terms than these,that, he died for the ungodlydied for us-suffered the just for the unjust,-bore cur sins in his own body on the tree-redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us-was made sin for us, sacrificed for us and the

like.

SHOULD it be said that one person became a surety for another—that he was bound, imprisoned, made a victim for him; no one would be at any loss to determine the meaning of the expressions. All would immediately conceive that the surety was bound, imprisoned, made a victim, in the room and stead of the offender. This would be the construction which the common sense of mankind would universally put on such like expressions, in the case before us. For one person to become bound for another, or subject himself to any evil or penalty for him; is, in a strict and proper sense, to substitute himself, and, put himself in the room and place of the delinquent. By a parity of reason, therefore, and by all just rules of construction, we must suppose that the variety of expressions made use of, in the holy scriptures, relative to the design and reason of the sufferings and death of Christ, do indeed imply that he substituted himself in the place of sinners, and died in their room and stead.

THAT Christ should himself become the price of the sinner's redemption-that he should give himself, his life, a ransom for sinners-that he should be made sin, suffer, die, and be sacrificed for them; are expressions which convey a sense too plain and intelligible to be easily evaded. And, if these and such like: expressions, do not imply that, for some reason or oth er, Christ verily substituted himself, and subjected himself to suffering and death, in the room and place of sinners; it will be difficult to find language, to invent

terms, which would fully and unequivocally ascertain this idea of the end of his death.

IT being then admitted that Christ did really die in the room and stead of sinners; the following remarks naturally offer themselves, viz.

1. THAT, the death and sacrifice of Christ had an especial and peculiar relation to the penal part of the law of God. It is acknowledged that a humble spirit, and a broken heart, are frequently termed sacrifices, in the holy scriptures. And one principal reason of it, probably, is the correspondent views which were contained in such exercises, with the plain language, the natural import, of the sacrifices of atonement which were made for sin, under the law. The broken spirit which David considers as the acceptable sacrifice to God,(m) implied an acknowledgement of the rightcousness of the divine law, and a hope and trust in the mercy of God through an atonement. And, as this was but the obvious implication of the levitical sacrifices, the term itself, by a very easy and natural transition, might be carried to the temper of mind with which the literal sarifices were to be made. But, literal sacrifices themselves are necessary only for sinners: they are instituted only in case of guilt, and where the law is broken. Had there been no sin, no The sacrifices

sacrifice would have been required. under the law, in all cases wherein they were to be used, supposed that offences had been committed: And, only in cases of offence were sacrifices of atonement appointed. Where sin had not been committed, there was no need of, either confession of guilt in the creature, or testimony of displeasure in the Creator: But, where it had, both were necessary in order to reconciliation. And, both these, we are to remember,

(m) Psalms li. 17.

F

were implied in the bloody sacrifices of the law; and equally so in the sacrifice of Christ.

THE law of God, in the penal part of it, hath no demards on the righteous: but sin brings us under obligation to punishment. The preceptive part of the law immediately and continually respects every creature; lying equally on every one, with all its binding force. But, not so as to the penal: this immediately respects only the transgressor; having a relation to him, and a demand on him, which it hath not on the innocent. And, as sacrifices of atonement are necessary only in cases of transgression, it is hence evident that they have a more immediate reference to the penalties, than to the preceptive parts of the divine law. As far, therefore, as there is a similitude, and unity of design, between the bloody sacrifices of the law, and the sacrifice of Christ; so far the latter, as well as the former had a more immediate reference to the sanc. tions of the law. As far as the latter was prefigured by the former; so far the penal, rather than the preceptive parts of the law were regarded in it.

2. It appears from the preceding observations, that Christ was a sacrifice in his bloody and ignominious death, in a different sense from what he was in his ho ly and obedient life. However necessary it was that Christ should live a perfectly pure and holy life, in order to the acceptableness of the sacrifice which he made of himself in his death; (as this indeed was absolutely necessary) still, his death was a sacrifice in a different sense from that of his obedient life. ferings, under the former dispensation, were to be made only of clean beasts; and those, too, such as were without blemish. Yet, these beasts, clean and unblemished, were to be offered up in sacrifice to God. So Christ, "through the eternal Spirit, offered up him

Sin-of

"self without spot to God."(n) Therefore, his people are said to be redeemed from their vain conversation with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish, and without spot. (0) And, as the redemption which Christ hath obtained for his people is ascribed to his blood, or his death, as its procuring cause; we are naturally led to consider the sacrifice he made of himself as consisting in a peculiar and distinguishing manner in his death.

AGREEABLY to this view of the matter, Christ who knew no sin, is said to have been made sin for us;(p) which can be true in no other sense than being made a sin-offering. And that it was not in his obedient life, but his ignominious death that Christ was made a sin-offering, seems naturally to be suggested by the distinction which the Apostle makes between his first and second appearing. He says, "As it is appoint"ed unto man once to die-so Christ was once offered "to bear the sins of many: And unto them that look "for him shall he appear the second time without sin "unto salvation.”(q)

We know not in what respects Christ will appear the second time, without sin, any more than he did the first, excepting it be that at his second coming he will not make his soul or his life an offering for sin. And it is exceedingly plain that sufferings and death have a more direct and immediate relation to the sanctions of the law, than obedience.

3. IT may be remarked further that the same character, the same disposition of the Deity, which would have appeared in the death of the sinner, was designed to be exhibited in the death of Christ. It has been

(n) Hebrews ix. 14. (o) 1 Peter i. 19. (p) 2 Corinthians v. 21. (g) Hebrews ix. 27, 28.

before observed that it is essential to the glory of God, that the spirit of the law be perfectly adhered to, and fully maintained, in his administration of government. Hence, and hence only, arose the necessity of the sinner's death. Had not the former been necessary, neither would the latter. Had it not been necessary that the same character should appear, and be fully and perfectly preserved, in governing, as was naturally exhibited by the laws which were originally established as the rules of divine government : we could discern no necessity of even the sinner's death. But seeing there is an obvious necessity of this, we easily see why it must be that the soul, that sins should, also, die. If, therefore, the Saviour died in the room and stead of the sinner, we cannot rationally suppose otherwise than that, in this remarkable event, the same divine disposition was delineated, and the same character exhibited, which would have appeared in the death of the sinner. Consequently,

4. THE principal design of the death of Christ was not to discover the perfection and strength of his own personal obedience; and to bestow on it a lustre, with which it could not otherwise have shone. It is confessed that this is an end not only worthy of being an object, but which also was very advantageously answered by the death of Christ. Still it is evident that this was not the only, or even principal object in view, in this great event. For Christ to die in order to discover the immoveable strength of his disposition to obey God and to die in the room and stead of those who must otherwise have fallen victims to divine wrath; are not precisely one and the same thing: Nor do they exhibit the character of the great Governor of the world exactly in the same point of light. The death of the sinner is a glass in which we see the righteousness, the punitive justice of God: So, also, is the death of Christ. In the former, we have a