T 31.

"Leber an died like this an."

HE Redeemer's death was as peculiar as his life was perfect. Never man died as this man died. His death had in it a peculiarity that renders it inimitable, unapproachable, impossible in any other. No man ever died before, no man can die since as the Saviour died.

It is said by some that Jesus died merely as a martyr dies. This is inexplicable in the light of the records of that death. Martyrs died with agony in their frames, but

with sunshine upon their hearts. But the Saviour died forsaken of heaven, persecuted of earth, tried, beset, and besieged by hell; for his last words were, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" In the martyrology of Christendom we find that the hour of the martyr's keenest agony was the hour of his richest refreshment from the presence of God. It has been alleged by others that the Saviour died to attest and prove his perfect sincerity. But it was not necessary so to die and so to suffer merely to prove his sincerity. Neither Moses, nor Abraham, nor John, suffered violent deaths, and yet nobody doubts their sincerity. To subject one's self voluntarily to death to convince the world of one's sincerity is a very equivocal and questionable close of life. If the Saviour's object had been merely to prove his sincerity, why not have lived

thirty years longer, and given us sixty years of a sincere life, illustrated by splendid miracles, radiant with the divinest wisdom, before He died to seal his sincerity? It is therefore unreasonable to believe that the object of his death was to attest his sincerity.

Others have said that the primary object of his death was to set an example. Why die so early, in order to set an example of dying earnestly and fearlessly, with trust and confidence in God? If it was a mere example, why the ceaseless assertion of its necessity? why the peculiar phraseology employed by apostles and evangelists when they refer to it? "He hath redeemed us by his blood;" "He loved us, and gave Himself for us, that He might reconcile us to God." "Behold the Lamb of God, that taketh away the sin of the world." Is such language as this exhausted by saying that Christ died as an example? If the evangelists understood their own language, they never could have employed such language to denote that the Son of Man died as an example. It has been said by others that the object of the Saviour's death was to show that God was willing to pardon. But the whole Old Testament tells us He is willing to pardon. The object of Christ's death was not to make God willing. It is a monstrous notion that Christ died in order to make God willing to forgive us. God was infinitely willing, and the only question was, How shall He remain holy, just, faithful to all He has uttered? how shall He maintain the integrity of his law, the grandeur of his attributes, the fixity of his throne, and yet admit the criminal and the saint equally to a crown of glory? The solution of the difficulty is found in the cross of Christ. Jesus died not to make God willing to forgive us, but because God was willing, and that there might be provided a channel by which, and through which, and in which God might be just while He justifies the chiefest of sinners that seek Him in Jesus Christ.

Let us try to ascertain what was the true design, only cause, and object of the death of Christ. We will do so, not by mere descrip

tions, but by exhausting the language employed by the sacred penmen, when they speak of the nature and objects of his death.

Daniel says in the Old Testament, "After threescore and two weeks shall Messiah be cut off, but not for Himself." Jesus says, "I lay down my life for the sheep." "For whom Christ died." "One died for all." Now, what is meant by this-what is meant by one dying for all, by laying one's life down for others; what is the sense of such expressions? We ascertain it by an appeal to the same book. To die for any one is never used in Scripture to denote to die as an example. David says, "Would to God I had died for thee, O Absalom!" What do these words mean? They mean, I wish that I had taken upon me the death penalty which thou hast endured; in other words, that I, the father, had died, that thou, Absalom, might escape. Take another illustration of it. "The fathers shall not die for the children, but every man shall die for his own sins." What meaning do we attach to that? That the fathers shall not suffer death that the children may live, but that every one of the children shall suffer the consequences of his own sin.

Scarcely for a righteous man will one die, yet peradventure for a good man one would even dare to die;" that is, die that the other might escape the death penalty. Take all these passages, and let their combined and concentrated light fall upon what is predicated of Christ distinctively and alone; He died for us, He died for sinners; and the meaning is alike obvious and inevitable, He died that we might never die, and suffered that we might never suffer.

Let us turn to another class of expressions. Jesus Christ is said in the New Testament to die for our sins. "He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities." "Christ died for our sins." "He gave Himself for our sins." "Christ hath suffered for sin." Let us look at these passages which describe Christ's death in the light of other passages explanatory of the phraseology employed. I read in Jeremiah, "Every one shall die for his own iniquity." What

does that mean? That he shall suffer the consequences of his iniquity. Again: "The son shall not die for the iniquity of his father;" that is, the punishment incurred by the father shall not light upon the son. Again: "Shall I give my first-born for my transgression? the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?" What does that mean? Shall I present this great sacrifice in order that I may obtain deliverance from the consequences of a great sin? What do all these passages mean? They mean that the iniquity of another shall not be visited on the innocent. But Christ is said to die for our sins, to give Himself for our sins, to have suffered for our sins. Let the concentrated light fall upon the simple text, "Christ died for our sins;" and his death is demonstrated to be not a martyr's agony, but a victim's atonement for the sins of all that believe on his

name.

Let us turn to a third class of passages. Christ is spoken of as a sin offering. "Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin." "Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many." "This man, after He had offered one sacrifice for sin, sat down on the right hand of God." What is the scope and import of these passages? I read in Leviticus v. 15, "If a soul commit a trespass, and sin through ignorance, in the holy things of the Lord, then he shall bring for his trespass unto the Lord a ram without blemish; and the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering, and it shall be forgiven him." "He shall make his soul an offering for sin." Again: "Without shedding of blood there is no remission of sin;" that is, no remission of the punishment due to sin. We gather at once from these passages that Christ's death was in order to bear the sins of many, that He was offered as a sacrifice for the sins of many, and that the word offering means substitution, vicarious sacrifice. As the ancient Jew laid his hands upon the victim's head when it was offered, and all his sins were typically forgiven, so the chiefest of sinners now has but to lay his throbbing, anxious, doubt