dead * and so the eternal Son of God upon the cross did properly and truly die.

This reality and propriety of the death of Christ is yet farther illustrated from the cause immediately producing it, which was an external violence and cruciation, sufficient to dissolve that natural disposition of the body which is absolutely necessary to continue the vital union of the soul: the torments which he endured on the cross did bring him to that state, in which life could not longer be naturally conserved, and death, without intervention of supernatural power, must necessarily follow.

For Christ who took upon him all our infirmities, sin only excepted, had in his nature not only a possibility and aptitude, but also a necessity of dying; and as to any extrinsical violence, able, according to the common course of nature, to destroy and extinguish in the body such an aptitude as is indispensably required to continue a union with the soul, he had no natural preservative; nor was it in the power of his soul, to continue its vital conjunction unto his body bereft of a vital disposition.

It is true that Christ did voluntarily die, as he said of himself, “No man taketh away my life from me, but I lay it down of myself; I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again." (John x. 18.) For it was in his power to suffer or not to suffer the sentence of Pilate, and the nailing to the cross; it was in his power to have come down from the cross, when he was nailed to it: but when by an act of his

which is of the same force with igítuxe. But because infuxe doth not always signify an absolute expiration, but sometimes a lipothymy only; (as Hesychius, Εκψύχουσι, λειποθυμούσι. So Hippocrates useth it: Εἰσὶ δὲ ὀξύτατοι (καιροί) ὅσοις ἢ ἐκψύχουσι δεῖ τι ὠφελῆσαι. 1. i. de Morbis, c. 3. and again: 'Ex↓úxovos de dià Toũ aïματος τὴν μετάστασιν ἐξαπίνης γινομένην.) lest therefore we should take iživot in such an imperfect sense, St. Matthew hath it åpne Tò vuμa, and St. John waρέδωκε τὸ πνεῦμα. Which is a full expression of the secession of the soul from the

body, and consequently of death, which is, in the language of Secundus: múμaτος ἀπόστασις. Sentent. τί ἐστι θάνατος; p. 639.

* These three points or distinctions of time I have therefore noted, that I might recur to any objection which possibly might arise out of the ancient philosophical subtilty, which Aulus Gellius reports to be agitated at the table of Taurus. The question was propounded thus: 'Quæsitum est, quando moriens moreretur, cum jam in morte esset, an tum etiam cum in vita foret?' 1. vi. c. 13. Where

Taurus admonisheth the rest, that this was no light question: for, says he: 'Gravissimi Philosophorum super hac re serio quæsiverunt; et alii moriendi verbum atque momentum manente adhuc vita dici atque fieri putaverunt; alii nihil in illo tempore vitæ reliquerunt, totumque illud quod mori dicitur morti vindicarunt.' Ibid. The ancienter philosophers were divided; some saying a man died in the time of his life, others in the time of his death: but Plato observed a contradiction in both; for a man can neither be said to die while he is alive, nor when he is dead: et idcirco peperit ipse aliud quoddam novum in confinio tempus, quod verbis propriis atque integris italpme puoi appellavit: Ibid. which he thus describes in his Parmenides; Toyg ἐξαίφνης τοιοῦτόν τι ἔοικε σημαίνειν, ὡς ἐξ ἐκεί του μεταβάλλον εἰς ἑκάτερον. vol. x. p. 138. So A. Gellius, 1. vi. c. 13. Then when our Saviour commended his soul into the hands of his Father, he was yet alive; when the soldier pierced his side, he was already dead; and the instant in which he gave up the ghost was the τὸ ἐξαίφνης when he died.

will he had submitted to that death, when he had accepted and embraced those torments to the last, it was not in the power of his soul to continue any longer vitality to the body, whose vigour was totally exhausted. So not by a necessary compulsion, but voluntary election he took upon him a necessity of dying.

It is true that "Pilate marvelled he was dead so soon," (Mark xv. 44.) and the two thieves lived longer to have their legs broken, and to die by the accession of another pain: but we read not of such long furrows on their backs as were made on his, nor had they such kind of agony as he was in the night before. What though he "cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost?" What though "the centurion, when he saw it, said, Truly this man was the Son of God?" (Mark xv. 37.39.) The miracle was not in the death, but in the voice : the strangeness was not that he should die, but that at the point of death he should cry out so loud: he died not by, but with, a miracle.

Should we imagine Christ to anticipate the time of death, and to subtract his soul from future torments necessary to cause an expiration; we might rationally say the Jews and Gentiles were guilty of his death, but we could not properly say they slew him: guilty they must be, because they inflicted those torments on which in time death must necessarily follow; but slay him actually they did not, if his death proceeded from any other cause, and not from the wounds which they inflicted: whereas St. Peter expressly chargeth his enemies, "Him ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain;" (Acts ii. 23.) and again, "The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree." (Acts v. 30.)* Thus was the Lamb properly slain, and the Jews authors of his death, as well as of his crucifixion.

Wherefore being Christ took upon himself our mortality in the highest sense, as it includeth a necessity of dying; being he voluntarily submitted himself to that bloody agony in the garden, to the hands of the ploughers, who made long their furrows, and to the nails which fastened him to the cross; being those torments thus inflicted and continued did cause his death, and in this condition he gave up the ghost: it followeth that the only-begotten Son of God, the true Messias promised of old, did die a true and proper death. Which is the second conclusion in this explication.

But, thirdly, Because Christ was not only man, but also God, and there was not only a union between his soul and body while he lived, but also a conjunction of both natures, and a union in his person: it will be farther necessary, for the

In both which places the original sheweth more expressly, that by their crucifixion they slew him: in the former

thus, διὰ χειρῶν ἀνόμων προσαήξαντες, ἀνείλετε. In the latter thus, ὃν ὑμεῖς διεχειρί σασθε κρεμάσαντες ἐπὶ ξύλου.

understanding of his death, to shew what union was dissolved, what continued; that we may not make that separation either less or greater than it was.

Whereas then there were two different substantial unions in Christ, one of the parts of his human nature each to other, in which his humanity did consist, and by which he was truly man; the other of his natures, human and divine, by which it came to pass that God was man, and that man God: first, it is certain, as we have already shewn, that the union of the parts of his human nature was dissolved on the cross, and a real separation made between his soul and body. As far then as humanity consists in the essential union of the parts of human nature, so far the humanity of Christ upon his death did cease to be, and consequently he ceased to be man. But, secondly, the union of the natures remained still as to the parts, nor was the soul or body separated from the Divinity, but still subsisted as they did before, by the subsistence of the second person of the Trinity.

The truth of this assertion appeareth, first, from the language of this very CREED.* For as we proved before, that the only-begotten and eternal Son of God, God of God, very God of very God, was conceived and born, and suffered, and that the truth of these propositions relied upon the communion of properties, grounded upon the hypostatical union: so while the CREED in the same manner proceedeth speaking of the same person, that he was buried and descended into hell, it sheweth that neither his body, in respect of which he was buried, nor his soul, in respect of which he was generally conceived to descend into hell, had lost that union.

Again, as we believe that God redeemed us by his own blood, so also it hath been the constant language of the Church, that God died for us; which cannot be true, except the soul and body in the instant of separation, were united to the Deity.

Indeed, being all the gifts of God are without repentance, nor doth he ever subtract his grace from any without their abuse of it, and a sinful demerit in themselves; we cannot imagine the grace of union should be taken from Christ, who never offended, and that in the highest act of obedience, and the greatest satisfaction to the will of God.

It is true, Christ cried upon the cross with a loud voice,

* Credimus certe non in solum Deum Patrem; sed et in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum. Modo totum dixi, in Jesum Christum Filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum: totum ibi intellige, et Verbum, et animam, et carnem. Sed utique confiteris etiam illud quod habet eadem fides, in eum Christum te credere qui crucifixus est

et sepultus. Ergo etiam sepultum Christum esse non negas, et tamen sola caro sepulta est. Si enim erat ibi anima, non erat mortuus; si autem vera mors erat, ut ejus vera sit resurrectio, sine anima fuerat in sepulcro: et tamen sepultus est Christus. Ergo Christus erat etiam sine anima caro, qui non est sepulta nisi caro.' S. August. in Ioan. Tract. 47. §. 12.

saying, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matt. xxvii. 46.) But if that dereliction should signify a solution of the former union of his natures, the separation had been made not at his death, but in his life:* whereas indeed those words infer no more, than that he was bereft of such joys and comforts from the Deity, as should assuage and mitigate the acerbity of his present torments.

It remaineth therefore, that when our Saviour yielded up the ghost, he suffered only an external violence; and what was subject to such corporal force did yield unto those dolorous impressions. Being then such is the imbecility and frailty of our nature, that life cannot long subsist in exquisite torments; the disposition of his body failed the soul, and the soul deserted his body. But being no power hath any force against omnipotence, nor could any corporal or finite agent work upon the union made with the Word, therefore that did still remain entire both to the soul and to the body. The Word was once indeed without either soul or body; but after it was made flesh, it was never parted either from the one or from the other.+

Thus Christ did really and truly die, according to the condition of death to which the nature of man is subject: but although he was more than man, yet he died no more than man can die; a separation was made between his soul and body, but no disunion of them and his Deity. They were disjoined one from another, but not from him that took them both together; rather by virtue of that remaining conjunction they were again united after their separation. And this I conceive sufficient for the third and last part of our explication.

The necessity of this part of the Article is evident, in that the death of Christ is the most intimate and essential part of the mediatorship, and that which most intrinsically concerns.

Ολον τὸν ἄνθρωπον τοῦ Θεοῦ, διὰ τῆς πρὸς ἑαυτὸν ἀνακράσεως εἰς τὴν θείαν φύσιν μετασκευάσαντος, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς κατὰ τὸ πάθος οἰκονομίας οὐ θατέρου μέρους τὸ ἅπαξ ἐγκραθὲν ἀνεχώρησεν· ἀμεταμέλητα γὰρ τοῦ Θεοῦ τὰ χαρίσματα· ἀλλὰ τὴν μὲν ψυχὴν τοῦ σώματος ἡ θεότης ἑκουσίως διέζευξεν, ἑαυτὴν δὲ ἐν ἀμφοτέροις μένουσαν ἔδειξε. δ. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 1. de Resur.

This is the conclusion of St. Augustin: Ex quo Verbum caro factum est, ut habitaret in nobis, et susceptus est a Verbo homo, id est totus homo, anima et caro; quid fecit passio, quid fecit mors, nisi corpus ab anima separavit? Animam vero a Verbo non separavit. Si enim mortuus est Dominus-sine dubio caro ipsius exspiravit animam: ad tem. pus exiguum anima deseruit carnem, sed redeunte anima resurrecturam. A Verbo autem animam separatam esse non dico. Latronis animæ dixit, hodie mecum eris in Paradiso. Fidelem latronis animam non

deserebat et deserebat suam? Absit: sed illius ut Dominus custodivit, suam vero inseparabiliter habuit. Si autem dixerimus, quia ipsa se anima posuit, et iterum ipsa se sumpsit, absurdissimus sensus est: non enim quæ a Verbo non erat separata, a seipsa potuit separari.' Tract. in Ioan. 47. §. 9.

† Επεὶ διπλοῦν μὲν τὸ ἀνθρώπινον σύγ κραμα, ἁπλῆ δὲ καὶ μονοειδὴς ἡ τῆς θειότητος φύσις, ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τῆς τοῦ σώματος ἀπὸ τῆς ψυχῆς διαζεύξεως, οὐ συνδιασχίζεται τῷ συνθέτω τὸ ἀδιαίρετον, ἀλλὰ τὸ ἔμπαλιν γίνεται· τῇ γὰρ ἐνότητι τῆς θείας φύσεως, τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἴσον ἐν ἀμφοτέροις οὔσης, πάλιν πρὸς ἄλληλα τὰ διεστῶτα συμφύεται. S. Greg. Nyss. Orat. 1. de Resur. Tam velox incorruptæ carnis vivificatio fuit, ut major ibi esset soporis similitudo quam mortis ; quoniam Deitas, quæ ab utraque suscepti hominis substantia non recessit, quod potestate divisit, potestate conjunxit.' Leo Serm. 1. de Resur. c. 2.

every office and function of the Mediator, as he was Prophet, Priest, and King.

66

First, It was necessary, as to the Prophetical office, that Christ should die, to the end that the truth of all the doctrine which he delivered might be confirmed by his death. He was "the true and faithful witness," (Rev. iii. 14.) "who before Pontius Pilate witnessed a good confession." (1 Tim. vi. 13.) "This is he that came by water and blood; and there are three that bear witness in earth, the spirit, the water, and the blood.” (1 John v. 6. 8.) He preached unto us a new "and better Covenant, which was established upon better promises,” (Heb. viii. 6.) and that was to be ratified with his blood; which is therefore called by Christ himself the "blood of the New Testament," (Matt. xxvi. 28. Luke xxii. 20. Heb. x. 29.) or, " everlasting Covenant:" (Heb. xiii. 20.) for that Covenant was also a Testament; and "where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator." (Heb. ix. 16.) Beside, Christ, as a Prophet, taught us not only by word, but by example: and though every action of his life who came to fulfil the Law, be most worthy of our imitation; yet the most eminent example was in his death, in which he taught us much variety of Christian virtues. What an example was that of faith in God to "lay down his life, that he might take it again;" (John x. 17.) in the bitterness of his torments to commend his spirit into the hands of his Father;" (Luke xxiii. 46.) and "for the joy that was set before him, to endure the cross, and despise the shame!" (Heb. xii. 2.) What a pattern of meekness, patience, and humility, for the Son of man to come, "not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and give his life a ransom for many;" (Matt. xx. 28.) to be "led like a sheep to the slaughter, and like a lamb dumb before the shearer, not to open his mouth;" (Acts viii. 32.) to "endure the contradictions of sinners against himself," (Heb. xii. 3.) and to "humble himself unto death, even the death of the cross!" (Phil. ii. 8.) What a precedent of obedience for the Son of God "to learn obedience by the things that he suffered;" (Heb. v. 8) "to be made under the Law," (Gal. iv. 4.) and though he never broke the Law, to "become obedient unto death;" (Phil. ii. 8.) to go with cheerfulness to the cross upon this resolution, "As my Father gave me commandment, even so I do!" (John xiv. 31.) What exemplar of charity, to "die for us while we were yet sinners," (Rom. v. 8.) and enemies, when "greater love hath no man than this, to lay down his life for his friends;" (John xv. 13.) -to pray upon the cross for them that crucified him, and to apologize for such as barbarously slew him, “ Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do!" (Luke xxiii. 34.) Thus Christ did "suffer for us, leaving us an example, that we should follow his steps," (1 Pet. ii. 21.) that as he" suffered for us, in the flesh, we should arm ourselves like