cheering hope of the second coming of our Lord, whe surely cometh to turn away ungodliness from Jacob, and to set up a standard to the nations which yet sit in darkness and the shadow of death. "He that witnesseth these things saith, Behold, I come quickly. And the Spirit saith, Come; and the bride saith, Come; and let every one that heareth say, Amen. Even so. Come, Lord Jesus!"

SERMON VIII.

1 JOHN V. 6.

This is he that came by water and blood, even Jesus. Christ-not by water only, but by water and blood.

FOR the surer interpretation of these words, it will be

necessary to take a general view of the sacred book in which we find them written, and to consider the subject matter of the whole, but more particularly of the two last chapters.

The book goes under the title of The General Epistle of St. John. But in the composition of it, narrowly inspected, nothing is to be found of the epistolary form. It is not inscribed either to any individual, like St. Paul's to Timothy and Titus, or the second of the two which follow it, "to the well beloved Gaius," nor to any particular church, like St. Paul's to the churches of Rome, Corinth, Ephesus, and others,nor to the faithful of any particular region, like St. Peter's first epistle" to the strangers scattered throughout Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia," -nor to any principal branch of the Christian church, like St. Paul's to the Hebrews,-nor to the Christian church in general, like the second of St. Peter's, "to them that had obtained like precious faith with him," and like St. Jude's, " to them that are sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in Jesus Christ, and called.” It bears no such inscription. It begins without saluta

tion, and ends without benediction. It is true, the writer sometimes speaks, but without naming himself in the first person, and addresses his reader, without naming him in the second. But this colloquial style is very common in all writings of a plain familiar cast: instances of it occur in St. John's gospel; and it is by no means a distinguishing character of epistolary composition. It should seem, that this book hath for no other reason acquired the title of an epistle; but that, in the first formation of the canon of the New Testament, it was put into the same volume with the didactic writings of the apostles, which, with this single exception, are all in the epistolary form. It is, indeed, a didactic discourse upon the principles of Christianity, both in doctrine and practice: and whether we consider the sublimity of its opening with the fundamental topics of God's perfections, man's depravity, and Christ's propitiation,—the perspicuity with which it propounds the deepest mysteries of our holy faith, and the evidence of the proof which it brings to confirm them; whether we consider the sanctity of its precepts, and the energy of argument with which they are persuaded and enforced,—the dignified simplicity of language in which both doctrine and precept are delivered; whether we regard the importance of the matter, the propriety of the style, or the general spirit of ardent piety and warm benevolence, united with a fervid zeal, which breathes throughout the whole com'position, we shall find it in every respect worthy of the holy author to whom the constant tradition of the church ascribes it," the disciple whom Jesus loved."

The particular subject of the two last chapters is the great doctrine of the incarnation, or, in St. John's own words, of Christ's coming in the flesh. It may seem that I ought to say, the two doctrines of the incarnation and the atonement: but if I so said, though I should not say any thing untrue, I should speak improperly; for

the incarnation of our Lord, and the atonement made by him, are not two separate doctrines: they are one; the doctrine of atonement being included in that of the incarnation, rightly understood, and as it is stated by St. John.

The doctrine of the incarnation in its whole amount is this: That one of the three persons of the Godhead was united to a man, i. e. to a human body and a human soul, in the person of Jesus, in order to expiate the guilt of the whole human race, original and actual, by the merit, death, and sufferings of the man so united to the Godhead. This atonement was the end of the incarnation, and the two articles reciprocate: for an incarnation is implied and presupposed in the Scripture doctrine of atonement, as the necessary means in the end. For if satisfaction was to be made to divine justice for the sins of men, by vicarious obedience and vicarious sufferings, in such a way (and in no other way it could be consistent with divine wisdom) as might attach the pardoned offender to God's service, upon a principle of love and gratitude, it was essential to this plan, that God himself should take a principal part in all that his justice required to be done and suffered, to make room for his mercy; and the divine nature itself being incapable of suffering, it was necessary to the scheme of pardon, that the Godhead should condescend to unite to itself the nature capable.

For, make the supposition, if you please, that after the fall of Adam another perfect man had been created. Suppose that this perfect man had fulfilled all righteousness,-that, like our Lord, he had been exposed to temptations of Satan far more powerful than those to which our first parents yielded, and that, like our Lord, he had baffled Satan in every attempt. Suppose this perfect man had consented to offer up his own life as a ransom for other lives forfeited, and to suffer in his own

person the utmost misery a creature could be made to suffer, to avert punishment from Adam, and from Adam's whole posterity. The life he would have had to offer would have been but the life of one; the lives forfeited were many. Could one life be a ransom for more than one? Could the sufferings of one single man, upon any principle upon which public justice may exact and accept vicarious punishment, expiate the guilt of more than one other man? Could it expiate the apostacy of millions? It is true, that in human governments, the punishment of a few is sometimes accepted as a satisfaction for the offence of many; as in military punishments, when a regiment is decimated. But the cases will bear no comparison. The regiment has perhaps deserved lenity by former good services, which, in the case between God and man, cannot be alleged. The satisfaction of the tenth man goes to no farther effect than a pardon for the other nine, of the single individual crime that is passed. The law remains in force, and the nine, who for that time escape, continue subject to its rigour, and still liable to undergo the punishment, if the offence should be repeated. But such is the exuberance of mercy, in man's redemption, that the expiation extends not only to innumerable offences past, but to many that are yet to come. The severity of the law itself is mitigated: the hand-writing of ordinances is blotted out, and duty henceforward is exacted upon a principle of allowance for human frailty. And who will have the folly or the hardiness to say, that the suffering virtue of one mere man would have been a sufficient price for such a pardon? It must be added, that when human authority accepts an inadequate satisfaction for offences involving multitudes, the lenity, in many cases, arises from a policy founded on a prudent estimation of the imperfection of power in human government, which might sustain a diminution of its