which was denounced against sin, and will be inflicted upon the damned forever: Nay, it was greater inconceivably than will be executed at once upon any of the reprobate in hell, either man or angel, because he was infinite in his nature, and thus capable of sustaining an infinite shock. The fire of divine wrath came down, and consumed the human nature as the sacrifice, and "brought him to the dust of death.”

But why did he thus suffer? Why was the -cup of sorrow filled up for the man Jesus beyond a parallel, without even a comparison? Why did it please earth, and hell, and heaven to unite "in putting him to grief;' in aggravating his anguish both of body and soul? This question is fully answered in our text, and constitutes the second part of our discourse. "He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities;" The crimes of his chosen were exclusively the procuring cause of his humiliation and agonies. All the sufferings which he endured were vicarious in their nature; they were inflicted upon him considered as the Substitute of his people; as their Representative by an explicit, eternal contract. There was virtually an interchange of condition between him, and his ransomed: Their crimes were really transferred to him, charged to his account by the adorable Father, so that in the estimation of law and justice he was answerable for them; and upon him in his mediatorial capacity

that wrath was executed in all its horrors to which they were exposed. This is a doctrine to which I would earnestly invite your attention, and in which I desire particularly to establish you. It is this consideration which renders our reconciliation by the Saviour's cross a scheme worthy of God, and rich with consolation to his children. To suppose that iniquity is pardoned without a real, full satisfaction, either from the sinner or Surety, is an impeachment of Jehovah's truth, which declares, "the soul that sinneth it shall die: Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them:" It is an impeachment of his government, as being neither "holy, nor just, nor good;" It exhibits the ruler of the universe as either unwise in forming the sanctions of his law, or afraid, or unable to execute these sanctions upon the offender: But the doctrine of Messiah's substitution in the room of his people; of the transfer of our transgressions to his account; of his vicarious sufferings, and satisfaction is not more important in itself, than obvious from scripture. It is the doctrine of the law, and the prophets, and the apostles. It was taught in figure by every sacrifice that bled during the former dispensation. The High Priest took a lamb for a sin-offering, acknowledged over it his own crimes, and the crimes of the people, and then slew it before the Lord. Surely the blood of a lamb, or he-goat

could not avail in themselves for expiating the guilt of man, or repairing the injuries done by his disobedience: The blood of a man could not atone for the guilt of an angel, and much less could the sacrifice of a mere animal satisfy for the transgressions of man. The virtue of these sacrifices, if they had virtue at all, was merely typical; they pointed immediately, and exclusively to the Lamb of God, the true propitiation of human guilt. When the High Priest raises his hand, confesses over the head of the victim his own sins, and those of his nation, we behold, in emblem, the Father laying on Jesus our Sponsor the iniquities of us all; when we see the sacrifice, whether lamb or he-goat, really offered up, its blood flowing, its life destroyed, we see, in type, Jesus "made sin, a sin-offering for us; suffering the just in the room of the unjust, and giving his life a ransom for many." This same doctrine is taught in that ordinance of the supper which it is our great business this day to celebrate. What is the import of that bread which is presented on the sacramental table, but to symbolize, to hold forth to view the body of the Divine Redeemer, "bruised and broken for us;" bearing our sins, and crucified on their account? "This is my body broken for you." Now, can we conceive one suffering for another, unless he is either voluntarily or involuntarily substituted in the room of the other? In common life do we ever consider one man as liable for the debts of

F

another man, unless he interposed and became surety for him? Again, "this cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins;" flowing by that very sword of divine justice which was unsheathed against them, and must have been bathed in their blood forever. Indeed it is impossible to conceive any meaning in the ordinance of the supper, any propriety in its original institution, or any profit in the observation of it from age to age, unless it be considered as a memorial of Jesus Christ actually crucified for us; "making his soul an offering for our sins." This same doctrine which appears obvious from the worship of the Old Testament and the New, is taught in the utmost perspicuity of language, both by prophets and apostles; in language which none seemingly could misunderstand, unless they had resolved either to misrepresent or misunderstand. "Messiah shall be cut off, but not for himself;" and surely if not for himself, it must be for some other, and it cannot be for another without a substitution in his room. Eternal justice would not scourge a man for the crimes of an angel, much less would it scourge the only "beloved, begotten Son of God" for the iniquities of man, unless he had stepped forth as our Sponsor. Another prophet becomes explicit, and asserts, "for the transgression of my people was he stricken: Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, and the Lord

hath laid on him the iniquities of us all." This truth which had been preached so frequently,and with such evidence by prophets before the coming of Messiah, was afterwards taught by apostles who were "eye witnesses of his sufferings and glory;" who had often and intimately conversed with him before his death, and after his resurrection; who had been present on the holy mount with Moses and Elias, these representatives of the church in heaven, and heard them "speak of that decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem," probably explaining with celestial eloquence its nature, its necessity, its glorious issue. With all these advantages for knowing the truth, and inspired by the infallible spirit what do apostles testify? One of them asserts, "for Christ hath once suffered for us, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God." ther apostle declares, "I delivered unto you first of all;" I considered it first in importance, and therefore gave it the most prominent place in all my discourses, "how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures:" Again, "he hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin." Paul exhibits the Lord Jesus in his original character; abstracted from any relation to his people, "he knew no sin," knew it not experimentally; he never felt its power, he was never stained with its pollution; he was not chargeable with its guilt; he was in the highest sense of the word, "a lamb without

Ano