Of no one in all the glorious company of the apostles, or in all the goodly fellowship of the prophets, or in al] the noble army of martyrs, or in all the holy Church throughout all the world, could it be said, “ He was crucified for you.” How, then, are we to account for the unparalleled sufferings of the Son of God; for the indescribable distress that overwhelmed him during those sufferings ? What reason can we render for the transcen- dent value ascribed to the gift of God’s Son—that unspeakable gift ; for the incomparable worth of the boon, so that all other benefits sink into insignificance when placed besids it? How are we to explain the fact that, amid the utmost chariness of human eulogy, we find the highest praises everywhere throughout this Book lavished on the Son of God? How comes it to pass that while we are instructed to “cease from man, fee wherein is he to be accounted of ?” we are invited to look up with greatest reverence to the Man Christ Jesus, as placed far above the proudest pinnacle of earthly grandeur, and his name raised high above every name, so that in honour of that name “ every knee should bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father”? Even in heaven the Lamb, in the midst cf the throne, as he had been slain, is still the marvel of the universe; while the key-note of the song sung by the redeemed in glory, and ever sounding along the arches of the sky, is, ‘“‘ Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing.” What is the solution of all this? We have no doubt, and feel no difficulty in giving a decided and definite answer to all questions of the sart proposed, for Scripture itself supplies that answer. It is because he “came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many ;” it is because he “ hath loved us, and hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet-smelling savour ;” it is because he “ bare our sins in his own body on the tree,” suffering, “ the just for the unjust, to bring us to God ;” it is because “ he was made sin for us, though he knew no sin, that we might be made the righteousness of God in him; ” itis because in him “ we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace.” Why, again, are there so many Scriptures all bearing on this same subject? Just to exhibit it under its various aspects and from sundry standpoints ; just to explain it more clearly and enforce it more fully ; and, still more, to awaken our liveliest interest in it, and impress us with a due sense of its supreme and paramount importance. 2. The sufferings of the cross vicarious. Objections have been urged against the fairness of the holy suffering in the stead of the unholy, and the objectors strive to explain away the fact of such substitution. To such objectors we reply—If you object to the fairness of the holy suffering in the room of the unholy, and seek to explain it away, we object to the fairness of what you can never explain away—of what you must admit, however reluctant, and cannot deny, however desirous. If you object to the holy suffering in place of the unholy, we object to the holy suffering at all; and yet you are bound toacknowledge that the Holy One has suffered, and cannot venture, so long at least as you credit the Gospel narrative, to gainsay the historic fact. But perfect holiness is justly entitled to happiness, and by the law of Heaven is (as it should be) entirely exempt from suffering ; and therefore, unless the Holy One suffered in the room and stead of the unholy, his sufferings would not only be most unjust, but at the same time altogether merningless. 3, The doctrine of substitution in both secular and sacred history. Of the very many instances of this doctrine of substitution met with in the pages of both sacred and secular history, a few examples may be here adduced, Judah intreated Joseph that ne might be kept instead of Benjamin—a bondman in his room. After an address of most pathetic and powerful pleading, he says, “ Now there- fore, I pray thee, let thy servant abide instead of the lad a bondman to my lord; and tet the lad go up with his brethren. For how shall | go up to my father, aud the lad be not with me? lest peradventure I see the evil that shall come on my father.” In the days of King David an unnatural war broke out. Rebels banded themselves against their sovereizn; his son became their leader. A disastrous battle was fought in the wood of Ephraim, and the young man Absalom was slain. One messenger follows on the heels of another, saying, “ ‘lidings, my lord the king;” while his question is once aud again the same, “Is the young man Absalom safe?” The king, it is plain, would rather nave lost the battle than his son; he would have parted with his kingdom
on. xv. 1—47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 839