horizontal Navigation.html

The Spirit of the Word

The Words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life.—Jesus.
The letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life.—Paul.
Vol. 1, No. 9 —November 15, 1885.

(back to Main Index)

Paragraph Headings Of Vol.1, No 15

The Atonement
Summary
Orthodoxy
A Woman Seated On A Beast
Theological Reversals

print this 16 page article

The Atonement

The common idea of the so-called vicarious atonement is offensive in the extreme, and totally repugnant to the principles of justice and fair play. Furthermore this popular idea most awfully misrepresents God, distorts the truth of his Word into most ugly deformities, and totally obscures the great truth that Jesus Christ is the image of God, the most perfect revelation of the Father that we have. We are told that man having been created upright, pure and innocent, broke God's law, thereby becoming a child of the devil, and falling under God's wrath and curse; the penalty of the broken law is eternal death, i.e. "a death that never dies," i.e., again, endless life in torment. God wishes to save man, but he cannot do it until his justice is satisfied. Man cannot be freely pardoned, and the penalty fully remitted; he, or some one else must suffer the penalty before God, (or his justice, which is one and the same) can be pacified and the sinner forgiven and restored to the divine favour. Now if man suffers the penalty of broken law it would be his total undoing since that penalty is endless torment and yet the law must be vindicated; how shall it be done and yet save man? thus orthodoxy answers, the son of God offers himself as man's substitute, to suffer the penalty of the law in his place, instead of him. God the Father accepts this substitution, and pours the vials of his wrath upon the innocent Son in lieu of the guilty sinner, and thus God is reconciled to man, and pardon granted through Jesus Christ. To still further burden this outrageous dogma with additional absurdities, we are told that although the substituting of Christ's sufferings is accepted in the room of the sufferings of the guilty, yet he did not suffer the penalty of the broken law at all, but something which by a legal fiction was accepted in place of that penalty; so that there was, not only a substitution of an innocent victim for the guilty culprit, but there was also a substitution of another penalty totally different from the original one incurred by man; as I have already noticed, the penalty according to the popular view was eternal death. Christ does not suffer this penalty, but simply a temporary death; but since Christ was a divine person, (i.e., according to the orthodox view since he is God himself), his sufferings make up in quality what they lack in quantity, so that they are accepted as equivalent to the penalty the broken law. Thus there is a substitution of victims, and a substitution of penalties. The church still further complicates this subject by telling us that it was not Christ's divine nature that died but his human nature that as God, he could not die, but he died simply as man and yet his temporary death, being that of a divine person, the "God-man," it is considered equivalent to the eternal death of the sinner; in other words his divinity did not die, and yet it is his divinity that makes his death a full satisfaction to the law. Finally, notwithstanding all this quibble and legal chicanery, worthy only of some pettifogger of the police court, the alleged purpose of it, the pardon and salvation of man, will only be partially accomplished, a great many being eternally lost in spite of the death of Christ and this wonderful scheme of atonement; thus it is made to appear as though God had outraged justice and reason in the elaboration of a plan, which after all would in a great measure fail to accomplish the end in view, viz., the redemption of the fallen race.

Now no intelligent, thoughtful, unprejudiced person need be told that this whole scheme is absurd and unreasonable in every particular. In the first place, (as was shown in the last paper) , God was responsible for the introduction of evil into the world. He allowed it to come in contact with the man he had made, when of course he might have prevented it, well knowing what the result would be; furthermore, where is the righteousness or justice in affixing such a fearful doom as unending torture, as the penalty of a single transgression? and yet again what sort of justice is that that can be satisfied with the sufferings of an innocent person in the place of the guilty party? and when in addition to all this we are told that Christ did not suffer the penalty of man's transgression, but something else entirely different that was accepted as equivalent to it, and that after all, the whole arrangement will in a great measure fail to accomplish the purpose intended,—we have a scheme that is eminently in harmony with the darkened and fantastic imagination of some warped and twisted bigot, but which is as unlike God, and His ways, as darkness is unlike light.

Furthermore such a scheme puts the Father and the Son in contradiction to each other. Jesus so loved mankind that he was willing to die in their stead that they might be redeemed. God was so severe and unrelenting that he would not forgive man without a victim upon whom to visit his wrath, and so unjust as to accept an innocent victim in place of the guilty party; according to this scheme the love of Jesus is magnified, but God exhibits only relentlessness and implacability; if the hymn is true, that

"Jesus paid it all, all the debt I owe,"

then certainly I have no reason to thank God for freeing me from the curse, for he has received his full payment; and the only one whom I should praise is Jesus for paying my debt. But now let us endeavor to learn the truth of this great subject from the Bible. In the first place I would say that in order to understand this doctrine, like other Bible doctrines, we must start right. Truth leads on to more truth. Error involves us in still deeper error. If we start out in our investigation of the doctrine of the atonement, from a belief in endless torment, we shall be sure to go wrong. We may also be sure that we can never rightly understand this doctrine while we are ignorant of "the plan of the ages," the purpose of evil, the work of "the ages to come," etc., if, on the other hand, we plainly see these great truths the doctrine of the atonement will be clear and plain.

We start out in this investigation then with the declaration that "God is love;" and that it was God's Love that was the great moving cause in the atonement. It was not Christ but God that wrought out the wondrous plan. It was not God's justice, but his LOVE that is most manifested in the plan. All was love, because God is love. Justice so far as it had any part in the atonement was on the sinner's side, not against him; justice must be satisfied, indeed, but the only way that it could be satisfied was—not by the sinner's, or some substitute's damnation—but by the most abundant provision being made for his salvation. Our God is "a just God and a Saviour," (Isa. 45:21) a Saviour because he is just. "He that is our God is the God of salvation," (Psa. 68:20) this is his great distinguishing characteristic from all that are called gods or worshiped as such; compare Isa. 45:20. Nowhere in the Bible is the idea advanced that the sufferings of Christ were a satisfaction to the law in lieu of the sufferings of guilty man. Such an idea is monstrous, totally repugnant to all right principles of justice and righteousness. There is not a single passage that teaches directly or indirectly that the death of Christ was to satisfy the justice of God; but "TO THIS END Christ both died, and rose, and revived, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living." God is not the God of the dead, (Matt. 22:32) but Christ took upon himself our fallen nature and thus died (for his incarnation was his death, see 1-3-52) in order that he might be one with the race in death as well as in life in his humiliation Jesus stands at the head of the race, for he was the only human being that was "holy, harmless and undefiled." He also stands at the head of the race in his exaltation, for he is the "first-born from the dead," "the Beginning, that in all things he might have the pre-eminence." (Col 1:18). Thus is he "Lord [head or chief] both of the dead and of the living."

But to return to the thought with which we started." "God so loved the world that He gave his only begotten Son," &c. The two points for us to notice and keep in mind in our study of this doctrine are first, love was the motive power, and second, God was the prime mover: any view that contradicts or obscures these two facts must be erroneous; a view that makes God's justice the prominent attribute in the atonement to the obscuration or compromising of his love cannot be correct; a view that exalts Christ as mans redeemer in opposition or even in contrast with God in the same work is certainly a false view. Christ is indeed man's Redeemer, but under God; God redeems man, just as he judges him, "by that man whom he has ordained," (Acts 17:31). Christ is indeed our Saviour, but he is a saviour as God's representative, God's agent; the Father is the original, supreme, "God our Saviour," (1 Tim. 2:3 "All things are of God." The error into which the great body of the church has fallen upon this subject is in adopting a scheme that makes Christ loving, tender, and compassionate, and at the same time represents God as harsh, implacable and unjust. I do not say that God is intentionally thus represented, but practically he is so represented. For example the following orthodox hymn so represents him.

The above hymn represents an "angry" God held back and "bought" off by a loving, compassionate Saviour; thus God's true character and boundless love is obscured, and indeed falsified. All the formulated creeds of "orthodox" Christianity set forth the same false view. The Westminster Confession formulates the dogma thus: "The Lord Jesus, by his perfect obedience and sacrifice of himself, which he through the eternal spirit once offered up unto God, hath fully satisfied the justice of his Father, and purchased not only reconciliation, but an everlasting inheritance in the kingdom of heaven, for all those whom the Father hath given unto him." Here we have that unscriptural and offensive idea of Christ's dying to satisfy the Father's justice, the innocent instead of the guilty, and thereby purchasing his goodwill; as though God must be appeased and pacified with the blood of a victim, like a pagan deity, before he will look favourably upon a suppliant.

Whatever idea was intended to be conveyed by these creeds the above is practically the idea that they do convey and in fact the words clearly imply that idea. In the creed of the Methodist Episcopal Church in the second "article of religion" we find it expressly stated that Christ died to reconcile God to man, a statement which is just the opposite of the truth. The Scriptures invariably put the statement the other way about, that Christ died to reconcile man to God, not God to man, and the difference between those two statements is as wide as the difference between a lie and the truth. "When we were enemies we were reconciled to God, by the death of his Son;" (Rom. 5:10), "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself," (2 Cor. 5:19), not reconciling himself unto the world. See also Col. 1:20-22, and every other passage where reconciliation is spoken of. Let it be noticed also in this connection that the passage quoted from 2 Cor. 5:19, fully confirms the statement already made that God is the prime mover in the atonement. We usually speak as though Christ made the atonement; he has reconciled us to God; he is our propitiation; he is our advocate with the Father; all this is true if we recognize the fact that in all this Christ is God's agent, and that God is really the principal. God is our Saviour, Redeemer and Judge, as we have seen, "by that man whom he hath ordained," and God is also our Reconciler, for "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself. How contrary is this statement to the view presented by the creeds referred to above! So far from its being true that a substitute must do something to appease God, to conciliate his favor, to satisfy his justice, to purchase his good will, to reconcile him to us,—the truth is that God himself endeavors to conciliate man,—to reconcile man to himself! the idea would be absurd, that God was in Christ reconciling himself to the world;—endeavoring to pacify himself! to conciliate himself! But the truth is most blessed and comforting that "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself" This is "glad tidings" indeed! 0 that the time might soon come when "all people" would hear it! There is no "angry Heaven," whose wrath must be appeased, and whose favour must be purchased; but a loving Father, who himself is "working" (John 5:17) to win the prodigal to the arms that are ever stretched out to receive him, and the heart that has never ceased to love him.

But now someone may ask, "if the foregoing be true why do we need any Mediator at all." I reply we need a mediator to make known this great love of God to us. It is because we are ignorant of God's "good will to men," and in our blindness and hardness of heart think him harsh and unloving, that we need one who is the "express image of the invisible God," and yet at the same time "bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh," to mediate between us and God, not to plead with God on our behalf, there is no need that since "The Father himself loveth us" (John 16:27), but to reveal the Father to us, as it is written, "No man knoweth the Son but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son shall reveal him." (Matt. 11:27) "We love Him because he first loved us;" but we cannot love him" for this reason until we learn that he loves us; and this is the very thing that the world does not know; as Jesus said, "0 righteous Father, the world hath not known thee." Jesus "manifests" the Father's love; through Christ we "perceive" that love (1 John 3:16; 4:9) and thereby we come to know that God loves us, and begin to love him, and so are reconciled to him, and thus as "God shines in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge or his glory in the face of Jesus Christ," "we are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. 3:18; 4:6). Did you ever think of the strangeness of the expression, "an Advocate with the Father," taking the term advocate in the legal sense in which it is usually understood? If God is our Father why do we need an advocate with him? Does a child have to engage the services of an attorney to represent him and plead his cause to his own father? If the child were estranged from his father and was ignorant of the father's true character and relation, he might suppose that he needed such a go-between; and this in fact is just what the Christian world do suppose; but this is not the actual state of the case. The Father is most kindly disposed toward us already; he is really and truly a Father; hence no one need plead with him for the children. But the children are estranged, they are ignorant of the Father's great love for them, hence they need a mediator, an advocate, i.e., as the word strictly means, a helper with the Father. The Father needs no such helper to reconcile him to the children for he was never unreconciled, but the children need it in order to make known the Father's good will to them, and to awaken their confidence in him and so to bring about harmony between them, i.e., to "set them at one again;" (Acts 7:26) and this is the at-one-ment. The need of an atonement implies two parties at variance with one another whom it is desired to bring into harmony, union, oneness, and the means that effects this unity or reconciliation is called the atonement. Now in the case of God and man the estrangement is all on man's side; he is alienated from God, not God from him; hence in order to bring about harmony between them man alone need be reconciled. The word rendered reconcile means to change completely this is the strict meaning of the word. Now who is it that must be changed in order to bring about harmony between God and man? Not God surely, but man; he must be changed, or reconciled, and he alone; hence we can see how correct the Scriptures are in the use of this word, and how far out of the way are the creeds. To say that the atonement was to reconcile God to man, is to say that God must be changed, in order to bring about harmony between him and his creature; a sentiment that we might well pronounce blasphemous. The Bible way of putting it, however, is right, viz., that Christ's death was to reconcile man to God, i.e., to change man from an enemy to a son, and thus "to set him at one" with the Father.

In order to make the foregoing still clearer and to further confirm it we should take into connection with it the great truths of God's plan of creation. We are God's workmanship, The purpose of evil, "The restitution of all things," etc. In the light of these truths we shall see that the fall of man and his consequent alienation from his maker, was a part of God's plan, and was to ultimate in his good; hence the abundant provision for his recovery is simply in keeping with that plan, and indeed necessary to its final accomplishment. If God allowed man to fall into sin and to become estranged from himself for man's good, then surely he would not fail to provide a way whereby man might be delivered from his sin, the "emnity" (Rom. 8:7; Eph. 2:15) be destroyed, and a perfect restoration effected, to his former position of harmony and union with God. Thus we see that in the light of the great truths above referred to, the atonement, exactly as we have endeavored to set it forth, is a necessity and a natural outcome.

Furthermore in the light of these truths we shall see that the was no need of, and no place for, Substitution, in the scheme of atonement In the first place these truths deliver us from that false dogma of endless torment, so that we know that that is not the penalty of the broken law; man never was in peril of any such doom, and needed no substitute to suffer it for him, or to pretend to suffer it for him by a legal quibble; this step of itself relieves the doctrine of the atonement of many of the absurdities with which the popular view burdens it. Moreover if evil is one of man's educators, and always ultimate in good, if all God's punishments are for man's benefit, that "he might be partaker of his holiness." (Heb. 12:10). If man, like his Lord, is "made perfect through suffering," then why does he need a substitute to save him from any of these experiences? All these are God's benefits, blessings in disguise, and the idea of a substitute to endure them instead of man, is a scheme whereby man is to be robbed of a part of his blessings, a portion of his inheritance. Substitution is as much out of place in the doctrine of the atonement as it is in the doctrine of sanctification. But if the above be true how shall we understand such scriptures as the following? He "tasted death for every man," the "just for the unjust," "he bore our sins," etc., etc. All this class of scripture is made plain when we notice the difference between two prepositions, for and instead. Christ died for us, but he did not die instead of us. In his death he was man's companion, associate, "elder brother," but he was not man's Substitute. He suffered with man, and on man's behalf, being "made in all things like unto his brethren," and we follow him, as our Forerunner in just the same way that he trod, sharing his sufferings, bearing his reproach, "being made comformable unto his death" (whatever that death was, see 1-3-52), and thereby coming at last to be "like Him" (1 John 3:2). There is not a particle of substitution in all this, but perfect identity of experience; we are one with him in his humiliation, suffering and death, and one with him in his exaltation, glory and resurrection life. Christ does not endure a penalty and certain sufferings, and a death, in order that we may not endure the same, as he would do if he were our substitute; but he endures the same sufferings and the same death that we endure, and he walked in the same "ways of life" (Acts 2:28) in which must walk in order to reach "the same image." Even that supposed stronghold of substitution, the 53rd chapter of Isaiah, is in perfect harmony with the foregoing view. Read verses 4 and 5; now turn to Matt. 8:16, 17, and see how this was fulfilled. Christ "bore our griefs and carried our sorrows," not as a substitute, but as a sympathizing companion and friend. He was man's great Burden-bearer (sin included, see John 1:29, margin) not that man might be exempted altogether from the burden (for "every man shall bear his own burden" Gal. 6:6), but that man might be taught how to bear it, the reason for bearing it, and, above all, might be delivered from the death-load. (Rom. 7:24, 25) in God's "due season." And this brings me to notice another point.

The common idea is that Christ suffers for us, as our substitute, to save us from the penalty of sin, which is eternal death. The truth is that Christ dies, as our Forerunner, to save us, not from the penalty of sin but from sin itself, not from death (there is no such thing as eternal death) but "out of death" see Heb. 5:7, New Version, margin. The penalty of sin is salutary and beneficial, and it would be no kindness to man to save him therefrom; and moreover if it was best for man to be saved from the penalty of his transgressions, God could and would remit that penalty without the interposition of any substitute or Saviour (see Ezek. 18:21, &c.) God himself is "a just God and a Saviour." But how shall man be saved from sin? How shall the sinner be made a saint? The question is not, how shall his sins be pardoned? how shall he escape the penalty? but how shall he change his nature, from "a child of wrath" (Eph. 2:3) to a "child of God?" How shall he be delivered "from the body of this death?" The answer comes, "through Jesus Christ our Lord," by a "new creation;" 2 Cor. 5:17; Eph. 2:10. This is the purpose of the atonement,— nothing less than the deliverance of the "whole creation" "from the bondage of corruption;" and this work, Christ (or "God in Christ") does. He is "the lamb of God that beareth away the Sin of the world;" not the sins, as though it meant the particular transgressions of each individual; but the Sin, as though all the sins of the race, and the hideous "death-body" of the sinful nature, were laid in one dread heap upon him, and he bears it away; thus God "made the iniquity of us all to meet on him;" (Isa. 53:6, margin). The perfect type of this is in the law, in the "scape-goat work of the day of the atonement (Lev. 16:20-22) of which we cannot now speak particularly," but we have said enough to show the error of the popular theology upon this point. But again, the purpose of the atonement is not to save us from death, but to save us "out of death." one died for all then—were—all—dead" ( 2 Cor. 5:14) Hear it, and mark it well! it does not say that all were in peril of death, and Christ died to prevent that peril from becoming a reality. Man was already dead, and the purpose of the atonement was to give him life. Christ came "to seek and to save the lost;" not those who were in danger of being lost, but those who were lost already; so Christ died to give life to a dead world, a world already dead, (John 6:33, 51), as it is written, "I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly" (John 10:10). O how low are our ideas of God's ways! Verily his thoughts are not our thoughts, nor are his ways our ways! (Isa. 55:8-13). The highest idea that many Christians have of the atonement is that it is scheme whereby they are to be saved from the penalty of sin, an endless hell; when the truth is, God's purpose is to make out of this world of demon-possessed sinners, a race of godlike saints; to lift mankind out of this condition of death into "life and immortality." "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts "0 the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God! how unsearchable are his judgments, and his ways past finding out!" (Rom. 11:33).

In this view also we see how thoroughly and absolutely the entire work of the atonement was "of God." If man is lost he cannot find himself; if man is dead he cannot give life unto himself, or help himself in the least; "We are God's workmanship." Let it be noticed that it is in connection with this work of the atonement that Paul makes the statement that "all things are of God;" read it,—"All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given to us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation. Now then [this great work of reconciliation being all complete and perfect, a finished work] we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us, we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God [God is reconciled to you; He has never been unreconciled; now be ye reconciled to Him]. For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him." (2 Cor. 5:18-21). Let it be noticed that the finished, completed work of reconciliation is made the ground of the invitation to the sinner to be reconciled to God. In the popular theology of the day it is put just the other way about. Preachers invite sinners to repentance and obedience in order that the work of reconciliation may be accomplished. Paul teaches us to tell the impenitent sinner that the work of reconciliation is done, Therefore be ye reconciled to God. So far as God is concerned the work is all done, now then submit yourself unto God that you may know this great truth practically, and may enjoy it to your heart’s great comfort (read 2 Cor.1:3-7, from the New Version). The preacher should not call upon the sinner to turn unto God in order that he may be redeemed, but he is to declare unto him first, full redemption, and make that the ground and the reason why he should turn unto God. So God speaks to his ancient people by his prophet, "I have blotted out, as a thick cloud, thy transgressions, and, as a cloud, thy sins; return unto me, for I have redeemed thee [not return unto me and I will redeem thee, but, because I have redeemed thee]. Sing, 0 ye heavens, for the Lord has DONE it! shout, ye lower parts of the earth, break forth into singing ye mountains, 0 forest, and every tree therein; for the Lord hath redeemed Jacob, and glorified himself in Israel." (Isa. 44:22, 23). 0 how glorious is the glad tidings of great joy, "which shall be to all people"! But, alas, how we mutilate it, and twist it out of shape, with our wretched man-made theology, and make it sad tidings of great sorrow to many, who, lost and dead, and "without strength," (Rom. 5:6), fail to fulfill the conditions, which the church and not the Word, has made the prerequisites of redemption! thus now, as of old, God's nominal people "shut up the kingdom of heaven against men." (Matt. 23:13). They put the cause for the effect, and the effect for the cause; they make the ground of man's repentance, the end of that repentance, thus making the accomplishment of God's work dependent on poor, weak man, and thereby representing the "covenant of promise" as no better than the law covenant. "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight!" (Isa. 5:20, 21). Surely there is an infinite difference between God's "I have done it," and,—I will do it if you will do thus and so; see 1-2-40. In regard to the last verse of the passage quoted I will only say now that Christ, "who knew no sin, was made sin," by fully partaking of man's fallen nature; (see Heb. 2:14-18), and we are "made righteousness of God in him," by just as fully partaking, through Christ, of God’s "divine nature;" (see 2 Pet. 1:4).

I will notice next, another error of the popular theology similar to the one just noticed. According to the common view, the atonement is made the cause of God's love, when in reality it is the effect. God is represented in the common view as being very wrathful and furious against man for having broken his law, but Christ steps in and pacifies the Father by the atonement, and his anger turned away and he begins to love mankind; thus the atonement is made the cause of God's love; the love of God is represented as a result flowing out of Christ's work of reconciliation; the language of the creeds fully imply this; and this in fact is practically the view of the majority of Christians. But the truth is the opposite of this. God's love led to the atonement; it does not flow from it. All scripture puts it this way, as we have abundantly quoted in this article. "God so loved the world [and the result was] that he gave his only begotten Son," &c. The atonement "manifests" the Father’s pre-existing but unknown love, and "hereby we perceive it," (1 John 3:16; 4:9), so that, discovering that "He first loved us," we begin to love Him. Perhaps the reader has heard the story of the mother who said to her little boy, "Now, Johnny, if you are good and obedient, mamma will love you, but if you are naughty I can’t love you;" to which un-motherly speech the child plaintively replied, "Anybody will love me when I am good, can't you love when I'm bad?" "God commendeth his love toward us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us;" thus does the Word make it plain that God's love was the cause, and not the effect of the atonement. This is the blessed truth, but the church goes on, reversing God's truth, putting darkness for light, and light darkness.

Finally, I will notice one more point of error in the popular view. The Atonement will not be a partial, but a complete and absolute success. The creeds that inculcate the errors that I have noticed may well culminate with the statement that after all that God and Christ have done, myriads, through ignorance and perversity, will fail to reap any benefit from the atonement but will perish forever; thus Christ will only partially accomplish the purpose for which he died,—to reconcile the world unto God—and will only partially "destroy the works of the devil." Is it so? Will the joint work of the Father and the Son thus weakly fail of full completion, and fall

short of a perfect triumph? Nay, verily. So far from its being true that the atonement will only be partially sufficient to accomplish the work intended, the truth is it will be "much more" than enough. Read the 5th chapter of Romans and see this glorious truth set forth therein. Notice Paul's "much mores," and let all doubts as to the "exceeding abundance" of God's provision for man's universal redemption forever depart from your mind. Was God in Christ reconciling the world unto himself and yet will there be myriads of souls unreconciled to him through all eternity? Did the Father send the Son to be the Saviour of the world (1 John 4:14), and yet will there be a large portion of the world lost forever? Will God's plans and purposes miscarry like this, or shall "his word (Christ is "the Word of God") accomplish that which he pleases, and prosper in the thing whereto he sends it?" (Isa. 55: 8-13) Most assuredly the latter. Let those who wish to "limit the Holy One of Israel" (Psa. 78: 41), do so, as for me I believe that God will do all he has promised to the full, yea more, for "he is able to do exceeding abundant, above all that we can ask, or even think."

Thus, friend reader, I have endeavored to set forth this glorious doctrine of the atonement; whether I have spoken according to "the oracles of God," judge ye; and in your judgment be sure of one thing, that nothing that I have said is better than the truth, that is not possible. It is impossible that anything should be too good to be true, though sometimes we so speak. We may very properly say that a thing is too bad to be true, as, for instance, the doctrine of endless torment; but no finite being is able to conceive or imagine a thing too good to be true,—to do that would be equivalent to thinking of something better than God. If I have erred at all in the foregoing (and it would be very remarkable if I had not) I have erred in not seeing all the breadth, and length, and depth, and height, of the love of God, and so have made his works and ways less grand, and less glorious, and less loving than they really are. It is only "with all saints" that we are able to comprehend the marvelous fullness of the love of God. I have by no means exhausted the subject, but I must drop it for the present; but before I do so I will give a brief summary.

SUMMARY

of the points noticed in the article, that the reader may have the whole subject before him in as compact a form as possible.

The atonement was not to satisfy God's Justice, but to reveal his Love.
The justice of God is not against the sinner, demanding his condemnation, but for him, insuring his salvation.
God is not in contrast with, much less in opposition to Christ in the atonement, but in perfect harmony and accord.
The atonement is not the exclusive work of Christ in order to reconcile God unto the world, but it is the work of "God in Christ" to reconcile the world unto himself.
Christ does not have to plead with God in order to make him willing to pardon the sinner, but God, by his ministers, "beseeches" (2 Cor. v. 20) the sinner to make them willing to be pardoned.
Hence the atonement is not to propitiate God, but man: not to make God favorably disposed toward man, but to make ready existing favor known to man.
Christ did not die as our substitute, but as our companion and associate; not instead of man but with him and for him.
Christ did not die to save us from the penalty of sin, but from sin itself.

Christ did not die that we might not die, but to deliver us out of a death in which we were already involved.

The sinner is not redeemed because he repents, but he called upon to repent because he has been redeemed.

The atonement is not the cause of God's love to man, giving rise to that love, but the effect, flowing out of that love.

The final outcome of the atoning scheme is not a partial success, but a perfect, absolute, and universal triumph.

In every one of these particulars the popular theology is just the opposite of the truth. I do not say that the creeds and standards formally enunciate all these errors (although even this is true of some of them), but I do say that the language of the creeds and standards inevitably lead to these errors, and the popular utterances upon the subject inculcate and confirm them, so that practically they are the belief of the vast majority of Christians. And I would repeat what must be apparent to every thoughtful mind, that these errors are not small and unimportant, slightly different from the truth,—but they are just the opposite of the truth; those who hold and teach them, "call evil good, and good evil; they put darkness for light, and light for darkness, bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter;" and the present effect is Babylon (i.e. confusion), and the final outcome will be ruin (Isa. 24:10).

My purpose is to write at least three more articles on this subject in order to cover as far as possible the whole ground; one in explanation of the various terms used in connection with the atonement, such as propitiate, ransom, bought, redeemed, etc., one on the subject, Why did Christ die? and one on the atonement as set forth in the law. I mention this in order to suggest to any who may think that they see unanswerable objections to the position taken in this article, that they suspend their judgment until I have had time to present the whole subject.

"ORTHODOXY."

Readers of this paper have doubtless noticed that I frequently use the word orthodox and orthodoxy, and I suppose that all understand the sense in which I use it, viz., to express the generally received faith among all classes of Christians. For instance endless torment is an orthodox doctrine, i.e. it is held by the great mass of professing Christians throughout the world; so of the Trinity Substitution, Immortality of the soul, etc.—these are all so-called orthodox doctrines, being embraced in the faith of the majority of Christendom. This is the sense in which I have used the word. Strictly speaking orthodoxy is a word that applies only to the truth; its etymological meaning is straight doctrine, i.e. true, correct doctrine; in this sense the writer claims to be orthodox. But the word has come to have a technical sense, with the meaning already explained; in this respect it is like the word evangelical, which appellation a branch of the Christian church has sought to monopolize. The use of the term Orthodox, by those who claim the exclusive right to use it, is really absurd, since as a matter of fact the standard of orthodoxy shifts and changes from generation to generation, from decade to decade, and almost from year to year. That standard in protestant churches in the days of Jonathan Edwards, was very different from what it is to-day even in those denominations that are most conservative and non-progressive. In these days too we have what is called "the new orthodoxy," or "the new departure," which is so widely different from the old orthodoxy as to give rise to this anomalous and paradoxical condition of things, viz, the existence of two orthodoxies, widely different and decidedly opposed, and yet both of them orthodox, i.e. correct, since the new as well as the old orthodoxy is held by prelates and divines high in authority and influence in protestant churches. Thus does this word, which ought to denote something fixed and permanent, really signify that most changeable of all terrestrial things,—human opinion; and the various branches of the nominal church really make themselves ridiculous in their lofty claims of orthodoxy, and appear hypocritical in their ofttimes vehement claims of damnation of heresy, though at other times, for reasons of expediency, they condone it. The fact is that no church has a right to set itself up as a fixed standard of religious truth; it is simply impudent presumption to use these terms orthodox and evangelical in the manner in which they are used by certain of the sects, and it shows a sad lack of the spirit of Christ and of that charity "covereth all things." (1 Cor. 22:7, N.V. margin.) "Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up, for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14:4).

In former issues of The Spirit of the Word I have not hesitated to refer in very plain terms to the absurdities and monstrosities of the popular theology. I make no apology for these criticisms; if I could I would make them more emphatic, for to me it appears that the prevalent religious beliefs are to a very great extent horrible caricatures of the truth, contradictory, senseless, and, in some cases, actually blasphemous. I would make no compromise with these dogmas that outrage reason as well as Scripture, that "put darkness for light and light for darkness," but would rather do all I can to root up these noxious plants that our heavenly Father hath not planted. (Matt. 15:13). In the light of Scripture as well as the actual state of things around us the entire outward, visible, organized church, is plainly a poor, fallen, corrupt institution, like the Jewish body politic in the time of the old prophet,—"the whole head is sick, and the whole heart faint; from the sole of the foot even unto the head there is no soundness in it, but wounds, and bruises, and putrefying sores: they have not been closed, neither bound up, neither molifled with ointment." There are many in the church who see this wretched condition of affairs and denounce it unsparingly, but still they think that the church may yet be saved, i.e. the organization saved; to me this seems impossible, disintegration is inevitable; Babylon must come down. In the Revelation we have a degenerate, fallen church represented by a woman seated on a beast.

A WOMAN SEATED ON A BEAST

(Rev. 17:1-6). That representation is today the shameful symbol of the entire body of the organized, nominal Christian Church Greek, Roman and Protestant. I think that a brief consideration of the meaning of that symbol will fully warrant the above sweeping statement. In Bible symbolical language God's people have always been represented by a woman thus the children of Israel were represented, and God was their husband, (see e.g. Ezek. 16); thus the gospel church is represented as the bride of Christ, (see Eph. 5:22-32). A beast is the symbol of the world power, (see Dan. 7:1-7, 17). Now what would a woman seated on a beast symbolize? What else could it signify but the church supported by the world? and is not that the exact situation of all Christendom to-day? There can be no doubt in the mind of any protestant that that is the situation with the Greek and Roman churches, and with all other state-church organizations; all such iniquitous and unholy alliances (compare Lev. 18:23) are manifestly well represented, according to Bible symbology, by a woman seated on a beast, the church supported by the world. But does not the same symbol apply with equal force to the great body of Protestantism? Is not the church, as a whole, worldly? Does it not use every means, many of them very questionable, many of them not questionable at all, but disgraceful, to obtain the support of the world? Are not the rich courted and flattered, in order to obtain their support, no matter how irreligious they may be, while the poor are snubbed and neglected, though they may be as the salt of the earth for piety and devotion? (Jas. 2:1-10). Could the church maintain its present status of magnificence and luxury,—cushions, stained glass, gilt, frescoe and polished wood, costly music, and a still more costly pulpit orator, with its "church parlor," and "church kitchen" with all the furniture pertaining thereto,—I ask, could the church maintain all this, if all outside, worldly help were withdrawn? Is it not true rather that the world is the principle supporter of this outward show and luxury? and furthermore is not the same true of many of the professedly religious operations of the church? Does not the church to a very great extent look to the world for support in these operations? i.e. in missionary work, church building, current expenses, etc., etc. and does not the church use every means, such as fairs, festivals, oyster suppers, amateur theatricals, etc. in order to draw the dimes and the dollars out of worldly pockets for the above purposes? and finally is not all this nothing more nor less than the church seeking the support of the world, rightly symbolized by the woman seated on the beast? The reader must be blind indeed if he cannot see that Christendom as a whole is apostate; that the church as an outward, visible, human institution is a wretched failure, Babylon, the "Mother of harlots" and her daughters. I say the church as an outward, visible human institution; God has a people in the world as truly as in the days of Elijah the prophet (see 1 Ki. 10:14, 18), the true "Ecclesia," "the Kingdom of Heaven" in embryo. These are God's "jewels," (Mal. 3:17) scattered throughout the land, some nominally in every branch the Christian church, Some outside of all of them. They have no outward organization no visible bond of union, but "the unity of the spirit" binds them together in inseparable fellowship," until they shall all come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the Son of God to the perfect man, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of God." (Eph. 4:13). We may be sure that, whatever human institution may fail, "nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his" (2 Tim. 2:19). But what of this outward visible organization called the Christian Church? I believe that it is beyond repair, and that its ruin is close at hand; see 1-5-105, 106, &c.) "The Judge standeth at the door." We are living in the last stage of the decadent, degenerate, apostate church, the Laodicean stage; if I had space in this paper I would examine those seven messages to the typical churches of Asia of Rev. 2 and 3, as they apply to the seven stages through which apostate Christendom has passed during this gospel age; but I must leave the full examination of this subject to some future time. I will however briefly mention the stages. Ephesus represents the church during the apostolic age, the purest and best period of the organized church. Smyrna represents the church during the Pagan persecutions under the Roman emperors. Pergamos (which means exalted, lifted up) represents Christianity exalted to the high position of the religion of the Roman world under Constantine at the close of the 3rd century; this period extends from the beginning of the 4th century for two or three hundred years. Thyatira represents the church of the so-called "dark ages;" Sardis, the church of the Reformation; Philadelphia, the Missionary church, bringing us down to near the beginning of the present century, when all the great missionary and Bible societies had their origin; and the Laodicean stage is the one in which we are now living, which is very near its end and is to close with the coming of Christ, even as that seventh message declares "Behold I stand at the door." Read over the message to the Laodicean church, read it carefully, and see in it a description of the nominal church of Christ in the days in which we live. Read it, and, if you have any spiritual insight at all, you can hardly resist the conviction that this is the Spirit, the real meaning, of this portion of the Word.

I cannot further follow out this train of thought now, it is not a pleasant subject; denunciation is never agreeable to a soul that is at all imbued with the spirit of Christ; and yet God's watchmen have sometimes this unpleasant task to perform, and then they must do it faithfully, "whether men will hear or whether they will forbear;" (see Jer. 23:28, 29) I will pass on now, however, to notice some of the particular forms of error, most prominent and harmful in the nominal church.

One chief cause of the church's present condition is that they have wandered away from the plain path of truth into the winding and devious ways of error. "They have rejected the word of the Lord, and what wisdom is there in them?" They "have committed two evils; they have forsaken God, the fountain of living water; and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water." In previous issues I have noticed many of these serious and misleading errors of the nominal church. I have also noticed some of them in the first article of this issue, and I would again call attention to these errors that exactly reverse the truth, "putting darkness for light and light for darkness;" these may be called Theological Reversals.

THEOLOGICAL REVERSALS

I will briefly mention a few more of this same class of errors.

The very foundation principle upon which the Bible is interpreted by the church is the reverse of the truth, and this error leads the church in the way of death, and away from the way of life. We are told that the bible is written in plain, simple, easy language, and that the correct meaning of a passage is that which lies upon the surface, the most obvious and apparent sense. For instance, a celebrated preacher, formerly of Boston, thus enunciates this error, "the sense which naturally suggests itself in the exposition of the Scriptures is the sense to be preferred." Now so far from this being true, the truth I think is just the opposite. The Bible is written, as the Word incarnate spoke, in "parables and dark sayings," in types, allegories, shadows and figures, that the truth might not be seen, except by those to "whom it was given;" (see Matt. 13:10-16). I know that this statement will sound strange and erroneous to some, but it is nevertheless the plain, simple truth, capable of abundant verification from the Bible; in previous issues I have given many proofs of this point (see e.g. 1-1-2, 4 & 14), and will not give more now, but will simply add that a knowledge of the "plan of the ages," makes it plain why God should thus hide the truth, in a book that is yet a revelation of the truth (see Col. 1:26, 27). Wonderful "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" are hid in the written Word, as in the Word incarnate, and he alone will find them, who "searches for them as for hid treasure," (Prov. ii. 1-9). The systematic rules by which God works—"first the natural and afterward that which is spiritual," every man in his own order," the "first fruit" and afterward the great ingathering (Rom. xi. 16), etc., etc., these rules, connected, with the gradual development of his plan, age after age, explain why God should give light to some and withhold it from others. The "first fruit" of course are first to be attended to and afterwards others of the great human harvest; and so on until all are gathered together in Christ, (Eph. 1:0; see also 1-2-26 and 30).

Now the great majority of Christians know nothing of this great principle of Scripture revelation, and hence they are building up on, and resting in, the letter of the Word which brings, not life, but death. Hence also the almost innumerable opinions, sects, and contradictions that divide and disgrace the Christian world, causing the people to stumble and God's name to be blasphemed. Words are facile vehicles of thought, easily twisted into almost any shape, and made to answer almost any end. This is shown in the framing of laws, when, notwithstanding the utmost care, the legal formula is found to be capable of several different meanings, giving rise to oceans of talk, and endless complications, to puzzle judges and to defeat the ends of justice. Thus is it also with the letter of the Word; it is ofttimes capable of various meanings, and in the absence of any authoritative standard of interpretation, one man's opinion is as good as another's, and hence discord and strife rend the church into many factions instead of there being "one fold and one shepherd." For example, a certain skeptical writer refers to this changeable character of the Bible thus, "Nothing is plainer in the Bible than that there is nothing plain in the book. There is not a heresy, theory, dogma, creed, proposition or tenet, however monstrous, however cruel, however pernicious, however childish, silly and absurd, that may not be substantiated or refuted, driven home or kicked out of doors, by reference to that marvelous compilation." Every honest, thoughtful Christian will admit that there reason for this sweeping criticism. There is truth in it too. By handling the Bible as it is usually handled by the various sectarian leaders, it may be made to prove or disprove, almost any proposition that man may possibly imagine or conceive. The great mistake in all this is that men are disputing about the letter that kills. The key to the unraveling of all this tangle, the one talismanic word to bring order out of all this confusion, is the SPIRIT of the Word,—the spirit that giveth life. But the spirit of the Word is hid away under the letter, purposely hid, so that some shall not understand, hence the ignorance of the great majority. "He that hath ears to hear let him hear." In studying the Bible we should seek the full truth, not on the surface, but down deep under the letter, like precious stones and metals hidden in a mine. I would add right here, since I have been misunderstood on this point by one correspondent, that I do not mean to say that the spiritual meaning of Scripture is always something entirely different from the letter; oftentimes it is so, but not always by any means. The Spirit of the World is its real, true, full meaning, whatever that may be; sometimes that true meaning is properly expressed by the letter, but in order to get the full meaning you must take other scripture in connection with it, you must perhaps refer to Old Testament types or allegories, or prophecies. Bible truths run into one another, and all are harmonious with one general plan; we need to study these truths not only to learn what they signify in themselves, but what are their connections with other truths, and what their relation to the plan; in this way we get somewhere near the full truth. Partial truths, with a great deal of error mixed in to fill up, are the curse and bane of modern orthodoxy; the spirit of the Word saves us from this curse. I would not have anyone understand that I teach that under every word and phrase and sentence of Scripture there is hidden away some mystic sense entirely different from the letter, that we must endeavor to dig out. I do not say that this is so; neither do I say that it is not so; for, knowing how wonderfully the letter sometimes hides (as well as reveals) the true meaning, that meaning being something entirely different from the letter, I would not dare to put my finger upon any sentence, phrase or word of Scripture and positively declare,—'this has not a mystic sense." However what I do say is this, that he who expects to saunter carelessly through the fields of Bible lore, picking up the rarest and most valuable gems of truth upon the surface, as one might pick up pebbles upon the beach, will find a great deal of his building material wood, hay and stubble, in that day when "Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is." (1 Cor. 3:13).

As this point is important, and as it lies in the direct line of the purpose of this paper, i.e. to bring out the Spirit of the Word; and moreover since the prevalent view is so utterly wrong in this respect, just the opposite of the truth, I will add a few more thoughts.

We read that "Jesus spake unto the multitudes in parables, and without a parable spake he not unto them," (Matt. 13:34), not to make the subject plain, and easy to be understood, as I have heard orthodox authorities positively declare, but in order that the subject should not be plain, and easy to be understood, (see Matt. 13:10-13; Mark 4:11, 12). "And with many such parables spake he the Word unto them, as they were able to hear it; and when they were alone he expounded all things to his disciples," (Mark 4:33, 34). Does it not seem strange that Jesus should give these explanations when alone with his disciples, and not in public so that all might have the benefit of them? He spoke to them in parables that they might not understand, and then gave the explanation in private. Does it not look as though Jesus did not want them to understand? The simple explanation of all this is that to the disciples it was "given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but unto them that were without it was not given." Christ worked according to the great plan—first the promised "Seed" must be perfected, Christ and they that are Christ's, (Gal. 3:16-29; 1 Cor. 15:22, 23), then, through that Seed, "all the families of the earth shall be blessed" "in the ages to come,"—But "every man in his own order."

Take Christ's conversation with the Jews as recorded in John 5 as a further illustration of the same truth; in that conversation Jesus seems to bewilder and confuse his hearers by the strange statement he makes. He says, "I am the bread of life that came down from heaven;" and "the Jews murmured at him and said is not this Jesus the Son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?" Now we should expect that Jesus would explain to them, what he meant, but no, he gives them a still harder nut to crack by telling 1 them, "I am the living bread which came down from heaven; if any man eat of this bread, he shall live forever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. The Jews therefore strove among themselves, saying, "How can this man give us his flesh to eat?" Is it any wonder that they did not understand him? Was not his language calculated to completely baffle the wisest among them? Did not his statements seem like dark enigmas and riddles? But does he now explain? no, he still further staggers them by making the bald assertion, without a particle of explanation,—"Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you. As the living Father hath sent me and I live by the Father, so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me." It would seem that this statement was too much even for the disciples, and they began to murmur, and to say, "This is an hard saying; who can hear it?" Now notice how Jesus helps them, but not a word of help for the multitude. "When Jesus knew in himself that his disciples murmured at it, he said unto them, Doth this offend you? It is the spirit that quikeneth, the flesh profiteth nothing, the words that I speak unto you they are spirit and they are LIFE." (His Word is life to us just in proportion as we discern the spirit of it). Here was a hint to intimate to them that they were not to take his words in the letter but in the spirit, and yet in this helpful hint there was a flat contradiction to the statement he had previously made; he had said before, "the bread that I will give is my flesh which I will give for the life of the world." Now he says, "the flesh profiteth nothing;" if his flesh was to be given for the life of the world, it would seem as though it would profit a great deal; why then say it profiteth nothing? a flat contradiction in the letter! calculated still further to hide the truth. No wonder, as we read, "From that time many of his disciples went back and walked no more with him." Does it not seem passing strange that Christ should apparently drive his followers away from him thus, and make no effort to justify his language or to remove their misapprehension? According to the common belief such conduct is wholly unaccountable and seems cruelly unjust; if it were true that that people were at that time having their only chance to obtain eternal life, and that, failing in that chance, they would drop into an endless hell, if this were true, how can you explain the Saviour's conduct? It will not help the matter any to say that Jesus knew that it would do no good to explain, unless we take the ground that none of Christ's hearers could ever be benefitted by an explanation, for this was Christ's invariable. method of public preaching, "without a parable spake he not unto them." How can we account for his adopting such a method of discourse? it would seem as though it was a method surely calculated to defeat the object of his preaching, viz., the enlightenment of his hearers. Christ speaks in parables and obscure and strange figures that his hearers might not understand,—lest they should understand,—and then when he knew that they had entirely misapprehended his meaning he leaves them in their mistake without the slightest effort to undeceive them. "He that hath ears to hear let him hear," was the apparently indifferent conclusion to his teaching as though (one might think) he had little care whether he was understood or not. There is absolutely no way of accounting for this invariable practice of Christ on the basis of the orthodox view. What I want the reader to see is that since this was Christ's uniform method of preaching to the people it indicates a set purpose; it was something more than a temporary expedient justified and explained by the requirements of a special occasion, it was a constant practice, hence it indicates a previously arranged plan, and the question, what is that plan? becomes a very important and interesting one (see 1-8-177). We search the creeds and standards and prevailing religious opinions in vain for any explanation of this practice of our Lord, or any intimation of the plan upon which it was based; in fact this practice is utterly opposed to the common theology and is one of the strongest arguments against it. Christ preached in such a way that only a few were "able to receive it" (Matt. 19:12). His method excluded the multitude, and culled out a few choice spirits suited to his purpose; thus it appears that selection or election was certainly a part of the plan upon which he acted, and hence he says, "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you,"—"To you it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them that are without it is not given,"—"No man can come except the Father draw him,"—and finally that most remarkable, and most unaccountable upon any orthodox basis, of all his utterances in his wonderful prayer recorded in John 17—"I pray not for the world, but for those that thou has given me." Pray not for the world! Why not? Christ died for the world; "He tasted death for every man;" "He is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world;" why should he not therefore pray for the world? In this again we see the unmistakable evidence of a plan, a prearranged order and system, according to which all Christ's actions were regulated. Christ knew that the mystic body must be made one, the promised "Seed" must come before the world "all the families of the earth," could be blessed (see 1-4-78); and this is just what he intimates in his prayer. He prays for the unity and perfection in one of a certain class, "those whom the Father had given him," in order that the world might ultimately be blessed through them,—"that the world may believe,"—"that the world may know.'

Thus spake the Word incarnate, "in parables and dark sayings," in strange figure, puzzling symbol, and apparently impossible metaphor; and thus, if I err not, speaks the written word, in type, pattern, allegory, prophecy, parable, symbol, figure, image and shadow, hiding away the most important and the full truth underneath the letter, so that only he who has a veritable passion for the truth, and really eats God's words (Jer. 15:16)—only such ones will "understand the fear of the Lord, and find the knowledge of God" (Prov. 2:5); and that one who accepts the church's teaching upon this point, and expects to find the great truths of life lying in plain sight upon the surface of God's revelations, will surely be led astray. In this connection look up, and carefully read and ponder the following scripture; noticing how God is represented as "a God that hideth himself" amidst "clouds and darkness," and whose thoughts and ways are as different from, and as much higher than ours, as the heavens are different from, and higher than the earth. Psa. 36:5-7, 77:19; Isa. 8:13-17; 28:8-18; 45:15; 55:8-13; Hos. 14:9.

It remains for me to add a word in answer to the question, (which very naturally will arise) Why is the truth thus hidden under type and shadow and figure in God's revelation? I have already partially answered this question; because God has a plan; because there is order, system, and a "due season" to that plan, and to every stage in it; because there are "first fruits" and later fruits, "first born" and later born, a "first resurrection" and a second "resurrection, a "special salvation" (1 Tim. 4:10) and a "common salvation" (Jude 3), and every man is to be dealt with "in his own order," i.e. when his turn comes; hence God hides the truth from some whose turn has not yet come, and reveals it to others whom he is finishing off for the perfect state. But furthermore God's ways and methods are a part of our training and education, and not simply means to reach a certain end; God makes the means a blessing to us as well as the end; the form in which the truth comes to us is beneficial and educational as well as the truth itself; and all tends, not only to the acquirement of so much truth, but what is more valuable, to the development and perfection of the spiritual man (1 Cor. 2:14, 15). So it is with mental training, the education of the schools. The young man that goes through the various steps of education until he graduates from a university should seek, not so much to store his mind with just so many items of knowledge,—just so many facts of science, philosophy and literature, memorized from books,—if this is all he gets he has fallen short of nine-tenths of the real value of an education,—but he should seek to train, and develop, and perfect his mental faculties, so that when he leaves the schools and goes out into the world to fight for himself, he may be able to continue his research into truth in every department, through all his future life, without the help of text book, school or tutor. So in the realm of spiritual truth, God gives us the truth in such a form so that the studying of it out is of more value to us in the way of training and spiritual development, than is the truth itself after we have arrived at it. The object of our training is not that we may know so many things, but that we may "come in the unity of the faith and the knowledge of the son of God unto the perfect MAN." God might have given us truths so that we could store them away in our minds, just as you would put so many parcels into a chest; but the mind would not be developed and trained by such a process any more than the chest would. Spiritual education is a growth and gradual development into the "perfect man." We are to go on from the condition of "babes in Christ" (1 Cor. 3:1) unto "full age" (Heb. 5:11-14), "unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ." Hence the form of the word is such as to promote this growth; if everything in the Bible was plain and simple like a child's primer, it would require no effort to receive it, and hence though we might obtain a certain number of truths yet there would be but very little spiritual training. An "Order" of men is now being fitted and trained to be the kings and priests of the "ages to come," the promised Seed in whom all the families of the earth are to be blessed, (1-4-77, 78, etc.) the "Sons of God;" for whom the whole creation wait (Rom. 8:19), and this "Order" must reach the "perfect man" condition by a gradual growth and development, and the form of the Word is one of the principal means to effect this growth and development; to them it is given to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven but to those who do not belong to this "Order" it is not given, because they do not need to see these "deep things of God" yet, but "they shall see" in the judgment age (1-6-121), when "the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness" (see explanation of Isa. 26:8-11). Thus taking God's plan into consideration, the apparently dark, puzzling and mysterious character of the Word is fully accounted for, and clearly shown to be but another manifestation of that "wisdom and knowledge of God," the depths of which are unsearchable, and past finding out (Rom. 11:33).

In conclusion I will mention two or three more Theological Reversals. I need refer to these but briefly since each one of them has already been considered in past issues of the paper. For the sake of having them altogether I will repeat the one just considered.

The common view is that the great truths of the Bible lie upon the surface and are set forth in plain, simple language, but the truth is they are hidden away under the letter, in "parables and dark sayings," in "mysteries" and "hard sayings," in order that they may not be seen and understood; except by certain ones, at certain times," "according to the plan of the ages." (Eph. 3:11, N.V., margin; also see Emphatic Diaglot)
The Church teaches that Christ is God and that when he was here on earth he performed his mighty acts of power in his own strength, when in fact he could do nothing in his own strength (John 5:30).
We are also taught in the popular theology that there is no probation after death for any, when in fact there is no probation at all for the great majority until after death.
The nominal church tells us that when Christ comes it will be to "wind up affairs," to bring the work of redemption to an end, thereby fixing irrevocably man's eternal destiny; but the truth is that the great work of man's salvation and regeneration (Matt. 19:28) is to be after the second coming of Christ, in "the ages to come;" hence Christ comes not to end that work but to begin it.

There is not space in the present number to notice more of these Theological Reversals now; but these are sufficient to indicate the present condition of so-called Orthodoxy, and to demonstrate scripturally that those who make the exclusive claim of orthodoxy are very far from holding straight doctrine, but on the contrary are exceedingly crooked in their faith, which is in fact the very opposite of the truth.

These errors are part and parcel of the life and soul of the nominal church; they are the warp and woof of the entire fabric; they are woven into its creeds and standards, its preaching, Sunday school instruction, and social meeting talk, its hymns and songs, into the entire body of its literature, its rituals and litanies, and they are ingrained into the thought and feeling, the mind and heart of every one of its members, so that to remove them would be like drawing out the nerves and tendons of the human body, an operation that would inevitably result in the body's total destruction. The church is all wrong in these things; "there is no soundness in it," hence the only thing that can be done is to tear down and build over new; and this is just what will be done, and that very soon; Christ's kingdom, the true church, "the church of the first born, will be established on the earth, and he that sits upon the throne shall say, "Behold I make all things new,—it is done." (Rev. 21:5, 6).