that the Cross had forever removed it.

"I examine all these views, beautiful as some of them are, appealing
to the pride of man, but which leave out all thought of vicarious
atonement, and say, 'But what shall be done with my sin? Who shall
put it away? Where is its sacrifice? If without shedding of blood
there is no remission of sin, where is the shed blood?' These
views are neat, measurable, occasionally pathetic, and frequently
beautiful, but they do not include the agony of the whole occasion
and situation. They are aspect theories, partial conceptions. They
do not take in the whole temple from its foundation to its roof.
No man must set up his judgment against that of another man in a
dogmatic way, but he may, yea, he must, allow his heart to speak
through his judgment; and in view of this liberty, I venture to
say that all these theories of the atonement are as nothing, most
certainly shallow and incomplete to me . . . . As I speak now,
at this very moment, I feel that the Christ on the Cross is doing
something for me, that His death is my life, His atonement my pardon,
His crucifixion the satisfaction for my sin, that from Calvary,
that place of a skull, my flowers of peace and joy blossom forth,
and that in the Cross of Christ I glory."--_Joseph Parker._

IV. THE NECESSITY OF CHRIST'S DEATH.

The necessity of the atonement lay in a twofold fact: The holiness
of God, and the sinfulness of man. The doctrine of the atonement
is a related subject, and it cannot be properly understood unless
it is viewed as such. It is related to certain conditions existing
between God and man--a condition and relation which has been affected
by sin. It is necessary, therefore, to know this relation and how