NOTE I.

FAITH IN GOD.

Every thoughtful person revolts against the idea that eternal blessedness depends upon apprehending aright a certain formula or creed respecting Christ, or upon believing certain facts concerning Him. No one represents this to be the doctrine of Scripture, save those who do so in order to bring Scripture into contempt. But there are many who, in a sense, are lovers of truth, that suppose this to be the view of evangelical Christians, and who, in rejecting it, reject also the teaching of Holy Writ respecting faith. To such, therefore, a plain statement is due of what we do in fact deem to be the truth in this matter. And I venture to think, moreover, that among Christians themselves there exists a great deal of confusion of thought, and somewhat perhaps of error too, with respect to it. The gospel will bear the test of the severest metaphysical inquiry, but yet it is addressed to plain people, and not to metaphysicians; and we may be certain that the truth of faith is not a subtle difficulty, but within the reach of all.

Now, as I have sought to show, to solve the difficulty by declaring trust to be the true and only faith recognised by God is utterly wrong. Trust is a necessary fruit of faith in its simplest phase, but not a part of it. Suppose in a money panic I am in fear of ruin, and I receive a letter telling me the bank in which my fortune is invested is absolutely safe, it is faith of the simplest kind to believe that testimony; and, simply believing it, I dismiss my fears. But, it will be answered, such faith, simple though it be, depends entirely on the confidence I repose in my informant. Undoubtedly it does. The words of the letter, as it lies before me, are like counters that may stand for anything or nothing. These counters become gold in my estimation, because I import into them the element of preexisting trust in the writer. It is clear then that, between man and man, faith, apart from proof, assumes trust, and is inseparable from it.

But is this also true between God and the sinner? Belief of the Bible as a book merely, or even as a book recognised as true, is no doubt governed by the same principle. But when God speaks to the soul, His message is a living word, a word of power, and that quite independently of evidences, or of the condition of the hearer. It finds the sinner morally incapable of trust in God, for the essence of his nature is distrust of Him: "the carnal mind is enmity against God;" and spiritually he is no less incapable of trust, for he is spiritually dead. But the gospel itself brings life to the dead soul, and masters the enmity of the carnal heart. It brought forth fruit among the Colossians, "from the day they heard it." By nature man is fallen and apostate: the gospel is itself the instrument for his recovery and conversion; therefore in no sense, and in no degree, does it rely for its acceptance upon any existing quality or condition of the human heart.

Speaking thus, however, we must guard against the folly of supposing that any set of words in Greek or Hebrew, or their more or less accurate counterparts in English, have inherent power or virtue to bring salvation to the person who believes them. And if the words themselves can work no charm, the belief of them will not help the matter. Nor can 1 consent to fall back upon distinctions between "faith about Christ" and •'faith in or on Christ," as is sometimes done—distinctions which pertain either to etymology or metaphysics. The etymological question is interesting, and I will deal with it for any who have leisure and inclination to follow me. The metaphysical inquiry I must decline to enter on here. As I have said, the gospel is for those who are incapable of such a study; and, moreover, the distinction is based upon the assumption that, of the various sorts of faith, to use the popular expression, one is efficacious, and the other not—thus attaching merit to faith itself, and coming under the almost ironical remonstrance of St. James, "Can faith save?"

If by "faith about Christ" be meant the belief of facts concerning Him, to say that this is not connected with salvation in Scripture is a statement so glaringly false as to need no answer. It is certainly inadequate as a definition of true faith of the gospel, as I will presently explain; but changing the preposition will in no way supply the defect. The distinction assumes that πιστεύειν εις (translated in Authorised Version to believe in or on) implies trust in the person who is the object of the faith. But this is quite untenable. In saying I believe in any one, I may mean that 1 thoroughly rely upon him, or I may merely intend that I acknowledge him to be the person he claims to be. Every one will admit that the expression has this elasticity of meaning in our own language: it needs no scholarship to ascertain for one'sself that it has equal scope in Greek, and notably in the writings of St. John. The fact is, the difference between π. εις τινα and π. τινι is purely a matter of etymology or of style; and in every case the force of the words depends entirely upon the context. St. John uses them convertibly. See, for instance, John viii. 30, 31, where both are rightly translated " believed on Him," i.e., gave in their adhesion to His Messiahship. The 29th and 30th verses of chap. vi. afford another example. And again compare 1 John iii. 23 (π. τῷ ὀνόματι) with v. 13 (π. εὶς τὸ δνουα). Moreover, in John v. 24, Acts xvi. 34, xviii. 8, Rom. iv. 3, and elsewhere, the verb without the preposition denotes "saving faith" beyond all question; and in numerous passages ir. as is used where as plainly there is no thought of either salvation or trust. I myself would include John viii. 30, already quoted, in this category, as the context plainly demands; but such passages as vii. 48, xi. 48, are unequivocal instances of it. π. ἐπί does seem to include the idea of confidence or trust; but this is used but seldom, and never by St. John, though the word believe occurs in his writings well nigh as often as in all the rest of the New Testament.1

Having thus cleared the ground of difficulties and distinctions which I think both irrelevant and unworthy of the subject, I fall back upon the main inquiry, What is the element which connects faith with salvation?

It is not owing to any virtue or charm in the text of the message received, nor does it depend on any merit or vitality in faith, in what sense soever faith be understood. Still less is it to be accounted for by some fitness or worth in the recipient. If then it depends neither upon the message, nor yet upon the faith, nor upon the character of the faith, nor upon the condition of him who exercises the faith, there is but one more alternative remaining. And here, as the result of a circuitous inquiry that simple souls might perhaps refuse to follow, I reach once more a point where every true believer will enthusiastically side with me. It is not that the sinner believes, nor yet that he believes the gospel, but that he believes God. The belief of the facts of Christianity, however great and true, or even of the inspired record of them, can never bring life to a dead soul, nor change a sinner's destiny. But that which makes the gospel a word of power and life to some, and links blessing with the faith of it, is that to such it comes as a divine voice by the Holy Ghost now present upon earth to that end. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God;" not by the Bible as a volume purchased at a book shop, but by those sacred words when through them a present God speaks to the hearer's soul.

If it be objected that this is transcendentalism, I answer, It is Christianity. Grace is boundless, but it is sovereign; and if God has brought salvation within reach of all, it is not by making men independent of Himself, but by giving the Holy Ghost to bear witness to the finished work and glorified person of a Saviour. In apostolic days, the gospel was preached "with the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven," and this is still its only power. It is not as a true record merely, but as a living word from God, that it is indeed "the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth."

NOTE II

MIRACLES.

The subject of miracles, and of "evidences" in general, is too large to treat of here; but yet the reference I have made to them compels me to add a few remarks.

1st. The mere fact of miracles is no proof of Divine intervention. A miracle is such an interference with the course of nature, as is beyond our own power. Any creature, therefore, entirely superior to us can perform what we deem a miracle. The miracles worked by Satan in the temptation of our Lord (Luke iv. 6) are far more wonderful (I do not say "greater") than all the miracles of all the apostles combined; and Scripture testifies that the devil will again exert miraculous power on earth.

2d. Miracles are never appealed to in Scripture as "an evidence," save in connection with a preceding revelation to which they are referred. The gospel of Christ was not like the word to Abraham, "the beginning of the oracles of God;" it was another chapter in a long-continued revelation. But it had a twofold aspect. He came to a people whose every hope for earth and heaven centred in a Messiah promised to their fathers, and He came, moreover, to a world that was ruined and lost. His mission, therefore, had a twofold character and purpose. He was the Messiah to the Jew; He was the bread of God to give life to the world. It was with the former that the miracles had specially to do. The knowledge of His higher mission and character was not an inference from miracles. It was the subject of a special revelation to John the Baptist, and through him to those who afterwards became the first disciples of the Lord (John i. 33-37). These all belonged to the little company spoken of in Luke ii. 38 as waiting for the redemption of Israel. They followed Him because they were already God's people, and yet even these needed a word from God to enable them to know Him.

3d. If this be so, we shall expect to find that it was to Jews that the testimony was based on miracles, and that when the kingdom gospel, or special national testimony, ceased, miracles became of secondary importance. Both these points are plain upon the face of Scripture. As soon as the Sanhedrim decreed the destruction of Christ, He sought to keep His miracles secret (Matt. xii. 14-16). He could not be face to face with need and refuse to meet it, but He no longer wished the fame of His power to go forth. And when, after His final rejection, the gospel became a purely spiritual testimony, miracles were never appealed to in confirmation of it. The national testimony which the apostles had been sent forth to render at the first was based on miracles (Matt. x. 7, 8). The gospel of Pentecost was a living power, independent of all extrinsic proof; it was itself the means of the conversion of 3000 souls (Acts ii. 41),

"To the Jew first," is characteristic of the Acts, and of the transitional period the book embraces. After the conversion of Cornelius, the public testimony -was no longer confined to the Jew, but the Jew retained the right to priority in the offer of grace (Acts xiii. 46, e. g.). The miracles therefore continued, though without their former prominence. And when Paul went forth preaching to Gentiles, miracles seem to have been divorced from his testimony altogether. His miracle at Lystra was in response to the faith of the man who was the subject of it (Acts xiv. 9); and it had upon those who witnessed it its natural effect with heathens—they owned the apostles as gods, and prepared to sacrifice to them. So was it also at Melita (Acts xxviii. 6).

That miraculous power existed in Gentile Churches the 12th of 1st Corinthians establishes; but the question is, Did the gospel which produced those Churches appeal to miracles to confirm it? Can any one read the first four chapters of that very Epistle, and retain a doubt as to the answer?

The great question here involved resolves itself, sooner or later, into this : When God speaks to man's heart through the gospel, does He speak in such wise that the word carries with it the certainty that it is from Him? To say that God cannot do this is to deny that He is supreme; and to deny a Supreme Being is sheer Atheism. To say that He does not is to remove the truth of revelation out of the region of certainty altogether. For the genuineness of miracles must, of course, depend on evidence ; and if, as Paley declares, the reality of a revelation must be proved by miracles, it is only by weighing evidences that we can determine what is revealed; and that form of proof can never, in such matters, reach higher than probability. Indeed, no accurate or astute thinker has ever claimed more for it. The degree of conviction thus attainable is, doubtless, an overwhelming condemnation of the infidel, but it is a poor substitute for the faith of the Christian.

According to Paley, the value of the Christian revelation is determined by the miracles. According to Scripture, the value of the miracles was determined by the revelation. It was not that miracles were wrought, but that the miracles of Jesus were precisely what Isaiah prophesied the Messiah would accomplish.

The whole system is false, and must drive simple souls to Rome; for the many are quite incapable of reasoning out Christianity from evidences, and, if that be our only foundation, they must trust the Church to do it for them. With what a sense of relief one turns from it to a word like this: "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes."

NOTE III.

JUSTIFICATION BY WORKS.

"Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar? Thou seest how faith wrought with his works, and by works faith was made perfect."

"And so," says many a one, closing the book, "we see how the Scripture which says 'Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness,' is guarded and explained."

"And so," continues the Apostle James, "the Scripture was fulfilled, which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness, and he was called the friend of God." (James ii. 14-26.)

Justification by works, as an article of man's religion, is opposed to justification by faith, and therefore it denies the grace of God, and dishonours the blood of Christ. Justification by works, according to the Epistle of James, is the complement, so to speak, of justification by faith. It owns grace, and does homage to the blood.

But "it is of faith that it may be by grace;" and grace puts works, and merit in every phase of it, out of court altogether. What then if a man regard his faith as a meritorious thing f He thereby denies grace entirely. He makes a saviour of his own faith; and "can faith save him?" It is no longer a question between God's grace on the one side, and the sinner's merit on the other; but merely a rivalry between faith and works. The Epistle to the Romans is essentially doctrinal, and the practical is based upon the doctrine. The Epistle "to the twelve tribes scattered abroad," is essentially practical, the doctrinal element being purely incidental. Paul's Epistle unfolds the mind and purposes of God, revealing His righteousness and wrath. The Epistle of James addresses men upon their own ground. The one deals with justification as between the sinner and God, the other as between man and man. In the one, therefore, the word is, "To him that worketh not, but believeth." In the other it is, "What is the profit if a man say he hath faith, and have not works?" Not "If a man have faith," but "If a man say he hath faith ;" proving that, in the case supposed, the individual is not dealing with God, but arguing the matter with his brethren. God, who searches the heart, needs not to judge by works, which are but the outward manifestation of faith within; but man can judge only by appearance.

Faith identifies a sinner with a Saviour God. But it is nothing in itself. A man cannot show another his faith, any more than he can show him his charity. One who says he has faith, but whose conduct is not that of a believer, is like a man who says he has charity, but does no charitable actions; who dismisses a starving beggar with kind words and nothing more. "Even so," says the Epistle, just in the same sense, "faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone." You believe in one God. Well, quite right: so do the devils; and what comes of it? They tremble, and so ought you. Believing cannot, therefore, be in itself a meritorious thing. But if it be indeed, to use a favourite metaphor, a laying hold of God, it will declare itself by results. Abraham's case is an instance, He believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness. That is, as I have elsewhere explained, Abraham believed, and God blessed him, "He was holden for righteous, in virtue of faith." Well, the result was, Abraham acted: God discerned the faith; man judged of the acts. He believed, and God declared he was justified. He acted, and man acknowledged he was justified. He was justified by faith when judged by God, for God knows the heart. He was justified by works when judged by his fellow-men; for man can only read the life. And just as faith is made perfect, or fulfilled, by works, so the Scripture, which says, "He was justified by faith," is made perfect, or fulfilled, by the declaration, "He was justified by works."

So then, though in one sense a man is justified by faith without works, in another sense we see how by works a roan is justified, and not by faith only. Justified by faith before God; justified by works before men. This is not mere assertion; nor is it a plausible piece of sophistry. It is not only that these Scriptures admit of no other explanation, but that this explanation is thoroughly in keeping with the respective characters of the two epistles. And, moreover, just as in the 23d verse, St. James guards the truth of justification by faith; so, in the Epistle to the Romans, St. Paul alludes to the aspect of the truth here insisted on—" If Abraham were justified by works," he declares, "he hath whereof to glory, but not before God."

NOTE IV.

JUSTIFICATION BY BLOOD.

Judicial righteousness is theoretically possible in either of two ways. The law-keeper is righteous as such; the law-breaker may become righteous through redemption. The law-keeper fulfils the demands of the law by his obedience; the law-breaker may fulfil the demands of the law by enduring to the full its penalties in the person of Christ. Righteousness on the first ground is shown to be in fact impossible, and it is set aside altogether. The sinner is therefore shut up to "justification by blood." Vicarious obedience is an idea wholly beyond reason; against it, I think, but clearly above it: how could a God of righteousness and truth reckon a man who has broken law to have kept law, because some one else has kept it f The thief is not declared to be honest because his neighbour or his kinsman is a good citizen. Punishment may be remitted on this ground, but that is not justification. The merits of ten righteous men would have saved Sodom, but God would not therefore have called Sodom righteous.

But is not the thought of vicarious judgment as much beyond reason as vicarious obedience? Undoubtedly; but to accept what is above our reason, when revelation testifies to it, is the very highest exercise of reason; otherwise it is mere superstition. The bearing of judgment in the person of a substitute is a foundation truth of Christianity. Obedience by a substitute is a mere theory, and one of the strangest I know of in the entire range of human thought.2

One poem may not constitute a man a poet, but one murder makes a man a murderer, one sin makes a sinner. Nothing but the gallows can expiate a murder; death alone can atone for sin. The law is a standard, so to speak, to which man is subjected— not his acts merely, but himself. If he comes up to it, he is ipso facto justified, justified by law. If he fails, he is ipso facto condemned, and law can never justify him; for a law that could justify an offender would be an immoral and corrupt law. The law has pronounced its sentence, and nothing remains but the fulfilment of that sentence. This is the natural state of the sinner under law. But here God reveals himself a Saviour. He gives up His only-begotten Son to take the place of the condemned sinner, and die in his stead. He now points to that death as satisfying the righteous demand of law against the sinner, and on that ground He justifies him. Not that by virtue of His sovereignty, or by a legal fiction, as we say, He reckons the believer to be righteous, while leaving his condition in fact unchanged, but that He justifies him. The believer is "justified from all things from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses" (Acts xiii. 39). God imputes the death of Christ to the believer.

If it be demanded, How can this be? I answer, It depends upon the fact that God imputed the sin of the believer to Christ, and that he died under sin, and for sin. Not that the guiltless died as guiltless for the guilty, which would be horrible; but that the guiltless passed into the position of the guilty, and as guilty, died to expiate the guilt imputed to Him: "He who knew no sin was made sin for us." If the inquiry be still further pressed, and the question be insisted on, How could sin be so imputed to the sinless as to make a vicarious death justifiable? men may seek to reason out the answer, but, as Bishop Butler says, "All conjectures about it must be, if not evidently absurd, yet at least uncertain." "Nor," he adds, "has he any reason to complain from want of further information, unless he can show his claim to it. Here it is that God retreats upon his own sovereignty, and the believer is satisfied with the divine "It is written." Reason bows before the God of reason, and the reasoner becomes a disciple and a worshipper.

Moreover, though the revelation of the death of Christ as a sin-bearer is in truth a great mystery, it is by no means so incredible as would be the story of His death apart from sin. The thorough infidel is consistent in his unbelief, and the true Christian in his faith; but the most utterly unreasonable person in the world is the man who accepts the fact of the death of Christ the Lord of life and glory, and yet doubts whether it was a death for sin. That Jesus of Nazareth died upon a cross is mere matter of history; that He who did so die was the Christ the Son of God is entirely a matter of revelation. And, as I have elsewhere said, the great impossibility of the gospel is the stupendous fact that Christ has died, not that that death was because of sin, nor yet that the sinner can be blessed in virtue of it.

The 18th and 19th verses of the 5th of Romans are sometimes quoted in support of the doctrine of vicarious obedience, but wrongly so. The word in verse 18 is not "the righteousness of one," as given in the Authorised Version, but δι᾽ ἐνὸς δικαιώματος. "By means of one righteous act—the death of Christ viewed as the acme of His obedience. See Phil. ii. 8." I quote from Alford, who rightly explains "the obedience of one " in verse 19 upon the same principle. Christ was obedient unto death, and by means of that obedience we are justified— "justified by His blood," as the apostle had already asserted in the 9th verse, and explained in the earlier chapters of the Epistle.

The word δικαίωμα occurs also in the 16th verse, where it means "a righteous sentence of acquittal." In i. 32, the same word stands for "the righteous judgment" of God; and in ii. 26, in the plural, for "the righteous requirements" of the law. The only other passage in Romans where it is used is viii. 4. "The law of sin and death"—the active principle of «in within —made it impossible for God's law to obtain its demand from man. But the death of Christ redeemed them that were under the law; and "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus" now frees them practically from "the law of sin and death." It is an active principle of power within them, resulting in a walk after the Spirit, and not after the flesh. And thus the law receives its δικαίωμα, whereas it utterly failed of that, so long as the believer was under it.

Everywhere else in the Epistle, the word translated righteousness is δικαίοσύνη. Δικαίωσις occurs in iv. 25, and v. 18. The gift was by one δικαίωμα unto δικαίωσις.

NOTE V.

HOLINESS AND SANCTIFICATION.

Words mean exactly what they pass current for, and with the English Bible before us, it is idle to insist on a distinction between "holiness" and "sanctification." But I think an examination of the various passages where the Greek correlatives of these terms occur, will help much towards accuracy of thought and a clear grasp of the truth upon this subject.

The meaning of ἀγιάζειν in Scripture, (and I am not aware that it ever has any other meaning), is to separate, or set apart, for God, or to some sacred purpose; and ἀγιάσμός means either the act of consecration, or the condition into which that act introduces the subject of it. There is no question, mark, of any change of essential qualities. The subject may be (a) intrinsically holy already, or (6) be and continue to be intrinsically unholy, or (c) it may be incapable of moral qualities altogether, (a) Christ was sanctified by the Father, (John x. 36), (6) the sinner is sanctified on believing (1 Cor. vi. 11); and an unconverted husband or wife is sanctified in virtue of marriage with a holy person, (1 Cor. vii. 14); and (c) the vessels of the temple were sanctified, as also the creatures we use for food are "sanctified by the word of God and prayer," (1 Tim. iv. 4, 5).

'Αγιάζειν is therefore to make a person or thing holy, in the sense in which to justify a person is to make that person righteous. His condition is changed, but not necessarily his character. I subjoin a list of all the passages where the word occurs, and a careful perusal of them will show that in one case only does the word seem to bear a different meaning. I allude to the prayer of 1 Thess. v. 23. "The God of peace sanctify you wholly." But a consideration of the context will show that "wholly" refers not to progressive sanctification of the whole man regarded as a unit, but to the absolute sanctification of every part of the man considered as a complex being, made up of "body, soul, and spirit." So Bloomfield, Alford, &c, take it, notwithstanding their strong bias towards the other view. In John xvii. it is wholly unjustifiable to put a different meaning on the word "sanctify," when the Lord uses it of Himself, and when He applies it to His disciples. Eph. v. 26 calls for notice only to point out that our translation is inaccurate. The right rendering is "that he might sanctify it, cleansing it by the washing of water by the word." "He gave Himself for it, that He might sanctify it:" It is the burnt-offering again. (Ex. xxiv., see p. 111 ante.)

It will be observed that we are said to be sanctified by God the Father, sanctified by the Spirit, sanctified in the name of the Lord Jesus, sanctified in Christ Jesus, and sanctified by blood. These all refer to one and the same sanctification. God is the Author, the Spirit the Agent, and the blood the means, of our sanctification, and it is in Christ that all this is ours. The attempt of some commentators to cut up the verse in the 6th of 1st Cor., and make "justified " refer to Christ, and "sanctified" to the Spirit, is mere special pleading. The believer is sanctified absolutely and for ever, even as he is justified; and of necessity it is by the Spirit, for through Him it is that every blessing flows to us.

All this is confirmed by a careful study of the passages where ἀγιασμός is used. It is very remarkable, that when sanctification is spoken of as by the Spirit, it is connected with election, and precedes faith. And the reason of this seems to me to be that, though chronologically, faith and sanctification are simultaneous, there is nevertheless a moral order varying according as we view the subject from our own standpoint, or in the light of the sovereignty of God. In the former case, faith comes first, and sanctification follows as a consequence; but when election comes in, we see our faith to be the result of the Divine decree which set us apart to eternal life.

It is further remarkable that neither continuous nor progressive sanctification is ever spoken of as being the work of the Spirit. But the reason of this is clear; the truth is too obvious to need even to be stated. It is only by the help of the Holy Spirit that a believer can stand for a moment. Truth is emphasised in Scripture, not, as in a creed, according to its doctrinal importance relatively to other truths, but according to the practical need which exists for enforcing it upon the believer.

Holiness means, as we have seen, not merely the state of being sanctified, but also the moral character akin to that state. And here the Greek, a language rich in such distinctions, is not confined to a single word. I have dealt with ἁγιασμός. The quality or attribute of holiness is expressed in ἁγιωσύνη, a word which, strange to say, is used but thrice, namely, Rom. i. 4, "the Spirit of holiness;" not the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit of Christ, in contrast with the flesh mentioned in the preceding verse: 2 Cor. vii. 1, upon which I have already commented (p. 119, ante); and 1 Thess. iii. 13, "unblamable in holiness," a very solemn and significant word, especially in the connection where it occurs. The kindred word ἁγιότης is found only in Heb. xii. 10. "That we might be partakers of His holiness." And ὀσιότης in Luke i. 75; and Eph. iv. 24.

A comparison of Eph. iv. 24 with 1 Cor. i. 30, will give an insight into the difference between this last word and ἁγιασμός. Israel's sanctification, and indeed their entire position as a redeemed people, was maintained by the "middle wall of partition" which separated them from other nations. (See Lev. xx. 26.) But Christ Himself is to His people, now, what the "middle wall of partition " was to the Jew: He is made unto us sanctification. The first και in this verse has the force of both; I presume the last is equivalent to even; Christ is made unto us "wisdom from God, and both righteousness and sanctification, even redemption." It is only in virtue of what Christ has done for us that we can gain the place we hold in redemption: it is entirely in virtue of what Christ now is to us that we can be maintained in that place.

But in Eph. iv. 24, it is not a question of what Christ is to us, but of the essential qualities of the new creation of which He is the Head, and of what we ourselves ought to be in practical conformity therewith. The new man is created in holiness. To ignore the truth that Christ is made unto us ἁγιασμός, and that therefore the believer is holy, independently of his life on earth, is to abandon or deny the true position of the Christian; but to suppose that Christ is made unto us holiness in this further sense also, would lead to the still deeper error of regarding holy living as of no account whatever.

ἁγιάζω

• Matt. vi. 9.—" Hallowed be thy name" (and Luke xi. 2).
• Matt, xxiii. 17, 19.—The temple that sanctifieth-the gold: the altar that sanctifieth the gift.
• John x. 36.—Say ye of Him whom the Father hath sanctified.
• John xvii. 17, 19.—Sanctify them through Thy truth. For their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
• Acts xx. 32.—Inheritance among all them that are sanctified (and xxvi. 18).
• Rom. xv. 16.—That the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.
• 1 Cor. i. 2.—Sanctified in Christ Jesus.
• 1 Cor. vi. 11.—But ye are sanctified ... by the Spirit of our God.
• 1 Cor. vii. 14.—The unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.
• Eph. v. 26.—That He might sanctify it (the Church).
• 1 Thess. v. 23.—God of peace sanctify you wholly.
• 1 Tim. iv. 5.—(Every creature) is sanctified by the Word of God and prayer.
• 2 Tim. ii. 21.—A vessel sanctified and meet for the Master's use.
• Heb. ii. 11.—He that sanctifieth and they that are sanctified.
• Heb. ix. 13.—If blood and ashes . . . sanctifieth to purifying of flesh.
• Heb. x. 10.—By which will we are sanctified.
• Heb. x. 14.—Hath perfected them that are sanctified.
• Heb. x. 29. —Blood . . . wherewith he was sanctified.
• Heb. xiii. 12.—That He might sanctify the people.
• 1 Pet. iii 15.—Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts.
• Jude 1.—To them that are sanctified by God the Father (the better reading is beloved of God the Father).
• Rev. xxii. 11,—Let him be holy still (i. e., let him be sanctified still).

ἁγιασμός

• Rom. vi. 19.—Yield your members servants to righteousness unto holiness.
• Rom. vi. 22.—Ye have your fruit unto holiness.
• 1 Cor. i. 30.—Christ is made unto us . . . sanctification.
• 1 Thess. iv. 3. —This is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye should abstain from fornication.
• 1 Thess. iv. 4. —Possess his vessel in sanctification.
• 1 Thess. iv. 7.—God hath not called you to uncleanness, but to holiness.
• 2 Thess. ii. 13.—Salvation through sanctification of the Spirit and belief of the truth,
• 1 Tim. ii. 15.—Saved in childbearing if they continue in holiness.
• Heb. xii. 14—Follow . . . holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.
• 1 Pet. i. 2. —Elect . . . through sanctification of the Spirit unto, &c.

NOTE VI.

CLEANSING BY BLOOD.

Cleansing with blood is a common expression in the book of Leviticus; but, in the New Testament, it is found only in the 9th chapter of Hebrews, and the beginning of St. John's Epistle.3 Of Hebrews I have already spoken; but the passage in 1 John claims some notice, not only because of its connection with the present subject, but also on account of the difficulties that seem to surround it. "If we walk in the light, as He is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son, cleanseth us from all sin."

It is a canon of interpretation, that whenever the benefits or results of the death of Christ are ascribed to His blood, the figure therein implied is borrowed from the types. It behoves us, therefore, to turn back to the Old Testament, and seek out the particular key-picture to which it is intended to direct our minds. In 1 Peter i., for example, the second verse will naturally turn our thoughts to the only occasion on which blood was sprinkled on the people of Israel (Ex. xxiv.); while verse 19 brings us back to their one great redemption sacrifice of the passover in Egypt.

Here then we have a certain clew to the meaning of the text before us: "The blood of Jesus cleanseth us from all sin." The particular type in the light of which we are to understand the word must be that of some offering which was for sin, and one moreover which was for the people generally, as distinguished from those which were for individuals, and thirdly, a sacrifice of which the benefits were abiding. This at once excludes all the offerings of the first fifteen chapters of Leviticus, and will I think confine our consideration to the great day of expiation, prescribed in the 16th chapter. "For on that day" (was the word to Moses) "he shall make an atonement for you to cleanse you, that ye may be clean from all your sins before the Lord" (Lev. xvi. 30).

We can picture to ourselves some godly Israelite telling of his God to a heathen stranger, recounting to him the proofs of Jehovah's goodness and faithfulness to His people, and going on to speak of His holiness, His terribleness—how for trifling acts, in which his guest would fail to see sin at all, God had visited them with signal judgments; how He was "of purer eyes than to behold iniquity." And we can conceive that, in amazement, the stranger might demand, Whether then this people were free from the weaknesses and wickedness of other men; and, on his hearing an eager repudiation of all such pretensions, with what deepening wonder and awe he would exclaim: "How then can you live before a God so great and terrible?"

And here the heathen stranger within the gates of the Israelite, would have reached a point analogous to that to which the opening verses of St. John's Epistle lead us. Eternal life has been manifested, and life is the only ground of fellowship with God. But "God is light," and it is only in the light, as the sphere of its enjoyment, that such fellowship is possible. The light of God! how can sinners bear it? Is it by attaining sinlessness? The thought is proof of self-deception and utter absence of the truth (v. 8). But just as the question of his guest would turn the thought of the Israelite to his great day of expiation, and call to his lips the word, "It is the cleansing blood which alone enables us to live before Jehovah," so the Christian turns to the great sin-offering, and his faith finds utterance in the blessed words, "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin."

It is not " has cleansed," nor yet " will cleanse," but "cleanseth." It is not the statement of a fact merely, but of a truth, and truths are greater and deeper even than facts.

But how "cleanseth ?"4

Just as the blood of the sin-offering cleansed the Israelite. It was not by any renewal of its application to him, but by the continuance of its efficacy. With Israel its virtue continued throughout the year: with us, for ever. It i3 not mere acts of sin, mark, that are in question here, but the deeper problem of our condition as sinners (comp. v. 10 with v. 8). Neither the difficulty, nor yet the answer to it, is the same. In regard of the one the Israelite turned to the day of atonement, and said "the blood cleanseth but in case of his committing some act of sin, he had to bring his sin-offering, according to the 4th or 5th or 6th chapter of Leviticus. But as I have shown,5 the need of these special offerings depended entirely on " the weakness and unprofitableness" of the sacrifices of the old Covenant (Heb. x. 9-18). Therefore they have ceased; and for us the purification typified in the rite of the 19th of Numbers has taken their place. It is the 9th verse of our Epistle, and not the 7th, to which we turn. For the believer who sins against God to dismiss the matter by "the blood cleanseth," is the levity and daring of antinomianism. The word for such is, "If we confess our sins:" no flippant acknowledgment with the lip merely, but a solemn and real dealing with God; and thus he obtains again and again a renewal of the benefits of the death of Christ. "He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness."

And this, no doubt, is the truth intended by the popular expression "coming back to blood." The Israelite " came back to blood" by seeking a fresh sacrifice; but had he attempted to "come back to blood " in the sense of preserving the blood of the sin-offering in order to avail himself of it for future cleansing, he would have been cut off without mercy for presumptuous sin. (Num. xv. 30.) The most superficial knowledge either of the precepts or the principles of the book of Leviticus, will make us avoid a form of words so utterly opposed to both. With one great exception the blood of every sin-offering was poured round the altar of burnt-offering, and thus consumed; and that exception was the sacrifice of the 19th of Numbers, so often referred to in these pages. The red heifer was the sin-offering in that aspect of it in which the sinner can come back to it to obtain cleansing for every fresh act of sin. And here the whole beast and its blood was burnt to ashes outside the camp, and the unclean person was cleansed by being sprinkled with water which had touched those ashes. But to confound the cleansing by blood—the 16th of Leviticus aspect of the sin-offering, with the cleansing by water—the 19th of Numbers aspect of it, betrays much ignorance of Scripture. The one is a continuously enduring agency; the other a continually repeated act.

There is no question, observe, as to whether the benefit depends on the death of Christ. But with some, perhaps, it is a question merely of giving up the "form of sound words;" with others, the far more solemn one of depreciating the sacrifice of Christ, and denying to it an efficacy which even the typical sin-offering possessed for Israel. Christ has died and risen and gone up to God, and now His blood cleanses from all sin. It is not that it avails to accomplish a succession of acts of cleansing for the believer, but that its efficacy remains to cleanse him continuously (εἰς τὸ διηνικές Heb. x. 14). It is not in order that it may thus cleanse him, that the believer confesses his sin: his only right to the place he holds, even as he confesses, depends on the fact that it does thus cleanse him. The Israelite could avail himself of the ashes of the red heifer only in virtue of the place he had through the blood of the lamb. Our destiny, our hope, our life, depend entirely upon the enduring efficacy of that blood, that, whether in bright days of fellowship with God, or hours of sad wilderness rebellion, "the blood cleanseth from all sin :" here it is a question only of the preciousness of Christ to God, and the faithfulness and power of Him in whose hand we rest.

NOTE VII.

THE PRIESTHOOD OF CHRIST.

The writer of the Hebrews found the truth of the priesthood of the Lord Jesus hard to teach; and the reason is obvious, that with the Jew the idea of atonement was inseparable from it. The fact of the priesthood of Christ thus reacted on the Jewish mind to cast discredit on the sufficiency of the atonement; whereas the teaching of Scripture is unequivocal, that the priesthood of the Son of God is based on atonement perfected. So much confusion of thought exists on this subject, that I may be pardoned perhaps for going into it somewhat closely, even though it involves the repetition of what I have elsewhere said of the nature of sin.6

Sin, as I have already explained, has a relation both to righteousness and to holiness, but, essentially, it is neither guilt nor defilement, but lawlessness: lawlessness and sin are synonymous. The answer to the guilt of sin is righteousness, and to its defilement, sanctification. In virtue of the blood we are both justified and sanctified. But the fact that for the believer guilt is not imputed, and sanctification is inviolable, in no respect changes the essential character of sin. On the contrary, it intensifies the heinousness of it. This, moreover, is the clew to the true character of Christian life, though it is too often lost sight of. Sin against grace is far more heinous than sin against law. It is a greater outrage upon God, and if, as with the Christian, there be a true desire to avoid it, it is a greater proof of weakness.

Here then is where we learn the power and value of Christ's priestly work. It is not to justify, nor yet to sanctify. These blessings are secured to us in Him in virtue of Calvary. But if we have right thoughts of God and of ourselves and of what sin is, we must know that all the blessings grace has crowned us with, would not avail to maintain us one hour in the place they give us before God, were it not for what Christ is to us and for us in heaven now. In regard to our position under God's moral government, we know Him as a Saviour,—"we shall be saved from wrath through Him," (Rom v. 9). In view of fellowship in the Father's house we have a Paraclete, (1 John ii. 1); and for the sanctuary and the wilderness journey, we rejoice to own Him as a great High Priest.

It is with sin then only in this its deepest character that priesthood has to do. For the believer, law has no penalties and the glory of the mercy-seat no terrors. The blood has for ever purged his conscience, and there is no question now of guilt; and he stands in indissoluble relationship with God But it would indeed be strange levity to suppose because of this that sin could fail to cause estrangement. Just in proportion to his knowledge of God, and his appreciation of the blessings grace has given him, will be his sense of the moral distance between himself and God. The truth that his sin is purged, that he is a child of God, that he is accepted in the Beloved, can only serve to make his sin seem blacker. How then can he approach with confidence, and have a heart at rest? Here it is the word comes home to him, seeing we have such a High Priest as the Son of God is declared to be, "Let us come boldly to the throne of grace that we may obtain mercy."

The answer to the guilt of sin is righteousness; the answer to its defilement is sanctification: and both the forensic and the ceremonial depend on the blood; the one on the blood shed, and the other on the blood sprinkled. But the answer to the practical estrangement sin produces is reconciliation, and this is the present work of priesthood, "to make reconciliation for the sins of the people."7

But this "reconciliation" must not be confounded with the reconciliation I have treated of in the 10th chapter. The latter is a finished work accomplished by the death of Christ, and the sinner enters into the benefit of it by faith: what I am now speaking of is the present work of priesthood. They have this in common, however, that both relate to sin in its essential character as an outrage upon God. Reconciliation for the sinner who believes, is a result of the death of Christ: reconciliation for the believer who sins, depends upon His priesthood. It is akin to the twofold aspect of forgiveness. We have forgiveness as a part of redemption, depending only on His blood. But again, in another sense, forgiveness depends upon confession. (Compare Eph. i. 7, and 1 John i. 9.)

And by reason of this it is that, even as sinners, we can come boldly to the throne of grace, confident that we shall find compassion, not as an encouragement to sin again, but allied with grace to help in time of need. The throne of "the majesty on high" is a throne of grace, because of Him who is sitting at the right hand.

I will not enter on the consideration of Christ's priestly functions in relation to worship. Deeply interesting though this be, and urgent the need for unfolding and enforcing it, I must not allow myself to pass so far beyond my subject. But apart from worship, His priestly work, according to the Hebrews, is confined to making reconciliation and intercession. Everything beyond this is mere Judaism or Popery. (Heb. ii. 17 ; iv. 15; and vii. 25.)

Putting aside special teaching, such as the cleansing of the leper, or the consecration of the priests, the four great types of the passover, the inauguration of the covenant, the sacrifice of the red heifer, and the great day of atonement, may be taken as giving a complete view of what the death of Christ is to us.8

I have already shown that the two first were not priestly sacrifices. In the third, it was a priest doubtless who led the victim forth, and sprinkled its blood before the tabernacle; but observe, it was not Aaron. The act was typical of the work of Christ, but not of His high-priestly work. A like remark applies to the great day of atonement, when Aaron himself officiated. The ordinance consisted of two distinct parts—first, the sacrifice of sin-offerings, and afterwards of burnt-offerings. Both these were in the highest sense typical of the work of Christ; but mark the difference in Aaron's position respecting them. For the sin-offering he divested himself of all his high-priestly robes, and, having bathed, put on the holy linen garments, teaching us that though his acts here were typical of what our High-Priest would do for us, this would not be accomplished by Him in His priestly character. The sin-offering concluded in all its parts, Aaron came out in high-priestly splendour, arrayed in his " garments of glory and beauty," and offered the burnt-offerings. This brings us to the 22d verse of Ps. xxii., Christ leading the praises of His people (Lev. xvi. 4, 23, 24).

NOTE VIII.

THE GODHOOD OP GOD.

I Crave permission to use this word "Godhood," for it is matter for reflection whether the want of such a term has not helped to let the thought it signifies die out.

Whether men believe it or no, Jehovah is God. This is a fact absolute and certain. But is He my God? The Psalmist could say, "O God, Thou art my God!" Does this mean no more than that He was God? He was the God of Israel; but if any one imagines that He was the God of Pharaoh, or of the Philistines, or of the kings of Canaan, he must have strange ideas of what it is to have a God. Because he was the God of Israel, He destroyed the power of Pharaoh to deliver them. If the sea barred their way, He made a highway through it. If they hungered, the heaven rained bread; if they thirsted, the rock gave forth water in the midst of the desert. And the tribes of the wilderness and the nations of the land, as they heard that battle-shout from the puny armies of Israel, "The Lord of Hosts is with us, the God of Jacob is our refuge," could have taught the Christians of to-day what it means to have Jehovah for our God. God was not their God, but He was the God of Israel.

And can any thoughtful man look abroad upon the world, and imagine for a moment that God is the God of creation now? "The whole creation groans." The children of Israel groaned in Egyptian bondage, but when, their deliverance complete, they stood around their glorious king in their glorious city, it was no longer a groan that rose to heaven, but shouts of praise and the worship of full hearts. And when God becomes once again the God of all His creatures, their groans will no more be heard. The creation shall then be "delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God" (Rom. viii. 21). Then "shall the Lord rejoice in His works," and from His opened hand the desire of every living thing shall be satisfied (Ps. civ. 31 and cxlv. 16).

Men delight to speak of the Fatherhood of God, because they think it gives them claims on Him. And doubtless they who are indeed His children have real claims upon God in virtue of the tie. Though here, what need there is to remember that a relationship cannot be wholly on one side: "If I am a Father, where is mine honour?" God may well demand. But what is usually meant by the Fatherhood of God is really His Oodhood. And if God was the God of Israel there were mutual obligations involved in the relationship. And so it must ever be. But men speak as though the fact of their being His creatures gave them claims on God, while they utterly forget that sin is a repudiation of His claims on them—a denial of the very relationship on which they insist so strongly when their own interests are concerned. Moreover, as I have shown elsewhere, by the rejection of Christ man has lost every claim of every kind on God; while, in the gospel, the grace of God presents Christ as the fulfilment of them all, and of every blessing which a loving God can bestow. God has far different thoughts to. wards the "Canaanite" and the "Philistine " of to-day than those which were expressed by the sword of Israel. It is not that the human heart is changed, still less the heart of God; but that the work of Christ has enabled God to assume a new attitude towards men. '' In Christ He was reconciling the world unto Himself ;" " The God of our Lord Jesus Christ" can now become a God to all. I repeat once more, Reconciliation is accomplished.

And this, I venture to believe, is the peace-offering aspect of the work of Christ—the fulfilment of the third great type which, with the burnt-offering and the meat offering, represents the work of Christ in its Godward aspect. The burnt-offering is His complete surrender of Himself to God; the meat-offering, the perfectness of the Man who did so dedicate Himself; and the peace-offering, the results to Godward of that sacrifice.

But if men reject Christ, and refuse the reconciliation, how can there possibly be mercy for them? In past dispensations, man's sin and failure have always drawn out some better thing from God's great goodness and wisdom and power; but now, the climax has been reached. His best gift has been given; His master-work has been achieved; heaven is flung wide open, and the scum of the earth are called to oneness with Christ in His glory. The love and grace even of God are now exhausted, and the only possible alternative and sequel is Vengeance. If men insist on defying God, and maintain the place of adversaries, there is nothing for them but "judgment and fiery indignation which shall devour the adversaries.

By Godhood, then, I mean the relationship existing between God and His creatures in virtue of His Godhead. That relationship was outraged and set aside by sin, and even the lower creation shared the blight which fell upon our world because of it. But " by the blood of the cross" God has reconciled all things to Himself. The enjoyment of this benefit (χαρισμα, Rom. v. 15) is postponed for "the creation," until the "manifestation of the sons of God " (Rom. viii. 19); and, as I have said, it will be lost for ever to impenitent men. But the reconciliation is a fact and a truth for the believer, now, and he has access to it, and ought to be in the joy of it.

But the Godhood of God towards the believer, is true only to faith. The Christian's God is "the God of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Eph. i. 17), for even such an one as Me had a God, and the Lord Jesus knew what it was to be in want. The universe was His creature, and by a word He could make bread for starving thousands, or crown the provision for a feast with richest wine; but when it was Himself who hungered or was athirst, He looked up and trusted in His God. He had a God, and yet He had not where to lay His head.

And as it was with the Leader of Faith, so has it been with the Sons of Faith in every age. In the 11th of Hebrews we read of some "who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions, quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens." But we read of others who, none the less through faith, were tortured, not accepting deliverance, " and of others again who had trial of cruel mockings and scourgings, yea, moreover, of bonds and imprisonment. They were stoned, they were sawn asunder, were tempted, were slain with the sword; they wandered about in sheepskins and goatskins, being destitute, afflicted, tormented." And it is of these last the word is written, "of whom the world was not worthy."

The faith that bears and suffers, is greater than the faith that triumphs. How many there are who, through ignorance of this mystery of faith, have made shipwreck of their hopes, and are sunk under trial and disappointment. Faith must be prepared for a refusal. Faith trusts for safety, but never fails when perils come. Faith looks for food and shelter, but never falters when " hunger, and thirst, and cold, and nakedness" become its portion. The faith that cries, with the Psalmist, "At midnight I will rise to give thanks unto Thee," is truer and greater than the faith that could bid the sun stand still upon Gibeon; and the sufferings of Paul denote a higher faith than the mightiest acts of Elijah. "A night and a day have I been in the deep!" Paul, the beloved child and saint of God, the faithful and honoured servant, the chosen vessel to bear His name before the world, the foremost of the apostles—clinging to some frail plank upon the wild lone sea, hour after hour for a whole sun's round, in hunger, and thirst, and cold, the sport of every wave, lost to earth, and seemingly unknown to heaven; and yet he had a God who could have delivered him by a word! And though deliverance came not, he kept his heart and eye fixed upon unseen realities, and reckoned the present suffering unworthy to be compared with the coming glory.

Even in the midst of sorrow and trial, happiness is the Christian's lot. Happiness: not the flippant gaiety of a careless heart; for if, even in the world, such happiness is contemptible—the uncoveted monopoly of fools—how utterly unworthy it is of those who have been called to fellowship with the sufferings of Christ! but in the truer and deeper sense in which alone the Scripture speaks of happiness.9 The highest type of existence is not the butterfly, but He of the marred visage and the melted heart, "the Man of sorrows."

Such then is the Christian's happiness. Through all circumstances, and in spite of them, he is a prosperous man, a blessed man. He may indeed have care and trial and sorrow; but his is the God who, while He could leave His child to be a solitary and outcast wanderer, with no pillow but a stone, and no companion but a staff, could yet turn that stone into a memorial pillar of thanksgiving and praise, and make that loneliness the very gate of heaven !" Happy is he that has the God of Jacob for his help!" "Happy the people whose God is Jehovah !"— (Ps. cxliv. 15, and cxlvi. 5.)

1. π. ἐπί occurs Luke xxiv. 25 ; Acts ix. 42, xi. 17, xvi. 31, xxii. 19; Rom. iv. 5, 24, ix. 33, x. 11; 1 Pet. ii. 6.

2. Vicarious death was in order that the believer might live: was obedience also made vicarious in order that he may disobey 1 Christ died : therefore the Christian need not die. Christ obeyed: am I to go on ?—therefore the Christian need not obey.

3. Heb. ix. 14, 22, 23, where, as in 1 John i. 7, the word is καθαρίζω.

4. "Washing with blood" is an expression wholly unknown to the law, and it conveys an idea which seems quite at variance with its teaching. This consideration surely must decide the otherwise doubtful controversy as to the correct reading of Rev. i. 6. "Unto Him that loveth us and loosed us from our sins in His own blood." There is a difference of only one letter in the Greek, and the altered reading has at least equal MS. authority with that of our version. Ps. li. 7, must of course be explained by the law; and the student of Scripture will naturally turn to the 19th of Numbers, or the 14th of Leviticus, to seek its meaning (Lev. xiv. 6-9). A like remark applies to other similar passages in the Old Testament. Overlooking this, Cowper derived his extraordinary idea of a fountain of blood from the 13th of Zechariah, construed in connection with the received reading of Rev. i. 5. The fact is that cleansing with water was one of the most frequent and characteristic of the typical ordinances, but yet it has been almost entirely forgotten in our creeds. "In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem, for sin and for separation for uncleanness." (Zech. xiii. 1, see marginal reading, and compare Num. xix. 9.) "In that day"—the epoch referred to in verses 9-14 of the preceding chapter, Israel shall be admitted to the full benefits of the great sin-offering typified in the 19th of Numbers. (See also Rom. xi. 25-29.)

The washing of garments in blood is likewise wholly unscriptural, save in poetical language—as, e.g., Genesis xlix. 11. The meaning of Revelation vii. 14 is too often frittered away thus as though it were a merely poetical expression. But the figures used are typical, not poetical: "These are they that come out of the great tribulation (compare Matt. xxiv. 21) and they washed their robes (compare Rev. xix. 8), and made them white by (ἐν) the blood of the Lamb." Their lives were purified practically from the defilements that surrounded them, and purged in a still deeper sense by the blood. In Rev, xxii. 14, also, the true reading is "Blessed are they that wash their robes."

5. See pp. 116, 119, note, and 121, note, ante.

6. See chap, x.

7. ἰλάσκεσθαι. Every effort has been made to force a meaning on this word, in order to bring in a thought which is wholly opposed to the teaching of the passage. Luke xviii. 13, is the only other place it occurs ; but it answers in the Septuagint to the Hebrew to cover, remove from sight, and, as used of sin, to forgive. Why then suppose it to have a different meaning here? If what I have said be just, it will be seen how perfectly it expresses the idea intended. It is precisely the truth of 1 John i. 9, but in the Hebrews aspect of it. And note that confession is not to Christ as Priest. Nor does the priest absolve from sin. Here human priestcraft dares to meddle with what pertains to God alone.

8. And if we add the burnt-offering, the meat-offering, and the peace-offering (Lev. i. ii. iii.), His work in its highest character as to Godward, we have the whole in its sevenfold perfectness.

9. There is no word for happy in the Bible, save in its good old meaning of fortunate, or blessed. (Compare, e. g., Matt. v. 10, 11, with 1 Pet. iii. 14, iv. 14.