44 



THE REV. H. J. R. MARSTON, M.A., ON 



than Leviticus ; w^hich 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 



o 



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 " ; ratlier 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. 

 Eecent Travel, Comparative Keligion, and Moral analysis of 

 Human ISTature are all to be heard on the subject with attention 

 and hopefulness. Light from many quarters is welcomed, so 

 long as it be light. 



11. — 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 tlie 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 



