope of
His whole work, and couches the description in a few simple
words, ffitimating that He stands ffi the midst of a sinful world
as the Eving law or the embodied law, wffich might be re
garded, so to speak, as walking before men ffi the one uffique
and siffiess Efe that had appeared ffi the world's history. The
law of God has thus, in the person of the incarnate Son, been

190 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
once fulfiEed upon the earth ; and tffis is the one great event
wffich has had a far more miportaffi bearing on human destmies
than any other that ever occurred, — a fact which, though accom
pEshed in a remote corner of the world, was for aE time. AU
previous ages had looked forward to it, as aE after ages lean pn
it. This FULFILMENT OF THE LAW is the socond fact ffi human
ffistory, as sin was the first, and it is the corrective as weU as
the counterpart of the dEe catastrophe which sin brought m.
.It underEes the world's renovation; it is its second creation.
We may here give a sketch or outEne of the sequel of this
, context before exhibitffig the import of the passage in a
doctrffial point of view. Our Lord proceeds, then, to declare
fuEy (ver. 18), that the law is immutable, and that it must
needs be fulfiEed ; wffich was offiy done, however, by His own
obedience, as He indicated in the previous verse (ver. 17). He
then subjoins the statement (ver. 19), that whosoever shaU
break one of these least commandments shaE be caUed the
least in the kffigdom of heaven, — Slanguage which implies the
perpetual and ffiflexible obEgation of the law durffig the whole
course of the kingdom of heaven. There are two senses or
interpretations ffi which this verse has been taken by expositors.
It may either be supposed to mean that one is caUed the least
because he is not deemed worthy to have any part at aU or
any real inheritance ffi the kffigdom of Christ and of God; or
it may mean that this person shaE be contemned, or held in
such low repute and estimation by the feEow-citizens ffi the '
kingdom as to be esteemed and caEed the least. To this latter
comment, which explaffis it of the New Testament Church, I
rather fficEne. And E we accept this as the correct ffiterpre
tation, then this just shows that the teachers and members of
the Church or ffingdom of heaven shaE aE imbibe and shall
perpetually hold this deep conviction of the immutable nature
of the law.
But the next verse, mtroduced by a grounding particle
(yap), makes an important addition (ver, 20); and the ffiquiry

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW, 191
is, What does it ground? It may either ground a tacit thought
such as this: "and do not think that a pharisaic externaHsm
is any fffifiEing of the law ; FOR I say unto you," Or He may
append another reason why He came to fuffil the law, — a reason
taken from the nature of the kffigdom into which none could
enter without a perfect righteousness. Either of these modes
of explaining the groundffig particle FOR (yap) may be adopted.
One thing is clear, our Lord argues from the nature and de
mands of His kffigdom, that none can enter it without a
RIGHTEOUSNESS (hxaibffvvrj), which shaE at once, accord with
the claims of the law, and be much more abundant than the
righteousness of the Pharisees. To what does He refer in the
sequel? That our Lord does not refer to the pure ideal of
righteousness, or to the perfect transcript of the divine hoEness
exffibited and taught by the Decalogue itself, but to the low,
traditional exposition of the law which was usuaEy given by
the Pharisees, as delivered to them by the elders, may be
estabHshed by many arguments. We shaE limit ourselves to
the argument that may be derived from the language used.
The Lord does not say in any of the six examples which He
quotes and amends, " Moses said," but, " ye have heard that it
was said by them of old time."
It must be further noticed that our Lord's great aim in this
portion of the Sermon on the Mount is not so much to teach us
Cffiistian etffics, or to adduce a number of practical duties, to be
foUowed out under the force of Christian motives, such as we find
enumerated at the end of the apostoEc Epistles, as to awaken
the consciousness of these somewhat legal hearers to whom
. He addressed HimseE. For whEe the former use has been
legitimately made of the Sermon on the Mount by the Church
of aE times, our Lord's view-point and scope are somewhat
different. It cannot be said that He takes so much for granted;
His Church was not yet founded. Eather, He expounds the
law on this occasion, as He does in several other passages, ffi
order to convince and awaken men to feel theE need of a per-

192 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
feet righteousness. (Comp, Luke x, 25; Matt, xix, 17.) It was
the ignorance of the law that was the true parent or source of
Pharisaism, for they claimed to fffifil it in the outward letter ;
and our Lord in this sermon aims to awaken conscience, by
enforcffig its true import and requirements.
It wEl be found, accordingly, that the Sermon on the Mount
perpetually returns to one main thought, which is agaffi and again
appEed with various modffications and pecuEar turns. It aims
to awaken ffi men a sense of need, and to shut them up to the
righteousness which is of God,-' Tffis abject coffid be attamed
offiy by the spEitual application of the moral law, or by en
forcffig its inviolable import and the ffidispensable strictness
of its demands. This alone convffices men that they need a
righteousness which emanates from a divine person, and which
much exceeds that of the Pharisees; and hence, to awaken this
sense of need, we find that the Sermon on the Mount returns
agaffi and again to this one central thought in many forms and
applications which are variously modified. (Comp. Matt, v. 28,
V, 44,) According to this design, which is the key to the whole
discourse, we may affirm that the 20th verse is to be regarded
as materiaEy or substantiaEy the sum of aE that foUows. It
is the great principle or ultimate goal to which this entire
exhibition of the divine law is to be run up. Here, then, the
question arises. What is tffis righteousness (hxaioavi/ti) which
our Lord declares must needs be more abundant than that of
the Pharisees ? That the aEusion is not to inherent righteous
ness, but to justifying righteousness, that is, to the righteous
ness which meets the awakened sense of need, wffich it is the
object of the whole discourse to produce, may be proved by '
various arguments. Thus, (1) the whole phrase plainly refers
1 The only writer kno-wn to me who even hints at this -new of the Sermon on
the Mount is Harnack, in his separate treatise on this text, entitled Jesus der
Christ Oder der Erf iiller des Gesetzes und der Prophetic. 1860. But the longer I
reflect on the scope of this discourse of Christ, the more certain does this view
become.

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 193
to ver. 1 7, and has a very close connection with the statement
that Christ came to fulfil the law : (2) it is the righteousness
which is spoken of as the necessary condition or ground, on the
footing of wffich a man is to enter the kffigdom of heaven ; and
therefore it is not the evangeEcal righteousness which is the
fruit of our acceptance ; — it is rather the righteousness which is
the ground of our acceptance, or the righteousness which is of
God by faith : (3) it is that which far exceeds the pharisaic right
eousness, and wffich is much more abundant in dignity, worth,
and exceEence : (4) it is the same righteousness after wffich
the awakened hunger and thEst ; and therefore it is the surety-
righteousness, rather than that which is personal and inward.
And if it is aUeged, as an argument against this interpretation
of the word, that the Lord's purpose in the Sermon on the Mount
was not to treat precisely of the article of justification, or to
show in what the justEyffig righteousness pecffiiarly consists,
the answer is obvious.^ Our Lord's words expressly treat of
a righteousness wffich is necessary and inEspensable as the
ground or conEtion on wffich men are to enter tffis kingdom ;
and the entEe discourse, as we have already seen, has, for its
object, to produce a sense of need.
Havffig elucidated the words and scope of tffis memorable
passage ffi the Sermon on the Mount, it remaffis that we put
together the doctrffial import of it in relation to the subject of
the atonement.
1. In this fidfiEnent of the law and of the prophets, the
Lord Jesus must be considered as actmg ffi .the capacity of a
surety or substitute; and the obedience ffi both Eghts was,
beyond doubt, vicarious. Hence His active obedience is for us,
and reckoned to our account, not otherwise than E we had fffi
fiUed it. The entire obedience of Christ was a compEance
• This interpretation of tixouoirmvi, for which we contend, was maintained by the
divines near the Eeformation age,— such as Calovius, Quensted, Perkins in his
Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount, Van TU, and others. But it came too
soon to give place unduly to the subjective interpretation, which has long become
general. N

194 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
with the wiE of God as expressed ffi the law. And His con
scious aim ffi His mission, as He here expresses it, was to
fulffi the law. If, accordmg to the federal agreement, the law
was the special sphere of Christ's earthly work, E is obvious,
tha,t without a clear conception of the law, not offiy ffi the
extent of Es claims, but also ffi the extent of the curse which
it entaEs, we cannot adequately know His obedience ffi our
room. Hence we must look at the usual tffieefold division of
human duty, ffi relation to God, to ourselves, and to our feUow-
men, E we woffid adequately apprehend the extent and breadth
of this obedience.
With regard to the duties towards God, the whole lEe of
Christ shows that He was animated by supreme love to God
(John xiv. 31) ; that a desEe to glorEy God was His grand aim
in aE things (John xvii. 4) ; and that, from love to His Father,
He foEowed with an undeviatffig purpose the wUl of God in
aU tffings (John xv. 10). He gives expression to this at the
threshold of the greatest trial : " But that the world may know
that I love the Father ; and as the Father gave Me command
ment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (John" xiv. 31). The
trust which He reposed in the Father, the prayers, and the
thanksgivings, recorded in His history, aE suffice to show this.
The second class of duties are those which we owe to our
selves. -And these, too, Jesus fffifiEed ffi a perfect purity of
conduct, ffi a seE-denial which distffigffished Him as the meek
and lowly One (Matt. xi. 29), and in that marked feature of
His character by which He pleased not HimseE (Rom. xv. 3).
As to the third class of duties, again, those toward our
neighbour, and which are summed up in the love wffich Paul
designates the fulfilling of the law, the Lord Jesus speaks of it
when He says, " Greater love hath no man than this, that a
man lay down ffis life for his friends" (John xv. 13). This He
did ; and He went about . durffig aU His previous Efe doing
good (Acts X. 38). It was ffi the exercise of this love that He
made ffitercession for His own (John xvii. 9), and prayed -for

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW. 195
His enemies (Luke xxm. 34). And among these duties must
be comprehended that obedience to His parents to which there
is an early aEusion (Luke E. 51), and which shone out so
brightly on the cross, just before the earthly relation toward
His mother was Essolved for ever (John xix. 26).
Thus at every step we can trace the most prompt and im-
deviatffig fulfilment of the divine law. It was no common
obeEence, however, wffich was necessary to constitute the
ground of our acceptance, but one wffich must needs pass
tffiough unparaEeled difficffities and sorrows, which we can
but faffitly conceive of, and wffich must possess a value, on
account of the digffity of His person, such as is nothffig short
of ffififfite. The grand commandment laid on Him, and the
culmination of His whole obeEence, was, to die ; and hence it
was in the spontaneous oblation of His Efe that the greatness
of the obedience was peculiarly displayed.
2. It is one undivided obedience; for Scripture knows of
only one service or work in wffich aU the elements of sub
mission or obedience meet. It was not a double obedience.
The entEe life of Jesus must be apprehended as one connected
deed. But the obligation was twofold, includffig the perfect
obedience of His Hfe, as weE as the sufferffig of death, or the
obedience unto death. The right formiEa, then, is not " to obey
or suffer;" for the claim to a service of love with aE the heart
stUl unalterably devolves upon man as man, just as it did ffi
man's primeval state. Not offiy so : the person who expiates
sin must of necessity accept the curse with the utmost alacrity
and adoring love, and with a fuE sense that 'the ffifliction of it
is to the glory of God. These two elements enter ffito the
Lord's obedience, and neither coffid be omitted. Hence offiy
a person free from aE moral defilement, and therefore not
needffig to satisfy for personal defects, was in a position to
undergo the fficonceivable sufferffig due to sffi. What He did
concurred with what He suffered, to satisfy the divine law, and
to place man ffi the position wffich he occupied before the faU

196 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
or, rather, ffi a ffigher relation, because ffi a preiffial state, and in
a state of con&mation.
Had the Church been left to herseE without the attacks of
error, the two elements of Christ's obedience probably woffid
not have been so much sundered as they have often unduly
been. We may distffigffish, but not divide, the parts of that
obedience which is one.^ But the obedience of Christ before
His final sufferffigs, and during them, or, as it has been caUed,
the active and passive obedience, may be vindicated, as two
distffict but connected elements, ffi His propitiatory work.
The active obedience belongs to the atonement, and is an
essential part of the satisfaction to divme justice, ffi the wide
and proper acceptation of the word justice. Tffis is a question
that has been canvassed long and earnestly ; and we the rather
refer to it in connection with tffis passage, because the tendency
to deny the element of the active obedience is so strong ffi
modern theology. The question is not, whether the holffiess
and active obedience of Christ were necessary to sanctify His
sufferffigs, which no one will caE in question, but whether they
were available for tffis alone. Nor is tffis the question, whether
Cffiist's passive obedience is the ground of our salvation, but
whether the one can be regarded as vaEd or efficacious with
out the other. It is not, whether Christ's holy obedience was
necessary to His person as a due prerequisite to that atonement
wffich He offered, but, whether Cffiist, in His entEe obedience
as weU as in His expiatory work, won an unchaEengeable title
to lEe for such as are willffig to be dependent on Him, and who
were unable personaEy to meet the law's demand: "This do,
and thou shalt Eve." The consequences of denyffig the active
obedience of Christ are these : Either God must be supposed
to recede from His rights, which would just be tantamount to
' The theory of Karge among the Lutherans, and of Piscator among the
Reformed, who both limited the atonement to the sufferings of Christ, and set
aside the idea that Christ's active obedience was -vicarious, has no biblical war
rant; and it is based on a false assumption, as we shall notice at the end of
this section.

CHRIST FULFILLING THE LAW, 197
sayffig that He deffied HimseE, or man must be held to pro
cure a title to heaven by some services of his own, wffich are
imperfect ffi theE nature. Either supposition is inconsistent
with the gospel If, however, we dismiss aU scholastic terms,
the matter may be put in the foEowffig biblical way, to wffich
no exception can be taken : " The law must be kept, and sin
must be punished ; and divine wisdom and grace provided a
man, that is, a God-man, who was in a position to accomplish
both, and Ed so."
3. Cffiist's people are thus, through faith ffi Him, considered
as E they had always fuffiEed the divine law. This is the
SECOND frffit of Christ's satisfaction, as sffi-bearing is the first.
Thus, accordffig to tffis essential element of divffie truth, the
Lord Jesus not offiy bore sffi, but fulfilled aE the claims of
the divffie law, and so put His people ffi possession of a perfect
and immaculate righteousness, and secured for them its due
reward. For as God coffid not have ceased to demand punish
ment at the hand of sffiners, from the very perfection of His
nature, so He cannot but confer a reward from the same recti
tude of His nature, when His law has been fulffiled for them in
so complete a way, and by a person so exceEent.
But to aU these bibEcal views of divffie truth not a few
objections have been taken, and some of them of a nature that
seem, at first sight, plausible and staggering.
a. Thus, it is asked. Was not Christ, as man, bound, in com
mon with every rational creature, to render obedience to God
on His own account ? ^ The answer to this is not difficffit. A
right view of Christ's humiliation wUl suffice to show that He
did not owe obedience on His own account, and that He was
not under the law by any necessity of nature. He owed
obedience, not precisely because He took humanity, but because
He wiEed to be made under the law for us. The law was not
' This was Piscator's and Karge's argument against the vicariousness of
Christ's active obedience. And too many have conceded this first principle,
when it is but a fallacy.

198 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
given for the human nature in union with a divine person,
except as He condescended to be abased, and was made under
it by voluntary susception, as a means to an end. Christ
became man for no personal object of His own, but only to
be a Mediator for others, and in that capacity to fffifil the law.
But for this. He woffid not have come ffito the world, or have
become man. Hence the obedience which He voluntarily dis
charged was only for His people, not for Himself ; and Scrip
ture never deduces His active obedience from any natural or
ffievitable obEgation, but always regards it as the end and
scope of His mission. Nor can we regard the Lord Jesus as a
mere man. He was stiE the Son of God, neither bound to
assume humaffity, nor to submit to the laws of humanity, nor
to encounter any of those numerous temptations by which His
obedience was to be exercised. And He did aE this sponta
neously and vicariously ffi a humaffity wffich He had assumed,
not to be a separate person, but merely as a rational and m-
teUigent ffistrument or organ, by means of which that great
work of vicarious obedience coffid be accompEshed.
h. But it is asked again. How" can one be righteous, because
another was obedient ? The answer is obvious. The entire
constitution of our race, as contradistingffished from that of
other orders of being, was of this nature, that it stood or feU
in a representative ; and Christ is the second man. Men may
quarrel with tffis arrangement, and destroy themselves by proud
and petffiant rebelEon. But it will stand, notwithstandmg.
BeEevers are treated in Christ as perfectly righteous, and as
E they had done aE that He did. The race is saved on the'
same prmciple on wffich it was placed at &st; and we who
beEeve are the fulfiEers of the law in the second man, the Lord
from heaven.

CHRIST S DEATH THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 199

SEC. XXV. — SAYINGS WHICH REPRESENT THE DEATH OE JESUS AS
HIS GREAT ACT OF OBEDIENCE, AND AS THE RIGHTEOUSNESS
OF HIS PEOPLE.
As we noticed ffi the former section the testimony of Jesus,
that He came not to destroy the law or the prophets, but to
fffiffi them, ffi order to bring ffi the .true righteousness, it is
proper to consider, next in order, some of those sayings which
set forth the righteousness of God from a somewhat different
poffit of view. There are sayings which connect it with the
death of Jesus as His great act of obedience. One testimony, as
we have seen, refers it to His fffifillffig of the law, while another
refers the same benefit to His death. These two modes of
representation, however, are by no means inconsistent with each
other ; nay, the one presupposes and ffivolves the other when
ever aEusion is made to either. And it wEl be necessary to
bring together two classes of sayings, with a view to establish
these two distffict but mutuaEy connected truths,^that the
death of Jesus was the cEmax of His obeEence, and that it
was also the true righteousness of His people.
1. With regard to the first point, that the death of Jesus
constituted His great act of obeEence, it must be borne in
mind, that while we trace the element of suffering in the death
of the Lord, we are by no means to lose sight of the element
of obedience. Willffig subjection underlay the whole of His
suffering, and that, too, of the most active character. Indeed,
sufferffig in itseE, and considered merely as paffi, is no obedience ;
for a man may suffer, and not be obedient. But when he
encounters sufferffig with his fuE consent, and evmces, during
the course of it, a stedfast and inflexible tenacity of purpose,
that cannot be turned aside from the straight path of obeEence,
what is that active fffifilment of duty or observance of the
divine wEl, but patience ? And no virtue is of a more active
character than patience ; while none in the catalogue is more

200 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
worthy to be caUed the queen of the vEtues.^ We may affirm,
respecting obedience generaEy, that it must needs be tested by
some special or positive ffijunction, whether that may be pre
sented in the form of restraint, or in the form of endurance ; the
former being the test imposed on the first man, the latter beffig
the test to wffich the second Adam was subjected. Thus it
appears that even siffiess nature, without a taffit of deffiement
or imperfection, can have its obedience tested offiy ffi some
such way ; and, accordffigly, the Son learned obedience by the
tffings He suffered (Heb. v. 8). When the Lord Jesus was
requEed to display the reaEty and extent of His obedience by
His act of self-oblation, and to go through Hfe with tffis formed
and defiffite resolve ffi His mind, we just see pure humaffity,
with the divffie image ffiscribed upon it, and with the law ffi
His heart (Ps. xL 8), summoned to its highest act of obedience.
The great commandment laid upon Him was, to die, just as
Adam's special commandment was, to abstaffi from the forbidden
frffit. In speaking of Christ's great act of obedience, we shaU not
turn aside to the numerous references found in the sayffigs of
Jesus, to the work of teachffig also imposed upon Him by the
Father (John xE. 49). We here aEude offiy to His redemption
work, and to that, too, merely as it is presented to us under the
guise and designation of obedience.
The first sayffig which we shaE adduce ffi this connection
is the announcement just before He went out to Gethsemane :
" Hereafter I will not talk much with you : for the prince of this
world cometh, and hath nothing in Me. But that the world may
know that I love the Father, and [that] as the Father gave Me com
mandment, even so I do. Arise, let us go hence" (John xiv. 30, 31).
These words, spoken on the threshold of His arrest, intimate
His promptitude and readffiess to undergo what lay before
1 See some valuable remarks by Emesti in his refutation of ToUner's treatise,
which was directed against the active obedience of Christ (Emesti, Neue Theo-
logische Bibliotliek, ix. Band, p. 920).

CHRIST'S DEATH THE TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 201
Him, or His firm and inflexible resolve to give Himself an
offerffig and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smeUing savour
(Eph. V. 2). He first announces that the prince of this world
was approacffing and on the poffit of assaiEng Him with aE the
violence which uffited ffigenffity and maEce coffid either invent
or inffict, tffiough the medium of human power. But He adds,
"He hath nothing in Me;" wffich may mean that Satan woffid
find nothing which coffid be caEed his own,* — nothffig wffich
coffid be charged agaffist Him, or that coffid give the adversary
any legitimate power over Him; and He ffitimates that, far
from desEffig to withdraw from the suffering that awaited Him,
He was on the alert to meet and to . undergo it. The words,
" But that the world may know that I love the Father, and that
I do as the Father gave Me commandment," must imply some
such tacit thought as the foEowffig: "therefore, I wHl not
withdraw." Tffis, or some eqffivalent supplementary idea, is
requEed for the sense. Jesus ffitimates, that He was about to
surrender Himself to the impending sufferffigs with His fffil
consent ; and He adds that He did so, in order that mankind
might know that He both loved the Father, and unreservedly
complied with His commandment.
A second testimony to the same effect is found in the
declaration, that the Father loved Him because He spontaneously
laid down His Efe for the sheep at God's command: "This
commandment have I received of my Father" (John x. 18). He
thus evinced the ffighest act of obedience, when at the divffie
command He voluntarEy laid down His Efe. Havffig fffifiEed
the whole law to the utmost measure. He closed His career by

' We nowhere else find this mode of speech either in the Old or New Testa
ment, though we find what some think similar and equivalent phrases, — such
as 'ix"' Ti xnTo. Titos (Matt, v, 23 ; Apoc, iv, 14—20), and 'ix^iy ti Tpis "»« (Acts
xxiv. 19, xxv, 19 ; 1 Cor, -vi, 1), But here it is, b i/coi obx 'ix'i oiS£», There
may, as Calvin thinks, be an allusion not only to Christ's purity, but also to His
divine power. We have given, in preference, the happy comment of Olshausen,
,who says that Jesus means, " Er besitzt in meinem innem nichts, er kann nichts
sem nennen."

202 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
a priestly act of seE-oblation, wffich was the culmination of His
work; for it is said that He was obedient unto death (Phil.
E. 8). Thus the final surrender of His lEe must be emphaticaEy
caEed the ffighest act of obedience. This thought, which sffines
through our Lord's words ffi many of His sayffigs, receives its
fuEest Elustration ffi the memorable antithesis drawn between
the disobeEence of Adam and the obedience of Christ ffi the
Epistle to the Eomans (Eom. v. 19). Wffile we cannot aEow
that the obedience of Cffiist as there described is Emited to
a single act, as is commoffiy affirmed by those who object to the
doctrffie, that the whole siffiess Efe of Jesus was vicarious and
redoundmg to our account, it is very evident that the death of
Jesus is always represented by HimseE and His apostles as the
great deed in which the whole Iffies of His obedience met, and
that by which His obedience was tested. Tffis is the truth
upon the point.
2. The second topic to wffich we must advert is, that the
Lord Jesus represents His death as the true righteousness of His
people in the followffig testimony: "And when He is come, He will
reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment :
of sin, because [better, that, or to the effect that, in respect that*]
they believe not on Me ; of righteousness, because [better, that]
/ go to my Father, omd ye see Me no more" (John xvi. 8-10).
The interpretation of the phrase, " I go to my Father," must
be, first of aE, ascertained. And of aE the comments that have
been given, by far the simplest and most natural is that which
explaffis it of His sufferings and death as the pathway by
which He, returned to the Father.^ That this is a mode of
1 The oV( is best interpreted here as the oti indicative ; that is, as showing
wherein the sin and righteousness and judgment consist. (So Liicke, Meyer,
Hengstenberg. )
2 Luther's comment, as given by Gerhard on this passage, is, " Demonstrahit
per meum abitum, hoc est per meam passionem, mortem, resurrectionem, etc,
veram fidelibus restitutam esse justitiam." Gerhard adds, "Inter coeteras
causas Christus passionem et mortem suam ideo vocat ahitum ad Patrem, ut
significet, se passione et morte sua Deum reconciliasse " {Harmonia EoangeJis- . \
tarum, pars tertia, p. 330),

TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 203
speech by no means ffifrequent ffi the Gospels, is proved by
many things in our Lord's own style of address, and not least
by the fact, that when Moses and Elias conversed with Jesus
upon the Mount, they are said to have talked with Him about
His departure or exodus, which just means the death by which
He departed to the Father. This language, so understood, just
proves that the true righteousness of wffich the Comforter con
vffices men, and wffich plaffily means the divinely-provided
righteousness of God by which our persons are accepted, con
sists in the sufferffigs and death of Christ.
Thus, that great act of obedience constitutes the atonement
or righteousness of Christians. The great reason why the Lord
Jesus assumed our humanity, and offered it by an act of seE-
oblation, was just to bring ffi this everlasting righteousness;
or, to put it ffi a personal form, more adapted to the phraseology
of the last-mentioned sayffig, the righteousness of Christians
is the Son of God dying on the cross and goffig to the Father.
Christ HimseE is our righteousness or propitiation, which
avails with God for the complete acceptance of our persons.
Thus, the righteousness of God, viewed ffi this personal aspect,
just cofficides with the position that the dyffig or crucffied
Christ is the righteousness of His people, or made of God unto
us righteousness ; and that not by a make-beEeve, but because
what He did. His people are considered to have done in Him.

SEC. XXVI. — CHRIST OFFERING HIMSELF, THAT HIS -FOLLOWERS
MIGHT BE SANCTIFIED IN TRUTH.
" And for their sakes I sanctify mySelf that they also might
he sanctified through the truth [better, sanctffied in truth,
or, trffiy sanctified.] " (John xvE. 19.)
Tffis sayffig brings out another effect of the atonement, which
may be said to be supplementary to the former. This effect be
longs to the sphere of worsffip, or to that pecuEar element which

204 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
may be caUed the priestly character of Christians. It presup
poses pardon and acceptance ; takmg up the thought at the point
where the reconcEed come before God ffi the free access of true
worship. It is thus, ffi a certaffi sense, an advance upon the
judicial or forensic idea ; presupposffig the latter, and also essen
tiaEy comprehendffig it. Access to Israel's holy God, or wor
sffip from a people made ffigh tffiough blood, is the great idea
with which the whole Old Testament is replete. And as the
entEe Old Testament was formed to bring a people before God
ffi an act of worship, and as ever-recurrffig causes of separation
necessitated sacrffice, and were ever removed ffi order to make
way afresh for typical access, we naturaEy expect to find ffi our
Lord's utterances some aUusion to the true worsffip, with the
true Priest and the true sacrffice. •
The occasion of tffis sayffig was fitly furffished by our Lord's
own prayer or act of worship. Nowhere coffid we expect to
find this subject more naturaEy introduced or more fitly ex
pressed, than when we fmd Him referrffig in tffis last prayer to
His foEowers left behmd Him in the world, and interceding for •
them, that they might be kept apart from the evE ffi the world,
He is thus led, ffi the first place, to speak of the atonement as
that wffich actuaEy set them apart, or dedicated tliem as a holy
people. The section begins with the appeal,. "Holy Father"
("ver. 1 1) : the word " sanctEy " occurs once and agaffi ; but the
whole privEege of tffis priestly separation to God is here based
upon Christ's act of seE-oblation. We must first ffivestigate
the meaning of the pffiase, " I sanctify myself for them, or for
theE sakes," and then consider their sanctffication.
1. The word sanctify, wffich is properly an Old Testament
expression, denotes, ffi its common acceptation, to set apart, or
to dedicate, from a common to a sacred or reEgious use. Hence
arose other sigffifications, such as, " to purEy." But the most
common signification arisffig out of that primary idea was, "to
offer sacrffice," from the frequent necessity of atonement ffi the
ancient worship. That is the proper signffication of the ex-

TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 205
pression here ; and so the Greek exegetes correctly interpret it.*
It is an expression for Christ's act of self-oblation. He beffig at
once the priest and the sacrifice. Jesus coffid say with truth
of the present activity ffi which He was engaged, " I sanctify
myseE," ffiasmuch as He was then in the act of executing the
work devolved upon' Him by the Father ; and He puts it ffi
the present tense, because He was still occupied with it, and
because His obedience was to last tUl it was consummated
by death. There are other ffiterpretations of a different import, of
wffich we may say ffi general, that they cannot stand examffia-
tion. Thus some will have it, that our Lord had merely in His
eye His consecration to be a teacher f wffich is obviously qffite
untenable, on two grounds. It woffid represent Him as saying
that He came seE-comiffissioned, whereas He always describes
Himself as sent ; and the present tense is thus altogether lost
sight of. Nor can the language refer, as others think, to such
a sanctification of HimseE as shoffid aim at formffig men to be
apostles and teachers.* The great objection to both such com
ments on the ground of language is, that at the present stage,
and witffin a few hours of His death, that teachffig work lay
behind Him ; and the Lord refers to it ffi the context offiy as to
a past thing (vers. 1 1 , 1 4, 1 8, 2 1 , 2 3) . But this expression ffi the
present tense, wffile it cannot be referred to the work of teach
ing or.of mouldffig teachers, with wffich He had been occupied
from the first, may be referred to that sacrffice of Himself wffich
had just been figured forth by the emblems of the Supper, and
\yMch was now fillffig His mmd as near at hand, — ^the cEmax of
His obeffience, the priestly seE-oblation. And, naturaEy, it is
spoken of as a present tffing.
The expression, "I. sanctify myself for them," is thus a
1 Thus Chiysostom, in his commentary on the passage, puts the question, t<
UTly, kyiiX^u \ii.a.iiTh ; and answers the question as follows ; ^poirip'ifot cm 6ucia.y.
*. So Euinoel.
' So Tittman on the passage, and also Nbsselt.

206 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
priestly word, — the same word that many times occurs ffi the
Old Testament ritual.* It is to be understood of the sanctffica
tion wMch the Lord executed ffi Himself, when He offered to
God the sacrffice of HimseE as a sin-offering. The language is
by no means rare ffi the Old Testament. Thus we read of
sanctEyffig the paschal lamb (2 Chron. xxx. 17). And the
sanctEying of the first-born of beasts is alternated with another
simEar expression, that of offerffig them (Deut. xv. 19-21).
The phrase does not intimate that our Lord sanctffied Himself
for any new work of practical activity in the world ; for that
was ended. Eather it means that He sanctified HimseE to be
made sin, or, ffi other words, to make an exchange of places
with us, and to offer Himself, by an act of seE-oblation, as the
great sffi-offering.
Here we distffictly perceive the two sides or aspects of truth
which we developed at large ffi former sections, — sffi-bearing
and siffiess action ; but not the one without the other, or iso
lated from the other. The one coffid not avaE without the
other in this great transaction. They constitute, when taken
together, the two essential elements of the atonement, and are
ffiseparably conjoffied ffi the production of one resffit. Not
that we are to represent these two elements as separately meri
torious ; for they are, from the very nature of the problem, con
current. Hence, as siffiess nature must, from the Habffities of
those ffi whose room Cffiist acted as a surety, be subjected to a
test, or tried. He learned obeEence by the tffings He suffered
(Heb. V. 8), — the meanffig of which remarkable statement is, that
His obedience fficreased ; ffi other words, that it was not fuUy
expanded at the first, but became more energetic and vigorous
as the trial advanced. Not that His Efe wanted the character
of obedience at any moment, but it rose with the occasion, till
it triumphed over every obstruction and hffidrance, as we can '
distffictly trace ffi the garden. And aU this is in fffil con- ^
' See J. Alting, Opera Theol. iv. p, 98, who says that it is segregare , .
ut foret hostia pro peccato.

TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH, 207
sistency with His moral perfection, and offiy proves that His
obedience was ever complete, but capable of increase with the
trials to which it was subjected.
Thus the import of the sayffig on wffich we are commenting
is, that the Lord Jesus sanctified HimseE to be made sin, and
to exchange places with us as the great sffi-offering. And we
may regard Him, accordingly, as here repeatffig, in His own
words, and in language stiU more emphaticaEy sacerdotal, what
by the mouth of David He had long before announced : " Lo, I
come to do Thy wUl, 0 my God " (Ps, xl, 8). The whole tenor
of tffis language, together with the issue to wffich it leads, is
just another mode of announcing that He took our place, that
we might be set apart to occupy His place, and to stand ffi His
relation before God,
The next question is. What is ffitimated by the preposition
here rendered, for their sakes (yrip ahruv) ? It means, for the
good of, for the benefit of. Though the preposition, in point of
strict pffilology, does not exactly mean, ffi such a construction,
in room of, it cannot be deffied, that ffi several passages it not
only may but must be accepted, in connection with several
expressions employed ffi reference to the atonement, as denotmg
instead of. That latter thought, indeed, Ees not so much ffi
the preposition itself, as ffi the whole idea of substitution which
is mterwoven with the thought in such passages. The pffiase,
"to do somethmg for one," may be employed to mean, for
another's advantage, or, for another's good (Eph. iii, 1), But it
cannot be denied by any one acquaffited with the phraseology
of Scripture, that it never was said of any mere man that he
suffered or died for others in the sense, and to the extent, in
which Christ is said to suffer and die for us.
Hence, when the apostle, in one de&ite passage of much
sigmficance, takes occasion to reason on the subject of one dyffig
for another, and concedes what coffid by possibEity occur in
common Efe, he leaves us ffi no doubt as to the sense in which
he woffid have the preposition to be understood (Eom. v. 7).

208 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
The idea of spontaneous seE-oblation for the sake of others, and,
from the nature of the case, in the room of others, is, according to
his explanation, plaiffiy contamed ffi that expression ;^ and the
whole phraseology implies that Christ offered Himself, of His
own proper motion, not constrained by any outward influence,
and not overborne by enemies. Moreover, when the innocent
suffers for the guEty, it is plaiffiy with the mtention of de
Evering the guilty from the penalty which impended over him
as ffis due. Thus substitution is involved. The preposition
FOR, or, FOR THE SA.KS OF, carries with it, therefore, the foEowing
signfficance : that when the one representative of the children
of God died for all, aE died ffi Him, and were aE judged to
have suffered ffi Him (2 Cor. v. 15). He did this once for aU,
and it had everlastffig efficacy.
2. But we now notice the effect of this seE-oblation, or the
design and end wffich the Lord had ffi view in offerffig it:
" that they also might be sanctffied ffi truth." We decidedly
prefer this rendering, because the deflnite article is awanting
in the original,^ The phrase may be regarded as eqffivalent to
TRLTiiY, or, IN TRUTH ; and so we find it ffi other passages (1 John
iii 18; PhE i 18; John iv, 24). They for whom Christ
sanctffied Himself, are thus set apart as the true worsffippers
of God in the highest sense.
With respect to the word sanctify as appEed to the dis
ciples of Christ, it is necessary to keep before our mmds a
distinction wffich is not always observed, and wffich, ffi popffiar
theological language, is too much disregarded. There is a sancti
fication of the Spirit by which we are inwardly made holy ; and
1 Some philologists put this in a fonn to which no exception can be taken.
While they abide by the conclusion, that imp means for tlie benefit of, they
admit that, from the nature of the transaction, the i^rip implies the ivri. Win-
dischmann, in his Commentary on Galatians, 1843,. p. 15, says happily: "Man
hat sich bemiiht in dem Gebrauch dieser Priipositionen [viz, imp and *sfi]
den Begriff eines stillvertretenden Todes, ohne zu bedenken dass dieser in der
Saohe und nicht bloss in den Worten Hegt,"
2 h iXnh'Kf. The article, found only in some single Mss. and in a Greek
father, has no claim to be inserted in the text.

TRUE SANCTIFICATION BY CHRIST S DEATH, 209
there is, as contradistingffished from the former, the separation
or sanctification of the ' person to God by Christ, It is ffi
the latter sense that the word " sanctEy" occurs here ; and
this unquestionably lays the foundation for the other, which
is more subjective, and foHows in the order of nature after it.
The question to be clearly settled in connection with tffis pas
sage is. Whether are we to regard the sanctification here men-
vtioned as the moral and spiritual renovation effected in us by
the SpEit, and therefore the same with what is elsewhere
caUed "the sanctification of the SpEit" (2 Thess. ii, 13), or, to
interpret it as a dEect fruit of the atonement ? Is it objective
or subjective ? Is it a part of the Spirit's work, or an imme
diate fruit of Christ's sacrifice ? It must be specially observed,
that ffi this clause the Lord does not allude to the sanctification
of Christians ffi the moral sense, or in the sense of inward reno
vation, but according to the acceptation of the word ffi the old
Mosaic worship, and according to its import ffi the Epistle to
the Hebrews' (Heb, xm, 12, ix. 13). It woffid be a wide
departure, ffideed, from the true meanffig of our Lord's words,
E we shoffid interpret tffis clause of the ffiward renewing by
the SpEit. The word sanctify, as it occurs in the Old Testa-
ment ritual, has primary reference to those appointed rites used
for consecratffig the whole people, or any ffiffividual, to belong
to the theocracy in due form. This was a standffig won and
retained chiefly by sacrifice. And the apostle to the Hebrews
explaffis that, ffi Eke manner, the sanctffication of Cffiistians,
or the dedication of them to belong to the true people of God,
and to share m their services and worship, was effected by the
sacrifice of Cffiist. To apprehend the precise meanffig of the
'The words of the acute J. Alting, Opera Theol, 1686, vol, iv. p. 98, are
veryprecise and accurate : " Ipse sua ista sanotificatione segregatus fuit, et [ut ?]
ipsi quoque segregantur sed diversimode : ipse segregatus est ut esset reatus et
peccatum : ipsi autem ne essent reatus et peccatum. " (Compare Storr, Dissertatw
exegetica in Librorum N. T. Historicorwm aliquot loca, pars altera, p, 57 ; Lang,
Zusatze zu Teller's Worterhuch d. n. Testaments, art. Heiligen. ) Schleusner, Lex.
on ayiu^u, 0

210 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
word " sanctEy," it wiE be necessary to trace its usage in the
ancient ritual of Israel,
The two words frequently occurring in the old worsffip,
sanctify and purify, are so closely aEied in sense, that some
regard them as synonymous. But a sEght shade of distinction
between the two may be discerned as foUows. It is assumed
that ever-recurring defflements, of a ceremoffial kind, caEed for
sacrffices of expiation ; and the word " purify'' referred to those
rites and sacrffices which removed the staffis which excluded
the worshipper from the privEege of approach to the sanctuary
of God, and from feEowsffip with His people. The deffiement
which he contracted excluded him from access. But when
*
this same IsraeEte was purified by sacrffice, he was readmitted
to the fffil participation of the privEege. He was then sancti
fied, or holy. Thus the latter is the consequence of the former.
We may affirm, then, that the two words, "purEy" and
" sanctEy," in this reference to the old worship, are very closely ,
allied ; so much so, that the one mvolves the other. Tffis wffi
tffi'ow Eght upon the use of these two expressions ffi the New
Testament (Eph. v. 25, 26 ;i Heb. E, 11 ; Tit, E, 14). AU
these passages represent a man defiled by sin and excluded
from God, but readmitted to access and fellowsffip, and so
pronounced holy, as soon as the blood of sacrffice is appUed
to him. That is the meaffing of the word "sanctEy" ffi this
verse, a. Hence, when we trace the connection of sanctffication
as here used with the atonement, it is a causal connection. It
is placed in dfrect and immediate relation to the atonement.
The immeEate sequel to a state of personal reconcffiation is
the sanctification here referred to, or the access to be a people
' The two words, a.yiiZ,iiy and xxlcipiZ,iiv, both referring to the idea of a sacrifice,
and so nearly equipollent that the one involves the other, are put together mthe
phrase : ^xpi^xxiy — "»« cclriiy xyidnf xoiSa.pi<ras (Eph, V, 26), Morns would put
into a parenthesis the clause beginning -with xeiSxplo-as. But, at all events, the
participial force of xxixplo^xs in the aorist must be maintained ; and this wiU
sufficiently indicate the relation between the two verbs.

TRUE SANCTEFICATION BY CHRIST'S DEATH. 211
near to God, or to be a theocratic people. Cffiist is thus said
to sanctify us, as He makes His people free from deffiement
and from the estrangement flowffig from deffiement, and restores
us to the divffie friendsffip ; and His people are said to be
" sanctified ffi truth," because reaEty is contrasted with shadows,
and the permanent with the transitory. They are set apart to
God, and made a pecuEar people, or a kingdom of priests, by the
remission of sins.
h. Under this head it is necessary to refer a little more to
the teachffig of the Epistles ; for the meaffing of tffis significant
phrase is not exhausted, tUl we add from the Epistles, that they
who are thus "sanctffied in truth" by the atoning death of
Cffiist are further regarded as consciously near to God. They
are described as worshippers once purged, and havffig no more
conscience of sin (Heb. x. 2) ; and it is the same standing
wffich Paffi delineates in the Epistle to the Ephesians, when
he shows that they who are saved by grace through faith are
now made nigh : " But now ffi Cffiist Jesus ye who sometimes
were far off are made ffigh by the blood of Christ" (Eph. E. 13).
Tffis is real, not typical nearness. The old Mosaic worsffip
sanctified offiy to the pmifymg of the flesh (Heb. ix, 13);
whereas they who have the appEcation of Christ's atoffing
blood, have theE consciences purged from dead works (ver, 14),
They are purified, in other words, from an accusing conscience
or an evE conscience, ffi order to be fiUed with the peace of
God, and so brought into a state of conscious nearness to God
by the sacrffice of Christ ; or, to quote another form of de-
scribffig it : " By one offerffig He hath perfected for ever them
that are sanctified" (Heb, x, 14), Thus, what was typicaEy
done ffi the old Mosaic worship, is now done in truth by the
seE-sacrffice of Christ,
c. But, furthermore, it is a nearness to serve, or to act as
priests; and they who so stand before God are purged ffi
conscience to serve the Evffig God (Heb. ix. 14). They are
sanctffied, or dedicated, as the ancient priests were, to a holy

212 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
service, by wffich everytffing is done as ffi the sight of God.
It must be added, that theE dedication to be a people near
to God carries with it the' further accompaniment, that all life
becomes an offering, and all its activity a worship. Thus, a
human Efe may become a hymn of praise, when it is passed m
the presence of God, and done to Him, even to its minutest
details. This is the natural resffit or sequel of being dedicated
in truth. And not only so : the deffiement, stUl inevitably
adhering to aE the actions of these sanctffied ones, is constantly
cleansed and covered by Him whose offerffig dedicated them
(1 John E, 1, 2), TheE service as priests unto God is presented
faffitless, and acceptable unto Him by the continued ffiterces
sion of our great Advocate on high (1 Pet, E, 5) ; they Eve ffi
the hoEest into which they have boldness to enter (Heb, x, 19) ;
and they stand in the grace into wffich they have access or
introduction (Eom, v, 2),
Thus it clearly enough appears that this expression on
wffich we have been commenting is not to be mterpreted of
a moral amendment, or of a spEitual renovation, though that
of course immediately foEows, but accorEng to the sacrfficial
and priestly pffiaseology of the old Mosaic worship.^ The
meaning, as we have seen, is simply this : that the Son of God
defficated HimseE ffi that act of self-oblation, that they who
are far off, aEens and strangers, might be made nigh ; or that
He was sanctffied and set apart to be a sffi-offerffig, to take our
place, ffi order that we might be put ffi His place. Thus it is
the atonement which sanctffies us ffi truth, or makes us a people
near to God, not typicaEy, but reaEy, or a kingdom of priests
to God.
1 Compare Zecharis's Bihlische Theologie, vol. ii., Vorrede, where there are
some just remarks on iyidZ^iy, mingled with observations which are question
able ; Vinke, leer van Jesus en de Apostel aang. zijn Lijden, 1837, p. 76 ;
Herwerden on the passage, over het Evangelie van Johannes, 1798 ; Lotze, over
het Hoogepriesterschap van Jesus Christus, 1800, p. 104.

LIFE-GFPING EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S DEATH. 213

SEC, XXVn, — SAYINGS RELATIVE TO THE SUBJECTIVE LIFE-
GIVING EFFECTS OF CHRIST'S DEATH,
We have aEeady noticed several of the sayings of Jesus
wffich refer to the more objective effects of His death, or wffich
have respect to the acceptance of our persons and the remission
of our sffis. There is another class of sayings, wffich we shaU,
next ffi order, adduce, referring more to the inward or sanctify
ing fruits of His death. The former, as we have seen, are to be
regarded as the immediate resffits or fruits of the atonffig work
of Christ ; the latter are rather the meEate effects of His aton
mg death, and presuppose the former. The acceptance of the
person, or the right relation of the man, is communicated first
m the order of nature ; for the " doing," accordffig to the tenor
of the law, is ffi order to the " lEe " (Eom. x, 5), It is im
portant to notice, that of aE these subjective or sanctifying
effects of the atonement ffi men, there are none wffich are not
to be regarded as followffig upon the liberation of our persons
from the curse of the law. They aU presuppose this ; so that
the spEit of Efe, which comes to renovate the nature, is seffi
offiy on the gi'ound of this acceptance to occupy the heart;
or, to put it in PauEne language, the disciples of Christ are
delivered from, or dead to, the law, that they may be married
to another, that they may bring forth frffit unto God (Eom. vii,
4), Nor are the ffiward effects merely those wffich foEow in
the way of motive, or as an expression of gratitude. For how
ever powerful the death of Christ is as a motive to influence
the heart, there is another ground based upon the merit of His
atonement wffich is much stronger, and exercises an influence,
not on the human mmd merely, but also on the government of
God, Among the sayings of Jesus which refer to the subjective
effects of the atonement, there are several ffi John's narrative
which speak of Efe: (1) the aEusion to the brazen serpent;

214 SAYHSTGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
(2) the aEusion to His crucffied body as the bread of Ufe;
to wffich might be subjoffied another already mentioned, the
harmony of love and justice, as openffig up the channel for
the gEt of Efe (John Ei. 16). AE these are subjective and
mediate effects of Cffiist's death. The teachffig of our Lord
and of His apostles proves, that as trffiy as the faE brought
ffito the world death and bondage, so truly does the atone
ment brffig lEe ; and that there is thus the closest connection
between the atoffing death of Christ and the spiritual Efe of
the soffi, as the end or object to wffich the atonement always
had respect.
It is the more necessary to notice this, ffi opposition to the
modern school which puts the Efe &st. They wHl have it, that
the acceptance of the person does not diqectly flow from the
death of Christ as its immediate result, but, conversely, that
remission of sins flows from our grateful love.^ This is a per
version of aE Scripture ; it does not make pardon resffit ¦
immediately and directly from the cross ; and it differs Uttle
from mysticism, or legalism, or Popery. On the contrary, the
communication of lEe and of growffig sanctffication is regarded
by our Lord as the resffit which foUows at the next remove, or
as the further aim of the acceptance of the man, and of the
remission of his sins. They who are Eberated from the curse
of sffi are next liberated from the power of sin by the spirit of
Ufe. But our Lord's sayffigs put Ufe, in connection with His
death, as the reward, frffit, or purchase of the atonement.

SEC. XXVIII. — CHRIST CRUCIFIED THE ANTITYPE OF THE BRAZEN
SERPENT, AND THE LIFEGIVER.
"And as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so
must the Son of Man he lifted up ; that whosoever he-
1 So Usteri puts the matter, according to the Schleiermacherian representa
tion. EntwicJeeltmg des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, p. 131.

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 215
lieveth iri Him should not perish, hut have eternal life."
(John ui 14.)
This significant sayffig points out the ffiseparable connection
between the cross of Christ and eternal lEe, and the indispen
sable necessity of the former to the latter. The occasion on
wffich it was spoken demands particffiar attention. It forms
part of the Lord's address to Mcodemus, when He opened up
to him the nature of spEitual reEgion, step by step meeting the
difficffities of the Jewish teacher. After drawing a distinction
between " the earthly things," among which the new bEth is
classffied, and which is so named because it is a blessffig en
joyed upon the earth, and thus a thing of human experience,
and "the heaveffiy things," so called because they belong to
what is divffie and heavenly, and which must be regarded as
included in the counsel of redemption. He proceeds to name
two of the latter — His own deity (ver. 13), and His atoning
work (ver. 14). They are put ffi connection with the new bEth,
and deUneated as its ffidispensable prereqffisites on God's part.
By means of this type, which was intended to utter a language
that should speak to aE time, our Lord convinced Nicodemus
that He must needs be crucified. And we find, accordingly,
that when He actuaEy died on the cross, it was less of a shock
to Nicodemus than to any of His immediate disciples ; for he
went along with Joseph of Arimathea, who also seems to have
been prepared, by means of private ffitercourse with Jesus, for
the fact of the crucffixion, and begged the body of Jesus (John
xix. 39). The import of our Lord's words here may be cor
rectly represented as foEows : " You see a mean man, or the
the Son of Man, who must needs be abased stUl lower, and
even Efted up upon the cross, as the antitype of the brazen
serpent, for men's salvation " (Num. xxi. 9).
But the question is raised. Did Christ reaEy refer to His cruci
fixion when He thus spoke of beffig " Efted up ? " ^ -AE doubt
1 i^ioi is always so used by John. It is a Johannine peculiarity; for we find

216 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
as to the import of this verb, at least as it is used by John in
connection with the work of Christ, is completely set at rest
by the apostoEc commentary appended to one of the passages
where it occurs : " This He said, sigffifying what death He
shoffid die" (John xE 33). Some, and among these, Calvin,
have expounded the " Efting up " as containing an allusion to
the preachffig of the gospel, as from a high and elevated place,
and in the eye of alL But that comffient, though supported by
several great names, is forced and far-fetched ; it loses the pomt
of the comparison; and, we can offiy wonder that any have
adhered to it, when the Apostle John has expEcitly settled the
question. Others, agaffi, have expounded the words, " so must
the Son of Man be Efted up," as referring to Christ's exaltation
to heaven.^ But that, too, is inadmissible, as it cannot stand a
moment agaffist the authoritative apostoEc commentary of John,
who, speaking with infaUible ffispEation, tells us what the lan
guage reaUy meant in the mouth of Cffiist. And even though
we should doubt whether Nicodemus at the time fuEy under
stood the words, such a testimony, based on a fact of Jewish
history, otherwise inexpEcable, would be afterwards of use to
Nicodemus personaEy, as he doubtless understood it, when the
event arrived.
To this weU-known fact, the last of the mEacles of Moses,
and performed by ffim at God's command and direction, towards
the close of the forty years' wanderffigs, it is not necessary
more speciaEy to refer, except to say that it was meant to be a
type, and that our Lord adduces it as such. He does not make
it a mere groundwork of a comparison.^ The word as, with
other sacred -vmters use the same verb of the exaltation. (Comp. i'^ahis, Acts
ii. 23, V. 31.)' ,
' So Beza, Lampe, and some of the fathers mentioned by Suicer in his The
saurus, on this word. That comment is untenable. As little can be said for
another explanation supported by Luthardt and Hofmann, that the words only
mean that Christ, as crucified and as fexalted, should be the object of faith.
John's comment is decisive (John xii. 33).
2 This -view, that it is only a comparison, supported by Bloomfield, and by
Webster and Wilkinson in their notes, is untenable. It wishes to simplify the

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 217
its correlated even so, wUl not permit us to rest satisfied with
the comment, that here we have nothing but a mere simEitude
or comparison ; for the one is deduced from the other ffi such
a way as ffifficates that, according to divine appointment, the
fffiffiment must needs be because the future event was shadowed
forth, and in a manner predicted, by the preparatory type. It
was a proper figure of good things to come, havffig the same
relation to the substance that a picture has to the reaEty. The
points of resemblance lay in the things themselves, according
to the divine ffitention. If the reaEty had not been appoffited
to appear, ffideed, in the fuffiess of time, we may certaiffiy con
clude, according to the relation between the two, that men
should never have seen its shadow or rude outEne. It was,
Uke the sacrifices, intended as a foretokening of a coming
atonement, though differing from these in one obvious respect
— that the material was brass, and the whole appointment, in
the utmost degree, sovereign, positive, and even arbitrary. The
whole arrangement, however, shows the wisdom of God in pro-
vidffig for a clear and accurate idea of the ¦ atonement in the
fuffiess of time, and in leading the Jews to haE and welcome
the hope of its reaUzation.^
The question is not, how many of the Jewish nation rose to
such anticipations, nor what ideas were formed of this type by
the nation generaEy; for God dealt with that elect nation, all
through its history, on the principle of a remnant or inner
election (Eom. ix. 11). The question is, whether the beUevers
among them were not led to harmonize it with the divffie design,
as they did ffi the matter of the sacrifices ; and also, whether
it was not in a sense ministered, not so much to them, as to us
who have the gospel preached to us (1 Peter i. 12).
The Lord chose this singffiar ffistrument of cure, because the
sense by dismissing the type, but makes a greater difficulty. The xa^iis and oStus
are opposed to this.
' See F. Turretinus, Disp. Miscell. Decad. Disp. x. ; Marckius, Exerc. text
viii. part iv. ; Deyling, Ohserv. S., part ii. Observ. xv. ; Witsius, Egyptiacorum,
hb. i. ix. 6.

218 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
people were to see the sovereign hand of God, and not ascribe
the effect to any ffitrffisic efficacy ffi outward things, apart from
the dEect interposition and power of God. They who saw no
congrffity between the means and the end to be effected, woffid
naturaEy, if they gave the rein to reason, feel a great difficffity,
and be Esposed even to ridicffie the idea of being healed by
looking upon a piece of brass. They must necessarUy take
offence, E they did not bow to the sOvereigffiy of God. But
there were also weighty reasons for the commandment given.
The people were to see, not only an image of the punishment of
sin, but also an image of a vicarious economy. I cannot say
whether we find' any further aEusion to this fact ffi the Old
Testament besides the aUusion to the idolatrous perversion and
abuse of tffis reEc which had crept ffi during Hezekiah's reign
(2 Kffigs xviii. 4). Isaiah's phrase is not unlike it : " By His
stripes we are healed." But we cannot doubt that Jesus, in
His interpretation of the tjrpe, meant to show that He was
appointed to become a vicarious sufferer, to be . made a curse,
on whom was to be mauEested the divine vengeance against
sin, that others might escape, and be healed.
The various poffits of comparison between the type and anti
type may be enumerated as foEows : —
1. The raising of the brazen serpent on the pole or banner-
staff, and the lEtffig up of Cffiist upon the cross. These two
are related as shadow and substance — the one beffig prophetic
of the other. Nor is this by any means to be regarded as a
subordffiate poffit, as certaffi expositors suppose. For, in the
first place, the repetition of the verb " lEted up " ffi the two
contrasted clauses, and then the correlation of the two particles,
as and so, unite to prove that the one is to be viewed as type,
and the other as antitype.-^

1 The use of xxSiis and oStus shows an intended type ; and there are many
similar interpretations in -the mouth of the Lord, such as the manna and Jonah.
The whole fact in Je-wish history, in all its details, is conclusively ahd authori
tatively pronounced to be an intended counterpart or type to His historic work.

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 219
2. The two objects here named were, in two different respects,
accordffig to the appomtment and command of God, to be re
garded with a trustfffi and confident look. Men were directed
to look to them with unhesitating confidence, according to the
divffie appomtment for salvation.
3. The ffistant effect of that look was to bring deliverance
and health. Tffis is the dEect ahd obvious point of compari
son, into which the whole statement is naturaEy to be resolved.
It takes for granted beEevffig confidence ffi the divffiely ap
poffited remedy, but impEes that there is an mstant commuffi-
cation of life ffi connection with a look at the crucified One.
4. It is a moot point whether we are to add, as another ele
ment of resemblance, the fact that the brazen serpent was
offiy made like the poisonous serpents, yet without their poison,
and that Cffiist was in aE points made like unto His brethren,
yet without sin.-' It is not only warrantable to add this further
poffit of resemblance with many of the best commentators, but
it is necessary. It is true, the great point (or the tertium quid)
of the comparison is, that the Efting up of the brazen serpent
healed the woimded IsraeEte, and that Christ crucified deEvers
perishmg men from eternal death. But we must also take
in this poffit. The serpent was only ffi appearance like the
noxious creatures that had caused lamentation and woe ffi the
camp of Israel, but not one of them ; and, in Eke manner, Christ
was made ffi the Ekeness of suEffi flesh, or made ffi aE pomts
Uke the brethren, yet without sin. Some make the analogy to
lie more ffi the circumstance of the Efting up, than in any acces
sory or accompanyffig aEusion to the serpent itself. There
seems no difficffity, however, ffi the supposition that the brazen
serpent represented Christ ffi the sense that He took the place
of sinners, and speciaEy of the sinner, by whom death and aE our
1 This was strongly brought out by Luther in his sermons, and in his Ger
man comments on John, and by many Lutheran divines, such as Chemnitz,
after him, and by Gomar among the Reformed ; also by more recent -writers,
such as Bengel, Lechler in the Studien und Kritiken, 1854, and others. Liicke
opposes it.

220 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
woes were disseminated and passed over unto aU mankind. It
woffid have been a real difficffity had one of the true serpents,
and not the mere resemblance or figure of them, been put upon
the pole.
But, in addffig this fourth point of analogy, we must, by aU
means, be careful to disencumber it of a further aUusion to Satan,
who is so often described in Scripture as a serpent, and who is
supposed by many to be necessarEy referred to here. A great
difficulty woffid certainly be presented, if it were necessary to
accept this widely received view, that there must be a further
reference to Satan, either in the allusion of the origffial fact, or
in pur Lord's quotation and reference to it. But how coffid the
crucified Christ be in any sense represented by an emblem of
the devE, or be compared ffi any sense to the serpent with tffi?
additional aEusion ? It is not denied that ingenffity may dis
cover, and has often satisfied itseE with thinkmg that it has
discovered resemblances ; representing men, for example, as the
brood of the serpent, and therefore that Cffiist was made sin in
the form of the seed of the serpent. But these are mere fancies
that cannot be tolerated here. And there are no traces that
Christ meant to teach that the serpent, with tffis further ¦
reference to Satan, was a type of HimseE. That is so m-
congruous, that, to avoid it, we must rather make the poffit of
comparison be merely in the Efting up. But there is no aUu
sion to Satan at all ; and the mistake arose from not discerning'
that the serpent, in one respect, at least in the brazen figure of
it, may as weE be employed to represent Christ as the various
other animals, which were used to represent substitution, or
were offered to God in the way of a typicaEy vicarious sacrifice.
This brffigs me to notice another exposition which was much
ffi vogue a century ago, and which is stUl advocated ffi some of
its phases — that we have not here a'direct type of Christ, but
an aEusion to the old serpent triumphed over on the cross,'-
1 This comment originated with J, D'Espagne, an ingenious French pastor,
who laboured in London, 1659, and is found in his Opera, tom, ii. p, 214. It was

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE, 221
This explanation starts from the same mistaken notion that
there must be an aEusion to Satan, and was suggested by the
obvious impropriety of representing Christ by an emblem of
Satan, Accordffig to this view, our Lord's words are identical
with the apostle's statement, that Christ made a show of him,
opeffiy triumphffig over him on the cross (Col, ii, 15), That,
however, makes a greater difficulty; and, as a comment, it is
whoUy inadmissible, as wiU readUy appear from the foUowffig
considerations : —
1, The types are not meant to be adumbrations of the ad
versary ffi any respect, but of Christ ; and the notion on which
this interpretation proceeds, that the symbols must always have
the same aUusion ffi every connection, is not confirmed by fact.
Thus the serpent is referred to in a Eght whoUy different, when
the Lord tells His disciples to be "wise as serpents," The
goats, too, which were used on the day of atonement, were
meant to be a representation of the vicarious sacrffice, wffile
they are elsewhere referred to as the emblem of the wicked.
And there is nothing, therefore, to prevent the ffiterpretation of
the brazen serpent as settffig forth a type of Christ, the substi
tute of sinners,
2, The similarity between the type and antitype is preserved,
offiy E we regard the brazen serpent as a type of Christ. The
conffitiouDf the IsraeEtes at that time gives us a vivid picture of
the gffilt and spEitual misery ffi which^aE sffiners are involved ;
and the act of lEting up can only refer with any fitness to

adopted by the celebrated F. Burmann, Synopsis, Ub. iv. cap. 32 ; by Vitringa,
Observ. 8., Ub. ii. cap. 11 ; audit reappears, with some modifications, in Men
ken's treatise, uber die eheme Schlange, and also in Olshausen's commentary.
This interpretation was refuted energetically by Marckius and by Deyling locis
cit. Lingeriag remains of this interpretation reappear, and may be traced in
the remarks of even recent exegetes. It arose from the mistaken notion, that,
according to the analogy of Scripture, the serpent must have some reference to
Satan, and that therefore there was an obvious impropriety in making the ser
pent, so -viewed, a type of Christ. And there certainly would be, if that acces
sory notion were included at aU, which, however, we have seen, is by no means
to be taken in.

222 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Cffiist, who was Efted up upon the cross m the inffiction of an
accursed pubEc death. This is one point of analogy ; and His
body was like the sinner, too, offiy in fashion, and as having
a common nature, but without the Efe of sffi. The analogy
consists, further, ffi the fact that He was appointed by God, and
that He acted as the one Mediator between God and man.
3. Tffis was not a trophy of victory, but a means of cure.
It was not one of the actual serpents, Evffig or dead, but offiy a
resemblance, having notffing ffi common with them but the
form, and havffig wholly different effects. The one wounded,
the other healed ; the one kiEed, the other made aUve ; the
one destroyed the works of the other ; and hence it was not a
figure of Satan, but of Christ.
4. The look of the sufferer also was certaiffiy to be directed'
to Christ alone as its proper object, or to the type of Cffiist, and
not to the adversary ; and as immediate healffig was impartedi
to the wounded dyffig IsraeEte by a simple look at the brazen ,
serpent, so Efe eternal is commufficated to every one who turns
a beEeving look to Cffiist. There was Efe for a look then, and
there is Efe for a look now. But Satan, from whom we fiee/
cannot, with any moEfication of the idea, be regarded as the
termmatffig object of faith. It was not a look at the actual
serpents, nor at Moses, nor at the pole, but solely at the figure"
of the serpent ; and it is solely at Christ, as the true object, that«
faith now looks.
To return, then, to the fourth poffit of simEarity, it must be^'
held that the Lord Jesus, the siffiess substitute, had an external
resemblance to man in aE pomts, or was ffi aU poffits made Uke»
unto the bretffien, but was whoEy exempt from their Efe of sin
(Heb. ii. 17). It is not without reason that He was typffied by
the brazen serpent ; for He was a curse-bearer, and yet a Saviour.
By tffis strikffig type He described to an Israelite, ffi the most ,
vivid way ffi which the idea coffid be put, that He was not come
as a mere eartffiy king, but as a sufferer, and that ffi His suffer
ffigs He was not a mere martyr, but the Eedeemer of men,

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 223
coming m the guise and receiving the treatment of the greatest
of sinners. They who are not ready to say, then, that Christ
only plays, ffi the most arbitrary way, with emblems and ffis-
toric facts, must admit that the brazen serpent' is typical.
That hideous image of sin and its effects represented the Son of
God in the likeness of siffiffi flesh, and as made sin, to condemn
sin ffi the flesh. The entEe type had a deep effigmatic meanffig,
though it was dark to a Jew, and indeed is obscure to every one
ignorant of the substitution of Christ. But it is no more
obscure to us who know the vicarious atonement.
Thus the historic fact implies, when considered in its true
signfficance, that men are saved by a method similar to that
by which they were undone ; that by man came death, and that
by man came the redemption from death. TUl the mind is
enUghtened by the wisdom of God, this seems a remedy running
counter to aU natural congrffity and fitness; for who would
expect deEverance from a piece of brass fashioned after the
shape of the Destroyer ? and, ffi Uke manner, who woffid look
for salvation from one carried out to a public execution ? But
when we apprehend aright the substitution, it is a most sigffifi-
cant and suggestive type.
As we have aEeady noticed the necessity of the atonement
or crucffixion, it is the less fficumbent to effiarge on the words,
" So must the Son of Man be lEted up." The must here ex
pressed, bringing out what is inEspensable, is not to be limited
to the mere carryffig out of the type, but has a deeper ground
in God's purpose of redemption, and in order to finish the curse.
That the puffishment of sin must be borne and exhausted on the
cross, was aEeady ffiEcated centuries before by the brazen ser
pent raised upon the pole. Plaiffiy, the necessity here alluded
to is a deep inner necessity. It is not due merely to the fact
that it was foreshadowed, — rather it was foreshadowed because
it must needs take place on moral grounds. Though the faith-
fffiness of God must be maintained ffi carrying out the types
and prophecies, it was not they that conditioned the crucffixion,

224 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
but, conversely, the deep necessity in the moral government of
God that threw back its shadow upon them.
As the puffitive justice of God, or the necessity for the
atonement, with the evidence that goes to estabEsh it in our
Lord's teaching, has been noticed ffi a previous section of this
volume, we forbear to adduce the evidence wffich goes to ffius-
trate it. Let it suffice to say, that the must here uttered by our
Lord is connected with the communication of divffie Ufe and
perfect healffig, and that " no cross, no healffig" is the purport'
of this testimony. When sin entered into the world, God's
moral perfections rendered it indispensably necessary that it
shoffid receive its recompense of reward, and that a satisfaction
for sin shoffid be required before divine Efe coffid be diffused
through the race. The Most High owes this to Himself, — it
beffig a must ffi the divine government as weE as a 'necessary
provision for the reEef of mental anxiety and dread. He owes
tffis to Himself, because He loveth righteousness (Ps. xi. 7). It
was not brought about to make a mere impression on the moral
uffiverse, ffi order to deter them from sm ; and as Ettle was it
done because God was acting before a vast public composed of
aE spEitual ffiteUigences. The necessity of punishment, and of ¦
expiation, is irrespective of any aims or considerations that refer
to a pubEc apart from HimseE. His perfections are the offiy
pubEc before which' He acts ; and He punishes sin offiy because
of the demerit of it, as caEing for punishment, ahd because He
is under obligation to Himself, or, ffi other words, from love to
His rectitude, which is just love to HimseE (Ps. xi 7). This puni
tive retribution is commoffiy caUed vengeance ; and the Most
High claims it as His own prerogative : " Vengeance is mine : I
wUl repay" (Eom. xii. 1 9 ; Deut. xxxii, 35), Hence, when moral
evE has been committed, natural evE, smted to it, must needs
ensue ; and we may lay down with confidence the position, that ,
the creatures of God, in the moral government of God's world,
suffer offiy what is due, and never more than theE due. Hence, 'i
to bear this infliction ffi a manner which shoffid expiate the sin

THE BRAZEN SERPENT GIVING LIFE. 225
and exhaust the curse, was the reason of Christ's crucifixion,
and gives the explanation of the must which He here expresses.
It must be speciaUy noticed, however, that the atonement
was intended, ffi the divffie economy, to open the way for the
dissemination of the Efe. The words are introduced by 9, final
particle:^ "that whosoever believeth ffi Him shoffid not perish,
but have eternal Efe ;" and bring out a twofold end, — life as the
ffitimate end, and faith as the intermediate end, or the instru
ment of reception. This much is indisputable, that the death
of Jesus was an indispensably necessary matter, in order to
attaffi this eternal Efe. It is to His death, accordffig to Christ's
own testimony, that men owe deEverance, heaEng, and lEe;
and it is by faith ffi His crucffied person that men are put into
the actual possession and enjoyment of these benefits, — the faith
wMch presupposes the finished work of Christ, and which reEes
upon His death, or upon Himself as crucified and Efted up.
But it is important to notice also, that the atoning death
stands in a causal connection, or in a meritorious connection,
with the eternal Efe considered as a present ffiheritance. This
Life is spoken of as the end, effect, or reward of the crucifixion.^
The design of aE these passages, wffich put Efe and sanctffica
tion ffi coimection with Christ's death, is not, as the modern
theology wUl have it, to show that the life is first, and that the
acceptance of a sffiner does not flow immediately from the
death of Christ, but only mecUately from Efe. That theory
is totaUy without scriptural warrant ; and, carried out to its
legitimate consequences, it makes another gospel. The Ufe and
the progressive sanctification are to be considered only as a
' ?»« is always telle. (See Winer, Fritzsche on Matthew, and Meyer.)
' Vinke, in his Leer van Jesus en de Apostel aan^g. Zijn Lijden, notices
several antitheses in which Z'^'i stands ; e.g. : —
Zm and xpUis or liyxTos (John v. 24),
X,iiin and hpyvi tou &sod (John iii, 36),
Z^jri and i^aiXuit, (Matt, vii, 13, 14),
l^uh and to ^up to almtoy (Matt, xviii, 8).
^fl»« and n yiiyya ToZ wpas (Matt, xviii. 9).
I^Bih amvios and xoXctiris uimios (Matt, xxv, 46).
P

226 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
reward, or as the further aim, or the consequence of the accept^
ance of our persons. It is by no means proved by such passages,
that we are to regard sanctification, or the commuffication of
the divffie life, as the immediate aim and scope of Christ's
death. LEe is the reward of the atonement, and is always
represented by our Lord and by His apostles as premial Ufe, on
the ground of a righteousness or atonement (Rom. viii 10).
It is the more necessary to appjehend precisely the scope
and tendency of this school of interpretation, because it has
obtained, ffi our day, such wide diffusion, and so much accept
ance ; and it has, perhaps, in some degree, its rights, and also
its advantages, as against a frigid orthodoxy. But it is no
higher than meffieval mysticism ; and its one-sidedness is hurt-
fffi, wffile its exhibition of the gospel is higffiy defective.^ It
puts life first, and pardon next ; and the former, ffi a dEectly
unbibEcal maimer, is made the pathway for the latter. It does
not base acceptance directly and immediately on the cross, but
on the previous possession of the divine Efe. The relations of
truth are reversed and disorganized. The whole attention is
turned to commuffion with Christ in His Efe ; and thus the
gospel remedy is turned away from its proper object. The
subject-matter is disjointed, and the message is turned upside
down. AE the great doctrines connected with God as an
authoritive lawgiver and moral rffier, with gffilt and puffish-
1 This is the mystic theory of thg atonement, which, emanating from Menken
and the Schleiermacher school, has found champions or adherents in all the
various Protestant Churches. Its one-sidedness appears in this, that it makes
the gift of the divine life absolute, and makes no distinction between the
person and the nature, or between the relative standing of the man and his
inner nature. It has a very defective view of the original constitution given to
man in a representative, and it has a tendency to throw men back upon mere
medieval mysticism, and therefore into a semi-legality, most adverse to the doc
trine of a free acceptance and to the liberty in Christ, in which the Christian is
to stand fast (Gal, v, 1), We shall more fully refer to this. school in the notes
appended to this volume. But aU who are in the habit of re'ading German works
should be aware that this is the theory of the atonement maintained by Menken,
Hasenkamp, by Schleiermacher and all his school, by Nitzsch, V. Hofmann,
Hudolph Stier, Eothe, Lange, Martensen, Baumgarten, Klaiber, Schoberlein, etc.

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, 227
ment, with atonement and acceptance, faE ffito the background,
wffile aE prominence is given to the truths which stand con
nected with Christ as a fountaffi of Ufe, It is thus an inter
pretation essentiaEy the same as medieval mysticism, Umitffig
its view to Cffiist in His people, but stoppffig short at the point
of givffig the promffience wffich is due to Cffiist /or His people.
In a word, tffis school of interpretation does not connect the
commuffication of the divffie Ufe with Christ's vicarious death,
or with the righteousness of the law, wffich is the offiy purchase
or cause of the Efe, — as Paffi puts it ffi the Epistle to the
Eomans ; nay, a Estffiction is attempted between the one as a
Johannine, and the other as a PauEne, mode of thought, Tffis
whole theology is contradicted, however, by the present passage,
and by other sections of John's Gospel, It wUl be seen that
aU the communications of the divffie Efe are connected accord
mg to the teachffig of this section, just as they are ffi the
PauEne statements, with the meritorious obedience, and the
wounds and the blood of Christ, as the price by which they
were purchased, God looks at that purchase, when He imparts
the divffie lEe, as the sole exclusive ground of His Evme
suppUes of Ufe, And men, too, must also have regard to
that purchase as the foundation of aU their confidence, and
of aU the daUy commuffications of that divffie Ufe which
they receive.

SEC. XXIX, — CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE
WORLD,
" / am the living bread which came down from heaven. If any
man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever : and the
bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for
the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among
themselves, saying. How can this man give us his fiesh to
¦eat ? Then Jesus said unto them. Verily, verily, I say

228 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
unto you. Except ye eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and
drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Whoso eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will
raise him up at the last day. For my flesh is meat in
deed, and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my
flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in
him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live hy
[on account of] the Father, so he that eateth Me, even he
shall live by Me [on account of Me]." (John vi. 51-57.)
This sayffig is more expEcit than the former as to the con
nection between the vicarious sacrffice of Cffiist, and the com
munication of spiritual Life. It plainly announces that the
atonement stands in causal connection with Efe ; the crucified
flesh of the Lord being represented as possessffig a Ufe-givmg
ffifluence, and constituting the new and sole fountain from
which lEe can be derived. This passage may thus be regarded
as a key to aE those numerous texts wffich delffieate the aton
ffig obedience of Christ as the cause of Ufe to others (Eom. v,
18), or describes the co-crucifixion with Him as the procuring
cause of Ufe in and with Him (Eom. vi. 1-11), and of His
living ffi us (Gal. ii. 20),
It may suffice to say, with regard to the occasion of tffis
memorable saying, that it forms part of a discourse which natu
raEy arose out of the miracle of the loaves. Our Lord retEed
from the enthusiastic mffititude who were bent on proclaiming
Him kffig, but was agaffi brought ffi contact with the same
persons on the foEowing day in the synagogue at Capernaum,
and then led to disclose to them the whole truth. He de
clares that He shoffid be cut off by a violent death, but that
His flesh was to be the world's Efe, They see His meaffing,
though, beyond doubt, a certaffi obscurity was still suffered to
rest upon the language, for the obvious purpose of lettmg his
tory take its ummpeded course. Having warned them to seek
not the perishable bread, but that bread which endureth to

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 229
everlasting Efe, and which He added was to be found by faith
alone (ver. 29), He next proceeded, on the ground of a remark
which feU from the mffititude, to contrast the temporary manna,
which the IsraeUtes partook of ffi the wEderness, with the
true bread, or with HimseE. He then described the two main
elements of the true or essential bread as compared with that
wffich was typical, — that it (1) comes down from heaven, and (2)
that it gives Efe to the world (ver. 33). The second element, that
is, the Efe-givmg property belongffig to it, is stUl further ex-
plaffied as rendering those who eat of it partakers of eternal
Ufe, and no more Uable to death. Tffis bread, then, is, first of
aU, identffied with His own person, wffich is, furthermore, de
scribed as satisfymg the hunger of His people, and as quench
ing theE thEst (ver. 35). Then, after meeting several cavUs or
objections of the mffititude. He takes up the same thought, but
makes an advance upon it, by connectffig the life with His aton
ing death (vers. 51-57). He had connected the Efe, first of aU,
with HEnseE, or with His person ; He next connects it with His
atoffing work, or with HimseE as crucffied. And the whole
section wffich foEows is thus in the highest degree important ;
settffig forth that the bread of Efe is the Lord HimseE as cruci
fied, or Cffiist presented to us and received in the capacity of
the atoffing substitute for others.
As the exposition of these verses, however, is very various,
and discussed ffi the interest of different tendencies, we must
define theE import. The controversies carried on in reference
.to the Supper brought them under discussion ffi that Ught from
the very earliest times. Hence it wiE be necessary to show,
before we advance, what they do not mean, asweH as. what they
do mean, that we may guard against such comments as either
undffiy limit, or pervert and misstate, the force of the words.
1. The expressions cannot refer to the Lord's Supper, as it
was not yet mstituted. The symboEc language used in both,
mdeed, is very simEar : the underlying thoughts are also the
same ; and therefore the tendency was by no means unnatural,

230 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
especiaUy at a time when men came to over-magnify the Supper,
to describe its symbolic actions as findmg their truth here, and
always cofficiding with these deep references, which exffibit the
spEitual mffid acting itself out upon Christ crucffied.^ But it
is by no means probable that Jesus, at the time when He stood
before this unbeUeving multitude in the synagogue of Caper
naum, and replied to their manifold cavEs, had the Supper in
view, which was not instituted tUl long afterwards.
The eatffig and drinking are adduced as offiy figurative
actions, and the terms give no warrant for the too common ex
aggeration of sacramental language, as if they meant that there
was, or coffid be, any oral eating of the flesh of Christ. The
whole previous context is but a bold use of apt and sigffificant
figures ; and it would be against aE the laws of connection and
of analogy, were we to adopt the literal sense at this point, when
the discourse flows on continuously. When we compare these
verses, indeed, with the language held by our Lord at the insti
tution of the Supper, there can be no doubt that they both
plaiffiy refer to the vicarious sacrffice, and exhibit that crucffied
flesh as the food and nourishment of His people. But .the aEu
sion is not at aE to be interpreted in a sacramental sense.
2. Some refer these words, " I am the Eving bread," to the
doctrffie of Jesus." But it needs few words to prove that our
Lord, in tffis passage, is not giving a confirmation of His doc
trine, but directly referring to His sacrifice, or to the atonement
offered for sin ffi the room and stead of others. They who view
the death of Cffiist in no other Ught than merely as an attesta
tion to the truth, are of course compelled to make the doctrine
of Jesus, and not His death, their sole nourishment ; or they add,
perhaps, the example of His perfect human life. But, under
lying this comment, there is a low view of Christ's person and
1 This is the patristic comment which has descended to the Greek and
Romish churches.
2 So Grotius on ver. 51. And the argument is taken from the style of the
Jewish teachers, who call doctrine bread.

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 231
mission, and a decided tendency not to regard His death as
embraced ffi the grand purpose of redemption, and the objec
tive counterpart to our subjective faith, but as the mere casual
resffit of those efforts which He put forth in His capacity as a
great teacher. And an equaEy shaUow notion is entertained as
to the Life here mentioned, wffich ought to be ffiterpreted as
notffing short of a new creation. To meet aU such perversions,
it may suffice to state, that, in the context, the Saviour roundly
sets forth, not His doctrine, not His example, not His system of
etffics, but His flesh sacrificed as the Efe of the world.
3. A thEd interpretation, equally defective, is that which
refers this language to the incarnation as the sole channel for the
commuffication of Efe, LEe is thus regarded as the sole design
of His mission, and as an absolute gift. Those interpreters who
maintaffi that a new principle of Efe stands connected with the
mcarnation, wEl have it, that there is no immediate reference
in tffis passage to the death of Christ, but only an ffivitation
to partake of Him by faith ffi the entire saving maffifestation
of Himself in the flesh, Accordffig to this view, wffich is the
expression of a widespread modern school, and of a theology
which caEs itseE believing, Christ's death is not vicarious, but
merely the condition for the communication of the savffig effi
cacy of His divffie Efe' — only the last step in His own prepara
tion or personal seE-sanctification to be the Efe-giver, And
thus, not the death of Christ, but the fuffiess of the divffie life
residing ffi Him, and communicated absolutely, becomes the
nourishment of His people to Efe eternaL According to this
interpretation, the language here used is not meant to be an
expression for His death, but for His whole appearance in the
flesh for the life of the world. And the Lord's death comes
into consideration, accordmg to this view, ffi no other light than
i Liicke and De Wette support this interpretation; and it is held by all who
support the- mystic theory of the atonement, mentioned by us in the previous
section. But they are not entitled to claim Clemens and Origen as supporters
of it.

232 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
as the cEmax of His holy dedication to God, But this is op
posed to the whole phraseology of the passage, which assumes
that there is a violent death, separatffig flesh and blood.
4, Havffig thus noticed ffi order these three defective ffiter
pretations, it remains that we fix the true interpretation of the
words, and especiaUy their reference to His atoning work. At
this point, then, ffi the course of His remarks, the Lord opens
the section by a phrase, which, ffi the original, means that
sometffing is said in an explanatory way, wffile yet the state
ment is marked out as somethmg new,^
As the mffititude to whom our Lord addressed tffis language
were the same persons who had witnessed His mEacle of the
loaves, and who had congregated ffi such numbers because they
were goffig up to the passover, it is probable that He drew this
pecuEar style of address from the sacrffice of which they were
going to partake. He ffitimated, in effect, that He was the
reality of the sacrffice, while the paschal lamb was but the
shadow, and that they must, with much more eagerness than
they looked forward to the passover, eat His flesh and drink
His blood. The declaration that they must drffik His blood
must have sounded strange indeed ffi the ears of a Jewish com
pany, accustomed to look with pecuEar awe on blood. But the
difficffity is much diminished, when we reflect that they were
on theE way to offer the paschal sacrifice, and that He virtuaUy
said to them, " I am the substance or reality of aU that type."
The whole passage, thus viewed, conveys a series of arguments
as to the connection between the atonement and Efe, which
are to be pondered, in their connection as weU as in theE isola
tion, as, separate statements. The first announces the necessity
of eatffig His flesh (ver. 53) ; the second shows that it is effec
tual ffi every case (ver. 54) ; the third brings out the truth
• »oji Ss has this meaning. See Tholuck, Liicke, Winer. Again, as to the
words «iV iy^ itofa, which are awanting in Cod, BCTLT, they aie not to be sus
pected, as they have outward and inward e-vidence in their favour. The omission
of them arose, probably, from the previous Sv tyii iua-ai, some transcribers thinking
them a repetition.

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 233
that His crucifigd body is the true bread, or bread ffideed (ver.
55); the fourth portrays, that ffi consequence of eating it, a
vital union is maintaffied between Christ and aE His people
(ver. 56) ; and the fifth shows that His disciples, eatffig of
His crucified flesh, enter ffito His reward, and participate with
Hffii ffi His premial Efe (ver. 57).
a. The ffiqffiry mto the proper import of the term Life, as
it is used by Christ, is ffi the ffighest degree important, in the
present state of exegetical research. That it holds a primary
place ffi Cffiist's teachffig, and belongs to the fundamental
truths of Christianity, must be evident to aE who have devoted
any measure of attention to the words of Cffiist or His apostles.
Little aid, it has been weU remarked, is suppUed in tffis inves
tigation by the lexicographers of the New Testament language,
as they too much deposit ffi the words offiy the opiffions of
modern times,' The doctrffie of Jesus on tffis point, as derived
from the present and cognate sayings, may be given in a few
words, though the subject is too wide to be fuEy entered upon
in the present discussion. He presupposes man as without
life, in the ffigh and proper sense of the term, nay, as aUenated
from the Ufe of God. The whole language which Jesus holds
' Thus Olshausen expresses himself, after pointing out the superficial explana
tions of ?<u« given by Schleusner, of whom he says: — "At omnino -virum
doctissimum ignorasse, quid sit ?»>! interpretationes passim ab ipso propositse
aperte decent." See Olshausen, de notione vocis Zoih in libris N. T., in his
Opuscula Tlieologica, 1834, p. 185 ; also Briickiier, de notione vocis Z,oiii qum in
N. T. libris legitur, Commentatio, Lips. 1858. 1 may also refer to the brief
Exegetisch-Dogmatische Entwickelung der N. T. Begriff'e von ?w« iyxrTxiris und
xfiiri!, by Dr. A. Maier, Freiburg, 1840 ; and to RauwenhofTs treatise, De Vita
ira homine cetema, peccato oppressa a Christo restituta, Leidae, 1857. But
more important and profound than any or all of these is Vitringa's sketch of the
spiritual life, in his Typrn Theologice practica sivi de Vita Spirituali, Franeq.
1716. It is the more necessary to refer to these discussions and treatises on
this subject, as the whole current of modern theology runs in this direction, and
all depends on the true idea of Life, which, after all, is of a superficial character in
the Schleiermacherian theology. One sentence of Vitringa may be quoted to show
how strongly he insisted upon the -point ignored by the new theology : " Primus
respectus in vita spirituali est causse ejus meritoriae quam Scriptura ostendit esse
ohedientiam Filii Dei ab ipso secundum leges seterni pacti cum Patre initi prsesti-
tam ad mortem, imo ad mortem crucis." (Cap. iii. p. 27.)

234 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
on the subject of spiritual lEe takes for granted that we are
involved ffi death, which is the term employed by Him to
designate that separation from God which sin involves (John
V. 24), and wffich is speciaUy* defined by Him as the condition
or state where men have not the love of God in them (John v.
42), leaving the heart vacant for any sffifffi substitute. The
very fact that lEe is procured and imparted by the Lord, may
be said to presuppose a condition of spiritual death. For, ac
cording to a canon, of easy and universal appUcation, constantly
applied by Augustffi and Calvin m theE interpretation of the
divine word, whatever is freely provided and bestowed by God,
is a something of wffich man is destitute, considered ffi himself
b. As to tffis spiritual Efe which the Lord came to restore,
it consists in reunion to God, and in that inward renovation or
new creation which is consequent on that reuffion to God, the
fountaffi of Efe, The incarnate Sbn, having life in HimseE, as
the Father has life in Himself, and able, on this account, to act
the part of a mediator (John v, 26), interposed between a dead
humanity and its Creator, ffi order to be a new source of Ufe,
The eternal lEe was manifested (1 John i, 1-3) ; and in tffis
way, that which had been mtercepted by sin, was agaffi com
municated. But this testimony of the Lord emphaticaUy
declares that this supply of Efe, far from beffig absolute or
an unpurchased gift, was possible only by means of His atone
ment, that it was secured by a work of obedience,. and is thus
forfeited no more. We may affirm, then, not offiy that the
primeval life which was enjoyed ffi feEowship with God is
restored, but also that the premial Efe which awaited man
after a period of probation, and which woffid have been con
ferred had he contffiued in ffis ffist estate, is conferred by
means of the atonement or obedience of the incarnate Son in
the room of sinners. In securing this resffit, the Prffice of Life
must needs encounter death, and render an equivalent for the
guEt of mankffid ; for the dominion of death coffid give place
to a reign of Efe ffi no other way. And they who, through the

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD. 235
influence of modern specffiations, regard Christ only as a great
teacher, or as a mere example, have never understood the iin-
peffiment to be surmounted, nor the reversal of the curse which
was required.
Here the Lord expressly declares, that He GAVE His flesh
by an act of seE-oblation for the lEe of the world ; and the
unEorm sense of the expression which He used denotes a
priestly act of oblation (Gal. i 4 ; Eph. v. 2). Hence we may ,
say, if we coEect the teaching of the passage, that, as the faE
brought death, so the atonement has brought lEe ; and that the
restoration of Efe, long forfeited by sffi, was the express design
or end of Christ's atoning work. The atonement had speciaEy
in view, among other objects wffich were contemplated in the
divine counsels, to quicken those who were alienated from the
Hfe of God, and thus to confer a premial Efe, or to pour in
a new Ufe upon dead humanity from the crucified flesh of
Christ, to be forfeited no more.
c. But the Lord Jesus next proceeds to speak of the " eatffig
of His flesh" and of the " drffiffing of His blood." That the
language is metaphorical, scarcely needs to be proved. The
expressions, the eating of His flesh and the drinking of His
Hood, are used interchangeably with beEevffig on Him ffi the
previous context (vers. 35, 40, 47). These figurative terms
imply that men are to beEeve on Him as giving His flesh for
the Ufe of the world, and that they are to receive the atone
ment with the same or similar eagerness with wffich a hungry
man partakes of food. The doctrine of Christ's sacrifice is not
a mere point, then, but the prmcipal matter in the way of pro
curing the donation of spiritual Efe; and it is never to be
ignored in the reception of any of those inward blessings of
renovation, and love, growth, zeal, and strength, wffich are com
prehended ffi the spiritual Ufe, and wffich go to make up our
idea of this Efe. It is qffite unwarrantable, then, to mterpret
this figurative " eating" of the general reception of the truth,
without any special appropriation of the atonffig death of Christ :

236 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
on the contrary, it is Christ's atonement, or His crucified flesh,
with which faith is first and foremost occupied, for the purpose
of attainffig this inner lEe. And the Lord viriiuaEy says, "By
this sacrifice of mine I procure, and, not offiy so, I become, the
true Bread of LEe ; and every one who wEl Eve must appro
priate my atonement as offered for the Efe of the world."
This language implies, then, that the atonement not only
holds the most important place in the moral government of
God, but that, in an individual poffit of view, sin must be
atoned for, and the person accepted, before there is, or can be,
free course for the communication of Efe. It is not offiy an
expedient ffi the general scheme of God's moral rffie, but a per
sonal necessity as weE ; and this latter point of view, too much
omitted or merged in the general one, is the special truth on
wffich the emphasis is here laid in this testimony of our Lord.
Thus the words, " eating the flesh and drffiking the blood" of
Christ for life, announce, beyond all doubt, that we do not bring,
but receive ; that we do not work for Efe, but enter ffito the
aEeady accompEshed death of Christ.
But as faith is figuratively represented by eating and drink
ing, we may ask. How is the analogy between the two to be
defined ? It is as foEows : As food has a nourishffig property,
and effectuaUy acts upon the Ufe, so does the crucffied Christ,
The one stands in the same relation as the other. The most
nutritive food cannot avaU, unless we partake of it ; and no one
is benefited by Cffiist's death, unless we beUeve on Him as
crucffied for us. Faith has, m this way, the same relation to
the spiritual lEe that the eating of bread has to the temporal
life ; for faith is just the means of receiving and enjoymg the
Efe-givmg property of His death; and no figure coffid more
strikingly set forth the necessity of faith.
Enough has been brought out to show that the atonement
of Cffiist is offered for the Efe of the world, and that, to have
Ufe, men must eat that crucffied flesh; ffi other words, must
believe that redemption and acceptance are effected by His

CHRIST GIVING HIS FLESH FOR THE LIFE OF THE WORLD, 237
atoning death. Tffis is aU put ffi a personal rather than in a
general Eght ffi the passage under consideration. As to the
subsequent verses, as our object was only to gather up this
testimony into a focus, we shaE but briefly notice them:
(1.) The sayffig, " He that eateth my flesh hath eternal Efe,"
intunates that the emphasis is laid speciaEy upon the present
tense, and that the firm and secure possession of Efe is founded
on the right obtaffied by His atonement for His people, as well
as for HimseE. Agaffi, (2) This crucified flesh of Cffiist, and
His blood poured out, are further designated true bread and
drmk, or that essential food that comes up to the idea (ver. 55) ;
and E we apply the aUusion to the food of the sacrffices, it wUl,
moreover, mean that He was their great antitype or reality.
Whatever can be affirmed of food may be affirmed in a stiU
higher sigffificance of Him; for E food is the God-appointed
means for sustainffig natural Efe, that crucified flesh was so in
the ffigher sense for the spiritual Efe. (3.) Tffis participation,
furthermore, brffigs uffion of the closest kind (ver. 56), The
passage ffitimates: He becomes united to His people ffi the
same way as he who eats is uffited to the food he eats ; and
Christ, on His part, most closely unites HimseE to them. They
are so joffied in theE Efe and fortunes as to be for ever one in
this world and in the world to come, Plaffily, the figure is con-
tmued ; and the aEusion ffitimates that food, so assimEated, sus-
tams the receiver's life. And, last of aE, (4) The Lord wmds
up the passage by the remarkable utterance aEeady explaffied
_by us ffi a previous section. The statement is, that His people
Uve because of Him, or on His account, as the possessor of a
premial Ufe, which is conferred upon Him as the due reward of
His mission. " He that eateth Me shaU Uve on my account,"
is the proper translation of the words ; and they wUl bear no
other sense.

238 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
SEC, XXX, — TESTIMONIES SHOWING THE RELATION OF THE
ATONEMENT TO OTHER INTERESTS IN THE UNIVERSE.
Having considered the sayings of Christ, which show the
effects of the atonement on the ffidividual, both in an objective
and subjective point of view, we have next to consider it m
its bearffig on other interests and relations in the uffiverse. It
must be regarded as a narrow and unbibEcal theory, which
limits the whole effects of the atonement to man. Though the
objective acceptance of our persons, and the inward renovation
of our natures, together with the provision for a Ufe of worship,
wffich we have already exffibited from particffiar sayings of
Jesus, may be considered as the proximate resffits, as they may
be said to be the ffist and maffi concern of sffifffi creatures, yet
these are by no means aE the effects that were contemplated by
the atonement, or are accompEshed by it. It wUl be found
that our Lord constantly spoke, with His eye upon aU the
relations of the uffiverse, and with the consciousness that His
work had a reference to them aU. Those utterances from His
Ups emphaticaUy show that He realized them aU, and that He
lived' amid these various relations, in a way very Ettle appre
hended by us.
The atonement — the great central fact in the history of the ,
world — had a perceptible influence on aE the relations which
may be said to meet on the earth, or to have any connection
with mundane thffigs. Thus, (1) the atonement has an mtimate
connection with the overthrow of Judaism and the temple-
worsffip, to pave the way for Cffiist's kffigdom beffig set up in
its new form on the earth. The cross is the basis or the sole
foundation of His throne ; for it was not upon His teaching, or
upon His example, that His kffigdom was reared, but upon His
atonffig work. (2.) This atonement was the great foundation of
Christ's relation to the sheep ; it givffig the Shepherd a flock,
and layffig the basis of the whole relation between His flock
and Him. (3.) The atonement makes a pathway for the com-

THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 239
muffication of the Spirit, which a faUen race coffid not otherwise
have possessed. (4.) The atonement of the Lord, or the finished
work of redemption, glorifies God on the earth, or gives the
supreme God the glory due to His name, as the tribute or
revenue from His creatures. (5.) The Lord Jesus, by means of
His humUiation unto death, opened heaven, and brought men
and angels, heretofore separated and estranged, into a new
relation. (6.) The atonement is caUed the judgment of the
world, and the victory by wffich the Lord overcame the world.
(7.) The atoffing death of Jesus is declared to have judged and
cast out the prince of this world. (8.) It overcomes the power
of death and the fear of death.
Thus, the atonement is represented by our Lord as having a
most decisive ffifluence upon aU these various interests. In a
word, it is the central fact of God's present procedure or moral
rule ffi the universe, and that on which aU depends. Its effect
is felt also to the widest circumference and ramification of
mundane relations. The faU and the atonement thus constitute
the two facts or pivots of human history, — they are the turning-
points of the world's destiny ; and as there are but two repre
sentative men, as weU as two facts ffi history, and two famUies
under these two heads, the deeds of these two, ffi theE repre
sentative position, may be said to decide upon the fortunes of
aU connected with them ; that is, may be said conclusively to
determffie their lot.
We shall briefly notice, but not quite in the above-named
order, the effect or influence of the atonement on all these other
interests in the uffiverse.
SEC. XXXI. — THE DEATH OF CHRIST IN CONNECTION WITH THE
RAISING OF THE TEMPLE OF GOD.
"Destroy [break down] this temple, and in three days I will
raise it up." (John ii 19.)
The aUusions which were made to His death in the early part

240 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of our Lord's ministry were, for the most part, darker and less
obvious than they afterwards became. It was His aim, during
the course of His teaching, not to anticipate undffiy the his
toric course of events, but rather to furnish matter which.
might serve to enable His disciples, after the accompUshment
of events, to compare His sayings with the fact of His atonmg
death. The passage under our consideration has not been sufficiently
viewed, as it shoffid have been, in connection with the doctrme
of the atonement. It wUl be found, however, when understood
aright, to contain a most important testimony, whether we look
at the nature or at the effects of Christ's redemption work. It
declares not offiy that Christ had power to lay down His life
and to restore it, but also that His death shoffid found a new
theocracy and a new worship. It is much akin, therefore, to
the sayffig spoken in connection with the ffistitution of the
Supper, that His blood, shed for many for the remission of
sins, shoffid found the new covenant. These two testimoffies
have much in common; and this passage may be caUed a key
to aU these sayffigs, both diversified and frequently recurring,
wffich either describe Christ as the head of the corner (Acts iv.
11), or display a spiritual temple (Eph. E. 21), or set forth a
new gospel worship (Heb. viu. 13). But it wUl be necessary,
fEst of aU, to ascertaffi the exact meanffig of the words, and to
apprehend the proper poffit of them, before we consider their
import or scope as a testimony to the atonement.
The occasion which gave rise to this declaration was as
foEows : The Lord had purified the temple by a very arresting
display of holy zeal for His Father's house, the fibcst time He
appeared in it after the commencement of His pubUc ministry.
The Jews of aU classes, as weU as the actual desecrators, had
been paralyzed and awe-struck by this display of zeal; but they
no sooner recovered themselves, than they demanded from Him
some sign or mEacle to warrant this assumption of authority;
seeming to indicate that they woffid not caU it in question, E

THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING, 241
He coffid show His authorization, or furnish evidence that He
came with a divine commission. Our Xord gave them a fit
sign, though a future one, — a sign not foreign to His Messiaffic
work, but constituting its very essence, and which, when it
shoffid occur, woffid fuEy vindicate His authority for the step
which He had just taken. But He couches the remark in
ffighly typical language, and takes for granted that the hostUity
of the Jews, then indicated for the first time, woffid never cease
tffi they had compassed His death,
Tffis was a saying of wffich the Jews coffid never afterwards
get rid. They weE saw, that though they coffid not penetrate
mto its fffil signfficance, the statement contaffied a deeply
mysterious meanffig, and one that foreboded the overthrow of
their temple. We find that, three years afterwards, the false
witnesses at the trial of Jesus bring up this remark ffi an
mcorrect form, — one witness aEegffig that He said, " I wUl
destroy" (Mark xiv, 58); another representing Him as sayffig,
"lam able to destroy" (Matt, xxvi 61), A second time we
hear it ffi the taunting words addressed to Him as He hung on
the cross : " Thou that destroyest the temple, and buEdest it ffi
three days, save thyseE, and come down from the cross " (Mark
XV, 29), A thEd echo of it we discover in the precaution
to set a watch at His grave, because He had foretold His
resurrection on the thEd day (Matt. xxvE. 63). A fourth
time it is recaEed, in connection with the trial and martyr
dom of Stephen (Acts vi. 13, 14). In a word, they coffid not
shake it off.
To these words of the Lord the evangelist appends ffis
inspired commentary : " He spake of the temple of His body ; "
wffich must be held to be conclusive as to the true signi
ficance and import of the saying. The perverted meaning or
false construction put upon the saying by the Jews woffid
seem to need no refutation as runnffig counter to John's narra
tive and comment; and we shoffid have thought that eveiy
Christian woffid at once reject it. But, strange to say, not a

242 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
few modern interpreters ^ have ventured to go so far as to call
in question the correctness of John's comment, to repudiate his
explanation, and to put upon the words of Jesus a meanmg
which is very much akin to the false interpretation of the Jews,
who sometimes blffidly, and not uffirequently by design, were
wont to pervert His language. But there cannot be two
opinions, on the part of any man imbued with adequate ideas
of inspiration, as to the authority of John's commentary, and
the unwarrantableness of expounding the Saviour's words after
tffis rationalistic fashion, that is, to expound them merely to
the effect that He was going to break down the old form of
religion, and to erect in its room and stead a better and more
spEitual reUgion within a short space of time. That exposition,
to which some devout minds ^ have unhappily adhered, is
untenable in every Eght in which it can be regarded, whether
we look at the words themselves, which wiU not bear it, or at
the authority of the evangeEst, as a few remarks wUl suffice to
show. (1) The Lord Jesus does not speak of a short space of
time, but of the three days between His death and His resur
rection; (2) He does not speak of one temple broken down,
and of another and a different one raised up, but of His own
body ; and then, (3) as to the accuracy of the evangeUst, we
must hold that, writing, as he did, under the plenary gffidance
of the Spirit, he unquestionably gives us the true scope and
import of the words.
But while we must abide most strictly by the comment of
the ffispEe.d evangeEst, as EteraEy accurate, this by no means
precludes aE other reference to the stone temple as a type;
and this ffiterior reference must, we thffik, be included, E we
woffid expound it aright. There was a one-sidedness in the
view of almost aE the older commentators, at least thus far,
that they forbore to connect any further meaning with the
' Herder was the first to begin this false interpretation,
^ This lax view is held by Neander in his lAfe of Jesus, by Liicke on John,
and by Bleek, On the other hand, Oostersee, in his Leven van Jesus, p, 61,
strongly maintains the opposite.

THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING, 243
words ; and that, whEe correctly enough expounding them ac
cording to the leading thread supplied by John, they stopped
short at a point where the sense is not exhausted. They saw
no aEusion to the material temple. They satisfied themselves
with a supposed metaphor, — some accepting it, as did the patristic
writers, as a fittmg figure or metaphor to portray the incarna
tion,^ others brffiging together similar phrases descriptive of
the human body, either from Jewish or classical antiquity.
They thus lost sight of the tjrpe, and omitted the link between
the shadow and the substance. But we are warranted to hold
that the Lord connected a further meaffing with His words;
and this interpretation is absolutely necessary, if the sign or
miracle given to warrant Christ's assumption of authority on
that occasion was to have any connection with the act which it
was meant to sanction,^ It wiE not do to assert that Jesus does
not elsewhere caU His body the temple ; (see, however, John i,
14,) It cannot be forgotten that the one was the type, and the
other the reaUty — as much a type as was the lamb, — a pledge,
too, and a symbol of God's continued habitation in the midst of
the Jews, and also of the acceptance of their worship. The fate
of that temple, and the fate of the reUgion that stood connected
with it, and was, ffi a manner, based upon it, was decided by the
fate of Christ's body. There was a deep connection between
the two, though uffinteUigible to the Jews.
Nor was this an unheard-of consummation, of which no inti
mation had been given. Christ had been foretold in prophecy
as the buUder of the temple of the Lord (Zech. vi. 12) ; and
the present passage shows that He laid its foundation ffi His
atoning death. The atonement stood related to it as cause
to effect, — no atonement, no temple or dweUffig-place of God
' Thus, in the Nestorian discussions, it was much canvassed whether the person
of Christ was only to be viewed as the inhabited temple of God, or ya-os.
^ The modern commentators are generally disposed to take in this additional
idea, e.g. Hengstenberg, Luthardt, Schmid, Bihlische Theologie If. T. p. 223,
Lange, Stier, Riggenbach ; and it is necessary to accept some such further refer
ence, from the fact we have stated above.

244 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
among men. But here God and man meet — ^here heaven and
earth are joined : this is the gate of heaven for man, and this
the place of 'condescending revelation and commuffication for
God ; for ffi Cffiist, as the true temple, dweUs aE the fuffiess of
the Godhead bodUy (Col, E. 9),
AE this is made more obvious by the aEusions made to the
tabernacle or temple ; wffich had been just a visible pledge of
God's covenant relation to Israel, and of His actual residence
among them, not indeed in the local sense — for in that sense
He is not confined to heaven itself, — but in the sense of free
and gracious manifestation. The temple had been the place of
revelation, the audience chamber where He received His people's
supplications, and heard them, and to which they turned, when
far away from it ; the seat of rffie from which He governed ;
the place of worship where His people communed with Him,
and He with them, AE this had been due to one fact, that
there was instituted and appointed ffi it a blood-sprinkled
mercy-seat, or propitiatory, and there He dwelt between the
cherubim. Now, it is on tffis same ground', and for this same
reason, that Christ is to mankind the true temple or the dweU-
ing-plaoe of God. His body crucffied and risen, is the one
medium of commuffion between God and man, as well as be
tween man and God; and the acceptance of aE gospel worsffip
depends simply on its relation to Him as the sole atonement for
sin, and temple of God.
We have next to notice, however, how far this text may be
regarded as supplying a testimony to the atonement, both in its
NATURE and EFFECTS.
1. The words before us, setting forth the voluntary surrender
of Cffiist's life, and the crime of men as accessory to that death,
bear witness to the nature of the human instrumentaUty used
ffi the matter of Christ's atonement. It is not put as a bare
future, nor as a merely hypothetical statement, when our Lord
says, " destroy," — it is a permission, in the course of providence,
or a judicial and permissive imperative. That is the true mean-

THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING, 245
ing, as intimated by the word here used in the imperative,'-
" destroy ; " and the whole pffiaseology implies that the Lord
possessed a fuU and independent dominion over His own Efe ;
that the Jews could not break down that temple of His body
without receivffig leave or pernussion from Himself; and that
both its dissolution and its re-erection were equally at His own
disposal. The argument is cogent, and it is obviously tffis :
If He coffid raise up that temple by His own divine Sonship, or
by the omnipotent fiat of His divme nature, it indisputably
foUows, that His Efe, without leave from HimseE, could not have
been taken from Him, The " I " is necessarily different from the
temple, and also distffict from the human soffi ; plaffily aEud-
ffig to Him who was ffi the beginning with God, So voluntary
was the Lord, ffideed, in every step connected with the atone
ment, that nothffig befeE Him, or could befall, which He did
not perfectly foresee, and cheerfuEy consent to undergo. Of aE
the beings in the universe. He alone had perfect and unchaEenge
able power over HimseE, whether respect is had to the giving
up to death of the body wffich He had taken ffito union with
HimseE, or to the fact of raising it up agaffi.
But the words contain, too, a further reference to the flagrant
crime of the Jews in puttffig Him to death. This aEusion re
quEes no Ettle deEcacy and precision in our exposition. To
what pecffiiar phase of Jewish gffilt is aEusion here made?
Our Lord does not refer in this place to the fact that He was
appoffited to be cut off by yiolence at the hand of men as con
trasted with dyffig on His bed, or with being struck down by
the bolt of God, Though the atonement speciaEy consisted in
what was inflicted upon the substitute by the hand of God, it
is always taken for granted — whether we look at the terms of
the first promise in the garden,^ or at the language of aE type
^ The verb here used, xis-xTi, is plainly much more than, if you destroy, I
will raise up ; it is a permissive imperative, like ¦aXnpaKia.Ti to iMetjjov (Matt, xxiii,
32), ¦xt'iwoy Tci,x,ioy (John xiii. 27),
* "It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel" (Gen. iii. 15),
The same violent death was adumbrated by the sacrifice, which mv.st be hilled.

246 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
and prophecy — that He was to die by a violent death, and die
by human hands. But that is not to be regarded as the precise
idea of the passage. Nor is the remark designed to show merely
the enormity or virulence of sin in general ; though the treat
ment of the incarnate Son shows that sin is of such a character,
that it rises even to Deicide when a proper occasion occurs, and
that instead of haiUng perfect vEtue in its human ideal, and
adoring the fulness of the Godhead bodily, the human heart
only discovers aU the more its deep enmity. It is true that sin
here abounded in its highest conceivable degree, and that grace
much more abounded in overcoming it. But neither is that the
thought. Eather, it is the peculiar sin of the Jewish national
rejection of their Messiah, the God of Israel, to which our
Lord refers. He intimates a progressive profanation of all that
was holy, culminating in the rejection of their divine Messiah;
and He bids them fill up the measure of their profanation.
We may here trace the various steps of this national rejec
tion. He was the despised and rejected of men, from the very
day when He came officiaEy to His own. They could not bear
their own theocracy embodied and realized ffi Jesus. They
said, in the language of the parable, " This is the heir ; come let
us kUl Him." This comes out unmistakeably at this first pass-
over, as the context proves. And when PUate, by a higher
guidance, gave a true interpretation or voice to their violence,
saying, " Shall I crucify your King ? " they only clamoured aU
the more for His speedy execution, and desired a murderer to
be granted to them in preference to their Messiah, the Prmce
of Life. In this text, then, our Lord, with a fuE appreciation
of their national rejection already indicated and begun, virtually
says, " As you have aEeady desecrated the type, go on to break
down the reality CkvcaTi) ; that is, desecrate the temple of your
Messiah's body, which is the grand antitype to wffich the
tabernacle and temple alike pointed, and which gave to this
stone temple all its significance and value." The fate of these
two was connected, in the most close and indissoluble manner,

THE TEMPLE OF GOD RAISED BY CHRIST'S DYING. 247
as type and antitype ; and hence the rejection of the Christ,
ending in His death, was of necessity followed by the outward
dissolution of the stone temple, which was now no more the
house of God, or the centre of unity for aU true worshippers.
Our Lord, accordingly, when He took final leave of the temple,
to tread its courts no more, calls it their house — not His Father's:
"your house is left unto you desolate" (Matt, xxiii. 38). But
not only so : the fate of that temple was also connected with
the national rejection of Israel as the theocratic people who had
long been in national covenant with God. Henceforth, the
Sffiaitic covenant was to be at an end, and Israel as a nation
cast off. The kffigdom of God was henceforth to be taken from
them, and was no more, during the ages of their rejection and
ffispersion, to have a pecuEarly national footing among them.
Jerusalem, as well as the Mosaic worship, was to perish ffi
the faU,
2, This passage, moreover, alludes to the effects of the
atonement, as weE as to its nature. With regard to these
effects or fruits of Christ's atoffing death, they are general as
weE as personal ; and here we have presented to us a new
temple, a new people of God, and a new theocracy, not bounded
by the narrow limits of a single nation, but co-extensive with
the number of believers out of every tribe and people.
Thus the death of Christ, considered as the adequate atone
ment for sin, laid the true foundation of the universal Church,
exploding the narrow particularism of Judaism, and breaking
down the middle waE of partition (Eph. ii. 14, 15) ; while the
material fabric, though it continued to stand for forty yearg
alongside of the new order of things, had in fact ceased to have
any value or validity, and in truth was now become a common
place. The person of Christ crucified, as the atonement for sin,
and then risen from the dead, henceforth became the great
centre of unity, and not the stone temple; and the Lord
virtuaEy said, " I wiE, by my atoning death, and in my re
surrection life, erect the true temple of God, which shaE, ffi the

248 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
first ffistance, be my risen body, and shaE, in the next place
(because also caUed my body), be that great redeemed company
of which I am the head and centre," There was thus formed a
new temple, and a new people of God, ffi the midst of which
God was henceforth to dweE as ffi His true sanctuary, and
where He was to have His perpetual abode. If the old theo
cracy was dissolved, and the old national covenant ended as it
was made at Smai,^ this was offiy that it nught be replaced, by
a new and a universal one.
SEC. XXXH. — THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST, DECIDING THE JUDICIiL
PROCESS TO WHOM THE WORLD SHALL BELONG.
" Now is the judgment of this world : now shall the prince of this
world he cast out." (John xE. 11.)
This pointed and sententious sayffig brffigs out the idea that
the atonement was to decide the grand question, or the judicial
process which had long been pending, as to the party to whom
the world shoiEd be awarded. It is assumed that this had, as
it were, been long under litigation in a court of law, and that it
was now to receive its final and irreversible decision ffi con
nection with the atonement.
As to the occasion on which these words- were spoken, it
was when the Lord had just made His entry into Jerusalem,
and after that soffi-trouble by which He had been moved and
weE-nigh overborne, — a trouble which interrupted His train of
thought, and brought home to Him the sense of divffie wrath.
The terror of death, armed as it was with aU the stffig and curse
1 Ebrard says {wissenschaftliche Kritih der Evangelisclien Geschichte, p. 287),
that our Lord understands, by the re-erection, the founding of a new covenant
effected by His resurrection. I may further add, that this dissolution of the
Sinaitic covenant, which was only a temporary economy, did not disannul the
promises made to Abraham (Gal. iii. 17), and leaves untouched all the questions
as to the constant remnant (Rom. xi. 5), and of their being a holy root (Bom.
xi. 17), and beloved (ver. 28), and their final reingrafting, and the new covenant
to be made -with them (vers. 24-27).

THE ATONEMENT DECIDING CHRIST'S RIGHT TO THE WORLD. 249
of the violated law, and thus to be confronted as a very dE-
ferent enemy from what he is to any of His people, coffid not
turn Him aside from the path of obedience ; and when repose
and composure returned, He announced, with the calm con
sciousness of. an aEeady anticipated victory, that various resffits
or frffits stood in causal connection with His death. A whole
series of sayings are uttered by Him, not only descriptive of
His triumph over the world and over Satan, but also setting
forth that His own mediatorial dominion, and the attractive
power by wffich He draws sinners to HimseE, are aU based on
His atonffig death. Up tUl now the world had belonged to
one who was undoubtedly its lord, and who is caEed by Christ
the prince of this world, ffi as far as he held it by right of con
quest. Not that our Lord, in so speaking, meant to acknow
ledge his title as either legitimate or Ereversible, but merely
that he had succeeded, in virtue of a successfffi usurpation, ffi
becomffig the world's actual potentate, and ffi making men
his lawfffi captives. But a new and just adjudication was at
hand. This text may be taken as a key to aE those passages
which represent Christ as the appointed heE of aE things (Heb,
i, 2), and as Lord of aE (Acts x, 36), and as having power over
aU fiesh (John xvE, 2),
With regard to the expression " the world," we must under
stand it generaUy, as appears from the fact, that it was uttered
by Christ in connection with the arrival of the Greeks or
Gentiles, who desired to see Him, It is a general name, as
here used, to be taken simply for the world of mankffid, Ere
spective of its condition, or of the accessory idea of its beffig
the evU world, whether Jewish or GentUe. Those expositors
who Emit the aEusion to the idea that it is the world as
rejecting Christ and serving sin, ha\fe been swayed by the
interpretation which they put upon the word judgment as
meanffig condemnation. But for that mterpretation there is
no good ground, as we shall immediately show. As the sense
depends, however, on an accurate apprehension of the term

250 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
judgment, we must, first of all, determine its meaning as used
in this verse,
1, SomewUl have it, that the i^xm judgment in this passage
must be taken as denoting condemnation or punishment.^
They argue, with a certam amount of plausibility, that as
Jesus frequently uses both the noun and the verb in that
acceptation, the word must be so understood in the passage
before us (compare John iu. 19, John v, 24, John xii, 47, 48).
But it must be further observed, that the expositors who so
interpret the term, are, in great measure, influenced by the
sense put upon the conjoined word, " the world," which they
regard as the Christ-rejecting world. Sometimes they argue
from the word "judgment," in order to prove that the term
" world" must here mean the Christ-rejecting world. Some
times, again, they argue from the latter term, understood as
has been mentioned above, in order to prove that the judgment
must be condemnation,
2, The judgment here mentioned has been regarded by other
expositors as denoting the just sentence executed upon sin,
but not upon the sinner himself^ An attempt has been made
by some able advocates of the atonement, in the true sense, to
prove that, in the present passage, the aEusion is the sentence of
condemnation upon sin vicariously endured, inasmuch as the
death of Christ was in reality a witness of the divine justice,
and He bore sin in His own body on the tree. However true
and precious that doctrine is, and however clearly taught in
other passages of Scripture, plaiffiy it is not the truth in this
verse. Though the sffi of mankind was condemned in Christ's
flesh during His humUiation, it would offiy be a violence to
language, and an imported or deposited idea brought from
another connection, were we to force that meaning upon the
words here,
' So Vossius, Vinke, etc,
2 So Gess, in his articles on the atonement. He makes it a display of justice,
but on Christ, not on the world.

THE ATONEMENT DECIDING CHRIST'S RIGHT TO THE WORLD, 251
3, Other eminent expositors wiU have it, that when our
Lord speaks of the judgment of the world. He refers to the
reformation and deliverance of the world,^ They argue to this
effect from the Hebrew usage of the word, as weE as from the
fact that the world was to be restored to its legitimate order,
and that it was the death of Christ that causaEy or meritori
ously inaugurated this new state of thffigs. They hold that the
aUusion, therefore, is not so much to a smgle and separate result,
as to the continuous effect of the death of Christ in aU those
resffits connected with the renovation or deliverance which we
daily see around us. But, however much this interpretation
may approximate to the true meaning, it puts a quite incorrect
meanffig on the words which our Lord employs,
4, The true meanffig is, that the hour had come, when the
grand adjudication of a process was to take place, that should
decide at once and for ever the question to whom the world
shoffid belong, as ' its prince,^ In the judicial process which
was pendffig at that moment before the court of last resort, the
great decision or sentence was immediately to be given ; and
our Lord ffi substance says, " It is now to be finally deter
mined to whom this world shaE rightfuUy belong, — whether it
is to remain in the hand of its present prince, or belong to Me
as its owner and its heir for ever. The final award on this
great process is now to be given," The language is thus un
mistakeably taken from a cause in court, and describes a judi
cial process, awaiting its final and irreversible adjudication.
When our Lord says, " Now is the judgment of this world,"
the immediate context shows, as may easily be gathered from
the passage, that the direct aUusion is to the soffi-trouble, the
commencement of His agony, and the prelude of His death,
^ So Calidn, and also Grotius, who says, in libertatem vindicare.
2 This is Bengel's happy comment, both in his Gnomon and in his notes to his
German version of the N, T, In the former he says i "est genitivus objecti :
judicium de hoc mundo, quis post hsec jure sit obtenturus mundum. " In the
latter, his brief note is: "ein gerichtlicher Process und UrtheU wem die Welt
gehbre mir, oder ihrem bisherigen Fiirsten,"

252 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
wffich was to accomplish that resffit. The rww must be taken
as referring to His present angffish in connection with the
crucifixion. That this is the meanffig, and that the decision
of tffis great cause took place at the completion of Christ's
vicarious sacrifice, is put beyond doubt by the next clause. In
a word, the world passes into other hands ; another prince enters
mto rightfffi possession. It is more a question, it is true, of
legitimate title, than of actual possession, to which our Lord
here refers ; though He received at once power over aE fiesh
when He ascended, that He might exercise unEmited authority
in every corner of the globe, for the promotion of His cause.
This is plaiffiy taught by our Lord in another passage, when He
describes the function of the ConEorter, who takes of the things
of Christ, and shows them unto us : " He shall convince the world
of judgment, because [better, to the effect that] the prince of this
world is judged" (John xvi 11). The meaning is: the Com
forter, when sent forth by the ascended Jesus, shaU convince
mankind that Satan has lost the legitimate power previously
belonging to him, and is vEtuaUy denuded of aU the authority
of a prffice, which he so long and so uniyersaUy exercised on the
earth. No one is now compeUed to remaffi under ffis power,
uffiess, with his own resolve and purpose, he chooses darkness
rather than the Eght. In other words, the passage ffitimates
that the Comforter convffices men that Satan has lost the cause,
that the decision is against him, and that Jesus is the rightful
Prffice and Saviour, to whom they may and ought to swear
aEegiance. This text, then, putting all this resffit in ffidissoluble con
nection with Christ's atonement, intimates that the world is no
more Satan's, but Christ's ; or, in other words, that the second
man has, by His obedience unto death, received a divmely-con-
ferred right to be heir of all things. He can claim the world
as His own, and thus dispossess its former prince, because He
has endured the curse and fffifiEed the conditions which put
Him in possession of a claim to the reward. And His disciples

THE ATONEMENT DECIDING CHRIST S RIGHT TO THE WORLD, 253
are freemen ffi 'the world, and weE aware that they can serve
their Prince with a good conscience, ffi every sphere and in all
the positions where they are placed by His providence. This is
put beyond doubt by the precise and definite language of the
next clause : " Now shaE the prince of this world be cast out."
In a word, the world passes into other hands : one prince yields
ffis dominions, and another enters ffito rightful possession. Not
that Christ must be understood as speaking of iffimediate de facto
occupation ; it is more a question of de jure sovereignty. But
He has power over aE flesh, and exercises unEmited authority
ffi every corner of the globe, according to His sovereign wiE, for
the advancement of His cause. In the other passage, where our
Lord deEneates the work of the Comforter, the revealer of
Christ, saying, " He shaE convince the world of judgment,
because [better, to the effect that] the prince of tffis world is
judged" (John xvi 11), the meanffig is, as we have indicated
above. He wUl convince mankind that Satan has lost aU the
rightfffi power or conquest which had previously belonged
to him ; and that no one, unless frowardly or obstinately re-
beffious, need any longer remaffi under the power of the prince
of this world. The Comforter subjectively convinces men of
the objective fact aUuded to in the sajdng under consideration —
that Jesus is now the rightfffi Prmce and Saviour, on the ground
of His atoning sacrifice, and that He is the Lord, to whom we
owe obedience.
This text is thus important in many aspects, and is capable
of being viewed in many appEcations. It throws a steady light
on the great and momentous doctrine, that the world is, ffi con
sequence of the atonement or vicarious work of Christ, no more
Satan's, and that Christ's people are now to be far from the
impression that they are offiy captives in an enemy's territory,
and unable warrantably to occupy a place in the world, either
as a citizen or magistrate. On the contrary, this testimony
shows that every foot of ground in the world belongs to Christ,
and that His foEowers can be loyal to Him ffi every position.

254 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
in every country and corner where they may be placed and may
have to act their part for their Lord, The world is judicially
awarded to Cffiist as its owner and Lord,

SEC, XXXIU, — CHRIST, BY MEANS OF HIS ATONEMENT, OVERCOMING
THE WORLD,
" In the world ye shall have tribulation ; but be of good cheer :
I have overcome the world." (John xvi, 28,)
Tffis saying of Jesus, spoken on the night of His betrayal,
a little whUe before He went out to Gethsemane, shows us His
victory over the world, from a point of view different from that
wffich was developed in the previous section. It wUl not be
necessary to do more than briefly notice it, as adducing a con
sideration or a motive drawn from the atonement, to confirm the
disciples of all ages amid the troubles and persecutions that are
to be encountered in the world. Our Lord does not brffig out
here a mere example, however animating, from wffich we may
learn how to foUow His footsteps, but calls attention to an
obedience or merit, which has power with God, and constitutes
a foundation on which the Christian's faith may lean. We are
by no means to view this sayffig as referring offiy to the victory
subsequently to be achieved in the world by the preaching of
the gospel, but rather to consider it as aEuding to what was
won by Christ for aE His people by His atoning death.
To understand this testimony, then, it must be borne in mind
that the allusion is here to Christ's representative act, intimating
that His victory is -also ours ; in other words, that that act. of
Christ, comprehending His whole eartffiy Efe and work, con
sidered in its vicarious character, avaUs with God, and emboldens
us to fight the good fight of faith. This memorable saying,
important as it is to the nffiitant church of aE ages, may be
regarded as a key to that numerous class of passages which
speak of Christians as more than conquerors, through Him

THE WORLD OVERCOME BY THE ATONEMENT, 255
that loved us (Eom, viii, 37), and of a world-overcoming faith
(1 John V, 45), and of overcoming by the blood of the Lamb
(Eev, xii 11),
When we ffiqffire, in the first place, how the Lord Jesus
overcame the world, an accurate investigation of the passage
wUl show that the emphasis must speciaUy be placed on the
person who speaks, as E He woffid have aE eyes turned upon
HimseE when He says, " / have overcome." He virtuaEy says,
" Turn your eye away from the world's hatred and persecuting
rage to the consideration of my person and of my fiffished work
of atonement, as constituting the grand victory over the world."
He may be said to have overcome the world, partly as He
vicariously and in our stead withstood from day to day the
world's aEurements and temptations, and was not to be turned
aside by them — partly as He was faithful ffi His capacity of
surety to His undertaking amid the hatred of the world, that
woffid have sought to put down His cause ; but, above aE, as
He bought by His obedience not only a people in the world,
but that world itseE, that He might be the heir of aE thffigs.
This representative act of Christ, then, lies at the foundation
of this sayffig, His act being the act of one for many. Thus
aU our victory Ees ffi the merit of Christ. It may seem strange,
at first sight, that the Lord shoffid direct His foEowers to take
encouragement from the thought that He overcame the world ;
which looks much as if a man of large resources shoffid say
to the poor and needy, " I am rich and powerfffi ; " for that
seems to brffig neither aid nor comfort to others. But the an
nouncement changes its character the moment it is understood
that His means are possessed in common with that other, and
made avaUable for that other more than for Himself. The Lord
here bids the disciples reaUze His act as theEs, and His victory
as achieved for them, or, ffi other words, to take the assurance
that He identified Himself with them to such a degree that He
overcame the world for them more than for Himself, Indeed,
He needed not, on His own account, to have come down from

256 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
heaven ; and He acted only for His people, for whom His victory
was made avaUable. He vEtuaUy says, " I have overcome not
for myself, but for you." It is Christ's work that constitutes
all His people's victory ; and hence, when the Apostle John
says, " This is the victory that overcometh the world, even our
faith'' (1 John v. 4), the language must not be understood as
referrffig to two victories, but as intimating simply, that in and
with the exercise of faith upon the Son of God, this fffil victory-
over the world is obtained through means of Cffiist's victory,
accounted ours.
Thus, the disciples of Christ accustom themselves to triumph
ffi the triumph of Christ, ffiasmuch as the true victor has done
aE that was needed to atone for sin, and to open heaven on the
behalf of His saints ; and what remains for them but only to
enter ffito His victory ? The battle was won by Him, and they
have but to enter ffito His work, and so tread death and heU
under feet ; and as they realize this victory in Him, they are
" of good cheer," for they vEtuaEy hear Christ say, " I won the
fight, and ye reap the victory ; " and thus aE the rage, enmity,
and persecution of the world are offiy but the impotent death-
struggles of vanquished enemies.
The Lord here speaks in the near prospect of death, as E the
victory were already won for His people, because it was won in
His purpose. Hence, wffile aE the powers, ecclesiastical and
civil, supposed that He Himself was crushed, and that His cause
was ffi ruins. His own language shows that He was offiy in pro
cess of leadffig captivity captive. And when we inqffire in
what sense Christ's victory is the Church's victory, and how it is
fitted to fiE Christians with good cheer, several distffict points
may at once be named. Thus, He bought a people to Him
self; He obtained power, too, over aU flesh; He acquEed for
them the inextinguishable power of the divine lEe ; He puts
into them the bold courage of a world-overcoming faith ; and
He bridles the power of evil in such a way that it cannot pre-
vaU to overwhelm them (1 Cor,' x, 13). I shaU offiy notice,

THE WORLD OVERCOME BY THE ATONEMENT, 257
however, one or two of those resffits wffich dEectly flow from
His representative act.
1. Christ's people get boldness to overcome the world, and
the world's lord, through the blood of the Lamb, They feel that,
feeble as they are — nay, as sheep kUled aU the day long — they
can stUl say, " Who shaU separate us from the love of Christ ?
We are more than conquerors, through Him that loved us"^ (Eom,
vffi, 37), The words there used wiU be found, if we exactly
mterpret them, to point to Cffiist's one redemption work as the
great procurffig cause of His people's victory. The martyrs,
lovffig not their lives unto the death, are said to overcome by
the blood of the Lamb (Eev, xii, 11) ; wffich just means, that the
death with wffich they were threatened by theE persecutors
had no terrors for them who had washed theE robes in the
blood of the Lamb, and were fffily aware that, E theE Eves
must needs be forfeited, they shoffid sup with Christ the night
on which they suffered. Under the bold assurance and con
fidence derived from the cross, they felt that the world coffid
as Uttle devour or reaUy injure them as it had swallowed up
then Lord, and that their more abundant entrance into their
rest was only hastened, and their crown made so much the
brighter. "What though the world took away Ufe, honour, and
goods ? — they were going to more than they left.
2. They get, through the atonement of the cross, aE the
victorious power of a Evine lEe, to rise superior to the world's
aUurements and to its frowns. The redeemed Church is assured
that she owes aU the grace wffich she receives, to the blood of
the Lamb ; that the Lamb overcomes His enemies ffi virtue of
His atonffig blood, ffiasmuch as tffis not only deprives Satan's
accusations of theE poffits, but brings the power of an invincible
- divffie life into the heart. The faith which appropriates Christ's
atonement is thus fuE of divine strength to overcome the
world's aUurements, as weE as its enmity ; and when they con-
^ The aorist participle xyawwxyns, as Meyer well observes, marks the emi
nent act of love which Christ performed by offering up His life.
R

258 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
quer through faith in Christ, they overcome offiy by the power
of the atonement, or by the blood of the Lamb,

SEC, XXXIV, — THE ATONEMENT OF CHRIST DENUDING SATAN OF HIS
DOMINION IN THE WORLD.
"Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this
world be cast out." (John xii, 31.)
Our Lord, in His last discourses, makes various aUusions to
Satan, and three times makes mention of him under the title
of the Prffice of this World. That the aUusion is to Satan, and
not, as some have fancifuUy expounded it, to the Jewish high
priest, is too obvious to require proof. He comes ffi the sense
which we have aEeady explained to the Christ on the last
night, but finds nothing in Him; that is, nothing which pro
perly belongs to him, or which he can caE his, or in any way
aEied to his kingdom (John xiv, 30), He is represented as
judged (John xvi, 11) ; and, last of all, it is here said that he is
about to be cast out,^
As to the title here given by our Lord to Satan, "the
Prffice of this World," it aptly appEes to him as the head of
aE who attach themselves to that natural Efe which Ues m
estrangement from God, or who set themselves in banded oppo
sition to the Christ of God, How fitly the name applies to the
world in its moral and inteEectual condition under influences
of an ungodly nature, and wffich come from the evU one, as the
first cause and father of corruption, scarcely reqffires to he
pointed out. Thus a kffigdom is ascribed to him (Mark iii, 26) ;
the wicked are regarded as his chUdren (John vm, 44); the
tares ffi the parable of the sown field, and which is a term by
which our Lord means ungodly men, are said to be sown by
him among the wheat (Matt, xUi, 38) ; the pluckffig away of
the good seed is his work (Matt. xiE. 19) ; the act of Judas m
^ ix^XyiSviffiToci %^ii>.

THE ATONEMENT DENUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 259
betrayffig Christ is referred to Satan entermg ffi and taking
possession of the man (John xui 27); and when the ecclesi
astical authorities combffied to put Him to death, and were
aUowed to execute their purpose. He said, " This is your hour,
and the power of darkness'' (Luke xxE. 63). Satan tried sub
tlety ffi'st, and violence afterwards, and was signaEy baffled ffi
both attempts, as a brief glance at both wiE suffice to show.
1. In the first conffict with our Lord, when he assailed Him
with aE the resources of cunning and artifice, he was signaEy
defeated. Our Lord took up the combat, as the nature of His
suretyship required, at the very point where the battle had been
lost by the first man, and withstood the adversary at every
poffit, ffi presentffig temptations and aEurements, as weE as
dissuasives, which had almost everything in common with those
seductive baits by wffich he had made an easy prey of our pro
genitors. ¦ That temptation is by no means to be regarded ffi
the Ught of a mere example to us, how we ought to conduct
ourselves in simUar scenes, and how we may be enabled to meet
and to overcome him ; for, though it must be regarded as an
example, as aE Christ's Efe "wiE ever be to His people, it was
also a deed in our room and stead, and a merit of which His
people reap the reward. If we Umit it to the mere example,
it can ffispire but Ettle ardour or confidence of victory ffito
us, even ffi foEowing His footsteps. But the case is whoEy
altered when we regard Cffiist as the atoffing surety satisfying
for Adam's sffi, and meritoriously overcoming ffi our place the
same tempter that had so easUy triumphed in the former case,
and who, ever since, had held the universal race as lawful cap
tives. Thus the temptation of Jesus stood in necessary con
nection with His whole atonffig work ; and that, too, not in the
sense that it was but a preparation for His atonffig work, but
rather an ffitegral portion of the work itseE. The victory won
over the adversary was to be in a way of rectitude, and not by
the mere exercise of power. The Son of God must needs, as
man and substitute for others, enter the lists with the adversary.

260 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and deliver the race ffi. whose room He stood, and for whom
He constantly acted, in a way of right and of justice. He
took up the controversy just where it had before so disastrously
ended. To the temptation itself, and to the several points of attack
comprehended in it, it is not necessary here more particularly
to refer. Let it suffice to remark, that the tempter's aim from
the begmffing' was directed, as it seems, to the one point of sup-
pressffig or of destroying, in the most effective way ffi wffich it
was possible, the human nature of Jesus, or to render it unavail-
ffig as the instrument in which man's redemption was to be
accomplished. He sought, as much as in him lay, to create
a discordance between the two natures of our Lord, and thus
to frustrate the end or design of their union. He would destroy,
E possible, the harmonious connection between them, by tempt-
ffig Him, under the ffifluence of his tauntffig words, to usurp
the prerogative of the divine, and to deviate from the lot
appoffited for Him by God ; and then he sought to infuse
a false confidence. And when baffled, once and again, ia this
audacious attempt, he offered Him the world, which was the
subject in Espute between the two, without a trial or a conflict
— a temptation aE the more subtle, as our Lord clearly fore
saw, with His effiightened mffid, the long and painful course of
conffict before Him ; and the rather to ffiduce Him to comply,
and thus accept the kingdoms of the world at once, and offiy
for the slightest nod of recogffition, he showed Him how easily
the whole world might be put at His disposal at once. There
was thus a terrible coincidence in this threefold temptation,
which was weE fitted, had there been the smaEest tinder on
which the spark of temptation could fall, to set aU withm into
a conflagration. But aE signaEy failed.
2, Satan having vaiffiy tried subtlety first, tried the fury of
persecution next. But the Lord was equally proof against both,
and learned obedience by the things He suffered (Heb, v, 8).
The evE one, by stErffig up the hatred of the rulers, and by

THE ATONEMENT DENUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 261
infusing into them the utmost pitch of rancorous maUce, thought
to make Christ waver and recoE; or, E he coffid not draw
Him ffito distrust of God and actual rebelEon or apostas-y, he
woffid at least accompUsh an object much desired by him — His
removal from the world, — and so remaffi master of the field. He
Uttle thought, in the mdchinations of that blffid rage, that he
was used but as a tool ffi the hand of Omffiscience, and that he
was thus carrying out, as a passive slave, what the determffiate
counsel and foreknowledge of God had determffied beforehand
to be done (Acts iv. 28). The death by which the Lord died
for man's redemption, was to be a violent death, or a sacrificial
death, but, from the nature of the case and the pecuEar relation
He occupied, a death neither immediately infficted by the hand
of God, nor effected by an immediate resignation of His own Efe,
except as that was done ffi and tffiough the mtervention of man ;
and the maEce of Satan only served to give effect to this fore-
appomted purpose, and, as is said of the wrath of man, was
made to praise Him. That violent death, thus ffiflicted on Him,
was just the way through wffich the Lord, by an act of subEme
priestly self-oblation, was to atone for the human famEy. By
this means divffie justice was satisfied, a sufficient atonement
offered, the divine favour won, and the lawful captive deEvered.
It is noteworthy that our Lord twice uses, in the two clauses
of this verse, the emphatic word now. He obviously refers to
the nearness and efficacy of the atonement, within the- cEcle of
which He was now come ; and the language impEes that, as
Satan's dominion rested upon the fact of sffi, and as he occupied
a secure and impregnable position so long as the vicarious
sacrffice was not offered, so the vantage ground from which he
had long rffied the world was lost the moment divine justice
was satisfied. In the ffist clause of this verse, as was aEeady
noticed, the Lord refers to a formal process then pendffig, and
which was finally to decide to whom the world shoffid be ad
judged, — ^whether to Christ, or Satan, its former prince; and
a process of such a nature at the tribunal of God clearly im-

262 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
pUes that the adversary agaffist whom it was -carried on, was a
person, and not a mere abstraction. The language intimates,
when we put the two members of the verse together, that the
judicial process as to the right of property, or the legitimate
title to the ownership, was then to be decided against the
adversary. And it is scarcely necessary to inquire how this
was so; for when sin was expiated, and the curse borne, Satan's
right to the sffiner was anffihilated, and his sovereignty over
the world overthrown. The Lord can say, " Now shall the
prince of this world be cast out," because the ground or founda
tion of this victory was first to be laid in law and justice, or was
meritoriously to be secured by that atoffing death wffich was
soon to be undergone, and wffich was to destroy the sin which
gave. Satan all his dominion m the world. Hence He virtually
says: " My death shaE be the destruction of Satan's dominion,"
There are a few separate sayings of Jesus to this effect, demand
mg more particular elucidation ; and to these we shaU advert,
1, The first word by which our Lord sets forth the ap
proaching termination of Satan's authority, is, the prince of this
world is judged (John xvi, 11), It is plaffi that our Lord does
not, in this passage, ffitend to speak of a judgment upon Satan
for ffis own faE from God, nor does He merely refer to a
judicial sentence to be passed on the deceiver, for tempting
men at ffist to become alUes with him in his revolt from God,
He speaks of a judgment which should strike ffim as the head
of a hostUe confederacy in banded opposition to God and His
anointed. The meaning of the language which Christ here
used is, that the right which Satan had acquEed to exercise
rule over men, and to treat them as his lawful captives, in
consequence of sffi, was now to be taken from him, and that
his power now was to be broken; for he is said to be judged,
when ffis legal, though at the same time usurped, right to
dominion is terminated.
And how did Cffiist's sacrificial death subvert' ffis empire ?
In a twofold way. As sin . was put away by the sacrifice of

THE ATONEMENT DENUDING SATAN OF HIS SWAY. 263
HimseE (Heb. ix. 26), and as the curse was in this manner
fuEy borne, the supreme Judge discharged the gffilty. Nor
coffid the accuser, on any plea of justice, either accuse them, or
demand theE condemnation, and a doom similar to his own
(Eom. vui. 1) ; and besides, the legitimate authority which
the tempter has previously possessed, to keep men in death
and in spiritual estrangement from God, was for ever at an
end. The Mediator's death, which is just to be regarded as the
windffig-up of His active and passive obedience, destroyed him
that had the power of death (Heb. u, 14), and destroyed the
works of the devU (1 John ui, 8). The captivity to which
men had ffitherto been subjected by divffie justice, coffid be
turned back and reversed offiy by the death of one who was
more than man. By this means Satan was overthrown in
point of law, and the way was effectuaUy paved for the anni-
ffilation of his sway,
2, The next sayffig which we shaE adduce respecting the
victory over Satan, is, the binding of the strong man, and the
spoiling of his goods (Matt, xu, 29), This result foUows upon
the sentence, or upon the judgment which was pronounced
upon him. Men are caEed " his goods," or the property wffich
belongs to him, and which, moreover, he is said to hold in
peace (Luke xi, 21), tUl they are effectuaEy called by a ffigh
and holy caUing, They are now designated the ransomed of
the Lord, and translated into the kingdom of God's dear Son
(CoL i 1 3), And this second step, in the execution of which
Christ ffiterposes, as the stronger than the strong one, to bring
His sheep into the fold, and to rescue souls from the grasp of
the destroyer, is simply an act of power by wffich He quickens
men when dead, enUghtens them when bUnd, and gives access
to those who previously were far off,
3, It is further said, ffi the text under our present considera
tion, " the prince of this world shaU be cast out," This foUows
as only the legitimate resffit of that judgment or judicial process
wffich has adjudged the world to Christ, Satan is to be cast

264 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
out of the world ; and ffi due time he shaU cease to bear rffie,
and be bound in chains, to the judgment of the great day. He
is not, even at present, a lord de jure of one foot of earth ; but
his usurpation Iffigers, and is permitted to contffiue, on many
accounts, into which it is not our present business to inquire.
He is to be ere long, in point of fact as weU as right, ejected, to
exercise no more power or authority either oyer single men or
over communities of men, by means of any of those systems on
which he has expended, for centuries, the utmost refinement of
his subtlety. These shaE, then, melt away like the mists of the
morning. But even now the Church has to encourage herseff,
on the ground of Christ's atonement, to go ffi and to take pos
session of the world from which its prffice has been legally cast
out, and from which he wUl ere long, in pomt of fact, be fuUy
ejected (Luke x, 18).
The synonymous phrases which occur in Scripture are
numerous. Thus it is said of Christ, that He has led captivity
captive (Ps. Ixvm. 18) ; that He takes a prey from the mighty
(Isa, xlis. 24) ; and that He was appointed to brffise the ser
pent's head (Gen, iE, 15), This last expression, famUiar to the
Old Testament Church from the beginnffig, was the peculiar
garb under which God was pleased to convey to man, at the
first, the earEest notion of a deliverer, and was, in fact, the first
proclamation of the gospel. The serpent had aEeady overcome
our race, and held aE humanity, not offiy as it as yet existed
in the first pair, but also as far as it should be mffitiplied under
his gaUing yoke, whUe no one coffid vanqffish or measure him
seE agaffist that prince of the world and conqueror of the
human race, who was ffi fact armed with the sharp stffig of the
divffie law, of which he was but the executioner. The first
promise or primeval gospel, which we shaE not here expound,
plainly ffitimated the advent of a person of greater power than
the conqueror, yet one also, with true humanity, whose heel
coffid be bruised. That was done upon the cross, and the
victory was entered into by aU believers, and is offiy carried

Christ's death taking the sting out of death, 265
out in the history of the Church, And thus we see that Satan
is now simply dispossessed by power, A word can conquer
ffim, and God shall bruise him under the Church's feet shortly.
Our Lord does not mean that the kffigdom of Satan was to be
all at once overthrown ; and the future tense, " shaE be cast
out," intimates a gradual ejection,
SEC xxxv, — Christ's vicarious death taking the sting
OUT of death, and abolishing it.
Among the sayffigs of Jesus which set forth the effects of
>the atonement, there are some which represent Him as the con
queror of death. One class of sayings declares that His people
never die (John vm, 51), A second class of sayffigs represents
the vicarious death of Cffiist as bringing in a more abundant
lEe, wffich effectuaEy abolishes death, and wUl swaUow it up
in every form, corporeal as weU as spiritual (John x, 10, 11),
That the element of fficorruption or of resurrection glory must
be fficluded in the term Life, must be admitted by every one
who wUl do justice to the ffiterpretation of the word as it is
used by our Lord, This, however, is delineated as a fruit or
effect of the atonement.
Our Lord very frequently uses the term Death, which He
understands as that complete destruction, spiritual and cor
poreal, wffich follows upon man's estrangement from God, and
wffich wUl remain as the inevitable doom of aU who reject the
provisions of divffie grace. And no one can faU to see who
is ffi any way a diUgent student of Scripture, that death was
a much more terrible fact to mankind in general, and even to
those who were believers, previous to the atoning death of
Christ, than it has been sffice. The reason of this is on the
surface. It was more formidable than after the death of Jesus,
partly because the ancient saffits had not, as we have, the great
fact of a dead substitute and surety before their eye, partly
because death was not then, as it is now, swaEowed up in
victory (Job vu, 21 ; Ps, vi, 6; Isa, xxxviE, 3-14),

266 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
Our Lord, as has been already noticed elsewhere, does not
formally contrast HimseE with the first man, in reference to
the influence which they severally have on the fact of death m
the world, as is done by Paffi (Eom. v. 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 47-56).
An analysis of our Lord's teaching sufficiently shows that
ample room is left by Him for this ; that is, for the ffitroduc-
tion of the other member of the contrast. But He leaves this
to His apostles. When we investigate the meanmg of the
apostle's words, it is evident that the entrance of death to which
the apostle refers includes. the idea of temporal death. But
whUe we cannot exclude physical death, a limitation of the
meaffing to that idea must be held to be quite unsatisfactory ; for
it comprehends the entire ruffi caused by sin, whether spEitual
or temporal. The objective existence of death is unmistake
ably traced to sffi (Eom. v. 12) ; and the destruction of death
is no less clearly referred to Christ, who has abolished death,
and brought Efe and immortality to Ught, by the gospel (2
Tim. i 9),
That the redeeming death of Jesus has the effect of destroy
ing death, and depriving it of its sting, is not obscurely inEcated
in the Lord's own words : " He came to give His life a ransom
for many" (Matt, xx, 28), The one death was thus in room
of the death of many, but with the ulterior view of ushering m
a reign of Ufe, Nor can we fail to see the same truth ffi the
special connection of the clauses, which bffid together another
statement in reference to the Shepherd giving His Ufe for the
sheep : " I am come that they might have life, and that they
might have it more abundantly, I am the good Shepherd: the
good Shepherd giveth His life for the sheep" (John x, 10, 11).
The givffig of the more abundant life is there, beyond doubt,
put in the closest causal connection with the surrender of His
own life. The vicarious sacrifice may thus be regarded as the
death of death, and as the cause of life ; and thus, by His
own deep humiEation, Cffiist won a triumph over death for aU
His foEowers. To obtaffi this, however, He HimseE of neces-

CHRIST'S DEATH TAKING THE STING OUT OF DEATH, 267
sity became the prey of death, and thus bruised the serpent's
head, by beffig bruised in His heel.
There are three remarkable sayings of Christ, wffich agree in
declarmg that the Christian's death is not death ; that he never
dies ; that he never sees death, because it is not coupled with
eternal death : — " VerEy, verUy, I say unto you. He that heareth
my word, and beEeveth on Him that sent Me, hath everlasting Ufe,
and shaU not come ffito condemnation; but is passed from death
unto life" (John v, 24), Again (John viii, 51), " VerUy, verUy,
I say unto you. If a man keep my sayffig, he shall never see
death!' Agaffi (John xi, 25, 26), "'I am the resurrection, and
the Ufe : he that believeth in Me, though he were dead [better,
though he die], yet shaU he live : and whosoever liveth, and
believeth in Me, shall never die!' These tffiee sayings must be
applied not offiy to eternal death, but also to temporal death.
It may be urged : " How do they not Ee whose bodies we
see day after day descending to the tomb, and returnffig to
dust?" And yet Jesus declares that they never die, not
even a temporal death, E we fuUy fathom the depths of
Christ's words. In what sense ? Because they are not sub
jected by temporal death to any such changes as are really
then destruction,- having the prfficiple and seed of immor-
taEty within them. They, in truth, never see death, however
much they may seem to men to die. The very fear of death,
by which they were once haunted and held in ¦ bondage, is
also removed by the Lord's vicarious death. The phrases
used ffi those verses to which we have referred — shall never
see death, shall never die, hath passed from deoih to life — ^inti
mate, that beEevers, though passffig through temporal death,
never undergo death with the dire penal resffits consequent on
it ; that they never encounter death, properly so caUed ; that
they are aEeady possessed of Efe, and wUl be raised up ffi in-
corruption. ^ The aUusion cannot be to the actual abolition of
' It does not fall to us to explain here Christ's profound explanation of the
words, " I am the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob" (Matt. xxii. 32), to the

268 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
death, ffiasmuch as that stUl contffiues, and wiU be the last
enemy destroyed. But the fear of death, or death with its
stffig agonizffig the human mffid, in reality exists no more to
a Christian. But this aEusion is not to mankind as such; for
the sting, the fear of death, remains with the unbelieving, who
receive not the gospel ; and the stffig of death is sin, making
every unpardoned man afraid to die, whEe the strength of sin
is the law. The words just mean, then, that a true disciple,,
never Ees, inasmuch as death has ceased to be penal, and is no
more dreaded. Not offiy so : the atonement of Cffiist requires
that the body shaE be again associated with the soul, and that
death shaE thus be swaUowed up of Ufe (2 Cor, v, 4),
There is a memorable passage in which Satan, the Prince of
Death, is contrasted with Christ, the Prince of Life (John viii
44), The Lord there teUs the Jews that they were of their
father the devU, who was a murderer from the beginnffig. The
words are not, with several expositors, to be interpreted of Cain,
but of Satan, whose seduction of the first paE brought death ffito
the world, and all our woe, and who is therefore said to have
the power of death (Heb, ii, 14) — a power which he wields, and
which must be said to belong to him, ffi a certaffi sense, so long
as the human race dies, and of which he wUl be fuUy denuded
at the second advent. On the contrary, the honour conferred
on the Lord Jesus by the Pather, as a reward for His loyal
obedience or humiliation unto death, is that He is constituted
the Prince of Life, and that His disciples shaU never see death.
And this is the direct antithesis of aU that marks out him that
hath the power of death, or the murderer from the begmning.
If Satan is a murderer from the beginning, the Lord Jesus, on
the contrary, is the Prince of LEe ; and they who are His fol
lowers receive, as the reward of His abasement, undyffig life,
and shaU never see death (ver, 51),
effect that He is not the -God of the dead, but of the living, and that this re
lationship secured the final resurrection of the saints. Of course it presupposes
the atonement as its ground.

CHRIST S DEATH TAKING THE STING OUT OF DEATH, 269
But a difficulty presents itself: How do beUevers undergo
temporal death at aU, E divine justice has been fuEy satisfied ?
To this the ready answer is, that the death of the Christian is
not ffi any sense to be viewed as a proper punishment of sin,
and that he is as perfectly accepted through the atonement of
Cffiist, as if he had not committed a single sin. The import
ance of this question appears in the fact, that whenever the
temporal death of beEevers is regarded as the penalty of sffi,
in however smaE a measure, the perfect satisfaction of divine
justice by Christ cannot be maintained. It is urged, that as we
can judge of the extent of the atonement only by its effects, so,
in point of fact, the extent of its effects can only be iffierred
from its results, and that beEevers are not delivered from all
the consequences of sin.^ But that is a very ambiguous mode
of presenting the question. The one point is : Are the conse
quences of sin, in the case of true Cffiistians, stUl to be re
garded, as in any sort, a punishment by which they pay some
thing to divine justice ? And the answer must be emphaticaUy ,
in the negative. But it is, again, asked : Can there really be a
consequence of sin, which is not a punishment of sin? To
determffie tffis, we must consider what reference it has to God,
who dispenses it; and sffice we find that He sends temporal
trials and afflictions as weU as temporal death, not in wrath,
not as an avengffig judge, but as a wise and lovffig father,
they cannot be termed proper punishments, though they are
the consequences of sin, — Christians having wholly passed
from a state of wrath into a state of grace. The Epistles,
accordingly, dwell upon the fact, that Christ, by His death,
destroyed him that hath the power of death, and unstinged
it for His people (Heb, E. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 1-58).
But why, it is stUl further asked, do the consequences of
sin remain, if the acquittal is complete, and justice fuEy satis
fied ? We may explain the anomaly by a paraEel case. A
' So Roellius, in his discussion with Vitringa, put it ; maintaining that the
Christian paid a something of the penalty.

270 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
rebel may have been arrested and imprisoned, and up to a
certain point treated as a crimffial worthy of death : he may,
through the mediation of another, have obtained a fffil pardon
and discharge, but stEl have to carry with him, for a consider
able time, the wounds which were ffiflicted on him during his
rebeUion, or the sores and bruises of his chains and imprisonJ,
ment. But, plaiffiy, the latter are not any longer regarded iff
the same light as before, — ^they are not now a part of ffis punish
ment, nor a part of what he has to pay to the justice of his
country. While they remaffi, they may remind ffim, indeed,
of what he was ; but they are whoEy altered ffi theE character;
and no more foretokeffings of something worse that must ensue.
They have, ffi a word, ceased to be puffishments.^ Such is
temporal death to a Christian, and such are aU his present
trials and afflictions. They are altered in their character;
they have no wrath ffi them; they are salutary, paternal
disciplffie ; they brffig him home.
SEC, XXXVI. — CHRIST LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE FOR THE SHEEP, AND
THUS BECOMING THE ACTUAL SHEPHERD OF THE SHEEP,
" lam the good Shepherd : the good Shepherd giveth His life for
the sheep. But he that is an hireling, and not the shep
herd, whose own the sheep are not, seeth the wolf coming,
and leaveth the sheep, and fleeth : and- the wolf catcheth
them, and scattereth the sheep. The hireling fleeth, because
he is an hireling, and careth not for the sheep. I am the
good Shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine.
As the Father knoweth Me, even so [better, and] know I the
Father : and I lay down my life for the sheep. And other
sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must
bring [better, lead], and they shall hear my voice; and
there shall he one fold [better, flock], and one Shepherd.
Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my
' See Vitringa's Dutch reply to EoeUius.

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 271
life, that I might take it again. No man taketh it from
Me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it
doum, and I have power to take it again. This command
ment have I received of my Father." (John x. 11-18.)
Tffis saying of Jesus is pecuEarly important, because it
exffibits, with the utmost vividness, several various aspects of
the atonement not usuaUy put together, and elucidates the
whole transaction as a divffie provision, whether we view it
with respect to its nature, or to the special effects which it
produces. This testimony may be considered as the key to aU
those aUusions contained ffi the apostolic Epistles, which brffig
before us the office of the Shepherd, as weE as the care and
watchfuffiess wffich He exercises in that capacity in behaE of
the flock (1 Pet. u. 25, v. 4). WhEe it embodies most of the
essential truths ffivolved in the atonement, so far as its pecuEar
character or nature is concerned, the special poffits which it
estabUshes ffi connection with the effects of Christ's death, are
these : (1) that it sets forth the deEverance thus effected ; and
(2) portrays the legitimate right and claim wffich Cffiist ac-
qffired, in poffit of purchase, to become the actual Shepherd of
the sheep.
The occasion on which the Lord uttered this memorable
saying, was as foEows: — The Pharisees, who always resisted
His teachffig, had just evinced the utmost hostUity in connec
tion with the cure of the blffid-born man, and He was led, by
their opposition, to contrast theE pretensions with such teachers
as are caEed and commissioned from above, whom ffione the
sheep wUl hear, and, above aE, to contrast them with HimseE,
who is the Shepherd, by way of eminence, or " the good Shep
herd" (ver. 11). As these men had not entered by the door,
wffich He explains as equivalent to a beEef in Himself, and a
commission from Him, and as they were offiy perverters of the
people, Christ describes HimseE as the good Shepherd, because
He is the ideal of aU that the office impEes, and the long ex-

272 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
pected Shepherd whom aE the ancient prophecies announced
under that title (Zech. xiE. 7 ; Ezek. xxxiv. 23 ; Ps. xxui).
As tffis memorable section can be apprehended as a testi
mony to the atonement in its nature and effects, offiy when
its profound phraseology and bearffig are fffily surveyed, it wUl
be necessary, for the purpose which we have in view, to give a
succffict outEne, at least of the saEent poffits, though by no
means a fuE commentary, of the words, ffi the connection in
which they stand.
Tffis entire passage yields the most important resffits for
the elucidation of the atonement. Accordffig to the classffica-
tion which we have adopted, it is adduced speciaEy to show
that the death of Christ was considered by HimseE as giving
Him the right to be the actual and legitimate Shepherd of the
sheep. But we also notice that the Lord Jesus here enters
more fuEy than ffi almost any other passage ffito the nature of
the atonement as a voluntary sacrifice ; employing language
which, from its very nature, implies that one party is rescued
by another's death. He states that He not only did not stop
short at confronting danger, and exposing Himself to death,
which is aE that some expositors see ffi the words, but that He,
of His own free choice, subjected HimseE to death, because the
sheep were to be rescued ffi no other way. To those who will
have it that the section says nothing defiffite on the vicarious
sacrifice of Christ, it may suffice to say that the Shepherd found
the sheep ffi perE, and died to rescue them from it, which was
only to be done by a vicarious death (ver. 12). When it is
further argued that one acting in the capacity of a shepherd
does not seek death, but rather avoids it, as far as in him hes,
and that the same thing must necessarUy have been done by
Christ, the answer is at hand. Comparisons agreeffig in only
one poffit of resemblance must not be too far pressed; but
here the Lord says, ffi the most express terms, that, far from
avoidffig danger, as' is commoffiy done, it was not so with the
good Shepherd, who spontaneously laid down His life.

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 273
This testimony sets forth the legitimate claim or right wffich
Christ acquired, in poffit of purchase by the atonement, to be
come the Shepherd of the sheep. It is the key to aE those
aUusions wffich we find ffi the apostoEc Epistles, and in the
New Testament generaEy, to the office of the Shepherd, as weE
as to aE the assiduous care and watchfuffiess wffich He exer
cises ffi behaE of the flock (1 Pet. E. 25, v. 4). In contrast with
the Pharisees, He designates Himself "the good Shepherd;"
which tffiee words may be thus resolved : (1) a Shepherd, be
cause He evinces the reaEzed ideal of whatever that office
signffies ; (2) a good Shepherd, because, whatever can be pre-
fficated of good or exceEent is found ffi Him; (3) the good
Shepherd, by way of enunence, because He was long expected
and predicted in aE the ancient prophecies under that title
(Zech. xiE. 7; Ezek. xxxiv. 23; Ps. xxiE).
The pecuEar and distffigffishffig act, nay, the unique act,
wffich the good Shepherd ^ here mentioned performs, is thus
aimounced : " I am the good Shepherd : the good Shepherd
giveth, or lays down. His Ufe for the sheep" (ver. 11). We
must, ffist of aE, determffie the force of this expression, giveth
His life for the sheep, which is agaffi and agaffi repeated ffi the
sequel of tffis section. That it impEes a condition of danger on
the part of the flock, is evident from the aEusion to the woE.
But we by no means ffiterpret the words aright, or exhaust
theE meanffig, E we expound them, with many, as denotmg
merely that the good Shepherd exposes His Efe to hazard.
The Saviour means, much more, a self-surrender, a spontaneous
oblation. The modern theories, deviatffig from the fffil acknow
ledgment of substitution, or of a vicarious sacrffice, commonly
aUege that Jesus, from the very nature of His position, must
come witffin the laws of moral evE in the wodd, and perish by
then operation, like ordmary men. That is the current repre-
^ 0 ¦roi/ih 0 xxXos. xetXos just intimates, in such phrases, that the person or
thing is all that it behoves to be, excellent, pre-eminent in his kind (Gen. i. 4 ;
Matt. iii. 10 ; 1 Tim. iv. 6). S

274 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
sentation given forth with much force at present, both abroad
and at home, by all such as are opposed to the vicarious atone
ment. As the opposite has already been proved, I shaU not in
tffis place enforce a second time, either the general arguments
or the ffistoric facts presented to us m the Efe of Christ, wffich
fuEy disprove that view of God's moral government of the
world. But tffis utterance of Christ may, for aU reverent mter
preters, be accepted alone as absolutely conclusive : "I am
the good Shepherd : the good Shepherd giveth His Ufe for the
sheep." He ffi substance says that His death, though a vio
lent one, and necessarUy inflicted by other hands, woffid not be
against His wUl, but His own spontaneous act ; that He could
ward it off E He pleased ; but that He woffid voluntarUy sub- '
mit to it for the sake of His sheep, and to secure His right to
them. When He says that He giveth His Efe for the sheep.
He ffitimates that, ffi His capacity as a substitute, and as the
High Priest, who was caUed of God, He woffid lay down His
life for His people, by a voluntary act of self-oblation.^ And
He announces m the sequel, as we shaU see, that He had fiffi
authority over HEnseE, and was about to do what was com
petent to no created inteUigence, to none but a divine person,
to die for His feUows, or, as He sacerdotally expresses it, to lay
down Hie life for the sheep.
He ffitimaies that He was not to risk His Efe merely as a
patriot does m the defence of his country, but actuaUy, and of
design, to lay it down. That this is the offiy true import of the '
phrase, is evident from the subsequent verses, where the Lord,
in the most express terms, contrasts the laying down of His life,
and the taking of it again (vers. 17, 18) ; from wffich we may
1 Compare Matt. xx. 28, which jiiet intimates the same thing. (See Titt
mann on the passage.) It does not satisfy the force of this phrase, tJih ¦4'i'X''
Tiiwi, to Interpret it as meaning, to hazard or expose His life as a hero does for
his country. (So Grotius.) Tihyai -^u^riy imp is a Johannine phrase (John xiii.
37). We need not be surprised that the phrase does not occur beyond the pale
of revelation, for the idea is not found elsewhere. Matthew has ioHym (Matt.
XX. 28).

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 275
argue, that if the latter is to be ffiterpreted as the spontaneous
resumption of Efe, the former can offiy sigmfy the voluntary
resignation of it. Thus the antithesis between the two clauses
determines the meaning of the phrase, and puts it beyond aU
reasonable doubt, that our Lord intends to express a voluntary
death, which was to be undergone, in order to obtain the salva
tion appoffited for His people. This phraseology, then, from its
very nature, intimates that the Lord Jesus offered up His Ufe,
or died, ffi such a sense that another is deEvered ffi consequence
of His substitution.
This leads me to advert to the preposition here employed :
" The good Shepherd giveth His lEe/or the sheep." The phrase
ffidisputably means, for their heneflt, for their good. Nor must
it be omitted, that when the clause in wffich this expression
occurs, denotes instead of — which it frequently does — this latter
idea is to be regarded as rather ffivolved ffi the nature of the
transaction, than derived from the preposition itseE. When He
says, therefore, that He died or Iffid down His Ufe for the sheep,
the phraseology impUes, that from the nature of the case. He
suffered ffi theE room and stead.^ The statement that He laid
down His Efe for the sheep, carries with it these two important
thoughts : that He acted from spontaneous choice, or from His
own proper motion, and not at aE necessitated by any outward
constraffit ; and that this substitution secured the safety of the
sheep. Our Lord thus represents HimseE as laying down His
Ufe to save theirs from danger and destruction, wffich ffievi-
tably impended, or as dying to separate His sheep from those
that were exposed to the destroyer, and, therefore, ready to be
devoured. Prom the fact that such a surety laid down His Ufe,
it follows, by necessary consequence, that His people shall be
saved with an everlasting salvation.
Not offiy so : the whole connection of the words on which
we have been commenting, leads us to the further thought, that
* v'leip tZv ¦rpo^oLTuy. The imp implies the avi-), as we noticed before in
section xxvi.

276 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
He died to purchase them by His substitution, or to put them
under His protection, and to make them His own. They are con
sidered as not offiy rescued from danger, but as rescued to be His.
That this is the fuU thought, of which we are not to stop short,
is evident from a right interpretation of the passage as it stands.
And hence, though Christ was caUed the Shepherd in vEtue of
His designation to this office, and though they also are desig
nated the sheep in virtue of being given to Him by electioUj
yet, ffi point of fact. He becomes the Shepherd, and they the
sheep of His fold, only in vEtue of the accompEshed fact of the
atonement. The Lord acquires an actual or purchased right to
them as His sheep, offiy by His death. They are bought to be
His, only by a price (Acts xx. 28). (Compare Eom. xiv, 9,)
As a consecutive commentary on this important passage
woffid require us undffiy to extend our remarks under this
section, we shaE Umit our attention to two poffits: (1) the
statements which elucidate the nature and character of the
atonement; (2) the effects which are described in coimection
with it, as procuring for the Lord, not offiy a purchased right to
His people considered as His sheep, but also the actual exercise
of all those functions which belong to Him as the Shepherd,
The second of these two is represented as the effect, frffit, or
reward conferred on the Lord Jesus in vEtue of His work of
expiation, I shaU refer to them both in order,
1, With regard to the words here used, wffich more particu
larly elucidate the nature of the atonement as a divine provi
sion on the Father's part, and as a work accompEshed on the ,
part of the Son, He fixes our attention, ffi the first place,
on the commandment of His Father : " This commandment
have I received of my Father." This at first sight seems
to run counter to the absolute authority in His own right, to
which the previous clauses emphaticaEy lay claim ; and this I
notice first, as being first in the divffie order of action. We
have only to settle the relative position of the two clauses, to
discern aU the sides of this important truth. It was offiy be-

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT. 277
cause Christ had an ffiherent divine right to dispose of His
humaffity at discretion, that He received this commission or
command of the Father to lay down His Efe in the execution
of a paction or covenant, which takes for granted aE that in
herent right, and proceeds upon it. That is the relation of the
two propositions. The converse would involve error of the
worst description. . The supreme deity of Christ ffideed shffies
through aE these sayings. The word commandment, here used,
is not to be interpreted authority, as it was by the old Sociffians
and modern Humanitarians. It refers to that covenant or
counsel of peace, according to which the Lord Jesus, as a divine
person, was appointed to act an important part in the restora
tion of the lost famUy of man, or required to suffer death for
the redemption of the human race. A wide difference obtains,
however, between a command imposed upon a creature, and a
command imposed on Christ. In the former ease, the com
mand is absolute and bffiding, whether we wUl or not. In the
case of Christ, the commandment applies only on the supposi
tion that a work was to be done according to a divine paction,
for the salvation of the human famEy, and that He, of His
own proper motion,, undertook to finish it, for the welfare of the
Church. The phraseology impUes that God appoffited the ar
rangement, and is pleased to aUow the substitution to redound
to the account of others. This commandment He received from
the Father, or, in other words. He came into the world charged
with this momentous commission from the Father.^
Hence, aU that was to be accompEshed ffi our Lord's Efe
after the incarnation, was undertaken and carried on according
to the commandment of the Father. Whether we have regard,
therefore, to the surrender of His life, or to the resumption of
it. He acted at every step only in obeEence to the command
ment of the Father, who so loved the world, that He gave His
only-begotten Son, and required the atonement at His hands.
This naturaEy leads back our thoughts to other statements, to
1 This is the proper meaning of the lyToXn.

278 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
the effect that the Father loved Him on His own account, and
then loved Him on tffis accoimt, that He accompUshed the work
given Him to do (ver. 1 7). The present verse raises our thoughts
to the origin of the covenant or pact between the Father and
the Son for man's redemption ; and the other declaration shows
that Christ, on account of the fuUUment of the great under-
takffig, becomes, in a new sense, the object of the Father's love
and complacency ; and hereffi especiaEy does God maffifest His
love to us men, that He gave the commandment, and rewarded
the surety for performffig it.
2. The Lord here declares, in the most unconditional and un
restricted use of the terms, that no one took His Efe from Him,
and that the sacrffice was absolutely seE-moved and voluntary.
No language coffid be more unambiguous, as addressed to hostile
mffids before Him, and to aU ages, ever ready to take up some
imperfect notion as to the spontaneous sacrffice of Christ. He
declares that no power from any quarter coffid exercise any
constraint upon Him ; that He was exempt from the maUce and
power of men, except in so far as He chose to surrender Him
seE into theE hands. ImmortaUty belonged to Jesus by a
double right. He was immortal, first of aU, in virtue of a sin
less and perfect humanity, in which no taint was to be found ;
and He was immortal, stUl further, ffi virtue of the fact that
His humanity was the flesh of the Son of God.
To make this point stUl more clear and indubitable. He
subjoins the additional statement, that He had power, in His
own right, to lay down His Efe, and to take it agaffi.^ This
saying no merely human personage coffid arrogate to himseE,
In the case of a martyr, for instance, who, ffi a certaffi sense,
lays down his Efe in attestation to the truth, such an expression
woffid be improper; for he offiy discharges an fficumbent duty
which he owes to God, and has no discretion to conserve or to
' The old Protestant commentators correctly interpreted the s^oiktm as refer
ring to the power of the Son of God to let the humanity expire, and by the same
exercise of power, to resume it. This is better than the comment of the modems.

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT, 279
retain ffis Ufe — an idea which our Lord's words comprehend
and imply. The death of Christ was so absolutely voluntary,
that He had fffil power to withhold the sacrifice or to offer it.
They who do hot franldy accept Christ's true deity, are re
duced to the necessity of makffig reservations as to the proper
force of His language. They argue that the words, "to lay
down His Efe," mean " to receive death wiUingly ;" and that
" to take it agaffi," is to receive it from the Father's power.
But that is not the miport of the phraseology. The element of
spontaneity and divine authority or power over His humanity
must be discerned ffi both pffiases ; and hence there is a wide
Une of demarcation to be drawn between Christ's position and
that of a created beffig. The words mean that it was ffi Christ's
power, as a divine person, to resign His Ufe, and that it lay
witffin the resources of His omnipotence to resume it at His
discretion. AU tffis is contained in the language: "No man
taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myseE. I have power
to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This com
mandment have I received of my Father " (ver. 18). This pas
sage is meant to be an exhaustive exposition of the priestly
seE-oblation of Christ. We may affirm that all one-sided
opiffions on the proper nature of the atonement, and especiaUy
that the modern theories, are shattered, and go to pieces upon
this text ; which uses every form of expression to bring out the
fact that our Lord, on the one hand, acted of His own proper
motion, and, on the other, according to a commandment, pact,
or agreement with the Father, It may serve to exhibit the
fffil force of this language, if we consider the third proposition,
3, The Lord next speaks of His reward for His seE-oblation :
" Therefore doth my Father love Me, because I lay down my
Ufe, that I might take it again" (ver, 17), The Jewish nation,
aEeady seekffig to compass His death, were not to conclude,
when they had gained their end, that Jesus was an ffivoluntary
sufferer^ or that His pubUc execution was fatal to His Messianic
claims. They were not to think that He had been abandoned

280 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
by God, On the contrary. He here declares that, far from
incurring the position of one abandoned of God for ever. His
voluntary oblation was offiy the special ground of the Father's
love to Him, as is here expressly declared, or the procuring
cause of this great reward. The Lord means that He was
to be the special object of the divffie love, and of the highest
possible exaltation, because He was to finish this work of
atonement in His capacity as surety; or, in other words. He
was to receive this love, and aU the reward which that love
could confer, and especiaUy the glory and office of being the
chief Shepherd, only on this ground.
But before developing this thought, I must notice that our
Lord adds, that He laid " down His lEe, that He might take it
again." His death was, accordmg to the express intention of
the offerer, to be succeeded by His resumption of life, ¦ This
is not the mere resffit or consequence of His death, — the lan
guage expresses design or intention. It is best to understand
it as intimating " on the condition that I take it again," ^ It
wUl thus intimate : He who cannot overcome death by tasting
death for others — that is, he who is not of such dignity as to
atone for the sins of men by dyffig, and yet able to take life
again, cannot be, or .be caUed, the Shepherd of the sheep.
Christ ffitimates that He, from His own inherent Egffity and
resources, coffid do this, and that He laid down lEe, because He
was one who coffid exhaust the curse, and not be destroyed by
it. He alone coffid give His lEe, because He alone coffid take
it again, A mere creature could do neither. This was an
indispensable condition. It was necessary that He shoffid not
abide in death, but so lay down His Efe, that He could take it
again ; and He coffid not have been a Saviour, E He coffid not
have taken His Efe agaffi,
1 Of aU the four different expositions given of this phrase, Tih/n 'lyx, that of
Calvin, Jiac lege ut, is much to be preferred. It cannot refer to the mere issue
or result of His death apart from the intention or design, as 'Aa is the particle
employed.

CHRIST BECOMING THE SHEPHERD BY THE ATONEMENT, 281
But let US return to Christ's reward. It may at first sight
• seem strange that the beloved Son, who in His own right
dwelt from everlasting in the Father's bosom, shoffid here
describe Himself as the object of divffie love, because He laid
down His Efe, How coffid He so speak, when He was the Son
of His" love from all eternity ? But the reward of Christ, to
which this language points, is always based on the work of
atonement or humUiation to which He stooped, and is corre
spondent to it ; and the love of God, ffi the sense in which our
Lord here uses the term, is pecffiiarly displayed in advancing
Him to the office and dignity of receiving a mffititude of
redeemed sinners, and of being the chief Shepherd of the
sheep. There is the same connection between the because and
therefore in this saying that we find elsewhere expressed, when
a connection is pointed out between. Christ's work and His
reward. It is the very same- as when it is said, for instance,
by the Apostle Paul : " He became obedient unto death, the
death of the cross ; wherefore God hath highly exalted Him "
(PhU, ii, 8, 9), Some, whose opiffions lead them to regard the
cross as only a display of love, without any other element,
regard this utterance as merely ffitimating that the Father's
love to men found its fuU expression and maffifestation on the
CToss.^ But that notion is inadmissible on the ground of lan
guage which wiU not admit such an interpretation, and on
every ground, whether we have regard to phUology or doctrine.
The only meaning which the words wiU admit is, that the
Father loved tjie Son with the love of recognition and reward
for His voluntary sacrifice, and that He rewarded Him with
all that exaltation, authority, and glory wffich are compre
hended in the office of " the great Shepherd of the sheep,"
The laying down of His life was thus the reason why the
Father loved Him ffi this sense, and made Him the object of
His complacence and regard.
' Thus Stier expounds the words, but incorrectly ; for the S/« tovto oti -will not,
bear such a meaning. (See Meyer.)

282 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Thus it appears that Christ has won the sheep to be His
by right of purchase. Accordffigly, His exaltation to be Lord-
of all is unEormly put ffi connection with His death, and viewed
as the reward of His atonement (c'omp. PhE. E. 9). Not to
mention the universal dominion which He exercises over aU
flesh. He has a peculiar authority over the Church, or over
that flock for whose welfare He laid down His Efe, — being con
stituted the Lord of His people, the head of His Church, the
Shepherd of the sheep, on the ground of His vicarious death;
His dominion is based upon His sacrifice ; and aE Scripture,
as weE as this present section, is one consistent testimony to
the fact that He was exalted because He was obedient to the
Father's wiU,
Thus His death did not redound to the ffijury of the sheep,
as it would have done in the case of the eartffiy shepherd. On
the contrary, thp surrender of Efe, and the resumption of it on
Christ's part (ver, 17), were both conducive to the ffighest wel
fare of the sheep, and gave Him the legitimate right to become,
ffi the fffil sense of the term, theE Shepherd ffi poffit of
fact. There was ho cause to fear, lest, by the death of Christ,
the sheep shoffid be deprived of His protection, interest, and
care. He took His Efe again, to be their everlasting Shep
herd (ver. 18).
I may only further refer, for a moment, to the statement
made in reference to the sheep. They are described as known
by Christ, and as knowffig Him (vers. 14, l5). The correct mode
of construffig these two verses, is not to separate them by a fuU
break in the sense, but to connect them by a comma ;^ the
thought being that the mutual knowledge which obtams between
Christ and His people, has its counterpart in the mutual know
ledge between the Father and the Son. The relation between
Christ and His people is thus Eke that wffich is between the
' See the translation which we have given at the commencement of this
section. The authorized English version, making xutiis begin a new sentence,
violently severs the sentence, and loses its point.

CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT, 283
Father and Him, The thought is, that the Lord Jesus knows
His sheep, and that He is known of them with a knowledge,
which has its analogue in the mutual knowledge between the
Father and the Son, They are here represented as His, because
given to Him from of old, and because bought with a price.
Hence He adds, a second time, that He laid down His Efe as a
vicarious sacrifice, in order to gain a right to the sheep (ver,
15), But He adds furthermore: "And other sheep I have,
wffich are not of this fold : them also I must bring [lead], and
they shall hear my voice ; and there shaU be one fold [better,
one flock], and one Shepherd " (ver, 16). When the Lord states
that He had other sheep, and that they were equaUy His, He
unmistakeably refers to the vast outlyffig GentUe world. Plaiffiy,
our Lord does not refer to the danger to wffich His first disciples
were exposed, on the occasion of His arrest and trial. He means
that other sheep were given to Him of another fold, and that,
ffi consequence of His atonement. He shoffid lead or feed other
sheep, who shoffid be accounted His, whoUy Erespective of
nationaUty, and united under HimseE as the chief Shepherd,
who shoffid feed them aU with equal love. The aUusion is not
to the Jews of the dispersion, but to the gatherffig together of
aU nations to Hun ; and His death was to be the grand uffitffig
power (comp. Eph. ii. 16). It was God's design and plan to
brffig them together, and to unite them ffi one flock, every
partition waU being broken down, and thus to make, not many
flocks, but one, under one Shepherd.
SEC. XXXVII. — SAYINGS WHICH REPRESENT CHRIST'S DOMINION,
BOTH GENERAL AND PARTICULAR, AS THE REWARD OF HIS
ATONEMENT.
We shaU in tffis section consider those sayffigs which describe
Christ's unEmited dominion ffi the universe, as based on His
redemption work. So constant are the aUusions ffi the Epistles
and m the Acts of the Apostles to the uffiversal lordship of

284 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Jesus, and to the fact that the atonement is the basis on which
it rests, that we naturally expect to discover some express testi
mony of Jesus to the same effect; and we find, accordingly,
most expUcit statements from His own mouth, that the exalta
tion awaitffig Him was due to the fact that He was humbled as
the surety, and that He became obedient to the Father's wiU.
To begin with an early testimony, we hear from Him the
announcement that God gave Him authority to execute judgment,
because He was the Son of Man (John v. 27). The meanmg of
this saying, according t© the import of the title Son of Man, as
aEeady explained, is, that He shoffid be exalted to the utmost
conceivable dignity, and to the authority of pronouncing the
irreversible sentence of the judgment day, because He had be
come, by voluntary abasement, the second man, and the atoning
surety of sinners. That is the import of the title; and the
whole passage proves that, in virtue of His atonement, Jesus
was, in the first place, to be invested with supreme dominion,
and to receive the authoritative exercise of all judicial functions,
as the climax of His exaltation.
1. That the atonement is the foundation qf Christ's dommion,
considered in its particffiar bearffig, wiU appear stiU more clearly,
if we -apprehend correctly the sayffig of Jesus, where He de
lineates the merits of His atonement for the conversion of
others, by comparing Himself to a grain of wheat, which dies,
and brffigs forth frffit. " Verily, verily, I say unto you. Except a
corn of wheat fall into the ground and die, it ahideth alone : lid
if it die, it hringeth forth much fruit" (John xii 24). Here the
influence of the atonement on the cause of Christ in the world
is further described. As to the occasion, we find this saying
uttered ffi connection with the request of certain inqffiring
Greeks, who, under the force of religious impressions, wished to
see Jesus, and to be introduced to Him. TheE coming was a
prelude to the vast multitudes who were soon to attach them
selves to Hiffi, and constituted a proof or evidence to the Lord,
that the hour of His sacrffice was now come. No one can

CHRIST'S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 285
reasonably doubt whether our Lord here aUudes to His death ;
and the formula, " verUy, verUy," commonly used when utterffi^-
some weighty truth, not finffing a ready assent in the mind of His
hearers, was meant both to convince His first disciples that it was
no eartffiy dominion that He was setting up, and to show aU ages
that His death was no fortuitous event, but the great end of PIis
coming, and destined to have decisive issues for mffititudes.
The figure borrowed from nature is intended to display the
indispensable necessity of Cffiist's atoning death, if a people
were to be gathered to Him. He represents His death as the
sowmg of seed-corn, from which a harvest was certaiffiy to be
reaped ffi due time ; and He says, the gram must' die first. On
the physical fact that a graffi of wheat first dies before it fruc-
tffies, it is not necessary here to effiarge (comp, 1 Cor, xv, 36),
The well-known HaUer, who so fuUy met the exceptions taken
by the sceptical writers to this language, poffits out that the
visible parts of the graffi, from the moisture of the soU, do suffer
decomposition, and die ; and that the germ, which alone Uves,
receives a new form, as the dEect consequence of that decay.
But what does our Lord mean by the language here used, when
He represents the dyffig as beffig the antecedent to the much
frmt ? Some expositors will have it that the Lord had His eye
on the frffit, wffich His death would yield to Himself in the
glorification which was before Him. Others regard the fruit
as the remission of sffis, or as the benefits of salvation that
accrue to His people, ^ But though these are aU results of the
atonement, according to Scripture, they are, neither of them, the
truths in this passage. Our Lord plaiffiy refers to the mffitipE-
cation of beEevers, or to the bringing of many to faith. This
is by far the best commentary on the words; it harmonizes
with the figure. It is confirmed by the cEcumstances and by
the occasion, ^ The meaning wUl thus be : that E He had not
' See Tittmann on the passage,
2 See Nbsselt, Opusc. ; Usteri, Entwick Paul. Lehrheg. p. 231 ; Hengstenberg
on the passage.

286 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
died. He never coffid have gathered a people to Himself, nor
Organized a Church; that the vast mffitipEcation of subjects
who were soon to come to Him, as these Greeks were aEeady
coming by anticipation, was to be the fruit of His atonffig death.
These words, then, intimate that His death was as' indispensable
to the erection of His kingdom, as the germination of the grain,
for the harvest. In a word, without His atoning death. He
woffid have remaffied alone — a soEtary unit, a siffiess, perfect
ffidividual, — who woffid have gone to heaven alone. But there
woffid have been no mffititude to foEow Hun — no harvest.
2. Christ's particffiar dominion as to its speciaUy attractive
power, is founded on His atonffig death. Tffis comes out in the
words : " And I, if I he lifted up, will draw all men unto Me "
(John xii, 31), We may say that tffis whole section, beginning
as it does with the visit of the inqffiring Greeks, brings before
us a series of sayings descriptive of the effects of the atonement
ffi different points of view. He had just said that, by the
adjudication of a pending process, the atonement gave the
world. to another proprietor or master, the consequence of which
shoffid be the ejection of its former prince ; and here He adds,
that the atonmg sacrifice, now about to be offered, and nigh at
hand, was to lay the foundation of His own dominion, and to
constitute the ground or warrant of aU that attractive power or
subdffing grace by which He should deEver men from the ser
vice of Satan, and draw them to HimseE. The words emphati
cally prove that the cross is the basis of His sway over aU whom
He brings out of Satan's empire, and draws to HimseE, as Lord.
The phraseology employed, " and I, E I be Efted up,'' shows
plaiffiy enough, as has elsewhere been aEeady proved, that the
Lord has ffi His eye, not His glorification in heaven, but His
abasement on the cross. This is the import of the phrase, " if
I be lifted up." But, to obviate aU doubt on this head, the
evangelist subjoins his own ffispired commentary: "This He
said, signifying what death He shoffid die" (ver. 33). The
meanffig, then, intended to be conveyed by our Lord, is simply

CHRIST S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT. 287
this : that, in vEtue of His atoning death. He shoffid draw aU
nations equally to HimseE. When we examine this pregnant
passage, a certain measure of reserve is, beyond doubt, apparent
ffi the language, arisffig not so much from a wish to conceal
aught, as from the fact that the persons to whom He spoke could
not yet receive the fuU import of the commuffication. But
several points are made plain, partly by direct statement, partly
by implication. With respect to Christ's crucifixion, which is here considered
in the Ught of a special and efficacious atonement. He speaks of
it as the antecedent or cause of the erection of a kingdom, which
is plaiffiy contrasted with that domffiion which Satan possessed,
and which was to be founded on its ruffis. He unmistakeably
mtimates, too, that the foundation of aU that drawing power
by wffich He should brffig men to HimseE, in His capacity of
a King, invested with authority and dispensing divine life, is
the propitiatory death of the cross. AU this is contained in
the connection of the clauses. The antecedent and consequent
emphaticaUy ffitimate this.
But He next refers to the personal exercise of this drawing
power when He says, " / wUl draw." He thus, clearly enough,
mtimates that, though crucified. He was not to abide in death,
but was soon to live, and set up a kffigdom, drawing subjects
into it ; that is, that men were to be drawn to Him as the Kffig.
He was to draw men, and to draw them to Himself; and when
He says all men, this must be interpreted ffi the Eght of the
visit of these inquEffig Greeks, who were Gentiles, or as re
ferrmg to the totality or definite company of the elect. He
rather refers to men of every nationaUty and cffiture : " I wUl
draw all unto Me." Not that aU this was instantaneously to
foUow the crucifixion ; but, as aU were to be drawn, so the ground
or warrant was, ffi every case, furffished by the cross.
3. As to the more general domffiion of Christ, we find that,
subsequently to His resurrection. He reminded the disciples that
His sufferffigs were the pathway to His power : " Ought not Christ

288 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
to have suffered these things, and to enter into His glory ?" (Luke
xxiv, 26), This was a truth wffich they might have learned
from Isaiah (Isa, Ixu, 14, Uu, 12), and from the prophecies and'
Psalms, wffich had long before sufficiently exhibited both the
suffering and glorffied Messiah, and set forth that the abasement
only paved the way for the glory (Isa, Ui, 14-53; Ps, xxu,;
Ps, ex.). The dominion on which Jesus was to enter, was to be
nothing but the reward and frffit of that expiation for sin
wffich was offered upon the cross ; and He was crowned with
glory and honour, as the reward to which He was entitled.
Thus the kingdom of Christ has its foundation, not so much in
the truth He taught, as ffi the humiliation to which He de
scended, and in the redemption work which He finished. This
kingdom was promised to Him as the reward of this fffiished
work, for the world's redemption. On tffis foundation His kffig
dom was to be erected ; and domiffion was actuaUy imparted
to Him over His own purchased property, and also over all
things, without Umitation or exception, for the execution of His
wise and gracious designs toward aU who obey Him, After
the consummation of His work. He secured, as a reward for aU
His previous abasement and indignities, a condition of glory, in
which the human nature of Jesus participates in a way wffich
is far above our comprehension.
Questions are here raised as to the capacity in which Christ
exercises His dominion, and whether we are to regard Him in
this His regal authority as God, or as man, or as Mediator.
Some, havffig regard exclusively to the divine power of the
Lord, and to the perfections needed for the due discharge of
this domffiion, ascribe the kingdom to Him as God, Others,
discerning that man's dominion over all nature was his primeval
privUege, and that this was a dignity awaitffig the second man
on the completion of His work, are ready to refer aU this rffie
and authority to Christ as man. But, more correctly, we must
view this domiffion as His due reward as Mediator: "To this
end He both died and rose and revived, that He might be Lord

CHRIST S DOMINION THE REWARD OF THE ATONEMENT, 289
both of the dead and of the Uving" (Eom, xiv, 9), We are not,
then, to separate His human nature from His divine in any act
of His dommion. The design to be attained was the world's
salvation, and to prevent the sentence of condemnation from
swaUowffig up mankffid,
4, There are numerous sayings of Christ on the subject of
His domiffion, which deUneate a general economy of gracious
forbearance, during which men are brought to Him as indi
viduals. To exhibit the general nature of this dominion in a sinful
world in some of its aspects, we must Esten to our Lord's
deUneation of it, " The Father judgeth no man, but hath com
mitted aU judgment unto the Son" (John v, 22). His dominion,
based, as we have seen, on the atonement, aUows an economy
of forbearance which coffid not otherwise have existed. How
are we to expound, ffi a manner worthy of God, the words,
" the Father hath committed aU judgment to the Son ?" Plainly,
the Father does not recede from His inalienable function as the
supreme Lord and Judge of rational bemgs, for that woffid be
too human a mode of contemplating this transaction. Though
we must hold, as a first prfficiple, that there is no wiU ffi the
Father which is not also ffi the Son, and conversely, stUl the
kingdom of Cffiist, or the dominion of grace wffich is maffi-
tained in the earth, removes the distance between God and
man ffi such a measure that, during the course of this dispen
sation or economy, grace, remission of sins, and invitations to
repentance are constantly announced to maffidnd on the part
of God, It is a dominion wffich can have place only when
there are sinners, and wffich is sustained simply through grace,
and aims at the remission of sffis ; pointffig also to a consum
mation where the perfections of God shaU at least be mani
fested ffi a renewed humanity and in a purified earth. It was
erected only on the ground of Christ's expiatory death.
This dominion is, from its pecuEar nature, adapted offiy to
the world ffi its present state of imperfection, and as corrupted

290 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
by sin.i It woffid be no rule appropriate for heaven, where sin
never enters, nor for heE, where forgiveness is never proclauned,
and is offiy adapted to man m his present condition. Not that
Christ's merits only usher ffi a bare possibUity of salvation,
whUe the appEcation of His fiffished work depends, in whole or
in part, upon men themselves ; for where true conversion takes
place, this resffit is ascribed to Cffiist's merits and to the opera
tion of the Spirit. But the representation given of that dommion
is to the effect, that when the Lord had by Himself purged our
sffis, He sat down on the right hand of God, and sent forth the
proclamation of remission to aE nations in His name. The
expiatory death of Cffiist alone procured and established that
kingdom; and He was crowned with glory and honour, that
He might maffifest, ffi the most signal way, a gracious dominion
among men, and overthrow the domffiion of Satan. Thus God
restores many a forfeited privEege, and even prolongs the
existence of the race, which, but for the atonement, woffid have
been forfeited, according to God's just sentence.
The statement has often been made, and stUl is, by
rationalistic writers, that Cffiist's kffigly sway is nothffig more
than the ffifluence of truth upon the mffids of men ; by means
of which a new kingdom of truth and virtue is foimded ffi the
earth, the members of which are those who embrace the truth,
with loyal subjection to its claims. They thus make Him
notffing but a king of truth, or a teacher of truth. Nor is that
opffiion warranted by the passage on which it is professedly
based (John xviii. 37), for the Lord does not say that He is
caUed a king only as bearffig witness to the truth, and that,
besides this. He has no other proper dommion. The Lord, in
answer to PUate's question whether He was a kffig, roundly
affirms, notwithstanEng PEate's obvious wish to hear Him dis
claim such pretensions : " I am a king ;" and the subsequent
statement just grounds His unambiguous and bold confession,
as if He woffid say, " I wUl not dissemble ; for this end was
1 See Royaards' De waare aart van Jesus Koningryh, Utrecht, 1799.

THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST, 291
I born, and came into the world, that I shoffid bear witness unto
the truth," -^ The passage says nothffig, then, about His havffig
no other domffiion but a subjective dominion of truth. Nor is
that thought in the passage. That ffiterpretation gives Christ
no other domffiion than such as apostles and teachers woffid
have in common with Him. But to Christ alone is a kffigdom
ascribed ; and no one shares it, or can share it, with Him, except
as He graciously exalts them to sit with Him on His throne.
Thus the dominion of Christ, whether we view it ffi one
aspect or ffi another, is founded on the atonement of the cross.
SEC. XXXVm, — THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT IN PROCURING
THE GIFT OF THE HOLY GHOST.
There are several sayffigs of Jesus which poffit out the close
connection between the gift of the personal Holy Ghost and the
atonement of Cffiist. These I purpose briefly to elucidate in
the present section. We find the Lord affirmffig, in a variety of
passages, that it was He who, by His vicarious sacrifice, obtained
for His Church tffis great gEt. And, ffi Escussing this poffit, it
wffi be necessary to carry with us the canon of interpretation,
wffich has already been frequently appEed,— ^that whatever is
graciously conferred on man through Jesus Christ, was wanting
in our natural condition. The SpEit, whose absence is thus
taken for granted just as ffi the other blessffigs, forfeited by sin,
and no more within the compass of our own resources, is repre
sented as restored or graciously provided by the Mediator be
tween God and man. Our Lord's language, correctly interpreted,
announces that the presence and operations of the SpEit were
procured by His atonffig sacrffice for a faEen world ; and further
more, that He is sent by Christ, and leads men to Cffiist, Not
that the SpEit was whoEy unknown in the ages which preceded
^The phrase, "to bear -witness to the,truth," occurs elsewhere, meaning,
to declare the truth (comp. John v, 33) ; and this very passage is adduced by
Paul in proof of the fact that Christ witnessed a good confession (1 Tim. -vi.).
It certainly does not mean that Christ is a king of truth, and in no other sense.

292 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
the fficarnation and the redemption of the cross; for we see
that He not only acted as the Spirit of ffispiration ffi the case
of spEit-fflled men, such as Moses, the Judges, David, and the
prophets generaEy, but came upon many, as an ammating power,
for the work of conflict or endurance to wffich they were caUed,
But that preparatory work of the Spirit, as weU as the personal
enjoyment of forgiveness, was owmg to the atonement, which
had a retrospective as weU as a prospective efficacy, and thus
had an, ffifluence on all times. That supply of the SpEit en
joyed by the Old Testament saints was dependent on the
atonement or meritorious work of righteousness, which was,
in due season, to be brought in by the Lord Jesus, And the
reason why the SpEit was not more largely given in the pre
vious ages, was because this gift stood in causal coimection with
the atonement, and because the Unk between the two must
unmistakeably be established, and appear in deed as weU as, in
word. The actual effusion of. the Spirit, in the fuffiess which
distinguishes the Christian from the Jewish Church, was reserved
for the day when Christ sat down on His meEatorial throne,
fiUed with a plenitude of the SpEit, given to Him as the reward
of His atoffing sacrffice.
To understand aright our Lord's sayings on tffis poffit, it is
obvious that we must regard Him as the second Adam, His
work, as is everywhere assumed by Himself, and declared by
His apostles, was the counterpart of Adam's disobedience ; and
as the resffit of the faU appeared, among other things, especiaUy
in tffis, that the Spirit was, in the necessary exercise of divme
justice, withdrawn from the human heart, which was thus left
not only without its great inhabitant, but a prey to all those
influences of a natural and visible kind which, ffi the absence
of the Spirit, inevitably draw the affections away from God,—
so the atoning work of Christ, not less ffifluential for good than
was Adam's act for evE, brought back the Spirit ffi His fffiness
to aU for whom Christ was accepted as a representative, with
this further or additional security, that He was to be forfeited

THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 293
and withdrawn no more. It is in the highest degree important
to regard the redemption work of Christ as the ground or
meritorious cause, ffi Anrtue of which the SpEit was restored to
man. The sayffigs of Jesus on this poffit are expUcit enough,
and leave no doubt that there is a special connection between
His atoning work and the gEt of the Holy Ghost — such a Enk,
ffi fact, as is estabEshed between merit and reward. The con
nection ffi which the effusion of the SpEit stands with the
atonement of Christ on earth, and with His ffitercession in
heaven, as founded on it, demands a special study ; and when
this is lost sight of, everytffing is presented in a false light.
Though the Spirit, as a divine person, comes ffi the exercise of
free and condescendffig love. He yet comes as the representative
of Christ and the Spirit of the risen Surety, accordffig to the
tenor of Cffiist's prevaUing ffitercession, and on the ground of
the atonement. This intercession is never ffieffectual, because
it is founded on the work which was finished on the cross ; and it
consists in presenting before the Father that crucffied humanity,
in which He accomplished man's redemption. The mission of
the SpEit is thus the frffit of Christ's atonement, and one of
the greatest fruits of His mediation ffi behaE of a faUen world.
We shaU now notice more particffiarly a few of Christ's
sayings, which serve to bring out this causal connection between
the atonement and the donation of the Holy Spirit.
1. The first sayffig of Jesus on tffis subject was the promise
uttered at the feast of Tabernacles, when He invited every one
who had the sense of thEst, to come to Him and drink : " He
that beEeveth on me, as the Scripture hath said, out of ffis beEy
shaU flow rivers of Evffig water. (But tffis spake He of the
Spirit, which they that believe on Him shoffid receive ; for the
Holy Ghost was not yet given ; because that Jesus was not yet
glorified.)" (John vu. 38, 39.) The special application of this
text to Christ's glorification, which is immediately appended by
the ffispEed evangelist, is the point which here demands our
attention. But it wUl be necessary to ascertain, first of aU,

294 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
what our Lord signified by these words, and the rather because
they are so uniformly misapprehended. The rivers of Evffig
water, described as flowing from the Christian, are commoffiy
understood to mean the communications of the Spirit which one
Christian is made the channel of dispensing to another. To that
interpretation, however, there are great objections : (1) It intro
duces an idea foreign to that which our Lord had expressed, which
was the quenching of thirst ; (2) it represents one Christian as
ffi some sense a fountain of the Spirit to others, which is not a
biblical mode of representation. A better comment, and serving
to maintain the unity of the figure, is to view the saying as of
the same nature with the proiffise of Christ as to thEstffig no
more, for there shoffid be the weU of water within, ^ sprffigmg
up to everlasting life (John iv, 14), It is thus a promise of
fuU satisfaction and abundant refreshment to the thEsty them
selves. This is the best comment on the words,
John next adds that the Lord spoke of the SpEit, who was
not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorffied (ver, 39),
The language literaEy is, " for the Holy Ghost was not yet," ^
This of course does not mean that there was no personal Holy
Ghost before Christ's ascension, but that He was not yet dis
pensed, as He was afterwards given, to the Church, The com
mentary of John, setting forth the two points, that aU who
beEeve shoffid receive the SpEit, and that the Spirit was not
yet given, demand some elucidation. The metaphor may refer
to the Old Testament prophecies and to the passages ffi Isaiah,
Ezekiel, Joel, and Zechariah, where the gift of the SpEit is
frequently expressed under the figure of pouring water on him
^ The only exegete known to me who gives this interpretation, is Baumgarten-
Crusius, who says, p. 308, " Das heisst sein Gemiith wird ans der .Tiefe heraus
unendlichfort Erq^uickung, Befriedigung haben," Though Meyer condemns it,
it is far the preferable comment, and gives consistency to the whole,
2 oiVia yoip h UyiH/ix Uyioy. Tholuck says this is the «sii!fi.x Xp. as contrasted
with the mu/ia ioaXiias. Liicke says that the difference between the Old and
New Testament lay in the smaller and larger measure of the Spirit, Olshausen
appeals to the relation of the different persons of the Trinity, These do not
exhaust the meaning.

THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST. 295
that is thirsty, and floods on the dry ground. Commentators
largely refer these words to the diversity between the two
economies ffi regard to the measure of the Spirit, and to the
amoimt of spEitual Eberty or assurance conferred. But that
by no means exhausts our Lord's words, even though that
antithesis were maffitained by the ffiterpreter as the true
point of the saying. The language sets forth that the Spirit's
presence and operations coffid offiy be consequent '- on Cffiist's
vicarious satisfaction, and His exaltation to the meEatorial
: tffi'one.- The word glorifled is intended to denote the way and
the end, the atonement and the exaltation, but not the latter
Erespective of the former. He in fact ffitimates that the dona
tion of the SpEit is a fruit of the everlasting righteousness
brought in, or of the vicarious sacrifice offered, of which this
glorification was but the reward and proof. However men may
interpret the word glorifled in this passage, they must compre
hend way and end, antecedent and consequent, merit and reward,
cause and effect. The best Greek " interpreters lay the emphasis
on the cross, and many modern interpreters expound it of Christ
entering on His glory by means of that vicarious suffering on
wffich the effusion of the SpEit was to foEow as a frffit.
2. Another important sayffig of Christ on this point is : " It
is expedient for you that I go away : for if I go not away, the
Comforter wUl not come unto you ; but if I depart, I wUl send
Him unto you" (John xvi. 7). Various reasons have been
assigned by ffiterpreters why it was expedient that Cffiist shoffid
go away, and why the Spirit could not come uffiess the Lord
departed. These reasons have been expressed sometimes in one
tendency, sometimes in another, and sometimes on grounds that
' See the quotation from Gerhard at the end of this section.
^ Thus Chrysostom says, ii^ooy xxXay to» rTxvpiy. So Euthymius, following
Chrysostom, Theophylact's beautiful comment to the same effect might be
quoted in full, but it is too long. He says, ou^ai otv tov g-Tuupov ^aysvTos ovTi
Tvis afACopTlBOs xaTapytjhi/rfls lixoTus ovx \%'o6yi 9i ^a^tXvts Tou UvtifjcaTos X^?'^' ^^ ^^
same purport are Hengstenberg's words on this passage : "in der Thatsache der
geschehenen Versbhnung wurzelt die Potenzirung des Geistes, " The latter quotes,
as a proof, Jer, xxxi, 31.

296 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
have Ettle, if anything, to support them. Thus, some have
aEeged, as the reason why it was expedient that He shoffid go
away, that a belief in His divffiity coffid not consist with His
visible presence. Others have explaffied the reason of His
departure, from the consideration that the disciples, while they
clung so much to Christ's corporeal presence, were not in a state
of mffid which was fffily capable of receiving the Spirit, These
grounds are merely of a subjective character, and quite faffity.
Another explanation, wffich is also subjective, alleges that the
ConEorter coffid not, ffi point of fact, act the part of a comforter,
if there were no deep necessity for consolation, such as was
suppEed by Christ's departure. It would be tedious to enume
rate and to discuss aE the various opffiions which have been
given ; and I shaE content myseE with stating what seems to
be the obvious meaning of the words.
When Christ speaks, in this passage, " of going away," the
language plaiffiy means His return to heaven, but comprehends
a further reference to the expiation of sffi, or to that pathway
of atonement and obedience by which He was to go. In a word,
the Spirit coffid not come without the vicarious sacrffice of the
cross ; and Christ's departing to the ' Father by such a way —
that is, ffi the accompEshment of a com'se of obedience — ^was
ffidispensably necessary, if the Spirit was to come. It is just
another mode of stating that He had merited the donation or
supply of the Spirit by His sufferffigs;^ He ffitimates that
the gift of the Spirit, who come,s as a personal inhabitant to
the human heart, and who brings, when He so comes, the com
munications of Efe, Eght, and divine suppUes, can be received
' The Greek exegetes, Chrysostom and Theophylact, already quoted on the
former saying of Christ, are most explicit to the same effect here. Luther adopts
their comment ; and Gerhard, Harmon. Evangel, iii, p, 324, after quoting, with
approval, the Greek comments, says: "Quse proebet utUem doctrinam, quod
donatio Spiritus Sancti sit salutaris fructus passionis et mortis Christi ao con-
gruit phrasi, qua Christus utitur, quia per abitum suum ad Patrem non tantum
inteUigit ascensionem in coelos, qua venit ad Patrem, imo ad dextram Patris
consedit, sed etiam viam mediam, per quam eo venit, nempe iter passionis et
mortis, "

THE ATONEMENT PROCURING THE HOLY GHOST, 297
and possessed offiy when the gffilt of sin has been canceEed,
and the entire curse under which men were held has been fffily
and righteously reversed. Thus Christ's return to the Father
includes the way as weE as the end ; or, in other words, desig
nates His departure by means of the atonement, or expiation of
sffi, which is thus represented as the only channel by which the
suppEes of the Spirit coffid be communicated ffi every variety
and form.
It must be further noticed, that the Lord ffi this passage
gives the necessary proiffinence to the Spirit's operations, without
removffig the Church's eye from Himself as the crucified One,
and as the Lord our righteousness. What was to accrue to men
from this mission of the Spirit, is expressly taught in the words
immediately subjoined; intimating that when He is come. He
shaU convffice the world of sin, of righteousness, and judgment.
By the first He understands the sin of unbelief, as He explains
it (ver. 9), By righteousness, He intimates, not the justice of
His cause, but, as we already proved, the righteousness which
He wrought out, ffi His atoning death, for His people (ver, 10),
"Rj judgment. He understands that the adversary has lost his
cause in the great judicial process, and therefore all the lawfffi
claim to the property which he formerly possessed, AU this is
won through the expiation of sin effected by Christ (ver, 1 1),
To understand the evangeEst's references, we must remark,
that whenever John adduces our Lord's words as aEuding to
His departure, or to His return to the Father (John xvi, 28),
there' is uniformly comprehended ffi His words such a going or
return as is consequent on the accompUshment of the finished
work of redemption. Now, as it was offiy at the glorffication
of Christ, that is, at the time when God and men were reunited
by the completed work of atonement, or by the payment of the
ransom, that the Holy Ghost could be legitimately given to
man, and come forth on ffis mission among men, ffi the sense
described in the New Testament, — so the actual sending of the
SpEit, as our Lord further shows, is only to be by means of

298 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
a Mediator who has passed through death, and made an end
of sin, and sat down on the throne of glory.
3. Another saying may be adduced, pointing out the relation
ffi which the gift of the SpEit stands to the death and ffiter
cession of Christ : " I wiE pray the Father, and He shaE give
you another Comforter" (John xiv, 16). When the true High
Priest entered heaven, and appeared in the presence of God for
us, on the ground of His finished work on earth, one part of
that ever-active intercession, as He here declares, was to ask
the Spirit for His people, that is, to ask what God had promised
to bestow, according to the merit of His death. This, indeed,
was to be no smaE part of His reward, that He shoffid acquire
a right to ask the Spirit, and to send Him, in consequence of
the ransom which He paid for many.
Such is the connection between the gift of the SpEit and
the mediation of Christ, They must be apprehended together ;
and the isolation of the Spirit's work from 'the cross and
crown of the Eedeemer is always of doubtful tendency, and
calcffiated to divest the theology, to which it gives a tone, of
its evangeEcal liberty. It speedUy engenders a legal element ;
and hence, according to this view of the connection between
Christ and the Spirit, it is necessary to fix a steady gaze on
Christ's cross, as the Lord our righteousness. The Uvmg
personal Saviour, the true foundation of Ufe to humaffity, gives
the Spirit, thus won or procured by His death.
As our object, in this section, is only to point out that the
gift of the SpEit has a very close relation to the great fact of
the atonement, it is not necessary to refer speciaUy to the
SpEit's work as carried on in the heart. Let it suffice to say
that He is caUed the Spirit of Life (Rom, vm, 2), by whom
sinners, alienated from the Efe of God, are quickened and
renewed ; the Spirit of Faith (2 Cor. iv. 1 3), because the author
and cause of faith ; the SpEit of Adoption, by whose aid the
timid come boldly to God (GaL iv, 6) ; the Leader, by whom the
Christian is led (Eom, viu, 14) ; the Helper of their infirmities

THE ATONEMENT REUNITING MEN .AND ANGELS. 299
(Eom, viu, 26) ; the Sealer, who seals them as the ffiviolable
property of Christ, to the day of redemption (Eph, iv, 30) ; the
earnest of the inheritance (Eph. i 14) ; the origffiator of aU
spEitual fruit, caUed fruits of the SpEit (GaL v. 22) ; and who
abides ffi them for ever (John xiv, 16), ^
SEC, xxxrx. — Christ's abasement as the second man opening
HEAVEN, AND RESTORING THE COMMUNION BETWEEN MEN AND
ANQELS,
" Verily, verily, I say unto you. Hereafter ye shall see heaven
open [better, opened], and the angels of God ascending and
descending upon the Son of Man!' (John i, 51.)
This saying of Jesus poffits out the intercourse between
angels and men, and the foundation on which it rests. It may
be caUed the key to aU those numerous aUusions which are
found ffi the Acts, and in the apostoUc Epistles, to the minis
tration of angels (Acts xii, 7; Heb. i 14), stnd to their being
gathered together into one, and recapitffiated, along with re
deemed men, under one head (Eph, i, 10 ; Col, i, 20),
As to the occasion of this saying, it was spoken to Na-
thanael at the time when he was ffist brought into Cffiist's
presence, and when he gave expression to his sense of Christ's
ffignity and office, in the words, " Eabbi, Thou art the Son of
God, Thou art the Kffig of Israel," The Lord, havffig just given
a convfficing proof of His more than human knowledge, by
referrffig to exercises — ^probably reUgious inqffiries — under the
fig-tree, said that he shoffid see greater things than these, which
had just caUed forth ffis adoration and religious homage ; and
' There are two phrases used in reference to the Spirit i vap' i/uy /iiyu, and £»
ifuv 'iiTTxi. The phrase, £» i/iTy 'irTxi (John xiv, 17), occurs only once in Christ's
sayings, but it significantly represents Him, not as an objectively operating
power, but as a subjectively present power, given by God, indeed, but for ever
dwelling in the Christian, The other phrase, voop' i/cTy //.iyu, seems to refer more
to the Spirit as in Himself, who was stUl with them.

300 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
then, according to His manner, when referrffig to HimseE, He
immediately begins to speak from the view-point of His fficarna
tion and humUiation, as the great display of His grace, caUuig
Himself " the Son of Man," The explanation aEeady given of
this title, in a previous section, contaffis sufficient evidence that
it unEormly aEudes to Christ's abasement as the second Adam,
or to some of the frffits or consequences arising from that
obedience unto death, to which it always refers.
The centre of the whole announcement is this title of
Christ, " The Son of Man," ^ And the promise here expressed,
in connection with it, shows that there is a causal or meritori
ous Enk between the blessffig and the humUiation of the second
man, as the surety of sirmers. The title placed in immediate
connection with the promise, impUes aE this. Not offiy so : the
fact that this is the precise title, appropriate to the occasion
and utterance, is of itseE sufficient to convince us that the
promise, whatever may be its special import, refers to an
angeEc mffiistry, or an angeEc feEowsffip with men, and that,
though it may seem to be dEected in the first instance to the
Lord Himself, it is more to be referred to the disciples, for
whom He acted, in this capacity, as the Son of Man.^
That the words refer to Jacob's vision in some sense, is
admitted by almost every expositor of any note. On the
question whether the ladder indicated Christ, there was Uttle
difference of opinion among the older divines, such as Calvin
and others, who affirmed it. There is most to be said in favour
of the view, that our Lord referred to Jacob's ladder as the
figure of HimseE, and, therefore, that the Son of Man is the
uniting Enk of heaven and earth. The vision, ffi its appUca
tion by Jesus to HimseE, impEes that, as the true Mediator
' The mistakes in the interpretation of this dif&cult text come from not ap
prehending the phrase, S u'los «!/ xyipdimu. Calovius' and Gomar's erudite discus
sion on the passage fail, on this account ; and so, too, Marckius, Exerc, xxv. 1.
N, T,
2 Meyer incorrectly makes it, " symbolische Darstellung des permanenten
lebendigen Wechselverkers z-wischen dem Messias und Gott."

THE ATONEMENT REUNITING MEN AND ANGELS, 301
between God and man, He opens a way, and keeps it open,
between heaven and earth, by His humUiation unto death.
That tffis is the import of the words, is generaUy maintained
by the best interpreters. But the emphasis which the passage
gives to the atoning work of Christ as the foundation of aU
those blessings deUneated in the promise, has not been suffi
ciently adverted to, from the fact that commentators have so
much faUed to exffibit the proper import of the title, " The Son
of Man," Another widespread opinion came to be entertaffied; and
the inqffiry was propounded. Might not our Lord mean to
represent HimseE, not as the reaUty and truth of what was
figured forth in the ladder uffiting earth and heaven, but rather
as the Lord who stood above it ?i They who adopt this latter
mode of viewffig it, wiU have it, that Christ describes Himself
as the Lord, not only of men, but of angels. They suppose
that this is intimated by the ascending and descending to the
Son of Man; for so they translate the preposition upon (iTf)."
The idea, accordffig to this interpretation, is, that as Jehovah,
in Jacob's dream, was seen at the top of the ladder directffig
the angels to do His pleasure and to execute His wEl, tffis is
Jesus the Son of Man sendffig forth the angels, whose Lord He
is (Heb, i, 6), They suppose our Lord to say that He sends
the angelic inteUigences to execute His commands in aU the
realms of nature, and ffi every variety of errand connected with
His kffigdom, and that tffis is a greater thing than that which

' So the celebrated French preacher, Du Bosc, explained it. See Witsius,
Meletem Leidensia de Aperte Coslo, p, 213 ; and also Muntinghe, Geschdd. der
Menschheid, ix. Aan 41,
2 The preposition iu-J here denotes, not to, but upon, and refers equaUy to
the ascending and the descending. As Liicke well observes, the ascending and
descending of the angels is to be comprised in the one idea of uninterrupted
intercourse, — the ascending standing first both in Genesis and here ; and we
may say with Tholuck, that it means, they return to heaven to receive new
commissions. We cannot refer the words to the angelophanies in Gethsemane
and at the Lord's resurrection, as' Witsius, Grotius, and Chrysostem interpret
the words.

302 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Nathanael had yet seen. Hence, the words are referred hy
many to the future of the Messianic kingdom, or to the Mil
lennial period, or to the gathering in the elect at last from the
four corners of the globe, or to the carrying of departed spirits
home.^ And the more this class of expositors identEy the Son
of Man with the Lord, who stood above the ladder in Jacob's
vision, the more are they persuaded that it is descriptive of
Jesus commissionffig or sendffig forth the angels, of whom He
is the Lord. But this comment proceeds upon the supposition
that " The Son of Man" is a- title of digffity, whereas we have
fffily proved that it is a title of humiliation and service.
The starting-point ffi this ffiqffiry is. What is the significance
of the title. Son of Man, which is not used as a mere expletive,
but as intimatffig the foundation or ground on which the
angeEc agency here mentioned rests ? As this has been dis
cussed and estabEshed in a separate section, it is only necessary
to refer to the conclusion at wffich we arrived. The work of
the sffi-bearing second Adam is the poffit or import of the
title ; and one of the effects which, that atonement ushers in,
as here stated, is the restoration of the long-forfeited intercourse
between men and angels, who are brought together as two
branches of one famUy in Christ, or gathered together under
one Head — the reconcUer of aU things in earth and heaven
(Col, i, 20), If the partition wall between Jews and GentUes
is removed by the cross, and the enmity slaffi thereby, the
same thing holds true ffi reference to angels and men; and
all that the promise here mentioned contams, stands in causal
connection with the abasement of the second man. Moreover,
the expression. Henceforth, is an incontrovertible proof that,
' There is no good ground for cancelling isr' xpTi, -with Lachmanm ; but it
must be understood as qualified by the phrase, " Son of Man," Aright under
stood, then, it gives no warrant for the argument of Witsius and others, that the
reference is to what immediately took place. It refers rather to what follows,
or is consequent upon the work of the Son of Man.
We cannot refer this language to the miracles of Jesus in which He used
angels (so Piscator), or make it a vague generality to denote miraculous mani-
festation (so Lightfoot, Michaelis), or make it mean God's help and providence,-

THE ATONEMENT REUNITING MEN AND ANGELS. 303
however far the provisions of this promise extend, and however
long, they aE took their origm from His surety work and His
obedience unto death.
1. The first part of the promise shows that heaven, once
shut, is now opened. It sets forth, according to the canon fre
quently appUed by us, that the opposite obtained before, and
that through the humffiation of Christ there is now an open
intercourse with heaven, together with the free supplies and rich
commuffications of divine grace. The heavens were opened at
the baptism of Jesus (Matt, ix, 16); and again, on the Mount
of Transfiguration (Matt, xvn, 3-5), announcing what was soon
to be effected by the completion of His atoning work, to which
aU these scenes poffited; a third time, when the voice came
from God to the sufferffig Jesus (John xu, 27); and agaffi, at
Stephen's martyrdom (Acts vii. 5, 6).
2. The second part of the promise announces a restored
communion between angels and men, who had long been
widely estranged by sin. They were, previous to the death of
Christ, separated from aE feEowsffip with our race ; and though
we read of many Old Testament angelophanies, it is not the
less true, that any mffiistry on wffich they came, before the
incarnation, was based on that atonement wffich was to be
accomplished on the cross. But now, says Christ, Henceforth
peace shaU be restored between angels and men, the partition
waU being broken down. They are now both reduced, or, as it
has been rendered, recapitffiated under one Head (Eph, i, 10),
and are offiy separate departments of one famUy and house-
which Christ was to experience (Moms), Much more happUy, Chemnitz,
Harmon. Evangel., p, 239, says: " Docet igitur Christus officium suum esse
ctelum aperire, et ccelestia rursus conjungere cum genere humano, quod per pec
catum et a Deo et a Sanctis angehs avulsum fuerat, ut simus cives sanctorum,
et angeli jam descendant super humanam naturam assumptam a Filio Dei,
et propter caput etiam jam emittantur, scilicet ad ministerium electorum
(Heb, i. 14) : emissio enim ad ministerium per descensum et ascensum descri-
bitur. Nam angeli emissi descendunt et rursus sistunt se Deo aseendendo,
injuncti ministerii rationem reddituri (Job i. 6 ; Zach, i. 11)," The only thing
awanting here, is the connection between this ministry and the title "Son, of
Man, " correctly understood.

304 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
hold. Thus, aU that angeUc mffiistry, wffich we find so often
mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles, and doctrinaUy set forth
in the Epistles (Heb, i, 14; Col. i, 20), depends on the atone
ment of the cross, or on the fact that the Son of God has
become the Son of Man, as tffis testimony fuUy proves.
As to the ministration of angels, it is spoken of as a fact,
and in such a way as ffitimates that the Lord sends them forth
on various errands during aU the Christian's pEgrimage, The
two special works recorded as belonging to their mffiistry, are
the conveyffig of the soffis of the departed to then place of
bliss, and the final gathering or coUecting of the elect on the
resurrection day. But these presuppose, as goffig on at pre
sent, ministrations of every varied description, such as the
Scripture records in mffititudes of mstances; and Christ's
people are warranted to beUeve that angels encamp around the
Church and her individual members; and the foundation of
the whole is the cross, which makes both the famUies one under
one Head,

SEC, XL, — SAYINGS OF JESUS WHICH REPRESENT THE ATONEMENT
AS GLORIFYING GOD,
Various ffitimations are conveyed in our Lord's sayings, to
the effect that His redemption work glorffied God ; and these
demand an accurate examination. To understand them aright,
it wiE be necessary to go back a step, and to read them off from
a similar and opposite state of things. We must start from the
fact that sin had dishonoured the divffie majesty, and robbed
Him of the declarative glory due to Him, accordffig to the rela
tions in which a personal God stands to the world.
It is the more necessary to place this poffit in a proper Ught,
because it is precisely the element which is too readily dropped
or displaced from the promffience that properly belongs to it.
I shaU not adduce all the sayings that might be coUected to
gether on this poffit, but content myseE with a few of the most

THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 305
emphatic. Nor shaE I inqffire whether the glorification to
which our Lord's language points, refers more to His conscious
design and purpose, or to the effect which His atonffig death
subserved, and to which it tends ; for, ffi truth, these two, how
ever capable of beffig distinguished in idea, were never dissoci
ated ffi His mffid, nor disjoffied ffi His actual walk. In handEng
those testimonies which represent God as glorffied by means of
Cffiist's atonem£nt, it seems to me that there are two different
aspects ffi which tffis matter is presented, — one rather exhibiting
Christ's act as the representative of the creature, and a second
rather exffibitffig the Father's act. They are not to be con
founded, though they must necessarUy be united, E we woffid
see the whole matter in a bibUcal Ught, and as reflected from
Christ's own consciousness.
1. First of aU, I shaU notice a remarkable sayffig belonging
to the first class just named, found in the Lord's ffitercessory
prayer : " I have glorifled Thee on the earth ; I have flnished the
work Thou gavest Me to do" (John xvii. 4). The meanffig of these
two clauses, when put together, is, that the one is the means
or pathway to the other, — ^that the glorEying of God on the earth
was attained by the work that was given Him to do, and that
was fiffished. That, beyond doubt, is the relation in which the
one clause stands to the other, as an examination of the passage
wUl suffice to prove. There is in these first verses an aEusion
to a twofold activity of Cffiist, and to a double glorffication of
the Father. Thus the Lord declares that He had glorffied the
Father (ver. 4), and also intimates that His ascension was to be
made the means by which He, the Son, should glorEy the
Father (ver. 1) ; which can only refer to the revenue of glory
wffich shoffid redound to God by means of the Gospel, by the
existence of a Church, and by the final perfection of the saffits :
for a tribute of glory redounds to God from aE those resffits
wffich subsequently stand connected with the ascension or the
glorifying of the Son (ver, 1), But ffi tffis passage which we
have quoted, Cffiist speaks of glorEying the Father by means

306 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
of a work finished on the earth ; and it is the fiffishing of that
work which glorffied the Father,
The interpretation of tffis language is by no means difficffit.
From these words some have concluded that aE that Christ had
to do according to the divffie plan, consisted in His instructions
as a teacher, or, as it is put ffi the context, in the maffifestation
of God's name, and that when that was done, His work was
finished. But we cannot Umit the words to His work as a
teacher, especiaEy when we find that the Lord grounds His re
quest to be glorified with the Father (ver. 5) on His work done,
which can only be His priestly seE-oblation; for only when
that work was done, coffid He expect with confidence His due
reward. He must suffer and be obedient unto death (PhU. u.
8) ; He must voluntarUy lay down His Efe accordffig to the
commandment received from His Father (John x. 18) ; and then
be exalted to the place of supreme domiffion, and to have power
over aU flesh, to give eternal Ufe to as many as the Father has
given Him. This was His crown of glory and high reward.
In this sense we must understand the words, which just affirm
that He fiffished the work, and now enjoys the reward. He
first makes mention of a work to do, and then announces that
it was finished, or as good as fiffished, because it was aEeady ac
complished ffi His purpose. It is not difficffit to perceive what
that work is to which our Lord here refers. The description
of it, in the first place, as a work assigned to Him, and then the
reward of glorification for wffich He prays in connection with
it (ver. 5), suffice to show that the aUusion is to the atonement
or vicarious work of the Mediator, so far as it must be fiffished
on the earth. He alludes to the work given Him to do' as the
surety of others, and wffich was weU-nigh fiffished. The word
here used sometimes means to bring to an end, and at other
times denotes the measure and degree of perfection to wffich a
tffing is brought. And our Lord could testEy of His work,
with the greatest emphasis, that it was perfected ; not only that
it was brought to an end— for He was already mentaUy offered,

THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 307
— ^but that He perfectly and completely performed it in aU its
parts, so that it was every way complete and without defect.^
In other words, there was nothing lackffig, nothing left undone
in His mediatorial undertaking. And if it is asked, how could
He say that His priestly work was done, and perfect in its
measure as weE as in aE its parts, when the most arduous part
of His task lay before Him ? the answer is at hand : He was
come to the last day of it — the morrow woffid see it done ; and
hence He speaks of it as already accompEshed and wound up.
The poffit for wffich we have adduced the passage, however,
is to show that the finished or perfected obedience of Jesus,
both ffi action and in sufferffig, redounded to the glory of God,
and tffis ffi design, as weE as ffi tendency and effect. The
matter of His obedience, flowffig as it did from a Evely sense of
God's greatness and perfections, was to tlie glory of God. There
was ffi the active obedience such a glorEying of God as could
not be found ffi any creature, and which was amply proportioned
in point of merit, to procure for men eternal life.
This view proceeds on a just conception of the divine claims,
and presupposes deep views of sin on the one hand, and of
the divine adaptation of the atonement as a remedy for sin
on the other. It is a mode of surveying the atonement, which
is not only of the utmost importance ffi itself, but so compre
hensive ffi its range, that it takes m aU the more definite state
ments which may be made on the subject of the divine law.
It involves the necessity of the magnifying of the divffie law to
make it honourable. We cannot admit, then, when we trace
these aUusions of our Lord HimseE to the restoration of the
divffie honour, that the theology which grounds itseE on this
notion is worthy of being caUed, as it has been caUed, an out
ward stand-poffit of abstract reflection. Nor wiU it do to say,
with such a testimony before us, that the referrffig of the work
1 TO ipyoy iTiXiluirx ; and the aorist is used, as the Lord views it as already
done, or, as Alford well puts it, "looks back on it all as past." (See Gerhard's
' Harmon.. Evangel., and Charnock, ii. p. 184.)

308 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
of Christ to the divine law, accordffig to the representation.
current in the evangeEcal Church, is not only much more con
formable to the type of Scripture doctrine, but much more prac
tical, Eving, and experimental than this reference to the divine
honour ; i for ffi poffit of fact they do not exclude each other.
The one is from the view-point of Christian experience; the
other is from that of the divine throne. The view of the atone
ment, which surveys it in connection with God's declarative
glory, is not offiy bibEcal in its import, but necessary ffi an
experimental point of view.
First, as to the biblical warrant for the position, that the
divffie honour has been taken away, and must needs be restored
as an indispensable condition of forgiveness, the Apostle Paul
plainly exhibits it in the broad outline which he gives of re
demption in the section of the Epistle to the Eomans, where
he brings together two things : the fact that men come short of
the glory of God, and the consequent necessity of an expiation
for sffi (Eom. iii 23). The sense of that passage, when taken ffi
connection with the context, involves fficontrovertibly the idea
of rendering to God His honour, or the tribute of declarative
glory due to the Creator from His inteUigent uffiverse. What
is the glory of God there spoken of, and of which aU men
come short ? Of the different modes of exposition which have
been given, the comment wffich refers the phrase to the divine
image once possessed, but lost by sin, approaches nearest to the
apostolic thought.^ It involves the idea of rendering glory to
God, or of giving Him His honour, by a pure nature, and a God-
' Thus Philippi expressed himself against Anselm's principal position in his
cur Deus homo. (See Hengstenberg's Kirchenzeitung for 1844.)
^ The four interpretations of So|« proposed by diflferent commentators, are
these : ' (1) that it refers to the future glory (so the Greek exegetes, Beza, Ben-
gel) ; (2) glorjdng before God (Luther) ; (3) honour, as at John xii. 43 (so Stuart) ;
(4) the created image of God (so the old Lutheran expositors, Chemnitz, Calov,
Schmidt ; also among the Reformed, J. Alting ; and so, too, Olshausen). This
last comment is every way to be preferred, and shows that the image of God is
the glory of God, and that this, carried out in all things, is the true and only
way in which God can be glorified by a creature.

THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD, 309
glorEying obedience. When Christ glorified God, He did it as
the MeEator representing man, and ffi the way of creaturehood
in its perfection, but learffing obedience by what He suffered
(Heb. V. 8). If it is said of Peter that he was to glorify God
by a martyr's death (John xxi. 19), and if renewed men are
changed from glory to glory (2 Cor. iii. 18), much more did the
sinless Mediator glorEy the Father by His perfect work. And
as to the necessity of this view in an experimental respect,
conscience cannot be satisfied with any method of atonement
that does not secure the divine honour.
Far from feeling satisfied with a defective scheme, con
science asks with wistfffi eagerness, whether, by the way pro
pounded, God's honour suffers no eclipse, and His majesty no
stain ; and if conscience, as God's vicegerent, is pacffied only
when God's honour is restored, it is not difficffit to see, that
without this view the glorious Uberty of the saffits woffid be
forestaUed, and give place to inextricable bondage. Thus the
principle to which we have been referring, far from propound
ing a mere abstract reflection, is derived from the centre of
bibUcal and experimental truth, and is but an echo of this
sayffig of Christ. This wUl aid us in perceivffig a correct ex
position of Christ's words in reference to the glory that redounds
to the Father from His work. He undertook to restore the
glory due to the divffie majesty withdrawn by man's sin, and
for which a reparation must be made that could not be effected
by angels or men ; and tffis part of the Lord's mediatorial obedi
ence had such value and dignity, that it was fffily adequate
to this end. There was that ffi the work of Christ wffich fffily
satisfied the insulted majesty of God.
2. A second class of testimonies contains a declaration of
that which God does to glorify His name by the atonement.
There are two sayings of Jesus which here demand elucidation.
The first is that passage where He appealed to the Father
during His soffi trouble or angffish : " Father, glorEy Thy name.
Then came there a voice from heaven, sayffig, I have both

310 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
glorffied it, and wiU glorify it again" (John xii. 28). There is
a reference to a past act of glorEying His name on the part of
God, and a promise of another yet future. This is very note
worthy; but what precisely does it import? Plaiffiy, the
words intimate, that up to that moment the human lEe of
Christ, to which the language must refer, had been a continuous
glorifying of God, both in • purpose and effect ; that as man by
his apostasy had trampled under foot the declaratite glory of
God, not rendering the glory due to His name, so the second
man brought what is the due tribute to God. But the words,
descriptive as they are of God's own act for the glorEying of
His name, ffitimate, especially ffi connection with the plan of
redemption, that God had aEeady glorified HimseE, and that He
would do it again, in as far as the events connected with the
cross woffid exhibit and commend the divine wisdom ffi the
contrivance of redemption. His mercj^ in sending His Son as
the Saviour, His veracity in fulfilling the promises. His justice
in requiring the due satisfaction for sin accordffig to His law,
and His power in carrying His counsels into execution. Much
was already accompUshed. But the Father woffid agaffi glorify
His name ffi completing the work and accepting the sacrifice.
In what stiE remained of His redemption work, God's name
should again be glorified to the utmost measure. And the
Father just says, that as He had glorified His name by Christ's
coming into the world, and by the work done ffi it, so He would
glorify it " again" by the mode of His departure from the world,
and by accepting the sacrifice which He offered.
.Another testimony, to the same effect was the saying which
Jesus uttered in the presence of the disciples, at the moment
when Judas went out to betray Him : " Now is the Son of Man
glorified; and God is glorified in Him" (John xiu. 21). The
title. Son of Man, which, as we have already seen, is uffiformly
descriptive of Christ as the curse-bearing second Adam, leads
our thoughts to a right understanding of His words. In speak
ing of the Son of Man being glorified, He has in His eye that

THE ATONEMENT GLORIFYING GOD. 311
exaltation which was to be the reward of His atonement, or the
joy set before Him. Though the opiffion of many commenta
tors, that the Lord's glorification may here simply mean His
sufferings, is scarcely tenable — for His sufferings alone are
never presented to us precisely under the notion of His glori
fication — yet the idea of the atonement, as the foundation and
pathway to His glory, is undoubtedly impEed.
First,, as to the sayffig in reference to HimseE, " Now is
the Son of Ma,n glorifled',' it is just an instance of the en
durance to wffich He submitted for the joy set before Him
(Heb. xE. 2), or with His reward in view. He did not use
this language when He received the voice from heaven at
His baptism (Matt. iu. 17), nor after the transfiguration scene
(Matt. xvii. 5), nor after the commendations of the people
(Mark vu. 37), nor after the Hosannahs with which He
was saluted on His entry into Jerusalem (Matt. xxi. 9), but
after Judas' departure to betray Him. ' The work is, ffi His
purpose at least, and ffi His voluntary submission, already a
consummated fact, and He grasps the crown as aEeady at hand,
and given offiy for the abasement of the cross. And when He
adds, " God is glorffied in Him," the aUusion is plaiffiy to that
exercise of His attributes, or display of His declarative glory,
which the Father evinced by means of the atonement. He
intimates that His atonffig work manifested aU the attributes
and vffidicated aU the rights of Godhead, and so glorified Him.
But how was this ? If we survey the relation of God to His
creatures, or take account of His perfections, the mode in which
His name was glorffied at this time wUl readUy appear. Thus,
E we take account of the divine law, it received a greater glory
from the subjection of such a person to it than by the faffitless
obedience of aU tlie universe. The authority of God was more
fffily disclosed and exercised in connection with the incarnation
and abasement of the Son of God than it was, or coffid be, in
any other sphere. The holiness of God, which leads Him to
1 See Wolfburgius, ohsenationes sacrce, on this verb.

312 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
hide His face from sin, and to withdraw from all feUowship
with it, was exercised and displayed in a more extraordinary-
way, and therefore glorified more fuUy, by the desertion of His
Son, when made sin for us, than in aU that exercise of it wffich
wEl be displayed on the finally impenitent m the blackness of
darkness. The love of God was displayed, and therefore glorffied,^
to the utmost by an ffififfite gift to creatures most unworthy.
His t^vjAHyq justice, whereby He shows that He cannot bear evil,
and must punish it out of love to HimseE, was never exercised
at such a cost as on Christ. In a word, the divme perfections,
that is, aU the revealed attributes of God, were exercised, and
therefore displayed or glorffied, to the utmost by the atonement.
Thus the redemption, consisting in the obedience and death
of Christ, is the great work of God, the centre of all His ways,
which most brightly displays aU the divine perfections, especiaUy
His grace and holiness ; and hence the Lord said, with a pecffiiar
emphasis, " Now is the Son of Man glorffied ; and God is glori
fied in Him."

SEC. XLI. — THE EFFICACIOUS CHARACTER OF THE ATONEMENT, OE
THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST TO A
PEOPLE GIVEN HIM.
There is a considerable number of the sayffigs of Jesus
which brffig out, with unmistakeable precision, the efficacious
character of the atonement, or that the death of Christ had
a special reference to a people given to Him. The redemptive
efficacy of His death is described as takmg effect witffin a
given cEcle, and as bearing upon a given company of persons.
What is that cEcle, or who are the parties described as partici-
patffig in the fruits of Christ's death ? The Lord's sayings on
this poffit are so express, that we are not left in any doubt
' When God glorifies Himself, the action differs little from acting out or
exercising His own perfections, though the further notion of other beings
thinking honourably of Him is not excluded.

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 313
whether the atonement was offered specially for the persons
who receive the benefit of His death. He indicates that they
for whom it was offered and accepted, were the persons who
had been given to Him, and to whom He had united Himself
in the eternal covenant.
AE who have a bibUcal scheme of doctrine, understand, by
Christ's dyffig for His people, A DYING IN their room and
STEAD. They attach no lower sense than this to the expres
sion. They hold that Christ underwent the penal suffering
which was theE due, that He occupied their ''place as the
sffi-bearer and curse-bearer, and that He rendered the fffil
obedience wffich was required; and they hold that it was a
real and vaEd transaction — as much so as the faE, of wffich
it is the counterpart, and as the curse, of wffich it is the
reversal. This brings us to the real poffit of the investigation,
and away from the disguised, and sometimes faEacious, mode of
presenting it.
The proper nature of the atonement must first be ascer
tained before we can advance, with any precision, to define its
extent ; and when that point is settled, there is but one step
to an accurate definition of its extent. Without entermg here
ffito a recapitffiation of its constituent elements, as aEeady set
forth ffi the previous sections of this work, let it suffice to
state, that the atonement, as a fact ffi history, is as replete
with saving resffits and consequences, as the faE of man, with
wffi.ch it must ever be contrasted, is with the opposite. Its
extent coincides with its effects. In the Scripture mode of
representffig it, we find it placed in causal connection with
man's salvation, as a fact not less real th'an the faE, and not
less fraught with consequences (Eom. v. 12-20). The words
intimate, that E the faE was frffitfffi of resffits for man's con
demnation and death, the atonement is not less so for man's
restoration. Now tffis of itseE decides on the extent of the atonement.
No one doubts that the extent of the fall is coincident with

314 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
its obvious and manEest effects. If a causal connection obtains
between one man's disobedience and the sin, judgment, and
death ffi which the world is now involved, a causal connection
obtams, too, between the second man's obedience and the
savffig benefits in which aE Christians participate. If the fall
was pregnant with consequences which cannot be gainsaid, and
which ramEy so widely, that they are everywhere apparent,
the atonement of Christ ffi Eke manner produces, and will
continue to produce, results which are as real, and shaU ramify
as widely, through time and through eternity.
They who regard Christ in no ffigher Eght than as a teacher
come from God, as a distinguished pattern of virtue, or as a
faithfffi witness, who did not shrink from confirmffig His doc
trine by His death, cannot mean that He died, in any sense
of the word, for those who lived before His coming. The very
idea of an example impUes that it is but prospective, and that
it is fruitful of any consequences or results worthy of the
name, only where the knowledge of His doctrme extends.
On that theory of Christ's death, its scope or reference caimot
be supposed to go further than the knowledge of His Ufe and
character. As our plan leads us to investigate simply what Jesus said,
we shaU dEect attention to the question, whether the Lord's
sayings do or do not assign a special reference to His redemp
tion work. The testimonies of this nature, when put together,
are by no means few or doubtfffi; and it is impossible to ,
canvass them with due attention without coming to the con
clusion, that He assigned to His atonement a definite reference,
and that He acted, aU through His history, with a special
regard to a certaffi class of men, whose person He sustained.
A few of these expressions, or turns of phrase, we shaU noiv
adduce. 1. He caUs them many, for whom His blood was shed, and
who were the objects of His redemption work (Matt. xxvi. 28,
XX. 28). The natural interpretation of this expression in both

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 315
these passages, as we have already explaffied them, is, that He
refers to those who are elsewhere represented by Him as His
own, as given to Him. The mere use of the word many woffid
not suffice to prove this of itself, without the additional cE-
cumstance, that they are described by marks which are by no
means universaUy applicable.^ A theory was propounded, two
centuries ago, of a very perilous kind, to serve as a sort of guid
ing principle, or canon of ffiterpretation, ffi reference to such
phrases. It was held by the Arminian school, who were opposed
to the special reference of Christ's death, that when He was
said to die for all, the language meant what was done to win
or procure redemption ; and that when He was said to die for
many, or for the Church, it described the actual participation
of redemption. It is an artfficiaUy contrived theory ffi the
interest of a tendency, and cannot, without violence, be ap
pUed to any of these texts. Plaiffiy, our Lord describes the
actual offering of the ransom, and not its application alone.
The language had its fffil truth in the actual atonement, and
sets forth what was ffi His' own and in His Father's purpose,
when He offered Himself.
2. Our Lord caUs the objects of His atonement His sheep
(John X. 1 5). The same remarks are equaUy appUcable here.
They are already caUed His sheep, because they were given
to Him ffi the divine decree, and known as His own. So
necessary was it that some link of connection should be formed
between Christ and the objects of redemption, such as obtains
between shepherd and sheep, or head and members, that with
out it an atonement coffid not have been made. ^ According
1 The remark of Jerome is happy : " non dixit pro omnibus, sed pro multis,
id est, prcf iis qui credere voluerint. " I may notice that Amesius' Coronis ad
Oollationem Hagiensem meets all the arguments of the Arminian school on this
point, and on the five points generally, and supplies a most pointed, felicitous,
and biblical refutation of that style of thought. See, too, Witsius, de Federe,
lib. ii. cap. 9 ; and Gomar's biblical discussion, an Christus pro omnibus et
singulis mortuus sit, p. 453.
^ See Amesius' Coronis, p. 112. It is noteworthy that Grotius, when he was
compelled to meet the objection of Socinus that there was no connection between

316 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to the divffie paction, there must be some union or conjunction,
This phrase thus involves two things : (1) that Christ did not
die in a merely indeternunate way and in uncertainty whether
He shoffid have a flock, but with special objects of redemption
before His nund, to whom He was aEeady knit by a tie neces
sary for the redemption work ; (2) that they are also His
purchased property, the resffit or fruit of His atonement. This
latter truth enables us to obviate the cavil against this mter
pretation, as if it assumed that certain persons were already
the sheep of Christ before He died. They were so ffi the Evine
purpose, and in Christ's undertaking, though not actuaUy His
tUl the ransom was paid for them. He declares that He died
for the sheep, which, as appears from the context, were the
elect given to Him (John x. 26). The special reference of the
atonement, and the further thought that the vicarious sacrifice
secures the conversion of those for whom it was offered, are
incontrovertibly intimated in the words, " Other sheep I have,
which are not of this fold : them also I must bring " (ver.' 16).
They are first caUed His sheep ; then they are described as the
objects of redemption, for whom He laid down His Ufe, that is,
for whom the atonement was actuaUy offered ; then they must
needs be brought, or rather led, as a shepherd leads ffis fiock.
3. The persons for whom the atonement is offered are called
His people — a name which ffidicates that they were already
Christ's in the divine purpose : " Thou shalt caU His name
Jesus; for He shaU save His people from their sins" (Matt.
i. 21). If He saves His people, they were His by divine gift
already; and this obviates the aUegation that the atonement
woffid have been equaUy complete, though no one had been
saved. That is plaiffiy mcompatible with this text, which
Christ and us, argues -with as much point for the affirmative as any Calvinistic
divine could use : " dici hie posset, non esse hominem homini alienum, naturalem
esse inter homines cognationem et consanguinitatem, carnem nostram a Christo
susoeptam ; sed longfe major alia inter Christum et nos oonjunctio a Deo destina-
batur. Ipse enim designatus erat a Deo ut caput esset corporis, cujus nos sumus
membra." {De Satisfactione Christi, cap. iv.)

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 317
declares that He was the Saviour of His people. The objections
taken to this interpretation, which involves the special reference
of the atonement, are, (1) that the phrase. His people,' may be
referred to the Jews, — and so Calvin interpreted the words ;^
(2) that the language does not refer to the purchase of redemp
tion, but to its appUcation, Both statements are easy of refu
tation. As to the first, the answer is, that God's people are
twofold, according to the double covenant, — the Jews as the
people whom He foreknew (Eom, xi, 2), and the true people
of God, who belong to the class that are given to the Son
(John vi, 37). And as to the second aUegation, that the aUu
sion is to the appUcation of redemption, the answer is, that
these were both equaUy ffi the Evine purpose and ffitention,
4, They are caUed the children of God scattered abroad
(John xi 52). Tffis phrase occurs in connection with the
divine oracle uttered by Caiaphas, and forms part of the ffispEed
commentary of the evangeUst. The high priest of the year on
wffich the great atonement was made, was used, in the marvel
lous sovereignty of God, to embody the import of the entire
Mosaic worship, of the temple, the priesthood, and the sacrifices,
when he said, " It is expedient for us that one man should
die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not"
(John xi 50). He thus unwittffigly prophesied, and gave a
voice to Judaism, much in the same way as the Urim and
Thummim of old gave forth ffitimations of the wUl of God or
of His mffid. To this oracle the inspEed evangeUst appends
his commentary, to the effect that tffis was a prophecy, and that
it conveyed the important truth that Jesus was to die for that
nation ; and not for that nation offiy, but that also He shoffid
gather together in one the chUdren of God that were scattered
abroad (ver, 52), Now, the objects of redemption are here
aEeady caUed " the chUdren of God scattered abroad," because
they were so ffi the divine purpose, though not yet actuaUy
1 Calvin does not limit the phrase to the Jews, but extends it to all nations,
who were to be inserted into the stock of Abraham, — Vid. in loc.

318 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
ransomed. The evangeEst intimates that they were aEeady
the foreappoffited chUdren of God, and m some sense worthy
of being so caEed before the death of Christ ; then, that they
were the objects of the vicarious sacrifice ; and that the atone
ment was to carry with it the certam issue or result that they
shoffid be gathered ffito one, that is, united to Cffiist and to
one another in Him. The special reference of the atonement
cannot be caEed ffi question here.
5. They are caEed by the Lord His friends, for whom He
laid down His Ufe ffi the exercise of a special love : " Greater
love hath no man than this, that a man lay down ffis Ufe for
his friends" (John xv. 13). Unquestionably, the emphasis faUs
on the special love wffich He cherishes toward His people,
who are here termed His friends. The design and end for
which He laid down His Efe are not here, mentioned, because
the recent institution of the Supper, and the explanation ap
pended to it, that His blood was to be shed for the remission
of sins, sufficiently expressed both the purpose and effect of
His atonffig death; and a.s He meant to inculcate on His
disciples at this time mutual love, according to His own.
example. He poffits to the greatest proof which could be given
of His love — His vicarious death.^ But the language used by
Him clearly enough ffidicates that His death was to be for the
behoof of others, and in their stead, as He assumes that it is
the case of one offermg himseE to rescue another from danger.
But, apart from the use of the term friend, the special love^
to which' our Lord here refers in connection with laying down
His Efe, comprises these two thffigs, which are always to be
viewed together, and not apart — that He not only procures
salvation, but also applies it. This special love wins its object,
finds its object, and rescues it.

' The tiVjiiu; does not mean, to expose to danger, as Grotius- puts it, but to lay
doum ; and the imp is to be understood as implying the i»ri (see above),
2 Calvin says on the passage ; " Christus vitam sua^ pro alienis exposuit, sed
quos jam tunc ipse amabat, mortem alias pro ipsis non subitm'us,"

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 319
, The answer to the inquiry, who are the special objects of
Christ's atonement ? would have been simple, E men had con
tented themselves with Scripture statements, and with ideas
derived from Scripture. Whatever be the iniffiite value of the
atonement, considered as a divine fact, as weE as a human
transaction, yet, ffi poffit of savffig efficacy, it does 7wt extend
beyond the circle of those who believe in Christ. Though in
ffitrffisic worth it could save the whole world, and, so far as we
can see, a thousand worlds more, if there had been such worlds
of human beings to be saved, yet the redemption work does
not extend, ffi i point of fact, beyond the circle of those who
approve of it as a fit and proper method of salvation ; or, ffi
other words, who, by a faith wffich is the gift of God, are led to
accept it as the ground of reconciEation with God. It is simply
co-extensive, as to savffig effects, with the number of true
beEevers. Of that there can be no doubt, when we examine
the words of Cffiist, and abide by His teachffig. And ffi this
conclusion, as the positive truth on the poffit, aU might have
rested, and probably woffid have rested, with perfect satisfaction,
but for the theories and phUosophical reasoffings of men who,
not so much under reUgious conviction as under specffiative
tendencies, deemed it necessary to extend the atonement to aU
aUke, whether they were saved by it or not, whether they
beUeved it or not. They woffid not be content with regardffig
it as co-extensive with its effects — the offiy true measure by
wffich its reference can be known, and that which makes it the
counterpart of Adam's faU, — ^but must needs contend that it was«
co-extensive with the race, and for aU equaUy. It soon appears,
however, that it is ffi reaEty a question as to its nature. Tffis
wUl be evident by a brief aUusion to these uffiversalist theories.
a. Thus, under the ffifiuence of plausible reasonings, not a
few in various countries go so far as to assert, that ffi vEtue of
Christ's work aE men wUl finaUy be saved. That theory of a
universal salvation has at least this ffi its favour : that it is con
sistent, and is carried through to its logical consequences. It

320 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
was propounded in early times by Origen, and is, under an
evangeUcal garb, at present more widely diffused than it ever
was, * It has been prfficipaUy based on the position that the
divine benevolence embraces aE aEke, and that the actual re
storation wUl be co-extensive with the ruin. This speculation
overlooks divine justice, and looks simply at the point, that
the ruin and the remedy may presumably be held to be co
extensive ffi their actual results, as weE as analogous ffi the
provision. Though it is unscriptural, and even dEectly opposed
to Scripture, it is at least consistent, as it goes tffiough with the
idea of the uffiversaEty of the provided remedy.
h. Much less consistent is another theory of universal grace—. ,
that of the Arminian and semi-Pelagian school, though tracing
its rise to the same specffiative reasoffing and plausible com
parison between the ruin introduced by Adam and the remedy
brought in by Christ, ^ They hold that the atonement made on
Christ's side and accepted on God's side was co- extensive with
the human famUy, whether men beEeve it or not, reject it or
not. They look offiy at one side of the question, and they
undermine the atonement as a reaUy valid fact. They mamtain
that on God's side the remedy is as universal as the ffisease.
But what they thus gain in compass or in breadth is lost at
the centre. The apparent advantage is more than countervaUed
at another point, when it is stripped of its efficacy ; and this
just brings me back to the position^ that the true question is
no longer, how far does it extend, but is it a real counterpart' of
the fall, wffich renders a perfect satisfaction to every claim of
justice, and fffifils the law ffi the room of any ?
We soon find, accordingly, when we exanune the opinions of
these disputants, and ascertain the sense in which they take the
phrase, " to give His Ufe for many," that the question turns
^ This is the common doctrine of the Continental rationalistic school, and some
of more biblical sentiments.
2 What Coleridge so happily said of another scheme of thought, may equally
be applied to this : " It is not a religion, but a theory."

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 321
not SO much on the point for whom Christ died, ffi the sense of
a true and vaUd transaction, as on the point whether He died
for any in the true ahd proper acceptation of the term. It is
not so much a question as to its extent. The question rather
is, Wlat was the design and object wffich God had ffi view ffi
giving His Son to die for us, and of the Son, in givffig HimseE ?
It is not whether Christ died for aU and every one, but whether
He Eed for any, with valid consequences as certain and effi
cacious as ffi the great counterpart transaction of man's faU.
This wUl appear to every one who wUl make a fuU survey or
review of these opiffions.
The .Armiffian contends that Christ's death offiy renders
reconciUation possible, and gives God a right to make a new
covenant, of wffich this shaU be the tenor : that Cffiist shaU
give eternal Ufe to aU who obey Him, and persevere to the end.
The semi-legaUty of tffis opiffion is on the surface. It tffiows
men back upon themselves and upon their own resources. Not
offiy so : from the very nature of the theory, he cannot maffitaffi
that suchi a covenant has ever been propounded to aU who have
Uved at any given time. It is not true to itseE.
c. There is stUl a thEd mode of puttffig the uffiversaEty of
the atonement, adopted by others in various churches, which is
comparatively ffinocuous — amountffig, in reaEty, to Ettle more
than a roundabout way of representing the universal caE of the
gospel. They are content with the saying, that Christ died for
aU, without ever tracffig the ramifications of the statement, or
thffiHng out the position to its logical consequences ; and they
only mean that the invitation comes to aE aUke. Thus many
good men express themselves ffi different churches under the
somewhat coffiused and unexamined impression, that the uni
versal caE must, ffi some sense, which they never ffivestigate,
have a universal provision equaEy broad underlying it. They
never reflect, as every one tffinking out this matter must do,
that to the completeness of the atonement, as an accompEshed
fact, it is ffidispensably necessary that aU the three parties con-

322 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
cerned in the transaction shaU concur— the Father, the Surety,
and the man needffig the salvation. There must be a consent
of all the parties concerned ; and the exercise of faith on the
smner's part must be viewed as his approval of this method of
salvation, and his consent to it.
The class of divffies last named sometimes aUege that, to
beEeve in Christ, is equivalent to beEevffig that Christ died for
us. But these two acts of the mffid are by no means to be re
garded as one and the same. The former describes that mental
act which apprehends a sufficient Saviour. The latter is an
ffiference, though a sure and certain one. No one is summoned,
ffi the flrst ffistance, to beEeve that Christ died for ffim, any
more than he is reqffired to believe that his sins are pardoned
before he believes. ^ And as to the responsibiUty of rejecting
the gospel, the condemnation consequent on tffis step is due to
the fact that the unbeUever wUl not accept of a sufficient Ee
deemer, nor approve of such a way of salvation. He rejects
it ffi its idea and contrivance, whereas faith is just the ap-
provaiof it.
But the sinner must signEy his concurrence, before the
vicarious death of Christ can be to him an accomplished fact ;
and faith, therefore, is just that approval and consent by which
he signifies ffis concurrence, though given after the lapse of
centuries. He by faith signffies that he cordiaUy approves of
this way of redemption, and wishes to be saved by no other
way. Then aU parties concur in it. They who plead for an
indefiffite atonement make the whole a completed transaction,
without man's consent ; and we are at a loss to see what con
ceivable advantage can be gained by makffig the atonement
wider than the number of those that approve of it, and are
wUEng to be saved by it. Of course it is applied to unnumbered
mUlions of ffifants, who are saved by it in a different way,
AU these various theories go to pieces when we brffig out
from the words of Christ the true nature of the atonement; for
' See Polanus, Syntag. lib, 6, cap, 18.

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 323
in reaEty, as we have aEeady remarked, it is more a question
as to the character of the atonement, as an actual transaction,
than as to its extent. Whether we look at the covenant, which
Ues at its foundation, or at the fact that the purchase and appU
cation' of the atonement are co-extensive and necessarUy con
nected with each other, or at the nature of Cffiist's ffitercession,
we are left ffi no doubt as to its extent.
1. One proof of this is contamed ffi the nature and provisions
of the covenant.* I have only to advert to the unity of the
Surety, and those whom He represented, to prove the extent of
the atonement. It is a unity or oneness so close, that we may
affirm of the second man, as weE as of the first, " we were aU
that one man," The thought that Ues at the foundation of our
participation of the federal blessings, is union, or oneness. We
may thus caU in the idea of organic uffity, as weU as the idea
of a covenant, for they are not exclusive of each other, but
rather supplementary. The idea of xmity may be said to run
through the whole declarations on the subject of Christ's saving
work, whether they were given forth by the Lord Himself or by
His servants. On tffis prfficiple, then, that Cffiist and His seed
are viewed as one, just as Adam and ffis famEy were one, the
redemption work by wffich we are saved was fficontrovertibly
fiffished by His obedience, and must be held to have been at
once offered and accepted ffi the room of aU for whom He acted
the part of a surety (John vi 39), This, however, decides on
the scope and extent of the atonement,
2, The purchase of redemption and its appUcation are co
extensive. The salvation is not won for any to whom it is not
appUed, AU our Lord's sayffigs assume tffis, and take it for
granted (John x. 15), To suppose the opposite, woffid imply
that a costly price had been paid, and that those for whom it
was paid derived no advantage from it ; wffich could offiy be
on the ground that He wanted either love or power. Not only
so : a concurrent action and perfect harmony must be supposed
' See before, at sec, x.

324 ¦ SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
to obtaffi among the persons of the Godhead. There can be no
disharmony between the election of the Father, the redemption
of the Son, and the appEcation of the Spirit.
3. Cffiist's intercession is based on the atonement, and coffid
have no vaEdity or ground but as it referred to that finished
work of expiation, which needs no repetition. Now, we see
from the explicit statement of the Lord, that the intercession is
not for the world; but for those whom the Father gave Him :
" I pray for them : I pray not for the world, but for them whom
Thou hast given Me ; for they are Thffie" (John xvii 9). THs
decides upon the scope and destffiation of the atonement for
any avaUable purpose ; for it wUl not be argued by any ffivme
bibUcaUy acquainted with the nature of our Lord's priesthood
and intercession, that any one ever was or wUl be effectuaUy
caUed but on the ground of that aU-prevaUing ffiterposition
(John xvii 20),
To those who allege, ffi the spEit of the Armiffian school,
that the love of Jesus consists only ffi applyffig the redemption,,
but not ffi procuring it, it is enough to say, that love, ffi the
proper meaning of the term, is anterior to both ; and that it
woffid not be love, E it were dissociated from the purpose and
design of conferrffig on its objects every conceivable good which
can either be procured or applied. And whenever Scripture
speaks of the divffie love, either ffi connection with the Father
or with the Son, this is the import of the term. This fact, that
love is offiy love to persons, and that the divme love finds out
its objects over aU impediments, enables us to obviate the two
fold love which the Armffiian writers suppose, and for which
they argue ffi the mterest of their views, — one precedffig faith,,
and another foUowing it. The former, they aUege, is to aU
aUke, and therefore cannot be regarded as in itseE efficacious
to any ; ^ the latter they ascribe as an fficreasing quantity, and
' Many -writers have laid, and stiU lay, stress on the term world, which fi^e-
quently occurs in those passages which describe the death of Christ. It is a
term commonly used in contrast -with Jewish limitation, and in this usage com-

THE SPECIAL REFERENCE OF THE ATONEMENT. 325
as a sort of complacential approbation of a state of mffid or
mental act wffich is acceptable to God. But the redeeming love
of Christ, as the source of aU savffig benefits, does not, properly
speakffig, receive additions or fficrease, though there may be,
and doubtless are, ampler manifestations of it, as well as a
keener sense of it on the mind. Tffis is emphaticaEy brought
out by Paffi, when he sets forth the immutable constancy and
omnipotent efficacy of the divine love ffi a remarkable argu
ment d fortiori (Eom. v. 5-11). He argues, that if God coffid
set His love on the saffits when we were yet sinners and
enemies, without strength and ungodly, much more shaE that
love be continued to them when they are justified. The argu
ment is, that E God's love found an outlet to us when we were
aUens and enemies, much more wUl it be continued, now that
we are friends. But the foundation of the whole argument is,
that His love is special and redeeming love, and directed to
individuals, whom God wUl never abandon or let go.
The text on which we aEeady commented demonstrates the
special love of Cffiist (John xv. 13). They for whom He died
were the objects of supreme and special love, wffich of necessity
secured theE ffitimate salvation. For them He must be con
sidered as acting at every step ; then names beffig on His heart
m the same way as the names of the tribes of Israel were on
the high priest's breastplate. And the same special reference
confronts us ffi every form. Thus He is described as loving
His own that were ffi the world (John xiu. 1), wffich cannot be
be affirmed of aU and every man, without distffiction, and ffi
monly designates men of all nationalities. That it is not conclusive as an argu
ment urged in favour of general redemption, will appear from such phrases as
these : " The bread of God is He [better, that] which cometh do-wn from heaven,
and giveth life unto the world" (John vi. 33) ; " that the world may believe that
Thou hast sent Me" (John xvii. 21), As it denotes, (1) either a great multitude
(John xii, 19), or (2) men of all nations (Rom, xi, 12), it is plain that no argu
ment can be urged in favour of a universal atonement, from the mere occurrence
of this word. Hales tells us that he was carried over to the Arminian opinions
at the Synod of Dort, by Episcopius' argument from John iii. 16. But though
that is the chief argument of the Arminian school, it is a fellaoious argument,
and not borne out by the usus loquendi.

326 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
precisely the same form. We have offiy to recaU such phrases
as co-suffering (1 Pet, iv. 1), co-crucifixion (Gal, u, 20), co-dying
(Rom. vi. 8), co-burymg with Cffiist (Eom. vi. 4), to perceive
that He bore the person of a chosen company, who are spoken
of as doffig what He did at every important turn of His history.
It was for His own that He was fficarnate (Heb. U. 14); and
He must be regarded, aU through His history, as uniting Him
seE to His own, or as loving His own that were ffi the world,
and loving them to the end (John xiii. 1). Tffis special love,
according to which He ac-ted ffi the name of a chosen company,
and laid down His lEe for them, is a love that finds them out
over every impediment or ffindrance. And it were to think
unworthEy of Christy to suppose such a conjunction estabUshed
between Him and the objects of redemption, as is presupposed
in the very nature of this transaiction, without the certaffi effect
that salvation is secured to many by His death. It were as
absurd as to suppose a king without subjects, a bridegroom
without a bride, a vffie without branchy, a head without the
members.

SEC. XLII. — THE ATONEMENT EXTENDING TO ALL TIMES IN THE
world's HISTORY, AND TO ALL NATIONS.
The position which Christ ascribed to Himself in the world,
sufficiently indicates that His death was, in the divffie purpose,
a provision for aU times and nations, and that there was to be
no repetition of the sacrffice. We shaU briefly adduce His
testimony to both these poffits.
1. With respect to all times, the saymgs of Christ imply
that He was the centre-point of the world's ffistory, to whom
aU previous ages looked forward, and aU subsequent ages look
back. The saffits who Eved under the time of the first promise'
to whom the advent of the woman's seed was revealed, or who
expected Abraham's seed, in whom aU the fanuEes of the earth
were to be blessed, were saved by the retrospective efficacy of

THE ATONEMENT EXTENDING TO ALL TIMES AND NATIONS. 327
His atoning death, and not in virtue of a typical expiation,
wffich was but a shadow of good thffigs to come (Gen. iu. 15,
xii. 3). The pardon, or, as some have preferred to call it, the
preterition,^ which extended to unnumbered multitudes during
the ages precedffig the birth of Christ, was due to the blood of
atonement about to be shed in the fuffiess of time.
The fact that the death of Christ is set forth in its retro
spective, as weU as in its prospective, influence, shows the vast
superiority of the blood of the new covenant as compared with
that of the old covenant. The one was merely for the IsraeEtes,
the other was " for many ;" which may be ffiterpreted for men of
aU times and generations, even for those who were long dead,
but had faith on Him who was to come. This may warrant
ably be held to be there taught by our Lord (see Matt. xx. 28,
xxvi. 28 ; John vi. 57). I shaU not here adduce the statements
ffi the Epistles, to the effect that the atonement had an ffifluence
of a retrospective nature, but content myself with saying, that
tffis is set forth with pecuEar emphasis in several passages
(Eom. iu. 25 ; Heb. ix. 15). Our plan leads us to abide by the
sayffigs of Cffiist. And we have more than stray ffints from the
mouth of Christ, that His vicarious death was retrospective as
weE as prospective in its ffifluence. When we consider how
He described Himself in contrast with aE who ever came be
fore Him, and condemned as tffieves and robbers such as came
with rival claims to His (Johnx. 1-7); when we hear Htm
speakffig of the necessity of His death for the world's salvation,
as well as declaring that Moses, the prophets, and aU the holy
oracles testffied of Him (John v. 39, 46) ; when we find Him
here declaring that Abraham rejoiced to see His day (John viu.
56), — we have intimations which imply that He was the central
figiue of both economies, and that His incarnation and death
' The distinction between vxptiris and xfiris — ^the former referring to the Old
Testament saints, the latter to the New Testament — ^first made by Beza, was
carried out to an extravagant length by Cocceius and his school. Yet some dis
tinction, at least of a subjective nature, must be allowed, whatever opinion may
be formed as to that distinction drawn between vripuris and ajsirij in Eom. iii. 25.

328 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
had a relation to them who Eved before His coming, and that
then salvation was not less due to Christ's atoning blood than
ours. The scene on the Mount of the Transfiguration, moreover,
when Moses and EUas appeared to converse with Him on His
exodus or decease, about to be accomplished at Jerusalem, affords
confirmatory evidence that the scope of that death had an
application to aU times. It was that on the ground of wffich
they had been saved; for Christ was the atonement or sin-
offerffig for the transgressions under the first covenant (Heb.
ix. 15). 2. With respect, agaffi, to the bearing of the atonement on
men of aE nations, Christ gave no dubious announcement that it
was not limited to Israel, but had an ffifluence which extended
to those who were not of that fold (John x. 11), and that, in a
word, it was Erespective of national distinctions. Thus He de
clared, on the occasion of the inqffirffig Greeks approacffing Him
with an express desire " to see Jesus," and whose inquEies He
regarded as the prelude or first-frffits of the wide ffi-brffigmg
of the GentUe nations, that if He was Efted up or crucified
as an atoning sacrifice, He woffid draw aU nations to Him
(John xii. 32). The same wide and universal reference of the
scheme of redemption to aU tribes and nations, whoEy irre
spective of the narrow limits of nationality, comes out in the
other sayffigs of Christ where He aEudes to the world and to
the scheme of redemption ffi its bearffig on mankind as such ;
who are addressed by the Gospel message, and summoned to
the exercise of faith, just because they are comprehended withm
the class for whom the atonement has been provided (John in,
14-16), Hence the Lord directed His disciples to preach, with
the most unrestricted universaEty, the remission of sins to aU
nations, and to announce it in His name as crucified and risen,
— in other words, as the crucified Saviour, who offered an atone
ment for a people given to Him, without respect to nationaUty
(Luke xxiv. 47). Christ may thus be designated the official
Saviour of mankind, as men are contrasted with fallen angels,

THE APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT, 329
for whom no such provision is made ; and on tffis ground the
ffivitations of the Gospel, with aU that is comprehended in them,
are equaUy and without Estinction made to aU nations. Thus,
irrespective of national distinctions or class distinctions, the
ffivitation to accept a crucffied Saviour appEes equaUy to aU
tribes and ranks of men.

SEC. XLHI. — SAYINGS WHICH PARTICULARLY RELATE TO THE
APPLICATION OF THE ATONEMENT.
As we endeavoured in the previous sections to distribute
the saymgs of Jesus. according to a classffication wffich seemed
the best, fitted to give a fffil outEne of the atonement in its
nature and effects, it offiy remaffis for us to notice such testi
moffies as refer to the mode in wffich it is appropriated and
appUed. A brief and condensed statement of the import of
these is all that is now required.
The previous elucidation of the doctrine renders a very
succinct sketch of the mode of applyffig the atonement quite
sufficient. We commenced by exhibiting the presuppositions
of the whole question, or the grounds on which this great fact
may be said to rest. We next considered the constituent ele
ments of the atonement, as consistffig of sin-bearing and siffiess
obedience. We further proceeded to survey the proper effects of
this divffie fact on the ffidividual Cffiistian, both ffi an objec
tive and in a subjective point of view ; that is, in respect to
the acceptance of his person and the renovation of his nature.
We were next brought, in order, to set forth the ffifluence of the
atonement upon other ffiterests ffi the universe, which, as we
have seen, are at once numerous and various. We were thus
naturaEy led to discuss the actual efficacy and extent of the
atonement, or the question for whom it was rendered.
These topics pave the way for the only remaffiffig division
of our Lord's sayffigs on the atonement, viz. those which con-
taffi an aUusion to the mode of its appUcation. These are not

330 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
SO numerous ; and they may be discussed withm a limited com
pass : (1,) This classffication of our Lord's testimonies brings
under our notice the objective presentation of the atonement,
by means of ecclesiastical ffistitutions and ordinances, which
are, first of aE, based on this accompEshed fact, and next m-
tended to commend it to the acceptance of others, (2,) But if
there are objective appoffitments which aim at the appU'cation
of this divine fact to susceptible minds, there are also means of
a subjective character, and especiaUy the exercise of faith, wffich
is the divffiely constituted ffistrument, for receiving and appro
priating what had been provided, (3,) The responsibiUty and
doom of not accepting the provided remedy comes naturaUy
into consideration ffi this connection. (4.) In addition to aU
this, the effect of the atonement on all reEgion and practice is a
point of such moment, that it cannot fail to attract the attention
of every mind that has dffiy learned to regard the atonement
as the grand distinctive peculiarity of the Christian religion.
On these points, it might be interesting and important to
effiarge. But as our object is brevity and condensation, as far
as may be consistent with perspicuity and completeness, we
shaU content ourselves with a brief outline on tffis division of
the subject ; and the rather, because it touches on a department
on which it does not precisely faU within our present plan to
enter, SEC, XLIV, — THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON THE ATONE
MENT, AND EVER CONNECTED WITH THE ATONEMENT,
There are sayings of our Lord which bring out a divffiely
constituted connection between the atonement considered as an
accompEshed fact, and the proclamation of it by His servants,
— a connection which it is the part of every Christian, as far
as possible, to understand, but which, after aU our inquiries, is
rather to be apprehended as a fact, than fathomed in its nature
and mode.

THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT, 331
When we come to the preacffing of forgiveness, we find that
the Lord commanded the disciples to preach forgiveness in PIis
name to aU nations, beginnffig at Jerusalem (Luke xxiv, 47) ;
and His ambassadors, faithfffi to the charge imposed on them,
carried the message during theE Ufetime far and wide through
the known world, proclaiming repentance and forgiveness as the
two topics which they were to preach in Christ's name, and as
the principal elements of the new covenant, — repentance on
man's side, and forgiveness on God's side, Christ meant to
sigffify by that memorable saying, that the disciples were to
preach forgiveness as a benefit won by His death, and imparted
by Him as the Eisen One, to aU who repent and beEeve, He
ffitimates that He obtaffied by His death the authority and
right to give the renussion of sffis. This comes out ffi con
nection with the circumstance that the disciples were to
preach this message IN His name ; which may either mean,
as many ffiterpret it, at His command, or, according to others,
may denote preachffig with the express naming of His name,
in the Ught ffi which He is mentioned as the crucffied and
risen MeEator ^ (ver, 46), The preaching " ffi His name "
coffid only have place when the expiation was fiffished. The
proclamation of tffis message could not have been made if He
had not died.
There are two points which here summon our attention.
The first is, that there is a connection between Cffiist's death
and the immediate remission of sins ; and the second is, that
the entEe preacffing of forgiveness, as weU as the office of the
miffistry itseE, presupposes the atonement, and is ever directly
connected with the atonement. Both poffits may be fitly con
sidered under tffis section,
1, With regard to the first of these points, we had occasion
1 1'pri T^ ivofiXTi eciiTou. Winer, 6th ed. p. 350, makes it refer to Christ's com
mand : " d. h. sich dabei auf ihn als Originallehrer und Abordner beziehend."
Luther, again, interprets the phrase of Christ's merits as the ground of remission ;
Meyer and Vinke make the phrase refer to the utterance of Christ's name in
preaching as that on which it rests.

332 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
to notice, in a previous section, that the Lord puts the forgive
ness of sins in causal connection with His death,"- He very
emphaticaUy, at the ffistitution of the Supper, placed the pardon
of sffi in causal coimection with His own atonffig death, or with
His blood shed for many (Matt. xxvi. 28). The gffilt wffich
suspended merited puffishment over mankmd, and which stood
in the way of theE acceptance, was removed offiy by the atone
ment. This is a poffit on which His teaching is so unambigu
ously clear, that E men woffid come to it without preconceived
opffiions, mistakes woffid at once be obviated.
It may be proper to define, before we proceed, the sense in
wffich we are to take the term forgiveness, so as to get rid of
the confused and incorrect opffiions entertaffied in many quar
ters as to its meaffing. And here I may premise, that a right
notion of SIN determines the import of forgiveness. Wherever
sin is regarded merely as imperfection or disease, not as guilt
or the violation of the Evine law, a different notion of forgive
ness of necessity prevails. Sffi in that case is not considered
judiciaUy, or ffi the light of the divine tribunal ; nor is forgive
ness,^ But, according to the bibEcal idea, sffi always stands
related to a lawgiver oh the one hand, and to a judge on the
other; and as God not only threatens positive punishments
beyond the mere consequences of actions, considered in then
ordffiary issues, or accordffig to the natural course of events,
but ffiflicts positive punishment out of love to His perfections,
and because He must do so from what He owes to HimseE,
a whoEy different notion of forgiveness must be adopted.
When we compare the bibEcal notion of it as used either m
the Old or New Testament, it wiU be found to ffivolve in every
case the idea of deEverance from punishment ; and the notion
of deserved punishment for sin is so universaUy accepted, that
^ See before, at p, 170,
2 This rationalistic idea of forgiveness, common at the beginning of this
century, was well refiited by Lotze, over de vergeving der Zonden, 1802. (See
Storr also on Hebrews, in Appendix.)

THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT. 333
it belongs, as the apostle shows, to the beUefs of natural re
Egion, ineradicable from our nature (Eom, i, 32),
To bring out this fact, we have but to recaU any portion of
our Lord's teachffig where He uses the word forgiveness. Thus
the petition, "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors"
(Matt vi, 12), when we trace how it is more fuUy explained
in the subsequent verses, contrasts our forgiveness of man's
offences with forgiveness vouchsafed to us by God, If the
one denotes a non-avenging of ourselves upon a fellow-man,
or an abstaiffing to punish an injury infficted, the other must
mean an acquittal on the part of God, or a complete Eberation
from the punishment we deserved. Nor is the pffiase ever
used ffi any other sense by our Lord, Thus, when He said to
the palsy-stricken man, " Thy sffis be forgiven thee" (Matt,
ix, 5), we cannot, with some, understand the language as
equivalent to ffis restoration to health. On the contrary, the
passage unmistakeably compares two benefits derived from
Cffiist, and asks which of two tffings it was easier to say.
The forgiveness of sins caimot, therefore, be ffiterpreted as in
timatffig no more than recovery or restoration from a bodUy
disease. The cure was meant to prove that He had power to
forgive sffi ; and the words of Christ must be understood of the
man's deEverance from the merited punishment of sffi.
Agaffi, when we examine the words of Christ used at the
institution of the Supper, it is evident that He intimates a
meritorious or causal connection between His death and the
remission of sins.^ The words, " My blood shed for many unto
the remission of sffis," can bear no other sense. Nor coffid the
disciples, accustomed to the idea of sacrffice, understand the
words ffi any other sense than as intimating that He was to
ffie, that He might deliver men from deserved punishment by
His death. The forgiveness of sffis consists ffi this, that, a
^ I would refer specially to Storr, in the Appendix to his commentary on
Hebrews, to Vinke, and Lotze, for the best demonstration of this immediate
causal connection.

334 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
man, notwithstandffig his real guUt, is treated as if he had not
sffined, or, in other words, goes free from punishment.
Thus, forgiveness is notffing but exemption from puffish
ment ; and as to its procuring cause, it is directly effected by
the death of Cffiist, The meaning of this statement, rendered
into other words, is simply this: that God exacts no more
puffishment, because Cffiist has exhausted it, and offeted that
on the ground of wffich God is actually gracious. Our Lord
unmistakeably deduces pardon and deUverance solely from His
death (Matt, xxvi, 28, xx, 28), If we keep in mind this
notion of the sufferings of Christ, we reaEly understand why
He sometimes mentions merely the removal of punishment
(John Ei, 15, 16), The atonement of Christ, ffi a word, aimed
at this — to change men's relation toward God, and then con
dition, for eternity.
And this leads me to add that, as our Lord describes it, the
effect of the atonement is by no means limited to those sins
which were comrffitted before the reception of the Gospel.
When we inquEe to what sins the atonement of Christ referred,
the answer obviously is, that sffis after conversion, as weU as
before it, were, without exception, expiated. If, ffideed, pro
vision were not made for the remission of aU sins, great and
smaU, for daily recurring sffis during the course of the Cffiis
tian's Efe, as weE as for sins committed during the time of im
penitence, what would the atonement avaE ? ^ The Lord meant
that His blood was shed for aU sffi.
But we must further ffiquEe, If forgiveness means exemption
from puffishment, what is the kind of punishment ? The answer
is, that puffishment is remitted of every kind, and speciaUy
future punishment, with aU its consequences, because aU sm is
forgiven. Many of the natural consequences of sffi, such as
sickness and death, are not at once reversed by the reception
of forgiveness; but a provision is made for theE ffitimate re-
' It is not necessary further to refute the opinions of such men as Liiffler,
Bretschneider, Riickert, and Eeiche,

THE PREACHING OF FORGIVENESS BASED ON IT, 335
moval, and, as we have aEeady pointed out, they are, from the
moment of forgiveness, altered in theE character. They become
part of a paternal discipline, or of a system of traming for the
inheritance ; but there is no wrath in them,
2, But the special topic brought before us ffi this section is,
whether the preaching of forgiveness was to be immeEately
and directly based on Cffiist's atoffing death. Was it a simple
announcement of a free boon, based on the accompUshed fact
of the atonement, Erespective of any intermediate condition ?
The commission there stated shows that the Lord Jesus, in
describing His atonffig death, required that the preachffig of the
forgiveness of sffis shoffid be connected with it ffi the closest
way ; and the question arises, In what way ? Is it a dEect or
indirect connection, an immeffiate or a more mediate connection ?
This momentous inquiry goes to the root of the modern ten
dencies, and divides into two parties or schools the beEevffig
divines of the present time, who, accordffig as they maintaffi a
dEect causal connection between the blood of Christ and par
don, or hold a mediate connection, may be designated bibEcal
expositors, or the adherents of a modern tendency, Tffis ques
tion goes very deep ffito the character of preaching, and it is
felt in the inmost experience of the Christian,^ The whole
subject of the forgiveness of sins, indeed, stands in the fore
front of the articles of reUgion as a question closely connected
with men's highest ffiterests, and in the fore-front of aU preach
ing ; and the subject is kept aUve by the constant opposition
which it encounters in some form.
As to the inquEy, whether forgiveness is to be preached as
standffig ffi immediate or mediate connection with the death of
Cffiist, it may be affirmed that all who abide by any form of
spiritual religion are agreed on one poffit: that among the
' The whole spirit and style of the pulpit may be said to be conditioned by
the opinions entertained on the question, whether forgiveness is to be preached
as the very firrst thing in the Gospel inessage to sinners. The negative opinion
raakes another gospel.

336 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
grand ends contemplated by the death of Christ, must be pre
eminently classed the spiritual and moral improvement of
mankind. But the debate is, whether, according to Cffiist's
testimony, the primary and prmcipal design of His death is
to be sought in the spiritual improvement of men, that is,
whether the forgiveness of sffi is to have place only in so far
as that first point is realized ; or, conversely, whether forgive
ness is to be preached as a benefit, ffi the first ffistance, dEectly
effected by the death of Cffiist, and whether the moral improve
ment foUows as the ffiseparable effect of the forgiveness. Not
a few in aU countries have accepted the theory, flowing from
a very ffiadequate notion of law and sffi, that they must preach
a message, which lays stress on the fact that Christ's design was
offiy to implant a new life among mankind. They speak as
if the impediment or difficulty to be overcome did not at aU
Ue on God's side, but offiy on man's side, who had yielded him
self up to selfishness, and whose healing woffid be completely
effected by regaffiing the mclination or bias to what is holy.
They add, that just ffi the proportion in wffich their recovery
is advanced, does the forgiveness of sin ensue ; for with them
sin is a calamity rather than a crime — a disease rather than a
fault. Though they aUow that there are ffi Scripture passages
wffich appear to derive the forgiveness of sins dEectly from
the blood of Christj they yet assert that these are counter
balanced by others which connect the design of Christ's death
with our moral improvement (GaL i 4), and that the former
are to be explaffied by the latter; and some of these writers
contend that theE theory is even more scriptural than the
exposition which asserts the direct connection between the
death of Christ and pardon. That makes another gospel (Gal,
i 4-10), The twofold answer to all this is obvious. (1) The positive
declaration of Christ, that His blood was shed for many for the
remission of sffis, ffidisputably points to an immediate connec
tion (Matt. xxvi. 28). On no other ground can we explam the

PLACE ASSIGNED TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE CHURCH, 337
way in wffich Christ coimects His blood with the remission of
sffis. There is here announced a dEect causal connection be
tween the two. This appears, too, from another mode of ex
pression. If one dies ffi another's room, and, by dyffig, effects
deUverance, what can that mean but an immediate and causal
connection between the sacrifice and the deUverance or remis
sion ? The Jewish mffid was qffite famiUar with this notion
by means of sacrffices, and they easEy connected the victim's
death and direct Eberation from punishment in vEtue of it,
(2) The commission as to the way that this forgiveness was
to be preached proves the same thing. It was to be preached,
not sold; and the simple announcement .of His death, and of
present forgiveness by means of it, to sinners as they are, was
the sum and substance of the commission with which the first
teachers of Christiaffity were invested.
The whole office of the nunistry, as it is here deUneated
with the commission, as it is represented by our Lord, has for its
object the proclamation of repentance and forgiveness. And so
the apostles describe their office as a miffistry of reconciUation
(2 Cor. V. 18), and as instituted to teU of Cffiist's ransom for
aU (1 Tim. u. 5-7) ; while the word is caEed the preaching of
the cross (1 Cor. i. 18),
Thus our Lord emphatically sets forth the immediate con
nection between His blood and forgiveness (Matt, xxvi, 28) ;
and the great work of preacffing, as weE as the great design of
the gospel ministry, is to announce or proclaim this fact,
SEC. XLV. — THE PLACE WHICH CHRIST ASSIGNS TO THE
ATONEMENT IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
The promffient rank which our Lord gives to the doctrine
of the atonement ffi the foundmg of the Christian -Church, and
ffi aE its solemnities, deserves our particffiar attention, as a
proof of its beffig a divffiely provided fact, and as an evidence
of its vast importance. Everything connected with the Church,

338 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
and with its solemnities or services, presupposes the historical
fact of Christ's atonffig death. This circumstance takes Christ
out of the category of a mere teacher. The influence of the
Lord's sacrifice may be traced on every ffistitution, on every
doctrffie, and on the whole outEne of Christian experience.
Had our plan led us to ffidffige in personal reflections, or to
expatiate on the practical fruits and consequences of thea tene
ment, these might have been set forth at large. But as we
limit ourselves to an expository outline or statement of our
Lord's sayings, we notice offiy what He has marked out as the
due position of this great truth in the ffistitutions and services
of the Church, which, are aE based upon the cross. When we
have done this, we shall apprehend correctly in what Ught
the Bible leads us to survey the doctrine.
1. The blood of atonement is the basis of the entEe new
covenant. On this point it is the less necessary to enlarge,
because we noticed, in a previous section, some of the topics
connected with it.^ Our Lord, in referring to the new cove
nant, so caUed as contrasted with that national covenant wMch
was made with Israel at Sffiai, declares that it was founded in
His 'blood, or on His atonement. This new covenant, into
which aU believing disciples are taken, whether Jews or
GentUes, rests on the true sacriflce, just as the Smaitic
covenant, with wffich it is contrasted, was founded on the
typical sacrifices' which must needs be offered at its institution.
I shaU not here enlarge again on the nature and provisions
of the new covenant, as my present object is only to show one
poffit connected with it — that the atonement lies at its founda
tion. The term covenant does not denote a mere doctrine, but
impEes an actual relation formed between God and man — the
atonement beffig the basis on which it rests. No atonement,
then no covenant and no Church. The more precise nature
of it wiU appear when we read it off from the provisions, of
the typical economy, wffich preceded it. The blessings were
' See page 166.

PLACE ASSIGNED TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE CHURCH. 339
to be individual blessffigs, so that, instead of the national theo
cracy, the members of the new covenant should be individuaUy
in covenant with God, and should have the law written on the
heart (Jer. xxxi. 31). The new covenant was to stand on the
foundation of a fiUl and everlasting remission of sins, which,
again, was derived only from the blood of atonement, according
to Christ's words. Thus the entire new covenant recognised the
death of Christ as its foundation. It may be added, that in this
covenant, differing as it did from the former, by being universal,
Jews and Gentiles participate ffi equal privEeges, being equaUy
reconcUed to God in one body. On the other hand, the new
covenant ceases to have any place where the doctrine of the
atonement is not received, or where it is rejected, either under
the influence of phUosophical reasonings, or of a legal bias; and
the terrible judgment of God, called by our Lord dying in
their sins (John viii 24) — a doom much more severe than that
of dying for disobeying Moses' law — faUs upon aU who despise
the blood of the covenant (Heb. x. 28). This involves more,
by many degrees, than the mere neglect of Christ's words or
teachffig. He was but the prophet or teacher of His own
salvation, so that He is rejected in both respects.
2. The atonement is described as the substance of the
sacraments. They have neither signfficance nor value, except
as they presuppose the great fact of a vicarious sacrifice for
sin; and to keep the atonement perpetuaUy before the eye of
the Church, as the one fact on which our entire salvation rests,
not offiy at the commencement, but also during the course of
the Christian's pUgrimage, the Lord deemed it fitting to ffisti-
tute these two sacraments ffi the Church. Thus the Christian
disciple sees the atonement everywhere, and finds it in every
Church institution. It is the one great fact from which he
starts, and to which he ever returns.
a. We shall notice this fact, first in connection with bap
tism, which is by no means to be UmEed to the idea that it
is a sign of reception into the Christian Church. If nothino' O

340 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
fmther than this were implied, there coffid be no reference to
the atonement. But E involves much more. Not to adduce
the subsequent statements of the apostles, which affirm that
they who are baptized into Christ are baptized into His death
(Eom. vi 3), the Lord's own sayings upon the point are by no
means obscure. Thus, when He speaks of His disciples bap-
tizffig in His name, as weU as in the name of the Father and of
the Spirit, He plaiffiy aUudes to a pecuEar relation to HimseE
in His official capacity ^ (Matt, xxviii 19); and when He said,
"I have a baptism to be baptized with; and how am I strait
ened tUl it is accompUshed ! " (Luke xii 50), He gives His own
authoritative exposition of the meaning and import of John's
baptism, as it was administered to HimseE. It was a .symbol
of the way in which Christ was to pass under the heaviest
sufferings; and He submitted to the symbol as a token of
the readffiess with which He submitted to undergo the reaUty.
The baptismal water was just an emblem, in Christ's case, of
the puffitive justice of God, under which He passed.^ Christ,
the surety, was baptized in His official capacity, and His people
are considered to have undergone this punishment in Him for
the remission of sins. The symbol can mean nothing else but
this, that His deaith was ours; the only difference between
John's baptism and that of the Christian Church bemg, that
the former was a baptism for a suffering yet future, whUe the
latter is a baptism into that which is finished. Baptism mti
mates a feEowship with Christ ffi His death. The grand,
fundamental idea of baptism, though not to the exclusion of
other aEusions, is, that His death was a propitiatory, death, and
that His people died with Him ; and this is specially developed
by the apostles (comp. Eom. vi. 4; 1 Pet. Ei. 21).
1 lia^TiZoyTis xvTovs I'ls to oyo/ix (Matt, xxviii. 19) intimates, in the first place,
faith and a confession, and, iu the next place, a certain relation, as intimated by
lis. But what I refer to is, that tJie name is not an allusion to the mere Trini
tarian relation, but also to the ofiicial redemption work, and so to the name of
Jesus in this respect as well.
' See this idea, developed by the well-kno-wn A. Schultens, on the Heidelberg'
Catechism, as translated from his papers by Barueth.

FAITH THE INSTRUMENT OF RECEPTION. 341
b. The same thmg holds true of the Lord's Supper, in
tended to keep alive, tffiough aU the ages tiU the second coming
of Cffiist, the great fact of His expiatory death. Its primary
design was not to commemorate His office as a teacher, but to
commemorate and symboUze His great sacrifice, when He died
to put away sffi by the sacrifice of HimseE. The words used
by Him in connection with it are so express and clear to tffis
effect, that no doubt as to theE meaning remains on any mind
ffiterpreting words according to theE precise signfficance.
When Christians receive the bread and wine by faith, they are
supposed to be made partakers of His vicarious death, and are
regarded as havffig undergone, ffi and with Him, aE that He
endured. Thus, accordmg to the purpose of Christ, these symbolic
actions of the Cffiistian Church refer, both of them, to the
atonement; and they are meant to attest it, whenever they
are solemnized. As they perpetuaUy return in the services of
the Christian Church, they keep before the eye of beUevers tffis
great fundamental truth tUl the Lord come. The meanffig of
the atonement, its nature, and effects o,f every kind, the utUity
of the atonement and its necessity, are aE proclaimed anew by
every repetition of these sacraments, which are appropriate to
the different stages of the Cffiistian Ufe, — the one to its com
mencement, the other to its progress. AE these provisions
keep up a constant remembrance of the cross, and are accom-
paffied with the word given to explam them. Hence we may
see the rank and place that belong to the atonement.
sec. xlvl — Christ's sayings which represent faith as the
ORGAN OR instrument OF RECEIVING THE ATONEMENT.
The relative place of faith becomes evident, when it is
¦viewed as that mental act on which the whole appEcation of
redemption on man's side depends. The term faith means
a spEit-given trust on the divffie mercy and on a personal

342 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
Saviour, as opposed to man's native self-reliance. This is its
uniform signification, accordffig to Scripture usage. Though
some have thought that, in a considerable number of passages
(as Gal. i. 23 ; 1 Tim. iv, 1 ; Jude 3), it must be taken in an
objective sense, denoting the doctrine^ of the gospel, yet the
best modem expositors explain these passages in the ordinary
sense; from which, indeed, we are not requEed to depart in
a single instance.
The important position which faith occupies appears when
we consider that it is the means by wffich redemption is appro
priated, presupposing Christ's atoning work, which it receives,
and being so closely connected with repentance, that the one
is never in exercise without the other. It is saving only, as it
is receptive of Christ's finished work ; and this is the point to
wffich primary attention must be directed. Faith in its proper
nature is the reception of a gift, and saves, not as it involves
obedience, but simply as it is receptive of redemption.
There are passages in Scripture where we find the phrase,
" the obedience of the faith," denoting a compUance with the
Evine authority in accepting the gEt (comp. Acts vi, 7 ; Eom,
i, 5, X, 3), Though these passages have been explained by
some as denoting the obedience which follows faith, they reaUy
mean obedience in accepting the divine gEt, The personal
Saviour, as the surety of sinners, and in the discharge of His
official undertaking, which involved an obedience unto death
and the acceptance of His work, is the proper object of faith ;
which is by no means limited to a bare act of the understandffig,
but is an exercise of the heart. There are several sayings of
our Lord, describing faith as the one means of receiving the
atonement. Faith, in the sense attached to it by Christ,
involves a trust in His person, and gives a relation to His
person. It is always used to denote a God-given reEance on
^ The commentators of the Reformation age, and afterwards, took up this idea
of mirns, or rather inherited, it from medieval times. It is now given up by all
good exegetes, (See Winer, Meyer, t>e Wette, Fritzsche, passim. )

FAITH THE INSTRUMENT OF RECEPTION, 343
an aU-sufficient Mediator, Nor is it a reliance on His person
Erespective of His office; for faith uniformly looks to what
He officiaEy did and suffered for our salvation.
To apprehend the connection between faith and the Saviour
for the remission of sins, we must investigate what is the
function of faith according to the sayings of Christ. We shaU
limit our attention, however, to the function of faith in obtainffig
the participation of the ransom, the atonement, or righteousness
which Christ brought in ; as it woffid turn us away ffito a line
of inquEy different from that we are pursuffig, were we to enter
on the doctrffie of faith ffi aE its aspects and bearings. Our
one object in this section is to set forth from the words of
Cffiist, that a divinely origmated faith is the receptive organ or
hand by which the believer is made partaker of the atonement,
I shaE not refer to those passages where it is ffiterchanged
with the phrase, " to receive His testimony" (John iii. 11, 12),
I shall omit, too, the frequent use of the term in connection
with the miraculous cures wrought on the bodies of men,
though, both in their conscious need and ffi the persuasion of
Christ's sufficiency, this exercise of faith was analogous, though
not precisely the same, in aU respects, with that which receives
the crucified Christ for salvation,^ In a word, faith is the
hand by which the graciously provided ransom is received by
the captive, and the complete righteousness is received by the
destitute ; or, to use another mode of representation, it is that
bond wffich attaches us to Christ, and thereby to the Father,
It makes Christ and His disciples one, in such a sense that they
are no more two, but one person, in the eye of law and before
God, Thus it may be affirmed, that by means of faith, the
person is put on a right footffig of acceptance; the standing
before God is adjusted ; the relation of the man towards God is
rectffied. There is nothffig else by wffich men can be connected
with the Saviour, Without it, there woffid be no relation
' See an interesting biblical, as well as dogmatic, discussion of this doctrine
hy Superintendent Cless, iiber den iV, T. Begriff des Glaubens.

344 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
to Jesus, and the atonement woffid be offered in vain; but
when any avaU themselves of His mediation, who is the way,
the truth, and the Ufe, they have access to God by Him
(John xiv, 6), There is thus an immediate connection, without
any intervening steps at aU, between faith and the acceptance
of the person or the forgiveness of sins.
In our Lord's saymgs, moreover, it wUl be found that faith
is put in direct antithesis to work of any kind, or to any
account of moral vEtue, which might become a ground of con
fidence before God, His saymgs leave us in no doubt that
faith leans on the person of Christ alone, with a fuU repudiation
of all the righteousness of works. Thus, on one occasion He
repUed to the self-righteous mffititude, demanding, " What shaU
we do, that we might work the works of God ?" in a manner
which was fitted to repress such legaUsm : " This is the work
of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John
vi, 29), It is only by a kind of paronomasia that He calls
faith a work, as E He woffid say, " If this language is to be intro
duced at all, this is the work of God, the divinely appointed
injunction, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent,"
Faith is thus the hand by which we receive aE that Christ
has done. This wiE appear, if we recall some of our Lord's say
ings on this point. Thus, ffi that striking delffieation given of
faith ffi His conversation with Nicodemus, He defines it as an
exercise of the soul, correspondffig to the lookffig of the wounded
IsraeEte to the heaven-appointed means of cure (John ffi, 14,
15), In both the verses where He speaks of faith as the means
of cure, it is spoken of as trust or reliance on the incarnate Son
crucffied or " Efted up " (ver, 1 4), or " given " ffi the sacrificial
acceptation of the term (ver, 1 6), The looking of the wounded
IsraeEte, as the means by which he was healed, is paraUel to
faith on the crucified Christ, Thus the proper import of the
term " faith " is limited to this peculiar relation wffich is
always presupposed between a sinner and a Saviom*, As in the
case of the IsraeUte it was not the reception of a moral doctrine.

FAITH THE INSTRUMENT OF RECEPTION. 345
nor fideUty in the observance of the laws of Moses, but a con-
fidffig look to the serpent, that constituted the means of cure,
so faith is nothing but reliance on the crucified Jesus. For
what did* that figure serve ? and why was that figure pecffiiarly
selected? It was' for the purpose of showffig that faith pre
supposes the finished work of atonement, that is, a divine pro
vision, and a human want. As human necessities are many
and great, faith clings to the crucffied Son of God as the God-
appointed and sufficient remedy. As the atonement, or the
means of putting sinful men on a right relation to God, is the
greatest necessity, that can be named, and as the atoning death
of Christ is the centre-point of aU His benefits, so faith is the
centre-point of Christ's doctrine.
Our Lord represents the same thffig under another figurative
description — that of eatffig the bread of Ufe which came down
from heaven (John vi. 32-53). To apprehend the force of this
figure, we must attend to the pomt of comparison. Between
the bread and the crucffied Christ there is one analogy; be
tween the act of eating and the exercise of faith there is a
second. With reference to the first of these, the comparison
must be made offiy with reference to the nourishing property of
food, thus : As food has a nutritive quality, so the death of
Christ has the same relation to our salvation. His death is the
cause of our salvation ffi the same way as food is the cause of
sustaffiing lEe, But here the second analogy, or poffit of com
parison, presents itself. The most nutritious food coffid not
avail to any who did not make use of it ; and, in the same way,
the death of Christ wiE not benefit any who do not beUeve in
Him. Thus, according to this simple and perspicuous figure,
faith stands to our salvation ffi the same relation that the par
taking of food does to this temporal Ufe,^ Faith is thus the
appomted means, and the only means, by wffich any man can
enjoy the saving efficacy of Christ's atoffing death ; and no
words coffid more forcibly point out the ffidispensable necessity
1 See Lotze, Hoogepriesterschap van J. C, p. 145,

346 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
of faith for a participation in the saving efficacy of Christ's
atoffing sacrifice. This is the one means of reception. He
who believes receives the saving blessings which Christ's death
procured, and has a right to the fffifilment of the proffiise. He
who receives with the heart the gEt of the crucified Christ,
has a right to pardon, and can claim it.
We do not here develop the doctrine that faith is an inward
work of God, produced by the operation Of divine grace ; for we
are directed by our theme to faith, as the appointed way, and the
offiy way, by which men can please God, and find the acceptance
of their persons before God, Christ teUs us that a man is saved,
not by workiiig, but by believing on Him whom the Father sent
(John vi. 29). It is as if He said, "Have done with working;-
begin by believing on a God-appoffited Mediator, as contaming
in His person and redemption work the only sufficient ground
of acceptance." Salvation is to him who ceases from workffig ;
or, as it is put by Paul : " To him that worketh not, but believeth
on Him that justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted for right
eousness " (Eom, iv, 5) ; and this proves that faith constitutes
the primary, principal, and most important duty.
The same thmg is proved by those sayings of Jesus, where
He declares that they who beUeve not, perish in then sms
(John viii, 24), AE depended on this, that they took Him for
what He was. That language referred to His person and ofiice,
not i to His doctrine, and it shows what stood connected with
faith on His person, or the opposite. They who woffid not
receive Him as the sin-bearer, or as the Lamb of God, must
therefore perish in their sins.

SEC, XLVII, — ^ENDLESS HAPPINESS, OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE, DECIDED
BY THE MANNER IN WHICH MEN WELCOME OR REJECT THE
ATONEMENT,
Though we embrace in this section two opposite. classes of
sayings, we deem it best to put them together, partly because

HAPPINESS OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE HINGING ON IT, 347
the one suggests the other, by contrast, partly because men's
destiny ffinges simply on the acceptance or non-acceptance of
Christ's atonement, I shaU refer a Uttle more fffily to the
second point just mentioned, that is, to the remedUess doom of
those who refuse the propitiation of the cross,
1, Christ's vicarious sacrifice alone, apart from any acces
sory work or merit of a supplementary description, secm'ed for
His people a place in the heavenly inheritance : " I go to pre
pare a place for you. And if I go and prepare a place for you,
I wffi come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I
am, there ye may be also. And whither I go ye know, and the
way ye know, Thomas saith unto Him, Lord, we know not
whither Thou goest ; and how can we know the way ? Jesus
saith unto him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life : no
man cometh unto the Father, but by Me'' (John xiv, 2-6),
This sayffig, understood according to the deep significance
wffich our Lord commonly attached to the words, depart and
go away, comprehends not offiy the departure, but the mode by
which He went ; that is, the vicarious sacrifice by which He
returned to the Father, Tffis, as we have aEeady proved, is
the import of Christ's language in such a connection. The
words intimate that heaven, once shut against mankffid, is re
opened by the satisfaction of the Son of God, and that His
entrance secures that of His people. The text is thus a key to
aU those passages which describe Jesus as the new and Eving
way (Heb. x. 20), as the leader of our salvation (Heb, E, 10),
as the forerunner who has for us entered (Heb, vi, 20), and
also to another class of passages which speak of sittffig in
heavenly places with Him (Eph, i, 3),
It is a superficial comment, wffich interprets the words as
referrffig only to doctrffie, and as ffitimating merely that He
poffited out the way to happiness. No mere teacher ever ex
pressed himseE as the Lord has here done. It is true the
disciples might not at the time discern the fuU meaning of the
words, and might understand Him as if He represented Himself

348 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
in the Ught of a traveUer, who goes to a certain place Him
self, and 'makes certain preparations also for the reception of
His friends. Many ffiterpreters see Ettle beyond this in the
words. But they imply much more. They intimate that Jesus
was to be the procuring cause and the ground of our endless
feEcity, and not the mere messenger to announce it. He re
presents HEnseE as the one cause of man's happiness, and as
accompEshing what meritoriously prepared a place for His dis
ciples. He caEs His death or vicarious sacrifice a going to the
Father, and deEneates it as the means or cause of preparing a place
for His people among the many mansions. No one is warranted
to explain these words in a metaphorical way, when it is evident,
from the whole scope and connection of the passage, that He
woffid have them apprehended in their strict ahd proper import.
According to the prfficiple of interpretation wffich we have
applied several times already, the words of Jesus imply that
men had forfeited their position in the house of God, and that
Christ has restored it by His atoning death, A place was pre
pared for the disciples by Christ, first of aU, because He anni
hilated the cause of the estrangement, puttffig away sffi by the
sacrifice of HimseE; and next, because He took possession of
the inheritance ffi His people's name, as their representative
and Head, Thus, apart from any supplementary work of man,
or any merit of our own appended to the work of atonement,
Christ's going to the Father prepared a place for the redeemed;
and His disciples enter heaven simply on the footing of His
atoning sacrffice. This is more than a teacher's function, and
more than to foUow a mere example.
2. Tffis leads me to consider, in the next place, the opposite
class of testimoffies, wffich set forth the irremediable woe and
endless punishment awaiting those who reject the redemption
work of Christ. The general question of im^ retribution and '
of endless punishment ffi aU its wide bearffigs, does not come
within our present purpose. But one important aspect of it—
that connected with the rejection of the atonement, or the non-

HAPPINESS OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE HINGING ON IT. 349
acceptance of the divffiely-provided remedy — demands atten
tion, as a large number of testimonies uttered by our Lord has
express reference to the endless and irremediable misery of those
who reject His sacrifice. To these we must somewhat more
copiously refer, and the rather, because at present, doubts as
to the eternity of future puffishment are more widely diffused
than at any previous epoch, among those who in other respects
accept the truths of Christiaffity.
When we consider the constant and uniform teaching of our
Lord as to the future destiny of men, we find two periods men
tioned, — one of preparation, which is of brief duration; and
one of retribution, which is fixed and endless. Thus, faith is
requEed in this Efe, and urged with the distinct amiouncement,
that otherwise men are condemned already (John m, 18), and
that the wrath of God ahideth on them (John iii. 36). The same
aUusion to the endless endurance of the divine Espleasure comes
out emphaticaEy in a passage of which the point is much missed.
" For whosoever wiU save his life shall lose it : and whosoever
wffi lose his lEe for my sake shaE find it. For what is a man
profited, E he shall gam the whole world, and lose his own soul ?
or what shaU a man give ffi exchange for [better, as a ransOm-
price for] ffis soul ?" (Matt. xvi. 25, 26).^ This implies that the
payment of a ransom was indispensably necessary in order to
Uberate men from captivity, but that it has been neglected ; and
the poffit of our Lord's inquiry is, what other expedient or ran
som, to satisfy God and to effect man's Uberation, can be given?
It is tantamount to the declaration that there remaineth no
more sacrifice for sffi, no second ransom, when the soffi has been
lost by the rejection of the one sole expeEent devised for this
end. The figurative terms, too, by which these future punish
ments are expressed — such as " the unquenchable fire " (Mark
ix. 45), and the "way that leadeth to destruction" (Matt, vii
13)— convey thoughts that are wholly out of keeping with the
idea of restoration or deEverance, 1 ayToXXayf^a. Ttis -^ux^s.

350 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
Before noticing single testimoffies, we may adduce, as a
ruEng ffistance, the case of Judas Iscariot, of whom our Lord
said, " Woe unto that man by whom the Son of Man is be
trayed ! it had been good for that man if he had not been born"
(Matt. xxvi. 24), This mode of argffing from a rffiing case,
employed by Paffi, for the establishment of such weighty truths
as justffication by faith alone (Rom, iv, 1-23), election (Rom,
ix. 10-23), and the Eberty of those who are chUdren of the
promise (Gal, iv, 22-31), may be used to prove the truth of
eternal punishments. It is noteworthy, that the objection of
greatest weight to certaffi minds is, that it would have been
better for such persons that they had not been born ; and that
is the very inference drawn by our Lord in respect of Judas,
He allows it ; He asserts it. But this language coffid not have
been used if there were a termination to the retributioh
awarded, or any ffiterior felicity and rest ; — a proof, this, which
cannot be evaded, and before which aU must stand sUent ! If
a pause shoffid foUow, or a period of feUcity shoffid enter, to
be at last a relief or compensation, such words could not have
been used by the omffiscient Saviour, whose eye minutely sur
veyed all future, as weU as aU present, relations. It woffid
have been good for Judas to be born, E, even after innumerable
ages, or after a period of punishment, however long contffiued,
he should at last enter on the inheritance of rest and peace
and glory ; for the intermediate torment, how protracted soever,
woffid bear no proportion to the unending rest of eterffity. On
the contrary, this case demonstrates that there is no outlet, no
repentance, no hope ; and a ruUng ffistance of this sort is con
clusive. They who doubt the eternity of future punishment must
explain away our Lord's words on some preconceived theory,
and by a non-natural interpretation (John viu, 24), Certaiffiy,
their usual position, that Christ taught nothing but love, is
refuted, not only by the woe pronounced upon Chorazin, Beth-
saida, and Capernaum (Matt, xi 21-23), and upon the Scribes

HAPPINESS OR IRREMEDIABLE WOE HINGING ON IT. 351
and Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 1-33), but also by the Estinct an
nouncement with which He sent forth His apostles : " He that
beUeveth not shall he damned " (Mark xvi. 1 6). Without going
into an exhaustive discussion of this question,^ it wUl serve the
purpose wffich we have in view, to adduce one or two sayings
of Jesus which conclusively estabUsh the fact, that endless woe
awaits those who reject His atonement.
In sendffig out the twelve on their first evangelistic tour,
He said, " Eather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul
ahd body in heU " (Matt, x. 28), Plainly, it is God to whom
our Lord refers as able to destroy both soul and body ; and the
words contaffi the notion of unendffig destruction as the second
death, FinaEty is whoEy out of keepffig with our Lord's words,
for that notion would argue purffication and preparation for a
better lot, not the destruction of both soffi and body in heE,
which is affirmed. Not less express is the statement in the
parable of Lazarus, that there is a great gulf fixed, and im
passable, between those in bEss and those in misery, by which
they are for ever separated (Luke xvi, 26), The language
impUes, that if the blessed never faU from their felicity, the lost
never escape from their misery.
The same awfffi truth is brought out when our Lord speaks
of everlastffig punishment, using the same word with which He
speaks of Ufe eternal (Matt, xxv, 46), To those who argue
that a different meaning may be assigned to the same adjective
in the two contrasted clauses of the same verse, it is enough to
say that the admission of such a diversity of meanffig woffid
be to violate all the rffies of just interpretation. It is to no
purpose to aEege that the word here rendered everlasting and
eternal denotes sometimes nothing beyond a definite time^
1 On the subject of eternal punishment, 1 may refer to the anti-Socinian
writers, such as Hoombeck and Calo-nus. As against the rationalists I may
mention specially Michaelis, iiber Siinde und Genugthuung, p. 260 ; also an able
discussion in Mosheim's Sermons, Lampe's Dissertations, Schultens on Heidelberg
Catechism, Muntinghe, Van Voorst, etc.
^ It is not denied that, in certain connections, xldyios denotes what lasts during

352 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT.
(Gen, xvu, 13; Eph, Ui, 9), However men may argue from
other passages where the word denotes enduring as long as a
certain economy or ffistitution contffiues, that does not touch
the antithesis of this verse. It stiE remaffis that the same
word is equaUy applied to the heaveffiy blessedness and to the
future misery; and on no principle of interpretation can an
expositor be aEowed to give a different sense to the same word
in two contrasted clauses.
One of the strongest proofs for the eternity of future puffish
ment is found in the words descriptive of the condemned:
"where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched"
(Mark ix. 46). They who contend for the finality of punishment
have no refuge from the cogency of this passage, except in the
desperate peradventure of annihUation, to which, without any
evidence, they sometimes appeal.
The theme on which we have been commentffig is awfffi in
the extreme, and one which no one can approach without a
bleeffing heart. But the question to be determined, apart from
aE other considerations, is, What has Jesus said ? does He
assert the finaEty of puffishment or its unending duration ? and
no faithful expounder of His words can maintain that He has
even left this matter doubtfffi. As to the further question, On
whom does this unendffig doom strike ? His words are not less
clear. They are uniformly represented as the men who, Uke
Judas, or the Jewish nation, or Capernaum, refuse His redemp
tion work, and reject His great salvation (Matt. xxv. 46 ; John
iE 36 ; Matt, ui 12) ; and the frequency with which our Lord
refers to this .theme is a merciful forewarning, intended to shut
men up to the atonement.
a given epoch, or o^'im. (See J, Alting on Rom. xvi. 25.) But the connection
shows, in all languages, what is meant by such words as for ever. I may refer
to a discussion by Moses Stuart on aim and xlmios, in Clark's Biblical Cabinet,
vol. 37.

INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION. 353

SEC. XLVIIL — THE INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT, CORRECTLY
UNDERSTOOD, ON THE WHOLE DOMAIN OF MORALS AND RELIGION.
The doctrffie of the atonement, which it was our aim to
establish in the foregoing pages, and to put in its true light,
from the view-point of Christ's consciousness, is so interwoven
with aU the other essential doctrines of Christianity, that they
may be said to stand or faU together. Nothing important can
keep its ground, E, indeed, anyiihing of paramount moment
can be said to remain, where the atonement is abandoned, or
no longer held in some form. It is this that gives coherence,
meanmg, and consistency to the entire fabric, which must
otherwise collapse.
But it is not so much the place of the atonement in Chris
tian doctrffie, as its ffifluence on moraUty and vital reUgion, to
which I here aEude. The plan we have pursued does not lead us
to the Epistles, where we find perpetuaUy recurring references
to the fact of the atonement, and to aU the spEitual benefits
which stand ffi intimate connection with it, but simply to the
Lord's own words, - as the basis and groundwork of aU the
appUcations which the apostles make of it. But we find His
o-wn sayffigs explicit enough on the subject of our present
inquiry. We shaU consider the influence of the atonement on the
domaffi of morals and true piety. The participation of the
saving benefits flowing from the atonement yields the strongest
of aU motives that can influence the human heart, not to dis
honour, but to glorify, the ineffably gracious Giver of such
blessffigs. If we were to enumerate the securities for vital
reUgion suppUed by the atonement, we shoffid have to distri
bute them into two classes — one having its basis ffi the moral
government of God, a second in the sphere of motives,. To
the former, indicated in our Lord's aUusions to the premial Efe,
consequent on the reception of the atonement (John vi, 51),

354 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
and fuUy developed in the apostoEc Epistles (Eom, vi, 4 ; Gal,
u, 20), it is not necessary again to refer, because the subject
was under our consideration when we discussed the renovatmg
and transforming effects of the divine Efe, as it takes possession
of the human heart. It is to the latter, or the motives fur
nished by the atonement, that it is only further necessary to
aEude. A scheme of thought which runs counter to the atonement,
E carried out to its logical consequences, is destructive to
reEgion, and subversive of moraEty. The peace and security
of mankind depend on a true knowledge of God, not in one
attribute, but in aE the perfections of His nature. The position
too widely mamtained at present, that God is nothing but a
fountain of goodness, who sacrifices everythffig to the happmess
of His creatures, destroys aU reEgion, because it takes no
account of the subjection, love, and reverence due to God. The
class of thinkers who at present woffid strike out. the atone
ment from the creed of Cffiistendom, agree in maffitainffig that
love was the offiy motive ffi the divffie mmd ffi creatffig the
world, and in legislating for it, and that He had no other
object or design but the communication of happffiess. Though
this scheme of thought is not formaUy connected with any
phUosophy, as it was with the Leibnitzian or Wolfian phUo-
sophy, last century, it comes to substantiaEy the same result,
that the supreme Beffig sacrifices everything to human happi
ness and to the best world. It is argued that He is too
highly exalted to be ffijured by human transgression, or angry
at men's impdtent opposition, and that He indulgently con-
ffives at tffis, E they do not ffijure or destroy themselves. It
is held that the Most High never punishes but for men's good,
and generaEy not at aE, if they render this unnecessary by
repentance. This at once banishes aE moral aims from the divine govern
ment, and, in a word, so completely reverses the relations of
thffigs, that, on this principle, the creature can scarcely be said

INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION. 355
to exist for the Creator, but conversely. Tffis theory disconnects
happffiess from moral exceEence, which cannot any longer be re
garded as possessed of ffitrffisic value, as it gives way at every
poffit where piysical happffiess is threatened or imperUled.
This is. a low view of the divffie government. On the contrary,
God coffid not rest with complacency ffi even the happiest
world, if men did not seek after theE Creator, and acknowledge
His rights ; and aE reEgion is at once subverted, as well as aU
right ethical action — supported as it is on the natural rela
tion which we bear, as reasonable beffigs, to the Creator — the
moment men maffitaffi that God aims at the natural happiness
of His creatures as the chief end.
The effect of this theory on morals and reUgion, if no other
elements came m to countervaU or check it, is obvious. AU
those duties, wffich terminate ffi God, woffid faU to the ground,
for there woffid be no motives drawn from our relation to
Hun. And E some duties woffid at once faU to the ground,
others, such as joy and deUght ffi Him, woffid be so much
deteriorated that they coffid scarcely be said to partake of a
moral character, because they woffid not differ in kind from
the joy or deUght which we have ffi ffisensate tffings, which
please or profit us — God woffid not be made the end of human
action, and seE-interest would predommate.^
On the contrary, the atonement, as we have developed it
from the words of our Lord, is based on the fact that God vinE-
cates His rights, and that He cannot recede from the legitimate
claim — ^based not only on His relation as Creator, but also on
His own moral exceUence — to the 'Jove and confidence, the
reverence and homage, the subjection and adoration, of every
creature made ffi the image of God. He demands this from
His ffiteUigent universe, and cannot conffive at rebeUion with
out the inffiction of due puffishment. This is the first prfficiple
1 On the influence of right ideas of the atonement, I may refer to two Dutch
champions of the truth : HulshofPs Philosophische Gesprekken, 1795 ; and
Wynpersse, over de Straffende Gerechtigheid, 1799.

356 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
of His moral government; and the atonement is its recogni
tion on the part of the substitute, as weU as its enforcement
on the part of the Creator,
The vEtue, which takes its tincture from Christ's atonement,
is perceptibly different, too, from that wffich disregards it. Ex
perience shows that the virtues of such persons as plume them
selves on their moraEty, apart from any dependence on the
atonement of Cffiist, are of a hard, arrogant, censorious, and
inflexible character. On the contrary, where men feel them
selves to be imperfect sinning creatures, daUy confessffig errors,
and standing before God m a Mediator's merits, they possess
a virtue which is mUd, meek, patient, humble, and attractive m
the comparison,^
2. Havffig already adverted to the influence of the atone
ment on the whole domain of morals, it remains that we briefly
notice its effect on the field of true piety or vital religion ffi its
various phases. To begin with faith, the organ or instrument
of reception, we readUy perceive that, without the atonement,
it would have wanted its adequate and proper object. Under
various modes of representation, metaphors or analogies from
common Ufe, it is described as the hand or ffistrument by wffich
men are made partakers of the atonement (John ui, 15, 16,
V, 36), As faith does not merely accept Christ as a teacher or
approve of His moral code, but depends on Himself, it coffid
have no object without the atonement.
Not only so : as many passages in our Lord's teaching con
nect the atonement more or less dEectly with almost every
spEitual benefit and every phase of vital reEgion, it is ob-vious
that this central truth, the key-stone of the whole structure of
a reEgious life, cannot be removed without Ereparable rffin.
Thus, to enumerate a few of these blessffigs, we find that our
Lord, on the eve of His arrest by the hand of men, spoke of a
peace wffich He shoffid leave with His disciples as the frffit of
' Compare the ethics of Epictetus, Antoninus, or Kant with the delineations
of Christian ethics by Melancthon, Mosheim, Fenelon, Sailer,

INFLUENCE OF THE ATONEMENT ON MORALS AND RELIGION, 357
the atonement (John xiv, 24) ; for the whole context indicates
that He refers to the peace of conscious reconciUation flowing
from IHs vicarious sacrifice. Many other privUeges — more
numerous, ffideed, than can here be mentioned in detaU, be
longffig to the essential elements of true reUgion — stand in
precisely the same relation : the freedom with which the Son
makes His people free (John viii, 36); the hearing oi prayer
(John xvi, 23); rest for the weary and heavy laden (Matt, xi,
28) ; the satisfaction of a felt hunger and thEst (John vi, 35,
vii, 37) ; a more abundant Efe (John x, 10); and a comffig to
the Father with boldness of access (John xiv, 6), It may seem,
at first sight, as if these passages stood in no dEect connection
with any reference to the surety-merits and atonement of Christ ;
but every one wiU be constrained so to connect them, when he
compares them with the general statements of the New Testa
ment, or puts them ffi their orgaffic connection with the system
of biblical doctrffie. The titles which Cffiist assumes, especiaUy
that of the Saviour of the lost (Luke xix, 10), elevate Him far
above the rank of a teacher or messenger of salvation,
3, It offiy remains for us to notice the infiuence of the
atonement ffi the sphere of religious motives. Its ffifluence
as a constraffiffig motive is as powerfffi and efficacious ffi the
domain of spEitual motive as we saw it was ffi the sphere of
morals, and primarEy or first ffi order here. Thus, to adduce a
few of the constituent elements of aU true piety, the atonement
is pecuEarly adapted to imbue men with reverence for God, The
rational creature can revere and stand ffi awe of God offiy when
He is known as venerable ; and what can more fiE the human
mind with reverence than a due discovery of the majesty of
God, and of the mviolabUity of the divine law ffi the atone
ment of the cross ? Even in other orders of being, who obtain
a knowledge of it, and who look mto these thffigs, the same
feeUngs are awakened (1 Pet, i 12), Then, as to the dread of
sin, nothffig is so calcffiated to infuse it, as a right view of the
atonement, especiaUy when we apprehend the infiffite dignity

358 SAYINGS OF JESUS ON THE ATONEMENT,
of the substitute, who must needs be made an example of the
divine wrath. With regard, moreover, to the aversion to sin,
essential to aU piety, nothffig is more calcffiated to make the
memory of it better, and its aUurements repffisive, than the
agonies of Christ, considered in connection with the sins that
caused them.
Nor does the constraining motive stop short there ; for we
may survey the ffifluence of the atonement over the entEe
sphere or cycle of man's duty. In reference to gratefffi love,
notffing so much tends to fill the heart with this emotion as
the beUevmg reaUzation of Christ's redemption work — nothing
so melts the heart ; and no purer love to God can be imbibed.
Nor is this a service which either aEows room for self-dependence,
or warrants men to plume themselves on merit ; for E we should
describe it, we coffid offiy say that the redeemed are not less
jealous of mixing theE own hoEness with the Eedeemer's meri
torious propitiation, than afraid of a frffitless faith or dead pro
fession. There is no motive to a holy life so powerful and
efficacious as that which is drawn from the propitiatory work
of Christ, who, after meeting the demands of the law and
bearffig its curse, makes that same law a rule to direct our
steps ; and Christians learn to take it from the Mediator's
hand.

APPENDIX OF NOTES AND ELUCIDATIONS.

Secs. IL, III. — Number of the Sayings on the subject of His
Death.
IN speakffig of the Emited number of the Lord's testimonies
on the subject of His atoning death, I have aUuded to
several elements in the public opffiion of the age, which, per
haps, go far to explain the amount of reserve which undoubtedly
may be traced. Among other cEcumstances, is the fact that few
of the Jews at that time retained a right idea of the atonffig
work or function of the Messiah, as it is represented in Isaiah's
prophecy (Isa, UE,),
The Jews ffi the time of Christ 'do not seem to have retained
in theE creed the beEef of a suffering Messiah — the priest
hood (Ps, ex, 4) and 'the prophetical office beffig swaEowed
up ffi the one notion of a temporal prffice (see John i, 21, com
pared with Deut, xviE, 18), Borger, in his Disputatio contra
Eberhardum, quotes those writers who assert, and also those
writers who deny, that the Jews in the time of Christ stiU had
the idea. The evidence from the Gospels, that the idea had
weU-nigh or wholly perished from the Jewish community, is
almost conclusive. The Jews seem to have expected nothffig
but a temporal domffiion, and a Messiah who shoffid over
throw the power of Eome, and give to the Jewish people
an ascendency among the nations. Their words at Jerusalem,
"We have heard out of the law, that Cffiist abideth for ever"
(John xu, 34), are decisive on this point. The offence, too,
which the multitude took at Capernaum, as De Wette and

•360 APPENDIX,
Meyer correctly show, must, in a large measure, be ascribed to
His declaration, that He was to die, or to be a suffering Messiah
(John vi, 60). (See also Vffike, p, 164,)
That the apostles were not exempt from the prejudices of
their contemporaries, but rather shared in them in a double
measure, fi'om the fact that they expected to receive the places
of honour, distffiction, and authority in the Messiaffic kingdom,
is evident from their language, and from aU the incidents in
theE history. If they understood the import of Christ's words,
they mismterpreted His aEusions to His death by then own
foregone conclusions, derived as they were from the prophecies
which announced that the Messiah shoffid reign for ever, and
that His government shoffid have no end (Isa, ix, 7), These
prophecies they understood as declaring that He shoffid never
die, Christ promised them the Comforter, who was to lead them
into aE truth, or rather " into aE the truth" (Tutroti/ t^v akridnoiv),
and especiaEy into the fuE doctrffie as to His atoffing death,
wffich they could not bear wffile He was stiE among them
(John xvi 13, 17),
Though these causes go far to explain the reason why our
Lord said less on the subject of His atonffig death than might
have been expected, yet the supposition is highly probable,
that He uttered many things on the subject of His death which
have not been recorded ; for we have only a smaE portion re
corded of what He said and did (John xx, 30, xxi, 25), Thus
the Apostle Paffi adduces one memorable saying of Christ, not
recorded by any of the evangelists (Acts xx, 35), It is a re
markable feature of the Gospels, indeed, that we commoffiy find
a narrative offiy of the discoiuses and actions of the Lord as He
appeared in public, and came in contact with those who could
not hear the whole truth as to the nature of His mission, history,
and fortunes. We have not the record of His private interviews
to any large extent, if we except such incidents as His inter
views with Nicodemus and with the famUy of Bethany (Luke
X, 38), It woffid be too much to affirm with Van Willes, that

NOTE ON SECTIONS II,, III, 361
Jesus did not, in the proper sense of the word, publicly preach
His sufferffigs and death ; for, though the aUusion to His death
is in His public discourses commonly ffitroduced after some
thing else (comp, John vi, and x,), no one with these two chap
ters before him, as a specimen both of His GaUlean ministry
and of His miffistry in Jerusalem, is entitled to say that He did
not make His death and its effects one of the principal points
of His preacffing in appropriate and fitting places. But of His
words in private we have very Ettle recorded, such as we now
desEe to possess ; and a number of references to His death
may have been made on many occasions, of which we have no
record. The explanation of John as to the mode in which the
Gospels were composed, serves to explain this reserve (John
xxi, 25), We may infer with much probabiUty, that the men of
Sychar, who evinced a docEity and freedom from prejudice little
fpund among the Jews, received an outline of the necessity,
nature, and effects of His atoning death, such as susceptible
mffids were in a position to hear from His lips. They call Him
0 "^uri^p TOV xSfffjuov ; and the words of Christ about Mary of
Bethany, who anointed Him for His burial, — ^though exegetes
such as Grotius, KuinoeL and Fritzsche, repudiated the notion
¦ of a conscious purpose on her part, — do seem to argue a beUef
ffi His death, and to imply private instruction from Him
seE on His vicarious sacrifice. And another instance of a
secret disciple who seems to have received instructions from
our Lord ffi private on the subject of His death, was Joseph of
Arimathea, one of the members of the Sanhedrim, The fact
that he was not offended by the death of Jesus, but confirmed
in his attachment to Him, and went ffi boldly to Pilate to beg
the body (roXfibfiffug, Mark xv, 43), argues that he must have
received mstmction on the death and resurrection of the Mes
siah ; which he could get from only one of two sources — the
prophecies, or the personal teaching of Jesus, There is much
probabiEty in the supposition that he received the information
from the Lord Himself, as one of the " many " cffief rulers who

362 Appendix,
beUeved on Him (John xu, 42). He appears to have been more
prompt than Nicodemus, though they went in together (John
xix. 38). Plaiffiy, he was a disciple before this. Many of the
explanations and ffistructions commufficated during the forty
days of the resurrection are left unrecorded. In the course of
those TEN interviews which they were permitted to enjoy, some
of which were more private, some more pubEc, their attention
was speciaUy directed to the subject of His death, its nature,
rationale, and effects, and to the types and prophecies wffich
went before (Acts i. 3-8 ; Luke xxiv. 44-49).
Sec, vt, (pp, 13-21), — Harm,ony of Love and Justice in the
Atonement.
The principal objections to the atonement at present, how
ever variously expressed in words, commoffiy resolve them
selves into this, that love alone marks aU God's relations and
ways to men. The Socinians of a former age deffied punitive
justice, and the modern mystic theory sees offiy love. I may
refer to the history of opinion on this theory of the atonement.
At the close of last century, as a result of the Wolfian
phEosophy, a specffiation arose, which laboured to classify or
subsume justice under goodness, and defined it as " goodness
exercised with wisdom," According to this theory, divine pun
ishments were only paternal chastisements, or wise applications
of evil for the improvement of man, (Thus Steinbart, Eber-
hard, TeEer, durffig last century, expressed themselves,) Tffis
of course struck at the foundation of the vicarious satisfaction,
and removed the very ground of the atonement. The effect of
these opinions was disastrous in the highest degree, wherever
they were adopted in the churches. To make good their posi
tion, the most common method was — and it has been recently
revived — ^to caricature the old doctrine, to supply quotations
of extravagant and mcautious phrases used by orthodox writers
in practical writings, and to give a violent misrepresentation of

NOTE ON SECTION VI. 363
the terms, "wrath" and "punishment," as E that phraseology
necessarUy represented God as a fierce, vindictive, and impla
cable tyrant ; and, contrasted with this, they drew the portrait
of an affectionate Father. The great aim of those who assaUed
the atonement as a vicarious satisfaction in that age, was to
overthrow the necessary exercise of divine justice, as if this
opinion were merely grounded on a comparison of God with
worldly princes. They maintained that the infinitely good God
can do nothffig wffich is to the injury of any ; that He is only
love; and that the evU consequences which foUow sin by a
natural, law, and not as puffishment, are offiy directed to men's
good. Tffis scheme of thought was lasting and disastrous.
A much more evangelical theory, but agreeing with the
former ffi reference to the divine justice, arose about the begin-
ffing of this century. It enroUed among its defenders some of the
most active men who appeared at the close of last century and
the beginning of the present — such as Hasenkamp, Menken,
Lavater ; E, Stier, author of the Words of Jesus ; Schleier
macher and his school; Nitzsch, V, Hofmann, of Erlangen;
the Andover Theology in its more recent phase ; the foUowers
of M, Maurice, and much of the Broad School Theology, in
our own country. They agree in one thing, that nothing is to
be seen in the atonement but love. With aU their complexional
diversities, and whether they are ffi a more or less advanced
stage towards evangeUcal theology, they hold that God is to be
represented in His redemption work as simply exercising love.
They wUl aUow no element but love in the atonement. Hence
Nitzsch, in ffis system, caUs it " the revelation of holy love to
human life," LTnder the influence of tffis notion, Schleiermacher
announced, as the title of a sermon, " That we have to teach
nothffig of the wrath of God" (2d vol, of his Sermons, p, 725),
The elaborate work of J, Macleod CampbeU, formerly
minister of Eow, in the Scottish EstabEshed Church, entitled
The Nature of the Atonement, and its Belation to the Eemission
of Sins and Eternal Life, Cambridge, 1856, strongly supports

364 APPENDIX.
the same position, from a wlioUy different starting-point. It
is noteworthy that this production shoffid be so much an
authority among the adherents of the Broad Church School,
Mr, CampbeU says : " The first demand which the gospel
makes upon us in relation to the atonement, is, that we
beEeve that there is forgiveness with God, Forgiveness, that
is, love to an enemy surviving his enmity, and which, notwith
standffig ffis enmity, can act towards him for his good, — ^this
we must be able to believe to be in God toward us, in order
that we may be able to believe in the atonement," He further
states : " This is a faith which, in the order of things, must
precede the faith of an atonement. If we coffid ourselves
make an atonement for our sins, as by sacrifice the heathen
attempt to do, and as, in their self-righteous endeavour to make
their peace with God, men are in fact daEy attempting, then
such an atonement might he thought of as preceding forgiveness
and the cause of it. But if God provides the atonement, then
forgiveness must precede atonement, and the atonement must be
the form of the manifestation of the forgiving love of God, not
its cause" (pp, 17 and 18), The notion which he has of
justice is as disjointed ; he explains it thus : " Justice, looking
at the sinner not simply as the fit subject of punishment, but
as existing in a moral condition of unrighteousness, and so its
own opposite, must desire that the sffiner should come to be
ffi that condition — should cease to be unrighteous — shoffid
become righteous ; righteousness in God craving for righteous
ness ffi man with a craving which the reaEzation of righteous
ness in man alone can satisfy " (p, 30), This is tantamount to
confounding the divine perfections, instead of exhibiting then
harmony in the scheme of human redemption. Nay, Mr,
CampbeE goes on to say, " How can it be otherwise, seeing
that the law is love?" (p, 31), That is to make a new
vocabulary, ffistead of accepting the plaffi rigorous use of
bibEcal words, I may add, the same scheme of thought
comes to Eght in two works of Mr, Baldwffi Brown — ^the first

NOTE ON SECTION VI, 365
entitled Divine Life in Man, Ward and Co,, London; the second.
The Doctrine of the Divine Fatherhood in relation to the Atone
ment. The praise which he bestows on M, Maurice, and on
the Eev, J, Macleod CampbeU, of whose work he says that he
does not know any book ffi which the subject is discussed with
such deep thought and deep experience, and which he advises
his readers to study, sufficiently indicate his view-point and
tendency. It is obvious that, on tffis theory, we have no more a legal
atonement, but offiy what Mr, CampbeU caUs " a moral and
spiritual atonement," Of course these notions sweep away the
judicial and forensic side of theology ; and the whole question
of the sinner's objective relation towards God, disordered by
nature, and calEng for reparation, is a total blank in this
theology. We have nothing but mystical representations of
the divine love and of the inner Efe, and pardon is either made
absolute, or regarded as a mere sequel and accompaniment to
the exercises of the spEitual life.
If man's nature and moral conformation, as originaEy con
stituted by God, did not offer a daUy protest against any such
theory as tends to represent God offiy as a source of ffifluences,
and not as a moral Governor or Lawgiver in any sense of the
word ; E conscience ffi men did not loudly reclaim, there would
be but one step to a terrible deterioration ffi reUgion and
morals ; for aU reUgion and moraEty depend upon a right re
cogffition of authority and law, of divine justice, and a system
of punishments and rewards. We do not deny the good
connected with the school to which we have referred, that it
often depicts the Saviour as the source of spiritual life and
light ffi most glowffig terms, and expatiates on the privUege
of uffion to Him, But with aE this, it has two deleterious
influences wrapped up ffi it: (1) it throws men back on a
certam legality or semi-legality, because it never takes them
beyond themselves ; and (2) it undermffies the whole rectoral
admiffistration of God, the nature, perpetffity, and sanctions

366 APPENDIX.
of the divffie law, and the wrath of a righteous God against
sffi. It makes God a source of Efe or influences, but no moral
Governor, Lawgiver, or Judge.
The glarffig imperfections of this school, which neither
gives revelation its rights, nor man's conscience its place of
authority, have driven many to go beyond it, and to advance to
better views. Thus Chalyb^us and Dorner, among the German
tffinkers, have advanced far beyond the mystic and subjective
theories of the Schleiermacher school ; maffitaining that there
is ffi God not offiy a seE-communicatffig element (das selbst-
mittheEende), but also a seE-maintaining, seE-asserting ele
ment (das selbst-behauptende) — the former beffig love, the
latter justice. This was what was expressed in the scholastic
period by the phrase, communicativum sui, to define love, and
conservativum sui, to define justice. Justice is an attribute
worthy of God, and necessary to the weEare of the uffiverse ;
and they who assaU the exercise of justice, reaEy overtffiow
the foundations of the gospel. Puffitive justice is, ffi reaUty,
an amiable attribute, worthy of God, and ffidispensable to the
moral welfare of mankind.
I shaE not notice the arguments of these schools ffi detaU;
nor is it necessary, when the principle on wMch they are
based is overtffiown. But I may obviate two of the most
common. Thus it is, (1) maintained, from the parable of the
prodigal son (Luke x:v,),and of the unmercEul servant (Matt.
xviii 23-35), that God forgives absolutely out of pure com
passion. Tffis is a misrepresentation of the graee-aspect of the
gospel, which, it must never be forgotten, is grace to man,
through a propitiation offered to God (comp. Eom. ui 24).
It is a recogffised canon, however, in the interpretation of a
parable, that attention is to be fixed on only one poffit, the
tertium quid of comparison, and that we are not warranted to
make a running paraUel in aE poffits, as ffi an aUegory ; and
these parables were never meant to teach the ground of for
giveness. ,The argument from the parable of the prodigal son

NOTE ON SECTION VII. 367
is not derived from the words, but from the sEence or want of
reference to satisfaction ; and we are not warranted so to con
strue sUence. The Eedeemer's object here was not to point
out the ground or principle of forgiveness, wffich He elsewhere
does plaiffiy (Matt. xxvi. 28), but to exhibit His love to lost
mankffid — the great thought ffi the three parables contained
in the chapter (Luke xv.). (2.) Again, it is demanded. Can
there be love and anger at once in the divine mind, to the
same object? This objection ignores the fact of sin; whereas
man is considered, ffi a double capacity, as creature and as
sinner, which meets aE difficulties. This has its analogue in
a father's relation to a wayward and rebelUous son, where we
trace love and anger at once to the same object.
It is further argued, that as man must imitate God in the
free forgiveness of wrongs, it follows, that God forgives without
atonement. That were to overthrow plain texts by a mere
inference. But neither is it true that man, ffi ffis judicial
relation, simply forgives. These divffies only speak of man in
his social relation to ffis brother-man, or in his paternal relation,
forgetting that man, made in the image of God, presents a
maffifold analogue to the divine relations; that he has the
legislative and judicial relation as weU; and that E he acted
m the latter capacity according to mere mercy, he woffid
neither be God's vicegerent, nor maffitaffi the justice or order
or moral welfare of human society.
Sec. vii. (pp. 21-30). — The Influence of Christ's Deity or of the
Incarnation on the Atonement.
Less promffience has been given in recent times than in
former ages to the doctrine of Christ's deity, and to the doctrine
of a proper mcarnation in connection with the atonement ; and
various causes wUl readEy occur to explain this fact.
In the Church, for the first four or five centuries occupied
with discussions on Christ's person, it may seem as E Uttle

368 APPENDIX.
attention coffid be spared for canvassmg the ffifluence of the
incarnation on the atonement. But it is not so. The import
ance attached to the solution of the questions bearing on the
person of Christ — whether the Docetic, Arian, SabeEian, Nesto
rian, or Monophysite controversies — arose, in large measure,
from the conviction that they had a dEect bearing on the
atonement of the God-man. The patristic divines sought
indeed the absolute truth ; but their soEcitude was largely due
to the effect exercised by these questions on the actual faith of
the Church. This is well brought out by Thomasius in his
Beitrage zur Kirchlichen Christologie, Erlangen, 1845. We may
take an Ulustration from the Nestorian and Monophysite dis
cussions. CyrUl on the one side, and Theodoret on the other,
bring the argument from the atonement into all their debates.
Thus, as to Nestorianism, it was objected to, as leading, when
legitimately carried out, to Humanitarianism or Ebionism, and
by consequence to the subversion of the atonement, because
the death of a mere man, however ffihabited by God, or made
the temple of God (dso<p6pog), coffid have no world-wide signffi
cance. As to Eutychianism, again, it was objected to, because
it led, when legitimately carried out, to Docetism — a principle
on which we could have but the semblance of an atonement
(hozrjffig). Hence the Synod of Ephesus assigned, as the reason
for condemning Nestorius, that he ascribed the work of salva-'
tion to the humanity of Christ, or to His flesh alone.
When we come down to the theology of the Eeformation,
we find the greatest emphasis laid both in the Lutheran and in
the Eeformed Churches on Christ's deity, as absolutely necessary
to His work of atonement. They held that Christ's deity was
indispensable to the atonement, and that His office as Mediator
was correctly understood, offiy when it was maintained that
Christ acted everywhere and in every scene according to both
natures. Hence, when Osiander, in order to repel the Eomish
doctrffie, asserted that the Lord Jesus was Mediator offiy in His
divffie nature, and Stancarus, on the other hand, in opposmg

NOTE ON SECTION VII. 369
him, asserted, in an equaUy one-sided way, that Christ was
Mediator only in the human nature, the spEitual instfficts of
the Church, enEghtened by the divine word, recoUed from both,
and felt that they both deviated from the truth. The position
firmly taken up and held ffi both divisions of the Protestant
Church, was, that Christ, ffi every meritorious work, acted, ac
cordffig to both natures, and that His whole mediatorial activity
was in both.
The infinite value of the atonement, viewed in connection
with the incarnation of the Son of God, is exhibited forcibly by
QuENSTEDT, Systcma Theologicum; Wessel, Nestorianismus con-
futatus; and Q^OTlus, De Satisfactione. The latter is pecuEarly
fresh and clear on this point. Socffius would aEow nothffig to
the dignity of the person; and Grotius says, "We believe
otherwise, that this puffishment was to be estimated from the
fact, that He who suffered the punishment was God, though He
suffered not as God," He quotes 1 Cor, ii, 8, 1 Cor, ii, 27, and
Heb, ix. 14; and adds, "Socinus objects, because the divinity
Ed not suffer. It is just as if he woffid say that it is the same
thing whether you strike an unknown person or a father, be
cause strokes are directed to the body, not to the dignity of the
person ; wffich gross error Aristotle long sffice confuted, and the
common judgment 'dissents from Socffius." On this poffit, see
Seed, Sermons, vol. ii. p. 391,
The value attached by the Eeformation divines to the in
fluence of Christ's deity in the atonement wiE appear, if we
consffit the ecclesiastical confessions of the period, the theo
logical systems and compends, or the catecffisms prepared for
the churches, I may refer to the Heidelberg Catecffism, and
its host of expositors on Questions 14, 15, 16, 17 ; and the mere
fact that Socinianism and EationaEsm have always assaUed
Christ's deity and His atonement together, unmistakeably shows
how ffiseparably they are connected.
Two modern theories on the fficarnation are ffi a high de
gree unfavourable to a full estimate of 'the ffifluence of Christ's
2 A

370 APPENDIX,
deity on the atonement ; and it is necessary to advert to them
both. We refer, (1) to the depotentiation theory — a widespread
tendency or school ffi modern theology — assertffig that there
took place, during Christ's humiliation, an actual seE-denuda-
tion or depotentiation of His divine attributes on the part of
the Logos. To an EngUsh mind, untaffited by the modern
specffiative tendencies, this appears an impossibUity and an
absurdity; but it is held by many eminent evangeUcal theo
logians abroad — viz. by Sartorius, Gess, Ebrard, Liebner,
Lange, Schmieder, Steinmeyer, Hahn, Kahnis, Delitzsch;
V, Hofmann, Gaupp, Konig. The best refutation of this
theory wUl be found ffi Dorner's work, On the Person of Christ,
and more especiaUy in a paper of his ffi the Jahrhiicher fiir
Deutsche Theologie, vol, i. An echo of the same theory is found
among a class of divines, who, since Irvffig's days, have con
fusedly spoken of the divine nature beffig ffi abeyance during
the humiUation, Whether surveyed in the German form, or
in the English form last mentioned, the theory has a tendency
to represent the Lord Jesus in a too humanitarian gffise, and
as only acting in a humanity repleffished and aided by the
Holy Ghost ; — a truth, but by no means the whole truth- My
object in referrmg to these theories, is to say that they operate
unfavourably on the doctrine of the atonement, inasmuch as
Cffiist is not supposed to act as the God-man in His media
torial works, and is represented too much as the man, and too
Ettle as the God-man, In Gess' Articles and Contributions on
the Doctrine of the Atonement, accordingly, the writer is sUent
on Christ's deity ffi connection with the atonement. It coffid
not be otherwise, if he was consistent. He carried out the
abeyance theory or the depotentiation theory to its utmost
extreme, maintaining that the Lord denuded Himself of His
onmiscience, omnipresence, and omnipotence, and eternal hoU-
ness (see Gs&s, die Lehre von der Person Christi, BasU, 1856);
and hence he is only consistent with himself in makffig no

note on section vii, 371
aUusion to the influence of Christ's deity ffi His work of expia
tion. His articles on the atonement are good, E we deduct this
important omission (see Gess, der Geschichtliche Entwicke-
lungsgang der N. T. Versohnungslehre, in the Jahrbiicher fiir
Deutsche Theologie, 1857, etc.). No man, on his principle, can
assert, as must be asserted, that Christ, as Mediator, acted ffi
both His natures ffi the work of atonement,
2, Another theory on the incarnation, wffich has recently
risen to a prominence — such as it never before attaffied in the
Church's history— is, that the incarnation is irrespective of the
fall, and would have taken place apart from the faU, The
German divffies not less largely confess to this theory — ^viz,
Dorner, Ebrard, Martensen, Liebner, Lange, Eothe, Ehren-
FEUCHTER, Chalyb^uS, Archbishop Trench, in this country,
adopted it, and holds it,E he stiE abides by the strong language
used in its defence ffi Five Sermons preached before the University
of Cambridge, London, 1837, Its great advocate is Dorner, in
his work. On the Person of Christ. I shaE not here enter into
the discussion of the question, having done so some time ago
in The British and Foreign Evangelical Review, Jan, 1861, My
object ffi referring to it, is to say that it imperUs the doctrffie
of the atonement, putting Christ's mission on new and non-
bibUcal ground. If, according to this theory, we deduce the
necessity of the incarnation, either from the nature of God, or
from the idea of humtanity, and not from God's free and sove
reign love to sinners, we deviate from the Scripture representa
tion of it (comp. Matt, xvUi 11 ; GaL iv, 4; Heb, u. 14; 1 Tim,
i 15), Scripture exhibits the atonement for the fallen human
race as the cffief end, nay, as the one only revealed end, of the
incarnation (Matt, xx, 28; John iii 16), We do not by any
means need to affirm that no other ends existed in the -xoXu-
TomXng aoipiot, of God, But this is the only revealed end ; and
the tendency of this theory, without doubt, is to reduce the
atonement to the rank of a subordffiate and accidental accom
paniment of the incarnation. The atonement is no longer the

372 APPENDIX,
great end of His coming, the counterpart of the faE of man, the
readjustment of the disordered universe. The fficarnation is
thus made an end in itself, not a means to the stupendous end
of the world's salvation. The whole effect of the theory is to
depreciate the atonement.
Sec, X, (pp, 40-46), — Christ acting as the second Adam, or accord
ing to a covenant with the Father, in the whole of His atoning
work.
This idea must be carried with us, whether we consider the
fundamental presuppositions of the atonement, as stated ffi
some of the first sections, or discuss the special reference and
extent of the atonement, as exhibited ffi section xE, (p, 312),
The doctrine of the atonement cannot be understood without
the idea of a conjunction between Cffiist and His people,
whether or not it is caEed a covenant (jpactum saluiis), and
whether or not we use the terms of the federal theology. The
whole scheme of thought relating to the covenant occupied at
one time an important place ffi the Eeformed Church, and in
some portions of the Lutheran Church, though it never became
general in the latter.
Of various elements which may be said to have concurred,
if not to origffiate, at least to turn attention to tffis scheme
of thought, the two foUowing may be particffiarly named : the
cavUs of Socinus, and the subsequent rise of the Arminian
controversy. As to the first of these concurrffig forces, I may
mention that one of the objections against the satisfaction on
which Socffius laid stress, was, that there ought to be at least
some conjunction between the guEty and him that is puffished ;
and he woffid not admit that there was any such conjunction or
bond between Christ and us. This drove ' the defenders of the
truth to assert the affirmative, and to define it. They mam
tained that Christ was uffited to us, not only as a partaker of
our humanity by becomffig one of us, our brother and friend,

note on section X, 373
but also as He entered into a still closer conjimction as the
Bridegroom, Head, Shepherd, Lord, Kffig, and Surety of His
people, Grotius, in his treatise, De Satisfactione, chap, iv., is
particularly emphatic ffi asserting this close conjunction, on
wffich the possibUity of an atonement depends. Thus, ffi op
position to Socinus, Grotius says, '' It might be said here that
man is not without relation to man, that there is a natural
kindred and consanguinity between men, and between our flesh
assumed by Christ, But another much greater conjunction
between Christ and us was decreed by God, for He was ap
pointed by God to be the Head of the body of which we are
members. And here it must be observed, that Socinus erro
neously confined to the flesh alone that conjunction which is
sufficient for laying punishment upon one for another's sins,
sffice here the mystical conjunction has no less power. This
appears principaUy in the example of a kffig and a people.
We cited above the history of the IsraeUtes punished for the
sm of David," A Uttle afterwards, Grotius adds that this con
junction lays the foundation for vicarious punishment : " There
fore the sacred writings do not at aE favour Socinus, declaring,
as they do, that God did the very tffing which he imdeservedly
accuses of ffijustice ; but neither has he any greater defence
from right reason, wffich it is wonderfffi that he so often boasts
of, but nowhere shows. But that aE this error may be re
moved, it must be observed that it is essential to puffishment
that it be inflicted for sffi, but that it is not Ekewise essential
to it that it be inflicted on ffim who sinned ; and that is mani
fest from the simiEtude of reward, favour, and revenge, — for
reward is often wont to be conferred upon the cffildren or
relations of a weU-deserving person, and favour on the kinsman
of him who conferred the benefit, and revenge upon the friends
of him that offended. Neither do they, on that account, cease
to be what they are — reward, favour, and revenge. Add to tffis,
that E it were against the nature of puffishment, then this very
thffig woffid not be caUed unjust, but impossible. But God

374 APPENDIX,
forbids a son to be punished by men for the father's faffit ; but
impossible tffings are not forbidden. Moreover, ffijustice does
not properly happen to a relation (such as puffishment is),
but to the action itseE, such as the matter of puffishment is.
And here the true distffiction must be inqffired ffito, why it is
not equaUy free to aU to punish one for another's sin, and to
bestow a favour or reward for another's merit or benefit ; for an
act which contains in it a reward or favour is a benevolent act,
which, in its own nature, is permitted to all ; but an act which
has in it punishment, is a hurtful act, which is neither aUowed
to aU, nor against all. Wherefore, that a puffishment may be
just, it is reqffisite that the penal act itself shoffid be in the
power of the punisher, which happens ffi a threefold way:
either by the antecedent right of the punisher himself, or by
the legitimate and valid consent of him about whose punish
ment the question is ; or by the crime of the same person.
When the act has become lawfffi by these modes, nothing pre
vents its beffig appointed for the punishment of another's sin,
provided there he some conjunction between him that sinned and
the party to be punished. And tffis conjunction is either natural,
as between a father and a son ; or mystical, as between king
and people ; or voluntary, as between the guilty person and the
surety, Socinus appeals to the judgment of aU nations ; but
as to God, the phUosophers doubted not that the sins of parents
were puffished by Him ffi the children." I shaE not quote
further from tffis memorable chapter of Grotius, in which he
overwhelms his opponent by the testimony of aE classical
antiquity, I have^ adduced this discussion, only to show how
men came during the course of it to adopt and maintain a
certain necessary conjunction between the Eedeemer and the
redeemed, which involved something more than a mere com
munity of the same nature, and, in a word, the elements of a
covenant. But another cause concurred' with the former. When the
Ariffinian debates arose, and the five points were debated, many

NOTE ON SECTION X. 375
were led, during the course of this discussion, more and more
to the conclusion that there was a given party in whose behalf
aU the provisions of redemption were contrived and carried
into effect. Thus, Amesius, Coronis, p, 112, expresses himseE:
" Addam etiam insuper, si nuUo modo versabatur ecclesia in
mente divina, quum unctus et sanctificatus fuit Christus ad
ofiBicium suum, tum caput constitutus fuit sine corpore, ac rex
sme subditis uUis in prsesentia notis, vel omffiscio ipsi Deo:
quod quam mdignum sit thesauris UEs divffise sapientiae qffi ffi
hoc mysterio absconditi fuerunt, non opus est ut ego dicam.
Hoc unum perpendat cordatus Lector satisfactionem iEam
Christi pro nobis nocentibus susceptam valere non potuisse,
nisi aEqua antecedente mter nos et Christum, conjunctione ;
taU sciEcet qua designatus est a Deo ut caput esset corporis,
cujus nos sumus membra; ut Vir cl, Hugo Grotius, reEctis
remonstrantibus, quos aEbi defendit ffigenue concedit, — De-
fensionis fldei Catholicce, pagina 66,"
Hence the doctrffie of the covenant was the concentrated
essence of Calvinism, and appeared especiaEy ffi a formed, and
joffited system, after the Synod of Dort, Cloppenburg main
tained it just after that Synod, Thus these two elements
above named led many of the greatest divffies of the Eeformed
Church to bring out, and to lay stress upon, a pactum salutis,
or fcedus, as necessary to a fuU understanding of the atone
ment. This doctrine has faUen out of the promffience it at one
time occupied ffi theology. But whatever view may be held
as to that scheme of thought, there is no room for two opffiions
as to the scriptural character of the doctrine, that there must
be a certaffi conjunction between Christ and the redeemed.
It is due to the federal theology to state, that it was only
meant to ground and to estabEsh the undoubtedly scriptural doc
trffie of the two Adams (Eom, v, 12-20 ; 1 Cor. xv, 47), These
are by no means to be regarded as two different Iffies of thought,
or as two mutuaEy exclusive modes of representing truth.
They proceed on the same principle, and they come to precisely

376 APPENDIX.
the same resffit, — the one from the view-point of humaffity,
the other from the counsels of the Trinity. No one can doubt,
who examffies the federal theology, that the design of those
who brought that scheme of thought into general reception in
the Eeformed Church for two centuries, was principaEy to
ground, and to put on a sure basis, the idea of the two Adams ;
that is, to show that there were, ffi reaUty, only two men in
ffistory, and only two great facts on which the fortunes of the
race hffiged. The leading federaEsts were Cloppenburg, Dick
son the Scottish divine (who devel6ped it so early as 1625 —
see Life of Robert Blair, in the Wodrow publications — seyeral
years before the work of Cocceius, De Fcedere, appeared ffi
1648), Cocceius, Burmann, Witsius, Strong, Owen, etc. etc.
It became a magnfficent scheme of theological thought ffi the
hands of these men, and of others who took it up with ardour.
That foreign thoughts afterwards came to be ffitroduced ffito
it, and that it became complicated by many additional ele
ments, brought in to give it completeness, but which offiy lent
it an air of human ingenffity and artificial construction, cannot
be denied. But as to the point aEeady referred to, there
is no doubt that they intended to estabUsh, by this mode of
representation, that Christ and His people were to be regarded
as one person in the eye of law ; and that, properly speakmg,
there were offiy two heads of famUies, and offiy two great facts
in history — the faU and the atonement.
Against this whole scheme of thought, a reaction set ffi a
century ago. Nor can this be wondered at, when we remember
that it was overdone at that time, and that a reaction was offiy
the effort of the human mffid to regaffi its equUibrium — as is
always the case when anytffing is carried too far. It was over
done, and now it is neglected. ^
But it is by no means to be repudiated, or put among the
mere antiqffities of Christian effort. Tffis, or somethffig Uke
it, whether we adopt the federal nomenclature or not, must
occur to every one who wUl foUow out the revealed thoughts

note on section X. 377
uttered by Christ HimseE to their legitimate consequences.
The offiy objection of any plausibUity is, that the notion of a
covenant presupposes a twofold wUl in God, To meet this
objection, springing from an exclusive regard to the unity of
the Godhead, it may be remarked, that the supposition of a
councU or covenant, havffig man's redemption for its object,
has no more difficffity than the doctrme of a Trinity, Each
person wUls, knows, loves, and exercises acts to one another
and to us ; and as they are personaEy distffict in the numerical
unity of the divffie essence, so, according to the order of sub
sistence, they each wiU, though not apart and isolated. Ac
cordingly, Dr. Owen remarks against Biddle, in his Vindicice :
" Because of the distinct acting of the wUl of the Father, and
of the wiU of the Son, with regard to each other, it is more
than a decree, and hath the proper nature of a covenant or
compact," Whatever view may be taken, however, of that scheme of
thought, the one important matter on which no doubt can be
entertaffied by any scriptural divine, is, that as Adam was a
public person, the representative of all his famUy, according to
the constitution given to the human race, as contraEstingffished
from that of other orders of being, so Christ, the Eestorer,
stands in the same position to His famUy or seed. The world
coffid be redeemed on no other prfficiple than that on which
it was at first constituted, Augustin's formffia, ille unus
homo nos omnes fuimus, as appEed to the first man, is per
haps the very best that has ever been given ; and the same
formffia may be applied with equal warrant to the second man,
the Lord from heaven. As appEed to the atonement, this
prmciple of a covenant, or of a conjunction between Cffiist and
His seed, is simple and easUy apprehended. The conditions
beffig fulfilled by the second man. His people enter into the
reward. Thus Christ was commissioned to do a work for a people
who were to reap the reward. The Father laid on Hun the

378 APPENDIX,
conditions given to Adam, with the additional one derived from
gffilt, and claimed satisfaction from the Son undertaking to act
for a seed given to Him, Man could be redeemed only on the
principle or constitution on wffich God placed him at first, and
not on one altogether different ; and the one aim of the federal
theology was meant to base and to ground this bibEcal truth.
Sec, XI. (pp, 47-63), — The Satisfaction to Divine Justice necessary.
At present, when the judicial or forensic aspects of theology
are so much impugned, deep importance attaches to the ffiquEy,
whether a satisfaction to divffie justice was imperatively neces- ,
sary. The course of thought on this question is worthy of
attention. It was a comparatively safe speculation, in which several ,
patristic, medieval, and post-Eeformation divines sometimes en
gaged, when they inquired, on high transcendental grounds,
whether God coffid have given salvation to sffifffi men without
any satisfaction for sin. It was innocuous, so long as they mam
tained in their teachings, that, in point of fact, salvation was offiy
to be found, according to divine appointment, through the actual
mcarnation and atonement of the cross, Divffies who in former
centuries spoke loosely on this poffit from the view-point of the
divine sovereignty, and of the absolute dominion, — such as
Athanasius ; AuGUSTiN in some passages, though not always ;
Calvin (on John xv. 13, where he unhappUy says, " poterat nos
Deus verbo aut nutu redimere, nisi aUter nostra causa visum
fuisset"); Zanchius (Incar. iii 11), — zealously preached the
forensic or judicial side of theology ; and the same may be said
of MuscuLus, Vossius, Twiss, Eutherford, and others, answered
by Owen in ffis treatise on Divine Justice, The arguments, when
it was debated on this ground, were undoubtedly aU in favour of
the conclusion, that the exercise of punitive justice was necessary
when sffi had entered into the world; but the practical neces
sity of maintaffiing this position was not so apparent to them.

NOTE ON section XI, 379
Hence, when we consult the great divines of the post-Eeforma
tion period, we find, to our surprise, that in handling the priestly
of&ce of Christ, or the article of justffication, that is, the meri
torious ground of justification, under which section most of them
discussed the atonement, they do not raise the question of the
necessity, of Christ's atonement. They are content with a state
ment of its reaUty, or of the fact, which they caU its Veritas.
This holds true of the Lutherans, Gerhard, Quenstedt, Buddeus,
who scarcely allude to the necessity of the atonement, whUe
they powerfuUy assert the reality of the atonement.
But ffi proportion as the Socinian leaven spread through the
Protestant churches, with its persistent tendency to set aside
the satisfaction to divine justice in every form, and with the
avowed declaration, uttered by Socinus himself, that if they
coffid get rid of punitive justice, they would overthrow the
doctrine of the atonement, divines felt that they must express
themselves in a different way, A new attention came to be de
voted to the inquiry, whether a satisfaction to divine justice
was necessary. They now used more caution (see the state
ments of the Synopsis Purioris Tlieologim, by Polyander, Eivetus,
Walaeus, and Thysius, 1642), They were soon fuUy convinced
that the question of the atonement must be ffitimately run up
to the necessity of satisfying divine justice ; and very generaEy
they came to assert, that on the entrance of sin, justice must
needs be exercised, and the atonement was necessary for salva
tion, A modified opffiion, or an opinion which deserves to be
called a middle way, was propounded by Grotius in his able
work, De Satisfactione. WhUe he strenuously and conclusively
maintained the reality of the atonement, or the fact that it was
offered, he did not put it on the ground that it was of absolute
necessity to satisfy divine justice, but on the ground that it was
a spectacle calculated to deter other rational inteUigences,
Eavensperger immediately repUed to this part of Grotius' book ;
and to him, again, Vossius replied, re-asserting the views of his

380 APPENDIX,
friend Grotius, In this view, Grotius was foUowed by very
many ffi aU the Protestant churches during the two last cen
turies. Thus Michaelis, On Sin and the Atonement, Gottmgen,
1779, and Seiler, iiher der Versohnungstod Christi, Erlangen,
1782; strongly take up this ground. The view which this
theory introduced on the subject of suffering, however, was new,
and somewhat startling. Men began to specffiate on the salu
tary effects of punishment, wffich was no longer regarded as an
end and as a penal ffiffiction, wffich must be because sffi de
served it, and because God owed it to HimseE. It came to be
spoken of as a means to an end ; nay, some began to speak of
sufferffig as havffig a tendency to augment the happiness of the
uffiverse. This theory is but a haE- way house, and makes m-
soluble difficffities. Punishment is thus regarded as an arbitrary
device, and not as a necessary visitation for a crime, a wrong, or
insffit, which must be avenged by the Divffie Majesty. It did
not render justice to the word, " Vengeance is mine ; I wffi
repay" (Deut. xxxu. 35). And the effect of this modified
opffiion was offiy to foster doubts and objections, and to lead
men step by step to modify and to apologise for, and finaUy to
abandon, puffitive justice as an attribute unworthy of God, and
unnecessary for the vindication of His honour. In a word,
wherever punishment is represented as beffig infiicted merely
before some other public or for some end apart from God, we
may say that the matter ffi dispute is reaEy given up, and the
fortress surrendered ffito the hands of the enemy. If we maffi
taffi with MichaeUs and SeUer, sincerely attached though they
were to the doctrffie of Christ's satisfaction, that the principal
end of punishment is to furnish a spectacle to deter men from
sffi, this is very far from satisfactory as applied to the atone
ment of Christ. Such a principle may be appUcable to the
government of human states— though not uffiversaUy and ab
solutely appUed as a rffie even there,— but it cannot be appUed
to the divine government. On tffis theory, aU the mffictions
unknown to others — such as the anguish of conscience, and

NOTE ON SECTION XI. 381
aU the secret consequences of vice, considered as a retribution
for sin — faU to the groimd. But, above aU, on tffis theory,
what purpose wUl punishments serve ffi the future life ? Who
are to be deterred by them, E that is theE intention ? It wUl
not satisfy any one to say with Michaelis: to deter other rational
beings ; nor can any maintain that the deterring puffishment,
in this Efe, always foEows on the offence, or that it is unEormly
in proportion to the offence.
Nor wUl another explanation avaU, that God punishes for
the glory of His justice. Tffis may have two senses : (1) it
may mean that God, as supreme ruler, punishes, with a poE-
tical and prophetic design to maintaffi the authority of His
government and reverence among His subjects— an end which
cannot be attaffied without severity ; or (2) it may mean that
the exercise of punishment takes place, to convince men that
God wUl not be regarded as indffigent and tolerant of evil.
But this is whoUy ffisufficient ; for the question stUl arises :
Why does God wish to impress this sentiment, and how does it
tend to the glorification of His perfections ? We must go further,
and affEm something more ; for no opinion woffid glorify Him,
if it does not harmonize with truth. And the offiy position
that can be maffitaffied ffi reference to punishment, is, that
puffitive justice is an essential, eternaL necessary attribute of
God, and that its exercise is necessary on the entrance of sin ;
that God is such a person, that out of love to Himself, and de
light in Himself, He loves aE that coincides with His perfec
tions, and hates aE that is in colEsion with them ; that His love
leads Him to bestow happffiess, and His hatred or anger leads
Him to send the reverse. The supreme God, ffisffited by sffi,
and at least wronged, if not personaEy ffijured, by the irrever
ence of free creatures, puffishes to satisfy the perfection of His
nature. This is the reason why He punishes; and no other
explanation is satisfactory to any mind. And hence, due con
sideration must be given to proper punishment, to vengeance,
and retribution for iE-desert, (See Hulshoff's Philosophische Ge-

382 APPENDIX,
sprekken over de Voldoening, Amst.,1795 — an able Dutch wrEer,
— and Wynpersse's Betoog dat de Strafoeffende Gerechtigheid Code
Waardig is, Amst,, 1799, who very much foUows the former,
Durffig last century, the evasions by which the pffilosophiz-
ing divines eluded the arguments for divine justice from the
Old Testament, were such as these: that it was a defect in
Judaism to regard God, not in the Ught of a lovffig Father, but
in that of a severe Lawgiver and Judge, who avenged sin, and
who was to be pacffied offiy by the sight of the blood. The
most repffisive language was used agamst Judaism on this
account, as E it were offiy ah expression of the lowest and most
ffifantUe religious seffiiments. But Christ, as we have seen,
uses the same style of speakffig about God. Men may aUege
that the severe ideas of divine wrath, and sacriflce, of punish
ment, and atonement, current among the Jews, were erroneous.
But they have stiE to encounter the question, that Christ holds
the same language. If theE theory were true, why did Jesus
not correct these representations, when He came from the
bosom of the Father to reveal Him, and to correct error ? It
was vaffily urged, ffi explanation of this, that it was hard to recaU
the Jews from these notions, and that it was not attempted.
On the necessity of satisfying the divine ju$tice, the writers
agaffist the Socffiians may be consffited — that is, the anti-Soci
nian writers generaEy who do not take up Grotius' view ; e.g.
Hoornbeek, Contra Socinianos, vol. u.; Essenius, De Satisfactione,
1666 ; Calovius, Socinismus Profligatus, 1668 ; Stein, De Satis
factione, 1755, I may also mention these tffiee, writers m
Dutch— Hulshoff's Dialogues, 1795; Wynpersse, On Justice,
1799; Van Voorst, On Punishments, 1796, — who have ably
written on this point against the phUosophizing theology at the
close of the last century. But of aE who have handled this
theme, it cannot be said that any one has more powerfiUly vin
dicated divine justice in the matter of the atonement than
Anselm, in his celebrated treatise, entitled Cur Deus Homo,
written ffi 1098 durffig his exUe from England, and ffitended

note on section XI, 383
to meet speculative objections in his day, not unlike those of
our age. In an article for The British and Foreign Evangelical
Review, October 1859, on Anselm's great work, I gave several
passages, literaEy rendered to exhibit his views, from which I
shall give the following extracts : —
" Chap, xi, — What is sin, and a satisfaction for sin ? —
Anselm. We have now to examine by what method God remits
men's sffis ; and that this may be done with greater clearness,
let us first see what it is to sffi, and what it is to make a satis
faction for sin, — Boso. It is yours to expound, and mine to
a,ttend, — Ans. If angels and men always rendered to God what
they owe, they woffid never sm. — Bo. This cannot be gainsaid,
— Ans. To sin, therefore, is nothing else hut the not rendering to
God His due. — Bo. What is the debt we owe to God ? — Ans.
AU the wiE of a rational creature shoffid be subject to the wUl
of God, — Bo. Nothffig surer, — Ans. This is the debt which
angel and man alike owes to God : he who pays it does not sin ;
and every one who does not pay it, commits sin. This is the
righteousness or rectitude of the wUl wffich renders men right
eous or upright in heart, that is, in wUl ; this is the sole and
whole honour due to God, and which He requEes of us. For
offiy such a wEl, when it is able to work, performs actions
acceptable to God ; and when this is not withffi its power, it
is of itseE and alone well-pleasing, since there is no acceptable
work without it. He who does not render to God this due
honour, withdraws from God what is His, and dishonours God ;
and this is to commit sin. Now, as long as he does not pay
what he took away, he abides in guUt. Nor is it sufficient to
restore merely what was taken away, but for the indignity
inflicted, he must render more than he took away; for as it
is not enough for one who does an injury to another's health
merely to restore his health, without some recompense for the
pain and injury infficted, even so it is not sufficient, when one
has hurt a person's honour, merely to restore the honour, with-

384 APPENDIX.
out making some satisfactory reparation to hun whom he dis
honoured, for 1 the pain inflicted by that mdignity. Nor must
E be forgotten, that in repaying what was unjustly taken away,
he ought not to give in reparation something which coffid
already have been required, though he had never committed
that ffijury. Thus, then, every sinner must repay the honour
which he took from God; and this is the satisfaction which every
sinner must make to God. — Bo. In aE this, though you some
what alarm me, I find nothffig to which I can take exception.
" Chap, xii, — Whether it becomes God, without any pay
ment OF the debt, to forgive sin in the mere exercise of
mercy, — Ans. Let us return and consider whether it becomes
God, without any reparation of His violated honour, to remit
sin by mere mercy, — Bo. I do not see why it is unsuitable, —
Ans. To reiffit sin ffi this manner is nothing else than not to
punish it ; and sffice the due maintainence of order ^ in refer
ence to sin, where no satisfaction is offered, consists solely in
its punishment, [it foEows that,] if it is not punished, sffi is
remitted, without any provision being made for the maffitenance
of order" in the universe, — Bo. What you say is reasonable. —
Ans. But it does not become God to leave anythmg disordered
in His kffigdom. — Bo. If I were to say anything contrary, I
fear it woffid be sin, — Ans. Therefore it is not sffitable for God
to forgive sin thus unpunished. — Bo. That certaiffiy foEows, —
Ans. But something further foUows, if sin is thus remitted
without punishment : the guilty and the innocent wUl be alike
in the sight of God, which is manifestly not befittmg God, — Bo.
It cannot be denied, — Ans. Consider this, moreover : every one
knows that man's righteousness is under a law by which the
I Secundum is here used for^j-o, a medieval usage, (See Vossius.)
2 This pregnant sentence cannot be rendered literally, Anselm maintains
that every sin must be followed by satisfaction or punishment. This is his alter
native. Though the phrase is sometimes mistaken, it -will be clear that " reqte
ordinare peccatum sine satisfactione non est nisi punire " is just one gide of the
alternative, 2 Inordinatum dimittitur, Vossius shows that inordinatio was used by the
medieval -writers for aT«.\ix, perturbatio ordinis.

NOTE ON SECTION XI. 385
measure of the recompense from the hand of God is proportioned
to its magnitude. — Bo. So we beEeve. — Ans. Now, if sm is
neither atoned for (solvitur) nor puffished, it is subject to no
law. — Bo. It is not possible to view the matter otherwise. — Ans.
Then unrighteousness, if remitted by mere mercy, is more free
than righteousness, which appears to be in the highest degree
unbefitting. To such an extent even woffid tffis incongruity
extend, that it would make unrighteousness Uke God ; for as
God is subject to no law, so woffid unrighteousness. — Bo. I can
urge nothffig against your argument ; hut when God commands
us absolutely to forgive those that trespass against us, it seems a
contradiction to enjoin us to do what He cannot with propriety
do Himself. — Ans. In this there is no contradiction ; for God
just enjoins us not to arrogate to ourselves what is the prerogative
of God alone. For vengeance belongs to none but to Him who
is Lord of aU ; for when civE authorities exercise this function
aright, God HimseE, by whom they are ordaffied for tffis very
purpose, executes it as His own act,— ^o. You have obviated
the contradiction wffich I thought ffivolved ffi it ; but there is
another poffit to which I desEe your answer. It is this : sffice
God is so free that He is subject to no law, and to no man's
judgment ; and since He is so good that notffing more kffid can
be conceived ; and sffice notffing is right and proper but what
He wUls, it seems strange to say that He from whom we are
wont to ask pardon, even for the mjuries we do to others, will
not, or cannot, reiffit an injury done to HimseE, — Ans. AE that
you state regardffig His Eberty, His wUl, His goodness, is true ;
but it is reasonable that we shoffid so apprehend them as not
to have the appearance of trenchffig upon His digffity. For
the Uberty is offiy for what is advantageous or proper ; nor is
that any more worthy of the name of goodness wffich does what
is unbefitting God, Now, when it is affirmed that what He
•wiUs is right, and what He does not wUl is wrong, this is not
to be understood as implymg that, were God to wUl anythffig
improper, it woffid be right because He wUled it ; for it would
2 b

386 APPENDIX,
not foUow, that E God wiUed to Ue, therefore lying woffid be
right, — rather the ffiference woffid be, that he who does so is
not God ; for a wUl can by no means be disposed to Ee, unless
it be a wiE ffi which truth has been corrupted, nay, corrupted
by abandoning truth. Therefore when it is said. If God wUled
to Ue, it is just tantamount to sayffig. If God were of such a
nature as wUled to Ee ; and therefore it woffid not foEow that
a Ee is right, uffiess ^ it be so understood as when we speak of
two impossibles : If the one is, so is the other — neither the one
nor the other beffig true ; as if one shoffid say,. If water is dry,
then fire is moist ; for neither is true. Therefore, of those tffings
offiy, not unsffitable for God to wiE, can we say with truth, if
God wiEs them, they are right ; for if God wiU that it shaU
rain, it is right ; and if God wUl that a certain person shaU be
kiUed, his death is right. Wherefore, if it does not become
God to do anytffing wrong, or in violation of order, it does not
faU within the sphere of His Uberty or goodness or wUl to ffis-
charge unpunished a sinner who does not repay to God what
he has taken away, — Bo. You remove every objection which I
thought coffid be made to you, — Ans. Consider yet another
reason why it does not become God to act ffi tffis way, — Bo. I
wUlingly Esten to your discourse,
" Chap, xiii, — That there is nothing more intolerable
in the order of the universe than that the creature should
take away the honour due to the creator, and not restore
IT, — Bo. There is nothing more clear. — Ans. Now, nothffig is
more unjust than the toleration of what is most ffitoleTable, —
Bo. Nor is that doubtful, — Ans. I suppose, then, you wffi not
affirm that God shoffid tolerate what woffid be the sumnut of
injustice, namely, that the creature should not restore to God
what it takes away, — Bo. Nay, such a position, I think, should
be absolutely denied. — Ans. Furthermore, E there is nothmg
greater or better than God, it foEows there is notffing more just
than the justice which maintains His honour in the arrangement
^ We think Anselm refers to the whole proposition.

NOTE ON SECTION XI, 387
of aU things — the supreme justice, which is nothing but God
Himself. — Bo. That is certain, — Ans. There is nothing which it
is more just for God to maintain than the honour of His wMJesty.
— Bo. Tffis must be granted, — Ans. Do you thffik He woffid
preserve it inviolate, E He shoffid permit it so to be withdrawn
from Hun that there shoffid be no reparation, no punishment
infficted on the offender ? — Bo. I dare not affirm it. — Ans. It is
necessary, then, that either the glory ^ withdrawn from Him
shall be restored, or punishment ensue, otherwise God wiU
either be unjust to HimseE or impotent for both purposes;
which it is impious even to suppose, — Bo. I thffik nothmg
more reasonable can be said,
" Chap, xiv, — How fab the punishment of the sinner is
THE HONOUR OF GoD, — Bo. But I desEe to hear from you,
whether the sinner's puffishment is His honour, or how far ?
For E the puffishment of the sinner is not His glory, then God
so loses His glory as never to recover it, when the sffiner does
not repay what he took away, but becomes the subject of
punishment ; which seems to stand in opposition to what has
been already advanced. — Ans. It is impossible for God to lose
His honour; for either the sffiner voluntarUy pays what he
owes, or God takes it from him against his wiU. For either
man, by voluntary choice, offers to God due subjection by not
sinning at aU, or by offering an atonement for the sin he has
committed; or God reduces him to subjection by force, and
agaffist ffis wUl, — thus showffig HimseE as ffis Master ; the very
thing wffich the man himself refuses voluntarEy to coffiess. In
this matter it deserves consideration, that as man by smnffig
robs God of what is God's, even so God, by infficting punish
ment, robs man of what is man's ; for not offiy is that said to
belong to an ffidividual which he aEeady possesses, but that,
too, wffich it Ees witffin his power to possess. As man, then,
was so created, that he coffid attain to blessedness E he did not
Anselm obviously intends by Aonoar, God's declarative "glory;" and we
use them interchangeably.

388' APPENDIX.
sin, and as he is deprived of blessedness and of every benefit
on account of sin, he repays, though reluctantly, of his own for
the crime which he had committed. For though God does not
tum to His own advantage what He takes away, as man con
verts to his own profit the money taken from another, yet He
renders it subservient to His glory, by the very fact of its
removal ; for He proves, by that very removaL that the sinner,
and all that is his, is subject to Him.
" Chap, xv, — Whether God will suffer His glory to be
TARNISHED, EVEN IN A SMALL DEGREE, — Bo. I assent tO what
you say ; but there is stUl another poffit to which I have to
request your answer. For if God must so preserve His honour,
as you prove, why does He suffer it to be tarnished, even to a
smaU degree ? For what is suffered to be hurt to some extent,
is not maintaffied entire or perfect. — Ans. The honour of God,
as far as relates to Him, is not capable of addition or diminu
tion ; for He is to Himself His own fficorruptible and immu
table glory. But when every creature, whether by natural
instffict or rational conviction, maffitains its own, and, as it
were, its prescribed order, it is said to obey God, and to honour
Him; and this is pecuEarly the case with a rational nature
to whom it is given to understand what duty is. When this
creature wUls as it ought, it honours God, not because it
confers anytffing upon Him, but because it spontaneously
subjects itseE to His wiE and disposaL and thus maintams,
as far as Ees in it, its order ffi the uffiverse, and the beauty
of the uffiverse ; but when it does not wUl as it ought, it
dishonours God, as far as relates to it, because it does not
spontaneously submit to His disposal; and thus disturbs, as
far as Ees ffi it, the order and beauty of the uffiverse, though
it does not by any means hurt or tarffish the power or digffity
of God. For if any of those thffigs, bounded by the cEcffit
of the heaven, wished to be no more under the heaven, or to
be removed ^ to a distance from the heaven, they coffid not be
' Elongari, a medieval usage. (Vossius.)

NOTE ON SECTION XI, 389
but under the heaven, nor remove from the heaven but by
again approachffig it. For whencesoever, whithersoever, and
in whatever way they might go, they woffid stUl be under
the heaven; and the further they might remove from any
part of heaven, the more woffid they approach the opposite
part. Even so, though a man or evE angel be unwUlffig to
subject himseE to the divine wUl or disposal, yet he cannot
flee from it ; for if he woffid flee from under the preceptive
wffi, he faUs under the punitive wUl of God, And E you
ffiquEe in what way he makes the transition, the answer is,
only under His pernussive wiU; and that very perverse wUl
and action are made subservient, by supreme wisdom, to the
order and beauty of the uffiverse, aEeady mentioned. For,
irrespective of the fact that God brffigs good out of every kmd
of evU, the very voluntary satisfaction made for perversity, or
the exaction of the puffishment from him who offers no satis
faction, occupy theE own place in the same uffiverse, and
possess the beauty of order. And E these were not added
by divffie wisdom, when perversity threatens to disturb the
right order, there woffid arise, from the violation of the beauty
of order, in that very uffiverse which God must maintain in
order, a certam ffideous deformity ; and it woffid bear the
appearance as E God faUed ffi carryffig out His arrangements.
And as these two are as unbefittffig God as they are impos
sible, it is ffidispensably necessary that every sin should he fol
lowed either by a satisfaction or hy punishment. — Bo. You have
satisfied my objection, — Ans. It is plaffi, therefore, that ^ God,
as He is in Himself, can neither be honoured nor dishonoured ^
by any one ; but an ffidividual seems to do this, as far as Ees
ffi him, when he subjects ffis wUl to the wiU of God, or with
draws it from Him, — Bo. I do not know what exception can
be taken to this, — Ans. I have somethffig further to add. — Bo.
Say on ; it wUl not weary me to listen 
1 Palam qui ; a later Latin or patristic phraseology.
' Exhonorare (see Vossius),

390 appendix,
"Chap, xix,^ — That men cannot be saved without a
SATISFACTION FOR SIN  —Ans. Let us suppose the
case, that a certaffi rich man held ffi his hand a costly pearl
which had never been touched by any deffiement, and which
no other party, without his permission, coffid remove from his
hand ; and he appoints it to be laid up in his treasury among
the dearest and most costly articles in ffis possession. — Bo. I
fancy it as it were before us. — Ans. If he shoffid suffer that
pearl to be struck out of his hand into filth by some envious
person, when he could have prevented it, and then taking it
from the filth should deposit it, aE defiled and unwashed, in
a clean and prized spot, to be ever afterwards preserved in such
a state, would you account him wise ? — Bo. How could I ?
For woffid it not be better to keep and to preserve his pearl
clean than covered with defilement ? — Ans. Would not God
act in a simEar way, who held man ffi His hand in paradise,
destffied to be associated with the angels, and permitted Satan,
inflamed with envy, to cast him down into the filth of sin,
though not without His own consent — for, had He wished to
prevent Satan, the latter coffid not have tempted man, — woffid
He not, I say, act in a simUar way, were man brought back,
at least to the paradise from which he had been driven out,
stained with the defilement of sffi, and always to continue so
without any purification, that is, without any satisfaction? —
Bo. If God were to act in such a way, I durst not deny the
simUarity of the two cases ; and therefore I do not concur in
the notion that He coffid act in such a way ; for it would wear
the appearance, either that He coffid not execute what He
had purposed, or that He had repented of His good intention,
— ^neither of which can obtaffi with God. — Ans. Therefore hold
fast the position that, without a satisfaction — ^that is, without
the voluntary repayment of the debt — neither coffid God leave
sin unpunished, nor coffid the sffiner come to happffiess, even
' In these omitted chapters, Anselm introduces a fanciful theory, taken
from Augustin, about the angels ; but it is an episode.

NOTE ON section XI, 391
of such a kind as he possessed before he sffined ; for in this
way man woffid not be restored even to the condition wffich
he occupied before the entrance of sin. — Bo. I cannot at aE
refute your arguments. But what is the import of that prayer
to God, ' Forgive us our debts ? ' and every nation, according to
its creed, prays to God to remit their sins. For if we pay what we
ovje, then why do we pray for forgiveness ? Is God unjust, to
exact a second time what has been paid already ? And if we
do not pay, why do we vaiffiy request Him to do what He
cannot do, because it is unbefitting God ? — Ans. He who does
not repay, in vain cries ' Forgive ; ' whUe he who does pay,
rightly offers prayer, since the very suppEcation forms part of
the payment that is due ; for God is not ffidebted to any one,
but every creature is indebted to Him ; and therefore it is of
no avaE to deal with God as an equal with ffis feEow. But
on this point it is not necessary at present to give a further
answer ; for when you shaE understand why Christ died, you
wffi perhaps solve the question for yourself, — Bo. I am content,
then, for the present with the answer you have given to this
question. You have so plaiffiy proved, however, the position
that no man can come to blessedness with sin, or be released
from sin without repaying what he took away by sinning, that
I coffid not, though I woffid, doubt any longer,
" Chap, xx, — That the satisfaction must be commensu
rate with the sin, and that man cannot render it of
HIMSELF, — Ans. Of this, too, I suppose you wUl not entertaffi
a doubt, that the satisfaction must be proportioned to the
measure of sin, — Bo. Otherwise sin woffid remain, in some
respects, unreduced to order,^ which, however, cannot be, if God
leaves nothing disordered ffi His kffigdom. But this is fore-
ordaffied, because the smaUest tffing unbecoming in God is
impossible, — Ans. Say, then, what wUl you render to God for
your sin ? — Bo. Eepentance, the contrite and humble heart,
abstinence and manifold bodUy labours, acts of mercy in giving
1 Inordinatum maneret peccatum.

392 appendix,
and forgivffig, and obedience, — Ans. In all this, what do you
give to God ? — Bo. Do I not honour God when, for the fear and
love of God, I cast away the joys of time in the exercise of
heart-contrition, when I scorn ^ deUghts and Eve laborious days
of abstinence and toU, when I bestow what is my own ffi the
way of givffig and forgivffig, and when I subject myseE to Him
ffi a course of obedience ? — Ans. When you render sometffing
which you already owed to God before you sinned, you must
not reckon that as the debt which you owe for sffi. Now, aU
that you have mentioned you owe to God aEeady ; for so
great must be the love and the desEe cherished in tffis eartffiy
Efe of attainffig the end for which you were created, and to
which aU prayer tends — so great the sorrow that you are not
yet there, and the fear of not reachmg it, — ^that you should feel
no joy, except in those things which furnish you either with
the help or the hope of reaching that consummation. For you
are unworthy of possessing what you do not love and desEe
for its own sake,^ and about which you have no feeUng of grief,
because it is not yet attaffied, and because, moreover, there is a
great risk of losffig it. It belongs to tffis state of mind also to
spurn that rest and those worldly pleasures which recaU the
mind from the true rest and satisfaction, except in so far as
you know them to be helpfffi to your earnest endeavour to
reach that consummation. As to givffig, agaffi, you must
expressly consider this as your duty, as you are aware that
what you give is not derived from you, but from Him whose
servant you are, just as he is to whom the gEt is bestowed;
and nature teaches you to do to your feUow-servant, that is,
to do as man to man, what you wish him to do to you ; and
that he who wUl not give what he has, ought not to receive
what he has not. With respect to the forgivffig of injuries,
agaffi, I have briefly to say, that vengeance belongeth not to
thee, as we said before ; for neither are you your own, nor is
^ Delectationes et quietem hujus vitse calco.
2 Non enim mereris habere quod non secundum quod est amas et desideras.

NOTE ON section XI, 393
the offender yours or his own — ^you are both servants of one
Master, and created by Him out of nothmg ; and E you take
vengeance on your feUow-servant, you proudly arrogate a
judgment upon him, competent offiy to the Lord and Judge
of aU. In your obedience, agaffi, what do you give to God
wffich you do not owe Him to whom is due aU you are, and
have, andean perform? — Bo. I cannot any longer affirm, that ffi
aU these thffigs I coffid give God what I owe, — Ans. What, then,
wiU you pay to God for your sffi? — Bo. If I owe Him myseE,
and aU I can perform, when as yet without sffi, that I may not
be involved in sffi, I have nothmg to render Him for sin com
mitted, — Ans. What, then, wUl become of you? How shaU
you possibly be saved ? — Bo. If I consider your arguments, I
do not see how ; but E I have recourse to my faith, I hope
it is possible for me to be saved ffi the Christian faith, ' which
worketh by love,' and because we read, ' If the unrighteous
man turn from ffis unrighteousness, and do what is right, all
his unrighteousness shaU be forgotten,' ^ — Ans. That is said
of those offiy who either waited for Cffiist before He came, or
who beEeve on Htm sffice He came. But we assumed that
Cffiist and the Christian faith had never been, when we pur
posed to inquEe by reason alone, whether His advent was
necessary to man's salvation, — Bo. We did so, — Ans. Let us
proceed, then, by reason alone, — Bo. Though you are leadffig
me ffito some perplexing difficffities, yet I very much desire
you to go on as you have begun.
"Chap. xxi. — The magnitude and weight of sin. — Ans.
Let us suppose the case, that you did not aEeady owe aE that
you recently affirmed coffid be paid by you for sin, and let us
consider whether they coffid suffice for the satisfaction of one
sffi, so smaE as a single look contrary to God's wEL — Bo. Were
it not that I hear you proposffig this as a question, I shoffid
suppose that such a sffi coffid be deleted by one sffigle act of
contrEion,— ^Tis, You have not yet considered the magni-
' Ezek. xxxiii, 14-18, xviii, 27,

394 appendix,
TUDE AND WEIGHT OF SIN, — Bo. Point it out to me, then, — Ans.
If you considered yourself in the presence of God, and an indi
vidual said to you, ' Look in that direction,' and God said, on
the contrary, ' I wEl not have you look,' ask your heart what
there is in the entire uffiverse for which you shoffid. cast that
look contrary to the wiE of God, — Bo. I find nothing for which
it should be done, except, perhaps, I may be placed ffi such
necessity as compels me either to do that or a greater sin, —
Ans. Put aside the case of necessity, and reflect, in reference to
this sffi alone, whether you coffid do it even to redeem your
self — Bo. 1 plainly see that I coffid not, — Ans. Not to detaffi
you longer: what, E it were necessary that either the whole
world, and everything, except God,^ shoffid perish and be anffi-
hUated, or that you should do so smaU a thffig contrary to Godl's
wiE ? — Bo. When I reflect on the action itseE, I consider it
extremely trifling ; but when I reflect what is ffivolved in its
being contrary to the wUl of God, I regard it as extremely
weighty, and not to be compared to any sort of loss ; but we
are accustomed sometimes to act against a person's wiE without
incurring blame, that his property may be preserved ; and after
wards the step is agreeable to him against whose wiU we acted,
— Ans. This happens to man, who sometimes does not imder-
stand what is for his advantage, or who cannot restore what he
has lost ; but God stands in no need of any man, and coffid
restore all things if they were to perish, just as He created
them, — Bo. I must needs confess, that even for the preservation
of the entEe creation, I should not do anythffig contrary to the
wUl of God, — Ans. What E there were more worlds fffil of
creatures such as this one is ? — Bo. If they were mffitipUed to
ffifinity, and they were aU presented to me in a simUar way,
my answer woffid be the same. — Ans. You coffid give no cor-
recter answer ; but consider, too, E it shoffid happen that you
cast that look contrary to the wUl of God, what coffid you offer
as a satisfaction for this sin ? — Bo. I have nothing greater than
1 Et quicquid Deus non est.

NOTE ON SECTION XL 395
what I have already mentioned, — Ans. Thus grievously do we
sin every time we knowingly do anything, how smaU soever,
contrary to the wEl of God ; for we are always in His sight,
and He always commands us not to sin. — Bo. We Eve, as I
hear, all too perilously, — Ans. It is evident that God demands
a commensurate satisfaction, — Bo. It cannot be denied, — Ans.
Therefore, you give no satisfaction uffiess you' render something
^greater than aE that for wffich you should not have committed
sm. — Bo. I see both that this demand is reasonable, and that
it is utterly impossible.— ^ms. God cannot admit any one to
blessedness who is in any measure chargeable with the debt
of sffi, because he shoffid not, — Bo. A heavy sentence, — Ans.
Hear yet another ground why the reconciEation of man to God
is not less difficult, — Bo. If faith did not give me consolation,
this alone woffid drive me to despaE, — Ans. Yet listen, — Bo.
Say on,
" Chap, xxii. — ^What indignity man did to God in per
mitting HIMSELF to be OVERCOME BY SATAN, FOR WHICH HE
CANNOT BENDER SATISFACTION. — Ans. Man, created in paradise
without sin, was, as it were, placed for God, between God and
Satan, that he might conquer Satan, by not consentffig to ffis
persuasive aEurements to sffi. This woffid have redounded to
the justification and glory of God, and to Satan's confusion,
when the weaker on earth would not sin after all the persuasion
of that very Satan, who, whUe the stronger, sinned in heaven
without any persuasion at aE ; and though man might easUy
have accomplished this, he, though constrained by no force,
voluntarily permitted ffimself to be overcome by persuasion
alone, at Satan's wUl, and contrary to the wUl and honour of
God, — Bo. At what do you aim ? — Ans. Judge for yourself,
whether it is not contrary to the honour of God, that man
should be reconcEed to Him with the reproach of this indig-
ffity done to Him, without first restoring to God His honour, by
a victory over Satan, just as he dishonoured God when van
quished by Satan, Agaffi, the victory shoffid be of such a

396 APPENDLX,
nature, that just as he readUy consented to Satan's aUurements
to commit sm, when strong, and arrayed ffi the power of im-
mortaUty, and hence justly incurred the doom of mortaEty, so
he shoffid overcome Satan, and resist every temptation to sffi ffi
the weakness and mortaEty wffich he drew upon ffimseE, Tffis
coffid not be, so long as he was conceived and born in sffi, ffi
vEtue of the wound of the first sffi, — Bo. Agaffi, I must say that
reason proves your position, and that it is impossible for man
as he is, — Ans. Hear one thing more, without wffich man can
not be justly reconcEed, and which is not less impossible, — Bo.
You have already placed before us so many requirements to be
done, that whatever you superadd, cannot greatly terrEy me,
— Ans. Yet hear, — Bo. I Esten,
" Chap, xxni, — ^What man took away from God when he
SINNED, AND WHICH HE CANNOT RESTORE, — Ans. What did man
take away from God,, when he permitted himseE. to be over
come by Satan ? — Bo. Say on, as you have begun, for I know
not what coffid add to the evEs you have aEeady unfolded, —
Ans. Did he not take away from God whatever he had pur
posed TO make of human nature ? — Bo. It cannot be denied,
— Ans. Now dEect your attention to strict justice, and judge,
accordffig to it, whether man can satisfy God in proportion to
the sffi, uffiess he shaE, by conquering Satan, restore that very
thing which was taken from God, in permittffig ffimself to be
overcome by Satan ; so that, as by the fact of man's defeat,
Satan took away what was God's, and God lost, even so by the
fact of man's victory, Satan loses, and God regaffis, — Bo. Nothffig
can be conceived more strictly just, — Ans. Do you sup-pose that
supreme justice can violate this justice ? — Bo. I dare not think so,
— Ans. By no means, then, should man receive, nor can he re-
ceivefwhat God purposed to bestow upon him, without restoring
the whole of what we took away from God ; so that God
regaffis by him, as He previously lost by him. This cannot be
accompEshed in any other way than that as by the vanquished
man the whole of human nature was corrupted, and, as it were.

note on section XL 397
leavened by sffi, in wffich God can receive no one to complete
His heaveffiy kffigdom ; so by the victorious man, as many men
are justified from sin as wUl fUl up that number for the com
pletion ' of which man was made. But that is by no means
possible for man, a sffiner, because a sinner cannot justify a
smner. — Bo. Nothffig is more just, but at the same time more
impossible ; but from aU this, the mercy of God, and the hope
of man, seem equaUy to be destroyed, so far as relates to that
blessedness for which man was created, — Ans. Have patience
yet a Uttle longer, — Bo. What have you further ?
¦ " Chap, xxiv, — ^That so long as man does not restore to
God what he owes, he cannot be happy, nor is his inability
excusable, — Ans. If a man is termed unjust who does not
render to his feUow-man what he owes, much more unjust is
he who does not render to God His due, — Bo. If he can, and
does not, render it, he is ffideed unrighteous ; but E he can
not, how is he unrighteous ? — Ans. Perhaps he might ffi some
measure be excused, E there were no cause of this inabiEty ffi
him ; but E the guUt is ffi the very ffiabUity, then, as it does
not rffitigate the sin, it does not excffipate the man who does
not render what is due. For E, for ffistance, one shoffid enjoffi
a certaffi piece of work upon ffis servant, and requEe him to be
upon his guard against casting himself ffito a certaffi pit, wffich
he poffits out to ffim, and from wffich there is no escape, and
that servant, contemning the charge and warning of ffis master,
shoffid voluntarEy cast himseE into the pit previously poffited
out, so that he cannot do the work enjomed upon him, do you
think the ffiabUity would in any measure be valid as an excuse
why the work enjomed was not performed ? — Bo. Not at aE,
but rather it would be to the aggravation of the guilt, sffice he
caused his own inabUity, He doubly sffined, because he did
not do what he was commanded, and he did what he was com
manded not to do. — Ans. Thus man is without excuse, who has
voluntarUy ffivolved himseE ffi a guilt wffich he cannot atone
' This is the theory of Augustin, elaborated by Anselm,

398 APPENDIX,
for, and by his own faffit plunged himseE into such an inabUity,
that he can neither pay what he owed before the sffi, namely,
not to sin, nor what he owes ffi consequence of sffi ; for that
very ffiabUity is gffilt, because he ought not to have it (non
debet eam habere), nay, ought to be without it (debet non
habere)," etc.
Sec, xiii, (pp, 65-79), — The Lamb of God hearing sin..
Though most of the words ffi this pregnant sayffig of the
Baptist were noticed in the text, some of the poffits which
coffid not be conveniently introduced may be referred to ffi a
supplementary note,
WhUe De Wette and Weiss, on the one hand, maffitaffi
that the entire idea contained in tffis testimony is borrowed
from Isa, liii. 7 and 12, and Hengstenberg and Hofmann, on
the other hand, hold that this cannot be accepted because the
prophet ffitroduces the aEusion to the lamb only in the way of
a comparison, perhaps a middle way may be adopted, wffich is
better than either. The prophet may have taken his compari
son from the sacrificial lamb ; and thus both views may be
harmoffized. But as there is no formal quotation, there is no
need for this discussion among exegetes at aE,
As to the participial clause, o kijjvog — o a'ipuv, it must be
noted that the article and participle ffi such a phrase unEormly
points out a weU-known relation, or a noteworthy pecuEarity
for which one is distinguished. It corresponds to is qui, quippe
qui (see Winer's Gramma.r, sec, 20, c; Matthise's Grammar,
sec, 269, obs!).
As to the question which we have found it necessary to
discusSj what pecuUar lamb is here referred to, I may refer to
an excellent note of Huther, ffi his commentary on 1 Pet, i 19,
which forms a part of H. A, W, Meyer's Kritisch Exeget. Com-
mentar., and also to some comments of Cocceius ffi his Anecdota,
vol, ii p, 45 7, Both these commentators extend the aUusion here

NOTE ON SECTION XIIL 399
made to the lamb beyond the paschal lamb, and make it a
more general reference. Thus Huther on 1 Pet, i 19 uses
these words : " Zu der Bezeichnung Christi als des Lammes ist
der alttestamentliche Typus bier nicht bios das Passah Lamm
(wie 1 Cor, v, 7), sondern allgemeiner: das Lamm wie es in
dem Jiidischen Opferwesen iiberhaupt," Cocceius, too, says :
"Cffiistum agnum dici non tantum indiscriminatim respiciendo
ad omnia sacrfficia expiatoria ; sed etiam in specie ad sacrfficium
juge, et Ula quae pro delicto offerebantur (nam deUctum est pec
catum opinor) et holocausta, quse expiatoria esse docet Ps, Ii, 18,
imprimis verd ad agnum paschalem, qffi exeuntibus ex ,iEgypto
instar omnium sacrificiorum erat,"
The two words which require an accurate and precise ex
position are, a'ipstu and afJbapriai/. 1, With regard to a'ipcui', it
must be noticed that the verb means, primarUy, " to Eft up ;"
but as that is done with various ffitentions, we find derivative
senses arising out of it, (1,) He who Efts anythffig, for ex
ample, upon the way, lEts it, perhaps, to take it for himseE, and
so takes it away ; and if one appropriates it, he takes it away
from another : hence the meanffig, " to take away." But (2)
one may Eft it also " to carry it," or to bear it as a burden or
load. Hence a'tpscrdai is used by the Greek writers, and a'tpsiv
by the Hebraizffig writers, in the sense of " to bear," " portare."
The prmcipal thought is not always that of carrying from place
to place, but often that of taking upon one's self as a burden
or load. And it is ffi the fffilest accordance with this usage of
the word, when Christ is regarded as the Lamb (see an article
by Storr m Flatfs Magazine fiir Dogmatik und Moral, u, St.,
1797, p, 206, Stein, De Satisfactione,^^. 338, on this poffit, thus
writes : " Joan, Georgius Dorscheus, Pentadecad, Dissertat. Disp,
xi, p,m, 380, sec, 43, loca ffitra quadraginta profert ubi ro a'ipuv
portandi signfficationem habet proprie, quod cum primis e loco,
1 Joan, iE, 5, confirmatur," C, L, W, Grimm (De Joan. Christo
logice indole, p, 106) maintains, that though the verb K'ipnv both
ffi the LXX, and in the N, T, ffivolves the notion of hearing, sus-

400 APPENDIX.
taining, taking on one's self, and occurs particffiarly in reference
to bearffig burdens. Gen. xiv. 23, Lam, iE, 27, Matt, xxvu, 32, and
in Job xxi. 3 (though the readffig here is doubtfffi) ; yet, when
it is joffied with the word aybaprioLV, or its cognate, a/jjaprtj/i/tt,
it always has the idea of "takffig away," " removing," never of
hearing, 1 Sam. xv. 25, xxv. 28. To the same effect is the later
conclusion of Grimm, ffi his edition of WUke's Lexicon of the N. T.
The answer to aU this is, that the translation of the Septuagmt
is no conclusive argument ; and that there is reason to conclude
that the same Hebrew phrase was differently given by the Sep-
tuagffit, just because the translators were plaiffiy at a loss to
see how a constant rendering could be carried out in aE the four
appEcations m which the phrase occurs. They translate in one
way when it is applied to the sinner or the victim (viz. (pipnv,
(ii/a,(pipsiv, Xotfjtj^dveii/), and in another way, when it is used with
reference to the priest, or appUed to God (aipa;ps7c, or api'imi).
Tffis whole subject must be discussed afresh ; and here I woffid
take occasion to express my conviction, that the Septuagint
renderffig of the Hebrew phrase, " to bear sffi," demands a fresh
ffivestigation. These translators draw a line between certam
appEcations of the phrase which they regard as conveying the
meanmg " to bear," and certam other appEcations which they
understand as denotmg "to take away." In the first of these
two translations they render the phrase by these Greek verbs :
pipuv, kvotpspuv, Xa^^dviiv, VTiy^uv (Ezek. iv. 4, xviu. 19 ; Lam,
V, 7; Ex, xxvUi, 43; Lev, v, 1, 17; Nmn ix, 13; Lev, vU, 18;
Num, V, 31 ; Lev, xvE, 16), In the second of these two trans
lations they use the verb, upaipsiv, npiimi (Ex, xxvEi, 38 ; Ps,
Ixxxv, 3 ; Ex, xxxiv. 7; Lev, x, 17; Num, xvUi, 1, 23, xiv, 18),
Now it is plain, that in decidffig upon the translation to be
given ffi any given passage, the Septuagint translators were
guided by certain d priori considerations which, whether right
or wrong, were at least derived from some other quarter than
the bare sigffification of the language which they translated.
They appropriated the rendering (p'ipitv, (1) to the individual

NOTE ON SECTION XIII, 401
worshipper, and (2) to the sacrificial victim ; and they appro
priated the other rendering, a(potips7v, (1) to the priest, and (2) to
God, Tffis is the undoubted conclusion or resffit to which every
thorough ffivestigator ffito the pecuEarities of the Septuagmt
version wUl be forced to come.
But as it is not by any means a faffitless version, the further
ffiqffiry forces itself on our attention : Were they correct in tffis
interpretation of the language ? were those d priori grounds,
which dEected them, and which were taken from what they
deemed fittffig and appropriate, and from no other grounds, cor
rect and unchaEengeable ? The Church of the patristic age
and of the Eeformation age accepted the renderffig of the Sep-
tuagffit, as if ffi tffis matter it gave us the ffitimate truth, I say
that there is a caE for a fresh investigation. And whether CEder,
to whom I have referred, has brought out the truth or not ffi
reference to the import of the phrase " to bear sffi " in its appE
cation to God, of one thing there is now no doubt. The priest
may be regarded as " bearffig sin " (see Keil and Hengstenberg
on Sacrffices), DeyEng (obs. i. 45, 2) says, " incorporabant quasi
peccatum popuEque reatum in se recipiebant ; " and as tffis
takes away one of the renderffigs of the Septuagint, further ffi
vestigation may not less Convincingly remove the other,
I have mdicated an fficEnation to accept a uniform trans
lation of the pffiase. We are chaUenged, with some reason, by
the Sociffians, and by the more erudite and exegetical opponents
of the vicarious sacrffice, to do so, or to give up asserting the
reference of the pffiase u'ipuv a[JjOt,priav to anytffing Eke penal
sufferffig, I have said that I thffik there is sufficient warrant
, to maffitaffi the unEorm rendering ; and I am ready to abide by
it. But one caveat is necessary. The phrase, in the passim
voice, naturaUy assumes a shade of meanffig sUghtly different.
Tffis I notice, lest any one shoffid feel the apostle's rendering of
the phrase, in the passive voice, as opposed to aU that has just
been said : [^axoipioi av k<pk6ri(TKV ai kvoi/jioti (Eom. iv. 7) ; (2) as
to aujccprm, E denotes sin, with aU the demerit and consequences
2 c

402 APPENDIX,
ffivolved ffi it, such as gffilt and puffishment. The rationaUstic
Gabler explained afJuapriK by vitiositas, pravitas, and put tffis
ffiterpretation on the pffiase : " He patiently bore the wrongs
and ffijuries of every Mnd infficted on Him" (see Meletem, ffi
Joan.). But had the Baptist mtended to express that idea, he
shoffid doubtless have had ahiKiav, or TtaKiav, as De Wette, De
Morte Christi, has weU poffited out. I may notice, that Grotius,
in a former age, carried exegesis very much away ffi the direc
tion of considering the atonement only ffi connection with punish
ment. But while the Bible phraseology takes in aU tffis, it goes
deeper, and puts the death of Cffiist in connection with sin itself.
Sec. xiv. (pp. 80-86),— 1%6 Title, Son of Man.
The two points discussed ffi tffis section are both of great
importance for a right understanding of the doctrffie of the
atonement, \iz. (1) the title. Son of Man ; and (2) the ^pecffiiar
mode in which the Sffi -bearer took the flesh. Little requEes to
be added in tffis place, except a reference to the Uterature con
nected with the discussion of the import of the designation or
title, " Son of Man." There are, among the many dffierent views
and comments wffich have been propounded, several that demand
some further Eterary notice.
1. The Fathers, for the most part, saw ffi the title notffing
beyond an aUusion to the fact that He who is Son of God
became man ; and they understood it as denoting the whole
person as designated by the humanity. Thus Chrysostom, in
ffis commentary on John iu. 1 3, says : vlov Ss kvdpuvov ivrot,v6a,
oh Triv aapxa, hxaXsffsv kXk' km Tijg 'ikdrrovog obsictg okov lavTOV,
'iv ovTcog i'i'!ra), mofjtjotsi vvv. To the same effect are the comments
of most of tiie other Greek Fathers, when they elucidate the
phrase. Thus Theodoret, on Dan, vii, 13, havffig occasion to
expound the precise import of the phrase, says: r^v hivr'spuv
amTfjpog Wt(pcimciV 'xpodiS'TriZjuv vm fjjiv kvdpuTou aupSg kvo-
kkXuv, h' 7\v kvika^i (pbaiv. Euthymius Zigabenus says on

NOTE ON SECTION XIV, 403
Matt, xiu. 37 : vlov kvSpuvov iuvrov ovofJjixZ,u S/a t^v <pot,ivo[Jt/iv^v
hatdpaiTTTitTiv avTov. To the same purport are the statements of
Epiphamus, Eusebius, Theophylact ; though we occasionaEy find
the word kvSpofTov ffiterpreted with a" more particffiar reference
td Mary, the mother of our Lord. Thus Euthymius Zigabenus,
referrffig to the fact that uvdpiuTog may refer to male or female,
says on Matt. vEi. 20 : avSpwffov Sg viiv Kiysi, rtjv [jb^rspu avrov-
avSpaiTog yap XeyiTui ou% 6 kvijp (juovov, kXXci, zcci ^ yvvrj. But
we may affirm generaEy of the patristic ffiterpretation of this
phrase, that the Fathers commoffiy, E not invariably, Emited the
aUusion to the idea of the incarnation, and understood the
language as a description of the whole person of Christ by one
of His natures. The phrase was held to mean, ffi a word,
accordffig to the Fathers, that Jesus is the eternal Son fficarnate ;
and, ffi the same way, the pffiase is commoffiy understood by
aU who. Eke Sfficer, Pearson, BuE, and Waterland, simply con
tent themselves with reproducing the patristic theology in
then ffiterpretations of the Scripture phraseology. We may
say with confidence, that this ffiterpretation does not exhaust
its meanffig, nor explain aE the pecffiiarities connected with
our Lord's mode of usffig the pffiase. Thus He never uses it
when appeaUng to His Father ; and then, agaffi, this ffiterpre
tation cannot be said to offer any explanation of the fact that
Jesus constantly used it ffi aUudffig to His betrayal, rejection,
sufferffigs, and death.
2. Another ffiterpretation, wffich obtaffied currency ffi the
age of the Eeformation, was to the effect, that the phrase " Son
of Man " intimates offiy that He was man, or that He was ffi
the likeness of man. I might quote Calvffi, Bucer, Muscffius
Piscator, and many of that age, m proof of tffis, as the current
ffiterpretation. Thus Calvin says on Acts vii 56 : " vocat fiEum
homiffis, ac si diceret, homffiem Ulum, quem morte aboUtum
putatis." Again, Muscffius says, on John v. 27: "esse fiEum
homiffis, more Scripturse nihil est aUud, quam esse homffiem ; "
and Bucer says, " notandum autem dUigentissime, quod Cffiistus

404 APPENDIX,
filium homiffis, id est, homffiem (Ebraismus enim est), sese ubique
appeUat," Thus Camerarius and Piscator express themselves
on Matt. ix. 6. Tffis mode of explanation carries an aE of
much simpUcity ; but it is defective, and cannot serve the pur
pose of a key, to uffiock the import of aU the passages where the
phrase occurs, or to explam the pecuEarities of our Lord's use
of it. It does not explam the fact that Christ alone employed
it, and that His foUowers did not ; nor does it throw any light
on the passages where men and the Son of Man are expressly
contrasted and distffigffished ; and I may add, that the Umitation
of the phrase to the sense that He was a man, was only, ffi fact,
to announce what no one doubted, — ^what aU saw and beheld
with theE own eyes.
The other senses aUied to that just mentioned, and current
in the rationaEstic period, are unworthy of beffig mentioned.
Thus even Hess, in his Leben Jesu, ffiterprets it, this mam, I who
am before you. These shaUow comments, which Uiffit it to such
senses as a certain man, I, one, some one, are not deserving of
notice. It was interpreted the archetypal man by Herder,
Neander, Olshausen,
3, The mterpretation most ffi vogue at present among exe
getes is that wffich expounds it as a name or title of Messiah
glorffied, or in His dignity. They deem it equivalent to the
title of the reigning Messiah, as E it were taken from the
vision of Daniel, where the Messiah appears as the Son of Man
in the exercise of authority and domiffion. This comment, pro
posed by Beza, was supported by subsequent expositors to a
large extent, — by Cameron, Capellus, Abresch, Storr; and ffi
recent times, by Stier, Tholuck, Weiss on John's Lehrbegriff,
by Meyer, and, in a word, by the great majority of the modern
interpreters. Tffis is the view advocated by Scholten, ffi his
Specimen Hermemeuticum Theologicum, de appellations rov viov tov
kvdpurov, Utrecht, 1809), by Hermga and others, as the only
correct view. But this interpretation, however it may explam
some of the passages, and especiaUy those wffich describe Christ

NOTE ON SECTION XIV. 405
as the Son of Man sittffig on the right hand of the power
of God (Luke xxu. 69), faUs to explain the references to His
abasement ; and the Messiaffic glory was but the reward of the
humUiation. 4. A fourth mterpretation is that which expounds the phrase
of the second Adam. The celebrated phEologist Heffisius, who
led the way ffi this mterpretation, which has found many sup
porters, says, Exer. on Matt. vEi. 20 : " cum ubique Dommus
servator viog rov kvdpSxov, dicatur, prinu homffiis respectu sffie
dubio, qui ms sive 6 avSpuvog vocatur. Ut 6 KvdpuTog sit homo
primus: viog rov kvdpcoTov, qffi post Ulum sic l^o^aj, dicitur,
idem qui secundus Adam dicitur," This opinion was followed
by Leigh, Lightfoot, Bengel in part, who says on Matt, xvi, 13 :
" ut Adamus I, cum tota progenie dicitur homo, sic Adamus II,
(1 Cor, XV, 45) dicitur fUius homiffis, cum articffio o viog tov
kvdpMTov." The same view was adopted by J, D, MichaeUs and
Zacharise, and also ffi substance by Morns. That this view, so
far as it goes, is weU founded, there seems no ground to doubt.
The objection wffich Scholten makes to it — ^that our Lord never
makes the smaUest aUusion to Adam — assumes the whole matter
in dispute. This is the aUusion, We know that our Lord was
wont to go back to man as he was at first, ffi some of those
discussions which He carried on with the men of His time.
Thus, ffi regard to marriage and divorce, we find Him goffig
back to the begmnmg (Matt, xix, 6-8) ; and in this phraseology
we have just the same thought that lies at the basis of Paul's
comparison of the first and second Adam (Eom, v, 12, 20 ; 1
Cor, XV,)
5, Another interpretation is to the effect that the title " Son
of Man " denotes the mean, despised, and miserable condition of
our Lord ffi His capacity as surety. This ffiterpretation, pro
pounded chiefly by Grotius, found, in a former age, very con
siderable acceptance ffi the Church, The phrase was held by a
large class of divines, who in this matter foUowed Grotius, to
refer, not to Christ's digffity, but to His abasement and humUia-

406 APPENDIX,
tion. This opffiion was adopted by Walseus, Van TU on
Matthew, by WoEburgius, by Beausobre et L'Enfant, Eosen-
miUler, and others ; by Heumann ffi 1740, and by Less in 1776,
who both, ffi separate treatises, discussed the title fllius hominis
ffi the same Une of thought with Grotius, and clearly proved
that it is not a title of dignity. Undoubtedly this last thought
is contamed in the phrase as our Lord employs it ; and the
aUusions to His abasement, as we have attempted to prove
ffi the text, are so express and emphatic, that we think they
cannot be mistaken. Heumann maffitains correctly, that ffi
the Gospel of John, this title is always used as the antithesis
of Christ's divine majesty. Let me refer the reader to Schol-
ten's interestffig treatise on tffis title, though its main position
has been proved to be quite untenable.
The three thoughts contained ffi the phrase, then, as we
sought to brffig them out, are these: (1) true humaffity; (2)
abased humanity; (3) the second Adam. Nor can any one
object to tffis as too composite, because it expresses what the
surety must needs be, and what His work must needs embrace,
— and His one work comprehended as a uffity all these three
elements ; and with this phrase, so understood, we can ffiterpret
aU the passages where the title occurs.
The next pomt noticed by us relates to Christ's voluntary
susception of the curse. The second thing discussed in this
section has reference to the mode ffi which Christ, as the sin-
bearer, took the flesh. The problem here is to show that
Christ took sffi and the curse along with the assumption of
humaffity, and that He never appeared without it, %ap<V kl^jo^p-
Tiocg (Heb. ix, 28) ; and our aim here was to show that, in some
sense. He was the sin-Eearer in, with, and under His assumption
of humanity, — ^nay, before the flesh was prepared for Him ; and
it in some measure bears the ffidubitable marks of the curse
upon it. Our object was to show that it was not the flesh of
sin, and yet le ofJuoiufJijOCTi ffupxog kfiapTiag (Eom, vUi, 3), — not
sinfffi flesh, for that woffid have fficapacitated Him to deUver

NOTE ON SECTION XXIL 407
US, but the likeness of sinful flesh ; and aE that foUowed in
the way of sufferffig was, not because He took a portion of the
common lump or general mass of humanity, but only as a part
of the voluntarily assumed curse taken on Him by free sus
ception, or voluntary assumption.

Sec. XXIL (pp. 148-164).— ^Ae Son of Man giving His life
a ransom for many.
We have so fuUy canvassed the import of the term Xvrpov,
that Uttle here requires to be added. As the notion of redemp
tion, however, by a price paid, or by a ransom offered to God
by Christ, involves the whole notion of an atonement in the
room and stead of others, and runs counter to an absolute
deUverance, every effort has been made, since the days of
Socinus, to make good the point, that redemption may mean
deliverance without any price. But as bibUcal language con
taffis both the idea of deliverance and of a price, and as they
are commoffiy put together (Eph. i 7; Col. i. 14; 1 Pet. i
18, 19), no one can warrantably doubt that we have in these
passages both the mention of deEverance ffi general terms,
and then the mention of the ransom as the special way of
deUverance, irrespective of anything done or attempted by men
themselves. It is weU remarked by Chapman, ffi his Eusebius,
or the True Christian's Defence, 1741, vol. u. p. 290 : "We have
this expressed here as clearly and strongly in the phrases above
as the Greek language coffid express it; and if it had been
the full design of our Saviour and His apostles to express thus
much; they could not in Greek have done it ffi plaffier or less
ambiguous terms — there being no ffistance, I beUeve, ffi anti
quity where hovvoct XvTpov or kvriXvTpov are used in any other
sense; and therefore, to resolve these words with Socinus or
CreUius, by a figure of theE own ffiventing, into a bare deUver
ance, without any causal price of it, ffiterposed antecedently by
Cffiist, but only such ffi respect of the reformation of mankind —

408 APPENDIX,
which His doctrme or example or exaltation after death might
produce ffi the world — is such triflffig and arbitrary expoundffig
of Scripture, without regard to the usage and sense of words, as
no reason and criticism wUl endure. In their way of com
mentffig, besides the total want of authority, there is this further
absurdity, that they turn the words XvTpov and kvTiXvTpov ffito
metaphor, without making any sort of analogy in the case,
— there beffig evidently no proportionable simUitude between
givffig a XvTpov without any kffid of ransom or price, and givffig
one altogether with it, — whereas every true metaphor always
carries a plaffi analogy- or proportion between the proper and im
proper usage of words; as Aristotle (Rhet. 3, 10, 11), TuUy (Cic.
Oral. 3, 38, 39, 40), and QuintiEan (Inst. 8, 6), have resolved
long ago, and the nature of the thffig requEes ; and therefore
the metaphor which they talk of in these passages is whoUy
without foundation, and absolutely unwarrantable."
The exact import of XvTpov must be ascertained. This is
the more imperative, as the notion gamed ground ffi many
quarters, especiaUy sffice the times of Grotius, and was asserted
durmg aU last century, and up to a recent day, that XvTpov
may be taken in the sense of a, sacriflce — a sense put on the
word, neither ffi keeping with classical usage, nor with the
language of the Septuagint.
1. As to the classical use of the term, we find it used in the
singffiar, but more commoffiy ffi the plural, XvTpu, to denote
the price or compensation for which captives are redeemed
from those who have taken them prisoner. Thus Thucyffides,
Book vi. 5, says that Hippocrates, tyrant of Gela, received the
territory of the Camarinseans as a ransom for some Syracusan
prisoners : XvTpa, cdyjJjO^Tm XccfBm t^v yfjv TrjV Kafjuccptmiav.
Xenophon, Hellen. vU. 16, says that the Phliasians gave liberty
to Proxenus without a ransom: Z^vTot, Xu^ovTsg k<p^xKV avev
XvTpm. In Demosthenes, 1248, 45, we find eiirevsyxiiv ccvtS
ixiXiVi jM/S ilg Ta XvTpu : " to contribute to the ransom or price
of his deliverance from captivity."

NOTE ON SECTION XXII. 409
The undoubted meaning, of the term XvTpov, as it occurs in
the classics, is that of a price paid to deEver a prisoner from
captivity, or for the recovery of something lost, or perhaps
stolen. And though many argue, in the interest of a tendency,
that the term may also be taken for any sort of deEverance,
irrespective of the price paid for it, yet no example of such
usage is found ffi poffit of fact. I shaU here quote tbe accurate
statement of the meaning of the term given by Bishop Pearson
in his Exposition of the Creed, article 10 : " What is the true
notion of XvTpov wiU easUy appear, because both the origination
and use of the word are sufficiently known. The origination is
from Xvsiv, solvere, to loose; XvTpov quasi XvT^piov, Etymol. —
SpivTpoi TO, Gpi'iTTripiDt,, wffTBp XvTpo, TO, Xvrfjpici. Eustath. Xiysi
Ss 6ptTTpa (ita leg.) to, Tpopeia 'ex rov dpSTTripici zocra ffvyxoTfjv
dig XvT^pioc XvTpcc, mrfipicc auSTpoi,. Iliad, A, 478. Xvrpov, igitur
quicquid datur ut quis solvatur. e^r; cdyjiijoCxiiTuv i^iuviffsa/g
olxiiov TO Xvisdotif o6iv xDci XvTpoi, TO, hcHpo, XiyovTcci ra sig
TOVTO hiopbeva. Eustathius, upon that of Homer, II. A, 13,
XvBoiiivog Ti Svyccrpot,. It is probably spoken of such thffigs
as are given to redeem a captive, or recover a man ffito a free
condition. Hesych. Tavrot, rot, hlo(/jivoi, slg kmxrsjffiv kvSpaTaiv
(so I read it— not kvkxXrjfftv). So that whatsoever is given for
such a purpose, is Xvrpov ; and whatsoever is not given for such
an end, deserveth not the name in Greek, As the city Antandros
was so caUed, because it was given ffi exchange for a man who
was a captive,'-' etc.
Thus the Xvrpov or rk Xvrpcc was the price of a captive's
deUverance, The scholiast on Homer renders og krotvce, ipspo/
by the wo;^s o xo[JblZ,(uv rk Xvrpoc. Polybius mentions that
Hannibal, after the battle of Cannae, sent ten of the prisoners
to Eome to treat ygp; Xvrpm xai ffairsipiag, making the Xvrpov
three minse a man.
Here I must obviate the statement of Socinus and CreUius,
that Xvrpov is properly lised offiy of the redemption of captives.
On the contrary, E means whatever deUverance was effected by

410 APPENDIX,
a gift or service. Thus, if a slave purchased his Eberty, the
money payment, consisting of his earnffigs, was caEed Xvrpu ;
whereas a slave obtaining his liberation for good conduct, was
said to get it 5rpo7»a, Not only so: the word was used to
denote the price of deEverance from puffishment (Josephus'
Wars, U, 14),
Tffis is indisputably the meaning of Xvrpov ; and it may
be added, that even in the more metaphorical or derivative
senses given to Xvrpov by the poets, there is always sometffing
corresponding to the idea of price, or at least of compensation.
It is never the absolute idea, irrespective of a price paid. In
Pindar we find the metaphorical or secondary ' sense of the
word (see Heine), ffi the acceptation of a certain compensation.
for some evil or hardship that men may have endured. Thus
the poet calls the marks of honour paid to Tlepolemus, Xvrpov
(rvfJt/(popkg oixrpoig yXvxv, a sweet compensationfor his sad disaster
(Olymp. 7, 141), He also uses the phrase, Xvrpov svho^ov
xaf/jccrm, a glorious reward of toils (Isthm. 8, 1), (See Mun-
tinghe's Geschiedenis der Menschheid, vol, ix, Anmerk 96,)
I may here refer to the passage in ..iEEan, wffich Kypke
quotes on this verse of Matthew in his Ohservationes Sacrce, as
foEows: " ^Eanus, Hist. An. Eb, 10, c, 13, Asserit quod
conchse, margaritis exemptis, liberse dimittantur, oiovil Xvrpcc
hovffoii rrjg iotvrSv aoorripioig, hoc veluti liberationis suce pretio
dato." It is plain that ,<EUan describes the pearls wffich the
oysters contain, as in some sense the Xvrpov which is paid to
secure theE Eberty. According to Elian's representation of
the matter — ^whether true or false, is not the question — the
oysters are caught, and then, when deprived of their pearls,
are Eberated, as E the pearl were in some way the ransom or
the price of freedom ; and he uses an as it were (oiovii), to ffiti
mate how he woffid have his language understood, (Comp,
Storr's Essay, appended to his commentary on Hebrews, p,
436.) We must hold, then, if we are to be gffided by the
usus loquendi, that Xvrpov designates only a ransom or a

NOTE ON SECTION XXIL 411
price paid to set one free who is a prisoner, or in distress
and danger.
There is thus no ground for the mterpretation given by
Grotius, that Xvrpov may be held to denote a sacrifice. There
is no weU-ascertaffied ffistance where it is so used, De Wette
saiys, correctly, " at vocabffium Xvrpov neque apud Grsecos,
neque ffi Vers, Alex, de piacuEs m usu est," (De Morte Christi,
p, 140,) No doubt Kypke quotes the passage from Lucian's
Dialogues of the Dead, where Ganymede says to Jupiter,
" quod si me ditnittes, polliceor aol xoti kX!Xov ffap' avrov
xpiov rsdvastrdoti Xvrpcc, VTTsp 1[/jOv, tibi et cdium arietem ab
ipso immolatum iri, in pretium redemptionis pro me!' This
by no means proves that Xvrpov denotes a sacrifice, as the
meaffing is not that the sacrifice of a ram is a piacffiar
offerffig, but that it is the price of his deEverance. The only
argument that Grotius can produce for his position, that Xvrpov
may mean a sacrifice, is taken from the cognate Latin word
lustrum : " Latini veteres quorum lingua tota Grsecse erat de-
pravatio, Utera una interposita, Xvrpov lustrum dixerunt et
Xvrpovv lustrare. Lustrare ergo urbem est eam a poena
liberare per lustrum, hoc est, per paenam succedaneam, quod
et piaculum dicitur." (Grotius, De Satisfactione, cap. 8.) But
it is a very uncertain mode of proof, when one pernuts himself
to argue, from the meanffig of a word of probably cognate origin
in one language, to the meanffig of a word in another. This
can never overthrow the vsus loquendi as to Xvrpov. On the
contrary, the classical usage was so fixed, that it could not bend
or pass into any other sense but that of ransom or price, in
order to deEver a prisoner from captivity.
2. The usus loquendi of the Septuagint ffi reference to the
term Xvrpov, is equally defiffite and precise. Though men
may specffiate as to what might or might not have been, this
point is unmistakeably evident, that the word is never used
by the Septuagmt in any other sense but ffi that of ransom.
The word is unEormly used ffi the Septuagmt, to denote a

412 APPENDIX.
price, compensation, or payment, with a view to deEver a
prisoner from captivity. It is the translation for several words,
viz. "IB3, rhm, tV1£3 ; and it is the term used to intimate gene
raUy, that something is given or offered to deliver a person, or
to obtaffi the surrender of a thmg (Ex. xxi. 30, xxx. 12 ; Prov.
vi. 35; Num. xxxv. 31, 32). (Compare Scffieusner on the word;
also Borger on GaL, p, 154,) We may confidently conclude,
then, that the word Xvrpov does not mean a sacrifice, but
carries with it the notion of a price or compensation for a
captive. It is an advance on the idea of a sacrifice ; or, more
precisely, the one idea passes over into the other, (See Oiffier,
under the word OpfercuUus, m Herzog's Real Encyclopddie, and
KeE on Exodus,)
The notion that Xvrpov may denote deliverance generally,
without the idea of a ransom, though often expressed ffi former,
days and also in modern times, is whoUy without foundation.
On tffis point the celebrated Emesti expressed himseE, Neue
Theologische Bibliothek, vol. v., 1764, as foEows : "Hiebey macht
der Hr. V. effie lange Anmerkung darinne er saget, dass diese
Worte entsetzlich tlbel verstanden und ausgeleget worden smd,
und sich verwundert, dass Maimer die griechich verstunden
und vorgaben, denken zu konnen, dieses Wort durch effie Er-
losung iibersetzen, und von effier Loskaufung, die durch effi
Losegeld geschehen, erklaren konnen, und durch effie Genug
thuung fffi die gottliche Gerechtigkeit. Wir sagen dagegen,
dass wE uns wundern, wie der Hr. Ver£ der mit den alten
ScffiEtsteEern so bekannt seyn wUl, und so viele Jahre sich
mit Augslegung derselben abgegeben hat, so iibersetzen und
erklaren konnen, und das ohne alien Beweis ans der Sprache
und ParaUelstellen. Denn dass er saget: wussten denn die
Leute fficht, was die Gerechtigkeit Gottes sei ? Gerechtigkeit
bestehet ffi einer weislich eingerichteten Giite u. s. w., damit
ist gar nichts gesaget. FreUich wussten die Leute vor Hr.
Wolfen nicht, dass Ee Gerechtigkeit effie weislich eingerichtete
Giite sei; ob sie gleich wohl wussten, dass Gott fficht wider

NOTE ON SECTION XXIL 413
die GerechtigkeE seine Gute beweise. Aber kann man dagegen
sagen, weiss denn der Hr. Verf nicht, dass kxoXvrpufsig fficht
Lossprechung heisset, noch heissen kann, und dass es noch
tein Socffiianer hat beweisen konnen, wie er es auch ffie
beweisen wEd ? Weiss er nicht, dass an andern Orten stehet,
diese kroXvrpusig sei durch das Blut oder den Tod Christi
geschehen, dass sein Tod deswegen kvriXvrpov heisset? und
was soU denn nun dass kvriXvrpov seyn, wenn der Effect davon
effie Lossprechung, d. i erne nacffiicht von der gbttUchen Los
sprechung ist ? "
The term Xvprov can be taken ffi no other sense than in
that of a ransom. It must be added that Xvrpov, the transla
tion of the Hebrew copher, is employed in the Septuagmt to
designate the price paid, ffi the Mosaic law, to deliver any one
from threatened or merited punishment (Num. xvi. 46, xxxv.
31) ; and our Lord here expresses the very price wffich He
was to give for man's salvation, viz. His life. He coffid mean
nothffig else by this sayffig, but that the giving of His lEe is
the offiy price or ransom by which the redemption of His
people was effected, just as the Eberation of a prisoner of war
was effected by the Xvrpov.
Not to lengthen out this note undffiy, let me refer the
reader to the expositions of tffis text that have recently been
given by Delitzsch on Hebrews, p, 732 ; by PhUippi, in his
controversial pampffiet agamst Hofmann, p, 61; by KeU, ffi his
articles on Sacri&ces in Zeitschrift fiir Lutherische Theologie, 1857,
p, 449; by Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk, vol. ffi. p. 89.
I may again refer to Chapman's Eusebius, or the True
Christian's Defence, 1739, U. 4, sec. 9, note E, where he shows,
from Greek writers, that Xvrpov intimates a special mode of
redemption, by the payment of a ransom. He remarks, that if
Christ and His apostles had speciaUy ffitended to declare this
with the most appropriate and strongest expressions, they coffid
not have found ffi the Greek language words more plaffi and
unambiguous than those which they employ.

414 APPENDIX,
Sec, xxin, (pp, 165-183), — Christ s Blood shed for the
Remission of Sins.
HISTORICAL sketch.
In discussing the import of tffis sayffig, we said that it is not
left doubtfffi that the proximate and immediate end contem
plated by the death of Cffiist was the remission of sins. As
tffis is correctly apprehended or misunderstood, it may be said
to decide upon the school of theology to which men confess ffi
our day. It is admitted on aU sides, that there is some con
nection between the death of Cffiist and the remission of sffis.
But opinion differs widely as to the nature of that connection ;
and it is necessary to advert here to the confficting views on
this point, and to the fact, that even among many who are
devout and reverent disciples, opinions are held which are at
variance with the plaffi and natural meanffig of the words.
The connection between the death of Cffiist and forgiveness
was, from the very first, accepted ffi the whole Christian Church
as a connection of cause and effect. Though the nature of the
connection was not for many ages made a matter of discussion,
and was simply accepted as a fact by aU Christians, one thffig
is certam : they considered the death of Cffiist as a sacrifice for
the sffis of the world ; and that Christ was to be regarded as
effecting the remission of sffis, not by His doctrffie alone, nor
by His example alone, but by the efficacy of His fficarnation
and death viewed as a sacrffice. It is true, opiffion coffid not
be said to be settled, or to be very defiffite, on points which
were never subjected to investigation ; and this holds true of
the doctrine as to the design and effect of the death of Christ,
The Fathers were content to extol the greatness of redemption
and its importance, though they did not very mffiutely canvass
the way ffi wffich the Saviour effected our redemption, and were
content with the statement that He was incarnate, suffered, and
died for man's salvation.

NOTE ON SECTION XXHL 415
I refer to tffis fact, because a very imfair use has been made
of it by some modern writers opposed to the vicarious satisfac
tion, who wish to find the Fathers speakmg theE views. Tffis
holds true of Baffi's treatise, die Lehre der Kirche vom Tode Jesu
in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, 1832, ffi wffich the writer
quotes from most of the Fathers of the ffist tffiee centuries, as
if they held opffiions simEar to the writer himseE. Grotius, at
the end of his treatise, De Satisfactione, had proved dEectly the
reverse. Priestley, durffig last century, attempted stUl more
offensively to prove that the doctrine of the atonement was
one of the corruptions of Cffiistianity; and nothing can be
imagined more groundless and unjust. When we exanune how
Priestley proceeded with the task which he had imposed on
himseE, to prove that the doctrffie of the atonement was one of
the corruptions of Christianity, we find, that ffistead of in
quEffig, as he shoffid have done, whether the early Christians
beUeved the doctrffie of the atonement or not, whether they
coffiessed the forgiveness of sins for Cffiist's sake, or whether
they asserted the forgiveness of sffis for the sake of good works,
he offiy quotes passages where the Fathers speak of hoUness,
of virtue, and of good works ffi a way of commendation. He
adduces various passages from the Fathers down to Augustffi,
and after him, to prove that they regarded the forgiveness of
sins as flowffig from the free mercy of God, independently of
Christ's sufferffigs and merits. This is, in the ffighest degree,
unjust and mcorrect. If the Fathers considered the sufferffigs
of Christ as merely an example, and if they regarded repefatance
and contrition as the sufficient ground of salvation, one woffid
have plaiffiy perceived it ffi theE writffigs ; and many expres
sions of the Holy Scriptures which refer to the doctrine of the
atonement must necessarUy have been explaffied by them ffi a
metaphorical way. Basnage, quoted by Priestley, says that the
ancients generaUy speak sparingly on Christ's atonement, and
ascribe much to good works. The explanation is not difficffit,
as has been aEeady mentioned. But I must further add, that

4.16 APPENDIX.
Priestley was not the man to enter into tffis field; and offiy
betrayed his ignorance, which Horsley and others sufficiently
exposed. He offiy quotes passages which served ffis purpose,
and was sUent on others. If we fuUy consffit the writmgs of
the Fathers, it wiU be found that they regarded Christ as the
meritorious cause of salvation, and alluded to His sufferffigs as
expiatory and vicarious. I forbear at present to enter into this
field at length, but shaU probably do so after the bibUcal evi
dence for the doctrine has been surveyed. Meantime, I may
just mention that Anselm, from whose work extracts have
already been given, is the sort of transition stage between the
patristic theology and the later ecclesiastical system. Let me
refer the reader to Dr. F. C, Baur's Lehre von der Versohnung
in ihrer geschichtlichen Entwickelung, 1838,
We shaU now trace somewhat more ffi detail how the Unk
of connection between the death of Christ and forgiveness is
represented by various schools and tendencies, both ffi earlier
and later times,
1, The oldest doctrffie accepted in the Church, in a more
or less developed form, was, that Christ was the substitute for
sinners ; that is, for men who are guilty before God, and who
woffid have been subjected to merited punishment, E a satis
faction had not been offered in their stead. This is un
doubtedly the oldest doctrine, and worthy of being caUed
the accepted orthodox doctrffie in the Church, both ffi the
Greek and Eoman section of it. No ffiteUigent and honest
investigator can reaUy entertaffi any doubt on tffis poffit, though
the doctrine came to be more developed in the eleventh cen
tury, when men were led, to discuss the nature of the connec
tion between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of sffis.
To give an exact statement of what may be regarded as the
most widely accepted view of this connection, let it be remarked
that they held as foUows : that men were guUty, and under
obUgation to bear the punishment wffich sin deserved; that
Christ took then place to expiate sffi ; and that His death was

NOTE ON SECTION xxm, 417
a satisfaction to divffie justice, and the endurance of the punish
ment of sin in theE stead ; and that this vicarious sufferffig on
the part of Christ, who united the divine and human nature
ffi His person, won forgiveness for the guilty. The connection,
then, is a meritorious and causal connection. This is the most
ancient and the received view, sometimes less fully, sometimes
more fffily, developed. There were subordinate diversities of
view among this class,
a. Some, as Anselm and the Eeformation theology, generaUy
deduced this provision more from an absolute inner necessity ;
whUe others, such as Grotius, and those who foEowed ffi his
track, deduced it more from God's free wUl, The latter class
regarded the satisfaction, not as an mEspensably necessary but
sa a free and gracious arrangement, adapted to display the
wisdom and love of God. The one, we think, correctly placed
it more in God, who coffid not but insist on the satisfaction
of His justice ; the others placed it more in that which is
without God. The former insisted on the equivalent;, the latter
on an acceptatio gratuita, or a relaxatio or dispensatio legis.
They were, however, at one as to the meritorious or causal
coimection. h. Some ascribed aU the effects produced by the atonement
to the passive obedience of Cffiist alone, — such as Piscator, and
those who foUowed him in ffis conclusions; whUe the great
body of the Lutheran and Eeformed Churches, as is evident from
the symbolical books received in both, ascribed the validity
and efficacy of the atonement to the active obedience of Christ,
as weU as to His sufferffigs, correctly combinffig both as equaEy
essential to one joint result.
c. There was also a diversity of opinion as to the persons
for whom the atonement was offered; the Eeformed Church
maffitaffiing, according to its Calvffiistic prmciples, that the
atonement was for an elect company — a view asserted by
the Synod of Dort ; the Lutheran Church, and many in the
Church of England (which always hesEated about pronouncffig
2 D

418 APPENDIX,
decidedly on tffis poffit of Calvinism, whUe asserting aU the
other points), making the atonement general
d. Another diversity, of a subordffiate nature, that came
out ffi a sporadic way in HoUand, was, whether the sufferffigs
of Jesus were to be considered more as a whole, or whether a
particffiar efficacy and effect were to be ascribed to particffiar
portions of His sufferffigs.
But notwithstandffig these suborEnate points, to wffich we
have adverted in the body of this work, and on which we have
also given our opinion, there is a perfect unanimity on the
meritorious and causal connection between the death of Christ
and the renussion of sffis ; and that is the grand truth which
has always been held in aU the great sections of the Christian
Church, both ffi the east and west, and to which Protestantism
unequivocaUy coffiesses,
2, Another opinion is, that the death of Cffiist is only the
occasion of forgiveness, not its meritorious cause. Under this
division may be classffied the various phases of modern specu
lation, as weU as the distffictive pecuEarities of the old Sociffian
doctrine, — aE imitffig in one poffit, that forgiveness is either
given absolutely, or on the ground of some inner amendment or
renovation, but that the death of Christ has no causal connec
tion with it.
They who maintaffi this second opiffion, which cannot be
said to express the ecclesiastical consciousness of any epoch of
Church ffistory, appeal to a number of texts. It wUl be found,
ffideed, to the surprise of the ffivestigator ffi this field, that aU
the bibUcal testimonies wffich are adduced ffi defence of the
first and oldest doctrffie on the subject of the atonement, are
also adduced by the defenders of the second view, with a
whoUy different explanation. The sayings of Jesus, which
we have expounded as proper expressions of the true nature,
scope, and effect of His vicarious death, they hold to be merely
flgurative or metaphorical representations, the import of which
must be translated mto strict and proper speech, before theE

NOTE ON SECTION XXHL 419
meaning can be ascertained. They make the entEe language
of our Lord a vast magazffie of metaphors and flgures, which the
expositor must distU or filter into proper speech, and exact
thought. And when this is done, they maintain that nothing
else is taught by aE that vast array of testimonies, but simply
tffis, that Jesus died in some ffidefiffite way, which cannot be
explained or apprehended, for men's benefit, and to make them
partakers of the remission of sffis. They explain these texts as
merely representffig that the death of Christ is a morally opera
tive means of the same nature with His doctrffie and example,
I must now advert to the various shades and modifications
of this opffiion, WhUe they have theE divergences, they yet
coincide in assertffig the absolute forgiveness of sins, and in
rejecting the idea of a vicarious satisfaction to the justice and
law of God, I woffid wilUngly make a separate or inter
mediate classffication for those who maffitaffi Trinitarian senti
ments. For every one who has learned to weigh opinions, or
to trace theE history, wUl readEy admit that a wide Iffie of
demarcation separates the Trinitarian from the Unitarian in
everything ; that the one is witffin the pale of biblical Chris
tianity, and that the other has very questionable claims to any
such recognition; and that the opinions held by the one section
differ in their whole character, scope, and tendency from those
wffich are maffitained by the other. But I find it impossible
to make this ffitermediate classffication, partly because a Trffii-
tarian finds ffis place among the opponents of the vicarious
satisfaction,' offiy by extreme inconsistency ; partly because the
supporters of this second opiffion almost uffiformly aEow a veU
to rest upon their Trinitariaffism ; and partly because they, in
this matter, sociffianize, and cannot be sundered from the senti
ments and opiffions of the school with which they are thus led
to symboEze. a. The Socffiians must first be named in this division,
because, in poffit of fact, they were the first broachers and
defenders of the opiffion to which we are directing our attention.

420 APPENDIX.
They were the first to oppose the doctrine of vicarious satisfac
tion; and from them, with various modifications, it passed over to
other sections of the Church. In their representation of the atone
ment there are four points wffich must be noticed, as theE mode
of explaining the connection between the death of Christ and for
giveness. (1.) They hold that remission of sms is put in connec
tion with the death of Cffiist, because He confirmed, by His death,
the doctrffie or message which He taught, and particffiarly the
promise of the remission of sins contained in it. They were in
the habit of appeaUng to the words wffich speak of the blood
of the new covenant, but affirmed that the message which that
blood or martyr-death confirmed, was the message of absolute
forgiveness. (2.) Another reason, according to Socffius and his
foUowers, why remission of sms is mentioned or commended to
us in connection with the death of Jesus, was, that He gave us,
ffi His death, a bright example of spotless virtue, that we might
foUow His steps ; and they appeal to such passages as connect
the enforcement of His example with His career of sufferffig
(1 Pet. u, 21). (3.) A further reason, according to the Socffiian
school, why renussion of sins is put in connection with Christ's
sufferings, was, that His death, foUowed as it was by His resur
rection, confirms us in the faith and hope of eternal life, (4,)
Another reason is drawn from His resurrection, the frank re
cognition of which was the only tffing that entitled the Socffiian
or Unitarian body to stand witffin the pale of Cffiistiaffity ffi
any sense of the word ; and hence they base a further reason
on this, which brffigs them in one sffigle respect to approximate
to Eving Christianity, viz, that He won power by His death
to make us actuaEy partakers of forgiveness, and of the salva
tion connected with it. They referred to the announcement
that He both died and rose and revived, to be Lord both of
the dead and Eving (Eom. xiv. 9). The whole is a prockr
mation of absolute forgiveness, mdependently of any atonffig
sacrifice. In a word, they hold that the death of Christ
confirms oiu confidence ffi God's grace, and tends, as a moral

NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 421
means, to form men to true virtue. Among the adherents of
this school, some lay emphasis on one of the points, and some
on others; — thus Priestley Emited himself to the point, that the
death of Jesus confirmed our hope of eternal life and our faith
ffi the resurrection; the author of The Apology of Benjamin
Ben Mordecai for embracing Christianity Emits himself to the
obtaining of power to save sinners; — or they develop them
variously and add other poffits. Thus Wolzogen represents
the death of Christ as a sacrifice for sin, as tending to show
what a puffishment was due to sffi, and may be expected E
men contffiue in sin. But they aU repudiate substitution, or
Christ's bearing of the penalty of sin ffi our stead.
We now enter on a brief review of the more recent modifica
tions of the same opinion, — aU wffich maintaffi this in common,
that Christ's death was not a substitution ffi the room of the
gffilty, or a vicarious satisfaction for sffi. Though many may
go far in the use of biblical phraseology, and even caE His death
a sacrifice, and compare it with the Old Testament sacrifices,
they will not admit a substitution in either case, but view it
as either a casualty in a world of sffi, or a sensible representa
tion of the evE of sin, or of the love of God,
h. Among the many opinions, complexionaUy different, but
substantiaEy identical, in as far as they set aside the vicarious
work of Christ as the immediate cause of remission, perhaps
the theory of Taylor, of Norwich, though he had no higher than
Arian sentiments, makes the nearest approach to what we have
called the general orthodox doctrine. This opinion sets in the
foreground, not the value of Cffiist's sufferings, but His spotless
and unexampled obedience to God, which was so much valued
and approved, that it was deemed worthy to be rewarded with
the salvation of men. The connection between Christ's death
and men's salvation, Ues, according to Taylor, in this, that His
subUme virtue was deemed worthy of a reward, and was re
warded with the forgiveness of sins, just as an eartffiy monarch
wUl reward the emment services of an emffient soldier or

422 APPENDIX.
citizen upon ffis famUy, (See Taylor's Key to the Apostolic
Writings, chap, viU,, before his paraphrase and notes to the
Epistle to the Eomans, and his essay on The Scriptural Doctrine
of the Atonement!) His position is, that God had such com
placency in the lofty virtue of Jesus, exercised ffi life and
death, that He, on that ground, accepts sinners. This is Taylor's
and Purgold's theory ; and it was much foEowed, But this is
not biblical doctrine. We nowhere find our reconciUation
ascribed to the sublime virtue of Jesus, but always traced to
His blood or vicarious sacrifice ; His sufferffigs bemg considered
not as a mere proof of His stedfast virtue, but as a vicarious
bearing of sin. Blood cannot be made to mean mere virtue,
and we cannot lose sight of the aUusion to the Old Testament
sacrffices, and of the direct connection of this sacrffice with our
redemption. If there is nothffig more than an example of lofty
virtue and of martyr-stedfastness, approved and commended at
the divffie tribunaL how are we to understand Christ's words,
when He speaks of blood shed for the remission of sins (Matt.
xxvi. 28)? There was no reason for maintaiffing sUence on
this, when our Lord instituted the memorial of His love, and
pointedly referred to His death or blood shed for the remission
of sffis, E the ground on which God forgives sin is His satisfac
tion and pleasure in the lofty vEtue of Jesus, On the contrary.
He makes no allusion to this. When we abandon our own
reasoffings, and place before us the ¦ whole series of passages
used by our Lord, we at once see how meagre and unsatisfactory
is the idea here presented to us, Vicariousness in His suffer
ings and death is everywhere His grand theme (John x, 11),
and vicarious suffering is the meritorious cause of remission,
c. Another theory as to the connection between Christ's
death and remission of sffis, was to the effect that His death
must be considered as an example of God's aversion to sffi, and as
paving the way for a general proclamation of forgiveness. This
theory was advocated by Professor Koopman in the twenty-first
volume of the publications of the Teyler's Society ffi HoUand,

NOTE ON SECTION XXIH. 423
It was argued, that as the ancient sacrffices were meant to imbue
the mind with a deep sense of the hatefulness of sin and of its
guUt, and to impress the heart of men with reverence, abhor
rence of evil, penitence, trust, and an eager pursuit of hoUness,
so Christ was set forth to be stUl more fuUy the means of the
same resffit, and the example of God's displeasure agaffist sffi.
This theory opposes the vicarious atonement, but insists on an
example of the divine displeasure against sffi. We may weU
ask, woffid it not be an intolerable anomaly in God's moral
government, a contradiction to every divffie perfection, to be
made an example of God's displeasure against sin, and yet have
no sffi, personal or by imputation ? That woffid be a difficffity
indeed, which woffid defy solution. But E examples of mdig-
nation had the effect for wMch this theory pleads, why coffid
not the blood of buUs and goats take away sm? and anud
many examples of the divffie displeasure against sin, why do
we nowhere read that remission was ascribed to such displays
of indignation ? But the faith by which we obtaffi forgiveness
extends to the person of Jesus, as the procurer of forgiveness by
His death ; and we are not offiy summoned to receive the for
giveness which is preached, but to have faith in His person as
crucffied. (See Godgeleerde Bijdragen, ii, Stuk. 1828.)
d. Another theory is, that the death of Christ is a confession
of sin. This is the great burden of Mr. MacLeod CampbeE's
book on the atonement, who holds that Christ's confession of
sffi was a perfect amen in humanity to the judgment of God on
the sin of man (p. 134). He goes on to say, ffi the foEowffig
terms, that a true repentance, and a coffiession of sin, are aE
that are required to expiate sin : " That due repentance for sffi,
coffid such repentance, mdeed, be found, would expiate gffilt,
there is a strong testimony in the human heart, and so the first
attempt at peace with God is an attempt at repentance ; which
attempt, ffideed, becomes less and less hopefffi, the longer and
the more earnestly and perseverffigly it is persevered in, but
that not because E comes to be feE that a true repentance

424 APPENDIX.
woffid be rejected even if attamed, but because its attainment
is despaEed of, — aE attempts at it being found, when taken to
the divffie Eght, and honestly judged in the sight of God, to be
mere selfish attempts at something that pronuses safety; not
evU, mdeed, ffi so far as they are instinctive efforts at self-pre
servation, but having nothffig in them of the nature of true
repentance, or a godly sorrow for sffi, or pure condemnation of
it, because of its own evil ; nothing, indeed, that is a judgffig
sin, and confessffig it ffi true sympathy with the divine judg
ment upon it" (p. 143). He then goes on to say that Christ
ffi humanity has repented of and coffiessed our sin ; and this,
according to Mr, CampbeE, is aU the expiation for sin rendered
or required. To show that this is his precise meanffig, let me
quote his words : " That we may fffily reaUze what manner of
an equivalent to the dishonour done to the law and name of
God by sin, an adequate repentance and sorrow for sin must
be — and how far more truly than any penal inffiction such re
pentance and confession of sin must satisfy divine justice, — let
us suppose that all the sin of humanity was committed by
one human spirit, in whom is accumulated the immeasurable
amount of guilt, and let us suppose this spEit, loaded with
aE this gffilt, to pass out of sffi into holiness," " Such change
would imply an absolute and perfect repentance, a confession
of its sin commensurate with the evE." " We feel that such
a repentance as we are supposing, woffid, in such a case, be the
true and proper satisfaction to offended justice, and that there
woffid be more atoning worth in one tear of true and perfect
sorrow, which the memory of the past woffid awaken in tffis
now holy spirit, than in endless ages of penal woe'' (p, 144),
What reply is to be made to this extravagant and strangely
constituted theory of Christ's coffiessing sin, and repenting of it ?
It might be enough to say, without canvassmg or discussffig it,
that it has no warrant or foundation in Scripture, the phrase
ology and ideas of wffich alone can direct us ffi our theological
thffikffig and theological nomenclature. But it is plain that

NOTE ON SECTION XXIII, 425
the author cannot intend his language to be understood in the
ordinary acceptation in which we use the terms repentance and
confession, because he would not impute to our Lord any per
sonal consciousness corresponding to what these words imply,
as if the sin He repented of was His own. Plainly, the writer,
in that confused and misty phraseology, meant only to ffitimate
Cffiist's deep sympathy or His bitter sorrow that the humanity
to wffich He Enked Himself was so corrupted and guUty, But
if nothmg more than tffis is meant — and anything like vicarious
or representative action is contrary to the writer's entEe scheme
of thought, — then he has not used the proper terms. Moreover,
tffis theory explains nothing, and only palters in ambiguous
pffiaseology, which is higffiy faEacious, But mere repentance,
however exercised, could avaE nothing ; for the supreme Being
wiE never exalt His love at the expense of His holffiess and
justice. To say, therefore, that repentance is enough, is to
assert that the sinner does not require to repair the evE done
by him ; that he does not need to blot out his past sins ; and
that he has offiy to return and ask forgiveness. No good ground
has been adduced by Mr, CampbeU, nor by any one who has
advocated the sufficiency of repentance, to prove that it wUl
avaU for the expiation of sin. It cannot do away past sffi and
guUt, which is an inaEenable necessity where sin has been com
mitted ; it cannot restore the honour of God and the authority
of His broken laws. To say that repentance is enough, is to
assert that God takes the sinner into favour without atonement.
But Scripture speaks as explicitly of expiation and atonement
as of repentance ; and when Scripture in any passage speaks
of the one, and is sUent on the other, no denial of the atone
ment is implied, any more than it can be said to be a denial
of repentance, when the Scriptures speak of the renussion of
sins through the blood of Christ, without the express mention
of repentance, wffich ever accompanies faith.
Some notice must next be taken of the theories on the
atonement emanatffig from the modern Germans of the be-

426 APPENDIX,
Eevmg school, who deviate from the teaching of the symboUc
books. They belong to a much higher type than those aEeady
mentioned under feis division, ffi so far as the doctrine of
Christ's person is concerned, and ffi so far as evangelical re
Ugion in general comes into consideration. Not a few of them
are Trffiitarian ffi the fuUest sense, though it must be aUowed,
in reference to others, that they are no ffigher than SabeUian or
Arian, We may describe their views of the atonement by two
marked features, — one of which is more prominent in some
writers, and the other more promffient in others ; but both come
out unmistakeably ffi theE delffieation as foUows : WhUe they
coincide ffi opposffig the vicarious satisfaction, and in setting
aside the forensic side of theology ffi favour of that which is
properly mysticaL they lay emphasis on the feUowship of
Christ's life, or communion with Christ ffi His lEe (Lebens-
gemeffischaft), and on love, (I may refer to a description
wffich I gave of this school, in an article on Neander ffi the
British and Foreign Evangelical Review for 1853,)
e. The theory of Scffieiermacher, and of the school which he
formed, was to this effect, that Christ, as the completed creation
of human nature, redeems men by receiving them into the
feUowship of His Efe or blessedness. To exffibit ScMeier-
macher's opinions, the best method wUl be to translate a few
paragraphs of his dogmatic work, entitled Der Christliche Glauhe,
1842, He says (secs, 101, 102) : "As the redeeming work of
Cffiist founds for aU believers a common collective activity
corresponding to the being of God in Christ, so the atoning ele
ment, that is, the blessedness of the indwelling of God in Him,
founds a blessed coUective feeUng for aU beUevers, and for every
one in particffiar. In this their former personaEty at the same
time expEes, so far as it was the isolation of feeling ffi an
unbroken Efe of sense, subordmatffig to it every sympathetic
feelffig for others and for the general body. That wffich stUl
remains of, personal identity is the pecffiiar mode of conception
and feeUng which works itseE as an ffidividualized mteUigence

note on section xxiii, 427
into tffis new common life ; so that as regards this point, too,
Cffiist's agency is person-forming, inasmuch as an old man is
put off, and a new man put on." He adds a Ettle below (p.
107) : " Those conceptions of the atonffig work, which make
the impartation of Christ's blessedness mdependent of the re
ception ffito the feEowship of Efe with Him, appear only as
magical ; that is, the forgiveness of sin is derived from the
punishment which Cffiist underwent, and the salvation of men
is. represented as a reward which God gives to Cffiist for that
penal suffering. Not as if the thought that our salvation is a
rewarding of Christ were wholly to be rejected, just as little as
all coimection between the sufferffigs of Christ and the forgive
ness of sins is to be denied. But both become magical as soon
as they are not effected by the feEowship of Efe with Christ ;
for ffi this feUowship the communication of salvation, as we
have aEeady explained the matter, is natural, while, without it,
the rewardmg of Christ is but a divine arbitrariness. And
even this is somewhat magical, when a matter so absolutely
internal as salvation is supposed to be produced from without,
without beffig based internaUy ; for E it is mdependent of the
Ufe of Christ, it can offiy be ffi some way ffifused into each
ffidividual, since man has not the source of salvation in himself.
The forgiveness of sins is also magically effected, if the conscious
ness of guilt is thought to cease because another has borne the
punishment. We can suppose that the expectation of puffish
ment might be thus removed. But this is only the external
element (sffiffiiche) of forgiveness ; and there woffid stUl remain
the properly etfficaL the consciousness of gffilt, which would thus
be removed and charmed away without any ground. How far
sometffing of this has passed over into the Church doctrine wiE
be discussed below,"
" If we compare the connection here assigned with the oppo
site views just mentioned, they certaiffiy lead us to the remark,
that in our view no account whatever is taken of the sufferings
of Christ ; so that we have not had the opportunity to raise the

428 APPENDDC,
question, whether or how far they belong to redemption or
atonement. But it can only be ffiferred from this delay, that
there was no reason to adduce them as a prunary element,
either ffi the one place or ffi the other ; and this is the correct
state of the case, because otherwise no perfect reception mto
the feEowship of life with Christ — from which redemption and
atonement can be fffily understood — ^woffid have been possible
anterior to the sufferffig and death of Cffiist, As an element
of the second order, however, they belong to both, but imme
diately to atonement, and mdirectly to redemption. The agency
of Christ ffi founding the new coEective Efe could offiy appear
in its perfection — though the beEef in this perfection might
have existed without this — if it gave way to no opposition, not
even to that which could cause the destruction of the person.
The perfection, then, does not properly and directly consist ffi
the suffering itseE, but only in the resignation to it; and of
this it is a sort of caricature, when any one, isolating this cffi-
minating point, and disregarding the fomiding of the coUective
Ufe, regards the resignation to suffering for sufferffig's sake, as
the actual sum of Christ's atoning work. But as to the atone
ment, our representation takes for granted that, in order to
effect the reception into the feUowship of His blessedness, the
longffig desEe of such as were conscious of theE misery, must
be first dEected to Christ by the impression wffich they re
ceived of His blessedness. The fact is, that the beUef in tffis
blessedness might have existed without this, but that the
blessedness only appeared in its perfection, as it was not over
come by the fulness of suffering." He adds (p. 110): "But.
that the preceding explanation may serve in every respect as a
standard for judging of the ecclesiastical formffias, we must
apply it to our general formffia of the creation of human nature
beffig completed in Christ, in order to convince omselves that
this, too, is carried out in the twofold agency of Christ. For
what is thus received into the feUowship of Cffiist's Ufe, is
received into the feUowsffip of an activity determined by the

NOTE ON SECTION XXIIL 429
vigour of the consciousness of God (Gottesbewustseyn), adapted
to aU occasions, and exhausting theE demands ; and also ffito
the fellowship of a complacency restffig in this activity, and
that can be shaken by no other movements from what quarter
soever. That every such reception is nothing else but a con-
tmuation of the same creative act, the temporal manifestation
of which began with the person of Christ ; that each intensive
advancement of this new life is such another continuation ffi
its relation to the diminishffig coUective Efe of sin ; and that
in this new Efe the original destiny of man is attaffied, and
that notffing beyond and above this can be conceived or at
tempted for a nature such as ours, — needs no further proof."
These quotations wUl show the theory of the atonement held
by this remarkable man. He uses language on the sufferings
of Christ, as a vicarious sacrifice, which are audacious and
repffisive in the last degree. He makes the whole atoning
element to consist ffi the indwelEng of God in Him, which
Schleiermacher strongly asserted, though more in a SabelUan
than in a Triffitarian way. But the atoning element coffid not
be effected without the human in Christ, as weE as the divine.
In reference to this notion, Krabbe, die Lehre von der Siinde und
vom Tode, 1836 (p, 287), says, happEy, " Er auf dem Seyn Gottes
in Christo seine ganze erlosende Thatigkeit ruhen lasst, da wir
doch namentEch seine Ueberwindung der Siinde, welche wesent-
Uch zu seffier erlosenden Wirksamkeit gehort, nicht dem Seyn
Gottes ffi ihm beimessen diirfen, sondern dem, was mensch ffi ihm
war," And the only thing to which Schleiermacher attaches any
weight, is the feEowship of Efe with Christ, as if this constituted
the redemption, and not, as the Bible everywhere puts it, the re
sffit, reward, and fruit of the ransom offered. It is nothing but
mysticism, where aU the great doctrines connected with God as
a Lawgiver and Judge are ignored, and where the restoration of
Ufe, absolutely considered — nay, such as it was in the person of
Christ HimseE — ^is supposed to be repeated ffi every Christian,
without any appreciation of the speciaEy meritorious ground of

430 APPENDIX.
our acceptance before the Judge of aU the earth, or any pro
vision made for the expiation of sm.
/. A second phase of German theology, by no means ex-
cludffig the above-mentioned element of spiritual life, but
addffig somethmg distinctive and pecuEar, is the theory that
the atonement is offiy a maffifestation of HOLY LOVE. Most of
the modern supporters of the mystic theory of the atonement
powerfffily dUate on love, and wiE see love alone in the suffer
ings of Christ. Thus Klaiber and Nitzsch express themselves.
In the foEowing mode, Hasenkamp and Menken express then
view of the atonement : " dass Gott die Liebe ist, und was fficht
Liebe ist, auch nicht in Gott ist." (See Menken's Schriften, vi.
Band, uber die Eheme Schlange!) The same view was strongly
urged by E. Stier, who, in his Beitrage zur Biblischen Theologie,
Leips. 1828, expresses his concurrence with the English mystic,
W. Law. It is weE known that Law, wffile he enforced with
great zeal and ardour the spEitual life, held low opiffions on
the atonement-views, which can offiy be caEed disparaging, as
they assigned to it a very secondary importance.^
' As La-w has been so much lauded by the supporters of the my,stic theoiy
of the atonement in Germany, and especially by Stier, the following reference to
him, in the life of the admirable Henry Venn, may be appropriately quoted.
"Mr. Law," says the biographer (p, 19), "-was, indeed, now his favourite author;
and, from attachment to him, he was in great danger of imbibing the tenets of
the mystical "writers, whose sentiments Mr, Law had adopted in the latter
periods of his life. Many writings of this class discover, indeed, such traces of
genuine and deep piety, that it is not at all wonderful that a person of exalted
devotional feelings should admire them. From a too fond attachment, however,
to Mr, Law's tenets, he was recalled by the -writings of Mr. Law himself When
Mr, Law's Spirit of Love, or Spirit of Prayer, (I am not sure which), was
about to be published, no miser waiting for a rich inheritance devolving on
him, was ever more eager than he was to receive a book, from which he expected
to derive so much knowledge and improvement. The bookseller had been im
portuned to send him the first copy published. -At length the long-desired work
was received one evening ; and he set himself to peruse it with a-vidity. He
read till he came to a passage wherein Mr. Law seemed to represent the blood
of Christ as of no more avail, in procuring our salvation, than the excellence of
His moral character, ' What ! ' he exclaimed, ' does Mr, Law thus degrade the
death of Christ, which the apostles represent as a sacrifice for sin,- and to which
they ascribe the highest efioacy in procuring our salvation ? Then, farewell,
such a guide ! Henceforth I wiU call no man master, ' "

NOTE ON SECTION XXIII, 431
As frequent reference has been made by us to V, Hofmann's
Schriftheweis — by far the ablest and most effective attempt that
has ever been made on exegetical grounds, and by one who is
reputed an evangeUcal theologian, to overthrow the vicarious
satisfaction, — it is proper to give here a connected outUne of his
views. He thus wmds up a discussion occupying a large por
tion of his first volume (p, 332, first effition) : — ^" We have come
to an end of our examination of aU the apostoEc sayings in
which the fact of the sufferings and death of Jesus is anywhere
made use of, and its sigffificance either mediately or imme
Eately mentioned or deEneated ffi any side, and we have found
no passage, to the understandffig of wffich anythffig else was
necessary, or from the exposition of which anything else re-
sffited, than what we have gathered from the gospel history of
the sufferffigs and death of Jesus, We have found that the
substance of the apostoUc declarations ffi aU the numerous
references ffi which they speak of the death of Christ, whether
with or without the use of Old Testament deUneations, is always
the same as we have expressed ffi our system, viz, that accord
ing to God's purpose the Efe and work of Jesus issued ffi an
event ffi which the relation between God and man ceased to be
conffitioned by sffi, because His communion with God stood the
test even to the end, even in the uttermost opposition which sffi
and Satan were able to direct against the work of salvation.
Although it does not belong to my task, yet I think I ought
not to neglect to show, that the confession of the Church, even
when movffig in the formffise of a theory which is not con
taffied ffi the above, yet does not stand ffi opposition to what
has been advanced, — nay, more, does not contaffi or purport
ought that is wanting in our exposition,
" The idea of the Church, when she speaks of Christ's vicari
ous obedience, active and passive, by which satisfaction was
rendered to the righteousness of God offended by sffi, wUl be
recognised in the four following propositions : (1) that the state
of aUenation between God and mankind has been at once and

432 APPENDIX,
for ever converted into a communion of peace ; (2) that tffis
change is not in the conduct of man, but ffi the relation of God
to man and man to God; (3) that this change was produced, not
by mankind of themselves, but by God ffi Cffiist ; and (4) that
God effected this change ffi such a manner, that He manifested
in it actuaEy His wiE of love, and at the same time His hatred
of sin. We need scarcely remind the reader that the first three
points are contained in our declaration, and that consequently
the fundamental doctrine of our Church concerffing justffica
tion by faith alone is not endangered. But the fourth point is
contamed in it, as weE as in the traditional mode of representa
tion, only with tffis difference, that in the latter the injured holi
ness of God demands a corresponding satisfaction which had to be
offered flrst, before God could he gracious ; whUe, accordmg to
our view, what was done ffi Christ combines both elements, the
actual manEestation of the love of God to man, and of His
hatred of sin, because the creative beginnffig of a new relation
of God to man Ed not take place without the termination of
the previous relation, conditioned by sin. This termmation
begins, so that the beginner of a new humanity develops His
Efe under the conditions of human nature, wffich were intro
duced by sffi ; it continued in the righteous One, exercising His
Efe's task ffi conffict with sin; and is consummated in His
voluntarily enduring whatever the enmity of sin agaffist God
determffied agamst Him, The sufferings and death of Jesus
form the consummation of this termination; and their essen
tiaEy destructive sigffificance is this, that in them offiy was
reaEzed the utmost that the Mediator of salvation coffid
endure and do, that the sin - conffitioned relation between
God and mankind might issue in an end correspondffig to
it, and to the divine decree of love, and thus compensating
for sin. As, according to owr mode of viewing the subject,
it is not the sinner, or the Son of God in his stead, that per
forms what had been omitted, or suffers what had been deserved,
we are not tempted to present Christ's work as a coUective

NOTE ON SECTION XXHI, 433
act of the human race, wffich is not the fact ; and as Cffiist's
work does not appear as a satisfaction for the offence com
mitted against God, which must first be effected, that God might
be gracious, the maffifestation of God's grace is not merely ren
dered possible by means' of it, but it is itseE the reaEzation of
the divine wiE of grace, which it also is. We do not divide
human sffi into omission and transgression, nor the obedience
of Christ into active and passive, in a way which does not
correspond to reaEty, but is merely abstract and notional ; but
tffis one termination of sffi, as a whole, is the obedience of
Cffiist ffi work first, and sufferffig afterwards. Nor are love
and righteousness in God separated ffi such a manner that the
demands of the latter are realized separately from the wUl of
the former ; nor do Father and Son ever stand ffi such opposi
tion that the Son becomes the object of punitive justice ; but
what is done, is the one deed of the love of God to mankmd,
which is at the same time hatred of sffi, and is the united act
of Father and Son, for the realization of this wiU of love, which
is a wUl of hatred to sin. Yet, whether the expression of our
system is more appropriate than that of the traditional ecclesi
astical, I leave others to judge, I tffink I have shown that it
is more ffi accordance with Scripture," This extract wUl give
a just idea of Hofmann's opffiions. And when he enumerates
these points ffi ffis controversial pamphlets, he acknowledges
three deviations from the ecclesiastical doctrine: (1) that he
does not speak of Christ's fulfiUing of the law ; (2) that he
does not consider Christ as takffig on Him our puffishment, and
so not rendering a vicarious obedience or suffering, but offiy
as verifymg His Sonship amid endurance ; (3) that he appre
hends the whole ffistory of Jesus, from His incarnation to His
death, as the carrying out of the plan to which the three-one
God resorted to change or alter the relation of man to Him.
He regards the Church doctrine as not having equal claims to
recogffition, because it leads to an arithmetical reckoffing and
co'unter-reckonmg between the divine claims and Cffiist's per-
2 E

434 APPENDIX,
formance. He thinks, too, that it does not put divffie grace in
its proper Eght, to say that sffi must be expiated before God
can be gracious.
The whole theory of tffis able man, who in many poffits
foUows Menken and Scffieiermacher, proceeds on the supposition
that the atonement makes no change on God's relation, but
simply on man's. He aUows no wrath as a principle of action
in God, and acknowledges offiy love ffi God; and the whole
resffit of Cffiist's work is, according to him, simply to begm
a new humanity, or a new commencffig poffit, which offiy
changes the nature, but does not affect the person. Agreeably
to tffis representation, justffication is, with him, no forensic act:
it grows, and is never perfect. That is to make another gospel
AU that he says of the mystic uffion is good. But as to recon
ciUation, it is described as reconcUiation in Cffiist, not through
Christ. /. Another opinion, slightly different from the former phases,
though essentiaUy the same, is, that the death of Christ is offiy
mtended to have a subjective effect, and to pacify our fears,
by affording a great manifestation of divffie love. AU the
theories aEeady named under this division take for granted
that reconciUation is sometffing whoUy on man's side, not on
God's side. Thus Stier strongly expresses himseE. Now, in
noticing this theory, there are two considerations that con
front us : (1) Is it true that reconciUation is only on man's
side ? (2) Is the death of Cffiist merely mtended to calm a
groundless fear ?
As to the first poffit, it is sometimes said, the supreme
Beffig needs no reconciUation to HimseE, as E any one ever
made or insinuated any such assertion. But this is to ignore
the fact of sin, and God's relation to it as a fact ffi the uffiverse.
Though there are no conffictffig quaUties in God, and justice
and mercy are never opposed in God's essential perfection,
the terrible evE of sin brffigs to Eght, ffi reference to the sffiner,
a relation of a wholly new kffid from that which he occupied

NOTE ON SECTION XXIII. 435
to the . creature ; and by the mediation and atonement of
Cffiist, the supreme God exercises His love to sffifffi men, in
a way wffich is harmoffized with inflexible hoUness and justice.
Neither perfection suffers. But there is another way of puttffig
the objection, EeconcUiation, it is said, is wholly on man's
side, and we must entertain comforting views of God, If that
mean that God has no hostUity to lay aside, and that we must
do so because we have fiUed our mind with dark suspicious
fears of God, it may be accepted as a statement of the very
truth which the defenders of the atonement preach and reiter
ate in every possible way, on the footing of an accompUshed
expiation for sffi. But E it means that no satisfaction was
necessary as the ground on which that message of reconciEation
is made, which is the meanffig of those who propound it as
an objection, nothffig can be more at variance with gospel
doctrffie ; and the section of the PauEne Epistles which most
forcibly exhibits reconcUiation, puts it whoEy on the ground of
an atonement (2 Cor, v, 18-21), And when it is further ob
jected that the atonement is always represented as the proof
or effect or fruit of God's love, but never as its cause, the
answer is at hand. The atonement did not, and coffid not,
origffiate divme love or grace in God, which is an eternal
perfection of the divffie nature, seeking an adequate object on
which to expend its riches; on the contrary, the atonement
emanated from tffis divffie love (see sec. vi). But E we speak
of the actual exercise of grace to suEffi men, or of its maffi
festation to its actual objects, then the doctrffie of the gospel
uffiformly is, that grace is capable of beffig exercised offiy
through the atonement, and that Jesus is the ground, founda
tion, channel, or meritorious cause of its exercise to such
objects. As to the second ffiquEy, whether the death of Christ was
merely ffitended to calm a certam fear, or to satisfy an im
portant moral want ffi man, this amoimts to offiy this, that
it was but an assurance of forgiveness, or an unposffig mani-

436 APPENDIX,
festation fitted to give peace and confidence. It is aEeged that
it woffid be much simpler, E the death of Christ were regarded
as offiy a strikffig evidence and manifestation of divine love,
without maintaining the necessity of any atonffig sacrffice.
They aUege that Christ has rescued us from the gnawing worm
of a guUty conscience, and that His death was only meant as
an assurance of forgiveness,
I might quote aU the texts bearing upon the atonement,
and ask: do they, or can they, on any prfficiples of interpreta
tion, convey the idea that the atonement is meant to be but an
open declaration of divine love, and the removal of the slavish
fear of divine wrath ? If aE that the death of Cffiist produced
was the conveying an idea of God's love, without effecting any
thing, then our Lord stands on the same footing with any of
His apostles, who also taught that God is love, and died martyr-
deaths ffi confirmation of theE testimony. But no teacher,
however eager to extol forgiving love, coffid ever pretend to the
titles. Saviour, Redeemer, Shepherd, and others, that belong to
Him, Then, again, if according to this theory the Lord's
sufferings were merely ffitended to remove from us a slavish
but groundless fear of punishment, we naturaUy ask, where is
this ever stated ffi Scripture ? On the contrary, our sins are
unEormly referred to as the cause of the atonement or death of
Jesus (Eom, iv, 25 ; Isa, Eu.), And when we hear of redemp
tion from miquity, and from an actual curse, and from the
wrath to come, how can that be made a mere deEverance from
groundless fear ? The Scripture never represents the death of
Christ as intended to do nothing more than merely to assure us
of divine love, Ani^ E accorEng to this theory Jesus has
freed us, merely as our teacher, from aU our groundless fears
of divine puffishment, and assured us of divine love, how can
we explaffi those terrible threats stUl connected with impeni
tence and unbeUef (John Ei 18, 36; Eom. U, 4 ; 1 Cor, vi, 9,
10 ; Heb x, 29) ?

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV, AND XXV, 437
Secs. xxiv. and xxv. (pp. 183-203).— Christ fulfllling the Law,
and bringing in a Righteousness.
These two sections were meant to show that the fffifiUing of
the law, not less than the endurance of the curse, is of the
essence of the atonement. Some, under the influence of pre
judice or one-sidedness of view, object to the vicarious fuffil-
ment of the law, alleging that it is an ecclesiastical conception
(so Meyer on Gal, iv. 4) ; others, on the ground that Christ, as
man, was under obligation to fulffi the law for Himself (so
Piscator) ; others, because the atonement is deemed enough for
pardon (so the Wesleyans) ; others, because the law was offiy
for the Jews (so the Plymouthists). These are aE one-sided
theories, which wUl at once be exploded by every one who wiE
either remount to man's primeval position before sin entered at
aE, and recaE the task of obedience which was imposed on him
before his conflrmation coffid be conferred, or correctly appre
hend the nature of sffi, with which the atonement has to do,
as contaiffing the element of omission as weE as commission ;
for even E the guEt of transgression were removed, there woffid
remaffi the element of omission, which would equaEy be sm ;
and with both elements the Mediator must deaL
1. Let me first estabEsh the true import of iixaioffvvri. This
is aU the more necessary, because the precise import of it is
now so generaEy missed. As to the exact meaning of the term,
I may notice that the utmost importance attaches to an exact
defiffition of it, because the whole argument ffi the Epistle to
the Eomans and Galatians depends on it as weE as the import
of many other sections of the PauEne Epistles ; and the true
busmess of an interpreter is, without ffitermffigUng foreign
elements, accurately to ascertain the force and import of terms
as used by the sacred writers. To save space, and not undffiy
to sweU this note, let me refer the reader to a discussion of the
import of hxaioavvn &tov, in an article which I wrote on the
PauEne doctrine of the righteousness of faith, in the British

438 APPENDIX.
and Foreign Evangelical Review for January 1862, ffi which it
is discussed at length. In that article I endeavoured to prove,
(1) that the phrase cannot be regarded with Eeiche as a de
scription of the divffie attribute of righteousness ; (2) that it
cannot mean, as Neander, Olshausen, and Lipsius contend, an
ffiward condition of righteousness; (3) that it cannot denote
faith itseE as counted to us for a righteousness, as the Ar-
minians, Tittmann the younger, and Nitzsch put it; nor be
interpreted with others, such as Wieseler, Moses Stuart, and
Dr. John Brown, as the divffie method of justification. On the
contrary, it is proved in that paper, by an analysis of Paffi's
language, that tffis hx,Kioixvvrj &eov is a substantial reality, not
less a fact than sin, and not less productive of resffits ffi an
opposite dEection ; that it is a complete, prepared, and perfect
righteousness ; that it consists in an obedience to the divine law,
which is its standard and measure; and that it is a righteousness
in our stead, or of a vicarious character, I shaE not repeat
what is there brought out as to the objective and vicarious
character of Christ's obedience to the divine law, as that alone
by which we are made righteous (Eom, v, 19),
This view of Christ's active and passive obedience, as two
concurrffig elements in one joint work, viewed as a unity, was
accepted by aE the Protestant Churches as the expression of
their Church-consciousness; and more weight attaches to the
pubEc symbols and confessions, ffi which whole Churches em
body theE convictions, than to the individual sentiments of any
teacher, however enunent. That this view of the righteousness
may fitly be caEed the Church-consciousness of aE the Protes
tant Churches, wUl be evident to every one who wUl consffit
the Lutheran symboUc books and the various confessions of the
Eeformed Churches ; and among the latter (where it used to be
classed) the articles and homilies of the AngEcan Church, (See
Art, Il and Hom, on Faith.) I may also refer to Bishop
O'Brien's exceEent work on justffication, and especiaUy to Note
Z, where he appends some weU-grounded remarks, phUological

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV, AND XXV, 439
and doctrinaL m refutation of Mr, Knox's ffiterpretation of
hxuioffvvij. Before passffig from the pffilological meanffig of hxa,tocvv^,
I woffid refer to the confused and unsatisfactory opinions which
have come to be entertained in many quarters on the meaning
of the word from the days of Grotius, who interpreted the
hxaioavvriv Qsov, the loving-kindness of God, henignitas Dei, on
Eom, ui, 5, 25, 26, The same notion was taken up by Schoett-
gen in his Lexicon, by Schleusner, Koppe on Eom, iu, 25,
MichaeUs, Carpzovius, Storr, Pott, Tittmann, and others. This
is a sense of hxaioavvT^ and of hixxiog, which has no warrant ffi
phUology, and which, doctrinaUy, tends offiy to bring aU ffito
confusion ; and no argument of any weight has ever been, or
can be, adduced in its behaE, But another opiffion, not much
better, is, that hxMoavvri denotes the Christian salvation itself.
This view was supported by the celebrated Vitrmga on Isaiah
xiv, 24, Ex, 9 ; by J, A, Turretm on Eom, i 17 ; by Koppe in an
excursus on Galatians ; by Eosenmffiler, and others. But every
one who weighs the force of words wUl discover that, ffi the
Epistles of Paffi, surripioc is the wider term, and hxccioirvvfi the
narrower, and that they do not cover each other, (Compare
Eom, i 16, 17, x, 10; Titus iu, 5-7; Eom, v, 9,) It must be
added, that others have supposed that hxaiotrvvt] may mean
remission of sins, and the state of happiness or acceptance;
but nothing can be said in defence of this acceptation, save
offiy that it is thought to fit ffi to some passages. But that is
to. guess a meanffig, — it has no warrant in language ; and the
Septuagint lends it no countenance, Canymg out these views,
which have a close connection with each other. Moras makes it,
" favorem et misericordiam Dei quse est in danda veffia ; " and
J, V, Voorst, m discussffig its import ffi a separate treatise,
Annot. in loc. select., 1811, translates it thus, " Singularem benig-
ffitatis Dei demonstrationem, sive ex benigffitate proficiscentem
Dei erga homffies favorem," AU these views have naturally
flowed from Grotius' deviation from the true sense of the term.

440 APPENDIX,
On the other hand, several exegetes, at the close of last
century, adopted a modification of the old Protestant view of
hxuioavvn, and expounded it, innocence or guiltlessness. Thus
Noesselt, Opusc. i p, 74, says, hxctioavvriv ©soc eam esse quam
Deus ita nobis tribffit, ut non tanquam rei, sed innocentes ac
justi habeamus. So Heinrichs, PhU, iU, 9, and Doederleffi, ffi his
Instil. Theol, secs, 262, 263, This is undoubtedly in the right
direction, though somewhat too negative. But it cannot be
deffied by those who ffitelUgently compare the passages where
hxotioGvvri occurs, that it is the opposite of reatus, or guilt. It
is plainly put in such connections as prove it to be a relative
term, descriptive of the relation in wffich man stands to ap
proval or reward, and presupposffig obedience as its essence
(Eom, V, 19): (1) it is not the divine attribute; nor (2) is it
descriptive of what is merely inward. But it is a relative term,
implyffig a rffie or a law, and a coffiormity to it of such a kffid
as entitles the h'xoitog to a reward. We do not approximate to
a due apprehension of its meaffing, E we start from either the
classical notion of hxctiocvvri as a human quaUty, or from any
pffilosophical schooL The apostle, m announcffig that the
hxaioavvri was witnessed by both the law and the prophets,
carries us back to the Old Testament, and leads us to apprehend
that a person who is righteous in the Old Testament sense, is one
who not only corresponds to the God-appointed rule, but is recog
nised as entitled to a reward, and a partaker of aU the blessings
of theocracy. Thus the observance of the divffie precepts was
to be to the IsraeUte a righteousness (Deut. vi. 25). Very note
worthy it is, that Israel never corresponded to the idea, and
that God promised to bring nigh His righteousness (Isa. xlvi
1 3 ; Jer. xxiii. 6) ; and it is brought in and brought nigh by
Him who is the end of the law, for righteousness to every one
that believes (Eom. x. 4).
2. Christ was vicariously made under the law for His people.
The widespread objections to the active fulfilling of the law
in our stead can only be obviated by the direct testimony of

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV, AND XXV. 441
Scripture ; and for this purpose a sffigle text may suffice :
" God sent forth His Son, made of a woman, made under the
law, to (Jva) redeem them that were under the law, that we (ivoc)
might receive the adoption of sons " (Gal, iv. 4, 5). If it coffid
be made out, according to an ffiterpretation proposed by Teller
and others during last century, that the phrase " made under
the law " means no more than " born a Jew " — and the same
comment is repeated by Meyer, AEord, and EUicott,— an osten
sible reason coffid be given for denying the proof from this
text. But that is only a very partial and incomplete exhibition
of the idea, as a few remarks will show, (1.) The phrase, " to be
made under the law," occurring several times in Paul's Epistles,
is always eqffivalent to being subject to the law, with the acces
sory idea of somethffig burdensome and oppressive connected
with it (comp, Eom, iii 19, vi, 14, 15 ; GaL iv. 5, 21, v. 18 ; 1
Cor, is, 20), Thus, in Eom, vi, 14, the " being under the law "
is contrasted with being imder grace ; and ffi 1 Cor, ix, 20 we
shoffid have a needless tautology, if notffing more were indi
cated than "to be born a Jew" — for that is mentioned immedi--
ately before ; and the manner ffi wffich the pffiase is intro
duced ffi the PauEne phraseology shows aE too plainly that it
caimot be a mere cEcumlocution for a Jew, But (2) the con
nection between the two verses in Galatians is opposed to that
exposition. For if the teEc particle hot, (ver, 5) is connected
with ysvo/Jbivov vto vofiov, and leans on it, more must be con
tained in the phrase than is conveyed by the idea of beffig born
a Jew, as this woffid make no relation between the cause or the
meritorious means and the purposed end. And that there is such
a connection, is obvious enough from the repetition of the same
word, made under the law, to redeem them that were under the law ;
or if we suppose that the commencffig words of ver 5, J'ca rovg
wo vofjijov 'z^otyopaan, could be immediately connected -with the
words, " God sent His Son," then the ffitervenffig words woffid
be idle and superfluous, (3,) To be consistent, they who adopt
this mode of exposition shoffid ffiterpret the words ffi ver, 5,

442 APPENDIX.
rovg vm vofjuov, " to redeem the Jews ; " for E the one clause
has that meaning, the second, closely related to it, must have
the same. And on that principle, what would be the import
of the whole ? It woffid yield this strange and mcompre-
hensible thought, as the ffitimate end contemplated by the
second Jva clause : " made or born a Jew, to redeem the Jews,
THAT we (the Gentiles) might receive the adoption" — thus
makffig the redemption merely affect the Jews, and represent
ing His bEth as a Jew, as the cause of our adoption. This is
a sufficient reductio ad absurdum. On the contrary, the simple
meaning is, " God sent His Son, and put Him under the law ;
that He might redeem them that were under the law." The
GentUes havffig the law written on theE heart, and concluded
under sin (Gal, Ei 22), are equaEy with the Jews redeemed
by Christ's vicarious subjection to the law. And as we were
bound to two things — (1) to the " do this, and thou shalt Eve "
(GaL iu, 12) ; and (2) to the curse of the law as violated —
He must be regarded as made under the law ffi both respects.
This passage therefore, strictly ffiterpreted, implies that Christ,
thus vicariously made under the law, fulfilled all the claims
which it had upon us, to the fuU extent of our relation to the
law. The poffit which these sections led me to estabUsh, is simply
that Christ's vicarious fulfilment of the law constitutes an essen
tial element ffi the atonement, in consequence of wffich His
people are treated as if they had rendered that obedience ; and
are thus not offiy exempt from condemnation, but possessed of
a right to the reward. The two elements, not very happUy
termed the active and passive obedience, are joffitly concurring
causes in the one atoning work — not the one to the exclusion
of the other. It woffid have been weU E divffies had not been
compeUed to separate what is represented as one obedience
(Phil, E, 5), But they were chaEenged to answer the question,
" If the Mediator reconcEed us to God by His death, of what
avail was His active obedience ? " They are not to be sundered.

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXIV, AND XXV, 443
however, as if they were separately meritorious, or represented
as E the passive obedience put men anew in the state of inno
cence, and the active merited the blessffigs to be earned by men
in innocence, by a career of perfect obedience. For though
these two ideas are distinguishable, and must be distffigffished,
the two elements, in poffit of fact, were always together and
inseparable, (See, on this point, Spener's Evangelische Glaubens-
gerechiigheit, p, 1135 ; SeUer's Versohungstod, i p. 274; PhUippis
Kirchliche Glaubenslehre, iv. p. 143 ; Hutter's Loc. Com.,'p. 450;
Thomasius, Ui, 307 ; HoEaz, iu, 1, 3, 78 ; Gerhard, secs, 56, 63,)
The very fact that sffi is not only commission or trespass, but
omission, impEes the necessity of the active as weU as of the
passive obedience.
On the text in John xvi, 8-10 in sec, xxv, (p, 202), I may
quote the foUowing words of Luther, whose comment on the
text is there referred to (see vol, xu. p. 116, in the Erlangen
edition of his German works, 1827): "Was ist nun das fur
Gerechtigkeit, oder worffi bestehet sie ? Das ist sie, spricht
er, dass ich zum Vater gehe, und ihr mich hinfort nicht sehet.
Das heisset ja undeutsch, und vor der Welt lacherEch genug
geredet, Und so das erste fremd und dunkel ist, das diess der
Welt Siffide sey, dass sie fficht glaubet an ihn : so lautet diess
viel seltsamer und unverstandlicher, dass diess aEein die Gerech
tigkeit sey, dass er zum Vater gehet, und fficht gesehen wird, , , ,
" Denn diess Wort : dass ich zum Vater gehe, begreift das
ganze Werk unsrer erlosung und SeUgung, dazu Gottes Sohn
vom Himmel gesandt, imd das er fiir uns hat gethan, und noch
thut bis ans Ende ; namEch seffi Leiden, Tod, und Auferstehung,
und ganzes Eeich in der KEche, Denn dieser Gang zum Vater
heisst nichts anders, denn das er sich dahin giebt zu emem
Opfer, durch seffi Blutvergiessen und Sterben, damit fiir Ee
Sunde zu zahlen, , , ,
"Siehe das heisst und is nun der Christen GerechtigkeE vor
Gott, dass Christus zum Vater gehet, dass ist, fifr uns leidet,
auferstehet, und also uns dem Vater versohnet dass wE um

444 ¦ APPENDIX,
seinetwiUen Vergebung der Siinde und Gnade haben ; dass es
gar nicht ist unsers Works noch Verdienstes, sondern aUein
semes Ganges, den er thut um imsertwUlen, Das heisset eine
fremde Gerechtigkeit, darum wir nichts gethan, noch verdienet
haben, noch verdienen konnen, uns geschenket und zu eigen
gegeben, dass sie soU unsere Gerechtigkeit seffi, dadurch wir
Gott gefaUen, und seine liebe Kinder und erben sind,"
Secs, xxviii, and xxix, (pp, 215-237), — Christ as the Brazen
Serpent,. the Lifegiver ; and Christ giving His flesh for the
Life of the World.
These two sections aEude to the question which parts the
two great schools of theology in our day, viz, whether the Efe
of Christ is given as an immediate and absolute gift, or whether
it is purchased by His atoning death. The whole opposition to
the vicarious sacrifice of Christ turns at present on this point,
just as, a generation ago, it turned on the question whether
pardon was absolutely given. The present is, beyond question,
the most evangelical phase which the opposition to the vicari
ous satisfaction ever assumed ; and there is Ettle doubt that it
wUl be overcome, as other phases have, been, by the word of
Christ's testimony. It must be admitted, that with much that
is said by the adherents of this tendency as to the nature and
manifestations of the divine life, as weE as ffi reference to that
feEowsffip with Cffiist which is represented as its sphere and
essence, every spiritual mind wiE sympathize. There are ex
ceptions, indeed, far from unimportant, to an unreserved ap
proval of the representation of the divine lEe, wffich is given by
this school, — such as the incorrect idea of a fall ; the universaEst
features which it has contracted ; the want of defiffite aUusion
to the mental exercises of repentance and conversion connected
with the impartation of this Efe ; and its readffiess to ally itself
to hierarchical and sacramental views. But no evangeEcal
divine wiU simply condemn it, but rather accept much that

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIH, AND XXIX, 445
it has of good, and seek to supplement its defects. Its founder
was mamly Schleiermacher, whose impress it stUl bears ; and
as it arose in a time of prevaUffig spiritual death, its adherents
were more solicitous about the introduction of spiritual lEe
than of orthodox doctrffie. Its watchword is the Lebensgemein-
sehaft mit dem Erloser, or fellowship with Christ in His Efe ;
and the essence of Christianity is not regarded so much as any
objective thffig, whether it be the Trffiity or the atonement, as
the commuffication of a new Efe with which man's nature must
be imbued from its centre, and by which aE ffis powers are to
be sanctffied and ennobled; and Jesus of Nazareth communi
cates that life to sinful humanity. The principal and perUous
defect is, that the atonement is not exhibited as the purchase
of tffis Ufe, or as having any causal connection with it ; and
my object ffi tffis note is to add some further remarks, which
shaU bring out the bibEcal representation of the meritorious
connection between the atonement and the Efe, I shaE notice
some of those passages where the eternal Efe stands connected
with the performance of a work done, or with a righteousness
as its price ; for Efe is its pronused reward.
But it may be proper in the first place to point out, ffi the
words of some of the promffient supporters of the new theo
logy, how they describe the immediate communication of the
divffie Ufe apart from the atonement. They ignore the whole
forensic side of theology, or deny it. They take no account of
the right relation of the person, of his standmg or title, and set
forth merely the renovation of the nature. Thus V, Hofmann
says ffi ffis Abweisung, ffi reply to his opponent, p. 188 : " das
Verhaltniss des Vaters zum Sohne nunmehr ein Verhaltffiss
Gottes zu der im Sohne neu beginnenden Menschheit ist,
welches seffie BestEnmtheit fficht mehr von der Siinde des
adanutischen ,Geschlects sondern von der Gerechtigkeit des
Sohnes hat," The writer thus makes the incarnation of the
Son to be the immediate reuffion of faUen man to God, and
the commencement of a new humaffity, without any expiation.

446 APPENDIX.
He asserts the mere exercise of holy love, as producing tffis
resffit without any atonement, and simply postffiates a new
startffig-point, from which the race runs on anew. How Uke
this is to Scffieiermacher, who makes Christ the completed
creation of the human race, wUl be apparent to every one. As
this entire school owes its rise to Schleiermacher, and offiy re
peats ffis positions, scarcely altermg his phraseology, I shaE
here quote a few sentences from him on his view of the atone
ment. He says, der Christliche Glaube, vol. ii. p, 94 : " His
[Christ's] act ffi us can offiy be the act of this siffiessness and
perfection, as conditioned by the m-beffig of God in Him:
hence, both the one and the other must become ours, as other
wise it would not be His act that becomes ours. Now, as the
individual Ufe of every man is spent ffi the consciousness of
sffi and imperfection, we can find ourselves in communion with
the Eedeemer only in so far as we are not conscious of our
individual Ufe, but as He gives us the impulse to regard the
source of His activity as the source of our activity, and as a
sort of common possession. This is uniformly the sense in
which Scripture speaks of the in-being and Efe of Christ ffi us
(GaL u, 20 ; Eom, vui 10 ; John xvii 23 ; 2 Cor, xiE, 6), of
the death to sffi (Eom, vi 2, 6, 11 ; 1 Pet, ii, 24), of the puttffig
off the old man, and putting on the new (Col. ui, 10; Eph, iv,
22-24), Now, as Cffiist can dEect His consciousness of God
(Gottesbewusstsein) agaffist sffi, only in so far as He, by enter
ing ffito the coUective human lEe, had a consciousness of it as
a feUow-feelffig, and as a something to be overcome by Him,
this, too, becomes the prmciple of our activity by His working
in us, , , ,
" If aU activity in Christ proceeds from the indwelEng of
God ffi Him, and if we know no other activity than the crea
tive, ffi wffich the sustainffig is included, or, conversely, the
sustaining ffi which the creative is included, we must so re
gard the agency of Christ, But as we do not exclude the
human soffi from creation, though it cannot be expected of us

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIII, AND XXIX, 447
to understand the creation of a creature with free agency and
Uberty ffi connection with a greater whole, and though we can
rather apprehend than comprehend tffis in our mind, so is it
with Christ's creative agency, which has whoEy to do with the
province of freedom; for His receptive agency is creative,
wffile that which it produces is entEely free. As, then, the
mdwelEng of God in Him is eternal, wffile aU its manEesta-
tions are conditioned by the form of human Ufe, He is able to
act on that wffich is free, offiy accordffig to the order ffi which
it enters into His sphere of Ufe, and only accorEng to the
nature of that wffich is free. His receptive agency, in taking
us into feUowsffip with Him, is thus a creative production of
the wish to receive Him ; or rather — for it is only a receptivity
of His agency as ffi communication — a consent to the operation
of this agency ; and that agency of the Eedeemer is condi
tioned by the fact, that ffidividuals enter into His ffistorical
sphere of action, where they perceive Him in His seE-revela-
tion. Now, though this consent cannot be imagmed otherwise
than as conditioned by the consciousness of sin, yet it is not
necessary that this should precede the entrance ffito the Ee
deemer's sphere ; rather, it may just as weU arise ffi it as an
effect of the Eedeemer's seE-revelation, as it, at aE events,
comes to fuE clearness offiy through the view of His siffiess
perfection. The original agency of the Eedeemer wUl thus be
best conceived of under the form of a causal agency, and wffich
is apprehended by its object as an attractive agency from the
freedom with which it turns, just as we ascribe an attractive
power to every one to whose formative inteUectual influence
we willingly yield ourselves. Now, sffice aE the Eedeemer's
activity proceeds from the indweEing of God in Him, and
sffice, at the origffi of the Eedeemer's person, the divffie crea
tive agency which established itseE as the indwelEng of God
in Him was the offiy active power, so aE the Eedeemer's agency
must be considered as a continuation of that Evme influence
on human nature formffig His person. For tffis causal activity

448 APPENDIX.
of Christ cannot occupy an ffidividual without also becommg
person-forming (person-bUdend) ; aU his actions, nay, aU his
impressions, being different in consequence of the operation of
Cffiist ffi him. Hence also his personal self-consciousness is
different. And as the creation had not a reference to what was
individual — so that each creation of what was ffidividual was
a separate act, — ^but when the world was created everything
individual was created in and with the whole, and as much for
the rest as for itself, — so the Eedeemer's agency is formative for
the world (welt bUdend), and its object is human nature, ffi
wffich the strong sense of God (Gottesbewusstseffi) was to be
implanted as a new prfficiple of Ufe. He takes possession of
individuals with a reference to the coEective body, when He
meets with those ffi whom His agency wUl not offiy remaffi,
but also operate on others through the revelation of His life.
And thus the entire operation of Christ is only the continuation
of the divffie creative act from which the person of Cffiist took
its rise." (Sec, 100, 1, 2.)
Now, this modern theology to which so many confess in our
day, is in this respect so unbibUcaL that it disconnects the life
from the cause of Ufe, expatiatmg on Ufe apart from the atoning
death, Christ HimseE puts the matter differently, as we have
proved ffi the above-named sections. To show how widely
different this mode of exhibiting the divme Ufe is from that
representation with which Scripture ffi every portion of it
makes us famUiar, I shaE briefly review the aUusions to Efe,
both in the law and in the gospel,
1, The idea of life was expEcitly announced in the law as
the promised reward held out to those who should comply with
its terms. Thus E is said (Lev, xviu, 5), " Ye shaE therefore
keep my statutes and my judgments ; which if a man do, he
shaE Eve in them : I am the Lord." CompEance with the re-
quEements of the law was the condition or ground on which
the promise of life was made, as wUl appear from the very-
frequency with which these words were quoted in connections

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIII. AND XXIX. 449
of which the import is not doubtfffi (Ezek. xx, 11, 13, 21 ;
Neh. ix. 29). As the legaUsts, with whom the Apostle Paffi
had to carry on a controversy as to the way of acceptance, drew
then confidence from their compliance with the law, and
plumed themselves on this legal promise, in the expectation
of a reward, we find him appealing, on two several occasions
(Eom, X, 5; Gal, iu. 11), to this promise of the law. The
apostle's design ffi quoting the legal promise of life in both
these passages, was to contrast the legal promise connecting
work done with Efe ffi prospect, and the economy of grace,
and thus to bring out and give promffience to the essential
ffifference between law and grace, works and faith. Life is set
forth as the goal in both economies,— in the one as an unattain
able prospect; in the other, as a free gEt, That the law was
ilg Z,ctnjv, is asserted by the apostle (Eom, vE. 10), and pro
claimed by Christ HimseE (Luke x, 28), But that which was
unattaffiable by the law is provided for by an economy of
grace for the helpless, Accordffigly, retaiffing the idea of
righteousness as the essential prerequisite or condition, the
apostle says (Gal, ui, 21), " If there had been a law given
wffich coffid have given Life, verUy righteousness should have
been by the law," Without minutely analyzing this language,
the broad sense of the passage, obvious to every mind, is a
denial that the law can give Efe, as the promised reward for
work done. The very opposite resffit is ascribed to the law —
viz, it was found to be unto death (Eom. vE. 11), That Paffi
conceives of lEe 'as the proposed reward, cannot be doubtfffi.
But the actual Z,a)^ comes by a whoEy different economy. By
retaiffing the word righteousness, however, several times when
he speaks of the beEever's participation of Efe, the apostle
makes it plaffi that he stUl preserves the idea- of the legally
promised Efe, Thus, in Eom. v, 18, we find the righteousness
of one redounding sig hxaiaiiriv Z,urjg. Again, in Eom, v, 21, it is
expressly called a righteousness unto life eternal. Again, ffi Eom,
viE, 10, we have the pffiase, Z,a>^ hk hxuiotrvvijv. The apostle
2 F

450 APPENDIX,
thffiks of life, then, as the proposed reward, whether he sets
forth the terms of the law, or the provisions of an economy of
grace. This comes out in the antithesis which he sometimes
employs between death as the penalty of sin, and life by right
eousness (Eom, V. 17), Nay, so far as the legal Jews connected
tffis glorious life, as the promised reward, with the exact fffi
filment of aU the terms of the law, the apostle does not say
that this was a mistake on their part as to the connection
between the two, E they were able to comply with the condition,
but only denies, that in the actual condition of men such a
resffit was attainable (Eom. vui 3). But God has made this
Efe accessible to men, as men, without distinction of nationality,
by faith (Eom. i 17 ; GaL ui, 11 ; Heb, x, 39, where he quotes
Hab. ii 4).
Thus one great defect of the modern mystic speculation on
the atonement is connected with an imperfect recogffition of
the representative system, by means of the two Adams. Thus
they who regard Christ as the Prince of Life, irrespective of
any proper atonement or meritorious obedience, have crude
and incorrect ideas of this whole representative constitution
given to the race. The life they plead for so earnestly, or the
new humanity which they suppose to begin with the incarna
tion, and to run on from that startffig-point, ignores any deed
of meritorious obedience which secures and obtaffis that new
Efe. That is a theory not thought out ; and it makes no
inquEy how the counterpart of the Efe (^<y^) entered into the
world, viz. Death, by the previous entrance of Sin (kfjuapricc)
as its cause (Eom, v, 12), If death entered by sin, then, in
like manner, Life entered by Eighteousness (Eom, v, 12-20),
Where this is not apprehended, there cannot be a biblical view
of the atonement. This decides upon the mystic theory so much
in vogue at present, which resolves the entire work of Christ
into the communication of Efe, It is forgotten that this is
Efe given to the second Adam, and only for a work done, only
for a hxaia)[juc6, which is the counterpart of the first man's

NOTE ON SECTIONS XXVIIL AND XXIX, 451
TospKTr^/Aa, It is thus an fficonsequent specffiation to speak
of the mere dispensation of Efe to run on from the incarnation,
irrespective of a vTrocxeij (Eom, v, 19),
The Scffieiermacher theology, as represented by Usteri, would
indeed have a certain consistency here. (See Usteri, Entwicke
lung des Paulinischen Legrhegriffes.) He wUl have k(/i«pricc
refer, not to a primeval deed of sffi, but to sinfuffiess originaUy
deposited ffi the constitution of the first man, or to origffial
imperfection, and he argues that the Totpk^afftg or Tupaxofj
was only original imperfection expressed in conscious act,
wffich Usteri supposed to have come into the world, as man
was by nature " earthy " (1 Cor. xv. 47). But such a notion
of humanity as ffivolves the admission of imperfection in his
very nature, is untenable, not offiy on dogmatic grounds, but
on exegetical grounds. The connection of the section (Eom.
V, 12-20) shows, indisputably, that we must suppose an
active, and not a passive, relation in this matter. The whole
language there shows, that it is by one man as sinning that sin
came into the world, and not by one man as created with sin-
fffiness. The words tm rov IfoV irapot.'TrrMiJjotri (ver. 17), and
hk rtjg Tccpaxo^g rov svog kvdpctiTov (ver. 19), wiU admit no
other sense. There was no mere passive origin of sffi in the
race of man, and just as Ettle is there any mere passive
derivation or origm of ^&)^ apart from a VTTOixo^. There is
thus a full and express counterpart between the way of the
faE by Adam and the way of the recovery by Jesus Christ,
This wUl suffice to show that the mystic theory of the atone
ment, as emanating from love alone, and consisting ffi the com
munication of Ufe alone, is utterly baseless.
The words of Jesus on the connection between His death
and this premial Efe, are unambiguous ; and they have been
so fuEy discussed ffi the text, that it were superfluous to renew
the discussion here. The locus classicus is John vi. 51, etc.,
to which John iu. 14 and John x. 10 may be added. And
when we enter ffito the Epistles, we find that the connection

452 APPENDIX.
between the vicarious Death and the divine Life is so explicit,
that no one can question it on exegetical grounds. The con
nection is one of work and reward, of righteousness and Efe
This is the key to aE the sections in the PauEne Epistles, often
much misunderstood, where the Christian is represented as
dead, crucffied and buried with Christ, ffi that one representa
tive act of His, wffich, as fulfilling the law and exhaustffig its
curse, laid the foundation for aE that Ufe, regarded as tUe frffit
and reward of His sacrifice, into the possession of wffich His
people enter as their rightfffi heritage. For E we died with
Christ, we ' must Eve with Him, It is premial Ufe. (Comp.
Eom. vi 1-11, 2 Cor. v, 14, 15, GaL ii 20.)

INDICES.

L INDEX TO TEXTS,

CHiiP.

PAGE

CHAT.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

GENESIS.

viii, 1-23, ,
400
xlix. 2, .
. 83
i.4, .
273
yviii, 15,
154
1. 21, ,
57
iii. 15, .
245,
264
327
xviii. 22, 23, .
76
Ii. 11, .
. 180
xii. 3,
327
xxi. 9, .
215
Ixviii. 18,
. 264
xvii. 13,
352
xxxv. 31,
154
Ixxxv. 3,
75, 77, 406
xviii. 25,
57
xci..
, 130
xiv, 23, ,
400
Dbutkbonomy.
xo-vii. 2,
. 57
XV. 19-21, .
206
ex. 4, .
4, 288, 359
Exodus.
xviii. 18,
359
XX. 57, ,
57
xxxii. 35, 57
380
Peovekbs.
xxi. 30, .
1,53
xxxii. 43,
57
vi. 35, .
. 154
xxiv. 6,
170
178
xiii. 8, .
. 154
xxvii. 38,
400
I Samuel.
xxviii. 43,
400
XV. 25, .
400
Isaiah.
xxx. 32,
75, 77
xxv. 28,
400
ix, 7, ,
. 360
xxxiii. 43,
70
xxxiii, 24,
75, 77
xxxiii. 38,
74
2 Kings.
xxxviii, 3-14, , 266
xxxiv. 7,
75, 76,
77,
400
xii. 4, .
155
xUv. 13,
. 446
xxxix. 7,
57
xviii. 4, .
218
xUv. 22,
xlv. 13, .
. 264
, 153
Leviticus
2 Chkoniclbs.
xlix. 24,
, 264
i.4,
62
xxiv. 9, .
155
liii. 1-12,
73, 128, 133,
V. 17, .
70
xxx. 17,
206
288, 359
V. 1-17,
400
liii, 3, .
, 83
vii. 18, .,
400
Nbhemiah,
liii. 1-4,
. 46
X. 17, ,
400
x, 32,
155
Kii. 5,
. 130
xiv. 11, .
67
lUi. 7-12,
. 65
xvii. II,
151
Job.
liii. 10, .
46
xvii. 16,
400
i. 6, .
303
Ix. 2, .
. 183
xix. 20, .
153
¦vii. 21, .
266
Ixi. 1, .
. 46
XX. 17, .
70
xxi. 3, .
400
Ixvi, 14,
. 288
xxiv. 15,
70
xxv. 6,
83
xxv. 14,
153
Jeremiah,
xxv. 51,
153
Psalms.
xxiii. 6,
, 440
vi., ...
77
xxxi. 31,
174, 295, 339
Numbers
vi. 6,
266
iii. 49, .
154
viii. 4, .
83
Lamentations.
V. 31,
400
xi. 7, . 15, 57, 59
224
iii. 27, ,
, 400
vi. 12, .
67
xxii. ,
288
V. 7, .
. 400
vi. 31, .
70
xxii. 6,
83
V. 1-17, .
, 400
ix. 13, .
70
400
xxiii..
272
xiv. 18, .
400
xxxii. 2,
180
Ezekiel.
xiv. 34, .
70
xl. 6-8, . 45, 200
207
iv. 4,
. 400
454

INDEX TO TEXTS,

CHAP. PAGE
vi. 9, . , .87
xviii. 19, , 70, 400
xviii. 27, . . 393
xxxiii. 14-18, . 393
xxxiv. 23, , 272, 273
Daniel,
vii. 13, . 81, 402
xii. 2, . . , 136
MiCAH.
vii. 18, . , 75, 77
Zechariah,
i, 11, , , , 303
vi. 12, . . . 243
xiii. 7, . . 272, 273

Matthew,

i, 21, ,
ii. 22, .
iii. 7, .
iii. 10, .
iii. 12, .
iii. 15, .
iii. 16, .
iii. 17, .
V. 6, .
V. 17, .
V. 17-20,
V, 23, .
V. 28-44,
V. 38, .
vii. 12, .
vii. 13, .
vii. 13, 14,
¦viii. 16,
•viii. 20,
ix. 4-6, ,
ix. 6,
ix. 12,
ix. 15,
ix. 16,
X. 28,
X. 40,
xi. 19,
xi. 28,
xi. 29,
xi. 21-23,
xii. 18,
xii. 29, .
xii. 32, .
xUi. 19, .
xiii. 38, .
xvi. 16,
xvii. 3-5,
xvii. 5, .
xvii. 11,

316 158 57
273, note 352 96
100 37 50
49, 311
. 183
201, note 192157
, 188
, 349
. 225
. 110 85
352
. 88
. 31
. 31
. 303
. 351
. 40
. 86
50, 357
. 194
. 350
. 37
. 263
. 81
, 258
, 258 5
. 303
37, 311
. 371

CHAP.
xvii, 17-22,

xvii. 24.
xviii, 8,
xviii, 9,
xviii. 23-35,
xix. 6-8,
xix. 17,
XX. 22, ,
XX, 28, 31

PAGE
, 113
, 155
225, notes
225, notes
, 366
, 405
. 192
. 113
32, 43, 49,
85, 113, 148, 266,
274, 371, 314.
xxi. 9, . . . 311
xxii. 32, 268, notes
xxiii. 1-33, . . 351
xxiii. 28, . , 247
xxiii, 32, , , 245
xxv. 46, 225, 351, 352
xxvi. 12, .7
xxvi. 18, . , 336
xxvi. 25, . 350
xxvi. 26-28, . , 165
xxvi, 28, 31, 43, 50, 314,
327, 332, 367

xxvi, 36-44,
xx-vi. 38,
xxvi. 42,
xxvi. 61,
xxvii. 14,
xxvii. 32,
xxvii. 46,
xxvii. 63,
xxviii, 19,

117
113
. 62
. 241
. 136
. 400
114, 123
. 241
. 340

Mark.
ii. 27, 28,
iii. 26,
V. 30,
¦vi. 3,
¦vii. 34,
vii. 37,
viii. 17,
viii. 37,
ix. 12, .
ix. 45, .
X. 32, ',
xi. 31, .
xiv. 22-24,
xiv. 48, .
xiv. 58, .
XV. 28, .
XV. 43, ,
xvi, 16,

i, 77,
ii, 49,
ii. 51,
iv. 29,
iv. 13,

Luke.

89
258 108106108
311 109 62 84
349 113113 165
134
241 133
361351

73
143195129 117

CBAP.
vii, 25,
vii, 47,
X. 18,
X. 38,
xi, 11,
xi, 21,
xii, 50,
XV,,xvi. 16,
xvi. 26,
xvii. 22,
xix, 10,
xxii. 19,
xxii, 19, 20,
xxii. 20,
xxii. 37,
xxiii. 34,
xxiv. 26,
xxiv. 27,
xxiv. 44,
xxiv. 44-49,
xxiv. 45,
xxiv. 46,
xxiv, 47,

100,

PAGE
, 61
, 176
, 264
360, 449
, 157
, 263
, 113, 340
366, 367
188, note
, 351
, 82
87, 357
, 168
. 165
, 170
. 182
. 194
288 89
. 362 8
328, 331
. 331

i. 13,
i. 14,
i. 17,
i. 21,
i. 29,
i. 36,
i. 61,
ii. 12,
ii. 19,
iii. 5,
iii. 11,
iii. 13,
iii. 13,
iii. 14,
iii. 16,
iii. 17,
iii. 18,
iii. 36,
iv. 8,
iv. 14,
iv. 18,
iv. 39,
iv. 42,
V. 22,
V. 24,

John.

14,

215,

225,

21, 40,

V. 26,
V. 27, .
V. 30, .
V. 33, .
V. 42, .
V. 39-46,
vi..

234243
187, 279
. 359
49, 65-77
. 74
. 291
. 212
. 239
. 399
, 102
, 80
21, 80
227, 344
13, 20
, 36
, 62
349, 352
. 16
, 294 33
294
, 32
, 289
225, 234,
250, 267
38, 234
86, 284
, 144
, 291
, 234
, 327
. 361

INDEX TO TEXTS.

455

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

CHAP.

PAGE

vi. 10,

6
xiii. 21,
310
xxiv. 19,
. 201
vi. 20, ,
. 33
xiii. 27,
245
259
xxv. 19,
. 201
vi. 29, .
229
334, 346
xiii. 37,
.
274
vi. 32, .
53, 345
xiv. 6, .
30
357
Eomans.
vi. 33, .
. 325
xiv. 16, .
298
299
i. 5, .
. 342
vi. 35, .
229, 357
xiv. 17, .
299
i. 32, .
. 333
vi. 37, .
41, 317
xiv. 24, .
,
357
i. 16, 17,
439, 450
vi. 38, .
. 35
xiv. 29, ,
44
ii. 4, .
. 436
vi. 39, 32, 44,
146, 323
xiv. 30,
118,
194,
iii. 19, .
. 441
vi. 51, .
24, 43, 113
200
258
iii. 23, .
. 308
vi. 51-57,
228,
229, 253
xiv. 30, 31, ,
200
iii. 24, .
. 366
vi. 53, .
. 232
xiv. 31, .
194
iii. 25, .
. 327
vi. 54, .
, 232
XV. 10, .
194
iii. 25, 26,
. 439
¦vi. 55, .
, 233
XV. 12, ,
9
iii. 28, .
. 184
vi. 56, .
38, 237
XV. 13, 194,318
,325
378
iv. 6,
. 346
vi. 57, .
, 233
xvi. 8-10,
202
iv. 13, .
350
vi. 60, ,
. 360
xvi. 9, .
297
iv. 25,
. 436
vii. 1-7,
. 106
xvi. 11, . 252,
253
258
V. 2,
207, 212
vii. 16-18,
. 44
262,
297
V. 5-11 .
. 325
vii. 28, .
. 33
xvi. 13-17, .
360
V. 7, .
. 207
vii. 31, .
. 357
xvi. 23, .
367
V. 9, .
. 436
vii. 32, .
. 129
xvi. 25, 26, .
.
349
V. 12, 53, 70
266, 375
vii. 33, .
. 38
xvi. 28, .
254,
298
V. 17, .
20, 41
vii. 38, 39,
. 291
xvii..
,
44
V. 18, .
. 228
vii. 39, .
14, 50
xvii. 1, ,
305
V. 19, ,
151,
184, 202,
viii. 12, .
32, 272
xvii, 2, .
249
438, 440
viii. 24, .
33,
346, 350
xvii. 4, . 146,
194,
304
V. 20, .
. 405
viii. 29, .
37, 145
xvii. 5, .
305
vi. 1-27,
. 446
viii. 36, .
. 357
xvii. 9, .
194,
324
¦vi. 3,
. 340
viii. 44, .
258, 268
xvii. 19, 32, 147
203
212
vi. 4,
326, 354
viii. 51, .
265,
267, 268
xvii. 20,
324
vi. 8, .
130, 326
viii. 56, .
. 145
xvii. 21,
40
vi. 14, .
. 441
viii. 59, .
. 129
xvii. 23,
446
vii. 11, .
. 449
X.,
. 361
xvii. 25,
63
viii. 1,
. 263
X. 1-7, .
. 327
x-viii. 6,
134
•viii. 2, .
. 298
X. 2-6, .
. 347
xviii. 8,
134
¦viii. 10, .
226, 446
X. 10, 11,
265,
266, 315,
xviii. 37,
290
viii. 14, .
. 298
316
323,
328, 357
xix. 11,
131
¦nii. 26, .
. 299
X. n-18,
273
xix. 26,
195
viii. 32,
. 14
X. 14, 15,
. 282
xix. 30, .
139
viii. 37,
255, 257
x,17, .
274,
279, 282
xix. 38, .
362
ix. 10-23,
. 356
X, 18, ,
. 306
xix. 39, .
215
ix. 11, .
. 217
xi. 25, 26,
32, 267
XX. 23, .
176
X. 3, .
. 342
xi. 33, .
108
XX. 30, .
360
X. 4,
184, 440
xi. 50, .
. 317
XX. 31, .
360
X. 5,
212, 449
xi. 52, .
. 317
xxi. 19, .
309
X. 10, .
. 439
xii. 11, .
. 248
xxi. 25, .
360
xi. 2,
. 317
xii. 24, .
. 284
xi. 5,
. 248
xii. 27,
113,
114, 303
Acts.
xi. 17, .
248
xii. 28, .
. 37
i. 3-8, .
362
xi. 24, .
. 248
xii. 31, .
248,
258, 286
ii. 23-31,
216
xi. 28, .
. 248
xii. 32, .
. 328
iv. 28,
261
xii. 11,
257
xii. 33, .
216, 286
vi. 7, .
342
xii. 19,
. 55
xii. 34, .
. 359
vii. 5, 6,
303
xii. 20, .
. 313
xii. 38,
. 310
vii. 56, .
83
xiii. 8,
. 186
xii. 42, .
. 362
X. 36, .
249
xiv, 9,
289, 420
xii. 47, 48,
. 250
X. 38, .
194
xiv. 19, .
. 276
xii. 49, .
33, 200
xii. 7, .
299
XV. 3,
. 194
xiii. 1, .
325,
226, 326
XX. 35, .
360
x^vi. 25, .
. 352
456

INDEX TO TEXTS,

1 Corinthians,
i, 18,
ii, 8,
iv, 13,
V, 4,
v, 15,
V, 18,
vi. 1,
vi. 9, 10,
vi. 20,
ix. 20,
X. 13,
xi. 23,
xi, 24,
XV.,XV. 36,
XV. 47,
XV. 47-56, 2 Corinthians.
iv. 13, .
V. 4, .
V. 14, 15,
V. 15, .
V. 18, .
V. 18-21,
xiii, 6, .

337369298 268208337
201436 149
441 256 165
168
269285 375
266

298 268
452 208
337
435446

Galatians.

4,4-10,23, 20, 12,13,17,
21,
4, 4,5, 6,
20-24
1,
22.

. 14, 235
. 336
. 342
130, 228, 354, 326
. ' 442

138, 149
. 248
. 449
371, 437
. 441
. 298
. 350
226
. 299

Ephesians.

347

CHAP,
i, 7, ,
i, 10, ,
i, 14, ,
ii, 14, 15,
ii, 16, ,
iii, 1,
iii, 9, .
iv, 22-24,
iv, 30,

PAGE 467 299299
247283207352
446299

v, 2, 139, 164, 201, 235
V, 25-26, , , 210
PHILrPPIANS,
i. 18, . . . 208
ii. 5, . . ,442
ii, 8, 202, 281, 282, 306

COLOSSIANS,

i, 13,
i. 14,
i. 20,
ii. 9,
ii. 15,
iii. 10,

263407304
244221446

2 Thessalonians.
ii, 13, , , 209
1 Timothy,
i. 15, . . 371
ii. 5, . 25, 337
iv. 6, . . 273
2 Timothy.
i! 9, . . . 266
Titus.
ii. 14, . . . 210
iii. 5, 7, , 439
Hebrews.
i. 2, , . . 249
i. 14, . . 299, 304
ii. 9, 10, . . 83
ii. 10, . . 347
ii. 11, . 210

CHAP.
ii. 14,
V. 8,
V. 17,
vi. 20,
¦STii. 8,
viii. 13,
ix. 13,
ix, 14,
ix, 15,
ix. 26,
ix. 28,
X.2,X. 14,
X. 19,
X. 20,
X. 28,
X. 29,
xii. 16,
xiii. 12,

i. 12,
i. 18, 19.
ii. 5,
ii. 21,
ii. 24,
iv. 1,
V. 4,

PAGE
95, 263, 269,
326, 371
. 260, 309
. 105, 222
. 347
. 174
. 240
, 209
164, 211, 369
, 329
, 263
. 71
, 211
. 211
, 212
. 347
. 339436 157
. 209

1 Peter,

, 217, 357
149, 399, 407
, 212
. 420
. 446
. 130, 326
, 273

i. 1-3,
ii. 1, 2,
ii. 3-8,
ii. 18,
iv. 8,
iv. 4, 5,

Ver. 3,

1 John.

Jude.

234212263208 16
255

342

Revrt.ations.

iv. 14-20,

201

V. 9, . .

149

xii. 11, .

255

xix. 6, .

57

INDEX TO SUBJECTS.

457

IL INDEX TO SUBJECTS,

Adam, second, 40,
Agony of Christ, 112 ; Gethsemane,
116 ; on the cross, 128,
Angels and men restored to fellow
ship, 303,
All nations and times, atonement for,
326,
Application of atonement, 329.
Baptism of Jesus, 96; sho-sving sin-
bearing, 99; fulfilling all righteous
ness, ho-w-, 102; our baptism based
on the atonement, 340.
Bearing sin, 70; the fourfold applica
tion of the phrase, 74; how applied
to God, 76.
Blood shed for many, 169.
Character of Jesus, 141 ; all His moral
excellence vicarious, 146.
Covenant, 40, 372 ; nature of, 43 ; con
ditions of, 45.
Covenant, new, 173, 182, 338.
Curse, 104; in all scenes, 103; of labour,
106 ; of sickness-hearing, 108.
Death, deprived of its sting, 265 ; not
death, 267 ; how temporal dea-th of
believers is regarded, 269,
Deity of Christ iu atonement, 21, 367 ;
necessity of, 28, 29,
Dominion of Christ, 284; particular,
' 285 ; general, 287,

Facts of Christ's sufferings from man,
111, •
Eaith, the organ of receiving, 341,
Glorifying God by the atonement, 305;
God glorifying Himself, 310.
God giving, in a sacrificial sense, 14.
God wronged by sin, 58; punishing,
57,
Historical sketch of the doctrine, 415.
Holy Ghost procured by Christ's death,
293 ; or going away, 296.
Ideas, biblical importance of, 10.
Incarnation, effects of, 26-28 ; -wrong
¦views of Menken and Irving, 92.
Influence of atonement on morals and
religion, 353.
Intercession of Christ, 63.

Judgment of the world, meaning of,
250,
Justice, 10-20 ; punitive, 18-58 ; pre
ceptive, 60, 362, note.
Lamb of God, what, 66, 398,
Law fulfilled, 186, 189, 437,
Life, eternal, 225 ; nature of it, 233 ;
involves reunion to God, 234 ;
through the cross, 235,
Love, 13, 20, 362,
Mediator, 39.
Moral perfection of Jesus, 145.
Necessity of atonement, 'd posteriori,
47 ; ideas of sacrifice show it, 48 ;
conscience shows it, 50; di^vine rights
show it, 52 ; a right anthropology,
53 ; the fact of sin shows it, 54,
378, note,
Nestorianism, 24,
Numbered with transgressors, 132.
Obedience tested, 132 ; one and un
divided, 195 ; objections met, 197,
Opinions on the atonement, 418,
Place assigned by Christ to the atone
ment, 337,
Power given to Pilate, 131,
Preaching forgiveness by the atone
ment, 331,
Punishment, positive, 57,
Eansom, 152-163; objections met, 159,
407.
Remission of sins, 172, 179, 414.
Eighteousness, 102 ; nature of, 192,
202, 437-443,
Sacrifice, ideas of, 48.
Sanctify, in the Old Testament sense,
204 ; sanctification of the Spirit,
209.
Satan, tempting Christ, 107; not al
luded to in the brazen serpent, 220;
opposition to Christ, 259 ; judged,
262; bound, 263 ; cast out, 263.
Sending, 33 ; successive steps of, 34 ;
sending prior to the life, 39.
Serpent, brazen, points of comparison
with Christ, 218 ; not Satan as
overcome, 222.

458

INDEX TO THE AUTHOES ADDUCED.

Sheep of Christ, 272 ; secured by His
death, 275.
Socinian ¦view, 419.
Sickness-bearing, 55.
Sin-bearing, when, and how long, 92,
Sinlessness of Jesus, 142.
Son of Man, 80 ; different explanations,
81 ; true sense, 83 ; exhibited from
passages, 84, 402, note.
Special reference of the atonement,
312 ; arguments for, 314 ; opposite
theories, 319.
Sufferings of Jesus from man, 127 ;
arrest, 134 ; trial, 135 ; condemna
tion, l36 ; crucifixion, 138.

Temple of God, 243, 247.
Testimonies of Jesus to His death,
2-9.
Trinitarianism in connection with the
atonement, 419,
Unique position of Jesus, 29 ; titles,
30, 31,
Woe, endless, if the atonement is re
jected, 346.
World, judgment of, 250 ; overcoming
of, 255.

III. INDEX TO THE AUTHOES ADDUCED,

Alford, 185, 307, 440.
Alting, 182, 206, 308, 351.
Amesius, 315, 375.
Anselm, 383.
Arnold, 164.
Augustin, 377.
Bahr, 415.
Baumgarten, 226.
Baur, 140, 416.
Bengel, 219, 251.
Beza, 70, 216.
Bleek, 170, 185, 187.
Bloomfield, 216.
Brown, Baldwin, 364.
Brown, Dr. John, 438.
Briickner, 232.
Burmann, 221.
Buddeus, 379,
Calovius, 164, 193, 351, 382.
Calvin, 68, 137, 251, 280, 300, 317,
318, 378.
Campbell, J. M., 363, 423.
Chalybaeus, 266, 371.
Chapman, 407.
Charnock, 307.
Chemnitz, 132, 143, 219, 303.
Chrysostom, 206, 295, 296, 301, 404.
Cless, 343.
Cloppenburg, 375.
Cocceius, 76.
Coleridge, 320.
Cremer, 139.
Crusius, Baumgarten, 294.

Du Bosc, 301.
Delitzsch, 164, 370.
D'Espagne, 220.
DeyHng, 217, 221.
Dickson, 371.
Dods, 149.
DcBdes, 66.
Dorner, 366, 371.
D'Outrein, 182.
Ebrard, 248, 370.
Edwards, John, 119.
EUicott, 440.
Episcopius, 325.
Emesti, 200, 412.
Essenius, 164, 382.
Euthymius, 170, 295,
Formula Concordias, 105,
Fritzsche, 225,
Gerhard, 132, 202, 296, 307,
Gess, 175, 370.
Gomar, 219, 300, 315,
Goodwin, Dr., 109,
Grimm, C. L. W., 399.
Grotius, 153, 230, 274, 316, 318, 369,
379, 411.
Harnack, 192.
Hasenkamp, 226.
Heidelberg Catechism, 48, 137.
Heinrichs, 440.
Hengstenberg, 71, 243, 295.
Herwerden, 212.

INDEX TO THE AUTHOES ADDUCED,

45S

Hess, 404.
¦ Hofmann, 76, 128, 159, 132, 430, 445,
Hofstede de Groot, 61,
. Hoombeck, 164, 351, 355, 382,
' Hulshoff, 140, 381,
Hutter, 450,
Huyser, vide Preface.
Irving, E., 72,
Kahnis, 370,
Karge, 196, 197,
Keil, 164,
Klaiber, 226,
Koopman, 422,
Krabbe, 429,
Kuinoel, 205,
Lampe, 216, 351,
Lang, 201,
Lange, 142, 243, 370,
Law, W., 430.
Lechler, 186, 219,
Less, 406.
Liebner, 23, 370, 371.
Lightfoot, 302.
Lotze, 212, 332, 333, 345,
Liicke, 294, 301, passim.
Luthardt, 216, 243,
Luther, 143, 202, 296, 308, 331, 443,
Lyser, 132,
Maier 232.
Marckius, 61, 217, 221, 300,
Maresius, 164.
Marheinecke, 51,
Martensen, 226, 371,
Maurice, 365,
Menken, 92, 221, 363, 434.
Meyer, 71, 157, 170, passim.
Michaelis, 302, 351, 380, 439,
Morus, 30,3, 439,
Mosheim, 351,
Muntinghe, 351,
Neander, 142, 185, 242,
Nitzsch, 226,
Nbsselt, 203, 285,
O'Brien, Bishop, 438.
(Eder, 76, 109.
CEhler, 67.
Olevianus, 107.
Olshausen, 185, 201, passim.
Oostersee, 242. .
Owen, 376, 377.
Perkins, 193.
Philippi, 64, 126, 164, 187, 308.
Piscator, 196, 197, 417.

Polanus, 322.
Priestley, 415, 421.
Quensted, 193, 369.
Eauwenhoff, 232.
Eiggenbach, 143, 243.
Eitschl, Preface, 153, 162.
Eoellius, 269.
Eothe, 226.
Eoyaards, 290.
Eutherford, 378.
Sartorius, 16, 370.
Saurin, 120.
Schleiermacher, 176, 426, 446.
Schmid, C. F., 243.
Schmidt, Seb., 182, 308.
Schleusner, 209.
Schoberlein, 206.
Scholten, 404.
Schultens, 138, 340.
Seiler, 120, 380.
Spener, 443.
Steinmeyer, 370.
Stem, 164, 382.
Stilbngfleet, 161.
Stockius, 76.
Stier, E., 226, 243, 281, 363, 430, 434.
Storr, 65, 209, 333, 399, 439.
Strong, 376.
Stuart, M., 352.
Suicer, 216,
Taylor, of Norwich, 421.
Theodoret, 402.
Theophylact, 295, 296,
Tholuck, 294.
Thomasius, 64, 126, 368.
Tittmann, 165, 205, 285, 438.
Tolluer, 200.
Triglandius, 62.
Turretin, 164, 217,
Twiss, 378,
Ullmann, 142.
Ursinus, 107.
Usteri, 177, 214, 285.
Valckenaer, 61.
Van Til, 193.
Van Voorst, 351, 382, 439.
Vinke, Preface, 212, 221, 331.
Vitringa, 185, 221, 232, 270, 439.
Voetius, 120.
Vossius, 250, 378.
Weber, 128, 132, 135, 146.
Webster and Wilkinson, 216.
Weiss, 398.

460

INDEX TO GEEEK WOEDS ELUCIDATED..

Wette, De, 162, 172, 177, passim.
Wieseler, 438.
Willes, Van, Preface, 360.
WiUigen, V., 118.
Winer, 170, 331, passim.
Witsius, 48, 301, 315.
WoHburgius, 311.

Wolfius, 140.
Wolzogen, 421.
Wynpersse, 355, 382.
ZachariaB, 212.
Zanchius, 378.

IV.. INDEX TO GEEEK WOEDS ELUCIDATED.

TOV aya,vfiffa.yTos, 257.
i^yiiZ,a,, 204, 210.
a^Tlf^oyiae, 120,
alatvios, 351,
ay^TlSivo;, 34,
a.yTa.K\a.yfjt,ct, 349.
acptcris, l72.
alp'-iy, 68, 399.
«", 151, 157, 208.
apTi, 97.
/Sau-T-Z^ai i'lS, 340.
y'^f, 187, 190.
Ssr, 61.
Si«, 39.
'Siciimn, 170.
^mxMiy„, 103, 193, 202, 437.
hTo\vi, 277.
4'?»S«, 202, 203.
i^ov^ix, 278.
'ix^iy, 201.
^', 188.
Suffia.! ©say, 65.
W, 19.
xotipos, 117.

xaXflf, 273,
ltocSa.piZ,ttv, 210,
»«((<is, 218, 282.
>.viu, XvffaTi, 245.
A.i;Vfo!., 163, 407.
oyo/iBC, 331.
»t;, 182.
OTI indicat. , 202.
oUt^s, 216, 218.
:raip' i5^r», 299.
•xxpzifis, 327.
!«f/, 157.
•Ttiffris, 340.
•jzXnfiio, 185.
•ffp6<pvtTai, 187.
iTMTyif'tct, 439.
reXEiy, TErsXeff-ra/, 132, 139.
TlirifJLI, 318.
y;flff Toy ay&pu'jtou, 402.
y!r£(>, 208.
v^poai, 216.
(pipiiy Kfcapriay, 400.
^AyX'i. 150.
^^i-J), 223, 449.

MUKKAY AND GIBB, EDINBOUBH,
I'RIKTEKS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONEKY OFFICE.

moxU }^mmen 6^ %. ana C Oarfi, HBTsiviiutsh
In One volume 8vo, price lOs, 6d.,
AIALTTICAL COMMEITART 01 THE EPISTLE
TO THE ROMAIS,
Tkachstg the Train of Thought by the aid of Parallelism; -with Notes and
Dissertations on the principal Difficulties connected -with the Exposition
OF the Epistle, By Eev, JOHN FORBES, LL,D,
In addition to the Text, with Analytical Commentary and Notes on each Chapter, the
work contains Dissertations on the 'Son of God,' chap, i, 4, On the 'Eighteous
ness of God ;' on the f Glory of God,' chap, v. 5, On the ' Comparison between Adam
and Christ,' On the expressions 'Died to Sin,' ' The Body of Sin,' of ' Death.' On
the question ' Who Is the husband ? ' chap. vii. 1-4. On the question ' Is the person
described in chap. vii. 13-25, regenerate or unregenerate ? ' On the ' Meamng of
''^ Law,' in chap. vii. 21, 23, 25, viii. 2. On the 'Meaning of the law of Sin and
il Death,' in chap. ¦viii. 1-4. On ' Creation Groaning ; ' on the ' Love of God ; ' on
* ' Predestination and Free Will,' etc. etc.

Now ready, in croivTi 8vo, price 6s., Second Edition, revised and enlarged,
THE TRIPARTITE lATTJRE OP MAI:
SPIRIT, SOUL, AND BODY.
Applied to IlluBtrate and Explain the Doctrines of Original Sin, the New Birth, the
Disembodied State, and the Spiritual Body,
Bt the Rev, J, B. HEARD, M,A.
Chap, I, The Case Stated, II, The Psychology of Natural and Revealed Religion con
trasted, III, The Account of the Creation of Man, IV, The Eelation of Body to
Soul in Scripture, V, Of the Eelation of Soul and Spirit in Scripture, VI, Psyche
and Pneuma in the light of Christian Experience. VII. The Unity under Diversity
of the Three Parts of Man's Nature. VIII. Analogies from, the Doctrine of the Trinity
to the Trichotomy iu Man considered. IX. Of the Pneuma as the Faculty which
distinguishes Man from the Brute. X. The state of the Pneuma in Man since the
Fall. XI, The Question of Traducianism and Creationism solved by the distinction
between Soul and Spirit, XII, Conversion to God explained as the quickening of
the Pneuma, XIII. The Question of the Natural Immortality of Psyche considered.
XIV. Application of the Doctrine of the Trichotomy to discover the Principle of
Pinal Eewards and Punishments. XV. Intermediate State. XVI. The Resurrection
and Spiritual Body. XVII, Summary,
'It ¦will be seen that Mr, Heard's theme is a noble and important one, and he has
treated it in a way to afford a high intellectual treat to the Christian philosopher and
divine,' — Clerical Journal.
'We must congratulate our author on having, from a theological point of •view,
established satisfactorily, and with much thought, the theory he advocates, and with
having treated a subject generally considered dry and unreadable, in an attractive style,'
— Reader.

In Two Volumes, crown 8vo, price 123,,
BIBLICAL STUDIES 01 ST. JOHI'S &OSPEL.
By De, BESSBE,
. ' This book is full of warm and devout exposition, Luther's own rugged words start
out, boulder-like, in almost every page,' — News of the Chwrches.
'We now call attention to the great merits of this volume. The character of this
commentary is practical and devotional. There are often very exquisite devotional pas
sages, and a vein of earnest piety runs through the whole work. We recommend the
book most warmly to all,' — literary Churchman.
' There is a quiet, simple, penetrating good sense in what Dr, Besser says, and withal
a spirit of truly ' Christian devoutness, which the reader must feel to be in beautiful
accordance with the inspired teachings which awaken W— British Quarterly Review.

In Two Volumes, Svo, price 21s,,
THE CHRISTIAI HOCTRIIE OE SII.
Translated feom the Geeman op De, JULIUS MULLEE,
Professor of Theology in the University of Berlin,
By Ekv. WILLIAM UEWICK, M,A,
This is an entirely new translation of Mailer's inestimable work, from the latest edition.
No pains have been spared to make it a thoroughly good and reliable translation.

In Svo, price 10s. 6d.,
CHRISTIAI BO&MATICS.
A COMPENDIUM OE THE DOCTRINES OP CHRISTIANITY,
By H, MARTENSEN, D,D,,
Bishop of Seeland, Denmark,
Translated by Eev, WILLIAM UEWICK, M,A,
I, Introduction, II, The Christian Idea of God, III, The Doctrine of the Father,
IV, The Doctrine of the Son, V. The Doctrine of the Spu-it,
' Every reader must rise from its perusal stronger, calmer, and more hopeful, not only
for the fortunes of Christianity, but of dogmatical theology,' — British Quarterly Review.
'He enters into the various subjects with consummate ability; and we doubt whether
there is iu any language a clearer or more learned work than this on systematic theology,'
— Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette.
' We have seldom seen any theological work, by a foreign author, which combines so
profound a reverence for the Bible with such vigour and originality of independent
thought,' — London, Review.

In demy Svo, price 10s, 6d,,
THE DIVIIE REYELATIOI.
By the late CARL AUGUST AUBERLBN, Ph,D., D,D,,
Professor at Basle,
The Pauline Epistles; The Gospels; The Old Testament; The great inteUectual Conflict
in the Christian Worid; The elder Protestantism and Rationalism; The Defeat of
Rationalism,

BY TEE SAME AUTHOR.
In oro^wn Svo, price 7s. 6d,,
The Prophecies of Daniel and the RoYelation of St. John
in their Mutual Relation.
' One of the latest contributions to the studv of Anocal-vntic nrnT,!,^^-^ t* • c
very high order, and which must command attLtiom The autC^luLs tn T °^ *
sess, m no ordinary degree, those faculties of head a^d hearUo absoffiv Vp *° ^f "
the prosecution of this most difiioult branch of sacred exegesL'lSSL^^'^ ^""^

motlg putliisSeti fig tn:. atis ia. ClarS, minbuxsi.

WORKS BY REV. DR. KRUMMACHER.

In post Svo, price 7s. 6d.,
DAYID, THE KII& OF ISRAEL;
A PORTRAIT DRAWN PROM BIBLE HISTOEY AND THE BOOK OF PSALMS.
translated under the express sanction of the author by the
Rev. M, G, EASTON, M.A.
'From the author of "Elijah the Tishbite " we were entitled to expect no ordinary
treat, when he proposed to lead us over a life fraught with such variegated interest as
that of " David the King of Israel." In such a field Dr. Krummacher's well-kno^wn
powers of description, his chaste fancy, his well-balanced judgment, and enlightened
piety, were sure to find full scope ; nor have our anticipations been disappointed. Time
has not blunted the keen perception of the theologian ; and though it may have sobered
the exuberance, it has not withered the power, of the writer. In these pages, David
passes before us, in the various phases of his character as shepherd, psalmist, warrior,
and monarch. 'There is no attempt at originality of view, no prosy solution ot difficulties,
no controversial sparring ; the narrative flows on like a well-told story ; and the art of
the writer lies in the apt selection of salient points, and in the naturalness of his reflec
tions. A tone of spirituality is imparted to the narrative by linking it to the Book of
Psalms.' — British and Foreign Evangelical Review.
' We have a lifelike picture of the prophet-lfing and of his times. The truths brought out
are applied with marvellous skill and deep spiritual insight to the Christian state, so that
every page is luminous with gospel lessons. The character of David is nobly drawn ;
and he stands before us as one of the greatest men and greatest saints of the Old Testa
ment. We trust its venerable author will be rewarded by the abundant popularity of his
picturesque and charming volume.' — Evangelical Christendom.
'Amongst the religious writers of modern Germany, few hold a higher place than Dr.
Krummacher in the general estimation. The reputation his previous works — "The
Suffering Saviour" and "Elijah the Tishbite" — have acquired for him in England,
will at once attract attention to "David, the King of Israel." As the translator remarks,
"Krummacher needs no introduction to English readers. His name is a household
word in rehgious circles." The subject of the present volume is one that is especially
\ adapted for skilful analysis and subtle comments. The character is excellently displayed
in its many-sidedness and variety. It is almost unnecessary to remark that the treatment
is marked by the acuteness of insight and the tenderness of sympathy that are charac
teristic of the author,' — Imperial Review.
' We would recommend this volume to the clergy as a storehouse of hints for pulpit
use, and also as a valuable addition to our devotional literature.' — Clerical JourTw.1.
' The volume is, on the whole, a very happy specimen of the style for which Dr,
i Krummacher is best kno^wn — at once vivid, imaginative, and experimental ; and it exhibits
more of the intellectual and robust than his earlier work. Should it direct the attention
of ministers and students to the devout and practical study of the Old Testament narra
tives, as themes for pulpit exposition, it will confer a great boon on both preachers and
hearers,' — Freeman.

BY TEE SAME AUTHOR.
In crown 8vo, price 4s, 6d., Sixth Edition,
THE STJEEERII& SAYIOUR;
OR, MEDITATIONS ON THE LAST DAYS OF THE SUFFERINGS OP CHRIST,
'We give it preference to everything hitherto produced by the gifted and devoted
author. It is divinity of the most thoroughly evangelical description. Truth and tender
ness have seldom been so successfully combined. A book of the heart, to that it appeals
in every page, with a force which it will be difficult to resist.' — Christian Witness.
' The subject is a sublime and pathetic one, and is treated with much solemnity of
feeUng, together with great tenderness ot sympathy.'— iiiera/^^^ Churchman.

In crown Svo, price 6a.,
APOLO&ETIC LECTURES 01 THE SAYII&
TRUTHS OE CHRISTIAIITT.
Bt C. E, LUTHARDT, D,D,, Leipsic.
The Nature of Christianity ; Sin ; Grace ; The God-Man ; The Work of Jesus Christ ; The
Trinity ; The Church ; Holy Scripture ; The Means of Grace ; The Last Things,
'We can assure our friends that the work is worthy of being studied.' — ClericalJournal.
'Dr. Luthardt is a profound scholar, but a very simple teacher, and expresses himself on
the gravest matters ¦with the utmost simplicity, clearness, and force.' — Literary World.

By the same Author, in crown Svo,
THE EUIDAMEITAL TRUTHS OF CHRISTLIIITT.
The Antagonistic Views of the World in their Historical Development ; The Anomalies
of Existence ; The Personal God ; The Creation of the World ; Man ; Religion ;
Revelation ; History of Revelation — Heathenism and Judaism ; Christianity in
History ; The Person of Jesus Christ.
'Luthardt is the very man to help those entangled in the thickets of modem
rationaUsm ; we do not know just such another book as this ; it is devout, scholarly,
clear, forcible, penetrating, comprehensive, satisfactory, &imu&\i\e.''— Evangelical Magazine.
' We have never met ¦with a volume better adapted to set forth the evidences of
Christianity in a form suited to the wants of our day. The whole of the vast argument
is iUustrated by various and profound learning ; there is no obscurity in the thoughts c-
m the style ; the language is simple, the ideas clear, and the argument logical, and
generaUy, to our mind conclusive.' — Guardian.

In crown Svo, price 5s.,
THE CHURCH:
ITS ORIGIN, ITS HISTOEY, ITS PRESENT POSITION.
By Des. LUTHARDT, KAHNIS, and BRUCKNER,
PROFESSORS OF THEOLOGY, LEIPSIC,
History of the Old Testament Ee^velation ; The History of Jesus Christ; The History of
the Apostolic Church; The Ancient Church; The Mediaeval Church ; The Modem
§ttL^nS;:^L'orttShuti'^ ^'^"^ -' ^""^ ^¦^^^^"^ ^^^'^ °^ *^« ^^^""^ ¦'

In cro^wn Svo, price 4s,,
THE SYMBOLICAL lUMBERS OF SCRIPTURE.
By Rev, MALCOLM "WHITE, M,A,
Cha^ I, The Time of the End IL The Time and Times and Half a Time III The
^TPif^'AT-^'r" ^""^ ^ ^*'^- ^^- '^^^ Number of Beast 666, V, The NumberTen '
^l^t^n'^a^ °^ -¦^-'^ «^^>1 ^" - -Se pasTlryl^lTb:
of\^e\^:itr^^SefwTicrlt7X^^^^^^
with this presumptuous prying into tL future he vilnl^ he has no sympathy
meaning to the symboUcaL^umbers:!LcLiSri;i!^ar ^'^'^^^^°'^™ *° S'^« ^^^ right ,

YALE UNIVERSITY L

3 9002 08867 5492

•^r\-, !,,-- -//•'¦.'v'.Wn'iS'iW/ii^

,4%«t«,* •'*W#*^ "«JWJ+ ., . ., ^^ ^ , , » V,- ..
.'TfT.,.-.- , t., v. -..y^: ,';,•; .:J^,5i.;mJ-., - ., ,..,- S.ir»

¦i ,4'- ,.* ¦'? ^S'l-'i-'v
1 J » ,„ . •»¦ , > .'|r'».,V!i

,.v*,m^ 's^.SivFS "Tv^W/ -J? "535

¦;^.-
V. 5! " ".v. , ¦'s'J.4 1,1,1 MS
' ' ^ fl 1/* (. / JfV ^t T r '»*"t^ 4**^1 rH*-
* -I