the marvelous doctrine which he passes in review is, for our author, but a specimen of mere human thinking, and he studied it as any other specimen of the ingenuity of men might be studied. He cannot, therefore, complain if his own production excite irresistibly in the mind of the critical reader certain reflections upon himself as a phenomenon in the Christian. world. His difficulties and perplexities, considered in this light, are full of interest. He seems, from the beginning of his book, completely in the dark as to certain very fundamental and. simple Christian ideas. "In the New Testament the death of Christ is at times spoken of as if it could be regarded in some sense a sacrifice by which the believer is relieved from the condemnation of his sin." Strange, is it not! "The hold which the view [of sacrificial substitution] has taken of the Christian world" is another mystery. "Ethical fellowship with Christ" is, as we have seen above, an "incomprehensible" thing with him. And the passage (Rom. viii. 9-11) which speaks of life by the Spirit of the indwelling Christ, provokes the expression of puzzlement: "If we could fully understand this passage we should thoroughly comprehend the positive doctrine of Paul," which for himself he cannot. But the origin of these difficulties, when considered in the light of the whole book, is perfectly plain. Professor Everett does not approach the study of Christian doctrine from the Christian standpoint. He is hopelessly astray as to the entire significance of Christianity. His book has no connection with the Christianity of the church or the Bible. He is a Unitarian and a Humanitarian. He serves to illustrate mournfully how remote from all real Christian fellowship the school of thinkers to which he belongs is and must remain. The book is a pitiable milestone upon the road by which Unitarianism has departed from the precious fellowship of believers. Scientific value, it has none.

ARTICLE VII.

AN APPEAL FROM A VERDICT OF HISTORY.

BY THE REV. WILLIAM E. BARTON, D. D.

No incident connected with the crucifixion is more familiar, and few have served as a theme for more discourses, than that of the so-called penitent thief. Turning to Jesus in the last hours of his life, praying while his companion mocked, and receiving the promise of an immediate meeting with the Saviour in Paradise, his repentance has been the standing example, as his acceptance by the Saviour has been the assurance, of forgiveness for the worst of crimes in the last moments of life. It is possible, however, that this use of the passage has been overdone, and it may be that the almost universal association of this incident with the tardy repentance of desperate sinners not only has been unjustified, but has prevented our seeing some of the important lessons. connected with it.

It is worth while to devote some attention to a consideration of the character of this man and his petition. The prayer is one of the most remarkable in the sacred volume, and the character of the man who offered it is worthy of a more careful examination than has usually been accorded him. It has been assumed almost without question that he was one of the worst of sinners, and the homiletic imagination has dilated upon his supposed crimes. As a matter of fact, we know nothing against him excepting that he was condemned as a malefactor by a very unjust tribunal; while there are some facts which, if they do not prove him an innocent or worthy man, may at least be held to establish a

reasonable doubt of his having been a vicious criminal. The world has often been hasty in the judgment of the lives of men of whom it has known little. A good deal of our historical research has resulted in reversing the opinions of the past. The verdict of history concerning Cromwell has changed within the last twenty years; many of the best scholars now hold an opinion concerning the heretic Montanus in direct opposition to the almost undisputed verdict of the ages. Huss and Bruno and Savonarola are considered very different men than the world at one time regarded them. Not always is the voice of the people the voice of God. Let us bring up the case of this alleged thief for a new trial. Let us take an appeal from the verdict of history to a later and fairer generation than that which condemned him, and whose hasty and unjust verdict the world has repeated and approved. Let us not receive the proposition to reconsider his case as though it were visionary and fruitless, but, sitting as an impartial jury, dismissing from our minds. all preconceived opinions, consider this case as though we had heard of it for the first time. Let us not, as a jury, be influenced by what the world has thought of this man. The world has not been disposed to do him justice; we have taken a change of venue and expect that the case will now be tried according to law and evidence. What this article hopes to show, not demonstrably, but with a reasonable probability, is that the man has been considered a criminal on probably insufficient evidence; that the word which is used in the New Testament to describe his crime should have a different rendering, and one susceptible of an interpretation making it possible to believe his offense to have been not criminal, but political. And if this can be shown to be probable, his antecedent moral condition will appear to have been much better than has been supposed. It will appear at least possible that he may have been, nay, more than likely whose prayer shows

was, a patriot, a brave and earnest man,

remarkable faith, knowledge of the Scriptures, and insight into the nature of the kingdom of God.

I. THE MAN.

I. Let us understand, to begin with, that almost the sole reason we have for believing him to have been a criminal, comes from an unquestionably wrong translation of the Greek word rendered "thief." He was not a thief in the ordinary acceptance of the term. The Greek word is not κλέπτης, which means " thief," and from which comes our word "kleptomaniac," but Anors, a very different word, in the Revised Version rendered “robber.”1 That it should have been rendered "thief" in King James' Version is no surprise, if we remember that the literature of the Elizabethan period uses the words "thief" and "robber" interchangeably. A robber is one who obtains possession of others' goods by violence; a thief is one who obtains them by stealth. These men crucified with Christ were probably thought of as none too good to have come into unlawful possession of other people's goods, but the act of robbery is not certainly charged against them, and the preeminent idea was not that of stealth, but of violence. The Anor's is a bandit, but not a thief. deed, the term is sometimes applied to men where the thought of pecuniary gain was entirely absent. In Northern Africa. an ancient inscription refers to Joshua as ő Aŋotýs. But not even his worst enemy ever thought of calling Joshua a thief. So far then as the meaning of the Greek word is concerned, let us remember that this is almost all we know against the man. His alleged crime may well have placed him in the category with such men as Joshua.

In

2. We are certain that this man was a Jew. It was not lawful to crucify a Roman. Moreover, this man feared the God of the Jews, for he asked his companion, "Dost not thou 1 See Trench's New Testament Synonyms, pp. 211-215.

2 See Shakespeare's King Henry IV.

fear God?" implying that he did, and supposed that his companion did. And we may find it easy to believe that he was familiar with the Jewish Scriptures and sacrifices.

3. As has been said, there is good reason to believe his offense was political rather than criminal. This is really the whole point involved in the present contention, so that the evidence will appear as we proceed. For the present let us remark on one or two points of too small importance to be considered under the other heads of the argument.

(1) Notice that he speaks to his companion of being "in the same condemnation" with Christ. This may mean simply that they were dying at the same time, but it seems to imply that they were dying under a similar sentence.1 Christ's alleged offense was a political one,-rebellion against the Roman power. The fact that the bandit speaks of himself and his companion as in the same condemnation is not of course conclusive evidence, and yet it suggests that possibly the use of that phrase meant something more to him. than that both He and they were undergoing crucifixion.

(2) If these men had been ordinary ruffians, what appropriateness would there have been in the prayer of the impenitent one, "If thou be the Christ, save thyself and us"? What had Jesus in common with robbers that should make his being the Christ a ground for his helping them to escape the just reward of their crimes? If he were the Christ, and they were criminals, they might expect anything rather than that he would assist them to cheat justice. But if these men were political offenders, then the prayer would mean, "It thou be the Christ, thy mission is to free Israel from the Roman yoke. We are condemned for having attempted the same. We have a legitimate claim on thy power. We are all in the same condemnation. If, therefore, thou be the

'Alford says of his words, "This man hath done nothing amiss," "This is a remarkable testimony to the innocence of Jesus from one who was probably executed for his share in these very tumults which He was accused of having excited."