Изображения страниц
PDF
EPUB

550TH ORDINARY GENERAL MEETING.

HELD IN THE ROOMS OF THE INSTITUTE, ON MONDAY,

FEBRUARY 2ND, 1914, AT 4.30 P.M.

DR. J. W. THIRTLE, M.R.A.S., TOOK THE CHAIR.

The Minutes of the preceding Meeting were read and confirmed. The CHAIRMAN introduced the Rev. H. J. R. Marston, and said that Mr. Marston would not read his paper, but would give them a general synopsis of it. The paper, as printed and submitted to the Meeting, is as follows:

:

THE CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE OF ATONEMENT. By THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., Late Fellow of the University of Durham.

Some prefatory observations are desirable in order to explain and justify the form and tenor of the following Lecture. I. The material here presented to the Members of the Institute is part of a book on the subject which is in course of production by the Lecturer. The consequence is that the composition, considered as a literary effort, may appear loose in connection; and may perhaps contain some unavoidable repetition. If this be so, I beg the Members of the Institute to understand and to pardon; assuring them that there has been neither haste nor carelessness in the preparation of the paper. On the contrary, the matter of the lecture has been long and industriously pondered and carefully put together.

I venture to invite special regard to the title of my subject as it stands at the head of the paper.

I have not endeavoured to formulate a theory of "The Atonement."

I incline to believe that Atonement is prior to Christianity; and wider than the Bible. It would seem to be inherent in the beliefs and feelings of the human race. It is certainly far older

than Leviticus; which is probably a regulative code, not an inaugurating charter. Throughout that wonderful book, so it seems to me, "the instinct for Atonement" is taken for granted.

I further incline to believe that the New Testament takes that same instinct for granted too. The death of the Lord Jesus and the teaching of his Apostles fixed and illuminated for all time what was the meaning, the value, and the limits of that instinct. Hence it seems to be correct to speak of "The Christian doctrine of Atonement "; rather than to treat of "The Atonement" as if it were a new and isolated fact in human history.

Some misgiving has been expressed as to whether the subject of Atonement is not too theological to come properly within the ken of a Philosophical Society. That misgiving may be allayed by two considerations. The first is that the very nature of our Society compels it to attend to the outstanding aspects of the Christian Faith; and to explain and to defend them. This is what we are for. Among these the Atonement is so important that we cannot possibly pass it by. To attempt to justify it to the modern conscience is a noble and very useful task.

The second is that the method which I have followed in this lecture invites discussion from Historical and Ethical students. Recent Travel, Comparative Religion, and Moral analysis of Human Nature are all to be heard on the subject with attention and hopefulness. Light from many quarters is welcomed, so long as it be light.

II. The method which I have followed in this lecture is, I think, unusual. Most writers on the Atonement have dealt with the subject from what may be called the internal point of view. They have considered it either with reference to the attributes of God, or the intuitions of men. They have declared that such and such views are required because God is just; or because He is merciful; or because man cannot believe that God would make such and such demands. From the time of Anselm to the time of McLeod Campbell, this way of treating the subject has been prominent.

It must be allowed that a method which has commended itself to many good and gifted men, has much to be said for it. And I cannot expect that those who hear or read this lecture with minds accustomed to follow the lead of Anselm and Campbell, of Maurice and the elder Magee, will readily approve the method adopted by me. They are certain to

think it narrow and jejune; and they may also think that it borders upon the splitting of verbal hairs, or upon grammatical pedantry.

I would remind such objectors that the fundamental principle of the Reformation was this, that exegesis is the key to theology. By this maxim it reversed the proceedings of the Middle Ages, which were formed upon the principle that theology is the key to exegesis. I cannot see why this principle, which has been fruitful in spiritual results of the first importance, should not be applied to the study of the Atonement. To my own feeling Systematic Theology from Calvin to Ritschl has been blighted and deformed by the tendency to separate itself from the results of exact New Testament scholarship.

This address, at all events, if it has erred, has not erred in that direction. I have rigorously endeavoured to follow the teaching of the New Testament; I have never even cared to ask whether the results arrived at can be made to harmonise either with what are supposed to be the Divine attributes, or with those alleged intuitions of men which some people so studiously endeavour to conciliate.

For me the New Testament ought to have the first and the last word in this, as in all religious enquiry; and that because of its unique and specific possession of the charisma of Inspiration. I do not for a moment question that a subject so wonderful and comprehensive as the Christian doctrine of Atonement may be lawfully treated by more methods than one. I hail with thankfulness the revived interest in this central article of Christian believing and Christian doing: It is a sign of reviving Christian life itself. Life is manifold; and every living enquiry must be conducted in manifold ways. But I venture to think that the method followed in this paper is among the first in importance, and likely to lead to clear and far-reaching thought upon the subject.

In this spirit and under these convictions, these thoughts are offered as a contribution towards a clearer view of the work of Our Lord in the putting away of sin. It is committed to the blessing of God, and commended to the favourable perusal of Christian people, in a time of many transitions, and of much searching of heart; yet a time when the hearts of multitudes are reaching out after a fuller and surer knowledge of truth as it is in Jesus.

There are two remarks which I ask leave to add to these

introductory observations. The first is this, namely, that I believe in the stability of the laws of language, and especially

of the Greek language. I hold strongly that the Greek of the New Testament is Greek; not a patois, nor a jargon. What has been called "grammarless Greek," if it ever existed anywhere, is certainly not the Greek of St. Luke and St. Paul, of St. Matthew and St. James, of St. Peter and St. John. The Apocalypse is, of course, the book in the New Testament the Greek of which most frequently defies the laws of grammar. The sidelights thrown upon it by recent researches into the Greek of the papyri, are often interesting and sometimes suggestive. I would welcome all such light; but I still believe that St. John in his latest years made no deliberate attempt to use language in defiance of the laws of speech and thought. With this exception, however, the books of the New Testament should be studied with the grammar in our hand; and under the belief that the sacred writers used the words which they did use so as to be understood by all sorts of readers who had learned their language as we learn ours.

The second remark that I would make is this:-When appeal is made to the conscience or reason of man to settle whether the Christian doctrine of Atonement is true or not true, to what conscience and to what reason of what man is that appeal made? If Rousseau declared the doctrine to be false because it contradicted his moral sense, I rejoin, what does that signify? Of what value to anybody was Rousseau's moral sense, seeing it was of no value to himself? If his great contemporary, Bishop Butler, should declare that the doctrine repugnant to the moral sense of Rousseau was agreeable to the moral sense of men in general, who would hesitate to follow the bishop, and disregard the sentimental savage from Geneva? And this is but a sample of the difficulties in which we are landed when we follow the method usually followed in enquiring about the Atonement. It is certain that so far as history can teach us, a sense of the need for propitiating God is found everywhere. This is a strong proof that such propitiation is actually possible; since "nature does nothing in vain." this pathetic and venerable sentiment is of far more consequence than the objection to it raised by any particular thinker; that objection might be very strong if it were very general; but otherwise it seems to me of little account.

And

Let anyone, however, consult the writings of those who have treated the Atonement on abstract principles; and they will find that these writers differ widely between themselves; and indeed that they agree in little else than in the habit of raising objections to some or other part of the Christian doctrine.

III. NEW TESTAMENT VIEWS OF SIN.

The sacred writers view sin as bondage, as enmity, as defilement, or as hampering limitation. They assume everywhere that men are conscious of being guilty, miserable, impotent. We may safely affirm that this assumption is sustained by an experience so vast and varied as to be practically universal. When St. Paul wrote, "O wretched man that I am," he wrote as the prolocutor of the human race.

In this light the Christian doctrine is only the highest confession of the need for Atonement; but if the Gospel be the universal religion, it must offer some doctrine of Atonement; and if it also be the Divine religion, it must also offer the best doctrine of Atonement; and accordingly the New Testament announces that God is the author of a fourfold process. He is the Redeemer, the Reconciler, the Consecrator, the Releaser.

The New Testament, moreover, intimates that in thus proceeding God acted harmoniously with His essential character. "God was in Christ reconciling the world to Himself."

"God set forth Jesus Christ to be a propitiation in His blood through faith."

"When we were enemies it was to God that we were reconciled by His Son's death."

"The Father sent the Son to be a propitiation for our sins." "It was the God of Peace Who brought again from the dead the Lord even Jesus."

"It is God Who commends His Love in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us."

So confident is the New Testament of the truth that redemption had its origin in the love and will of God that St. Peter declares that Christianity was sent into the world in order that men's faith and hope might be in God.

The awful and abrupt impact of God upon the sinful world is that which imparts to the Christian doctrine of Atonement its signal and disquieting grandeur. Against it, therefore, rise all lawless sentimentalities; all vicious levities; all insolent sophistries; all despairing incredulities. The insurrection is sometimes exasperated and inflamed by the indiscretion of Christian preachers; but it is provoked by the doctrine itself.

In attempting therefore to sum up apostolic teaching on Atonement, while I would avoid everything that may justly give offence, I cannot hope, nor do I wish, to escape from that

« ПредыдущаяПродолжить »