〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 justified freely by his grace 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Justification is free in respect of the love that gave Christ to merit it Heb. 2. 9. Given by the grace of God to taste death for every man The alone moving and impulsive cause of God's bestowing Christ was his eternal good pleasure and love It is free also in respect of any works performed by us to deserve justification Tit. 3. 5. Not by works of the law which we have done but according to his mercy he hath saved us Nothing required or done on our part to merit it and this and no more is intimated by grace and freely for that the excluding the merit and satisfaction of Christ is not here intended the opening of the next words will confirm and demonstrate 2ly There then is the material and meritorious means procuring justification Causa impulsiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and this is the blood of Christ through the redemption that is in Jesus and in his blood Though justification be free in respect of us yet it is merited in respect of him The import of redemption we have formerly opened and proved it to be a deliverance by solution and payment of a ransome See from pag. 146. to 161. though there be nothing done by us to merit justification yet we have it only by the intervention of Christ as the deserving cause this the Apostle amplifies from God's exhibiting of him to this purpose whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation What the intendment of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is is before opened God set him forth to be a means of attonâ—ing him and appeasing his anger that by him as a meritorious cause we might be set free from the wrath to which we stood obnoxious To this end God constituted and appointed him Mediator proposed him in the types and shadows of the law actually exhibited him in the flesh and offereth him to the world as he through whom as a placamen God's wrath is appeased and his favour recovered 3ly We have the final cause First the finis cujus the end on the part of God to declare his rightousness 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to show his righteousness ut justus agnoscatur By righteousness here we can by no means understand God's benignity kindness and mercy not that we deny but that it may admit that signification in some other places where the subject matter necessitates to it but here it clearly signifies that property in God by which he is enclined to punish sin and this is the proper and usual import of it in the Scripture Rom. 2. 5. 2 Thes 1. 6. Rev. 16. 5 6. And it is from this principle of his nature carrying him against sin that he is compared to fire Deut. 4. 24. Isa 33. 14. Heb. 12. 29. and in respect of this wrath and anger are often ascribed to him Rom. 9. 32. Exod. 32 10. Psal 6. 1 Rom. 1. 8. That this is the intendment of righteousness here is evident from hence that Christ in the shedding of his blood is set out to be a propitiation which fully argues both that God was angry and that by Christ as a propitiatorâ— sacrifice his vindictive and angâ— is appeâ—sed Then we have thâ— finis cuâ— the end with respect tâ— us that he might be the justifierâ— The design God had in all this namely his giving Christ in â— way of death and blood to be â— propitiation was the taking â— company of poor creatures whâ— lay obnovious to his indignation into his grace and favour again 4ly We have the instrumentaâ— cause or the means by which wâ— come to be interested in Christ and to have the redemption anâ— justification purchased by him applyed to us and that is through faith in his blood By this time I hope the Reader perceives not only how impertinent but how destructive this Text proves to the Pamphleters design and how he falls by his own weapon The second Text which the Gentleman hath been pleased to prefix â— Col. 1. 14. in whom we have reâ—emption through his blood even the â—orgiveness of sins And this is â—ltogether as unanswerable to the â—nd it was brought for as the forâ—er For do but observe here â—ur salvation is expresly asserted â—o be by way of redemption and â—he price of this redemption to â—e the blood of Christ which is â—n plain termes to affirm that we â—re saved by the intervention of a â—atisfaction for to be in a proper sense redeemed and redeemed through blood is to be set free through the sufferings of Christ as a valuable compensation for our release But here is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of the Socinian party and that which hath imposed upon the Pamphleter in his quotations that because there is mention of forgiveness therefore all satisfrction must be excluded but the falsity of this is already demonstrated and to suppose an opposition where there is so perfect a harmony is to profess 〈◊〉 unacquaintance with the Gospâ—l It is forgiveness in that it is noâ— merited by us but doth this any way hinder but that it may bâ— purchased by Christ We know no inconsistence betwixt these two that it should be of purâ— grace in reference to us and yeâ— of justice in reference to Christ The third and last Scripture mustured up by the Author in his Title Page is Prov. 12. 15. He that justifieth the wicked and he that condemneth the just even they both arâ— an abomination to the Lord. Is it possible a Scripture should be produced more destructive to the design of the bringer is it an abomination that the wicked should be justified and shall we afix such a thing on the righteous God can no Judge acquiâ— the guilty without a satisfaction but he must act that which in its own nature is an abhorrency and shall we ascribe this to the holy and righteous Governour of the world See the foregoing Treatise from pag. 8. to 16. But I suppose the Gentleman thought of serving himself by one part of the Text not considering how ruinous to his whole enterprise the other part would prove and indeed there is nothing more usual with that sort of men than to urge their mistaken sense of one part of Scripture to the overthrow of the true meaning of another but to reply to the place 1. I deny that it is against justice to condemn one that is personally innocent when he hath put himself legally in the room of criminals It is no ways against equity to send a person to prison who possibly may live dy there and have his whole posterity begger'd who never contracted one penny debâ— of his own only became bound for anothers So here though Christ was personally innocent yet he stood legally in the room of the guilty and it was that which he had chosen and in a matter wherein he had as much power as any of us have in our estates see before from pag.
in a state of friendship 2. In the constituting and proclaiming in the Gospel that whoever believes is justified As a person is condemned by a law and said to be condemned when the law condemns him so we are justified by the Gospel patent and may be said to be so when that Charter declares us justified which it doth if we believe Now the effects of this are a non-imputation of sin and a donation of a right to life our obligation to punishment is dissolved and we are vested with a title to life 1. Sin shall never be charged upon us in the legal guilt of it Rom. 8. 1 33 34. The legal guilt of all sins past is removed formally and the legal guilt of all sins to come is removed virtually That is thus justification takes of legal guilt where once it was and keeps it of where else it would be And 1. It is no more harsh that sins should be legally disimputed to us before committed than that they should be legally imputed to Christ before committed which all the sins of the elect who have lived and are yet to live since the death of Christ were 2. Because the guilt of sin may be as well disimputed to believers before committed by them as the satisfaction of Christ was imputed to believers before made by him which it was to all the Old Testament Saints 2. Being constituted righteous by having the righteousness of Christ accounted ours 〈◊〉 only our obligation to punishment is â—issolved but there also emergeth â—nd ariseth a new title to life Christ purchased not only redemâ—tion from wrath but a right to â—he heavenly inheritance And this â—hall suffice at least at present to â—ave been discoursed upon this whole affair AN APPENDIX In vindication of the Satisfaction of Christ from thâ— frivolous Objections of â— late Socinian Pamphletâ— made against a Sermon oâ— mine preached at thâ— Morning Lecture SECT I. The Title examined The Scripturâ— prefixed proved destructive of thâ— which they were brought to establish IT is not needful to give aâ— further account of the inducâ—ments and grounds of â— Preaching upon that subject sâ— what the Preface to the foregoing discourse intimates The cost of that exercise was before hand considered and whatever may be the consequences of it I hope to have satisfaction and peace in the bearing and encountring of them The party who hath appeared in opposition to the doctrine then held forth hath from what motives himself best knows been pleased to conceal his name and therefore seeing it may be omitted without prejudice to the cause â— manage I shall not concern my self about him though I could particularly declare him and assign his character Only it had been â—ut ingenuous when he had published the name of another and in â—hat exposed him to the law to â—ave given a more particular account of himself than what can meerly be gathered from two nuâ—erical letters wherein he hath eiâ—her endeavoured or may be able to wrong me I pardon him but what he hath attemped in opposition to the truth cannot in consistency to conscience and duty be overlookt The Title of his Book is very specious for what can more invite a Reader than the Freeness of God's grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ But all is not gold which glisters a Box of poison may have a fair inscription the Prince of Darkness transforms himself into and desires to pass for an Angel of Light Error loves to appear in the garb oâ— truth I need not to tell whose character that is deceiving and being deceived 2 Tim. 3. 13. But we shall endeavour to unmaskâ— them here by animadverting these three things 1. That it is the great endeavouâ— of these men to present us as enemies to the grace of God Whereas 1. There is nothing we desirâ— more to exalt and admire and whatever doctrine of ours either directly or indirectly reflects upon the Freeness of God's Grace we disclaime and renounce it but we boldly affirme the Grace of God to be as free in the forgiveness of sin upon a satisfaction as it would have been if it had been possible to have forgiven sin without a satisfaction and how it is so you may see opened at large from page 23. to page 30. of the preceeding discourse 2. We aâ—sert our adversaries to be in this particular the only men who are tardy in that they establish justification by works which the Apostle every where excludes as opposite to and in this business utterly destructive of grace Eph. 2. 8 9. Rom. 11 6. 2. We would have observed that it is the method of these Gentlemen â—o cry up the grace of God to the â—verthrow of his holiness and righteâ—usness We acknowledge God to be infinitely gracious but withal we affirme to be infinitely pure and just We dare not exalt one perfection of God to the diminution of another We know God cannot be gracious if at the same time he may not be righteous also God can as soon cease to be God as that one property of his nature should be exalted to the dishonour of the rest Having therefore in the foregoing discourse from page 38. to 51. demonstrated the inconsistency of forgiveness without a satisfaction with the truth justice and holiness of God it necessarily follows that there can be no such grace in God He cannot be kind to us so as to be cruel to himself 3. We take notice that according to the Socinian Divinity they might have as well stiled their Book the Freeness of God's Grace in the forgiveness of sins by Paul or some other of the Apostles as by Christ For that which they assign as the ground of God's forgiuing sins by Christ being only that he preached the doctrine of forgiveness and afterwards sealed the truth of it with his blood accords to Paul and other of the Apostles as well as to Christ for they Preached the same doctrine and that by immediate revelation and also confirmed the truth of it by martyrdome and death so that according to the opinion of these Gentlemen I see no cause but that they might have given their Book the title I alledge as well as that which they have given it The next thing which comes under consideration is the examination of the Scriptures which he prefixes And he could have quoted few in the whole Bible which are more destructive of his cause and herein God displays his wisdom that that whereof his adversaries hope most to serve their design proves utterly subversive of it The first is Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ Now the opening of this Verse together with the two following will without any more ado sufficiently evidence how disserviceable it is to the design it was brought for We have in these three verses justification set sorth in all its parts and causes First the efficient impulsive cause of it in God Causa impulsiva
93. to 107. 2. I affirm that these words which the Adversary seeks relief to his cause from do utterly disserve it For if he that condemneth the just be an abomination to the Lord how will they salve the righteousness of God in condemning Christ who was an innocent person to pain and death which is the punishment of the nocent who as he had no sin of his own so according to them he stood charged with no sin of ours Death being constituted the penalty of sin could noâ— without unrighteousness have been inflicted upon Christ forasmuch as he had become answerable for ours see this proved pag. 124. to 127. And therefore our adversaries by denying the last and not daring to assâ—rt the first â—re the only men who fasten that â—pon God which the Text stiles â—bominable and now we hope â—hat we have not only wrested â—hese weapons out of the enemies â—and but also wounded himself â—y them SECT II. â—t guilty of any of the three faults â— inexcusable in a Preacher The doctrine momentous Heb. 2. 10. opened and the necessity of a satisfaction justified to be the truth of that Scripture â—HE three faults proposed as inexcusable in a Preacher â— too confessedly so to be apoâ—gized for but whatever other â—aknesses I may have been guilâ— of yet that I am innocent from the whole of that chargâ— comes now to be justified 1. That the Doctrine I discoursâ— is of the highest import and thaâ— to mistake in it is to erre in a matteâ— of the greatest concernment readily acknowledge and do fuâ—ther add that it is of such weigâ— in the matter of a Christians bâ—lief that not to be sound there â— to erre in a main fundamental aâ— consequently to be unavoidabâ— obnoxious to damnation Wheâ— as their are some truths whiâ— we are only bound to believâ— in case we know them to be â—vealed this is a truth we â— bound to know and believe â— be revealed in order to beâ— saved If there be any funâ—mentals of faith at all these â—ctrines wherein we and the Sâ—nians differ are maximes of tâ— nature As to that exceptioâ— have heard of a certain persâ— whose name out of respect I â— â—eaâ— that they cannot be fundamentals because controverted by learned men if it concludes any â—hing it concludes that there is â—o fundamental at all there being â—o one truth so evident which â—ome have not denied yea it will not be a fundamental that â—here is God forasmuch as there â—ave been some and still are who â—are gainsay it The matter then â—herein my Adversary and I differ â—eing of this moment I would â—eset it to the Reader to arbitrate â—n whose side the truth lies wheâ—er with them who can demonâ—rate their Opinion to have been â—e belief of all the faithful down â—om the Apostles to the present â—ge not one dissenting who hath â—ot been by all the Churches of Christ branded for a Heretick or â—ith those who in some whole â—ges can instance none of the same â—ntiments with them and those â—hom in other times they produce are such as the Catholick Church hath from time to time voted unworthy the name oâ— Christians 2. Whether the Doctrine I theâ— insistâ—d on be the truth of any Scripture the former tract hath accounted for where I hope it is noâ— only made evident to be a truth but one of the most considerablâ— truths of the Gospel the very bâ—siâ— of our Religion the foundatioâ— of our present comforts and futuâ— hopâ—â— 3. The third and at present maâ— particular and that which â—aâ— now under consideration is whethâ— it be the truth of that Text froâ— which in my Sermon I deduced iâ— And here I must complain of tâ— unworthiness and disingenuity â— my Adversaries that when I hâ— endeavoured at some length â— prove that the point then insistâ— on arose not only naturally froâ— the place but was one of â— main doctrines intended in the words they have been so far from refuting what was alledged to that purpose that they have not mentioned one word of what was offered in that matter Was ever such tergiversation known as publickly to reproach a person for a conclusion without examining either the premises whence it is drawn or the method of inferring â—t The least I could have expectâ—d was either the overthrowing â—he principles upon which I raised â—t or else the evidencing some misâ—ake in the way of deduction At â—his rate of procedure there is no â—ruth deducible from any Text of â—he Bible but by saying it is not â—ightly drawn they may with the â—ame facility refute The Reader â—ad been spared this labour if my â—dversaries had been but so just â—s in common honesty they ought â—amely if when they declaimed â—gainst my doctrine they had taken notice of the foundations upon which I raised it but seeing they have put me upon this task the speediest way to bring it to anâ— issue will be to open the Text I then discoursed on viz. Heb. 2. 10. For it became him for whom are all things and by whom are all things in bringing many sons unto glory to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings The Apostle in the preceding Chapteâ— having largely treated of Christ as supream Prophet and having advanced him above all other ministerial revealers of God's will so far as a Son is preferable to a servant after some improvemenâ— made in the beginning of thiâ— Chapter of what he had delivereâ— to that purpose in the foregoing by an admirable thread and line oâ— wisdom he slides from the Propheâ—tical office of Christ to his Sacerâ—dotal and having affirmed thaâ— Christ through the benignity anâ— grace of God was given to taste and suffer death for men he here assigns the impulsive reason or procuring cause of Christ's suffering It became God c. i. e. if God would save sinners his essential justice and righteousness could not allow that it should be otherways That this is the intendment of the words a little further opening of them will confirm We have first then a design of God towards fallen rebellious mankind and that is the bringing many of them as sons to glory The making a company of enemies who lay obnoxious to hell and wrath to be God's Sons and the bringing them to life 2ly We have the method and means pitched on for the compassing of that design and that is the dedicating and consecrating Christ by suffering to be a Captain of salvation 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 we render it to make perfect and that sense sometimes it hath but it signifieth here to consecrate or dedicate unto an office and in this sense the Septuagint use it Exod. 29. 35. and Lev. 21. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And the same Apostle several times in this Epistle see Chap. 5. 9. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecratus Bez. being consecrate or set apart he became the author of eternal salvation c. And chap. 7. 28. 〈◊〉
that remission and Salvation are of Grace we readily acknowledge and affirm but thaâ— therefore Christ hath not satisfied is a meer non-sequitur There is not the least contrariety betwixt satisfaction and grace but they are the one subordinate to the other The fullest and freest grace in the giving Christ to satisfie in the accepting that satisfaction in our stead and applying the merit of it to our souls and yet still the holiness and justice of Gods nature was such as that he could not pardon sin without a satisfaction the consistency of these two is largely treated and opened before and we referr the Reader thither to avoid repetition here But saith the adversary there is nothing more contrary to grace than to give nothing but what is paid for Answ It is true if the payment had been taken of us to whom the favour is shewn or if the satisfaction had been of our contriving and procuring but nothing being paid by us nor the least influence of ours into the affair It was meer grace that was the impulsive cause of Gods giving Christ Joh. 3. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 9 10. Rom. 5. 8. It was meer grace that gave him for such a number Joh 17. 19. to sanctifie there is to separate and set himself apart to dye as Joh. 10. 36. Heb. 10. 29. But there is one text that the Gentleman seems to reckon on more than the rest it is Jam. 2. 13. and mercy rejoyceth against judgement where he saith mercy is opposed to satisfaction Answ 1. It is not certain whether by mercy we are to understand Gods mercy or mans many Interpreters understand the last 2. Granting him his principle that it is to be understood of Gods mercy yet I deny his inference that therefore there is no satisfaction in order to the better understanding of these I say that as justice is an attribute of God he hath no less of that than of mercy â—he is as just as he is gracious that is he is infinitely both but â—f we take mercy for the effects of his mercy then in this life God is more ready to shew effects of mercy than of â—ustice hence the Lord is now â—aid to be slow to anger and the present time is called the time of long-sufferance whereas the day of Judgement is called the day of wrath God is infinite as well as merciful but the meaning of the Text is that in this life he is more in the discoveries of his mercy than his justice but this is so far from excluding a satisfaction that it supposeth it There is one Scripture I made use of in my Sermon viz. Exod. 34. 7. and that will by no means clear the guilty Which the adversary would wrest out of my hand but without giving the least reason to prove that it iâ— otherwayes applicable than â— applyed it As mercy is a property of Gods nature so iâ— justice sin is contrary to God and his nature inclines him to punish it It is remarkable thaâ— Socinus himself acknowledgeth that where the sinneâ— is obstinate God cannoâ— but punish him now obstinacy in reference to its own nature is not punishable â— for obstinacy in good being nothing but constancy is laudable and therefore obstinacy is not punished for it self but only in reference to evil and consequently it is evil which is punishable and which God cannot but punish and obstinacy is only punishable in respect of sin to which it is joyned And thus we have seen that to pardon sin upon a satisfaction is neither contrary to it self nor to other Scriptures SECT IV. Arguments for the necessity of a satisfaction vindicated that from the truth of Gods threatning justified Likewise those from the holiness and justice of God the nature of sin and Gods being Governour vindicated from the adversaries exceptions HAving seen the impertinency of the Gentleman 's own Arguments and how insufficient they are to establish what â—he intended by them let us see next how happy he will prove in the answering as he stiles them my Argumentations Though I must tell the Reader that he hath abused both the World and me in calling a few notes imperfectly taken and that by a professed Enemy my Sermon and imposing upon his Readers only the shreds of Arguments for the summ of what I produced sure the man had either an itch to be in Print or was in an humour of quarrelling But if he took these for my Reasons he had both lost his own Reason and his Conscience and he that takes his Replyes for Answers either never suspected the controversie or else hath a mind to be deceived But this being a confident age and those I have to do with being a sort of men who suppose their dreams should pass for demonstrations every thing they say however inconsiderable must be attended to 1. Whereas I argued from the P. 10. truth of Gods threatning against the pardonableness of sin without a satisfaction he desires to know where the threatning alloweth a surety Answ The Texts I produced namely Gen. 2. 17. not 1. 17. as the adversary misciteth it and Deut. 27. 26. hold clearly forth Gods judicial denunciation of punishment against sin â—ut the purpose of God for the execution of it upon the sinner â—s not there exprest and that â—his was not the intendment of â—t in reference to all the event â—emonstrates in that it is not â—xecuted upon the Elect and â—et it behoved to be executed â—gainst sin otherwise the truth â—nd justice of God should have â—ailed and therefore the Adâ—ersary must either deny salvaâ—ion to the Elect or truth in â—od It being then obtained that the threatning abides firm God himself is the best interpreter of his own meaning in it and this he hath done in the Gospel both in reference to the stability of the Law it self Rom. 3. 31. and also in reference to the execution of it upon Christ 1 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. 1 Pet. 3. 18. To render this clearer I desire the Reader to observe that threatnings do primarily signifie only the dueness of punishment not that God will alwayes execute it upon the offender God might altogether release his threatnings were he not restrained by his holiness wisdom righteousness and honour and it being against none of all these to release the personal offender seeing by punishing sin though iâ— another than the personal offenders he both secures hiâ— honour and at once gives evidence of the purity of his nature in the hatred of sin and of the wisdom and righteousness of his Government in the execution of his Law But he adds that the Scripture P. 10. saith The soul that sinneth shall dye Ezek. 18. 4. and therefore that it is against truth it self to affirm that another dies in his room Answ The intendment of that place cannot be that never any was or should or might be made suffer for anothers sin for the Scripture furnisheth us with an express threatning Exod.