victim had done no sin, had no bad self, but God accepted it as a symbol of the people's bad self, which had need to die. And so in the case of Christ :- -Christ knew no sin, but God made Him a sin-offering for mankind. As the goat symbolically, so Christ really, took upon Himself our fallen nature, and, crucifying it, passed into the heavens with the blood of the dead self in His hand (being Priest as well as Victim) to execute a covenant between God and our regenerate self:—" That we might thus have grace given unto us to realise the righteousness of God by communion with Christ." (The thought is the same as that of Rom. viii. 3.)

This passage has been again and again explained by help of the idea of imputation-as though our sins were imputed to Christ, and Christ's righteousness imputed to us. It is a most unreal notion, and fails entirely to satisfy either the analogy of the sin-offering or the deep need of our heart.

For as to the analogy :-The Jew, when he saw the victim on the altar bleeding and burning, never imagined that it was suffering the punishment he would otherwise have suffered. There is no trace of such an idea in the whole range of Jewish ritual; and if there was no such idea attaching to the symbol, then we may be very sure

offering. See the LXX. of Lev. iv. 25 and 29—“ ảπò тоû aïμaтos τοῦ τῆς ἁμαρτίας,” “ ἐπιθήσει τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὴν κεφαλὴν τοῦ ἁμαρτήματος αὐτοῦ.” See also Lev. vi. 25, xvi. 9, and Num. vi. 14. It is discussed in St. Aug. Sermons CXXXIV., CLII., and CLV. (vol. 5). See also Schleussner's Lexicon. See also the interpretation of Gen. iv. 7, given supra, p. 146, and note on p. 189, supra.

no such idea attaches to the reality to which the symbol pointed.

And as to the deep need of the human heart :-it is not from the penalty of sin merely, but, oh! far more, from the sin itself that we sigh to be delivered.

It is a poor theology that would dilute and explain away St. Paul's clear strong words by any doctrine of imputation. It is not to be thought righteous, but to be righteous, that we yearn. And this is what St. Paul's doctrine promises:— τὸν γὰρ μὴ γνόντα ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἐποίησεν, ἵνα ἡμεῖς γενώμεθα δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ ἐν αὐτῷ.

God forbid that we should soften away either the Toínov or the yevάuela! Christ most really and truly took our sinful nature, and regenerating it in the sacrament of His death, made it possible for us to be really and truly righteous.

What baptism once for all is to the individual, that the death of the Representative Man once for all is to the race. Though He had no bad self, yet He had identified Himself with us who had, and therefore in Him our bad self died sacramentally. His Atonement is to us not merely an acquittal from penalty, but a power of God unto salvation.

GALATIANS iii. 13, 14. This passage speaks of Christ becoming "a curse for us;" and the thought in the Apostle's mind is again, doubtless, the sin-offering on the Day of Atonement, and specially the Scapegoat (Lev. xvi. 21); and therefore what has been said on the last

passage (2 Cor. v. 21) may serve to explain this. The Apostle, in the ignominy of the Cross (attested by Deut. xxi. 23), sees an analogy to the scapegoat.

It is to be carefully noted that St. Paul, in quoting Deut. xxi. 23 ("He that is hanged is accursed of God"), omits the words "of God," as being inapplicable to the case of Christ. And yet Luther, and many after him, have dared to reinsert them. Luther's painful comment is as follows:-" The Law steppeth forth and saith, Every sinner must die: therefore, O Christ, if Thou wilt answer and become guilty and suffer punishment for sinners, Thou must also bear sin and malediction. Paul therefore doth very well allege this general sentence out of Moses, as concerning Christ, 'Every one that hangeth upon the tree is the accursed of God;' but Christ hath hanged upon the Tree, therefore Christ is the accursed of God."

Luther should have remembered Justin Martyr's protest against this misapplication of the text :-It was not God who cursed the crucified, but the wicked Jews (Dial. c. Tryph. c. 96; see Appendix, p. 270).

In this passage of the Epistle to the Galatians a new idea is introduced in the word nyogaosv. It is by no means a synonym of άeλurgúcaro, though accidentally both may be rendered by the English word redeemed. In aroλúrgwσis there is essentially involved, as we have seen, the idea of a λúrgov in the religious sense of the word—expiation. Whereas in nyógarev there is simply the idea of purchasing the deliverance of another at a great price. The word price (it need hardly be said), as applied to the sufferings of Christ, is a metaphor, and

does not for one moment imply a transaction-one paying and another receiving. If a man rescue his friend from a burning house, and is badly hurt in so doing, his hurts are the price paid for his friend's deliverance, in the same metaphorical sense.

In the next chapter, iv. 3-7, the word (gayogagen) is repeated, with the additional idea that it was a bondage from which Christ at this great price redeemed us. That the price was not supposed to be paid to any one, is manifest; for who was it that held us in bondage ?_" the elements"-i.e. the elementary or literal rules—of a system of law,-a mere abstraction! This is the necessary servitude of one who is alienated from God. The death of Christ slew the bad self that made this coercion necessary, and made us capable of being entrusted with freedom, and so redeemed us from the bondage. Then the Apostle, as before, passes to the life-giving side of Christ's death. "And because ye are sons, God sent forth the Spirit of His Son ('the spirit and the life' of John vi. 63) into our hearts," making us conscious of our adoption.

The fourth important passage in which St. Paul sets forth his view of the redeeming work of Christ is in the Epistle to the COLOSSIANS i. 13-22, and ii. 11-15; for whatever allusions to it occur in the Epistle to the Ephesians are here repeated more fully.

The Epistle to the Colossians was written to Christians who were being seduced into a superstitious demonology. To them it was all-important to set forth Christ's

work as a triumph over our spiritual enemies, over those "Principalities and Powers" (àgxai xai ovoíai) who occupied so large a space in the theosophy of the Essenes.1

We found evident allusions to a mysterious conflict with these "powers of darkness" in our Lord's utterances. Some light-not much can be expected—but some light on this mysterious subject is supplied by this Epistle.

In the 13th verse we notice at once that it is not from our own evil self, but from "the power of darkness," that St. Paul speaks of our being delivered. And the word for "delivered" is not the word "redeemed" (for no Aúrgov was here needed), but the word used in the Lord's prayer-" Deliver us from the Evil One."

Our English word "rescue" expresses it.

"God rescued us from the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of His well-beloved Son." The rescue needed no λúrgov, but the translation into the kingdom of God's favour did need it; and therefore in connexion with this second clause the Apostle adds, "in whom we have the redemption which His blood effected, the remission of our sins," reverting to the language of his Epistle to the Romans. He then declares Christ's absolute supremacy over all those intermediate spiritual beings, good or bad.

"For the Father was pleased that in Him the Fulness of the Godhead should dwell, purposing through

1 See Josephus, Bell. Jud. viii, 2-13.

2 See pp. 178-9, supra.