in more glaring characters in the sacrifice of the cross, because “God spared not his own Son,” when that Son undertook the penalty of our sin, ‘‘ but delivered him up for us all.” 2. The highest morality comes from the cross. No theory of morals is so persuasive, no precepts so powerful, as the picture of dying love exhibited ‘n the cross, “'The love of Christ constraineth us,” says the apostle; “ because we thus judge, that one died for all, therefore all died ; and he died for all, that they which live should no longer live unto themselves, but unto him who for their sakes died and rose again” (Revised Version) ; and also, “ He gave himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, and to purify unto himself a peculiar people, zealous of good works ;” and once more, “The life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.” Oh, how can we go on in sin if we reflect, as we ought, that sin crucified the Lord of life and glory; if we reflect that it was sin inflicted those wounds upon him; if we remember that sin caused him that agony of soul as well as anguish of body, when, in the language of the prophet, he might well say, “Is it nothing to you, all ye that pass by? behold, and see if there be any sorrow like unto my sorrow, which is done unto me, wherewith Jehovah hath afflicted me in the day of his fierce anger;” if we consider that our sin was laid upon him and borne by him when “he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross,” and when “he put away sin by the sacrifice of himself”? The way to purify our fallen humanity and elevate the standard of morality is not by moral lessons, however proper and useful in their own place, but by leading sinners to the foot of the cross, and by pointing to that cross as embodying three arguments, than which there is nothing more potent or more powerfully persuasive in all the universe besides. The first argument which the blood that flowed on that cross embodies is the mercy of God the Father, in reopening the channel of his love which sin had dammed up and closed. The second argument is the love of God the Son, in assuming our nature, in agonizing and sweating, in being smitten and scourged and spit upon and scomed, in being cruelly crowned and crucitied ; and all to “ finish transgression, and to make an end of sins, and to make reconciliation for iniquity, and to bring in everlasting righteousness.” The third argument is the grace of God the Holy Spirit, in sprin- kling the blood thus shed on the conscience, when he brings home the death of Christ, in the power and demonstration of faith, to the sinner’s heart. How is it possible to resist this triple argument? How is it possible to go on in sin, which caused our Lord such suffering, and when such love—the love of the Trinity—is constraining us to abandon it tor ever? 3. The innocence of the Sufferer. Heaven and earth attested his innocence. Friend and foe bore witness to it. A noble Roman lady, wife of the governor, warned her lord, saying, ‘“‘ Have thou nothing’to do with that just man.” Pilate himself, the judge, informed chief priests and people, “I find no fault in this man.” Again a second time, having assembled chief priests and rulers and people, he affirmed publicly and positively Jesus’ innocence in the following strong terms :—* Behold, I, having examined him before you, found no fault in this man touching those things whereof ye accuse him: no, nor yet Herod: for he sent him back unto us; and behold, nothing worthy of death hath been done by him” (Revised Version). Once more, for the third time, he asserted his innocence, saying, “ Why, what evil hath he done? I have found no cause of death in him.” Judas, the traitor, admitted the same thing, saying, “ I have betrayed innocent blood.” The Roman centurion, who superintended the execution, cried out, “ Certainly this was a righteous man;” and again, after he had seen the earthquake and those things that were done, “‘l'ruly this was the Son of God.” One of the malefactors, his companion in suffering, frankly acknowledged, “This man hath done nothing amiss.” The whole record of his trial furnishes the plainest and most positive evidence of his innocence, Satau had tried him, and found nothing in him. God the Father had owned him three times by an auslible voice from heaveu. He had committed no offence against the religion of the land, no crime against the laws of his country, no sin against Gud. He went about continually doing good; he was acknowledged to have done all things well; he was “ holy, harmless, undefiled, and separate from sinners.”
“ We held him as condemn’d by Heaven, An outcast from his God,
While for our sins he groan’d, he bled, Beneath his Father’s rod.
on, xv. 1—47.] THE GOSPEL ACCORDING TO ST. MARK. 843
“ His sacred blood hath wash’d our souls From sin’s polluted stain; His stripes have heal’d us, and his death Revived our souls again.”