for our Iniquities that we are healed by his Stripes that God hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all that He hath made his Soul an Offering for Sin All this is taken out of the 53d Chapter of Isaiah which Chapter is by some taken to be a Prophecy concerning the Prophet Jeremiah by others concerning the Messiah or Christ I do not think it to be any Prophecy at all except in some few Passages of it but especially not a Prophecy concerning a Person who was then to be born I conceive the words are to be understood of the Prophet Isaiah himself who speaking of himself modestly speaks in the third Person and the sense begins at ver 7. of the foregoing Chapter I wonder very much that so many Learned Men as have commented on this Prophet have not discerned that the whole Discourse perfectly sutes to the Prophet himself and that he speaks of a Person actually in being not of one who was yet to be born But because it would take up a great deal of room to make a Paraphrase on the two Chapters and to show the Reason of it I will be content to set down the Explication by Grotius and Socinus of the particular Expressions here objected by our Author Grotius is of opinion that from ver 7. of the foregoing Chapter Isaiah prophesies of the Sufferings of the Prophet Jeremiah yet so that the whole Prophecy and all the Expressions of the 53d Chapter had a second Completion in the Person Actions and Sufferings of the Lord Christ and therefore some of the Expressions tho originally intended of Jeremiah are by the Writers of the New Testament accommodated also and applied to the Lord Christ Let us see what he saith Isa 53.5 He was wounded for our Transgressions and was bruised for our Iniquities But in the Original 't is he has been wounded by our Wickedness and bruised by our Iniquity that is we have wickedly and unjustly afflicted and persecuted him The Chastisement of our Peace was upon him and by his Stripes we are healed No the Original saith The Reproofs of our Peace were with him that is the Reproofs that would have made our Peace with God if we had hearkned to them were truly with this Prophet he reproved us justly and for our saving Good if we would have hearkned and by those his Stripes we might have been healed i. e. by those sharp and home-Reproofs by those Stripes of his Mouth we might have been amended and reformed and thereby reconciled to God and healed Ver. 6. All we like Sheep have gone astray we have turned every one to his own way and the Lord hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all In the Hebrew the Lord hath by him met with the Iniquity of us all q. d. hath reproved all our Wickedness by him Ver. 10. When thou shalt make his Soul an Offering for Sin he shall see his Seed he shall prolong his days But in the Hebrew thus If he the Prophet shall submit his Soul to Punishment he shall see his Seed and prolong his days or Tho he submit his Soul to Punishment c. Punishment saith Grotius here is properly for Sin but the Hebrews saith he call all Affliction by or from others tho unjust and underserved by the Name of Punishment But our Author objects again that the Apostle saith Rom. 4.25 He Christ was delivered for our Offences And 1 Pet 2.24 Who himself bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree or Cross Rom. 3.24 Him hath God set forth to be a Propitiation for our Sins to declare his God's Righteousness Heb. 9.26 Now once in the end of the World he hath appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself Therefore 't is to be noted that very few of those that have undertaken to write against us have really understood what we affirm or deny concerning the Causes or the Effects of our Saviour's Death They trouble themselves with citing a great many Texts to evince that 't was for our Sins as one Cause that Christ died that he was a Sacrifice and Oblation for the Sins of the World that he was a Ransom a Price of Redemption for us We deny none of these things taken in a sober and possible sense the Question is only this Whether the Lord Christ offered himself as such a Sacrifice Oblation or Price as might be made to the Justice of God by way of Equivalent for what we should have suffered or was an Oblation and Application as all former Sacrifices under the Law were to the Mercy of God by way of humble suit and deprecation We affirm the latter of these that the Lord Christ besides other Ends of his Death tendred himself in the nature of a Sacrifice on the Altar of the Cross to the Mercy and Benignity of God by way of Supplication not to the Divine Justice as an Equivalent for so great a Debt as the Eternal Punishment of all Mankind in Hell-Fire We judg it better thus to speak than as our Opposers do because the Abolition of our Sins and our Discharge from Punishment is always in Holy Scripture attributed to the great Mercy and Goodness of God 't is called Pardon Remission Grace Freeness of Grace Riches of Grace all which were false if indeed the Lord Christ gave a just Equivalent they say more than an Equivalent to God's Justice for us In a word our Opposers and We agree that the Lord Christ being to die upon other accounts did withal tender his Person in Quality of an Expiatory Sacrifice for the Sins of Mankind himself was the Offerer and also the Victim and his Cross the Altar he was a Ransom and a Price of Redemption for us but in this we differ Whether he was an Adequate Price or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God We cannot comprehend that one Man could be an Equivalent for all Men or his short Sufferings equal to the Eternal Damnation of an Infinite Multitude or that God can be said to pardon if he hath been over-paid for our Debt to him therefore we content our selves to teach that our Blessed Saviour being to confirm his Gospel by his Death and to be made perfect by Sufferings as the Author to the Hebrews speaks did also offer himself as a Sacrifice and as a sort of Ransom and Price for us to that Mercy and Benignity of God by which he was wont to accept the Oblation of Beasts the Blood of Goats and Lambs for his repenting and returning People This Hypothesis leaves to God the intire Glory of forgiving us to our Saviour the Honour of being the Means Motive and Procurer of our Pardon and Salvation and fully answers all Scripture-Expressions concerning our Saviour's Death objected to us by our Opposers in this Question But they our Opposers after all their Subterfuges are forced by their Hypothesis to this monstrous Conclusion that God freely pardoneth to Sinners their whole Debt of Sin and Punishment and yet has been infinitely over-paid for both in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ than which there can be no greater or more apparent Contradiction As to our Author's Conclusion that he wishes himself accursed and again accursed if ever he deliver other Doctrine than what he hath defended in this Book I shall only say this that as wise as he have lived to alter their Minds Nor can he defend his Rashness by the Example of the Apostle for when St. Paul curses himself or any other for preaching or teaching otherways he speaks not of doubtful and uncertain Questions but If we preach any other GOSPEL to you let us be accursed Gal. 1.8 9. And the reason of our Apostle's Confidence was very different from our Author 's the latter grounds himself on a few ambiguous and uncertain Texts capable of contrary Translations and Senses and when taken in his Sense of them are contrary to Reason and common Sense and to the general Current of Holy Scripture but the Apostle speaks of a matter which he had received by express Revelation from Jesus Christ and even from God the Father of All. FINIS BOOKS lately printed by the Socinians THE Brief History of the Unitarians vulgarly called Socinians in four Letters The first Letter besides the History of the Socinians proves the Unity of God the other three answer the pretended Proofs of the Doctrine of the Trinity Second Edition The Acts of Athanasius with brief Notes on his Creed and Observations on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity opposed by him to the Brief History and Brief Notes Observations on Dr. Wallis his Letters written in Vindication and Explication of the Athanasian Creed Some Thoughts on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity A Defence of the brief History against the Vindication by Dr. Sherlock An Exhortation to a Free and Impartial Inquiry into the Doctrines of Religion A Letter of Resolution concerning the Doctrines of the Trinity and Incarnation giving the general Reasons of the Unitarians against those Doctrines Two Letters touching the Trinity and Incarnation the first urges the Belief of the Athanasian Creed the other is an Answer thereto An accurate Examination or Judgment on the principal Texts relating to the Questions concerning the Divinity of our Saviour and his Satisfaction occasioned by a Book of Mr. L. Milbourn's called by him Mysteries in Religion vindicated
Church Acts 5.31 Ephes 1.22 There are three sorts of Worship the first is Civil Honour or Worship which is given to Others on account of Civil Dignity or Natural Endowments or the worthiness of the Rational Nature common to us all This kind of Worship is due more especially from Inferiors to Superiors but is not to be neglected by Superiors to Inferiors Next there is Religious Worship which we give to others on account of their Holiness or of their Relation to God And 't is more or less as their Sanctity or their Relation to God is greater or less this sort of Worship is due to holy Men and Women to the Ministers of God and holy Things more yet to Prophets above them to glorified Spirits and Angels We see in the Bible that Religious Worship was express'd by Terms of great deference and respect such as My Father and My Lord and for outward Acts sometimes by Kneeling sometimes by Prostration sometimes other ways as on the other hand they were sometimes accepted sometimes refused Lastly There is Divine Worship which belongs only to God It consists in a Resignation of our Understandings to what God shall say or reveal a Resignation of our Wills and Desires to what he does or decrees 't is a giving up our Affections to love him more than all things besides It consists moreover in such external Acts and Significations of Reverence and of Love towards him as we reserve only for him and never give to any other I say now the Texts cited and urged by our Opposer do not prove that the Lord Christ ought to be worshipp'd with more than a Civil and Religious Worship there are no Acts of Worship ever required to be paid to him but such as may be paid to a Civil Power to a Person in high Dignity and Office or to Prophets and holy Men or to such as are actually possest of the Heavenly Beatitudes What if it is said the Apostles worshipped that is kneeled to him Mat. 28.17 and that to him every Knee both in Heaven and Earth shall bow Phil. 2.11 Let our Opposers show that the Apostles worshipped him not as their Master but as their God or that every Knee is to bow to him not as to a Superiour Lord but as to a Person who is true and most High God till they prove this they prove nothing to the present purpose We are well assured that we can prove the contrary because we can prove the Lord Christ was a Man a Person who for his holy Life and Death was exaited by God which is inconsistent with his being God or a Person of God and whatsoever Name he hath that Name was gives to him by God and whatsoever Worship is paid to him is paid to him for the Sake by the Command and to the Glory that I may use St. Paul's words of God the Father of all Phil. 2.11 CHAP. XI Of the Satisfaction AFter having proved as he thinks the Divinity of our Saviour our Author undertakes to prove too the vulgar Doctrine of the Satisfaction He saith P. 683 684. The Infinite Justice of God necessarily requires that every Sinner nay that every Transgression be punish'd Therefore saith he farther that Mankind is pardoned is an Effect of the Justice of God to which Justice a full Satisfaction being paid by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ in our stead God could not evidence his Justice otherways than by granting Pardon and Salvation to us If God could pardon us freely without a Satisfaction to his Justice why are not the fallen Angels pardoned At P. 706. he has contrived a Tale or Romance concerning a certain King who taking Pity of his Rebels declared that they should be pardoned if any Person would be so kind to them as to suffer in their stead He tells us the King 's only Son offered to suffer for them and his Offer being accepted by his Father who dearly loved him the Son died and the Rebels were saved And this he saith is exactly our case with God He pretends also to answer to some Objections made by the Socinians against the pretended Satisfaction to God's Justice by the Lord Christ for our Sins They object that the Doctrine of a full Satisfaction to God's Justice on our behalf destroys the free Grace of God so much magnified in holy Scripture in the gratuitous Pardon of our Sins for if God received an Equivalent on our behalf he hath not pardoned us but only discharged or acquitted us because our Debt to his Justice has been paid for us by another To this he answers Yes the Grace and Pardon of God to us was most free because tho our Debt to God's Justice has been paid yet not by us but by a Person whom God himself found out for us Besides the Satisfaction made for us by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ being a refusable Payment because God might have required the Satisfaction of our selves or from us therefore he is rightly said to have pardoned us and to have shown most free Grace and Favour to us even tho an Equivalent and Satisfaction was made to his Justice on our behalf Again They object that God could not in Justice substitute a most worthy and righteous Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the place and stead of unrighteous and worthless Persons that were to pervert the Nature and whole Design of that sort of Justice which is exercised about Rewards and Punishments He answers God might punish the Lord Christ for us First Because under the Law the innocent Beast was substituted to Death and Punishment by being made a Sacrifice for the Sin and instead of the offending Owner and Master then because the Lord Christ freely offered himself to suffer in our room and stead Farther they object that the three days Death of the Lord Christ cannot be equivalent and therefore not a Satisfaction to the Justice of God for the eternal Death and Damnation of one Sinner much less of all Mankind For supposing that the Value of Sufferings or Punishment is increased even to Infinity by the infinite Dignity of the Person that suffers and supposing again that the Lord Christ being God as well as Man was indeed a Person of Infinite Dignity yet seeing his Divinity could suffer nothing at all but only his Humanity therefore his Sufferings were but human and finite and consequently no way commensurate to the infinite Punishment due to one Sinner much less to that of all Sinners He replies First that to the account of the Sufferings or Punishment of the Lord Christ we must reckon all the Sufferings of his Life and especially his Agony in the Garden which our Author saith was so great that it was equivalent to that eternal Punishment prepared by God for all impenitent Sinners p. 749. But lest the Agony in the Garden and on the Cross should seem to any to have been too much short in time to be laid in the Ballance against
An ACCURATE EXAMINATION OF THE Principal Texts Usually alledged for The Divinity of our Saviour AND For the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a BOOK of Mr. L. Milbourn CALLED Mysteries in Religion vindicated London Printed in the Year 1692. THE PREFACE TO Mr. L. MILBOVRN SIR I Began to read your Book with very close attention and regard but when I had gone over some part of it I perceived you were not so qualified that you might reasonably undertake to intermeddle in these Questions or deserve to be heard concerning them If in defect of other necessary Endowments of a Writer you please your self however in the bulkiness of your Book you may be advised for the time to come that on the contrary every Trifle is so much the better by how much the shorter it is and that a verbose Trifler is nauseous even to Friends In your Dedication you say the Bishops ought to use a just Severity against and to frown effectually upon such whom the late Act of Toleration excludes from all Benefit thereby that is they ought to fall to persecuting the Socinians for the supposed Errors of their Conscience Truly Sir we are beholden to you But what if the Socinians against whom you publickly excite the Bishops should write the Farce of your Life They know very well the several Scenes of it and the Part you have acted at Pembr Hall at London and afterwards at Yarmouth from whence 't is said you ran away Are you not aware that it were easy for them to make you a Town-talk as you have made your self a Country-talk and at best withdrew your self Your Preface has two Parts The First is an Apology for your Book the other is taken up in conplementing T. F. I will speak briefly to both I. That you have said but a little in a great deal that the Parts of your Book are ill put together that you have been impertinent in diverting to Matters that were beside your Text and Vndertaking all these you confess but you excuse the Meanness of your Performance by your Poverty and your Poverty you lay to the Charge of the People of Yarmouth who could not you say be made sensible of your Learning and Worth that is the meaning of what you have said at Pag. 1. of your Preface But such as know Yarmouth how populous and wealthy it is will not be perswaded out of it but that a Person of no more Learning or Parts than L. M. were he withal but Modest Peaceable and Exemplary might live at Yarmouth in quality of their Minister very handsomly and comfortably and besides be esteem'd and belov'd They tell us that seeing your Sermons against us have been so little liked at their Majesty's good Town of Yarmouth we ought to make trial how that discerning People will entertain our Pamphlets they have already refused the Evil there is therefore reasonable hope that they will chuse the Good and will rejoice in it The second Part of your Preface is all Complement on T. F. Thus you begin calling him pert Smatterer in Ignorance so says the Reverend Mr. L. M. and this was the best he could say when he undertook to give a Character of T. F. But I find that the most Reverend are in a very different Story concerning this Gentleman The Metropolitan of all England thought fit to say of him That Worthy and Useful Citizen Mr. T. F. Fun. Sermon on Mr. Gouge p. 63. What may be the Reason that T. F. is drawn in such different Colours I think 't is not hard to find the Reason Some because they heartily love God and reverence Vertue and Well-doing can think and speak respectfully even of those from whom they differ very widely in their Sentiments about the controverted Points of Christianity for God's sake they can cordially smile upon a good Man though they think him in an Error and they are of Opinion because the Holy Scriptures have said it that fervent Charity is greater than Faith But others measuring all Persons and Things by only the narrow Interests of themselves and their Party and wholly excluding God and the relation to him rail against their Adversaries giving all Men to the Devil that are of a Belief contrary to theirs Which brings to mind what Mr. Calvin has observed Vt quisque eorum pro ventre est maximè sollicitus ita pro fide suâ deprehenditur Bellator acerrimus i. e. As any of them are more concerned and afraid for their Bellies so he is found to bawl and rail loudest on behalf of his own particular Faith and Party Calv. Praef. ad Institut p. 7. Well but what might be the very meaning of this Witticism on T. F. pert Smatterer in Ignorance I suppose the meaning is T. F. has had his Education at London not at Cambridg or Oxford he knows nothing of Predicables Predicaments and Syllogisms nor has ever learned there to drink the third or fourth Bottle for his own share What an unhappy Education was this that his Friends took no care to make him a Fool and a Debauch that the Gifts and Impressions of God and Nature have not been effaced by a sort of Institution which sometimes to make a Scholar defaces both the Man and the Christian T. F. has only Reason and good Sense how unlucky was it that he should not destroy them by Logick and Metaphysicks However I am of Opinion T. F. will make his natural Talents go as far and do him as much Service and Credit as Logick and Metaphysicks and skill of the Bottle will do for L. M. or for his Cause The next Charge upon him is in these words The Socinians Hawker to disperse their new-fangled Divinity Hawker of all Men living L. M. should have forbore this word Hawker unless he has forgot because 't is a good while since how unluckily the hawking off Books succeeded with himself in a certain place which at present I forbear to name See Sir we can be affronted and abused without making haste to revenge our selves But why is our Divinity new-fangled It hath two such Marks of Antiquity by confession of our very Opposers that could they show either of them for their Divinity we would make little difficulty of coming over to their Party For first 't is acknowledged by the most Learned of our Opposers that the Patriarchal Ages and the Church of the Old Testament never knew the Doctrine of the Trinity We are confess'd by our Adversaries to believe concerning God as the Patriarchs and Prophets believed namely that there is but one who is God or that God is but one Person Secondly The Apostles Creed the only Monument of true Antiquity besides the Bible which the Christian Church has is owned too to be wholly Vnitarian for it gives the Appellation God to only the Almighty Father Maker of Heaven and Earth and speaks of our Saviour under no other Characters but those
sort of People called Schismaticks and Hereticks who having free and discerning Minds stout and brave Souls finding themselves in some Particulars either cheated or wronged by the strongest side they maintain tho a dangerous and bazardous yet a generous and perpetual War for the Natural Liberties of Mankind in Matters of Conscience and Religion They assert by all possible and honest means the Kingdom of God that is they admit of no Lords over Conscience but only God nor any Law of Faith of Worship or Manners but only God's Word no Canons or Articles no humanly devised Creeds or Catechisms nothing but God's Word the naked Gospel without any Interpretations or Interpreters but only Reason and Good Sense These have the luck sometimes to baffle Mother-Church and to bear up against all her Indignation But this Sir shall serve in Answer to your Dedication and Preface only let me advise you as you would come off with more Credit and do more Good in the Parish of Great St. Hellens than you did at Great Yarmouth that you carry it with more Modesty and Respect to all the Inhabitants and to forbear such smutty Lampoons as you made upon that Town What follows is an Answer to your Book and I address it to Friend T. F. An Accurate EXAMINATION of the principal Texts usually alledged for the Divinity of our Saviour and for the Satisfaction by him made to the Justice of God for the Sins of Men Occasioned by a Book of Mr. Luke Milbourn called Mysteries in Religion vindicated To T. F. CHAP. I. Containing an accurate Examination of 1 Tim. 3.16 SIR YOUR particular Friend Mr. Milb has begun his Attack on Socinianism with a Text of St. Paul in the Explication and Vindication of which he wastes no fewer than 82 Pages The Text is this Great is the Mystery of Godliness God was manifest in the Flesh justified in the Spirit seen of Angels preached unto the Gentiles believed on in the World received up into Glory 1 Tim. 3.16 He saith hereupon that indeed some Translators read here Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH which Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is the Law was given by Angels but the Gospel by the Ministry of Men even by Jesus Christ and his Apostles called Flesh here in opposition to Angels who are Spirit and because Flesh is the usual Scripture-Term for Man but all the Greek Copies he saith agree in reading this Text as we read it in our English Bibles as also does the famous Manuscript in the King of England's Library which is about 1300 Years old And if saith he the Providence of God as the Socinians contend is concerned to preserve his own holy Word from Corruptions and Falsifications 't is reasonable to think such Providence has been exercised rather about the Original Greek than about Translations But neither saith he do all the old Translations read here as the Socinians do for the Arabick reads as we do GOD was manifested in the Flesh Further more Macedonius to whom the Socinians impute the Corruption of this Text was too late in time for he lived in the Year 512. to attempt an Innovation in Scripture And besides he could have no design in so doing because he had no peculiar Opinions about our Saviour Finally the word God in the first Clause of this Verse makes that Clause to accord with all that follow it for all of them together will make this most proper Sense The Eternal Son of God God equal with his Father and Creator of the World took upon him and was manifested in our weak and passible Nature being incarnate in the Man Christ Jesus He was justified to be God notwithstanding his mean outward Appearance by divers glorious Actions and Miracles done on that behalf by the Holy Spirit He was seen i. e. known by Angels to be the Eternal Son of God and God thô covered with the Veil of Flesh He was preached as such by the Apostles to the Gentiles was believed on generally in the World where-ever they came and after his Resurrection He was received up into the Glories of Heaven But if saith our Author we read here as the Socinians do Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh that is by Men what Sense shall we make of the other Clauses Will it be Sense to say The Mystery of Godliness the Gospel was seen by Angels Or will it be true that it was received up into the Glory of Heaven The Socinians indeed here answer That instead of these words received up into Glory it should have been said by our Translators was gloriously extolled was magnified and lifted up but this saith our Author is false for on the contrary the Gospel was despised and derided both by Jews and Gentiles This is the Sum and Force of what he has transcribed out of Authors in behalf of his Opinion from the words of this Text. He might if he had pleased have given us too the full and solid Answer made by the Socinians to these Pretences of his Party for I see he has quoted the Books in which those Answers are to be found but that was not the way he thought to mend his Fortunes in the World which is what he aims at and the cause of his writing his Book I will briefly evince these two things 1. This Text of St. Paul has been falsified by those who affirm the Ante-mundan Existence and Divinity of our Saviour 2. This Corruption has been so unskilfully performed that the Attempt serves only to betray their Unfaithfulness and Partiality but does not a whit avail their Cause 1. This Text has been most certainly falsified by substitution of the word God instead of Which WHICH Mystery was manifested by Flesh The first time I meet with this Text read with the word God among the Antients is in the Acts of the first Council of Nice a Council of next Authority to the Scriptures themselves in the Opinion of our Opposers In this Council a Person repeated the words of St. Paul as they are now read by Trinitarians God was manifested in Flesh the Person who made this Mistake probably from some Marginal Note where he found the word God put as an Explanation of the word Which in the Text was answered by Macarius Bishop of Jerusalem that he mistook the reading for St. Paul's words are Great is the Mystery of Godliness WHICH was manifested by Flesh Mr. Milbourn will not say that the Authors of the Old Translations the Latin Syriac and Armenian were Unitarians be sure St. Jerom Author of the Latin was a bigotted Trinitarian yet they and he read with the Nicene Council WHICH was manifested by Flesh not GOD was manifested in Flesh I appeal to any Man of ordinary sense whether he can think those Translators and Fathers would have corrupted the Bible in favour and to the advantage of their Adversaries the Unitarians by saying not GOD but WHICH was manifested by Flesh
the eternal Damnation of all Mankind Therefore he subjoins 2. As our Sins are made infinite by their being committed against the Infinite Majesty of God So the Satisfaction of the Lord Christ for us by his Death and other Punishments was also Infinite on the account of God's Greatness to which that Satisfaction was made p. 662. That is the Punishment of the Lord Christ was Infinite because he offered it to an Infinite God He adds in the same place God would never have accepted the Sufferings of the Lord Christ instead of ours if he had not certainly known that they were equivalent to the Punishments due to us for Sin 3. The Person that suffered for us was both God and Man and thereby his Sufferings were of an Infinite Value and so equivalent to the Infinite Punishment due to us for tho the true God could neither die nor suffer yet he who was true God did both suffer and die p. 663. And because he understands not the true state of the Question and Difference between the Unitarians and the Church concerning the Satisfaction by our Saviour he hath objected to us a great number of Texts which are no way contrary to our Doctrine He tells us from holy Scripture that the Lord Christ was wounded for our Transgressions was bruised for our Iniquities that we are healed by his Stripes that God hath laid on him the Iniquity of us all that he made his Soul an Offering for Sin that he was delivered for our Offences that he bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree or Cross To these he adds Rom. 3.24 Being justified freely by his Grace through the Redemption which is in Christ Jesus whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation for eur Sins to declare his God's Righteousness that he may be just and the Justifier of him that believeth on Jesus This Sir is the Sum and Force of what our Author hath discoursed at large concerning the Satisfaction He is so well assured of the Truth of his Doctrine that he ends his Book with twice imprecating on himself a Curse if he shall ever write or teach other ways than he has taught his Reader in this present Book I will take a short view of all that he hath said He saith first The Infinite Justice of God requires that every Sinner nay that every Transgression be punished and that when God pardons and saves Sinners this is an Act of his Justice to which Justice a full Satisfaction having been paid by the Lord Christ God cannot be just other ways than by pardoning and saving us And if God can pardon̄ without a Satisfaction to his Justice why are not the Devils forgiven This was argued like a Novice in these Questions the more Learned of his own Party know that the Cause is lost if in the Question of the Satisfaction Almighty God be not considered as a Governour who indeed can forgive the Offenders but for Prudential Reasons he will not forgive without a Satisfaction to his Honour and Justice Our Author stands in it that God cannot forgive any Offender or Offence without Satisfaction by the Offender himself or another in his stead Why what is the reason that the King and Proprietor of the whole World cannot forgive He answers 'T is contrary to his Justice But is it contrary to Justice to show Mercy or to remit of my own Rights and Dues Am I unjust if I do not exact the whole of what is due to me I may certainly do what I will with my own else 't is not truly and wholly my own He that cannot forgive neither can he give for Forgiveness is nothing else but giving my Right to Debt or Punishment to the Person who is indebted or has offended me 'T is contrary he saith to the Justice of God to forgive either the Transgression or the Transgressor but if it be contrary to Justice 't is essentially and morally evil I ask therefore How can God command us to forgive to one another our Transgressions and Offences Can God command us what is morally and essentially evil or what is contrary to the eternal Laws of Justice by which he himself is obliged O marvellous Scheme of Justice 't is contrary they say to Justice to pardon without a full Satisfaction but not contrary to Justice to lay my Guilt and the Punishment due to it on a Person wholly innocent and perfectly righteous 't is unjust to forgive the real Offender or to abate of the Punishment due to him but not unjust to substitute a well-deserving Person to the Punishment that belonged to the other In a word to show Mercy by pardoning Offences is Unjustice but to misplace Punishment is none at all but worthy of the Holiness and of the Wisdom of God But he faith if God can forgive without an Equivalent or Satisfaction to his Justice by the Offender or another for him why are not the Devils forgiven And I ask seeing an infinite Satisfaction hath been made in the Opinion of our Author and his Party for Sinners why are not the Devils comprehended in it The same Infinite Satisfaction which our Opposers teach was abundantly enough for the fallen Angels as well as for Men let them tell us how so much precious Merit comes to be lost This Question can never be answered on the Hypothesis of our Opposers but on the Unitarian Hypothesis there is no difficulty at all in the case of the fallen Angels for we answer they are not forgiven because they repent not nor amend Almighty God as King and Proprietor of all Persons and Things can forgive any Offence or all Offences even without Repentance or Amendment nor is it contrary to his Justice so to do but 't is inconsistent with his Wisdom because to forgive without Repentance or Amendment is to incourage Sin and Disorder in the World 'T is also contrary to the Holiness of God that the Incorrigible and Impenitent should escape unpunish'd Our Opposers mistake too in thinking that 't is the Justice of God by which he is prompted to punish Sinners 't is his Holiness and Wisdom Justice has no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplaced and that it do not exceed the Offence As to his Tale about the mad old King and his foolish Son 't is perfectly ridiculous He hath imagined a King that promises to pardon his Rebels if any other will be so kind as to suffer for them 'T is a mad Proposition in the highest degree unreasonable and unjust because if it was necessary that their Offences should be punish'd Justice and Reason require that the Offenders themselves and not an innocent Person or Persons should suffer Well but as mad as the old King was his Son was as foolish for our Author assures us the Son offered to save the Rebels by dying in their stead nor did the Folly of the Father and the Son stop here for when the Father
heard his Son say that he would die for the Rebels he approved his Son's Extravagance put his Son to Death and pardoned his Rebels Nor does our Author forbear to publish his own proper Folly by telling us that the old King dearly loved his Son tho he put him to Death for other Mens Faults He adds that this is our very case with respect to God Almighty and the Lord. Christ 'T is so I acknowledg in the Hypothesis of our Opposers but let them see to it whether they do not expose themselves to just Scorn while they can no ways defend their Hypothesis of the Satisfaction but by comparing Almighty God and our Lord Christ to two such Prodigies of Folly as never really were or could be in Nature but only in the Fiction and Fancy of the Poetaster of Yarmouth I demand would our Poet himself as odd-conceited as he is put his Son to death or consent that he should be put to Death to save his Maligners and Adversaries from a Punishment highly due to their Crimes He hath been a great Enemy in his time to Rebellion and at this day is writing Books against Rebels who are dead forty Years ago Would he give one of his Children to Death to save any of the surviving Rebels as suppose Friend Ludlow If he is neither so silly nor so wicked to his Child how has he dared to say this is our case with respect to Almighty God and the Lord Christ Why did not the Comparison and Instance that he himself devised open his Eyes to discern the Folly and Inconsistency of his Doctrine The Socinians object to their Opposers in these Questions That if an Equivalent which Trinitarians call a Satisfaction has been given to God's Justice on our behalf by the Sufferings of the Lord Christ then God hath not truly pardoned us which the Scriptures every where affirm but only discharged and acquitted us because our Debt being paid he could do no less Our Author answers Tho God's Justice has been satisfied yet it was who found out the Person who was able and willing to pay our Debt Besides the Sufferings of our Lord Christ tho they were equivalent to the Punishment due to Sinners were a refusable Payment for God might have required that the Sinners should suffer in their own Persons not in the Person of a Redeemer Mediator or Undertaker I will be so liberal as to grant to our Author both these Answers but I must insist upon it that they are no Answers to the Objection proposed For God doth not pardon his Debt or Offence because he finds out a third Person that will pay or suffer for the Debtor or Offender these two differ just as much as Payment and Forgiveness that is to say they are Contraries But our Author adds the Sufferings of the Lord Christ were a refusable Payment 't is well but he saith they were an equivalent Payment how then can God be said to pardon us doth He forgive who receives an Equivalent to the Debt due to him Yes he saith it is Forgiveness with respect to us for we have paid nothing whatever our Friend whom God found out hath paid for us But why doth he not consider that the Scriptures not only say that Sinners are pardoned but they say God hath pardoned them You may call their Discharge a Pardon with respect to them but you can never say God hath pardoned them if they are only discharged upon an Equivalent given for them or paid by another on their behalf To say God hath pardoned us supposes that he has received no Equivalent on our behalf for if he had however we might be said to be pardoned yet it could not be said that God pardoned us for the Pardon must in that case be imputed to the Person or Persons who made the Satisfaction or the Equivalent not to God To avoid this our Opposers say he that made the Satisfaction was God the Son of God who is also himself true God that very true God to whom the Satisfaction was made he made for us the Satisfaction But this is Jargon and we expected Reason from them The one true God they say made for us the Satisfaction to the one true God we deny that 't is Sense or intelligible There is but one true God and he is to receive the Satisfaction for our Sins against his Infinite Majesty and not to give Satisfaction How then can they say but that they are accustomed to say any thing the one true God made for us the Satisfaction And if it could be true what they say that God himself paid for us the Equivalent or Satisfaction this is indeed no other but forgiving us without a Satisfaction which is the very thing they deny For if I pay to my self the Debt of my Debtor or undergo the Punishment of my Offender this is but a mock-Satisfaction and I indeed forgive him without a Satisfaction Which is so plain that I wonder that so many Learned Persons as have written on the one and the other side of this Question have not observed it Another Objection of the Socinians against the pretended Satisfaction is God could not justly or wisely substitute an innocent and well-deserving Person to undergo Punishment properly so called in the place and stead of the Unrighteous and Worthless because 't is of the Nature of Justice not to misplace Punishment Our Author's Answers are The Innocent Beast was sacrificed for the Sin of the Owner and the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself to suffer for us though we were Worthless and Wicked His instance of Beasts offer'd in Sacrifice on occasion of the Sin of their Owners is not a whit to the purpose for the Owners having an absolute Dominion over and a compleat Right to the Service Use and very Life of their Beasts therefore it was no Unjustice when the Life of the Beast was given for the Offence of the Master or Owner The Owner might kill his Beast for Food therefore much more might he offer him to God in lieu and exchange of his own Life forfeited to God by Sin And in this case the Worthless was offer'd to the Mercy and gracious Acceptance of God for the Worthy so that there was no Offence committed either against Justice or Wisdom But all things are contrary in the Lord Christ and Us especially in the Hypothesis of our Opposers for he was a Person according to them of Infinite Dignity and Merit and we had no right in him or dominion over him as the Sacrificer had over his Beast that we should offer his Life or his Sufferings to God instead of our own As to that the Lord Christ freely offer'd himself for Vs to undergo Punishment due to us Neither could he do it nor could God accept of it or allow it An Innocent and Righteous Person may not an Holy and Just Judg must not pervert the due Course of Justice A just Governor may pardon Offenders of his Mercy