reward; and vice, its own punishment. Happiness consists, not in the exercise of desire, but, its gratification; And, misery, not in the exercise of sinful affection, but in something which is disagreeable.

GOD hath established an indissoluble connection between holiness in this world, and happiness in the next; and, between persevering wickedness here, and complete misery hereafter. This is essential to the most perfect moral government. But, were these

connections originated by the mere nature of things, the necessity of a day of judgment would be wholly superseded: And, every creature would even now, enjoy all the rewards which are annexed to the practice of virtue; or, feel all the misery which is the just desert of sin. It is, therefore, manifest that the natural dependence which is universally found in creatures, whatever be their moral characters, renders them susceptible of good and evil, of pleasure and pain. There is, therefore, no natural inconsistency in supposing that the creature, who is wholly vicious, may enjoy much natural good; or, that one who is wholly virtuous, may suffer extreme misery. Therefore,

2. THERE is no apparent difficulty in supposing that the man Jesus Christ might endure a very great and extreme weight of suffering. It was as truly compatible with the power of God to inflict pain upon this Son of his love, as on any other creature; and, to cause distress to rise to a very great height in him. It is inconsistent with the nature of things to suppose that Christ should suffer those horrors of an accusing conscience, which will make no inconsiderable part of the sufferings of the damned, in hell; and, with the very design of his coming, to imagine that he should endure, even for a moment, that despair, which will make a very bitter part of the pains of God's enemies. There are, however,

other considerations from whence distress might arise: And, such views of things might croud in upon his pure and holy mind, as could not fail of being extremely painful.

IT is to be remembered that the Lord Jesus Christ was truly a man; possessed of all the innocent passions and feelings of human nature. And all the sufferings, the painful sensations he ever endured, were they greater or less, were in his human nature, and confined to it. It was the human nature of Christ that suffered an human nature, however, that was exceedingly dignifie, and its powers greatly enlarged. by its union to the divine :-a consideration which, instead of diminishing, greatly increased his susceptibility of distress.

CHRIST being thus possessed of the passions and feelings of human nature, there is no natural absurdity in supposing him, however free from sin, yet capable of very painful sensations. And as all pain is really seated in the mind, it is far from being unsupportable that the power of God might communicate such views of things to the man Jesus Christ, as could not fail of being very distressing to him. There is nothing absurd in the supposition that God might communicate, to the mind of Christ, a very clear view, and lively sense of his just and infinite displeasure against those whom the man, Jesus, came to save: And as little absurdity in supposing that this view and sense of divine anger, should greatly exercise the mind of Christ. And as this is a case very supposable, there is also a visible propriety in it: As we can hardly understand how the mind of Christ should, without it, clearly comprehend the greatness of the work he had undertaken; and how arduous a thing it was to redeem his people from the

curse of the law, that they might be the righteousness of God in him.

As the mind of Christ was unquestionably, susceptible of clear views, and a very lively sense of divine wrath against sinners; it is no less conceivable that these views, this sense, should be extremely painful and distressing to him. If there be any dif ficulty in supposing that a sense of divine wrath against sinners, should be very distressing to the man Jesus Christ: it must arise from one or other of these considerations, viz.

1. THAT this wrath was not against the person of Christ: Or,

2. THAT the large and extended views of things, which his union to the divine nature would necessarily suppose him to be possessed of, would as certainly prevent pain of mind; as the clear, full light of heaven will prevent it, in the saints who are spectators of the vengeance actually executed on the final enemies of God: Or,

3. THAT the beauty of the divine character which shone in that displeasure of God against sinners, which was exhibited in view to the mind of Christ ; would necessarily occasion the manifestation of it to be pleasing instead of painful.

1. THE first objection is, that the wrath of God, a view of which was communicated to the mind of Christ, was not against him personally, but against sinners. According to this objection we are to remember, it is as hard to conceive that a view of divine wrath against sinners should give the least degree of pain to the mind of Christ, as that it should fill it with dis

tress.

For that object which is capable of ministering

any degrees of pain, if it be of sufficient magnitude, may fill the mind with anguish. And if such views of the anger of God against those whom Christ came to save, could be communicated to his pure mind, as would affect him with the least uneasiness and concern; the communications might be so enlarged as to raise uneasiness and sorrow to a very great height.

But if a sense and view of divine anger against men, could give no pain to the mind of Christ because he was not the object; it must have been because he was susceptible only of pleasures and pains that were merely personal; which would be to reproach him with that same selfish, contracted spirit, which he came to eradicate from his people. This would suppose that he felt no interest in his church; and that, too, at the very time he was laying down his life for

them.

It is very manifest that the interest we have in a person, or an object, is the thing that gives spring to our concern about it. And however foreign the object may be from our persons or selves, yet an interest of our affections in it, lays a foundation for our deriving from it, either joy or sorrow, pleasure or pain. If the interest of the community, for instance, engages our attention and affections, more than any interest that is merely personal; whatever affects the community, will more sensibly exercise our minds, than any thing that merely affects our own private interest. A follower of Christ, it may easily be imagined, has such an interest in his kingdom, as more sensibly to feel the injuries that are done to it, than any private injury to himself. And if vengeance must be directed against himself personally, or against the interest of his adored Saviour; the latter may appear to him of such superior importance, as necessarily engages him to sacrifice his own to that of his glorious

Lord. And if this be the effect which the spirit of Christ produces in the hearts of men; there can surely be no difficulty in conceiving that the affection which Christ himself had for his church, rendered him susceptible of great pain, in view of the just and awful displeasure of God against his people for their sins. It would indeed be utterly inconceivable that Christ should so love his people, as to lay down his life, and become a curse for them; and yet be wholly unaffected with a sense of the heat of that divine anger which he saw was against them.

THE reason why the mind is affected in a view of objects, is not originally their relation to a private separate interest; but their relation to an interest to which the affections are united, be it either public or private. Therefore, in proportion to the concern which the man Jesus Christ felt for the salvation of his people, would his mind be affected in a view of that dreadful wrath there was against them. This is not only conceivable, but is a supposition that is altogether natural. Therefore, that the divine anger, which was exhibited to the view of Christ, was not against him personally but against the church; is a consideration which gives us no reason to suppose that it might not affect him with very deep distress. Christ had no degree of selfishness. His and his church's interest were one. Therefore his good-will to the church. would occasion the divine displeasure to be as sensibly felt, as if it had been against him; at least as far as he perceived it, and had a view of it communicated to him.

2. ANOTHER objection against the supposition thatthe sufferings of Christ could be so extreme as has been represented, is, that the large and extended views of things, which his union to the divine nature would necessarily suppose him to be possessed of, would as