what justification is HAving fully established the satisfaction of Christ which is the only plea a guilty sinner hath why he should be justified that which falls next under consideration is how upon this Plea we come to be justified or how we come to have an interest in the satisfaction made by Christ so as by vertue of that Plea to be acquitted I had intended and accordingly digested my thoughts to a considerable length on this subject and treated the whole interest both of faith and works in this affair but finding this treatise already lengthened beyond what the Reader may desire though much short of what the subject requires and not knowing to what bigness the Appendix may grow I shall not proceed as I had designed but refer it to another season if not wave it forever Only that the present tract may not be wholly imperfect it will be necessary to suggest a few things This then I would first premise that the satisfaction of Christ was as effectual to justification and life to those who could plead it before it was actually made he having undertaken it as it is to those who can now plead it it is made the Father acted in the same way of justifying believers then that he doth now The blood of Christ had the same efficacy then which it hath now Rom. 3. 25. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past The Old Testament Saints were saved upon terms of justice as well as the New God by exacting afterwards full satisfaction from Christ declares himself to have acted towards them as a righteous Judge as well as a gracious Father This I take to be the intendment of the Apostle Col. 1. 2. And having made peace through the blood of his Cross by him to reconcile all things unto himself by him I say whether they be things in earth or things in heaven Whereby things in heaven is meant the Saints already in heaven who are said now to be reconciled because the price of their reconciliation was now paid See Gomar on the place All that were saved then were saved alone through faith in Christ Heb. 11. 13. In this federal transaction betwixt the Farher and Son about the recovery and pardon of sinners Divines take notice that there is a mutual trusting of each other as Christ having paid the price and ransome takes the Fathers word now for the bringing in and justifying of all those in due time in whose room and stead it was paid so the Father before received many into favour and to glory upon the Sons promise that in the appointed time he would make him a full satisfaction Having prâ—mised this there is a twofold justification one fundamental in Christ of all the elect before faith yet so as they abode under wrath till they came actually to believe wherein that consists I had at length drawn out but must now forbear it 2ly There is an actual justification of all the elect in Christ upon their believing The Father and Son having contrived and brought about this great affair of our recovery without any rise or help from us we can have no actual interest in the benefits of it but upon such termes as the Father and Son have agreed unto And here I would observe these two things 1. The necessity that we should not be justified but upon some condition 2. That it was most agreeable to the Divine wisdome that faith should be the condition 1. It was not fit that we should be actually justified but upon some condition and this is the main hinge upon which the compact betwixt the Father and Son in his undertaking the work of redemption turns Isa 53. 11. By his knowledge shall my righteous servant justifie many i. e. by the knowledge of him where knowledge as often elsewhere in Scripture signifies faith It was not fit that the justice of God should acquit us to the impeachment of the Divine purity The holiness of God was a bar to our being received into favour as well as his righteousness it was needful therefore that a respect should be born to that as well as this and that though justice had received a satisfaction yet that the benefits of it should not redound to us but upon terms of conformity to the purity and holiness of God 2. So far as can be imagined by us it was most convenient that faith should be the condition 1. Because that alone quites all pretensions of being justified any other way and trusts solely to be justified this way It is the nature of faith to take us of from whatever else we are apt to confide in and to engage us only to depend upon the righteousness of Christ It is the constitution of faith and no other grace to trust the promise of God and to receive and embrace what is there tendred Hence faith is set in opposition to self trust and confidence Phil. 3. 9. Rom. 9. 31 32. Rom. 4. 15. Gal. 5. 4 5. It is faith alone by which the soul owns Christ for its surety rolls over it self upon him so that in conspectu fore in the account of the law Christ and the pleader are but one 2. Because it is by faith that Christ and we come to be spiritually united and as it were concorporated together Christ is brought to dwell in us by faith Eph. 3. 17. and we are implanted and rooted in him by the same Col. 2. 7. by faith Christ and we become one spirit 1 Cor. 6. 17. This being then the bond of union betwixt him and us it was most convenient that it should be the condition of our interest in him and of our right to all the benefits of his satisfaction and purchase What this faith is how it is called our righteousness and how none are actually justified till they believe though prepared to have been here inserted yet to prevent the excess of this discourse shall be wholly superceded Only a little how upon our believing we are actually justified Justification is God's act Rom. 8. 33. A man is then justified when he is constituted righteous in law now this is done by God's imputing and accounting the righteousness of Christ ours Rom. 4. 11. 24. Rom. 5. 19 So that he is made our righteousness 1 Cor. 1. 30. Jer. 23. 6. and we are as righteous through him as God can require or doth desire Phil. 3. 9. It is no more harsh that his righteousness should be thus made ours then that our sins should be made his which the Apostle expresly asserts 2 Cor. 5. 21. and we have before opened Now God may be said to justifie such a person two ways 1. In his secret acquitting of him within himself accounting of him as righteous and in a state of favour He that was in a state of hatred before the obligation to punishment being now dissolved is accounted of as
debts something material is paid and received by which the Creditor is made richer In penal it is enough that thâ— Law be satisfied though the Governour be not formally made thâ— richer A person that is wronged may account himself satisfied iâ— the party who hath offended him hazard his life for him though hâ— formally pay him nothing Sâ— here it was not needful that Goâ— should properly receive any thingâ— it was enough that he should accept what was done To makâ— good God's acceptance of thâ— price it is sufficient that his law is satisfied and that his justice suffered not by the delivery of thâ— sinner though he be not formally made the richer and this is not only true that the justice of God suffers nothing by our release Rom. 3. 25. but besides it is more glorified than it could have been in the destruction of the sinner These things being premised we come now to prove that Christ by the interposition of his blood as a price hath properly in way of solution and payment redeemed and delivered us And this will appear if we consider these three things 1. If we observe that there was a price paid and this the Scripture fully informs us 1 Cor. 6. 20. for ye are bought with a price and what this price was we are expresly told 1 Pet 1. 18 19. Ye are not redeemed with silver and gold but with the precious blood of Christ as of a Lamb without blemish and without spot Of what use silver and gold are in other cases to redeeme captives of that use is the blood of Christ to redeem sinners Hence Christ's death is called a ransome Mat. 20. 28. He gave his life a ransome for many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it is all one whether it come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to loose or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pay As we wâ—re held prisoners by the law and justice of God we are by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redeemed and set free The Antient Câ—ot in Mat. 28. 20. Jews used to stile the Messiah 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It is not improbable that the Romans derived their lustrum from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 when many were delivered from destruction by one or more suffering to purifie and â—xpiate the sin of the rest Hinc Decâ—i dicuntur lustrasse Romanum exercitum Now Christ was such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instead of many Hence he is stiled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Tim. 2. 6. Quum alius solvit quod reus non poteraâ— Arâ—t Est tale pretium in quo liberator simile quid subâ—t et â—alo quod ei imminebat qui liberatur Scult It signifieth a counter price that which one undergoeth in the room of another When one giveth his own life for the saving of anothers Such were those whom the Greeks called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 who gave life for life and body for body who used to devote themselves to death to deliver others as Alceste did for Admetus Philumene for Aristides Anâ—inous for Adrian the Decii for their Country So Christ laid down his life to redeem ours he bore the curse that we might escape it he shed his blood in our lieu and offered up himself a valuable compensation for our release 2. That it was paid and accepted in our lieu and stead There is no other ground with any consistency to Scripture or reason can be assigned of the payment of it for not being paid for himself it must meeds have been for us It is chiefly and principally in reference to this that he is our Mediator it was God's law and justice which was against us and the only way for a Mediator to deal with them was in bearing the penalty to give justice the satisfaction which it did claime So that should it be granted that the word is sometimes used to signifie only an interpreter and intermessenger yet the nature of the case betwixt God and us doth necessarily require that whoever interposeth in way of mediation must do it by price and ransome And the Apostle puts it out of doubt by asserting this as the cause ground and end of his mediatorship in those places where he so stiles and mentions him 1 Tim. 2. 5 6. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man the man Christ Jesus who gave himself a ransome Heb. 9. 15 He is the Mediator of the New Testament that by means of death for the redemption of transgressions that were under the first Testament they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance Heb. 12. 24. And to Jesus the Mediator of the New Covenant and to the blood of sprinkling In all which places the Apostle clearly assigns this as the cause and reason of Christ's being Mediator namely that he gave himself a ransome and by his blood made reparation for transgression 3. This will further appear by observing that by vertue of the solution and payment which Christ hath made we are said to be redeemed Ephes 1. 7. repeated Col. 1. 14. In whom we have redemption through his blood the forgiveness of sins c. Though there be forgiveness yet it is only through the redemption wrought and accomplished by the blood of Christ c. see Rev. 5. 9. Heb. 9. 12. 1 Pet. 1. 18. 19. Rom. 3. 25. In all these places both our redemption is asserted and the blood of Christ hâ—ld forth as the meritorious and procuring cause of it The words are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 never so far as I remember made use of in the whole New Testament but to denote a proper redemption save that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is once metaphorically employed Heb. 11. 35. to signifie a temporal deliverance From what hath been offered we may now confidently infer the truth and certainty of a satisfaction Object 1 Object 1. But it is Objected That Moses as a type of Christ in reference to his bringing the people of Israel out of Egypt is called a redeemer who yet paid no price for them and consequently that the intendment of the Scripture when it speaks of Christ's having redeemed us is not that he payd any ransome for us but only that he hath set us free which he may have done by other ways and means than the solution of a price Answ To this I offer these Answers 1. It is a strange way of arguing that because redemption is taken sometimes Metaphorically that therefore it must always be so taken because we so interpret it in such places where it is expresly said to be done in a way of power must we likewise interpret it so in such places where there is express mention of a price and ransome 2. We have shown before how that temporal deliverance out of Egypt was not wrought without a typical reconciliation and price to intimate that the spiritual deliverance was not to be effected but by a proportionable price and ransome 3. Though I do not deny but
them alone foâ— expiation of guilt and right to life But that no satisfaction can bâ— made by sacrifices appears 1. In that Scripture expreslâ— Sacrificia considerantur vel quaâ—enus typi crant futurae satis facticnis Messia vel quatenus illis vis expiandi per se adscribebatur priori modo Deuâ— illa voluit posteriori carejecit Walth rejects all sacrifices when trusteâ— to for that end and purpose Psalâ— 40. 6. Sacrifice and offering thâ— didst not desire mine ears hast thâ— opened burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required i. e. hâ— did not desire them as means bâ— which sin could be expiated Sâ— Psal 50. 8. to 12. Micah 6. 6 7 Heb. 9. 9. and 10. 1 2 3 4. Goâ— in Scripture expresseth his disliâ— of sacrifices upon three occasionâ— 1. Because of the prophaness â— the Offerers Isa 1. 11 12. c. â— 18. Isa 66. 5. Jer. 6. 20. 2â— When they were preferred to moral obedience 1 Sam. 15. 22. Hos 6. 6. Jer. 7. 21 22. 3. When trusted to for justification and life as we have just before expressed 2. There is no worth in the blood of a Bull or Goat to make reparation for the dishonour done by sin to God he must have very mean thoughts both of sin and God that thinks his justice can be satisfied or the guilt of sin expiated by the bloud of a Calf or Lamb. The wrong done by sin being infinite justice requireth that the satisfaction should be proportionable 3. Nor was there any proporâ—ion nor relation either betwixt the sinner and the sacrificed beast that the blood and death of the one should pass for a satisfaction â—or the sin and offense of the other There should be a conjunction in Nature betwixt him that commits â—he offence and him that makes the satisfaction in what nature the sin is committed in that nature the reparation should be made there being therefore no communion in nature betwixt a beast and a man the blood of the one cannot pass for a satisfaction for the crime of the other 4. Because it is necessary that whoever makes satisfaction for another should consent and willingly submit to such an undertaking now a beast is altogether uncapable of stipulation or agreeing to such an exchange Psal 118. 27. and therefore can no wise make satisfaction The Heathen could say Quum sis ipse nocens moritur cuâ— victima prote Stultitia est morte alterius sperarâ— salutem So that upon the whole it is clear we cannot plead a satisfaction bâ— sacrifice 2. Others possibly may be ready to insist on moral obedience as if by that we could make God a valuable compensation for the wrong we have done him This was the the great refuge of the Jews of old Rom. 2. 17. They rested in the law Rom. 9. 31. They followed after the law i. e. they expected life and righteousness in and through the observance of the law not that they thought themselves able so universally to keep it as not at all to sin but they apprehended that they sufficiently kept the law to justification if they performed the outward acts of duety and forbore the outward acts of sin or if their good works were more than their evil Mat. 19. 18 19 20. Phil. 3. 6. but that there is no coming off on this Plea 1. The Scripture every where informs us in its disclaiming all possibility of being justified by works Rom. 3. 20. By the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight Gal. 3. 21 22. If there had been a law given which could have given life verily righteousness should have been by the law but the Scripture hath concluded all under sin c. Rom. 8 3. what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh c. The law had we kept it by continuing in the sâ—ate wherein we were created was both appointed and able to have given life but man by sin becoming flesh the law stood by as altogether insufficient to help such an one and is therefore called the ministration of death 2 Cor. 3. 7. and of condemnation 2 Cor. 3. 9. and though it was afterward continued for other ends yet it was never intended that they should have life and righteousness by it 2. The obedience of the law is such as never any sinner did or can perform Psal 143. 2. In thy sight shall no man living be justified i. e. upon a personal righteousness of his own Psal 130. 3. If thou Lord shouldst mark iniquities O Lord who shall stand The law required not only a personal but an universal perfect and perpetual obedience and as to all the last three we are sadly defective and accordingly those Saints who had as much to plead this way as any yet constantly disclaim'd being justified on this score Psal 19. 12. Psal 40. 12. My sins are more than the hairs of my head As if he had sâ—id I may sooner tell my hairs than reckon my sins Job 9. 2 3 15 20 21 30. read it at leisure See also 2 Cor. 4 4. Though I know nothing by my self yet am I not hereby justified Phil. 3 8 9. 3 Were it possible that we coulâ— give God a perfect and universal obedience which we never can yet it were no more than a debt which we owe him as we are his Creatures and therefore could be no satisfaction from us as we are his delinquents Whatever we are or have it being from God we owe him the farthest improvement of all without rendring him beholding yea in the state wherein he created us he might have obliged us to the utmost obedience and after all that instead of any reward have reduced us into the state of nothing out of which he raised us being fallen more than we can yield is a debt we owe him as our Maker and therefore can be no satisfaction to him as an offended Judge One debt useth not to go in payment for another if a man commit one treasonable act and for a time make an escape but be afterwards apprehended it will be no Plea in Law to say he is Loyal now because he was bound to have been so before and therefore must satisfie for his former disloyalty 4. All the obedience we are â—er able to yield to God it is â—rough the alone strength and inâ—uence of his grace Joh. 15. 5. Cor. 3. 5. And therefore instead â— being a satisfaction to his juâ—ce we are made fresh debtors to â—s mercy 5. One sin dishonours God â—ore than an eternity of obedience â—n recompence all our service â—ings no accession to God to meâ— any thing at his hand Job 22. 3. Can a man be profitable to â—d is it pleasure to the Almighty â—at thou art righteous or is it â—in to him that thou makest thy â—ys perfect Job 35. 7. If thou â— righteous what givest thou unto â—m or what receiveth he at thine â—nd see also Psal 16. 2 3. Luc.
a curse I would have well observed here that though hanging was reckoned always an ignominious kind of death yeâ— that it alone was an accursed death arose meerly from the constitution of the Law-maker and the declaration of the Law Whatever malefactors were hanged before the enacting and proclaiming of this Law we have no ground to believe that they were accursed and originally the curse was ceremonial being intended by God as a type of the moral curse which Christ was to bear Suspensus secundum legem ceremonialem est execrationi Deo nam alicqui neque secundum naturae legem nec secundum jura civilia neque per seipsum denique qui suspensus est Deo execrabilis Jun. Paralâ—ll l. 2. And here the providence of God is very observable that whereas suspension was not any oâ— the capital punishments prescribed by Moses neither was it the custome of the Jews to punish their malefactors with that kind of death Christ should dye by a Romane and not a Judaical law It is true that some after they were stoned to death were sometimes for the enormity of their fact put to the ignominy of Deut 21. 22. And he be to be put â—o death and thou hang him on a Tree oughâ— to be read and he be put to deâ—th and thou hang him on a Tree See Grot. and Fag on the place the Gibbet but otherwise it was no Judaick punishment and had Christ been executed according to a Mosaick law he could not have been Crucified But among the Romans it was a death to which they often used to put Traitors Thieves Murderers and Seditious persons Authores Seditionis aut tumultus pro qualitatis dâ—gnitate aut in crucem tolluntur aut besâ—tis objâ—câ—untur Paulus l. 5. tit 22. Now Christ being condemned by Pilate upon accusation of affecting the Soveraignty disturbing the Nation and being an enemy to Caesar Luc. 23. 2. Joh. 19. 12. underwent the death of the Cross which was the Roman punishment for these crimes Crucem autem irrogatam Christo tanquam seditionis auctori verissimè à multis notatum est eam enim pâ—nam ei crimini statuunt Romanae leges Grot. in Mat. 27. And as of all deaths it was the most painful and shameful summum supplicium Paul in Seâ—tent Extrema poena Apul. Servile supplicium Tacit. Pone crucem servo Juven So over all these there was in the death of Christ the curse of the law and the wrath of God And this together with the apprehension and sense of the withdrawment of his Fathers love of which more anone was the rise of that grief and horrour in the soul of Christ which the Holy Ghost by the several Evangelists so largely expresseth His soul was exceeding sorrowful Mat. 26. 38. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 undequaque tristis Bez. It signifies the soul surrounded and encompassed with an excess of sorrow beset with grief round about The soul depressed and bowed under dejection of mind the Holy Ghost seems to â—ave respect to Psal 116. 3. The â—orrows of death compassed me and â—he pains of hell got hold upon me â— found trouble and sorrow See â—lso Psal 22. 14. Mark expresseth â—t He began to be sore amazed and â—ery heavy Mar. 14. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â— signifies an high degree of horâ—our and amazement Medici voâ—ant horripilationem when the hair â—ands up through fear 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ravissimè angebatur Bez. It imâ—lies much fear attended with restâ—â—eness and anxiety of mind Prae â—oerore pene concidere animo John â—presseth it Now is my soul trouâ—ed Joh. 12. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it sigâ—fieth great trouble through fear or grief Hence tartarus hell 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 quia terret omnia Luke satth he was in an agony Luke 22. 44 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 it signifieth fear and commotion of mind upon the feeling and foresight of evil and danger yet not so as to be dispirited or disheartned From hence also proceeded his bloody sweat ibid. his sweat was as it were great drops of blood Tears were not sufficient evidences of his inward sufferings nor could the sorrows of his heart be vented enough at his eyes but the innumerâ—ble pores of his body must represent and speak the bitter anguish of his soul There is no instance can parallel it That a person under no distemper of body who before hand had agreed to lay down his life and was now willing to do it A person perfectly innocent both in nature and life under no accusation of conscience as to personal â—uilt free from all solicitude in â—eference to the cares of the world and câ—â—tain of a Crown of Glory should be under such â—nguish and constâ—rnation which â—leaâ—ly argues that it did not proâ—eed from the consideration of meer natural death but from the â—ense of Divine wrath and the â—eeling of the curse I here are â—wo instances in Thuanus which â—hough very strange yet do infiâ—itely differ from this Dux quidam indigna mortis metu adeo conâ—ussus animo fuit ut sanguineum â—udorem toto corpore fudit Hist â— 11. Juvenis obâ—leâ—em causam à Sâ—xto 5. ad mortem damnatus prae doloris vehementia lachrymas crucnâ—as fudisse sanguinem pro suâ—dore toto corpore mittere visus est l. 80 I might also add That his strong crys and tears arose from the same spring Heb. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 It denoteth a most ardent kind of praying Aâ—dentior orandi â—oâ—ma cum lachrymis gemitu aliisque gestibus conjuncta Luke expresseth it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he prayeâ— more earnestly To say that all this was only from a preapprehension of his bodily sufferings is a most irrational as well as a false suggestion for what were this but to abase the valour and courage of Christ below that of thousands of men who have undauntedly at least with less consternation encountred death in its most terrible shapes The ground then of all this anguish and agony which Christ was in was his conflicting with Divine wrath and the curse of the law in death There was not the least change of the punishment in reference to the Surety from what was denounced against the sinner The consideration of this overthrows First the Popish phansie of Christ his suffering formally only in his body and in his soul only by way of simpathy he suffered the very same that we should have suffered i. e. he suffered both in soul and body In neither did God spare him but both gave him up to death and made his soul an offering for sin Rom. 8. 32. Isa 53. 8 10. Secondly It overthrows the phansie of others that if God had so pleased one drop of the blood of Christ might have been a compensation for our sins whereas seeing it was death wrath and the curse which was in the threatning nothing less could have made a satisfaction for sin It is a note of Camero's
the places it necessarily signifies the meritorious and impulsive cause and no wise the final And so in the foregoing place 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for our offences must needs be undestood that our offences were the meritorious and impulsive cause of Christ's suffering Another particle that the Holy Ghost useth is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 6. 8. For when we were yet without strength Christ died for the ungodly Rom. 8. 32. He spared not his own Son but delivered him up to death for us all 1 Pet. 3. 18. Christ hath once suffâ—red the just for the unjust Tit. 2. 14. who gave himself for us 1 Tim. 2. 6. who gave himself a ransome for all Heb. 2. 9. he tasted death for every man Joh. 10. 15. I lay down my life for my sheep Luke 22. 19 20. This is my body which is given for you This Cup is the New Testament in my blood which is shed for you Now the particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among other significations that it hathe signifieth sometimes the impulsivâ— cause Phil. 2. 13. Eph. 5. 20. Rom. 15. 9. Sometimes the substitution of one in the room of another 2 Cor. 5. 20. Philem. v. 13. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Demost Ego pro te molam Terent. Particularly when the sufferings of one for another is exprest by it it always signifieth the substitution of one in the place of another Rom. 9. 3. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Eurip. Unum pro multis dabitur caput Virg. Hanc tibi Eryx meliorem animam pro morte Daretis Persâ—lvo When ever it 's used to imply ones dying for another it always signifieth the dying in his stead Another Preposition made use of in this affair is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Pet. 3. 18 Christ also hath once suffered for sins Gal. 1. 4. who gave himself for our sins 1 Joh. 2. 2. and he is the propitiation for our sins Now this particle though it hath several significations according as the subject matter requires yet among others it often signifyeth the impulsive cause Luke 19. 37. Joh. 10. 33. especially when it refers to sufferings Jud. 15. The last particle made use of to this purpose is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Mat. 20. 28. even as the Son of Man came to give his life a ransome for many Repeated again Mark 10. 45. Now this Preposition when ever applyed to persons or things it always imports a substituting of one in the room of another or an exchanging of one for another Mat. 2. 22. Mat. 5. 38. and 17. 27. Luke 11. 11. Rom. 12. 17. 1 Cor. 11. 15. 1 Pet. 3. 9. So that from the whole we may confidently conclude that Christ not only suffered for our good but in our room and stead 5. That Christ dyed not only for our advantage and profit but in oâ— place will be fully demonstrated iâ— we observe that he is saâ—d to havâ— born our sins 1 Pet. 2. 24. who hiâ— own self bare our sins in his owâ— body on the tree Heb. 9. 28. Chrisâ— was once offered to bear the sins of many 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried up our sinâ— on his body on the tree they werâ— made to ascend on him Now to bear sin is usually in the Scripture phrase to bear the punishment oâ— sin Levit. 5. 1. and 7. 18. and 20. 17. Numb 14. 33. Exod. 28. 43. Ezek. 28. 20. and 23. 49. and 18. 20. Lament 5. 7. And though it should be granted that to bear sin sometimes signifieth only to remove sin yet that this is not the solâ— meaning of it in reference to Christ his bearing sin the Holy Ghost puts out of question Isa 53. 4 5 8 10. He hath born our griefs and caâ—rie our sorrows he was wounded for our transgressions for the transgression of my people â—as he striken he shall bear â—eir iniquities The two words â—hich the Holy Ghost there useth â—e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saball â—w though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies someâ—mes only to take away Job 7. 1. and to forgive Exod. 34. 7. â—um 14. 18. Psal 32. 1. yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—gnifieth ever to bear or carry a â—urthen by taking it on nor is it â—nce used otherwise in all the Scriâ—tures And besides however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places may be allowâ—d to signifie only to remove or â—ake away yet that it should sigâ—ifie so here the context will not â—dmit In that it is said he bore our â—ns so as to be wounded for them â—rieved bruised chastised and put â—o pain for them which clearly â—hews the ground and cause of his â—ufferings and not only the issue â—nd the event Object But it is objected that â—his of the Prophet of Christ his â—earing our diseases is applied Mat. 8. 16 17. in reference to Christ â— healing of diseases and therâ—fore if the bearing our sicknessâ— be only his removing of them by câ—ring them in like manner â— bearing our sins is not the takinâ— them upon himself to undergo the pâ—nishment of them but only his takinâ— them away by forgiveness and heâ—ing To this I return these things bâ— way of Answer 1. It may â— denyed that Christ his bearing oâ— diseases is to be understood onâ— in reference to his removing â— them but that it imports also hâ— travelling under them as a bâ—then He had a fellow feeling â— the pains and griefs he cured â— was affected and afflicted under tâ— sense of them as if they had beâ— his own Heb. 4. 15. besides â— underwent great trouble pain anâ— travel in the curing of them Sâ— much at least is implyed in tâ— word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Est in hac voce â—neâ— quaedam â—olestiae significatio Grot. Nuspiam non portare significat bajulare vid. Mat. 3 11. and 20. 12. Mat. 14. 13. Luke 7. 14. and 10. 4. and 14. 27. Joh. 19. 17. and 20. 15. Acts 15. 10. Rom. 15. 1. Gal. 6. 5. Rev. 2. 3. 2. We meet with a great deal more in Scripture to induce us to believe that Christ bare our sins by taking them upon him than that he bare our diseases by taking them upon him for our sins are said to have been laid on him Isa 53. 6 and he is said to have been made sin for us 2 Cor. 5. 21. whereas we do not read that our siâ—â—nesses were laid on him or that he was made blind or lame c. for us 3. A Scripture may be alleged to be fulfilled not only when the thing foretold and principally intended comes to pass but when something like it falls out when there is only an allusion or accommodation to the Prophesie though in the primary and literal meaning of it there be something else intended though there be but one literal coordinate sense of Scripture yet there may be divers senses oâ— several kinds one subordinate to another Compare Psal 78. 2. with Mat. 13. 35.
to God by propitiation and attonement will receive further strength and light if we observe that this was the great truth and mystery which was signified and intended in the Aarenical Priesthood and Levitical Sacrifices That these did in their institution and end typifie the sacrifice of the Son of God the Holy Ghost puts out of question by calling them shadows Col. 2. 17. Heb. 8 5. Heb. 10. 1. figures Heb. 9. 9. patterns ibid. ver 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Now attonement and reconciliation is every where ascribed to these Levit. 4. 20. and 5. 6. and 6. 7. and 10. 11. Num. 5. 8. and 28. 22. and 31. 50. alibi And that not only in reference to some sins or to lesser sins but in reference to all sins to the veâ—y greatest Levit. 16. 21 22. Levit. 5. 1 2 3. 4 5 6 7 14. c. Num. 5. 6 Object If it should be objecteâ— that there were some sins froâ— which by the law of Moses theâ— could not be justified Acts 13. 39 and therefore that their sacrificeâ— did not serve to make attonement for all sins I Answer 1. All that the Apostle intends is that the sacrifices of the law could expiate no sin further than typically and that it was Christ whom they typified who could alone absolutely justifie from any sin The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as attone for one sin Gal. 3. 13. but typically they serâ—ed to make attonement for every â—â—n The Jews in reference to whom â—he Apostle discourseth trustâ—d solely to sacrifices for righteâ—usness and life and in this he â—firms that they were mistaken â—â—d that it was only the blood â—â—d sacrifice of Christ which they â—gnified and shadowed that could â—ally free the conscience from the â—ilt of the least sin 2. It may be Answered that â—der the law there was a twofold â—ilt a Ceremonial and a Moral one external binding over the transgressour unto temporal punishment another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternaâ— wrath Now sacrifices as theâ— were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed anâ— accordingly served to deliver froâ— temporal guilt Heb. 9. 15. bâ— there were other cases whereiâ— they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment Psal 51. 16. but accordinâ— to their political constitutions death was without mercy to â— inflicted on the offendor Noâ— says the Apostle these sins froâ— the temporal guilt of which aâ— your sacrifies could not dischanâ— you the blood of Christ is suâ—cient to acquite you from the eteâ—nal guilt even of those This objection being dischaâ—ed it stands established that â— tonement and reconciliation ascribed to sacrifices and that not only in reference to some sins but to every sin Now this expiation was not real but only typical all their sacrifices were not able to acquit them from the moral guilt of one sin Heb. 9. 9. and 7. 19. and 10. 4. For it is not possible that the blood of Bulls and Goats should take away sins But the sole intendment of all their sacrifices was to shaddow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah and the atâ—onement and expiation which were to be made by it This will arrive with more light to the Reader if we present it in these three â—eads 1. Christ is our true Priest in â—atters pertaining to God whom all he other Priests did but shaddow All others were only called Priests â—ecause they represented him and â—utwardly by type expressed what â—e was really to accomplish and â—o and never one could do the proper work of a Priest namely make reconciliation for the sins of the people but he That he should be a Priest then only in a metaphorical sense is such a contradiction to Law and Gospel as it could not possibly receive the entertainment of any who had not first set themselves in opposition to the whole mystery of God but that Christ was properly a Priest may be many ways rendred evident 1. From the definition of a Priest properly so called Heb. 5. 1. Every high Priest taken from among men is ordained for men in thingâ— pertaining to God that he may offeâ— both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of â— Priest properly so called is botâ— clear in the thing it self for if sucâ— a one as is here described be noâ— properly a Priest there was neveâ— a Priest properly so called in thâ— world as also in the Apostles aâ—commodating it ver 4. to Aaroâ— who was unquestionably a Priest in a proper and not in metaphorical sense Now that Jesus Christ is such a Priest as is here described is manifest in that all the parts of this description do admirably appertain to him he was taken from among men To this very end principally and none other did he partake of the humane nature Heb. 10. 5. He was also ordained for men see ver 5 6. and herein he excelled all other Priests that he was constituted only for others and not for himself Heb. 7. 27. Lastly he was ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices yea herein he transcended all other Priests that he had something of his own to offer other Priests had indeed something to offer but nothing of their own they only offered the bodies of beasts which the people brought them but Christ had a body given him to be at this own disposal to this purpose That this description of a Priest belongs properly to Christ yea that it is he whom the Holy Ghost principally describes may be put out of question by observing that the Apostle applies it ver 5. particularly to him 2. That Christ was properly a Priest may be further established from Heb. 8. 3. Every high Priest is ordained to offer gifts and sacrifices wherefore it is of necessity that this man have somewhat also to offer Now if Christ be not truly a Priest this way of arguing is altogether impertinent for it might be easily replyed that though it be needful that a Priest properly so called should have somewhat to offer yet it is not necessary that he who is only metaphorically a Priest should have any thing to to offer for it is no ways needful that whatever appertains to that which is true and real should also appertain to that which is figurative and improper Though a man be a rational creature yet it doth not follow that the picture of a man should be so And therefore the Apostle by concluding that Christ behoved to have somewhat to offer because he was a Priest mvst needs intend that he was a Priest in a proper and not in a metaphorical sense 3. It appears further that Christ was truly and properly a Priest in that he was a Priest of a true and proper order namely of the order of Melchisedeck Psal 110. 4. Heb. 5. 10. and 7. 17. 21. I do not now dispute who Melch sedeck was all that I affirm is that
according to the Holy Ghost he was a real Priest and that his order was a real order and therefore Christ being of a true order behoved also to be a true Priest As the Levitical Priests were truely and properly Priests because of the order of Aaron which was a true and proper order of Priesthood so Christ being of the order of Melchisedeck which was a true order of Priesthood must also have been a true Priest And this is the reason why believers though all Priests Rev. 1. 5. yet are alloted to no order because they are not properly Priests but only metaphorically so 4. That Christ was properly a Priest may be demonstrateâ— from the design of the Apostlâ— throughout the Hebrews especially from the 7. chap. to the 10 which is to exalt the Priesthooâ— of Christ above that of Aaron Now this were the most incongruous way of disputing imaginable if Christ were only metaphorically a Priest Aaron having been properly one for howeveâ— Christ mâ—ght be more eminenâ— tâ—an Aaron in other respects yeâ— in respect of his Priesthood he would be less excellent forasmuch as what is so only metaphorically is beyond all contradiction less than what is properly so 5. This may be yet confirmed from the more solemn institution and confirmation of Christ's Priesthood above that of any other for the more solemn and sacred the institution of a thing is the more excellent is the thing it self Now Christ was established a Priest by oath which none other ever was Heb. 7. 20 21. and therefore his Priesthood is more excellent than the Priesthood of any else and consequently must be a true Priesthood and not a metaphorical 6. Christ was properly a King Prophet and consequently properly a Priest forasmuch as the Scripture declares him to be a Priest as well as any of the former and he was typified in that as well as in these 2. He is the true sacrifice beinâ— a true Priest he must have a truâ— sacrifice Heb. 8. 3. yea all otheâ— sacrifices were but meerly typicâ— of the sacrifice which he was tâ— offer No other sacrifice coulâ— make the comers thereunto perfecâ— or take away sins Heb. 10. 1 â— They were only appointed to be â— shadow of the great sacrifice â— Christ Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. Hâ— alone in the offering of himselâ— offered to God a true sacrificâ— That the death of Christ is a sâ—crifice the following Scripturâ— may be sufficient to render cleaâ— Ephes 5. 2. He hath given himself for us an offering and a sacrâ—fice to God for a sweet smelling sâ—vour 1 Cor. 5. 9. Christ our Passâ—over is sacrificed for us Heb. â— 14 through the eternal spirit â— offered up himself to God Heb. â— 27. He needeth not daily to offer â— sacrifices for this he did once wheâ— he offered up himself Heb. 9. 2â— â—ow once in the end of the world he â—ath appeared to put away sin by â—he sacrifice of himself Heb. 10. â—0 we are sanctified by the ofâ—ring of the body of Jesus once for â—ll It is one of the most groundâ—ss figments of the world which â—e Socinâ—â—ns here suggest namely â—at none of all this is to be interpreâ—d in reference to any thing Christ â—id on earth but that it is only to be â—xpounded in reference to his entring â—to heaven and his appearing before â—od for us We do not deny but â—at Christ continues to be a â—riest in heaven and shall do so â—ll the whole mediatory work be â—ver but withal we affirm that â—y the shedding of hâ—s blood and â—eath he perfected his whole saâ—rifice here on earth Redemption â—as obtained before he entred into â—e holy places Heb. 9. 22. Sin â—as purged before he sat down on â—e right hand of majesty on high â—eb 1. 3. where by purging is not meant purging by sanctifyinâ— grace 1 Because that spoken oâ— here was perfected ere Chriâ— went to heaven which sanctificâ—tion is not 2. Because the purging herâ— spoken of is that which is donâ— by Christ alone without the uâ— and intervention of any othâ— means when he had by himself purged our sins but sanctificâ—tion is accomplished by the worâ— and spirit so that the purging â— sin here is the expiating of siâ— which is expresly asserted to havâ— been finished are Christ ascendeâ— That Christ's Priesthood was oâ— earth is further demonstrated bâ— all those places where he is said tâ— have offered himself once anâ— where there is mention made â— one offering Heb. 7. 27. and â— 28. and 10. 10 14. for this caâ—not refer to what he does in heâ—ven seeing what he does there hâ— â—oes always and is continually in â—oing of it it must necessarily â—fer therefore to what he did on â—rth That his Priesthood was â—n earth may be further confirmâ—d by considering the parts of â—e Levitical Priesthood there â—as in that besides the high â—riest's carrying the blood into â—he Holy of Holies and sprinking the Mercy Seat with it the laying of the beast without Now â—s Christ's intercession in heaven by which he continues his Priestâ—ood answers the last of these So there behoved to be Christ's offering of himself a sacrifice on â—arth to answer the first otherways there should not have been â— correspondency in the heavenly â—hings to the earthly Lastly Christ his being Priest on earth will be yet strengthened by observing that there were many sacrifices the blood whereof was not at all carried into the Holy place for that was done but once a year Heb. 9. 7. and that these sacrifices were types of Christ and therefore what Christ waâ— mainly to do behoved to be before he entred into heaven otherwise the Antitype had not answered the type and that in the very thing wherein it was a type Sâ— that we see Christ is both truâ— Priest and true sacrifice wich thâ— Socinians themselves beinâ— judges establisheth the satisfaction of Christ 3 It is by Christ alone that wâ— have the true and real attonement All the Levitical propitiations and reconciliations were at mosâ— but typical of this He alonâ— hath purged away our sins Hebâ— 1. 3. i. e. He hath removed thâ— guilt of all sins from the consciencâ— and the obnoxiousness of the sinneâ— to punishment for them Heb. â— 14. for as the sanctifying of tâ— flesh ver 13. was the setting thâ— offendor free from temporal punishment so the purging the conscience is the setting the offendor free from eternal punishment He hath made reconciliation for sins Heb. 2. 17. Through him we have attonement Rom. 5. 11. He hath slain the enmity which was in God to sinners by his cross Ephes 2. 16. He is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 propitiation 1 Joh. 2. 2. and 1 Joh. 4. 10. Our placamen that by which God is reconciled towards us He is our 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 3. 25. It is much at one whether you take it in the Masculine or in the Neuter if you take it in the first then the
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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.
to us upon consideration of the satisfaction whicâ— he hath made are so far from being contradictories that the conspiration of these two together is the very summ of the Gospel A short acquaintance either with Scripture or reasoâ— will salve these from being contradictions And whereas he adds that tâ— pardon sin and yet to demand â— satisfaction is alike as if we shoulâ— say that a King cannot pardon â— Rebell without punishing as thâ— Law requires when in the meaâ— time to pardon is not to punish â— the Law requires I Reply 1. It is observable that these Gentlemen insiâ— alwayes upon the word Pardoâ— without taking ever notice of the Word justifie whereas the Scriptures every where inform us that we are justified as well as pardoned which implyes that we are dealt with according to Law as well as Grace that right as well as mercy meet in this affair 2. There is no arguing from what man does to what God may do both because men are only restrained by Law which is often arbitrary whereas God is confined by his nature which is unalterable as likewise because men and justice are two distinct things but justice and God are the same A man is a man though he ceaseth to be righteous but God if he should cease to be just he would cease to be God 3. There are cases wherein â—en without the highest unâ—ighteousness cannot pardon â—f a Son should kill his Father it were the grossest injustice not to punish it and if in men it be against justice not to punish vice we must suppose it to be so in God or else we separate righteousness from his nature 4. I affirm that a State may both pardon a Rebel and yet punish his Rebellion as supposing they have mulct a person in a 1000. Talents of which he is not able to pay one farthing and that then one or two of the Senate pay the mulct here is mercy to the criminal and severity against the crime for they who paid the fine being a part of the Senate who inflicted it they at once express grace to the offender and justice against his offence The Story of Zaleucus is not in this case impertinent As to what he adds That nâ— man would account himself pardoned a debt if either he oâ— another paid it in his name I Answer 1. There are cases wherein it is possible that the debtor may be pardoned and yet the debt paid as in case he that paid it was not procured by the Debtor himself nor did it at his entreaty but was rather assigned by the Creditor 2. These Gentlemen all a long confound pecuniary debts with poenal and a meer Creditor with a Governour which is wilfully to err in the case see the foregoing discourse pag. 50. to 58. sin is properly a crime and only metaphorically a debt and God is properly a Governour and only metaphorically a Creditor Now the Socinians desert the proper consideration both of sin and God and in this whole affair pursue only the metaphorical which in plain English is to resolve to mistake Thus we have seen that the Doctrine of forgiveness upon a satisfaction is not contradictory to it self Let us see in the next place whether it be disagreeable to the Scripture and first the adversary represents it as contrary to those Scriptures which speak of Gods pardoning forgiving and remiting sins through Jesus Christ or through his blood and here he quotes several places where there is mention of forgiveness and remission in the blood of Christ as Luk. 3. 3. Mat. 26. 28. Act. 2. 38. and 3. 19. and 5. 31. and 10. 43. and 13. 38. To all which I Ans 1. That these Scriptures are so far from being serviceable to the design they were brought for that they are destructive of it for we have already demonstrated that to be pardoned in the name of Christ and through the blooâ— of Christ is to be pardoned upon a satisfaction and by vertue of Christs blood as a price and ransome 2. This whole Argument runs upon the old mistake which we have so oft taken notice of viz. that sin cannot be forgiven because it is satisfied for whereas satisfaction is so far from diminishing the freeness of forgiveness that it exalts it it is the more free to us that it was bought by Christ God expresseth more grace in giving Christ to purchase it then supposing it had been possible if he had remitted sin without the intervention of such inducement and means majus beneficium quod cum tanta molestia praestitum The freeness of remission is so far from being hereby darkned that it is rendred the more illustrious For us to have bought it had been altogether inconsistent with its being free but for Christ to have bought it enhanceth its freedom As to what he adds That we are taught to Pray That God would forgive us our Debts as we forgive our Debtors Matth. 6. 12. and that our Heavenly Father forgives us our Trespasses as we forgive men theirs I Answer that in these places res comparatur cum re non modus cum modo We are to distinguish betwixt mercy and the manner of mercy The as is not a note of universal parity but a note of some similitude we are to be sincerely merciful as God is but in the manner of bestowing mercy God takes one way and we another this is evident in that we are obliged to forgive our enemies though they abide Enemies whereas this Gentlemans friends confess and I suppose he will not dissent from the Tribe that God cannot in honour forgive sin but in case of repentance As to the Parable which he quotes Matth. 18. 32 33. I Answer We must not set Parables upon more feet than they will go nor compel them more miles than they do intend The scope of a Parable is alwayes the Key of it and the scope of this is only to shew that they who are implacable to their Brethren shall find others implacable to them and that they who expect mercy to be shewn to them should express mercy to others But the intendment of it is neither to shew that God is a meer Creditor nor that he forgives sin without a satisfaction but at most that he hath received no satisfaction from us Having seen the Adversaries faileur in this assault let us try the next To forgive sin upon a satisfaction is contrary to all the Scriptures which attribute our salvation to the grace mercy and kindness of God and to prove this several Scriptures are brought Exod. 34. 5 6 7. Psal 103. 8 10 13. Jer. 3. 3. Joel 2. 3. Jonah 4. 2. 2 Cor. 1. 3. Luk. 1. 77 78. Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. Rom. 3. 24. For Answ Let not the Reader be surprised with the multitude of Scriptures misalledged the letter of Scripture brought against the intendment of the spirit of God in it is not Scripture He does here as before Eadem semper oberrare chorda