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. II.

Wherein is proved,

• 1. 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 A∣tonement, namely, by paying or performing unto his Father that invaluable precious thing of his Mediatorial Obedience, where∣of his Mediatorial sacrifice of atonement was the master-piece.
• 2. A Sinners Righteousness or Justification is explained, and cleered from some common Errors.

TRADESMAN,

WHat matter or thing was it that Christ paid or perfor∣med to his Father for our Redemption? or after what manner did Christ Redeem us from the curse of the Law?

Divine.

That which Christ did to Redeem us from the curse of the Law, was not by bearing the said curse really in our stead; (as the common doctrine of imputation doth teach) but by pro∣curing his Fathers Atonement by the invaluable price or perfor∣mance of his own Mediatorial Obedience, whereof his Mediato∣rial

Sacrifice of Atonement was the finishing Master piece. This kind of Obedience was that rich thing of price, which the Father required and accepted as satisfactory for the procuring of his A∣tonement for our full Redemption, Justification, and Adoption.

And according to this Tenor, the Apostle Paul doth explain the matter; he doth teach us to place the obedience to the Medi∣ator in a direct opposition to the first disobedience of Adam; Rom. 5.19. He makes the merit of Christs Mediatorial Obedience, to countervail the demerit of Adams disobedience; for the disobe∣dience of Adam was but the disobedience of a meer man, but the obedience of Christ was the obedience of God-Man: and in that respect God the Father was more highly pleased with the obedi∣ence of the Mediator, then he was displeased with the disobedi∣ence of Adam: If so, then there is no need that our blessed Mediator should pay both the price of his Mediatorial Obedience and also bear the curse of the Law really for our Redemption.

I never heard that ever any Turkish Tyrant did require such a double satisfaction of any redeemer for the redemption of Galley-slaves, I never heard that ever any Tyrant did require any redeem∣er to pay both the full price which they demanded for their re∣demption of their Galley-slaves, and to bear the punishment of their curse, slavery also in their stead: I think no cruel Tyrant did ever exact such a double satisfaction; therefore I cannot chuse but wonder at the common doctrine of imputation, because it makes God the Father more ridged in the price of our redemption, then ever Turkish Tyrant was.

Nei her have I ever heard that ever any cruel creditor did require such a double satisfaction of any surety for the redemption of any debter, as to pay both his full debt, and yet to bear his imprison∣ment also: no creditor ever did or could by any law of justice ex∣act such a double satisfaction of any surety for the redemption of his debter, why then doth the doctrine of imputation make God the Father to be a harder creditor in the point of satisfaction, then ••v••r any ridged creditor was among men?

Trades.

I pray give me leave to replie for my better satisfacti∣on, for redemption is not always done by a price, but sometimes it is done by exchange of one prisoner for another; therefore, why may not Christ stand in our stead, and bear our curse for our Redemption?

Divine.

I grant that the ways of redemption are rank'd into three sorts. 1. By exchange of one captive for another; but we are not thus redeemed, for God did not give his Son into the hands of Sathan to redeem us from under the power of Sathan.

2. There is a redemption by force and strength: but this may be called a deliverance rather then a redemption; but however, Christ did not thus redeem us from Gods wrath, for then Christ must be stronger then his Father; but himself doth testifie, that his Father is greater or stronger then he, Iohn 14.28. Therefore Christ did not redeem us from his Fathers wrath by force and strength: but yet after this sort he doth deliver us dayly from the power of Sathan, for he is stronger then that strong man Luke 11.22.

3. Therefore, Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, and so consequently from his Fathers wrath, by no other way or means but by that rich and unvaluable price or merit of his Mediatorial Obedience; and this way of redemption is often taught and confirmed by the Holy Scriptures: as in, 1 Cor. 6.20. Ye are bought with a price: Namely with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot, 1 Pet. 1.19. it is called precious, because it was the blood of that person that was God as well as man; and 2. it is called precious by the figure Me∣tynomia, because it is put for all his Mediatorial Obedience, where∣of his Mediatorial Sacrifice was the Master Piece; for that act of his was the highest act of obediemce that ever God required, or that the Mediator could perform for our Atonement and redemption: and in this sense only we have Atonement, Rom. 5.11. and redempti∣on through his blood Eph. 1.7. and in this sense he gave his life a ran∣some for the many; Mat. 20.28. and in this sense he gave himself to redeem us from all iniquity, and to clense us to himself: Titus 2.14. the gross substance of that blood that was shed by the Romans in a passive manner, is not to be taken by it self, alone considered, for that precious price; neither doth the gross substance of blood clense any, but defiles; therefore we must take the blood of Christ by the figure Metynomia, for his Mediatorial Obedience whereof his Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement was the Master piece: and in that sense it procures the Fathers Atonement, and in that sense it doth clense the soul fr••m sin; for assoon as we have the Fathers Atonement, we are

freed from the guilt of all sin: and in this sense the blood of Iesus Christ his Son, doth clense us from all sin 1 Iohn 1.7. Rev. 1.5. his sacrifice did procure his Fathers Atonement, because it was a Mediatorial Sacrifice, for he offered himself by his eternal spirit. Heb. 9.14. In the Iews ac∣count Christ died only a passive death, but in Gods account he died a mediatorial active death; and therefore it was accepted of God as a pleasing sacrifice, for the procuring of our Atonement and redem∣ption: neither silver nor gold, or any other corruptible thing could procure our Atonement and redemption; no other thing could procure it but the highest degree of obedience which the me∣diator could perform, which was his mediatorial sacrifice of A∣tonement: it was no legal obedience, nor any other human acti∣on that was a sufficient price for our redemption, but it was that precious thing or act of his Mediatorial Obedience in his obliga∣tion which was a super-natural obedience; and therefore it was accepted of God the father as the meritorious procuring cause of our Atonement and red••mption: and so consequently it was that pre∣cious thing of price by which Christ did redeem us from the curse of the law, and from his Fathers wrath.

2. This way of our redemption was taught and typified by that price that all Israel gave for the redemption of their lives ime∣diatly after their coming out of Egypt: the rich might not pass, nor the poor might not diminish from half a shekel: both must give a like price for their redemption: (and these half shekels were after used to buy the dayly morning and evening sacrifices, which were publick sacrifice for the whole Church of Isra••l) and this Redem∣ption money was given yeer by yeer, because the law made nothing perfect at once: see Ains. on Exo. 30.15. Neh. 10.32, 33.

And this redemption money (or part of it at least) was called sin money, and Trespass money, 2 Kings 12.16. because it was employed to buy the publick sin offerings, and trespass offerings as well as the dayly Burnt Offerings; and it was imployed also to build the Sanctuary, or to repair the Temple, as I have formerly noted on Cor. 5.21.

And this ceremony might teach them and us, that Christ should redeem us by making his soul a sin offering, and a trespass offering for the procuring of his Fathers atonement for our ful redemption.

3. It is evident by another Typical ceremony of redemption

that Christ hath redeemed us by a price only (and not by bearing the curse of the law for us) for in Lev. 25.25.39.47. it is said if any man through poverty be not able to redeem himself or his land from bondage, then his brother or his next kinsman must re∣deem them by a price of money or money-worth; and not by going in∣to his brothers poverty to suffer his misery in his stead: and in this sense Christ the antitype became man, that he might become our brother and neer kinsman in the flesh, that so by the right of bro∣therhood he might have a direct enterance to do the office of a re∣deemer for us by the rich and weighty price and merit of his Medi∣atorial Obedience, whereof his Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atone∣ment was the Master Piece, for that was the most precious thing that either God the Father could require, or that the mediator could perform for our Atonement and Redemption.

Trades.

You make the mediatorial sacrifice of Christ to be the only satisfactory price to Gods justice for our redemption: and in effect the Lutherans say as much, they set as high a price upon the blood of Christ as you do, for they commonly say that one drop of the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world, and yet not∣withstanding they do also say and affirm that Christ suffered the wrath of God according to the curse of the Law, for our redemption: and this suffering of Gods wrath they make to be as necessary for our redemption as his Mediatorial Sacrifice, therefore in their judge∣ment and in the judgement of divers other Protestant writers, Christ hath redeemed us both these ways: Namely by paying unto God the price of his precious blood, and by bearing his Fathers wrath also in the same proportion as it is due to us from the Curse of the Law.

Divine.

There are two dangerous errors in this tenent of the Lutherans. 1. it is a most dangerous error to affirm that Christ hath redeemed the whole world. And 2. it is another error as dangerous as the former to say that one drop of the blood of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world.

1. It is a dangerous error to affirm that Christ hath redeemed the whole world, he never intended to redeem all Mankind in ge∣neral, he never intended to redeem any but the Many: he con∣firmed the promise or covenant only for the Many. Dan. 9.27. And when he ordained his last supper to be one of the seals of this

covenant, he said of the wine this is the blood of the new Testament or covenant which is shed for you and the many Mat. 26.28. And was once offered (namely as a mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement) to bear the sins of the many Heb. 9.28. and he gave his life a ran∣som for the many; Mat. 20.28.

Trades.

These many may be understood of all mankind in gene∣ral, for Paul saith thus, Through the offence of one the many were made finners Rom. 5.19. That is to say all the world, for all man∣kind in General were made sinners through Adams fall.

Divine.

I grant that the term Many in some places of Scri∣pture may be understood of mankind in general; but yet not in the place that you have cited: I grant that all mankind in general are become sinners through Adam fall, but yet that text which you have cited aims only to prove, that the Elect number are made sinners through Adams fall, because the Apostle doth by and by after counterpoise many to many, saying, As by one mans disobedi∣ence many were made sinners, So by the Obedience of One, shall many be made righteous: Rom. 5.19. Here the last term many must parallel the first term many: and this last term many cannot be un∣derstood of any others but of that many only that have the benefit of Christs Mediatorial obedience to cure their sinful condition that came by Adams dis-obedience.

In briefe therefore, the sense of the Apostle must ly thus: as by one mans disobedience the many (that is to say the elect number were made sinners as well as the reprobates, Eph. 2.1. Rom. 3.9.) So by the Obedience of ONE the many are made righteous: no re∣probates can be included in this many, because they are not made righteous by the Mediatorial Obedience of Jesus Christ: but the many elected ones only: for by the Mediatorial Obedience of Je∣sus Christ, whereof his sacrifice of Atonement was the Master piece, he procured his Fathers Atonement to all the elect for their full righteousness, redemption, or freedome from the guilt of sin, and so consequently from the curse of the law, and from his Fathers wrath: and for these many onely and not for the rest of the world doth Christ make intercession to his Father; Iohn 17.19. Psa. 16 4. And for these only he did sanctifie himself Iohn 17.19, 20.

Therefore this speech of the Lutherans whereby they labor to promote the doctrine of a general redemption, doth argue their

great ignorance in the Articles of the Eternal Covenant which was made between the Father and the Son for mans Redemption.

But they labor to prove their tenent by several Scriptures, as by Iohn 1.19. where Christ is said to be the Lamb of God that takes away the sins of the World; also they alledge, 1 Iohn 2.2. where Christ is said to be the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but for the sins of the whole World: To these Scriptures I answer, that the word World must not be taken for the universal number of all mankind, but it must be taken for the World of Believers only, as the matter is explained by Iohn 3.16. God so loved the VVorld, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life: In this Text the word World is explained, to mean such only as believe in Christ; and in verse 18. They that believe not in the only Son of God, are exempted from Righteousness and Redemption by Christ.

Again, they alledge that Christ dyed for all men in general, be∣cause it is said in 2 Cor. 5.15. That Christ died for All: To this I Answer, that the word All in this Text, must be taken for all the Elect only, and no more; it must be limitted to all of that sort of persons of which he speaks; namely, to that All which live not to themselves, but unto him that dyed for them; he never shed his bloud for such as live to themselves, but for such as live unto him that died for them: and this Interpretation is further cleered by another Scripture, in Iohn 1.16. of his fulness we all receive; that is to say, all we which do believe: So Christ healed all that were sick, Mat. 8.16. that is to say, all the sick persons that were brought unto him: and therefore another Evangelist doth explain it thus, He healed many, Mar. 1.34. and the word All is often put for many, as in Mat. 21.26. Luk. 21.17. Phil. 2.21. Gen. 41.57.

Therefore I may well conclude, that this Assertion of the Lu∣therans and Arminians is a dangerous Error, for by it they make every profane person believe, that they have as good a share in the bloud of Christ, as any of Gods people have, if they can but re∣pent, intimating thereby that they may repent when they will.

Secondly, It is another most dangerous Error of the Lutherans, to ascribe the price of our Redemption to one drop of the corpo∣real bloud of Christ; for it is a common saying among them, that one drop of the bloud of Christ is sufficient to redeem the whole world.

But if this speech of theirs be well examined, it will appear that one drop of the bloud of Christ was not sufficient to redeem the Elect; much less was it sufficient to redeem the whole world in general: for Christ must by Gods appointment shed as much bloud as was sufficient to make his oblation withal: But one drop was not sufficient to make his Oblation; Therefore one drop was not sufficient to redeem the Elect, much less was it sufficient to redeem the whole world: Christ knew well enough that the bloud of the burnt offering, and the bloud of the trespass offering, (which was a type of his own bloud) must be shed in such a large quantity, that the Altar must be filled with it round about, Lev. 1.5. See also Ains. in Lev. 3.2. this sprinkling must be made with such a large quantity of bloud, that the four corners of the Altar might be filled with it, Zach. 9.15. The Original word doth signifie A pouring out with sprinkling: And the Hebrew Cannons tell us, that the Priests must endeavor to receive all the bloud in bowls, that there might be sufficient at twice sprinkling to ly thick upon all the four sides of the Altar; as it is written in Lev. 1.5. Round about the Altar: and the rest of the bloud that was left, the Sacrificers poured out at the bottom of the Altar; Exod. 29.12. and thence it was conveyed by spouts into the Brook Kidron: See Ains. in Lev. 4.7. yea it was the Lords express commandment concerning all Sacrifices in general, to pour out the bloud (namely by a large and liberal sprinkling) upon the Altar of Jehovah, Deut. 12.17. and Christ did fulfil this type when he poured out his soul to death, Isa. 53.12. so the Hebrew is; but Paul's Greek in Rom 4.25. is taken from the seventy on this place, which is passive; He was de∣livered to death for our sins: and thus the holy Ghost in Hebrew and Greek doth make the death of Christ to be both Active and Passive, because in his death he died both actively and passively: for he suffered passively from man as a Malefactor, and yet he did actuate his own death, by seperating his soul from his body by his own active power, or by the joynt concurrence of both his Na∣tures: and because he did freely pour out his soul to death, therefore his death was typified by a large quantity of bloud, which was sprinkled by the Priest upon the Altar. It was the practise of Ido∣laters also, to pour out the bloud of their Sacrifices; but of such the Mediator saith, I will not pour out their poured out Oblations of

bloud: that is to say, I will not make Atonement for them, by pouring out my bloud for them; Psal. 16.4, I am loth (saith D. Hampton) to believe that either the Father was so prodigal of his Sons life, or that the Son was so careless of his own bloud, that he would have poured out all, if one drop would have served the turn.

Secondly, As the quantity of his bloud must answer the type of pouring out, so the quality and manner of shedding it, must answer to the Typical Sacrifice: First, no bloud was acceptable in sacrifice, but that which was of a clean beast: and secondly, No bloud was acceptable but that which was sprinkled by the Priest: It was not the bloud of Christ which was shed as a Malefactor, neither was it the bloud of Christ as it was shed by the Roman Souldiers, that was sufficient for our Redemption; but it was the bloud of Christ who was the Lamb of God without spot: and se∣condly, it was the bloud of Christ that was poured or sprinkled by his Priestly Nature, namely, by his God-head, that God accepted as the meritorious procuring cause of his Atonement for our full Redemption: It was not the gross substance of his bloud that God the Father regarded, no otherwise but as it was a Metynomia of his Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement; for his material or cor∣poreal bloud was spilt upon the ground, and it was soon dryed up, and God knows what is become of it now, but it was the merito∣rious efficacy of his bloud that he regarded, which I call his Medi∣atorial Sacrifice of Atonement; that bloud is never dried up, but it doth ever live to procure Gods Atonement for the full Redem∣ption of all the Elect.

Therefore it must needs be a dangerous and a superstitious error of the Lutherans, to ascribe so much to one drop of the material bloud of Christ.

Trades.

I must needs acknowledge that you have given me good satisfaction touching this speech of the Lutherans and Arminians, I now see plainly that it hath bin an occasion to corrupt the minds of many touching the true meritorious price of our Redemption: I pray you therefore let me hear you speak a little more fully wherein the true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ doth ly, for the procuring of the Fathers Atonement for our full Redemption.

Divine,

The true meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ,

lies not in this, that it was a part of the corporeal substance of the Lamb of God without spot; nor in this, that he suffered his bloud to be shed by the Roman Souldiers in a passive manner of obedi∣ence; but it lies in this, that it was shed by his own active Priestly power, by which means only it became a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement: and yet notwithstanding, though I do not place the efficacy of his bloud neither in the material substance of his bloud, nor in the passive shedding of it; yet I do freely grant that both his material bloud, and the passive shedding of it, are often put by the figure Synecdoche, and by the figure Metynomia, for his Media∣torial Sacrifice of Atonement: as for example, in Eph. 1.7. we have Redemption through his bloud; This term bloud, must be un∣derstood with a grain of Salt, for the term bloud here, must be un∣derstood by the figure Metynomia, for the signe and token of his death; and secondly, the term bloud and death in the passive acti∣on, is often put by the figure Synecdoche, for his active Mediatorial death; because at one and the same time Christ died both as a Me∣diator actively, and as a malefactor passively; as I have explained the matter in Gal. 3.13. and in other places also; therefore seing there is such a concatination of his active Mediatorial death with his passive death, they may well be put the one for the other in∣terchangeably, because they were so interwoven together at the same time; and in this respect the holy Scriptures do indifferently put the one for the other: this distinction I hope the wise will ea∣sily understand.

But for your better understanding of the meritorious efficacy of the bloud of Christ, consider two things, First, Consider what was the Priestly Nature of Christ; and Secondly, Consider what was his Priestly Action.

First, His Priestly Nature was his Divine Nature; for he is said to be a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck, of whom it is witnessed, that HE liveth, or that HE ever liveth: Heb. 7.8. This term HE, importeth the nature Ever-living; and then it must needs mean his Divine Nature, for his Human Nature was dissolved by death: The like Emphasis is in the word HE, in Psal. 102.27. Thou art HE, and thy yeers fail not; The Apostle Paul doth ex∣pound this HE of the God-head of Christ, in Heb. 1.10.12. In like sort the term HE runs in this sense, in the first promise made to

Adam and Eve, HE shall break thy head, Gen. 3.15. who else can HE be that shall break the Divels head plot, but that HE that is the Son of God? And thus the Apostle John doth expound that HE, saying, For this cause [HE] the Son of God was made ma∣nifest, that HE might destroy the work of the Divel, or that he might break the Divels head-plot in pieces: 1 Iohn 3.8. He is also called, The Son of God that shall shortly bruise Sathan under our feet, Rom. 16.20. From all these places compared together, it is evident that Jesus Christ in his Divine Nature is a Priest for ever after the order of Melchisedeck.

But yet withal take notice, that the term HE in Gen. 3.15. doth comprehend under it his Human Nature as well as his Divine; yea it doth also comprehend under it the personal union of both his Natures. First, The term HE describes him to be true man, be∣cause he is called the seed of the Woman. S••condly, the term HE describes him to be true God, because he must break the Divels head-plot. Thirdly, the term HE is a Noun singular, and so it describes the Person of the Mediator to be individual, after that his two Natures were united by an Hypostatical union; and so the Apostle cals this seed of the woman, or this seed of Abraham [one] which is Christ, Gal. 3.16.

Secondly, Consider what was his Priestly action, and that was the sprinkling of his own bloud by his own Priestly Nature, that is to say, by his Divine Nature; for he poured out his soul to death, Isa. 53.12. namely, by the active power of his own Divine Priest∣ly Nature; for he offered himself by his Eternal Being or God-head, Heb. 9.14. that is to say, he seperated his soul from his body by the power of his God-head, when he made his soul a Trespass offering for our sins; Isa. 53.10. if his bloud had bin sprinkled only pas∣sively by the hand of man, and not actively by the power of his Priestly Nature, it had made no Atonement: As for example, If the bloud of the typical sacrifice of Atonement had not bin sprink∣led by a Priest, it had made no Atonement, because it was an action that did properly belong to the Priests office to sprinkle the bloud of every Sacrifice upon the Altar; the Levites might not sprinkle the bloud of every sacrifice upon the Altar, the Priests only must do it: the Levites indeed might kill sacrifices, and receive the bloud in bouls, as Assistants to the Priests, but yet they might not sprinkle

the bloud of any sacrifice upon the Altar; God had reserved that action to be done by the Priests only, because it was one of the es∣sential parts of the sacrifice: See Ains. on Lev. 1.5. Maymony saith, That the action of sprinkling bloud upon the Altar, is a weighty matter, it is the root or principal of the Sacrifice; See Ains. in Exod. 12.45. as I noted it already; and the manner of sprinkling must be done with a large and liberal quantity; and therefore it is called pouring out, as I have formerly noted it in Lev. 1.5. and this sprinkling with pouring ••ut did represent the death of the beast, and also it did typifie the death of the Mediator; for the soul of the beast is in the bloud, and so also the soul or vital spirits of man is in his bloud, or with his bloud: and therefore a large quan∣tity of bloud shed, must needs be a true evidence of death.

Secondly, Bloud was given or sprinkled upon the Altar to make Atonement for mens souls.

Thirdly, It pleased God in this respect to seperate bloud from the common use of food, as long as the partition wall of Ceremo∣nies stood betwixt Jews and Gentiles.

Fourthly, Therefore the Lord did threaten the Jews, that if any of them did eat bloud, that soul should be cut off from among his people: Lev. 17.11.4. Lev. 7.26. But now the partition Wall is broken down, and both Jews and Gentiles may eat bloud and things strangled as lawfully as any other food.

And because this large and liberal sprinkling of bloud by the Priest upon the Altar did represent the death of the sacrifice, and typifie the death and sacrifice of Christ; therefore bloud was much used as a purging type, for almost all things are by the Law purged with bloud; Heb. 9.21, 22. to signifie unto us, the purging na∣ture of Christs sacrifice of Atonement: Material Bloud doth not purge, but defile; but Mediatorial Bloud doth clense and purge away sin; and therefore Christ made his oblation by the joynt con∣currence of both his Natures in a Mediatorial way of obedience; his Human Nature was the Lamb without spot, and his Divine Nature was both the Priest and the Altar whereby and whereon his human Nature was sacrificed and offered; and by this means his death became a sacrifice of propitiation to procure Gods Atone∣ment to all the true Israel of God; and in this respect his death is called the sprinkling of the bloud of Christ, 1 Pet. 1.2. which

speaketh better things then the bloud of Abel, Heb. 12.24.

And secondly, In this respect the Bloud of Christ is called the Bloud of God, Act. 20.28. not only because his Human Nature was united to his Divine Nature; for by the communication of properties that may be attributed to the person which is proper but to one Nature only: But secondly, It is called the Bloud of God in another respect; namely, because he shed his Bloud by his own Priestly Nature; that is to say, by the actual power of his Divine Nature; for he offered himself by his Eternal Spirit, Heb. 9.14. and poured out his soul to death: Isa. 53.12. In like sort he is called Iehovah our righteousness: Ier. 23. Because his Mediatorial Obe∣dience (whereof his oblation was the Master-piece) was actuated by Iehovah, that is to say, by his Divine Nature as well as by his Human.

So then, I may well conclude, that the death of Christ was a Mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement, because it was the Act of the Mediator in both his Natures: In his Human Nature he was the Lamb of God without spot; and in his Divine Nature he was the Priest to offer up his Human nature to God, as a Mediatorial sacri∣fice of Atonement, for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for the full Redemption of all the Elect.

But still remember my former caution, that you may understand my words with a grain of salt; for when I say he did pour out his own Bloud by the active power of his own God-head, I mean that he by the active power of his God-head did pour out his soul, or seperate his soul from his body, when he made his soul a Trespass offering for our sins and trespasses; Isa. 53.10.12. Bloud is often put for the seperation of his Soul from his Body; and so Isaiah doth explain it, He poured out his soul to death; Isa. 53.12. The Roman Souldiers did shed a part of his Bloud, but yet all that ever they could do unto him, could not seperate his soul from his Body, till himself pleased to do that by the power of his own God-head.

His Divine nature was the Altar upon which he sanctified his Human nature, and this was typified by the Levitical Altar, which at the first was anointed and sanctified, that so it might sanctifie the sacrifice that was offered thereon, Exod. 27.1. Numb. 7.1.88. for assoon as the Altar was sanctified, it was called Holiness of Holi∣nesses; Exod. 29.37. because it sanctified all the sacrifices that

were thereon, Mat. 23.14. This did teach and typifie unto us, that Christ was not only anointed and sanctified by the holy Ghost to be the mediator, but that he himself did also sanctifie his own humane nature, which he did offer up to God upon the Altar of his own God-head; as a sacrifice of a sweet smelling sa∣vor to God for the procuring of his Fathers Atonement for our full. Redemption. Eph. 5.2. Iohn 17.19.

It was the holyness of his divine nature that gave the quickning power to the oblation of his humane nature. Iohn 6.63. When Christ said to his Disciples he that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him; verse 56. then many of his Disciples understood his words in a literal and corporal sense (as the Papists do, this is my body) and thereupon they were offended and said unto him, this is a hard saying, who can hear it? v. 60. that is to say, who can indure to hear of such a gross and carnal eat∣ing of thy body? Thereupon Iesus explained his own mind and meaning thus: it is the spirit that quickneth, the flesh profiteth no∣thing; the words that I speak unto you are spirit and life, Iohn 6.63. In this answer our Saviour declareth two things. 1. That the gross and carnal substance of his flesh and blood, considered by it self alone, had no meritorious efficacy to procure our union with his person, or to procure our communion with him in his sacrifice of Atonement: neither his flesh, nor the actions of his flesh alone considered, can profit us; and therefore his Legal obedience cannot profit us; whether by way of merit, nor yet by way of imputation for our righteousness, because it is but a part of his flesh; for legal obedience is but humane obedience, it can∣not be accounted as Mediatorial Obedience.

2. Our Saviour in his answer declared wherein the true force and efficacy of his sacrifice did ly: namely in these two things. 1. In the personal union of his humane nature with his divine nature: 2. It lies in his priestly offering up of his humane nature by his divine nature. The flesh of Christ as it suffered death passively by the Roman Souldiers cannot profit us; but as his God-head gave the quickning power to his oblation, so it doth profit us; for by that meanes it became the meritorious procuring cause of his Farhers Atonement for our full Redemption.

Therefore when we come to the Lord Table to receive the bread

and wine, as the signes of his body broken, and of his blood shed; we must not do as the Papists do, we must not look at the gross substance of his body and blood, neither must we look at the shed∣ding of it in a passive manner by the Iews and Romans; but we must look upon the bread and wine by the figure Metynomia, as the signes or tokens of his Mediatorial death; for he poured out his own soul to death by the active power of his God-head, as a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement, even at the same time when his body was broken, and his blood shed in a passive manner by the Iews and Romans; I say the death of Christ must be consider∣ed of all faithful receivers as a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement, because it was performed by the actual power of his God-head, yea by the joint concurrence of both his natures: there was not the least unwillingness in his humane nature to dy, when he came to make his soul a trespass offering for our sins; as I have expound∣ed Hebr. 5.7. neither did he dy a passive death, by the power of the Roman souldiers, as the Jews thought, and as the Papists and other carnal Protestants do think; all the men and divels in the world could not put him to death by their power, I mean they could not seperate his soul from his body, till himself pleased to do it by his own priestly power, Iohn 10.17.18. his soul was not seperated from his body by the sense of those pains which the Ro∣man souldiers inflicted upon him, as the souls of the two thieves were that were crucified with him; for Christ dyed neither sooner nor later then the very punctual hour in which God had appointed him to make his oblation; for the Angel Gabriel was sent to tell Daniel at the time of the evening oblation, that from that very hour to the death of Christ, should be 490. yeers exactly cut out: Dan. 9.24. and accordingly at the time of the evening sacrifice, Christ did but say, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit, and at that very instant he gave up the Ghost; Mark 15.37. And when the Centurion saw that he so cryed out and gave up the Ghost, he said, truly this man was the Son of God: Mark 15.39. The Centurion did plainly see a manifest difference between the manner of Christs death and the death of the two thieves that were crucified with him; for as yet they did still continue alive in their torments, till after the time that Ioseph of Arimathea had begged our Saviours dea•• body of Pilate, at the Su••-set evening (for Io∣seph

did not go to Pilate to beg our Saviours dead body until the evening was come, Mat. 27.57. Mark 15.52, 53. And that was at Sun-set; it could not be when the first evening was come, for that was at mid-day, therefore it was the latter evening of which he speaks; and that doth not begin till Sun-set, and then the two thieves were alive, and like enough they might have lived longer in their torments, if the Roman Souldiers had not broken their legs to hasten their death: but Christ was dead long before this, for he gave up the Ghost at the ninth hour, which was about 3 hours before the two thieves were killed; and for that reason the Souldiers did not break his legs, because he had bin dead three hours before, and yet by the course of his nature he might have liv∣ed in his torments as long as the two thieves did, for the Roman Souldiers did crucifie all three alike: what then was the true rea∣son why Christ died three hours before the two thieves? had he less strength of nature to bear his torments then they? or did the Roman Souldiers ad more torments upon his body then upon the two thieves? or did the Fathers wrath kill him sooner then the two thieves, as some think? surely none of all these things did ha∣sten his death before the two thieves: but the only true reason was, because he did actuate his own death as a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement (at the just hour appointed by his Father) by the joint concurrence of both his Natures: his human nature alone could not actuat his own death, because it is not in the power of any mans nature to dy when he will (except he use some sinful vio∣lence against nature) neither could his God-head make his soul a Mediatorial Sacrifice, till his human nature had accomplished two things. 1. Not till he had overcome his natural fear of death, which by strange crying and tears he obtained at last; and 2. His Divine nature could not make his soul a Mediatorial Sacrifice, un∣til his human nature did put out an active willingness to dy, for his death could never have bin a Mediatorial Sacrifice of Atonement unless he did actuat his own death by the joint concurrence of both his natures: and therefore that act of his obedience was the Ma∣ster peice of all his obedience, it was the choisest thing that the Father required, or that the Mediator could perform, as the pro∣curing cause of Gods Atonement for our full Redemption, Justifi∣cation, and Adoption.

Trades.

You seem to make the death of Christ an active death only; Is not this directly contrary to the very letter of the Scri∣pture? seing the Scripture doth often testifie that the death of Christ was a passive death; Peter saith, That he was put to death con∣cerning the flesh, 1 Pet. 3.18. and that he was crucified and slain, Acts 2.32. and that they kill'd the Lord of life, Acts 3.15. 1 Thes. 2.15. Jam. 5.6. Therefore how can you affirm that he dyed an active death only?

Divine.

I have already shewed you that Christ died a two-fold death, for he died both as a Malefactor, and as a Mediator at one and the same time; a•• a Malefactor he died a passive death, but 〈◊〉〈◊〉 he was a Mediator, he died an active death: and the Scripture doth often speak of both these deaths, somtimes joyntly, and somtime, severally; when the Scripture doth mention his passive death, th••n it saith that he was put to death, killd, and slain: But secondly, t•••• Scripture doth somtimes speak joyntly of his passive and of his ••e∣diatorial death together in one sentence as in Rom. 8.13. and in Gal. 3.13. Which scripture I have opened at large in the first ••••r••. And so when Christ ordained his last supper, he took the brea••, and brake it, and said, this is my body which is given for you; that i•• to say, which I have given to be broken for you▪ Luke 22.19. compared with 1 Cor. 11.24. Both actively and p••••s••vely; ••or as Christ brake the bread, so he brake his own body, because he ••••d seperate his own soul from his body; so likewise he said of ••••e 〈◊〉〈◊〉 this is the cup of the new Testament which is sh•••••• ••••r ••ou▪ 〈◊〉〈◊〉 to say, which I have given to be shed for you: Luk•• 2••.••••, actively and passively as aforesaid; so Isa. 12. with Rom. 4.••5.

3. The scripture doth sometimes speak of his m••d••••••ri••l ••e••••h only: as in Isa. 53.10. he gave his soul to be a••l Trespass 〈…〉〈…〉 for our sins, and he offered himself by his eternal spirit: He••••. 9.14. and he laid down his own life, John 10.17, 18. And he sanc••••fi•••• himself, Iohn 17.19.

Therefore seeing the holy Scriptures do teach us to observe this distinction upon the dea••h of Christ, it is necessary that all Gods people should take notice of it, and ingrave it in their minds and memories.

When I speak of the death of Christ as a malefactor, then the Scribes and pharisees must b•• considered as the wicked instrumen••s

thereof: but yet this must be remembred also, that I do not mean that they by their torments did seperate his soul from his body; in that sense they did not put him to death, (himself only did sepe∣rate his own soul from his body, by the power of his God-head) but they put him to death, because they inflicted the sores of death upon his body; they did that to him which they thought sufficient to put him to death: and men are often said to do that which they en∣deavour to do: As for example Abraham is said to offer his only son, because he endeavoured to do it: Hebr. 11.17. And Haman is said, to lay his hands upon the Iews, because he endeavoured to do it: Ester 8.7. And Amaleck is said to lay his hand upon the throne of Iah, because he endeavoured to do it: Exo. 17.16. And Saul is said to smite Davids life to the ground, because he endeavoured to do it: Psa. 143.3. And the Magitians are said to make lice mira∣culously, as Moses did, because they endeavoured to do it; but yet the text saith that they could not do it, Ex. 8.18. And the Is∣raelites are said to go up to the top of the mountain, because they endeavoured to do it; Num. 14.40. As the matter is explained in Deu. 1.41. In like sort men are said to do that which they com∣mand others to do; 2 Sam. 12.9. Num. 19.3. and in this sense it is said that the Iews did kill and slay the Lord of life, because they endeavoured to do it, by stiring up Pilate to condemn him; and to crucifie him, and in the conclusion, they verily thought that they had kil'd him, because they crucified him and tormented him with sores of death, as the two thieves were; but the truth is, they wre deceived, for he was not a bare and base man, as the two thieves were, and therefore they could not seperate his soul from his body by all the torments the divel could devise, (for he was stronger then Satan) till himself pleased to actuate his own death by his own Priestly nature, as a mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement, by the joint concurrence of both his natures; in this last sense Christ dyed as a mediator only; he did actuate his own death as a mediator at the very same time when the Iews put him to death as a malefactor, he laid down his own life by the same power by which he took it up again; Iohn 10.17, 18. And how else did he raise himself up out of his grave, but by the joint concurrence of both his natures? therefore he must needs actuate his own death by the joint concur∣rence of both his Natures. See a further answer to this in Ps. 22.15.

By this distinction imprinted upon the mind and memory, a man may easily see the reason why the death of Christ is sometimes called a passive death, and sometimes an active death.

Yea his mediatorial death may wel be called a miraculous death, it was no less miraculos then the raising of the dead body of Lazarus was: for when Christ went about to raise the dead body of Lazarus he did but cry out to Lazarus with a loud voice, saying come forth; and at that very instant he came out of the grave: Iohn 11.43. In like manner when the just appointed hour was come wherein the Fa∣ther had appointed the mediator to make his soul a sacrifice for sin, he did but cry out to his Father with a loud voice, saying, Father into thy hands I commend my spirit; and at that very instant he breathed out his soul into the hands of God.

Christ dyed not by degrees (saith Mr. Nichols in his Day-star) as his Saints do: his senses did not decay; no pangs of death took hold upon him; but in perfect sense, Patience, and Obedience both of body and of soul, he by his infinite power did voluntarily resign his spirit (as he was praying) into the hands of his Father, without any trembling or strugling, or without any shew of sense of his pains.

And Austin saith thus: who can sleep (saith he) when he will, as Christ dyed when he would? who can lay aside his Garment, so as Christ layed aside his flesh? who can leave his place, so as Christ left his life? his life was not forced from him by any imposed puni∣shment, but he did voluntarily render it up to God as a Mediatorial Sacrifice: in his life time he was often touched with the fear of death, but by his strong crying unto God with dayly prayers and tears, he obtained power against his natural fear o•• death before he came to make his oblation; as I have expounded Heb. 5.7.

And it is further evident that his death was miraculous, by the speech of the Centurion, for when he saw that Christ did but cry out and give up the Ghost, at the same instant he said, truly this man was the Son of God; Mark 15.39.

Again it is evident that his death was miraculous, because at that instant when he breathed out his soul into the hands of God, the vail of the temple (which typified his human nature) rent it self in twain from the top to the bottom; and at that time also the graves of the Saints did open themselves, and many of the dead Saints did arise: Mat. 27.51. These miracles declar'd that now the true

Holy of Holies did seperate his s••ul from his body, and so entered into heaven with his own blood, having found Eternal redempti∣on for us, Heb. 9.12.

Hence we may learn, that the doctrine of the Papists and Lu∣therans in their Transubstantiation, and in Ctheir onsubstantiati∣on, is very erroneous; for they place the meritorious price of their redemption in the gross substance of Christs flesh and bloud, and in the passive shedding of it upon the cross by the Romans; and they also do make the wooden cross on which Christ was crucified as a malefactor, to be the Altar; they may as wel make the Roman souldiers to be the priests that did offer up his human nature in sa∣crifice to God for our redemption: O woful blindness, that they should thus corrupt the meritorious price of our Atonement and redemption!

But I have formerly confuted this carnal and superstitious do∣ctrine: I have formerly proved that the God-head of Christ was the Altar, and that the God-head of Christ was the priest whereby he made his mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement: I have shewed that neither the substance of Christs flesh, nor the substance of his bloud, nor the passive action of sheding it by the Roman souldiers, could make his death to be a mediatorial sacrifice: and so our Sa∣viour told the Iews when they understood him of eating the sub∣stance of his flesh, and of drinking the substance of his bloud; he told them plainly, that it was not his flesh nor his bloud, but the Spirit or God-head that gave the quickning vertue to his flesh and bloud: Iohn 6.63. It is a gross conceit to think that the substance of bloud can clense any mans soul, for the gross substance of bloud doth defile, and in that respect it was counted unclean: Lev. 6.26.

But the clensing vertue of his bloud lies in his own mediatorial sheding of it, for though he did not break his own body, and pour out his own bloud with nails and spear as the Roman souldiers did, yet he brake his own body in pieces, by seperating his own soul from his body by the power of his divine nature: and then he did actually shed his own bloud, when he did pour out his own soul to death; Is. 53.12. as a mediatorial sacrifice of Atonement, for the pro∣curing of his Fathers Atonement for our full redemption, justificati∣on▪ and Adoption: and in this sense only the bloud of Christ doth purge us; Tit. 2.14. And clense us; 1 Iohn 1.7. and wash us from our sins. Rev. 1.

Notes

• The thing of Price which Christ paid for our Redemption was his Media∣torial obedience.
• The merit of Christs Media∣torial obedience dot •• more then counte••vail the demerit of Adams Disobe∣dience.
• Christ did not shed his blood for the whole world, but for the Elect num∣ber only.
• One drop of the Bloud of Christ is not sufficient to redeem the whole world.
• The holy Ghost in Hebrew and Greek doth make the death of Christ to be both active and passive wherein a great mystery is couched.
• see D. Hampton in his sermon on Rom. 10.4. printed 1609.
• The true force and efficacy of the blood of Christ lies in this, that he did actually pou e out hs own soul to death by his own preistly power: by which meanes only it became a mediatorial sa∣crifice of A∣tonement.
• Christ is a preist for ever by his Divine nature see Heb. in melch. p. 34. & in Rev. 107.
• Christ in his hu∣man nature was the Lamb of God without spot, and in his divine na∣ture he was the Priest to offer it up to God as a Mediatorial Sa∣crifice of Atone∣ment for our Re∣demption.
• Christ in his di∣vine nature was the Altar upon which he offered his human nature as a mediatorial sacrifice of atone∣ment.
• When we come to the Lords ta∣ble we must look more at his me∣diatorial oblation then at his passive death.
• The natural evening is devid∣ed into two evenings, and these two parts are called the two evenings, the 1 begins at mid-day, and the other begins at sun-set: there∣fore there is not a third begining as some would have it.
• The death of Christ may be called either an ••ctive or a pas∣sive death in se∣••••••••l ••••sp••cts.
• The Iews are said to put Christ to death because they en∣deavoured to do it.
• The death of the Mediator was a miraculos death.
• Christ did actual∣ly breake his own body in pieces, when he did seperate his soul from his bo∣dy▪ and he did actually pour out his own life when he poured out his soul to death.