prohibition but there are other things naturally evil without any enacting will of God about them As to love fear and reverence God are duties founded in our very natures to which we had stood obliged though there had never been any positive precept of God enjoining Dic ergo cur adulterium male steri putes an quia id facere lex vetat non sane ideo malum est quia vetatur lege sed ideo vetatur lege quia malum August li. 1. de libero Arbit them So to deny or hate God are essentially evil previously to any prohibition of God about them otherwise they might have been duties supposing God had commanded them which he might have done if they were in themselves things indifferent and became evil only from his free prohibition but that these could have heen duties I think no man dare say that knows whereof he affirms As there is an eternal comeliness that a reasonable creature should love and honour God so there is an everlasting indecency and horridness that a rational soul should hate or contemn him That these things are good and evil doth not depend so much on God's will as his nature and for God to will that the one should be bad and the other good were for him to change his holy and unchangeable nature which is impossible he cannot do it not through any defect but through infiniteness of perfection see 2 Tim. 2. 13. Tit. 1. 2. It being then obtained that there were somethings evil antecedently to any determination of God's will about them Si non reddit faciendo quod debet reddet patiendo quod debet August Nemo malus felix Juven it naturally follows that there belonged a dueness of punishment to those things there being an indispensable connexion betwixt moral evil and physical He that does ill deserves to suffer ill Neither divine wisdome nor righteousness can allow that sin and impunity should for ever dwell together It is the highest point of reason that he who provokes God should forfeit his favour and feel his anger and if so then without a satisfaction it cannot be otherwise for the justice of God requires that every thing should have its due though it be under the Freedome of God's will whether he will punish sin in the person of the sinner or the surety yet it is not under the freedom of his will whether he will punish sin or not Though the putting forth of justice in these or in other effects be under the liberty of the Divine will yet the punishing of sin in a way of vindictive justice is not but it results necessarily from the nature of sin to which punishment is indispensably due 2. It further appears if we consider the nature of God and the account Scripture gives us of it with reference to sin and sinners He is every where represented as hating them Psal 5. 4 6 7. Thou hast no pleasure in wickedness thou hatest the workers of iniquity Jer. 44. 4. Do not the abominable thing which I hate Psal 11. 5. The wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth See Deut. 12. 31. Mal. 2. 16. Zech. 11. 8. Levit. 16. 30. Levit. 20. 23. c. and why doth God abhort and loath sin and sinners is it only from the determination of his will he hath decreed and determined so No not only so but from the purity and justice of his nature because without ceasing to be a holy and righteous God he cannot do otherwise Hab. 1 13. Thou art of purâ—r eyes than to behold iniquity and canst not look on evil Josh 24. 19. Ye cannot serve the Lord for he is an holy God he is a jealous God he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins The principle in God by virtue of which he punisheth sin is not so much any free act of his will as the justice and purity of his nature See 2 Thes 1. 6. It is a righteous thing with God to recompence tribulation to them that trouble you Rom. 2. 5. Rev. 16. 5 7. Rev. 19. 11. Justice in God is a property of his nature See Heb. 10 30 31. Nahum 1 3. Deut 4. 24. Num. 14. 18. as well as his mercy and goodness are Exod. 34. 7. Exod. 20 5. It is a contradiction to suppose a God and not suppose him just there is no possibility of framing a notion of God without including justice in it And if it were not thus it is not imaginable how the heathens should come to have an ingraft notion of God's punishing sin for what depends meerly upon the will of God is no other ways to be known but by revelaâ—ion but that the Gentiles without revelation are under a knowâ—edge that God will punish sin â—he Apostle informs us Rom. 1. â—2 Knowing the judgments of God â—hat they which commit such things â—re worthy of death It was from â—ence that their accusations of â—onscience arose Rom. 2. 15. From â—ence also sprung their several enâ—eavours and attempts to appease God by lustrations hecatombs sacrifices c. From all which iâ— clearly follows that vindictive justice is an essential property oâ— God If justice be to give everâ— thing its due we must needs ascribâ— it to God unless we will supposâ— him to act contrary to the principles and measures of all equity If in man it be a virtue and perfection becoming a rational nature we must either give it to God or suppose him to be an unreasonable Being 3. This may be further strengthened if we consider God actinâ— towards us as Supream Governor Ruler and Judge God havinâ— created Man a rational creature behoved to give him a law It iâ— a contradiction for a man to be â— man and not obliedged to love fear and obey God These thingâ— man became obliedged to without any other constitution of God will about him save only his making him a man though God mighâ— â—ave chosen whether he would â—ave made such a creature as man â—r not yet on supposition that he â—akes such a creature it necesâ—arily results from his very nature â—hat he should reverence love â—nd serve God Now this being â—nce established that man beâ—oved to be under a law it as neâ—essarily follows that God as the â—oly and just Governour of the â—orld should make punishment â—ue to him in case he broke that â—w Duety being once constiâ—ted though there had been no â—enalty annexed to the law yet â—e dueness of punishment ariseth â—om the nature of sin Reatus â—lpae reatus poenae howsoâ—er they may be separable in some â—ses in humane laws they are not â— in divine In brief if there â—ere not penalties annexed to â—ws they would be contemptible â—ings and Government would be â—t an empty notion Now the dueness of punishment beiâ— granted in case of sin It followâ— by a like necessity that in case punishment become actually due God as righteous Judge and Gâ—vernour should execute it Geâ— 18. 25.
of it actual punishing with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds actual punishing depends upon the divine decree but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature He adds that we men have a P. 12. natural right to our Limbs and he that maims us deserves to be punished yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence Answ 1. There be cases wherein being wronged we cannot without injustice forgive but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender see pag. 53. of the former discourse 2. He argues from what a private person may do â—o what God who is the suâ—ream Rector and Governour â—ught to do whereas even â—mong men that which is lawâ—ull for a private person is not â—awfull for a Magistrate vid. â—bi supra 3. The Gentleman â—n this whole affair confounds â—us justitia power and equiâ—y We may have a physical â—ower to do that which we â—ave not a moral right to do â— Father may if we speak as â—o power connive at rebelliâ—n in his Son but it is moâ—ally wicked and destructive â—f Paternal Government to do â—o so here we do not argue â—bout the unlimited power of God what in a way of absoâ—uteness he may do but what in agreeableness to his â—ustice wisdom and holiness is â—it for him to do Whereas he adds that sins give P. 12. â—od a right to punish but that he may dispense with his right if hâ— please or else he were more impoâ—tent than we contemptible wormâ— are Answ 1. If this prove anâ— thing it will prove more thaâ— the Adversary desires namely that God may forgive thâ— obstinate and impenitent seeing we not only can but in somâ— cases are bound so to do buâ— the contrary hereof both Socâ—nus and Crellius affirm and I suppose the Disciple will not varâ— from his Masters 2. It is truâ— that he who sins gives God â— right to punish him and thaâ— God may remit his right buâ— then it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honouâ— to do it otherwise than upoâ— the conditions we alledge anâ— upon these we affirm that iâ— demonstration of his grace hâ— doth it Neither is it througâ— impotency that God cannot otherwayes act but through infiniteness of perfection His next assault is upon my P. 13. Argument from the nature of God and the account that the Scriptures give us of it in reference to sin â—nd sinners to which purpose I â—ited 2 Thes 1. 6 7. upon which â—e replyes that God is said to be â—ighteous in recompencing rest to â—hem who are troubled as well as â—ribulation to them who trouble â—ut forasmuch as that is not from â—he necessity of Gods nature but â—rom his merciful determination â—o neither is this from the incliâ—ation of his nature but the pleaâ—ure of his will Answ 1. God having proâ—ised to reward obedience â—annot without faileur in his veâ—acity and truth but perform â—t for though his promise was â—n act of grace yet the keeping â—f it is an act of justice and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do without being false and unrighteous Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatned to punish sin is obliged by his veracity to do no less his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case as iâ— the other so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it 2. God being infinitely good is enclined by his nature to love vertue and though it were noâ— against his justice not to rewarâ— it forasmuch as it is impossiblâ— that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker yet iâ— is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do How much more then is iâ— contrary to his nature not to punish sin that being formally against his justice as well as unbecoming his wisdom 3. We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished and the other rewarded for â—e owe the utmost of Service â—o God as we are his creatures â—nd withall there is that in the â—ature of duty which deserves â—hat it should be pursued but â—n the contrary sin is so far from â—eing a debt which we owe to God that he commands us on the â—ighest perill to avoid it and â—here is nothing in the nature â—f sin that should invite us to â—ommission of it and withall â— is contrary both to Gods naâ—re and government and â—erefore though God be obliâ—d by his nature to punish sin â—t he is under no such obligaâ—on to reward obedience obeâ—ence being a debt we owe to â—od as our maker and ruler â—ereas sin is both an opposing his nature and a rebelling against his Rectorship The Apostle asserts the same distinction Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord. The next attempt is upon my P. 13. arguing for the necessity of sins punishment from the sense and notion which the Heathens without revelation have of it Against which he excepts that the same light taughâ— them that God was merciful pardoning sin without a satisfaction Answ If we consider in thiâ— affair the sentiments of the Heathen our Adversaries havâ— clearly the disadvantage for iâ— is most certain that they believed God to be offended anâ— therefore sought by costly offerings lustrations c. to appeasâ— him 2. We readily granâ— that the Heathens had somâ— light of Gods being mercifulâ— herein he left himself nowhere without a witness Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness were intended in a kind of objective way and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose to lead us to Repentance Rom. 1. 19 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction we deny and challenge him to prove it if he can yea their whole Worship implyed the contrary to what end were all their Sacrifices but upon a steady belief of Gods being angry to attone him It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood and Sacrifice made the largest spread there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices yet the first Rise of them among them was some traditional conveyance from the Church to whom God enjoyned them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah As to what the Gentleman alledgeth in reference to the Ninivites it is altogether impertinent 1. In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgment and that also but for a time for about forty years after they were destroyed and their City taken and overthrown 2. All the mercy they could suppose in God was
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. 〈◊〉
only upon consideration of some effectual means and way to appease him though they had no distinct notion of the right way and means by which it was accomplished My last Argument why sin should not be pardoned without a satisfaction was from the consideration of Gods being Governour and that if he should permit sin to go unpunished his Laws would have been ridiculous You may see this Argument managed at further length p. 48. to 51. Against this he excepts saying P. 13. all men hate and abhorr that Government as cruel and tyrannical where every the least breach must be fully avenged Answ That you may once for all see at what kind of rate these Gentlemen dispute I will ask him these Questions 1. Whether God might not have damned all mankind without being a Tyrant or cruel and yet I suppose we should pronounce it cruelty in any Governour to destroy all his subjects even supposing them guilty of a very hainous fault 2. Is it cruelty for God to condemn men for little sins when continued in without repentance or will he say that there are some sins in their own nature Venial and yet I think we should call it cruelty for a Magistrate to cut of his subjects for every little fault though persevered in 3. Are there not some cases wherein Governours without destroying the ends of Government and exposing their Laws to contempt cannot forgive offences and shall we call it Tyranny in God to secure the honour of his Government and to preserve his Laws from reproach and derision 4. It no wayes follows that because men may in some cases pardon without a satisfaction therefore God should both because mens Laws are often arbitrary and in many cases only ad terrorem where summum jus would be summa injuria as likewise because justice is of the nature of no Governour but God Whereas he adds that I cited Gen. 18. 25. in a quite contrary sense to its true meaning because Abraham urged it against Gods destroying the few Righteous with the many wicked but I urge for the many righteous or of one equivalent to many that a few wicked may go free Answ 1. The end I produced it for was that seeing sin in respect of its nature deserves punishment therefore God as just Governour was obliged to see that it should have its due and whatever the Gentleman sayes to the contrary I do not see but that it was pertinently alledged For seeing he ought as he is judge and Rector to do right and punishment being that which in right belongs to sin he was bound to see that it should not miss it 2. Abraham treated with God only in and through Christ and what ever was the matter of his Prayer it was tendred in the vertue and accepted through the merit of Christs Satisfaction for it 's only upon the consideration of the blood of Christ that it becomes Righteous with God to pardon any 3. How Christ is equivalent to many and how no pains were thrown upon him but upon his own election and consequently how there was no cruelty in inflicting what he had chosen to undergoe is all at large before opened and I have more mercy both for my self and my Reader than to repeat it I know no more under this head added by my Adversary but a Blasphemy which I care not to mention but shall leave it to God to avenge SECT V. The impossibility of having a satisfaction made any other way Gods being reconciled to us Christ's satisfying himself bearing what we should have born Doing it in our stead Purchasing grace for us All vindicated from the exceptions of the Adversary The Conclusion of the whole HAving seen that a satisfaction is neither contradictory to it self nor contrary to Scripture and having vindicated what for the necessity of a satisfaction in case of pardon I alledged in my Sermon I had expected next a confutation of what I produced to evidence the impossibility of its being made any other way but I perceive that my Adversary out of a perswasion that he had overthrown both the verity and the possibility of a satisfaction passeth by all that I said on that occasion as impertinent save only two or three little things which he pretends to observe First That in citing Psal 51. 16. and 50. 12. upon the warrant and authority of which I disclaimed the possibility of satisfaction by Sacrifice I did not take notice of the sacrifice of a broken heart and of thanksgiving c. To which I Answer 1. That when I cite one verse in a chapter I hold not my self concerned to cite every verse I observed what was pertinent to the subject I was treating and I suppose I was engaged to take notice of no more 2. A broken heart and thanksgiving are stiled Sacrifices only in a metaphorical sense as all beâ—ievers are called Priests Rev. â— 6. and therefore to have â—amed them under the head I was then handling had been to â—ave talk'd at the rate which â—his Gentleman writes that is wildly and not to the purpose 3. To what end God appointed Sacrifices in what reâ—pect he accepted and in what â—ense and upon what account he â—ejected them is largely beâ—ore opened pag. 63. to 69. and â— love not to trouble either my â—elf or the Reader with Repeâ—itions His second exception is in refeâ—ence P. 14. to my saying that Christ did â—ud suffered what was a just comâ—ensation for our release upon â—hich he asks how we dare affirm â—at God who loved his Son more than millions of righteous men should yet lay upon him the punishment due to sinners Answ He laid no more upon him than what himself chose to have laid on him and what he knew him to be able to bear and overcome but this whole matter being treated of above pag. 108. to 123. I wave here all further pursuing of it Having in my Sermon proposed several things towards the proving Gods being reconciled to us through the death of his Son this fine disputant without once essaying to Answer one P. 15. word of what I alledged confidently affirms that it is impossible to shew one Scripture where Christ is said to reconcile God to us Answ The contrary is above demonstrated p. 166. c. yea so happy is the Gentleman in his reasoning that the two Texts which he here cites to the contrary do demonstrate that very â—hing which he brought them to destroy see p. 166. c. for â—hough we have it not in so maâ—y words yet we have the â—hing But he adds what need of reconâ—ling God who so loved the world â—hat he gave his only begotten Son â—oh 3. 16. Answ God without any imâ—eachment of his justice did pity â—ankind and find out a way for â—eir pardon and salvation but â—ctually to pardon and save â—em he could not without a â—tisfaction A judge seeing a â—alefactor condemned by the â—aw may out of some just inâ—cements so