,,the ,,atonement  ,,and  ,,the ,,modern
 ,,mind   ,,by  ,,james ,,denney1 ,d4,d4
   ,,professor ,,of ,,new ,,testament   
,,language1 ,,literature1 ,,and         
,,theology  ,,united ,,free ,,church    
,,college1 ,,glasgow    ,,works ,,by    
,,the ,,same ,,author    ,,the ,,death  
,,of ,,christ   ,,studies ,,in          
,,theology   ,,the ,,epistles ,,to ,,the
 ,,thessalonians   ,,the ,,second       
,,epistle ,,to ,,the ,,corinthians      
,,gospel ,,questions ,,and ,,answers    
,,london  ,,hodder ,,and ,,stoughton    
#bg ,,paternoster ,,row  ,,mcmiii       
,,preface  ,the three chapters which    
follow have already appeared in ,the    
,expositor1 and may be regarded as a    
supplement to the writer's work on ,the 
,death of ,christ3 its place and        
interpretation in the ,new ,testament4  
,it was no part of his intention in that
 study to ask or to answer all the      
questions raised by ,new ,testament     
teaching on the subject2 but1 partly    
from reviews of ,the ,death of ,christ1 

and still more from a considerable      
private correspondence to which the book
 gave rise1 he became convinced that    
something further should be attempted to
 commend the truth to the mind and      
conscience of the time4  ,the           
difficulties and misunderstandings      
connected with it spring1 as far as they
 can be considered intellectual1 mainly 
from two sources4  ,either the mind is  
preoccupied with a conception of the    
world which1 whether men are conscious  
of it or not1 forecloses all the        
questions which are raised by any       
doctrine of atonement1 and makes them   
unmeaning2 or it labours under some     
misconception as to what the ,new       
,testament actually teaches4  ,broadly  
speaking1 the first of these conditions 
is considered in the first two chapters1
 and the second in the last4  ,the      
title--,the ,atonement and the ,modern  
,mind--might seem to promise a treatise1
 or even an elaborate system of         
theology2 but though it would cover a   

work of vastly larger scope than the    
present1 it is not inappropriate to any 
attempt1 however humble1 to help the    
mind in which we all live and move to   
reach a sympathetic comprehension of the
 central truth in the ,christian        
religion4  ,the purpose of the writer is
 evangelic1 whatever may be said of his 
method2 it is to commend the ,atonement 
to the human mind1 as that mind has been
 determined by the influences and       
experiences of modern times1 and to win 
the mind for the truth of the           
,atonement4  ,with the exception of a   
few paragraphs1 these pages were        
delivered as lectures to a summer school
 of ,theology which met in ,aberdeen1 in
 ,june of this year4  ,the school was   
organised by a committee of the         
,association of ,former ,students of the
 ,united ,free ,church ,college1        
,glasgow2 and the writer1 as a member   
and former ,president of the            
,association1 desires to take the       
liberty of inscribing his work to his   

fellow-students4   ,,glasgow1 ,september
 #aijc4     ,,contents   ,,chapter ,i   
,,preliminary ,,definition ,,of ,,the   
,,subject   ,,chapter ,,ii  ,,sin ,,and 
,,the ,,divine ,,reaction ,,against ,,it
   ,,chapter ,,iii  ,,christ ,,and ,,man
 ,,in ,,the ,,atonement     ,,chapter ,i
  ,,preliminary ,,definition ,,of ,,the 
,,subject  ,it will be admitted by most 
,christians that if the ,atonement1     
quite apart from precise definitions of 
it1 is anything to the mind1 it is      
everything4  ,it is the most profound of
 all truths1 and the most recreative4   
,it determines more than anything else  
our conceptions of ,god1 of man1 of     
history1 and even of nature2 it         
determines them1 for we must bring them 
all in some way into accord with it4    
,it is the inspiration of all thought1  
the impulse and the law of all action1  
the key1 in the last resort1 to all     
suffering4  ,whether we call it a fact  
or a truth1 a power or a doctrine1 it is
 that in which the differentia of       

,christianity1 its peculiar and         
exclusive character1 is specifically    
shown2 it is the focus of revelation1   
the point at which we see deepest into  
the truth of ,god1 and come most        
completely under its power4  ,for those 
who recognise it at all it is           
,christianity in brief2 it concentrates 
in itself1 as in a germ of infinite     
potency1 all that the wisdom1 power and 
love of ,god mean in relation to sinful 
men4  ,accordingly1 when we speak of the
 ,atonement and the modern mind1 we are 
really speaking of the modern mind and  
the ,christian religion4  ,the relation 
between these two magnitudes may vary4  
,the modern mind is no more than a      
modification of the human mind as it    
exists in all ages1 and the relation of 
the modern mind to the ,atonement is one
 phase--it may be a specially           
interesting or a specially well-defined 
phase--of the perennial relation of the 
mind of man to the truth of ,god4       
,there is always an affinity between the

 two1 for ,god made man in ,his own     
image1 and the mind can only rest in    
truth2 but there is always at the same  
time an antipathy1 for man is somehow   
estranged from ,god1 and resents ,divine
 intrusion into his life4  ,this is the 
situation at all times1 and therefore in
 modern times2 we only need to remark   
that when the ,atonement is in question1
 the situation1 so to speak1 becomes    
acute4  ,all the elements in it define  
themselves more sharply4  ,if there is  
sympathy between the mind and the truth1
 it is a profound sympathy1 which will  
carry the mind far2 if there are lines  
of approach1 through which the truth can
 find access to the mind1 they are lines
 laid deep in the nature of things and  
of men1 and the access which the truth  
finds by them is one from which it will 
not easily be dislodged4  ,on the other 
hand1 if it is antagonism which is      
roused in the mind by the ,atonement1 it
 is an antagonism which feels that      
everything is at stake4  ,the ,atonement

 is a reality of such a sort that it can
 make no compromise4  ,the man who      
fights it knows that he is fighting for 
his life1 and puts all his strength into
 the battle4  ,to surrender is literally
 to give up himself1 to cease to be the 
man he is1 and to become another man4   
,for the modern mind1 therefore1 as for 
the ancient1 the attraction and the     
repulsion of ,christianity are          
concentrated at the same point2 the     
cross of ,christ is man's only glory1 or
 it is his final stumbling-block4  ,what
 ,i wish to do in these papers is so to 
present the facts as to mediate1 if     
possible1 between the mind of our time  
and the ,atonement--so to exhibit the   
specific truth of ,christianity as to   
bring out its affinity for what is      
deepest in the nature of man and in     
human experience--so to appreciate the  
modern mind itself1 and the influences  
which have given it its constitution and
 temper1 as to discredit what is false  
in it1 and enlist on the side of the    

,atonement that which is profound and   
true4  ,and if any one is disposed to   
marvel at the ambition or the conceit of
 such a programme1 ,i would ask him to  
consider if it is not the programme     
prescribed to every ,christian1 or at   
least to every ,christian minister1 who 
would do the work of an evangelist4  ,to
 commend the eternal truth of ,god1 as  
it is finally revealed in the           
,atonement1 to the mind in which men    
around us live and move and have their  
being1 is no doubt a difficult and      
perilous task2 but if we approach it in 
a right spirit1 it need not tempt us to 
any presumption2 it cannot tempt us1 as 
long as we feel that it is our duty4    
',who is sufficient for these things6 4 
4 4  ,our sufficiency is of ,god4'  ,the
 ,christian religion is a historical    
religion1 and whatever we say about it  
must rest upon historical ground4  ,we  
cannot define it from within1 by        
reference merely to our individual      
experience4  ,of course it is equally   

impossible to define it apart from      
experience2 the point is that such      
experience itself must be historically  
derived2 it must come through something 
outside of our individual selves4  ,what
 is true of the ,christian religion as a
 whole is pre-eminently true of the     
,atonement in which it is concentrated4 
,the experience which it brings to us1  
and the truth which we teach on the     
basis of it1 are historically mediated4 
,they rest ultimately on that testimony 
to ,christ which we find in the         
,scriptures and especially in the ,new  
,testament4  ,no one can tell what the  
,atonement is except on this basis4 ,no 
one can consciously approach it--no one 
can be influenced by it to the full     
extent to which it is capable of        
influencing human nature--except through
 this medium4  ,we may hold that just   
because it is ,divine1 it must be       
eternally true1 omnipresent in its      
gracious power2 but even granting this1 
it is not known as an abstract or       

eternal somewhat2 it is historically1   
and not otherwise than historically1    
revealed4  ,it is achieved by ,christ1  
and the testimony to ,christ1 on the    
strength of which we accept it1 is in   
the last resort the testimony of        
,scripture4  ,in saying so1 ,i do not   
mean that the ,atonement is merely a    
problem of exegesis1 or that we have    
simply to accept as authoritative the   
conclusions of scholars as to the       
meaning of ,new ,testament texts4  ,the 
modern mind here is ready with a radical
 objection4  ,the writers of the ,new   
,testament1 it argues1 were men like    
ourselves2 they had personal limitations
 and historical limitations2 their forms
 of thought were those of a particular  
age and upbringing2 the doctrines they  
preached may have had a relative        
validity1 but we cannot benumb our minds
 to accept them without question4  ,the 
intelligence which has learned to be a  
law to itself1 criticising1 rejecting1  
appropriating1 assimilating1 cannot deny

 its nature and suspend its functions   
when it opens the ,new ,testament4  ,it 
cannot make itself the slave of men1 not
 even though the men are ,peter and     
,paul and ,john2 no1 not even though it 
were the ,son of ,man ,himself4  ,it    
resents dictation1 not wilfully nor     
wantonly1 but because it must2 and it   
resents it all the more when it claims  
to be inspired4  ,if1 therefore1 the    
,atonement can only be received by those
 who are prepared from the threshold to 
acknowledge the inspiration and the     
consequent authority of ,scripture1 it  
can never be received by modern men at  
all4  ,this line of remark is familiar  
inside the ,church as well as outside4  
,often it is expressed in the demand for
 a historical as opposed to a dogmatic  
interpretation of the ,new ,testament1 a
 historical interpretation being one to 
which we can sit freely1 because the    
result to which it leads us is the mind 
of a time which we have survived and    
presumably transcended2 a dogmatic      

interpretation1 on the other hand1 being
 one which claims to reach an abiding   
truth1 and therefore to have a present  
authority4  ,a more popular and         
inconsistent expression of the same mood
 may be found among those who say       
petulant things about the rabbinising of
 ,paul1 but profess the utmost devotion 
to the words of ,jesus4  ,even in a day 
of overdone distinctions1 one might     
point out that interpretations are not  
properly to be classified as historical 
or dogmatic1 but as true or false4  ,if 
they are false1 it does not matter      
whether they are called dogmatic or     
historical2 and if they are true1 they  
may quite well be both4  ,but this by   
the way4  ,for my own part1 ,i prefer   
the objection in its most radical form1 
and indeed find nothing in it to which  
any ,christian1 however sincere or      
profound his reverence for the ,bible1  
should hesitate to assent4  ,once the   
mind has come to know itself1 there can 
be no such thing for it as blank        

authority4  ,it cannot believe          
things--the things by which it has to   
live--simply on the word of ,paul or    
,john4  ,it is not irreverent1 it is    
simply the recognition of a fact1 if we 
add that it can just as little believe  
them simply on the word of ,jesus4#a    
,this is not the sin of the mind1 but   
the nature and essence of mind1 the     
being which it owes to ,god4  ,if we are
 to speak of authority at all in this   
connection1 the authority must be       
conceived as belonging not to the       
speaker but to that which he says1 not  
to the witness but to the truth4        
,truth1 in short1 is the only thing     
which has authority for the mind1 and   
the only way in which truth finally     
evinces its authority is by taking      
possession of the mind for itself4  ,it 
may be that any given truth can only be 
reached by testimony--that is1 can only 
come to us by some historical channel2  
but if it is a truth of eternal import1 
if it is part of a revelation of ,god   

the reception of which is eternal life1 
then its authority lies in itself and in
 its power to win the mind1 and not in  
any witness however trustworthy4  ,hence
 in speaking of the ,atonement1 whether 
in preaching or in theologising1 it is  
quite unnecessary to raise any question 
about the inspiration of ,scripture1 or 
to make any claim of 'authority' either 
for the ,apostles or for the ,lord4     
,belief in the inspiration of ,scripture
 is neither the beginning of the        
,christian life nor the foundation of   
,christian theology2 it is the last     
conclusion--a conclusion which becomes  
every day more sure--to which experience
 of the truth of ,scripture leads4      
,when we tell1 therefore1 what the      
,atonement is1 we are telling it not on 
the authority of any person or persons  
whatever1 but on the authority of the   
truth in it by which it has won its     
place in our minds and hearts4  ,we find
 this truth in the ,christian           
,scriptures undoubtedly1 and therefore  

we prize them2 but the truth does not   
derive its authority from the           
,scriptures1 or from those who penned   
them4  ,on the contrary1 the ,scriptures
 are prized by the ,church because      
through them the soul is brought into   
contact with this truth4  ,no doubt this
 leaves it open to any one who does not 
see in ,scripture what we see1 or who is
 not convinced as we are of its truth1  
to accuse us here of subjectivity1 of   
having no standard of truth but what    
appeals to us individually1 but ,i could
 never feel the charge a serious one4   
,it is like urging that a man does not  
see at all1 or does not see truly1      
because he only sees with his own eyes4 
,this is the only authentic kind of     
seeing yet known to mankind4  ,we do not
 judge at all those who do not see what 
we do4  ,we do not know what hinders    
them1 or whether they are at all to     
blame for it2 we do not know how soon   
the hindrance is going to be put out of 
the way4  ,to-day1 as at the beginning1 

the light shines in the darkness1 and   
the darkness comprehends it not4  ,but  
that is the situation which calls for   
evangelists2 not a situation in which   
the evangelist is called to renounce his
 experience and his vocation4  ,what1   
then1 is the ,atonement1 as it is       
presented to us in the ,scriptures1 and 
vindicates for itself in our minds the  
character of truth1 and indeed1 as ,i   
have said already1 the character of the 
ultimate truth of ,god8  ,the simplest  
expression that can be given to it in   
words is3 ,christ died for our sins4    
,taken by itself1 this is too brief to  
be intelligible2 it implies many things 
which need to be made explicit both     
about ,christ's relation to us and about
 the relation of sin and death4  ,but   
the important thing1 to begin with1 is  
not to define these relations1 but to   
look through the words to the broad     
reality which is interpreted in them4   
,what they tell us1 and tell us on the  
basis of an incontrovertible experience1

 is that the forgiveness of sins is for 
the ,christian mediated through the     
death of ,christ4  ,in one respect1     
therefore1 there is nothing singular in 
the forgiveness of sins3 it is in the   
same position as every other blessing of
 which the ,new ,testament speaks4  ,it 
is the presence of a ,mediator1 as      
,westcott says in one of his letters1   
which makes the ,christian religion what
 it is2 and the forgiveness of sins is  
mediated to us through ,christ1 just as 
the knowledge of ,god as the ,father is 
mediated1 or the assurance of a life    
beyond death4  ,but there is something  
specific about the mediation of         
forgiveness2 the gift and the certainty 
of it come to us1 not simply through    
,christ1 but through the blood of ,his  
,cross4  ,the sum of ,his relation to   
sin is that ,he died for it4  ,god      
forgives1 but this is the way in which  
,his forgiveness comes4  ,he forgives   
freely1 but it is at this cost to       
,himself and to the ,son of ,his love4  

,this1 it seems to me1 is the simplest  
possible statement of what the ,new     
,testament means by the ,atonement1 and 
probably there are few who would dispute
 its correctness4  ,but it is possible  
to argue that there is a deep cleft in  
the ,new ,testament itself1 and that the
 teaching of ,jesus on the subject of   
forgiveness is completely at variance   
with that which we find in the          
,epistles1 and which is implied in this 
description of the ,atonement4  ,indeed 
there are many who do so argue4  ,but to
 follow them would be to forget the     
place which ,jesus has in ,his own      
teaching4  ,even if we grant that the   
main subject of that teaching is the    
,kingdom of ,god1 it is as clear as     
anything can be that the ,kingdom       
depends for its establishment on ,jesus1
 or rather that in ,him it is already   
established in principle2 and that all  
participation in its blessings depends  
on some kind of relation to ,him4  ,all 
things have been delivered to ,him by   

the ,father1 and it is by coming under  
obligation to ,him1 and by that alone1  
that men know the ,father4  ,it is by   
coming under obligation to ,him that    
they know the pardoning love of the     
,father1 as well as everything else that
 enters into ,christian experience and  
constitutes the blessedness of life in  
the ,kingdom of ,god4  ,nor is it open  
to any one to say that he knows this    
simply because ,christ has told it4  ,we
 are dealing here with things too great 
to be simply told4  ,if they are ever to
 be known in their reality1 they must be
 revealed by ,god1 they must rise upon  
the mind of man experimentally1 in their
 awful and glorious truth1 in ways more 
wonderful than words4  ,they can be     
spoken about afterwards1 but hardly     
beforehand4  ,they can be celebrated and
 preached--that is1 declared as the     
speaker's experience1 delivered as his  
testimony--but not simply told4  ,it was
 enough if ,jesus made ,his disciples   
feel1 as surely ,he did make them feel1 

not only in every word ,he spoke1 but   
more emphatically still in ,his whole   
attitude toward them1 that ,he was      
,himself the ,mediator of the new       
covenant1 and that all the blessings of 
the relation between ,god and man which 
we call ,christianity were blessings due
 to ,him4  ,if men knew the ,father1 it 
was through ,him4  ,if they knew the    
,father's heart to the lost1 it was     
through ,him4  ,through ,him1 be it     
remembered1 not merely through the words
 that ,he spoke4  ,there was more in    
,christ than even ,his own wonderful    
words expressed1 and all that ,he was   
and did and suffered1 as well as what   
,he said1 entered into the convictions  
,he inspired4  ,but ,he knew this as    
well as ,his disciples1 and for this    
very reason it is beside the mark to    
point to what ,he said1 or rather to    
what ,he did not say1 in confutation of 
their experience4  ,for it is their     
experience--the experience that the     
forgiveness of sins was mediated to them

 through ,his cross--that is expressed  
in the doctrine of ,atonement3 ,he died 
for our sins4  ,the objection which is  
here in view is most frequently pointed 
by reference to the parable of the      
prodigal son4  ,there is no ,atonement  
here1 we are told1 no mediation of      
forgiveness at all4  ,there is love on  
the one side and penitence on the other1
 and it is treason to the pure truth of 
this teaching to cloud and confuse it   
with the thoughts of men whose ,master  
was over their heads often1 but most of 
all here4 ,such a statement of the case 
is plausible1 and judging from the      
frequency with which it occurs must to  
some minds be very convincing1 but      
nothing could be more superficial1 or   
more unjust both to ,jesus and the      
apostles4  ,a parable is a comparison1  
and there is a point of comparison in it
 on which everything turns4  ,the more  
perfect the parable is1 the more        
conspicuous and dominating will the     
point of comparison be4  ,the parable of

 the prodigal illustrates this4  ,it    
brings out1 through a human parallel1   
with incomparable force and beauty1 the 
one truth of the freeness of            
forgiveness4  ,god waits to be gracious4
  ,his pardoning love rushes out to     
welcome the penitent4  ,but no one who  
speaks of the ,atonement ever dreams of 
questioning this4 ,the ,atonement is    
concerned with a different point--not   
the freeness of pardon1 about which all 
are agreed1 but the cost of it2 not the 
spontaneity of ,god's love1 which no one
 questions1 but the necessity under     
which it lay to manifest itself in a    
particular way if ,god was to be true to
 ,himself1 and to win the heart of      
sinners for the holiness which they had 
offended4  ,the ,atonement is not the   
denial that ,god's love is free2 it is  
that specific manifestation or          
demonstration of ,god's free love which 
is demanded by the situation of men4    
,one can hardly help wondering whether  
those who tell us so confidently that   

there is no ,atonement in the parable of
 the prodigal have ever noticed that    
there is no ,christ in it either--no    
elder brother who goes out to seek and  
to save the lost son1 and to give his   
life a ransom for him4 ,surely we are   
not to put the ,good ,shepherd out of   
the ,christian religion4  ,yet if we    
leave ,him ,his place1 we cannot make   
the parable of the prodigal the measure 
of ,christ's mind about the forgiveness 
of sins4  ,one part of ,his teaching it 
certainly contains--one part of the     
truth about the relation of ,god the    
,father to ,his sinful children2 but    
another part of the truth was present1  
though not on that occasion rendered in 
words1 in the presence of the ,speaker1 
when 'all the publicans and sinners drew
 near to ,him for to hear ,him4' ,the   
love of ,god to the sinful was          
apprehended in ,christ ,himself1 and not
 in what ,he said as something apart    
from ,himself2 on the contrary1 it was  
in the identity of the speaker and the  

word that the power of the word lay2    
,god's love evinced itself to men as a  
reality in ,him1 in ,his presence in the
 world1 and in ,his attitude to its sin2
 it so evinced itself1 finally and      
supremely1 in ,his death4  ,it is not   
the idiosyncrasy of one apostle1 it is  
the testimony of the ,church1 a         
testimony in keeping with the whole     
claim made by ,christ in ,his teaching  
and life and death3 'in ,him we have our
 redemption1 through ,his blood1 even   
the forgiveness of our trespasses4'     
,and this is what the ,atonement means3 
it means the mediation of forgiveness   
through ,christ1 and specifically       
through ,his death4  ,forgiveness1 in   
the ,christian sense of the term1 is    
only realised as we believe in the      
,atonement3 in other words1 as we come  
to feel the cost at which alone the love
 of ,god could assert itself as ,divine 
and holy love in the souls of sinful    
men4  ,we may say1 if we please1 that   
forgiveness is bestowed freely upon     

repentance2 but we must add1 if we would
 do justice to the ,christian position1 
that repentance in its ultimate         
character is the fruit of the           
,atonement4 ,repentance is not possible 
apart from the apprehension of the mercy
 of ,god in ,christ4  ,it is the        
experience of the                       
regenerate--poenitentiam interpretor    
regenerationem1 as ,calvin says--and it 
is the ,atonement which regenerates4    
,this1 then1 in the broadest sense1 is  
the truth which we wish to commend to   
the modern mind3 the truth that there is
 forgiveness with ,god1 and that this   
forgiveness comes to us only through    
,christ1 and signally or specifically   
through ,his death4  ,unless it becomes 
true to us that ,christ died for our    
sins we cannot appreciate forgiveness at
 its specifically ,christian value4  ,it
 cannot be for us that kind of reality1 
it cannot have for us that kind of      
inspiration1 which it unquestionably is 
and has in the ,new ,testament4  ,but   

what1 we must now ask1 is the modern    
mind to which this primary truth of     
,christianity has to be commended8  ,can
 we diagnose it in any general yet      
recognisable fashion1 so as to find     
guidance in seeking access to it for the
 gospel of the ,atonement8  ,there may  
seem to be something presumptuous in the
 very idea1 as though any one making the
 attempt assumed a superiority to the   
mind of his time1 an exemption from its 
limitations and prejudices1 a power to  
see over it and round about it4  ,all   
such presumption is of course disclaimed
 here2 but even while we disclaim it1   
the attempt to appreciate the mind of   
our time is forced upon us4  ,whoever   
has tried to preach the gospel1 and to  
persuade men of truth as truth is in    
,jesus1 and especially of the truth of  
,god's forgiveness as it is in the death
 of ,jesus for sin1 knows that there is 
a state of mind which is somehow        
inaccessible to this truth1 and to which
 the truth consequently appeals in vain4

  ,i do not speak of unambiguous moral  
antipathy to the ideas of forgiveness   
and atonement1 although antipathy to    
these ideas in general1 as distinct from
 any given presentation of them1 cannot 
but have a moral character1 just as a   
moral character always attaches to the  
refusal to acknowledge ,christ or to    
become ,his debtor2 but of something    
which1 though vaguer and less           
determinate1 puts the mind wrong1 so to 
speak1 with ,christianity from the      
start4  ,it is clear1 for instance1 in  
all that has been said about            
forgiveness1 that certain relations are 
presupposed as subsisting between ,god  
and man1 relations which make it        
possible for man to sin1 and possible   
for ,god1 not indeed to ignore his sin1 
but in the very act of recognising it as
 all that it is to forgive it1 to       
liberate man from it1 and to restore him
 to ,himself and righteousness4  ,now if
 the latent presuppositions of the      
modern mind are to any extent           

inconsistent with such relations1 there 
will be something to overcome before the
 conceptions of forgiveness or atonement
 can get a hearing4  ,these conceptions 
have their place in a certain view of   
the world as a whole1 and if the mind is
 preoccupied with a different view1 it  
will have an instinctive consciousness  
that it cannot accommodate them1 and a  
disposition therefore to reject them ab 
initio4  ,this is1 in point of fact1 the
 difficulty with which we have to deal4 
,and let no one say that it is          
transparently absurd to suggest that we 
must get men to accept a true philosophy
 before we can begin to preach the      
gospel to them1 as though that settled  
the matter or got over the difficulty4  
,we have to take men as we find them2 we
 have to preach the gospel to the mind  
which is around us2 and if that mind is 
rooted in a view of the world which     
leaves no room for ,christ and ,his work
 as ,christian experience has realised  
them1 then that view of the world must  

be appreciated by the evangelist1 it    
must be undermined at its weak places1  
its inadequacy to interpret all that is 
present even in the mind which has      
accepted it--in other words1 its        
inherent inconsistency--must be         
demonstrated2 the attempt must be made  
to liberate the mind1 so that it may be 
open to the impression of realities     
which under the conditions supposed it  
could only encounter with instinctive   
antipathy4  ,it is necessary1 therefore1
 at this point to advert to the various 
influences which have contributed to    
form the mind of our time1 and to give  
it its instinctive bias in one direction
 or another4  ,powerful and legitimate  
as these influences have been1 they have
 nevertheless been in various ways      
partial1 and because of their very      
partiality they have1 when they absorbed
 the mind1 as new modes of thought are  
apt to do1 prejudiced it against the    
consideration of other1 possibly of     
deeper and more far-reaching1 truths4   

,first1 there is the enormous           
development of physical science4  ,this 
has engrossed human intelligence in our 
own times to an extent which can hardly 
be over-estimated4  ,far more mind has  
been employed in constructing the great 
fabric of knowledge1 which we call      
science1 than in any other pursuit of   
men4  ,far more mind has had its        
characteristic qualities and temper     
imparted to it by scientific study than 
by study in any other field4  ,it is of 
science--which to all intents and       
purposes means physical science--of     
science and its methods and results that
 the modern mind is most confident1 and 
speaks with the most natural and        
legitimate pride4  ,now science1 even in
 this restricted sense1 covers a great  
range of subjects2 it may be physics in 
the narrowest meaning of the word1 or   
chemistry1 or biological science4 ,the  
characteristic of our own age has been  
the development of the last1 and in     
particular its extension to man4  ,it is

 impossible to dispute the legitimacy of
 this extension4  ,man has his place in 
nature2 the phenomena of life have one  
of their signal illustrations in him1   
and he is as proper a subject of        
biological study as any other living    
being4 ,but the intense preoccupation of
 much of the most vigorous intelligence 
of our time with the biological study of
 man is not without effects upon the    
mind itself1 which we need to consider4 
,it tends to produce a habit of mind to 
which certain assumptions are natural   
and inevitable1 certain other           
assumptions incredible from the first4  
,this habit of mind is in some ways     
favourable to the acceptance of the     
,atonement4 ,for example1 the           
biologist's invincible conviction of the
 unity of life1 and of the certainty and
 power with which whatever touches it at
 one point touches it through and       
through1 is in one way entirely         
favourable4  ,many of the most telling  
popular objections to the idea of       

,atonement rest on an atomic conception 
of personality--a conception according  
to which every human being is a closed  
system1 incapable in the last resort of 
helping or being helped1 of injuring or 
being injured1 by another4  ,this       
conception has been finally discredited 
by biology1 and so far the evangelist   
must be grateful4  ,the ,atonement      
presupposes the unity of human life1 and
 its solidarity2 it presupposes a common
 and universal responsibility4  ,i      
believe it presupposes also such a      
conception of the unity of man and      
nature as biology proceeds upon2 and in 
all these respects its physical         
presuppositions1 if we may so express   
ourselves1 are present to the mind of   
to-day1 thanks to biology1 as they were 
not even so lately as a hundred years   
ago4  ,but this is not all that we have 
to consider4  ,the mind has been        
influenced by the movement of physical  
and even of biological science1 not only
 in a way which is favourable1 but in   

ways which are prejudicial to the       
acceptance of the ,atonement4  ,every   
physical science seems to have a        
boundless ambition2 it wants to reduce  
everything to its own level1 to explain 
everything in the terms and by the      
categories with which it itself works4  
,the higher has always to fight for its 
life against the lower4  ,the physicist 
would like to reduce chemistry to       
physics2 the chemist has an ambition to 
simplify biology into chemistry2 the    
biologist in turn looks with suspicion  
on anything in man which cannot be      
interpreted biologically4  ,he would    
like to give1 and is sometimes ready to 
offer1 a biological explanation of      
self-consciousness1 of freedom1 of      
religion1 morality1 sin4  ,now a        
biological explanation1 when all is     
done1 is a physical explanation1 and a  
physical explanation of                 
self-consciousness or the moral life is 
one in which the very essence of the    
thing to be explained is either ignored 

or explained away4  ,man's life is      
certainly rooted in nature1 and         
therefore a proper subject for          
biological study2 but unless it somehow 
transcended nature1 and so demanded     
other than physical categories for its  
complete interpretation1 there could not
 be any study or any science at all4    
,if there were nothing but matter1 as   
,m4 ,naville has said1 there would be no
 materialism2 and if there were nothing 
but life1 there would be no biology4    
,now it is in the higher region of human
 experience1 to which all physical      
categories are unequal1 that we         
encounter those realities to which the  
,atonement is related1 and in relation  
to which it is real2 and we must insist 
upon these higher realities1 in their   
specific character1 against a strong    
tendency in the scientifically trained  
modern mind1 and still more in the      
general mind as influenced by it1 to    
reduce them to the merely physical      
level4  ,take1 for instance1 the        

consciousness of sin4  ,evidently the   
,atonement becomes incredible if the    
consciousness of sin is extinguished or 
explained away4  ,there is nothing for  
the ,atonement to do2 there is nothing  
to relate it to2 it is as unreal as a   
rock in the sky4  ,but many minds at the
 present time1 under the influence of   
current conceptions in biology1 do      
explain it away4  ,all life is one1 they
 argue4  ,it rises from the same spring1
 it runs the same course1 it comes to   
the same end4  ,the life of man is      
rooted in nature1 and that which beats  
in my veins is an inheritance from an   
immeasurable past4 ,it is absurd to     
speak of my responsibility for it1 or of
 my guilt because it manifests itself in
 me1 as it inevitably does1 in such and 
such forms4  ,there is no doubt that    
this mode of thought is widely          
prevalent1 and that it is one of the    
most serious hindrances to the          
acceptance of the gospel1 and especially
 of the ,atonement4  ,how are we to     

appreciate it8  ,we must point out1 ,i  
think1 the consequence to which it      
leads4  ,if a man denies that he is     
responsible for the nature which he has 
inherited--denies responsibility for it 
on the ground that it is inherited--it  
is a fair question to ask him for what  
he does accept responsibility4  ,when he
 has divested himself of the inherited  
nature1 what is left8  ,the real meaning
 of such disowning of responsibility is 
that a man asserts that his life is a   
part of the physical phenomena of the   
universe1 and nothing else2 and he      
forgets1 in the very act of making the  
assertion1 that if it were true1 it     
could not be so much as made4  ,the     
merely physical is transcended in every 
such assertion2 and the man who has     
transcended it1 rooted though his life  
be in nature1 and one with the life of  
the whole and of all the past1 must take
 the responsibility of living that life 
out on the high level of                
self-consciousness and morality which   

his very disclaimer involves4  ,the     
sense of sin which wakes spontaneously  
with the perception that he is not what 
he ought to have been must not be       
explained away2 at the level which life 
has reached in him1 this is unscientific
 as well as immoral2 his sin--for ,i do 
not know another word for it--must be   
realised as all that it is in the moral 
world if he is ever to be true to       
himself1 not to say if he is ever to    
welcome the ,atonement1 and leave his   
sin behind4  ,we have no need of words  
like sin and atonement--we could not    
have the experiences which they         
designate--unless we had a higher than  
merely natural life2 and one of the     
tendencies of the modern mind which has 
to be counteracted by the evangelist is 
the tendency induced by physical and    
especially by biological science to     
explain the realities of personal       
experience by sub-personal categories4  
,in conscience1 in the sense of personal
 dignity1 in the ultimate inability of  

man to deny the self which he is1 we    
have always an appeal against such      
tendencies1 which cannot fail2 but it   
needs to be made resolutely when        
conscience is lethargic and the whole   
bias of the mind is to the other side4  
,passing from physical science1 the     
modern mind has perhaps been influenced 
most by the great idealist movement in  
philosophy--the movement which in       
,germany began with ,kant and culminated
 in ,hegel4 ,this idealism1 just like   
physical science1 gives a certain stamp 
to the mind2 when it takes possession of
 intelligence it casts it1 so to speak1 
into a certain mould2 even more than    
physical science it dominates it so that
 it becomes incapable of self-criticism1
 and very difficult to teach4  ,its     
importance to the preacher of           
,christianity is that it assumes certain
 relations between the human and the    
divine1 relations which foreclose the   
very questions which the ,atonement     
compels us to raise4  ,to be brief1 it  

teaches the essential unity of ,god and 
man4  ,god and man1 to speak of them as 
distinct1 are necessary to each other1  
but man is as necessary to ,god as ,god 
is to man4  ,god is the truth of man1   
but man is the reality of ,god4  ,god   
comes to consciousness of ,himself in   
man1 and man in being conscious of      
himself is at the same time conscious of
 ,god4  ,though many writers of this    
school make a copious use of ,christian 
phraseology1 it seems to me obvious that
 it is not in an adequate ,christian    
sense4  ,sin is not regarded as that    
which ought not to be1 it is that which 
is to be transcended4  ,it is as        
inevitable as anything in nature2 and   
the sense of it1 the bad conscience     
which accompanies it1 is no more than   
the growing pains of the soul4  ,on such
 a system there is no room for atonement
 in the sense of the mediation of ,god's
 forgiveness through ,jesus ,christ4    
,we may consistently speak in it of a   
man being reconciled to himself1 or even

 reconciled to his sins1 but not1 so far
 as ,i can understand1 of his being     
reconciled to ,god1 and still less1     
reconciled to ,god through the death of 
,his ,son4  ,the penetration of ,kant   
saw from the first all that could be    
made of atonement on the basis of any   
such system4  ,what it means to the     
speculative mind is that the new man    
bears the sin of the old4  ,when the    
sinner repents and is converted1 the    
weight of what he has done comes home to
 him2 the new man in him--the ,son of   
,god in him--accepts the responsibility 
of the old man1 and so he has peace with
 ,god4  ,many whose minds are under the 
influence of this mode of thought do not
 see clearly to what it leads1 and      
resent criticism of it as if it were a  
sort of impiety4  ,their philosophy is  
to them a surrogate for religion1 but   
they should not be allowed to suppose   
7if they do suppose7 that it is the     
equivalent of ,christianity4  ,there can
 be no ,christianity without ,christ2 it

 is the presence of the ,mediator which 
makes ,christianity what it is4  ,but a 
unique ,christ1 without ,whom our       
religion disappears1 is frankly         
disavowed by the more candid and        
outspoken of our idealist philosophers4 
,christ1 they tell us1 was certainly a  
man who had an early and a magnificently
 strong faith in the unity of the human 
and the ,divine2 but it was faith in a  
fact which enters into the constitution 
of every human consciousness1 and it is 
absurd to suppose that the recognition  
of the fact1 or the realisation of it1  
is essentially dependent on ,him4  ,he  
was not sinless--which is an expression 
without meaning1 when we think of a     
human being which has to rise by        
conflict and self-suppression out of    
nature into the world of                
self-consciousness and right and wrong2 
,he was not in any sense unique or      
exceptional2 ,he was only what we all   
are in our degree2 at best1 ,he was only
 one among many great men who have      

contributed in their place and time to  
the spiritual elevation of the race4    
,such1 ,i say1 is the issue of this mode
 of thought as it is frankly avowed by  
some of its representative men2 but the 
peculiarity of it1 when it is obscurely 
fermenting as a leaven in the mind1 is1 
that it appeals to men as having special
 affinities to ,christianity4  ,in our  
own country it is widely prevalent among
 those who have had a university        
education1 and indeed in a much wider   
circle1 and it is a serious question how
 we are to address our gospel to those  
who confront it in such a mental mood4  
,i have no wish to be unsympathetic1 but
 ,i must frankly express my conviction  
that this philosophy only lives by      
ignoring the greatest reality of the    
spiritual world4  ,there is something in
 that world--something with which we can
 come into intelligible and vital       
relations--something which can evince to
 our minds its truth and reality1 for   
which this philosophy can make no room3 

,christ's consciousness of ,himself4    
,it is a theory of the universe which   
7on principle7 cannot allow ,christ to  
be anything else than an additional unit
 in the world's population2 but if this 
were the truth about ,him1 no language  
could be strong enough to express the   
self-delusion in which ,he lived and    
died4  ,that ,he was thus self-deluded  
is a hypothesis ,i do not feel called to
 discuss4  ,one may be accused of       
subjectivity again1 of course1 though a 
subjective opinion which has the consent
 of the ,christian centuries behind it  
need not tremble at hard names2 but ,i  
venture to say that there is no reality 
in the world which more inevitably and  
uncompromisingly takes hold of the mind 
as a reality than our ,lord's           
consciousness of ,himself as it is      
attested to us in the ,gospels4  ,but   
when we have taken this reality for all 
that it is worth1 the idealism just     
described is shaken to the foundation4  
,what seemed to us so profound a        

truth--the essential unity of the human 
and the divine--may come to seem a      
formal and delusive platitude2 in what  
we once regarded as the formula of the  
perfect religion--the divinity of man   
and the humanity of ,god--we may find   
quite as truly the formula of the first1
 not to say the final1 sin4  ,to see    
,christ not in the light of this        
speculative theorem1 but in the light of
 ,his own consciousness of ,himself1 is 
to realise not only our kinship to ,god1
 but our remoteness from ,him2 it is to 
realise our incapacity for              
self-realisation when we are left to    
ourselves2 it is to realise the need of 
the ,mediator if we would come to the   
,father2 it is to realise1 in principle1
 the need of the ,atonement1 the need1  
and eventually the fact4  ,when the     
modern mind therefore presents itself to
 us in this mood of philosophical       
competence1 judging ,christ from the    
point of view of the whole1 and showing 
,him ,his place1 we can only insist that

 the place is unequal to ,his greatness1
 and that ,his greatness cannot be      
explained away4  ,the mind which is     
closed to the fact of ,his unique       
claims1 and the unique relation to ,god 
on which they rest1 is closed inevitably
 to the mediation of ,god's forgiveness 
through ,his death4  ,there is one other
 modification of mind1 characteristic of
 modern times1 of which we have yet to  
take account--,i mean that which is     
produced by devotion to historical      
study4  ,history is1 as much as science1
 one of the achievements of our age2 and
 the historical temper is as            
characteristic of the men we meet as the
 philosophical or the scientific4  ,the 
historical temper1 too1 is just as apt  
as these others1 perhaps unconsciously1 
perhaps quite consciously1 but under the
 engaging plea of modesty1 to pronounce 
absolute sentences which strike at the  
life of the ,christian religion1 and    
especially1 therefore1 at the idea of   
the ,atonement4  ,sometimes this is done

 broadly1 so that every one sees what it
 means4  ,if we are told1 for example1  
that everything historical is relative1 
that it belongs of necessity to a time1 
and is conditioned in ways so intricate 
that no knowledge can ever completely   
trace them2 if we are told1 further1    
that for this very reason nothing       
historical can have absolute            
significance1 or can condition the      
eternal life of man1 it is obvious that 
the ,christian religion is being cut at 
the root4  ,it is no use speaking about 
the ,atonement--about the mediation of  
,god's forgiveness to the soul through a
 historical person and work--if this is 
true4  ,the only thing to be done is to 
raise the question whether it is true4  
,it is no more for historical than for  
physical science to exalt itself into a 
theory of the universe1 or to lay down  
the law with speculative absoluteness as
 to the significance and value which    
shall attach to facts4  ,when we face   
the fact with which we are here         

concerned--the fact of ,christ's        
consciousness of ,himself and ,his      
vocation1 to which reference has already
 been made--are we not forced to the    
conclusion that here a new spiritual    
magnitude has appeared in history1 the  
very differentia of which is that it has
 eternal significance1 and that it is   
eternal life to know it8  ,if we are to 
preach the ,atonement1 we cannot allow  
either history or philosophy to proceed 
on assumptions which ignore or degrade  
the fact of ,christ4  ,only a person in 
whom the eternal has become historical  
can be the bearer of the ,atonement1 and
 it must be our first concern to show1  
against all assumptions whether made in 
the name of history or of philosophy1   
that in point of fact there is such a   
person here4  ,this consideration       
requires to be kept in view even when we
 are dealing with the modern mind inside
 the ,church4  ,nothing is commoner than
 to hear those who dissent from any     
given construction of the ,atonement    

plead for a historical as opposed to a  
dogmatic interpretation of ,christ4  ,it
 is not always clear what is meant by   
this distinction1 nor is it clear that  
those who use it are always conscious of
 what it would lead to if it were made  
absolute4  ,sometimes a dogmatic        
interpretation of the ,new ,testament   
means an interpretation vitiated by     
dogmatic prejudice1 an interpretation in
 which the meaning of the writers is    
missed because the mind is blinded by   
prepossessions of its own3 in this sense
 a dogmatic interpretation is a thing   
which no one would defend4  ,sometimes1 
however1 a dogmatic interpretation is   
one which reveals or discovers in the   
,new ,testament truths of eternal and   
divine significance1 and to discredit   
such interpretation in the name of the  
historical is another matter4  ,the     
distinction in this case1 as has been   
already pointed out1 is not absolute4   
,it is analogous to the distinction     
between fact and theory1 or between     

thing and meaning1 or between efficient 
cause and final cause4  ,none of these  
distinctions is absolute1 and no        
intelligent mind would urge either side 
in them to the disparagement of the     
other4  ,if we are to apprehend the     
whole reality presented to us1 we must  
apprehend the theory as well as the     
fact1 the meaning as well as the thing1 
the final as well as the efficient      
cause4 ,in the subject with which we are
 dealing1 this truth is frequently      
ignored4  ,it is assumed1 for example1  
that because ,christ was put to death by
 ,his enemies1 or because ,he died in   
the faithful discharge of ,his calling1 
therefore ,he did not die1 in the sense 
of the ,atonement1 for our sins3 the    
historical causes which brought about   
,his death are supposed to preclude that
 interpretation of it according to which
 it mediates to us the divine           
forgiveness4  ,but there is no          
incompatibility between the two things4 
,to set aside an interpretation of      

,christ's death as dogmatic1 on the     
ground that there is another which is   
historical1 is like setting aside the   
idea that a watch is made to measure    
time because you know it was made by a  
watchmaker4  ,it was both made by a     
watchmaker and made to measure time4    
,similarly it may be quite true both    
that ,christ was crucified and slain by 
wicked men1 and that ,he died for our   
sins4  ,but without entering into the   
questions which this raises as to the   
relation between the wisdom of ,god and 
the course of human history1 it is      
enough to be conscious of the prejudice 
which the historical temper is apt to   
generate against the recognition of the 
eternal in time4  ,surely it is a       
significant fact that the ,new          
,testament contains a whole series of   
books--the ,johannine books--which have 
as their very burden the eternal        
significance of the historical3 eternal 
life in ,jesus ,christ1 come in flesh1  
the propitiation for the whole world4   

,surely also it is a significant fact of
 a different and even an ominous kind   
that we have at present in the ,church a
 whole school of critics which is so far
 from appreciating the truth in this    
that it is hardly an exaggeration to say
 that it has devoted itself to a paltry 
and peddling criticism of these books in
 which the impression of the eternal is 
lost4  ,but whether we are to be        
indebted to ,john's eyes1 or to none but
 our own1 if the eternal is not to be   
seen in ,jesus1 ,he can have no place in
 our religion2 if the historical has no 
dogmatic content1 it cannot be essential
 to eternal life4  ,hence if we believe 
and know that we have eternal life in   
,jesus1 we must assert the truth which  
is implied in this against any          
conception of history which denies it4  
,nor is it really difficult to do so4   
,with the experience of nineteen        
centuries behind us1 we have only to    
confront this particular historical     
reality1 ,jesus ,christ1 without        

prejudice2 in evangelising1 we have only
 to confront others with ,him2 and we   
shall find it still possible to see ,god
 in ,him1 the ,holy ,father who through 
the ,passion of ,his ,son ministers to  
sinners the forgiveness of their sins4  
,in what has been said thus far by way  
of explaining the modern mind1 emphasis 
may seem to have fallen mainly on those 
characteristics which make it less      
accessible than it might be to          
,christian truth1 and especially to the 
,atonement4  ,i have tried to point out 
the assailable side of its              
prepossessions1 and to indicate the     
fundamental truths which must be        
asserted if our intellectual world is to
 be one in which the gospel may find    
room4  ,but the modern mind has other   
characteristics4  ,some of these may    
have been exhibited hitherto mainly in  
criticising current representations of  
the ,atonement2 but in themselves they  
are entirely legitimate1 and the claims 
they put forward are such as we cannot  

disown4  ,before proceeding to a further
 statement of the ,atonement1 ,i shall  
briefly refer to one or two of them3 a  
doctrine of ,atonement which did not    
satisfy them would undoubtedly stand    
condemned4  7#a7 ,the modern mind       
requires that everything shall be based 
on experience4  ,nothing is true or real
 to it which cannot be experimentally   
verified4  ,this we shall all concede4  
,but there is an inference sometimes    
drawn from it at which we may look with 
caution4 ,it is the inference that1     
because everything must be based on     
experience1 no appeal to ,scripture has 
any authority4  ,i have already         
explained in what sense it is possible  
to speak of the authority of ,scripture1
 and here it is only necessary to make  
the simple remark that there is no      
proper contrast between ,scripture and  
experience4 ,scripture1 so far as it    
concerns us here1 is a record of        
experience or an interpretation of it4  
,it was the ,church's experience that it

 had its redemption in ,christ2 it was  
the interpretation of that experience   
that ,christ died for our sins4  ,yet in
 emphasising experience the modern mind 
is right1 and ,scripture would lose its 
authority if the experience it describes
 were not perpetually verified anew4    
7#b7 ,the modern mind desires to have   
everything in religion ethically        
construed4  ,as a general principle this
 must command our unreserved assent4    
,anything which violates ethical        
standards1 anything which is immoral or 
less than moral1 must be excluded from  
religion4  ,it may be1 indeed1 that     
ethical has sometimes been too narrowly 
defined4  ,ideas have been objected to  
as unethical which are really at        
variance not with a true perception of  
the constitution of humanity1 and of the
 laws which regulate moral life1 but    
with an atomic theory of personality    
under which moral life would be         
impossible4  ,persons are not atoms2 in 
a sense they interpenetrate1 though     

individuality has been called the true  
impenetrability4  ,the world has been so
 constituted that we do not stand       
absolutely outside of each other2 we can
 do things for each other4  ,we can bear
 each other's burdens1 and it is not    
unethical to say so1 but the reverse4   
,and again1 it need not be unethical1   
though it transcends the ordinary sphere
 and range of ethical action1 if we say 
that ,god in ,christ is able to do for  
us what we cannot do for one another4   
,with reference to the ,atonement1 the  
demand for ethical treatment is usually 
expressed in two ways4  7a7 ,there is   
the demand for analogies to it in human 
life4  ,the demand is justifiable1 in so
 far as ,god has made man in ,his own   
image2 but1 as has been suggested above1
 it has a limit1 in so far as ,god is   
,god and not man1 and must have         
relations to the human race which its   
members do not and cannot have to each  
other4  7b7 ,there is the demand that   
the ,atonement shall be exhibited in    

vital relation to a new life in which   
sin is overcome4 ,this demand also is   
entirely legitimate1 and it touches a   
weak point in the traditional           
,protestant doctrine4  ,dr4 ,chalmers   
tells us that he was brought up--such   
was the effect of the current orthodoxy 
upon him--in a certain distrust of good 
works4  ,some were certainly wanted1 but
 not as being themselves salvation2     
only1 as he puts it1 as tokens of       
justification4  ,it was a distinct stage
 in his religious progress when he      
realised that true justification        
sanctifies1 and that the soul can and   
ought to abandon itself spontaneously   
and joyfully to do the good that it     
delights in4  ,the modern mind assumes  
what ,dr4 ,chalmers painfully           
discovered4  ,an atonement that does not
 regenerate1 it truly holds1 is not an  
atonement in which men can be asked to  
believe4  ,such then1 in its prejudices 
good and bad1 is the mind to which the  
great truth of the ,christian religion  

has to be presented4    #a ,of course   
this does not touch the fact that the   
whole 'authority' of the ,christian     
religion is in ,jesus ,himself--in ,his 
historical presence in the world1 ,his  
words and works1 ,his life and death and
 resurrection4  ,he is the truth1 the   
acceptance of which by man is life      
eternal4     ,,chapter ,,ii  ,,sin ,,and
 ,,the ,,divine ,,reaction ,,against    
,,it  ,we have now seen in a general way
 what is meant by the ,atonement1 and   
what are the characteristics of the mind
 to which the ,atonement has to make its
 appeal4  ,in that mind there is1 as ,i 
believe1 much which falls in with the   
,atonement1 and prepares a welcome for  
it2 but much also which creates         
prejudice against it1 and makes it as   
possible still as in the first century  
to speak of the offence of the cross4   
,no doubt the ,atonement has sometimes  
been presented in forms which provoke   
antagonism1 which challenge by an       
ostentation of unreason1 or by a        

defiance of morality1 the reason and    
conscience of man2 but this alone does  
not explain the resentment which it     
often encounters4  ,there is such a     
thing to be found in the world as the   
man who will have nothing to do with    
,christ on any terms1 and who will least
 of all have anything to do with ,him   
when ,christ presents ,himself in the   
character which makes man ,his debtor   
for ever4  ,all men1 as ,st4 ,paul says1
 have not faith3 it is a melancholy     
fact1 whether we can make anything of it
 or not4  ,discounting1 however1 this   
irrational or inexplicable opposition1  
which is not expressed in the mind but  
in the will1 how are we to present the  
,atonement so that it shall excite the  
least prejudice1 and find the most      
unimpeded access to the mind of our own 
generation8  ,this is the question to   
which we have now to address ourselves4 
,to conceive the ,atonement1 that is1   
the fact that forgiveness is mediated to
 us through ,christ1 and specifically   

through ,his death1 as clearly and truly
 as possible1 it is necessary for us to 
realise the situation to which it is    
related4  ,we cannot think of it except 
as related to a given situation4  ,it is
 determined or conditioned by certain   
relations subsisting between ,god and   
man1 as these relations have been       
affected by sin4  ,what we must do1     
therefore1 in the first instance1 is to 
make clear to ourselves what these      
relations are1 and how sin affects them4
  ,to begin with1 they are personal     
relations2 they are relations the truth 
of which cannot be expressed except by  
the use of personal pronouns4  ,we need 
not ask whether the personality of ,god 
can be proved antecedent to religion1 or
 as a basis for a religion yet to be    
established2 in the only sense in which 
we can be concerned with it1 religion is
 an experience of the personality of    
,god1 and of our own personality in     
relation to it4  ',o ,lord1 ,thou hast  
searched me and known me4'  ',i am      

continually with ,thee6  ,no human      
experience can be more vital or more    
normal than that which is expressed in  
these words1 and no argument1 be it ever
 so subtle or so baffling1 can weigh a  
feather's-weight against such           
experience4  ,the same conception of the
 relations of ,god and man is expressed 
again as unmistakably in every word of  
,jesus about the ,father and the ,son   
and the nature of their communion with  
each other4  ,it is only in such        
personal relations that the kind of     
situation can emerge1 and the kind of   
experience be had1 with which the       
,atonement deals2 and antecedent to such
 experience1 or in independence of it1  
the ,atonement must remain an incredible
 because an unrealisable thing4  ,but to
 say that the relations of ,god and man 
are personal is not enough4 ,they are   
not only personal1 but universal4       
,personal is habitually used in a       
certain contrast with legal1 and it is  
very easy to lapse into the idea that   

personal relations1 because distinct    
from legal ones1 are independent of law2
 but to say the least of it1 that is an 
ambiguous and misleading way of         
describing the facts4  ,the relations of
 ,god and man are not lawless1 they are 
not capricious1 incalculable1 incapable 
of moral meaning2 they are personal1 but
 determined by something of universal   
import2 in other words1 they are not    
merely personal but ethical4  ,that is  
ethical which is at once personal and   
universal4  ,perhaps the simplest way to
 make this evident is to notice that the
 relations of man to ,god are the       
relations to ,god not of atoms1 or of   
self-contained individuals1 each of     
which is a world in itself1 but of      
individuals which are essentially       
related to each other1 and bound up in  
the unity of a race4 ,the relations of  
,god to man1 therefore1 are not         
capricious though they are personal3    
they are reflected or expressed in a    
moral constitution to which all personal

 beings are equally bound1 a moral      
constitution of eternal and universal   
validity1 which neither ,god nor man can
 ultimately treat as anything else than 
what it is4  ,this is a point at which  
some prejudice has been raised against  
the ,atonement by theologians1 and more1
 perhaps1 by persons protesting against 
what they supposed theologians to mean4 
,if one may be excused a personal       
reference1 few things have astonished me
 more than to be charged with teaching a
 'forensic' or 'legal' or 'judicial'    
doctrine of ,atonement1 resting1 as such
 a doctrine must do1 on a 'forensic' or 
'legal' or 'judicial' conception of     
man's relation to ,god4  ,it is all the 
more astonishing when the charge is     
combined with what one can only decline 
as in the circumstances totally         
unmerited compliments to the clearness  
with which he has expressed himself4    
,there is nothing which ,i should wish  
to reprobate more whole-heartedly than  
the conception which is expressed by    

these words4  ,to say that the relations
 of ,god and man are forensic is to say 
that they are regulated by statute--that
 sin is a breach of statute--that the   
sinner is a criminal--and that ,god     
adjudicates on him by interpreting the  
statute in its application to his case4 
,everybody knows that this is a travesty
 of the truth1 and it is surprising that
 any one should be charged with teaching
 it1 or that any one should applaud     
himself1 as though he were in the       
foremost files of time1 for not         
believing it4  ,it is superfluously     
apparent that the relations of ,god and 
man are not those of a magistrate on the
 bench pronouncing according to the act 
on the criminal at the bar4  ,to say    
this1 however1 does not make these      
relations more intelligible4  ,in       
particular1 to say that they are        
personal1 as opposed to forensic1 does  
not make them more intelligible4  ,if   
they are to be rational1 if they are to 
be moral1 if they are to be relations in

 which an ethical life can be lived1 and
 ethical responsibilities realised1 they
 must be not only personal1 but         
universal2 they must be relations that  
in some sense are determined by law4    
,even to say that they are the          
relations1 not of judge and criminal1   
but of ,father and child1 does not get  
us past this point4 ,the relations of   
father and child are undoubtedly more   
adequate to the truth than those of     
judge and criminal2 they are more       
adequate1 but so far as our experience  
of them goes1 they are not equal to it4 
,if the sinner is not a criminal before 
his judge1 neither is he a naughty child
 before a parent whose own weakness or  
affinity to evil introduces an          
incalculable element into his dealing   
with his child's fault4  ,i should not  
think of saying that it is the desire to
 escape from the inexorableness of law  
to a ,god capable of indulgent human    
tenderness that inspires the violent    
protests so often heard against         

'forensic' and 'legal' ideas3 but that  
is the impression which one sometimes   
involuntarily receives from them4  ,it  
ought to be apparent to every one that  
even the relation of parent and child1  
if it is to be a moral relation1 must be
 determined in a way which has universal
 and final validity4  ,it must be a     
relation in which--ethically            
speaking--some things are for ever      
obligatory1 and some things for ever    
impossible2 in other words1 it must be a
 relation determined by law1 and law    
which cannot deny itself4  ,but law in  
this sense is not 'legal4'  ,it is not  
'judicial1' or 'forensic1' or           
'statutory4'  ,none the less it is real 
and vital1 and the whole moral value of 
the relation depends upon it4  ,when a  
man says--as some one has said--',there 
are many to whom the conception of      
forgiveness resting on a judicial       
transaction does not appeal at all1' ,i 
entirely agree with him2 it does not    
appeal at all to me4  ,but what would be

 the value of a forgiveness which did   
not recognise in its eternal truth and  
worth that universal law in which the   
relations of ,god and man are           
constituted8  ,without the recognition  
of that law--that moral order or        
constitution in which we have our life  
in relation to ,god and each            
other--righteousness and sin1 atonement 
and forgiveness1 would all alike be     
words without meaning4  ,in connection  
with this1 reference may be made to an  
important point in the interpretation of
 the ,new ,testament4  ,the             
responsibility for what is called the   
forensic conception of the ,atonement is
 often traced to ,st4 ,paul1 and the    
greatest of all the ministers of grace  
is not infrequently spoken of as though 
he had deliberately laid the most       
insuperable of stumbling-blocks in the  
way to the gospel4  ,most people1 of    
course1 are conscious that they do not  
look well talking down to ,st4  ,paul1  
and occasionally one can detect a note  

of misgiving in the brave words in which
 his doctrine is renounced1 a note of   
misgiving which suggests that the       
charitable course is to hear such       
protests in silence1 and to let those   
who utter them think over the matter    
again4  ,but there is what claims to be 
a scientific way of expressing dissent  
from the apostle1 a way which1 equally  
with the petulant one1 rests1 ,i am     
convinced1 on misapprehension of his    
teaching4  ,this it would not be fair to
 ignore4 ,it interprets what the apostle
 says about law solely by reference to  
the great question at issue between the 
,jewish and the ,christian religions1   
making the word law mean the statutory  
system under which the ,jews lived1 and 
nothing else4  ,no one will deny that   
,paul does use the word in this sense2  
the law often means for him specifically
 the law of ,moses4  ,the law of ,moses1
 however1 never means for him anything  
less than the law of ,god2 it is one    
specific form in which the universal    

relations subsisting between ,god and   
man1 and making religion and morality   
possible1 have found historical         
expression4  ,but ,paul's mind does not 
rest in this one historical expression4 
,he generalises it4  ,he has the        
conception of a universal law1 to which 
he can appeal in ,gentile as well as in 
,jew--a law in the presence of which sin
 is revealed1 and by the reaction of    
which sin is judged--a law which ,god   
could not deny without denying ,himself1
 and to which justice is done 7in other 
words1 which is maintained in its       
integrity71 even when ,god justifies the
 ungodly4  ,but when law is thus        
universalised1 it ceases to be legal2 it
 is not a statute1 but the moral        
constitution of the world4  ,paul       
preached the same gospel to the         
,gentiles as he did to the ,jews2 he    
preached in it the same relation of the 
,atonement and of ,christ's death to    
divine law4  ,but he did not do this by 
extending to all mankind a ,pharisaic1  

legal1 forensic relation to ,god3 he did
 it by rising above such conceptions1   
even though as a ,pharisee he may have  
had to start from them1 to the          
conception of a relation of all men to  
,god expressing itself in a moral       
constitution--or1 as he would have said1
 but in an entirely unforensic sense1 in
 a law--of divine and unchanging        
validity4  ,the maintenance of this law1
 or of this moral constitution1 in its  
inviolable integrity was the signature  
of the forgiveness ,paul preached4  ,the
 ,atonement meant to him that           
forgiveness was mediated through ,one in
 whose life and death the most signal   
homage was paid to this law3 the very   
glory of the ,atonement was that it     
manifested the righteousness of ,god2 it
 demonstrated ,god's consistency with   
,his own character1 which would have    
been violated alike by indifference to  
sinners and by indifference to that     
universal moral order--that law of      
,god--in which alone eternal life is    

possible4  ,hence it is a mistake to    
say--though this also has been          
said--that ',paul's problem was not that
 of the possibility of forgiveness2 it  
was the ,jewish law1 the ,old ,testament
 dispensation3 how to justify his breach
 with it1 how to demonstrate that the   
old order had been annulled and a new   
order inaugurated4'  ,there is a false  
contrast in all such propositions4      
,paul's problem was that of the ,jewish 
law1 and it was also that of the        
possibility of forgiveness2 it was that 
of the ,jewish law1 and it was also that
 of a revelation of grace1 in which ,god
 should justify the ungodly1 ,jew or    
,gentile1 and yet maintain inviolate    
those universal moral relations between 
,himself and man for which law is the   
compendious expression4  ,it does not   
matter whether we suppose him to start  
from the concrete instance of the       
,jewish law1 and to generalise on the   
basis of it2 or to start from the       
universal conception of law1 and to     

recognise in existing ,jewish           
institutions the most available and     
definite illustration of it3 in either  
case1 the only ,paul whose mind is known
 to us has completely transcended the   
forensic point of view4  ,the same false
 contrast is repeated when we are told  
that1 ',that doctrine 7,paul's juristic 
doctrine7 had its origin1 not so much in
 his religious experience1 as in        
apologetic necessities4'  ,the only     
apologetic necessities which give rise  
to fundamental doctrines are those      
created by religious experience4  ,the  
apologetic of any religious experience  
is just the definition of it as real in 
relation to other acknowledged          
realities4 ,paul had undoubtedly an     
apologetic of forgiveness--namely1 his  
doctrine of atonement4  ,but the        
acknowledged reality in relation to     
which he defined forgiveness--the       
reality with which1 by means of his     
doctrine of atonement1 he showed        
forgiveness to be consistent--was not   

the law of the ,jews 7though that was   
included in it1 or might be pointed to  
in illustration of it73 it was the law  
of ,god1 the universal and inviolable   
order in which alone eternal life is    
possible1 and in which all men1 and not 
the ,jews only1 live and move and have  
their being4  ,it was the perception of 
this which made ,paul an apostle to the 
,gentiles1 and it is this very thing    
itself1 which some would degrade into an
 awkward1 unintelligent1 and outworn rag
 of ,pharisaic apologetic1 which is the 
very heart and soul of ,paul's ,gentile 
gospel4  ,paul himself was perfectly    
conscious of this2 he could not have    
preached to the ,gentiles at all unless 
he had been4  ,but there is nothing in  
it which can be characterised as        
'legal1' 'judicial1' or 'forensic'2 and 
of this also1 ,i have no doubt1 the     
apostle was well aware4  ,of course he  
occupied a certain historical position1 
had certain historical questions to     
answer1 was subject to historical       

limitations of different kinds2 but ,i  
have not the courage to treat him1 nor  
do his words entitle any one to do so1  
as a man who in the region of ideas     
could not put two and two together4     
,but to return to the point from which  
this digression on ,st4 ,paul started4  
,we have seen that the relations of ,god
 and man are personal1 and also that    
they are universal1 that is1 there is a 
law of them1 or1 if we like to say so1 a
 law in them1 on the maintenance of     
which their whole ethical value depends4
  ,the next point to be noticed is that 
these relations are deranged or         
disordered by sin4  ,sin is1 in fact1   
nothing else than this derangement or   
disturbance3 it is that in which wrong  
is done to the moral constitution under 
which we live4  ,and let no one say that
 in such an expression we are turning   
our back on the personal world1 and     
lapsing1 or incurring the risk of       
lapsing1 into mere legalism again4 ,it  
cannot be too often repeated that if the

 universal element1 or law1 be          
eliminated from personal relations1     
there is nothing intelligible left3 no  
reason1 no morality1 no religion1 no sin
 or righteousness or forgiveness1       
nothing to appeal to mind or conscience4
  ,in the widest sense of the word1 sin1
 as a disturbance of the personal       
relations between ,god and man1 is a    
violence done to the constitution under 
which ,god and man form one moral       
community1 share1 as we may reverently  
express it1 one life1 have in view the  
same moral ends4  ,it is no more        
necessary in connection with the        
,atonement than in any other connection 
that we should have a doctrine of the   
origin of sin4  ,we do not know its     
origin1 we only know that it is here4   
,we cannot observe the genesis of the   
bad conscience any more than we can     
observe the genesis of consciousness in 
general4  ,we see that consciousness    
does stand in relief against the        
background of natural life2 but though  

we believe that1 as it exists in us1 it 
has emerged from that background1 we    
cannot see it emerge2 it is an ultimate 
fact1 and is assumed in all that we can 
ever regard as its physical antecedents 
and presuppositions4  ,in the same way1 
the moral consciousness is an ultimate  
fact1 and irreducible4  ,the physical   
theory of evolution must not be allowed 
to mislead us here1 and in particular it
 must not be allowed to discredit the   
conception of moral responsibility for  
sin which is embodied in the story of   
the ,fall4  ,each of us individually has
 risen into moral life from a mode of   
being which was purely natural2 in other
 words1 each of us1 individually1 has   
been a subject of evolution2 but each of
 us also has fallen--fallen1 presumably1
 in ways determined by his natural      
constitution1 yet certainly1 as         
conscience assures us1 in ways for which
 we are morally answerable1 and to      
which1 in the moral constitution of the 
world1 consequences attach which we must

 recognise as our due4  ,they are not   
only results of our action1 but results 
which that action has merited1 and there
 is no moral hope for us unless we      
accept them as such4 ,now what is true  
of any1 or rather of all1 of us1 without
 compromise of the moral consciousness1 
may be true of the race1 or of the first
 man1 if there was a first man4         
,evolution and a ,fall cannot be        
inconsistent1 for both enter into every 
moral experience of which we know       
anything2 and no opinion we hold about  
the origin of sin can make it anything  
else than it is in conscience1 or give  
its results any character other than    
that which they have to conscience4  ,of
 course when one tries to interpret sin 
outside of conscience1 as though it were
 purely physical1 and did not have its  
being in personality1 consciousness1 and
 will1 it disappears2 and the laborious 
sophistries of such interpretations must
 be left to themselves4  ,the point for 
us is that no matter how sin originated1

 in the moral consciousness in which it 
has its being it is recognised as a     
derangement of the vital relations of   
man1 a violation of that universal order
 outside of which he has no true good4  
,in what way1 now1 let us ask1 does the 
reality of sin come home to the sinner8 
,how does he recognise it as what it is8
  ,what is the reaction against the     
sinner1 in the moral order under which  
he lives1 which reveals to him the      
meaning of his sinful act or state8  ,in
 the first place1 there is that         
instantaneous but abiding reaction which
 is called the bad conscience--the sense
 of guilt1 of being answerable to ,god  
for sin4  ,the sin may be an act which  
is committed in a moment1 but in this   
aspect of it1 at least1 it does not fade
 into the past4  ,an animal may have a  
past1 for anything we can tell1 and     
naturalistic interpreters of sin may    
believe that sin dies a natural death   
with time1 and need not trouble us      
permanently2 but this is not the voice  

of conscience1 in which alone sin       
exists1 and which alone can tell us the 
truth about it4  ,the truth is that the 
spiritual being has no past4  ,just as  
he is continually with ,god1 his sin is 
continually with him4  ,he cannot escape
 it by not thinking4  ,when he keeps    
silence1 as the ,psalmist says--and that
 is always his first resource1 as       
though1 if he were to say nothing about 
it1 ,god might say nothing about it1 and
 the whole thing blow over--it devours  
him like a fever within3 his bones wax  
old with his moaning all day long4      
,this sense of being wrong with ,god1   
under ,his displeasure1 excluded from   
,his fellowship1 afraid to meet ,him yet
 bound to meet ,him1 is the sense of    
guilt4  ,conscience confesses in it its 
liability to ,god1 a liability which in 
the very nature of the case it can do   
nothing to meet1 and which therefore is 
nearly akin to despair4  ,but the bad   
conscience1 real as it is1 may be too   
abstractly interpreted4 ,man is not a   

pure spirit1 but a spiritual being whose
 roots strike to the very depths of     
nature1 and who is connected by the most
 intimate and vital relations not only  
with his fellow-creatures of the same   
species1 but with the whole system of   
nature in which he lives4  ,the moral   
constitution in which he has his being  
comprehends1 if we may say so1 nature in
 itself3 the ,god who has established   
the moral order in which man lives1 has 
established the natural order also as   
part of the same whole with it4  ,in    
some profound way the two are one4  ,we 
distinguish in man1 legitimately enough1
 between the spiritual and the physical2
 but man is one1 and the universe in    
which he lives is one1 and in man's     
relation to ,god the distinction of     
physical and spiritual must ultimately  
disappear4  ,the sin which introduces   
disorder into man's relations to ,god   
produces reactions affecting man as a   
whole--not reactions that1 as we        
sometimes say1 are purely spiritual1 but

 reactions as broad as man's being and  
as the whole divinely constituted       
environment in which it lives4  ,i am   
well aware of the difficulty of giving  
expression to this truth1 and of the    
hopelessness of trying to give          
expression to it by means of those very 
distinctions which it is its nature to  
transcend4 ,the distinctions are easy   
and obvious2 what we have to learn is   
that they are not final4  ,it seems so  
conclusive to say1 as some one has done 
in criticising the idea of atonement1   
that spiritual transgressing brings     
spiritual penalty1 and physical brings  
physical2 it seems so conclusive1 and it
 is in truth so completely beside the   
mark4  ,we cannot divide either man or  
the universe in this fashion into two   
parts which move on different planes and
 have no vital relations2 we cannot1 to 
apply this truth to the subject before  
us1 limit the divine reaction against   
sin1 or the experiences through which1  
in any case whatever1 sin is brought    

home to man as what it is1 to the purely
 spiritual sphere4  ,every sin is a sin 
of the indivisible human being1 and the 
divine reaction against it expresses    
itself to conscience through the        
indivisible frame of that world1 at once
 natural and spiritual1 in which man    
lives4  ,we cannot distribute evils into
 the two classes of physical and moral1 
and subsequently investigate the        
relation between them3 if we could1 it  
would be of no service here4  ,what we  
have to understand is that when a man   
sins he does something in which his     
whole being participates1 and that the  
reaction of ,god against his sin is a   
reaction in which he is conscious1 or   
might be conscious1 that the whole      
system of things is in arms against him4
  ,there are those1 no doubt1 to whom   
this will seem fantastic1 but it is a   
truth1 ,i am convinced1 which is        
presupposed in the ,christian doctrine  
of ,atonement1 as the mediation of      
forgiveness through the suffering and   

death of ,christ3 and it is a truth     
also1 if ,i am not much mistaken1 to    
which all the highest poetry1 which is  
also the deepest vision of the human    
mind1 bears witness4  ,we may           
distinguish natural law and moral law as
 sharply as we please1 and it is as     
necessary sometimes as it is easy to    
make these sharp and absolute           
distinctions2 but there is a unity in   
experience which makes itself felt      
deeper than all the antitheses of logic1
 and in that unity nature and spirit are
 no more defined by contrast with each  
other3 on the contrary1 they            
interpenetrate and support each other3  
they are aspects of the same whole4     
,when we read in the prophet ,amos1     
',lo1 ,he that formeth the mountains1   
and createth the wind1 and declareth    
unto man what is his thought1 that      
maketh the morning darkness and treadeth
 upon the high places of the earth1 the 
,lord1 the ,god of hosts1 is ,his name1'
 this is the truth which is expressed4  

,the power which reveals itself in      
conscience--telling us all things that  
ever we did1 declaring unto us what is  
our thought--is the same which reveals  
itself in nature1 establishing the      
everlasting hills1 creating the winds   
which sweep over them1 turning the      
shadow of death into the morning and    
making the day dark with night1 calling 
for the waters of the sea1 and pouring  
them out on the face of the earth4      
,conscience speaks in a still small     
voice1 but it is no impotent voice2 it  
can summon the thunder to give it       
resonance2 the power which we sometimes 
speak of as if it were purely spiritual 
is a power which clothes itself         
spontaneously and of right in all the   
majesty and omnipotence of nature4  ,it 
is the same truth1 again1 in another    
aspect of it1 which is expressed in     
,wordsworth's sublime lines to ,duty3   
',thou dost preserve the ,stars from    
wrong1   ,and the most ancient ,heavens 
through ,thee are fresh and strong4'    

,when the mind sees deepest1 it is      
conscious that it needs more than       
physical astronomy1 more than spectrum  
analysis1 to tell us everything even    
about the stars4  ,there is a moral     
constitution1 it assures us1 even of the
 physical world2 and though it is       
impossible for us to work it out in     
detail1 the assumption of it is the only
 assumption on which we can understand  
the life of a being related as man is   
related both to the natural and the     
spiritual4  ,i do not pretend to prove  
that there is articulate or conscious   
reflection on this in either the ,old   
,testament or the ,new2 ,i take it for  
granted1 as self-evident1 that this     
sense of the ultimate unity of the      
natural and the spiritual--which is1    
indeed1 but one form of belief in       
,god--pervades the ,bible from beginning
 to end4  ,it knows nothing of our      
abstract and absolute distinctions2 to  
come to the matter in hand1 it knows    
nothing of a sin which has merely       

spiritual penalties4  ,sin is the act or
 the state of man1 and the reaction     
against it is the reaction of the whole 
order1 at once natural and spiritual1 in
 which man lives4  ,now the great       
difficulty which the modern mind has    
with the ,atonement1 or with the        
representation of it in the ,new        
,testament1 is that it assumes some kind
 of connection between sin and death4   
,forgiveness is mediated through        
,christ1 but specifically through ,his  
death4  ,he died for our sins2 if we can
 be put right with ,god apart from this1
 then1 ,st4 ,paul tells us1 ,he died for
 nothing4  ,one is almost ashamed to    
repeat that this is not ,paulinism1 but 
the ,christianity of the whole          
,apostolic ,church4 ,what ,st4 ,paul    
made the basis of his preaching1 that   
,christ died for our sins1 according to 
the ,scriptures1 he had on his own      
showing received as the common          
,christian tradition4  ,but is there    
anything in it8  ,can we receive it     

simply on the authority of the primitive
 ,church8  ,can we realise any such     
connection between death and sin as     
makes it a truth to us1 an intelligible1
 impressive1 overpowering thought1 that 
,christ died for our sins8  ,i venture  
to say that a great part of the         
difficulty which is felt at this point  
is due to the false abstraction just    
referred to4  ,sin is put into one      
world--the moral2 death is put into     
another world--the natural2 and there is
 no connection between them4  ,this is  
very convincing if we find it possible  
to believe that we live in two          
unconnected worlds4  ,but if we find it 
impossible to believe this--and surely  
the impossibility is patent--its        
plausibility is gone4  ,it is a shining 
example of this false abstraction when  
we are told1 as though it were a        
conclusive objection to all that the    
,new ,testament has to say about the    
relation of sin and death1 that 'the    
specific penalty of sin is not a fact of

 the natural life1 but of the moral     
life4'  ,what right has any one1 in     
speaking of the ultimate realities in   
human life1 of those experiences in     
which man becomes conscious of all that 
is involved in his relations to ,god and
 their disturbance by sin1 to split that
 human life into 'natural' and 'moral1' 
and fix an impassable gulf between8     
,the distinction is legitimate1 as has  
already been remarked1 within limits1   
but it is not final2 and what the ,new  
,testament teaches1 or rather assumes1  
about the relation of sin and death1 is 
one of the ways in which we are made    
sensible that it is not final4  ,sin and
 death do not belong to unrelated       
worlds4  ,as far as man is concerned1   
the two worlds1 to use an inadequate    
figure1 intersect2 and at one point in  
the line of their intersection sin and  
death meet and interpenetrate4  ,in the 
indivisible experience of man he is     
conscious that they are parts or aspects
 of the same thing4  ,that this is what 

,scripture means when it assumes the    
connection of death and sin is not to be
 refuted by pointing either to the third
 chapter of ,genesis or to the fifth of 
,romans4  ,it does not1 for example1 do 
justice either to ,genesis or to ,st4   
,paul to say1 as has been said1 that    
according to their representation1      
',death--not spiritual1 but natural     
death--is the direct consequence of sin 
and its specific penalty4'  ,in such a  
dictum1 the distinctions again mislead4 
,to read the third chapter of ,genesis  
in this sense would mean that what we   
had to find in it was a mythological    
explanation of the origin of physical   
death4  ,but does any one believe that  
any ,bible writer was ever curious about
 this question8 or does any one believe 
that a mythological solution of the     
problem1 how death originated--a        
solution which ex hypothesi has not a   
particle of truth or even of meaning in 
it--could have furnished the            
presupposition for the fundamental      

doctrine of the ,christian religion1    
that ,christ died for our sins1 and that
 in ,him we have our forgiveness through
 ,his blood8  ,a truth which has        
appealed so powerfully to man cannot be 
sustained on a falsehood4  ,that the    
third chapter of ,genesis is            
mythological in form1 no one who knows  
what mythology is will deny2 but even   
mythology is not made out of nothing1   
and in this chapter every atom is 'stuff
 o' the conscience4'  ,what we see in it
 is conscience1 projecting as it were in
 a picture on a screen its own          
invincible1 dear-bought1 despairing     
conviction that sin and death are       
indissolubly united--that from death the
 sinful race can never get away--that it
 is part of the indivisible reality of  
sin that the shadow of death darkens the
 path of the sinner1 and at last        
swallows him up4  ,it is this also which
 is in the mind of ,st4 ,paul when he   
says that by one man sin entered into   
the world and death by sin4  ,it is not 

the origin of death he is interested in1
 nor the origin of sin either1 but the  
fact that sin and death hang together4  
,and just because sin is sin1 this is   
not a fact of natural history1 or a fact
 which natural history can discredit4   
,scripture has no interest in natural   
history1 nor does such an interest help 
us to understand it4  ,it is no doubt   
perfectly true that to the biologist    
death is part of the indispensable      
machinery of nature2 it is a piece of   
the mechanism without which the movement
 of the whole would be arrested2 to put 
it so1 death to the biologist is part of
 the same whole as life1 or life and    
death are for him aspects of one thing4 
,one can admit this frankly without     
compromising1 because without touching1 
the other and deeper truth which is so  
interesting and indeed so vital alike in
 the opening pages of revelation and in 
its consummation in the ,atonement4     
,the biologist1 when he deals with man1 
and with his life and death1            

deliberately deals with them in         
abstraction1 as merely physical         
phenomena2 to him man is a piece of     
nature1 and he is nothing more4  ,but   
the ,biblical writers deal with man in  
the integrity of his being1 and in his  
relations to ,god2 they transcend the   
distinction of natural and moral1       
because for ,god it is not final3 they  
are sensible of the unity in things     
which the everyday mind1 for practical  
purposes1 finds it convenient to keep   
apart4  ,it is one great instance of    
this that they are sensible of the unity
 of sin and death4  ,we may call sin a  
spiritual thing1 but the man who has    
never felt the shadow of death fall upon
 it does not know what that spiritual   
thing is3 and we may call death a       
natural thing1 but the man who has not  
felt its natural pathos deepen into     
tragedy as he faced it with the sense of
 sin upon him does not know what that   
natural thing is4  ,we are here1 in     
short1 at the vanishing point of this   

distinction--,god is present1 and nature
 and spirit interpenetrate in ,his      
presence4  ,we hear much in other       
connections of the sacramental          
principle1 and its importance for the   
religious interpretation of nature4  ,it
 is a sombre illustration of this       
principle if we say that death is a kind
 of sacrament of sin4  ,it is in death1 
ultimately1 that the whole meaning of   
sin comes home to the sinner2 he has not
 sounded it to its depths till he has   
discovered that this comes into it at   
last4  ,and we must not suppose that    
when ,paul read the third chapter of    
,genesis he read it as a mythological   
explanation of the origin of physical   
death1 and accepted it as such on the   
authority of inspiration4  ,with all his
 reverence for the ,old ,testament1     
,paul accepted nothing from it that did 
not speak to his conscience1 and waken  
echoes there2 and what so spoke to him  
from the third chapter of ,genesis was  
not a mythical story of how death       

invaded ,paradise1 but the profound     
experience of the human race expressed  
in the story1 an experience in which sin
 and death inter-penetrate1 interpret1  
and in a sense constitute each other4   
,to us they are what they are only in   
relation to each other1 and when we deny
 the relation we see the reality of     
neither4  ,this is the truth1 as ,i     
apprehend it1 of all we are taught      
either in the ,old ,testament or in the 
,new about the relation of sin and      
death4  ,it is part of the greater truth
 that what we call the physical and     
spiritual worlds are ultimately one1    
being constituted with a view to each   
other2 and most of the objections which 
are raised against it are special cases 
of the objections which are raised      
against the recognition of this ultimate
 unity4  ,so far as they are such1 it is
 not necessary to discuss them further2 
and so far as the ultimate unity of the 
natural and the spiritual is a truth    
rather to be experienced than           

demonstrated1 it is not probable that   
much can be done by argument to gain    
acceptance for the idea that sin and    
death have essential relations to each  
other4  ,but there are particular       
objections to this idea to which it may 
be worth while to refer4  ,there is1 to 
begin with1 the undoubted fact that many
 people live and die without1           
consciously at least1 recognising this  
relation4  ,the thought of death may    
have had a very small place in their    
lives1 and when death itself comes it   
may1 for various reasons1 be a very     
insignificant experience to them4  ,it  
may come in a moment1 suddenly1 and give
 no time for feeling2 or it may come as 
the last step in a natural process of   
decay1 and arrest life almost           
unconsciously2 or it may come through a 
weakness in which the mind wanders to   
familiar scenes of the past1 living     
these over again1 and in a manner       
escaping by so doing the awful          
experience of death itself2 or it may   

come in childhood before the moral      
consciousness is fully awakened1 and    
moral reflection and experience         
possible4  ,this last case1 properly    
speaking1 does not concern us2 we do not
 know how to define sin in relation to  
those in whom the moral consciousness is
 as yet undeveloped3 we only know that  
somehow or other they are involved in   
the moral as well as in the natural     
unity of the race4  ,but leaving them   
out of account1 is there any real       
difficulty in the others8 any real      
objection to the ,biblical idea that sin
 and death in humanity are essentially  
related8  ,i do not think there is4  ,to
 say that many people are unconscious of
 the connection is only another way of  
saying that many people fail to realise 
in full and tragic reality what is meant
 by death and sin4  ,they think very    
little about either4  ,the third chapter
 of ,genesis could never have been      
written out of their conscience4  ,sin  
is not for them all one with despair3   

they are not1 through fear of death1 all
 their lifetime subject to bondage4     
,scripture1 of course1 has no difficulty
 in admitting this2 it depicts1 on the  
amplest scale1 and in the most vivid    
colours1 the very kind of life and death
 which are here supposed4  ,but it does 
not consider that such a life and death 
are ipso facto a refutation of the truth
 it teaches about the essential         
relations of death and sin4  ,on the    
contrary1 it considers them a striking  
demonstration of that moral dulness and 
insensibility in man which must be      
overcome if he is ever to see and feel  
his sin as what it is to ,god1 or       
welcome the ,atonement as that in which 
,god's forgiveness of sin is mediated   
through the tremendous experience of    
death4  ,i know there are those who will
 call this arrogant1 or even insolent1  
as though ,i were passing a moral       
sentence on all who do not accept a     
theorem of mine2 but ,i hope ,i do not  
need here to disclaim any such          

unchristian temper4  ,only1 it is       
necessary to insist that the connection 
of sin and death in ,scripture is       
neither a fantastic piece of mythology1 
explaining1 as mythology does1 the      
origin of a physical law1 nor1 on the   
other hand1 a piece of supernaturally   
revealed history1 to be accepted on the 
authority of ,him who has revealed it2  
in such revelations no one believes any 
longer2 it is a profound conviction and 
experience of the human conscience1 and 
all that is of interest is to show that 
such a conviction and experience can    
never be set aside by the protest of    
those who aver that they know nothing   
about it4  ,one must insist on this1    
however it may expose him to the charge 
of judging4  ,can we utter any truth at 
all1 in which conscience is concerned1  
and which is not universally            
acknowledged1 without seeming to judge8 
,sometimes1 apart from the general      
denial of any connection between death  
and sin1 it is pointed out that death   

has another and a totally different     
character4  ,death in any given case may
 be so far from coming as a judgment of 
,god1 that it actually comes as a       
gracious gift from ,him2 it may even be 
an answer to prayer1 a merciful         
deliverance from pain1 an event welcomed
 by suffering human nature1 and by all  
who sympathise with it4  ,this is quite 
true1 but again1 one must point out1    
rests on the false abstraction so often 
referred to4  ,man is regarded in all   
this simply in the character of a       
sufferer1 and death as that which brings
 suffering to an end2 but that is not   
all the truth about man1 nor all the    
truth about death4  ,physical pain may  
be so terrible that consciousness is    
absorbed and exhausted in it1 sometimes 
even extinguished1 but it is not to such
 abnormal conditions we should appeal to
 discover the deepest truths in the     
moral consciousness of man4  ,if the    
waves of pain subsided1 and the whole   
nature collected its forces again1 and  

conscience was once more audible1 death 
too would be seen in a different light4 
,it might not indeed be apprehended at  
once1 as ,scripture apprehends it1 but  
it would not be regarded simply as a    
welcome relief from pain4  ,it would    
become possible to see in it something  
through which ,god spoke to the         
conscience1 and eventually to realise   
its intimate relation to sin4  ,the     
objections we have just considered are  
not very serious1 because they          
practically mean that death has no moral
 character at all2 they reduce it to a  
natural phenomenon1 and do not bring it 
into any relation to the conscience4    
,it is a more respectable1 and perhaps a
 more formidable objection1 when death  
is brought into the moral world1 and    
when the plea is put forward that so far
 from being ,god's judgment upon sin1 it
 may be itself a high moral achievement4
  ,a man may die greatly2 his death may 
be a triumph2 nothing in his life may   
become him like the leaving it4  ,is not

 this inconsistent with the idea that   
there is any peculiar connection between
 death and sin8  ,from the ,biblical    
point of view the answer must again be  
in the negative4  ,there is no such     
triumph over death as makes death itself
 a noble ethical achievement1 which is  
not at the same time a triumph over sin4
  ,man vanquishes the one only as in the
 grace of ,god he is able to vanquish   
the other4  ,the doom that is in death  
passes away only as the sin to which it 
is related is transcended4  ,but there  
is more than this to be said4  ,death   
cannot be so completely an action that  
it ceases to be a passion2 it cannot be 
so completely achieved that it ceases to
 be accepted or endured4  ,and in this  
last aspect of it the original character
 which it bore in relation to sin still 
makes itself felt4  ,transfigure it1 as 
it may be transfigured1 by courage1 by  
devotion1 by voluntary abandonment of   
life for a higher good1 and it remains  
nevertheless the last enemy4  ,there is 

something in it monstrous and alien to  
the spirit1 something which baffles the 
moral intelligence1 till the truth dawns
 upon us that for all our race sin and  
death are aspects of one thing4  ,if we 
separate them1 we understand neither2   
nor do we understand the solemn         
greatness of martyrdom itself if we     
regard it as a triumph only1 and        
eliminate from the death which martyrs  
die all sense of the universal relation 
in humanity of death and sin4  ,no one  
knew the spirit of the martyr more      
thoroughly than ,st4 ,paul4  ,no one    
could speak more confidently and        
triumphantly of death than he4  ,no one 
knew better how to turn the passion into
 action1 the endurance into a great     
spiritual achievement4  ,but also1 no   
one knew better than he1 in consistency 
with all this1 that sin and death are   
needed for the interpretation of each   
other1 and that fundamentally1 in the   
experience of the race1 they constitute 
one whole4  ,even when he cried1 ',o    

death1 where is thy sting8' he was      
conscious that 'the sting of death is   
sin4' ,each1 so to speak1 had its       
reality in the other4  ,no one could    
vanquish death who had not vanquished   
sin4  ,no one could know what sin meant 
without tasting death4 ,these were not  
mythological fancies in ,st4  ,paul's   
mind1 but the conviction in which the   
,christian conscience experimentally    
lived1 and moved1 and had its being4    
,and these convictions1 ,i repeat1      
furnish the point of view from which we 
must appreciate the ,atonement1 i4e4 the
 truth that forgiveness1 as             
,christianity preaches it1 is           
specifically mediated through ,christ's 
death4     ,,chapter ,,iii  ,,christ    
,,and ,,man ,,in ,,the ,,atonement      
,what has now been said about the       
relations subsisting between ,god and   
man1 about the manner in which these    
relations are affected by sin1 and      
particularly about the ,scripture       
doctrine of the connection between sin  

and death1 must determine1 to a great   
extent1 our attitude to the ,atonement4 
,the ,atonement1 as the ,new ,testament 
presents it1 assumes the connection of  
sin and death4  ,apart from some sense  
and recognition of such connection1 the 
mediation of forgiveness through the    
death of ,christ can only appear an     
arbitrary1 irrational1 unacceptable     
idea4 ,but leaving the ,atonement       
meanwhile out of sight1 and looking only
 at the situation created by sin1 the   
question inevitably arises1 ,what can be
 done with it8  ,is it possible to      
remedy or to reverse it8  ,it is an     
abnormal and unnatural situation2 can it
 be annulled1 and the relations of ,god 
and man put upon an ideal footing8  ,can
 ,god forgive sin and restore the soul8 
,can we claim that ,he shall8  ,and if  
it is possible for ,him to do so1 can we
 tell how or on what conditions it is   
possible8  ,when the human mind is left 
to itself1 there are only two answers   
which it can give to these questions4   

,perhaps they are not specially         
characteristic of the modern mind1 but  
the modern mind in various moods has    
given passionate expression to both of  
them4  ,the first says roundly that     
forgiveness is impossible4  ,sin is1 and
 it abides4  ,the sinner can never      
escape from the past4  ,his future is   
mortgaged to it1 and it cannot be       
redeemed4  ,he can never get back the   
years which the locust has eaten4  ,his 
leprous flesh can never come again like 
the flesh of a little child4            
,whatsoever a man soweth1 that shall he 
also reap1 and reap for ever and ever4  
,it is not eternal punishment which is  
incredible2 nothing else has            
credibility4  ,let there be no illusion 
about this3 forgiveness is a violation1 
a reversal1 of law1 and no such thing is
 conceivable in a world in which law    
reigns4  ,the answer to this is1 that   
sin and its consequences are here       
conceived as though they belonged to a  
purely physical world1 whereas1 if the  

world were only physical1 there could be
 no such thing as sin4  ,as soon as we  
realise that sin belongs to a world in  
which freedom is real--a world in which 
reality means the personal relations    
subsisting between man and ,god1 and the
 experiences realised in these          
relations--the question assumes a       
different aspect4  ,it is not one of    
logic or of physical law1 but of        
personality1 of character1 of freedom4  
,there is at least a possibility that   
the sinner's relation to his sin and    
,god's relation to the sinner should    
change1 and that out of these changed   
relations a regenerative power should   
spring1 making the sinner1 after all1 a 
new creature4  ,the question1 of course1
 is not decided in this sense1 but it is
 not foreclosed4  ,at the opposite      
extreme from those who pronounce        
forgiveness impossible stand those who  
give the second answer to the great     
question1 and calmly assure us that     
forgiveness may be taken for granted4   

,they emphasise what the others         
overlooked--the personal character of   
the relations of ,god and man4  ,god is 
a loving ,father2 man is ,his weak and  
unhappy child2 and of course ,god       
forgives4  ,as ,heine put it1 c'est mon 
mtier1 it is what ,he is for4  ,but the 
conscience which is really burdened by  
sin does not easily find satisfaction in
 this cheap pardon4 ,there is something 
in conscience which will not allow it to
 believe that ,god can simply condone   
sin3 to take forgiveness for granted1   
when you realise what you are doing1    
seems to a live conscience impious and  
profane4  ,in reality1 the tendency to  
take forgiveness for granted is the     
tendency of those who1 while they       
properly emphasise the personal         
character of the relations of ,god and  
man1 overlook their universal           
character--that is1 exclude from them   
that element of law without which       
personal relations cease to be ethical4 
,but a forgiveness which ignores this   

stands in no relation to the needs of   
the soul or the character of ,god4      
,what the ,christian religion holds to  
be the truth about forgiveness--a truth 
embodied in the ,atonement--is something
 quite distinct from both the           
propositions which have just been       
considered4  ,the ,new ,testament does  
not teach1 with the naturalistic or the 
legal mind1 that forgiveness is         
impossible2 neither does it teach1 with 
the sentimental or lawless mind1 that it
 may be taken for granted4  ,it teaches 
that forgiveness is mediated to sinners 
through ,christ1 and specifically       
through ,his death3 in other words1 that
 it is possible for ,god to forgive1 but
 possible for ,god only through a       
supreme revelation of ,his love1 made at
 infinite cost1 and doing justice to the
 uttermost to those inviolable relations
 in which alone1 as ,i have already     
said1 man can participate in eternal    
life1 the life of ,god ,himself--doing  
justice to them as relations in which   

there is an inexorable divine reaction  
against sin1 finally expressing itself  
in death4  ,it is possible on these     
terms1 and it becomes actual as sinful  
men open their hearts in penitence and  
faith to this marvellous revelation1 and
 abandon their sinful life unreservedly 
to the love of ,god in ,christ who died 
for them4  ,from this point of view it  
seems to me possible to present in a    
convincing and persuasive light some of 
the truths involved in the ,atonement to
 which the modern mind is supposed to be
 specially averse4  ,thus it becomes    
credible--we say so not  priori1 but    
after experience--that there is a divine
 necessity for it2 in other words1 there
 is no forgiveness possible to ,god     
without it3 if ,he forgives at all1 it  
must be in this way and in no other4    
,to say so beforehand would be          
inconceivably presumptuous1 but it is   
quite another thing to say so after the 
event4  ,what it really means is that in
 the very act of forgiving sin--or1 to  

use the daring word of ,st4 ,paul1 in   
the very act of justifying the          
ungodly--,god must act in consistency   
with ,his whole character4  ,he must    
demonstrate ,himself to be what ,he is  
in relation to sin1 a ,god with whom    
evil cannot dwell1 a ,god who maintains 
inviolate the moral constitution of the 
world1 taking sin as all that it is in  
the very process through which ,he      
mediates ,his forgiveness to men4  ,it  
is the recognition of this divine       
necessity--not to forgive1 but to       
forgive in a way which shows that ,god  
is irreconcilable to evil1 and can never
 treat it as other or less than it      
is--it is the recognition of this divine
 necessity1 or the failure to recognise 
it1 which ultimately divides            
interpreters of ,christianity into      
evangelical and non-evangelical1 those  
who are true to the ,new ,testament and 
those who cannot digest it4  ,no doubt  
the forms in which this truth is        
expressed are not always adequate to the

 idea they are meant to convey1 and if  
we are only acquainted with them at     
second hand they will probably appear   
even less adequate than they are4  ,when
 ,athanasius1 e4g41 speaks of ,god's    
truth in this connection1 and then      
reduces ,god's truth to the idea that   
,god must keep ,his word--the word which
 made death the penalty of sin--we may  
feel that the form only too easily loses
 contact with the substance4  ,yet      
,athanasius is dealing with the         
essential fact of the case1 that ,god   
must be true to ,himself1 and to the    
moral order in which men live1 in all   
,his dealings with sin for man's        
deliverance from it2 and that ,he has   
been thus true to ,himself in sending   
,his ,son to live our life and to die   
our death for our salvation4  ,or again1
 when ,anselm in the ,cur ,deus ,homo   
speaks of the satisfaction which is     
rendered to ,god for the infringement of
 ,his honour by sin--a satisfaction     
apart from which there can be no        

forgiveness--we may feel again1 and even
 more strongly1 that the form of the    
thought is inadequate to the substance4 
,but what ,anselm means is that sin     
makes a real difference to ,god1 and    
that even in forgiving ,god treats that 
difference as real1 and cannot do       
otherwise4  ,he cannot ignore it1 or    
regard it as other or less than it is2  
if ,he did so1 ,he would not be more    
gracious than ,he is in the ,atonement1 
,he would cease to be ,god4  ,it is     
,anselm's profound grasp of this truth  
which1 in spite of all its inadequacy in
 form1 and of all the criticism to which
 its inadequacy has exposed it1 makes   
the ,cur ,deus ,homo the truest and     
greatest book on the ,atonement that has
 ever been written4  ,it is the same    
truth of a divine necessity for the     
,atonement which is emphasised by ,st4  
,paul in the third chapter of ,romans1  
where he speaks of ,christ's death as a 
demonstration of ,god's righteousness4  
,christ's death1 we may paraphrase his  

meaning1 is an act in which 7so far as  
it is ordered in ,god's providence7 ,god
 does justice to ,himself4  ,he does    
justice to ,his character as a gracious 
,god1 undoubtedly1 who is moved with    
compassion for sinners3 if ,he did not  
act in a way which displayed ,his       
compassion for sinners1 ,he would not do
 justice to ,himself2 there would be no 
,greek endeixis of ,his ,greek          
dikaiosune3 it would be in abeyance3 ,he
 would do ,himself an injustice1 or be  
untrue to ,himself4  ,it is with this in
 view that we can appreciate the        
arguments of writers like ,diestel and  
,ritschl1 that ,god's righteousness is  
synonymous with ,his grace4  ,such      
arguments are true to this extent1 that 
,god's righteousness includes ,his      
grace4  ,he could not demonstrate it1   
,he could not be true to ,himself1 if   
,his grace remained hidden4  ,we must   
not1 however1 conceive of this as if it 
constituted on our side a claim upon    
grace or upon forgiveness3 such a claim 

would be a contradiction in terms4  ,all
 that ,god does in ,christ ,he does in  
free love1 moved with compassion for the
 misery and doom of men4  ,but though   
,god's righteousness as demonstrated in 
,christ's death--in other words1 ,his   
action in consistency with ,his         
character--includes1 and1 if we choose  
to interpret the term properly1 even    
necessitates1 the revelation of ,his    
grace1 it is not this only--,i do not   
believe it is this primarily--which ,st4
 ,paul has here in mind4 ,god1 no doubt1
 would not do justice to ,himself if ,he
 did not show ,his compassion for       
sinners2 but1 on the other hand--and    
here is what the apostle is             
emphasising--,he would not do justice to
 ,himself if ,he displayed ,his         
compassion for sinners in a way which   
made light of sin1 which ignored its    
tragic reality1 or took it for less than
 it is4  ,in this case ,he would again  
be doing ,himself injustice2 there would
 be no demonstration that ,he was true  

to ,himself as the author and guardian  
of the moral constitution under which   
men live2 as ,anselm put it1 ,he would  
have ceased to be ,god4  ,the apostle   
combines the two sides4  ,in ,christ set
 forth a propitiation in ,his blood--in 
other words1 in the ,atonement in which 
the sinless ,son of ,god enters into the
 bitter realisation of all that sin     
means for man1 yet loves man under and  
through it all with an everlasting      
love--there is an ,greek endeixis of    
,god's righteousness1 a demonstration of
 ,his self-consistency1 in virtue of    
which we can see how ,he is at the same 
time just ,himself and the justifier of 
him who believes on ,jesus1 a ,god who  
is irreconcilable to sin1 yet devises   
means that ,his banished be not expelled
 from ,him4  ,we may say reverently that
 this was the only way in which ,god    
could forgive4  ,he cannot deny         
,himself1 means at the same time ,he    
cannot deny ,his grace to the sinful1   
and ,he cannot deny the moral order in  

which alone ,he can live in fellowship  
with men2 and we see the inviolableness 
of both asserted in the death of ,jesus4
  ,nothing else in the world            
demonstrates how real is ,god's love to 
the sinful1 and how real the sin of the 
world is to ,god4  ,and the love which  
comes to us through such an expression1 
bearing sin in all its reality1 yet     
loving us through and beyond it1 is the 
only love which at once forgives and    
regenerates the soul4  ,it becomes      
credible also that there is a human     
necessity for the ,atonement3 in other  
words1 that apart from it the conditions
 of being forgiven could no more be     
fulfilled by man than forgiveness could 
be bestowed by ,god4  ,there are        
different tendencies in the modern mind 
with regard to this point4  ,on the one 
hand1 there are those who frankly admit 
the truth here asserted4  ,yes1 they    
say1 the ,atonement is necessary for us4
  ,if we are to be saved from our sins1 
if our hearts are to be touched and won 

by the love of ,god1 if we are to be    
emancipated from distrust and reconciled
 to the ,father whose love we have      
injured1 there must be a demonstration  
of that love so wonderful and           
overpowering that all pride1 alienation 
and fear shall be overcome by it2 and   
this is what we have in the death of    
,christ4  ,it is a demonstration of love
 powerful enough to evoke penitence and 
faith in man1 and it is through         
penitence and faith alone that man is   
separated from his sins and reconciled  
to ,god4  ,a demonstration of love1 too1
 must be given in act2 it is not enough 
to be told that ,god loves3 the reality 
of love lies in another region than that
 of words4  ,in ,christ on ,his cross   
the very thing itself is present1 beyond
 all hope of telling wonderful1 and     
without its irresistible appeal our     
hearts could never have been melted to  
penitence1 and won for ,god4  ,on the   
other hand1 there are those who reject  
the ,atonement on the very ground that  

for pardon and reconciliation nothing is
 required but repentance1 the assumption
 being that repentance is something     
which man can and must produce out of   
his own resources4  ,on these divergent 
tendencies in the modern mind ,i should 
wish to make the following remarks4     
,first1 the idea that man can repent as 
he ought1 and whenever he will1 without 
coming under any obligation to ,god for 
his repentance1 but rather 7it might    
almost be imagined7 putting ,god under  
obligation by it1 is one to which       
experience lends no support4            
,repentance is an adequate sense not of 
our folly1 nor of our misery1 but of our
 sin3 as the ,new ,testament puts it1 it
 is repentance toward ,god4  ,it is the 
consciousness of what our sin is to     
,him3 of the wrong it does to ,his      
holiness1 of the wound which it inflicts
 on ,his love4  ,now such a             
consciousness it is not in the power of 
the sinner to produce at will4 ,the more
 deeply he has sinned1 the more 7so to  

speak7 repentance is needed1 the less is
 it in his power4  ,it is the very      
nature of sin to darken the mind and    
harden the heart1 to take away the      
knowledge of ,god alike in ,his holiness
 and in ,his love4  ,hence it is only   
through a revelation of ,god1 and       
especially of what ,god is in relation  
to sin1 that repentance can be evoked in
 the soul4  ,of all terms in the        
vocabulary of religion1 repentance is   
probably the one which is most          
frequently misused4  ,it is habitually  
applied to experiences which are not    
even remotely akin to true penitence4   
,the self-centred regret which a man    
feels when his sin has found him        
out--the wish1 compounded of pride1     
shame1 and anger at his own             
inconceivable folly1 that he had not    
done it3 these are spoken of as         
repentance4  ,but they are not          
repentance at all4  ,they have no       
relation to ,god4  ,they constitute no  
fitness for a new relation to ,him4     

,they are no opening of the heart in the
 direction of ,his reconciling love4    
,it is the simple truth that that sorrow
 of heart1 that healing and sanctifying 
pain in which sin is really put away1 is
 not ours in independence of ,god2 it is
 a saving grace which is begotten in the
 soul under that impression of sin which
 it owes to the revelation of ,god in   
,christ4  ,a man can no more repent than
 he can do anything else without a      
motive1 and the motive which makes      
evangelic repentance possible does not  
enter into his world till he sees ,god  
as ,god makes ,himself known in the     
death of ,christ4  ,all true penitents  
are children of the ,cross4  ,their     
penitence is not their own creation3 it 
is the reaction towards ,god produced in
 their souls by this demonstration of   
what sin is to ,him1 and of what ,his   
love does to reach and win the sinful4  
,the other remark ,i wish to make refers
 to those who admit the death of ,christ
 to be necessary for us--necessary1 in  

the way ,i have just described1 to evoke
 penitence and trust in ,god--but who on
 this very ground deny it to be divinely
 necessary4  ,it had to be1 because the 
hard hearts of men could not be touched 
by anything less moving3 but that is    
all4  ,this1 ,i feel sure1 is another   
instance of those false abstractions to 
which reference has already been made4  
,there is no incompatibility between a  
divine necessity and a necessity for us4
 ,it may very well be the case that     
nothing less than the death of ,christ  
could win the trust of sinful men for   
,god1 and at the same time that nothing 
else than the death of ,christ could    
fully reveal the character of ,god in   
relation at once to sinners and to sin4 
,for my own part ,i am persuaded1 not   
only that there is no incompatibility   
between the two things1 but that they   
are essentially related1 and that only  
the acknowledgment of the divine        
necessity in ,christ's death enables us 
to conceive in any rational way the     

power which it exercises over sinners in
 inducing repentance and faith4  ,it    
would not evoke a reaction ,godward     
unless ,god were really present in it1  
that is1 unless it were a real          
revelation of ,his being and will3 but  
in a real revelation of ,god's being and
 will there can be nothing arbitrary1   
nothing which is determined only from   
without1 nothing1 in other words1 that  
is not divinely necessary4  ,the        
demonstration of what ,god is1 which is 
made in the death of ,christ1 is no     
doubt a demonstration singularly suited 
to call forth penitence and faith in    
man1 but the necessity of it does not   
lie simply in the desire to call forth  
penitence and faith4  ,it lies in the   
divine nature itself4  ,god could not do
 justice to ,himself1 in relation to man
 and sin1 in any way less awful than    
this2 and it is the fact that ,he does  
not shrink even from this--that in the  
,person of ,his ,son ,he enters1 if we  
may say so1 into the whole              

responsibility of the situation created 
by sin--which constitutes the death of  
,jesus a demonstration of divine love1  
compelling penitence and faith4         
,nothing less would have been sufficient
 to touch sinful hearts to their        
depths--in that sense the ,atonement is 
humanly necessary2 but neither would    
anything else be a sufficient revelation
 of what ,god is in relation to sin and 
to sinful men--in that sense it is      
divinely necessary4  ,and the divine    
necessity is the fundamental one4  ,the 
power exercised over us by the          
revelation of ,god at the ,cross is     
dependent on the fact that the          
revelation is true--in other words1 that
 it exhibits the real relation of ,god  
to sinners and to sin4  ,it is not by   
calculating what will win us1 but by    
acting in consistency with ,himself1    
that ,god irresistibly appeals to men4  
,we dare not say that ,he must be       
gracious1 as though grace could cease to
 be free3 but we may say that ,he must  

be ,himself1 and that it is because ,he 
is what we see ,him to be in the death  
of ,christ1 understood as the ,new      
,testament understands it1 that sinners 
are moved to repentance and to trust in 
,him4  ,that which the eternal being of 
,god made necessary to ,him in the      
presence of sin is the very thing which 
is necessary also to win the hearts of  
sinners4  ,nothing but what is divinely 
necessary could have met the necessities
 of sinful men4  ,when we admit this    
twofold necessity for the ,atonement1 we
 can tell ourselves more clearly how we 
are to conceive ,christ in it1 in       
relation to ,god on the one hand and to 
man on the other4  ,the ,atonement is   
,god's work4  ,it is ,god who makes the 
,atonement in ,christ4  ,it is ,god who 
mediates ,his forgiveness of sins to us 
in this way4  ,this is one aspect of the
 matter1 and probably the one about     
which there is least dispute among      
,christians4  ,but there is another     
aspect of it4  ,the ,mediator between   

,god and man is ,himself man1 ,christ   
,jesus4  ,what is the relation of the   
man ,christ ,jesus to those for whom the
 ,atonement is made8  ,what is the      
proper term to designate1 in this       
atoning work1 what ,he is in relation to
 them8  ,the doctrine of ,atonement     
current in the ,church in the generation
 preceding our own answered frankly that
 in ,his atoning work ,christ is our    
substitute4  ,he comes in our nature1   
and ,he comes into our place4  ,he      
enters into all the responsibilities    
that sin has created for us1 and ,he    
does justice to them in ,his death4  ,he
 does not deny any of them3 ,he does not
 take sin as anything less or else than 
it is to ,god2 in perfect sinlessness   
,he consents even to die1 to submit to  
that awful experience in which the final
 reaction of ,god's holiness against sin
 is expressed4  ,death was not ,his due3
 it was something alien to ,one ,who had
 nothing amiss2 but it was our due1 and 
because it was ours ,he made it ,his4   

,it was thus that ,he made ,atonement4  
,he bore our sins4  ,he took to ,himself
 all that they meant1 all in which they 
had involved the world4  ,he died for   
them1 and in so doing acknowledged the  
sanctity of that order in which sin and 
death arc indissolubly united4  ,in     
other words1 ,he did what the human race
 could not do for itself1 yet what had  
to be done if sinners were to be saved3 
for how could men be saved if there were
 not made in humanity an acknowledgment 
of all that sin is to ,god1 and of the  
justice of all that is entailed by sin  
under ,god's constitution of the world8 
,such an acknowledgment1 as we have just
 seen1 is divinely necessary1 and       
necessary1 too1 for man1 if sin is to be
 forgiven4  ,this was the basis of fact 
on which the substitutionary character  
of ,christ's sufferings and death in the
 ,atonement was asserted4  ,it may be   
admitted at once that when the term     
substitute is interpreted without       
reference to this basis of fact it lends

 itself very easily to misconstruction4 
,it falls in with1 if it does not       
suggest1 the idea of a transference of  
merit and demerit1 the sin of the world 
being carried over to ,christ's account1
 and the merit of ,christ to the world's
 account1 as if the reconciliation of   
,god and man1 or the forgiveness of sins
 and the regeneration of souls1 could be
 explained without the use of higher    
categories than are employed in         
bookkeeping4  ,it is surely not         
necessary at this time of day to        
disclaim an interpretation of personal  
relations which makes use only of       
sub-personal categories4 ,merit and     
demerit cannot be mechanically          
transferred like sums in an account4    
,the credit1 so to speak1 of one person 
in the moral sphere cannot become that  
of another1 apart from moral conditions4
  ,it is the same truth1 in other words1
 if we say that the figure of paying a  
debt is not in every respect adequate to
 describe what ,christ does in making   

the ,atonement4  ,the figure1 ,i        
believe1 covers the truth2 if it did    
not1 we should not have the kind of     
language which frequently occurs in     
,scripture2 but it is misread into      
falsehood and immorality whenever it is 
pressed as if it were exactly equivalent
 to the truth4  ,but granting these     
drawbacks which attach to the word1 is  
there not something in the work of      
,christ1 as mediating the forgiveness of
 sins1 which no other word can express8 
,no matter on what subsequent conditions
 its virtue for us depends1 what ,christ
 did had to be done1 or we should never 
have had forgiveness2 we should never   
have known ,god1 and ,his nature and    
will in relation to sin2 we should never
 have had the motive which alone could  
beget real repentance2 we should never  
have had the spirit which welcomes      
pardon and is capable of receiving it4  
,we could not procure these things for  
ourselves1 we could not produce them out
 of our own resources3 but ,he by       

entering into our nature and lot1 by    
taking on ,him our responsibilities and 
dying our death1 has so revealed ,god to
 us as to put them within our reach4    
,we owe them to ,him2 in particular1 and
 in the last resort1 we owe them to the 
fact that ,he bore our sins in ,his own 
body to the tree4  ,if we are not to say
 that the ,atonement1 as a work carried 
through in the sufferings and death of  
,christ1 sufferings and death determined
 by our sin1 is vicarious or            
substitutionary1 what are we to call it8
  ,the only answer which has been given 
to this question1 by those who continue 
to speak of ,atonement at all1 is that  
we must conceive ,christ not as the     
substitute but as the representative of 
sinners4  ,i venture to think that1 with
 some advantages1 the drawbacks of this 
word are quite as serious as those which
 attach to substitute4  ,it makes it    
less easy1 indeed1 to think of the work 
of ,christ as a finished work which     
benefits the sinner ipso facto1 and     

apart from any relation between him and 
the ,saviour3 but of what sort is the   
relation which it does suggest8  ,it    
suggests that the sinners who are to be 
saved by ,christ can put ,christ forward
 in their name3 they are not in the     
utterly hopeless case that has hitherto 
been supposed2 they can present         
themselves to ,god in the person and    
work of ,one on whom ,god cannot but    
look with approval4  ,the boldest       
expression of this ,i have ever seen    
occurs in some remarks in the ,primitive
 ,methodist ,quarterly ,review on the   
doctrine of ,st4 ,paul4  ,the reviewer  
is far from saying that a writer who    
finds a substitutionary doctrine        
throughout the ,new ,testament is       
altogether wrong4  ,he goes so far as to
 admit that 'if we look at the matter   
from what may be called an external     
point of view1 no doubt we may speak of 
the death of ,christ as in a certain    
sense substitutionary4'  ,what this     
'certain sense' is1 he does not define4 

,but no one1 he tells us1 can do justice
 to ,paul who fails to recognise that   
the death of ,christ was a racial act2  
and 'if we place ourselves at ,paul's   
point of view1 we shall see that to the 
eye of ,god the death of ,christ        
presents itself less as an act which    
,christ does for the race than as an act
 which the race does in ,christ4'  ,in  
plain ,english1 ,paul teaches less that 
,christ died for the ungodly1 than that 
the ungodly in ,christ died for         
themselves4  ,this is presented to us as
 something profound1 a recognition of   
the mystical depths in ,paul's teaching3
 ,i own ,i can see nothing profound in  
it except a profound misapprehension of 
the apostle4  ,nevertheless1 it brings  
out the logic of what representative    
means when representative is opposed to 
substitute4  ,the representative is     
ours1 we are in ,him1 and we are        
supposed to get over all the moral      
difficulties raised by the idea of      
substitution just because ,he is ours1  

and because we are one with ,him4  ,but 
the fundamental fact of the situation is
 that1 to begin with1 ,christ is not    
ours1 and we are not one with ,him4  ,in
 the apostle's view1 and in point of    
fact1 we are 'without ,christ' 7,greek  
chris ,christou74 ,it is not we who have
 put ,him there4  ,it is not to us that 
,his presence and ,his work in the world
 are due4  ,if we had produced ,him and 
put ,him forward1 we might call ,him our
 representative in the sense suggested  
by the sentences just quoted2 we might  
say it is not so much ,he who dies for  
us1 as we who die in ,him2 but a        
representative not produced by us1 but  
given to us--not chosen by us1 but the  
elect of ,god--is not a representative  
at all1 but in that place a substitute4 
,he stands in our stead1 facing all our 
responsibilities for us as ,god would   
have them faced2 and it is what ,he does
 for us1 and not the effect which this  
produces in us1 still less the fantastic
 abstraction of a 'racial act1' which is

 the ,atonement in the sense of the ,new
 ,testament4  ,to speak of ,christ as   
our representative1 in the sense that   
,his death is to ,god less an act which 
,he does for the race than an act which 
the race does in ,him1 is in principle  
to deny the whole grace of the gospel1  
and to rob it of every particle of its  
motive power4  ,to do justice to the    
truth here1 both on its religious and   
its ethical side1 it is necessary to put
 in their proper relation to one another
 the aspects of reality which the terms 
substitute and representative           
respectively suggest4  ,the first is    
fundamental4  ,christ is ,god's gift to 
humanity4  ,he stands in the midst of   
us1 the pledge of ,god's love1 accepting
 our responsibilities as ,god would have
 them accepted1 offering to ,god1 under 
the pressure of the world's sin and all 
its consequences1 that perfect          
recognition of ,god's holiness in so    
visiting sin which men should have      
offered but could not2 and in so doing  

,he makes ,atonement for us4  ,in so    
doing1 also1 ,he is our substitute1 not 
yet our representative4  ,but the       
,atonement thus made is not a spectacle1
 it is a motive4  ,it is not a          
transaction in business1 or in          
book-keeping1 which is complete in      
itself2 in view of the relations of ,god
 and man it belongs to its very nature  
to be a moral appeal4  ,it is a divine  
challenge to men1 which is designed to  
win their hearts4  ,and when men are    
won--when that which ,christ in ,his    
love has done for them comes home to    
their souls--when they are constrained  
by ,his infinite grace to the           
self-surrender of faith1 then we may say
 ,he becomes their representative4      
,they begin to feel that what ,he has   
done for them must not remain outside of
 them1 but be reproduced somehow in     
their own life4  ,the mind of ,christ in
 relation to ,god and sin1 as ,he bore  
their sins in ,his own body to the tree1
 must become their mind2 this and       

nothing else is the ,christian          
salvation4  ,the power to work this     
change in them is found in the death of 
,christ itself2 the more its meaning is 
realised as something there1 in the     
world1 outside of us1 the more          
completely does it take effect within   
us4  ,in proportion as we see and feel  
that out of pure love to us ,he stands  
in our place--our substitute--bearing   
our burden--in that same proportion are 
we drawn into the relation to ,him that 
makes ,him our representative4  ,but we 
should be careful here not to lose      
ourselves in soaring words4  ,the ,new  
,testament has much to say about union  
with ,christ1 but ,i could almost be    
thankful that it has no such expression 
as mystical union4  ,the only union it  
knows is a moral one--a union due to the
 moral power of ,christ's death1        
operating morally as a constraining     
motive on the human will1 and begetting 
in believers the mind of ,christ in     
relation to sin2 but this moral union   

remains the problem and the task1 as    
well as the reality and the truth1 of   
the ,christian life4  ,even when we     
think of ,christ as our representative1 
and have the courage to say we died with
 ,him1 we have still to reckon ourselves
 to be dead to sin1 and to put to death 
our members which are upon the earth2   
and to go past this1 and speak of a     
mystical union with ,christ in which we 
are lifted above the region of          
reflection and motive1 of gratitude and 
moral responsibility1 into some kind of 
metaphysical identity with the ,lord1   
does not promote intelligibility1 to say
 the least4  ,if the ,atonement were    
not1 to begin with1 outside of us--if it
 were not in that sense objective1 a    
finished work in which ,god in ,christ  
makes a final revelation of ,himself in 
relation to sinners and sin--in other   
words1 if ,christ could not be conceived
 in it as our substitute1 given by ,god 
to do in our place what we could not do 
for ourselves1 there would be no way of 

recognising or preaching or receiving it
 as a motive2 while1 on the other hand1 
if it did not operate as a motive1 if it
 did not appeal to sinful men in such a 
way as to draw them into a moral        
fellowship with ,christ--in other words1
 if ,christ did not under it become     
representative of us1 our surety to ,god
 that we should yet be even as ,he in   
relation to ,god and to sin1 we could   
only say that it had all been vain4     
,union with ,christ1 in short1 is not a 
presupposition of ,christ's work1 which 
enables us to escape all the moral      
problems raised by the idea of a        
substitutionary ,atonement2 it is not a 
presupposition of ,christ's work1 it is 
its fruit4  ,to see that it is its fruit
 is to have the final answer to the     
objection that substitution is immoral4 
,if substitution1 in the sense in which 
we must assert it of ,christ1 is the    
greatest moral force in the world--if   
the truth which it covers1 when it      
enters into the mind of man1 enters with

 divine power to assimilate him to the  
,saviour1 uniting him to the ,lord in a 
death to sin and a life to              
,god--obviously1 to call it immoral is  
an abuse of language4  ,the love which  
can literally go out of itself and make 
the burden of others its own is the     
radical principle of all the genuine and
 victorious morality in the world4  ,and
 to say that love cannot do any such    
thing1 that the whole formula of        
morality is1 every man shall bear his   
own burden1 is to deny the plainest     
facts of the moral life4  ,yet this is a
 point at which difficulty is felt by   
many in trying to grasp the ,atonement4 
,on the one hand1 there do seem to be   
analogies to it1 and points of          
attachment for it1 in experience4  ,no  
sin that has become real to conscience  
is ever outlived and overcome without   
expiation4  ,there are consequences     
involved in it that go far beyond our   
perception at the moment1 but they work 
themselves inexorably out1 and our sin  

ceases to be a burden on conscience1 and
 a fetter on will1 only as we 'accept   
the punishment of our iniquity1' and    
become conscious of the holy love of    
,god behind it4  ,but the consequences  
of sin are never limited to the sinner4 
,they spread beyond him in the organism 
of humanity1 and when they strike       
visibly upon the innocent1 the sense of 
guilt is deepened4  ,we see that we have
 done we know not what1 something deeply
 and mysteriously bad beyond all our    
reckoning1 something that only a power  
and goodness transcending our own avail 
to check4  ,it is one of the startling  
truths of the moral life that such      
consequences of sin1 striking visibly   
upon the innocent1 have in certain      
circumstances a peculiar power to redeem
 the sinful4  ,when they are accepted1  
as they sometimes are accepted1 without 
repining or complaint--when they are    
borne1 as they sometimes are borne1     
freely and lovingly by the innocent1    
because to the innocent the guilty are  

dear--then something is appealed to in  
the guilty which is deeper than guilt1  
something may be touched which is deeper
 than sin1 a new hope and faith may be  
born in them1 to take hold of love so   
wonderful1 and by attaching themselves  
to it to transcend the evil past4  ,the 
suffering of such love 7they are dimly  
aware71 or rather the power of such love
 persisting through all the suffering   
brought on it by sin1 opens the gate of 
righteousness to the sinful in spite of 
all that has been2 sin is outweighed by 
it1 it is annulled1 exhausted1          
transcended in it4  ,the great          
,atonement of ,christ is somehow in line
 with this1 and we do not need to shrink
 from the analogy4  ',if there were no  
witness1' as ,dr4 ,robertson ,nicoll    
puts it1 'in the world's deeper         
literature'--if there were no witness1  
that is1 in the universal experience of 
man--'to the fact of an ,atonement1 the 
,atonement would be useless1 since the  
formula expressing it would be          

unintelligible4'  ,it is the analogy of 
such experiences which makes the        
,atonement credible1 yet it must always 
in some way transcend them4  ,there is  
something in it which is ultimately     
incomparable4  ,when we speak of others 
as innocent1 the term is used only in a 
relative sense2 there is no human       
conscience pure to ,god4  ,when we speak
 of the sin of others coming in its     
consequences on the innocent1 we speak  
of something in which the innocent are  
purely passive2 if there is moral       
response on their part1 the situation is
 not due to moral initiative of theirs4 
,but with ,christ it is different4 ,he  
knew no sin1 and ,he entered freely1    
deliberately1 and as the very work of   
,his calling1 into all that sin meant   
for ,god and brought on man4  ,something
 that ,i experience in a particular     
relation1 in which another has borne my 
sin and loved me through it1 may help to
 open my eyes to the meaning of         
,christ's love2 but when they are       

opened1 what ,i see is the propitiation 
for the whole world4  ,there is no guilt
 of the human race1 there is no         
consequence in which sin has involved   
it1 to which the holiness and love made 
manifest in ,christ are unequal4  ,he   
reveals to all sinful men the whole     
relation of ,god to them and to their   
sins--a sanctity which is inexorable to 
sin1 and cannot take it as other than it
 is in all its consequences1 and a love 
which through all these consequences and
 under the weight of them all1 will not 
let the sinful go4  ,it is in this      
revelation of the character of ,god and 
of ,his relation to the sin of the world
 that the forgiveness of sins is        
revealed4  ,it is not intimated in the  
air2 it is preached1 as ,st4 ,paul says1
 'in this man'2 it is mediated to the   
world through ,him and specifically     
through ,his death1 because it is       
through ,him1 and specifically through  
,his death1 that we get the knowledge of
 ,god's character which evokes penitence

 and faith1 and brings the assurance of 
,his pardon to the heart4  ,from this   
point of view we may see how to answer  
the question that is sometimes asked    
about the relation of ,christ's life to 
,his death1 or about the relation of    
both to the ,atonement4  ,if we say that
 what we have in the ,atonement is an   
assurance of ,god's character1 does it  
not follow at once that ,christ's       
teaching and ,his life contribute to it 
as directly as ,his death8  ,is it not a
 signal illustration of the false       
abstractions which we have so often had 
cause to censure1 when the death of     
,christ is taken as if it had an        
existence or a significance apart from  
,his life1 or could be identified with  
the ,atonement in a way in which ,his   
life could not8  ,i do not think this is
 so clear4  ,of course it is ,christ    
,himself who is the ,atonement or       
propitiation--,he ,himself1 as ,st4     
,john puts it1 and not anything1 not    
even ,his death1 into which ,he does not

 enter4  ,but it is ,he ,himself1 as    
making to us the revelation of ,god in  
relation to sin and to sinners2 and     
apart from death1 as that in which the  
conscience of the race sees the final   
reaction of ,god against evil1 this     
revelation is not fully made4  ,if      
,christ had done less than die for us1  
therefore--if ,he had separated ,himself
 from us1 or declined to be one with us1
 in the solemn experience in which the  
darkness of sin is sounded and all its  
bitterness tasted1--there would have    
been no ,atonement4  ,it is impossible  
to say this of any particular incident  
in ,his life1 and in so far the unique  
emphasis laid on ,his death in the ,new 
,testament is justified4  ,but ,i should
 go further than this1 and say that even
 ,christ's life1 taking it as it stands 
in the ,gospels1 only enters into the   
,atonement1 and has reconciling power1  
because it is pervaded from beginning to
 end by the consciousness of ,his death4
  ,instead of depriving ,his death of   

the peculiar significance ,scripture    
assigns to it1 and making it no more    
than the termination1 or at least the   
consummation1 of ,his life1 ,i should   
rather argue that the ,scriptural       
emphasis is right1 and that ,his life   
attains its true interpretation only as 
we find in it everywhere the power and  
purpose of ,his death4 ,there is nothing
 artificial or unnatural in this4       
,there are plenty of people who never   
have death out of their minds an hour at
 a time4  ,they are not cowards1 nor    
mad1 nor even sombre3 they may have     
purposes and hopes and gaieties as well 
as others2 but they see life steadily   
and see it whole1 and of all their      
thoughts the one which has most         
determining and omnipresent power is the
 thought of the inevitable end4 ,there  
is death in all their life4  ,it was    
not1 certainly1 as the inevitable end1  
the inevitable 'debt of nature1' that   
death was present to the mind of        
,christ2 but if we can trust the        

,evangelists at all1 from the hour of   
,his baptism it was present to ,his mind
 as something involved in ,his vocation2
 and it was a presence so tremendous    
that it absorbed everything into itself4
  ',i have a baptism to be baptized     
with1 and how am ,i straitened till it  
be accomplished4'  ,instead of saying   
that ,christ's life as well as ,his     
death contributed to the                
,atonement--that ,his active obedience  
7to use the theological formula7 as well
 as ,his passive obedience was essential
 to ,his propitiation--we should rather 
say that ,his life is part of ,his      
death3 a deliberate and conscious       
descent1 ever deeper and deeper1 into   
the dark valley where at the last hour  
the last reality of sin was to be met   
and borne4  ,and if the objection is    
made that after all this only means that
 death is the most vital point of life1 
its intensest focus1 ,i should not wish 
to make any reply4  ,our ,lord's        
,passion is ,his sublimest action--an   

action so potent that all ,his other    
actions are sublated in it1 and we know 
everything when we know that ,he died   
for our sins4  ,the desire to bring the 
life of ,christ as well as ,his death   
into the ,atonement has probably part of
 its motive in the feeling that when the
 death is separated from the life it    
loses moral character3 it is reduced to 
a merely physical incident1 which cannot
 carry such vast significance as the    
,atonement4  ,such a feeling certainly  
exists1 and finds expression in many    
forms4  ,how often1 for example1 we hear
 it said that it is not the death which 
atones1 but the spirit in which the     
,saviour died--not ,his sufferings which
 expiate sin1 but the innocence1 the    
meekness1 the love to man and obedience 
to ,god in which they were borne4  ,the 
,atonement1 in short1 was a moral       
achievement1 to which physical suffering
 and death are essentially irrelevant4  
,this is our old enemy1 the false       
abstraction1 once more1 and that in the 

most aggressive form4  ,the contrast of 
physical and moral is made absolute at  
the very point at which it ceases to    
exist4  ,as against such absolute       
distinctions we must hold that if       
,christ had not really died for us1     
there would have been no ,atonement at  
all1 and on the other hand that what are
 called ,his physical sufferings and    
death have no existence simply as       
physical3 they are essential elements in
 the moral achievement of the passion4  
,it leads to no truth to say that it is 
not ,his death1 but the spirit in which 
,he died1 that atones for sin3 the      
spirit in which ,he died has its being  
in ,his death1 and in nothing else in   
the world4  ,it seems to me that what is
 really wanted here1 both by those who  
seek to co-ordinate ,christ's life with 
,his death in the ,atonement1 and by    
those who distinguish between ,his death
 and the spirit in which ,he died1 is   
some means of keeping hold of the       
,person of ,christ in ,his work1 and    

that this is not effectively done apart 
from the ,new ,testament belief in the  
,resurrection4  ,there is no doubt that 
in speaking of the death of ,christ as  
that through which the forgiveness of   
sins is mediated to us we are liable to 
think of it as if it were only an event 
in the past4  ,we take the              
representation of it in the ,gospel and 
say1 ,such and such is the impression   
which this event produces upon me2 ,i   
feel in it how ,god is opposed to sin1  
and how ,i ought to be opposed to it2 ,i
 feel in it how ,god's love appeals to  
me to share ,his mind about sin2 and as 
,i yield to this appeal ,i am at once   
set free from sin and assured of pardon2
 this is the only ethical forgiveness2  
to know this experimentally is to know  
the ,gospel4  ,no one can have any      
interest in disputing another's         
obligation to ,christ1 but it may fairly
 be questioned whether this kind of     
obligation to ,christ amounts to        
,christianity in the sense of the ,new  

,testament4 ,there is no living ,christ 
here1 no coming of the living ,christ to
 the soul1 in the power of the          
,atonement1 to bring it to ,god4  ,but  
this is what the ,new ,testament shows  
us4  ,it is ,he who is the propitiation 
for our sins--,he who died for them and 
rose again4  ,the ,new ,testament       
preaches a ,christ who was dead and is  
alive1 not a ,christ who was alive and  
is dead4  ,it is a mistake to suppose   
that the ,new ,testament conception of  
the ,gospel1 involving as it does the   
spiritual presence and action of        
,christ1 in the power of the ,atonement1
 is a matter of indifference to us1 and 
that in all our thinking and preaching  
we must remain within purely historical 
limits1 if by purely historical limits  
is meant that our creed must end with   
the words crucified1 dead1 and buried4  
,to preach the ,atonement means not only
 to preach ,one who bore our sins in    
death1 but ,one who by rising again from
 the dead demonstrated the final defeat 

of sin1 and ,one who comes in the power 
of ,his risen life--which means1 in the 
power of the ,atonement accepted by     
,god--to make all who commit themselves 
to ,him in faith partakers in ,his      
victory4  ,it is not ,his death1 as an  
incident in the remote past1 however    
significant it may be2 it is the ,lord  
,himself1 appealing to us in the virtue 
of ,his death1 who assures us of pardon 
and restores our souls4  ,one of the    
most singular phenomena in the attitude 
of many modern minds to the ,atonement  
is the disposition to plead against the 
,atonement what the ,new ,testament     
represents as its fruits4  ,it is as    
though it had done its work so          
thoroughly that people could not believe
 that it ever needed to be done at all4 
,the idea of fellowship with ,christ1   
for example1 is constantly urged against
 the idea that ,christ died for us1 and 
by ,his death made all mankind ,his     
debtors in a way in which we cannot make
 debtors of each other4  ,the ,new      

,testament itself is pressed into the   
service4  ,it is pointed out that our   
,lord called ,his disciples to drink of 
,his cup and to be baptized with ,his   
baptism1 where the baptism and the cup  
are figures of ,his passion2 and it is  
argued that there cannot be anything    
unique in ,his experience or service1   
anything which ,he does for men which it
 is beyond the power of ,his disciples  
to do also4  ,or again1 reference is    
made to ,st4 ,paul's words to the       
,colossians3 ',now ,i rejoice in my     
sufferings on your behalf1 and fill up  
on my part that which is lacking of the 
afflictions of ,christ in my flesh for  
,his body's sake1 which is the ,church'2
 and it is argued that ,st4 ,paul here  
represents himself as doing exactly what
 ,christ did1 or even as supplementing a
 work which ,christ admittedly left     
imperfect4 ,the same idea is traced     
where the ,christian is represented as  
called into the fellowship of the ,son  
of ,god1 or more specifically as called 

to know the fellowship of ,his          
sufferings by becoming conformed to ,his
 death4  ,it is seen pervading the ,new 
,testament in the conception of the     
,christian as a man in ,christ4  ,and to
 descend from the apostolic age to our  
own1 it has been put by an ,american    
theologian into the epigrammatic form   
that ,christ redeems us by making us    
redeemers4  ,what1 it may be asked1 is  
the truth in all this8 and how is it    
related to what we have already seen    
cause to assert about the uniqueness of 
,christ's work in making atonement for  
sin1 or mediating the divine forgiveness
 to man8  ,i do not think it is         
impossible or even difficult to         
reconcile the two3 it is done1 indeed1  
whenever we see that the life to which  
we are summoned1 in the fellowship of   
,christ1 is a life which we owe         
altogether to ,him1 and which ,he does  
not in the least owe to us4  ,the       
question really raised is this3 ,has    
,jesus ,christ a place of ,his own in   

the ,christian religion8  ,is it true   
that there is one ,mediator between ,god
 and man1 ,himself man1 this man1       
,christ ,jesus8  ,in spite of the       
paradoxical assertion of ,harnack to the
 contrary1 it is not possible to deny1  
with any plausibility1 that this was the
 mind of ,christ ,himself1 and that it  
has been the mind of all who call ,him  
,lord4  ,he knew and taught1 what they  
have learned by experience as well as by
 ,his word1 that all men must owe to    
,him their knowledge of the ,father1    
their place in the ,kingdom of ,god1 and
 their part in all its blessings4  ,he  
could not have taught this of any but   
,himself1 nor is it the experience of   
the ,church that such blessings come    
through any other4  ,accordingly1 when  
,christ calls on men to drink ,his cup  
and to be baptized with ,his baptism1   
while ,he may quite well mean1 and does 
mean1 that ,his life and death are to be
 the inspiration of theirs1 and while   
,he may quite well encourage them to    

believe that sacrifice on their part1 as
 on ,his1 will contribute to bless the  
world1 ,he need not mean1 and we may be 
sure ,he does not mean1 that their blood
 is1 like ,his1 the blood of the        
covenant1 or that their sinful lives1   
even when purged and quickened by ,his  
,spirit1 could be1 like ,his sinless    
life1 described as the world's ransom4  
,the same considerations apply to the   
passages quoted from ,st4 ,paul1 and    
especially to the words in ,colossians  
i4 #bd4  ,the very purpose of the       
,epistle to the ,colossians is to assert
 the exclusive and perfect mediatorship 
of ,christ1 alike in creation and       
redemption2 all that we call being1 and 
all that we call reconciliation1 has to 
be defined by relation to ,him1 and not 
by relation to any other persons or     
powers1 visible or invisible2 and       
however gladly ,paul might reflect that 
in his enthusiasm for suffering he was  
continuing ,christ's work1 and          
exhausting some of the afflictions--they

 were ,christ's own afflictions--which  
had yet to be endured ere the ,church   
could be made perfect1 it is nothing    
short of grotesque to suppose that in   
this connection he conceived of himself 
as doing what ,christ did1 atoning for  
sin1 and reconciling the world to ,god4 
,all this was done already1 perfectly   
done1 done for the whole world2 and it  
was on the basis of it1 and under the   
inspiration of it1 that the apostle     
sustained his enthusiasm for a life of  
toil and pain in the service of men4    
,always1 where we have ,christian       
experience to deal with1 it is the      
,christ through whom the divine         
forgiveness comes to us at the          
,cross--the ,christ of the              
substitutionary ,atonement1 who bore all
 our burden alone1 and did a work to    
which we can for ever recur1 but to     
which we did not and do not and never   
can contribute at all--it is this       
,christ who constrains us to find our   
representative with ,god in ,himself1   

and to become ourselves ,his            
representatives to men4  ,it is as we   
truly represent ,him that we can expect 
our testimony to ,him to find           
acceptance1 but that testimony far      
transcends everything that our service  
enables men to measure4  ,what is       
anything that a sinful man1 saved by    
grace1 can do for his ,lord or for his  
kind1 compared with what the sinless    
,lord has done for the sinful race8  ,it
 is true that ,he calls us to drink of  
,his cup1 to learn the fellowship of    
,his sufferings1 even to be conformed to
 ,his death2 but under all the intimate 
relationship the eternal difference     
remains which makes ,him ,lord--,he knew
 no sin1 and we could make no atonement4
  ,it is the goal of our life to be     
found in ,him2 but ,i cannot understand 
the man who thinks it more profound to  
identify himself with ,christ and share 
in the work of redeeming the world1 than
 to abandon himself to ,christ and share
 in the world's experience of being     

redeemed4  ,and ,i am very sure that in 
the ,new ,testament the last is first   
and fundamental4     ,,the              
,,expositor',s ,,greek ,,testament4     
,edited by the  ,rev4 ,w4 ,,robertson   
,,nicoll1 ,m4,a41 ,,ll4,d4   ,,already  
,,published4  ,volume ,i41 #hhj pages1  
containing--    ,st4 ,matthew1 ,st4     
,mark1 ,st4 ,luke4     ,by the ,rev4    
,prof4 ,a4 ,b4 ,,bruce1 ,d4,d4   ,st4   
,john4     ,by the ,rev4 ,prof4 ,,marcus
 ,,dods1 ,d4,d4  ,volume ,,ii41 #icd    
pages1 containing--   ,the ,acts of the 
,apostles4     ,by the ,rev4 ,r4 ,j4    
,,knowling1 ,d4,d4   ,the ,epistle to   
the ,romans4     ,by the ,rev4 ,prof4   
,,james ,,denney1 ,d4,d4   ,the ,first  
,epistle to the ,corinthians4     ,by   
the ,rev4 ,prof4 ,g4 ,g4 ,,findlay1     
,d4,d4  ,volume ,,iii41 ready shortly1  
containing--   ,the ,second ,epistle to 
the ,corinthians4     ,by the ,very     
,rev4 ,dean ,,bernard1 ,d4,d4   ,the    
,epistle to the ,galatians4     ,by the 
,rev4 ,,frederick ,,rendall1 ,m4,a4     

,the ,epistle to the ,ephesians4     ,by
 the ,rev4 ,principal ,,salmond1 ,d4,d4 
,the ,epistle to the ,philippians4      
,by the ,rev4 ,h4 ,a4 ,a4 ,,kennedy1    
,d4,sc4   ,the ,epistle to the          
,colossians4     ,by ,professor ,a4 ,s4 
,,peake1 ,m4,a4