02.01.07. Chapter 7

CHAPTER 7. Contains the Seventh Argument to Prove the Limited Extent of CHRIST’s Death THE Satisfaction of Christ is justly accounted a most momentous, and important Article of Faith, because his Glory, and the Efficacy of his Merits, the Honour, and Justice of God: And the Salvation of his People, are inseparably connected with it, are built upon it, and arise from it. We therefore are under infinite Obligations, to accurately inquire into it, clearly Rate it, and zealously defend it. And since the Adversaries of evangelical Truths, exercise their greatest Skill, and use their utmost Efforts, in militating against the Necessity of it, its Reality, and the Perfection thereof, we certainly ought not to be less diligent in asserting, and vindicating its Necessity, Reality, and Perfection.

I. I shall endeavour to prove, that in order to the Remission of Sin, Satisfaction is necessary and such a Satisfaction, as is fun, and adequate to what the Law and Justice of God require, which can be no other than what is given to both by Christ. Some Divines who defend the Satisfaction of Christ as real, and complete, have yet thought, that God might, if such was his Pleasure, have pardoned Sin, without any Atonement or Satisfaction for it: They apprehend that the Necessity of Christ’s Satisfaction is hypothetical only, or what results from a divine Decree and Purpose, that is to say, That God having decreed the Death of his Son, as a Satisfaction to his Law, and Justice, his Death became necessary by Vertue of that Decree; but that God might have pardoned Sin, and saved Sinners, without his dying, had he not decreed his Death. At first View, this may seem too curious an Enquiry, and that it may better become us, to acquiesce in what God has done, as what upon the Whole is certainly wise, and just; since infinite Wisdom and Justice cannot do any thing, but what is so, rather than enquire whether God might have acted otherwise in this Affair, than it hath been his Pleasure to act. I confess that under the Influence of this Consideration, for a great while, I declined the Examination of this Point: But upon observing that the Socinians argue strongly against the Satisfaction of Christ, from no Satisfaction being absolutely necessary, and that they think this Point being gained, they are able with Ease, to answer all other Arguments, tho’ they are much mistaken. I began to think, that I might very safely enquire into it for the Defence of Truth; accordingly I did: And as I hope upon a humble, serious, and impartial Enquiry on this Head, have, arrived to a clear, and full Conviction, that the Justice of God necessarily requires a proper, and plenary Satisfaction for Sin, if Sinners are pardoned; and that since this is just and righteous, am persuaded that the Judge of all the Earth who cannot but do what is so, could not save Sinners, without such a Provision for the Honour of his law and Justice, any more than he can deny himself. The Reasons which induce me to be of this Opinion, are these:

1. It is reasonable to think, that God would not have punished his Son, in the Manner he did, if it had not been necessary, to secure his Glory, and maintain the Honour of his Law in saving of Sinners. It is hard to conceive that a good and merciful God, who doth not willingly afflict or grieve the Children of Men, should so sorely bruise, wound, and punish, his only Son, who is dearer to him, than Angels or Men, without any Necessity for it, or the Honour of his Perfections so requiring, if Sinners are saved by him. His Sufferings were penal, or he was punished in suffering: For he bore Sin, or Guilt was imputed to him — He suffered for Sinners, or in their Stead — He suffered for their Sins, that is to say, their Sins were the meritorious and procuring Cause of his Sufferings — He was made a Curse, i.e. the Curse due to us Christ endured — Justice incensed by our Sins, smote him, wounded him, and put him to Grief. And therefore in Suffering Christ was punished for Sin. Besides, it was Punishment of an amazing and dreadful Weight that he sustained: Unless this is granted, we shall not be able to vindicate the Resolution and Fortitude of our Saviour, in and under his Sufferings such were the Complaints which he uttered.

Many Martyrs, not to say equall’d, but far exceeded him, in Courage, if he underwent bodily Pains, and Reproaches from Men only, if he was not smitten, stricken of God and afflicted: And what adds much Weight to this, is, our Saviour had not that to trouble him, which the best of Martyrs have: A Consciousness personal Guilt, that they are Sinners, and deserve Wrath: Unbelief or Diffidence, a Sense of God’s Displeasure, he was not, or could be in Doubt, about and Interest in the Favour of his Father, or concerning the good Issue of his Sufferings. Besides he had that to comfort him, in suffering, which the best of Men cannot be supposed to have. A Sense of his personal Union with the Son of God, a full and certain Evidence that he had never offended the Father, that the highest Honour and Glory, would redound to the Law and Justice of God, by his Sufferings: That Sinners would certainly be thereby saved, and himself after his Sufferings be crowned with Glory, in which he could not have either any Equal or Partner: That he should have a Name which is above every Name that is named in this World, or in that which is to come. Now if Christ had not that to grieve him, which the best Saints on the Earth have, and if he enjoyed that which no good Man can be supposed to enjoy, tho’ it be in suffering for the best Cause in the World: Unless we allow that in his Sufferings he was made a Curse, and had a piercing Sense of that Wrath which is due to Sin, How shall we be able to account for the sore Complaints he expressed? Let Christians view their suffering Lord in the Garden, in his Agony, and there sweating, great Drops of Blood falling down in Plenty to the Ground, and think whether it will become them to imagine, this preternatural Sweat, was only occasioned by a Dread of the bodily Pains, he was to undergo. Let them hear him expressing himself thus, Now is my Soul troubled, and what shall I say? And my Soul is exceeding sorrowful even unto Death. Attending to this, his Language; let them ask themselves whether it is likely, that Christ should be so much inferior in Courage and Fortitude, to many of his Servants, who have gone to the Rack, and to the Stake, in Triumph, and with Exultation? Upon the Whole, we may safely conclude, That our Saviour was punished, and that the Weight of his Punishment was exceeding great. Why should it be thought, That God would punish his Son, whom he infinitely loves, in such a Manner, if it was not necessary to secure the Honour of his Perfections? Nor can I think that less than Christ actually suffered, would have been sufficient to the Redemption of his People, much less that one Drop of his Blood, as some have said, would have been sufficient to that End.

2. It was proper that God should equally provide for the Honour of all his Attributes. It seems not to comport with his infinite Wisdom, to regard the Exaltation of the Glory of his free Mercy, in Remission, and wholly neglect the Honour of his Justice, which on]y could be manifested in the Infliction of Punishment. Why may it not be thought becoming God, and suitable to his Nature, which is holy as well as gracious, to shew himself offended with Sin, by punishing it, while he shews himself gracious in remitting it to the Sinner? The inspired Writer to the Hebrews, plainly suggests to us this Idea: It became him for whom are all Things, and by whom are all Things, in bringing many Sons to Glory, to make the Captain of their Salvation, perfect through Sufferings. If bringing Men to Heaven this Way became God, or was proper for his own Glory; he could not bring them to Happiness without it; unless we suppose that God may, or can omit, what it becomes him to do; which we have no more Reason to think, than that he can be unmindful of his Honour.

3. God cannot but hate Sin: As he is a Being infinitely holy in his Nature, he necessarily, tho’ freely, loves and delights in Holiness; so he necessarily detests and hates the contrary of it, Sin: He is of purer Eyes than to behold Iniquity; be cannot look upon Evil with Approbation or Connivance. Sin is the abominable Thing his righteous Soul hates: Hatred in God is not an Affection, or Portion, the infinite Blessedness of his Nature admits not of that, but it is a Will to shew Resentment against Sin, which, what is it but the Infliction of Penalty? If it be thought that the Holiness of God’s Nature, moves him to shew his Approbation of a Conformity to his Will, in his Creatures, Why may we not conceive, that his infinite Rectitude, and Purity, will certainly and necessarily determine him, to act an opposite Part, when his Creatures are chargeable with a Behaviour towards him quite the Reverse.

4. It is just and righteous to punish Sin: Is it a righteous Thing with God to recompense Tribulation to Sinners: he is not unrighteous who taketh Vengeance. Socinus observes to very little Purpose, that God’s punishing of Men, is called Wrath, Anger, Fury, Indignation, and Severity. His Acts of Punishment being so spoken of, import nothing contrary to Justice and Equity in those Acts, or that God proceeds in such Acts, from an angry and revengeful Disposition; and therefore this is no Objection to the Righteousness, Equity, and Justice, which are inseparable from those Acts. As God is essentially just and righteous, he necessarily, tho’ freely, wills to act what is just and righteous; but should he will not to punish Sin, he then would will to omit an Act that is just and righteous, and is agreeable to the Holiness and Righteousness of his Nature, which is what he cannot do.

5. This essential Righteousness of God is own’d and acknowledg’d by the Heathen: They have a Conviction in their Minds, that Sin deserves Punishment, or that those who are guilty of it, are worthy of Death, Romans 1:32. This is as forcible an Argument that God is essentially just, as their Acknowledgment of a Deity and supreme Being, is, that there is a God. From the Sense they had of Punishment being due to Sin; proceeded their Terrors of Conscience, Dread of Wrath, and the many Methods they fixed upon, to avert that Vengeance they fear’d on Account of their Vices. Whatever Men in Controversy may now say upon the Head, when once Guilt lies on the Conscience, and the Demerit of it is apprehended, there is not any thing in the World so difficult to be believed, as is that of the Remission of our Sins, even under the unspeakable Advantage, of a gracious Revelation of a full Satisfaction being made by the Blood of Christ: Such a deep Impression is made on the natural Conscience, of the Justice, Holiness, and Righteousness of God; and so far is the Light of Nature from dictating to us, there is Ground to hope for Pardon.

6. Out of Christ God is a consuming Fire. The Words indeed are metaphorical; but the Sense of them is plain and obvious, viz. That as Fire necessarily consumes all combustible Matter within its Reach, so God necessarily, but freely (for he is an Intelligent and free Agent, which Fire is not) punisheth and consumes by his flaming Vengeance all such, whose Sins are not atoned for by the Sacrifice of his Son.

7. If this Point is proved and granted, then it necessarily follows, that Christ in suffering, satisfied for Sin, or else it cannot be remitted: Of this, the Socinians are fully convinced; and therefore they use their utmost Skill in objecting to it: And some others who entirely dissent from their Opinion concerning the Ends and Effects of his Death, will not allow of the Necessity of Satisfaction, particularly Dr. Twiss, Vossius, and Dr. Goodwin. I shall first attend to the Objections of the Socinians, and then consider their Exceptions to it. I shall begin with Crellius his Objections; which are as follow:

Object. 1. God hath a Power of inflicting, or not inflicting Punishment: but it is not repugnant to divine Justice, to pardon a Sinner whom be hath a Right to punishf8.

Answ. 1. God is indeed the supreme Lord and Governor of the World, as he necessarily must be, since he created and upholds it 2. But he doth not inflict Punishment, as a universal Lord, for then he might be supposed to punish innocent Creatures, but as Judge of all, and he cannot omit doing what is right in Judgment; such is the Infliction of Penalty on Offenders.

3. God acts not as supreme Lord in the Affair of punishing Sin; except in the Constitution of Christ a Surety, to the End he might bear Sin, and sustain the Penalty demerited by it, in order to Satisfaction for it, herein indeed, God acted not as a Judge, but as the universal Sovereign, and Lord of all, that is to say, in his Constitution; but in his Suffering for Sins, God acted as Judge.

Object. 2. He does Injury to None, whether he punishes, or not punishesf9 Answ. 1. None ever thought that a Neglect to punish, would be an Injury to the Offender.

2. The Prejudice arising from such a Neglect would affect God’s Perfections, not the Sinner, Punishment in Care of Sin, is a Debt, not properly due to us, but to the Justice of God.

Object. 3. Punishment is not due to the Offender, he owes it; and be owes it to him, against whom all the Injury ultimately tendsf10.

Answ. 1. Because Punishment is not due to the Offender, but he owes it to the Law giver, it follows not that the Legislator, may in Justice forbear to inflict it.

2. The Infliction of Punishment for Sin, is not as God is affected with Injury by it; for as he is not profited by good Actions; he is not injured by evil Actions; but God inflicts Punishment as Law-giver and Judge.

Object. 4. Any one may part with his Rightf11.

Answ. 1. There is a Right of Debt, which being of an indifferent Nature, may be given up.

2. There is a Right of Rule and Government; this cannot be resigned, without a Disregard to the Law, under which the governed Party is; this is, or at least ought to be granted with Respect to the divine Law in its Precepts.: And it ought to be allowed in its Sanction and Threatening, unless it may be proved, that though the Righteousness and Justice of God necessarily, yet freely determines him to delight in, and command Holiness, it doth not determine him to hate, and will to punish its contrary Sin. Thus far the Objections of Cressius, and the Answers to them. I shall now consider Socinus his Objections, to the Necessity of Satisfaction for Sin, as they are delivered by him in his Book, de Jesu Christo Servatore.

Object. 1. To pardon is to abate of what is right and due, this a Man may do, much more God, our Sins are Debts, and may be forgiven without Paymentf12.

Answ. 1. Obedience is God’s Right or Due from Men, with this his Right he cannot part, for if so, God may allow of Disobedience, or Sin: But a Man who is a rightful Matter and Lord of a Servant, may let his Servant at Liberty, and require no farther Obedience or Service from him; hence we see though Men may part with their Right, it follows not that God may also part with his.

2. Our Sins are not properly, but metaphorically called Debts; a proper Debt is something that we owe to a Creditor, which we received from him, such are not our Sins; but as a Debtor owes something to a Creditor, that he hath received from him, we owe a debt of suffering to the Law and Justice of God, for that we have acted against both.

Object. 2. The Justice of God by which be punishes Sin, it not an essential Property of his Nature, but is an Effect of his Willf13.

Answ. 1. All Righteousness and Justice is essential to God, or else his Nature, is not absolutely and infinitely perfect, which it certainly is.

2. It is granted, that God cannot but punish impenitent Sinners, the Reason of which is, the Holiness and Righteousness of his Nature: If God cannot but punish such, the Infliction of Punishment on them, is not an Effect of his Will.

3. We should all eternally remain obstinate and impenitent, were it not for the Satisfaction of Christ, which secures the Communication of that Grace, that is necessary to work Repentance in us; and therefore, were it not for this Satisfaction, we should necessarily suffer Punishment.

Object. 3. Punitive Justice is contrary to Mercy: Mercy is essential to God, and if punitive Justice is essential to him, the are there contrary Properties in God, which cannot bef14.

Answ. 1. Justice is not contrary to Mercy, Cruelty indeed is; but that hath no Place in God’s inflicting Punishment on Sinners.

2. Different Acts flow from Justice and Mercy, yet they are not contrary: To argue from Acts to Properties, is very weak and inconclusive.

3. If God acts contrary to Mercy in punishing, then impenitent Sinners cannot be punished for Sin; the Reason is, God cannot do an Act, that is contrary to any of his Attributes.

Object. 4. There is a twofold Righteousness, and a two-fold Mercy: One Righteousness, God perpetually exercises, when he punishes and destroys the Wicked and Obstinate, and Men lost to all Hope. The other is that by which God sometimes punishes sinners, not obstinate, nor wholly desperate, whose Repentance is not deferred: Yea, God might, if he would, punish the Penitent, exclusive of the Promise of his Mercy, by which he hath freely after some Sort bound himself to us. From whence the two-fold Mercy of God, as we have said, appears. One by which he pardons all sin, to those who repent, as his Promises shew, and confers Salvation, and Life. The other is that by which he truly prevents, calls, and allures Men hitherto immersed in sins, to himself, and graciously offers the Pardon of their sins, and Salvation to them, they not thinking of those Thingsf15.

Answ. 1. We should all remain wicked and obstinate, were it not for the Satisfaction of Christ, in Vertue of which, Grace is communicated to us in Order to Faith and Repentance, as was before observed.

2. Its confess’d that God corrects in Faithfulness and Goodness, those whom he loves, and for whole Offences Satisfaction is made by the Death of Christ; but he cannot in Justice inflict Punishment oh them; the Reason is, Christ sustained Punishment in their Stead. It is also acknowledged, that not supposing the Satisfaction of Christ, God might eternally punish them; but that being supposed, he cannot. Allow but Socinus the Thing he begs, and he will certainly prove his Point.

3. God’s pardoning Sin is an Act of Justice, as well as Mercy. To us it is an Act of Mercy, to Christ who has made Atonement, it Is an Act of Righteousness and Justice.

4. God exercises long Suffering towards the Wicked, or defers Execution of Punishment, as long as seems meet to his infinite Wisdom. Thus it appears that these Distinctions of Justice and Mercy, as opposite, are only invented by Socinus to answer an End, which they by no Means do. His whole Arguing here is sophistical; he begs the Thing he ought to prove, viz. that Satisfaction is not made by Christ, which being allowed him, the Proof of the Nonnecessity of his Satisfaction is most easy.

Object. 5. If Justice is essential to God, not pardon sin, no not the least sin to any one, i.e. without Satisfactionf16.

Answ. It is the manifest Design of Socinus, to urge this upon us as a great Absurdity, we acknowledge it to be our firm Opinion, out of the Regard we have to the Honour of God, in whom all Justice and Righteousness, we are fully persuaded is essential: Nor is it in the Power of any Man, as I believe to prove it absurd that God cannot pardon Sin without a Satisfaction, no not the least Sin.

Object. 6. This is not called Righteousness in the Scripture, but Severity, Vengeance, etcf17.

Answ. 1. Never was any Thing more falsely spoken by Man, than is this, that the Infliction of Punishment, is not called Righteousness, Romans 1:32.

2. It is called Severity and Vengeance suitable to our Apprehensions of it: But this suggests not in the least, that it Is an Act, not flowing from Righteousness and Justice.

Object 7. To punish sin, and pardon it, are contraryf18.

Answ. This is true, if Respect is had to one and the same Subject, in punishing and pardoning: But if Respect is had to different Subjects, as it is in this Affair, they are not.

God willed not to punish Sin, in his People, but in his Son. On his Son he actually inflicted Punishment, on them he doth not: To pardon Sin in the Sinner, and punish it in the Sinner’s Surety, are not contradictory, or the one is not eversive of the other.

Object. 8. Its unjust to punish Sin in Christf19. The Justice of God in the Imputation, of Sin to Christ, and the Infliction of Penalty on him, shall hereafter under divine Assistance, be vindicated from the Objections of Socinus, where this Objection will be particularly considered.

Object. 9. Mercy as opposite to Justice is not essential to God, but is an Effect of his Willf20.

Answ. 1. Mercy and Justice are not contrary, as was before observed, tho’ Mercy and Cruelty are.

2. God’s Nature is infinitely merciful, but the Exercise of his Mercy, is under the Direction of his most holy Will, as to its Objects, the Time, Manner, and the Degree of its Discovery; otherwise it can’t be true that he hath Mercy, on whom he will have Mercy.

3. The Exercise of Justice and Mercy are not to be considered in the same Light: Justice is not exercised, but in Case of Demerit: This the essential Righteousness of God requires; but Mercy is exercised freely, or without Merit; there is nothing in the objects of Mercy, that render its Exercise and Discovery towards them necessary, as there is in those, towards whom Justice is exercised.

Object. 10. God very commonly, and most readily pardons Sinf21.

Answ. Whatever Men may now think of the Pardon of Sin, they will certainly find at God’s awful Tribunal, that it is not to be had at such an easy Rate, as in Tenderness to themselves, and without a due Sense of his Righteousness and Justice, they may at present imagine.

Object. 11. God’s Justice and Mercy are not infinite, for he is slow to Anger, and abundant in Mercy, the latter exceeds the formerf22.

Answ. 1. From the Delay of Punishment, it can’t be proved that God’s Displeasure with Sin is not infinite.

2. Though God according to his sovereign Pleasure in the Dispensations of his Providence, discovers more of long Suffering, Patience, Goodness, and Mercy than of punitive Justice, it follows not from hence, that they are unequal in himself, and may not consist together.

Object. 12. Socinus asserts, that we being deceived by a Shew of the Word Justice, think that God’s Sovereignty and Anger is infinitef23.

Answ. 1. Its no Deception to think that the Indiction of Punishment, is a righteous and just Act; and therefore this Man was guilty of impious Boldness, in saying, that we are willing to call it by some worthy Name; viz. Justice, as though this was an Honour not strictly due to it.

2. Righteous and just Acts proceed from Righteousness and Justice; and therefore the Act of punishing, flows from God’s Righteousness and Justice, which doubtless is essential to him.

3. Of consequence it must needs be infinite, for there is nothing in God, but what is so. I proceed to consider the Objections of the very learned Dr. Twiss against the Necessity of Satisfaction.

I. His first Argument stands thus. If God cannot pardon Sin without a Satisfaction, then this is either because he cannot by his Power, or because he cannot by his Justicef24.

Answ. 1. What God cannot do by one Attribute, he cannot do by any; for he cannot act contrary or unsuitable in any of his Perfections.

2. We plead that Justice requires Satisfaction for Sin, it therefore was not very pertinent in the learned Man, to argue from Power to Justice; the Point to be proved was, that Justice doth not require Satisfaction; till that is proved it can’t be demonstrated, that God may by his Power forgive Sin without Satisfaction. That God may by his Power forgive Sin without Satisfaction, is concluded, because it implies no Contradiction; to be able to remit Sin, and to be able not to remit, are not made up of contradictory Terms, that is, to be able to forgive Sin, is no Contradiction, and to be able not, is no Contradiction, and therefore God may do either, just as he pleases. Again, these things are not contradictory; to be able to remit Sins without Satisfaction, and to be able not, because this a Man may do, yea he ought to forgive his Enemies. The Answer is, I. A Man may do what God cannot, a Man may give up his Rule and Authority over his Servants, but God cannot, for he is necessarily, the Lord of his Creatures, and cannot dispense with their Obedience to him. 2. It is a Contradiction not to will to punish Sin, for the Infliction of Punishment is an Act of Justice, and God cannot but will to act justly. 3. Its a Contradiction that God is able not to hate Sin, which is a Will to punish it, as was observed above, for if God is able not to hate Sin, he is able to approve of it, which his infinitely pure Nature cannot do. 4. Men in some Instances may forgive Injuries, when they are personal, and a publick Good is not affected; but in Instance where the common Good is affected, they have not a Power of forgiving Injuries. Now Sin cannot be pardoned without a Satisfaction, because thereby the Government, Justice, and Righteousness of God, would be much affected.

II. His Second Argument is; If God cannot suffer sin to go unpunished; then it must unavoidably be, that he punishes by absolute Necessityf25.

Answ. 1. There is a Necessity in God, which tho’ it is natural, is not absolute; but results from his Will, necessarily, and yet freely; thus if God wills to create a rational Creature, an Angel, or a Man, he cannot but will to create that Creature holy. So if God wills to speak or reveal his Mind to Men, he cannot but will to speak Truth, and yet he freely wills to speak Truth; this is a Necessity tho’ natural yet not absolute. He urges, none doubts, but that the Punishment of evil Men may be encreased in this World, which he supposes cannot be, if God punishes necessarily, and that God must punish as far he as is able.

Answ. 1. Tho’ God necessarily punishes Sin, he punishes freely, and according to his infinite Wisdom, as to Time, Manner, and Degree. 2. Not as far as he is able, but so far as in Righteousness he judges it just, and fit to punish. 3. And therefore the Time, Manner, and Degree of Punishment are according to divine Constitution; but tho’ these Circumstances of inflicting Penalty, are under the Direction of the Will of God, it doth not follow that he may will not to punish.

Arg. 3. God may inflict a milder Punishment, than Sin deserves, and therefore be may according to his absolute Power, suspend the whole Penalty, to support which he reasons thus: God may reward beyond Desert, and therefore he may punish without Desertf26.

Answ. 1. As before tho’ God necessarily punishes Sin, yet the Execution of Punishment, as to the Circumstances of it, such as Time, Manner, and Degree, is under the Direction of his most holy Will and Wisdom!

2. Tho’ God may confer Favours, where there is no Merit, it doth not follows that he may punish without Demerit: The Supposition is false, his Justice doth not require the Bestowment of Favours more than are due; but it requires the Infliction of Punishment where there is Demerit. To consider the Communication of divine Benefits, in the same Light with the Infliction of Punishment, is highly improper: The Reason is plain, God may confer Blessings without Desert but his Justice allows not of the Infliction of Penalty, without Demerit; for proper Punishment, always hath Relation to Guilt, and Suffering without that is not Penalty.

3. Since the Supposition is false, that God may punish where there is no Demerit, it is not true, that he may omit to punish where it is.

Arg. 4. God may inflict Suffering exceeding great, yea eternal, without any Demerit: therefore he also may, notwithstanding Demerit however great, suspend Punishment as great The Antecedent, saith he, is proved more than once elsewhere: The Consequence is evident from hence, God is more inclined to do good, than to punish. He goes on and asks whether it is impossible for God to bring a sinner to Repentance? If you shall say it is impossible, I ask why it is impossible to bring a Sinner to Repentance? Since this includes no Contradiction. If it should be granted that it is possible, see what follows, that God is brought by a certain, natural, and absolute Necessity to punish some sinner, and that for ever, (unless Christ should be his Surety) though he repents, and departs this Life in a State of Repentance. He also objects, that God cannot annihilate a Sinner if so, f27.

Answ. 1. Why doth the learned Man in this Argument, speak of Suffering merely; this is not fair, it is Punishment, not mere Suffering that is under Consideration; all Penalty is Suffering, but all Suffering is not Penalty.

2. If God may inflict Suffering without Demerit, he cannot suspend Punishment, where Demerit is, the former is an Act of absolute Sovereignty, the latter is an Act flowing from the Righteousness of God’s Nature.

3. To will to bring a Sinner to Repentance, and to will to punish him are contrary: Since therefore God cannot but will to punish, the Repentance of a Sinner is impossible without Christ’s Satisfaction.

4. God is said to be more inclined to do good, than to punish, because the Motive to the latter is in the Subject, not so in the former.

5. Annihilation may be without Demerit: No Creature hath a Claim upon God, to preserve it in a State of Existence; its Production into Being, was a sovereign Act of God’s Will, and so is its Preservation in a State of Being: Annihilation therefore is no Punishment, which we shall have Occasion to treat of hereafter: But Sin being supposed, I deny that God may annihilate the Creature, and am persuaded that any Absurdity attending this, will never be proved.

6. The Elect may be said to be punished in Christ, by Reason of that Foederal Union, which subsists between him and them: Christ and they are one in Law, yet it can’t be said that they made Satisfaction, he made Satisfaction on whom the Punishment was personally inflicted, this was Christ not the Elect; notwithstanding it may truly be said, that they suffered in him, as he was their Head and represented them Vossius thus objects I. The Question is not whether it is just to take Satisfaction, but whether it is unjust not to take itf28.

Answ. 1. As hath been proved, the Justice of God’s Nature, requires that Sin be punished.

2. Its confessed that Christ’s making Satisfaction was refusable, God might have insisted on our Suffering, and not have. Resolved on his: But he offers this Argument: If God is merciful in doing this or that Thing, it follows not that in not doing it be is unmerciful: Very true; but there is that in a Sinner, which requires the Exercise of Justice, tho’ there is nothing in him that requires the Exercise of Mercy.

Object. II. He goes on to observe, that every Agent that acteth naturally, acts on the Object naturally receptive of his Action; wherefore, if to punish be natural (namely in such a Sense as infers Necessity) such an Action cannot pass from the Person of the Sinner to anotherf29.

Answ. 1. An intelligent Agent acting naturally, acteth with Will, and Choice, thus God in punishing Sin, acteth necessarily, yet freely, and with Choice; and therefore tho’ his punishing of Sin is necessary, punishing of it in the Person of the Sinner, or in the Person of a Surety, was free to the divine Will.

2. The Act of Punishment flows from Justice; but that Christ should be the Subject of it, is an Effect of divine Sovereignty: God’s Will to punish is necessary; but his Will to punish Sin in Christ, is most sovereign, and free; it is Punishment for Sin, Justice indispensably requires, but not the Punishment of it in a Surety.

Object. III. The Wisdom of God greatly shines in this Affair, as it chose the Means, but it seems not to have Place herein, if God could not by Nature act otherwisef30.

Answ. The Righteousness of God requires Satisfaction for Sin: Infinite Wisdom contrived the Satisfaction Christ hath made. Dr. Goodwin objects thus, Christ put the Necessity of his Suffering on the will of God, and therefore, that Necessity arose not from the divine Nature, but the divine Willf31.

Answ. The Necessity of Satisfaction arises from God’s Justice; but Christ’s making Satisfaction is the Result of God’s sovereign Pleasure: So that Christ’s Sufferings were the Effect of God’s Choice, in order to Satisfaction for Sin, tho’ a proper Satisfaction became necessary from his Justice. The very learned Dr. Twiss objects, that the necessary Consequence, of the Truth we contend for as Atheism: That God is a necessary Agent and acts not freelyf32, this is a dreadful Consequence indeed, and if any Degree of Proof, could be given of it, all pious Minds would doubtless reject an Opinion, that is necessarily attended with such a Consequence; but well it is, Proof fails.

Answ. 1. Some Necessity in God consists with the Freedom of his Choice, as God having decreed to punish his Son for Sin, he cannot but continue to will the Infliction of Punishment on him, by Reason of the Immutability of his Nature, and yet he continues to will this most freely.

2. If God speaks to Men, he cannot but speak Truth, and yet when he speaks, he speaks Truth most freely.

3. If God will create Man, he cannot but create him pure, and yet he creates Man pure and holy, with his free Will and Choice.

4. If God wills to permit Man to Sin, he cannot but will to punish his Sin, the Justice of his Nature so requiring, and yet he wills to punish Sin freely. Under this Objection, it may not be improper to take Notice of the immutable Relation, Reason and moral Fitnesses of Things, independent on the Will of God, which is much talked of, in this very enlightened and refined Age: If this is the belt Instance, that is to be fixed on, as an Evidence of its admirable Improvement, Men of the present Time, have little Reason to boast of their superior Knowledge and Discoveries. For, 1. The several Relations of things between themselves, and God, is wholly dependent on the divine Will.

2. To suppose that any thing, out of God, is the Rule of his Will, is to imagine him to have some superior, and to be under the Direction of something out of himself; than which, nothing more dishonourable to God, can be invented by the depraved Mind of Man.

3. The Opinion of the absolute Necessity of Satisfaction, is at an infinite Remove from this moral Fitness of Things, supposed to be a Rule to the Will of God, from which he cannot vary. That supposes something out of God, to be a Rule and Law to his Will: This maintains, that the Righteousness of God’s Nature, is the Rule of his Will, and not any Thing extrinsical, or out of himself, which hath no other than a Chimerical Existence, in the vain, and loose Imaginations of Men of corrupt Minds.

II. The Reality of Christ’s Satisfaction is now to be proved: The Remonstrants, and some others deny the Reality of the Satisfaction of Christ; they allow not of the proper Ends and certain Effects of his Death; but imagine that by his Sacrifice God was at Liberty to save Men on what Condition soever he pleased: not that his Sufferings, great as they were, procured Salvation certainly, and infallibly for all such, on whose Account he suffered. To detect the Falshood of this Opinion, and establish the Reality of Christ’s Satisfaction, is my Design at present; and I apprehend the following Particulars abundantly confirm this most important Truth.

1. Christ by his Death expiated Sin: He bore the Sins of all such for whom he died, or their Guilt was imputed to him, and by bearing it, he bore it away, hence we read of his purging our Sins, and putting away Sin by the Sacrifice of him. self: The Transgressions of God’s People are removed from them as far as the East is from the West: And those contrary Points will sooner meet, than the Sins and the Persons of those whose Iniquities Christ sustained. Crimes cannot be charged on the Offender, and also on another for him, that is not compatible with Justice, and therefore God in designing Reconciliation to Men, by the Death of his Son, imputed not their sins to them, but charged them on him; hence if he is acquitted of their Guilt, it can’t be considered as chargeable on them. The Pardon of Sin, or Justification from it, must necessarily be a certain Effect of his Death, and therefore the Satisfaction of Christ is real and proper.

2. He redeemed those from the Curse of the Law, on whose Account he was made a Curse: To obtain only, a conditional Grant of Freedom from the Law’s Curse, is not real Redemption: If nothing more than this is to be attributed to the Death of Christ; then he obtained not eternal Redemption; his Death was only an Attempt to redeem Men, and it may prove successless, by their Non-performance of the Conditions enjoined, and we are to consider God, as acting a Part in this Affair, which no righteous Man would do, viz. punish the Surety and also the Offender. Either Christ in Suffering was punished, or he was not, he was not say the Socinians and the Remonstranis, which if true, then indeed he made not Satisfaction for Sin, if it is at all punished, it must be in the Sinner. If Christ was punished in his Sufferings, he bore either a Part of that Punishment to which we were obnoxious, or the whole of it; if a Part only, we are inevitably undone, and are left notwithstanding his Death, without Hope of Salvation, nor is he a perfect Saviour; if he bore the whole, let such who conceive that God punishes those for whom he died, vindicate and clear his Justice in so doing, if they are able.

3. Such for whom Christ died Reconciliation is made: God is really reconciled, not willing to be reconciled, on Performance of certain Conditions, that to say the most of it is only a Disposition to Reconciliation: But Peace is made by the Blood of Christ’s Cross, says the Apostle: No, say the Arminians, only Articles of Peace are obtained by the Death of Christ, and Sinners are to compose the Difference between God and them, by performing certain Conditions, contrary to which we are persuaded, that being justified by Christ’s Blood, we shall be saved from Wrath through him, and that when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God, by the Death of his Son: that the Messiah made Reconciliation for Iniquity: and that the Gospel is the Word or a Report of Peace and Reconciliation, as effected by a dying Saviour. But it seems in all these Particulars, we please ourselves with any Dreams and buoy ourselves up with false Hopes, though as we apprehended, there things are expressly asserted by the Prophets, and Apostles: But it seems, That the Chastisement of our Peace, was not upon Christ, neither by his Stripes are we healed: It is only a conditional Grant of Peace, and Healing, that is the Effect of the Sufferings of our Lord, and he may have the Satisfaction of seeing the Travail of his Soul suffer eternal Vengeance: We really thought, it could be no Pleasure to a Saviour, to view such in Hell, lying for ever under the Wrath of God, for whom he made his Soul an Offering for Sin: And it will doubtless be fully proved that we are mistaken in these Sentiments, when it shall be made evident, that the inspired Writers intended to convey Ideas, contrary to what their Words fully express, which we think never can be done.

4. He suffered in the Room and Stead of those, for whom he died: The Just suffered for the Un-just, that he might bring them to God: The Surety sustained the Persons, and stood in the Place of all those, for whom he shed his most precious Blood. God our righteous Judge accepting his Engagement for us, and in Consequence of such his Engagement, and his own Acceptation of it, punishing of Christ for us, it cannot consist with his Justice, to punish us also; Righteousness requires not the Death of a Surety and of the Offender too for the same Offences: Either therefore Christ did not die, and was not punished in our Stead, or he has made Satisfaction for us. The Socinians therefore, who deny the Satisfaction of Christ, are right in denying that he suffered in our Room and Place.

5. Christ was punished for our Crimes: He was wounded for our Transgressions, and bruised for our Iniquities. An innocent Person cannot suffer for the Offences of Criminals; but in his own Intention, and in that of the Judge who inflicts Penalty, it must be in order to make Satisfaction for them, no other just End can be proposed in such a Transaction.

6. It is highly unjust to punish a Surety for a Criminal, and enjoin any Conditions on that Criminal, which may render his Impunity uncertain; and upon Non-performance of those Conditions punish him for his Offence. Its a real Injury to the Surety, and for which he can’t be recompensed. It is allowed this may be in pecuniary Punishments, because the Surety may sustain no Injury by it, the Money which he paid being returned to him, as in Justice it ought to be; but it cannot have Place in corporal Punishment, as in suffering Tortures, Pains, and Death. It is unjust to require an innocent Person to suffer corporal Punishment for an Offender, and leave his Impunity uncertain, under any Conditions to be performed by him; and upon Non-performance to inflict Punishment on him: The Reason of which is evident, the innocent Person is deprived of what he has a just Claim to, viz. the Impunity of him for whom he suffered: This not being granted and enjoyed, no Recompence can be made to him for suffering on Account of the Criminal’s Guilt. If therefore any of those are punished for whom Christ suffered Death, an ireparable Injury is done to him; but this we know can never be: For that Justice of God which indispensibly requires the Punishment of Sin, requires the Impunity of such, for whom Christ sustained Penalty. God cannot but punish Sin, either in the Sinner, or in a Surety for him; and since he has punished Sin in Christ the Surety, he cannot but forgive, and omit to inflict Punishment on the Offender. These Things sufficiently prove the Reality of Christ’s Satisfaction, and the limited Extent of his Death.

III. That the Satisfaction of Christ, is plenary, and full, is now to be established, which these following Particulars clearly demonstrate.

1. Men cannot make Satisfaction for the least Offence: The Punishment demerited by every Sin against God, is of such Weight, as would for ever sink us into Horror, and Despair: We are not able to sustain the Curse and Wrath, to which we become obnoxious by the smallest Crime. And therefore if Christ’s Satisfaction is incomplete, we are eternally undone, and must: unavoidably suffer endless Punishment in Hell, on Account of that remaining Guilt for which he has not atoned.

2. Men are in no Part the Cause of their Salvation: If any thing which they suffer or do, appeases the divine Displeasure, they are Authors at least in Part, of their Salvation, which they are not, Christ is the sole Author of their Recovery, and Happiness, and he ought to have the whole Glory arising from it.

3. He is a perfect Saviour: Such he was made by Suffering, and therefore he suffered not a Part only, of the Punishment Sin demerits; but the whole of that Punishment, or else he is no more than a partial Saviour. It is greatly prejudicial to the Honour of Christ, to consider him an incomplete Saviour, but such he is if his Satisfaction is incomplete, and not full.

4. His Blood cleanses from all Sin: He suffered either for all the Sins of those for whom he died, or he suffered for some of them only: If he suffered for all their Sins, then he sustained the Punishment, that all their Sins taken together demerited, if so, then in Right and Justice, no part of that Penalty may be inflicted on them. To this it is objected, that he suffered not for final Impenitency, and therefore such as are finally impenitent God may justly punish. To which I answer: (1.) Sin being atoned for, in Consequence of that Atonement, Faith, Grace and Holiness, are given to all such, for whom the Atonement is made. (2.) If Punishment is inflicted on such for whom Christ died, it is either for some, or for all their Sins: If for all their Sins, as good Christ had never died for them, for they reap no Advantage from his Death; but if for some of their Sins only then it follows, that the damned will experience no Remourse, and Terror, for some of their Sins, it may be not for Murder, as Cain, not for the betraying of Christ, as Judas; but Stings of Conscience, will attend them only for final Impenitence, for which Christ died not. (3.) It is not as Unbelief is final, that it subjects Men to Punishment; but as it is a Sin, as such Christ hath made Satisfaction for it, on the Account of those for whom he suffered, and therefore in them it shall not be finalf33. (4.) Perhaps it is not easy to be proved, that it is the Want of Faith in Christ:, which subjects us to Condemnation, such indeed who have not Faith are condemned; but it does not follow that the want of Faith is the Cause of that Condemnation. If Christ suffered for some of the Sins of Men only, his Satisfaction is doubtless incomplete, and we are certain of this uncomfortable and dreadful Truth, that we must necessarily perish. Let the Assertors of the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, take which part of this Argument they please, we are persuaded they will never be able to answer it. (5.) Where no Curse is due, nothing is necessary to be suffered; but no Condemnation is due to them that are in Christ; the Reason is plainly this, he hath redeemed them from the Law’s Curse, by being made a Curse for them. So that his Satisfaction is full, plenary, and complete, which can never consist with the Universality of the Extent of his Death. This Chapter I shall conclude, with an Observation of Dr. Owen’s; it is this remarkable one, to affirm Christ to die for all Men, is the readiest way to prove he died for no Man, in the Sense Christians have hitherto believed, and to hurry poor Souls, into the Bottom, of all Socinian Blasphemiesf34. When he wrote this, he little thought, that any Successor of his, would stenuously assert and defend a Doctrine of such a pernicious Tendency, an Apprehension of it would have given his pious Soul great Distress.