printed pages, in which Dr. Mommsen turns theologian and determines ex cathedra who, in the Apocalypse of John (here styled "the classical revelation of Jewish self-esteem and of hatred toward the Romans"), is meant by Antichrist. But the old adage reminds us that of such matters each must judge for himself "de gustibus non est disputandum." Even so, however, we have the right to quarrel with one of the sentences in this note a characteristic one-in which the writer, in the course of his unsupported theorizing (for it is nothing more) gratuitously ascribes the reticence of St. John to cowardice or pusillanimity. "If of the seven emperors Nero alone is named (by his numerical expression), this is so, not because he was the worst of the seven, but because the naming of the reigning emperor, while prophesying a speedy end of his reign in a published writing, had its risk, and some consideration toward the one who is' beseems even a prophet." How are the mighty fallen! Here is one of the two brothers whom, because of their daring, our Lord himself had surnamed Sons of Thunderone who, "for the word of God and for the testimony of Jesus Christ," was on "the isle that is called Patmos," who yet is afraid (we need not mince our words) to mention by his true name the potentate of whom he prophesies, lest he should offend his majesty, and possibly add his own name to the names of the many of whom he writes as having been "slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held." To do so "had its risk, and some consideration toward the one who is' beseems even a prophet!" There is no question about it; "this . . because," etc., says our author, who is quite certain that he is right.

is so,

Now, we beg leave to submit that this dogmatic assertion, this belittling of noble characters by imputing to them unworthy motives for acts that probably never existed save in the imagination of the writer-that this and the like is not what we came to "Mommsen's Roman Provinces" in quest of. We expected history, a narrative of actual and indisputable facts, or, if certainty on any point were wanting, we looked for a probable solution of the phenomena, with a statement of the grounds of that solution. What we have found instead we prefer not to characterize.

It is with reluctance, we may say with positive pain, that

we call attention to what is a grave blemish in a work otherwise excellent. We regret the unfriendly spirit of the book toward the Christian revelation the more because, as we have said, its antagonistic expressions are so entirely needless. In general, the marks of close research are every-where apparent. This is no production hastily gotten out to meet a popular demand. It is rather the collection and arrangement in an orderly form of the results of the labors of a long series of years. From the most distant and diverse sources, there has been gathered such an array of facts, respecting a subject many parts of which have hitherto been involved in great obscurity, as cannot be found in any previous work. The style, too, is good; rarely drawing attention to itself, but serving as the transparent medium whose sole function it is to convey the light truthfully and without distortion. Dr. Dickson has done his part with unusual skill and success. A translation from the German which should wholly conceal the fact that it was a version from a foreign tongue would indeed be a marvel. There is an element of ponderousness in the German, especially the German historical style, of which it is well-nigh impossible to-eliminate the traces in English save by a laborious process that amounts to little short of an entire re-writing of the work. But if Dr. Dickson has not attempted this, he has at any rate given us a lively, accurate, and sufficiently idiomatic rendering. That it combines with these, excellences the indispensable merit of faithfully reproducing the original, we have convinced ourselves by a comparison of portions of his translation of the earlier volumes with Dr. Mommsen's own work in German. While cordially thanking Dr. Dickson for the patience and the scholarly care which he has displayed in giving us in so excellent an English form this new portion of Theodor Mommsen's researches into Roman history, we cannot forego the expression of the hope that the great German scholar may be spared to complete the books-the sixth and seventh-according to his original design; that will fill the gap between his former work and the volumes now given to the world.

ART. III.—THE MYSTERY OF REDEMPTION.

Of all subjects that can engage human thought, there is none more profound than the mystery of redemption. The Scriptures teach that the redemptory work of the Christ is not the mediation of some third person making reconciliation between offended God and sinful man; but it is the intervention of Christ incarnate, who is the union of God and man, and both the one and the other.

The redemptive purpose of the triune God was formed before the foundation of the world. The love of God was the moving cause of that wonderful purpose. Reason strives in vain for an explication of the mystery; and where reason fails revelation discloses the astounding fact that "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John iii, 16. In the council of redemption, the good pleasure of the Father to save man, and to exalt him through Christ to a glorious state, was concurred in by the divine Son and by the Holy Spirit. In that gracious purpose each of the glorious personages of the Godhead had, as the Scriptures teach, a distinct function to perform. In Rom. xvi, 25, St. Paul speaks of the revelation of the mystery, which was kept secret since the world began, but now is made manifest, and by the Scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith." At the point where eternity joined the birth of time, that eternal purpose already existed, and had already been decreed to be accomplished in the incarnation and atonement of the Son of God. The ruinous fall of man and his costly redemption were, therefore, pre-supposed and foreknown before man's advent on this terrestrial ball.

St. Peter, in his first epistle (chapter i, 18-21), said: "Ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold,

but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: who verily was fore-ordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope

might be in God." Thus the wondrous plan of redemption. was devised by infinite wisdom and love.

"Grace first contrived the way

To save rebellious man!"

But on what principle can infinite justice clear the guilty? How can God be just and yet the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus? Various views of this oft-propounded question-a question unanswerable by human reason—have been promulgated. Learned and renowned theologians have essayed to answer, and have here expended their wealth of erudition.

It has been revealed that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, and to give his life a ransom for many; but beyond the acceptance of this great truth as a glorious fact it is doubtful if the human mind can proceed. It cannot fathom the depth of the redemptive mystery.

I. By one theory it is claimed that the perfect holiness of Christ and his obedience in taking upon himself the penalty of sin are a full satisfaction for the claims of justice as to those elected to salvation; and that to supply the want of personal righteousness in them the righteousness of Christ is substituted. According to this doctrine, there are a substituted punishment and a substituted obedience. These, as a justification of the elect, it is claimed, satisfy the requirements of the divine law and propitiate the favor of God. But this socalled theory of satisfaction seems amenable to serions objections: 1) The identical penalty due to the sinner could not have been endured by the Saviour, for he was a holy Being, a Lamb without blemish and without spot; whereas the merited punishment of the guilty consists, in part, of the consciousness of guilt and of the recognized equity of its punishment in the offender. These elements could not have entered into the redemptive sufferings of the Holy One, for he had no guilt to be atoned. 2) Again: a substituted penalty must be equivalent to that for which it is borne, and the merited penalties of sinful humanity are so incomputable, and call for such endless continuance, as to be impossible to be borne by one vicarious substitute. Christ's suffering, therefore, cannot be accounted as an equal, nor, indeed, as an equivalent, punishment for these. Nor is this objection avoided by the suggestion of a reduction

in quantity in proportion to the higher quality, as if it were the payment of gold in the place of silver. It would seem, therefore, that the claims of justice must be satisfied upon some principle other than that of equal or equivalent payment of penalty. Perfect justice, it would seem, requires before its tribunal, where no other principle intervenes, the full payment due from the offender. Nor is it just to inflict the stripes on one innocent as an equivalent substitution of punishment. There was in Christ, it is true, a vicarious atonement for the sin of the world, but not, so far as we can see, in the sense of a full satisfaction by an equivalent penalty. There was, as has been said, a substitute for the penalty, but not a substituted penalty. The latter requires an equal punishment due to the sin of the of fender; the former such a vicarious substitute as that the divine law suffers no dishonor in respect of those who are pardoned after repentance through faith in Christ, and on some principle that does not violate divine law, and so that the ruling or governmental order of God is still honored. 3) If the claims of justice on the satisfaction theory have been satisfied, how can they be further enforced? On this theory those for whom Christ died will certainly be saved, whatever may be their demerit or doings. Where, then, is the necessity for them of repentance and a holy life? or how can it be maintained, that for such and such only was the Great Sacrifice for sin offered? The Gospel call to repentance and faith is made to all; and he that heareth may come, and whosoever will may take of the water of life freely. Christ died for all; and although all may not be saved, it is true that all who obey the Gospel, accepting the condition of salvation, will be saved through the merits of the atonement.

II. There is a better theory than the satisfaction theory. It is called the rectoral or governmental. We name this as prominent among various others. It claims that Christ made an atonement by substitution for the sins of men, in such a sense as to render their forgiveness possible and just, on the condition of true faith in him, after sincere repentance. This theory regards the sufferings and death of Christ not as punitive, but as sufficient within the moral administration and perfect government of a just Sovereign. Justice can still fulfill its demands in the interest of God's moral government, and