freely to pardon sin than it was ever presumed to be in all the Sacrifices of either Iews or Gentiles who all supposed Sacrifices necessary in order to Atonement and yet thought themselves obliged to the goodness of God in the Remission of their sins Nay we find that God himself in the case of Abimelech appointed Abraham to pray for him in order to his pardon And will any one say this was a derogation to the Grace of God in his pardon Or to the pardon of Iob's Friends because Iob was appointed to Sacrifice for them Or to the pardon of the Israelites because God out of kindness to them directed them by the Prophets and appointed the means in order to it But although God appointed our High-Priest for us and out of his great love sent him into the world yet his Sacrifice was not what was given him but what he freely underwent himself he gave us Christ but Christ offered up himself a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the sins of the world Thus Sir I have now given you a larger account of what I then more briefly discoursed of concerning the true Reason of the Sufferings of Christ and heartily wishing you a right understanding in all things and requesting from you an impartial consideration of what I have written I am SIR Your c. E. S. Ian. 6. 166â— THE MYSTERIES OF The Christian Faith ASSERTED and VINDICATED IN A SERMON Preached at S. Laurence-Jewry in London APRIL the 7th 1691. By the Right Reverend Father in GOD EDWARD Lord Bishop of Worcester LONDON Printed by I. H. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard 1697. A SERMON Preached at S. Laurence-Jury APRIL the 7th 1691. 1 TIM I. 15 This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation That Christ Iesus came into the World to save Sinners of whom I am chief IF these Words were to be understood without any Restriction or Limitation that Christ Iesus came into the World to save sinners they would overthrow the great Design of the Gospel and make its Excellent Precepts Useless and Ineffectual For to what purpose should men be put upon the severe Practice of Repentance Mortification and a continued Course of a Holy Life if the meer being Sinners did sufficiently qualifie them for Salvation This indeed would be thought a Doctrine worthy of all Acceptation by the greatest Sinners but it could not be a faithful saying being not agreeable either to the Nature of God or Revelation of his Will by Christ Iesus But S. Paul speaks of such Sinners as himself had been i. e. such as had been great Sianers but had truly and sincerely repented Of whom I am chief What then Must we look on him as the Standard and Measure of such Sinners whom Christ Iesus came to save What will then become of all those who have been Sinners of a higher Rank than ever he was It 's true in the Verses before the Text he sets out his Sins as a humble Penitent is wont to do with the worst Colours and deepest Aggravations Who was before a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious but yet he adds that he obtained Mercy because he did it ignorantly in unbelief How then is S. Paul the Chief of Sinners Are Sins of Ignorance and Mistake the greatest of Sins for which Christ died Is there no Expiation for any other by Iesus Christ What will become then of all such who sin against Knowledge and Conscience and not in Ignorance and Vnbelief Can none of these hope for Mercy by Christ Iesus although they do truly Repent But the Blood of Christ is said elsewhere to cleanse us from all Sin not while we continue in them but if we repent and forsake them And Iesus Christ is said to be a Propitiation for our Sins and not for ours only but for the Sins of the whole World And therefore this Expression of S. Paul notes his great Humility and deep Sense of his own Sins but doth not exclude others from the hopes of Pardon whose Sins have other Aggravations than his had For if we leave out the last words as peculiar to his Case yet the other contain in them a true Proposition and of the greatest Importance to Mankind This is a faithful saying and worthy of all acceptation that Christ Iesus came into the world to save sinners This you may say is a matter out of all doubt among all such who hope for Salvation by Christ Iesus for all are agreed that one way or other we are to be saved by him But there is great Difficulty as to the Way of saving sinners by Christ Iesus whether by the Doctrine and Example of the Man Christ Iesus by the Power he attained through his Sufferings Or by the Eternal Son of God's assuming our Nature and suffering in our stead in order to the Reconciling God to us and making a Propitiation for our Sins These are two very different Hypotheses or Notions of Christ's coming to save Sinners and the former seems more easie to be understood and believed and the other seems to have Insuperable Difficulties in point of Reason and to run our Religion into Mysteries which expose our Faith and make Christianity appear Contemptible to Men of Sense and Understanding Is it not therefore much better to embrace such a Scheme of it as will have the least Objection against it that so Men of Reason may not be tempted to Infidelity and Men of Superstition may not under the Colour of Mysteries bring in the most Absurd and Unreasonable Doctrines These are plausible Insinuations and would be apt to prevail on considering Mens minds if they were to form and make a Religion that might be most accommodated to the Genius and Humour of the Age they live in And truly no Men by their own Authority can pretend to a Right to impose on others any Mysteries of Faith or any such things which are above their Capacity to understand But that is not our case for we all profess to believe and receive Christianity as a Divine Revelation and God we say may require from us the belief of what we may not be able to comprehend especially if it relates to Himself or such things which are Consequent upon the Union of the Divine and Human Nature Therefore our business is to consider whether any such things be contained in that Revelation which we all own and if they be we are bound to believe them although we are not able to comprehend them Now here are two Remarkable Characters in these Words by which we may examin these different Hypotheses concerning the way of Salvation by Iesus Christ. I. It is a faithfull saying and therefore must be contained in that Revelation which God hath made concerning our Salvation by Christ. II. It is worthy of all Acceptation i. e. most useful and beneficial to Mankind Now by these two I shall procceed in the
Justice to belong to God Is it not because it is just in him to punish Offenders according to those measures And whence comes this but from that Universal Justice in God which is always joyned with his Wisdom and Holiness and implies an Universal Rectitude in all he doth And from thence it comes that all the Measures of Iustice are observed by him in the Punishment of the greatest Offenders Now this Universal Justice in God is that whereby he not only punishes Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners but he takes care of preserving the Honour of his Laws And therefore although Almighty God out of his great Mercy were willing that Penitent Sinners should be forgiven yet it was most agreeable thereto that it should be done in such a manner as to discourage Mankind from the practice of Sin by the same way by which he offers Forgiveness and for this end it pleased God in his Infinite Wisdom and Goodness to send his Son to become a Sacrifice of Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind which being freely undertaken by him there was no breach in the Measures of Punitive Justice with respect to him and so by his Death he offered up himself as a full perfect and sufficient Sacrifice Oblation and Satisfaction for the Sins of Mankind And this is that Doctrine of the Satisfaction of Christ which we own and defend But these bold Assertions That God as absolute Lord may forgive all Offences without Repentance and it is not contrary to his Justice so to do that it is not the Justice of God which prompts him to punish Sinners arise from too mean and narrow a Conception of Divine Justice as though it lay only in the manner of the Execution of it But that there is an Essential Attribute of Justice belonging to the Divine Nature appears from hence that there are some things which are so disagreeable to the Divine Nature that he cannot do them he cannot break his Promises nor deceive Mankind to their Destruction he cannot deny himself nor pervert that Order or due Respects of things to each other which he hath established in the World He cannot make it the Duty of Mankind to dishonour their Maker or to violate the Rules of Good and Evil so as to make Evil Good and Good Evil he cannot make Murder and Adultery to be Virtues nor Impiety and Wickedness not to deserve Punishment But whence comes all this Is it that God wants Almighty Power to do what he pleases No doubt he is supreme Lord over all and hath all things under his Will But there is an Essential Iustice in God which is a supreme Rule of Righteousness according to which he doth always exercise his Power and Will And so Moses saith of him All his ways are perfect a God of Truth and without Iniquity just and right is he and the Psalmist The Lord is righteous in all his ways and holy in all his works He not only is so but he can be no otherwise for this Vniversal Righteousness is as great a Perfection and Attribute of God as his Wisdom or Power It is not one Name which stands for all but it is a real and distinct Attribute of it self It is as a Rule and Measure to the Exercise of the rest And he particularly shews it in all the Acts of Punitive Iustice So Nehemiah Howbeit thou art just in all that is brought upon us for thou hast done right but we have done wickedly And Daniel Righteousness belongeth unto thee but unto us confusion of Face For the Lord our God is righteous in all his Works which he doth for we obey'd not his Voice And Zephaniah The just Lord is in the midst thereof he will not do Iniquity From whence it appears that the Exercise of Punitive Iustice is according to the Essential Iustice or Righteousness of the Divine Nature And so Abraham pleaded with God Shall not the Judge of all the Earth do right i. e. Will he not punish according to the Righteousness of his Nature And so Abimelech argues from the natural Notion he had of Godâ—s righteous Nature Lord wilt thou slay also a righteous Nation But here the main Difficulty which deserves to be cleared is this How far Punitive Justice is founded on that Universal Justice which is an Essential Attribute of God For the want of understanding this hath been the great occasion of so much Confusion in the Discourses about this matter And for the clearing of it these things must be considered 1. That there is a difference between that Iustice in God whereby he hates Sin and that whereby he punishes the Sinner The hatred of Sin doth necessarily follow the Perfection of his Nature Therefore God is said To hate the Wicked and Evil to be an Abomination to him to love Righteousness and to hate Wickedness But if the Punishment of the Offender were as necessarily consequent as his Hatred of Sin all Mankind must suffer as they offend and there would be no place for Mercy in God nor for Repentance in Men. But Sin in it self is perfectly hatefull to God there being nothing like God in it but Man was God's Creature and made after his Image and Likeness and however God be displeased with Mankind on the account of Sin yet the Workmanship of God still remains and we continually see that God doth not exercise his Punitive Iustice according to the Measures of their Iniquities And they who plead most for the necessity of Punitive Iustice are themselves a Demonstration to the contrary for they cannot deny that they are not punished as their Iniquities have deserved And if Punitive Iustice be necessary in it self it must reach the Persons that have deserved to be punished if there be no Relaxation of the Severity of it 2. That it is very agreeable to the Divine Justice to exercise the Severity of Punitive Iustice on obstinate and incorrigible Offenders And this is that whereon the Iustice of the Punishments of Sinners in another World is founded because God hath been so mercifull to them here and used so many ways to reclaim them and it is the Not exercising his Punitive Iustice upon them in this World which makes it so much more reasonable in another For thereby they have shewed their Contempt of God and his Laws of his offers of Mercy and their wilfull obstinacy in offending him And the reasonableness of the Punishment of such Offenders is not denyed by any of our more Learned Adversaries as I have shewed in the following Discourse from Socinus and Crellius and might do from several others But I need not mention any more since in the late Correct Edition of the Racovian Catechism there is this Note That they have always asserted that the Wicked shall be raised up at the great Day to undergo the Punishment of their Sins and to be cast into the Fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels And for this
of God in him Hereby we understand how so innocent a Person came to suffer he stood in our stead he was made Sin for us and therefore was to be treated as a Sinner and to suffer that on our Account which he could not deserve on his own If he suffer'd on his own Account this were the way to fill our Minds with perplexity concerning the Justice of Providence with Respect to his dealings with the most innocent and holy Persons in this World If he suffer'd on our Account then we have the Benefit of his Sufferings and therein we see how displeasing to God sin is when even his own Son suffer'd so much by taking the guilt of our Sins upon him And what can tend more to the begetting in us a due hatred of sin than to consider what Christ himself suffer'd on the Account of it What can make us have more dreadful thoughts of it than that the great and merciful God when he designed to save sinners yet would have his own Son to become a Propitiation for the Sins of Mankind And unless we allow this we must put force upon the plainest Expressions of Scripture and make Christ to suffer meerly to shew God's Power over a most innocent Person and his Will and Pleasure to inflict the most severe Punishment without any Respect to Guilt And surely such a Notion of God cannot be worthy of all Acceptation 3. Which tends most to strengthen our Hope of Salvation by Christ Iesus If we believe that he suffer'd for our Sins then we have great Reason to hope for the Forgiveness of them although they have been many and great if we sincerely Repent because the most prevailing Argument for Despair will be removed which is taken from the Iustice of God and his declared Hatred of Sin and Displeasure against Sinners If God be so much in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind and his Justice be concerned in the Punishment of Sinners how can they ever hope to escape unless there be a way for his Displeasure to be removed and his Justice to be satisfied And this the Scripture tells us is done by Christ who died that he might be a Sacrifice of Atonement to Reconcile us to God by his Death as S. Paul expresly affirms And by this means we may have strong Consolation from the Hopes of Forgiveness of our Sins Whereas if this be taken away either Men must believe that God was not in earnest displeased with the Sins of Mankind which must exceedingly lessen our Esteem of the Holiness and Iustice of God or if he were so displeased that he laid aside his Displeasure without any Atonement or Sacrifice of Expiation And so as many as look on God's Iustice and Holiness as necessary and essential Attributes of God will be in danger of sinking into the Depths of Despair as often as they Reflect seriously on the Guilt of their Sins But on the other side if we believe that while we were Enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son then we may have Peace with God through our Lord Iesus Christ and have reason to believe that there will be no Condemnation to them that are in Christ Iesus by a lively Faith and sincere Repentance then they may with Comfort look up to God as a Reconciled Father through Iesus Christ our Mediator then they may with inward Satisfaction look beyond the Grave and stedfastly hope for that Salvation which Christ purchased on Earth and will at last bestow on all such as Love and Obey him To which God of his Infinite Mercy bring us all through Iesus Christ. For This is a faithfull Saying and worthy of all Acceptation that he came into the World to save Sinners FINIS Books Written by the Right Reverend Father in God Edw. L. Bishop of Worcester and sold by H. Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of the Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended Answer of T. G. 2d Edit Fol. Origines Britannica or the Antiquities of the British Churches with a Preface concerning some pretended Antiquities relating to Britain in Vindication of the Bishop of St. Asaph Folio Irenicum A Weapon-Salve for the Churches Wounds Quarto Origines Sacrae Or a Rational account of the Grounds of Christian Faith as to the Truth and Divine Authority of the Script and the matters therein contained 4 to A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Octavo An Answer to several late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled A Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it Part I. Octavo A Second Discourse in Vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Roman Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversie by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church Octavo An Answer to Mr. Cressy's Epistle apologetical to a Person of Honour touching his Vindication of Dr. Stillingfleet Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in answer to a Book entituled Catholicks no Idolaters Octavo Several Conferences between a Romish Priest a Fanatick Chaplain and a Divine of the Church of England being a full Answer to the late Dialogues of T. G. Octavo A Discourse concerning Bonds of Resignation of Benefices in point of Law and Conscience in Octavo A Discourse concerning the Illegality of the Ecclesiastical Commission in Answer to the Vindication and Defence of it wherein the true notion of the Legal Supremacy is cleared and an Account is given of the Nature Original and Mischief of the Dispensing Power The Council of Trent Examin'd and Disprov'd by Catholick Tradition in the main Points in Controversie between Us and the Church of Rome with a particular Account of the Times and Occasions of Introducing them The Unreasonableness of Separation or an Impartial account of the History Nature and Pleas of the present Separation from the Communion of the Ch. of England Quarto The Grand Question concerning the Bishops Right to vote in Parliament in Cases Capital stated and argued from the Parliament-Rolls and the History of former times with an Enquiry into their Peerage and the Tree Estates in Parliament Octavo Twelve Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. I. Octavo Ten Sermons preached upon several Occasions Vol. II. Octavo A Third Volume will be shortly published A Discourse in Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity with an Answer to the late Socinian Objections against it from Scripture Antiquity and Reason And a Preface concerning the different Explication of the Trinity and the Tendency of the present
is no reasonable way of interpreting Scripture Do they deny that Christ suffered what we say he did No that they dare not do But they say What he underwent was only Labour and Suffering but not the Punishment of our Iniquities Then I say it could be no Expiatory Sacrifice which implies a Substitution and the contrary appears by the many places of Scripture already mentioned wherein our Sins and the Sufferings of Christ are joined together Thus we see the true Rise of this Controversie was from the many places of Scripture which seem very plain and clear in this matter and therefore I shall now give an account of the Progress of it F. Socinus seeing the bent of the Scripture so much against him sets himself to the finding out ways to avoid the force of them 1. To those which speak of Christ's being a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us he answers That these Expressions are to be understood only Metaphorically and Christ's Death being an Intervening Condition in order to our Deliverance it is therefore called a Price of Redemption And to the same purpose the Correct Racovian Catechism only there it is added That God did accept of the Death of Christ as a most Acceptable Sacrifice But not by way of Satisfaction or Payment of our Debts because he as a Sacrifice was given by God himself but that he might give us the greater Assurance of Pardon and Eternal Life So that here we have the true state of this matter before us viz. Whether the Death of Christ when it is said to be a Ransom or Price of Redemption for us is only to be looked on as a hard Condition on his side Intervening or as a proper Sacrifice of Atonement which God had appointed for the Expiation of Sins The Question is not Whether God appointed or accepted him for that we have allowed in all Sacrifices of Atonement by the Law of Moses but whether his Sufferings were not required in order to the Satisfaction of Divine Iustice for the Sins of Mankind not by way of strict Payment as in case of Debts but by a Legal Satisfaction to the Justice of God as it is concerned in the Honour of his Laws Our Unitarians grant That Christ was a Ransom and Price of Redemption for us but they deny That he was an Adequate Price or a Sacrifice to the Justice of God But still they run upon the Notion of Debts and Payments as though there were no other Notion of Justice and Satisfaction but between Creditors and Debtors or as if their Notions of these things were rather taken from the Shops than the Schools And the monstrous Contradiction they conclude the charge of our Doctrine with is That God freely Pardons the whole Debt of Sin and yet hath been infinitely over-paid for both in the Death and other Sufferings of the Lord Christ. But in the following Discourse I have endeavoured to lay open this Mistake by shewing That Debts and Punishments are of a different Nature and therefore the Satisfaction in one Case is not to be measured by the other But I shall not here anticipate the Reader as to what follows but I shall take notice of what they say which seems to relate to this matter Almighty God say they 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 This is a very strange Assertion For then there is no Obligation on God's part in point of Iustice to punish the most Impenitent and Incorrigible Offenders But there is a great deal of difference between making the Exercise of Punitive or Vindictive Justice necessary upon every Offence and saying that the Iustice of God doth not require that any Offences should be punished The former makes Iustice in God to proceed by a natural Necessity which would leave no place for Mercy nor any Satisfaction by a Mediator for that must suppose Liberty and Relaxation as to the Executive Part of Iustice. And if God must punish Sinners as they deserve there can be no stop to the Execution of Iustice short of Annihilation for our very Beings are the Gift of God which we have deserved to be deprived of But on the other side to say that the Justice of God doth not require the Punishment of any Offences without Repentance or Amendement is to overthrow any such thing as Punitive Justice in God by which I do not mean the actual execution of it and the due measures which belong to it but the Will to punish Obstinate and Impenitent Sinners And that results from his Hatred and Abhorrency of Evil and his just Government of the World For how can any Men who believe that God is really displeased with the Wickedness of Men and that he is a Iust and Righteous Governour ever think that it is not Repugnant to his Iustice to forgive all Offences without Repentance or Amendment How can his Hatred of Sin and the Iustice of his Government be reconciled with the Impunity of the most Obstinate Offenders Is there no such thing as Iustice to himself and to his Laws which lies in a just Vindication of his Honour and of his Laws from Contempt And who can be guilty of greater Contempt of him than those who persist in their Wickedness without Repentance or Amendment And after all Is it not contrary to his Justice to forgive such as these because he is absolute Lord and Proprietor of all Persons and Things This might signifie something if we could imagine God to be nothing but Almighty Power without Justice but if his Justice be as Essential an Attribute as his Omnipotency we must not so much as suppose the Exercise of one without the other But they do not deny That it is inconsistent with the Wisdom and Holiness of God to let the Incorrigible and Impenitent escape unpunished or to forgive Sin without Repentance or Amendment But if the Wisdom and Holiness of God will not permit the Impunity of Impenitent Sinners is it not just in God to punish them Not barely as to the Degree and Desert of Punishment but as to the Will of Punishing them according to their merits Whence doth their Punishment come Is it not from the Will of God Is that Will just or not If the Will to punish be just whence comes it to be so From the Wisdom and Holiness of God Then Punitive Justice when it is agreeable to God's Wisdom and Holiness is a proper Divine Attribute as well as they And they must have strange Notions of Punitive Justice who would separate it from them But Justice they say hath no other share or interest in Punishment but only to see that Punishment be not misplac'd and that it do not exceed the Offence We are far from denying these things to belong to the Measures in the Exercise of Punitive Justice But whence comes Punitive
himself Lastly what force or dependance is there in the last words For he made him to be sin for us who knew no sin c. if all he had been speaking of before had only related to Christ's preaching How was he made sin more than the Apostles if he were only treated as a sinner upon the account of the same Doctrine which they preached equally with him and might not men be said to be made the righteousness of God in the Apostles as well as in Christ if no more be meant but being perswaded to be righteous by the Doctrine delivered to them In the two latter places Eph. 2.16 Coloss. 1.20 c. it is plain that a twofold reconciliation is likewise mentioned the one of the Iews and Gentiles to one another the other of both of them to God For nothing can be more ridiculous than the Exposition of Socinus who would have 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not to be joyned with the Verb 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but to stand by it self and to signifie that this reconciliation of the Iews and Gentiles did tend to the glory of God And Crellius who stands out at nothing hopes to bring off Socinus here too by saying that it is very common for the end to which a thing was appointed to be expressed by a Dative case following the Verb but he might have spared his pains in proving a thing no one questions the shorter answer had been to have produced one place where 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ever signifies any thing but to be reconciled to God as the offended party or where-ever the Dative of the person following the Verb importing reconciliation did signifie any thing else but the party with whom the reconcilâ—ation was to be made As for that objâ—ction concerning things in Heaven being reconciled that phrase doth not import such a Reconciliation of the Angels as of Mâ—n â—uâ— that Men and Angels upon the reconciliation of Men to God become one body under Christ and are gathered together in him as the Apostle expresseth it Eph. 1.10 XIII 1. Having thus far proved that the effects of an Expiatory Sacrifice do belong to the death of Christ nothing now remains but an answer to be made to two Objections which are commonly insisted on by our Adversaries The first is That God was reconciled before he sent his Son and therefore Christ could not die to reconcile God to us The second is That the Doctrine of Satisfaction asserted by us is inconsistent with the freeness of God's grace in the remission of sins Both which will admit of an easie Solution upon the principles of the foregoing discourse To the first I answer That we assert nothing inconsistent with that love of God which was discovered in sending his Son into the world we do not say That God hated mankind so muâ—h on the account of sin that it was impossible he should ever admit of any terms of Reconciliation with them which is the only thing inconsistent with the greatness of God's love in sending Christ into the world but we adore and magnifie the infiniteness and unexpressible greatness of his love that nothwithstanding all the contempt of the former kindness and mercies of Heaven he should be pleased to send his own Son to die for sinners that they might be reconciled to him And herein was the great love of God manifested that while we were enemies and sinners Christ died for us and that for this end that we might be reconciled to God by his death And therefore surely not in the state of favour or Reconciliation with God then But it were worth the while to understand what it is our Adversaries mean when they say God was reconciled when he sent his Son and therefore he could not die to reconcile God to us Either they mean that God had decreed to be reconciled upon the sending his Son or that he was actually reconciled when he sent him if he only decreed to be reconciled that was not at all inconsistent with Christ's dying to reconcile God and us in pursuance of that decree if they mean he was actually reconciled then there was no need for Christ to die to reconcile God and us but withal actual Reconciliation implies pardon of sin and if sin were actually pardoned before Christ came there could be no need of his coming at all and sins would have been pardoned before committed if they were not pardoned notwithstanding that love of God then it can imply no more but that God was willing to be reconciled If therefore the not-remission of sins were consistent with that love of God by which he sent Christ into the world then notwithstanding that he was yet capable of being reconciled by his death So that our Adversaries are bound to reconcile that love of God with not presently pardoning the sins of the world as we are to reconcile it with the ends of the death of Christ which are asserted by us XIV To the other Obejction Concerning the inconsistency of the Freeness of God's Grace with the Doctrine of Satisfaction I answer Either God's Grace is so free as to exclude all conditions or not If it be so free as to exclude all conditions then the highest Antinomianism is the truâ—st Doctrine for that is the highest degree of the Freeness of Grace which admits of no conditions at all If our Adversaries say That the Freeness of Grace is consistent with conditions required on our part Why shall it not admit of conditions on God's part especially when the condition required tends so highly to the end of God's governing the world in the manifestation of his hatred against sin and the vindication of the honour of his Laws by the Sufferings of the Son of God in our stead as an Expiatory Sacrifice for our sins There are two things to be considered in sin the dishonour done to God by the breach of his Laws and the injury men do to themsâ—lves by it now remission of sins that respects the injury which men bring upon themselves by it and that is Free when the penalty is wholly forgiven as we assert it is by the Gospel to all penitent sinners but shall not God be free to vindicate his own Honour and to declare his righteousness to the world while he is the Iustifier of them that believe Shall men in case of Defamation be bound to vindicate themselves though they freely forgive the Authors of the slander by our Adversaries own Doctrine and must it be repugnant to God's Grace to admit of a Propitiatory Sacrifice that the world may understand that it is no such easie thing to obtain pardon of sin committed against God but that as often as they consider the bitter Sufferings of Christ in order to the obtaining the forgiveness of our sins that should be the greatest Argument to disswade them from the practice of them But why should it be more inconsistent with the Sacrifice of Christ for God