who claim the Christian name, might have excited surprise, had we not known, that, in every age, there have been those who have resisted the clearest evidence in support of the most vital and important gospel truth.

The grounds on which it has been denied that this prediction refers to the sufferings of the Messiah are most untenable. No small stress has been laid by some on the want of all allusion to it, in illustration of the doctrine of substitution, in the writings of Paul. The fact is singular enough, it must be acknowledged; but the inference deduced from it is far from being conclusive. We are not at liberty to say from what source the infinitely wise God should draw his confirmations or illustrations of the precious truths he is pleased to make known to us by his Spirit. Our duty is to receive and improve what he has seen meet to give; without complaining, either that he has not given us more, or that that which he has given is not different from what it is. The application of the language of some parts of this remarkable portion of revealed truth, has been thought to proceed on the principle of accommodation. Without denying that such a use is ever made, in the new testament scriptures, of the lauguage of the old, it is sufficient at present to remark, how preposterous it is to resort to this method of interpretation in a case like the present, where the passages quoted are expressly declared by the inspired writers to have a reference to the Messiah.8

8 Other objections to the application of Isaiah's prophecy to Christ have been started by Neologians. Such as take an interest in these matters will find them

II. This prediction treats of the SUFFERINGS of the Messiah.

These are set forth with a plenitude and variety of expression, which it is deeply interesting and highly instructive to mark and consider. The terms and phrases made use of for this purpose, are truly worthy of notice, and a consideration of these lies directly within the line of our argument. It may also serve a good end, to note the translations given of the original of these respective expressions, by some of our most distinguished modern biblical scholars, even such as do not accord in sentiment with the doctrine which it is our object to establish. The following classification of terms and phrases, may help to give us some idea of the amount of evidence which the prophecy contains, to the extent of Messiah's sufferings:

9

1. 'Despised and rejected of men.'

Despised, nor accounted in the number of men. (Lowth.) Despised and neglected by men. (Dr P. Smith.)-Contemptible! the most feeble of men! (Michaelis.)—Disdained is he, scorned among men. (Seiler.)-Disdained was he, and deserted by men. Gesenius.)—The most despised and rejected of men. (Rosenmueller.)

2. 'A man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.'

-Lowth adopts the com אִישׁ מַכְאֹבוֹת וִידוע חלי .3 .v

all stated and refuted in a very able note by Dr Pye Smith.-Disc. on Sac., &c., pp. 260-271.

9 These translations are given at length by Dr Smith, in the Note last referred to.

mon version. A man of sorrows and familiar with sufferings. (P. Smith.)-Full of sufferings, and recognised only by his wounds. (Mich.)-The man of sorrows, known by his sufferings. (Seil.)-Sorrowladen and marked with disease. (Gesen.)—A man afflicted with sorrows, eminently marked with disease. (Rosen.)

3. 'Stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.' v. 4.

Judicially stricken, smitten of נָגוּעַ מְכֵּה אֱלֹהִים וּמְעֲנֶה

God, and afflicted. (Lowth.)-Stricken, smitten by God, and devoted to affliction. (P. Smith.)-Marked out by the stroke of God and thrown down. (Mich.) -By God punished, smitten, and tormented. (Seil.) -Punished by God, smitten and distressed by God. (Gesen.)—Ruin-stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted.

(Rosen.)

4. Wounded.' . v. 5. Lowth, Michaelis, Gesenius, and Rosenmueller adopt the common version.-Pierced. (P. Smith.)-Pierced through. (Seil.)

5. Bruised.' v. 5. N. Smitten. (Lowth and Seiler.)-Crushed. (P. Smith.)-Broken. (Mich.) -Smitten down. (Gesen.)-Bruised. (Rosen.)

6. Chastisement.' v. 5. 7. Lowth, Smith, and Rosenmueller follow the common version.-Punishment. (Mich., Seil., and Gesen.)

T

7. 'Stripes.' v. 5. . Bruises. (Lowth and Mich.) - Bloody stripes. (P. Smith.)-Wounded. (Seil.)-Wounds. (Gesen.)-Wheals. (Rosen.)

8. 'He was oppressed.' v. 7. a. It was exacted.

(Lowth and Seil.)—It is exacted. (P. Smith.)-He came to it. (Mich.)-Ill treated was he. (Gesen.) -Cruelly treated. (Rosen.)

9. 'He was cut off out of the land of the living.' V. 8. Smith and Rosen. adopt the common version.-Cut off from the land of the living. (Lowth.)-Torn out of the land of the living. (Mich.)

Out of the land of the living he is torn away. (Seil.) -Taken away out of the land of the living. (Gesen.)

10. Travail of soul.' v. 11. y. The common version is adopted by Lowth.-The effects of his soul's pains. (P. Smith.)-Severe toil. (Mich.) -Labour. (Seil.)-Sorrows. (Rosen.)

11. He hath poured out his soul unto death.'

Lowth adopts the common אֲשֶׁר הֶעֶרָה לַמָּוֶת .12 .v

version-He yieldeth his life to death. (P. Smith.)-He poured out his life's blood unto death. (Mich. and Seil.)—He gave up his life unto death. (Gesen.)-He poured out his life unto death. (Rosen.)

III. We have now seen that this singular prediction refers to the Messiah, and to the Messiah as suffering. THE PUNITIVE character of his sufferings, as here set forth, is the next thing to which we solicit attention.

We have before adverted to the distinction between suffering on account of sin, and suffering disconnected from guilt, the latter being what is called calamity, the former punishment. Now the sufferings of Messiah, as they are here exhibited, were of the former

9 See p. 14.

description,—not calamitous, but punitive.

He suffered for sin; whether his own or that of others, remains to be seen; meanwhile, we beg attention to those expressions in the prediction which distinctly mark the punitive character of Messiah's sufferings. They are the following:

1. 'He hath borne griefs.'

v. 4. N. He He bare the sin.'

shall bear iniquities.' v. 11. p. v. 12 . The original word, in the first and last of these verses, is the same; and, in their rendering of it, there is a close agreement among all the critics formerly referred to. In the second passage, the original word is different, although our translation and that of most of the other critics, are the same. Dr Smith, however, renders it 'take away,' and Rosenmueller renders it made atonement.' That Messiah took away the sins of his people, by making atonement for them, we, of course, believe to be true, and to be taught in this part of scripture; although, perhaps, it admits of being questioned, whether this be the exact import of the phrases we are now considering. It is the opinion of many learned men, that the original terms denote, not so much the removal of sin, as the sustaining of guilt; not so much the bearing of it away, as the bearing of its weight; not so much Christ's being the means of taking sin from others, as his actually lying under its load, or being subjected to its awful pressure himself. They thus point our attention to the result of his sufferings, rather than to the manner in which these sufferings effected their result. The enemies of the doctrine for