III.

CHAP. be supported, certain that all the promises of the covenant should be yea, and amen, to him and to his people.

VII. Whe

was abomi

nable to

count of

the sins

had tak

en upon him.

VII. Let us now come to the other head of ther Christ inquiry, whether it be proper to say, That Christ on account of the pollution of our sins, was God on ac- also polluted and ODIOUS, and placed in such a state, that God abhorred him. Where again it which he is without controversy, that Christ, because of his most perfect holiness, was always most acceptable to God the Father, and most beloved by him. And it is so far from being true that by the voluntary susception of our sins, the love of God to him was any how diminished, that on the contrary, he never pleased the Father more, than when he showed himself obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. For this is that excellent, that incomparable, and almost incredible obedience, which the Father recompensed with a suitable reward of ineffable glory. Nay, it is also confessed on both sides, that Christ, not because of the susception of our sins, which was an holy action, and most acceptable to God, but because of the sins themselves which he took upon him, and because of the persons of sinners whom he sustained, was represented not only under the emblem of a lamb, inasmuch as it is a stupid kind of creature, and ready to wander; but also of a lascivious, a wanton, and a rank-smelling goat, Lev. xvi. 7. yea, likewise of a cursed serpent, John iii. 14. and in that respect, was execrable and

'III.

accursed, even to God. For this is what Paul CHAP expressly asserts, Gal. iii. 13. on which place Calvin thus comments, "He does not say that Christ was cursed, but a curse, which is more; for it signifies that the curse due to all, terminated in him. If this seem hard to any, let him also be ashamed of the cross of Christ, in the confession of which we glory!"

some of the

was damn

VIII. Some of the Romish doctors have, VIII. Cal with great acrimony of style, aggravated what vin, and was said by Calvin in the tenth section of his ancients, Catechism, concerning the satisfactory pains say that he and punishment of Christ, viz. that he was in ed. a state of damnation. But it is answered by our Divines, that Tertullian used the same phrase, Book III. against Marcion, chap. xi. "The nativity will not be more shameful than death, nor infamy than the cross, nor damnation than the flesh." Cyprian on the passion of Christ, "He was damned, that he might deliver the damned." And Gregory the great, Moral. Book III. chap. xi. " He who is equal to the Father in point of divinity, came, on our account, to scourging in respect of the flesh; which scourging he would not have received, had he not in redemption taken upon him the -form of a damned man." [5.]

IX. It is

confine

IX. Since therefore the apostle expressed this truth in the most emphatic words, I know better to not why a desire should seize any of ours, ei- ourselves to ther of substituting or of adding others to

scripture

phrases,

Note [5.]

III.

than by

controver

sies.

CHAP. them, or of using them oftener perhaps, than even Paul's. For what cogent reason is there, why we should say that Christ was odious and asingothers abominable to the Father, when we may adto multiply here to the dictates of the Holy Spirit, who pronounces that he was an execration of God? But I would wish also to know what there is in these words of human invention, except that they are of human invention, for the Sake of which others are so much offended. If we love the thing itself, is there more of emphasis or of weight, in the names filthy, odious, abominable, than in the name cursed, or execrable? Why do we strive about words, which may be safely omitted, if found to give offence; but being also innocently said, ought not to be wrested to another sense.

X. The form of concord.

X. The conciliatory letter I lately mentioned, seems to have found out a convenient method of agreement, in the following words. “Since there is an exchange of persons between Christ and believers, and since the guilt of our iniquities was laid upon him, the Father was OFFENDED AND ANGRY with him. Not that he was ever moved with any PASSION against him, which is repugnant in general to the perfection of the Divine nature, under whatever consideration: neither that he was by any means offended at him, much less abhorred him, so far as he was considered IN HIMSELF, for so he was entirely free from all sin; but as considered IN RELATION TO US, seeing he was our SURETY, carrying our sins in his own body. Thus, if by an OFFENDED

III.

AND AN ANGRY mind, you understand a holy CHAP. WILL TO PUNISH, Christ the Lord felt and bore the displeasure of God, and the weight of his wrath, in the punishment of our sins, which were translated to him. For it pleased the Father to bruise him, having laid the iniquities of us all upon him.” If these things are granted on both sides, as is just, what controversy can remain?

ther God

owned his

XI. There is more difficulty in THE ABDI- XI. Whe CATION OF THE SON OF GOD, as they call it, the Father continuing even to his resurrection from the ever disdead. For no where in sacred scripture do Son. I find this phrase, or any other equivalent to it. Concerning it, certainly, it is not inquired, whether the eternal Son of God ceased to be the Son of God, while he carried our sins. Let him be anathema who teaches this. But neither is it inquired, whether or not the Father then assumed the character of a judge, by whom the Mediator Christ, sustaining the person of rebellious servants, should, as such, be most severely treated. For this also is an incontested truth Perhaps that Perhaps that may be inquired, whether God, when he assumed the character of a Judge toward Christ, so laid aside the character of a Father, that he considered and punished him only as guilty, setting aside the consideration that that guilty person was his own most innocent Son. In which controversy, the negative part, is in my judgment, better than the affirmative.

XII. For as Christ in the utmost extremity XII. Christ

CHAP.

III.

in the utmost an

of anguish, acknowledged the Judge to be his Father, so also God the Judge owned him to be his Son. For these mutually follow one another. Now Christ, with an ingemination, and knowledg- a singular affection, cried, Abba, Father: and hanging on the cross, he into the Father's hands.

guish, ac

ed God as a

Father.

XIII. It

is not

xiii. 33.

commended his spirit And it was of pater

nal affection, as I also lately hinted, that he sent an angel to comfort him, (which certainly will not be the lot of reprobates) that he gave him occasion to say, when he was most poor and needy, Indeed I am such, but the Lord thinketh upon me, Psal. xl. 18.; and finally, that he received the departing soul into his own habitation.

XIII. I see indeed it is alleged for this taught, Acts purpose, that Paul refers the words of the second Psalm, "Thou art my Son, this day was again have I begotten thee," to the resurrection of begotten in Christ, Acts xiii. 33. as if God in the resur

that Christ

his resur

rection from the dead.

rection of Christ, had, as it were, again begot

ten his Son: and as if his Sonship, destroyed by death, had been renewed by the resurrection. But these words have a very different sense. By the resurrection it was indeed declared, that Christ is the Son of God with power, not only, because appearing alive again by his own power, he proved that he has life in himself; but also, because the Father by raising him, absolved him from the blasphemy wherewith he was charged, for claiming to himself the dignity of the Son of God: in fine, because then the form of a ser