Gospel Truth Stated and Vindicated, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Of God's Separation from, and Abhorrence of Christ, while our Sins lay upon him.
Truth. THough God testified his threatned Indignation against Sin, in the awful Sufferings of Christ's Soul and Body in his Agony, and suspended those delightful Communications of the Divine Nature, to the Humane Nature of Christ, as to their wonted Degrees; yet God was never separated from Christ, much less during his Body's lying in the Grave; neither was the Father ever displeased with Christ; and far less did he abhor him, because of the Filthiness of Sin upon him.
Errour. Christ was on the account of the Filthiness of Sins, while they lay upon him, separated from God, odious to him, and even the Object of God's Abhorrence, and this to the time of his Resurrection.
Proved that this is Dr. Crisp's Opinion.
He saith, P. 294. Nay, from this I affirm, as Christ did bear our Iniquity, so Christ for that Iniquity was separated from God, and God was here separated from Christ, or else Christ spake untruth. P. 295. The Doctor puts an Objection, It may be this for saking was but for a little time. He saith, To this I answer, it was as long as Sin was upon him; had not Christ breathed out the Sins of Men that were upon him, he had never seen God again; he having taken Sin upon him, he must unload himself of Sin before he can be brought near to God, &c. There was a Separation and Forsaking when Christ died but at his Rising there was a Meeting again, a kind of renewing his Sonship. P. 408. It is a higher Expression of Love, that Christ should bear the Sins of Men, than that he should be given to die for Men, &c. Affliction is not contrary to the Nature of God; God can smile upon Persons when they are under the greatest Scorn, &c. But where the Lord doth charge any Sin, the Lord hath an Abhorrence there. P. 379, 380. He shews, That Christ to be a Scorn; yea, for God to make him suffer the most accursed Death of the Cross, is far less than to make him sin, because all this may agree to the Nature of God; but Iniquity is the hatefullest thing in the World to God; where Iniquity is found, a Toad is not so odious nor ugly to Man, as that Person is in the Sight of God. P. 180. All that Filthiness and Loathsomeness of our Nature, is put upon Christ; he stands, as it were, the Abhorred of the Lord.
Wherein the Difference is not.
1. It is not whether the Soul of Christ endured the Effects of Gods Wrath against sin, and was amazed thereat as well as at the Importance of the Work he was engaged in, and the Enemies he was to encounter with, and the Sacrifice he was to make, &c. 2. Nor whether the Divine Nature suspended for a while on the Cross the delightful Communications of it self, as to the Degrees it was accustomed to emit to the humane Nature of Christ. These with awe I freely affirm.
The Real Difference:
1. Whether Christ was separated from God. This the Doctor affirms, and I deny. 2. Whether Christ was at any time under God's Abhorrency, or odious to him, because under the Loathsomeness of Sin. This the Doctor affirms, and I deny; yea, not without Detestation. 3. Whether Christ was thus on the account of the Filthiness of Sin upon him, separated from, and under the Abhorrency of the Father, during his lying in the Grave. This the Doctor affirms, and I deny it of that time, and any other, or else it would be true for the whole time of his Humiliation.
The Truth Confirmed.
1. This Separation was impossible, because of the Union between the Divine and Humane Nature of Christ in one Person. This Union could not be dissolved, nor could all Communications of Comfort or Strength from the Divine Nature be interrupted while the Union remained. Yea, the Humane Nature of Christ had never a personal Subsistence of its own, but was assumed by the eternal Word, the second Person, of one Essence with the Father.
2. The Father had promised constant Supports to Christ, in the whole of his Undertakings and Sufferings, and his comfortable Presence with him, Isa. 42. 1, 4, 6. Isa. 50. 7, 8, 9.
3. The Doctor, of all Men, had least reason to assert this Separation, when he had so exceeded in telling us, P. 379. That the Divine Nature is a kind of Soul to the Humanity, consisting of Soul and Body, and is the Form and Strength of both, &c. The God-head gives Life to Christ, and so all the Sufficiency to bear Iniquity proceeds from the Divine Nature of Christ. And, P. 378. Should Iniquity be laid on the Humane Nature, and the Divine Nature not support the Humane Nature, it would have sunk under sin. Reader, is it not strange, that after this, the Doctor should affirm a Separation, and that for all the time when Iniquity was upon Christ?
4. The Lord Jesus could not be abhorred, or odious to God, for in him God was always well pleased, Isa. 42. 1. Mat. 17. 5. He was now yielding the highest Act of Obedience, and so there was at least no cause of Offence; yea, God loved him for this, John 10. 17, 18. the Person of the Son was always Gods Delight, from Eternity to Eternity, Prov. 8. 30. and could not but be so. Christ must have been as odious to himself as to the Father, for he is of the same Holy Essence.
Reader, How horrid a sound must it have to a Christian Ear, to say, A Christ odious to God, abhorred by the Father, and that, because he was a loathsome, a detestable, an abominable and filthy sinner for a time.
This Point carries that Aspect, that from Regards for the Doctor, I will not insist on it▪ nor its necessary Consequences, and yet upon this depend many of his Positions.
5. Christ could not be thus separated from, and be, as it were, the Abhorred of the Lord, while his Body lay in the Grave, for then his Soul could not be in Paradise, as it was when his Body was in the Grave, Luk. 23. 43. Alas! how can any bear to think, that (as the Doctor affirms) he never saw God's Face all that while? Where was he? Yea, What tormenting Agitations of Soul must he be under, even after Death, in the unseen State? The Papists indeed tell us he was in Hell; but they assign Purposes more becoming Christ's being there, than the Doctor's Position imports. It was the height of Hell, for Christ to be banished from God's Face, and be under his very Wrath and Abhorrence all that time, and his Mind tormented with the Filth of sin made his: He never would have been a Saviour on Terms so inconsistent with his Person. But the whole Notion is contrary to Scripture, for under the greatest Abatements of Comfort, he owns God's Presence and Relation: My God, My God, Matth. 27. 46. and just upon his loud Cry, he said, Father, into thy Hands I commit my Spirit; and having said thus he gave up the Ghost, Luk. 22. 46. Was there a Separation or Abhorrence, when he thus addresseth himself to God, as his God, and his Father? Did he never come near God all that while, when God received his Spirit, or rejected his Prayer? which God never did reject: Joh. 11. 42. Me thou hearest always. See Ps. 69. 13, 14, 15, 17, 18. Ps. 22. 18, 19, 20, 24. Heb. 5. 7. He was heard in that he feared, which refers to this time.
Testimonies.
The Opinion I oppose, is such, that I will only instance the Words of Doctor Owen of Justif. P. 286. There was no reason why God should hate Christ for his taking on him our Debt, and the Payment of it. And suppose a Person out of an heroick Generosity of Mind, an foreign for another, so as to answer for him with his Life. Would the most cruel Tyrant under Heaven, that should take away his Life, in that case hate him. And then the Doctor shews here, and P. 287. the Word Hate signifies either an Aversion or Detestation of Mind, or only a Will of Punishment: In the first Sence, saith he, there was no ground why God should hate Christ on the Imputation of Guilt unto him; sin inherent renders the Soul polluted, abominable, and the only Object of Divine Aversation: But Christ was undefiled, &c.
The Grounds of the Doctor's Mistake.
The Doctor doth not distinguish between the Affects of VVrath, and the Effects of VVrath. Because God forsook Christ, as to the usual Degrees of Comfort, he thinks Christ was separated from God. Because he that is formally a sinner, is odious to God; therefore he thinks Christ was odious to God, who had on him the Punishment of sin, with the Guilt or Obligation to bear this Punishment by his own Consent; neither of which have any thing of the Loathsomeness of sin. I know not why he thinks Christ came not near God from the time of his Death, to his Resurrection; unless because of his Conceit, that the Loathsomeness of sin being on him, God could not bear the sight of him till he had sweat it out; a Reason too horrid for me to say more to, and indeed inconsistent with the Notion of a Mediator for the sins of others.