ther had no pleasure, abftractly or intrinfically, in bruifing his dear Son; but only in relation to the glory of the divine perfections, and the purposes of grace. For it was thus that these attributes, which had been infulted by fin, were to be vindicated, and that the glory was to be reftored, of which Satan and man had endeavoured to rob God, by the tranfgreffion of his law; nay, a far more ample revenue of glory, arifing from the falvation of " that great "multitude which no man could number

But the author derives an argument against the reality of the Father's anger, from the words of this prayer: “On: "the contrary, it expreffes, in the very addrefs of it, a "full perfuation of his friend(hip, and a perfect confidence " in him; 'O! my Father." ""* It is an affecting evidence of the unbelief of the heart of man, and of the power of its perverfenefs, that this very prayer, which was undoubtedly prefented by Chrift, and recorded in the gospels, as a ftriking proof of his sense of the divine indignation, fhould be wrefted into an argument against it. And why fo? Because it "expreffed-a perfect confidence in him ;" that is, it had no evidence of unbelief: as if nothing would be admitted by fome people, as an evidence of the Father's anger, unless it alfo afforded a proof of the Son's failure under its inconceivable weight. It was abfolutely impoffible, that he could, in the whole courfe of his fufferings, betray the leaft want of "perfect confidence" For, then he would not have been fuch an High-Prieft as became us." Had this prayer, if we may for a moment fuppofe a thing impoffible, expreffed a formal, deliberate act of the will of Chrift perfonally confidered, it would, indeed, have been inconfiftent with his purity, becaufe it would have been inconfiftent with his duty of fubmiffion as his Father's fervant. But it was not a formal, deliberate, complete, or abfolute act of his will as a perfon; but a fimple, conditional, incomplete velleity of his human nature, oppreffed under the prefent load, and recoiling at the awful profpect of such unparalleled fufferings, and innocently defiring its own. preservation, in perfect confiftency with the law of its: Creator. But it is one thing to fay, that this prayer difcovers a full perfuation of his friendship," and quite another to affert, that it" betrays no fenfe of his difplea

"fure."

fure." This full perfuafion of the love of God to him, was no more inconfiftent with that horror which he ex preffed under a sense of his indignation, than even, according to our author's views, with a fear of the violence of external fuffering. It is as difficult for him to fhow, how fo great a dread of the future, especially as he explains it, P. 24. with refpect to "the difficulty of maintaining a becoming temper," was confiftent with "a full perfuafion "of his Father's friendship, and perfect confidence in him;" as it is for us to flow, that fuch a conftant perfuafion was confiftent with a prefent fenfe of his indignation. For, indeed, he reprefents his fear of the future as far greater than we do; as to this especially he afcribes his agony. Nay, according to his principles, it is impoffible to reconcile thefe things in a fatisfactory manner. For he not only makes the prayer of Chrift to be a perfonal act, but his fear to be the affection of the whole perfon. Whereas, with us the difficulty is, at least, fo far folved, however myfterious the fubject, that there remains no contradiction; and this, is by that diftinction, which is neceflary to the whole of our faith and hope. Chrift fuftained a double relation towards God, what was properly his own, with refpect to his divine nature; and ours, with refpect to his office. As to his nature, as the Son of God, he was always the object of the Father's delight. As to his office, in as far as he bare our fins, he was, on our account, the object of his anger. Nay, the Father was always well pleafed with him as Mediator; becaufe of the fpotlefs holiness of his nature and life, and the fatisfactorinefs of his fufferings. For he always did "the things that pleafed him." He was ftill his fervant "in whom he was "well pleafed." It was only in refpect of that guilt, which lay on him by imputation, that his anger was excited. Thus without any contradiction, he might exprefs the moft awful fenfe of this anger, as our furety; and yet, the moft perfect confidence in him, because he knew that this anger referred only to imputed guilt, and that he was near to juftify him. But, although the divine indignation refpected that Perfon, who was our reprefentative; yet it properly terminated on his human nature, which alone was capable of fuffering, and which was suftained under infinite wrath, by virtue of its union to the divine in one perfon. Nevertheless, it cannot be faid that

66

the

the perfon of Chrift was ever the object of the Father's hat red, for this was true of the fin only, which was imputed to this perfon. But as the wrath of God could not affect fin itself, without relation to a fubject, it was necessary that this wrath fhould fall on the person, to whom the fin was imputed. There can be no objection to this folution, unlefs the author be pleafed honeftly to deny the diftinction, and tell us, however unneceffary the declaration may appear to fome, that he acknowledges Jefus Chrift in one nature, in one relation only. *

As

Objections have, however, been made to this mode of folution, from a quarter whence they would not have been expected, as if the language ufed with refpect to the Father's displeasure with Chrift as our fubftitute, made a real difficulty of what was only an apparent one. It hath been urged against it, that it is contrary to fcripture, because Chrift fays, "Therefore doth my Father love << me, because I lay down my life." It hath virtually been charged with impiety. But had there been an inclination to do jultice to the words, it must have appeared that there was no reafon for exception. For, in the very paffage, it is afferted, that "the Father was always pleafed with Chrift as Mediator, because of the fpotlefs holinefs of his nature and life, and the fatisfacto"rinefs of his fufferings." It is granted, indeed, that there was no neceffity for recurring to the love of God to him as his fon; though the text is ftill preferved in its original form, that a different meaning may not feem to be given by a change of words. When it is faid, that he was the object of the Father's anger, ftill it is declared that this was "only in refpect of that guilt that lay

on him by imputation." Now, when it is afferted that our Lord was the object of Divine anger, only as ftanding in our ftead at the bar of God, although in the fame character eternally the object of Divine delight, becaufe of the fpotless holiness of his Mediatory perfon, perfect righteoufnefs, and chearfulness in obedience to the death; it feems difficult to conceive that this conveys any other idea, than when it is faid, that he " felt and bore the weight ofGod's wrath, "and underwent the wrath of God, encountered" and" fuffered" it. For he is certainly the object of God's wrath who bears it. But we are by no means to think of difpleafure, anger, wrath, as operating in the Divine mind, as if it caufed any change or pertur bation there, as it does in weak finful man. If we view this wrath as in the mind of God, it is juft his infinite hatred of fin, and conftant defire of punishing it wherever it is found. If we view it actively, as, according to human language, kindled; it is the expreffion of this infinite hatred of fin in actual punishment. In the firft fenfe, it refpecis fin alone, which is the abominable thing that God" hates, as imputed to the Surety. In the fecond, it refpects the Surety himfelt, as bearing the deferved punishment. The laft

only

As he evidently withes, as much as poffible, to diminish the agony which our Lord endured, there are two circumftances that he paffes over very flightly, and reprefents in a manner tending to leave a very flender impreffion on the reader. Thefe are his bloody fweat, and the angel Arengthening him. As to the firft, he fays, " One evange

lift informs us that he was in an agony, or laboured un"der fuch painful anxiety of mind, as not only threw him "into a profufe fweat, but made the fweat iffue through "the pores of his body in a thick fizy manner, like great "drops of blood *, The agony itself was only la"bouring under painful anxiety of mind," and this" in 66 a lévere conflict with human infirmity +." He does not indeed determine whether this was a natural fweat, or not. But it is evident which fide he inclines to. It is no.

ways,

only was meant, as must be evident to every candid reader, when it was faid that the Mediator was the object of Divine anger. Although the hatred of fin in no refpect extended to the glorious perfon, because he had nothing of its fault or ftain; yet this fame perfon was the object on which all the bitter effects of this hatred terminated, because the whole guilt was imputed to him.

86

Another diftinction has, indeed, been introduced on this fubject. It has been faid, that "ftill, in the apprehenfion of God, there was a diftinction between the punishment of fin actually inflic"ted, and the perfon chofen by God to fuffer that punishment, for "the vindication of the authority and government of God in the "remiffion of fin." How God could hate the fin, and love the perfon bearing the punishment, we can underftand. But how there could be " a diftinction between the punishment of fin actually infiled, and the perfon chofen to bear" it, is rather above any ordinary apprehenfion. For we can form no idea of actual punishment, diftinct from the perfon bearing it, as there can be no actual punifhment without a fubject. The holy law of God, as to all that refpected the guilt of fin, could make no diftinction between the furety and the principal offender. Therefore, although wrath in the first-mentioned fenfe, as in the mind of God, refpected fin alone; yet in the fecond, as to the act, the perfon of the furety is fill in fcripture reprefented as its object. It was he, and not fin, "that" was made a curfe." It was Chrift himfelf, who was " made "fin; whether we understand the expreffon as denoting his guilt by imputation, or a fin-offering. It was not fin that was forfaken of God, but his own dear Son, as our Surety." The chaf "tifement, that is, the actual punishment of our breach of the "peace was upon him" It was "by himself that he purged our fins." It was Jefus, who "his own felf bare our fins in his own body." When fin is defcribed as an object of punishment, it is still in relation to the perfon of the Surety. God condemned fin ip" his felh." *P. 17. 1. 13. + P. 15. 1. 21.

ways neceflary for proving the reality of his fuffering under the Father's anger, to fhew, that the fweat was preterna tural. But it feems to be the most probable opinion that it was fo. 1. Because it is not likely, that an infpired evangelift, in fo concife a narrative, which includes only the most striking facts, would mention a circumftance, which is a very common effect of any great inward diftrefs, or even of any ordinary fevere bodily trouble. 2. It must have been more than a profufe fweat, in a natural way, which fo overpowered him, that the Lord of angels fubmitted to the aid of one of his own creatures. 3. The expreffion itfelf* feems moft naturally to bear this fenfe. For the word here ufed, as the learned Grotius obferves from Galen, properly fignifies clotted blood +. Now, although the evangelifts very feldom ufe metaphorical allufions, we may fuppofe that Luke might have faid, that his fweat was like drops of blood falling to the ground; but if there had been nothing more than fweat, if it had not been mingled at least with blood, we cannot fee with what propriety it could be compared to clotted blood. For, though "it was cold," in that country the cold could not be fo intenfe as fo fuddenly to congeal fo thin a fluid, as ordinarily perfpires through the pores of the body. Nor is it a fufficient objection to this opinion, that a comparative particle ‡, rendered," as it were," is here ufed. For fuch words not only fignify comparifon, but the reality of a thing. In this fenfe, the fame particle is elsewhere used. "Their words feemed to them "as idle tales," that is, they really accounted them fuch; for "they believed them not f." Another particle |, whence the former is derived, although generally ufed in a comparative fenfe, fometimes expreffes what is abfolutely certain. So it is employed by John **; "--The glory as of the only "begotten of the Father", that is, really the glory of the only begotten; unless our author reply, that the glory of the only begotten is only to be understood in a comparative and secondary fense.

It is alfo worthy of notice, how the writer glides over the remarkable circumstance of an angel ftrengthening him, expreffing it in fuch a manner, as if it had been nothing