FORGIVENESS

acknowledgment of these feelings is looked on as the natural outcome of their existence (Ac 19'»; cf. Ro 10'°, 1 Jn 1'). The hopelessness which at times seemed to have settled down on Jesus, when confronted by Pharisaic opposition, was the result of the moral and spiritual blindness of the religious teachers to their real position (Jn 9'«').

3. Again, following along the line we have traced in the OT, only more definitely and specifically emphasized, the NT writers affirm the necessity for a moral likeness between God and man (cf. Mt 5"). It is in this region, perhaps, that the most striking development is to be seen. Without exhibiting, in their relations to each other, the Divine spirit of forgiveness, men need never hope to experience God's pardon for themselves. This, we are incfined to think, is the most striking feature in the ethical creations of Jesus' teaching. By almost every method of instruction, from incidental postulate (Mt 6i2 = Lk 11«, Mk 112S) to deUberate statement (Mt 1821II- 615, Mk 11», Lk IT*) and elaborate parable (Mt 18"-''), He sought to attune the minds of His hearers to this high and difficult note of the Christian spirit (cf. Col 31S, 1 Jn 4"). Once more, Jesus definitely asserts the limitation to which the pardon and mercy even of God are subjected. Whatever may be the precise meaning attaching to the words 'an eternal sin' (Mk 329), it is plain that some definite border-line is referred to as the line of demarcation between those who may hope for this evidence of God's love and those who are outside its scope (Mt 12'*). See art. Sin, III. 1.

4. We have lastly to consider the words, recorded only by St. John, of the risen Jesus to His assembled disciples (Jn 20*'). It is remarkable that this is the only place in the Fourth Gospel where the word tr. ' forgive ' (RV) occurs, and we must not forget that the incident of conferring the power of absolution on the body of believers, as they were gathered together, is peculiar to this writer. At the same time, it is instructive to remember that nowhere is St. John much concerned with a simple narrative of events as such; he seems to be engaged rather in choosing those facts which he can subordinate to his teaching purposes. The choice, then, of this circumstance must have been Intentional, as having a particular significance, and when the immedi-ately preceding context is read, it is seen that the peculiar power transmitted is consequent upon the gift of the Holy Spirit. On two other occasions somewhat similar powers were promised, once personally to St. Peter as the great representative of that complete faith in the Incarnation of which the Church is the guardian in the world (Mt 16"), and once to the Church in its corporate capacity as the final judge of the terms of fellowship tor each of its members (Mt 18'*). In both these instances the words used by Jesus with regard to this spiritual power differ from those found in the narrative of the Fourth Gospel, and the latter is seen to be more definite, profound, and far-reaching in its scope than the former. The abiding presence of the living Spirit in the Church is the sure guarantee that her powers in judging spiritual things are inherent in her (cf. 1 Co 212-is) as the Body of Christ. Henceforth she carries in her bosom the authority so emphatically claimed by her Lord, to declare the wondrous fact of Divine forgive-ness (Ac 13") and to set forth the conditions upon which it ultimately rests (see Westcott, Gospd of St. John, in loc). Closely connected with the exercise of this Divinely given authority is the rite of Baptism, con-ditioned by repentance and issuing in 'the remission of sins' (Ac 2"). It is the initial act in virtue of which the Church claims to rule, guide, and upbuild the life of her members. It is symbolic, as was John's baptism, of a 'death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness' (Mk l< = Lk 3'; cf. Ro 6', Col 2i2). It is more than symbolic, for by it, as by a visible channel, the living and active Spirit of God is conveyed to the soul, where

FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT

the fruition of the promised forgiveness is seen in the fulness of the Christian life (Ac 2'8, ct. IW- " 19").

5. On more than one occasion St. Paul speaks of the forgiveness of sins as constituting the redemption of the human race effected by the death of Christ (' through his blood' Eph 1', cf. Col 1"); and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasizes this aspect of the atoning work of Jesus by showing its harmony with all with which previous revelation had made us familiar, for ' apart from shedding of blood there is no remission ' (9**). The same writer, moreover, asserts that once this object has been accomplished, nothing further remains to be done, as 'there is no more offering for sin' (10") than that which the 'blood of Jesus' (lO") has accomplished. The triumphant cry of the Crucified, ' It is finished' (Jn 19'°), is for this writer the guarantee not only that 'the Death of Christ is the objective ground on which the sins of men are remitted' (Dale, The Atonement, p. 430 f.); it is also the assurance that forgiveness of sin is the goal of the life and death of Him whose first words from the cross breathed a prayer for the forgiveness of His tormentors. J. R. Willis.

FORNICATION.— See Crimes and Punishments, §3.

FORTIFICATION AND SIEGECRAFT.-Atthedate

of the Hebrew invasion of Canaan its inhabitants were found to be in possession of 'cities great and fenced up to heaven' (Dt 9'; cf. Nu 13*8, Jos 14"), most of them, as is now known, with a history of many centuries behind them. The inhabited places, then as always, were of two classes, walled and unwalled (Dt 3'), the latter comprising the country villages, the former the very numerous 'cities,' which though small in area were 'fenced,' i.e. fortified (the modern term every-where adopted by Amer. RV), 'with high walls, gates, and bars.' In this article it is proposed to indicate the nature of the walls by which these cities were fenced in OT times, and of the fortresses or ' strong holds ' so frequently mentioned in Hebrew history, and finally, to describe the methods of attack and defence adopted by the Hebrews and their contemporaries.

1. Theearliest fortification yet discovered in Palestine is that erected, it may be, as far back as B.C. 4000 by the neolithic cave-dwellers of Gezer. This consisted of a simple bank of earth, between six and seven feet in height, the inside face of which is vertical, the outside sloping, and both cased with random stones (.PEFSt, 1903, 113, with section plan 116; 1904, 200; for date see 190S, 29). A similar 'earth rampart' was found at Tell el-Hesy, the ancient Lachish.

The Semitic invaders, who appeared in Canaan about the middle of the third millennium, were able with their tools of bronze to carry the art of fortification far beyond this primitive stage. Their cities were planted for the most part on an outlying spur of a mountain range, or on a more or less isolated eminence or tell. In either case the steep rock-faces of nature's building may be said to have been the city's first line of defence. The walls, of crude brick or stone, with which art supple-mented nature, followed the contours of the ridge, the rock itself being frequently cut away to form artificial scarps, on the top of which the city wall was built. Consequently the walls were not required to be of uniform height throughout the enceinte, being lowest where the rock scarp was steepest, and highest on that side of the city from which approach was easiest and attack most to be feared. In the latter case, as at Jerusalem, which was assailable only from the north, it was usual to strengthen the defences by a wide and deep trench. Where, on the other hand, the city was perched upon an elevated tell, as at Gezer, Lachish, and in the Shephelah generally, a trench was not required.

The recent excavations in Palestine have shown that the fortifications of Canaanite and Hebrew cities were built, like their houses, of sun-dried bricks, or of stone, or of both combined. When brick was the chief material

270