Hence Jesus knew what was before him. He knew what God had said to the serpent in the garden of Eden. He knew therefore that his sufferings and death would arise from the agency of "him who had the power of death, that is the devil." Therefore through the power of the prince of this world, Jesus was taken, and by the wicked hands of the seed of the serpent, crucified and slain.

The beloved Son had the promise of his heavenly Father, to carry him triumphantly and joyfully through every scene of suffering which he had to pass for the redemption of a lost world.

Christ told his apostles that he had a great desire to cat the passover with them before he suffered. He seems now to speak of sufferings with an emphasis. He had a view of himself under the scourge of "the inhuman Romans;" "as if the exquisite tortures of crucifixion were not sufficient without adding to them those of the scourge." He had a view of the most brutal mockery and cruel insults which the Roman soldiers were about to exercise toward him. "And they put a crown of thorns upon his head, and a reed in his right hand." "And they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews! And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head."-And after they had mocked him -They led him away to be crucified." He now saw the scene which was before them in the garden of Gethsemane; and he saw the cross on which he was to bleed and die. He wished to avoid no sufferings which it behoved him to suffer. After the eating of the passover, and the institution of the Lord's Supper, having sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives. Then said Jesus unto them, “All ye shall be offended because of me this night; for it is written, I will smite the Shepherd, and the sheep of the flock shall be scattered abroad." No wonder that the disciples of Christ were to be offended because, or on account of him that night, for there was before

them the most solemn night which had ever occurred. Christ, their Shepherd, was, that night, to be betrayed and to be delivered up to be crucified. Peter, however, thought that he should not be offended; for, "Though all men, said he, shall be offended because of thee, yet will I never be offended. Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, That this night, before the cock crow, thou shalt deny me thrice. Peter said unto him, Though I should die with thee, yet will I not deny thee. Likewise also said all the disciples." Soon after, commenced the dreadful conflict, expressed by the agony of Christ in the garden. Knowing what was before them, he said to his disciples, Pray that ye enter not into temptation Then all of a sudden, being "withdrawn a stone's cast from them, he kneeled downand prayed, saying, Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me; nevertheless, not my will but thine be done. And there appeared an angel from heaven strengthening him. And, being in an agony, he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the earth.”*

Now it is asked, what was the cause of this extreme distress of the blessed Redeemer, whose blood was about to be shed for man's salvation? Some think it was from the immediate hand of his heavenly Father. A certain English author, on these words in Matthew, "And he began to be sorrowful and very heavy," observes as follows; this sorrow was "on account of some painful and dreadful sensations which were impressed upon his soul by the immediate hand of God." Why any one should think, that the extreme agony of Christ was occasioned by an impression of the immediate hand of God upon him, I cannot conceive. It appears to me, that, instead of its being from the immediate hand of God, it was from the immediate hand of Satan. This agony of Christ, which occasioned his sweating as it were great drops of blood, will be grant

* Luke xxii:

ed, no doubt, to be the bruise, or, at least a part of the bruise, which was to be made upon his heel, and this being granted, it follows, that the agony was not from the immediate hand of God, but from the immediate hand of the prince of darkness. For God had said to the serpent, "Thou shalt bruise his heel." Now, to say that God, with his own immediate hand, bruised the heel of his beloved Son, would be to charge him with taking the work out of the hand of the serpent into his own. Besides, if this extreme distress were from the hand of God, it would be inconsistent for Christ to desire the prayers and the watching of his disciples. In Gethsemane, Christ said to certain of his disciples, "My soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death; tarry ye here and watch with me-and pray that ye enter not into temptation."

It is however the sentiment of some writers both European and American, that the sufferings of Christ in the garden of Gethsemane were from the immediate hand of God. An American author, having described that suffering scene, observes thus; "The Lord of glory was in such agony of mind as was too much for nature to bear. This must, certainly have arisen from some invisible cause; nor can it be accounted for any otherwise than by supposing it was from the immediate hand of God" In another place he says that "God brought on the man Christ Jesus all the evils and sufferings which he endured." He supposes that the hand of God brought death on his only begotten Son, as truly as that it brings death and damnation upon the wicked in the world to come. For he adds: Nor indeed was the governing providence of God less concurrent and active, in bringing pain and distress on the man Christ Jesus, than it is in bringing evil on impenitent sinners, either in this world or the world to come. The flame which consumed the life of our Saviour, was as truly lighted up by the power of God, as that which torments his enemies day and night forever and ever."

This expresses a sentiment, very far, as I conceive from harmonizing with the sure word of prophecy. My opinion is grounded upon the text prefixed to this discourse, which has been often repeated. I mean the divine declaration that the serpent should bruise the heel of the Son of man. Now, if it were the immediate hand of God which brought all Christ's sufferings upon him, his extreme sufferings in the garden, as well as elsewhere, then, to make the Bible consistent with itself, we should have found God saying to the serpent, I will bruise thy head, and I, also, will bruise the heel of the woman's Seed. But if God did not say that he would do this, but that the serpent should do it, then, we have no reason to assert that the sufferings of Christ were from the immediate hand of God, but that they were from the immediate hand of the serpent and his seed.

It was the work of Messiah to come into the world and bruise the head of the serpent. The Father did not take this work out of the hands of his righteous Servant, to whom he said, "he shall see of the travail of his soul and be satisfied." To destroy the works of the devil was the work assigned Messiah in the covenant of redemption. And it was in the great decree that Immanuel in bruising the head of the serpent should receive from him a bruise upon his heel. Hence God will not frustrate the decree concerning the work of his Son, or the work of his Son's antagonist.

An objection no doubt will be raised, founded upon the fifty third chapter of Isaiah, the ninth and tenth verses. "He had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth. Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise him; he hath put him to grief.". It is asserted, you say, by the prophet, that it pleased the Lord to bruise his well beloved Son. Answer; and it is equally true, that God said, that the serpent should bruise him. From this, it is evident, that in whatever sense the hand of God might be concerned in the event, it was not from his immediate hand, but by the power of Sar

tan through divine permission. The subject may be illustrated by the case of Job: "The Lord said unto Satan, Behold he is in thine hand; but save his life. So Satan, being permitted, smote Job with sore boils, from the sole of his foot unto his crown." Hence it was the immediate hand of Satan which smote Job with sore boils. So then, God did in no other sense bruise his beloved Son, than by permitting Satan to do it.

That a bruise upon the heel of Messiah was involv ed in the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, I do not deny. It does not follow, however, that because the sufferings of the Son of God were in the great decree, that, therefore, his sufferings and death. were from the immediate hand of his heavenly Father. The Father was so far from being "a mere spectator" of the sufferings of his Son, that his ear was opened to his well beloved; "who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared"* That is, he was heard on account of his piety. This is evident, because the Greek word, to express fear in this place, is not obs; but he was heard, To Tys εuλabelas, not because he was afraid to die, but be cause he feared God.

"It is evident, indeed, that there was some other cause of his agony besides that of his approaching death: for it is said in the Epistle to the Hebrews, that he was heard in that he feared; that is, was delivered from the terrors that oppressed him; and yet we know that he was not delivered from the death of the cross ". It is evident then that this remarkable incident in the history of our Lord, which has given occasion to so much unfounded and idle cavil, instead of lowering his character in the least degree, adds fresh lustre to it, and increases our veneration for his exalted virtues."+ † Porteus, Bishop of London.

* Heb. v, 7.