TheDoctrineoftheAtonementAsTaughtBytheApostles

byRev.GeorgeSmeaton,D.D.

PROFESSOROFEXEGETICALTHEOLOGY,NEWCOLLEGE,EDINBURGH

EDINBURGHT.&T.CLARK,38GEORGESTREETMDCCCLXX

TableofContents

PREFACE

CHAPTER I: THE PREPARATION OF THE APOSTLES, AND THECIRCLEOFTHEIRTESTIMONY

SECTIONI:TheApostles'Teachingon theAtonementbasedon thatoftheLordJesus

SECTIONII:GeneralViewoftheApostles'TestimonytotheAtonement

SECTION III: The Apostles' Exposition of the Sacrifices and TempleServices,asSymbolicalandTypical

SECTIONIV:TheApostles'ReferencestoProphecyontheSubjectoftheAtonement

SECTIONV:TheTestimonytotheAtonementintheActsoftheApostles

SECTIONVI:TheApostolicEpistles

CHAPTER II: THE TESTIMONY TO THE ATONEMENT IN THE

PAULINEEPISTLES

SECTIONVII:TheEpistlesofPaulontheRighteousnessofGod

SECTIONVIII:TheReconciliationsetforthinthePaulineEpistles

SECTIONIX:TheTestimonyintheEpistletotheRomans

SECTIONX:TheTestimonyintheFirstEpistletotheCorinthians

SECTIONXI:TheSecondEpistletotheCorinthians

SECTIONXII:TheEpistletotheGalatians

SECTIONXIII:TheEpistletotheEphesians

SECTIONXIV:TheEpistletothePhilippians

SECTIONXV:TheEpistletotheColossians

SECTIONXVI:TheEpistlestotheThessalonians

SECTIONXVII:TheEpistlestoTimothy

SECTIONXVIII:TheEpistletoTitus

CHAPTERIII:THETESTIMONYTOTHEATONEMENTCONTAINEDINTHEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS

SECTIONXIX:TheEpistletotheHebrews

CHAPTERIV:THETESTIMONYOFTHEAPOSTLEPETER

SECTIONXX:TheEpistlesofPeter

CHAPTERV:THETESTIMONYOFTHEAPOSTLEJOHN

SECTIONXXI:TheEpistlesofJohn

SECTIONXXII:TheTestimonyofJohnintheApocalypse

———

APPENDIX: HISTORICAL SKETCH OF THE DOCTRINE OF THEATONEMENT

"ARELIGIONwithasacrifice,andareligionwithoutasacrifice,differinthewholekind.Thefirstrespectstheatonementofourpastsins,andourdailyinfirmities:itrespectsGodasthejudgeandavengerofwickedness,aswellastherewarderofthosewhodiligentlyseekHim.Theotherisakindofphilosophical institutiontotrainmenupinthepracticeofpietyandvirtue.Areligionwithoutasacrificeisatmostbuthalfasmuchasareligion with a sacrifice; and that half wherein they agree of a quitedifferentnature fromeachother.Thepracticalpartof religion is vastlyaltered by the belief or denial of the sacrifice and expiation of Christ'sdeath."—Sherlock'sVindication.

—"sil'onôtedelareligionChrétiennelacroixdeJésusChrist,c'estàdirela satisfaction pour nos péchés par sa mort, l'assemblage de tous sesautresenseignemenssedissout;iln'yresteplusnicertitudedevériténisoliditédeconsolation,desortequelapropitiationdeJésusetl'expiationdenosoffensesparsonsangsontcommelaclefdelavoûte,surlaquelletoutes les autres pièces s'ajustent et reposent."—AMYRAUT, TroisièmeSermon.

PREFACE

———

THIS volume, delayed by other engagements much beyond myanticipations,isthesequelofthevolumewhichappearedin1868onthesayings of Jesus in reference to the atonement, and completes myundertaking;theobjectofwhichwastoexhibittheentireNewTestamentteaching on the nature and fruits of Christ's death. I started with theconviction that we cannot attain a full view of the New Testament

doctrine on the subject, except in a biblico-historical way; and haveabstained from the artificial construction to which systematic theologyhasrecourse,aswellasfrommerelysubjectivecombinations.Theworkisrather biblical than formally dogmatic or polemical, and intended toembody positive truth according to the setting inwhich the doctrine isplacedintheapostolicdocuments.

Thedoctrineoftheatonementbeingamatterofpurerevelation,allourinformationas to itsnaturemustbedrawnsimply fromtheScriptures;and the sole inquiry for us is, in what, according to the Lord and Hisapostles,doesthehistoric factof theatonementobjectivelyconsist,andwhat are its constituent elements? The object steadily kept in view hasbeentodeterminewhatsaiththeScripture—accordingtorigidprinciplesofgrammatico-historicalinterpretation—withoutdislocatingorwresting,so faras Iamaware,a singleexpression from its truesignificance,andthustorunupthemattertoauthority.ThenonlydowelistentothewordofGod,andnot to the speculationsorwisdomofmen.Norcan Iallowthat,whenweexpoundScripturebythelawsoflanguage,andthinkoveragainapostolicthoughtsexpressedinintelligibleterms,wehave,afterall,butourownindividualconceptionofChristianity.Thatmodernevasionthrowsallloose,andmakeseverythinguncertain.Toaffirmthat,afterthemostdiligenteffortstointerpretScripture,withapsychologyrestingonChristianexperience,wehavebutourindividualconceptionofit,iseitherto call in question that inspired book, or tomake its statements, givenforth inprecisetermsaccordingtothe lawsof languageandthe lawsofthought,aninsolubleenigma.Onthecontrary,IholdthatwecanthinktheverythoughtsofChristandHisapostles.

The design of this work is mainly to demonstrate, in the only way inwhichthisistobedone,thepurebiblicaldoctrineoftheatonement.Butpolemical references are by no means withheld; that is, applications,necessarily brief, of ascertained truth to germinant errors, especially tothosesubtleformsoferrorwhich,inanevangelicalguise,andnotseldomwith exegetical appliances, tend wholly to subvert the elements ofsubstitutionandpenalvisitation,whichconstitutetheveryessenceoftheatonement. It isaremarkable fact thatsince theReformationnoarticlehas been somuch impugned in every variety of form. Till recently this

wasuniformlydonebyaclassofmenwhohad forfeitedall claim toberegardedaseitherevangelicalinsentimentorbiblicalindoctrine.Withinrecentmemory,however,anewphenomenonhaspresenteditselftotheattention of Christendom—a sort of spiritual religion or mystic piety,whosewatchwordis,spirituallife,divinelove,andmoralredemption,bya great teacher and idealman, and absolute forgiveness, as contrastedwith everything forensic. It is a Christianity without an atonement;avoiding,whetherconsciouslyorunconsciously,theoffenceofthecross,andbearingplainmarks of theRationalistic soil fromwhich it sprung;andithasfoundawideresponseineveryProtestantland.

The work here presented to the public was suggested by this newphenomenon,especiallybythesomewhatboldattemptwhichithasmadeto vindicate its claims by an exegetical appeal to Scripture. I refer toattempts in this direction byMenken, Stier,2Klaiber, and above all byHofmann4 of Erlangen, who, in the use of a peculiar exegesis, havearrivedatresultsdiametricallyopposedtotheviewsatwhichtheentireChristianchurchintheeastandwestarrived,duringeighteencenturiesofherhistory. Schleiermacher, the great champion andbulwarkof thistendency,fromreasonswhichmaybeeasilyinferred,didnotattempttobase these views on exegetical investigation, but on Christianconsciousness.ThisphenomenonofaChristianitywithoutanatonement,professedlybasedonanexegeticalfoundation,seemedtocallforsuchaworkasthepresent;andinthecourseofitIhavethoroughlyinvestigatedtheteachingoftheLordandHisapostles.MuchasIvaluethecreedsofthe church, I do not appeal to them but to Scripture testimony strictlyinterpreted.

How was this object to be best accomplished? Two modes presentedthemselves,andbetweenthemachoicewastobemade—thatoftakingupin succession the passages as they occur in the apostolic writings, andthatofdigestingthemunderavarietyoftopics—chapters,divisions,andsections. To avoid the repetitions which seemed certain to be entaileduponme by discussing the passages as they lie (in situ) in the severalbooks, and giving them such an amount of expansion as would benecessarytomaketheexpositionsreadablebytheChristianpublicaswellasbyeruditemen,thesecondmethodseemedabsolutelynecessary;and

inpointoffactIstartedonthatprinciple.ButIsoonfounditnecessarytoalter my method, for the following reasons. The quotations werenecessarily truncated and fragmentary. Different apostles mustcontributeaportionofthoughtoutofeveryvarietyofconnection,anditwasimpossibletorefertotheoccasioninwhichthewordswereoriginallyused.Thesamepassageorclausewhichcontributedonequotamustberecalledforanotherexpressionorthoughtnotalwayswelladaptedtotheartificial division for which it was assigned. Besides, it became all tooevidentthatthismustinevitablyproveanewformofdogmatictheology;andinsteadofavoidingrepetitions,would,thoughinanotherway,makethemtenfoldgreater.Theothermethod,Iwassatisfied,wastheonlyonetobeadopted.NorwastherepetitionsogreatasIanticipated;foreverytext,evenwhentheredidariseacertainsameness,hadsomuchpeculiartoitselfastogiveitafreshnessofitsown.

I have appended in the notes a few references to the numerous workswhichIhaveperusedonthisgreattheme,andahistoricaloutlineattheend.No one has hitherto traversed thewhole field in thisway, thoughnumerous specimen-texts are discussed in dogmatic compends,polemical treatises, biblicaldogmatics, outlinesofPauline,Petrine, andJohannine theology,not tomentioncommentaries;and inall thesenotmuchofvaluehasescapedmynotice.

I have only to add, that personally it has been tome the source of thegreatest pleasure to pursue these investigations, the result of which isnow given to others. To Him whose atoning death I have laboured toexpoundfromHisunerringword,Icommittheworknowfinished.MayHebepleasedtoaccepttheoffering,anduseitforthegloryofHisname.

GEORGESMEATON.

EDINBURGH,Oct.1870.

APOSTLES'SAYINGSONTHEATONEMENT

———————

CHAPTERI:THEPREPARATIONOFTHEAPOSTLES,ANDTHECIRCLEOFTHEIR

TESTIMONY

SEC.I.—THEAPOSTLES'TEACHINGONTHEATONEMENTBASEDONTHATOFTHE

LORDJESUS

INthepreviousvolumeIexaminedfullythedoctrineoftheatonementastaughtbyChristHimself.IrecalledtheseveralscenesinwhichtheChristofGodutteredfromHisownconsciousness theabsolute truthas to thescope,nature,and fruitsofHisvicariousdeath. I traced inwhat terms,pursuanttothesuretyshipwhichHehadundertaken,HegaveexpressionindifferentconnectionstothededicationandobedienceofHislife.HowampleHisteachingisonthisparticulartheme,whenitisallcollectedandclassified,wehadoccasiontosurvey.WetookalistofHissayingsintheirnumber,variety,andfulness,andsawthateverybenefitconnectedwithHisatonementwasreferredtobytheLordHimself;nay,certainaspectsoftheatonement,andespeciallythosewhichrelatetoitsdivineside,orexhibititasredoundingtothegloryofGod,arewithmoresimplicityandcomprehensiveness portrayed by the Lord Himself than by any otherspeakerinanyotherportionofScripture.

InthepresentvolumeIpurposetoexhibitthedoctrineoftheatonementastaughtbytheapostles.Thisisnecessary,inordertogivecompletenesstotheNewTestamenttestimony.Thegreatpeculiarityoftheirteaching,ascomparedwiththeotherteachingofScripture, isthattheytreatitasanaccomplishedfact;andthissinglecircumstanceaccountsforallthatisdistinctiveinthestatementsoftheapostlesascomparedwiththesayingsoftheLordJesus.Theyrefertoitasaneternallyvalidfact,pregnantwithconsequences that abide for ever. Theynot only give prominence to alltheblessingsitprocured,butdelineatethespiritualsentiments,feelings,andexperiencewhichtaketheirrisefromit.Theyshowhowitcoloursthehistoryandmouldsthelifeofthosewhoreceiveit,andaresavedbyit.

Itdeservesnoticethattheviewsoftheapostles,aftertheatonementhadbecome an accomplished fact, underwent themostmemorable change.LonghadtheyrepelledthethoughtofChrist'sdeath,whichtheyclearlyenoughperceivedmustbethedeath-blowofalltheirJewishdreamsandtheories. But when it actually arrived, and they looked back on thecompleted fact, approved and accepted at His resurrection, they wereusheredintoanewworldofthoughtandfeeling.Theirswasatransitionfrom a Jewish to a Christian experience; that is, to one where theatonementwasacompletedtransactionwithsavingefficacy.Theypassedoverfromprophecytofulfilment,frompromisetofact,fromanticipationto reality, from the Old Testament Church into that of the NewTestament,fromtheknowledgeofChristafterthefleshtoanewmodeofknowledge(2Cor.5:16).Toliveoveragainthatrevolutionofexperience,ortotransferourselvesintoiteveninidea,isimpossible;fornonebuttheimmediatefollowersoftheLordcouldadequatelyknowit.Butonepointis clear. Faith now reposed on fact—divine fact—not only as theembodiment of divine thoughts, but as the accomplishment of all theprophetic announcements with which those who waited for theconsolationofIsraelwerefamiliar.Touseafamiliarmodernphrase,wehavehereTHECHRISTIANCONSCIOUSNESSinitspurestform—initsnormalcondition.IfwehaveinthesayingsofJesustheconsciousnessoftheGod-manorof theChrist,wehave in the testimonyof the apostleswhatmaybecalledtheChristianconsciousnessinitshighestperfection.

But it is in a much higher light than this that the apostles must beregarded. Besides uttering the Christian consciousness, they are theORGANS OF CHRIST'S SELF-REVELATION to the Church. Theirmessage, intended to be the complement of Christ's own teaching, is arevelation addressed to all men, and extending to all time. For thisfunction they needed a special preparation of their own minds, whichmaybedescribedastwofold:first,oralinstruction,imparteddirectlybyChrist's own lips subsequently toHis resurrection; secondly, amediateandmorecontinuousaidoftheComforter,toenablethemtoapplytoallemergencies the truth given to them by their Lord. It was this twofoldrevelationthatsecuredafullcoincidencebetweentheLord'steachingandtheirs. All that they said or wrote for after times was thus divinerevelation,not less truly than ifallhadbeenpersonallyspokenby their

Lord.He undertook, in fact, the responsibility of their official teaching(Matt. 10:40). Their testimony was thus in the last degree important,both as they were eye-witnesses to matters of fact, and as they wereorgans of a revelation which consisted in the application and furtherdevelopment of Christ's teaching on all points, as well as on the greatdoctrineoftheatonement.

Thememory ofChrist's earthlyministrywas vividly recalled, and freshinstructioncommunicated,byHimafterHisresurrectionfromthedead;andtoboththesepointswemustrefer.

1.AstheyhadpreviouslyoccupiedauniquerelationtotheLord,andhadseenHimineveryvarietyofscene tillHe finishedHiswork, itwasonepartof their commission to testifyorallywhat theyhadseenandheardandhandledoftheWordoflife(1John1:1–4),andalsotoembodytheirrecollections inwritten records. The importance of such records, aswehaveelsewhereshown, fora just ideaof theatonementcannotbeover-estimated.Whilethecommissionwasgiventoalltheapostlestorehearsewhattheyhadseenandheard,someweremadeawarethattheyhadthemorespecialtaskassignedtothemofcomposingahistoricalnarrativeofHis life which should be for all time. So essential a part of apostolictestimony,infact,didthiselementofnarrationconstitute,thatwecannotconceiveofthefoundingandpermanentdurationoftheChristianchurchwithoutit;andtoaidthem,theComforter,thegreatRemembrancer,waspromised, to recall to theirmindsanaccurateoutlineofwhat theLorddidandtaught(John16:13).Actingupontheirmemory,theHolyGhostresuscitatedHis express words and deeds, with all their circumstancesandaccessories,so faras thiswasnecessary toexhibitHispersonor tomanifestHisatoningwork.Asupernaturalpower,capableofevokingthepastfromthetabletsofmemory,renderedallthingsbackintheiroriginalvividness, and fixed them in theirmindswith a clearnesswithwhich astrangercouldnotintermeddle.

But the fresh instructionwhich they received from personal interviewswith the Redeemer subsequently to the resurrection must next benoticed.Thisoral instructionreceived fromthe lipsof therisenLord iscertainastothematteroffact,andonmanygroundswasindispensablynecessary.Norwasitlimitedtotheelevenalone.Paul,too,receiveditata

laterday,whenhetookrankamongtheapostlesasonebornoutofduetime.HowfartheoralinstructionoftherisenRedeemerextended,itmaybedifficult forus to say.Whetherornot it comprehendedall the greatarticles of divine truth, it certainly extended to the atonement (Luke24:25). This was to be the substance and foundation of all theirpreaching, and it was indispensably necessary for them to possess themostaccurateknowledgeofit.Oneobject,therefore,whichtheLordhadin view during those forty days' sojourn with the disciples after Hisresurrection, was to open their understandings in the course of thesepersonal interviews, toapprehendwithallpossibleprecision thenatureof His death—its necessity, constituent elements, and efficacy; againstwhich, in every form, they had long entertained the most invincibleprejudice.He nowmade all things plain, showing that the Christmusthavesufferedthesethings.

How they were introduced into the theology of the Old Testament isspecially worthy of notice. A due consideration of this point serves tobringoutonemost importantfact,viz. thatChrist'soralexpositionsaretobe takenasTHEMIDDLETERM,oras theconnecting linkbetweenthe Old Testament records on the one hand, and the apostoliccommentaryontheother. Inaword,HewasHimself the interpreterofScripture, and of His own history, in the course of those oralcommunications. In the book of Acts, and in the epistles, we findnumerous interpretationsof theprophecies, aswell asof the typesandsacrifices which owe their origin to this source. The evangelist Lukerelates, that on the first resurrection-day, upon the Emmaus road, inorder to instruct the two disciples with whom He entered intoconversation, the Lord, beginning at Moses and all the prophets,expounded in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself (Luke24:27); that is,He led them to a full survey of the typology and of theprophetical system of theOld Testament Scriptures. The same eveningHereviewedthewholesubjectnotlessfullyinpresenceoftheelevenandother disciples, expounding to themhow theOld Testament Scripturesreceived their fulfilment inHimself, andopeningall that related toHisdeathandresurrection.Itisinterestingtonoticetheextentofthatneverforgotten commentary, on which the Comforter in all His furtherrevelationseverafterwardsproceeded.TheevangelistmentionsthatHis

expositionextendedtotheLAWofMoses,tothePROPHETS,andtothePSALMS. The allusion to the law of Moses recalls the whole range oftypical theology—the sacrifices, the priestly institute, and the templeservices. The allusion to the prophets reminds us of the wide field ofMessianicprophecy,fromthefirstpromiseinthegardenofEdentothelastof theprophets.Theallusion to thePsalmsrecalls thoseutteranceswhichwereputbeforehandintothemouthofthesufferingMessiahinaseriesofpsalms inwhich theLordJesus foundHimself.He thus, inallthese three divisions of Scripture, supplied them with the key whichserved to unlock what had never been so fully understood before inreferencetoHisatoningdeath.

Theseinvaluableexpositions,whichmaybecalledinmodernphrasetheLord's own system of hermeneutics, formed the apostles to beinterpretersoftheOldTestament,directingthemwhereandhowtofindallusionstothesufferingMessiah.Hencethecertaintyandprecisionwithwhichtheyeverafterwardsproceededtoexpoundthoseholyoraclesinalltheirdiscourses.AlthoughthesecommentsfromthelipsoftheMessiah,whotherebyshowedhowHefoundHimself intheOldTestament,havenotbeenpreservedtousinaseparateform,theyaredoubtlesstoalargeextent wrought into the texture of Scripture; and under the apostles'allusionstotheOldTestamentwemayreadtheLord'sowncommentary.These expositions, whereby He opened their understandings tounderstand the Scriptures, introduced the apostles into the truesignificanceoftheOldTestament(Luke24:44),throwinglightonthetwoeconomies,andthusbringingintheauthorityofChristtodirecttheminall their future career. His sanction is thus given to the apostolicinterpretationoftheJewishrites;andwearewarrantedtosaythatweseetheLord'sowncommentaryunderlyingthatoftheapostles,whetherwefindallusiontothetypes,ortotheprophecies,ortothePsalms,intheirsermons and epistles. These expositions made the apostles acquaintedwith the doctrine of the atonement, in its necessity and scope, in itsconstituentelementsandsavingresults.TheapostlesreceivedthefullestinstructionfromthelipsoftheirrisenLord;andonthisthemeitappearsthat the instructionwas subject to none of the reserveswhich checkedtheircuriosityuponanotheroccasion,whentheywouldmakeinquiriesastopointsbearingonthefutureofHiskingdom(Acts1:7).

2. Itmust be further noticed that the apostles' doctrine, as set forth intheirsermonsandepistles,wasbutanexpansionorfurthercarryingoutoftheLord'sownteaching.Whattheapostlesaddedwaspre-eminentlyatestimonytotheatonementasanaccomplishedfact,andtoitsefficacyintherelationsofChristianlife.Theyputthedoctrineinitsduepositionasthe central article ofChristianity. They assigned it the prominent placewhichitwashenceforthtoholdinthelifeoftheChristianchurch.Allthisfollowed,butcouldnothavepreceded,theactualconsummationofthatredemption-work.Theirgreatbusinesswastorepresentitasfinishedforalltime,aspossessinganeverlastingefficacy,andrequiringnorepetition.Theyconstantlyrefertothegreattruth,thatChristDIEDONCE,andthatthereisnomoresacrificeforsins.Forthedoctrineonthesubjectoftheatonement, however, the LordHimself gave the keynote of all that theapostles subsequently added. The sayings of Jesus, in fact, contain thegermofallthattheyafterwardsdeveloped.SofardidtheLordsupplytheoutlinewhich the apostles filled up, that I feelwarranted to affirm theapostles'doctrineonthispointwasALWAYSSUPPORTEDbywhathadbeenfurnishedintheLord'sownteaching,andwasconstantlysuppliedfrom it. Though it may be described as a further development orexpansionofwhatwasfoundingermintheLord'swords,itwasinrealitynot somuchnew truth, as the free andvariedapplicationofwhat theyhadalreadyheard to the severalphasesofChristian experience, and tothegerminanterrorsthataroseinthedifferentchurches.

The apostles' doctrine on the atonement coincides accordingly at allpointswiththeteachingofJesus;anditwasunerringrevelation.Itisthemore necessary to advert to this, because many misapprehend theapostles' relation to the Lord. Thus, some have argued that, to restoreChristianity to its original simplicity, nothing is more indispensablynecessary than to abide exclusively by the sayings of Jesus. This theyadvocate, because they assume that the truth has undergone a certaintransmutationintheapostles'hands.Others,again,undulymagnifytheirmental peculiarities, till they regard them not as announcing the sametruthwithapeculiartypeofmind,butasactuallymaintainingdifferencesof doctrine. To these opinions, in all their modifications, we mustemphatically oppose two considerations: (1)Their conscious relation tothe great Teacher, and (2) His superintending care. On the one hand,

men imbued as they were with reverence for Jesus, whom theyworshippedwithdivinehonours, andwhom theyweredirected tohear(Matt. 17:5), were far too humble and self-denied to suppose for amoment that they could add any perfection to His doctrine. Far fromthinkingthattheywerewiserthanHe,orcapableofaddingonenewraytoHisself-revelation,theykeptthemselveswithinthelimitsofdisciples,andmerely built onHis foundation. On the other hand, as they had acontinuous revelationby theSpirit,whobroughtup to them theLord'sownwords,andalsotheOldTestamentrecord,aswasexpedientforthenecessities of the churches, they were never left without thesuperintending care and guidance of Christ; and there was nodisharmonybetweenHimandthem.Nay,itmustbefurtheradded,thatas divinely commissionedmen, they had the same authoritywith theirLord,whofullyidentifiedHimselfwiththem.

SEC.II.—GENERALVIEWOFTHEAPOSTLES'TESTIMONYTOTHE

ATONEMENT

Theplan tobe followed in this volume is furnished to ourhandby theseveralbooksoftheNewTestamentThepreviousvolume,limitedtothesayings of Jesus, which we classified according to the elements andaspectsofthetruthwhichtheypeculiarlyunfold,wasmeanttoembracethetestimonysuppliedbytheevangelists.Thepresentvolume,takingupthe same theme where the Gospels end, is intended to unfold theapostles' testimony,andtogivea fulloutlineofwhat iscontaineduponthissubjectintheirepistlestothechurches.Theonlypracticablemodeofdoing this is to take the several books, and to exhaust in order thetestimonytheycontain.Tothiswehavebeenledbythenecessitiesofthecase; for the attempt to reduce the whole to a few heads, by taking afragmentfromonetextandanotherfragmentfromanother,wasfoundtobesodislocatingandartificial,astosatisfyusthattheapostles'doctrinecould not be displayed, except by taking the several apostles and theirseveral epistles separately. We have thus to notice the testimony of aPeter, of a John, and of a Paul, as they refer to the atonement, in theorderoftheepistlesgiveninthecommoneditionsoftheNewTestament;

fortheadvantagessupposedtobegainedbyfollowingthechronologicalorderof theircomposition,even if thispointcouldbe fullyascertained,wouldnot,wethink,countervailtheinconveniencetherebyoccasionedtothegeneralreader.Weshall thereforefollowtheorderoftheepistles intheEnglishBible.

As theapostles interweave,however,manyallusions to the typesof theMosaiclaw,andtothePsalmsandpropheciesoftheOldTestament,wedeem it necessary, without turning aside from our definite purpose ofexhibitingtheapostolictestimony,tosetforth,atleastinoutline,theusetowhichthosepartsofScriptureareturnedinthebookofActsandintheepistles.We shall prefix, therefore, a chapter on the ancient sacrifices,and another on the ancientprophecies, as adducedby the epistles.Butbeforeenteringuponthese,itwillbenecessarytogiveageneralviewoftheapostles'testimonyandpreaching.

1.TheapostlesinsistmuchonthedignityoftheLord'sperson,andontheconnection between the INCARNATION and ATONEMENT. AfterChrist'sresurrection,wefindintheapostlesasurprisingincreaseoflighton the subject of Christ's person, as Thomas' testimony proves (John20:28).They saw in anewmanner the effect of the incarnationonHisatoning work, and they expressed it with wondering delight, as isapparent whether we look at the book of Acts or at the epistles to theseveralchurches.Thus,theyspeakoftheJewsaskillingthePrinceoflife(Acts 3:15); of crucifying theLord of glory (1Cor. 2:9); of the Son, thebrightnessoftheFather'sglory,andtheexpressimageofHisperson,andupholdingallthingsbythewordofHispower,havingbyHimselfpurgedoursins(Heb.1:3).

Theapostles, inall thosepassageswhere theydescribe theredemption-workoftheLord,ascribetotheSaviourthepossessionofadivinenature,sometimesmore directly, at other timesmore by implication. But it isneverdifficulttoapprehendtheirdeepconvictionofthepresenceofHisdeity in all His atoning work. They speak of it as a divine work,immediatelyaccomplishedbyGodHimself.NordotheyrepresentGodastheauthorofitmerelyinthesenseoforiginatingorconcertingtheplanwhich the Mediator was commissioned and empowered to carry intoexecution: they speak of a divine person as the agent by whom the

redemption-workwas completed, and ofHiswork as closely connectedwithHisdivinenature,—thatis,theworkofonewhowasveryGod.Theapostles, under the guidance of the Spirit, apprehended His work ofobedience during the years He had sojourned with them, as infinitelyvaluable, andHis blood as infinitely precious, because emanating fromtheabasementofHimwhowasGodoverall;ascribingitnotmerelytoasinlessman,buttotheSonofGod,andthus,invirtueoftheunionofthenatures,possessinganall-sufficientvalueandvalidity.Theirdoctrineonthe subject of Christ's incarnation was, that it took place in a historicperson,andinoneonly;andthat,accordingtothewillofHimthatsentHim, He comprehended in Himself a body, or a vast multitude. It iseverywheresetforthastheirdeepestconviction,thatinsteadofbeingoneamong His fellows, Jesus was the representative head of a redeemedcompany,whofindtheirpropitiation,righteousness,andredemption inHim.

The apostles' doctrine, too, is to the effect that the Son of God in thisgreattransactionwassimplyactingastherestorerofthelost,forthereisno allusion to the incarnation as a natural process. They represent thehistoricalappearanceof theSonofGodasCONDITIONEDSOLELYBYSIN,andthereisnowarrantfromanythingintheirlanguageforgivingita double foundation. The stupendous fact ofman's redemptionwas anendworthyofsuchacost,buttheincarnationwasnotnecessaryexceptonthesuppositionofredemptionfromsin.Theincarnationandthecrossare thus viewed as inseparable, but both asMEANS to an end, viz. thevindication of divine justice, the expiation of sin, the meritoriousobediencetoberenderedtothe law.This is therationaleof the infinitecondescension displayed in the incarnation and the cross. The apostlesmakenoallusiontoanyotherdesign.Whenweputtogethertheapostolictestimonyonthispoint,therearenotafewtextswhichplainlyannouncethatthedesignoftheincarnationwasonlyfortheredemptionofthelost,andthattheatonementowesitsvaluetothefactthatitwastheworkofadivineperson.Thus,itissaidthatChristwasmadeofawomantoredeemmen(Gal.4:4);thatHetookpartofourfleshandbloodtodestroydeath(Heb.2:14);thatHewasmanifestedtodestroytheworksofthedevil(1John3:8);thatHecameintotheworldtosavesinners(1Tim.1:15).Toassign a different intention to the incarnation, is not only to be wise

above what is written, but well-nigh a contradiction to the explicitstatementofwhatissetforthastheonlydesignknowntotheapostles.

2. The apostles' change ofmind as to the cross, and their testimony toChrist crucified. Before we enter into the apostolic testimony in detail,two things at the outset demand more particular notice: the entirerevolution of the apostles' own views as to the death of the cross, andtheiruniformtestimonytoitastheirconfidenceandboast.Theyfirstofalldiscerneditssignificanceforthemselves;andthen,knowingthattheatonementissuitedtothecapacityofeveryclassandeveryage,theygavetheutmostprominencetothisgreatarticleinalltheirpreaching.Asitisnot in my plan to offer reflections either of a practical or speculativenature,but topursueanexegetical inquiry inthewaythatseemstomethebestsuitedtoconveystrictlybiblicalviewsoftheatonement,itseemsproper here to refer to both these points. The change upon their ownmindswillleadustounderstandtheprominentplacewhichtheapostlesgave to this article in all their preaching. A few remarks illustrative oftheirstateofmind,andofthemethodtheypursued,willsuffice.

Theywerebroughttoseeapeculiarsignificance inthemodeofChrist'sdeath, and that somethingmorewas tobe seen in the cross than ifHehadundergoneanyotherdeath.Theycomprehendedtheweightyreasonswhich rendered it expedient and necessary, according to the divinewisdom, that the Surety should die by a death which was accursed byGod.Theywerepersuadedthatitcontainedmorethananyothermodeofdeath; andaccordinglywe find themrepeatedlymakingmentionof thecross,orofthetree,ascarryingwithitapeculiaremphasis.ThusJohn,inreferringtotheLord'sownwords,tellsus:"ThisHesaid,signifyingwhatdeathHeshoulddie"(John12:33;comp.8:28).Peter,again,bothinhissermons recorded in the book of Acts and in his epistle, refers to theTREEonwhichHesufferedandboreoursins(1Pet.2:24).Paulgloriesonly in the cross of the Lord (Gal. 6:14). They saw that God's terriblecurse,onaccountofsincommittedinAdamandintheirownpersons,layon Jesus, and that He was made a curse, of which the cross was thesymbolratherthanthecause.

The apostles were led either by the promised Comforter, the Spirit oftruth,orbytheLord'soralteachinginHisresurrectioninterviews,tothe

convictionthatJesusdiedanaccurseddeath,accordingtoprophecy.Thiscomesoutinapassage,thepointofwhichitisimportanttoapprehend:"Christhathredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw,beingmadeaCURSEforus:foritiswritten,CURSEDiseveryonethathangethonatree"(Gal.3:13). That quotation fromMoses contains an intimation of theway inwhichMessiahwastodie.LikethepassageadducedbyourLordHimselfabouttheliftingupofthebrazenserpentonapole,itshowsthatfromthefirst itwas intendedtobesymbolical,prophetical,andtypical.Weshallnot enter into the question whether crucifixion was a Romanpunishment, and not at all a Jewish punishment; for the point of thequotation is the suspending of a criminal on a tree, whether by asubsequent judicialactafterdeath,orby thecrucifixionwhileyetalive.That is thepoint of resemblancebetween the two cases.By theMosaiclaw,thatmodeofpunishmentwasinflictedupongreatcriminals,suchasblasphemers and idolaters, the rebellious and seditious. When wecompare the passage in Deuteronomy with the doctrine which Pauldeclaresinconnectionwiththatpassage,heplainlyintendstoprovethatChrist was the curse-bearer in our room, and that this great truthwasestablishedbythesubjoinedsign.Christwasmadeacursebeforebeingsuspendedonthetree:forGodmadeHimtobesinforus(2Cor.5:21);and thathangingon the treewasbut thepublic testimony to the curseenduredinourroom.Thecauseofthecursewasnotthehangingonthetree, but the sin with which He was charged; and that mode ofpunishmentexhibited thatHewas theobjectofGod'sholydispleasure,not indeedbecauseHewas suspendedon the tree,butbecauseHewasthe sin-bearer; and the punishment of the offences for which thatignominiouspunishmentwasallottedwastheninflicted.DivinewisdomappointedthatHewhoborethesinoftheworldshouldbeexposedasacurse;forthedivinedispleasurewasthusmoreawfullydisplayed.

But why was this peculiar method adopted? Of all the explanationspropounded, the simplest is that given byWitsius and others, that sincame into the world by the wanton violation of the divine will inconnectionwith the forbidden fruit. As the fatal sinwhich diffused thecurseover thehuman racewas connectedwith the forbidden tree,Godwisely ordained that the second Adam should expiate sin by beingsuspendedonatree;andHeappointed inthe lawsuchasymbolof the

curseasremindsallmenof theoriginof thedivinecurseontheworld.He would not have the curse removed by any other means. Thisadequately explains thedivinewisdom in thegivingof sucha law.Andthey who had a true knowledge of the way of atonement might findoccasionfromthatsymbol,asintheparallelcaseoftheliftingupofthebrazen serpenton thepole, or in the leadingupof the sacrifices to thealtar,toconcludethatMessiahshouldonedaybemadeacurse,andhanguponatree;butthatHeshouldnotcontinuelong,forHeshouldbetakendownonthesamedaybeforesunset.Whethermanyapprehendedallthisintheprophetictype,oronlyaveryfew,isnotthequestion.Wewholivein the times of accomplishment are taught that such a lesson wasconveyedbyittous(1Pet.1:11,12).

The apostles justly regarded the crucifixion as the deepest possiblehumiliation.Itwasthemost ignominiousofpunishments, inflictedonlyonslavesandthelowestofthepeople;andiffreemenwereatanytimesubjectedtocrucifixionforgreatcrimes,suchasrobbery,hightreason,orsedition, the sentence could not be executed till theywere put into thecategoryofslavesbydegradation.Their libertywastakenfromthembyservilestripesandscourging,aswasdonetoChrist.HoweverthatcrisisinChrist'shistoryperplexedandsaddened theapostles fora time, theyno soonerdiscerned thedeepunderlying truthof the symbol than theytriumphedandgloriedinthedeepabasementtowhichtheLordofgloryhad descended for them, enduring the cross and despising the shame.Theirsymbolwasthecross;theirboastwasthecross:theycouldnotlivewithout it; they could not diewithout it. They set forth,wherever theywent,thatthetypesofthelawhadreceivedtheirfulfilmentinthecross,and that the Messiah had died in such a way that every one mustnecessarilyperceive that thecurseof the lawwas fulfilleduponHim inourroomandstead.

3.Theapostlesuniformlytestifythatthecrosswastheirconfidenceandboast, and lead us to regard the atonement as belonging to the mainscope of revelation. Thus, when Paul describes the purport of hisapostoliclabours,hesays,"WepreachChristcrucified"(1Cor.1:23);and,besides, he calls the gospel the preaching of the cross, ormore strictlyrendered,"thewordofthecross"(1Cor.1:18).Wecannotallowthatthis

meansnomore than thepreachingof thepuremoralcodewhichJesustaught,withonlytheaccessorynotionthatitwasconfirmedbyHisdeath.Nor can the language with any greater reason be referred to Christ'sexample,assealedbymartyrdom.Suchcommentsasthese,whichaimatevading the vicarious sacrifice, are a violence to language, and whollyinconsistentwiththeimportoftheterms.ThesubstanceofChristianity,andthepreachingofit,couldnotbedescribedinsuchaway,unlessthecross of Christ, considered as a vicarious satisfaction, constituted itsessentialelement,nay,itsprincipaldesign.Wehaveafurtherevidenceofthe same thingwhen the apostle adds, that the crosswas a stumbling-block to one, and foolishness to another, of the nationalities amongwhomhelaboured.Hadthecross,however,beensimplypropoundedasaconfirmation of Christ's doctrine, it could not have been an offence. Itwould ratherhave tended,as in the caseofSocrates, towin respect forthe teacher and for His doctrine, that He had closed His career inattestationtoHisteachingbytheenduranceofaviolentdeath.

Butthedoctrineofthecross,asapropitiationandasawayofsalvation,was equally in collision with Jewish pride and Gentile wisdom. To theJewitwasastumbling-block,partlybecauseittookhimuponthegroundof a sinner, helpless and in need of reconciliation, partly because itsummonedhimtotrustintheinnocenceofasufferingSurety,andnotinhisownrighteousness.HisexpectationofaMessiahasatemporalprincewas in proportion to his pharisaic self-righteousness, and probably anoffshootfromit.HewasoffendedatasufferingMessiah,bothbecauseitcrossedhis theory, andbecause it presupposed a guiltwhichwas to beexpiatedinnootherway.TotheGreek,again,thepreachingofthecrosswasfoolishness,becauseitproceededonthesupposition,sorepugnanttothemerediscipleofhumanwisdom, the speculativeadmirerofnotionsandtheories,thatsalvationwastheprincipaldesignofGod,andthatthiswas the scope of Christianity when it preached a crucified Christ. Thepreachingoftheapostlesconfrontedboththesetendencies;andamidalltheir opposition, far from losing confidence or feeling shame, theyretreatedtothegroundthatthepreachingofthecrosswasthepowerofGodandthewisdomofGodtothemthatarecalled,andthatiteffectedwhat all the resources of human wisdom could not effect (1 Cor. 1:24;Rom.1:16).

4.Paulinavarietyofwaysdeclaresthattheatonementwastheprincipaltopic of his preaching. One of these testimonies is to this effect: "Ideterminednottoknowanythingamongyou,saveJesusChrist,andHimcrucified" (1 Cor. 2:2). No one can doubt what is the import of thisstatement. When he "determined to know nothing among them, saveJesusChrist,andHimcrucified,"theimportclearlyis,thathepreached,ashisgrandtopic,theatonementofChrist,inallitsbearingsandfulnessofapplication.Thewordsintimatethathemadethedoctrineofthecrosstheprincipalmatterofpreaching;theothertruthswhichhetaughtbeingeitherderivedfromitorconnectedwithit.Theywere, inaword,eitherpostulates or corollaries; andwhatever could not be connectedwith it,wasmadeverysubordinateoromitted.Thishadbeendoneonpurposeandfromforethought.Theapostlewenttoworkaccordingtoaplan;andto this his fundamental principle he continued faithful in all hissubsequentministry.

InthesameepistlewefindanotherpassagewherehedeclaresthatTHEGOSPEL which he had preached, which the Corinthians had received,andbywhichtheyweresavediftheykeptitinmemory,was"thatChristdiedforoursins,accordingtotheScriptures"(1Cor.15:3).Now,canthismeanthatChrist'sdeathwaspreachedasbutadissuasivefromsin?DoestheapostlesaythatthedeathofChristwaspreachedmerelyasameanstofreemenfromthebondageofmoralcorruption,eitherbytheforceofsuasionorbytheinfusionofspirituallife?Bynomeans.Suchacommentnot only fails to exhaust the idea, but misses the proper sense of thewords, "dying for our sins." That expression, wherever it occurs, bearsreference to THEMERITORIOUS CAUSEOFHISDEATH. In no casedoes it refer to future deliverance, but always to the expiation of pastguilt.Thisisapparentinapassagewhichcombinesthetwoideaswehavenownoticed,makingtheexpiationofpastguiltameanstoafurtherend,—ameans to future deliverance: "Who gave Himself for our sins, that(ὅπως)Hemightdeliverusfromthispresentevilworld"(Gal.1:4).

IntheEpistletotheGalatianswehavethemostcopiousevidenceofthevaluewhichPaulattached to thepreachingof theatonement.Hisgreatobjectthereistoshow,thatifthecrossiseitherobscuredorsuperseded,thegospelisnogospel.HepointedlycondemnstheviewsoftheJudaizing

teachers,who enforced on theGalatian churches the observance of theMosaiclawasnecessarytosalvation;showingthat,inreality,itisanothergospelwhere the cross is either concealed, ornotpresentedas the solegroundofacceptance.TheseJudaizingzealotsweremenwho,insteadofdirecting their undivided attention to the atonement as the exclusivegroundofsalvation,andthereforeasthegreatdoctrineofthegospel,putcircumcisionandtheritesoftheMosaiclawinitsplace(Gal.5:1–4);andthe apostle asserts that there is no other gospel butwhere the cross ofChristoccupiestheprincipalplace.TheytowhomhereferredpervertedthegospelofChrist(Gal.1:7).Thenhedeclares,inatoneofauthorityaswell as of the deepest solemnity, "Thoughwe or an angel fromheavenpreachanyothergospeluntoyouthanthatwhichwehavepreacheduntoyou,lethimbeaccursed"(Gal1:8);astatementwhichherepeats,partlyto show that it was no utterance of human passion, partly to recall tomemorywhatheseemstohavefirstspokeninthecourseofhispersonalministry.Weretheatonementnottheprincipalmatterofthegospel,andthe highest exhibition of the united wisdom, love, and faithfulness ofGod,—in a word, the greatest act of God in the universe,—that terribleanathemaon its subverterswouldseemtoussomething inexplicable, ifnotintolerable.ButthedoomisjustifiedbythenatureofChrist'sdeath,andbythegreatfactoftheatonement.

Theapostle,asheproceeds, takeseveryopportunity fromthecourseofhis argument, not only to warn the Galatian churches against thepervertersofthegospel,buttoshowthatthecrossformedtheburdenofhis own preaching. He observes that the men to whom he wrote theepistlewerethey"beforewhoseeyesJesusChristhadbeenevidentlysetforth,crucifiedamongthem"(Gal.3:1);inwhichexpressionhegivesusabrief outline of his preaching. And he winds up the epistle by theannouncement that, in his official capacity, aswell as in his individualcapacityasaChristian,hewouldnot"glory,saveinthecrossoftheLordJesusChrist"(Gal.6:14).Thisonefoundationheadducesinoppositiontoallthesefalsegrounds,—therites,theceremonies,thelegalobservances,on which the others built their confidence. He would glory in nothingsaveinthecross;andalllegalismhedenouncesasenmityto"thecrossofChrist"(Phil.3:18).Theexpression"thecrossofChrist," inthesenseinwhich the apostle uses it, denotes salvation by the propitiation of the

cross,orby thedyingobedienceofaSuretymadeacurse inour room.And when we minutely examine the various epistles addressed to thechurches, whether composed of Jews or Gentiles, we find that theatonement was preached to men in all states of mind, as the greatmessagewithwhichtheapostleswerecharged,andasequallynecessarytotheestablishedChristianandtheanxiousinquirer.

In one memorable passage which I shall subjoin, the Apostle Paulremarks that the preaching of the cross was the main scope of hisministry, and the very end forwhichhewas specially appointed: "WhogaveHimselfaransomforall,tobetestifiedinduetime.WhereuntoIamordainedapreacher,andanapostle(IspeakthetruthinChrist,andlienot)"(1Tim.2:6,7).Hetheredeclares,withallthesolemnityofanoath,thathenotonlypreachedtheatonementasadivinelyprovidedransomforman'ssalvation,butthathewasspeciallyordainedasanapostleandpreacher for this very service. The crosswas thus tohimand to all hissuccessors the main burden of preaching, without which, indeed, thefunction of preaching would neither have any deep foundation norpossessanytruesignificance.

Tothisgreatcommissiontheapostlesweretocontinuefaithful.Wefind,accordingly,whenweexamine the firstannouncementsof thegospel inany place, that they prefixed the narrative of Christ's humiliation,obedience,andresurrection;thattheyproclaimedHimastheChrist;andthat theycoupledwith thenarrative themessageofpresent forgivenessandreconciliation.Inpreachingsuchadoctrine,theyexposedthemselvestothelossofreputation,tohardshipsandperil,topersecutionanddeath.Buttheyheldontheirway,undeterredandundaunted,assuredthattheywere ordained to deliver such a message; and they boldly fulfilled thecharge, that the great truth, which was unspeakably dear to their ownsouls,mightbemadeknowntoallnationsandtoalltimes.

5. The sacred writers uniformly put the remission of sins in closeconnection with the death of Christ as its procuring cause. Man'sstanding before God, whether viewed in the light of the forgiveness ofsins, or in the light of acceptance, is alwaysdeduced from thedeath ofChrist as the direct CAUSE. Of this the Lord Himself gave the firstexample, when He described His blood as shed for many for the

remissionofsins(Matt.26:28);andHecommissionedHisdisciplestogoeverywhere preaching repentance and the forgiveness of sins in Hisname,—thatis,tomakethesepointstheburdenoftheirmessage,andtoputforgivenessthroughHisbloodupontheforeground,amongtheveryfirstthingstobeproclaimed.Itwasnotinanycircumstancestobekeptinreserve,asifitcouldbeviewed—asisthetendencyinourdaytoviewit—in the mere subordinate light of an adjunct to the possession of thespiritual life. We may warrantably infer that, as they preached thiseverywhereastheirspecialmessageinalltheworld,ortoeverycreature,they were not neglectful to point out, after their Lord's example, thedirectcausalconnectionbetweenthe forgivenesswhichtheyannouncedand the atoningbloodwhichhadbeen shed for this end.Wherever theapostleswent,wefindthemfaithfultothiscommission(Acts2:38,10:43,13:38). That the samepeculiaritywas a feature of their teaching in theseveralchurches,willappearfromafewpassagesintheirepistles.

Eph. 1:7: "In whom we have redemption through His blood, theforgiveness of sins."—The apostle in the last clause, which givesadditionalexplanation,morefullydefinesthenatureofredemptionasanobjectivebenefit;forthewordscannotbeinterpretedoftheuprootingofsinwithin.Theywhosoexplainthetwotermsarewideofthemark.Itisobjectivebenefitstowhichtheapostlerefers,andnotaninnerstateoftheheart.Theforgiveness is theremissionofpunishmentduetous forsin,and put in direct connection with the blood of Christ alone as itsmeritoriouscause.

2Cor.5:19:"GodwasinChrist,reconcilingtheworlduntoHimself,notimputing their trespasses unto them."—The reconciliation is connectedwith thenon-imputingof sin, another expression for forgivenessor theremissionofpunishment.Theconnectionbetweentwothingsherestatedis to be carefully noted: God, in the great scheme of reconciliation, isdescribedasnot imputingsin;whileChrist, in thecapacityof surety, isdescribedasmadesin,orbearingtheimputationofsin(ver.21).Thustheimputation of sin toHim, and its non-imputation to us, stand in closecausalconnection.ThesubstitutionoftheSonofGodisthusthegroundandtheexplanationofourforgiveness.

Rom.3:25:"TodeclareHisrighteousnessfor[better,onaccountof]the

remission of sins that are past."—I adduce this passage as conveying,whenrightlyunderstood,amostemphaticillustrationoftheconnectionbetween Christ's dying obedience and the remission of sins. Therighteousness ofGod therementionedmeans, aswill be proved below,according to the common Pauline usage, the righteousness divinelyprovided for the justificationof sinners;and the reasonassigned for itsactualmanifestationinthefulnessoftimeis,thatsinshad,duringagesofforbearancepriortothecomingofChrist,beenremittedonthegroundofan atonement yet to come.The atonement, or, as it is there called, therighteousnessofGod,wasusheredinbyreasonof,oronaccountof(διὰwith ac.), the pardon which had been extended to multitudes in theformerages.Wethusseetheinseparableconnectionbetweentheatoningobedience of Christ and the remission of sins,—between the actualbringing in of the atonement and the previous forgiveness accorded toOldTestamentbelievers.TheclauseshowsthedirectconnectionbetweenChrist's work and pardon. This is the only sense that can begrammatically put upon the words, and they show that withoutatonement there could have been no remission of sins. That the saintsbefore the coming of Christ frequently speak of pardon as a presentexperience,andextolthesweetnessoftheprivilege,noonecandoubt(Ps.32:1;Mic.7:18);fortheatonement,fromitsretrospectivecharacterasthegreat fact in theworld's history,was a sufficient ground for dispensingpardon in thepropersenseof theword,beingalreadybefore thedivinemind as a reality. Objectively, there was no difference as to theparticipationofactualpardonbeforeandaftertheatonement,thoughinpointof inner liberty,or the subjective realizationof it, there couldnotbutbea certaindifferencebetweenmeneagerly looking forward to thegreatcomingfact,andtheirlayingholdofitasalreadyaccomplished.Inthat respect somethingwasawanting (Heb. 11:40).But thepointwhichthis text illustrates, and forwhich I have adduced it, is the inseparablelink between forgiveness and atonement: it is a causal connection—animmediateconnectionwithoutanyfurtheraddition.

Rom. 8:34: "Who is he that condemneth? it is Christ that died."—Theargument there would not hold, unless merited condemnation weredirectlyremovedfromusbythedeathofChrist,withoutanothercauseinoperation. Now forgiveness is exemption from condemnation, and it is

ascribed exclusively toChrist's death. Thedeath ofChrist alone is thusthedirectandimmediatecauseofpardon.

Thiswillhelpus tounderstand the significanceof thebiblical termsbywhich forgiveness isdescribed.Theyarenumerous,whetherwe lookattheOldTestamentorat theNew;andtheypresupposeatonement,asafewinstanceswillshow.

Rom.4:7:"Blessedaretheywhoseiniquitiesareforgiven,andwhosesinsarecovered.""BlessedisthemantowhomtheLordwillnotimputesin"(Ps. 32:1, 2).—There are two phrases which are here alternated, asinterchangeableexpressionswiththecommonlyusedterm"forgiveness."Thefirst, thatofcoveringsins, intimatesthattheyarecoveredfromtheJudge'seye,sothatiftheyaresoughtfor,theyarenottobefound.Thisfigurative expression is thought to be taken from the blood-sprinkledmercy-seatorcoveringofthearkwhichcoveredthetablesofthelaw,andthereforethecurseduetothepeoplefortheirsins,thoughweneednotbetoo curious to settle this point when no materials are at hand. Themeaning is, that sins, as covered from the Judge, no more cry forvengeance,andtheremustbesomethingtocoverthem;whilethesecondphrase, thenon-imputationof sin,denotes that it isnot charged toouraccount,—that is, that our persons are no longer subjected to meritedpunishment(2Sam.19:19;Lev.7:18).

Heb. 10:17: "And their sins and iniquitieswill I remember nomore."—ThisexpressiondescribestheperfectionoftheforgivenesswhenChrist'sonesacrificewasoffered.Ajudgenomorerememberssinswhenhedoesnotrememberthemjudicially,orwhenheceasestoactagainstthem;andthe language means that, on the ground of Christ's death, Godrememberssinnomore.

Col. 2:13: "You, being dead in your sins, hathHequickenedwithHim,havingforgivenyoualltrespasses."Thispassagedistinctlyshowsthattheidea attached to forgiveness involved deliverance frompunishment: forthe apostle says first that they were by sin subjected to death andpunishment, and that the quickening in which they rejoiced was aconsequenceofforgiveness;whichagainwasowingtotheatonementofthe cross, or to the blotting out of the handwriting of ordinances by

nailingittothecross.

The most frequently used expression in the Old Testament to denoteforgiveness,isliterallytobearsin(Mic.7:18;Ex.34:7;Num.14:18;Josh.24:19).Itappearsnotimprobablethatthisphrase,sofrequentlyusedtodescribepardonintheOldTestament,wasborrowedfromthesacrifices,perhapsfromthescape-goat,ledawaybythehandofafitman,andletgoin thewilderness (Lev. 16:21). The iniquity of the peoplewas borne bythesetwogoats,usedonthedayofatonement,beingfirstexpiatedbytheone,andthenborneawaybytheother.Andasthetwowereintendedtoconveybut one idea, and are amutual complement of eachother, theygave a symbolical representation of the mode of taking away sin andmerited punishment. The unrighteousness of the covenant people wasremoved from the eyes of the Judge, and nomore suitable expressioncould be employed to intimate the remission of sin. But however theexpression is explained—and various explanations will continue to begiven—it certainly implies to remit or forgive sin, so that it is nomorepunishable.

Thus, according to apostolic teaching, the acceptance of the sinner andthepardonofhissins—thatis,thepositiveandnegativesideofthenewrelationintowhichweareadmitted—isimmediatelyconnectedwiththecross.Theoneiscalledjustification,andtheotherforgiveness;buttheyarebothforensicterms,havingreferencetoourpersonalrelationtothemoralGovernorandJudge;andtheyareimmediatelyconnectedwiththecross, or with the atonement which vindicates the divine law. Thisassumesthatinotherrespectsnodutyisleftundone;thatthereisnosinof omission aswell asno sin of commission: for these two sides of thequestion are the complement of each other—correlative truths; the onepresupposing theother.And thepersonmaybedescribedeitherby thenegativeorpositivesideofthesentence.

SEC.III.—THEAPOSTLES'EXPOSITIONOFTHESACRIFICESANDTEMPLESERVICES,

ASSYMBOLICALANDTYPICAL

In this section I purpose to consider the apostles' elucidation of theatonementfromtheancientsacrifices.Theplanwearepursuingleadsusinto this fieldunder theguidanceofapostles;andas they leadtheway,wedonotplaceourselves,therefore,underanyarbitraryhumantheories.NorhaveweanyoccasiontofallinwiththeattempttostandmerelyonthegroundwhichthereadingoftheOldTestamentsuppliestoourownminds, apart from the apostolic commentary; a presumptuous attemptwhichhas invariably failed.We survey the sacrificial economywith thelightwhichtheapostlesreflectuponit;andwheretheystopshort,therewealsostop.

On the subject of sacrifice, there have been before the church twoartificially constructed systems. The TYPICAL system, run out into alabyrinth of detail; and the SYMBOLICAL system, which finds highertruthinallthemultipliedceremoniesappointedforthesacrifices.Andtoneitherschemedoesitseemsafetosurrenderourselvesfully,sincebotherrbyover-doing.Itmustbeallowedthatthereisanamountoftruthinboth, and that neither element is to be rejected. But on either scheme,unless we have controlling landmarks, wemay soon get beyond divineideas,andloseourselvesinhumanfanciesandingeniousanalogies.

That which was called the TYPICAL theology was much in favour acenturyago.IthadengagedtheingenuityofCocceius,Witsius,Vitringa,andLampe;and in thehandsof theseeminentmen,andofotherswhofollowedthem,muchprecioustruthwasbroughtforthasthecarryingoutofapostolicalideas;butitwascarriedtosuchanextreme,thatitsunkincourseof timeunder itsownweight. It sooncame tobeoutofkeepingwith the greatpurposeof exegesis, the object ofwhich is to exhibit thesubstanceofrevelationin itsorigin,progress,andproper import;andareactionwas theconsequenceon thepartofallmenofspiritual insightandtaste.Itwasoverdone,andthemindmadethenaturalandnecessaryefforttoregainitsequilibrium.

Themodernschooldiffersfromtheformer,byfixingattentionratherontheSYMBOLICALmeaningofthesacrifices.Thissystemhasforitsobjecttofindoutthespiritualideasunderlyingthem.Thesymboliswiththesewritersthetangiblesubstratumtoexhibitahighertruth,orto illustrateGod'smethod of dealingwith sin and sinningmen. There is important

truthinthisview,especiallyasitunfoldsausefulmodeofinstructioninreferencetoGodthemoralGovernor,totheguiltanddefilementofsin,andtothemethodofexpiation.Butitmustbeaddedthatmanywritersinthisschoolgoasfarintheindulgenceofarestlessfancyasdidthetypicalschool.ThismayfullybeaffirmedoftheartificialsystempropoundedbyBähr in a direction opposed to the vicarious sacrifice. But the oppositesystem advocated by Kurtz, Hengstenberg, Keil, and Kliefoth, whilepowerfully maintaining the vicarious character of the sacrifices, andstarting from apostolical expositions, errs in like manner in not a fewrespects by overdoing. The Mosaic law, with its precepts andprohibitions,threatsandpenalties,iscorrectlyportrayedasunitingintoasystem the great ideas of divine holiness, of the evil of sin, and thenecessityofexpiation,whichwereallsymbolicallytaughtbysacrifice.Butit cannot be denied that the minute details are overdone. If it was alabyrinth of type a century ago, it has inmore recent times become alabyrinth of symbol; and to neither system in detail can we commitourselves, more especially when we reflect that the same mode ofinterpretation,ifappliedtotheparables,asimilarmethodofinstruction,wouldthrowobscurity,notlight,overthosesimpleideaswhichtheyareintendedtoelucidate.

Ishallherecollectintoafewparticularsthegeneraldoctrineofsacrifice,andkeepthewholewithinduelimits.

1.Theywereamodeof instructiononthewayofapproachingGod,andwerepeculiarlysuitedtothehumanmindstrugglingwithasenseofguilt;and they have furnished to the church of all times a vocabulary ornomenclature, without which men could not with sufficient precisionhavebeenabletoholdintercoursewitheachotheronthesubjectoftheatonement. It deserves special notice, that prophecy and sacrifices arealways found together, and throw light upon each other; and that theyrunin(parallellinesthroughtheentireOldTestamenteconomy.Nay,thesacrificesmayberegardedasasortofprophecy,oraguaranteetowhichtheveracityofGodwaspledged;fortheshadowmustonedaybecomeareality.Butitwasfurthermorenecessarythatthegreatfacttowhichtheypointedshouldbedistinctlyannounced inprophecy,andhencewe findboth together from the timeof the firstpromise (Gen.3:15). If, indeed,

therealityhadnotbeenappointedtoappear,theshadoworrudeoutlinewhichwaspresentedtothemindbythesacrificeswouldneverhavebeenexhibited.

To apprehend the sacrifices aright, they must also be considered assacraments.Thetermssacrificeandsacramentformallydiffer indeedinthis respect, that sacrifice denotes rather what is given to God, whilesacrament points outwhatGod gives to us. Butwhile this is not to bedenied, theymaymeet inoneand thesame thing;and thesacramentalcharacter of sacrifices may be discerned very clearly in the wholeantediluvianandpatriarchalperiods,whentheyweresignsandseals tobelievingmen, as sacraments are to us now. This, of course, takes forgrantedthedivineoriginofsacrifices,ofwhich,itappearstome,thereisverylittleroomfordoubt.Butwhateverviewmaybeheldontheprimevaloriginofsacrifices,therecannotbetwoopinionsastothefactthattheyhadanexpresslydivineappointment inIsrael; foreventheywhoareofopinionthatmen,intheexerciseoftheirownreason,felluponthedeviceof offering animal sacrifices as a method of acceptable worship,acknowledgethatupontheJewstheyweredivinelyenjoined,withmanyexplicitdirectionsindetail.Buttheevidencefortheirdivineappointmentinprimevaltimesseemsquiteconclusive,asafewwordswillprove.

The sacrifice ofAbel is so described as to show that itmust have beenoffered in compliance with divine appointment, and that it was not amerewill-worship(Col.2:23).ItissaidtohavebeenacceptabletoGod—moreacceptablethqanCain's(Heb.11:4),becauseitwasofferedinfaith—andtohavebeenreceivedwithadivinetestimonyofapproval,whichwemay suppose was given by the descent of consuming fire from heavenupon the sacrifice, in the sameway aswas vouchsafed on several lateroccasions(2Chron.7:2).Butthatsolemntestimonyofacceptancewouldonly have terrified the offerer, had he himself invented this mode ofworship. The lightning shooting round the altar and consuming thevictim,wouldhave conveyed the impressionof anangryGod; andhowcould theyhave apprehendedby thismeans that theywere reconciled?How could they have known without some divine revelation that thisconsumingfirewasatokenofdivineacceptance?Whenweconsiderthatrevelationbeganatthefall,andthatGodspokewithman,andconveyed

Hismindtohiminthemostcondescendingandpaternalway,asappearsfrom theMosaic narrative of those times, we cannot suppose that thedivine goodness andwisdom abandoned him to the caprice of his ownmindinthematterandmodeofworship.Forthisisatthebestbutwill-worshipandthecommandmentofman(Matt.15:9).

But, besides,we donot see that in the ordinaryway of acquiring ideasthere was anything to leadmen to thatmode of worship as peculiarlyacceptable,orcalculatedtopleaseGod.ThefirstmentionofsacrificedoesnotconveytheimpressionthatitwasanewinventioninthetimeofAbel,butratherthatitwasawontedmodeofworship;andwemaysupposeitderived from Adam's custom. The two brothers were not likely to falluponthedeviceatoneandthesametime,ortoshowmoreinventivenessthanAdam.ThatAdam,howeverconsciousofagoodintention,wouldbeveryslowtorelyuponhisownreasonandjudgmentintheinstitutionofdivineworship,maybe safely argued from thepainful remembranceofwhathehadbroughtonhimselfandtheworldbytheplausibilitiesofthatwhichhadseemedgood,andpleasant,anddesirable(Gen.3:6).Butthesacrifice of a slain animal does not, apart from the divine thoughtdepositedinit,seempeculiarlyfittedtoedifythemind,ortoawakenfilialtrustandboldness.Theconjecture that the firstgarmentsofAdamandEvewere the skinsof animalsoffered in sacrifice,hasnotonlynothingimprobable in it,but everything in its favour.Theywouldnotnaturallyhavefallenonthedeviceof themselves.But if thesacrificewasdivinelyinstituted,andifitwasthechannelofanimportantprophecyastoman'sacceptance, this was highly natural. I may further add, that the divineoriginofsacrificeisnotalittleconfirmedbythefact,thatbeforethefloodthe distinction between clean and unclean animals was quite familiar:andfromthisthenaturalconclusionis, thatasthefleshofanimalswasnotthecommonfoodofmentillaftertheflood,thisdistinctionisonlytobeexplainedbythedivinedirectionastothesortofanimalsthatweretobeusedinsacrifice(Gen.8:20).

The doubts which have been expressed on the divine institution ofsacrificearevarious.Bysome theyareurged in the interestofa theoryadversetothevicarioussacrificeofChrist.Withothers,whoareentitledto the utmost respect as evangelical divines, the doubt arises from a

different cause: it is urged that, had they been of divine appointment,Moseswouldnothaveomittedamatterofsuchimportance.Butitmustbe remembered that Moses comprehends the history of about sixteencenturies in six or seven chapters, and seems to record the incident ofCain andAbel,where sacrifice is first brought under our notice, in thebosom of the primeval genealogy. To deduce a doubt from thiscircumstanceisasunwarrantableastoquestionwhetherAdamhadanydaughters,becausethereisnomentionofthemintheMosaicrecord.

2.Thesacrificesweresymbolical.Thoughthismaybeaffirmedofallthebloodysacrificesfromthebeginning,itwasspeciallytruesincethegivingof the Mosaic law, when sacrifices were distributed into classes, andcombinedintoafirmlycompactedsystem,tobekeptbeforetheeyesofallIsrael.Theburnt-offering,thatbelongedtotheprimevalandpatriarchalage,wasnowtobeaccompaniedwithmanyotherformsofsacrifice;or,wemaysay,itbranchedoutinthenewarrangementintovariousclassesor divisions. ALL THE BLOODY SACRIFICESWEREATONING. Eventhosewhoallegethatthefirstsacrificeswerenothingbutthankofferings,anderroneouslymaintainthatallthesacrificesofferedinthepatriarchaltimes were of this nature, are obliged to admit that at the nationalorganization of Israel as a covenant people there were sin-offeringsdestinedfortheexpiationofcertainsins.TheMosaiclawmultipliedthesacrifices,anddividedthemintodifferentclasses,allmeantfordifferentpurposes. The design which the bloody sacrifices were meant to servefrom the first, however, and which they never ceased to serve, was tomaintainaconvictionofman'sguilt,andadependenceontheforgivinggrace of God by an atonement. They clearly taught this truth in asymbolic form to the Jewish nation. They showed that reconciliationcouldbeeffectedinnootherwaythanbyasatisfactiontodivinejustice.TheypointedoutthattheworshippershadinmanywaysoffendedGod,andwereworthyofdeath;thattheyweretoseeinthesacrificesasymbolof the inevitable divinepunishmentwhichhadbeen incurred; and thatGodmadetheanimalvictimserveasapledgethat thepunishmentwasbornebyasubstitute,andthatonthisgroundtheofferercouldagainbetakenintofavour.ThesacrificesweremeanttoexhibittheindispensableNECESSITYOFANATONEMENTbyvicariousexpiation.

Whatever varietyof opinionprevails on someof the symbols, there arethree conclusions towhich all comewith perfect harmonywhohave inanymannerapprehendedthesignificanceofthesin-offering.Itwas,(1)agraciousinstitutionwhichGodhadappointedasthemeansbywhichtheoffendedmoralGovernorcouldbereconciled; (2) itwasvicarious in itscharacter;(3)asatisfactionwaseffectedbymeansofthevictim'sdeath.

Here, before proceeding further, it is proper to inquire what were thecases forwhich theMosaic lawappointed sacrifice?The sacrificeswerenotformoraloffences,suchasmurder,adultery,oridolatry,butonlyfortrespassesofamerelyceremonialnature;forinvoluntaryoversightsandsins of ignorance; and for those states of bodily defilement which hadbeenpronouncedtrespassesaccordingtothelawswhichseparatedIsraelfromothernations.Inaword,theywerepositiveandarbitrarylaws,forthe violation of which positive and arbitrary atonements could fullysuffice:suchastheprohibitiontotouchadeadbodyortotouchagrave;mere offences against theocratic purity, as appears from the ritesappointed for the sin-offering (Lev. 12:7, 8; Num. 6:11). The sins forwhich the sacrifices were available were not, properly speaking, moraloffences at all; for these the blood of bulls and goats could never takeaway (Heb. 10:4). They were nothing but theocratic trespasses, whichcouldbecancelledandabsolutelyremittedbythesamepositiveauthoritybywhich the ceremonial riteswere instituted. And on the great day ofatonement theannual sacrificewasoffered for the collective sinsof theentirepeopleduringthecourseoftheyear,thusreadjustingtheirrelationasthetheocraticpeople(Lev.16:15;Heb.9:13).

NowthedesignoftheMosaiclawwasobvious.Thesin-offering,whetherwelookat themorepublicexpiationforthewholenationonthedayofatonement, or at the more private expiation for the defilement of theindividual,wasinstitutedatthesametimewiththelaw,Godinordertorelievetheworshipper.Thepositivelawandthepositiveatonementthuscame into existence together. As God wished to develope among thechildrenof Israel the ideaofsin,andtomaketheirconsciencesalive tothe fact of sin, itwas necessary to impose a long series of positive andarbitrarylaws,which, it issaid,weregiventomaketheoffenceabound,or,asitisputinanotherepistle,addedbecauseoftransgressions(Rom.

5:20;Gal.3:19).Theselaws,notbeingbasedonthemoralnatureofman,were but external, positive, and transitory. They might have been ofanothercharacter,andtheyhavenowceased.

It is not denied that these ceremonial offences might be connected insomemysteriouswaywith theeffectsof sin,orwith therootsof sin, inman's nature; but they were properly external and positive. The sin-offeringwasappointed to remove them;and theMosaicworship foundits centre-point there.While the covenantwhichGodmadewith Israelwaskeptunbrokenonthepartoftheworshipper,hecouldapproachbytheburnt-offering,whichwasnotmeant forspecialsinssomuchas forthe general sinfulness attaching to everyman. If the covenant relationwasbroken,accesswasrestoredandareunioneffectedbymeansofthesin-offering—without which, indeed, there was no remission—and italwayscarriedexpiation in its train.TheIsraelitewaswellaware,whenhecontractedceremonialguilt,thathewasoutofcovenantrelationtotheGodof Israel,andsundered fromHimwhocouldallownoapproach toHis presence till the trespass was taken away. The trespass producedseparationbetweenGodandhim,aswellasconsciousestrangementandfear, and death must necessarily ensue as the wages of sin. The greatthoughtbroughtoutinthissymbolicalwaywas,thatGODCOULDNOTSACRIFICEHISHOLINESSTOHISLOVE.Butdeathhavingensuedastheduepunishmentforsinintheanimalsacrifice,theworshipperhadapresent restoration into covenant fellowship. Here it might be properbriefly torefer to thesymbolical importof thesacrificialactions;butasthe same actions are also typical, we may more fitly notice theirsymbolicalandtypicalelementstogetherthanapart.

Meanwhilewemust add, that for the transgressionof these ceremoniallawsmanycalamitieswerethreatened,suchasthewithdrawalofcivilandecclesiastical privileges. The sacrifices were provided not for a wantondisobediencetothelaw,butforinvoluntarytrespassorunwittingneglect;andtheoffencecommittedwascancelledbythemerefactofthesacrificeconsidered simply as an act done (opus operatum). In reference to thesymbolicalcharacterofthesacrifices,itmaybeproper,beforeproceedingfurther,toobviateaseriesofmisconceptions.

a. The sin-offerings were not formere offences against the state. They

werenotofferedtoman,but toGod;notmeanttoavertcivilpainsandpenalties,buttoexpiateoffencesagainsttheceremoniallaw.ThoughGodwasthemonarchofIsrael,ortheocraticKing,yetatrespassagainstthesacrificial economywas alwaysmore than amisdemeanour against thestate.TheMostHighwastobeobeyedevenintheenactmentofarbitrarylaws,andthepunishmentwasduefromthejusticeandtruthofGod.Andwhentheworshipperbroughtthesacrificeofatonement,hewaspurgedfrom all that defiled him: he had access to God; and the courts of thesanctuarywereagainthrownopentohim.

b. Nor were the sacrifices a mere expression of penitence. For adefilementhavingbeencontracted,itcouldberemovedonlybysacrifice,and by the sprinkling which was connected with sacrifice,—a resultfollowing according to the connection of cause and effect. Not thatrepentance was excluded as an accompaniment of every approach toJehovahinthewayofworship;butthesacrificemustneitherberesolvedinto a mere expression of penitence, nor be viewed as effecting itspurposeonlysofarasthepenitent,contriteheartwentalongwithit.Thisaccompanying penitence could not fitly be said to apply to the day ofatonement,whenthecollectivesinsofIsraelwereannuallyexpiatedandfullyremoved.Toprovethatthesin-offeringatonedforsin,orcancelledit,simplybythedeeddone(opereoperato),wehavebuttorememberthemediatingpriest,and the layingonof thehandof theworshipperuponthevictim'shead,asaproofthattheguiltwastransferredvicariously.Theeffectofthesepropitiatorysacrificeswastheremissionofthethreatenedpenalty, independently of the contrition and penitence whichmight inmanycases,butdidnotinallcases,andcertainlydidnotonthegreatdayofatonement,uniformlyandineveryinstancegoalongwiththem.

c. Nor were the sacrifices a mere renewal of homage to the theocraticKing. Such a notion confounds the things that differ,—confounds theSIN-OFFERINGwiththeFREE-WILLOFFERING.Theformerhadinitnothing of the character of a friendly feast, whether taken in its morepublic form as offered for the sins of the nation, or in itsmore privateformasofferedfortheceremonialtrespassesofanindividual(Lev.4:3–21);butwas intendedto transfer theofferer'sguilt to theanimalvictimwhich was put in his place. The great thought contained in all the

propitiatory sacrifices was, that the guilt which the worshipper hadincurred was transferred to the sacrifice; and that by the death of thevictimhewas set free frommerited punishment, and fully re-admittedinto the divine favour. We must dismiss the notion that the sacrificeswere but an act of homage to an invisible King, or a mere renewal ofallegiancetoHim.

Thesymbolicalmeaningofthesacrifices—thatis,thehighertruthwhichthey conveyed—waspreciselywhatwehavementioned.These offeringsdidnotatoneformoraltrespassorspiritualguilt;andtheEpistletotheHebrews,inlanguagethemostexplicitandunambiguous,deniestothemanypossible efficacy to takeaway sin,or topurge the conscience.Theywere gifts and sacrifices, says the apostle, which could not make theworshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience, and were imposedonlytillthetimesofreformation(Heb.9:9,10).

Buttomaketheirsymbolicalmeaningmoreapparent, itmustbeaddedthatsomethingwasactuallydoneINALOWERSPHEREontheoccasionof every sacrifice. They not only taught a truth, but in a certain lowersphere effectedactualdeliverance, and re-admitted theworshipper to arelationofnearnesswhich,butforthesacrifice,wouldhavebeendenied.Itwasa transactionwhichnotonly taughta truth,butactually showedthat inpointof fact remissionofguiltwaseffected.With that ideaGodmadeHisancientpeoplefamiliar.Andhowevermuchitmaybedecriedatpresentasagrossopinionorasapopularerror,itwasstampedontheOld Testament church. To make atonement by sacrifice meant, in thelanguageofScripture,toavertpenaltyincurred,andtoprocureremissionofsin(Lev.4:20).Bymeansof thosesacrifices threatenedpunishmentswereremoved,whetherconsistinginnationalcalamities,orinthedeathof the transgressor, or in the withdrawal of civil and ecclesiasticalprivileges.Butthetrueandproperatonementwasnot,andcouldnotbe,through these elements of the world. The true atonement was not by,with,orunder them inanyproper senseof thewords; for theydidnotmaketheworshipperperfectaspertainingto theconscience,orremovefromhimthesenseofsin(Heb.9:9).

Againstthisview,thatthesacrificeshadasymbolicalimport,andactuallyeffectedacertainresultinalowersphere,itissometimesurgedthatthey

aredescribedasreferringmoretosacredthingsthantopersons,fortheyarerepresentedasmakingatonementforthesanctuary(Lev.16:16).Butthis is easy of explanation. From the fact that, according to divineappointment, theholyplaceand its furniturewere tobe sprinkledwithblood, we are by no means to conclude that the place demanded theatonement,andnotthepeople.ThesanctuarywasbutanemblemofthewayinwhichGodinhabitsHischurch,ordwellsamongHispeople.Thiswasmadeveryevidentintheoldeconomy;andasthesinsofthepeopletendedtomakethesanctuaryunworthytocontinueasthedwelling-placeofGod,thesprinklingofbloodappliedtoitwasmeanttoshowthatGod,notwithstandingrecurringtransgressions,wouldcontinuetoreside in itwhen He beheld the blood of atonement. Thus, it was the people thatneededreconciliation,while the reference to thesanctuaryconveyedanemphatic lesson as to the continued inhabitation of God among them.Thatthepeopleneededthereconciliationandnottheplace,isprovedbythefactthattheceremonywasdemandedforthetransgressionsofIsrael(Lev.16:16),andmadeatonementforthepriestsandallthepeople(ver.33).

Thussacrificesconveyedthemostimportanttruthinasymbolicalform.But their very frequency and repetition argued insufficiency. The dailyreturn of the same roundof sacrifice proclaimed, aswith a voice, theircomplete insufficiency;which, indeed,manyof themoreenlightened inIsrael clearlyperceived.Hencewe find thatDavid (Ps.40:6and51:16),Asaph(Ps.50:8),Micah(6:6),andIsaiah(1:11),giveaclearandstrikingtestimonytotheinadequacyofthosesacrificestoeffectinanymeasureatrueandeverlastingatonementforsin.

3. The sacrifices were from the first TYPICAL OF THE GREATATONEMENT.Therelationbetweenthe twowas thesamethatobtainsbetween shadow and substance, picture and reality; therefore not anaccidental harmony, or comparison based upon ingenious analogies orfar-fetchedpointsof resemblance.Theconnectionbetween the twowasin the things themselves,not in themindof theobserver;nay,wemaywarrantablyaffirmthatthelanguagepropertotherealatonementforsinwasthrownbackuponthetype—notconversely.

The opposite theory of sacrifice which calls in question their typical

import,andassignstothemnootherfunctionthanthatofteachingsomegeneraltruths,mayherebenoticedbeforeweproceedtotheritual.Theywho would overthrow the atoning work of Christ in every form, admitthat thesacrifices taughtreligious ideas inageneralway,butdenythattheyforeshadowedthepropitiationforsinthatwastocome,orthattheywereapropheticanticipationofit.Herealldependsonthequestion:Wasthe peculiar similarity or correspondence which undoubtedly may betraced between the ancient sacrifices and the atonement of Christ ofdivine appointment, or was it a merely accidental matter? Apart fromexpressdesignonGod's side,we couldnot adducea sufficientproofofthetypicalnatureofthesacrifices.Thattherewassuchadesign,however,andthattheoneadumbratedandwasintendedtoadumbratetheother,afew words will suffice to show. Here we simply ask, What say theapostles,thegreatinterpretersoftheoldeconomyaccordingtothemindof Christ? Do they speak of the sacrifices as typical, and furnishing aprophetical foreshadowing of the atonement? The matter might bedecided from the Prophets and Psalms; but the plan we are pursuingleads us to inquire how far the typical character of the sacrifices isaffirmed in the sayings andwritings of apostles. It is not the question,howmanyoftheJewishnationrosetosuchanticipations,norwhatideaswereentertainedbythepeoplegenerally.Thequestionratheris:Didthebelieving Israelite on good ground come to the typical view of thesacrifices;andespeciallydidtheapostles,asmentaughtbyChristorally,and filledwith theSpirit, lead theChristianchurchso toview them?Itmustbedecidedbyapostolictestimonywhetherthetypicalcharacterofsacrifice is in harmonywith the divine appointment and truedesign ofsacrifice. And this is not left doubtful to any attentive reader of theepistles.

a.Oneobviousproofthatthesacrificesweretypical,andmeanttobeso,maybedrawnfromthefactthattheyareexpresslycalledSHADOWS;amore apt designation than any other that could be chosen to set forthwhat we understand by their typical character. The term "shadow,"intimatingasitdoesacertainresemblancetothethingsignified,impliesthatwhat issonamedhasadependenceon thatofwhich it is therudeoutline, but no existence apart from the substance. Thus the variousarrangementsastofoodandfestivalsarecalleda"shadow"of thingsto

come (Col. 2:17). The priests are described as serving unto the patternand "shadow" of heavenly things (Heb. 8:5). The law is said to have a"shadow"ofgoodthingstocome,andnottheveryimageofthethings—that is, not the reality or substance (Heb. 10:1). The patterns of theheavenly things purified with blood are contrasted with the heavenlythingsthemselves(Heb.9:23).Inaword,theshadowyiscontrastedwiththe true in a great variety of points; and the phraseology employed toexpressthecontrastcallsupbeforeustypeandantitype(John6:32;Heb.9:24).

b. Another proof is derived from the fact that the death of Christ isexpressly represented as an offering and a sacrifice (Eph. 5:2). He isdescribedasofferingHimself(Heb.10:14).WemustadmitacoincidencebetweenthesacrificesandthedeathofChristofsuchanatureasexistsbetween thesignand the thingsignified,and that this isestablishedbydivine design. The apostles found this resemblance in the thingsthemselves. They teach us to regard the sacrifices as a propheticforeshadowing ofwhatwas future, and theLord's atoningdeath as therealityofwhichthesacrificewastheshadow.Noonegazedsomuchonthecoincidenceorcorrespondencebetweentheshadowandtherealityastheapostles, intimatingthattheyconsideredtheformerdispensationasfinding its accomplishment in Christ's death. Without this typicalreference,theancientsacrificeswouldbenothingmorethananantiquity.Toadduceanexample,wefinditsaid,"Christourpassoverissacrificedfor us" (1 Cor. 5:7). Here the coincidence between the two appears ineveryvarietyofview,historicalaswellasdoctrinal.ThusJesusenteredJerusalemonthedaywhenthepassoverwasseparated,accordingtotherequirements of the Mosaic law for the sacrifice; and everythingproclaims an essential connection between it and Him. The passover,again, was the foundation of the covenant with Israel, and that whichseparated the church from theworld; and the coincidence between thetypicalandspiritualredemptionisapparentataglance.Thesamethingwasdisplayedinconnectionwiththeannualsin-offeringonthegreatdayof atonement, when the collective sins of the nation were annuallyexpiated. Christ's priestly act of sacrifice was the truth or substance ofthatshadow,anditstypicalcharacterwillnotbecalledinquestionbyanyonewhocomparestheantithesisinwhichtheapostleplacesthem(Heb.

9:7–14).

c.Anotherproofofthetypicalcharacterofthesacrificesisfurnishedbytheirtransitorynature.Theymergedinthereality,whichcouldnothavebeen the case had the institution been other than typical. Being but ashadow, they could cease when the reality came. The church can nowdispense with the sacrifices, as she has infinitely more in Christ'satonement than theshadowyeconomyof Israel couldeverbestow. It isreplacedbyabetter,andabrogatedasinsufficienttomeetman'sspiritualwants.Theoneeverlastingsacrificehavingbeenoffered,theunprofitableoutline of it disappears. But this could only be because the whole wastypical.

The worshippers under the Mosaic law, priests and people, were inconstant fear. It was an economy given with terrible accompaniments,and gendered to bondage (Heb. 12:18). Theywere subject to numerousrulesandduties,theviolationofwhichintheleastdegreeentailedguilt,defilement,anddanger.Sometimesatrespasswasfollowedbyimmediatedeath at the hand of God; at other times, if the offence was one to beatoned for, the punishment inflicted was separation from thecongregation,andfromtheprivilegeofapproachtoGod.Theywereputfaroff,andcouldnotdrawnear;andtoputawaywhatseparatedbetweenthe worshipper and God, a propitiatory sacrifice, or, to use the specialterm, a sin-offering, was indispensably necessary; for without thesheddingofbloodwasnoremissioneven for theceremonialdefilementThis mode of governing. the Israelitish community was a wisearrangement,andsuitedtothenumerouslawsdivinelyimposedonthem.Itintimatedamethodbywhichtheworshipper,estrangedfromGodandout of covenant standing, could be restored, and come before theinflexiblyholyandyetmercifulGod.Thepenaltyaswellasthedistancecouldberemovedonlybysacrifice.

Thegreatthought,therefore,underlyingthewholeMosaiceconomywas,thattransgressionviolatingtheorderoftheuniversemustbevisitedwithpunishment.Deathmust follow, andno regrets could remove theguilt.Theoffendermustdie,withoutthepossibilityoflivinginfellowshipwithGod, unless a sin-offering were presented to God to atone for thetrespass, and remove it. Necessary punishment must ensue; and till a

sacrificewasoffered,theworshippermustnecessarilybeseparatedfromGod,andforbiddentoapproachHim.Theideaofsubstitutionprevailsinallthesin-offerings.ThedefiledIsraelitewhohadbrokenthelaw,ortheoffendingnation,offeringthesin-offeringtoputthemonarightfootingwiththeGodofIsrael,hadarepresentationorfigureofwhattheymusthaveenduredhadnotsacrificeintervened.Thesacrificesproclaimedtheabsolute necessity of an atonement for sin, and they effected thedeliverancebythedeeddone,notby inwardfeelingsoralteredconductonthepartoftheworshipper.

Butweshallbetterapprehend the importof sacrifices,and theirunitedsymbolicalandtypicalsignificance,ifwefollowstepbysteptheorderoftheritual. Itmustbecarefullynoted, that in theprivatesin-offeringsofthe people the priest was present at the first three acts, but began hisproper function only when the blood was to be received for the act ofsprinkling. On the great annual day of atonement, however, the highpriest, the representative of the nation, performed all the acts of thesacrifice.Theritualadvancedaccordingtothefollowingsuccessivesteps.

1.Theworshipperwhohadcontractedguiltbyanyviolationofthelawforwhichasin-offeringwasprovided,wasenjoinedtobringacleananimal,withoutblemish,tothetabernacleofthecongregation.Theanimalmustbe alive, as the arrangements involved the taking of its life. The act ofpresentation, as performed by a willing offerer, implied the voluntarycharacterof the sacrifice.Thepresentationwas tobeupon thealtar, towhich,aserectedonanelevation,thevictimwastobebroughtup,justasthe great antitype was lifted up upon the cross (1 Pet. 2:24). To theperfectionof thesacrifice,however, itwas indispensable that thevictimshouldbewithoutdefectorblemish.Thisisconstantlyalludedtobythesacredwriters (1Pet. 1:19;Heb.9:14).Nowwhatdid this intimate, inatypicalpointofview,butthesinlessnessofJesus,whomustberighteousto stand for the unrighteous, innocent to stand for the guilty?Did thisconvey anything further than the thought that the spotless holiness ofJesuswasnecessaryasaconditionorprerequisitefortheoblationitself?Itmeantmore.Theholinessof Jesuswas itself an essential elementoringredient in theatonement,consideredasasatisfactionto justice,asafulfilmentof the law.Oneessentialpart of the sacrificewas theperfect

holiness and sinless purity of the Lord,who through theEternal SpiritofferedHimselfwithoutspottoGod(Heb.9:14).

2.ThenextactoftheritualwasTHELAYINGONOFTHEHANDuponthevictim'shead.Thissymbolicallyintimatedthecommunicationofthatwhichwasours,andthereforethetransferofourguilt,tothesubstitute,anditwasaccompaniedonthedayofatonementwiththeconfessionofsins (Lev. 16:21).This conclusively showswhatwas themeaningof theact, and this is not to be overthrown by fanciful theories. Thus Bähr,opposedinprincipletothevicarioussacrifice,willhavetheactionmeannomorethanthis,thattheanimalbelongedtotheofferer,orthatitwashisproperty.Kurtz,again,willhaveitmeanthedevotingoftheanimaltodeath, forgetting that there must be a reason why it was visited withdeath.Thatreasonistheimputationofsin,orthearrangementbywhichitwasmadesin,ormadeincorporatedguilt.Thelayingonofthehand,atone time for one end and at another time for another, was a commonaction, meaning generally the communicating of something from oneparty to another. In the case before us it meant that the offerer puthimselfinarelationtothevictim,orintoapeculiarconnectionwithit,soastocommunicatetoithisownguilt,orthenation'sguilt,accordingtotheprivateorpublicnatureofthesacrifice;andafterthisceremonytheanimal suffered death for the sin. The punishment followed, and thisdetermines its meaning. Though this is the only act of the ritual notexpresslynamed in theNewTestament, it comesbeforeusunderotherturns of phrase. Thus, when Jesus was numbered with transgressors(Mark15:26),whenHewassentinthelikenessofsinfulflesh(Rom.8:3),andmadesin(2Cor.5:21),wehavethatwhichwasdenotedbythisritualact.

3.Thenextactwastheimmolation—theanimal'sdeath.Thesymbolicalimportof this is, thatdeath is thewagesof sin, and that sinanddeathstandrelatedascauseandconsequence.Butfurther,theanimalmustdiebythehandoftheworshipper,andforanobviousreason.Hiswasthesinlaiduponthevictim—histhedeath;andhencenonebuthewholaidhishand on the animal's head was to kill it. In this part of the sacrificialritual therewas,onmanygrounds,adeepsignificance;andnot least isthecircumstance that therewasamarkedcorrespondencebetween this

factandthemodeinwhichtheSaviourdied.TheLordwasnottomeetHisdeathinanyotherwaybutbyviolence.Thesinner'shandwastobethe instrumentof inflicting thedeath,evenas thesinner'sguiltwas themeritoriouscause,andtheonlyassignablecause,whydeathcouldcometo Him at all. Still further, the death was penal. This is to be strictlymaintained;asthenotionthatthedeathwasonlyinordertoobtaintheblood, or a mere means to an end, and without further significance,would perplex and unsettle the entire ritual. The death in itself waspunitive, or the wages of sin. If not, what could the blood haveaccomplished? But on the principle that the imputation of guilt wassignifiedbythelayingonofhands,deathfollowedasthenecessaryeffect;fortheworshipperoweddeath,andtheinflictionofitwaspenal.

This excludes the subjective theory, which has been contrived by theopponentsofthevicarioussatisfactiontoexplainthedeathofthevictim.ThusBähr,withthosewhofollowinhistendency,willhaveitmeanthattheself-seekinglifeofmandies,andisreplacedbyaspirituallifedevotedtoGod.Accordingtothisnotion,thedeathoftheanimal,initssymbolicalmeaning,teachesthemortificationofsin,orthatselfmustbesacrificed.On every ground this exposition is untenable.Not tomention that it isout of keepingwith the ritual, according towhich the animal died andcontinueddead, it takes for granted that a guiltymancan,without anyreparation, dedicate himself to God. But that cannot be, as he has nopower todisposeofa forfeited life;andwithoutatonement,orcoveringforhissoul,hecannotbededicatedtoGod.Thereisnopossibilityofthiswithoutexpiation,fordeathisthewagesofsin.

4. The next act in the sacrificial ritual was the SPRINKLING OF THEBLOOD.Atthispointthepriest'sactivitycommenced.Hehadbeen,uptothisstepintheritual,presentasaspectator,buthenowstepsintotakepart in it. Itwas hewho received the flowing blood of the animal, andwhoputitonthehorns,orhighestpoint,ofthealtar,andwhopoureditout at the bottom (Lev. 4:25–34); an action which intimated that themeeting-place between God and His people was from top to bottomcovered with blood, that the sins of the people were covered by anatonement,andthattheworshipperswerenomoreexposedtoHisfrown.Theblood receivedby thepriest, andmadehisown, is regardedas the

vicariouslyshedbloodof thepriest.Thus, in theritual,weconsidernotthevictimalone,butalsothepriest,withoutwhomthesacrificecouldnotbe duly offered; and the action of receiving the blood had a peculiarsignificance.Itsignifiedthathemadethebloodhisown.Butbesidestheablutions,vestmentsandothertypicalsanctificationsshadowedforththeholiness and righteousness of the Antitype. What was done upon thevictimwassupposedtohavebeendoneuponthepriest,whonowbecameaparty to theaction.Heappropriated theblood,whichnowpassed forhisownblood:forthepriest'sactionbeganhere.

Theritualadvancedgraduallytillitreachedthisactofsprinkling,wherewefindsinexpiatedanddivinewrathpropitiated.Butfromthenecessaryimperfection of types, the ideawas exhibited broken into parts, and insuccession.Thebloodwasbrought toGod, andmade to cover sin.Thesprinkling,whetherperformedatthehornsofthealtarorintheholyofholies,themeeting-placebetweenGodandHispeople,figuredforththatthesinoftheindividual,orofthenation,thoughpiledupasanheap,wasnowcovered,andallcauseofseparationremoved.Deathhadintervened;andthebloodthathadpassedthroughdeathwasnowmostholy,andhadatoning power wherever it was sprinkled (Heb. 13:12). The sacrifice,regarded as a propitiation, culminated in the sprinkling of the blood,whichistobeviewedasanelementintheobjectiveatonement,andnot,asistoomuchthecase,astheapplicationofredemption.Thisappearsonvariousgrounds.Thusthepriest'sactionbeganwiththereceivingoftheblood for theactof sprinkling;and thepriest'sact,as typicalmediator,being essential to propitiatory sacrifices, nothing more conclusivelyprovedthattheobjectiveatonementconsistedinthesprinkling.ThisstillfurtherappearswhenweconsidertheAntitype,andthepointoftheritualatwhichthegreatHighPriestsprinkledthemercy-seat.

5. The last act of the sacrificial ritual consisted in THE BURNINGOFTHEVICTIM.This isnotproperlyaseparateelement,butonlyanothersideofthepropitiation,thoughmadedistinct,owingtotheimperfectionof the type. We are not, however, to destroy the unity of the idea bysunderingitfromtheother.Thetwothingsdemandingexplanationhereare the fire and the sweet-smelling savour (Heb. 13:11;Eph. 5:2).As tothe first, it was the holy fire which fell from heaven on Aaron's first

sacrifice,andwasnevertobeextinguished(Lev.5:6,7).Onlythesacrificewhichwasconsumedbythisfire,androsetoheavenasasweet-smellingsavour, was really acceptable. As a type, this fire has been variouslyexplained.ThusMichaelisvieweditastypicalofeternalpunishmentafterdeath.Oehlerregardsitasdenotingthedivineholiness.Philippitakesitas the divine love, the unquenchable love of the Son ofGod. If itwerefitting to consider this typeas exhibitinganyof thedivineattributes, itwould be necessary to combine the two latter opinions as equallyessentialtotheatonement,andmakeitanemblemofGodintheunityofHisperfections.Butadifferentexplanationcommendsitselftomymind,andtheratherbecausethefirewasgiventoproduceafurtherresult(ver.12), that sweet-smelling savour which is the positive element in thesacrifice.ItseemstomerathertodenotetheHolyGhost,whoseagencyand operations are in several passages set forth by this emblem (Matt.3:11;Acts2:3;Luke12:49),andthroughwhomweareexpresslytoldtheLordJesusofferedHimselfwithoutspottoGod(Heb.9:14).WhenweseeHimstedfastlysettingHisfacetogotoJerusalem,fullybentonHishighwork, we see the fire of the sacrifice already kindled, and the EternalSpiritpromptingHimandstrengtheningHimtoconsummatethework,byimbuingHissoulwithazealandardour,aloveandobedience,whichneverallowedHismindtocooltillthesacrificewasconsumed.Astothesecondpoint,thesweet-smellingsavour,thisfiguredforththeacceptableservice, the perfect obedience of the Lord in the light of winning thedivine favour. As the expiation of wrath was the negative side, so thesinlessobedienceisthepositive.Theyaretwoaspectsofonegreatdeed,by which sin was expiated and divine favour won; incomplete whenseparate, all-sufficient when combined. The blood-sprinkling refers tovicarioussuffering;theburning,withitssweet-smellingsavour,referstothevicariousfulfillingofthelaw.

Thereareyet twopoints towhichwewouldbrieflyrefer inthustracingthecorrespondencebetweenthetypeandtheAntitype,viz.(1)theactionof the high priest in sprinkling the mercy-seat, and (2) the changeeffected by the typical ritual generally upon the relation of theworshipperstotheGodofIsrael.Wedonotanticipatetheseparatetextswhich will come under our notice in discussing the Epistle to theHebrews, but would lay a foundation for the expositions which will

afterwardsbenecessarywhenwetreatoftheapostolictestimony,whichlargelytakesatincturefromtheancientworship.

(1.)Indirectingattentiontothesprinklingofthemercy-seat,itmustbenoticed that the tabernaclehad twodivisions,ofwhich theone, termedtheholyplace,wasallottedtothedailyministrationsofthepriests;whiletheother, termed theholiestof all,was enteredonlyby thehighpriestonce a year, not without blood (Heb. 9:6, 7). The arrangementcorrespondedtothetimethenpresent,aperiodofimperfectatonement.Why the holy of holies continued shut, and was opened on the day ofatonementonly,whenthehighpriestenteredwithintheveil,isexplainedby the inefficacyof those sacrifices,which couldnotperfectly atone forsin(Heb.9:7–9).Butwhatwasthetypicalsignificanceofthatentrance,andwhatwasthetimewhenthegreatAntitype,thetruthofthatshadow,mustberegardedassprinklingthemercy-seat?WhendidthetrueHighPriest enter within the veil? Was it at His death? or was it, as iscommonlythought,whenHeascendedandsatdownontherighthandofGod?Thisisamostimportantquestion;andit isthemorenecessarytosettleit,because,asweshallfindintheEpistletotheHebrews,oneofthesubtlest modes of evading the vicarious satisfaction is to transfer theatoningelementtoheaven,andtowithdrawitfromthefinishedworkonthe cross: and many, swayed by exegetical reasons, think thatcountenanceisgiventothatopinionbytheallusionsintheEpistletotheHebrews(Heb.9:24–26).Theprevalentnotion,thattheentranceofthehigh priest into the holy of holies found its truth in Christ's triumphalentrance into heaven, may have some show of probability, but it isburdenedby insuperabledifficulties.Tosuppose,aswemustdo in thatcase, that Christ's priestly action began in heaven,—that is, that Hesprinkled themercy-seat, and completed the atonement only whenHeentered on the mediatorial exaltation or reward,—seems to confoundeverything. It does violence, we think, to all analogy between type andantitype.TheresurrectionofJesuscoincidingwiththereturnofthehighpriestfromtheholiestofall,wasdesignedtobeanevidencethatdivinewrathwas removed, and forgivenessobtained.The confusionof idea towhich I have referred as very prevalent, arises from not sufficientlydistinguishingbetweenthehighpriest,properlysocalled,andtheHighPriest after the order of Melchizedek, or the Royal Priest on His

mediatorial throne. A few words will suffice to prove that He enteredwithin the veil and sprinkled the mercy-seat at the moment when HecommendedHis spirit intoHis Father's hand. This is themost naturalinterpretation;andthiscorrespondstotheceremoniesonthegreatdayofatonement, to which express allusion is made in the Epistle to theHebrews(Heb.9:11–14).

a.The typical entrancewithin the veil tookplace immediately after thevictim'sdeath;thebodybeingcarriedwithoutthecamptobeburnedinapublic place, and the blood being carried into the holiest of all to besprinkled on the covering of the ark, as the propitiatory ormercy-seat.These closely connected acts in the ritual were so related, that theburningfollowedlastinorder.Andasweknowfromtheapostlethatthattypical action coincided with Christ's sacrifice without the gates ofJerusalem (Heb. 13:11), itwould reverse the entire sacrificial system tointerpretthesprinklingofthemercy-seatofwhatwasdonebyHimfortydays afterHis resurrection,whenHe ascended to heaven.Not only so:theapostleargues, too, inaway thatexcludessuchacomment, saying,"Noryet thatHeshouldofferHimselfoften,as thehighpriestenterethintotheholyplaceeveryyearwithbloodofothers;forthenmustHeoftenhavesufferedsincethefoundationoftheworld"(Heb.9:25,26).Onthesupposition that Christ went into the holy of holies at the triumphantascension to heaven, the apostle would not have so reasoned; for thestatement is, that if Christ had often entered, He must have oftensuffered,—a consequence that would not follow on the supposition weimpugn. Had He so pleased, there was nothing to prevent Him fromrepeatingHisentry,orofrenewingHistriumphbeforetheinhabitantsofheaven.ButitfollowsonthesuppositionthatourHighPriestenteredatthemomentHepouredoutHisbloodupon the cross.TheJewishhighpriestenteredinwiththestillreekingbloodofatonement,andsprinkledthemercy-seat;andourgreatHighPriestenteredwhenHedied,claimingtheopeningofheavenforHimselfandallHisseed,forHestillactedastheHighPriestwhensoulandbodywereseparated.Theresurrection,inthefirstinstanceatestimonythatallwasdonethatjusticerequired,wasproperlyareward.

b. The truth of this interpretation appears, too, from the fear and

solicitude of the people while the high priest was within the veil. Theceremonyoftheannualatonementwasaccompaniedwithadreadonthepartofthecongregation,lesttheHolyOnemightnotbereconciled,andlest the priest and people should be consumed. While that is out ofkeeping with the idea that the ascension is meant, it is parallel to thedisciples' state of mind during those heavy hours which intervenedbetween theLord'sdeathand resurrection.Theycontinued in suspenseanddoubt,dejectionanddread.

c. The other ceremonies of the day of atonement all point in the samedirection.Thus,when thehighpriest entered into theholiestofall, theatonementwasnot yet completed, for thiswasprocuredorwonby thesprinkling of blood on the propitiatory or mercy-seat. This far morenaturallyfiguresforthChrist'sviolentdeath,ortheseparationofHissouland body, thanHis triumphal entry into heaven. The other accessoriesprove the same thing. Thus, the high priest laid aside his goldenornaments, the stately robes he usually wore, and entered in linenraiment, pure, but devoid of ornament and pomp (Lev. 16:4); an attirewhichwasdesignedtoindicatelowlyabasement,nottriumphorglory.

d.Anotherfactnotlesssignificantmaybenoticed:theveilofthetemplewas, at themoment ofChrist's death, rent from the top to the bottom.ThatmemorablefactinthesphereofthesupernaturalwasintendedforapurposeworthyofsuchaninterpositionfromthehandofGod.Itwasthegreattypicalarrangementinwhichalltherestculminated,andonwhichallleant.Jesushadcried,"Itisfinished;"andthismiraculouseventputadivine imprimaturonit. It tookplace inthesphereof fact,andwemaywarrantablyholdthatthenthetrueHighPriestenteredthetrueholiestofallwithHisownblood.Atthatmomentthetruesprinklingofthemercy-seattookplace:thewrathofGodwasfullypropitiated;therealityoftheshadowshadcome.Idonotrefertotheotherthingsadumbrated.Ionlyadverttothecircumstancethatwehavehereamostremarkableanswerto the question, When did the High Priest sprinkle the mercy-seat?(compareHeb.10:20.)

(2.)We comenow to the great change effected by the sacrifices on theworshipper'srelation.TheallusionstotheMosaicworshipinthisrespectarenumerousandvaried, theentireNewTestamentbeingpervadedby

sacrificialphraseologyofthisnature.

a.Fortheclearerexhibitionofthis,letitbenoticedthattheexpressions"comingtoGod"and"drawingnightoGod"denotetheattitudeoftheseworshippers(Heb.4:16,10:1).Thefirstresulteffectedbysacrificeontherelationof theworshipperwastheremovalof thedivineanger incurredbytrespass.Whenweconsult theMosaicworship,we findthat thesin-offeringavertedadivinepenalty.JehovahsatasJudgetovisitthesinsofthepeople:bymeansofsacrificeHereinstatedtheminHisfavour.Thatwasthefundamentalthoughttaughtbymeansofoutwardceremoniesofpositiveinstitutions,anditdisciplinedandtrainedthemindforwhatwasspiritual.Lawsmanifoldandburdensomeleftthetransgressornothingtoexpect but threatened punishment, if sinwas not expiated by sacrifice.Jehovah showed mercy only by maintaining inviolate His holiness,rectitude, and authority. The sacrifices were intended to impress thistruthoneveryheart.Thustheideapresentedtousbytheentireworshipoftheoldeconomywas, thatwithoutsheddingofbloodisnoremission(Heb.9:22).

b. Another class of expressions comprehends typical allusions whichrepresentmen's sinsasadefilement, taint,or stain,bymeansofwhichtheIsraelitewasexcludedfromthesanctuary,andfromfellowshipwiththosewhotrodethecourtsoftheLord:hewasobligedtoliveapart.Onlywhen the defilement was removed by the blood of sacrifice, or by asprinkling with the water of separation, which presupposed a sacrifice(Num. 19:13), couldhebe re-admitted to the services and fellowshipofthepeopleofGod.

Various terms are employed to represent this restoration to privilege,such as these: to SPRINKLE, to PURGE or PURIFY, to CLEANSE, toWASH, to SANCTIFY (1 Pet. 1:2;Heb. 10:2; Tit 2:14; 1 Cor. 6:11;Heb.2:11). If an Israelitebecameuncleanby touchingadeadbody,hecouldnotapproachthesanctuarytillsprinkledaccordingtothepeculiarritualdivinely appointed for his case. Then only could he be restored, andpartake of privileges. On the day of atonement, the entire nation, onaccount of sin separating betweenGod and them, stood aloof from thetabernacle of the congregation (Lev. 16:17), and were re-admitted onlywhen the blood of atonement had sprinkled the mercy-seat. They

obtained anew their forfeited privileges. The whole nation of Israel,purifiedor sanctified,was thenholy.A singleworshipperwasalsoholywhen the defilement which shut him out from the congregation wasremovedbysprinkling:hewasnowrecognisedasholy.Thosetwowordssanctifyandpurifyinvolveeachother,andintimatenotsomuchinwardrenovation, as a free approach to God, and an unchallenged standingbeforeHim.Thisphraseologywillcomebeforeusinthenumeroustextswhichweshallhaveoccasiontoexamine.

Itonlyremainstonoticeonethingfurther.TheapostlesputinastronglighttheinsufficiencyandunprofitablenessoftheMosaicrites,whiletheybring out their symbolical and typical meaning. They are described asweakandbeggarlyelements(Gal.4:9);theycouldnoteffectthepardonofsin,orperfecttheconscience(Heb.10:1–3);andtheymerged,asonlyatype could merge, when the truth of all appeared—when the Messiahcame. The Jews were then discharged from their burdensomeceremonial.

SEC.IV.—THEAPOSTLES'REFERENCESTOPROPHECYONTHESUBJECTOFTHE

ATONEMENT

Aswefounditnecessarytoconsidertheapostles'treatmentofthetypes,it is not lessnecessary to takeup their references toprophecy.Andweenter the fieldofprophecy, as it bearson the sufferingsof theMessiahandtheeffectsofHisdeath, in thesameway, that is,onlyso faras theapostlespointoutthewayanddeterminethereference.

ManyrulesmightbelaiddownfordecidingontheMessianicreferences;butthesewedonotneedtoconsider.Thus,ifthesubstanceofaprophecyis of such a nature that it cannot competently be applied to any otherillustrious person, but can be fitly applied to the Messiah, we mustunderstanditasreferringdirectlytoHim.Thedescriptionsofsuffering,forexample,whichpervademanypartsoftheancientprophecies,andofthe Psalms, are so peculiar and unique, that while they are proper inChrist'smouth (Ps.22:1,69:1), asadivinepersonstooping tovicariouspunishment, and are to us in that light awakening and affecting in theutmostdegree, theywouldbesimply incongruousandabsurd if spokenbyanymerelyhumanbeing.Humansympathywouldbeoutraged, andinevitablyregardthemasutteranceswhichnomaneverindulgedin,andwhichnoliteratureeverattemptedinthecaseofmeremenlikeourselves.Theminutedescriptionofanyotherman'ssorrows,sufferings,anddeathwould be intolerable, and viewed as eithermisplaced, or asmaking anexactiononhumanattentionwhichmankindmustresent.But inChristall this is in keeping, whether we find the description in prophecy orhistory,inthePsalmswhichforetoldHisexperience,orinthehistoryofHisutterancesunveiledbytheGospels.

But another rule might be laid down in reference to the propheticstatementswhichdescribetheMessiahasdivine.WhereverJehovah,GodofIsrael, isset forth intheexerciseofroyalor judicial functions,astheBridegroom of the church, or the Shepherd of the sheep; wherevertheophaniesoccur,whereverallusionsaremadetoHisransom,ortoHis

powerasaconquerormightytosave(Isa.63:1); theallusioninallsuchcasesistotheMessiah:andtheapostles,inanaturalandunforcedway,adducethesepassagesasMessianic(Heb.1:8–14).Anotherfactdeservesnotice.TheprophetstakeoccasiontospeakoftheMessiahinconnectionwith events and personages of their times, and especially with theoppressions,captivity,or threatenedruintowhichthenationwasoftenexposed,partlybecause they lived,aswedo,onHis incarnation;partlybecausepromisesofHiscoming,ofHisbirthbyavirgin(Isa.7:14),ofHisbeing a great light to a people sitting in darkness, of His birthplace,contained a guarantee that the nation was not to perish, and mightcomfortherselfintheseprospects.Therewasalsoadvancinglight.Inthefirst period there was only a promise that humanity should getdeliverance from the evil consequences which the tempter had caused(Gen.3:15).ThatwasdoubtlessknowntoAbrahambytradition,butnewlightdawnedwiththepromisethatinhisseedallthefamiliesoftheearthshouldbeblessed;andthusChristologyconstantlybecameamplified.

As we survey the prophecies of the atonement only with the aid ofapostolic allusion and quotation, it is not necessary to discuss thequestion whether the Messianic element existed in the Old Testamentchurch,andwhethermenwaitedforredemptioninIsrael,asSimeonwasfoundwaitingwhenHecame.PauldeclaredthathepreachednoneotherthingsthanthosewhichtheprophetsandMosessaidshouldcome,thatChristshouldsufferandrisefromthedead(Acts26:22).Theapostlesputprophecyonanequalfootingwiththeirownauthorityaseye-witnesses,and never ceased to take heed to it. The prophecies on the atonementwere so explicit, that they did little more than adduce, expound, andapply them. We limit our inquiry to passages descriptive of theatonement;andevenfromthese,tocurtail theirnumber,weselectonlythosewhich are rather doctrinal thanhistorical in their character. Thisnarrows the range to those more explicit allusions which portray thehumiliationoftheMessiahinourroom.

Nor shall I discuss the question whether the quotations are correctlyapplied;forIassumethatthatpointisdefinitelysettledbytheauthorityofinspiredmen,andthattheyarenotliteraryaccommodations,suchasareoftenmadetogivepoint toan ideabyapt illustrations frompoetry.

Theyaredirectpredictionsineverycase,givingthescopeofthevariousprophecies.Ihavenothingincommonwiththemethodofexpositiontoocommonatpresent,thatinterpretstheOldTestamentotherwisethantheapostlesdid,andentersthefieldwithouttheirguidance,andirrespectiveof their authority. It is one thing when the expositor, confiding in theapostles' inspiration,reverentlyselectsaview-pointintheprophet'sageinordertoaddtohisfaithknowledge.Thatisonlyexegeticalfidelity;forhebelieves, andwishes toknow.But it is another thing,andcannotbesufficientlyreprobated,whentheinterpreterfostersastateofmindthatwillnotbecontrolledbyapostolicalauthority,andclaimstohavebetterhermeneutics,andgreaterskill ininterpretation,thanapostles.Iwillbenopartytothepresumptionwhichthatinvolves.Toonestandingwithinthepale of revelation, anddeferring to inspiredmen, that exposition isforeclosed.

Thequotations take forgranted, that fromAdamdownward thepersonandatonementofMessiahwererevealedinnewaspects,andwithgreaterdefiniteness, fromage toage.Thepromiseas to theseedof thewomanwastheall-importantpointtowhichthesaints,throughlonginterveningperiods, looked forward as the hope of humanity; and as the churchneededencouragement indejection,or light indarkness,prophetswerefromtimetotimeraiseduptorepeatassurancesofHisadvent(Mic.5:2;Zech. 9:9); and many points were foretold connected with Hismanifestation,allcontainingnewencouragement.

Tothesepropheciestheapostlesreferasdivineoracles,notasguessesoftruth.Theydonotquotethemasifthewordscontainednothingbutdimanticipations of an ideal righteous man, whose appearance mightperchance one day prove a reality. To themMessianic revelationswerethemostcertainofverities—divineoracles,thoughtsofGodconveyedtoman, predictions emanating from the Holy Ghost. The hope of theMessiahwasneverextinguished;nor,whiletheorderofprophetslasted,was the announcement ever obscure as to His advent as the seed ofAbraham (Gen. 22:18), the son of David (Ps. 132:11): for that was thegreat factwithwhichallhistory travailed,andwithwhichall thesaintswereacquainted—thecentre-pointofreligious life,as it is tousnow.InAnna we see the anticipation with which the most simple minds were

filled—thesuntowhicheverybelievingeyewasturned.

Particular prophecies of a later time may be regarded as expandingearlierprophecies.TheprimevalgospelpromisedvictoryoverSatan,andtheremovalofdeath, thedoombroughtontheworldbyyieldingtothetempter.Foratimethiswassufficient,becauseitannouncedredemptionfrom the enemy, and restoration to divine favour. Clearer intimationswerenextmadetothepatriarchs, till inDavidandIsaiahtheoutlineoftheatonementandthesufferingsofMessiahissoclearthatweseemtobereadinghistory.ThedesignandnatureofHissufferingswereexplicitlydeclared. So necessary was this for the ancient believers, and for thechurchofaftertimes,thatwithoutthisoutlinetheywholivedbeforetheadvent couldnothavehad correct ideasof the atonement, andwewholive after it would have wanted the necessary criterion for decidingwhetherJesusofNazarethwasHetowhomprophecyreferred.

Thepurpose,wehaveinviewinthissectionwillbebestservedifwelimitthe inquiry toa fewparticularpredictionswhichexpressly set forth thedoctrineoftheatonement.WeshallthereforefirsttakeupthereferencestothoseMessianicpsalmswhichdescribetheatonementinitsnatureandfruits. I will not discuss the question how far the Messianic elementpervades the book of Psalms, nor how far we are to extend thisrecognitionbeyondthosewhichChristandHisapostleshave indicated;fortheplanwearepursuingleadsustoacceptthelatterwithoutquestionon the authority of apostles. But when parts of a psalm are quoted byinspiredmenasMessianic,we seeno reason toquestion theMessianiccharacteroftheentirepsalm,ifitbetraysnoobviousmarksofacolloquyorchangeofspeakers.Anotherthingdeservesnotice.Thesepsalmsenterintodetailsofsufferingexperience,andadducefactsofahistoricalnaturewhich would be anomalous in any other setting, but are significant inconnectionwith that extraordinary Personwhose fortunes, even to theminutestdetails,wereworthyofbeingforetold.Thosepsalms,readwiththe apostles' commentary, are in the last degree important, as placingChrist'sredemption-workinthemoststrikinglight,andbringingoutitsessentialelements.

Of the Messianic psalms adduced by the apostles, some are put inconnection with the atonement by the inspired commentator, though

they do not in so many words contain express reference to the Lord'svicariousdeath.Thus, inonepsalmwrittentodescribethedominionofthesecondAdamovertheworksofGod,theapostoliccommentarybasesthemediatorialkingdomonHisbeingmadealittlelowerthantheangels,andsufferingdeath(Ps.8:5;Heb.2:9). InanotherpsalmwearetaughtthattheMessiahwouldburstthebandsofdeath;andHisresurrectionisputasareward,inconnectionwiththeobedienceandhumiliationoftheHoly One (Ps. 16:8; Acts 2:25). In another psalm, the throne of themediatorial King is described as based upon a work of holy obedienceduring a previous period, when He was approved as one who lovedrighteousness and hated iniquity (Ps. 45:7;Heb. 1:8, 9). Some, indeed,explainthesewordsasreferringtotheloveofrighteousnessandhatredofiniquitywhicharenowdisplayed intheadministrationofHiskingdom.Buttheorderofthethoughtandthelogicalparticle,leadustorefertheterms to the spotless righteousnesswhich theChrist evinced inHis lifeanddeath,andwhichwasrewardedwiththecrownofgloryandhonour.The word which connects the work with the reward—viz. the wordTHEREFORE—canhavenomeaningbuttoannouncethattheexaltationwas the reward of the obedience: "Therefore God hath anointed TheewiththeoilofgladnessaboveThyfellows."Inanotherpsalm,wheretheLord'sascensionisdescribed,thewords"Thouhastascendeduponhigh"are interpreted as presupposing thatHe descended first into the lowerpartsoftheearth(Ps.68:18;Eph.4:8,9).WeseethatalltheseMessianicpsalms, according to the commentary of inspired apostles, presupposeandinvolvetheatonement.TheytakeforgrantedthatthecrosswasthefoundationofHismediatorial throne—that theabasementpreceded thereward.Inthesepsalmswecometotheatonement ina lessdirectway.Weshalllimitourattention,therefore,tothosewhichdirectlydefinethenatureoftheatonement,andselecttwoforparticularconsideration.

1.Amongthepropheticpsalmswhichbringouttheessentialelementsoftheatonement,oneofthemostimportantisthefortiethPsalm,asquotedintheEpistletotheHebrews:"WhenHecomethintotheworld,Hesaith,SacrificeandofferingThouwouldestnot,butabodyhastThoupreparedme: inburnt-offeringsandsacrifices forsinThouhasthadnopleasure:thensaidI,Lo,Icome(inthevolumeofthebookitiswrittenofme)todoThywill,OGod;yea,Thylawiswithinmyheart"(Ps.40:6;Heb.10:5–7).

Thequestion,Whoisthespeaker?isnotansweredbysayingthatDavid,thewriter, speaks in the firstpersonasan individual.This is settledbytheauthorityoftheapostle,whointroducesChristasutteringthewordswhenHe came into the world; and no difficulties of interpretation, nocriticalreasons,canbesufferedtounsettlethisdecision.Butthatleavesroom for another inquiry:May not David have uttered these words insomelowersense,inthetypicalcharacterwhichhebore?Nowitmaybeconceded,thatwithoutsufficientreasonswearenottodenyallallusiontohimselfonthepartofthewriter.ButwhenthewordsarenotonlyputintothelipsoftheMessiahbyaninspiredapostle,butarepalpablyoutofkeeping with anything that David did, or ever could do, we are amplywarranted to ascribe them to another speaker; and the fact that Davidwasaprophet,andatypeoftheMessiah,enablesustoapprehendthathemightconsciouslymergethetypeintheantitypeincertainportionsofapsalm, or through an entire psalm. As there was nothing in David'shistory to which this language could possibly refer, we may apply theprinciple which Peter adduced in the book of Acts to determine theMessianic reference of another psalm (Acts 2:29, 30) as follows:—TonothinginDavid'slifecouldthesewordshaveapplied:hemustthereforehavespokenthemasaprophet,seeinghimselfinhisgreateroffspring,or,morecorrectlystill,havespokenthemasfromthelipsofHimthatwastocome.Droppingthetypeintheantitype,Davidwasinallsuchcases,fromthe beginning to the end of the psalm, little else than the medium ofcommunication, or the amanuensis, though he does not formallyannounceinwhosenameheisspeaking,orwhosewordstheyare.Thereisno tracewhatever of any changeof speaker, and therefore thewholemustbetakenastheconnecteddiscourseofthesamepersonthroughoutthepsalm.

Theonlythingfittedtoraiseadoubtisthecomplaintthathisiniquitiestookholduponhim (ver. 12);but thatdifficultyentirelyvanisheswhenweconsiderthattheMessiah,asthesuretyandsubstituteofHispeople,could in this way fitly speak of the sins of His people, as they wereimputedorchargedtoHisaccount:HemadethemHis.IfGodmadeHimtobe sin forus, and ifHewasour sin inGod's judgment andaccount,whilestillthebelovedSon,HecouldbeallthistooinHisownjudgmentasthesurety.Thatwasbutthesubjectiverecognitionofanobjectivefact;

and in so speaking, theMessiahonlydescribesHimselfas the true sin-offering or trespass-offering,which, aswe shall immediately see, is theprincipal thought of the passage. If we can call Him OURRIGHTEOUSNESS(Jer.23:6),whymaynotHeforasimilarreasoncallHimselfoursin?Henceitisnotnecessarytosuppose,assomehavedone,a change of speakerswhere this allusion begins (ver. 12). Besides, thatwouldbeaviolentbreakinthetrainofthoughtandintheconnectionofthe two verses, as indicated by the logical particle for linking themtogether(vers.11and12).

Plainly,thepsalmhastwodivisions,ofwhichthefirstdescribesinvividlanguage the speaker's deliverance from a horrible pit and miry clay.Thentheeffectof this isrepresentedastendingtomakemanyfearandtrustinJehovah;thatis,torepentandbeconvertedfromheathenism,orfromfalsereligionstotheworshipofthetrueGod(vers.1–5).Theseconddivision,whichisemphaticallymarkedbythewordsThensaidI(ver.7),contraststheabsoluteweaknessandinsufficiencyoftheMosaicsacrificeswiththeMessiah'sobedienceandatoningwork.ThatthesewordscannotbeDavid's,appearsat first sight fromthe fact that thespeakeradducesHis own obedience or finished work in contrast with the animalsacrifices,whicharedescribedasnotpleasingtoGod,andasofnovalueexceptastypesofwhatshouldcome.ThisobediencetotheFather'swilland to the divine law on the part of the great speakerwas destined tousherinaneweconomy(Heb.10:9);andhencethewordscannotinanysense,orwithanyapplication,bereferredtoDavid.

Butletuslimitourattentiontothewordsofthequotation.First,thereisan enumeration of the several Mosaic sacrifices, which are distributedinto thebloodyand theunbloody.Thatclassification is indicated in theoriginalbythetermshererendered"sacrificeandoffering."Thenfollowthechiefbloodysacrifices,whicharefurtherclassifiedundertheseterms:—"Burnt-offering and sin-offering Thou dost not require;" or, as it isrenderedby the apostle, "Inburnt-offerings and sacrifices for sinThouhast had no pleasure." The meaning unquestionably is, that in theappointmentof thosesacrificesa furtherpurposewastobeserved,andthattheywereappointedtocontinuebutforatime,andthentotakeend.Merepicturesofsomethinginfinitelymoreimportantwhichwastocome

—pledgesandtestimoniestowhatwasyetfuture—theyweredestinedtoceaseasthingsoflittlevalue,orasthingsinwhichGodhadnopleasureontheirownaccount.ButonDavidandonIsraeltheywerebindingtilllegitimatelydisplacedbythefulfilment.

Now,incontrastwiththetotalinsufficiencyoftheMosaicsacrifices,thespeaker in the psalm says, "Mine ears hast Thou opened." Manycommentatorsexplainthisphrasebytheprovisioninthelawtomeetthecase of the Hebrew servant choosing to remain in voluntary servituderather than accept his freedom, as hemight do at the seventh year ofrelease;andthiscommentaffordsaverycompetentsense.Othersexplainit asdenoting that the earwaspurgedbyGodof all impediment, so aspromptlytoknowanddoGod'swill.Athirdclasstaketheexpressionearsasasynecdocheforthewholebody,denotingthattheearwasprompttolisten,andtheentirebodyprompttoobey.Iseenocausetodeviatefromthe idea of the Hebrew servant (Ex. 21:5); for one common mode ofannouncingChristwastorepresentHimastheservantofGodbywayofeminence—theperfectservant,thechosenservant,therighteousservant(Isa. 42:1, 53:11). Thus, in the psalmunder our consideration,MessiahdescribesHimself as coming to serve—coming in thehumanityHehadassumed,tofulfilthelawinthemeanestservant-form.Itisnoobjectionto theallusionalreadynoticed, thataccording to the law,only therightearoftheHebrewservantwaspierced,whereasthepluralnumberoccursinthepsalm;forthismayimplyagreaterperfectionintheantitypethaninthetype.ButinreproducingthephrasefortheNewTestamentchurch,the apostle abandons theHebrew allusion, and gives us the same ideaunderanotherguise.He translates it, "AbodyhastThoupreparedme."Writingwith the same authority and the same spirit of inspiration, thesacred writer is content to reproduce the thought in a different form,givingusthesense.Heintimatesthatabodywasprepared,inwhichallthepromptobedienceandperfectservicewehavereferredtoweretobecarriedouttotheirutmostperfection.

Thenextwordsput beforehand into themouthof theRedeemer asHecameintotheworldwereasfollows:"Lo,Iamcome(inthevolumeofthebook it iswritten ofme) to doThywill,OGod." In the psalm there issomewhatgreater fulness in theexpression:"Idelight todoThywill,O

myGod:yea,Thylawiswithinmyheart."Theverses,intheconnectioninwhichtheystand,showtheinadequacyofsacrificestomeetthedivineclaims, and announce thatMessiahwas to come as the true priest andsacrifice—the substance of all those shadows. His obedience in a truehumanity is thus placed in direct contrast with the burnt-offering andsin-offering, intimating that He came as the great personal moralsacrificetodowhattheycouldnotdo,andtoattainthedivinedesigninits utmost perfection and fulness ofmeaning, such as they never couldattain.Moreover,whenHesays,"LoIcome(inthevolumeofthebookitiswrittenofme)todoThywill,"theallusionistotheFather'sdecree,ortothateternalcovenantorcompacttowhichthemissionoftheSonintotheworldateverymomentboreconstantreference(John6:39).ThatthewordswarrantthesuppositionofanagreementorcompactbetweentheFatherandtheSonbeforetheactualincarnation,canscarcelybedoubtfulto anyonewhoponders thewords.Theymean, "Lo, I come to executewhatThourequirest."Thevolumeofthebook,ortheroll,seemstobetheMosaiclawcontainingthereferencestotheshadowysacrifices,orbetter,perhaps,thepromisesofScripturegenerally,becauseinallitspropheciesaswellastypesitgaveapledgethatHeshouldcome;andtheforceofthisstatementisaugmentedbytheapostle'ssubsequentinterpretationofthewords,asdenotingthatthepassageborereferencetotheofferingofthebodyofJesusChristonceforall(Heb.10:10).

Butitisaddedstillmoredefinitely,thatHecametodoGOD'SWILL,andtofulfilHISLAW.Thereisashadeofdifferencebetweenthetwowordshereused—THYWILL,orgoodpleasure,andTHYLAW—whichisbynomeans to be over looked. The first term, WILL, or good pleasure,expresses the infinitely loving will of God which led Him to plan ourredemption,anditisacomprehensiveenoughtermtoembracewhateverbelongs to the covenant between the Father and the Son. It means allGod'swill in reference to the redemptionof thehumanrace.When theMessiah,incomingintotheworld,announcedthatHe"delighted"todoGOD'SWILL, the language sets forth the condescending love ofChrist,His mingled obedience and love in our room. As to the term LAW, itdesignates thatwhich is the transcript ofGod's nature, and the rule ofhumanobedience.Tohave the law in theheart, is tohave itwrittenontheheartandengravenonthemind,soastobeeverbeforethememory

andactiveinthesoul(Jer.31:33).ItcomprehendsallthatGoddemands,andallthatpleasesHim,ortheentireserviceoflovewhichascreaturesweowetoGod.Norisitnecessarytoexcludethelawofsacrifices.Whenweputtogethertheimportofthepassage,then,itconveysthesetruths:thatGodtheFatherformedtheplanofredemptionherecalledHisWILL,or good pleasure, and that the Son came into the world as the partyresolvedtoexecuteitbyHisactiveandpassiveobedience,andashavingthelawinHisheart(Heb.10:9,10).

But, it is asked, why may not David here speak of himself as a manarrivingattheconvictionthatthesacrificesdidnotpleaseGod?Doeshenot, in the passage, seem to contrast moral obedience with ritualobservances, so as to disparage the latter?That comment bynomeansexhauststhesense,anditiseverywayunnatural,nottomentionthatitrunscountertotheinterpretationgivenbytheinspiredapostle.Besides,itisnottruethatGodrequirednoanimalsacrificesatthehandofDavidas an Israelite; for God had imposed them, and He did not leave thismattertotheworshipper'schoice.Intheabsolutesenseoftheterms,theycouldnotbedescribedaswhollynugatory,orasnotpleasingtoGod.Butas they could not usher in any real atonement for sin, they did notcorrespond,inthepropersenseoftheterm,tothedivinegoodpleasure,ortothelawofGod,butonlyforeshadowedwhatwastocome;anditwasin this subordinate sense that they were depreciated, that is, incomparisonofChrist's finishedwork.The language isnotabsolute,butrelative. God required a moral obedience and a personal excellence,which were to culminate in offering one great personal and moralsacrificeforsins,whichshouldhavenorepetition;andtheMessiahcametoofferthatonesacrifice,thetrue,sacrifice,onceforall,andbysodoingtofulfilthewillofGodaccordingtothecovenant.

II. The next prophecy to be noticed, and cognate to the former, iscontainedinthe110thPsalm:TheLordsware,andwillnotrepent,ThouartapriestforeveraftertheorderofMelchizedek(Ps.110:4;Heb.7:21).This is properly a coronation-psalm, composed probably on some ofthoseoccasionswhentheroyalseerbeheldinvisionMessiah'sascensiontoHisthrone.ItisquotedbothbyourLordandHisapostlesasMessianic(Matt.22:44;Acts2:32;Heb. 1:13). It certainly cannotallude toDavid;

for, as our Lord says, David in spirit calls Him Lord. Besides, it isadduced by the apostles as the Father's salutation to Messiah at Hisascension to the right hand. He is further described as a priest (Ps.110:4);forthepriesthoodwasthefoundationofthedominion,—thecrosswas the basis of the throne. The titles Prophet, Priest, and King,indicating distinct functions performed by the Messiah, are neverconfounded.Hence,whenHe is represented as a sacrificingpriest, thislanguage, inDavid'smouth, canonlymean thatHeshouldbring in thegreatofferingorsacrificewhichwasappointedtobethetruthofall thesacrificial laws. It is sometimes alleged by eminent divines, thatMelchizedek was not a priest properly so called, because it is notexpressly said that he offered sacrifice, but merely that he blessedAbraham. But the brief notice given of the historical event in Genesisgives no warrant for such a conclusion, and the title Priest expresslyascribed to him,we think, refutes it, for therewas no priest without asacrifice.

The great proof of Christ's priesthood is based on this passage. Theapostle, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, very copiously expounds andappliesit.Thus,itisquoted,inthefirstplace,toshowthatourLorddidnotarrogatetoHimselftheofficeofthepriesthoodwithoutadivinecall(Heb. 5:6). It is next adduced and fully expounded to show His greatsuperiority to the Aaronic priesthood (Heb. 7:1–28). And it deservesnoticethattheapostle, infollowingoutthelineofthoughtpresentedtous in the psalm, describesMelchizedek's personal dignity as a type bylanguage derived from the Antitype, and true only of the Antitype,—apeculiarity, in fact,applicablenot to thiscasealone,but toall thetypesand shadows. The distinctive qualities of the great Priest and greatpropitiationarereflectedbackupontheshadow,notconversely.AndasMelchizedek united in his person regal and priestly functions—acombination not permitted to the Levitical economy—he was in thisrespectamemorabletypeofMessiah.

Our object is not to discuss the disputed questions which have beenraised inconnectionwithMelchizedek,but toelucidate theprophecy inthelightoftheapostle'scommentary.Weacceptthesimpleandnaturalexposition which takes the narrative in Genesis as the record of a

historical event. But the significance attaching to it consists less in thehistorythaninthetypicalandpropheticalelementsbelongingtoit.Theseseem exclusively to have been before the Psalmist's mind, and theapostle'smind,forthelatteronlydevelopeswhatthePsalmistsupplied.Thatwhichwasconcealed,aswellasthatwhichwasexpressed,hadinanequal degree a typical significance. And this is the singular peculiaritywhich the Psalmist and apostle alike were taught by the Spirit ofinspiration to trace in the narrative. Some have imagined thatMelchizedek was a divine person—the Son of God. I take him to havebeenahistoricalpersonage,theprinceofSalem,aworshipperofthetrueGod,who united in himself the double function of priest and king.Onthissuppositionthewholesignificanceofthetypeproceeds.Theapostlefixesourattentionupon the importofhisnameandplaceof residence,translating them for the Christian Hebrews. The fact that he rendersthemintoGreekforreadersalreadyfamiliarwiththeirmeaning,leadsusto the conclusion that he expressly intended their import to be typical(Heb. 7:2). The peculiarities mainly insisted upon are these: that hisdescent was not traced in any family register; that he came upon thesceneandpassedawayasifhehadneitherfathernormother,andinthisrespectwaslikeChrist,whoinHisearthlynaturehadnoearthlyfather,and in His other nature no mother; that he seemed to have neitherbeginningofdaysnorendof life;andthathewasmade like theSonofGod,whowas the true antitypicalPriest towhom the shadow referred.These peculiarities are read off from the history of Melchizedek inGenesis, which the Spirit of inspiration directed Moses to compose insuchawayastoletallthisfullyappear,whetherMoseswasawareofitornot. The one great peculiarity which that psalm of David taught theHebrewswas,thattherewastobeanotherPriestoutoftheAaronicline,or the line of any priestly family; and the other pointwhich the psalmemphaticallytaughtthemwas,thatthisPriestwastobethefirstandlastofhiskind(3–10).Buttheapostle,inapplyingthequotation,takesitupin itsseveralparts,andelucidates itashis text.Heunfoldsat large thedivinepurposeandthereasonforwhichMessiahwasmadeapriestafterthe order of Melchizedek. Three points are here mentioned, which weshallbrieflystate,inordertopavethewayforthetestimonyinwhichthewholeculminates—thatthereisbutonepriest,andoneoblation.

1.HeprovesthatthementionofanotherpriestinthepsalminvolvedtheabrogationoftheLeviticalpriesthood(11–19).Thisresultisspokenofasnecessary: it is regardedasa legitimatededuction, the forceofwhich isnottobequestioned.TheappointmentofanotherpriestarguedthattheLevitical priesthood had made nothing perfect, and required to bereplacedbyabetter.Butanotherconsequencewasinvolved:thechangeof thepriesthoodcarriedwith it thechangeorrevocationof theMosaiclaw (ver. 12). The reason is obvious. The entire ceremonial lawpresupposed the Aaronic priesthood, to which it was adapted, and towhichithadreferenceineveryoneofitsarrangements.Thealterationofthepriesthoodwasthesubversionofthelaw;forthefoundationofitwasremovedwith theremovalof thepriesthood.This is the first result thatnecessarily accompanied the appointment of another priest after theorderofMelchizedek.Thegreatthoughtis,thatthefirstpriesthoodwasessentiallydefective,andthattheentranceofanewpriestwascoincidentwiththebringinginofabetterhope.

2. As to theword of the oath, another part of the quotation, it is nextcommented on by the apostle (ver. 20). The fact of the oath not onlypoints to the immutable decree which God made in regard to thispriesthood, but argues a new economy with better provisions. TheAaronic priesthood, mutable, because appointed without an oath,ushered in an imperfect or merely typical covenant. The Melchizedekpriesthood of Christ, unchangeable, because it was appointed with theoathofGod,usheredinabettercovenant(vers.20–22).Thepriesthoodwas inbothcases the foundationof theeconomy; theSinaitic covenantstandingupontheAaronicpriesthood, thenewcovenantstandinguponthe Melchizedek priesthood of Christ. The apostle's reasoning ispeculiarlyworthyofnotice,becauseitisanargumentfromthelesstothegreater. The logical connection must be apprehended in the followingway.Thetwoelementsofthecomparisonaremarkedbythephrasehowmuch in one verse (ver. 20), and by the corresponding so much of asubsequentverse(ver.22).Theinterveningverseismerelyparenthetical(ver.21).Theargumentstandsthus:InasfarasHewasmadeapriestbyan oath, by somuch isHe theMediator of a better covenant. Thenewcovenant,ofwhichChrististhePriest,Surety,orMediator—forthesearenearlysynonymousterms,thoughusedintheirpeculiarconnectionwith

a distinctive shade of meaning—is so much better than the Sinaiticcovenant, by how much the great High Priest of our profession wasappointedbyanoath;andthenewcovenantandpriesthoodarenevertobe changed, asnothingbetter can replace them.The lawmadenothingperfect:thiscovenantdoesso,becauseitistheintroductionofthebetterhope.

3.Thethirdpointofsuperiority isdeducedfromthewords,apriest forever(ver.23).ContrastedwiththeAaronichighpriests,Christcontinuesinofficeforever.TheAaronichighpriestsweremany,becausetheywerenotsufferedtocontinuebyreasonofdeath:wordswhichmeanthattheycouldnot continue toofficiate, or continue inoffice, because theywereeverdying.Whenitissaid,"Theytrulyweremanypriests,"thewordsdonotmeanthattheyweremanysimultaneously,butmanyasholdingofficesuccessively,becauseitwaseverpassingfromhandtohand.Thecontrastisbetweenmanypriests,astemporaryoccupantsoftheoffice,orinvestedwith it for a time, and the truePriest, investedwith theoffice for ever.AndwhenitissaidHehasanunchangeablepriesthood,thephrasemaybeinterpretedinatwofoldway,asdescriptiveofwhatisinviolable,orofthatwhichdoesnotdescend toanotheroccupant (ver.24).Theapostlededuces a further result from the everlasting priesthood, when heconnectsitwiththeperfectionofthekingdomofGod,whetherwelookatthe New Testament worshippers individually, or at the churchcollectively, in itsonwardprogress to thewindingupofall things.ThateternalpriesthoodenablesHimtosavemenperfectly,ortosavethemforever;thatis,torescuethemfromsinandallitsevils(ver.25).

Thementionoftheeternalpriesthoodnextleadstheapostlebyanaturaltrainofthoughttothatabasementbywhichitwasacquired.Thepowerofan endless life, though connected with His divine person, is thepurchased reward of His atonement. And this brings him to view theprophecy as a testimony to the great sacrifice, or satisfaction to divinejustice. The royalty presupposes the humiliation, the expiation of sin.Hencetheapostle'scommentaryadvancestothetwofactsonwhichtheatonementrests—thegreatNewTestamentpriesthood,andHisoneever-validsacrifice(vers.26–28).Startingfromtheideaoftheeternalpriest,andwithman'snecessitiesfullinview,theapostlesays,Forsuchanhigh

priest became us (ver. 26). The use of the causal particle for leads ourthoughtstotheever-livingHighPriest,andintroducesthefurtherideaofa sacrifice as the foundation of that royal priesthood. Hemust offer asacrifice so complete andmeritorious, as to require no repetition. TheMelchizedekpriesthoodofJesustakesforgrantedONESACRIFICEFORSINnevertoberepeated,oneatonementofeverlastingvalidity,needingnosupplementaryaddition,andequallyapplicable toallmenandtoallstages of the history of the kingdom of God. When we inquire moreparticularlyonwhatelementssuchasacrificedepends,theyareunfoldedinthefollowingorder:—(1)HewasasinlessPriest,whoneedednot,liketheJewishhighpriests, tooffer first forHisownsins,and then for thepeople's; for He had no sins of His own (ver. 27). (2) He offered onlyonce,oneever-validsacrifice.(3)Accordingtothewordoftheoathafterthelaw,andsupersedingit,Hewasnotahighpriesthavinginfirmity,butthe Son of God, a divine person, giving toHis one oblation an infinitevalue, adequate to all ourwants and to all the claims ofGod (ver. 28).Therewastobebutonesacrificeforsins.Thiswasthepresuppositionofthe everlasting priesthood, and its basis; and our great High Priestcontinues in office for ever, because of its inexhaustible and eternalvalidity. That is the apostle's train of reasoning in his memorablecommentary upon the Melchizedek priesthood of Christ. It is lucidlydeveloped by him from the 110th Psalm, a text which is taken up andexpounded part by part. He winds up the whole by saying, that thefoundationoftheroyalpriesthoodistheONESACRIFICEofeverlastingefficacy.

III.Ofalltheprophecies,however,whichbringouttheessentialelementsof theatonement, the clearest is the fifty-third chapterof Isaiah,whichdeserves to be called the classical passage. From this chapter we haveseveralquotations.ThusPeterquotesthewords,whodidnosin,neitherwas guile found in His mouth (1 Pet. 2:22); and another passage isimmediatelysubjoined,bywhosestripesyewerehealed(ver.24).Isaiahis called the Old Testament evangelist, from the vivid descriptions ofMessiah's sufferings, atonement, and reward, given especially in thissection (Isa. 52:13–53:12). These versesmust be read together; for thedivisionofthechapter,asisgenerallyadmitted,isunhappy.Thepassageprovesthatintheprophet'sdays,bymeansofhisownteachingandthat

ofotherprophets,thereprevailed,atleastamongthespiritually-mindedmembersoftheIsraelitishcommunity,apersuasionthatMessiahshouldcomeasasufferingsubstitute,andthatHisobedienceanddeathshouldconstitute the one cause of man's redemption. Among the Jews in themostancienttimes,itwastheuniformopinionthattheMessiahwasthesubject of this prophecy.Only at a later day,when embarrassed by theconstantappealsoftheChristianstothischapter,asthefullestandmostconnectedexplanationofthenatureofChrist'sdeath,didtheyinventthetheoryofadoubleMessiah—onecominginabasement,andtheotheringlory. As that was felt to be a mere artifice or evasion, othercommentatorsreferredittoasingleperson,andespeciallytoJosiah.Inthese comments several of our laxer exegetes have followed the Jews,proposing to refer the language toHezekiah or Josiah, to Jeremiah orEzekiel;whileothersreferittotheJewishnationbeforeoraftertheexile.Theseareallsorryshifts;theorieswhichgotopieces,orarediscoveredtobepreposterous,themomenttheyareactuallyappliedtothechapter,andmade a key to open it: for was Josiah or Jeremiah bruised for ouriniquities? or, applying it to Israel, was Israel healed by their stripes?weretheyexaltedandextolled,ormadetoseetheirseedafterbecomingasacrifice for sin?Equally preposterous is it to refer the language to thestateinthethirdperson,andtothecitizensinthefirst;forthenwemusttakeallthislanguageasapplicabletothestate.Thechapterhasonlytobereadinitsconnection,toseetheexclusivereferencetotheMessiah.TherepeatedquotationsintheNewTestament—nofewerthansixinnumber—by theLordandHisapostles, leavenotashadowofdoubt that it canrefertonootherthantoChrist(Mark15:28;Matt8:17;Acts8:32;Rom.15:21; 1 Pet. 2:22, 24). What can be produced to overthrow thisconclusion? To maintain that, on this supposition, Isaiah must haveintimated that he was about to sketch Messiah's sufferings, argues amisconception of prophecy, and amounts to a demand that he shouldnarrate history. Read in the light of history, applied as a key to theinterpretation of our Lord's sufferings, the coincidence is marvellous;showingthat,sevencenturiesbeforehand, thehistoryofJesus,withthedesignofHissufferings,werenotonlyforetold,butfore-appointedinthethoughtsofGod.Ourdesign is simply to adduce fromprophecy,undertheguidanceoftheapostles,atestimonytotheRedeemer'ssatisfaction;and as this chapter contains all the great points connected with the

atonement,weshallbestattainourobject,notbyaformalexpositionofall the verses, but by collecting the great essential elements of thedoctrineasheredeveloped.Andinthissinglechapterwehavealmostallitsessentialelementsexhibitedwithprecision.

The chapter occurs in a larger section or division, which contains aconstantlyrecurringallusiontotheMessiahasTHESERVANTOFTHELORD (Isa. 42:1–53:12). That Messiah is meant by that title, is putbeyond question by Matthew's quotation (Matt. 12:18). The titleSERVANTbringsbeforeusoneobedienttoGod,andsupposedtowalkbya rule prescribed for his direction; and in this case it points out theservant byway of eminence,who thought it not robbery to be equal toGod,yetputonaservant'sform,andwasobedientuntodeath.ItiswhatChristsaid:"AstheFathergavemecommandment,soIdo"(John14:31).After referring to Him as sprinkling many nations, and receiving thehomageofkings,theprophetmakesatransitionfrombelievingGentilesto unbelieving Jews. At the commencement of the fifty-third chapter apreacherisintroduced,complaining,aswemaysupposetheapostlesdidatPentecost, that so fewof Israel believed the report.Then follows thedescription of Messiah's sufferings. We shall extract a series of viewscontainingafulloutlineoftheatonement.

1.WehaveadivineestimateoftheServantoftheLord.Wefind,firstofall,God'sapprovalofHim,and infinitecomplacency inHim,beforewecome to thedescriptionofmen's rejectionofHim.WhatHewas in theeyeofGod,isfirststatedfiguratively(ver.2);andtheninplainwords,ina subsequent verse (ver. 9),He is described as a tender plant or scionfromadryground,growingupbeforethefaceofGod:fortheexpressiongrowupbeforeHimcannotrefer,assomewillhave it, toanunbelieverdiscrediting the report of the gospel. The words describe the Father'sestimate,representingChristasgrowingupfromHisbirththeobjectofdivinecomplacency,asafairplantorgratefulfloweronwhichGod'seyerestedwith delight. The dry ground is not to be interpreted of David'sfallen house,—an idea imported without warrant from another passage(Isa.11:1),andgivingonlyareferencetothepovertyofHisconditionintheeyeofmen.Thereference is tohumanity ingeneral.Onthisbarrenwaste,wherenorain fell,andnonourishmentwassuppliedby thesoil,

thistenderandbeautifulshootgrewupaloneamidadesertofscorchingsand,andGod'seyerestedonHimwithapprovalanddelight.Asecondpassageteachesthesametruth:Hedidnoviolence;or,asPeterrendersit, He did no sin, neither was guile found inHismouth (ver. 9; 1 Pet.2:22). The allusion is toHis spotless purity in thought, andword, andaction;butmayalsorefertothefalsechargesoftreasonandblasphemyonwhichHewasarraigned.

Bywayofcontrast,theprophetnoticestheJewishestimateofChrist,ortheoffenceatasufferingMessiah(ver.3).Accordingtotheir ideas,Hissufferingswereapunishment inflictedonHimasapretender;andhowwas the offence removed? The answer is supplied by the sequel of thechapter, and pronounces sentence on all erroneous theories of theatonement. The offence was not removed by the notion thatHe was agreatteacher,afunctioninwhichsufferingsincurnodisgrace.NorwasitremovedbyregardingHimasthefounderofarationalreligiontakingtheplace of a ritual one. The connection shows (vers. 4, 5) that it wasremoved by the discovery that those sufferings were vicarious in theirnature, and effected our redemption. But how does the fact that thesufferings were vicarious remove the offence of a suffering Messiahamong Jews or Gentiles? It takes for granted a knowledge of sin; andwhenasuretyisdiscoveredbymeninthisstateofmind,misconceptionsare removed, prejudices vanish, the offence ceases, externalism isexploded,andgloryinginthecrossbegins.

2.TheMessiahsuffersonaccountofsinasthemeritoriouscause(vers.4,5). These verses teach us why He suffered. Israel had been taught toregardthecorporealevilsordiseaseswithwhichtheyweresmittenasthepenal effects of sin (Deut. 28:22). The desolations of the landwere itssicknesses,whilevictorywasitshealing.Matthewrefersthewordsoftheprophettobodilydiseasesconsideredaspenalconsequencesofsin(Matt.8:17). The commentary of the evangelist so far accurately defines themeaning; for we must understand diseases both of mind and body aspenal effects of sin. ONE corruption was diffused through mind andbody;andwhen thePhysicianboreour sin,Heequallybroughthelp toboth. Whether, therefore, we take the words in the more mentalreference,orinthesensewhichMatthewputsuponthem,theallusionis

tothepenalconsequencesofsin,whichChristboreasaburden.

Theprophet proceeds, inmore precise terms, to show that sinwas themeritorious causeof allMessiah's sufferings: "Hewaswounded forourtransgressions,Hewasbruisedforouriniquities"(ver.5).Expressionstothiseffectaresonumerous,thatnodoubtcanremainonthemindofanunbiassed reader, that in this descriptionwe have an innocent suffererbearing penal consequences due to the sins of others. Equivalentexpressions occur, such as the following:—"The Lord laid on Him," orcausedtomeetonHim,"theiniquitiesofusall"(ver.6):"Heshallbeartheiriniquities"(ver.11):"Hebarethesinsofmany"(ver.12).Thephrasetobear sin, aswe sufficientlyprovedelsewhere,means tobear sinas aburden, or to bear its punishment. They who will see nothing in thischapterofasatisfactionforsinonthepartoftheServantofGod,admitonly such sufferings as a faithful witness encounters in declaring histestimonyamidtheenemiesofhismessage(comp.Col.1:24).Accordingto them, theServant of theLord, theMediator of a revelation inword,was brought to death for His faithfulness, like the Baptist, in thefulfilment of His prophetical career. The latter, though one side ofMessiah'ssufferings,isonlywhatHehadincommonwithHisservants;but it is a wholly different suffering to which allusion is made in thischapter.ThesufferingsheredescribeddonotbelongtothedischargeofHispropheticalofficeatall:theybelongtoHispriestlyfunction;andtheentirechapterisconfinedtothem.

Someexpositors,who takeexception to theview thatour sinswere themeritoriouscauseoftheMessiah'ssufferings,arguethatthewordsinthefourthversemustbeartherendering:"Hewaswoundedby,orthrough,our transgressions." On linguistic grounds, apart from the connectionand the nearer parallelism, that rendering is admissible. But it is notdemanded by the language, as appears from passages where the samephraseologyisused:"Fools,becauseoftheirtransgressions,andbecauseoftheiriniquities,areafflicted"(Ps.107:17);andcertainlyitiswhollyoutofharmonywiththeconnection.Thedecisionastotherenderingmustbearrived at by referring to the entire verse and context. The next clauseconfutes that rendering: "The chastisement of our peace" (that is, thepunishmentwhichprocuresourpeacewithGod) "wasuponHim."The

wordsmean,thedivinepunishmentthatweshouldhaveborne.Suchaninterpretation interferes, too,with the prophet's scope, and contradictshis words; and every unprejudiced reader comes to a differentconclusion.Therendering,"Hewascrucifiedbyourfrowardness,"inthesensethattheIsraelitescommittedagreatsin,issowideofthemark,anddoessuchviolencebothtothenearerandremoterparallelism,aswellasto the tenor of the prophet's thoughts, that we can only regard it assuggestedbythewarpinginfluenceofatheologicaltendency.

3. The Messiah is described as the substitute of others. He was notexposed to suffering indirectly or incidentally, but in a direct andimmediateway,asourrepresentative.Thiscomesoutexpresslywhenitissaid: The chastisement of our peace (that is, the punishment whichprocured our peace) was upon Him (ver. 5). The language means,according to a familiar mode of speech in the sacred books, that thepunishmentdue touswas reckoned toHis account.We shall notdrawillustrations of this usage from common discourse between man andman,where it isnotuncommon(Gen.27:13;Judg.19:20;Matt.27:25);for, in truth, it is competently used only when men are consideredaccordingtoadivineconstitutionwhichGodalonehasauthoritytomake.Thechapterunderconsideration isso fullofsubstitution, that this ideacolours its whole contents. In human intercourse we see men actingvicariously—thatis, takinguponthemtheobligationsofothers—andweapprehendtheidea.AndwhentheServantoftheLord,withoutsinofHisown(ver.9),sufferedforHispeople—whentheirtransgressionswerethecause of His punishment—when He put Himself under their collectivesinstoatoneforthem—itisevidentthatinallthisHeactedvicariously.

Thisvicariousposition isstillmoreevident fromtwootherexpressions,whichmaybebrieflynoticed.The first is:TheLordhath laidonHim—thatis,causedtomeetorconvergeonHim—theiniquitiesofusall(ver.6).ThispassageintimatesthatMessiahcameundertheconsequencesofthoseiniquitieswithwhichmenarechargeable,andboretheminorderthattheflockforwhichHesufferedmightescapeunhurt,andberestoredto the Shepherd and Bishop of souls. This shows vicarious action. Thesecondexpression is evenmoreemphatic:His soul shallheanofferingforsin(asham)(ver.11).Thetermdenotesatrespass-offering,asusedof

ananimal sacrifice (Lev. 5:15;Ezek.40:39; 1Sam.6:3); and the victimwassotermedasifitwereembodiedsin,andmustdieintheroomoftheofferer,whowasdeservingofdeathaccording to the law.Whathad foragesbeenfigurativelydoneinlegalceremonies,wastobecarriedoutonthe Messiah, as the great personal and moral trespass-offering of Hischurch.The language signifies that the sinsofHispeoplemetonHim;that He was made sin, and subjected to the responsibility which thisentailed,notinametaphoricalsense,orafterasort,astheSociniansputit, but really, byproper imputationor transfer.Hewhowas the sinlessandrighteousServantofJehovah(ver.11),couldhavenoconnectionwithsinbutbysubstitution.IfHedidnotdieasavicarioustrespass-offering,orasavoluntarysin-bearer,whatpossiblelinkcouldsubsistbetweenHisdeathandthesinsoftheapostolicage,oroursinsatthisremotedistanceoftime?Theideaofsubstitutionisunmistakeableintheentirechapter.

4.Messiah'ssufferingsareannouncedascomingfromGod,andinflictedby a divine hand. To this it is the more imperative to advert, becausemodern thought concedes to the sufferings of Christ only the moreindirect and external sorrows encountered in the prosecution of Hisprophetical office from the ungodly generation to whom He bore thedivine message. A perusal of this chapter, however, conveys theimpressionthatHesuffereddirectlyatthehandofGod,orintheexerciseof punitive justice. This is apparent from expressions which need nocomment.Whenitissaid,"TheLordlaidonHimtheiniquitiesofusall"(ver.6),thisdoesnotmeanthatGodpermittedindignitiestobeinflictedonHimbymenwithoutanydivineaction,butthatGodcausedthemtodescend.Thisisfurthertaughtbytheantithesisinwhichtheexactionofjustice is connected with the affliction which He bore. "He wasoppressed"—or, more strictly, He was demanded in the exercise of adivineexaction—"andHewasafflicted"(ver.7).Weseeontheonesidethe claim of offended justice, and on the other Messiah's agonies inrespondingtothatdemand.Wehavetwopartiesintheirseveralactions:theMostHighdemandingpunishment,andtheSuretybearingit.

Butexpressionscontainingthesameideaaremultiplied.Thus,whenitissaid, "For the transgressionofmypeoplewasHestricken" (ver.8), theallusionistotheinflictionofpunishmentatthehandofGodinsatisfying

the demands of justice.Not only so: it is added, It pleased theLord tobruiseHim(ver.10).ThesememorablewordsintimatethattheLordnotonlypermittedthisatthehandofman,buthadpleasureordelightinit,asitboreonHisdeclarativegloryandman'ssalvation.Thesesufferings,notinthemselves,butintheirscopeandconsequences,gavesatisfactiontotheMostHigh,whocouldnototherwisehavehaddelightinit;andthesupremeAuthorofall these sufferingswasJehovah,bywhomwemusthereunderstandGodtheJudgeofall.

Thisdeclarationenablesus tomeetall thestatementsofageneralkindopposed to the infliction of punitive justice or wrath in any form. Theobjectionisthusput:Thesufferingsofaninnocentpersoncouldbeofnoavail, and could not be pleasing to God, or angels, or men. The textobviatesthisobjectioninproperform,assertingdirectlythereverse;andwe do not require to adduce other recondite grounds to show thatJehovahdelightedintheatonementofMessiah.ItishereannouncedthattheMessiahwastobearthepunishmentofsin,asinflictedbythehandofGod. With this it is impossible to harmonize the views of the recenttheology opposed to the vicarious sacrifice,when it allows no sufferingbutsuchascamefromthehandofmaninHisofficeasthegreatTeacher.The prophet, aswe here perceive, long beforeHis coming, foretold theopposite.AstotheobjectionurgedbytheSocinians,thatnothingcanbemoreunjustthantopunishtheinnocent,afarmoredifficultproblemis,HowcouldtheSonofGodsufferwhatHedid,ifHeisnotallowedtobeasurety?With a full exemption frompunishment, on the double groundthat He was sinless man and Son of God, how could the moralgovernmentofGodallowanyinflictioninthemerecourseofthings?Onthesuppositionofsuretyship,all iseasy;ontheothersupposition,all isinexplicable,—nay, such an anomaly and incongruity in the moralgovernmentofGod,thatwecanmoreeasilysupposetheannihilationofallthingsthanitsoccurrence.

5. The fruits or consequences of Messiah's death are next mentioned.These are twofold.One class of thesehasmore special reference to themediatorial reward to be conferred on Him, viz. the promises that HeshouldseeHisseed,andprolongHisdays,anddividethespoilwiththestrong,—all included in His reward (vers. 10–12). The other class of

consequenceshavespecialreferencetotheredemptionofHispeople,andtotheseIlimitattention.IsaiahannouncestheworkoftheLordJesusasa priest giving His life a trespass-offering for His people, and as therighteous servant justifying many; and to both these effects of Hisabasement we shall briefly refer, by illustrating the two clauses wheretheseallusionsoccur.

The first of these affirms thatwe have peace byHis chastisement, andhealingbyHisstripes(ver.5;1Pet.2:24).ThecommentaryofPeter,whoquotestheselastterms,leavesnoroomtodoubtthattheprophet'swords,rightly understood, mean that the punishment, which brings peace orprocuresreconciliationwithGod,wasuponHim.Thisproofwouldfalltotheground,wereweobligedtorender,assomepropose,"TheinstructionofourpeacewasuponHim."Butthereisnowarrantforputtingonthewords this meaning (compare Deut. 11:2; Job 5:17; Jer. 30:14; Prov.13:24).Thewordmeanschastisement,—asignificationconfirmedbytheparallelism of the next clause, according to the well-known rule of theHebrews,torepeatthethoughtwithapeculiarmodification.Accordingtothisparallelism,thewordchastisementintheoneclauseisre-echoedbytheword stripes in the other; and the allusion in the context is not toinstruction,buttovicarioussufferingandwounds.Thethought,asPeterquotesthewords,is,thatthepunishmentoftheSuretywasthehealingofHispeople.

Iflanguageislefttoexpressthought,thesewordsbeyonddoubtconnectreconciliation and healing with the sufferings of Messiah. As to thisPEACE, it is reconciliation with God, the effect of Messiah's suffering.Thatcannotbeexplainedawaybythosewhoregardreconciliationastheresult of absolute love, apart from any intervention or atonement. Theterm "healing" designates deliverance from sin, including pardon, andevery part of spiritual recovery. The stripes by which that healing iseffected, refer to the scourging inflicted byman's hand, and to the farworsestripesinflictedbythehandofGod,ofwhichtheformerwerebuttheoutwardemblem;forwemustinclude,bywhatiscalledsynecdoche,theentiresufferingsaswellasentireobedienceoftheLord.Thelanguageat firstsight isparadoxical,andmeanttoevokethereflection,Howcanwounds ormaladies be healed by stripes?How can stripes inflicted on

one be the healing of another? The phraseology was intended to showthatthiscouldnotbebymerenaturaleffect,orintheordinarycourseofthings,orbymeremoralmotives.Butthemomentwerecall theideaofsubstitution or exchange of places, all is plain; for the wounds of thevicarious Sufferer bring in their train, by the connection of cause andeffect,atruehealingforeverydisease.

The next fruit to which I referred is: "By His KNOWLEDGE shall myrighteousServantJUSTIFYmany"(ver.11).ItistheFatherwhospeaks.HowMessiahwastherighteousservantof theFather,willappearwhenwereflectthatHisobedience,measuredbythelaw,wasthebringinginofthat everlasting righteousness on the ground of which men arepronouncedrighteousatthetribunalofGod;fortheimportoftheword"justify" intimates here and everywhere a judicial sentence of acquittalandacceptance.Buthow is that effectedbyHis knowledge?ThewordscanonlymeantheknowledgebywhichHeisknown,nottheknowledgewhichHepossesses.ForthechapterrefersnottoHisprophetical,buttoHispriestlyoffice.Menare justifiedby theknowledgeofHim,which isthesameastobejustifiedbyfaith.

SEC.V.—THETESTIMONYTOTHEATONEMENTINTHEACTSOFTHE

APOSTLES

ThebookofActsgives testimonyto theatonement inapeculiarway: itcontributes important aid as to the connection between the death ofChristandtheremissionofsins.Weseethat,ineveryplacetowhichtheapostles brought their message, they inculcated neither conditions normeritorious preparations, but preached remission of sins, both amongJewsandGentiles,asanimmediategifttoallwhohadsusceptibleminds.They declared in unambiguous terms that it was procured by thehumiliation and death of the Son of God, and given by Him withoutreferencetolegalworksinanyform(Acts5:31).

Not only so: the book of Acts displays in a historic form the results ofpreaching the atonement, or the important consequencesof inculcating

thenecessityandpracticalbearingsofthisgreatdoctrine.Consideredinitsstructure,itseemstohavebeenpreparedontheprincipleofshowingwithwhatsuccessthepreachingofthecrosswasaccompaniedamongallclasses, whether they were Jews, Samaritans, or Gentiles; for apostolicpreachingproclaimedpresentforgivenesstoeveryinquirer.

Here it is necessary to anticipate a difficulty. Some allege that theapostleskeptsilenceonthedoctrineoftheatonement,whentheymighthavebeenexpectedtospeakofit:others,notdulyconsideringthescopeofthebook,findcomparativelylittleallusiontotheatonement.Buttwothingsare forgotten.Noneof thediscourses isreportedat large; for thesacredwriteriscontenttorecordthesalientpointsorheadsofdiscourse.And though several outlines of discourses are interwoven with thenarrative, they are not given as full reports; but as specimens of theirtestimony, illustrations of the success with which it was crowned, orarguments which Jewish unbelief withstood. Moreover, the discoursesgivenintheActsoftheApostlesaremissionaryorevangelisticaddressestomen inno state of preparation ormoodofmind to bear a dogmaticelucidationora full exhibitionof thedoctrine.For themostpart, therewasnotsuchcommongroundbetweenthehearersandspeakersasmustbepresupposedforafullexposition.Theapostlesaddressedimpatientorhostilehearers;andfromthenatureofthecase,thedoctrinecouldonlyto a limited extent be propounded tomen sominded.But one thing isclear: remission of sins was presented to the hearers in its causalconnectionwithChrist crucified, andpreached inHisname (Acts2:38,3:18, 19, 13:38). From the complexion of these discourses, the apostlesmust either have started from the great central idea of theMessiah, orbrought their discourses round to this point. The firstmethodmay betracedwhenevertheypreachedtoJewishaudiences(Acts2:25,36).

Let us glance at the testimony of Peter and Paul, the two prominentpersonsinthebookofActs.

I.OnthebirthdayoftheChristianchurch,whentheneweconomybeganbyadisplayofsupernaturalphenomenanotlessevidentthanwasgivenatthefoundingoftheSinaiticcovenant,Petertestifiedthatprophecywasfulfilled(Acts2:36);andtotheawakenedmultitudehecommendednotamere teacher, nor a bare example, but the Messiah, in whom the

remissionofsinswastobefound.Underlyingtheentireaddress,wefindthe ideas involved in the doctrine of the Messiah. The promise of thewoman'sseed,theconqueroroverdeath,theservantoftheLord,thesin-bearing substitute, were thoughts present to his own mind, and byallusionrecalledtothemindsofhishearers.

Thisremovesamisconceptionintowhichmanyfall.Theywhoarguethatthe apostles, in speaking of the death of Jesus to the Jews, merelyreferred to the fulfilment of prophecywithout involving in the allusionanydoctrineofatonementatall,omittonoticethetitleofTHECHRISTused by these first preachers as the official name. This appellationrecalledtheOldTestamentpropheciesfromthefirstpromisedownwards,andthepartwhichtheMessiahwastoactforman'ssalvation.Hence,toawakenconscience,theapostlesreiteratedinJewishearsthatJesuswastheir Messiah; that all which was to be effected by the Messiah—theatonementofsinandtherealizationofthetypes—wasaccomplished;andthatforgivenessofsinsaswonbyHisdeathwaspreachedinHisname.SomeholdthattheapostlespreachedthedeathofJesusasafact,decreedin the divine purpose and announced in ancient prophecies,merely totake away prejudices against a sufferingMessiah. But we have only toexamine thesediscourses toperceivehowbaseless is thiscomment.Wefind the primary elements of the doctrine of the atonement, andmustexpound thebrief allusions in consistency firstwith theLord's sayings,and then with the rounded exhibition of the doctrine in the epistlesaddressedtothechurches.Ananalysisofanyofthesediscoursesprovesthat theapostleswereconsistentwiththemselves,and inharmonywiththeirLord.

a.TotakePeter'ssermononthedayofPentecostbywayofillustration,we find theatonement exhibited in thoseaspectswhichmaybe said toformitsconstituentelements:(1)SINLESSPERFECTION;then(2)SIN-BEARINGonthepartofaGod-appointedMediator;followed(3)bythedivine ACCEPTANCE OF HIS WORK. We may notice these in order,rememberingthatinLuke'scondensedreportwehavebuttheoutlineofwhatwassaid.

1.TheapostlereferstoJesusofNazarethasamanapprovedofGod,oraccreditedbymiraclesandsignsandwonderswhichHedid(ver.22).He

representsHimastheseedofDavid,thefruitofhisloinsaccordingtotheflesh (ver. 30); and then, in thequotation from the sixteenthPsalm, asthe Holy One of God by eminence—THY HOLY ONE. He bore thisappellationbecausetheFathersanctifiedHim,andbecauseHeapprovedHimselfas theholy servantofGod.Sinlessperfectioncomes to light inanotherexpressionfoundintheMessianicpsalmcitedbytheapostle:"Ihave set the Lord always before me" (ver. 25); which could not beaffirmedbyDavid,norbyanymortalman:fornonebuttherealizedidealof humanity, the perfect Servant of God, could declare that in allpositionsHehad,withoutinterruption,settheLordalwaysbeforeHim.But it expressly depicts the obedience of theMessiah in action and insuffering—thecopyandcounterpartofthedivineholiness;theservantofGod breathing loyalty, subjection, and confidence to the utmost extentrequiredofacreatureinrelationtotheCreator.

2. He was delivered to punishment by the determinate counsel andforeknowledgeofGod(ver.23).Tounderstandthisstatement,wemustrecalltheLord'sownsaying,"TheSonofmanisdeliveredintothehandsofsinners"(Matt.26:45),andalso thepropheticannouncements(Zech.13:7; Isa. 53:10).Peter intimates thatGod subjectedHim todeath, andthatHewasnotproperlyovercomebyHisenemies,—thatitwasthewillof God, His determinate counsel or plan, that Messiah should bedeliveredasamalefactorintothehandsofmen,andbeputtodeathwiththeformsofjustice.Withallthepossiblemodesofcarryingoutthisgreatcounselbeforethedivinemind,thispeculiarplanhadbeenselected.Hemight have been cut off, had God willed it, by holy hands and a holyministry;but theJudgeof all determined that it shouldbe executedbythe hands of the wicked and lawless. Or theMessiahmight have beenmadethegreatmoralsin-offeringoftheworldbytheimmediatehandofGod,withouttheinterventionofanyhumanagencytoputHimtodeath.ButthecounselofGodwithinfinitewisdomappointedotherwise,tothechurch'sunspeakableadvantage.Notonlywas the factofChrist'sdeathappointed, but themode of it. The sinless Surety, taking our guilt, andplacingHimselfatthedivinetribunal,wastobedeliveredintheguiseofa malefactor into the hands of the wicked, and brought forth to beexamined,sentenced,andcondemnedbyajudicialtribunal,thatitmightbeevidentthatHewasinnocent,andyetaccountedguilty,—thatis,that

thepunishmentof the guiltypassedover to the sinlessSubstitute.Hadthetransactionbeeninsecret,wecouldnotsofullyhavebeenassuredofthisexchangeofplaces.

Thestatementheremade,thatGodbyajudicialactdeliveredJesusintothehandsofmen,givesusarightconceptionofHisvicariousdeath.Thatgreat transaction was the result of divine appointment, and had itsvalidityonthataccount.Ontheonehand, if theransomwastopossessanyvalue,itmustbeofGod,andnotagainstHiswill;forwithoutdivineappointmentitcouldnothaveservedthepurpose.ThejudicialsentencebywhichHebecametheobjectofpunishment,andwasdeliveredintothehandsofsinners,wascarriedintoeffectsolelyonthegroundthatHewasalreadyasin-bearerinoursteadbyexpresscovenantwiththeFather.Hehadafullexemptionfrompenalinflictiononthegroundoftwoabsolutesecurities—Hisperfectsinlessness,andHisrelationastheonlybegottenSon.Hewassecuredinaperfectimmunityfromsufferingofeverykind;and He could be delivered over to penal visitation only with His ownconsent,andbecauseHecouldresumeHislifewhichHecondescendedtoresign. The delivery presupposes sin-bearing by suretyship orsubstitution;forhowotherwisecouldHehavebeentheobjectofpunitivejustice? How else could justice have touched Him? It could not bypossibilityhavereachedHimexceptonthegroundthatoursinwaslaidonHimastheHeadandRepresentativeofHispeople.ButGoddeliveredHimover,asajudgedeliversamalefactortopunishment,becausetheirguiltwasmadeHisown.

This fact serves to obviate a double objection,—one of Jewish origin,another adduced by the modern theology. As to the Jewish objection:they towhomPeter primarily addressed thewords, regarding Jesus asstricken, smittenofGod, andafflicted,put their objection in this form:Had thisman been sent of God, according to his own claims, He whocommissioned him would have been able to deliver him from men'shands. But according to Peter's declaration, based on prophecy and onthe divine counsel, all this was done by God's appointment; and theinflictionwas necessary for the divine glory and forman's salvation. Asecond objection is that of the modern theology, that Jesus enduredsufferingsonlyatthehandofman,andnotatthehandofGod,andthat

they are to be regarded as sufferings encountered in His propheticalfunction,—thesamewiththosewhichgoodmenalwaysencounterinthissinfulworldbytheuniformlawofevil.TheywereinflictedbythehandofGod,otherwisemencouldnothaveputforththeirhandstotouchHim.The theory we impugn represents the moral government of God asleaving all to random accident, as if the world were under no law norcontrol, as if everything could have happened to the Son ofGodwhichhappens to sinful men. But the world is not such an unfathered andunregulatedprovinceasthistheorytakesforgranted.

AstothemodeofHisdeath,Christwastobetriedandjudgedbymen.ThemannerofHisdeath,aswellastheatoningdeathitself,wereequallyappointed in God's counsel and outlined in prophecy. Our Surety wasaccounted guilty, while personally sinless; and however Pilatepronounced Him without fault, and acquitted Him, there was anothertribunalwhosesentencewasonlyregisteredatthatearthlytribunal,andthere,thoughpersonallyinnocent,HewasinHiscapacityasMediatorbynomeansinnocent.WhatHeborewasinrespectofmanmostunjust,butperfectlyjustinrespectofGod.ItisurgedthatHecouldnotbetheobjectof punitive visitation, for itwould be unworthy of a sinless being to betreatedasasinner.Theanswerisobvious:HewasnottheobjectofdivinepunishmentonHisownaccount,orconsideredinHispersonalrelationtoHisFather.ButHesustainedthepersonofsinfulmen,andboretheirsin,astheprophetsandapostlesagainandagainrepeat.TheobjectoftheFather's delight personally,Hewas the object of punitive justice as therepresentativeofsinners.Thequestion,therefore,comestothis:Wassintheproperobjectofpunishment?Isthisaninnatebelieforfirstprincipleinnatural theology?The reasonwhy it pleased theLord to bruiseHimwas,thatsincouldnotbedischargedwithoutpunishment,onaccountoftheinsultorwrongdonetothedivineperfections.ThustheinflictionwasjustinrespectofGod,whovisitedsinwithitsduerecompenseofreward.WhenHewasarraignedatahumantribunalasarebelandblasphemer,thatwasbutanemblemofwhatwehadmeritedatthehandofGod,orofwhattheSuretyactuallyenduredinoursteadasasatisfactiontodivinejustice. An invisible hand executed in an infinite measure thosepunishmentsofwhichweseetheoutwardforminthearrestandbonds,the stripes and scourging, the condemnation and mockery, the shame

andcastingoutofthecamp,aswellasintheexpressionswhichfellfromHimamidHisdesertion.Whatcamefromman,wasbutafeebleoutlineofwhatcame fromthehandofGod.Thatoutwardpunishmentshowedthe chastisement and cursewhichGodHimselfwas inflicting upon theSurety; forbehind the visible tribunal and the visible inflictionwashidsomething infinitelymore formidablewhichHesuffered immediatelyatthe hand of God. There were visitations and desertions infinitelymoreseverethananystripesthatwerevisible,whenHewasmadetofeel theturpitude and guilt of sin, and to realizeHis obligation to punishment,temporalandeternal.ButitisnotpossibletoconceivewhatHeendured.

3.WesaidtheapostlementionstheacceptanceofChrist'swork.Hesaysofdeath, "Itwasnotpossible thatHeshouldbeholdenof it" (ver.24);andwhenweconsiderwhythiswasnotpossible,itisnotafullanswertoappeal, as is commonly done, to His omnipotence and divine life. Thegreat reason was, that His soul had been made an offering for sin, asweet-smellingsavour,andthatHemustbedischargedinjudicialform.Deathcouldreignonlywheresinwas;itcouldremainonlywhereithadacertain right. A sinner whose guilt is undischargedmay be held underdeath;buttheHolyOneofGodcouldnotlongbeheldunderitspower.Buttoillustratethisloosingofthepainsofdeath,theapostlequotesfromaMessianic psalm containing an allusion to thedisembodied state andresurrectionoftheLord:"Thouwiltnotleavemysoulinhell"(thatis,inHades,theinvisibleworld),"norsufferThyHolyOnetoseecorruption"(Ps. 16:10).On comparing the psalmwithPeter's commentary,we findtheMessianicreferencevindicatedonaprinciplewhichcanbeappliedtoall similar passages (Acts 2:29). We have an announcement that thehumansoulof theMessiahwasforatimetobe inadisembodiedstate,but that the body, the other element of His humanity, should see nocorruption.ThesoulofChristwastobeinastateofseparationfromthebody. There may be some difficulty in apprehending the Hebrewconception of the invisible world, andwhether it was represented as alocalityoracondition;butthereisnodoubtthatHadeswasnotsimplyequivalent to the grave: for an allusion is made to the grave in thepreviousverse,inthewords,"Myfleshalsoshallrestinhope"(Ps.16:9).Thesoulwastobeintheinvisibleworld(sheol,ver.10).Therehasbeenavastvarietyofexpositionson thispassage, throwinga certainobscurity

overatextinitselfobviousenough.TheRomanistsrepresenttheLord'sdescenttohell,oritssuburbs,asdesignedtodeliverthespiritsoftheOldTestament saints. The Lutheran divines for a long time regarded thedescent tohell as intended todisplay theRedeemer's triumphover thedevils.Toavoidthesespeculationsandhumanfancies,otherinterpretershave gone to an opposite extreme, for which there is as little warrant,representingthetermsoulasif itmightdenotesomethingelsethanthehuman soul of the Messiah. Some take the clause as containing anallusiontoHisdeadbody;othersexpounditofHisperson;othersofHisphysicallife;whilethetermHadesiscommonlytakenforthegrave.Thatisnottointerpretwords,buttoinsertopinions.Nojusticeisdonetotheword soul, unless we view it as the immortal principle of humanity,distinctfromthebody,andcapableofexistingapartTheMessiahinthepassageexpressesHisconfidencethatGodwouldnotleaveHissoulinadisembodied state; which is the consequence of carrying out the curseinflicted on sin, and unwelcome to humanity, because not the normalstate of man. To this separation of the constituent elements of man'snaturetheLordsubmittedasthesin-bearingSuretyofHispeople.Andinthe psalm He virtually says: Thou wilt permit me to come forth as aconquerorfromthedisembodiedstateintowhichIentered,andfromthegrave intowhich I descended, because the guilt charged tomy accounthas been deleted, and the necessity ofwrath removed, bymy vicariousoblation.

ThedesirehereexpressedfordeliverancefromHades,coupledwiththeapostle's statement that God loosed the pains of death, gives us tounderstandthat,tillthemomentwhendivinejusticewasdeclaredtobefully satisfied, the human soul of the Lord was in an unwelcomecondition. And the reason is obvious: though there is no ground forthinkingthattherewasfurtheranguishoragonytobeenduredafterHesaid,"Itisfinished,"andcommendedHisspiritintoHisFather'shands,yet,so longas thesoulwas inadisembodiedstate, thetwoelementsofman's nature, separated by death and under the consequences of sin,continuedtobeshutoutfromthefullparticipationofpremiallife.Thesepainsofdeathwerenotyetannihilated.Buttheperfectsacrificesatisfiedjustice, restored our forfeited right to the inheritance, and loosed thecordsofdeath.

FromthisexplanationitappearsthatthehumansoulofJesus,thoughnomore under penal suffering, nay, partaking of rest, refreshment, andpeace in paradise, was, while disembodied, in an unwelcome position,from which, as the psalm indicates, He longed to be delivered, as thelingeringconsequencesofsin,tothisextent,stillattachingtothepersonof the God-man; and therefore it was not fitting that so august andgloriousapersonshould longbeheldcaptiveto thedominionofdeath,whenthecompletedatonementrestoredourrighttolife,andputHim,asourrepresentative,inpossessionofitTherewasnopathoutofdeathbutbyasatisfactiontothedivinelaw,andtheenduranceofthatpunishmentwhich transgression had incurred. The right to life was first mademanifesttoangelsandmen,whentheSuretywasbroughtfromthegravebytheJudgeofalltheearth;thatis,justifiedastheSurety(1Tim.3:16).All who believe on Him, to the end of time, perceive in this openrecognition of His vicarious work the annihilation of their guilt, theputting away of their own sins—a fact presupposed in the transaction.The ground on which Peter puts the resurrection of Christ is verysignificant: "God loosed thepains of death, because itwasnot possiblethatHeshouldbeholdenofit"(Acts2:24).WhentheapostleaffirmsthatHecouldnotpossiblybeholdenofdeath,thequestionarises,Why?Wasitsimply,assomehaveput it,becausetherewasaninvinciblepowerofthe divine life inHim? orwas it, as others put it, because the promisegiven toDavidmustbe fulfilled inhis seed—becauseprophecymustbeaccomplished? These reasons presuppose another. The work beingfinished, the Judge showed that the satisfaction was complete; for theRedeemer could not abide in death,which reigns only in the sphere ofunexpiated sin. Death can come only upon a sinner, or one subject toguilt.ThedeepestreasonwhytheLordcouldnotbeholdenofdeath,wasthecompleteexpiationofsin.

Itisnotcorrecttosay,assomehavedone,thatwefindnoallusionheretothedeathofJesusfortheremissionofsins,orthatthedoctrineoftheLord's sacrificial death, afterwards enforced as the apostle's principalidea,wasnotyetdevelopedinPeter'smind.Tosaythattheexpressionsare indefinite and general, and thatnothing is intimated in the generalstructure of these first discourses, or in their single expressions, fromwhichwemay infer the connectionbetween thedeathofJesusand the

sinner's acceptance, is quite gratuitous. For though Peter refers to theatonementinalessdirectwaythaninhisepistles,itwillbefound,ifweexaminetheirstructure,thattheMessiahshipofJesus,withtheimpliedfact of sin-bearing, set forth in Isaiah, was always prominent in theseaddresses.OntheforegroundwealwaysfindthecrucifiedMessiah,andthemessageofforgivenessinclosecausalconnectionwithit.

b.AsimilardiscoursewasafterwardsdeliveredbyPeterontheoccasionofthemiracleperformedontheimpotentmanatthebeautifulgateofthetemple(Acts3:12).Theatonement,thoughnotverydirectly introduced,is there referred to in its elements. Jesus is (1) calledTHEHOLYONEAND THE RIGHTEOUS (ver. 14); titles which must be understood asdescriptiveoftheSuretyofsinners,consideredinHissinlessholinessandperfect righteousness beforeGod, andnot as amere declaration ofHisinnocencefromthechargesonwhichHewascondemned.Tothese(2)wemust add another title, HIS SERVANT JESUS (vers. 13 and 26): forthough the earlier Protestant interpreters were wont to translate thesephrases, "His Son Jesus," "Thyhold child Jesus" (Acts 4:27), as if theyreferredtoHisdivineSonship,recentinterpretersmorecorrectlyregardit as the translation of the prophet's appellation, "The Servant of theLord"(Isa.42:1,52:13).Thatthisisthetruerenderingthereisnoroomtodoubt,becausewefinditappliedinamuchinferiorsensetoDavidandtothe people of Israel (Acts 4:25; Luke 1:54). As applied to the Lord, itmeantthatHewastheservantofGodbywayofeminence,orinauniquesense,socalledbecauseHecamedownfromheavennot todoHisownwill,butthewillofHimthatsentHim,andcompliedwithallthedutiesand obligations which the Father imposed on Him as the surety ofsinners. The conditions which the Father prescribed were promptlyfulfilled, in all the various relations which man occupies to the moralGovernor as a creature and as a sinner, to the utmost extent a sinlessnaturecouldrenderthem,whenHesubmittedtovicarioussufferingformen's redemption.On theFather's side itwasa truecommand,andonthepartoftheRighteousServantitwasatrueobedienceintheroomofothers.HiswholelifewasspentintheserviceofGodforsinners.HewastheservantofGod,not simply in theexecutionofHiscommissionasaprophet, but especially inHis fulfilment of the office of a surety in ourroom. Now all this succinctly describes the very essence of Christ's

atoningwork,andwecannotallowthatPeterinthisaddresssaysnothingon the doctrine of the atonement.When put on his defence before thecouncil,theapostledeclaredthattherewassalvationinnoother(4:10–12); that this is theonename, to theexclusionof everyother; and thatredemptionstandsconnectedwiththenameofChrist,consideredastheMessiah,theabased,thecrucified,andexalted.

c. I shall briefly refer to themode inwhich the first disciples preachedChrist.AnexaminationofpassagessatisfiesusthatbythisphrasewearetounderstandthepreachingofChristcrucified,withthesavingefficacyofHis death. One interesting passage in confirmation of this view is thedescriptionofPhilip's preaching to the eunuch, as given in thebookofActs (8:29). Commissioned by the Spirit to instruct the Abyssinianinquirer, he preached to him Jesus, in connection with Isaiah'sdescriptionofthesufferingSurety:hetookforhistextthepassagewhichhefoundtheinquirerwistfullyperusing,butunabletocomprehend(ver.12),—theaccountof the sufferingsofMessiahportrayedby theprophet(Isa.53:7,8).Plainlyahigherhandwasguidingboth,theonetoperusethatpredictionofthesufferingMessiah,theothertobasehisinstructionson the passage. Beginning at the same scripture, he preached to himJesus;inotherwords,preachedthevicarioussuffererandtheatonement.WemaysaythattheonegrandtopicofChristianinstructionduringtheirbriefinterview,whenmysteriouslybroughttogetherandasmysteriouslyseparated, was the cross. Had the atonement not formed the theme ofthat firstmissionary address which led the inquirer to salvation, therewas no meaning in referring to the passage of Isaiah, no link ofconnectionbetweenthetwothings.

II.The secondprincipalperson in thebookofActs is theApostlePaul.His testimony to the atonement is so full and explicit in his variousepistles, that itmay seem superfluous to adduce a proof of it from hisbriefly reported sermons in the book ofActs.We see, however, that heheld one uniform doctrine wherever he went; determined not to knowanything among the Corinthians but Jesus Christ andHim crucified (1Cor. 2:2), repudiating with strong feelings of aversion among theGalatians the least degree of glorying save in the cross (Gal. 6:14), andalways consistentwith himself in every place.We have a record in the

book of Acts of two addresses of amissionary character by Paul,—onedeliveredintheJewishsynagogueatAntiochinPisidia(Acts13:15–41),aseconddeliveredtotheheathenphilosophersofAthens(Acts17:22–31),—nottomentionothersspokenbeforetheJewishauthoritiesinhisowndefence. These discourses bring the hearers to the cross as the centre-pointofhispreaching,butbydifferentpaths.Besidesthese,wehaveanaddressofadifferentnaturetotheEphesiansassembledatMiletus.

a. The address to the Jews at Antioch in Pisidia was in its form andtexture very similar toPeter's sermonon thedayofPentecost, for theywerebothaddressedtoJews.TheapostledescribesJesusastheseedofDavidandtheSonofGod(ver.33),andmakesanappealtothefulfilmentof prophecy to prove that Jesus the Christ died, was buried, and roseagain from the dead, according to the Scriptures (vers. 30–38). Heestablishes the sinlessness of Jesus,whenhe shows that they foundnocauseofdeathinHim(ver.28).HedescribesHimasraiseduptoIsraelasaSaviour(ver.23),andthensetsforththatFORGIVENESSOFSINSWAS PREACHED IN HIS NAME (ver. 38). This language deservesattention, as it intimates that forgiveness was preached, not sold norbartered;inotherwords,thatpardonwasproclaimedwithoutconditionsor terms, simply on the ground of the humiliation to which Jesussubmitted on earth. He next announces that on the same foundationwhoeverbelievesisjustifiedfromallthingsfromwhichhecouldnothavebeen absolved by the law ofMoses.Wemay say that the apostle therepreaches therighteousnessof faith,not therighteousnessof the law, inthesamewayasinhisvariousepistles.Heaffirms,inthesamemannerasinhisEpistletotheRomans,thatwhatthelawcouldnotdo,becauseitwasweak through the flesh,wasattained through faith inChrist (Rom.8:3).

b.IntheothermissionarydiscoursedeliveredtotheGentilephilosophersofAthens,theapostleproceededinadifferentway(Acts18:22).Heinthefirst instancewentback to theprinciplesofnatural religion,because ineverydiscussionthefirstrequirementistohavesomecommonground;and the principles of natural theology were the only data, the onlyplatform,wheretheycouldfindcommonground.HefirstpreachesGodasCreator,Upholder,Disposer,andJudge, thoughHewasunknownas

yettothem—theunknownGod.HenextadvancedtotheresurrectionofJesus,inconnectionwiththeannouncementofthejudgment;thefactofa judgmentbeingstatedasappointedforagivenday,andtobecarriedoutbyJesusChrist(Acts17:31).Thisbroughttheapostletothecross,orwouldhavebroughthim,hadthemockerywithwhichhewasassailednotinterruptedthecontinuityofthediscourse.

c. Besides these discourses of Paul, which from the occasion and thehearers were of a missionary character, there is a memorable pastoraladdress to the elders of Ephesus assembled at Miletus. Among othertopics,theapostleadvertstothedeathofChristasthegreatransom-pricebywhichHepurchasedthechurch,andthefoundationofallHisrightofpropertyinthechurch.Speakingtoelderslongestablishedinthefaith,heurgesthemtodiligencebytheconsiderationthatthechurchwasdeartothemas thepurchasedpropertyofChrist—asboughtatan infinitecost.Hespeaksof thechurchaspurchasedby theLordwithHisownblood,and won by Him to be His property, thus: "Take heed therefore untoyourselves,andtoalltheflockoverwhichtheHolyGhosthasmadeyouoverseers, to feed thechurchofGod,whichHehaspurchasedwithHisown blood" (Acts 20:28). Here several points connected with theatonement call for exposition.Though there is a variety of reading, thewhole clause shows that special emphasis is laid on the dignity of theperson,andonthepreciousnessoftheransom,bywhichthechurchwasbought.

1.Thechurchisdescribedasblood-boughtproperty.ThatpriceissaidtohavemadethechurchGod'schurch,orChrist'schurch,inconsequenceofwhichthepeopleofGodstandintheclosestandmosttenderrelationtotheLord.TheyareHisbyrightofpurchase,analogoustowhatinancienttimeswascustomarywhenslaveryprevailed.ThechurchiscalledGod's,ortheLord's,whetherwelookattheseveralmembersoratthecollectivebody,notsimplybecauseHerulesit—forinthatsensetheentirecreationmightbesocalled—butbyreasonofpurchase,andofthecloserelationinwhich He stands to it. This comes out in numerous passages, whichexplicitlydeclarethattheredeemedaretheLord's,andnottheirown,byrightofpurchase(1Cor.6:20;Tit.2:14;Rev.5:9;Rom.14:8,9).BythatthoughttheapostlestimulatedtheeldersofEphesustofidelity,vigilance,

andcareinfeedingthemembersofthechurch.Theyhadbeenpurchasedwith blood; and sinceGodhadbought themwith themost astonishingprice, thatconsiderationwas toanimate theeldersandoverseersof thechurch to take themost tender interest ineverymember,and toevincethemostvigilantcare.

2. The price or ransom was His own blood. Whichever noun is theantecedent to which the pronoun refers, the allusion is plainly to thepersonal dignity of Him by whom the price was paid. Text critics aremore favourably inclined than they have been for a century to thecommonreading,"ThechurchofGod,whichHehaspurchasedwithHisown blood," which, of course, would give an express and formaltestimony to the value of the atonement, considered in the light ofChrist'sdeity.Buttheotherreading,ifdueweightisgiventothewords,provestheinfluenceofthepersonupontheworkofexpiation;andweareplainlytaughtthatwecannotmakeChristmediatorinonenaturetotheexclusionof theother,nor ignore theactionand influenceof thedivinenature inHisworkofatonement.Wesee thatChrist, inHis redeemingwork,wasnotregardedasmereman,butasGod-man;forthebloodherementioned is called God's own, or the Lords own, showing that thehumanity towhich thebloodbelongedwaspersonallyunited toDeity—notmerehumanity,butGodassuminghumanity;thatis,aGod-manpaidthenecessaryprice,andboughtustobeHis.SogreataworkcouldhavebeenaccomplishedonlyinthefleshofHiminwhomdwellsallthefulnessoftheGodheadbodily;andHesopossessedhumanity,thatHecouldgiveit for others. In every mediatorial act, accordingly, we trace theconcurrentactionoftwonaturesinoneperson;andhenceitistheactoftheGod-man.Thisiseasilyperceivedinthephrase,Hisownblood.

3.Nextletusconsiderwhoownsthechurch.Onlyadivinepersoncanbeherproprietororpossessor.Thismaybesaidtoinclinethebalancestillfurther infavourof thereading,"thechurchofGod."Whoeverredeemsanotherfrometernaldeath,naturallybecomestheownerorproprietoroftheparty so redeemed.Butnone canproperly bepossessor of another,hisownerorhis lord,butonewhosuperaddstothepaymentofapricethefurtherdignityofanatureessentiallydivine.Redemption,indeed,isadivineactasmuchasiscreation.HewhoclaimsusasHispropertymust

necessarilybedivine.

Thuswefindtheapostles,inthebookofActs,constantlyreferringinthefirstinstancetotheLord'shumiliationastheSERVANToftheFatherinthe execution of a commission given Him to do. We find, too, inconnection with this—we may say, in causal connection with this—theproclamation of a present forgiveness of sins, without qualification orpreparationinanyform.Theevasiontowhichsomehaverecourse,thatin all this the apostles meant to obviate the Jewish objection to asufferingMessiah,isoftenrepeated,butwithoutwarrant.Theatonementwas not omitted in thesemissionary discourses, as is evident from thereferencestoprophecy,andtheidentificationofJesuswiththeMessiah,whichatoncerecalled theelementof sin-bearing (Isa.53:5).Thismustbeconceded,unlessweproceed,ontheprincipleofevacuation,toreducethemeaningoftermstoaminimum,—amodeofinterpretationwhollytobe repudiated. Neither the death of Christ nor the resurrection werepreachedasbarehistoricfacts,butintheirmeaningandsignificance.Wecannot reduce the uniform testimony of the apostles to theannouncementofmerehistoricfacts,apartfromthereasonofMessiah'ssufferings and death, or dissociate the significance attaching to theconnectionofthetwo.

Wearewarrantedtoconclude,whenwetaketoouraidtheunambiguousstatementsoftheapostles,thattheymadethedeathofChrist,consideredas an atonement and an eternally valid fact, the centre-point of theirpreaching.Howfartheatonementwasexpoundedinthoseaddresses,initsrationale,constituentelements,andeffects,itmaybedifficulttosay;for their communications were proportioned to the hearers' capacity.Many recondite truths connected with the atonement, such as thepriesthood of Christ, on which the Epistle to the Hebrews dilates, thebearing of the atonement on the divinemoral government, the variousresultsinregardtoman'srelationtohisMaker,thenumberandextentoftheblessingsflowingfromit,andthelike,weredoubtlesstosomeextentreserved, till a people were gathered to whom these truths could beintelligible.Buttheremissionofsins,andthefreeacceptanceofsinnersthrough the death of Christ, were unquestionably preached in the veryfirstaddresseswhichtheapostlesdelivered(Acts13:38).

SEC.VI.—THEAPOSTOLICEPISTLES

NexttothesayingsofJesus,themostimportantsourceofinformationastotheatonementaretheapostolicepistlesaddressedtothechurches.Theapostles kept this truth before the mind of their readers, as they didbeforethemindoftheirhearers.Astheseepistleswerenotaddressedtomankind indiscriminately,but tocompaniesof redeemedmengatheredtogether in severalplaces, andare tobe readasprimarily addressed tobelievers, the numerous explanations they contain as to the Lord'satoningdeath,sufficetoprovethatthereisnotaspiritualblessingwhichdoes not stand in immediate ormediate connectionwith it, not a dutywhich isnot enforcedby it as amotive.Howwide the influenceof thisgreatarticle isondoctrineandpractice,atonceappears fromtheplacewhichitoccupiesintheepistles.TheentirerangeofScripturetruthtakesa tincture from it, and its influence is felt even where it may not beexpresslynamed.

Astudyofthoseapostolicdocumentstowhichwenowcome,willsatisfyeveryreaderthattheatonementwas,intheapostolicschemeofdoctrine,viewedasanaccomplishedfact,eternallyvalidbeforeGod,andrequiringno supplementary addition. They describe it as finished once for all,withouttheneedofrepetition.Theyrefertothefact,thatbythistruththegospel is distinguished and exalted above all humanwisdom.With theapostles this is the great fact in theworld's history, the chief topic, thecentral truth from which they start, and to which they return. All thePauline epistles, with the single exception of the simple Epistle toPhilemon—alettertoaprivateindividual—makeexpressmentionoftheatonement as the most momentous fact that ever occurred in humanhistory, and fraught with themost blessed results. A few remarks willshowthis.

To prove that the epistles represent the atonement as the great fact ofrevelation, we have only to recall the circumstance that it is calledanothergospel,ifman'sacceptanceismadetohingeonanythingbesidesthe cross (Gal. 1:7). The apostles preached reconciliation as effected bythe cross alone, though their message was in perpetual collision withJewishlegalismandGentilephilosophy(1Cor.1:23).Thatthedoctrineof

thecrossbelongstothosearticleswhicharetobecomprehendedintheperpetualteachingofthechurch,isevidentfromthefactthattheapostleurged theCorinthians to keepwhat hadbeendelivered to themon theatonement as the principal topic of Christianity (1 Cor. 15:1–4). Theepistlesshowwhatconstitutestheperpetualdoctrineofthechurch;andthe place which the atonement occupies in them is abundant evidencethatitmusteverbekeptintheviewoftheredeemed,ifthescopeofmanyexhortationsisnottobeperverted,andthesignificanceofmanymotivesisnottobemisapprehended.

The atonement is interwoven into the texture of the epistles to aremarkabledegree;butwedonotfinditequallyinall.Itmustneverbeforgotten that they are not treatises, but letters written for a definitepurpose,andthattheydonotceasetobearthecharacterandimpressofthatstyleofcomposition.Theyarenotexhaustivediscussions:only fiveof theapostleshave leftbehindthemepistolarydocumentsdestinedfortheedificationofthechurch,somemorefullofmatter,othersmorebrief,but all in some important respects bearing upondoctrine and practice,accordingtothespecialserviceforwhichtheyweredestined.Thereasonoftheprominencegivenatonetimetoonetruth,andatanothertimetoanother, can be explained upon the principle that all truth does notequallyrequiretobetaughtatalltimes.Thedifferentepistleshavetheirparticularscope,andhencewefindacertainvariety;butallconcurtooneend.Wecouldnotexpecteveryarticleineveryepistle.

Toallege,ashasbeendone,fromthesilenceofoneortwoofthesmallerepistles,thattheirwritersmusthaveentertainedadifferentdoctrine,orasystemoftruthexclusiveofthevicarioussacrificeofChrist,isamodeofarguingwhichmistakestheirnature.Onthisprinciple,itmightaswellbeallegedthatthewriterofmoreepistlesthanonemusthavechangedhisviews, ifhe isnotequallyexplicitoneverypoint ineveryepistle.WhenthedeathofChristhasaprominentplaceinalmosteveryepistle,andisseenfromeverypointof theChristiansystemand inner life, these factsmayprovehowfundamentaltheatonementis.

AnappealhasbeenmadetothefactthatthereisasilenceonthepointinJAMESandJUDE.Itusedtobestoutlymaintainedbytheclassofwritersopposedtothevicarioussacrifice,thatsuchaviewpervertedthedoctrine

of Scripture, by expounding metaphorical and figurative language in aliteralway,andthattheatonementwasnottobefoundintheBible.Butan impartial examination of Scripture doctrine silenced that objection.Next it was argued that two apostles are silent on it. The answer isobvious.AstotheEpistleofJude,whichhasbeenadducedascontainingnoallusiontotheatonement,itisnotcorrectsotorepresentit.Thoughin his brief epistle Jude does notmention in express terms the blood,sufferings,ordeathofChrist,hementions themercyofourLordJesusChristunto eternal life (ver. 21),—languagebywhichweunderstandallthattheotherapostleshavedirectlytaught inreferencetoHissacrifice.Besides, he appeals to the words spoken before by the apostles of ourLord Jesus Christ (ver. 17). As to the Epistle of James, its scope andteaching are of such a kind, that we cannot reasonably expect him todilateuponfundamentaldoctrine.Itisexpresslyethicalinitswholecastand structure. And itwere asmuch aside from a due conception of itsscope to look for a discussion of Christian doctrine, as it would be torequireofaChristiandivine,inthemidstofamoraltheme,toturnasidetosettledoctrinalquestions.Theepistlehasaspecialaim,fromwhichthewriterdoesnotturnasidetoexpatiateondoctrinaltopics.

Our task, in conducting a strict investigation into the teaching of thevarious epistles on the doctrine of the atonement, is to bring out theapostolic view of the doctrine; and our object is to appeal, on soundprinciples of interpretation, to the truemeaningof the apostles'words.Thereisthegreaterneedforthis,whenweobservethatmany,undertheinfluenceofwhatisstyledmodernthought,orgrowingthought,expressdecideddisliketojuridicalideas,andwillhavenootherredemptionthanamoralredemption,andnootherviewofGodthanthatofabsolutelove.

AfterthefullclassificationofthesayingsofJesusinthepreviousvolume,itseemstobesuperfluoustogiveafurtherconstructionofthedoctrineasan organic whole, or a full dogmatic synopsis of the apostolic outline,becausethiswouldbebutarepetitionofthesamedivisions,oratmostadistributionofdifferenttextsunderthesameheads.Wedeemitenoughtorefertothatclassification.Adistributionoftheapostles'sayingsinthebriefest possible outline might be given, however, under THREEdivisions as follows: The first would contain the POSTULATES of the

doctrine; the second would exhibit its NATURE and constituentelements;thethirdwoulddelineateitsEFFECTS.

1.UnderthePOSTULATESwouldbecomprehendedthenecessityoftheatonement (Heb. 2:10); the harmony of justice and love, or theconcurrenceofwrathagainstsin,andlovetothesinningcreature(1John4:10);theinfluenceofChrist'ssupremedeityinHiswork(Rom.8:3);theappointmentofamediator, surety,orhighpriestbyadivinecall (Heb.5:5),—thusprovidingforthepossibilityofsubstitution.

2. Under the NATURE or constituent elements, would be classifiedChrist's sinlessnessandsin-bearing,according to the twofoldobligationlying on us (1 Pet. 3:18; 2 Cor. 5:21); in other words, the active andpassive obedience of the Lord, in His undeviating performance of thedivinewill(Heb.10:9,10),—thuseffectingtheONEsacrificeforsin(Heb.10:12).

3.Under theEFFECTSwouldbe classifiedagreatnumberofdistinctlyexpressedbenefits,referringfirsttoourrelativepositionofacceptanceorreception into favour, where we may enumerate, a. redemption, b.forgiveness, c. reconciliation, d. justification, directly flowing from theatonement:next,theprivilegeofapproachinworshiptoaholyGodinthecapacityofaroyalpriesthood,wherewemayenumeratethesprinklingorpurifying,washing, cleansing, or sanctifying of a holy people relatively:thentherenovationofthenature,orthecommunicationofspirituallifesubjectively: then the new relation to the persons of the Godhead—toChrist,asHisblood-boughtproperty(1Cor.6:20);totheHolyGhost,asHistemple(1Cor.6:19);totheFather,asHispeopleandchildren:thenthenewrelationshiptoangelicbeings,andtomenofallnations:thenthevictory over Satan, the world, and death: then the liberation from aneconomy of ceremonies (Col. 2:14): then the elevatingmotives derivedfrom the cross,with various other points relating to the efficacy of thesacrifice,andthedangerofneglectingit.

But havingmade as complete a classification aswe could of the Lord'ssayings,itissuperfluoustodoitasecondtime.

CHAPTERII:THETESTIMONYTOTHEATONEMENTINTHEPAULINEEPISTLES

SEC.VII.—THEEPISTLESOFPAULONTHERIGHTEOUSNESSOFGOD

AS Peter is called the apostle of hope, and John of love, Paul may becalledtheapostleoffaith,ormorestrictly,oftherighteousnessoffaith.As a testimony to the atonement, the epistles of Paul will be foundparticularly full and copious; for there is not a phase of the doctrinewhich he does not develope and apply. If he did not, like the otherapostles,enjoythepersonalteachingofJesusinthedaysofHisflesh,hewasbynomeanswithoutdirect communications fromhisLord; forhewastaughtbytherevelationofJesusChrist(Gal.1:12),andevencaughtup into paradise to hear unspeakable words (2 Cor. 12:4). Apart fromthis,hewasledbytheSpiritintotheimportofthelawandtheprophets,and there found the truthwhich his nature needed, andwhichwas allverifiedintheLord'satoningdeath.Hereproducesthedoctrineinmanynew lights, from the objective truth opened up to him in the OldTestament, and from his own deep experimental acquaintance withChristastheendofthelaw.

Astotheorderofconductingtheinquiry,wepurposetotaketheepistlesintheorderinwhichtheystandinthecommoneditionsoftheBible.Theadvantage obtained by following the chronological order in which theepistles are supposed to have beenwritten—for there is bynomeans acompleteuniformityofopinionontheirexactorder—willnotcompensatefor the inconvenience of departing from the well-known arrangement.Andwe abide by it the rather becausewe can discover no trace of anydevelopment of Paul's views from one stage to another: he was likehimself from themomentwhen he died to the law by the reception ofChrist(Rom.7:4,9).Notthathisepistlesareallalike;buttheytaketheircolour from the circumstances and prevalent sentiments in the variouschurches.

While the apostle makes use of all the terms employed by the otherwriters,suchasredemption,propitiation,peace,andthelike,descriptiveof Christ's sacrificial death, there is one peculiar to him, THE

RIGHTEOUSNESS OF GOD, which very frequently occurs. Thoughannouncedintheprophets,andindirectlyalludedtobyPeterandJohnintheiruseofthedesignation"theRighteousOne," it isspeciallyfoundinPaul, who uses this abstract expression to describe the atonement inrelationtodivinelaw.

IpurposeinthissectiontoconsidersomewhatfullytherighteousnessofGod,andtogrouptogetherthePaulinedoctrineonthesubject.Amidthemanifoldnegationsofthetimes,itcannotbewithoutitsusetogiveanewgroundingtothisimportantexpression.Thatagreatchangehasenteredin the mode of viewing the righteousness of God, compared with thegeneral recognition which it received in all the Protestant churches,cannotbedoubtfultoanyonewhohaswatchedthechangesofopiniononthesubjectoftheatonement.Thiswaslongthedescriptivenameforthematerialcauseofasinner'sacceptancewithGod.Thetaskweimposeonourselves is toascertain the importof thephrase, "the righteousnessofGod," and to define the placewhich it occupies in thePauline epistles;andweaimatanobjectivestatement,embodyingtheresultsofexegeticalinquiry, more than a formal discussion of the opinions which haveappearedontheecclesiastical field, thoughwecannotomitallnoticeofrecentviewsfundamentallyopposedtothepropermeaningoftheterms.We wish to go direct to the apostles, except where it is indispensablynecessary to refer to recentobscuring theories.The taskof reproducingapostolic doctrine in its true significance and organic connections, isbecominganurgentduty;andthepartassignedtoexegeticaltheologyistorecall,asfarasmaybe,notonlysinglephrases,butthegeneraloutlineof those truths by which the apostles, as the chosen organs of Christ'srevelation, exhibited in the church the richesof divine grace as seen intheincarnateWord,andunfoldedtothemafterHisascension.

AnoccasionforafullinquiryintotherighteousnessofGodwillbefoundalso in the fact that a large class of minds betray a hesitancy whichcontrastspainfullywiththelibertyandboldnesswhichmarkedthedaysoftheapostles.Thisattachestonotafewwhoaretrulyoccupiedwiththepersonal Redeemer and the contemplation of the divine Life, but stopshort of defining themode in which THERIGHTEOUSNESSOFGODstands related to LIFE in the Pauline scheme of doctrine. They evince

little interest indeed as to the relation of these points to each other,seekingthefellowshipof lifewithChristwithoutdistinct ideasastotheindispensableconditionsofthiscommunion.Undertheinfluenceofwhatcanonlybecalledamysticelement,limitingtheregardtoChristINUS,and failing to give prominence to Christ FOR US, they never breathefreely the liberty of the gospel. They have fallen under a scheme ofdoctrinewhichmakesnodistinctionbetweenthepersonandthenature,thestandingofthemanandtherenovationoftheheart,theobjectiveandthesubjective;andthoughcorrectlyregardingthepersonofChristasthecentre-point of Christianity and the fountain of life, they do not knowhowLifestandsrelatedtoRighteousness—athoughtpervadingthewholePaulinedoctrine.

Our first inquiry must be to ascertain the precise import of therighteousness of God in the Pauline epistles, and the place it holds inthem.Acomparisonoftheseepistleswithoneanothershowsthattherearetwodivisionsorclasses,withtheirownmarkedpeculiarity,accordingas the apostle has occasion to counteract a Jewish Legalism, or atendency to an incipient Gnosticism, invading the Christian churcheswhileheyetlived.Tothepharisaiccastofthought,withitsattachmenttothe works of the law, and the enforcement of legal ceremonies asnecessary,allusionismadeintheEpistlestotheGalatians,Romans,andPhilippians;andtheretherighteousnessofGodisthecentralthought.Tothe oriental theosophy, with its claim to a higher wisdom, which putnotions in the place of the personalRedeemer, allusion ismade in theEpistles to theEphesians andColossians (Col. 2:8).There thepersonalChrist,andthelifefoundinHim,arethecentralthoughts.ButeventhereLIFE isviewedas subsequent to,anddependenton, theatonement.Tothe former class of the Pauline epistles we direct our attention in thissection. And our purpose is to notice the place which THERIGHTEOUSNESSOFGODholds in them; for thisphrase, aswe shallfind, is descriptive of the finished work of Christ, as approved at thedivinetribunal,andthemeritoriouscauseofouracceptance.

Throughout the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the Romans, therighteousness of God, as a descriptive name for the atonement, is thegrandtheme.TheEpistletotheGalatians,again,isnothingelsethanan

enforcementofthegreattruth,thattothecloseoftheChristian'scareer,therighteousnessoffaithistheonepleavalidbeforeGod;andnosecondrecommendationorcondition,intheformofworks,isofanyavail(Gal.2:21,3:21,6:5).IntheEpistlestotheCorinthianswefindthesamethemein the same antithesis, with this difference only, that other pointsrequiredattentioninthischurch(1Cor.1:30;2Cor.3:9).Butwhentheapostle contrasts the two economies, the law is called the ministry ofcondemnation, and the gospel the ministry of righteousness. In theEpistle to thePhilippianswe findPaul,whenverynear the closeofhiscareer, still counting all things but loss for this righteousness, and farfromhavingoutlivedthisthought,whichcolouredhisideasinprospectofapproachingmartyrdom(Phil.3:9).WefindallusiontotherighteousnessofGodalsointhepastoralepistles(Tit.3:5–7).

HavingseenhowprevalentisthereferencetotherighteousnessofGodinthe Pauline epistles, we have next to consider in what it consists. Andhereitwillbenecessarytoobviatesomemisconceptions.

1. The phrase cannot be held to refer to the divine attribute ofrighteousness.Divine justice, reflected in the law, is indeed the rule orstandard on which, in a definite sense, the righteousness of God ismeasured; but this righteousness is not the divine attribute itself. TheexpressionisuniformlyintroducedinScriptureasdescriptiveofwhatisduefromman,orastheethicalresponseonman'ssidetoadivineclaim.ItisanameforthatwhichAdamshouldhaverendered,andnotadivineperfection.Somefaintcolourseemstobelenttotheideathatitmaybethe divine attribute by the apparent connection—though it is butapparent—between the two statements in two successive verses: "TherighteousnessofGodisrevealedinthegospel;"and,"ThewrathofGodisrevealed from heaven against all ungodliness" (Rom. 1:17, 18). But thetwo statements, though placed in close juxtaposition, and apparentlyconnected by a causal particle (γάρ), belong to two wholly differenteconomies,andhavenothing incommon.Thetacit thought is:Allalikeneed the provision of the gospel, andmust repair to it; FOR they havenothing to expect but a revelation of wrath on their own account. ThemodeofexpoundingthisphrasebyallusiontothedivineattributewasinrealityovercomeattheReformation.Luthertellsusthat,havinglonghad

adesiretounderstandtheEpistletotheRomans,hewasalwaysstoppedbytheexpression"therighteousnessofGod,"whichheunderstoodasthedivineattribute;butafterlongmeditations,andspendingdaysandnightsinthesethoughts,thenatureofthatrighteousnesswhichjustifiesuswasdiscoveredtohim;uponwhichhefelthimselfbornanew,andthewholeScripturesbecomequiteadifferentthing.Itisevident,indeed,thattherecanbeno allusion to thedivine attribute of justice, because thiswouldfurnish the idea of an incensed God, which is the purport of the law;whereas the provision is one of grace, displaying a reconciling andjustifying God, which is the essence of the gospel. Besides, such anacceptationasthatwhichweopposewouldnotadaptitselftothegeneralphraseology of Scripture. Thus, in the memorable passage whichrepresentsChristasmadesinthatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGod,itisevidentthatinnosenseoftheterms,andwithnoproprietyoflanguage,coulditbesaidoftheChristianthatheismadetheattributeofrighteousness (2 Cor. 5:21). The fact, too, that it is commonly put inantithesis to our own righteousness (Phil. 3:9), determines thesignificanceof theexpression tobesomethingdifferent fromthedivineattribute.Theonlypartwhichthedivinejusticeactsinthismatteris,thatit furnishes the rule or standard by which it is tried. When thisrighteousness is called a gift (Rom. 5:17), and said to be of God, ordivinelyprovided,incontrastwiththatwhichisofthelawandourown(Phil.3:9),theideais,thatforthosewhohavenorighteousnessoftheirownthisisthegraciousprovisionofGod.

Attempts have been made, however, to explain the phrase in a mysticway,byreferringittoChrist'sessentialrighteousnessasadivineperson.This notion, propounded by Osiander, and restored by some men ofmystic tendencies, separates theone indivisibleworkofChrist into twoparts, allowing pardon to be procured by Christ's atoning blood, butmaintainingthatrighteousnessisthecommunicationofChrist'sessentialattribute. That argues a completemisconception ofChrist'smediatorialwork,whichwasmeanttobringinwhatwasduefrommanasacreature,and has everything in common with what the first man should haveproduced.TheessentialrighteousnessbelongstoGodasGod,andtotheSonofGodasadivineperson.Buttherighteousnessofwhichtheapostlespeaks is that which was required from man as man, and which a

Mediator, as our substitute, brought in tomeet ourwants; and thoughthiscouldbebrought inonlybyaGod-man,uniting the twonatures inoneperson,thewholeisproperlyacreated,notanuncreated,ahuman,not a divine righteousness. The supremeLawgiver did not demand theessentialrighteousnessofGod,butwhatwaspropertoacreaturemadeinthelikenessandimageofGod.Anditconsistsinaction,notinthemerepossessionof aperfectnature.Adamhad thepurenature,but failed inrendering the righteousness. But neither is it mere outward action oroutwarddeed,butaperfectnatureactingitselfout,orapprovingitselftothe Lawgiver by a compliance with the law in the sphere of triedobedience.

We have only to examine the language of Scripture to see that therighteousnessofGodofwhichPaul sooften speaks isnotHis essentialrighteousness: for God does not demand from man His own essentialrighteousness, but that which is competent to a creature; and therighteousness of createdbeings corresponds to the thought ofGod andthe will of God, from whom they derive their origin. The creature'sdestinyistobeartheimpressofthedivineperfectionsinitssphere.SuchwouldhavebeenAdam's righteousnesshad it been verified (5:12); thatwhich the creature owes to the Creator, not that which the CreatorHimself possesses. This will appear from the general phraseology ofScripture(Rom.10:3).

2. Another opinion, much more common than the former, is that therighteousnessofGoddenotesaninwardrighteousness,onthegroundofwhich, whether it is already perfect or not, God pronounces menrighteous by a judicial sentence. This is the interpretation given byNeander, Olshausen, and others; and it is still accepted by not a fewbelieving men in various churches, though not to the same extent asformerly. Lipsius, in his treatise on the Pauline view of justification,contends that thewordneverrefersmerely toanobjectiverelation,butalways to an inward condition as well, sometimes delineated in itsprinciple, and sometimes in its future perfection. We must do thesewritersthejusticetostate,thatbythistheydonotmeanajustificationbyworks. While they interpret it as the inner righteousness which Godworks, and represent it as so pleasing toGod, that on account of itHe

pronouncesmenrighteous,thoughnotyetcompletelyperfect,theyavoidtheabyssof legalism,and lay stresson the faithwhichunitesus to thepersonofChristastheLife.ThisviewhaseverythingincommonwiththedoctrineofAugustineandtheJansenistsonthesamesubject;drawingadistinctionbetweenaman'sownrighteousness(Phil.3:9),asundertakenin the exercise of his unaided powers, and that which is "of God,"interpretedasmeaningproducedbydivinegrace.This,theythink,istheimportoftheexpression"therighteousnessofGod."

But the antithesis between our own righteousness and that which iscalled the righteousness ofGod is different. It is between thatwhich issubjective(ourown)andthatwhichisobjective(God's).Theopinionweare controverting, though different from legalism, and speaking ofsalvationbyfaith,isatvariancewiththePaulinedoctrine,aswillappearby twoconsiderations. (1.)Theobjective relationexpressedby the termstandsoutinboldreliefwhenweconsiderthepeculiarantithesisbetweenChristmadesin forus, andbelieversmade the righteousnessofGod inHim(2Cor.5:21).Thesewordsintimatethat,inthesamesenseinwhichChristwasmadesin—thatis,objectivelyandbyimputation—inthatsenseareHispeoplemadetherighteousnessofGod.Noristhesensedifferentin another passage, where the apostle contrasts the going about toestablish apersonal righteousness, and submitting to the righteousnessofGod (Rom. 10:3); orwhenhedeclares thathewishes tobe found inChrist,nothavinghisownrighteousness,buttherighteousnesswhichisof God (Phil. 3:9). It cannot be alleged that the antithesis in the latterpassageisbetweenworksofnatureandworksofgrace,worksoflawandworksoffaith.(2.)ItobliteratesthedistinctionbetweenthepersonandthenatureandthestandinginthefirstorsecondAdam,withwhichthewholeScriptureisreplete.Itconfoundsrighteousnessandlife,whichareever carefullydistinguished, theonebeing theway to theother.This isconclusiveagainst the interpretation, ifwewouldabideby theapostle'suseoflanguage,andnoteffacehisexpressdistinctions.

3. Another opinion is, that faith itself is counted as theRighteousness.There are various modifications of this opinion; but none of themsupposes anobjective righteousness ofGod thathasbeenwrought out,and then revealed in thegospel; and inalmost every case it throws the

mindbackonitselfinaneonomiantendency.

a.Tobeginwith thatphaseof itwhich is simplyArminian, or thathaseverything in commonwith Arminianism, the act of faith ismade thisrighteousness.Theanswerisobvious:Faith,inthatcase,istransformedintoanewlaw,whereasweareacceptedwithoutworksof law.Besides,this theoryassumesthatGodacceptsan imperfect title foraperfect,byaccommodatingHis right toman's inability; an interpretationwhich, ifcarried out to the full, is derogatory to the divine law, and fitted toexplode thewhole redemption-work of Christ. If the divine law can berelaxedbyGod's receding fromHis rights,whymayHenot recede toayet largerdegree,andwhollysupersede thenecessityof the incarnationand atonement? The inflexible strictness and immutable claims of thedivine law are taken for granted by the atonement. This view wasadvocatedbyTittmann,whoremarks thatScripturedoesnot teach thattherighteousnessofChrist is imputed tomen,but that faith iscountedfor righteousness. Though this has some colour from the expression,"Faith is counted for righteousness," it loses this when the phrase isproperly rendered. It should be rendered, "Faith is counted untorighteousness," expressing the result, and lends no countenance to thenotion that a substitute is accepted for a perfect righteousness. Therighteousness of God is made ours through faith as the means ofreception(Rom.3:22).But,ontheothertheory,howcanthesentenceoftheJudgehave a sufficient ground?Amethodof acceptance,without areal righteousnesswhichcanbemeasuredon thedivineclaims,neithermeets the requirements of God's justice nor satisfies an awakenedconscience.

b.Amodificationofthesameview,decidedlyinaneonomiantendency,thoughofa subtlenature, isproposedbyan ingeniousopponentof thevicarious sacrifice. It is alleged that Christianity makes known theabsoluteforgivenessofsinwithoutatonementasitsprocuringcause,andthat thebelief of thisoffer is consideredas righteousness.Faith is thussupposed to be God-pleasing conduct, and accepted as righteousness.When a man renders this obedience, his conduct is pleasing in God'ssight, and reckoned for righteousness.Apart fromother considerations,thistheorysupposesnotareal,butamerelyputativerighteousness;and

thusthefoundationofacceptanceiscompletelyundermined.

4. Another opinion prevalent, is to the effect that the righteousness ofGoddenotesthestateofbeingjustified.Nottomentionnamesinthelastage,thisviewwasheldbyStuartofAndover,andWieseleronGalatians.The lattermakes it thestate intowhichthe justifiedarebrought,or thecondition of possessing justification. This view, though certainly nearerthetruththantheothersalreadymentioned,isfaulty:first,becauseitisnot the precise, interpretation of the term righteousness; and next,because it transposes the order of biblical doctrines. Righteousness isrepresented in thePauline scheme of doctrine as the basis, ormaterialcause, of the sentence of justification, not conversely. So far, indeed, isthisviewcorrect, that itmakesallusiontoourrelationGodward,not tomoral conduct; but it fails tobringout the substantive character of therighteousness,asconsisting in triedobedience.Thetermrighteousness,asweshallsee,doesnotinanypassagemeanthestateofjustification.Ifthestateofjustificationdoesnotproceedonanunderlyingrighteousnessas itsbasis,weare lost in themistsofuncertainty.Thedivinerectitudeinsists,andcannotbutinsist,onatruefulfilmentofthedivinelaw,andacquits on no other ground than on the presentation of an actualobedience.But,onthistheory,whatisassumedasthematerialcauseofjustification?Noone canbe justified, in the government of a righteousGod,byaconnivanceatdefects,orbybeingaccountedwhatheisnotbyamere make-believe. Scripture everywhere shows that God demands areal,substantiverighteousness.

Theseareallbaselesstheories,andleadtothenotionofanacceptilation,that is, to the reputing of one to be what he is not. A completerighteousness,objectivelybroughtin,onthesetheories,existsnolonger.Ifso, faithwants itssecurity,andrestsonnocorrespondingreality.Wemust now ascertain the precise meaning of the phrase against thesemoderncomments,whichtoalargeextentdeclarethatfaithistakenforthe righteousness, without any underlying reality. They may be inkeepingwithmodernnotionsastoChrist'satonement;butouraimistoinvestigate the biblical import of the expression.Having canvassed thesubject negatively, it remains that we investigate it positively from theapostle'swords.

1. An analysis of the apostle's language suffices to show that thisrighteousnessisanactuallyaccomplishedfact;notlessahistoricalrealitythansin,andasproductiveofresults,butinanoppositedirection.Thesetwo terms throw light on each other. That this righteousness is thefinished work of Christ, considered from the view-point of the divineapproval,may be proved from the fact that it is presented to us as thegreat subject-matterof thegospel. It is said tobe revealed (Rom. 1:17),andtherighteousnessmustexistifitisrevealed.Thesamethingmaybearguedfromthetitlegiventothegospelastheministryofrighteousness(2Cor.3:1–9):forhowcouldaneconomybeinstitutedtoproclaimwhatdidnotexist?Whenitiscalledthegiftofrighteousness(Rom.5:17),anddescribed as a provisionunto all andupon all them that believe (Rom.3:22),wemustconcludethatitexists.

That the righteousness of God is an actual reality, is proved by thetwofoldparallelwhichtheapostledrawsbetweensinandrighteousness,andbetweenthedeathwhichistheresultoftheone,andthelifewhichistheequallycertainresultof theother(Rom.1:18–3:18,andRom.5:12–18). If we consider these counterparts, we shall find that the apostleplaces sin and righteousness in marked antithesis. In entering on thedescription of the prevalence of sin, he not only displays the wants ofmankind, but exhibits the two great counterparts of sin andrighteousnessasequalrealities,—theoneastheworld'sruin,theotherasitsrestoration.Theoneisacompletedfactaswellastheother.Theyaretheonlytwogreateventsorfactsintheworld'shistory,andtheyconfronteachother.

At thispointwemayconsider thepeculiar shadeofmeaningwhich thephraseacquireswhenput inconnectionwithGod.Why is itdesignatedGOD'Srighteousness,ortherighteousnessofGod?Moderninterpretersgenerallyunderstand that it is so calledbecauseGodwas its author, asChristisalsocalledtheLambofGodbecauseGodwastheprovideroftheLamb.We regard it as only a briefer expression of what is more fullydescribedas therighteousnesswhich isofGod(Phil.3:9).Thefact thatthephraseiscontrastedwithourownrighteousnessleadsustoconcludethat it means the righteousness of which God is the author. Theinterpretation long given by the Lutheran divines, that it denotes a

righteousnessvalidbeforeGod,ismoreaparaphrasethanatranslation,thoughalegitimateinference:fortherighteousnesswillbevalidatGod'stribunal,ifHewasitsauthor.Butthatisratherasecondaryideainvolvedintheother.

2. The manifestation of this righteousness as a historic fact is nextnoticed: "Now the righteousness ofGodwithout the law ismanifested"(Rom. 3:21). This refers to its manifestation as a historic fact in theincarnationandfinishedworkofChrist.Theallusionisnotsomuchtoitsrevelation in thegospel, as to thebringing inof the righteousnessoncefor all by Christ'smanifestation in the flesh. The language used by theapostleshowsthatitiscoincidentwiththepersonofChrist,andfoundinHim. It is one of those terms—and they are various—descriptive of theobedience of Christ in themanifoldness of its aspects and effects. Thepersonal Redeemer crucified is Himself the manifestation of therighteousness of God; and though it was completed with His finishedwork when He expired, and is not capable of addition, it is not to bedenied thatHis living throughdeathwasnecessary to theperpetuityofthis righteousness of God. It was valid at death, but it is found in theperson of the Lord (1 John 2:2). It is no transitory, past, or putativerighteousness,butoneactuallyintheworld,andtheonlygreatrealityinit;arighteousnessforman,becausetheLordJesus,asveryman,broughtitintoHumanity.AndwhentheJudgebeholdsHisSonclothedwithourhumanity,andpresentingtherighteousnessofGod,thenfollowsthere-adjustmentofman'srelationtohisMaker,thereunionofGodandman.

Buttheapostleiscarefultonoticethatthisrighteousnesswaswitnessedbythelawandtheprophets(Rom.3:21).First,astothelaw,thesacrificeshad special reference to it; andwhetherwe look at the temple or at itsservices,atitspriesthood,orthesacrificialbloodthatflowedinstreamsfromagetoage,wefindatestimonytothisrighteousness.Thelaw,too,in its moral aspect held up a lofty standard, which found nocorresponding reality in any humanheart, but pointed forward toHimwhoshouldonedaycome,saying,"Thylawiswithinmyheart"(Ps.40).It testified in both its elements adumbrating good things to come, andpointing out, at least when Israel was in their normal condition, thereadjusted relationofman tohisMaker.As to theprophets,moreover,

their expressions as to this righteousness are often as precise as Paul'sownwords(Isa.45:24,54:17,46:13).Theapostlealludestothetestimonyofthelawandtheprophets,tomakeitevidentthatthisrighteousnessofGod was no new, unheard-of doctrine, with which the church had noacquaintance inpastages;and in receiving it,mendidnotdepart fromMosesandtheprophets,butembracedwhathadbeforebeenannounced.It was no abrupt phenomenon, for which there had not been apreparation;fortheOldTestament,inallitsparts,boretestimonytotherighteousnessofGod.

3.ThestandardofthisrighteousnessisdivinejusticeandthelawofGod.Righteousnessinacreatureismeasuredbythestandardofjustice.Thereis amanifestation of justice in demanding the satisfaction, and then inpreparing and accepting this righteousness of God: "ThatHemight bejust,andthejustifier"(Rom.3:26).

Butspecially,thelawisthestandardoftherighteousness;thatis,thelawconsidered as a definite expression of the justice of God. The idea ofrighteousnessinacreatureimpliesconformitytolaw:lawisthesphereofrighteousness,theelementinwhichitmoves.Thesetwoterms,lawandrighteousness, are correlatives, and suppose each other. To unfold theprincipleoflawtowhichthisrighteousnessofGodgoesback,wefindtheapostle delineating both sides,—the law considered in its violation, andthen in itspositivedemandwith itspromiseof life.The transgressorofthe lawwas under its curse, and the Surety came under it (Gal. 3:10).Again, it enforced itsunalterable claim todoand live (Rom. 10:5), andChristwasmadeunderit(Gal.4:4),andsobecameitsend(Rom.10:4).Thus He obtained its reward of debt, not only for Himself, but for allwhomHe represented. A comparison of numerous passages where theworkofChrist ismentioned, leadsus to the conclusion that thephrase"righteousnessofGod,"whereveritoccurs,involvesasubjectiontolawasthe rule of ethical rectitude. The law, as the transcript ofGod's nature,andthemouldinwhichman'snaturewasformed,isimmutable;andfarfromlosingitsauthoritybyhumaninability,itceasednottoclaimallthatiteverclaimed.ThelawtowhichtheLordsubjectedHimself,moreover,was THE LAW AS VIOLATED. The two aspects in which the apostlepresentsthelaw,notonlytotheJews,whoweredispensationallyunder

it, but to the Gentiles, who were not, are these: (1) That it urges itsinflexibleclaims to sinlessobedienceas theonlyway to life (Gal.3:12);and(2)thatitcomesarmedwiththecurseincurredbyitsviolation(Gal.3:10–13).That isthetwofolddemandofthelawmadeuponeveryman.That is apostolic doctrine, however much at variance with moderntheories,whichall toosuperficially limit it to Israel;as if the law, in itstruecharacter,werenotarepublicationoftheprimevalandeternallaw,bindingonmanasman.TheLordwasmadeunderitinbothrespectsforthe production of this everlasting righteousness; and accordingly theworkofChristisdescribedinitsrelationtothelaw.Thus,itissaidthatHe was made under the law, and that the righteousness of the law isfulfilled in us (Rom. 8:4); that Christ is the end of the law untorighteousness to every one that believeth (Rom. 10:4),—an expressionpresupposingthefulfilmentwhichthelawdemanded,andcouldnotbutdemand, till its endwas reached.Theadditionalwords, "theendof thelawuntorighteousness," leaveus innodoubtthattherealizationof thelawanditsendarefoundinChrist.

4.Asanotherconstituentelementofthisrighteousness,itmustbeaddedthatitoweditsorigintoaGod-man.Itwasaworktotheproductionofwhich the twofold nature of the Redeemer was necessary.We have totrace the influenceofChrist'sdeity in thebringing inof theeverlastingrighteousness (Dan. 9:24). Though purely human in its essentialcharacter, it is the result of the concurrent action of both natures, andthereforeof infinitevalueandeternalvalidity;andasHewasundernoobligationonHisownaccount toobey,or tobeunder the law,or tobeincarnate, His obedience is capable of being given away. Hence theconstantreferencetothedivineSonshipwhenthefulfilmentofthelawisdescribed(Gal.4:4;Rom.8:3).Withoutpersonalobligationofanykind,the Son of God, in assuming humanity, entered into all those dutieswhichmanwasbound todischarge,—into theburdensomedutiesof anIsraelite,andintomanifoldtemptationsandtrialswhichHispositionasthesin-bearingsubstituteentailed.Inshort,HeunitedasinlesshumanitytoHimself,that,byenteringintoeverypartofourobligationascreaturesandsinners,Hemightbringinaneverlastingrighteousness.Tillthelawreceiveditssatisfactioninthetwofoldrespectalreadymentioned—thatis,byobediencetopreceptandpenalty—theSupremeJudgecouldtakenone

intofavour.

But this obedience of the God-man was ONE and indivisible. Thoughpossessinga twofoldaspect, itwasone finishedwork.Asman isunderpreceptandpenaltybecauseheisthecreatureofGodundertheeternallaw of obedience, and a sinner Tinder condemnation, the suretyobedience of the Lord must satisfy the law in both respects. Manyexpositors incorrectlysunder the two,or fixattentionon theone to theexclusionoftheother.Othersacknowledgeboth,butunhappilymakethetwo elements separatelymeritorious, losing sight of the link that bindsChrist's deeds and sufferings together as one vicarious obedience. Thelatterclassofdivinesascribeforgivenesstothesufferings,andtherightto everlasting life to the active obedience,—an unhappy separation,though countenanced by eminent names, and by no means to bevindicated.As it is thework of oneChrist, it is one atoning obedience;and though we may, and must, distinguish the elements of which itconsists,wemaynotdisjoin them, for the twoelementsconcur to formone obedience. That they cannot be separated appears from manyconsiderations,andespeciallyfromthis,thatineveryactiontherewasahumiliation, and in every suffering an exercise of obedience.Theybothpervadeevery event in thatwondrous life.Theywerenot in exercise atdifferenttimes,indifferentactions,andinsuccessivehours:theymeetinthesameactionandatthesametime,overtheentirelifeofJesus,fromthefirstmomentofHishumiliationtothelast.

ThisatoningobedienceextendedovertheentirelifeoftheLord,andwasnotlimitedtothefewhoursonthecross.ItwasbuttheverificationofHissinlessnatureinvariousscenesofactionandagonyallottedtoHim,butformed one obedience from first to last That the element of obediencepervaded His entire life, and went into all His sufferings, sufficientlyappears from numerous texts, which I shall not expound in this place(Rom.5:19;Phil.2:8;Heb.5:8).Ifwecallupbeforeourmindstheusualdivisionofhumanduty, according to thedifferent relationswhichmanoccupiestoGod,himself,andhisfellows,Helearnedobedienceinthemall;andwiththeaugmentedtrials,astheythickenedanddeepened,Hisobediencewasalsoaugmented,—thatis,wascapableofincrease,thoughalways perfect. The spontaneous surrender of His life in such a

substitution as that which He consented to occupy, called for anobediencethatboreHimupamidinconceivabledifficulties;andfromthegreatnessofHisperson, ithadadignityandvaluewhichentitle ittobecalled infinite.ThehumanityHeworewasmadebyHiman instrumentwhichHeusedforthegreatpurposeofbringing intherighteousnessofGod;or,toputthematterinapersonal,concreteform,ChristHimselfistherighteousnessofGod.TheSonofGodmadeflesh,andobedientinlifeanddeath,isourrighteousnessbeforeGod.ScriptureknowsofonlyONErighteousness uniting God and men, and the world has never seenanother.

5. It remains to be added, that the righteousness of God was IN OURSTEADaswellasforourbenefit.Itisthemorenecessarytoestablishthevicarious nature of this righteousness, because not a few in everycommunityarereadytoadmitthevicarioussufferingwhoarenotwillingtoallowthevicariousobedienceinthewholeextentofhumanobligation;thatis,theydividethetwopartsofthelaw,thepenaltyandprecept,intotwo portions, regarding the vicarious suffering as alone capable ofimputation.ButthevicariouscharacterattachingtotheoneobedienceoftheLordisasplainlytaughtasthefactthatitisasubstantivereality;andwhentheapostlesays,"WearemadetherighteousnessofGodinHim"(2Cor.5:21),he intimates thatbelievers inChrist come toa realizationofthe fact that itwas rendered in their room, and that they are onewithHimin thewhole transaction.TheobedienceofChrist realizes the loftyideal or goal set before the human race; and on this account it is thegreatest event in theworld'shistory.Hewasacting forHispeople, andthey were representatively in Him. The entrance of Christ's sinlesshumanity,withthelawinHisheart,becamethecentralpointofalltime,towhichpreviousageslookedforward,andafterageslookback.Hewasthe living law, the personal law,—an event with a far more importantbearing than any other that ever occurred. It was the world's newcreation.Itismadeoursnotlesstrulythanifweourselveshadrenderedit,INCONSEQUENCEOFTHELEGALONENESSFORMEDBETWEENUSANDHIM.NotthatintheLord'sexperiencethepersonalwasmergedintheofficial, forHehadnot,andcouldnothave,anyof thosefeelingswhichstandconnectedwithpersonalguilt.Hewasalwaysfullyconsciousofinwardsinlessnesswhenthesin-bearerandcurse-bearerinourstead;

and in like manner the redeemed, amid all the security of imputedrighteousness,neverceasetocherishpersonallythefeelingsofconsciousunworthiness and deep abasement. That the vicarious character of thewhole may appear, it is only necessary to recall the words, "By theobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous"(Rom.5:19).

Asanobjectiontothismodeofinterpretingtherighteousnessoffaith,itis commonly urged that the apostle nowhere uses the theologicalexpression"therighteousnessofChrist"Butwhenweexaminethetermsinwhich it is expressed, the vicarious character of the righteousness ismade themoreevidentCHRISTHIMSELFISOURRIGHTEOUSNESS.TheincarnateSon,dyinginourroom,therealizedidealofwhatmanwasmadetobe,ismadeofGoduntousrighteousness(1Cor.1:30),insuchasensethatwearesaidtobemadetherighteousnessofGodinHim.Thisismoreremarkable:wearemadeallthatChristwas;HeistheLordourrighteousness (Jer.23:6),andwearemadetherighteousnessofGod inHim(2Cor.5:21).

Havingnoticedwhataretheelementsof thisrighteousness,andprovedthat it isbutanothernamefor theLord'satoningobedience, it remainsforustoadd,withallbrevity,thewaybywhichitisappropriated,anditsimmediateaswellasulteriorconsequences.

6. The relation of faith to the righteousness of God is, that faith is thehandbywhich it is received.Therighteousness is inanotherperson, insuch a sense that it is merely received as a gift, irrespective of moralworthonthepartofthereceiver.Whyissuchagiftgiventofaith,andtono othermental act? Partly because faith is the onlyway bywhich thesoulgoesouttorelyonanobjectbeyonditself,partlybecausefaithisthemost self-emptying act of the mind. By its very nature, it negativeseverythingbutthatrighteousnesswhichitreceives.Faithisthereceptiveorgan by which we lay hold of the righteousness; while the gospel, orwordofGod,isthemediumofrevealingit(Rom.1:17).ItisuntoallanduponALLTHEMTHATBELIEVE(Rom.3:22).

7. The immediate effect of receiving the righteousness of God is thesentenceofabsolution,calledthejustificationofourpersons;foritmustbekeptinmindthatthemanisjustified,andnothisworks,—theperson,

not the nature. This sentence is complete at once, and capable of noaddition; and it has a twofold side,—theABSOLVINGof theman fromany charge of guilt, and the pronouncing of him ABSOLUTELYRIGHTEOUS,becauseinthepossessionofthisrighteousnessofGod.

8. A further point demanding notice, is the relation in which therighteousness of God stands to LIFE. This all-important point is verymuchthetheologicalquestionof theage; fortherelationbetweenthesetwothingsismuchmisapprehended.TherelationofthisrighteousnesstothedivinelifewhichChristcamedownfromheaventorestoreinadeadworld,istheleadingthoughtwithalltheapostles,aswellaswiththeLordHimself, and it is brought out with great prominence in the Paulineepistles (Gal. 2:20;Rom.8:10).The relationbetween the two is simplythis:RIGHTEOUSNESSISTHEPRICE,ANDLIFEISTHEREWARD.Itis a relation intimated in the law, which was ordained to life, but wasfound to be unto death (Rom. 7:10). The man who should do what itenjoinedwas to receive life in return (Rom. 10:5).Modern theology, atleastof theGermantype,andas faras it ismodifiedfromthatquarter,evinces little interest about the relation in which the two points,righteousnessandlife,standtoeachother.Butamisapprehensionheredisorganizes the whole gospel. And the mystic theology which merelyseekscommunionwithGod,andlifeinHim,throughtheincarnation,hasnoadequateideaoftheconditionsonwhichlifeisconferred.Theyseektodelineatethelifeasanabsolutedonationapartfromrighteousness,oranatoningsacrificeasitsground.TheyspeakofChristINUS,notofChristFORUS. There is no life, however, but through a vicarious death. Theimportantquestionoftheage,andofallages,is,Howdoeslifereachus?and the answer is, By a vicarious fulfilment of the law in precept andpenalty;inotherwords,byanatonement

SEC.VIII.—THERECONCILIATIONSETFORTHINTHEPAULINEEPISTLES

I deem it necessary to notice this aspect of the atonement separately,thoughitcomesbeforeusinvarioustexts.IftherighteousnessofGodisthepositivesideofthePaulinedoctrineoftheatonement,reconciliation

by the death of Christ is its negative side. This term is not, likemanyothersbearingontheatonement,borrowedfromthesacrificialritual;fornoconnectioncanbetracedbetweenthetwo.Itdoesnot,asaterm,recalleitherthepriesthoodorthesacrifices.Rather,wemaysay,theexpressionis taken from common life, and refers to a state of things where twoparties,disunitedbyaquarrelorsomecauseofoffence,aremadefriendsbytheadequateremovaloftheestrangement.Thisphaseofthedoctrineis peculiarly Pauline; and after the consideration given to therighteousness of God, it is the more needful to bring it out, becausereconciliation proceeds on the fact of sin, and presupposes thedispleasureandmoralaversionofGodtothesinner.

1.Reconciliation,denotingaNEWRELATIONtowardGod,presupposesastateofalienationbetweenGodandman; that is,analienationwhichwasmutual.Itwasnotexclusivelyonman'sside,norwasitbroughttoaterminationbyachangeofmoraldispositiononthepartofman.Itwasmutual estrangement: onman's side by sin and enmity (Rom. 8:7); onGod'ssidebythewidegulfofseparationwhichsininevitablymakes(Isa.59:2),andbythewrathwhichcomethuponthechildrenofdisobedience(Eph.5:6).Therewasmutualhostility, in thepropersenseof theword,betweenGodandman:we,ontheoneside,werealienatedandenemiesinourmindsbywickedworks(Col.1:21);andGod,ontheotherside,wasprovokedtoanger,andunderthenecessityofvisitingmanastheobjectofHiswrath(Rom.5:9).

2.Thechangeofrelationimpliedinthetermreconciliationwaseffectedby the atonement, the great fact intervening between divinewrath andtheobjectsoverwhomthewrathimpended.Thisistheobjectivegroundofreconciliation,asthespecialwordrenderedatonementinonepassageproperly means (Rom. 5:11); it is the divinely provided fact which isreceived from God, and the ground of the new relation or favourabledispositionofGodtowardus.ItmustbeobservedthatwearesaidtobereconciledtoGodbythedeathofHisSonasadivineperson(Rom.5:10),orreconciledinthebodyofHisfleshthroughdeath(Col.1:22).Andtheapostle's words, which further announce thatwe are saved fromwraththroughChrist,plainlyintimatethatreconciliation,inthepropersense,isby theworkofChrist,notbyourchangeofdisposition(Rom.5:9).The

favourofGodiswonforusbythebloodofChrist,otherwiseweshouldhavebeengivenuptocondemnation.

3. The apostle represents the reconciliation as ORIGINATING WITHGOD,whotookthefirststeptobringitabout.Andthisleadsmetonoticea marked difference between the two words PROPITIATION andRECONCILIATION.TheformerisappliedtoChristasthegreatsacrifice,and the priest of His own sacrifice; the latter is applied to God as theoriginatorofthereconciliation.TheFatheristheReconcilerinthepropersense,forthebenefitemanatesfromHislove;andthemodebywhichitwasaccomplishedwasthenon-imputingofourtrespassesonthepartofGod,whowasnotamerepassivespectator,butanactivepartyinallthereconciliation (2 Cor. 5:19). His love reconciled us, andHis anger waspacified. The great fact interposed betweenHis holy anger and our sinwas the atoningworkofChrist, provided in the exerciseof compassionand love. The Lord's atonement effected the removal of these sins; bywhich means the anger of God was brought to an end. That is theapostle'sdoctrine,aswillbeevident fromseveral textswhichwill comebeforeus.

Onthecontrary,itisarguedbytheinterpreterswhohavecomeundertheinfluence of Socinianizing opinions, that the idea of reconciliation doesnotinvolveanewrelationtowardGod,orrestorationtodivinefavour.ItisheldthatreconciliationdoesnotindicateanychangeonGod'sside,butonly a termination of enmity on man's side; that God is never calledman's enemy; and that the New Testament never speaks of thereconciliationofGodtoman,but fromtheothersideof therelation,ofthereconciliationofmantoGod.Thewholeoppositiontothedoctrineisbased on this mistaken view of the phraseology. Though Scripturedescribesreconciliationfromourside,thiscanreadilybeexplained.Thereconciliationisadivinefact,originatingintheloveofGod;butfromitsnatureitpresupposesadispleasurenottobeavertedbutbysatisfactionoratonement.Themerefactthatreconciliationisnotabsolute,butbythedeathofHisSon(Rom.5:10),provesthatloveisnottheonlyelementinthe transaction,but thatanewrelationmustbe formed,ora transitioneffectedfromwrathtofavour.This,too,istheuniformexpressioninthelanguageofcommonlife,whichdescribesreconciliationfromthesideof

theoffendingparty.Thus,anoffendingsubjectissaidtobereconciledtotheprinceorsuperior,whosedispleasurehadbeenincurred.Thatistheuniformphraseology.Butthenatureofthecaseinvolvesarestorationtodivinefavour:forwhatiswantinginthecaseofthosewhowerewithoutreconciliation,andwhatisconferredbythosewhoreceiveit,butthefullremoval of estrangement caused by some offence? And what do theypossesswhoarereconciledtoGod,buttheremissionofsins,theremovalofguilt,therestorationtoanewrelation,consistingintheparticipationofdivinefavour?ThereisanewrelationonGod'sside,thatoffriendshipconsequentonforgiveness.

But, it isasked, isnotGod immutable, theabsoluteLove?andhowcanHeatonceberegardedaslovingandhating,asdisposedtovisituswithlove,andyetestrangedbyourconducttosuchadegree,thatHecannotbuttreatusasunderHiswrath?Tothisthesimpleansweris:Scriptureaffirms both, and we must believe both. They well enough consisttogether,whenwerecallthetwofoldrelationwhichmanoccupiestoGod,as a creature and as a sinner. God cherishes love toman, whether wethinkofmanmerelyashe is thecreatureofGod,orstill furtherregardhimas inaSurety,or inunionwith thebelovedSon, according to thateternal covenant bywhichChrist and the redeemed come beforeGod'seyeasone.Thatmanisanobjectofdispleasure,isnotlessevidenttoonewho knows ought of divine justice; for sins could not but provokeHisanger, and bring down punitive visitation in the exercise of Hismoralgovernment.

Nor is it strange thatangerand loveco-exist,whenwedulydistinguishaccording to the twofold relation already noticed. We may trace theanalogytoafargreaterextentthaniscommonlydonebetweenGod,andmanmadeintheimageofGod.Thus,forexample,DavidlovedAbsalomashis son, andgave strict commands to sparehim in themidstof thatrebellionwhich,onthehighestmoralgrounds,mustneedsberepressedwith stern severity. We see the father, and yet the righteous king,subjecting thatwayward son tohis frownon severaloccasions,becausehehatedhiswickedness,andwasprovokedtodeepdispleasure.Helovedhim as his son, but as a righteous governormingled punishment withmercy. In the same way, God loves His creatures; yet He cannot but

cherishjustangeragainstsin,andagainstsinnersbecauseofsin,aswillbesufficientlyevincedbytheeverlastingpunishmentstrikingonallwhoareoutofChrist.Andthiscanmoreeasilybeconceived,whenwereflectthatloveandwrathareinGodaneternal,constantwill,expressiveofHisnature:lovebeingeveractivetodoHiscreaturesgood,sofarasitisnotobstructed; wrath being active, to visit sin with punitive justice. Theatonementisnothingelsethanaprovisiontoeffecttheremovalofthoseobstructionsorimpedimentswhichstoodinthewayofthefullexerciseofgrace;anditconsistsinthesatisfactiontojusticeineveryrespect.

ThusGodrepresentsthingsandpersonsastheyreallyare:Hedoesnotact in anyway at variancewithHis perfect knowledge ofman's doublerelation as creatures and as sinners. In so far as they perverted theirrationalandmoralnature,theyforfeitedHisfavour,andareguiltybeforeHim; insofarastheyareHiscreatures, theyarestill theobjectsofHislove. But to put them in a new relation, which was possible only byeffectingtheremissionofsins,HemadethembyfederaluniononewithHisbelovedSon,sentintotheworldtooccupytheirplace,andmadesin,as ifHehadbecome thevery causeof thealienation.WhenHe treatedHim as if He were the greatest sinner, or as sin accumulated andpersonified, we see the reality of the representative position which Heoccupied.AndhavingprovidedthearrangementbywhichHisperfectionscouldbevindicatedandHishonourestablished,Heputsmenintoanewrelation—one of friendship and favour—the moment they receive theatonement (Rom.5:11).Theyaremade friendsofenemies.Theanalogyfromthemodeofgoverningahumanfamilythrowslightuponthewholetransaction:forthoughwecannotinallrespectscompareGodtoman,wemay infer God's mode of action from the action of man made in Hislikeness;otherwisewecouldnotinmanyrespectsknowGodatall.Canadisobedientsonenjoythefavourofaparentinthesamewayasasonwhoisapatternoffilialobedience?Whenthedispleasureisexchangedfortheopposite by the removal of the offence, then the father restores him tofavour. Butwemustmeet the objections to this biblical representationmoreindetail.

a. It isalleged thatGod isnevercalled theenemyofman,orsaid tobemadeafriendofanenemy;andconsequentlythatthetermreconciliation

does not intimate any change on God's side corresponding to arestorationtofavour.ThereasonswhyGodisnotcalledinScriptureourenemyare, thatGodis interestedinHiscreaturesonthegroundofHisrelation as their Creator; that He cherishes mercy in His heart to theprodigalson;andthataneternalpurposewasformedtoreconcilethem.We are to apprehend equally the heart of God and the government ofGod.Men living insincannotshare in thedivine favour;andreceptionintofavourisundoubtedlyinvolvedintheideaofreconciliation.

b. It is held that we cannot adduce anything from biblical language toprovethatreconciliationimpliesaughtonGod'ssideinvolvingtheideaofrestoration toHis favour. This is of easy answer. The apostle connectsreconciliation with an objective fact; and one passagemay be adducedhere as itself conclusive (Rom. 5:11). Paul teaches that we who wereenemies were reconciled,—a statement which plainly announces twoconditions: one a relation ofwrath; another a relation of favour, basedupon the great historic fact of Christ's death.Not only so: he adds,wehaveNOWRECEIVEDtheatonement;thatis,asthetermsignifies,havenow received the objective ground of reconciliation; the meaning ofwhichcanonlybe, thatwehaveNOWreceivedapeculiar relation,orareceptionintofavourunknownbefore.Heisspeaking,notofachangeofdispositiononman'sside,thoughthatofcourseimmediatelyensues,butofafactprovidedforusintheloveofGod.Thetermreconciliationmaybe said to comprehend what is mutual, because the alienation wasmutual.ThepassageintimatessomethingonGod'ssidethatcarriedinitstrainarestorationtoHisfavour.

c. It is furtherpertinaciously argued, that theNewTestament languagecontainsnosuchexpressionasGod'sreconciliationtoman.This,ashasbeen already noticed, is not necessary; and the entire gospel is anindubitableproofof this. It isnowheresaid, inanyproclamationof thegospelamongJeworGentile,thattheymustreconcileGodtothemselves;forit isGodwhoisalwaysrepresented,andinthemostnaturalway,asreconcilingmentoHimselfbyJesusChrist(2Cor.5:18–21).Buthowwasthis done?Not by granting absolute remission of sins, not by a simplecancellingofthetrespassescommittedbyus;butsolelybyputtingChrist,asa representative, in theirplace todowhat theycouldnothavedone,

andbyinvitingmenuponthegroundofthatatonementtobereconciledtoHimself in amediator.Thewhole transaction shows two things—theloveofGod'sheart,andtherectitudeofHisgovernment.Allwhorefusetheatonementare, fromthenecessityof thecase, leftstandingontheirownfootingassinners,andoutofdivinefavour;whereasallwhoreceivethe atonement are reconciled. Every other mode of reconciliation isdeceptive, unavailing before God, and incapable of affording any firmconsolation, because it would remain always uncertain whether Godcouldacceptthereconciliation.ButasitoriginateswithGod,andasGodinChrististhereconciler(2Cor.5:19),intheexerciseofHisprevenientgrace,wehavefullcertaintythatit isacceptable.CertainlythatwhichisofGodmustbeacceptabletoGod.

Thusonman'ssidenothingfurtherisrequired,thanthatheshouldenterinto this relation of reconciliation by accepting the atonement as itsgroundorcause.NothingwaswantingonGod'ssideof thetransaction;andthewhole languagebearingonthis truthamounts to this, thatGodturnsawayHisangerfrom,andshowsfavourto,allthoseforwhomtheatonementwasoffered.

We can thus, on biblical grounds, explode the whole Socinianizingarguments, which allege that reconciliation consists in a change of ourhostile will and disposition toward God, and in that alone. Such anexposition,owingitsorigintoaforegoneconclusion,doesnotsatisfythetexts which put reconciliation in causal connection with the death ofChrist (Rom. 5:10);withHis blood;with thebodyofHis flesh throughdeath(Col.1:22).Thatthereisachangeonman'ssidealsoisnotdenied;forthereconciliationisMUTUAL,asthealienationwasmutual.Butthechangeonoursideistothisextentdistinguishedfromtheother,thatitemanatesfromwhatGodhasdone.

SEC.IX.—THETESTIMONYINTHEEPISTLETOTHEROMANS

TheEpistletotheRomans,writtenfromCorinthbeforePaul'sjourneytoJerusalem, which ended in his imprisonment (Acts 20:2; Rom. 15:25–

16:23),themostconnectedoutlineofChristiandoctrinegivenusbythepenofinspiration,wasintendedtoplacetheChristian'srelationtoGod,orthearticleofjustification,initstruelight.Paulaccordingly,invariouspassages, describes the doctrine of the atonement as the basis of thewhole. The theme or proposition laid down at the beginning, andillustrated in the course of his reasoning, is contained in the quotationfrom Habakkuk, "The just shall live by faith," or, more accuratelyrendered,"Therighteousbyfaithshalllive"(Rom.1:17).Thethreewordscontained in this brief sentence, taken up one by one—RIGHTEOUSNESS,FAITH,LIFE—maybe viewed as separateheadingsto three principal sections of the epistle: the first being brought out incontrastwiththegreatfactofuniversalsinfulness(Rom.1:17–3:27);thesecond extending over the whole fourth chapter (3:27–4:25); and thethird, setting forthpremial life, fills the largerportionof the remainingdoctrinalcontents(5:12–8:39).Theapostle is thus ledbythescopeandstructure of the epistle to give a full exposition of the atonement at allpoints.Thesepassageswillbetakenupinorder,andweshallconsidertowhat they amount. Omitting matter foreign to our purpose, let usconcentrateattentiononpassagesandstatementswhichdefinitely refertotheatonement.

I.Thefirstpassagetobenoticedisthefollowing:BeingjustifiedfreelybyHis grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom Godhathset forthtobeapropitiationthroughfaith inHisblood,todeclareHisrighteousnessfor[better,onaccountof]theremissionofsinsthatarepast, through the forbearanceofGod; todeclare, I say,at this timeHisrighteousness; that He might be just, and the justifier of him thatbelieveth in Jesus (Rom. 3:24–26). We have here a compendiousstatement of the elements which constitute the great article ofjustification:(1.)ThegraceofGodasthesourceorimpellingcause;(2.)The blood of Christ as the meritorious cause or ground on which thesentence proceeds; (3.) Faith as the receptive organ or instrumentalcause; (4.) The harmonious exhibition of justice and grace as the finalcause, or the end contemplated by the whole scheme (ver. 26). Thesedifferentpoints,whencombined,comprehendtheentireelementsofthedoctrine or great privilege of justification. But we shall, single out theatonement, as here presented to us, for special consideration. The

passageisdifficultfromitscondensation,butwehopetomakeitclearbyafewcomments.

(1.) We have first to notice the appellations under which the death ofChristisdescribedinthispassage.THREEseveraldesignationsarehereappliedtoit,anditbecomesustodiscoverthepeculiarshadeofmeaningattachingtoeachoftheterms.Oneleadingthoughtapplicabletothemallis, that they describe theONEWORK of Christ in different lights, andfromvariouspointsofview; for theyarenot tobe treatedas if theysetforth three several works of Christ, separately meritorious. Theredemption-work of Jesus was one, and the obedience one, thoughcarriedforwardinatwofoldsphere.AstheworkofChristhasmanifoldapplications, according to the relations which man occupies to thecaptivityinwhichheisheld,todivinewrathduetousforsin,ortothelawunderwhichhewasmade,itmaybedescribedundervariousnames.Butitisoneatoningwork,withmanifoldbearings.

Of these names the first is, THE REDEMPTION THAT IS IN CHRISTJESUS.Thisterm,ashereused,denotestheobjectivegroundinChristonaccountofwhichdivineactiontakesplace.ItdescribesHimasthecause,orauthor,oftheactualdeliverance.Captivityunderanenemy'spowerisof course presupposed, and also a ransom as the necessary price.WhereverthetermsREDEEMorREDEMPTIONarefoundinconnectionwiththedeath,blood,orsufferingsofChrist,thereferenceissacrificial;and that supplementary expression contains an allusion to the ransom(Gal.3:13;1Pet1:19;Rev.5:9).Thecloseconnectionbetweenthenotionof a ransom and the allied idea of sacrifice is easily understood. But itmay further be asked, What are we to understand by the phrase hereused, "The redemptionWHICH IS INCHRISTJESUS?"The import is,that the ransom is found in His person, that He is personally theredemptionofHispeople;fortheransom,orprice,ofourdeliveranceisfoundinChristHimself.Theexpressioncannotmean"bywhomwehaveredemption," as some put it, nor "in fellowship with whom," as otherschoose rather to expound it; for the phrase could have the latter senseonlyifitcouldfitlystandalone,andgiveacompetentmeaning,separatedfromtheverb(see2Cor.12:3).Theexpression,ashereused,conveystheidea that the ransom, or means of redemption, is objectively found in

Christ'sperson—TheCrucified,andTheRisen. Itdoesnotgive the ideathatuniontoHispersonconstitutesredemption,howevertrueit isthatweshareinredemptiononlyinthisway.Thepassagemeans,thatHeisourmeritoriousredemption,ourinfiniteransom,intheobjectivesense,andthatHewillcontinuetobesowhileHislivingpersonendures(1Cor.1:30; Eph. 1:7). There the Judge beholds the church's redemption, andeverytimeHelooksonthepersonofChristHeseesoureternalransom.

Astothepresuppositionimpliedintheword,italwaystakesforgrantedacaptivity,andinvolvesthepaymentofaransomfordeliverance.Passagesmaybeadducedwherethewordseemsusedtoconveytheideaofsimpledeliverance, the accessory notion of a price being less upon theforeground;but it isneverwhollyawanting.Inallcases itwillbefoundthatthisphraseologyisneverwithouttheideaofanequivalent,price,orconsideration, whether more latent or more open to view, by which adeliverance isgainedoragood iswon.When thedeathorbloodof theLordisnamedinthephrase,thereisnoroomfordoubtthatthatisaddedas the ransom. The ransom secures deliverance FROM something, andredeemsustobelongtoanotherMaster(Rev.5:9;1Cor.6:20).Theywhohave the redemption obtain liberation from the curse of the law (Gal.3:13),fromwrath,fromdeath,andhimthathasthepowerofdeath(Heb.2:14), and a transition to the proprietary rights of another owner, towhomtheyhenceforwardbelong.

The second termhereused is,APROPITIATIONINHISBLOOD.Thisexpressionisvariouslyrendered:bymany,asapropitiatorysacrifice;byan equal number, as the propitiatory or blood-sprinkledmercy-seat. Ineither way, it brings up the idea of divine anger appeased by theinterventionofaneconomyinvolvingapriesthoodandsacrificialblood.Somemindswillbeswayedintheonedirection,andothersintheother.But in either case the sense amounts to this, that the blood of Christpacifies, or propitiates, the justly kindled anger of the Most High; forthere is a wrath against sin which finds an outlet in the infliction ofpunitivejusticeuponthesinnerhimself,ifhestandsonhisownfooting,orintheinflictionofwrathupontheMediatorwhocomesintoourplaceandunderourobligations.Thelanguagehereused,whatevertheshadeofmeaningattachedtoit, involvestheideaofappeasingGodbysacrificial

blood.Thisisself-evidentfromthewholephraseologyofScripture,anditcannotbeexplainedaway.

ForvariousreasonsweprefertherenderingPROPITIATORY,ormercy-seatsprinkledwithblood.Thiswasthecoverofthearkofthecovenant,inwhichthelawwasdeposited,andtheannualceremonyofsprinklingitwithbloodwasperformedonthedayofatonement.Butalltheordinarysacrificesborereferencetoit,andstoodinsomerelationtoit.Thiswas,inaword,thecentre-pointoftheentireOldTestamenteconomy;andthewholeargumentoftheEpistletotheHebrewsmaybesaidtobeechoedinthis allusion, or summed up in the pregnant clause before us. But, inparticular,thereisagreatsimilaritybetweenthepresentpassageandthestatement that Christ's death atoned for transgressions under the oldcovenant(Heb.9:15).

The idea is, that Christ is "set forth" to view, or, as some will have it,"fore-appointed" from of old to be the reality of that blood-sprinkledmercy-seat;and,toapprehendtheforceoftheallusion,wemustgobackto the symbolical and typical meaning. The symbolical import was thefollowing:—The ark contained the law, and the ark's covering orpropitiatorycovered itscurse,whenever itwassprinkledbytheatoningblood, as was the case from year to year; for, as the great day ofatonementreturned,this imposingceremonialwasannuallyrepeatedtocover sins from God's sight. As to the typical signification, it was aprefigurationofHimwhowaspersonallytopacifythedivinewrath,andthereforeofthatworkofChristbywhichattheappointedtimeHeshouldatoncefulfilthelawandremoveitscurse.Itdeservestobenoticedthatthephrasehereusedbytheapostleconveysbutoneidea;andhence,inthegrammaticalconstruing,wemustreadthewordPROPITIATORYinimmediateconnectionwith thewords INHISBLOOD.The idea isone;and, viewed in thisway,wemust regard thewords asmeaning, Christcrucified themeans of pacifying thewrath ofGod.On this account themercy-seatwas considered asGod's throne in themidst ofHis people,whereHeshowedHimselfgracious,andcommunedwithHispeople(Ps.80:1).Here,too,restedthesymbolofthedivinepresence,thegloryoftheLord. We thus reach the conclusion that the central point in the oldeconomy foreshadowed the true propitiatory; and thus, in language

borrowedfromtheceremonialinstitutions,theapostleshowsusthatthewayofpropitiationwasthesamefromthebeginning.Hence,asitissaid,"Christ our passover is sacrificed for us;" so we can say, "Christ ourpropitiatoryiserectedorsetforthforus."

The third descriptive name for the atonement is the termRIGHTEOUSNESS—"to declareHis righteousness." The question to besettled, in the first place, is this:Havewehere thewell-knownPaulineexpression which we have considered already—"the righteousness ofGod?"Orareweunderthenecessityofregardingitasthedivineattributeofrighteousness?Arightviewoftheconnectionbetweenthetwothingshereputtogether—therighteousnessofGodandtheremissionofsins—willsatisfyusthatwehavethewell-knownPaulinephrase.Butasmanyeminentexpositors,swayedbytheviewwhichtheytakeoftheconnectionof the clauses, hold the expression to be descriptive of the attribute ofjustice,wemustprovethatthephraseoccurshereinnoothersensethaninotherpassageswherethereisnoambiguity.Iftheapostlehasusedtheexpression"righteousnessofGod"throughoutthecontexttodescribetheatoningworkofChrist,howcanhebesupposedtoalterthemeaningofhisownphrasewithinthecompassofasinglesentence?

Some argue that the expression must refer to the divine attribute ofrighteousness,asitpavestheway,accordingtothem,forthereferencetoretributivejusticeinthefollowingverse(ver.26).Butitisnotso:thatisameresemblanceofargumentNay,weshouldrathersaythatitwantsallprobability,because itwouldbearepetition,a tautology.Butnoreasoncan be given for departing from the ordinary meaning of the Paulinephrase. We must attach a uniform, consistent meaning to the use ofterms,andregarditasdesignatingtheatoningworkoftheLord.

Buttherighteousnessisbroughtoutinanewconnection,whichwemustnow endeavour to trace. The apostle hadproved that between Jew andGentilethereisnodifference,eitherintheruinorintheremedy,andthattherighteousnesswasforbothalike.Butnowhisthoughtsreverttothesaints of God who lived under the former dispensation, and to theretrospective bearing of the atonement as applicable to them not lessthan to those whose lot is cast in gospel times. If the blood-sprinkledmercy-seat was a prefiguration of the atonement, the finished work of

Christisconsideredastheaccomplishedfact,oractualmanifestationoftherighteousnesswhichwasrequired.Theapostlethereforereferstothebringinginoftherighteousnessasahistoricreality,ashehaddoneinapreviousverse(ver.21).

This leads us to inquire, What is the connection between therighteousness of God thus understood, and the remission of sins thatwerepast in the forbearanceofGod?Acorrectappreciationof thiswillmakethemeaningplain.Paulplainlyreferstothetimethatprecededtheatonement,anddescribesitasaneconomyofforbearance,duringwhichthepunishmentof sinwasdeferred, andyet the salvationbasedon theatonementextendedtomany.Howcouldtherebethisremissionofsinsduringthatpasteconomy?Theanswerissuppliedbytheapostle:Itwason the credit of what was ere long to be accomplished. That is theconnectionbetween the righteousnessofGodand the remissionof sinshere mentioned. There were millions who shared in the retrospectivecharacteroftheatonementbeforeChristcameintheflesh.

The connectionof these two thingswill appear ifwe correctly translatethe word that connects them together. The language will not bear therendering given in the authorized version—FOR THE REMISSION OFSINS.TheGreekpreposition,whensoconstrued,neverdenotesthefinalcause,ortheintentionanddesign,forwhichathingisdone.Neithercanit bear the rendering BY, or THROUGH, which others assign to it. Ituniformly assigns the ground or reason on account of which a thingoccurred,oranactionwasperformed,denotingONACCOUNTOF.Inthepresentcasetheprepositionassignsthereasononaccountofwhichthepast remissionof sins for thousandsof years tookplace, viz. the futureatonement, which in Paul's time had become a historic fact. TherighteousnessofGod,or theatoningworkbywhichmenaresaved,hasbeen actually manifested in the fulness of time, because the sins ofmillionshadinpreviousagesbeenpassedoverandremitted.Withouttheactual bringing in of the everlasting righteousness, and merely on thecredit of it as about to be, they had received forgiveness, and beenenrolled among the spirits of the justmadeperfect.But since theyhadreceived remission of sins, it was absolutely necessary to bring in theexpiationasahistoric fact,or togive itapositiveaccomplishment.The

retrospectiveefficacyoftheatonementismadeclear.Butthesewerebuteffectsorconsequencesofacausewhichcouldnotbewithheld.

AstothepeculiaritiesoftheremissionofsinsthatwaspropertotheOldTestament,weneednottoocuriouslyinquire.Somehaveindulgedtheirfancyandbeenmisled.Aclassofdivines,headedbyCocceius,preferredtoviewtheremissionwhichbelongedtotheOldTestamentchurchmoreasapassingoverthanasatrueforgiveness.Theyasked,Howcoulditbeatrueforgiveness,whenthecausewasnotyetpresent?Andtheythoughtsuch a distinction warranted by the apostle's expressions. But whatdifference there was between the saints of God in the Old and NewTestament, was not in the objective remission, but in the inwardconsciousness of pardon and liberty. The difference was within. Theapostleaffirmstheremissionofsinsundertheformerdispensation.Andasthatwaspossibleonlybythebloodofatonement,sincetherecouldbeno infringement of the divine justice or law, the righteousness of Godmust be actually brought in.Whethermen regard the remission undertheoldeconomyinthelightofatrueforgiveness,whichisthepreferableview,orinthatofapreterition,therecanbenodoubtoftheretrospectiveefficacyoftheatonement,andofthecancellingoftheguiltofsinbeforeChristcameinthefleshbymeansoftheatonement.Therelationofthetwoeconomies, then, isas follows:Thebringing inof therighteousnesswasnecessaryonaccountof theprevious remission.Theapostle showsthattherewasacausalconnectionbetweentherighteousnessofGodandtheforgivenessofsinsinallages,thatthecrosswasthegreatfactofalltime,andthatGodhadrespecttoitfromthebeginning.Thisistheonlysense that thewordswill exegeticallybear.Because the forgivenesswasalreadygiven,theremustbeanactualsatisfactiontodivine justice,andanactualrighteousnessinthefulnessoftime.

Hence the three words which we have expounded—redemption,propitiatory, and righteousness—delineate the atonement in differentpointsofview;thefirstfromtheview-pointofman'scaptivity,thesecondfromtheview-pointofdivinewrathagainstsin,thethirdfromthatoftheinalienableclaimsofthedivinelaw.Andthisvarietyofnamestodescribethesamegreatfactarguesthat,thoughtheworkoftheLordisone,ithasmanifoldbearings—asnumerous,indeed,asournecessities.

(2.)ThedesignorfinalcausewhichGodhadinviewinthewholematterof the atonement is next subjoined: that He might be just, and thejustifier(ver.26).TheallusionistotheconcurrenceorharmonyofthesetwoperfectionsofGod.ThewordJUST,appliedtoGod,meansthatHeasserts just claims and inflicts just punishment. It is a perversion oflanguage to interpret the term as if it could mean anything else thanjustice in theordinaryacceptationof thewordamongmenmade in theimage ofGod. The contrast inwhich it is placed to divine forbearance,and the allusion to the propitiatory, allow no doubt as to its importJustice seemed to slumber during that period of forbearance; now it isdisplayed.

ButthisdeterminesthecharacteroftheatonementSuchlanguagewouldbeunmeaning,ifitwerenotadmittedthattheatonementisinthepropersense of the word a satisfaction of divine justice. This single clause,therefore,fullywarrantstheexpressionincommonuse,notwithstandingall the objections which have been adduced against it as unfitting orunwarrantable.Andwhentheapostleadds,"thatHemightbejust,ANDTHE JUSTIFIER," he alludes to the fact that these two apparentlyconflicting perfections, justice and grace, meet in full harmony on thecross:justicesuffersnoviolence,andgracehasfulloutlet.

This enablesus to forma right judgmentas toall those theorieswhichallowonlyone element in theatonement, and reduceall to love.Whenmoderntheologycommitsitselftothisone-sidedtheory,itisclearlyoutof harmonywith the Pauline theology. As to the attemptswhich are atpresentmadeinmanyquarterstosubsumejusticeunderlove,theyareallsorry evasions of biblical ideas. Thus,when it is alleged thatGodmustalreadyhavebeenreconciledwhenHegaveHisSon,andthattherecouldbenofurtherneedofsatisfaction,thisisamereconfusionofideas,—theconfoundingofamovingcauseandameritoriouscause;theformerbeinglove,thelattertheworkofthesinlessSin-bearerinourstead.Unexpiatedsinwouldforeverhavestoodinthewayofobtainingdivinefavour,asissufficientlyevincedbyhundredsofpassages.

TheotherargumentsdrawnfromtherelationoftheFatherhoodofGod—the universal Fatherhood, as it is indiscriminately called—are equallyrefutedbythispassage.It isratherarelationwhichdrawsdownwrath,

and calls for a propitiation. Only when sin is expiated can properFatherhoodbegin;andastothenotionwhichsometrytopropagate,thatsin is ratheradisease thana crime, theanswer is:Nomanbelieves,orcanbelieve,thatthemoralGovernorisindifferenttohumanconduct,tothemoralactionsofHiscreatures;forthisiscontradictedbyman'smoralnatureaswellasbyScripture(Rom.1:32).

II.Apassageofmuchweight,asdecidingonthenatureoftheatonement,isasfollows:Whowasdeliveredfor[better,onaccountof]ouroffences,andwas raisedagain for [better, on accountof] our justification (Rom.4:25). The apostle, after discussing the case of Abraham as a rulinginstance inproofof justificationby faithalone,proceedsat thecloseofthe chapter to describe faith as it is exercised on its proper object.HeusesastrikingnameortitleofGodwhenhedescribesHimastheChrist-raiser,andrepresents faithasexercisedonGodinthiscapacity; that is,onGodasthesourceoftheatonement,andtheaccepterofitatthehandsoftheSurety.

The first thing that summons our attention is, that OUR SIN isrepresented as THE CAUSE of Christ's death; and it is the moreimportanttodeterminewithprecisioninwhatsensethislanguagemustbe taken, because the consideration of the cause of Christ's death is insome quarters much misapprehended, and in other cases muchneglected,inthediscussionofthisquestion.Forthemostpart,menhavestopped short at the inquiry,WhatwasGod's aim and intention in thedeathofChrist?But in endeavouring to apprehend the course ofGod'sprocedure, we must distinguish between the divine intention and thecause in operation; and the present passage throws light on the entirequestion.A strict interpretationof the termshereusedproves that ouroffenceswerethepropercauseofChrist'sdeath,andthatHisdeliverytocrucifixion is considered as the punishment of sin. It is not possible inwordsmoreemphaticallytoexpresstheideaofameritoriouscause,thanbyjoiningtogetherouroffencesandtheLord'ssufferingsbyapreposition(διάwith ac.) intimating a connection of cause and effect. If we are toexpoundby language, andnot by foregone conclusions, this is the onlymeaning that thewordswillbear.Asouroffenceswere themeritoriouscauseofChrist'sdeath,itfollowsthatbyHisdeliveryHepaidthepenalty.

Thephrases,TODIEFORSINS,TOBEDELIVEREDFORSINS,denotethatsinwasthecauseofChrist'sdeath,andthat thedeathwastheduepunishment.

The language in these two clauses implies Suretyship; and they cannototherwisebeunderstood.Wemayenumerateafewexpressionswherethepreposition used to intimate causal connection occurs in the sameconstruction.Thus,whenit issaid,"Yeshallbehatedofallmenformyname's sake" (Matt. 10:22); "Theywithered away, because they had nodeepness of earth" (Matt. 13:5); "because they had no root" (ver. 6);"when tribulationorpersecutionarisethbecauseof theword" (ver.21);"for theoath'ssake,andthemwhosatatmeatwithhim"(14:9);"whentheycouldnotcomenighHimforthepress"(Mark2:4);"Barabbas,whoforacertainsedition,andformurder,wascastintoprison"(Luke23:19);"ManyoftheSamaritansbelievedonHimforthesayingofthewoman"(John 4:39); "for fear of the Jews" (19:38); "forwhich things' sake thewrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience" (Eph. 5:6);—inthese instances, and in others too numerous to name, the import is acausalconnection,orastatementofcauseandeffect.WhenitissaidthatJesuswasdeliveredFORoutoffences,thewordsbringouttheconnectionbetween our offences and His sufferings, and prove that it is a causalconnection, on the ground of substitution. There must have been arelation formed between Him and us, of such a kind that He and Hispeoplewerefederallyone,representativelyone, legallyoneintheeyeofGod.But for sucha covenant relation, our sins couldnotbypossibilityhaveaffectedHim,norbroughtHimtothecross.

Butwehavenext toconsiderwhat ismeantbyHisbeingDELIVERED.Thiswastheeffectorconsequence,ofwhichouroffenceswerethecause.These sins had the effect of handing over the Surety to the penalconsequenceswhichovertookHim from thehandofGod and from thehand of man. This will be best illustrated from the ordinary style ofspeech.Thus,whenamanissaidtosufferforhiscrimes,noonedoubtswhat the meaning is; and in like manner, when an innocent personsuffers forour sins, or isdelivered forouroffences, thismeans thathebears the punishment, though the sin was not personally his, butassumed by a voluntary act. How was Christ DELIVERED? The word

means,thatinvisitingtheSuretywiththepunishmentduetousforsin,theJudgeofall saw fit todeliverHim into thehandof sinners.Behindeachpartofthejudicialaction,tracedinthearrest,trial,andcrucifixionof theLord,we seewhatwas going forward at thedivine tribunal. Thehumanbarwas theexponent,so tospeak,or thevisiblecounterpart,ofthedivinebar.Thedivineappointmentappears in itall; fornoughtbutthis could make Christ's death a ransom, or give it efficacy for man'ssalvation. Pilate's bar, therefore, was the bar of God where Jesus wasexculpated and condemned: exculpated on the ground of personalinnocence, condemned as occupying the position of the sin-bearingSurety.

HewasJUDICIALLYDELIVEREDintothehandofmen.Itwasnotinatumultofthepeople,norinasecretcorner,thattheLordwastobecutoff, but after an examination and inquiry with all the forms of law. Infulfilment of prophecy (Isa. 53:8), He was placed before Pilate as ourSurety, having no personal guilt, but condemned for our guilt, that itmightnotbechargedagainstus.AndallthatbefellHim,howeverunjustasregardsmen,wasjustlyinflictedatthehandofGod,who,besideswhatmeets our eye, sent invisible strokes and penal inflictions to aninconceivable degree. The whole scene is easy of explanation on theprincipleofsubstitution.TheSurety,offeringtosatisfyinourroom,wasbrought before a human bar, in which God, as it were, erected Histribunal before Him,—arranging the transaction in such a way that allmankindmight, to the endof time,perceive that theJudge foundHiminnocent, and yet pronounced His condemnation. He on His partpromptly and cordially submitted to suffering, in obedience to HisFather,whohadgiventhatpowertoPilateinreferencetotheSonofGod.

The last clauseof theversebringsout thatJesusWASRAISEDAGAINON ACCOUNT OF OUR JUSTIFICATION. The preposition (διά withacc.)must have the same import and be translated in the sameway inboth clauses. Though this is not done by commentators, nothing canjustify us in attaching a different sense to the same word in twocontrasted clauses: whatever itmeans in the one, itmustmean in theother.It isheretaughtthatthesinsofbelieverscausedthedeathoftheLord,andthattheimpetrationofarighteousnesswhichcouldbeapplied

as thesole foundationof justification,andwasactuallyacceptedon thebehalf of all to whom it was to be applied, was the cause of Christ'sresurrection from the dead.Had one jot or tittle been awanting inHissurety-work,theresurrectionofJesuscouldnothavetakenplace.

But before passing from this text, it is necessary to obviate themisapprehensions of its meaning that have been taken up in variousquarters.

The language cannot mean that Christ was delivered to death that Hemight abolish sins. There are two forms of this mode of exposition: alower one, to the effect that we might be withdrawn from evil by theargumentormotivefurnishedbytheturpitudeofsin incondemningsomuch excellence; and a higher one, to the effect that the Risen Oneimpartsanewlife toabolish inwardcorruption.But theanswertobothcomments is, that the language cannot bear that final sense. It alwaysdenotesONACCOUNTOF,intimatingthecauseorreasononaccountofwhichathinghastakenplace;andfromthismeaningwecannotdeviate.Tobringoutthenotionofabolishingfuturesin,otherwordsmusthavebeenused,andsomeadditionalclausetomakethissenseapparent.Theallusionisnottofuture,buttopastandpresentsin.

A secondmistranslation is, thatHewas delivered bymen's sins, or bywickedhands.Buthumanmalice and crime arenever indicated in thisway,aswillappearbyacomparisonofotherpassages(Acts2:23).

AthirdtheoryistotheeffectthatthesufferingsofChristwereintendedtoremovethegroundlessfearofpunishment.Butsuchanexpositionhasnowarrant from the termshereused; for it is not said thatChristwasdelivered because of our fears, but because of our sins. And as to thenotion itself, it is enough to say that redemption can never be adeliverancefrombaselessfear,andanassuranceofdivinefavour;forhowcouldthatharmonizewiththesternmenacesconnectedwithimpenitenceandunbelief?ItisamischievousdelusionthatGoddoesnotpunishsin.

The words mean that Christ sustained our punishment, and wasdelivered to condemnation, human and divine, in consequence of ouroffences, whichwere charged toHim, and spontaneously borne on the

ground of a union between us and Him. But it is proper to add, asshowing the foregone conclusions with which many come to theinterpretationofthispassage,thatevenifitwereaffirmedintheplainestand most unambiguous language that sin was the cause of Christ'ssufferings, and that His death was the proper punishment inflicted onHimforhumansin,theopponentsofthevicarioussatisfaction,bytheirown avowal, would turn away the point of the evidence. Socinus saysexpressly: Though the thing were said, not once, but many times, hewouldnot believe it; for the thing cannot be, inasmuch as the doctrinecontendedforiscontrarytoreason.Hencetheirwholeaimistodiscoveranyotherpossiblemeaning.Tomeet that rationalisticmodeof treatingScripture, there is only one way.Wemust plainly tell such disputantseither to stand within the pale of Revelation, and be bound by itsannouncements,orstandoutsideitsbordersaltogether.ItwillnotdotoacceptaRevelation,andthenrejectthedoctrinestheydislike,—totakeit,and yet refuse it, according to their arbitrary caprice. They cannot beallowedthustoexpoundthecontentsofthedivineword.Theymusttakeit or gowithout it, for they cannotbe allowed to argueon the sceptic'sgroundwhentheyplease.

III. Another passage on the atonement follows after a few verses: Forwhen we were yet without strength, in due time Christ died for theungodly.Forscarcely fora righteousonewillonedie;yetperadventureforagoodmansomewouldevendaretodie.ButGodcommendethHislove toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.Much more then, being now justified by His blood, we shall be savedfrom wrath through Him. For if, when we were enemies, we werereconciledtoGodbythedeathofHisSon;muchmore,beingreconciled,we shall be saved by His life (Rom. 5:6–10). The apostle, havingdescribedthefruitsofjustification,—peacewithGod,access,standingingrace,andthehopeofglory,—proceedstoshowthattheChristian'shopeisnotdisappointed.Twoàfortioriargumentsareused,bothintroducedbyaMUCHMORE,anddrawn,theonefromthetwostatesoftheman,and theother from the two states ofChrist.From the two states of themanheargues, that ifwewere justifiedwhensinners,muchmoreshallwebesavedfromwrathwhenmadefriends(ver.9).FromthetwostatesofChristheargues,thatifourreconciliationwaseffectedbythedeathof

God'sSonasathingvast,arduous,andwonderful,muchmore,as ifnofurther legaldifficultyweretobeencountered,shallwebesavedbyHislife (ver. 10). As the force of these arguments can be seen only bycomparison with the guilt of our natural condition, he uses fourdescriptive terms toexhibit this.WewereWITHOUTSTRENGTH, thatis,unabletocomplywithanydutyorcommand(ver.6);UNGODLY,thatis,withoutGod,andviolatingdutyateveryturn(ver.8);SINNERS,thatis,heldunderthebondsofguilt,andbynatureattachedtosin;ENEMIES(ver. 10), that is, either passively objects ofGod's displeasure, as sometakeit,oractivelyenemiesofGodinourdisposition;whichlatteristhepreferable view. These four designations arementioned with a view tocommendthefreenessandgreatnessofthedivinelove.

Welimitourattentiontothequestionoftheatonementasdevelopedinthispassage.WhenChristisrepresentedasdyingFORTHEUNGODLY(ver. 6), the question is, Are we to regard this as a transaction in ourstead, or merely for our benefit? Undoubtedly the former. And, toimpress the idea of Christ's vicarious position, the apostle borrows anillustration from common life. Thus: Scarcely for a righteousman willone die: I say righteous, for3 perhaps for a goodman—that is, a greatbenefactor—someonewouldevendaretodie.Butintheworld'shistoryitwasneverheardof,thatonediedforanenemy.Nowthecommendationofdivineloveis,thatChristdiedforenemiesandsinners.Theapostle,insupplyingthisillustration,intimatesthatwearetoreasonfromtheonetotheother; and ifChrist'sdeath is tobe taken in the sense inwhich thedeathofoneforanotherishereportrayed,theobviousmeaningis, thatone gives his life in the room of another. The death of Christ, fartranscendingeveryexampleofhumanlove,whichhardlyeverdreamtoflayingdownone'slifeforafriend,wasadisplayofloveforenemies.Theterms,andtheentirecharacterofthetransactionasheredescribed,allowus to form no other conclusion than that the death of Christ wasvicarious. We have an unmistakeable description of the character ofChrist'sdeath,andofwhatthechurchmustholdittohavebeen.Noone,certainly,canunderstandthis language in thesense thatHesuffered togiveusanexampleofvirtue.Theillustrationandreasoningshowthattheallusionistoavicariousdeath.

FromtheLord'svicariousdeathtwoimportantconsequencesarederived,andit isconsideredasstandingincloseCAUSALconnectionwiththemboth.

1.TheapostledeclaresthatweareJUSTIFIEDBYHISBLOOD(ver.9).Thisexpressionmeans,notonlyHisbloodydeath,butHiswholesinlessobedience, culminating in that bloody sacrifice. It is a synecdoche; andtheapostleintimatesthatthesolecauseofjustificationistheatonement,notourvirtue,notouramendments,not the terminationofourenmityalreadymentioned,notevenour faith,however important this isas theinstrumentofreception.Bythatatoningbloodsinisdeletedasif ithadnever been, and the man is accepted. The apostle in this passage iscontent to put cause and effect together, without explaining how theresultwasbroughtabout,becausethishadalreadybeendoneinexpressterms.Now,whenwearesaidtobejustifiedbyHisblood,theexpressionintimatesthatwearenotonlydischargedfromdeservedpunishment,butpersonallyaccepted.ThedeathofChristisputincausalconnectionwiththe justification of our persons; but this could not have been unless itwereavicariousdeath,andavicariousobedienceacceptedbyHimwhopronounces the acquittal. The apostle deduces, too, an importantinference.HeassumesthatChrist'sdeathputsinnersonanewfooting,anewstandingbeforeGod; inaword, that it rectified their relation.Andthenheargues:"IfjustifiedassinnersbyHisblood,muchmoreshallweasfriendsbesavedfromwraththroughHim."Thisisanargumentfromthestrongerreason.

2.TheapostlenextdeclaresthatweareRECONCILEDTOGODBYTHEDEATHOFHIS SON (ver. 10). This is a phrase alternated with beingjustified. The term reconciliation, as we have seen, presupposesalienation,displeasure, or enmityon thepart of themoralGovernoroftheworld,andintimatesthatHehascementedwithusanewrelationoffriendship. That the change is caused by the death of Christ, is hereexpresslystated.InthelanguageofPaul,wherewechieflyfindtheuseofthis expression, God is never said to be reconciled: we are said to bereconciledtoGod.Andthereasonis,thatinordinarylanguagetheactionof reconciliation is described from the side of the offending party. Aprinceisnotsaidtobereconciledtoanoffendingsubject,thoughitishe

wholaysasidehisdispleasure:thesubjectissaidtobereconciledtohim,because the transaction takes its designation from the party offending.TheatonementwasinterposedbyGodbetweenHisrighteouswrathandus men in such a way as to put humanity on a new and friendlyrelationship toGod.When theapostleaffirms thatweare reconciled toGodbythedeathofHisSon,hemeansthatthedeathofChristremovedalltheimpedimentsonGod'sside,sothatHisjustangerwasaverted,andHisfreefavourturnedtowardus.

Many interpret reconciliation as if it meant that there never wasestrangementonGod'sside,butonlyonman'sside;and,consequently,that it is completed the moment we lay aside our aversion, and by acourse of repentance and loyal obedience show ourselves well affectedtowards God. That is not the apostle's meaning, as is proved by theslightestexaminationofhiswords.Hesets forththevicariousnatureofChrist's death, and deduces reconciliation from it by the connection ofcauseandconsequence,alternatingthewordsRECONCILEandJUSTIFYasphrasesdescriptiveofthesamechangeofrelation.IfjustificationisajudicialactofGodimplyingachangeofrelationonHissideaswellasonours,reconciliationimpliesthesame,asappearsfromthewords:"Ifwe,being enemies, were reconciled to God by the death of His Son." TheemphasisoftheclauseliesonthewordsBEINGENEMIES,anditaffirmsthat we were reconciled when enemies. If so, it is self-evident thatreconciliationtoGoddoesnotconsistmerelyinlayingasideOURenmity.Forhow,onsuchatheory,couldwebesaidtobereconciledtoGodwhenWEWEREENEMIES?

Onthecontrary,reconciliationiscausedbysomethingobjective(ver.12)—bythedeathofGod'sSon.Theapostleteachesthatthevicariousdeathof Christ was the ground of restoration to the divine favour. Theargumentinthissecondcase,altogetherliketheformer,takesforgrantedthat,inconsequenceofChrist'sdeath,wepassedintoanewrelationshiptoGod—oneof favour.It isas follows:IfsuchachangeofrelationtookplaceinvirtueofChrist'sdeath,ifwewerereconciledtoGodbythedeathofHisSon,muchmoreshallwe,beingadmittedintofriendship,besavedby His life. This is an argument à fortiori, based on the two states ofChrist,takeninconnectionwiththenewrelationinwhichwestand.And

theapostlecouldnothavearguedinthisway,iftherehadbeennothingobjectiveeffectedbythedeathofChrist.

Thewordsmeanthatweweretakenintothenewrelationship,orrestoredtofavour,bythedeathofGod'sSon.Theapostlethusconnectscauseandconsequence,withoutdefininginwhatwayandbywhatstepstheresultwaswon.HedeclaresthatGodHimselfwastheauthorofreconciliationbythedeathofHisSon,andthatwereceiveitinthefreeexerciseofHisgrace. He does not base his reasoning, however, on the moral changeeffected: he does not say, If God loved us when we had no spiritualaffection toward Him, howmuchmore will He save us when we haveamendedourdispositionandchangedoursentimentstowardsHim!Thatwouldnotbeinkeepingwiththetrainorscopeofhisreasoning.Hefixeshis eyeon thealteredobjective relationeffectedby thedeathofChrist.ButwhenGodstands related tousasaFather, andnotasanoffendedJudge, then an inward change ensues: confidence and delight in Himmustbe theconsequence, the immediate fruit,of reconciliation.Hence,gloryingismentionedastheresultofreceivingtheobjectiveatonement;andtheapostledeclares:"Wealsojoy[better,glory]inGodthroughourLordJesusChrist,bywhomwehavenowreceivedtheatonement"(ver.11).

Tothis,however,itisurgedasanobjection,thatsuchamodeofviewingreconciliationmakesusatonceenemiesandfriends;andit issaid,CanweregardGodasbothhatingandlovingus;asevincingdispleasure,andconcerting themeans of taking us into favour? This difficulty vanisheswhenwecome tosee that loveandwrathwellenoughconsist together,becausemenarepresentedtoHisviewbothasthecreaturesofHishand,and as sinners, yet the objects ofHis grace.He hadwrath and enmityagainsttheirsin,accordingtoHisholynatureandtheinalienableclaimsofjustice;butHehadlovetoHiscreatures,andadispositiontodothemgood.Andtheatonement,asanarrangementinterposedbetweendivinewrathontheonehand,andthesinfulhumanraceontheother,wastheremovalofall theimpedimentsthatstoodinthewayofthedivinelove.Thetextshowsthatfreeloveprovidedtheatonement,butthatmenwereACTUALLY TAKEN INTO FAVOUR ONLY ON THE GROUND OFSATISFACTION.

IV.Anothermemorable passage on the atonement is the section in thefifthchapter,whichinstitutesacomparisonbetweenthedisobedienceofthe firstmanand theobedienceof thesecondman(vers. 12–19).Fromthis section two verses may specially be selected, as giving a forcibleillustration of the satisfaction of Christ: Therefore, as by the offence ofonejudgmentcameupon[better,itisto]allmentocondemnation;evensobytherighteousnessofonethefreegiftcameupon[better,itisto]allmentojustificationoflife.Forasbyoneman'sdisobediencemanyweremadesinners;sobytheobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous(Rom. 5:18, 19). The principal point to which the apostle directsattention, and which met him at this part of his argument, was, HowcouldthesatisfactionofONEMANavailformany?Andheshowsthatitisnotsurprisingtofindtheentiregroundofourredemptionintheworkofone,whenwegobacktotheoriginalconstitutiongiventothehumanfamily: forwearesavedupon thesameprinciple,andbyaconstitutionaltogether similar. Without anticipating the result, let us analyse thepassage.

Indrawingtheparallelbetweenthetworepresentativemeninwhomthewhole human race is found respectively, Paul says: "By one man sinenteredintotheworld,anddeathbysin"(ver.12).Toforestallmistakes,wemustobservethatthislanguagedoesnotmeanbyonemanascreated,butbyonemanassinning.That this is the importof theexpression, isprovedbythefrequentrepetitionofthesamewords:byonethatsinned(ver.16);byoneman'soffence(ver.17);byoneman'sdisobedience(ver.19).Theapostledoesnotmeanthatsinenteredinconsequenceofsomeflawordefectintheprimevalconstitutionofman'snature,asifhewerebutearthlyorcarnalwhenhecamefromtheCreator'shand.Thewordsbeforeusmean,onemanashecommittedsin.

Another point thatmust be correctly apprehended in order to obtain arightviewof thewhole is,What is the importofSINheredescribedasentering? The answer is, that it refers to Adam's sinning act. This isevidentfromthelanguagewhichtheapostleholdsallthroughthesection,and which is frequently alternated with other terms of similar import.This terrible phenomenon—SIN personified through this and the twofollowing chapters as a potentate, tyrant, or power—is described as

entering into the world, where it was before unknown. It had acommencementintheworld,andsubordinatedalltoitssway.ButwhileAdam's first sin is specially meant, as is clear from all the variousantitheses inwhich itherestands to theatoningworkofChrist,wearenotofcoursetodisseveritfromthesinfulnaturetowhichitadheres.

Thenext term isDEATH, representedas thepenal consequenceof sin.Temporal death is, beyond all doubt, comprehended in the apostle'swords;forheelsewheresays,thatinAdamalldie(1Cor.15:22).Ontheother hand, the limitation of the meaning to temporal death is quiteunwarrantable, when the contrast obviously leads us to the mostextensive signification. This is confirmed by the language of the NewTestamentgenerally,andbythePaulinephraseologyparticularly(Rom.1:32, 6:21). The term death must be taken here, and in the Mosaicnarrative,inthewidestsense,comprehendingallthatmiserywhichflowsfromourestrangementfromGod—theantithesisofdivinelife.

Next,theapostledrawsaparallelbetweenthetworepresentativemenasfollows:Asbyonemansinenteredintotheworld,anddeathbysin;sobyonemanrighteousnessenteredintotheworld,andlifebyrighteousness.Such would have been the two counterpart members, had the parallelbeenformallycompletedat thepointwherethecomparisonbegan(ver.13).Butthelattermemberiswithheld,andwehaveonlyacompensationfor it in thewords,THEFIGUREOFHIMTHATWASTOCOME(ver.14).Thefullparallelisresumed,andatlengthcompleted,furtherdowninthecontext(ver.18).Butbeforeadvancingtothatverse,whichfillsuptheparallel (ver. 18), the apostle states some points of disparity, in whichthereisAMUCHMORE,apreponderance,againandagainrepeated,asfoundonthesideofChrist.Itisamuchmoreofpotencyinthecausesinoperation (ver. 15), and a much more also in the results produced inconnection with such causes (vers. 16, 17). Having stated the generalresemblance, and certain points of dissimilarity, the apostle returns tothebroadoutlinesoftheparallel,andgivesfullandformalexpressiontoit (ver. 18); and thewords indicate a conclusiondrawn from thewholepreviousstatement.

Butweforbearfurthercommentary,aswehaveadducedthepassageonlyas a striking exhibition and proof of the atonement. The apostle is

anticipating the objection, How could the obedience of one avail formillions?—adifficulty thatmust bemet.The currentnotion among theJews of old, and among self-righteousmen at all times, is: If our ownvirtue and works of the law do not pass for righteousness, how cananother man's avail, and especially how can it avail for countlessnumbers?Theapostle'sreplyis,thatthisisreadilyunderstoodwhenmentakeintoaccountthepeculiarconstitutionunderwhichtheCreatorsawmeet at first toplace thehuman family.Theprincipleonwhichwearesaved is the same as was originally set before mankind. The way ofjustificationbytheobedienceofanotherstandsonasimilarfootingtothewayinwhichwefell:theprincipleisthatofONEFORMANY.Asbythetrespass or offence of one it is to all men to condemnation, so by therighteousness of one—in other words, by the approved and acceptedobedienceofone—itistoallmentojustificationoflife.Heretwothingsarecomprehendedasstandinginconnectionwiththeatonement:(1)thejustificationoftheman,thatis,ofthepersoninhisrelativestanding;(2)therestorationofthenaturebythedonationoflife.Theformerpavesthewayforthelatter.Thelifeispremiallife,andfollowsastheconsequenceofrighteousness,butiscomprehensivebothofspiritualandeternallife.Thislifefollowsastherewardofrighteousness,accordingtotheprinciplesetforthinthelaw:"Thisdo,andthoushaltlive."

Thesecondoftheversesabovequotedgroundstheformerbyfurnishingadditional explanation. The two clauses of the one (ver. 18) may beconnectedwiththetwoclausesoftheotherrespectively(ver.19);andthegroundingparticleforlinksthemtogetherinthisway:"Therefore,asbytheoffenceofonejudgmentcameuponallmentocondemnation,—FORby one man's disobedience many were made sinners,—even so by therighteousnessofonethefreegiftcameuponallmenuntojustificationoflife;FORbytheobedienceofoneshallmanybemaderighteous."Whatistheobedienceofone,bywhichmanyaremadeorconstitutedrighteous?Thismayeasilybeperceivedfromthecounterpartdisobediencebywhichmanyaremadesinners.ItisnotenoughtosaythatthedeathofChristissocalledbecauseonHispartitwasaproperactoflove.Norwillitsufficetosaythattheatonementissocalledbecausesufferingwasimposedbythe Father's command, and responded to on Christ's part by an act ofobedience. These views make no room for the element of active

obedience,asnotlessnecessarythanthesuffering.Thewordsareplainlydescriptiveof the entireobedienceofChrist, active andpassive.This isevidentfromthefactthatbymeansofitmanyareconstitutedrighteous,whichcanonlybebythedoubleelement;andit is furtherevidentfromthedisobedienceofAdamintheoppositemember.ForifAdam'strespasscontains twoparts,—anobligationviolatedandaguilt incurred,—and ifthesecondmanmustenter intoboth, since thedivine justicecouldnotpermiteithertoberelaxedormodifiedbyonejotortittle,itfollowsthatin that obedience of one man, which makes many righteous, we mustcomprehend both these elements. His obedience thus included all thatwasrequiredofmanininnocence,andallthatwasjustlyincurredbymaninhisstateofguilt.

This great transaction was not by accident. The obedience of one formany,andasmakingmanyrighteous,wasthetrueandintendedeffectofChrist's incarnation—thegreatcompensationsetoveragainst the fallofAdam. It is the result of a constitution expressly parallel to that underwhichmanwasmade,and,likeit,ofapositiveandsovereigncharacter;anditisheresaidtobetheprincipleofONEFORMANY.Scripturethusputs thedisobedienceofAdaminexpressantithesis to theobedienceofChrist.Itspeaksasiftherehadbeenbuttwomenintheworldintowhoseobedienceordisobediencetheirentireseedenters.Andindeedtherehavebeenbuttworepresentativemen,andundertheoneortheotherweareall comprehended.A comparison of the two, such as is here instituted,greatlyconducestothecorrectapprehensionoftheconstitutionwhichitpleasedGod,intheexerciseofsovereigndominion,togivetothehumanrace. These two truths shed reciprocal light on each other, and are setover against each other. For this theremay bemany reasons; but onereason, besides the vivid contrast, undoubtedly is to furnish the onlyanalogywhich can be produced.Nor can I forbear to say that itwouldhave contributed not a little to the clearer understanding of the wholesubject,had theScripturemethodon this great themebeenuniversallyfollowed.Hadtheatonementandthefallbeenmoreputinthiscontrast,the light shed by this means on both would have been steadier andclearer,andmanyaprejudicewouldhavebeenremoved.Manywhohavedoubtsoftheone,wouldhavehadtheirdifficultiesoverborneorremovedbytheevidenceoftheother.

Toallthecavilsofhumanreasontheansweriseasy.Itdoesnotfalltousto justify that constitution given to the first man, and renewed in thesecond man. Nor does it become us too curiously to inquire into thereasonsofsuchanappointment,whenwecalltomindthatthesovereignwillofGod,holy,wise,just,andgood,isreasonenough.Togivereasons,arguesapretensiontoknowledgewhichisnotgiventous.Let itsufficethatitpleasedGodtoconstitutemaninapublichead,whowasmadeinthe image of God, and summoned to the test of obedience in the fullmaturityofallhispowers,inthepossessionofasinlessnature,andwitha full knowledge, doubtless, of his representative position. Theconstitutiongiventomandiffered fromthatwhichwasgiventoangels,whomusthavebeenplacedontheirownindividualfooting,fromthefactthattheypartlystoodandpartlyfell.

More thananythingelse, thisoriginalconstitutiongiven toman throwslightontheatonement.Weareredeemedinthesameway:theobedienceofone is therighteousnessofmany.Thiscalls fora twofoldsubmissiononourpart—asubmissiontotheDIVINESOVEREIGNTYwhichgavetheconstitution towhichwe have referred, and a submission to the divineWORD,whichhereemphaticallyproclaimsitasacertaintruth.Wemustaccept both. Thus sin enters by the firstman, and spreads through therace,anddeathbysin.Onthecontrary,righteousness,ortheatonement,entersbythesecondman,andisuntoallanduponallthemthatbelieve;andlifeisbyrighteousness.ThisisthePaulineparallel;andIhaveonlytoaddthatitwouldhavebeenwellifhumanwriters,intheirdiscussionson the subject, had been content to receive this divine constitution onGod'sauthorityasatruth,andwiththeheart-loyaltyduetoHissovereigndominion. The whole matter has been complicated and perplexed bylaborious attempts to commend it to the natural reason ofmen; all ofthemsorryeffortstomakemenbelieversbyreason,whereasfaithmuststand,notinthewisdomofman,butintheauthorityofGod.

The testimonyof thispassage is conclusive as to the great fact that theatoningobedienceofChristputsus into thecategoryof righteousones,forsothewordssignify.ItwastheobedienceoftheSonofGod,however;fornotonlyareweheretorecalltheprimevalconstitution,butalsothedivinedignityoftheSurety.NotthatHeobeyedinthedivinenature,but

Hewhodidobeywasadivineperson—theSonofGod;anditmustneverbe forgotten that He took our nature as a workman takes a tool orinstrumenttoaccomplishacertainend.Thisobediencetothelawinallits partsHe requirednot forHimself, butwrought it out for us, that itmightatoncehaveinfinitevalue,andbemadeanabsolutegift.

V.Anotherpassageofgreat importanceontheatonement is thesectionin the sixth chapter, which sets forth the conscious relation which theapostlesaysheoccupiedtoChristinHisdeath:Whatshallwesaythen?Shallwecontinueinsin,thatgracemayabound?Godforbid.Howshallwe,thataredead[better,thatdied]tosin,liveanylongertherein?Knowye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ werebaptizedintoHisdeath?thatlikeasChristwasraisedupfromthedeadbythegloryoftheFather,evensowealsoshouldwalkinnewnessoflife.Forifwehavebeenplantedtogether[better,co-planted]inthelikenessofHisdeath,we shall be also in the likeness of [better,we shall at thesametimebelongto]Hisresurrection:knowingthis,thatouroldmaniscrucifiedwithHim [better, co-crucified], that the body of sinmight bedestroyed,thathenceforthweshouldnotservesin.Forhethatisdeadisfreed [better, is justified] from sin.Now, ifwe be deadwithChrist,webelieve thatwe shall also livewithHim (Rom.6:1–8).Thismemorablepassagemustbeclearlyunderstood,becausethesamelanguagerecursinmanyof thePauline epistles.Wehave therefore to inquirewhether theexpressions represent the death of Christ as vicarious, orwhether theyare to be explained according to a mystical interpretation, withoutreferencetotheideaofsubstitution.

To understand what is meant by DYING WITH CHRIST, we mustapprehendtheconnection.Theapostle,afterdescribingourstanding inthesecondAdam(5:12–19),hadadded,thatwheresinabounded,gracemuchmore abounded. Perceiving the objection thatwould bemade tosuchaviewofgrace,theapostlesays,"Shallwecontinueinsin,thatgracemayabound?"andrejects the imputationwithabhorrence.Notcontentwiththis,heproceedstoprovethatthisperversioncouldnotensue,forareasonwhichtouchesthedeepelementsofGod'smoralgovernment,andrenders it impossible. What is the reason he assigns? It is not theinfluenceofanewclassofmotiveswhichhebringsoutattheendofthe

chapter, but a solid ground in law. He argues from a fact—the greatobjectivechangeofrelationintimatedbydyingwithChrist.

We have to inquire, then, what is intimated by those expressions onwhichhelaysthegreateststressofhisargument(ver.12):DYINGWITHCHRIST,andDYINGTOSIN,BURIEDWITHCHRIST,CO-CRUCIFIEDandCO-PLANTEDwithHim.Onetextwillserveasakeytothemeaning,viz., "We thus judge, that if one died for all, then all died," for so thewordsmustbe translated (2Cor.5:14).There theapostle, it isobvious,uses these two expressions interchangeably: HE DIED FOR ALL, andALL DIED IN HIM. He describes the same thing from two differentpointsofview.ThefirstofthetwodescribesthevicariousdeathofChristasanobjectivefact; thesecondsets forththesamegreattransaction, intermswhichintimatethatwetooaresaidtohavedoneit.Thuswemayeithersay,CHRISTDIEDFORUS;orsay,WEDIEDINHIM.WemayequallyaffirmHewascrucifiedforus,orwewereco-crucifiedwithHim.Thisalternatingphraseology,dulyobserved,makesallplain.Butitmustbe fullyapprehended thatwehaveNOTTWOACTSpresented tousbythe expression,—one on Christ's side, and another on ours, that is, anexperience on our side parallel to His. We have but ONE PUBLICREPRESENTATIVE,CORPORATEACTPERFORMEDBYTHESONOFGOD, in which we share as truly as if we had accomplished thatatonementourselves.

The mistakes committed in the interpretation of this chapter of theepistle—andtheyhavecomedownfromancienttimes—aremainlyduetothefactthattheideasofthefifthchapterhavenotbeencarriedintothesixth.Ifwecarrythethoughtsuppliedbytherepresentativecharacterofthe two Adams from the one chapter into the other, the difficultyvanishes. Nay, the very same form of expression is found in the fifthchapterinthestatement:"ByONEMANSINENTEREDintotheworld,and death by sin; and so death passed upon allmen, FOR THATALLSINNED"(Rom.5:12).Themeaningis,allmensinnedinthefirstman'sactofsin; for thatpublicactwasrepresentative,andcommontoallhisoffspring.Therehavebeen, in fact, but twomen in theworld,with thetwofamiliesofwhichtheyaretheheads;therehavebeenbuttwopublicrepresentatives.TheideaofChrist'sSuretyship,andtherepresentationof

Hisatonementastheactofoneformany,runthroughtheentiresection,withonlythispeculiarityordifferenceascomparedwithotherpassages,thatherewearedescribedasdoingwhatourrepresentativedid;thatis,theonecorporateactisdescribedfromourshareinthetransaction.Butletusnoticetheexpressions.

It is said WE DIED TO SIN (ver. 2). As this phrase is very muchmisunderstood,itsmeaningmustbeascertained.ItfrequentlyoccursinthePauline epistles in different forms, anduniformly alludesnot to aninwarddeliverance fromsin,but to theChristian'sobjectiverelation,orto his personal standing before God in the vicarious work of Christ; itmeans that we are legally dead to sin in Christ. This is rendered quitecertain by two other expressions occurring in the section. The first ofthesepassagesappliesthesamelanguagetotheLordHimself;forHeissaidtoHAVEDIEDTOSINONCE(ver.10).Nowtheonlysenseinwhichthe SinlessOne can be regarded as dying to sin, is that of dying to itsguilt,ortothecondemningpowerwhichgoesalongwithsin,andwhichmust run its course, wherever sin has been committed.He died to theguiltorcriminalityofsin,whenitwaslaidonHim;certainlyHedidnotdietoitsindwellingpower.Thesecondofthesepassagesshowsthatthisdyingwasthegroundormeritoriouscauseofourjustification:"Hethatisdeadhas been justified (notFREED, as it is unhappily rendered in theEnglish version) from sin" (ver. 7). The justification of the Christian isthusbasedonhisco-dyingwithChrist; that is,wearesaidtohavediedwhen Christ died, and to have done what Christ did. The wordsundoubtedly mean a co-dying with Christ in that one corporaterepresentativedeed; that is, theymean thatwewereonewithChrist inHisobedienceuntodeath,aswewereonewithAdaminhisdisobedience.Christ'sdeathtosinbelongstous,andisasmuchoursasifwehadbornethepenalty.Andthejustificationbywhichourpersonsareforgivenandaccepted,hasnootherfoundation.Itisnoteworthythatthefifthchapter,fromwhichthisideaiscarriedover,describesallthisinthethirdperson;whereas the sixth chapterdescribes it in the firstperson, and fromourownshareinit.

Itisalsosaidinthissection,thatOUROLDMANISCRUCIFIED,orco-crucified,withHim. The entire section ofwhich this is a part, is to be

regardednotashortatory,butasthesimplestatementoffact;itdoesnotsetforthanythingdonebyus,butsomethingdoneonouraccount,orforoursake,byaSurety, inwhoseperformanceweparticipate.But, itmaybe asked,maywe not holdwith the great body of expositors, from theReformation downwards, that these varied expressions designate twoseparateclassesofactions,—onedonebyChrist,andasimilarorparallelone by us,—and that the phraseology must be taken in two differentsenses as used respecting Christ, and as used respecting us? No; theexpressionsarenottobetakeninapropersenseasappliedtoChrist,andinafigurativesenseasappliedtous.TheactsareNOTTWO,BUTONE,describedfromtwodifferentpointsofview.Thereisnotonecrucifixionon the part of Christ, and a second, parallel and similar but different,crucifixiononthepartofHispeople.Thereisbutonecorporateact,aswenoticedinthepreviouschapter,—theactofoneformany.

Butwhat istheOLDMANthat issaidtobeco-crucifiedwiththeLord?Does not this refer to inward corruption? Though commentators havelong expounded it in thiswaywith a sort of common consent, such anexplanation is untenable, as itwouldmake the expression synonymouswiththenextclause,andthusnotonlyyieldabaldtautology,butgiveaninstance of inept reasoning; for the one clause is made the ground orcondition of the other. The oldman is crucified, INORDERTHAT thebodyofsin,orsinwithinusasanorganicbody,mightbedestroyed.Nowtheremustbe adifferencebetween the two clauses, as the former is inordertoattainthelatter.TheoldmansaidtobecrucifiedwithChrist,istherefore our old personality, or Adamic standing,which is terminatedthat wemay have a new relationship to God in the crucified Surety; aprivilegewhich lays the foundation also for the destruction of inherentcorruption. But these two (ver. 12)—person and nature—are not to beconfounded;norwill theapostle's reasoningadmitanycommentwhichconfoundsthem.

But,tobringthemattermorefullyhometothemindofhisreaders,theapostlesaysWEWEREBAPTIZEDINTOHISDEATH(ver.3).TheLord,inthehistoricoutlineofHisdeath, ispresentedtousasladenwithsin,andsatisfyingdivinejustice;andbaptism,asasymbolicalrepresentation,exhibitsourconnectionwithHim,orparticipationinthatgreatcorporate

actwhichwas in the room of allHis people.We are supposed to havedonewhatHedid,andtohaveundergonewhatHeunderwent,tosatisfydivinejustice.Thesymbolofbaptismshowedthis,andtheapostlerecallsthefactthatitwasabaptismintoHisdeath,anemblemofonenesswithChrist,orfellowshipwithHiminHisdeathtosin(ver.10).

But when it is said that we were CO-PLANTED with Him IN THELIKENESS of His death, it may be asked, does not this seem to runcountertoallthathasbeensaidastotheonecorporaterepresentativeactofChrist?IfmentionismadeofthelikenessofHisdeath,doesnotthisseemtointimatetwoacts,—oneonChrist'sside,andoneonours?Doesnotthistakeawayourattentionfromtheobjectiveactofsubstitution,tosomethingmoremysticalinhumanexperienceanalogoustotheworkofChrist? By nomeans. It is one act and one atonement in the room ofsinnerstowhichallthesetermsrefer.Andtheexpression,"inthelikenessofHisdeath,"seemstobeanallusiontobaptismasanemblem,likeness,orsymbolicalrepresentation.Theconnectionofthetwoverses,wethink,provesthis.

Butanotherthoughttobenoticedis,thattheonenesswithJesusinHisdeath, or the co-dying with Him, secured the ulterior end of life. TheDEATHWAS THE PRICE OF THE LIFE. The one was the cause, theotherwastheunfailingrewardorconsequence.Wemustputthesetwoinjuxtaposition.

First,then,alltheabove-namedexpressions,andotherssimilartothem,point to a discharge from a hardmaster. Thatmaster is SIN, which isdescribedthroughthesetwochaptersasamightypotence,ortyrant,thatentered into the world by oneman, and reigned over the human race.Thisismorethanapersonification,morethanafigureofspeech,fortheapostle isstruggling toexpressarelationwherehumananalogiesbreakdown. He has no term by which to describe it but the power of apotentate, or of amaster, over his slave. By death this yoke is broken,accordingtothelanguageofJob:"Therethewickedceasefromtroubling;andtheservantisfreefromhismaster"(Job3:19).TheapostledeclaresthatnotonlywasthedeathofChristasubstitutioninourroom,butthat,inconsequenceofitsbeingadefiniteandexpresssubstitution,wemaybesaidtohavedonewhatHedid.And,invirtueofouronenesswithHim,

wearedischargedfromsinasamaster.

But THIS SECURES LIFE; for this life is the fruit, effect, or rewardconsequentontheformer.If theChristiandiedwithChrist,hewillalsolive with Him, by a bond as sure as that which obtains betweenantecedent and consequent, between Christ's own death andresurrection.IfwediedwithHim,webelievethatweshallalsolivewithHim(ver.8).Butifthatisso,—ifChristianslivewithChristassurelyastheydiedwithHim,—itfollowsthattheirlifecannolongerbedevotedtosin,but toGod,aswas the lifeofChrist.Theyhave fellowshipwith theLord in His RESURRECTION-LIFE, a participation of the same holyLIFE that the Lord lives in heaven, and cannot, therefore, surrenderthemselvestoacourseofsin.

Now this is the grand answer to the current cavil or objection to thedoctrinesofgracementionedatthebeginningofthechapter.Theapostle,in refutation of it, appeals to the deepest principles in the moralgovernment of God. He proves that Christ's vicarious death, for thesatisfactionofdivinejustice,andfortheannihilationofsin,opensawayfor the entranceof anew reignof life.Hemakes it indubitably evidentthat Christ's own resurrection-life, which comes in to renovate andtransform humanity, renders a life of sin, or a continuance in sin,impossible.MOTIVESmaygofar;andthey,too,arecalledintoexercise.Butthisisasphereimmenselyelevatedabovethepowerofmeremotives.THE LIFE OF CHRIST ENTERS TO RENEW MANKIND, AND TOSECUREHOLINESS.

VI. A further testimony, of much weight on the doctrine of theatonement, is as follows: Forwhat the law could not do, in that itwasweak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in the likeness ofsinfulflesh[better,inthelikenessofthefleshofsin],andforsin[better,as a sin-offering] condemned sin in the flesh; that the righteousness ofthelawmightbefulfilledinus,whowalknotaftertheflesh,butaftertheSpirit (Rom. 8:3). The apostle had stated at the commencement of thechapter, that, notwithstanding the indwelling sinwhich still adheres tous,andwhichhedescribedinthepreviouschapter(7:15–25),thereisnocondemnationtotheChristian;andthenhesubjoinsthetextunderournotice as the ground of the non-condemnation, and of the deliverance

fromthelawofsinanddeath.Thepassageamountstothis,thatthereisNO CONDEMNATION, because SIN HAS BEEN CONDEMNED INCHRIST'SFLESH,and theapproved fulfilmentof the law is laid toouraccount.The following elements of the atonement come to light in thispassage:—

1.ThesourceoftheatonementistracedtoGodtheFatherhavingaSonto send. The language emphatically declares that the whole atonementoweditsorigintoGodasitssource,andthatitmustbereadofffromtheactoftheFatherassendingHisSontoofferit.ItemanatedfromGodasits fountain; for it could not have been extorted fromHimhadHe notspontaneouslydevisedand executed it.AndasHewas the source fromwhom it came, so wasHe the authority bywhom it was accepted as acomplete satisfaction.WhatwaspreparedbyGod,mustofnecessitybeacceptabletoHim.

2. The person by whom the redemption-work was finished, was theeternal Son,His ownSon,His proper Son.This title indicatesnot onlyfiliation, but true and proper Godhead; for He is the Son of God in aunique sense, not by adoption, not by incarnation, not by resurrection,but by an eternal act of generation, in consequence of which He isdesignatedtheonly-begottenSon.AndtheinfluenceofthedivinenatureoftheLordonHiswholeatoningworkisnotobscurelyindicated:itwasthe work of a divine person, and owed to this its boundless value anddignity.ThustheLordJesus,inhisredemption-work,cannotberegardedasmereman,butasGod-man,inwhombothnaturesconcurredateverysteptotheproductionofajointresult.Theworkisthusone,becausetheperson is one. Itwas the deity ofGod's Son that gaveHis redemption-workavaluewhichisaltogetherinfinite;and,thusviewed,wefindthatitnotonlyemanatedfromGod,butwasconsummatedbytheworkmanshipofHimwhowasGod.

3.TheSonofGodwassentinTHELIKENESSOFSINFULFLESH;thatis,ofthefleshofsin.Thisexpressionmustbecarefullyinvestigated,lestweshouldeithererrbyoverstatement,orcomeshortof itsmeaningbydefectofstatement.Itgoesverydeep,butwemustbecarefultofathomit. One thing is self-evident: the language must be understood asaffirmingthetrueincarnationoftheSonofGod,andasascribingtoHim

arealhumanity,incontrastwitheveryDoceticorphantomtheoryofHisbecomingman.Andfurther,theunionofGodheadandmanhoodintheone person of the eternal Son carried with it this consequence, that itmustneedsbesinlesshumanity, inasmuchas theSonofGodcouldnothave united to Himself anything sinful. By the operation of the HolyGhost,Hishumanity,whichnever foran instantexistedapart fromthedivinepersonoftheSon,wasgeneratedpure;likesinfulfleshindeed,butnotsinfulflesh.Andthiswassecuredbythefact,thatthoughHetookHisfleshfromAdamthroughtheVirgin,Heneverwas inAdam'scovenant,but the secondAdam, the restorer.Hewasakinsman-Redeemer, tobewithinthepaleofourhumanity;butHeneitherderivedanytaintofmindorbodybytransmissionfromAdam,norcontractedanyguilt forwhichHewaspersonallyresponsible.

The import of the expression we are considering is not exhausted,however,bytheideaofabareincarnation,orHisbecomingman.That,ofcourse,liesatthefoundationofthewhole;butthereisafurtherthought,whichcannotbeexcluded.ThestatementthatHewassentinthelikenessof sinful flesh, implies thatbetweenHimandothermennoperceptibledifference couldbe traced; thatas topersonal appearance, inweaknessandexhaustion,ininfirmityandweariness, insorrowandmortality,HewasinallrespectsmadelikeuntoHisbrethren.ThelanguageintimatesthatHe entered into the human family poor and despised, hungry andthirsty,subjecttotheordinarytoilsoflabourinanearthlycalling,andtothe fatigue consequentupon it; amanof sorrows, and acquaintedwithgrief; not exempt from the fear of death nor from actual mortality. Inshort, He came within the circle of humanity, and into all that thisentailed,sofarasitcouldbeexperiencedbyOnewhowasatoncesinlessman and the beloved Son of God. But several observations are herenecessary to put thismatter in its proper light,which is rarely, if ever,expoundedwithallthefulnessandprecisionwhicharenecessary.

a.WearenottoconsidertheLordasassumingthislikenesstothefleshof sin in a mere arbitrary way, and without sufficient cause. It is notenough to say thatHe assumed this likeness to fallen humanity for noreasonatall,ormerelyforthepurposeofbeinglikeHisbrethren.ThoughHis participation in our nature, in its sufferings and temptations,

qualifiedHimtosympathizewithus,andfittedHimtobeamercifulandfaithfulHighPriest (Heb. 2:17),we are notwarranted to conclude thatthis was all the reason for whichHe was sent in the likeness of sinfulflesh.Hewas found in fashionasaman,and in the likenessofasinfulman,sothatnodifferencecouldbediscoveredbetweenHisflesh,whichwassinless,andthatofothermen,whoaresinful.

b.WearenottoregardtheLordasderivingthosesinless infirmitiesbytransmissionfromAdamorfromHismotherbythenecessityofnature.Theywerebynomeansaninevitableaccompanimentoftheincarnation,orofwearingourhumanity.Mortality,whichsomesupposetobeallthatismeantbythephraseunderconsideration,wasnotanecessaryadjunctofassumingourhumanity,anymorethanweretheheavinessandagony,thesorrowsandfainting,thetears,trials,andtemptations,bywhichHewasmadelikeuntoHisbrethren.TheycouldnotcomeuponHiminanyother way than sin came upon Him. They came upon Him, not as apersonallegacybyderivationortransmissionfromthefirstman,orfromthefactofHisenteringintoourworld,butsimplyonthegroundofHisvoluntarySuretyship.TheywereinHiscasetheconsequencesandeffectsofsin,butofsinnotHisown,andmerelybornebyimputation.Inotherwords,Hewasthecurse-bearerbecauseHewasthesin-bearer.

c.WecannotregardsinasattachingtotheearthlylifeofChrist.Acertainclassofcrudedivines,whoknowneitherwhattheysaynorwhereoftheyaffirm, have of late been asserting a modification of Irvingism, to theeffect thatsinbelongs,so tospeak, to that life inwhichChristknewnosin,andthatHehas"donewithsininhavingdonewiththelifetowhichsinbelonged."Thegreat errorof Irving,whomaintained that ourLordassumedfallenflesh,waspreciselysimilar.Butfromthisitwouldfollowthat themortality and sorrows, the temptations and trials towhichHewas subjected, fell upon Him by the necessity of nature, not bysubstitutionorvoluntarySuretyship.Thatsuppositionsubvertstheveryprinciple of substitution,which takes for granted that a sinless person,with a complete exemption from sin and all its consequences,spontaneouslyenteredintothepositionandresponsibilitiesofthesinner.Thecrudetheorytowhichwehavereferred,iscontradictedbytheentireprovisions and arrangements of the incarnation. The Lord Jesus never

wasinAdam'scovenant,butcameasthesecondAdam,thecounterpartof the first; and His entrance into humanity by the supernaturalconception,wasmeant toobviate the imputationofAdam's first sin,aswell as the transmission of any of its consequences by the necessity ofnature.HewasPERSONALLYexempt,bothastheincarnateSonandasthesecondman, fromall theguilt,aswellas fromall theconsequencesconnected with the guilt, of the first Adam.He was within the humanfamilyasakinsman-Redeemer,andnotoutsideitspale;butthatwasallwhichHis incarnationassuch,orsimplyconsidered,properly involved.Tosupposethatsin,oranyofitsconsequences,attachedtothepersonoftheLordby the fact of assumingourhumanityor entering intohumanlife, is a lamentable confusion of idea. It perplexes and disorganizeseverything;itconfoundsthingsthatdiffer.

The personal and the official in the life of Jesus must always bedistinguished.Thesecanneverbemergedineachother,withoutthemostmischievous and fatal issues. The personal relation is one thing, theofficialisanother.TheformerbringsChristbeforeusasadivineperson,and calls attention to a sinless humanity,—that is, to a humanityaccordingtoitsideaornormalcondition;andifthemediationonwhichHe entered had not involved the propitiation for sin as well as theobedience originally devolved on man as man, the Lord Jesus woulddoubtlesshaveappearedinanoblehumanity, inthesamehumanity,atleast,asthatwhichAdampossessedbeforethefall.Butthiscouldnotbeonaccountoftheproblemtobesolved.Atpresent,allIwishistoshowthat, in our conceptions, the personal must be distinguished from theofficial.ThepersonalrelationofJesuspossessedafullimmunityfromtheimputationofguilt,andfrominherenttaintineveryform.Thepersonalunderlies theofficial;and ifweshouldsupposethatsinattached inanysensetothepersonoftheLord,ortothehumanlifeinwhichHecame,He would have been incapacitated for His work of mediation andvicariousobedience.Therecouldhavebeennosubstitutioninourroomandstead.

This will enable us to understand the words, "in the likeness of sinfulflesh."Theexpressionpointstotheeffectsofwhichsinwasthecause,butsinnotHisown.Theconsequencesresultingfromtheimputationofsin

toJesusweresuch,thatHewasinallpointsmadelikethebrethren,orsent in the likeness of the flesh of sin; that is, subject to suffering andmortality,asiftherehadbeennodifferencebetweenmankindandHim.Andwhenwecall tomindwhatwehaveelsewhereproved,thatHewasthe sin-bearer from themomentofassumingourhumanity,wehaveathandareadyexplanationoftheotherwiseinexplicablefact,thatHecameamongmenasifHewereoneofthem,exposedtosorrowandtemptation,sufferinganddeath.Hishumannatureneverexistedapartfrompersonalunion to the Son of God, nor apart from sin-bearing; and hence Heappeared in the likeness of the flesh of sin, not by a mere arbitraryassimilationtousmen,butbecauseHeboreinHisownbodytheweightofimputedsin;afactwhichgaverisebylegitimateconsequencetosuchresults.

TheapostlestatesthatGod,inpreparingabodyforChrist,sentHiminahumanity,notsuchasitwasinastateofintegrity,whenitwasbeautifuland glorious, but in a form such as it now is, viz., as bearing the sadmarks of sin. Thus no perceptible difference appeared between Hisnatureandours,notbecausepreciselythesamefleshwastransmittedtoHim that goes down from Adam to his posterity, but becauseHe tookupon Him, by voluntary Suretyship, that load of imputed guilt, whichcarried in itspenalconsequencesall thatHeenduredofabasementandheaviness, temptation, suffering, and mortality. It was still, however,officiallyassumed,notpersonallyinherited.ItwassinnotHisown;anditwas a humiliation and a cruel crucifixion to which He submitted, notbecauseHemust,butbecauseHewaspleasedsotodo.Inaword,Hewassolikethefleshofsinwhenfoundinfashionasaman,sotemptedinallpointslikeasweare,thatnodifferencewasperceptibletoanyeye.Thathumanitysoabased,andsufferingfromtheeffectsofsin,musthavebeena vast humiliation for such a person,may easily be supposed. Yet GodsentHisSontowearhumanityinsuchaform;andthereasonofallthisisimmediatelysubjoined,aswehavenexttonotice.

4.Thewords,FORSIN,or,morecorrectly,SIN-OFFERING, connectedwith the words on which we have been commenting, convey thismeaning, thatHecame in the likenessof sinful fleshbecauseHewasasin-offeringorasin-bearer.ThefirstAdam,usheredintoaworldwithout

sin, was provided with a nobler body. The second Adam, immenselygreater than he, came among men from another sphere, and showedHimself in the likenessof the fleshof sin, inmeannessandabasement.Some limit the likeness of sinful flesh to this, that He was subject tosuffering and death. But while these elements are unquestionablyincludedas important ingredients, theyarenotall,nordo theyexhausttheapostolicidea.

The expression, FOR SIN, is by some regarded as denoting that Christwascruellyputtodeath,ortreatedwithsinfulmaliceandinsult.Butsuchacommentcannotbemadeevenexegeticallyplausible;thewordswillnotbearit.AnothercommentistotheeffectthatHewassentonaccountofsin,asthecausewhichweighedwithGodtosendHim.Themeaning,onthis supposition, will be, that God intended to punish sin bymeans ofChrist;andbutforsuchadesign,itmighthavebeenthoughtthatHewasvisitedwithsufferingwithoutsufficientcause.Thisisatenablecomment.But of all the interpretations, by far the most natural is the mode ofconstruingwhich refers thewords to the sin-offering, or to an atoningsacrifice.Inconfirmationofthis,wefindthephrasesousedintheEpistleto the Hebrews (Heb. 10:6), and in the Septuagint version of Isaiah,whereChrist'ssoulissaidtobegivenasanofferingforsin(Isa.53:10),aswell as inmanyotherplaces in the sameversion (Lev. 4:35, 5:6, 6:17).Thesensewillbeasfollows:—Bysuchasacrificeforsin,thesacrificeofHisownbody, thoughHeowednothing,andwasunderno liability,Hecondemned sin in the flesh. As Christ is elsewhere directly and byimplication called a sacrifice, I do not see that there ought to be anydoubtwhetherthisisthemeaningofthePaulineexpression.Besides,onthisexplanation,everythingwillbefoundtofallintoproperorderinthestructureofthesentence,withoutanyellipsisoranywordtobesupplied:itwillbeconstruedwithwhatprecedes,notwithwhatfollows.Theonlyobjectionthatcanbemadetothisinterpretationis,thatthepassagedoesnotmakementionofChrist'sdeath,butofHismission.Buttherecanbeno objection on that ground: for we often find similar phrases inconnectionwiththepropitiationofChrist,thesendingbeingforthesakeofthedeath,andcomprehendingit(1John4:9–10).Wehold,then,thattheexpressiondenotesapropitiatorysacrifice,asin-offering.

5.But it isadded, thatby thismeansGODCONDEMNEDSININTHEFLESH.Toapprehendthemeaningofthisphrase,itmustbenoticedthatsin is still personified, as it was in the three previous chapters. Theapostle speaks of sin entering into the world, and reigning over thehuman family as a potence,monarch, or cruelmaster (Rom. 5:12, 17),and as exercising an authority, fromwhichwe are legitimately rescuedonlybyadeathtosin(Rom.6:2).Thereasonofthispeculiarphraseologymay be, that a distinction can be drawn between theman and the sinwhichenslaveshim;Godcondemningtheman,notasHisworkmanship,butashehassin.Sindestroystheperson,andbeingthereforemuchlikeaperson,iscapableofbeingpersonified.Fromthepassagewherehefirstspoke of its entrance (5:12), up to this point, the apostle has beenpersonifyingsin;andhencewehavenowarranttotakethewordSINinanyotheracceptationinthepassagebeforeus.WemuststillregardSINinthispassageasthepotentatethathasheldthehumanfamilyunderhispower.ButwhenChristwassentbytheFathertoengagewiththisenemy,Heovercamehim,judged,andcondemnedhim.

But we have next to notice how God CONDEMNED SIN. The samepersonificationaswasbeforeused,isstillcontinued.Sinisspokenofasaperson judged at a higher tribunal, and righteously condemned. Inconsequenceofthis,hehasnofurtherclaimtothoseoverwhomhehadpreviously tyrannized, for they are now set free. No other significationcanbeattachedtothewordCONDEMNEDbutsuchasisidenticalwiththemeaning of the word in the first clause of the chapter; for the no-condemnation which believers enjoy, is based on the condemnation ofsin,whichwasaccomplishedinthefleshofChrist.

The question, indeed, as to the flesh, inwhich sin is said to have beencondemned, is variously answered by different interpreters. But theconnection decides that the allusion is to the human flesh assumed byChrist;thatis,tothesamepersonofwhomhehadsaidthatHewassentin the likeness of sinful flesh. The apostle plainly refers to the flesh ofChrist,andintimatesthatGodcondemnedsinonHimasthesinlesssin-offering.Hesatisfiedthedivineclaims,partlybyHisperfectobedience,—that is,bywhat theSonofGod,assent into theworld,rendered inourroom,—partly by bearing the curse of the law,—in aword, by SINLESS

SIN-BEARING; whichmay be taken as the descriptive formula for theatonement. And in consequence of this vicarious work, sin wascondemnedinHisflesh,andlostitspoweroverus.

Buttherearetwowaysinwhichthisallusiontothecondemnationofsinhas been expounded. Some less accurately explain the expression in amoresubjectivesense,viz.ofabolishing,oreradicatingsin.Thatcannotbeacceptedasthemeaningoftheword,whichhasalwaysajudicialidea.Hence, others more happily take the term in its proper meaning, asdenotingthatGod judiciallycondemnedsin in the fleshofChrist,whenHe offered Himself as a sin-offering. The term, wherever we find it,intimates a judicial sentence (Rom. 2:1, 5:18). In short, it is acondemnation that frees us from condemnation, the sentence beingexecutedonourSurety(Gal.3:13;1Pet.2:24).ThelanguagedenotesthatJesuswasvisitedwithpenalsuffering,becauseHeappearedbeforeGodonly in the guise of our accumulated sin; not therefore as a privateindividual, but as a representative, sinless inHimself, but sin-covered,loved as the Son, but condemned as the sin-bearer, in virtue of thatfederalunionbetweenHimandHispeople,whichlayatthefoundationofthewhole.ThusGodcondemnedsininHisflesh,andinconsequenceofthisthereisnocondemnationtous.

Theapostlefurthermorestatesallthisasaresultwhichthelawcoulddonothing to effect.Andas to thephilological construingof the sentence,thefirstpartoftheversemaybefitlyplacedinappositionwiththewholestatement,inthefollowingsimpleway:"Athingimpossibleforthelaw,inthatitwasweakthroughtheflesh."

6. The last point to be mentioned is, that Christ was made the sin-offering, and condemned sin in the flesh, for this further object, THATTHERIGHTEOUSNESSOFTHELAWMIGHTBEFULFILLEDINUS.That is so like another expression of the same apostle, that the twopassagesmayfitlybecomparedformutualelucidation(2Cor.5:21).Thisexpressioncannotbe referred toany inwardworkof renovation; fornowork or attainment of ours can with any propriety of language bedesignateda"fulfillingoftherighteousnessofthelaw."Thewords,"therighteousness of the law," are descriptive of Christ's obedience as thework of one formany (Rom. 5:18). This result is delineated as the end

contemplatedbyChrist'sincarnationandatonement,andintimatesthatasHewasmadeasin-offering,soareweregardedasfulfillersofthelaw.Theonewaswithaviewtotheother(ἵνα).AndwhentherighteousnessofthelawissaidtobefulfilledINUS,themeaningisthatitbelongstous,andisappliedtousinconsequenceofthatunionbywhichChristabidesinus,andweinHim.Itisfulfilledinus,asifwehaddoneitallourselves.

VII.Anotherpassageontheatonementistothiseffect:IfGodbeforus,who canbe against us?He that sparednotHis ownSon, but deliveredHim up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us allthings?WhoshalllayanythingtothechargeofGod'select?ItisGodthatjustifieth;who ishe thatcondemneth?It isChrist thatdied,yearather,thatisrisenagain,whoisevenattherighthandofGod,whoalsomakethintercessionforus(Rom.8:31–34).Heretheapostleextolstheprivilegesofthosewhoarecompletelyfreedfromcondemnationbytheatonement.And when we analyze these triumphant questions, which follow eachother in rapid succession, we perceive that the atonement is a realtransaction, furnishing the fullest security for real persons. Beholdingenemies and opposition on every side, the apostle confidently defiesthem, on the ground that God is for us (ver. 31). But that challenge isbaseduponanotherstatementwhichconnectstheChristian'ssafetywiththeatonement(ver.32).

Beforeenteringontheexplanationoftheclauses,itisnecessarytodefinethe importof thewords,HISOWNSON.Thesewords carrywith themtheideaofaproperSon,ofaSonaccordingtodivinerelationshippriortoHis incarnation; and every one who reads the words withoutprepossession, andwith a simple desire to find out themeaning of thewriter,isnaturallyledtoreferthemtothedivineSonship.Theapostle'sexpression is intended to bring out two things: on the one hand, thestrong love-relation which the Father occupied to the person of theMediator;and,ontheotherhand,theinfinitedignityandvalueattachingtowhateverwasdonebytheSonofHislove.Furthermore,toapprehendthe thought here brought before us, and how the Son is said to bedelivered, it must be noted that we cannot suppose the three divinepersons in theGodheadwithout any natural order of being, of willing,andofworking;fortheFatherissaidtohavegiventheSon,andevinced

His infinite love by giving Him. We cannot suppose that the secondpersonassumedournaturemerelybycompactoragreement,withoutanyrelationofnaturalorder;forsuchanotionwouldbeoutofharmonywiththe entire languageof Scripture,which always represents theFather assending His Son, or the first person as giving the second. The love tosinners discovered in redemption is thus seen in its first origin in theFather.

Next, thescopeof theapostle'sargument,andthenatureof it,mustbedistinctlytraced.Itisanargumentfromthegreatertotheless;thesamestyleofreasoningofwhichwehavealreadyhadsomestrikingexamplesin this epistle (Rom. 5:9, 10). The argument is, that He who gave thegreater, will certainly give the less; that He whose love surmounts thegreatest difficulties, will not be baffled by what comparatively ismuchless arduous. And He amplifies the infinite love of God to make thecogencyofthereasoningthestrongerandmoreforcible.WhenGodgaveHisSonFORUS, theexpressionundoubtedlymeans thatHegaveHimfor our good, for our advantage. But the inquiry still remains: Inwhatsense,andwithwhatpeculiarforce,arewetounderstandthatthedeathof Christ was for our good? Was it so by example, doctrine, orinstruction?orwasitbecauseHediedavicariousdeathwhenweshouldhavedied,—apunishmentintheplaceofthosewhomustotherwisehaveperished?Thatisapointtobedecidedbyotherelementsandexpressionsthatenter intothedescriptionofHisdeath;andtheyhavealreadybeenunder our examination in other passages. The giving up of the Son ofGod,herereferredto,certainlydoesnotmeanforourbenefit,inavagueandindefinitesense;fortheinferencededucedfromit,thatallthingswillbeconferredalongwithChrist,plainlyreferstotheideaofsubstitution.Did notmany piousmen in the Jewish nation give themselves for thegoodof theircountrymen?Werenotmanyprophetsandrighteousmenslain?Butofwhomwasiteversaidthattheirsufferingswerethemeansofallotherblessingsthatwereconferredonothers?Onthecontrary,thebloodofAbelandofallthemartyrsrathercriedforvengeance.ButhereitissaidthatWITHCHRISTCRUCIFIEDallgoodthingswereconferred.

In thispassage there is first a statementof fact, and thenanargumentfoundeduponit.Itisthestatementoffactexhibitingthesource,nature,

and scope of the atonement, with which we have to do. The greatargumentpracticallydeduced from it, suppliesan inexhaustiblegroundofconfidenceandexpectation.

1.Thefirstthinginthestatementoffactis:"GodSPAREDNOTHisownSon."ThisexpressionoccursseveraltimesintheNewTestamentwithanallusiontopunishment.Thusit issaidoftheJews,thatGodsparednotthe natural branches (Rom. 11:21); of the angels that sinned, that Godsparedthemnot,butcastthemdowntohell(2Pet.2:4);andoftheoldworld,thatGodsparednottheoldworld,butsavedNoah(2Pet2:5).Theexpression, as applied to the Son of God, means that God did notwithholdHim,theconstitutedsuretyofothers,fromtheabasementandsufferingwhichmustneedsbeborneintheexecutionofHisfunction,butdealt with Him according to strict justice. Though essentially a divineperson, He is here considered as the Son of God assuming our naturewith the sin and punishment which are properly ours. Hence,notwithstandingtheinfiniteandeternallovewithwhichHewasregardedastheSon,andwhichnevercouldbeloweredorwithdrawn,GodsparedHimnot.Hewasatoncelovedandnotspared,accordingtothetwofoldrelationwhichbelongedtoHim,astheSonofGodandasman'ssurety.Thereisnothingincongruousinthis.Hewas,ontheonehand,theobjectofloveastheSonofGod,andalsoasthesinlessfulfillerofthelaw(John10:17).But,on theotherhand,Hewas theobjectofpunitivevisitation,andnotspared,asthesuretyandthesin-bearer.

Thewordshereusedseem intended to recall thehumananalogy in thecaseofAbraham,andcertainlysuggestthatitwasasortofviolencetotheFather-loveofGodwhenHesparedHimnot.Whatdoesthispresuppose?ItassumesthatHewouldhavesparedHisSonhadHewishedtoexecuteuponusthepunishmentwehadincurred.HewouldhavesparedHisSon,and removed the cup of suffering from Him, had He not purposed toconferuponusallconceivablegood.But,inlovetous,HesparednotHisown Son. He removed not the cup from Him, that it might never bepresented to us. This scripture connects the Christian's safety underdivine protection with the fact that God spared not His own Son,—aphrasewhichimpliesthatHesparednottheSurety,thatHemightrescueus.

Thesecondthing in thestatementof fact is: "GodDELIVEREDUPHisSon." This is not precisely synonymous with the former, nor quite thesameastheexpression,"HegaveHisonly-begottenSon"(John3:16);atleast there isashadeofdifference. In thephrasebeforeus, there is thefurtherideathatthesupremeGoddeliveredHimintothehandsofmen,to be treated as if in reality He were the malefactor which theyrepresentedHimtobe.Thisdeliveryintothehandsofsinnershasalreadybeen explained by us (Acts 2:23). Judas and the high priest, with thecouncil, were concerned in it; but there was a hand above theirs, andthere is nothing to prevent us seeing a principal and an instrumentalcause.Theunworthy instruments of thisdelivery only sought to gratifytheir malice; the just Judge acted righteously. Christ was tried andsentencedatahumantribunal,whichwasbut thevisible foregroundofaninvisibletrialinwhichtherighteousGodwasjudgingrighteously,forhumanguiltwaslaiduponthepersonoftheSubstitute.Forwisereasons,alreadynoticed,GodarrangedtheeventsoftheatoningsacrificeinsuchawaythatChristwasnottobecutoffbytheimmediatehandofGod,butbymenwhowereHishand, andonly gratified theirmalice against therepresentativeofGod.Thehumanjudge,whointhemostunprecedentedwayabsolvedandyetcondemned,declaredHimfaultlessandyetpassedsentencedagainstHim,representedinthetransactiontheJudgeofalltheearth,whoregardedChristinasimilarway.ThehumanjudgecouldonlypassasentencethatwouldaffectHisbody;butanothersentencefromahighertribunaltookeffectuponHissoul,andbroughthomethewrathofGod.Andunderthis invisible inflictiontheLordexperiencedagonyanddesertion;under thisHepoured forthHis complaint,His strong cryingand tears, and endured that penal death which rescues us from theseconddeath.

A further statement is, that the Son of God was delivered up FORUSALL.Aswehavealreadynoticedthesubstitutionunderlyingthepassage,wedonotneed to return to this,andonly further inquire forwhomallthiswasdone.Theyarespecialpersons;buttheapostledoesnotsayforall,butforUSALL.Andwhenweaskwhotheywere,theobviousansweris,thattheywerethebelievingmentowhomPaulwrote,andwhowerejoinedwithhimself.Theyarethesamepersonsinreferencetowhomtheapostle said, "If God be forUS,who can be againstUS?" They are the

same parties who are described all through the epistle, and speciallydesignatedinthecontextasthepredestinated,thecalledandjustified;inaword,theyarethetruechurchofGod,forwhomChristdied.Itcannotbe said thatGod is FORALLANDEVERYONE, since there aremanywho are without reconciliation, and have Him not as a protector anddefender.

2. If such is the statementof fact, theargumentbasedupon it is in thehighestdegreeimportant.Itisaformofreasoningfromthegreatertotheless—from the stupendous act of God in delivering up His Son, to thelesserblessingswhichgoalongwithitandareappendedtoit,—thus:Hewhogavethegreater,willnotgrudgeorwithholdthe less.Thepassage,too,takesforgrantedthatthedeathofChristalteredourrelation,makingus, of enemies, the friends ofGod and the objects of divine protection.The argument is: He that did all this for sinners, will not abandon uswhenfriends;Hewhogavethegreater,willnotgrudgetheless.

The only point further demanding notice is furnished by the strikingantithesis:"Whoishethatcondemneth?ItisChristthatdied,yearather,that is risen again" (ver. 34). This challenge as to its import gives athought of the same kind with what was considered above at thecommencementofthischapter(Rom.8:1,3).Thenon-condemnationoftheelect—thatis,ofeveryoneforwhomChristdied—ishereaffirmedinthemostemphaticwaybythistriumphantchallenge.ThejusticeofGodwassatisfied for them;and thechallenge is:Whocancondemnone forwhom He died? In a word, everything concurs to proclaim aloud thevicarious death of Christ for our redemption, and none can condemnthem.

VIII. Other allusions to the atonement, though more indirect and lessexpress in statement, occur in the Epistle to the Romans. Thus theapostle refers to the connection between the purchase of a people andChrist'sdominionover themwhenhesays,"Forto thisendChristbothdied,androse,andrevived,thatHemightbeLordbothofthedeadandliving"(Rom.14:9).Thespecialreferenceoftheatonement,too,comestolightemphaticallyinthedescriptivenameforaChristian—"oneforwhomChristdied"(Rom.14:15).Anotherpassagemaybenoticed,containingaquotation from a Messianic psalm: "The reproaches of them that

reproachedTheefelluponme"(Rom.15:4;Ps.69:9).Thewordscontainanallusiontotheatonement,fromwhichtheethicalpreceptisenforced,asinmanyotherpassages(2Cor.8:9).ItisnotenoughtosaywithsomethatthewordsdescribeChristasdeeplyaffected,fromthezealanimatingHim,withreproachescastuponGod;nortosaythat, fromtheintimatefellowshipbetweenHimandtheFather,HeenduredallthatwascastontheFather.Nor do thewords set forth the punishment of blasphemerspronouncedonChrist.Theyratherintimatethatsins,bringingdishonouruponGod,were in their guilt laid on the Lord Jesus, or so imputed toHimthatHebore theminHisownbody,as ifHewereguiltyandmenwere innocent. Hence He did not please Himself; and from this theapostleenforcesconformitytoHisexample(comp.1Pet.3:18).

SEC.X.—THETESTIMONYINTHEFIRSTEPISTLETOTHECORINTHIANS

DuringPaul'sthreeyears'residenceatEphesus,helearnedthatdoctrinaland practical corruptions, calling for prompt correction, had crept intotherecentlyfoundedchurchofCorinth,andhesentfromEphesus(1Cor.16:8) his first epistle, containing a solemn warning, and a call for theimmediate exercise of discipline (1 Cor. 5:1–5). Peculiar corrections ofvarious kinds were needed to bring back the disciples to their trueposition;andindealingwiththeseabuses,theapostletakesoccasiontoexhibit the bearings of the atonement in a great variety of lightsapplicabletotheirreligiouscondition.HeplacesthesecorruptionsonebyoneinthelightofChrist'sredemption-work,andrefutesthemfromthatcentraltruth.

I.Whenparty-spiritandundueattachmenttotheindividualpeculiaritiesorgiftsofhumanteachersweretobecorrected,theapostleexhibitstheabsurdity and self-contradictionof indulging this spirit in the followingway:WasPaulcrucifiedforyou?orwereyebaptizedinthenameofPaul?(1Cor.1:13.)HeshowstheCorinthiansthatthiswasatendencyatonceincongruous and misplaced in Christianity, because they did not owetheirredemptiontotheministersbywhomtheybelieved;thatonlyOnewas the truemaster;and thatHisuniqueauthority, towhich toomuch

deference could never be paid, was based on His redemption-work.Nothingmore convincingly shows that the atonementwas in itsnaturedifferent from a martyr's testimony, and from all mere example orinstruction,howeverthismightbeconfirmedbyexposuretoperil,orbyactuallysealingthetestimonywithblood.

The phraseology here used, shows that the meaning conveyed by theexpression, CHRIST WAS CRUCIFIED FOR US, is, that He satisfieddivine justice in our stead. As an illustration, the apostle spoke of onemandyingforanotherwhowasarighteousorgoodman(Rom.5:7).Yet,whenChristissaidtohavebeencrucifiedforus,themeaningis,thatHeby substitution bore our sins, and brought in eternal redemption. Thisquestion, WAS PAUL CRUCIFIED FOR YOU? contrasting Paul's workwith Christ's, shows that Christ's death was for a wholly different endthancanbecompetentlyappliedtooneman'sactforanother.Wemayberequired to put life to hazard for the brethren, and to fill up what isbehind of the sufferings of Christ (2 Tim. 2:10; Col. 1:24); but inwhatsense?Notasdyingfortheirsins,buttoconfirmthetruthofthegospel,andedifythechurchbyaspectacleofstedfastnessandconstancy;fortheChristianrathersuffers,thanexposesthechurchtodanger.Butbetweensufferingsbelongingtoconfessorsforthetruth,andvicarioussufferingsasapropitiationforsins,thereisaworld-widedistinction.Theremaybea certain similarity, but no identity, no equality. The expression,"crucified for us," intimates something unique and incommunicable,belonging to the work performed by Him who was the one MediatorbetweenGodandman.That substitutionwas competent toHimalone:He redeemed us from eternal death, and the curse of the law. Whenbelieverssuffer inChrist'scause,this isafillingupofwhat isbehindofHis buffetings from the hand of man, or the fury of Satan stirring uphuman instruments against those who are engaged in spreading Hiscause. But the question, "Was Paul crucified for you?" intimates bycontrast, that as to His atoning work, Christ's sufferings were unique,vicarious,andincommunicable.

II.Theapostleplacesinthelightoftheatonementanotheraberrationofthe Corinthian church,—the undue admiration of human eloquence, orthewisdomofwords:ForChristsentmenottobaptize,buttopreachthe

gospel:notwithwisdomofwords,lestthecrossofChristshouldbemadeof none effect. For the preaching of the cross is to them that perishfoolishness;butuntouswhoaresaveditisthepowerofGod(1Cor.1:17,18).Twopointsareherebroughtoutinconnectionwiththeatonement:the simplicity which Paul used in preaching it; and the fact that thepreachingofitisthepowerofGod.

(1.)Thereason forsimplicityandabstaining fromthewisdomofwordswas, lestthecrossofChristshouldbemadeofnoneeffect.Paulneithergratified theGreekpassion for eloquence,nor threw intohis preachingany powerful rhetoric at his command, and of which these epistlescontain several striking examples (1 Cor. 15); and this he did, lest thegospel should lose its power, lestmen should turn their attention fromthecrosstothewordsinwhichitwaspresented.Hedidnotcallintheaidofhumanphilosophy,orthewisdomofwords,tomakeanimpressionforthe gospel,well aware that foreignmatter or rhetorical refinementwasonly subversive of its efficacy, and that it was sufficiently powerful ofitselftobringconvictionandpeacetoahumanconscience.Heabstainedfromthewisdomofwords,lestmenshouldundervalueit,asifithadnotpower to touchahumanheart,butneededeloquence to inducemen toreceive it. The honour would thus be given to the art, and not to thematter.

(2.)Thepreachingof the crosswas thepowerofGod.This remarkablestatement is put alongside of another—that it is to them that perishfoolishness.ThewiseamongtheCorinthians—thatis,philosophicmindsattachedtosomeofthefamousschoolsofphilosophy—helditwasfollytorepresent the Son of God as dying on the cross; while to the Jews thecrosswasanoffence,becauseitwas,astheythought,incompatiblewiththepicturesoftheMessiah'severlastingreigngivenintheprophets.Pauldeclares,notwithstandingall thisGentileandJewishresistance, thathewasdetermined toknownothingand topreachnothingbut a sufferingMessiah,exaltedindeedtouniversaldominion,butwhosekingdomwasbaseduponHiscross.

The preaching of the cross was called the power of God, because theannouncementofChrist'satoningdeath,initsfulloutline,broughtdivinepowerupon the scene, the renewingofman'snature, the restorationof

thedivineimageoncepossessedinparadise.Thepowerherementionedrefers not to miraculous accompaniments of the gospel, nor to theomnipotencewhichbroughtabout the factof theatonement,but to thepower ofGod displayed in converting and regeneratingmenwhere thecrosswaspreached.ThegospelcontinuestobethepowerofGodastheinstrument by which men dead in sin are raised to spiritual life. Analmighty, supernatural power goes alongwith theword; butwithwhatword,withwhatmessage?With thepreachingof thatcross,whichwas,andstillis,tosomanyfoolishness.Thisresultisfoundtofollowwhereverpreaching is connected with the GREAT FACTS OF CHRIST'SABASEMENT AND ATONING SACRIFICE, as the provision of divinelove for the guilty. But only that gospel is the power of God whichproclaims that thecrosswas thepropitiation forsin, thesolegroundofpardon.Theproclamationofthesegreatfactscontinuestoproduce,asithasalwaysdone,transformingresults,whicharereferredtothepowerofGod; forGod inhabits thatwordwhich isbasedon the incarnationandthecross.ItisthehabitationofHispower,—itis,asitwere,Hischariot;all the attributes of God surround it and adorn it (Heb. 4:12); but letanythingelsebesubstitutedforthecross,andpreachingisdenudedofitsefficacy,andstrippedofthispower.

III. Another passage in the same context, to correct the same state ofmind, is as follows: But of Him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is[better, WAS] made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, andsanctification,andredemption(1Cor.1:30).Thewholesectioninwhichthesewordsare found,hasChristcrucified for its theme.It isprimarilyintended to guard the Corinthians from the undue love of humaneloquence; it shows that men partake of Christ, not by the wisdom ofwords,butby thegiftofGod.Four termsareusedtodescribewhat theChrist as crucified becomes to His people,—viz., WISDOM,RIGHTEOUSNESS, SANCTIFICATION, and REDEMPTION. Thedistributionofthemhasoftenbeentooartificialandoutofharmonywiththe context. Thus many regarded them as descriptive of the threefoldoffice of Christ; wisdom being referred to His prophetical office,righteousnesstothepriestlyoffice,andthetwootherstothekinglyoffice.That classification—amost unhappy one—proceeds on amistake of themeaning. The apostle, throughout the context, is describing Christ

crucified:hehadcalledHim,afewversesbefore,thepowerofGod,andthewisdomofGod(1Cor.1:24);andintheversesimmediatelyafterthispassagehedeclaresthedeterminationonwhichhehadacted,—toknownothing among them save JesusChrist, andHim crucified (1Cor. 2:2).Certainly,Christcrucifiedisthethemetowhichthefourtermsrefer,andthis suffices withoutmore formal distribution. The entire passage thusreferstothepriestlyofficeofChrist,ortothebenefitsderivedfromHiscross.

(1.) Christwasmade to usWISDOM.Themeaning is, thatHewas theobjective wisdom, in whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom andknowledge; and that He was so, as the Christ crucified. First theconstitution of His person, and next His finished work, peculiarlyadapted tomeet the wants ofman, and to harmonize the attributes ofGod in man's redemption, discover unsearchable wisdom. ChristcrucifiedwastheobjectivewisdomofGod;andtheapostle,indilatingonthe theme, felt that, though itwas disrelished by thosewho boasted ofGreekculture,andanoffencetotheJew,hewasspeakingwisdomamongthemthatwereperfect.

(2.)ChristwasmadetousRIGHTEOUSNESS.Thepreviouselucidationofthistermenablesustodispensewithmanyremarks.Twothingswerenecessary. On the one hand, we needed to be saved from the guilt ofviolating the divine law, and from treason against the DivineMajesty;and the righteousness indispensablynecessarywas found in the secondAdam, who subjected Himself to our guilt, and transferred it to Hisinnocent head.Hemade it His own by suretyship, confessing it in thename of all for whomHe appeared, accounting for it to divine justice,submittingtothepenalty,anddrinkingtothedregsthebittercupfilledwiththecurseofabrokenlaw.Weequallyneeded,ontheotherhand,Hisactive obedience, which fulfilled the divine law, and brought in aneverduring righteousness.And theLord JesusDIDBOTHFORUS.Hetransferred our sins to Himself as if they were His own, and laid Hismerits to our account, as if we had rendered all His meritoriousobedienceinourownperson.Andtomakeallthisavailabletocountlessmillions,whoweretostandinHimasmediator,surety,andkinsman,HewasatonceverymanandveryGod.

(3.) Christ was made to us SANCTIFICATION. This term is closelyconnectedwiththeformerbytwoGreekparticles,whichshowthatitisofthesamenature,class,andorderwiththeformer.Henceitisevidentthatwemust take the termin theonlysense inwhich itcanapply toChristcrucified, in the objective acceptation, for that which Christ has beenmadetousonthegroundofHisatoningsacrifice,viz.theintroducerofsinners toGod, the foundation of priestly privilege, theAuthor of theirworshipandboldnessof approach.The same thought isbroughtout intheLord'swords,whenHeannouncedthatHesanctifiedHimselfforthesakeofHisdisciplesthattheymightbesanctified(John17:19);andintheEpistle to theHebrews, where it is said, "BothHe that sanctifieth andtheywhoaresanctifiedareallofone"(Heb.2:11).WemustgobacktotheJewish worshippers, and the severe prohibition against coming beforeGod if not purified according to the preparation of the sanctuary; forpersonsdefiledwerewithoutaccess,anddebarredfromfellowshipwithJehovah and other worshippers. But, when sprinkled by the blood ofsacrifices, theywere readmitted to theworship. Theywere then a holypeople.Thebloodofsacrificewastheirsolegroundofaccess.Evenso,bymeans of the one ever valid sacrifice of Calvary, sinners excluded onaccount of sin have access inworship andboldness to approach a holyGod.InthatsenseChristcrucifiedwasmadeofGodtoussanctification.

(4.)ChristwasmadeofGodtousREDEMPTION.Thetermistobetakenhere in the strict sense, denoting that Christ was our objectiveredemption,whohasboughtuswithaprice.ItmeansthatHewas,inHisownperson,ourRedeemerandredemption.Weshallnotenlargeonthisword,as itoccursagainandagain indifferentconnections. Itmayheresuffice to say that Christ is viewed as the objective ground of ourdeliverance from captivity by a valid ransom, and that His active andpassiveobedienceredeemedHispeoplefromthepenalconsequencesoftheir sins.Thoughmanyexpositorsprefer to take this term in thewidesense as referring to final deliverance at the resurrection, that is out ofkeepingwith the context,which refers toChrist crucified.Besides, thatacceptation requires some other terms to warrant it (Rom. 8:23; Eph.4:30).

IV. The church is directed to purge out the leaven of sin by the

consideration thatChrist,ourpassover,wasanatoningsacrifice:Christourpassoverissacrificedforus:thereforeletuskeepthefeast,notwitholdleaven,neitherwiththeleavenofmaliceandwickedness;butwiththeunleavenedbreadofsincerityandtruth(1Cor.5:7,8).ThewholematterisputinanOldTestamentguise:theNewTestamenttimesarecomparedwith the passover feast, the [Redeemer with the paschal lamb, thepurificationofthehousesfromeveryparticleofleavenwiththeoutwardandinwardholinessof theChristianchurch.TheentireNewTestamentage,or,morestrictly, theentire lifeofaChristian, is tobenothingelsethan a keeping of the feast of redemption, in the same way as thepassoverwas the feastofdeliverance fromEgypt.Christ ispresented tousastheantitypeofthepaschal lamb,andall istracedtoHisvicarioussacrifice.Innoticingthispeculiarphrase,SACRIFICEDFORUS,itistobe observed that we have not only a distinct allusion to the fact thatChristwassacrificedintheonlysenseinwhichavictimcouldbeoffered,—thatis,asaperfectlamb,andbydivineappointment,—butthatitwasatransaction which, from the nature of the case, involved substitution.WhenitwasFORUS,theimportis,thatitwasforourbenefit,butonlysobecause, according to thenature of the transaction, itwas in our roomand stead. Christ, by His death, was our deliverance, the true PaschalLambslainforus;anexpressionneverusedofanymerelyhumanteacherorbenefactor.IfappliedtoaPaulorPeter,whoboremuchandsufferedmuch for the church, it would be felt to be in the highest degreeincongruousandabsurd.Itcanbeusedonlyofasin-bearingsubstitute.

The apostle's words plainly take for granted that the passover was apropersacrifice,andhenceitiscalledthesacrificeoftheLord'spassover(Ex.12:27).ItwasnotameresymbolofdeliverancefromEgypt,thoughconnected with their captivity and freedom, but pointed to somethingspecial: it layatthefoundationoftheseparatestandingofIsraelandoftheireconomy.Thesprinklingofthebloodonthelintelsanddoor-postspreservedtheirfirst-bornfromthedestroyingangelonthatnightofwoetoEgypt.Thelambwasthesin-bearer;theworshipper,confessingguilt,andacknowledgingthatnopersonalinnocenceofhisexemptedhimfromthemerited infliction of that divinewrathwhich the adjoining familiesexperienced, ascribed all to divine grace and to the divinely-appointedpassover. It must specially be noticed that paschal blood effected the

church's separation from the world, and made Israel a kingdom ofpriests. The passover was the foundation-sacrifice which set apart thenation forGod, andmade themaholypeople. Itwas thepassover thatdrewaclearlineofdemarcationbetweenthechurchandtheworld,—theonebeingunderGod'sprotection,while theotherwas leftunderdivinewrath.AndfromagetoageitwasthissacrificeoftheLord'spassoverthatkeptup thedistinctionbetween Israeland theGentiles, thechurchandtheworldIsraelby thismeansbecameapeculiarpeople,aholynation.Theycameoutandwereseparate,muchinthesameway,thoughwithamarkedcomplexionalornationalvariety,asthechurchofGodstillstandsapartfromtheworldandwasredeemedforthisend.

Butwhatwerethelatercelebrationsofthepassover—therepetitionsofitin subsequent times? Were they merely commemorative? They weremuch more. The subsequent repetitions of the passover were alsosacrificial,andnotamerememorial,asappearsfromthelanguageusedrespectingitasastandinginstitutioninIsrael(Ex.34:25).TheofferingofitastheLord'ssacrifice,andthetakingofthebloodtothealtar,proveitnot to have been a mere commemoration of a past fact in Egypt. Itsannualeffectwastocontinuewhathadbeenbegun—tokeepIsraelwhatthey had been appointed to be, the people of God. The repetition onlyrepeatedHisredeemingact.GodwasconsideredassparingIsraelanewfrom the avenging angel, redeeming them frombondage, and renewingtheir fellowship with Himself, till the true Passover came thataccomplished the types, and terminated them for ever. The annualcelebrationofthepassoverpreservedIsraeltobethepeopleofGod,forthefirstpaschalsacrificewasonlythefirstoftheseries.Wemayillustratethe first and the subsequent passovers by the analogy of creation andpreservation. The latter is a work of God no less than the former, thecontinuationofwhatwasoncebegun,butnotlessrequiringthepresentagencyofGod.AndsoimportantwasthepassovertoIsrael,thecovenantpeople,thatitnotonlymadethemaseparate,peculiar,andholynation,butgavesignificancetoalltheothersin-offerings.NoJewmightneglectit,andnostrangerhadapartinit.

Fromthis realizationof the type inChrist crucified theapostlededucestwothings,towhichweshallbutadvert.

1. The Christian church in general, and every individual believer, areexhorted to keep the feast (ver.8), and tokeep it, not once a year, butconstantly.Our entire life is tobe thekeepingof a redemption festival,the reality ofwhich the deliverance fromEgyptwas but a type.All ourlife, nay, the entire period of the Christian church on earth, must befestivaldays,—daysofpleasantnessandjoy,becauseofthemagnitudeofthoseblessingswhichtheatonementconferredonus;fortheSonofGodwassacrificedthatwemightkeepthefeastperpetually,andwithfestivejoy.

2. They ought to purge out the old leaven (ver. 7), that is, have no oldleavenofmaliceandwickedness in thecelebrationof the feast (ver.8).Theapostleinterpretsthemeaningofthisarrangement,andexhortstheCorinthian church to the observance of it: to labour for sincerity andunfeignedpurity, external and internal, to evince their redemption andseparation from the world by a holy and blameless life. The image ispeculiarly adapted to the matter which the apostle was enforcing—theholiness,internalandexternal,oftheNewTestamentchurch.

V. Some licentious practices had crept into the Corinthian churchdemandingimmediatecorrection;anditdeservesnoticethattheapostleputstheminthelightofChrist'satonement,exposingtheirhatefulnessasinconsistentwiththepositionofredeemedmen:What!knowyenotthatyourbodyisthetempleoftheHolyGhostwhichisinyou,whichyehaveofGod,andyearenotyourown?Foryeare[better,were]boughtwithaprice: thereforeglorifyGod inyourbody(1Cor.6:19,20).Three thingsarecontained in thismemorablepassage,which isof thegreatestvalueonthedoctrineoftheatonement:(1)TheprivilegethatChristiansarethetempleoftheHolyGhost,andnotunoccupied;(2)theyareboughttobeanother's,andarenottheirown;(3)thefactofbeingboughtsuppliesthemostpowerfulmotiveforglorifyingGod.Thesethreeapostolicthoughtsare thus put together as an argument: A Christian may not surrenderhimselftoimpurity,forthisreason,thathehasbecomethepropertyofanew master, and is moreover under the influence of a new motive,promptinghimtodedicatehislifetoaholyservice.Asourtask,however,istodevelopethedoctrineoftheatonement,welimitourattentiontothescopeatwhichweaim.

Theapostle,insettingforththatwearenotourown,announcesthatweare BOUGHT, and bought with a PRICE (τιμή). Though we do notexpressly findhere the termsransomandredemption,beyondquestionthesamethoughtispresentedtoourminds.Theseveralapostles,asweshall see, with the most perfect uniformity of teaching, compare ourdeliverance from guilt to a slave's deliverance from bondage by thepaymentofacostlyprice.Theunderlyingthoughtiscaptivity,orastateofslavery,underwhichweareviewedasheld;andfivedistinctideasareunfoldedintheapostles'phraseologywherevertheytouchthistheme,—viz. the captive, the holder of the captive, theRedeemer, the price, thereceiver of the price. But it is asked, Why was it not an absolutedeliverance,whendivinelovewasengagedinthisgreattransaction?Whydid not the God of love simply pronounce our liberation, without aransom? No absolute deliverance of this nature is ever alluded to inScripture. Nor was a liberation possible without a price or ransom, inconsequence of the fact of sin, against which all the divine perfectionswere arrayed. The unspotted holiness, the inflexible justice andfaithfulness of God, as well as the inviolable authority of His law,rendered the liberation of guilty men without a ransom simplyimpossible.

Whenmention is made of a price, and of Christians as bought with aprice,thetermsplainlyenoughdisplaythenature,intention,andscopeofChrist's death (comp. Apoc. 5:9). The Lord's delivery to death was theprice by which we were bought. The allusion is to the well-knownprevalentcustomofclassicaltimes,withwhichtheapostlewasfamiliar,bywhich,on thepaymentofaprice,aslavepassedoutof thehandsofonemasterintotheserviceofanother.TheapostleappliesthesamestyletotheChristian'sdeliverance,orredemptionfromoneservicetoanother.Hedoesnotherespeakofpurchasedblessings,butofpurchasedMEN.InlikemannerPaulspeaksofthechurchpurchasedwiththebloodofChrist(Acts20:28).As to thepricepaid, it iselsewheresufficientlydescribed,whenitisrepresentedastheactofChrist,whogaveHislifearansomformany,whogaveHimselfaransomforalltobetestifiedinduetime(Matt.20:28; 1Tim.2:6). If thedeathofChrist,orHisobedienceuntodeath,was theprice, itmustbeadded that thepartyboughtorpurchasedareChristians, who in virtue of the ransom pass into another service, and

becomethepropertyofanotherowner:"Yearenotyourown."

To invalidate this conclusion, various evasions have been proposed bythose who object to the doctrine of Christ's substitution. Thus, theSocinianswerewont to allege that the expressionmeant nomore thanabsolute deliverance, without the intervention of any price or ransom.Andtogivethegreatercolourtothistheory,itwasallegedthatthewordsmeannomore thanthatweserveChrist,without takinganyaccountofthefactthatoncewewerenotChrist'sservants.Inaword,theywilladmitonlythemetaphoricaluseoftheterm.Buttheycannotprovethis.Whenawordoccursinaproperandinametaphoricalsense,itisobviousthatineachcasewehavetoconsiderwhichsignificationisthemostnaturalandadmissible.Butprimarilywemusttakeaterminitspropersense,tillwearerequiredongoodgroundstoadmitthefigurativesense.Evenwereweto concede an occasional use of themetaphorical sense of this termbyinspired men, it would not follow that in all the passages commonlyadduced for redemption by ransom,we are to call in themetaphoricalmeaning.Besides, thereareappendedtermswhichdecidethequestion.Wedonotarguemerelyfromthewords,TOREDEEM,TOBUY,buttakeinasfurtherproofthesubjoinedterms,"ransom,""thepreciousbloodofChrist," and the like, which amply prove, if anything can, that thedeliverancewasnotsimpleorabsolute,butonthegroundofapaymentmadeinourroomandstead.Inaword,ouropinionastothefactofitsbeingatrueandproperredemptionisconfirmedbytextslikethepresent,whichmakementionofaprice.

InthepresentinstancewehavenotmerelythewordBOUGHT,butalsothe additional idea of a PRICE. Not only so: the apostle's mode ofreasoningfromtheransomisofsuchanatureastoprovethatitwasnofigurativeormetaphoricalbuyingtowhichhereferredThesetwoclauses,"And ye are not your own, FOR ye were bought with a price," are solinkedtogether, that the latter isadducedas thegroundorcauseof theformer.Apricehadbeenpaid;andasthereasonwhywearenotourownis that we were bought with a price, nothing could more convincinglyprove that this isno figurativebuying,nometaphorical ransom.Onthecontrary, the ransomor price paid for usmakes us another's property,andnotourown.Toinsistonthemetaphoricalsenseinsuchapassage,

eventhoughitwerephilologicallyadmissibleelsewhere,wouldmakePaulreasonabsurdly.

Onthistextwemusttakenoticeofanewandstrangecommentofferedby certain modern writers, who, with many evangelical sentiments,unhappilydenyChrist'ssatisfaction,oraccountingtodivinejusticeinourstead.Admittingthebiblical termsRANSOMandPRICE, theyexpoundthemassomethingnotgiventoGodwithaviewtothesatisfactionofHislaw and justice, but graciously conferred onman, the poor, the naked,andthedestitute,fromtheeternalrichesofdivinemercy.Thattheoryispropounded by those who will see nothing but love and moralredemptionintheatonement;butitislittlebetterthanafallacioususeofScripture terms, denuding them of their significance. With them,redemptionmeansnot deliverance fromguilt andwrath, but liberationfromself-will,andalifeofself;andthistextismadetomeanthatChristgaveHispreciouslifemerelytoliberateusfromselfishness,thatis,todoa work IN us, but not FOR us. It confounds person and nature, theobjective and the subjective, the standingof theman relatively and theinnerconditionoftheheart,andisinconsistentwiththelanguageofthetext,whetherwetakeaccountofthewordsorthereasoning.Theapostleaffirmsthatwearenotourown,becauseapricewaspaid,thatwemightbecome the property of another, as in ancient times a slave becameanother'spropertybyrightofpurchase.Anditisnothingbutanabuseoftermstoreducethistotheideaofdeliverancefromself-willorself-love.

Themeaningofthepassagewillbeevidentfromthefollowingoutline.Itpresupposes captivity: it takes for granted that inoutnatural conditionweweresoldundersin,exposedtothecurse,subjecttoSatan,accordingtothe just judgmentofGod,andthataransomwasnecessaryandfullypaid;not,indeed,toSatan,whowasbuttheexecutionerofGod'sjustice,buttoGod,ouroriginalowner,andthefountainof justice,towhomwearebythismeanslegitimatelyrestored.ThoughGodcondonesallsintous,exactingnopriceATOURHANDS,deliverancefromcaptivitywasnotwithoutanadequatepricepaidbyaMediatorinourstead.Wethuspassinto the ownership ofHimbywhomwe are redeemed.This, of course,assumesTHEDIVINEDIGNITYoftheRedeemer;forredemption,tobeHisproperty,iscompetentonlytoonewhoisdivine.Theredeemedofthe

Lord,onceslavesunderahardtyrant,becomethepossessionofHimwhopaidtheirransom-price.

Thepracticaldeductionfromthis is, thatChristianshavenowarrantorrighttousetheirbodiesastheyplease,becausetheyarethepropertyofChrist, and theirmembers themembers ofChrist. Theymaynot abusetheirbodies,becausetheyarenot theirown,butHiswhobought them;and are therefore to live according to the will and pleasure of Him bywhom they were redeemed. The argument is irresistible. Bought at aninfinite price from the hand of their enemies, they belong rightfully toHim who paid their ransom-price; and hence the apostle adds theexhortationtoglorifyGod.Itmayherebeadded,thatwehaveatwofoldsecurityforholiness,objectiveandsubjective—anewproprietorship,andanewmotive;andthereforethatitisacalumnywhentheadversariesofgrace assert that redemption by an atonement opens a door tolicentiousness.

VI.AnotherabusewhichhadcreptintotheCorinthianchurch,wassuchanundueexerciseofChristianlibertyasputastumbling-blockinthewayofbrethren;anditisexposedandcorrectedbybeingplacedinthelightofthe atonement: And through thy knowledge shall the weak brotherperish,forwhomChristdied?(1Cor.8:11.)Thesameadmonitiononthesamesubjectwefoundinanotherepistle(Rom.14:15).Thequestionwasastotheeatingofthingsofferedinsacrificeto idols,oreatingwhattheJewish Christians deemed defiling. The freer Gentile Christians feltthemselves at liberty to partake without restraint; but evils arose fromtheir reckless use of liberty. They grieved and hurt the consciences oftheirweakerbrethren,by inducingthemtotakea liberty inwhichtheirconsciencedidnotallowthem.Hencetheapostle'sreprovingchallenge.

Herewe shall consider thepeculiardesignationbywhichaChristian isnamed,andtheethicalprinciplebaseduponit.

1. The designation of a Christian is,ONEFORWHOMCHRISTDIED.This expression occurs in the proper sense, or in an acceptationappropriatetothething.ThesenseinwhichChristdiedforaredeemedmanisunique.Thoughtheexpressionmay,inacertainsense,beusedtodenote what one man does for his fellow-men with a view to be

serviceable, especially in propagating the Christian religion, and infoundingtheChristianchurch(Acts15:26;2Cor.12:15),stillthatisonlyinaverymodifiedsense.ItcannotbedeniedbyanyoneacquaintedwithScripture phraseology, that it was never said of any mortal man whomade himself useful to others by toils or endurance, imprisonment,danger,ordeath,bornefortheirgood,thathesufferedordiedforthemtotheextentthatChristissaidtohavesufferedanddiedforHispeople.Wecannotunderstandthephrase,asappliedtoChrist,inthesensethatHe suffered to give us an example, nor in the vague sense that HesufferedbyexposingHimselftodangerwhichmightormightnotactuallystrikeHim.HespontaneouslyputHimselfinourroomandstead,tobearsin and encounter certaindeath as theduepunishmentof thosewhoseplaceHeoccupied.Whentheapostlereasonsonthesuppositionofwhatmay take place in common life,—that onemay by possibility suffer foranother in a lower sense,—he gives us to understand how he uses thepreposition (Rom. 5:7). As Christ Himself puts the matter, the mostimportantpartof the task committed toHimconsisted in this, thatHelaiddownHislifeforthesheep;andHeconnectswiththistheadditionalexplanation,thatHewasneitherconstrainedbyinevitablenecessity,normasteredbyHisenemies'power.HelaiddownHislifeofHisownpropermotion, as one having power to do so, and at His Father's command;proceeding,asthiscommanddid,onthesuppositionthatHehadpowertolayitdown(John10:18).AChristianisthusoneforwhomChristdied.

2. The apostle next adduces amotive for thewell-regulated exercise ofChristian liberty from the atoning death of Christ. Christian duty ingeneral is enforced by considerations derived from the cross. But thespecial duty here referred to—that of abstaining to offend or vex aChristian brother by unduly standing upon the right of exercisingChristian liberty—is inculcatedby theconstrainingmotivederived fromthedeathofChrist.TheconsiderationofthecostlypricebywhichChristredeemedanyChristianbrotherinparticular,furnishesaspeciallycogentmotivetolimitChristianliberty.Hewhoputsanother'sspiritualwelfaretohazardbysuchacourse,knowsnotthevalueoftheransom;andtheapostleexposestheselfishdisregardofabrother'swelfarebythecontrastfurnishedbytheloveofChrist,andbythevaluewhichtheLordputuponhim.Itisasifhesaid:Christdiedforthatbrother,andputsuchvalueon

him, thatHedidnotgrudgeHisabasementandagonytowinhim;andwillyounotlimityourlibertyinsuchtrivialthingsasmeatsanddrinks,to rescuehim fromdanger towhichhewill otherwisebe exposed?TheantithesisbetweenChrist'sredeemingloveandtheselfishdisregardofabrother,impliedinsuchacourse,isputinthemostpointedway.

Before leaving this passage, it is necessary to obviate an Arminiancomment. From the expressionshere used, a false conclusionhas beendrawn as to the extent of Christ's death, and the security of those forwhomHedied.Thatisafalsedeductionspringingfromawrongideaofthe word "destroy," which does not here denote eternal destruction. Itoftenmeanstohurt,toinjure—theoppositeofthatwhichtendstotheuseofedifying.Theapostledoesnotmeanthatonemandestroysanother;forthatisnotcompetenttoman,andisthesoleprerogativeofGod,whocandestroy soul and body. But one brother may put a stumbling-block inanother's way, and by thismeansmar his peace, defile his conscience,andoccasionweakness,trouble,andsorrow.Theapostledoesnotmeanactualperdition,asifanyforwhomtheSaviourofferedHimselfasuretycouldfinallybedestroyed.Howcouldtheyperishfinally,whenChristhadoffered Himself an eternally valid sacrifice, expiating their sin, andsatisfyingalltheclaimsofthelawintheirroomandstead?(John6:39.)Theyarekeptnotonlybypower,butbythesecurityfurnishedbydivinejusticeitself,tothesalvationreadytoberevealed.

Themotiveheresuppliedis, inanethicalpointofview,ofthestrongestandmost cogent.Theapostlewishes topoint out to thoseuncharitableasserters of liberty, that he whom they respected so little was not soviewed by Christ, but was so tenderly loved that the Lord had notdisdained to die for him.He speaks of thosewhoweremadeChristianbrethren by that atoning death, and shows that, from the infinite pricepaid,wemayestimatethevaluetobesetonthem.Hencethepointoftheadmonition,nottooffendthem.

VII.Theapostle,whilecorrectinganotherabuse, inconnectionwiththeLord's Supper, which had also crept into the Corinthian church, takesoccasiontoexpoundthemeaningoftheinstitution.HepointsoutthatitwasamemorialoftheLord'sdeath,andthattheywhocelebrateitshowtheLord'sdeathtillHecome(1Cor.11:23–27).Herecordstheeventas

hehadreceived it fromtheLordHimself; for thoughsomesuppose thewordsmean that Paul received the account of the institution from thediscipleswhowerepresent,thatisplainlyaninadequatecommentaryonthe words. The terms imply, beyond doubt, a special communication,givenbytheLordHimself,thatPaul,infoundingthechurches,mightactwithasmuchconfidenceandascertainknowledgeastheotherapostles.WhenheadducestheverywordsofChristutteredattheinstitutionoftheSupper, they are carefully distinguished from his own. Among otherthingspeculiartothePaulineaccountoftheSupper,maybenoticedthewords, "Thisdo in remembranceofme."Theverbmaybeeither in theindicativeorimperativemood,butfarmorefitlyinthelatter,expressiveofcommand.Thesewordsaregiventwice,nearlyinthesameform,firstatthedistributionofthebread,nextatthegivingofthecup;andLuke,aswastobeexpectedfromPaul'scompanion,alsorecordsthewordsinthesameway.

ButwhatdidtheLordmean,whenHebadethefirstdisciplesdothisinremembranceofHim?Theopponentsoftheatonementconsideredasavicarious sacrifice, say the words merely direct us to remember Hissalutarydoctrine,orHisexample,orHisgreatcommandmenttoloveourfellow-men. That Paul apprehended the words in a different way, isevidentfromthecommentwhichhegives:heaffirmsthatweshowforth,notHisdoctrines,notHisexample,butHisdeathasanatoningsacrificeforsin(ver.26).

Withoutdwellingonthesacramentalelementsandactions, let itsufficeto say that they point to the one sacrifice of the cross. Thus,when thebread was given, He said, "This is my body,"—alluding to His entirehumanity,inrespectoftheobediencewhichHerenderedtoHisFatherintheroomofsinners.Whenthewinewasgiven,Hesaid,"Thiscupisthenewcovenantinmyblood,"—alludingtothebloodofsacrifice,bymeansofwhichthenewcovenantwasformed.ThoughtheformermaybesaidtobringbeforethemindHiswholesufferingobediencegenerally,wecannotfailtoseethattheSuppercameinroomofthepassover,andrecalledtheeatingofthepassover.Butbesides,anewcovenantwastocomeinroomoftheSinaiticcovenant,andtheLorddeemeditfittingtogiveanemblemofthebloodofsacrifice,bymeansofwhichthoseheretoforealienscould

betakenintoanewcovenant,asaholypeople,andsitasguests,withoutdangerordread,at theLord's table.They, inaword,by that sacrificialblood entered into a new covenant-standing, no longer shadowy orcapableofdissolution,butperfectandinviolable.

AllthisisrecalledtomemorybytheconstantcelebrationoftheSupper,intended to be a perpetual institution and frequently repeated. Thedisciples commemoratedHis death, not as a thing indifferent, not as ahistoric incident having no direct bearing on present interests andexperience, not as a mere confirmation of His doctrine, but as a trueatonement. They were to have amemorial of Christ crucified, andHisredeeming love, brought home to them by means of emblems vividlyrecallingtothemthenatureofHissacrifice,andfurnishingfoodfortheunderstandingandtheheart.WhentheyweredirectedtoshowHisdeathtillHecome,—thatis,whenthedeathofChristwasmadethegroundoffestive commemoration,—we seewhat an important and unique designlayatthefoundationofHissufferingsanddeath.Thesecouldbenootherthanvicarious—theactionsofasubstituteandsurety.

The Lord's Supper, thus replete with significance, has maintained itsgroundinthechurchamidalltherevolutionsoftime.TheLorddidnotleaveittotheapostlestoinstituteitafterHisdeparture,butregardeditas so important, that by His own authority, while yet present, Heinstituted it in the most solemn manner on the night of His betrayal,immediatelybeforegoingouttothegarden.Thebreadandwine,selectedasemblemsofHisbodyandblood,weredesignedtoimbueHisdiscipleswiththepersuasion,(1)thatHisbodywasthetruepaschalsacrifice;and(2) that His blood was the true sacrificial blood by which the newcovenantwasconstituted,moreperfectbyfarthanthecovenantatSinai.Theelementsweresignsofareality,—pledges inhand,thatassurelyastheytookthesign,theybyfaithreceivedthethingsignified;fortheyweresealsandpledgesaswellassigns.Thecovenantisfoundedsimplyontheblood shed for many, for the remission of sins, without any otherelement, whether in the form of intervening merit, or moralimprovement, or services to be performed, as the procuring cause. ThecupofthanksgivingwasthustheparticipationofthebloodofChrist,andthebreadtheparticipationofthebodyofChrist(1Cor.10:16).

ThesacramentoftheSupperloudlyproclaimsthisgreattruthtoalltime,andallagesmusthearit.TilltheLordcome,HisatoningdeathmustbeproclaimedwithfestivejoyattheSupper,asoftenasitisdeemedpropertocelebrate it.Ofhowgreat importancemustthattruthbewhichJesussovividlyportrayed,andtheperpetualmemoryofwhichHesocarefullysecured!Thisshowswhatarankandplacebelongtotheatonement.Itistheprincipal thing inthegospel;nay, it is thegospel.Take itoutof thegospel,anditceasestobethegospel.

VIII. Inproceedingtocorrectanothererror,whichhadreferenceto theresurrectionofthebody,theapostletakesoccasiontodescribethegospelwhichhepreached, and towhichhe continued faithful: For I delivereduntoyou firstofall thatwhich Ialso received,how thatChristdied foroursinsaccordingtotheScriptures;andthatHewasburied,andthatHeroseagainthethirddayaccordingtotheScriptures(1Cor.15:3,4).Paulhad received the gospel which he preached, not from men, but byparticularrevelationfromtheLord;anditwasallbasedonthecross.Thegospelwhichhehadpreachedfromthebeginning,whichtheCorinthianshadreceived,andbywhichtheyweresavediftheycontinuedfaithfultoit, was to the effect that Christ died for our sins according to theScriptures,andthatHeroseagainaccording to theScriptures.Canthismean that Christ died for our sins merely in the sense of a moralredemption—thatis,asfreeingusfrommoralcorruption?No.Thewordsmean, that our sins causally put Him to death. But we must morenarrowlyconsiderthephraseology.

All depends on the proper import of the expression,DYINGFOROURSINS.TheGreekprepositionhereusedissometimesfoundinconnectionwith persons who are the proper object of Christ's atonement (Luke22:19; 1 Cor. 5:7; Rom. 8:32; John 10:11; Rom. 5:6, 7); and in such aconnectiontheexpressionhasthesignificationofexpiationforthegoodofanother,orforhisbenefit,alwayspresupposingavicariousatonement.The preposition is also used to denote men's advantage in connectionwiththefinalcause,ortheenddesigned(John6:51).Butwhenconstruedwithsins,ashere,theexpressioncanonlymeanthatHISDEATHwastheDESERVED PUNISHMENT. We could not from the preposition alonedrawtheconclusionthatthedeathofChristwastheconsequenceofour

sins,orthepunishmentofourguilt,weretherenofurtherparticularsinthepassagetoleadustothatthought.Butwhenmentionismade,asinthe passage under consideration, of suffering and death, the meaningunquestionablyis,thatoursinsweretheprocuringcauseofthesuffering.Thewords, beyonddoubt, refer to our sins as themeritorious cause ofChrist'sdeath;andthethoughtexpressedis,thatthedeathofChristwasthe punishment of sin. Though the preposition of itself has variousshades,accordingtotheconnectioninwhichitstands,certainitis,thatwhen the death of Christ is put in connection with our sins, the strictmeaningcanonlybe,thatthesesinswerethecauseofHisdeath,andthatthesufferingswerethepunishmentofourguilt.

ThiswillbemoreevidentifwetakeinanotherphraseconnectedwithHisresurrection:"IfChristbenotraised,yourfaithisvain:yeareyetinyoursins" (1 Cor. 15:17). The reason of this connection is not obscure, ifweapprehendthesuretyshipinvolvedinChrist'sdeath;thatHewasapublicperson, or Representative of His people both in His death and in Hisresurrection; that He died for our sins, in the sense that He, byimputationortransfer,tookthemuponHimself,makingthemHisown,andsubmittingtotheconsequencestheyentailed.IfChristhadremainedindeath, itwouldhave been an argument that those sins laid onHim,andspontaneouslyborne,hadnotbeenexpiatedbyHisdeath.HadChristnotrisen,weshouldnothavebeensetfreefromformersins:theywouldstillhavebeenputtoouraccount.Theargumentoftheapostleamountsto this, that the scope of the atonement, with its validity and efficacy,wouldallhavebeenneutralized, if theSurety,whowentdown todeathunderthesinsofHispeople,hadnotrisen:weshouldyetbeinoursins.WhenHe rose, therefore, itwas undeniable evidence that our sins hadbeenexpiatedbyHisdeath(compareRom.4:25).

What objection is propounded to all this by the Socinian party? Itamounts on philological grounds to this, that the Greek prepositiondenotes, not the meritorious cause, but the final cause,—that is, thatChristdiedtoremovefuturesin.Butthatisnottoexpoundwords,buttodepositforeignthoughtsintherecord;andourfunctionasinterpretersisto evolve themeaning of language, not to adapt it to our preconceivedideas.ItisonethingtosaythatChristdied,forsinswhichhavealready

beencommitted,andtheguiltofwhichmustbeborne,andanotherthingto say thatHe died to abolish future sins. The former idea is in Paul'swords:thelattercannotbeputintothemwithoutalteringtherecord.Theexpression can mean nothing but the guilt of sin considered as themeritorious cause, or impelling cause, of the Lord's death. Grotius haswellprovedthatthepreposition,thusused,denotestheimpellingcause(seeRom.15:9;Eph.5:20).Whenitissaid,then,thatChristdiedforoursins,itmeansthatHeboretheirpunishment.

The Socinians will have some words supplied or understood—a devicethatcannotbeendured.Toshow,however,thatitisnotsimplyamatterof interpretation with them, but a foregone conclusion, it may bementioned that Socinus explicitly declared, that were the doctrine ofvicarioussin-bearing,andthepunishmentofoneforthesinsofanother,mentionednotonce,butmanytimes, inScripture,hewouldnotbelieveit,becauseitcouldnotbe.Thatopendeclarationiscandidatleast;butitisanappealtoreason,nottorevelation,andanadmissionthatScriptureisnotmadetheultimatejudge,butonlytobeinterpretedasseemsbestsuitedtoconfirmordressoutapreconceivedhypothesis.

Buttakingthedivinewordastheultimateauthority,wemayaffirmthatno language couldmore precisely express ameritorious cause than thewordsof the text.Whenour sins are connectedwithChrist's sufferingsanddeath,thewordsbringoutcauseandeffect.Thewordscanbetakeninnoothersensethaninthatoftheimpellingormeritoriouscauseoftheeffectdescribed.Theymeanthatoursins—thatis,theguiltcontractedbyus—causedthesufferinganddeathoftheLord;andwordscannotmoreaccuratelyexpresstheidea.

SEC.XI.—THESECONDEPISTLETOTHECORINTHIANS

Thesecondepistle,writtenashorttimeafterthefirst—atleastaftersuchan interval as enabled Titus to go to Corinth and to return to Paul—issomewhatdifferent in tone, and alludes to the good effect producedbythe admonitions which had been addressed to the Corinthian church.Titushadbeensenttolearntheimpressionmadebythefirstepistle,andreportedthatsomeoftheabuseshadbeencorrected.Thepartydivisions,however, were not suppressed; and Paul was under the necessity ofcontinuing personal explanations, and also vindicating his authorityagainst thosewhodepreciatedhiscommission, incomparisonwith thatof the other apostleswhohad been trained in the Lord's society in thedays ofHis flesh.The apostle, in themidst of thesepersonal allusions,takesoccasiontointerweaveseveralreferencestotheatonement;andtothesetestimonieswemustnowcome.

I. In referring to activity and labour in the discharge of his office, theapostledeclares thathewasconstrainedbyhisLord'satoning love:FortheloveofChristconstrainethus;becausewethusjudge,thatifonediedforall,thenwerealldead[better,thenalldied,orthealldied]:andthatHe died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live untothemselves,butuntoHimwhodiedforthem,androseagain(2Cor.5:14,15). The intense activity and zeal to which the apostle alluded in thepreviousversesaretracedtotheirsource—theredeemingloveofChrist.And this leads him to dwell on the nature of the atonement, which isarightapprehended,accordingtothemeaningofthispassage,onlywhenwedulydiscovertheprominentplacetobeassignedtosubstitution.Thisis seen in the clause "onedied forall," evenwhenwe render theGreekpreposition(ὑπέρ)FORTHEBENEFITOF.The ideaofsubstitution,orexchange of places, underlies the thought, as we have noticed already(Rom.5:7).Besides,substitutionorvicariousnesscomestolight,beyondallquestion,inthelogicaldeduction,THENTHEALLDIED;forifallforwhom the Lord died are regarded as dying inHis death, no doubt canexistastothefactofsubstitution:itistakenforgrantedasanundoubted

reality. The apostle speaks of us men exposed to death on our ownaccount, and worthy of condemnation; and to rescue us, a Surety orDelivererstepsforward,intheexerciseofboundlesslove,anddiesinourstead.Thelanguageinvolvessubstitution,andcanbeunderstoodonlyonthe supposition that one dies in another's room. It is not the case of ahero exposing himself to danger or death for the benefit of hiscountrymen, nor the case of a friend dying for the benefit of a friend,which the apostle tells us (Rom. 5:7) may peradventure occur in theworld'shistory.Noneofthesecasescomesuptowhatisindicatedhere;forinsuchacaseitwouldneverbeaffirmedthattheyforwhomthedeathwas undergone died in Him. We have to understand, in Christ's case,federalunityandsubstitution.

1.Whatdoes theapostlemeanby thewordDIE,as thusapplied tous?AndhowareWEsaidTOHAVEDIEDintheLord'sdeath?Onethingisself-evident:theapostledoesnotuseitinthefirstclauseliterally,andinthenextclausemetaphorically;for,onsuchasupposition,thedeductionmade by the apostle would not hold, and the expression would beunmeaning.Hehasbeforehiseye thecaseofsinnersdoomedtodeath,forwhomaSuretyofferedHimself vicariously; andonly in such a casecantheyforwhomtheSuretyinterposedbesaidtohavesatisfiedthelaworbornethepenalty.Wetakethewordinthetwoclausesinpreciselythesamesense.Itisthesamephraseology,withthesameimport,whichwefound in the Epistle to the Romans, as descriptive of the ONEREPRESENTATIVEACTOFCHRIST;whichforthemostpartissetforthas rendered for us, but in a considerable number of passages is alsospokenofasifwehadpersonallydoneit(Rom.6:2).Andthemannerinwhich the twophrases arehere alternated isworthyofnotice.Wemayeither say that CHRISTDIEDFORUS, or thatWEDIEDWITHHIM.And the logical form of the verse explains the principle on which thatalternating phraseology proceeds: "IF one died for all, THEN the alldied."From this it is plain thatwemust take thewordDIE, applied toChristintheoneclause,andappliedtoHispeopleintheotherclause,notonlyinthesamesense,butasreferringtothesameact.Thedeathherementionedisnottwofold,butnumericallyone; forwearenottoregardChrist as performing one act, and ourselves as performing anotherparallel and similar to His. When we look at the general tenor of the

apostle'sdoctrine,wefind,ontheonehand,thatdeathisrepresentedasthewagesofsin;and,on theother,wesee thegreatSuretyundergoingthepenalty inour room:andweare said tohavedied inHim,becauseHIS ACTWASREPRESENTATIVELYOURACT. The atoning death oftheLord, on the groundof federalunity and substitution,was alsoouract;thatis,wasacceptedasOURACTinHim.

2. The next inquiry has reference to the LIFE intowhich the Christianenters, and to the connection between the life and the death He died.Whatwasmeantbytheapostlewhenspeakingofthemwholive,oroftheliving ones, as the expression literally means (ver. 15)? No one whoapprehendsthePaulinephraseologyastothebeliever'sdyingwithChrist,orcrucifixionwithChrist,candoubtthatthelifewhichfollowsispremiallife, subsequent to themeritorious obediencewhichwas rendered. It islife following a perfect fulfilment of the divine law, and regarded as itsreward.Verygenerally,expositorstakethislifeasreferringtothetermofourhumanexistence,orthenaturallife.Butthatiswideofthemark.Theconnection between the atonement and the life immediately subjoined,points,wethink,toacausalconnection,andthusleavesnodoubtthattheallusionistospiritualoreternallife,whichiselsewheredescribedashidwith Christ in God (Col. 3:3). The living ones are such as enter intopremiallife,becausetheSuretyfulfilledthelaw,andexpiatedsininHisdeath.

But it is intimated that this life is a dedicated life, not a life of self-seeking, after the flesh, or in theprosecutionofwhat tends toourownprofit, honour, or gratification. This life was secured by Christ's death,andpromotedbyHisresurrection:fortheconcludingclauseoftheversesabovequotedshowsthatChristDIEDFORUS,andthatHeroseagain.AnditisnotsaidthatHeroseforus,butthatHediedforus;forthereisacertaindifferenceofmeaning.Theresurrectioncomeswithinthesphereofreward,andenabledHimtodiffuseHis life throughHisownpeople,redeemed to beHis—forHe underwent death with this express end inview, thatHemightwin a people asHis property—and replenish themwiththedivinelifewhichHeprocuredforthem,anddispensesaccordingto their needs. He thus induces them to live not to themselves, but toHim.

To return to the expression ONE DIED FOR ALL: no doubt can beentertained,eitherfromthenatureofthetransaction,orfromthelogicalinference already mentioned, that the phrase denotes the exchange orsubstitutionof one for another.Butwehave still further to consider inwhatsenseChristissaidtohaveDIEDFORALL.Plainly,theallusioninthepresentcaseisofequalextent inbothclauses.Theall forwhomHediedarethesameparties,andnoother,whoarenextsaidtohavediedinHim;thatis,allwhoareregardedasexpiatingsin,andfulfillingthelawinHim—thesamementowhomtheredemptionisapplied,andnowidercircle,atleastinthepassageunderconsideration.

It may not be unfitting, before leaving this passage, to refer to twoexpositions of such expressions which cannot be accepted, and yet arewidely diffused,—the Arminian or Lutheran comment, and theAmyraldistcomment.

a. As to the Arminian tenet, it is to this effect: that Christ in a certainrespectofferedHimselfasacrificesufficientlyforall,andforeverymanin the same sense. They leave it uncertain whether they interpret theprepositionasdenotingFORTHEGOODOFALL,orINTHEROOMOFALL. They maintain that it was for all alike, without distinction andwithout exception.Takingholdof thewiderormore general aspects inwhich some texts appear to present the atonement to the mind, theyconclude that Christ was priest and victim for all mankind withoutexception, whether they believe or not, whether they are saved or not;that the sacrifice of Christ was not only infinitely precious, but offeredwithsuchapurposebothontheFather'ssideandontheSon'sside,thatitshouldbeforallandeveryman.Thatthisisanunscripturalcomment,isevidentfromthefactthatanacceptedsacrificeobtainedtheremissionofsins.AndChristdispensestoallforwhomHedied—thatis,toallwhobecome His people—the reward of His obedience, remission,regeneration,and finalglory.Theclear inference fromsucha commentwould be universalism, or universal salvation, which the Scripturesemphaticallyrepudiate.Itwillnotdotodistinguishbetweenthepurchaseand the application of redemption, so as to affirm that they are not ofequalextent;forthatamountstodisjunctionandseparation,vitiatingthenatureoftheatonementasavicarioustransaction.

b.TheAmyraldisttheory,orthatofthedoublereference,acknowledgesatruesubstitutioninTHEROOMANDSTEADofthosewhoweregiventoChrist,andwhosesinsHeactuallybore,butasserts,moreover, thatHediedFORTHEADVANTAGEOFtherest,thoughnotintheirstead.Inaword, this theorymaintainsadouble reference; that is, thatHedied inthe room of some, and for the good of the rest. According to thisexposition, the biblical phrase, TO DIE FORMEN, has not a uniformsense,butadifferentmeaning indifferentpassages.Thiswe canbynomeansconcede;forChristisneversaidtodieformeninanyothersensethaninthesenseofsubstitutionorexchangeofplaces.Hereallyenteredintoourplace,andbysodoingincurredourdoomandresponsibility;andweas trulyenter intoHisplace, andpartakeofHismeritsand reward.And a different mode of viewing the transaction is not to be found inScripture.

Thatmanywho are not believers derive great advantages fromChrist'satonement, is not denied. They enjoy an economy of forbearance, arefreed from the pernicious errors and defilements of idolatry, and liveamongthepeopleofGod.Buttheseblessings,manifoldandvarious,donotwarrantustosaythattheLorddiedformeninadoubleway,orwitha double reference; that is, for some vicariously, and for others to givethemonlyatemporaryadvantage.Hediedasarepresentativeandsurety;andwhatevertheirrepresentativeHeaddid,theyareregardedashavingdone,as this textproves.Henotonlydied for themall,butTHEYALLDIEDINHIM.

II. Another important passage, defining the nature of the atonement,occursafewversesafterwardsinthesamechapter:AndallthingsareofGod,whohathreconciledustoHimselfbyJesusChrist,andhathgiventous the ministry of reconciliation; to wit, that God was in Christ,reconcilingtheworlduntoHimself[better,Godwasreconcilingtheworldunto Himself in Christ], not imputing their trespasses unto them; andhathcommitteduntousthewordofreconciliation(2Cor.5:18,19).Theapostle hadmentioned that the new creature emanates fromGod, andthenassignedas itsgroundtheatoningworkofChrist.Wehavefirst tonotice theprincipalcauseof thereconciliation: "all isofGod,whohathreconciled us." The allusion is to the Father, towhom the Saviourwas

wont toreferall thatHedid.Wehave toconsiderGodasoffendedandprovokedbysin,andyetprovidingthereconciliationbywhichtheywhohad incurred His displeasure are restored to His favour. The termRECONCILIATION, as we have elsewhere shown, implies that inourselveswewere exposed todivinewrath, and that a divineprovisionbroughtittoanend.

There isno force in thecurrentobjection, thatGodcouldnotentertainangerorhostility,whenHeso lovedus, thatHesentHisonly-begottenSontousherinthereconciliation.Scriptureaffirmsboth;and,aswehavealreadyproved,theycanwellconsisttogether.ThatsinsprovoketheholyGod, in theexerciseofHismoralgovernment, to righteousanger, isanaxiomor firstprinciplewitheveryonewhohasacquiredarudimentaryknowledgeofGod;forallmenknowthatHeisnoindifferentspectatorofthemoralactionsofHiscreatures(Rom.1:32).HeclaimstheexerciseofvengeanceasHispeculiarattribute,whichHewillhave left inHisownhand;andHedeclaresthatHewillrepay(Rom.12:19).ButHeceasesnotto love His creatures as His workmanship; and He loves them with asupperaddedlove,when,viewingtheelectinHisSon,HelovesthemwiththesamelovewithwhichHelovesHisSon.InChristthewrathofGodisappeased,butnotbyarelaxationofjusticeorareductionofHisclaims.He cannot but bear just anger against sin, and against the sinner onaccountofsin,asissufficientlyprovedbyactualpunishmentsinflicted.

Theapostleintendstobringoutthepropernatureofreconciliation,asisplainfromthefact thatheexpresslymentionsthatGodhathreconciledustoHimselfbyJesusChrist.Thisshows,asananalysisofthelanguagesuffices to prove, that in effecting the reconciliation,God exercisedHismercynotabsolutely,andirrespectiveofamediator;forparticipationindivinefavourdependsontheworkofaSurety,whomGodappointedasthewayofaccessorchannelbywhichHisfavourcouldbeobtained.Thisis evident by a comparison of passages in the New Testament, whereallusion ismade to reconciliation as a transition fromwrath to favour,fromhostilitytofriendship,fromalienationtorestoredfellowship.Thatis the uniform import of the term; and however much mutualreconciliation is involved in thenatureof the case, the termprincipallymeansreconciliationonthepartofHimwhoseangerwasincurred,and

who could renew a friendly intercourse only on the ground of asatisfaction.

ButitisarguedbythosewhoallowangerinGod,onlyinthecaseofthosewho remain at last impenitent till the day of grace is past, thatreconciliation means our favourable disposition toward God. They putthis viewon several grounds, allwhich are equally baseless.Thus, theyassert(1)thatGodisnevercalledman'senemy;anargumentasabsurdasit would be to argue against punishment, on the ground that a humanstateor judicial tribunal isnevercalled theenemyof thecitizens,whenthequestioniswhethertheauthorityofthelawistobeexecutedagainsttransgressors:forahumantribunalisbutareflectionofthedivine,andbased on the same eternal principles of justice. They assert (2) that, inbiblical language, reconciliation never indicates that anything isnecessary on God's side before our reception into favour. That, too, iscontrarytothewordsbeforeus:"whohathreconciledustoHimselfBYJESUS CHRIST." And the same thing appears in the Epistle to theRomans,where, aswe already pointed out, it is affirmed thatwewerereconciledtoGodby thedeathofHisSon(Rom.5:10).But (3)anotherassertion,asbaselessasthetwoformer,is,thatwecannotsupposesuchathingastheappeasingorpacifyingofGod'sanger,becausewenowhereread intheNewTestamentofGod'sreconciliationtoman.Butwehavealreadyprovedthattheterm,asusedinScripture,isnotequivalenttoourbeingwell affected towardGod, and imbuedwith a friendlydispositiontowardGod,butmeansthatwearesecuredfromHiswrath(Rom.5:9),and can count on His favour and benefits (Rom. 5:1). In a word, it isGod'sfavourtowardus,notourfavourabledispositiontowardGod.

Thisleadsmetotheuseoftheterm,andtothedefinitionofit.Thepartywhoseaffectionhasbeenwoncannotbedeterminedfromthenominativeto the verb,nor from the accusative casewhich follows the verb,but isascertained from the connectionand theknownpositionof theparties.Therestoredfavouroftheoffendedpartyhasaninfluenceontheother:theyeachcomeintoanewposition.Warrantablywemayeithersaythataperson is reconciled to us, or thatwe are reconciled to him.When theverbis foundinthepassive, iteithermeanstogiveupaquarrelonourside(1Cor.7:11),orto induceanothertoabatehisangerandterminate

his just resentment against us (Matt 5:24). In the latter passage, thewords,"Bereconciledtothybrother,"donotmean,Bewelldisposedtothybrother—for that, in thecaseadducedby theLord,couldhavebeendoneinthetemple—but,Leavethygift;goandinducethybrother,whohas just cause of resentment against thee, to return to a friendlydispositiontowardyou.Andthisrequiredavisittotheoffendedparty.

In this sense the word occurs wherever allusion is made to man'sreconciliation toGod. It doesnotmeanour subjective reconciliation toGod, but God's objective reconciliation to us; and one of the mostconclusiveproofsofthisoccursinapassagealreadynoticed:"WejoyinGod,throughourLordJesusChrist,bywhomwehavenowreceivedtheatonement," or reconciliation (Rom.5:11).There it is said tohavebeenreceived. An inward act of man is done, or performed; it cannot bereceived:butthereitisaffirmedthatwereceivedit.ThattheallusionistotheappeasingofGod'sanger,clearlyappearsfromthewordswhichrefertoChrist'sdeathasthemeritoriouscauseofeffectingpeace(Rom.5:10).

Inthegreattransactionofreconcilingsinners,Godisanactiveparty:HereconcilesustoHimselfbyJesusChrist.AndwhatcomesinbetweentheloveofGodandHisholyanger?Onlyonething—theatonement—whichharmonizesbothinourreconciliationtoGod.GodHimselfprovidedtheatonement as the means of reconciliation, and on this sole ground ofintercourse He receives us to favour. Not that men laid down theiroppositionandsuedforpeace.TheprincipalcauseisGod,whoprovidedreconciliation.Then,astotheprocuringcause,ChristbyHisatonementmeritoriouslywonthefavourofGodforthosewho,butforthis,wouldforever have been given up to divine wrath and condemnation.Reconciliation,then,issimplytheremovaloftheseparationandenmitybetween God and the world. But we must notice the language moreminutely.

As to themethod of construing the second of the two verses (ver. 19),threemodesareproposed,forreasonswhichdemandattention.

a.Sometaketheexpression,"GodwasinChristreconcilingtheworld,"asan allusion to Christ's divine nature. Paul is thus regarded as teachingthattheRedeemerwasnotmerelytheinstrumentwhichGodmadeuseof

intheworkofredemption,butthatHewasalsoGodHimself.Certainlyreasons may be urged in behalf of this view from the structure of thelanguage. Thus, it may be said, two representations are given insuccession,whichwemaywarrantablysupposearesomewhatvaried,andnotamere tautology. In the first,God isdescribedas theauthorof thereconciliation, and Christ as the instrument by whom it wasaccomplished:"AllthingsareofGod,whohathreconciledustoHimselfby Jesus Christ." And in the second it is said: "God was in Christ,reconcilingtheworlduntoHimself."Now,itisarguedthat,toavoidthefiatrepetitionofoneandthesamething,itisbettertoviewtheclauseasreferring to the higher nature of Christ. This interpretation consideredtheRedeemernotasamereinstrument,butasadivineperson,capableofsogreatawork,andgivingitaboundlessvalue.

b. Another mode of construing is as follows: "God in Christ wasreconcilingtheworld."Thisisthemodeofresolvingthewordsgenerallyreceived at present by themost eminent philological expounders. Thisview is maintained chiefly because the following clausemore preciselydefinesinwhatwaytheatonementwaseffected.Thetwopoints,then,areas follows: 1. A non-imputation of sin to us so far as thematter bearsupon our relation toward God; 2. The atoning act considered asemanatingnot fromman,but fromGod,orasGod'sownact in inwardunityandfellowshipwithChrist.Undoubtedlythisinterpretationcanberenderedhighlyprobable,andgivesasatisfactorysense.

c. Another mode seems to me even preferable, according to thetranslationabovegiven:Godwasreconciling theworlduntoHimself inChrist.ThisdoesnotconstruethewordsINCHRISTwiththeactivityofthe divine nature in the LordHimself, norwith the Father's activity inproviding the atonement, but in connection with the new relation intowhichmankindwerebrought,astheystoodinChrist.Themeaningwillthenbe:GodreconciledtheminChrist,asHeregardedtheminHim,andcomprehended them in unionwithHis Son, according toHis covenantand purpose. This seems to me the shade of meaning that properlybelongstothepassage.

Withregardtotheotherterms,arewetounderstandthewordWORLDas descriptive of the human family? In this general sense the word

frequentlyoccursinthestyleofPaulandtheotherapostles(Rom.3:19;1Cor. 1:21). It is often used to indicate the unbelieving world, ascontradistinguished fromthechurchofGod,because thegreatmajoritystillcontinuesalienatedfromthelifeofGod.Hereitdoesnotmeantheworldofbelievers—asenseinwhich,sofarasIknow,itdoesnotoccur—buttheworldofmankindasonedaystandingouttoview,includingJewsandGentiles alike. From this, however, it by nomeans follows that allwereactuallyreconciled.OurmodeofconstruingINCHRISTprovestheopposite.Andthisisfurtherconfirmedbytheclausewhichrunsparallelwith it: "not imputing their trespasses unto them." Thus the apostlespeaks of an accomplished fact, finished once for all. But one or twopointsmaystillbeseparatelynoticed.

1.WearesaidtobereconciledINCHRIST;anexpressionwhichatfirstsightseemstobeequivalent to thephraseBYCHRIST,whichoccurs inthepreviousverse.Buttheydonotcoincide.Thepresentphrasedenotessomethingmore:fortheapostle'slanguageisprecise,representingChristnotonlyas themeritorious causeof reconciliation,which thephraseofthe previous verse in such a connection usually means, but as theobjective reconciliation. As in Him we have the objective redemption(Eph. 1:7), so inHimwehave theobjective reconciliation;much in thesameway asHe is said to bemade of God unto us righteousness andsanctification(1Cor.1:30),orasHeiscalledourpeace(Eph.2:14).Theapostlechangestheprepositiononpurpose.

2. The reconciliationwas effected by not imputing to us our trespasses(ver. 19).Opinion varies, indeed, as to theway inwhich the participialclauseistoberesolved:someregardingthenon-imputationofsinasthecauseofreconciliation;others,lesscorrectly,consideringitastheeffect.Thelatterisamistakenview,andisopposedtotheusageofaparticipialclause.PaulaffirmsthatGodreconcilestheworldbynotimputingtomentheirtrespasses.Andthereconciliation,astoitsmode,iseffectedinthistwofoldway:(1)bynotimputingsintous,and(2)byChristbecomingthesin-bearer(ver.21); that is, theworld isreconciledbecausesinwas laidonChrist,andnotimputedtous.

3. God is said to place those to whom sin is not imputed in a state ofreconciliation TO HIMSELF. That means, that the atonement restores

men to their right relation to law and order; or, more definitely, to afriendlyfellowshipwithapersonalGod.Itistheremovalofhostility.Asredemption is a redemption to God in the sense that we are liberatedfromcaptivitytobelongtoGod(Rev.5:9;1Cor.6:19),soreconciliationisareconciliationtoGodinthesensethatwearerestoredtoGodsoastobeHis friends; and the reconciliation supposes something mutual: for amutual relation of this nature is essential to the thing, though notproperlyintheword.

Onlyonethingremainstobenoticed.Thewords,"BereconciledtoGod,"whichPauladdsastheburdenofallpreaching(v.20),areequivalentto"Receivetheatonement."

III.Anotherpassage,subjoinedtotheformer,andcloselyconnectedwithit,pointsoutmostemphaticallythemodeoftheatonement:ForHehathmadeHimtobesinforuswhoknewnosin,thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGod inHim(2Cor.5:21).Theverse, connectedby thegrounding particle FOR with the previous passage descriptive of themessage of reconciliation, assigns the ground on which that messagerests. That is the force of the particle for; and the import is, that GodmadeanexchangebetweenusandChrist,ofsuchanaturethatHe,thesinless,was treatedas ifHewere thesinner—nay,as sin itself—thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGod.

Two statements are thusbrought together, and lienear eachother: thenon-imputationofsintothosewhoarereconciled(ver.19),andthefactthatChristwasmadesin.Andthese twostatements involveeachother.Thereasonorgroundonwhichthenon-imputationofsinproceeds,isthefactthatChristwasmadesin(ver.21).Thatisinvolvedinthemessageofreconciliation. But these two points just mentioned, and lying at thefoundation of preaching, incontrovertibly show that the end of Christ'scoming was not to proclaim absolute forgiveness, but to usher in anexpiation, or a work of atonement, on the ground of which thatproclamationofforgivenessmightbemade.Theconnectionbetweentheatonement and the message, "Be reconciled to God," is thus clearlybrought out. Apart from the atonement, preaching would have nofoundation,wouldhavenomessagetoproclaim,andwouldbedenudedofalltheforceaccompanyingit.

Inexhibitingthecontentsofthispregnanttext,Ishallendeavour,withallbrevity,tobringoutitsimportunderafewheads.

1. The source of thewhole atonement is traced toGOD,who is said toHAVEMADECHRISTwhatthetextdescribes.Andtheexpressionraisesour thoughts to that agreement, or covenant, according to which theFatherappointedHisownSontoassumeourhumannatureandbearourguilt.

2. But a further idea, that of sinlessness, is brought out in the words,WHOKNEWNOSIN.TheexpressionisintendedtoshowthatthesinlessperfectionofJesus—that is,His innocenceandperfectobedience to thedivine law—was the foundation or presupposition of the entirework ofexpiation. But in whose account was He judged sinless? The Greekphrase,whichhasapeculiarforceattachingtoit,whichmustaccuratelybeascertained,containsananswertothatquestion.Thepeculiarphrase,WHOKNEWNO SIN, is called by philologists the subjective negation,becausewherever it is used it denotes a negative estimate or judgmentformedinthemindofsomeparty.Andwhenweask,Bywhomwasthejudgmentformedinthiscase?theconclusiontowhichwemustcomeis,that it either expresses Christ's own conscious estimate—and thesubjective negation will, on this supposition, set forth His ownconsciousnessofperfectsinlessness—orelsethatitexpressestheFather'sjudgmentformedofHimatthedivinetribunal.Onethingisveryevident:thetermsandcontextdonotallowustoreferthephraseologytoamereordinary human estimate of Jesus. Most naturally, the party whosejudgment is introduced, andwho regardedHim as sinless, is the samethatwasrepresentedasmakingHimtobesinforus—viz.God.Ifwetakethis acceptation, as the strict importof theGreekphrase leadsusmostnaturallytodo,thenJesuswasesteemedorjudgedbyGodascompletelyfaultless,andasneverhavinghadonefeelingatvariancewiththedivinewillandlaw.Hedidnosin.Buttherelationofthetwoconnectedclausesisofsuchakindasmakesitclearthatsinlessnessisequivalenttoperfectobedience, for the negative side implies the POSITIVE MODE OFPUTTINGIT.Hewasthusexemptfromeveryfault,whetherofomissionorofcommission.AndtheultimateaimofGodinallthis,wasnotonlytoqualifyHimforundertakingthetaskofsin-bearing,butalsotopavethe

wayforbringinginavicariousrighteousness.Thestatementthereforeis,thatHewhowas sinless in God's account—and only one immaculatelyperfectineverypartofpositiveobediencecouldbeso—wasmadesin.

3.Thissinlessone, judged inGod'saccountasonewhoknewnosin, isnextdescribedashavingbeenMADESIN.Thefirstinquiryis,Whatdoesthisproperlymean?

a.Manydeemitbesttotakeitassimplyequivalenttoasin-offering;and,indeed,theSeptuagintseveraltimesusestheoriginalwordtodenotethissacrifice: for the sin-offering was regarded as incorporated sin orembodiedguilt,viewedobjectivelyandapart.Suchanexpositionaffordsacompetentenoughsense,anddoesnotinfactalterthemeaning.Butitdeservesnotice,inthefirstplace,thatthroughoutthisentirepassagetheapostlemakesnouseofsacrificiallanguage;andthetermreconciliationisallowedonallhandstobetakenfromordinary life,andnotfromthesacrificial ritual. Then it is evident that the apostle draws a contrastbetweentwothings,—betweenthepersonalsinlessnessofJesus,andHisofficialpositionasmadesinforus,—andthatthiscontrastislostbythesacrificial reference. But there is a further antithesis not less strong.Christisrepresentedasmadesinforus,inthesamewayinwhichwearemade the righteousness ofGod; that is, by a judicial act on the part ofGod, the moral Governor and Judge. This is unfavourable to ouraccepting the idea of a sin-offering. Itwouldbequite unsuitable in thesecondclause,whichaffirmsthatwearemadetherighteousnessofGod,and therefore it cannotbeadmitted in the first.But for theconnection,and the twofold antithesis nowmentioned, the rendering "sin-offering"would be unobjectionable. The double antithesis seems to demand theabstract term SIN, as correctly rendered in the English authorizedversion.

b. Much less appropriate is another interpretation, MADE HIM ASINNER.Manyexcellentwritershaveexplained thephrase in thisway,butitisplainlyinappropriate.Inthefirstplace,noinstanceofthatusageoccursinScripture.Thenthereisawantofdueprecisionevincedintheway of distinguishing things that differ by the propounders of thisinterpretation. If, indeed, care was taken to distinguish between thepersonal and the official, therewould not be the same objection to the

word.ButthetermSINNERisinalllanguagestoomuchassociatedwiththeideaofpersonaldemerittobeappliedtoChrist,andisoutofkeepingwiththeconstantreferencetoHisperfectinnocence,andtoHissufferingasthejustfortheunjust,theholyfortheunholy.Thetwoideas,alwaysput together throughout the entire Scriptures in the delineation of theatonement—viz. SINLESSNESS and SIN-BEARING, or personalperfectionandofficial liability todivinewrath—andwhichare repeatedhere,musteverbekeptapartbothinformandsubstance.Itisthereforeamistake to make the term SIN equivalent to SINNER in the passagebeforeus.

c.WeabidebytheabstracttermSIN,which,wemaynotice,ishereusedby the apostle with a peculiar force. What does it convey to Christianminds?Itaffordsthissense—thatChristwasmadethesinofHispeoplebytheimputationoftheirguilttoHim;forthesinnotimputedtothosewhoarereconciled(ver.19)is,aswehadoccasiontonoticealready,heresaid to be imputed to Christ, and in such a sense that He could bedescribed asmade sin. Thewords, strictly considered, thereforemean,thatbyGod'sappointmentHewasmadesin,notinmeresemblance,butinreality,notbeforemen,butbeforeGod,on thegreat foundationofafederal unity between Him and His people. He was, as it were, theembodiment of sin or incorporated guilt; and wemay well affirm thatneverwassomuchsinaccumulateduponasinglehead.Hewasnotmadesininavague,indefinite,abstractway;buttheverysinsofwhichwearepainfullyconsciousinthemomentofconviction—thatis,ourownsinsofnatureandlife—were laidonHim,ortransferredfromourheadtoHis.Heboretheirburden;andthisrendereditpossibletovisitHimwiththerecompenseduetosin,andwithitsnecessarypunishment,whichwouldotherwisehavebeenimpossible.

Thetrueimportofthismemorableclause,then—which,alongwithsomeother texts, has always been considered as of paramount moment fordetermining the true nature of the atonement—is thus renderedapparent.Itmeansthat,byGod'sappointment,ChristwasmadethesinsofallHispeople,andthatHemadethemHisasmuchasifHehadbeendivinelyconstitutedsinintheabstract,orassinembodied;thattheyweretransferredtoHispersonbywhatisusuallydesignatedimputation,and

charged to His account. That was effected in such a way as clearlydisplayed the distinction between His personal and representativestandingbeforeGod.WhileHewaspersonallytheobjectoftheFather'severlasting love and complacency, He was officially guilty in our guilt.The paternal and the governmental on the part of God may easily bedistinguishedandviewedapart.Heneverwastheobjectof theFather'sloathingoraversion,evenwhenforsaken.Heneverwas,whatthesinnerinevitablyis,abhorred,orabominable;becauseadistinctioncouldalwaysbemadebetweentheonlybegottenSon, therighteousServant,andthesin-bearingSubstitute.

HowHewasmadesinwillappearfromthefollowingdescription.Whilehereamongmen—thatis,fromtheincarnationtothecross—Hewas,byadivineact,made the sin-bearer in roomofHispeople; and thereneverwas amoment, from the assumption of our nature to the death on thetree,whenHedidnotbearoursinsandappearguiltyasthesuretyofHischurch.NorwasHeguiltybeforemen,butbeforeGod.Andfurthermore,itmustspeciallybenoticedthatthiswasnotlegalfiction,butdivinefact.Asecondconsideration,necessarytothefullcomprehensionofthisgreattransaction, is, that it was not by any infusionwithin, but by objectiveimputation.And it carriedwith it consequences of a punitive characternotlessrealandheavythanifthesinhadbeenHisown.HemadeitHisownbyHisvoluntaryact.

Here it seems necessary to take notice of the evasion to which theopponents of the vicarious satisfaction usually have recourse. Theobjections are singularly similar, if not the same inwords,whetherwehave regard to formeror recent times.Thesepassagesareall explainedaway by the writers to whom we allude, as if they referred only toindignitiesenduredatthehandsofmen.Theyreducethestatementmadebytheapostleinthisversetothis,thattheLordreceivedfromthehandsofmenatreatmentwhichworetheappearanceof,andmighthavebeenconstruedas if itwere,thetreatmentgiventoasinner.But isthereanyindication that the words expressmere semblance or appearance? Thetextdoesnot affirm thatHewas reputedamongmen tobea sinner. Itaffirms thatHewasmadesin; thatGodmadeHimso:and thatplainlygoes much further than to imply that He wore in man's esteem the

appearanceofbeingacriminalorasinner.PlainlytheallusionisnottowhatHereceivedatthehandsofman,orwasreputedinman'sjudgment,buttowhatwaslaidonHimbyGod.Bynoconstructionoflanguagecanthewordsbemadetodenoteafflictivetreatmentatthehandsofmen;forthat would make Christ occupy no other than a martyr's place. Thesuperadded words, "made sin FOR US," sufficiently explode thatcommentary; for the injurious treatment to which Jesus was subjectedcould never, without substitution, have been described as undergoneFORUS.WhowillaffirmthatthefactofmenentertainingillthoughtsofChrist,and treatingHimas ifHewereasinner,couldmakeHimstand"forus,"ormakeHimreputedbyGodasmadesinFORUS,inanytrueacceptationoftheterms?

Theimportofthepassage,then,amountstothis:Christ,thesinlessOne,the realized ideal of humanity, the embodiment of the divine law,wrapped Himself in His people's sin, and was constituted sin, by HisFather'sactandbyHisown,insuchamannerthatatthebarofGodHewasnolongerinnocent.RatherHewasmadetheconcentratedsinoftheredeemed church, because found among sinners, federally united tothem,andchargedatthebarofGodwithalltheirsins.

Thissin-bearingcapacityofJesusproceedsonseveralpresuppositions,—a community of nature, and a federal relation between the Surety andthoseinwhosebehalfHisworkwasundertaken.Withoutthesenobasiscould have existed either for imputation or punishment; for penalsufferinghasitsformalgroundinguilt.Sotrueisthis,thatitwouldbeananomaly,anincongruity,amoralimpossibility,inthedivinegovernmentto punish without guilt. Nay, it would be a subversion of justice. Thescopeofthisentirestatement,therefore,is,thattheLordJesuswasinthedivine judgment regarded in no other light than as a surety; and that,beingmadesinaccordingtothedivineconstitution,HewaschargedwithguiltnotlessreallythanifithadbeenallHisown.TheentirelifeofChristonearth,asdelineatedbytheevangelistsanddescribedbytheapostles,isindeedsetforthasthebrightestexhibitionofsinlessperfection.Buttheyaddanotherfeature—thatofsin-bearing.Theexpression,THESINLESSSIN-BEARER,maybesaidaptlytodescribeHisearthlycareer.CertainlytheywholookmerelyatHisinnocencemistakethegospel,iftheydonot

overthrow it. He was not a sinless individual, as one of many, but ASINLESSSURETYORMEDIATORINOURSTEAD.Andthetextfurtherstates,thattoexemptusfromtheguiltofsin—or,inotherwords,thatsinmightnomorebeimputedtous—thesinlessOnewas"madesinforus."This is, in theological nomenclature, correctly enough termed theimputationofsintoChrist.

4. The end forwhich Christ wasmade sinwas, THATWEMIGHTBEMADETHERIGHTEOUSNESSOFGODINHIM.Theapostleagainusesthe abstract term, as in the previous clause.We need not dwell on thephrase"therighteousnessofGod,"whichwealreadyexpoundedatlarge.Let it suffice to say that here the one clause of this verse explains theother.WearemadetherighteousnessofGod inthesameway inwhichChristwasmade sin.Theantithesisof the two clauses is in thehighestdegreeimportant.Theyarebothobjective;theyarebothbyimputation,notby infusion.Weare, throughChrist'svicariousobedience,madetherighteousnessofGod.Andthis is foundonly inHimobjectively,andasweareunitedtoHimbyalivingfaith.

IV.Anotherpassageinthesameepistle,containingthesameallusiontotheexchangeofplaces, isas follows:ForyeknowthegraceofourLordJesusChrist,thatthoughHewasrich,yetforoursakesHebecamepoor,that ye through His poverty might be rich (2 Cor. 8:9). The apostle'sdesignwastoenforceliberalitytowardthepoorsaintsforwhomhewasmaking a contribution among theGentile churches; andhe presents tothe mind of the Corinthians the most constraining motive—the Lord'sabasementtopovertyforoursakes.Therearethreepointstowhichthepassagerefers,andtowhichweshallmakeabriefallusion.

1.Theclause"thoughHewasrich"referstoHisdivinepre-existence,ortothatwhichHepossessedastheCreatorandownerofall.IntheformofGod eternally rich, exempt from any want, and not needing even theexternaluniversetofillupablankortocompleteHispersonalhappiness,HelivedintheeternalfellowshipofHisFatherbeforetheworldwas.Wemay say, thatbefore theoutwarduniversewas called intobeingbyHisfiat, and when it existed only by possibility in Him, He was infinitelyblessedinHimself;andtheworldwasmadetobeanobjectonwhichHisboundless fulness was to be lavished, but not to fill up an unsatisfied

wantinHim,personallyconsidered.

2. He became POOR in the exercise of GRACE TO US. This refers toearthly abasement, to which He spontaneously came down for man'ssake; and it is affirmed of the whole person of the God-man, on theprinciplethatwespeakofHimintheconcretebyeitherofHisnatures.TheallusionistotheincarnatestateoftheLord,whenHebecamewhatHewasnot;fortherewasnochange,andtherecouldbenone,uponHisdeity.ButasHeentered intoanewsphere,andanew formofactivity,PaulhasinhiseyethewholeabasedpoorlifeofChrist;andthestatementis,thatasHelivedonearthwithoutproperty,goods,orcomforts,suchasothermen enjoy, andhadnotwhere to layHis head, itwas all for oursakes.

ThiswasdonenotsimplyasapreliminarytoHisarrestandcrucifixion—thoughtheapostlesaysthat,hadtheyknownHim,theywouldnothavecrucifiedtheLordofglory(1Cor.2:8)—butasthepenalconsequenceofsinall throughlife; forHewasATONCETHESIN-BEARERANDTHECURSE-BEARERATEVERYSTAGEOFHISCAREER.HenceitwasthatHetookpovertyasHetookotherpartsofourcurse;andthedesignwastofreeusfromthepenalconsequencesofsin.

3.ItwasFOROURSAKES;thatis,forthegoodoftheCorinthians,andall Christians generally. The meaning appears from the last passageexpounded by us. The Lord made an exchange of places with us. Theatoningelement,thoughcommonlyascribedtothedeathofChrist,ortoHisbloodsacrificiallyviewed,takesinHisentiresin-bearinglife,andHiscontinuous abasement as the substitute of His people. But it may beasked,Why is such emphasis here laid uponHis poverty? The subjectsuggested it to the apostle'smind, and the whole is placed in a strongantithesis.We do not need to view the separate parts of His sufferingobedience as separately meritorious, as if it served a good purpose toascribe,assomehavedone,pardontoHisdeath,andacceptancetoHisactive obedience. That serves no purpose but to complicate thematter,anddivideintofragmentstheoneworkoftheLord.Thewholeobediencetogether is meritorious; but it may be seen in many lights, as acompensationorexchange.Itiscompetent,doubtless,onthewarrantofsuchapassage,toholdthatthewholeatoningobedienceisappliedinits

unityateverypoint,andwithaphaseadaptedtoeveryactualwantofthehumanheartBut that is rather the applicationof the vicariouswork tothedetailsofhumannecessity;and in thiswaywemay fitlyaffirmthatHe was abased to atone for pride, poor to expiate the guilt ofcovetousness, hungry and thirsty on account of that intemperateindulgencewhichhas inall ages conqueredmen from theeatingof theforbiddenfruittothishour.Inthesamemanner,wemayaffirmthatHewas abased thatwemight be exalted, a servant to set us free, troubledthat we might be comforted, tempted that we might conquer,dishonoured thatwemaybeglorified, andscourged thatbyHis stripeswemightbehealed.TheentireabasementofChrist, in theunityofHisobedience, was for us; and we do not need to seek a separate atoningelementineverylittledetail.

As to our becomingRICH in consequence of Christ's work, that isHisrewardaspurchasedforus.It isnotearthlyriches, indeed; forthiswasneitherthedesignofHisatonement,northeactualresult,butthewholerichesofHisinheritanceandkingdom.

SEC.XII.—THEEPISTLETOTHEGALATIANS

This epistle furnishes a testimony to the atonement themore striking,because, contrasted with a legal tendency, setting it off like a foil. TheapostlehadtwicevisitedGalatia(Gal.4:13;Acts16:6,18:23),andreferstohispreachingof theatonement therewhenhe says thatChristJesushadbeenevidentlysetforthbeforetheireyesascrucified(Gal.3:1).Butwithina short timeafterhis last visit, aperilous corruptionofdoctrinehadbeenintroduced,throughtheartfulrepresentationofzealotsforthelaw,whohadsucceededinbringingovertheGalatianstotheopinionthatthe observance of Jewish rites was necessary to their acceptance withGod.

Theapostle'saimintheepistlewastocounteractthislegalspirit.Itwasnot a question as to a few indifferent rites with which the Jews werefamiliar, and which they were not prepared as yet to abandon, but a

question as to acceptance with God; for these ceremonies wereconsidered as necessary for acquiring righteousness. In exposing thiserror, the apostle brought the Galatians to the atonement as the soleground of man's acceptance, and one to which no addition could bemade;andthewholeargumentwenttoprove,thattheywhosubstitutedanother groundof acceptance overthrew the foundationofChristianity.Hence his repeated appeals to the atonement at all the turns of hisargument. In the very salutation with which the epistle opens, heinterweaves an allusion to the death ofChrist as the one foundation ofacceptanceendredemption.

I.Thefirstpassageontheatonementisasfollows:WhogaveHimselfforoursins,thatHemightdeliverusfromthispresentevilworld(Gal.1:4).How much the apostle's mind was possessed with this great truth,appears from the fact that he starts with it, and intimates through theentire epistle that nothing besides Christ crucified can stand as thefoundationofasinner'sacceptance.Threepointsmaybenoticedonthisverse.

1. The self-oblation of the Lord Jesus: WHO GAVE HIMSELF. Theexpression occurs elsewhere, to intimate that He willingly offeredHimself (1Tim.2:6;Tit.1:14;Matt.20:28).ThephrasewhichourLordemploysisofthesameimport:"Ilaydownmylife"(John10:17).Christwas not seized by the hand of violence, but spontaneously offeredHimself;alineofthoughtfollowedoutintheEpistletotheHebrews.NotonlydidtheFatherprovidethesacrifice,anddeliverHimuptodeathforus all (Rom. 8:32): the Lord Jesus gaveHimself by a priestly act. Thephrase indicatesChrist's spontaneouspriestly action inHis death.Thispeculiar mode of describing the atonement indicates that He was thepriestofHisownsacrifice—thesacrificerandthevictiminone.

2. The apostle's language affirms still more definitely, that He gaveHimselfFOROURSINS.TheobjectwastoleadtheGalatiansintodeeperviewsofthescopeofChrist'satoningdeath,andtorescuethemfromanyhankering after legal ceremonies that made the death of Christsuperfluous.Theexpression indicates that therewasa relationbetweenChrist'sdeathandthesinsofmen;thatoursinsmadeitnecessaryastheprocuringandmeritoriouscauseofHisdeath.ThereasonwhyHegave

Himself is here assigned. The same representation is given in manypassages,whetherweturntotheancientprophecies(Isa.53:5),ortothestatementsexplanatoryofChrist'sdeathintheepistles(Rom.4:25;1Cor.15:3;1Pet.3:18).BetweentheLord'spriestlyoblationandoursinstherewasarelationsopeculiar,thatoursinsandHisdeathstoodconnectedascauseandconsequence.ThesesinswerethecauseofHisdeath.

Itisnecessarytobringouttheimportofthisphraseology,becausemanyexplain it away. The expression cannot mean that He was cut off byhumanviolencesinfullyexercised.Suchacommentcannotbeengraftedon the clause: it is descriptive of the Lord's giving Himself by aspontaneoussacrifice.Theywereactualsins,whichdidnotfirstexistorcometo lightwhenChristwasviolentlyput todeath.Norwere thesinslimited to that age, or to violent men in Jerusalem; for the apostle,comprehendinghimself and theGalatians,whohadnothing to dowiththeseactsofviolence,says,"whogaveHimselfFOROURSINS."Nordosuchphrasesalludetotheputtingawayofsinbyfutureamendment;forthisverything,asweshallsee,issubjoinedasthescopecontemplatedbythe sacrifice. Tomake the clause under our consideration of the sameimport with the final clause, afterwards to be noticed, would be a flattautology.Notonlyso:itwouldfastenonPaul'sreasoningtheabsurdityofmakingthemeansandtheend,thecauseandeffect,identical.

Theexpressionmeans thatHegaveHimselfonaccountofsin; thatHisdeathstoodinthesamerelationtosinasdeathuniformlydoes,—thatis,thatdeathwasinHiscase,too,thewagesofsin.Andtheconsequenceisas follows: If theLorddied forour sins, theywhomHe representeddonotrequiretodiefortheirownsins.If,inthemoralgovernmentofGod,oursinswerethecauseofChrist'sdeath,therecanbenosecondexactionof the penal consequences from us personally. The result of acomparison,ofthesephrasesis,thatChristoccupiedavicariousposition;thatHediedonouraccountandforourbenefit,butonlysobecauseHewasoursubstituteatthetribunalofGod.

3. All this was done, THAT HE MIGHT DELIVER US FROM THISPRESENTEVILWORLD.Thefinalparticle(ὅπως)bringsbeforeus thedivinepurpose,orChrist'sownaimisdyingforoursins—thatethicalandsanctifyingresulttowhichwealreadyalluded.Thefruitsintendedbythe

deathofChrist are veryvarious—asnumerous, indeed, as the effectsofsin; some bearing on the acceptance of our persons, others on therenovation of our natures: and the death of Christ stands in causalconnectionwithboth.Butitdeservesnotice,thatwhenlifeandrenewingare referred to as the results of His atonement, the acceptance of theperson is alwayspresupposed; that is, theperson is accepted, and thenthe nature is sanctified. Though the atonement stands in causalconnection with both, the personal standing is first rectified, as theimmediateresultoftheLord'sdeath.

This passage shows that, besides the acceptance of the man, as theimmediateeffectoftheLord'sdeath,asecondeffectisbynomeanstobeoverlooked. Most expositors view the clause as referring to the ethicaldesignofthedeathofChrist;butitisnottheethicaleffectintheformofmotive,butnewspirituallife,orrenewinginthespiritofourmind.ThisisprocuredbythedeathofChrist,aswellasthepardonofguilt;andthat,too, not on the mere ground of moral influence, but on a groundimmeasurablydeeper—onthatof thedivinerectitude—andaccordingtothe deepest principles of themoral government of God. It is themorenecessary to lay emphasis on this, that wemaymeet the cavil, all toocurrent, that the doctrine of substitution is cold, external, anddisconnectedfromspirituallifeandethicalresults.

II. Another passage, descriptive of the relation betweenChrist andHispeople in His atoning work, is as follows: I am crucified with Christ;nevertheless[better,and]Ilive;yetnotI,butChristlivethinme;andthelife which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God[better, infaithwhichisupontheSonofGod],wholovedme,andgaveHimself forme.Idonot frustrate thegraceofGod; for if righteousnesscomebythelaw,thenChristisdeadinvain[better,diedwithoutacause](Gal.2:20,21).ThecontextformspartofthatreproofaddressedtoPeterforhisvacillationandtimidity.Peterdidnotasanapostle teachamiss;but his concessions to the zealots, in ceasing to eat with the Gentiles,encouragedthem.Paulaccordinglyexposedthedangerousprinciple.HeshowsthatitsrealmeaningimpliedthataChristianwasnotcompleteintheatoningdeathofChrist,butneededsomethingmore;that,accordingtotheJudaizingparty,meninChrist,anddependingonnothingbeyond

His finished work, had so imperfect a ground of acceptance, that theycouldbeviewedonlyassinners,orsuchaswerewithoutafulltitle(ver.17); thattheymadeChristonlywhatMoseshadbeen—aministerofsinandcondemnation(ver.17);inaword,thatallwhosoughtrighteousnessbysomethingsupplementarytoChrist,avowedthatHewasnotaperfectSaviour. He adds that, in the first instance, they had sought to beacceptedinChristwithouttheworksofthelaw,believingonChristasalltheir title; but that now they built again what they had destroyed. Byseekingatitlethroughworks,theydidnotstandontheatonementasthesolegroundofacceptance,butviewedthemselvesasimperfectandguiltyif theyhadnotsomethinginadditiontotheworkofChrist.Theapostleadds,thatbythelawhediedtothelaw(ver.19);andthestatementcanonlymean,thatthedeathtothelawwasgroundedonhisbeingcrucifiedwithChrist.Thefollowingpointsheredemandnotice:—

1.WearesaidtobeCRUCIFIEDWITHCHRIST,because,whenonediedfor all, it was the same as if all died. This expression belongs tojustification fromsin,or toourpartakingof themeritofChrist'sdeath,anddoesnotmean theputtingawayof sinby inwardrenovation; for ifthatwere indicatedbyourbeingcrucifiedwithChrist,whatwouldthenbe meant by our resurrection with Him? When the apostle speaks ofdyingwithChrist,orofbeingcrucifiedwithHim,hedoesnotfirstuseitliterally, and then metaphorically; nor describe two different acts,resembling each other—one inChrist's personal experience, and one inours,somewaysimilar.What is there inus thatcanbearacomparisonwith thebitterdeathof thecross,orbedesignatedby thename?But itconsists with reason and the nature of the thing to designate ourpartnershipwithChrist,orparticipationinHissufferings,bythisphrase;because,whenChristwascrucified inourroomandstead, itwas inthedivineaccountthesameasifweourselveshadbeencrucifiedforsin.Thecompound verb CO-CRUCIFIED intimates the partnership of many intheLord'saction;andtheadditionalwords,WITHCHRIST,implythatitwasaccomplishedinHim,oralongwithHim.

A wholly unique relation subsisted between Christ and His people—arelation which can be apprehended only when we call to mind theoriginalconstitutiongiventothehumanfamily,accordingtowhichone

actedformany;forinthesamemanneronerepresentativeman—aGod-man—died for His church, and obeyed in stead of many (2 Cor. 5:14;Rom.5:12–18).This expression,and theprincipleonwhich it isbased,have already been elucidated. Hence God the Father viewed the entireredeemedchurchasif itwerehangingwithHim—thatis, inHim—uponthe cross; for the action of the Suretywas regarded as the act of thosewhomHerepresented.

The apostle presupposes, too, what he afterwards brings out, that thecurse of the law was executed on Christ crucified; that His crucifixioncomprehendedHissufferings,aswellasallthatpositivefulfilmentofthelawbywhichHebecameobedientuntodeath.AndwhenPaulheresaysthatwearecrucifiedwithChrist,thesenseis:WeareviewedassufferingwhatHesuffered,andasdoingwhatHedid.Andthus, invirtueofHisfinishedwork,weenterintoHisfederalreward.

2.Theapostlenosoonermentionshisco-crucifixionwithChrist,thanhesubjoins, according tohiswont, anallusion to the risen life, orpremiallife.Thetwoarecommonlyputtogether,becauseit is lifeconsideredastherewardof fulfillingthe law(Gal.3:12);andthemeritoriouscauseofthislifeisChristcrucifiedforallwhomHerepresented—thecauseoflifebyHisatonement.HadtheSonofGodnotinterposed,inthecapacityofsurety,offeringHimselftofulfilthepreceptsandsatisfythepenaltyofthedivinelawinourroom,thispremiallifecouldneverhavebeenbestowedon fallenmen.But thedeathand life areput together, on theprinciplethattheymustbeconjoinedinourcasenotlessthanintheexperienceoftheLordHimself;becausewewereonewithHiminbothconditions—inHimwhensuffering,andthenassharinginHisreward.

As we had occasion already to refer to this resurrection-life, it isunnecessary to domore in this place than to point out its inseparableconnectionwiththeLord'satoningdeath.Itmaysufficetosay, thatthefountainofthislifeisGod,andthatuniontotheLordbythepossessionof theSpirit sustains it,asnatural life is sustainedby theunionof soulandbody.TheapostleinthispassageconnectsitsocloselywithChrist'sown life, that he puts it as if it were a reproduction, or continuedmanifestation, of the life of Christ. It differs from the creation-life, orwhatmay be called the primeval Adamic life, in this respect, that it is

secured for ever on the ground of justice; a premial life—a life ofconfirmationafteraperiodofprobationhasbeensuccessfullyfulfilled—alife immutable, to be forfeited no more. This eternal life evinces itspresenceinthesamewayasnaturallife,bytheoperations,exercises,oractivityofitsspiritualfaculties;andtheywhopossessithearthevoiceoftheSonofGod(John5:25),understandtheword(1Cor.2:10–14),tastethat the Lord is gracious (1 Pet. 2:3), see with enlightened eyes (Eph.1:18),andwill todogood, thoughnotalwayseffectingwhat theywould(Rom. 7:19). In aword, they live asmembers of Christ, the ever-livingHead,tosuchadegree,thattheysay,"NotI,butChristlivethinme,"thatis,withafederalunity,butadistinctpersonality.

3.Nextfollowsadelineationofthelifeoffaith,thatis,oflifeasexercisedinfaithuponitsproperobject.Speakingoflifeinitsactivityherebelow,the apostle says that it preeminently displays itself in faith on theRedeemer,aslovingHispeoplewithaspeciallove,andgivingHimselfforthembyaspecialatonement.Obviously,thatisnotthelanguageoffaithforattainingjustification,butthelanguageofamanalreadyjustified,andglorying in a sense of acceptance and the experience of grace. Thespiritual lifeofaChristianfindsitsactivityonthesameobjecttowhichtheanxiousinquirerfirstcameforpardon,withthisdifference,thatitisnowacceptedinitsspecialdestination:"wholovedME,andgaveHimselfforME."Thisexhaustlessthemehasbeensummedupinthreepregnantterms—talis,tanta,tantillis.

a.TheRedeemer isdescribedas theSonofGod;andwe see from this,thattheexpiationofsinisnottheworkofamereman,buttheworkoftheGod-man,asHeisdesignatedinconnectionwithHisatonement,byarelationpeculiar toHisdivinenature.Theerrorof theChurchofRomeconsistedinascribingtheatonementtooexclusivelytotheactionof thehumannature,andinlimitingthemediatorialactivitytothissideofHisperson. But the sacerdotal sacrifice was the action of the person, andhence we read that they crucified the Lord of glory (1 Cor. 2:8). Theterrible suffering was not experienced by the divine nature, and tookeffectonthehumanity.ButitwastheSonofGodwhoatoned.TheGod-man suffered; and the sacrifice consisted in this, that it was thespontaneousactofonemoreworthythananycreature,andofferingwhat

wasHisown,—anoblationofmorevaluethanawholeworldofsinners.

b.AstotheloveoftheSonofGod,towhichreferenceisalsomade,itisdescribed in thepast tense, because it culminatedupon the cross.Thatwas displayed by the greatness of His person, the meanness andunworthiness of the objects toward whom it was exercised, and theinconceivable abasement and suffering to which He descended. It wasself-moving, and uncaused by ought without Himself. It was love self-originated:Helovedus,becauseHewouldloveus;andwhetherwelookatHispersonandoffices,oratthefactthatitwasexercisedtoapeoplegivenHimbytheFather,wefindmuchtoexcitereflection.Itwastheloveof a God-man, at once divine and human,—the love of one whointerposed between two disunited parties to reconcile them, who hadcompassionontheignorantasapriest,anddischargedtheirobligationsasasurety.

c. The apostle adds, HE GAVE HIMSELF FOR ME. This conveys asacrificialidea,whetherGodisdescribedasgivingHisSon,ortheSonisdescribedasgivingHimself.WhenweinquirewhatHegave,theanswercontained in the apostle's statement is: He gave not some, nor all, therichesofcreation,butHimself,—anoblationbeyondcomparisongreaterthanalltheworksofHishands.

d.Theloveandsacrificeareequallydescribedintheirspecialdestination;andtheconclusiontobedrawnis,thattheatonementwasprovidedforadefiniteclassgiven intheFather'sgift,andspeciallyrepresentedbytheSoninthemediatorialcapacityinwhichHecondescendedtoactthepartofasubstituteandsurety.Thelanguagewouldbeabsolutelyunmeaningifthiswerenotintended.Aspecialloveanddefiniteatonementcannotbeexplainedaway,ifwordsaretobeinterpretedintheirnaturalsense.

The apostle does not speak of the first exercise of faith, or the faith ofadherencecleavingtothegeneraldeclarationsofdivinelove;thatis,thefaith by which we are accepted. The apostle's words refer to what isspecial, and presuppose assurance. They describe faith on Christ asexercising a special love tous, andoffering a special atonement for us,takenfromthegeneralmassofmen.ThisappropriationoffaithanimatedPaul through life, and is imbibedby all trueChristians subsequently to

the acceptance of their person; though faith first clings to the generalinvitationsindiscriminatelyaddressedtothehearersofthegospel.

4. Next follows a syllogistic argument to prove that Christ's death wassuperfluous,—athingforwhichtherewasnooccasion,ifrighteousnessisconnected inanymeasurewith theobservanceof the law(ver.21).Thedisputewasnotwhethermencouldbesavedbythe lawwithoutChrist,but whether the law was necessary by way of supplement; and thequestion which the apostle decides in the affirmative is, whetherjustifying righteousness is to be found in the atoning death of Christalone. Both parties admitted the sacrificial death of the Lord. But theapostlemaintainedthattheLord'sdeathwasthetruthofallthetypesofthe law, the exclusive ground of acceptance, and the ever-validrighteousness before God. In Paul's phraseology, Christ's deathcomprehends all He did and suffered. The argument, put in syllogisticform,isasfollows:Ifrighteousnesscomebythelaw,Christdiedwithoutcause.ButChristdidnotdiewithoutcause;thereforerighteousnessisnotbythelaw.

Suchisthesyllogism;andiftheargumenthasanycogency,orlanguageany significance, OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS, or TITLE to eternal life, isfound exclusively in THE ATONING DEATH of Christ. Attention isprincipallytobefixedontheminorproposition;andinexpoundingit,itmustbenoticedthatthewordrenderedINVAIN,maybetakeneitherasdefining the cause or the effect, but in the present case as defining thecause thus: He died without occasion, or gratuitously, and withoutnecessity, as theword is elsewhereused (John 15:25).Butno onewithadequate views of divine wisdom, or knowledge of the propheciesrespecting theMessiah,will affirm thatHismission, at so great a cost,waswithout a cause, or superfluous; forGodwouldnot allowHis onlySon to be abased and suffer amalefactor's death without a cause. Butthere was no fit or adequate cause for His atoning work, UNLESSRIGHTEOUSNESSCOMEBYHISDEATH,andbynootherchannel. Ifthe law could have accomplished ought, the apostle says thatrighteousnessandlifewouldbothhavebeenbythelaw(Gal.3:21;Rom.8:3).

Theapostle'sargument,ifwewouldcorrectlyapprehendit,isasfollows:

EitherChrist diedwithout an adequateoccasion, or the fruit aswell asthe definite design of His death was to usher in an ever-valid title, orrighteousness.Thisisthepositivesideoftheatonement,consideredasadeed.Itpresupposesthenegativeside,ortheatonementasthecarryingoutof thepenaltyofdeathoriginally, pronouncedagainst sin.Allmustdie, and God can have no intercourse with sinners till the cause ofseparationistakenoutoftheway,anddeathenduredasthewagesofsin.Noother cause canbe assigned for theLord's death and the sufferingsthrough whichHe passed. His death was indispensably necessary, andinflexiblydemanded,ifarighteousnesswastobebroughtin.

Thereasonisobvious:Hadthelawbeenabletocontributeanyaidinthisrespect, theSonofGod,ofwhomtheapostlehasbeenspeaking,wouldnothavecome.TheLawgiverwouldhaveerectedacovenantofworks,orbeencontentwiththeSinaicovenant,andsohavedispensedwithanewcovenant and a new mediator. But as the law availed not, as it onlywitnessed to a righteousnesswhich it could not introduce (Rom. 3:21),themission of Christ to thisworld,His incarnation and death, had fortheir object to bring in the everlasting righteousness which could nototherwisehavebeenattained.Butforthis,therewasnoassignablecausefor the Lord's death, which is here viewed as the culmination of Hisobedience:oursolerighteousnessisfoundinHisobedienceuntodeath.

What other cause can benamedwhichdoesnot either proceedupon ahumanitarianconceptionofHisperson,orcarryitsownrefutationwithit?AccordingtotheSocinians,therewasnonecessityforChrist'sdeath,suchastheapostleassumestobeconcededuponallsides,evenbythosewhoseadditionstendedtoundermineit.WhydidHedieaccordingtothetext?NottosealandconfirmthetruthofHisdoctrine;forHisdoctrinewas confirmed by miracles: not to teach us that we enter heaven bysuffering, or to give us an example how to die; formartyrs could havedonethatwithoutanincarnation:nottopresenttous,forthesustainingof our hope, a specimen of immortality and resurrection; for the wordcouldhold forth that:but tobring ina justifyingrighteousness;andonanyothersupposition,Hediedwithoutacause.

III.WehavenextapassagedescriptiveofChristmadeacurseforus;andofallthetextsbearingontheatonement,thereisnonemoredecisiveas

to itsnature:Christhath redeemedus from the curseof the law,beingmadeacurseforus:foritiswritten,Cursediseveryonethathangethonatree:thattheblessingofAbrahammightcomeontheGentilesthroughJesus Christ (Gal. 3:13). The context shows, that far from obtainingrighteousness, the Galatians, by placing themselves on a legal footing(ver. 10), brought themselves under the curse. This is not the Leviticallaw, because it proposes life to those who fulfil it (ver. 12), andpronouncesacurseonnon-fulfilment(ver.13).Theapostle'sobjectistobringout that the lawawardsacurse,notareward, to thosewhoplacethemselvesonafootingoflaw;andthisiscontrastedwitheternallife,thepromised reward. For the correct apprehension of the atonement in itsessential elements, we must strictly define this curse. It is the divinesentencepronouncedupontransgressors,comprehendinginitthelossofGod as its chief ingredient, separation from Him (Isa. 59:2), andwhatever positive infliction is further included. The Old Testamentphraseology, fromwhichthe language isderived, takes inall thatdoomandshamewhicharetheconsequencesofviolatingthedivinelaw(Gen.3:17–19;Deut.27:14–26).

The text may be compared with another, to which it bears a strongresemblance,whereChrist is said to have beenmade sin (2Cor. 5:21).Theabstractnouninbothpassagesdemandsnotice;foranabstractnoundescribesChristasthesin-bearer,andanabstractnoundescribesHimasthecurse-bearer.TheHebrewswerewont to takenouns in theabstractinsteadofadjectives,whentheywishedtointimatethatathingwasdoneinthehighestconceivablemeasureordegree.TheexpressionMADESINFOR US is more emphatic and full of meaning than if Paul had said,MADEHIMASINNER.Itavoids,moreover,themisconceptiontowhichthe latter term would have given rise, and allows us, according to thedesign of the passage, to distinguish between the personal and theofficial.Inlikemanner,theexpressionBEINGMADEACURSEFORUSis more emphatic and significant than if he had said, BEING MADEACCURSED;whileitenablesustodistinguishbetweenpersonalrelationand official suretyship. The similarity between the two passages isobvious;andthedifferenceis,thattheformerdescribestheimputationofsin,while the latter sets forth theactualdoomor infliction.The formerdescribes the relation of sin to punishment, the latter the punishment

itself.

Inthispassagefourpointsdemandnotice,andweshalladverttothemasbrieflyasiscompatiblewiththeimportanceofsoconclusiveapassage:1.Whatisthecurseofthelaw?2.Theliberationfromit;whetherabsolute,or by price. 3. The mode by which the redemption was effected: theransom.4.TheblessingontheGentilesinroomofthecurse.

1. The CURSE OF THE LAW does not mean temporal and civilpunishments inflicted on Israel for the transgression of the judicial orceremonial law. To interpret the expression in that way, is wholly tomisapprehend itsmeaning. That therewere such visitations, cannot bequestioned by any one who has acquired a knowledge of the olddispensation (Deut.28:15 ff.).Thesewereevidencesorproofsbywhichthe people were trained to apprehend the divine wrath against thetransgressorsofHiscommandments;butitisafardeeperthoughtthatisbeforetheapostle'smind.Asthecontextindubitablyproves,thecontrastisbetweenwrathandblessing,betweencondemnationandjustification.Besides,theGalatianstowhomhewrotewereGentiles,notJews;anditwouldhavehadnoappropriateness,tobringbeforethemanallusiontothe dispensational peculiarities of Israel. The term CURSE, here used,comprehendsthepenalsanctionofthemorallaw,andtakesforgrantedthat mankind generally, having the work of the law written on theirhearts, anda law to themselves (Rom.2:14),werenot less liable to thecursethantheJews:theywerebothequallyunderthecurse.

2.FromthatcurseChristredeemedus,or,morestrictly,boughtusout.Thewordisacompoundverb,denotingtobuyoutfromoneconditiontotransfer us into another. The question here arises, In what way,absolutelyorbyprice?Plainly it isnotanabsolutedeliverance,butonewhich is the result of purchase.No terms couldmore explicitly declarethis;forthepriceorransomisimmediatelysubjoined,asinmanyotherpassageswherereferenceismadetoredemption(compare1Cor.6:20;1Pet.1:18,19).Itwasatrueandrealcursetowhichweweresubjected:itisatrueandrealredemptionintowhichweareushered;andtheprice,too,bywhichitwaseffected—theinterventionofthecross,orChristmadeacurseforus—wasatrueandrealprice.ThecurselayonJewandGentileequally; and the ransom which liberated us was the transfer of

punishment,andanexchangeofplacesbetweenusandChristWecouldnothavebeenredeemedfromthisobligationtothecurse,involvingasitdid a reference to God as Lawgiver and Judge, had the cross been anexpedient of an arbitrary nature, having nothing in common with theburdenofthecurse.Thatthisisacommutationofpersons,ordeliverancebysubstitution,cannotbemistakenordenied.

3. The price or ransom paid for us was nothing else but the personalRedeemer,theSonofGodcondescendingtobemadeACURSEforus;athoughtsovastandunfathomable,thatthoughourmindsgrowfamiliarwiththephraseology,weareforeverincapableofcomprehendingorfullysurveyingit.TheransomwhichliberateduswasnotHisdivinedoctrine,norHisbright example ofholiness left us to follow; for thatwouldbutthrow humanity back upon its own resources, and could never bedisjoined from dependence on works, or inner holiness. The apostlethinksof the ransom ina farotherway:he identifies itwith theLord'sabasementandignominiousdeathasavicarioussatisfaction.Heaffirmsthat the price by which He discharged us from temporal and eternalpenaltywasHisbeingmadeacurseforusbyenteringintoourpositionbeforeGod.Thatisthemeaningoftheparticipialclause(compare2Cor.5:19):Hewasmade the accumulated curse ofHis people, as if it wereembodied in Him. God treated the sin-bearer as if He had been thesinner:thatis,whatthelawawardedtouswasvisiteduponHim;andbythatsubstitutionourredemptionwassecured.

ThiscurseculminatedinthewrathofGod.AndhereImusttakeoccasionto expose the unbiblical theory prevalent in a certain school oftheologiansatpresent, that theelementofwrathdidnot enter into theatonement, and that Christ was in no sense the object of the wrath ofGod.Itsufficestoexplodesuchanotiontodirectattentiontothissinglephrase, which conveys the opposite thought:Were not men under thewrathofGodwhentheywereunderthecurse?(Gal.3:10;Eph.2:3.)AndWHENCHRISTWASMADEACURSE,wasHenot,inanofficialrespect,ofnecessitytheobjectofdivinewrath?Thetermusedinthetexthasonlytobealternatedwiththeequivalentterm,toconvinceanymindthatthetheory in question is no better than a neutralizing evasion, if not acontradiction,ofScripture.Thatcursewasthepenalsanctionofthelaw

with which we were burdened, and from which we must needs beredeemed; and thewordswill bear no other comment. This transfer ofpunishment from us toHim is convincingly established by the contextand by the structure of the sentence; and there is not room for twoopinions on the subject. That curse wasmanifested in the infliction ofdeathinitsfullextentofmeaning,accordingtotheprimevalsentenceonourrace(Gal.3:3–19).ItconsistedespeciallyintheprivationofGod,andin thedesertion,which extorted fromHimmanyagonizing complaints;fortheworstingredientofthecurseisthelossofGod,ortheabsenceandcomplete withdrawal of God from a human soul, made to be Hishabitation. That, in fact, is the bitterest element of eternal death; andthroughittheSuretywasconstrainedtopasswhenmadeacurseforus.Nonebutadivineperson,indeed,wasequaltotheendurance;andnonebutadivinepersoncouldhaveengagedhishearttoappearbeforeGodtoencounter thecurse(Jer.30:21).AGod-manwasrequiredtobear it, toreverseit,andtransformitintoablessing(ver.14).

We must notice, before proceeding further, the quotation from theMosaiclaw.Pauladducesittogroundwhathadbeensaid,andtoprovethat death by crucifixion was not only painful and ignominious, butexpressiveof adivine curse: "For it iswritten,Cursed is everyone thathangeth on a tree" (Deut. 21:22, 23). To understand this quotationgroundingthepreviousstatement,itisnecessarytoconsiderwhethertheparticularlawtowhichtheapostlereferswasintendedtobesymbolical,typical, and prophetical in its importExpositors, following the uniformtestimonyofrabbinicalwriters,aremostlyofopinionthatcrucifixion,ortheaffixingofalivingpersonbynailstoatree,andthusleavinghimtoexpire by a slowandpainful death,was aGentilemodeof punishmentcommonamongtheRomans,butneverinuseamongtheJewishpeople,while their institutions remained entire; and that the Mosaic law, inreferringtothesuspendingofacriminalonatree,hadreferencenottoalivingman, but to a dead body thus exposed to view till sunset,—afterwhichthebodywastobeburied,notremainingallnightuponthetree.On the other hand, Lipsius, Baronius, and above all, Albert Schultens,contend with great learning that there is no good ground for theconclusion, thatdeathby crucifixionwasnot inuse in the timesof theHebrewcommonwealth;andthattherabbinicalwritersinthisinstance,

asinmanyothersthatmightbenamed,discoveradeterminationtowrestfrom the Christians such a remarkable type or typical prophecy of thecrucifiedMessiah.Withoutenteringintothiscontroversy,letitsufficetosay,thatbetweenhangingonatreeasdescribedintheMosaiclaw,anddeathbycrucifixion,anobviouspointofsimilarityexists,whichnoonecan mistake. But besides the suspension,—the point of resemblance,—suchamodeofdeathwasnotonlyignominiousinthesightofmen,butmeanttoappearaccursedinthesightofGod:forthetermsofthelawareexpresstothiseffect.God,inHisdivinepurpose,willedittobeso.Asitwas a positive appointment, it is not necessary to search for deeperreasons, leastofall for fancifulanalogies; thoughtheopinionexpressedbymanyeminentdivines,thatthismodeofdeathrecalledthemannerinwhich sin entered into theworld, and bywhich the cursewas diffusedover thehuman race, isnotunwarrantable.Our firstparents sinnedbytheforbiddentree,andGod,itisthought,willedthatthereversalofthecursebythesecondAdamshouldbebyhangingonatree,thatitmightsuggest the origin of the curse. Whatever ground may exist for thisopinion,itwasaccordingtothedeterminatecounselandforeknowledgeof God that the curse should be expiated in no other way but bycrucifixionorhangingonatree.

But as to the special point, how the person hanging on a tree wasaccursed,therecanbenodoubt.Itwasasymbol,type,orprophecy.Theywhowerethuspunishedwerenotaccursedbecausetheywerehangedonatree—ashallowcommentwhichreduces it tonothing—butconversely,werehangedonatreebecausetheywereaccursed.Itisnecessarytolaystressonthis,toforestallthenotionthatPaul,byapplyingthislanguagetoChrist,meansnothingmorethanthattherewasanoutwardexposureandshameattachingtothatmodeofdeath.Thatisfarfromtheapostle'smeaning,andfarfromarightconceptionofthesymbol.HewasnotmadeacursebythemerefactthatHehungonatree;butconversely,Hewassuspended therebecauseHewasmadeacurse forus;and themodeofpunishmentwasfirstinstitutedtorepresenttheideanowstated.

TheLawgiver,whenHeproclaimedthatlawbyMoses,intendedittobetypical as well as symbolical, or more strictly a typical prophecy. Itfiguredforthagreatidea,whichhadonlytobeapprehendedbythefirst

preachersofChristianity,andhasonlytobeapprehendedstill,toimpelmenunderthemostconstrainingmotivetoboastofthecross,toadmirethecross,andtocommendthecrossasthepowerofGodandwisdomofGod. In the eyes of men, crucifixion was in the highest degreeignominious,—a servile punishment inflicted on the lowest scumof thepeople, when they expiated their crimes by death. On freemen it wasneverinflictedtilltheyweredegradedfromtheirrank,andclassifiedwithslaves; and then it was awarded only for the worst crimes committedagainst civil order and law, property, religion, and government. Thestigma attaching to such a death, accordingly, was the same as nowattachestoonewhoexpiatesgreatcrimesuponthegallows.ThiswastheGentile conception of such a death.But according to the Jewish law, itcarriedwith it the further brandof being accursed in the sight ofGod;and the fact of dying such a deathwas doubtless one principal groundwhy the nation esteemedChrist stricken, smitten ofGod, and afflicted.Thelawmadesuchadeathemphaticallyanaccursedone;andweretheynot to view it in that light? Accordingly, the common name for Jesusamong the Jews to the present day, THE HANGED ONE, sufficientlyshowshowtheythinkthemselvesentitledtoregardthecrucifixion.

IngivingsuchalawbyMoses,Godmeantittobeatypicalprophecy,aswellassymbolicalofcurse-bearing.Inthesameway,theliftingupofthebrazenserpentonthepolewasmeantinthedivinepurposetoadumbratethe crucifixion, whether many or few saw beyond the figure to theAntitype.Amongtheformsofpunishmentmentionedinthelaw,thatofhangingonatreewaspronouncedaccursed,becauseitfiguredforththecross,andannouncedthattheMessiahshouldonedayhanguponatree.Thequestionisnot,howmanycoulddecipherthesymbolandthetypicalprophecy? but, was that in the divine intention? And the apostle'squotationofthepassageinthisconnectionisdecisiveintheaffirmative.Both the symbol and the type are equally emphatic. The crosswas theexpressionofanidea,—asortoffact-painting,anevidenceorexhibitionthat thepersonsuspendedon itwasalreadyaccursed,oracurse in thesightofGod.Notthatthetreewasthecauseofthecurse;fortheaccursedonewassuspendedonthetree.Thiswasanoutstandingpublictestimonytoafact,andinthiscaseatestimonythattheLordwasburdenedwiththeworld'scurse,andweigheddownunderitsoverwhelmingload.

4. The CURSE-BEARING paved theway for THEBLESSING (ver. 14).These two aredirectly contrasted, and the one is in order to the other.Thecurseunderwhichwelabouredwasremoved,thattheblessingmightbe imparted. The curse laid on the Lord opened the channel ofcommunicationforthereceptionoftheblessing;outofthatredemptionfrom the curse of the law, flows the blessing which comes upon theGentiles(ver.14).

Toallthisexpositionthreeobjectionsarecommonlyurgedbythosewhoimpugn the atonement as a substitution and satisfaction.Andwemustadvert to them, though they are easy of refutation to any one whoapprehendsthesin-bearingofficeoftheLord.Thesameobjectionswerepropounded by the first Socinians three centuries ago, and they arereproduced and repeated by modern writers, with little change ofexpression.

(1.)Itisobjectedthattheapostle,inspeakingofliberationfromthecurseofthelaw,hadrespectonlytotheJews.Thisisgroundless.Paulreferstomen,ofwhatevernation,whowereunderthecurseofthelaw,orunderthe wrath of God, revealed from heaven against all ungodliness andunrighteousnessofmen(Rom.1:18).What is theapostle'sobject in theEpistletotheRomansbuttoprovethis?But,toconfineourselvestothetextbeforeus,heaimstoshowthattheywhoareredeemedshareintheblessing,andthatcurse-bearingonthepartofChristwaswithaviewtotheblessingwhichcomesontheGentilesalso(ver.14).Whentheapostlesays,"HehathredeemedUS,"nothingcanwarrantustoconclude,withSociniansandmanymodernexegetes, thathehas inhiseyeJewsmorethanGentiles.Noantithesisofnationality is intendedwhen theapostlesays,"Hehathredeemedusfromthecurseofthelaw,thattheblessingofAbraham might come on the Gentiles." When the apostle, writing toGentiles,nameshimselfas comprehended in theclassof thosewhoaresharers in redemption, the terms US, or WE, or OUR, can never beapplied to Jews alone.We do not find a single casewhere the apostle,after his conversion, puts himself into the category of the Jews, exceptwherehealludestohispast;forhisnationality,hisJudaism,hisformercourse, are all absorbed in the new relation. And every supposedclassificationofhimselfamongtheJewsshouldbeotherwiseexplained.

Wedonothesitatetolaydownthiscanon.Besides,themostrudimentaryinquirer intothescopeoftheepistles isawarethattheywerewrittentoChrist's disciples, to redeemed men, or such as professed to be so.Wherevertheapostle,then,makesuseofthisstyleoflanguage,includinghimself in theclassofmentowhomhespeaksofdoctrine,privilege,orduty, he writes to Christ's disciples as such, but neither to Jews norGentilesapart.Moreover,theGalatianstowhomhewrotewereGentiles.

It isa lowcommentof theRationalists, thatweare redeemed fromtheyoke of the Mosaic law. With that shallow interpretation many satisfythemselves,—supposingPaultosaythat,solongashewasaJew,hewassubject to the Mosaic law, from which he was now redeemed; or, asothers expound it, exposed to the constant risk of falling under theterrible penalties of the law, but was now free. In refutation of thiscomment, it may suffice to say that, however applicable in otherconnections, it ishereoutofplace; for thepassagedoesnotaffirmthatChristredeemedusfromallobediencetothelaw,orfromallrelationtothe law, but from its curse. The language is definite: it refers to thecondemning sentence or punishment awarded by the law, whether wehave regard towhat is temporalor eternal.Themeaning is, thatChristbought us out or redeemed us from the penalty; the language havingreferencetothecustomofredeemingacaptiveorslavebyransom.Thefigurewaspeculiarlyappropriate.

(2.)Asecondobjectionbytheopponentsofvicarioussatisfactionis,thatChristisnotsaidtohavebornetheSAMECURSE,thesameelementsofpenalvisitation,underwhichthoseliewhoareburdenedwiththecurseofthelaw.Theyholdthatitwasdifferentinkind;and,inaword,thatsofar as Christ was concerned, it had not the nature of a curse, andcontainednothingofpenalinflictionatthehandofGod.TheyallowthatHe bore the suffering of the cross as inflicted by the hand ofman, butadmitnodeeperelementofpunitiveinflictionatthehandofGod.Theirshallowcommentisreducedtothis,that,accordingtothelaw,themodeofdeathbycrucifixionhadacertainbrandorstigmaattachedtoit,notasan exponent of a deeper idea, but simply as a name amongmen or incommon estimation. Thus the mere name or fact of the crucifixion is,according to them, all the curse. In support of this view, it has been

ingeniously argued in modern times that the apostle does not say ofChrist,"beingmadeTHISCURSE,"which,itisallowed,wouldmeanthecurseofthelaw;andtheyallegethatsinceitissaid,"beingmadeAcurseforus," the interpretationwhichexplains theclauseof substitutionandpenalsufferingmustfalltotheground.

ThequestionwhetherourcursewasremovedfromusandlaidonChrist,must be dealt with in a different way. We cannot but resent thisinterpretationasunfair—asanexegeticalviolencewhichthestructureofthesentencewillnotendure.Itisadeliberateattempttoexplainawaythesimple and natural relation of the clauses. The apostle did not need tosay,"beingmadeTHISCURSEforus."Nay,itmighthavebeenliabletomisapprehension,moreespeciallyasthequotationfromtheMosaic lawwastobeimmediatelysubjoined.ButtheHolyGhostknowshowtousethemostappropriatewords,andtoputthemintheclearestsetting.First,mentionismadeofthecurseofthelawawardedtotransgressors;next,itis announced that we were liberated or discharged from that curse;thirdly,puttingcauseandeffecttogether,theapostleaffirmsthatsucharesult was brought about by Christ becoming a curse for us. WordscannotmoreexplicitlyteachthatHEWASMADEOURCURSE,andthatthe means of redemption was Christ's intervention as a curse-bearer.That is convincinglybroughtout in thepassage; andwemayaffirm, inthewordsofDr.South,whoinoneofhissalliesremarksuponthistext:"ScripturemustbecrucifiedaswellasChrist,togiveanyothertolerablesenseoftheexpressions."

ButmightitnotbePaul'sintentiontosaythatChristsufferedwhatmadeHIM APPEAR AS ACCURSED? Might he not mean that Christ wasrepresentedtomenasacurse,appearingasifHewereso,orsoreputedinmen'sesteem?No:thestatementwouldthenbenolongeranobjectiveone.We are not so toweaken or reduce the import of the expressions.TheysetforthAREALandnotASEEMINGCONNECTIONbetweensin-bearing and curse-bearing.All themenace orpenal sanctionof the lawwasdischargedontheLordasoursubstitute.Andthepassagebringsoutwhat Christ was IN GOD'S ACCOUNT and by God's appointment, notwhatHewasinman'srepute,andasHewastreatedbythehandsofmen.The absence of the definite article, or of the demonstrative pronoun

THIS, does not warrant us to think of any other curse, or anymodification or alteration of the specific curse incurred by us, andnecessarily inflicted for the violation of the divine law. It is not to berenderednor interpretedACURSELIKETHATWHICH ispronouncedby the law upon transgressors, and conveying merely the idea ofsimilarity or resemblance. That were but another form of themetaphorical or figurative theory of the atonement, with which theSocinianizingopponentsofsubstitutionandsatisfactionrestcontent.Butwecannotstopshort there.Theentireconnectionprovesthat it isTHEVERY CURSE OF THE BROKEN LAW, the very infliction impendingoverus,andstruckbyGod'sownhand,towhichPaulrefers.Wearenotto take the words as meaning that His enemies executed Him by amalefactor's death; for it was God Himself, and not His enemies, thatmadeHimacurse.

(3.)Thethirdobjectionis,thatChristcouldnotbesaidtobeacurseforus in the sense of undergoing THE VERY PENALTY IN OUR STEAD,because it was eternal death,—a doom which they allege He could notundergo,asHemustriseagain.Thatobjectioncouldnotbepropoundedbut bymenwho neither recognised the divine person of the Lord, norapprehended the infinitevalueofHissufferings.But inpointofdignityand value, the penal sufferings of such a person, though limited induration,were equivalent to eternal punishment; forHis divine naturehadaninfluenceonHissufferings,andputHiminapositionsuchasnomere man could ever occupy. We find, accordingly, that Scripture inmanypassagesfixesattentiononHispersonaldignity,anddeducesfromittheunspeakablevalueofHissufferings(Acts20:28;1Cor.2:8;1John1:7). Finite creatures could give no satisfaction, however lasting thedurationoftheirsufferings;whereasthedivinedignityoftheRedeemercounterbalancedthedurationofthecurse.Inintensivemerit,itwasthusa full equivalent to eternal death. And we may add that the endlesspunishment of the sinnerwouldnot benecessary,were he adequate toendure infinitewrath incombinationwith theotherconditionswhichasatisfactionpresupposes.

Christ's whole career was marked by vicarious curse-bearing; and wehavetonoticewhatitinvolved.Properlyconsidered,theentirelifeofthe

Lord,fromthemangertothecross,orrathertothegrave,wasacourseofsinless curse-bearing, because a course of sin-bearing. He was visitedwith the penal consequences of sin,with its curse andwages, from theday when He entered into humanity by incarnation. Already we haveproved at large that Christ, through His entire earthly history, wasconscious of occupying the position of a sin-bearing substitute; andwheresinwas,theretoothecursewas,itsinevitableaccompaniment.ThetermCURSEexpressesthepenalsanctionofthelaw;andwhenChristissodesignated,theimportis,thatthecurse,followingtheviolationofthelaw,wasexecutedonHim. Ithas thereforeeverything in commonwithcondemnationandwrath.Wemust,however,distinguishseveral thingswhenwe speak of Christmade a curse in our room and stead, lest nodefiniteorcorrectideashouldbeformedofthelanguage.

a. We must distinguish between the personal and the official in thismysterious transaction. Inconsiderate and revolting phraseology hasbeen sometimes here employed by certain ill-balanced minds. GodcertainlydidnotviewtheRedeemerasthesinnermustneedsbeviewed,whenthelattercomesunderthefullinflictionofthedivinecurse.HedidnotregardHimpersonallyinanyotherlightthanasHisbelovedSon,onwhom He looked with infinite complacency, as at once His righteousServant and His only Son. But as the surety of His people, the Lorddescendedintothelowestabyssofthatcursewhichwehadincurred,andtasteddeath,thepenaltyofsin,thatwemightnevertasteofit.

b.NorwasitonlyinHisdeaththatHewasmadeacurseforus,thoughitculminateduponthecross;forthecurseofGod,thepenalsanctionofthedivine law, was expressed in Christ's life as well as in His death. Theoutlineortenorofthecurse,sketchedinGenesisinthenarrativeofthefall and its doom,may be read off in every particular from the earthlyhistoryoftheLord.Thelabour,sorrow,anddeathdenouncedonmaninthat primeval curse, may be seen in Christ in every variety of form inwhichtheycouldpossiblyattachtotheincarnateSon.Intoilandgrief,infrailty and fainting, in hunger and thirst, in want and weariness, inbearing the likenessofsinful flesh,wecan trace thiscurse-bearing—theunfailing attendant of sin-bearing. His earthly career was, in fact,pervadedbyitateverystep.ThoughHesawnocorruption,eitherliving

ordead—forsicknessordiseasecouldnot,asapersonalquality,attachtothesinlessOne—Heknewbysympathy,andinsomemysteriousway,too,by the miraculous healing of disease, what that part of the cursecomprehended. His death was a curse-bearing death, involving all theelementsofthesecondoreternaldeath,sofarastheprivativesense,theloss of God, is concerned—that heaviest part of a God-inflicted curse.Suchadeathalonecouldbeanadequateequivalentforthecurseofthelawduetotransgressors.

c. It isevidently identicalwith thecurseawardedto theviolatorsof thelaw. There is only one divine curse, and it is ours, but transferred to aSubstitutewhowasexemptfromitoneveryground,whetherwethinkofHisdivinedignityorsinlessperfection.Whether,therefore,weconsiderthe structure of this passage, or the nature of the transaction itself,wefind a full proof that it was vicarious curse-bearing; and all the effortsmade by the opponents of substitution to wrest this passage from thechurch—andnomeanshavebeenleftunused—areutterlyfutile.TheyareacompletefailureifweabidebyScripture,grammaticallyexpounded,asoursolecourtofappeal.Thewordscanconveynoothermeaningbutthis,that the Lord Jesus underwent the penalty we had merited, and wastreatedasanaccursedpersoninourstead,andsofreedusfromthecursebyvicariouslybearingit.

IV.Anotherpassage,paralleltotheformer,butwithanextensionoftheidea,isasfollows:Whenthefulnessofthetimewascome,GodsentforthHisSon,madeofawoman,madeunderthelaw,toredeemthemthatareunder the law, that we might receive the adoption of sons (Gal. 4:4).Redemption from the curse of the law was the scope of the formerpassage;redemptionfromthelawitself,consideredinitscovenantform,orastheconditionoflife,isthescopeofthis.

1.Thefulnessoftime,atwhichtheatonementwasaccomplished,isherenoticed. Itmay suffice to say, that thoughwe cannot enumerate all theelementsthatenteredintothatfulness,someareonthesurface.Afactsostupendouswasnottobeusheredinasanabruptphenomenon,withoutapreparatoryeconomyoftypeandprophecy,bymeansofwhichacircleofideasandapeculiarphraseologymightbeformedtobringithometomen'sminds,bothbeforetheincarnationandafterit.Asufficientreason

mustalsoappearwhysuchaprovisionwasnecessary;andthisnecessityrequiredtobehistoricallydisplayedinthefailureofhumanschemes.Notonlyartandeducation,cultureandcivilisation,butdivinelawitself,mustbetried.Theyweretried,andfoundinadequatetomeetthecase.

2. The sending forth of the Son of God is next mentioned as thepresuppositionor foundationof the ransom.TheexpressionshereusedunambiguouslyaffirmthattheSonexistedasadivinepersonwithGod,andveryGod,beforeHecametobemadeofwoman.Hewassent,intheexercise of love, by the first person of the Godhead; and no oneinterpretingwordsas they stand, canpermithimself to reduce them tothetame,flatsensethatJesuswasbutaman.HereHeismarkedoutasdivine. Hismission, and the possession of the divine nature, were notprecisely the ransom, but the presupposition of the ransom, giving itinfinitevalue,andrenderingitapplicabletothewantsofmillions.Butnoingredientofthepenalsanctionofthelaw,orofthepositiveobedience,couldbedispensedwithonthataccount.ItwasofnecessitytheworkofaGod-man,buttruehumansufferingandobedience.

3. The next gradation as here stated was, that Christ WASMADE OFWOMAN.Itmightpasswithoutchallengeonphilologicalgrounds,werewe to translate the clause BORN OF WOMAN; though it cannot bedisguised that the latter is preferred by many, in the interest of anerroneous tendency, viz. that theymay escape from the doctrine of thesupernatural conception of Jesus. The true rendering is, MADE OFWOMAN; and the language implies, that as the Son He had anothermode of existence, but became something thatHewas not. The divinesideofChrist'spersonhasbeenalreadynoticed:herePaul teacheswithequal clearnessHis true humanity. The incarnation of the Lord is herepresentedtousasadivinefact,thedeedofGodtheFather;elsewhereitisspokenofastheRedeemer'sownact(2Cor.8:9).Bynamingahumanmother from whom the Lord derived His human nature, the apostleplainlymeant toannounceHis trueandperfecthumanity,but in termswhichfullycoincidewiththeacknowledgedfactofHisbeingvirgin-born.Christ's derivation of humanity from Adam through His mother is nosmallorunimportantmatter inconnectionwithHisatonement: forHisfraternity, as our kinsmanRedeemer, absolutely dependsupon the fact

that He derived His humanity from the substance of His mother; andwithout thisHewouldneitherpossess thenaturalnor legalunionwithHis people, which must lie at the foundation of His representativecharacter. To be our GOEL or redeeming kinsman, the humanity withwhich He was invested could neither be brought from heaven, nor beimmediately created by the Godhead, but derived, as ours is, from ahuman mother; with this difference, that the Lord's humanity neverexisted in Adam's covenant, to entail either guilt or taint upon Himpersonally.Hemustbewithinthepaleofmankind,yetitssecondman,orsecond representative; personally exempt from every charge and fromeverydefilementdescendingfromthefirstman,butfreelyassumingguiltbyafederalengagementinourstead.Inaword,Hetookofmanallthatneeded redemption, a true body and a reasonable soul, without anypersonal obligation devolving onHim bymere necessity of nature; forwhatobligationorresponsibilitycouldattachtotheGod-man,thatis,tohumanity assumed into personal union with the Eternal Son?His wasrealhumanity,butsinless,—abody incorruptible,andareasonablesoulwithout a taint of imperfection; and this woman-born or virgin-bornRedeemer,withnopersonalresponsibilitiesderivedfromthefirstAdam,spontaneously engaged toassume themby consenting tobe the secondAdam.

4. The next thingmentioned in the text, and a further step, is:MADEUNDERTHELAW.ThisclauseaffirmsthatChristwasmadeunderthelawfor thesakeof thosewhowereunder the law,and thereforenotonHis own account or from any personal obligation. Had He beenpersonallysubjecttoit,thenHisobediencecouldonlyhaveavailedtoHispersonal release or discharge. But there was this difference betweenChrist and us, that we were born under the law by the condition ofcreaturehood,whileHewasspontaneouslymadeunderitfortheendsofsuretyship.

Thisclausedemandsspecialnoticeonanotherground. It isaffirmed incertainquarters,andespeciallybythosewhodonotadmittheevidencefor Christ's active obedience, that the apostle does not here name theransom,butleavesittobesoughtinthepreviouspassagerelatingtothecurse (Gal. 3:13). That is by nomeans the case; and an analysis of the

wordsmayconvinceanyonethattheransomorequivalentisasdefinitelynamed as in the other passage. The statement that Christ wasmade acursereferstoHispassiveobedience;thisstatement,thatHewasmadeunderthelaw,referstoHisactiveaswellassufferingobedience,ortothefulfillingofthelawinactionandsuffering.ThePRICEofredemptionisthereforenamed,anditisnothingbutHisincarnationandsubjectiontothe law.Theopinion that reconciliationandredemptionareeffectedbythe death of Christ, to the exclusion ofHis active obedience, is thus incollisionwiththispassage,andwithmanyotherpartsofScripture(Rom.5:19).WhenChristwasmadeunder the law, itwaswith a view to thatmeritoriousobediencebywhichweareaccountedrighteous,andtreatedasrighteous.

Theactiveobedienceconsideredasourransom,oraconstituentelementof the ransom, has encountered many futile objections. Thus someopposeitonthegeneralgroundthatthelawwasnotapplicabletonon-Jews,butconfinedtoIsrael.Buthoweversomeportionsofthelawmightbe limited to Israel, the moral law, adapted to man as man, and thereflection of the divine nature, was but a republication of the law ofnature.Itispreposteroustospeakofthiselement,thecoreandessenceofthewhole,aslimitedtoJews,whenitwasnotarbitrary,buteternal,andmust needs receive its fulfilment AS THE CONDITION OF LIFE (Gal.3:12).TheobediencetoitwasnecessaryalikeforGentilesandforJews.

It is further alleged by modern exegetes, that the expression MADEUNDERTHELAWmeansnomorethantobebornaJew.Thatisbynomeans the idea which the apostle expresses, nor does such aninterpretationreachthemeaning.Christ'smissionandsubjectiontothelaw were in order to redeem us: the one was the way to the other, asappearsfromthefinalparticle,whichconnectsthelastclauseoftheoneverse (ver. 4) with the first clause of the following verse (ver. 5). Wecannot translate "bornaJew,"because the relationof themeans to thedesign would be absolutely imperceptible; whereas the apostle, by therepetitionofthesamewords,intendstomakeitplain.Moreover,itmustbenoticed, that ifwe translate thewords"bornaJew" in theoneverse(ver.4),wemust,onallgroundsofconsistency,translatethesamewordsin the same way in the next verse (ver. 5). And what sense would be

conveyedbytheclausesthusrendered,"bornaJew,toredeemthemthatwerebornJews,"—asifHecameonlytoredeemtheJews?Nordoestheabsurdity end there. The next clause, also expressive of design, andintroducedbyafinalparticle,introducesawiderreferencewhenitsays,"that we might receive the adoption of sons." All this is natural andobvious,whenweapprehendthatredemptionbyChrist'satonementandobediencepaves thewayto the furtherblessingofadoption.Butontheother mode of interpretation, the sequence of thought would be asfollows:ChristwasbornaJew,toredeemthemthatwerebornJews,thatwe(theGentileGalatiansaswellasPaul)mightreceivetheadoptionofsons.TheredemptionoftheJewsismadethecauseoftheadoptionoftheGentiles.Thatissoabsurd,thatitneedsnoremark.Butall isplainandsignificantwhenwetakethewordsasalreadyexpounded,andrememberthat theessentialelementsof the lawwerewrittenontheconscienceoftheGentiles(Rom.2:15).

InthePaulineepistles,wheretheexpressionUNDERTHELAWseveraltimes occurs, it is always equivalent to being subject to the law (Rom.3:19, 6:14, 15; Gal. 4:21, 5:18; 1 Cor. 9:20). In all these passages theexpressionhasoneuniformsense:itdenotessubjectiontothelaw,withthe accessory idea that it has something burdensome and oppressive.These several passages arenot to bemingled and confounded.But onethingisevident:it isnotamerecircumlocutionforaJew.Themeaningis, that God sent His Son, made under the law, for the redemption ofthosewhowereunder the law in all its breadthofmeaning.NowJewsandGentileswereequallyunderthe law,as theconditionof life,bythefactofcreaturehood(Rom.2:14,3:9).

Two things are comprehended. The first is, that the Lord Jesus, whenmadeunderthelawforourdeliverance,musthavefulfilledallitsclaims,according to the terms. And as we were bound, according to essentialhumanrelations, to thestrictestobedienceon theonehand,and to theendurance of the curse on the other—that is, to the precept and thepenalty—theapostleaffirmsthatbothwerefulfilledbyChristinourroom(3:10,12).That isthefulfilmentofthelawinthefullsenseoftheterm.The secondpoint is, thatwhateverChrist rendered in this capacitywasdoneasoursubstitute,andfor thebenefitof thosewhowereunderthe

law.TheobjectionofthosewhoimpugntheelementofactiveobedienceaspartoftheLord'satoningworkis,thatChristwasunderobligationasmantoobeyforHimself,likeeveryrationalcreature.Theanswertothis,asitwasuniformlygivenbytheLutheran,andalsobythebestReformeddivines, on the ground of such passages, as the present, was, thathumanitywasassumedbytheSonofGodintotheunityofHisperson,tobeaninstrumentororganinHiswork;thatitexistedonlyinthepersonof the Son, and never apart from Him; that the law as such had nocompetentauthorityovertheSonofGod,whowasHimselfthelawgiver;thatHishumannature,alsocalledtheSonofGod,wasnotunderthelaw,but exempt from it in any covenant form; and therefore that He wasmadeunderthelaw,notbecauseHehadahumannature,butbecauseHewilledtobeunderit,tofinishaworkofobediencewhichmightbegivenawaytothosewhohadnone.Thiswasmeritoriousobedience,andgiventousasadonation.

5.The fruitorbenefitderived fromChrist's subjection to the law isourredemptionand,atasecondremove,ouradoption.Thetwofinalclauses,whichrefertothesetwoblessingsasthefruitofChrist'sransom,maybeco-ordinate,assomeviewthem,orsubordinated in thissense, thatonepaves the way for the other. Both clauses, however, refer withoutdistinction to Jews and Gentiles. By the obedience of Christ both areequally redeemed: then follows the blessing of adoption, of which thefurtherresultisthesendingforthoftheSpiritofadoptionintoourhearts(ver.6).

V. The apostle strikingly utters his view of the atonement, when hedeclares, in contrast to the errorists,who adhered to rites, ceremonies,andlegalobservances:GodforbidthatIshouldglory,saveinthecrossofourLordJesusChrist,bywhom[better,bywhich]theworldiscrucifieduntome,andIuntotheworld(6:14).Fromthefulnessofhisheart,asamanandapostle,hedeclareshisattachmenttothecross,thatis,toChristcrucifiedastheonlygroundofacceptance,discardingallsupplementaryadditionswithholyzeal.Heelsewhereaffirmsthatboasting isexcluded(Rom.3:27);butlegalboastingisdisplaced,thatgloryingintheLord,orgloryinginChristcrucified,maybegin(see1Cor.1:30).Onlytwothingsdemandnoticehereasbearingonourtheme.

1. The cross, viewed as a propitiatory sacrifice, is described as the soleground of a Christian's boast or glorying. The antithesis in which thewords occur repudiates every other plea but the finished work of thecross,butalsoimpliesthatthereisaboastinginwhichtheChristiancannevergotoofarorindulgetoofrequently.Hegloriedinthecrossastheexpiationofsin,thefulfilmentofthelaw,thecauseofreconciliation,theransom of the church, the propitiation for our sins, and the sacrificialbloodwhichbringsusnearandkeepsusneartoGodinworship.

2.Thefruitoftheatonementisatwofoldcrucifixion.Therelativeclause,commencingwithBYWHOM,mayeitherrefer to thepersonalSaviour,according to the rendering of the English version, or to the cross, BYWHICHthisresultisgained.Thesetwoclausesdenotethedissolutionofrelations between Paul and the world, effected by the cross. The firstclause, THEWORLD IS CRUCIFIEDTOME,means that it became tohimunwelcome, distasteful, undesirable, like a crucifiedperson. Itwasnailed to the cross, whether we suppose the allusion is to the world'sattractionsortoitslegalrighteousness.Inbothrespectsitwascrucified,andinfluencedhimaslittleasadeadmanordeadthingcoulddo.Butitisadded,IAMCRUCIFIEDTOTHEWORLD.Thatclauseiscommonlyinterpreted,Theworldhascastmeout,asnoobjectofitsfavour,andasalientoit.ThetwoclauseswillthussetforthrespectivelyPaul'sestimateof the world, and the world's estimate of him. This is the usualinterpretationoftheclauses,andamountstothis:thatPaullookedontheworld, from the view-point of the cross, as an object that no morecommendeditselftohim;andthattheworld,conversely,accountedhimas worthy of contempt, because he so strenuously commended andenforced the one grandobject of a sinner's confidence,—namely,Christcrucified,totheJewsastumbling-block,andtotheGreeksfoolishness.

The latter part of this commentary does not seem so appropriate oradapted to theapostle'sdesign.Hisobjectwasnot somuch todescribewhattheworldthoughtofhim,ashowhestoodaffectedtotheworld.Thesecondclause,ANDITOTHEWORLD,seemsrathertointimatethat,bythepotentialityinherentinthecross,insofarasitrectifiedhisrelationtowardGod,andbroughtinnewlifetohissoul,hewasdeadtotheworld.Iftheformerclauseaffirmedthattheworld,assurveyedfromthecrossin

whichhe gloried,was as a dead and crucified object in his esteem, thepresentclausewillrathersetforththatHISHEARTWASDEADTOIT.Another object had so won his heart, that his tastes, desires, andsympathies were, as it were, dead within him, so far as the world wasconcerned.Hedrewno confidence from the legal rites,whichwerebutelementsoftheworldinhisesteem(Gal.4:3),andhadnohankeringorlookingbehindinreferencetoitsallurementsandattractions.Hedidnotdallywiththeworld,ormaintainanyrelationswithit,whenhesawhowalien it was to the aims and aspirations of one who gloried in Christcrucified,andwhowashimselfcrucifiedwithhisLord(Gal.2:20).Thislatter thought, that the apostlewas crucifiedwithChrist, and thereforeonewhonolongersoughthislifeintheworld(Col.2:20),willenableustoapprehend the forceof theexpression. It is this:Paulwaspersonallydeadtotheworld,becausebythecrosshewasthepropertyofanother,—oneofthepeculiarpeopleorheritagethatChristhadwonbyHisatoningblood.PaulfeltthathewasOBJECTIVELYCRUCIFIEDwithChrist,andhisINNERFEELINGScorrespondedto thechange.Henomoresoughtthatworld,norlivedforit, thanadeadmanisattractedbyitshonours,pleasures, or emoluments; and it was the cross that made the greatrevolution.

SEC.XIII.—THEEPISTLETOTHEEPHESIANS

The Epistle to the Ephesians and the Epistle to the Colossians have acloseaffinity toeachother,asdeveloping thePaulineChristology.Theyput the atonement in contrast with an incipient Gnosticism, whichsubstituted ideas or mere speculative knowledge for the realities ofChrist'swork.Insomeepistles,asinthattotheRomans,Paulappearsastheexpounderofdivinetruthinitswideconnections.Inothers—asintheEpistlestotheCorinthians,Timothy,andTitus—heappearsasthepastor,issuing counsels, admonitions, and directions. In these Epistles to the

Ephesians and Colossians there is a certain reference to the orientalspeculations then beginning to thrust themselves on the notice of theChristianchurch;andPaul,indisplayinghisknowledgeinthemysteryofChrist(Eph.3:4),appearsmoreastheprophetgivingabundantfulnessofspiritual revelations. The principal thought of these epistles is thepersonal Christ, the medium of divine communications, Head over allthingstothechurch,unitingJewandGentileunderHimselfastheironeHead,andthelinkconnectingallthingswithGodandwithoneanother.On these points we have striking revelations, nowhere else so fullyimparted.

Allusions to the atonement run through the Epistle to the Ephesians,evenwherenoexpressstatementsaregivenastoitsnature.Thus,inthereferencetoChrist'slove,wecannotfailtoseeanunderlyingallusiontoHisatonement(Eph.3:18).Whenthethought isbrought in,"Now,thatHeascended,what is it but thatHe alsodescended first into the lowerparts of the earth?" we have an allusion to His atonement as thefoundation of His throne (Eph. 4:9). When mutual forgiveness isenforcedbytheconsiderationthatGodforChrist'ssakehathforgivenus,thatforgivenessisconnectedwiththeworkofChrist(4:32).Butomittingpassages which assume the atonement rather than express it, we shallconfineourselvestothosewhicharedefinite.

I.Thefirstpassageonthesubjectoftheatonementisthusexpressed:Inwhomwe have redemption throughHis blood, the forgiveness of sins,according to the riches of His grace (Eph. 1:7). The apostle celebratesGod's praise for spiritual blessings, for election in Christ, and for allcontemplatedbyelection(Eph.1:3).Whenweanalyzethestructureofthesentence,hedoesnotsayBYWHOM,asheusuallydoes, todenote themeritorious cause, but IN WHOM. The words IN CHRIST sometimesmeanunion,whenthewordshavean independentposition,andcanbetaken apart (2 Cor. 12:2). Here, however, the expression IN WHOMdenotes in His person objectively, as the surety or ground of oursalvation.ForChristisapublicperson,andwehaveredemptioninawaysimilar andparallel to the condemnationwhichwehave inAdam. In aword,redemptionissetforthobjectivelyinChrist'sperson,whoofGodismade to us redemption (1 Cor. 1:30). All the expressions coincidewith

this interpretation; for it isnot said thatweACQUIREredemption,butthatweHAVEITinHim(ἔχομεν).Thetestimonyofthispassagemaybetakenupinthefollowingpoints:—

1. The apostle not only mentions the redemption, but subjoins theransom,viz.THEBLOODofHimwhohadjustbeencalledtheBeloved.This establishes the reality of both. The language is not ametaphor orsimilitude, according to the Socinian comment; it means that we areredeemedbybloodasaransom.Theoriginaltermdenotesdeliverancebya price; and the obvious sense is, that we are redeemed from a REALcaptivity,byaREAL,notafigurativeransom.Thetheoryofametaphormakesbutametaphoricalsalvation.

As to the featuresof thedoctrineas set forthby theseexpressions.Thefirst and fundamental idea is, that man as a sinner has fallen underpunitivejustice,whichholdshimcaptive.Thesecondthoughtis,thattheransomisChrist'svicariousdeath,orHisbloodconsideredastherealityof the ancient sacrifices, and procuring the full redemptionwhich theybutfiguredforth.HegaveHimselfaransomtoredeemHispeople(Matt.20:28; 1Cor.6:20; 1Tim.2:6);and thisHeeffectedbybecoming theircurse(Gal.3:13).Athirdideais,thatGod,towhosejusticethepricewaspaid,securedthedischargeorliberationofthecaptive.Asthelawwasaninstitution for themaintenanceofwhich justicewatched, thisdecidesaquestionmore frequently adduced for polemical purposes than for anyother object: Towhomwas the ransom paid—toGod or to Satan? Theanswer is, Satan had nothing to do with it, being themere jailor, nay,criminalhimself.TheransomwaspaidtothepunitivejusticeofGod.Thestatement then is, that the personal Christ is of God made to usredemption,andthatwehaveredemptionINHIM.

2.Forgivenessofsinissubjoinedinanapposition-clause,asaconvertibleterm.Theredemptionconsistsessentially in forgiveness;and the latter,initsgrammaticalconnection,setsforthmorepreciselytheimportoftheformer. They are here adduced as equivalent and convertible. It isevident, in the first place, that a direct causal connection is affirmedbetweenthebloodofChristandforgivenessofsins.Thepassagedoesnotstate thatChrist'smissionwas to revealanabsolute forgiveness,and tosealHis testimonybyHisdeathas amartyr.The two thingsareput in

suchconnection,thattheforgivenesscanonlybeviewedasthedirectandimmediateresultoftheatoningdeath,asthebloodofsacrificeintheoldeconomywas the direct cause of forgiveness to the Jewishworshipper.Christ'sbloodalone,withoutanyadditionofours,orworksof law,hadtheeffectofwinningforgivenessorexemptionfrompunishment.

Buthowareredemptionandforgivenessmadeconvertibleterms?Mightwe not rather expect to hear that the redemptive act of Christ was thecause of forgiveness? Undoubtedly a connection of cause and effect isaffirmedintheverse,aswehavealreadynoticed.Butthereisasenseinwhich the redemption of the one clause, and the forgiveness whichexplainsitinthenextclause,haveanobjectiverealityforusinChristasapublic person; and this is the point of the expression. As was noticedabove, therewasaNON-IMPUTATIONOFSIN tousat the timewhenChristwasmade SIN for us (2 Cor. 5:19–21), and the two thingswenthand in hand. That non-imputation of sin to us was not a meresubsequent result of Christ's sacrifice, but in some sense an essentialelement of the Lord's redemptive act. It had an application to all forwhomHedied,andwhosepersonHerepresentativelysustained.

3. The passage further shows the consistency between Christ's atoningblood,thepriceofpardon,andtheexerciseof freegrace.Thoughithasbeenmuchurgedthatoneoftheseelementsmustofnecessityexcludetheother,botharehereaffirmed,andperfectlyconsistent.Thoughnotfoundtogetherinhumantransactions,theyarefoundinthemoralgovernmentof God; for the divine administration differs from that of man in thisrespect, thatGod's rightsare inalienable.Hecouldnot recede fromHisrights even when He purposed to redeem and pardon, but vindicatedthem to the full; and this single text meets all cavils against theconsistency of these two things—complete satisfaction and free grace.Whilepardon,therefore,istousagratuitousgift,itwasprocuredbythepaymentofaprice.

II.Anothertestimony,havingreferencetotheeffectofChrist'sdeath inreconciling Jew and Gentile to each other, because reconciling both toGod, iscontained in thenextchapter:Butnow, inChristJesus,yewhosometimes[better,once]were faroffarenowmadenighby[better, in]thebloodofChrist.ForHe isourpeace,whohathmadebothone,and

hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us; havingabolished in His flesh the enmity, even the law of commandmentscontainedinordinances;fortomakeinHimselfoftwainonenewman,somakingpeace;andthatHemightreconcilebothuntoGodinonebodybythecross,havingslaintheenmitythereby[or,inHimself](Eph.2:13–16).Throughout this chapter the apostle brings under our notice a twofoldalienation and a twofold reconciliation,with a sketchof themethodbywhich thedisunionwasbrought toanend.Ontheonehand, therewasfrom their birth a deep alienation of mankind from God (vers. 3, 12),alongwithadivisionbetweenJewsandGentiles.Ontheotherhand,theapostle refers to the historic fact of Christ's atonement as a divinelyinstitutedmethodbywhichmen,disunitedbymutualhostility,meetinahigherunity,andbecomeonenewman(ver.15),onecityofGod(ver.19),one temple or habitation of God (ver. 21). I shall endeavour, with allbrevity, to set forth the testimony here given to the atonement in itsnatureandeffects,omittingsuchpointsasdonotdirectlybearuponthethemewhichengagesourattention.

1. As to the nature of the atonement, the number and variety ofexpressions here used to connect it with Christ's person are full ofsignificance,apartfromtheimmediateoccasionwhichcalledthemforth.But the reason why such phrases are so copiously employed mayprobably be deduced from the fact, that the Gnostic speculations, theoppositions of science falsely so called, as the apostle elsewhere stylesthem, looked upon matter, and therefore upon our Lord's organizedhumanbody,withdisfavour, and formedpresumptuous theories of thedivine nature and absolute Godhead apart from the person of the oneMediator betweenGod andman. The apostle shows that reconciliationwas effected by an outward fact in the body of Christ's flesh throughdeath; whereas the Docetism to which we have referred denied thecorporeity of Christ, or ascribed to Him a phantom-body. We mayenumerateafewoftheexpressionswhichtheapostleuses,andarefullofmeaning,apartfromanyconnectionwiththeirorigin.

Thus the apostle connects the atonement with the personal Redeemerwhenhedeclares,inthefirstplace,"HEisourpeace,"anddescribestheLord as "slaying the enmity in Himself." Secondly, he shows that the

atonementwasconnectedwitha truehumanityor corporeity, endowedwithacapacityofsufferingandobedience,whenhesays,"thatHemightreconcile both IN ONE BODY:" for the allusion is to the procuring ofredemption,nottoitsapplication;anditismorenaturaltoexpoundthephrase of CHRIST'S HUMAN BODY, than of His body the church.Thirdly, when the enmity is said to be abolished "in His flesh," thelanguagerefers,asinotherpassages,totheconditionofabasementandpenalcurse-bearing,towhichtheatoningLordspontaneouslysubjectedHimself. Fourthly, when it is said, "that He might reconcile bothTHROUGH THE CROSS," themeaning is that the curse, of which thecrosswastheexponent,wasborneandexhaustedonthetree.Fifthly,theblood of Christ, the cause of bringing us near to God, is described assacrificialblood(ver.13).AllthesedescriptivetermsservetoprovethattheatonementwasthesurrenderofHimselftoGodinatruehumanity.

Butafurtherideahereis,thatChriststoodasapublicperson—ASONEFORMANY. The representative character of the transaction cannot bemistaken; for the redeemedchurch ishere consideredas found inHimwho,accordingtocovenant,boretheirpersonsandoccupiedtheirplace,and,asaresponsiblesurety,representedthembeforeGod.Hesustainedtheir persons in His own body on the cross; that is, He, as a publicperson, in one body, sustained, through life and in death, theresponsibilities of those who are described as His church. In His onehumanity,He represented allwhohadbeen givenHim, and reconciledthemonthecross.Thusall isrunuptothepersonofChrist.Thewholeperson atoned,—the humanity suffering, the deity giving it worth; theaction being that of the God-man. The entire person acted in theatonement as in every mediatorial act,—the humanity being obedient,andthedeitygivinginfinitevaluetoallHedid.

2.As to the fruits of the atonement, ofwhich several arementioned intheseverses, the first inorder isNEARNESSTOGODINTHEBLOODOFCHRIST(ver.13).Itisbynomeansnecessarytoaltertheforceofthepreposition:forthesameexpressionisusedbyourLordattheinstitutionoftheSupper,"ThisisthenewcovenantINMYBLOOD"(1Cor.11:25);intimating that Christ's atoning blood was the element, sphere, ormediumINWHICHthenewcovenantwasformed,andinwhich,asitis

here put, they whowere far off aremade nigh. The language refers tosacrificial blood, which put men in covenant with God. Thus Israel atSinaiwasbythesprinklingofbloodmadethepeopleofGod,neartoHim,and fromyear to yearpreserved in covenantby theblood sprinkledonthemercy-seat.Theexpression"farfromGod,"or"faroff,"wasaphraseincommonuse todesignate theGentiles (Isa.49:1;Acts2:39);and thestatementis,thatthebloodofatonementmadethosenighwhowerefaroff, orput them in covenant relation toGod, asmembersof a spiritualsocietyofwhichChrististhehead.

3.Asanotherfruitoftheatonement,thetitleOURPEACEisascribedtoChrist(ver.14).Someinterpretthisasmeaningthecauseofourpeace,orour peacemaker, which gives a competent sense. More precisely,however, the title refers to Christ as our peace or reconciliationobjectively considered,andwith regard toour relation towardGod; thepresentversebeingagroundingstatement,withthecausalparticlefor,toshowthe foundationofournearness.Theprimary import,according totheanalogyofnumerouspassages,is,thatChristisobjectivelyourpeace,asHeisalsocalledourrighteousnessandredemption(1Cor.1:30).ButwhileHe ispre-eminentlyourpeace towardGod,He isalso thegroundandfoundationofpeaceineveryotherrelation;as,forinstance,betweenmanandman.

4.Asanother fruitof theatonement,anendwasput totheJewish law,considered asA PARTITION-WALL between Jew andGentile. The lawwassocalled,either,asmanythink,fromthewallorfenceinthetemplewhich shut out the Gentiles from the access which the Jewishworshippersenjoyed;or,asothersthink,fromthefencebywhichonecityor territory was walled off from another. The ceremonial law given toIsraelasaseparatepeople,andofpositiveappointment,wascapableofbeingremovedwhenitspurposewasserved;beingdestinedtocontinueonlytilltherealityortruesacrificewhichitforeshadowedshouldappear.Accordinglythecross,inwhichthelawfounditsaccomplishment,putaperiodtotheceremonies.Theywerenotsimplyrevoked,butfulfilled:theatonement of the cross terminated the ceremonies, the law ofcommandmentscontainedinordinances,forever.

5.TheatonementmadeJEWANDGENTILEONE (ver. 15).Previously

theJewsregardedtheGentilesasunclean,andtheGentilesontheirsideretaliatedbyeverymarkofcontumely,brandingtheJewsasthecommonenemiesof thehumanrace.Bymeansof thecross, theywhopreviouslyweresunderedmetinahigherunity,onaplatformaboveandbeyondthecausesofdivision;andastheystoodonthesamelevelofreconciliation,theybecameonenewmaninChrist(ver.15),whoreconciledtheminonebody by the cross (ver. 16). The atonement terminated the alienation,placingmenona footingofequalitybefore the throneofGod;and thiswas effected really, not typically, by the cross, which gave to allnationalities the position of a people near toGod, andmade Jews andGentilesone.

6. The explicit biblical expression for the effect of the atonement isreconciliation in all relations, as expressed in these words: "That HemightreconcilebothuntoGodinonebodybythecross,havingslaintheenmityinHimself"(ver.16).Thisfulldescriptionmaybetakenupinfourpointsofinquiry.

a.Whoare theparties reconciled?Theanswer is,Godon theone side;and the twofold nationality, that is, Jews and Gentiles, on the other.Nothing canbemoreexplicit than thisdeclaration thatChrist's comingwasintendedtoreconciletwoparties,—theonepartybeingGod,andtheotherpartymankind;andtheobviouspresuppositionis,thatbeforehanddisunion existed between God and man. Now, according to Scripture,reconciliationwaseffectedbytheremovalofsin,sofarasitwasthecauseof arming divine indignation against us. It is often said, that from thevery nature of God as love, with friendly sentiments toward men, itbecomesus to thinkof reconciliationonlyonman's side.That is bynomeansthecase;forGod'sprocedureandmoodofmindinarelativepointof view have undergone a change in consequence of a great historicaltransaction,as ismanifest fromthe fact that it isnot simplysaid, "Godhas reconciled us," but, "God has reconciled us to Himself by JesusChrist"(2Cor.5:18).Thetwothingstherecombinedare,thattheworldwas reconciledTOHIMSELF,and that thiswaseffectedby thehistoricFACToftheatonement;andreconciliationtoHimselfimpliesthatangerandpunitive justicewereremovedbytheatonement.Thesamething isexpressed in the verse under consideration. The acting party is Christ,

whoissaidtoreconcilebothuntoGod.Andwhenitisaddedthatthiswasaccomplished, not by an absolute pardon, but in one body and by thecross, we have the same allusion to the great historic fact of theatonement,asthegroundonwhichthereconciliationwaseffected.

b.Inwhomwasthereconciliationbroughtabout?INONEBODY,thatis,inChrist'sbody.Someprefer toexpound thisexpressionof thechurch,butitiseverywaybettertoexplainitoftheLord'sownbody,becauseitissimilartotheparallelpassageinColossians(Col.1:22);andtheallusionis plainly limited to the way of PROCURING reconciliation, not to theway of APPLYING it. The reconciliation was effected in one historicperson, in one second man, the counterpart of the first man; and thechurchwasreconciledinoneformany,andthereforenotbyworksoflaworpersonaldeedswhichwehavedone.

c. By what was the reconciliation accomplished? BY THE CROSS,—agreat fact in the world's history, and the culminating point of Christ'sobedienceuntodeath.Thequestionraisedis,WasthecrossanobjectivefactforGodaswellasforusmen?DiditreconcilethechurchtoGod,asitweighedwithGod,ormerelyas itmoves thehumanheart?Thephraseshows that reconciliation restsonChrist'swork, and consequentlyonafact;and thisobjective factwasreconciling,notas itmoved thehumanheart,orusheredinanewconductonman'spart,butasitintroducedanewrelationorstandinginwhichmenwereplacedbeforeGod.

d.Bywhatmethodwasthereconciliationaccomplished?Theanswer is,HAVINGSLAINTHEENMITYINHISCROSS,orinHIMSELF;forthedifferencebetweenthetwomodesofrenderingthephraseissosmallinpointofmeaning,thatwemayequallyaffirm,HeslewtheenmityinHiscross,or,HeslewtheenmityinHimselfascrucified.Whatenmity?Notthe alienationbetween Jews andGentiles, towhich referencehadbeenmadeinthepreviousverse,foritwouldbeameretautologytorepeatithere. Rather we must understand the expression as alluding to themutualenmitybetweenGodandmanextinguishedbythecross.

AsonepassagepersonifyingsinspeaksofcondemningitinChrist'sflesh(Rom.8:3),sotheenmitypersonifiedinthepresentpassageissaidtobeslain;andthequestionisraised,How?DuringthedaysofHisflesh,the

Lord,bytakingonHimthesinsofHispeople,as thecauseofdisunionandenmity,sufferedHimself tobetreatedasanobjectofdivinewrath,though in realityHis belovedSon.OnHis person, the object of eternallove,thesinofmanandthewrathofGodcameintocollisionasneverhadbeen seen since the world began. The Lord experienced both to theutmost, and by so doing annihilated the enmity for all whom Herepresented. Whether we look at the one body of the Lord, or at Hisactivity,weseethesphere,thelocality,themediumofreconciliation.

Thesubstanceofthistestimonymaybethussummedup.TheLordJesusreconciled Jews and Gentiles to each other, not because He brought agood disposition to the disunited parties, but becauseHe procured forbothfreeaccesstoGod(ver.18):HereconciledbothtoGodbyHiscross.Did the atonement turn towardmen the favourofGod, orwas it but amanifestationofanalreadyexistingrelationoflove?Scriptureuniformlydeclares,thatwhiletheprovisionemanatedfromtheloveoftheFather'sheart, the atonement was the great historic fact by which the enmitybetween God and man was objectively removed, and men made theobjectsoffavour.Thenonlywasafriendlyrelationactuallycemented.

III. Another passage is descriptive of the death of Christ as a sacrifice,andenablesustotraceHispriestlyactioninofferingit:Walkinlove,asChristalsohath lovedus,andhathgiven [better,delivered]Himselfanofferingandasacrifice toGodforasweet-smellingsavour[or,asweet-smellingsavourtoGod](Eph.5:2).Inthecontexttheapostleinculcatesmutual forgiveness from the example of God (Eph. 4:32), and thenmutual love from that illustrious instance of lovewhich theLord Jesusgave in His atoning death, represented as the offering of a sacrifice.Though the idea of sacrifice is nowhere fully exhibited except in theEpistletotheHebrews,theexpositorwoulddoviolencetotheimportoflanguage were he to deny that we have here an allusion to a priestlyoffering.

That Christ was a priest on earth, and offered an oblation before Hisascension to His Father, appears from this easy analysis of the text:—Whooffered?Christ.WhatdidHeoffer?Notsomethingexternal,notthebloodofothers,butHimself.ForwhomdidHeoffer?Forus.Andinwhatmanner was it accomplished? As an offering and sacrifice. From these

questions, furnishing a simple analysis of the passage, we maywarrantablycollectthatChristofferedHimselfastheonetrue,ever-validsacrificetowhichtheshadowsoftheformereconomypointed.Noris itnecessary to supply any ellipsis in order to complete the sense; for theapostle'swords explicitly affirm, in the formhere presented to us, thatthesacrificewasnotsomethingapartfromthepersonalChrist,notsomeactiontobeimitated,butChristdeliveringHimselfforus.

Which class of the sacrifices was before the apostle's mind? Withoutdoubt,thepropitiatorysacrifices,andnotthethank-offerings.Whenwelook at the two terms, it is thought by some that the first denotes anoffering or sacrifice in general, and that the second, subjoined aselucidatingthefirst,denotesabloodysacrificeofapropitiatorycharacter.Others roundlyaffirm,much in the samewayasdid theSociniansof aformer age, that the apostle had not the idea of an expiatory sacrificebeforehismind.Partlyfromthetermsdescriptiveofthesacrifice,partlybecause of the additional phrase, "for a sweet-smelling savour," theyargue that the apostle refers to the free-will offerings; and the entirepassage, thus interpreted, conveys nothing beyond the thought thatChrist leftusanexample.Butwhilehe represents the richesofChrist'sloveforourimitation,hehadalsobeforehismindtheideaofanatoningsacrifice.

1. With regard to the terms here used, the first of the two, renderedOFFERING,maydenoteafree-willofferingpresentedtoGodintokenofgratitudeandhomage,butisalsodescriptiveofpropitiatorysacrifices,aswillappearfromafewpassages.Thus,intheEpistletotheHebrewstheterm is used in the phrase, "Where forgiveness of these is, there is nomore offering for sin" (προσφορὰ) (Heb. 10:18). In like manner, thewriteravailshimselfof the samewordwhenhe represents thedeathofChrist as the ONE OFFERING which perfected for ever them that aresanctified(Heb.10:14).There isnoquestion, then,astotheapplicationof the term to propitiatory sacrifices; and as to the second word, "anofferingandSACRIFICE"(θυσίαν),nothingwarrantsustolimittheideaunderlying it toa free-willgift,as theapostleseveral timesuses it forapropitiatory sacrifice. Passages in the Epistle to the Hebrews put thisusagebeyondalldoubt;as,forexample,"whoneedethnotdaily,asthose

highpriests,TOOFFERUPSACRIFICEfirst forhisownsins,andthenforthepeople's"(Heb.7:27).Andmanyotherpassagesmightbeadduced(Heb.5:1,8:3,9:9,23,26,10:5,11,26).

2.Theadditionalphrase,"forasweet-smellingsavour,"hasbeenadducedas an argument against the application of the terms to propitiatorysacrifices, because free-will offerings are often represented as a sweet-smelling savour to God; but we have only to examine the ritual, to beconvincedthattheexpressionwasalsoappliedtoatoningsacrifices.Itisthe expression used in Genesis in connection with the burnt-offeringswhichNoahofferedwhenhecameoutof theark,—"TheLordsmelledasweetsavour"(Gen.8:21);and it isusedof theburnt-offeringonwhichtheworshipperwastoputhishand(Lev.1:4,9).Norwasitlimitedtotheburnt-offering, though frequently mentioned in that connection in thesacrificial ritual (Lev. 1:13, 17); for the expression is also employed inreference to thesin-offering,whetherbrought toexpiate theoffencesofthe individual worshipper (Lev. 4:31), or offered annually for thecollectivesinsofthenationonthegreatdayofatonement(Lev.16:25).Inthelast-mentionedtext,theburningofthefatuponthealtarwaswithaviewtoproducethesweet-smellingsavour.

Afurtherquestionis,whetherthelanguagereferstotheburnt-offeringorthe sin-offering. It may without violence be referred to either: for theargument of Alting, Witsius, and Deyling, against the possibility ofreferring the passage to the sin-offering, on the ground that the sin-offering is never represented as a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour,restsonamistake.ThusWitsiusmaintainsthatonlythosesacrificesaresaid to be of a sweet-smelling savour to which the addition of oil andfrankincensecouldbemade(Lev.2:2–9),andthattheseadditionscouldnot bemade to the sin-offering (Lev. 5:11). That is not true in point offact, as has already been proved from Leviticus (Lev. 4:31, 16:25); andthereisnothingintheallusiontoasacrificeofsweet-smellingsavourthatdecidesthequestioneitherway,asitisappliedbothtotheburnt-offeringand to the sin-offering. In that respect therewasnodifference.But thecomplexionof the language inclinesus, if it isduly considered, to referthetermsrathertotheburnt-offeringthantothesin-offering;forwhentheNewTestamentwritermorespecificallyreferstothesin-offering,the

additional words, FOR SIN, are commonly subjoined (Rom. 8:3; Heb.10:18,26).Theconclusiontowhichwearedisposedtocomeis,thattheseterms,descriptiveoftheLord'ssacrifice,donotsonaturallyexpressthespecific idea of the sin-offering, inasmuch as that additional formula isneitherappendednorindicatedbythecontext.

The apostle seems to refer to the burnt-offering when he affirms thatChrist loved us, and deliveredHimself for us. This is confirmed by thefact that he emphatically alludes to the love of the Offerer, and to theoblationorsacrificeconsideredasanactiondone.Hadtheapostlebeenalludingtothesin-offering,theideaofsinwouldinsomewayhavebeenprominent.Hence thewords comprehendHis entire earthly activity, asone uninterrupted continuous sacrifice from first to last, reaching itsculmination in His cross. The typical burnt-offering figured forth thededication of the entireman, with all His powers and faculties, or theperfect fulfilling of the Father'swill, and sanctifying ofHimself for oursakes(John17:19),onlyaccomplishedwhenHesaid,"Itisfinished."Thededication of the Lord during His earthly career, till the obediencereacheditsclimaxonthecross,wasadumbratedbytheburnt-offeringasasacrificeofsweet-smellingsavour.ThetypefounditstruthintheLord'sholy life and obedience unto death; and therein He gave the NewTestamentaccomplishmenttotheOldTestamentshadow.

This fact, that thedeath ofChrist, as an atoning sacrifice,was fragrantandwell-pleasingtoGod,provestwothings—thatthecrosswasnotonlya PROPITIATIONof divinewrath, but anACCEPTABLEOBEDIENCE.Notonlydiditappeasedivinewrath,italsoconvertedGod'srelationintoone of favour. It was merit as well as expiation. The passage is soexpressed as to show that theLord's deathwas an infinitely acceptabledeed;thatsinlessnessandsin-bearingwerecombinedinHissacrificeinsuchway,thatwhilepunishmentwasexpiated,thedivineclaimswereallsatisfied,andthatsindidnotinanysenseattachtothepersonalhumanlifeofJesusofNazareth.Thesacrificewaswell-pleasing,becausewithoutblemish and defect Personally perfect, but officially the object of thedivinewrathbyreasonofsin-bearing,theLord,byHisvicariouslifeanddeath,offeredasacrificeofasweet-smellingsavour,—thatis,acceptableto God in the utmost conceivable degree. The cross displays wrath

appeased,death endured,punitive justice vindicated, butdoesnot stopthere,accordingtothetoocommonrepresentationoftheatonementevenbyitsadvocates.Itwasalsoalaw-magnifyingobedience,thefulfilmentoftheconditionunderwhichmanwasoriginallyplaced,thepurchaseoflife,thetitletotheinheritance;andtheacceptablenessoftheLord'satoningsacrificewastypifiedbythefragranceorsweet-smellingsavouroftheoldburnt-offering(Lev.16:17).

Some points may be established by this text against the long-repeatedcavilsandobjectionsoftheSocinianizingparty.Totheseweshalladvert.

1. This passage proves that Christ's death was coincident with Hissacrifice. When the opponents of the atonement alleged, as they werewont todo, that thedeathofChristdidnotbelong toHis sacrifice,butpreceded it, and that the sacrifice was His action in heaven, theirrepresentation did not satisfy the apostle's testimony, which distinctlyaffirms thatHe offeredHimself a sacrifice, and thatHewas a sacrificewhenHedeliveredHimself.But ifHewasa true sacrificeonearth,Hewasalsoatruepriestonearth,offeringtheoblation.Wecannottransferthe sacrifice and priesthood to heaven, without flatly contradicting theapostle,orassertingthatChrist'searthlyworkwasbutfragmentary,andto be completed in heaven. Let them show that Christ twice offeredHimself,andthatitwasbutanimperfectsacrificeHeofferedonearth,orreconcile their position with the explicit declaration that He was onceofferedtobearthesinsofmany(Heb.9:28).

2. There is no discrepancy between this statement and the doctrine ofsacrifice contained in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The Socinians,accustomedtomaintainthattheEpistletotheHebrewsdescribesonlyasacrificeofferedinheaven,afterthedeathofthecrosswasaccomplished,allowed that the same representation was not given by all the sacredwriters.And theanswer to this is, that theSpiritof truth isnospiritofcontradiction,orofyeaandnay.

3. The same parties, by a violence of construction, would evade theevidence of this passage by reading the words, OFFERING ANDSACRIFICE FORA SWEET-SMELLING SAVOUR, apart from the verbGAVE,ordelivered.Rendingitfromtheconstructionwhichbelongstoit,

they read it as an illustration, or commendation, or exclamation: thus,"WhatasacrificewasthattoGod!"Thatisnottointerpretlanguage,butto twist it to the reader's purpose and preconceived ideas. There is nowarrant but in their own fancy for such a mode of punctuation. Ofnecessity,wemustconstruetheverbGAVEwiththewordsacrifice:"whogave HIMSELF AN OFFERING and sacrifice." The passage announcesthatHedeliveredHimself,andpointsoutthewaybywhichitwasdone—bysacrifice.

4.A fourth objection, emanating from the sameparties, is to the effectthat the word DELIVERED (παρέδωκεν ἑαυτόν) is not the termcommonlyfoundintheOldTestamentritualtodenotethepresentationofthevictim.Butthereasonisobvious:theanimalvictimwaspresentedonthealtarbecauseitwaspassive,anddidnotspontaneouslyofferitself,whereas the Lord Jesus willingly offered Himself. And here it isimportanttoremark,thatthesacrifice,properlysocalled,wasnottheactofgivingordelivering,butTHETHINGITSELFDELIVERED:thatwasthe acceptable sacrifice. This will be evident from a comparison of thepassageswhichspeakofmoneycontributions,orofgifts,communicatedas an acceptable sacrifice (Phil. 4:18;Heb. 13:16). In these instances, itwas not the act of sending or communicating, but the thing sent orimparted,thatconstitutedthesacrifice.Andinthecasebeforeus,itwasnot the act of delivering, but Christ Himself delivered, that was theacceptablesacrifice.

Infine,thispassageprovesthatthedeliveryofChristasasacrificeforusmuch more than compensated for the wrong done, and removed thewrath thathadbeenarmedagainstus: itwon forusdivine favour.ThedeathofJesusnotonlysatisfieddivinejustice,butalteredGod'sattitude,or,aswewouldsayinhumanrelations,Hismoodofmind,tothosewhopreviouslyhadbeenobjectsofHisjustdispleasure.TheeffectofNoah'ssacrifice, the words of which seem here to be recalled, was, that "Godsmelledasweetsavour,andsaidinHisheart,Iwillnotagaincursethegroundanymore"(Gen.8:21);and,inlikemanner,thesacrificeofChristawakened favour inGod's heart, because itmagnified thedivine law inthe most signal way. The purpose for which the apostle adduced thisallusiontotheatonementwas,thatwemightcherishlovelikeChrist.Not

thattheEphesianscouldfollowChristinsuchaworkasHis,whichwasuniqueinitsnature,andtobesharedwithnone;butweareexhortedtocultivateloveingeneral,aftertheexampleofouratoningLord.

IV. Another passage, describing the church as the special object of theatonement, and the Lord's death as containing in it the meritoriouselementofitsownapplication,isasfollows:Husbands,loveyourwives,evenasChristalsolovedthechurch,andgaveHimself[better,deliveredHimself] for it; thatHemightsanctifyandcleanse it [better,sanctify it,cleansingit]withthewashingofwaterbytheword(Eph.5:25–27).Theapostle,whileexhortingtheEphesianstothepracticeofconjugalduties,adduces the love of Christ in His relation to the church as the greatexample, and takesoccasion, as theapostlesusuallydowhile enforcingmoraldutiesbyHisexample,toexpatiateonHismeritoriousabasementanddeath.Thetestimonyheregiventotheatonementmaybenoticedinafewobviousparticulars.

1.ThelovewhichtheapostlewasledbyHisthemetodelineate,isthatofthegreatBridegroomtothechurch.Itisnotavague,indefiniteaffection,butspeciallove;thatis,alovetorealpersons,chosenfrometernity,andredeemed in time, tobecalledandputamong thechildren.Hedidnotlove the church purified, but for the sake of purifying it, and with anaffectionsointenselyactive,thatHisendeavoursnevercooledtillHehadredeemed His church, or bought her to be His; and the love whichpurchased the church at the most costly price (Acts 20:28), is asunchangingandinseparableasitisgreat(Rom.8:35).

2. The love alreadymentioned is next described as prompting Him todeliverHimselfforthechurch.Twopartiesarementioned—Christontheonehand,andthechurchontheother;andasdeathconfrontedus,theLord became the substitute in such a sense thatHe deliveredHimself,firstintothehandsofpunitivejusticeatthebarofGod,andthenintothehands of men, by whom, according to the determinate counsel andforeknowledge of God, the sentence was carried into effect. TheexpressionDELIVEREDnaturallyrecallstheLord'sownsaying,thatHewasdeliveredintothehandsofmenasanofferingandasacrificetoGod.Thisistheuniformmeaningoftheterm,whetherappliedtotheFather'saction inGIVINGUP THE SON, or to the Son's action inGIVINGUP

HIMSELF. And we have the historic fact in the Lord's action inGethsemane,aswehavethedoctrinaldelineationofitssignificancehere.HisgivingofHimselfwas,inpointoffact,thesacrificeforthepurchaseofthechurch,Hisbride.HeofferedHimselfforthechurchwhenHegaveHimself spontaneously into the hand of God, permittingHimself to beseizedandbound,triedandmocked,sentencedandbuffeted,atthehandof thosewhomGodappointedtoexecuteHispurpose. Itwasnovague,uncertain, and accidental transaction, but one according to specialcovenantandsponsionforthegoodofthatelectcompany,thechurchofredeemedmen,whoweregivenHimbynameandboughtwithaprice.Itwas a transaction so definite, that it procured the redemption of thechurch,andcarriedwithitthemeritoriouselementofitsownimputationand application. He could not lose one for whom He died: the holyrectitude of the divine moral government absolutely forbade that. Hisdeath was the spontaneous surrender ofHimself, whenHe could havewardedoffallHisenemies'attacksagainstHislife;forHehadpowertolayitdown,andpowertotakeitupagain.AndwhatdidHegiveasthesacrifice?Notanexternal thing,notsomethingnorall thingspossessedbyHim,butHIMSELF,HISINFINITELYPRECIOUSPERSON.Andforwhom?ForHischurch,thatitmightbeHisblood-boughtproperty,andsobelongtothegreatBridegroom.

3. The end contemplated by the Lord's death was, THAT HE MIGHTSANCTIFY the church. This is plainly proved by the particle of designwhich introduces the clause (ἵνα). As to sanctification here, we mustdetermine whether it means dedication to God on the ground ofatonement, or inward progressive purity. The former view must beacceptedwhereverholiness is immediately connectedwith thedeath ofChrist. The passage has in it a conjugal reference; and the primarymeaningis,thatthechurchwassetapart,orconsecrated,toHimasHisbride,—the uniform meaning of the term when connected with theatonement.ThisistheuseofthewordwhenevermentionismadeoftheLeviticalworshipandofsacrifices,whichsanctifiedtothepurifyingoftheflesh(Heb.9:13).WeareadmittedintofellowshipwithGodbymeansofChrist's atonement. Whether sufficient ground exists for Michaelis'remark, that the high priest in Israel was called the bridegroom of hispeople, is doubtful (Lev. 21:4). If well founded, we should fully

understandwhythesacredwriterssofrequentlyemploythisfigure.

Two terms are here used, so nearly synonymous, that it is difficult todefinethepreciseshadeofdifferencebetweenthem,whentheydescribethe effect of Christ's atoning blood. I refer to the two verbs SANCTIFYand CLEANSE, common to all the apostles. It may be proper first todefine the relation between the two clauses, considered separately,according to the translation which we gave above: "That He mightsanctifyit,cleansingitwiththewashingofwaterbytheword."Weregardtheparticiple(καθαρίσας)asexpressingsimultaneousaction; forthis isnecessary to the sense, and there is no necessity for translating theparticipleasintimatingpreviousaction,introductorytotheactionoftheverb. They coincide in time, and the participial clause conveys anexplanation of a peculiar nature, which it is possible, we think, toapprehend.Thefirstclauseseemsmoreespeciallytodenotetheobjectivestandingoftheworshipper,andhisnearapproachtoaholyGodbythebloodofatonement;whereastheparticipialclauseseemstorefertothesubjective consciousness or felt experience of the same privilege (Heb.9:14); or, as Winer puts it, the CLEANSING may denote somethingnegative,andthewordSANCTIFYsomethingpositive.

To understand this language, wemust carry with us the import of theJewish worship. The terms on which we are commenting refer to theremovalofdefilements,whichexcludedtheworshipperfromcomingintothepresenceofaholyGod,andpreventedhimfromintercoursewithhisfellow-citizens.Whentheuncleannesswasremovedbysacrificialblood,orintheuseofsprinklingaccordingtothelaw,theexcludedpersonwasrestored to the enjoyment of all the privileges secured to the people ofGod. In a word, he was HOLY, or SANCTIFIED. With regard to theCLEANSINGaddedintheparticipialclause,itissoalliedtotheformer,that the onemaybe said to include the other; and the thoughtwill be,that by means of the CLEANSING, WASHING, or SPRINKLING ofChrist's blood—for all these expressions, borrowed from the sacrificialritual, are employed with little if any difference of meaning—sinners,previously excluded from access to a holy God by sin, are restored tofellowship,andconsciouslynigh(Eph.2:13).Whenit issaidthatChristgaveHimself for the church, thatHemight sanctify it, themeaning is,

thatHegaveHimself todeliverus fromestrangement, theconsequenceof sin, and to reinstate us men, once far off by sin, in the favour,friendship,andfellowshipofaholyGod.

4. The passage furthermore brings out the SPECIAL LOVE OF THEREDEEMER,andtheefficacyofHisatoningblood.Hisredeeming lovewasspeciallydirectedtothechurchasitsproperobject;forthelanguageissodefiniteandpreciseastoleavenodoubtthatHislovefindsoutallthose to whom it is exercised.Nor can the efficacious character ofHisredemption-workbecalledinquestion,ifwedojusticetothetermsofthepresent passage, and others similar; for either wemust assert that theatonement was efficacious to all for whom it was destined, or concedethatChristhasbeenlargelydisappointedofHisdesign.Thetwoclausesof these verses, connected together by a final particle (ἵνα), exhibit thescopeordesignfromwhichtheSaviouractedinHiswholeredemption-work.Thefirstoftheverses(ver.25)issoconnectedwiththefollowing,thattheydeclaretheendforwhichHeacted,andthemeansofattainingit; andnoonewith reverent conceptionsof theFather's commissionortheSon'sfinishedwork,willadmitthatHefailedofHispurpose.ItwasanatonementthatsatisfiedalltheclaimsofGod.Andwhetherwelookatthedivineappointment,orat the intrinsicmeritof theredemption, thework was of such a kind as to carry with it the ground of its ownimputationandapplication.Hewillnot loseoneforwhomHedied; forHegaveHimselfforthechurch,asuretyfulfillingeverycondition.

SEC.XIV.—THEEPISTLETOTHEPHILIPPIANS

This epistle was written on the occasion of receiving a moneycontributionsenttotheapostle,thenaprisonerinRome.ThePhilippianshad formerly sentonceandagain tohisnecessity,andafteran intervaltheircareofhimflourishedagain(Phil.4:10,15).Torelievetheiranxietyabouthimself,heentersintodetailsastohishistory,takingoccasiontowarnthemagainsttheJudaizingparty,whichsoughtaccesstoallthenewplantedchurches,andexhortingthemtomutualconcord,joyintheLord,andpreparationfortheLord'scoming.Thescopeoftheepistleisrather

practicalthandoctrinal.Hencetheatonementis lessreferredtothaninmany other epistles. There are some less direct allusions, as when theapostledesignatescertainmenenemiesofthecrossofChrist(Phil.3:18).This shows the place which the atonement occupies; for the Judaizerswere dangerous, because they subverted salvation by the cross. Theapostle,nowverynearhiscrown,says,too,thathecountedallthingsbutloss to win Christ, and to be found in Him, not having his ownrighteousness (Phil. 3:8); proving that to the last he clung, as at thebeginning,totheatonementorrighteousnessofGod.

Theonly text in thisepistle towhichweshalldirectspecialattention isthe following:—Let thismindbe inyou,whichwasalso inChristJesus:who,being[better,existing]intheformofGod,thoughtitnotrobberytobe equalwithGod; butmadeHimself of no reputation, and took uponHim [better, emptied Himself taking] the form of a servant, and wasmade[beingmade]inthelikenessofmen;andbeingfoundinfashionasaman,HehumbledHimself,andbecameobedientuntodeath,eventhedeath of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, andgivenHimanamewhichisaboveeveryname(Phil.2:5–9).Theapostle,exhorting thePhilippians tomutual concord, and bidding them esteemothers better than themselves, passes over, in themost naturalway, toChrist's example as displayed in His entire humiliation on earth. Is ittrue, as someallege, thatPaulgivesnooutlineof redemptionhere,butlimitshimselftothehistoryofChristasitfurnishesanexample?Thatisnot admissible here, nor in other parallel passages which bring outChrist'sabasement.Theatonement isoftenput inthebosomofwhat isproperly an ethical context (Eph. 5:2, 5:25; 1 Pet 3:18). Besides, theconnectionbetweenthehumiliationandexaltationofChristindubitablypointstotheatonementanditsreward(ver.9).

1. The first thing to be determined is, whether the mention of ChristexistingintheformofGodreferstoHisdivinepre-existence—toastateanteriortotheincarnation?Thismustbeaffirmedifweinterpretbytheforceofterms;andthiswasthegeneralinterpretationamongtheFathersand the divines of the Reformed Church. Though many Lutheranexpositors,afterLuther'sexample,labouredwithallingenuitytoreferthetermstotheincarnateChrist,—sometimesappealingtothename"Christ

Jesus"occurringimmediatelybefore,sometimesassertingthattheethicalpreceptofhumilitywhichisenforceddidnotrequireanyallusiontothepre-incarnate state,—the comment cannot bemade even plausible. Theapostle obviously describes Christ in His divine glory, and then in thestateofabasement.Theexpression,BEINGorEXISTING(ὑπάρχων)INTHEFORMOFGOD,canbeexpoundedonlyofdivineexistencewiththemanifestationofdivineglory.ThereisnoneedfordebatingwhetherTHEFORM OF GOD is an expression denoting essence or nature; for thewholephrasetakentogether,WHOBEINGorEXISTINGINTHEFORMOFGOD,leavesnoroomfordoubtthatwemusthereunitetheattributesand theirmanifestation.We cannot reduce the expression to themereaccidentsofthedivine;forthereisareferencetosubsistence,andathingdoes not exist in its accidents. We may fitly alternate this phrase,therefore,withanother,whichfullycoversit:"who,beingthebrightnessofHisglory,andexpressimageofHisperson"(Heb.1:3).

Another clause, equally significant, as exhibiting the consciousness orsentiments of the only begotten Son in those relationswhich subsistedbetween Him and the Father, is subjoined: WHO THOUGHT IT NOTROBBERYTOBEEQUALWITHGOD. This announceswhat the LordfrequentlydeclaredinHisownwords,that,withoutarrogatingwhatwasnot His own by divine right, He was conscious of entire equality withGod,andthatHethoughtthissentimentnotransgressionofHis limits,norinvasionofanother'srights.Astothemodeofrenderingadoptedbymany expositors in the last age, "who did not regardHis equalitywithGodasanobjectofsolicitousdesire,"or"whodidnotesteemitanobjecttobecaughtat tobeonaparitywithGod," ithasceasedtohavemuchinterest,foritisaconjecturalmeaningputuponthetermROBBERY.Itiscontrarytotheetymologyoftheword,whichdenotestheactofseizing;anditlosestheemphasisoftheclause,which,asdescriptiveofconsciousequality with God, was meant to show spontaneous abasement in thelight of that divine relation of which He was fully aware. The formerclauseisanobjectivedelineationofthedivinedignityoftheSonofGod,whilethisclauseisasubjectivedelineationofthesamething.

2.Asecondquestiontobedeterminedis,Arewetoassumetwodifferentgradations of humiliation,—one indicated by the words, HE EMPTIED

HIMSELF (ver. 7), aswe rendered them; and another indicated by theterms,HEHUMBLEDHIMSELF(ver.8): that is,Havewetwopartsofthe abasement of Jesus,—one more particularly referring to theincarnation,theothermoreexpresslyalludingtothesufferingswhichledHimtothecross?Thatmodeofexposition,adoptedbymany,conveystheidea of a first and second humiliation: the first consisting in theabasement which led Him to become man; the second consisting insubjectingHimself to the death of the cross.We should thus have twogradationsofhumiliationdelineatedobjectively; and the twoverbs,HEEMPTIED HIMSELF, and HE HUMBLED HIMSELF, taken with theparticipialclauseswhichseverallybelongtothem,thehingesofthesetwogradations.Ihaveneverbeensatisfiedthatthishasbeenmadegoodbyanyingenuityofarrangementthathaseverbeenappliedtothe.passage.AnotherviewistoapplytothehistoriclifeofChristthesamedistinctionwhichcouldbeappliedtoHispre-historiclifeinthepreviousclauses.Weshould,onthisprinciple, taketheoneasanobjectivedelineationof theconditionintowhichHiscondescendinglovebroughtHimdown(ver.7);and the other as descriptive of the conscious aim or subjective feelingwith which He entered into that sphere (ver. 8). This latter view, wethink, has much to recommend it on the ground of simplicity. Thepassage, thus viewed, has a remarkable resemblance to the parallelpassage, inwhichChrist is representedasason,yet learningobedienceby the thingsHe suffered (Heb. 5:8, 9). This interpretation fits in, too,most aptly to that lowliness ofmind, for the enforcement ofwhich theLord'sexamplewasadduced.Weshallsoexpoundit.

a.Theobjectiveconditionofabasement,then,isthusexpressed:"ButHeemptiedHimself,takingtheformofaservant,beingmadeinthelikenessofmen."OfwhatdidHeemptyHimself?Hewasemptiedbybecominganother, not by ceasing to be what He was; that is, He became man,whereasHewasGod;aservant,thoughHewasaLord;ofrich,poor;ofglorious, abased; of omnipotent, weak; of omnipresent, limited; not byceasingtobewhatHewas,butbybecomingwhatHewasnot.Astotheexpressions which follow in the participial clauses, they are highlysignificant,whetherwetakethemasco-ordinateorsubordinate.

Thefirstclause,whichsaysthatHetooktheformofaservant,setsforth

spontaneousabasementascontrastedwiththesinofAdam.Humiliationcameintoexpiateusurpation.IfthefirstmanaspiredtobeasGod,thesecondman,whobyinherentrightwasaboveallservice,descendedtoaservant'spositionthatHemightexpiatetheirsinwhosoughttobemorethan was appointed for them. The expression "taking the form of aservant" isnotsynonymouswithhumannaturesimply,buttakes inthefurther idea of an abased condition. The second participial clause, inwhich it is said that He was made in the likeness of men, lends nocountenance toanythingborderingonDocetic theories,as ifHewereaphantom form. On the contrary, the clause affirms that, while He isneither a mere man nor a sinful man, He was very man, with a truehumanityinallrespectslikeourown;nay,madeinthelikenessofmeninthemost abased form—the consequence of that sin-bearing and curse-bearingcareerthroughwhichHepassedfromHisbirth(seeRom.8:3).When it is added that He was found in fashion as a man—a clausesubjoinedpartlytoresumethetwopreviousclauses,partlytopreparefortheoutlineof obedience given in the following statement—themeaningis,thatexternally,indiscourseandaction,inbehaviourandmodeoflife,Hewasfoundinfashionasaman.

b.TheobedienceofJesus—thatis,Hissubjectivedispositioninthegivenspherealreadymentioned—isthusdescribed:"HehumbledHimself,andbecame obedient to death, even the death of the cross." The meaningseems to be, that in this conditionHe subjectedHimself to the servicewhichthesphereimposeduponHim;thatHeneitherassumedanyoftheglory that properly belonged to Him, nor disdained to move in therestraints,reproach,andpainwhichwereitsnecessaryaccompaniments;andthatHeadaptedHimself,asthemeekandlowlyOne,toHisposition.The sameexpression is appliedbyLuke todenote inward sentimentordisposition:"Hethathumblethhimselfshallbeexalted"(Luke14:11).Hefilled up with humility and obedience His allotted sphere, that is, theposition of a servant, with all its obligations, asHe had spontaneouslyassumed it (Matt. 20:28). The obediencementioned in this clause hasexpressrelationtotheformofaservantmentionedinthepreviousverse.They are counterparts; the one the outward condition, the other theanimating spirit corresponding to it. The form of a servant may bedistinguished from the obedience of the servant, but they cannot be

separated; as the outward and the inward,—the sphere, and the spiritpervadingit.

3.Wenextnoticethefeaturesoftheobedience;andthefirstquestionis,Towhomwas the obedience rendered?Not to theRomans or Jews, assome have put it, but primarily to God, sustaining the character ofLawgiverandJudge.But thecapacity inwhichHeobeyedcomesout inconnectionwithHisperson.WhenthisdivinepersonTOOKtheformofaservant, the language signifies that He took it into the unity of Hisperson; and consequently, as the creator and preserver of His ownhumanity,Hecouldnotbutbeitsmaster.ThisdecidesonthenatureofHis obedience. It was not personally necessary from any obligationsdevolvinguponHim,butsolelyundertaken forothers,andmeant tobelaidtotheiraccount,accordingtothecovenantbywhichHeactedastheLord'sservant(Isa.42:1).Hedisdainednot tostooptothecurseasoursin-bearingsurety,sinlesslyobedientateverystep(Matt.20:28).

Of thisobediencethe firstprerequisitewas, that itshouldbevoluntary;and this is the point affirmed. A double act was necessary in thistransaction:oneonGod'sside,who,astheworld'sruler,andasthepartyto be reconciled, appointed the sacrifice; for without His authority thewholeatoningworkofChristwouldhavebeenwithoutabasis:theotheronthesideofChrist,whosevicariousobediencecouldberenderedonlyby free choice. The very notion of involuntary suffering, or inevitablesuffering,inaworldwhereallwasdisordered,hadnoapplicationtoHim;fornoonecouldtakeHis lifefromHim,or inflictsufferingwithoutHisconsent.

ButHisabasementisfirstdescribedasOBEDIENCE,thenasobedienceUNTODEATH, and then as the deathOFTHEGROSS.The obediencewas one fromHis birth toHis death, though consisting of two severalpartsorelements;inotherwords,anactiveandpassiveobedience,asitiscommonlycalled,oranobedienceprevioustoHissufferings,andduringthem. No one will exclude the suffering part of the obedience whopondersthewordsUNTODEATH,thatis,asfarasdeathinclusive;andno onewill exclude the active obedience, or that ofHis life, if he doesjustice to this expression, which describes obedience extending to theborders of death, and running through it. Christ is represented as

complyingwiththewillofasuperior,asdescendingtodeathnaturalandeternal, and as undergoing the ignominious cross, an emblem of thecurse, that wemight go free (Gal. 3:13). The apostle comprehends thewhole obedience of life and death: for he does not say that He wasobedient in death, as if nothingmorewere imposeduponHim than todie.Heunitedtheobedienceoflifeanddeathasequallyvicarious.

4.Nextfollowstherewardexpressedinthewords,"WhereforeGodhathhighly exalted Him" (ver. 9). The particle WHEREFORE is not aconsecutive particle, but causal, defining the relation of causality; andhereitistherelationbetweenworkandreward.Itwasatonetimemadea theological question: Did Christ win a reward for Himself by Hisobedience,orwasHewhollybornforuswhenHewassentonHisdivinecommission and died for us? Calvin took up the notion, that ChristmeritednothingforHimself;butithasalwaysbeenfeltthatwecannotdojusticetothistextunlesswemaintainthatbyHisatoningsacrificeChristmeritedthefulfilmentoftheconditionalpromiseofthelaw:"Dothis,andthoushaltlive."WemustholdthatHemeritedtherewardforHispeople,and therefore for Himself as the surety-head of His people; and Hereceivedanameaboveeveryname,whichseemstobe,asZanchiusputsit,thatofSonofGod,thoughhewasSonfrometernity2(Heb.1:5).Andadoration must be paid to Him by all intelligences in heaven, and onearth,andundertheearth(ver.10).

SEC.XV.—THEEPISTLETOTHECOLOSSIANS

Thisepistleputs theatonement inapeculiar light. It containswhat theotherepistlessetforthastothedirectconnectionofthedeathofChristwithforgiveness,redemption,andreconciliation;butitintroducesanewthought—the bearing of the atonement on other orders of being. Theoccasionofitexplainsthispeculiarity.Thisepistle,writtenduringPaul'simprisonment, about the same time with the Epistle to the Ephesians,had as its chief design to bring out the positive doctrine of Christ'sperson. Therefore it is a Christological epistle in its main contents.Variousallusionsaremadetoanerraticphilosophythreateningtospoil

the Colossians inmanyways, to a worshipping of angels, an intrudinginto the unseen world, and an asceticism according to thecommandments of men (Col. 2:18); plain marks of an incipientGnosticism,withitstheoryofemanations.Thedoctrineofangels,orofaspirit-world,wasopposedtothesolemediationofChrist,andintroducedan intermediate order of beings between God and man. Paul puts therelationofangelstoChristinitstruelight,showinghowtheystoodtotheSon of God both in creation and redemption; and that the work ofcreation was effected by the same person who was the cause ofredemption (Col. 1:15, 16).As the first-bornof every creature, or,morestrictly,thefirst-begottenbeforeeverycreature,allthingsaresaidtohavebeencreatedINHim,BYHim,andTOHim;theallusionbeingtothefactthattheworldoweditsorigintoHim,andwasconstitutedINHIM.Theapostle,inshort,revertstotheoriginofallthings,andtheirstandingintheSon,andthendirectsattentiontoanewpoint—theunionunderonecommonHeadofredeemedmenandelectangels(1:20).ByprovingthatChrist is the one uniting bond of both, he supplanted the Gnostictheories;fortherewasnoplacefordependenceonaspirit-worldorothermediators.We shall omit passages the same in termswith texts in theEpistletotheEphesians(Col.1:14,3:13),butmustconsidertwopassageswhich,whiledisplayingtheeffectoftheatonementonmen,alsosetforthitseffectonotherordersofbeing.

I. The first is as follows: It pleased the Father that in Him should allfulnessdwell:and,havingmadepeacethroughthebloodofHiscross,byHimtoreconcileallthingsuntoHimself;byHim,Isay,whethertheybethings in earth or things in heaven. And you, that were sometimealienated,andenemiesinyourmindbywickedworks,yetnowhathHereconciled in the body ofHis flesh through death, to present you holy,and unblameable, and unreproveable in His sight (Col. 1:19–22). Theapostle opens up a view of the atonement as embracing angelicintelligenceaswellasmen.IntheEpistletotheEphesianstheatonementwasexhibitedasunitingJewsandGentilesinonefamily.HereitseffectisseeninbringingtogetherintoonefamilyandunderoneHeadtheentireuniverseofspiritualbeingsinearthandheaven.

Toobviatethedifficultythatsuggestsitselfonthispoint,itmaybeproper

tomake one or two preliminary remarks. Besides the unionwhich thecreatures celestial and terrestrial enjoyed with their Creator in theirnormal state, theyhada relation toeachotheras fellow-citizens inonevast city of God, however different in federal constitution, capacity, orservice. Man's sin dissolved this union in both respects, separating usfromGod, and from thosewhooncewere fellow-citizens, butwho, likeloyal subjects at the outbreak of a rebellion, could henceforth have norelations with the rebels. The unfallen angels took part with God, andrespected thesovereignrightsofGod.Whenman's relation toGodwasbroken, his relation to the heavenly hostswas also terminated; and hehadaslittleaccesstotheirsocietyastothatoftheirGod,towhomtheyremained loyal. God's will was no longer done in earth as it was inheaven,andtheunionofmenandangelsunderoneMonarchwasatanend.

This must be taken into account, when we think of the atonement asrestoring the relations of the fellow-citizens, because restoring thethrone-rightsofGod.Sowidewas theeffectof thepropitiation, thatallintelligences and relations in the empire ofGod felt itsmanifold fruits.Theabasementofsuchaperson—theCreatorandbondof theuniverse,accordingtothedivineidea—wassomeritorious,thatitnotonlybroughtbackapeacefuluniontothisworld,butrestoredtheuniversetofriendlyrelations,bybringingall intoanewrelationtoGodinChrist.Itmaybedifficult to set forth the relationof the atonement to the angelicworld.Andhencemany,swayedbytheundulypressedparallelismoftheEpistleto theEphesians, explain thesewordseitherof theunionof theJewishchurchwith theGentile, or of departed saints inheaven and redeemedmenonearth,—butwithoutanycolourorwarrant.Thebestinterpreters,theGreekFathers,Calvin,Bengel,andallineveryagewhohavecastthemost penetrating glance into Scripture, expound the passage of thereconciliation of rational intelligences in earth and heaven. Andnotwithstanding thedogmaticdifficulty suggested to everymindby thefactthatangelicbeingswereneveratenmitywithGod,thisisthecorrectview.Inonesense,theefficacyoftheatonementreachestothem,butinadifferent way from the reconciliation of those alienated by sin. Godreconciles all things toHimself, celestial and terrestrial, and the angelsseemtohavebeenconfirmedbytheSonofGod.Itisnottobeaffirmed

thatChristwas theMediatorofangels, for the languageofScripture is,thatHe is theMediator betweenGod andmen (1 Tim. 2:5); butHe istheir Head, the uniting bond of the universe, gathered up anew orrecapitulated under Him (Eph. 1:10). In the remarks of Calvin on thistext, two reasons are assigned why angels must be reconciled to God:first, that they were creatures never beyond the hazard of falling tillconfirmedbyChrist;next,thattheirobediencehadnotsuchperfectionorrighteousness as might suffice to a full union with God, and thereforeneededareconciler.Whetherwetakeinthesecondelementornot—forsomemaythinkittantamounttoaffirmingthatChristwastheMediatorofangels—certainly theworkofChristhadan influence felt throughallheaven.Thereconciliationofsinfulmenstandsontheforeground;butitmustbeadded,thattherentcausedbysinwasrepaired,andtheheavenlyhostsunitedwithredeemedmenunderanewHeadandbyanewbond,invirtueofthatatoningworkwhichcalledforthwonder,praise,andjoyamongthronesanddominions,principalitiesandpowers,referredto inthe previous context (ver. 16). But let us lookmore particularly at theterms.

1.ThereconciliationisofGod'sgoodpleasure(ver.19);thatis,istraceduptoGod'sappointment.ThoughthenominativetotheverbPLEASEDisnotexpressedintheoriginal,wecansupplynootherthanthetermGodorFather, as is given in the authorizedEnglish version; for in theNewTestamentitisuniformlysaid,thatitpleasedtheFathertosendtheSon.The Father formed the purpose of reconciling us, and wished to bereconciled.HenceHepreparedwhatwasnecessary,andprovidedforitsexecution;theultimatereasonbeing,thatGodwassopleased.Astotheimportofreconciliation,wehavehadoccasiontonoticeagainandagainthat it intimates a restoration of friendship, the appeasing of divineanger,andanewrelationoffavour.HostilitylayonGod'ssideaswellasman's side,whose rebellionprovoked it; itwasamutual estrangement;andreconciliation is in likemannerachange in thedivine relationandmoodofmindtowardus,aswellasachangeonoursidetowardGod.

2. Reconciliationwas not absolute, nor withoutmediation. It was by ahistoricfactinthemoralgovernmentofGod.Henceitissaid:"HAVINGMADE [better, MAKING] PEACE THROUGH THE BLOOD OF HIS

CROSS."Astotherelationoftheseclauses,wemustfixattentiononthefact, that the scheme of salvation, whether we take account of theincarnation (ver. 19) or of the atonement (ver. 20), emanated from thedivine good pleasure as the supreme source of all. Next, reconciliationintimatestheremovalofallexistingestrangementbetweenGodandtheworld, taken in itswidest sense.Forwemust take the term "reconcile"here,notinanewsense,butwithawiderextensionofmeaning,viz.TOUNITEBYRECONCILING.That underlying thought cannot bedenied;for the atonement refers only to men in the proper acceptation of theterm.But the application of theword in this connection is appropriateonlywhenwetakeinthefurtherideaofunitingtheuniversetoGod,andrestoringthedisturbedharmony.Themakingofpeacereferredtointheparticipialclause isspeciallynoteworthy.Thepasttense inbothclausesin the original shows that reconciliation and peacemaking werecontemporaneous,—thattheycoveredeachother,andwereaccomplishedonceforall.(SeeWiner,Gr.§45,d.)

The apostle next subjoins the material cause or means by which thispeacemakingwaseffected:"bythebloodofHiscross."Thiswasaddedtoshowthatsucharelationwasnotformedwithoutasatisfactionforsins,though it is not more particularly mentioned how the Lord's deathproduced that effect. This is obvious from the tenor of Scripture, andfrom the two terms here used, "BLOOD OF THE CROSS:" the firstsuggesting a comparison between the Lord's death and the blood ofsacrifice,familiartoallacquaintedwiththeOldTestamentworship;thesecond recalling the penal character of the death, as that of a curse-bearingsubstitute.PaullaidsuchstressontheseaspectsofChrist'sdeath—for he repeats the same, or a still more definite allusion, in the twofollowing verses—because the Colossian errorists, in their speculativeteaching,appeartohaveturnedmen'smindsawayfromtheLord'scurse-bearing humiliation to a mystic contemplation, and a spirit-world ofangelicmediators.

3. A transition is next made to the case of the Colossians, formerlyalienated,butnowreconciled(Col.1:20,21).Itisnotnecessarytorepeatthe explanation already given of the word RECONCILE. Beyond allquestion,itisusedtointimatethatmen,onceatenmity,arenowrestored

to friendly relations. As this is the meaning in the reference to theColossians, wemay affirm that the word has the same signification inboth verses, coupled by the particle and (vers. 20, 21). But we havespecially tonotice themeansbywhich itwaseffected: "in theBODYofHis FLESH through DEATH;" a remarkable combination of terms,announcing with singular brevity as many constituent elements in theatonement. First, the atonement was a great historic fact, or objectivereality, accomplished in Christ's person once for all duringHis earthlysojourn;andthecircumstancenowmentionedisclearlymarked,thatnoonemightconcludeitwaseffectedapartfromthepersonoftheincarnateSon, described in the previous context, or that it stood in any wayconnected with what He did after His return to glory. Again, thispregnant passage alludes to His true corporeity,—an allusion directedagainst those Gnostic theories in Colosse, which breathed a falsespiritualism, and looked unfavourably on matter in every form, andthereforeonthetruecorporeityoftheincarnateSon.Thirdly,theapostlementionsthebodyofHisFLESH,which,asalreadymentioned,denotes,whereveritoccursinreferencetoJesus,thatHecarriedaboutonearthasin-bearing humanity, and therefore a weak, abased, and sufferinghumanity(seeRom.8:3).Lastofall,theapostle,tocompletetheoutlineoftheLord'satoningsacrifice,mentioneddeaththewagesofsin.Whenweputtogetheralltheseelements,theapostle'stestimonyhereamountstothis,thattheatonementwasconsummatedhistoricallyandonceforallinthepersonoftheincarnate,abased,anddyingSurety;andittakesinHislife,woundupbyHisdeath(vers.20,22).

4.Thefruitoreffectof thereconciliationisnextadded:"topresentyouholy, and unblameable, and unreproveable inHis sight" [better, beforeHim]. The importance of this declaration appears on two grounds.Weare taught, in the first place, that sanctification does not precedereconciliation,orlaythefoundationofreconciliation,butfollowsit.Theywho put sanctification first confound everything, and mistake therelationsofthingsaswellastheentireaimandscopeofChristianity:theycanneverwardoffanall-desolatinglegalism.

But while the reconciliation is first in order, a second thought of vastimportanceis,thattheatonementgivesrisetosanctificationatthenext

remove,andstandsincausalconnectionwithit.Thispassage,andotherssimilar, prove that the atonement was the purchase not only of therectifiedrelationinwhichwestandbeforeGod,butofthatconsecrationby which we are set apart for God, and also of the inner life andrenovation by which we are presented faultless before Him. Such apassage as this proves that we must connect the communications ofdivine life with the atonement as the purchase of all. If, in anexternalizing way, the atonement is dissociated from life andsanctification,or,ontheotherhand,ifweregardthedivinelifeasfirstinorder,andindependentofthebloodofthecross,allthingsaredislocated.Reconciliationisfirstinorder,buttheholyandblamelesslifefollowsbynecessaryconsequence.

Attempts have been made to make all these predicates, HOLY,UNBLAMEABLE, UNREPROVEABLE, have reference not to outwardlyperceptibleadvancesinthedivinelife,buttotherelativestandingoftheColossiansbeforeGod;asthepeopleofIsrael,aftertheofferedsacrificeonthedayofatonement,wereimmediatelyregardedbyGodasholy.Thewords, IN HIS SIGHT, or before Him, may, it is alleged, describe animmediaterelationtoGodbythedeathofChrist.Thatwouldhavebeenby no means an unwarrantable interpretation, had the epithet HOLYstoodalone;andwemayattachthatsensetothisepithet.Buttheotherepithets refer to the inner sanctificationof the spirit.Thewhole clause,indeed,bearssoclosearesemblancetoaparalleloneinEphesians(Eph.5:27),whichmentionsthepresentationofagloriouschurch,thatitseemsnaturaltoreferbothtowhatisfuture.

II.Another text in this epistle, of a very comprehensive character, putsforgiveness,theblottingoutofthehandwritingthatwasagainstus,andvictory over Satan, in connection with the atonement: And you, beingdead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath HequickenedtogetherwithHim,havingforgivenyoualltrespasses;blottingoutthehandwritingofordinances[better,containedinordinances,asatEph.2:15]thatwasagainstus,whichwascontrarytous,andtookitoutof the way, nailing it to His cross; and having spoiled [or, disarmed]principalitiesandpowers,Hemadea showof themopenly, triumphingovertheminit(Col.2:13–15).Theapostle,inthepreviouscontext,spoke

ofChristashavingallthefulnessoftheGodhead(ver.9),astheHeadofall principality and power, and as the channel of spiritual life,—viewsfitted to exclude every rival, and to turn away attention from lowerintelligences.Another point demandsnotice: the apostle first speaks totheColossiansasYOU(ver.13),andthenadoptsastylecommontohimandthem,whenhesaysUS(ver.14).Some,commentingonthepassage,conceive a transition from the Gentile section to the Jewish Christiansectionofthechurch;andinconformitywiththis,explaintheallusiontothe handwriting of ordinances as a something that properly applied tothem.But for this there isnowarrant:no traceofsuchadesigncanbediscovered.Norisitinkeepingwiththeapostle'smannerwhentakinginotherswithhimself;forinsuchcasesthepronounWE,occurringintheapostolic style, expresses the Christian sentiment common to himwithothers,irrespectiveofnationality.Thefollowingpointsdemandattentionin the structure of this passage, and in the arrangement of thesesuccessiveparticipialclauses,whichbringoutwhat,inpointoforder,isprevioustothequickeningtospirituallife:—

1.Theactingparty,orthenominativeinthegrammaticalstructureofthesentence, is God, described as quickening, and on the ground offorgiveness (ver. 13). Spiritual life is connected with forgiveness, andpresupposes forgiveness: the sins of men must be forgiven before lifecould properly enter. Forgiveness precedes, and premial life takes forgranted that obstacles have been removed. Nay, applying the sameprinciple to theSurety, theLordcouldnothavebeenquickened tillwe,forwhomHedied,were virtually andpotentially discharged (seeRom.4:25).

2.Anotherclauseshowsthatforgivenesspresupposestheobjectivefactofblotting out the handwriting of ordinances, and nailing it to the cross(ver.14).Opinionsastotheimportofthishandwritingarevarious.

a.Thus,inthefirstplace,somerefertheexpressionsimplytoconscience,as containing an indictment against us; the opinion of Luther andMelancthon,andrepeatedbymanywiththeadditionofamoreobjectiveelement—guilt.According to thiscomment, the indictment,or,which isthe same thing, guilt, was deleted like a bond, and nailed to the cross,whenGodsuspendedHisSonontheaccursedtree.Inotherwords,Christ

was so identified with the handwriting, that He was considered as thepersonal guilt, and His crucifixion as the means of its extinction. Thecross annulled the bond or handwriting thatwas against us. From thisandotherpassages(Gal.3:13;1Pet.2:24)itappearsthatHetookguiltonHimself,andsubjectedHimself to that towhichthehandwritingboundus;thatis,HedidnotsubjectHimselftowhatwasnominal,andprocureda nominal discharge, but offered a full equivalent. This plainly is thesubstanceofthephrase.

b.Othersmoreparticularlyrefer thewhole to theMosaic law;andhereagaininterpretersgointotwodivisions.Oneclassrefersthephrasetotheceremonial law, arguing that the ritual observances were symbols ofdeserved punishment, or a confession of guilt. There might be somereasonforthislimitationiftherewasanyground—whichthereisnot—forthe supposition that the apostle here distinguished between Jews andGentiles.Butsincetheapostles,intheiruseofthepronounWEorUSinthecourseoftheirepistles,onlyexpresstheChristianconsciousness,itisbetter to understand the term HANDWRITING of the Mosaic lawgenerally,thatis,ofthelawasacompletewhole,consistingofmoralandceremonial elements.Thecrosswasmeant tobe theblottingoutof theindictment; and the law, in one important aspect of it, because it wasnever fulfilled, was but the creditor's bond, the indictment, the chargewhichwaspresentedagainstthosewhowereboundtoit,butwhofailedateverypoint.

HowwasthehandwritingnailedtothecrosswhentheLord'sbody,andnotthelaw,wasnailedtothecross?Christ'sbodywasnobond;butasHewas made sin, or bore our sins on His own body to the tree, all wasembodiedinHim.Thehandwriting,thecurse,thesinofHispeople,areidentifiedwithHim; and the language of exchange can be competentlyapplied toHim in theperformance of that greatwork of procuring ourdischarge.Andwhywas thebondnailed to the cross?Theonly answerthatcanbegivenis,thatitmightbenullified.Anyotherinterpretationisinadmissible,becauseoutofkeepingwithPaul'sdesign.Themeaningoftheclause,then,maybeeasilycollected:itissimplythis,thatsincouldbeforgivenonly on the one condition that its guiltwas expiated, and thatnotbythesinner,butbyasuretyinhisstead.Henceweelsewhereread,

thatGod condemned sin in Christ's flesh (Rom. 8:3). The key to thesedeepthoughtsistobefoundinthefactthatChristexchangedplaceswithus;andastheobligationsarenowdischarged,thedemandsofthelawarenolongercapableofbeingpresentedtous,becausetheyweredischargedbytheSurety,whonailedthemtoHiscross,andisnowfarbeyondtheirreach. The sins of Christ's people were annihilated, extinguished, andblottedout,asiftheyhadneverbeen.Inshort,theyarenolongerontheChristian, because borne by Christ to the tree; and no longer onHim,because they have been so completely expiated, that the deleted bondmaybeseenonHiscrucifiedhumanityasnailedtoHiscross.

3.A thirdclause,groundedat least in thoughtbywhatprecedes, statesthat the cross was the victory which God celebrated over principalitiesandpowersofdarkness(ver.15).Theactingpartyinthisclause,asintheothersalreadynoticed,isGod;andthethoughtis,thatbytheatonementof the cross God stripped satanic principalities of their dominion, ordisarmedthem,asavictordoesinthehourofvictory.Andastheverbinthe original conveys the idea of doing an action forHimself, there is aperceptible allusion to His glory, and to the interests of His kingdom.TheywhoreferthelanguagetoJewishauthoritiesarewideofthemark.Three terms are here used—SPOILING, SHOWING OPENLY,TRIUMPHING; all significant, but describing effects contemporaneouswith His crucifixion. We do not interpret the clauses as delineating atriumph over the powers of darkness during Christ's separate ordisembodied state, for that comment is excluded by the fact that theagentreferredtointhisverseisGod,asinthepreviousclauses.NeitherarewetosupposealeadingofthemintriumphthroughspaceafterHisresurrection;forthetermslimittheallusiontotheexpiationeffectedonthe cross. But it may be asked, How did the cross effect the resultsrecounted in the threeseveralclauses? Ianswer:Sinwas thegroundofSatan'sdominion,thesphereofhispower,andthesecretofhisstrength;andnosoonerwastheguiltlyingonusextinguished,thanhisthronewasundermined, as JesusHimself said (John 12:31).When the guilt of sinwas abolished, Satan's dominion over God's people was ended; for thegroundofhisauthoritywasthelawwhichhadbeenviolated,andtheguiltwhichhadbeenincurred.Thispointsthewaytotherightinterpretation;for all the mistakes have arisen from not perceiving with sufficient

clearness how the triumph could be celebrated onHis cross.WhenwereflectthatthepowerofSatanwasbasedonsinandguilt,andthatbutforsin justice would not have surrendered mankind into his power, weperceivethattheannihilationofman'sguiltannihilatedtheswayofthesepowersofdarknessoveralltheelect.Thoughconfidentthattheshamefuldeath of crucifixionwould undermineChrist's influence, they found, inthe first place, that it overthrew their own; for the cross spoiled ordisarmedthesatanicpowersbydestroyingsin.Moreover,itputthemtoshame,bymakingaSHOWOFTHEMOPENLYbeforetheuniverse;forthough the men at the cross did not understand the bearings of thatstupendous fact, holy angels present at His death, as they had beenpresentatHisbirth, took in its vastdimensions.Still further, the crosswas a scene of TRIUMPH on the part of God, because Satan's empirereceivedadefeatfromwhichtherewasnorecovery:itwasonGod'spartatonceavictoryandadisplayofallGod'sattributes,totheirretrievableruin,dismay,andconfusionofsatanicpowers.

SEC.XVI.—THEEPISTLESTOTHETHESSALONIANS

Thesetwoepistles,thefirstofthePaulineepistlesinorderoftime,wereaddressed to a church distinguished for brotherly love and the eagerexpectation of the Lord's coming. Cradled in persecution, which firstcausedtheapostleabruptlytodepartfromtheircity(Acts17:1–10),andthen made several of their number martyrs (1 Thess. 2:14, 4:13), theycherishedaneageranticipationofthesecondadvent.Inconsequenceofsupposingitimmediatelyathand,someofthem,however,neglectedthedutiesoftheirworldlycalling,—aperversionwhichrequiredacorrectiveat thehandofPaul.Butasacongregation theystood firm in the truth,anddidnot, likesomeothers,needanewtoreceivedoctrinaldirectionsastothesolegroundofacceptance.TwiceintheseepistlesPauldirectlymentionsthedeathofChrist;andinfourpassageswediscernadistinctallusiontotheatonement.

I. Deliverance from the wrath of God is described as secured by theatonement in two several passages,whichwe shall notice one after the

other.

a. The first of these is thus expressed: Ye turned toGod from idols, toservethelivingandtrueGod,andtowaitforHisSonfromheaven,whomHeraisedfromthedead,evenJesus,whichdeliveredusfromthewrathto come [better,who delivers us from the comingwrath] (1 Thess. 1:9,10).Paul,distinguishingtheChristiansfromtheGentiles,andalsofromtheJews,namesthesetwofeaturesasdescriptiveoftruebelievers:theirserving the living and true God, and their waiting for God's Son fromheaven.Deliverancefromwrath,expressedinthepresenttense,becauseapresentaswellasafuturepossession,isdirectlyascribedtoJesus,whoisalsocalledtheSonofGod.ThedeathofJesusisnotexpresslynamed,butthereisnoreasontodoubtthatthisthoughtunderliesthestatement.For,inthefirstplace,theclause"whomHeraisedfromthedead"impliesboth suretyship and the acceptance of His finished work; and, in thesecondplace, theactualdeliverance isherementionedasapresentandconstant privilege, in terms which obviously imply that it was won orprocuredforusbyHisearthlyabasementandsacrifice.

b.Asecond text,not lessexpresson thesame theme, isas follows:ForGodhathnotappointedustowrath,buttoobtainsalvationbyourLordJesusChrist,whodiedforus(1Thess.5:9).Thewords"whodiedforus"arelinkedtotheotherexpression,"byourLordJesusChrist,"accordingtoawell-knownruleofGreekgrammar, that serves to layemphasisonthe ideaconnectedbyanalreadywell-knownrelation(quippequi).Themeaning intended tobe conveyed is, that thedeliverancewasbasedonthe ground of Christ's vicarious death, and that on this account alonemen are not appointed to wrath, their deserved doom, but to obtainsalvation.ThedoubleprivilegeisconnectedwiththeLord'sdeathasthemeritoriouscause.Languagedemandsthat interpretation,andwillbearnoother(comp.Rom.5:9).

Thequestionofdivinewrathisatpresentthegreatpointindebateonthesubjectoftheatonement.Itisunderminedinagreatvarietyofviews,anditseemsproper,nay,necessary,todwellonitsomewhatmoreatlarge.Afew inquiriesmay here be raised and answered, that wemay arrive atsatisfactory conclusions as to this point—on which, in fact, the twoschools of theology in our day are divided—whether Christ may

competentlybedescribedasbearingthewrathofGod.

1.DoesawrathofGodexist,andinwhatdoesitconsist?ThatthereisawrathofGod,inrespectofsinandagainstsin,isdeclaredsofrequentlyboth in theOld andNewTestament, that theywho call thedoctrine inquestionmustdenytheauthorityofalargeportionofrevelation.Wrathis thedispleasureof thepersonalGod, themoralGovernor,againstsin,andthemovingcauseof thatpunishmentwhichHerighteously inflicts.Some,indeed,willhaveitthattheangerofGodisbutanothernameforpunishment, andmaintain that the translators of Scripturewould havebetterexpressedthemeaningofthesacredwritershadtheyrenderedtheterminthisway; for theythinkof itas thecauseput for theeffect.Butthereisnowarrantforthatconclusion;andwecannotconcedethatthetermWRATHisusedtoexpressonlythepunishmentofsin,ortheeffectofGod'sdispleasure(Rom.1:18,2:5,3:5).Itisnomereeffect,apartfromtheinwardaffectionsofapersonalGod.Weretherenothingfurtherthananimpersonalmoralconstitutionoftheworld,orhadGodlefttheworldtotakeitscourse,indifferenttogoodorevilinHiscreatures,accordingtotheEpicureanconceptionofprovidence,onemightspeakoftheresultsofevil irrespectiveof themoralnatureandmoral feelingsofan intelligentagent. But theworld is not ruled by fate, nor by one indifferent to themoral actions ofmen, but by the living, personalGod,who regards allthingsinrelationtoHimselfandHismoralgovernment,andwhohasaholy displeasure atmoral evil.Without ought of the turbulent emotionfoundinus,andwhichbetrayshumanweakness,thesupremeLawgiver,from the perfection of His nature, is ANGRY AT SIN, because it is aviolationofHisauthority,andawrongtoHisinviolablemajesty.ThoughHecannotbeinjured,asmencommonlyunderstandtheterminjury,Hemay be wronged by the creature's refusal to acknowledge His divineauthority.HowcananyhavesuchmeanconceptionsofGod,astomakeHimanindifferentspectatorofhumanaffairsandconductinvolvingHisownrights?CanHelookwithequalindifferenceandequalsatisfactiononpietyandimpiety,virtueandvice,wisdomandfolly,themorallybeautifulandthemorallydisordered?

But may not wrath be in some sense reduced to love, or to a certainmodificationofdivinelove,ashasoftenbeenasserted,andismaintained

by a great number of divines in the present day? We answer mostemphatically,No.Howevermenmayperplextheirminds inspeculatingon the divine attributes, by reducing them to one in their artificialtheories,thatconclusiontowhichIhaveadvertediscontrarytotheplainteaching of Scripture. Wrath is not to be subsumed under love, norrepresented as either love-sorrow or the fire-zeal of love. It is not thefeeling of offended love, nor divine sorrow at the creature's frowarddisobedience.ThesearepoordreamsofthehumanmindspeculatingonGod,withoutdependenceon thewordof revelation,bywhichalonewecanknowHim.Itisunbiblicaltosay,thataGodwhohaswrathisnotaGod who loves; but it is scarcely less so to affirm that God is angrybecause He loves. Consistently carried out, these speculations runcountertotheforensic ideaofsatisfaction,andareatvariancewithanydue recognition of law, guilt, or punishment. The objective reality ofdivinewrath,on thesuppositionof sin, isanaxiomor firstprinciple innaturaltheology(Rom.1:32),aswellasinthetheologyofrevelation.Allspeculations of an opposite character ignore the fact and criminality ofsin.

Wrath, in biblical phraseology, therefore, is an essential mood of thedivinemindinrespectofsin;andwerewetodenytheobjectiverealityofdivinewrath,weshouldbecompelledtoweakenanddilutethemeaningofallScripture.ThepassagesinwhichthetermWRATHoccursamounttomanyhundreds,manyofwhichare sodefinite, that they,beyondalldoubt or controversy, bring before us what is essential to the divinenature.Thus,whenGodSWEARSINHISWRATH,thatis,swearsbythatessentialattributeofHisnaturewhichleadsHimtohateandpunishsin,nodoubtcanbeentertainedthatthisisaqualityorpropertyofGod(Ps.95:11). It is a perfection having its root in themoral excellence of theliving God: it is proportioned to men's conduct: and, in a word, it isinseparablefromtheideawhichweform,andmustform,oftheactivityofapersonalGodinregardtomoralevil(Heb.3:11;Rom.9:22).

Nor is itunworthyofGodtorepresentHimbyaphraseologyborrowedfrom human feelings: for this is no mere anthropomorphism, but adelineationofHisrealdispleasureatsin.Hatred,inlikemanner,orarealaversiontosinnerssurrenderingthemselvestosinfulcourses,isascribed

toGod; and it isnot representedas a figureof speech: it is anamiablemoral excellency (Rom. 9:13; Rev. 2:15). And there is no reason torepudiatethisbiblicalidea—becauseithasitsanalogueinman—ortocallthewrathofGodamereanthropomorphism;fortheBiblealwaysspeaksof God's attributes in words borrowed from human qualities, whichindeed, with the due distinctions drawn between the Creator andcreatures made in His image, are common to both. What sort ofexcellence would it be in man, to be morally indifferent, and to haveneither aversion nor anger at sin? In a word, the idea of divine wrathpromptingretributionformoraldisobedience,isinvolvedinourveryideaofGodasapersonalGodandmoralgovernor:itisinseparablefromthefact of sin; it is presupposed in the atonement; and itmust be carriedwithusintoanyconceptionwhichisformedoffutureretribution.

2.Nowthegreatquestiononwhichtheatonementmaybesaidtodependis,DidChrist bear thiswrathofGod, the chief element ofwhich is theprivationofGod?Asthis isaffirmedordenied—andopinioninmoderntimeshasverymuchcometobedividedintotwoschoolsuponthepoint—therealdoctrineoftheatonementiseithermaintainedordenied.Theobjective reality of Christ's atoning work is found to consist in thepropitiationofthedivinewrath.ThatisevidentfromtheseplaintextsofScripture inThessalonians, and from the statements thatHewasmadesin(2Cor.5:21);thatHewasmadeacurseforus(Gal.3:13);andthatwearesavedfromwraththroughHim(Rom.5:9).Thispoint isundoubtedfrom the evidence of texts, and it is equally certain from the fact ofsubstitution considered as a real transaction. Either the Lord enteredvicariouslyintoourposition,responsibility,andguilt,orHedidnot.IfHedid—asallthetextsbearingupontheatonementabundantlyevince—thenHe endureddivinewrath, that is, thedivinedesertion, as theMediatorbetweenGodandman,subjectingHimselftoallthathaddevolveduponhumanityas thecurseofsin.Hissubstitutionwasnot, indeed, identity.Hecould thereforebe theobjectof thedivinewrath inourplace,whilestillthebelovedSonandthesinlessman.Hewasmadesinwhilesinlesslyperfectandaccepted:Hewasmadeacursewhileyetthefaultlessservant:Hewas theobjectof truepunishment,andofall thatgoes toconstitutetruewrath,asHestoodinourplacetobearwhatwasduetousforsin,while inHimself the Son ofHis love (Col. 1:13), and the approved and

acceptedsecondAdam,andnevermoretheobjectofHisapproval thanwhenHeofferedHimselfforothers(John10:17).Wedrawthedistinctionbetweenthepersonalandtheofficial.

Itonlyremainstoadd,thatHewhocomestoChrist,andisfoundinHim,shallneverseewrath.ThewholedivinewrathislegitimatelyremovedbyChrist, forChrist'swork of atonement cannever be thought ofwithoutthe wrath of God. Our deliverance, too, is a present deliverance fromwrath incurred: for there is no truth in the representation that divinewrathbelongstoeschatologyalone,andisonlyfortherejectorsofChrist.

II.Asecondtext,referringtothedisarmingofdeathandtheremovalofitsstingbytheatonement,isasfollows:ForifwebelievethatJesusdiedand rose again, even so them also who sleep in Jesus [better, sleepthroughJesus]willGodbringwithHim(1Thess.4:14).Thepassagewasdesigned to comfort Christians mourning the loss of fellow-Christians;andindoingthis,PaulpointstotherelationinwhichtheystoodtoJesus.Sometimes thewordsSLEEPINGTHROUGHJESUShavebeen viewedasreferring to thecaseofmartyrssuffering for thecauseofChrist.ButthatmodeofexpressionisquiteunliketheordinarylanguageofScriptureinspeakingofsufferingforChrist.TheapostleintendstopresenttotheThessalonians a certain argument based on the atonement, thus: If webelievethatJesusdiedforHispeople'ssins,androseagain,thencertainresults or effects are referred to as standing connected both with Hisdeath and resurrection. First, as to the effect derived from His death,THEY SLEEP THROUGH JESUS: then, as to His resurrection, whichmeansthatHeroseasthefirst-fruitsof themwhosleep,GodwillbringHispeopleWITHHIM.

Theobjectwehaveinviewleadsustoexamineonlythefirstofthetwoexpressions, THEM THAT SLEEP THROUGH JESUS; for we mustconstruethewordsinthismanner.Themodeofconstruingwhichcertaininterpreters adopt, of connecting THROUGH JESUS with the verbSHALLBRING,laboursundertheintolerabledefectofvirtuallyrepeatingthesamethingasecondtime:thus,"GodwillbringthemthroughJesuswithHim."Butwenextinquirewhatisspeciallyintimatedbytheterms,"them that sleep through Jesus?" This has often been interpreted asintimatingthatbelieversretainindeaththeunionwithChristwhichthey

enjoy. Though that idea underlies the terms, and cannot be separatedfrom the clause, amuch closer connectionwith the atonementmay bediscernedintheargumentativeformwithwhichtheversebegins.Plainly,theallusionistosomethingeffectedTHROUGHJESUS,orbythedeathof Christ, as themedium of redemption. Itmeans that death is to theChristiannolongerapenalty,butafallingasleep;andthisbelongstotheChristian's death in whatever form it may come, and with whateveraccompaniments.Theexpression"sleepINJESUS,"asitisputelsewhere(1 Cor. 15:18; Rev. 14:13), or THROUGH JESUS, as it is put here, hasreferencetothebody,nottothedisembodiedsoul,whichisunderstoodto be with the Lord: it means that death is not accompanied with thecurse,butdeprivedofitssting(1Cor.15:56),andthattheredeemedwillriseoutofitasfromasleep.Thecomfortwhichtheapostlesuggests,andthefoundationofourconfidenceintheprospectofdeath,isthevicariousdeathofJesus,HissuretyshipforHispeople.

III.AnotherpassageinthisepistlebringsoutinastrikingwaythelifehidwithChristinGod,asafurtherfruitoftheatonement:Whodiedforus,that, whether we wake or sleep, we should live together with Him (1Thess. 5:10). The immediately previous verse, as already noticed, hadstatedthatChristiansarenotappointedtowrath,buttoobtainsalvation,that is, are appointed to acceptance on the ground of Christ's atoningsacrifice. The primary fruit of the atonement, undoubtedly, is thereconciliation of theman, the acceptance of his person. Though that isthedirectandimmediateconsequenceoftheLord'sdeath,itisfollowedbyanother;andthissecondresultistherenovationofthenatureaswellastherectificationofthepersonalrelation.Thesetwo,personandnature,thoughbothaffectedby theatonement—theone immediately, theothermediately—arenottobeconfoundedtogether,noropposedtoeachother.Inreality,subordinatesneitherconflictwitheachothernorexcludeeachother. Christ died, in the first place, to deliver us fromwrath (1 Thess.5:9):Hedied,too,tomakeuspartakersofHislife(ver.10).

ThefinalclausebringsoutwhattheLordexpresslyplannedandintendedbyHispropitiatorydeath:"That(ἵνα)wemightlivetogetherwithHim."Intheexpression,LIVETOGETHERWITHHIM,thethoughtis,thatthelifeofthechurchcollective,andofindividualChristianssingly,issohid

with Christ, and bound up with Him, that they are NEVER FOR AMOMENTSUNDEREDfromHim,either intheirearthly lifeor intheirdisembodiedstate.Itisageneralstatementofwhichthereareelsewheremanyechoesorexpressions(Col.3:3;Rom.14:9).Severalthoughtsmaybesaidtobecontainedintheexpression,asfollows:HeboughtthemtobeHispossession,orpurchasedflock;HediedtobetheirLord;andHeaimed,bysodying,togivethemalifelikeHisown—alifetogetherwithHim,Astotheexpressions,WHETHERWEWAKEORSLEEP,theyarevery variously interpreted. Butwe have no doubt that they refer to theChristian'slifeinthebody,andtotheChristian'slifeintheseparatestate(see 1 Thess. 4:14). They are not here used figuratively for moral orspiritual conditions, as in the earlier section of the chapter, whereWAKINGandSLEEPINGmustbe sounderstood (1Thess. 5:6–8).Thewholetermsofthisclausehavegenerally,butneedlessly,beenlimitedtothe time of the second advent, as if theymerely intimated that at thatmoment the saints should live togetherwith Christ, whether theywerealiveorfallenasleep.Butthereisnoneedforthislimitation:theyapplytoalltimes:allthisisastruenowasitwillbethen.

SEC.XVII.—THEEPISTLESTOTIMOTHY

The three epistles next in order, from their scope commonly calledpastoralepistles,donotcontainmanytestimoniestotheatonement.Asto the first epistle, it appears thatononeoccasionPaul leftTimothy inEphesus, to consolidate the doctrine of the large congregation there,whenhewent intoMacedonia (1Tim. 1:3).Hehoped to returnshortly,butdespatchedthisepistletohisfellow-labourer,todirecthimhowtoactin the house of God, the church of the living God (3:15). There wereerratic tendenciesalreadyappearing inEphesus,asweexplainedaboveinnoticing the epistle to that church: a teachingof the law (1:7), andasciencefalselysocalled(6:20);inoppositiontowhichPaulpointsoutthewayof salvationbygrace (1:14–17),and theLord'smanifestation in theflesh,—obviousallusionstotheincarnationandatonement(3:16).

ThesecondEpistletoTimothywasplainlywrittenwhenPaulwasonthevergeofmartyrdom(2Tim.4:6),containingpartingwordsofdirectionto

his son in the faith, whose presence he requests in a time of trial.Allusions to the atonement are to be found in this epistle—obviousenoughtoanyonereadingforpersonalsatisfaction, thoughnotsuchaswewould adduce to a gainsayer. Thus Paul speaks of the epiphany, orfirst advent of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who abolished death (2 Tim.1:10). Again, the apostle uses language of which we have had manysimilar specimens already: "If we be dead with Him [better, died], weshallalsolivewithHim"(Rom.6:1–12;2Cor.5:14).

Theonly text tobeparticularlyexpounded is the following:Forthere isoneGod,andonemediatorbetweenGodandmen,themanChristJesus;whogaveHimselfaransomforall,tobetestified[literally,thetestimony]in due time.Whereunto I am ordained a preacher (1 Tim. 2:5–7). Theapostlebeganwithdirectionsastothechurchassemblies,directingthatChristians in theirworshipshouldpray forallmen, forkingsandall inauthority; that is, for all ranks, conditions, and classes of men. TheapostlewasthusledbyanaturaltransitiontospeakoftheunityofGod,andtheonemediatorbetweenGodandman.

1. As to this designation of Christ, it must be remembered that aMEDIATORisonewhocomesbetweentwocontendingpartiestoremovethe cause of contention, and restore them to friendship. In this case, amediatorwasonewhosteppedinbetweenGodasanoffendedJudge,andmenasguiltysinners(vers.3and4),topacifyGod,andrestorementofavour. In this sense,Jesus is calledamediatorbetweenGodandmen;thatis,menneedingtobesaved(ver.4).Andthismediatorisnotamereteacher, not a moral reformer, not a mediator of intercession, but ofreconciliation, who removes the cause of quarrel bymaking reparationforthewrong(see1John2:1,2).Thatisthemeaninginthetextbeforeus, as indubitably appears from the appended participial clause in theGreek,whichstatesthatHewasmediator,asHegaveHimselfaransomforall.Thewordsaresodefinite,thattheywillnotpermitustoexplainthem,as saying thatHebecameamediatorwhenHeascended; for theparticipial clause (relativeclause in theEnglishversion)means thatHewasamediatoringivingHimselfaransom.HedidnotgiveHimself,andthenbecomeamediator:HewasamediatoronearthwhenHediedandgaveHimself.

Christwasamediator,notasHeactedthepartofamessenger,ormadeknown thedivinewill, but asHeushered in redemption.Thenatureofthe office presupposed the inability of the sinner, and was distinctlyannounced in many passages (Jer. 30:21). The mediator must possesstrue humanity and true Godhead in one person; and the reason isobvious.HemustbeTRUEMAN, according to theobligationsof thosewhomHerepresentedbeforeGod,withacompassionfortheerring(Heb.4:15),andanatureholyandundefiled,toobeyandsuffer(Heb.7:26).Hemust beTRUEGOD,not only to sustain thehumanity, but to giveHiswork a value equivalent to everlasting punishment, and make Hisobedience adequate to thewants ofmillions.Deity and humanitywereunitedinonepersonforaworktowhicheachnaturecontributeditspart,witha concurrent actionat every step.The theory thatmakes theLordmediatorinonenature,whetherinthedivine,asOsianderheld,orinthehuman,astheChurchofRomeandStancarusputit,nevercommendeditselftoscripturaldivines.

But if so, why does the apostle designate Christ THE MAN CHRISTJESUS?InmanypassageshedescribesChristasadivineperson;butinthispassage,whenspeakingofthemediator,heappendsthedesignationMAN,becauseheisabouttospeakofHissufferingsanddeath.Anotherreason was, that among the Ephesians a certain inclination began todiscoveritselftowardtheGnosticerrorswhichsoughttherootofallevilinmatterorcorporeity,andthusnaturallyledthemtothenotionthatourLordhadbutaphantombody—asemblanceofmanhood.PaulthereforecallsHim theMANChrist Jesus.TheApostleJohn, too, at a later timereferred to thosewhodenied thatJesusChristwascome in the flesh (1John4:2,3).TheyunderminedthedeathoftheSonofGod,and,withthedeath,theatonementasasatisfactiontojustice.Thesetheoriesarehereexploded,firstbythedesignationMAN,descriptiveoftheLord'sperson;thenbythenamesChristJesus,whichprovethatHewastheChrist,theuniqueman.ThisisbroughtoutwhenHeisrepresentedasonemediatorbetweenGodandman;thatis;onewhointerposedbetweentwodividedparties, andoccupied the singular relation in theuniverseofmediatingbetweenGodandthehumanfamilyofalltime.Whileveryman,Hewasthusuniqueman,havingnoequalnorparallel.

2.Butit isadded,HEGAVEHIMSELFARANSOMFORALL,meaningthat the surrender of His life was the price or ransom by which Heobtained men's deliverance from captivity. Every expression and wordherehasadeepsignificance,andtheyarenearlyarepetitionofChrist'sown saying (Matt. 20:28). The phrase HE GAVE HIMSELF has muchforce,indicatingboundlesslovetous,andobediencetoHisFather;inaword,priestlyaction,therealityofthetypicalworship.HegaveHimself,accordingtothedivinedecree,spontaneouslyorfreely.

3.ThewordRANSOMdenotesthepricebywhichoneisdischargedfromcaptivity,with the further thought, as it occurs here, that theDelivererencounters something similar to the evil impending over him who isdelivered,orsucharansomas ismadebysomethinggiveninexchangeforanother.Butarethereinthistransactionthecriteriaofarealransom,andallitsconstituentelements?Yes.1.Wehavecaptivestoberedeemed,—menwhose guilt or liability to bondage too plainly appears from thefactthattheyareundersin(Rom.3:9),underthecurseofthelaw(Gal.3:13), inbondage todeath, and to the fearofdeath (Heb.2:14). 2.TheRedeemerisherecalledthemediator,bywhomthepricewaspaid.ThatChristissorepresented,thereisnodoubt(Rom.11:26;Gal.3:13).3.Theransom is announced in the most unmistakeable terms by our Lordelsewhere(Matt.20:28),andbytheapostleinthistext,asconsistinginthepriestlyactionofgivingHimself inourroom.4.Thepartyreceivingthe ransom is God, considered as Lawgiver, Ruler, and Judge, whosepropertywewerebycreation-right,andwhosepropertywebecomeanewbyredemption-right(Rev.5:9).Whenweputtheseelementstogether,—thecaptive,theRedeemer,theransom,thepartywhoheldthesinnertillhe received thenecessaryequivalent to the inflexible claimsofHis law,andwhothentakesthemintoanewendearingrelationasHispurchasedproperty,—we have all the elements of a real transaction. It was notmetaphorical,butreal.

Against the above-mentioned outline of this great fact the mostdeterminedoppositionhasalwaysbeenevincedbyallwhostandopposedtoourLord'svicariouslifeandsufferings.Theychallengethedoctrineonthegroundofreasonandrectitude;towhichthereplyis,thatweabidebytheauthorityofthedivineword.Sometimestheyventuretoassertthatno

passageofScripturecanbeadducedwhereitissaidthatChristsufferedall in our room and stead; and they interpret the words FOR US asintimatingmerelythatHesufferedforourgood.NooneacquaintedwiththeGreeklanguage,andtakingintoaccountthecompositionofthewordhere used (ἀντίλυτρον), will assert that it does not naturally andcompetentlyconveytheideaofaransomintheroomofothers.Itcannotbeconceded,thattogiveHimselftodeathforothersmeansnomorethantodieinsomevague,indefinitewayforone'sgood.Onthecontrary,theclause contains a double evidence for vicarious atonement.Wehad, bythe transgression of the divine law, become bound to punishment, andmustonaccountofguilthaveforeverpassedintothecaptivity.ofSatan,death,andhell,hadnotChristactedthepartofmediator,asdescribedinthe text. But when one is cast into prison for his sins, and anotherredeemshimfromitbyrepairingthewrongandmeetinghisobligations,thiswasnotonlyforhisgoodmerely,butalsoinhisstead.

OneprincipalargumentagainstthedeathofChrist,viewedasaransomfromcaptivity,istotheeffectthatnopartycanbepointedouttowhomtheransomcouldbepaid.Theanswertothatobjectionisobvioustoanyonewhorisestotheprimarysourceofauthority—lawandobligation.Theransom or satisfaction was paid to God (Eph. 5:2). In commercialmatters,andcasesinvolvingpaymentinmoney,wemayholdonestyleoflanguage, with all its correlative terms and notions. In criminal lawanotherstyleofthoughtisnecessary:werisetothefountainofjustice.InthegreattransactionofsatisfyingGod'spunitivejustice,andvindicatingthe divinemajesty and the authoritative claims of law, we are broughtdirectly to God Himself, as moral Governor and personal God, havingrights from which He cannot recede, because they are inalienable. Assinners,menareguiltybeforeGod(Ps.51:4;Rom.3:19);andhencetheransommust be primarily viewed as offered ToHim, and accepted byHim(Rev.5:9).

According to the crude opinion of some of the Fathers, the atonementwas toomuch considered in relation to Satan. Some, followingOrigen,imaginedthattheransomwaspaidtohimbecause,intheloosemodeofthinkingwhichtheypermittedthemselvestoentertain,itwasallegedthatSatan had acquired a rightful claim to fallen humanity, such as God

Himselfmustrespect.Thatgroundlessnotion,thoughitkeptitsplacefora time, never carried general consent. It was at variance with theChristian sentiment; and the difficulties connected with the idea ofofferingaransomtoSatan,foraconquestsinfullyacquired,werealwaysfeltbyjudiciousdivinesofallcenturies.Theywhoperceivedthenecessityof a different mode of statement in the early centuries, connected theatonementwiththeoriginalmenaceagainstsin,andrepresenteditasasatisfactiontothedivineveracity.

Satan's relation to men held captive under his dominion was butsubordinate.SinfulmenwereindeedinbondagetoSatan,buthispowerwasfoundedsimplyontheguiltofthatsininwhichheinvolvedthem,oron the right of conquest which he had effected. He was but the jailor,having no power over his captives except by God's authority, who leftthemundera justdoom—under sin,death,andhell.But, in theproperacceptationofterms,menareguiltytoGod:againstHim,andHimonly,wassincommitted(Ps.51:4).Thepartytowhomtheransomwaspaidisevident. When we look at the analogy of human law—that is, at manmadeintheimageofGod,andactingouthisviewsofrightandwrongina sphere closely resembling thedivineprocedure—a satisfaction for theinfraction of the law is never made to the inferior officer, but to theSupremeMajesty,thefountainofauthority.Tothejailororexecutioneritfallsmerelytocarryoutthesentenceofimprisonmentordeathuponthecriminal.Inthisgreattransactionofwhichwetreat,theransomwasnotpaidtotheinferiorofficer,buttothefountainofauthority—theJudgeofall. The ransom or satisfaction was paid to God; for there was nonebesidesHimorbeyondHim.AndHissovereignplanwastodischargethecaptivesonlyonreceivingtheransomofHisSon'sobedienceanddeath.

Oneconsideration, toomuchomitted in theoriesof theatonement,willput this matter in its true light. We must distinguish between SINITSELF, and the consequences, temporal and eternal, corporeal andmental, inevitablyflowingfromitbytheconnectionofcauseandeffect.Theredemption-workofChristcannotbeviewedmerelyinrelationtotheconsequencesofsin,butinrelationtosinitself.Andweconsiderit inabiblicalwayonlywhenwestudyitwithafullrecognitionofthefactthatinfinite guilt renders an infinite satisfaction necessary, nay, absolutely

indispensable.

Twothingsremaintobenoticed:first,thesenseinwhichwearetotakethe apostle's words, a ransom FOR ALL; secondly, how we are toapprehendPaul'stestimonyinconnectionwithit.

a. As to the expression "a ransom FOR ALL," the meaning may becollected from the context. It is not all men numerically, but allconditions, ranks, classes, andnationalities,withoutdistinction.This isso evident, that if we follow the rule of interpreting by the context, nodoubtcanremainonanymind.Atthecommencementofthechaptertheapostlementionedallmen;and immediatelyadds,asanexplanationofthis use of the expression, "kings and all in authority,"—a superfluousaddition, if we apprehend the terms as denoting absolute universality.WhentheapostledirectsChristianstoprayforallmen,theallusionistobeunderstoodaspointingoutranks,conditions,andclassesofmen.Thisisevident,partlybecausetheydidnotknowallmennumerically;partlybecause,amongmeninthewidesense,therearesomeforwhomwearenottopray,viz.thosewhohavesinneduntodeath(1John5:16).Thattheallusion is not to all men numerically, may be proved, too, from theannouncement that God will have all men to be saved (ver. 4), whichreferstoranksandconditions,nottoindividuals;forGod'swillwouldbeeffectualonallmen,iftheothermeaningwereintended.Stillfurthertoshow the sense in which Paul uses the expression ALLMEN, we maynoticehismodeofdescribinglocality:"Iwillthatmenprayeverywhere,"literally, in every place (ver. 8);which clearlymeansWHEREVER theymaybe.

Thisexaminationoftheimmediatecontextmakesitevidenthowweareto understand the expression "a ransom FOR ALL." We cannot put adifferentsenseuponthetermsthantheapostleemploysthroughoutthecontext;thatis,allranks,conditions,andclassesofmen.Hediedformenof all conditions, high or low; for all nationalities, Jew and Gentileequally. But the text does not affirm thatHe gaveHimself for allmennumerically. The allusion is to all classes indiscriminately—the elect ofeveryrank,andtribe,andpeople.Moreparticularly,THEALLforwhomHegaveHimselfaransom,weretheyforwhomHeactedasamediatorinatonementandintercession;THEALLofwhomitissaid,Godwillhave

ALLMENtobesaved,andcometotheknowledgeofthetruth(ver.4);theclassundoubtedlycoincidentand identicalwith theelect;THEALLfor whom the ransom was offered—and it is never ineffectual orinoperative;THEALLwhoareusheredintoactualliberty,becausetheirsinswereborne, theirguiltexpiated, theircursereversed,andofwhomnotoneshallfinallybelost,butallshallberaisedupatthelastday(John6:39). The passagewas introduced in connectionwith prayer, and as amotivetoprayer.

b.Thesecondthingis,howwearetoapprehendPaul'stestimony:"Tobetestified in due time, to which I was appointed a preacher and anapostle."Theconnectionbetweentheransomandthetestimony,betweenthe atonement and the preaching of it, ismost explicit, both here andelsewhere.Thepreaching is a testimony to the ransom,or to the cross:that is, the atonement was accomplished, and an office was institutedspecially charged with the proclamation of this great theme; andpreachinghasnootherfoundationorwarrant,powerorinfluence.Inthispassage,with the solemnity of an oath, Paul declares that thiswas thescopeofhisministry.AfterspeakingoftheRedeemer,whogaveHimselfa ransom for all, to be testified in due time, he adds, "to which I wasappointedapreacher."Paul,therefore,notonlypreachedthistruthofthevicarious sacrifice, but was called and commissioned to do so: HISOFFICEWASFORTHISVERYEND.Togivethegreaterconfirmationtowhat he said, he added—doubtless with his eye upon those whoundervalued that great theme, theburdenofhisministry—"I speak thetruthinChrist,andlienot."

SEC.XVIII.—THEEPISTLETOTITUS

Thispastoralepistle, inmanyrespects like theEpistles toTimothy,butmore condensed,wasmeant to direct Titus in a difficult service in theisland ofCrete,wherePaul had recently laboured: churcheswere to beorganized and suppliedwith elders, andTituswas left behind to set in

orderwhatwaswanting.The epistle servedashis credentials, andas arule for his guidance. Though it is difficult to fix the date, as themissionarytourtowhichreferenceismadeisnotelsewhererecorded,itbearsonitsfronttheimmediatepurposeforwhichitwascomposed;viz.todirectTitus,andgiveacodeofrulesforalltimeastothequalificationsof elders, and the mode of enforcing doctrine and duty. After statingdutiesincumbentoneveryage,sex,andcondition,theapostleascendstodivine grace as the constrainingmotive (Tit. 2:11), referring also to theglorious appearing of our great God and Saviour. From this he passesover to the atonement. The last chapter contains an outline ofjustification, which doubtless refers to the previous sketch of theexpiatorysufferingsoftheLord.

Thesinglepassageontheatonementdemandingnoticeisthis:WhogaveHimself for us, that Hemight redeem us from all iniquity, and purifyuntoHimselfapeculiarpeople,zealousofgoodworks(Tit.2:14).Almosteverywordinthispregnantpassageissignificant.

1.Therelativepronounwhohasforitsantecedentthedoubletitleappliedto Christ in connection with His second advent: "our great God andSaviour."Undoubtedly the allusion is to one and the sameperson; andeveryonereadingthepassageforthefirsttime,intheoriginal,naturallycomes to this conclusion. It is thegloriousAPPEARINGofoneperson:the article is common to both titles; and the person so described isfurther pointed out as the same who gave Himself for us. What isintimatedbyconnectingtheatonementwithHisdeity?Itshowsthecloseconnection thatobtainsbetween them.The trueGodheadofChristwasthe elementwhichgave infinite value toHis sufferings.His atonement,though confined to a brief period, became at the divine tribunal aransom,oranequivalent,adequatetothewantsofmillions,becausetheabasementofsuchapersonhadinestimableworthinGod'ssight.WhenHedied,itwasasifalldied;andthesacrificewassovaluableaswellasacceptable,thatinsteadofthecursewhichhadbeenmerited,therichestblessingswerebestowed.

2.Thesimpleaffirmation,WHOGAVEHIMSELFFORUS,indicatestwothings—priestly action and vicarious sacrifice. As to the priestly action,we see that He gave Himself spontaneously; for the language is really

sacrificial, borrowed from the Levitical worship. That defective typicaleconomy,indeed,couldnotunitewhatwerefoundinChrist—priestandvictim.ItisnoteworthythattheFather,inmanypassages,issaidtohavegivenHisSon;butwhenChristishereandelsewheredescribedasgivingHimself,wehavepriestlyactionexhibitingboundlessloveandvoluntaryobedience, and then a suffering victim,—in His soul forfeiting the joywhichwas properlyHis own, and inHis body enduring the agony andshameallotted toapublic criminal.As to thevicariouscharacterof theaction, this comes out in the words FOR US, implying that when weshouldhavebeengivenuptothewrathofGod,theSuretypermittedoursinstobechargedtoHim.Thesamethingappearsfromotherwordsofthe sentence,whichplainly imply thatwewere INALL INIQUITY,andfar from being God's property.We cannot read the words without theimpressionthattheyindicatesubstitution,ortheactionofonegoingintoanother'splace.

3.ThisbringsustothetwofoldaimordesignwhichtheRedeemerhadinview when He gave Himself for us. These final particles expressive ofintention(ἵνα)giveusaglimpseintotheRedeemer'sheart,anddiscovertousthepurposewhichHecherished.

a.Thefirstofthetwoendsherementionedis:"thatHemightredeemusfrom all iniquity." The verb REDEEM (λυτρώσηται), derived from theword denoting RANSOM, signifies a buying from captivity by thepaymentofaprice.Thisistheprimarysignificationoftheword;andthatthismeaningattachestoithereisclear,becausethepriceisexpressedinthephrase,"whogaveHimselfforus."Whereverthepriceisnamed,itisimpossibletoadmitametaphoricaluseoftheterm.

That there are caseswhere theword isused in themetaphorical sense,maybeadmitted;butinsuchausagetheprimarysenseispresupposed.ThestrangeargumentusedbytheopponentsoftheLord'sransomis,thatweare to take the term inall cases in its secondaryor figurativesense;that is, as intimating deliverance absolutely conferred, and not on thegroundofaransom.Inshort,theywouldhavethemetaphoricalsensetheuniformusage.That issimplyinadmissiblewhentheransomorprice isexpressly named. When redemption is named in connection with theincarnation, the blood, the death of Christ, it is absurd to say that we

must take the word REDEEM for absolute deliverance. How does thematter stand?Aword primarily denoting deliverance by price is foundalongwiththementionofransom-price.Itisimpossibleinsuchacasetosay that this is the figurative or secondary signification: for that iscontradictedbythewordsappended,indicatingthegroundonwhichthedeliveranceiseffected.Inshort,wehavecauseandeffecttogetherintoomanycasestoallowtheleastshadeofdoubtastothecausalconnectionbetweenChrist's blood as the ransom-price and the redemption (1 Pet.1:18;Rev.5:9;Gal.3:13).

Thequestionisnot,whethertheterm"redemption"maybetakeninthegeneralsenseofdeliverance,butwhether,whenconnectedwiththebloodofChrist, it canbe so taken.Thewords soplacednaturally suggest theransom-priceonthegroundofwhichredemptioniseffected.Itisasked,IsnotthewordusedforabsolutedeliveranceinthecaseofthenationaldeliveranceofIsraelfromEgyptandBabylon(Mic.6:4),andinthecaseof corporeal deliverancewhere nothing touches the element of justice?(Heb. 11:35.) Itmay seem so. But even in such cases, according to thelawsoflanguage,moreorlessoftheideaofcompensationwillbefound(Eph.5:16).WhereverallusionismadetotheworkofChrist,however,asthe ransom which is taken into account, and which of necessityintervenes,thewordoccursinitsstrictlyphilologicalimport.Themodernopponents of Christ's propitiatory death, after the example of the oldSocinian,maintain that even in this case theword is to be accepted asdenotingabsolutedeliverance;buttheyarguefromforegoneconclusions,withoutregardtothethoughtbeforethem.

Whatdoes theapostlemeanbyALLINIQUITY?WhenhesaysALL,heexcludes nothing: he comprehends sin, original and actual, andannounces that we are redeemed from the penalty and guilt of all sin,consideredastransgressionofthedivinelaw.Themeaningis,thatChristredeemedusfromsin,consideredasguiltandentailingthecurseofthelaw. Our great God and Saviour transferred the curse toHimself. Freefrom personal guilt, He entered into the place of the guilty, andtransferred their guilt to Himself, that we, in virtue of His sufferings,might be pronounced free of further obligation. His sufferings had thequalityofa compensation,price,or ransompaid foracaptive;and this

bloodyransomdissolvedallconnectionbetweensinandourobligationtopunishment,givingarighttoliberty.

b. The second thing contemplated by the Lord in His death, was toPURIFY TO HIMSELF A PECULIAR PEOPLE. The two clauses,introduced by the same final particle (ἵνα), contain two differentthoughts. The benefits expressed are equally connected with the cross.TheideaconveyedbythetermPURIFYissacrificial.Therearenofewerthan six cognate terms—viz. PURIFY, SANCTIFY, SPRINKLE,SANCTIFY, WASH, CLEANSE—used by the apostles to point out theeffectproducedbysacrificeonthosewhoweredefiledbysin.Thegeneralsenseattachingtothemisthis,thatsinners,excludedbysinfromaholyGod,are freed fromimpurityandreadmitted to fellowshipwithGodbyblood.ThatisthemeaningofthetermPURIFYinthepassagenowunderconsideration.

Thecounterpartofthesethings—redemptionandpurification—wefindinIsrael's typical history. Redemption from Egypt was followed by theSinaiticcovenant,wherethesamepeopleweretakenintoanewstanding,as a kingdomofpriests, tobe apeculiarpeople toHimself (Deut. 7:6).There is little doubt that Paul had his eye on that fact, and on thepassagesdescriptiveof it (Ex.19:5,6).Christ'speople,redeemedbythetrue paschal lamb, and then admitted to a new covenant, are a truecounterpartof the figurativecovenantpeople.Theapostle finelyalludesto the redemption from Egypt, and then to the entering into covenantwithGodatSinaiasapeoplesprinkledwithblood,andhenceforthnearto Israel's holyGod (Ex. 24:8). The design of that redemptionwas theconsecrationor setting apart of thenation tobe apeoplenear toHim;and the immediate effect ofChrist's redemption is to separate apeoplefrom the world, for holy service, or for priestly worship. And thedesignations here applied to them are striking. They are called APECULIARPEOPLE,whichmeansHISOWNpeople,withtheaccessoryideaofbeingapeculiartreasure,precious,andkeptwithcare(Deut14:2,26:18).TheyareHistreasure,heldtobemostprecious.

Next,theadditionaldesignation,ZEALOUSOFGOODWORKS,assumesthat they are partakers of the spirit of holiness (Rom. 1:4), and of thesanctification of the Spirit (1 Pet. 1:2). This comprehends the sober,

righteous, and godly life alreadymentioned (ver. 12), as becomesmeninhabitedby theSpirit ofGod.Theybear fruit, and zealously labour tobear it, as theendof their redemption, andas isworthyof adedicatedpeople.

CHAPTERIII:THETESTIMONYTOTHEATONEMENTCONTAINEDINTHEEPISTLE

TOTHEHEBREWS

WEarrangethetestimonyoftheEpistletotheHebrewsunderaseparatechapter,becausewedeemitbestto leavetheinquiryopen,whethertheepistleisofPaulineorigin.Thedifficultandmuchcanvassedquestionastotheauthorshipoftheepistleweleaveuntouched,whateverweightmayattach to the arguments adduced by many eminent expositors for theopinionthatitmustbeassignedtoanotherwriterthanPaul—toApollos,Barnabas,orLuke.Thismuchisadmittedonallsides,thatitbreathesthespirit of Paul, and corresponds with his well-known mode of puttingtruth.IfitdidnotemanatedirectfromPaul,whichweforourparthaveneverseencause todoubt, it emanated fromoneofhiscompanions,asthestatementsontheperson,offices,andsufferingsofChrist,andontheeffects ofHis atonement, are identicalwithwhatwe find in Paul;withthis difference, that we have a new nomenclature borrowed from thepriesthood.

SEC.XIX.—THEEPISTLETOTHEHEBREWS

As supplyingmaterials for defining the doctrine of the atonement, thisepistle is perhaps themost important of all, not excepting those to theRomans and Galatians. It has this peculiarity, that it brings out thedoctrineunder figuresor typesborrowed fromtheJewishworship.Theepistle brings before us a typical and preparatory institution, having aspiritual element under that which appealed to the senses, a heavenlyunderlying the earthly, an eternal under the transitory. The typicalworship lost its standing significancewith Christ's coming in the flesh,butthecomparisonwasmostimportant.

This epistle wasmanifestly writtenwhile the temple services were stillstanding, and to a class of Jewish Christians who were in the habit of

attending them. From several causes, the Christian Jews in Palestinewereexposedtothedangeroffallingawayfromthefaith,andthewriterarms them to resist the temptation, andhold fast theirprofession.Onedangerarosefromthepersecutionstowhichtheywereexposed;asecondwasowingto theattractionsofan imposingritual,andtotheperpetualdepreciationofChristianity,ascomparedwithJudaism,whichtheywereobliged to hear. The epistle accordingly sets forth the superiority ofChristianitytoJudaismineveryrespect,andespeciallyinitspriesthood.Itsetsforththeinsufficiencyoftheoldeconomybyacomparisonofthetwo,andshowsthatChristianityhadfargreaterandenduringblessings.AgainstChristianitythecommonJewishobjectionwas,thatthelifeofitsfounderterminatedinanignominiousdeath;andtheapostleshowsthatthiswasthewayofbringingmanysonstoglory(Heb.2:10).

Ifwewouldapprehendthescopeoftheepistle,anditsreasoning,itmustbeborneinmindthatthedemonstrationisbasedonideascurrentamongthosetowhomitwaswritten,astothefunctionofthehighpriest,andthenatureofthesacrifices.Theepistlegivesusacontinuousparallelbetweenthe shadow and the substance. Christ is not compared to every JewishpriestaccomplishingtheserviceofGod inthedailyministration,but tothehighpriestinhiscall,hisqualifications,andpeculiarministry,asheenteredtheholiestofallonthegreatdayofatonement;theobjectbeingtoprovethattheneweconomyis inallrespectssuperior.Toputthisintheclearest light, theepistle runsaparallelbetween thepeculiaritiesofthe two dispensations. Inwhat sense is the titleHigh Priest applied toChrist?

1. Many divines, especially during the three last generations, havemaintained that thedoctrine of the threefold office ofChrist iswithoutwarrant;thatthetitlesProphet,Priest,andKing,heretoforeunderstoodasdescriptiveofdistinctworksofChrist,expressbutoneand thesamething under a variety of nomenclature. That attempt to obliteratedistinctions founded in the nature of things, as well as in the markedpeculiarities of the old economy, is quite unwarrantable. The titles arenever confounded as terms of the same import. They are not onlydistinct,but indicateadifferentworkon thepartof theSaviour.WhenChristisrepresentedasaprophet,HeiscomparedtoMoses;asapriest,

He is compared to Aaron. The arguments used by eminent men, likeErnesti, Tittmann, Doederlein, and Schleiermacher, to efface thedistinction,havebynomeanscarriedconviction.Thedistinction isonethattakesforgrantedathreefoldwant inhumanitytowhichtheofficescorrespond—ignorance,guilt,depravity.AndthearrangementsinIsrael,as positive institutions before the eyes of men, corresponded to thisthreefold necessity. Thus the prophet was commissioned to speak inGod'snametomen;andChristwassocalled,becauseHeannouncedthewayofsalvation(Acts3:22;John4:19;John9:17).Thekinghadauthoritytorule;andChristwassocalled,becauseHewassetoverakingdom,andrulingallforHischurch(John18:37;Eph.1:21).ThepriestwasonewhocouldapproachGodonbehalfofman;andChristwassocalled,because,accordingtotheFather'sappointment,Heunderwentdeathtoatoneforsin. The priesthood of Christ was the foundation of His other offices;without which, indeed, the other two offices could not possibly haveexisted. They presuppose the priesthood, and proceed upon it. WhenChrist is called apriest for ever, the expressiondoesnotmean thatHeperpetually offers sacrifice, but that His sacrifice, once offered, hasperpetual efficacy, value, and validity. There are many objections,however,whichitmayherebepropertoobviate.

a.Thus,itisallegedthatthetermpriestmaybeunderstoodasdenotingMINISTER; and attempts have been made to establish this from theetymologyoftheHebrewword(2Sam.3:18,20:26).Butinthiscasealldoesnotdependonetymology,butontheacceptationinwhichthewordisfound.AndwhenChrist iscomparedtotheAaronichighpriest,therecannot be room for two opinions that the term is appropriated to afunctionwhichcontainsthetwoelementsofoblationandintercession.

b. But it is argued, that when Jesus is comparedwith the Jewish highpriest,thisisonaccountofthedisparitybetweenthetwo;andthatwherea correspondence is intimated, the terms "blood" and "sacrifice" aremetaphorically used. There is no warrant for this; on the contrary, wecannotreadthefifthchapter(Heb.5:4–7)withoutdiscoveringaregularcomparison between Aaron and Christ. The apostle's discussion ofChrist'spriesthoodwasasmuchfittedasitwasintendedtoconvincetheJewishChristiansheldunder the spellof theancient stately ritual, that

Christ's priesthood was immensely superior. But that object could nothave been attained unless he also established that it was similar andparallel—thetruthoftheshadow.

c.Itisfurtherargued,thatwhenPaulrepresentsJesusasahighpriest,hecontemplates Him not in His state of humiliation, but in His presentglorifiedstate,astheprocureranddispenserofsalvation.ThatJesuswasahighpriestinthedaysofHisflesh,andofferedtherequiredsin-offeringinHis state of humiliation, is a point brought out in theEpistle to theHebrews with such convincing evidence, that one must do violence tolanguagetoescapethisconclusion.Thus,Heissaidtobeamercifulandfaithful HIGH PRIEST in things pertaining to God, TO MAKEATONEMENT—for so theword shouldbe rendered—for the sinsof thepeople (Heb. 2:17). Nay, the passage to which an appeal is sometimesmade in proof of His becoming a priest only on entering the heavenlysanctuary after His resurrection (Heb. 9:12–15), is, when correctlyunderstood, a speaking proof of the fact that He was already a priestwhenHeofferedHimselfonearthastheatoningsacrificeforsins.Heiscontemplated by the apostle as the High Priest after the order ofMelchizedek,whenHeissetforthasdispensingsalvation.

d. Again, it is argued that we are not to ascribe the impetration orprocuringofsalvationtothehigh-priesthoodalone.Tothisitisenoughtosay, that the three offices of the Lord were closely connected together,and that we cannot in our minds consider one without immediatelyrecalling the others; butwe are not on that account to confound them.Theyare tobedistinguished: theyeachdesignateaseparatework: theywere titles of persons who were known in Israel to be invested withdifferent offices, involving different works. This threefold distinctionmustbemaintainedinallbiblicaldogmaticsontheworkofChrist;foritisfoundedinScripture,andthethreedesignationsareexpresslynamedinthedivineword.Noraretheyeverconfounded.

ThisdoctrineofChrist'spriesthoodandsacrificeiseverywhereadmittedon thegroundofScriptureevidence,wherevermendonotargue in theinterest of a theory or tendency adverse to Christ's suretyship andsubstitution. From explicit language contained in this epistle, we arewarrantedtoconcludethattheLordJesuswasahighpriestonearth;that

He offered the sacrifice on earth; and that the exercise of His priestlyfunctions in heaven is not to win redemption, but only to apply it.Throughouttheentireepistletheprincipalaimistoestablishthisfact,topointouttheagreementbetweentypeandantitype,andtosetforththeinfinite superiority of Christ to the shadowy priesthood of the oldeconomy.SeveraltimesitisaffirmedthatHeisapriest,andobviouslyinareal,notinafigurativesense(Heb.2:17,8:1,4:14).

2.Atthebeginningofhisdiscussiononthissubject,theapostleintimatesthatChristpossessedallthenecessaryqualificationsofapriest.Thesearechieflythefollowing:—

(1.)Divineappointment(Heb.5:5,6).Hedidnotassumeit,ortakeittoHimself,withoutadivinecommissionorcall.ThepassagewhichmakesChristsimilartoAaron,onthisground,thatHeglorifiednotHimselftobemade an high priest, is very emphatic. The quotation of the secondPsalm, too, remindsusof thedivinedignityandexcellenceofChristasthegroundofHiseverlastingpriesthood;andthisdiscoverstheforceoftheallusiontotheSon(ver.8).Themeaningis,thatJesushadadivinecommission; thatHewas appointed by the Father becauseHewas theSon;andthatHewasthuspossessedofallrequisitequalificationsforHisoffice.Thehigh-priesthoodofChristwasbasedinthedivinedecree;andHe was invested with the dignity by the will and appointment of theFather,thefountainofallauthorityandlaw.

(2.)Hemustbeable to sympathizewith the conditionof sinners (Heb.5:1–8).TheLord,whowasrich,havingcomewithinthecircleofhumanexperience,wasmadeamercifulandfaithfulhighpriest,andqualifiedbypersonalexperienceforcompassionatelyguidingourhighestinterests,aswell as conducting our cause. The bond of brotherhood, the identity ofsuffering and sorrow, fittedHim to be touched with the feeling of ourinfirmities.HewasmadelikeuntoHisbrethren(Heb.2:17);Hesuffered,thatHemightbe inaposition to succour them that are tempted (Heb.2:18);Hewasmade in all respects likeus,with the single exceptionofpersonalsinfulness(4:15);andHelearnedobediencebywhatHesuffered(5:8).Thedesignofall thiswas, thatHemightbeacompassionateandsympathizinghighpriest.

(3.)Hemust lay to heart the interests ofHis people, andmaintain thecauseofthoseforwhomHeactedthepartofapriest.WiththisthemetheEpistle to the Hebrews is occupied; and the writer proves that Christduring His life thus fulfilled the duties of a priest (Heb. 5:7–9). Thepriests were required faithfully to fulfil the task committed to them,offering gifts and sacrifices for sins, and interceding for the people byprayer;andingeneral,theyactivelypromotedtheinterestsandaffairsofthecovenantpeoplebeforeGod.AllthistheLorddischarged,practisingobedience, and faithfully executing the charge committed to Him. Theobedience of the Lord consisted in undergoing death for the sins ofhumanity, as the apostle explains it (Heb. 10:5–10); andHewasmadeperfect,thatis,perfectedforthemediatorialworkandtheMelchizedek-priesthood,byHisacceptanceandconfirmationas the surety.Thus theeverlasting High Priest, made King and Priest, can evermore promoteman's cause with God; and all who obeyHim are warranted to expecteternal salvation fromHim,whereas the Levitical priesthood advancedtheinterestsofthepeopleonlyforatime.

3.Aswenoticedthequalificationsofthehighpriest,wenextconsiderhisministry on the great day of atonement—the culminating point of hisservice.ThisisatlargeexplainedintheEpistletotheHebrews(Heb.9:1–7).Twodivisionsweremarkedout in the ancient sanctuary: one calledthe holy place, allotted to the dailyministrations of the priests as theyaccomplished theserviceofGod; theothercalled theholiestofall, intowhich thehighpriestaloneenteredonceeveryyear,notwithoutblood,whichheofferedforhimselfandfortheerrorsofthepeople(ver.7).Thearrangement announced that the time then present was a time ofimperfectatonement;thattheJewishsacrificescouldnotfullyatone,buteffected a certain external deliverance from temporal punishment, andconfirmedtheirreligiousprivilegestotheJewishnation.Thereasonwhythe holiest of all remained constantly shut, and the high priest enteredaloneforalittletimeonceeveryyear,istobesoughtintheinsufficiencyoftheOldTestamentsacrifices.Thewaywasnotyetopen—thatis,openwithout impediment—while the first tabernacle and theOld Testamentworshipstillstood(vers.8,24).

Thehighpriestenteringonthegreatdayofatonementwiththebloodof

sacrifice,andsprinklingitonthemercy-seatorcoveringoftheark,wastherepresentativeofthepeople,appearingbeforeGodintheirname,andpresentingbloodfor theiratonement.Bythatsolemnact theprotectionof Godwas sought and secured for the nation; for themost importantactions of the Jewish high priest consisted in slaying the victim, andcarrying the blood into the holy of holies once every year. Now thequestion is raised, Was that entrance typical of Christ's entrance intoheaven? That action of sprinkling the mercy-seat was undoubtedlyatoning;andmanytooprecipitatelythinkwearedriventotheconclusionthatChristwasnotapriestonearth,andthatHisoblation,properlysocalled,commencedinheavenafterHisascension.TheSociniansdeny,ondoctrinal grounds, the sacrifice on earth, transferring it to heaven; andtheprincipal argumentbywhich theymaintain thatChristneverwas apriestonearth,isbasedonamisunderstoodtextoftheepistle(Heb.8:4).Weallowthatthedeathofthevictim,takenbyitself,andapartfromthepriestlyactionofbringinginthebloodtosprinklethemercy-seat,wasnotconsideredasthefullactofexpiation.

Butthisleadsmetoask,WhendidChrist,ourHighPriest,enterwithHisownblood?Itmay,wethink,beconvincinglyprovedthattheentranceofourHighPriest to sprinkle themercy-seat tookplaceat themomentofHisdeath; thatnomomentof time intervened; and that the rendingoftheveil indicatedHisentry. InpouringoutHisbloodon thecross,andsurrendering His spirit into the Father's hands, the Lord must beconsidered as sprinkling the mercy-seat and expiating sin. While Hislifelessbodywashangingonthecross,themercy-seatwassprinkled;forHewasstillactingasahighpriest,evenwhenthelifeless,inanimatebodywasonthecrossandinthetomb.Eventhenthepersonalunionwasnotdissolved. If the question were, whether Christ could be regarded assprinkling the mercy-seat before He bowed His head and gave up theghost,we should certainly deny it. But as the inquiry is,When did thetrueHighPriest sprinkle themercy-seat?—whichwasapropitiatoryactin the course of averting wrath—we must emphatically answer, At themoment of death. His resurrection was a reward for service done; notexpiation,notpropitiation,inanysenseoftheword.

Thismayconclusivelybeestablished.Theheavenlytabernacleortemple

was, so to speak, erected over the ark of the covenant. That throne, ormercy-seat,must be viewed as for ever wet ormoistenedwith atoningblood, sprinkledonce forall.Thecommonnotion thatourLord's entryinto the holiest of all with the propitiatory blood corresponds to Histriumphalentryintoheaven,howeverplausibleitmayseemtothosewhoreadtheninthchapterofthisepistle inacursoryway, isburdenedwithinsolubledifficulties.Withoutadducingthegroundsalreadygivenatthebeginning of this volume, let it suffice to say that the entry wasimmediatelysubsequenttothedeathofthesacrifice;thattheactionwasstill expiatory; and that all Christ's appearances to the disciples duringHis forty days' sojourn, were so far from entering into the work ofexpiation, that they presupposed it. His salutations to the disciples,announcing PEACE accomplished and brought in, presuppose it. It isincongruousandabsurdtohold, then, that thesprinklingof themercy-seat and the purifying of the heavenly things (ver. 23) took place onlyafterHis ascension.Wedistinguishbetween the acts of abasement andthestateofrewardonwhichHeenteredatHisresurrection;betweenthepriesthoodassuch,andtheMelchizedekorroyalpriesthood.

If we want a proof that the atonement was accepted, and procuredforgivenessof sins, thiswasprovedby theLord's resurrection from thedead, correspondingas itdid to the comingoutof thehighpriest fromtheholiestofalltogivethepriestlybenedictiontothepeople.Fromwhathasallthatconfusiontowhichwehaveadvertedarisen?Plainlyfromthefact that the expositors we have been refuting did not sufficientlydistinguish the peculiarities connected with the High Priest after theorder ofMelchizedek.Hewas thePriest after the order ofMelchizedekwhen He ascended to His mediatorial throne, and that is alwaysdistinguishedintheepistlefromHisappearingbeforeGodwithHisownblood.Butitwillbeasked,Doesnotthedebatedtextalreadymentioned(Heb. 8:4) conflict with the above interpretation? By nomeans. ChristmustneedsbringHissacrificeintothetruetabernacle,therealityofthefigure;and ifHewereonearth—that is, ifHewereacommonpriestofthevisibleJewishorder—Hewouldbenopriestofthetruetabernacle.

4. Points of contrast as well as similarity may be traced in the wholeanalogyhereinstitutedbetweentheJewishhighpriestandthegreatHigh

Priest of our profession, and between the sacrifices offered by bothrespectively;andtotheseweshallreferinafewwords.

(1.) To begin with the contrasted high priests, the lawmademen highpriestswho had infirmity,whereas theword of the oathmade the Son(Heb.9:28).TheJewishhighpriests,moreover,wererequiredtoofferfortheirownsinsaswellasforthesinsofthepeople(Heb.5:3);whereasourHighPriestwasholy,harmless,undefiled,andseparatefromsinners,andneeded not but to offer for the sins of others (7:27). The Jewish highpriestcouldnotexercisehisministryinanyotherbutastandingattitude,and as became a servant, on the annual return of the great day ofatonement; whereas our great High Priest, after His one all-perfectsacrifice,satdownontherighthandofGod, fromhenceforthexpectingtillHisenemiesbemadeHisfootstool(Heb.10:11–13).

(2.) Next, as to the sacrifices offered respectively, the weakness andunprofitableness of the one stood vividly contrasted with the enduringefficacyof theother.TheJewishhighpriestwasunder thenecessityofconstantlyrepeatingthesamesacrificeyearbyyearcontinually;whereastheLord Jesus, by one sacrificeneedingno repetition, perfectly atonedforsin,andbroughtsalvationtoallwhoobeyHim(Heb.9:25).Anotherpointdeservingnoticeis:TheJewishsacrificeseffectedonlyanexternalpurity and the removalof corporealpunishments, butdidnothing, andcould do nothing, to remove the burden of guilt, or still an accusingconscience(Heb.10:1–3);whereas theonesacrificeofChristeffectuallysecuredafulldeliverancefrompunishmentandfromanevilconscience(Heb. 10:19–22). Nor, from the nature of the case, could the Jewishsacrificesaccomplishmore:fortheyconsistedofthebloodofcalvesandgoats; whereas our High Priest offered Himself to God a sinless andperfectsacrifice(Heb.9:14).

(3.)Anotherpointofcontrastis,thattheJewishsacrificeswereonlyformen then living, and for cases of ceremonial defilement, procuringtemporary and corporeal deliverance, but without any retrospective orprospective influence beyond the case for which they were offered;whereasChrist'ssacrifice,intendedforalltime,effectedtheexpiationofallsin,whetherwehaverespect to thosewho lookedforwardto it fromtheoldeconomy,ortothosewhonowlookbacktoitasanaccomplished

fact (Heb. 9:26). In a word, the Jewish sacrifices were limited in theirrange,whetherwetakeintoaccounttheclassofmentowhomtheywereapplicable,orthenatureofthetrespassforwhichtheycouldbeoffered.The offences for which they were available were all ceremonial (Heb.9:10).ThesacrificeofChrist,onthecontrary,procuredtheforgivenessofall sins, being divinely adapted to all sins. Besides, it gave free access,well-grounded confidence, and liberty; whereas the Jewish sacrificesneithercancelledsinproperlysocalled,norgaveboldnessofaccessintothedivinepresence;forthethroneofgracewasstillunopenedtosinnersafterallthattheJewishsacrificeseffected.

One design of the Epistle to the Hebrews was, to point out theinseparableconnectionbetweentheatonementandtheremissionofsins,orthesprinklingofconscience(Heb.9:14,10:2,10:22).Theepistledoesnot deny forgiveness to Old Testament saints who lived before theincarnation. It certainly denies that efficacy to animal sacrifices, andconnectstheactualredemptionwhichtheOldTestamentsaintsreceivedwith the death of Christ; for the apostle speaks of the effect of theatonementincancellingsinsundertheoldcovenant(Heb.9:15).Atheorywaspropounded,indeed,byCocceiusandhisschool,totheeffectthattheprivilege enjoyed by the Old Testament saints did not amount to fullforgiveness,andthatitwasbuttheconditionofnon-punishment,astheatonement had not been offered, and the effect cannot be without thecause.There isnowarrant forsuchasupposition in thepeculiaritiesofthe dispensations. But the apostle declares again and again thatforgiveness was not by the type, and that the blood of bulls and goatscouldnottakeawaysins(Heb.10:4)orpurgetheconscience(10:2).

ThecomparisoninstitutedbetweentheAaronicandChrist'spriesthood,between the animal sacrifices and the sacrifice of the cross, had for itsobject to convince those Hebrew Christians that the Lord JesusaccomplishedallthatwasfiguredforthbytheJewishhighpriest;thattheold economy was defective (Heb. 8:8); and that the ancient sacrificescouldnotmake theworshipper perfect as pertaining to the conscience.Theywere thereforereplacedbyabetter.Whentheepistlewaswritten,thesacrificialrites,thepriesthood,andtheSinaiticeconomyitselfwaxedold,andwasreadytovanishaway(Heb.8:13).Itwas,infact,superseded

and abandoned; and the Hebrew Christians were to see that theypossessed infinitely more in Christ. No one need be surprised at theabrogation of the old economy, when we remember that it was butpreparatory to the fulfilment, typical or shadowy, and inadequate topromote man's highest interests: it was but the scaffolding round thebuilding.

Thedifferencebetweenthetwohighpriestswasimmense.Intheformer,orsupersededeconomy,thehighpriestwasbutasinfulmortalman,whoofferedfirstforhisownsinsandthenforthesinsofthepeople;andafteraccomplishing the sacrifice, he entered into the earthly tabernacle as aservant.Intheformereconomy,too,theperpetuallyrecurringsacrificescould effect no remission of sins: they brought no purification orpacification to the conscience; all being external, procuring socialadvantages, but not pleasing God. The everlasting High Priest offeredHimself for allnations; a sacrifice that effected remission, thatpacifiedtheconscience,andrequirednorepetition.Noonehavingonceconfessedthe Saviour should entertain a doubt as to the privilege and duty ofholdingfasthisprofession.

5. Before particularly examining the several texts bearing on theatonement,afewremarksseemnecessaryonthepeculiarnomenclatureandphraseology in theepistle,borrowed fromtheMosaicworship.Theepistle, couched in the Old Testament style, assumes that theaccomplishmentofthetypeshadarrived,andthattheshadowshadbeenmerged in the reality. We have forensic terms in the Epistles to theRomansandGalatians;butinthisepistlewehavetermswhichrelatetoworship, anddescribe thegroundof confidencebeforeaholyGod.Thelatter stands connected with the former, and presupposes the former.Actsofworship,orthepriestlyelement,takeforgrantedtheacceptanceof the person, and are the natural outcome of that state of acceptancebeforeGod.Thegermof all, found in this epistle,maybe traced in thelanguageoftheMosaicritual,andalsoinourLord'sownwords.Thusweread of coming not to Mount Sinai, but to Mount Zion, with thedistinctivefeaturesofthetwoeconomies(Heb.12:18–24);ofthebloodofthecovenant,or,asitisalsocalled,theeverlastingcovenant,recallingthetransitory covenant which had passed away (Heb. 10:29, 13:20). The

blood so often mentioned is sacrificial, as is evident to any one whoconsiders the import of the expression, "The blood of sprinkling, thatspeaketh better things than that of Abel" (Heb. 12:24). That sacrificialblood cries formercy,warranting us to come beforeGod's thronewithconfidence; and that one passage is singly conclusive against currenttheories adverse to the vicarious sacrifice. For if Christ died only amartyr's death, as Abel died under the operation of the world'swickedness and by the hand of violence,His blood could only cry, likeAbel's, for vengeance; whereas it cries with a far other voice. The onecriedforjudgment,theothercriesforpardonanddeliverancebecauseavicarious atonement. There are some terms, however, which demandmoreparticularnotice,suchasthefollowing:—

a. The apostle uses the words PURIFY or PURGE in several passages(Heb.1:3,9:14,10:2).Toapprehendtheirmeaning, itmustbeborne inmind that they are borrowed from the Old Testament worship, andpresuppose the relationof a sinner stainedbydefilement and excludedfromfellowship,butre-admittedintofellowshipwithGodandHispeoplewhendelivered fromthestain.Thus,at thebeginningof theepistle,wereadthattheSon,HAVINGBYHIMSELFPURGED,thatis,havingmadea purification of,OURSINS, sat down on the right hand ofGod (Heb.1:3); language emphatically declaring that the atonement was Christ'sownpersonalact,andacompletedactbeforeHeascended.Itissacrificiallanguage: it points out the objective effect of Christ's atonement. Itcannotbereferredtoinnerrenewing,because,asthepastparticiplehereshows, it was consummated before His ascension. He did not merelyannounce the purification in word; He effected it, as the terms of theexpressionprove,byHissoleactivity,—that is,within thesphereofHisown personal action. In other words, the apostle declares that Christeffected a purification of sin by Himself; or, according to Leviticalnomenclature,thatHewasatoncepriestandvictim—priesttoofferthesacrifice,andvictimtobearthesin,hereconsideredasadefilementthatmustbepurgedaway.

Withoutenteringintoanelucidationofthevariouspassagesintheepistlewhich mention PURIFICATION, let it suffice to say that this term issometimesusedinapurelyobjectivesense.Thus,intheMosaicworship,

the vessels of the sanctuary, and the tabernacle itself, were purified bysacrifices (Heb. 9:22). In like manner, when the heavenly thingsthemselves are said to have been purified by better sacrifices, themeaningis, thattheLord'sdeathwasasatisfactiontothedivinejusticeandholiness,cancellinghumansin(ver.23).Butthereisasubjectivesideof this same truth: the purging of the conscience follows as the certainandnecessary consequenceofpardonbyChrist'sblood. It is the takingawayof thesenseofsin.Buthow?Themeaningis, thattheconscience,once purged, no more feels that burdensome and oppressiveconsciousness of sin constantly carried about with us, till the mindapprehended the sin-bearing substitute. Not that the knowledge of ill-desertistakenawayorforgotten,butthegnawingburdenofuncancelledguilt ceases. This is the subjective side. We may say, then, thatpurificationofsinsbyChrist'ssacrificeconsistsobjectivelyintheremovalofaccumulatedguilt,andsubjectivelyinthepurgingofconscience.

b.AsecondtermisSANCTIFY,havingthesamesacrificialreference.WefinditinourLord'ssayings,andinotherbooksofScripture(John17:19;Eph.5:26),anditismuchalliedtothetermPURIFY;nay,theonemaybesaidto includetheother.Theyagree inthis, thatsinnersdefiledbysin,and thusdisqualified for fellowshipwithGod inanyactofworship,arerestoredtonearnessandtotheserviceofGodasaroyalpriesthood.Itisthemore necessary to vindicate the sacrificial reference, or the settingapartoftheredeemedasadedicatedpeople,because,intheordinaryuseof religious terms, the ideaof sanctificationhasundulybeen limited torenovation by the Spirit. The term is borrowed from theMosaic ritual,andtheprivilegewhichitindicatesisbasedonthesacrificeofthecross.

It may seem that the two terms PURIFY and SANCTIFY are simplycoincident, andcover eachotherat allpoints,because they refer to thetempleservice,andareequallybasedonthebloodofsacrifice.Buttheyhavetheirpeculiarshadeofmeaning.TheprimarymeaningofthetermSANCTIFY, is to set apart to God for a sacred use, to consecrate ordedicate,asIsraelwasseparatedfromotherpeopletoserveJehovah,andcalled HOLY, as they were set apart by the blood of sacrifice to be incovenant, a kingdomof priests; and as such theydwelt apart, theLordbeinginthemidstofthem.Butotherthings,suchasthealtar,thetemple,

the feast-days,werealso said tobesanctified,or consecrated things. Inshort, separation from the world and consecration to God, as resultsbrought about by the blood of atonement, is themeaning of theword.Thusweunderstandthewords,"BothHethatsanctifieth,andtheywhoare sanctified, are all of one" (Heb. 2:11). There is thus a negative andpositive idea attaching to the term. Hence it is wider and morecomprehensive than the term PURIFY, which has more the negativesignification. The sacrifice of Christ was the great redemption-act bywhich thepeopleofGodwereatonceand foreveremancipated fromalife of estrangement, and brought into fellowship as a holy priesthood(Heb. 10:29).Of course,THESPIRITOFSANCTIFICATION follows asthenaturalandnecessaryconsequence.

c. A third term is TO MAKE PERFECT, repeated in a considerablenumber of passages (Heb. 7:11, 19, 9:9, 10:1, 10:14, 11:40, 12:23). ThiswordformsamarkedfeatureintheschemeofthoughtpropoundedtousintheEpistletotheHebrews.Thisisdistinctiveoftheepistle.IfthetermRIGHTEOUSNESS may be regarded as the distinctive feature of theEpistletotheRomans,andtheessentialelementintheforensicaspectoftheatonement,thetermMAKINGPERFECTmaybetakenastheequallymarked feature in the priestly element peculiar to the Epistle to theHebrews. The one epistle brings out justification, and the other ourpriestly standing and priestly service; and the two terms abovementionedarethedistinctivefeatureofeachrespectively.

Thusseveralpassages,makingspecialallusion to the inadequacyof theLevitical priesthood and Old Testament sacrifices, affirm that they didnot give perfection to the worshipper (Heb. 7:19, 10:1). All wasunprofitable in this respect.On the contrary, theone sacrificeofChristhad this effect, as itwasofferedonce forall, that ITPERFECTEDFOREVER THEM THAT ARE SANCTIFIED (Heb. 10:14). What does thatconvey?Itplainlycarrieswithitanegativeandpositive,anobjectiveandsubjectiveidea,astothepriestlyrelationinwhichtheworshippersoftheneweconomyappearbeforeGod.

Theprimaryandpropermeaningofthetermistocompleteawork;andtheideaofperfectingawork,ofcourse,variesaccordingtothedesignorend of the work that has been undertaken. In connection with the

atonement of Christ, it means to attain the end contemplated by thesacrifice; and in this peculiar application of the term tomake the holypriesthood, the peculiar people, perfect for the purposes on account ofwhich they were sanctified or set apart (Heb. 10:14). That wasaccomplished once for all by the cross (Heb. 7:19, 9:9, 10:1–4). Themeaning therefore is, that Christ's atoning death effected what wasnecessary to bring us to perfection, or to the goal designed for us as aroyal priesthood. It removed guilt, and made us, as a priesthood,positivelyacceptableinthesightofaholyGod,whonotonlyregardsourpersons inHis Son, but considers our services, notwithstanding all ourpersonal imperfection, as well-pleasing on His Son's account. The oneoffering of Christ puts us into perfect fellowship with God as a peopleneartoHim.And,subjectively,weareMADEPERFECTaspertainingtotheconscience,andbeginonearthtoservethelivingGod(Heb.9:14).

We come now to the examination of passages which contain moreparticularreferencetotheatonement.Thesearenumerousandvarious.

I.OneexplicitpassageastothenatureandnecessityofChrist'satoningwork is thus expressed:Butwe see Jesus,whowasmade a little lowerthan the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory andhonour; that He by the grace of God might taste death for every one[better,ButHimwhowas fora littlewhilemade lower thantheangels,even Jesus, we see crowned with glory and honour on account of thesufferingofdeath,thatHebythegraceofGodmighttastedeathforeveryone]. For it becameHim forwhomare all things, andbywhomare allthings, in bringingmany sons unto glory, tomake theCaptain of theirsalvation perfect through sufferings (Heb. 2:9, 10). The epistle, inmeetingtheobjectionstoasufferingMessiah,provesfromprophecyandthe divine perfections that Jesus must needs be made lower than theangels, and perfected through sufferings. The final clause, THAT HEMIGHTTASTEDEATH,mayeitherleanonthestatement,Hewasmadelower than the angels, or depend, as we have put it, on the previouswords, "on account of the suffering of death." If we take the latterconstruction,itwillmeanthatthescopeofChrist'ssufferingswastotastedeathforeveryone.Thefinalclausewillthusbringoutthefactthatthesufferings ofChristwere in thedivinepurpose vicarious.The following

pointsmustherebenoticed:—

1.Thesourceoftheatonementwasdivinegrace:"thatHebythegraceofGod(χάριτιΘεοῦ)mighttastedeath."Themeaningofthisclauseis,thatthe grace of Godwas the reasonwhy the Lord tasted death, being thesource or origin fromwhich salvation emanated. It was grace to us, inwhose behalf the ransom was provided, but penal infliction so far asChrist was officially concerned. This intimates that unmerited graceprompted God to giveHis Son, and to transfer guilt toHim. In short,whateverwasvicariouswasofgraceinaspecialsense.Apenaldeathwastheeffectofjustice;buttoadmitaSurety-substitutionwasofgrace.

2.Thedeathwasvicarious.Theexpression"todieforone"carrieswithitthenotionofsubstitution,ashasalreadybeenestablished(Rom.5:6,7).Though ingenious arguments have been used to evade this conclusion,andthoughtheGreekprepositionhasbeenforcedtospeak in favouroftheanti-substitutiontheory,allisofnoavailsolongasthenatureofthetransactionimpliestheopposite.ThesufferingsanddeathoftheLordareeverywhererepresentedtousas thesufferingsofan innocentperson inthe room of the guilty. To show that the Lord's sufferings had a nearconnectionwiththedoomoftheguilty,itissaidinexpresstermsthatHediedfortheungodly(Rom.5:6),thejustfortheunjust(1Pet.3:18).Forwhomwasthisvicariousdeathundergone?Foreveryone.Whatdoesthisimply?TheGreekexpositors,forthemostpart,referredthephrasetotheentire creation,—extending the influence of Christ's death beyond thepale of humanity to angelic intelligences. That, however, would beotherwiseexpressed,andwouldscarcelybeinthesingularneuter,asthisinterpretation assumes. The limitation must be first to humanity, andnexttothattotalitywhichwasgiventoChrist,—thesamepersonswhoaredesignated"themanysons"tobebroughttoglory(ver.10),andtheALLwho are sanctified (ver. 11). This cannot be adduced in favour of thesupposed universal atonement, as the reference in the context is mostexpresstothosewhowereactuallytobesavedbyChrist.

3.Thisexpression,TOTASTEDEATH,isastyleofspeechcommontoalllanguages,andfoundinclassicalaswellasHebrewwriters,inthesenseofundergoing the experienceof a thing (Ps. 34:9; 1Pet. 2:3).Here theexpressionmeans to experience the bitter ingredients of death in their

utmostintensity.WhentheLordissaidtohavetasteddeathforeveryoneofthemanysonswhomHewasbringingtoglory,themeaningis,thatHeexperiencedwhatconstitutedeternaldeath.

Were there sufficient evidence towarrant the readingWITHOUTGOD,whichoccursinsomeoftheFathers,andispreferredbycertainmodernwriters, itwould give the idea of deathwithoutGod, or as forsaken byGod.Ithasnot,however,sufficientwarrant.ButseparationfromGodinconsequenceof sin constitutes thepenal elementofdeath.The stingofdeath is sin (1Cor. 15:56); andas sin separatedbetweenmanandGod(Isa.59:2),deathinthepropersenseofthetermistheseparationofGodfromthesoul.AndinChrist'scaseweseetheexpressionofHisfeelingsunder penal death or desertion by God, when He complained of soul-trouble,agony,andexceedingsorrow.WecantraceinmanyportionsoftheLord'shistoriclifehowHewrestledwiththeterrorsandbitternessofpenaldeath, that is,God'swithdrawal from thehumansoul created forGod, and incapable of finding happiness or rest but in Him. This isplainly perceptible in that unfathomable cry, "Why hast Thou forsakenme?" To taste death is to experience the loss of God, in itself anoverwhelmingvisitation,apartfrompositiveoutwardpunishment.TotheLord Jesus death did not come by accident or permission, or mereviolenceatthehandofman,butasthedivinecondemnationstrikingtheSurety for human guilt. In Gethsemane, wherewe seeHim tasting thesecond death, no human hand was near, and all came direct from thehandofGod.ButHis essential filial relationwasnotdissolved,nor theFather'seternalloveremoved.

4.TheapostleadvertstothefactthatChristWASPERFECTEDthroughsufferings,andtotheDIVINEFITNESSinGod'smoralgovernmentthatitshouldbeso.Weshallbrieflynoticeboththesepoints(ver.10).

a.Astothefact thatChristwasPERFECTEDthroughsufferings, this isrepresented as the sole way of bringingmany sons to glory. The oldercommentatorswerewonttointerprettheverbPERFECTEDasequivalenttoconsecrated,andinonepassageitissorenderedintheEnglishBible(Heb. 7:28). The inaccuracy, however, is apparent, because Christ wasalready a priest on earthwhenHe offeredHimself. Theword is, in itsprimary import, TO PERFECT, contrasting commencement with

consummation, feebleness andmaturity. All the passages in which thetermisappliedtoChrist,describeHimafterHishumiliation,orfinishedlabour (Heb. 2:10, 5:9). In the present passage it refers toHis state ofglory,butwithacertainmodificationof idea.Thetwoverseswequotedaresolinkedtogether,thattheformer(ver.9),describingtheMediatorascrownedwithglory,isgroundedbythelatter(ver.10),whichrepresentsHimasperfected.Whatcanthismean,butthatChristwascrownedafterHisfinishedwork,asAdamwouldhavebeenonstandinghisprobation?It is the state of perfection on the ground of accepted obedience, or ofconfirmationastheHeadofanewhumanity,thesecondAdam;andthetitleCAPTAINOFSALVATION—thatis,causeandprimarypossessorofsalvation—isonadditionalproofofthis.

Buthowdoes thebringingofmany sons to glory stand connectedwiththis perfecting of the second Adam, the leader of salvation? ThemanysonswereINandWITHtheLordbroughtobjectively toHisperfection.Theparticiple,ashereused,denotessimultaneousaction(ἀγάγων),thatthemanysonswerebroughttogloryinandwithHim;forasitissaidthatwesinnedinAdam(Rom.5:12),andwerecrucifiedanddiedwithChrist(Rom.6:6), soweobtained,orwonwithChrist,all thatenters intoHisperfectionandglory.HeobjectivelyintroducedustoglorywithHimself,andwearerepresentedasobjectivelysittingonthethronewithHim,orsitting in heavenly places (Eph. 1:3, 2:6). Though some regard theparticipialclauseasportrayingtheSon'saction, it isbettertoviewitasthe Father's action, in bringing many sons to glory along with thesuffering surety. They were given to Him, represented by Him, andintroducedatthesametimewithHim,whenHereachedthegoal.

b. We have also to notice the DIVINE FITNESS of such a method ofsalvation(ἔπρεπε).Itmightsimplyhavebeensaid,"ItbecameGod."Butwehave a circumlocution full of emphasis, describingGod's relation totheuniverseintermswhichspeakofHimastheultimateend,aswellasthe great first cause of all things. Why is this introduced? It is anadaptation to the Hebrew Christians, embarrassed by the taunts ofunbelieving Jews, pointing with scorn to the ignominious execution ofJesus as incompatible with His Messiahship, according to the glowingterms of prophecy. Prophecy is quoted to establish the fact of His

abasementlowerthantheangels.Next,thishumiliationisrepresentedasworthy of God, and as becoming God. That divine fitness is based onGod'smoralperfections,authority,andlaw;andthisemphaticallyshowsthatthereisnosalvationwithoutatonement,andthattheexpiationdoesnotrestonGod'sabsolutedominionorarbitrarygood-pleasure.Ontheonehand,itwouldnothavebeenbecomingtoabaseHisSonasasuretyinourplace,andtosubjectHimtoignominioustreatmentbymen,andtotheenduranceoftheseconddeathatthehandofGod,hadsalvationbeenpossibleintheexerciseofabsolutedominionorbyabsoluteforgiveness.But it became God to act thus, since there was no salvation withoutatonement.Asitwasnecessarytovindicatejusticeandmaintainlaw,topunish sin, and assert the inalienable rights ofGod, it becameGod, orwasworthyofGod,toperfecttheLordbysuffering;forHeactsaccordingtoHisattributes,which, indeed,couldnotbecontravened,obscured,orignored,withoutdenyingHimself.

II. The death of Christ is described as liberating us from the power ofSatanandthefearofdeath:Forasmuchthenasthechildrenarepartakersoffleshandblood,HealsoHimselflikewise[or,equally]tookpartofthesame;thatthroughdeathHemightdestroy[better,bringtonought]himthat had the power of death, that is, the devil; and deliver them whothrough fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage (Heb.2:14, 15). This passage shows that the scope of the incarnation andatonementwas todeliver thechildren fromthepowerofSatanand thefearofdeath.Afewpointsheredemandconsideration.

1. When Christ is said to have become partaker of our nature, theexpression carries with it the idea that He assumed humanity, withfeelings,affections,andmentalconstitutioneverywaythesameasours;withoutsin,indeed,—forthatwasnopartofhumannatureinitsnormalstate,—butinnothingdifferingfromthelikenessofthefleshofsinsofarasthisapproximationtouswasconsistentwithsinlessness.Thoughnotin Adam's covenant, nor personally subject to its responsibilities apartfrom His spontaneous undertaking, there was a divine fitness, ornecessity, inputtingonhumanity like ours,—ahumanitynotmortal bythenecessity of its being, butmortal becauseof the free assumptionofourguiltandobligations.HemusthaveasufferingmortalnatureforHis

officialtask.ThelanguagenotobscurelyshowsthatHepossessedanothermode of existence. Not to recall the proof furnished by the previouscontext,andbythetitleSon(Heb.1:1–8),thefactthatHetookourfleshand blood implies His possession of a higher nature. A person isintroducedmightierthantheadversarywhoalreadyovercamethehumanraceandheldthemcaptive;fornomortalcouldvanquishonearmedwiththestingofdeathandthecurseofthelaw.

Thepassageremindsusofthefirstpromise(Gen.3:15).Nay,thereseemstobeanexpressparallel:thetermsoftheoneseemtobeaparaphraseorexpositionoftheother.TheobjectinbothisSatan,whobysinacquiredthepowerof inflictingdeathon soul andbody.The seedof thewomanwas mentioned in the one; the participator of flesh and blood ismentioned in theother. In theone, allusion ismade to theheadof theserpent;andintheother,tothedevilashavingthepowerofdeath.ThefirstpromiserepresentstheLordasbruisingtheserpent;thetextbeforeusrepresentsChristasdestroyingSatan,orbringinghimtonought.Theone text is thus a paraphrase of the other, substituting the language offulfilmentforthatofprediction.

2. Themeritorious cause of victory, or theweaponused byChrist,wasHisvicariousdeath.Theapostledoesnotuse theexpressionHisdeath;but from this no argument can be drawn againstHis substitution. Thepronounwasnotrequired,astheapostle'sobjectwastoshowthatChristoverthrew the adversary by turning his weapons against himself,defeating him by that death which was the sphere and element of hispower. How Christ's death was the means of victory is not formallyexpressed, but it can be gathered from other parts of the epistle. Twomodes of explanation have been propounded,—that by the moderntheology, a highly objectionable one, and that given with a generalconsentintheChurch.

a. The explanation given by the modern theology is, that the death ofChristwas the terminationof that portionofHis life subject to Satan'spower,andwassucceededbyanindissolublelife(Heb.7:16).Thetheoryis, thatChrist, the appointed sourceof spiritual life to thehuman race,sustained the utmost enmity of Satan in His death, which, however,formedbut the transition to ahigher life, the commencementof anew

life to mankind. To this comment the obvious objection is that itcontradictsthetext.Itascribesthevictorynottotheatoningdeath,buttotheresurrection-lifeofChrist.ItdoesnojusticetothewordsTHROUGHDEATH.

b.Theother comment, currentlyadopted in theChurchofall times, is,that Christ through death—that is, THROUGH DEATH AS THEEXPIATION OF SIN—annulled Satan's power. The dominion of Satanowed itsorigin to sin,becauseoffended justiceadjudged theguilty toacaptivityofwhichSatanwasbutthesubordinateexecutionerorgaoler.Inlikemanner, Satan's dominionwas overthrown by the expiation of thecross,becausethesatisfactionofjusticeandthevindicationofthedivinerights effected man's deliverance, and made those who were slaves ofSatanthepropertyofanewmaster.

3.Nextwenotice the twofoldendcontemplatedby theLord'sdeath,asbroughtoutinthetwofinalclauses,—theannullingofSatan'spower,andthedeliveranceofbelieversfromthefearofdeath.

(1)AstotheannullingofSatan'spower,thisisinplaintermsannouncedas the scope of Christ's death, for the cross decided the great questionwhoshouldbe theworld'sLord.The finaladjudicationwas thengiven;the judicial process as to the proprietory right was conclusivelydetermined (John 12:31; Col. 2:15). The word rendered DESTROY(καταργεῖν),whichoccurstwenty-fivetimesinPaul'sepistles,meaningtoannulortomakevoid,intimatesthatSatanwasdenudedofhisauthority,notdestroyedastohisbeing.NotwithoutreasondidChristsufferdeath,sincethevictorytobeachievedcouldnotbewonbymerepower.Butthequestionisraised,HowhadSatanthepowerofdeath?Notinthesensethathetemptedmentosin,whichwasfollowedbydeathasitswages;notinthesensethatSatanistheimmediateexecutionerofdeath,inflictingitas it is aphysical evil byhishand; for though this is a receivedJewishdoctrine,itisnowhereaffirmedbyourLordorHisapostles.Thedevilissaid to have had the power of death, as hewielded it tomen's eternalruin, and thus obtained entire possession of them. To fall under thepowerofdeathwastofallunderthepowerofSatan,whichextendstoallwho livewithoutChrist, anddie in sin.By deathhe gets them into hispossession; and the annulling of Satan's power by means of death

consisted especially in this, that such a power was taken away, deathbeing no more at the devil's service, nor a weapon at his commandagainstanyforwhomChristdied.

(2)AfurtherdeliverancenaturallyflowingfromthedeathofChrist,andsecuredbyit,is,thatChristiansaredeliveredfromthefearofdeath.Theapostle treatsof the fearofdeathconnectedwithanevil conscience,orthatsenseof thewrathofGodfromwhichChristiansweredeliveredbythe satisfaction of Christ; and it shows howmiserable is life when thestingisnottakenoutofdeathbythebloodofatonement.

ThisenablesustorebutthecommentoftheCocceianschool,andfortwocenturies repeated in many quarters, that this language, describingbondageandthefearofdeath,isproperlyapplicabletoJewishbelieversliving under the Mosaic covenant. The words of the apostle, however,have their true significance when understood in general of liberationfrom the fear of penal death; and there is no warrant for limiting thetermstoIsraelites,astheyarespokengenerally,nortotemporaldeath,astheynaturallycomprehendwhateverisincludedintheprimevalcurseonsin.Itisaone-sidedtheorywhichrefersthelanguagetobelieversundertheOldTestament; forthoughtheyhadnotthesameclearviewswhichtheChristianeconomydiscloses,wecannotwarrantablyrepresentthemas oppressed by the fear of death, as if still unforgiven and under thecurse.Theapostle,speakinggenerally,firstofaconditionwithoutChrist,and then of a condition in Christ, affirms that through His death isremovedwhateverisformidableindeath.ThefearwhicharosefromanaccusingconsciencewasremovedbytheLord'sdeath.

III. Another passage in the same context thus introduces us to thepriesthoodofChrist:WhereforeinallthingsitbehovedHimtobemadelike unto His brethren, that Hemight be a merciful and faithful HighPriest in thingspertaining toGod, tomakereconciliation for [better, toatonefor,ortomakepropitiationfor]thesinsofthepeople(Heb.2:17).Theprincipalobjectof theepistle is toenforcethepriesthoodofChrist,andthisisthefirstannouncementofit.Wemaytakeupthistestimonyinthesefewpoints.

1.ItbehovedHimtobemadelikeHisbrethreninordertoatoneforsin.

The termsof thepassageare soconstructedas to showbeyonddisputethattheatonementwastheulteriorobjectforwhichChristwaspreparedby this previous discipline. The priestly sentimentwhich prompted theatonement was nourished by all the objective elements ofHis call andunction, and also subjectively developed by the sympathy imbibedthrough life from the personal experience of living amid the sufferingsandtemptationsofthehumanfamilysubjectedtothecaptivityofsinandSatan.Heenteredintothisstateofthings,holy,harmless,undefiled,andseparatefromsinners,butsosurroundedbytheatmosphereofdarknessanddefilement,trialandtemptations,thatthetruepriestlydisposition—compassionand thepurpose todelivermankind—was fostered at everystep.Thatundoubtedly is the thought. It refers towhatwentbefore theatonement,andspurredHimtocompleteit.AsHelearnedobediencebysuffering (Heb. 5:8), so He learned priestly sympathy; fitted for thepriestly action by having an identity of nature and temptation, sorrowand trial. The mercy and faithfulness thus acquired are everlastinglyretained on high, but they are here mentioned in their origin aspreparatorytothesacrificewhichpacifiedGod.

2. Christ was a priest on earth making atonement. The strictlygrammaticalforceofthetermsintimatesthatHewasapriesttoatoneforsins,ortopropitiateGodforsins.Theapostledoesnotspeakofwhatwasdoneaftertheascension,butofwhatwasdoneduringtheentireperiodofHis earthly life; and the import of the words allows no otherinterpretation.Noonewithoutaforegoneconclusioncoulddeducefromthis, as the Socinians and others following them have done, that thepriesthood of Christ commenced only after the ascension. While theyarguethatChristsufferedanddiedthatHemightbemadeapriest,whothat reads with any attention does not see that the apostle affirms adifferentthing?ItisnotsaidthatHewasmadelikeHisbrethrenthatHemightbemadeapriest,butthatHemightbeamercifulandfaithfulHighPriest; for the experience of our sorrows, temptations, and sufferingsformed Him to sympathy, and prompted Him to pursue His atoningwork.TheentirelanguageoftheNewTestamentwritersproceedsonthesuppositionthatChristactedonearthasapriest.ThusHegaveHimselfaransom(Matt.20:28).HegaveHimselfforusanofferingandasacrifice(Eph.5:2).ThedeathofChristisrepresentedasthepassoversacrificefor

us(1Cor.5:7).Thepurificationofoursinswaseffectedbysacrifice,asapast act before He ascended (Heb. 1:3). That Christ acted as a priestduring His earthly career, and that He once for all consummated thesacrificeonthecross,becauseitrequirednoadditionorsupplement,is,asweshallsee,repeatedlyaffirmedinthisepistle.

The confusion in the mind of those who call this in question may betraced to theway inwhich they interpret the types on the great day ofatonement,andespeciallytheimportofcarryingthebloodintotheholyofholies,asalreadyexplained.Weonlyaddhere, that theaction in theholyofholiesdependedforitsefficacynotonthebarefactofthepriestappearingbeforeGod,butonhispresentingthebloodofsacrificeofferedforthesinsofthepeople.Somecolourmighthaveexistedforthetheoryofapriesthoodbeguninheaven,andasacrificeinheaven,hadthepriestbeendirectedmerelytopresenthimself intheholiestofallwithoutanyfurtherprovisionforexpiatingsin;butwehaveonlytorecalltheactionoftheJewishhighpriestat thedoorof the tabernacleof thecongregation(Lev.16:7),toseeevidencethatthebloodofsacrificewasindispensablynecessary to the validity of the priestly action within the vail; that hecouldnothaveenteredwithoutit;andthatitwaspresupposedinallthatwassubsequentlydone.

3. The apostle mentions THE PEOPLE: who were they? Since thelanguageof theepistlepartakesof aJewish tincture, and theparties towhom itwas addressedwereChristian Jews, arewe to hold that thoseobjects of the propitiation designated "the people"weremen of Jewishdescent?Bynomeans.Thephraseologyisvaried,buttheyarethesamepersonswho are called in the contextmany sons (ver. 10), the seed ofAbraham (ver. 16),His brethren (ver. 17). By far themost natural andappropriateexpositionisthatwhichregardsthemasthosewhoformtheone family of God, irrespective of Jewish or Gentile descent. They aresuchashavethefaithofAbrahamwithoutreferencetonationality.

4. the lastpointtobenoticedis, thattheLordJesus, inHiscapacityasourHighPriest,propitiatedGod,oratonedforsin.HewasthepriestofHis own sacrifice. The proper import of the term here rendered, TOMAKERECONCILIATION, is topropitiate, topacifyanoffendedparty,ortoturnawaywrath.ThisistheuniformuseoftheterminalltheGreek

poets, historians, and writers generally; and no classical scholar willdoubtthis.TheGreekverbisconstruedwiththeaccusativeofthepersonwhoseangeristurnedaway,anditmayappearanomalousthatnopersonis here named whose wrath is pacified. The phrase "to propitiate sin"would be uncouth and devoid of meaning. The mode of resolving thephraseadoptedbyallthemosteminentphilologistswhoacknowledgethelawsof languageandtheauthorityofusageis, thattheexpressionmustbeusedasmeaningthatCHRISTPROPITIATEDGODFOROURSINS.Thismakesallplain;anditisaccordingtothefixedmeaningoftheterm.TheSeptuaginttranslatorsadaptedthetermtorevealedideas,butcouldnotchangeitsimport.

Thisleadsmetonoticeatheorypropoundedbycertainmodernwriters,totheeffectthattheSeptuagintimpressedanewmeaningupontheword,and that from this source it passed over into the New Testamentphraseologywith an altered acceptation.Wemust deny both positions.TheAlexandrine translators found termsready to theirhand, fixedandsettledintheirimport,andtheycouldnotatdiscretionalterthemiftheywishedtobeintelligible.Thattheyusedthewordunderconsiderationinthe sense of propitiating or appeasing an angry party, is evident fromtheir translation of the passage where Jacob is said to have appeasedEsau(Gen.32:20),andfromthetextwhereawisemanissaidtopacifytheking'swrath(Prov.16:14).ThetermdidnotpassintotheSeptuagintwithanalteredmeaning;andhencewedismissasgroundlessthedoubletheory,thattheworddoesnotoccurintheNewTestamentinitsproperGreek significance, and that the apostles needed no classical Greekvocabulary,assuitablewordsfortheideaswhichtheydevelopedfromtheOldTestamentwerealreadyfixedbythepeculiarstyleoftheSeptuagint.TheSeptuagintdidmuch to fix theusage for theGreek-speakingJews,butnottoalterthemeaningofGreekterms,whichwouldhavedefeatedtheendoftranslationaltogether.Hencetheywhowouldmakethisphrasemeannomorethan"tocoversin,"andallegethatitisaHebrewthoughtexpressed in Greek, are liable to the charge of altering themeaning ofterms,orofbringing theprimaryoretymologicalmeaningofaword inonelanguagetocontrolthefixedusageofanotherwithouteitherwarrantor probability. That is all the more hazardous when carried out, as isgenerallydoneinthiscase,underthespellofadogmaticbias,—thatis,to

lendcountenancetothetheorythattheScripturesdonotpredicatewrathofGod.

The phrase should have been rendered here, TO ATONE FOR, or TOMAKEPROPITIATIONFORSINS.Andthenoun,usedseveraltimesbyJohn, strictly rendered, denotes "propitiation" (1 John 2:2, 4:10). Theexpressionhere used brings before us the idea of the greatHighPriestand thesacrifice,—that is, therealityof thatsacrificewhichwasofferedfortheJewishpeopleonthegreatdayofatonementpresupposingdivineangeronaccountofthesinsofthepeople,andintimatingthatourHighPriest,bytheinterventionofHissacrifice,pacifiedthewrathofGod.Thepropitiation presupposes wrath; and would not have been propitiationwithout it; it would have been but semblance or appearance. Not thatmankind, as God's workmanship, ceased to be the object of divinebenevolenceandaffection;buttheScripturesaboundinproofsofawrathofGod,bywhichHenotonlystoodalooffromsin,butwaspromptedbyHisholynaturetoactagainstit,tillachangewaseffectedinourrelationtowardGod,andinGod'srelationtowardus,bythegreathistoricfactofatonement. The propitiation came in between human sin and divinewrath,appeasingthatwrath,andwinningforusthefavourofGod.

Itmaybenoticedthatthetermhereusedintheoriginalisdifferentfromthe word elsewhere used by the Apostle Paul for RECONCILE (Rom.5:10;2Cor. 5:18).Thedifferencebetween the twomaybedescribedasfollows:—ThetermcommonlyusedforRECONCILEhasnoreferencetothe old law, or to the priestly institute; it is taken from ordinary life,presupposing the existence of a quarrel or controversy, and intimatingthat friendshiphasbeenrestoredbyputting thecauseofquarreloutoftheway.TheBible term intimates that thosehindranceswere removedwhichhadobstructedfriendlyunionbetweenGodandman;butthereisnoallusiontosacrificeasthemeansbywhichthereunionwaseffected.On the other hand, the term PROPITIATE here used puts the newrelation cemented in direct causal connectionwith the priest hood andsacrifice. It isneverapplied toGodas theactingparty,but toChrist inHis high-priestly function. Though God is commonly described as theReconciler,—thatis,astheauthoroftheremedialeconomyorschemeofreconciliation (2 Cor. 5:18),—He is never said to propitiate, for the

obviousreasonthatthatwouldimplyathirdparty.GodHimselfwasthepartywhoseangerwastobeaverted,andwhosefavourableregardwastobe restored by the intervention of the priestly sacrifice. The differencebetween the twomodesofexpression,whichat first sight seemtohavemuchincommon,mainlyconsistsinthis,thatpropitiationwastheworkof a priest coming in between man and God; whereas the act ofreconciliation,asaffirmedofGod,isthemoregeneralterm,settingforththat God not only was the source of the restored friendship, but alsoplannedandcarriedintoexecutionthepropitiation,orgreatintermediateprovisionbywhichthereconciliationwaseffected.

Whenwesumupthe forceof thismemorable testimony, itaffirmsthatChristmadeapropitiationforthesinsofthepeople,or,asitisalsoput,His people (Matt. 1:21), not by delivering them from intellectual error,notbymerelyconvertingthemfromevilwaysforthefuture,butbyafactinhistoryonceforall,havingapotentialityforalltime.Hisworkeffectedmuchmorethantheabolitionofthetypicaleconomy,ortheintroductionof aneweconomyof truth confirmedbyHisdeath.As theJewishhighpriest brought the atonement for the people of the old economy onceevery year, soChrist, once for all, satisfied divine justice, and removedthe penalty of sin by His historic oblation at Jerusalem as Priest andSacrificeinoneperson.ThetermPROPITIATEmeanstoappeaseGod,ortoavertHiswrathbysacrifice;andthepassageisnottobeinterpretedofintercessioninheaven,thoughthatfollowsandleansonthesacrifice,butoftheonepropitiationoratonementofthecross.

IV.AnotherpassagebearingontheHighPriest'ssufferingobedienceisinthese terms: Who in the days of His flesh, when He had offered up[better,takinginthelastwordsoftheverse,whenHehadfromgodlyfearofferedup]prayersandsupplications,withstrongcryingandtears,untoHim thatwas able to saveHim fromdeath, andwasheard (in thatHefeared), though He were a Son [better, though He was the Son], yetlearnedHeobediencebythethingswhichHesuffered;andbeingmadeperfect,HebecametheauthorofeternalsalvationuntoallthemthatobeyHim(Heb.5:7–9). In thecontextwehaveseveralpointsofcomparisonbetween Christ and the Aaronic priesthood: His divine call to thepriesthood; His sympathy learned in a career of trial. A divine

commissionwas sonecessary foronewhoshouldactbetweenGodandman,thatapartfromotherquestionsbearingonHisabilityforthetask,thesovereignrightsofGodstoodinthewayofanyonetakingtheofficeuncalled.Thesalientpointsofthepassagearethese:

1. Thedays ofHis fleshmean thewhole time ofHis humiliation,—thatperiodwhenHe came amongmen as one of them, but still the Son ofGod, whose majesty was hid. As applied to Christ, the term FLESHintimates that He put on a true humanity, but a humanity under theweight of imputed guilt, with the curse that followed in its train,—asinless,butsin-bearinghumanity.IthaseverythingincommonwiththeLord's own expression, "The Son of Man" (compare Rom. 8:3, 1 Pet.3:18).TheLordfelttheweaknessofthefleshinHiswholevicariouswork,and though personally spotless, was, in virtue of taking our place,subjected toall thatweareheir to.Wedonot, indeed, find inHimthepersonal consequences of sin, such as sickness and disease, but theconsequenceswhichcouldcompetently fall to the sinless substitute; forHeneverwasinAdam'scovenant,butwasHimselfthesecondAdam.AsHetookfleshforanofficialpurpose,Hesubmittedtotheconsequencesfollowinginthetrainofsin-bearing—hungerandthirst,toilandfatigueinthesweatofHisbrow,fearandsorrow,persecutionandinjustice,arrestand suffering,wounds anddeath: this period is called "the days ofHisflesh."

2. We must examine the phrase "in that He feared" Two modes ofinterpretation have divided commentators: the one rendering the termfearofconsternation;theotherrenderingitthefearofreverence,"piety,"or"godliness."

a.Thefirst interpretation,whichrenders it thefearofconsternation,oramazement,becamecurrentintheReformedChurchundertheinfluenceofCalvin,whoadduceditasaproofofthedoctrinethatChristenduredinHissoulthewrathofGodforoursoul'sredemption.TheRomanists,wholimited Christ's sufferings to corporeal pains, exclaimed against thisexpositionassubversiveofHisdeity,andcalleditblasphemous.Beza,inan important note, replete with erudition and sound doctrine, on thegreat truth impugned,endeavours toprove that the termmeans fear inthe sense of dread, adducing passages from the classics and the New

Testament(Acts23:16).HedeclaresthathewillbehardtopersuadethattheGreekprepositionallowstherendering"washeardforHisreverence,"as intheVulgate.Bellarmine,whilediscussingthedoctrinalquestionofChrist's soul-agony, renewed the grammatical as well as doctrinalobjectionsagainstthatexposition;andhewasansweredbyJunius,Ames,Turretin, and others. On account of the important doctrine which wasraised,thisinterpretationcametoprevailamongReformeddivines.Thepeculiarandanomalousexpression,"washeardfromfear,"asitliterallymeans, was construed to signify the terminus from which He wasrescued.Andtheywerewonttodefendthisexpositionbyanappealtothewords of the psalm: "Thou hast heard me from the horns of theunicorns,"—that is,hastheardanddeliveredme (Ps.22:21).But that isartificial, and a supplement put in by the interpreters. The passages,indeed, bywhich they proved that the term denotes consternation andamazement,onlyshowthatitwasusedforthecautiousavoidanceofevil,physicalorreligious,—asensethatnaturallypassesintothatofreverence.

b. The other interpretation, viz. THE FEAROF REVERENCE, is everyway preferable. As the noun elsewheremeans godly fear (Heb. 12:28),andas theadjective is commonlyused fordevout (Luke2:25;Acts2:5,8:2),usage, aswell as etymology, is certainly in its favour.Besides, thegeneralconsentofpatristicexpositorsandthebestmodernexegetesmaybementioned as all in the samedirection.There is onepoint urgedbyBezaandTurretinwhichhasnotbeensatisfactorilyobviated,—viz., thattheGreekprepositionhereuseddoesnotcommonlymean"byreasonof,"andthatwhereitissoused,asitisinseveralpassages(Matt.13:44;Luke21:26, 24:41; Acts 12:14; John 21:6), it denotes the inner influence ormotive bywhich an agent is actuated. Somuchdoes this seem tohaveweighed with Chrysostom, with his delicate appreciation of the Greeklanguage, that while retaining the sense for which we contend, hestrangely ascribed the reverence to the Father. The whole difficulty,however,onthisscorevanishes,when,asIhaveproposed,weconstruetheGODLYFEARwithboththeprecedingparticiples;foritthenmeansthatHepouredoutprayersingodlyfearandwasheard:"havingFROMGODLYFEARofferedupprayersandsupplications,andbeingheard."

3.Theofferingupofagonizingprayersisnextmentioned.Herewenotice

attheoutsetthepeculiarexpressionOFFERINGUPPRAYERS,whichacentury ago was commonly expounded as a sacrificial term, and asmeaningthattheLord'spriestlyprayersinsomepeculiarsensebelongedto His sacrifice. But prayers are not the satisfaction: the sacrifice wasHIMSELF; and we have never been able to see any force in thisexposition,whethertheideaistakensinglyorconjoined.Besides,toofferprayer was a familiar Jewish phrase. We dismiss this comment as agroundlesspieceofoverdoing.

These prayers, accompanied with strong crying and tears, toHimwhowas able to saveHim fromdeath, imply the endurance of penal death.DidHefear themerecorporealsufferingwhichmanyamartyrhasmetwith fortitude? Sinless nature no doubt shrinks from death, but it wassomething of a far other quality which gave rise to the agony andamazementwhichweighedsoheavilyontheSonofGod,—viz.,theseconddeath, the full inflictionofwrathat thehandofGodfor thesins,notofoneman, but of the whole company of the elect. The curse of the lawunderwhichHespontaneouslyplacedHimselfstruckthesoulaswellasthebody(Gal.3:13).Morewascomprehendedthanbodilypain,asmightbearguedfromthehorrorandrecoiloftheRedeemerfromthecupwhichwastobedrunk.Besides,corporealsufferingswouldnothavesufficedformen'sredemption,forHeredeemedthesoulaswellasthebody(1Cor.6:20):Heassumedbothsoulandbody;andHeofferedbothinourroom,aswasnecessarytoexpiateguiltincurredinbothandbyboth.Asthesinwasprincipallycommittedbythesoul,andthebodywasusedasbutitsinstrument, it will not suffice to say that the suffering was in the soulmerelybysympathy:theconversewasrathertrue.

Hence,while theLordJesuscontinuedamidallHisagonytheobjectofdivineloveastheonly-begottenoftheFather,Heenduredallthecurse,wrath,andinflictionjustlytobeawardedtothesinHeboreonHisownbody.HadHenotexperiencedthatGodwasangry,notindeedatHimself,but at our sins, He could not have been a deliverer; for there was norelaxationof the law,nor couldbe;norwas thereany relaxationof thepenalty.TheagonyofChristreadoffromHishumanlifeinmanyscenesbeforeHereachedGethsemaneandthecross,consistedprimarilyinthelossofGod,—aprivationwhichremovedfromHimthevisionofGodand

thesenseofHispresence:thesubjectofsufferingwastheentirehumannatureoftheLord.NotthatHeceasedtobethebelovedSon,andactuallyloved.Not that theLord, inHisownconsciousness, ceased todraw thedistinctionbetweenHispersonalandofficial relation toHisFather; forHis whole language virtually avows His innocence and Sonship, andproceedsupon theplea that theFatherwouldeither remove thecuporuphold Him: there was no despair and no distrust for an instant. ButthoughHistrustwasneverforamomentinterrupted,norsucceededbydespair,Hewaswhollywithoutthatsensibleenjoymentwhichcommonlyflows from trust, and was subjected to an overwhelming pressure ofheavinessandsorrow,causedbythedivineangeratsin,whichtheSuretymustnecessarilyundergo.ThoughtheSuretywasinHimselfthebelovedSon,Hewas,asthesin-bearer,underthehidingofHisFather'sfacewhenHepouredouttheseprayerswithstrongcryingandtears.

And the apostle adds, HEWASHEARD. But the inquiry arises, How?When? Did He not undergo death? How was He heard, when HeappealedtoHimwhowasabletosaveHimfromdeath,andyetwasgivenup to death? The solution is easy. Whatever the Lord absolutely andunconditionally asked,was absolutely andunconditionally granted.Butwhat He conditionally asked—that is, asked from natural affection, orfrom a sensitive recoil from what seemed to His human feelingsoverwhelmingandintolerable,andratherawishthanadefinitevolition—wasansweredinthewaymostnecessaryinthecircumstances.Wearewarranted to say,whenwe compare this passagewith the scene of thesoul-troubleandGethsemane,thatGodheardHim,eitherbymitigatingthe terror, or by nerving Him to bear it, or by strengthening Him bymeansoftheangel.HisfearwaslestHeshouldsinkandbeswallowedupofdeath,andHewasheardandrescued.

4. The next statement requiring notice is, that Christ, notwithstandingHis Sonship, learned obedience by suffering. The clause is properlyparticipial, and literally rendered,THOUGHBEINGTHESON: it takesforgrantedthedivineSonshipasanteriortoHisobedience,andnotthefruitofHisobedience.Thelanguagewouldotherwisebeunmeaning;forit assumes thatHewhopersonallywas above all obedience,wasput inthepositionof learningobedience.Thisshowswhatwasrequiredtothe

rightdischargeofthatactiveandsufferingobediencewhichmustneedsbevicariouslyrenderedtofulfilthetaskofSuretyship,andthegreatnessofChrist'sredeemingloveinobligingHimselftorenderobedienceinthemidst of such suffering. The following elements constituted thatobedience:—

It was developed from a sinless nature, beginning with His birth andpervadingHislife,tillHebowedHisheaduponthecross.ThoughtakingfleshfromAdam,Hishumanitywas,bytheovershadowingpoweroftheHoly Ghost, generated pure in the act of personal union to the onlybegottenSon,andneverexistedapart.HewassinlessinHisnature,andin His history; holy for the unholy, pure to occupy the place of theimpure; therealizationof thedivine lawateverymoment,and ineveryscene;theidealofthelaw.WhenHelearnedobediencebysuffering,themeaningis,thattheobediencegrewinextent,intensity,andforce,bythepressure put upon it: the hotter the conflict, the more did inwardsubmission unfold itself. Not that this argues previous defect, for insinless creaturehood there is progress. Even in thatwhich claims to beperfect there are degrees of advancement; and in Christ's case theobedience,alwaysperfect,wasnotatfirstinitsfulldevelopment.Weseeinall livingthingsgrowth,progress tomaturity. InGethsemane,and inHissoul-desertion,Hiswillwasneverturnedasidefromthestraightpathofpromptobedienceevenbysuperhumantrials,butheldon itscourse,still learning obedience.Not suffering alone, but obedience in sufferingthemostoverwhelmingandunparalleled,constitutedthesecondAdam'stask.

5. The reward follows: "Being made perfect, He became the author ofeternal salvation."The importofperfecting, as applied toChrist in thisepistle,hasalreadybeenexplained(Heb.2:10).Butwemustrescuetheexpression from the superficial gloss that makes it exaltation ascontrastedwithhumiliation.TheseemingantithesisbetweenthedaysofHis flesh and this ulterior stage, may seem at first sight to givecountenance to that idea; but there is something deeper in theconnection,—viz.thelinkbetweenlearningobedienceinthedaysofHisflesh, and being perfected as the second man for the purposes of themediatorial economy. The language takes for granted a period of

probation assigned to the second Adam, followed by a state ofconfirmation,orstateofmediatorialfitnessforsecuringthefinalwelfareof His people: it is the reward of an approved obedience. This is thedeeperconnectionandthetruemeaning,asisevidentfromthefactthattheperfectingstandsrelatedtoHisbeingtheauthorofeternalsalvation,the same link that we noticed above (Heb. 2:10). He was officiallyperfectedforalltheendsofHismediatorialundertaking.Afurtherproofmaybeadduced.ItwasthroughthisperfectingoftheSuretythatwearesaidtobeperfected;thatis,wearepartakersofHimandonewithHiminHisapprovedobedienceandacceptedsacrifice(Heb.10:14).

Thusperfected,Christ becameTHEAUTHOROF eternal SALVATION.The humiliation ended with the weakness, temptation, suffering, anddeathpeculiartothedaysofHisflesh.TheRepresentative,actinginthename of a chosen people, not only reached the goal, but became theauthor of eternal salvation. This passage has almost everything incommon with the passage already noticed (Heb. 2:10): it well-nighrepeatsit.Thechiefdifferenceis,thatintheformerpassageHeiscalledthe captain or leader of salvation, the first in the order of possession;whereasinthispassageHeiscalledthemeritoriouscause,theauthorofsalvation. It remains only to notice that the salvation is limited to aparticular class who bear the designation OF THOSE WHO OBEYCHRIST.Thismayprimarily refer to theobedienceof faith,—that is, totheobediencewhich isapparent in theveryactofbelieving (Rom.1:5),butalsotakesintheobedienceoflife.

V. The next passage is specially important, as showing that the LordJesus on earth was at once priest and sacrifice: Such an high priestbecameus,whoisholy,harmless[better,suchahighpriestbefittedus,—oneholy, innocent], undefiled, separate fromsinners, andmadehigherthantheheavens;whoneedethnotdaily,asthosehighpriests,toofferupsacrifice,firstfarHisownsins,andthenforthepeople's:forthisHedidonce, when He offered up Himself (Heb. 7:26, 27). Melchizedek'spriesthood, according to the outline in Genesis, is represented in thischapter as typical; next, apassage in thePsalms,written long after theinstitutionoftheAaronicpriesthood,promisedapriestofanotherorder(Ps.110:4);andtheapostlearguesthatperfectioncouldnotbebythelaw,

becausethereplacingofitspriesthoodwasaplainproofofimperfection.The irrevocableoathwasalsoaproofof abetter covenant (Heb. 7:20–22). Christ's priesthood was everlasting and unchangeable, while theotherconstantlypassedfromonedyingmantoanother(ver.24).

The words have the samemeaning as the previous passage, which setforththenecessityoftheatonementonthegroundofjustice(Heb.2:10).TheexpressionSUCH(τοιοῦτος)ANHIGHPRIESTisreferredbysometowhatprecedes(vers.1–25);butfarmorenaturallyitrefers,aswehaverendered it, to the followingclause, "oneholy,harmless,undefiled,andseparate fromsinners,"—thesameexpression thatwehavebelow(Heb.8:1).Thevariouspredicatesofthehighpriest,immediatelysubjoined,areby no means to be interpreted as properties that belonged to HimexclusivelyafterHisascension.ThefirstfouraredescriptiveofwhatHewas on earth, when brought into contact, during the discharge of Hisoffice,withsinandsinners;andonlybecauseallthisbelongedtoHimonearth, doesHe continue to be all this in heaven.When taken together,they affirm moral perfection in all its parts and degrees, describing itnegatively as well as positively. The epithet HOLYmight seem at firstsighttointimatetheconsecrationbywhichHewassetaparttoGod;andthesuggestionhasbeenmade,Mayitnotrecallthetitle"HolinesstotheLord"onthemitreoftheAaronichighpriest?ButanexaminationoftheGreek word here used at once satisfies us that not the holiness ofdedication is intimated, but the holiness of inward conformity to thedivine will—of moral and religious conduct. The second epithet,HARMLESS, or innocent, was understood by the translators of theEnglish version, as it is bymanymodern expositors, as intimating thatHewas,inHisintercourseamongmen,freefromevil,malice,orinjury.Butaccordingtoitsetymologyithasamoreextensivemeaning:itmeansa nature free from every taint of evil or original sin. The third epithet,UNDEFILED, signifies that He contracted no defilement amidtemptationswhichsolicitedHimoneveryside,andthat,whilealwaysincontactwithsin,Hecontinuedsinless, for the infectionneverspreadtoHim. The fourth epithet, or descriptive predicate, SEPARATE FROMSINNERS,meansthatHewasthetrueNazarite:Hissoulwasasastar,anddweltapart.Severalmoderninterpreters,followinginthewakeoftheold Socinians, who interpreted these predicates of Christ in heaven,

supposethatitmeansseparatedfromsinnersbyHisexaltation,—thatis,by localdistance;a lowandone-sidedview.Theexpressionmeans thatChrist,while living among sinners, and supposed to be of the commonorderofmen,wasinfinitelyapartfromtheminnatureandcharacter,inthought and deed, inwords and principles, inmotive and conduct.Hewasamongthem,notofthem;nay,inamoralrespect,infinitelyseparate.The fifth predicate, MADE HIGHER THAN THE HEAVENS,undoubtedly differs from the previous four in this, that it refers toHisexaltation.ThedesignistoshowthatourgreatHighPriestmustneedsbemade higher than the heavens, infinitely exalted above all, in order tobestowaswell aswin salvation.Butnoone,with any colourof reason,can allege that He was then only made a priest, or that He then onlyperformed the principal part of the priestly function—the offering ofsacrifice. The previous predicates of the high priest, as well as thesubsequent verse, indisputably prove thatHewas acting as a priest onearth. And the design of the apostle in naming these predicates of ourHighPriest,wastoprovethatHewasinfinitelypleasingtoGod,thatHewasundernonecessitytooffersacrificeforHimself,andthatHisofferinghadeverlastingvalidity.

NextfollowsacomparisonbetweentheJewishhighpriestintheannualsacrifice on the day of atonement, and our great High Priest in Hissacrifice once offered (ver. 27). There is a point of similarity, such asobtainsbetweentypeandantitype,butalsoapointofdisparity,inasfarasChrist's sacrificewas infinitely superior invalidityandvalue.On thegreatdayofatonementtheJewishhighpriestofferedsacrificefirstforhisownsins,andthenforthepeople's.TheexpressionDAILY,appliedtotheJewish high priest, has been variously expounded; some referring it tothe annual return of the great day of atonement,when this part of theritualwaseverrepeated;othersreferring it to themorningandeveningsacrifice.Asthelatterwasoffered,notforthehighpriestnorthepriestsingeneral,but for thepeople, it isbetter tounderstand itas intimatingthat,oneveryoccasionofoffering for the sinsof thepeople,heofferedalsoforhisownsins.

On the contrary, the sacrifice of Christ was unique. What, from thenecessity of the case, was always separated in the Jewish ritual, was

combinedinHim.WhenHegaveHislifearansomformany,Hewasthepriest ofHis own sacrifice—priest and sacrifice in one. This is the firsttimeinthecourseoftheepistlethatwefindexpressmentionofChristasat once priest and victim, but it is repeated again and again. Thisdistinguishes the sacrifice of Christ from the Old Testament sacrifices.Theywereexternaltothehighpriest,thebloodbeingforeigntohim,or,asitisrendered,thebloodofothers(Heb.9:25):theyhadnorelationtohis person, for the twowere not identified. ButChrist offeredHimself;andHecoulddosoastheSonofGod,thepossessorofahighernature,whounitedahumanitytoHimself,andwascompetenttodisposeofit,asnomerecreaturecoulddisposeofhimself,becauseithadbeenassumedasaninstrumentforworkingouttheeternalredemptionofHispeople.InthisourHighPriestwasabsolutelyunique.Butwhatistheimportoftheclause, "For thisHe did once,whenHe offered upHimself?"As to thedemonstrative pronoun THIS, it cannot refer to both the previousclauses, as setting forth that ourHigh Priest offered a sacrifice forHisownsinsandthenforthepeople's.Itcanreferonlytothelatter,asthestrictly grammatical import of the singular THIS properly intimates.Besides,innosenseofthetermscouldChristbesaidtoofferforHimself.Thewholepredicatesabovenoticedwerespeciallyadducedtoshowthatnosuchthingexisted,orwaspossible;andtheattemptstomaintaintheopposite,intheinterestofoverthrowingthevicarioussacrificeinancientormoderntimes,arerecklessassertionsborderingupontheimpious.

It only remains that we notice that important word ONCE, so oftenreiterated.Theword,asappliedtothesacrificeofChrist, intimatesthatthis great sacrifice was offered once for all, and that it required, andindeed allows, no repetition (Heb. 9:26, 10:10). Thus, as high priest,Christ had something to offer: He offered Himself as the perfect highpriest,andtheperfectsin-offering,tastingdeathforeveryoneinsuchawaythathenceforththerewasnoneedoffurthersacrificeforsin.

Before passing from this text, two questions canvassed by theologicalwritersdemandananswer: 1.Was theLordJesus in realityapriestonearth?and,2.WasHeactingasapriestonthecross,andpreviously?Weanswer:Theentireepistleaffirmsboth,andassumesboth.Soobviousisthis to unbiassed readers, that it might seem an extraordinary

inconsistencytoadmitthecanonicalauthorityoftheepistle,andexplainawayitstestimonytobothtruths.ButfromthedaysofthefirstSocinianstoourowntime,manyattemptshavebeenmadetoestablishthisontwogrounds:first,thatthetermpriest,asappliedtoChrist,ismetaphorical;next, that His priesthood began with His exaltation, and not before.Theseviewstendtooverthrowthevicarioussacrificeofthecross.

1. The allegation that Christ is called a priest metaphorically, withoutbeingatrueandproperpriest,iseasilyanswered,ifweadmitthatbiblicalterms and analogiesmust be taken in their naturalmeaning.Whenwefind a regular comparison betweenChrist's priesthood and theAaronichighpriesthood,inregardtoqualifications,thenecessarycallbyGod,andsympathytobeexercised(Heb.5:1–7),itispreposteroustoallegethatallthis is compatiblewith the supposition of ameremetaphor.When theMessiahisdescribedasinvestedwithapriesthoodaccordingtoapeculiarorder, different from that ofAaron, and superseding it, this establishesthe same fact. And it further appears,when it is announced that everypriestwasordainedtooffergiftsandsacrifices,andthat thismanmusthavesomewhatalsotooffer(Heb.8:3).Christisthusapriestintherealacceptationof the term—thetruthofwhatwas typical. Inaword,He isspokenofasapriestwhen raisedupamongmen (Heb.7:11);whenHecameoutofJudah (ver. 14);during thewholeperiodcomprehended inthedaysofHisflesh(v.7);duringHiscontactwithhumansociety,whenHewasholy,harmless,undefiled,andseparatefromsinners.

2. The allegation that His priesthood began not on earth, but at Hisascension, has only to be placed in the light of this epistle to be fullyrefuted. Its entire teaching proves thatHe acted as a priest duringHiswhole humiliation, and that His death was a sacrifice (Eph. 5:2; Heb.2:17, 5:7). A few argumentsmay suffice to put this truth in its properlight,withoutanticipatingwhatwillcomebeforeusinthesequel.

a.Thehighpriestunderthelawwasnotfirstconstitutedapriestwhenheentered theholiestof all:hehadalready, inhis capacityashighpriest,slainthesacrifice,thebloodofwhichwascarriedwithintheveil.And,inlikemanner,Christwas already apriestwhenHegaveHimself forHispeople.Itwasnot,andcouldnotbe,anewsacrificewithintheveil,whenone part, and the principal part of it, was performed previous to His

entry.

b.ThepassageswhichmakementionofChrist'sONEoblation,orofHisofferingHimselfONCE,areconclusiveastothefactofHisbeingapriestonearth; for thatwordONCEcannotbeunderstoodofwhat isdone inheaven. It must refer to His death as a historic fact, completed andfinishedherebelow.Itisagainstallreasontoaffirmthatthesacrificewasoffered once, if it still continues; for the expression ONCE, or ONEOFFERING,plainlycontraststhecompletedsacrificewiththecontinuousintercessionwhichevermoreproceedsuponit.Nordoestheepistlestopthere:theanalogyinstitutedbetweenthefactthatitwasappointedtoallmenoncetodie,andtheoneatoningdeathofChrist(9:27),leavesusinnodoubtthatwemustviewthatsacrificeascompletedonthecross.

c.ThepriestlysacrificewhichChristofferedisemphaticallydescribedascoincidentwiththeLord'sdeath.Theclearestproofofthisisfurnishedinthis epistle (Heb. 9:26),when it is noticed that the Lordwas under nonecessity toofferHimselfoften, like theJewishhighpriest,whohad tooffer a new sacrifice with every annual return of the great day ofatonement, and enterwith the blood of others. It declares that to offerHimselfoftenwouldhavebeenequivalenttoarepeatedsufferingonthepartofChrist;andthereforetherecanbenomoreconclusiveproofthatChristwasapriestonearth,andthatHissacrificewasconsummatedbyHissufferingduringHishumiliation.

VI.Wecomenowtoasectionofconsiderableextent,treatingcopiouslyofthe sacrificeofChrist, andofHispriestly actionas the truthof all thatwasdonebytheJewishhighpriestonthegreatdayofatonement(Heb.9:10–10:22).Tothispassageagreateramountofattentionisdeservedlydue,becausethehighpriest'sentranceintotheholiestofalldemandsafresh consideration. A general misapprehension as to its meaning hasgivenanappearanceofprobabilitytothenotionofasacrificeorofferinginheaven.

Tobringouttheoutlineoftheapostle'sthought,letitbenoticedthatthepriestly function of Christ falls into two divisions, the earthly and theheavenly.ThepriestlyfunctioninheavenbeginswithHisascension;andthe apostle lays special emphasis upon His work in heaven, for the

obviousreasonthatHewasrefutingthecurrentobjectionoftheJewsatthe time when the epistle was written—viz. that Christianity, ascontrasted with the still standing Jewish worship, had no visiblyofficiatinghighpriestTheapostlereiterates,inmanyways,thatweHAVEA GREAT HIGH PRIEST, who has passed through space into theheavens,Jesus theSonofGod(Heb.4:14); that theministrationofourHigh Priest was in the true tabernacle (8:3); that this ministry wasprecededbyasacrificeofatonementbeforeHeascended;thatHeofferedHimselfonce;andthatthisoneofferingwasaccomplishedinHisstateofabasementherebelow(Heb.7:27,8:3,9:14,9:28,10:14).

A. At the beginning of the ninth chapter reference is made to the twocompartments of the ancient tabernacle, and to the fact that the highpriest entered the holy of holies once a year, not without blood. Thisarrangement,whileitlasted,intimatedatimeofimperfectexpiation.Hisenteringnotwithoutbloodonthedayofatonementiscalledhisoffering(ver. 7); but this did not attain the proper end of sacrifice, which is topacify the conscience (ver. 9). Only by forgiveness was the worshippermadeperfectaspertainingtotheconscience,andintothisconditiontheJewishritescouldnottransplanthim.ButChristbeingcomeasanhighpriest, the apostle affirms two things: first, eternal redemption waseffectedbyHimasanobjectiveblessing;next,thepurgingofconsciencefollowed as the subjective consciousness of deliverance (vers. 12, 14).Both are put in close connection with the blood of Christ as the sin-offering,andtheapostlereasons fromtheoneto theother inastrikingway.

1. As to the eternal redemption, it is here, and everywhere else inScripture,putastheeffectofChrist'satoningblood.Thisdeservesnotice,becausethecommonrenderingconveysaharshsense:"havingobtainedeternal redemption forus" (ver. 12).Theparticiplewith theverb in thepast tense denotes simultaneous action as well as previous action, andhere it is plainly simultaneous action. The rendering must be: "Heentered in by His own blood once into the holy place, OBTAININGeternal redemption." Grammar and doctrine equally demand this,because the blood of sacrifice is uniformly spoken of as the cause ofredemption (Eph. 1:7; 1 Pet. 1:19; Rev. 5:9). The participle, too, in the

Greekaoristmiddle,conveys the idea thatChrist inHisownperson,orIN AND OF HIMSELF, without aid or instrumentality beyond Hisperson, procured this redemption, which is also termed ETERNALbecausepossessedofeverlastingvalidity.

ButhowdidHisentranceintotheholiestofallbyHisownbloodsecureeternal redemption, and how is the language to be understood? Bothinquirieswill be satisfiedwhenwe ascertain themoment atwhich thisenteringtookplace.Theusualinterpretationaffirmsthatittookplaceattheascension.Butthatisburdenedwithinsuperabledifficulties.WeareheretaughtthatthisentranceonthepartofChristwasthecounterpartortruthofwhat thehighpriestperformedwhenHecarriedtheblood intothe holiest of all to atone for the sins of the collective congregation ofIsrael. Now, if that action of the Jewish high priest was atoning orexpiatory,itplainlyhadnocorrespondencetoanythingdonebyourgreatLordinheaven;forcertainlyeverythingatoninginthepropersenseoftheterm,waseffectedbywhatwasdoneonearth,notbywhatwasdoneinheaven. But if we carefully examine the sacrificial ritual, no doubt canexist that the sprinkling of blood in the holiest of all belonged to theexpiation objectively considered. Atoning efficacy attached to thesprinklingofbloodonthemercy-seat,andtothepouringoutofbloodatthealtar.Thetextmustbeunderstoodwithreferencetothis:withouttheshedding of blood [or perhaps better, the outpouring of blood] is noremission (Heb. 9:22). Though, from the imperfection of the type, thetwo elements of priest and sacrifice could not be combined in one, theproper meaning of this action was, that the priest was viewed assprinklinghisownblooduponthemercy-seat.

The entrance of our High Priest into the heavenly sanctuary may beconsidered as taking place at the moment of Christ's death, when Heresigned His spirit to God, and His blood was poured forth upon thecross:thenHeappearedbeforeHisFatherandJudge.Alltheceremonieson the great day of atonement corresponded with this view, for theatonement for the people of Israel was not consummated till thesacrificial blood was sprinkled on the ark of the covenant. The figurethereforecorrespondswiththeLord'sentranceintoheavenimmediatelyafterHisdeath,whensoulandbodyweresundered,andnotwiththeidea

ofa triumphantentrance intoheaven,as it tookplaceatHisascension,withallthejubileebelongingtoacoronationday.Inthetype,everythingassumes that the whole was completed on the atonement day. AndChrist's resurrection on the third day, equivalent and parallel to thereturnofthehighpriestfromtheholyofholies,wasaproofthatHehadenteredwithHisownblood,andbeenaccepted.Theconfusionwhichhasarisen on this subject is owing to the fact that writers have not dulydistinguished between the Aaronic priesthood and the Melchizedekpriesthood.

The explanation above given carrieswith it an amount of evidence andappropriateness which contrast, to its advantage, with the other view,whichonlyperplexes allwhomaintain it.Whenwe lookat thepassagebefore us, other indications incline the balance in the same direction.Thus, the words "He entered by His own blood" plainly speak of aseparationbetweensoulandbody.Theycannotnaturallybeexpoundedinanyotherway.Andasecondexpressionmaybetakenasdecisive,"HeenteredinONCE;"forinalltheotherpassageswherethiswordisusedinconnection with Christ's work, it is contrasted with the frequentrepetition of the Old Testament sacrifices (7:23). It is always used asdescriptiveofsomethingfinishedorcompleted,withoutthepossibilityofperpetuatingtheaction,orofaddingtoit(1Pet.3:18).Theexpressionisusedbytheapostlestodistinguishtheatonementascompletedonceforall,fromtheintercession,whichiscontinuous;andthesetwoarenevertobe confounded (Heb. 9:25–27). For the object contemplated, only oneentrywasnecessary,nottoberepeated;andthisexpression,therefore,isdiametricallyopposedtotheviewthatthelanguageofthisversereferstoChrist'sascensiontointercede;fortheofferingofHimselfasacrificewascompletedonceforall.

This explanation was first proposed by several eminent Dutch divinesabout the middle of last century, who felt how unsatisfactory was thecommoninterpretation;butitneverreceivedthecurrencyorapprovaltowhich it was entitled. The more it is considered, the more does itcommend itself, and the more do evidences multiply in its favour. Adoubleentry intoheaven is indicated inthesechapters,—thefirstat thetimeofChrist'sdeath,thesecondwhenHeenteredwithHisrisenbodyas

theMelchizedekpriest.Aaron'spriesthooddoesnotseemtohavetypifiedanythingbeyondChrist'sresurrection.

2.Theotherbenefit,subjectiveinitsnature,isthepurgingofconscience,adduced as aproof or evidenceof the former (vers. 13, 14).The logicalparticle FOR gives a reason for the statement as follows: that whichpurgestheconsciencebringsineternalredemption.Inproofofthis,theapostle appeals to the types. And no one can evade the force of thestatement by calling it amere allusion to ancient rites: forwe have anexpress comparison in which the atoning efficacy of Christ's death isalwayspresupposed;andacontrastbetweentheinsufficiencyoftheOldTestamentatonementseffectingonlyanoutwarddeliverance,andtheall-sufficiencyofChrist'satonementbringinginaneverlastingdeliverance.

The appeal is to two facts in the lower sphere of the ancient ritual ofsacrifice. They effected something there, and a comparison is drawnbetweenthesemerelyoutwardeffectsandthespiritualeffectsproducedby the death of Christ. I shall but briefly touch on these types, moreespeciallyastheywereconsideredinaseparatechapter.(1)Theapostleannouncesthatthebloodofbullsandgoatssanctifiedtothepurifyingofthe flesh. That is simply a repetition of what was said in the previousverseastotheritualofthegreatdayofatonement(ver.12):thetermsareinreality thesame,andtheallusionthesame.Themeaning is, that thedeath of the victims in the room of the guilty removed the threatenedpunishment by removing the defilement of the worshipper; and theIsraelites,forwhomthesacrificewasoffered,werenowsanctified,thatis,pureandholy,andentitledtoalltheecclesiasticalandcivilprivilegesofIsrael. The apostlementions (2) that the ASHES of the REDHEIFER,preserved for cases of ceremonial defilement, effected the same as theformer (Num. 19:1–18).Thisheifer, aswell as the sin-offering thatwasoffered on the day of atonement, was a sin-offering for the entirecongregation; and its ashes, collected and dissolved in water, andsprinkledon theunclean, gave renewedaccess to the sanctuary, and tothefellowshipofGod'speople.Thesewereofoldthegreatarrangementsforrestoringthedenied,sothattheyescapeddeathfromaholyGod.

On the imperfection of the ancient ceremonies this passage is mostexplicit.Theapostleshowsthattheysanctifiedonlytothepurifyingofthe

flesh,butnottothepurgingoftheconscience.Thiswasobviousfromthenature of the case. The Mosaic law itself was far from ascribing anyinfluence to rites and ceremonies in the way of removing moral guilt,thoughthispassedcurrentinthepharisaicschoolsofalaterday.Thelawappointed sacrifices only for some involuntary states of body, or someinevitableviolationof thosepositive lawsbywhichIsraelwasseparatedbyGodfromothernations.Aninvestigationofthetextsreferringtotheseoffencesclearlyshowsthis(Lev.12:7;Num.6:11,4:19;Lev.15:15,14:2).Inthecaseofpersonscontractingdefilement—nottomentionthesacredutensils, the ark, the tabernacle, the altar, which are also spoken of asreceiving a purification by atonement—the defilement was merelyceremonial,anddidnotofitselftouchtheconscienceexceptinvirtueofapositive appointment. The person under ceremonial guilt, exposed tooutward visitations of punishment, and even to death, if expiationwasneglected, was not, properly speaking, morally guilty or defiled inconscience.Hisoffence, though shuttinghimout from the sanctuaryoftheLordandfromthecommunionofHispeople,wasmoreinthecourtofecclesiasticalpolitythaninthecourtofconscience,andcarriedwithit,when punishment came, nothing beyond what was corporeal andtemporal.Thetouchingofadeadbody,necessaryintheeventofdeath,ortheenteringa tentwhereadeadbodywas, thoughbringingceremonialdefilement and necessitating cleansing, was different from moraltrespass. The atonements were of the same character, positive andoutward in their effects. They did not cleanse the conscience, nor evenenter into that inner circle bearing upon man's immediate personalrelationtoGod: theyrestoredhimtotheoutwardsanctuary,andtotheoutward worship with the people. But they didmore; they also taughtimportantthings.Theytaught(1)thatsacrificeswereofgraceonthepartofGod;(2)thattheywerevicarious;(3)thattheywereasatisfactionforthesinsofthepeople.Thetruepointofcomparisononwhichthisversefixesourattentionis,thatwhileacertaineffectwasproducedinalowersphereby theancientsacrifices,aneverlastingeffectwasproduced inahigherspherebythebloodofChrist;thattheybothaccomplishedtheenddesigned, but that there was a "much more" in the latter case ascontrastedwiththeformer.Thisisthetertiumquidofthecomparison.

What did the sacrifices effect? They sanctified to the purifying of the

flesh,—thatis,cleansedtheworshipperceremonially;foritisbettertosayceremonially than corporeally, as the latter word scarcely defines theresult.Theycouldeffectnothingmore,norwasmoreintended.Theydidnot, and could not, make the worshipper perfect as pertaining to theconscience(Heb.9:9):theycouldnotremovetheconscienceofsin,ortheconsciousknowledgeofsin(10:2):theycouldnotputawaysinastotheobjectiveguilt(10:4).TheJewishsacrificescoulddononeofthesethings,andneverwereintendedtocomeintothat innercirclewhereman,asamoralandresponsiblecreatureunderaholyspirituallaw,hastodoasaguiltysinnerwitharighteousandholyGod.But theyweremeanttodosomething in their true sphere: they put away ceremonial defilement,temporal punishment, and that exclusion from the sanctuary and thefellowshipofGod'speopletowhichceremonialdefilementexposedthem.Thepassagebeforeusassertsthis.

Itmustbenoticed further, that theEpistle to theHebrews ispeculiarlyclearandexpressontheinadequacyofthesacrificestotakeawaysinsinany sense of the terms (10:4). The opposite opinion, by whomsoevermaintained, and with whatever modifications and caveats, is explicitlycondemned. The question is not, whether sin was remitted to OldTestament saintswaiting for theMessiah, the consolation of Israel, forthat isnot tobe called inquestion,butwhether theseanimal sacrificesgaveremission.Andwedonothesitatetosaythatthebaresuppositionofsuchathingistomistakethemagnitudeofsin.Itwouldbeaheathenishsuperstition:noenlightenedconsciencecouldbelieveit;andcertainlytheBibleneverrequiredanytosupposethatmoralguiltwasremovedbytheblood of bulls and goats. No modification of the theory can make ittolerableinanyform.

Ontheothersideofthecomparison, itremainstobenoticedthattherewasnotonlyasimilarity,butAMUCHMORE,effectedby thebloodofChrist.Inallsuchdeductionsthroughouttheepistlethereisasomethingofagreement,andalsoasomethingofdisparity(Heb.2:2,10:28);forthesuperiorityoftheonedispensationabovetheotherisinfinite.ThebloodofChrist,thecounterpartofthebloodoftheJewishsacrifices,purgestheconsciences,—that is, takes away the sense of guilt, or the painfulforebodingofmeritedpunishment.Andwhenweinquirebywhatmeans

thatwaseffected,itappearsthatitwasnotbydoctrine,butbythebloodofChrist sacrificially shed to put away the guilt of sin.Wehave thus acorrespondencebetweenthetwosacrifices,butalsoAMUCHMOREinthe way of pre-eminence, and the writer argues from the effect of theancientsacrificesintheirspheretothegreaterefficacyofChrist'sdeath.The comparison is important for ascertaining the nature and effect ofChrist'sdeath;forthepointofcomparisonisthis:theanimalsacrificeofthe old economy, substituted for theworshipper, effected something inthe lowersphere,and thebloodofChrist, vicariously shed,purifiesourconsciencefromdeadworks.

B. The peculiar character of Christ's atoning sacrifice must also beconsidered:Howmuchmoreshall thebloodofChrist,whothroughtheEternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge [better,cleanse]yourconsciencefromdeadworks,toservethelivingGod?(ver.14.)Hereseveralpointsofmomentarementioned,bearingonthenatureof theatonementaswellas itseffects.First,Christ is introducedas thesacrifice,forwhatHeofferedwasHIMSELF;next,Thecontext,aswellaslanguage here used, in which He is described as the OFFERER,representsHim as the priest; thirdly, The object towhom the sacrificewas offeredwasGOD. Plainly, the Lord is spoken of in thesewords aspriestandsacrificeunited.

1. That Christ is the sacrifice, in the true sense of the word, isunambiguously affirmed; and this Israelitish style decides the peculiarcharacter of His death. It is noteworthy, that in all the peculiararrangementsoftheOldTestamentritual,guiltwasnotpermittedtoreston the individual, but was removed by a variety of atonements. Thetrespass, though but an infraction of a positive precept, could not beconnivedat,and theofferersacknowledged theirown justdesert in thedeath inflicted on the victims. They acknowledged, too, the vicariouscharacterofthetransaction.Bythismeans,indeed,theideaofvicarioussatisfaction, and the nomenclature connected with it, came to benaturalized in the church of God,—a palpable fact being necessary tosupport the idea.Thewhole fifty-thirdchapterof Isaiah formsproperlythe transition from the typical economy to that of the greatmoral andpersonalatonement.But,fromtheimperfectionoftypes,thevictimused

in the old economy could only in a faint degree shadow forth theconstituent elements of the great sacrifice. Thus the true vicarioussacrifice could only be a voluntary one; for as sin arose from the freechoice of the sinner, it followed that the substitute could only bevoluntary, and the sacrifice only such as was freely offered,—a featurewhich could not, from the nature of the case, be displayed in animalsacrifices brought by constraint to the altar. The free-will offering ofChristdiscoversthelovefromwhichalloriginated.Aseconddefectintheoldsystemwas, thatas therewasnocommunityofnature,noessentialconnection obtained between those for whom the sacrifice was offeredand the sacrifice itself, in the arbitrarily formed relation betweenmanand animal sacrifices. A far other connection obtained between Christandus: first, a communityofnature,on thegroundofwhichHewasakinsman;andthen,a federalor legalunion,onthegroundofwhichwewerebrethren(Heb.2:17).

a.Threewordsarehereusedtoexhibitthegreatnessofthesacrifice,andeachof themmaybe said toaddanelementof valueanddignity,—viz.THECHRIST,WITHOUTSPOT,THROUGHTHEETERNALSPIRIT.Asto the first, it cannot be questioned that the blood of Messiah, or theChrist, has a special emphasis, because He was known to possess thehighestdignityastheSonofGod,theAngelof theCovenant(Mal.3:1),and theMighty God (Isa. 9:6). The apostlemeans that Christ was notonlythehighpriest(ver.11),butalsothesacrifice(ver.14).Thebloodofthe Christ, as the expression means, denotes that the long-promisedMessiahwassacrificiallyoffered,andthatHisbloodwasthebloodofthedivinelycommissionedGod-man;andnodeficiencycouldbesupposedtoattach,eveninidea,toHissacrificeintheroomofmillions,astheinfinitemeritsoftheoffererwereaddedtoHiswork.

b. A second word, "offered WITHOUT SPOT," also taken from thesacrificialritual,ismeanttobringbeforeusthatChristwasnotonlyinanegative point of view exempt from every conceivable defect, but in apositivepointofviewthepossessorofperfectholiness,consistinginlovetoGodand love toman, to the fullmeasureof thehumancapacity.Heacted in every scene, even when reviled and buffeted, so as never tobetraywhat savoured of impatience, reluctance, orwant of love in any

part of His surety-obedience. The question has been raised, Was thatexemptionfromdefectinthepiacularsacrificesamerecondition,amereprerequisiteinthewayofpreparation,oranelementofthesatisfaction,andshadowingforththeactiveobedienceofChristasvicariousnot lessthanHisdeath?Theanswermustbeintheaffirmative.Theintegrityandunspotted perfection of the sacrificewere indispensable, not as amereprerequisite,butasanelementofthesacrifice,andofferedwithit.Herethe apostle not merely adduces the blood, but adds the offering ofHimselfwithoutspot,asequalconstituentsinthesacrificewhichpurgestheconscience.

c.Athirdexpression,"throughtheEternalSpirit,"mustbenoticed.Thishasbeen interpretedof thedivinenatureofChristbymany,—especiallysinceBezaexpoundedthis,andseveralothertextscontaininganallusiontotheSpirit,inthisway(Rom.1:4;1Tim.3:16;1Pet.3:18).Buttothatexposition there are insurmountable objections. This introduces anarbitrary nomenclature of man's invention. It is more appropriate toexpounditoftheHolyGhostthanofthedivinenatureoftheSon:for,inthe first place, we have in the passage a priest, who is Christ; then asacrifice, which is also Christ; then the Eternal Spirit, as the impellingpower that animated Him from within to respond to the divinecommission. The most eminent Greek exegetes, Witsius and others,correctly see in this expression an allusion to the fire by which theLeviticalsacrificeswereofferedtoGod.OfthisfirethatcameforthfromtheLord,andfellfromheavenonthevictim,ahistoricalaccountisgivenusinScripture(Lev.9:23,24):itwaskeptbydivineappointmentburningonthealtar,andwasnevertogoout(Lev.6:12).ThatsacredfirewasasymboloftheHolyGhost,whowasoftensorepresented(Acts2:3;Luke12:49;Dan. 7:10); who perpetually fans the flame of divine love in thehumanheart,andrendersallsacrificesacceptable(Rom.15:6).Thereisnoforceintheobjectionadducedinmanyquarters,totheeffectthatwecannot suppose it an allusion to the Holy Ghost, because that wouldimply that the value attaching to the Lord's sacrifice would thus beascribed to theHolyGhost, whereas it is always ascribed to the divinedignityofChrist'sperson.Theanswertothisisathand.TheHolySpiritwastheexecutiveofallChrist'sactions,internalandexternal;andthoseactions,peculiarlyfragrantbecauseoftheirholyspirituality,derivedtheir

worth, so far as intrinsicmerit was concerned, from the fact that theywere the actions of the Son. The meaning of the clause underconsideration is, that the Holy Ghost, filling the Lord's humanity withunspeakablecompassion,ardentzeal,fortitude,energy,andferventlove,impelledHimforwardonHisatoningwork,andneversufferedHismindtocooltillthesacrificewasaccomplished.

2. Christ was the priestly offerer as well as the sacrifice: "He offeredHimself."Withregardtothisexpression,itdoesnotrefertoamediatorialworkperformedinheaven,buttowhatwascompletedonceforallduringHis humiliation here on earth, or at themoment of death; and all thepassageswhichmakementionofanofferingandsacrificeonthepartofChristhavethissense(Eph.5:2;Heb.7:27,8:4,9:14,9:28,10:10,10:12,10:14).Wemay regard the expression before us as coincidentwith thephrasealreadymentioned,"ByHisownbloodHeenteredinonceintotheholy place;" that is, if we explain both clauses as pointing to thecompleted act of atonement within the veil. A large class of eminentexpositors, not Socinian in tendency, but perplexed by an erroneousinterpretation of the entrance into the holiest of all, have givenplausibilitytotheSociniancomment,thatChrist'ssacrificewas,insomemodified sense, offered in heaven subsequently to His ascension. TheSocinian view is unmixed error, leading men's minds away from thecross,andsettingasidethevicariousworkofsufferingobedience.Intheothercaseitamountstothis:thatthesacrificewascompletedinheaven,and that men are in some mystical way pardoned by Christ'sresurrection-life, and not by His cross; a theory tending, in a subtlethough little suspected way, to turn men's minds away from theatonementasthedoctrineofthecross.Wedenythatthepresenttext,oranytextrepresentingChrist'sdeathasanofferingandsacrifice,canbesoexpounded.

The expressionHEOFFEREDHIMSELF, in the historical tense, refersnot to an action in heaven, but to what was done on the cross. Theappearing in the presence of God for us is said to be NOW, and isexpressedbyadifferentword(Heb.9:24).Wehaveexplainedwhatwasmeantbyentering theholyofholies,andproved that theslayingof thevictimwasonlyoneelementinthesacrifice,requiringtobefollowedby

sprinklingthemercy-seat,ascompletingtheexpiationandtheprincipalactof sacrifice.All thiswasdone inhumiliation, andat themomentofdeath, when Christ entered within the veil, still a high priest whendisembodied.Therendingoftheveilattestedthefact.Thecompletionoftheatonementwasnotreservedfortheascensiontoheaven, intowhichtheLordwastoenterasHisreward,nottocompleteHisatoningwork.Theentireatonementwasinhumiliation(Lev.16:6,9;1Pet.3:18;2Cor.5:21).Andinreplytothosewhoallegethatthecrosswasbutaviolenceinflicted, the answer is: It was a sacrifice, as it wasHis own voluntarychoice(John10:18;Heb.12:2).

3. The blood of the great sacrifice is next said to CLEANSE THECONSCIENCEFROMDEADWORKS,TOSERVETHELIVINGGOD.Aswealready foundamoreobjectivepurificationof theworshipper (Eph.5:26;Tit.2:14),soweherefindasubjectivepurificationoftheconsciencefromdeadworks.WithregardtothoseDEADWORKS,socalledbecausethey emanated froma soul alienated from the life ofGod, theymaybeviewed as including two different expositions. The commonly receivedinterpretationmakesthemsinfulworkstoberepentedof(Heb.6:1),bywhichtheconsciencehadbeendefiled;forthesemadethemanunclean,guilty in judgment, and the object of divine wrath and condemnation.Modern expositors, for the most part, regard those dead works as theoutwardworksofthelaw,bywhichtheJews,accordingtotheirpharisaicerrors, expected their justification beforeGod. There is nowarrantablegroundforopposingoneoftheseopinionstotheother:theyoughttobeunited,onthisground,thattheyareinanequaldegreephasesordisplaysofthatalienationfromthelifeofGod,towhichtheatoningbloodisheresaidtobringusback.

This purifying of the conscience is specially the removal of a sense ofcondemnation, and of the pollution caused by conscious guilt. Adistinctionmustbedrawnbetweenthatcleansing,effectedbythebloodofsacrificefirsttakingeffectuponthepersonoftheworshipper,andthenuponhisconscience,andthatfurtherrenewingwhichfreeshimfromtheinwardpowerof sin.Theone isby thecross, theother isby theSpirit;and unquestionably it is the former to which our attention is heredirected.Whenconscience iscleansed, thepainfulsenseofunpardoned

guilt ceases to agonize themind: it nomore accuses or brings us intojudgmentbeforeGod'sbar.Conscience,asacourterectedinthehumanbreast, and pronouncing sentence in accordance with God's law, ispacifiedbynothingwhichdoesnotpacifythejusticeofGod.ThebloodofChristdoesthis,andnothingelsecan;andforthisenditisnotonlylaidto our account in the court of heaven, but immediately applied to, orsprinkled on, the conscience. The blood of Christ, sacrificially offered,cleanses the conscience, inasmuch as it conveys the most satisfactoryevidencethatitwasadaptedtoalltheendsofdivinejustice,originatingintheappointmentofGod,andfittedtomagnifyHislaw.Andtheeffectsofapurifiedorcleansedconsciencewillbeseenintheboldnessofaccess,thepeace,liberty,andhope,whichScripturecommonlyconnectswithit(Rom.5:1–3;Eph.2:18).

Whenamanreceivestheatonement,hehasasensiblepeaceandawell-grounded persuasion of exemption from guilt and punishment, on thegroundthatifGodhadintendedtovisithimwithpunishment,theSonofGodwouldnothavebeenput inapositiontobepunishedinourstead.But a furtherdifficulty ispresented to themind.As I cannot say that Ineversinned,whatcanunmakethatfactasifithadneverbeen?Doesnotthismemoryabideasaneverlastingstaininmyconscience;andwhocanundo the past? Can even Omnipotence undo it? The only answer is:Omnipotence cannot; but the atonement can. And the explanation, assuggestedbythispassage, isas follows:—AjudicialexchangeofpersonshasbeeneffectedbetweenChristandsinners,bywhichtheytrulyenterintoeachother'sposition.Whenthemanacceptsthisprovision,keepingin view the two sides of that personal exchange, he says: Sin does notattach to me, but to my Substitute, who took it upon Him by an actallowedatthedivinetribunal.Punishmentisnottostrikeonme,forHetasteddeathforeveryoneofHispeople:andthegoodwhichthedivinelaw required in itsutmost conceivableperfection Ihavedone; forwhattheSuretydid, Idid inHim,andHismeritsare transferred tomewiththeaccompanyingboonofthedivinegoodpleasure.Allthisiseffectedinawaythatforeverhumblesandabasestheman;butthatwhichpacifiesGodpacifiesthehumanconscience,thevicegerentofGod.Thepurgingoftheconscienceiseffectedwhenweseethatthelawsuffersnowrong,andthedivineattributesnoindignity.

ThisturnsasidetheCocceiancomment,whichrefersthelanguagetothedifference between the two economies. The founder of this school, aneminentexpositorinmanyrespects,adoptedthenotionthatthefathersunderthe lawwerenot inpossessionofapacifiedconscience,whichhethought aprivilegeof gospel times.Heargued that the effect couldnotexistwhenthecausedidnotexist.But theeasyanswer is:ThebloodofChristhad retrospectiveaswell asprospective effects.TheapostledoesnotdenyacleansingofconscienceunderthelawinthecaseofthosewhowaitedfortheconsolationofIsrael.Contrastingtwothings,heascribestotheonewhathedeniestotheother.Heisnotspeakingofbelieversunderthe law and under the gospel, but ofHebrews recently converted, whofound in the blood of Christ a peace vainly expected in the rites andceremoniesofJudaism.Hespeaksofthesamemenintheirpreviousandpresentcondition.

4.AstoSERVINGTHELIVINGGOD,this is thenaturalandnecessaryresult. The defilement of conscience hinders access; the cleansing andperfectingofconsciencefacilitatesaccess,andemboldenstheworshipperto draw near. The conscience either bars or permits access to God. Solongassinsareuncancelled,exclusionfromfellowshipiscontinued,andthemanhasadefiledorevilconscience.Acleansedconscience,attestinghisreception into the fellowshipofGod,enablesandemboldenshimtoservethelivingGod.

C.Theapostlehavingnamedtheever-validsacrificeofChrist,isledbyanaturaltransitionofthoughttorefertothenewcovenantfoundedonit,andtotheMediator'sactioninregardtoit:AndforthiscauseHeisthemediatorofthenewtestament[better,covenant],thatbymeansofdeath,for the redemption of [better, for redemption from] the transgressionsthat were under the first testament [covenant], they which are [havebeen]calledmightreceivethepromiseofeternalinheritance(Heb.9:15).Thisversebeginsasectiononthesubjectofthecovenants,veryvariouslyexpounded. Itwould draw us aside from our purpose to enter into theconflictingviews,thoughtheyhaveaninterestoftheirown.TheapostlecallsJesusMediator(compareHeb.7:22,8:6,12:24),adesignationthathaseverythingincommonwiththatofHighPriest,—intimatingonewhohascomeunderobligationsforanother,andoccupieshisplace.Eachof

the terms used—SURETY, MEDIATOR, ADVOCATE, HIGH PRIEST—differingastheydofromeachotheronlybyashadeofmeaning,bringsbeforeusChrist'sworkasawhole,andrepresentsHimasoccupiedwithitonearth,andstill continuing tobeoccupiedwith it inheaven.WhenChrist is designated theMediator of the new covenant, the expressiondenotes thatHe is the founder of a new alliance or fellowship betweenGod and sinners, who previously were infinitely remote and alienatedfromeachother.

1.Thisdidnottakeeffectmerelyuponmenthenliving;forHisvicariousdeathextended to transgressionsunder the first covenant, aswell as tothose who lived subsequently to the incarnation. The atonement,adequate to the sins of His people in all times, made His sacrificeinfinitely superior to the shadowy economy it superseded. The apostledraws a contrast between the sacrifice on the great annual festival ofatonement,withitsshadowyexpiationofceremonialoffering,asaneffectin the lower sphere, available only for the past year and formen thenliving, and the atonement of Christ,whichwas for all sins of all times,andevenformenlongdead.Hisdeath,asisherestated,wasanexpiationfor moral transgressions under the first covenant, and which hadremainedunexpiated, thoughremitted in the forbearanceofGod(Rom.3:25).On thegroundof thepreviousproofas to theefficacyofChrist'ssacrifice, the apostle declares that it was retrospective, and atoned fortransgressions till then unexpiated. Christ's atonement cannot beconceivedofexceptasaproperexpiation,ifwetracethesetwoelements:ittooktheplaceoftheOldTestamentsacrifices,whichwereundoubtedlyatonements in their own sphere; and it accomplished what they, fromtheir insufficiency, could not accomplish. When we consider theexpression,"redemptionfromthetransgressionsthatwereunderthefirstcovenant," and connect this result with the Mediator's death as themeritoriouscause,accordingtotheexpresstermsofthispassage,wearetaught that Christ's death removed the punishment of thosetransgressionswhichpreviouslywereunatonedforbyanysacrifices.Thatconclusionisinevitable:theallusionistoactualsins,ormoraltrespasses,committedundertheoldeconomy.Thisthoughtisdemanded,too,bytheconnection:abarrierwasputbythesetransgressionsinthewayofaccesstothesanctuary.

2.This representationdecideson thenatureofChrist's atonement as avicarious satisfaction. If we place it alongside of the theory thatmakesChrist'sdeathaconfirmationofHisdoctrine,whatinfluenceonpreviousagescouldtheMediator'sdeathbyanypossibilityexercise,consideredastheconfirmationofHisdoctrine?Allthateffectmust,fromthenecessityof the case, be prospective, not retrospective. But, considered as anexpiation of transgressions, it could very well influence past as well asfuture ages. If, again,with others,we view thedeath ofChrist as fittedonly to deliver men from slavish fear, we may ask by what figure ofspeech can the expression here used, "redemption from transgressionswhichwereunder the first covenant,"bemade to signify slavish fearofpunishment?Itwereaviolencetolanguagetotortureittosuchasense.

VII. The nature of the atonement is illustrated by the comparisonbetweenChrist'sonesacrificeandtheannuallyrepeatedsacrificeof theJewishhighpriest;andthen,again,bydeath,consideredasthecommonlotofmen,andthepropitiatorydeathofChrist:Butnowonceintheendof theworld [or,world-ages]hathHeappeared, toput away sinby thesacrificeofHimself.Andasitisappointeduntomenoncetodie,butafterthis the judgment; soChristwasonceoffered tobear thesinsofmany:and unto them that look for Him shall He appear the second time,without sinunto salvation [better, soChrist,beingonceoffered tobearthesinsofmany,shallappearthesecondtimewithoutsintothemwhowait for Him unto salvation] (Heb. 9:26–28). The statement is, thatChristonceappeared, in theendof theages, tocancelorputawaysin.How?BythesacrificeofHimself.TheexpressionTOPUTAWAYcannotmeantoputawaytheideaofcriminalityorilldesert;norcanwereferittothe removal of corruption by His doctrine. The apostle speaks of Hissacrifice,notofHisdoctrine.AndasHedidnotofferHimselfoften,theone sacrifice was adequate to cancel the sin committed from thebeginning.ThesufferingsofChristeffected this,notasamagnanimousdisplayofself-sacrifice,norasameredeclarationofdivinelove;forthatcould only gain its end prospectively, not retrospectively. The simplemeaning is, that Christ put away sin by the atonement. Though theexpressionissogeneralthatitseemstocomprehendtheputtingawaythepowerofsin,theconnectionandallusiontosacrificelimitthemeaningtothecancellingofguilt.

Thenextcomparisonbetweentheonceinflictedpenaltyofdeathandtheoneatonementisequallysignificant(ver.27).TheexpressionONCETODIEisnottobetakensimplyfortheseparationofsoulandbody,butfordeathpenallyconsidered;forofsomewereadthattheywentdownaliveintohell(Num.16:30).Theapostlespeaksofdeathasthepenaldoomofsin, thewordONCEbeing theemphatic term;andtheanalogybetweenthetwothingsis,thatasthereisonepenaldeathimpendingovermen,soChristdiedoncetoremovetheirpenalty.TheSurety,adequateasHewasto the task of assuming our responsibilities, and of entering into ourcondition,wasthusappointedtodieonlyonce.Butafterdeathfollowedthejudgment.Twothingsareinthecomparison:first,man'sdyingonce,havingitscounterpartinChrist'sonesacrifice;thenthesecondadventofthe Lord, for the complete salvation of the redeemed, in place ofjudgment.Byanappeal toman'shistory, thepassage thusconvincinglyestablishesthatonlyonesacrificeforsinswasnecessary,andthatChrist'sonedeathsufficedforalltime.Theproofisdrawnfromtheconsiderationthatasnothingmorewasdueinthehistoryofman,sonothingmorewasinChrist'sobligation.Thecomparison isbasedon thesuretyshipof theLord,renderingHimselfliabletoman'sobligations.Thedyingonce,andthe one offering for sin, are thus put together as counterparts, plainlyproving substitution, if anything can. Not only so: the one sacrifice ofChrist, represented as the counterpart of our penal death, indisputablyproves,against theSocinians,andallwho fall inwith their theory, thatChrist'ssacrificewasonearth,andnotinheavenafterHisascension.Hisoneofferingwasindeath.

We must now more particularly discuss the import of the clause, "soChristwasonceofferedtobearthesinsofmany"(ver.28).Thepassageisby universal consent regarded as a quotation from Isaiah (Isa. 53:12),conveyingtheideaofvicarioussin-bearing;thatis,oftakingHispeople'ssinsonHimself, andbearing the consequences tobe inflictedon sinfulhumanity in their stead.Theywho give another turn to the expression,andarbitrarily allege that the verb is tobe viewedasdenoting "to takeaway,"arechieflybiassedbydoctrinalprejudicesadversetovicarioussin-bearing.Theassertionhasbeenhazarded,thattheepistleknowsnothingoftheformulathat"Heboreoursins,"butalwaysspeaksoftakingthemaway. Others, however, having no objection to the doctrine of sin-

bearing, encounter a new difficulty, founded on the order of events, asfollows:Thelanguageis,"Hewasonceofferedtobearsins,"whichatfirstsight seems to say that He was offered in order to bear sins, andconsequently that sin-bearing is viewed as succeeding the offeringproperlysocalled.Hencetheythinkthemselvesshutuptotherendering,"to takeawaysins;" for theyargue that it cannotbesaid, "Hewasonceofferedtobearsins,"butconversely.Thatdifficulty,however,mayeasilybe obviated. As the oblation is commonly put in the Epistle to theHebrews,itisrepresentedasChrist'sownact:Heissetforthasatoncepriestandvictim;theobviousmeaningbeing,thatthesin-bearerofferedHimself. Accordingly, we find Him represented as a sacrificing priestofferingHimself(Heb.9:14),andcarryingHisownbloodintotheholiestofall (9:25).Butheretheexpressionisusedpassively,describingGod'sactioninthematter,notChrist'sactionasthehighpriest.Andinthisuseof the phrase it embraces all that may be regarded as included in themission,manifestation,andgivingupoftheSonofGod.ThephrasehasthusalargerandwidersensewhenappliedtoGod.

Thesamethingisevidentfromacomparisonofthisversewithapreviousone (ver. 26). The intervening verse (ver. 27) does not break theconnection: it isonlythefirstmemberinaseriousofparallels.ThereisoneparallelbetweenChrist'sappearingonceforallandHisoneoffering:there is another between His putting away sin and His bearing sin. Amarked correspondence obtains, and the words set forth thecompleteness of the atonement as offered once, and needing norepetition. The passage assumes that Christ willingly submitted to theordinarypenallawappointedtoman;thewholeclausehavingreferenceto the vicarious work of the servant of God mentioned in Isaiah (Isa.53:12). That the expression here used means TO BEAR SINS, may beestablished by two conclusive arguments,—the one based on thephilologicalimportoftheterm,andtheotheronthecontext.

1.TheproperimportoftheexpressionTOBEARTHESINSOFMANY,istobearorcarrythemup:that is, tothecross,assomeviewit;orto laythemonHisownperson,asothersprefertoviewit.Thisistheshadeofmeaningwhichtheverbexpresses.Theideaofremovaldoesnotexpresstheprimarysignification,andnoinstancecanbeadducedfromtheusage

of language in proof of the meaning "to take away." An interpreter,therefore, who knows his function, will abide by the laws of language.This fact is decisive as to the import of the expression, and may beappealed to by those whomaintain that the essence of the atonementconsistsinsinlesssin-bearingonthepartoftheappointedChrist,theSonofGod.Theconstituentelementofexpiationissin-bearing,andnotthemere removal of sin in the future, whether that may be effected byinstructionor inward reformation.Theywhopersist inassigning to theverbthesignificationofTAKINGAWAY,havenothingbutconjectureintheir favour; and something bettermust be adduced as authoritywhenthequestionisthemeaningofaphraseandtheaspectofadoctrine.

2.Thesamethingisprovedbythecontext.Theapostle,contrastingthetwocomingsoftheLord,affirmsthatatHisfirstcomingHeborethesinsofmany,whileatHissecondadventHewillappearWITHOUTSIN.Thephrasemustmean,withoutvicarioussin-bearing,suggestingthatatHisfirst comingHewasa sin-bearer. It cannot refer topersonal sin, asHehadnone,nortoanythingapproachingtothenotionofafallenhumanity.ButwhileHewas on earth,Hewas at once separate from sinners andmadesin.

The expression "to bear the sins of many" intimates that Christ, in acertainsense,sustainedthepersonofsinners.Asahistoricfact,runningthrough all stages of the Lord's earthly life, this was the core of theatonement; and this aspect of it is the key to the entire doctrine. Sin-bearing was necessary to the propitiation as a presupposition orindispensablepreliminary;andwithoutitweencounterdifficultieswhichfindnosolution.WhatlightdoesScripturethrowuponit?Itisthewell-known Old Testament formula for being guilty, whether that may bepersonal or vicarious; and in numerous passages it conveys the idea ofbeing guilty as contrasted with being guiltless (Num. 5:31). It may bepersonalguilttowhichallusionismade;or,wherethesinsofothersaresaid to be borne, it means to incur their guilt, to come under theirobligationtopunishment(Ezek.18:19).

Betweenthegeneralundertakingofsuretyshipandtheactualinflictionofthecursetherelayanintermediatearrangement,bywhichtheLordJesusoccupiedapositiverelationtoourpenalty.Thiswassin-bearingorguilt,

renderingitjustthatthemoralGovernoroftheuniverseshouldexacttheexpiation. That the Lord Jesus assumed sin, and incurred a liability topunishment,whenHe came in the flesh andwas found in fashion as aman,istobeaffirmedonthestrictinterpretationofthelanguageusedbytheapostles.TheyaffirmthatHeBOREsin,andwasMADEsin.Of thetwo expressions just mentioned, sin-bearing has reference to sinconsidered as a heavy burden, while the other means that the Lord,personallysinless,wasmadetheembodimentofsin,orincorporatedsinin an official point of view; for the personal and official are to be keptdistinct, and in this matter sin-bearing is official, distinguished fromwhat was properly personal. However various the nomenclature, nobiblical phrase more precisely sets forth the essence of the atonementthansin-bearing.

VIII.So important for theapostle'spurposewas thedifferencebetweenthe annual sacrifice of the Aaronic high priest and the one sacrifice ofChrist, that an entire section of the tenth chapter is devoted to theexposition of it (Heb. 10:1–10). And much may be derived from thisconnected portion to explain the proper nature of the atonement. Thepoints of similarity have been brought out; nowwe have to trace THEPOINTSOFCONTRAST.HavingprovedinthelastversesofthepreviouschapterthatChrist'ssacrificecouldnotberepeated,partlybecausethatwould carry with it repeated suffering, partly because it would becontrarytotheanalogyofman'sownhistory,whichappointsmantodieonce,—the Substitute acting only according to the obligations of therepresented,—theapostle,atthetenthchapter,setsforthbycontrastthesufficiency of Christ's one sacrifice. The imperfection of the sacrificesannuallyofferedonthegreatdayofatonementisputbeforeusinthefirstfourversesofthechapter.Therearethreedistinctgroundsmentionedbythe apostlewhich conclusivelyprove the inadequacyof those sacrifices,eachfurnishingapointofcontrasttotheperfectionofChrist'ssacrifice.

1. The first contrast is derived from the fact that the ancient sacrificeswerebutashadow,orroughoutline,ofgoodthingstocome,andnotthethings themselves;or,as it ishereexpressed,not thevery imageof thethings(ver.1).Itmightatfirstsightseemthattheapostlecontraststwothingswhichindifferentdegreesrepresentthesubstance,—arudesketch

and a fully painted figure. But it is the shadow contrasted with thesubstance or reality. Now if. these priestly sacrifices, the culminatingpoints of the ancient worship, were but shadows or pictures, theyobviouslycouldnotputtheworshipperonarightfootingwithGod.Theycould not perfect him, in the sense of justifying his person, and givinghimaright,asapurifiedworshipper,toapproachthelivingGod.Wemaytakeinthesubjectiveelementofapurgedconscienceas includedinthetermPERFECT, as it is commonly employed, though it is asnatural totake it in the objective sense (comp. ver. 14). According to the apostle,thoseunsubstantial shadows couldnotperfect theworshippers; that is,couldnotsatisfythejusticeofGod,andatoneforsin,whichwasthegreatpromisefromthebeginning.

2.A second reason for the inadequacyof the ancient sacrifices is takenfromtheirannualrepetition(vers.2,3).Whetherwereadthefirstclauseinterrogatively or not, the apostle emphatically declares, that had theyavailedtoperfecttheworshippers,thatannualiterationwouldhavebeenneedless. They would have ceased or been superseded. The ground onwhich this is put is noteworthy: For theworshippers, once purged [or,cleansed],shouldhavehadnomoreconscienceofsins;assumingthatthepurifying from sinhas, as its effect, the removal of a guilty conscience.Theperfectparticipledenotessomethingdoneonceforall,describingtheconditionofthosewhoseconscienceshavebeenpurged.Theoppositeofthiswas the characteristicof theOldTestamentworshippers,wherenoprovisionwasmadefortheacceptanceoftheirpersons,butonlyforthecleansing of ceremonial trespasses, soon to become as numerous asbefore. The new covenant accepts the person, and perfects him aspertaining to the conscience. The apostle's argument is, that had theirrelationbeenperfected,anechoofitwouldhavebeenheardsubjectivelyinapacifiedconscience.Theconscience,alreadymentioned(Heb.9:14),is notmere consciousness, but consciousness alive toman's relation toGod,andhavingGodforitsobject,theconsequenceofwhichisachargeofguiltwhileman'srelationremainsunrectified.Theworshippersunderthelawthushadafreshremembranceofsinsyearbyyear,havingneitherpersonalacceptancenorapacifiedconscience.

Here it isnecessary to correct apieceofover-doing—a theoryas to the

imperfection of the Old Testament believers. From this passage it wasarguedbytheCocceianschool,thatiftherewasaconscienceofsin,truepeaceofconsciencecouldnotbepossessed.Thatbynomeansfollows,aswillbeapparenttoeveryonewhoapprehendstheretrospectivecharacteroftheLord'sdeath.Thepowertoperfecttheworshippersisdeniedtothelaw,andprovedbytherepetitionofthesamesacrifices,butisnotdeniedto the efficacy of the great sacrifice by anticipation applied to believersunder the old economy. So far from detracting from the honour ofChrist's sacrifice, this exhibits its vast potency, as not only adapted toages that were to run after He came, but also possessing retrospectiveefficacy.Acertaindifference therewasbetweenbelieversunder theOldTestament and under the New,—a difference neither to be denied norignored, but of a peculiarnature.Theyhad a conscienceof sin,not yetexpiated, but one day to be fully expiated by the great sacrifice ofMessiah.Theywerelikeus,yetwithashadeofdifference;thatis,moreindegree than in kind. They could have, and actually had, peace ofconscience, aswe have. But, according to their historical position, theyhadofnecessityapeculiarexperience, intowhichwecannotenter.Notthewantof acceptanceorpardon,not the fear thathad torment;but acertain conscience of sin, such as we have not, that is, of sin as asomething not actually atoned for—not yet expiated in fact. Hence,though sin had long ago been judicially forgiven, the spirits of the justseemtohavebeenmadeperfectinthissubjectivesense,whenthegreatfactoftheatonementarrived(Heb.11:40,12:23);forthismusthavebeenimparted to thembyaknowledgeof theevent,andanexperienceof itspotency.

3.Thethirdreasonassignedfortheirinadequacyandimperfectionis:Itisnotpossiblethatthebloodofbullsandofgoatsshouldtakeawaysins(ver.4);areasonderivedfromthenecessityofthething,whetherwelookatthenatureofGod,thenatureofman,ortheinfinitedemeritofsin.Theatonementmustbeofferedinman'snature,tosatisfytheinjuredrightsofGod,whichthebloodofbullsandgoatscouldnoteffect.Theapostlepronouncesitimpossible,becausethebloodofirrationalanimalsborenoproportiontothesinsofrationalbeings,whichcouldnotberemovedbyanyarbitraryarrangement.ButwhycouldnotsinshavebeentakenawaybytheseJewishsacrifices, if,asmanyallege,Godcancels themwithout

atonement? We see the necessity of an adequate satisfaction; for theimpossibilityisfoundedinthethingitself,andtheappealistothedivinejusticeandholiness.

Havingproved,fromthenecessityofthecase,theinadequacyofanimalsacrifices,theapostlenextshowsthat,inpointoffact,theyweresetasideasinsufficient(Heb.10:5–10);andaquotationismadefromthebookofPsalms, inwhich thiswas clearly announced (Ps. 40:6–8). Aswe havealready explained this passage, nothing further is necessary than toadverttotheappendedwordsoftheapostleinintroducingthequotation,and commenting upon it. He plainly considered the passage as anutteranceofChristwhenHecameintotheworld:"Wherefore,whenHecometh into the world, He saith, Sacrifice and offering Thou wouldestnot"(ver.5).ThelogicalparticleWHEREFOREintimatesthat,byreasonoftheimperfectionoftheOldTestamentsacrifices,Hecamenottoofferthese fruitless sacrifices, but to do the will of God in their room. Thequotation contrasts the imperfection of animal sacrifices with moralobedience and willing service: "Lo, I come to do Thy will, O God." Inanimal sacrifices God had no pleasure, because, though divinelyappointed,theywereinadequatetobethetruesacrifice,whichrequiredmoralobedience.ThisspiritualobediencelookedbeyondOldTestamenttimes,andwasrealizedonlywhenChristfulfilledthedivinewill.Butitisadded,therewastheremovalortakingawayofthefirstthingmentionedinthequotation,thatis,ofanimalsacrifices,thatHemightestablishthesecond, that is, the doing God's will. The Mosaic worship, with itscomplicated system of sacrifices, was superseded by something bettercomingin itsstead.Andtheapostleappendsacommentary, the importofwhichmustbebroughtoutinafewparticulars:Bywhichwill[better,inwhichwill]wearesanctified,throughtheofferingofthebodyofJesusChristonce(Heb.10:10).

1.What ismeantby the expression, INWHICHWILL?Can it intimatethe ready will or promptitude of theMessiah to respond to the divinecommission,andtocarryitout?Thatcannotcompetentlybemaintained,because the preceding verse (ver. 9) expressed the divine will of THEFATHERpurposingthatChristshouldbethepersonalsacrifice.Besides,thewillherementionedisdistinguishedbythetermsemployedfromthe

offeringitself.TheoriginalwordusedinthePsalmgivestheideaofGod'sGOOD PLEASURE; but the apostle renders it THY WILL (τὸ θέλημάσου), a term wide enough to comprehend the agreement or compactbetweentheFatherandtheSon,andthecommandmentwhichneededtobeperformed,thattheissuemightcorrespondtothewillofGod.Itisnotthemorallawsimply,—anideaaddedinthePsalm,thoughnotquotedbythe apostle,—but all that was enjoined upon the Surety; and thetranslationwehavegiven—INWHICHWILL—bringsout the sphereorelementinwhichthegreatsacrificewasoffered,aswellasthesphereinwhichwearesanctified.

2.TheONEofferingmustbenoticed.Thispoint theapostle repeatedlyinculcates in the epistle, in proportion to its importance. He will haveattentionpaidtotheonehistoricfactofChrist'svicariousobedienceanddeath.ThewordONCEexcludesallrepetitionofChrist'ssacrifice;foritmustbeconstrued,asourtranslatorshavedone,withtheofferingoftheLord'sbody(comp.Heb.7:23,24,9:24–28).Theunityofthesacrificeisfurthermentioned,asweshallseeinthesubsequentverses.

3.Christ'ssacrificeconsists intheofferingofHisbody:Heiscomparedand contrastedwith the annual sacrifice. The termBODYdenotes hereHishumanity;forHissoulaswellasHisbodywasoffered.Thistermiscontrasted with the bodies of animals burned on the altar; for in thepreviousversesthePsalmwasquoted:"AbodyhastThoupreparedme."More necessary is it to examine the force of the expression, "THEOFFERINGOFTHEBODYOFJESUSCHRISTONCE,"becausemany—with a modification of the Socinian theory, which transfers Christ'ssacrificetoHisascensiontoheaven—givebutahalf-heartedadherencetothegreattruththattheLord'ssacrificewascompletedonthecross.Thatschemeofthought isrefutedbythisexpression,whichcanonlyrefertothe cross. It could not be in the apostle's mind to affirm that ChristofferedHisbodytoGodattheascension;fortheonlyostensiblepleaonwhich men advocate an offering in heaven is, that, according to thetypicaleconomy,thebloodwascarriedintotheholiestofall,whichtheygroundlesslyconcludewasdoneatHisascension.ButHeofferedHimselfwhenHeboreour sinsonHisownbody (1Pet2:24); and the sacrificewascompletedatHisdeath,andincapableofsupplementorrepetition.

4.WearesaidtobeSANCTIFIEDinthiselementofGod'swill,andbytheonesacrificeoftheLord'sbody.Howtheworshippersweresanctifiedbysacrifice, has been noticed above. It is a relative, not inherentsanctification;forsacrificeputmenonarightfootingwithGod,coveringtheirguilt,andcalmingconscience.It issacrificialphraseology,andnottobeinterpretedofmoralamendment.

Thepreviousstatements,takenfromthesacrificialphraseology,throwasteady light on the true design of Christ's obedience unto death. TheyshowthatHeisthetruthofthoseshadows.ThoughtheNewTestamentwriters,accustomedtothesacrificialstyle,donotwhollyabandonitevenwhen no express comparison is made between the sacrifices and thedeath of Christ, it was the very design of this epistle to bring out thetypical relation;andwehavehadexpress testimony to the fact that thedeath of Christwas a sacrifice (7:27); thatHe offered a better sacrifice(9:23); thatHeputawaysinbythesacrificeofHimself(9:26); thatHissacrificially shedbloodpurgesour consciences fromdeadworks (9:14);andthattheofferingofHisbodysanctifiesus,inthesenseofdedicatingusasacovenantpeopletoGod(10:10).AllthesepassagesaffirmthatthedeathofChristwasasacrifice,bywhichmenareseparatedasapeculiarpeople for theworshipof the livingGod: and it is important to see thething signified in the symbol, the antitype in the type. If the ancientsacrifices, as symbols in the lower sphere, freed the worshipper frommeritedpunishment,becauseguiltpassedovertothevictim,thedeathofChrist in like manner, in a higher sphere, not only displayed thepunishment due to us for sin, but effected the removal of ourpunishment. It put us in the position of a people near to God, a holypeople, as Israelwere in a typical sense.All thiswas brought about bysacrifice.TheOldTestament sacrifices occupied theplace of thosewhobroughtthem,andwhosawtheirsinandpunishmenttransferred;andinthesamewaythedeathofJesuswasvicarious,becauseHeactuallyboreHis people's punishment, and restored them to favour and holyfellowship. Nor does this view convey ought unworthy of God. Thesacrifices didnot representGod asmoved tomercy by the shedding ofblood, for they were provided in grace, and argue a gracious plan bywhichalltheattributesofGodaremagnified.

As to the remaining portion of this connected section,wemay contentourselves with merely touching the salient points (vers. 11–14). TheapostlecontraststheactionoftheJewishhighpriestwithChrist'sofficialaction.TheHebrewChristiansweresomewhattroubledbyJewishcavilsastothenon-repetitionoftheatonement;andtheapostle,comparingthetwopriesthoods,showswhynorepetitionofChrist'sworkwasnecessaryor possible. Omitting the proof for the sufficiency of Christ's finishedwork, from the great fact of His resurrection, let us notice a threefoldantithesis:thefirst,betweeneverypriestorhighpriestdailyministering,andthisMan;thesecond,betweenthesamerepeatedsacrificesandtheonesacrifice forsin; the third,betweenthe insufficiencyof theoneandtheall-sufficiencyoftheother.Whatavainparadeoflanguage,ifitwerenotmeantthattheatonementistobetracedtothedeathofChrist,inthesame way as the Israelites, in a lower sphere, ascribed to the priestlysacrificestheirdeliverancesfromdefilement!

One point to be determined is:How arewe to construe the expressionFOREVERintheverse,"Butthisman,afterHehadofferedonesacrificeforsinforever,satdownontherighthandofGod?"(ver.12.)OpinionisprettyequallydividedonthequestionwhetherthewordsFOREVERaremost fitly joinedwith the "one sacrifice," denoting that itwas eternallyvalid;orwiththefollowingwords,denotingthatHesatdownforever.Onmany accounts we greatly prefer the former; and the repetition of thesame expression further down, HE PERFECTED FOR EVER (ver. 14),renders thishighlyprobable, for theone is the foundationof theother.Thus, "Christ offered one sacrifice for sins FOR EVER," and this fact"perfected FOR EVER" those who share in it. The everlasting validityattaching to it was due to this, that it was ONE sacrifice of infinitesufficiency, with retrospective as well as prospective influence, andcapableofrectifyingforeverman'srelationtoGod.Thistextplainlycallsit"onesacrifice"(ver.12),andviewsitasincapableofbeingrepeated.Itis not represented as perpetually offered in heaven. The antithesisbetweenthetwosacrificesandthetwopriesthoodsisveryemphatic.Theone high priest is represented as daily ministering, and offeringoftentimes the same sacrifices, which could never take away sins; theotherHighPriestoffersonesacrificeforsins,andthensitsdown.Nooneinterpreting naturally will refer this one sacrifice to anything but the

finishedworkonthecross—thegroundofHisreward.Theoblationwasonearth,andtheintercessioninheaven;theoblationonlyonce,andtheintercessionperpetual.Theparticipialclauseinthefirstpartoftheverseismeanttoindicateantecedent,notsimultaneousaction(ver.12);andasimilar style of expression occurs at the beginning of the epistle (Heb.1:3).

Theapostleisnowledtosubjoinafurtherstatementofthesamethinginanaphoristicform:Forbyoneoffering(προσφορᾷ)Hehathperfectedforever them that are sanctified (ver. 14). This assigns the reason of theprevious statement, as is evident from the causal or grounding particlefor,—areasonbasedonthesufficiencyofthesacrificeforallthepurposesof man's salvation. Because it was so, the Surety sat down on Hismediatorial throne, waiting for the final victory. As to the wordOFFERINGhereused,it isofthesamemeaningwiththeprevioustermSACRIFICE(ver.12),butmoregeneral.Thesametwotermsareapplied,but in a different order, to the death of Christ in another epistle (Eph.5:2).When theapostle says, "byoneoffering,"heplainlyalludes to theprevious expression, "through the offering of the body of Jesus Christonce"(ver.10).Asallthetermshereusedhavebeenalreadyconsidered,tworemarkswillsuffice.

1. We have another emphatic reference to the one sacrifice. Theimportance of this point was great. It could not be placed in too greatprominence,aswillappearbyrecallingotherpassagestothesameeffect(Heb.7:27,9:26,28).Inthispassage,afterpointingoutthattheLeviticalatonementsculminated in thesin-offeringwhich thehighpriestofferedyearbyyearcontinually,andtherepetitionofwhicharguedimperfection,heshows that theLordJesus,byoneoffering,orby theofferingofHisbody once (ver. 10), perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Beforepassing from this point, it may be noticed that the ONE sacrifice is apoint of as great moment against Socinians and Romanists as it wasagainsttheancientJewsoftheapostle'sage:itcannotbeputintoogreatprominence. It is diametrically opposite to the Socinian notion of asacrificeinheaven,oraperpetualoblation;foritisonethingtoofferanoblation, and another to carry on perpetual intercession. It isdiametricallyopposedtoallRomanistorsemi-Romanisttheories,which

argueforarepetitionofthesacrificeintheLord'sSupper.TheEpistletotheHebrews supplies a ready answer to sacerdotal assumptions of thissort. The repetition argues defect and imperfection. Not only so: for arenewalof thepropitiatory sacrifice theapostle explicitlydeclares theremust be fresh abasement on the part of Christ; renewed suffering; theshedding of blood, coupled with an accursed death (Heb. 9:26). Thereasonofthiswas,thatthesin-offeringwasvicarious.

2. The one offering PERFECTED the saints. This was accomplishedobjectivelywhenChristdied;forall thesaintswererepresentedintheirSuretybefore thedivinemind.When theonesacrifice is said toperfectthem,themeaningis,thatiteffectedfullremission,acompleteexpiation;objectively securing personal acceptance, priestly standing, covenantnearness as a peculiar people; and subjectively securing the purging ofconscience, or themaking theworshippers perfect as pertaining to theconscience.What effected this?Not Christ's doctrine norHis example,but the offering of His body once. These three terms, PERFECT,SANCTIFY, PURGE or purify, are terms of sacrificial import—relativetermsbearingonthestandingoftheworshipperbeforeGod.Theydonotmeanmoralamendment.

Another point remains to be noticed in this connected outline, whichcomparesChrist'sofficialactionandthatofthehighpriestonthedayofatonement: A new and living way which He hath consecrated for usthroughtheveil,thatistosay,Hisflesh(Heb.10:19).Howcouldthefleshof Christ be the veil which served to shut out the holiest of all fromhuman access? The investigation of this fact opens up a chain ofimportanttruths.TheantitypeoftheveilisexpresslysaidtobetheLord'sFLESH; and we have already seen that, when the term FLESH is soapplied, it has the peculiarmeaning of sin-bearing humanity. ThuswereadofthedaysofHisflesh(Heb.5:7);ofknowingChristaftertheflesh(2Cor.5:16).ThesinsofHispeoplewerebyimputationlaidonHimsolongasHesojournedamongmen;andthereforeHishumanity,solongasitwasuncrucified,wasstillaproofthatthecursewasnotremoved,norsin abolished.By theVEILweunderstandChrist's flesh burdenedwithour sins, and ladenwith all the cursewhich the law threatenedagainsttransgressors.His fleshwas rent, as the veil was rent, atHis death, to

openuptoHispeoplefreeaccessintotheholiestofall.Heentered,andtheyenteredwithHim,intoastateofperfectrestandintimatefellowshipwith God. He entered within the veil at the moment the spirit wasseparatedfromthebody;andthroughmeansofHissurrenderedlife,weenteredintothenearestcommunionwithGod.Thiswasanewandlivingway,anditwas,sotospeak,signedandsealedbythehistoricfactoftherendingofthetempleveil(Matt.27:57).TheentranceofChrist'ssoulintoheaven, or paradise, at the moment of His death, as has been alreadyshown,correspondedwiththecarryingofthebloodintotheholiestofall.

Hencewedrawnearwithsprinkledconsciences(10:22).Christiansareallsaidtohavecometothebloodofsprinkling(12:24).Asthehrist'sbloodwasthebloodofvictims,towhichtheguiltoftheworshippershadbeentransferred,thesprinklingof it freedtheIsraelitefrompunishmentandceremonial defilement. The sprinkling of Christ's blood cancels all sin,andpurifiestheconscienceforever.

IX.We come now to a sectionwhich delineates the sacrificial instituteand its typical import in a variety of lights:We have an altar, whereoftheyhavenorighttoeatwhoservethetabernacle.Forthebodiesofthosebeasts,whoseblood isbrought into thesanctuaryby thehighpriest forsin[or,asasin-offering],areburnedwithoutthecamp.WhereforeJesusalso, thatHemight sanctify the people with [better, through]His ownblood, suffered without the gate (Heb. 13:10–12). The apostle draws acomparisonbetweentheoldandneweconomy,andexhibitsthedangerofabidingbytheshadow.Theywhoservedthetabernaclearetheywhoadhered to theexternal ritesofJudaism,andneverpenetrated into theinwardgospelworshipwhichChristianityhas introduced.Ascontrastedwith this, the apostle says, WE HAVE AN ALTAR. A few words willsufficetoshowthemeaning.InthearrangementsoftheMosaicworshipthereweretwoaltars,—thebrazenaltarofburnt-offeringinthecourt,andthealtarof incense in theholyplace.To the former theapostle'swordsclearlyrefer,accordingtoaphraseologycurrentamongtheHebrews,ofwhichwefindanexampleinMalachi(Mal.1:7):thealtarisspokenofasatablefurnishedwithbread.

1.Apreliminarycomment isnecessaryas to themeaningof the firstoftheseverses(ver.10),andwhetheritistobetakeninconnectionwiththe

nextverses.Thealtarisdescribedassupplyingfood,—thatis,thefleshofslainvictims;andallwhoministeredinthetabernacle—thatis,whowereofficiallyconnectedwithitsservices—hadarighttoeatofit.Ofsomeofthe sacrifices the Israelites generally, the women and children, wereallowed to partake; but the reference is specially to the priests, who,accordingtothelaw,hadtheirappropriateportionsassignedthemfromthe sacrifices brought to the altar. They participated in the thank-offerings,andalsointhesin-offeringsofferedbyprivateindividuals(Lev.6:16,7:5).Butthiswaskeptwithinstrictlydefinedlimits.Thus,nopriestcouldeatofthealtarinthecaseoftheburnt-offerings:theywerewhollyto be consumed.Nor could they eat of the altar on the occasion of thepublicsin-offeringonthedayofatonement,towhichfrequentreferenceismadeinthisepistle,fornopartofitwastobereserved(Lev.16:27).Allthese were indications of imperfect atonement, and that the greatsacrifice was yet to come. And this fact was significant; like the entireinstitutionsofthefirstcovenant,anactualprophecyofthenewcovenant.

WhataltardoestheapostlespeakofaspeculiartoChristianity,whenhesays,WEHAVE AN ALTAR? The Lutheran writers, for themost part,understandthewoodofthecross,orthetreetowhichPeterrefers(1Pet2:24).Others,especiallypatristicwriters,understandtheLord'sSupper;a viewwhich,whenonce allowed, had a tendency constantly to receivenew elements, till another priesthood and sacrifice superseded the onepriest and one sacrifice. Others say the altar means the entire NewTestamentworship.Thealtarofwhichtheapostlespeaks,isplainlythatonwhichtheLordofferedHissacrifice;that is, thecross,viewedasthemanifestationofdivinejusticeandholiness.ThatisouraltarinthecourtoftheLord'shouse:thereGodshowedHimselfreconciled;theretheSonofGodwasoffered,andpouredoutHisbloodabundantly.Of thisaltarChristianseatwithoutreserve,receivingthecrucifiedChrist,andhavingfellowshipwithHim.Ontheotherhand,theywhoservedthetabernacle,thatis,theywhoattachedthemselvestotheritesandceremoniesoftheold worship, when all was abrogated by Christ's atonement, preferringthe shadow to the substance, couldnot eat of theChristian's altar, andhadnorighttoit.

2.Theapostlefindstypicalsignificanceinthefactthatthebodiesofthe

victimsofferedasasin-offeringwereburnedwithoutthecamp.Theslainanimalwas carriedwithout the camp, by reasonof thedefilementwithwhichitwasladen,andforwhichitwasrejected,ordeserted,byGodandman;andChrist,coveredwithguiltanddefilement,wasledwithoutthegatesofJerusalem,andsuspendedontheaccursedtree,betweenheavenandearth,asifunworthyofeither.Theapostleisthebestexpounderofthesecretmeaningof theceremonial law;andthemeaningof thewordWHEREFOREisbestelucidatedbythisinterpretation—viz.thatthetypemight be fulfilled. That removal of the victimsbeyond thewalls clearlyintimated that theywere unclean, because the guilt and punishment ofthepeoplewereimputedtothem.Theywereconsideredaspollutedwiththeguiltof thepeople.Now,according to the truemeaningof the type,Christiscomparedtotheancientsacrifices,thesinsofthepeoplebeingimputedtoHim.Hewasconsideredasasinner,andobligedtobeartheguilt,theshame,thepenaltyofothers,tosufferwithoutthegate,thatHemightrestorementothefavour,andfriendshipofGod.Wedonotneedto insist upon details; but taking into account the point of comparisonbetween typeandantitype,weask,Can thesewordsbyanyviolencebemade tomean, as some will have it, that Christ dedicated the Jews toChristianity, or brought them from one profession to another? Thecomparison instituted betweenChrist and the ancient sacrifices,whosebodies were burned without the camp, would then be destitute ofmeaning.

3.ConsidertheBURNINGofthesin-offerings,whosebloodwasbroughtby thehighpriest into theholy of holies on thedayof atonement.Theconnectionbetweenthesprinklingof themercy-seatandtheburningofthe bodies demands attention. They were both atoning. The act ofburningwasaftertheactofcarryingthebloodintotheholiestofall,buthow longafter itmaybedifficult toascertain.As theburning followingthesprinklingof themercy-seatwasa typeofChrist'ssufferingwithoutthe gate,wemaywarrantably affirm that this is another proof that theentrance into theholiestofall stoodconnectedwithHisdeath,andnotwithHis ascension.This confirms the interpretationalready given.Theburning,identifiedasitiswithChrist'ssuffering,followed,andcouldnothavepreceded,thesprinklingofthemercy-seat(Lev.16:27,28).

We cannot sunder the burning of the bodies of the victims, the secondpartofthesacrificialritual,fromthesprinklingoftheblood,whichwasthefirstpart;forthentheunityofthewholewouldbedestroyed.Thattheburningofthesacrificemaybecorrectlyapprehended,itmustbeaddedthatthereferenceisnottoinwardholiness,buttovicariousobedienceinsuffering.This is indisputablyprovedby thepresentpassage,making itequivalenttotheLord'sdeathwithoutthegate.Ifthesprinklingofbloodsetsforththevicariousenduranceofthepenalty,theactofburningfitlybringsoutthatactiveobedience,orpositivesinlessness,evincedamidallthatwas tobeendured,whichwasanodourof sweetsmell to theHolyOne of Israel (Eph. 5:1). The union of suffering and sinlessness was asweet-smelling savour.The imperfectionof the type, requiringas it didsuccessiveactstobringoutwhatinrealitywassimultaneous,preventsusfrom clearly perceiving these two in their combination. Only one thingmoremustbenoticed,viz.themeaningofthefirebywhichthebodiesofthe victims were consumed. Already it has been proved that this wasintendedtofigureforththeHolyGhost,whichcamedownfromheavenupon the sacrifice, as the fire from heaven often fell, rendering itacceptable and of sweet-smelling savour to God (see Heb. 9:14). Theburningwasvicariousandatoning.

This enables us tomeet themodern objection, that the burning of thebodieswasnotareligiousactatall,andhadnothingwhatevertodowithatonement. The two things put together are thus a mere coincidence,without typical significance. But the answer to all this is obvious: theapostleaffirmstheoppositeintermsthemostexpress,forheassertsthetypicalrelationbetweenthetwothings,accordingtodivineappointment.Atypicalrelationobtainsbetweenthetwo,andtheymusthavethesamemeaning. On the one hand, the bodies of the beasts slain for burnt-offeringswere burnedwithout the camp, because theywere unclean inconsequenceof thesinsof thecongregationbeing laidonthem;andontheotherhand,Christ,thesinlessOne,accountedguilty,andadjudgedacriminalbyman,was led forthwithout thegate tosuffer thepenaltyofdeath,according to the termsof the law(Lev.24:14;Num.15:35;Deut.17:5). This was expulsion from the covenant people. As Caiaphaspronouncedaprophecywithoutknowingit,so,incondemningChristtoamalefactor's death without the gate, they fulfilled, without knowing or

intending it, the typical import of the burning of the bodies of the sin-offerings.Accordingtothedivinepurpose,Hemustsufferasamalefactorwithout the gate, if He was to suffer the penalty of human guilt. This,according to the apostle, was the typical significance of that act ofburning.

4.Christ'sdesignwas, "thatHemightsanctify thepeoplewithHisownblood." This is one of those many final clauses, introduced by a finalparticle(ἵνα),whichareintendedtobringoutdivinepurpose,orChrist'sowndesigninconnectionwithHisdeath;andtheygiveusaglimpseintoChrist's heart. In the present instance, the design contemplated by theLordinHisdeath,issaidtohavebeenthesanctificationofthepeople—that is, of the people of God, the elect of God. Cast out by men, andpunishedas thesuretyof theguilty,Hewasall thewhile,as thesinlesssin-bearer, offering a sacrifice so acceptable, that He was securing thededication and separation of the people to God. This is the relativesanctification,nottheinherent:itisthatwhichimmediatelyresultsfromsacrifice.ThegreatdayofatonementdidthisforIsraelinalowersphere,cancelling the sins of the year, and setting apart the people anew. ThebloodofChristdiditinthehighersphereforallsins,andforever.

X.ThelastpassagereferringtotheatonementisthememorableprayerinwhichtheapostlecommendstheHebrewChristianstoGod:NowtheGodof peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that greatshepherdofthesheep,through[literally,in]thebloodoftheeverlastingcovenant, make you perfect in every good work to do His will (Heb.13:20).Thispassage recapitulates in the formofprayer the contentsoftheentireepistle,whichwasspeciallyintendedtosetforththenatureofChrist'spriesthood,andthenewcovenantofwhichHeisthemediator.

1. A particular title of God, referring to the new relation in which Hestands tomankindon thegroundof theatonement, ispresented in theinvocation, "the God of peace." This designation, intimatingreconciliationwithGod,impliesthathostilityhasceased.Whenwetracethehistoryofourrace,wefindthatthefriendshipwhichmanmadewithSatan caused enmity with God, and that the first proclamation of thegospel in Paradise, foretelling enmity between the serpent and thewoman, included a way of peace with God. The ancient types and

sacrifices, though inadequate to give this peace, prefigured it till Christcame.The invocation isaddressed to theGodofpeace,onceangry,butwhoseangeristurnedawaybytheatonement,whichappeasedHim;forin vain would blessings be sought from an angry Judge without themeans of reconciliation. But the prayer is offered without fear to apacified God, who looks not at human amendments or repentance, athuman sorrow, humiliation, or gifts presented to Him on the part ofthosewhosepersonalstandingwasthatofrebelsandcriminals,butatthesinlesslifeandvicarioussufferingsofHisSon.

2.Thenextclause,referringto theresurrectionofourLord,showsthatbythisfactGodisprovedtobetheGodofpeace.TheresurrectionishereascribedtotheFather,because inourredemptionHewasthesourceofthegreatprovision,sending theSonandreceiving thesatisfaction fromHishands.ThefirstproofofbeingpacifiedwasgivenbyopenlyreleasingordischargingtheSuretyonthemorningofHisresurrection.TheapostlededucestheargumentthatGodisreconciled,andHisangerturnedaway,fromthehistoricfactoftheresurrection,whichproved,ifanythingcould,thatHeis"theGodofpeace."TheLordJesus, inhiscapacityofSurety,had entered into our obligations in every respect—into prison andjudgment forus—andwasbrought again from thedeadbyHimwho isthefountainoflawandjustice,becauseamplesatisfactionandpaymenthadbeenrendered.Hadnotthisbeenso,GodcouldnothavedischargedtheSurety, andbroughtHimagain from thedead; butHe liberated allHis people in such a way that Christ stands before our view as theevidenceandattestationoftheirdischarge:andhencetheapostleinthisprayer appeals to all the attributes ofGod, expecting a display of graceandpowerfortheendsofmen'ssalvationandthewelfareofthechurchofGod.

3.Itisfurtheradded,thatallthiswasIN,orwith,THEBLOODOFTHEETERNALCOVENANT.Thedisputeamongexpositorshere is,whethertoconstruethesewordswiththeresurrection,intimatingthatChristwasraisedinvirtueofthebloodofthecovenant;orwiththeShepherdofthesheep,conveyingthesensethatthefunctionoftheShepherdisfoundedon the fact that He bought the sheep with His own blood. An equalnumberofexpositorsisfoundrangedonoppositesidesofthispoint.Iam

persuadedthattheapostlemeanttocombineboththoughts,andthatweare not to think of the resurrection apart from the great Shepherd'sfunction,norconversely.Itisadiversityofviewwherenoneshouldexist,andwhereconflictingviewsmaybeunited.

ItonlyremainstonoticethatthiscovenantisdescribedwiththeadditionofthetermBLOOD,whichconveystheideaofsacrificialbloodasthatonwhichitisfounded.

CHAPTERIV:THETESTIMONYOFTHEAPOSTLEPETER

SEC.XX.—THEEPISTLESOFPETER

WE come now to the testimony of Peter, whose activity in the firstfoundingoftheChristianchurch,asthemostprominentmanofaction,was already noticed under the Acts of the Apostles. We here confineourselvestohisepistles.Thefirstofthesewasaddressedtothestrangersof thediaspora (1Pet. 1:1), a titlewhich seemsanallusion toa classofJewishChristians rather than ametaphor for their pilgrim life. This atleast is the conclusion to which exegetical inquiry inmodern days hasbroughtmostminds,thoughthetendencyfora longtimewasdifferent.The words STRANGERS OF THE DISPERSION lead us to regard theepistleasaddressedtoJewishbelievers,whethertheyoriginallybelongedtotheJerusalemcongregation,andwentabroadontheerrandsof theircalling, ormore probably came under Christian influences on some ofthose occasions when they came up from Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia,Asia,andBithynia,andcarriedhomethetruthtobediffusedamongtheir

Jewish countrymen. The districts named,with the exception ofGalatiaand Asia, are not precisely in the sphere of Paul's missionary tours.Though it isnotourobject todiscuss thedateofPeter's epistle,Weiss'conclusion is not improbable, that it was prior to Paul's residence inEphesus(Acts19:1):certainlyitbearsallthemarksofbeingcomposedatanearlyperiodoftheChristianchurch.

Peter has been called the apostle of HOPE, as John is of love; andagreeablytothisfeatureofcharacter,theaspectinwhichhepresentstheatonement is pre-eminently deliverance from the effects of sin. PetersustainsthecharacterofawitnessofChrist'ssufferings(1Pet.5:1);andhisallusionstotheblood,thestripes,andthedeathofChrist,showhowfullyhehadoutlivedthestateofmindwhichwasoffendedattheideaofasufferingMessiah.TheaspectsoftheLord'shistorysetontheforegroundarethesufferingsthatweretocomeonChrist,andthegloriesthatshouldfollow—the themeswhich theprophetssearched into (1Pet. 1:11).Peterrepresentsthegospelverymuchinthelightofthefulfilmentofprophecy,asJamesrepresentsitinthelightoftheperfectlaw.Hence,inhisvividdelineationofChristfrompersonalrecollection,hepassesfromprophecytohisowntestimony,blendingthetwotogetherinthemostnaturalway.HespeaksastheeyewitnessoftheLord'sabasement,andthespectatorofthatinterviewontheholymountwhenheavenlyvisitantsconferredwithChristaboutHisdeath,andanimatedHiminHissufferingcareer(1Pet.2:23; 2 Pet. 1:16).He reproduces the Lord's words, or the Baptist's, inseveral passages which describe the atonement; and in unambiguoustermsbringsout thedifferentelementsof thedoctrine, thenature,andfruitsoftheSacrifice.

I. At the commencement of the epistle, Christians are thus described:ElectaccordingtotheforeknowledgeofGodtheFather,through[better,in]sanctificationoftheSpirit,untoobedienceandsprinklingofthebloodof Jesus Christ (1 Pet. 1:2). The words describe God's election from athreefoldpointofview: itssource indivine foreknowledge; themode inwhich it is carried out by sanctification of the Spirit; and the endcontemplated, viz. obedience and sprinklingof thebloodofChrist.Theobedienceherenamedisbutanothernameforfaith,or,morestrictly,forthat obedience of faith which submits to the righteousness of God. An

obediencefollowsfaith;butthisistheobedienceoffaithitself(Rom.1:5;Acts 6:7). As God's commandment is to believe, so it becomes aparamountdutytoobey,orsubmittoGod'swayofsalvation(Rom.10:3).

The next thing contemplated by the election of Christians, and theirseparationby theSpirit from the commonmass,was "the sprinklingofthe blood of Jesus Christ." This sacrificial language receives itsillustrationfromtheancientritual.WhenevermentionismadeintheOldTestament of the sprinkling of blood or of ashes, the allusion is to theblood or ashes of victims to which the offerer's guilt was transferred:sprinklingmadeatonementforthepartiesspokenof,freeingthemfromguilt and punishment. That the expressions TO SPRINKLE, and toabsolvefromguilt,arecoincident,maybeseenfromthepassageswherethe languageoccurs (Ex.29:21;Num.19:13;Ps.51:7). If justice is tobedone to thepresentpassage, andothers similar,wemust represent theLordJesusasanatoningsacrifice,towhichthesinsandpunishmentofHis people have been transferred; while, on the other side, Hismeritsapplied to them serve to expiate their guilt, and present them faultlessbeforeGod.ThewordsmeanthatChrist'sbloodmakesatonementfortheelect,andthattheyarechosenofGodandseparatedbytheSpiritforthisend.Anatoningdeathforsinalwayspreceded,andwaspresupposedby,thesprinkling.TheapostlerepresentsthebloodofChristassacrificial,ameaningwhichthewordusuallybears.Thispassagelimitsthesprinklingto persons, without noticing the other sprinkling,more objective in itscharacter, applied to thealtarofburnt-offering (Lev. 1:5), to theveil ofthesanctuary(Lev.5:6),andtothemercy-seatonthedayofatonement(Lev.16:14).Initsapplicationtopersonswefindtwothingsincluded—apositive and a negative; the remission of sins, and a provision forsecuring access with boldness and confidence. Pardon, in a word, wasonlyapathway to the furtherprivilegeof a covenant relation, as in thecaseofIsraelatMountSinai(Ex.24:8).

Possibly,ashasbeenconjectured,Peteronlyreproducestheideaswhichhe had heard from the lips of his Lord at the institution of the Supper(Matt. 26:28). The blood shed formany, or sprinkled, as some chooserather to view it, was not only for the remission of sins, but for theinstitutionofthenewcovenant,replacingthatofSinai.Thefurtheridea

ofacovenantrelationsecuredbythesprinklingofChrist'sbloodonthosewhoaresetapartasChristians,iswarrantedbyPeter'swords.Noristhatall: a continuous sprinkling of the blood of Christ to perpetuate thatcovenantstanding,andtoadjusttherelationafreshwhenitisdisturbed,is also involved in the terms. As the term is used in the Epistle to theHebrews,sprinklingintimatesanactionwhichliesatthefoundationofacovenant relation (Heb. 12:24, 10:22). Whether we look, then, at thewords ofChrist on the occasion of instituting the Supper, or at Israel'spositionatMountSinai,oratthecloseconnectionbetweenthebloodofsprinkling and the new covenant, as indicated in the Epistle to theHebrews,wemaysafelyconcludethattheapostlealludestothefoundingofanewcovenantrelationinChrist'sblood.ThedeathofChristatones,andputsawaysin;butnotonlyso:itformsapositivecovenantrelationbywhichChristians,electedandsetapart,becomeapeopleofGodbythesprinklingofChrist'sblood.

II. In a second reference to the death of Christ, Peter connects it withredemption, placing them together as cause and effect: Ye were notredeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vainconversation received by tradition from your fathers; but with thepreciousbloodofChrist,asofaLambwithoutblemishandwithoutspot:who verilywas foreordained before the foundation of theworld (1 Pet.1:18,19).ThisisanechooftheLord'sownwordsastothegivingofHislife a ransom formany,withperhaps a further allusion to theBaptist'stestimony to the Lamb of God. The words are put in such a form andconnectionastoimplyanobviousallusiontothefirstpassoverinEgypt,andthesubsequentredemption.Theapostleshavemadethedoctrineoftheatonementmoreperspicuousandstrikingbythecopioususeofthisclass of terms, which also recall the Old Testament history, where thesameideasaretypicallyexhibited.Wehavealreadyhadoccasiontofindasure basis for the exposition of the text before us, in the elucidation ofsimilar passages in due course in the several epistles. The remarksalreadymadeonthewordRANSOM,asusedbyourLord(Matt.20:28),mayhereberecalled.

Theprimarymeaning of the term redeem is to deliver from slavery, orcaptivityunderthepowerofanenemy,bythepaymentofaransom.This

is the simplemeaning of theword, and it precisely corresponds to theEnglishverbtoransom,derivedfromitscognatenounintheverysameway. If the Saxon term, indeed,were used instead of the termof Latinorigin,itwouldbetheexactequivalent,andnotlessemphaticallyconveyto an English reader the idea of deliverance from captivity by thepaymentofaransom;andwearenottoabandonthepropersensewhileitiscompatiblewiththecaseinhand.Underanevangelicalgarbwefind,in modern times, a new mode of representing the party to whom theransomisgiven,whichisverywideofthemark.ThusStierandKlaibermake use of the term only to explain away its significance. They allowthat Christ gaveHis holy human life and shedHis precious blood as aransom, and they will allow the word, if we wish it, thatHe PAID theransom. Butwhen the question is raised, towhomwas it paid, and bywhomwas it received, the divergence becomes apparent. Theywill notadmitthatitwasofferedtoGod,who,astheyrepresentthematter,istobe viewed as eternally rich, and, whether considered as Love or asJustice,ashavingneedofnone.Theyholdthatitwaspaidtousmen,thepooranddestitute.Inotherwords,theydonotallowthatitwaspaidtoGodinourstead;forGoddispensesanabsolutepardonintheexerciseofpure love byHis Son, only slain in proclaiming this graciousmessage.They retain the name and neutralize the meaning, or make it a meremetaphor,excludingtheideaofanequivalentorsatisfactiontothedivinelawforourdeliverance.Theyholdthat,withoutanyreparationtothelawofGod,menenterintounionwithChrist,whodescendedintohumanityandlivedasinlesshumanlife,whichisreproducedinus,Hisfollowers,bymeans of fellowshipwithHim.Only in this subjectivewayhaveHispeople any benefit from Christ, according to the theory. A change ofnatureisadmitted,butnoprovisionismadefortherectificationofman'srelation,orforhispersonalstandingbeforeGod.Thejudicialelementisdiscarded, and the claims of the divine law have no place. To this thereadyansweris,thatmanisnotmerelyanature,butapersonwhomusthaveastandinginlawbeforethemoralGovernoroftheuniverse;andtheterms connected with man's legal relation are, without exception,connected with the ransom offered to God in our stead by Christ'sobedienceuntodeath.

But this leadsme further tonoticehow the two ideasofRANSOMand

SACRIFICE, by a natural and easy transition, pass into each other.Howeverthese ideasseemtodiffer, theydonotdivergesowidelywhenweattendtothebiblicalphraseology,asa fewremarkswillshow.Whatwaseffectedbytheancientsacrifices,wastheremovalofthethreatenedpenalty.OnsomeoccasionstheIsraelites,stringentlyboundtoprovideasatisfaction, were under the necessity of paying a certain RANSOM,whichoccupiedtheplaceofasacrifice;andthisransom,paidinmoney,was called an atonement, as it exempted them from punishment (Ex.30:15). The man was considered as a captive or prisoner to a divineretribution, if this was not rendered, whether it required a ransom,properlysocalled,ora sacrifice.But inall cases theprincipalmatter isthe turning away of a threatened calamity bymeans of the satisfaction(Job33:24;Ex.21:30;Ps.49:7).Ifwekeepthisinview,wecanhavenodifficulty in perceiving how the death of Christ can be represented ineither light, and how the one thought passes over into the other by aneasy transition. His blood is thus a ransom, and the atonementaccomplishedbyHimisaredemption.

Thisenablesustoobviatetheoften-repeatedobjection,thatthesetermsarepressedbeyondtheirlegitimatesignificance,andthatweattendmoretothefigureunderwhichthetruthisrepresentedthantothethingitself.Itisnotso:forweholdasstronglyasthosewhomaketheobjection,thatthiswould run counter to all the rules of sound interpretation.But thetermmeanssomething,andcannotbetreatedasifitwerenotemployed,orcouldbeignored;andwemustdojusticetoitsimport,ifwewouldnotincurthedeservedblameofindulginginamerecapriciousexpositionoftermsmeanttobesignificant.Thequestiontobedeterminedis:Inwhatsense is the death of Christ called a ransom? In what sense is thedeliverance designated a redemption, and derived from the Mediator?Andtoanswerthisinquiry,therulesofsoundinterpretationrequirenotonly that we shall examine the import of the terms, but the passageswhere they are found, the connectionof the context, and the appendedwordswhichputtheransomanddeliveranceintherelationofcauseandeffect.

The opponents of the vicarious satisfaction, when pressed by theconsiderationthattheapostlesbringoutthiscausalconnection,resortto

the following evasion: They say the language may denote absoluteliberation, as it comes to us by the proclamation of Christ, its greatmessenger,whoconfirmedHistestimonybyHisdeath.That is tomakethe allusion to Christ's death nugatory, when the proper import of theterms intimates somethingmuch beyond a preaching of unconditional,unpurchased pardon. It contains nothing less than the connection ofcauseandeffect,priceanddeliverance.The languageof theapostlesonthesubjectoftheransomandredemptionistooexpresstoallowanysuchevacuation of the meaning, any evasion of this nature. It cannot beexpoundedinanyothersensethanthis,thattheredemptionisthedirectimmediateeffectoftheransomoratonementoffered.Asacaptiveheldinchainswassetatlibertywhenthefullransomwaspaid,soarethepeopleofChristliberatedbyHisdeathfromguiltandpunishment.IfthedeathofChristexercisednocausalinfluenceatall,ifitwasbutaconfirmationof the proclamation of absolute deliverance, why does the Holy GhostuniformlyascribetothebloodofChristthecharacterofaransom?

Thequestionondoctrinalgroundstouchesthedeepesttruths;ittouchesthedivineattributes,towhichallsuchquestionsareandmustberunup—the authority of the divine law, the immutable justice, holiness, andtruthofGod.Butdoes it,as isalleged,morefullydisplaydivine lovetoset forth absolute deliverance? No: that is but indifference to humanconduct, concession, indulgence, not love; and we say, with the poetYoung,"AGodallmercyisaGodunjust."

TheimportofPeter'swordsmaybeeasilycollected.Theirconnectionandsignificancemaybethusstated:Afteranexhortationtowalkinfear,theapostleadds,thatthedeathofChrist,consideredasaransom,redeemedthebelievers, towhomhewrote, fromtheirvain,ungodlyconversation.HeintimatesthatthebloodofChrist—thatis,thewholesurety-obedienceofChrist—wonforthemholinessaswellasreconciliation;foritisPeter'smanner,whentouchingonthedeathofChrist,tounitetheatoningandsanctifyingelements.Thethoughtis,thatasanctifiedlifehasitsgroundandpossibilityinthefactoftheobjectiveredemptionfromguilt,orinthebloodofChristastheransom.

Themorenecessaryisittoadverttothis,toobviatetheconclusionthat,because the death of Christ had in view this liberation from moral

corruption,itcouldnotbeasatisfactiontothejusticeofGod.Thesetwothings are not opposites, but related as primary and secondary. Theprimarydesign isatonement,anddeliverance froma liability toeternaldeath. The secondary design, or that which is consequent on theattainment of the former, is this redemption or rescue from unholyconduct.Theformerispreparatorytothelatter,andtheconnectionmaythus be stated: Forgiveness of sins is directly effected by the blood ofChrist;theforgivenessofsinpavesthewayfor,andsecures,thegiftoftheHolyGhost;andwhere theHolyGhost is,menaredelivered fromtheirformervainconduct,accordingtothespiritoftheageandthetraditionshandeddowntothem.

Theapostle,too,laysstressonthegreatnessandvalueoftheransombywhichweare redeemed.Heexhibits thebloodofChristas the ransom,whenhe connects the redemption and the blood by a relation of causeand effect. Tomake this apparent, he compares two different kinds ofredemption:onebycorruptiblethings,assilverandgold;theotherbyaransom infinitely more costly. This contrast proves that the death ofChristisatrueransom,andthatthecomparisonisnotbetweenaproperandametaphorical redemption,butbetweenoneeffectedby silverandgold,andanotherbroughtaboutbyno lower ransomthan thebloodofChrist.Henames theprice,andpoints to the result—deliverance in thefirstcasefrommeritedpunishment,andinthesecondfromvainconduct.

Christ's blood, the price of our redemption, and described as precious,suggests,bywayofcontrast,thebloodofloweranimalsconstitutingtheransomintypicalagesbeforetherealitywasusheredin.Thepointofthecomparison, or that which both had in common, was the satisfactionnecessary for the liberation. We have seen how naturally, in thephraseology of Israel, the terms ransom and sacrifice passed over intoeachother,andcametobeunitedonthegroundthatanyoneneglectingthe ceremonial precepts became by that neglect a captive to theretributivegovernmentofGod,andasacrificeorransomredeemedhim.When the blood of Christ is here contrasted with the ransoms orsacrifices current in the ancient Israelitish community, the comparisonmusteitherintimatethatourliberationstandsinthesameconnection,orbeineptandnugatory.

In addition to this, let the particle bywhich the apostle introduces theallusion to Christ as the unblemished and spotless Lamb be carefullynoted: "AS of a Lamb." It is not the particle of comparison, but ofexplanation, expressing the reason why the blood of Christ was soinfinitely precious. The originalword renderedAS, or ASBEING (ὡς),serves frequently to intimate the truth of a thing, or such a quality asbelongstoapersonoreconomy.Manypassagesservetoshowthis(John1:14;Matt.21:26;2Pet.1:3;Phil.2:8;2Cor.2:17,5:20).Theimportantthoughtis,thatChrist'sbloodisnottobeconsideredasthatofateacherconfirminghisdoctrinebyhisdeath,orofaheroexposinghimselfforhiscountry,butsacrificialblood,asofaspotlesslamb,whethertheallusionbetothepassoverinEgypt,whichisprobablefromthefurtherreferencetoredemption,ortothelambofthedailysacrifice.Ransomandsacrificearesocloselyallied,thattheoneidea,fromthenatureofthecase,atoncepassesoverintotheother.

Thus His blood was sacrificially shed; and it is further designatedPRECIOUS,orofinfinitevalue,fromthefactthatitwasthesacrificeofasinlessperson.Togobacktothetype,theLambmustneedsbewithoutblemish andwithout spot (Ex. 12:5; Lev. 9:3): for the perfection of theanimalwasnotamereprerequisiteorconditionofthesacrifice;ratheritwas an element of it, offered in and with the blood. And the sinlessperfection of Jesus was not a mere indispensable prerequisite to theatonement, but an integral part of it. His blood, viewed as sacrificial,possessedinfinitevalue,becauseitwasthebloodnotmerelyofthebestofmen,butoftheeternalSonofGod,andadequatetomeetthewantsofcountlessmillionsofmankind.Theapostleconnectsthehighvalueofthesacrifice with the absolutely sinless purity of Christ. But the subjoinedwords,referringtotheeternalfore-appointmentofChristandthefederaltransactions of the Trinity, recall the dignity of the Lord as lending adivinevalue to thewhole.Notoneelement then,butseveral,enter intotheinfinitevalueofthispreciousblood.

TheremotereffectofChrist's redeemingblood,ashere stated, ismoralrenovation.Ithassanctifyingefficacy,andpromptstheChristiantoo,inthe way of motive, to walk in fear (ver. 17). But this presupposes theremissionof sins, and the acceptance of ourpersons, as the immediate

effect of the Lord's sacrifice. The sacrifice conditions the sanctifyingchange, or spiritual renovation, which sets us free from our vainconversation according to the course of theworld. The apostle's wordsassumethattheLord'sdeatheffectstheremissionofsins,andthengivesrisetoasanctificationoflifeormoralrenovation.

III.Anotherdecisivepassageastothenatureoftheatonementoccursinthefollowingchapter:WhoHisownselfbareoursinsinHisownbodyon[better, up to] the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live untorighteousness:bywhosestripesyewerehealed(1Pet2:24).TheapostlehadaddressedChristianslaves,aclassofmenwhosuffereddeeplyfromthe cruelty, caprice, andabsolutepowerofheathenmasters.Animatingthemtopatience,hepointed toChristas thegrandpattern,who,whenreviled, revilednotagain,but committedHimself toGod, the righteousJudge(vers.18–23).Theapostledoesnotstopshortthere,butadds,byanaturaltransitionofthought,thatChrist'ssufferingsweremorethananexample. He mentions two things: first, what Christ did for us in Hissufferingsanddeath;secondly,forwhatendallwasdone.Heshowshowpainful, and yet voluntary, were those sufferings, how innocent andelevatedintheirnature.First,whenitissaidthatHEBOREOURSINSinHisbody, theshadeofmeaningconveyedby the terms is, thatHeboreour sins as a heavy burden. This will appear by a few considerationsdrawnfromtheprimarymeaningoftheverb,fromtheaccessorywords,andfromthecontext.

a.Astotheprimarymeaningoftheverb(ἀναφέρειν),itdenotes"tocarryup," "to bear upwards." From that primary signification arises asecondaryormetaphoricalsenseinthemostnaturalway,viz."toofferinsacrifice."NowriterusestheGreekverbinanyotherway,aswillappearto any one who institutes a strict inquiry. It is used in its primarysignification,whenitissaidthattheIsraelites,attheexodusfromEgypt,broughtupthebonesofJoseph(Josh.24:21);whenDavidbroughtupthebones of Saul and Jonathan from Bethshan (2 Sam. 21:13); when ourLord brought up the disciples to the Mount of Transfiguration (Matt.17:1); when He was carried up to heaven at His own ascension (Luke24:51).Inthesecondarysignification,naturallyderivedfromtheformer,itdenotestoofferinsacrifice;theallusionbeingtothefactthatthevictim

was carried up to the altar, which was always erected on a raised orelevatedspot(Jas.2:21;Heb.7:27).

b. The accessory words to be next noticed supply another reason forabiding in this case by the primary signification of the word. Twoexpressionsrenderitabsolutelynecessarytoretain,thatsignification;forthestatementthatHeboreoursinsINHISOWNBODY,andnext,thatHeborethemUPTOTHETREE,canbefitlyinterpretedonlywhenwemaintaintheprimarymeaning.

c.Thecontextwasfurthermentioned,asrequiringthatthepassageshallbeunderstoodofthebearingofsinasaheavyburden.Afewwordswillshow this. The apostle had exhorted Christian servants, by the Lord'sexample, to the patient endurance of the injurious treatment to whichthey were exposed; and the notion of bearing a burden is so plainlycontained in the passage, that, without it, no natural connection couldobtainbetweenthecontextandtheclauseunderournotice.AthreefoldviewofChristisgiven:thepatientsuffererwho,whenreviled,revilednotagain; the faultless sufferer,whodidno sin; and the vicarious sufferer,whoboreoursins inHisownbody.Thismakes itevidentthatwemustretaintheprimarymeaningoftheverb.

Onthesegrounds,wedenythecompetencyof thetranslation,"Hetookawayoursins."Tothisrenderingmanyinformerandrecenttimeshavegivenapreference,forvariousreasons.Bymostofthesupportersofthisrenderingtheideaattachedtothephraseis,thatofremovingfuturesinbymoralamendment.But,nottomentionotherargumentsagainstthatinterpretation,letitsufficethatthisideaisintimatedinthelastclauseoftheverse,whentheapostlementions theultimateendcontemplatedbythe atonement; and to make both clauses affirm the same moralreformation,wouldnotonlybeatautology,butmakeamatterthereasonofitself.Thatisdecisiveagainsttherendering,"Hetookawayoursins."According to the other rendering, the atonement is represented asconditioningmoralrenovation.

Butevenifsucharenderingcouldbeadmitted,itwouldnotmakefortheopponents of the vicarious satisfaction. The question would still recur,Howwere theyTHENANDTHERE taken away?The limitationof this

removal,or takingawayof sin, toChrist'sownbodyon the tree,wouldstillleadtotheconclusionthatthiswasaccomplishedeighteencenturiesago, and thereforewouldbe tantamount to the atonementof the cross.The language is so environedand limitedby theotherwords, that theymustbetakenasaffirmingthatsinwastakenawayinHisownbodyonthe tree. Sinwas thus taken away by a fact in connectionwithChrist'scross,andthisvirtuallyamountstoexpiation.Peter'swordsreferallthisto the cross; and it is simply inconsistent with the apostle's design toaffirm,asSocinianswerewont todo, that thiswasbutan intermediatestageinChrist'swaytoheaven,wheresinwasactuallytakenaway.Itwillnotdotosay,astheysaid,thatthecrossdoesallthis,asitpersuadesmentobelieveandleadavirtuouslife,whichisfollowedinduecoursebythetakingawayofsin.Thewordscannotbeunderstoodinthatsense.TheymustbeunderstoodofaresulteffectedinHisownbody.

ThisleadsmetoanexplanationwhichfindsfavourwithaclasswhofeelthattheymustsaysomethingaboutChrist'sconnectionwithhumansin,but are committed to a disavowal of Christ's vicarious sacrifice: theymakeHimbearsininHisownbody,becauseHereceivedtheoutburstofhumanmaliceandpassionagainstHimself.Thatwearewarrantedtocallamereevasion;foritchangestheterms,substitutingforthesinswhichHebore, the ideaofmaliciousmenopposingHim,andactingout theirsinfulfeelingsagainstHim.Theanswertothisis,thatitrunscountertothe Old Testament phraseology on the subject of bearing sin; that noinstance can be adduced where the phrase TO BEAR SIN has such anacceptation; that certainly it does not so occur in a passage fromLamentationssometimesadducedinthissense(Lam.5:7);andthat,hadPeter's design been to express this idea, he would have used whollydifferent language,asmaybeseenbycomparingwhathedidsayinthebookofActs(Acts2:23,3:13).

After removing these false comments, it remains thatwe bring out thepositive ideascontained in theverse.Thesearespecially two—vicarioussin-bearing,andpriestlyactiononthecross;andtoboththesewemustspeciallyadvert.

1. The words imply that Christ, by His own act as well as by God'sappointment, bore our sins in His own body, connecting Himself with

sinfulhumanity,andtakingoursinsinsuchawayastoincorporatethemwithHimself, or conjoin themwithHis own body. The quotation fromIsaiahestablishesthisstillmoreprecisely.HemadeoursinsHisown,insuch a way that they adhered to Him in the only sense in which theycouldadheretothesinlesshumanityoftheincarnateSon—bysuretyshipandimputation.Thatisbroughtoutinthewords,whoHISOWNSELF.He became personified guilt: it wasmadeHis byHis own act andHisFather's will. The words refer to the efficacy of His person in theatonement, showing somarked an antithesis betweenHimself and oursin, that no man without prejudice can fail to apprehend the idea ofsubstitutionandsin-bearing.Whenaphysicianmakesuseofmeans,wecannotsaythathehimselfwroughtthecure.ButofChristitissaidthatHe Himself bore our sins, and expiated them by transferring ourobligations toHisownperson.HemadethemHis,andbore them, thattheirguiltmightnotbeimputedtous.

2. Another idea is Christ's priestly action on the cross. The word hereused stamps the character of a priestly action on this spontaneousofferingofChrist.Hecarriedoursinsuptothetree;inotherwords,HecarriedupHisownbody,ladenwithoursins,tothetree.Thelanguageissoput,thatwecannotexcludethesacrificialidea.TothattreetheLord,byHisownspontaneousact,carriedupoursins,incorporatingthemwithHimself,andconsummatingtheoblationbyHispriestlyact.ItdoesnotmatterwhetherwetakethewoodofthecrossasHisaltar,withsomeofthe best commentators both in theReformed andLutheranChurch, orprefer, with others, to abstain from such a definition of the altar. Onething is obvious, the idea is sacrificial. But when we decide for theallusion to a priestly sacrifice, it by no means follows that we mustnecessarily interpret theword SINS here used asmeant to denote sin-offering. The language in the plural cannot naturally admit that sense.Rather the apostle alludes to our countless sins, viewed as guilt.WhatdoestheapostlemeanwhenhenamesChrist's"body"asbearingthesin?It isasynecdochefortheperson.HedoesnotmeanthatourLordboresininHisbodyalone.Thisappearsveryevidentlyfromtheotherphrase,"whoHis own self." The body in which the Lord bore our sins is onlycontrastedwithanimalsacrifices.

Nor is this text to be interpreted as teaching that Christ was the sin-bearer only during the hourswhenHehung on the cross,—anotion towhich James Alting gave currency in Holland two centuries ago, andwhichhasbeenrevivedamongcertaincrudereligionistsinourowntime.Alting maintained that our Lord's sufferings were divided into thoseborne inHisencounterswithSatan,orsuchaswerewarlike,and thoseenduredasasatisfactionforsin, limitedtothethreehoursonthecrosswhen the sun was darkened. That notion was repudiated by the bestdivines on all sides, who expressed their conviction that the wholeprevious life of Christ camewithin the range of sin-bearing. Theywhoappealtothistextaslendingcountenancetothetheorythatsin-bearingwaslimitedtothetimeofthecrucifixion,drawtheirargumentfromtheEnglishversion,inthiscasepalpablydefective.Thetextdoesnotsaythatsin-bearingcoincidedwith the timeofChrist's suspensionon thecross.Still lessdoes it say thatHedidnot comewithin this experience in theprevious stages of His life. It intimates that He who bore our sins allthroughHisearthlyhistory,borethemuptothecross,tobefinallyandforeverexpiated.

WedonothesitatetodeclarefortheuseofthebiblicalexpressionSIN-BEARING,inpreferencetoalltheartificiallanguagewhichmanywouldputinitsplace.Some,withoutweighingtheadvantagesofabidingbythenomenclature of Scripture, choose rather to speak of our punishmentthanofoursinsbeinglaidonChrist.Theimportinsubstanceamountstothesamething.Butwhyalterthebiblicalphrasesin-bearingforanyothermode of speech? We forfeit precision, for without sin-bearingpunishmentcouldhavenoplace.GodmadeoursinsmeetontheSurety,insuchawaythat, fromthetimeof the incarnationtillHegaveupHisspirit on the cross, He appeared with them at every moment. Heappearedwiththembeforethedivinetribunal,andevenconfessedthemtoHisFather(Ps.40:12,69:5).

Thisofcourseassumes that in thisgreat transaction,whetherwecall itsin-bearingortheimputationofsin,nothingisoutofkeepingwithtruth.SinswerenotchargedtoChristinsuchasensethatHewasheldtohavepersonallydonethedeedswhenHeboretheirguilt.Noreasonablemindeveradoptedasuppositionsounwarrantable.Thedistinctionwasalways

drawnbetween thepersonal and theofficial inall the languageusedofthe vicarious satisfaction; and had due regard been paid to thisdistinction,asisalwaysdonebyintelligentexpoundersoftheScripture,much of the revolting language used by the opponents of the vicarioussatisfaction, andmany of the difficulties which they have conjured up,would have been forestalled and obviated. On the one hand, sin is sopersonalathing,thatitneverceasestoberecalledasours,asasourceofhumiliation,evenwhenitsguiltiscancelled;forwemaysay,withMilton,"Whocanundothepast?notGodHimself"Ontheotherhand,sinswerechargedtoChristinsuchasensethattheyweretransferredtoHim,asHesustainedthepersonofthesinner;andthustheyarenolongerours,butHis,who, as the sinless surety, condescended to bear them inHis ownbody to the tree. They are to the believing mind still the cause ofhumiliation, for itwill be always true thatwe committed them;andwemustsay,Thesesinsareours.Ontheotherhand,seeingtheminthelightof Christ's cross, we also say, These sins are no longer ours, inconsequence of the expiation of the cross, and are extinguished orannihilatedasiftheyhadneverbeen.Theexchangeofplacesexplainsall.This can be fullymaintained in harmonywith the truth of God. I onlyadd,thatChrist'sbearingofoursinswasmeanttofillthewholehorizonofthechurch'sview,asifnothingwereseenbetweenusandGodbuttheSuretysurrenderingHimselfasthesin-bearer,andsatisfyingforsin.

3.Thenextthingtobenoticedisthefinalcauseorendcontemplatedinthedivineplanbytheatonement:"that(ἵνα)we,beingdeadtosin,mightliveunto righteousness."The two clausesof the verse are connectedbythe particle of design (ἵνα), so as to show that Christ's death aimed atmoral renovation as well as pardon. And this, as we noticed above, isdecisiveastothestrictconnectionbetweentheatonementandholiness.

This fact is established,whetherwe holdwith some, that Peter has hisownphraseologyandphaseofthought,orholdwithothers,thatwehavea mode of expression common to Paul and Peter. The former viewrenders the words, "that we, being FREED from sins, might live untorighteousness;"andthesenseis,thatwearefreedfromtheheavyguiltofsin,andnomoredisquietedbyit.Thatisthepracticalendkeptinviewbythose to whom the atonement is applied, and more and more to be

attained.Thewordsmayadmitthisinterpretation,whichissupportedbymanyexcellentexpositors,butnotsonaturally.Theotherviewis,thatwehaveastyleofthoughtcommontoPaulandPeter,meaning,accordingtothetranslationoftheauthorizedEnglishversion,thatwediedwithChristin that atoning death. We shared so fully in that one act of ourRepresentative,thatwesufferedthepunishmentofsin,andfulfilledthedivine claims inHim, as truly as ifwe had personally performed it all.Thisispreferable,anddoesgreaterjusticetothelanguage:itretainsthecontrastbetweendeathandlife; itshowsmoreforcibly inwhatwaytheChristiandiedtosin,andisdischargedfromitsguilt.

The important thought, in a doctrinal point of view, is, that theatonement procured a PREMIALLIFE, or paved theway, according tothedivineaim,foralifeofholyobedience.Thatisdescribedinthewayofpurchaseratherthaninthewayofhumanmotive.ThiswastheulteriorendforwhichtheLordboreoursins inHisownbody.Theexpiationofsin,andtheacceptanceofourpersons,contemplatedthatfurtherobject.

Sin is considered as a potentate, ormaster, exercising authority over aslave.Deathliberatestheslave;andwhenthepenalinflictionduetosinranitscourseontheSurety,withwhomwewereoneintheeyeofGod,wediedtosin.Hisdeathandourdeatharenotregardedastwoseparateacts, of which the one is like the other, but one and the same. Tounderstandhowtheactionofonemaybeformany,wehaveonlytorecallthefirstAdam:byonemansinenteredintotheworld,anditwastheactof one for many. According to apostolic language, we may either say,Christ died for us, to deliver our persons from guilt, and secure therenovation of our natures to newness of life; or, We obeyed when Heobeyed,anddiedwhenHediedinthatonerepresentativeact,that,astherecipientsofanewpremiallife,wemaywalkinholyobedience.Thelatterispreferable.WefinditrepeatedinthePaulineepistlesinvariousforms,andparticularlyinthephraseologythatwewereco-crucifiedwithChristinthatonecorporatesurety-act.

The doctrine contained in this important clause is, that only as sin isexpiatedandthesinnerdischarged,canaholylifebegin;andthatthereisnowayapartfromthisforthededicationofourlivestoGod.Dischargedbythesin-bearingdeathofChristfromthecaptivityunderwhichwewere

held,we are prepared for personal dedication, and a holy obedience toGod different from the previous life of sin. This was the great end forwhichChristboreoursinsinHisownbodyonthetree.

IV.Wecomenowtoastatementwhich,ofallthepassages,givesustheclearestdescriptionofsubstitutionandvicariouspunishment:ForChristalso hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust [better, therighteousfortheunrighteous],thatHemightbringustoGod,beingputtodeathintheflesh,butquickenedbytheSpirit(1Pet.3:18).Thisverseis introduced as grounding the practical duty that Christians mustwillinglysufferforrighteousness'sake(vers.14,17).Theexpressionsmaybe an echo of similar terms used by the Lord Himself on variousoccasions, combined with others derived from Isaiah's prophecy. Theyteach,inunfigurativelanguage,thatChrist,personallyrighteous,sufferedpunishmentforsinsinroomoftheguilty.Theapostle'sobjectistobringoutthattheeffectoftheatonementistobringbacktoGod,orrestoretopriestlynearnessandpriestlyservice,thosewhobysinhadbeenwidelyseparatedandestrangedfromHim.

1. The first thing mentioned is, that HE SUFFERED FOR SINS. Themeaningoftheexpression,whichitisnecessaryaccuratelytoapprehend,isthatsinwasthecauseorgroundonaccountofwhichHesuffered.Hadtherebeenno sin inus,Christwouldnothavebeen required to suffer.Butbecausewewereguilty,or liable topunishment,Heunderwent thesuffering. The meaning of the words, "He suffered for sins," is self-evident from the languageofordinary life.Thus, in commondiscourse,whenwesayofanyonethathesufferedforhissins,theimportisthatheboretheirpunishment;andnoothersensecanbeputuponthewordsbyanyhearerorreader.And,inlikemanner,whenwereadthatChristtherighteoussufferedforsins,whicharefurthermentionedasthesinsoftheunrighteous,theimportis,thattheinnocenttookuponHimselfthesinsof others, and suffered the punishment which the guilty should haveendured. That is the natural and necessarymeaning. Lest it should beallegedtherewasnorelationbetweenthesufferingsofChristandthoseofguiltymen,Petersays,intermsthemostprecise,thatHesufferedforsins,andfortheguilty.Norcananyotherinterpretationofthewordsbemadeevenprobable.Theycannot,forexample,meanthatChristdiedto

turnmenawayfromfuturesinning,forthatcouldnotbecalledsufferingfor sin. To bring out that sense, many additional words would benecessary,whetheritwereunderstoodasamotiveonthepartofman,orasaninfluenceonthepartofGod.Thesufferingisspokenofascausedbyactual guilt, past and present sin, of which the Christian is alreadyconscious.WhenPaul speaksofChrist givingHimself for our sins, anduniteswiththisafurtherreferencetoafutureamendmentordeliverancefromthispresentevilworld,thetwothingsareplainlydistinguishedfromeachother(Gal.1:4).Aslittlecanthewordsrefertothesinfulpassionsofmen,ortothebitterhostilitywithwhichtheJewswereanimatedwhentheycrucifiedtheLord:thatcouldnotbecalledasufferingforsins.Theallusion is to the actual guilt of men, which must be expiated bypunishment.Thisistheresultorfulleffectofwhatwasalreadynoticed,—thebearingofsininHisownbodytothetree.Herewemaytakeinthephrase, being put to death in the flesh. This peculiar style of languageapplied to Christ, denotes His abased, sin-bearing humanity (see Heb.5:7), contrastedwith the state in whichHe now is, and implies all theinfirmitiespropertohumanity inthis life,andwhichcouldbe inChristalong with a perfect immunity from sin. The whole time of Hishumiliation,fromthemangertothecross,isthusdescribed(2Cor.5:16);andthephrase,"puttodeathintheflesh,"hasreferenceeithertothesin-bearingconditionoftheLord,ortotheguiltandcurseddeathtowhichHewassubjected.

2.Thenextthingrequiringnotice is theemphaticallusiontotheLord'ssinlessness as the Righteous One by way of eminence, or the oneRighteous Person as contradistinguished from all men as sinners: Hesuffered, THE RIGHTEOUS FOR THE UNRIGHTEOUS. The termrighteousdenotesoneapprovedbyGodwhentriedbythestandardofthelaw.Thewordintimatesperfectsinlessnessofnature,andalifeadjustedtothe ideaofman'snormalrelationtowardGod.Whenit isaddedthatHe suffered, the righteous for the unrighteous, the words imply, inconnectionwiththepreviousallusiontosin,thatHewastheinnocentfortheguilty,thepurefortheimpure,theholyfortheunholy,inallthestepstowhich, as the surety of sinners,Hemust needs subjectHimself.Hissufferings were not on His own account, nor from the mere course ofeventsorlawsofevilinasinfulworld,buttheresultofsubstitutioninthe

roomofothers.Thenatureofthetransaction,andthemarkedantithesis,implythatthesufferingwasintheroomoftheguilty;andnounbiassedmindcanperuse thesewords in theirnatural import,with thedesire toknow simply what is written, without arriving at this conclusion. Thewords,evenwiththeutmostviolence,cannotbemadetoyieldanyothermeaning than that of vicarious suffering. What is wanted is a fullrecognitionof theclaimsof thedivine law, fortheatonementwasbutasatisfactiontotheminalltheirbreadthandextent.Themainposition,towhicheveryonemustcomewhohasrightconceptionsoftheextentofthedivine law and of its unbending claims, is, that Christ's satisfaction isperfectlyidenticalwiththatwhichmenshouldthemselveshaverendered;andintheatonementofChristwearetoreadofftheunalterableclaimsofthedivinelaw.Wemustarguefromman'sobligationstothenatureoftheLord'sundertaking,andconverselyfromthelattertotheformer.

The penal suffering or passive obedience must come to its rights. Theinfliction or visitation He suffered could be nothing else than aretribution—asufferingFORSINS,ashereexpressed—thewagesofsin.The active obedience must also come to its rights; for many tooexclusively fix attention on the death of Christ, without taking intoaccount,astheyoughttodoinspeakingofthenecessityofasatisfactionto justice, the sinless nature and immaculate obedience ofHimwho ishere called the Righteous One. Some make His sinlessness a mereconditionorindispensableprerequisitetotheatonement;butitismore.OthersmaintainthatChrist'sactiveobediencewasaservicewhichHe,incommonwitheveryrationalcreature,owedtoGodonHisownaccount;buttheyforgetthatHewasundernoobligationeithertotakeflesh,ortofulfil what He did fulfil in humanity on His own account. The activeobedience was an essential factor or constituent element in theatonement.

3. Another thing calling for notice is the declaration that Christ ONCESUFFERED.Bythatexpressiontheapostledoesnotmeanthatallpenalsufferingwasconfinedtoonetime—tothehourswhenHewassuspendedon the cross.The expression intimates thatHe sufferedonce for all, sothattherewasnomoreneedtorepeatthesacrifice,asinthecaseoftheOldTestamentsacrifices.Hisoneall-sufficientatonementhaseverlasting

validity,needingnorepetition.TheallusionisplainlytoasufferingwhichontheonehandpervadedthewholetenorofHisearthlyhistory,andontheotherreached itsculminationon thecross (Heb.9:25–28). It is themorenecessarytoadverttothetruemeaningoftheexpression,asithasbeen thought to lend countenance to the notion that the vicarioussufferings of Christwere limited to the time of the crucifixion. But theapostle'saimintheuseofthisexpression,istocontrastthecompletenessofHissufferingobedience,whichcomprehendsHiswhole life,with thenotion that it needed a repetition. Even the Jewish sacrifices were notdone at onemoment, but presupposedmany successive steps; and ourLord's sacrifice took inHisentireearthly course.And it is said thatHeoncesuffered,tointimatethattheatoningworkwhichsatisfiedthelawofGodandprocuredremissionwaslimitedtoHisfirstadvent,ascontrastedwithanythingperformedduringHispresentmediatorialactivityoratHissecond advent. It was once, and only once, as contrasted with the oft-repeatedsacrificesoftheoldeconomy.TheLord'satoningworkrequiredandadmittednorepetition.

4.TheendcontemplatedbytheLord'sdeath isnextnoticed:THATHEMIGHTBRINGUSTOGOD.ThedeathofChristattainsthisendonlyasit procures the remission of sins, and so delivers us from the dividingelementwhichseparatesbetweenGodandman.Thegreatendforwhichthe Lord died was to restore us to the divine communion—to friendlyintercourseandpriestlyprivilege,afteracompletedisunion.Thepeculiarshadeofmeaningascribedtotheexpressionisveryvariouslygiven.Thus,some have regarded it more in the light of inward renovation anddedication, while others make it identical with reconciliation. A thirdclassareofopinionthat,whileitincludesthedivinefavour,itprincipallyalludes to the possession of future blessedness and the life with Godabove.The expressionmaybe taken in the latter comprehensive sense.Butitseemsspeciallytocontainanallusiontotherestorationofaccessornearness toGod, and thepriestlyprivilege, inwhich these feelings findtheir fullest scope. They have an open door of entrance—a deliverancefromfearandthedepressingsenseofguilt,whichpreviouslyshutthemout fromGod,andpreventedeveryactivityor libertyofapproach.Theyarenowmadenighaspriests,andcandoeverythingasapriestlyservice(1Pet.2:5,9).Thiswastheprivilegefaintlysetforth,butneverrealized,

bytheseparationofIsrael.

Butthewords,whiletracingthisgreatprivilegetotheSaviour'ssufferingsasthemeritoriouscause,referalsoinnoobscurewaytotheactivityoftherisenChrist.BywhomareChristiansbrought toGod?ByChrist, inHisfunction of risenMediator or great High Priest, the introducer, whoseaction is here distinctly intimated after His redemption—work wascompleted.WhetherwereferthelanguagetoOrientalcourtceremonies,andsupposeanallusion to the introductioneffectedby the favouriteorsonofamonarch,or simply call in the ideaofChristas theway to theFather (John 14:6), and as our introducer,we cannot fail to notice theactionofourrisenLordandSaviour:itisHewhobringsustoGod.

V.Stillanotherpassagemustbenoticed, thoughcloselyconnectedwiththeformer:Forasmuch,then,asChristhathsufferedforusintheflesh,armyourselveswiththesamemind;forhethathathsufferedinthefleshhathceasedfromsin(1Pet.4:1).Peterreturnstothesametheme,whichhe expresses in the same terms; and theobvious conclusion is, thatwemust take theallusion toChrist's sufferings in thesamesense.There isnothing to warrant a different exposition of the words, as the apostlereturnstothesamethought,and,indeed,inaformalwayrecapitulatesitssubstanceaftercompletingtheinterveningparenthesis(1Pet.3:19–22).Whenheresumeshispreviousexpressions,hecanonlyrefertoChrist'svicarious sufferings in the flesh. And he bids the Christians realize thefact, that in Christ's sufferings, as the representative or surety of allbelievers,theywereco-crucifiedorco-sufferers.ThelanguagegoesmuchbeyondamereallusiontoChrist'sexample,carryingwithitthenotionoftwoseparateandsimilaractionsparalleltoeachother.Thisisbutone.

Here,then,wehaveanotherinstanceinwhichPeterandPaulusenearlythesamephraseologyinspeakingofourdeathtosin;andthissofarfromoffering a difficulty, or inclining us tomake a differencewhen there isnone, isonlywhatwas tobeexpected (compare1Pet.2:24).Anyotherexplanation is in the last degree unnatural. They who represent theexpressions as alluding to what Christ encountered in His earthly lifefromwickedmen,andexplainthesecondclauseofthebelieversufferinginChrist's cause and afterHis example, can produce nothing to satisfythe forcible terms here used as to ceasing from sin. To allege that the

wordsmeanonly, thathewhosuffers in thecauseofChristhasbrokenwith sin, or testifies that he nomore obeys thewill of theworld, is toevacuate words of their significance. It makes the whole clauseunmeaning.ThebestexpositorsofthePatristicandReformationschoolshaveagreedtoexplaintheexpression,"Hethathassufferedinthefleshhath ceased from sin," in the Pauline sense of suffering or dying withChrist (Rom. 6:7). Thus themeaning of the expressionwill be, thatwesuffered as one person with Christ. Peter considers Christians as onepersonwith Christ, as suffering whenHe suffered, and paying the lasttribute to sin—their oldmaster and tyrant—when we died with Christ.Therearetwomodesofspeakinginreferencetotheatonement,eitherofwhich presupposes and involves the other.Wemay either say, "Christsufferedforsins,thejustfortheunjust;"andthenwedescribetheSuretyasinterposingbetweenGodandus:orwemaysay,"Hethatsufferedinthe flesh," or suffered in the Surety, or in that obedience unto deathfinished by Him as a public person, has been discharged from sin, orparted company with sin. The person who is regarded at the divinetribunal—as every believer is regarded—as a co-suffererwith Christ, orcrucifiedwithChrist(Gal.2:20),isabsolvedfromsin,deadtosin.Heisheredescribedashaving ceased fromsin; that is, asonewhohasdonewithsin,andhasnomoreconnectionwithitashismaster.Thisnaturallyflows from the representative capacity of Christ and His vicariousatonement.ButhowcouldsuchathoughtbededucedfromthesufferingsofChrist,andhowcouldweberegardedassufferingwithHim,ifHedidnot suffer inour roomand stead?Theapostles,when they connectoursanctification with the death of Christ, always presuppose His surety-satisfaction in our stead. This enables us to meet the only plausibleobjectiontothe interpretationnowadvanced,viz. thatthewordFLESHmustbetakenintwodifferentsensesinthetwodifferentclausesofthisverse. By no means. It has the same sense in both, denoting Christ'srepresentative suffering, and our act, considered as one with Him inGod'saccount.

The only further point to be noticed in the verse is, that the Christianmust realize all this, and arm himself with the samemind. There is adivine fact; but it must be apprehended and felt, and the inwardrealizationof that objective fact is theChristian's armour in thewayof

motive.HemustapprehendhisdischargefromsininChrist(Rom.6:11).And this forciblyproveshowmuch, in thepractical conduct of life, theapostle deduced all privileges and all motives from the fact of theatonement.

TheSECONDEPISTLEOFPETERcontains lessexpressallusion to theatonement.Nor should this excite surprise, as itwasdirectedagainst aclassofgnosticerrorists,imbuedwithanAntinomianspirit,andscoffersin regard to the second advent; and this gave a peculiar tone to theepistle; for the genuineness of which, notwithstanding all the doubtswhich many have expressed, the church has a satisfactory amount ofevidence,externalandinternal.ItbearstohavebeenwrittenbytheagedPetertowardthecloseofhisapostoliclabours(2Pet1:14).

Thesolepassage thatbears reference to theatonement is thepropheticannouncement of false teachers. who were to bring in heresies, evendenyingtheLordthatboughtthem(2Pet2:1).ThetermLord(δεσπότην)has special emphasis, denoting a Lord who rules over others withunlimited power. While ostensibly appearing to serve Christ, they insubstance denyHis dominion and atoning sacrifice, spreading views atvariancewith these fundamental doctrines. This passage, considered inthelightofanefficaciousatonementsecuringtheredemptionofthetruechurch (Acts 20:28), is not without its difficulties, and is variouslyexpounded; being the passage, in fact, in which the Lutheran andArminian polemical writers uniformly intrench themselves and defyassault.Itcannotfairlybeadducedasimpugningthebiblicaldoctrineofthe special redemption of the elect (Eph. 5:25); and two explanationshavebeengivenbythosewhomaintainthat,accordingtoScripture,theatonement is at once special and efficacious. The first mode, not sosatisfactory,holdsthere isnoallusiontoChrist'sdeath;thatthere isnomention of Christ, but of a Master,—a word not elsewhere applied toChrist, and rather applicable to God; no allusion to Christ's blood,sufferings,anddeath,astheransom;norofdeliverancefromSatanandthebondageofsin;andthatthewholemustthereforebereferredtotheoutward relationwhich the false teachers occupy toGod, as employingthem in His church. That exposition does no justice to the termBOUGHT. The comment of Piscator and of the Dutch annotations is

much to be preferred, viz. that these false teachers are describedaccordingtotheirownprofessionandthejudgmentofcharity.Theygavethemselvesoutasredeemedmen,andweresoaccountedinthejudgmentof the church while they abode in her communion. This is simple andnatural.ThepassagebynomeansaffirmsthatanybutthetruechurchorthesheepofChristaretrulyboughtbyatoningblood.

CHAPTERV:THETESTIMONYOFTHEAPOSTLEJOHN

SEC.XXI.—THEEPISTLESOFJOHN

JOHN was reserved, with his calm contemplative mind, to lay a newimpressontheChristianchurch,alreadyfoundedbythelaboursofPeterandPaul.TheactivityofJohnpresupposesthelaboursofPaul,andtakesfor granted, too, that the conflict on the subject of the law has beenterminated.ThedisciplewhomJesusloved,lessamanofactionthanofintuition, seems to have received into himself all the impressions to bederivedfromthelifeanddeathofhisLord,andalltheexperiencetobedrawnfromthefirstfoundingoftheChristianchurch,inordertoappearupon the field in due season,when the rest of the apostles had passedaway,anderroristsbegantoarise,—toencourageandedifythechurchbynewelements.Hiswritingsweresentforthlongaftertheother inspireddocuments.

The firstEpistle of John, supposedby some tohavebeena companiondocument to his Gospel, recalls in many ways the Lord's own words.None of the apostles in a brief epistle more explicitly refers to theatonement;andafewpeculiaritiesmaybenoticed.

a.JohnmostcopiouslyexpatiatesontheLOVEofGod.Anditisworthyof remark that, of all the apostles, he most frequently used the termPROPITIATION,whichtakesforgranteddivineWRATHagainstsin.Theonesuggestsandpresupposestheother.

b.Asecondpointthatmaybenoticedis:John,indelineatingtheworkofatonement,commonlyconnectsthedivineSonshipwiththesacrifice—aswas indeed to be expected from the high conceptions everywhereexpressed of the personal dignity of Christ. Sometimes he does this indirectterms,sometimesmoresuggestively.

c. Nor can we fail to notice another peculiarity: he attaches himself

closelytotheOldTestamentdoctrineofsacrificeinalludingtothebloodofChrist(1John1:7;Rev.1:5).Thegreatestmistakesofexpositorshavearisenfromnotkeepinginviewthesacrificialvocabulary,andallusionstotheancientworshipoccurringinhisstyle.Thus,hedescribestheLordascomingnotbywateronly,butbywaterandblood(1John5:6):intheApocalypsehe twenty-seven timesdesignates theexaltedChristasTHELAMB,recallingHishumiliationasthegroundofthedominion;andnoone shows more clearly that forgiveness comes directly from theatonement, not from moral amendments. His type of doctrine is thefollowing:—TheEternal Life has beenmanifested to bring back tomenthatlifewhichliesinfellowshipwithGod.Beforethatcouldbeeffected,the fountain of death, which lies in sin, must be removed; and theatonemententersastheprovisionwhichrestoresmentofellowshipwithHimwhoisLIFEandLIGHTaswellasLOVE.

I.Thefirstallusiontotheatonementisinthefirstsection:Ifwewalkinthelight,asHeisinthelight,wehavefellowshiponewithanother,andthebloodofJesusChristHisSoncleansethusfromallsin(1John1:7).Thecontextamountstothis:Godislight,andinHimisnodefilementatall: if we claim to have fellowship with Him, and indulge in unholyconductoutofkeepingwithuniontoHim,wearefalsepretenders:onlyaswewalkinthelighthavewefellowshipwithHimandeachother.Hereit recurs to the apostle that the Christian's walk in the light, far fromreachingsteady,unsinningfellowship,contractseverrecurringtaints,forwhicha cleansing is tobeprovided.The last clauseof the verse,whichmightbemarkedoffbyacolon,andbeginwithanalso,thusannouncesthisprovision:"AlsothebloodofJesusChristHisSoncleansesusfromallsin."Theusualmodeofconnectingthetwoclausesisthefollowing:Ifwe walk in the light, we receive cleansing or remission of sins by thecontinuous application of the blood of Christ;—an exposition whichseems to run counter to the receivedbiblicalprinciple, that forgivenessprecedes,andaholywalkisitsfruit.Theconnectionratherisasfollows:AmidtherecurringstainsoftheChristianlife,thebloodofChristiseverneeded and applied anew to RESTORE the fellowship which it at firstprocured.Thepresent tense,CLEANSES, intimates that theblooddailycleanses, that the merits of the Lord are anew imputed, as sin iscontractedandconfessed.

1.TheapostledescribesthiscleansingbloodasthebloodofGOD'SSON,—an addition having peculiar emphasis, as it is intended to exhibit theinfinitevalueandefficacyofthatblood.ThetitleSONoccursinahighersensethancanbeascribedtoanyotherbeing.ItassignsadivinenaturetoHim,and,insuchconnectionsasthepresent,exhibitsHisredemption-worknotmerelyasplannedandapprovedbyGod,butwroughtout,sofaras atoning action is concerned, by the only-begotten and beloved Son.This imparts to Christ's atonement its infinite sufficiency and value,making itadequate toprocure formentheremissionofsins,howgreatand numerous soever, whether we think of individuals or of countlessmillions.Onaccountofthepersonalunionofthetwonatures,thebloodisspokenofasthebloodoftheSonofGod.ThoughthebloodbelongstoHimasSonofMary,yetinvirtueofthehypostaticunionitisthebloodofGod'sSon,andthereforepossessedofallthevaluethatthedivinenaturelendstoit,andadequatetotheexpiationofhumansinlaidinthescalesagainstit.

2.HowisthebloodofChristsaidtoCLEANSEUS?Onethingisobvious,thiscannotdenoteinwardcleansing,ortherenewingoftheHolyGhost,as it is a cleansing by the BLOOD of Christ; that is, by His bloodsacrificially shed. Several recent expositors of note have referred thelanguage to inward cleansing from the power of sin, but a cursoryexamination of the passage suffices to refute that comment. The verytermsrefertothesacrifices.Theninnocasearemenherebelowcleansedfromallsin,intheinwardacceptationofthephrase.Besides,itwouldruncountertotheveryobjectwhichtheapostleintendstoteach—thatwearecleansednotwithstandingdailyrecurringstains.Heassertsacontinuouscleansing by the blood of Christ, applied as necessity requires; andwecannotthereforeexpoundthiscleansingbyreferringtothemissionoftheSpirit, or inward spiritual life, when it is so definitely ascribed to theblood of Christ, considered, in the sacrificial sense, as sprinkled andappliedtotheguilty.

To understand this cleansing by blood, we may go back to the OldTestamentritual,andnoticethegreatnationalcleansingofIsrael.Onthedayofatonement,whenthebloodwasbroughtintotheholiestofall,andsprinkledonandbefore themercy-seat, thisactionwasregardedas the

appointedmeansbywhichsinwasremoved.Butnotonlywasthisactionsaidtoatone(Lev.16:17),itwasalsosaidtocleansethepeople(ver.30).Inthelatterversewefindthetwoexpressionsconjoinedascoincidentorparallel: "On that day shall the priest make an atonement for you, tocleanse you, that yemay be clean from all your sins before the Lord."Evidently the expression "to cleanse you" does not mean inwardly toamendandrenew,buttofreefrompunishmentincurredbysin,soastoput the worshipper on a right footing with God.Moses explains it, bymaking atonement, or removing the penalty threatened in the law. Toobtainremissionwasthegreatdesignof thesacrificialblood.Couldthewholenationbecleansedorimprovedinheart,soastobecleanfromalltheir sins, by amere external ceremony? From this passage it appearsthat the two expressions above mentioned amount to nearly the samething;andthisistheimportofthephrasewherevercleansingiscoupledwithsacrificialbloodaccordingtotheJewishritual.

Tothis,however,anobjection is takenbySocinusandhis followers,onthegroundthatinanimatethings,needingnoforgiveness,norcapableofreceiving it, are also described in the Jewish ritual as purified andcleansedbyblood.Theobjectioniseasilyobviated.Itarguesadefectiveinsight into the truenatureof the sacrificial laws and theMosaic code.Theprimaryquestionis,Whatismeantwhenmenaresaidtobecleansedbythebloodofsacrifice?Wehaveseenthat it impliesdeliverance frompunishment,andrestorationtotheduepositionofaworshipper.Noristhe meaning different when the expression is applied to inanimateobjects.Thewordsof the laware:"Heshallmakeanatonement for theholy place, because of the uncleanness of the children of Israel" (Lev.16:16).Thegeneralnotionofcleansingbybloodisretainedevenhere,asthefollowingexplanationwillshow.ThenationwasregardedasasinfulpeoplebeforeGod;ashavingdefiledthesanctuaryofGod,whichwasHishabitation.Thepriests,as theyapproached thealtarwith thesacrifices,indicatedthattheIsraelitescomingbeforeGodwithsomanysinsdefiledthe sanctuary; and the vessels as well as holy places were annuallycleansedbyatoningblood.Butthiswasbecauseoftheuncleannessofthechildren of Israel. Thus, the sprinkling of blood on inanimate thingsremoveddivinepunishmentsfromthepriestsandthepeople.Thisisthemeaning.

Theexpression, "thebloodofChristcleanses," intimatespurifying fromthe defilement of sin, by which the believer was again made meet toappear as cleanbefore theLord.ThebloodofChrist is regardedas thetruth or realization of all the ancient sprinkling or cleansing whichrestored the Israelite tohis standingor right relationbeforeGod,whenthiswasinterruptedbyceremonialdefilement.ThewordCLEANSEistobe taken, first in the sense of effecting forgiveness for sins committed,andthenofunitingustoGodanew(Heb.1:3,9:14),astheIsraelitewasabsolvedandrestoredtoGod'sfriendshipbysacrificialblood.

Thisfurtherappearsbywhattheapostlesubjoinsinthecontext.Thusitissaid:"Ifweconfessoursins,GodisfaithfulandjustTOFORGIVEusoutsins,andTOCLEANSEusfromallunrighteousness"(ver.9).It isapeculiarityofJohn'sstyletousetwoexpressionsforthesamething,thepositive andnegative (ver. 5); sometimesa coincident expression, as inHebrew poetry, that the one may elucidate the other. The twoexpressions,"toforgiveusoursins,"and"tocleanseus,"areequivalent,oraslightadvanceofmeaningisfoundinthelatterphrase.TheEpistletotheHebrews,recallingsacrificialideas,speaksofcleansingorpurgingtheconscience by the blood of Christ, and then identifies the purgingwithremission(Heb.9:22).

Nor can the force of this conclusion be evaded by asserting that theallusionistoacleansingfromfuturesins.Theapostledoesnotspeakofsins not yet committed, but of sins already contracted and every dayrecurring.He cannotmean deliverance from sin bymoral amendment,andmotivesdrawnfromthatwhichChristhadtoencounteramongmen.Thecontextshowsthatnosuchattainmentismadebyanyone;andthatforgiveness and cleansing cover each other, andmutually explain eachother. It is sacrificial blood that cleanses, sprinkles, and purifies theChristiandisciple,bycoveringhissin,andenablinghimtostandbeforeGod.

AsingleglanceattheOldTestamentsacrificialritualsufficestoshowthatit was not the death, or bloody action of slaying the sacrifice, thatpossessed the sin-covering and cleansing power. The action with theblood—thepriestlyactionwhichensued—cleansedandpurified.Andtheapostle, in writing to Christians, assumes that, amid daily recurring

stains, they shall have a fresh remission, and restoration to theirprivileges. As the transgressor under the law, becoming unclean, wasexcluded from an approach to God, so he had access restored, and arenewal of the privileges of God's people, the moment the blood wassprinkled.Hewasclean,andagain incommunionandfavour.Preciselyso is it with us: by Christ's blood we are forgiven and restored tofellowship.

II.Anotherpassage isas follows:Wehaveanadvocatewith theFather,JesusChrist the righteous; andHe is the propitiation for our sins, andnotforoursonly,butalsoforthesinsofthewholeworld[better,withoutthe supplementary words of our translators, but also for the wholeworld].Theapostle,exhortingbelieversnottosin,takesforgranteddailysins, which would forfeit the divine favour were no provisionmade toremovetheirguilt.HedirectstheirthoughtstotheAdvocate,orHelper,through whom divine anger is averted; and the ground of thatintercession isnext subjoined, viz. the twofold consideration that JesusChrist is righteous, and thatHe is the propitiation for sins. These twodescriptivenamesbringbeforeusHisvicariousworkinitsdoubleaspect,remindingusthatitisallidentifiedwithChristHimself,apresentaswellasapast.

1.As to the epithetRIGHTEOUS, the contrast inwhich it stands to sinproves that itmustdenote innocentor sinless; that is,oneapprovedasrighteous when tried by the test of the divine law. It does not meanconstanttoHispromises,astheSociniansexpoundedit,butthesinlessOne,orrighteousServant(Isa.53:11;2Cor.5:21;1Pet.3:18;Heb.7:26),and intimates that for the sinning a sinless obedience is prepared.WhereverScripturespeaksofChrist'sredeemingwork,itgenerallyshowsus His personal righteousness underlying it, and that not as a merepreparation, but as an element of the propitiation. Only the righteousOnecouldatone:onlytherighteousOnecouldintercede.

2. Another term is: THE PROPITIATION FOR OUR SINS. Personallysinless,Hemustalsobethepropitiation.Itwillbenecessarytoelucidatethe import of this term (ἱλασμός) from the usage of language. Theuniformacceptationof theword inclassicalGreek,whenapplied to theDeity,isthemeansofappeasingGod,orofavertingHisanger;andnota

single instance to the contrary occurs in thewholeGreek literature.Asinterpreters, therefore, our business is to abide by language, and notpervert it fromitspropermeaning.Asthis is thereceivedimportof theterm in the language of Greece, without a trace of any other, we areboundtohold that ithere intimates themeansofavertingdivineangerfor thesinsofmankind,whenChristHimself is calledourpropitiation.The expression intimates that this propitiation is found in His ownperson,apartfromanyworkwhichmancanrenderforhimself.Godhadjustgroundsforinflictingpunishment,justcauseofanger;andthewordmeans thatbywhichGod'sanger is turnedaway,andmanceases tobethe object of divine displeasure. It is interesting to find that the wordoccursinthesamesenseinwhatiscalledHellenisticGreek.Itisthewordin theSeptuagint for thedayof atonement (Lev.23:27); for the ramofatonement,wherebyanatonementwasmade(Num.5:8);andforthesin-offering (Ezek. 44:27). This fact explodes all other senses put upon thewordbySocinianwriters.Ifmenwillmaintainanothersignification,theycannotdosoasinterpretersoflanguage,butmustappealtotheoriesandforegoneconclusionsoftheirown.

TheexpressionpropitiationforoursinstakesforgrantedtheWRATHOFGOD,apropertyoftenascribed toHim in theOldandNewTestament,and themoving causeof thepunishmentwhichHe inflictson sin.Thisangerhas its seat in thebosomofGod,or inHismoralnature, and itsmeasure is according to the conduct ofHis creatures. It is grounded inHis essential holiness, as appears from the fact thatGod swears inHiswrath (Heb. 3:11); and it belongs to the idea of the personal God, theCreatorandmoralGovernor,asHeacts inhistory.He isno indifferentspectator of human conduct:He cannot look on sin and obedience, onviceandvirtue,inthesamelight.HadwenootherideaofGodthantheEpicurean notion, which represented Him as remote from humaninterests,orthepantheisticnotion,whichmakesallthingsequallydivine,we could not affirm thatGod had affections corresponding to anger ordispleasure in regard to human conduct. But the Scriptures give us adifferentview,andspeakofGod'swrathascomprehendingthefollowingelements: aversion to sin; displeasure at the sinner; and the will orpurposetoavengeit.Itisimpossibletoassenttotheiropinion,who,withKoppe,maintainthatthistermappliedtoGodmeansnothingmorethan

punishment, and that the translators of the Scriptures should haverendered it by the latter word (1 Thess. 1:10). A full examination ofbiblical language may satisfy every one that the term WRATH nevermeansthemereoutwardfactofpunishment,apartfromtheaffectionofanactingparty:itnevermeansthemereeffect(Rom.1:18,9:22;1Thess.5:9).

Man,madeintheimageofGod,iscapableofregardingsinandviceinasimilar way. The Bible speaks of God in words borrowed fromwhat ishuman;and,onthegroundalreadystated,thereisnoreasontoremovefromourrepresentationofGodthe ideaofdispleasureorwrathagainstsin,—thatis,withouttheturbulentemotionwhichisassociatedwithitinfallennatures.We find it in the sinless Saviour (Mark3:5). There is inGod a displeasure atmoral evil simply as such,whichHe regards as aviolationofHissupremeauthority,andaninjuryofferedtoHismajesty.Irrespectiveoftheconsequenceswhichsincarriesinitstrain,HeregardsHimselfaswronged,eventhoughHisessentialhappinessisnotinvadedbyanydenialofHisauthorityorwithdrawalofHisdeclarativeglory,andis ledby theperfectionofHisnature toregardtheoffenderwithanger,andtovisithimwithpunitivejustice.Thiswrathrestsonmanbynature(Eph. 2:3).Wemay affirm that divinewrath is essential to our idea ofGod as the moral Governor, that it is essentially connected with thedoctrine of sin, with the atonement, and with the doctrine of futureretribution.Itcannotbelimitedtothefuture,however,assomepropose,ontheerroneoussuppositionthatitstrikesonlytherejectorsofsalvation,andisbutamodificationoflove,orthesorrowoflove.ItstrikesonSINASSIN,inallitsformsanddegrees,andisfarfrombeingamerephaseoflove.Ifmen,however,representtheessenceofGodasconsistinginlovealonewithoutotherperfections,suchasholinessandjustice,theycannotascribeangertoGodinanyScriptureacceptationoftheterm.

This brings us to the PROPITIATIONwhich presupposes the wrath ofGod. It is revealed in its full depth and severity in the atonement ofChrist, as sin-bearer, curse-bearer, andwrath-bearer. Considered in itsobjectivesignificance,theatoningworkofChrististhepropitiationofthedivine wrath—the appeasing of God. The Lord Jesus is called thepropitiationforoursins,tointimatethatHeistheauthor,thecause,or

the means of averting the divine wrath. The word which the apostleemploys, denotes in general terms the means of expiation, withoutnaming His death, and without a closer definition of its sacrificialcharacter.Butwhetherwelookatthecleansingblood,referredtointhepreviouscontext(1John1:7),orattheHebrewstyleofthoughtwhichisintroduced,accordingtowhichtheonlypropitiationwasbysacrifice,nodoubtremains that theallusion is to thesin-offering.Theapostlecouldnotmoreunambiguouslyteachthatwhatthesin-offeringwasundertheoldeconomy,JesusisforthesinsofHispeople.ByHimthedivineangerisaverted,andforgivenessbestowed.Theallusion,asintheEpistletotheHebrews, is to the priestly office of the Lord, and toHis death, as thetruth of theMosaic sacrifices. Thewords affirm:What the propitiatorysacrificesweretoIsrael,whentheyexpiatedtheirsinsanddeliveredthemfrompunishment,thatChrististotheworldatlarge.

Here we may answer three inquiries: (1.) Who is propitiated? God,provokedtoangerbythesinsofmen.It isnotmanwhoisdescribedaspropitiated to God, but conversely. (2.) By what was the propitiationeffected?BythewholeactiveandpassiveobedienceoftheLord.ThefactthatHewhoisthepropitiationisdescribedasJesusChristtherighteous,emphatically shows that it was not personally needed forHimself. (3.)Wastheworkdoneafullsatisfaction?HeiscalledTHEPROPITIATIONintheabstract,intimatingthat,byHissinlessobedienceastherighteousOne,andbybecomingthesin-bearer,andconsequentlythewrath-bearer,in our room, a full provisionwasmade formakingpeace betweenGodandman. The divine anger was averted, andmerited punishment wasremoved.

Theseexpressionsoftheapostlepleadsoconvincinglyforthedoctrineoftheatonementinallitsessentialelements,thatitishardtoseehowany,admitting the authority ofGod'sword, can be insensible to their force.Other explanations, especially thosewhich deny thewrath ofGod, andculminate in the twofoldobjection that substitutionandpenal sufferingarenottobesupposedaspossible,areinthelastdegreeunnatural.DidChrist vicariously take on Himself the punishment of sin, or bear thewrathofGodinourroom?istheprincipalpointinmoderndiscussionsofthe atonement; and this text unquestionably leads us to affirm thatHe

did so.This is tobe coupled, indeed,with the explanation thatHewaspersonally the Son of His love. But as our substitute, in His officialcapacity,Hewastheobjectofthedivinewrath.Thiscannotbedenied,ifitwasarealsubstitution,withoutmaintainingthatGodisindifferenttogoodorevil.WhenChrist isexplicitlycalledTHEPROPITIATIONFOROURSINS—that is, the sole cause, author, ormeans of our peacewithGod—themeaning is, thatHeappeasedthedivineangerbybecomingasacrificeinourroom.Whatgoestostrengthenthestatementis,thatthepropitiationisconnectedwithoursins,andconfinedtooursins;thatis,itisnotonlyforMEN,butfortheirSINS.

TheSocinianexplanationwas,thatthelanguagereferstothepreventionof future sins by working holiness in men, or moral amendment. Butthereisnowarrantforthisexpositionbutinaforegoneconclusion.Whenwasthepreventionof futuresineverdesignatedapropitiationforsins?They might much better affirm at once that the term denotes moralamendment.The languagedoesnot intimate that sins are to cease, butthatdivineWRATHis tocease.That is themeaningof theword,and itcanbearnoother.Thedesignofmisinterpretinglanguage,contrarytoitstrueandgenuinemeaning,wedonotpresumetoscan.Butitstendencyistoweakenthemeaningofwords,andofthethingssignified.Thenaturalmeaningofthelanguage,confirmedbyclassicalandHellenisticusage,is,thatChristappeasedthewrathofGodbyexpiatingsin.

But, further, the apostle extends the propitiation TO THE WHOLEWORLD—that is, toall timesandplaces.Inanalyzingthis language,wemustnoticethatthephraseologyfurnishesacaseofalteredstructures:itisnotaninstanceofconciseexpressionorbreviloquence.Thefirstclausedescribes the work of Christ as a propitiation for our sins: the secondclausedescribesitasforthewholeworld.Thesupplementarywords,forthe sins of, inserted in the authorized version, are an unwarrantableaddition,fromwhichthetranslatorsshouldhavebeenpreserved,bothbythe structure and by the repetition of the Greek preposition. Toapprehendthemeaning,itmustberememberedthatthesinneraswellasthesin is represented inScriptureas theobjectof thepropitiation,andthatitwaswideenoughtotakeinthewholeworld.

These words have been much canvassed, and often unwarrantably

adduced,inthediscussionsbearingontheextentoftheatonement.Whatwas theapostle'sprimaryobject?TocomfortdejectedChristianson therecurrenceofsinintheirexperience.Andheremindsthemthattheycanappeal to Christ's intercession, which has its basis in His propitiation.Thewordsplainlyalludetotheatonementasofferedandapplied—thatis,totheactualexpiation,whichdoesnotgobeyondthenumberofbelievingrecipients.It isaperversionof the languagewhenthis ismadetoteachthedogmaof universal propitiation; or that the atonementwas equallyofferedforall,whethertheyreceiveitornot,whethertheyacknowledgeits adaptation to their case or not. The passage does not teach thatChrist'spropitiationhasremovedthedivineanger insuchasense fromall and everyman.Nothingbetokens that the apostle hadothers inhiseyethanbelieversoutofeverytribeandnation.

What, then,doeshemeanwhenhe calls it apropitiation for thewholeworld?He intimates that itwas not for him and for those towhomhewrote alone, but for the redeemed of every period, place, and people—that is, prospectively and retrospectively. The apostle connects theintercessionandpropitiationinsuchawayastoshowthatChrist'sworkis applicable to all the redeemed who then lived, or had ever lived, orshould ever live, wherever found in the nations of the earth, and inwhateverage.Thisisthepointofthedistinction;itisnotthedistinctionelsewhereexpressedbetweenJewandGentile.

III. Another passage repletewith the sacrificial idea, or the idea of thesin-offering, isas follows:AndyeknowthatHewasmanifested to takeaway [better, tobear] our sins; and inHim isno sin (1 John3:5). It isplain,whetherwehaveregardtothestyleoflanguageortothecontext,thattheapostlealludestothegreatobjectofChrist'smanifestationintheflesh. This should naturally lead us to some phase of His redemption-work,as isusual insuchcases.Theverseoccurs, it is true, ina sectionwhich aims at enforcing a holywalk, and it was not unnatural on thataccount that expositors should be biassed in favour of the supposedallusion to inward holiness. This drops the sacrificial allusion. TheargumentofthosewhoreferthewordstoinwardrenovationbytheSpirit,isderivedfromthecontext,wheretheapostlecombatscertainpervertersofdivinegrace,probablyGnosticsofanAntinomiantendency,perverted

inprincipleandvarious inpractice.Butanargument from the context,however important as a principle in hermeneutics, is by no meanssufficient to control the usage of language. A closer investigation willshowthatsuchaninterpretationisuntenableonmanygrounds;thatthepassage does not refer to holiness, but furnishes a dogmatic basis orgrounding for the enforcement of holiness; that the language issacrificial; and that had the apostlemeant to show thatChrist came tosanctifyusfromsin,thesingularwouldhavebeenused.Thecontextisasfollow;Theapostlebeginsaseriesofargumentsagainstthepervertersofthegospel,derived fromthescopeofChrist'smission.Hereasons fromthe fact that Christ came to bear sin or expiate guilt. Hence it wouldfollow that no quarter can be given to sin, nor allowance granted to it.Nor is that out of keeping with the further statement that Christ wasmanifestedtodestroyworksofthedevil(ver.8).

Another mode of interpreting the passage is to render the phrase TOTAKEAWAYSINS,andreferittotheefficacyofChrist'sblood.Itisthusequivalent,ornearlyso, to thesprinklingofChrist'sblood(1John1:7).This is so far correct, that it apprehends the sacrificial allusion, andbringsout the ideaofdeliverance frompunishment. It is so farcorrect,too, as it refers the language to actual sins, and contemplates guilt asremoved by Christ's work. But it fails to trace the precise shade ofmeaning,whichisthesameasiscontainedintheGospelofJohn,whereJesusiscalledtheLambofGodthatborethesinoftheworld(John1:29);the same thought that Isaiah expresses in the well-known passagedescriptiveofsin-bearing(Isa.53:12).

The phrase means strictly TO BEAR SIN. This is the uniformsignification,anditmaybeusedeitherofpersonalguilt,orguiltbornebyimputation.NothingcanwarrantustotakethephraseinanyotherthanintheOldTestamentsensewhenappliedtothesin-offering.Thephraseis the well-known formula for incurring guilt, which may be eitherpersonalorvicarious,accordingtotheconnection.Fromthisacceptationwearenottodeviate,ifwewoulddefertothelawsoflanguage.Thisistheundoubtedusage,aswehaveelsewhereproved.Whatare thesins?Theformof expression, aswell as the use of the plural number, suffices toprovethatthesinsareactualsins,pastandpresent,forwhichaprovision

mustbemade;notfuturesins,tobepreventedorforestalledbytheforceofmotivesor communicationsof the life-givingSpirit ofGod.Theyareactualsins;andthewholephraseshutsusuptotheconclusionthatthewordssignifythetransferofguilttotheSonofGodasmanifestedtobearoursins.

But the sin-bearer must Himself be sinless; and to this element,uniformlybroughtoutinsomeforminconnectionwiththeredemption-workofChrist, thesubsequentclausemakesreference.Wehaveonlytorecall thePetrine language,orthewordsofJohnalreadyexpounded,toseehowconstantlythesetwointegralpartsof theatonementareunitedtogether. Ifweaccept thisas theconnection, itwilldenote thatHewassinless,tostandforthesinful;innocent,tooccupytheplaceoftheguilty.

Asnosmalldivisionofopinionprevails,however,astotherelationofthesecondclausetothefirst,andasthisdecidesonitssignificance,wemustputitinitsproperlight.Somearguethatthesecondclause,andinHimisno sin, is the commencement of a new topic or argument, which iscontinued through the next verse. The present tense of the substantiveverb,itisthought,thusreceivesitsdueforce.SinlessnessisthusreferredtoChristasHenowis,notasHeverifiedsinlessperfectionandlearnedobedience in the days of His flesh. But that deprives the clause of itsemphasis, and gives the whole a flat, unmeaning turn. To refute thismode of construing, it is necessary to notice that, whenever Christ isdescribedaswithout sin, asdoingno sin, as separate fromsinners, theexpressionsalwaysimplyastateofhumiliation,inwhichHewasbroughtincontactwithsinandsinners.TheallusionistotheperiodoftestingHisobedience. Such expressions are not applicable, in the proper sense, totheheavenlyglory,wheresincannotenter,andwhereHeisfarremovedfromtherangeofsin,andcontactwithit.

Besides, the second clause is subordinate to the first. And in John'smanner,thoughwithoutagroundingparticleorconjunction,itintimatestherelationinwhichsinlessnessstoodtosin-bearing;makingitapparentthatthesinwasnotHisown,thatsinlessnessunderlaytheimputationofothers'sins.Thereisinthethoughtacertaincausalrelation;thesecondclause bringing into vivid view the sinless holiness of the Lord, andintimating thatChristwascompetent tobear thesinsofothersbecause

He had none ofHis own. It expresses a reason. Thewhole verse, thusconnected, denotes that, as the true ideal of humanity, and as Oneexempt fromall sins, eitherofomissionorof commission,Hewas inapositiontoclotheHimselfwithhumanguilt.Butwhyisthepresenttenseused—"inHimISnosin?"ItmayimplywhatthelivingLordis,aswellaswhatHewas, and shall ever be beforeGod's face, even asHe is calledJesusChristTHERIGHTEOUS(1John2:1).HestillstandsbeforeGod'sfacewiththatapproval,recognition,orimprimaturwhichHereceivedinthedaysofHisflesh,andbywhichHewasqualifiedtobethesin-bearer.

This important text, rightly understood, brings these two elementstogether, sinlessness and sin-bearing,—the two constituent parts of theatonement,viewedinthatwhichisessentialtoit.Theonewouldnotavailwithout the other. They are the counterpart of the two elements in thedivine law, as it comes with its precept and its curse; and at everymomentofChrist'searthlyhistorybothmaybediscovered.TheydescribeallthatgoestoconstitutetheLord'searthlylifeormanifestation,asitishere termed; and they coincided at every moment. Only as His life ateverystagecameup to the idealstandard,wasHe inaposition tobearthe sins of others. But with sinless perfection, measured by the divinelaw,andreflectinginthemostperfectmannerthedivineimage,Hewasinaposition,astheacceptedsubstitute,tobethesin-bearer.

Theapostle'sphrasehereand inhisGospel is thesameas Isaiah's:HEBORESIN.Hecouldbethecurse-bearerorwrath-beareronlyasHewasthe sin-bearer. Itwas this that broughtpenal suffering in its train.Thesum and substance of the atonement, considered in its essentialelements,apartfromallitsaccessories,isSINLESSSIN-BEARING;thatis,notmerepunishmentwithoutsin-bearing,butpunishment followingonthesin-bearing,andenduredbyOnewhoisatoncesinlessmanandSonofGod.ToexemptusfromsintheSonofGodwasmanifested.

We have only to add, that the transaction always proceeds upon acommunityofnature,andarealrelationbetweentheSuretyandthoseinwhosebehalfHisworkwasundertaken.Butwhenthiswasformed,Christwas no otherwise regarded in the divine judgment, and at the divinetribunal,thanifHehadincurredbyHisownacttheguiltwithwhichHewascharged.

Therearevariouspassages in thisepistlewhereallusion ismade to theatonementinalessdirectway,butsoastobeeasilyperceptible(1John2:12, 3:16, 5:6). These we shall pass over, that we may concentrateattentiononthosewhichareobviousandnottobemistaken.

IV. The only passage which we shall further adduce is found in thememorableverseswhichbringtogethertheloveofGodandthewrathofGod,asdisplayedintheatonement:Godis love.Inthiswasmanifestedthe love of God toward us, because [better, that] God sent His onlybegottenSon into theworld, thatwemight live throughHim.Herein islove,notthatwelovedGod,butthatHelovedus,andsentHisSontobethepropitiationforoursins(1John4:9,10).Withoutdoubt,theapostlerepeats, innearlythesameterms,whathehadlongagoheardfromthelipsofhisMaster,asisrecordedintheGospel(John3:16).Heverifieshistitle as the disciple of love. Not content to direct the attention of hisreaderstotheatonement,consideredmerelyinitseffects,heleadsthemback to its source in the divine love, giving us a glimpse of the father-heartofGod—adiscoveryofGodasthesumoflove.HehadalreadysaidofGod,GODISLIGHT(1John1:5);nowhetwicerepeats,GODISLOVE(vers.8,16),—adefinitionofHisnaturenottobereducedtotheshallowsignificationthatitmerelyintimatesthelovingwillofGod,oreventhatGod is fullof love. Itdescribes theessenceofGod,Hisnature,andHisname.TheepistleemphaticallydelineatestheSupremeBeingaslightandLove;andweneednotbesurprised that in thispassage loveandangeraresointimatelyconnectedintheatonementofourLord,orthatbotharedisplayed. Nor is the one incompatible with the other when we dulyconsidertheirproperobject.

1.As to the loveofGod,manywhoareswayedmorebyaphilosophicaltranscendentalism thanbybiblical representations,areapt to representloveasamerehumanaffection,andtomaintainthatitisappliedtoGodonly in a way of accommodation, or in its effects. They call it ananthropomorphic representation of God. They do not ascribe to God atrue andproper love.On the contrary, this passage representsGodnotmerelyaspossessinglove,butasBEINGLOVE.

2.Butnext,thetermPROPITIATION,whichwehavealreadyexpounded,

intimates that man, the sinner, has come to be the object of divineWRATH, and that this can never be averted, unless a sacrifice comesbetweenthedivinewrathandhumansin(Num.17:11).The languageoftheapostleseemsatfirstsighttointimatethatthepacifyingofthedivineanger did not exclusively lie in Christ's death, but took in all that iscomprehended in His mission; and so indeed it does (ver. 10). But itculminatedinHisdeath,andthephraseologyhasundoubtedreferencetothesin-offering,ortheatoningsacrifices ingeneral.Aswehavealreadyasserted the presence of the divine anger in connection with thepropitiatory sacrifice of Christ, it is only further necessary to add, thatGodwastherebynotmerelymadeplacable,butwasabsolutelypacifiedtoallinwhosebehalfitwasoffered.

The testimonycontained in thispassagemaybebrieflyexhibited in thefollowingparticulars;—

(1.)Theholy loveofGod isdescribed asproviding the atonement.Andtheapostle,inconnectingtheloveofGodwithsendingtheonlybegottenSon into the world, sets forth two things—the infinite greatness of thelove (ver. 9), and its gratuituous nature as free, unmerited, and self-moving (ver. 10). The incarnation of the only begotten Son wasundoubtedlythegreatestfactofthedivinelove;butitisneverdisjoinedfromthedeepabasementandvicarioussacrificetowhichitenabledtheSonofGodtodescend.Thegreaterthedistancebetweenthedivineandthehuman,theinfiniteandfinite,thegreaterthedegreeoflovedisplayedinsendingtheSon.ThefirstgroundoftheatonementisthustheloveofGod,andthegreatnessoftheSondisplaysitsinfinitemagnitude.Buttheapostle,secondly,setsforthhowgratuitousandundeservedistheloveofGod:"NotthatwelovedGod,butthatHelovedus."Hisdesignistoteachthat the scheme of redemption is of God, emanating from free, self-moving,infinitelove,andnotarecompenseforlovefirstrenderedonourpart.

(2.)Wefindthetwofoldfruitoreffectoftheatonementwithwhichalltheapostlesmakeusfamiliar.Theoneisobjective,theothersubjective;theonebearsontheacceptanceofourpersons,theotherontherenovationofournatures;andthelatterishereputfirst.

a.Onefruitis,THATWEMIGHTLIVETHROUGHHIM(ver.9).Thelifehere mentioned is PREMIAL LIFE, and must be taken in its utmostamplitudeofmeaning as comprehending spiritual and eternal life.Andwhen it is said "throughHim," the allusion is plainly toHismerit andsatisfaction.Theremaybea tacitantithesisbetweendeathas theprice,andlifeasthereward.

b.Asecondfruitoftheatonementistheacceptanceofthepersonortherestorationtofavour,whichisinvolvedinthephrase"propitiationforoursins" (ver. 10). This is properly the first in order in God's moralgovernment. The appeasing of the divine anger, according to the OldTestament representation, was effected only by the intervention of anatoningsacrifice,whichistheshadeofmeaningattachingtotheseterms;andthiswastheendforwhichtheSonofGodwassent.Bythatsacrificesin was cancelled, wrath removed, and the person accepted as well asbroughtnigh to the life-givingGod.Thus, the acceptanceof thepersonwasthemeansbywhichthelifewasprocured:fornolifewaspossiblebutbyasacrificialdeath.Lifewasattainableonlybysatisfyingdivinejustice,whichrestoredmentoGodasthelife-givingandrenewingGod.

Thusthepassageconnectstheatonementandits fruitswithdivine loveas its source. And it is only necessary to add, that this is TRUE ANDPROPER LOVE, asmay be deduced from a strict interpretation of theterms.Godnotonlypossesseslove:HeISlove;thatis,infinitelyinclinedtothecommunicationofHimselfforthehappinessofHiscreatures.WemusttakethetermLOVEin itspropersensewhenappliedtoGod,andnot evaporate it into a mere abstraction, as if affections were to beaffirmedonlyofman,butnottobeaffirmedofGod.

SEC.XXII.—THETESTIMONYOFJOHNINTHEAPOCALYPSE

TheApocalypsemaybeconsideredasoneofthelatestbooksoftheNewTestamentCanon,andcomposedlongafterthedestructionofJerusalem.In its scope and structure it is adapted to delineate the mediatorialdominionofJesus,showingthatallpowerisgiventoHiminheavenand

inearth.Whilethiscomesoutinconnectionwiththepropheticoutlineofthefortunesofthechurchinallthecourseoftime,Christ'sofficialpoweris throughout exhibitedasadominionbasedon theatonement. It is astheLambthatHeprevailstoopenthebook,andtoloosethesevensealsthereof (Rev. 5–7). The perpetual allusion indeed to the Lamb has noother object in view than to show that He was invested with thisdominion as the reward of His abasement, and that the cross is thefoundationofHisthrone.

ThebookisinthiswaynaturallyconnectedwiththeGospelofJohn.Theyare thus found to emanate from the same writer: he who records theBaptist's testimony to the Lamb, and was himself a spectator of thesacrifice, links the Gospel and the Apocalypse together. We could nothaveexplainedtheconstantuseofthistitleintheApocalypsehadtherebeennopreparationfor it(John1:29,36,19:33).Butnowit isnotonlynatural, but highly significant. Christ is described as a Lamb as it hadbeen slain, implying thatHe bore the tokens of having been a piacularvictim (Rev. 5:6). His saints are called to the marriage supper of theLamb (19:9). The redeemed follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth(14:4).TheywhohavearighttothecityofGod,andarearrayedinwhiterobes,havewashedtheirrobesinthebloodoftheLamb(7:14);theLambopenedtheseals(7:1);thechurchisthebride,theLamb'swife(21:9);thecityhadnoneedof thesun, for theLambwas the light thereof (21:23);theconquerorssingthesongofMosesandoftheLamb,extollingtheholystrictnessof the lawand thedyingobedienceof theSaviour (15:3);andtheunitedhymnofearthandofheaven—that is,of redeemedmenandangels—wasananthemtotheLamb(5:12).Thewholebook,inaword,isreplete with the Lamb. But a few passages call for more specialcommentary.

I.Thefirstpassageontheatonementisasfollows:UntoHimthatlovedus, andwashed us from our sins inHis own blood, and hathmade uskings and priests unto God and His Father; to Him be glory anddominionforeverandever.Amen.(Rev.1:5.)Afteradducingareferenceto the Redeemer's love in general, the apostle specially mentions thecleansingeffectofHisatoningblood.ThisWASHINGis thesamethingthatismeantintheEpistleofJohnbythecleansingofHisblood(1John

1:7).ThewordsteachthepriestlydignityofChrist; forthepriest'sworkwas to sprinkle the sacrificial blood (Heb. 9:22). The whole statementintimates that Jesus, in self-sacrificing love to the unworthy, offeredHimself as the priest offered the sacrifices to atone for guilt, and thuswashesoursinsaway.Andtheapostle,inflamedbythecontemplationoftheloveofChrist,closeswithanascriptionofpraise.

Anutterviolenceisdonetothelanguage,whenitissaidthatthebloodofChristmustbeunderstoodasshedfortheconfirmationofHistestimony,and to assure us of the truth of what He taught. We may despair ofdiscovering what words mean, if we do not see that they contain thestatement that the blood of Christ washes His people from their sins.Howfeebleandunmeaningwould theybe, if theydidnot intimate thatChrist'svicariousdeathputsawaysin,deliversusfrompunishment,andrestores us to the near relationship from which sin exiled the humanfamily!Thephraseologyistobeunderstoodbythesacrificialceremoniesof the Jewishworship, according towhich, one defiled by trespasswasfreed by the blood of sacrifice from merited punishment and fromestrangement,theconsequenceofsinsolongasitwasunexpiated.

But why may not the allusion be to moral amendment or inwardholiness?Sosomeexpositorschoose toview theexpression.But itmaysuffice to reply that the language is figurative, and borrowed from theMosaicceremonies.WhereverwefindthephraseTOWASHFROMSIN,TOCLEANSEFROMSIN, itneveralludes tomoralamendment,but todeliverance from guilt, and the estrangement from God which sin hascaused. Passages sometimes adduced in the acceptation of inwardholinessareall incorrectly interpreted (1Cor.6:11;Tit.3:5; 1John3:5;Ezek.36:25),andarerightlyexplainedonlywhenwetakethemintheirsacrificial reference. This is evident, ifwe consider any of the passageswhere the sacredwritersuse thisphrase (seePs. 51:2, 7).ThePsalmisttwicepraysthatGodwouldwashhimorsprinklehimfromsin;andwhathe means by the petition becomes plain by the whole context, whichcontains a prayer for mercy. In these passages (vers. 2, 7, 9), theWASHING,purging,orcleansingforwhichheprays,isnotanallusiontoinwardholiness,buttosacrificialexpiation,bywhichsinwasatonedfor,andregardedasifithadneverbeen.Inthatacceptationtheapostletakes

the phrase here. To remove all doubt on this head, the addition of theterm BLOOD, as sacrificial blood, intimates that it is not inwardcleansing by renovation. We owe the washing here mentioned to theSaviour'sbloodydeath.

Not contentwith alluding to the removal of guilt, the apostlementionsthefurtherbenefitofpriestlydignityandservicewhichChristiansowetotheLord'satoningdeath:"andhathmadeuskingsandpriestsuntoGod."TheyareinvirtueofHisatonementmadekingsandpriests,justasIsraelwasdesignatedakingdomofpriests(Ex.19:6),becausetheLordJesus,inwhomtheystand,andtowhomtheyareunited,isinvestedwiththeseoffices. They have this honour now, and a higher measure of it inreversion. Their priestly standing before God intimates that they areemboldened to comenigh toGod,andcandailyapproachHim, so thatevery action they perform may have a priestly character and beacceptable toGod (1Pet. 2:5). Their sins are covered (1 John 1:2), andtheiractiveservicesarewelcome,whetheritbeworship,fruitfulness,orsocialactivityinanyform(Heb.13:15;Rom.12:1;Col.3:17).

II.Anothersignificantpassageinreferencetotheatonementisthehymnofthefourlivingcreatures,andthefourandtwentyelderswhofelldownbeforetheLamb,andsunganewsong,saying:Thouartworthyto takethe book, and to open the seals thereof: for Thouwast slain, and hastredeemedustoGodbyThyblood,outofeverykindred,andtongue,andpeople, and nation; and hastmade us unto ourGod kings and priests:andweshallreignontheearth(Rev.5:9).Theywhosingthissongaretheredeemedfromamongmen,representedassingingwhentheLambtookthebookoutofthehandofHimthatsatuponthethrone.Theinadequatecommentary,thatnothingmoreismeantthanChrist'sknowledgeofthefuturefortunesofthechurchandthemysteriesofGod'skingdom,cannolongersatisfyanymind:afurtherandadeeperideamustbedeveloped.The allusion was to the actual commencement of the mediatorialkingdomandthecarryingintoexecutionofthedivinepurposes,evokingthatnewsongfromtheredeemedinglory.TheblessedintheirheavenlygloryunitebeforethethroneoftheLambinthissongofredemption.Thelanguage of heaven cannot be measured by the feebleness of ourexpressions.Buttheirwordscommunicatedtousinhumanspeechtestify

to the factof theatonementas still the topicofadoringcontemplation.And if this is so, far fromcharging their song,as somehavedone,withwant ofmeaning or comprehension of the subject onwhich they dwellwith so much wonder, love, and gratitude, the part of those who arepermitted to read it is rather to follow their example of humility andtriumph, as they recall the pit from which they were rescued, and theglorytowhichtheyareraised.

1.Thefirstthingexpressedinthissongis,thattheRedeemer'skingdomover allwasbasedonHis atoning sacrifice.He is extolled asworthy toreceive this dominion, because He was slain,—language proving that,thoughthepossessionofadivinenaturealonefittedHimfortheexerciseof so vast a sway, its foundationwas laid inHis atoning death. It wasbasedonHispassion,andonthefactthatHeboughtapeopletobeHis.

2.Anotherthingwhichtheredeemedmentionintheirhymnofadoringlove is the purchase of a people, and the payment of a ransom, oradequateprice:ANDHASTREDEEMEDUSTOGODBYTHYBLOOD.AstheybeheldtheRedeemerinHismajestyandglory,theyrecalledtheabasement towhich the Supreme Potentate had descended for usmenand for our salvation, borrowing their language, if not from the nail-printsandspear-markwhichHemaystillbear,at leastfromsomethingwhich recalledHiswounds and the deathHe underwent in paying ourransom.Notonlyso:theydescribethemselvesasREDEEMEDTOGOD;the meaning of which is, that they have passed from one master toanother,likethosewhowereboughtinclassicaltimestobetheservantsoftheirpurchaser.AndthebloodofChrist,regardedasbloodsacrificiallyshed,or thebloodofatonement, isdescribedas thepriceorransombywhichtheybecamethepropertyofChristandofGod.ThenotionofguiltleadingtocaptivityundertheholywrathofGod,andtheinflictionofHisjustice, is presupposed. The sacrificial blood, and the further idea of aransom paid to liberate men from bondage, are closely connected inmany passages of Scripture, and easily suggest each other. It is onlynaturaltofindthemtogetheragaininthispassage.TheransombywhichHe that sitteth on the mediatorial throne bought them, was His ownblood.AndwhentheyaresaidtoberedeemedTOGOD,thewordsimplythatHewonthemforHimself,orboughtthemtobeGod's,asslaveswere

boughtwithapriceinancienttimestobethepropertyofanewmaster—the obedient servants of himwho paid the price for them. In this casetheyareboughtTOBEFREE,butnottobeWITHOUTAMASTER,ortobe independent—which man, from his mental and moral constitution,canneverbe—but tobe theLord's: "Thouhast redeemedusTOGOD."Thethoughtis,thatHehasboughtustobeGod's,tolivetoHim,andnottoanotherortoourselves.Thisidea,utteredconsciouslyinthenameofall the saved, implies that, as the blood-bought property of God, theransomed of the Lord correspond to their name, and to the newownership into which they have passed. The phrase has respect to theholyendsofman'sredemption,beingredeemedtoGod.Theyverifytheirtitle, or correspond to it, when they live to Him whose they are: theyfalsifyit,ordenytheLordthatboughtthem,byacourseofdisobedience.

Here, however, it is necessary to obviate the Socinian evasion. Manyargue in modern days, as did the Socinians of old, that the wordREDEEMistobetakenintheacceptationofsimpledeliverance,withouta price or ransom. Such a comment is inadmissible, as the ransom isexpressly named. That passages may be found, such as the figurativeexpression"redeemingthetime,"whereametaphoricaluseof thewordoccurs, no one ever denied. But whatever ground exists for admittingsuchauseofthewordwherethenotionofpriceisscarcelyperceptible,orbutashadeof thatmeaningremains, therecanbenone forattachingametaphorical signification to the termwhere the ransom is in somanywordsexpressed.WhenweareheresaidtobeREDEEMEDBYBLOOD,there cannot be two opinions that we have a definite statement of thepricepaid,aswellasofthedeliveranceprocured.

3. A further privilege won by redeeming blood, is the dignity of beingkingsandprieststoGod.This,too,iscausallyconnectedwiththebloodoftheRedeemer;and,ashereexpressed,itdiffersfromtheallusiontothesameprivilegeinthepreviouspassage(Rev.1:5)inthisrespect,thattheformer is the earthly phase of the royal priesthood, while this is theheavenlyaspectofthesamedignity.

4.Theelders furthermention in theirsong, that theyshall reignontheearth; that is, when renewed and delivered from the bondage ofcorruption.Ofthisprivilege,too,thedeathoftheLambistheprocuring

cause;andhence they fullyexpress theiradoringgratitude,announcingthat the Lord's atoning death was the ground on which the Lamb iscountedworthytobetheMediatorialKingtotakethebookandopenthesevenseals,or,inotherwords,toexecutethedivinecounsels.

Other allusions might be adduced from the Apocalypse of a morefigurative kind. Thus the saints seen in glory are described as having"washed their robes, andmade them white in the blood of the Lamb"(Rev. 7:14). This language at first sight appears strange, becauseaffirming that their robesweremadewhite by blood, but is intelligiblewhenwereflectthatitisanallusiontotheacceptanceoftheirpersons,totheir priestly privilege and attire, as procured by the cross. Anotherphrase,"redeemedfromamongmen"(14:4),recallsthedeliverancefromEgyptandtheseparationofthepeculiarpeople.Andifthereadingwhichmoderneditorspreferisadoptedinthatverse,whichdescribestherighttothetreeoflife(22:14),"Blessedaretheythathavewashedtheirrobes,"animportantdoctrineisstated.

We have thus proved against modern theories, that, according to theuniform teaching of the apostles, the atonement stands in causalconnectionwithforgiveness.ManyendsareeffectedbytheLord'sdeath,but the remission of sins and the acceptance of our persons are theimmediate fruits. We do not contend for any human phrase, and arewillingtoabandoncurrentnomenclature forabetterwhen it ispointedout;butthefactisattestedbyeveryapostle,thatChrist'svicariousdeathalone, and without addition, effects the remission of our sins and ourstanding before God. This is of such importance, that it touches thesecurityof the groundonwhichaChristian lives, andonwhichhe candie.Letussurveyit.

(1.) What is the import of the term forgiveness? No passage can beadducedwheretheideaofforgivenessisusedbytheapostlesinanybutthecommonacceptationfamiliartoeverymind,letteredandunlettered,in every nation, viz. the remission of deserved punishment. Sin, as anoffence against God, carries with it a reference to positive law as anexpressionofthedivinenatureandwill,andthefurtherthoughtthatGodinHiscapacityofLegislatorthreatenedpunishments,whichHeactuallyinflicts inhiscapacityofJudge, fromlovetoHisownperfections,—that

is,fromregardtoHimself.Everymindhasasenseofguiltorliabilitytodeservedpunishment,—afeelingwhichtheytrytoremove,butwhichtheatonement alone meets. There is no necessity for explaining guilt,because it is familiar to everynationwhere there is lawand justice; aninnate belief, which no man can shake off by all his elaboratespeculations. Though some wouldmake sin an infirmity rather than afault,acalamityratherthanacrime;thoughotherswouldrepresenttheMostHighasinfinitelyloving,andrepudiatedivineangerasanunworthyJewishconception,thisisopposedtonaturalaswellasrevealedtheology:forman,bytheveryconstitutionofhisbeing,issomade,thathecannotbut retain it among his innate convictions, thatGod visits sinwith thepunishmentofdeath(Rom.1:32).

According to biblical ideas as well as ordinary language, forgivenessmeans the remission of punishment. Where false ideas of forgivenessprevail,thismustbetracedtoincorrectorsuperficialviewsofguilt;andwherever justice isdonetothegreat truthofmen'sguilt, theyentertaindifferent views of the connection between forgiveness and the Lord'sdeath. The theory of unconditional pardon, the great untruth of themoderntheology,isopposedtonaturalaswellasrevealedtheology,andat open war with every correct idea of moral government. Absolutepardonsupposesthatthepunishmentwhichwerepresenttoourselvesasconnectedwithevilactionsinamoralkingdom,isremoved.Butguiltanddemeritarenotremoved.Themanfailing toobservedivine laws isstillpunishable or blameworthy. If nothing more were to come intoconsideration but the consequences of a sinful life, these might beremoved bymere absolution. But if demerit comes from a violation ofmorallaw,thiswouldremainasmuchasever,thoughphysicalevilswereremoved. But wouldGod be then the source of ethics, ruling bymorallaws?Therewould,according to thesupposition,benoregard tomoralconduct, and thus absolute pardon overthrows all moral laws. But ourjudgments as men are based on immutable moral principles, and thetheoryisopposedtonaturaltheology.

(2.) The nature of the connection between the Lord's death and theremission of sins is immediate, and of the same kind with that whichobtained in theMosaic law between the death of the sacrifice and the

forgivenessoftheworshipper.Thatitisaconnectionofthesamenature,afewwordswillsufficetoprove.Onthedayofatonement,theprincipaldesignofwhichwastoofferasolemnsacrificeforthepriestsandpeoplein their national capacity, forgiveness was procured by means of thesacrifice for the entirepeople.Now,was forgivenessonlymediately thefruitofthesacrifice,asitpresupposedanamendment?No;theyreceivedforgivenessdirectly in connectionwith the sacrifice, and irrespective ofamendments subsequently made; and it is in the same way that wereceiveforgivenessfrommeritedpunishmentbythedeathofChrist.Sinisputawayas thedirectconsequenceofChrist'sdeath,previous toanyamendments, as the Mosaic sacrifices, simply in the course of beingoffered, turned away the penalty threatened in the law. Forgivenessfollowed as the immediate effect of the atonement, the sacrifice in thesinner's place satisfying the law. This fact, of which there can be nodoubt, was intended to regulate our conception as to the immediateconnection between the death of Christ and pardon, and to supply avocabulary which we might use. Our Lord Himself uttered thisconnection(Matt.26:28);theapostlesrepeatedit.

Butanotherinquirypresentsitself:GrantedthattheconnectionbetweenthedeathofChristandremissionofsinsisimmediate,arewetoconceiveof it only in a subjective sense? Are we to represent to ourminds thesufferingsanddeathofChristasaneventwithwhichGodhasconnectedtheforgivenessofsins,merely tomeetaweightymoralnecessityofournatures,thatrequireanassuranceoftheforgivenessofsins?Thatnotion,oftenpropounded,alsounderminestheatonement,asitreducesittothesubordinateofficeofgivingusapersuasionorassurancethatforgivenessisreceivedbythischannel.Itsupposesthatthechangeisalleffectedonman'sside,whoissuspiciousandbackwardtotrust,butthatnochangetakesplaceonGod'srelationtosinnersbymeansoftheatonement.Thepardonisstillsupposedtobeabsoluteandunconditional,butconveyedthrough the dying Messenger to undo our suspicious distrust. If thematterstoodthus,ifallwereonlysubjective,howcouldtheLord'sdeathhaveanyrelationtothosewholivedbeforeHecameintheflesh?

When we use accurate language, the atonement will always bedistinguished from forgiveness. The atonement is the act of Christ as

Surety;forgiveness,theactofGodasJudge.Theatonementisthereforethefoundationonwhichtheacquittalofthesinnerisbased,thecauseofwhich forgiveness is the effect.Thisdeservesnotice, the ratherbecausethe confounding of atonement and forgivenessmay be called the chiefsourceofthoseerroneousopinions,whichallegethatinNewTestamenttimesmenarenolongertoprayforpardon,because,astheyexpressit,their sinswere put away in one day. So far as the atonement is an actdoneonceforall,andeternallyvalidbeforeGod,thatistrue.Butitisnottrue,sofarasforgiveness isconsideredasanactofGod, inHis judicialcapacity,whichisextendedfromtimetotimetoeverybeliever.Itisself-evident that sin is not forgiven, and cannot be, before it is committed.Hencetheremissionofsins,ascontradistinguishedfromtheatonement,isacontinuousact,andfromtimetotimedispensedtothesamepersons.

Theactofforgivenesshasapositiveaswellasanegativeside:itabsolvesonefromthechargeofviolatingthelaw,andpronounceshimashavingactuallyfulfilledit;thelatterbeingitspositiveaspect.Inforgiveness,thetwosidescomeintoviewasthetwoelementsorco-ordinatepartsofthejudicialsentence.

APPENDIX:HISTORICALSKETCHOFTHEDOCTRINEOFTHEATONEMENT

I PURPOSE in an Appendix, whichmust now be limited, to subjoin ahistoricaloutlineof thedoctrine in itssalientpoints, fromtheapostolicage to the present time. As my object is not so much historical asdogmatic, this will leadme to be sparing of facts, dates, and personalallusions,havingnoparticularreferencetotheatonement.

Anewstudyofalltheelementsthatenterintothesystematicformwhichthe doctrine assumed as a subject of thought, is one of the greatnecessitiesofourage.Ifitcontinuestobestudiedonlyinconnectionwithmodern tendencies that look askance on the positions which formercenturies took up in reference to God's moral government, law, penaljustice, and the necessity of vicarious satisfaction, only partial andperilous conclusions will be adopted. Next to the primary duty ofestablishingthedoctrineonabiblicalfoundation,andsecuringforitanindependentplacebeyondthefluctuationsofopinion,attentionisduetothehistoriccourseofthedoctrineinitswaytosymbolicrecognition,andthevariouselementsthatfromtimetotimeenteredtovindicateitstruth,orgiveitsystematicform.

While the ultimate decision depends on the authority of Scripture,interpretedbysoundrulesandwithoutwaywardcaprice,atthisdayitisuseful and necessary to retrace the principal points of the olderdiscussions. The importance of thiswill appear from the circumstance,that they who break loose from previous conclusions commonly dropsome essential elements of the question. They throw thewhole subjectinto the crucible again, as if it had never taken form before,notwithstanding the arguments employed for centuries by some of thegreatestmindsthateveractedtheirpartinhandlingthedoctrinesofthechurch; not to mention that the creeds and confessions express theChristian consciousness of the church collective. The modern theoriesdismissingwhateverhasbeenadducedtoprovethenecessity,rationality,and inward consistency of the atonement, and proceeding as if theseconsiderations had never occupied theminds of earnest thinkers, denytheforensicelement.Insteadofsatisfactiontodivinejustice,wehearofmoralredemption,ordeliverancefromthepowerofevil,withatendencytodiscountenance and throwoverboard the judicial sideofChristianityaltogether. One important inquiry, therefore, is,How did the Christianconsciousnessutter itself during eighteen centuries of pasthistory?Wefind, when we make due allowance for erratic tendencies, either ofindividualsorofsects, throughall this time,oneharmonioustestimonyto divine justice and the judicial aspect of Christianity. This might beexpected,indeed,fromtheuniformityofhumanconscience.

Not only so: historical investigation shows that, on the side of theadvocatesofvicarioussatisfaction,someintegralpartsoftruthareatonetimemore prominent, and at another time less so, while certain partsoccasionally have been allowed to drop. As another ground, then, forreviewing the historic formation of the doctrine, itmust be added thathalf-truths and one-sided views were sometimes advanced,—as, forinstance, by Piscator, Grotius, and others; and certain elements of thequestion,towhichthehighest importancemust justlybeattached,haveoccasionallyfallenintothebackground,and, ifnotdenied,haveat leastdisappeared.Itcannotbeunimportanttorecall thegroundingelementsofthedoctrineinahistoricalway.

1. We shall notice the testimony of the post-apostolic age to theatonement. The doctrine was held and taught, during the FIRSTCENTURYof theChristian church,with great simplicity andpurity, bythe men who immediately succeeded the apostles. From the first, thedoctrineoftheatonementbythedeathofGod'sSonwasacentralarticlenever impugned. The whole worship was based upon it. The firstChristians,asiswellknown,commemoratedtheLord'sdeathintheHolySupper everyLord's day; and from thepeculiar theorywhichmade theworship culminate in the Supper, the atonementwas constantly beforethemindoftheworshippers.Thisgavecolourtoprimitivetheology.TheatoningdeathofChristwascentraland fundamental.Thisaccounts forthefactthattheatonementneverwasasubjectofdiscussionamongtheearlyChristians, and consequentlynever camewithin those currents orcontroversieswhich gave precise symbolical expression to other topics.Thedoctrinewassofullyrecognisedandaccepted,thatheresydurstnotassail it, and only sought to undermine the articles which lay at itsfoundation.Wemustnotsuppose,then,thattheprimitiveChristianshadvagueconceptionsofthemodeofdeliverancefromguilt,andofthewayofrestorationtodivinefavour.NoonecanreadtheearlyFathers,withoutfeeling that a deep conviction of the nature and efficacy of Christ'satonementanimatedthemwithzealinallthosediscussionsanddebateswhichreferredtoChrist'sperson.Anerroradmittedthere,tendedatthenext remove to overthrow the redemption-work of the God-man; andtheyfeltthat,ifChristwasnotveryGodandveryman,anatonementwasimpossible.

The APOSTOLIC FATHERS speakmuch of this fundamental article ofChristianity. The authenticity of some of these documents is disputed,andinterpolationshavecreptintothetextofothers;buttheyarebeyonddoubtmonumentsofthepost-apostolicage,bearingwitnesstotherealityof Christ's coming in the flesh, and to His sufferings, in opposition toDocetism,withitsrepresentationofaphantombodyandasemblanceofsuffering (ἀληθῶς ἔπαθεν). The Apostolic Fathers bring out differentsides of Christ's atoning work, against Judaizing Ebionism on the onehand,andGnosticismontheother.

CLEMENSROMANUS'Letter to theCorinthians, theoldestmonumentthathascomedowntous,andwritten,asallauthoritiesagree,beforetheclose of the first century (A.D. 92–96), gives a clear testimony to theatonement.We have in Clement this statement: "For the love that Heboretowardus,ourLordJesusChristgaveHisownbloodforusbythewillofGod—Hisfleshforourflesh,Hissoulforoursouls"(ch.49).Thestatementasserts,againstDocetism,thatChristassumedwhateverwastobe redeemed. If, then, any part of humanity was not assumed, neitherwas it redeemed. We see in these words the idea of substitution, orvicarious satisfaction. Deliverance, too, in body and soul, by His self-surrenderinboththeelementsofHishumanity,isequallymarked.Andthe whole is traced to the WILL of God, or to divine appointment.Anotherpassageisthusexpressed:"LetuslookstedfastlytothebloodofChrist,andseehowpreciousHisbloodisinGod'ssight(τίμιοντῷΘεῷ);which,beingshedforoursalvation,hasbrought(ὑπήνεγκεν)thegraceofrepentancetoalltheworld"(ch.7).Atonementbyvicarioussatisfactionisplainlytaught.ButinwhoseeyeswasthebloodofChristsoprecious?IntheeyesofGod,whoaloneknewitsvalue.Theredemptive-act,satisfyingtheclaimsorjusticeofGod,isfurtherdescribedasproducingrepentance,—viz. making room for it, and procuring it. According to Clement'stheology,repentancepresupposestheatonementasadivinefact.HealsocallsthebloodofChristaransom:"thatbytheBLOODofourLordthereshouldbeREDEMPTION(λύτρωσις)toallthatbelieveandhopeinGod"(ch. 12). We have here the idea of substitution and deliverance byexchangeofplaces.

Theremarkissometimeshazarded,thatClementrecognisedinthedeath

ofChristonlyamoralexample,—adeedofhumilityandpatience,—notaredemptive fact. That conclusion is drawn from the fact that Clement,after quoting the entire fifty-third chapter of Isaiah, adds: "You see,beloved,whatthepatternis(τίςὁὑπογραμμός)thathasbeengivenus"(ch.16).Butwhenheurgeslove,patience,andhumility,byanappealtotheredemption-actsofChrist,thatisonlywhatPeterdoesinhisepistle,anddoesnotprovethatClemenshadnorightideaoftheatonement.Theatonementisthefirstandprincipalobject:theexampleisthesecond.Ifitis aperversionofScripture to interpretChrist's sufferingsmerelyasanexample,itisalsoaperversionnottomakethemanexampleatall.

Twomonuments of the post-apostolic age, the genuineness ofwhich isadmitted by the best critical investigators—POLYCARP'S LETTER TOTHEPHILIPPIANS,andtheCIRCULARLETTEROFTHECHURCHOFSMYRNA—deserveattention.Polycarp'sletter,writtenontheoccasionofexcommunicatingapresbyterandhiswifeforadishonestadministrationof church funds, and breathing the spirit of the holy man, bases hisexhortation on the fundamental truths of the Christian faith (ch. 1, 2).WithregardtotheLord'sdeath,herepresentsoursinsastheprocuringcause of it: "who sufferedHimself to be brought even to death for oursins" (ch. 1). Of the Docetic opinions of his day he speaks with sterndenunciation, like the Apostle John: "Whosoever does not confess Hissuffering(μαρτύριον)uponthecross,isofthedevil"(ch.7).Noonecanquestion Polycarp's distinct testimony to Christ's vicarious satisfaction,whopondersthefollowingwords(ch.8):"HoldstedfastlytoHimwhoisourhopeandtheearnestofourrighteousness,whoisJesusChrist,whoboreoursins inHisownbodyon the tree;whodidnosin,neitherwasguilefoundinHismouth,butsufferedallforus(διʼἡμᾶς),thatwemightlivethroughHim."TheadditionmadetothequotationfromPetershowshow he understood the apostle, and the connection between theatonement and life.He alludes to thosewitnesseswho preceded them,thus:"wholovednotthepresentworld,butHimwhodiedforus,andwasraisedagainbyGodforus"(ch.9).

TheCircularEpistleof theChurchofSmyrna,preparedafterPolycarp'sdeath(†168),allowedtobegenuineevenbythosewhotakeexceptiontothepassagewhichbetraysthemarvellousinitsnarrativeoftheflames,is

veryexplicit.Theatonementisrepresentedashavingadefinitereference:"not considering that neither will it be possible for us ever to forsakeChrist,who suffered for the salvation of the saved (τῶν σωζομένων) ofthewholeworld,ortoworshipanyother.ForHim,indeed,asbeingtheSonofGod,weadore"(ch.17).Hereweobservethespecialdestinationoftheatonement.

To the other documents of the post-apostolic age—the LETTER OFBARNABAS,theShepherdofHERMAS,andtheEpistlesofIGNATIUS—Imight next appeal; but I forbear, as their authenticity is questioned bysome, and their integrity by others. They do not show equally puredoctrine,orequalbalanceofjudgmentonthepartofthewriters,thoughtheybelongprobablytothefirstquarterofthesecondcentury.Barnabas'letter is too anti-Mosaic in tone to have emanated from the fellow-labourer of Paul, though containing valuable references to the death ofChrist, and the ritual of sacrifice as typical of Him. The Shepherd ofHermas, evangelical in several respects, is extravagant and visionary inothers.ItrefersinonlyonepassagetoatonementbythedeathofChrist(Sim.6).ThesevenLettersofIgnatius(†116),allmentionedbyEusebius,seem to have been much interpolated. They who reduce the authenticletters to three,have still to confront thequestionof interpolation.Theletters contain important anti-Docetic statements and striking allusionstoChrist'sdeath,andbreathemuchwhichprobablyemanatedfromthesaintly Ignatius;but Iwillnotappeal to letterswhicharedoubtful,andwhichexaggeratethedifferencebetweentheOldandNewTestament,sothat readers feel themselves removed from the Pauline equipoise andsobriety.

The EPISTLE TODIOGNETUS, the production of an unknown authorabout the middle of the second century, though some make it muchearlier, is justly regardedasapatristicgem. Itgivesusoneof themoststriking delineations of the atonement in ecclesiastical antiquity. Thepassage,whichIshallgiveinfull,isasfollows:"Whenthemeasureofouriniquitywasfilledup,anditwasperfectlymanifestthatpunishmentanddeath awaited us as a reward, and the time camewhichGodhad fore-ordained for now manifesting His own goodness and power, becauseGod's love, according toHisaboundingkindness, isunique,Heneither

hatednorrejectedus,norrememberedourwickedness,butshowedlong-sufferingand forbearance,saying, 'HeBOREoutsins.'HeHimselfgaveHisownSonaRANSOMforus,theHolyfortransgressors,theInnocentfortheguilty,theRighteousfortheunrighteous,theIncorruptibleforthecorruptible, the Immortal for themortal; forwhat else could cover oursinsbutHisrighteousness?InwhatbutintheSonofGodalonecouldwe,transgressors and ungodly, be justified? O sweet EXCHANGE! Ounsearchablework!Obeneficencebeyondexpectation!ThattheiniquityofmanyshouldbeHIDINONErighteousperson,andtherighteousnessof One should justify many transgressors!" (ch. 9). The idea ofsubstitution, or exchange of places, the essential element of theatonement, is explicitly expressed; and nothing can be conceivedmoreprecise.Wedonothesitatetoassertthatthisnoblepassage,reproducingthe substance of St. Peter's statement, is a proof that vicarioussatisfactionwasheldby thewriter. Itwillnotadmit the ideaof ameremoral redemption. Bähr, however, with a special pleading, whichsuggestsimportantlessonsontheethicsofquotation,arguesagainstthisconclusion on many grounds, and especially because redemption byChrist is not deduced in the epistle frompunitive justice, but from theineffablygreatloveofGod,andbecausethephrase"Heboreoursins,"ashe supposes, is ascribed to the Father, and cannot be taken in theAnselmicsense.Inotherwords,Bährcompelsawriter inthebeginningof the second century to think the theories and speak thewords of themediating theology of Germany in the nineteenth century! No specialpleading of this nature can invalidate this testimony to Christ'ssatisfactioninroomofHispeople.IfthemeaningofthetermsRANSOMandSIN-BEARINGisnotdoubtfulintheepistlesofPaulandPeter,thismustdeterminethesenseheretobeattachedtothem.

Wehereadda fewremarksgenerallyon theApostolicFathers,and thetheologyof thesecondcentury.1.They,withoneaccord,connectman'ssalvation with the death of Christ, considered in the twofold light of aRANSOMandaSACRIFICE,—termsthatcamewithadivineimpressonthem, and were used in the church from the beginning with the samemeaning.Aransomandasacrifice,notwithstandingtheirpeculiarshadeof difference, agree in this, that they involve intervention, substitution,and satisfaction from without; and no man is warranted to efface the

meaningwhichbelongstothem,asBährhasventuredtodo.2.Theideaof divine justice, and the necessity of satisfying it in its penal andpreceptiveaspect,underliesthesestatements.TheApostolicFathersandthe author of the Epistle to Diognetus presuppose the forensic side ofChristianity,viz.moralgovernment, law,sin,penal infliction,—elementswhich are all fully recognised.Modern notions were unknown; andwemaysaytheearlychurchwassecuredagainstthembyhighconceptionsof Christ's divine dignity, naturally leading men to an objectiveatonement. 3. They laid stress on Christ's sinlessness as part of Hisvicariouswork;forvoluntaryserviceandmoralperfectiononthepartofChristaremadeprominent in theEpistle toDiognetus.Thissideof theatonement, onwhich toomanymodern schools lookwith disfavour, isemphatically asserted by the Fathers of the second century. 4. Theymaintained the special reference of the atonement, and its unfailingefficacy, or the property of carrying with it the element of its ownapplication. The first is found in the Circular Letter of the Church ofSmyrna.TheothercomestolightinsuchstatementsasthoseofClement,affirmingthatChrist'sdeathprocuredthegraceofrepentance.

II.Wecomenowtotheperiodofthepatristictheology.InthewritersofthesecondcenturywefindconstantreferencetotheBLOODOFCHRISTas the ground of redemption, not toHis doctrine or example. This is apeculiarityofJUSTINMARTYR,whosufferedunderMarcusAurelius(†161–8).Hischiefproductions, the firstandsecondApology inbehalfofthepersecutedChristians,andtheDialoguewithTryphotheJew,whenwe consider the nature of those compositions as meant for readerswithout the Christian church as well as within it, contain very expresspassagesonChrist'satonement,more indeedthanourspacepermitsustoquote.Deducting someoverdone typical references, the testimonyofthisFather is very emphatic.At the endof the secondApologyhe thusexpressedhimself,withoutthefettersoftheologicalnomenclature,whichwasnot yet invented: "Next toGod [theFather]we adore and love theWord of the unbegotten and ineffable God, because for our sakes Hebecameman, that, being partaker of our sufferings,Hemight bring ushealing"(ch.13).Deliverancefromdeathishappilylikenedtodeliverancein Egypt by means of the passover blood: "And as the blood of thepassoversavedthoseinEgypt,soshalltheBLOODofChristSAVEFROM

DEATH them that believe" (Dial. 111). Victory over Satan is a markedfeatureofhistheology.

From such explicit mention of the EFFECTS of Christ's death, weanticipate equal accuracy as to its NATURE; and we find it so. Hisfavourite mode of representing the atonement is that of a sacrifice(προσφορά),—aviewthatrecursconstantly,morefrequentlyindeedthanthe cognate termRANSOM, thoughwe see the two ideasmerging intoeachother(Dial.40,111).JustinnoticesChrist'sACTIVEOBEDIENCEasanelement inHisvicariouswork.Thus,bya typicalallusion toJacob'sservice,JustinarguesthatChristservedaserviceuntodeathformenofeverydescription(Dial.134).Hisdoctrineof theatonementassumesitsSPECIAL DESTINATION, and the RECEPTIVITY OF FAITH. As to itsdestination,moderninvestigationoverlooksthisaspectofearlypatristictheology;nay,someareill-informedenoughtosupposethatthisinvolvestheinsertionofconditionstobedoneonman'spart.Justinregardedtheatonement as specially destined for the church, or for Christ's people,describingitasa"sacrificeforallsinnerswhoarewillingtorepent,andfastthefastthatIsaiahspeaksof"(Dial.40).Suchexpressions,whichareoftenrepeated,intimateadefiniteconnection,andthatoursinswerethecauseofChrist'ssufferinganddeath.AstothereceptivityofFAITH,wefindthatinJustin'stimetheapplicationofredemptionwasconsideredasdepending,notonworks,preparations,orritualordinances,butonfaithsimplyasreceptive.Thus,inthefirstApology,hesaysthatChristbecamemanbyavirgin,accordingtotheFather'swill,forthesalvationofthemthat believe inHim (τῶνπιστευόντωναὐτῷ, ch. 63); and this frequentphrase means, as in Scripture, that works are excluded, and that allhingesonfaithalone.Latercorruptionsmadesomethingelsenecessary.Nor does he make the Eucharist other than commemorative, andsubsidiary to faith (εἰς ἀνάμνησιν τοῦ πάθους ὀ͂ν ἔπαθεν ὑπὲρ τῶνκαθαιρομένωντὰςψυχάς,ch.41).

Attempts have recently beenmade by Bähr, Ritschl, and Pressensé, toturnasideJustin's testimony,andmakehimspeak in favourofwhat iscalledamoralredemption,butinvain.NottodwellonRitschl'sremark,thatJustinconditionstheforgivenessofsinbyrepentance,obedienceofworks, and the sinless life of the baptized,—an utter mistake of his

theological views,—letme advert to the plausible assertion ofBähr andPressensé,4 that Justin knewnothing of vicarious satisfaction todivinejustice. This is an allegation based on his comment on the apostle'swords,thatChristwas"madeacurseforus."ThistextJustinwasthefirstamong the Fathers to expound, raising a question which he did notsucceedinsolving.ReferringtotheJewishcavil,thatChristwascrucifiedasanenemyofGod,andaccursed,hemaintainedthatChrist'sdeathbycrucifixionwasanalogoustoanotherfactinJewishhistory,viz.thatGodcommandedMosestopreparethebrazenserpent,thoughHehadtoldthenationthattheywerenottomakeanimageofanythinginheavenaboveorintheearthbeneath,andproceedsasfollows(Dial.94,95):"AsGodthereforeorderedtheimageoftheserpenttobemadeinbrass,andwasblameless,soisthereinthelawacurseagainstcrucifiedmen,BUTNOMORECURSE(οὐκἔτιδή)AGAINSTTHECHRISTOFGOD,bywhomHesavesallthosewhodidthingsworthyofthecurse.For,accordingtothe law of Moses, the whole human race will be found subject to thecurse: 'Cursed is every one that continueth not in the thingswhich arewritteninthebookofthelawtodothem.'Noonehasperfectlyfulfilledthe law: you [Jews] will not venture to deny this: some have kept thecommandmentsmore,andothersless.Iftheywhoareunderthelawaremanifestlyunderthecursebecausetheyhavenotkeptallthings,shallnotalltheGentilesmuchratherbeunderthecurse,whoareidolaters,youth-corrupters,andperpetratorsofotherenormities?If, then, theFatheroftheuniversepurposedthatHisChrist,forthesakeofmenofeverytribe,shouldTAKEUPONHIMTHECURSESOFALL,knowingthatHewouldraiseHimupagainwhenHewascrucifiedanddead,whydoyouspeakofHimwhoundertooktosufferthesethingsaccordingtotheFather'swill,asif[or,onthesuppositionthat]Hewasaccursed,andnotratherbewailyourselves?For ifHisFather, ifHeHimselfbrought it topass, thatHeSUFFERED THESE THINGS FOR THE HUMAN RACE, you certainlydidnotdo itasobeying thewillofGod.And letnoneofyousay: If theFather willed that He should suffer these things that the human racemightbehealedbyHisstripes,wehavedonenothingamiss."

Justin did not successfully solve the difficulty which he raised, but hemadethehonesteffort,withhismindplainlyimbuedwiththedoctrineofsatisfaction. To any one who puts the two statements together this is

evident:for,ontheonehand,hesaysthatthereisNOMORECURSETOTHECHRISTofGod,—that is, itdoesnotproperlyextendtoHim;and,on the other, that CHRIST TOOKUPONHIM THE CURSESOF ALL.Similar statements are repeated, to the effect that Christ was notaccursed.Thetwoaffirmationsareeasyofexplanation,ifwedistinguishthedirectandindirect,thepersonalandofficial,whichJustin,however,doesnotpausetodo.Noone,whenmaintainingthat theLordtookthecurse uponHim, ever spoke as if Christ were to be represented as thedirectobjectofthecurse.Justindoesnotexpresslysay,thatinHisdeathChristdirectlyboreTHEPENALINFLICTIONofthecursefromthehandofGod;butneitherdoeshe,inthestyleofshallowmoderntheories,limitthecursetowhatwas inflictedbywickedmen.Hiscomment, imperfectthoughit is,amountstothis,thatinsomesenseChristtookonHimselfthe curse, atoning for our sin and removing our curse; and that Israelwere the wicked instruments of carrying it out. Plainly, vicarioussatisfactionisinvolvedinthestatement.

Thus,at theearliest time, theessentialelementsof theatonementwereheld with full conviction, and it was accepted as the great saving factbefore discussions anddebates arose as to its nature.Christ's deity didnotbecomeanarticleofbeliefwith theecclesiastical confessionof it attheCouncilofNice;and in likemanner theatonement,keptbefore theview of the church in the weekly Eucharist, had always been from thebeginningthegreatcentraltruthofChristianity.

WecomenowtoIRENÆUS,BishopofLyonsandVienne,whosufferedin the persecution under Septimius Severus († A.D. 202). In him thedoctrine of the atonement reached a development beyond which noadvancewasmadeforaverylongperiod.Nay,itrecededfromIrenæus'view-point, much to its disadvantage. We do not hesitate to say, thatIrenæus apprehended the doctrine more profoundly than any patristicwriter whose works have come down to us. So definite, indeed, is hisoutlineof the atonement, thatwemight almostmakea transition fromhimtoAnselm,withoutfeelinganygreatgapinthedevelopment.Solongavistabeforeus remindsme to curtailquotationsasmuchaspossible,andavoidrepeatingfromotherwriterswhathasalreadybeenexhibitedin thosewhopreceded.This sketchmightbeamplified indefinitely;but

wecannot,inthelimitsatourdisposal,giveanexhaustivestatement,andshall restrict ourselves to the landmarks of history, or new phases ofopinion,whetheranadvanceordeviation.

WithIrenæusthedoctrineenteredonaneworsecondstage.Heexhibitsits positive side; regarding it as a provision indispensably necessary,accordingtohisidealofhumanity.HespeaksofthedeathofChristasaransom(v.1),andasasacrifice(iv.20),connectingtheremissionofsinswith it, as do all the previouswriters. Irenæus, however, developes thedoctrineoftheatonementfromTWOAPOSTOLICTHOUGHTSinawaynot expressly done before. The FIRST of these is, that Jesus was theSECOND ADAM. From this point of view he surveys the entire field,showingthat thedisobedienceof the firstmanentailedthe forfeitureofallthings,bringingwithitdeath,rejection,andsubjectiontoSatan;whilethe counterpart obedience of the second Man reversed all this, andbroughtwith it theoppositeblessings.Theexpositionsof Irenæushavethis Pauline thought constantly in view (Rom. 5:12–19). Consequentlythese elucidations have a completeness and a positive character, whichserve to showhownecessary theatonementwas, according to Irenæus,fromtheveryideaofman.Heconnectstheunityoftherepresentedandthe representative, after the Pauline style of description (Rom. 6:1–11),whenheexpresseshimselfthus:"InthefirstmanWEsinned,notkeepingthe commandment; but in the second Adam WE were reconciled,BECOMINGobedientuntodeath:forweweredebtorstonootherbuttoHimwhosecommandmentwehadtransgressedatthebeginning"(v.16.3).Thisgreatthought,introducedintothesubjectoftheatonement,givesIrenæus'viewabreadthandelevationfarbeyondallthestatementsofhispredecessors. He considered Christ's entire obedience from theincarnationto thecrucifixionas thevicariousworkof thesecondAdamenteringintothepositionofthefirst.This,therefore,is,accordingtohim,the constituent element of the atonement. Speaking of the Mediator,Irenæussays:"HeunitedmantoGod;forunlessmanhadconqueredtheenemyofman,theadversarywouldnotrighteouslyhavebeenconquered.Again, had not God gifted (ἐδωρήσατο) salvation to us, we should notsecurely possess it. And unless man were united to God, he could nothave been partaker of incorruption. For it was necessary that theMediator between God and men should, by His peculiar affinity with

both,bringbothtofriendshipandconcord,andatoncepresentmantoGod,andmanifestGodtomen"(iii. 18.7). Irenæus, inaveryprofoundway, views the second Adam as entering into man's place, andaccomplishingallthatwasnecessarytopropitiateGod,andredeemmanfrom the tempter. The great fact of satisfaction by substitution, thoughneitherofthesetermsactuallyoccurs,isthusdescribed:"theLordhavingransomedus (λυτρωσαμένου)byHisownblood,andgivenHissoul for(ὑπέρ)oursouls,andHisownfleshfor(ἀντί)ourflesh"(v.1).Wehaveinthese termsanexplicitdescriptionofa ransompaidby theLord inHisown person, without addition or aid from external sources; and theseveral elements of our nature are thus made constituent parts of theransom. No man without arbitrary caprice can construe the languageotherwise.Not only so:we find Irenæus explicitly asserting that Christwasahighpriestonearth,asHefulfilledthedivinelaw(iv.8).

TheSECONDapostolic thoughtwithwhichIrenæus'mindwas imbued,and fromwhichhiswhole theology takes its peculiar tincture,was thatChrist,fortheoverthrowofSatan,becamepartakerofthesamefleshandblood with us (Heb. 2:14). To this deep conviction he was particularlyconducted by the gnostic theories of his age. His views of redemptionfrom Satan aremore copiously developed than by any previous writer.But there is no ground for the assertion sometimes hazarded, thatIrenæusmaintained the notion that the ransomwas paid to Satan.Nostatement to that effect is found in his writings, though he stronglymaintains that man's deliverance from Satan was effected in a way ofjustice; that is,bythatwhichrendereditright fora justGodto liberateus. Irenæusproves (v. 1. 1;21. 1–3; iii.18.2.7) thatman,bycomplyingwiththetempter,fellunderhispower.Hisliberationwasimpossibleforsinfulmen; andas little couldGod liberatehimbut in conformitywithHis immutable rectitude. Man must conquer his deceiver in a way ofrectitude, and revoke his disobedience (solvere, replasmare) by a freeobedience.Asmanwasincompetentforthis,theLogosbecameincarnatefor this end (iii. 18). Irenæus vehemently insists on the identity of theLord's fleshwithours,but in termswhichexpresslymakeroomfor themaintenance of Christ's absolute sinlessness in contrast with ourdefilement (v. 14. 3). Thus, referring to the apostle's statement thatweare reconciled in the body ofHis flesh, Irenæus says: "Righteous flesh

reconciled that flesh which was held captive in sin, and put it on afriendly footing toward God" (v. 14. 2). After making the distinctionalready noticed, he adds: "If any one ascribes to the Lord anothersubstanceofflesh,thewordofreconciliationwillnolongerlastforhim;forthatwhichwasonceatenmityisreconciled.ButiftheLordtookfleshof a different substance, it is no longer that which had beenmade anenemybytransgressionthatisreconciledtoGod.ButnowtheLordhasreconciledmantoGodtheFatherbyfellowshipwithHimself"(iii.14.3).Heviewstheobedienceofthesecondmanasthegroundofacceptance,cleansing,victory,andLIFE(iv.10.2).

Nottoadduceotherpassages,wecallattentiontothefactthatIrenæus,oneoftheprofoundestmindsofallantiquity,inathoroughlybiblicalwaytookinallthepreviousdevelopment,andassimilatedit,butmadeagreatadvanceuponit.HepenetratedmorefullyintothePaulinethoughts,anditwouldhavebeenwellhadnodistractingtheoriessubsequentlycomeintodrawthechurchasidefromthegroundheoccupied.

CLEMENS of Alexandria did nothing to advance the doctrine of theatonement, and refers to it only incidentally, though with a fullappreciation of its value. We advance to his more distinguished pupilORIGEN, whose vast influence, mixed indeed, and subject to manydeductions, was felt formany ages († A.D. 254). This remarkablemanspeaksinonecharacterwhenheuttersthesimplefaithoftheChristian,andinanotherwhenhepresentshimselftousasthespeculativedivine.He has interwoven into hisworks asmany allusions to the atonement,andwithasdeepasenseofitsimportance,asaretobefoundinalmostany writer. The fact of SIN-BEARING, and the infiniteACCEPTABLENESS of the sacrifice, are everywhere described withsingular freshness.Thus, inhisHomiliesonLeviticus,Origensays:"Hewhowasmade in the likeness ofmen, and found in fashion as aman,doubtlessforsinwhichHehadtakenfromus,becauseHeboreoursins,offeredayoungbullockwithoutblemish—thatis,anundefiledflesh—asasacrificetoGod"(Hom.3).SpeakingoftheacceptablenessoftheofferingbecauseHedidnosin,headds:"Whatwassoacceptableasthesacrificeof Christ, who offered Himself to God?" (Hom. Lev. 1.) In hisCommentary on John he oftenmentions sin-bearing. Thus he says, on

John 12:50: "God the Word, the truth, the wisdom, and therighteousness, didnotdie: for the imageof the invisibleGod, the first-bornofeverycreature,wasincapableofdeath.ButthisMandiedforthepeople, the purest of all creatures, who bore our sins and infirmities,inasmuchasHewasable(ἅτεδυνάμενος)totakeuponHimselfthesinofthewholeworld, to destroy, consume, anddelete it: forHedidno sin,neitherwasguilefoundinHismouth.NordidHeknowsin;andforthisreasonIthinkPaulspokethus:'HemadeHimtobesinforus,whoknewnosin,thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGodinHim:'for,saidhe,HemadeHimtobesin,thoughHeknewnosin,byHistakingonHimthe sins of all, thoughHe sinned notHimself; and by becoming, if wemustboldlysayso,muchmore thanHisapostles, the filthof theearth,andtheoffscouringofallthingsuntothisday."Astothenecessityoftheatonement,Origensays:"Hadtherebeennosin,itwouldnothavebeennecessary for the Son ofGod to become theLamb, norwouldHehaveneededtoappearinthefleshtobeimmolated,butwouldhaveremainedwhatHewasinthebeginning—GodtheWord.Butassinenteredintothisworld,andthenecessityofsindemandspropitiation,andpropitiationisnot effected but by sacrifice, it was necessary that a sacrifice for sinshouldbeprovided"(Hom.onNum.24:1).PerhapsnoneoftheFathersdidmorethanOrigentoexhibitandcirculatethisgreatcentralthoughtofVICARIOUSSIN-BEARING.

The cognate idea of the vicarious bearing of punishment is not lessprominent in Origen. Nothing can be more express than Origen'slanguageas toChrist's sin-bearingandcurse-bearing inHis capacityofsubstitute;andhiswideinfluencecirculatedthesepreciousthoughts,inadogmatic form,more fully throughout theGreekChurch thanhad everbeendonebefore.Norwasthiseverafterwardscounteracted.Further,heurges that the atonement renderedGodpropitious (see onRom. 3:23).He shows, on Leviticus, that Christ, both priest and sacrifice,accomplishedinfactwhatthetypesforeshadowedandforetold.

ButthereisanothersideofOrigen'stheologyontheatonement,sofaultyandmischievous,that,werewetoadjustthebalancebetweenhisservicesand demerits, we should almost be at a loss to say whether he moreestablished the truth or undermined it.When he comes to ground the

doctrine andportray the effects of the atonement,hediscovers a faultytheology,anill-balancedjudgment,andgreattemerity.Someofthebestelements of Irenæus' exposition, especially the great thought that theatonement was the obedience of the second Adam, fall into thebackground, or are altogether dropped. Not only so; the indispensablenecessityoftheatonement,involvedinIrenæus'firstprinciple,becomesbutaRELATIVEnecessity.Thiscouldnotbeotherwise,whenwereflecton two peculiarities of Origen's theology,—his view of justice, and hisviewofpunishment.Astohisviewof justice, though it ismoredefiniteandbiblicalthanthePlatonictheoryexpressedbyClemensAlexandrinus,it is still in the highest degree defective. He makes it a form ofmanifestingGOODNESS,anothersideofgoodness.Hedoesnotspeakoftheatonementastheequipoiseofjusticeandgoodness,butinthesamestyle with Bonaventura, Grotius, and the semi-philosophic theories ofafterages.Hesometimes, indeed, strongly speaksof the loveofGodasexercisedinnoarbitraryway,butthroughthechannelofjustice;buthisavowed principle as to justice is in the last degree faulty, though he isoften, happily, inconsistentwith himself; and this appears especially inthewayinwhichhespeaksofGethsemane,andthecupwhichChrist,asthe vicarious sin-bearer, of necessity must drink (Com. on Matt.).Origen'snotion thatpunishment isdisciplinaryand corrective,mustbenoticed as a further flaw which tended to sap and undermine biblicaldoctrine. These philosophizing speculations were corrected in himself,however,bythedeeppietyandbiblicalstudywhichweretheelementofhislife,butwerestillhurtfultothechurch.

TherewereotherspeculationsofOrigen,however,whichweredoctrinallyandpracticallymischievous.

1. One was the wayward theory which he engrafted on the admirablestatements of Irenæus as to the victory over Satan. Origen's baselessfancy was that the RANSOM WAS PAID TO SATAN; that SatandemandedthesoulofJesus,themostpreciousthingthateverwas;andthatGod,fromlovetous,deliveredHim,or,morestrictly,thattheLogosgaveupHishumansoultoSatan.Thiswasafoolishfancy;andouronlywonderisthatitwaseveracceptedbyothers,anddressedupbysuchablemen as Gregory of Nyssa, and other followers of Origen in the Greek

Church, and then transferred as a discovery to the Western Church.AccordingtoOrigen'stheory,Satanhadlegitimateauthoritytoholdmeninthedomainofdeath,butforfeitedthatrightassoonashebroughtittobearagainstasinlessman.Heheldthat,byacertainartificepractisedontheadversary,Jesus,whocouldnot longhavebeenholdenofhim,wasforatimesurrenderedup,thatSatanmightbemisledintoanabuseofhisauthority—legitimate only within a given sphere—and forfeit his rightaltogether.Thispreposterousnotion,unbiblicalinitself,andacompletemisconceptionofGod,theprimefountainoflawandjustice,andalsoofSatan, a mere subordinate official, is not really worthy of a graverefutation.Tostateistorefuteit.TheapostlesleaveusinnodoubtthattheransomorsacrificewasofferedtoGod(Rev.5:9;Eph.5:2).

2. It was another error of Origen, that he extended the efficacy of theatonement to all the universe.Up to this time the Fathers, aswe havealreadynoticed,spokeoftheatonementasefficaciousforthechurch,anddestinedforthechurch.Nordidtheyperplexthemselvesandotherswithfruitlessandinsolubleproblemsastothebearingoftheatonementontheclassoutside.ThebloodofChristwas the fullandadequateransomforthe church, and there, with spiritual wisdom, they stopped. Origen,however, speculated on its possible applications; and not content withsaying what it could by possibility be conceived as capable ofaccomplishing had God so willed, he extended its actual range to thewholeuniverse,maintainingthatallcreatures,andevendevils,sharedinits redemptive power.Hemade it co-extensivewith creation, the stars,angels, andman; engrafting upon it the theory of the restoration of allthings. This may show the high value which Origen attached to theatonementastheachievementoftheGod-man;butitwasamischievousperversionofbiblicaldoctrine.

3.AnothererrorofOrigen,whichhedidnotmeantoputinoppositiontotheatonement,buttoosooncametoneutralizethedoctrineofthecrossinafterages,was thathebegan to speakof forgivenessbygoodworks;andthisevilleavensoonspread.

In the fourth century, to which we now come, the greatest name isATHANASIUS,whoseservicesindefenceofChrist'sdeityhaveratherhidhis contributions to thedoctrineof theatonement (†A.D.373).Butno

man, in thewhole compass of patristic theology, with the exception ofIrenæus, rendered more important service in connection with thisdoctrine. His theory, superior to Origen's, and not liable to so manydeductions,seasonablymetthewantsofmenrepelledbythenotionthatthe ransom was paid to Satan. Two treatises of Athanasius—On theIncarnationoftheLogos,andtheOrationsagainsttheArians,especiallythe former—contain a digest of his opinions on the atonement. I shallgiveabriefoutlineofhistheory,withanoticeofitsmeritsanddefects.

Athanasiusdoesnotstart,asIrenæusandAnselmdo,fromSINITSELF,butfromITSEFFECTS;buthehasaprofoundviewofdeathasthewagesof sin. The theory, traced to its fundamental principle, though it is notbased on the deepest foundation, is the EQUIPOISE OF GOD'SVERACITY AND LOVE. A few passages will exhibit this. The deaththreatened at the beginning as the penalty of sin, consists inestrangementfromGod,theprincipleoflife(αὐτοζωή);andtheproblemto be solved was this: The divine veracity threatening death as theinevitablepenaltyofsinmustbemaintained,whiledivinegoodnesscouldnotallowthecreaturesofGod to fall intoannihilation: "GodwouldnothavebeenTRUE, if,after saying thatweshoulddie,manhadnotdied.Ontheotherhand,itwasnotbefittingthatrationalbeings,oncecreatedandpartakersofHisLogos,shouldperish,andthroughcorruptionreturnto non-being. For it was not WORTHY OF GOD'S GOODNESS, thatcreatures made by Him should be destroyed because of the fraudpractised on men by the devil" (de Incar. ch. 6). He then proceeds toshowthatnonebuttheLogoswascompetenttorenewall,tosufferforall,to intercede for all (ch. 7); and thus forcibly describes themode of theincarnationwithaviewtotheatonement:"Takingabodyfromussimilartoours,becausewewereallsubjecttothecorruptionofdeath,HeofferedittotheFather,deliveringittodeath,intheexerciseofthehighestlove,in the room of all, that, since all died in Him, the law as to man'scorruptionmightbedissolved, inasmuchas itspowerwasexhausted intheLord'sbody,andhadnomoreplaceagainstmeninthesamebody"(ch.8).ThetwoelementsofveracityandloveareexhibitedinthesamewayintheOrationsagainsttheArians(Or.i.44,ii.14),wherehearguesthatitwasunworthyofGodtoletHisworkmanshipperish,andHislovewouldnotpermitit.

HegaveprominencetotheLord'svicariousdeath,astheactualfulfilmentofthethreatenedpenalty.Nomoreexplicitstatementofsubstitutioncanbeexpressed,thanwhenhespeaksofdeath,thecommonlotofman,asauniversalprincipleholdingtheraceincaptivity,andofChristassumingabodytodiethisdeathintheroomofothers,allowingittoassailandholdHim under its power: "Since it was necessary that the debt of all (τὸὀφειλόμενονπαρὰπάντων)shouldbepaid,—for,asIsaidbefore,allweresubject to death, and this was the main reason of the incarnation,—therefore,aftermanifestingHisdeitybymiracles,Heat lastofferedthesacrificeforall,surrenderedHisowntempletodeathintheroomofall,that on the one hand He might discharge and free all from the oldtransgression, and on the other evince Himself superior to death,exhibiting His own incorruptible body as the first-fruits of the generalresurrection" (ch. 20).He adds that, the commonSaviour of all havingdied for us, we who are believers in Christ no longer die as of oldaccordingtothethreatofthelaw:forsuchajudicialsentencehasceased(20,21).

ThesepassagesclearlyevinceAthanasius'viewsastothemodeinwhichdeathwasoverthrown,andthispavedthewayforthecommunicationoflife by Christ's resurrection. He shows that Death was annihilated byinvadingthisbody,andthatlifeflowedin;thatmartyrstrampleondeath,and that women and children can triumph over him. The doctrine ofAthanasiusis,thattheLogos,todestroydeathandremovethecurse,tookamortalbody (θνητόν);meaningMORTALnotby the lawof itsbeing,butinthesenseofbeingcapableofundergoingdeath.

While Athanasius asserted the elements of the doctrine alreadymentionedwithgreatpower,andgainedgeneralrecognitionforthemintheGreekChurch,histheoryhasdefectswhichitispropertomention.1.Hedidnot,withIrenæusandAnselm,puttheatonementinRELATIONTO SIN ITSELF, but surveyed it in connection with THECONSEQUENCESofsin.He fixedondeath,andsees theatonementasits destruction; giving an important contribution so far as he goes, butstopping short atman's liberation from the penal consequences of sin,andnot referring to the reparation of the divinehonour. 2.Athanasiusdidnotput thenecessity of the atonementon its true foundation:with

him, as withOrigen, it is only a relative necessity. Thus he says: "Godcould have simply spoken, and destroyed the curse without anyincarnation at all. But it is necessary to consider what is profitable formen,andnotreckoninallthingswhatitwaspossibleforGodtodo"(3dOrat.againsttheArians).Howevermuchthesestatementswereapprovedamong the Fathers, and even by Calvin, they were unsatisfactory, andfoundtobenobulwarkagainstSocinianism.3.InAthanasius'theorythepositive element of vicarious obedience, and the position of the secondAdam under the law, were not allowed to come to their rights. Itacknowledgesthecurse,andseesaprovisionforitsremoval:butitleavesuntouchedthepositivedemandorinflexibleclaimofthelaw,whichtheentranceofsinneitherrevokednormodified.

One thing demands notice in connection with the development of theearlypatristicdoctrineoftheatonement:thediscussionsonthedignityofChrist's person exercised an important influence of a favourable kind.TheFathersfirstarguedfromtheworkofredemptiontothenecessityofa divine Redeemer. Afterwards, when the Council of Nice gaveecclesiastical sanction to the doctrine of theLord's deity, they set forththe infinite value of His person as essential to His vicarious work.Throughout the fourth century, and still more so after the rise ofNestorianism in the fifthcentury,we find theFathersmaintainingwithone voice thatChrist's sufferingswere of infinite value, in virtue of theunion of the divine and human natures in His one person. His divinedignity, they argued, putHim in a position such as amereman couldneveroccupy,conferringinfinitevalueonHISSACRIFICEorRANSOM,—thetwotermsbywhichtheydesignatedthedeathofChrist.Thistruth,though held from the beginning, was now brought out prominently.Finite creatures, it was shown, could not have brought a sacrifice ofinfinite value; but when a divine Redeemer undertook it, His infinitedignitybroughtittoasuccessfulissue.AbriefnoticeoftheviewsofthegreatdivineswhoadornedtheGreekChurchduringthefourthandfifthcenturieswillfullyexhibitthis.

EUSEBIUSofCæsarea,surnamedthefriendofPamphilus(†A.D.340),andamemberoftheNiceneCouncil,thoughgivingareluctantconsenttothedistinctiveexpressionsofitscreed,bringsoutwithprecisionthemain

elements of the atonement. Without multiplying quotations, a fewpassages from Eusebius will sufficiently prove this. Thus he says(Demonstratio Evangelica, book x.): "Certainly the Lamb of God, whobeareththesinof theworld,wasmadeacurseforus,whomGodmadesinforus,thoughHeknewnosin,deliveringHimasasubstituteforthelife(ἀντίψυχον)ofusall,thatwemightbemadetherighteousnessofGodinHim."Then,twoorthreesentencesafterwards,heputsthisquestion:"ButhowdoesHemakeoursinsHisown,andhowisHesaidtobearouriniquities?"Inansweringthis,EusebiusbaseshisremarksonthesayingofPaul,thatwearethebodyofChrist,andthusproceeds:"As,whenonemembersuffers,allthememberssufferwithit;so,whenmanymemberssuffer and sin,Healso, ongroundsof sympathy—since it pleasedHim,whoistheWordofGod,totaketheformofaservantandtobeunitedtothecommontabernacleofusall—takesuponHimselfthesorrowsofthesufferingmembers, andmakes our diseases His own, and suffers griefand trouble for us all, according to the laws of philanthropy; and thatLambofGod,notonlybydoingthesethings,butbybeingpunishedforus (ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν κολασθείς), and enduring the retribution (τιμωρίαν)whichHedidnotowe,butwhichweowedbyreasonofthemultitudeofouroffences,becametoustheauthor(αἴτιος)oftheforgivenessofsins,asHeboredeath forus, and transferred toHimself the stripes, insults,anddishonoursduetous,anddrewuponHimself thecursemeritedbyus,beingmadeacurseforus.Andwhatelsewasthisbutgivinglifeforlife (καὶ τί γὰρ ἄλλο ἢ ἀντίψυχον)? Hence the oracle, speaking in ourperson,says,'ByHisstripeswearehealed.'"

One of themost pleasing and practical writers of the fourth century isCYRILL of Jerusalem († A.D. 386), whose sermons on the Creed(Catacheses), though bearing to have been delivered as extemporaryexpositions, contain much precious, well-expressed truth. In hisdiscourse on thewords CRUCIFIEDANDBURIED, Cyrill refers to theatonementintermsnearlysimilartothoseofAthanasius,layingstressonthedivinedignityofChrist:"Anddonotwonderifthewholeworldwasransomed(ἐλυτρώθη);forHewasnotamereman,buttheonly-begottenSonofGod.YetthesinofonemanAdamprevailedtobringdeathupontheworld.Butif,bytheoffenceofone,deathenteredtheworldasaking,howshallnotlifemuchmorereignbytherighteousnessofone?"(13.2.)

Then,towardsthecloseofthesamediscourse,Cyrillexpresseshimselftothiseffect:"WewerebyreasonofsinGod'senemies,andGodappointedthat the sinner should die. One of two things, therefore,must happen:eitherGodmustmaintainHisveracity(ἀληθεύοντα),mustcutoffall,orinHisphilanthropyrevokethesentence.ButbeholdthewisdomofGod!Heatoncemaintained the truthof thesentence,andgaveeffect toHisphilanthropy.ChristtooksinsinHisownbodytothetree,thatthroughHis death we might die to sins and live to righteousness. It was noinsignificant one (μικρός) that died for us: itwas not an animal victim(πρόβατοναἰσθητόν): itwasnotamereman: itwasnomereangel:butGodincarnate.Theguiltofsinnerswasnotsogreatastherighteousnessof Him who died for us. We did not sin to such an extent as Heaccomplishedrighteousness;wholaiddownHislifeforus,—laiditdownwhenHepleased,andtookitagainwhenHepleased"(Cat.13.33).Theoutlineoftheatonementgivenbythisjudiciousthinker,thoughseverelypractical and disinclined to speculation, bears a certain affinity to thatgivenbytheequallypracticalChrysostom.

The three Cappadocians, allied by friendship and culture—BASIL,GREGORY of NYSSA, and GREGORY of Nazianzus—did not advancebeyond the views of Origen. Basil and his younger brother GregoryNyssen were but reproducers of Origen's opinions on this subject.GregoryNazianzenrepudiatedthenotionofaransompaidtoSatan,butinotherrespectsadheredtothepeculiaritiesofOrigen'sdoctrineontheatonement; but all three evince the importance of the Lord's divinepersonasanessentialprerequisitetotheransom.

BASIL(†A.D.379)bringsouthisviewsontheatonementinhishomilyontheforty-ninthPsalm(vers.7,8),—aratherconflictingcombinationoftwo things—the persuasion of Satan and the propitiation of God(ἐξίλασματῷΘεῷ).Thushesays:"Donotseekabrotherforredemption,but one who exceeds your nature—not a mere man, but a God-man(ἄνθρωπονΘεόν)—JesusChrist,whoaloneisabletomakeapropitiationtoGod forusall."Then, aftera fewsentences,headds: "Butone thingwas found thatwas equivalent (ἀντάξιον) to allmen, and given for thepriceofoursoul'sredemption—theholyandpreciousbloodofourLordJesusChrist,whichHepouredoutforusall"(sec.4).

GREGORY Nyssen, more of a systematic divine than his brother,attemptedanexpositionofthedeepergroundsoftheatonement,sofaraswasconsistentwiththeviewsofhismasterOrigen.Raisingthequestionwhy God did not denude Satan of his possession by simple power, heshows that the divine GOODNESS, WISDOM, JUSTICE, and POWERwereallequallytobedisplayed,iftheredemptionofmankindwastobeworthyofGod. InhisCatecheticalOration (ch. 15–26)heexpatiatesontheexerciseofGod'sperfections,whileweseeinthebackgroundtheideaofthedeceptionorartificewhichhesupposespractiseduponSatan.Hesays(ch.24):"Goodnessisapprehendedinthechoicetosavethatwhichwas lost; wisdom and righteousness are displayed in the mode of oursalvation; and power inHis beingmade in the likeness and fashion ofmen, according to the meanness of our nature, and in the hope(ἐλπισθῆναι, i.e. on Satan's side) that He could, after the similitude ofmen,beheld captivebydeath."Gregorywidens the circleof thedivineattributescalledintoexercise,ascomparedwithhismasterOrigen,whochieflyreferredtothedivinejustice.HefirmlyheldtheGREATFACTofthe atonement, though theories are interspersed; and the atonementstands out as the great saving fact formankind. Thus, in his elaborateworkagainstEunomius,theablechampionofArianism,GregoryrebutsanargumentderivedfromChrist'sobedienceinthefollowingterms(lib.ii.):—"He became obedient for our sakes, whenHewas at onceMADESINANDACURSEbyreasonofthedivineplaninourbehalf;notbeingsuchbynature,butmadethisbyloving-kindness."NoonecanfailtoseehowcloselyheconnectedChrist'sdeityandatonement,recognisinginthefullestmannerthefactoftheatonement,itsnature,andconsequences.

Gregory Nazianzen († A.D. 389), the attached friend of Basil, differedfrom the theory of Origen in one point. He repudiated the doctrine towhich the two last-mentioned Fathers attached themselves, viz. that aransommustbepaidtotheenemyofmankind,suchasthepossessorofthecaptivesdemanded.Thus, inhis forty-fifthOration,delivered in theyear 385, he rejects it as an audacious thought (φεῦ τῆςὕβρεως): "Wehave to examine a doctrine neglected by many, but by me diligentlyinvestigated.Towhomwasthebloodforus[offered],andforwhatreasonwasthegreatandprecious(περιβόητον)bloodofGod,atoncehighpriestandvictim,shed?Forwewereheld inbondageby thewickedone,sold

under sin, receiving pleasure in return for vice. But if the ransom(λύτρον) does not belong to any other party but to himwho holds thecaptive,Iask,towhomwasthispaid,andforwhatcause?Ifitispaidtothe evil one (fie upon the audacity!)—if the robber not only receives aransom from God, but receives God Himself as a ransom, and suchexorbitantwagesforhistyrannyasthereasonwhyitisjusttospareus—.ButifitispaidtotheFather,then,first,howwasitso?forwewerenotheldinbondagebyHim;andsecondly,whatisthereasonthattheFatherwas pleased with the blood of the Only-begotten, whereas He did notreceive Isaac, offered by his father, but exchanged the sacrifice,substituting a ram for a rational victim? It ismanifest that the Fatherreceivesit,notthatHeeitherdemandeditorneededit(!),butbyreasonof the divine scheme of salvation, and because man needed to besanctified by the humanity of God, that He Himself might deliver us,overcomingthe tyrantby force,andbringingusback toHimselfbyHisSon as Mediator" (ch. 22). Gregory Nazianzen abides by the otherconclusions of Origen as to overreaching Satan; a preposterous theory,whichhadastrangefascinationformanyoftheFathersintheEastandWest.

CHRYSOSTOM († A.D. 407), distinguished for his eloquence and thefervour of his piety, gives us positive biblical doctrine, without anytheories or speculationsbeyondwhat the absolutenecessity of the caserequired. He was a biblical divine, with an instinctive recoil fromspeculationswhichhe seems tohave feltwouldbeexplodedbyawidersurveyoftherelationsoftruth.Thedoctrinedevelopedbythisgreatmanis singularly balanced, because for the most part traced out fromapostolical ideas, and an expansionof themdoctrinally andpractically.We make a few extracts from his Commentaries, or more properlyHomilies, on the Pauline Epistles. Referring to the benefits conferredthroughChristasadivineSaviour,Chrysostomremarks(Com.onRom.5:17): "ForChristhaspaid farmore thanweowed—asmuchmoreasaboundlessoceancomparedwithadropofwater.Doubtnottherefore,Oman,whenyouseesuchawealthofbenefits;norinquirehowthatsparkofdeathandsincanbeextinguished,whensuchaseaofblessingsisletinupon it." Few commentators in any age have apprehended moreprofoundly than Chrysostom the great mutual exchange of places

betweenChristandHispeople,accordingtowhichHewasmadeoursin,andweHisrighteousness.Onthispoint,whichmaybecalledthecoreofthe atonement, the statements of Chrysostom deserve specialconsideration. Thus, in commenting on the passage in Corinthians (2Cor.5:21),inconnectionwiththepreviouscontext,hesays:"ReflecthowgreatathingitwastogiveHisSonforthosewhoinsultedHim.ButnowHehasaccomplishedgreatthings,and,besides,permittedHimwhodidnothing amiss toBEPUNISHED (κολασθῆναι) FOROFFENDERS.Buthe(theapostle)didnotmerelysaythis,butaffirmedwhatismuchmorethan this:HemadeHim to be sinwho knewno sin,whowas absoluterighteousness(αὐτοδικαιοσύνην);thatis,leftHimtobecondemnedasasinner,todieasaccursed:forcursediseveryonethathangethonatree."Then, after a few sentences, he refers to the apostle'swords as follows:"He [the apostle] says, He made the Righteous One a sinner, that Hemightmakethesinnersrighteous.Nay,henotonlysaidthis,butwhatisamuch greater thing; for he did not affirm the concrete (ἕξιν), but theabstract itself (ποιότητα). He did not say, HemadeHim a sinner, butsin." It appears, too, that the positive element of Christ's obedienceenteredintoChrysostom'stheology.Thushesays(Hom.onRom.10:4):"Donotfear,then,asifyoutransgressedthelawwhenyoucametofaith;foryoutransgressitwhen,byreasonofit,youdonotbelieveonChrist.When you have believed on Him, YOU HAVE FULFILLED IT, ANDDONEMUCHMORETHANITCOMMANDED:foryouhavereceivedafargreaterrighteousness."

The last great movement within the pale of the Greek Church, whichcontributed powerfully to develope the doctrine of the atonement, wastheNESTORIANCONTROVERSY.Inopposingthedivisionorseparationof the natures of Christ, the church saw how fatalNestorianismwouldsoonprove to theatonement; and inproportionas the church teacherslaidemphasisontheUNITYOFTHEPERSON,andassertedthatJesuswas the Son of God incarnate, in the same proportion did they attachinfinitevaluetoHisworkofatonement.Itwastheactoftheperson,notofamereman.

Among the teachers whose influence was most felt in this direction,CYRILLofAlexandria(†A.D.444)wasprominent.Heconstantlyraises

the objection to Nestorius' views, that Christ's atoning death owed itsvalidity to the fact that He who suffered in our stead was the divineLogos,andthatHisbloodwasthebloodofGod'sSon;andheassertsthatitwouldhavebeenno equivalenthadJesusbeen amereman.ButHisransom suffices to meet the wants of all mankind. Let me adduce aspecimen of the mode in which he brought this truth to bear on theatonement.Thus,inhissecondOrationderectafide(sec.vii),Cyrillsayson Gal. 3:13: "The law having pronounced him accursed who is intransgression and sin, He who knew no sin—that is, Christ—has beensubjected to judgment, bearing an unjust sentence, and suffering whatwas due to those under the curse, thatHewhowas EQUIVALENTTOTHEUNIVERSE(ὁτῶνὅλωνἀντάξιος),dyingforall,mightdischargeallfromthechargesofdisobedience,andpurchaseallthatisunderheavenwithHisownblood.Thereforeonewouldnothavebeenanequivalentforall,hadhebeenamereman.But ifHe is consideredasGod incarnate,andsufferinginHisownflesh,theentirecreationissmallincomparison;andthedeathofonefleshissufficientfortheransomofthehumanrace(τῆςὑπʼοὔρανον),foritbelongedtotheLogos(ἰδίατοῦλόγου),begottenof God the Father."Many similar passages occur in Cyrill (see Cyr. onJohn1:29,andreplytoJulian,lib.9).

THEODORET, the contemporary of Cyrill, does not give such expresstestimonies to this aspectof truth, asmight indeedhavebeenexpectedfromhisAntiochiantendencies.WefindtheolddoctrineofOrigenastothe defeat of Satan combined with the reference to death on whichAthanasiusdwelt;buthelaysemphasisonsubstitutionandcurse-bearingas much as Cyrill. In his tenth Oration on Providence, TheodoreteloquentlydilatesonChristoursubstitute,andrepresentstheSaviourasaddressing Satan subsequently to the crucifixion, and previous to Hisresurrection:"Youhavebeentaken(ἑάλως),Owickedone,andsnaredinyourowntoils."HechallengeshimtopointoutaflawinHislifeorheart;bidshimwithdraw fromhis authority anddesist fromhis tyranny, andsays that He will deliver all from death, using righteous mercy (ἐλέωδικαίω).

After theageofCyrill andTheodoret, little fresh thoughtwas exercisedwithin the pale of theGreekChurch on the doctrine of the atonement.

Thethinkingofpreviousageswashandeddown,butneverreducedtoaunity. But the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice was the received viewthroughouttheflourishingperiodofthatchurchforfivecenturies.Man'scaptivityandhisransombyarepresentativewereneverquestioned,evenwhen the ransomwas supposed to have beenpaid to the enemyof thehumanrace.Theelementswereallthere,thoughnotfusedintoaunity;and John Damascene, the dogmatic divine († 750), gathered up thethinking,butdidnotgobeyondAthanasius'views.Whenwesaidthattheelementswereall received,wemeant toaddthat theGreekFathersdidnot ground the atonement sufficiently in the absolute necessity ofsatisfyingdivinejustice.Withthemitwasapositivearrangement,suitedto man's wants, and worthy of God, not an absolute necessity on thesupposition of man's salvation. From the time of Origen, whosephilosophyofjusticewastooplainlyderivedfromClemensAlexandrinus,all the greatFathers of theGreekChurchweremuch less decided thanIrenæusinregardingtheatonementinthelightofSINITSELF,andmoreinclined to connect it merely with the CONSEQUENCES of sin. Theyspeak of the atonement as if God had been pleased to appoint thispositive, provision for man's salvation. Origen, Athanasius, GregoryNazianzen,GregoryNyssen,Theodoret,allassertthatitwaspositive,notbased on a deeper necessity thanman's welfare and God's free choice.Statements, it is true, occur in Cyrill of Jerusalem and Chrysostom,which,iffullythoughtout,wouldhaveledthem,anditmaybedidleadthem,tooccupythedeepergroundofIrenæus,withwhomChrysostomatleast had much in common. But as a school of theology, the GreekChurch, while firmly maintaining the fact of the atonement, stoppedshortatwhathasbeencalleditsrelativenecessity.WeshallseethattheConfessionsoftheReformationtookbetterground.Theindecisiononthepart of the Greek theologians arose from the circumstance that theyrecoiled from a definition which seemed to interfere with the absolutedominionandunconditional freedomofGod.But theydidnot give fulljustice to the forensic and ethical aspect of the question in the divinemoralgovernmentinconnectionwiththeFACTOFSIN.

Our notice of the LATINFATHERSmay bemuchmore succinct. Theyadd nothing, in fact, to the outline of the doctrine furnished by theFathersof theGreekChurch;nay,sometimes,as in thecaseofOrigen's

theory,importedwhatmightmuchbetterhavebeenleftbehind.Itwouldbea tedious repetition toadduce large extracts from theirworks,whenthey are quite similar to those already given. The death of Christ wasviewed as a RANSOM and a SACRIFICE: themodern notion ofmoralredemption and absolute pardon, irrespective of expiation, was utterlyunknown.

TERTULLIAN († A.D. 220), contemporary with Origen, but formed byearlierwriters,assails thegnosticphantom-theoryofChrist'shumanity.Hetreatsitassubversiveoftheatonement,becauseaphantomcouldnotsuffer. Thus, in his work againstMarcion, he says: "Christ's death, theentireweightandfruitoftheChristianname,isdenied;thedeathwhichthe apostle so strongly asserts as certainly real, making it the veryfoundationofthegospelandofoursalvation,andofhisownpreaching"(book iii. ch. 8). The Latinword SATISFACTION, it is commonly said,was first applied by Tertullian to the atonement, though Bähr casts adoubt upon this, on the ground that the term SATISFYwas used for avoluntarysubmission to thedisciplineof thechurch.Hedoesnotdeny,however, that this juristic term found itsway into the nomenclature ofthe Western Church from Tertullian, an eminent jurist before hisconversion.CYPRIAN(A.D.250),whohadmanythingsincommonwithTertullian, is as explicit on vicarious sin-bearing. Thus be says: "Christbore us all (nos omnes portabat), who also bore (portabat) our sins;"languageproceedingontheassumptionthatChristsustainedourpersonsasasurety,andincurredourresponsibilities(Epistle63).

AMBROSE († A.D. 397), a man of Greek culture, speaks of Christ'satonementasapaymentorransom,asemphaticallyasOrigen,whowasinnosmallmeasurehismaster:"Heowednothing,butpaidforall,asHeHimself bears witness, saying, Then I restored what I took not away"(Lib. de Tob. 10). Again, in his elucidations of Genesis, he speaks in astyle recalling the Epistle to Diognetus and Irenæus: "God, therefore,tookfleshthatHemightabolishthecurseofsinfulflesh,andwasmadeacurseforus,thattheblessingmightswallowupthecurse,sinlessnesssin,benevolencecondemnation,andlifedeath.ForHeunderwentdeaththatthe sentencemight be fulfilled, that A SATISFACTIONmight bemade(satisfierit)"(ch.7).

WhenwecometoAUGUSTIN(†A.D.430),thegreatestWesternteacher,the same doctrine of sin-bearing and satisfaction by a sinless surety isexplicitlyasserted.Weare,nodoubt,surprisedthatsolittleissaidbyhimon the subject of the atonement, compared with its prominence inScripture and in the theology of the Reformation. But that may beexplainedby the fact that thechurchrecognised the truth,and that theSupper kept it beforemen'sminds. Besides, polemical discussions hadnevercalledsubstitutioninquestion.Augustinexpresseshimselfthus,onJohn(Tract41):"Wearereconciledonlybythetakingawayofsin,whichistheseparatingmedium.ButtheMediatoristheReconciler.Therefore,thatthewallofseparationmightbetakendown,theMediatorcame,andthePriestHimselfwasmadea sacrifice." Inhis expositionofPs. 95hesays:"Menwereheldcaptiveunderthedevil,andserveddevils,butwereredeemed fromcaptivity.For theycouldsell themselves,but theycouldnotredeemthemselves.TheRedeemercameandgavetheprice,shedHisblood,andboughttheworld.DoyouaskwhatHebought?SeewhatHegave,andfindwhatHebought.ThebloodofChrististheprice:whatisofso greatworth?What, but thewholeworld?What, but all nations?" Inspeaking of Christ's priestly oblation, Augustin lays emphasis on theincarnation, regarded as a something taken from our humanity: "OurPriestreceivedfromuswhatHemightofferforus,forHetookfleshfromus:inthatveryfleshHewasmadeavictim,aburnt-offering,asacrifice"(onPs. 129). InperusingAugustin,weareat timesmade to feel, aswefeelintheperusaloftheGreekFathersgenerally,thattheelementsofthequestion, though recognised, are not yet fused into a unity, nor sopractical as they ought to be. Augustin's view looks like a modifiedOrigenismon theatonement.Thus, inhisworkon theTrinity,hesays:"Whatistherighteousnessbywhichthedevilwasconquered?What,buttherighteousnessofJesusChrist?Andhowwasheconquered?Because,thoughhefoundnothingworthyinHimofdeath,heyetkilledHim;andcertainly it is just that the debtors whom he held should be liberatedwhen theybelieve inHimwhomhe slewwithoutanyobligation todie"(book xiii. ch. 12–15). In the same strain, speaking of death, Augustinsays:"Deathcouldbeovercomeonlybydeath;thereforeChristsuffereddeath, that anUNJUSTDEATHmight overcome just death, andmightdeliverthemthatwerejustlyguilty,whileHewasunjustlyslainforthem"(Serm. li.).He starts from the correct view, thatman is liberated from

Satan'sdominionbymeansofaransomoratoningdeathofferedtoGod;but,tooursurprise,comesinthecourseofhisdiscussiontowhatseemstantamount to the doctrine of a ransom offered to Satan. But it isobviouslymoreamistakeinmannerandexpressionthanindoctrine.Heplainly means that the ransom was displayed and exhibited to Satanrather thanoffered tohim.He seems, indeed, to vacillateor togooverfromonemodeof representing thematter to another.But in realityhewasmuchmoreonAthanasius'ground thanOrigen's;andhis languagemaybeinterpretedasmeaningonlyadisplayorrepresentationtoSatan,so that the enemymust acknowledge the rectitude of the liberation ofbelievers.Augustinhadalltheelementsofthedoctrine,thoughacertainreference to Satanic injustice, as in the case of the Greek Fathers,interceptedhisviewtosomedegree(seeourremarksonActs2:23).

In this historical outline our aim is to trace with all brevity thedevelopmentof thedoctrineof theatonement inhistory,and toexhibitits successivephases;andwe thereforenextadvert to themostmarkedaspect which it assumed in the West. The discussions of Augustin ondivine gracewerenotwithout a special influence. Itwasnowdefinitelyrepresented as offered for the elect or redeemed church. Not that thisoriginated with Augustin, or was peculiar to the West; for the GreekFathers,aswehavealreadynoticed,bringout thesameelement.But itwas polemically maintained in the West against Pelagian and semi-Pelagian views. Prosper, the friend of Augustin, first contended in adefiniteformforspecialredemption,thatis,foraspecificransomfortheelectofGod.But longbeforehistimewefindechoesofthesamething.Thus Cyprian, in his treatise addressed to Demetrianus, says: "Christimpartsthisgrace.HegivesthisgiftofHismercy,bysubduingdeathwiththe trophyofHiscross,byredeemingthebelieverwith thepriceofHisblood"(redimendocredentem).Ambrose,too,inadefiniteway,speaksofacertaintotalityconstitutedbythepeopleofGodastakenbythemselves:"God'speople,"sayshe,"havetheirownfulness.Forthereisreckonedtobe a certain special universality in the elect and fore-ordained,distinguishedfromthegeneralityofall;sothatthewholeworldseemstobedeliveredfromthewholeworld,andallmentakenoutofallmen"(adGratianum). Augustin, whose views of special grace are well known,distinguishes in the same way with Ambrose between two totalities—a

world at enmity with God, and a world which is reconciled. Thus, incommentingon1John2:2(A.D.416),hesays:"Thewholeworld,then,isthechurch,andthewholeworldhatesthechurch.Theworld,then,hatestheworld: thatwhich isatenmityhates the reconciled, thecondemnedthesaved,thedefiledthecleansed.ButthatworldwhichGodreconcilestoHimselfinChrist,andissavedbyChrist,andwhichhasallsinforgivenbyChrist,iselectedoutoftheworldwhichisatenmity,condemned,anddefiled.ForoutofthatmasswhichisentirelyruinedinAdam,areformedvessels ofmercy, inwhich is theworld belonging to the reconciliation"(Tract87onJohn).

PROSPER, in his correspondencewith Augustin, referring to a class ofmen of semi-Pelagian sentiments, complains: "They would affirm thatourLordChristdiedforallmankind,andthatnomanisexceptedfromthe redemptionofHisblood."Without referring toProsper'sverses (deingratis), we find him in different passages of his works declaringexplicitly the doctrine of special redemption. Thus he says (A.D. 440):"HewasnotcrucifiedinChristwhoisnotamemberofthebodyofChrist.WhentheSaviour,then,issaidtobecrucifiedfortheredemptionofthewholeworldbyreasonofthetrueassumptionofhumannature,HemayneverthelessbesaidtobecrucifiedforthoseonlytowhomHisdeathwasmadeavailable" (resp.adCap.Gal. c.9). InanotherworkProsper thusdefines the special reference: "The propriety in redemption doubtlessbelongstothemfromwhomtheprinceofthisworldiscastout.ThedeathofChristwasnotsoexpendedforthehumanrace,thattheyalsobelongedtoHisredemptionwhowerenevertoberegenerated"(resp.obj.Vincen.1). The school of Augustin, while its salutary influence pervaded theWestern Church, uniformly proceeded on the supposition that Christ'satonementwasofferedforachosenpeoplegivenbytheFathertotheSon.The notion that the atonement was for mankind indiscriminately wasunknown. They explained the terms which express universality, byaccepting the languageasdescriptiveofadefinite self-containedwhole,terminated in itself. They speak of that totality as a compact body,designated inScriptureTHEALLorTHEMANY;andundoubtedly thisexplanationisinsomepassagesappropriate.ThegreatnamesofWesternChristendom for a considerable time confessed to Augustin's andProsper'sviewsonparticularredemption,asemphaticallyastheSynodof

Dort long afterwards. Four centuries after Augustin's death, however,Godschalk (A.D. 847) encountered persecution and imprisonment forassertingtheveryopinionswhichAugustiniantheologyhadtriumphantlyvindicated. The age was then no longer capable of maintaining thesovereigntyofgraceamidthecurrentlegalism.Isolatedwitnessesindeedappeared, such asRemigius at Lyons and the Council at Valence (A.D.855), to do what in them lay to maintain the truth and protect itsoppressedchampion.Buttheycouldnotturnthetide.

Herewemay fullynotice theprincipaldefectsattaching to thepatristictheologyasanexhibitionofthedoctrineoftheatonement.Theessentialelements of the doctrine are all found in the Greek and Latin Fathers.Certainlytheyhadnottheremotestconceptionof themoderntheoryofmoral redemption and absolute remission, however they philosophizedonpossibilities.Theyallmaintainedthefactoftheatonement.Itmustbeconfessed, however, that important desiderata and neutralizinginfluencescameintomartheeffectswhichitwasfittedtoproduce;andthreeprincipaldefectsormisleadingtendenciesmaybementioned.

1.Thepatristictheology,consideredasawhole,directedattentionmoreto the bearing of the atonement on men as captives under Satan anddeath, than to its bearing on the divine rights. It was too exclusivelyconsidered in connection with the consequences of sin, and too littleWITH SIN ITSELF. Irenæus was an exception. He apprehended thepropitiationforsin,wethink,moreprofoundly thananyof theFathers.Hedescribeditasamanifestationofdivinegoodnessandrighteousness,but held that it was the obedience of the second Adam, entering byappointment into the position of the first, that Satan might justly beovercome (3. 20). All the others took lower ground. Hence patristictheology,asawhole,surveyedtheatonementinrelationtoman,butdidnotinsistonitsabsolutenecessityasseeninconnectionwiththerightsofGod. Athanasius makes the atonement a satisfaction of the primevalmenaceagainst sin,but in suchawayasargues thathehadno ideaofanything beyond a relative necessity. All the eminent Fathers of theEastern as well as Western Church—Origen, Athanasius, GregoryNazianzen,Augustin,andTheodoret—expresslydeclare thatGod, in theexercise of His free-will and absolute dominion, could have redeemed

men from their captivity without atonement. Augustin speaks ofinnumerable other ways which the Almighty might have adopted todeliverus(deTrin.lib.xiii.c.16).Theodoret,inhisOrationsagainsttheGreeks,maintainsthatitwouldhavebeeneasyforChristtodelivermenbyHismere will, but adds: "He would not displayHis power, but therighteousness of His divine administration" (Orat. vi.). To the samepurposeJohnofDamascus, thedogmaticdivineof theEasternChurch,says: "All is inHispower.He couldbyHisalmightypower rescuemenfromthecaptivityofthedevil;butthelatterwouldhavehadgroundforaccusing God," etc. (i. 3, c. 18). While they argued for the absolutedominion of God, they united to set forth that the actual method ofredemption selected was adapted to man's necessities, and worthy ofGod.Inshort,itwasaspeculationinwhichtheyindulged,aslaterdivinesalso did, without sufficient ground; for they separated God's free-willfrom the moral perfections of His nature—rectitude, wisdom, andgoodness. This speculation, which we find resuscitated after theReformation,assumedtoomuch.Itwasnotaquestionofmerepower,forGodalwaysactsincharacter.Patristictheology,inshort,didnotgivetheatonementthedeepgroundingwhichitmustofnecessityreceive.Hencethelaterdivines,whomerelyaimedtorevivepatristicthought,naturallywentnofurtherthantherelativenecessityoftheatonement,andassertedthatGodchosethiswaybecauseitseemedgoodinHissight.

2.Wenoticeanothermarkeddefectinpatristictheology,whichbeganata very early age, viz. the theory of the remission of sins subsequent toconversion,byprayers,alms,goodworks,andpenitentialexercises.Thisunscriptural notion lost sight of explicit statements which ascribeforgiveness after conversion as well as before it to the blood of Christalone(1John1:7,2:2).Thiswasoneofthemostmischievousmistakesoftheancientchurch.Itbeganatanearlyperiod.WefinditinOrigen,andearlier;forClemensofAlexandriaexpresseshimselfinthisperilousway:Christ's blood was supposed to atone for sins committed beforeconversion, and to secure remission; but after conversion or baptismsomething else was required—good works and satisfactions. Certainterms originally Applied to the discipline of the church, such asSATISFACTION and the like, came in process of time to be applied toGod,asifsomesatisfactionwastobemadebytheChristian.Thistended

to neutralize the atonement, and to cast it into the shade. Thecomparatively limitedallusion to the cross in thepatristic literature, ascomparedwith theReformation age,must strike every one. This is thereason: and Augustin, the great champion of grace in its INWARDoperations, was here as wide of the mark as any of the others. Theforgivenessofsinsafterconversionwas,accordingtohim,ascribedinnosmall measure to good works, prayers, alms, and fasts. Numerouspassagesof thisnaturemightbeproduced fromhisworks.Heexplainshis sentiments on this point at large in the epistle addressed toMacedonius(Ep.53).Hisdoctrinewas,thatinbaptismprevioussinsareforgiven, but that sins committed afterwards are, to a large extent,expiated alsoby sacrifices ofmercy.Thatunscriptural andmischievousposition is found in the Fathers before the times of Augustin. That ittended to intercept the benefit of the atonement, and to neutralize itseffects, needs no proof. The notion descended to the Church of Rome,where we find it in all its force to this day. The Reformation swept itaway.

3. A third neutralizing influence was the doctrine of the eucharisticsacrifice, which came to light about the middle of the third century.Cyprian,thefirstoftheFatherswhospeaksofthebloodofChristinthisdoubtful way, expressed the thought that Christ offered Himself asacrificeattheinstitutionoftheSupper(Letter63).TheFathersusedthetermSACRIFICEinthegeneralsense,thateverythinggiventoGodmaybebiblicallycalledasacrifice.ItwasanunhappyapplicationofthewordwhentheSuppercametobesodesignated;forasacrificeandsacramentaredifferent,—the former implyingwhat isOFFEREDBYUS, the latterimplyingwhat isGIVENTOUS. Properly viewed, the Lord's Supper isnot a sacrifice, but a sacrament, as all the Reformers correctlyrepresented it. Cyprian's use of this unhappy term soon found accesseverywhere; but it hadnothing in commonwith theperversionof laterdays. The Fathers meant only a commemoration of Christ's sacrifice,whenspeakingofChrist'sbodyandbloodaspresent intheSupperasavictim and propitiatory sacrifice. Theymeant nothingmore than to setforth by symbolical language what was the reality to which thesacramental symbols pointed, and what were the effects of Christ'spropitiation. In process of time that style ceased to be hyperbole, and

came in between the worshipper and the atonement of the cross. Theemblemmoreandmorethreatenedtosupersedethereality:sacramentsweremadethemeansofapplyingtheatonement;andgraduallybecameasubstituteforit,tilltheremedialschemewasidentifiedwithsacraments.

III.Wecomenowtomedievaldoctrine.Thetruetheoryoftheatonement,not in full development, but in its fundamental principles, or in thatwhich gives it systematic form, was propounded by ANSELM, welltermedbyonetheGrotiusandLeibnitzofhisage,andbyanotherWolfandAugustinunited.Anycorrectviewofthemedievalperiodwillalwaysplace Anselm at the fountainhead. He stands between two epochs,inheriting theone,moulding theother.Ourpresentobject is todiscussthemerits of his theory of the atonement. At the timewhen he taughttheology at the monastery of Bec, of which he was prior (A.D. 1063–1093), many minds, literate and illiterate, had a desire to obtain anexplanationondogmaticgroundsofthenatureoftheatonement,tomeetspeculativewants,notunlikethetheoriesofourownday.Anselmhimselfwas quite dissatisfied with the current modes of explanation that haddescendedfromthepatristictheology,fornoattempthadbeenmadetodemonstrateonsolidgroundstheinwardnecessityoftheatonement.

A remedywas necessary,more especially as the speculative tendencieswerebeginning todevelops themselvesonall sides.Thedoctrineof theatonementhadlongoccupiedAnselm'smind.Hewassolicitedtogivehissolution of the difficulties then widely discussed; and none was moreimportunate than a favourite pupil, Boso, who had come to himengulphed in theological difficulties. Anselm's work took the form of adialogue betweenhim andBoso, andwas entitled, CURDEUSHOMO,describingthereasonswhynonebutGodincarnatewascompetenttothework of propitiation. It must be translated, WHY A GOD-MAN? Thetreatise consists of two parts, of which the first was prepared after histranslation to the See of Canterbury (1093); and it was finished by itsauthor in the summer of 1098, during his exile from England, at acountry-seatinCampania.Ithas,duringnearlyeightcenturies,directedandinfluencedopinioninthemostremarkablewayonthesubjectoftheatonement.Asalargequotationwasinsertedintheformervolume,thereisthelessnecessityformultiplyingextractsfromthetreatise,anditwill

sufficebrieflytonoticeitsscopeandmerits.

Anselmdismissesthedefectiverepresentationsofthepatristictheology,especiallythetheorythatasatisfactionwasmadetothelegitimateclaimsof Satan (i. 7). He sees in the actual dominion of Satan the righteoussentenceofGod,andthewell-deserveddoomofmankind,butrepudiatesanylegitimateclaimonthepartoftheadversarytoreceiveasatisfaction.Anselm goes back to THE IDEAOF SIN, and sketches a theory of theatonement,ofwhichwemaysaythatittookinallthescatteredpartsoftruth found in thepreviousdiscussions,butmadean immenseadvanceon them, as it put the atonement in connectionwith theMAGNITUDEOF GUILT. This was an important advance on the patristic theologygenerally,whichsurveyedtheatonementonlyinthelightofourcaptivity,or from the view-point supplied by THE EFFECTS of sin. Thefundamental thoughtsofAnselmare the following:—Sin isnothingelsebutnot rendering toGodHisdue.Hewhodoesnot render toGod thisduehonour,withdrawsfromGodwhatisHis,anddishonoursGod;andthisistocommitsin.EverysinnermustrepaythehonourwhichhetookfromGod,andrestoreit.ThisisthesatisfactionwhicheverysinnermustmaketoGod(lib.i.ch.11).Referringtodivinejustice,whichisdescribedasnothingbutGodHimself,Anselmasserts:Thereisnothingwhichitismore just forGod tomaintain than thehonourofHismajesty (ch. 13);and he adds: It is indispensably necessary that every sin should befollowed either by satisfaction or punishment (ch. 15). And as to thesatisfaction,Anselm'spositionis:MancannotreceivewhatGodpurposedtobestowonhimwithoutRESTORINGthewholeofwhathetookawayfromGod (ch. 23).He brings out, in themost emphaticway, thatGodalonewas in a position to render this, and consequently thatHemustperformitasGOD-MAN,whichevincesthenecessityoftheincarnation.Fromthiscircumstancethesatisfactionpossessedinfinitevalue,notonlycompensating for human guilt, but completely restoring the injured orinsultedhonourofGod.

Theinfluenceofthistreatiseonsubsequentcenturiesismainlyduetothefact that it gave such a happy statement of the INDISPENSABLENECESSITYofsatisfaction.TheamplerstatementsoftheReformersastotheconstituentelementsoftheatonementdidnotsubvertinanydegree

thisunanswerableproofof its indispensablenecessity,but fitted into itwithoutany incongruity.The theoryhasdefects, aswe shall see;but inrespectofthegreatdemonstrationwhichitfurnishesastothenecessityof satisfaction, the work is as seasonable and valuable as when it firstappeared. The peculiar distinction belonging to Anselm's theory,contrasted with all that preceded it, and with most theories thatsucceededittothisday,was,thatheviewedtheatonementinconnectionwithSINASSUCH,andnotmerelyinconnectionwiththeconsequencesof sin. He based his argument on the magnitude and enormity of sin(nondum considerasti quanti ponderis sit peccatum, i. 21). The infiniteevil of sin is the great thought that at once confronts us at thecommencement of the treatise. The patristic theology, especially in theAthanasiantypeanddoctrine,hadbeenwont toconnect theatonementwiththeoriginalthreatagainstsin,andviewedthepenaltyastheresultofthe divine veracity. Anselm viewed the necessity of the atonement farmore profoundly than any of the Fathers, not even excepting Irenæus,thoughhewantselementswhichthelatterenforced.Theelementsoftheatonement,aswehaveseen,existedinthechurchinanisolatedform,butneededtobefusedandmoltentogetherbyonewhocouldapprehenditinitsinwardnecessity;andthisAnselmperformed.

Withregardtothedistributionofmatterintroducedintothetreatise,itisas follows:—After the first preliminary chapters, he demonstrates theabsolutenecessityofsatisfactionasaconditionofforgiveness(i.11–19).This FIRST division of the work may be called the enunciation of theproblem.Heestablishesthenecessityoftheatonementongroundswhichhave only to be stated to constrain the assent of every spiritual mindimbuedwithanyadequateapprehensionof thecreature's relation to itsMaker.He puts this necessity on the ground thatGod's rightsmust berestored, and His honour repaired; and that to pronounce pardonwithout reparationwould violateGod'sdeclarative glory.Then, inwhatmay be called the SECONDdivision of the treatise,Anselm shows thatunaidedmanisincompetenttorestoreGod'shonour,andthatthisveryinabilityiscriminal(i.20–24).Afterthisheproceedsinthesecondbookto establishwhatmaybe called theTHIRDpoint ofhis argument, thatonlyadivinepersonorGod-manwascompetenttomakethesatisfactionthat repairsGod's injuredhonour (ii. 1–22).This is followedby a brief

outline of the events of Christ's historic life, considered as essentialrequisites to the solution of the problem, which was in harmony withGod'sperfections,aswellaswiththedictatesofenlightenedreason.

Wehavethusput togetherthe integralpartsof thetheory.Anselmmaybe said to stand alone in all antiquity in the clear enunciation of theproblemthatwastobesolvedonbehalfofhumanity.Astothepositiveelements or actual fulfilment of the divine claims, the theology of theReformation far exceeded all that this treatise contains,—nay, in thisrespect, superseded it. But, in the statement of the NECESSITY ofsatisfaction, Anselm has never been surpassed, and in this respect thetreatiseisstillinvaluable.TheTheodicæaofAnselmisrepletewiththoselofty conceptions of God's excellency and claims with which we arebroughtincontactinAugustinandEdwards—mindsofthesamefamily;andwefeelthatnothingbutdivineteaching,unitedtogreatholinesssaidintimatecommunionwithGod,couldhaveputhiminpossessionofsuchviews of sin. Assuming the existence of sin as an experimental fact, heregards it as an infraction of the divine rights, a spoliation of thatdeclarativegloryforwhichtheuniverseexists,andadisorderorcriminalrebellion in the moral universe. His discussion commences with therelationwhichthemoralGovernoroccupiestosin,showingthatsinisafact for which provisionmust bemade in God'smoral government,—adisharmony thatmust be reduced to order. The atonement is notwithhimaswithGrotius, a governmental displaybefore theuniverse; nor amerely positive device,whichwaives the essential claims of justice andoffersbutthesemblanceofsatisfaction.Onthecontrary,thesatisfaction,according to Anselm, is grounded on deep inward necessity, and is aprovision for SIN, and not merely for its CONSEQUENCES. Heparticularly excels in exhibiting the necessity of satisfaction for such atremendousdisorderandevilassin,orofpunishmentastheonlyotheralternative.Comparedwithothertheoriesbeforeorsincehisdayastothegroundof theatonement, thisoutline is immenselymorecommanding,and better fortified by evidence. He knows no court but that of GodHimself, and the harmony of His attributes. In this great transactionthere is no human nor angelic public before which God makes agovernmental display: His public is Himself, or His own perfections,whichareinviolable.

AsIdislike themodernmodeofrepresentinganotherman'sviewsbyamere artificial construction from a reviewer's point of view, withoutsufficientextracts,Iwouldrequestthereader'sperusalofthepassagesatlarge,extractedfromthistreatiseinourformervolume,astheyservetoexhibitAnselm'sviewsintheirnaturalorder(pp.383–398).Letmenowenteronacriticalestimateofthemeritsofthistreatise.

Nowork perhaps on the atonement ever encountered such determinedoppositionatthehandofmodernRationalism,andnotlesssofromthechampions of that new theory which is termed moral redemption,opposedtothejuristicviewoftheology.WhenAnselmdeclaresthatGodcannomorefailtomaintainHishonourandjusticethanHecanlie,theydenounce him as giving a representation of God as if He were animplacable and vindictive tyrant. In spite of all these characteristicdenunciationsofmodernRationalism,thistheoryforeightcenturieshasgiven repose and comfort to themost earnestminds of all churches: itwasacceptedbyeveryProtestantchurch,and,wethink,Godwillnotletitdie. The reason of the opposition it has encountered may in largemeasurebetracedtothefactthatitestablishestheperfectrationalityofthe atonement as a satisfaction to divine justice. Rationalism, with itsreasonsofa loworder, isheremetonitsownground,anddisarmedbyreasons to which no spiritual mind takes exception. EnlightenedChristianrationalityisbroughtfacetofacewithnaturalreason;groundsareassignedforanatonementsufficienttocommendittoeveryonealivetothefactofsinasadisorderintheuniverse;andthereasonstowhichAnselm appeals in opposition to the exceptions of which Rationalismavails itself, are based on inwardnecessity in themoral government ofGod.Itisnotdifficult,perhaps,toexplainwhyRationalismhassokeenlyopposedthisdemonstration.RationalismarrogatesallreasondemandingaWHY and wherefore for every truth; and it here encounters reasonsmorethanithaseveranswered.

Starting from the fact of SIN which must be expiated, Anselm, as thepreface purports, undertakes to prove by necessary reasons apart fromthe historical Christ (remoto Christo), that man could not be savedwithoutsuchasatisfactionasaGod-manalonewascompetent tooffer.Asitisademonstrationconductedagainstacertainphaseofspeculative

unbelief, he proceeds on common grounds in reason. What gave thetreatise its importance, was his conception of sin as an infinite evil,arguingasingularlyrealizingviewofGod.God,hemaintains,iswrongedby sin, andHis rights takenaway (aufertDeoquod suumest); and theCreatorowesittoHimselftovindicateHisdeclarativeglory,andsecurethehonourduetoHimasthepersonalGod.This isthecentralpointofAnselm's theory,—one of those elements too much displaced bysubsequent speculations. Frequently Anselm's critics have notapprehended it.But it is comprehensiveenough to take inall themoredefinite statements as to the divine law furnished by the Reformationtheology.Somedisparagethenotionofrestoringthedivinehonourasanoutward view-point of abstract reflection; and it has been said that themodeadoptedbytheProtestantChurch,ofreferringChrist'sworktothedivine law, ismore practical, living, and experimental. But, in point offact, these two modes of representation do not exclude each other:Anselm's principle comprehends the other. The one is from the view-pointofChristianexperience;theotherfromtheview-pointofthedivineright.

Theinwardnecessityoftheatonement,onthesuppositionofpardon,wasevincedbyAnselmashadneverbeenexhibitedbefore.Heputitinanewlightwhenhebasedhistheoryonthegreattruththatmanwasmadetohonour God by a pure nature and sinless obedience; and that therestorationofthishonourtothefull,nay,toalargerdegree,isatributeorclaimwhichtheSupremeJusticeowestoHimself.AnselmstartsfromGod'sdeclarativeglory,—aconceptionnotonlybiblicalinitsimport,butnecessaryinanexperimentalpointofview,andcomprehendingunderitallthemoredefinitestatementssubsequentlymadeinthechurchonthesubject of imputed righteousness. There is a biblical foundation for theposition that the divine honour was taken away, and must needs berestored as an indispensable condition for forgiveness: for the apostleplainlyexhibitsitinhisstatementofredemption.HeconnectsthegloryofGodwithsinandsatisfaction.Norcouldconsciencebesatisfiedwithanymethodofatonementnotsecuringthedivinehonour,butinvolvingamereconnivanceatdefects.

This shows that, far from propoundingmere abstract reflection as the

guiding principle of his theory, as has been alleged, Anselm derived itfrom the centreofbiblical andexperimental truth.Against the tenorofhistheoryithasbeenarguedthatmancannotbesaidtogivetoGod,ortotakeawayfromHim.Thatwouldbetrue,wereitaquestionastoman'srebelliontendingtotheprejudiceofGod'sESSENTIALblessedness.ButitisaquestionofHisdeclarativeglory,andofHisrelationtotheworld,existingonly tobringback toHima revenueof praise.All thisAnselmputs in a formarguing thedeepest viewsofGod'spersonal relations totheuniverse.

A certain surprise is justly occasioned by the fact that he makes noexpress mention of THE LAW, which must always be taken in as thestandard of obedience. Whether that arose from the fact that he hadundertakentoargueongroundsofreason,ortoavoidthesuppositionofa law standing aboveGod, or because he thought it best to run up thewhole question to the relations immediately occupied by the personalGodtotheworld,andwithoutatrueconceptionofwhichneithersinnorpunishmentcanbeadequatelyapprehended, it isdifficult todetermine.ButhedoesnottreatofSIN,ofPUNISHMENT,andoftheWILLoftheSupreme,intheimpersonalwayinwhichthesepointsareoftenviewedindiscussionsofthisnature.TheSupremeJusticeis,accordingtoAnselm,God Himself (Suprema Justitia non est aliud quam ipse Deus, i. 13).FromthisviewoftheintimaterelationwhichthepersonalGodoccupiesto the world, Anselm describes sin as an infinite evil—an infraction ofdivine right—aspoliationof thedivinehonour,ofwhichGodcannotbedeprived;foreithermenspontaneouslycomplywiththepreceptivewillofGod,or fallunderHispunitivewill,—the latterbeinganexactionof thedivine honour from the sinner against his will, and in some sort asatisfaction;andfromthis,saysAnselm,asinnercannomorefleethanhecanfleefromthecircumambientheaven,whichherecedesfromatonepoint only to approach it at another. But we shouldmisapprehend hisviewofsinwerewetoconcludethatheregardeditasameretransientact—the mere time-act, so to speak, of a creature on one occasiontransgressingthewillofGod.Rather,sinistheperpetualcontrarietyofanature which is enmity against God (nequaquam potest velle mentirivoluntas,nisiinquacorruptaestveritas,i.12).Thisdemonstrationofthenecessityof satisfactionwasanewepoch in thehistoryof thedoctrine;

anditconnectsAnselm'snamewiththeatonementmuchinthesamewayasAthanasius'name is recalled in connectionwith theproofofChrist'sdeity, or Augustin's with the doctrines of efficacious grace, or Luther'swithjustificationbyfaithalone.

Another objection to this theory is, that Anselm gives prominence todivine justice at the expense of divine love. This is wholly withoutfoundation,andcanbeadducedonlybythosewhowillseenothingintheDivine Being but love. Unquestionably LOVE is the source of theatonement;forwhenGodsparednotHisownSon,thatdeliveryofChristcanbe regarded in no other light than as amanifestation of sovereign,self-moving love.ButAnselmdemonstrates thenecessityof satisfactiontoshutmenup tounmerited love,which isnowherecalled inquestion,butpresupposedastheoriginatingelementofthewholesatisfaction.Butthegreater theobstaclesurmounted,andthegreater thepricepaid, thegreaterobviouslyisthelove.AreferencetoAnselm'sworkshowsthathecomprehendedinhisexhibitionofjusticenotonlywhatwaspunitive,butall that theDivineBeing owed toHimself.He shows that thenecessitydemanding the incarnation and humiliation of the Son of God for therestorationofthedivinehonour,wasnothingbutthedemandofjustice;butthat,insteadofobscuringdivinelove,thisonlymagnifiedandexaltedit,forloveiscommendedbythegreatnessofthesatisfaction.AndwefindAnselm winding up his demonstration by expressly placingmercy andjusticeinharmoniousconcert.

The relation of this theory to later modes of representation, andespeciallytothatoftheReformationtheology,whichsupplementedit,isworthy of notice. The difference between the two corresponds to thepeculiarelementsofthetwoschoolsoftheology.Anselmislesshappyinfillinguphisoutlinethanindefiningtheboundarylinesofthatnecessitywhich could not bemodified.He has, however, laid downprinciples ofsuch general application as comprehend the ampler positive doctrinesuppliedbytheReformation,andevennecessitatedinamannerabetterexpositionofthetruththanhehimselfhadsupplied.Hefailstofilluphisownoutline.

Anobjectionhasbeenmadetothegeneralcharacterofthereasoning.Butforthisthereisnofoundation,forhebringsenlightenedreasontodisarm

the prejudices of natural reason, and introduces a higher rationality.Starting from the infinite guilt of sin as his view-point, he exhibits theadaptationofthedivineeconomytothewantsoffallennature—thetruerationaleofeverygospeldoctrine.

Three points of difference, however, may be traced between thisadmirable treatise and the Reformation theology, and these we shallbrieflynotice.

1. Anselm, following out a speculation derived from Angustin,embarrassed the question by an unnecessary reference to the fall ofangels.Hearguedthatthenumberoffallenangelsmustbecompensatedbyanequalnumber,perhapsa greaternumber,of redeemedmen.Theintroduction of this speculation, which can neither be affirmed nordenied,asitisbeyondthecircleofourknowledge,marsthesymmetryofAnselm's work (lib. i. 16–18). But it is a mere episode, which may beseparated from the theory itself; and theReformation theology happilydisembarrassed the question of all reference to the fall of angels, andlimitedthescopeoftheatonementtomanalone.

2.Asecondpointofdifference, towhich it isnecessarytorefer, is, thattheactiveandpassiveobedienceofChristwasnever correctly stated inany of the explanations furnished by Anselm in connection with theatonement. A further expansion of truth was reserved for theReformation, by penetratingmore deeply into the nature of the divinelaw than was ever discovered to the great scholastic. What his theorywanted, indeed, was a full recognition of the claims of THE DIVINELAW,andof theatonementasa satisfactionof theseclaims inall theirbreadth and extent. Anselm, on the contrary, stopped short at anindefinite equivalent, content to forego allmore explicit statement. HecontemplatedtheworkofChrist inconcreteconnectionwithHisdivineperson,andconcludedthatonthisaccountitwasanamplereparationofthedivinehonour.

The theoryofAnselmmaybesaid inonerespect tomakeprovision fortheactiveandsufferingobedienceofChrist;andinanotherrespect,fromthe cause assigned, to allowneither of these elements to come to theirrights. He seems to have been deterred, in common withmuch of the

patristictheology,whichheinherited,fromfullyadoptingtheconclusionthat Christ made an exchange of places with us under the law, to theextent thatHe entered unreservedly andwithout exception into all theobligations of His people. He drew too wide a distinction betweenpunishment and satisfaction, as if they had nothing in common. Heconsiders the death of Christ only as a voluntary deed. In definingsatisfactionhedidnotinquirewhatisincludedintheobligation,norreadoffthesatisfactionfromtheclaimsofthedivinelaw,ofwhichitisbutthefulfilment.TheSUFFERINGOBEDIENCEdoesnotcometoitsrightsinAnselm's theory, though he held that the satisfaction involved thespontaneousofferingupofChrist's life.The reasonof thiswas, thatheconsidered the indefinite equivalent an ample reparation of the divinehonour.NordoestheACTIVEOBEDIENCEofChristcometoitsrightsinAnselm's theory. Some provision was undoubtedlymade for the activeobedience, as an indispensable prerequisite; but it was not fullydeveloped.He fixed attention too exclusively upon the death of Christ,withouttakingintoaccountthelifeoftheLordJesus,asweshouldhaveexpected from his delineation of the necessity of satisfaction. But, notguided by the more correct views of divine law to which the churcharrived in the days of the Reformation, Anselm stopped short at anindefinite satisfaction, which he saw in connection with the God-mansurrenderingHimself todeath.He regarded this as a compensation forthedivinehonour,withoutanalysingitindetail.Hedidnotoccupythatpointofviewwhichalonecouldleadhimtogivedueprominencetotheelements of active and passive obedience; and without deeming moreprecisionnecessary,heheldthatthesurrenderoflifebyadivinepersonwas of worth and dignity sufficient to countervail the evil of sin, andmakefullreparationtothedivinehonour.

3.Wemustaddathirdpointofdifference.TheReformationtheologyonthe doctrine of the atonement starts from man's personal relation toChristbyjustifyingfaith.Itwasanthropological.Man'sconsciousnessofguilt,derivedfromapprehendinghispositionunderthelaw,coupledwiththe conviction that the lawmust be fulfilled by amediator bearing thepenaltyandcomplyingwiththepositiverequirement,wastheview-pointof theReformation theology.Anselm's is rather systematic.He omittedtheexperimental applicationof theatonement, and confinedhimself to

theobjectiveside.TheReformerslookedatitfromanotherview-point—fromthesubjectivesideofuniontoGodinChristbyjustifyingfaith.ButinAnselm'sMEDITATIONSthedoctrineofexchangeisbroughtoutinanexperimental way, with scarcely less clearness than by Luther himself,andinamannerwhichpresupposesthattheapplicationoftheatonementisby faithalone.Hisviewsof the infiniteevilofsinareexpressed fromhisownconsciousness;andthoughhesayslittleoftheapplicationoftheatonementbyfaithaloneasthereceptivehand,noonecanreadAnselmwithouttheconvictionthatthistruthunderliesallhesays,thoughitwasreservedtotheReformationagetofindfullexpressionforit.

TheimmediatecauseofthevastinfluenceexercisedbyAnselm'streatisewas due to the statement of the absolute necessity of the satisfaction,more than to the exposition of its essential elements. He laid theformation for all the subsequent grounding of the doctrine; and theadvancesmadeat theReformationdidnot subvert the foundation laid,butfittedintoitwithoutincongruity.

OntheviewsofmedievalwritersafterAnselmitisunnecessarytodwellatlarge.Theirspeculations,withthesingleexceptionofAquinas,didnottendtoadvancetheknowledgeofthedoctrine;andwithoutbeingawareofanyabrupt transition,wemightpass fromAnselm to theReformers.Anselm, in his atonement-theory, stood very much alone. The far-reachingconsequencesofhisviewswerenotdiscerned.Wehearnomore,it is true, of a ransom paid to the devil; that whole theory nowdisappeared. But what was done subsequently was rather a return topatristicviewsoftherelativenecessityoftheatonement;andduringthecourseoffourcenturies,inwhichscholasticismhadfullplay,exceptingafew patches from Anselm, elements of a neutralizing or negativecharacterwentonincreasing.Afewnoticeswillsuffice,forourobjectisrather to point out the stages and landmarks of the history of thedoctrine,thantoaccumulateindividualopinions.

ABELARD, sympathizing neitherwith the holiness of Anselm's life northesoundnessofhisdoctrinalopinions,wasadirectantithesis ineveryrespect.Hehasbeenoflatemorecanvassedthanhedeserves.Eloquent,logical,butethicallylax,hehasbeenwelltermedtheprecursorofmodernRationalism. His views of redemption were the logical result of his

Pelagianviewofsin.Heallowedonlysinfuldeeds,butnosinfulnature,andnorepresentativepositionofthefirstman,oranyimputationofhissin:viewsnaturallyleadinghimtodenythenecessityofsatisfaction.Herepresentedpardonasabsolute,withoutregardtoamediator'swork.Hisshallow view of sin disjointed everything. Hence, according to him,reconciliationwas all onman's side; andGod's anger needednot to beappeased, butman's. Thiswas but the prelude ofmodernRationalism.The well-known BERNARD, deeply offended by Abelard's audacity,controverted his views with all the energy of his character, but didnothing toadvance thedoctrine.Heheld that sincouldnotbe forgivenwithout a satisfaction, but did not insist on its absolute necessity. In aword,Bernard tookupAugustin's ground,whichwas amodification ofthetheoryofOrigen.PETERLOMBARD,magisterSententiarum,whosecompend was long classical in the Western Church, furnished acompilation of sayings from the Fathers, digested into system. Hereproducedtheindefinitetypeofthepatristictheology,afterAnselmhadoverthrown its insecure positions; and was little influenced by eitherAnselmorAbelard,thoughhediscoversmarksoflivinginaperiodwhenthe old form was in process of dissolution. His starting-point was thenotionofmerit(Lib.Senten.iii.18);andheheldthatChristmeritedforHimself and for us,—for Himself by His humility, love, righteousness,andothervirtues,whichHeexercisedfromHisconception;andforusbyHis sufferings. Lombard's Book of Sentences became the text-book onwhichteachersandwriterscommentedformanycenturies,andwethussee the ideascurrenton theatonement inWesternChristendom.Therewasmuchuncertainty andvacillation inhis views.Heheld thatwearejustified by the lovewhich redemption awakens in us in return (et perhoc,sayshe,justificamur).

ThreescholasticdivinesplainlyexhibittheinfluenceofAnselm'stheory:HUGO a Sancto Victore, ALEXANDER HALESIUS, andBONAVENTURA. They cannot be said, however, to have rendered anyserviceinthefurtherelucidationofthedoctrine.

HUGOOFST.VICTORmakessomeapproachtothedistinctionbetweenthe active and suffering obedience of Christ (Sacr. c. 4). He speaks ofChrist discharging man's obligation to the Father by His birth, and

expiatingman'sguiltbyHisdeath(reatumhominis),—acrudestatementof the two constituent elements of the atonement; but, had they beentaken inearnest,andcarriedout, thegermofa fullerdevelopmentwasthere. He discovers plain marks of Anselm's influence, though notasserting the absolute necessity of the atonement. Itmight, he alleges,havebeeneffectedinadifferentway, thoughthiswasmostappropriateon many grounds stated. The necessity of the incarnation for theatonementappears,accordingtohim,fromthefactthatmanmustofferareparationtoGodforhisapostasy,andsufferanadequatepunishmentasasatisfactionfortheindignity.

ALEXANDEROFHALESadheredtoAnselmstillmoreclosely thantheformer, adducing frequently thewords ofAnselm.Hales lays down theposition that, according to divine justice, sin is never remittedwithoutpunishment (Summa, iii. 16, 3, 4); andhedistinguishes, likeLombard,betweenmeritandsatisfaction,affirmingthatChristmeritedglorificationforHIMSELF,andFORUSthecancellingofguilt.Thereis,however,theusualconfusionwhichweeverywhereencounter inthisperiodfromtheneutralizingelementsofgoodworks.

For BONAVENTURA'S views, letme refer to Shedd's excellent outline.He came under the influence of Anselm's opinions. Bonaventuraacknowledged that God, equallymerciful and righteous, revealed thesetwodivineattributes intheirharmonyandequipoise.Hedidnotaffirmthe absolute necessity of satisfaction, though, like the Fathers, heacknowledged that, of all the possible modes, this was the mostappropriate. These writers were afraid of invading the free-will orabsolutepowerofGod,whentheymighthavethoughtoutthemattertoanend,andseenthatit isnotamerequestionofomnipotence,butoneinvolvingGod'smoralperfections;andwecan,withAnselm,affirm theabsolute necessity, on the same ground on which we affirm that Hecannotlie.

TheThomistandScotistopinionsfilluptheremainderoftheScholasticperiod.

THOMAS AQUINAS, the great systematic divine of medieval times,exercised considerable influence in connectionwith the doctrine of the

atonement. He is represented by Lutheran divines, such as ThomasiusandPhilippi, as contributingnothingof value.Wecannot concede this;buthisserviceslaychieflyinaspheretowhichLutherandivinesdiscovernofavourableinclination,—viz.thespecialdestinationoftheatonement.

Having much in common with Anselm, he differs from him inmaintaining that the satisfaction was wholly of free-will on the part ofGod, and that justice is based on the positive will of God. He will notallow that satisfaction was of absolute necessity, though the mostappropriatemeansfortheend.Astotheelementsofthesatisfaction,twopointsmaybetermedpeculiar tohim.(1.)Astothesuffering,he isnotcontent merely to name the death of Christ: he shows that Heencounteredhumansufferingformenofalltribesandallranks,inmindandbody, inhonourandestate;and that theamountofpainwhichHeenduredwasthegreatestthatcouldbeborneinthispresentstate(Quest.46. 4–7). But he adds, that what contributed to make it an adequatesatisfaction,was the greatness ofHis love, thedignity ofHis person asGod-man, and the magnitude of His sorrow. One noteworthy positionwas, that the Redeemer's obedience was a fulfilment of the moralprecepts of love to God and man, as well as of what was properlyceremonial; and this suffering obedience was free and voluntary. (2.)AnotherpeculiarityofThomas'doctrinewas,thattheLord'ssatisfactionwas superabounding,—that is, exceeding the requirement. Though thispositionwasafterwardssadlyperverted to thepurposesof superstition,yet, as put by Aquinas himself, it expressedwhat was often uttered byorthodox divines, such as Quenstedt and Dannhauer, in the LutheranChurch. (3.) There is another point to which great value attaches: hedemonstratesthattheatonementwasmadeforthechurch.SubstitutionintheroomofotherswasbasedbyAquinasonthepositionthattherewasanorganicunitybetweenChrist theHeadand thechurchHisbody.Heconceives of Christ as the Head of a mystic body—viz. the church ofredeemedmen—andsets forth thisgreat truth inamannerworthyofadisciple ofAugustin. "Thewhole church," says he, "which is themysticbodyofChrist,isaccountedasonepersonwithitsHead,whichisChrist"(SummaTh.Q.8).Theanalogybetweentheheadastherulingpart,theseat of the senses, and the source of the entire movements of themembers,isconsistentlycarriedout.ChristcomprehendsinHimselfthe

whole company of redeemed men through all time; and, by thisconjunctionbetweenChristandHischurch,allthattheHeadperformedredounds to the advantage of the members. Aquinas maintained andcarriedout thisposition to its legitimateconsequences inrespectof theLord'ssufferings,sofarastheyfallundertheideaofmerit.Satisfactionwas destined for all believers, and belongs to them as His members(Quest. 48. 2). His sufferings won the forgiveness of sins and theremissionofpunishment(Art.3).

Theimportanceofthiscontributiontothedoctrineoftheatonement,willnot be questioned by any one who takes its dimensions. It has alwaysbeen accepted, fromAquinas' days down to the present time, by everyadvocate of substitution in its special reference, as the only tenableexplanation. This presupposes not a vague, indefinite, haphazardrelation,but anactualonenessof apeculiarnaturebetweenChrist andthe people of God. Suretyship presupposes this relation; imputationproceedsuponit:thepenaltywhichChristenduredcouldnototherwisehavebeeninflicted;andtheyforwhomthiswasdonenaturallyshareinthebenefit,orreceivewhatwasdestinedforthem.

AquinasconceivedofChristastheHeadofHismysticbody,andnotasthemereHeadofhumanity.Theobjectionurgedagainstthispositionbythe above-named Lutheran theologians, is that it puts to hazard theimportanceandvalueofredemption,bylimitingitscompass.Thetheoryproceeded on the Augustinian doctrine of election; and, so far fromundermining the value of the atonement, it secures its efficacy to thechurch of redeemed men; and this is in harmony with all biblicalstatements. What the atonement was to unsaved men we spare toinquire; but Scripture proclaims that the death of Christ redeemed thechurch. By this mode Aquinas explained two things. First, he met thecavilthatonlytheguilty,andnottheinnocent,shouldsatisfy:hisanswerwas,thattheHeadandmembersareonemysticperson(Quest.48.a.2).And,next,heexplainedthetransferofthemeritsofChrist'ssufferingstotheredeemed.

ThelastoftheScholasticstowhomwereferasamoulderofopinion,wasDUNS SCOTUS, a great speculative and dialectic mind, but lackingspiritualelementstoregulatethoughtindivinethings.Heoccupiedvery

muchthesamerelationtoAquinasasdidAbelardtoAnselm.

Notwithstanding his acknowledgedmental power, the theory of Scotuswas superficial. Properly speaking, he has no atonement at all. ThisceasestocausesurprisewhenweapprehendhisPelagianviewofsin.Hedeniedtheinfiniteevilofsin(peccatumasefarmaliterestactusfinitus).He consequently impugned the infinitemerit of Christ, describing it asbelonging only to His human nature. Scotus' view of the atonementdiffers only by a shade from the absolute redemption or absoluteforgivenessofmodernRationalism.

Scotus' theoryreducesman'sredemptiontoamereacceptilationonthepartofGod.GodwaspleasedtoaccountChrist'sworkasafitmediumofsalvation by an act of acceptance (acceptatio divina). He denied thenecessity of satisfaction, and would overthrow the theory of Anselm,whichheexaminedmorefullythananyotherofthescholasticwriters.SoshallowarehisviewsofwhatwasnecessarytosatisfytheclaimsofGod,that he asserts: A good angel or a goodmanwas competent to rendersatisfaction;andhedoesnotdenythepossibilityofamansatisfyingforhimself.Amereman,byameritoriousactoflove,couldhaveofferedthesatisfaction,accordingtoScotus,forhevieweditasdependingwhollyondivineacceptance.

Thesuperaboundingsatisfaction(Christipassiononsolumsufficiens,sedetiam SUPERABUNDANS SATISFACTIO) was the point of discussionbetween the Thomists and the Scotists. The Thomist position as to theinfinite merit of Christ's satisfaction received ecclesiastical sanction in1343;butitwaspervertedtolendsanctiontothefigmentofatreasuryofmeritsatthedisposalofthechurch.

AfterAquinas the confusion in the church as to the atonementbecameextreme, Scotus' followers tending largely to complicate opinion. AnexceptionmaybemadeinfavourofGerson,whoknewhowtodistinguishmercyandjustice,andtoharmonizethemintheatonement;andalsoinfavour of medieval mystics, such as Tauler and Wessel. The latter issupposed to have approached to the definition of Christ's work as anactiveandsufferingobedience;at leastheuses termsalmostequivalent(satisfaciendo and satispatiendo). But we cannot open the later

ScholasticswithoutfeelingthattheyarewhollyawayfromBibleground.Theyagitatequestionsof graceandmerit, satisfactionand redemption,guilt and punishment, which are but a tangled skein of nomenclature.They are on a wide sea of legalism, remedial sacraments, andphilosophical terminology, confounding objective and subjective—theworkofChristandtheworkofman.WilliamOccam,inhisCommentaryonPeterLombard'sCompend.,omitstheatonementaltogether.

IV.WecomenowtotheREFORMATIONPERIOD,whichbroughtbacktheologyto its truecentre.Thegreatquestionof thatage turnedonthejustificationof the sinner;and theatonement therefore,as thematerialcauseofjustification,wastheturning-pointofthewholediscussions.Theatonementwasnowsetuponacandlesticktogivelighttoallthehouse.The merit and satisfaction of works were wholly removed from theground of man's justification; deep views of the INFINITE GUILT OFSIN, as seen in the light of the divine law, were diffused; and the solemediatorshipofChristwasfullyrecognised.TheReformation,turningonthese points, began in Luther's own heart, and may be traced in hismemorable experience before it became the great moving force in theworld's history. The deep consciousness of guilt, derived from vividlyapprehending his position under the law, coupled with the convictionthatthelawmustneedsbefulfilled,shuthimuptotheONEMEDIATORbetweenGod andman, presented in the gospel as bearing the penalty,and complying with the positive requirement, of the law. This wasLuther's view-point personally, and this was the view-point of theReformationtheology.PrevioustheorieswantedafullrecognitionofTHECLAIMSOFTHEDIVINELAW,andoftheatonementasasatisfactionoftheseclaimsinalltheirextent;andthisbecametheelementinwhichthetheology of the Reformation moved, and by which all other truth wascoloured.Onthesubjectoftheatonement,thedivinesoftheReformationperiodwereinthehabitofarguingfromman'sobligationstothenatureofChrist'sundertaking,andthenconverselyfromthelattertotheformer.Theirmain position, to which theywere conducted by deeper views ofTHE EXTENT OF THE LAW, and of its unbending claims, was, thatChrist's satisfactionwasperfectly identicalwith thatwhichmen shouldthemselves have rendered; and in the atonement they read off theunalterableclaimsofthedivinelaw.

A brief sketch of the doctrine of the Reformation, for obvious reasons,maysuffice.EverytheologicalreadermaysafelybepresumedtohaveanadequateacquaintancewiththeviewsofatleastsomeoftheReformers—Luther,Melanchthon,Calvin,Knox,orCranmer.Besides,allthesymbolicbooks, articles, confessions, and catechisms of the Protestant churches,whether Lutheran or Reformed, contain a full expression of theReformationdoctrine.Withoutexception,itisthecommondoctrineofallevangelicalchurches.EveryProtestantchurchembracedtheReformationdoctrine on this point asTHEULTIMATETRUTH.Theyheld it as theadequate expression of biblical doctrine, in the same way as they allaccepted theNicene-Constantinopolitandoctrineof theTrinity,and thedoctrineofChrist'sperson,ratifiedatChalcedon,andmanyofthemtheAugustinian doctrine of grace, as the ultimate truth on these differenttopics. As there is such a general recognition of the doctrine of theReformationonthesubjectoftheatonementinallthechurches,itwouldbesuperfluoustogiveadetailedoutlineofwhatisgenerallyknown.Thesound elements in the development of previous centuries were allcombined into a unity, and placed in a new setting or connection. Thedoubtful and neutralizing elements, interfering with the meritoriousgroundofacceptance,werethrownoff;andthequestionwascanvassedin an experimental interest, from which everything extraneous was ofnecessityremoved.

Webeginwithabrief surveyofLuther'sopinions.NomansincePaul'sdaysseemstohaveeverapprehendedsoprofoundlythegreatfactoftheMediator's substitution, or His bearing of imputed sin, in the room ofothers whom He was commissioned to represent. Luther makes it themostrealexchangeofpersonsandplacesbetweentheSonofGodontheone hand, and sinful man on the other; though always giving it to beunderstoodthatthesubstitutionwasarelativeexchange,butnotidentity.Hislanguagesometimesseemsextreme,butitisthatofamanwhohadtobendopinion inanotherdirection;andaccordinglyhereiteratedandenforcedthegreattruthwithalltheenergyoflanguage,bymetaphorandsimilitude,andadramatizingrepresentationofthetransaction.Thus,inhis commentary on Gal. 3:13, where we have a condensed view of hisopinionsontheatonement,herepresentsChristastransferringoursinstoHimself,andexpoundstheconfessionofsinintwoMessianicpsalms

(Ps.40:1,and69:5)astheutterancesofChristsustainingthepersonsofsinners and bearing their sins (voces non innocentis sed patientisChristi).HedenouncestheSophistsofhisday,whoseparatedChristfromsinsandsinners,andproposedHimtomankindmerelyasanexample;"whereby," says he, "they make Him useless." To show how Christ'ssuretyshipwasunderstoodbyhim,theFatherisrepresentedassayingtoHis only-begottenSon: "BeThouPeter thedenier,Paul thepersecutor,blasphemer,andinjurious,Davidtheadulterer,thesinnerwhoateofthefruit in paradise; in short, be Thou the person (tu sis persona) thatcommittedthesinsofallmen;therefore,considerhowyoumaypayandsatisfyforthem.Thencomesthelawandsays:IfindHimasinner,andsuchasinnerashastakenonHimselfthesinsofallmen;andIseenosinbesidesbutinHim:therefore,letHimdieonthecross"(Luth.Oper.tom.iv. p. 91). A few passages afterwards we find the followingmemorablepassage:"Thesolewayofevadingthecurseistobelieveandsaywithsureconfidence:Thou,OChrist,artmysinandcurse;orrather,IamThysin,Thy curse, Thy death, Thy wrath of God, Thy hell; Thou art, on thecontrary,myrighteousness,"etc.(p.95).Itmaysafelybeconcededthat,when Luther permits himself, as Calvin also does (see Calvin on Gal.3:13),tocallChristasinner,andthegreatestofsinners,thisislanguagerather to be avoided than imitated, for it grates on the Christiansensibilities.IthasnoScripturewarrant;andwemustalwaysdistinguish,in thought and phrase, between what is relative and real, between thelegalandthemoral.Butthisstyleofspeech,whichinLuther'senergeticdescriptioncannotbemisunderstood,mayshowtherecklessassertiontowhich those men commit themselves who would represent Luther asholdingsimilarsentimentswiththosewhodenyvicarioussatisfaction.Heistheabsoluteantithesisofthis.

Anotherpointmustbenoticed.Undertheinfluenceofviewsderivedfromthatdoctrineofexchange,LutherneverdisjoinsChrist'sactionsfromHissufferings,—thatis,HisvicariousobediencefromHisdeath.Hetakesinboth. To this point I the rather refer, because it is common among thewriters who object to the element of active obedience in Christ'satonement,andcallitanecclesiasticalnotion,toallegethatitformednopartofLuther's testimony,butwasamere subsequent addition,datingfrom the composition of theConcordiœFormula. That is very far from

beingacorrectviewoftheReformationdoctrine;andtomeitismatterofno small surprise thatwriters,pretending toanyaccurateacquaintancewith Luther's works, either in Latin or German, could entertain amoment'sdoubtofthisfact.InaremarkablesermononGal.4:1–8(vol.vii. p. 438, Erlangen edition of his German works) Luther speaksexplicitly on the point. After remarking that noman can fulfil the lawunlessheisfreefromthelaw,andnotunderit(p.265),andthatChristfulfilled the law spontaneously, and not by necessity or constraint, hegoesontosay(p.470):"But,thatwemaythebetterperceivehowChristactedunderthelaw,wearetounderstandthatHeputHimselfunderitinatwofoldway.First,undertheworksofthelaw:HepermittedHimselftobecircumcised,andsacrificesandpurificationstobemadeforHiminthetemple:Hewas subject toHis fatherandmother, and the like: andyetwasundernoobligation;forHewasaLordabovealllaws.…Secondly,HeputHimselfunderthepunishmentandagonyofthelawspontaneously:NotonlydidHeperformtheworkstowhichHewasnotbound,butHespontaneously and innocently suffered the penalty which the lawthreatensandpronouncesuponthosewhodonotkeepit."(Lutheradds,after a few sentences,Uns, uns hat er's zu gute gethan, nicht zu seinerNothdurft).Inlikemanner,heelsewheresays(xv.p.59):"Whenthelawcomes and accuses thee for not keeping it, point to Christ and say:'YonderistheManwhohasfulfilledit,towhomIcling,whofulfilledit,impartedHisfulfilmenttome;anditmustbesilent.'"

Not less explicit is Melanchthon in many passages of his works, andquotations might be multiplied to this effect from his Apology for theAugsburg Confession, his Loci Communes, and Commentaries. EquallyexpressisthelanguageofCalvin,whetherweconsulthisInstitutes(bookii. ch. 17), the Geneva Catechism, or his Commentary on the NewTestament.Chemnitzandhiscoadjutors,whocomposedtheConcordiœFormula,expressedthedefinitedoctrineof theReformation,whentheyset forth that the ACTIVE AND PASSIVE OBEDIENCE of Christ wereequally vicarious and equally essential. This was no new theory noraddition. Protestant doctrine, alike in the Lutheran and Reformedchurches,withawonderfulharmony,setforththattheentirehumanlifeof Christ, consisting of the elements of suffering and obedience,constitutedtheatonementaccordingtothetwofoldrelationwhichman,

asa creatureandas a sinner, occupies to thedivine law; and that theywereequallyindispensable.

WeneednotadducetheotherpointsoftheReformationdoctrineatanylength.AstotheimportanceofChrist'sdivinepersonfortheproductionof the atonement, it was in full accord with the patristic theology. Alldepended, according to Luther's exposition, on the fact that theSubstitutewastheonly-begottenSon.Heillustratesthisdoctrinebythecaseoftwoscales,inoneofwhichareweighedoursins,withthewrathofGodduetothem;andintheothertheexpiatorysufferings,notofamereman, but of theGod-man (Dei passioDeimors,Dei sanguis). A happycoincidenceobtainedbetweenthetwoProtestantchurchesinthisandinalmosteverypointbearingontheatonement.IntheLutheranChurchthedoctrineoftheatonementwas,foraboutacentury,discussedunderthetopicofJustificationas its solemeritoriousground.Themeritofworkswas swept away; and faith was made simply receptive. Thus it waselucidated by Chemnitz, Gerhard, and Hutter, till Calovius, byintroducingthesystematicmethod,departedfromthetopicaltreatmentofdoctrine.IntheReformedChurchCalvinhad,fromthefirst,appendedthediscussionoftheatonementtothepersonandofficeofChrist.

Fromthefirst theLutheranChurchneverfalteredastotheABSOLUTENECESSITY of a satisfaction for sin. Nor did the speculative questionwhether salvation was possible without atonement, and which was toolightly conceded by the patristic theology, ever find favour within herpale. This was the natural result of the profound views entertained byLutherontheinfiniteevilofsin,andontheinflexibleclaimsofthedivinelaw,aswellasontheseverityofdivinewrath.OnthispointLutherwritesinthespiritofAnselm,thoughitdoesnotappearthathewasacquaintedwithAnselm'sworks.Herepudiates,withtheutmostaversion,thenotionofmenbeingpardonedbyabsoluteomnipotence.Thushesays(vol.vii.p.298, Erlang ed.): "There are some, especially among the recent highscholastics,whoaffirm,Forgivenessofsinsandjustificationofgrace,liesabsolutelyinthedivineimputation;thatis,inGod'saccountingitenoughthathetowhomGodimputesordoesnotimputesinshouldtherebybejustifiedornotjustifiedfromhissins,asPs.32:2,andRom.4:7,8,seemtothemtosay—'BlessedisthemantowhomGodimputethnotsin.'Were

this true, the entire New Testament is already nothing, and to nopurpose;andChristhaslabouredfoolishlyanduselesslyindyingforsin.God thus exhibited, without necessity, a mere sham fight and juggle,sinceHemight,without the sufferingsofChrist,have forgiven sin, andnotimputedit;andthusanotherfaithmighthavejustifiedandsavedusthanfaith inChrist,viz.hissins,whoreliedonthisgratuitousmercyofGod, would not have been imputed. Against this hateful and terriblenotion and error, the holy apostle iswont to direct faith perpetually toJesus Christ; and so frequently does he name Jesus Christ, that it is amarvelhowanyonecanbeunawareof thenecessarycause."WheneverLutheradvertstotheideathatGodmighthaveadoptedanothermodeofredemption,hedoesthistoassignreasonitslimits.Hesayshetoocouldrefine and speculate before God, but that he will simply believe, andfollowHisword.Noeminentdivine,infact,intheLutheranChurch,tilltheriseofRationalism,expressedhimselfwithindecisiononthispoint.

The same thing cannot be affirmedof theReformedChurch,wherewefindforaconsiderabletimeatendencytoadoptthelanguageofAugustin.Thus Calvin, in his Institutes (ii. 12. 1), and in his Commentary (John15:13), permits himself to speak of the possibility of redemption in anabsoluteway,andtouselanguagedirectlythereverseofwhatwouldhavebeen employed by Anselm and Luther. Similar language is found inZanchius andMusculus, as well as in various other Reformed divines.Vossius, in vindicating Grotius' statements to this effect, against thestrictures of Ravensperger, adduces quotations from a large number ofReformedwriters;andaleavenofthisdescriptionlingeredamongmanyReformeddivines,downtothetimeofTwisseandRutherford,whobothsharedinthisopinion.Butgreatercautionwas imposedbytheriseandspreadofSocinianism,whichunquestionablywasaidedby theseundueconcessions,andwasabletoappealtothem.Atalatertime,however,thetwoProtestantchurcheseverywhereavowedthesameprincipleastotheABSOLUTE NECESSITY of a satisfaction, in order to the salvation ofsinfulmen(seeOwen'sVindicationofDivineJustice).

InanotherpointtheadvantagedecidedlylaywiththeReformedChurch.While the Lutherans spoke loosely of the universality of expiation,without limiting the destination of the ransom by its efficacy, the

Reformed divines more correctly asserted and vindicated the specialreferenceoftheatonement.ThiswasfromthefirstacharacteristicoftheReformedChurch—anecessary result of theAugustinian viewsof gracewith which it was imbued. Calvin put it in the form in which it haddescended and was discussed in the schools: "SUFFICIENTLY for thewholeworld,butEFFICIENTLYonlyfortheelect"(Calvinon1John2:2).TheReformedChurchmaintainedthattheefficacyofChrist'smeritsborespecialreferencetotheelect.Thisimpresswasstampeduponthechurchfromitsfirstorigin,andtothisviewshemaybesaidtohavecontinuedgenerally faithful. The Lutheran Church always held the universalelement,withoutformulatingit.

The historical outline of the doctrine of the atonement,whichwe havethusfarsketchedfromtheApostolicagetotheReformation,provesthat,ineveryphaseofwhatcanwarrantablybetermedecclesiasticaldoctrinein the Eastern or Western Church, the death of Christ was uniformlyviewedasstandingintheclosestrelationtoman'ssalvation.Thesincereinvestigators of the divine word were always persuaded that theremissionofsinsstooddirectlyconnectedwiththeLord'sdeath,howevermuchmightbetheinfluenceofChrist'steaching,example,andconstantcare of the human family. But a further inquiry arose: What was thenatureof thatconnection,orcould itbepreciselyascertained?Wehaveseen, whether we turn to the patristic theology, to the comparativelymixed or philosophical theology of the Middle Ages, or to the morebiblicaltheologyoftheReformation,thateverycenturyagreedwithoneconsent in the conclusion that therewas a connection betweenChrist'sdeathandtheremissionofsins;andthattheconnectionwasoneofcauseandeffect,whethertheyspeakofransomanddeliverance,ofsacrificeandexemption from punishment, or of merit and reward. The singleexceptionof the rationalisticAbelard is scarceworthyofnotice.HERE,THEN, WE HAVE THE CHURCH-CONSCIOUSNESS OFCHRISTENDOM, ifanythingdeserves thatname.Thoughopinionsofaneutralizing tendency undoubtedlywere fostered in theEast andWest,yet the doctrine of the causal connection between Christ's death andpardon—in other words, the expiation of sin by His blood—was notdenied at any period either by the Greek or Romish Church. Thisharmony of Christian conviction and doctrine is not to be ignored or

undervalued.

WehavebroughtdownthehistoryofthedoctrinetotheReformation,atwhichtimeitmaybesaidtohavestoodforthinmeridianbrightnessandfull-orbed development. At that date nothing interposed between thesinner and the atonement—no merit of works—no preparation byecclesiasticrites;theapplicationofitwasbyfaithalone.TheReformationdoctrinewas, that theatonementalone saves,and that it is receivedbyfaithalone.Christ'stwofoldworkofactiveandpassiveobediencewassetforthassomethingmerelytobereceivedbyfaithfortheremissionofsin.

Astruedoctrine,however, is invariablyfollowedbyerroras itsshadow,that exhibition of the ultimate truth on this great article could not beexpected to be preserved for any length of time untarnished andunclouded. The atonement was made central, and offered for men'sreception, without preparations or conditions, in the purest form inwhichithadeverbeenpresentedsincetheApostolicage;butbeforethecentury closed negations arose on every side, viz. Socinianism, therejectionofthevicariousactiveobedience,Grotianism,Arminianism,andthelike.

AstoSOCINIANISM,itisnotnecessary,afterthehistoricsketchgiveninthe previous volume, to enumerate its peculiarities; and the cognateviewsofthepresentdayadversetothevicarioussatisfaction,which,withChristianelementsnottobedenied,areunquestionablySocinianizingintheir theory of Christ's death. These were pretty fully exhibited andbroughtdown to recent times in thepreviousvolume. In thishistoricaloutlineIdeemitbesttoavoidthatclassofopinions,andtolimitmyselftoothertheories,which,thoughdeviatingfromReformationdoctrineincertainpoints,yetagreeinascribingtothedeathofChristtheremissionof sins, the acceptance of our persons, and our redemption from thecurse.Thisleadsusintoadifferentclassoftheories,andamongwritersmore pronounced in doctrinal opinions, and approachingnearer to thetruth.Thegreatquestionwhichdividedtheschoolsoftheologyaftertheappearance of Socinianism, and divides the modern thinkers of theGerman type from the class commonly regarded as evangelical andbiblical, is,whetherremissionofsins isanabsolutegift,orobtainedbythedeathofChristasitsmeritoriousPURCHASE?Thetheoryofabsolute

pardon,whichrepresentsChristaspreachingbutnotprocuringpardon—thegreatuntruthofthemoderntheology,ascontrastedwiththegeneralChristian consciousness—we delineated historically already. We havedescribed it also dogmatically, as subversive of all moral laws, andopposed tonatural aswell as revealed theology.But to entermore intodetailastothepeculiarviewsofthisclassofwriters,thoughitmighthaveits interest,wouldbebut a repetitionor enlargementofwhathasbeendonealready.

1. The first negation which obscured the full-orbed doctrine of theReformation, was the rejection of the element of Christ's activeobedience. This error assailed the Protestant Church in three differentquarters,andwasparticularlyinjurious,leavingbehinditaleavenneverfullypurgedouttothisday.

Osiander of Königsberg, in his treatise on Justification, 1550,immediately after Luther's death, attacked the distinctive principle ofProtestantism, by denying that justification was to be regarded as aforensic act on the ground of Christ's righteousness. He allowed thatmankind obtain pardon and redemption from the curse of the lawthroughthebloodofChrist,butdividedbetweenpardonandjustificationinsuchawayastomaketheformerrelativeandthelatterinherent;andhe charged the Lutheran teachers with ignorance and indecision,inasmuch as they could not state or definewhat Christ's righteousnessinvolved. This challenge to the Protestant Church to become self-conscious led to definition. Not only Flacius Illyricus, Brentius, andothers intheLutheranChurch,butCalvinalso, inreplyingtoOsiander,explicitlycombinedtheactiveandpassiveobedienceofChristasequallyvicarious. They taught that Christ's one complete obedience wascomprehendedbothinHisactionsandsufferings,andthatthematterofourredemptionconsistedofboth.FlaciusIllyricussetsforththatChrist,asperfectlyobedienttothelaw,didandsufferedallthatthelawrequiredofus,andimputedtousHiswholeobedienceasourrighteousness.Thiscontroversy,whichshooktheLutheranChurchinanextraordinaryway,ledthewaytoclearerdefinitionascontainedintheConcordiœFormula.Itwasmaintained that sin consists in omission aswell as commission,and that remission of sin necessarily involves not only the removal of

guilt,buttheimputationofrighteousness.Theirconclusionwas,thatthedivinelawmustbeperfectlyobeyedbyamediator;andtheydefinedthisrighteousness sometimes as satisfaction AND obedience, and at othertimesasChrist'sOBEDIENCEINLIFEANDINDEATH.

AnothertendencyoriginatedbyPiscatorintheReformedChurch,dividedbetween Christ's active and passive obedience, hitherto regarded asequally belonging to His vicarious work. Piscator maintained that theactiveobediencewasnecessaryforChristHimselfasman,andthatonlythe passive obedience was imputed to His people. The same theory,probably suggested by a Socinian taunt (of a nimisfactio), waspropounded by Karg, a Lutheran divine, but soon recanted. It wasearnestlymaintainedbyPiscator,andspreadinalldirectionsfromhim.ItwastakenupintheFrenchChurchbyCameron,Cappel,Blondel,andLa Placette; in the Palatinate by Pareus and Scultetus; in Holland byWendelinus, Henry and James Alting, father and son; and themischievous leaven continues towork inmany churches to this day. Itcould exist only in connection with a semi-Nestorian view of Christ'sperson,anddefectiveviewsofman'sdoubleobligationasacreatureandasinner,whichisnottobeexpressedintheformula,obeyORsuffer,butobeyANDsuffer.Piscatoradmittedthat,asaqualificationfortheworkofredemption, or indispensable condition, Christ's active obedience waspresupposed;buthedeniedthatitwasvicariousorimputed.Theseviewswere condemned by theNational Synod ofGap, and by several FrenchSynods, from1603to1612.Thetheorycontinuedtospread,andtendedtounderminethegreatfactofsubstitution,at least inthedefinitesensethat whatever was in man's obligation formed part of the Redeemer'ssuretyship.It isnotnecessarytoadducearguments inrefutationof thistheory,aswehave, in thediscussionsof thisvolumeandof the former,assertedfromScripturedirectlythereverse.Itwouldbeamererepetitionto restate the biblical truth that perfect obedience according to God'slegislativeauthority,constitutesoursolegroundortitletolife.

2. The theory of Grotius, which comes next in order, menaced theintegrityofthedoctrineoftheatonementinanotherway.Hiswell-knownwork, The Defence of the Catholic Faith on the Satisfaction of Christagainst Faustus Socinus (A.D. 1617), was hailed by the most eminent

divines,and translated intovarious languages. Itwasmade thebasisofStillingfleet's work on the sufferings of Christ. When fully examined,however,inthelightoftheReformationdoctrine,andreadaccordingtoits avowed principle, it is found to surrender almost as much as itretained.Differing from the theory ofDuns Scotus inmaintaining thatChrist'ssufferingswereofinfinitevalueonaccountofthedignityofHisperson, it yet decidedly approached his views in maintaining anacceptilation theory. The argument of Grotius proceeded on thesupposition that thedivine claimswere relaxed, thatGodexercisedHisdispensing authority, and might have dispensed with any satisfaction,had He so pleased. It is sometimes called THE ACCEPTILATIONTHEORY—implyingthatthecreditorremitsthedebtwithoutpaymentorcompensation; and it is sometimes called THE GOVERNMENTALTHEORY, because God is considered only as a regent who adopted acertain wise measure in the way of punitive example, to impress Hissubjectswithanecessaryrespectforlawandauthority.Thatmaybeusedasaroughillustration,butnotasatheoryoftheatonement.

The theory was not based on a satisfaction of divine justice, for heallowed that God might have left sin to go unpunished; nor was theatonementregardedaseffectedbyenteringintoman'sresponsibilitiesintheir full extent, so that we can reason from what man owed to whatChrist rendered. Grotius reduced it to amere expedient ormeasure ofgovernment. He started in his inquiry from the question ofPUNISHMENT,as if the inflictionofpunishment—amere consequenceofsin—wereallthatwasessentiallyinvolved.Tobringdownthequestioninto a yet lower region,hebasedpunishmentonpurelypositive laworarbitrary appointment,which, being subject tonohigher law,mightbypossibility relax the obligations, remit the sanctions, and remove theconsequences.Grotiusretainstheactualsatisfaction;andhereinliestheservicewhichherendered,andwhichthechurchgratefullyaccepted.Hisconclusions on the atonement, however valuable so far as they are astatementoffact,supposenoinwardnecessityinthedivinegovernmentfor sucha costlyprovision.Theyare thusverydifferent fromAnselm's.The latter starts,not fromapunitive example, arbitrary and capableofbeingdispensedwith,butfromSINasaviolationofthedivinehonour,adisharmonyinGod'suniverse,andDEMANDINGpunishmentaswellas

reparation.

Onthisaccount,Grotius'theorycouldnotcounteracttheSocinianviews,becausehegaveupthemainelementsoftheecclesiasticaldoctrine—theindispensable necessity of satisfaction to divine justice, and of thecomplete fulfilmentofman'sobligations, inpreceptand inpenalty.Hisviews of sin were shallow. He did not regard the personal God assustainingbyitscommissionanywrongwhichthewisdomoftheMoralGovernor could not undo by a mere punitive example. What does apunitiveexampleamounttoinconnectionwithhumanguilt?ItmeansnomorethanthatacertainexpedientwasadoptedtoDETERFROMSININFUTURE,ortoinfluenceotherordersofbeingintheuniverse.Theguiltofpastsinwasthusnotaffectedbytheatonementinthewayinwhichthechurchargued.Nordoesthetheorymaintaintheinwardlinkbetweensinandpunishment, far less explainhow the punitive justice ofGod couldapproach suchaperson.FORTHIS ISTHEPROBLEM. If thedeathofChriststandsonlyasanexampleforthefuture,thenitsnecessitywasnotbased in the divine nature. It was the most inappropriate possible,because the punishment of the innocent could not deter the guilty.Plainly,Grotiussmuggledinthenotionofapunitiveexampleforthetruetheory of satisfaction. Justice must be done to Grotius, however, ascomparedwith Socinianism; for, thoughhe actedunfairly by the truth,and adopted amediating policy, yet he still connects remission of sinswiththeatoningdeathofChrist.

TheGrotiantheoryhasbeenlargelyacceptedinAmericaunderthenameofthegovernmentaltheory.Hopkinsianismwasonephaseofit;anditissometimes designated the New England theory, or the New Schooltheory.Werepudiate inthestrongesttermsthedesignationlatelygivento it—THE EDWARDEAN THEORY of the atonement—because thehonourednameofEdwards,oneofthegreatestinchurchhistory,isnottobe identifiedwitha theoryofwhichnoteven thegermscan fairlybededuced from his writings. We could exhibit illustrations from thePresident's writings of almost every position we have advanced in thisvolume;andmerestrayexpressionsoccurring inhiswritingsarenot tobefittedintothecrudeoutlineofthegovernmentalscheme,fromwhichhis whole mode of thought diverged. No writer more fully describes

ChristasenteringintoalltheobligationsofHispeople,bothastoactiveand passive obedience. The Hopkinsian or governmental scheme,repudiatingimputationinthepropersense,reducestheatonementfromthe high ground of a propitiation to the level of an empty pageant,however imposing, or a governmental display2 for the good of otherordersofcreation.ItisaschemewhichconnectsthedeathofChristwithsomeimaginarypublicjustice,notwiththedivinenatureandperfections;asifGodHimselfwerenotHisownpublic,theonlyaugustpublicworthyof regard in this great transaction. According to the Grotian orHopkinsian theory, theatonement is fit to impress thecreationofGod,butisnotnecessaryinrespectofthedivineattributes.

3. Next followed the theory of ARMINIUS and the Arminian type oftheology—a tendency starting from the notion of universal grace, andallowingnospecialreferencetotheelect.Itdeviatedwidelyfrombiblicaldoctrine,andinfectedalltheReformedchurchesatoneperiodoranotherof their history. Though different in kind from Socinianism, because itstill maintained a causal connection between the death of Christ andpardon,ityetdepartedveryfarfromtheproperideaofsubstitutionandstrict views of divine justice. The assertion of universal atonementwithout suretyship in any true sense of the term, led by necessaryconsequence to a new view of the nature of the atonement, when thetheory found it necessary to complete itself. The Arminians, in theirsecond distinctive article, maintained that Christ, according to theFather'spurposeandHisown,diedforallandeverymanalike:thatHemade God placable and man salvable, but did not actually procurereconciliationforany.TheyheldthatHemerelyremovedtheobstacleonthe side of divine justice, and acquired power for God to form a newcovenantwithallmankind.Itwasa theorywhichtook inalmostall thenegativeelementsalreadymentioned,and,under theguiseofenlargingChrist's merits, tended only to undermine and diminish them. A fewconsiderations will prove this against the representations of theArminians.

(1.)Theydenudedtheatonementofanyefficacy,denyingthat itcarriedwithittheelementofitsapplication.Theydidnotshrinkfromtheavowalthat the ransom might have been paid, and yet applied to none in

consequence of intervening unbelief; nay, that Christ's atonement,though not actually applied to any individual, would still have beencompleteinallitsparts.Agulfwasthusdrawnbetweentheprocuringofredemptionandtheapplicationofit,asifthesewerenotofequalextentandbreadth.Theapplicationwasthussuspendedonman'sfreewill,andhumanitywas thrown back on its own resources, or on such aid as allequallyreceive,toapplytheredemptionforthemselves.

(2.)Theyheld,asappearsfromthetransactionsoftheSynodofDort,thatthe end of Christ's deathwas to acquire a new right, on the ground ofwhichGodmightmakeanewcovenantwithmankind;andthatthisnewcovenant consisted in this, that God accepts faith as an imperfectobedience.Howthismenacedtheatonement isobvious.Arelaxationofthelawwasassumed,andtheimmutableclaimsofGodweresupposedtobereduced.Thisshowsthatitbecameaquestionastothenatureoftheatonement,aswellasitsextent.

(3.)TheyheldthatChrist,byHissatisfaction,didnotsecureredemptionforany individual,ormerit the faithbywhichtheatonementshouldbeeffectuallyapplied.Theywouldnotadmitthattheatonementcarriedwithitthegroundofitsownapplication.IfwecompareArminianviewswithbiblicalteachingonthesubjectofsatisfaction,wesoonfindthattheycanno more be harmonized than light and darkness; for, according toapostolic teaching, the deliverance follows the ransom. Thus thewholedoctrinewasputtohazard.ItwasheldthatthedeathofChristonlymadeGodcapableof reconciliation,while theactual reconciliationwas left tomenthemselvesworkingouttheirownsalvation.

TheSynodofDort,thoughmuchdecried,wasanoblebulwarkofdivinetruth.ItsetforththatthedeathoftheSonofGodwasofinfiniteintrinsicvalue, andabundantly sufficient to expiate the sinsof thewholeworld.AndafterdeclaringthatthedeathofChristderiveditsvaluefromthefactthatHewasnotonlyatrueandperfectlyholyman,buttheonly-begottenSonofGod,itisadded:"ThatmanywhoarecalledbythegospeldonotrepentorbelieveinChrist,butperishinunbelief, isnotfromthedefector insufficiency of Christ's sacrifice on the cross, but from their ownfault."TheadmirablyputstatementsofthisgreatSynod,equalasitwasto any of the ancient Councils, deserve special attention. It asserted

sufficiency inrespectof intrinsicpotencyandvalue.Butwhileassertingthis,andcouplingitwithhumanresponsibility,theSynodmaintainedatthesametime that, inrespectofproperdestinationandefficacy, itwasnotuniversal,butappointedforcertaindefinitepersonswhomGodfreelychosefrometernity.AstotheproperscopeofChrist'satonement,itwasasserted that He died as Mediator of the elect alone, to procurereconciliation for them, and also to apply it. The sumof thematter, asstated by the Synod, was, that the merits of Christ, considered inthemselves, were of infinite value, or amply sufficient for all, but ofefficaciousvalidity for theelectalone.Whyallmenarenotsaved isnotduetoanydeficiencyinChrist'smerits—forHewouldnothaveneededtodoorsuffermorethanHehasdoneforthesalvationofmillionsmore,—but must be traced to the purpose of God appointing who should bepartakers of His merits. These truths are not inconsistent with eachother:theintrinsicvalueoftheatonementdidnotaffecttheextentofitssaving efficacy, as a general of an army, capable of delivering manycaptives,mayreceivefromhisprinceacommandonlytodeliversome;oraphysician,havingthemeansofhealingmany,mayapplythecuretoalimited number. This was the position which the church maintainedagainstArminianism.

AboutthetimeoftheSynodofDort,whenthetheologicalmindoftheagewas intensely turned to the doctrines of grace, THE FEDERALTHEOLOGY, as it was called, was propounded, and contributed morepowerfullythananyotherinfluencetopromotethesounddoctrineoftheatonement. We are told that Luther anticipated that some pious andlearnedmanwouldarisetoelucidatethedoctrineofthecovenantofGodand its various economies.Bullinger firstbrokegroundon this topic inhis book on the Covenant. Olevianus and Cloppenburg followed, thelatterdiscussingthesubjectprettycopiously inhisthirdDisputationontheNewCovenantofGraceanditsSurety(A.D.1622).Butitwasreservedfor Cocceius, in his famous Treatise on the Covenant (A.D. 1648), tosupply the key which served to unlock the mystery of the covenant ofgrace. After him a whole cloud of witnesses in England, Scotland, andHollandsuppliedfurtherelucidationofit.Itformedoneofthedistinctivepeculiarities of the Puritan theology; and as a scheme of thoughtdevelopedbyWitsius,Strong,Petto,Owen,andothers,itcombinedintoa

whole and in an organic way the entire doctrines of sovereign specialgrace.

Nothing tended more to establish the true doctrine of the atonement,because it brought out the counterpart relation of the first and secondAdam,andtheworkofthegreatSurety,asreadofffromtheobligationsofthefirstman.ItgroundedthelegalconjunctionbetweenusandChrist,and the suretyship, the substitution and imputation into which Jesusentered.ScriptureshowsacovenantorcompactformedbetweenGodasthe source of law, and His own Son as head of the elect, whom Herepresented.TheArminianschemebrokeuponitasawaveontherock.Thatsystemdirectedthemoststrenuouseffortsagainstit,butinvain.Nodirect covenant could be immediately made between God and man; asuretyalonewasadequate tobringtheCreatorandthesinner together.TheFathermadetheclaimoffullobedienceuponHisSon,andtheSonnow claims the fulfilment of the stipulations. Thus, the whole wasremovedfromtheregionofthevagueandindefinitebytheideaofspecialdestination.Notonlyso; itexplodedtheArminiannotionthatfaithwastheproperconditionofthecovenant.ThatfirstprincipleoftheArminianscheme—a legal element throwing men back on themselves—wasobviatedbythefederaltheology,whichshowedthattheconditionswereall fulfilled by the Mediator of the covenant, as the very end of Hisincarnation,and that it ispuregrace tous. If theMediator fulfilled theconditions,theycannotbeasecondtimerequiredwithoutunderminingtheunitybetweentheSuretyandHisseed.Christ'satonementwasthusthefulfilmentofthefederalconditions.TheFather,whoineverypartofthisgreat transactionwasatoncetheLawgiverandtheFountainof thecovenant, insistedon the full performanceof the law, andyetprovidedthesurety,whowasmadeunderthelawinthepropersenseoftheterm.Itwasa true commandonGod's side, anda trueobedienceonChrist'sside.Hestoodinourcovenant,whichwasthe lawofworks; that is, thelawinitspreceptandinitscurse.

4. Next in order we must notice the theory which emanated from thedivinesofSaumur,whichhasbeencalledtheAMYRALDISTTHEORY.ItwasarevoltfromthepositionmaintainedattheSynodofDort,undertheguise of an explanation; for the propounders of the theory would not

allow that they were out of harmony with its decrees. Not content toaffirm, with the canons of Dort, that the intrinsic value of Christ'satonement was infinite, and capable, had God so pleased, of beingextendedtoallmankind,theymaintainedthat,alongwithasufficiencyofvalue,therewasacertaindestinationofChrist'sdeath,onthepartofGodandoftheMediator,tothewholehumanrace.ThistheoryoweditsorigintoCameron,a learnedbut restlessScotchman,ProfessorofTheologyatSaumur.Hepropounded the theory of hypothetic universalism; that is,that Godwills the salvation of allmen, on condition of faith, and thatChrist's deathwas for allmen, on condition of faith.CamerondeclaresthatChristdiedfornomansimply,butonconditionthatwewhoareoftheworldshouldbedeliveredfromtheworld,andengraftedintoChristby true faith (Opusc. Miscell. p. 533). This system, adopted by adistinguishedclassofpupils,Amyraud,Testard,Cappellus,andPlacæus,widely leavened and corrupted the Reformed Church of France.AmyraldusdigesteditintosysteminhisTreatiseonPredestination(A.D.1634),andinvariouspublications.ItwascontrovertedbyRivetus(Op.iii.p.830),andF.SpanheiminhisExercitationsonUniversalGrace.

When we examine the theory minutely, it will not hang together. ItsadvocatesspeakofaUNIVERSALDECREE,inwhichGodwassupposedtohave givenChrist as aMediator for thewholehuman race; andof aSPECIALDECREE,inwhichGod,foreseeingthatnoonewouldbelieveinhisunaidedstrength,was supposed tohaveelected some to receive thegiftoffaith.UnquestionablyitdiffersfromtheArminianpositionsinthisrespect, that the faith was not referred to man's free will, but wassupposedtobederivedfromGod'sfreegrace.Thetheoryacknowledgedthe sovereign election of God, according to His good pleasure. But itlabouredunderthedefectofsupposingadoubleandaconflictingdecree;thatis,ageneraldecree,inwhichHewassaidtowillthesalvationofall,and a special decree, in whichHewas said to will the salvation of theelect. To Christ also it ascribed a twofold and discordant aim, viz. tosatisfy for allmen, and to satisfymerely for the elect. As a reconcilingsystem, and an incoherent one, it aimed to harmonize the passages ofScripture,whichatonetimeseemtoextendChrist'smeritstotheworld,andat another to limit them to the church;not tomention thatGod issupposedtobedisappointedinHispurpose.

The variouswriters of this school are very far fromuniformity in theirexplanationsofthetheory.SomewritethatChristdiedforallmen,onthecondition of faith; others that Christ opened a way to salvation for allbelievers, and thatHis redemptionwas twofold; others thatHe offeredHimselfequally forall.ThusAmyraudexpresseshimself inhisTreatiseonPredestination (ch. 7): "The sacrificewhichJesusChristofferedwasEQUALLY FOR ALL; and the salvation which He received from HisFather,inthesanctificationofthespiritandtheglorificationofthebody,was destined equally for all—provided the necessary disposition forreceivingitwereequal."TheNationalSynodoftheReformedChurchesofFrance, whichmet at Alençon in 1637, at which Amyraud and TestardgaveexplanationsinharmonywiththecanonsofDort,wassatisfied,butat the same time decreed that in future they should abstain from thestatement that Christ died equally for all, because that expressionEQUALLYhadbeenformerly,andmightbeagain,astoneofstumblingtomany.Notonlyso;theentiretheoryofAmyralduslaboursundertwodefects, which indeed are very closely connected with each other. Itdenied,alongwithPiscator,theelementofChrist'sactiveobedience;andthe atonement was never described as carrying with it its ownapplication. On the contrary, this was secured by another mode, asfollows:Christdiedforall,onconditionoffaith;andmanbeingincapableofthis,God,byANOTHERDECREE,purposedtogivefaithtosome.

This peculiarity distinguishes Amyraldism, unfavourably to it, fromanother theorywithwhich ithassometimesbeenconfounded—viz. thatpresentedtotheSynodofDortbythefiveEnglishdeputies,ofwhomthemost eminent theologianwasDavenant, oneof the greatestnames thatadorn the English Church. When we examine their statement to theSynod (judicium), we find, what seems at first sight the same doublereference,Christ'sdeathfortheelect,andthenHisdeathfortheworldatlarge.ButtheonlypointtowhichtheSynodofDortattachedimportancewas unambiguously uttered. They said that Christ died for the electaccordingtotheloveandintentionofGodtheFatherandofChrist,thatHe might actually obtain, and infallibly bestow, remission of sins andeternalsalvation;andthatfaithandperseverancearegiventotheseelectpersonsoutof thesame love,byandonaccountof (peretpropter) themeritand intercessionofChrist.Thisdrawsawide lineofdemarcation

betweenthetheologyofDavenant,oroftheChurchofEngland,andthatofAmyraldus,which insistedonaviewof theatonementwhich,on theonehand,didnotcontaintheelementofitsownapplication,and,ontheother, continued to hold that Christ's death was equally for all. ThecelebratedBaxterhasbeenoftenunfairlyclaimedasanAmyraldist.Wewill not defend all his positions in his controversy with Owen, whenhandling thedoctrine of the atonement, yet an injustice is done to thistrulygreatmanwhenheisrepresentedasanadvocateoftheUniversalisttheory.ThesewordsofBaxtermadeitasplainasdidtheSynodofDortthat the atonement merited its own application: "He whose sufferingswere primarily satisfaction for sin, were secondarilymeritorious of themeanstobringmentotheintendedend;thatis,oftheWordandSpiritbywhichChristcausethsinners tobelieve; so that faith isa fruitof thedeathofChristinaremoteorsecondarysense"(Cathol.Theol.p.69).

5. We further notice a class of theories which limited the duration ofChrist's expiatory sufferings to the periodwhenHe hung on the cross.TheopinionofallProtestantdivinesuptillthetimeofJamesAlting,wasthattheLord'ssufferingsfromHisbirthtoHisdeathwerevicarious.Hepropounded the notion that proper satisfaction was limited to thesufferingsundergoneduringthethreehourswhendarknesscoveredthelandatthecrucifixion.HedividedtheLord'ssufferingsintotwokinds,—those which were vicarious and bore a surety-character limited to thetimeofHissuspensiononthecross,andthosewhichwereundergoneintheconflictwithSatan.Thislimitationtoafewhoursevacuateditofitstrue character, as the denial of Christ's active obedience weakened thedoctrineofsubstitutionontheotherside.Thetruedoctrineis,thatastheactive obediencewas a vicarious fulfilment of our obligations fromHisbirthtoHisdeath,soHispassiveobediencewasavicarioussatisfactionfrom the manger to the cross. The same theory is propounded in thecrude theology of the Plymouth Brethren. Thus Mr. Mackintosh says:"Wearenot toregardthecrossofChristasamerecircumstance in thelife of sin-bearing. Itwas the grand andonly scene of sin-bearing: 'Hisownselfbareoursins,inHisownbodyonthetree'(1Pet.2:24).Hedidnotbearthemanywhereelse.Hedidnotbeartheminthemanger,norinthewilderness,nor in thegarden,butONLYONTHETREE.Heneverhadaught to say to sin, saveon thecross."Biblical theology is thevery

oppositeofthisextract,aswehaveprovedthroughout.

What were the arguments by which Alting laboured to defend such aposition?Heargued fromthestatement that "ChristONCEsuffered;"aphrasewhichcannotbearthesenseputuponit,butdeniestherepetitionofHisatonement.Heargued,too,thatprevioustothecrucifixionChristreceived tokens of divine favour—nay, several audible voices fromheaven,—andthatthewrathofGodwasborneonlyonthetree.Wehaveprovedtheoppositeatlarge.Itismatterofwonderthatonesoeminentas a divine should put these two in collision. There were interveningmomentsofcomfortall throughHiscurse-bearing life,andevenonthetree. This theory is opposed to just views of substitution; for Christ'sentiresufferingobediencewasthedischargeofHisonemediatorialwork,and essentially connected with the servant-form which He bore. Togroundthetheoryonthefactthatdarknesscoveredthefaceoftheworld,isabaselessfancy.

ScripturemakesitevidentthatallChrist'ssufferingsweretheworkofasurety,andexpiatory.ThisappearsfromthefactthatHewassinless;andit would have been inconsistent with the divine perfections to inflictsufferingonHimunlessHeoccupied theplaceof the surety: for agonyandsufferingcouldnothaveassailedasinlessbeingonanyotherground.Besides,theScripturesexpresslyaffirmthatbyHisstripeswearehealed(1Pet.2:24).

6. Imight furthermention a theory propounded byRoëll, that Christ'satonement did not satisfy for temporal death. But it was limited toHolland,triumphantlyrefutedbyVitringa,andgenerallyrepudiated.

Ishallnotfurtherpursuethishistoricalsketch.Nofurthermodificationsof theReformationdoctrine,at leastofmuchmoment,occurred till thechurchencounteredthefirstriseofRationalism,afterthemiddleoflastcentury. It isnoteworthy that theassaultbeganat theverypointwheretheReformationtheologyhadcompleteditself—viz.bydenyingtheactiveobedienceofChristandHisenteringintoallHispeople'sobligations.Wedeem itneedless,however, to enteronRationalistic theorieswhich runcountertoexpiationinanyform,inasmuchasthiswasprettyfullydoneintheformervolume;andthepresentoutlinewasintendedtodelineate

that other class of theories which continued to maintain the causalconnectionbetweenthedeathofChristandtheremissionofsins.Letmesumupthisoutline,whichcannotbefurtherenlarged,withthefollowingcouplet of Voetius, which succinctly states the various elements whichenterintoChrist'satoningwork:—

"Propitians,purgans,redimens,utvictimasponsor,

SalvavitsicjuraDeiverumquerequirunt."