The meritorious price of our redemption, iustification, &c. Cleering it from some common errors; and proving, Part I. 1. That Christ did not suffer for us those unutterable torments of Gods wrath, that commonly are called hell-torments, to redeem our soules from them. 2. That Christ did not bear our sins by Gods imputation, and therefore he did not bear the curse of the law for them. Part II. 3. That Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law (not by suffering the said curse for us, but) by a satisfactory price of attonement; viz. by paying or performing unto his father that invaluable precious thing of his mediatoriall obedience, wherof his mediatoriall sacrifice of attonement was the master-piece. 4. A sinners righteousnesse or justification is explained, and cleered from some common errors. / By William Pinchin, Gentleman, in New-England.

PART I.

The Discourse is acted between a

• ...Trades-man,
• and A Divine.

TRADESMAN.

WEll met Reverend Sir; I have long desired to see you, that I might confer with you about the Meritorious Price of Mans Redemption, namely, What it was that either Christ did or suffered to satisfie Gods Wrath for Mans Re∣demption, Reconciliation, &c. for I perceive there is a great difference among Divines about the kind of satisfaction that Christ made to his Father for Mans Redemption; and it doth not a little trouble me that you should dif∣fer in so weighty a point from the most Divines.

Divine,

If my difference from the most Divines be agreeable to the Scriptures rightly expounded, then I hope there is no just ••ffence given on my part; neither do I desire any man to believe me further then I bring the Word of God rightly expounded for

my Warrant: Therefore I pray you (with religious Fear and Re∣verence) put me to the Tryal, and propound your Objections against me.

Trades.

If I be not mistaken, you hold that Christ did not Redeem us by his sufferings.

Divine,

This word Suffering is a doubtful term, because you do not explain your meaning; and therefore before that you and I do proceed any further, we must explain one anothers meaning, for it is needful in all Controversies, that each side should know what each other do grant, and what they hold differing: Therefore in the first place before we proceed any further, I will tell you what I hold touching the meritorious price of our Redemption.

* 1.1First, I hold that Jesus Christ our Mediator did pay the full price of our Redemption to his Father by the merit of his Mediato∣rial Obedience, which (according to Gods determinate Counsel) was tryed through sufferings, inflicted upon his body as upon a Ma∣lefactor, by Sathan and his Instruments.

I put as much weight, virtue, and efficacy in Christs Mediatorial Obedience so tryed, as they do that plead most for our Redemption by his suffering of Gods wrath for us.

They place the price of our Redemption in his suffering of Gods wrath for us in full weight and measure, as it is due to our sins by the curse of the Law.

I place the price of our Redemption in the merit of his Media∣torial Obedience, whereof his Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement was the Master-piece.

I agree with others in this, that Divine wrath is fully satisfied for the sins of all the Elect by the merit of Christs Mediatorial Obedi∣ence: I differ from others in this, namely, in the manner of his sa∣tisfaction.

I say, That Christ did not satisfie Gods wrath for our sins by suf∣fering the extremity of his Wrath, neither did he suffer the torments of hell neither in his body, nor in his soul, nor any degree of Gods wrath at all.

Secondly, Though I say that Christ did not suffer his Fathers Wrath, neither in whole, nor in part, yet I affirm that he suffered all things that his Father did appoint him to suffer, in all circumstan∣ces, just according to the predictions of all the Prophets, even to the

nodding of the head, and the spitting in the face, as these Scri∣ptures do testifie.

1. Peter told the Jews, That they had killed the Prince of Life, as God before had shewed by the mouth of all his Prophets; That Christ should suffer, and he fulfilled it: So Acts. 3.17, 18.

2. Christ did expresly tell his Disciples, That he must go to Je∣rusalem, and suffer many things of the Elders, and chief Priests, and Scribes, and be killed, and raised again the third day, Mat. 16.21.

3. After his Resurrection, he said to the two Disciples, O Fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the Prophets have spoken; ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter in his Glory? Luke 24.25, 26. and in verse 44, and 46, he said thus to all his Disciples; These are the words which I spake unto you, That all things must be fulfilled which are written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets, and in the Psalms concerning me: Thus it is written, and thus it behoved Christ to suffer, and to rise again from the dead on the third day.

4. Paul told the men of Antioch, That the Rulers of the Jews condemned him, because they knew not the voices of the Prophets concerning him; and therefore, though they found no cause of death in him, they desired Pilate that he should be slain: and when they had fulfilled all things that were written of him, they took him down from the Tree, and laid him in a Sepulcher: Acts 13.27, 28, 29. Mark the phrase, They fulfilled All things that were written of him: If they fulfilled all his sufferings, then it was not Gods wrath, but mans wrath that he suffered.

5. The Lord told Adam, not only that the Promised Seed should break the Divels Head-plot, but also that the Divel should crucifie him, and pierce him in the Foot-soals; Gen. 3.15. The Divel did it by his Instruments, the Scribes and Pharises, by Pilate, and the Roman Souldiers.

••rom all these Scriptures, I hold it necessary that Christ should suffer all things that were written of him, for the Tr••al of his Me∣diatorial Obedience; but yet I say also, that no Prophet did ever speak any thing that Christ should suffer the Wrath of God; that is an addition from Mans Brain.

Therefore those Divin••s must needs speak erroneously, that af∣firm that Christ did suffer the Wrath of God, as it is due to our sins,

the Curse of the Law, the Torments of Hell, the pains of the Damned, the second Death, and many such like, to redeem us from them.

These terms I reject, as not agreeable to the Divine Melody of the holy Scriptures.

Thus I have briefly told you what I affirm, and what I deny; now therefore I pray you to produce your Arguments and Objecti∣ons against me: I desire to see how you can prove that Christ did suffer the Wrath of God for our Redemption.

Trades.

I will fetch my first Proof from the immutability of the first Curse annexed to the breach of the first Law of Prohibition: The Law of Prohibition runs thus, Of the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat. The Curse annexed follows,

* 1.2In Gen. 2.17. In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt dy the death. This is a Definitive sentence, and it is doubled in the Hebrew for certainty sake; In dying, thou shalt dy: That is to say, Thou shalt certainly dy the death, even death Eternal in hell, unless thy Redeemer do suffer the said Curse for thee, to redeem thee from it.

Divine,

I pray you shew me how you do gather from this Text that our Redeemer was necessitated to suffer this Curse to Redeem fallen man from it: Let me see how you can infer your Argument to prove it.

Trades.

My Argument lies thus; In the day thou eatest there∣of, in dying, thou shalt dy; that is to say, Thou Adam, in thine own Person, and Thou in thy Posterity, or else Thou in thy Redeem∣er, there is no escaping from this definitive cursed Death; If Adam did but once eat of the Forbidden Fruit, either he must dy eternally, or else his Redeemer must suffer the said cursed death in his steed.

Divine,

Your Exposition of this Text is true in part, but in part I dislike it; You say well that the term Thou, is thou in thine own Person, and thou in thy Posterity; thus far I approve of your exposition: But whereas you extend the term Thou unto the Re∣deemer, this last clause I dislike, for the Death and Curse here threatned, cannot extend it self unto the Redeemer in the manner of his working out our Redemption.

This Text doth not comprehend Jesus Christ within the com∣pass of it: for 1. This Text is a part of that Covenant only that God made with Adam and his Posterity; respecting the keeping

or losing of that happiness which they had by Creation. This Text doth not comprehend wi••hin the compasse of it any part of that Covevant which God made with the Mediator, respecting mans Redemption: they are two differing Covenants, and both of them cannot be contained within the compasse of this Text. Any man may say from this Text, That God doth herein declare unto Adam the rule of his justice upon him and his poste∣rity, in case he disobeyed, by ea••ing the forbidden fruit, they must certainly dy the death. But none can truly gather from this Text, what was the rule of his justice and mercy in mans Redemption by Christ: this must be fetched from some other Scriptures: but either from Gen. 2.15. or from the like Scriptures •• this Text in Gen. 2.17. doth not tell us that Christ should redeem us, in the day that Adam should dy: the Redeemer, and the way of Redemption, was wholy hid from Adam for that present.

Secondly, If the death here threatned do concern Adam only and his posterity, (with whom the Covenant for life or death was made, in case he did eat of the forbidden fruit) then it cannot re∣spect Christ, because he is not to be held as one of the fallen sons of Adams posteritie; for he was conceived by the Holy Ghost, and not by natural generation, as all the fallen sons and daughters of A∣dam are: therefore the Mediator cannot be included within this death here threatned to fallen Adam.

Thirdly, God laid down this rule of his justice to Adam, in the time of his innocency, before he had any need of the knowledge of the Mediator: therefore why should the Mediator be comprehended within this term Thou, or any thing of mans Redemption by Christ.

Fourthly, The nature of the cursed death here threatned, is such, that it is altogether unpossible that the Mediator could suffer it for our Redemption, and therefore the Mediator cannot possibly be included within this word [Thou] in this Text?

Trades.

If you can make it appear by good consequence, that the Mediator could not suffer that kind of cursed death that is here threatned in this Text, then I shall easily acknowledge that my in∣terpretation is not sound: therefore I pray you let me hear your Rea∣son why it was not possible for the Mediator to suffer the said cursed death for our Redemption.

Divine.

For your better understanding of the true nature of that

death that is here threatned, I will observe two things,

First, I will explain unto you what kind of cursed death it is, that of necessity must primarily be meant in this Text.

Secondly, I will branch out this cursed death in all the conse∣quences of it; and then I will apply all to Christ: by which ap∣plication you may the better be able to discern whether Christ could suffer the cursed death that is meant in Gen. 2.17. or No.

First, I will explain unto you the particular kind of cursed death that God threatned to fall upon Adam, as soon as he had eaten the forbidden fruit; and that must be understood of a Spiritual death principally; for the curse runs thus, In the day thou eatest thereof, thou shalt dy the death. That is to say in the very self same natural day, in which thou dost eat of the forbidden fruit, in dying thou shalt dy: and what death else can it be that fell upon Adam in the very same natural day in which he eat the forbidden fruit, but a Spiritual death? it cannot be understood of the death of Adams body, for his body lived nine hundred and thirty years after this day, Gen. 5.5. besides, the death of Adams body was threatned to fall upon him after this day, (in Gen. 3.19.) either as another di∣stinct curse, or else as a branch of the former death which might be repented after his fall.

Secondly, Neither can the death here threatned be understood primarily of eternal death in Hell, as you would have it; for that death cannot fal upon any man til after this life is ended: that death doth not agree to the circumstance of time expressed in the Text.

* 1.3Thirdly, Therefore it follows, that the kind of death that was threatned to fall upon Adam in the very self same natural day in which he did eat the forbidden fruit, must be understood primarily of a Spiritual death, or of the death of his pure nature in corruption and sin.

At the first, Adam was created after Gods image, Gen. 1.27. full of natural puritie and uprightness, Ephes. 4.24. which would have kept his body alive and in Gods favour for ever, if he had not eaten of the forbidden fruit; but as soon as ever he had but eaten of the forbidden fruit, he became dead in corruption and sin, Ephes. 2.2. and then it might be said of Adam in the day of his eating, as it was said of the Church of Sardis, Thou hast a Name that thou livest, but thou art dead, Rev. 3.1. Adam was still alive corporally, but he was dead spiritually.

Mr Calvine in Gen. 2.17. demandeth what kind of death it was that God threatned to fall upon Adam in this Text: he an∣swereth to this purpose: It seemeth to me (saith he) that we must fetch the definition thereof from the contrary: Consider (saith he) from what life Adam fell; At the first (saith he) he was created in every part of his body and soul with pure qualities, after the i∣mage of God: therefore on the contrary (saith he) by dying the death, is meant, that he should be emptied of all the image of God, and possessed with corrupt qualities, as soon as ever he did but eat of the forbidden fruit.

So then, by the judgement of Mr Calvin, the death that fell upon Adam, in the day of his disobedient eating, must be under∣stood of the spiritual death of Adams pure nature in corrupt and sinful qualities: and none of Adams posteritie that are begotten by natural generation can be exempted from this spiritual death, no not the very Elect, they are dead in corruption and sin, as well the Reprobates, as soon as ever they have life in the Womb.

And it is further evident by certain other circumstances that did befall Adam in the day of his transgression, that the kind of death which was threatned to fall upon Adam in the very day of his dis∣obedient eating must needs be understood of a spiritual death primarily.

1. He was ashamed. 2. He was afraid. And 3. He did hide himself from Gods presence, Gen. 3.7, 8, 9, 10.

First, He was ashamed. Because he was now stripped naked of Gods image, for he was now deprived of his pure qualities which he had by Creation, and instead thereof he was now posses∣sed with other shameful and corrupt qualities, both in his body and in his soul.

Secondly, He was afraid of Gods wrath, for now the terrors of a guilty conscience fell upon him, for his sinful eating.

Thirdly, He did now hide himself from God, because he did now find himself to be out of Gods favour, until it pleased God of his free grace to renew his favour towards him, by the free promise of a mediator, to break the Devils head-plot by his mediatorial Sa∣crifice of Atonement, thereby procuring Gods Atonement.

For as by one man sin entered into the world, (namely the mo∣ther-sin, by Adams sinful eating) and death by sin, So (a spiritual)

death passed over all men, in whom (that is to say, in whose loyns all men have sinned, Rom. 5.12. and that Adam by his one sin in eating the forbidden fruit, procured not only his own spiritual death; but also he did thereby procure an Hereditary sinful nature to all his posterity, and that corruption of our nature is now called The Law of death, and the body of death, Rom. 7.23, 24. because it fell upon Adam and his posteritie for his transgressing of the first law of prohibition, by his bodily eating of the forbidden fruit: and in this respect also the Apostles are said to preach to the dead in sin, 1 Pet. 4.6. Col. 2.13.

So then, from all the premises I may well conclude, that the kind of death which God threatned to execute upon Adam in the very day of his sinful eating, was a spiritual death, or it may be called the death of his pure nature in corruption and sin; and this Spiritual death may well be called The first death, or the original death, be∣cause it was the original cause of all other deaths and curses whatso∣ever; and truly unlesse we can get into the Mediator by Faith, be∣fore our souls be separated from our bodies, this first death will bring us unto the second death at last.

This exposition of Gen. 2.17. I conceive to be full, fair and clear: Secondly, I come now in the next place (according to my promise) to apply this cursed Spiritual death together, with all o∣ther cursed deaths unto Christ, that so you may thereby the better see whether it be not altogether unpossible for our Mediator to suf∣fer the said Curses of the Law in our stead for our Redemption there-from or no.

First, Did Christ suffer the curse of the first spiritual death that was threatned to Adam, for hi•• sinful eating of the forbidden fruit; then truly he was dead in corruption and sin, as Adam and all his posterity were? This is a blasphemous inference, (and yet you cannot avoid it by the common doctrine of imputation) but the Holy Scriptures do often testifie that Christ was pure in nature, and without the least tincture of sin, either in his corruption or life. He was conceived by the Holy Ghost, without sin, Luk. 1.35. and all his life long, there was no sin found in him, 1 Pet. 2.22, 23. Heb. 4.15. Ioh. 8.46. therefore seeing he was altogether sinless••, both in nature and life, it was altogether unpossible for him to suffer that kind of cursed death that was threatned to fall upon Adam in the

day of his sinful eating; and therefore it follows by necessary conse∣quence, that he not did redeem us from that cursed death, by suffer∣ing that cursed death in our stead. 2. Hence it follows also by neces∣sary consequence, that God the Father hath found out some other way where by he takes satisfaction for the sins of all the Elect, and not by inflicting this cursed spiritual death upon our Mediator for our Redemption.

Secondly, If there be good and necessary Reason (as there is) to exempt our Mediator from suffering the first cursed Spiritual death: Then there is as good reason to exempt him also from suf∣fering any other curse of the Law whatsoever.

Examine the Particulars.

First, Consider the first degree of our bodily death, and that is Diseases, and deadly dangers, which God doth usually inflict upon the fallen sons of Adam, for sin: Did Christ bear these diseases and bodily infirmities, upon his own body, to redeem us from them? By the common Doctrine of Imputation you must affirm it; and yet many absurd consequences will follow, if it be affirmed, as plain experience doth shew us: for when Christ healed all that were sick of sundry kinds of infirmities, he did not take their diseas∣es, and lay them upon his own body; he did not take the leprosie from the Lepers, and lay it upon his own Body: he did not take the unclean spirits from them that were possessed, and put them in∣to his own Body; but he bare them; that is to say, he bare them away from the sick, by the power of his Godhead, as I have ex∣pounded, Esai 53.4. and Mat. 8.17.

Secondly, Another curse of the Law which all the fallen sons of Adam do ly under, is Death natural. Now consider, Whether did Christ suffer this bodily death in our stead, to redeem our bo∣dies or No? I say No, it is a grosse conceit to think so: and though the Apostle doth say, that God appointed Christ to dy once, as he appointed all men once to dy,* 1.4 Heb. 9.27, 28. yet the Apostle doth not mean that God appointed Christ to dy such a kind of na∣tural death as he hath appointed to all the fallen sons of Adam: there is a wide difference: for God hath appointed all the fallen sons of Adam, to dy once, by the justice of that curse that was laid upon Adam for sin; so that they cannot by their natural power withstand it: But the death of Christ was not inflicted upon him

by the justice of that curse, as I have opened the matter in Psal. 22.15. because he dyed not as a fallen son of Adam, but voluntarily as a Mediator, for he had a power in nature to withstand it, and therefore his death was not a forced passive death, but a voluntary Mediatorial death, according to his own voluntary Covenant with his Father, for Mans Redemption. I grant notwithstanding, that Christ was a Patient aswell as an Agent, in his death; because he suffered many wounds in his Body, from the violence of Tyrants, by means whereof he shed much blood; but yet for all that he dy∣ed not of those wounds, I mean his Soul was not separated from his Body by the violence of those wounds, as the Souls of the two Theeves were that were crucified with him: for our Saviour be∣fore his sufferings told his Disciples That no man could take away his life from him, till himself pleased to lay it down, by his own will, desire and power, according as he had covenanted with his Father. Ioh. 10.17, 18.

And it is farther evident, that the manner of Christs death was far differing from that kind of natural death that God hath inflicted as a curse upon all the fallen sons of Adam, because none of the fallen Sons of Adam have any power in nature to withstand the power of death; much lesse have they any power in nature to raise up their dead bodies again after death: But our blessed Mediator had a power in himself, not only to lay down his life when he pleased; but he had a power also in himself to take it up again, when he pleased, Ioh. 10.18. Therefore I may well conclude, that the death of Christ was far different from the death of all the fallen sons of Adam; and therefore he did not redeem us from the curse of our bodily death, by bearing it in our stead.

Thirdly, There is another curse annexed to the death of our bodies, and that is the putrifaction of our bodies after death, Gen. 3.19. Dust thou art, and to dust thou shalt return: this Text im∣plies both the death of the body by sicknesse, and the putrifaction of the body also after death.* 1.5 Now examine whether Christ did redeem us from this particular curse by bearing it in our stead? The Apostle denies it in plain words, saying, Thou wilt not suffer thy Holy one to see corruption. Act. 2.27. in this Text there is a reason given, why the body of Christ could not see corruption, af∣ter his Soul was separated from it; namely, because it was the Ho∣ly

Habitation of his Godhead; but our sinful bodies after the Soul is departed, are but a corrupt masse of putrified earth; and therefore immediately after our Souls are departed, our bodies be∣gin to purge and putrifie; but the body of Christ had his Divine nature in it, when his Soul was separated from it: for his body had its subsistance, not only from his Soul (as our sinful bodies have from our Souls) but from his Godhead also: yea not only his dead body, but his Soul also, after it was separated from his body, had their subsistance and dependance on his Godhead, by vertue of per∣sonal union. Col. 2.9. Yea his Godhead did still reside substanti∣ally or essentially in his dead body, when it was in his grave, as well as in his Soul, when it was in Paradise.

Therefore I may well conclude, that it was not possible for the Mediator to suffer this cursed p••ece of death for us, without destroy∣ing his personal union: for if his body had seen corruption, it could not have been called the Holy one of God, that could see no cor∣ruption.

Fourthly, There is yet another cursed death, which all the fallen sons of Adam are subject to by nature, and that is death eternal; this Death is the wages of Sin, as well as the rest, Rom. 6.26. and this death is called the second death, because it is never executed upon any, till after this life is ended, Rev. 2.11. Rev. 20.6. Now exa∣mine, whether did Christ redeem us from this cursed death, by suffering the same for us, or No? I say No: and my Reasons are these,

First, If he had redeemed us from this cursed death, by suffering the same for us; then by the same reason he must have suffered all the other curses of the Law, to redeem us from them, as well as from this cursed death: but I have shewed an utter impossibility for that, immediately before.

Secondly, If Christ hath redeemed us from death eternal, by suffering the said death for us, then he did descend locally into the very place of Hell it self, to suffer it there; for no man can suffer death eternal in this life: no man can suffer the second death till after this life is ended. All the deaths that the fallen sons of Adam do suffer in this life, being put together, may be called the first death, because they are inflicted upon mens souls and bodies in this life; but death eternal is not inflicted upon mens souls and bodies

till after this life is ended; and therefore it is fitly called the second death: and therefore our Saviour could not suffer it while he was alive, neither in the Garden, nor upon the Crosse.

Trades.

I confesse, as you have opened the first cursed death, in Gen. 2.17. both in the root and in the branches thereof, I dare not maintain what I have formerly affirmed: and yet I am not satisfi∣ed in the point in question: Therefore I pray give me leave to al∣ledge the Reasons and Arguments which I find cited by sundry learned men, to prove that Christ did redeem us by suffering the curse of the Law for us.

Learned Divines affirm that Christ hath born the curse of the Law two manner of ways, for our Redemption.

First, (say they) He bare the guilt of our sins, both original and actual, by Gods imputation.

Secondly, They say also, that he bare the wrath of God in due proportion to the curse of the Law, not by imputation only, but really in our stead, for our freedom and redemption therefrom. And these assertions they prove from several Scriptures, and especially from Gods definitive sentence, in Gen. 2.17.

Divine.

I pray let me see how you can infer from Gen. 2.17. that Christ did bear Adams sin by imputation; and his cursed death really: and before you go about to make your inference, consider advisedly, 1. What Adams sin was. And 2. What was the true nature of that cursed death that was inflicted upon him for his sin, and then I beleeve you will soon see into what grosse absurdities the common doctrine of Imputation will lead you.

First, I say, Consider Adams sin, what it was, and you will find it to be his disobedient eating of the forbidden fruit, contrary to Gods expresse prohibition, in Gen. 2.17.

Secondly, Consider also what was the true nature of that cursed death that was inflicted upon Adam for his sinfull eating, and that was the present Spiritual death of his pure nature, in corruption and sin; if so, then you may well tremble at the inference: for if Christ bare Adams sin, by Gods imputation and his curse really, then you make Christ to bear his Spiritual curse, and then you make him to be dead in corruption and sin, and then he had more need to get a Mediator to save him, then to be a Mediator to save others. Such wofull inferences as this will often follow upon the common Doctrine of Imputation.

Trades.

It is strange to me that you should deny the common re∣ceived Doctrine of Imputation: I pray let me see what other grounds you have against it, besides the former inference.

Divine.

I have divers other Reasons against it, and I suppose more then I can think on at this time. First, Consider the true force of the word impute, in the natural signification thereof,* 1.6 and then I beleeve you will acknowledge that it cannot stand with the justice of God to impute our sins to our innocent Saviour. For,

To impute sin to any, is to account them for guilty sinners: and to impute the guilt of other mens sins to any, is to account them guilty of other mens sins by participation: but in case there be no participation with other men in their sins, then it cannot stand with justice to impute other mens sins to them. Shimei said thus unto David, Let not my Lord impute iniquitie unto me, neither re∣member that I did perversly. 2 Sam. 19.19. By this speech of Shi∣mei it is evident, that to impute sin to any, is to charge them with sin, and to remember it, and to reckon it up against them: but many times men do unjustly impute sin to others, either upon bare surmises, or out of a malicious intent against them: but God is the righteous Judge of all the world, therefore he cannot chuse but do right, when he doth impute sin to any, Gen. 18. Rom. 3.4. We are sure (saith the Apostle) that the judgement of God is according to Truth. Rom. 2.2. He doth never impute sin to any, but according to the exact rule of Justice, reckoning up and remembring both the number and the nature of every sin: if he impute blood to any, he doth it upon certain grounds of knowledge and truth; therefore that man shall certainly be cut off, Lev. 17.4.

Secondly, Not to impute sin to any, is to acquit them from the guilt of Sin, as Shimeis speech to David doth declare, Let not my Lord (saith he) impute iniquitie to me, neither remember that I did perversly. By this speech he intreated David to forgive his sin, and to blot it out of his remembrance, and so consequently to make him sinlesse, by his Atonement and forgivenesse: and so David doth also explain the matter, saying, Blessed is the man to whom the Lord doth not impute sin. Rom. 4.8. His meaning in the affirma∣tive must needs ly thus, Blessed is the man with whom God the Fa∣ther is reconciled by his merciful pardon and forgivenesse. And thus the Apostle doth also explain the matter, saying, God was in

Christ, reconciling the World to himself (or making Atonement between the World and himself) not imputing their sins to them. 2 Cor. 5.19.

Therefore it follows by necessary consequence, that seeing to impute sin to any, is to make them guilty of sin, God cannot in ju∣stice impute our sins to our innocent Saviour, and if he should so do he should be as unjust as the Jews were.

* 1.7Secondly, If our Mediator had stood as a guilty sinner before God, by his imputing of our sins to him, then he could not have been a fit person in Gods esteem to do the office of a Mediator for our Redemption: who will accept of such a Mediator as he doth ac∣count to be vild, by the imputation of sin? Ddoubtlesse if God had but once imputed our sins to Christ, he could not have accepted him as the immaculate Lamb of God, but he would have esteemed him as a Lamb full of blemishes, and then Satan would have found somewhat against him, and have accused him to God, as an unfit person to do the office of a Mediator: but our Saviour doth testifie that Satan could not find any thing against him: and his Father did testifie that he was his welbeloved Son, in whom he was well pleased. Therefore it follows by good consequence, that Christ did not stand as a guilty sinn••r before God, by his imputing of our sins to him: and therefore it doth also follow by as good conse∣quence, that God could not in justice inflict the curse of the Law upon him for our Redemption.

* 1.8Thirdly, I will hereafter shew you when I come to open the Type of the two goats, in Lev. 16. that you may with as good reason affirm that God the Father doth still impute our sins to Christ now he sits at the right hand of God in glory, as affirm that he did impute our sins to him, when he was alive here upon the earth: the one follows from as good consequence from the common Doctrine of Imputation, as the other.

* 1.9Fourthly, I will also hereafter shew you in opening the Hebrew phrase, in Psal. 25.18. and in Psal. 32.1. that the Father doth lay all our sins upon himself, by imputation, as much as ever he did lay them upon Christ by imputation: but he doth not lay our sins upon himself by imputation, therefore not upon Christ by im∣putation.

Fifthly, I will also hereafter shew you in opening the He∣brew

phrase in Esai. 53.10. that Christ did make his own Soul a trespasse or a guilt, by imputing all our Trespasses to himself,* 1.10 as much as ever the Father made him a Trespasse, by imputing all our trespasses to him: and that Christ made himself sin, as much as ever the Father made him sin: for he finished trespasse, and ended sin, Dan. 9.24.

Sixthly, The common Doctrine of imputation, is I know not what kind of imputation; it is such a strange kind of imputation that it differs from all the several sorts of imputing sin to any that ever I can meet with all in all the Scripture, and therefore it may well be suspected to be but a device of Satan, to darken the truth of the most needful doctrine of a Sinners justification.

First, I find that man doth impute sin to man, sometimes justly,* 1.11 and sometimes unjustly; but alwaies with an intent to make such persons to be guilty of sin. See 1 Sam. 22.15.

Secondly, The Jews and Romans did impute sin to Christ, upon pretended grounds of guiltinesse, and thereupon they did punish him really, as a guilty malefactor.

Thirdly, God doth impute sin to man, but he doth ever do it upon certain grounds of guiltinesse: I cannot find that ever God did impute sin to an innocent; such a Tenent hath been gathered from certain figurative expressions of Scripture, by some Godly learned, but upon due search, I find they are deceaved, and many o∣ther Godly persons have been deceaved by them, because they have taken such expositions upon trust from them: But it is more agree∣able to the mind of God that every Godly Christian should with their own eys search into the true scope of those figurative expressi∣ons: It is the duty of every wise Christian to search out the mistical sense of such like phrases, as well as the literal; then they might soon have seen how such phrases have been wrested, to maintain an old received Error, which God never intended, by such figura∣tive expressions. If those figurative phrases had been well under∣stood at the first, doubtlesse the doctrine of Gods imputing our sins to Christ had never been broached. Take heed therefore how you do father such a kind of imputation upon God the Father, to∣wards the Mediator, as he never exercised towards any other man, lest he impute sin to you for it.

Trades.

I confesse, I cannot for the present object any further a∣gainst

your interpretation of the Original Curse, in Gen. 2.17. and yet I am not satisfied in the point in question: Therefore I will pro∣pound another Scripture to your consideration, to prove that Christ bare our sins by imputation, and our punishments really; as it is re∣ceived and interpreted by a learned Divine.

* 1.12In Esai 53.4. He bare our iniquities, and sustained our sor∣rows. He saith not only, that he sustained Sorrows, but [our] Sorrows: yea the Text hath it more significantly [our very] Sorrows; or our Sorrows themselves; that is to say, those very Sorrows that else we should have born.

Divine,

I do much wonder at the learned Author, that he should so grosly mistake the true scope of this Text, seeing the Evan∣gelist Matthew hath so fully expounded it to his hand, in a quite contrary sense; and his exposition is beyond all exception.

* 1.13The coherence of Matthew in opening this place of Esai, lies thus: After that Iesus had cured Peters wives mother of her Fever, Mat. 8.14. then in vers. 17. they brought unto him many that were possessed with Devils; and he cast out the spirits with his Word; and healed all that were sick: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by Esaias the Prophet: He took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses.* 1.14 But here it may be considered how Christ did bear our infirmities and sicknesses; whether did he take them from the sick, and lay them upon his own body, or how did he bear them? The answer is, that he did not bear them from the sick, as a Porter bears a burden, by laying them upon his own body, but he bare them away from the sick, by his divine Power, in curing their in∣firmities. And this action of Christ is alledged by Matthew, as a proof of the Divine nature, dwelling in the humain nature of Christ: for in asmuch as he was able to bear away their sorrows and diseases by a word speaking,* 1.15 which no other man was able to do, it did e∣vidently prove that he had a Divine nature dwelling in his humain nature.

Therefore though your Author make such a great florish about the signification of the Hebrew word, as if he saw further into the meaning of it than the Evangelist Matthew did, affirming that Christ bare our iniquities by imputation, and our sorrows (namely Hell sorrows) * really, yet it is evident that he doth grosly mistake the meaning of the Ho y Ghost, if Matthews exposition be of any

credit; yea he doth grosly mistake the meaning of the word Ini∣quities, and of the word Sorrows, and of the word Bearing.

Trades.

Sir, in my apprehensions Matthew doth not undertake to expound the full meaning of Esay, for E••ay makes mention of ini∣quities, as well as of sorrows; but Matthew makes no mention that Christ bare our iniquities; therefore it may still be concluded from Esay, that Christ bare our iniquities by Gods imputation: if so, then he must of necessity bear our sorrows, namely the wrath of God, as it is due to our iniquities, for our redemption there-from.

Divine.

Although your Author doth translate the Hebrew word in Esay, by the word Iniquities, yet the Holy Ghost by the Evangelist Matthew doth translate it Infirmities; and sundry o∣ther learned men do also translate it Infirmities, Maladies, Diseas∣es, &c. But what need is there to alledge the testimony of learned Translators, seeing the Holy Ghost in Matthew doth so translate it to our hands: and truly me thinks your Author should not be more learned than the Holy Ghost.

I grant notwithstanding, that the word in Esay, doth signifie Iniquities, as your Author doth translate it; but yet the sense of the word must not be wrested, to maintain the common doctrine of Imputation, as your Author doth intend it: but in this place the word Iniquities must be taken figuratively, for the punishment of our Iniquities, by infirmities and sicknesses; and so Matthew doth expresse the meaning to be: and so Iob doth open the Hebrew word to mean, Iob. 5.6. Iohn 5.14. Christ bare our iniquities when he bare our infirmities and sicknesses which God had inflicted upon many pe••sons for their iniquities, but yet he did not take the leprosie from the lepers, and bear it upon his own body, as a Por∣ter bears a burden; but he bare it away from the sick, by the pow∣er of his Godhead: and thus Christ bare our iniquities, according to the true meaning of Esay and Matthew, compared together.

Trades.

Sir it seemeth strange to me that you should make Esay to speak nothing at all, neither of Christ bearing our iniquites by Gods imputation, nor of his bearing our sorrows, from the wrath of God really; seeing it is not my Author alone, but sundry other learned Divines, that do so expound this Text. But I desire you for my better satisfaction, to make your exposition good from the coherence.

Divine.

I will endeavour to satisfie your desire: The coherence

of this Text must be fetched from chap. 52.13. as Tremelius doth well observe: There the Prophet speaks of the most excellent ser∣vice of the Mediator, which he should most wisely and prudently accomplish for our Redemption: then in chap. 53. he begins to tell us, that the knowledge thereof shall be published abroad in the world, by the report of the Gospel: but in vers. 1. the Prophet breaks out into admiration, at the strange unbeleef of most of the Jews that would not imbrace the report of this glad tydings: and thereupon the Prophet doth enquire into the reason of their unbe∣leef: and the first reason was, because they held the person of the mediator to be but basely descended, verse 1.2. they held him to be no better than a bare and base man; without any such form or beauty as they expected should be in their Messiah: for they ex∣pected that their Messiah should come among them, like a glori∣ous conquering King; and therefore because his birth, breeding, and parentage, was so poor and obscure, they despised him as a poor shoot from a dry decayed stock: and in this respect the Jews said in scorn, Is not this the Carpenter? Mark 6.3. and Is not this the Carpenters Son? Mat. 13.55. and in scorn they said, that they knew not whence he was; Iohn 9.24. and in scorn they asked him where he had his Learning? Iohn 7.15. In these and such like respects, they were ashamed to acknowledge him to be their Messi∣ah; and therefore they refused to beleeve on him, Iohn. 12.37.

But the truth is, if their eys had been in their heads, they might have seen that he was descended of the right Kingly line of David, and that he was the next apparent heir to the Crown, if Tyrants had given him his right, according to the common Law of Nations, as it is evident by his Genealogy from Ioseph his reputed Father, in Mat. 1. and by his mother Maries Genealogie, in Luke 3. But at this time his parents durst not openly manifest their Kingly right, for fear of Tyrants, they kept their descent only in private records, for the latter part of their Genealogie, in Matth. 1. and in Luk. 3. is not cited from the publick Scripture Records, as the first part is: and in this regard Christs parents might well say to their faithful friends and kindreds, as it is said in Esai 3.7. Make me no Prince of the People, for there is no bread nor clothing in my house: for now ••he Tabernacle or Family of David was fallen into decay, as Amos foretold it should (Amos 9.11.) Therefore seeing there was no

outward form of Kingly Majesty in him, (as they expected should be in their Messiah) they set him at naught.

And therefore it was now high time for the Prophet to shew forth the true worth and dignity of his person, in this fourth verse; not from his Kingly descent, from Davids loyns, but from the dig∣nitie of his Godhead, which he did cleerly manifest unto them, by bearing away their infirmities from them, which God had inflicted on them for their iniquities. So then, the first part of this verse, (I mean so much as you have cited) speaks nothing at all of the suf∣ferings of Christ; much lesse of his sufferings from Gods wrath. But yet the latter part of this fourth verse doth speak of the suffer∣ings of Christ, though nothing at all of his sufferings from Gods wrath for our sins. The last clause of this fourth verse runs thus, yet we esteemed him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. That is to say, though the glory of his Godhead did shine in our eys, by his miraculous cures, yet we in our posteritie, (the Scribes and Phari∣sees) did esteem him no better than a grosse Impostor, and there∣fore we put him to death, as a vild malefactor; and then we judged him to be smitten and stricken of God, for his deserved faults. And this interpretation is further confirmed by the next verse.

Trades.

I must needs acknowledge that you have given me good satisfaction in the interpretation of this fourth verse: but yet I am not satisfied in the point in question: therefore I will propound the next verse also, to your consideration. The text runs thus, in Esa. 53.5. He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and by his stripes we are healed.

From this Text sundry learned Divines do conclude, that Christ was wounded and bruised with the wrath of God, for our sins.

Divine.

These words (I confesse) do plainly prove, that Christ did bear divers wounds, bruises, and stripes, for our peace and heal∣ing; but yet the text doth not say that he bare these wounds, bruis∣es and stripes, from Gods wrath, for our sins, as you would have it.

But for your better understanding of the true scope and drift of this Text, I will propound and answer three questions.

• 1. Who did wound him, and bruise him?
• 2. Where did he bear those wounds, bruises and stripes?
• 3. For what end was he wounded?

1. To the first question, who did wound him, bruise him, and stripe him? The answer is, It was Satan, by his instruments, ac∣cording to Gods prediction, in Gen. 3.15. Thou shalt pierce him in the footsoals: that is to say, Thou Satan shalt put the promised seed to death as a wicked malefactor, by thy instruments, the Scribes, Pharisees, and the Roman Souldiers: thou shalt pierce his hands and feet, by nailing them to the Crosse, Act. 4.27, 28. All this was done according to the determinate councel of God, and in that re∣spect God may be said to wound him; but yet God did not wound him as an angry judge, for our sins, as you would have it; but for the tryal of his Mediatorial obedience; and therefore he is said to learn obedience by the things that he suffered. Heb. 5.8.

2. The second question is this, Where did Christ bear these wounds, bruises, and stripes, whether in his body, or in his Soul, or in both?

The answer is, that he bare them in his body only, and not in his Soul: his Soul was not capable of bearing wounds, bruises, and stripes: Satan could not wound his Soul, but yet he did wound his body, by stirring up the wicked Jews and Romans to wound, bruise and stripe him in his Body: and this Paul affirmeth, saying, That the Iews fulfilled all his sufferings, just as it was foretold by all the Prophets. Act. 13.27.29. if so, then the wounds, bruises and stripes here spoken of, cannot be understood of inward wounds, bruis∣es and stripes, from Gods wrath, for our sins: as you would have it.

Secondly, Peter doth teach us to expound this Text, of Christs Bodily sufferings only: His words run thus, He bare our sins in his body on the Tree: (1 Pet. 2.24.) That is to say, He bare our punishments, (for such punishments after the Hebrew phrase are called Sin,) when he suffered as a sinful malefactor, upon the Tree. If Peters phrase (he bare our sins in his Body, on the Tree,) had meant any thing of his bearing our sins, by Gods imputation, or of his bearing of Gods wrath for our sins; as you would have it; then truly his case of sufferings had not been a sit example to have been applyed to the case of those beleeving servants, that suffered unjust bodily punishments, from their cruel Heathen Masters: the Apo∣stle doth exhort those beleeving Servants to patient suffering, from the example of Christ, who did no sin, neither was there any guile found in his mouth: and when he suffered, he threatned not,

but committed his case to him that judgeth righteously. Why did Christ commit his case to him that judgeth righteously? surely, because he suffered unjustly from the hands of wicked men, if he had suffered the wrath of God for our sins; this appeal to God for justice against himself had not bin sutable.

Therefore by the judgement of the Apostle Peter, the wounds, bruises, and stripes, which Christ suffered, were not inflicted upon his Soul, from Gods wrath, for our sins; but upon his body only from the unjust wrath of Satan and his instruments.

The third question is this: For what end was Christ wounded bruised and striped?

Answer. The end is expressed in the latter part of the Text, by a double phrase. First, It was for the Chastisement of our Peace. And secondly, It was for our healing. Both these phrases are Sy∣nonina, and expresse one and the same end of Christs sufferings.

1. First, He was wounded by Satan and his instruments; but yet it was done by Gods appointment, as a chastisement upon him, for our Peace: in the matter of his chastisement God aimed at the tryal of his Mediatorial obedience: for Christ learned obedience by that which he suffered, Heb. 5.8. Secondly, It was for our Peace, for when his Mediatorial oblation was found perfect through tryals; it became the meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers atonement; which was for our peace: he was made perfect (through sufferings) and so he became the Author (or procurer) of eternal salvation to all that obey him, (by belee∣ving in him,) Heb. 5.9. God appointed Satan by his Instruments, to wound him, bruise him, and stripe him, as a malefactor, and to do his worst, to make him shrink, if he could, from the exact per∣formance of his Mediatorial oblation: and in this respect, the Lord delighted to bruise him, and to put him to griefe, when he made his Soul an offering for sin, Esai. 53.10. This was the end of Gods chastisement; but Satans end was quite contrary, for he wounded him to make him grudge at his sufferings, and to make him unwil∣ing to dy, that so he might spoile the perfection of his Mediatorial obedience. The like wicked end he had, in wounding the body of Iob; God aimed at the tryal of Iobs Faith and patience; but Sa∣tan aimed to bring him unto a sinful distemper, by his sufferings, that so he might provoke him to curse God; and that thereby he

might provoke God to punish Iob more deeply.

Secondly, Gods end in suffering Satan and his instruments to wound and stripe our blessed Mediator, was that by his stripes we might be healed: Stripes properly taken do not heal, but wound the flesh: but as stripes are as a Synecdoche of his sufferings, for the tryal of his Mediatorial obedience; so they have a healing ver∣tue; for when God had tryed his obedience, and found it perfect and intire, lacking nothing; then he became the Author, or the Meritorious procuring cause of Gods atonement for our healing; for by his Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement (tryed through suf∣ferings,) he procured his Fathers Atonement for our pardon, or for our Healing; for pardon and forgivenesse doth heal our sinful Souls; as David doth expresse it, in Psal. 41.14. and in Psal. 103.3. This healing of the Soul is also ascribed to the Mediator, as well as to the Father; namely, as he is the Meritorious procuring cause of the Fathers Atonement; and therefore Matthew doth tell us, that Christ did not only heal mens bodies, but forgive sins; Mat. 9.2.6. and healing in Mat. 13.15. is expounded to be forgiving of sins, in Mark 4.12. and Christ saith thus to his people, I am Iehovah, that healeth thee, Exod. 15.26. and he came to his peo∣ple with healing in his wings: Mal. 4.2. Psal. 147.3. Ezek. 34.16. Esai. 33.24. And thus we are healed by his stripes; namely by the perfection of his Mediatorial obedience, (which was found perfect through sufferings,) he procured his Fathers Atonement for our healing: and thus Christ himself doth open the perfection of his obedience, through sufferings, in Esai. 50.5, 6. The Lord hath opened mine Ear (to attend my Fathers will, through all my sufferings and tryals,) And I was not rebellious, nor turned away back (namely, I did not grudge at the sharpnesse, nor at the shame∣fulnesse of my wounds and stripes,) I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to the nippers, (not only as an outward Patient, but as an inward Agent: I freely gave my self to be tryed by stripes, in all ready obedience to my Fathers will, without the least inward un∣wilingness to have any part of my appointed sufferings abated. Our Saviour did twise give his back to the smiters, 1. in Mat. 26.67. and 2. in Mat. 27.26. H•• might if he would, have escaped out of their hands, he had power to do it, but he would not do it, be∣cause he minded not the ease of his flesh, but that he might do his

Fathers will; for as his Father delighted to break him with stripes, &c. for the tryal of his Mediatorial obedience, Esai. 53.10. so the Son delighted to learn obedience, by that which he suffered; and so being found perfect, (through afflictions) he became the Meritorious Author of eternal Salvation, to all that obey him, by beleeving in him, Heb. 5.8, 9. He gave his back to the smiters, not only as a patient malefactor, but also as an active Mediator; he did in all points order his affections to do Gods will through all his suf∣ferings: and so the healing vertue of his stripes, proceeded not from his bare passive obedience, but from his active Mediatorial obedi∣ence, which was wrapped up, and conjoyned with his patient pas∣sive sufferings, as I have expounded the matter more at larg••, in Gal. 3.13.

But I think it necessary to give you a word of caution more, touching this phrase, By his stripes we are healed.* 1.16 Take heed of the error of the Papists, for they do attribute a healing vertue to his bodily stripes inflicted upon him by the Jews, as a patient male∣factor; take heed of this literal sense; for as the flesh of Christ doth not profit us, Ioh. 6.63. so in like sort no outward pain that was inflicted upon his flesh, (simply considered) doth heal our Souls: the healing vertue lies in another ingredient, (which our Saviour did mingle together, with his outward sufferings) and that was his inward active Mediatorial obedience, in doing Gods will in and through all his sufferings: his Godhead did carry on his humain nature, with such an inward active power of obedience, to his Fa∣thers will, through all his sufferings, that he delighted to give his back to the smiters, and his cheeks to the nippers; without the least turning away back, or without any the least natural unwillingnesse to make his oblation: and truly if this ingredient of his divine na∣ture, concurring with his humain natue in the active power of his obedience to his Fathers will had been wanting, all his sufferings (which he suffered as a meer patient) could not have profited us for our Redemption: for no other obedience is Mediatorial for our Redemption, but that which proceeded from the joynt con∣currence of both his natures: his flesh, or humain actions alone considered, cannot profit us; therefore not his Blood, nor his Crosse, nor his Stripes, can heal us, alone considered; as the blind Papists do superstitiously affirm. They (out of their blind devo∣tion)

adore these things as the meritorious cause of their salvation; they adore the nails, and the woodden Crosse whereon our Lord was crucified as a malefactor: and they pretend it is out of love to Christ; but they might do well to consider whether it be the pro∣perty of a dutiful child to love the knife of the murderer that killed his Father.

But I will leave them to their blind devotion, and speak a little more of the healing vertue of his stripes.

I hold it necessary often to remember this distinction; namely, that Christ suffered both as a malefactor,* 1.17 and as a Mediator, at one and the same time: he did not only patiently suffer others to scourge him, (for many blessed Martyrs have done as much as that) but he did more than patiently suffer; for he delighted to give his back to the smiters, and he delighted to give his Soul to God (in the time of his sufferings) as a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement, for the pro∣curing of his Fathers Atonement to poor sinners, Esai. 53.10. Iohn 10.18. This kind of obedience I call his Mediatorial obedience: and yet it was performed in the time of his passive obedience: and thus by his Mediatorial obedience through death, and through stripes, he hath destroyed him that had the power of death, that is the Devil. Heb. 2.14.

Trades.

I confesse I dare not deny your interpretation, neither of Esay, nor of Peter; and yet I am not fully satisfied touching that phrase of Peter, how Christ bare our sins in his body, on the Tree: I pray you therefore open that phrase a little more fully.

Divine.

You know that the Rul••rs of the Jews did account our Saviour as a notorious sinner, and that therefore they did instigate Pilate to punish him as a sinner, in his body, on the Tree: 1 Pet. 2.24. and in this sense he bare our sins; namely the punishment of sin, in his body on the Tree: for he was crucified as a sinful male∣factor, and sin is often put for the outward punishment of sin, as in Psal. 49.5. and in Psal. 31.10. My strength faileth me because of mine iniquitie:* 1.18 the Geneva reads it thus, My strength faileth me because of my pain; or because of the punishment of mine ini∣quitie. So in 2 Kin. 7.9. Sin will come upon us: that is, we shall b•• punished for our sins. So in Psal. 46.6. They search out ini∣quities; that is to say, wicked Tyrants d•• search out the Godly, whom they count as the cheef of sinners, that they may punish them

for their supposed iniquities, such as they please to lay to their charge. So in Gen. 19.15. Lot was bidden to fly out of Sodom, that he might not be destroyed in the iniquity or in the punishment of the Citie: And Aaron and his sons must not omit any of their Priestly garments in the time of their administration, least they bear Iniquity, and dy. Exod. 28.43. Yea Sin and Iniquitie is frequently put for the outward punishment of sin and iniquitie, ei∣ther from Gods justice, or from mans justice, as all these places do witnes, Lev. 5.17. Lev. 10.17. Lev. 20.17.19, 20. Num. 5.31. Numb. 12.11. Ezek. 4.4, 5. Zach. 14.19. Gen. 4.7. Also in sundry other Scripture the term Sin is put for the punishment of sin, by outward reproaches, wounds, bruises, stripes, and death, which God or man doth inflict upon men for their sins: and in this sense Peter means that Christ bare our sins in his Body on the Tree; when he was punished and crucified as a Sinful malefactor.

But now seeing I am upon the phrase of Bearing Sin, I will shew you how Christ did bear our sins divers ways, in several senses.

First, He bare our sins,* 1.19 and carried our sorrows when he bare a∣way our diseases (as they were the effects of sin) by the power of his Godhead; as I have expounded, Esa. 53.4.

Secondly, Christ bare our sins, as our Priest and Sacrifice, by making Atonement with his Father, for our sins; as I have ex∣pounded, Esa. 53.6.

Thirdly, Christ bare our sins, as a Porter bears a burden, when he bare our punishments, which we inflicted upon him for sin, in his body on the Tree: as I have exp••unded, 2 Pet. ••.24.

Fourthly, Christ bare our sins when he did patiently bear our sinful imputations: and this is proved by the complaint of Christ, in Psal. 40.12. Innumerable troubles have compassed me about:* 1.20 my sins have taken such hold upon me, that I am not able to look up; they are more in number than the hairs of my head; therefore my heart faileth me. In these words Christ doth not complain against his Father for his imputing of our sins to him (as the common do∣ctrine of Imputation doth make the stream of Interpreters to speak for if Christ had but grudged against his Fathers dealing with him,* 1.21 but in the least measure; he had spoiled the efficacy of his Medi∣atorial obedience. These words of Christ are a complaint indeed,

but he doth not complain against Gods dealing, but against the dealing of the wicked Scribes and Pharisees, because they compasse him about with innumerable false accusations and imputations of sin; so that he was not able to look up, he was not able to justifie himself before Pilate, because he was a corrupt Judge, and favour∣ed his false accusers: and this interpretation needs not seem strange to any that do but seriously compare with consideration, verse 11. and verse 14. with this 12 verse, and that do but compare toge∣ther the manifold tumultuous accusations and imputations of Sin that the generality of the Jews did lay against our Saviour, both be∣fore Pilate, and before the multitude, at sundry times.

The like instance we have in Psal. 55.3. where Divid doth complain against his malignant adversaries, because they brought iniquity upon him, and did furiously hate him: The Geneva note upon the word Iniquity, is this, They have defamed me, as a wicked person; namely, by devising false and sinful imputations against me; they took them for true reports, and thereupon, they grew inra∣ged, and did furiously hate him; and thus David bare sin; by bearing patiently their false accusations and imputations of sin.

There is yet another Scripture that doth evidently prove that Christ bare our sins, by bearing the false imputations of sin, from the malignant Jews, in Psal. 69.5. O God thou knowest my foolish∣nesse, and my guiltinesses are not hid from thee. In these words our Saviour doth not complain to his Father of his hard dealing with him, by imputing all our sins to him; but he complains to God a∣gainst the malignant Jews, because they did lay many false and sin∣ful imputations to his charge; for by foolishnesse, and guiltinesses, in the plural number, is meant sin and wickednesse in abundance: when one accusation could not prevail, they multiplyed their ac∣cusations one after another.

The common doctrine of imputation makes this Query: How did Christ complain to God of his foolishnesse, and guiltinesses; seeing he was in himself free from all sin? They answer it thus, That Christ doth here complain to God, of the heavy load of sin, that he had put upon him, by imputing the sins of all the Elect un∣to him; and thus they make Christ to grudge against his Father, which if it were true, would have spoiled the efficacy of his Media∣torial obedience: Therefore I reject this interpretation, as not

consonant to the mind and meaning of the holy Ghost.

Secondly, I answer more directly thus, that Christ doth here complain to his Father against the malignant Jews, because they did most unjustly lay many false and grievous imputations of sin to his charge; yea, through this whole Psalm, our Savior doth com∣plain to God against the malignant Jews, for imputing so many sinful crimes to his charge; and in the fift verse he doth appeal to God to judge in the case, saying, O God, thou knowest my foolishnes, and my guiltinesses; if any such be as my malignant Adversaries do charge me withal: and this appeal is like to that which David makes in Psal 7.3. O Lord my God, if I have done this thing, if there be any wickedness in my hands; then &c. and in this very sense Christ saith, O God, Thou knowest my wickedness, whe∣ther I am a Blasphemer, or an Impostor, or a Traytor against Cae∣sar, as my malignant Adversaries do charge me.

And thus Christ bare our sins, by bearing patiently our false Im∣putations of sin; But he doth not complain against God for load∣ing him with our sins by his imputation; neither the phrase, nor the coherence will accord to that sense.

Trades.

Sir, I dare not gainsay any of your Interpretations hi∣therto, and yet I am not satisfied in the point in question: and there∣fore I desire to propound the next verse to your consideration;

In Isa. 53.6. All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid upon him the iniquity of us all.

King James Translation doth render the last clause thus, The Lord hath made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him; namely, by im∣puting all our sins to him; and so consequently. The Lord did im∣pose upon him all our deserved punishments.

Divine,

I see that the common Doctrine of Imputation is very strongly fastned in your mind, and therefore you do readily take the advantage of every word that hath but any shew of a literal sense that way, though in the true sense of the place it looks a quite contrary way.

But for the better understanding of this Text, I will propound two questions.

1. Whose sins did the Lord lay upon Christ?

2. After what manner, and for what end did the Lord lay all our sins and iniquities upon Christ?

To the first question I answer thus. That the Lord laid all the iniquities of all the Elect only upon Christ; They are the lost sheep that are here spoken of: and this exposition the Apostle Peter do••h make of this place, 1 Pet. 2.24. he tels unbelieving servants, that before their conversion they were gone astray like lost sheep, but now saith he, by your conversion to the Faith, you are returned to the Shepherd and Bishop of your Souls: So then, it is the iniquities of the elected Believers only that the Lord laid upon Christ.

The second question is this, after w••at manner and for what end did the Lord lay their iniquities upon Christ?

First, I answer Negatively, not by Imputation.

Secondly, I answer affirmatively, That the true manner how the Lord did lay all our iniquities upon Christ, was in the very same manner as the Lord laid the sins of all Isra••l upon the Priest and Sacrifice, and no otherwise.

* 1.221. The Lord did lay all our iniquities upon Christ, as upon our Priest; and this was typified in the Law, where the Lord appointed the High Priest to bear the iniquity of all the holy things of the sons of Israel: And how must he bear their iniquities? The answer is by his Priestly appearing before Jehovah with his Priestly apparel, and especially with his golden plate upon his forehead, wherein was engraven Holiness to Jehovah: Exod. 28.38. and herein the High Priest was a lively Type of the Priestly Nature of Christ, namely of his Divine Nature (which was engraven in his Human Nature, Heb. 1.3.) by which he did sanctifie himself, Ioh. 17.19. when he went into the h••ly Place of Heaven to appear before God for our Atone∣ment, Heb. 9.14. as the high Priest did with his golden Plate when he went to make Atonement for all Israel in the holy Place.

Secondly, The Lord laid all our Iniquities upon Christ as upon our Priest; and this was typified by the Lords laying of all the sins of all the Congregation of Israel upon the Priests by their eating of the peoples Sin-offering in the holy Place, for the Lord gave it to them to Bear the Iniquity of the Congregation, and to make Atone∣ment for them before Jehovah,* 1.23 Lev. 10.17. Two things are observable in this verse; 1. The manner how the Lord did lay the Iniquity of all the Congregation upon the Priests, and that was by eating the Peoples Sin-offering (as Mediators) in the holy Place. 2. The end why they did eat the Peoples Sin-offering in the holy Place,

was to make Atonement for them before Jehovah: The former part of the verse saith, That the Peoples Sin-offering was given to the Priests (namely, by the Lords appointment) that they should Bear the Iniquity of the Congregation: and the latter pa••t of the verse sheweth the manner how they did bear the Iniquity of the Congregation; and that was, by making Atonement for them; and their Atonement was made assoon as ever they had eaten the Peo∣ples Sin offering in the holy place. So then, by this Scripture it is evident, That to Bear Iniquity, and to make Atonement for Ini∣quity, is all one.

Secondly, The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ, as upon our Sacrifice; and this is elegantly expressed by Isaiah, He poured out his Soul to death, and bare the sin of many, and made Intercession for Transgressors: Isa. 53.12. All these three terms are Synonima, and they are all joyned together in this Text, to declare unto us the true manner how the Lord did lay all our Iniquities upon Christs Sacrifice. 1. He poured out his soul to death, as the bloud of the Sacrifice was poured out upon the Altar in great plenty; and 2. He bare the sin of many, namely, by his Mediatorial Sacrifice; for thereby he procured his Fathers Atonement, and so he bare away their sins from them. And 3. He made intercession for Trans∣gressors; for he by his own bloud entred into the holy Place, to make intercession for Transgressors, Heb. 9.12.14. Heb. 12.24. namely, for all the Elect, who are Transgressors by Nature and Life, and have need of a Mediator to make Atonement for them by his Sacrifice of Atonement.

Thirdly, God laid all our sins upon Christ, as upon our Sacri∣fice of Atonement; and in this sense the Apostle Paul doth ex∣plain the true nature of the Levitical bearing of sin, in Heb. 9.26. Christ appeared to put away (or to bear away) Sin: This was the end of his coming into the World; and then in v. 28. Christ was once offered (namely as our Sacrifice of Atonement) to bear the sins of the many: This was the means by which he obtained his end: So then, by Paul's exposition of the Levitical bearing, Christ bare our sins (not by his Fathers imputation, but) by procuring his Fa∣thers Atonement for us, both as he was our Priest and Sacrifice.

Fourthly, If you will build the common Doctrine of Imputati∣on upon this phrase, The Lord laid all our Iniquities upon Christ,

then by the same phrase you must affirm, That the Father laid all our sins upon himself, by imputing the guilt of all our sins to him∣self; for the Father is said to bear our sins as well as Christ; for David prayed thus to the Father,* 1.24 in Psal. 25.18. Bear all my sins: so the Hebrew is. So then, the Father doth bear our sins as well as the Son: The Son bears our sins Mediatorially, by his Sacrifice of Atonement, namely, as it was the meritorious procuring cause of his Fathers Atonement; but the Father doth bear away our sins by his Atonement, Pardon, and Forgiveness, and thereby a sinner is made formally just: and thus David meant when he prayed to the Father to bear all his sins, namely, to bear away the guilt of them from him, by his free pardon and merciful forgiveness: and as soon as ever a sinner hath obtained the Fathers bearing of his sins, he is formally just, and so he is in a blessed condition: and so David doth explane the matter in Psal. 32.1. Blessed is the man whose Transgression is born: (So the Hebrew is) namely, whose Trans∣gression is born away by the Fathers Atonement and Forgiveness: and the Apostle Paul doth so expound the Hebrew Word in Rom. 4.7. Blessed is the man whose Transgression is forgiven: So then by this comparing of Davids Hebrew word with Pauls Greek word, it follows, that the Father bears our sins from us by his Atonement, that is to say, his Forgiveness: and this Interpretation is also con∣firmed by other Scriptures; David said, I will confess my Trans∣gressions to the Lord, and thou barest the Iniquity of my sin: Psal. 32.5. and Job doth thus expostulate with the Father, Why dost thou not bear my Trespass, and pass over mine Iniquity? So the Hebrew is in Iob 7.21. and David said, I beseech thee, O Lord, Bear away the Iniquity of thy servant: 2 Sam. 24.10. And the godly Converts in Hosea pray thus, Take away (lift up, or bear away) all Iniquity: Hos. 14.2. that is to say, Pardon or Forgive our Iniquities; not only as a Judge when he forgives or acquits a Malefactor, but as a Father forgives his children, and receives them into favor; and therefore the godly Converts in the next words say thus, Receive us graciously, or do us good; and indeed when the Father doth bear away our sins, by his atonement, he doth mer∣cifully forgive them, and receive them at the same time into favour, as his adopted children: and therefore Moses doth describe the nature of Gods pardon and forgivenesse, thus; I••hovah is long suf∣fering,

and much in mercy; bearing Iniquitie and Trespasse. Numb. 14.8. and then in verse 19; he prayeth thus, Bear I beseech thee, the iniquitie of this People, according to the greatnesse of thy mercy: and in Ezod. 32.31. he prays thus, If thou wilt bear their sin, &c. and in Gen. 50.17. Iosephs brethren said thus to Ioseph, I pray thee bear now the Trespasse of thy brethren, and their sin: Ioseph had pardoned and bore away their sin before; but now they de∣sire a further assurance of ••is full Atonement: In like sort God said to Cain thus, If thou do well, is there not Bearing? that is to say, Is there not a bearing away of thy sin, by my merciful Atonement? Gen. 4.7. Nasa, the Hebrew word to Bear, is used for bearing a∣way, as in Exod. 10.19. He took away the Locu••ts, and cast them into the Red sea, there remained not one: and so doth the Father bear away our sins, by his forgivenesse.

And it is further evident, that the Fathers bearing of Sin, is a term of his merciful and Fatherly Atonement, by Psal. 32.1. for there David doth describe the true nature of the Fathers Atone∣ment, to poor beleeving sinners, by three terms, which are all Synonima.

• 1. Bessed is the man whose transgression is born.
• 2. Blessed is the man whose sin is covered.
• 3. Blessed is the man, whose iniquity is not imputed.

All these thre terms may thus be opened.

First, Blessed is the man whose sins are born away, or forgiven; (namely) by Gods merciful Atonement, as the Apostle doth ex∣pound it, in Rom. 4.7.

Secondly, Blessed is the man whose sins are covered; namely, by the Fathers merciful Atonement: for that person that covers sin in this Text, must not be understood of the Mediators covering, but of the Fathers covering, and of the Fathers bearing of sin away: in like sort in other places of Scripture, the Godly do pray to the Father, mercifully to cover their sins, or to free them from their sins; both expressions are joyned together in Psal. 79.9. rid us free, and mercifully cover our sins, and our trespasses; thou wilt mercifully cover them, or expiate them, by thy pardoning mercy, Psal. 65.4. Again, Thou hast forgiven the iniquitie of thy people; thou hast coved all their sins. Selah. Psal. 85.2. In this Text the Prophet doth open and expound the Fathers covering to be no∣thing

else but his mercyful forgivenesse. Again, God being com∣passionate, did mercifully cover their iniquity; that is to say, he did mercifully forgive their Iniquity, Psal. 78.38. On the contra∣ry, when the enemies of Gods people grew implacable, in their malicious designes, the Godly did thus imprecate the wrath of God upon them; saying, Cover not their iniquitie, nor let their sin be blotted out. Neh. 4.5. Psal 69.27. therefore it follows by good consequence from the premises, that whensoever the Father doth cover any mans sins, he doth blot them out of his remembrance, by his merciful Atonement, pardon, and forgivenesse.

The Mediator also doth cover sin; namely as a Mediator, by procuring the Fathers pardon and forgivenesse; for by his Media∣torial Sacrifice of Atonement, he procured his Fathers Atonement; and in that respect he is called the propitiation for our sins, 1 Ioh. 2.2. and in that respect also, the burnt offerings, Sin offerings, and tres∣passe offerings, (being types of Christs sacrifice of Atonement) are said to cover sin; namely, by procuring the Fathers Atonement. Exod. 29.36. Lev. 1.4. Lev. 4.20. Lev. 5.6.10.13. And so Iacob, by a guift of Atonement, did cover Esaus face; that is to say, He did procure Esaus Atonement, Gen. 32.20. And the mercy seat that covered the Ark, is called The covering mercy seat, Exod. 25.17. but the 70. translate it the propitiatory covering: which term the Apostle doth apply to Christs Sacrifice of Atone∣ment; saying, Whom God hath fore-ordained to be a propitiation through Faith in his blood, Rom. 3.25. But as I said ••re-while, Da∣vid speaks not of the Mediators covering, but of the Fathers cover∣ing of sin, by his merciful Atonement, which is the only formal cause of a sinners justice or Iustification, for it is God the Father that doth justifie poor beleeving sinners. Rom. 8.33.

Thirdly, Blessed is the man whose iniquity is not imputed, name∣ly by the Fathers legal justice: A malefactor that is legally acquit∣ted from his sin, by the Judge, (it may be for want of due proof) hath no sin imputed to him legally: but yet the Iudge may still su∣spect him to be a sinner; therefore the Iudges Atonement or Re∣conciliation towards such a sinner, doth much differ from God the Fathers non-Imputation of sin; for whensoever God the Father doth not impute sin to any, he doth fully acquit such sinners, not only as a Iudge, but also as a reconciled Father: 2 Cor. 5.18, 19.

and therefore they must needs be fully blessed, whose iniquities are not imputed by the Father.

All these 3 tearms are Synonima and they do all sweetly ex∣pound each other, and they do all set out the true manner, how sinners are made just and blessed, namely, when their sins are borne away, Covered and not imputed by the Fathers mercifull Attonement, pardon and forgiveness.

But now I will againe returne unto that phraise in Esa. 53.6.

How the Lord laid all our iniquities upon Christ; namely, not as the common doctrine of imputation teacheth,* 1.25 from the phrase of the Lords laying our iniquities upon Christ, for then this ab∣surd consequence will presently follow; that the Father must lay all our sins upon himselfe by imputation, as well as upon Christ by imputation, for the Father doth beare our sins as well as Christ. 2 ly. If God the Father was angry with the mediator because he did beare our sins, then God the Father must be angry with him∣selfe, because he in like sort doth beare our sins: such absurb con∣sequences as these, the common doctrin of imputation doth often fall into. The word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 which is translated in ver. 6. hath laid upon, is translated in the 12. ver. of this 53. chap. hath made intercession & therefore the verb signifying both incurere fecit et- intercessit is too weak a foundation for the doctrine of imputation, and of Christ suffering Gods wrath.

Trads.

I do not take this phrase of the Lords laying our iniqui∣ties upon Christ, from that kind of bearing sin, which was perform∣ed by the Priests and Sacrifice, as you do, but from an other Levi∣ticall practice, namely, from the imposition of hands upon the head of their sacrifices; every owner must impose both his hands upon the head of his sin-offering, and so make confession of his sins, upon the head of his sin-offering: this imposition of hands, did typifie the Lords laying our sins upon Christ, by imputation, and so Godly ex∣positers do understand it; see Exod. 29.10. Levit. 1.4.4.29. Lev. 8.14. Levit. 16.12, 21.

Divine,

You do exceeding grosly mistake the meaning of this im∣position; for first A private mans imposition upon the head of his sin offering, can not in reason represent Gods act, I cannot see how a private mans imposition, can represent Gods imputing of all the sins of all the Elect unto Christ. Secondly, neiether can that im∣position

of hands which was done by the Elders of Israel upon the head of the publique sin-offering, represent Gods act in his im∣puting all the sins of all the Elect to Christ, Levit. 4.13, 14, 15. for the Elders action doth represent the Churches action, and not Gods action. Thirdly, neither can that imposition of hands which was done by the Priest, Levit. 4.3. nor by the High Priest in Lev. 16.21. represent God the Fathers action, for the Priests and High Priests, were types of Christs Priestly nature, and not of the Fa∣ther; therefore, their imposition could not represent the Fathers action, in his imputing our sins to Christ.

Trades.

What then I pray you did this imposition of hands, with confession of sin, upon the head of the sin offering signifie?

* 1.26It signified the owners faith of dependance, upon his Sacrifice of Atonement, for the procuring of the Fathers Atonement for all those sins that he had confessed and repented of; for no mans sin-offering was accepted of God, except he made confession of his particular sins unto God, Levit. 5.5, 6. which confession of sin was ever joyned with a promise to forsake sin, Pro. 28.13. Psal. 51.20, 21. and the Ebrew Doctors do also say, that Atonement is not made for any man untill they confesse, and turne away from doing the like againe for ever, see Ains. in Levit. 5.5. and in Num. 5.7. Atonement is not made for sins past, without particular con∣fession, and without a promise of forsakeing the same sins for time to come; and therefore the practise of the Ceremoniall Law, was to renew their sacrifices of Atonement, as they renewed their sins.

Secondly, No mans sin-offering was accepted upon the Altar, unless he imposed both his hands, and leaned with all his might upon the head of his sin offering: and this imposition, was to ty∣pifie and to testifie his faith of dependance in resting and leaning upon Christs Sacrifice of Atonement, as the meritorious procure∣ing cause of the Fathers Atonement: And in this sense the Apostle doth teach us to understand this imposition of hands; Let us draw neer with a true heart to him and with fulness of faith, Heb. 10.22. that is to say, with the faith of full dependance, leaning upon Christs mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement, for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement; and the Ebrew Doctors do thus expound this imposition of h nds, with confession of sin upon the head of

the Sacrifice, They say that neither reconciliation doth in Levit. 16. nor the sin offering nor the trespasse offering, do make Atone∣ment for any, but for them that repent and beleeve in their Atone∣ment: See Ains. in Levit. 4.4. and in Levit. 1.4. and what o∣ther sacrifice of Atonement can any man beleeve in and depend upon, but the Sacrifice of Christ, who made his Soule a sacrifice of Atonement for all our sins.

And because Cain wanted this faith of dependance, therefore his Sacrifice made no Atonement for him; but on the contrarie, it was evill in Gods sight, 1 Iohn 3.12. and therefore God did re∣ject it, Gen. 4.5. But Abel offered a greater sacrifice then Cain, Heb. 11.4. because it was offered with faith of dependance upon the mediatoriall sacrifice of Christ, as the procuring cause of his Fathers Atonement; and the true nature of faith is defined by rest∣ing or leaning upon, as in Pro. 3.5. Esa 50.10. as the house doth leane upon the foundation, Esa. 28.16. Esa. 10.20.

Trades.

Your exposition of this Leviticall imposition, is different from the exposition of sundry learned men, who do expound it of lay∣ing our sins upon Christ by Gods imputation.

Divin

If you will make this imposition of hands upon the head of the sin offering to represent Gods laying of all the sins of the Elect upon Christ by imputation, then the same act of imposition upon the head of their Sacrifices of praise,* 1.27 must have the same significati∣on; for every owner must impose both his hands with all his might upon their Sacrifices of praise (as well as upon the head of their sin offerings) Levit. 3.2. but they did not impose hands upon the head of their Sacrifices of praise, with confession of sin, but with the confession of such particular mercies as they had received from God: see Ains. in Levit 3.2. Therefore that act of imposing hands upon the head of their Sacrifices of praise, cannot signifie Gods laying of our sins upon Christ by imputation; but it must needes signifie the laying of our persons by our faith of dependance upon the Sacrifice of Christ, for the procuring of Gods favourable ac∣ceptation, as well when we make confession of particular mercies, as when we make confession of particular sins.

And I will now give you some considerable Arguments, why the act of imposing hands upon the head of their Sacrifices, did signifie the owners faith of dependance upon Christ.

First, They imposed hands and leaned with all their might upon their burnt-offerings, Levit. 1.4. and this they did with prayer and supplicati••n to the Lord, for such mercies as they wanted, Iob. 40.8. 1 Sam. 13.12. Ezra 6.9, 10. Secondly, they imposed hands and leaned with all their might, upon their sin-offerings Levit. 4. and then they confessed their sins. Thirdly, They impose hands upon their sacrifices of praise Levit. 3.2, 8.13. and then they made confession of such mercies as they had receiv∣ed: therefore this act of imposition, must needes represent their faith of dependance in resting and leaning upon the mediatoriall Sa∣crifice of Christ, as the procuring cause of Gods favourable Atone∣ment and acceptance, and in this respect the Father doth testifie his acceptation of all the Elect that depend upon the mediator by faith, saying, Behold my servant whom I have chosen, my beloved in whom my soule is well pleased: in him shall the Heathen trust: Mat. 12.18.21. that is to say, in his mediatoriall person and Sa∣crifice, shall the Heathen trust, or depend for their acceptance.

Secondly, Wh••n our Saviour ascended into Heaven, he gave his Disciples power to cure diseases, by imposing their hands upon the sick, Mark 16.18. but our Saviour did not meane that they should cure sick persons by the bare act of laying their hands upon the sick, but by their faith especially, which they testified by the act of laying on their hands.

Thirdly, When Peter and Iohn came to Samaria, they prayed for certain beleevers, that they might receive the Holy Ghost, namely, that they might receive miraculous faith, and other such like gifts of the Holy Ghost, Acts 8.15.17. Acts 19.6. and after prayer as soone as they did but lay their hands upon them, they re∣ceived the Holy Ghost: and many other signes and wonders were wrought amongst the people by the hands of the Apostles, that is to say, by their miraculous faith, represented by the laying on of their hands; but if any did impose hands upon the sick without miraculous faith, they could not by that action worke miracles.

Fourthly, When Ananias was commanded to recover Paules sight, he laid his hands upon his eyes and said, brother Saul re∣ceive thy sight, Acts 9.17. and so Paul to represent his faith in the power of Christ, did lay his hands upon the father of Publius, and so did recover him, Acts 28.8.

Hence I reason thus, if laying on of hands was used in the pri∣mative Church, as a signe of their miraculous faith, then why may not the same act of laying on of hands upon the head of their sa∣crifices, signifie their faith of dependance upon the Sacrifice of Christ, as the procuring cause of the Fathers A••onement, and truly when faith of dep••ndance is joyned with Sacrifices, or with pray∣ers to God, then God is highly well pleased, with such sacrifices and with such prayers, 2 Chro. 13.18. 2 Chro. 16.7, 8. 2. Kings 18.21, 22. Fiftly, The action of the hands in holy duties, is often us∣ed to represent the faith of the Godly.

As for example, When Moses lift up his hands in prayer against the Amalakites, it is said that his hands were faith, Exod. 17.12. that is to say, were steady, for they were made steady by Aaron and Hur, as a signe of his faith which was steady, in the expectation of Gods assistance against the Amalakites. Againe, the lifting up of hands in prayer hath been often used as a signe of the faith of expectance: when the soules of Gods people have expected to receive such and such mercies from God, they have lift up their hands to receive what they pray for: In thy name saith David, will I lift up my hands Psal. 63.5. and let the lifting up of my hands be acceptable as evening Sacrifice, Psal. 141.2.

And as soone as Ezra had ended his prayer, all the people said amen, amen, with lifting up their hands by that action, they testi∣fied their faith of dependance, upon the mediator, for the receiv∣ing of what they had prayed for, Nehe. 8.6.

Sixtly, when Moses deprecated, that God would take away his Plagues from Pharaoh, he spread abroad his hands to signifie his faith in God for t••e averting of those judgements from Phara∣oh, Exod. 9.29.33. but spreading abroad the hands without faith, will worke no miracles.

Seventhly, The lifting up of hands was commanded to be u∣sed by the Priests, as a priestly action, when they blessed the peo∣ple in the Temple, immediately after the dayly morning Sacrifice, Num. 6.23. and in Levit. 9.22. Aaron lift up his hands toward the people and blessed them: In like manner after the reading of the Law, in their Synagogues, if any Priests were present, they lift up their hands and blesse the people; and this gesture they used to sig∣nifie their faith of expectance, that God would certainly blesse

those that did truly seeke his face in his Ordinances: In like sort when our Lord Christ had fulfilled his ministerie here upon earth, he lifted up his hands and blessed his Disciples, Luk. 24.50.

These severall gestures of the hands, did all represent the faith of the acter, and therefore we are warned to bring ••ean hands and a pure heart unto Gods worship, that is to say, such a clean heart, as purified by faith, Acts 15. and such cleare hands as are also purifi∣ed by faith, Psal. 24.4. Psal. 26 6. 1 Tim. 2.8.

From all these considerations laid together, it is evident that the act of laying on of hands with all their might, upon the head of their sacrifices, was to signifie the fulnesse of their faith of depen∣dance upon the mediatoriall Sacrifice of Christ, as the procuring cause of his Fathers Atonement, which comprehends under it, his mercifull pardon for our justification, and his favourable accep∣tation of our persons, with his adoption.

Eightly, If you will make the act of laying on of hands upon the head of the sin offering, to signifie Gods laying our sins upon Christ by imputation. Then the same act of laying on of hands with confession of sin upon the head of the scape goat, must also signifie that God did impute our sins to Christ, as well after he was escaped from death by his resurrection and ascension, as when he made his oblation here upon earth; for the High Priest in the name of all Israel did impose his hands,* 1.28 and confesse the sins of all the congregation, upon the head of the live scape goat, as well as upon the head of the goat that was slain for a sin offering: The High Priest cast lots upon these two goates, the one was to be kild for a sin offering of the whole Church, and then the High Priest in the name of the whole Church, did impose both his hands upon the head of this sin offering, as it may be certainly proved by Lev. 4.15.

Secondly, The High Priest also in the name of the whole Church, did impose both his hands upon the head of the live scape goat, and so sent him away alive into the wildernesse, Levit. 16.7. &c. these two goats signified the death and resurrection of Christ: the goat that was kild for a sin offering, signified his death, and the live scape goat signified the escaping of Christ from death, by his resurrection, and so bearing away the sins of all the Elect from them by his resurrection, ascension and intercession for them in Heaven,

and it is evident that these two goats did typifie the death and re∣surrection of Christ, for he was put to death concerning the flesh, but he was quickned by the spirit, 1 Pet. 3.18. and Paul opens it thus, He powred out his soule to death for our sins, and rose againe for our justification, Rom. 4.25. so I r••ad the text, because Pauls Greek is borrowed from the 70. in Esa. 53.12. where the He∣brew is, powred out.

The High Priest did impose both his hands upon the head of the live scape goat, and confessed over him all the iniquities of the Sons of Israel, and all their trespasses, and all their sins, and put them upon the head of the live scape goat, and sent him away by a fit man into the wildernesse, and so the live goat Buck did beare upon him all their iniquities, Levit. 16.10.21, 22.* 1.29 and thus by the doctrine of imputation, Christ is gone as a guilty sinner into Heaven.

But the Hebrew Doctors did not understand this imposition of hands, with confession of sin, of Gods imputation, but they understood it to be as a typicall signe of their faith of dependance upon Christs Sacrifice of Atonement; and so much the prayer of the High Priest doth import, for when he imposed his hands upon the head of the live scape goat, he said, O Lord, make Atonement now for the sins, and for the iniquities, and for the trespasses of thy people Israel, see Ains. in Levit. 16.21. and thus the Lord laid up∣on him the iniquitie of us all; or as King James translation hath it, the Lord made the iniquity of us all to meet upon him; namely the iniquities of the whole Church.

From this act of laying on of hands upon the head of each of these two goats; I reason thus.

If the High Priests laying on of hands upon the head of the sin-offering, did represent Gods laying the sins of all the Elect upon Christ by imputation, when he made his soul a Mediatoriall sa∣crifice of Atonement for our sins: Then the same action of the High Priest done upon the head of the live scape goat, did also re∣present the Lords laying the sins of all the Elect upon Christ by imputation, when hee ascended into heaven to make intercession for them.

2. If Gods imputing of all the sins of the Elect to Christ, was the cause of Gods extream wrath upon him, when hee made his

soul a sacrifice for sinne here on earth: then by the same reason Christ doth still bear the wrath of God for our sins in heaven; for Christ doth still bear our sins in heaven, as much as ever he bare them here upon earth. And thus by the common doctrine of im∣putation (which is built upon this phrase of Bearing sin) you cannot avoid the blasphemous consequence.

Trades.

I confesse I am not able to gain-say any of your Inter∣pretations hitherto, and yet I am not satisfied in the point in que∣stion: and therefore I desire to propound another Scripture to your consideration, which is much alledged by Divines to prove the common Doctrine of Imputation.

In 2 Cor. 5.21.* 1.30 God made him to be sin for us, which knew no sinne.

How else did God make him to be sin for us, but by imputing the sins of all the Elect to him.

Divine.

* 1.31If this Text be rightly expounded, it will not prove any such matter as you alledge it for: for this phrase, he was made sin for us, must not be taken in the proper literall sense, but in a metaphoricall sense: for it is borrowed from the Leviticall Law, where the sacrifices for sinne are often called Sin in the Hebrew Text, though our English Translations have added by way of Exposition the word Sacrifice: as for example, in Exod. 29.14.36. the Hebrew saith thus, It is a sin; but we translate it thus, it is a sin-offering: we adde the word offering to the word sin, as the Hebrew Text also sometimes doth: but most usually the He∣brew Text doth call it a sin and no more, as in Lev. 4.3.8.21.24.25.29.32.33.34. & 5.9.11. & 6.17.25.30. & 7.7.37. & 8.14. & 9.7, 8.10.22. & 12.6. & 14.13.31. & 15.15. & 16.3.5.9.25.27. & Lev. 23.19. & Numb. 6.11.16. & Numb. 7.16. & 8.12. & Numb. 15.24, 25. & Numb. 18.9. & Numb. 28.22. in all these and in sundry other places, the sin-offering is called a sin in the Hebrew Text, and this Hebraisme Paul followeth in 2 Cor. 5.21. saying, God made him to be sin for us.

The Apostle never meant that God made him to be sin for us, by a Judiciall imputing of our sins unto him, as Judges doe, when they impute sin and inflict punishment upon malefactors: but the word made, and the word sin must have another sense.

1. The word made is a word of Election and Ordination: God

made him to be sin, that is say, he ordained him to be our Media∣tor, namely, as he ordained him to be our Priest and Sacrifice, that so he might make his soul a sin-offering for our atonement.

Christ saith thus, Burnt-offering and Sin thou hast not required, Ps. 40.6. Christ cals the sin-offering, nothing but sin, but the A∣postle in Greek doth expound it thus [For sin] Heb. 10.6. hee joynes the particle For to the word sin, and thereby he doth teach us, that the sin-offering was not made sin by imposition of hands and by confession of sin upon the head of it: the particle For is not sutable to that sense, therefore seeing the Apostle doth explain the word sin by the particle For, I may well conclude that Christ was not made sin for us by Gods imputation, but he was made sin for us, that is to say, A sacrifice for our sins: and so the Hebrew Text doth sometimes explain it self, by joyning the word for to the word sin, as in Lev. 6.26. and in Lev. 9.15. The Priest did offer it [For sin.]

2. This phrase he was made sin for us, is further opened by ano∣ther Leviticall instance taken from the water of purification, which is called sin in Hebrew, in Numb. 19.9. but it was not called sinne in respect of any sinfull quality that was imputed to it, neither was it called sin, because it was imployed to any sinfull use: but it was therefore called sin-water, because it was the water of purification from sin, and because it sanctified the unclean, Numb. 8.7. and because it figured the bloud of Christ which purgeth the consci∣ence from sin, Heb. 9.13, 14.

3. This phrase he was made sin for us, is further opened by a∣nother Leviticall phrase taken from the money that was provided to buy rhe publike sacrifices withall; That mony was called sin∣mony, and Trespass-mony, not because it was sinfully gotten, or sinfully imployed, but because it was imployed to buy the pub∣like sacrifices for sin, and the publike sacrifices for trespass-offe∣rings for the whole Church, 2 Kings 12.16. Nehem. 10.32, 33. and in this sense God made Christ to be sin for all his true Israel, not by imputing their sins to him, but by electing and ordaining him to be a sin-offering and a trespass-offering, and a whole burnt-offering of atonement, He is the Lamb of God that doth bear a∣way the sins of the world, John 1.29. 1 Joh. 3.5. namely, by his Mediatoriall sacrifice of Atonement.

4. If you will stand to the common doctrine of imputation, and still say that God made Christ to be sin for us,* 1.32 by imputing all our sins to him: then from the same kind of phrase, you must hold that Christ made himselfe a Trespass for us, by imputing all our Trespasses to himself: for Esay doth tell us that he made himself A Trespasse, or a guilt for us: so the Hebrew Text speaks in Es. 53.10.

And if Christ made himself a Trespasse for us, by imputing all our trespasses to himselfe, then he must likewise inflict upon him∣self all the curses of the Law that are due to us for our trespasses: this absurd consequence you cannot avoid by the common doctrine of imputation, because it is raised upon the like phrase of speak∣ing: and thus you make Christ to be his own self accuser and executioner.

But the truth is, Christ did no otherwise make himself a Trespass or a guilt for us, but as he made himself a Trespass-offering for our sins, he is called a Trespass answerable to the sacrifices of the Law, which are sometimes called A Sin, and sometimes A Trespass: see Ains. in Lev. 5.6. and in Lev. 6. and in Lev. 7.38. &c. Thus Paul and Isa. do sweetly agree in their L••vitical phrases: Isa. saith that Christ made himself A Trespass for us, and Paul saith, that God made Christ to be sinne for us: therefore the exposition of both must be framed from the same Leviticall Typicall sense and meaning.

Trades.

I confess I am not able to contradict your interpreta∣tions hitherto, and yet I am not satisfied in the point in question: therefore I will propound some other Scriptures to your considera∣tion out of the Evangelists, which are usually alledged to prove that Christ bare the wrath of God for our Redemption, as it is due to our sins from the curse of the Law.

* 1.33Matthew saith, That Christ was sorrowfull and grievously troubled.

* 1.34Mark saith, That he was sore afraid and amazed.

Luke saith, That Christ was in an Agony: and most Divines doe affirm, that this Agony was not caused from his striving with the terrours of death, but it was caused by the infinite wrath of God, which lay much more heavier upon him then the terrors of death: and they enforce this assertion with a threefold Reason.

1. They say that his Agony was so great that it made him sweat great drops of bloud, which trickled down from his body to the ground.

2. They say that his Agony was so great, that God was fain to send an Angel from heaven to support him under it.

Luke doth set down the appearance of this Angel before his Agony: But Mr. Calvin doth affirm that his Agony went be∣fore, and that it was the true cause why God sent an Angel to comfort him.

3. They say, that if Christ had made all this adoe against a meer bodily death, he should have shewed himself to be more fearfull of death then many Martyrs have done; for many Mar∣tyrs have died with more courage and lesse feare of death a great deal, and it is not credible that Christ would shew more fear of death then many Martyrs have done, but that something else was the cause of it, namely Gods wrath.

Divine.

I will by degrees examine the interpretation of all these Scriptures, Matthew saith, That he was grievously troubled, and Mark saith, That he was sore afraid: Hence you infer, that Christ could not be thus troubled and thus afraid at a meer bo∣dily death; Therefore you conclude, that he was thus troubled and afraid at the wrath of God inflicted upon his soul for our sins.

This interpretation is taken upon trust from other Expositors: but however, I conceive you will see reason by and by to think that Christ made all this adoe against a meer bodily death only.

1. Doe but consider what a horrid thing to true humane na∣ture the death of the body is, and then consider that Christ had a true Humane Nature like unto all other men, except in the point of sin: and therefore why should not he be troubled with the fear of death, asmuch as his Humane Nature could bear without sin.

2. Doe but consider that all mankind ought to desire and en∣devour to preserve their naturall lives as much as in them lies in the use of means, in obedience to the sixth Commandment: and therefore seeing Christ as he was true Man could not prevent his death by the use of means, he was bound to be troubled with the fear of death asmuch as any other man.

From these two considerations wee may easily collect what

was the true cause why Christ was so much pained in his minde with the fear of death,* 1.35 not only in the night before his death, but at other times also, even long before the time of his death came. I have a Baptism (saith Christ) to be baptised withall, and how I am pained (or distressed, as a woman in travel) untill it bee ended, Luke 12.50.

But Matthew and Mark in the places cited, speak onely of those sorrows which fell upon him in the night before his death; Matthew saith, he began to be grievously troubled, that is to say, he began afresh to be troubled, with the neerer approach of his death then formerly: M. Calvin in his Harmony upon these words, speaketh to this effect: We have seen (saith he) our Lord wrestling with the feare of death before: but now (saith he) hee buckl••th his hands with the temptation: Matthew cals it the Be∣ginning of sorrow, because the pains of death were now approach∣ing: his naturall fear of death lay hid before, but now it doth bewray it self, and the most inward affections of nature lay them∣selves open: God had already exercised his Son with some tast of death before, but now hee woundeth deeper by the approach of death, and striketh with an unwonted fear.

And in another place M. Calvin saith thus: When Jesus saw Mary and the Jews weep for the death of Lazarus, he wept also and groaned in spirit, and troubled himself, Jo. 11.33.35. upon these words M. Calvin asketh this question: How doth this groaning and perturbation agree to the Sonne of God? In my judgement (saith hee) it is plain, that when the Son of God did put upon him our flesh, he did also willingly take upon him human affections, that so he might not differ from his brethren in any thing, sin only excepted: and by this means saith he, the glory of Christ is no whit impaired, seeing that his submission was onely voluntary, whereby it came to passe that he was like unto us in the affections of his soul: and by this he proved himself to be our brother, that so we might know that we have such a Mediatour as is touched with our infirmities, and is ready to help us in that which he felt in himself.

And when Jesus groaned again, v. 38. M. Calvin saith, that 'tis no marvell that he groaned again: for the violent tyranny of death (which he was to overcome) was present now before his eyes.

By these sentences out of M. Calvin wee may see that Christ was deeply touched with the fear of death, for he wept and groaned in spirit, and troubled himself with sorrow for the death of Lazarus: I cannot apprehend that he was afraid of the wrath of God for our sins in the night before his death, for then he could not have said as he did: I have set the Lord alwayes before mine eyes, he is at my right hand therfore I shall not be moved: Ps. 16.8. I cannot apprehend that his troubled feare did exceed the bounds of true naturall fear.

Mr. Calvin sait•• that we must distinguish between the infirmi∣ties of our Saviours flesh, and our infirmities: for in us (saith he) there is no affection without sinne, because all men doe exceed the measure of a right moderation, but Christ (saith he) was so troubled with sorrow and fear, that he never murmured against God, but remained stedfast to the rule of temperanee: Hee was pure without all spot, and therefore his affections were pure and unspotted, and yet his affections did witnesse his true humane infirmity; And therefore as much as true humane nature could bear, he was stricken with the fear of death: and in Iohn 11.33. he saith thus, Mens affections they are corrupted two man∣ner of wayes.

1. They are carried with a troublesome motion, because they are not ordered according to the Rule of modesty.

2. They doe not always arise from a lawfull cause, or at least they are not referred to a lawfull end.

But at the first it was otherwise, for when God created Adam he gave him affections that were dutifull to reason, and inasmuch as they are now disorderly, it is an accidentall fault: But the affe∣ctions (saith he) that were in Christ were without any disorder, be∣cause they were framed wholly to obey Gods will: so that if you confer his passions with ours, they will differ no lesse then cleer water from filthy puddle.

These sentences of M. Calvin, may advise us how we doe attri∣bute such a kinde of fear to Christ as might disorder his pure natu∣rall affections, which doubtlesse would have fallen upon him, if he had undergone the pain of losse for our sins, such as the dam∣ned doe feel in hell, as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach.

I apprehend that the quality of our Saviours troubled fear which he suffered the night before his death, did arise onely from his na∣turall fear of death: and if he had died without any manifest fear of death, it would have occasioned wofull Heresies, yea although Christ was so carefull as he was, to give such evident proof of the truth of his humane nature as he did, yet sundry Heretiques have risen up that have denied the truth of his Humane Nature, affir∣ming that he took no flesh of the Virgin Mary, but that his body was from heaven of a heavenly nature; it was necessary therefore that he should be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true Humane Nature could bear without sin, as M. Calvin doth well observe.

Secondly, If the qualitie of his troubled feare of death which he expressed to his Disciples, in the night before his death, had arisen from the sense of his Fathers wrath inflicted upon him for our sins, then you must also say that he suffered his Fathers wrath for our sins, 6. dayes before this, for 6. dayes before this, he said to his Disciples, I have a baptisme to be baptized withall, and how am I pained, (or distressed in mind as a woman in travell) untill it be ended, Luk. 12.50. in this speech our Saviour doth express as much distress of mind, as he did in that place of Matthew and Mark, which you have cited, and yet I know no Expositer that did ever collect such a tenent from this place of Luke.

Thirdly, Our Saviour doth explaine the qualitie of those sor∣rows which he suffered at the time of his death, unto the two Sons of Zebedeus: He tels them they must drink of his cup, and be bap∣tized with his baptisme, Mark, 10.39. He tels them that they must be conformable to the qualitie and kind of his sufferings, though perhaps there might be some difference in the degree of their sufferings, and he doth explain the kind of their sufferings, by a two fold expression?

First, He tels them that they must drink of his cup, that is to say, of the same bitter portion of death, for the term cup is often used for a measure or portion; somtimes it is put for a mea∣sure or portion of joy and comfort, as in Psal. 16.5. and in Psal. 23, 5. and somtimes it is put for a measure or portion of punish∣ment, or affliction, as in Psal. 11.6. Psal. 75.8. Isa. 51.17. Ier. 25.15.17.28. and this cup is filled somtimes from the Lords hand, and som∣times

from mans hand: But in the present case, between Christ and the Sons of Zebedeus, the cup or portion wherein they must parallel each other, is persecutions and death from the hand of wick∣ed Tyrants; yea somtimes the Godly do not only drink a cup, but a full cup of bitter affliction, Psal. 73.10. yea a very great measure, called in Hebrew, Shalish, of three, which is a third part of the greatest measure, four times as big as the usuall cup to drink in: see Ains. in Psal. 80.6.

Secondly, He tels them that they must be baptized with his bap∣tisme, that is to say, they must be put to death by the malice of ty∣rants, as he must be, and this is expressed by the metaphor of bap∣tising: for baptising is a diving, or drowning of the whole body under water,* 1.36 and therfore Christ ordained baptising to be used of his people as a typicall signe of drowning and mortifying the bo∣dy of sin in his blood: But baptizing by tyrants, was used to drown mens bodies by death, and therfore Christ saith, I am entred into the deep waters Ps. 69.2.15. Ps. 88.16. and in this very sence the Apostle saith,; Else what shall they do that are baptized for dead (namely, that are baptized with death as Martyrs are) If the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for dead? 1 Cor. 15.29. Godly Martyrs would never be baptized with death, if the hope of a better resurrection did not animate their spirits to suffer death for the truths sake, being thereby conformable to the death of Christ, as Paul doth intimate in Phi. 3.10, 11.

By these two expressions, which are synonima or equivalent, our Savior doth inform the two Sons of Zebede what the true nature of his sufferings should be, namely, no other but such only as they should one day suffer from the hands of tyrants: therefore the troubled feare which Matthew and Mark do ascribe unto Christ a little before his apprehension, must be understood of his naturall feare of death, and not of his Fathers wrath, and so consequently, all the sufferings of Christ were from mans wrath and malice, incited by the Devill (with Gods allowance) but not from Gods wrath: his soule was not touched with any suffering (from Gods wrath at all) except by way of sympathy from his bodily suffer∣ings onely.

Trades.

I conceive you are greatly mistaken to say that Christ did so much trouble himself with the fear of his naturall death

onely, seeing Luke doth affirm that his troubled feare, caused him to sweat drops of blood, I think no naturall feare of death could have caused such an agony: Therfore doubtless his troubled feare was caused by the feeling of his Fathers wrath, which now had seised upon his soule for our sinnes.

Divine,

If the circumstances of his Agony be well weighed, it will appeare that it did not proceed from his Fathers wrath, but from his naturall fear of death only: The text runs thus: Be∣ing in an Agony, his sweat was as it were great drops of blood, and in another place Luke doth tell us, That the remembrance of his death, did breed a great pain in his minde, long before the time of his death came, even like the pains of a woman in travel; and such kind of pains in the mind might well be called sweating paines; and as he was true Man he must be touched with the fear of death in a very great measure, as the Prophets did foretell in Ps. 22. and in Psal. 69. therefore it was necessary that he should be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true Humane Nature could beare without sin, as I noted ere while from M. Calvin.

2. Adde to these pains of his minde, his earnest prayer to be delivered from his naturall fear of death, for he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall fear of death before he could make his oblation; and therefore he did pray often and earnestly with strong crying and tears to be delivered from the fear of death, and such prayers may well be called sweating prayers.

These two things concurring together in our Saviour, might well cause a violent sweat over all his body▪ with great drops like drops of blood.

The feare of death doth often cause men to sweat; and earnest prayer doth often cause men to sweat.

Hence I reason thus: If the naturall fear of death, and the striving of the spirit in earnest wrestling prayer, may cause men to sweat, then it might cause our Saviours Humane Nature to sweat much more, 1. because he must be stricken with the fear of death as much as his true Humane Nature could bear without sinne to fulfill the predictions of all the Prophets; and 2. because he could pray above measure, more earnestly then any man, because hee had the spirit of prayer above measure, therefore he might and did so strive in prayer with God for power to overcome his na∣turall

fear of death, in which respects it might well cause him to sweat great drops like drops of blood; so then Christ had two things to doe at this time: the one as he was true Man, and the other as he was the Mediatour: 1. as he was true Man, he must be touched with the fear of death as much as his true Humane Na∣ture could bear without sin; and secondly, as he was Mediator, he must fully and wholly overcome his naturall feare of death by prayer, before he could make his oblation: for by mutuall co∣venant with his Father, his oblation must be an active Mediatori∣all oblation, he must lay downe his own life by his own active will, desire and power, without the least naturall unwillingness to die, John 10.17, 18. so that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die when he made his obla∣tion, the efficacy of his oblation had been lost: therefore there was a necessity for him to pray, and to strive in prayer untill hee overcame it, as I shall further explaine the matter by and by in Heb. 5.7.

No marvell then, that our Saviour fell into such an Agony in the night before his death, seeing it was not an easie thing to al∣ter the property of nature from a desire to live, to a desire to die, and that not for his own ends or benefit, but for the sake of the Elect onely; and all this he must perform in exact obedience to his Fathers will; he must observe the due time of every action, the manner, the place, and the persons, and all other circumstances to fulfill every circumstance just as the Prophets had foretold, nothing must fail, if he had but failed in the least circumstance, he had failed in all, and his Humane Nature could not be exact in all these cir∣cumstances without the concurrence of his Divine Nature.

In all these respects his naturall feare of death could not chuse but be very often in his minde, and as often to put him into pain till he had overcome it.

2. Though it be very rare among men to sweat blood, and yet live after it, yet I conceive it is not beyond the power of Humane Nature so to doe: M. Foxe in his Booke of Martyrs reporteth from other Histories, that one Scanderbeg was in such an Agony when he was fighting against the Turks,* 1.37 That the blood hath been seen to burst out of his lips with very eagernesse of spirit onely; and I have heard also from credible persons, That Alexander the

Great did sweat blood in the couragious defence of himselfe and others in a desperate assault: and it is not unknown unto many that divers years since there was a sweating sicknesse or a violent sweating Feaver, that caused many persons to sweat out of their bodies a bloody humor, and yet many of them did recover and live many years after. But if their sweating blood had been a sign of Gods wrath upon their souls (as you say it was in Christ) then I think they could not have lived any longer by the strength of na∣ture.

3. Doe but consider a little more seriously what a horrid thing to nature the approach of death is: see in how many horrid ex∣pressions David doth describe it, in Psal. 116.3. and in Psal. 18.4, 5. and in Psal. 55.4, 5. in this last place David saith thus, My heart is sore pained within me, and the terrors of death are fallen upon me, fearfulness and trembling are faln upon me, and horror hath overwhelmed me: he saith, that his heart was sore pained (namely, as the pains of a woman in travel) and in v. 5. horror hath overwhelmed me, namely, with an amazed quaking, as it often fals out when the human senses are smitten with sudden fear, and so our Saviour was pained in his minde with the thought of his death a long time before the time of his death came: and therefore it must needs affect him the deeper when the time of his death was at hand.

Suppose that Adam in his innocency had grapled with the fear of death, would it not have wrought a strange mutation in his na∣turall affections? and would it not have wrought a strange paine in his minde? doubtlesse it would, and like enough it would have caused a violent sweat over all his body; no marvell then, if it wrought such a sweating Agony upon our Saviours pure Nature.

4. It is no strange new doctrine to make the naturall feare of death to be the cause of Christs Agony, seeing other learned men doe affirm it: Christopher Carlile in his Treatise of Christs de∣scent into hell, p. 46. saith thus: Was not Christ extreamly af∣flicted, when he for fear of death sweat drops in quantity as thick as drops of blood? and Jo: Frith a godly Martyr saith thus in his Answer to Sir Tho: Moore B. 2. Christ did not onely weep, but he feared so sore, that he sweat drops like drops of blood running down upon the earth, which was more then to weep: now (saith he) if

I should ask you, why Christ feared and sweat so sore? what would you answer me? was it for fear of the pains of purgatory? hee that shall so answer, is worthy to be laughed to scorn: wherefore then was it? verily even for feare of death, as it appeareth plain∣ly by his prayer, for he prayed to his Father, saying, If it be possi∣ble, let this Cup passe from me: what Cup was it that Christ would have to passe from him? Surely, it was no other Cup but such as the two sonnes of Zebedeus must drink of:* 1.38 and what cup must they drinke of, but the bitter Cup of their naturall death; therefore the Cup which Christ drank of, was nothing else but the bitter Cup of death.

Trades.

I confesse that your interpretation of the cause of Christs Agony, doth make me doubt of my interpretation, and yet I am not satisfied in the point in question, because it is further ob∣jected that Christs Agony was so extream, that his Father was fain to send an Angel to strengthen him, which M. Calvin thinks was not sent till after he was in an Agony, and in all likelihood God would not have sent an Angel to support him against the fear of his bodily death, therefore it was to support him under the sense of his Fathers wrath.

Divine.

It passeth my understanding to finde out how an Angel could support our Saviour under the sense of his Fathers wrath; can Angels appease Gods wrath? or can Angels support a mans soul to bear it? it is absurd to think so: God will not afford the least drop of water to cool any mans tongue that is tormented in the flames of his wrath: therefore that cannot be the reason why God sent an Angel to comfort him.

But on the contrary it is evident, that God doth often use to comfort his people against the fear of death by the Ministery of Angels: as for example, when Esau came to destroy Jacob, God sent an Angel to comfort him,* 1.39 Gen. 32. and when Daniel was cast into the Lions den to be devoured, God sent an Angel to comfort him, Dan. 6. and he sent his Angel to deliver Peter out of prison when his death was determined: why then should not God send an Angel to comfort the Man Christ against the fear of death, see∣ing as he was true Man, he stood in need of comfort against the fear of death.

2. The Lord had bound himself by promise to support the Me∣diator

under all his temptations by the Ministery of Angels, as in Ps. 91.11, 12. Hee shall give his Angels charge over thee to keep thee in all thy ways; They shall bear thee up in their hands, lest thou dash thy foot against a stone. Therefore the Fathers sending of an Angel to comfort his Son in his Agony, was not an evidence that his Father was angry with him for our sins, but it was a sure evidence to him that his Father was highly well pleased with him even in the time of his Agony; and therefore also he sent an Angel to comfort him even in the view or knowledge of his Disciples, that they might take notice of the love of the Father to his Sonne in the time of his Agony, and that they might leave it upon re∣cord to the Church of God to the worlds end: it is likely that God sent this Angel to assure him that his prayer was heard, and to assure him that his naturall fear of death should be wholly ta∣ken from him before he made his soul a sacrifice for sin.

3. It is one chief part of the office of Angels to attend upon the Mediator both at his Birth, Baptisme and Death; God hath ordai∣ned them to attend upon Christ and upon all his members, espe∣cially in the time of their saddest trials and temptations; and ther∣fore in the time of Christs threefold temptation, the Angels came and ministred to him, Mat. 4.11. and this ministery of Angels in the time of his threefold temptation, was a sure argument not of his Fathers wrath, but of his Fathers love, The Angels of God must ascend and descend upon the Son of Man, John 1.51.

Trades.

Sir me thinks the naturall fear of death should not put our Saviour into such an Agony, for many Martyrs have gone through the fears and pains of death with more courage and lesse fear of death a great deal.

Divine.

I have given you I think sufficient reasons formerly to prove that the fear of death was the cause of his Agony,* 1.40 and good reasons there are why Christ should be more afraid of death then many Martyrs have been, namely, for the clear manifestation of the truth of his Humane Nature, and also for the accomplishment of the predictions that went before touching his sufferings: But if he would he could have shewed lesse fear of death, and more true valour then ever any Martyrs have done, as it is evident by his walking in the midst of the fiery furnace with the three Noble Martyrs in Babylon: But then his death would not have been so

usefull to his children, which for feare of death are all their life time subject to bondage.

Trades.

Sir, I must needs acknowledge that I cannot contradict any of your expositions hitherto: but yet I am not satisfied in the point in question; and therefore I will propound another place of Scripture to your consideration, which is much cited by Divines to prove that Christs troubled fear in the night before his death was from the sense of his Fathers wrath for our sins.

In Heb. 5.7. Christ in the days of his flesh when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able save him from death: And he was heard in that which he fea∣red.

Dr. Fulk doth maintain Beza for expounding this word Fear to mean the fear of astonishment at the feeling of Gods wrath for our sins,* 1.41 which lay infinitely more heavy upon his soul thou any tor∣ments did upon his body.

Divine.

I reverence your Authours, but yet I must tell you that there are other learned and godly Divines, that are contrary to them in the interpretation of this word Fear.

King James Translators doe read it thus in the margine: Hee was heard, because of his piety: and M. Tyndall, and M. Over∣dale translate it thus, He was heard for his Reverence: and the Geneva in other places translate the same Greek word [godly] fear: as in Luke 2.25. Simeon feared God, and in Act. 8.2. Those that buried Stephen, are called Religious men fearing God, and in Heb. 12.28. they translate the same Greek word godly fear, Let us have grace whereby we may serve God acceptably with Reverence and Godly Fear: and in this very sense must the Greek word bee translated in Heb. 5.7. He was heard because of his godly Fear, or because of his Reverence, or pious Fear.

The Greek word doth properly signifie such a Fear as makes a man exceeding wary and heedfull how he toucheth any thing that may hurt him: it signifies such a wary fear,* 1.42 as men have of the apple of their eye; they are exceeding carefull that not so much as a little mote may hurt it. This kind of wary and tender feare is proper to godlinesse: true godly persons will be very wary, not onely how they may doe every thing that may please God,

but also how they may avoyd every thing that may offend the tender ey of God, Iob. 1.1. and such a wary Godly fear was in Christ, (and therefore he is called the Holy one of God, Ps. 16.10.) he feared to offend God, lest there should remain in him but the lest naturall unwillingnesse to die, when he came to make his oblation, and therefore he offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and teares, unto him that was able to save him from death: and he was heard because of his godly fear. And by this Greek word, the 70. translate, the Hebrew word Chasid, which sig∣nifies a gracious Saint, or one that is Pious, Merciful, and full of God∣ly fear and care, Mi. 7.2. Pro. 2.8. and by this Greek word the 70 ex∣press the Godly fear of the Rubenites Ios. 22.24. & in Le. 15.31. Ye shal religiously separate the Sons of Israel, the 70 say, ye shall make them wary; so M. Ains. doth render the Greek word from the 70.

Secondly, I come now to explain the very thing it selfe, from which Christ prayed to be saved, and that was, that he might be delivered from death, and this petition was the Masterpiece of all his prayers.

But for the better understanding of the very thing it self, that he did so often and so earnestly pray to be delivered from, wee must consider him with a twofold respect: first as he was true man, and secondly as he was our Mediator. First as he was true man, he prayed to be saved from death conditionally: If it be possible, let this cup pass from me. Mat. 26.39.

Secondly, We must consider him in this Text, as he was our Mediator; and so he prayed to be saved from death absolutely, namely, to be saved from his naturall feare of death, when hee came to make his oblation,* 1.43 for he knew well enough, that if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingness to die, when he came to make his oblation, it would have spoyled the Me∣diatoriall efficacie of his oblation, for he had from Eternity Cove∣nanted with his Father, to give his soule (by his own active power) as a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement for our sins; Ioh. 10.17.18. therefore he must not die a passive death, by the power of man, but he must die as a Mediator, by the actuall and joynt concurrence of both his natures, no man must or could force his soule out of his body, by all the torments they could devise, but he must se∣parate his own soule from his own body, by the joynt concurrence

of both his natures; and truely, if there had remained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die, at the time of his oblati∣on, it would have appeared one way or other, for the Lord did try him at his death, with sundry harsh and sharp tryals, for hee gave Satan liberty to instigate the Iewes and Romans against him, and with lyon-like cru••ltie, to naile his hands and feet to the Cross, where he aboad in great torments, three full houres together, but in all that time Satan could not finde any thing against him to blemish his oblati••n w••••hall, and God could not finde any thing against him, because he testified his full acceptance by miracles at his death; and thereupon, the Centurion said, truely this man was the son of God; Christ, made his oblation in exact obedience to Gods will, both for matter, manner and time; and therefore as soone as the just appoynted hour•• (which was foretold by Daniel) was come; he did but say, Father Into thy hands I commend my spirit; and at that very instant he breathed out his soule, by the power of his God-head, Heb. 9.14. and this Mediatorial action of his, was the highest degree of obedience, that the Father required, or that the Son could performe for mans Atonement and Redem∣ption; his obedience in his death, was not legall, but Mediatoriall obedience, neither was his death, a bare humane death, but it was a Mediatorial death; it was the death and obedience of God-man: if he had died a passive death, it had been but a humane death, and if he had performed no other obedience but legall obedience, it had been but humane obedience, and then it could not have been meritorious for the procuring of Gods Atonement for our Re∣demption, justification and adoption.

But the death of Christ was Mediatorial, and therefore it was very often in his minde, and in his speech long before the time of his death came, as it may appeare by his often telling of it to his Disciples, as in Mat. 16.21. and in Mat. 17.22, 23. and in Mat. 20.18, 19.24. and in Mat. 21.38. see also in Mar. 8.31, 32. Ma. 9.10.12. Luk. 9.22.31. Luk. 12.50. Luk. 17.25. Luk. 22.15. Ioh. 12.27. by these Scriptures it is evident,* 1.44 that Christ did often speake of his death to his Disciples.: therefore seeing this action of his, was so often in his minde and mouth, he could not chuse but make it the Masterpiece of all his prayers, and doubtless in this respect chiefly, he spent whole nights in prayer, Luk. 6.12.

Luk. 21.37. Yea he spent 40. dayes together in fasting and pray∣er; when he did first enter publiquely into his Mediators office, then he prayed for power and strength to do the office of the Medi∣ator, and therefore it is no question but he did then pray in a speciall manner to be delivered from his naturall unwillingnesse to die, when he came to make his oblation; for if there had re∣mained in him but the least naturall unwillingnesse to die at the time of his oblation, it would have spoyled the efficacie of his Me∣diatorial oblation.

Secondly, He prayed also to be delivered from the dominion of death, after he had made his oblation, and God heard him, and de∣livered him by his Resurrection on the third day, Act. 2.24.27.

Therefore, seeing Christ was so deepely possessed with this Godly feare, lest he should offend God by his naturall unwilling∣nesse to die, it must needs banish far from him that horrid feare of Gods wrath which your Authors say this word feare doth sig∣nifie: I confess I cannot but wonder that such learned men should expound the word feare, in this text, to meane such a dreadfull feare as they must needs feele that lie under the sense of Gods wrath.

Secondly, Neither doth the word feare in this text, signifie such an amazed naturall fear of death, as that other word fear doth sig∣nifie in Mar. 14.33. which word I have expounded, to signifie our Saviors troubled naturall feare of death, and no more.

But I think I have said sufficient already, to prove that this word fear in Heb. 5.7. must be understood of Christs Godly, tender, wa∣rie feare, lest he should offend God by his naturall unwillingness to die, when he came to make his oblation; and therefore it caus∣ed him in the dayes of his flesh, to offer up many prayers and sup∣plications, with strong cryings and teares unto him that was able to save him from death (namely, from his naturall sear of death) and he was heard because of his Godly fear.

Trades.

Sir, I cannot for the present gainesay your Exposition of this Text, and yet I am not satisfied in the poynt in question; and therefore I will alledg another Scripture, which is much cited by Divines, to prove that Christ did suffer the wrath of God for our sinnes.

In Psal. 22.1. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken mte?

Most Interpreters conclude from this Text, that God did suffer his Son in Anger, because he had imputed to him all our sins.

Divine.

Many Divines I confesse, do make such an Exposition upon the word forsaken, in this text, as you do, but yet other Di∣vines do differ from them.

Mr. Braughton saith, My God my God,* 1.45 sheweth that Christ was not forsaken of God, but that God was still his hope. Secondly, saith he, The word sorsaken is not in the text, but why dost thou leave me, but namely, why dost thou leave me to the griefs follow∣ing, from the malice of the Iewes, as they are expressed in the body of the Psalme. Thirdly saith he, None ever expounded one matter, and made his amplification of another.

But Ps 22. hath amplification of griefes caused by men, and not from Gods anger. Therefore the proposition in Ver. 1. is not a complaint to God, that he sorsooke his soule in anger for our sins.

M. Robert Wilmot also in his Treatise upon the Articles of Christ descent into Hell, sheweth at large, that the tearm forsaken, is not so proper in this place, as the tearme leave: and he doth pa∣rallel it with the word leave, in Ps. 16.10.

M. Ainsworth saith that this Hebrew word in Ps. 22.1. which we translate Forsaken, may be translated, why leavest thou me, and saith M. Ainsworth in a Letter to my selfe, There is no material difference betweene leaving and forsaking, so as the meaning be kept sound, for as God did never forsake his Son, Ioh. 16, 32. so God did never leave his Son, Ioh. 7.29. Ps. 16.8. But especially, God did not forsake his Son in anger, when he performed the highest act of obedience that ever God required, or that the Son could performe when he made his soule a Mediatoriall Sacrifice of Atonement, yea, Christ himselfe doth testifie that his Father did not forsake him then, but on the contrarie, that he did then stand at his right hand to assist him, that he might not be moved Ps. 16.8. Ps. 109.31. Ps. 42.6. Esa. 50.7.10. yea, he doth testifie that he did alshayes, a∣bide in his Fathers love, because he did alwaies keepe his Comman∣dements, Ioh. 15.10.

Therefore it followes by good consequence, that Christ doth not complaine in Ps. 22. that God had forsaken him in anger for our sins: But our Saviours complaint must run thus, why hast thou left me into the hands of my Malignant adversaries, to be

used as a notorious malefactor? It is not so fit a phrase to say, Why hast thou forsaken me into the hands of my malignant adversaries? as to say, Why hast thou left me me into the hands of my malig∣nant adversaries.

God forsakes the damned totally and penally, because there is no place of repentance left open to them: but he did not so for∣sake his Sonne, neither did he forsake his Son by any inward de∣sertion, as hee doth sometimes forsake his own people for the triall of their grace: But he left his Son only outwardly when he left him into the hands of Tyrants to be punished as a malefactor without any due triall of his cause.

Therefore the complaint of Christ lies fair and round thus: Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause unto the will of my ma∣lignant adversaries to be condemned and put to death as a wicked malefactor: formerly they sought daily to take me in the Temple, but they could not apprehend me, because thou didst stand by me in my just cause; But now the howre and power of darknesse is come upon me, because thou hast left me into their hands, Luke 22.53. For now thou hast given the Devil leave to enter into Judas to be∣tray me, and into the Scribes and Pharisees to apprehend me, and to accuse me to Pilate with sundry grosse and false imputations: Now thou hast left me also into the hands of the Roman Deputy to condemne me, and to crucifie me with Lion-like rage, as if I were a grosse Malefactor, without any legall proof of those things which my Malignant adversaries the Jewes doe lay unto my charge.

And after this manner that blessed Martyr John Hus did expo∣stulate his cause with God, for he maintained the truth of the Go∣spel: and yet God left him (as he did Daniel) unto the will of his malignant adversaries, namely, unto the will of the Popish Councell of Constance, so that he could not obtain so much justice at their hands as to have his cause duly tried; they accused him for an H••retique, and yet they refused to make proof of any particu∣lar Heresie against him, and at last they condemned him to bee burnt for an Heretique;* 1.46 In this case he appealed to Iesus Christ for justice, saying, My God, My God, why hast thou forsaken me? but doubtlesse, if Iohn Hus had thought that Iesus Christ had forsaken his soul in anger, when he used that phras••, he would ne∣ver

have died a Martyr. Therefore his meaning by that speech was no more but to expostulate his case with Christ, why he left him into their mercilesse hands in so good a cause, seeing he could not obtaine so much common justice as to have his cause duly tried.

Another godly Martyr and Preacher at Burdeaux: Amond de Laroy by name, being examined with extream tortures for the truth of the Gospel, fainted away in the time of his torments, but as soon as he came to himself again, he said, Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me? Ex Fox Tom. 2. p. 130.

And truly if God had not forsaken Iohn Huz in his good cause, his precious faith and constant perseverance, had not been so well known and manifested, for the glory of God, for the witnessing of the truth, and for the good example of others, neither had the tyranny of Antichrist been so much detected, nor so much abhor∣red of the Bohemians, as it was by their unjust proceedings against him.

And for such like holy ends as these, God forsook David in a good cause: see Ps. 43.2. & Ps. 74.1. & Ps. 44.23, 24. & Ps. 13.1, 2. and in Ps. 42.9. David doth there complain to God, saying, My God, my Rock, why hast thou forgotten me? why goe I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy? and just after this sort must the complaint of Christ be understood in Ps. 22.1. Why hast thou left me in my righteous cause to be condemned against law and justice, I know no evill in my hands, neither can my malignant adversaries justly and legally prove those sinnes against me which they lay to my charge, and yet they bear others in hand that I suf∣fer death justly, and therefore in a scoffing manner they say, If thou bee the Sonne of God come down from the Crosse, Mat. 27.40.42. he saved others, himselfe hee cannot save, if God will have him, let him delivor him; and then after all these reproachfull speeches, Christ burst out into this speech, My God, my God, why hast thou left me, Mat. 27.46.

Christ was forsaken in his good cause, not onely by his Father for holy ends, but also by his own dear Disciples; but they did not forsake him in the inward affections of their souls, they forsooke him onely outwardly through humane infirmity for a time; and thus C••rist was left alone in a good cause, as a sparrow upon the

house top, as an Owl in Desart, and as a Pellican in the wilder∣nesse, Psa. 102.

And Christopher Carlisle upon the Article of Christs descent into Hell, maketh this interrogation in pa. 46. did not Christ up∣on the Crosse say, Lord, Lord, why hast thou forsaken me? was n••t death a great terror to him? In this speech he makes the word Forsaken to signifie Gods forsaking of his Son no otherwise but as he ••••lt him into the hands of wicked men to be condemned to death: and in all his Treatise he hath not one word about susse∣ring of his Fathers wrath: and yet he makes use of Ps. 22.1. and he doth also make use of M. Calvins judgement in other points t••ough he doth differ from him in his Exposition of Ps. 22.1.

Trades.

Sir I pray you shew me the drift of Psalm 22.

Divine.

Your request is good and necessary, for by this means you may the better see how Christ was forsaken of God: First, th••r••fore take notice of this one thing as a foundation rule to the right understanding of this Psalm.

That the Holy Ghost hath indited this Psalm by the Prophet David in the Person of Christ: if so, then all the words of this Psalm must have relation to the Person of Christ.

This appears evidently, first, by the Title, and secondly, by se∣verall passages in the Psalm, which are applied by Christ in the New Testament.

* 1.471. The Title, by some of the Hebrew Doctors is translated The Morning Star: and so Christ doth style himself in Rev. 22.16. I am the Bright, and the Morning Star: and in Rev. 22.28. Hee doth promise to give to all victorious Christians, The Morning Star, and in Numb. 24.17. Christ was Prophetically styled The Star of Jacob: and at his Birth a strange Blazing Star did de∣monstrate the same, Mat. 2.2.7.9. so then in Rev. 22.16. C rist doth Thalmudise.

Others of the Hebrew D••ctors translate it, The force and strength of the morning: but this Translation may well accord with the former: for as the Morning Star is called the Sonne of the Morning, Esay 14.12. so it may as well be called The Force or Strength of the Morning; for as a mans first-born son is coun∣ted the chiefest of his strength, Gen, 49.3. so the Morning Starre is the first-born son of the morning, and therefore it may also be

called The Strength of the Morning.

Others translate it The Hind of the Morning: and this Tran∣slation also may well accord with the former, for a Hinde is called in Hebrew Aijeleth, that is to say, Prowest or Fortitude, but why a Hinde is called The Hinde of the Morning, I cannot finde out, except it be by way of allusion to the Morning Star, which may as fitly b•• called the Hinde of the morning, as the (first begotten) Son (or strength) of the morning.

2. It is evident that this Psalm is all spoken in the Person of Christ, because the New Testament doth apply sundry passages of this Psalm unto Christ, as these places of Scripture doe witness, Mat. 27.46.43.35.39. John 19.23, 24. Iohn 20.25.27. Heb. 2.12.

The Psalm it self hath two principall parts.

The first part is from V. 1. to V. 21. In all which verses Christ doth complain to his Father of his unjust usage from his malignant adversaries.

The second part of this Psalm is from V. 22. to the end of the Psalm, wherein the glory of the Mediator is described by the Go∣spel, namely, the efficacy of his Death and Resurrection is publi∣shed by the Gospel to all the world, and by means thereof he ob∣tained a name above every name, That at the Name of Jesus eve∣ry knee should bow, as the Apostle Paul doth expound v. 29. in Phil. 2.10.

V. 1. My God, my God: This tearm My God, my God, doth set forth t••e property of Gods mercy t•• his people, as in Psalm 118.28. The Lord is El, or, The Lord is my God that giveth light unto us: and Christ doth comfort Mary Magdalen with this title of affiance in God: my God, and your God, Jo••. 20.17. and when Thomas had overcome his unbeleef, he expresseth the force of his faith by doubling the tearm of his affiance, saying, My Lord, and my God, Joh. 20.28. Therefore seeing Christ in this place doth double the tearm of his affiance in God, saying, My God, my God, it proves evidently that God had not forsaken his soul in an∣ger for our sinnes, but that God was still his Hope, and that ••e would at last turn all his sufferings but unto the triall of his per∣fect obedience.

V. 1. Why hast thou left me: namely, in my good cause to be

condemned and crucified: or else these words may be taken as an expostulating prayer, I pray thee leave me not in a good cause, but at last justifie me in my cause by my Resurrection, and by revenging my unjust usage upon my malignant adversaries, as it is implied in the second part of this Psalm, and as God had promised to doe for him in Ps. 89.23. the like imprecation Christ makes upon his implacable enemies, Ps. 109.28, 29. see also Mat. 21.40. & Mat. 22.7. and thus God justified the cause of Daniel, and the cause of David against Nabal, 1 Sam. 25.39. and the cause of Iohn Huz (at last) by revenging him upon his enemies, as the victories of the Bohemians against them doe witness to all posterities, and God doth promise to plead against those that plead against his people, Isa. 49.25.

V. 1. Why art thou so far from my help, and from the words of my roaring? why doest thou leave me unto the will of my malig∣nant adversaries? not withstand my prayers and my righteous cause?

V. 2. O God I cry in the day time, and thou hearest not, and in the night season, and there is no silence to me.

The diligence and perseverance of Christ in prayer to be deli∣vered from the power of his malignant adversaries took effect: for though he died, yet he died not by their power, and God did hear him because hee stood at his right hand to assist him, that so hee might not be moved from his stedfast obedience by any temptati∣ons whatsoever, as I have expounded Heb. 5.7. see also his perseve∣rance, and how he spent whole nights in prayer, Luke 6.12. Luke 21.37. John 17.

V. 3. Thou sittest, O thou that inhabitest the praises of Israel, namely, thou sittest as a King upon thy Throne of Justice, there∣fore I appeal to thee for justice against my malignant adversaries, as Psal. 47.8. Judge thou my cause, for I commit my cause to thee that judgest righteously, 1 Pet. 2.23. Ps. 9.7. Deliver mee also from the power of my malignant adversaries, namely, by my Resur∣rection at last, and so thou shalt inhabit the praises of all thy true Israel.

V. 6. But I am a worm and no man: namely, I am no better esteemed of my malignant adversaries then a base worme: they think if I had been their true Messiah, that I would never have li∣ved so poor a life, nor died so base a death, Isa. 53.2.

V. 7. All that see me laugh me to scorn, they shoot out the lip, they shake the head: thus the Jews scoffed our Saviour when he was crucified, Mat. 27.39.

V. 8. He trusted in the Lord that he would deliver him: with these words the Jews did ironically skoffe our Saviour when hee was crucified, Mat. 27.43. the like scoffing behaviour is also ex∣pressed in Ps. 109.25.

V. 9, 10. Thou art he that tookest me out of the womb, when there was no midwife in the Inne to help me: and thou didst also save my life from Herod, by warning my parents to fly into Aegypt: therefore deliver me still from the dominion of death by my Re∣surrection.

V. 11. Be not far from me, for trouble is neer, and there is not a helper, for even my own Disciples have through humane infir∣mity forsaken me in my just cause.

V. 12. Many Buls have compassed me: that is to say, my ma∣lignant adversaries the Iewes doe use me in their fury like the fierce Buls of Bashan, and so the Prophets foretold that they should bee like them in their fierce qualities, Deut. 32.15. Amos 4.1. Hos. 4.16.

V. 13. They have gaped upon me with their mouth like a rave∣ning and roaring lion: that is to say, my malignant adversaries are like the ravening lions in their behaviours towards me, whose fierce nature is described in Ps. 1.2. and in Ps. 17.12. and in Iob 4.

V. 14. I am poured out like water: my malignant adversaries have used their endevours to shed out my life like water on the ground, that it may never be gathered up again, they know that I have power to lay down my life, and power to take it up again.

All my bones are out of joynt: by their cruell racking and strai∣ning my body upon the Crosse.

My heart is melted in the midst of my bowels: that is to say, the evill spirit that is in my malignant adversaries, and their tortures, doe make my humane affections to melt in the midst of my bow∣els.

My strength is dried up like a potsheard, through the anguish of my torments.

My tongue cleaveth to my jawes, through vehement ••••••rs•• ••••s∣sing from my tormentors: see Iob 19.18.

V. 15. Thou hast brought me into the dust of death: here it may justly be enquired, whether God brought Christ into the dust of Death, after the manner of other malefactors, or how? The an∣swer is, that God did not so bring Christ into the dust of death, as he doth other men, namely, not so as death is laid upon man for sin, Gen. 3.19.

* 1.48But for the better understanding of the true difference, I will distinguish upon the death of Christ: for God appointed him to die a double kind of death; first, as a Malefactor; and secondly, as a Mediator: and all this at one and the same time.

First, he died as a Malefactor by Gods determinate counsel and decree: he gave the devill leave to enter into Iudas to betray him, and into the Scribes and Pharisees, and Pontius Pilate to condemn him, and to doe what they could to put him to death, and in that respect God may be truly said to bring him into the dust of death, Gen. 3.15. Acts 2.23. Acts 4.28.

Secondly, notwithstanding all this, Christ died as a Mediator: and therefore his death was not really finished by those torments which he suffered as a Malefactor, for as he was our Mediatour he separated his own soul from his body by the power of his God∣head, Heb. 9.14.

All the Tyrants in the world, could not separate his soule from his body, (Ioh. 19.11.) no not by all the tortures they could devise, till himselfe pleased to actuate his own death, by the joynt con∣currence of both his natures, Ioh. 10.18. This thing considered, there must needs be an exceeding wide difference betweene the death of Christ, and the death of the two Malefactors that were crucified with him: for though they were crucified all al••ke by the hand of man, yet they did not die all alike death, for the two Ma∣lefactors died of those torments that were inflict••d upon their bo∣dies, and so God brought them into the dust of death, according to the propper meaning of that curse that was inflicted upon Adam for sin, Gen. 3.19. But the death of Christ, namely, the se∣paration of his soul from his body was done, not by his torments, but by his own active power, even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures: Nebuchadnezzar could not by all his power separate the souls of the three Noble Martyrs from their bodies in the fiery furnace till Christ pleased, for hee was with them in the

midst of the fire to preserve their souls in their bodies, until the time that he had appointed; neither could the hungry Lyons de∣stroy Daniel's body till God pleased; neither could the Divel by all that he could do, separate Job's soul from his body, though he had leave to poison his body with a pestilent inflamation, which broke out into grievous Biles over all his body, from the crown of his head, to the soals of his feet; I say, notwithstanding all this, the Divel could not separate Iob's soul from his body, because God had reserved Iob's life in his own power; Iob 2.6. neither could the Sea drown Ionah, nor the Whale take away his life, because God had appointed to save his life, as a type of the Burial and Re∣surrection of Christ, Mat. 12.40. The souls of all these persons could not be separate from their bodies by the power of any Ty∣rants, till Gods appointed time was come, and yet all these were sinners, and therefore they were subject to death, as it was a curse inflicted by God upon man for sin, because he was without sin; and therefore his death must be considered as it was Mediatorial, Active and Voluntary: and yet in some sense he also dyed a passive death, for he suffered the sores of death as the two Malefactors did, and in this last sense it is that Christ saith in this Text, Thou hast brought me into the dust of death: Thou didst it, because thou didst give Sathan leave to do it; and Sathan did it, because he did stir up his Instruments to do it; and his Instruments the Scribes and Pha∣risees did it, because they did endeavor to do it; for what wicked men endeavor to do, they are often said to do, as is declared at large in the second part: and what God did foretel should be done by Sathan to the seed of the Woman, he may be said to do it; Gen. 3.15. see also Ainsw. in Gen. 49.7. and in Gen. 48.22.

V. 16. Dogs have compassed me, the Assembly of the wicked have enclosed me.

The high Priests and Rulers of Israel, together with Pilat and the Roman Souldiers, did assemble themselves like so many dogs to worry our Saviour to death, Mat. 20.18, 19. Acts. 4.25, 26, 27. and you may see the rancorous disposition of dogs in Iob 30.1. Prov. 26.11. Mat. 7.6. Phil. 3.2. Rev. 22.15. Psal. 59.7.15.

They have Lion-like pierced my Hands and my Feet: In the Original there is a double reading in the margent CAARI [like a Lion] and in the Text CARu [They digged or pierced; name∣ly,

as a Lion] And the Massorites Bible doth follow both read∣ings [They did bite as a Lion.] I agree with M. Ainsworth and M. Broughton, that both readings are alike the work of the holy Ghost, because somtimes the holy Ghost doth annex both readings together; as in Luke 4. and from that example Translators may well joyn both readings together, especially where no uncouthness of phrase is put into the Translation, as in this Text they may sute well together; and therefore I joyn them together thus, They have Lion-like pierced. This piercing is borrowed from Gen. 3.15. where God fore-told that the feet or foot-soals of the seed of the Woman should be pierced; but David in this Psalm doth fore∣tel, that his hands should be pierced as well as his feet; and the manner also is here expressed, namely, that it should be done with Lion-like cruelty; David did not think one word sufficient to set out the rage of the Scribes and Pharisees, and therefore he doth couple two words together to express it; see with what violence and eagerness of spirit the Scribes and Pharises did persecute our Savior, to have his body rent and torn by crucifying, in Mat. 27.18.35. it was done with Lion-like cruelty.

V. 18. They parted his Garments among them, and cast lots up∣on his Vesture: and this they did, because his coat was without seam, Mat. 27.35. Iohn 19.23, 24.

V. 19, 20, 21. Be not far from me, O Lord, my strength, but hast∣en to help me: Deliver my soul from the sword, and my dar∣ling from the power of these Dogs, and save me from the Lions, and from the horns of these Ʋnicorns: Answer thou me;

that is to say, Hear, and Deliver me, as Psal. 3.6. Psal. 38.17. namely, by delivering my soul out of the hands of all my malignant Adversaries by my resurrection, and by revenging my unjust usage upon them.

V. 22. I will declare thy Name to my Brethren, in the midst of the Congregation (namely, of thy elect Church) I will praise thee: See also Psal. 109.31. Acts 2.25.

Thus have I shewed unto you the dependance of the first part of this Psalm, by which you may see how the scope of this Psalm doth set out the sufferings of Christ to proceed not from Gods wrath, but from mans wrath only: neither do I find any thing of Gods wrath, either in this, or in any other Psalm: and yet Christ doth

make as doleful complaint to God of his sufferings, both in this Psalm, and in Psalm 69. as any can be found in all the Bible: Therefore if he had suffered any thing from Gods wrath at all, how could David in these Psalmes have past it over without any mention of it?

Trades.

Sir, I cannot contradict your Exposition of this Psalm, and yet I am not satisfied in the point in question, and therefore I will propound another Scripture to your consideration, which is much cited by Divines, to prove that Christ bare the Curse of the Law for our Redemption:

In Gal. 3.13.

Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us; as it is written, Cursed is every one that hangs upon a Tree.

In these words it seems to me that Christ bare the curse of the Law, even the eternal curse, because he bare our sins by Gods imputation, and the hanging on the Tree was a typical signe of it.

Divine,

For your better understanding of this Scripture, you must first observe the Apostles drift in this Epistle, which chiefly is to prove, that we are justified by faith only, without the works of the Law: which he proves by many Arguments; but in this Text he proves it thus, By the Law (saith he) we are cursed, as it is written in Deut. 27.26. Cursed is every one that continues not in all things that are written in the book of the Law to do them; and from this curse no corrupt son of Adam is able by his own works to free himself.

But saith the Apostle (in v. 13.) Christ hath (freed us, or) Re∣deem'd us from the Curse of the Law, when he was made a Curse for us; as it is written (in Deut. 21.23.) Cursed is every one that is hanged upon a Tree.

In this Text the Apostle speaks of a two-fold curse.

• 1. He speaks of the Eternal Curse, in v. 10.
• 2. He speaks of an outward temporary Curse in v. 13. such as all men do suffer that are hanged upon a Tree.

The Apostle brings in this latter curse in a Rhetorical manner only; saying thus, Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law (namely from the eternal curse, at the very self same time) when he was made (not that curse, but) a Curse for us; according to Deut. 21.23.

Trades.

Sir, I conceive you do not fully express the meaning of that Curse in Deut. 21.23. for there it is said, that he that is hang∣ed is the Curse (not of man, but) of God: And that rare learned Divine Martin Luther in Gal. 3.13. saith, That although these two sentences, He was made a Curse for us, and He was made Sin for us, may well be expounded after this manner, He was made a Curse, that is to say, a Sacrifice for the Curse, and Sin, that is to say, a Sacrifice for Sin; yet in my judgement (saith he) it is better to keep the proper signification of the words, because there is greater force and vehemency therein: and in the conclusion he affirmeth, That Christ bare all our sins by imputation, and that he bare the Curse of the Law really for us; and in respect of bearing our sins by Im∣putation, he saith, that Christ was the greatest sinner in the World, namely, the greatest Thief, Whoremaster, Blasphemer, &c.

Divine,

I confess that Dr Luther was a rare Instrument in the Church of God in his days, and he hath expounded the Epistle to the Galatians better than many others; but yet I believe he is far from the Apostles meaning in this matter; and it seemeth to me that he had some doubt also about his exposition: But he thinketh that the latter curse may well be expounded of his Sacrifice for the curse (and yet that exposition is not right neither) for this latter curse is no other than an outward temporary curse; for the Text in Deut. 21.22. runs thus, If there be in a man a sin worthy of death, and thou hang him upon a Tree, &c. then he that is hanged is the curse of God: What curse of God is it that is meant? I answer, That may be discerned by taking notice of what kind of persons, and for what kind of sins this curse of God doth fall upon any.

First, Take n••tice of the kind of persons that are here said to be the Curse of God; and the Text describes them thus; namely, He that is put to death as a Malefactor by the Magistrate.

Secondly, Take notice of the kind of sins that are said to des••rve his curse of hanging upon a Tree; and they are described by this general term; A sin worthy of death, namely, of this death, of hanging upon a Tree: Hence it is evident, that not every sin that deserved death [by Thou, the Sanhedrin] is here meant, but such sins onely are meant as deserved a double death [by Thou, the San∣hedrin] namely such sins as deserv••d 1. Stoning to death, and 2. such as deserved the Hanging up of their bodies upon a Tree, after they were stoned to death.

M. Calvin in Deut. 21.23. saith, That the hanging of Christ upon a Tree was not after the manner that is here spoken of, for such as were stoned to death among the Iews, were also hanged up upon a Gibbet after they were dead; and although they were not strangled nor beheaded, but overwhelmed with stones, yet were their bodies taken and hanged up afterwards, that all others might take example at them.

And M. Goodwin in Moses Rites, doth from the Hebrew Do∣ctors, reckon up the particular sins for which men were first stoned to death, and after hanged, to be eighteen in number.

And M. Ainsworth doth also say, That the Hebrew Doctors do not understand this hanging, of being put to death by hanging, but of hanging a man up after he was stoned to death; which was done for the greater detestation of such hainous malefactors: And he reckons up eighteen particular capital offences (from the Hebrew Doctors) that were first punished by stoning to death, and after that by hanging up their dead bodies upon a Tree.

And the rebellious son in Deut. 21.21. is brought as an instance of this double punishment; he was first stoned to death, and then he was hanged up upon a Tree after he was stoned to death: and from this particular instance Moses doth infer in v. 22. that if there be in a man (that is to say, in any other man besides the rebel∣lious Son) a sin (that is to say, any other capital sin) that is worthy of death, (namely, of this double kind of death) and Thou (the high Sanhedrin) do hang him upon a Tree (that is to say, after he is first stoned to death) Thou shalt not let his Carcass remain all night upon the Tree, (that is to say, not at all in the night) but thou shalt surely bury him in the same day, at the going down of the Sun; and the reason is added, because he is the Curse of God; namely, because such sinners are more eminently cursed of God than other malefa∣ctors, because they were punished with the heaviest kind of death that the Judges of Israel did use to inflict upon any malefactors.

But in some capital cases God dispensed with this Law; as for example, Rechab and Baanah were by Davids commandment first slain, and then their hands and feet (which were the Instru∣ments of their Treason) were hanged up many days together, for the greater detestation of such like Traytors; 2 Sam. 4.11, 12. And so were those sons of Belial served, in Numb. 25.4. first the

bodies of the chiefest of them were slain, and then their dead bo∣dies were hanged up to appease the Lords wrath: And Achan was first stoned to death, and afterwards his dead body was condemned to be burned, and all that he had. Iosh. 7.25.

Having thus opened the true nature of the Curse in Deut. 21. let us now examine in what sense the Apostle doth apply it to the death of our Savior; for I confess there is some likeness, and yet I say also, that there is a great deal of difference.

First, Every kind of death is the curse of God for sin, Gen. 3.19. But such kind of sinners as are put to death by the Magistrate for capital sins, are more eminently cursed than those that dy by sick∣ness; and therefore, the greater punishment they suffer from the Magistrate, the greater outward curse they suffer.

Trades.

I grant that the hanging upon a Tree in Moses, was but an outward curse, but yet it was a type of that Eternal curse which Christ must suffer when he was hanged upon the Tree for our Re∣demption; and so much the Apostle Paul doth aym at in Gal. 3.13.

Divine,

I think I have sufficiently proved that God did not ap∣point the hanging upon a Tree to be a type of the Eternal Curse, for if it had bin appointed by God to be a type of the Eternal Curse, then every one that is now hanged upon a Tree, should be eter∣nally cursed, and then divers godly Martyrs that were crucified as Christ was, are eternally cursed, and then the penitent thief was eternally cursed.

But if the circumstances of the Text be well marked, they will tell you plainly that this hanging upon a Tree cannot be a Type of the Eternal Curse: For

First, This Law of Moses must not be understood of puting any man to death by hanging, but of hanging a dead body upon a Tree after it was first put to death by stoning: But Christ was crucified, or hanged upon a Tree not after he was dead, but whiles he was alive.

Secondly, This Hanging in Moses was done by the Judicial Law, and by the Civil Magistrates, and not by the Ceremonial Law, nor by the Priests.

Thirdly, This Hanging in Moses was commanded to be pra∣ctised by the Magistrates of the Jews Common-wealth; But the death which Christ suffered, was a Roman kind of death; for

Christ was not condemned to death by the Scribes and Pharises, but by Pilat the Roman Deputy. Iohn 18.31.

The Jews had no power in their hands at that time to put any man to death, for if they had had the power of life and death in their own hands at that time, they would first have stoned our Sa∣vior to death, because they made him guilty of Blasphemy and Witchcraft, Iohn 19.7. Iohn 10.33. which sins were punished by stoning to death by Moses Law. But the Jews own Writers do te∣stifie that the Romans had taken away the power of Life and Death from them before this time, namely forty yeers before the Destruction of Jerusalem, which was about two yeers before the death of Christ; That the saying of Jesus might be fulfilled, signi∣fying what death he should dy; John 8.32. For Jesus had told his Disciples in Matth. 10.19. That the Priests and Scribes should de∣liver him to the Gentiles, to mock, and to scourge, and to crucifie him: and just so it fell out, for the Scribes and Pharises could not condemn him to death, therefore they delivered him to Pilat the Roman Deputy, to be condemned and crucified; and then the Ro∣man Souldiers took him, and led him to the Cross; they did mock him, and crown him with thorns, they whipt him with whips, and nayled him to the Cross. This kind of Roman death was used by them for the punishment of notorious malefactors, especially for the punishment of thieves, and fugitive slaves; as M. Goodwin noteth in his Roman Antiq. lib. 3. c. 4.

In these particulars you see there was a great difference between the Roman Crucifying, and the Hanging upon a Tree among the Jews.

And yet there was some likeness in this kind of death, for both Jews and Romans did hang the basest Malefactors upon a Tree, for a signe of their greater infamy, and so consequently, for a signe of their greater outward curse.

Hence I reason thus, when the Romans did put Christ to that kind of death which they used to inflict upon their base fugitive slaves, they made him cursed in his death in the highest degree they could.

And yet at that very self same time Christ did redeem us from the Curse of the Law, even from the Eternal Curse,* 1.49 because Christ dyed not only as a malefactor by the power of the Roman Soul∣diers,

but he dyed also as a Mediator by his own Mediatorial power: In the Jews account he dyed as a malefactor only, but in Gods ac∣count he dyed as a Mediator only; In the Jews account he dyed a passive death as a malefactor, by the power of man, but in Gods account he dyed by the active power of his own God-head, even by the joynt concurrence of both his Natures; In the Jews account he dyed a common cursed death, as the other malefactors did that were crucified with him, but in Gods account he dyed a super∣natural death, even by the power of his own God-head; In the Jews account his death was vile and base, but in Gods account it was the highest degree of obedience that the Mediator could per∣form for mans Redemption; and therefore it was accepted of God as a Meditorial Sacrifice of Atonement, and as the meritorious procuring cause of Gods Atonement to all the Elect, for their full Redemption, Justification, &c. This act of Christ was no corru∣ptible thing, but it was an everliving act of Mediatorial obedi∣ence, it was no legal obedience, nor was it any humane act of obedience, as all legal obedience must be; but it was a super-natu∣ral act of obedience, it was no less than a Mediatorial oblation; and therefore it was the meritorious procuring cause of our Redempti∣on from the Curse of the Law, even at that very same time when Christ was made a Curse for us, by Hanging as a Malefactor upon a Tree. The Jews made no other account but that they had put Christ to death (by those Torments which the Roman Souldiers did inflict upon him) as a malefactor; but yet notwithstanding they were greatly deceived, for he shed his own bloud; I mean, he did separate his own soul from his own body by his own active power; and therefore as soon as the just appointed hour was come wherein God had appointed him to make his own oblation, He did but say, Father, Into thy hands I commend my Spirit, and at that very instant he yeilded up his soul into the hands of God, as a Mediatorial Sacrifice for our Redemption from the Curse of the Law.

Therefore the Tree on which Christ was crucified as a Malefa∣ctor, cannot be the Altar; neither were the Roman Souldiers the Priests by whom this Mediatorial Sacrifice was offered up to God; But it was his own God-head that was the Priest, and his own God-head was the Altar by which he offered up his soul to God as

a mediatorial sacrifice, for the procuring of our Redemption from the curse of the Law.

Trades.

Sir, I acknowledge that you have given me good satis∣faction touching the curse which Christ suffered in his body upon the Tree, but yet I am not satisfied in the point in question; for good Divines do affirm, that Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, not by his bodily, but by his soul sufferings onely, which God inflicted upon his soul when his body was crucified upon the Tree.

Divine.

This kind of reasoning is very absurd, for as Mr. Broughton well observeth, if Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul, only to redeem our souls, and not in his body, to redeem our bodys, then our bodies are not yet redeemed.

But if you will make Christ to be a perfect Redeemer, then you must make him to redeem our bodies as wel as our souls: therefore if Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul, to redeem our souls from the eternal curse, he must also suffer the wrath of God in his bo∣dy, to redeem our bodys from the eternal curse, or else our bo∣dies must still continue under the eternal curse, though our souls be redeemed by his soul sufferings: Is not this to make Christ an imperfect Redeemer: and to leave a doubting conscience in a la∣byrinth of doubts and Queries?

The truth is, I find much uncertainty among Divines what to affirm in this point: for first,* 1.50 some do affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only. Secondly, others affirm that he suffered the wrath of God in his body as well as in his soul, to redeem our bodies from Gods wrath as well as our souls.

Ʋrsinus▪ doth plainly deny that Christ suffered the paines of the damned in his body: in Catech. p. 513. printed 1611. these paines (saith he) he suffered not in his body; for the sufferings of his body were only external: therefore (saith he) he suffered these paines in his soul: and yet in the same Catech. p. 487. he affirms that Christ suffered the wrath of God both in his body and in his soul, to deliver our souls and bodies from eternal damnation.

The like contradiction may be shewed in sundry other Authors, Polanus divides the sufferings of Christ into outward and inward, and he applies his suffering of Hell torments to his inward soul suf∣ferings only: see his substance of Religion, p. 141. 144. and Ba∣stingius

doth the like p. 160. and what do these contradictions argue else, but that they were in a great uncertainty in their own minds, how to explicate the true meritorious price of our Redem∣ption.

Trades.

I confess I am at a loss what to thinke, that none of all those Scriptures should hit, which I have alledged, and which many learned Divines do alledge, as the most principall Scriptures to prove that Christ did suffer the wrath of God for our Redempti∣on.

Divine.

We see but in part, and know but in part; God hath some truth to bring to light in every age: the common doctrine of imputation hath much obscur'd the meritorious price of our Re∣demption and Justification; so that some Scholars do alledge some Scriptures to prove that Christ suffered the wrath of God, and yet they speak nothing at all of any part of his suffering, as Ezek. 63.3. I have troden the wine-press of Gods wrath alone; but they great∣ly mistake the meaning of this text, for this text speaketh nothing at all of any part of Christs sufferings, neither from Gods wrath, nor from mans wrath: it speaks only of the tryumphant victories of Christ over his and his Churches enemies: others alledge, Rev. 19.15. which hath no more affinity with Christs suffering then the former. Others alledge the Article of Christ descent into Hell to prove that Christ suffered the torments of hell in his soul for our redemption: But the truth is, that Article speaks only of his souls passage from his body to Haides, which hath a double lot (when it is applyed to souls departed) a place of joy,* 1.51 and a place of torment; so that all souls (both good and bad) go to Haides assoon as they are seperated from the body: the bad do go to the place of torment in Haides, and the good do go to the place of pleasure in Haides: therefore seeing Christ was a good man, e∣ven the Holy one of God, he must needs go to the place of pleasure in Haides, even to the paradise▪ Luke 23.43. and that Haides doth comprehend under it a double lot (as great Britaine doth com∣prehend England and Scotland) is evident by the use of the Greek word in sundry greek Authors: and according to this sense Mr. Robert Wilmot hath expounded this Article, wherein he doth also approve of the judgement of Mr. Broughton in his exposition upon this Article.

Trades.

I confess I am at a loss what to thinke touching the point of Christs sufferings; whether he suffered the Torments of Hell for our Redemption or no: and therefore for my better satisfa∣ction I desire you to describe unto me the Torments of Hell; for by that meanes I conceive I shall be the better able to judge whether Christ did suffer the Torments of Hell for our Redemption or not.

Divine.

I do much approve your motion, and therefore I will labor to satisfie your desire.

The Torments of hell are usually divided into two parts.* 1.52

• 1. Into the pain of loss.
• 2. Into the pain of sense.

1. The pain of loss, is the privation of Gods favour by an e∣verlasting seperation: This is the first part of the Torments of hell which is death Eternal; for as the favour of God through Christ is the fountain of life, because it is the beginning of life eternal: Psal. 33.5. so on the contrary, to be totally seperated from Gods favour by an eternal seperation, must needs be the beginning of hell Torments or of death eternal; for he that is once seperated totally from the favour of God, is at the same time seperated from all o∣ther comforts, he is seperated from the company of millions of An∣gels, and from the general assembly of the first born that are writ∣ten in Heaven and from the spirits of just men made perfect, and from Jesus Christ the mediator of the New Testament, whose blood speaks mightier things than the blood of Abel, Hebr. 12.22, 23. and this pain of loss is accounted the heaviest part of the Torments of hell, by all divines

But yet I think it needful to give you a word of caution, that you do not mistake my meaning in this description of the first part of the Torments of hell; for I do not mean that every loss of Gods favour is to be accounted as a part of the Torments of hell for then many of Gods deer children should often suffer the Torments of Hell in this life; neither do I mean that Reprobates (though they be totally and for ever seperated from the favour of God in Christ) do suffer this part of the Torments of hell in this life; for as long as they live in this life, they do participate of many common fa∣vours from God; therefore as long as they live in this life, God doth not forsake them with such a total forsaking as he doth after

this life: God forsakes wicked men in this life but in part only, he doth not leave wicked men in this life to be as wicked as they would be; but as long as they live in this life, he doth put a bridle upon their corruptions, and by his restraining grace doth keep them in, so that they cannot be as wicked as else they would be; and this is no smal favor of God which he doth vouchsafe to reprobates as long as they live in this world: yea the very devils themselves as long as they live in this world (being Spirits) in the aire, are not so for∣saken of God as they shal be at the day of judgement; for as yet they are not in hell, but in this aire, and therefore they have not their full torments as yet; and so much the very devils themselves did ac∣knowledge to Christ,* 1.53 saying, art thou come to torment us before the time? Mat. 8.29.* 1.54 this speech implies a prayer: I pray thee torment us not to the full, for the time of our full torment is not yet till the day of judgement be come.

Hence I may well conclude; that the pain of loss which the damned do suffer in hell, is of a far more terrible nature then any wicked man can feel or apprehend in this life: but how terrible it is, I am not able fully to describe; but in general I may well call it a total seperation from Gods favour without any limitation of time: and it is cal'd an Everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, 2 Thes. 1.9.

And yet this pain of loss may be a little further explained, by opening the tearm second death, which may be in part described by comparing it to the first death,* 1.55 which I have at large described to be our spiritual death, or a loss of the life of our first pure nature; or, I may call it a death in corrupt and sinful qualities, as I have opened Gen. 2.17. yea all other miseries which fall upon us in this life, even till our bodies be rotten in the grave, I call them al∣together the first death, because they do all befal us in this world: therefore on the contrary the second death must needs imply a deeper degree of corrupt and sinful qualities then did befal us un∣der the first death; for though Adam and his posterity became dead in corrupt and sinful qualities assoon as ever he had but eat∣en of the forbiden fruit, yet the Lord in mercy did mingle some restraining grace with those corrupt and sinful qualities, so that the very reprobates cannot be so bad as they would as long as they live in this life: but assoon as they do but once come into the

very place of hell it self, they shall have their full torment of the Second death, and then doubtless God will utterly take from them all restraining grace, so that they shall have full liberty to exercise their corrupt and sinful qualities, they may sin as much as they will, without any mixture of restraining grace, and then their liberty of sining shall fill up the measure of their torments to the full; then they shall hate God with a total and an endless hatred, and God will hate them with a total and an endless seperation from his fa∣vour: Mr. Broughton speaking of the torments of the damned saith, that their hatred against God is the greatest part of their pu∣nishment; neither can they moderate their hatred against God and his Will (as the reprobates do in this life) because God denies them the help of his restraining grace, they hate God because of his justice and holiness, therefore they shall be tormented with the gnawing worm of an accusing conscience, which shall never dy; Esay 66.24. and thus the very tearm second death doth plainly tell us, that it is such a degree of death as surpasseth all the deaths of this life, and that the full measure of it cannot be inflicted upon any man till this life is ended, and then their end shall be without mercy. Jam. 2.13.

The Second part of the torments of hell: is the pain of sense, or the sense of all torturing torments;

1. Inflicted upon the soules of all reprobates assoon as they dy;* 1.56 and secondly upon their bodies also at the day of judgement. Rev. 20.14. Rev. 21.8. No tongue can fully describe the true extent of these torments, yet we may guess at the extremity of them by these particular Scripture phrases.

1. The Lord is said to prepare a fire for them; Mat. 25.41. and this fire is fierce and vehement, for the pile thereof is fire, and much wood; and the breath of the Lord like a stream of Brimstone doth kindle it, Esay 30.33. and Daniel saw the sour persecuting Mo∣narchies tormented in a River of fire before the Throne of God, Dan. 7.10. and John describes the pain of sense upon the damned by a lake of fire, which is the second death. Rev. 20.14.

2. The torments of hell are aggravated, because they are said to be endless or eternal, 2 Pet. 2.6. Iude v. 7. Mat. 25.41. and the smoak of their torments is said to ascend for evermore, Rev. 14.10, 11. neither have they any hope of forgiveness. Mat. 12.32. and there∣fore

they continued under the Torment of desperation for e∣ver, neither have they any rest day or night. Revel. 14.10, 11.

3. They have no means to help them out of their misery, for the mediator is become their angry judge, and the good An∣gels do cast them into the place of their Torments, and there they are shut up as in a prison, 1 Peter 3.19. being fast bound hand and foot therein, Matthew 22.13. and the Lord hath set a gulf of se∣peration between them and the blessed in heaven, Luke 16. therefore is it not possible they should ever get out thence.

4. They have none to pitty them in their torments with the least drop of water to cool•• their tongues, Luke 16:

5. As Gods Rejection is the principal efficient cause of their damnation, so Jesus Christ the mediator is the principal instrumen∣tal cause thereof; because they b••lieved not in him, that was pro∣mised to be the seed of the woman, to break the devils head-plot, therefore he doth pour out his wrath upon them for ever, Psa. 2.12. Luke 19.27. Rev. 6.16, 17. with Rev. 14.10. John 3.18.36. And thus in some measure I have unfolded unto you the tor∣ments of hell, which also are sometimes called the Second death.

Now come we to examine the particulars, and whether Christ did suffer these Torments of Hell for our Redemption.

1. Did Christ suffer the Second death? was he spiritually dead in corrupt and sinful qualities, without any restraining grace? and did God leave him to the liberty of those corrupt and sinful quali∣ties to hate and blaspheme God for his justice and holiness,* 1.57 as the inseperable companions of Gods total seperation? for these sinful qualities are inseperably joyned to them that suffer Hell torments, as the effect is to the cause; did Christ suffer this pain of loss, when he said my God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

2. Did Christ at any time feel the gnawing worm of an accu∣sing conscience? was he at any time under the torment of des∣peration? truely, if he had at any time suffered the torments of hell, he must of necessity have suffered these things, for they are as neerly joyned to those that suffer the torments of H••ll, as the effect is to the cause.

3. Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in the proper place of hell? seeing none can suffer the torments of hell as long as they

live in this world; none can suffer the Second death till after this life is ended.

4. Did Christ suffer the torments of hell in his body as well as in his soul, to redeem our bodies as well as our souls from the tor∣ments of Hell?

5. How long did he suffer the torments of hell? was it for ever? or how long did he suffer them? and when did the torments of hell first seize upon him? and when was he freed from them? or did he suffer the torments of hell at several times, or in several places, or but at one time or place only?

6. Was he tormented without any forgiveness? or did Abraham deny him the least drop of water to cool his tongue?

7. Did Christ inflict the torments of hell upon his own hu∣mane nature? was his Divine nature angry with his humane na∣ture? or did his Divine nature forsake his humane nature in an∣ger? as it must have done if he had suffered the torments of hell: if so, then he destroyed the personal union of his two natures, and then he made himself no Mediator, but a cursed damned sin∣ner.* 1.58

These and such like gross absurdities the common Doctrine of imputation will often fall into.

Trades.

Do you think that Christ did not suffer the torments of hell at all, neither in his body nor in his soul, nor any other tor∣ments equivalent to the torments of Hell, at one time or other, before he dyed for our redemption?

Divine.

It is evid••nt to me that Christ did not suffer any part of the torments of Hell, neither in his body, nor in his soul, nor any other torments from G••ds wrath that were equivalent thereto; neither could he suffer any part of the torments of hell as long as he lived in this world, because the very Devils as long as they live in this ayr do not suffer the torments of hell, as it is evident by their fearful crying out to Christ and saying, Art thou come to torment us before the time? Mat. 8.29. as long as they remaine in this world, in the aire; they suffer but the first spiritu∣al death of their pure nature in corrupt and sinful qualities: they shall not suffer the torments of hell until the great day of judge∣ment, and then they shall be cast into the very place of hell it self, and then, and not till then, they shall be tormented with the

torments of hell for ever and ever;* 1.59 for hell torments are confined to the proper place of hell.

Reason cannot be (saith Mr. Broughton in a Manuscript) how in this world a just soul could suffer Hell sorrowes: neither did any sillable from God ever glance that way: by natural light the Hea∣then may judge (as Aratus, Menander, and Epimenides) and for the words of the old Testament,* 1.60 and their proper sense, the He∣brew nation may judge; and for the Greek Testament the Greeks from whom the language is taken: But neither Greeks nor He∣brews will give any whit of help to them who say that our Lord suffered the torments of hell, and such as contemn both, will not long find approbation.

Again the same Author in ano••her manu••cript saith thus: The sense of all the words in the Bible are plain, either by natural light: (such as learn••d Poets do handle) or else they are by Gods authori∣ty some where explained: But no wordes in all the Bible do express any thing that Christ suffered the wrath of God for our sins, there∣fore it is no small impiety for men, from general (Metaphorical) termes, to gather such a strange particular; none that ever spake Greek (Spirit or man) gathered hell Torments for the just from Haides, or from any other Greek or Hebrew text.

Again the same Author affirmeth in Rev. 11.7. that Hell place, and hell torments are not in this life.

And truely it seems to me that the holy Scriptures do confine hell torments to the proper place of hell it self,* 1.61 which is seated on high before the throne of the Lamb; Rev. 14.10. and Solomon doth tell us, that all mens souls (both good and bad) do ascend, Eccl. 3.21. and the Hebrew Doctors do hold generally, that hell is above as well as heaven, and learned Mr. Richardson doth probably conjecture in his Philosophical Annotations on Gen. 1. that Hell place is seated within the Element of fire: and why may it not be so, seeing that place is next before the Throne of the Lamb, where Iohn doth place it? Rev. 14.10. and it is certaine by Luke's parable, that hell is seated neer unto heaven, or else the comparisons that Luke useth to describe their neerness were ab∣surd. 1. He describes their neerness by two persons talking toge∣ther, the one in Heaven place, and the other in hell place. 2. He describes their neerness by seeing each others case, Luke 16. and so doth Esay in ch. 66.24.

Thirdly, Hence we may see the reason why Haides is put as a common name to both places: both places are usually cal'd Haides in sundry greek writers, as if they were but two regions in the same world of souls, one region for the godly, and the other for the wicked, where the godly and wicked may see each others condition, and talk together in their next adjacent parts, Luke 16.23. Therefore hell place is not in the midst of the earth amongst the moles and wormes, as some blind Papists do affirm, but 'tis on high, before the throne of the Lamb, and within the view of the glorified Saints.

But whether the Element of fire be the proper place of hell or no, I need not dispute that point, yet this conclusion doth arise from the premises that no man can suffer the torments of hell as long as they live in this world, therefore our Savior could not suffer the torments of hell in this world, as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach, neither did his soul go into the proper place of hell after death, to suffer the torments of hell for our redemption, for he told them there that he went that day to para∣dise: neither can any soul that goes to hell ever return any more into this world; except at the day of judgement, and then every soul must come to be reckoned to its own body, that so both to∣gether may be cast into the lake of fire, which is the second death. Rev. 20.14. Rev. 21.8.

2. It is evident that Christ did not suffer the torments of hell in this world,* 1.62 because there was no necessary use or end of such sufferings, for such sufferings are no way satisfactory to the justice of God for our sins; for the rule of Gods justice doth require that soule only to dy which sins: the soule that sins shall dy: one man shall not dy for another mans sin, Ezek. 18. By this rule of justice God cannot inflict the torments of hell upon an innocent, to re∣deem a guilty person; and as God doth ty himself to this rule of justice touching the everlasting state of mens souls; so he doth appoint civil magistrates to observe this rule of justice touching the bodies of sinful malefactors, they may not punish an inocent for a guilty person, but that man only that sins must dy, as 2 Kings 14. doth expound the meaning of the Judicial law in Deu. 24.26. I hold it a point of gross injustice for any Court of magistrates to torture an inocent person for the Redemption of a gross male∣factor.

By this rule of justice the Son cannot dy eternally for the sin of his Father, Ezek. 18.20, 21. Ier. 31 30. but the father must dy eternally for his own sin: and therefore God cannot in justice im∣pute our sins to our innocent Savior, nor yet inflict the torments of Hell upon him for our sins: if God should do so, he should make himself as unjust in his proceedings against our innocent Savior, as the wicked Iews were when they imputed sin and inflicted pu∣nishment upon our innocent Savior, as if he had bin a sinful male∣factor; for they condemned him that was the holy one, and the just, and delivered a murderer, and so they made Christ a worse male∣factor then Barrabas.

Trades.

You say that God cannot by the rule of his own justice punish an inocent for a guilty person: and yet God did punish many thousands of Davids inocent subjects for Davids sin in numbring the people.

Divine.

This case is different from the former, for the former case was propounded touching the eternal estate of mens souls: and in that case I said that God cannot in justice punish an inocent soul eternally for the sins of another man: But that instance is touching Gods dealing with mens bodies, In this case I grant that God may by the rule of his own justice punish the bodies of many inocent for another mans sin, and the reason is plain, because men in the world, both elect and reprobates are liable to Gods justice for their bodily death, Gen. 3.19. And therefore God may call them to dy whensoever he pleaseth: thereupon sometimes it is his good will and pleasure to let men live long, and sometimes it is his good will and pleasure to call for their lives upon occasion of some pro∣voking sin or other in some other man, and then it is his good will and pleasure to punish that provoking sin by the death of ma∣ny thousands that had no hand in that sin: and in this sense God doth often punish the sin of the Father upon the children, and the sin of the Children upon the father, and the sin of the King upon his subjects: as in the case of David: he alone sinned in numbring the people: and thereupon, God was pleased to punish his sin with the death of many thousands of his good subjects, and yet God did no injustice to any man in so doing, because they were all indebted to his justice for their bodily death whensoever it pleased him to call for it.

But if any desire further satisfaction in this point, let them read in Gataker in Ieroboams Sons decease, and there they may have further satisfaction in this point.

And this distinction of the souls case from the bodies case, may sufficiently serve as an answer to Mr. Reynolds, who doth labour to justifie the imputation of our sins and punishment unto our inocent Savior in Psa. 110. p. 444, 445.

Trades.

I dare not go about to prove by any more Arguments that Christ did bear our sins by Gods imputation: or that he bore the curse of the Law for our Redemption: I dare not justifie the common Doctrine of imputation any further.

But now I desire to enter upon a new discourse with you about the Meritorious price of our Redemption.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The point in Controversie about Christs Sufferings, stated.
• * 1.2

  Gen. 2.17.
• * 1.3

  The cursed death that fell upon Adam for his disobe∣dient eating, must be un∣derstood pri∣marily of the spiritual death of his pure na∣ture, in cor∣rupt and sin∣ful qualities.
• * 1.4

  The death of Christ was of a far differing na∣ture from the death of all the fallen Sons of Adam.
• * 1.5

  The body of Christ after death could not see corruption in his grave, because his Godhead did still reside both in his dead body, and in his departed Soul.
• * 1.6

  1. God cannot in Iustice impute our sins to our innocent Saviour
• * 1.7

  ••. Christ could not have bin the immaculate Lamb of God, if he had born the guilt of our sins by Gods impu∣••ation.
• * 1.8

  3. God doth still impute our sins to Christ in Hea∣ven, as much as ever he did when he was alive up∣on the Earth.
• * 1.9

  4. The Father doth impute our sins to himself, as much as ever he did impute them to Christ.
• * 1.10

  5. Christ did im∣pute all our sins to himself, as much as ever the Father did.
• * 1.11

  6. Gods imputing of sin to an inno∣cent is an unpa∣ralleld kind of imputation, and therefore it may well be suspected to be but a hu∣main invention.
• * 1.12

  See M. Iacob, in his Treatise of Christs sufferings.
• * 1.13

  The term of Bearing sin and sorrows, hath di∣vers senses in Scripture.
• * 1.14

  Christ bare our i∣niquities when he bare away our diseases by his divine Power.
• * 1.15

  M. Iacob was much to be bla∣med, that trans∣lated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 ini∣quities, which signifies no more than morbus infir∣mitas, to maintain a groundless fan∣cy of his own head, that Christ bare our iniqui∣ties by imputa∣tion.
• * 1.16

  The healing ver∣tue of Christs stripes lies not in his patient bear∣ing them: but in his active Media∣torial obedience, which was tryed through stripes and sufferings.
• * 1.17

  Christ suffered both as a malefa∣ctor, and as a Mediator, at one and the same time.
• * 1.18

  Sin is often put for outward bodily punish∣ments which God or man d••th inflict on men, for sin.
• * 1.19

  Christ bare our sins sundry kind of ways.
• * 1.20

  Sin is often put for false imputa∣tions of sin from wicked men.
• * 1.21

  The holy Chost speaks this Psalm in the person of Christ. See Lu∣ther in Gal. 3.13. and Ans. on this Psalm.
• * 1.22

  The Lord laid all our sins upon Christ, as upon our Priest and Sacrifice.
• * 1.23

  To bear Iniquity and to make A∣tonement for Iniquity, is all one.
• * 1.24

  ••he Father doth •…•…ear our sins by •…•…mputation, as much as ever •…•…hrist bare them •…•…y Imputation.
• * 1.25

  The common doctirn of impu∣tation is built upon such words and phrases as be∣get many absurd consequences.
• * 1.26

  Imposition of hands with confession of sin upon the head of the sin offering, can not be a type of Gods imputing our sins to Christ, but it signifies the ow∣ners faith of de∣pendance.
• * 1.27

  The common doctrine of im∣putation is built upon such phrases as doth beget many ab∣surd consce∣quences.
• * 1.28

  ChrIst doth still beare our sins in Heaven, as much as ever he did here upon earth.
• * 1.29

  Lev 16.10.21, 22.
• * 1.30

  2 Cor. 5.21.
• * 1.31

  God made Christ to be sin for us when he ordain∣ed him to give his soul as a me∣diatorial sacrifice for our sins.
• * 1.32

  Christ did im∣pute all our sins and trespasses to himself as much as ever the Father did.
• * 1.33

  Mat. 26.37
• * 1.34

  Mar. 14.33. Luk. 22.43, 44.
• * 1.35

  Christ was much pained in his minde with the thought of his death, long be∣fore the time of his death came.
• * 1.36

  Lev 26.10.21, 22,
• * 1.37

  See M. Fox in his Acts and Monu∣ments Tom. 1. p. 973.
• * 1.38

  Mark 10.38, 39.
• * 1.39

  Christ as he wa•• true Man, so he stood in need of the Ministery of Angels to com∣fort him against the fear of death and against other temptations also.
• * 1.40

  There is good reason why Christ should shew more fear of death then many Martyrs have done.
• * 1.41

  See Dr. Fulk in his defence of our English Translation, p. 247.
• * 1.42

  True godly fear doth make a soul carefull to doe every duty that may please God, and wary to shun the least sin that may offend God.
• * 1.43

  Christ in the dayes of his flesh did often and earnestly pray to his Father to be delivered from his naturall feare of death, when he came to make his obla∣tion, lest it should spoyle the efficacy of his oblation, and he was heard because of his Godly fear.
• * 1.44

  The Masterpiece of all Christs prayers was to be saved from his naturall feare of death, when he came to make his oblation.
• * 1.45

  Christ was not forsaken of God in anger when he suffered ••••th upon the Cross.
• * 1.46

  See his Formall Appeal in Fox Tom. 1. p. ••5.
• * 1.47

  See H. Bro in Lords Family, F. 4. & A 4. and in Reg. of Cons. pa 80. also see Ams in Ps. 22.1.
• * 1.48

  God appointed Christ to die a double kinde of death: namely, as a Malefactor, and as a Mediator at one and the same time.
• * 1.49

  Christ dyed both as a Malefactor and as a Media∣tor at one and the same time.
• * 1.50

  There is much uncertainty a∣mong Divines what to affirm, whether Christ suffered the wrath of God in his soul only, or in his body also for our Redem∣ption.
• * 1.51

  A true exspositi∣on of the Article he descended in∣to hell,
• * 1.52

  A description of the torments of hell.
• * 1.53

  The devils are not in hell tor∣ments as yet.
• * 1.54

  Mat. 8.29.
• * 1.55

  A description of the tearme se∣cond death.
• * 1.56

  A description of the Second part of the torments of hell.
• * 1.57

  An Examination of Christ's suf∣ferings with the Torments of hell.
• * 1.58

  The common Doctrine of im∣putation doth often run into many absurd consequences.
• * 1.59

  Hell torments are confined to the proper place of hell therefore none can suffer the Torments of hell in this life.
• * 1.60

  When God hath spoken the hea∣then for Gram∣mar and Lo∣giek are good Iudges.
• * 1.61

  Hell place is on high before the Throne of the Lamb, therefore it cannot be in the midst or Center of the Earth, as some affirm.
• * 1.62

  Christ did not suffer the tor∣ments of hell for our sins be∣cause it is con∣trary to the rule of Gods Iustice to punish an in∣ocent with eter∣nal death, for the sins of o∣thers