of and admire it 4. The freeness of God's grace towards sinners stands in the free and effectual application of the death and satisfaction of Christ to them his free donation of the spirit to some to work faith in them and to bring them up to the conditions upon which the satisfaction of Christ and pardon through it is only pleadable The Father and Son having contrived and brought about this satisfaction without any help or rise from us We could have no actual interest in the benefits of it but upon such tearms as the Father and Son should agree to It is true if we our selves had made the satisfaction that then without the intervention of any new condition both Law and Justice would have discharged us But that being done by others without any contrivance or influence of ours the benefit of it is not to be expected by us but upon such conditions as those who brought about and accomplished that work think fit to appoint Now it having pleased the Father and the Son to constitute and appoint believing as the condition upon which the satisfaction of Christ should be accounted ours and without which we should have no interest in the benefit of it and we being both unable and unwilling to believe our moral impotency and insufficiency to this being no less than our Physical inability and incapacity was to the former Joh. 16. 44. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Joh. 6. 29. Is it not then eminent mercy and grace that while the generality are left under their unwillingness enmity and inability God should in some work both to will and to do Phil. 2. 13. Give them to believe Phil. 1. 29. Ephes 2. 8. Draw them to Christ Joh. 6. 44. Fullfil the work of faith in them with power 2 Thes 1. 11. Certainly whatever low imaginations some have of this there are others will not cease to adore that distinguishing and eminent love and mercy which unfolds it self in it Having thus briefly shown wherein the Grace of God in the pardoning of sin consists though he pardon none but with respect to and upon the account of a satisfaction I return to that which I was upon namely that to be justified upon the Plea of meer mercy is both perfect nonsense and a formal contradiction Whatever these high masters of reason think of it we poorer mortals use to account it nonsense to say a man is justified when he is meerly gratified and according to our little Philosophy we esteem it a contradiction to make that the alone effect of mercy wherein justice hath only to do And our adversary must give us leave to retort his own Phrase with this little alteration upon himself that he and his friends are absurd not only in their Faith but in their Reason As we are justified God acts only towards us in way of righteousness as we are pardoned he acts only towards us in way of mercy But as in being saved we are both pardoned and justified so in the whole of our recovery there is a wonderful combination and union of mercy and justice Now though this were enough to overthrow our being justified upon the Plea of mercy for the sake of mercy I shall yet for the fuller clearing and establishing the truth that we are discoursing endeavour to prove that as we have already said it is a contradictioâ— to be justified upon the sole termâ— of mercy and grace So secondly It was not possible for God iâ— a way of consistency with his truth and justice to save sinners and pardon sin but through the Intervention of a satisfaction And let thiâ— be noted once for all that whaâ— God cannot do in agreeableness tâ— his truth and righteousness he cannot do at all That it was not possible foâ— God to pardon sin and save sinners without the intervention and consideration of a satisfaction may bâ— demonstrated First From thâ— truth of God's threatnings Now for the better understanding thâ— strength of this Argument anâ— that exceptions and cavils may bâ— obviated I shall premise thesâ— things 1. Though threatnings precisely Loquuntur de debito non de eventu and universally taken do only signifie what is due not what shall actually be yet forasmuch as God in giving his creatures a law intended not only to tell them that according to that they must live but also that according to that they must be judged therefore though in the primary sense of all threatnings the meaning only is such a penalty in case of offence shall be due yet in that God signifieth he will govern according to his law He secondaâ—ily declareth that he will inflict the penalty and give to all their â—ue As it was necessary that Taci èpermiti tur quod sinc ultione prehibetâ—r Tert. God in the enacting his law â—hould annex a penalty so in the â—romulgation of his law he inâ—ended that the world should beâ—eve he would execute the peâ—alty in case his law were violate 2. There is a difference betwixt â—rticular threatnings denounced in some singular cases to some special ends a General commination or threatening annexed to an universal law and however the first sort may be relaxed or dispensed with Isa 38. 1. with 5. Jonas 3. 4 with 10. yet the second is as unalterable as the law it self because without it the end of the law cannot Qui ratione duci non possunt metu continentur Quint be compassed though the end of the law be not the inflicting oâ— the penalty but obedience yet the annexing of the penalty to thâ— law is necessary to the enforcing oâ— obedience 3. We must distinguish betwixt those threatnings which import only temporal punishment and those which denounce eternalâ— For suppose God doth suspend thâ— infliction of temporal judgments yet this is no violation of the Sanction of his law forasmuch aâ— what he forbears here he may inflict in severer kind hereafter bâ— on the other hand should he relaâ— and dispense with those threatnings which denounce eternal judgments no crime were possibly punishable according to its demerit seeing all that creatures are capaâ—le of having inflicted on them in â—his life is infinitely still below â—he desert of their least sin 4. We ought heedfully to note â—he difference betwixt Evangeliâ—al threatnings and legal Evanâ—elical I count those that form obâ—gation to fatherly and Gospel â—hastisements legal such as deâ—ounce unmixed and unallayed â—urse and wrath These two widely â—ffer not only in their nature but â—d the end of Gospel threatnâ—gs This is it which Autâ—ors call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum panâ— infligituâ—â—mendandi causa is the recovering us to and â—e keeping of us within the bounds â— Child-like obedience and thereâ—re God hath not only signified â—t the nature of the affair reâ—tires that they should be exeâ—ted only in case need be 1 Pet. 6. Supposing then that the business of these threatnings be done to the hand of God without the execution of them
which were the ends of it as he was King and Prophet 2. We would have it observed that there were some more primary and principal ends of Christ's death and others that were less principâ— and only secondary The more primary and principal end of his death was that he might give himself a ransome for sinners 1 Tim. 2. 6. be a propitiation for our offences 1 Joh. 2. 2. and become a sacrifice for sin Heb. 9. 26. and 10. 12. The secondary and less principal were that he might ratifie the truth of his doctrine and leave us an example of patience in suffering Now the adversaries insist only upon the subordinate and secondary ends of his death and altogether shut out the more principal and chief 3. We would distinguish betwixt the proper end of his death and those things which are the fruits and consequences of it through his having obtained that end The proper end of the death of Christ was the satisfying of God's justice and the vindicating his Law and Government Rom. 3. 25. and 4. 25. but the fruits and consequences of it through his having compassed that end are our deliverance from the curse and condemnation of the law Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 8. 34. The remission of our sins Col. 1. 14. justification at the Bar of God Rom. 5. 9. and a right and title to life 1 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 5. 18. Having now premised these things we come to prove that the confirmation of the doctrine of the Gospel could not be the only not yet the principal end of the death of Christ 1. Because the truth of his doctrine was otherwise sufficiently established for being demonstrated to be from God there needed no further evidence of the truth of it and that it was from God was abundantly proved 1. By those motives of credibility and inbred evidence which it carried in it if we consider the Purity Majesty Plainness Fullness Method and Manner in which delivered it is not possible but that without further means of conviction we may be ascertained that God is the Author of it 2. God himself by the Testimony and Attestation of Miracles gave irrefragable evidence that it was true and from himself Heb. 2. 4. God bearing witness with signs and wonders and divers miracles c. Act. 2. 22. Jesus a man approved of God amongst you by miracles wonders and signs which God did by him in the midst of you c. and it was to these that Christ so often appealed for the truth of his doctrine Joh. 5. 36. I have a greater witness than that of John for the works which the Father hath given me to finish the same works that I do bear witness of me that the Father hath sent me Joh. 10. 25. The works that I do in my Fathers Name they bear witness of me So Joh 15. 24. and alibi And it was upon the conviction and evidence of these that the world received his doctrine Joh. 2. 23. Many believed in his Name when they saw the miracles which he did Joh. 3. 2. We know that â—hou art a Teacher come from God for no man can do these miracles â—hat thou dost except God be with â—im Joh. 7. 31. And many of the â—eople believed on him and said â—hen Christ cometh will he do more â—iracles then these which this man â—ath done So that there was no â—ecessity for Christ to have dyed in â—eference to this end his doctrine â—eing by other mediums sufficiâ—ntly confirmed had there never been any such thing as the death of Christ yet there wanted not sufficient grounds by which a Divine Revelation might be known Those that lived before the incarnation of Christ were not without sufficient evidence of the truth and divinity of the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets yet they had not this argument to establish and confirm them in the belief of it 3. The needlesseness of Christs dying in relation to the ascertaining the truth of his doctrine appears hence in that the highest argument and motive the Holy Ghost instanceth in in reference to the confirming any declaration oâ— God is God's Oath Heb. 6. 17 18. So that if this had been the supream end of the death of Christ I do not see how it was any wise necessary that Christ should havâ— dyed there having been other wayâ— and meâ—ns every way sufficient foâ— the attaining of that end yea â—annot understand how it is conâ—istent with the wisdome goodâ—ess and righteousness of God â—o have put an innocent person â—nd one so dear to him as his own Son to death when he might â—ave spared him and yet arrived â—t all he propounded by his sufâ—erings 2. If the confirming the truth of the Scripture had been the â—upream end of all the sufferings of Christ and if it be upon that â—ccount that he is so often said to â—ave dyed for us this is no more â—han what men are capable of doâ—ng yea than what the Martyrs â—ave actually done for they by sufferings blood and death have â—ealed and confirmed the truth of the Gospel and yet they are never said to have dyed for us or to have reconciled us to God by their blood yea instead of this it is expresly denied that they ever did or could dye for us in that sense and to that purpose thaâ— Christ did 1 Cor. 1. 13. Act. 4. 12. and by consequence there behoved to be other and greateâ— causes of the death and sufferingâ— of Christ then the sealing oâ— confirming the truth of his doctrine 3. It may from hence be further demonstrated that it was noâ— the supreame end of Christ's dying only to encourage us to believe the certainty of God's promise in reference to the free remission of sin because the Scripture every where assigns other ends namely that he might beaâ— our sins Rom. 4. 25. destroy thâ—e mity betwixt God and us Eph. 2. 16. save us from perishing anâ— give us a right to life Joh. 3. 16. So that the first Plea of the Sociniars remains confuted and overthrown 2. The second end instanced in and pleaded for as the impulsive cause of the sufferings and death of Christ is that he might give us an example of suffering with patience It is not denied but that the death of Christ is of singular import to these purposes 1 Pet. 2. 21. and 4. 1. Heb. 12. 2 3. but yet these were not the principal ends of his sufferings and death neither were they indispensably needful upon that score 1. Because the Old Testament Saints were patiently carried through suffering who though they lived in the faith of the death of Christ yet had not the lively example of the quality of his sufferings nor of his patience under them 2. Because upon these terms Christ should not be properly our Saviour but the act of saving us should be our own Christ should only chalk us the way to salvation whereas we should go in it and consequently the act of saving us should
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.
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