I

No. 6.

The Atonement.

The Atonement.

MR.

CHAIRMAN,

LADIES AKD GENTLEMEN,

May I repeat that my object in the preceding addresses has been, as far as possible, to establish the historicity of the Person who is spoken of in the four gospels, and I think that when I reached the close of the address .a week ago I had, from the Christian standpoint, put down a, sufficiency of evidence to pass current as a proof or the positon which we, as believers, take, and I thought that the matter might very well be left just there. Having dealt with the evidence that such a Person existed, with the testimony in favour of the Virgin Birth, with the evidence that bore upon miracles, and with the overwhelming testimony (so I deem it) for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, I thought that we might separate as people who had conside~p(lthis matter together and were determined to further investigate as to what we, individually, would do in regard to it. But your request on Sunday last that I should speak upon the Atonement came to me as somewhat of a surprise, although the theme falls in line with that which has already been considered, inasmuch as it deals with the work which Jesus Christ came to perform on behalf of man. Of course, OUr Rationalistic friends deem the Atonement to be an altogether unnecessary doctrine, and some of them do not scruple to say that they consider it to be wholly inconceivable and absurd; but those who believe that the New Testament presents to us an actual historical Personage, and affords sufficient grounds for Christian faith, find in the Atonement that which satisfies both mind and heart concerning the manner in which G-odwill meet their personal needs; so that it is, apparently, quite a right thing that a Christian advocate should have something to say in favour of a doctrine which is of so great importance, but, before I begin to speak upon it, I must put down a foreword . .Hitherto, in my talks, I have consciously felt that I have been speaking on behalf of the Christians of this city as a whole, that is, I have been trying to defend a position which belongs to all who accept the Christian faith; so that when I spoke, although perhaps some things I said could not have been endorsed by all, yet, I think, that the main positions would have

113

----~

been agreed t~ by those who accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Saviour. But now I am to speak regarding a doctrine ~here ~ believe that it would be better for me if I say for the time being, that I stand ~lone. I do not mean, of cou;se, absolutely alone! I know, for mstance, that there are many who will support. me m that which I have to say, but I mean that I do not now claIm. that I a~ "peaking on behalf of all those who accept Jesus .Ohrlst as th~Ir Lord and Saviour. Lest there should be any mlsunderstandmg as to what I intend by that statement let me ~ay tha~ we are all agreed-everyone who accepts J~sus 9hrlst as his personal Lord and Saviour is agreed-that there IS an Atonement whic~ has been wrought on behalf of men by the work of ~esus Christ, Who died upon the Cross on Oalvary that they might have the fruition of that gift. We are ali agreed upon tha~; .but what I mean is that I cannot now s eak on behal~ of Christians at large who can be said to have acce~ted ~my special theory of the Atonement-for one reason-that there IS not, so .far as I know, anyone theory of the Atonement which can be sa~d to abs~lutc:ly hold the field, and for a second reason t~at I believe t~at m the theories which are current in theolo icai clrc~es .there exists a f'undamental error which leads thema11 to confusion, Not only m regard to their theories in comparison ;Ith ~ch oth~r, but, i? anyone of the several theories which can e ~aI t~ be m the mind and thought of Christian systems, confU~.IOfexists. That fundamental error I may possibly allude to a rtt e later, but, because of these two reasons you will under ~tand that ~' this afternoon, prefer that you shduld consider that I .standmg alone, ~nd am trying to put before you that which e ieve to be t~e BIble presentation of the Atonement, and I shall ask you to give me your very closest attention and now and afterwards, to consider very carefully the things ';hich I say I ~ust repeat that I do not e:syect that those who listen' to me ~ill e ready to accept that which I say because I say it, but I do expect that you WIll consider any evidence which I t . d t th" may presen m regal' 0 e t~plC put before you, and, as reasonable men and women, you WIll see whether or not the conclusions dra are warranted by the testimony I present. wn h No,:" lest o~r RatIOnalistic friends should suppose that the ave a .r~ght to ~Ibe at the Christian faith because of what I h Y now said regarding the existence of various theories of the At ave n:-ent; to scoff because there is no theory upon which 'all O~~etians can be said to be agreed let me put yo ~ISthought. ' u a suggestive

t~

Science, as you know at any h" the gathered knowledge of student:Pop~t' bISefslmptlhY ~hehresult of . h ,ore 811' earers or re~ d ers t 0 ~SSIStt em to come abreast of that which' k It IS ascertained knowledge up to date and s ~s nown. It may be that to-morrow some dis~ov'ery_soO we nhamekIt. cience. e s poc -ma mg, say, 114

as the discovery of radium-will wholly change' the theories which are abroad, and the science of the day after to-morrow WIll widely differ from the science of to-day and of yesterday; that the theory which to-day holds the field will be relegated to the background because the discovery of new facts has so altered the complexion and arrangement of things that there must be a new theory constructed in order to explain and harm~nise the facts. I think all reasonable, thinking, reading men WIll agree to that. Well, Theology is the science of Scripture. In my judgment it is the queen of sciences, and just as science puts before us the ascertained knowledge of men who have investigated into nature, so theology puts before us the ascertained knowledge of men who have investigated into the Scripture. Theology is the human conclusion from man's investigation into the Word of the Living God. The Bible is not a systematised presentation of doctrines in orderly fashion; it is really a history; and from the records of the lives of individuals and the history ~ a nation we draw that which we summarise P9Qtrinally under the name Theology; and because in this, as in other sciences, investigations are made by fallible men, so it comes to' pass that theology changes from century to century, or from year to year. The theology of the centuries past is not the theology of to-day, because there has been a growing acquaintanceship with facts, and certain beliefs which have been proved to be fallacious have been put on one side-new facts -discovered have to be put in order with other facts-and the harmonisation of these makes up the theology, of the present day. So you will understand that if it can be shown that, in the past, certain men have believed certain things which the men in the present do not believe, -that does not change> our attitude towards the Bible. The theology of to-day should be the deduction from the latest and widest possible acquaintance with the facts in Scripture. You will understand me, therefore, when I say that he who sneers at theology, as such and imagines he belittles the Bible, does not understand just 'what theology means. A man might just as well sneer at science, and suppose he is thereby belittling the facts of nature. What he is really jibing at is the conclusions of men upon the facts they have acquired. So theolog! is the presentation of man '8 discovery of what the Word contams, and this changes as the further unfolding of truth comes about, and man finds now these facts are related one to another. The Ohristian who at any time takes the position that he has got to know all the truth-who regards the Bible as a squeezed lemon -is a man who ought to be avoided. "The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from His Word." Now that leads me to another statement, which in some sense belongs to what I have already said, and that is that the

115

citation of great ~am'.3s in theology does not terrify me. There are emment men m the Church of whose investigations I read and for whom I have a very high esteem, but in so far as the fa~ts they present as their findings canbe understood by me I think I am capable of forming a conclusion upon them for myself. I. object to the conclusion of any man or of any body of men bemg forced upon .me, becaus.e I am the responsible person affected by that conclusion, And If I believe, as I do, that some time I must stand before the bar of God and must answer for the manner in whi~h I have used His Word, I must use my reason on those findmgs, and must not be fettered by the thought or creed of any man or body of men. Now, in view of the changeableness of human theories and in ,?ew ~f the fact that personal judgment is an essential thing, I WIsh th~s afternoon to. turn your attention to that which I regard as the BIble presentation of the doctrine of the Atonement I h~ve consider~d t~e ?'latte.r a~ to whether or not I ought to deal with the Rationalistic objections to the doctrine of the Atonement; but, to speak candidly, such writers as Messrs. Vivian, Bradlaugh ~nd Ingersoll, only set up men of straw to assail. So horribly unjust are some of the things that are said, that I think It better to leave ~hem alone, and to put before you the positive statements I find m the W ord, and with those you can then deal a.nd see ~hether or not they will bear the strain of your reflection and Judgment. . . I ~ave said that the Bible does not present any of its doe. trmes m orderly systematised sequences, but that we have to find ~ut what they are by a perusal of the history which records the biography of men and the history of nations. ~o justify myself in regard to the statement I made as to the theories of th~ Atonement, I now refer to a tract sent me by the author, contaI:~ll~g an address which was given by him before a number of .mmISters. and he opens it by saying that " The Atoneme~t IS the very heart of the Christian system and it is of the first Importance that it should be well and cleanly understood. '.' Yet, strange to say, popular opinion concerning it has been sm~ularly vague and indefinite, and the views of it held, even by Its teachers, nave been diversified in a remarkable degree. One declares that" Christ made an atonement for His peopl~ by bearinq the~r punishment-that he endured so much suffering as the punishment for the sins of a certain limited ~umber of men, and no more can be saved." Another replies, That cannot be a 1:rue and complete statement of the' atonement, fo~ the New T.estam~nt represents once and again, that its efficacy IS eo-extensive WIth the world-that He died for 11 men. " "Th a t' IS t" . rue, says a t.hi II'd, " but it follows that aif He died for all men, all men must be saved. God cannot punish

sin twice over-on the Cross and in hell. If Christ was punished for all then all are free, " And a fourth adds: " If punishment is esse;ttial to an atonement, then an atonement is impossible. It is unjust and immoral to punish the innocent for the guilty. Besides, in the nature of things, it is impossible." That is the position put down by a preacher. I hold in my hands a book Cl don't think I need to open it) which is used in many of the theological colleges-Clarke's Outlines of Theology. A minister in this town gave me to understand that when in college undergoing his training for the ministry, this was his text hook. It enjoys- a wide range in theological colleges. In it I find that the author puts before us the fact that there have been in the Christian Church no fewer than six or seven different theories of the Atonement, and those theories certainly contradict one another, and some of those theories, contradicting one another as they do, have come down to the present time,!:nd are held one by one Church, and one by another. Now, the existence of the views which contradict each other calls for a very close and personal examination of the Bible itself, and imperatively does the Bible demand that We shall seek into what it says. I must speak this afternoon, first of all, to my Christian friends and I shall want my sceptical listeners to consider whether or not the theory which I present is rational enough for their acceptance. I was going to refer to Campbell's New Theology, but I do not think I will do that, because. Camp bell is as wide of the mark as our friends Bradlaugh, Ingersoll and the rest. I do not wish to spend time examining into misunderstood doctrines, but to give this afternoon some positive testimony that will, I think, be clearly understood, and, I hope, will be tested. I desire to put before you that which will bear all the strain you may throw upon it, that shall appeal to ,Your mind and heart, and make you say, when you have thoroughly considered it, that it is worthy of the God Who gave it and worthy for man to accept it. I do not affirm that you must accept my theory. I hold, with all the strength of my being, that the fact of the Atonement is of itself quite sufficient for any person to trust to, that God has so declared it in His Word, and that man in his. present need can so understand his helplessness, and the necessity for some omnipotent Power to aid him, and that the fact of the Atonement is efficacious for him to trust to, even though he may not be logically able to trace all the steps through which it has been provided to supply his necessities. . With that as it declaration I go forward, and now put before you some helpful propositions. The first is that " whatever is

116

sustained by one fact is suetoined by eVe?'yother fact relating to the subject." That is a simple proposition. You will agree that for your investigations in science it is a sound one. You

117

must also agree that in investigations into the Word of the Living God i~ is a sound proposition. So that when you come to your conclusIOn~ and try to harmonise all that you have brought together,. you will be abl~ to say, " Well, if this fact belongs to that subject, I am certain that when I come to the end of the chain, and find another fact that relates to it it will harmonise with the first. There will be ~o disagreeme~t; everything will bear upon the great central tOPICand throw light upon it." . ~owl let .me .glve you another: " Whatever is fundamentally B~bl~cal ss scwnt~(ic. Let my Rationalistic friends smile, if they WIll. Whatever I'>fundamentally Biblical is scientific." After a goo~ many years' exp.erience I am prepared to support that. That IS J oseph Cook 's dictum, an~ it is sound. I will put it the other way and say, " Whatever I'> fundamentally scientific is Bi.blical." The two sides belong to one great idea. When my friends speak about scientific investigation I hold that there is no s?ientific investigation that calls for clos~r mental application or higher mental powers than Investigation into the Biblical records and their teachings. Such research will develop a man all round, and of all the education that can come to him there is ~othing that can qual Jn its value, in its grandeur, the edueation that comes by means of the study of the Word of the Living God. Now my third proposition is-and this goes with the others ~that "al! doc~1'ines .an~ all practices which are taught in the Bible are g~'Ven ~n pla,~n literal terms." Everybody can understand that .. Its acceptance would sweep away the cobwebs from man,Y :=t b,raIn. It takes a.way t~e aspe-:sions that are cast upon Christianity by OUr sceptical frIends; It removes the confusion that r.ul~s so largely. in the minds of many of those who accept the BI1;>I!cal ecord? If th~y can put down the plain and simple r pr~posltIon and st.lCk to It, that all doctrines and all practices whlC~ are taught. m the. Bi.ble are given in plain, literal terms. It brings the BIble within the capacity of all, so that the hum~les~ person who can ,understand at all will be able to grip the sIg?Ificance of wl:at It teaches. Figurative teaching and allego~lCal representation have done more to destroy the value of the B.lble to the sons. of men than any other thing that can be conceived, Let us believe that if we have here the Word of God then in it God says what He means, and God means what H~ says, and when you have got that position settled, you are on the surest ground. If I have been able here to speak a word on behalf of God and His truth against those who oppose it it is because that is the firm foundation I occupy-that God means what He says, and says what He means. All this is preliminary-necessarily so-and having given th~ introduction, I pass on now to put before YO~ the facts relating to my theme. The word" Atonement"-our English word-is said to be a combination of the two words" at one," which implies that the design of God has been to work out something that should bring Himself and man together, and when that has been done, then the "At-one-ment" is consummated. But at the back of this word " Atonement" in the Old Testament is the Hebrew word-and that word occurs something over one hundred times in noun and verb form-Kaphar, a word which signifies simply" to cover." Sometimes it is used of the act of Atonement, sometimes of material object'>, and it is used as a technical term "to cover over" anything. That idea, then-to cover-is the prime one, and when you follow out the thought of the Atonement as given in the Old Testament, you will see that in every place where it is used the idea is borne out. When you turn to the New Testament, and open the Authorised Version, you will find that the word" Atonement" occurs but once-in the 5th Romans, 11th verse. "We also rejoice in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received the Atonement," but in the Revised Version that word disappears and the word " Reconciliation" takes its place, and rightly so, because that is the true translation of the Greek word katallagee. So that so far, therefore, as the New Testament is concerned, the word itself does not now occur. But the fact is there, if the Old Testament, as I said, gave you the word kaphar, " to cover"; then in such an assertion as that which Paul gives in the 15th chapter of ] st Corinchians, that " Christ died for our sins," where the word" for" is the Greek preposition" hniper," meaning " over;" then he states precisely the same thought as conveyed in the Old Testament. So much, then, for the word. Where shall we begin in finding out what this great term implies ~ We might begin where Dr Newman Hall begins in his book on the " Atonement," by putting before you the passages in the New 'I'estament as to Christ giving Himself a Ransom for all. But there would still be the question, " Where is the necessity for this ~ How does it come about that an Atonement is necessary ~ What in man's needs is there that demands that some such thing should take place ~" So I should have to do what I now propose to do, and that is to turn back to the Old Testament record. Let me say that there are two things which seem to me to be absolutely clear, so clear that no person possessing any common sense would deny them. First, that man is a moral wrong-doer. Secondly, that he is physically impotent to help himself either out of the ill entailed by his mortality or out of the state in which, by responsibility, his own wrong-doing necessarily places him. Now I begin with a verse of Scripture important to this subject. You will bear me out in this, that I have not troubled you

'I

11

t
I1

i'

118

119

with very much Scripture citation in my afternoon talks here. I must now give you ;1 verse or two that are important. My first is this: " By one mall sin entered into the world and death by sin, and so death passed unto all men." That 'is a clear and emphatic statement, IS it not It is made by a man whose equal has since never arisen. Paul, the great logician Apostle, puts it down as a baSIC proposition that by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed unto all men. He is dealing here 'with the death which you and I know about-that which be.ongs to us-as our natural heritage and as that which we each have to meet. We know that as the years pass by we are being brought nearer and nearer to the grave and we cannot help it. The moral state of a man does not hinde; the incoming of that death. It may be possible that by moral wrong-doing he may hasten it, but, take what precaution he may whether he be good, bad, or indifferent, he dies, because death i~ his natural heritage. Now, it is of that that Paul is .speaking when he says that Sin came into the world and brought death upon mankind, so that all men now, irrespective of their standing morally, go to the grave because at some time in human history one man sinned and brought death into the world. That is the statement from which we start to-day. Now the record in the early part of Genesis states that this man brought sin because he failed to respond to a test that demanded obedience. I know that my Evolutionary friends will pooh-pooh the idea of the early parts of Genesis being true. Even if they do not ridicule them, they speak of them as poetical and allegorical. That is so much rubbish; either the Bible is historical or it is not. If the storv it tells is not true then that which follows is not rrue. If the fundamental fact i~ not true that man sinned and brought death into the world then th~ whole structure of the Bible erected upon that as a fact simply topples over. like a hou~e of. cards. Let me say further, although I have no time to go into It now, that I do not believe in the Evolutionary hypothesis one little bit, so far as man or the wl~ole. of organic creation is concerne~. There is not, to my thmkl~g, S? much as a shadow of a hint of proof that organic Evolution IS true. I make the statement and do not shun the consequences. Now I come back to this Bible record, which puts before us the story that the man who sinned did so having the maximum of liberty with the minimum of test. That man was the best possible man, and he stood as the representative man. Into the question as to whether or not he was the only man I need not nowenter. He comes before us as the best possiJ;lle man, and the destiny of the race, as a race, hung upon hIS actions. That man sinned and because of his sin death came into the world, and in that

death we all share by reason of our relation to him. My own responsibility as a moral wrong-doer, you will see, at once depends on whether or not that particular death which came by the first man's transgression is to be removed. For instance, suppose I stand as a moral wrong-doer, and it is said to me by some power external to myself, " You are forgiven. All the sins you have ever committed are blotted out. Everything you have done wrong shall be swept away. You are perfectly clear." Now suppose for a moment that you can imagine that I stand thus pardoned by some mighty power external to myself. Well, of what ultimate value is the pardon to me 1 Indeed, it is of value so long as this life continues. But I am a mortal dying man, and I, like all my fathers, go down to the grave. Where is the value of that forgiveness to me if I go into the grave? Do you not see that for any future value to come from a free and full forgiveness. there must be the exercise of a power that shall bring me back from the grave to make that forgiveness fruitful to me ~ Then it follows) as the first logical step, that the Atonement wrought by Jesus Christ must touch me there, because this is my fundamental need. Only as that is dealt with can there be virtue coming to me from the Atonement. That is, it must have its physical relationship because I am here physically needy. It is beyond my power and the power of all humanity to enable me to continue in being, or, if I go out of life, to bring me back from my death. There must be some power that shall be operative upon me and shall touch me at the point before anything else can possibly help me. Now let me put before you another text which I wish you to remember. In 17th Leviticus, from the 10th verse, I read these words. I want you to notice them because they are significant, they have an .mportant bearing upon this question:-" And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people, for the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I hcoe given it to y01.(,upon. the altar to make atonement fory01.w souls, for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." Some of our friends sneer at the idea of " blood," and you will hear them ringing the changes upon that word, and trying to create horror in your souls as they repeat it. The record here says the blood makes atonement; not because it is blood, but" by reason of the liie;" that is the statement that is made in that particular verse. So that Atonement, whenever it operates upon man, operates by reason of the life that is given, that is, in the blood that is poured out. Now, with this as a fundamental statement to be kept in mind, I proceed. The Old Testament opens with the story of a

120

121

,.

man, a man fashioned by God Himself out of the dust of the ground, and the whole interest of the story which follows is in that man. He is put before us as being, at first, alone. Pre- . sently he has a partner, who is virtually a cutting from him, showing the idea that there is one life source and one life centre. The woman has not independent life originally-it is a life" which is taken from the man, on whom it had been bestowed direct from God, and lifp, from that man, as the source, descends through the generations past to the generation that now is. So that, when considering this matter, you have not to think of life in its multitudmous ramifications, but of a life traced. back through its divergent lines. That continuous life is what the Word calls" the life of the World." Can you grip that idea ~ That is the life of the world of which the Bible speaks-one life, not many lives-the life of the world traced back to its source. You will se~, too, that this man and his wife, who together formed one life transgressed, and for this reason became liable to an immediate death. That death was not immediately in- . flicted as threatened, but they afterwards die because they are shut out from the Garden where was the Tree of Life which could medicate life, and are thrown back upon their own nature, which is mortal, and therefore, when that gave out, they died. Life remains theirs after their sin, but under new conditions, involving continual labour with attendant sorrows, and the certainty that mortality would lead on to death. They died, but the life of humanity descends from them as the source; but there is another fact I want you to notice, that is, they sinned in childless state. The life they possessed had not been used for a reproductive purpose. The ordinary conception of that first sin is, that those two possessed what is called an innocent life. Probably the expression will pass as quite right, but that is not the thought in the narrative. The thought in the narrative is that the life they possessed was a virgin life. That is, that the parental capacity was there, but not used; by sin it was forfeited, and if the original threat had been carried out according to its original terms, there would have been not only the destruction of those two, but the suppression of a race , this Adamic race with all its potencies would not have been if that threatened doom had fallen upon the sinning pair. We travel along the record, and presently, opening the New Testament, I fiud that it, too, begins with the story of a Man and, as with the first, so with the second-created. I do not stay to deal with the question of the divinity of Jesus Christ. I believe it, but from the record itself I speak of the fact that here is a new Man, a second Man, and He, too, is created. That one is made from the dust of the ground, and the other from the Virgin's womb does not alter the fact that behind both men is the one creative Power. Both receive their lives direct from

God who is the Fount, the Source of Life. Adam received it frod.. no man, and J esus Christ received it from no man. Both received it from God; therefore a new life starts in each of those two men. Now the second man, we find, passes through life until He comes to the Cross on Calvary, and there He dies. Dies! Why does He die '! Well, the statement commonly made, which is, of course, true, is that in the Gospels it is told that He died because His own people refused to accept Him, and they hounded Him to death. But that is not all the truth. I observe that these two men-the first from the Old Testament, the second from the New-s-must be looked at together; it is incumbent upon us to see how they are related the one to the other. . I ask you tc observe that from the opening of the Old Testament right down to the opening of the New Testament there is put before you a line of genealogy. It links together the successive generations from Adam right down to"the time when Jesus Christ is born, and then there is no more genealogy. Turn to the first book of Chronicles, and you will find the first nine chapters devoted wholly to genealogy-c-so important is it deemed \ to be-bu,t when you have reached the story of the birth of Jesus Christ, the Bible writers pay no further attention to genealogy. Why not? Because it has done its work; it has brought the ;>econd Man in line with the first; it has brought the two ends of the chain together, and when it has done that it has done all that it was intended to do. These links form the vertebral of Scripture; they bind together the two men, the first and the second. And that which is true of one end of the chain is true of the other -both men enter life irrespective of any human father. But there is another line in the Bible which binds these men together, and it is of immense importance. It is a line that ought to be studied by those who find delight in tracing out God's workings. Now that line comes thus to view. You will remember that the 3rd Genesis tells us that when those two people had sinned, instead of putting upon them immediate death the Lord God took coats of skins and clothed them. Now . the ordinary inference, we should say, would be that animals were slain in order that the skins might. be a covering for those who sinned. The idea " to cover," you see, comes in so early in the story, and presents a life given to cover a life forfeited. There is a further thought, and that is that probably (I am not emphasising this because there is no direct statement) those were the only two of that particular kind of animal in that Garden of Eden, and if so, then the killing of those two animals would mean not only the taking of life, but the suppression of a race of animals; the suppression of a race because the mercy of God spared a race when it spared that man and that woman. Follow on from that and observe these significant items.

122

123

From that time occurs what is known as blo?d sll:cr~fice'ki1~f . mals are slain because men are sinful. SometIme~ It IS a ._ the goats, sometimes it is a lamb of the flock,. sometIm~s the har~ less dove. But life is taken because man .sms! and m eVfYt~~t stance you observe, whenever a sin offering IS sI;>oken ~ , sin off~ring must have certain features. The first IS that. I~ musJ be physically perfect, it must have no spot and no blemis , an f the second i~ it must be a virgin life. It must have the power 0 re roduction with the seal of virginity unbroken. It must al~ays be a l~mh of the first year, or it must be a 'yo~ng mal.e of. the cattle of the first year. That is the great sIg~Ific~nt Idea that runs through the Old Testament, and one wh~ch It seems that the Church of. the Living God ~o-day has .lost sight of. ~o cover over a transgression that merited death It must ~way~ ~ a virgin life that is taken. Why is this ~ Because t ose rs two sinned in a virgin state, putting the~ to death me~n~;ace suppression, and sparing them meant sI?an;ng a. race, an erefore the sin offerings yield not only. their lives m the ?lood, ~ut all their potentialities for race continuance are there m the life which is given upon the. altar. . . . Now let us observe the relation of ~hese things to the pmso;n and sacrifice of ,T esus Christ. Come with me to the place th~t 1~ called Calvary stand with me there by the Cross of. the or Jesus Christ, ~nd as you stand by just think .for a mon:ent, How does it come to pass that God sh?u.ld send into the world a Man possessing a life that did not originate from man-;-a, ~an who was obedient in all things, even unto death, Who said, . L?, I come to do Thy will, 0 God. In the vol~me of the boo~ It IS written of me." One who has done the .WIll of God and m all senses was obedient to Him. How does It come to pass that t~e best possible Man who ever trod this earth o~ ours sho~ld die without being allowed to bring forth a :r:ace like unto. HImself, which having the characteristics of their Father, might have moved amongst the sons of men as the sons of men now m?ve amongst each other ~ Such race could have been; a companion ight have been fashioned for Him as for Adam. Have .you :er thought what would this :"orld be at the ,Present time ; where all its crushing monopolies, and oppressions, war and sins and wrongs, if it had been peopled.by a race l~ke unto Jes~s Christ; if He had begotten children Iike unto Hlmsel~, and If there had been-c-as from Adam there has been-e-generation after generation like unto Himself ~ I What would the w~rld have b ~ Can you conceive it ~ But, gentlemen, that IS not the een . . .. first time the question has been put (interjections ) -~o t th e firs t time. Six hundred years before He came, a. wondermg prophet put in his record the question (as he looked into ths future, and saw how that Man when He came would be desp~sed, how ~e would be oppressed and put to death and have HIS grave WIth

the wicked, and be with the rich in His death) "Who shall declare His generation, for He was cut off out of the land of the living ?" Who shall declare His posterity ~ He had none, for He was cut off from the land of the living-the best Man, the noblest man, ths purest character that ever stepped upon this earth was cut ov: in young manhood's prime, with all the powers ~ith all the potentialities of young manhood in Him-a virgi~ Iife, and there was no child that ever looked in His face and called Him Father. He, the greatest sin-offering,. was cut off like to the sin-offerings that had preceded Him. In His death He gave a life, a virgin life. . But the same prophet who asked that question six centuries before Jesus Christ came into being went on to say: "When thou shalt make His soul an offering for sin, He shall see His seed, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand"not on the piano of natural generation shall He see His seed. but on the plane of that higher generation by means of which 'they who believe in Him" '1'0 them gives He power to become the children of God which were born not of bloods nor of the will of man no\- of the will of the flesh, but by the power of God. " Now can you see whither this doctrine of the Atonement leads me ~ It shows where Adam brought death into the World and it stands over here by the Cross of Calvary, and points to One who came to give Himself a ransom. "He died for all that they who live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto Him who died for them." He died for all. He said of Himself, " The bread which I will give is My flesh for the life of the world." When was the life of the world forfeited 1 When man in childless state sinned and became liable to a death doom then was it forfeited. And it was for that life that He gav~ HimseLl'::-one life for one life, the quid pro quo, the Bread of Life for the life of the "World. And then you get the conception of one life forfeited, but spared to continue into the present multitudinous ramIfications because of the gift of another life with all its race potentialities. He gave Himself for the life ~f the race, That is the physical basis upon which we stand in life today, You and I, Christian, Rationalist, Sceptic ohammedan Hindu- I don't care what you are-all are on th~ one plane; w~ all profit by thc atonement of Jesus Christ to the full extent of the present life, By the Mercy of God who wrought prospectively through Him who died on the Cross we live to-day and whether you accept this view or not, you are here to-day b~ the Grace of God manifested in the atonement wrought by j- esus Christ. . But there follows another question, and that is How can I ind:vidually profit by it-I mean not only for the 'present but for all the future 1 If I thus receive virtue from the atone~ent racially considered, what is it to me personally beyond a shar~

124
\

125

In the present life ~ The answer is, "Not only do I inherit a nature that is death-doomed, but I myself am a wrong-doer." In answer to a question put here some weeks ago I stated that there is no man, however high he may be in his u:.oral qualifications, who will always live up to the highest standard all the time. There is never any overplus of moral virtue; he will never, he can never, live beyond it. There are a good many occasions when there is something wanting, and he falls below his standard, and inasmuch as there is never anything over,. there is nothing to make up the lapses. I put before you, then, as a reasonable propositi.on, that no man can be better than he ought to be. And, inasmuch as there is never anything over as a bank to draw upon whence he may fill up the lapses, what is going to happen if he be a moral wrong-doer and is responsible to any Person or Power external to himself ~ The Bible puts forward the great idea that God holds out to man forgi.veness of sins, " As far as the east is from the west, so far hath He removed our transgressions from us." "I have blotted out as a thick cloud thine iniquities," is the statement made in the Word. Forgiveness ~ Some of my friends sometimes sing" Jesns paid it all, All the debt I owe" (etc.)

You will never sing it after this without a qualm of conscience, I am sure. If Jesus paid it all, all the debt I owe, there is no hope that ever God will forgive me. What do I mean ~ Let me illustrate. Supposing in the stress of time some of you are unemployed, and the grocer at the corner trusts you week after week, until, perhaps, as you are not able to pay, a bill of, Bay, 10 is run up. That stands in his book against you. You confess that you owe the money, but you are unable to pay. Supposing, now, some friend comes along who has means and learns of the case, and goes to the grocer and says, " You have a bill against my friend," and the grocer says" Yes." "How much is it 1" "10." "1 will pay that for him; he is a decent fellow and will rpay me if he can." The 10 is paid, and now it can be said that this friend has paid for you all the debt you owe. What kind of a fellow would that grocer be if he were to say, " I have forgivp,n Mr. Smith that debt~" The friend would say, " Forgiven it t Why, sir, it has been paid. You cannot forgive it and you cannot sue for it; it is out of your hands altogether, because it has been paid." So, if Jesus Christ paid my debt, the royal quality of .forgiveness from God can never be exercised for -me, If the grocer had said, " There is my friend Smith; be is a deGent fellow and cannot pay me, I will cancel ~he record," then he could say, " I have forgiven him the debt." Rather! And that is what God does for the sons of men on their acceptance of a single condition. "If thou shalt con-

fess with thy mouth J esus as L d d .. that God hath raised Him fro~r a~ shalt believe III thy heart God forgives fully God f . t/ ead, thou shalt be saved." all the consequenc~s of si~r~~es~~e~y, and removes from you Christ as your Lord-that con ition that you accept Jesus ner of the Second Man the ~u Jatge yourselves under the banyou will follow dow ih or. rom Heaven. Where He goes the hill Difficulty n e mounHtaIllsteeps into the valley or up Wh . . erever e may 'll' crying, " He is my Leader, and I will you :VI "follow Him God has said, " I will for i " 0 o~ HIm. grandeur of God's present g v~.. !hat IS the greatness and understandable? Can ou pr~vls.lOn III the Atonement. Is it It seems to me there can~ot bgrIP It. and see the beauty of it ? but can grasp ~he simplicity eott~~lS place to-day a single mind m~tchless plan for the salvation ;; ~eat and marvellous and things and try to understand th an. When I read these I think' I feel like the Apostle ep~~ry T~actsbearing upon them, already quoted "We' .. .. ~ en he wrote that verse Christ, through' WT om ::JholCe III God t.hrough our Lord Jesus " W .. ave now received the '1" e rejoice in God I" Wh I reeonci ration. " word I find that if m~ans "Wen are oaup the original of that L, e turbn t .,. also say, from my humbl~ position as s who III God. ~et me ers: gladness and satisfaction in that '~hic~~e h has found JOYand day, I am proud of God. Th 1 hi ave put before you to~ro~ that sin in Eden to the C~o~sa~ w ich has been wrought jeetion of my mind and heart a d I 1Calvary, compels the suband. the physical capability that nshall ~~g :or the mental pow~r all Its grandeur and simplicitv thi s a le me to set forth III will save those who put their c"onfidwon~erful L d whereby God ence III the plan J . Now I think I h d or esus Christ . ' ave one all I ne d d f . ~ut this great matter before e 0 or to-day. I have sideration, and must leave it '~i~~ this afternoon for your contalks that have been given here duri~ou'hbut as ~ think over the may p,ut ~o you a question or two g e past SIXweeks, I think III questI~)llmg me, and I ask that y~u wi~f have b~en pretty free my queries. You need DOt give me an answer seriously consider now now l\~y first question: If, as I have tried t . attention to these all-important matters h 0 sho:v, I have devoted thought to their consideration and ha aye given my time and conclusions which I have set b f ave reached the definite than receive those conclusions eY~;I~ytu'tl~vhat other can I do h,eart assent, and try to set them b f 0 em my mental and sideration, can I, as an honest man , de ortehoth~rs jforI theirk con0 0 erwise thi And then my second tion wi . III not. self to the belief a~d adv~~:: IO~ w~ll be: ~uppos.i~g I give mybe convincingly certain-c-if {~ t ese thIllgs. which I deem to devote my advocacy t~ the 1 . glvhe my at~entlOn to them, and m, III w at am I III any way disadvan-

l~

l-26

127

I.'

b f some of my Rationaltaged ~ Supposing I have f1ere . e ore ~n:m I disadvantaged as istic friends, let them cons\~er ;nt wha mind is perfectly free to compared with. them. I ho t ~ my I am not aware that examine anythmg that. comes be .ore me. to the sons of men but there is anything ~hat IS 0dfreal l~.eres~o my judgment and acwhat I can enter into, a~ ' :;LCcormg rt and help I can. cording to my ability, give It wha\ sUP~ro is that commends it There is nothing that I knOW of ~h~ ~::nd tru~ but that I can d itself to my ju~,gment ~s :~o ~n rl; meals about as well as any enjoy m d d with a number of give myself to It. I thin ge ; .I am surroun e h I I f other man o. my a '., Ih I th to wear' on the woe . Ih hO'11e' ave co es, . frienda; . ave my . ,. th an I want to know m enjoy life about as well as 0 .er I' worse off in mind or what am I dis~d:,antaged. erem is not ~ Can anybody body as a ChrIstian than any man wo. tell me 1 .' .g I m right; supposing the My last question IS: suPP?sm tan I advantaged ~ In h . . ke i d truth m w a ar . pOSItion I ta e IS s?un. ' fit ble for the life that IS now, everything? G?dh;ness IS pro a am I advantaged. . and for that whteh is io come, and t~~~ence for the Bible. It IS I have now put before 'you my eaknesses and limitations of marked heavily, I know, wltht tf~1;'e not dimmed the lustre ?f the advocate, but I hope t~a h r of the Person whose Hlsthe Word or taken from t t e ~~ou Thus I close it, and as I 40 f toricity 1 have s?ught to se h?\' ay fittingly close these talks. so t think of a l!ttle ~to:r\ w lCe form and runs thus: :It has been p~t m~o srmp ~ :e;:ore the' blacksmith's door, " Last night pause g the vesper chime, . And heard the anvil rm ki in I saw upon the floor . . And loo mg b beating years Gf time. Old hammers worn y " I said , " How manv anvils have you had , ' ." . .. 11tl se h ammers SO! " To wea-;, ahnd ~~tt~~:u sa~~ with twinkling eye, " Just one, e sal , t ou know." . " r1'he Anvil wears the h~mmers ~~ d Just so, I though~, t~~::~I~V~ b~~t ~po:,r For ages sceptic b f falling blows was heard But though. tl~e nOlhse d-the hammers-gone. 0 The AnVIl IS un arme

Wt

%.

'-if

QUESTIONS. . in for the betterment of mankind ~ Qtwstion: DId Adam s . f It does not look very much Answer: Not that I .knowt 0 'd into the world and death by Iik el,it if " by one man sin en ere 1 sin." 11thi 1 ad to come about from the begmmng. Yes but a IS I
< .'

Not that I know of. He who says so ought to be able to prove it. I do not say so, and so am not going to attempt the proof. Qtwstion: Was immortality possible before Christ's time ~ Answer: Not to man. <c c He has brought life and incorruption to light through the GospeL" Question: How about those millions of people who died before Christ came into the world ~ Answe1': They have all, like you and I, shared in the virtue of the Atonement, and if the basis I have put before you this afternoon is right, then the rational grounds put forward for the resurrection from the dead and the judgment of the just and unjust are before you. Qtwstion: Re the cock crowing twice and thrice, at the time of Peter's denial of OUr Lord. (Not fully caught by reporter). Answer-: It seems to me a very strange thing that when one is lecturing upon a theme which calls for all one's rational thought and powers of at~tion, the mind of somebody in the audience should be running upon things that belong to a poultry yard. But, let me say, supposing for one moment that there is any real discrepancy between those two accounts, what effect has that upon the theme about, which I have' been speaking to you this afternoon ~ '1'he Bible itself is so great and so extensive that a thing like that is surely not going to throw any person off the track of a rational investigation, if the result of that means so much to the man as the Bible declares it does. Qtiestion: I want to ask how it was that when God made man, He did not make him strong enough to resist the temptation which He also made. Answer-: Sir, He did not make the temptation to put in the way of man. He did make the man strong enough to resist the temptation. There is not now, has never in the past, at any time, been a temptation that has come to a man that he was not originally strong enough to resist. There is, it seems to' me, a kink in the minds of some of our friends, such as Mr. Blatchford . and others, who are writing against the Christian position, and they are assuming that man was made so weak, if the Bible be true, that he could not possibly resist. And then they urge us to accept their view of determinism, a position which simply makes out that I am here as a Christian advocate because I cannot help it, and you are here on the other side opposing me with might and main, because Y01i cannot help it. I hold that God made man with a will free to choose, and, according to the record, the man was free of choose, and he did choose, because the same record states definitely that Adam was not beguiled. Very well, then; he followed the bent of his own will when he went wrong.

'1128

129

d moral wrong-doer. Qt~estion: You said man was ma e a Ans'wer: Never. I 0 doer and physically imWell, you said he is a mora wrong, potent to help himse~f. 1 -doer. If anybody thinks Yes I said man ss a mora wrong h . not I said he tS , . the man w 0 IS . he is not, I would like to see. and I mean by that that he physically impotent to help hm~~lf, If t of that state because is physicallY impotenl to hell OfI~~: w~Jch is the clear evi~ence he goes down to the grave, ou 'f moral wrong-domg. that he cannot hinder t~e conser~~ncell~ridge if he means that r.. d ~ Qnestion: I . would Iike to as t before he smne . Adam was a dymg. crea ure I id was that when man was put Answe1': No, SIr. What sa b k u on his mortal nature outside the Garden, he was ihrtOWr th~Cgro~nd and therefore he -he was made out of the dUS tal nature to~ as it took about died. It was a pretty goo mor ' " 900 years to wear out ." ground being" therefore . 'Qnestion: You said he was a '
T

corruptIble. '" th fore" The" therefore Ans1/llw: Excuse me-not f ere Weismann in his book does not necessarily follow Pro esso~hat there is' no ascerta~non " Heredity," g?e~ so far a~s~ssa~ art from injury and v~oable reason why hv~ng orga~nd thai some creature~ never dIe, lence, should ever dIe a~,a~~~hl _organised" InfusorIa. So, aethe Amceba and some hI? Y t a compulsory consequence of cording to his view, deat IS no organised being. h of time and'the geoQuesti?n: What about t;le fu~a~~iOt~eS writers of the Bible logical perIods of the p~st .seed these up a bit and run ~he~ receive some sort of cal~ t~ ~hat about the geologIcal periods l over a few thousand years . ~ Answer: Well, what about them . (Silence.) ~ How many do you .want '. d t ded over many thousand Qtestion: The glacIal perIo ex en
>

"

years-st lacial theory. But what are Ans:ve1': Yes, and the:a~t t~ ask: Does not geology. teach you gettmg at ~ J?o YO?; before the time computed m the that the earth was m eXIstence Bible ~ . Yes. ma be all very true in Its Well, let me say that ge:~Y tly)arge to swallow all geofacts but my throat is not S11 ts rn be all very true, and the . ' . G I .cal fac s may . b t [ogical the~rIes. eo 0~1' h as the Bible says nothmg a ou Bible remam ~rue, too, masmu~now how it is that some people, geological periods. IB~bol ot t on spectacles thick and deepn when they read the 1 e, pu , 130

coloured, and having caught a few ideas second-hand from some unreliable writer about science, they think they know all about the contradictions between science and the Bible. This Bible stands where it stood before geology was heard from. It will stand when the geological theories which now hold the field have followed their predecessors into the limbo of ,forgetfulness, The geological teachings may be true-that is, there are undoubtedly successive strata as one goes down beneath the earth's present surface. Men are not yet agreed as to how the earth was built up, whether by water or by fire, or by both. In the light of their findings the question is asked, " What about the Bible ?" The Bible in Genesis says nothing about geological matters; it deals with the earth's surface from first to last. It says, " In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." What heaven? God called the firmament heaven, not the sun and moon and stars and planets and' the whole of the visible external universe that men talk about so glibly, The firmament He called Heaven. And the earth-what did he call earth ~ The successive strata from centre to Circumference? No! The dry land he called earth. That satisfies me, if it does not satisfy anybody else. . Question: St. Paul says: " By one man sin entered into the world." But read Isaiah, 45th chapter, 7th verse, Answer: Which' says-? " I make light and create evil." No it doesn't. It says, " I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create eviL" What has that to do with your question 1 One says: " By man sin entered into the world," and in the other, God Himself says He made evil. I put down " evil" as " sin." If you say that which is wrong, that is no reason why I should follow you. Observe that the prophet in that passage puts before you two contrasts-" I form the light and create darkness, " that is, the darkness is the exact opposite of light. 'I'here stand the two like black and white, and the one is the direct antithesis of the other. When he says" I make peace and create evil," the evil created is the direct antithesis of peace. My friend puts in sin but sin is not the direct antithesis of peace. What is? When the people of Israel went wrong, and sinned against God, evil came upon them from without. He raised up enemies against them. and the evil that came upon them was of a physical order. They were punished by wars and invasions. Theirs the sin, His the sending of punishment. War is the opposite of peace, He could not create moral evil, because He is a holy Being. Question: In the Epistle of Peter it says that Christ brought immortality to light through the Gospel. 131

. Answe1': Well, it is not found there; it is found in the 2nd Epistle to Timothy, aud the statement is, if you read the Revised Version, that He c brought life and incorruption to light." The Authorised Version has the word c immortality." The word which is the opposite of death is athanasia, that is, "immortality," but the word which occurs here is aph~harsia, that is, c incorruption," and so what the Apostle actually says is that " He brought life and incorruption to light," and incorruption is an attribute of organism. He brought life and incorruption to light. How? Because He was raised from the dead after the power of an indissoluble life" .to die no more," and those .who trust in Him are waiting His return., "We wait for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who shall fashion anew the body of our humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of His glory according to the working whereby He is able even to subject all things unto Himself." Q1~estion: I think Mr. Aldridge's reply as to the power to resist evil would be more understandable if he made it clear that his remarks applied to Adam only, because I cannot accept that all men have the power to resist evil. . Answer: No, I do not so limit it. I, of course, believe that that man, fresh from the Creative hands hands of God, with his powers of mind and with free will, was capable of resisting temptation. I said that he had the maximum of liberty with the minimum of test. Now I come to' the present, and I say the same concerning every man from that time down to the present.' 'When Paul said to the Chr-istian Church: " There hath no temptation (i.e., trial) taken you, but such as man can bear." I hold that that will apply to all men, everywhere, and when we fall into sin -you or I-we have just got ourselves to blame, and nobody else.
[NoTE.-I am aware, of course, that repeated acts of cession to temptation weakens resistance, but society at no stage recognises that a man is irresponsible for his acts unless he is to be treated as insane. To admit the idea of the question is to destroy responsibility. If man has not the power to resist sin, he is not punishable.] ,

Question: Do you b Ii E . the l~nd of God, and if !~~V~hyV~~~t~on be in harmony with to nswe1': The so-called' d tr-i .
:~, ~s ~a~a~~ ~o~~dil~~n~ ~~e;,l~: i~:I~i~~ti~~~:~~u~~~~~s can establish them [rh' . 0 make assertions unless r thi k r' ti . ere IS an Ev 1 ti In opera IVe amongst the sons of 0 u IOn eXIstent in the World men,. that has been in existenc~ !rom t~e very beginning of hum ~~tmalllfeTstin Our civilisation a~~ ~~st.orri/nd ~oes on still, and r~y.. hey see Evolution ~t w I~ IS which has led men men s In~uence operates. A ma In human history, where car runnIng. Somebody im I' n rna es.a machine, sets a motor' the scrap ~eap, .and a betterPisoves upon It; the .0Id one is cast to :pl~ chanhgIng, and th11S the onl;:va:[u~!ld ~o thhIngs are continn, . ere.w ere man Works. When IOn In t e world is in the ~~to beIng,. He gave them the God caIled organised thin s after their kind, " and from bower .of .reproducing their life thhat has been the ruling law Jf e begl1~,lllngdown to the present c ange from it . orgalllsed beings , with never a

01'\

Question: You said that all doctrines given in the Bible are given in plain literal terms. If that is so, how is it that there is such a wide discrepancy of opinion as to what those terms mean? Answer: Because men are not prepared to accept the terms at their face value, and if you will pardon me another word, I will say, further, because men have been under the influence of a vain philosophy, which has taught them untruths concerning their own nature, they have turned the plain language of. the Bible into somethi;'g other than it says. There was one individual who said, in the earliest dawn of Bible history: " Hath God said ye shall surely die? Ye shall not surely die," and because he said that, almost every mother's son, from that time to the present, has said it and gone on repeating the same old lie.
132

133