JUSTIFICATION. Only upon A SATISFACTION: OR, The Necessity and Verity of the Satisfaction of CHRIST, as the alone ground of remission of sin, asserted & opened against the Socinians.  
Together with an APPENDIX in vindication of a Sermon preached on Heb. 2. 10. from the exceptions of H. W. in a Pamphlet called, The freeness of God's grace in the forgiveness of Sins by Jesus Christ.  
By Robert Ferguson.  ●sa. 53. 6 The Lord said on him the iniquity of us all, H●b. He made the iniquity of us all to meet on him. ●7. He was ●p●r●ssed and he was afflicted, H●b. It was exacted, and he answered. 2 Cor. 5. 21 He hath made him to be si● for 〈…〉 no sin, that we might he made the righteousness of God ●n him. Gal. 3 13. Christ hath redeemed us from 〈◊〉 curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. 
LONDON, Printed for D. Newman, at the Ch●● 〈…〉 geo●s Arms ●ea: ●●. ● sp● 〈…〉 l in Little Britain, 16●8▪   

To every Christian judicious Reader, who is tender of the Honour of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the Faith delivered to the Saints.  
REader,  
There are several things which I desire to bespeak thee, which ●it is not fit, both in respect of thyself and the Truth, that thou shouldst be ignorant of.  
1. The Doctrine here asserted, is one of the most important in the whole Gospel: for though all in the Scrip●ture be true, yet every thin● is not alike weighty, nor a● like necessary either to b● known or believed. Ther● are some Truths which w● are bound only to believe● in case we know them to b● revealed; there are other● necessary to be believed and known in order to our being saved. The first depend only upon God's veracity that he cannot deceive us in any thing he makes known ● The second upon the necessary connexion which God hath established betwixt such a Doctrine and such an● End; so that happiness is not to be arrived at, but through ●he knowledge and belief of ●uch a Truth: so that there pure ignorance or nescience is damning; whereas it is at most but damnable to err in ●he other, in case there have ●een sufficient means and opportunities of conviction. ●ome Errors do only scratch ●he face, others stab the very ●eart of the Christian Religion; some do only deface ●he Building, others overthrew the foundation. There ●re some mistakes of well meaning men, Rom. 15. 1. ●nd every error is not inconsistent with salvation, 1 Cor. ●. 12. neither are we upon all differences to renounce mutual communion, Phil. 4. 15. But then there are also Doctrines of Devils, 1 Tim. 4. 1. Which whosoever continues to profess, are to be rejected, Tit. 3. 10. Neither are we to bid such, God speed, 2 Joh. v. 10. Now if there be any Doctrines in the world of this quality, that here disputed against, with some others of the like complexion held by the Socinians, are.  
2. The Truth here established, is a Doctrine which the Churches of God have been in all ages in the possession of; not but that some men have gainsaid, but they have been still upon so doing disclaimed for Heretics. The rise of this abomination of denying the satisfaction of Christ, is charged upon the Pelagians, which being afterwards cherished by one Abailardus, was at last fully ripened by Servetus and Socinus, etc. men whose names have been justly accounted hateful, by all to whom the glory of Jesus Christ hath been dear.  
3. The denial of the satisfaction of Jesus Christ is but one part of the gentlemen's Divinity; the denial of the Deity of Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Ghost, with several Opinions of the like tincture, make up their Creed: That Socinianism is but a kind of Turcism, is proved by several; see Hot●ing. Hist. Orient. lib. 3. c. 3. And that they are not Christians, however they mistile themselves so, is demonstrated by others; see Hoornb. apparat. ad Controvers. Socin. p. 73. etc.  
4. This is not the first attempt they have made in this City and Nation, to overthrow the Faith of the Saints; one Biddle went before them, some years ago, in the same undertaking; & how much soever by some those times are branded for heretical, wild, and licentious, yet it is well known what entertainment the persons who then governed gave both the man and his doctrine, for besides the burning of his book, and the imprisoning of himself, they appointed a learned person to refute him, whose labours in that affair have been admirably useful. What countenance or success they have of late had, and to what number they are increased, is fit to bewail than to recount. However I cannot but say that I was greatly surprised to hear that such a Pamphlet should be Licenced: Mistake me not Reader, as if I were positive in it, for I should rather think that supposing some of the Chaplains were not under the restraint of their conscience, yet that they should consult more the favour and credit of their Masters, than dare to do such a thing; but I leave this to be inspected and debated by others: only I must say that he behoves to have first, renounced the 39 Articles, and the Doctrine of the Church of England, whoever either in this, or in any other point befriends the Socinians; and I am ready to believe that should any of them arise to the support of that abomination, if others should be silent, yet the learned Dr. Gunning would take notice of them, having so worthily the last Commencement declared himself in opposition to the whole body of the Socinians.  
5. It is fit thou shouldest know, that they boast of giving a speedy Answer, and several have been named as ready for that undertaking; we have had a taste of the strength of one of them already, in his whole Christ a mere creature; and seeing he abides still in that persuasion, he may do well to vindicate it from the confutation of Mr. Eton. If his friends do not belie him, he is about publishing a Commentary on the 53. Chap of Isaiah, to discharge Christ from being meant or intended in all or any part of that Chapter. I suppose it will hardly receive the favour (though it be in a certain persons hand to that purpose) to come abroad cum permissu; but when or however it comes, there will not be those wanting to refute it. They talk high of a Foreigner who is lately come over, but if he find himself par negotio, he had best attempt the vindication of his Father, either his book de uno Deo, from Plaecaeus, or his book the satisfactione, from Essenius. I do not carve them out work elsewhere, to avoid being fallen upon myself, but to show that what they bring fresh upon the stage, hath been again and again refuted, without the least attempt of a reply. I confess at the rate they confuted my Sermon, they may soon answer the present book, and a hundred more of this nature, and if they take that course, the world will not think me nor any other obliged to rejoin; but if they shall think fit to do it methodically, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, they shall be attended to: though the doctrine would not be the less true, should I fail in the defence of it.  
6. The occasion of the Sermon which hath proved the rise of thi● debate, was merely a regard to th● honour of our Lord Jesus Christ▪ and the faith delivered to the Saints, which as I was informed, begun both clandestinely and openly to be undermined and assaulted; and I find now that I was not mistaken in my information. The way of managing it on my part, I hope both first and last hath been such as becomes a Preacher of the Gospel. If any think it a trespass that I preached, I must leave it to them who have power, to act as they see good.  
7. If any should be offended at my asserting the absolute necessity of a satisfaction, on supposition of God's saving sinners; I must tell them, but without reflecting upon those who refound a satisfaction upon the alone pleasure and wisdom of God; that those who have managed this truth most advantageously have taken the same method. Scholars may consult Essenius, Voetius, Hoornbeck, Amy●aldus, Dr. Owen, and of late Tur●etinus.  
8. I know not whether the Adversary's will vouchsafe to read ●ver what I have written, but if ●hey do that, yet I know the nature of the men too well, and their prepossessions to expect that they ●hould be the better, the confession of Socinus bars me from all belief of reclaiming men of that ●idney. For thus he writes speaking of satisfaction, Ego quidem, ●tia●si non semel, sed saepe id in ●acris monimentis scriptum extaret: ●on idcirco tamen ita rem prorsus ●e habere crederem, ut vos opinami●i, de Servat. l. 3. c. 6. But I ●ope I may desire of others that ●hey would seriously peruse what ●s here tendered; do not look upon ●hese things, as things at a distance wherein you are not concerned; and be sure to improve the belief of these doctrines to a Gospel strictness, otherwise your being orthodox sets you never the more out of eternal danger▪: but if you will be faithful in this, I then refer you to John 7. 17. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of God, or whether I speak of myself. That the Lord would give the much of the anointing, and thereby lead the into, and establish the in the truth, is the prayer of him who desires according to his trust and gift to approve himself.  
The Servant of Christ to thy advantage. R. F.   


CHAP. I.  
In what sense to justify and justification are to be taken and understood in this affair.  
TO justify, is either 
I will not insist on the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, jus, ju●i●●ia, justific●re.  taken in a moral sense, or in a judicial▪ for the working a change in a man's person, or ●he making a change in his estate. By the first, he is made a new creature: By the second, he is absolv●d at the Bar of Justice. The Pa●ists contend wholly for the first ●nse; namely, that justification ●ught to be taken for the infu●on of holiness, and the Reformed ●r the second, viz. the discharging and absolving one in Law▪ Now that this, and not the former must be the meaning and sense of the Holy Ghost in this affair, appears,  
1. Because otherwise we should 
Voces quibus utitur Sp. S. null●bi in to●a Scripturâ, in●usâ iustitiâ justum face●e, notant. nec apud proba●os latinitatis Authores, hoc sensu usurpan●ur.  confound justification, and sanctification, which the Scripture every where distinguisheth, 1 Cor. 6. 11. But ye are sanctified, but ye are justified, Rom. 8. 29, 39 whom he called, (namely, to a conformity to the image of his Son) them he also justified. 1. In sanctification, the change is absolute and inherent; in justification, relative and juridical, 2. Sanctification is gradual and successive, justification is instantaneous, and complete at once. 3. By the first we are made like God, by the second we are taken into the favour of God. 4. Sanctification is the subduing the dominion and power of sin in us. Justification is the removing the obnoxiousness to the curse which was against us. Though these two ●n the case we speak of beever un●●ed, yet they are not to be confounded. They differ as to the predicate, though they be not separate as to the subject; though where the one is, there the other be also, yet the one is not formally the other. In many other cases they are separable, one may be morally just, and yet not juridically justified; as Christ, who though he was every way Innocent, Pilate himself being Judge, Joh. 18. 38. Joh. 19 4. 6. yet he was condemned; and on the other hand one may be morally unjust, and yet judicially acquitted, daily experience bearing witness: however in all cases they are distinct. But to say the truth, the Papists acknowledge no pardon of sin distinct from sanctification, for though they speak of remission, yet they always understand it by renovation, which is a stumbling at the very threshold, and an argument of their little insight into this mystery of God.  
2. Because the Apostle, who so often useth the word, never useth it for the Infusion of holiness, but for a judicial absolution and therefore opposeth it not to pollution and defilement, but to accusation and condemnation, Rom. 5. 18. As by the offence of one judgement came upon all to condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one, the freegift came upon all men unto justification of life, Rom. 8. 33, 34. It is God that justifieth, who is he that condemneth. And accordingly he describeth it by remession of sin, not by renovation of nature, Rom. 4. 7. and by Imputation of righteousness without us, to us, not by an Infusion of holiness, or working of grace in us, Rom. 4. 6.  
3. Because the question betwixt the Jews and the Apostle, was not whether we were renewed in our souls by the works of the Law, or by Faith, but by which of them we were acquitted at the Barnes of God. This is clear throughout the whole dispute.  
The word than is to be taken in a judicial legal sense, and so is opposed to condemn; now in this sense it is used two ways in Scripture.  
1. For the declaring of one 
Ju●um judicare. vid. Mat. 11. 19 Mat. 12. 37. Luc 7. 29 & 16. 15.  just, 1 Tim. 3. 16. justified in the spirit the Son of God, having assumed our nature, being made of a woman, Gal. 4. 4. taking flesh and blood, Heb. 2. 14. and manifesting himself in the flesh, he was judged by the world, not only to be a mere man, but condemned as an Impostor and Malefactor; now he was justified in the spirit, that is, in and by the spirit; He was not only vindicated, and proclaimed innocent from all the accusations of his enemies, but withal approved and declared to be the true and the great God; partly by the attestation of the Holy Ghost, in visible descent on him at baptism, Mat. 3. last, partly by audible voice both then, and at other times, Mat. 17. 5. Joh. 12 28, 29. partly by the testimony of miracles, which he wrought by the spirit, Heb. 2. 4. Act. 2. 22. partly by that great testimony of raising himself from the dead, through the eternal spirit, Rom. 1. 4. Act. 13. 33. 1 Pet. 3. 18. partly by the testimony of the Prophets and Apostles, who as they spoke by the inspiration of the spirit, 2 Pet. 1. 21. Joh. 16. 13. So they bare witness to the divinity and Godhead of Christ. This also is the import of the word, Jam. 2. 21. was not abraham our father justified by works, i. e. declared to be just; by the offering of Isaac, Abraham testified his faith to be true and right, Gen 22. 12. by this I know that thou fearest me, upon which God reneweth unto him the promise, as a testimony and declaration that he was justified.  
2. But most properly, and also 
Justum judicare, vid Deut. 25. 1. ps. 143. 2 Rom. 8. 33, 34.  most frequently, it is made use of to signify to absolve and acquit in judgement; Act. 13. 29. by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which he could not be justified by the law of Moses, Rom. 2. 13. not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified, Rom. 3. 20. by the deeds of the law shall no flesh be justified in his sight, see Rom. 5. 16, 17. 1 Cor. 4. 4. Gal. 12. 16, 17. Now this is the sense we are to understand the words in, in this affair, to discharge by accounting righteous in law.   

CHAP. II.  
Somethings proposed in general, towards the better clearing the common notion of justification. Justication is an act of justice. Only just men can be justly justified. Those who are once unjust cannot be acquitted as just without a satisfaction. No necessity that satisfaction be made in kind, or that it be made by the party offending. May be made by doing, or suffering, or both.  
HAving established the sense of the words, that in the affair before us we are alone to take them in a judicial sense; some things are to be offered in the next place for the rendering more easy and clear the common notion of our justification.  
1. Justification is an act of justice, and not of mercy, Rom. 3. 26. To declare his righteousness, that he might be just, and the justifier of them which believe in Jesus. This is the difference betwixt forgiveness and justification, that the ●●rst is an act of mercy, the latter ●n act of justice. The word justi●e is a judicial word, and in all Courts of Judicature, proceed ●ught to be according to right, ●nd not according to favour; and ●entence should not be according ●o mercy, but law; grace, but equity, Exod. 23. 2, 3, 6.  
2. None but just men can be ●ustly justified; a man must be just, or made just before he can be justly justified, Deut. 25. 1. If there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgement, that the Judges may judge them, than they shall justify the righteous and condemn the wicked. There is a woe denounced against him that shall justify the wicked, Isa. 5. 23. Solomon tells us, that he who justifies the wicked, is as much an abomination to the Lord as he that condemns the just, Prov. 17. 15. Not but that it is lawful sometimes for a Prince or others to pardon an offendor, but without calling good evil, which God denounceth a woe against, Isa. 5. 20. An offendor cannot be justified. Joseph pardoned his Brethren, but he could no ways justify them: according to all lines and measures of justice, it is as criminal to justify the Nocent, as to condemn the Innocent, Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked, thou art righteous, him shall the People curse; and this not only holds with reference to Men, but God, Exod. 34. 7. He will by no means clear the guilty, Mica. 6. 11. Shall I count them pure with the wicked balances? There is a strong negation in ihe question, I cannot: To strengthen this a little further, and render it more plain; we must distinguish between pronouncing the sentence of guilt and death, and the execution of the sentence: A prisoner may be found guilty and condemned, and yet ●ot execute; forasmuch as he may produce a pardon, or obtain a reprieve, but he can no ways be justified, and acquitted as not guilty. Thus God by Nathan pronounced against David the sentence of guilt, yet pardoned him as to the execution of it, 2 Sam. 12. 7. 13. God neither did nor could pronounce him guiltless of the murder, etc. though he could and did remit the sentence of death. That none but those who are just or made just, can be justly justified, appears further here. (1.) Because all God's judgements are according to truth, Rom. 2. 2. but it were contrary to truth, to say to a man he is guiltless, when he is guilty. (2.) All God's judgements are according to justice, Psal. 119. 75. But it were contrary to justice, to acquit and declare a man innocent, when he were nocent.  
Possibly it may be objected that God is said to justify the un godly, Rom. 4. 5. and that therefore those who are unjust, may be justly justified. Answ. It is true, God justifies those who are guilty of sin, and doth justly in so doing, in that Christ hath made satisfaction for their sin, and through saith they can plead an interest in it, so that it becomes theirs, and is accounted to them for righteousness.  
3. Those that are once unjust, cannot be made just again, or acquitted as just, without a compensation and satisfaction made to the party injured for the offence; whatsoever else can be thought of, or may be pleaded, is not enough for the acquitting of a person as just. We will briefly view all that is, or can be said in the case.  
(1.) Sorrow for the offence committed is not sufficient, for the constituting of the offendor just: The Heathen said, Quem unites peccasse, paenè est innocens, almost innocent, but not altogether. The Law proceeds against Malefactor, be his sorrow for ●s crime never so great: He that ●stains a wrong is not righted by ●s sorrow that doth commit it. ●od himself proceeded against David, for his sin of numbering the ●ople, though David hearty sor●wed and repent for it, 2 Sam. ●. 10.  
(2.) Confession of the fault, is ● ground in Law for absolution, ● more than repentance and sorrow; when a person stands ar●gned, his confession of the fact ●th not at all tend to the acquit●g him of guilt, but on the con●ry promotes his condemnati●. And therefore when the A●stle saith, if we confess, etc. ● is just to forgive us our sins, Joh. 1. 9 It is in reference to ●od's promise, but that which is the ground of it with respect t● 
Hoc interest inter condonationem m●ram, & justificatio●ē acquisi●am; quod ibi pana relaxatur, hic meritum paenae G●tak. Remissio non justos, sed a p●na pecca●i liberos, statuit, G●mar. Nemo prudens punit quia peccatum est, sed n● peccetur; revoca●i enim praeterita non possunt, futura prohibcantur, Sen. Hence punishments are called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  justice, is the blood of Christ, v. 7▪  
(3.) Remission and forgiveness doth not make a man that i● guilty to become guiltless; though a Thief be pardoned, yet as t● guilt he is a Thief still; this i● only the gratifying of an offender not the justifying of him: this i● a mere Act of Grace, not an Ac● of Justice. Forgiveness can only release from the penalty, whereas justification releases from th● demerit.  
(4) It is not the sustaining th● penalty that makes a man who i● unjust to become just; I know there are many of another mind but the ground of the mistake ● apprehend to be this, that they d● not consider, that the end of th● Law, in all criminal matters, i● obedience, and that the penalty i● added for other ends; as to d●ter men from doing the like; Deut▪ 13. 11. and 17. 13. and to dive● ●he wrath of God; which if sin go unpunished, is kindled not on●y against the Offenders, but the whole Land, Deut. 13. 15. 16, 17. But the sustaining the penalty ne●er makes a man that is unjust to ●e just in Law. A Perjured person, though he has lost his ears; ●et he is reputed a perjured person still, and if introduced into a Court of Justice to take an Oath, ●e will be rejected and refused, as unworthy and uncapable in Law. Though a Thief be Burnt in the Hand, yet he is accounted a Thief ●till: The sustaining the penalty, doth not save and make up the wrong done to the party prejudiced. If a Traitor take away the ●ife of the Supreme Governor, ●is undergoing the utmost torture cannot compensate the wrong he hath done the State. However should it be so in other ●ases, yet it is most certain, that ●n the case we are to treat of, a man that is unjust, cannot by undergoing the penalty be made just again: for to undergo the penalty of sin, is to be ever damned, and never justified. So that it 
Satisfacere, est tantum facere quantum satis est ●rato ad vindictam  remains, if a man hath been once unjust, he can only be made just again by a satisfaction; and this is able to do it; for plenary satisfaction for a fault, and the non commission of it, are of equal justice, if there be an equivalency and just value in that satisfaction that is made, to the honour of ●he party offended, and law that is broken, 
Satisfactio pro solutione est, saith the Civil Law.  so that as much benefit ariseth by the satisfaction, as there was damage by the offence, than the satisfaction is full, and justice itself acquits that man.  
4. The fourth thing I would offer to be observed in general is this, that it is not needful that the satisfaction be always made in kind, but it is sufficient if it be made in value. If a Beast be stolen, satisfaction may be made by paying down as much money to the party wronged as he demands, as well as if the very Beast were restored. It was ordained in the Judicial Law, that if a man smote the eye of his servant, that it perished, he should let him go free for his eyes sake, Exod. 21. 26. so that God himself being judge, the man's liberty was esteemed 
Vid. etiam Exod. 21. 18, 19, 32, 33.  valuable satisfaction for the loss of his eye.  
5. I would propose this to be considered, that it is not always ●eedful that the satisfaction be made by the party offending, but ●t may be made by an other. If ●he Surety pay the Debt, it is all ●ne to the Creditor as if he that contracted it, paid it. This universally holds in pecuniary mat●ers; if the Debt be paid, the ●aw doth not inquire who paid ●. But in criminal matters it is otherwise, there noxa sequitur caput, put, a Man hath dominion over his money, and in that respect, may in way of suretyship engage himself to pay another man's debt; but no man hath a dominion over himself, or his own life, and therefore may neither part with a member of his own in commutation for the member of another, no● lay down his own life, for the redemption of another's. This doth admirably display the Grace o● 
So that there legis is both Impletio & relaxatio; solutio debiti, & debiti condonatio.  God, as well as his Justice, tha● though he would have his Law satisfied, yet he would allow ● commutation, where the rigour of the Law allowed none. An● it also shows the full dominion that Christ had over his own life that he could part with it for th● life of others.  
6. Let this be taken notice o● that satisfaction may be made b● doing, or suffering, or jointly b● both: If a man own a summ● money, and cannot pay his Creditor in kind, he satisfies him if he does it in service; if he work as ●ong freely for him, as the Creditor shall count valuable to the debt. If a Person having injured mother should afterwards hazard ●is life for him, this might be ●eemed satisfaction for the former ●njury. Or one that is in debt to ●nother, may pay him part in mo●ey, and part in service.   

CHAP. III.  
●omethings more particularly proposed, towards the clearing of our justification. We must be charged. Must plead. Cannot plead not guilty, nor be justified upon the Plea of mercy for the sake of mercy. Nor upon the Plea of satisfaction made by ourselves. Only upon the Plea of a satisfaction made by another.  
WE must in order to being justified, be arraigned and charged, otherwise, as on● well notes, If a man be pronounced righteous, that was never indicted, he is only praised, not justified. Now we all stand arraigned and charged, Joh. 5. 45 There is one that accuseth you, eve● Moses, i. e. the Law of Mose● This was one great reason wh● after we had lost and darkened th● transcript of the Law which w● in our natures: God renewed th● Law by Moses, Gal. 3. 19 It 〈◊〉 added because of transgression. N● only to curb and restrain from si● but to charge and accuse for si● For as the Apostle says elsewhere 1 Tim. 1. 9 the Law is not for t● righteous, but the disobedient, ● e. it is not to accuse and conde● the righteous, but only to accu● and threaten the disobedient. W● stand all indicted and charged b● the Law, Gal. 3. 20. By the L● is the knowledge of sin. We shou● not have known ourselves so w● to be guilty, unless the Law had 
Meminerit deum se adhibere testem, idestut arbitror, mentem suam, Cic.  charged us with guilt, Rom. 7. 7. And that the charge is true, our own consciences come in for witnesses, Rom. 2. 15. we need none else to prove the Indictment, our own hearts giving testimony against us.  
2. Being thus charged we must Plead, he that refuseth to Plead abandoneth himself to the Law. Now there are but two Pleas, that of guilty, and not guilty.  
1. As I said before, we cannot plead not guilty, being under the impeachment of our own consciences, 
Utut alios latere possis tute tibi conscim eris. Mens quoque namen habet.  as well as of the Law. Illo ●ocens se damnat quo peccat die. This might have been the Plea of Adam before he fell, but of none ●se, 1 King. 8. 46. There is no man ●hat sinneth not, Eccles. 7. 20. ●here is not a just man upon earth ●●at doth good and sinneth not. ●ome understand it, that sinneth ●t in doing good, 1 Joh. 1. 8. If we say, we have no sin, we deceiv● ourselves, and the truth is not in us, Prov. 20. 9 Who can say, I have made my heart clean, I am pure from my sin, James 3. 2. In many things we offend all. In a word, all have sinned, Rom. 3. 23. All, though not all a like see, Rom. 3. 9, 19 Whatever be the Plea of the Sons of Men, that cannot.  
2. Our Plea then must be Guilty, and in this Case we must either Plead mercy for the sake of mercy, or mercy for the sake of a satisfaction. There is no third.  
1. There is no being justified upon the Plea of mercy, for the sake of mercy. For as one well observes, it were not to plead, but to beg. Nor were it at all to be justified, but merely to be pardoned, it were to be dealt with alone upon the score of grace, not at all upon the score of righteousness; and we have already proved, that justification is an act of justice, and not of mercy. It is true, in the salvation of sinners, both grace and justice meet; we are both pardoned and justified. God is as merciful as we can desire, and yet as righteous as himself can desire: There is the freest Grace, and the fullest Justice. As God pardons sin, he displays his mercy; as he justifieth us from sin, he manifesteth his righteousness. The ignorance of this is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a late Socinian Pamphlet, written in oppositian to a Sermon, which was lately Preached in behalf of the satisfaction of Christ: That because there is forgiveness, that therefore there is no justification; and because God acts towards us in a way of mercy, that therefore he doth not also act towards us in a way of justice: As if God, for the advancing the honour of one properly and perfection of his Nature, must Impeach and Eclipse all the rest. But if the Author of that discourse be as teachable as he is ignorant, he may once for all take notice, that the freeness of remission doth not consist in the want of a satisfaction, or in any defect in the satisfaction that is made; but in these four other things.  
1. In that though he exact a satisfaction, he doth not exact it, at the hand of the delinquent. In the rigour of the Law, the Criminal himself should bear the punishment! and here si alius solvit, aliud solvitur. Now is not this grace? that though he will have his justice satisfied, yet he will dispense so far with the offendor, 
Solvere dicitur qui per se pretium numerat, satisfacere qui quod alius debet selvit.  as not to demand solution from himself, but he will allow the substitution of a Surety to make the satisfaction, and take satisfaction for solution.  
2. In that he both contrived the satisfaction, and gave his own Son to make it. Supposing that he would have accepted a satisfaction, yet he might have left it to the offendor, to have found out the way and the means to have made it: whatever diminutive thoughts the Sociniaus may have of this, I am sure the Scripture every where delivers it as a fruit and result of inexpressible love; Joh. 2. 16: Rom. 5. 8. 1 Joh. 4. 9, 10. In this was manifested the love of God towards us, because God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. Was there no grace in Christ his Interposing for us, and not for Angels? was God under any obligation to fallen man, that he behoved to recover him more than fallen Angels? Might not God have honoured his justice in the damnation of both alike, and that without the least derogation to his mercy? was there no grace in translating o●r sins from us to Christ, Isa. 53. 6. and exacting full payment at his hand in our room, Isa. 53. 5, 10, 11? In a word, however these Socinian Gentlemen style themselves Vindicaters of the Grace of God, as they wholly subvert his justice, and darken his holiness, they will also be found to any sober enquirer, greater eclipsers, of his mercy, and derogators from his love and grace, than any of their adversaries.  
3. It consists in a gracious acceptation of that satisfaction in our steads, for so many, and no more; for such, and not for others, he might have refused it for all, or accepted it for others, not for such. That the death and blood of Christ is of infinite wort● proceeds from the dignity of his person, and greatness of his sufferings; yet that it is a rans●m● or satisfaction for many, and particularly for such, doth not immediately arise from its sufficiency and worth, but from the intention and agreement of the Father and Son, using and accepting it to that end, and in behalf of such. There is a value in the blood and satisfaction of Christ, to have purchased both grace and pardon for all mankind, if the Father and Son had so intended and pleased. Now that grace and life should be bought by it to some, and not others, as it is solely to be ascribed to the pleasure of the Father and Son, designing and using it to that purpose; so it is the effect and issue of high mercy and distinguishing love at leisure, see Joh. 17. 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat se Deo in Sanctam victimam consecrare, vid. Heb. 2. 10. Heb. 5. 9 Eph. 5 2, 25. Heb. 10. 14. Tit. 2. 14. Is there no grace in this, that the death of Christ should be intended and accepted as a satisfaction in behalf of some, so that in due time the Father, because of that, should bestow grace upon, and be reconciled to such; others, in the mean time, being left under the power of their lusts and sins, and obnoxious to God's wrath and enmity? Whatever apprehensions that sort of men have of it, there are others who desire to take notice of, and admire it.  
4. The freeness of God's grace towards sinners, stands in the free and effectual application of the death and satisfaction of Christ to them; his free donation of the spirit to some, to work faith in them, and to bring them up to the conditions, upon which the satisfaction of Christ and pardon through it is only pleadable. The Father and Son having contrived and brought about this satisfaction, without any help or rise from us, We could have no actual interest in the benefits of it, but upon such terms as the Father and Son should agree to. It is true, if we ourselves had made the satisfaction, that then without the intervention of any new condition, both Law and Justice would have discharged us. But that being done by others, without any contrivance or influence of ours, the benefit of it is not to be expected by us, but upon such conditions as those who brought about and accomplished that work think fit to appoint. Now it having pleased the Father and the Son to constitute and appoint, believing as the condition upon which the satisfaction of Christ should be accounted ours, and without which we should have no interest in the benefit of it; and we being both unable and unwilling to believe, our moral impotency and insufficiency to this, being no less than our Physical inability and incapacity was to the former, Joh. 16. 44. 1 Cor. 2. 14. Joh. 6. 29. Is it not then eminent mercy and grace? that while the generality are left under their unwillingness, enmity, and inability; God should in some work both to will and to do, Phil. 2. 13. Give them to believe, Phil. 1. 29. Ephes. 2. 8. Draw them to Christ, Joh. 6. 44. fulfil the work of faith in them with power, 2 Thes. 1. 11. Certainly whatever low imaginations some have of this, there are others will not cease to adore that distinguishing and eminent love and mercy which unfolds itself in it.  
Having thus briefly shown wherein the Grace of God in the pardoning of sin consists; though he pardon none but with respect to, and upon the account of a satisfaction. I return to that which I was upon, namely, that to be justified upon the Plea of mere mercy, is both perfect nonsense, and a formal contradiction. Whatever these high masters of reason think of it, we poorer mortals use to account it nonsense, to say a man is justified, when he is merely gratified, and according to our little Philosophy we esteem it a contradiction, to make that the alone effect of mercy, wherein justice hath only to do. And our adversary must give us leave to retort his own Phrase, with this little alteration upon himself, that he and his friends are absurd not only in their Faith, but in their Reason: As we are justified, God acts only towards us in way of righteousness; as we are pardoned, he acts only towards us in way of mercy. But as in being saved, we are both pardoned and justified, so in the whole of our recovery, there is a wonderful combination and union of mercy and justice.  
Now though this were enough to overthrow our being justified upon the Plea of mercy, for the sake of mercy. I shall yet for the fuller clearing and establishing the truth that we are discoursing, endeavour to prove, that as we have already said, it is a contradiction to be justified upon the sole term● of mercy and grace. So secondly, It was not possible for God i● a way of consistency with his truth and justice, to save sinners and pardon sin, but through the Intervention of a satisfaction. And let thi● be noted once for all, that wha● God cannot do in agreeableness t● his truth and righteousness, he cannot do at all.  
That it was not possible fo● God to pardon sin and save sinners without the intervention and consideration of a satisfaction, may b● demonstrated, First, From th● truth of God's threaten. Now for the better understanding th● strength of this Argument, an● that exceptions and cavils may b● obviated, I shall premise these things.  
1. Though threaten precisely 
Loquuntur de debito, non de eventu.  and universally taken, do only signify what is due, not what shall actually be; yet forasmuch as God in giving his creatures a law, intended not only to tell them that according to that they must live, but also that according to that they must be judged; therefore though in the primary sense of all threaten, the meaning only is, such a penalty in case of offence shall be due; yet in that God signifieth he will govern according to his law. He secondarily declareth, that he will inflict the penalty, and give to all their ●ue. As it was necessary that 
Taci èpermiti tur, quod sinc ultione prehibet●r, Tert.  God in the enacting his law, ●hould annex a penalty, so in the promulgation of his law, he intended that the world should be●eve he would execute the penalty in case his law were violate.  
2. There is a difference betwixt articular threaten denounced in some singular cases, to some special ends, & a General commination or threatening annexed to an universal law; and however the first sort may be relaxed or dispensed with, Isa. 38. 1. with 5. Ionas 3. 4▪ with 10. yet the second is as unalterable as the law itself; because without it the end of the law cannot 
Qui ratione duci non possunt, metu continentur, Quint  be compassed, though the end of the law be not the inflicting o● the penalty, but obedience, yet the annexing of the penalty to th● law is necessary to the enforcing o● obedience.  
3. We must distinguish betwixt those threaten which import only temporal punishment and those which denounce eternal For suppose God doth suspend th● infliction of temporal judgements yet this is no violation of the Sanction of his law, forasmuch a● what he forbears here, he may inflict in severer kind hereafter; b● on the other hand should he rela● and dispense with those threaten which denounce eternal judgements, no crime were possibly punishable according to its demerit, seeing all that creatures are capable of having inflicted on them in ●his life, is infinitely still below ●he desert of their least sin.  
4. We ought heedfully to note ●he difference, betwixt Evangeli●al threaten and legal: Evan●elical I count those that form ob●gation to fatherly and Gospel chastisements; legal, such as denounce unmixed and unallayed ●urse and wrath. These two widely ●ffer not only in their nature but ●d; the end of Gospel threatening, 
This is it which Author's call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum pan● infligitu●●mendandi causa.  is the recovering us to, and ●e keeping of us within the bounds ● Childlike obedience, and there●re God hath not only signified, ●t the nature of the affair re●tires, that they should be exerted only in case need be, 1 Pet. 6. Supposing then that the business of these threaten be done to the hand of God without the execution of them; it clearly follows, that the obligation of th● believer to them, as they have respect to such an end, dissolves an● ceaseth. That which is God's intent by them, being obtained without them, the execution of them without the least derogation to th● 
This is that which Author's call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum paena adhibetur ani●o ulcis● endi. Hoc interest inter castigationem & ●oe●am▪ poena vindictae rationem habei, castigatio ve●ò habei rationem▪ ●mendationis, Gamet.  truth of God, or impeachment of h● other properties, may be suspen●ed. But legal threaten being ● another nature, and having another end, namely, the vindication ● God's holiness and justice upon prisoner's and rebels, they are no wi● dissolvable, but must necessary be inflicted, that the perfection and government of God may vindicated, and sin may be ● venged. All sin is a contempt God's authority and governme● and casts dirt upon his glory, a● punishment is the vindicating God's honour in the revenging ● evil which is committed. On● let this be noted, that in case of 
Though I use these words in stead of better, yet I would not be understood as if there were any mutatio, abrogatio, dispensati●, ●ut rel●xatio legis; ni▪ hill tale hic locum h●bere credit▪ do, tantum per additionem legis fidei ad leg●m operum divini juris & lat● legis, exhibetur interpreta●io.  such a proportionable satisfaction, by which the honour and equity of his law is vindicated, his justice, holiness, and hatred of sin demonstrated, the ends of government attained, he may relax and dispense with his threaten as to the party offending, which is the case here, for by executing the threatening upon Christ, and receiving a valuable consideration and satisfaction from him, he hath given as eminent demonstration of his righteousness, purity, and hatred of sin, and as fully vindicated his law from contempt, as ●f the offenders themselves had suffered, and therefore by an admirable mixture of grace with ●is justice hath released us. I do ●ot say, he hath released his law ●or I think, that is only interpreted; ●ow interpretation doth not take off the obligation of the law, only declares that in such a case it was not intended to oblige. Having now premised these things, I reassume the argument, namely, that the truth of God's threatening would not allow him to pardon sin and save sinners, but upon the consideration of a satisfaction.  
1. God having denounced death, and the curse against sin, Gen. 2. 17. Deut. 27. 26. The veracity and faithfulness of his nature, obliged him to see it inflicted. Never any entertained a notion of God, but they included in it that he spoke truth; could ever any threatening of God be of awe upon the conscience of a sinner, should the first and great threatening be made so easily void? should it be granted, that notwithstanding God's solemn denunciation of wrath in case of sin, that yet he hath taken the offendor into favour, and pardoned the offence without any satisfaction or consideration at all; what would creatures imagine? but that God either intended his threaten for mea● scarcrows, or that he were subject to mutability; which apprehensions being once received, what boldness would men assume in sin? believing that the comminations of the Gospel, would be no more executed than those of the law. But let God be true, and every man a liar, Rom. 3. 4.  
2. To suppose that God hath abrogated his threatening, is at once to overthrow the whole Scripture, for that expressly tells us, That not one jot of the Law was to perish, Mat. 5. 18. That every disobedience received a just recom●ence of reward, Heb. 2. 2. see Heb. 8. 28. Heb. 9 22, 23. That without blood there was to be no remission.  
3. If the threatening annexed to the law be released, it is either by virtue of the law itself, or by virtue of the Gospel. It is not by virrue of the law, for that was 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 significat inutilem. otiosum, inanem reddere. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. i. e ●●are facimus, firmam effic●c●m redd●mu● h●no ●m ei suum defendimus. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. significat abel●r●. aebrogare factis, vel dictis legem oppugnare. q●d. coelum terroe miscebitur potius, quam ut id fiat.  wholly inexorable, requiring either perfect and constant obedience, or denouncing unmixed and unallayed wrath, Gal. 3. 10. Not is it released by the Gospel, this the Holy Ghost clearly informs us, Rom. 3. 31. Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbidden: yea, we establish the law. Beza his Paraphrase here is very good, Christi satisfactio quid aliud quam legis minas ostendit minimè irritas esse, quam illas luere Christum opportuerit? & Christi justitia quid aliud est quam legis praestatio? See also Mat. 5. 17, 18. Think not (saith Christ) that I come to destroy, the Law or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. For verily, I say unto you; till heaven and earth pass away, one jot, or one title shall in no wise pass from the Law, till all be fulfilled. As all the predictions of the Prophets were fulfilled by him, and in him▪ so was the whole law in his keeping the precepts of it, and teaching others to do the like, and in his bearing the penalty of it, and his fulfilling and answering the types of it. The Gospel is so far from repealing the penalty of the law, that the very Gospel is founded in Christ's undertaking to bear the penalty of it, Heb. 9 15, 16. There could have been no Testament, but in and through the death of the Testator. There could have been no such thing as a Gospel, or tender of glad tidings and mercy to us, but through Christ's undertaking as our surety to bear the curse of the law, Gal. 3. 13. And so much for the first argument from the truth of God's threatening.  
2. It was not possible for God upon the Plea of mere mercy, without any consideration or satisfaction, to forgive sin and release the sinner, because the justice, holiness, and righteousness of his nature would not allow it. The necessity of a satisfaction is 
Mirum quantum pe●ile●tissime Socino gratificentur, qui aliter sentiuns, Amyr. Thes. Salm de neces. satisf. See this Text vindicated in the Appendix.  not only founded in the wisdom and sovereignty of God; God thought it convenient, and would have it so: but it is founded in t●e holiness, justice, and righteousness of God: His nature would not otherwise admit him to forgive sin and save sinners, Heb. 2. 10. It became God, this refers to God's nature, not his mere will. This will the better appear,  
1. If we consider the nature of sin, which in itself, abstracting from any constitution of God about it, deserves to be punished. I do not speak universally of all sins, for there are somethings indifferent, and become evil only by virtue of the Divine prohibition; but there are other things naturally evil without any enacting will of God about them, As to love, fear, and reverence God, are duties founded in our very natures, to which we had stood obliged though there had never been any positive precept of God enjoining 
Dic ergo cur adulterium male steri putes, an quia id facere, lex vetat? non sane ideo malum est quia vetatur lege, sed ideo vetatur lege, quia malum, August. li. 1. de libero Arbit.  them. So to deny or hate God are essentially evil, previously to any prohibition of God about them; otherwise they might have been duties supposing God had commanded them, which he might have done, if they were in themselves things indifferent, and became evil only from his free prohibition; but that these could have heen duties, I think no man dare say, that knows whereof he affirms. As there is an eternal comeliness, that a reasonable creature should love and honour God; so there is an everlasting indecency and horridness, that a rational soul should hate or contemn him. That these things are good and evil, doth not depend so much on God's will, as his nature, and for God to will that the one should be bad, and the other good, were for him to change his holy and unchangeable nature, which is impossible; he cannot do it, not through any defect, but through infiniteness of perfection, see 2 Tim. 2. 13. Tit. 1. 2. It being then obtained that there were somethings evil, antecedently to any determination of God's will about them, 
Si non reddit faciendo quod debet, reddet patiendo quod debet, August. Nemo malus felix, Juven.  it naturally follows, that there belonged a dueness of punishment to those things, there being an indispensable connexion betwixt moral evil and physical. He that does ill, deserves to suffer ill: Neither divine wisdom nor righteousness can allow, that sin and impunity should for ever dwell together. It is the highest point of reason, that he who provokes God, should forfeit his favour, and feel his anger; and if so, then without a satisfaction it cannot be otherwise, for the justice of God requires that every thing should have its due, though it be under the Freedom of God's will, whether he will punish sin in the person of the sinner, or the surety; yet it is not under the freedom of his will, whether he will punish sin or not. Though the putting forth of justice in these or in other effects, be under the liberty of the Divine will, yet the punishing of sin in a way of vindictive justice is not; but it results necessarily from the nature of sin, to which punishment is indispensably due.  
2. It further appears; if we consider the nature of God, and the account Scripture gives us of it, with reference to sin and sinners. He is every where represented as hating them, Psal. 5. 4, 6, 7. Thou hast no pleasure in wickedness, thou hatest the workers of iniquity, Jer. 44. 4. Do not the abominable thing, which I hate. Psal. 11. 5. The wicked, and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. See Deut. 12. 31. Mal. 2. 16. Zech. 11. 8. Levit. 16. 30. Levit. 20. 23. etc. and why doth God abhort and loath sin and sinners? is it only from the determination of his will he hath decreed and determined so? No, not only so, but from the purity and justice of his nature, because without ceasing to be a holy and righteous God, he cannot do otherwise. Hab. 1 13. Thou art of pur●r eyes, than to behold iniquity, and canst not look on evil. Josh. 24. 19 Ye cannot serve the Lord, for he is an holy God, he is a jealous God, he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins. The principle in God, by virtue of which he punisheth sin, is not so much any free act of his will, as the justice and purity of his nature. See 2 Thes. 1. 6. It is a righteous thing with God, to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you, Rom. 2. 5. Rev. 16. 5, 7. Rev. 19 11. Justice in God is a property of his nature, 
See Heb. 10 30, 31. Nahum. 1 3. Deut 4. 24. Num. 14. 18.  as well as his mercy and goodness are, Exod. 34. 7. Exod. 20, 5. It is a contradiction to suppose a God, and not suppose him just▪ there is no possibility of framing a notion of God, without including justice in it. And if it were not thus, it is not imaginable, how the heathens should come to have an engraft notion of God's punishing sin; for what depends merely upon the will of God, is no other ways to be known but by revelation: but that the Gentiles without revelation are under a knowledge that God will punish sin, ●he Apostle informs us, Rom. 1. ●2. Knowing the judgements of God, ●hat they which commit such things ●re worthy of death. It was from ●ence that their accusations of conscience arose, Rom. 2. 15. From ●ence also sprung their several endeavours and attempts to appease God by lustrations, hecatombs, sacrifices, etc. From all which i● clearly follows that vindictive justice is an essential property o● God. If justice be to give ever● thing its due, we must needs ascribe it to God, unless we will suppos● him to act contrary to the principles and measures of all equity. If in man, it be a virtue and perfection becoming a rational nature, we must either give it to God, or suppose him to be an unreasonable Being.  
3. This may be further strengthened, if we consider God actin● towards us as Supreme Governor Ruler, and Judge. God having created Man a rational creature behoved to give him a law. It i● a contradiction for a man to be ● man, and not obliedged to love fear, and obey God. These things man became obliedged to, without any other constitution of God will about him, save only his making him a man, though God might ●ave chosen, whether he would ●ave made such a creature as man ●r not, yet on supposition that he ●akes such a creature; it necessarily results from his very nature, ●hat he should reverence, love, ●nd serve God. Now this being ●nce established, that man be●oved to be under a law, it as necessarily follows, that God as the ●oly and just Governor of the ●orld, should make punishment ●ue to him, in case he broke that ●w. Duty being once consti●ted, though there had been no ●enalty annexed to the law, yet ●e dueness of punishment ariseth ●om the nature of sin. Reatus ●lpae, & reatus poenae, howso●er they may be separable in some ●ses in humane laws, they are not ● in divine. In brief, if there ●ere not penalties annexed to owes, they would be contemptible ●ings, and Government would be ●t an empty notion. Now the dueness of punishment bei● granted in case of sin: It follows by a like necessity, that in case punishment become actually due▪ God as righteous Judge and Governor should execute it. Ge● 18. 25. Shall not the Judge of ● 
Injusti judic● est be neagentem non r●m uncrar●▪ & negligent●m non corripere, Sene.  the earth do right. Execution is ● needful a part of God's governing his creatures, as Legislation; an● if this were wanting all laws we● ridiculous things: the forbearing to execute punishment, would b● nothing less than to invite and encourage sin. To conclude, the● is no presumption engrafted mo● into the hearts of men than this,  
— Prima est haec ●ltio, quod s●  
Judice, nemo nocens absolvitur.  
And thus I have overthrown th● first plea of a guilty sinner; namely, that of mercy for the s●ke ● mercy; and shown that it is n● only a contradiction that ● should be justified upon that plea, but likewise that it was not possible, that upon that plea we should have been so much as pardoned.  
Object. 1 Object. 1. But it is objected, that there could be no need of a satisfaction, unless we will deny that to God, which we daily allow to men: we admit them to forgive injuries without any satisfaction, and shall we not allow God to do the like? we grant that men may remit of their right, and shall we say that God cannot remit of his? To this I offer these several things by way of Answer.  
Answ. 1 1. If by our remitting injuries be meant the retaining or receiving the offending party into our intimate favour and friendship; than it may be questioned, whether we be bound to forgive injuries otherwise than upon the terms recorded by Luke 17. 4, ●●● thy 
Vid. Grot. in Luc. ●. 4.  Brother trespass against ●●ee, 〈◊〉 return, saying, I repen●● thou shalt forgive him. Though, as we have said before, confession of a fault, and deprecation of wrath be no satisfaction to the law, nor compensation for a crime; yet in cases of private injuries betwixt Brother and Brother it is a kind of a satisfaction, and as much benefit and honour may arise to the injured party from it, as he sustained damage by the offence: But if by remitting injuries be meant only the not pursuing revenge against the offendor, I grant that in some cases this both may and aught to be, notwithstanding he should prove obstinate in his offence: But now that which is intended by God's forgiving us, is not only his superseding to execute wrath upon us, but also the taking us into friendship and favour with himself again, and the wrong being done to the law, and God being in this whole affair to be considered as judge, there is no arguing therefore from the one case to the other.  
Answ. 2 (2.) There are cases wherein not so much as in the last sense aught private persons to forgive injuries without a satisfaction. If one murder another's Son, it is not in the Father's power to remit it, but he is bound to prosecute the revenge of it upon the offendor: Though a private person may remit in cases which refer only to his own utility and profit, yet he ought not to do the like in cases where honesty, and the maintaining of good manners is concerned.  
Answ. 3 (3.) Whatever may be allowed to a private person in reference to an injury done to himself, yet a public person or Magistrate ought not to forgive an injury done to the law, though a Judge may remit a pecuniary debt due to himself, yet he cannot remit a criminal offence committed against the State. Supposing that the Papists should be convicted of having burnt London, though the Judges in that case might forgive the crime so far as their own houses were concerned (which I also question) yet they are bound to punish it, as it is a wrong to mankind, to all communities, the whole Nation, and the Protestant Religion: Now God in this Transaction is not to be considered as an absolute Lord, or as a mere Creditor, but as Supreme Rector and Governor. It is true, he that is Rector, is both absolute Lord and also Creditor, yet we are in this affair to consider him only as Rector; and therefore, though it were possible for him to pardon sin as he is, Pars laesa, The party wronged (though to pardon or to punish, appertain to none under that relation) yet he is obliged to punish it, as he is the holy and righteous ruler of mankind, otherwise he should be unjust in his rectorship, the end of the law would be subverted, and he should not act as becomes a just Governor: For delicta puniri publicè interest. And as Lactantius says very well, Non est enim fas, cum, cum talia fieri videat, non moveri, & insurgere ad ultionem sceleratorum, & pestiferos, nocentesque delere, ut bonis omnibus consulat. Now that God in this transaction is to be considered only as Rector, appears,  
(1.) Because, to absolve and condemn are acts no wise peculiar to any but a Governor: None may administer these acts, under the relation of being either an absolute Lord, or an offended and provoked party, but only under the relation of being vested with Government. ●urgimus ad vindictam, non quia laesi sumus; sed ut disciplina servetur, mores corrigantur, licentia comprimatur; haec est ira justa, quae sicut in homine necessaria est, sic utiqu●in deo, à qu● ad hominem pervent exemplum, Lact.  
(2.) Because for one to exact his debt or to remit it, to use his right or release it, are no wise acts of justice: We do not call it justice, for a man to claim or remit that which is owing to him; or for a person to pursue or release his right, where he hath an absolute power: But now the Scripture styles it an act of justice in God, both to inflict punishment upon sinners, and also to justify belivers: for the first see 2 Thes. 1. 6. Heb. 2. 2. Rev. 16. 5, 6, 7. and 19 2. The inflicting punishment upon sinners, is that which the justice of God requireth, hence called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The judgement of God, Rom. 1. 32. and therefore not only the punishment inflicted is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Vengeance, Judas. 7. but the principle and property in God, that constitutes and ●nflicts it, is also so styled, Act. 28. 4. For the last see, Rom. 3. 25, 26.  
(3.) Because, for a person to re●mit his right where he hath absolute power, or to forgive a debt where he is sole creditor, are in no ●ases, contrary to the lines of justice, and no person becomes un●ust for doing so; but in some ●ases to remit sin, for example, where it is not so much as repent of, according to our very adversary's, is inconsistent with ju●ice, and by consequence God ● the punishing or pardoning of ●n, doth not act as Creditor or ●ord, but as Judge and Governor.  
(4.) Because the end of a Lord ●s pursuing his right, and a Creator his exacting of his debt, is ●eir own benefit and interest; ●t the end of inflicting punishment, is the interest of government, and the benefit of the world; s● that these two differing in thei● ends, and the ground of God hi● inflicting punishment being th● last, it necessarily follows, that h● is to be looked upon in this whol● transaction: as a Governor, no● as a mere Creditor, or as an absolute Lord.  
Answ. 4 (4.) It is a strange kind of Arguing, that because one man m●remit an offence committed against him, (may be by his equal, at leas● by his fellow creature) that therefore God ought to do the like b● us, who being the workman sh● of his own hands, have yet rebelled against him. What kind ● reasoning would it be? that b●cause we are not upon every injury to pursue the ruin of one an●ther, that therefore God without the impeachment of his mercy a● goodness may not inflict vengeant upon sinners: or because we m● be bound in case a man ha● ●ronged us, and doth not so ●uch as repent of it, but perse●re in it, yet nevertheless to for●ve him; shall we therefore iner that God should forgive a man ●s sins, as well in case he persevere ● them and repent not, as in case ●e reform and repent?  
Answ. 5 (5.) Is there no difference betwixt God his abating in his ●ght, and his total parting with ●? is it not something that he ●ill allow a surety, but that he ●ust altogether release the debt? ●nnot God be gracious without ●easing to be just? God might ●ave most justly damned us, he ●as under no necessity of extend●g mercy to us, any more than ●o fallen Angels; and he hath remitted of the rigour of his ju●ice in that he hath contrived ●nd allowed the intervention of ● Mediator.  
Answ 6 (6.) This Objection confounds God's power, with his justice; whereas the question ● not what God in way of unlimited power can do, but what ● agreeableness to the righteousness of his nature is fit for him ● do. It is not through want of po●er, that he cannot pardon s● without a satisfaction, but b●cause he is infinitely holy an● just as well as powerful, and ● thereby obliged to do nothing unbeseeming the purity an● righteousness of his nature.  
Answ. 7 (7) We are not only to consider what God might have don● without the impeachment of hi● justice, but also that we ascribe nothing to him mis-becoming hi● wisdom. That God should enact a law, and in the most solemn way annex punishment to the violation of it, and yet being broken, should without any more ad● forgive the offendor, seems ● plain imprudence in Government, and altogether unworthy the wisdom of God.  
Object. 2 2. But it is again Objected, that sin every where said to be forgiven, ●ardone, remitted, and the for●veness of it attributed to mercy ●d grace, and consequently that ●ere can be no satisfaction made ●r it, there being nothing more ●ntrary to forgiveness, than com●nsation, nor more opposite to grace ●an what is paid for. Thus the pamphleter, p. 6, 7, 8, 9 out of his ●asters, Socinus, Crellius, & c. ●o which I offer these things by ●ay of return.  
Answ 1 (1.) It is a most ignorant mis●ke, that satisfaction made by ●hrist, and forgiveness made to ●s, are opposite and inconsistent; ●hereas Scripture every where ●olds forth the agreement betwixt these two, Rom. 3. 24, 25. ●eing justified freely by his grace, ●rough the redemption that is in ●esus Christ, etc. Where though ●rgiveness be held forth as free ●d of grace, yet it is also declared to be through Christ, as a pro●pitiation, and by virtue of th● redemption, which by his bloo● he had purchased and wrought See also Eph. 1. 7. Col. 1. 14. ● is said to be free and of grace i● reference to us, to exclude the m●rit of our works; not in respect ● Christ, to exclude his satisfaction. Herein God hath displays the depths of his wisdom, th● pardon is both of grace and ● merit, that it is at once an acts mercy, and an act of righteousness.  
Answ. 2 (2.) It hath been already sho● wherein the grace and freeness remission consists, and that it ● wise stands, either in the want ● a satisfaction or in any deficient in the satisfaction that was mad● Let the adversary, if he plea● attempt to overthrow what ha● been spoken to that purpose, ● shall find us ready upon all oc●● 〈…〉 vindicate it.  
Answ. 3 (3.) The clearing of this shall be further essayed in the Appendix.  
2. The second and only plea then of a charged sinner is to plead for justification, upon the account of a satisfaction made to the party offended for the offence, and this satisfaction must be pleaded, either as made by ourselves, or made by another in our stead.  
1. It cannot be pleaded, that we have made any satisfaction ourselves: There are but three ways can with any seemingness be insisted on to this purpose, and it is altogether impossible it should be made any of these ways.  
1. Some may be ready to imagine, that satisfaction might be made by sacrifices and costly offerings, and that by them God's wrath might be appeased, and the guilt of sin expiated. Sacrifices were of God's own appointment, and after the fall the first piece of instituted worship, Gen. 4. 3, 4. Rom. 14. 23. Heb. 11. 4. By faith Abel offered; which implies the warrant of a command: and if this were not necessary, there would be no such thing as will▪ worship in the world, and faith would differ nothing from a blind venturous boldness. Now sacrifices may be considered tw● ways.  
First, As an Appendix of th● Covenant of works, and as they were intended to testify guilt● and in that sense the Apostle is t● be understood, Col. 2. 14. Th● hand writing of Ordinances whic● was against us, which was contrary to us. Ephes. 2. 15. Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, eve● the law of commandments contained in Ordinances.  
Secondly, They are considerable as subservient to the Covenant of grace. As they were our Schoolmaster to lead to Christ, Gal. 3. 24. As they were shadows and he the body, Col. 2. 17. And as they were types of the great sacrifice which he was to offer, Heb. 9 9 God having made man a promise of recovery ●nd redemption, through the ●eed of the woman, Gen. 3. 15. ●nd it being necessary that this ●hould be accomplished in the way of death and blood, Heb. 9 ●5, 22. God therefore appointed sacrifices, to typify and prefigure the great sacrifice of the messiah; and in this sense among others may Rev. 13. 8. be underwood, (if that be the right read●g of the place) The Lomb slain ●om the foundation of the world; ●ot only in the virtue and the effi●cy of his death, but also with ●spect to the sacrifices, which ●efigured his death. Now the ●nerality of mankind soon sunk into an ignorance of the right end of sacrifices, and instead of considering them ●s Divine appointments, to represent the sacrifice of the Son of God, and to strengthen their faith in that: they begin to rely upon them alone, fo● expiation of guilt and right to life But that no satisfaction can b● made by sacrifices, appears.  
(1.) In that Scripture expresl● 
Sacrificia considerantur, vel qua●enus typi crant futurae satis facticnis Messia, vel quatenus illis vis expiandi per se adscribebatur; priori modo Deu● illa voluit, posteriori carejecit, Walth.  rejects all sacrifices, when truste● to for that end and purpose, Psalm 40. 6. Sacrifice and offering th● didst not desire, mine ears hast th● opened; burnt-offering and sin-offering hast thou not required, i. e. h● did not desire them as means b● which sin could be expiated. S● Psal. 50. 8. to 12. Micah 6. 6, 7 Heb. 9 9 and 10. 1, 2, 3, 4. Go● in Scripture expresseth his disli● of sacrifices upon three occasions (1.) Because of the profaneness ● the Offerers, Isa. 1. 11 12. etc. ● 18. Isa. 66. 5. Jer. 6. 20. (2● 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 blood 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 proportion nor relation either, betwixt the sinner and the sacrificed beast, that the blood and death of the one, should pass for a satisfaction ●or the sin and offence of the other. There should be a conjunction in Nature, betwixt him that commits ●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 cu● victima prote,  
Stultitia est morte alterius sperar● salutem.  
So that upon the whole it is clear we cannot plead a satisfaction b● 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 duty, 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, etc. Rom. 8 3. what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, etc. The law, had we kept it, by continuing in the s●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 disclaimed 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 s●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 myself, yet am I not hereby justified, Phil. 3 8, 9  
(3▪) Were it possible that we coul● give God a perfect and universal obedience (which we never can) yet it were no more than a debt which we own 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 own him the farthest improvement of all, without rendering 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 own 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 satisfy for his former disloyalty.  
(4.) All the obedience we are ●er able to yield to God, it is ●rough the alone strength and in●uence of his grace, Joh. 15. 5. Cor. 3. 5. And therefore instead ● being a satisfaction to his ju●ce, we are made fresh debtors to ●s mercy.  
(5.) One sin dishonours God ●ore than an eternity of obedience ●n recompense; all our service ●ings no accession to God to me● any thing at his hand. Job 22. 3. Can a man be profitable to ●d? is it pleasure to the Almighty ●at thou art righteous? or is it ●in to him, that thou makest thy ●ys perfect? Job 35. 7. If thou ● righteous what givest thou unto ●m? or what receiveth he at thine ●nd? see also Psal. 16. 2, 3. Luc. ●. 10. Rom. 11. 35. Acts 17. 25. ●t the least sin is a derogation ●m his honour, and lays us under ● obnoxiousness to eternal wrath.  
(6.) Justification upon the ple● of obedience is that which the Apostle through the Epistles to th● Romans and Galatians so largely disputes against, and therefore w● must either make nonsense of a● his arguments, or we must els● confess that there is no being justified upon this plea.  
3. It remains, that if we ma● satisfaction by ourselves, it mu● be alone done by sufferings. Th● Papists, though they agree with ● about the truth of Christ's satisfaction, yet they greatly deroga● from it in the establishing the necessity of humane satisfaction● It is true, their doctrine is a litt● intricate in this affair, they are n● accorded among themselves, either as to the extent or the condignity of such satisfactions, yet they a● meet in this, that Christ hath n● so satisfied as to remove the who● punishment, but that there is so● of the legal penalty still to be undergod by ourselves, which is ●artly born in punishments in this ●fe, and partly in purgatory tor●ents in the future. This they ●alliate by distinguishing betwixt amoving of the fault, and removing of the punishment: The ●ult is the offence committed ●gainst God, which is done away ● remission; the punishment is ●e penalty, which after the fault ● removed, remains, say they, ●ll to be suffered; and by the ●aring of which, either in our own ●rsons, or one for another, we ●ake God formal satisfaction.  
But (1.) we have already prov●, that the bearing of the penal●, doth constitute no man who is ●ce unjust, just again. The first ●ention of the law is obedience, ●d nothing doth satisfy the primary design of the law but that. ●grant that in humane laws in ●me cases it may be otherwise, emely where the law is purely penal, the intention of the la● giver being neither precisely ● command nor forbid any things but on a penalty to allow th● which otherwise he prohibite● As for example, that if a people be chosen Sheriff of Lon●on, ● shall either hold, or pay such fine: The paying the fine do● here satisfy the law, forasmuch ● the law did not precisely enjoys the party to hold, but only boun● him to the payment of such ● sum in case he would not. Bu● in Divine Laws the case is different, the end of all God's Law● being obedience, and the penalty being annexed only for other ends  
(2.) The distinction upon whic● the Papists here proceed, implie● one of the absurdest things imaginable; namely, that the fault should be remitted, and not the punishment; that the debt should be forgiven▪ and yet payment exacted; seeing the forgiving the debt, is nothing else but the dissolving the offender's obligation to punishment. See Mat. 18. 17.  
(3.) Sin being of an infinite demerit, requires an infinite penal●y, ●ow a penalty can be infinite only ●ne of three ways.  
(1.) Through the infinite worth of the person sustaining the punishment, and in this sense I suppose none will say that man is of ●uch value and dignity, as that any suffering he undegoes should be accounted infinite.  
(2.) A penalty may be infinite from the infinite weight of what is inflicted and sustained, and in this sense no man can undergo an infinite punishment▪ forasmuch as no finite creature can bear any weight but what is finite.  
(3.) A punishment may be infinite as to length and duration, but for to think that a person can satisfy by bearing a punishment which is infinite as to continuance, involves,  
(1.) A plain contradiction, being for ever to suffer, and nev● to satisfy; for ever to be damne● and never acquitted.  
(2.) Such kind of suffering do● not satisfy the primary intention of the law, seeing law and justi● in their first intention, require th● the punishment be commensura● to the crime in the weight of i● rather than in the length. S● that upon the whole we cannot b● justified upon the plea of having made a satisfaction ourselves.  
If we plead justification then▪ upon the account of a satisfaction▪ it must be alone, because of a satisfaction made by another: an● this leads me to the next point, th● ground and matter of our justification, viz. the satisfaction o● Christ.   

CHAP. IU.  
Other supreme ends of the death of Christ disclaimed. That he did not die primarily to seal and confirm the covenant, nor to give us an example of suffering with patience.  
2. THE second and only Plea of a guilty sinner is, that Christ hath made satisfaction. To this end he was incarnate, and for this end he died. That there were other subordinate ends of his Incarnation, Obedience, and Passion is not denied; but that any thing else was either the supreme, or the only end, must not be granted. That which is first pleaded by th● Socinians, is that all which Christ underwent was to ratify and confirm his Doctrine; having preached the freeness of remission to such as should repent. And men finding a witness in themselves of their liableness to wrath and death, being ready to suspect every proposal o● grace and favour; therefore Chris● by his death (say they) made fait● of, and gave assurance of what h● had taught. Now that what w● have to offer in opposition to this, may be the better secured against all exceptions, we premise these three things to be first taken notice of.  
1. That Christ answerable t● the threefold necessity that w● were in, stood in a threefold office▪ As we were ignorant of God, h● was our Prophet, Joh. 6. 14. Act▪ 3. 22, 23. As we were under th● guilt of sin, he was our Priest, Heb▪ 2. 17. Heb. 7. 26, 27. As we● were in bondage to sin and Satan▪ he was constituted our Captain and King, Isa. 55. 4. Heb. 2. 10. Dan. 9 25. Now as he is ou● Prophet, he not only reveals and makes known the Father to us, Joh. 1. 18. but hath also by his death sealed and confirmed his doctrine Joh. 18. 37. As he is our ●riest he hath by his death expiated sin, Heb. 9 15. 1 Joh. 2. ●. purchased remission to us, Mat. 26. 28. Eph. 1. 7. and ●ought grace for us, Phil. 1. 29. ● Pet. 2. 1. And as he is our ●ing, he hath by his death conquered our enemies, Col. 2. 15. Heb. ●. 14. and left us an example of offering and patience. 1 Pet. 2. 21. ●ow one or more of these ends ●e not exclusive of the other, because some of these were the ends ● his death, we must not say that ●hers are not. But the Socinians ● they confound the Priesthood of ●hrist, either with his Kingship ● with his Prophetical Office; so ●ey confine the ends of his death, ● what merely was done as he ●od in these relations: but as ●e shall (God willing) hereafter ●monstrate him to be properly Priest, as well as a King, or tophet: So for the present we distinguish what were the ends of his death as Priest, from those which were the ends of it, as he was King and Prophet.  
2. We would have it observed, that there were some more primary and principal ends of Christ's death, and others that were less princip● and only secondary. The more primary and principal end of his death, was that he might give himself a ransom for sinners, 1 Tim. 2. 6. be a propitiation for our offences, 1 Joh. 2. 2. and become a sacrifice for sin, Heb. 9 26. and 10. 12. The secondary and less principal were, that he might ratify the truth of his doctrine, and leave us an example of patience in suffering: Now the adversaries insist only upon the subordinate and secondary ends of his death, and altogether shut out the more principal and chief.  
3. We would distinguish betwixt the proper end of his death, and those things which are the fruits and consequences of it, through his having obtained that end. The proper end of the death of Christ, was the satisfying of God's justice, and the vindicating his Law and Government, Rom. 3. 25. and 4. 25. but the fruits and consequences of it through his having compassed that end, are our deliverance from the curse and condemnation of the law, Gal. 3. 13. Rom. 8. 34. The remission of our sins, Col. 1. 14. justification at the Bar of God, Rom. 5. 9 and a right and title to life, 1 Pet. 3. 18. Rom. 5. 18. Having now premised these things, we come to prove that the confirmation of the doctrine of the Gospel, could not be the only not yet the principal end of the death of Christ.  
1. Because the truth of his doctrine was otherwise sufficiently established; for being demonstrated to be from God, there needed no▪ further evidence of the truth of it; and that it was from God was abundantly proved,  
(1.) By those motives of credibility, and inbred evidence which it carried in it; if we consider the Purity, Majesty, Plainness, Fullness, Method and Manner in which delivered, it is not possible, but that without further means of conviction, we may be ascertained that God is the Author of it.  
(2.) God himself by the Testimony and Attestation of Miracles gave irrefragable evidence that it was true, and from himself, Heb. 2. 4.— God bearing witness, with signs, and wonders, and divers miracles, etc. Act. 2. 22. Jesus a man approved of God amongst you, by miracles, wonders, and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, etc. and it was to these that Christ so often appealed for the truth of his doctrine, Joh. 5. 36. I have a greater witness than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me; Joh. 10. 25. The works that I do in my Father's Name, they bear witness of me. So Joh 15. 24. and alibi. And it was upon the conviction and evidence of these, that the world received his doctrine, Joh. 2. 23. Many believed in his Name, when they saw the miracles which he did. Joh. 3. 2. We know that ●hou art a Teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles ●hat thou dost, except God be with ●im, Joh. 7. 31. And many of the people believed on him, and said, ●hen Christ cometh, will he do more miracles, than these which this man ●ath done. So that there was no necessity for Christ to have died in ●eference to this end, his doctrine ●eing by other mediums sufficiently confirmed, had there never been any such thing as the death of Christ, yet there wanted not sufficient grounds by which a Divine Revelation might be known. Those that lived before the incarnation of Christ, were not without sufficient evidence of the truth and divinity of the doctrine of Moses and the Prophets, yet they had not this argument to establish and confirm them in the belief of it.  
(3.) The needlesseness of Christ's dying in relation to the ascertaining the truth of his doctrine appears hence, in that the highest argument and motive the Holy Ghost instanceth in, in reference to the confirming any declaration o● God is God's Oath, Heb. 6. 17, 18. So that if this had been the supreme end of the death of Christ I do not see how it was any wise necessary that Christ should hav● died, there having been other way● and means every way sufficient fo● the attaining of that end; yea, cannot understand how it is consistent with the wisdom, good●ess, and righteousness of God, ●o have put an innocent person, ●nd one so dear to him as his own Son to death, when he might ●ave spared him, and yet arrived ●t all he propounded by his sufferings.  
2. If the confirming the truth of the Scripture, had been the supreme end of all the sufferings of Christ, and if it be upon that accounted that he is so often said to ●ave died for us; this is no more ●han what men are capable of do●ng, yea, than what the Martyr's ●ave actually done, for they by sufferings, blood, and death have ●ealed and confirmed the truth of the Gospel, and yet they are never said to have died for us, or to have reconciled us to God by their blood; yea instead of this it is expressly denied, that they ever did, or could die for us in that sense, and to that purpose tha● Christ did, 1 Cor. 1. 13. Act. 4. 12. and by consequence there behoved to be other and greate● causes of the death and sufferings of Christ, than the sealing o● confirming the truth of his doctrine.  
3. It may from hence be further demonstrated, that it was no● the supreme end of Christ's dying, only to encourage us to believe the certainty of God's promise, in reference to the free remission of sin, because the Scripture every where assigns other ends, namely, that he might bea● our sins, Rom. 4. 25. destroy th●e mity betwixt God and us, Eph. 2. 16. save us from perishing, an● give us a right to life, Joh. 3. 16. So that the first Plea of the Sociniars remains confuted and overthrown.  
2. The second end instanced in, and pleaded for as the impulsive cause of the sufferings and death of Christ is, that he might give us an example of suffering with patience. It is not denied, but that the death of Christ is of singular import to these purposes, 1 Pet. 2. 21. and 4. 1. Heb. 12. 2, 3. but yet these were not the principal ends of his sufferings and death, neither were they indispensably needful upon that score.  
(1.) Because the Old Testament Saints were patiently carried through suffering, who (though they lived in the faith of the death of Christ) yet had not the lively example of the quality of his sufferings, nor of his patience under them.  
(2.) Because upon these terms Christ should not be properly our Saviour, but the act of saving us should be our own: Christ should only chalk us the way to salvation, whereas we should go in it, and consequently the act of saving us should be altogether ours.  
(3.) Because God by the strength and influence of hi● grace could have carried us through suffering with patience, without setting us the pattern an● example of his Son; and this he actually doth in that which is every way as difficult; for example, the mortifying of indwelling corruption; wherein the adversary dare not say, that Christ was capable of being our pattern. These being disclaimed then from being the supreme ends of Christ his suffering, it follows that we demonstrate the true and principal end of his dying to have been that he might make satisfaction to God for us.   

CHAP. V.  
The satisfaction of Christ established from Christ's bearing our sins. No impeachment of God's justice, that though innocent, he should suffer the punishment of the nocent. That he hath undergone what we should have undergone.  
WE being in debt to God, Christ undertook to be our Surety, Heb. 7. 22. I do not deny but that he is also God's Surety to us, for the making good of all the promises, which are therefore said to be in him, yea and Amen, 2 Cor. 1. 20 and he is 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sponsor propriè est qui pro alio spondet, vel ut debitum solvat, Prov. 22. 26. vel ut paenam let, Gen▪ 44 32, 33. Turret.  in reference to this called God's Witness, Isa. 55. 3, 4. But withal he is our Surety to God for the discharging of our debt: And that that is the intendment of the Apostle in the forequoted place appears from the context, in that he is there treating of the Priesthood of Christ; and particularly treating of it in reference t● those things which were to b● done with God for m●n. It i● true there were two parts of th● Priests office; one was to declar● God's statutes and ordinances t● the people, and to oversee hi● worship, according to his ow● institution and appointment: an● in this sense Christ is called, Th● High Priest of our profession, an● said to be faithful in God's house, Heb. 3. 1, 2. which is also the import of Zech. 6. 13. He shall buil● the Temple of the Lord, and he shall bear the glory, and shall sit and rule upon his Throne, and he shall be a Priest upon his Throne. The other part was to offer sacrifice for men to God, and to reconcile God to the people, and this was the principal part of the Priest's office, Heb. 5. 1. the other being only secondary, and consequent to this. And in this sense the Apostle in the foregoing place understands Christ's Priesthood, ●nd in reference to this notion of ●, styles him surety, forasmuch as ●t had our debt charged upon ●im, and suffered the penalty ●hich we should have born, Ere ●e attempt the proof of this, we ●esire first to establish these two ●hings.  
1. It is not against justice in ●od to cast pains upon an innocent ●erson. This the adversary dare ●ot deny, forasmuch as it was ●one in reference to Christ. I do ●ot now dispute, whether those ●ains were satisfactory; all a●●resent I intent is, that God without injustice may inflict pains ●pon an innocent, as it is manifest he did upon Christ. Though ●mongst men it be against all principles of justice, to take away ●he life of a guiltless person, seeing we have no natural and absolve dominion over one another, ●either is there any such power allowed us by the supreme Sovereign; yet God having an absolute dominion over the lives, bodies, and fortunes of men; he ha● a right to act, what none els● without the grossest injustice ca●  
2. It is not in every case unj● for one to be made undergo the punishment of another's sin. The I●fants of Sodom, were involved in the punishment of those crim● of which themselves were n●guilty, Gen. 19 I'm committed the sin, and the slavery w● entailed upon Canaan, Gen. 9 2● 25. The lie was singly Gehezi● but yet the Leprosy clavae not t● him alone, but also to his posterity, 2 Kings 5. 27. Scripture furnisheth us with an infinite number of instances, where Go● makes use of the Sons misery, t● punish the Father's offence. S● 2 Sam 21. 8, 14. and 24. 15, 1● Josh. 7. 24. 1 Kings 14. 10. Ja● 22. 30. God threatens to visit t● ●niquity of the fathers upon the Children, unto the third and forth generation, Exod. 20. 5. Neither is this any more, than what in one instance or other hath ●een, and is still practised among ●en in all Nations. If a person ●e convicted of Treason, his inheritance escheats to the Crown, ●nd all right of claim ceaseth from his posterity. In pecuniary ●atters it cannot be denied, but ●hat punishment may redound to ●he Surety: And in criminal cases, ●autionaries have been often punished for others whom they have ●e presented.  
Now to render such a transaction just, that one be made to ●uffer for another's fault, there are ●ut these things necessary.  
1. That the innocent person ●ave a dominion over that which ●e parts with; hence a person ●aving a dominion over his estate may alienate it to pay another's debt, and had we as absolute pow● over our lives as over our money▪ we might likewise dispose ● them for the preservation of th● lives of others. And among th● Heathens, who apprehended tha● they had the same right over th● one as over the other, there wan● not instances of that nature; neither were those commutations among them ever blamed of injustice. The example of Dam● and Pythias is obvious. That which alone renders such transactions unjust is, that we have not a domini● on over our lives, and so cannot alienate and part with them: But now Christ had a plenary domini● on over his own life, and so coul● freely dispose of it for the lives o● others, John 10. 18. I lay down my life of myself, I have power to lay it down.  
2. That there be a willingness in the parties concerned, in the Judge and Ruler, to allow and accept such a commutation in the ●bses and Surety to condescend to, ●nd engage in such an undertaking: There is no wrong done, ●●en all parties are willing. Now ●oth parties are here agreed; the Father in calling and inviting Christ to it, John 10. 18.— I lay ●own my life— this commandment have I received of my Father. The Son in readily, submitting to ●nd engaging in the work, Heb. 10. ●, 6, 7, 8, 9— lo I am ●ome, etc.  
3. That the party stipuluting be ●ble to overcome all he exposeth himself to, and that those in ●hose stead he doth it, do thereby escape what they themselves ●ood obnoxious to. If either ●e be sure to perish in the engagement, or they for whom he undertakes be likely to receive no advantage by it, than the whole undertaking is altogether inconsistent ●ith wisdom, whatever it be with righteousness. But now Jesus Christ know himself able t● discharge all he became bound for, Joh. 10. 18. I lay down my life, and I take it up again. And certain deliverance was to attend those i● whose room he became substitute● Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed u● from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us.  
4. That there be some near conjunction in him that suffers, with those that should have suffered. Justice doth not allow that a person altogether inconcerned in the offence, should be subjected to the punishments due to those with whom he hath no relation. But now there is the nearest union betwixt Christ and those in whose behalf he became engaged.  
(1.) There is an union of nature, the satisfaction is made in the same nature in which the offence was committed, Heb. 2. 14, 16. There could have been no possibility of ●aving sinners, without a satisfaction in the nature that sinned; ●nd there was no need at all of Christ's having assumed our nature, but only in order that he ●ight suffer and die in it: And ●he Apostle in forecited place, takes his assuming our nature, ●he very foundation of his fitness ●o undertake in our behalf, and the ground why the benefits of his suffering do in justice redound to us.  
(2.) Being one with us in nature, he became also one with us in ●aw: Though Physically the Sure●y and Debtor be two different ●en, yet Juridically and in conspe●tu fori, in the account of the ●aw, they are one and the same ●erson. Thus Christ being our surety, was one with us legally, and in a law sense became chargeable wi●h, and pursuable for all ●ur sins, Isa. 53. 6.— The Lord ●aid on him the iniquity of us a●●, ● Cor. 5. 21. He made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin.  
(3.) He became also one with, u● in a mystical and spiriturl sense, on● with us as head to members, Eph. 1. 22, 23. One with us a● husband to wife, Eph. 5. 31, 32. And one with us as King to Subjects. Now as a husband may b● justly sued for his wife's debt; and if the hand offend the head may be smitten. So is Christ without any unrighteousness impleadable for our sins.  
5. That the inducements moving to such a transaction be weighty and considerable: It is not f● that the criminal himself shoul● be released, nor that an innocent person should be substituted i● his room, but upon a cause that i● momentous and great. Therefore do Historians justify the Decii in devoting themselves to death in that it was for the preservation of the Commonwealth. No● there was most important reason ●ns for the transfering our guilt ●pon Christ, and exacting satis●ction at his hand.  
(1.) Because otherwise the ●hole race of mankind had been ●terly lost. In the fall of Angels ●ere was only a certain number ●at sinned, millions being preser●d in their obedience to God, and ● condition of blessed enjoying of ●m. But in the fall of man the ●hole race was involved. not so ●uch as one of the whole kind ●uld have ever come to the frui●on of God; and besides God ●ould have missed that, which was ●art of his end in the creating of ●em, viz. active glory in a way of ●anksgiving and praise. Now ●ough their was no necessity arose ●om hence upon God, but that ● might have left them in their ● and misery; yet there was a ●eat agreeableness in it to the Di●ne wisdom, that a whole species ● rational creatures should not be lost; but that as there we● some of the Angels who stood ● give God the active glory of h● perfections and works; so som● of fallen mankind should be recovered to join forever with th● in that employment.  
(2.) Because otherwise God ha● lost the opportunity of glorifying his mercy and grace. God in th● creation of the world had glorified his power, wisdom, and bounty; and in the preterition of falle● Anctels, he had glorified his holiness and vindictive justice: No● without the recovering of falle● man, his mercy and grace had no● been equally honoured and manifested with his other properties▪ And it is observable, that there i● no one attribute of God's nature▪ by which he loveth and chooseth to m●ke himself more known, ther● goodness, clemency, and mercy▪ Exod. 34. 6, 7. 2 Chron▪ 30. 9 Psal. 86. 5, 15. and 3. 4. and alibi.  
(3.) Because otherwise all religion had been necessarily extinguished in despair. It is not possible to serve God without hope ●f reward, Heb. 11. 6. Had man ●een unavoidably left obnoxious ●o wrath he would through despair have resigned himself to all ●in and villainy; being left equally hopeless with the devils, he would ●ave been as opposite to the love and obedience of God as they. Now it was very becoming the Divine wisdom, that obedience and service should not utterly perish from the earth.  
6. The last thing needful to render such a transaction just i●, that the honour of the transactors be heightened, at lest secured by the transaction. It were no ways consonant either to wisdom or righteousness, to allow the interposure of a fidejussor or substitute, if more could be had by retaining the offendor. But now by the exacting satisfaction from Christ as our Surety, the glory of the perfections of God's nature, the honour of his law and government are much more enhanced, than if God should have inflicted punishment personally upon us. First, for his Law, that is honoured both in the precept, and threatening of it; Christ having both fulfilled the command and born the curse: whereas had God confined himself to the sinner, he had forever lost the honour of the obedient of his law, and could have only honoured his threatening. 2ly. For the properties of his nature. (1.) Had he detained the offendor, he had compassed only the honour of his justice, but he had missed the glory of his grace: His justice indeed had been conspicuous, but his mercy had never come in view. He had rendered himself dreadful and terrible to his creatures, but not endeared, whereas now he hath given evidence and demonstration of it to the utmost, 1 John 4. 10. Eph. 2. 4, 5, 6, 7. (2.) For his justice, though it had been enough that it did not suffer through the the releasing the offendor, yet it is moreover exalted above whatever it could have been, had God resolved on the destruction of the sinner. (1.) Had he executed the punishment upon us, his justice had been glorified only passively, but by inflicting it upon Christ, it is glorified not only passively, but also actively. Christ loved the Majesty of God at the same tim● he satisfied his Justice, but the damned while under the effects of God▪ s justice, they hate both it and his holiness: The voluntary sufferings of Christ do infinitely more honour the justice of God, than the forced torments of the ungodly can. (2.) In that had he confined himself to the sinner, his justice should never have been satisfied. The damned are alwise paying their debt, but yet never pay it. Now Christ hath satisfied to the full. (3.) In that justice hath not only all its demands, but is obliged with a surplusage; he that was our creditor, is become our debtor; there is more honour ariseth to God from Christ's sufferings, than he suffered dishonour by our sins. 3ly. For his wisdom, how wonderfully is that displayed in the whole transaction▪ the debt paid, and yet the debtor forgiven; sin punished, and yet the sinner acquitted: God at once infinitely righteous, and withal gracious. Death submitted to, yet conquered, etc. See Eph. 1. 8. Eph. 3. 10. and as the Father is honoured through this transaction, so is the Son; hereby he gives demonstration of his love to mankind, Rev. 1. 5. is rewarded for his sufferings with a numerous seed, Isa. 53. 10, 11. And in recompense for his depression and humiliation, he hath a name given him above every name, Phil. 2. 7, 8, 9 Eph. 1. 21, 22. and to overweigh his cross and shame, he is crowned with dignity, honour, and glory, Heb. 2. 9  
Having thus far cleared our way, by demonstrating that it is not against justice for one to be made suffer for another's sin, and having opened what conditions are necessary to render such a transaction righteous, and that they all meet in the affair before us. Before we come to the proof of Christ his having suffered what we should have suffered, we desire further to premise these three things.  
1. We are to distinguish what is essential in the punishment, from what only is accidental in it, what it includes in its own nature from what ensueth through the weakness of the subject. If we consider only what is absolutely included in the threatening, we shall find no more but this, namely, that the sinner ought to undergo, both as to sense and loss as much as it is possible for a creature to bear. The law principally eyes the quality and the weight of the punishment, not so much the duration and continuance. The living and dying in Prison is no part of a man's debt, neither is that the primary intention of the law towards any, yet this comes justly to be his lot, that will not, or cannot pay his debt. That which lies then formally in the threatening is death, Rom. 6. 23. wrath, Rom. 2. 5. and the curse Gal. 3. 10. but that this is eternal, ariseth merely from the finiteness and weakness of the creature: If a sinner could at once bear that which is proportionable and equal in justice to his crime, and by so doing make satisfaction, there might in time be an end of his punishment, but this he cannot do, ●nd therefore must suffer forever according to what he is capable of bearing. Now Christ was to undergo only what was formally in the threatening, to bear the weight of it, and having by bearing of it made satlsfaction, he was no ways concerned in the eternity and duration of the punishment, justice itself discharging him, the debt being paid.  
2. We must distinguish betwixt those effects which flow naturally from suffering, and those which through the corruption of the party punished, flow only accidentally from it. If the Socinians would be pleased to take notice of this, they would ease us the trouble of that threadbare objection, viz. that in case Christ underwent the punishment of the law, he behoved to despair and blaspheme, forasmuch as these do not flow naturally from suffering, but proceed merely from the corruption and imbecility of those that suffer. A person may undergo punishment, without either murmuring at the Judge who sentenceth him, or reproaching the law by which he is condemned. The blasphemy of a damned sinner ariseth in way of causation merely from his own corruption, his pains are at most but occasional of it; and while he had mercies they issued in the like effects. For the despair of a damned person, it proceeds hence, that he knows he shall never make satisfaction, nor extricate himself from under what he feels. Now it was not possible, that either of these should fall upon Christ; not the first, seeing he was perfectly holy in his nature, without any principle of or inclination to sin: Not the second, in that he knew himself able to make God a satisfaction, and foresaw, and believed a glorious issue from all his pains.  
3. We must make a difference betwixt those sufferings which were directly in the threatening, and those that were only consequentially ●in it. Those, that the humane nature may be made obnoxious to, though it be holy and innocent; and those that follow the humane nature, as existing only in our sinful persons. Christ assumed only the common nature of man, and not the person of any man; and therefore was neither subject to passionate disorders of mind, nor painful sicknesses of body; seeing these do not appertain to the essence of the humane nature, but only attend it as it exists in our sinful persons.  
These things being premised, I come now to prove that Christ hath suffered what we should have suffered; and that the same penalty which was due to us was inflicted on him: the death and curse which the law denounced against the sinner, Christ as the Surety bore.  
The punishment which was due to us consisted of two parts, death and the curse to be inflicted upon us; and the favour of God to be suspended and withdrawn from us.  
1. That which was expressly denounced, as the penalty of sin was death and the curse, Gen. 2. 17. Deut. 27. 26. Rom 6. 23. Rom. 5. 12. Gal. 3. 10. And this, and no less; this very punishment, and not an other did Christ undergo: the same sentente of the law, which should have been executed upon us, was executed upon him. There was a change of persons, the Surety suffering for the Debtor, the just for, the unjust; but no change of punishment at all. Christ tasted death, Heb. 2 9 was put to death, Joh. 18. 31, 32. became obedient unto death, even the death of the Cross, Phil. 2. 8. bore the curse, Gal. 3. 13. Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the Law, being made a curse for us. The Apostle having asserted in the 10. verse, that every person who continues ●ot in all things, which are writ●en in the Book of the Law to do ●hem, is cursed: He here opens ●ow believers, notwithstanding ●hat commination, come to be ●eed from the curse; namely, because Christ hath born it; and for ●he proof of this, he refers them ●o Deut. 21. 23. where they were ●aught so much. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Execra●o, a Curse, the abstract for the concrete (as is usual in Scripture, 
2 C●r. 3. 9 and 5. 21 Eph. 5. 8. John 17 17. Rom. 3. 30.  ●e the Texts in the Margin) that is, ●e underwent all the wrath which ●e law denounced; particularly, ●at death to which it only affixed ● curse. By curse we may either ●nderstand the sentence of the law ●ecrating and condemning the sin●r, which is called the curse ●tively, or we may understand the execution of punishment according to that sentence which is the curse passively; for in both respects Christ was made a curse. I would have well observed here, that though hanging was reckoned always an ignominious kind of death, ye● that it alone was an accursed death, arose merely from the constitution of the Lawmaker, 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. Parallel. l. 2. And here the providence of God is very observable, that whereas suspension was not any o● the capital punishments prescribed by Moses, neither was it the custom of the Jews to punish their malefactors with that kind of death, Christ should die by a Roman 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 ●o death, and thou hang him on a Tree; aught to be read, and he be put to de●th. and thou hang him on a Tree, See Grot. and Fag. on the place.  the Gibbet, but otherwise it was no Judaic punishment; and had Christ been executed according to a Mosaic law, he could not have been Crucified. But among the Romans, it was a death to which they often used to put Traitors, Thiefs, Murderers, and Seditious persons. Authores Seditionis aut tumultus▪ pro qualitatis d●gnitate, aut in crucem tolluntur, aut bes●tis obj●c●untur, Paulus. l. 5. tit. 22. Now Christ being condemned by Pilate upon accusation of affecting the Sovereignty, 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 p●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 Se●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 Father's love (of which more anon) was the rise of that grief and horror 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 ●ave respect to Psal. 116. 3. The ●orrows of death compassed me, and ●he pains of hell got hold upon me: ● found trouble and sorrow. See also Psal. 22. 14. Mark expresseth ●t, He began to be sore amazed and ●ery heavy, Mar. 14. 33. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, ● signifies an high degree of hortour and amazement, Medici vo●ant horripilationem, when the hair ●ands up through fear, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. ●ravissimè angebatur, Bez. It implies much fear attended with restiveness and anxiety of mind: Prae ●oerore pene concidere animo. John ●presseth it, Now is my soul trouped, Joh. 12. 27. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it sig●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 disheartened. 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 innumerable 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 ●uilt, free from all solicitude in ●eference to the cares of the world, and c●●tain of a Crown of Glory, should be under such anguish and consternation; which ●lea●ly argues that it did not proceed from the consideration of mere natural death, but from the ●ense of Divine wrath, and the ●eeling of the curse. I here are too instances in Thuanus, which ●hough very strange yet do infinitely differ from this. Dux quidam indigna mortis metu adeo con●ussus animo fuit, ut sanguineum ●udorem toto corpore fudit, Hist.. ●. 11. Juvenis ob●le●em causam à S●xto 5. ad mortem damnatus, prae doloris vehementia lachrymas crucn●as fudisse, & sanguinem pro su●dore, toto corpore mittere visus est, l. 80 I might also add, That his strong cries and tears arose from the same spring, Heb. 5. 7. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It denoteth a most ardent kind of praying: A●dentior orandi ●o●ma, cum lachrymis, gemitu, aliisque gestibus conjuncta. Luke expresseth it, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, he praye● 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, encountered 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 fancy, of Christ his suffering formally only in his body, and in his soul only by way of sympathy; 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 fancy 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 threatening, nothing less could have made a satisfaction for sin. It is a note of Camero's, Dignitas personae 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 satisfactionis detrahere nil potest, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 potest; ratio est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 est satisfaction● essentialis, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 non est.  
2. The second part of the curse was separation from God, and the sense of the loss of his favour, and this also Christ underwent, being for a time under the with drawment and loss of the feeling of God's love So much was before hand prophesied concerning him, Psal. 22. 1. and himself declareth that he bore it, Mat. 27. 46. My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken m●? It is true, he was not left as to the dissolution of the personal union with the Divine Essence ●on. 14. 11. and 10. 30. Heb. 9 14. n●r as to the virtue and support of God's power and providence, Psal. 16. 8, 9 Joh. 16. 32. nor as to grace and sanctification, Col. 1. 19 It was needful that he should be always holy, otherwise he had failed in the work which he came about, but ●t was not needful that he should be always joyful; yea, considering his undertaking, it was impossible that he should be so: and therefore he was left only as to the communication of the effects of Divine love and favour, which is that which the damned ●ye under in hell. And this, with what I delivered under the former head, was the ground of his fear, agony, and bloody sweat, etc. Having proved that Christ suffered the very same which we should have suffered; it naturally follows, that he did it in way of a satisfaction, for there is no other reason imaginable, why God should thus punish a person who in himself was altogether innocent, and one so dear to him as his own Son, but that he stood charged as a Surety with our sins, to make satisfaction to Divine Justice for them.   

CHAP. VI  
The satisfaction of Christ further established, in that he suffered in our room. He underwent death as a penalty, our sins were laid on him. He was made sin, died for us, bore our iniquities.  
THE next thing which comes under consideration for the more full clearing, that Christ hath satisfied for us is this; that as he suffered the same which we should have suffered, so he suffered it all in our room and stead. It was before hand told, that the Messiah should be cut off, but not for himself, Dan. 9 26. He was to be penally cut off, not upon his own account, or for himself, but for us. This particular will be fully made out by considering these five things.  
1. In that he underwent death, which God had constituted the punishment of sin, and there being no ●use in himself why he should suf●r that penalty, It unavoidably allows, that it was because he stood ●arged with our offences. I do not ●ow dispute, whether God might ●ave made man obnoxious to ●ath in case he had never sinned, ●e only question is what he hath ●one: I will not deny, but that ●od having given us our beings ●nd lives, might without inju●ice have taken back, what he ●ad given, he might in way of dominion and sovereignty have sent ● into the world to act our parts ●or a time, and then remanded us ●to our state of not being again; ●e only question is what he hath one, and that in condecency to is wisdom, goodness, and righteousness as governor of his crea●res; and here we affirm that ●eath was appointed by God to be ●e wages of sin, and that if man ●ad not sinned, he should not have ●yed, notwithstanding the possibility of dying, which was in ma● nature, he should by the power ● God have been preserved fro● actual dying. Whatever he was obnoxious to in the constitution ● his nature, he should for ever na● been free from death in the even● And it was very consonant to Di●vine wisdom and goodness, th● perfect righteousness and puri● should have been attended wit● life and immortality, and th● God should not take away th● being which he had bestowed but upon a faileur in reference t● the end for which it was given God appointed death to be th● punishment of sin, Gen. 2. 17. I● the day that thou eatest thereof, th● shalt surely die. This being denounced only in case of sin, w● are thence fully informed, that i● man had not sinned he should no● have died. To this it were ●asi● to subjoin many other places o● Scripture, Rom. 6. 23. The wag●● of sin is death. Rom. 5. 12. Death entered into the world by sin. It came not in as a consequent of the frailty of humane nature, but as the demerit of the fall. Hence death is called an enemy, 1 Cor. 15. 26. God made not death, saith ●he Apocryphal writer. Now Jesus Christ having suffered death, which was the punishment of sin, and having had no sin of his own for which he could be punished, it results by a necessary consequence, that he suffered death as the penalty of our sins, ●nd as he stood in our room.  
Object. Object. But possibly it may be ●bjected, that this interferes with our own doctrine. For if death be the ●enalty of sin, then for as much as Christ by bearing the penalty hath delivered us from every thing that is ●enal, he should have delivered us from death too, but not having delivered us from death, we contradict ●ur selves in calling death the punishment of sin.  
Answ. I Answer, All those for who● Christ hath satisfied, are delivered by him from death, so far as it is penal: So that though it be continued, yet it is not as it is a punishment, but in order to other ends; sin and the curse being separate from it, it is no more poisonous but medicinal. Instead of a punishment, it is become a privilege. Christ having unstung it, and swallowed up the curse which was in it, 1 Cor. 15. 54, 55. it cannot hurt them, though it seize them. Instead of being an inlet to wrath, it is an entrance to glory.  
2. Christ his suffering in our room, will be made further out, if we consider that our sins were laid on him, Isa. 53, 6, 7. The Lord laid on him the iniquity of us all; he was oppressed, and he was afflicted. That it is the Messiah and none other, who is intended throughout that whole Chapter hath been abundantly justified against the Jews: and it is utterly impossible with any congruity and sense to apply it to any other. And several testimonies taken hence are in the New Testament expressly applied to Christ, ver. 1. Joh. 12, ●7, 38. ver. 4. Mat. 8. 17. ver. 7, 8. Act. 8. 28. ad 36. ver. 12. Luke 22. 37. The attempts of Grotius in accommodating the whole to Jeremiah, have been abundantly refuted by Hoornbeck, Alex. Morus, and the learned Dr. Owen, to whose writings I profess myself more beholding for a clear understanding of some things in ●he mystery of the Gospel, than to ●ny man's besides. Taking then at present for granted, that it is to be understood of the Messiah: Is it possible that we should desire, in ●eference to the affair in hand, a Text either more plain or full? He ●aid on him the iniquities of us all. The word is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hiphgiang, from the root 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pahang. Now 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth properly to meet▪ and therefore 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifi● he made to meet. They were s● made to meet on him, that h● bore them ver. 11. It were nonsense to render the words, Th● Lord made him to intercede the in●quity of us all upon him. It s● true, the word is sometimes s● translated, where the subject matter requires it, as Jer. 7. 16. bu● neither Grammar nor context wi● allow it to be so here. See ver. ● 5, 10. He hath born our grieffs, an● carried our sorrows— he wa● wounded for our transgressions, ● was bruised for our iniquities. Go● doth not remit sin only in favou● of his Son at his entreaty, as King sometimes pardon Malefactors a● the earnest request of a favourite No, Christ prayed that if ma● without his death could have bee● saved, the Cup might pass fro● him, Mat. 26. 39 but it woul● not do; they were so laid on him, that God exacted of him a satisfaction for them. He was oppressed and he was afflicted, so we render it: but it might be better rendered, It was exacted, and he answered. how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nagus, with: sin, signifieth to exact and require; and how 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 naaneh, signifieth to answer, as well as to be afflicted, and how translated either ways, it admirably establisheth the satisfaction of Christ; see our Annotators on the place. That Christ was to suffer, through having our sins laid on him, was the faith of the Old Testament Church; typified in their imposition of hands upon, and confession of sin over the head of the sacrifice, Levit. 16. 21. Levit 5, 5, 6. Their confessing of sin over the sacrifice, and their laying their hands on it, was both to signify their earnest desire that their sins might be taken off from them, and laid on the sacrifice, and that the punishment which was 
How far the Heathen did in this imitate the●, see Herodot. lib 2. c. 29. and Plutarch in I side.  due to them might be upon it: Quicquid à me peccatum est, sit in hujus victimae caput; i. e. paenam peccato commeritam ab illa reposc●t Deus: As also a profession of their faith in Christ, as the true sacrifice to be slain for sin, and that the present sacrifice was only a type thereof. And this for the second consideration, for the confirming that what Christ suffered, he suffered in our room and stead.  
3. That Christ suffered in our room, and as being charged with ●u● sins, will be yet more fully established, if we take notice of that of the Apostle, he was made sin for us, 2 Cor. 5. 21. He hath made him to be sin for us who knew no sin. Now sin is either to be taken properly or metonymically; metonymically, either by a metonymy o● the cause for the effect, Isa. 53. 12 He bore the sin of many. i e. th● punishment, 1 Pet. 2. 24. Wh● his own self bore our sins in his own body on the tree. i e. The punishment of our sins in his body, Gen. 4. 13. My punishment is greater than I can bear, so we render it; but in the Hebrew, It is my iniquity is greater, etc. See also Gen. 19 15. Zech. 14. 19 or else by a metonymy of the adjunct for the subject; sin put to denote a sacrifice for sin, Levit. 4. 29. and 5. 9 and elsewhere frequently in that book, we render it sin offering, but in the Hebrew it is sin. See also Hos. 4. 8. Isa. 53. 10. When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin; so we read it, but it is in the Hebrew trespass or sin. Now whether we pitch upon either of these or both, the Text proves this much, that Christ who had no sin of his own to suffer for, suffered the punishment that was due to ours; he that had no crime of ●is own to expiate, became a sacrifice of expiation for our crimes. Or if you will take sin here properly, as the context by stating sin in opposition to righteousness, seems to incline it. Non per tropum est explicandum, sed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sumendum est, pro ut oppositio monstrat. Walth. Then the imporr will be, that Christ who had no sin in his nature, nor committed any in his life; who in a moral sense was altogether free from sin, was yet in a judicial sense made sin. Our iniquities were charged upon him, and satisfaction exacted of him for them, as if they had been his own. Lutherus non male Christum nominavit maximum p●ccatorem. It is a most frivolous civil of the Socinians, that Christ his being made sin, signifieth no more than that the world esteemed of him, and treated him as a sinner. Sinit cum tractari tanquam scelerosum, Grot. in loc. Wonderfully betraying the truth, even after he had once defended it. There might have been some plea for this exception, if it had been he was accounted sin, or if it had ●een man made him to be sin: But ●s (1.) they can hardly show that ●o be made sin, is in all the Scripture of the same intendment with being esteemed a sinner: much ●ess (2.) can they show that to be made sin by God, should be ever used to imply the being reputed a ●inner by men. (3.) That this cannot be the meaning, the next words ●at out of question; For as our ●eing made the righteousness of God, ●s not that the world holds us for righteous, but that in a law sense ●e are constituted as righteous through Christ, as God ei●er desires or can require: So is being made sin is not that the ●orld esteemed him a sinner, or ●at God suffered him to be treated by the world as a sinner; but ●e intendment is that he was l●●ally, and in a judicial sense cha●ed with our sins, and that whatever the law made the punishment of them he bore.  
4. Christ his suffering in our room and stead, will be further strengthened by considering those expressions and places, in which it ● expressly affirmed that he died f● our sins, and that he suffered for us There are four prepositions the Holy Ghost useth to this purpose that if one be more emphatical that another they may all conspire to justify this truth. First, o● Rom. 4. 24. Who was delivered f● our offences; this particle joyne● with an accusative doth general● signify the impulsive cause, a● not the final. See Mat. 10. 2● and 13. 5. and 14. 9 Joh. 20. 1● 2 Cor. 4. 11. and particularly wh● used in reference to sufferings, hath that signification and ● other, see Levit. 26. 18. 28. De● 28. 11. 2 Kings 23. 26. Jer. 1● 22. Joh. 10. 32. in all 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 understood 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 suffered— the just for the unjust, Tit. 2. 14. who gave himself for us— 1 Tim. 2. 6. who gave himself a ransom 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 hath signifieth sometimes the impulsive 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 expressed 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 Pers●lvo. 
When ever it's used to imply one's 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 signifieth 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 ransom for many. Repeated again Mark 10. 45. Now this Preposition when ever applied 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 died not only for our advantage and profit, but in o● place, will be fully demonstrated, i● we observe that he is sa●d to hav● born our sins, 1 Pet. 2. 24. who hi● own self bore our sins in his ow● body on the tree, Heb. 9 28. Chris● was once offered to bear the sins of many, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he carried up our sin● on his body on the tree; they wer● made to ascend on him. Now to bear sin is usually in the Scripture phrase to bear the punishment o● 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 sol● 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 carry our sorrows,— he was wounded for our transgressions— for the transgression of my people ●as he stricken— he shall bear ●eir iniquities. The two words ●hich the Holy Ghost there useth ●e 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 nasa, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saball; ●w though 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifies some●mes only to take away, Job 7. 1. and to forgive, Exod. 34. 7. ●um. 14. 18. Psal. 32. 1. yet 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: ●gnifieth ever to bear, or carry a ●urthen by taking it on, nor is it ●nce used otherwise in all the Scriptures. And besides, however 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in other places may be allowed to signify only to remove or ●ake away; yet that it should signify so here, the context will not admit, In that it is said he bore our ●ns so, as to be wounded for them, grieved, bruised, chastised, and put ●o pain for them, which clearly ●hews the ground and cause of his sufferings, and not only the issue ●nd the event.  
Object. But it is objected, that ●his of the Prophet of Christ his ●earing our diseases is applied, Mat. 8. 16, 17. in reference to Christ ● healing of diseases, and therefore if the bearing our sickness be only his removing of them by c●ring them, in like manner ● bearing our sins is not the taking them upon himself to undergo the punishment of them, but only his taking them away by forgiveness and he●ing.  
To this I return these things b● way of Answer. (1.) It may ● denied that Christ his bearing o● diseases, is to be understood on● in reference to his removing ● them; but that it imports also h● travelling under them as a b●then▪ He had a fellow feeling ● the pains and griefs he cured: ● was affected and afflicted under t● sense of them, as if they had be● his own, Heb. 4. 15. besides ● underwent great trouble, pain, an● travel in the curing of them. S● much at least is employed in t● word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Est in hac voce ●ne● quaedam & ●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 bore our sins by taking them upon him, than that he bore 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 sicknesses were laid on him, or that he was made blind, or lame, etc. 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 Prophecy, 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 o● several kinds one subordinate to another. Compare Psal. 78. 2. with Mat. 13. 35. Isa. 29. 13. with Mat. 15. 7, 8. Jer. 7. 11. with Mat. 21. 13. Isa. 1. 9 with Rom. 9 29.  
(4.) A Scripture may be said to be fulfilled, either when that which is chief designed is brought forth▪ or when that which only typisie● and represents the other comes t● pass. Many things in Scripture ar● spoken of the type, which principally belong▪ to the Antitype, s● 2 Sam. 7. 14. compared with He● 1. 5. and Hos. 1. 11. with Mat. 2. 15▪ and Jer. 31. 15. with Mat. 2. 16▪ 17, 18. Now Christ his healing of bodily diseases, being a type o● his curing the diseases of the sou● therefore the Holy Ghost applin ●hat which firstly and chief belongs to the one, to the other, that ● they might not look on Christ ●s a mere bodily Physician, but ra●er as one whose work and end ● was to heal their souls, whereof the curing the infirmities of ●eir bodies was only a type and ●mbol, see Mat. 8. 2.  
(5.) A Scripture may be said ● be fulfilled, when the accom●ishment of it is demonstrated ● the effects. Multa fieri dicun●r, quando facta esse intelliguntur, ●e Psal. 2. 7. with Acts 13. 32, 33. ●hrist in the day of his resurrecti● is said to be begotten of the ●ather, because he was then most ●idently shown to be the Son of ●od. So Jam. 2. 21. Abraham ● the offering of his Son Isaac is ●id to be justified by works, bemuse that great work gave demon●ation of his being justified. Now ●hrist his taking away bodily di●mpers, being an evidence of his taking away sins, which is done b● bearing of them; therefore tha● which the Prophet spoke in reference to the cause, the Evangeli● applies in reference to the effects So that having dispatched this objection, we presume to conclude from the whole of what hath bee● offered, that as Christ suffered th● same penalty which was due to us so he suffered it in our room an● stead, and as a satisfaction an● compensation to God's justice fo● our sins.   

CHAP. VII.  
The satisfaction of Christ further established, from his having redeemed ● The import of the word. A ransom● paid for us. Accepted of God, an● thereupon we set free.  
THat Jesus Christ hath ma● satisfaction for our sins wi● ●rther appear, if in the next place ●e consider, that he hath effected ●d accomplished what in other cases ●eth to be the effects and results of a ●tisfaction; namely, he hath redeemed us from the wrath and curse ● which we were obnoxious. To ●●eem in the general import of ●e word, is either to deliver from ●ndage and misery, through the ●tervention of a price; or to re●ue out of a state of slavery ●rough force and power. In this ●uer sense the deliverance of ●ael out of Egypt is often called ademption, Exod. 15. 13. Deut. ●8, and 9 26. and 13. 5. and 21. 8. ●al. 77. 15. and in many places asides. And Moses having been ●nally employed in that affair is ●lled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, deliverer, Acts 7. ●. and let this be observed by the ●ay, that as the redemption of ●e people from the bondage of egypt was typical of the Redemtion from the wrath of God; so it is called redemption, not so much from the general nature of deliverance, as from the respect i● had to the redemption to be wrought by Christ, whereof i● was a type. And besides, as tha● temporal deliverance from th● Egyptian bondage, was typical o● the spiritual redemption from th● curse; so there was a typical pric● exacted and paid suitable to tha● typical redemption, to point to u● the real and proper price whic● Christ was to pay for our prop● and spiritual redemption. An● in reference to this it is that Chri● is called our Passover, 1 Cor. 5. ● and as they were redeemed fro● temporal wrath, and typically reconciled to God by the blood ● the Paschal Lamb, so we are redeemed from eternal wrath, a● really reconciled to God by t● blood of Christ, who is therefore called the Lamb of God, Joh. 1 2● and a Lamb without spot and blemi● 1 Pet. 1. 18, 19  
But to redeem in its first and most proper intendment, signifies by the payment and solution of a price and ransom to set free.  
Quid agas? nisi ut redimas te captum quam queas minim●, si nequeas paululo ac quanti queas, Terent.  
Si fratrem Pollux alterna morte redemit, Virg.  
Now one may be in bondage, ei●her as a Debtor to a Creditor, or ●s a Criminal to a Governor and Ruler; he that is in Prison on the first foot of account, must con●nue so, unless satisfaction be made by the payment of the sum of which he stands charged; and ●e that is detained on the second accounted, is not to expect deliverance, unless the penalty be under●one, to which his offence hath ●endred him obnoxious. And ●hose who upon other terms come ●o be free, cannot proberly be said to be redeemed, but only to be released.  
Having stated the signification of the word before I come t● prove, that Christ through the payment of a price hath in a proper sense redeemed us; I desire to premise these three things.  
1. That we stood obnoxious t● God's fiery indignation and wrath. His law we had broken, and by his sentence we stood condemned▪ ● is his judgement, that they who commit sin are worthy of death. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, God's constitution and appointment. The precept of the law being broken, we lay liable to the curse as the penalty of it, Gal. 3. 10. Divine Justice had made us prisoners, Isa. 61. 1. and we were subject to Satan as God's jailor, and without payment there was to be no deliverance.  
2. That as we had for feited the favour of God, and were become subject to his wrath, so we had lost his image, and were fettered in our own lusts. Therefore as we wer● to be redeemed from the justice and wrath of God, so we were to be set free from the dominion and power of corruption; as a Captive delivered from the penalty of the law, is also released from his prison and irons; and as the delivery of a Traitor from the wrath of the Governor, and sentence of the law, is the primary and principal thing intended in redemption, and the losing of him from his fetters and jail; follows as consequential and secondary upon that: So Christ having as the chief end of his suffering, satisfied the justice of God, and redeemed us from his wrath, he hath through a redundancy of merit, which was in his blood consequentially purchased grace for us, and set us free from the power of our corruption. Hence as he is said to have redeemed us from the curse of the law, Gal. 3. 13. so he like wise is said to have redeemed u● from iniquity, and from our vai● conversation, Tit. 2. 14. 1 Pet. 1. 18▪  
3. We must distinguish betwixt pecuniary debts and penal, betwixt a mere Creditor and a Governor▪ In pecuniary debts something material is paid and received, by which the Creditor is made richer: In penal, it is enough that th● Law be satisfied, though the Governor be not formally made th● richer. A person that is wronged may account himself satisfied, i● the party who hath offended him hazard his life for him, though h● formally pay him nothing. S● here it was not needful that Go● should properly receive any things it was enough that he should accept what was done. To mak● good God's acceptance of th● price, it is sufficient that his law is satisfied, and that his justice suffered not by the delivery of th● 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 expressly 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 redeem captives, of that use is the blood of Christ to redeem sinners. Hence Christ's death is called a ransom, Mat. 20. 28. He gave his life a ransom for many, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, it is all one whether it come from 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to lose, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to pay. As we w●re held prisoners by the law and justice of God, we are by this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 redeemed and set free. The Ancient 
C●ot. in Mat. 28. 20.  Jews used to style 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 purify and expiate the sin of the rest. Hinc Dec●i dicuntur lustrasse Romanum exercitum. Now Christ was such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, instead of many. Hence he is styled 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 1 Tim. 2. 6. Quum alius solvit, quod reus non potera●, Ar●t. Est tale pretium in quo liberator simile quid sub●t et ●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 another's. 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, An●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 chief 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 claim. So that should it be granted, that the word is sometimes used to signify 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 ransom. 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 styles and mentions him, 1 Tim. 2. 5, 6. There is one Mediator betwixt God and Man, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself a ransom, 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 ransom, and by his blood made reparation for transgression.  
3. This will further appear by observing that by virtue 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, etc. Though there be forgiveness, yet it is only through the redemption wrought and accomplished by the blood of Christ, etc. 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 h●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 signify 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 paid any ransom 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 expressly 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 ransom.  
(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 ransom.  
(3.) Though I do not deny but that Moses was a type of Christ, and that the redemption out of Egypt was a type of that which the Messiah was to work; yet it no ways follows, that because the redemption out of Egypt was without any ransom of price, therefore the redemption from sin must likewise be so; for it is not needful that the type and the thing typified be in all things alike, it is enough if they agree in that, wherein the one was designed of God to be the type of the other. Ionas his being in the belly of the Whale, was a type of Christ's being in the bowels of the Earth; must we therefore infer, that because Ionas was alive in the belly of the Whale, that Christ was so in the grave? So here, it was sufficient to render Moses a type of Christ, that they were both deliverers, and that they both wrought deliverances; but it was no wise needful either that their deliverances should be of one kind, or accomplished after one manner. The deliverance which Moses wrought, was a temporal deliverance; who will therefore say that that of Christ was but a temporal deliverance? ●o more ought we to allege, that because the one was accomplished without a price, that therefore the ●ther must be effected so also.  
(4.) Moses was not a type of Christ in all his Offices. Now ●hat wherein Moses was a type of Christ was Christ's Kingship, and therefore we are not to expect an agreeableness betwixt what Christ wrought as he was Priest, and what Moses did; but we must seek ●he resemblance in that wherein ●he one was the type of the other. Now there is a resemblance betwixt Moses' redeeming Israel ●rom the tyranny of Pharaoh, and Christ's redeeming us from the power of Satan.  
Object. 2 Object. 2. But is is further ob●ected, that redemption in this whole affair must be understood in a Metaphorical sense, because we are sai● to be redeemed from iniquities Tit. 2. 14. and from a vain conversation, 1 Pet. 1. 18. but it cannot be said that there was a pric● paid to sin, or that there was a satisfaction made to our vain conversation, and consequently that to redeem is no more in this affair but t● deliver.  
Answ. For Answer, (1.) The objector at once proclaim themselves ignorant both of Law and Religion; i● there any thing more usual, tha● when a person pays to the Creditor the debt of one that is in Prison; or the ransom of one that i● in bondage, to him that detains him; to say that that person hath redeemed such a one out of Prison▪ and from the Galley, though the satisfaction was not made to the Prison or Galley, but to him or them▪ by whom they were held and detained in these conditions. In al● cases satisfaction is to be made to him who detains the captive by way of law, power, and authority; and not to them who detain him only in subserviency to the principal Creditor and Judge. Now it was God that we were debtors to, and criminals against; it was his Law we had broken, and it was by his Sentence that we stood condemned. Our sins were the debts satisfaction was to be made for, not to be made to: Satan was only an instrument of our vexation and bondage, in subserviency to God's leave and commission; neither they, nor he were properly our detainers, but only as the Jailor and Irons detain a Malefactor at the Action of the Creditor, Sentence of the Judge, and Authority of the Law.  
(2.) We have before distinguished the principal end of Christ's death from the subordinate, betwixt that which was the primary end of his dying, and that which was only secondary. Now the principal and primary end of the death of Christ, was the satisfying the justice of God, the making him a compensation for the dishonour which had been done to his Name, and for the contempt which had been shown to his Law; the secondary, and that which was only consequential on the former, was the purchasing the spirit and grace for us, that thereby we might be enabled to resist and conquer Satan, kill and subdue inbred corruption, have a conformity wrought in us to God's holiness, and be brought again to a willing obedience.   

CHAP. VIII.  
The satisfaction of Christ further justified from his having made reconciliation. The words used in this affair opened. Signify God's being reconciled to us. Foretold that Christ should make reconciliation. This the intendment of the Levitical Priesthood. Christ properly a Priest. Hath offered a true sacrifice. Through him we have atonement.  
TO reconcile is to restore and recover lost friendship, it is the renewing of peace betwixt persons once at an agreement, but now at variance; so that it supposeth these two things.  
1. That there was once a peace and friendship betwixt God and Man. God approved Man, and Man loved God. In the state of innocency there was a twofold union betwixt Man and God; an union of nature, he was like God; and an union of state, he was God's friend.  
2. By the fall there arose a breach of that peace and friendship We at once lost the image of God, and forfeited his favour; we became alienated from God through sin, and God became alienated from us for sin. The enmity is mutual, not only on our part to God, Col. 1. 21. but on God's part to us. There is no peace in him to the wicked, Isa. 48. 22. They are the children of his wrath, Ephes. 2. 3. And under his curse, Gal. 3. 10. Their persons are an abomination to him, Psal. 5. 5. And their services an abhorrency, Prov. 15. 8 and 21. 4. Now Christ by a satisfactory sacrifice hath appeased the anger of God, purchased his grace to renew us, and so hath brought God and Man into a state of friendship and favour again.  
The words the Holy Ghost expresseth this by, are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. 5. 10. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Ephes. 2. 16. Col. 1. 20, 21. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Col, 1. 20. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 5. 11. 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 2 17. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1 Joh. 2. 2. 1 Joh. 4. 10. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Rom. 3. 25. Now all these words signify to appease, to render propitious, to turn away anger, to atone, to reconcile and import as well God's being ' reconciled to us, as our being reconciled to God. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, in S●phocles is to atone the Anger of the Gods, and to render them propitious and favourable. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Home●, is by sacrifice to appease God. It is that which the Latins call Propitiare & placare. And in this sense do the Septuagint most frequently make use of them, Exod. 30. 15, 16. and 32. 30. Levit. 4. 20. and 10. 17. Numb. 28. 22, 30. In all which places, and innumerable more, the words signify by appeasing anger, to reconcile God to us.  
It is not denied but that the words are used sometimes to import and signify our accepting the tenders of God's grace and favour, as 1 Cor. 5. 20. We pray you in Christ's stead be ye reconciled. But withal we affirm that in their most frequent use, they signify the appeasing God's anger, and the reconciling him to us. This we confirm from the ensuing Scriptures, Rom. 5. 10. When we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son. Where by being reconciled is principally meant, God's being reconciled to us, as appears,  
(1.) Because the reconciliation spoken of here, is that to which justification is equivalent, ver. 9 but justification is God's reconciliation to us, not our conversion to him.  
(2.) In that the reconciliation here intended, is that which is the immediate effect of the death of Christ; and consequently we cannot understand by it the reconciling of our natures to God, this being immediate fruit of the spirit of Christ, (for though remotely it be founded on the death of Christ, yet in Scripture it is made the immediate effect of the resurrection, life, and power of Christ, Acts 5. 31. and latter part of this same verse 10. Much more being reconciled by the death of his Son, we shall be saved by his life.) But we must necessarily understand the reconciling of God to us.  
(3.) Because the reconciliation here spoken of is that which is tendered to us, and which we receive, ver. 11.— have received the atonement, and therefore cannot be meant of our reconciliation or conversion to God, forasmuch as we are not said to receive our conversion, or to have our conversion tendered to us, but must needs be spoken in reference to the appeasing of God's anger towards us, and our acceptation with him; and accordingly the Syriack renders it, Reconciliatus est nobiscum Deus, God was reconciled to us. Another Scripture which offers for the further establishing of this is, 2 Cor. 5. 18, 19, 20. All things are of God, who hath reconciled us to himself by Jesus Christ, and hath given us the ministry of reconciliation, to wit, that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them, and hath committed unto us the word of reconciliation, now than we are Ambassadors for Christ, as though God did beseech you by us; we pray you in Christ's stead, be ye reconciled to God. Besides the reconciliation of man to God by conversion, mentioned in the latter end of the 20 vers. and to which we are there exhorted: There is also mention of God's reconciliation to us, and ●hat this is the main thing insisted ●on, and intended by the Apostle appears,  
(1.) In that he expresseth it by God's not imputing our sins to us, not by our conversion from sin to God; and what is it now for God not to impute sin? it is, not ●o charge our sins upon us, so as ●o condemn us, but in consideration of the death of Christ to lay aside his anger, and receive us into ●avour.  
(2.) Because the reconciliation ●ere intended, is that, the declaration whereof is committed to the Ministers of the Gospel: Now that which they have in trust to Preach, is not that we are actually converted to God, but that God in consideration of the sufferings of Christ is willing, upon terms of faith and repentance, etc. to take us into favour and friendship.  
(3.) Because, if the intendment of all these Verses, were only our conversion to God, we should be necessitated to fasten nonsen● upon the Apostle, for at this ra● of expounding, the import woul● be, ye are converted, therefore be ye converted. Many more testimonies speaking clearly to the same purpose, if I studied no● brevity, might be alleged: Se● Ephes. 2. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. Col. 1. 20.  
Object. But it may be objected, that we often read of our being reconciled to God; but we do not once read in the whole Bible that God i● reconciled to us.  
Answ. It is true, but the reason is because God is the offended Ruler and Judge, and we are the offending Subjects; now in every case the party who offends is said to be reconciled to the party offended, and not on the contrary, so Mat. 5. 23, 24. 1 Cor. 7. 11. See that pertinent place to this purpose, 1 Sam. 29. 4. where the Philistines refusing to let David march along with them to the encounter against Saul, assign this as the reason of it: For wherewith should he reconcile himself unto his Master? should it not be with the heads of these men? Now David had no enmity nor anger against Saul, only Saul was angry with David, and yet it is expressed that David should reconcile himself to Saul, i. e. that he would endeavour by such a stratagem to make Saul his friend. God having given us no cause then why we should be angry with him, but we having given him cause of being provoked against us, it lies with us to go and reconcile ourselves to him, but how? by the appeasing of his anger, which forasmuch as we could not do, Christ hath done it. That Christ by the appeasing of God's wrath and anger hath wrought reconciliation, and by consequence our very adversaries being judges made satisfaction, will receive full establishment, if we consider these things.  
1. That this was prophesied before hand of the Messiah, Dan. 9▪ 24.— and to make reconciliation for iniquity. Which the Apostle expressly applies to Christ, Heb. 2. 17. Wherefore in all things it behoved him to be made like unt● his brethren, that he might be▪ ● merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make reconciliation for the sins of the people. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is by an enallage put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, to make reconciliation with God for iniquities; not merely, Peccata a●ferre, aut purgare à peccato; to take away 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 apud graecos Scriptores omnes poctas, hic oricos, alios est placare. G●ot. de satisf  sin, or to cleanse from sin; as Grotius in his notes, contrary to himself elsewhere, but expiare, placare, to atone, to reconcile by removing wrath according to the constant use of the word in all Greek Authors. It is equivalent to that phrase, Heb. 1. 3.— when he had by himself purged our sins. Namely, by the atoning and pacifying God's anger, through the sacrifice of himself, that we should not be condemned for them; not by the sanctification of believers from them. It is an observation of the reverend and learned Dr. owen's, that wherever sin, not sinners, are made the object of any mediatory acts of Christ, that act immediately respecteth God, and not the sinner. So Heb. 9 15. For the redemption of transgressions, i. e. to redeem from the wrath due to transgression, by making God a reparation. And Heb. 9 26.— he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, to take it away by satisfaction, so that it should not be charged.  
2. Christ's reconciling us to God by propitiation and atonement, 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 typify 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 atonement 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 ve●y greatest, Levit. 16. 21, 22. Levit. 5. 1, 2, 3. 4, 5, 6, 7, 14. etc. Num. 5. 6▪  
Object▪ If it should be objected that there were some sins fro● which by the law of Moses the● could not be justified, Acts 13. 39▪ and therefore that their sacrifice● did not serve to make atonement 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 justify from any sin. The sacrifices of the law could not of themselves so much as atone for one sin, Gal. 3. 13. but typically they served to make atonement for every ●●n: The Jews in reference to whom ●he Apostle discourseth, trust●d solely to sacrifices for righteousness and life, and in this he ●firms that they were mistaken, ●●d that it was only the blood ●●d sacrifice of Christ which they ignified and shadowed, that could ●ally free the conscience from the ●ilt of the least sin.  
(2.) It may be Answered, that ●der the law there was a twofold ●ilt, a Ceremonial, and a Moral; one external binding over the transgressor unto temporal punishment, another spiritual binding over the offendor unto eternal wrath. Now sacrifices as the● were incorporated into their policy as well as a part of their worship were in many cases appointed, an● accordingly served to deliver fro● temporal guilt, Heb. 9 15. b● there were other cases wherein they were not at all allowed to deliver from the temporal punishment, Psal. 51. 16. but according to their political constitutions death was without mercy to ● inflicted on the offendor. No● says the Apostle, these sins fro● the temporal guilt of which a● your sacrifies could not dischan● you, the blood of Christ is su●cient to acquit you from the eternal guilt even of those.  
This objection being discha●ed, it stands established that ● 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 shadow forth the great sacrifice of the Messiah, and the atonement 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 ●eads.  
1. Christ is our true Priest in ●atters pertaining to God, whom all he other Priests did but shadow. All others were only called Priests because they represented him, and outwardly by type expressed, what ●e was really to accomplish and ●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 rendered 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 things pertaining to God, that he may offe● both gifts and sacrifices for sin That this is the definition of ● Priest properly so called, is bot● clear in the thing itself, for if suc● a one as is here described be no● properly a Priest, there was neve● a Priest properly so called in th● world; as also in the Apostles accommodating it, ver. 4. to Aaro● 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 replied, 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, must needs intent 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 truly 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 allotted to no order, because they are not properly Priests, but only metaphorically so.  
(4.) That Christ was properly a Priest, may be demonstrate● from the design of the Apostle throughout the Hebrews, especially from the 7. chap. to the 10 which is to exalt the Priesthood 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 however Christ m●ght be more eminent t●an Aaron in other respects, ye● 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 itself. 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; bein● a true Priest he must have a tru● sacrifice, Heb. 8. 3. yea, all other sacrifices were but merely typic● of the sacrifice which he was t● offer. No other sacrifice coul● make the comers thereunto perfect or take away sins, Heb. 10. 1, ● They were only appointed to be ● shadow of the great sacrifice ● Christ, Heb. 8. 5. Heb. 10. 1. H● alone in the offering of himself offered to God a true sacrific● That the death of Christ is a sacrifice, the following Scripture may be sufficient to render clea● Ephes. 5. 2. He hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacr●fice to God for a sweet smelling savour, 1 Cor. 5. 9 Christ our Pass●over is sacrificed for us, Heb. ● 14,— through the eternal spirit ● offered up himself to God, Heb. ● 27. He needeth not daily to offer ● sacrifices, for this he did once whe● he offered up himself; Heb. 9 2●  
●ow once in the end of the world, he ●ath appeared to put away sin by ●he sacrifice of himself, Heb. 10. ●0.— we are sanctified by the offering of the body of Jesus once for ●ll. It is one of the most ground●ss figments of the world, which ●e Socin●●ns here suggest, namely, ●at none of all this is to be interpre●d in reference to any thing Christ ●id on earth, but that it is only to be expounded in reference to his entering ●to heaven, and his appearing before ●od for us. We do not deny but ●at Christ continues to be a ●riest in heaven, and shall do so, ●ll the whole mediatory work be ●ver; but withal we affirm, that ●y the shedding of h●s blood and ●eath, he perfected his whole sacrifice here on earth. Redemption ●as obtained before he entered into ●e holy places, Heb. 9 22. Sin ●as purged before he sat down on ●e right hand of majesty on high, ●eb. 1. 3. where by purging is not meant purging by sanctifying grace,  
(1) Because that spoken o● here was perfected ere Chri● went to heaven, which sanctification is not.  
(2.) Because the purging her● spoken of is that which is don● by Christ alone, without the u● and intervention of any oth● means— when he had by himself purged our sins, but sanctification is accomplished by the wor● and spirit; so that the purging ● sin here, is the expiating of si● which is expressly asserted to hav● been finished are Christ ascende● That Christ's Priesthood was o● earth, is further demonstrated b● all those places where he is said t● have offered himself once, an● where there is mention made ● one offering, Heb. 7. 27. and ● 28. and 10. 10, 14. for this ca●not refer to what he does in heaven, seeing what he does there, h● ●oes always, and is continually in ●oing of it; it must necessarily ●fer therefore to what he did on ●rth. That his Priesthood was ●n earth, may be further confirmed, by considering the parts of ●e Levitical Priesthood; there ●as in that, besides the high priest's carrying the blood into ●he Holy of Holies, and sprinking the Mercy Seat with it, the laying of the beast without: Now ●s Christ's intercession in heaven, by which he continues his Priesthood) answers the last of these. So there behoved to be Christ's offering of himself a sacrifice on ●arth, to answer the first; otherways there should not have been ● correspondency in the heavenly ●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 wa● mainly to do, behoved to be before he entered into heaven, otherwise the Antitype had not answered the type, and that in the very thing wherein it was a type. S● that we see Christ is both tru● Priest, and true sacrifice, which th● Socinians themselves bein● judges establisheth the satisfaction of Christ.  
3 It is by Christ alone, that w● have the true and real atonement All the Levitical propitiations and reconciliations were at mos● but typical of this. He alon● hath purged away our sins, Heb● 1. 3. i e. He hath removed th● guilt of all sins from the conscience and the obnoxiousness of the sinne● to punishment for them, Heb. ● 14. for as the sanctifying of t● flesh, ver. 13. was the setting th● 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 atonement, 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, than the import is, that it is Christ who reconciles God to us; if you take it in the second, than the meaning is, that he doth it by himself as by a placamen, an anger appeasing sacrifice. Most take it in the Neuter, and so it is either by way of allusion to the propitiatory sacrifices, by which God was said to be attoned and reconciled, Levit. 6. 30. and 8. 15. Hence the Ram was called the Ram of atonement, Num. 5. 8. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Septuagint. So Christ hath put away sin by the sacrifice of himself, Heb, 9 26. Or else by way of allusion to the Mercy Seat (which the Apostle calls 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 9 5.) either because the Mercy Seat covered the Ark; the law which chargeth and condemneth us for sin lay in the Ark, Exod, 25. 16. Now the Mercy Seat covered the Ark, to signify that through Christ the law should not condemn us, Exod, 25. 20, 21. Exod. 36. 34. So Christ hath blotted out, removed, and canceled the handwriting which was against us, Col. 2. 14. Or else because through sprinkling of th● blood of the sacrifice upon th● Mercy Seat, God signified himself pleased and attoned, Levit. 16. 15 16, 1●, and it is very remarkabl● ●hat the High Priest durst not go ●ear the Mercy Seat, but with the ●lood of the sacrifice which was appointed to make atonement. ●o in and through the blood of Christ we are accepted, Ephes. 1. ●6. but without coming in the ver●ue, and under the sprinkling of ●he blood of Christ there is no acceptance. Or else, because it was ●om the mercy seat, that God as reconciled communed with his people, Exod 25. 22. Num. 7. 89. ●o in and through Jesus Christ we ●ave access with boldness and con●dence, Ephes. 2. 18. and 3. 12. We hope now that from this which hath been tendered in the present chapter, especially, together with what hath been delivered in the preceding chapters, we ●ay boldly infer and assert the ●ruth of Christ's satisfaction.  
Object. 1. But it is objected, that ●od before hand loved us, forasmuch as in demonstration of his love, he sent his Son to die for us and consequently that he cannot be sai● to have been angry with us, or that b● needed to be reconciled.  
For Answer 1. It is true, God'● love was carried towards us as hi● creatures, but at the same time h● hated us as sinners. Deus mir● modo quando nos oderat, diligebat● odit in unoquoque nostrum quod s● ceramus, amavit quod fecerat, Be● He did not love us and hate us ● the same time, and in the same respect. He loved us as his cre●tures whom he intended to recover, he hated us as rebels who ha● transgressed his law, and contemned his government.  
Answer 2. There is a twofold love in God, a love of benevo● lence, and a love of friendship; ● love of good will, and a love ● delight. The first we ascribe to God antecedently to the consi●deration of the death of Christ as that which was the spring an● ●untain of his giving Christ, and ●his we own to have been superla●ve in its kind, Joh. 3. 16. 1 Joh. ●. 10. Neither was there in God ●ny hatred or anger opposite to ●is love; but then this love was ●othing else but a purpose of conniving, and by such means of ●inging about our reconciliation, ●hile in the mean time we were ●e objects of his wrath, Joh. 3. ●6. Ephes. 2. 3. God's eternal purpose of reconciling himself to ●s, did not in the mean time exempt us from being the objects of ●is wrath, but supposeth both that ●e were, and behoved to continue ●, till by such ways and mediums ●ur peace was purchased. It implies not the least contrariety to ●firm that God hated us, but yet ● as to purpose by such means his ●turning into friendship with us. ● the 42. chap. of Job ver. 7, 8. ●e read of God's being angry ●ith Jobs three friends, yet so as to signify by what means he would again accept them.  
Object. 2. It is objected 2ly▪ That upon supposition that God would not pardon us without a satisfaction, and that Christ undertook an● hath made satisfaction, we should b● more obliged to the Son, than to th● Father.  
Answ. We are infinitely, an● alike obliged to both; to the Father in giving his Son to make th● satisfaction, and in taking us into favour upon it, being made; t● the Son in condescending and undertaking to make it. And accordingly the Scripture mentioned equally the love of both, the lo● of the Father as the rise and sprin● of our reconciliation, Joh. 3. 16 1 Joh. 4. 10. Rom. 5. 8. and in reference to this he is called our Saviour, 1 Tim. 1. 1. Tit. 1. 3. Th● love of the Son, as the means ● carrying it on, and accomplished it, Eph. 5. 2. 25. Rev. 1. 5. Gal. ● 20. Eph. 3. 19 So that to make the comparison betwixt the one and the other, argues not only bold presumption, but also ignorance of this whole mystery of God.  
Object. 3. But it is alleged thirdly, that by asserting the satisfaction of Christ, we must be exposed to one of these two absurdities; either that Christ hath satisfied himself, or else that he is more merciful than the Father, and pardons sin without any satisfaction.  
Answer 1. To this I return these two things. 1. It is no ways absurd, to say he hath satisfied himself. The Court of Aldermen having a Citizen before them, who ●s obnoxious to a mulct, and which they in consistency with the preservation of Government cannot remit, and the offendor not having wherewithal to pay, may not one of themselves make solution in the offender's behalf to the Court; and so by making satisfaction to the Bench, he makes also satisfaction to himself, forasmuch as he is a member of it. So God being in this whole affair considerable a Governor, and not as a mere Creditor, it is no pageantry to affirm that he might satisfy himself.  
Answer 2. Upon supposition that Christ hath made satisfaction, yet it doth not follow that adequatè he hath made it to himself, seeing he made it as God man, and it was made to him only as God. Now as there is nothing more usual in Scripture than to affirm contrary things of Christ under different respects; for example, that the Father is greater than he, Joh. 14. 28. and yet that the Father and he are one, Joh. 10. 30. that he is God's equal, Phil. 2 6. and yet God's s●rvant, ibid. ver. 7. So under different respects he both made the satisfaction, and had it made to him. Having at great length demonstrated the satisfaction of Christ, which is the alone plea upon which we can be justified, the next enquiry is how upon this plea, we come to be justified.   

CHAP. IX.  
How upon the Plea of a satisfaction made by Christ, we are justified. The satiffaction of Christ effectual before made, as well as after. None actually justified till they believe 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 virtue 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 than 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 Farther 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 ransom, takes the Father's 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 pr●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 terms 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 wisdom 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 justify 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 tendered. 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 itself 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 superseded.  
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 expressly asserts, 2 Cor. 5. 21. and we have before opened. Now God may be said to justify 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 in a state of friendship.  
(2.) In the constituting and proclaiming in the Gospel, that whoever believes is justified. As a person is condemned by a law, and said to be condemned when the law condemns him: so we are justified by the Gospel patent, and may be said to be so, when that Charter declares us justified, which it doth if we believe. Now the effects of this are a non-imputation of sin, and a donation of a right to life; our obligation to punishment is dissolved, and we are vested with a title to life.  
1. Sin shall never be charged upon us in the legal guilt of it, Rom. 8. 1, 33, 34. The legal guilt of all sins past is removed formally, and the legal guilt of all sins to come is removed virtually: That is thus, justification takes of legal guilt where once it was, and keeps it of where else it would be.  
And (1.) It is no more harsh that sins should be legally disimputed to us before committed, than that they should be legally imputed to Christ before committed, which all the sins of the elect, who have lived, and are yet to live, since the death of Christ, were.  
(2.) Because the guilt of sin may be as well disimputed to believers before committed by them, as the satisfaction of Christ was imputed to believers before made by him, which it was to all the Old Testament Saints.  
2. Being constituted righteous, by having the righteousness of Christ accounted ours, 〈◊〉 only our obligation to punishment is dissolved, but there also emergeth ●nd ariseth a new title to life, Christ purchased not only redemption from wrath, but a right to ●he heavenly inheritance. And this ●hall suffice at least at present to ●ave been discoursed upon this whole affair.   

AN APPENDIX.  
In vindication of the Satisfaction of Christ, from th● frivolous Objections of ● late Socinian Pamphlets made against a Sermon o● mine preached at th● Morning Lecture.  

SECT. I.  
The Title examined. The Scripture prefixed, proved destructive of th● which they were brought to establish.  
IT is not needful to give a● further account of the induc●ments and grounds of ● Preaching upon that subject, s● what the Preface to the foregoing discourse intimates. The cost of that exercise was before hand considered, and whatever may be the consequences of it, I hope to have satisfaction▪ and peace in the bearing and encountering of them.  
The party who hath appeared in opposition to the doctrine than held forth, hath (from what motives himself best knows) been pleased to conceal his name, and therefore (seeing it may be omitted without prejudice to the cause ● manage) I shall not concern myself about him, though I could particularly declare him and assign his character: Only it had been ●ut ingenuous, when he had published the name of another, and in ●hat exposed him to the law, to ●ave given a more particular account of himself than what can merely be gathered from two numerical letters: wherein he hath ei●her endeavoured, or may be able to wrong me, I pardon him; but what he hath attemped in opposition to the truth, cannot in consistency to conscience and duty be overlookt.  
The Title of his Book is very specious, for what can more invite a Reader, than the Freeness of God's grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ. But all is not gold which glisters; a Box of poison may have a fair inscription; the Prince of Darkness transforms himself into, and desires to pass for, an Angel of Light. Error loves to appear in the garb o● truth. I need not to tell whose character that is, deceiving and being deceived, 2 Tim. 3. 13. But we shall endeavour to unmasks them here, by animadverting these three things.  
1. That it is the great endeavour of these men to present us as enemies to the grace of God. Whereas (1.) There is nothing we desire more to exalt and admire, and whatever doctrine of ours, either directly or indirectly reflects upon the Freeness of God's Grace we disclaim and renounce it: but we boldly affirm the Grace of God to be as free in the forgiveness of sin upon a satisfaction, as it would have been, if it had been possible to have forgiven sin without a satisfaction; and how it is so, you may see opened at large from page 23. to page 30. of the preceding discourse. (2.) We assert our adversaries to be in this particular the only men who are tardy, in that they establish justification by works, which the Apostle every where excludes as opposite to, and in this business utterly destructive of grace, Eph. 2. 8, 9 Rom. 11▪ 6.  
2. We would have observed that it is the method of these Gentlemen, ●o cry up the grace of God, to the overthrew of his holiness and righteousness. We acknowledge God to be infinitely gracious, but withal we affirm to be infinitely pure and just. We dare not exalt one perfection of God, to the diminution of another. We know God cannot be gracious, if at the same time he may not be righteous also. God can as soon cease to be God, as that one property of his nature should be exalted to the dishonour of the rest. Having therefore in the foregoing discourse from page 38. to 51. demonstrated the inconsistency of forgiveness, without a satisfaction, with the truth, justice, and holiness of God, it necessarily follows, that there can be no such grace in God. He cannot be kind to us so as to be cruel to himself.  
3. We take notice, that according to the Socinian Divinity, they might have as well styled their Book the Freeness of God's Grace in the forgiveness of sins by Paul, or some other of the Apostles, as by Christ. For that which they assign as the ground of God's forgiving sins by Christ, being only that he preached the doctrine of forgiveness, and afterwards sealed the truth of it with his blood, accords to Paul, and other of the Apostles, as well as to Christ; for they Preached the same doctrine, and that by immediate revelation, and also confirmed the truth of it by martyrdom and death; so that according to the opinion of these Gentlemen, I see no cause but that they might have given their Book the title I allege, as well as that which they have given it.  
The next thing which comes under consideration, is the examination of the Scriptures which he prefixes▪ And he could have quoted few in the whole Bible, which are more destructive of his cause; and herein God displays his wisdom, that that whereof his adversaries hope most to serve their design, proves utterly subversive of it. The first is Rom. 3. 24. Being justified freely by his grace, through the redemption that is in Jesus Christ. Now the opening of this Verse, together with the two following, will without any more ado sufficiently evidence, how disserviceable it is to the design it was brought for. We have in these three verses justification set forth in all its parts and causes. First, the efficient impulsive cause of it in God, Causa impulsiva 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 ransom. 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 atton●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 righteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 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 inclined 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 propitiatory sacrifice, his vindictive and ange is appeased. Then we have th● finis cu●, the end with respect t● us,— that he might be the justifiers The design God had in all this▪ namely his giving Christ in ● way of death and blood to be ● propitiation, was the taking ● company of poor creatures, wh● lay obnovious to his indignation▪ into his grace and favour again▪ 4ly. We have the instrumental cause, or the means by which w● come to be interested in Christ, and to have the redemption an● justification purchased by him applied 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 Pamphleteers design, and how he falls by his own weapon.  
The second Text which the Gentleman hath been pleased to prefix, ● Col. 1. 14. in whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins. And this is altogether as unanswerable to the ●nd it was brought for as the for●er: For do but observe, here ●ur salvation is expressly asserted ●o be by way of redemption, and ●he price of this redemption to ●e the blood of Christ, which is ●n plain terms to affirm that we ●re saved by the intervention of a satisfaction 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 Gospel▪ It is forgiveness in that it is no● merited by us, but doth this any way hinder, but that it may b● purchased by Christ. We know no inconsistence betwixt these two, that it should be of pur● grace in reference to us, and ye● 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 ar● 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 acquit 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 Governor 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 & die there and have his whole posterity beggared, who never contracted one penny deb● of his own, only became bound for another's: 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. 93. to 107.  
(2.) I affirm that these words which the Adversary seeks relief to his cause from, do utterly disserve it; For if he that condemneth the just be an abomination to the Lord? how will they salve the righteousness of God in condemning Christ who was an innocent person to pain and death, which is the punishment of the nocent, who as he had no sin of his own, so according to them, he stood charged with no sin of ours: Death being constituted the penalty of sin, could no● without unrighteousness have been inflicted upon Christ, forasmuch as he had become answerable for ours; see this proved pag. 124. to 127. And therefore our adversaries by denying the last, and not daring to ass●rt the first, ●re the only men who fasten that ●pon God, which the Text styles abominable; and now we hope ●hat we have not only wrested ●hese weapons out of the enemies ●and, but also wounded himself ●y them.   

SECT. II.  
●t guilty of any of the three faults ● inexcusable in a Preacher▪ The doctrine momentous, Heb. 2. 10. opened, and the necessity of a satisfaction justified to be the truth of that Scripture.  
●HE three faults proposed as inexcusable in a Preacher, ● too confessedly so, to be apo●gized for: but whatever other ●aknesses, I may have been guil● of, yet that I am innocent from the whole of that charge comes now to be justified.  
1. That the Doctrine I discourse is of the highest import, and tha● to mistake in it, is to err in a matte● of the greatest concernment. readily acknowledge, and do further add, that it is of such weig● in the matter of a Christians belief, that not to be sound there, ● to err in a main fundamental, a● consequently to be unavoidab● obnoxious to damnation. Whe● as their are some truth's whi● we are only bound to believ● in case we know them to be ●vealed; this is a truth we ● bound to know and believe ● be revealed, in order to be● saved. If there be any fun●mentals of faith at all, these ●ctrines wherein we and the S●nians differ, are maxims of t● nature. As to that exception have heard of a certain pers● whose name out of respect I ● ●ea●, that they cannot be fundamentals, because controverted by learned men; if it concludes any ●hing, it concludes that there is ●o fundamental at all, there being ●o one truth so evident, which ●ome have not denied: yea, it will not be a fundamental that ●here is God, forasmuch as there ●ave been some, and still are, who ●are gainsay it. The matter then ●herein my Adversary and I differ, ●eing of this moment, I would ●eset it to the Reader to arbitrate, ●n whose side the truth lies; whe●er with them who can demon●rate their Opinion to have been ●e belief of all the faithful down ●om the Apostles to the present ●ge, not one dissenting, who hath ●ot been by all the Churches of Christ branded for a Heretic; or ●ith those who in some whole age's can instance none of the same ●ntiments with them, and those ●hom in other times they produce are such as the Catholic Church hath from time to time voted unworthy the name o● Christians.  
2. Whether the Doctrine I the● insist●d on, be the truth of any Scripture, the former tract hath accounted for, where I hope it is no● only made evident to be a truth but one of the most considerabl● truths of the Gospel, the very b●si● of our Religion, the foundation of our present comforts and futu● hop●●.  
3. The third, and at present ma● particular, and that which ●a● now under consideration is, wheth● it be the truth of that Text, fro● which in my Sermon I deduced i● And here I must complain of t● unworthiness and disingenuity ● my Adversaries, that when I h● endeavoured at some length ● prove, that the point then insist● on, arose not only naturally fro● the place, but was one of ● main doctrines intended in the words, they have been so far from refuting what was alleged to that purpose, that they have not mentioned one word of what was offered in that matter. Was ever such tergiversation known, as publicly to reproach a person for a conclusion, without examining either the premises whence it is drawn, or the method of inferring ●t. The lest I could have expected, was either the overthrowing ●he principles upon which I raised ●t, or else the evidencing some mis●ake in the way of deduction. At ●his rate of procedure, there is no ●ruth deducible from any Text of ●he Bible, but by saying it is not ●ightly drawn, they may with the ●ame facility refute. The Reader ●ad been spared this labour, if my adversary's had been but so just, ●s in common honesty they ought, ●amely, if when they declaimed ●gainst my doctrine, they had taken notice of the foundations upon which I raised it: but seeing they have put me upon this task, the speediest way to bring it to an● issue, will be to open the Text I then discoursed on, viz. Heb. 2. 10. For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. The Apostle in the preceding Chapter having largely treated of Christ as supreme Prophet, and having advanced him above all other ministerial revealers of God's will, so far as a Son is preferable to a servant, after some improvement made in the beginning of thi● Chapter of what he had delivere● to that purpose in the foregoing by an admirable thread and line o● wisdom he slides from the Prophe●tical office of Christ to his Sacer●dotal: and having affirmed tha● Christ through the benignity an● grace of God was given to taste and suffer death for men, he here assigns the impulsive reason or procuring cause of Christ's suffering, It became God, etc. i. e. if God would save sinners his essential justice and righteousness could not allow that it should be otherways. That this is the intendment of the words a little further opening of them will confirm. We have first then a design of God towards fallen rebellious mankind, and that is the bringing many of them as sons to glory. The making a company of enemies who lay obnoxious to hell and wrath, to be God's Sons, and the bringing them to life. 2ly. We have the method and means pitched on for the compassing of that design, and that is the dedicating and consecrating Christ by suffering to be a Captain of salvation, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, we render it to make perfect, and that sense sometimes it hath; but it signifieth here to consecrate or dedicate unto an office, and in this sense the Septuagint use it, Exod. 29. 35. and Leu. 21. 10.— 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And the same Apostle several times in this Epistle, see Chap. 5. 9 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, consecratus, Bez. being consecrate or set apart, he became the author of eternal salvation, etc. And chap. 7. 28. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 consecrated, hence Baptism among the Greek Fathers was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, because they were thereby consecrated and dedicated to the service of Christ. This was the method pitched on by▪ God for the bringing sinners to glory; namely, the dedicating and setting apart Christ by sufferings to be a leader and Saviour. 3ly. We have the ground and reason of this procedure of God, in making Christ to suffer, and thereby consecrating him to be a Captain. It became God, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, decebat. It was just and meet, and upon supposition that God would save sinners, it could not without injustice otherwise be. The word signifies frequently that which is incumbent upon one and aught to be done: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, paena quam infligi decet & par est, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, are often equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. It signifieth in many places that which is so decent and meet, that either the omission of it, or the commission of the contrary is unjust and evil, Ephes. 5. 3. 1 Tim. 2. 10. Tit. 2. 1. Mat. 3. 15. And in this sense our Apostle useth it elsewhere in this very Epistle chap. 7. 26. For such an high▪ Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, etc. It was just and necessary that our High Priest should be such an one, otherwise he had neither been fit Priest nor Sacrifice. So that the clear intendment of this expression, it became him, is, that ●pon supposition that God would ●ave sinners, the holiness and justice of his nature required, that it should be by constituting Christ to suffer in their stead, and so to become the Author and Captain of their salvation. This is admirably strengthened from the next words, it became God for whom are all things, and by whom are all things; where we have clearly the rise and ground of this becomingness, or the necessity o● God's acting after this manner, i● case he would recover man; ● little opening of the words wil● fully enlighten the whole matter Man being of God, and made b● him an intellectual and rational creature, in an aptitude and fitness for moral government, it wa● necessary that he should appoint him to be for him, that is, tha● he should govern him, and accordingly precribe him a law b● which he should signify his ow● will, and declare man's duty: No● man having broken the law of h● creation, and therein shaken off his dependence upon God, and his obedience to him as Governor, it was meet and right that God as Rector and Governor should punish this rebellion and disobedience; for if this rebellion should not be punished, either God were not the Governor of the world, or else he governs it not in justice, and therefore on supposition that he would not inflict the punishment on men himself, but that he would recover him by Jesus Christ to be for him again, it was necessary that Christ should be made suffer in their steed. So that by this time I hope the Reader will be satisfied, that the doctrine than insisted on, was not only agreeable to other Scriptures, but the very truth of the Text I drew it from: Neither is there any such vast difference betwixt the terms of the text and the doctrine, but that a person unprepossessed, provided he be insighted into Scripture may easily reconcile them. As to that ●e say● that supposing Christ hath made ● satisfaction, yet that it doth not follow, but that we might have bee● saved otherwise, etc. I answer, God was under no necessity of saving us at all, he was free to hav● damned us, as well as to save us ● but supposing that he would save us, it was necessary he should save us, in ways agreeable to his justice and holiness. Though h● was under an absolute freedoms whether he would do it or not, yet he was not under a freedom whether he should do it in a way of righteousness or not. Th● first absolutely depended upon his will, but he is restrained as to the second by his nature; And therefore when my Adversary can show me, how the justice of God coul● have been satisfied without the intervention of the sufferings o● Christ, I shall then think my sel● to have been too presumptuous and dogmatical in my doctrine; but forasmuch as he hath not hitherto attempted it, and I am sure will never be able to perform i●, I abide in my former persuasion, viz. that there was no other way possible for God to bring sinners to glory, but by the death and sufferings of Christ, who was set apart and consecrate to be the Author and Captain of salvation.  
Whereas he says, that the intendment of the Text is only Christ's being a Captain to lead, pity, assist, and supply his people. I absolutely deny it, it is only part of the intendment of the Holy Ghost in the place, but not the whole; yea, he had never been a Captain of salvation to us, but in the way, and upon the terms of making God a satisfaction: It was only by this means that he was consecrate to be a Leader. And I would have it observed, that the doctrine I propounded was the very scope of the whole verse, which is a better way of deducing doctrines, than to draw them from words and expressions. Not that I deny but one may rationally offer from them, that Christ is our Captain, but I affirm that his being so is only consequential upon his undertaking, and being ordained to make satisfaction. So that ' upon the whole, the Adversary hath both wronged the truth and me, in affirming my Doctrine neither to have been in the Text, nor yet deducible from it.   

SECT. III.  
Forgiveness upon a satisfaction, not contradictory to itself. Nor to the Scripture. The freeness of pardon not in ● consistent with a satisfaction. It's bein● attributed to grace, doth not over throw its being paid for.  
The first attempt made by the pamphleter against the satisfaction of Christ, is, that it is contradictory to itself, forasmuch as to exact satisfaction for sin, and yet ●ot to impute sin, are destructive ●ne of another. pag. 6.  
I Answer, that to exact satisfaction for sin of us, and not to impute sin to us, would be contradictories; and Heaven and ●arth might be as soon blended together, as that these two ●hould Harmonise and meet: ●ut to exact satisfaction from Christ, and on consideration of ●hat, not to impute sin to us, ●e no ways contradictory. Contradictories must always ●e in reference to the same ●hing, or person. The satisfaction is not exacted of us, it ●as only exacted of Christ; ●nd it is to us that sin is not ●puted, but it was imputed to ●im; for he had it laid on him, and was made legally to answer for it, Isa. 53. 6. 2 Cor. 5. 21. now the demanding satisfaction from Christ, upon his being charge● with our sins, and the not imputing sin to us upon consideration of the satisfaction whic● he hath made, are so far from being contradictories, that the conspiration of these two together is the very sum of the Gospel. A short acquaintance either with Scripture or reaso● will salve these from being contradictions.  
And whereas he adds, that t● pardon sin, and yet to demand ● satisfaction, is alike as if we shoul● say, that a King cannot pardon ● Rebel without punishing as th● Law requires, when in the mea● time to pardon, is not to punish ● the Law requires.  
I Reply, (1.) It is observable that these Gentlemen insi● always upon the word Pardo● without taking ever notice of the Word justify; whereas the Scriptures every where inform us, that we are justified, as well as pardoned; which implies 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 ●en without the highest unrighteousness cannot pardon; ●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 n● man would account himself pardoned a debt, if either he, o● 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 penal; and a mere Creditor, with a Governor, 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 Governor, 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 itself.  
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 bloo● of Christ, is to be pardoned upon a satisfaction, and by virtue of Christ's blood as a price and ransom. (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, than (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 darkened, that it is rendered 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 Gentleman's friends confess (and I suppose he will not descent 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 intent. The scope of a Parable is always the Key of it: and the scope of this, is only to show that they who are implacable to their Brethren, shall find others implacable to them; and that they who expect mercy to be shown to them, should express mercy to others. But the intendment of it is neither to show that God is a mere 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 that remission and Salvation are of Grace, we readily acknowledge and affirm, but tha● therefore Christ hath not satisfied, is a mere nonsequitur There is not the least contrariety betwixt satisfaction, and grace, but they are the one subordinate to the other. The fullest and freest grace in the giving Christ to satisfy, in the accepting that satisfaction in our stead, and applying the merit of it to our souls, and yet still the holiness and justice of God's nature was such, as that he could not pardon sin without a satisfaction: the consistency of these two is largely treated and opened before, and we refer the Reader thither, to avoid repetition here.  
But saith the adversary, there is nothing more contrary to grace, than to give nothing but what is paid for.  
Answ. It is true, if the payment had been taken of us, to whom the favour is shown; or if the satisfaction had been of our contriving and procuring; but nothing being paid by us, nor the least influence of ours into the affair. It was mere grace that was the impulsive cause, of Gods giving Christ, Joh. 3. 16. 1 Joh. 4. 9, 10. Rom. 5. 8. It was mere grace that gave him for such a number, Joh▪ 17. 19 (to sanctify there, is to separate and set himself apart to die, as Joh. 10. 36. Heb. 10. 29.)  
But there is one text that the Gentleman seems to reckon on, more than the rest, it is Jam. 2. 13.— and mercy rejoiceth against judgement; where he saith mercy is opposed to satisfaction.  
Answ. (1.) It is not certain whether by mercy, we are to understand God's mercy, or man's; many Interpreters understand the last. (2.) Granting him his principle, that it is to be understood of God's mercy, yet I deny his inference, that therefore there is no satisfaction; in order to the better understanding of these, I say that as justice is an attribute of God, he hath no less of that, than of mercy; ●he is as just as he is gracious, that is, he is infinitely both: but ●f we take mercy for the effects of his mercy, then, in this life God is more ready to show effects of mercy, than of ●ustice; hence the Lord is now ●aid to be slow to anger; and the present time, is called the time of longsufferance: whereas the day of Judgement is called the day of wrath. God is infinite as well as merciful, but the meaning of the Text is, that in this life he is more in the discoveries of his mercy, than his justice; but this is so far from excluding a satisfaction, that it supposeth it. There is one Scripture I made use of in my Sermon, viz. Exod. 34. 7. and that will by no means clear the guilty. Which the adversary would wrest out of my hand, but without giving the least reason, to prove that it i● otherways applicable, than ● applied it. As mercy is a property of God's nature, so i● justice: sin is contrary to God▪ and his nature inclines him to punish it. It is remarkable tha● Socinus himself acknowledgeth, that where the sinne● is obstinate, God canno● but punish him; now obstinacy in reference to its own nature is not punishable ● for obstinacy in good (being nothing but constancy) is laudable; and therefore obstinacy is not punished for itself, but only in reference to evil; and consequently it is evil which is punishable, and which God cannot but punish, and obstinacy is only punishable in respect of sin, to which it is joined. And thus we have seen that to pardon sin upon a satisfaction, is neither contrary to itself, nor to other Scriptures.   

SECT. iv  
Arguments for the necessity of a satisfaction vindicated, that from the truth of Gods threatening justified. Likewise those from the holiness and justice of God; the nature of sin; and Gods being Governor; vindicated from the adversaries exceptions.  
HAving seen the impertinency of the Gentlemans own Arguments, and how insufficient they are to establish what ●he intended by them; let us see next how happy he will prove in the answering (as he styles them) my Argumentations. Though I must tell the Reader, that he hath abused both the World, and me, in calling a few notes imperfectly taken, and that by a professed Enemy, my Sermon; and imposing upon his Readers only the shreds of Arguments, for the sum of what I produced: sure the man had either an itch to be in Print, or was in an humour of quarrelling. But if he took these for my Reasons, he had both lost his own Reason and his Conscience; and he that takes his Replies for Answers, either never suspected the controversy, or else hath a mind to be deceived. But this being a confident age, and those I have to do with, being a sort of men who suppose their dreams should pass for demonstrations, every thing they say, however inconsiderable, must be attended to.  
1. Whereas I argued from the 
P. 10.  truth of Gods threatening against the pardonableness of sin without a satisfaction, he desires to know where the threatening alloweth a surety?  
Answ. The Texts I produced namely, Gen. 2. 17. (not 1. 17. as the adversary misciteth it) and Deut. 27. 26. hold clearly forth God's judicial denunciation of punishment against sin, ●ut the purpose of God for the execution of it upon the sinner, ●s not there expressed: and that ●his was not the intendment of ●t, in reference to all, the event ●emonstrates, in that it is not executed upon the Elect, and ●et it behoved to be executed ●gainst sin, otherwise the truth ●nd justice of God should have ●ailed: and therefore the Adversary must either deny salvation to the Elect, or truth in ●od. It being then obtained that the threatening abides firm, God himself is the best interpreter of his own meaning in it, and this he hath done in the Gospel, both in reference to the stability of the Law itself, Rom. 3. 31. and also in reference to the execution of it upon Christ, 1 Cor. 5. 21. Gal. 3. 13. 1 Pet. 3. 18. To render this clearer, I desire the Reader to observe that threaten do primarily signify only the dueness of punishment; not that God will always execute it upon the offender: God might altogether release his threaten, were he not restrained by his holiness, wisdom, righteousness, and honour, and it being against none of all these to release the personal offender, seeing by punishing sin (though i● another than the personal offenders) he both secures hi● honour, and at once gives evidence of the purity of his nature in the hatred of sin, and of the wisdom and righteousness of his Government, in the execution of his Law.  
But he adds, that the Scripture 
P. 10.  saith, The soul that sinneth shall die, Ezek. 18. 4. and therefore that it is against truth itself, to affirm that another dies in his room.  
Answ. The intendment of that place cannot be, that never any was, or should, or might be made suffer for another's sin, for the Scripture furnisheth us with an express threatening, Exod. 20. 5. and also many instances to the contrary: but the meaning of the place is, that whereas a company of wretches had raised a Proverbial reproach on the providence of God, namely, that their Fathers having been the only offenders, yet they were the sufferers, v. 2. Lament. 5. 7. (1.) He either tells them that hereafter they should not have that occasion to complain, forasmuch as he intended to be more speedy in the execution of judgements upon the immediate offenders. Or (2.) That there should be no more cause for that report, there being an end put to the captivity and those calamities which occasioned it.  
Whereas the Gentleman bids me 
P. 10.  take heed of the curse denounced against him that addeth to the Scripture, because in the opening o● some Texts, I mentioned surety.  
Answ. Surety is a part of one Scripture Text, Heb. 7. 22. and in reference to others, I only mention it as a true explication of the words, not as a par● of them; as a consequence naturally arising from them, no● as lying in so many syllables i● them. And he cannot be offende● with this method of disputing, without condemning the procedure of Christ who hath gone before us in this way of Argumentation, Mat. 22. 31, etc.  
2. He says that I Reason from the 
P. 11.  condecency that was in it to the wisdom, righteousness, and other attributes of God, to pardon sin upon a compensation.  
Answ. I suppose the Gentleman trusted to his Friends account, but he was disingenuous in relying upon so slender information, and his Friend was unworthy in abusing him, the world, and me; there was not ●ny such thing delivered in the Sermon, as is here alleged, ●hereof the best evidence, will ●e the presenting what was truly delivered. In my discoursing the satisfaction of Christ, I alleged ●he several ways which were ●sisted on, in the affair, particularly that there were many, who though they believed that other ways of saving sinners were not wanting to the divine wisdom, yet that the saving us, by the satisfaction of Christ had a great condecency in it to the honouring of the divine perfections, this was at large treated, and many Scriptures which I then judged very pertinent and serviceable to the design, were produced; but forasmuch as none of them save one, are taken notice of, I am not concerned to repeat, much less to vindicate them; and as for that which he citys, namely, Rom. 3. 25, 26. we have already secured it, and evidently shown that justifying gratis, is very consistent with a plenary compensation. See Sect. 1.  
3. But I disputed from the holiness, 
P. 11.  purity, and righteousness o● God's nature to the necessity of punishing sin.  
Answ. I did so, and how pertinently, I leave to the foregoing discourse to instruct, from p. 45. to 51.  
But saith he, is it not as much 
P. 11.  against holiness, and justice for God to punish the innocent, as it is to acquit the guilty?  
Answ. We have proved before that it is no ways against justice to lay pains upon an innocent, providing, there be a concurrence of such conditions, as we there mentioned, see p. 94. to 107. I shall now therefore only reassume one thing, and enlarge it; namely, that there is no wrong done to a willing person, especially in a matter wherein he hath full dominion; and Christ was admirably willing, there neither was, nor could be any necessity laid on him, it was his own election and choice, Prov. 8. 31. he freely tendered himself to it, Psal. 40. 7. his will was as forward in the undertaking, as the Father's was; he entered upon the work with cheerfulness, Psal. 40. 8. and was bend upon the accomplishing of it, Luke 12. 51. he voluntarily put his name into the obligation, though then he became in duty responsible for the whole debt.  
Whereas the adversary calls this 
P. 12.  horrible cruelty, etc.  
I dare not return him the Answer which he deserves, remembering that railing did not become the Angel's mouth, though the devil deserved it, Judas. 9 I shall only join issue in that Prayer, Zech. 3. 2. How the sufferings of Christ were a valuable compensation, for the sins of all those, in whose behalf he suffered, the Adversary is far from understanding, and is too far prejudiced to learn. To those who are humble and teachable it is enough to know that he was God-man, God over all, Rom. 9 5. the true God, 1 Joh. 5. 20. and that his blood was the blood of God, Rom. 20. 28. and that he offered up himself through the eternal spirit, Heb. 9 14. there was a real condignity in the price paid, to atone for the offence committed, and to purchase the mercy obtained.  
Though we abhor such unsavoury 
P. 12.  expressions, as the putting the thousands of pounds of his Godhead, into the scale with the penny of his manhood; yet we affirm that the dignity of his person, puts an infinite worth upon whatever he did or suffered. His satisfaction is the satisfaction of God, and it is that which the infinite God is satisfied with; he looks for no more, nor better; yea there can neither be more, nor better. The rest which th● Adversary in reference to thi● head suggesteth, I refer it t● any Reader whether it be an● thing else, than a bundle o● blasphemy and nonsense.  
That which he next falls upon, 
P. 12.  is my asserting in case o● pardon, the necessity of a satisfaction from the nature of sin ● and how effectual the Argument is to that end, I refer to th● preceding discourse, pag. 42▪ to 45. Two things the Gentleman here objects, (1.) That if so, the● the punishment ought to be inflicte● upon the criminal.  
Answ. This he could not bu● know, if he knew any things that we would deny, and ye● not the least word added for th● proof of it. This then is o● easy dispatch; for we affirms that though it be necessary that sin should be punished, yet it is not indispensably needful, that it should be punished in the person who offends, let him rationally attempt the probation of the contrary, and I assure him he shall be attended to.  
(2.) That suppose sin doth in 
P. 12.  ●ts own nature, deserve punishment, ●et this doth not necessitate God to punish sin.  
Answ. (1.) If by necessity, they mean coaction, or a necessity inconsistent with God's counsel, purpose, and will, we confess God cannot be subject to any such brutal necessity; but if by necessity, they mean (as they ought) a rational necessity, a necessity not destructive of freedom; as God necessarily loves himself, and yet freely does it: the glorified Saints necessarily magnify and praise God, and yet most freely: the Devil's sin necessarily, and yet from freedom and choice: In this sense we affirm▪ God is necessarily inclined to punish sin; his nature inclines him to punish it, yet so as that he wills, purposeth, and decrees the punishing of it. (2.) This Gentleman confounds justice with the effects of it; actual punishing, with the principle whence it ariseth and proceeds: actual punishing depends upon the divine decree, but the inclination to punish is founded in the divine nature.  
He adds that we men have a 
P. 12.  natural right to our Limbs, and he that maims us deserves to be punished, yet notwithstanding we may forgive the offence.  
Answ. (1.) There be cases wherein being wronged, we cannot without injustice forgive, but are bound to prosecute revenge upon the offender; see pag. 53. of the former discourse. (2.) He argues from what a private person may do, ●o what God who is the supreme Rector and Governor ●ught to do; whereas even ●mong men, that which is lawful for a private person, is not lawful for a Magistrate, vid. ●bi supra. (3.) The Gentleman ●n this whole affair confounds ●us & justitia, power and equity. We may have a physical ●ower to do that, which we ●ave not a moral right to do. ● Father may (if we speak as ●o power) connive at rebellion in his Son; but it is mo●ally wicked, and destructive ●f Paternal Government to do ●o; so here we do not argue ●bout the unlimited power of God, what in a way of absoluteness he may do, but what in agreeableness to his ●ustice, wisdom and holiness, is ●it for him to do.  
Whereas he adds that sins give 
P. 12.  ●od a right to punish, but that he may dispense with his right, if h● please, or else he were more impo●tent than we contemptible worm● are.  
Answ. (1.) If this prove an● thing, it will prove more tha● the Adversary desires, namely, that God may forgive th● obstinate and impenitent, seeing we not only can, but in som● cases are bound so to do; bu● the contrary hereof, both Soc●nus and Crellius affirm, and I suppose the Disciple will not var● from his Masters. (2.) It is tru● that he who sins, gives God ● right to punish him, and tha● God may remit his right, bu● than it must be upon term which may secure his honour now it is against his honour to do it otherwise, than upo● the conditions we allege, an● upon these we affirm, that i● demonstration of his grace, h● doth it. Neither is it through impotency that God cannot otherways act, but through infiniteness of perfection.  
His next assault, is upon my 
P. 13.  Argument from the nature of God, and the account that the Scriptures give us of it, in reference to sin ●nd sinners, to which purpose I ●ited, 2 Thes. 1. 6, 7. upon which ●e replies, that God is said to be righteous in recompensing rest to ●hem who are troubled, as well as tribulation to them who trouble; ●ut forasmuch as that is not from ●he necessity of God's nature, but ●rom his merciful determination; ●o neither is this from the inclination of his nature, but the pleasure of his will.  
Answ. (1.) God having promised to reward obedience, cannot without faileur in his veracity and truth, but perform ●t; for though his promise was ●n act of grace, yet the keeping ●f it is an act of justice, and therefore the Scripture asserts that God cannot otherwise do, without being false and unrighteous, Heb. 6. 10. 2 Tim. 4. 8. and by consequence God having threatened to punish sin, is obliged by his veracity to do no less; his truth is as prevalent with him in the one case, as i● the other: so that this exception is so far from prejudicing us, that it clearly overthrows his cause who brought it. (2.) God being infinitely good, is inclined by his nature to love virtue, and though it were no● against his justice not to reward it, forasmuch as it is impossibl● that a creature should lay an obligation upon its maker, yet i● is that which his wisdom and goodness will not admit him to do. How much more than is i● contrary to his nature, not to punish sin, that being formally against his justice, as well as unbecoming his wisdom. (3.) We affirm that there is a difference betwixt obedience and sin as to the point of ones being punished, and the other rewarded; for ●e own the utmost of Service ●o God, as we are his creatures, ●nd withal there is that in the ●ature of duty, which deserves ●hat it should be pursued; but ●n the contrary sin is so far from ●eing a debt which we own to God, that he commands us on the ●ighest peril to avoid it; and ●here is nothing in the nature ●f sin, that should invite us to commission of it; and withal ● is contrary both to God's na●re, and government, and herefore though God be obliged by his nature to punish sin, ●t he is under no such obliga●on to reward obedience, obe●ence being a debt we own to ●od as our maker and ruler, whereas sin is both an opposing his nature, and a rebelling against his Rectorship. The Apostle asserts the same distinction, Rom. 6. 23. for the wages of sin is death: but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.  
The next attempt, is upon my 
P. 13.  arguing for the necessity of sins punishment, from the sense and notion, which the Heathens without revelation have of it. Against which he excepts that the same light taught them that God was merciful pardoning sin, without a satisfaction.  
Answ. If we consider in thi● affair the sentiments of the Heathen, our Adversaries hav● clearly the disadvantage, for i● is most certain that they believed God to be offended, an● therefore sought by costly offerings, lustrations, etc. to appease him. (2.) We readily gran● that the Heathens had som● light of Gods being merciful herein he left himself nowhere without a witness, Act. 14. 17. and the common discoveries which he made of his goodness, were intended in a kind of objective way, and had a great tendency and usefulness to that purpose, to lead us to Repentance, Rom. 1. 19, 20. Rom. 2. 4. but that they had any notion of Gods pardoning sin without satisfaction, we deny and challenge him to prove it, if he can; yea their whole Worship employed the contrary; to what end were all their Sacrifices, but, upon a steady belief of Gods being angry, to atone him? It is very remarkable that of all the parts and principles of justified Worship-Priesthood, and Sacrifice made the largest spread, there being scarce any People or Nation which hath arrived to our knowledge among whom we do not find some Prints and footsteps of them. And though the Heathens mistook the right end of Sacrifices, yet the first Rise of them among them, was some traditional conveyance from the Church, to whom God enjoined them as Types of the great Sacrifice of the Messiah.  
As to what the Gentleman allegeth in reference to the Ninivites, it is altogether impertinent. (1.) In that it was but Gods withholding of a temporal judgement, and that also but for a time, for about forty years after they were destroyed, and their City taken and overthrown. (2.) All the mercy they could suppose in God, was only upon consideration of some effectual means and way to appease him, though they had no distinct notion of the right way and means, by which it was accomplished.  
My last Argument, why sin should not be pardoned without a satisfaction, was from the consideration of Gods being Governor, and) that if he should permit sin to go unpunished, his Laws would have been ridiculous. You may see this Argument managed at further length, p. 48. to 51.  
Against this he excepts, saying 
P. 13.  all men hate and abhor that Government as cruel and tyrannical, where every the least breach must be fully avenged.  
Answ. That you may once for all see, at what kind of rate these Gentlemen dispute, I will ask him these Questions. (1.) Whether God might not have damned all (mankind, without being a Tyrant or cruel? and yet I suppose, we should pronounce it cruelty in any Governor, to destroy all his subjects, even supposing them guilty of a very heinous fault. (2.) Is it cruelty for God to condemn men for little sins, when continued in without repentance? (or will he say that there are some sins in their own nature Venial) and yet I think we should call it cruelty for a Magistrate to cut of his subjects for every little fault, though persevered in. (3.) Are there not some cases, wherein Governors, without destroying the ends of Government and exposing their Laws to contempt, cannot forgive offences? and shall we call it Tyranny in God to secure the honour of his Government, and to preserve his Laws from reproach and derision (4.) It not ways follows that because men may in some cases pardon without a satisfaction, therefore God should; both because men's Laws are often arbitrary, and in many cases only ad terrorem (where summum jus, would be summa injuria) as likewise because justice is of the nature of no Governor, but God.  
Whereas he adds that I cited Gen. 18. 25. in a quite contrary sense to its true meaning, because Abraham urged it against Gods destroying the few Righteous with the many wicked; but I urge for the many righteous, or of one equivalent to many, that a few wicked may go free.  
Answ. (1.) The end I produced it for, was that seeing sin in respect of its nature deserves punishment, therefore God as just Governor was obliged to see that it should have its due; and whatever the Gentleman says to the contrary, I do not see but that it was pertinently alleged. For seeing he ought as he is judge and Rector to do right, and punishment being that which in right belongs to sin, he was bound to see that it should not miss it. (2.) Abraham treated with God only in and through Christ, and what ever was the matter of his Prayer, it was tendered in the virtue, and accepted through the merit of Christ's Satisfaction; for it's only upon the consideration of the blood of Christ, that it becomes Righteous with God to pardon any. (3.) How Christ is equivalent to many, and how no pains were thrown upon him but upon his own election, and consequently how there was no cruelty in inflicting; what he had chosen to undergo, is all at large before opened, and I have more mercy both for myself and my Reader than to repeat it. I know no more under this head added by my Adversary, but a Blasphemy which I care not to mention, but shall leave it to God to avenge.   

SECT. V  
The impossibility of having a satisfaction made any other way. God's being reconciled to us. Christ's satisfying himself, bearing what we should have born. Doing it in our stead. Purchasing grace for us. All vindicated from the exceptions of the Adversary. The Conclusion of the whole.  
HAving seen that a satisfaction is neither contradictory to itself, nor contrary to Scripture; and having vindicated what for the necessity of a satisfaction, in case of pardon I alleged in my Sermon; I had expected next a confutation of what I produced to evidence the impossibility of its being made any other way; but I perceive that my Adversary out of a persuasion, that he had overthrown both the verity and the possibility of a satisfaction, passeth by all that I said on that occasion, as impertinent; save only two or three little things which he pretends to observe. First, That in citing Psal. 51. 16. and 50. 12. upon the warrant and authority of which; I disclaimed the possibility of satisfaction by Sacrifice, I did not take notice of the sacrifice of a broken heart, and of thanksgiving, etc. To which I Answer, (1.) That when I cite one verse in a chapter, I hold not myself concerned to cite every verse; I observed what was pertinent to the subject I was treating, and I suppose I was engaged to take notice of no more. (2.) A broken heart, and thanksgiving are styled Sacrifices only in a metaphorical sense, as all believers are called Priests, Rev. ●. 6. and therefore to have ●amed them under the head I was then handling, had been to ●ave talked at the rate, which ●his Gentleman writes, that is, wildly and not to the purpose. (3.) To what end God appointed Sacrifices, in what respect he accepted, and in what ●ense, and upon what account he ●ejected them; is largely be●ore opened, pag. 63. to 69. and ● love not to trouble either my ●elf, or the Reader with Repe●itions.  
His second exception is in reference 
P. 14.  to my saying that Christ did, ●ud suffered, what was a just com●ensation for our release; upon ●hich he asks how we dare affirm, ●at God who loved his Son, more than millions of righteous men, should yet lay upon him the punishment due to sinners.  
Answ. He laid no more upon him than what himself chose to have laid on him, and what he knew him to be able to bear and overcome; but this whole matter being treated of above pag. 108. to 123. I wave here all further pursuing of it.  
Having in my Sermon proposed several things, towards the proving Gods being reconciled to us, through the death of his Son; this fine disputant without once essaying to Answer one 
P. 15.  word of what I alleged, confidently affirms that it is impossible to show one Scripture, where Christ is said to reconcile God to us.  
Answ. The contrary is above demonstrated p. 166. etc. yea so happy is the Gentleman in his reasoning, that the two Texts which he here citys to the contrary, do demonstrate that very ●hing which he brought them to destroy, see p. 166. etc. for ●hough we have it not in so ma●y words, yet we have the ●hing.  
But he adds what need of recon●ling God, who so loved the world, ●hat he gave his only begotten Son; ●oh. 3. 16.  
Answ. God without any impeachment of his justice, did pity mankind, and find out a way for ●eir pardon and salvation, but actually to pardon and save ●em, he could not without a ●tisfaction. A judge seeing a ●alefactor condemned by the ●aw, may out of some just in●cements so exceedingly pity ●m, as to think of and contrive ●me way, whereby the Law ●y be satisfied, and the per●n acquitted, yet actually he ●nnot release him, unless he ●ill be unjust, till the Law be satisfied. But this objection is fully answered before p. 193. to 196.  
But he adds if Christ hath satisfied the Father, who hath satisfied the Son and the Holy Ghost?  
Answ. (1.) When we say Christ hath satisfied the Father's we do not thereby intent to exclude his having satisfied himself, and the Holy Ghost, fo● when we use such expression● we do not consider the Father personally, but essentially: we d● not consider him in respect ● his distinct subsistence from th● Son and Spirit, but in respe● of the divine essence, wherein Father, Son, and Spirit are on● as Matth. 6. 9 (2.) We affirm that Christ hath satisfied himself, neither do we know an● absurdity in so saying; for b●ing in this whole undertaking considered as God-man, so the● is a distinct respect from himse● merely as God. But this being Replied to before, p. 197. to 199. we shall not further insist on it.  
His next attempt is upon 
P. 15, 16.  my saying, that Christ underwent that, which we should have undergone: from whence he endeavours to infer that upon these terms Christ should have suffered for ever, and should have despaired, etc.  
Answ. (1.) I would have it observed once for all, that this Gentleman never troubles himself to Answer my Arguments, only produceth a few frivolous cavils and exceptions: and indeed it is their way, if they can but darken the expositions which we give of Scripture, they never offer to assign an Exposition of their own. Whereas I brought several Texts which I appehended full to the proof of Christ's bearing, what we should have born; not one word offered by way of formal Reply to any of them, only two or three general Cavils. (2.) It doth not follow that because Christ bore, what we should have born, therefore he behoved to suffer for ever, and despair, etc. as you may see fully opened, p. 107. to 111.  
That the Agony of Christ proceeded not merely from a foresight of temporal death, was asserted and proved in my Sermon. Now at this the Adversary 
P. 16.  Cavils, but instead of alleging any thing to the purpose, he only tells us that Christ being our Captain, was to experience as great trials, as his Soldiers meet with, and seeing they are often by their sufferings, put into Agony, therefore it was convenient that in the same he by his example should go before them.  
Answ. Did ever a person who had not lost his reason, argue so to the prejudice of his own cause, for (1.) Many of his Soldiers bear the worst that befalls them, with less consternation than he did: how many of the Martyrs have hugg're their gibbets, and sung in the flames; now surely if it had been only the apprehension and prevision of bodily death which influenced and operated upon Christ, it had been unworthy that less courage, fortitude, and spirit, should discover itself in the Leader, than doth in the followers. (2.) I think it will be hard if not impossible, to give one instance among all the Saints, who have ●n all particulars, expressed in their sufferings, such sense, pain, anguish and grief as Christ did, which infallibly argues ●hat he suffered what never any of them did. (3.) There is a reason at hand, why the best of believers should manifest something of infirmity and weakness in their sufferings, because they are both mere and sinful men, are not got to a full resignation of themselves to God, nor have that plenary assurance of support in their sufferings, and of glory after them; whereas Christ was not only man bu● God, had fully resigned himself to his Father, was infallibly certain of being born through hi● trials, had the greatest inducements to cheerfulness in his sufferings, namely, the recovery of man, the vindicating hi● Father's Law, Government, and honour, and was fully assured not only of a glorious issue but a reward; and therefore supposing that we poor worm should by sufferings, be throw● into fears and agonies, i● is a non sequitur that Christ should.  
After I had declared in my Sermon, that Christ suffered what we should have suffered, I endeavoured next to prove that he did it in our room, and to that end brought many Scriptures, three or four of which the Adversary is pleased to recite, but instead of invalidating the Expositions which I gave of them, or answering the arguments which were raised from them,  
He only tells me (1.) That in 
P. 17.  his judgement they are not the most probable I might have brought.  
Answ. (1.) His judgement is of small value with me, neither am I to inquire of my Enemies, what Weapons I should fight with. (2.) That they are effectual and pertinent to the end they were brought for, I have before proved, p. 128. to 141.  
He adds (2.) That he suffered 
P. 17.  for our example, 1 Pet. 2. 21.  
Answ. It is confessed, but that that was either the only end, or the principal end of his sufferings is denied: yea, if that had been the only end of his sufferings, it had not been necessary for him to have suffered at all, nay, it had not been agreeable to the goodness, justice, and wisdom of God, that he should have at all suffered▪ but) see this discussed before, p. 80. to 83. and p. 88 to 91.  
He adds (3.) That he who doth 
P. 17.  any thing in another st●nd, doth i●, that the other may not do it.  
Answ. Neither do we suffer to that end, that Christ suffered. Our sufferings are only disciplinary, his were penal and satisfactory. Ours are the chastisements of God as a Father, Christ's were the punishments of God as a Judge.  
But he adds (4.) That he is 
P. 17.  said to have entered into Heaven for us, Heb. 6. 20. Which is to be understood of his doing it only for our good, not in our stead, and consequently that whenever he is said to have died, or have suffered for us, we are so to understand it, and not otherwise.  
Answ. (1.) I deny the sequel, It is a strange kind of arguing, because a word hath such a signification sometimes, therefore it must always signify so. (2.) I have already proved that▪ whatever significations 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath in other cases, yet when the sufferings of one for another are expressed by it, that it signifieth always the substitution of one in the room of another, p. 137, 138. and when the Gentleman hath overthrown what we have said there to that effect; we shall judge him worthy to be harkened to; in the mean time he speaks nothing to the purpose.  
The next thing he falls upon, is my alleging that Christ by virtue of the satisfaction which he had made, and the redundancy of merit which was in his obedience and suffering, had purchased grace for us, so that God in righteousness was bound to give it to so many as he had bought it for, to which purpose I had cited, 2 Pet. 1. 1. Now what he brings by way of exception, will be rendered of easy dispatch, by tendering an exposition of that place. (1.) We have there an account of something obtained, and that is faith. (2.) We have the means and ground of obtaining it, and that is through the righteousness of God, and our Saviour Jesus Christ; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Some interpret righteousness in reference to God's faithfulness in his promises; now all God's promises of grace are founded in Christ, 2 Pet. 1. 4. and through him it is, that they are stable and firm, 2 Cor. 1. 20. and as in consideration of his merit, it is matter of justice in God to justify believers, Rom. 3. 25, 26. So it is matter of justice, to give, to so many as Christ hath satisfied for, that they may believe, Phil. 1. 29. Others by righteousness understand the righteousness of Jesus Christ, who is here called our God, (where by the way this is an excellent testimony for the Deity of Christ, for it is not said of God and of our Saviour, but of God and our Saviour, there is but one single article assigned to all the words, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; it is parallel to Tit. 2. 13.) Now faith is said to be given through his righteousness, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 used often for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: Mat. 6. 7. Mat. 11. 6. Act. 7. 29. 1 Cor. 12. 9 & alibi.  which may be taken either for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, per, propter, For, and then the import is, that in consideration of the satisfaction, merit, and righteousness of Christ, God bestows faith, and consequently cannot without injustice but bestow it upon such, in reference to whom Christ hath bought, merited and purchased it; or it may 
〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luk. ●. 26. Petrus hoc capite v. 5, 6, 7. voce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 pro 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 septies utitur.  be taken for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, cum, with, and then the import is, that they had received faith, and with it the righteousness of Christ made over and imputed to them. Now in my Sermon I took it as put for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and accordingly argued, and I find no cause to recede from my persuasion.  
But the Gentleman excepts, 
P. 17.  that this is to make that of Debt, which is merely of Grace.  
To this I briefly Answ. That it is both of Debt, and of Grace; of Debt in respect of Christ, of Grace in respect of us, and he must invent a new Philosophy, as well as a new Divinity, before he can be able to prove these two to be contradictories. His other exceptions are obviated in the Exposition, and indeed he wholly mistakes the sense in which I cited the words, and shows himself altogether ignorant of the scope of them.  
We are now come to the Adversaries last exceptions; The first whereof is, that to say 
P. 18.  God would have a satisfaction, and yet that himself procured it, is to render the whole transaction, a matter of Pageantry.  
Answ. This is spoken to before, p. 152. & 197. and therefore I shall only say, that whatever it would be in pecuniary debts, it is not so in penal,  
He adds secondly, That though 
P. 19  according to this procedure, there would be mercy shown to the sinner, yet there would be none shown to sin.  
Answ. There neither aught nor can any mercy be shown to sin: but is not this fine Divinity? that God must not only be a friend to the Rebel, but to the Rebellion? not only justify the offender, but the offence? what is this but in plain English, sin must cease to be sin, or God must cease to be just and holy, otherwise he cannot be merciful. Are these the Masters of reason? or is this it they intent by the freeness of God's Grace in forgiveness? doth the Gentleman reproach 
P. 19  us for mysteries? sure this is mystery, and mystery of iniquity too.  
He hath one touch more upon 
P. 19  the old string at parting, namely, That it is unrighteous to punish an innocent in the room of the nocent.  
Answ. Though this be fully Replied to before, I shall yet further subjoin this, namely, That by the common consent of ●ll Nations, in some cases, the innocent may be made suffer ● the room of the nocent; ●r example, suppose a person ●oth render himself a homage, for the security of the ●ith of that state whereof he is a member, (which he ●ay do, in that a part oweth ● self, unto the preservation ● the whole) and that State ●hose fidelity he was bound to secure, break their faith, the Hostage though personally innocent, being bound to Answer for the guilt of the State, may without any Unrighteousness be put to death.  
I have gone now through the Pamphlet, and have not omitted the least thing that is material, but whether the Answers I have returned be satisfactory, (I do not mean to the Adversary, for I know that sort of men too well, to have cause to ●ope any such thing of them) must be left to the judgement of the Reader to decide. I had thought to have presented the World with some few of the many unsavoury and blasphemous expressions, which the book is stuffed with, but this discourse being already swelled beyond what I imagined, I shall only mention two or three. P. 12. He tells us it is horrible cruelty ●hat the punishment due to us ●hould be inflicted upon Christ. And in the same page. That the ●hole transaction of a satisfaction, is Childish and Ludicrous. And p. 14. That the Phoenicians ●nd Carthaginians in Sacrificing ● few men (he should have added ●o the Devil) in behalf of the ●holw people, came short of the cruelty of God in punishing Christ in ●ur room. And p. 15. That it ●ould grieve a man of ingenuity, ●o be saved at that rate; i. e. ●o be beholding to Christ for salvation. Ex ung●e Leone●. ●ou may know what the whole ●s, by a taste. That the great ●eacher of the truth, as it is in ●esus, would lead us into, and establish us in it, is and shall ●e the Prayer of the Author.    
FINIS.   

Reader, Besides several mistakes in the misplacing of Letters and Points, there are these which corrupt the sense, which, that neither thyself, nor the Author may be wronged, thou art desired to Correct.  
PAg. 3. lin. 24. read by it. p. 5. l. 2. m. judicare▪ p. 8. l. 18. blot out our. p. 11. l. 17. r. hence▪ p. 14. l. 7. m. justificatione. p. 27. l. 21. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is equivalent to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 37▪ l. 14. m. r. aut. p. 140. l. 8. r. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 169▪ l. 3. add the. p. 224. l. 12. r. disserve. p. 224▪ l. ult. & pag. 225. l. 1. r. unless instead of forasmuch. p. 225. l. blot out as, ibid. after had, ad● either had sin of his own, or had. p▪ 226. l. 6. pu● for. p. 235. l. 13. r. man. p. 265. l. 16. add the▪ p. 267. l. 21. r. instituted. ibid. add (,) a●ter Worship. p. 271. l. 12. add it.