one died for all, then all died;" and the apostle's argument runs
thus, that if one acts as the representative of all, then his act is
the act of all. If the ambassador of a nation makes reparation in a
nation's name, or does homage for a nation, that reparation, or that
homage, is the nation's act--if _one_ did it _for_ all, then _all_ did
it. So that instead of inferring that because Christ died for all,
therefore before that all were dead to God, his natural inference is
that therefore all are now dead to sin.

Once more, the conclusion of the apostle is exactly the reverse of
that which this interpretation attributes to him: he does not say that
Christ died in order that men might _not_ die, but exactly for this
very purpose, that they _might_ die; and this death he represents in
the next verse by an equivalent expression--the life of unselfishness:
"that they which live might henceforth live not unto themselves." The
"dead" of the first verse are "they that live" of the second.

The form of thought finds its exact parallel in Romans vi. 10, 11.
Two points claim our attention:--

I. The vicarious sacrifice of Christ.
II. The influence of that sacrifice on man.


I. The vicariousness of the sacrifice is implied in the word "for". A
vicarious act is an act done for another. When the Pope calls himself
the vicar of Christ, he implies that he acts for Christ. The vicar or
viceroy of a kingdom is one who acts for the king--a vicar's act
therefore is virtually the act of the principal whom he represents; so
that if the Papal doctrine were true, when the vicar of Christ