SQLite format 3@ V tU?-!indexidx_topics_wordindex_wordtopics_wordindexCREATE INDEX idx_topics_wordindex_word on topics_wordindex(word, priority)\5yindexidx_topics_rel_ordertopicsCREATE INDEX idx_topics_rel_order on topics(rel_order)m))tablecontent_searchcontent_searchCREATE TABLE content_search(topic_id integer primary key, data blob)s--tabletopics_wordindextopics_wordindexCREATE TABLE topics_wordindex(id integer, word text, priority integer)BatableconfigconfigCREATE TABLE config(name text, value text)dtablecontentcontentCREATE TABLE content(topic_id integer primary key, data BLOB, data2 blob) mtabletopicstopicsCREATE TABLE topics(id integer primary key, pid integer default 0, subject text, rel_order, content_type string) 5|@a J5Appendixrvf@w10. The Christ of the Cross the Desire of All Nationsrvf0 W9. The Missionary Energy of the Crossrvf( G8. The Redemption of the Bodyrvf6 c7. The Life of Self-Crucifixion with Christ rvf? u6. The Soul's Saving Relation to the Death of Christ rvf2 [5. The Cross as a Redeeming Achievement rvf6c4. The Nature of Christ's Reconciling Death rvf8g3. The New Testament Use of Crucifixion Terms rvf7e2. Sources of Confusion Respecting the Crossrvf:k1. The Cross Distinguished from the Crucifixionrvf/Table of ContentsrvfForewordrvf/UThe Meaning and Message of the Crossrvf3Henry C. Mabie -Biorvf } ] 8+! n7 i7         crossp 5o Cu̒~ǂ/0/ ?9E p Ԁ kZ{P@urU՗RwFD1;|R1jwk9J%aP!#Z4͕=#dU)RNb mdW)AFV1:>3L pIĮ_D#>%|MMJtIrb2{JioJZ`K^pkKvyb IAoHb 藃sd?ch5>]kEb.lj-lc.-c%ϡ"W=$srmtR,쏻'c[EgYHH (F`o:]|H\pDx>z4Gp kY$C-sh~ QNjmLH 5|t=1Y~P>w 1VwF|dIJf hn|<[c^zܞ8 5ڣFxQTR `}ToM!w-reMMF9(7[\g|Ta(SmPvb|d' -*C6tj gD}ⷻV'}4r R;3^sba7w+xq  lj(.]g뒃,nԾ,9hJt'X%(nQ##ˣy;~z }b?VpJz,Å^c ΁p,+1Vq-rOA лy ˸"xI[q@Jki3[Ǒd-]g=o@cD6fHܚ1t<:3 < w}n>khbDe{(wm/V2HͮU+o]./`di`1gVMN(Rrv^ xL':ϞUf>[0М|ZjD#gb12\bZQ7/>YY21v͕߳A?,D|3wa ar1IAˀp|y/3bCK ~cZ.+AEtLj^݊xb Q[[Q++a & KS&r0(/ aNw29P 55PRݴgKPwGce.IpO UY=wJ0ܕ&^-JtjK=2K 엔{.aN0뱥 1U`u-{ iZe˺V[K7SWt^Z@~Kc< i=ZD'! xfth6z]BkƉ\ꥼׇ3Ѱ҂zS՘{MkȰPH==1K_w>xZ^Hkީ+_N!8Qs*g \;wk Mt)m1ڪge:׊ɰTR"N׺^ɟyO{\iS2j\7Q-;^_)_{|졲싽U@d>Ւjwz](Tb R`)a[u@!`QH1#מ9V^$p#wJ 1쫊ΜΎk_BS,3{XiH+ѡ{ѩ;TΔԳ {~\bK.0SgDž0dUf IF=CDB;SXCІyeSyd:Vu9}qa#zqJ!b.+VӰ2#)إYL]JQ: T|^~=^}-rG(c#ZXu}戧H\27{&RSO;}1D3mhBhԤQd21 [\&[2Ux8HR1gMhe)I *9Ò&~ƖhMf{pzgLL>?f̻5HnzPBg#t~ (~M#"H gd4. Ld߁wʠ7=!{h&fhh'vW g?OKyu(crM\յ]U}Vp^rgb5tMV+Uxt1|GY71}.^-4È @1ն1Y,:0VNm51jFR՛~/*BSТRCQ~@3).e^*[yjѥkϰ[S]gN-ф{/:1RW vylC8`5a ]gyhzzNZ~3 躡iưA8(5/)2bxgοdDîK&~#Oy+Ql:o9ʻnT/@g!P%Ș&eb*Ч`F3VՒ37jf2׊dO;"Ȭ?]t\O5?MA{pE:C÷bJVY{0i^&u[_jVJ1̤_}ә6 a\*;={:( a' _?>bN}+,BOR%>Bԓ'aT恮 Y;l0؆6<;Lp~KpYw-m AU0_)+yt2V(*U^ye,+TMipROK!=yMt!z; ;wi\mmmoOQbP47Qdx Cm M0jfc {$72Ȃ9&EGi. ?E1RN&3w?f0b]9 d>^J]%ѭI'Mzȕ:Pd r接N5ӗ,Ho%8f/{h}NE 6C_D5&@ÖXkܵrNU(>Oh^#_}%TaKXezAob!pRwb PFp(ݦy®K_ib-wCҶYS_k\ 9I:;]˭vóg<ܰ]~֔L2>[)xo'HQ/fj4HM73 f,/ES$ErH-}G_/L=e$ 'b6n@O_!f 9X.w͐ RRm{M(6 gY>(*q0JSQr)HQ v|O BeJ)CmT&6-I2HVF˸uBGFRezd_a'8Cf3gEj<')7 0w5T@* @{eJrTC~F c""3B*2F),@C1ϛpYXFFzKFI9&[RHgvhȣ& <˧E9a&Qj]3:2UN@Z@;IZhњ5jF –g#M*jI='zŅ}RtjrL~_4S^bjOhCK9/3VwA5[IR6+_ ܂0 :|sGvx̫sJ9XEU> B$<1v<7Qdx Cm M0jfc  v GJoT@ W~Gym5m.fNY&C] ֭f'b`͠`5߃.}CZeKr͂s׈UK9N4ЪHW"ɪMA^`iNk w3* 3ŽUM̏zf[\(F e'% -m \ٿ=;a5kB؝xB قy%jp*=W{SgRЇ]8r ք-"ǟ&&(9؝[ qH{[C+v8I52/H%@|;5E{7Ȗ.@$Fג-b{<$bO1%PvRiy "ǹV܀D4p#pY*~X}?q&Q"'qs8d|KVM>79$rhVM:5_ɂ _}:l%̾}eH;&aiWr⊬lh<,pNr -:B5M`aʑ F̂䗂UQ|*P属ǫl̍. k4%;<@i ,-Zd_ݬvV'տ'>XJdLjMu6g*#t O2jO<ʎ-X[zꈗ1 Q Q$gs%0+Wb|M \*~oT J8PAl"Gek !i[m|}+X/$+ધ鞮)( Z@^ldbmTսIdcXI?$z zPn>K.fw\7Pob4^9X|AƹkG 6#(oja:EUnVB}Chan ]>D %~\-q)ЋnkFT咹|7' !Ֆ8URe 񁐌*zSͣTϳF5NDS})UjZ_+w^P >2&fYW@dĘ#?9<9#{;9ӍHu#(d1׀#Z0͖P#S Qc,V*|dl"~[W7+pCc#g2䯵P{WmW S;GV*ׂшj_5mgd/tc W-1ip-܁RÒ: Νo{o7cM:D;GL\ Q]/:-\xcpgc BˆbQJp~ H蓉%zcve5Խ:'t"D2YF;͝-%1 ^}2>B gZcC:/z"G`Mê59U-LC45+GJ`%!3뭵?E<\-jh(XgI7W_+0?>eԓ¾8D b 5+c;%TlEìS^KKXZr:PE}w7;`t8| ϱ8ȋH㞾 is6fעd}5f ڽ B!a8fJm*Ҥ.ND~^Cw1juA6?G,~zb3:/7ʰ P2@"QX2=2нT;(-1ߊvbZ?DX+V> F kқ( co7T{oOuB[M)pWhYvC$_{La16Oy kX*SsVi&kv@`Iƃ@2/轷~i=H`ߘ><M_у}rdt{iy"ִ0ׯ"o>/\˪o+JͭHj]zk:q=O9xQmL\.=M6_߮7KLMg`[7Oم=,=7z-0$_#ܣY}`ͩ p6.ӸNo8[ucߜًgSkW7Q!gu87q/xģ81'_޸vϚơg7Mz$eaݸUobu?N}d~>{'=ikRPY}~]鷪mZUۦjjCSmgwƻU˫j{okE[sz?4м{\,;_u׳L}X<@'*6ܛc8FMzWMbwd:/^W~ h݋}狭gf5{ٯީN-:Z"C{+y;;w/|E>\4ڹ]+=6"¯X;wpYc^V|c|+i(d4d̗Vg};@{_g7y|gcwnýYun=|;y6'*[f*3i![Uc޻Jxo^{]ZJ P[nzapQy^Q7msu#z͗W%Psw] (+ s>hK3+_ps"]\JVЂk|˭(}ǃ{Ѩ=ثPhN Fo`spion and the fall-The promised "seed"-Salvation for all potential in Christ-Danger of repudiation, (c) The redemptive provision establishes a peculiar claim-Repentance required-Repentance defined-Complete abandonment to the Redeemer-Philosophy of salvation comes afterwards-No ground for complaint on basis of heredity, (d) Continued repudiation of Christ's redemptive claim the worst sin-Usually the last sin recognized-God's sensitive point-Reciprocation of this sensitiveness in repentance, (e) A dilemma nowvwxrefulness in statement requisite-Exceptional discernment of the dying penitent-The cross either man's glory or his stumbling-block-The cross of our glorying, not the crucifixion-crime. 2. Sources of Confusion Respecting the Cross . . . . . . . 10 Ambiguity in term "death of Christ"-more than mere dissolution-More than murder-Emphasis of Romanism on the tragedy-Tissot's paintings-The Mass-Oberammergau Passion-Play-Yet impressional value in the tragedy-Place fthe second death must ensue-Something actual rejected. 6. The Soul's Saving Relation to the Death of Christ . . . . 39 Messages involved in the cross of Christ-The previous discussion and the soul's salvation-A personal decision required-Several underlying principles, (a) The oldest fact in the universe, the Reconciliation-"The lamb foreordained"-Effect not the cause of divine love-No afterthought. (b) All human souls exist on presupposition of a coming Redeemer-The purpose to redeem antecedent to creatHis cross set at naught the world-principle or the Satanic philosophy-The denial of a personal devil-The age-long conflict-Christ's exorcism of demons, (c) The cross destroys the nexus between sin and spiritual death-Judgment becomes grace-"Loosed from thine infirmity"-Redemption rather than evolution the final philosophy-"Judgment unto victory." (d) The cross adjudges humanity to Christ as a reversionary treasure,-this only a potentiality, however-A voluntary acceptance by faith required-This refused, or the martyr-principle-Even the crime of the crucifixion overruled-The sensation of all time-The Reconciliation itself however deeper down-Protestant representations also often faulty-The term "blood of Christ" needs interpretation-Preciousness of the symbol. 3. The New Testament Use of Crucifixion Terms . . . . . 15 Scripture texts needing interpretation-Paradox of the Messiah of humiliation-The wisdom of apparent divine folly-Paul as crucified to the world-Gloried not in the crucifixion but in its opposite in principle-A paradoxical statement common in New Testament-Redemption turns the tables on sin-Rejected stone made head of the corner-Moral of The Book of Esther-The Feast of Purim ironical in character-Nailing the indictment to the Cross-The divine derision of evil-The death of death-Sin's suicide-Not Christ but Satan the real outcast-The Eagle and the Fish-Christ's elevation through the cross-The cross an ironical emblem. 4. The Nature of Christ's Reconciling Death . . . . . . . . . 21 Christ ""?xڽ\IGvh$"E`QDE)OL8&4b-)PJ]Ԃ&}p[2_.n!7T-[2ǏOݙ>?O'>GGߍg{wk^ޝhﾘBK6[/2˪l/uInPi/FOtmgݻ2SujIUTԝjjvZ'uU_‡˥JzV=E|x,/WʺB`Z_'w?9>MRL5ioۼ*uߨlP/=%G]-!b6)n:Y'u[__}{V%q*o1}[wK}^}>8[v#GP AwNVu]R>HWѡwrηIղ'];vlU/fE*7lo}QU_":W6_G@}?J?~h?_#Cr}k;'jTڑ#~h`4?Z׾z_hTm/Oy[m_NݹƣQwǣj_6ohٍezΠ=}U% >-g nqSO*~[GyaNvIVn{Ջww}V=|#O?~?q9q9Zx|TQ^w,F^uW-ϖp]QwnGe_Y̳vcN,e_Lz|zv?=/^^|~_O>i|3`*;Ӭp~h?#Dv %$c1yhH$ƣ&-fDjWw/np_+{ksqSU@{{'Wϵ@sH9gڬ}BWa=#>=3Xȕi;DF|FW‚)&4NC̕Va)n`Aָ=; *Pw/A͡ 瞜4fC7n*a <f3%*Wdo?E3Pqէ×Jwb\l,uL))~ۻ; 'Jh!chOkFqg@5 UT+qQ VDkp טzL;VMh f<")ߝbADSTh۾f֕0N5f]^nlРtw&w[CmKេhFÝ,'Tw_sUṟKP3:jR^{|&'@c~%&u1c)f#r[? ҚhۨxGpx-PaB ]fQ ! =_ R ;!yD̠ v>ɑk`'g0'S޹ـYYz m-Sw96]B)>U$FƇfd@2P9m IUvS_ˆ9\ݐd{cxYu@ޑ; $2 Ő08e:)Ӗo*RH%G*t=]q~̓E h귤q>P)'Y?hS0ݬ "U  G uŇ(hWm`1$)SYvM pJ^v_ah$q–Ś:tAtA"NI`82Zluzňܑeǝ.@u𤔔 cW+}+X4%;+L uQPǒ} UĄp _a9ZV?ԕN( W)E~jA!bR =; VҘ,cGM=#5q'Ƌݪhs `>fwt9.gUD(5]f3P< 3bvt%R9%E[ZaE }0Kєַ!e9̈́K+Ɵ38KmEI/ q5&]!H-W]x? faъ9G맅t8āF0"!<2i/'[ 㭥}: ̄`zǫ}, :AJLh/40= {Id7IohEiY8p?[O/H_#P4hȭDž5ČbSXfsz6RC U t%:A{2gbF 9KNYPK-50d;*ky(a;daGuuZU"\~~ HGch6:!KxfMSOB!f\%p XvL/GsA,*ɘ)=B`m*3CU'%k8Gؐ+~\vP=^3὿g&0*[}Av):́'xW4kS4-ZShD2!>kOX70( etj$0U:1b4ǡ4"9a8>0i6PAqvIޘѬj/ENֲΪ cU$$cZ5 I'u`7>X JG>\5@X'J9H2SaQ^abϦN/GpZ+XqU#(h#eM6!!'iGqN9j4qk-}zF}YTQ)ܹ)Ulɘ! lɽdcOV쿰 4BJ7rg0Y m^81`|bJ BZl0%3ybqNF_R{"RNs.yndm8Xq r!?Jё!5pz7m@~iz#M5}Fg=L)sBeQp):1 lh%h1711{/KUЅk} PJ]{W%^-ΎOwr_KN 8ٳ(BvvװSx0]2~8&6Z -mg%м՞Y4jEy֯H( &G%tubPqW>}E̴It2eJ\^r0zkURQvep+Kśc+)7nI `_MLd1^jBZџAv򅩷6+w [0cMVp JK_[jK-PH66^L،y6ռsZ:?%?욭֊$PqL,dJ6dy>Xe8`dvm yL%/qbiggg󛘪ϰpʖŻ2x*q-o![UEB]Gi+ t~*}E|KNeҮUl EnŜ R$WsUӯLvd'*_ѯcбZtKOLH[Y/P W(?Yk2ճKʵCcWZ8 3Ss1_>\šoXyE6ՐJsOGus\_c9u<&'̽R Uc%y׉ :G#yC %R}B)븸9 5sK>D&񾮠NcBVBJxfqBOi@2)6wQʎ68bȇҚW{ϰ6y|A3 뼧$Rt#lxUm{^qe߄8KйrsmqSGWU 狼TF` FY Q1jӉ[0LƠ,);tUkx' 8ÒJT6BY V3ږ-=YR8{MJեm;yܜ6Lb#;iju\_an`7s lJ*rIn1q#\8sxkTIep.jzbps!fRE\UJ;UT$?pd%R HZ{QQGm!:){";g 5e'r~pb`z-!C\ўLh Fgƺy&*sϢR!.ϩ4dINIJ>.ӓ]TH%cF|K9{ we1CDta@kG@E'@ T"N"'lJS_RAL8CBvrsڨ|qRs e["92#:A;%ɮ2VWwBϦgVˡyh_MHOaA&D)u2&iYziTp=EMgGT [F%8y3[D(0R"(ýPO4(4۝i@awL=`|^CCݻq-\{{WpL6YyJ(p翤򶽮 -u;*{Фj¡]AвVBPPi1}t< E]/^Ia5iY!j6gwU$?$?fw$&A02s:SoIioأ]iY< ࣄ}8t,B<fa)!ZH EھA\v!@-@Y[l8ƑJt̡vThm|KiRٍ"(| թJ{< I@S҄eu䙊6$_9Eo?Gх UZL!CFCk[-ۣ/Ri[$cXI|Hcx|7#ZS)ڕ2u"'CIPˑ~gEÕXfٗiX#>,PVId1<ޭM4)}(Wux<!˷sM) W{ׇsP$s@#`aOn1e.A\'m&؈ hbk X2)MAGl| Jx'ާY; :dܑi6\G T,F]PN^ &#K5Q{MnyE 9oԎNkia=":ŏB0QF19N X}zBh}v ŭ:TR-mք?1!\3v?1νe{JK_y PY!uUH:'E1eoԷ(̉XR+=5@(jE|juCx y©25NU fs՜V8xZ~Zi(5B.k<!bW¶~q2BJ>k(Mg، '+).; SpQJk x\`g2ziܻ6'Їxϟy70Զ5ܠbsu-oԵ*+)k) U4daFEj-*T_;_P/1=ny#χu {\D*:+6;XSkv&oZ6JHSS|6$I3ݩr6PqOT%5Dr1!ryr{ҷaކ1=Y ] ; RK}R(\W{“ 7,"Sp0`fWwq|I4ڴ(-718ǚj%q 9J^YM_s5ɰPgHʑtb: ro]e 2|㢹:DMx)Օ>;wp/9sX%m5$oH.e$$&T| w60spc//#t8b'dNN.ldFt {l}K7aNrk&Jl(44z !yG*3RZ JZK[iU_Gi}L e$6`4.xZDz ;Hk3UKz&.X$3JU83u_i[n =goԶP9=|HyhDmZU};.o9Է`DFHLaZ?:}Ek Nzm7jo.(ߐ %+8④,VVA;qč)Ďe" le&ݰz{@쓣z{{JwjnW#?l_95FdE;җ#xwq;|<E*ҝ(LzZk!6v>s tdž+uYs矘:1ջ=Ox7ʶk|i[+ߓKL ǿtG So|PW7Qdx Cm M0jfc _@xڽ]YGrj%}v^d90X(C% eJG4'ZwQY]Yk @wuUV_f%N??sh|w|z~㳳{^}]m;}9dw.O]vhK.sw"䃑ow{ˬn?ϞeEK*G27WucH,-gPfɲ,HW&>qY->|Y?k?G5׷4Xjqꤹ޼޼~d㫿ǘIM0{zeqY:.wM{=+_@ܪr5NΛ'OMRsK7?~⃧Y*խ÷cw|{,*yE }tyFO}gw#eH*O8&x%ȈW+bBswjUZ rzo[![H*pg6:?WG.5| /hWg4dR 9Zod õ3E!u묕U נNg9iP)Elh'}˕9\1~t2KFgB/v ~ZWK4-ik[2&K.^/5d]"ghhq(PȢQcK:>E>~"?8W4w"sxzߕIL wqc_ ,^%:$>Gy}& pq GĶ%KיUEg:3-S9ehq?BąKb%;܂:o@<QT!reiIEc? V q^h\_zkys*sACڒ4OCH,{ Y%{@02V])Dt+>hѧ$#Uoj ;kH4D[64q̶&o;%}=/Qmf_Qdx toKWo#*cm,D%)jF)a$>ь;,H|8?#ęja/H^תKXR^r'7 !'N/?h+Q70%q5߃VHKH_qw|CUBN VeiI. g=oFvRx<@R=IMɛ/=mEzP Ĺ{6Ry]9:z|cv6dmL/o5<8FS~%|qMgh襔l#,A'r piN\V1!R7;yM9FJa[;S,T'V45+%Na+[pEQkH1L-+M"d §w4@/<(d" 3.VwduS ^ս|Hdwin]U3”k{[6!Q1KZSjo JeS!h +H_k*l,PNċn|kUbX]u:=!YʡDozik>^{gda֩:YU)a0-Ί%aU2g-<*g`hu@%De ZI,'LR|E9/? P瞍f*;;mwLr=!jt. -#8RmCڭ k@{Uws[(uޞ"s11ĿrekveFdckIs{GxE:_M }M]Qlk}vJ$s:Zu*9N?B$tG^bA)kGR|8QP+QyZj s]~}#]w D޳LV0T)J3Wd/[z5 f,# -%auD9,[J=tܿ2"3٧Nsmg@nutʯdr>(rK}Ĉ=!_UI (bU{PܳΦ-Lgʈ<=BdrF(5aUBvV×i٣i'eF޾5Uq^gP[$-x(wbk Gk2Ν>A ۆtGA6 b۰L#1ٹCp\ sh̜P> }Wa¸wx!uȼ=nZ-z+37 Œ2:'Ҹ bq$#Y푫h\\d9rṽZF%JڋŤx<+|^MJS.|s6 mM{/^ݻ..#O{C NU{LCr̔txGl\sODrb'Q ou9!@\qk C q kjUuܽ'-qn\ ~ 똙LNRѺ ̈́d%}\뵫i>k}ypS{Xߑ\WTk39VTihMA ~DOo9Y@yd{ʼJ9{\ۯ>̖xt~@BFg^Ω^msRid7`t;:zFq ҵ3e;Y KGEjmٯ.]̽qgB? 3?<=,,u{/ZQ]RmJ#!y$-q IΩh ;&XTKXjW2"QME3W㎟o`z'{ V)dbyc_KH Wc2?3C5YoKU2Pw3ŐX{/|k0Z9qP|wH=u%p Evj?k=eՑ1rQ+ *:~JQ2#4q "sXU# gyWksٛ> Au^r)mO`9t-̾/W~zv];5r0FO.-]wbchsr35;)XDx]{>{.Z_4ᢂv_]ă׷&8tr|V9BY`lVVZK?k///>4u # [J/ :eh-NR$Y}kmRyC'_2LzЕ) u_9y*znγFHN8WatOÆ0x-F;ρ2Wr;z=F'([:qس*s}ȼ' m4Y/hq ;3}Zt3_ӯɾN֐ͩR`,U]-ҡ2']sXFCW{1l%'>\.9n:1sjWpzm7AB2Yaeǩ4Z'U`h֞2 uvtzZyl[>]9ۯy -|+6Y: nDÎo۾ s ˱ѿi֒)8Gܺ (faXMrV_"knZFFYݱ$FbMv3j+4sB %xn2u8g:sB׹%s7 1̆VAJSV:9iNHҪ! }fCfi. BBc|ˎWHRc)9u{ Q{Hx**oj^QMu T"1٫tZM©b0y-V==EI>3pD$j(mW^h_s9ŀzPbCh7쨝Lkf֛ɦ{m)T~av+Փ ף1teHe$5Ә?lਭ"V%U(9^0^lqKG/^U/@bվζy. }/ +k1DTs\K`pY=/)wemQrItL۫ ˜7ͧ±5[T>srKgR@-FG:P^dvܡ3c+c=1lhjN[+`+QK*MMB̅}BӉuK6a/5:`Y“+3o I4ېر)1]<#KI:Q=23GCdHCy(ȇ>25 LZť`@=Ss'Pϛ hm3CX6Hs;-lȃ?b3'&XUij_UR_qcR:m8/,dV1?`g7 /2d'J|X,GLM9wWe4X;[CFk&X 1R{KuX:oqy:i0 Usذf>wz+>eWꠊrb$]ӽ_j}_Y 83, uAxeRugpߠbB; /Ty*m.iEa>O̿Al*Z؉Y:a{S 8OWHڹi a0Lu5b Z;j7֊Hؔ:t+W*E"E֥͔iF7k&ϬusR+(Px^т1?jC^[CL.k['vA3'U\y63X*edy*o-keyP2fmѹ@^3顴dDvz0ț^yuauOta{ _g]YF@Nx~\q;a{YYd^Kޒu״;;/);g wԧ"M)&6 )s 5z+yÚ3audꡮ"`CG&#HG_)d]Ćg\?:y sXJ)Q 8e[ QnP@%m?zO!baKzݘN9yiWT1u/ٔ)]r+V֐0+C-maA8u4xI'J ؍R]ԡMx7[rP$nni W vʃcA5 1sƅH]ש~AMڥk']p۩"MSNtFicV>x%kF/d[˿C-n9 ǂڬ"p8+GJA\~CLd#畍u]_dbUdi|62}~=$}X7nS:#v\n%!*Q>xs(5S#]>LUlntmiNET*+*A"?h0䆐7j<,Q5vqׄՐFO;ݍR3=v. fz3WSʩ1 2տ5?ЙI0ςRf b_Ҧ8F߅ۍfdx+r$hPp;4H0,.favd Ol|-#Zp!7I1xM|Ty OWZن(?C8%bn p;!2N[xSlM5el8H7T>pa/xҎ&b^eTnXtJ?CGŗ}\"YJgFVp{䳳gQ;I"OP32x1WT,"a׶ X!u`;W4t%϶D/t .yaeI|TPmK<>/~pX|AH)›&~\*b7): ca4w\sn6/4z=ȑ,V[ߙB-{\ɉ*~kI3H$]1p F5b/kSTKY =X"qݡǶy PK)*KlytՊ34M})2ǿU;|$+ζoEճZ}l+C\L:ըP\Ro=>׆?ߛ]<[&ۢz2޿E*)w}U7eRs]uU<鷿ږuGXmxТt2m׮/}69i.=ωhM|yC"]'YE1sXԼ_">Ұ_h/=('Q)w9cd9$=ik+ZȿNZidu2._y_%O1. >\>+%άmJ|O"-~~Uʺzۉzw?d}?cϋl?ѧŏ_'UƣݯswϻgeOݟ]9q v~v]l?{V߸7uw[wO 'u?t.ԛ_=Ynfn"uDtw>8tcNx?wg[8s}檟˅{u7;4{\[- Zsnqݺ/ mI̍Vhޯpyy,jwm]R'y4Z~{wW5ڍ g#@;>?өJS+1=4c?Jjx9I7swzsb{Z=p5n/e~|ȑ. gn,M`ʵ#)_ĵ}+nFaf w'=kpr̵k?{~ֶ(QƣkӽW+|3u?=r]gE q2u{:+2%!SGK7l.kvzD+ٟer7HJ<_Sw'!#X?wMߝ[kpr,:~ߜk5jg'vd?'rӳzNŨ_98I$JZ}A#.GΟ|uy}:h?:`@Nܜ%K]OO=Z\k\s};|#ʝ%>AHJCҩߺk3ֺ׬Dw| vZip~TצV泗O90'=&[7JXI:]7y(u!X,v;XFs4n '~2t Gz~k!wùu.ҝies#H]Y# Qgnl]5YUzy+޿[s ;S1JJq2f-W V 㝵{|?7k\:[pDREiPs]vWڻ9zœKr碿n'yLpl̜ZolXo胤ꝶ^sh)4Pn?S9Pݍl̺y)p@\Z G.A{B K΍I3;wĽ6w_]`we4rO})z4`}3ʒḽd2hp_VޞMoP{[gib>Hڳ6G>2QABGܼa"9B^}G>þ'8{vw<. 5)lhZsS DBaȿEv=_7< [|3k 5TxaېrNU@3ڄD?$ICAz55RȜtnp䛺YL>e+AIu*1rpF+pub|n䓞pfcE/swB%.v9m9y8F?S\IDlNcv5UKJ +#wo$A!r>xŗ[y΅U9:}L͍<Rӭ.5ː[j瀕]?c~=[ZmWɝH7-}/iLXzz!oJA:[JIl{{;vtnJ|^[ M@Ff~Ug Fn~c;/D֘GV؈<|4d㭞֭f"B5ݺBv,OF^F4|p?56ntBkJxY`DGG^:;qk1z+C#3n4q1'2/Ȉ?GFς=PIFq wXh3|qbOD! NFbXl>5ں!SqYd ~Wހ.B^X\.ybWδ6ޒAE)J7~U@J$yW;p&G^ ϝ8 YZآ36&RswEX9$iGa>oՑc]S"͟HBK?ɐHN EubC=Y;D-[ "ìZn$9<ջg Ɏ/SR?=D4cTb9H3gBI[_S]S.u?z&)Ms'NSV]!,F2VCv h3I^$6~ U3ߙ͒ #:f϶Gwbnj {|I1[RsoVc؟8X&|ă]{0\[H0e!]|A9OQA52ja0wBr #SS-4;ϡ2A5۩]cI^sE}`rB1Z6HVRX' 23NP<(^x8Ɂ:3f7^<Ʒ F$u9_w_~x& ;HImѱNJK5=諁BX{Q @YJA;3*8X 4GIk {mHSqlR~N`^9{r Ȭ01{vDu%9-q;mCZsdY땯`tJ:/VJs9 nͽсC4Nv8Ě-)& 1\qWL !gkLe)U}6R!N-al?Ji.t+yK pDN C5:w>*Kz{ ,VZ$l Rw-L~`MzTlEda N\R !Iw> TfxH9G "!!)Ð%6Av) gϝ ub W6A7%&V6e@ I yA/1/&}ZwKy& G\P1uXٞ$ÍB9aڙhNdYWGH81p0LFoHg o J; VQ>+7GۧjcceaRYbNw*Y 8q3(a1Ḭs9rrLu4X" ֿzfUGg4b iÜc$j"cx/dUbhЭSDo4|CZ2V~~ kw~ʻOhhoq |Q{KIW&~~!#➇ev).+iк55є~9JgK S㜁U,# ?@#h8m*9$4owݻ줛ٓt'o"M f#-G@Y!'-]G=<)Fv;dӧp3JcTp:l,I 9Hd<RD1 厉Aƙ j=ıXwc)9U[M#1&D#3bQȘVBB/Ԍ&fMySGJ,{Bz_奧ok.ȐH~Y% D炜F D46J%X:j_ea-LhS$u Mi¹/߇@X 8ƥsVz`'mT9sNvL;eZ1f[K#G"\#7nGF_9ߙʑr@CSħ3Ow XRX[)w%34|јzk#nqD9emt/hQZCu дa%|?lDmם!`Brd8}zj֖s=?wvFnn9$({3 qe'WĤZ. Cؠoy ,׳uHr>?3p៑3ז&RfI#̜7_+4}*ؕկN3܈Bc#8"z#µi`sy _Y?HoJsfDn=HWN$0(5f=P,Ƽ$vCUҠD̽9I+gL˘I@⽐U^cj,m3/\(PY6s1>baNXC߈|`a ݇c0 Q$Yx&VvBLuyKWPΗ(x*(.Q?: ? &ة[#4ǩSb\e](ƴ%I ɂ`4U,eT) m]r搄~(ppmm%mNaѧ^o%;iV$0Km[&>G+IeS LRd$ˍk C,VHPCx-ceDj%#|l l}7h5 (ok>5kd[hRqMXV#cH3]Ȏ!{C-1j%/ˋ#nQ|KcM+Ax"1Uث4qEUA[hsɑDf$" -DZ=Vr>̏/ɝc$6Ez6 -\$kűy\ZMN괉jqqR-qAV35k֜S.[ъh b2V+ 57>+@d!G)ηLZx- ?d?_]01~p ̸)ف{d͢Zj8b (fv4BAÝe%X_-gkF/B @v=z b \䶅)-zB6Vp"mZڠ"W1ag[ ҆м!R&Kݡ&6YL̥r]/?!tYKzሆ /iԄ+nlf` V~dPK0ſ`Tb#x8//㰕^&G^XK=;>IO.y;j些²/NaT#ai0/a6<)9-}.! wzL_ɧE+S%^p7k/-X/iw#\!׬ ٮ0G3\ YG+dӭN7UY h!4 by-!%dBENznB ѝ`vn(nDȉk)+kn $d1ޝH<|W^EfXFm/0?yu>jNAҢ (Xd:_b"*/t?x} սs$)Bts g\e<qiZ^=Uino8&" #t(pq‰JXa؊Qmu^%kT4Iw(储#+r"rMs3< OS8GSMҹNX<퇝d0SJo.U*2=R( ?]:BlX!擞#|ZtGhI1(!eKFRQA25Hr.xv[Ki]V%p Y.{?e7dc:t(^`4>ë}93˄DUJ+`RF8STK9Q#xJP[Q g6\GtdoD\v0`mGn 6JQ@qzJ5 Tg=dbmOz7>L]PMHs;L=;nXn)>.>p[@D L̬=ى؃!g'Lp11! aX5BȵЭنPXaHWv`,x!VRLBC-0!a6%Ϝ6l4w$Ab@ez6l iI$c+\(ƻlu<j)X7V>/Tue&ŒN7#&L~EsիTB/%qXd;Aa ռ3 tdA֗N:WVsܫYC2Viq`z|y^@K4D4NKRWP7]G9`"@_7k>W~*t@>w-7iӐn%l{ tPv 0)+"&'zOpɴ֔5ҷ ĥxZr 2;ne*[VSJ^[1tz㏜-&~aTzM\4TROc 9*}3p4+ĀVvF5D!A{lLÓ{߰Uv\#$WkTt!Y5Qzv}UW-M:AW#> VJxA`p_Sal)E<PrIrrKHz9k:9VG-:Æ仄%TE^: Y׈ 㰠|e~zrX`;AM4+m3}͑ ÚzI hrJ2<3G돊&tD@9<9u-IȂG,7x&$G6obrL!uX8[(+'\5'ʯ<b蘘T>v3H%-;%=BYMAVbnY,4Ȅ%hš8P8LdA9조PĥnďIV. :g?:6na>[\2D|I<[CvŚ'}iS=ׂNJ|@f(={dm7shc'iZgʃAȐIn2nes8R SJmHNKQ^ )+LAB  O7Qdx Cm M0jfc O}Oo^xڽ}ےVeevjbŗ'lE䌎 IV9m+yI00St/g9 Wue$s׵>y2:iWO?|zz}tt>^5dtS|xtM-*UJ>I*2U#۬o*fb}zUeE6k><̎=?y<&=?w٢~om|$GӪrE(~O9Lx}[֕&۝زዢ)9uqMe[ܶՏ)IX io_;^ku$%'KCؗuַǷ|tdp|u?铇Ϯo߻l׿F_">d}UoU^'j|c/4p$ovm~QUb}tWZwG_-٢m>ޯ4F<2{Vٲ}]%_H>qUrey(~^I&uz/Id{_^}pU/ͫFl^I/)x㞹(K*a|}s ϯ?pPo;屌1~HdU'5 WdXYy̛ߏ"+E*7ݿ>'<+}-:{]+z>qnovM/tG=ŏ?)ۼ >+wo嗿?=?1"|ݯߊ_GoO+?v`zeCfԎѦ[mn"S٢U=`VJ*a|:{~_ca>o67uVٮ[wF}7*kFO)GFYYœ%1:]/aY٢>&682}"+/'ϊ\u.cW=yw|,m6_ls@vl~w gn %y[GgwY5i>p{{쩯N}韎G?.ߟW~їQv4:z}G:Zt辫stS̏ewG=s_ۿMiM?z29^_|7/o^?Dݢn>VC_O`mwըo~}»I>~W/-OtU:}ާ鴻~ttvN ާIyE|N>SFߏ{)k'÷;-]Y~NϚߋ{v+vpwsZ^+k73wO{[6nttZ~_uN~ߏpߙ[wzV2?%ֺWmql ?svЯp:ݻ[7my彻o~NdOUtOߵ>w{&qw^;; oԏ{ic+z!_-^svw YOI.N{=ҭ`ސѸqӼn[~Z϶nfn"=׸aNu;7n6xWcZ>oSE' 3["fP1(ݿ7;;Mpnݷ0"s^euiŏMD-ָApT^0'!vܱgMo:x]q:G9uR̺-u ,g8M܉^,+Qop>D{"lƢGNI{l9y\;4ډR9QoX3ߥ#o3to ɊEYϑ[^XqsFQ:埙":0$P+<}iڭ93_(DXˉ[hv͝)o~wY .Sִsd 4{[ Noy C*~oY]lQՑIxB9}{YSͧr~A U}U-["f}BL^aIܵ5a\Oᄤ*'h2h$^ | `+3[,.uD) -v~mR.DG$Cu5o?c'E㞞 ][7u|s "<\,Qz% 8ű>Ubo/i3wsgÛ^V(""ϛmSH[Ϻ_8ARk w&U$"eakxR:$~X9^b(ب`ظUwo]GWrB{6xgEBx˲`+WCw(cۦ|. 6@|k+r܍9Q]2 }_snT)ܿd^L.p%{?3EVH|==?3lTZ{54aY7+}yZfZ!G3@S(3МG3yl Y %{("SLrŦMڍ,S“9O#Xs:*vjg3OmLQ?ې/y//hM@9wMBۺ֩(^x,,8HŹ{)vb:4cvrݸ]И}6ќcG"Q؊-Vnə< dzw;ݸb"VwPtK)aqz]A#˸ı'6u1?;C;)rrtx|GK+Ї n̤N3;G=;SsDG$a2 rwZoȦ+p^pVlGQܴvB| mC ֒ ٩ܴb @6GǟM1tN{f7wwo6Sv(o4kk<_MTn&j%ޟ "mk%=NKOo9+D~8a"`-^ka*J>$Sy߲^eƝ]ERp Z+'DDYsg-ܯ h5)L0 ʦ GѰ1X6Og5AsCѫrAߕf0Qq~E@<c3*/*m4DoR=tʜ2CjbH/K} 澼BKѝ/84WfxEM8x~xQǦc$nWlY?IjvȈ20ݸlHK tXkZMf/ |WJ2!}t8KlNz> ~BjJWkVk_߈~#-5%Nuv6ة^n'$c}rQQƳ5BmfjEo%x)wnܢ&37wo6R>LI7М9ZsLd hg,]NݹStS\#Tdyڈ=mo+HDNmI|ڇ=|U9_1q׉s2}+Ps:O Y0]^.ݺQ8a-ٺի7rS[(',hW8Hvg_i|Cp]4,wZ%i{F}2Ƣ rIֲQ1b57 ZlxJk&G)pLΤ t\h?C&NC(戽X^'$ 練o TƝ$acez[?ȂbNrv7f賈_r FXIj1*Ѣ\=K>gu1J%g2| e\|0k_AW쥋)>sU7~4eDBi"aڗ Г$;͟B7 %2ҽ_LdD4ƍ\\{9ϟ-QL-mjuw>9{}鬋0QZ "?+ԭ12=?km:O>! QK)qpʻnYkƿg$vqhnt>;zx/.zKLPb:h CiG)u;h, 'PVeA$ Ng7 MG%uTa3W'9"tG] ׼pKXaNNh4,tq5pܥ9 o`c0I_$R_Ojϼh W_ q?~8g g 0֋ޚ-T_7Lon8ieǮ,N]Ĵc||)b!4('%UZW\sD ՚c[b{ڽ*S/;p*Sޯu|G8f% {H8K>Dwڡ\=ko0fh<|Ue&Uwk1;a_ b3לQc\Nvf"Tz^,\nI[wτFCj;rFPar{d;bZFu~#ٙ32YV> 3ISw`46,[lt 8B@]ZL+.] 漎xR35J9E:.WZ 9!ES !_}G`f~2ް_fCwhܓ NK};JKQz" 2r]q5դ/q!ߌ.]I%WXcH*&n ̄׋\nh9z1QJY M`P*Q"H݆Ƽk@kCHKAسJh}OAO);m;>U[: h_+APX{96?U빿{7\[CuGD_u\I!7[to/ 6x1j*k:Qe=aQHp]r/8aSwIA_ wL D~`Ie5Vmsvfk D@dkuIXnkt& GqDQvߒOіVK& >Wx[*5p5h-xT=vNp7\ +hZ)m(/ z>Y+8L ƫ1HW˟^jY2KέP h[Sԫ+{}i9qٻ|j/^u|MܨRmSh80:+݃>;8tѩK4^p OZoyߡqKsyx&g4d="2-$H=}(kcGc?< 15 W\Aj|3qhse`gtr %YF)PЈwuaW+.ܗ`yJ݀ReET@xJWLa&JJpm8QȸHthC9\][*K}=Dc MsN嗚vs['z]1E,Q XfUyń*u $ j2ͱJPL h^cFϘb%c` hPʄ sL6`$^R(.SKH) - y0"kL6f%Eb:kjf#Gre?G|6j̟}W!K ލgc-i;0aV"eEZڔ\P #0s qK&yrI40dj(]@܈׌c)&Qx KaG$j2@3'4 ja&1 u~6[-, 8W\Sbv$S:67 bF裼QG9cP:僦[i5+5Zcյ2ӤN#a%2{O@d)@) WDn4 ֑X̐)2AJ E'd)X| xvT$l+2¯3Yhj'Mc)sXC1X}ƜcΦDeKJ VZI$[KiL3/܁j@*0Z^TLo|$ Z?X5ÌiqF[BF7gsrfsLe_f"DXuaa/ĝȐ1Ghlp=H4Asta2Ud\JMCK9[O fw Y >q*ttEzx"[2]K!s Uk[&a{ 1J )X?URZÈS ";*!IF9 5ku0;[w JBN9h$xGy:T) UA,CH{qYb~} YӁ\fHq"Bqg #켟  ߒ$9wk.u9TV\o"V~Ez,|rW ՍY@C5Faa5+H\K:K=e):(JsPl'tm:p j!4(kC#E3=D_|m+RpLN8lQ[?q}83'Dw~%҅r4UPrn w(Xl] >CaX# kTӴ50 0S ryQ#Zi^+Uc E#pwj`c,?zf."^<h(8SlW5&͜c@اgyh?N*!:\c>̭R%TAI(d*f+2# cpz?a Ewƈ '~ o+ 5e84cض)G-$SWقдe d *H 8> sd@D`IJ;, {?"ᐓ@ Yᒃ3`}(,D !-W,fl"đR`mU ّu%k%؛+,wS\ӝ~Hߪ2/cY`|k$ E/TVlOCB)r e}rpUpt )MJWd.RNS]d|G @qi_>~=(7\$Or1u"`^&34u3"hIJP5H6`}b~ L FxtW3uZ4F MKzi8sGq&>k$( e<@"2" 42rsSQPR1ZN|ߟFt6wv̅GdN.5D@e?ٰTs+'{u!W㙎6`a>)K;UQȆn²+ ށc4_"l¬ܸY:a|n{ y+;G#f.sU qxvt7F8f^!!Bpg 2.JخE;-g,^mU"m $XaFܑaBn ˸(JF\(9Ju>\]4`Lkj 3Wi8LR >֒&嚟 /z.(5 5٤j39o~y) 턑[r:' C+ܼar[Цދ=,3.+_)1JDv"%lza!iU}-gpĴ䑨*|Qj"|T[Iݡ}z V0ǣבpi3FU"3fQg(=l&;$$jHy5(FohɬՀr2'a,TQ{@('~ EIb̠,lnoZ,&3*+v,cCMV N|ÿKIQƎ~_*MA%Iͦ\m^u7듮~qdh:9)Xg WͰeY1gvg^I*P$8VH<q {>Q*EM?c2)p)1?ίά xo*o/Pۨz5$:7_7貈8 ~<}Dl-# 1)ᬉRep%`ӁQE#)2JU\Xmep#PG۰O۝Ժ=C2Xr q'ưX/YB7bt[ o-nꢸ$E2 NAmY`QI\g?񬐵R~g ZLܿ]gn6^sa7^xyH#4xJr@J&n$$@0_*끢a[EcCJC$C>rNwcL~a95;iRb@đ!$NI;C KZM ]nX|XZ ~6591iC"1O^ZGT|Pr@QP :lJ.T-ob{uqnff!b!ǝeeUZlGOGeMtC9 $ה{Kokإ-KgfPx|Gx)Lk- )]v {͋5$~l xo6!^7 W.ٖTN l( &DnUS"!>9`P dL_^ dA7,gn_iQw􍤭IO,t kw}cQ:U&d֘2P^Qc8L&lxI`/yMr.gGZfB@-jh  ܇|0 LitLx.%HU t*ᙧrɘK%+/;eTRt$ RX&-%V[sÖ=Chb~DJI  Fik ՟{!% $&!Qa|RLT=>ثk}R(}rIRhО=?3 m3Ё`vԞ9kPHQjVJ|bb{wԤ7%G^UF;IT $IN?dSdlbԜE{"H|b-~% q5# ~I5BH  Cƈn Ofh=h# 0q7$$CD4J<]\GD}&*AXԮ6~qĢ^$ٺ5xbMБMRay*2m`-!D7qMPR/::|˅v8w1̰ͥ=WF?7d쵝ɥD?Sw(Ȥ?Ѷ4)pc07a$ڙ"T~fzhf#|p֋Sm1ToKf'*]:z{@MPСfCBsiց)QnofӳRtbZ1c2^>ĬwU{0}Ԝ)qNv[>?brpr0U,rfG^Ol"` I [nt Λʶ]S *9W4e+&ti3-*h(Q܋cʱRد%L˶,gP,d\xz,~h05 u0燇09l A`2O2vaJ2-=,R?ºe.X >G:T y.Ő65w\5Z^*/CS)W[r5䆢Џ V*b۫ZsGCNMajP\8Wܘ`E5yW;!]1  .Bɏ=Mj)j4?BߘZƻEv-3r3b s~ E lwԆu#I( Ʋ%*2z]*f$ϭǨn"m% M`Ϳ@e"SyJ"zqAKYw*KHh'5,4T ]Gb*^S֦!ѡ9İu}z䶔0 ZˈKwA6[mhU|eF*йWuʴHf io^qg[ٮ bS:zU"E gw~ro!?C)}; W$Bp6%$a|֕1{"ݏO k:I4_x#.~(kFW/(b'+ C#E%i$~37gHk<R5hG-ܑђM_‡ܩަ@![kmh~a-XFKC̰Dwe6ʠbL6~urJPNm56 qVuV\w=Wurjϔ-0G4ׄG#+,t~j6dm9>RF56ԀG,9v[k⢦1+|8?{wFUZtwq Bm#Ϸ*=y)9DUDu'ZҞ~lv{ JMIV$=Do|eM{˚)r*43vB :biW[7oyy-,}!: @TJ3tZi@cNo#XSfWa?bdW.VXJ⬘H9gcŇVN㓰H`l2xgJ̕wZ#k^P.-ne>sBLB4 4ɠj9*tfǸ*5}\#2 3/1FHCF<^-V$jne>S.8W`8+ѝOS لCyX(B̕*C֭< S">~@܅Zm) )?Jzdc ,p,J0eMV %vpF M'u`.Iؠl8"7Ln9CXHĪ4N6KR7V9]@fiyaҜmƓ/kf&vc䨤(8s/GP(؝ѷLFP0/hֻP= KB"M,z\>dt8drEK"1k $Y.xHG*ió}͔b׬?g J6CX.ٔܬ#6DBp\_iw<6\5h GbI9ĊlϣCem$a(s%D3f3n9Ӛ61`+mbR{g`vTr ?e' 7Qdx Cm M0jfc H-~|7?q\~qO/yUݿzz+oONRx“`Y⾨;9]ӟ_ן=7{_wώ:`o{IqrzI{ҜtNO2'>=xw'p~aQ.b?O|_>y?֋w5ߚpx,\x ?\7Vǟ4j7_+-N'ǧ|G߆/vyKxaq0ǟ\.Rl|Oiod]ۇw9 tǿ OfL0f:᳻0+p,|q|uxggk.<|:مßV< Y0V}x Ip3 [':Л(a&]pl} x桠hԇlM?,?(>kPZ:Y ^mއw7_ y33;e:jo_wa<};M6ާq3^u؊7ل+p>5'S;[qĿ :{Gς>r\Xѝxxa^ÿuh`Gq4 w;vh|'x$;aOB݆'ցu[i**VdfzIRg,=vw}8'Ыuۨo,'0nqo Jw6 # a]ߓO0,gqVHNw +w؄&`[InlP|YykĞyxܜgZo ymIu?۪51iY8p}jCC\caLZ}mF. T-Su`p]b5hJ:p}2ъ|;1~>sy/` ZlF~WV# ߈D5="}]r<:rJz;8udft=ópb9ęۄ1¼|{:c'K]*zs gtVz w[^y)@lsPwq;g'?z86ϣ-]>~?W-yd\x<a3X;3<3I}.`y2 Q`tx.CtO{5hy_k] OUn +;ZnþSj%a4‹m0vʞ3=~Ј O3ZF8Epa:3v4k9 eX3y=73 Tp.r=JiqlGip uА1<8$x*8nF9۽ nB_b!`߸sSdpf;rm}-y'@OPPVP#才 !NpOGUYE%=39=7 _E8KrZ:=ScNa]Xw g~JְJ ;tl0ࠞO5AlB" ÖׇDA?8~Ozw>蛰xVJ >'NO^Zh+)[Th7Ǘqp~~Ԟ70܇ol:o ^(RE2~+bW9Gj75OEӽCĻuW5t$q\pDLВ۰ Jq.Ҡcg"B.a zQGMBf MAce+O9>^:Ƨ{ VrQ0^GT0:+0i39>VQ B|"F);{L1J +f3[2kTmwZ@y-iOOC}mP\6t 0-ؓ#8&QzA^kxװ_3OJGo)--ѱ(]ncqv4z<2f+:^G~F$E8&~ ?yt{J~RЇ8==@by^` xv&ĜZF"L< ǣz H,y1s0!b^QίaW*'?< 2z)T[͸~CCp0㵃(mg\k+V([ej-p6Δr8725#6uCE\nҍ19л{ 0+v^ \}"}z+N?ȷ]P~d$x%VNeg<CYH4O9DZ!:;@pF v% ;>@њwbx PJ0oU +GF@\YK2%kgei$?3#>-u0ʘfy͒ /њhKx!xp^6}Yv| >E2zmg.yaՉ~o }^<_ATzDTܓ#&/{آScdK܄Mrzg+U4;wpX>3kϋPM 37.Ucwulg.ek\3pdHFْFpy&jNѵ/u{E 8_/BÂ?$if <; (Di}ݓgCR.wΟ%Wyh)&H!OoبFbOA !d `0&7hS_ \0.7ڀ"06m@f9#WZo HGο;s8 jCg9.1j|hG@\l(Յñ%R]I9J1$`JaVD'v\kt0#<8g_&A$htEY~sY0ng$MfaE #ک0b%4,&W1$<,\bʖ̄+P!~q=m`GVOd˓C L^y<{S-GWlЙ8 6cw=]%.gX>FMfdSJ#&|z mC՜3cMHd8CtQ\^o7yVc0oNǟt} c"n# lȝ@kóϜ:JOy0K&g8L)b+GB0K ma][@-ɹqpiҨmsL0b-<ۗaFF>yQc%%/3uەtmN"n-%ElL?{ wNeR=W&+=8[EF;qye!Jߧ<4u,w6oLJ3}Av lhF֊<3+7{2'OM" 2Ԛ6Lbaw y{X"4U`K"K  m#14:3y >i Y<.W)@X:k' =`\bnv 乙Π/=2_r=UUG( `Rq{hʪԩ8#Py+b"Rb76d¼#fdMx)WKKaV=U*/&3CTC6!䕱K:ꮁO1D\8P'w59^CL Nڑ&%j*Ƞ(1Qxk",W4L_|HzVԼ\\x įo-0FnmuV >(.߫c T[2cXFT0{DE el4>o(}I:Ɖ\w,$`S/spr0 WLSnIȓ=8-aU8\9}t7)R-pu-  p?"^=vBru\L>} MFS=C<zYR*݇o.;q(GhGD wFkhOOh˹Q;Y7pst& {\aimQe0p;H*q8w<-6xU˘-`]3>S.>U[r/YJeTK~f} 2f.x[J{Kح$ÉB :.LG0y~2K RvDR1$ }ޭjvg EVqMW亚6 '&dҪ +@bN"0f M?rq`ǙFT٩d ^,Cd(MB p%^se1oյ<fOETS=y1uR n/؎LP0α;d;58*ZiSl10oy؉6|Hy"ӄy@=\9SfIqh|Ǹ`i;ߋS;y\ѐZ%x;fDa 4fh: W]J+>9()GfMpwmA#Й~+bǵУ͇{szlh3WZ[Sj-`*]wT/N<..:Ƀ07UxAOHp*9^l#xpc037)X-18 ҈aGA|>D5Eҍ~ْS-e/xP:Bd[̃S*DISH+<1Z8"?=/-F3zݲt.K)$aj6l"LNJK)#sK"piV=%NmFlt{Pf=p }j**˸ nМ",!} >h|=TGi Yi pǺ&#ҷ(+{H7TRнJH$߽Vm&4m6JkEU=8ʍ-DɆR)*3䴓1jΣN+B^t.ľ%u62?SsoF]n_O@heg{g+J):5zm  >ƎV,\n-9 ,:dNJ!B±Q٩.hz9ρ,JIBʻu~;ʤ{Vv-\l w"RȊED0R&̠ $Fƅpl!p~LssUfB Mؽ:m=AeQJ`IɅ^8W6=(22U-NtM ph?' 6wZ< gOV>!\djKh6㖪S=RIug EfǨPTw%))i64߃Rxܸ0mRI0s8NGf渔@9lGvG#^ :F <-88ZUO%ذo ,Q! iD)Sii]8:p|.hdXнfB@B䛱D 1VwtԤtޒpnR$"Ѽd4'0r[墫mܯ CNY6Scg TEWK> Xᴣʍ v؞տR!)<8n @OB ͣdXRS67sFu@.O)i/TQ#ZV4ZkJkoWp[jwG, RfH ³՞xv/Uq!$Qde"S?%Ba@YB$anAw" g'ACXU=K8K8-?i@ub l}GxDD7qZy"zN>P > ~51L \ S]*)d9O1bR0r ΝեMlT 4Ih4a7.ߒ92^i 3P اDY&92k/a\ѿ)@|ե9vK^5`+M&&mt.w\+yN4t@P'\sy>u2HO6kA;9Jք0 _0V)mqЧ G8LiQܿgf9y(@lzݨ'd@Nƌ`xl"jnH6olJ=ƓuM7Wnq? {جhMd*iTjem .MƞLwZX3K*3J f!5 [Mu1kh%='r4ncZ VwGلe*TIۯ$[~3^ox)qlqR4fO5QyK{)^!^& r4u^k2e0 Fe4o-_!kQP(EGsKI G˄V Js[^sT C| 2)#nFrH_poIe,ߘ0K.\B[ȥn(DD@"78 Fh({f+c棒SP$+I w :コs7< ״媑hUZuKa%?:06VI[2薧[#VY֚ܗY*_ 燀ԏy8Ps2+;82Lݘ:ll;o&jQP$Rh*ZP k%vNiĚmg㢾kEsfvHs"޼>63_R-ך3cY! _,-i&q}r.O,g>dO-X6}@E#jWbKHР&Ur٘W0 n$POkrd́;89G˲vWP1J9IiK M}&wVߔ 'Uؖ %)K@tf %U#c}pJ8'- =-}⥦c> T*(7̪-{=fBKBC\L:," BF5z-$ߡe]hf*%"Od!ϕsY_hOacU*rz]1͎Evc㽃jj 3uXpK6ic5^Eh[PD@!-3Al +<}ZB!۷tglqJbj)F/V4NN-;+EN!c#^}={B>5nma1L+`<+w5ex4ɒ6:7†2R eѽ!OIyed Q-=ŞNPm4Er`E.9QE! W/AJs?mwva2MpG1Jxח S cLWD [ ɪHjd;sEZ4C{]yϊ{{ ,FU; FI @'pg~7>@Fvxk~ Pzo(fA9Yo4R1S)QXER;5[7';\N0vĈ~\ngPYҩh&LUᥰM?<()+kWٌRޘNp=$ת ߕFZxզ0\ +sbAAZ*]zT}ݎTYiNTpOi@`7:+MEpUrؒ{%3q\;=n&DK09 v= -\ }@$q #< ݀N7X'i\᝿rT(4J2'^y=qy@kp@$2i /HdbQ)^B'@*Yii2kRΨ-V 9$ !ghC :}Ugֱ 4Voi9bQ"\ nZUh*Ž8_S2Ry7AW6{4㵤5+?(%+񣰀뎬n7vG1rP$hcTu%Sy*d%cҕO'V\t\4`oH^]-kox3>^S T6]ih쉋6<#eQ҃KX-: f.'k[@O-)Plokl_%$d'leD~sHj9{9a;9Y4@4%TAՊlBX5R$ԶWDѬd-$b]m6N^$]*BZɸޡb|1S=W@@6hԍ̉'q7Ť <4Wqqۺ%m=[:Q@Fzo{@M5I1R^k$Cri t|)Tx1/ITeI1FQV&%39Pg:^۹rh, Ro????OO-xt}9Yð.l#"$5'a Rz0Ҫ^s-4}e;>!7|@mTR/IfRҖHYF8hIlŖz:u ˻%|6ς+IJd zR?( ]*Z6rݶM e܀.vP kynS'ثK {'\3 hp!o2-j9)oc&|T_?ҖXFj.uϒ%I,٩4]lRT,Z,vH-IxiTV(Bk4MḼjjB\R̍tdO"iry(,j۷<\lT^- ^)kGˋ*(oa&TlNM97Jl|ffHmǕ*ޒ.O aqz-_B <ԠU*pwAr)/K+wi7׳)?P#K`E-E #tvX,cC~9Rǥ+db}Y6J,T@Y $N{ߊޒ{ dDŗu7f\z|1/gCA:Ffe`E?THmZzEڬw2V5$"O悝י~It j7 {{0i6Ij^h5DP8$,Mu$w q2g7׎ʠtG D;q Lа ny"mnR4DUrO|"HƍhUS%/3뚳dL1Ц%^@V?Q; TeUpm`t#l6QAYp93bɉVdrLl &Aj/^:j;_{Tȋle*Q><,kng7Ġᎏ|^ aY(UU1=??O|_>y? Q|v[hTcssPF XK22zvcT#:Jdtl!9asFddy33]x2c)x3##y#(@sI^vt`}WlâO:Ğ)ⲘeE,3t끾 >Ǽyc|,@ެkU"#+z6aM1^Iǟjؠ[* wo} 9d$~ :TP?n[9xw pqut|(ncͷܨ1yja;rX g^ISӇHQWyRQIe$[>^H"#.B p7R7ĚME_WO (Zp`!o&:kR s! p"TyX Yi ޢ- -}@{7-Z L"#D>-2qu ]vVڙsH9*~إ_'vWY93V ׉㜆ܺٿmw䧖~F|p= kuV΋S {"ד{ @tm/f95=W,].AǛ) diA=;Bg謔\^]yM:yu:J^PV[>xJBGOT#UIsE e/jM;lϻh|wr4Vnʓ9dO[j5fz dAj#TXOCԡygj!(VrD|kdy^2N.54RˏnkaufεA4}T/QJtvZ]T9+̖bi.o VB%5fK8Vb23dziOy%ѩL!z4~FVRʳ-f?0sHlw}{=Mȭk/J>,Ҡ=;ޞ aYܜm Ûdثɲ V~"r ^w/zE{2[}N_,S=K} Z:~{qVCvҳʧ گF9#ܸh-lSgh/ևH wFM`7١80x%,i.[sJQK 3XujRBۼPOmB"ީ"S}^`7s~0ǝ@E[X5]v/{H"*R[D\z5}k^Y챬z'b[Y#<8sWaIe ֓f΍nJMs)|^][jzDTlf%k;#ZN^+%% /f\Wē9e/ ł"l) iFI>SV[$B^TA׆cp̈rzfġM 9#G'a0|TAe Qn8֔Tŕ F?mvVKJO1[7Y+Ans&tOPTM=vV]A ZSQ\Jċaש㓴 vW=i#W֊l>,/ثXTS ֠z9 Z t/D[(Bħzv/ʝ2L]0׵cLn;$;tžb?gJXs4~':Ny=pNn~4ztbF6O }#i8Fmkoڌ2ZB/}RZVv }?!mtF {#SVj(kwlJ^'$Fuk[ΈBAG[YPmx:eO;]=n_>eݒ0N%FTaXӒ )^\%BـXBzM4flXteXMҵljDJe"ǧ–쒉Z_:-*>HՁ@xa[(۫nT۲sstB$u|)C 1l^M  ,gn[J|1 xw$ϝzѦ$`,RH"?.@ W8ij. Q\!I#p+Ds|h4KS2\gv.5*t+nW߻my.iF <'ЄA:ۙR{{wߨ zP7Q{pBbBD?'Sҥ$H1YRXk%"L3p~L"w?L]haڳ{'Knh@9a`n+P{]⬳%#z+[Jh-u/٩lX; PYB%ĸCICvlVdJs菜'wt+ʂXss`,گU=psZ8W37\Us%B! ;ammHn">~ {ݪd#MuV Kj/:\rTmS!<[RC/IarҒЩkY/ZdveI_k41M,8ܨCCƊxx0qDCДs)."5lDʑhCEMHgYӁHAiPI`UK;5];@+!dYr4O/$>ߕψ:Gi_ 8=˙(ň!ol>x\H]iΟ\^ڙdx$}iMtl,KSطapQ+OFoNɕD+$xM!H8jo$:BLdKݭ11 9Y=*[8a4O\{\ώNogOW=y!pKLΞQ+p!qV!tC=e e3y,:,lhJ[93J[5ƐH+R;zPco7"ʓI1i%dB+EWz<XYӰёsQ-T

|C n.寠 ̜OX$R m>K":&TsKbf݇9,ˉ.}bяVǃiby:_2h^=j~y O5^'j㥰֖K2;|t!^1, NORYKUOŢddQVL`j1N&8:\EavāYc+m>T"yI mVPLR:Wv$ge lhF5,to4cETGDYf'mUԼeia 4+ xM!TT*Җ?"2Hƺ}Y[WwM5x\S6Lllǖ; .^@KAՖ `zAnjgCbEJX!=_`U 7c-&N7xي~R8u.؊dLcDƏ~SFķe]-Z;4E 7ҧ|?&ba4xHF21U|=Oe4K=UD]h:,܄b۩le9Ӳ$.. \y xWX {C5gd6j k%O6jZk!foUq~ǔaۊ|pծMt:68VOe{Ǭɰ;74bYD _EMm/T_Fjl,7Đ ׉JY.3u*RM/#8'`HFw7DО\љd&kj<>B J({Jk1HV)V-u7GZV<%&nVntΆ8O AD,ew.<&= tLD[pfzqճVpkzǛ)K($W6Y3:[X甪6ƌ`ÈLT\M8 T}B"h`,XLL䔷CשِZj~O aʐ+ Nދ2+yAǡgXڙ 2Ⱦ8/L(8ƶpNON؁xtȽ=r|^z2e{ö9Ư&7Lu⶝i:A̼EKB3KɎ[T!R3~87 D<+* xZޝa3Zx j`\g^ 0*l|佧y,|T. ˤ2dx|͸ j1c-&R*܉NƽYm3H&f]gIw4MΠn;p ĎP70 eQS11vA~pWFe$;lt B#m,ei=>%4;GD*" /]BCCȻO"}DNe0?)lJ M[o S" %hB0ڷ ?˞:OUO&եO!R:S J`$T0>ys*DХc|P%; ^g-@蚟^&wBVV۴u!38z;@m}mz(f8'HQhԔ~nd>V+ 3#]8z iI8{B(~1-suJ+;PP;/)&`M"YAu0SUe8<0m/n5'ngfTv`)j Q-ZfV8c2hDxfuS]_tuTu ^pGJk>Jrk<[ EQyU_.m6q{Yvq)gf/c}fiu0/I{2aVniBv^UhݎB>ua4t!]N.BĘDJ ܆- ſ][Һ XbشB/Cdd[%0%`~q0ͭD9ocC+#A#wE0v`ϡOgV$ތ-Exqȫʨ.R5Bݗje^ ,3:{|3tdV Dt5 u8fKj8ɁQ|vʔ`f#9.n*T{U&d3/=Rzj.l8yS6 kdd,$Uʀ+r\_ p-x⎻ϖζM)#mJAkGԳHkIōWN&v,= T {`Q3GM~)Ys2(~C}u,)=b HJm'n>$Ne1 Z5xS,':|KGHD3-GVkl6åAUW-i3]5J SSn&ƧrDPwjS RPS=;-RM{a ̬mu^U4-)P-D/NQ0b_8ƕ3iڒ$iP]g:S3BBO.z u6>tL}FZ?8xH7Qdx Cm M0jfc 44] :xڽ]u+HQ7a®K.K\$E{PK\~0 ``v.?@!ȋ8>t7fvDqg@sOG_;jpz|?zNO_=g^d Hxڽ}n$WwnhV Gbmٺ5Z{=;AVe+Ŭ,J+`O`??p9q?Ijƻ+lO7Ys_\|pzyz[>9<{W> ?<>-Vٮ~g''W|lS_5&mSu}].~lj7~>v[7}ѪugU_ޯyVe]k͏O/7|oEE_7ߖ_>]4U>Pܯ~>>Ŀ[÷Nÿ|guo|ڮ_zOn^||7_Mq٫'p7W>M~xaͼڦ*W} >ԏ} > Nt|jxe[nׇmwq׉9~L/28Q6-io6m:>[ٲx'ouD=EUy[oz}}ނWfG_ßuuHed2>ݔtYU\z*u>z|n|6/_E}7_Go|޵_|\,oʢ'p*.xW,{/b+=e.gUI]Zeiݽz6m?/|ۿ=?P9G]o,χ|h尉UoӦ+??XWHt٤.އM:_.Χlg,eysDZ+GUur uÞ~7۶+7wǿ#~8޻%]~/{.{ {_O/=<^NV|2|ԓܟS:jFgo5~OEMAЋ++qsdTn>y:?<iamM]?sqnVp[ǭ jzj%e!aM< uͬɿɳ.חQ~eOz[c2}6y>9<}z'gLaЏ{ZxWHakU t)9Ц>\gxẴkW >GN#m߬z<ݷẊ ϲIb&k`~ʎ7s KZbd]ywoWp-@V{ BUWtmww﷭EVhm̀o9ұ HϚ_+"';z"h.^D,>p =D~W?xw43O:b\(a[kOl ?ZG`-O_5[EPdc7ǻ4{҉G #5Xx;'[xw(Ŕ\:z$ 1-c cbm^xu9u-P:e :#w37$IICw^3iWܑ-()v=Myw*+cL%whAKe\m ҍZ(.)[Xa}QJ 'lNasJ d\*nr: _d򯉨b\Ќ'd|#1|rA,2n4G+CYUs(XE ^ޚk7VF)gf03s:xmZ8LvSӱȭ}PB h97 (qw[yETs%LR=%p-;TZE"!W"_8gSsX\ܣ*1w6W܌z3JCR\(nH~N}A~ǰQH6@9Qp[#19YE,F4w(h:n *suiP+%w95@S~Cqh,qLkEv)p^E`,]E5vG '*נ" .1'"<)x8MW~!NO= 3ύrЩh'R0wn>cSO#l7(+NS?)G(.{F\Ɯ, ϐ+p\ȳ넧L)MM#TRSeH[b, pof` r ]5tgd/:5qC~9=^h/O:[a] 'a|j wGpI}V%J 2غkP,ՔޣA?sq07IPViSrؑ#Zcp&$N7PnT ps&:ؐ_9 i]8_~'k> o*8ad5 B@Lz hv9p?ѣ, ^7*9R R9HX=0@G瓳C FoszѼ/:4p=gJ<]*8s`>ߣw+ŇZN'PiUI')-q!dk3M 7ɝQn iߪ,8Ss[r hLZ8{Ėlu`ACB\|mFZeDͷv-.g=fh kl:q}"[N؅AW`k/SS T?3'7lm@`꧞{L*pbPvnvb@Cʹwrdָ%Zr".A@K2h|pʶ>c<# gZ RN~Ơ:#41:T⪟S~ެ"au DĘ.z0T0WZ0gƬ}7M}pЈ*obJ-c<''9Puev#x@=m-6RN'?f=ojP&b*ޮ7X0tԘw .}ZH2sx2D [r[Req0e6ׄ/aHdYCOW('Ls/Gŷ16-<%/F`NY$v d[˹Ld^:6azjev979b6ٜ.&ÝVJaYwr֞D2Z2C + y+7u sm\Atd DirteTB@>ƘE(*(~] M[LPtl@Ы}r07Iۺą ؛9% *{p ].(G9,s\]!n)cI ?OʆA/(s!O"> ɾb"ddѪ *-q,*Ȭor-3YgMF ^G1{ sPBoq5Bs+@Adr5)b DA #W![aM|1j`2{7L;8̩v6qgUhւK$!̨Q9Jx 1Y/T%IXhV5ozk(=6ziZkfC\`k :RCS÷UR7Úw0h ]< Whc!J8g9KDpd\ے,<3S/a:yB_vZ#-gWdW.?4fXErU0\j>+yj 4}a_nفh[9 sMH|()qgGsʅNj+xZ [4ZF4/3v4u Q*9vP ?쩱HA:Cp 5ÿ:km A  /׷[/!:tr65!:/7k~2 kQNfV7HI/;ÌzW#WڨHU.Z\׭;!)RV&DŐ;*g$՗kW /W h^pVF2 qqp]6c3Wq-P6wXUAܐmUĬUkoBD JVQG4߅+ce+S%|Zˠ{J>ʧ I X QJ*V! Ӻ8F)8nklnHBNԡXCO\:%{ rצΎW ÿϐ*R^]1KêoᡮUiD^DmM" w6u_$k 1uzKj@l)ݸ&(B^8S:DZBJ"Q9*:|wI̼މ q85 P5-W[g%zȜ>h3UVHsM/"C oq>T.3BS}bUƼ7ͅ~@a5qZoJK[si*:i \9|JC$x*]soY1>ʅZw"oC:CwqYn.)uz)ۙ\VkC yܕÜuͿ+bҦ+<Y[Õ"0_ynb/)1 (ZF:3<}I֝ӠWfg 2Nr u^>ilM /r%XAm(}mh%; b=FP`FxLߚ<oSjߪ G B]ތ#(fk?lcb%HPhw8Н^A*;84d;f^F[tO+߶|:TŠ!sGA\t$2E讷Es X9/5Ua6ݱb+1rX_PAH>.RjҳX:ӣz;^k[+/wdюڔ[OT+>,aÅAUS(@"S9$Ft8Ky:O)U~d'$7Q**2:Gi.K^xJLq֫ܧ?=9}xrl女ż7SXdWHRf1Eڗ>:ɨtoQl5Vt,R*+oEʙS,ر$YCj2zt:EzWTK Ix o |atQ70.K] ,5u(v^_QzTw'AqF`D 񗌯*lL>;b: 3̧D[j}!?̷VɚFSΕ:SZ!4Ir:4PZo=dGs0i_&'PĻAMUV|Y~2rƍth\Bw}d=H @O hWV%vƮHuԼ-mvvxc>&(?uPZ^4ӑڶ 0L@{b9LkSXWbZa_Hě#7Sɰi[&"mKY̹t1k͏r =iB*7dfbceM~>Vicٯ{*eKHP}9[)Bl ?KK{uPa+&w s?M+l];KAڎ;}]f7w6%X,Kl؂uC1ջ{R30!>XLb븽 27%1Ĝ2d7S)DGʈ- ԩ ܀ª]eUĬ,՞[wsst3FCQxZd楷3J: #F*maE@FR|TI8:>,6bzTO&;^ќH;,ߥ0'|Fo[P2poFCG.v?co|U(nZ4s%trxGL1Ͽ3;S덪kUw.84K*W9*<3HT |\❨ ڕ|'[gUNcKN]- /Y;Dܦ4J${obgcpCil@tMɍb4>#mWw ZoDJ{J7mTwJCd$|Oj/oX~{flH;.cm;bDB^#gmB 5̹FQ-3hJԽaeGݦ&cJ0n^}TjUURkN9 / -xp%єcn  (&=zZ [$77 UeGqYxZ@<߿E+O{d=)3~y@ܫ4XH,{8 #Z% c.K4Z~|rQL/? 7Qdx Cm M0jfc h8XaOg0.:szX"\Dbcw'+ Uk÷//ߔa*<<?;vӆ-0[??QK2<|R%K2ׁxA o\*'SEYo"W`~(؆g4xÙia6|&HUGgmY$ۇoiOƑLaUװ[n.|b3̠YakX.H 6kx2|vq؋.|/NWdF]^o>[w3 $jx 6Dj@+ݻ)̤ZYep궰į.çmf񜢆Tgڸm2h0}^H!yu{_U^0OKC2{ "چ k]ó=m~9Asi.o+hxova + -\yz+Ȓg93aeOI8azG[*2^AK(ZӐ*hhs8 _ Z##k㱟fw,RiڦvNnJy^tFF aw 7tj Afˆ' [J4:1{Z==kkKqF^Fw37J ogCfpi;;p g8,F禅AĬOv9Y]’6n6E _!"ނ~ݐ><{DAB; knI_٧f'x(xI&i&.۰-K.56ޘqWϜ-nʹ^ؐBt7쵳 ĸzX ܨa&%>1›j8 (g'mH](M s@K.;l ⚇ e]<$2YQc7{v>w4𧳧ɓ\T+IU R;* \nM87Fg^m3>qW:5Rt 7`dA^r0 -@ϣBKqTd'._m|{F,0/ 3%(i4Gӏ0h&'5㚓KDaxj 0N,JpiHMSv;0aT) KmLe{/!sE4!Zx̋VĥzV=K)z&Mh^ɣ(I(^+/؆wSeW~ {/H5GlT8a$ޅg665FQ+(9i:ƓIn[GYH`zURyc?(0jBjf9-d %rŇ?8#26l҈=3ȩhT}q OIĿt$y krGkS+a-bOˉQBjbjRr*1FY4 5M6+LU5 b mيXR>3~/|jNlFX(&*a:c/è );0noud.:4xS3‚.a1a[Eއ!|zMøÙ&wϻN$76I k MW&ٰ'Wp)|m(),pY=3⩮g`-f2H&B.W1~4LJ}wعɧ\tNL(UbkUQ{mz)t0ݥ{aZ9JZ}sp#1o i.qv:/R-YQ~%kQoi8 ᘼ4V{KᡂQqs ڭs뻧\4| M\9^cERv42ciLi`RDG'Y+6eDT=/;DA/=@KȽ޳^mX@d xdO7cqU16]g₉#&Á B*Ȍ٬n@yWkL}Űʉr"CAQ $%7KHA^U&X37#5E5@T__1SueYgZeuۆ(k|O ܀=,FB,`c$]B]&wPԌqu÷ :ȓSZҾZ`-cT59qlkȬ܀kbPj<,]dFwS_FA|( @ȳW՞Emq4fg &?Ϟ~4~93FuѥCy{X;OEڂn tuI0#i#y.߂Yc{㝳]ìvC"aA<#yqp؅!鳦k7$ZL{GqI;]n`i'vm+W2N9:iUx},U3W:~ ӵȋIYE8fYMS YoEa@ sP콴qm,UK@ cAxk u014x.BCywˆ7EG/Q O^s8ۇȂ}-S=:3 RgM7`Mu۸8j)\";j YWi/eLP tV87Z5s8qmEf <_ubu򄨿POHg/1/eqs~%yr\~i A3<ٹ̖A[;w7:tdljLIXf[l6O:3H$o\7p֔2 (a<B?4\<+m 64 &a=\N}٩rnA:{]V/vLQHis|xRBQMXoG& -sytJf-$'ta?x߹DP/UKc捣E! ,sgܓ@]TI`F|~,iͨj. TaNtgLx9VSKt֨vTР\//ۂ c2E3t yjEwt~ơjLH;>D$3T:b&kҀ}6~Z9^C@e0iĸ l1 ^GĈk'! 8 M%/Sĕ$A4_X#ȝiL TU_3_RtKoѮ`%uH2B~w B*d.^6yP3/jNMD bEBH_դq˄ em SbF4ě"~NU\E*yt~+7897" D 4XʽgU^Ag!7*SuI0*Lu֥U[rkU谂pKTs9%ۦ hLIJ$N\a_z2Nc*KNlQ#Jk0G4 )CRFJA*W΍3~zR\қv>ڀC0b&qn,` UQ{tb交v%c #c|v{9+C D+-Qң8?R 1RE똱W`NO| }3Z8 q  6࿈wpzB|Fi{/.ɐ#bnި B6_gJ;4Ϙ' DquoY$ٙY.x =| oݨt9]}"hO.hv5bpʓ<څZp1L<^,0o?JQԉ{<-*}5D?;%d0ّezją6/?.$*'X;B ZՊ0r,A E \܈Rҧ)$'<Sdq-LR99h\ 3и%XX%9soh*)+@gKWr{O2S!gsiBk|`r:(F*(]#:ytyyl>\~:ցݰ ,\6bfm-T9 @HǨ:<=6+>zp]V j1Ϭ# qj!i]RUFjkKrZ&~jE" 2WӞHchTS*9+A/wiqԆDZq*;;3+p'(x w:VV|!f, ꡞx2WPƕqIsףEl\ X;!2ョ0>B[9fyk35NEKcoè-Wa4fL+E]fb)2ɕ tX4`l-(n֨mzoe 0U?+T1 ПneMendĆb2=YV]&R+^JNNHhokm,pyjE n!w"v0L-T-׉UMd?:7hp}z#vŹ#b -eͽh3o [:'alV uUm#9QBaO,]9Fm#9M;Mx)@GCX׋`\QAR0ΓBN^ -cE,@[Gyj\혼'}ߒD-.?н ~, ,  yJjNJklzI[P# ZG C2:)Gl|C(ݱItᦤ6"]3icUi4KC H ߆X0I˩M tAWaLxTј.ފQP~g\1ak㑬^) c $吒T (=IR+q]^ 8gJ%;t*J9Qc (FI$7W;w\v9.^cNYU] WM9i7Tg]k=%Դ^JOKU"95铱L9';KL]M+їcܭQ PE\ e(FISX2s*N (tꉬ]c0Qۮ;f2 4n;nb0CGƵ9y Zx Z Y<](` 3-G"g@Va-!W]MM 2uk[%NBI$wR$oBUih ЋktK=684 *5X]h+ 9#B\S&u&t"eGUtKL i E|TEfs`+2״6h{tc˒^ܯp"-(QVM0]R6䰌6W ,\Ɣ[!H kg yiQr_Ez`I@p9 vPfuPB]qୗ2^9۩ bOZ.5Qddd ]:%k٬F}9@| ɴ.[-ib6Ĺ|iLjّ4BGX<4pEtCۖyzS"R(#hVI$g2KQB0s"1]):C|ep³QTs[*WZ:ҙDqJt~fN\:ҡ0_~w?_{\Z-%*ʤ-4H(y,Dgy3#AP;:b`%`Rkw APVBS0'O5lۗ`,Z["GJ,Qb(T2 0KZʟ q,;pN0K1o^[55ThmSް .ʼ?6mfiI,O c]Fn |s9b'i^Nᠵ*t0}P1Śl gТvzY*Bl.x .b-vh'-wS0/^P\|&5B.T=͟u^ޗLx٤S.(U݃e&F$"+!Nӌ$'ґ!~FC),C <=c_ WF]Qۨuڈ,!@ dg6j^`1ϺT3Ys} % PK]$jcBd2g„;8=3W! UnpkzcqRaB\$t$58z^Z$ dVO\8U^*@˝/-I4M,;qT$ ¥KTGƏ)-0߳'9e4M9upU՜ ɅZ-C-2ҙqL'r2dVrZ$4vdOsBڑ ne6^x#mJܷڠR"Ԕ;xa8 t=4Z1N)ssNo/x4$,|k eJWS-kQGhnO%޿BnN>j£bЅ~\RkAkZR5I?7ZC.l񲲴bV:+Gݜ_\ !Ȧ_Q}|́T9YjS=$ˠC.inQ+׭U 52v5[ DW#}%,y*۷#?dxW`.uɈJlLn MERɮ|򺕉cL7H*u/Vp˥ ?gז{V3}}7:K1bHqW^+b&g)im1@9m] 4JLτZpȤ,DS/ߎ0,-h6I/i^쨜p6 4r=Zh/Q1Ua߫=5;Uf. xҗ.L.TRlO -,Zv*\R1,`-r4ea[]Έ-va1{fdm.L\ٟk?Z"r_@ 7΃ܺToKSMؓ }RվzNT ]8-!¹R&san6@ 3<]IALOOseqd:JIBv̉GPO#}öL!qwass .&=RXx#چXI  WiUVf]v .{&9Yüma\ꛉ5xFY)Xyy̋;Fcyҝ yT0VI<(yRt%8:2#kR*y$E\_ #Ds{kXKP  :CIX+aT"e9 pQ|gJ<&\K C.3ʃ?-3גAgk)J ;=tOiMolfI/ܺ>=oGU66+^(kq,' +cg A% UO%£'d楼=)6<;:,4\d ߪrю,Aɿiat6Q 2pnQچ [tKL&b]Rp6' Kۊc)F.o6TAt2;qbgƍ8ޡI!m醑vH12 ,?՝B0qGG_ٜ0cș"\%ə#yT ,)H)z&6 뮱8#%uK#)gwG>/A_x,X>W&Z]8/eީisAϱEK)gIv[>] : zE8 x/շ/]Lq".Xr zsSh^5)}τeU)p"]Eg|{ywIa(bG#)?&OrW:=1?YnhRv5EZ첀ϥ]ĝfԇQM0sC MԆPK*D J{Jd )@'[sS%L<؞e мh\;Q_bmz.Bb8l(-3rԖiy(Pew-'{diV*5ȳ֡ccbĦ!t.JTi~pJÿv&f|ⴶo"yZ+MW Ю~>/3;$Ʌmp Ke1g7ߊ7 7@:nޘRL9foB2p3V2 "NR3Y*>j#EzKuZ# #t6^w9h~&!G}83_CQsK",1 W[~TמҐ̗IUQqIl} wToX5x"ģ*56H.L *um%F8}=qn4Yȸ.T ʷY lOm?ʦ =۴UX\5 Mm'44|a|(zwAn$H.N6(E7L_h^<Vrh4A#|kq Xb: Rߌt#iV~ڃ}͝j?Y8sS"p=B+a.jA"NshT1&JLJ1xPF>ۚ aM['Jmg8FMֻ =tzFjwaܳ ;Aj0oZ;~A+ƣ|{9F_)Ur9u"~ 8cXstވ NBbm0.h_4 7= R~H|֕9S7Oyrf'svX;$T >T^XInsK(㎳5݄J2]`f,.X蕜蜖eN6pEo@^H&#Hij):WD{Is\}y:tc\1%9Gs"#%MДxsNɺk@SKZav+jfiקNyШni?@؂!ѱ0S_I/O:XN`mL #G#NIz *=]Zkj´eM@]589oCw8w %-W[,G c:;m*q,jւ / GY576lͿGS\0oZ$';/W%.]'_6¬MCٖm)H!Mw?2}ϧ$` "&)]ҫ4 7;E83ԡ~`Kj48c*4tEOd^8ye˜_QP&\$nA M`=Kny?\BET!9t/TE K.8qnģMShP݁se=Jys0 ZAJQ既;ߞ_DN>vdcJ3GBIm \ [+kV@=BЊɲY U))נeguەcLΞv,6_ jkRlUY[R@*fߋxÆM23|v| vm_F;=lAWV.N#8r:"/#Ҵ0丆c!锇F J3e{) 6MT Z]M,񫍊F?`ciP.܏:|; >'-cO[ w7a ѡs ̛.Wb}'rOl3d.Y=XK☗@]PkVu܄8ntaǏGǰ8wG97t-" nuwL #xeq֒[ ZPuH'Gs \r&}I5%bFT0چ'nO:nKoP(UҴ°IZ:Kj{c2*9.D !V.3=e$*Z&h;>?@3`aUX3VPC$%j|Nqp{#~%[*qcXM-% q O֦5`;?_, I'x &yh5 =<4┌oJR4m/:]텟aRJm2mOM>+pc%;UƎP9-3LR4g4o_m::{x%"5Z⽖Si fo#M6ɉ&v9GaV/M}#7J\[Loˈ87uj%07( QSkS!%`{ZuzmMg!bU@I}i6Vu c)j(s;[n4[p$MPmȘ[5%2ygbglH|1tZ /,8]MRB+ԓVgULCzG ְ$^o,D@7nޑUie8{;ޛp\{͒lyNB؃س`2^[}_Œ Z+]J^‹mt)<%R{ O'ZACgP="z@6I$7z{.S"I44R4욛zn<ֈB[|H(Le+-ɬX[>-rFSa!fq"A`vM!6Ϳc.WQmjFRulj4g kYw{؟DQ!̭&[Z>_{\M`3uk9deж<"izƲk:B-)y{m?!+8-W$l)U%x$Ik7?hMuB, AT.kĉbiRTNqtTMfy~:)/Tl)=':2pidzfOR.wۈ":L2Gz[oJSсr-g~S&[' m'kbdw^ _BgNN;Zcd=<;ngJxV=)L>7(44ѡ)4DOuuh&z5^Ōe'Ew- o' 5fςNI7+rkƶkvב EICɭϝḓ3qS)Vxo@S̡vQtCC+(E%?XGo҃[;G B`mGI:W6oNk5\qcofO\>M͙5Z0?=]|Y"Z&B EE$7gm^]5lᒤKHc*Nd@ؚ'\_:Юp!`'m FJ"sjrtl {s"TC!w;'[N)́ s(J"s)(>^j~`X's-:4%W^lp tNVzKP5Z( y0dӘcgcc:4_}:xlc\b ֲwkhOX^1gNh2D 9-!UlMy#{bc"1U&Ļ~L(T5]bUtSmz`%.43*6߇ VGmhKW?Q3`1z6&N)8jC&I72Yy%[.5SJ_jf< ̦hר4>GpJv^u εa 1˒=+'yWKdyowN&$?j +j_' x1o_Gl79UP̻>7h$QS_ѝ䩮Dop!VHW k>Dk{V0׭<+9Qx3;ڐb\ ͭaB;$O7v(`ҢWR&- ȡpIJUc o*=nl%! pqnEc_ɐMX'e+Cщ J9v^Fz\e0(B^UnL=H#* -W1.øwhLTIͺ0l!(]MK [`:JIKT]Z8j6lNk.wɖlZ/%Lj̾HGjGfe%.E`Bgv 6H^"Rk)lQ6FAfDQX`/ŵXs=${?ͦPmLw<0֩˜"bSI ?Q`zPkz'@)ДXU\PmV_ ^jq/acmua:: |K$m<۔+m^g˯a|cpAm?1ŕc wfVʥ<kR?nnETߓ$5P#"j֭09V#] f.':DAvM!}aP#?8^6) "uT/NƔDwu#UKgOקhƴQidZ!㖭fm$0H&#vґZ$fޘQ94MRa(~<;H=Ij;a rJ]CH>c[*͠$.S wdrҽnmu9K.re#3{D{o+i{*q ԐQ- x~]^tK4*Db2䷔fւyiN$8 lLK՞ XDrRGV (ޔSe*+fQlAQm/J&iavP7:%q $p$KSٯi  OT ps@LlgaD^śޡpl%e.NQ709jBV}q|My3n#c]wXMIusOr=t !i L"/ߥMTGfOfi:u`,j-|GމK K.< ;,R_CT> U1q+*P|Sp-oUe~<I96b[N4˜k%P^ڳOg%rTvIm_O6BZqandĈ#1r%'^oGXơņ4[6#CpMGm#* kJb/ rez (YDeᾍxsԐ5OqY M ^KRo4zE5%5IE+ ҝBe=); z[|YFs)bBm w^BR1R0Nq4T8/Z. KA{콡/EQ۸*Sbh-T[tlϪWpNpk6]) l iNP;o!\ WtL=\ a&Y߃F TCfc:"rCq5L*e :uk-nM޲N]o)B~[31(`րK;dKZjUwXb,7~CEm`&;5B8NV'ڈcn^$Pf -n{iBU4zS8Әvci k,.WN; |+FrLwy1˒,~&@]g1vRXJ  QأSL؂(+*>'7JOi!d:4U1XPX( \+|v8T/s4=Jq WB]TUM^E>Ē WxЄgLa;3/e!jb dO3vnҒ@9HQH:c:KZnN9ȰODMf)2Gk]n\[uN>Gu#{+AXO=.p@2H";x7z=`2: ;6p^SXdg=S+8K")`cCBkwPmv^qw;$e&}"[kg+'!8J1^{q]OjGst+z[:x%`;U.Z"HH/_;PWJ OFEij6*JV$;SlDf[c6UfSCo%}.n*GŸ ׭jOMX5۵CiSGD]Mfs ң䕏c; }?rC揎0 tA!]#Nbv^#Nl9P)f.{;T/}(z'\7 C8"'t 8*H,P_R&];+*'S+(?-Lע_{kñ>۰9\yF-Tǟ=66w p"uw]OQ_D#PSY~Nn \M }=sP?@F|pm̹+ Be~.N(L(ۃhWPşZ̤^\TQ(<[*G>^yj⍔r jbיִ;DwȐз`.uROӐi˓{B%k* O灺6̱R5xΓu" H?H]HidӢ#{F)EAC%V;e/!S5M8k՟t$/)g\+? 5 tfAƴ d$gGK$àJ?QSsTO @[_i.GR%>,J ?PQݵFRD/G뾆5D5 =^+]B&m8'H`=TB\M>Mcf6+jlE3b:u[Ua5^Ьc]e8Xo[ѪMx>:}!uPoat V2:b<` lWH"o|N:^9/r, L:ptS&̧Q@b#\Q~2-@HfUH͡S 9 7!X7.q6O=4ē%HHM,ӫEFV[{OGFu;U'w,nʽKY9/]<]<fHRޖ8|[1K @3nr&'m%Zh~?O/Em,,q r;U2UX%siB ԓ֥W n/f]>!O#gyN,/KHLd{FM*L* Ӑ6p%^L+Hk|t! %cFT7Qdx Cm M0jfc aa? ~x}֑fǶdy<_P@װyDƆԭ)KBMc~MP]Q@@u oos~YZaQ%O|O~'N/<{O}vqqgφt_|W?o}U|o_Շ_5u6_7?Y976>o׋u+>lnV\Ewͺs,ڪ|/-Vz#m鼩~U  : e.?uvE?Ϳ~~ǫ/ >*o#˫/7}^ȗvf|ۦ>4Ǔ|_E{hmv->Ou/vྫ+ԉ:_g?uoq]mEj/>|㉚營7oڛ<}/o^-~+|,⁇˿u}Ϡ}wщُ-;_[Uշ]__=>1WVG?/J_ON?>9yxd}R|{R5?OO]dw/O~>9=Wgʓ?W\?}˷_~_w9yq#X6xakf<9B>=]g~|uǷ_ -my/n`^y]3obxU6ÛeZ6᷏>vyx9 { O^+?x~ߕ}>qaﶮz??3Sʁd|}+ka~_տ}9ҨA~Wg1{<|>|zYyv~o1]m=kW۳oy9^o=TE?㬚ߏ\=?oWwO<:.-/v]u {>׻ՙC<n ?3^w|8?ßҿ;`|[y^ v=5;-o=7|{nK#ꆟOj;^tK4~\v&y?尜_9Xgﳞ?7gß pAW <~?Ay=\ߦIi0/HZV;Orx}}^/Cwž'%Oj'O~>z?xGU89=Qco@u^Ba) qxoc'A[ a 뽆+7X8N71xgq^.4a-6 1nӃLYןÌF`SoJ>nh̍{d/1R C[ҦN8hGx'OBS9/(pB0F0٣w[z$r< {HhSbt Ɲt7V^3wWҜ`ʮ2LiJqR~8QRysT>.6 }X G'F{]BKv j("+rrZVg>Q}: `u !x> (t`OTav`= k'-Ctx]60w-F]c)ys|˄C&Qj2\φUsQ`.k0̼+'Sߪ@5 ndճ!1^}ț8s+pW$[, /骍yU @\y Ɏ/GU-ΏJ+".B%\'8RH҈tH9~FI_gw {y}TL3x\j7WC-`Z;9AV rp,`.;/Qr9';/o)QlzM6]k~LIfvK*d畺g_g7BQ(<10' ODV0yv S1qlc`'J>7ko+oi'ݪ Cҭ}g"b'#䶤bC)Zim.hо~0c r!Ƴwy5Dqp+ >>W`4cn-Q:Nl bܭ|biRCf$l 2ΛNdҫ݌ƆΟ qf^tO]* pbB8 -ZqcF!*qɌ/;r*?DoՃiA ,'7R6s <1`=[̿ǵ`6ިKź;O,kSzzα~n64'p`Q Uzp%JBG.%(_P8w>9'kZ8h%d,^!Q)8pWyyӮay߀S. C8!$2 \g*Ѣ<(v䲱E+a1yL93?Nb|[9\A'[5-*vƹ σ#^;\!nk/V~\,`m00r~56[g**};$PS=*6:5qV6}\YN]ŕ+6 -ɚmnBh_pe+}U` ʅaiFmyה`jɖ^+rv=IA[sV^ sۥ fS)F&W5-VhҌF>ۂ+RxI7~`M{?W SHԑC;(φĖ2㍸FgkF&pkD <.`%G olC|sADNa$a޷^d&1Y['9%k r.t2ke/Prjdzqe*u9'*4L'0Sqƍ΅ܽuW% %o#D"u~vRnqx:]V}8/|xjӫgW7_Nk/u[zM߹FIsI/ i=9>^C9ea`S s N 'z_g^L*(^\? ~XPi D!Lfk\whL# M/1v21!fپoNd>Pn6*F"hJ0 75)H'+}G.}6YmaZQP f&*q֖k\|n5miT0R<2FJɢ)> EXՊ*+2ދ lsZQYd \Wݤjԡ$[X,Hܰ#"x6Zb̰-2"C|D̯Tb3}y,'C5 gaH)"m0dD{x Z[_,K 9V# ϼ7\eg}-)]]f>B0Ss]0 Xwp` \b)<5bUWK\ON\"#tyGjg$ܑ+b[FZ94 iށ^*հiCT" R޸-X^xu4{!f.s;s4 ˦![0K[P-}C~|gH~(Y;H[;0)_jȈpڲ,aٺPjȔ{ Upb9撌dNBI* Q d}JjP^n֍߅#H sc>{f2t!Ì ](\i`W؈ i{hUNHU=!{A"0 %IС"wEBΚ^۹"]Qe 50ν5 B ̿Ɓ!Î2Ҫ%@\,I~:Lsn-쒐:򍟅T[pg{`A:@Lla506z+t1 x!Fp71G#@7p5~!H@qB٭ίDG.mQY"JhI3Z\zN:^hϽslpVe7` KK5wz-h5C[}T ds9%$#zk.'ORWʒ|_d~k!U4A'd`{GKJj\@wX:r_Q8}98?.F[LI9|rR=UE7vQfڧP9('dKZ;\o73I)qp|X&`{>~;)G`rްfGN;'Ju1F kgzX_ȣU[Q\`wY\M`3e K VzmaTD/@(Vo2}\q,Ř؊wcg rMg%%K|t)NwADZҴ1s5O܀6ptPKG ߕPѮi * հ?%;;4m t2W(*IK'sѕP檈~ltw&hJf[/k[K5TCwy,3؛{;u߻5f{'T>7M(VXSgc:0V)Վ>z%3pMc,\#NיQLoüz@\Dqn>e 4`*163l!*Fy~jѽQ9)+ ?a~{jk٨ ۙjd)`JX=5")IRrcs9r?fBiTP _ԭ';H2 Bk-5nԁ8,I魽v`S*|QJD; 薒WBKTQEr]#ݪEVõ V<Sm )}-Ch4ԸT9A[#}P2'3PA׭4JiǴxJOaO*#Nn?MH;:rShm'ĊypRپ%4)7i:Y#gns7LD6#D<[DnpK e>E׃RQ騄wmVb̫8̒9>2"fЊ w CUyD7IY{a%ʵ5Ј;j.ZϝgD[ };XqWYG$j͑uT&wĹm@IWbNrJG˫=lcT6ɬHiȭUDI)2MѴ!RF54Vb9RSgrT(/f3Vd{5y#LIct'Ob8{2sF1Vұ8@cp;OЭ ^Q=p[ӟ [i1BTH.1]y%jT^!9t;JH~cc9V#ʤSY+9h>98Pl5lxL`LV$+)~xݜ-jw/:%N&C ~u=kʥU9yP e憤AIzQ]&zԺ+&)g &P-aiQ0q{ aV-? q:8{|@ ҿc%]pV;e') $j5lP|;բ(idA&00Av5u |:E c2a;d(C $a7V{ǞBJ̈́{ʍ>5ql( Ԗ.~F a :/rPd9k)c W2y^)1:}H0[5Y tZcbXj ;ž Aa>P8ɼ%S5ecQdVor x z!g2vXNF(jSc3\PޖW;[TnaN$`Eni 8SL.dG%%6!϶_pQ}?8)܀(bbJ>IXИ:z 3\憑Hz^2 ! >= cˮDۗnul)F{9\OYYLl7:9I\\f?O4gYuY |u]P;G{Yb+@VY jƏ $`׶D?fשtGh9$N#Gݿ3V=dwPב?t 1x[ SYo-8'@Q+k$$v{҂m@*hmw G{Eʻ$s5od ADRDR&'?SމK=5EEtA"G-y9ksb^ t-v3d?23o{:8]œo"ea\2~d\'KJK_\PDiBĜ1i=靚Qy@N FRm՜f,;A:жK +В#cNmc.!䴈La;f4GK; h{1dSK^xNgs.% ;I^YIgƙ$4Ԗ K̔Mi ࢘#yf Rcosqu߀OZ=tjI96s0@ g`@}Gٚ8)LO&dz8tbLSЈ#5S|x>ڤ(tGkLGD4~ fKWNp#`yFbS*=:VACUyjU+B8eDYa\>?ULj]EkȑL5ce}̧v%CwF-+"c{{lz,6" !F1$(~닖zrRxc˫]:NrIyp=8$lLU(1q#@>( 532* pN{91g@ThsIdcX aǦlNF & 0YZ_LDI|'*Q)bdg&0+s8%s̥` T)I1O-9 ] Q# N;sE1q&*S` b(5>RVGa~s9REm[csed.Y pI2x 8v|@ ј=1q$ 'VamV|*A1KyC 'X)Ak-hƾ|rɃR%阇}[K Zh'+ES!$6 !*8p ClGMzݬYyy|K.Xp&Q pꔡ\GhULő|qՠA=#g.S43L7hVOl?4jEJ@N{Sbp#&,4#-D d (3QqaR;*fgӖ4GekAMjy$kp k11=XZ4d;_7Э9.CZJvOsF,kU>3K'_vԲo[^Ev5#265ȽpӗDVjH{ 3'PmsT,(,ٚC;FIIZ8-[J׶o"2Tb1 u,q,/=;ߒ͕aTо"J^YTM1|MƤ2jKfyt2xeqNh[y-AI-;sգ&aHS@BX ᏨeI_'YVIq/{0% Yćn9ȐAẂ`{Z7Br#mcN ɐwG/~%F&a'#Yq)̌S!>r?`URDpN\ִ#O,NÚCukBCMq\#KX)@p]>e}.hH:j<cq;HWt>KS zuG7ݣ"=e6GcEj4G=%S%SwVR$ET/HR 1jCɖ8ՙ%xTH6gA$3X{P]bX*HI(9wX*18ͽ)>6 3@0#1Oef]lʪ0Ҷ=w,1%,?w&2JM͊ʚDSk(j`i>'w"da7>$2`Rn9/B]ީ@oũcHz< Zfmɞ'cj2_T:~1sH:Jɖ{u0-!%gBRa,zȭzmBP$&X|櫽[1{rES13OFcŹ-Œ7u9P9VSW{S&ʘ!R7Ąy2)*+~KHTCֆUYNT)B vp3:ˢK(5w0 -šX5Y88 &!ܰC CK'rn8 /)TKͪȹ %/u˂HdKqQ3' R UEtW@` ̫ eD_g{zbcZC礟jWNs߈ ,2N:})]ȜYshɡS}ZmE93m~_ |Smޓp9|*+s:*P6t4W@~iNU|zsCka{X,4+5.yJ}BӉ|YeyC wP.{ YPJ3ǩŪ7}N6*ؓSE?^c?*,("c]ɪj?Cv&92-t˻)5hzpLs RmgMe1 O… yhW"iL_-;< MOoi[Ub_Dw.b9ҕW@ӫx@,z?KY8I0b"IT̔"t\Qf1) :" sO)T$])IGI4}v}W~*S/ 9|h !NwKyP_;o ~<;BoWn1{Ja֭N!w ztStBN7ľBnV^9"2H,g41I HPtd#=Ƥ cm+ha r\(!3=Q뭹:MS5#)*LgsC 6Ikin3f6>9hH]DN_kI!j7hZyn?bi*7 J`򰣶ppTNXMRl[A%޶ؚY, Yf`Re+Q@dMŧSi9J?IL %L9Pb9 ؉d*:.;Hk+-I K"ESa}"C~n@*xoU!YF[6a7ё$qM`NܪS[zv_0Ĝ8?kY9 7!3Zgc-. G2t|JsI;#3[u'Qr_E8#1h1yq,'Qf[ot~JU9tY5KXM7Qdx Cm M0jfc d4d|xxڽ}ےוe۶d`f~n>dy}(P Sbs׵>{2gG.??z_=]ܶlSv?﮻]Ye~p-UU1gNf' Nxڽے#ב%QK̗""sTd1Z"UCR:- D" A6p~;2Twh"2o˗~r_}__>=+_ x}[ƕfƖ(<[_@D1KRFb{@PU0Q@R9o_@g$2Ow|z~}Ӈ_~~y=~M.?Mۭ7mӇU?}SۢL~gmכ?mчe-޶S/¿bQ{ɧnU)ʮ_/~nV|_.j#$|E< O>\g+<uϛ"Z+~W^~6qm*w^]ūTߕg?e];.7ݶz-_\!?|5]-/]͏1ժZ/?n?˪o궺 [_Կ=?/VzO]L(|?[ _}ӷz5oM|ݫ߿Wպ??}U?oxz[X6?&\ :ٴTZ4ߖ}׵q]1޶?u/࿾ݿ=TE_?@ Tؒ-%Dz/}rQ=_Uuy?ӕyǷ//7_eq:4 7Zu}~wAwq^>ۓ}yʏMן}S=VO yIޯ߸xwo\2}WozUuu}U}5ǟ~usu:Z=7< y~͸}z~/_Ϗ^:\y}v~2<}bwp*o OPv}?~9s}F~=~ i]=oopt >Q6O޿`Х|wǟ|ȣ>e{FUxެ|*>k_~g<^s<+oPh}Ƿ.SO2V7 O4Z^c%:]L|8J<2ӧ ix&dI>wra7mх;wh<dFK8m=QQﵒW/[9Eo\\ѯ0q =5H{) -# JǮ?09d6zN+=`N{C6 y;O@wh[[r~tχpǸ“Q*uSqNςGwN_΅|UX%D:ۜ]-ۏ8^[;$cx!YM;+ZaE#H#VDEz 3Z+<^E-ۯn{y:X`[[wvc}Oڊ==8z^-J0"u8-*q#*gsm؉wf,͹'?Q{a/tlslQ``ĘfwYRh*Ok#rVsq%yZ[g;x(x/q_2āAWln^KOK-xNn[㉭vC4Ÿ/u`a/IGOe6< .:4b1uxJVC"|)&6B6aoD_T+ktǃn:9$ Dޭ9(υf )qz]\x@==Bk}ufHyH3K4qmL؄6euY"lͧ/-&LL--3q*hVbD9Ћ@'>̍`nM3W 0Q@2 vY[`c(\,`~x3z PV=˰#dthvp6ь ^W!3AZٌJ| Ad0w!ۑLܷw9%sM[#7t*n5M;\߂nv5瞠A,MM;mUu-d-DZkj&`!34:n>Au|~څ\VZ.->ځm! #*-u뺽!}xD!?!Vgl^=y1 mlLo 9}kM.HAv{[ QIcpZQ5]#z JR[LN;Ng[St58њd^l:,eoKIA5^-YM62N!`c` PϠϦg8~6!|o0A DQ@#"SS^SiRR10=kT$iĠ;23E؁Ѳ]u`_-&{QwrOuLW~E'}n x~?zD. <,J`d]Ux6v{ l͛߇f0 /5'75=Ռ|Oސ,xz`]=q A*H\s)2pnCg?wgC 3R5ڑ͛޸8 ߄_ʧ~jO'H3rN*wfoZ+CAd-hxg t3|BAK&iLmmBFV̑켧X)oP-nf~clob Oc8h0=!j:J5$J=@uh~zdmYT.`0Je DQhj\Jf;ޙT2R12-pNaY]+G+ݑOhJ2Y0D 'fxLS~ zqK_<^2qFS>C)\* ԣS0U("]X5{ %Up-Z,F.*c87ƜFxcf54{S4_ N a-+-(ݛ# _z*f,nv(tcVnökwցț@]|zt!>8Vd>l~$i#snj /+ <Фsk7rt2(w4('173磬Kik)-ݜJsOX[J$$k4nH%i4 !Y>5[R`OyY?Z%}61HʾGM-&gJgp,!q?ϭh-Ae>Ύ!u@[*HSJMi0Ndb] PmOfM>uE3;8^w$ƑH5Shl`2NRV\Vsc-!Y OSy+tcvx -v0ұA㖎Tvߘ%q%MfDxثW7w@.ba;8`xy>f!Keep`ZIYbaJsYac@X$39/') x8pޓܸxe9' i fbY|_um}n7Z-yhFD)&%=?u{[Z͈ Yvj`4evdj@;M*Aqi+eh]@wt.rOCX~-8tO, QNZ5\hz8?̤h0=8Lԕ8!ĕ.-F , SvmcƢ+bڬ`k▃*L̹9{8X}Zk(3oRyTcGl^}9;]3Ԇ1g,wɵS1rE0Ow-l\sDk ~ȆoGY9o+za6  mTUE p^ʖH HAFQkdнkylO8=MĞ.뇶VMz2=mFCiAC1Jz1Z}uHf+g 1^XfRa4<\Sc_騥#ɭH[)|fZ:.InxKg=ie^}dz)X/a\̐}L:׀;OKb0_ޫk~K%9X=B4d$8bJÒ!Rq8Ɋ*ˀw\R I6O:yqH tW\`㷀Ez~G{ĵsU>='?l{#ڏ.![圆KJRb>4q!c/J?/9˜ubDQTXh2sڹ슞gC- ZV-owax%o&\Z/r/%:J#X]H[1Zn}BS9TχQ/RFsG{8縜Ʀ+sC0#aos5l9,ikJk``ٻ>'1GBJ[Eb'Df9ծt jpUڰ(]!-ȯcHC!-bpP vfg\\h|'j݃P/ͩ]fN̰vz0{)`G2Pi}-ӝ ^f2>V[>>cK3Q}qkj=Pq .,z/}g$.>ف8ޅ3#Ϩ^s hlJ|/zF8@LGw=}6ㄥwQIՙk|i<ߧҪ?>dhTъeԽ8,ȭm T_OP!1@eIqY;B{V}\tIľYD% p'2 KBIKWM05&3\hLF# `Yp-r~Ȟ42Կbhr,>ںO?;̄%Ǯ˃!y?c<μ6~y,Ԛ0J[SvѤWF,j%lS^|cX+?xpҁ8HBIgiN%d,p mQAS\n#OⅵrU.cb:o޿˶L4*'$ɽNׯE-ur=2-þTyuo9Nz^-mM<"FUEVbvUJ\^6h0QĸpZ"VDSuuwۭ⎥o.v}COoǟeVֆ' b`K=o#ww`V`羢/|tvF#|H@ب@\XL2}[Hugq|J'WdBi:=,9MfwDE!{rcgU#mZZL-)F>^'_12!O`{)iY{zG"oB W|P5S7<|!~Ǯ-3Xl)vRH^Rq^vcD dTn`M۪Krò Tpw@XSI-MQE]N x \qiQ;frAٞ_&a)z&n(689A'%4U (Gb߅7@)A71uдvMwz',O*TGxGay@I[}-Hq{Bj|TYqi(+˟ݰDqpqZzXN;'ɸRixճOMUЕ}T΂~a#m鳶^0FZgaNz\ͭE o0(\ tg2S$ݘ{x&dMէ#wz)3@11:̱'&餕=e. k!uJy}ypʈzv׆ޫ&ٗhL)=PVn$ˑ\Rjǖ >`2hp߅6)!6_;C+sK~^"5c7X0ta#a'Z S4)*|Iv%v i#-vIAs/%\t :aXkb,:ww>Kz2:g;U>cChU%sC>w'llDN`/9˝=$gsR4'ux ;FA[;iU[x]Fߌ^9c; v65]e} s Zu^EB\AH7|~=יfc'Uq,PNMq㬎lIwl2u盯MU,{u`l &YNN9BڼԔ{fe.# QU(J/@Y)ݷM]ϠS`+'es'GMčQCTSCs64u>V{|zUtus$[F*3o`cچR=V6Aܱo9C?EHY4VǪ^#}B.) Q\v瑚Wo>If%/='kKrO_R~Yҿ`+8ف̱o11`&Ү~Rjծ{C3NtFBvsƃG t|9hv|`sa~~aRM[{Jkqb;`Haq Z̤-;{rMFBH5 9,˂]9J]X=Zό. e>+&r6AF1HN<7PMނHڨb'fla_|ȊtkQtA;¨Ưssu:Th(,ڟX :X09)W^dY܍0zJ2ؚtC6įI!QےtDOp. zhzS_RSs,I85'ye%0Q6(lϴƾ2M~<;Z|mi S1ޡ0Oી߭*pzFc,ljUrr}VKlgny9[5鑭mY QŮ1ysmLe (ݓ~0֖#kqKQRF]S~YM(厊朼;?k8+U>[$;vOHրV|+BKE:YOv"|@Iҹ[P~5 gƏjM>=h1 bzE )pBS0rEŊY+мSd)r2vUky#ܜn'jZ 3E꘧ɩX:jgoQϞqd4zitGa8D7ѧUG6^L=T P,۞~o"ؙJPzJ#C)%rG i-bZjR{YTXW kPvJQj\Ha{E냼`8t~ę6qj6al6'zׇ`I>ūLclպV&ꩣq.qfq팤* ӓ3|fDs-)Ա.ik&^+"._(@#~>2.y:YaI >cyjÅϸ(;W$5 =*F2I<.|KJ`D{~l6"oMUT M1Ѵ!B)Qt<;ޚ#IDfMƽq+LD=6 ڌG4HdPßy7$c!gb7SAQ[2R)uSpGRCjlB_Gwu^BBpa 4CMy?GVYUt%ٕ<#aK_kȁg:Mզ# ksNmADjǝi\w$kOЄJYu6)m{sLfD⋡ÜSiTݾl1O8x#sbk`W4{RlOr_lh_'sUWʓx_뗒|bsTKY5^@^+W¸D0qp-TI\Mi⼛{n$XSDW@&Fn0GEGI<xC; 0u݋’5QqG}tHo+EjG`#4C'~A|u~'ۯWo79 '~x-D;_߃D5g [G w&7&'0eF| vRbHٝ,{H=Wm6+ʖh5(k#r>n2+rL~ # @nwު"ѭ<RUp`VsXd>`2?9S}o\CWSd"wn[Fb MU֨%ޚlS-P5w)쯖ytɁlmPR*F$㥡\ |5em9M=TxX+Ԝv]Spv" ̵1=r4/?8ݫI׃SڢF<+(:<*XP9G =&T%B:x>Ù V5lR>q81aV$ւ`U>}&/0(yv^$j#x ;ǝZ"CV{MC*\ j=\XcIuM T!ŽrjGPo6΃ AuBΣ[ϤSB9Sg`9A_e#n% p:Bvxg շssZKXvR *Ęt;YG2:eQQGɞϫcN't}&wRHF"^5/@4˹v)A>ASAP~75q.!&Ė rc*KOdc*R}:QT%7nxɾzw[G*#aI*t>8惍9wҎ5~jJ1bϳ V+RRS1ut(_XZeQ[Wr4F0uڄyTlS2p_^bz\|kPl_RbRK|<KR"ɘ`+\{JKA;Ҙ+gX;+ʧzZbX_WZ;Ŗuycɞ`{e8*?]'#\)x waT/-9Q@*'W#|3S-uEYk"a)gp71;:3l)櫅6`:s_7ُ!4>v9I%]6B8ߋV O|)YE-m ;\lTNzj:yvP{mESoj-КZB/8jC1G7j`=D-U]LrrW%[GeK1ʫ .&Yʯ]weseJjSժddN8IxZ=r/%MXϜ-[96HO.]U|Roc0oqAݱKҏ%9Y zڕ.It0UiGc@H+үyw#29[4zj 2/daO/3E snaBIOeRM{3jy !9̙r'2("W'NqD>xpNdf97*ho! A|q:&v:vl%].>soPKÌIқ[X]6`;;c{kTZ/!e:'-׍aq{6r^MyL|k]dU6gV%e^q}F]Zp]j{"X/>kq+` ˤ'oA!w<ӭsg˧++sX6egQ]ꫬ\gH{6r,CEܴ"K/;Jޗ@N?35c[ӣ숮.trsy8Pl)}56RsãgY+aE~-j [ҹLXGʊwD&7A?!U7Ұ$k} [q0BrLs#fnL(fK&p Y_3Oοp}M>/`h+,Zk4'5է6~Hw~ $~񕲖=҉=V,ϓFV?p5`H=iU2Wu\2*& #ښs݃{ Akk-i{522e+eC;m3SvyW߳SzLb1fKgnG :^δpo @w"2>Q;Qyu^mvWXZb>oI|mRXLڑOܓ_Vw#nEqknYdy1K}W3>ODǠoưٵZ i,IKǓߏ}!_:IMrra,]g~oMdTe<ϘCK{pLFxrد7m˸]g*GIbV F)Ky㵒BZ{^r,2:sU-JGb>rGv,OD*'_ grM9`wVr6ﭹB*՝֊.c+$xIt>7~\<5o.*O\V@g֙Pg_fkY!vSOԨd,@ݚS 2 Xwn|5Y (xcRX3J}hRP gkQbYйO]YD@=F ߌOŚ8ڴA㉶qh+KGNK׼:p[bLб4uj}oʘ"$6U.3Aj+4M /xR]JRׅ(^JH]TќwoTRoѹ``M7NH2݋8(j3lvT2l)€XJů6GR0.k̽$J-eBSBtY ŋUip޽oOmWKMz3³%]b(~Gx|vbYlIDJ:.(f{^h\<V>W*a< .R4 slLvoOn&8'##Y!+ð!#-K[gS-zʷn\sQ,Cש3~L=1-M4[۸3j- 73νa4*ۨ3$TZi8 'N%28{&_(9>sھT.ZX -eH3\I uk̽aϏ”exg,瓪&$sZg9J%vѱcUJ@λܓ{iԷdΛ7+Ixwă+na:C<NHNsQCs!v&ArA6dMz -T)Ljp 'BiTKnO-ݘb$WBֈȏGyO|prđe%I#q]@:}+5(p{5 _[f`XyATW~ G@kN--@x|')2ĭ>ai!_^~N+ic;b[7ĵ6i-v_4U`K%bls\;:S;Whzw D% J|o$fT$&}X.|0%D&!7L$Xf 6je\@R%e%@(S'wsEиr}mU6ߒ:᲼Zrp*f#J(9=8!q{"^c$^&̚@9d$o&/K h'eX}"wn,퍷ZJFgZQ-2 {*'YSoŚEObWuC \liӄ5!V*G!YxKSN:%3wGDI=dD(5k} `rZh7hj#‹*9K糯pJ.GٰnrIGqT: -Ic# K#.:lpp;FND춀Fc}Oa{"9Z@{B6/ٜ]O @M])fdߴepzM&6mfP/;ABZDr&rh&\zF$ ssTؖ&,X_۴h)*l$5 /]Q|A=gVu kL<ď? Ђ |q7n'h>ޡз$^hJ>JMB `xZGuFzo^PJ>Huk Rv>s-w:6-H YsXkNdu$R. fQc1C7^"F&(L}w+ ^%PcN_$\#sXw[jE TֆhBJGs᫉.K$A{9iQ0f .5>_@:LY%[=R/uWuHmd={ 6o ^H s4k4]_$Z[Z0JN[uۂ5Gp1c򊜙.|"dUg̱=TqzX T.H κe3ѥMj aRF}*$=F=f>sM-'V[6~kgdJ=W:m3>Yܚn\n4g_ZI`w!{*!o71vqVmh%X =;Sc}E}ύt6:WwWTaFߵF2\L~Mdks[c@gYmL)؅c66mAE`Ž6y7̒'i h:skvjwV#Us9߮7Y\C[)f*(#A%uUxf6J%o>R׆gg3J޾jPdi&Vu̲*5'/_uUU׾+]eW&G,LOǴ&CfqҊ^{,2^խH*S2@1Q>v) ԞEد2=3rܗrg͞CKs)7v0*gV_ߞڃ\&KSӁ42iH]X oۮnMcigK"6Qrjz\aڽZZM8ѷO(>Ic\q.چ%徂:Ht6N׎c7n/sX{OfCu΁^KПZLf,f[GU:C[ٖ4)˚ҩXZLwm"0S4g69m.+ܶIQ}CzottmL? YoZ>%co]yljE*Z׵j&Մ^W3i2gWSđayR;MkGUE*17Zl7@_BZrC+2)v?ۂ~Z>nѫdEaUQ}TOQ>i߯ :!D{:N:',Vւwr^ݶаX5R[ig;Mrj[Gډ^4&ls7M dɷACZAS(@FKg;8vbmSX0 i23ud\̰Z-7:l lY ۞3w&20mcc"WtbUK9NTAU0ѹJEP;rkW6ZyNK,yҏKbeYt $i1>2rY!l d/UPTonY^9 \z0o epl;VZ͈#ܒ nɺz*=Hv `S:JmGm45;i:2?c5H2(drIΥr wd"λ)#%TVG->&OҶ:V@Fǿ}gokVam2;j*3<1JBIhUgִ݅'z3T#z<=OwӚ+Ki3Cھg/1/ά<-#zZ˪OJʅEz;8ڪ4u 4ȭ̧͉@|̇d^2՞/?D8LYds](4L9^C@;H3yR^w|gc6턤b]TѰ'Z<-RQfoLZ!5!'tuM`FZt D?wCp`Rg)ϗ۝g<r>grв\Fs%4Z5V^XV;ybd"RK7IeOv}-UW[\%էapogKkitiz8 a gS̵!KPLCyne#`Oa_N'-/OyB K@ZkP?X{io.OfraVQ< 3lr?|!\`P)c]+(Zf\^r.tMՎ8+37`lvAN:pt*8}aKbbWeYHY.ۋp<&.0@'~NG;G'} ,B|6А *O LarDvn[wW^w00MIUAK=OVH2[WP.=M=q3UR67fVWzr*t!v_\9ZEk2|T:H^گtʲuPLb@4FܔUZ<_z QLu VT9Ɯ~hNDa|?he%)m ܉huroIӊR'*'i#oL=^[dh@ &1=HFGӕx#) bOpm,tW54cq>?ޟvD4 ݃suXkBklv@(ޏ\KOKș0mxkhhIE׶"Ocۯ6ȗЬf||Th>QdF&gT rO!M3RjۇlT9oJ"[茥- +#g(!\4樉.4sX;j 2l=ӧOa!އy@z-/ϭ'UȨ!49l upeڱ\ M o*CVbXP~ dF#x]% <%j,]]3pcPIDuڜSiéÊ*ȋIɀ, pP]U~/uZ[hKN^[Wz ֺ[)5?'žBxm['BV;G9e7pZJ_(k .00d0O{☶xarf<5zQXhMRJ4dFKX/Y K 1XĻ^**~ODQ߱]2 ÔaÏix @npx6k%Xn)eҝ}G5:t'n^^_ qZNXݻK$k}G?i};k+Uc+*HiOSӁ+2^;h*تJ=s2GMPXH?(뾀UO;oC8__5$)lZK P'''?zG5\pS}<箻NKs0dpߍ#ރjKx D# LRjIYOBv8}!^zOQΐB'zgϯ PމYSeGb±u.I;X?wIUz* Ӹ|WZ9ս^i7q;Vz܅{g[Ř+}L  0ac -s #TR 1'c_]S[`gEc-LsuZ=wğڈ;UJ]>eO/oS +K\c/?:7Qdx Cm M0jfc >uY7vZ(7ۼ1?|ڵCs̿fySU~__o?5ٗ+.$Mr?P;o_}F_wY5˚\fMw_WϿFnuuSOxzuoy[lWYSl?~ >?}oG텵K{i;wt۬M^|pΦy7z7٤̫/ŢZ ~^}W? /bv| ]1~Dg}|/_y~[e۽pN5>_߃'|49Y'7'I{VvfvM|IgtI\iG{tn{m˿LIOo^ofexm7t9coÃ_j'`try1^hȳSO/R/?WgomN]}vUڰS U>O65 gWH?0OG-ZkapVN޲·myVɎW6,z|6\ pj_yX*c8oIpd+{u8DTM8S3BVԏ=DrHjpj$9؆-'wwo3Ny߄ӟ5,*'d3Ϟ۠򃺑~TvE}ֆuÕI{BkwFJ`u=߶5hZ|lh7o[%ޚdj~]x.h1j~7&E+ʒ4ipg, mܰ82藲 \EWȨ[Y.7  `Z8q|%X/,\ p{"l+>~A0:[GV)QV:5= 2PO(dcelh@D3]P%*4s9+8n=N$ߗIX{}g|ذᔍTPLRtd  w0yPw_ ^Q'{'FZ9׫%::r$z:TX=uz(O.-]py8q1r ?N:r%\sQ\=>31e Ѡ:á8zmMFD8])ޏlP(wEO Yܨ݈.]);3`֬EK^Ƚ{auSafے+؆7,*zrx`7ho&9~c<8w1B X)÷vI`3A~XTaW*pf/5*¾~^ȉʽRv< :^S;pV剐mbj@RFIf $)YIJcIvKPdd>5ȃITHAdXؗt|}z[[x@?7 !=?d c:Gdi\ JIs:uxpZ*{\T/ʩ;P'{6N[5t<f(ó ߂F Fa; ػjgl,:g!&'\KWq9g ؇ 2vuk *?n3֔h;-V_zwdtĻNY7o`%&:y}o֩&W+LZ}_Go΃-E`}9krJO'V?h}:78gO)HmrL'E5ZeLJܰl%LՂ(Aב$kiswPOPO33On(4J<0)ߙ]ؙh5 ]!Qjq唯[EN8R^s`EK0'y'@9Sa~Z5ܡF=:8TDYAVHkeb-y%7\eU2D,9rsck&Hnl OV.iO|,cO &'ɾsbv ,p``p䖓[̻iW oIAIQizhyp0AbtJ{X5*qH IL)ַ֯ &Xޡ2ov2!E|XYi*[̓RU[rM^<; TZTb|Þl/5 `j} `֗RY6:GqJ§7An?ԄWxNeMˀ[!,iHo@ LbK"qd$Z%%,M]oT|53T|}90iS-X+S#;udZgrKjiavrDGV:-%ZssM$)V&e d% O_-GO]6@-Ԩ lxڠw;J ]YUQHJtY<.RtbTaciJ<63xftf5vrP +FLRo ~{һW3e539FZ j+'SSZР΁EE*h8Nn1ϺScяDҕ͝}'/(6O_eM3`u,pvڋ! G>ge_u]q'2;ڻKZ MXIY-=OK] h_{V; )KTQrB1|r#ԟ͎]<8k+ 3Ӿüvwx׼!hoQVA&[3dO(''|'!oCy=hX ڻA (Ƕ0&X; >YiVþ/}<2 c\-fcBGKuF8. +NPg+BwaW`_,>,~ivw?(e*뎰 =Eg|@טjo[@}Ƹ1[`Y*ɩ])J1sCjQmٙ4iL^wB|uSn!`c`j%c!AwgWbXdik^ay |to0Z %4xnvʉ`A\4pO,$>盆uOceIJ߆ S;rq:fRXD[V4ɞNDpEJ䘚$L6L4<0Yx7? $[E"GWbGP):9[~/rhG`9%~O t:GJc^Kz^bY x ;Sؤ!$HAVS0,]N8) HCq*9[Vl{@$1V !9SZ&㰫C5j6[d*Q+L3tX(]8׺R%q{,(EP \g1M`Cd T*B$;0n8I*W~rEٶ2+yԤo9gڭ'%>e!hJX? .W&&iI*;).hva)|wgP+Eq$Oyf'm{oÍ[G_g.O1c+=DFه8MOkyJKw5HA6(Ļax(o ,28XCcｕYp?F3РaW|:4d=:S;K,OtdÓVtJ#[.g r),r~J0ne'H$T۴| cIޗVO. w ÿƑrCۮXk ja ?1.ʶCY($4npsR0:]T MPvSmJ1` 튭9+~ {4A?8vPl2"0D:ṴJsKB*{5'*W>,XOBEb 0a"N,h.3N}B '!]E5-k "K7S2M JE[Ha4L}q-nrkҽuϹ|vٷET:Ф~K L󇍞fer;P5j~a; QC¤P= L` Z$k3HreX?+]1'H5%^֑=2a =+W? o tmJi̡hט~ A)E| @[ZA\L`uXSa3wtm,A i8+˓c4"'@ճ !G=2:&]%}5/}+V]Ć7\̐N%~V6㧡 q2YPj  p:Ԧ1v2 Stt|J@KrbE){ i n4i;̉71g$CkŖBepb]D{?f',Q5}O#HQf&k?Mw3UGqȗPCfcj7*^h8Nx|@=]᭚43Z|ZIZhv [ې#%ש;R!gy(^sbMUT..|{`mǎE< (+T89j]h"%gPu/1gUU}A8ŚЂJ; ͑#bi|m-<õ`q YtVUϒ@JL/lUe>+zO<{ IkG'4\1OWI i/_8eS)Ӭ"փReqKלӧv/lI{aOܦ3۞=YULRy֚QE=_];c[f(1gB]4çKP$oURg^#/G\jS7x YZƦ]Q-`6 ChT=-J rf$m.P7aՊaʢm7$ V>ö8ckĞq^k|XMP圇48@qCԐ<2@j~E}o^]1n*+!q[fn$_H[2XƝlK' k,&Slk<~J1*`ڃ@DM/̪ A LF<{6*ԟ~c4lV;Eg"Zalѐbm}5GL"2~y"2FJ||f߂-+@s8GeBuIT1sIG~&t&+9 =JLg>   KZ|9kWXe ](%0d of}sSLвЊI-I¶۠%3[Hc kzE ӂrζilJ]O3fy֒(_3C8S)2 #桕Bϫ--jq,}-DÌ;iE׈nL_{5Ϫ7=%HsS%OueBN||)k@t~"uc$nUu KPs)3uQ!eu L5wSq^,eQR듰0M gX:"S6L\r!G)wY bfbAɘIՀn DA7;3g=S(sU/[$GD V"]tSJ%s׾ ~mIt7b? | Dm0<3w +U)?7i)ՒVzVCQ*U -+ˠ9\ RM? }򅪥6ܢQ,Y3O c֝;lMlYy0' [̶kڞxHL*|B%q--LyoD\))DǢekPBIyTcD `A[_roy׻:d : ajL:+Pvzr^pd)cIsүA'gk 3 " ▟c)(,OyFGU6lWB㞦%LHM}S ^98&فaNyf% Y›0֊xeyFג-nD oAR O.&1:LƖ MW>g}cۈP[~Q\v.OMWGD9JHg0%Sc&-+5`ڣ\&;IR0j,I;t+Q+Nn0бeg1+Yp.uP n "o'gF5`.T*$`f$oIeӧR'U#AZF0v ٮZWR-(՝'~ќR͟=VH;s Lϥ-tΊ~ѯ%< XqҜ(4\CIOS,1_BR8؆."1v8./Y%)97tꡝ4K7Wf0J%'YRYZky֛,ׯqFSr%R̰:3u* ;=={>(Ӥl,tvj#rj>K~zgK2 bc6Ut#%{S@Fs^$umOpʙʜmSAKQPjn3Dk5.0-gE /ٽ#bA]3+<'#OM&"kiv>U&(! X Yx K2K[og饱5"b/xXK_BaZk1of۠ lׯ'Y"^Ǔ >G)WϽjN8`{/fD[2n+w wRP|P%樂'^g<=owm&'L'V_<3ՇT|tzYD. ̋efzN^PR:MdHUbL|kw~lPV(OTS)yz+5+xnJg8EAyM`z1JeXNgQR x\Ns(V1yV㿭UD 늭QoCu+q&]x9ޑCЪLgX2W\yY޽5#{+nsRU8$Ȼ=Wuv-+,qHW"?|&]%DH+ٹll'e/|m0Ssytv Iy&xI##R 32Z|doR5.]u?Nuz[wn,.b+uxذf81ֱߖ\jk X "WA ug "iJY|Ú LɟnhK5a5;1lC"7|Bvj) iH٘ C!"YoP¯píEIRv_ #3}JV O-sLbh{Z_Gh(*%MD!tL mPڍ,e!?lLD46?=.zΌU?BPBzZ_ltlX-AgTt8$14H:;LylI7p8$z>2mzp×A2HןuʈkZ -Γ+?vI[v/|MOOOBe%˦ΔX,Xi߈+|ZRS\32$bJγM D.!b|ͩn)-5 fƑ.03u܃4 ] s/A+S5lM)q>+y.$Cu;"|p 21a:ԤQf_;7+%鬤=EqrDSk K5v6@kR]45l#:M5BhKbkI")E9ÝS. ]l}V`tZEnɋz .TSjP%A>S|x&:ZRrމ!هv,Ko?SK+s/$cCcyW`*lBinϞ򄚮B)ݒK"OcٺzICҖZq;I$JmLۍMig.o0<40Z-٪v?)F"d%M&jD MΘvIj1=dEkkO.bál4Tj)dQBK˕8fw>Mv2:>HIL$K n7!0pRsbJSbH;e}9Z!Ahw K-f#]OYK )_b[^(L1KG&m#$j|c"Sx#0E~ƘՕu~L$/L \rcn Ýp-b#\ E!g }<񙦳dxgk :o jeWUQdÕ;Pb |ldl3m$i2ϻi378vO>Wla7a/CەY3%:üfĨL<3fѡqKvlmtq4*mNYnXJr$[#Zw;⚴  5Sk%fIհ}vqGfGg{l" )&pLhY6:F65B;%rHp7-L$X7YM@NU!L6 e =a@> ĸ\2=*YjK@kZXW EJպRceΆ85d@Wmv M3n.X>L Eɒ;.LU"LMV8F$i+kB&u.g 8@ iU,wxf:A*|;8Am1yƥ 'R-Պ;w|Rj4f4WvX1%aoQ',N*Q7i>gf؂ ,lx`SXoCMЈt{bFr5G0oHrm9KR'}2Ddg*x74{D7NO4l1C9eŖl#mIzγiUe\gbz+5̐JhB;/M*uI?"11Ue4 m%Ms阂XFM{*~<1g6Xݩ [4SЇm]u3NO{1]JbǐIO7洪XVOfRS%~"Z꟩/e1_s0\yc3&6 ?< Ъ i6~IkF)f9YL,6% @e8,#N8YjNKtT=SYBGim μRsd"i$ k'9?kTM/ͧ-F\gPê~06%CiyAs|{:}eNbߩ+}şG!y=ey%K3FkWD;OӬnqsf`aB`흸=@䜺ж6 pQ*Dm[E Jʱpl4SI"Y&9E\ٶZld>a 93Ra۱HK%ўFYq8\=$`%Ez:sjGS.:o+!&oEgA26.8KijNB_sK5~ƪ-c4YA?3i`ɔXکi@92*h*K=q3NMVݺB67Q[1ѩ-babe]+([~WX6ThA +C(g)T|ThU]Bjj0 [й'd"j!2!ieȿƓ +w`Uo VtT= L_[ 7`w#/II]$ej&񑴁 H3nmeVDzyL=^)= .dJivN[\yrE;r.L8B&4i+@=V%̞"YbDRژHC9]xˣ4e tyՔC_w5 M9( /oI9_k^A2 ysclmB=uص5#]<* s,(Ad> AJ%F-AJE3UǢ /)ɾD I* f>=3ղKOt5KGY0vZ 1'i5aɚmI9v4b0TL ;4]92U*cE.[í0D^G~9D[{g2z S4$6@Q?jd{iT.тTҰC˧qR![{ZZC;͒Tth½hpb l9W NJl!{=Y?)QK^:]b~PfkZsqy$r}=_CX#W?J04Ic^Ep薑u .ԗ `p!%c9*@=d (ݗ2 He58!^k/K]Mxo؏3Bς4P.fp?(B]`;`xL6seFR}3j*)8(dxf5ޖj$YRFk޹dЙb&ϵ5 = BG?2 rtY'_~`AZ'{, [ ]{7eby,N7ƍyC#{ -3ZD,I'H|TcY"EDO'HeH>uX&"βֿz-W^+y&|B'qKLx0=gDqtA} gbv@`i/ˈ'&\ 2,"X%OyiOf`7pK.J@`cN++, +Zjϭ״\[R4Ҧk i%Nm:-vj/GimZ\2w.u: {*bGi50T `'VDo|}(ڳ:Q`] xֹ{tɆ<T\֩rw$rg7 LΑXt>f, \PP5yޡbU4֖F2T oX{BmSTH>٩̀q. b;:On`[(4R(yM¤Ҙyڈ&p6R*S /@:ćOVZݑ'hᔮEU[qEdKI3-6GF3=Q>c&3zf&ڢ#lJVwr<ͶAQK,)wx\Bs׳ 6HPF&%NyLq%Scf5Mx/XvC?xL6c{M.eb(#,2wx|S➯I%YgbiUVjXldʅN'H-Ywj~N? 3!UJK)2~Jn'h,8d]';[(9QG//D /eM.Bl#iPJ}q `PNB;*ĉ $2NC{iJ똶Y69 W4*H t#6n9ZWV|}kRkԁ~gٌIڣ&/*PmklUFvQ?UxOR \vLs mz(7į18Va= hqI})|;g,-NYy |5cyvC)K:'X׭;Y,ж4{SZ~2hM ݩմrb2nBس<~/ޱntv3.>TjݘFMEmNo} vDuBQ_Е:u:BJ$drZ{RC$,hhz_SJGJn!7l\ ~}:534*Y %|;j`:-eEF[L3HG|\XH6mbYg'JJE:rn F#&mEZ~o2,іI9ŇjeuCAH]?k6EBI3qƁ`xYa[Qc1NYPx{AMݝ];*vq35eB]$Vy T0IKyuo4e/ƃ?'Kԭc]hnŃ9f8=d*tjȨMOeu)+ۊ>C> %~'7 )byvK[l:Ot%O n]IUm0R#\c7~Ndosyby]?}p+BSa95ĦɁBh'˹槫j:rnHZzwUy]t h wΫ4?u!62[=Q.>d?m(35$N/'FxFWF>2g?WZnuɏP-Mw Di]tfʪW"cA ǹu./GHT(J U%2u /bf.D|aǗ.kpOZp2<:J $ǿ;xpp3EnyRtZ@S7MM_{)5ؔ߿%^دɃdN:(%KzjDy$] EGHq+`}@?ݝF`EkWD< z V=x|guxxuk;ypvR(oL|%RRA@Dg99pO S&rĥbz28?gwB\q3C֮V5:ğ#/"=jL KzB^)2 "Gl[]`ziJGizT'~~KyiȴvǸ{;# ^xwcP6z"Xr:q:UC0ڙ{b$ _FRy+ܑ/HovYX?<&޾Q<z"R6h2[F+p#-J(p>53< "zŪq;#e"Ϲ Azou|BSe'AT}_ Z!Ӱa;m7Qdx Cm M0jfc +6 Q *ZY/W\ ""X9\ M j8tgm4j"Tû]6̳m@؞. xRM16V߀\ \G5x<0jEOqν*,SWʂn*vtQ8^, JkXtm_$ކZaU"u p6[D@NcmI_/ܳZح"( e^h lr,KP>׆˰QCVJk@[x&%_0kѐk{={xa"5FZQ&GG-P^"R1i J͇>c;9Z]5p`['y|mqa[70bme^s dB|j'qҒdDS MU&DDF'z>?ȐZq 7M]0zjI-_,XQ—,_c#dZĎ=!9 $gCEpM'LFgNL|IƯtX(x1:1FA2Gc?m2yQȂTd-~MsH͞z=J`:)3oG-zj*]i5#1֛j.FKct2#paw+ygъ*0 g VDR3Vy![c5PhҖ!v,K*e:&.UK1 8sڒۯbGvxmRx ak֡*Lqc/ 0-#{kcUO3$"VjwI?bYANƤs~$)"Q+Cu؀R\7f*E!G޽l ]V4m+<|UEQ|rι!-(2MNlW%k4+!D)QRb= #}X}>}PrZbczZ!4Cd(1'|d(1_`O |9cM&aT~2`,[SWU,jV>c:?`(EGwSrŘJH{1*;( 'e6z kd_7pϳSW57{&q/(l[g]]xIqm @Ш8{WuR)bqaBb?OP(E_n/Gƶ;IE^\m+ė X)FɞeRcn?Le7O"aopW!#V w!;x-:'ydߔ{qx>Wajٰݕ H{#BOݰRgl^, 6 נ8 5YF'7-覻$)+GΫSFK#BHUJ3y>w'ߓs7OCqC8= ޥ@)tW;|5hb!RvKAV V%SQ,C]ҁ;C?Qw5kRP= *VDcR^e1ԋ3 \7J"n%l,YM85\ Q Q,p옌ODAGBFX݅\{0#ƫ?kwQ YaG[b]Fbr.oTťk]VMؓ'Pc]9Vnw-b0㊉OLwNu\."%%/]q.^Mf9(.ǸƚsHX$lE׵6>ԘGtȳwJy_ hWvSl|=f 5+k==A?,ѱdW%L(r'KrwO<͒q!ywQu@N{O%bV~HCd?SF[Yc~>b=8- _,)e40#й KӜ:)eZv_y\B Dr|jyc+kQEtIXtzXߑ7Qdx Cm M0jfc {xxڽZ[n.m%a qxZCyוǔ[=#/Vόǿ !E:1NUS޾IG|;ٓg==|~/ٗz=j9ut6pYvۗþ߫Fߺ}7>kqV]N~lMѕv&߾fӬeWwɭ~Qon'p`+c[6`ۧ/+~ou5\u?j=˻<޻s/lz3 O/Ֆ/OO^Top|}WqKb̛g})Ѐ]nZEo~O~c}BG#}Nj٫ >\B_ToܼR%k<}[P/jlwur*=x9a;0 ]uNt:Po6v0?c~ܢnKR}?M(쭱[oV3oxuu{}92wg'gw.6+3}6{2{~"e+w?3]d鮔i?7஻rouw[fM#]a 4ྙw~-ὧٳn|%Gy0߸6 ɼ{׏b֭poLiA*ۃTr@}Ow;?}@2k| Fg{u?^qD~m Ȉ#jN( [ J3 N /w";//// langeng 'version.major1eUabbrevThe Meaning and Message of the Cross6Utitle.englishThe Meaning and Message of the Cross -search.index.ver4;search.topics.index.ver1)schema.version1%content.typervf user1type3RaboutIn what I have written I have not followed the beaten paths to construct a theory of redemption, but have sought rather by an induction from Scripture teachings to get back to the enduring realities which underlie any theory of permanent value. In the first five chapters I have sought to find the meaning of the Cross of Christ.X#descriptionIn what I have written I have not followed the beaten paths to construct a theory of redemption, but have sought rather by an induction from Scripture teachings to get back to the enduring realities which underlie any theory of permanent value. In the first five chapters I have sought to find the meaning of the Cross of Christ.,UtitleThe Meaning and Message of the Cross bN5!-UabbrevThe Meaning and Message of the Cross4'Utitle.englishThe Meaning and Message of the Cross!user09compressed.search.data0!compressed1")preserve.fonts1%version.date2010-2-7statusFair Use:21Eeditorial.commentsFair Use: Section 107 of the copyright law contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. 1. Is for nonprofit educational purposes %/contributorswww.goldofgod.com#creatorA Messenger!categoriesTheology)authorHenry C. Mabie 6peVK<2'wbVK8g^SH=,! 7christ6of 5nature 4the 34.2411c4. the nature of christ's reconciling death 0terms./#crucifixion(.of -use,testament +new *the )3.(33'g3. the new testament use of crucifixion terms &cross- %the'$!respecting##confusion"of !sources 2.22e2. sources of confusion respecting the cross#crucifixion0 the$ from 'distinguished cross the 1.15k1. the cross distinguished from the crucifixioncontentsof table/table of contents cross% theof message and meaning the* Uthe meaning and message of the crossforeword bio mabie c.c henry3henry c. mabie -bio 7|{jWe\QF:0$SJ?4" |nof mchrist lthe k10.j10;iw10. the christ of the cross the desire of all nations h cross& g the f of e energyd! missionary c the b 9.a 9+`W 9. the missionary energy of the cross _ body ^ the] of\! redemption [ the Z 8.Y 8#XG 8. the redemption of the body W christ, V with%U# crucifixion T selfS of R life Q the P 7.O 71Nc 7. the life of self-crucifixion with christ M christ5L of. K death+ J the%I to!H relation G saving F soul E the D 6.C 6:Bu 6. the soul's saving relation to the death of christA# achievement(@ redeeming? as > cross = the < 5.; 5-:[ 5. the cross as a redeeming achievement 9death,8#reconciling& vappendix unations6 tall.sof* rdesire' qthe pcross othe /$.ais+3=x0BLVenx1 1.5k1. the cross distinguished from the crucifixion10j 10.k;w10. the christ of the cross the desire of all nationsi2 2. 2e2. sources of confusion respecting the cross3( 3.)3g3. the new testament use of crucifixion terms'42 4.31c4. the nature of christ's reconciling death15; 5.<-[5. the cross as a redeeming achievement:6C 6.D:u6. the soul's saving relation to the death of christB7O 7.P1c7. the life of self-crucifixion with christN8Y 8.Z#G8. the redemption of the bodyX9a 9.b+W9. the missionary energy of the cross`#achievement(A all.t and appendixvas? bio body_c  c. christm christ7 christ,W christ5Mconfusion#contents cross  cross > E #0DQ`kw '09BKT]o!+5?IS]gq{ with%V use-to!I cross% cross&h cross-&#crucifixion U#crucifixion(/#crucifixion0 death+K death,9 desire'r'distinguished energyeforeword from  henry3henry c. mabie -bio life R mabie meaning message !missionaryd nations6u nature5 new +of of"ofSof6ofnof]ofof.offof*sof.L#reconciling&8redeeming@!redemption\relationH!respecting#$ savingG selfT soul F sources ! table/table of contents terms.0testament, the the the* the4 the= theE theQ the[ thec thel theo the^ the the g the q the$ the%J the'%*Uthe meaning and message of the cross , was born on the 20th June, 1847, in Belvidere, Illinois. Henry, as boy, was converted at the age of eleven years, he lived a retiring and somewhat indifferent Christian life until the first year of his college course, during which time he had a very remarkable renewal of his spiritual life, which transformed him into an earnest and joyful evangelist. The school of the old University of Chicago, where he was studying at this time, being broken up by a case of small-pox in the building, be returned to his home, where, with the blessing of God, his presence was the means of one of the greatest revivals Belvidere has ever seen. On his return to college the same power accompanied him, and during all his four years' course the religious life of the college might be said to have been at revival pitch. In the fall of 1863, young Henry, sixteen years old, met D.L. Moody in Chicago. Henry had come from the Illinois home on a farm, to enter the old University of Chicago as a student. Mr. Moody made an impression on him for life. Never before had he seen a layman so making business, as Moody seemed to be doing, in order that others would to seek the kingdom of God. Having got a taste of joy in soul-winning, Henry never lost it. In 1906 Henry Mabie published a book on the subject, Method in Soul-Winning. In his student life he gave large promise of leadership among men, especially in spiritual life and work. After spending one year in the Theological Seminary, he accepted a call to the State-street Church of Rockford, Illinois, and was married to Edith S. Roe, youngest daughter of his former beloved pastor, Rev. C.H. Roe, D.D., of Belvidere. The four years of his first pastorate were rich in spiritual uplifting and revival power. In 1873 he returned to the seminary, and was graduated in 1875. Meantime he served as pastor the little church just organized at Oak Park, Illinois. He served as a pastor in Illinois, Massachusetts, Indiana and Minnesota: - Rockford, Ill., 1869-1873; - Oak Park, Ill., 1873-1875; - Brookline, Mass., January 1, 1876 - August 1, 1879; - First Indianapolis Church, Indianapolis, 1879-1883; - Belvidere, Ill., 1883-1885; - St. Paul, Minn., 1885-1888; - Central Baptist Church, Minneapolis, Minn., 1888-1890. It was during his pastorate of the First Baptist Church in Brookline, Mass., he first came into intimate relations with the Missionary Union, and for three years was a member of the Executive Committee. With his ardent temperament and earnest desire to be useful, he entered into all his new duties with the warmest enthusiasm, but they soon proved too much for his strength, and brought on a severe attack of nervous prostration. This was so obstinate that he felt a change was imperative, and in August, 1878, removed West again, and accepted the call extended to him from Indianapolis, Indiana. During this pastorate, while somewhat despondent on account of his health, he had a peculiarly rich and helpful spiritual experience, which gave a new cast to his preaching and practical aims as a minister. It was also a large factor in the recovery of his health. While he was a pastor in Indianapolis, he was forced to a spiritual crisis which nothing seemed able to avert. He had unconsciously grown legalistic in habit of mind. However, through the grace of God he eventually was thrust back on a first principle underlying all Christian experience: he had to submit to God's terms for his life, whatever the cost. Once he laid his very Isaac on the altar and surrendered, he felt he plunged into a bottomless pit, and surprisingly, into-the bosom of God. This disclosure was the grates surprise in his life, and he arose in a new world, and to an entire new concept of the ministry. In 1882 was conferred upon him the title of Doctor of Divinity by his alma muter, the University of Chicago. In 1884 he went back to Belvidere, his childhood's home, for a season of rest. Here he spent sixteen months, and the Lord gave him a glorious harvest of souls. In 1888, after a three years' pastorate in St. Paul, Minn., he went to London, England, to attend the World's Missionary Conference. This was one of the turning points in his life, bringing him, as it did, into contact with the great missionary interests of the world. In temperament and spirit Mabie was evangelistic, and it was not long till this special power began to be recognized both in his own and in other churches of the state. He had excellent oratorical powers, and many not of his own congregation were drawn to his public services. His interest in foreign missions was so pronounced that, after spending two years with the Central Church, Minneapolis, on his return he was called, in 1890, to the office of Home Secretary of the American Baptist Missionary Union (later renamed the American Baptist Foreign Mission Society) to accept a secretaryship. Before entering upon his work at home he was sent out to view the mission fields, a tour which occupied eight months, between August 1890 and April 1891, and has been a great help to him and his colleagues ever since. The countries he visited were Japan, China, Malaysia, Burma (Myanmar), Assam (Thailand) and India. In Myanmar he visited the missions in Mawlamyine, Kyauk Phyu, Pathein, Mandalay, Innwa, Karen Association, Shan Mission and Bago. Mabie's book, In Brightest Asia, describes the mission life and work at the stations in the countries he visited. The majority of his time was spent in Japan and China. It is an excellent study and inspection tour of the missions, with a review of mission work in the late 19th century. The book is still available second-hand and is an interesting missionary tome with some quite wonderful photographs and detailed insights into the Chinese empire. The book has enjoyed a wide circulation. After his return from the mission fields Mabie conducted active and successful campaigns in the interest of Foreign Missions throughout the Northern States. When the Union was called on by interdenominational and international conferences for a representative of the American Baptists, Dr. Mabie was very often the one chosen. As the fundamentalist-modernist controversy heated up toward the end of his life, Mabie sided with the fundamentalists and resisted moves toward centralization within the Northern Baptist Convention. During this time we devoted fourteen years of his life to a wide touring of the Northern States of America, holding numerous conferences on foreign missions. In 1906, Henry Mabie represented the American Baptist Missionary Union at the Morrison Centenary Conference at Shanghai. In 1917, Mabie's biography, From Romance to Reality, appeared. It is a biography of great interest describing his travels and work in many countries. The book is full of deep spiritual lessons and spiritual encouragement. On April 30, 1918, at the age of nearly 71, Henry Mabie died in his home in Boston. Henry Mabie was a prolific writer. His works are outstanding. Jessie Penn-Lewis highly valued Mabie's three books on the cross. These books are The Meaning and Message of the Cross, How Does the Death of Christ Save Us? and The Divine Reason of the Cross. T. Austin-Sparks remarked: "This is an age of 'quick returns', easy gains, least trouble, everything with as little effort and cost as possible. Depth is a lost stamina. Stamina is a minus quality. Who today would take the pains to read such classics on the Cross as Dr. Mabie's The Divine Reason of the Cross and The Meaning and Message of the Cross? This superficiality is costing the Church and Christians very dearly, and so there is artificial life, artificial food, artificial fellowship which will not go through in the time of testing." Christians are strongly recommended to read these three books on the Cross carefully and apply them to their personal Christian lives. We live in a generation that almost has forgotten Henry Clay Mabie and his profound writings. It will profit Christians tremendously to discover the writings of Henry Mabie and take the effort to get acquainted with his writings.counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye by the hand of lawless men did crucify and slay.-Acts 2:23. But far be it far from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world.-Gal. 6:14. And, to make all men see what it the dispensation of the mystery which for ages hath been hid in God ... according to the eternal purpose which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord.-Eph. 3:9-11. To All Preachers of the Cross of Christit immortal treatises, yet even the best of these at some points are ever in need of restatement. The controversies which have raged concerning the subject have generally left some clouds of obscurity peculiar to all controversy. Language from its inherent weakness as implying too much or too little is so capable of being misunderstood, that any statement made in a given generation requires a somewhat altered phrasing for the generation following. Then the very conceptions of Scripture being often paradoxical or symbolic, carry in them meanings which lie below the surface. The most vital implications of Scripture never clearly appear except to an insight born of deep, spiritual experience; and this element is ever a variable one. To real insight the mysteries of the Divine Word increasingly become open secrets. In what I have written I have not followed the beaten paths to construct a theory of redemption, but have sought rather by an induction from Scripture teachings to get back to the enduring realities which underlie any theory of permanent value. In the first five chapters I have sought to find the meaning of the Cross of Christ. This necessitated a clearing up of that confusion of thought so widely prevalent, as between the mere human tragedy and crime of the crucifixion, and the Divine Cross of the reconciliation; and the setting forth of the voluntariness of the death of Christ considered as a redeeming achievement, or a graciously judicial transaction, wherein that death becomes the basis of both the forgiveness and the cure of sin. In the latter five chapters I have endeavoured to state the message of the cross as concerns the following matters: individual salvation, the nature and habit of the new life, the redemption of the body, the dynamic of missionary endeavour, and the supreme adaptation of the cross to meet the soul-hunger of all men. That there are signs of a new accent upon the essential redeeming realities, particularly in Great Britain, promising great values to the church of the future, is certain. Teachers in the Universities, like Fairbairn, Orr, Denney, and Stalker; preachers like MacLaren of Manchester, the late Dr. Dale, and his successor, Dr. Jowett, of Birmingham, G. Campbell Morgan of both sides the sea, and others; and writers like W. Robertson Nicoll, whose two books, "The Return to the Cross," and "The Church's One Foundation," and his many editorials in The British Weekly are signals of protest against current radicalism, all lifting up new standards in behalf of essential truths in danger of being quite discarded. Dr. James Orr's two works on "Ritschlianism" and his more recent book, "God's Image in Man," and the two late discussions by Professor Denney on "The Death of Christ," and "The Atonement and the Modern Mind," are strong testimonies to the objectivity and the super-humanness of Christ's redemption. Contributed articles on "The Atonement in Modern Thought," which appeared in a symposium in The Christian World, London, about five years ago, by such authorities as the late Principal Cave, P. T. Forsyth, E. F. Horton, Marcus Dods, and Frederick Godet, of Switzerland; a notable English work, entitled "The Spiritual Principle in the Atonement," by Rev. J. Scott Lidgett, and "Atonement and Personality," by Canon Moberly, of Oxford, further illustrate the recent renewed emphasis on the redeeming work of Christ as the deepest moral reality in our world. Among those representing reaction and protest against non-expiatory views of this work stands prominently,-Dr. P. T. Forsyth, Principal of Hackney College, London. At the International Council of Congregationalism, which met in Boston, Mass., in 1899, Dr. Forsyth read a classic paper entitled, "The Cross as the Final Seat of Authority," which produced a profound impression,-an impression peculiarly reassuring to the less radical wing of that council. Dr. Forsyth located that seat in the Cross of Christ, "which is the world's central moral act, which is redemption"; a reality which he placed "back of the Bible (as a canon) the church, the reason, or the human heart." In several noted papers published since by this gifted preacher and writer, a very unusual light has been thrown on the evangelical idea. Some crudities in thought have been exposed, some traditional terms discarded, and distinctions more consonant with an enlightened Christian consciousness have been drawn. I owe special obligation to Dr. Forsyth for conclusions reached and set forth in the following pages. The ultimate aim of my discussion, as expressed in the last two chapters, has been to show that in Christ's death as a gracious judgment-death-the essential redemption-resides the basis for the central evangelical missionary motive and assurance of the satisfying portion for the heathen. In this light also the ground for the true missionary apologetic so greatly needed by the church of our time is not far to seek. This ground is in the relation of the unique first judgment which occurred in Christ's cross and its saving potentialities, to the last judgment of mankind. With the divine reconciliation and our implied cooperation with it to actualize its values for our fellow men, the missionary passion is closely connected. Lack of missionary conviction, and want of power over the heathen, other things being equal, will be found due in the end to a lack of appreciation of the reconciling work of Christ and its implicates for His disciples. Missions, like theology, must always "adjust their compass at the cross." H. C. M. Boston, Mass., August 1, 1906. &QThe Meaning and Message of the Cross A Contribution to Missionary Apologetics by HENRY C. MABIE, D.D. Corresponding Secretary American Baptist Missionary Union Author of "Method in Soul Winning" "In Brightest Asia" etc. Him, being delivered up by the determinate Ё=}A Short Sketch of the Life of Henry Clay Mabie compiled and edited by Roel Velema Henry Clay Mabie, D.D., LL.D, (1847-1918) Foreword No phase of thought connected with Christian teaching in our time, more needs to be clarified than that which is connected with the redeeming work of our blessed Lord. While gifted minds in various periods have profoundly studied the subject, and have written upon 's death an unparalleled reality-More than mortal dying-Man's death at the Fall more-Redemption through death correspondingly profound-Separation from God-Christ's peculiar anguish in Gethsemane-The cry of forsakenness on the cross-More than a martyr's death- Mrs. Browning's lines-View of Canon Moberly-A Penal element in the cross-Christ endured the substance of death, we only its shadow-Christ's "hour"-Theme of the transfiguration-Such a death Christ's goal-Not crucifixion-wounds but heart-rupture slew Hs on the objective atonement-Dr. Denney on Hebrews as expressing finality-The Cross of Christ expressive of the world's last judgment in four respects, (a) As representing the due judgment which belongs to the sin-principle-Christ's suffering qualitative rather than quantitative-Substitutionary principle involved-Martineau's objection and its answer-Godet on the Moral acknowledgment in Christ's death-Experiment of Bronson Alcott and others in moral discipline-Power of vicarious suffering. (b) Christ in -A typical revolt in the modern mind-The principle misunderstood-Testimony of Prof. George Adam Smith-Term of grace as well as reprobation-Deeper than sacrifice-Moral expiation involved-Expiation not appeasement-Christ's death expiatory in three respects-Not disposition but moral consistency in God involved-Enabled to act as he feels-God can forgive on repentance, provided terms are understood-He cannot legitimize sin-Principal Cave quoted-Dean Freemantle, Marcus Dods, George Adam Smith, Harnack and otherim-He laid down His life that He might take it again-Reconciliation and resurrection indissoluble-Self-sacrifice characteristic of Deity-R. J. Campbell quoted-The Apostle Peter on the deliberateness of the Redeemer's death-"The Maine" on its tragic but redeeming errand to Cuba. 5. The Cross as a Redeeming Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The death of Christ an achievement also-More than the personal attainment to a goal-More than the testimony of a martyr-It was a judgment-death also-Meaning of term's death an unparalleled reality-More than mortal dying-Man's death at the Fall more-Redemption through death correspondingly profound-Separation from God-Christ's peculiar anguish in Gethsemane-The cry of forsakenness on the cross-More than a martyr's death- Mrs. Browning's lines-View of Canon Moberly-A Penal element in the cross-Christ endured the substance of death, we only its shadow-Christ's "hour"-Theme of the transfiguration-Such a death Christ's goal-Not crucifixion-wounds but heart-rupture slew Hposite in principle-A paradoxical statement common in New Testament-Redemption turns the tables on sin-Rejected stone made head of the corner-Moral of The Book of Esther-The Feast of Purim ironical in character-Nailing the indictment to the Cross-The divine derision of evil-The death of death-Sin's suicide-Not Christ but Satan the real outcast-The Eagle and the Fish-Christ's elevation through the cross-The cross an ironical emblem. 4. The Nature of Christ's Reconciling Death . . . . . . . . . 21 Christor the martyr-principle-Even the crime of the crucifixion overruled-The sensation of all time-The Reconciliation itself however deeper down-Protestant representations also often faulty-The term "blood of Christ" needs interpretation-Preciousness of the symbol. 3. The New Testament Use of Crucifixion Terms . . . . . 15 Scripture texts needing interpretation-Paradox of the Messiah of humiliation-The wisdom of apparent divine folly-Paul as crucified to the world-Gloried not in the crucifixion but in its opim-He laid down His life that He might take it again-Reconciliation and resurrection indissoluble-Self-sacrifice characteristic of Deity-R. J. Campbell quoted-The Apostle Peter on the deliberateness of the Redeemer's death-"The Maine" on its tragic but redeeming errand to Cuba. 5. The Cross as a Redeeming Achievement . . . . . . . . . . . 28 The death of Christ an achievement also-More than the personal attainment to a goal-More than the testimony of a martyr-It was a judgment-death also-Meaning of term-A typical revolt in the modern mind-The principle misunderstood-Testimony of Prof. George Adam Smith-Term of grace as well as reprobation-Deeper than sacrifice-Moral expiation involved-Expiation not appeasement-Christ's death expiatory in three respects-Not disposition but moral consistency in God involved-Enabled to act as he feels-God can forgive on repentance, provided terms are understood-He cannot legitimize sin-Principal Cave quoted-Dean Freemantle, Marcus Dods, George Adam Smith, Harnack and others on the objective atonement-Dr. Denney on Hebrews as expressing finality-The Cross of Christ expressive of the world's last judgment in four respects, (a) As representing the due judgment which belongs to the sin-principle-Christ's suffering qualitative rather than quantitative-Substitutionary principle involved-Martineau's objection and its answer-Godet on the Moral acknowledgment in Christ's death-Experiment of Bronson Alcott and others in moral discipline-Power of vicarious suffering. (b) Christ in His cross set at naught the world-principle or the Satanic philosophy-The denial of a personal devil-The age-long conflict-Christ's exorcism of demons, (c) The cross destroys the nexus between sin and spiritual death-Judgment becomes grace-"Loosed from thine infirmity"-Redemption rather than evolution the final philosophy-"Judgment unto victory." (d) The cross adjudges humanity to Christ as a reversionary treasure,-this only a potentiality, however-A voluntary acceptance by faith required-This refused, the second death must ensue-Something actual rejected. 6. The Soul's Saving Relation to the Death of Christ . . . . 39 Messages involved in the cross of Christ-The previous discussion and the soul's salvation-A personal decision required-Several underlying principles, (a) The oldest fact in the universe, the Reconciliation-"The lamb foreordained"-Effect not the cause of divine love-No afterthought. (b) All human souls exist on presupposition of a coming Redeemer-The purpose to redeem antecedent to creation and the fall-The promised "seed"-Salvation for all potential in Christ-Danger of repudiation, (c) The redemptive provision establishes a peculiar claim-Repentance required-Repentance defined-Complete abandonment to the Redeemer-Philosophy of salvation comes afterwards-No ground for complaint on basis of heredity, (d) Continued repudiation of Christ's redemptive claim the worst sin-Usually the last sin recognized-God's sensitive point-Reciprocation of this sensitiveness in repentance, (e) A dilemma now confronted-Neutrality impossible-Repentance or deeper guilt-Belshazzar and Cyrus in contrast-The touchstone in the Garfield star-Profanation or sanctification-Repentance or sacrilege-The only saving alternative to come under spell to Christ's cross-Belief of the heart unto righteousness. 7. The Life of Self-Crucifixion with Christ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Message of the cross respecting the spiritual life-The self-crucified life in Christ-Vicariousness of Christ's work no premium on sin-Evangelical salvation twofold-Christ's "finished work" the beginning of inwrought conformity to Christ-The believer mortgaged to the Redeemer-The Pauline confession-Habitual dying and living again-The new spontaneity engendered at the cross-New character in Christ-Organically related to the cross-Vagueness in current teaching-The Ritschlian error examined-Primarily a philosophy-Grounded in Kant's subjective idealism-Modified even by Kant-Profs. McCosh and Seth quoted-Erroneous presuppositions false to Scripture-(a) knowledge of God as absolute denied; (b) divine government ignored; (c) nature of sin misconceived; (d) love of God misconstrued; (e) the divine-human personality of Christ denied-An earnest underlying religious motive-A truer estimate of the subjective principle-At best only a half-way house to faith-Authority found in proper correlation of the subjective and the objective-Dr. Forsyth quoted-Faith an obedience to an objective-Divine basis of Christian experience according to James-Mere willpower in religion abortive-Nexus with the cross essential to robust spiritual life-Carlyle on the cross in history-Death and resurrection-principle alone adequate to man's need-Jesus at the Jordan-The signmanual of the kingdom-The New Testament basis of the spiritual life-Involves a new heredity, a new environment and a new habit-All spring from the cross-A legitimate mystical element here-The eternal life under conditions of time. 8. The Redemption of the Body . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 The Cosmos an object of redemption-The human body involved-Bodily death springs from sin-Its conquest through the cross-Scripture assurances-Bodily glorification an implicate of Christ's resurrection-The body integral to man-Dr. Orr's statement-McLeod Campbell-With patience completed result waited for-"Times and seasons" involved-Narrowness in faith-cure theories-Flat antagonism unwise-A principle of truth in divine healing-Bodily cure a potentiality-The Christian Science error like Ritschlianism grounded in a false idealism-The true answer in the New-Adamic life in Christ-How reality is reached-Psychological content of the mind of Jesus-The Pantheistic untruth in Christian Science-Wisdom required in dealing with it-Exposition of the experienced potentialities of Christ's cross the true corrective-A better way than to forsake the historic church. 9. The Missionary Energy of the Cross . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .60 Missions grounded in Christ's reconciliation-The cross achievement extended to deepest moral realities-An anticipation of the final judgment-Early triumphs won upon this basis-Philanthropic motive not sufficient-Principle of martyrdom inadequate-Christ greater in His spiritual cures than in His precepts-Redemption as grace the missionary inspiration-The real issue between Christ and Satan-The true charter of missions-The motive for missions and the judgment-principle-Non-evangelicals and missions-Evangelicals and missions-Difference due to different interpretation of Christ's death-Incompetency of the natural conscience-Heathen response to the cross-Testimony of E. P. Scott-In this light missions to heathen have a distinctive claim-Serve a different function from home missions-Evangelization first, edification afterwards-A better apologetic for missions needed-Avoidance of two extreme errors-The true situation poorly understood and rarely preached-The true view grounded in a right conception of the cross-Dr, Ashmore's statement of the case-"Ante-sunrise faith"-Convertible values of Christ's vcross-Conception needs to be made operative-The moving power of this-The heathen now without its benefit-Corresponding low possibilities-Loyalty to light is inchoate faith-A Garo convert-Presuppositions of a pagan woman in China-No confident or full salvation apart from light of the cross-Ours to make the potential light actual-Mercy on our part required-World yet truant to Christ-Ours to bring home to Him-A reward due to Christ also-Appeal of Willis E. Hotchkiss-The central issue, fresh honours to Christnymous-An element of mystery not resolvable-Carefulness in statement requisite-Exceptional discernment of the dying penitent-The cross either man's glory or his stumbling-block-The cross of our glorying, not the crucifixion-crime. 2. Sources of Confusion Respecting the Cross . . . . . . . 10 Ambiguity in term "death of Christ"-more than mere dissolution-More than murder-Emphasis of Romanism on the tragedy-Tissot's paintings-The Mass-Oberammergau Passion-Play-Yet impressional value in the tragedy-Place f ;;aEContents 1. The Cross Distinguished from the Crucifixion . . . . . 7 Shocking but common misconceptions-The Cross of the Reconciliation as distinguished from the tragedy of the Crucifixion-Antithetical rather than synoritish Weekly, an enquirer recently put this question: "I have a Bible class, some of the members of which are fine, thoughtful young fellows. We are studying the life of Christ, and will shortly reach the crucifixion. How can I make clear that the act of crucifying Christ was a crime, while at the same time it is the hope on which the Christian builds?" And Mr. Campbell, before proceeding to answer, remarks: "This difficulty occurs far more generally than I should have thought." Lord Beaconsfield is said once to have caricatured the Atonement in the following terms: "If the Jews had not prevailed upon the Romans to crucify our Lord, what would have become of the Atonement? The immolators were preordained like the victim; and the holy race supplied both. Could that be a crime which secured for all mankind, eternal joy?" A leading Unitarian minister in New York City, in a sermon preached in his own church a few years since, touching this subject, used these words: "What does atonement mean to the world? It means that the Eternal Father either will not, or cannot receive back to His heart His own erring, mistaken, wandering children, unless the only begotten Son of God is slaughtered, and we, as the old, awful hymn has it, 'are plunged beneath this ocean of blood.'" A supposedly evangelical American minister in his recoil from certain misconceptions of evangelicalism against which he was protesting, once went so far as to say,-"Strictly speaking, the death of Christ was not necessary to human salvation ... He was not a suicide; He was murdered. To say that His death was an indispensable condition to human salvation is to say that God's grace had to call in the aid of murderers in order that it might find a way to human hearts. I am not willing to acknowledge any indebtedness to Judas Iscariot for the forgiveness of my sins." Here are four persons, widely separated from each other, disturbed, if not shocked, by the same misleading conceptions-persons who stand, as I believe, for a large number of people-who are confused as to terms descriptive of the reconciling death of Christ. The confusion arises mainly from failure to distinguish between two things which in principle widely differ. These two things are the tragedy of the crucifixion, or the public execution of Jesus as expressing the mind of His enemies,-and the cross of the reconciliation representing the mind of our Lord as the means through which the redemption of mankind was to be achieved. The crucifixion in itself considered was the crime of crimes: it represented sin at its culmination, it showed man at his worst; whereas the cross of the reconciliation, showed God, if we may so speak, at His best; it represented what Dr. Dale characterizes as "the sublimest moment in the moral history of God." "The Cross of Christ," therefore, as a term which is understood so diversely, is a matter calling for the most careful examination and definite use. At the very least, the cross represented the point at which God in His saving outreach after a revolted world came into the necessary vicarious relation to it. It was the index of all that was necessary for Him to endure in a voluntary committal of himself to man's redemption, whatever in its outworking sin and Satan might inflict upon Him. It marks the lengths to which divine love went in vicariously enduring what without it would have fallen upon a lost world. The cross conceived as such a transaction was therefore a very different thing from the human act of crucifixion itself; it represented an entirely distinctive set of relationships. The reconciliation then is not synonymous with the crucifixion, but the cross considered as the sign of God's redeeming work, in which incarnate Deity dealt with the sin problem, is the reconciliation, the equivalent of what God intended and accomplished in His redeeming mercy to mankind. The manner in which a divine purpose moving on a higher plane may countervail an evil human purpose moving on a lower plane, and so result in spiritual values not otherwise possible, is expressed in the words of Joseph to his brethren in Egypt, when after their confession to him, Joseph answered, "Fear not; for am I in the place of God? And as for you, ye meant evil against me; but God meant it for good to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. Now, therefore, fear ye not; I will nourish you and your little ones. And he comforted them and spake kindly unto them" (Gen. 50:20,21)-lit. spake to their heart. So God in Christ could and did overrule the very criminality in the crucifixion to a sacred use in behalf of all those who repent and come into filial relation to God. The distinction I am making, however, as between the cross considered as the index or sign of God's own self-wrought redeeming work and the crucifixion which in itself must ever stand as a sin, the supreme crime of mankind, is fundamental. The sufferings of Christ then may be looked at as induced by a base human infliction, or they may be considered as voluntarily incurred in the interest of a divine-human righteousness so constituted and acting as that while it would inevitably incur the opposition of sinful men, would yet overcome sin. In this latter sense the agonies of Christ may be regarded as foreordained without in the least condoning the sin of the crucifiers. To this latter conception of what Christ endured those who fall into the error of Lord Beaconsfield seem blind. Of course, wherever the finite and the infinite come into touch with each other, an element of mystery must always remain: it is however wise to go as far as we can in the reduction of this element. Surely we need not add to the mystery by obscure thinking or vague expression, at points where simplification is possible. In this study I start then by pointing out that the tragedy of Christ's crucifixion in its awful criminality, and the cross of the divine reconciliation in its-unique moral majesty, are in character wholly distinct. The crucifixion on the human side was incipient in the sin of the race; and the reconciliation on the divine side, since God is what He is in His longsuffering holiness, was ever eternally in the heart of God waiting to be enacted. It is true that in those last hours upon the cross, the deep, spiritual work of the reconciliation was being consummated simultaneously with the crime which Christ's crucifiers were perpetrating upon Him: in spirit, however, and in moral character, the two enactments were at the farthest possible remove from each other. The aim will be to show that the real evangelical idea which requires us to believe that the cross in the divine aspects of it, is the basis of man's reconciliation with God, does not imply that man in the expression of his own passion was required to put Christ to death. That the experience of Christ's dying as a historical occurrence, as a public transaction, stood in a certain relation to the sin of man, is certain. But that the crime and outrage of the crucifixion as such were necessitated by God, is morally unthinkable. Moreover, so long as the impression prevails that evangelicals maintain the ethical contradiction implied in such utterances as those quoted at the opening of this chapter, it is incumbent upon evangelicals to consider the forms of their teaching anew, ascertain to what extent they are responsible for so gross misunderstandings and do what they can to overcome consequent revulsions from the gospel. A concrete picture drawn from the New Testament account of the crucifixion may make clearer the distinction treated in this chapter. In observing the record of the execution of Jesus, a careful reader will notice the varied mental attitudes of the several types of people who stood before the cross. There are at least five classes of people whose attitudes were fundamentally the same; the common crowd, that "passed by wagging their heads"; the Jewish rulers who had connived at the crucifixion; the railing malefactor who rejected Christ; the Roman soldiers, who knew no king but Caesar; and the half-superstitious beholders, who in the cry of "Eli, Eli," supposed Jesus to be calling for Elias. Each of these five classes appealed alike to Christ to demonstrate that He was really the Messiah, by coming down from the cross and saving His life. The crowd said, "Ha, Thou that destroyest the temple and buildest it in three days, save Thyself and come down from the cross" (Mark 15:29). The rulers said, "He saved others, Himself He cannot save; let the Christ, the King of Israel, now come down from the cross, that we may see and believe" (Mark 15:31,32). The malefactor said, "Art not Thou the Christ? Save Thyself and us" (Luke 23:39). The soldiers said, "If Thou art the king of the Jews, save Thyself" (Luke 23:37). The superstitious said, "Let be; let us see whether Elijah cometh to take Him down" (Mark 15:36). Each of these, observe, in effect said to Jesus, "Save Thyself." These all saw chiefly the tragedy of the crucifixion, they supposed the cross in that sense to be finality in the life of Jesus. Unless Jesus should use His miraculous p ower to take Himself off the scaffold,-supernaturally keep Himself alive,-they would have no faith in Him; the demonstration to their minds would be complete that He was not what He claimed to be, the Son of God, the Messiah of Israel, the Saviour of the world. Now, over against these five classes, there is a single shining exception, of one whose position radically differed from that of these types just noted, and he expresses himself differently: The dying penitent was the first and only one among all t hat spoke out at the execution of Jesus, who did not say, "save Thyself." He did cry, "Save me." "And he said Jesus"; that is, he used the saving name, with discernment of who and what He really was. He and he alone saw there was something deeper transpiring than the crucifiers recognized; that Jesus really was allowing the sanctuary of His body to be taken down, in order that it might be rebuilt. He discerned that if Jesus would save others from the spiritual necessities of the case, He could not "save H imself"; He must endure what sin would impose on Saviourhood; he saw that Jesus really was "the King of Israel," "the chosen of God," "the good shepherd," laying down His life for the sheep, so laying it down that He "might take it again." This penitent was the first and only one at the crucifixion that saw a whole new kingdom lying beyond the impending death of Jesus, of which he might become a member. That kingdom, however, was to be built upon the divine side of what was going on. He saw at least in p rinciple the coming resurrection, and the glorious possibilities involved in it; it was "the hope of Israel." Doubtless he was spiritually, preternaturally endued with the insight of one on the borderland of the celestial world; and thus saw both sides of the crucifixion event, the basely human and the nobly divine. But he especially saw with great vividness the reality of the reconciliation, saw it from the heaven-side, as God sees it-as we all should learn to see it;-and he exclaimed in that model praye r, marked with its peculiar illumination, "Jesus, remember me when Thou comest into Thy kingdom" (Luke 23:42);-a kingdom conditioned on what was now being borne by Christ. This man and this one only, so far as we know, of all that stood about the Christ on Calvary, apprehended the reconciliation, God's act,-an act as both deliberate and permissive,-the reconciliation as distinguished from man's criminality in the crucifixion. There was probably not a disciple that stood there, not one of the women, not even the Saviour's own mother Mary, that would not, if possible, in their sheer inability to perceive what God was achieving, have prevented the completion of Christ's purpose on the cross. As yet, none of these disciples understood as they did afterwards in the light of Pentecost-the cross of the redemption. This dying man so unfortunately stigmatized in the common epithet, as "the dying thief," is really the ideal penitent. He and he only, had the vision of the cross of reconciliation. He alone looked beyond the tragic horrors of the crucifying deed. He was absorbed with the larger reality, that Christ, despite man's treatment of Him, was really bearing away the sin of the world, preparatory to a spiritual kingdom which lay beyond the climacteric of His dying hour. The penitent sought membership in that kingdom, a privilege of grace instantly assured by the reply of Jesus, "Verily I say unto thee, to-day shalt thou be with Me in Paradise" (Luke 23:43). Says Professor Denney, "for the modern mind, as for the ancient, the attraction and the repulsion of Christianity are concentrated at the same point; the cross of Christ is man's only glory, or it is his final stumbling block." It is our fervent hope that if we can justify the distinction with which we have started, we may help to remove a common cause of stumbling and strengthen the motive to "glory," as did the chief of the apostles "in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ" (Gal. 6:14). For assuredly, the cross of our glorying is not the Crucifixion-Crime. [91 The Cross Distinguished from the Crucifixion But ye ... killed the Prince of Life whom God raised from the dead.-Acts 3:14. But far be it from me to glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.-Gal. 6:14. In the correspondence column of Rev. R. J. Campbell of London in The Bnse of mere mortal dissolution ensuing upon the separation of the soul from the body. Jesus on the physical side of His being of course was flesh and blood, and the inference is natural that when His persecutors transfixed Him to the wood, His constitution, being under peculiar strain, would give way, as naturally as would that of any ordinary man. A death thus physically inflicted and limited is conceived to be the death which Jesus died for the sins of the world. Says one, "When sin came into man's being, it affected his body as well as his soul, and so there is some kind of connection between sin and death. This connection in the Scriptures is always presupposed by the reconciliation, and so when Christ redeemed mankind He tasted that form of mortal death which is inseparably connected with sin." Of course, on the basis of the conception just stated, the "mortal death" of Jesus is regarded as having a peculiar distinction and moral value from the fact that it was the death of an unfallen one linked to Deity, that it involved so abject humiliation, and that it was patiently endured; but taken as it stands, the conception is inadequate and misleading. In one of the sorry caricatures of the evangelical conception quoted in the former chapter, it will be recalled that the author of the sentiment referred to held that the death of Jesus was either that of murder or of suicide. It would seem not to have entered the mind of the author of those forced alternatives, that there was a third sort of death possible to Christ; namely, the experience of spiritual death, including of course physical dying also, that He was "pouring out His soul unto death" (Isa. 53:12), that the Father was making "His soul an offering for sin" (Isa. 53:10); which certainly was a death far enough from suicide, because it was a death which Christ had original authority to incur, as well as to overcome in resurrection power. This third form of death also, as a basis on which men could fix their faith as a vicarious work, was in character far enough from the death of murder, which indeed Christ's enemies designed to inflict upon Him. Of course, the error in the sentiment above quoted, lies in the supposition that the only death to be thought of in the case of Jesus is the death by "murder"-at the most mere mortal dying,-whereas the reconciling death as the basis of evangelical reliance for salvation was far above this in character, and is quite misunderstood by the objector quoted. Of the real nature of this death, I will speak in a later chapter. The traditional Roman Catholic theology has been the most fruitful source of much of the confusion referred to. From the beginning, Romanism has materialized Christianity. It has put large emphasis upon the physical dying of Jesus. It has correspondingly misunderstood and minimized the resurrection, and the actual redemption organically connected with it. In all Roman Catholic churches the central object is the crucifix. In its great cathedrals like Cologne, one may behold not only full-length wax-figure representations of Jesus stretched upon the cross, but also imitations of the dead Saviour lying in the sepulchre, every wound inflicted by the torturing instruments, oozing and red with gore. To one who apprehends the real character of the atonement, these representations are gross and revolting. In the paintings of Tissot, although they are the expressions of a spirit deeply influenced by the moral power of Christ's death, the emphasis is overwhelmingly upon the mere tragedy, which the artist so vividly conceived. There is little suggestion of that which is really the mediating work itself; that is, of the work which God intended and which Christ was enacting behind the crucifixion. This work was deeply in the invisible and spiritual realm, impossible of portrayal upon a canvas; it has to be seen by the conscience and the insight of faith; it must be painted on the moral retina of the soul, and can never be externalized to the natural eye. Romanism commonly makes its appeal to the senses. The Mass as the perversion of an original truth is something strangely calculated to kindle the imagination, that it may sense anew the literal physical dying of Jesus. In the "elevation of the host," the observers, instead of being taught to die daily with Christ to the flesh-life, are trained to see Christ Himself repeatedly and dramatically lifted up as on the tree before them. By the priest's blessing, the bread and the wine are supposedly transformed into the literal body and flowing blood of Christ, dying before the people, then eaten and drunk by them in a materialized appropriation of the body of the Lord. In all this there is a sad perversion of teaching respecting the real nature of the divine achievement which the apostles apprehended in the cross of the reconciliation, and also of its legitimate appropriation and assimilation in the believer's spiritual life. In the famous Passion Play enacted every ten years in Oberammergau, Bavaria, we have a marked illustration of the Roman Catholic accentuation of the error here referred to. That dramatic exhibition is not adapted to teach the real mediating work of Christ as the Scriptures teach it. It is the dramatization of the tragedy. It pictures forth the public execution of the innocent "man of Nazareth." No doubt there is a deep sincerity in the spirit of the extraordinary participants, who spend much of their lives in study to represent in a most realistic way the crucifixion event. I would not presume to say that those who so profoundly meditate upon the great occurrence, and who act their part in it with such artistic skill, may not themselves by faith grasp the underlying mediating fact. An intelligent observer of the play may also bring to the occasion a right apprehension of the work of Christ itself, and so may get profit out of the dramatization. My contention, however, is that the play in itself is adapted to emphasize not the reconciliation but the tragedy. Its appeal is to the sensibilities. It is essentially impressional, chiefly serving to awaken sympathy with the innocent sufferer, rather than conviction of sin and the appropriate repentance for it. And yet while thus showing the over-accentuation of the tragedy side of the cross, I do not forget that there was a tragedy in connection with this supreme event, the most consummate tragedy of history. As divinely foreseen, God purposed to use it for its historical and impressional value, to startle the world into attention, to compel reflection concerning the deep iniquity of sin and what it cost the Lord to redeem from it, and to warm the affections towards a divine beneficence so absolute. In the order of the world of which we form a part-a world into which sin has come, a world existing under a redemptive economy-God saw it to be necessary that sin should be unrestrained up to a certain limit, that it should have opportunity publicly to disclose its own unreason and virus. It must be given opportunity to work itself out to self-revealed cruelty and absurdity. It was doubtless in s omeday necessary that the public divine dealing with the sin-problem should manifest itself in immediate connection with-right over against-the demonstrated turpitude of moral evil which the crucifixion of the innocent Christ illustrated. Sin required to be set forth as deicide; and men needed to be convinced that even for a sin so atrocious there was a pardon. in no less dramatic way could the utter contrast between holiness and sin, and at the same time the adequacy of divine grace to overcome the breac!h, be made to stand out so impressively. Hence the strangely unique tragedy. God can make use even of the forms in which Satan's lies express themselves. So He uses the very moral shock, the sensation caused by the historic crucifixion-crime to arrest attention, to impress the world and all worlds in the interest of His holy grace. Thus there seems to have been not a physical, but a moral necessity, that on God's part the martyr-principle-the innocent suffering for the guilty even-should be utilized, in o"rder that the world might be gripped by a new and diviner power. In the logical development of the evil of American slavery, it was morally necessary that such an one as John Brown (and a great multitude of others of whom he was the forerunner), should lay down his life. Brown himself with deep insight is said naively to have remarked on the way to the scaffold that he was "worth more to hang than for anything else." The issue of our Civil War working as the deep cure of the evil which brought on the war#, could not reach its established result until President Abraham Lincoln, the embodiment of all that was most opposite to the enslaving-principle, fell a martyr to freedom. Said Hugh Latimer to Ridley when bound to the stake at Oxford in 1555, as they both were about to be burned, "Be of good comfort, Master Ridley, and play the man! We shall this day light such a candle by God's grace in England as I trust shall never be put out." "The blood of the martyrs" is always "the seed of the church." This would$ seem to be morally essential to a public power that would prove curative of evil. So while the work of Christ in its mediating element is far deeper than the efficacy of mere martyrdom, it nevertheless makes use of the principle of martyrdom on the way to its proper goal. It is in this way that the crucifixion itself in all its revolting character, blackest of crimes though it is, is overruled and utilized by God,-since man would perpetrate the deed,-to shock the world into realization of its own basenes%s on the one hand, and of God's infinite compassionateness on the other. Thus it is that Christ, and Him even as crucified, when taken in its whole meaning, is both "the wisdom of God and the power of God." While no one could say that the crucifixion of Christ, considered as a crime, could be made the basis of salvation, yet we must say, as above explained, that the crucifixion has a most effective bearing in bringing men into saving union with Christ. For it needs ever to be remembered that the reconcil&iation must be wrought not only in consistency with the ethical nature of God, but in such a form as to impress human nature in the simple, that something unparalleled has occurred-something moreover that will not be put by-and this is just what did occur in the experience of the Divine Man of Calvary. Such a spectacle is adapted to reach and melt the heart of the sinner, and unless he has been strangely sophisticated to awaken in him a new spontaneity of righteousness. A Bechuanaman in South Africa, aft'er listening in astonishment to a graphic description of the crucifixion, exclaimed,-"Jesus, away from there; that's my place." This new spontaneity is effected by the Divine Spirit through the vision thrown up against the background of sin's turpitude of the innocent sufferings of Christ, phenomena peculiarly adapted to accomplish the result. This divinely pathetic spectacle is an unspeakably more effective moral power than the imposition of any mere legally ethical constraint on the human spirit could (have been. Says President Edwards, "In legal humiliation, men are brought to despair of helping themselves: in evangelical, they are brought voluntarily to deny and renounce themselves; in the former, they are subdued and forced to the ground; in the latter, they are brought sweetly to yield, and freely, with delight to prostrate themselves at the feet of God." There is undoubtedly a divinely intended value in the power to impress the sensibilities which the event of Christ's dying, in just the manner He) did, constituted; it acts as a mysterious public phenomenon, a magnet to attract the curious, to move the careless, to awaken discrimination against sin, and at length to win the grateful devotion of the penitent. The phenomena accompanying the crucifixion, the Satanic cruelty, the darkened heavens, the earthquake shock, the opened sepulchres, and the rent temple vail, just at that juncture of the world's concentrated public life, made the crucifixion for all time the sensation of the ages. It compels at*tention. This peculiar execution wrought in no such way as the crucifiers supposed it would, namely, to reduce Christ to oblivion. It rather exalted Him into notice; it tended in the retrospect to move all men, as well as Israel, to "look upon Him whom they pierced" (Zech. 12:10; John 19:37). But even so, the intended value in all this sensational potency to rouse the attention of mankind was the result of overruling wisdom and power; no thanks to the crucifiers. In no sense was the power of this dramatic+ transaction due to the purpose of the murderers of Jesus: they had no such thought. Sin is too shortsighted for that; in the end it always overleaps itself. In this case particularly it went wide of its own intentions; and so God, and not Satan, reaped a benefit from the ghastly deed. Sin in its own over-doing killed itself. God took up the effect of the suicide and turned it as only He could turn it,-to the glory of His righteous and gracious government forever. The death described by the mere tragedy,, however, is by no means the deeper death which Jesus died. It was not the crucifixion per se, the mere Roman form of public execution in itself which constituted the reconciliation-that substance of divine dealing with sin-which was contemplated "from before the foundation of the world." That mediating death which Christ underwent was something vastly deeper down than a form of human execution. It was primarily an immaterial and spiritual experience, the result of His voluntary assumption of the world's -sin and guilt, including that of His own tormentors. No mere dramatization like that of the Passion Play, therefore, could set forth the reconciliation itself, simply because that which was then and there enacted, while objectified, was in the main invisible, involving deep spiritual elements and relationships. The chief factors in this achievement working in a death grapple with the sin-problem lay deeper than sight. These factors were the holiness of God, and the measureless love and grace of God worki.ng harmoniously in the divine government. The crucifiers indeed knew not what they did, much less did they know what the Christ was doing; meanwhile, even as they tortured, He was redeeming. But great as is the mistake of the Roman Catholic Church in fostering the unfortunate confusion respecting the nature of Christ's death, yet Protestantism cannot be said to be wholly free from blame; for the language of a materialized conception concerning Christ's work has often been used by Protestants in a mislead/ing way, and yet prevails, despite the constant misunderstanding of the terms used. Doubtless this tendency is the harder to correct, because of the very depth and preciousness of evangelical experiences so deeply cherished. These experiences are rooted in the sense of the vicariousness of Christ's dying work, and so they have become associated closely with the shedding of His blood, in some meaning of this term. With many, so true and deep is the consciousness that their sins have been purged away by the0 sacrificial work of Christ, that to them it is the very physical element itself that flowed from Christ's wounds, which cleanses. The terminology of the Scriptures in the emphasis it places upon "the blood of the covenant" (Hebr. 10:29), is strong and repeated. It should, however, not be forgotten that in a book so highly symbolic as the Bible, many of its terms, and especially those which have been brought over into the New Testament from the ceremonialism of Jewish sacrifices, need to be explained. As 1between the reality and the shadow, there is always danger of confusion. Scripture language is not always self-defining. There is therefore need of thought and careful speech in interpretation. Take, for example, such a passage as that in Hebrews 9:13-"For if the blood of bulls and of goats and the ashes of an heifer sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the (an, or His) eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from2 dead works to serve the living God." From this text the inference is hastily drawn that whereas "the blood of bulls and of goats" only ceremonially purified sin, yet the blood of Christ-the physical element-since it is Christ's blood, acts as the real purifying agent. Thus reasoning, a habit most devout and well-meaning easily follows to magnify the blood itself. But suppose now we carefully notice the two members of the antithesis in the text just quoted. The first member is "the blood of bulls and of 3goats and the ashes of an heifer"; the second member is "the blood of Christ" plus all that is embraced in the accompanying qualifying statements; including of course Christ's life for which the blood stood (Lev. 17:11), that is, the second member is "the blood of Christ who through His eternal Spirit offered Himself without spot to God." Then the teaching is not that the blood of Christ, in itself considered, really accomplished what the blood of bulls and of goats only ceremonially expressed; but that t4he efficacy of Christ's sacrifice consisted in the fact that He "through His eternal Spirit offered Himself (even unto death) without spot to God," of which offering, His blood-emblem of His life-was the speaking sign. Should we, however, be oblivious of the fact that multitudes not early accustomed to evangelical teaching, and uninitiated in its peculiar experience, are more likely to be repelled from Christianity than won to it, when in our interpretations we fail to take pains to distinguish between t5he physical element and the symbolic import of Christ's blood? Now when it is explained that the language of the New Testament, so abounding in terms like "the precious blood of Christ" (1 Peter 1:19), "the blood of the lamb" (Rev. 12:11), "the blood of an eternal covenant" (Hebr. 13:20), etc., is speaking in symbol, really meaning that the sacrifice of Christ was the surrender of the most precious life, a surrender to the very uttermost in unspared devotion, even unto blood and death, and that back of th6e blood was a great moral recognition of the deepest death which sin necessitated; and that Jesus in His offering even unto blood was in principle owning the penal judgment which sin and guilt deserved, the Scripture language filled with a richer content, is highly ennobled, while nothing of value is lost. Of course we would give no occasion for any to speak lightly of the blood of Christ, for to us it is charged with the profoundest and most hallowed meanings. Those who can thus speak of this most sacred of all emblems have given away far more in the realm of moral reality than they suppose; and they are making it easier for the enemies of the real cross to blaspheme. To any who are in doubt about the sanctity of this particular Biblical symbol, as involving the devotement of the divine life for men, a deeper study is commended. All who would help to the appreciation and acceptance of evangelical truth should go deeply into the realities concerning Scripture sacrifices which underlie the terms employed. gQ2 Sources of Confusion Respecting the Cross Not in wisdom of words lest the cross of Christ should be made void.-1 Cor. 1:17. Doubtless a fruitful occasion of the confusion respecting the cross is the ambiguity which has attended the theological use of the term "death," as applied to Christ. A common assumption is that this term in the New Testament is narrowly used in the se9nsidered and the divine achievement of the reconciliation. In his first Epistle to the Corinthians, chapter 1, verses 23, 24, Paul declares, "But we preach Christ crucified, unto Jews a stumbling block and unto Gentiles foolishness, but Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God, because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men." In chapter 2, and verse 2 of this same Epistle, the Apostle says, that in his ministry among the Corinthians, he "determined not: to know anything save Jesus Christ, and Him (as) crucified." And to the Galatians, in chapter 6, verse 14, Paul wrote, "Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, through which the world hath been crucified unto me, and I unto the world." I grant that at first sight it does appear as if in the passages quoted, the Apostle was magnifying the crucifixion itself as being the basis of human salvation. But we shall see this is far from the truth. In each of the passages referred t;o, Paul is dealing with a difficult paradox, in which he takes note of the twofold aspect of that mysterious event, the death on the cross. In one aspect of it, he recognizes the humiliation-a public historic event indeed-involved in Christ's endurance of the crucifixion; but in another aspect of it, he takes note of what God intended in permitting and overruling the evil in that event, and which, because of His own divine working back of all, eventuated in the Moral Achievement of Christ's Cross. As to that crucifixion as the sign of an unparalleled public self-abasement to which God in Christ submitted for man's sake. So with reference to the second of Paul's declarations before us. In saying that, he "determined not to know anything," among the Corinthians, "save Jesus Christ and Him crucified," he is similarly emphasizing not the element in the crucifixion which is a palpable crime, but that paradoxical objective sign which Christ's peculiar humiliation constituted. The world's Redeemer was one who ?gave Himself to the deepest self-renunciation, in order that by so doing He might save and exalt lost men; and so, in the personal allusions of the Apostle which follow, he avows his fellowship with that kind of a Saviour: "And I was with you in weakness and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were not in persuasive words of wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power: that your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God" (1 Cor. 2:5). The e@mphasis here clearly is upon the paradox of the lowliness of the agent of salvation, and the divine overruling purpose concerning it, and not upon any virtue in the crucifixion wrong itself. The divineness of this paradox is the more apparent also, as we follow the Apostle in his reasoning: "Although this looks like foolishness to men, yet we speak wisdom among them that are full grown, yet a wisdom not of this world, nor of the rulers of this world who are coming to nought: but we speak God's wisdom in aA mystery, even the wisdom that has been hidden, which God foreordained before the worlds unto our glory: which none of the rulers of this world hath known: for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of Glory" (1 Cor. 2:9). Then conceivably, in the light of such a conclusion, there might have been a generation of men unlike the Jews or the Greeks, who instead of stumbling at the self-humiliation of Jesus, would have understood and appreciated it. But such a virtue as this was one "whichB none of the rulers of this world hath known," controlled as they were by a spirit so foreign to divine grace and wisdom. A really wise generation would have appreciated the Redeemer's attitude towards it in His lowly form, as being God's Son, "the heir," and would have accepted Him as such, and not have slain Him. And if this is so, then that notion of wisdom which put Jesus of Nazareth to death, was really tie height of folly as well as sin. The crucifixion per se was of the folly of the world, and not Cof true wisdom except in so far as it was over-ruled by God for public impressional purposes. The wisdom that is "perfect," "mature," "full-grown," is in complete antithesis to all that entered into the motive to destroy Christ. This is the wisdom which belongs to the cross of the redemption, which we are distinguishing from the folly and sin which attach to the crucifixion. But further, the real cross of the reconciliation implied as lying behind what appeared in the crucifixion, is also among "the deepD things," as well as the wise things of God. No superficial, hasty thought can ever hope to apprehend the real nature of what was transpiring between God and His universe on the cross. The most careful comparison of Scripture with Scripture, and the profoundest reflection under the guidance of the illumining Spirit of God, are necessary to afford us the insight required. Accordingly, the Apostle further says,-"For who among men knoweth the things of a man save the Spirit of a man which is in him? Even so Ethe things of God none knoweth, save the Spirit of God" (1 Cor. 2:11). The wisdom which can penetrate to this is "revealed through the Spirit," the Spirit which "searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God" (1 Cor. 2:10). Taking men as they are, however,-because they would not otherwise learn the true wisdom,-God permitted His only begotten to be put to death by their sin, knowing that its reflex action would come back upon mankind for its good. God in Christ submitted even to that, that even so in Fthe end, the real divine wisdom might be learned. Thus the Father went to all needful lengths in becoming responsible for the burthen of sin; and so the palpable public crime of the crucifixion was permitted right alongside of the mediating work which the divine holiness and love were achieving. Surely then, the fact that Paul was taking account of the crucifixion in the divine economy, in no way implies that he was approving that iniquity, or that he considered it in itself the basis of human salvation, Galbeit God might use its effects in over-ruling power. In His purpose to save, God was willing to submit to the crucifixion of His son, and make use of its impressional value, but because of a love that was deathless, rather than because of dependence upon any internal efficacy in such a wrong, or want of horror at its baseness. Then as to the third utterance of the Apostle, wherein he says, "Far be it from me to glory save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ," we need to study carefully the context, iHn order to grasp the meaning. Paul is protesting against the errors which were being introduced into the Galatian church by certain Judaizing teachers. These teachers were insisting that the Galatian Christians should return to the economy of Moses, and so to the custom of circumcision, and Paul remonstrates by saying, "As many as desire to make a fair show in the flesh,"-i.e., by gaining proselytes,-"compel you to be circumcised; only that they may not be persecuted for the cross of Christ ... but they dIesire to have you circumcised that they may glory in your flesh" (Gal. 6:12,13). Now as over against this desire of the Judaizing teachers, so to win proselytes as to avoid shame on account of the cross, Paul exclaims, "Far be it from me to glory save in that very thing of which the Judaizers are ashamed" (Gal. 6:14). He is thinking of what that cross really stands for. That cross on the divine side of its meaning represents the most emphatic protest on Christ's part against the flesh or the self-principlJe, which ruled these Judaizing teachers. It was the working of this principle of the flesh which had driven Paul's Lord "as a lamb to the slaughter" (Isa. 53:7), which had animated Satan, and prompted all the sin in the world from Adam down. In going to His cross Christ wholly set at naught and despised this flesh principle: He had regard only for the will of the Father. Paul also, who had now become one with Christ, abhorred that same flesh principle; and so he exclaimed, "Far be it from me to glory in aKnything except that which represents the opposite of that principle," namely, the voluntariness of Christ's sacrifice. He wished himself wholly cut off from the principle, and the principle wholly cut off from him, which could drive Jesus to such an end. He could do this by heartily uniting himself with Christ. This he did by identifying himself with the lot of Christ, and so was crucified with Him. He would rather die with Christ under the persecution of that flesh-principle which put Jesus to death, thaLn live under the animus of such a principle. Moreover, through so dying with Christ, Paul found himself strangely alive with the risen Lord. This was the subjective paradox in Christian experience corresponding to the objective paradox in Christ's cross. The cross, as thus explained, was the agency of a double process in Paul's own moral state, whereby the world's hold on him was destroyed, and his own grasp on the world was relinquished. Hence he gloried in it. Such a view of the moral import of Christ'sM cross is wholly hostile and fatal to the governing principle of this foolish world and to the entire Satanic philosophy. Such a view also in spirit is the very opposite of any supposed glorying in the crucifixion-crime in itself considered. In the light of these interpretations covering the twofold aspects of the cross, I trust it will be clear that the crucifixion considered as a human crime, and the cross of the reconciliation considered as a divine moral achievement, in the Pauline thought, are highlNy antithetical to each other. Passing now from the specific texts just considered, I call attention to the fact that running throughout the Scriptures, there is a principle asserted or implied, respecting the way in which divine redemption deals with this matter of sin, which goes far to explain the peculiar way in which the New Testament emphasizes the value of the cross, as accomplishing the very opposite of what Christ's enemies intended. The principle to which we refer is that redemption, when finishOed, turns the tables upon sin. In the conflict between Christ, "the seed of the woman," and Satan, the adversary of mankind, the victory which Christ is winning is in itself so transcendent an achievement, that it is uniformly represented in the Bible as not only a conquest, but "more than" a conquest. Redemption is something not only adequate to meet the fallen situation in sin which Satan has occasioned, but in its very nature it goes further; it accomplishes its utter rout and overthrow. This surplusagPe of triumph in the Scriptures is expressed in many forms. For example, through the entrance of sin into the world, Satan is said to bruise the heel of the woman's seed, but the heel of that same seed is represented as crushing the serpent's head (Gen. 3:15). The Messianic triumph foreseen in the one hundred and eighteenth Psalm, is expressed in these words:-"The stone which the builders refused, is become the headstone of the corner." In the parable of the vineyard which had been entrusted to Jewish husQbandmen, given in the gospels, Christ is foretelling the certain retribution about to fall on the unfaithful Israel. He concludes His teaching with this direct application drawn from the Psalm just quoted: "Did ye never read in the Scriptures the stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing and it is marvellous in our eyes!" And in the discourse of the Apostle Peter before the Jewish council respecting the healing of the impotent man at the temple Rgate, the Apostle says, "Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel that in the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even in Him doth this man stand here before you whole. He is the stone which was set at nought of the builders, which was made the head of the corner" (Acts 4:10, 11), ... "he that falleth on this stone shall be broken to pieces; but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will scatter him. as dust" (Matt. 21:44). In the Book of Esther, Sa book which celebrates the triumphs of the providence of God over the pagan alternative for providence, namely, the notion of fatality or "luck," we have a dramatic yet historic presentation of the principle referred to. In the evil plot of Haman, there is a cunning plan wherein Mordecai is to be humiliated, the King manipulated, and the entire house of Israel throughout all the provinces of Persia, annihilated. The scheme moves on for a time with apparent success. It would seem as if the very fates wereT conspiring to assist the nefarious schemes of Haman the Agagite, descendant of Amnion, Israel's old enemy, when suddenly the divine counterplot enters and everything turns. The principle involved in the outcome finds expression in the first verse of the ninth chapter, "whereas it was turned to the contrary." "Now in the twelfth month, that is the month of Adar, on the thirteenth day of the same, when the king's commandment and his decree drew near to be put in execution, in the day that the enemies of thUe Jews hoped to have rule over them: (whereas it was turned to the contrary that the Jews had rule over them that hated them), the Jews gathered themselves together in their cities throughout all the provinces of the King Ahasuerus, to lay hands on such as sought their hurt: and no man could withstand them; for the fear of them fell upon all people" (Esther 9:1-3). Not the fates, according to the pagan idea, but providence according to God's plan for the world, rules in behalf of His people. Accordingly, Vin the denouement, we see the tables completely turned, with shame and confusion resting upon the head of the wily conspirator. Mordecai is mounted upon the King's charger as "the man whom the King delighteth to honour" (Esther 6:11), while the jealous but now humiliated Haman trudges in the street, the mere herald of the hated primate now preferred above himself. Esther, instead of being devoted to death, becomes especially exalted in the palace. Haman and his sons are hanged on the gallows prepared for WMordecai, and the very "lucky" day fixed upon by Haman's superstition, becomes for him the "unluckiest" day possible. That day instead of signalizing the destruction of the Jews, marks their preservation, and the two days, next following the fourteenth and fifteenth, are substituted for Haman's fateful thirteenth day of "luck." These days be came thereafter days of feasting, exultation, and the giving of gifts. To accentuate so divine a reversal of a supposedly unalterable decree, a new and significant feXast was accordingly instituted, and set in the Jewish calendar. This feast was called "The Feast of Purim," a feast which takes its name from the Hebrew word "pur," meaning "the lot," "purim" being the plural form of the word, meaning "lots." Haman had been casting the lot over and over again testing all the days throughout a twelve-month, that he might superstitiously hit upon the auspicious day favoured by his pagan deities for the consummation of his diabolical scheme to exterminate the Jews. The very Yperiod indicated by the fates is henceforth set apart in the custom of the Jews as a festival occasion, in worthy moral derision of the futility of Haman's superstitious dependence upon the pagan idea of luck. What is the lesson here, but this, that mere "luck" (if indeed there were any such thing in the world) can work no injury to the people of God, because they are rather the children of His providential care. This "Feast of Purim" then was in a lofty sense an ironical feast, properly so, upon the prinZciple that when God vindicates His people, He does it in such fashion as to confound their adversaries and His. He "turns the tables" on them; He alters the iniquitous decree; He avenges speedily "His elect," "and yet He is long-suffering over them" (Luke 18:7,8). In the fifth chapter of the Epistle to the Romans is wrought out a marked antithesis between the deep ruin of the race which came by "the one man," Adam, and the surpassing redemption which was achieved by "the one man," Christ, "the last Adam.[" It is stated with fivefold repetition that the grace of Christ is "much more" than adequate, "much more" than sufficient (Rom. 5:9,10,15,17,20). Redemption is more than restoration, it is glorification. "Where sin abounded grace did much more abound," and always does, if God's grace be given its way. The grace of Christ has always a redundance of resource. That great paean of the soul's triumph in Christ which is sung in the eighth of Romans, moves on with ever increasing volume till the Apostle at leng\th drops all standards of comparison, and in one exultant burst exclaims, "Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through Him that loved us" (Rom. 8:37). But perhaps the most decisive passage of all in support of the view I am advocating respecting the outcome of the cross as an unexpected reversal of the tables upon Christ's enemies, is Paul's utterance found in the fourteenth and fifteenth verses of the second chapter of his Epistle to the Colossians. The Apostle is speaking of Christ's w]ork on the cross as the basis on which we have forgiveness of sins. He thus characterizes that basal work of Christ; "Having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us and He hath taken it out of the way, nailing it to His cross." From the point of view of those who supposed that in crucifying Jesus they had made an end of His power, could anything be more surprising and disappointing? The words quoted represent Christ in the very moment when His person is bei^ng transfixed to the wood, as Himself driving invisible nails through the invisible indictment of condemnation into an invisible cross, and so annulling the judgment against human sin, making it possible to forgive the very sin that executed Him. Paul uses the symbolism of the crucifixion to describe the victory of Christ over that crucifixion. How consummate and divine this mastery! It turns the edge of all Christ's opponents contemplated and makes their supposed conquest His own. But as if this were no_t enough, the Apostle adds: "Having despoiled (or stripped off) the principalities and the powers He made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it," i.e., triumphing in that same cross. This language implies that just at the moment when the crucifiers were saying, "Aha, we have you at last," Christ Himself in the great reserve of His power was unexpectedly flanking their movement, wresting their supposed victory from them, and so despoiling of all it expected every principality of evil in the who`le Satanic realm. This victory was peculiarly recognized by the world of unseen spiritual intelligences in both heaven and hell. To them the disclosure was made "openly," more demonstrably than to us. In His ascension they saw Him lead His own captivity captive, drawing a host of the vanquished in His train. Hence, the outburst in the prophetic vision of the Psalm, "God is gone up with a shout, Jehovah with the sound of a trumpet" (Psa. 47:5). It was the triumph of this cross of the redemption,-the heavena-side of the reality,-the crucifixion "turned to the contrary" which the spiritual intelligences saw. For the full manifestation of this we wait. The divine attitude respecting it all is expressed in that dramatic Psalm, "He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh, the Lord shall have them in derision" (Psa. 2:4). The principle which I have pointed out thus construed makes all the difference with the term, "the cross of Christ." The term is one of high irony, used in holy and sublime derision, the reductbio ad absurdum of sin, indicative of the divine reversal of all Satanic plotting in the universe. Christ's enemies intended by His crucifixion, when they inflicted upon Him the most humiliating and shameful execution they could devise, to reduce Him to ignominy and shame. In the thought of Christ's chief adversary, the devil, it was supposed if he could but secure such a debasement of the Son of God as that involved in His execution between two outcasts, His name in human regard would be outcast forever. cSuch opposition, however, quite overshot the mark, because it was wholly blind to the divine aim and hidden power of the great transaction of reconciliation, to be achieved concomitantly with the crucifixion. A story is told that some summers ago an American eagle was seen hovering over one of our inland lakes, when all at once it dropped like a plummet into the water, and shortly emerged with a mammoth muscalonge, in its talons; and slowly rose to the upper air. After a little, it began to waver in its dflight, and strangely enough began to settle back towards the lake. It actually dropped into the waters and perished with its quarry. A boatman, observing it, rowed out to the spot, and secured the bird with the fish in its grasp. It appeared that when the eagle descended upon the fish, it struck its talons with such force into the bony framework of the fish, that later the eagle found the weight of its prey, either exhausting to its power to fly, or finding itself unable to release its hold, became panice-stricken, and so fell back and perished. So when Satan struck at Christ upon the cross, he overreached himself, and sin went to its suicide. Instead of placing Christ in the realm of outcasts, Satan virtually exalted Him to a throne. Unlike the occurrence just referred to, however, the stroke upon Jesus did not mean the ending of life of a victim, for not being the prey of Satan, Jesus was superior to the ordinary laws of death. The resurrection-life was His as the legitimate outcome of the form of volunftary, sinless dying undergone by such a personage. Through the holy attitude which Christ maintained towards His enemies, He vanquished both sin and death in all their deeper significance. Although indeed He must die, yet "it was not possible that He should be holden of death" (Acts 2:24). His death being more than mere mortal dissolution,-even the vicarious tasting of a deeper death,-He moved straight to the resurrection, so that in His living power He was able to turn upon and vanquish His last foe. So gthrough this turning of the tables on the empire of evil, Christ could say, "Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out:-He will be the real outcast-and I, if I be lifted up from the earth-literally, 'uplifted out of the earth,' into resurrection-relations, the logical out come of My voluntary dying-will draw all ... unto Myself" (John 12:32). Says Dr. Frederick Godet, commenting upon this passage and its context, "This suspension on the cross appears as the magnifichently ironical emblem of Christ's elevation on the throne." That death upon the cross which was intended to be the mark of Christ's shame, as such He "despised," and by a worthy irony adopted as the symbol of His unique exaltation, conquest and moral glory. Inspiration then, so far from commending the crime of the Jews, or making it the basis of human salvation, is rather glorying in the divine achievement which so confounded the purposes of the rejectors of Christ; it adopts the term, "the cross" as a symbol ironical-ironical in the sense that the term is used with a meaning entirely opposite to the apparent sense-of the complete subversion of all Christ's enemies intended. Apostolic thought pierces to the deep interior meaning of the cross, as God views it, and exalts it to a dignity that implies majestic scorn for that Satanic world-spirit which drove Jesus to the scaffold, while it places the true crown upon the head of the world's risen Redeemer as fit reward for all His measureless travail of soul. SSaE3 The New Testament Use of Crucifixion Terms For I determined not to know anything among you save Jesus Christ and Him crucified.-1 Cor. 2:2. In view of what has been said, it is now necessary to give our attention to some particular scriptures which doubtless have occurred to the reader bearing upon the subject in hand. These passages at first sight may seem to present an objection to the distinction I have been drawing between the crucifixion in itself co8kuisite, if a man is to be saved from his real woes. The sentence which was pronounced upon the race at its fall in Eden, was something deeper than mere physical death. The Hebrew reads, "To die thou shalt die" (Gen. 2:17). The death which our first parents in the garden died, involved more than mere mortal dissolution, the separation of soul and body. Such a separation indeed was entailed, but sin in itself effects spiritual death, soul-death; not annihilation but a perversion of the functions normal to plersonality, eventuating in moral unlikeness to God and separation from Him. Such a separation in fellowship between the soul and its God, itself is death in the profoundest sense: it is the destruction of the very possibility of God-likeness resulting in malformation and reprobacy of spiritual being. All this and vastly more, is involved in spiritual death.1 1"We are not to set the physical sufferings of Christ in separation from, or contrast with, the spiritual agonies, but let us not suppose that the pmhysical death was the atonement, apart from the spiritual death of separation from the Father, which is witnessed by that cry of despair mingled with trust, that broke the darkness. It shows us, as if by one lightning flash, the depth of the gloom. It is like one breaker crashing on a rock-bound coast, the fringe of a dark and tossing sea that can neither be sailed over nor fathomed by us."-Alexander MacLaren. On any conception of the death which Jesus was ever anticipating lower that this, it seems to uns impossible to explain that extraordinary shrinking from the crisis impending, which characterized our Lord in the Garden of Gethsemane. We are distinctly told that in that dread experience, His mental anguish was such that He prayed repeatedly that if it were possible "the cup might pass" from Him. The intensity of His prayer and the stress of the conflict within, was such that it is said, "and being in an agony He prayed more earnestly, and His sweat became as it were great drops of blood, falling downo upon the ground" (Luke 22:44). The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, doubtless commenting upon this experience, says that "in the days of His flesh He offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto Him that was able to save Him from death, and having been heard" (Heb. 5:7). Now it will not do to say that Christ in this experience was simply drawing back from mere physical dying, for in that case His attitude would have fallen in heroism far below that of many a martyr, who pwhen the crisis came, has not only risen superior to fear, but has actually welcomed the most agonizing death. If rather we consider that what Jesus is really shrinking from, described in the epistle, is participation in the race's doom of a spiritual death, and that this death is in essence spiritual separation from God, the unutterable bitterness of which Christ was anticipating, our difficulty is relieved. That Christ's prayer was answered that He might be saved "out of" this forsakeness, though not "qfrom" it, going to the extent requisite in "tasting" it, would seem evident from the fact that afterwards in the garden an "angel appeared strengthening Him" (Luke 22:43), and from the further fact that His baptism of sorrow on the cross itself issued in resurrection the morning of the third day. That Christ experienced a spiritual anguish altogether unparalleled is found in the language of His cry on the cross: "My God, My God, why hast Thou forsaken Me?" (Mark 15:34). This was the high-water mark of Hirs sorrow. True, many efforts have been made to explain away the evident force of this cry, saying it is an exaggeration due to His peculiar depression, etc.; but such a view can be had only at the expense of the reliability of the self-consciousness of Jesus in His supreme redeeming hour. How this spotless Son of Man could enter into this experience as a reality, may be beyond our psychological analysis, but it is not beyond our faith. That the Holy One by the depth of His sympathy, the infinity of His knsowledge and His measureless sensitiveness, should be able to experience the atmosphere at least of spiritual death, presents no more difficulties than does the possibility of the incarnation itself. To take the language as it stands involves the fewer difficulties. That Christ was for the time sympathetically at least, in the place of an outcast world and partook of the sense of the abandoned before a judicial tribunal when He could say only "My God, My God"-not "My Father, My Father," is most evident. Int what contrast to this consciousness was Christ's cry when He emerged from the cloud, and said,-"Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit" (Luke 23:46); and that other utterance to Mary on the morning after His resurrection when He spoke of His ascension "unto My Father and your Father and My God and your God" (John 20:17). The sense of Fatherhood which had been obscured was found again, and with it life and salvation for His own forevermore. In harmony with the view presented sang Mrs. Browning, correcuting Cowper's morbid mood as thinking himself deserted by God; when she wrote: "Deserted! God could separate from His own essence rather And Adam's sins have swept between the righteous Son and Father; Yea, once, Immanuel's orphaned cry His universe hath shaken- It went up single, echoless, 'My God I am forsaken!' "It went up from the Holy's lips amid His lost creation, That, of the lost, no son should use those words of desolation; That earth's worst phrenzies, marring hope, should mar not hope'vs fruition, And I, on Cowper's grave, should see his rapture in a vision!" This death, which Christ "tasted for every man" (Heb. 2:9), must have been of a sort corresponding at least in nature to that spiritual death which was the curse and ruin of the race. Canon Moberly in his recent work on "Atonement and Personality," in protest against the idea that Christ endured "the actual penalty of sin," presents the view that "with eyes full open to God He realized the appalling character of sin which is alswo its doom; while by His own inherent self-identity with holiness He attained to the otherwise impossible conditions of perfectly atoning penitence." Moberly thinks that penitence for others was thus consummated at the cost of a gradual and voluntary dissolution of Himself. This voluntary consummated penitence for man's sin-rather than the mere penalty he endured-Moberly contends is the vicarious objective reconciliation; this was the instrument for the conquering of sin-was the absolute destruction of sixn; and thus human penitence involving also human holiness became potentially for all men an accomplished fact. The end Moberly has in view is to find a basis on which the objective and the subjective elements in the redemption may be more truly correlated. His aim is to improve upon that statement of the sufferings of Christ which implies that those sufferings were in the way of "punishment"-that forgiveness is simply remission or noninfliction of penalties. Moreover, Moberly holds that in such a view asy he criticizes-a view of which he conceives Dr. Dale to be the best exponent,-there is usually a sad omission of emphasis upon the work of the Holy Spirit in consummating redemption. "Calvary stops short of Pentecost"; whereas in the thought of the New Testament the work of Calvary is simply a potentiality having its sequel for man on the subjective side in the work of Pentecost. Short of the work of Pentecost no man is conceived as included in forgiveness, because the imparted Spirit of Christ-given at Pzentecost-must have its operating indwelling and reconstructive power within the believer, in order to give efficacy to the work of Calvary. With the practical aim of Canon Moberly's discussion, I find myself in sympathy. I would, however, sharply distinguish as he does not, between the endurance by Christ, in any "quantitative or equational way," of "the actual penalty of sin" as a "punishment, inflicted from without by another," and the tasting by Christ in a qualitative way of the element of penalty for{ human sin. From an ethical point of view I confess I find less moral difficulty in thus conceiving of Christ's suffering as vicarious than I would in supposing, as Moberly does, that Christ as the perfectly Holy One, could experience a vicarious penitence for sins which He never committed. In either case the difficulty remains-doubtless inexplicable-of understanding just how Christ could vicariously make our cause His own. On either hypothesis, the effect of Christ's work becomes ours on the presuppositi|on that in the end we as believers are to be "in Christ," spiritually one with Him forever. Meanwhile it is certain that the scriptures represent that the "chastisement of our peace" (Isa. 53:5), was upon Him; that "He died the just for the unjust" (1 Peter 3:18); that He "bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Petr. 2:24); and that "Him who knew no sin He made to be sin on our behalf" (2 Cor. 5:21). If then these things are Scripturally affirmed of Him, we cannot be far wrong in supposing that Ch}rist tasted a spiritual woe entirely peculiar and far beyond anything involved in mere mortal dying. Christ's death was a death the poignancy of which no martyr ever knew, the experience of death in its reality, whereas the ideal martyr, or the saint in the transition to glory at the worst only passes through "the valley of the shadow" of it. A friend of the writer, the sainted Dr. W. S. McKenzie, while dying from a most distressing disease, wrote to friends in the mission rooms where he had long laboured~, "If any of you have fears about the close of your life on earth, dismiss them. It is only the 'shadow of death' we have to meet. Our Christ grappled the enemy-the substance-and slew him. A shadow may scare you at first, but no shadow can harm you." Such a form of dying, as we have ascribed to Jesus, was far different in kind from that which His enemies supposed Him to be dying under their inflictions. It was the self-invited, self-imposed death requisite to the pardon and cure of the deep malady of sin, which Jesus died. Certain non-evangelical minds avow a sense of moral shock at the representation, so common to evangelicalism, that Christ came into the world with a direct view to death, expressly in order that He might die. If it were true that the death-the only death contemplated-was the death of murder (or even of suicide) which Christ's crucifiers intended to visit on Him, we should not wonder at the experience of such shock. But such a view of the death of Christ is most shallow and inadequate; it does not touch the deep reality. The death for which Christ came into the world, that in its elements He might taste it, and then by resurrection be saved out of it, was chiefly a profound non-physical, psychical experience, inseparably connected with the sin-principle: a death of which the crucifiers of Jesus had no conception whatever. No one who has reflected upon the way in which Christ was accustomed to speak of "His hour," can fail to see that His end was something He habitually had in mind, certainly from the moment of His cleansing of the temple near the entrance upon His public ministry on till the goal was reached on Calvary. He spoke of this hour with precision, "Mine hour is not yet come" (John 2:4). "The hour is come that the son of man should be glorified." "And what shall I say? Father save Me from this hour. But for this cause came I unto this hour" (John 12:23-27). "No man took Him because His hour was not yet come" (John 8:20). The climax anticipated by Christ in His death-hour, was something in line even with His pre-incarnate purpose. "Father, glorify Thou Me with Thine own self, with the glory which I had with Thee (in redemptive purposes) before the world was" (John 17:5). These repeated declarations make it plain that in the purpose of God, entirely apart from all that His enemies ever conceived or intended, He had in thought and principle a determinate mission to accomplish in behalf of the world; and He moved on in the face of all opposition towards the goal, irrespective of the world's utter darkness respecting its nature. This goal was the completion of the reconciliation, as viewed from the divine standpoint. In thought, Christ regarded nothing as really accomplished in His potential scheme, until He should reach and pass through His death hour. "I am come to cast fire on the earth and what will I if-how I wish-it were already kindled; I have a baptism to be baptized with and how am I straitened until it be accomplished" (Luke 12:49). "Till then I am not officially enfranchised." In His conversation with Moses and Elias on the Mount of Transfiguration, in which both the ideals of the celestial world and Christ's world of thought and being were revealed as identical, we are told that the theme was "His decease," His "exodus," which in a process of dying and living again, "He was about to accomplish in Jerusalem" (Luke 9:31). All this amounts to proof positive that the reconciling death was itself the explicit goal which Christ had in view in coming into this world. Surely one cannot question that Christ came to the world expressly that He might die, in some unique sense without discrediting the central teaching of Divine revelation itself. This death which Jesus connected with His consummate "hour" was wholly voluntary on His part. There was no power on earth that could compel it; it was indeed involved in the eternity of the divine love, a love which has its peculiarity in that it eternally provided to deal with human sin and guilt. In thought, we may conceive that Christ could have withheld Himself from death, and instead thereof have sentenced the world to its destruction, but He did not. Doubtless the spiritual death which Christ experienced, was itself the cause of the cessation of His mortal life on the cross. That death brought on His mortal dying long before His executioners expected to see Him expire. The expression recorded of Him, in which it is said He "cried with a loud voice and yielded up His Spirit" (Matt. 27:50), has been rendered by Dr. W. Robertson Nicoll, "He sent away His spirit," He "dismissed it," by an action wholly within His own power, when the point was reached that this could be done consistently with the redemptive purpose of that hour. We read that when the centurion who stood over against Him saw that "so" gave up His spirit, he was impelled to exclaim, "truly this was the Son of God" (Matt. 27:54). The cry impressed him as that of one not exhausted from excess of physical agony, but of one having unexpected, supernatural control of the manner and time of His going to the spirit-world.2 In harmony with this were the words just previously uttered, "Father into Thy hands I commend My spirit," and the yet deeper utterance, "it is finished." 2Dr. Alexander MacLaren on the subject substantially expresses himself thus: "The language in which all the evangelists describe the actual death is very full of meaning. They all use expressions parallel with Mark's 'gave up the ghost,' that are not merely periphrastic euphemisms for death, but are to be understood as asserting that Jesus' death was voluntary. He did not die because He was crucified, but because He would. His spirit was not 'required of' Him by the physical consequences of His being nailed to a cross, but was 'given up' by Him because He loved us. Even in submitting to death He showed Himself the Lord of death." When the soldiers came to break His legs they "saw that He was dead already," therefore "they brake not His legs" (John 19:33). From these combined evidences, it seems incredible that Christ really expired from crucifixion wounds. It was the deeper anguish that He experienced from His free assumption of the sin and guilt of man, that killed Him. He Himself was not guilty, not "punished," but, so to speak, He entered "the atmosphere of human guilt." He died of that atmosphere: died of a ruptured heart,3 long before the wounds in hands or feet would have occasioned it. 3Those who desire to inquire into the nature of our Lord's physical dying, will find some weighty testimonies from physiological authorities in the Appendix to Dr. E. W. Dale's work on "The Atonement," p. 462, Note D. 24 But in the peculiar dying of our Lord, even this was not all; He laid down His life that He "might take it again" (John 10:18). We need especially to pause here. If Jesus' death-the redeeming-death-was not the mere effect of a murderous act, neither was that death the death of a suicide. He laid down His life in view of a speedy resumption of it in entirely new relations. In the tenth chapter of John, Jesus declares, "Therefore doth the Father love Me because I lay down My life that I may take it again. No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power (or right) to lay it down and I have power to take it again. This commandment received I from My Father" (John 10:18). Jesus laid down His life in such a way, on such a principle, on the basis of such divine sanctions, as exalts it in moral character to an altogether peculiar level. When a suicide gives up his life, his is the act of one who wholly exceeds his authority over his own life; he puts his life beyond his control, and the act itself is intrinsic sin. He thrusts himself a criminal intruder, unbidden, before his time, into the presence of his creator and judge. Not such was the act of Christ in the atonement-dying. He died with all heaven waiting to receive Him back as "the King of Glory" at just the moment expected, and in exact accordance with the eternal purpose. The twenty-fourth Psalm celebrates this extraordinary welcome, a welcome which certainly appertains to one who in laying down His life, did it in such a way as to win the approval of the highest heaven; such dying is anything but suicidal death. In such a sense He died, so entirely innocent a being, so holy in all His attitude towards His tormentors, and towards Satan who urged them on, as no other ever died. So preeminently was His spiritual dying, a vicarious, holy dying, that that kind of death could have but one issue, namely, the resurrection. This it was that saved His dying from self-destruction, or suicide. The same authority which gave Him right to lay down His life, gave Him right also to resume it in new and larger relations, and on a more exalted plane. In the thought of Scripture, the reconciling-death and the resurrection are always to be taken together; they are inseparable parts of a real unity, twin parts of one fact. In Scripture thought, the reconciling-death always eventuates in the resurrection, and the resurrection always presupposes the reconciling-death; the one is not conceived apart from the other. Hence the Apostle Peter in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, could say, "For it was not possible that He should be holden of death" (Acts 2:24), simply because His unique dying involved a unique consummation in the resurrection. It was for this reason that the intervening period of three days between His dying and His resurrection, in principle, was a mere transition. We are told that in that period He "saw no corruption" (Acts 13:37); there was no taint of decay in the fabric of His body, no pollution in a corpuscle of His blood; He had never been in Himself considered the victim of Satan or of sin. He could say, "The prince of this world cometh and hath nothing in Me, but that the world may know that I love the Father" (John 14:30,31), and "Which of you convicteth Me of sin?" (John 8:46). When a mere martyr dies, he is in some real sense a prey to his persecutors, and of the remains of sin in his constitution; but in no such sense was Jesus personally a victim. True, He allowed Himself to be treated as if He were, not God's holy Son, but as sin itself. "He who knew no sin was made sin for us" (2 Cor. 5:31). When Christ ascended the altar He did it deliberately, as the master of that altar and all its issues. He was thus no mere martyr; He was the Redeemer of martyrs and the power which enables martyrs. And when He came off that altar, He came with all the majesty of free omnipotence, moving straight to His ascension and to His mediatorial reign. Then this self-sacrifice of Christ is nothing less than the principal event in the history of God's revelation to mankind. The cross truly understood is the symbol and the substance of the revelation to us of Deity, not in any mere mood or paroxysm, but of His characteristic being. Says Rev. E. J. Campbell: "This striking expression, 'The lamb slain from the foundation of the world' (Rev. 13:8), has a wider significance than is commonly attached to it. The 'foundation of the world' is the slaying of the lamb, that is, the very act of creation involves the sacrifice of God. In creation God goes forth from Himself, as it were, in the Person of the Eternal Son, to return to Himself in a perfected spiritual world wherein self-sacrificing love has proved itself by pain. The whole process of creation, the history of the world, as the Bible teaches it, is the movement of humanity back to its home in God Now creation is the work of God the Son; that is, it is the giving of His life that the glorious purpose of a perfect spiritual world may be realized. 'Then cometh the end, when He shall have delivered up the kingdom to God, even the Father' (1 Cor. 15:24). The beginning was the laying down of the life of God the Son; creation implies limitation, and limitation is sacrifice. The sacrifice did not end with the creation of the heavens and the earth. It only began there, but it culminated on Calvary, and will end only when Christ 'hath put all enemies under His feet' (1 Cor. 15:25). The conception of the lamb slain is the warp and the woof of the moral and spiritual history of the world." What was enacted on Calvary was simply the projection on the plane of time of the eternal state of things, as antedating creation itself, in God's heart. The law of the cross of Christ is the very law of the life of God. The grief in God's heart over the sin of man is a perpetual reality, indicating that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is a perpetual sufferer over the sin of the universe. One has said: "Could a finite intelligence conceive of a doom more terrible than that which a Holy Being would condemn Himself to, if He were compelled to witness the spectacle which earth must present (of sin), to one who sees it as it is, without veil, or blind, or illusion, and who sees it all at once?" But this is just what God in redemption has done in relation to sin, entering into all the vicarious relationship requisite to recover man from it. By a long self-substitution our Lord condemned Himself century in and century out, to watch the evil in this world, to plead with men because of it; and once for all in Christ, historically He manifested the kind of suffering that was needful to deliver from it. This is the deepest law of the life of our God. In harmony with such a situation, I do not see how any moral shock can be felt, even by the most sensitive, when it is said that with a direct view to such suffering and dying, Jesus Christ came into the world; for it was in view of such self-sacrifice on the part of God that the world itself was brought into being. It is certain that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews declares that in the incarnation, Jesus "became a sharer in flesh and blood" of the human race, expressly in order that "through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death, that is, the devil, and might deliver all them, who through fear of death, were all their lifetime subject to bondage" (Heb. 2:14,15). Surely no less a death than that spiritual one which I have represented Christ as experiencing, could have power to "bring to nought" such an adversary, as is declared to have had "the power of death." As by sin came death, and so by death the bond of Satan was cast about all mankind; so through death,-death of an infinitely profound sort,-Jesus has destroyed even Him that had the power of death, and potentially set free forever all His intended victims. No less a death than that we have attributed to Christ could thus avail. It is by virtue of this consummate achievement, that the Redeemer of mankind can exclaim in behalf of all His own, "O death where are thy plagues; O Sheol where is thy destruction" (Hos. 13:14). Thus, it was that self-imposed death-the voluntary tasting of spiritual separation from God-which constituted the reconciliation. The Apostle Peter clearly meant to emphasize the positive deliberateness of such dying, when in his sermon on the day of Pentecost, he used the explicit phrasing, "Him being delivered up"-i.e., delivered up into these relations; relations to the sin of man which He knew would crucify Christ, relations to the divine government, to holiness, to love-"by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God" (Acts 2:23). But just as certainly the Apostle said that the crucifying and slaying of Jesus "by the hand of lawless men," was another conception of death altogether, in no sense God's act. Christ was on His errand of love and grace, an errand wholly self-caused, and ready to go to all lengths-to crucifixion shame indeed-even to tasting spiritual death for every man, in His loving unasked assumption of responsibility for our sin and guilt, till it should break His heart with grief and woe; and midway, while on that errand (an errand that in itself did not necessarily call for a crucifixion-crime) the wickedness of man set upon Him, determined to destroy Him. Men did not really kill Him, for Jesus did not die of crucifixion wounds, but of heart rupture, in view of spiritual conditions He was voluntarily facing; yet His enemies intended to kill Him, and were as guilty as if they had. Christ's atoning work in its intrinsic nature, was independent of the manner of the attack upon Him by His enemies. The prophetic eye by inspiration of the Holy Ghost, indeed foresaw how men would treat Jesus when He came, even to publicly nailing Him to the wood, to piercing His side, and to the omission to break one of His bones, but this foresight of prophecy, this foreknowledge, should not be mistaken for the purpose of God's efficient predetermination, with reference to that deeper death than any Jew or Roman ever foresaw or was able to inflict, which Jesus died, namely, the death of that voluntary separation from God which He deliberately incurred. When in the year 1898 the United States Government sent its battleship, the Maine, into Havana Harbour on an errand of mercy, an errand of inquiry with a view to the relief of the distressing conditions, induced by the cruelties employed by Spain under the inhuman Weyler, she went with both the majesty and mercy of the United States Government behind her. To that initial act of sending out the battleship, stood committed all that our government might be called upon to sacrifice and suffer, consequent upon the expedition. It was an intervention of righteous mercy. While on this high errand, hostile hands, as was supposed, set upon the battleship, and destroyed her with hundreds of her precious crew. This act-the real or supposed clandestine destruction of the battleship-in some sense may represent the crucifixion-crime; whereas the majesty and mercy of the errand undertaken in the intention of our government to relieve a long suffering people-this costly mediatory work on which the United States was bent-may represent the divinely voluntary principle of the redemption. This devotion to the real interests of Cuba, with all that it implied of required sacrifice and suffering to the United States, as self-imposed and yet incidentally endured from her enemies, may represent the cost of the redeeming act. iU4 The Nature of Christ's Reconciling Death That through death He might bring to nought him that had the power of death.-Heb. 2:14. The term "death" as applied to the nature of Christ's vicarious sufferings for man constituting Him the redeemer, has a meaning in the New Testament altogether unique. That death was more than mortal dying, although mortal dying was linked with it. This would seem to be morally reqjonly a symbol of the Redeemer's voluntary sacrificial work indicating also that He had tasted that spiritual death-that sense of separation from God-which man's sin incurred; but the cross represented also an actual triumph over every potency of evil which had come into the world through sin. What the benefits of that triumph were and the principles on which they were secured, I shall consider later. It is now important to make clear the matter that the work of Christ was an actual objective achievement, won in behalf of others. There are those who contend that the cross simply marked the tragic end of the greatest of prophets; they place the emphasis on what Jesus taught and to what cost to Himself He taught it in His pre-crucifixion life, and not on what He achieved in the way of a cure of the moral malady and guilt of the race; thus they imply that He died only as the chief of martyrs; the value of His cross was in the mere moral influence He acquired through so tragic endurance of what His persecutors laid upon Him. In this respect He was the consummate revelation of the real character of God as self-sacrificing love; He bore our sins only in the sense that at such incidental cost to the deliverance of His message, He expressed the intensity of His will to save. On this view there was no penal element whatever in what Christ suffered; His sufferings had no respect to any principle of righteous justice or judgment in the government of God. Now as over against this view, a view which represents only a part of the truth, I shall point out as I proceed that the death of Christ was really a judgment-death; it could not have accomplished what recovery from the sin-situation in the world demanded without being such a judgment-death. Before however defining in what respect it is such a death, some preliminary considerations will prepare us to apprehend the term, which we grant is somewhat uncommon. The meaning of this term "judgment" has been grossly misconceived as synonymous with a sentence of reprobation, and, in consequence, the most unhappy revolt against it exists in "the modern mind." The existing prejudice is doubtless due to an oversight of a very different and gracious sense in which the Bible uses the term. The word often is employed in the sense of merciful intervention, vindication. Matthew, quoting from Isaiah, says: "He shall declare judgment to the Gentiles ... a bruised reed shall He not break, and smoking flax shall He not quench, till He send forth judgment unto victory, and in His name shall the Gentiles hope" (Matt. 12:18-21). Prof. George Adam Smith, commenting on certain gracious uses of the term in Isaiah, says:-"The English word 'judgment'-in the Hebrew 'mish-pat'-is a natural but misleading translation of the original, and we must dismiss at once the idea of judicial sentence which it suggests." He says the word "judgment" often means not only "the civic righteousness and justice, but these with God behind them";1 and I would add, a God who is filled with mercy and grace as well as truth, and who intends through His redeeming work to use all the strength of His holiness to uphold His mercy and give it divine effect in the recovery of the lost. Judgment in the Scriptures is never used-not even in the Old Testament-in the vindictive but rather in the vindicatory sense,-vindicatory of God's merciful way of pardoning the sinner, as well as of upholding God's moral rule.2 1 The Book of Isaiah, Vol. 2, p. 298. 2Certain interpreters speak of some of the Psalms, e. g., the Thirty-fifth and the One Hundred and Ninth as "imprecatory," implying that the writer while yet ignorant of the spirit of grace, afterwards to be manifested in Christ Jesus, was meanwhile expressing his personal prejudice or passion in the form of vindictiveness. The difficulty has always seemed to me factitious. Assuming that these writings are indicted by the Divine Spirit, it appears to me truer to conceive the writer while preserving Hebraic forms of expression, as yet so swallowed up in the divine consciousness of the necessary antagonism of holiness to sin that his own personal feeling was practically overcome; that there was a Spirit higher than his own, uttering itself in him. The so-called imprecations are not the utterance of threats, but the statement of the certain sequences of unrepentant sin. The same difficulty exists in the New Testament term "wrath to come"; but the difficulty vanishes when it is remembered that divine wrath is not like human passion, the result of irritation, but is the necessary antagonism of a holiness which cannot look upon sin, much less make a truce with it. When therefore the psalmist cries: "Save me, O God by Thy name, and judge me in Thy might!" (Ps. 54:1)-he is pleading surely not for judicial doom, but for an administration of mercy harmonious with justice: and again when he says of the coming Redeemer, "He will judge the poor of the people" (Ps. 72:4), He means the Redeemer will rescue them from the oppressor. When Jesus in the gospel said, after opening the eyes of the blind:-"For judgment came I into this world that they that see not may see" (John 9:39),-He was uttering a great generalization concerning His reign of grace; as if He had said:-"For a merciful administration, yet a righteous one, am I come into the world." Thus it is clear that the term "judgment" as used in the Scriptures in a fundamental aspect of its meaning, is peculiarly a term of grace. Nothing could be more tender in character: it offers all the sheltering hospitality of a dove-cote to returning aliens whenever they may come flying as clouds, to home themselves in God. Be it observed also that this idea of a Redeemer's judgment in the thought of Scripture, means far more than sacrifice, or mere altruistic love. In the thought of our time there is much confusion of sacrifice and judgment as respects the cross. Now the cross was indeed the divine sacrifice, but it was more; it looked in two directions: it regarded the claims of the divine holiness on the one hand, and it sought to recover the sinner from his ruin on the other. Sacrifice is not a final idea apart from judgment; it is not an end in itself. Sacrifice is only a means; judgment is an end, and Christ's work must accomplish this end if it is to prove saving. Judgment is final in its nature, because it is vindication: it establishes both righteousness and grace. Appreciation of judgment then is only the appreciation of moral and redemptive reality, but that is at the basis of everything in religion. If we make light of the idea of judgment we shall necessarily scorn the actual moral and redemptive situation of the world, and that means spiritual anarchy. Said Jesus, looking straight into the meanings of His cross: "Now is the judgment of this world" (John 12:31): now is a crisis; but such a crisis as involved all that is deepest in the final judgment of mankind. It is because of this principle of judgment in the very nature of this universe as moral that no statement of the reconciliation can ever long be satisfying which does not embody in itself the expiatory principle. Of course, by expiatory, I do not mean expiatory in any pagan sense of the term-no mere appeasement or placation-God is not irritated nor exasperated that He needs to be won over to a better mood. I conceive of expiation as embracing at least three elements: (1) Expiation is a necessity of the holiness of God, and holiness must suffer in view of human sin. It is its nature to do so; and of course it suffers vicariously. The cry of God in the garden for the guilty fallen, "Where art thou?" (Gen. 3:9), was not as Dr. Henry G. Weston has said, "the call of a policeman, but the wail of a broken-hearted father." It was suffering holiness seeking to redeem. (2) Sin requires to be expiated in the sense that a public and adequate acknowledgment needs to be made and endured of sin's intrinsic ill-desert-what one has called "Christ's apology in behalf of the race for the insult done to God's holiness." This apology needs to be made by one competent in such a matter; by one no less competent than the Son of God, one en rapport with the Father. Such an acknowledgment was made by Christ in man's behalf, in the responsibilities assumed by His self-immolation on the cross. (3) Sin needs to be expiated in the sense that a process needs to be instituted within the soul itself, which in the end will destroy the victimizing power of evil, and instead thereof will establish righteousness upon sin's ruin, effectually and forever. This Christ potentially achieved through His corporate identification with the race in His divine human life, eventuating in death and resurrection, and in the promised Spirit of Pentecost. As risen and living, He waits and yearns to form Himself by His Spirit within the believer, as "the hope of glory" (Col. 1:27). Dr. William Ashmore of China, who from long contact with Oriental life, has an uncommon insight into the corporate principle which is so prominent also in the Bible, that oriental book, has forcefully expressed this saving achievement. Contending earnestly that no change in God's original plan was involved through the fall of man, Dr. Ashmore says that God provided for the realization of His saving purposes by sending such a Son into the world as might be incorporated into the race of man. This Son was "endowed with a death-bearing body and a life-giving power." Accordingly, He could die for man, and yet live again; and man in Him could also die and yet rise and live in Him. This was an actual achievement accomplished in behalf of man, and by means of it sin was actually expiated in principle, and so could be put away from all them that believe. It will be seen that by such a view of expiation there is implied no question of willingness or unwillingness on the part of God to save. It is rather a matter of moral consistency that is involved. The question is how shall the majesty of God's holy law, in which the very universe is constituted, be upheld in harmony with His eternal loving disposition to save? The answer in one word is this: the atonement morally enables God "to act as He feels." The problem with God is not in the exercise of the forgiving act, but in so forgiving as to express adequate disapproval of the enormity of sin, and at the same time awaken a new spontaneity in the one forgiven, to loathe and leave his sin. True, everything that historically came out in the mediating work of Christ was eternally embraced in the heart and purpose of God. God needed nothing outside Himself to move Him to this. He required indemnity only from Himself and not from another. So to speak, He took the eternal initiative. In so doing He disturbed no cosmic order. This however is no reason for supposing that God did not have the best of reasons for historically manifesting what was in Him in such self-consistent form as the Bible presents. Doubtless the redemptive work of Christ has sometimes been conceived as a "foreign importation from heaven into our world"; that is, as something not originally contemplated, but as an after-thought obtruded into the cosmic order of the universe as if by a third party outside of either God or man. Thus the reconciling work of Christ has been made to appear as something entirely artificial and really contrary to the deepest nature of things. Now the main contention of this treatise is that Christ on Calvary was simply historically expressing that which was at the heart of things, in the eternal thought of God, in the original conception of the universe. Accordingly that which was expressed by Christ was entirely-to use the phrase of Dr. Geo. B. Foster in his "Finality of the Christian Religion"-"indigenous to the soil and substance of reality itself." And if this be so, there can be no conflict between the reconciling work of the Cross and any ancient or modern view of the world which is grounded in a true theistic philosophy. In other words, Christian redemption and the cosmic order of the universe, when both are understood, are entirely harmonious. But some one will ask, if God needed nothing outside Himself to move Him to redeem, why should He not be able to forgive sin on repentance alone? Why should any mediatorship at all be necessary? In a very deep sense, God does forgive the sinner upon his repentance. If, however, any should feel moved thus to represent the matter of forgiveness, the terms employed should be used understandingly. We must recognize what implications belong to the Deity as thus conceived, and what is the nature of the penitence contemplated. The God who can thus forgive is a God who in Himself, and through His Son from eternity, has entered into responsibility for the sinner's sin through what we call the reconciliation-His self-wrought reconciliation. And the penitence in mind is a right reciprocal attitude of the sinner towards the mediating God in view of a wrong doing which necessitated such a sacrifice of God's only begotten Son. Thus if the terms used could only be understood in their true evangelical sense, there would be no objection to saying that God forgives sin in view of real repentance; for a deep conception of mediatorship on the part of the Divine-human Christ is implied in all the terms employed. That man could have repented adequately and easily, with no cross-enactment to reveal God's nature and sin's enormity, we gravely doubt. Even God needs to forgive wisely and man to repent understandingly. The principles on which God can consistently forgive require to be shown, if man is to repent deeply: if the sense of his guilt is to be removed, and his conscience put at rest. To say the least, it was a most gracious concession to man's weakness when God concretely revealed in the historic cross His way of pardoning and removing the sense of guilt, as well as the measureless cost of it. In the reconciliation, God, in the person of His Son, entered into potential responsibility for the situation created by sin, and with a view of doing the highest justice to all the issues involved. In such an undertaking He could not escape the requirements imposed upon Him by His own holy nature; nor could even man's normal conscience be satisfied with less. And it was important that this should be shown forth openly or publicly in His universe. If God is to pardon, He must do it in a way which will not legitimize sin. Says the late Principal Cave, "The death of Jesus was a more splendid vindication of righteous rule than the death of all sinners would have been. Who could say henceforth that sin had been lightly forgiven, and the interests of holy rule endangered?" That the vindication of God's righteous rule which took place in the depths of the divine nature is a thing profounder than our reason can fully penetrate, is not strange, since the Bible declares it was a thing so deep that angels cannot sound it. This vindication was more than a truth taught; it was an accomplishment wrought out. A special reason why repentance alone, in the non-evangelical sense of that term, is not adequate, is that there is in all men the haunting sense of guilt, which, as Dean Freemantle says, "cannot be pacified by any merely subjective process." The reason why repentance alone, except as evangelical, is not adequate is that the very repentance admitted to be necessary is itself chiefly conditioned on the realization of the mediating work of Christ as objective. Man cannot repent as he needs apart from the cross; nor can he repent when he will, or without requisite motive. Says Professor Denney: "All true penitents are children of the cross." A true repentance must be towards God; it involves the wakened consciousness of what our sin is to Him, of the wrong it does to His holiness, of the wounds it inflicts on His love. Repentance is the reaction towards God produced in the soul by Christ's demonstration of what sin is to Him. One lacks motive to repent till he sees the bearing of his sin upon the suffering Saviour. One most really and deeply repents in view of the horror of the judgment his sin brought on Christ.3 3Of course, we speak of the ideal, intelligent, biblical repentance, "the repentance which needeth not to be repented of," of which there would be vastly more if the current preaching of our time dealt more plainly with the facts and principles of the redemptive system of Christ as the Scriptures teach it. Repentance is thus vastly more than a mere change of mind; it is a change of care respecting one's responsibility towards the situation created by his sin. This change of care reaches so far as to wish to have justice done to the whole situation, a matter to which God in Christ's cross only is equal. Accordingly, when the soul sees the Redeemer thus working in majestic and yet tender self-consistency and on principles of finality, it is touched to the depths by the vision as by nothing else. Says Dr. Marcus Dods, "Mere forgiveness would not make men penitent nor impel to righteousness. In order to this, a perception of God's righteousness is necessary. The cross exhibits both God's love and righteousness, and hence is the supreme and perfect instrument for producing repentance." Thus we see that the objective death of Christ is itself the means of removing the most radical subjective obstacle to that very repentance, conceded to be necessary. Says Dr. George Adam Smith in his late work, entitled, "The Forgiveness of Sins": "At the foot of Christ's cross, men have known a conscience of sin, a horror of it, and by consequence, a penitence for their own share in it, deeper than anything else has started in human experience. And as thus their whole spiritual nature has been aroused, and they have awakened to the truth that it would not have been safe, nor in any wise morally well, for them to have been forgiven by mere clemency and without feeling what sin costs, they come to understand that in His sufferings Christ was their substitute." Says Professor Harnack, who, only six years ago, despite his radical positions on historical criticism, most positively expressed himself in the "Symposium on the Atonement," referred to in my Foreword, to this effect: "There is an inner law that compels the sinner to look upon God as a wrathful judge; ... it tears the heart of man, robs him of peace, and drives him to despair. This conception of God is a false (a misleading) one, and yet not false, for it is the necessary consequence of man's sin. How can this conception of God be overcome? When the Holy One descends to sinners, lives with them, and dies for them, then their terror of the awful judge melts away and they believe that the Holy One is love, and that there is something mightier still than justice... mercy! The most earnest Christians consider also Christ's passion and His death as vicarious. How can they do otherwise? If they, the sinners, have escaped justice, and He, the Holy One, has suffered death, why should they not acknowledge that that which He has suffered was what they should have suffered? In the presence of the cross, no other feeling, no other note, is possible. It is a holy secret not understood by the profane, and yet the power of God and the wisdom of God." In view of the enormous moral difficulty which has been introduced into the universe by the fact of sin, how any one can object to God's finding and exercising a method of self-consistent action for the salvation of men, and wholly at His own cost, is beyond my comprehension. The cross of the redemption is morally great, because it so deals with the method of adjudication of the issues between God and the sinner. It has in view a basis of settlement, and a method of moral administration which in the end will approve themselves both to God and to all moral beings. Dr. Denney in his book, "The Death of Christ," has some profoundly true comments on the use of the word -commonly rendered-eternal as employed in Hebrews. In chapter 9, verse 14, for example, Christ is said to have "offered Himself through eternal spirit"; and Dr. Denney adds, thus "in Christ's sacrifice, we see the final revelation of what God is, that behind which there is nothing in God; so that the religion which rests on that sacrifice rests on the ultimate truth of the divine nature and can never be shaken." Again, in chapter 13, verse 20, the blood of Christ is called "the blood of an eternal covenant"; and Dr. Denney says "that is, in the death of Christ the religious relation is constituted between God and men, which has the character of finality. God, if it may be so expressed, has spoken His last word; He has nothing in reserve." When, concludes the learned professor, "the author of the Epistle speaking of the work of Christ in its substance as fulfilling the foreshadowings of Mosaic symbols, says they are 'eternal,' he means to say not so much that they are enduring, everlasting, as that they are ultimates in the realm of spiritual reality." The death of Christ considered as "the judgment-death" of the Redeemer is thus in the category of things final; it is ultimate truth, for in such dying Christ was dealing once for all as the redeeming situation required, with the bottom realities as the Eternal One Himself sees them. This dealing was a reconstructive force in the moral universe. The Cross of Christ, properly understood, was an anticipation of and expressed the final judgment of the world in at least four respects: I. The cross was such a judgment in the sense that in and by it Christ acknowledged and met the due judgment of spiritual death, which belongs to the sin-principle, the collective evil, of the race. Christ in His sufferings was not in a commercial sense offering a quid pro quo, a certain amount of pain for a given amount of sin: in no quantitative sense was He offering suffering for sin. While Christ's sufferings were not a mechanical substitution for the judgment we merited, yet there was involved in it a substitutionary, a vicarious principle. Most evangelical books on the atonement, from Anselm down, place marked emphasis on the substitutionary character of the work of Christ, and properly so. But there has often been lack of care to make clear just what is meant when the term "substitutionary" is employed. It is at this point that the characteristic Unitarian objection against the evangelical idea is made. Says Dr. Martineau in a burst of moral protest: "How is the alleged immorality of letting off the sinner, mended by the added crime of penalty crushing the sinless? Of what man-of what angel-could such a thing be reported without raising a cry of indignant shame from the universal human heart? What should we think of a judge who should discharge the felons from the prisons of a city, because some noble and generous citizen offered himself to the executioner instead?" This difficulty of Dr. Martineau's in substance has often been reiterated, but in reality the objection is founded on most serious misconceptions of all that the New Testament means, when it says that Christ died for our sins. In Christ's sufferings, the Father also from the beginning profoundly shared so that the suffering of Christ was not strictly those of "another." Besides, we cannot by such faulty analogy as Dr. Martineau uses, so easily dispose of the realities which underlie New Testament representations. What Dr. Martineau has entirely left out of view, is the real divine-human nature of Christ's person-His union with the Father-on the one hand, and the deep implied reality of the spiritual union between Christ and the believer, on the other. The death of Christ on behalf of men is by no means represented by the analogy of some "noble and generous citizen" or "angel" dying in place of a "felon." The solidarity of Christ with both God and the human race,-even as the race's new corporate head-is the entirely original and fundamental fact, involved in any true conception of the vicarious work of Christ. The believer is "in Christ," and Christ is in him in such an organic sense as no "noble citizen" and criminal "felon" could ever be one. Thus we are not to think of Christ as one person, and the believer as another, in that severe separative sense implied in Dr. Martineau's analogy. When Christ is said to die for another, it is upon the presupposition that such an one, a real believer, is to come into mystical vital union with Christ; so that as thus identified with Christ, the believer dies with Christ to the life of self and sin, and then lives again in the power of a risen life. Thus the redeeming work of Christ is radically unlike a commercial transaction, a mere bargain. A true characterization of the reconciliation of Christ must represent it as vicario-vital. With such presuppositions as these, in which the principle of substitution indeed is recognized, but with the most radical qualifications safeguarding it against immoral implications, the matter of substitution becomes a very different thing from that supposed by Dr. Martineau; and so the fallacious objection falls to the ground. I confess, at this point, I think Dr. Denney's recent statement of the substitutionary principle in the cross is inadequate. It is too mechanical. It is far from doing justice to the essential, evangelical idea, and certainly to all those New Testament representations, which presuppose a mystical and organic union between the divine Christ and the believer.4 4"The atonement, like every other doctrine of Christianity, is a fact of life; and such facts of life cannot be crowded into our definitions, because they are greater than any definitions that we can frame. The atonement is a substitution, in that another has done for us what we ought to have done but could not do, and has suffered for us what we deserved to suffer but could not suffer without loss of holiness and happiness forever. But Christ's doing and suffering is not that of one external and foreign to us. He is bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh; the bearer of our humanity; yes, the very life of the race. The life that He lived in Palestine and the death that He endured on Calvary were the revelation of a union with mankind which antedated the Fall. Being thus joined to us from the beginning, He has suffered in all human sin; in all our affliction He has been afflicted."-Augustus H. Strong. A chief thing in Christ's redeeming work on the cross was the deep acknowledgment Christ was making in His moral nature of the kind of thing sin is, its quality. The essential virulence of sin is such that God in Christ saw that it merited death, spiritual death, such death as Christ, in principle, experienced on the cross. Is it not certain that theologians would have been truer to the nature of Christ's work, if they had put less emphasis on the mere pain as such which Christ bore, and had put more upon the moral acknowledgment He so sublimely made! The essential thing about the attitude of Christ in assuming what He did for us, was that He did it with absolute submissiveness; He never complained about it; He always admitted its perfect righteousness. The practical concessions to righteousness which characterized all Christ's attitude, while bearing our sins for us, were what so vindicated God, and what have so committed us to self-identification with righteousness. Again, it was "this mighty and sacred reaction against sin, the signal for which was given by the moral sense of the normal head of humanity," which conditioned all the future and permanent blessedness of men. Says Dr. Godet: "When Christ gave out His last submissive cry upon the cross, it was in one conscience alone that this judgment of the world's sin, the echo of that which God pronounces in heaven took place. But as there is only one rationality in all intelligent minds, so in reality there is only one and the same conscience (normally speaking) in all moral beings; and thus it is that the cry which came from that one perfectly normal conscience, is yet to reecho in all other human consciences." It was the prophecy of a new filial relation of man to God. It was for this that the potencies of Pentecost were given. It is a matter for deep reflection that Christ did not magnify the pains He bore, so much as He did the propriety of yielding to the Father's will, to the fulfillment of Scripture and other great moral ends; He made little of mere suffering and pain; He never appealed for pity as such. Even on the way to His cross, when "there followed Him a great multitude of the people, and of women who bewailed and lamented Him," Jesus turned unto them and said, "Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for Me, but weep for yourselves and for your children" (Luke 23:28). He would not have the mere compassion of men, because He was moving upon the principles of the highest self-respect and towards the highest of all goals. There was something infinitely deeper than the mere sympathy of mankind to be effected by the cross of redemption. The pain He endured, measureless as it was, was quite subordinate to the acknowledgment made in the moral realm. The sin-principle deserved spiritual death; Christ owned it, welcomed and experienced it, and in so doing He also triumphed over it. This was the primary and ineradicably righteous element in the reconciliation. Under the ethical order of the universe such an order as recognizes that sin is a reality to be overcome, Christ accepted, as Mr. Carnegie Simpson says in his "Fact of Christ," "Humanity's condition as His condition because it was the condition of the humanity with which He identified Himself, and He then dealt with it in a great and serious and real way; not seeking to shirk it or to subvert it, but doing all that is right by it; and He did right by it by letting all that such a condition had to say be said to Himself ... The ethical law concerning sin and doom was in no wise suppressed, but was given effect to really and adequately. The ethical order of the universe thus is not only not compromised, but firmly upheld." Many years ago, the late Bronson Alcott, who has been called "The American Pestalozzi," introduced into his boys' school in Boston this peculiar form of discipline, that for a certain transgression the penalty should be visited by Mr. Alcott's grace upon himself, the master of the school, rather than upon the guilty pupil. Miss Elizabeth Palmer Peabody, an assistant in the school, thus records substantially this interesting bit of history: Mr. Alcott having previously explained to the school the necessity of pain, and brought his pupils to acknowledge the uses of "this hurting of the body," in concentrating attention, he instituted the method referred to. For the wrong done, the pupil must administer punishment upon Mr. Alcott's own hand. The guilty person must inflict the hurt. The pupils at first declared that they would never do it; they said they preferred being punished themselves, but he determined they should not escape the pain and the shame of administering the stroke upon him except by being themselves blameless. On the morning this new form of discipline was announced, there was a profound stillness,-a more complete silence, attention and obedience than there had ever been. Mr. Alcott in two instances took boys into the anteroom for the punishment; they were very unwilling and at first they struck lightly; he then asked them if they thought they deserved no more than that, and so they were obliged to increase the force of the blows, but it was not without tears which they never had shed when they themselves were punished. Said one of the boys at his home afterwards: "This is the most complete punishment that a master ever invented. There is not a boy in school but would a great deal rather be punished himself than punish him." The chief aim was to awaken solemn attention and touch the heart to love and generosity; to show not want of feeling for their bodies, but a deeper and intense interest in their souls, and this was completely effected. The result, moreover, in practical outworking was fairly contagious, and the most gracious effects were realized by the school as a whole. An acquaintance of mine, a father whose relation to his family has been one of rare beauty and grace, told me the following: On one occasion his young son grossly disobeyed him and afterwards denied it. The father called his son before him, pointed out how very serious the fault was, and then asked the son what he thought should be done about it. The son replied, "You should punish me." The father answered, "I think that would be right," and took him aside to inflict the chastisement. But as he was about to do so, the father paused and said, "Now, my boy, this fault is a grievous one, but you are a small, weak child; I am a strong man; I think I can better afford to bear this punishment than you." So, removing his own coat and putting a whip into the hand of the boy, he commanded him to strike heavily several times. The boy in astonishment did so, but in the midst of it broke down and fled to his chamber, where he was shortly afterwards found upon his knees begging the Divine forgiveness. The illustration is only partial; but the moral honor involved in the case was maintained, and the father's love also was expressed, and at the same time the boy's heart was melted. These forms of discipline represent judgment-inflictions, modes of governmental administration, or vindications, corresponding in some degree at least, to what we are speaking of as a judgment-death in the case of Christ's suffering for the race; and in one way or another they enter deeply into the divine spirit of moral discipline and government; and they are always working energies in the moral universe. Says Dr. Denney: "The love which can literally go out of itself and make the burden of others its own is the radical principle of all the genuine and victorious morality of the world. It is one of the startling truths of the moral life that the consequences of sin, striking visibly upon the innocent, have in certain circumstances a peculiar power to redeem the sinful. When they are accepted, as they sometimes are accepted, without repining or complaint-when they are borne, as they sometimes are borne, freely and lovingly by the innocent,-because to the innocent the guilty are dear-then something is appealed to in the guilty which is deeper than guilt; something may be touched which is deeper than sin, a new hope and faith may be born in them, to take hold of love so wonderful, and by attaching themselves to it to transcend the evil past. The suffering of such love (they are dimly aware) or rather the power of such love persisting through all the suffering brought on it by sin, opens the gate of righteousness to the sinful in spite of all that has been; sin is outweighed by it; it is annulled, exhausted, transcended in it. The great atonement of Christ is somehow in line with this." It actually accomplishes something. It is at this point that the impressional power also of the crucifixion scene rightly viewed is so great. II. The cross of Christ's achievement expresses an aspect of judgment in a further sense, that by the moral attitude which Christ maintained up to the last moment on His cross, He entirely set at nought the world-principle, or the Satanic philosophy devised and personalized by the devil. Students of the reconciliation usually content themselves with merely considering the question whether the work of Christ bore only upon man in the way of moral influence, or whether it likewise bore on God as well, modifying His governmental attitude towards man. For myself, I believe it had a relation to both. But there is a third matter with which the mediating work of Christ needed also to deal; namely, the entire realm of moral evil and with Satan its head. Strangely, in most modern discussion this has been largely overlooked; yet nothing connected with the matter is more fundamental. The devil indeed, considered as the personalized head of this realm of evil, has virtually and falsely dropped out of the modern mind, the mind even of some theologians. We need to return to that primitive revelation of fact, if we are to realize the profound nature of our Redeemer's task. That the seduction of our race was gained by the wiles of an actual personage of evil, coming from without, is just as certainly revealed in the Bible as is the provision of redemption, coming also from without. The devil need not be conceived with mediaeval grotesqueness indeed, as a monster with horn and hoof and fiery breath. Christ characterizes him as "the prince of this world" (John 12:31). He is thus the prince of all that homes itself in agreeable, sensuous, material world-conditions. He embodies in himself all that is most attractive, genial, and popular to the worldly mind. To quote Dr. Forsyth:-"The world is proud of him; he has its confidence; he is the agent of methods which the world thinks essential to its prosperity and stability, which are its notion of eternal life. The world he represents has no idea that its moral methods can be bettered, or its principles overthrown. To its mind, the moral is an impertinence, and the spiritual is a superstition, feeble, but capable of becoming dangerous, and therefore to be fought. And Satan is just as sensible of the antagonism as is Christ. There is no compromise possible. 'The Prince of life' and the 'Prince of this world' were destined to meet in a struggle which is inevitable, and a judgment which is final. And that meeting was in the cross." Christ there achieved a result, which by virtue of its very nature dealt Satan his deathblow. The Bible indeed is mainly the story of an age-long conflict between the old serpent, the devil, and the seed of the woman, the divine Son of man. Revelation opens with the first stage of the onset, in which at first it would appear that Satan is victorious, and it closes with a dnouement wherein the devil is overcome and "cast into the lake of fire" (Rev. 20:10). The story of Christ's public ministry is introduced by the record of that extraordinary experience in the wilderness of Judea, wherein Satan, in three typical appeals to subtle but false principles, hoped to overthrow the moral standing of "the last Adam" (1 Cor. 15:45). In that contest Satan was vanquished at every point, yet he left the Saviour but "for a season" (Luke 4:13). Throughout His public ministry, Jesus is repeatedly met by demoniacal intrusions into His thought with all their monstrous possibilities of perversion. These demons were often defiant of Christ, and yet Christ was on every field their master. They knew Him even from of old, and owned to the certainty of their future torment because hopelessly antagonistic to Him. On one occasion when Herod would fain waylay Jesus, He replied to the Pharisees who sought to move Him by such a threat,-"Go and say to that fox,-that master of all artifice, subtlety and chicanery-behold, I cast out devils, and I do cures to-day and tomorrow, and the third day I am perfected" (Luke 13:32). Thus in three brief sentences Christ sums up His entire career. The first characteristic, observe, is this: "I cast out devils"; that is, "I master the subtlest enemy of man, the diabolical. That distinguishes My work; it underlies both My power over disease and the certainty of My triumph over death." It was therefore most intimately connected with the reconciliation He always had in view, upon the principles of which He ever proceeded, in all His pre-crucifixion life. Of course, at the cross, the fierceness of the temptation culminated. To the last Jesus resisted. In no single instance, in no particular, did He yield to His adversary's enticement. The devil's sophistries gained no lodgment in the shrine of Christ's spirit, so that at the end of His career He could say: "The prince of this world hath been judged" (John 16:11); he "hath nothing in Me" (John 14:30). The ultimate logic of all Satan's casuistries, half-truths and plausible fictions at every point had been overthrown, despite their seductiveness, by Christ's absolute fidelity to the Father's plan for Him. They had no standing whatever before the tribunal which Christ vicariously faced for man. In our Lord's uttermost crisis, though He was Himself forsaken of God, yet Christ forsook not Him, in the interest of a single plausible false witness which the devil bore. The Satanic testimony was impeached throughout. In this attitude Jesus wholly set at nought,-He cast out of court, He utterly "nonsuited" the adversary. Thus through the triumph which Christ achieved in His death, the ultimate, absolute judgment of the world, the worldly principle, and its prince, potentially took place. The cross, as Christ viewed it, represented the last standard, "the last judgment," before which all moral and spiritual principles will be brought for their final unveiling; and there He was victorious. III. In a third sense, the cross of the redemption expresses its final judgment upon the world, although in a most gracious sense, in that it has generated and made available a power whereby the nexus between sin and spiritual death is potentially destroyed. When the tempter had accomplished the disobedience of our first parents in the garden, he knew that he had become the occasion of establishing a fatal connection between sin and death. Under that dread causation the race has ever since, apart from Christ, existed. But now Christ, through His great achievement on the cross, has wrought a work profounder far. He has dissolved the fateful bond, so that though indeed I am a sinner, yet I need not see death, that is, real doom, spiritual and eternal death; for Christ being in me and I in Him, the relationship between sin and its natural doom has been destroyed. In this sense Christ "hath abolished death" (2 Tim. 1:10). Striking symbols of the reality of which I am speaking are found in some of our Lord's miracles or signs. For example, once when Jesus was teaching in the synagogue on the Sabbath, He beheld "a woman which had a spirit of infirmity eighteen years, and she was bound together and could in no wise lift herself up; and when Jesus saw her He called her and said to her, 'woman, thou art loosed from thine infirmity.' And He laid His hands upon her, and immediately she was made straight and glorified God" (Luke 13:10-17). This woman had been bound by Satan in the sense that the bond between sin and her infirmity had been made secure through a relation of which Satan was the agent. That causation was still in force; but Jesus by a word immediately annulled it; He loosed the bond, and the woman, through His grace, stood up free. The ruler of the synagogue was moved with indignation because Jesus had healed her on the Sabbath, but Jesus replied with a confidence showing how much deeper is His grace than the laws of traditional Judaism and of Satan's empire combined,-"Ye hypocrites, doth not each one of you on the Sabbath loose his ox or his ass from the stall, and lead him away to watering. And ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, to have been loosed from this bond on the day of the Sabbath,-the day symbolic of redemptive freedom!" No wonder that, "as He said these things all His adversaries were put to shame, while all the multitude rejoiced for all the glorious things that were done by Him." Relatively, all that Satan has done, or can do with the victims of sin, is to halter them in the stall; while Christ coming into the world is commissioned and empowered to set them free, and to lead them into the green pastures and beside the still waters in His divine service. Redemption is deeper than natural causation. If, therefore, any Christian is inclined to say in view of one set of facts, "I am an evolutionist"; in view of profounder facts, he should rejoice the more to confess, "I am a redemptionist." How striking then is the fact which we have noted, that somewhere between sin and its logical curse stands the Christ of the cross who, having Himself first endured the solemn judgment which sin necessitates, and who having dealt its author his death-blow by the manner of His ascent to the cross, now further dissolves the causation between sin and death, "destroys the works of the devil" (1 John 3:8), and turns the tables on Him. "The wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 6:23). This subjective operation of grace within ourselves is a fruit of the objective gospel, a new form of the judgment which by grace becomes salvation, the redeeming moral reality for us. In this work of mercy appropriated by our faith, does Christ's cross approve itself in experience as the real power of God as well as the wisdom of God. In this divine change in the settlement of our spiritual relations to God, Christ brings forth "judgment unto victory" (Matt. 12:20), even our victory as well as His own, over spiritual death and its consequences. Who can complain of such an element in the vindication of God's method of government, and its consequent benediction upon His redeemed people.  IV. The cross expresses a new and gracious judgment concerning the world also in this respect, namely, that, by virtue of its achievement, all men have been placed in the relations of a reversionary treasure to Christ; they are adjudged to Christ; they belong to Him, potentially, as a precious possession,-like the treasure hidden in a field-because of the altered relation in which Christ's redemptive work on the cross has placed them to Himself. 5Of course, this is only another way of saying that men belong to God through Christ, or as viewed in Him. It is a matter of time and method as to how this shall be worked out into actuality. With multitudes the potentiality never becomes actualized. Calvary in itself stops short of Pentecost, and the divine acts of the Spirit. But the adjudgment in its principle and moral intention goes further; and so the cross in this respect is an objective judgment-reality in the moral history of God, and of the universe. But it may be objected that such a presentation of the divine relations to man is likely to lead to easygoing views of human responsibility; as some may reason that if God be such a being as we have described,-a being who Himself has assumed (even conditional) responsibility for the sins of mankind,-then man will become indifferent to his own obligation to live as he ought. His conscience will become lax, and he will even ignore his relations to Deity. We grant there is such a danger; but it can arise only where there is a gross abuse of the divine mercy. But be it remembered that this loving attitude of God which we have presented is, after all, for man but a potentiality, available only on repentance: something the benefits of which become actualized only to those who truly and surely reciprocate divine love, and this potentiality is neutralized by those who reject that love. This grace will never go into effect against a man's will, in the face of his impenitence, an impenitence which despises the very nature of the offer. God's love having its peculiarity in the fact that it undertakes to deal as the moral situation requires, with the very problem of man's sin and guilt, then a proper reciprocation of that love, even a proper faith in it, requires on man's part that he shall repent of the sin which his Lord has borne, heartily believe in the adequacy and tenderness of such a love, and henceforth surrender himself without reserve to be the property of so complete a Saviour the moment He is known. Refusing to do this is to invite the greater condemnation, even "the second death." But whatever lack of responsiveness in man there may be, it will yet ever remain true that in the gracious work of God's Son all the forces of sin and evil have been adequately grappled with and potentially overcome for man's benefit. Even though that salvation be rejected, the r