To deliver that which is greatest on the earth by means which only reflect its greatness, is surely not an immoral thing. The image of the Father in man is the greatest thing earth knows, and the assumption of human nature for the redemption of it, can surely be no offence to any healthy mind. To wreathe the brow of man with glories which time will never dim, can be no expression of injury meant or done. To do it by means that tell how difficult the accomplishment is, can be no objection. Surely this intense love for man, even in his ruins, merits other treatment at the hand of mortals. We know how keen is the satire that bites in our poetry, in our fiction, and in our impassioned pictures of the men who reverence the bricks that inclose a man, and the roast beef he eats, more than the nature that is being overlaid by luxury. We know how strong are the tendencies to fight the battle of money versus man, and how our nobler minds can lash with words of scorn these tendencies. When the "Schiller" was wrecked, the diver, whose painful duty it was to bring up the bodies and search for the treasure, one day laid his hand on a small cask containing some thousands of pounds. The bag used in bringing up discovered materials

was let down at the usual sign, and having put the treasure in it, the diver signalled to be taken up. So excited were the men on the deck of the vessel when they saw the treasure, that they forgot their duty, and, making the treasure secure, allowed the diver to go plunging to the bottom again. He had not them to thank that his life was not lost. But this is just a picture of the way in which a man's surroundings are treated as of more importance than the man himself. Was it so with Jesus Christ? In life and death did He not seek to impress the world with a high sense of the image of God in man? The material setting was nothing. It was the man, the personal, responsible, even sinning man, that was everything; and to save that which is of more value than many worlds, even by the death of the Cross, could surely be no "immoral" thing. Why after nineteen centuries should the Cross be still an offence to men? To brand with eternal infamy that which is the fountain of all the wrongs that men endure, and from which men required to be delivered, can be no objectionable thing. Held up into the light of the Saviour's life and death, what a repulsive thing sin must ever seem? The inner eye that has once

caught a glimpse of the beautiful, can never again look on sin without seeing how ugly it is. The inner ear that has only for a brief space enjoyed the diviner harmony, can never regard sin but as a discord in the universe. But the Cross will ever be to Christian thought the highest expression of what was necessary to restore the whole man to harmony, to retouch the soul until it should become radiant as with a beauty not its

own.

But why, it is asked, if God be a Father, should He have sent the Son to do and endure all of which the Cross is the symbol? Why should He demand anything of the Son as a ground of pardon? Why? Just because He is a Father, a kingly Father, an infinitely wise, upright, and kind Father. A mere despot might have done it otherwise. But shall the majesty of the Father be sunk in the soft thing that mere sentimentality calls mercifulness? Every theory of retribution as well as of propitiation would say no. But why should the Sinless One suffer for the sinful? Who else, we ask, could? Could the sinful so suffer as to secure by it his own release? Only the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world, could truly mani

fest the Father's love, and at the same time offer a sacrifice on the ground of which forgiveness can be preached to man. For the Father sent the Son to be the Saviour of the world.

105

CHAPTER IX.

THE CHARACTER OF THE FATHER.

The

EVERY new form of expression coming from the Saviour's lips demands attention. words "Holy Father" is one. A wonderful one. What formula could be used that would more thoroughly express at once the intensity and the purity of Divine love, than that which the Saviour here uses? The words dip, far at least as words can, into the very depths of the Divine nature and character. Jesus seems as if He would rend thoroughly the veil that we might see God. There is more spiritual philosophy, more spiritual force, more real help for man in these two words than would be found in even the cream of all the literature outside their bearings. A deeper word has never yet been uttered. The expression is focal, into which are collected all rays of all glorious things. It is a lifetime's study. No telegram, no symbol, no message on any principle of multum in parvo could condense into itself so much for thought and life.