The Certain Efficacy of the

Death of Christ Asserted

THE CERTAIN EFFICACY OF THE

DEATH OF CHRIST, ASSERTED: OR,

THE RUIN AND RECOVERY OF MANKIND;

I apprehend, that every intelligent Reader will allow, that the various Subjects treated of in the following Sheets, are of the greatest Importance: Because the Glory of God in all his Perfections, the Honour of Christ, and the eternal Happiness of his People, are intimately concerned in them. Doctrines of such Moment require the most impartial Examination, in order to form a Judgment about them: If an Enquiry, deliberate and serious, calm and unbiass’d, is necessary in any Doctrinal Points, it is evidently so in each of these Particulars, wherein, I hope I have not been negligent.

But I am not insensible of the Meanness, and on many Accounts, the Unfitness of him who has ventured in this public Manner to deliver his Thoughts of these evangelical Mysteries, to undertake the Defence of the Doctrines of the true Grace of God, of the real Satisfaction of Christ, and of the Efficacy of the gracious Influences of the divine Spirit, in Opposition to the Misrepresentations which the Author of the Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, gives of those heavenly Truths. It would have been very pleasing to me, if any Person furnished with Abilities suitable to a more copious Defence of there momentous Doctrines, had undertaken it, and thereby prevented a feebler one. The Author of which being fully persuaded of their real Excellency and singular Weight, he cannot but wish to see them in the best Manner defended.

As I greatly desired this, I waited a considerable Time, with Expectation of seeing so necessary a Piece of Service perform’d; but have been disappointed, herein, Thinking it highly needful, that something should be offered in Vindication of that Faith which was once delivered to the Saints, in Answer to the Book above mentioned, and no Person, that I knew of, of superior Abilities undertaking this task, I could not but interpret it, as a Call upon me in Providence, to set about a Labour, which I know, as it requires, it also deserves a much abler Hand. If any thing I have advanced in Favour of what appears to me to be the Doctrine of Scripture, may in the least Measure, convince Opposers, settle wavering Minds, and establish those Truths of Christ, which have formerly been own’d and contended for, as such, by the Church of God, it will give me a peculiar Pleasure. To which I think, I may subjoin, that such is my religious Regard to the Principles, I undertake to defend, that it would be a Satisfaction to me, to see this Work, which I present to the pious and impartial Reader sink in his Esteem, by the Publication of a learned and judicious Defence of those Principles.

Till then, it may be this Performance, such as it is, will not be wholly useless; but it may afford some Assistance to the common Reader, at least, in his Enquiries about the sublime and glorious Doctrines of the Grace of God, of the Merit and Satisfaction of Christ, and concerning the Work of the holy Spirit on the Souls of Men in Regeneration. Perhaps some may think, that since Deism and Infidelity greatly spread, in this unhappy Age, it is very unseasonable to oppose a Writer, who appears an Advocate for the Christian Religion, and endeavours to set any Scriptural Doctrines in an easy and unexceptionable Light, tho’ be may be mistaken in some particular Things, especially, when it is his professed Design to compose the Differences which subsist among the Friends of Revelation, to the great Disadvantage of that Revelation, may not this Cause its Enemies to sneer and triumph? In answer to which I observe, I. We are under an indispensable Obligation, not only to vindicate the holy Scripture from those Objections, which bold and daring Men are pleased to frame against it; but also to contend for the glorious Truths therein express’d, by whom soever they are misrepresented, or corrupted, or oppos’d. It seems to me a Conduct not the most. consistent, to maintain the Credibility of the Bible, and decline or censure an Attempt to defend and support its Doctrines. 2. If one Christian Writer takes the Liberty to oppose the Sentiments of other Christians, why may not they be allowed to offer to public View, the Reasons which induce them to embrace and adhere to those Principles? Surely this can’t be thought in the least unreasonable. 3. As for the Improvement, that Deists and Infidels may make of the different Sentiments of Christians, to the Prejudice of the Christian Revelation or Religion, unless I am very much mistaken, far greater Advantage is given them, by a Connivance at the Errors and Mistakes of such who profess to maintain a Veneration for the sacred Pages: For many of the Deists have Penetration sufficient to discover, that the most peculiar and mysterious Doctrines, which one Set of Christians contend for, are really contained in the holy Scriptures, tho’ other Christians may think differently, and therefore they take the impious Freedom to disbelieve Revelation, and deny its Authority. 4. An Attempt to reconcile Christians, whose Sentiments are opposite, concerning the momentous Doctrines of a Sinner’s Justification before God, and of the Operations of the holy Spirit in Regeneration, will ever prove fruitless, and greatly prejudicial to Truth: For no Concessions can be made to those who think, that Christ’s Righteousness alone, is not the Matter of our Acceptance with God, without great Detriment to the good old Protestant Doctrine of Justification by Faith in Opposition to Works. Nor may any Concessions be made to those, who apprehend, that the Will of Man is actively concern’d in Regeneration, consistent with this most important Truth, that the Saints are the Workmanship of God created in Christ Jesus unto good Works. Of this Opinion was the great Dr. Owen, (who was a very competent Judge in the, Case) as appears by the Advice he gives to Ministers, with which I shall close my Preface.

Hold fast the Form of wholesome Words and sound Doctrine, know that there are other Ways of Peace, and Accommodation with Dissenters, than by letting go the least Particle of Truth. When Men should accommodate their own Hearts to Love and Peace they must not double with their Souls, and accommodate the Truth of the Gospel to other Men’s Imaginations. Perhaps some will suggest great Things of going a middle Way in Divinity between Dissenters: But what is the Issue for the most Part of such Proposals? After they have by their middle Ways raised no less Contention, than was before, between the Extremes, (yea when Things before were in some good Measure allayed,) the Accommodators themselves, through an ambitious Desire, to make good, and defend their own Expedients, are insensibly carried over to the Party and Extreme, to whom they thought to make, a Condescension unto; and by endeavouring to blanck their Opinions to make them seem probable, they are engaged to the Defence of their Consequences, before they are aware. Amyraldus, whom I look upon, as one of the greatest Wits of these Days, will at present go a middle Way between the Churches of France, and the Arminians: What hath been the Issue? Among the Churches, Divisions, Tumult, Disorder; among the Professors and Ministers, Revilings, Evilsurmisings; to the whole Body of the People, Scandals and Offences; and in respect of himself, Evidence of his daily approaching nearer to the Arminian Party, until as one of them faith of him he is not far from (their) Kingdom of Heaven.f1 But is this all? Nay but Grotius, Episcopius, Curcaellaus, etc. (quanta Nomina ) with others, must go a middle Way to accommodate with the Socinians, and all that will not follow are rigid Men, that by any Means will defend the Opinions they are fallen upon. The same Plea is made by others for Accommodation with the Papists; and still Moderation, the middle Way, Condescension are cry’d up. I can freely say, that I know not that Man in England, who is willing to go farther in Forbearance, Love, and Communion with all that fear God, and hold the Foundation than I am, but that this is to be done, upon other Grounds, Principles and Ways, by other Means and Expedients, than by a Condescension from the Exactness of the least Apex of Gospel Truth, or by an Accommodation of Doctrines by loose and general Terms, I have elsewhere sufficiently declared. Let no Man deceive you with vain

Pretences; hold fast the Truth as it is in Jesus, part not with one IOTA, and contend for it, when called thereunto. The Preface to his Book against Biddle, p. 55, 56.

THE Author of a Book which bears the Title of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, is of Opinion, That GOD hath chosen a certain Number of Men to everlasting Life; and that they shall infallibly be saved thro’ the Merits and Righteousness of CHRIST. It is not to be doubted, but that the unalterable Love of GOD to the Elect, and their final Happiness, as a certain Effect thereof, are Truths which appear to this Writer with the brightest Evidence. Since he is also of Opinion, that Men universally are interested in CHRIST’S Death; that all are brought into a salvable State; or, that thro’ the superabundant Merit of our Saviour, a conditional Provision of Salvation is made for every Man without Exception. The Gentleman discovers a very great Satisfaction in this Scheme, (if it will bear that Name, and he likes it should be so called) because, as he apprehends, peculiar Advantages attend it far beyond the Calvinistical and Arminian Schemes, neither of which, as he conceives, are clearly and fully consistent with the Scriptures. As this Scheme secures the eternal Salvation of the whole Number of the Elect, it also provides for the Happiness of All; and therefore the Author thinks, that the Calvinist may be fully satisfied with it, and the Arminian likewise. The Calvinist may, because it expresses the Whole of his Sentiments concerning the everlasting Security of GOD’s Chosen and the Arminian has no just Reason to be dissatisfied with it; because, according to this Opinion, GOD in his immense Goodness really wills, and has provided conditionally for the Felicity of ALL. Those for whom Happiness is in a conditional Manner designed, suffer nothing by the effectual Provision which is made for the Elect: And on the other Hand, such as are chosen to eternal Life, are not brought into a State of the least Uncertainty by GOD’s Intention to save Some who never may be, nay, it is certain, who never will be saved.

The ingenious Author suspects, that those who disapprove of this Scheme, are ill-natured, and love not their Neighbour as themselves. The Reasoning in his Book would have lost Nothing of its Beauty and Force, if he had spared this Reflection. I humbly hope we want not Compassion to our Fellow-Creatures, but we would not be led by Pity to Men into any Principles that are dishonourable to the divine Perfections, eversive of CHRIST’S Satisfaction, and which in Reality leave them under an Impossibility of Salvation, notwithstanding GOD intended their Happiness; all which necessarily follow upon his Sentiments, as may hereafter appear.

This Work will consist of four Parts: In the First I shall endeavour to prove the limited Extent of the Death of CHRIST, and the certain Salvation of all those for whom he died. In the Second, the Objections which are usually urged by the Arminians, and others, will be answered. In the Third shall attempt to prove the Impossibility of the Salvation of the Non-Elect, upon the Supposition of no other than a conditional Provision of Salvation being made for them. In the Fourth Part shall attend to what he delivers on the Subjects of the Imputation of original Sin to Men, the Charge of Sin on CHRIST, and the Imputation of his Righteousness to his People.

Contains the First Argument to Prove the Limited Extent of CHRIST’s Death IN this first Part I propose to enter upon the Consideration of the Extent of the Death of CHRIST; whether he died for all Mankind, or a Part of the human Nature only. This is a Question of very great Moment, and is a Point which has been much contested. Some affirm, That he died for all Men; as well for those who are damned, as for such who are eternally saved. Others deny it; and (for very weighty Reasons as they think) conceive he expired on the Cross for none but those who enjoy eternal Felicity. In my Apprehension the Truth lies on this Side of the Question: For the Support of my Opinion, I shall in this Chapter present the Reader with an Account of the Nature and Effects of divine Love, of which CHRIST’s Death is such an amazing Instance, that ever hath, and eternally will, fill Angels and Saints with the greatest Admiration and Astonishment. Divine Goodness was the impulsive Cause of the Sufferings of the Redeemer, in order to the Salvation of Sinners.

I. The Love of GOD the Father, is abundantly display’d in this wonderful Transaction (John 3:16.). From the many strong Expressions concerning the Love of GOD, which induced him to put his Son to Death for Men, it may reasonably be concluded, that all those for whom he died, were the Objects of his Favour, taken in its most comprehensive Sense. If no greater Instance of divine Goodness ever was, is, or wilt be, given to Men, than that of CHRIST, as a Sacrifice for them, then more intense, immutable, and inseparable Love GOD bears to None, than to such, for whom CHRIST became an atoning Sacrifice. Now I cannot conceive, that a Decree to eternally punish, and the Execution of that Decree, can consist with an Interest in the rich, inconceivable, and inseparable Love of GOD; if it may, then a certain Conclusion of being happy, cannot be drawn from an undoubted Evidence of an Interest in the good Will and Favour of GOD. For according to this Supposition, a Person who is beloved of GOD, may eternally perish, or suffer his awful Vengeance, than which, nothing seems more absurd to me. With respect to the Nature and Properties of the Love of GOD, we may observe as follows:

1. It is infinite: No Tongue can fully express it, or any Mind comprehend it, it passes Knowledge (Ephesians 3:19.). The most extensive Ideas that a finite Understanding can frame about Divine Love, are infinitely below its true Nature. The Heaven is not so far above the Earth, as the Goodness of GOD is beyond the most raised Conceptions we are able to form of it; it is an Ocean which swells higher than all the Mountains of Opposition, in such as are the Objects of it; and it is a Fountain from which flows all necessary Good to those who are interested in it. Since therefore all Men have not an Interest in this rich and super-abounding Grace of GOD, all Men are not the Subjects of Redemption by CHRIST.

2. The Love of GOD is immutable; divine Favour is subject to no Vicissitude; GOD is without any Shadow of turning (James 1:7.). The Mercy of the Lord will be to everlasting upon such, towards whom it acted in Favour of, from everlasting (Psalm 103:17.). Those to whom GOD was gracious in his eternal Counsels, and for whom he provided a Ransom (Job 33:24.), he cannot execute his Vengeance upon, without a Change in his Affection, and an Alteration in his Purposes. If therefore all Men are not saved, but some fall under the Infliction of divine Penalty, all Men were not the Objects of that Love which gave CHRIST as a Sacrifice for Sin; and of Consequence, not interested in his Death. The Redemption he has wrought, or obtained, by his Blood, is not of larger Compass, than is that Love, as an Effect of which, he was constituted a Redeemer and Saviour.

3. The Favour and Love of GOD is inseparable. This most delightful and important Doctrine the Apostle clearly asserts, and largely treats of (Romans 8:32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39.): What Love of GOD that is, from which there can be no Separation, is easily to be collected from the Scope and Design of the Place; it is that good Will and Favour of GOD which determined him to give his Son for Sinners. He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, How shall he not with him also freely give us all Things? From hence it evidently appears, That the Love which it was the Intention of the inspired Writer to prove a Separation from, is impossible, is that which was the impulsive Cause of CHRIST’S Death. This affords us an irrefragable Argument that he died for Some only, and not for Men universally. In order to invalidate its Force, it must be demonstrated, that the Love of GOD which is inseparable, was not the Cause of CHRIST’S Death; or that those for whom he suffered, are not the Objects of it; or else, that tho’ Men are interested in the inseparable Love of GOD, they may eternally perish.

II. The certain Effects of divine Love which gave CHRIST to die for miserable Sinners, I cannot but apprehend are so many weighty Objections against the unlimited Extent of his Death.

1. Election to Salvation results from it: Those who are the Objects of divine Favour, are not included in the Decree of Reprobation; they are not appointed to Wrath, but to obtain Salvation by Jesus Christ. There is a certain Connection between the Love of GOD, and an Ordination to Life, as between Cause and Effect; hence, says the Apostle, We are bound to give Thanks always to God for you Brethren beloved of the Lord, because God hath from the Beginning chosen you to Salvation (2 Thessalonians 2:13.). And therefore, Redemption which springs from the same Cause as Election doth, is of no larger Compass than is that gracious Decree: For this Reason; it is only in the Name of the Elect, that this remarkable Challenge, with a View to the Death of CHRIST, as the Foundation of it is expressed, Who shall lay any Thing to the Charge of God’s Elect? It is

God that justifies. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died (Romans 8:33. 34.).

2. Adoption is an Effect of the same Love: Such who are the Objects of divine Goodness, Grace, and Favour, enjoy the Dignity and Privileges of Sons: Behold what Manner of Love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the Sons of God (1 John 3:1.). If Filiation is not connected with the rich Grace of GOD, or doth not spring from it, as a certain Effect thereof, to what Purpose are those Words expressed? Adoption is to the Praise of the Glory of that Grace, according to the Riches of which we have Redemption through Christ’s Blood (Ephesians 2:6,7.). And therefore, that Blood was shed for those, and those only, who are dignified with the Relation of Sons to GOD; which, we know is not true of all Men.

3. Vocation is a Fruit of that Love which delivered CHRIST to Death for Sinners: Such to whom GOD appointed him to be a SAVIOUR, to them he was gracious in his eternal Counsels, or loved with an everlasting Love; and those whom he loves with an everlasting Love, he draws with Loving Kindness (Jeremiah 31:3). In his appointed Time he quickens all such to whom he bears an infinite Affection. It is evident from what has been before observed, that all for whom CHRIST died, are the Objects of the infinite, immutable, and inseparable Love of GOD; and therefore, they who are quickened by divine Grace, and only they, are interested in a dying SAVIOUR.

4. Eternal Life springs from that Love which was the impulsive Cause of CHRIST’S Death: The Happiness of Heaven is an eminent Gift of divine Grace; but great as it is, the Goodness of GOD shines with as bright a Lustre in the Gift of CHRIST for us, as in the Communication of all that Blessedness to us. That was such an Act of Favour, as is not to be exceeded by any Instance of Kindness whatever; since Heaven is the Fruit of GOD’s good Pleasure (Luke 12:32), i.e. of his rich Grace and Goodness as the Gift of CHRIST was, it is, and will be, bestowed on all those for whom he was given. The Reason is evident: Two Effects arising from the same Cause, are equally and certainly produced by it; the one, as well as the other. Each of the Things we have mentioned, the Apostle includes when he thus reasons, He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all Things (Romans 8:32.)? All Men receive not all Things; and therefore, CHRIST died for some Men only.

II. The happy Subjects of Redemption are Objects of the most intense Love, of the Author of that Redemption: A greater Instance of Compassion to Sinners is nor, or can be, given by a SAVIOUR, than dying for them. This is constantly represented as the highest Act of Friendship, good Will, and Favour. If therefore, we will form our Judgment of the

Affection of CHRIST to sinful Men, from the most amazing Proof he has given of it, we shall find ourselves obliged to allow, that greater Love he bears to None, than to Such on whole Account he endured the Ignominy, Reproach, and Cruelty of the Cross. When the Church expresses her warmest Sense of CHRIST’S Love to her, she instances in his Sufferings for her; Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins, in his own Blood; which the Apostle also doth, Who loved me, and gave himself for me (Revelation 1:5.). Can it be thought, that such as were in Hell, were interested in this most intense Love of the Redeemer; or, that Judas had the same Share in the tender Affection of a SAVIOUR, as Peter? May it be imagined, that the unparalleled Compassion of CHRIST which determined him to die for Sinners, will not induce him to communicate to them whatever is necessary to their Salvation, especially as that was the End he intended in dying for them? Surely not! An Opinion more derogatory to the Glory of the Love of CHRIST, than is this, that he withholds from many for whom he suffered; that which is absolutely requisite to the Knowledge of himself as a SAVIOUR, which he certainly doth; if he died for all Men (for many enjoy not an external Revelation) will not loon be invented. Strange! It is beyond all Imagination that CHRIST should so love Multitudes, as to die for them, to whom a Discovery of his having so done, is not in Providence afforded. With Regard to the Nature of the Love of CHRIST, the same might be observed of it, as has been of the Father’s: That it is immense, invariable, and inseparable. He is the same Yesterday, and To-day, and for ever (Hebrews 13:8.). His Affection to Sinners is infinitely above any Change. That which might be thought to extinguish the Flame of Love in his Breast towards them, if any thing could, he full knew when first he loved them; i.e. their own Unworthiness. Since therefore, notwithstanding that, he resolved to love them, and died to render them happy, that will not diminish his Affection to them, or separate them from his Favour. If therefore he shall sentence any of those to the Regions of Darkness, and Horror, for ever, for whom he suffered, they are such whom he ever loved, and eternally will love; even as intensely as those whom he fills with pure Delights, by shedding the Rays of his Glory around, upon, and in them, in Heaven. When it shall be proved that CHRIST did not love those for whom he died, or that his Love is mutable, may cool, be extinguished, that Fury and Hatred may take Place thereof in his Heart; then, and not till then, (which never will be) may the Doctrine of the universal Extent of his Death be established.

III. Those Persons for whom CHRIST died, are the Objects of the Love of the holy Spirit. Such as are interested in the good Will of the Father, and Son, have an Interest in the special Grace and Love of the Spirit; for as the Trinity of Persons are undivided in their Essence, their Affection and Love is equal, and extended to the very same Objects. Now, as it hath been proved, (and as I hope beyond all just Exception) that those who are the Purchase of CHRIST’s Blood, have a peculiar Interest in the Love of the Father, and Son, it is reasonable to conclude, that they are infinitely beloved of the holy Spirit; and if so, as the Father appointed the Son a SAVIOUR to them, and the Son graciously condescended to take that Capacity upon him, and acting in that Character, hath redeemed them from all Iniquity: The holy Spirit who bears the same Affection to them, as the other divine Persons do, and unites with them in the kind Design of their Salvation, will not fail to regenerate, sanctify, and preserve them, to a future State of Bliss. Hence therefore we may conclude, that those in whom the. Spirit of GOD implants not Grace, and a divine Life as a Meetness for Heaven, are not the Objects of redeeming Love, or interested in the Death of CHRIST. The Doctrine of universal Redemption, is inconsistent with a peculiar and special Work of Grace on the Hearts of some Men, in order to their final Happiness. Such to whom CHRIST is a Redeemer, the Spirit is a Sanctifier. He is not a Sanctifier to all Men; neither is CHRIST a Redeemer to all. I close this Chapter with observing, That the Opinion of universal Redemption infinitely derogates from the Love of the Father, Son, and Spirit, represents it as mutable, like that of a Creature, and therefore that Opinion cannot be true.

THE End of CHRIST’S Death hath always been acknowledged a principal Point in the present Controversy. According to the Apprehensions Men have of the Design of his Sufferings, are their Sentiments of the Extent of his Death: That he died for All, without Exception, as the Arminians conceive, or that his Death is limited to Some, as the Calvinists think; and therefore, our most serious, diligent, and impartial Enquiry, is here absolutely necessary, if we would discover, embrace, and adhere to Truth in this important Article of Faith. The End of CHRIST’S Death may be considered, as it bears Respect to GOD the Father, to himself, and to Men.

I. GOD had in View his own Glory, as the ultimate End in delivering up his Son to Death. 1st., The Praise of his glorious Grace: he took this most surprising Step, that his free, Sovereign, and immutable Love, might be display’d in the fullest Manner. 2dly, In this extraordinary Transaction, he had a Regard to the Honour of his Law, which we have dreadfully violated, and are subject to the Condemnation of, on that Account. 3dly, The Glory and Vindication of his Justice was one End proposed in this Affair, or that he might appear to be just and righteous in saving Sinners.

II. The End with Respect to CHRIST himself, was twofold, I. That he might have the Satisfaction and Pleasure of seeing those for whom he died, completely happy for ever. 2. That he might receive Glory and Praise from them, on Account of that Salvation he effected by his Sufferings and Death for them,

III. The End respecting those for whom he suffered, is now to be attended to. This was either to put Men into a salvable State, that is to say, to procure a Possibility of their Salvation on certain Conditions; thus the Remonstrants think. Or the Intention of his Death was to actually save and bring Men to Heaven, which seems to me to be the Truth of the Case. In Order to clear up, and confirm this weighty Point, I shall give the Reader a

general View of the Design of GOD, and CHRIST, in this singular Transaction; and also a more particular one.

1st, Let it be observed, That the Father, and Son, unite in the End and Design of his Sufferings. The Intention was the same in both: In the Father who delivered up our SAVIOUR to Suffering, and in CHRIST who voluntarily suffered for us, his Pleasure consisted in a Compliance with, and Performance of, the Father’s Will.

2dly, This in general was the Salvation of Sinners. The End proposed in the Incarnation and Sufferings of the Redeemer, was the Welfare and Happiness of offending Creatures; and the Gospel which brings us this welcome Report, is highly deferring of the most grateful Reception: It is a faithful saying, and worthy of all Acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the World to save Sinners (1 Timothy 1:15.). The Design of our LORD’S Appearance was this, That his People might have Life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10.), i.e. That they might be the happy Subjects of a divine Life now, and possess eternal Life hereafter. It therefore was not a bare Possibility of Salvation, or a conditional Grant and Promise of Life, that CHRIST came to obtain; but the

End of his Coming, was to effect Eternal Redemption; and this he actually and really obtained before his Ascension to Glory (Hebrews 9:12.). I apprehend that it will contribute much Light and Evidence in this Matter, to consider well the Covenant of Grace.

(1.) CHRIST the Mediator of this Covenant was a Head, either to all Men, or to some only, that is, an influential Head, from whom Grace, Holiness, and Life, are derived; for here I do not speak of him as a Head of mere Dominion and Rule, such he is to Angels, to the apostate Spirits, and to Men universally, but as a Head of Life, and Influence, which he only is to his Body, the Church, who are the Elect of GOD alone.

(2.) These Persons only can be interested in the Covenant of Grace; the Reason of which is, CHRIST in that Covenant is constituted a Head to all those who are included in it, in order to communicate to them, the Blessings therein promised; and therefore, none but such to whom he is a Head of Life, and Influence, are within the Compass of that Covenant.

(3.) It is clearly deducible from the Promises of the new Covenant, that GOD and CHRIST, really and fully intended the Salvation of all the Persons to whom those Promises are made. For this Covenant comprises all spiritual and eternal Blessings; or they are all granted and promised therein. Hence David speaks of this Covenant as including the Whole of his Salvation, This is all my Salvation, and all my Desire (2 Samuel 23:5.). Herein the Affair of the Sufferings and Death of CHRIST, was settled as a Condition required of him, and agreed to by him, in order to viewing his Seed, enjoy the great and glorious Benefits therein given to them. But of these Things more will be spoken hereafter. I proceed to give the Reader a more particular View of the End of our SAVIOUR’S Death.

I. Both the Father and CHRIST intended the Expiation of the Guilt of those for whom he suffered.

1. This was the Intention of the Father. It was his Will not to impute Sin to Those whom be reconciled to himself by the Death of his Son. He charged their Guilt on CHRIST their Surety, and they stand clear of all Sin in his Sight; and if he is not disappointed of his End, they are constituted, or made righteous. For he hath made him to be Sin for us who know no Sin, that we might be made the Righteousness of God in him (2 Corinthians

5:21).

2. This also was the Design of CHRIST: The Lamb of God had not bore the Iniquities of many, but that he intended to remove them into an everlasting Oblivion, as the Antitype of the Scape Goat; Once in the end of the World, hath he appeared to put away Sin by the Sacrifice of himself (Hebrews 9:26.). The Father’s Will to impute Sin to CHRIST, and his Compliance therewith, evidently prove, that both designed the Discharge of Sinners from Guilt, which is a considerable Branch of Salvation.

II. A farther End in View was, to secure Life to miserable and dead Sinners.

1. The Father proposed this gracious End in the Mission of his Son: In this, was manifested the Love of God towards us, because that God lent his only begotten son into the World, that we might live through him (John 4:9.). The evident Import and plain Sense of these Words is, that GOD intended the Life of sinful Men in fending of CHRIST.

2. Our Saviour had the same thing in View, in coming into the World; of this he clearly informed his Disciples; I am come, that they might have Life, and that they might have it more abundantly (John 10:10.). The Life of Sinners who are naturally dead in Sin, was one eminent Part of the Joy that was let before CHRIST, which caused him to endure the Cross, and despise the Shame (Hebrews 12:2.) attending it.

III. Our Holiness or Sanctification was one End of his Death. In ourselves we are morally impure and unmeet, for the Fruition of GOD, CHRIST sanctified himself, or set himself apart to Death, that those for whom he died, might be made holy; for their Sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified, through the Truth; sanctify them, through thy Truth; thy Word is Truth (John 17; <John 19:17.) His Design in the Gift of himself for the Church was, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of Water by the Word (Ephesians 5:26.).

IV. The Redeemer desired that all those might be eternally happy for whom he laid down his Life. Such was that love he bore to Sinners, that he was not less intent on their Welfare and Happiness, than on his own Glory; he could not be content to dwell in Heaven alone, or without them, to see his Glory, and participate of Bliss, in the presence of his Father with him; except a Corn of Wheat fall into the Ground and die, it abideth; alone (John 12:24.). In which Words it is the Design of our Lord to acquaint his Disciples with the Necessity of his Death, in order to the Felicity of his People, and of his proposing their Happiness, as the End of his dying for them. From there Things it appears very evidently, that it was not a mere Possibility of Salvation which God and Christ proposed in his Death, but the actual, real, and certain Salvation of all such for whom he suffered.

V. The Means used to this Purpose are most: proper and effectual, to question which, is highly blasphemous. It would be an impious Impeachment of divine Wisdom to imagine, that God in any of his Works, uses Means not suited to attain his End. The Death of Christ, as it was a most gracious Method of saving Sinners, so it is an effectual one: This

cannot be denied without imputing Folly to him, who is the Fountain of Wisdom.

1. By the Imputation of Sin to Christ, and the Infliction of Punishment on him, the infinite Displeasure of God against it, is fully discovered, and from hence arises the real and certain Remission of it, in whom we have Redemption through his Blood the Forgiveness of Sins (Ephesians 2:7.). From this Definition of Redemption it is clear, that it consists in the Pardon of Sin; those therefore, whose Sins are not remitted, are not the Subjects of Redemption.

2. Christ’s Subjection to, and sustaining of the Law’s Curse, is a full Vindication of its Honour, and is the gracious and effectual Method which was appointed by infinite Wisdom to secure our Deliverance from the dreadful Menaces thereof, Christ hath redeemed us from the Curse of the Law, being made a Curse for us (Galatians 3:10.).

3. The Death of the blessed Jesus was designed to bring about our Reconciliation with God: His Substitution in our Room, bearing our Guilt, and undergoing the Penalty due to us, are undeniable Proofs thereof. And since his Death was penal, it must be satisfactory to the Law and Justice of God. Hence we read, That the Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, and that with his Stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5.). As the End designed in cutting off the Messiah, was to make Reconciliation for Iniquity (Daniel 9:24-26.), that gracious End is accomplished; for Peace is made by the Blood of his Cross (Colossians 1:20.); so that when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son (Romans 5.10.). Upon the Whole, it is very evident, that it was the kind Intention of God and Christ by his Death, to effectually secure the certain Salvation of all those for whom he died; unless therefore they are disappointed of the End they intended, unless their Design is rendered abortive, and unless the Redeemer died in vain: All such for whom he suffered, will certainly be saved; and therefore, since all Men are not saved, all Men are not interested in the atoning Sacrifice of Christ; nor was his Death intended as a Means of the Salvation of every Man without Exception, which was the important Point to be proved.

I. THE very different Appellations, which, in the Scripture, are given to Such for whom Christ died, from those which others bear, deserve our particular Consideration. They suggest to us that special and peculiar Interest, which the former have in the Compassion and Love of Christ, and in his saving Benefits; and that the latter are not the Objects of his Favour; that he had not the same Design concerning them; and that they share not in the happy Effects of his Sufferings and Death.

1. They are called, the Sheep of Christ, by, which may be signified their Disposition to wander, their Distance from God in their natural State: This is also expressive of the Redeemer’s Concern about them, and of his peculiar Interest in them, as distinguished from others. Our Lord speaks several Things of these Persons, which he no where expresses, concerning the rest Of Mankind, that may justly lead us to conclude, he had formed such Resolutions about them, as he had not taken up about the Goats, viz. That he must bring them (John 10:16.), that they hear his Voice, that he knows them, that they follow him, that he gives to them eternal Life, that they shall never perish, that none shall pluck them out of his Hand, nor out of his Father’s Hand (John 10:27, 28, 29.); nothing like these Things is ever declared of others; and therefore, we have no Reason to think it was the Intention of Christ to save Such to whom this Character is never applied. We are plainly told, That for these Persons Jesus Christ died: I lay down my Life for the Sheep (John 10:15.). If it be said, This is certainly true, because he died for all Mankind, of whom they are a Part; but that from hence it is not to be proved that he suffered not for others also. I answer,

(1.) Its no where said, he died for such as are represented under the opposite Character of Goats; if this had been any where expressed, that would have been a demonstrative Proof of the universal Extent of Christ’s Death; but it falls out to the great Disadvantage of this Opinion, that no Hint of such a Nature is to be found in all the Scripture.

(2.) It is the Design of our Saviour to set forth his particular and special Regard to these Persons in Distinction from all others, when he calls them his Sheep; which upon a due Consideration of the Things before observed, cannot well be denied. And therefore, when he says, I lay down my Life for the Sheep, his Intention is to represent this Act as a singular Instance of his good Will and Favour to them, as they stand distinguished from others; of consequence others are not interested in his Death.

(3.) I suppose it will be granted, that eternal Life is only given to the Sheep, not to the Goats, who in Judgment will be placed at the Left Hand of Christ, upon whom an awful Sentence of Condemnation will be pronounced, and dreadful Punishment will be inflicted: as therefore the Omission of the exceptive Particle only, when our Saviour says, To them I give eternal Life, leaves no room to think he also gives eternal Life to others; so the Omission of that Particle when he says, I lay down my Life for the Sheep, is no just Objection to the Limitation of his Death to them; for it is here as plainly understood as there, and the whole Scope of our Saviour’s Discourse leads to that Sense, as I can’t but think must be evident to every impartial Enquirer.

2. Sons and Children are Characters given to such for whom the Redeemer suffered. From the several Places in which these Persons are honoured with these Titles, and Christ is said to die for them, it evidently appears, that it was the Intention of God to save them through his Sufferings and Death; for they were to be gathered together in one (John 11:52.), and to be brought to Glory (Hebrews 2:10.). In order to which, Christ was made perfect thro’ Sufferings, on their Account; viz. a perfect Saviour. This was by his undergoing all that the Law and Justice of God required to their Discharge. He was made a perfect Saviour to None in his Death, but to those who are Sons; and therefore None but such who are Sons, have an Interest: in his Death.

3. Church is an Appellation by which those Persons for whom Christ suffered, are distinguished from others. It will (as I suppose) be readily acknowledged, that the Whole of Mankind are not designed by this Character, but only the Church of the First-born who are written in Heaven. Now if it was the Intention of the Apostle to represent the special Love of Christ to those who are saved, (which cannot reasonably be called in Question) where he mentions Christ’s giving himself to that End (Ephesians 5:25, 26.), there Is the clearest Reason to think that his Death is a full Proof of that peculiar Affection which he bears to the Saved-Ones; for that alone is here produced as such an Evidence; and therefore, his Death is limited to the Church of the First-born, nor are any

others interested therein.

4. Another Title given to these Persons, is the Body of Christ: This is expressive of that foederal Union which subsists between him and them. He is the Head, and they are the Members. By Way of Distinction from others, he is declared to be the Saviour of the Body (Ephesians 5:23.): Such Christ is to them, and to them only for whom he died. He cannot with any Propriety be called a Saviour of them who are not saved; he freed not

them from the Curse of the Law on whom it is inflicted he redeem’d not them from Hell who suffer eternal Vengeance there, since Christ is not a Saviour to those who perish, but only to his Body, the Church of the Firstborn, who are written in Heaven, and Salvation arises from his Death as the meritorious and procuring Cause thereof; they are the only Persons for whom he died, to whom that Title properly belongs, who are not all Men is most certain.

5. The Elect is another Name by which they are known. That the Chosen of God, are the only Persons, against whom a Charge of Guilt cannot be exhibited, appears very plainly, from this Challenge of the Apostle in their Behalf: Who shall lay any Thing to the Charge of God’s Elect? It is God that justifies. Who is he that condemneth? It is Christ that died (Romans 8:33, 34.). Others are under the Imputation of Sin, a Sentence of Condemnation; and that Sentence will certainly be executed upon them. In the Opinion of the Apostle, the Death of Christ is a sufficient Security, from a Charge of Offence, and a Sentence of Condemnation; and therefore, such for whom he died, to them, Sin is not imputed; nor, is any Curse pronounced against them, considered as interested in his Death, which Things are true of the Elect of God only, in whole Name alone, this Challenge is expressed. The same Thing is evident from two Places of Scripture compared together, the First is, Hebrews 12:23. To the Church of the First-born. The Second is, Ephesians 5:25. He loved the Church, and gave himself for it. The Church consists of such Persons only, who are written in Heaven; viz. Who are elected to Everlasting Life, for these Christ is said to die, or give himself: And to say that he died for others also, is to speak beside the Scripture.

II. Others of the human Race are as plainly distinguished from them, by very different Characters.

1. They are called The Rest: The Election hath obtained it, and the Rest were blinded (Romans 11:7.): It is expressly asserted, that Christ died for the Former, but of the Latter, no such Thing is any where intimated; and therefore to affirm that he died for Men universally, is to extend his Death far beyond what the Scriptures do. As for those general Expressions, the World, the whole World, it can never be proved, that they include Persons of these different Characters, the Election, and the Rest; and therefore, from those Expressions it cannot fairly be inferred, that Christ died for the Elect, and Reprobates also, which is the Point to be demonstrated.

2. The World is another Title under which they pass, by way of Distinction from the People of Christ: I pray for them, I pray not for the World, but for them which thou hast given me, for they are thine (John 17:9.). If ye were of the World, the World would love his own; but because ye are not of the World, but I have chosen you out of the World; therefore the World hateth you (John 15:19.). To establish the Doctrine of the unlimited Extent of Christ’s Death, it ought to be proved, That that World is redeemed, out of which, the Church of God is said to be redeemed (Revelation 5:9.); and therefore was not redeemed together with it.

3. They have the Character of Goats: The Sheep he will set at his Right Hand, but the Goats on his Left (Matthew 25:33.). Our Lord expressly declares, He laid down his Life for the Sheep; but he never says any thing like it of the GOATS. His Sheep he knows, bears a great Respect to them, is never unmindful of them, securely defends them, and gives to them eternal Life: The others denominated GOATS, he NEVER KNEW (Matthew 7:23.). They are not the Objects of his good Will and Favour; he gives not to them eternal Life, but consigns them over to endless Misery. How confidently soever it shall be affirmed, I do not expect to see it proved, that Christ died to save those WHOM he NEVER KNEW.

4. They are represented as Persons appointed to Condemnation, and WRATH (Jude 1:4.), which is a Character just the REVERSE of those, for whom Christ is said to die. They are (as we have seen) called, the Elect, and said to be chosen to Salvation (1 Thessalonians 5:9.). Let it be clearly proved, if it can be, that Christ suffered with an Intention to save those, who are APPOINTED to WRATH; and when that is done, I shall ask some Questions, which will not admit of Answers very easy. Whether an Intention, to save, and to punish, are the same, or may consist together? If God and Christ once designed to save those, whom they eternally punish, when they changed their Purpose concerning these Persons? Whether such an Alteration of Purpose is consistent with Immutability? And to what Motives, or Reasons, we may attribute, this Change of Resolution and Design? I have always thought, that the Council of the Lord shall stand; that he will do all his Pleasure (2 Thessalonians 2:12; 15:13.); that the Counsel of the Lord standeth for ever, and the Thoughts of his Heart to all Generations (Isaiah 46:10.); that none have resisted his Will (Psalm 33:11.), or prevented the Accomplishment of his infinitely wise Determinations: But when I shall see it once proved, that God intended to save all Men, by the Death of his Son, I will readily acknowledge myself mistaken, In the Sentiments, (so agreeable to the Scripture) just now expressed, and that the Bible is not the most consistent Book, which was ever wrote: But at present I am under no Apprehension that I shall be obliged, to make Concessions so dishonourable to God, and destructive of his Veracity in his Word.

THE learned and ingenious Author of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, in Words greatly extols the Merits of our Saviour, he frequently speaks of his redundant, superabundant, and overflowing Merit; but his Opinion is a real Extenuation, and Nullity of his true Merit, as will hereafter appear.

1. The Foundation of Christ’s Merit, in his Obedience and Sufferings, is the infinite Dignity of his Person; his Obedience to the Law, his Sufferings and Death had not been available to the Justification of Men, or to the Remission of their Sins, if he had been a mere Creature, or Man only. His human Nature was the Subject of Obedience and Suffering; but his Obedience and Sufferings have their infinite Value, from his Divine Nature: His Righteousness being the Righteousness of God, and his Blood being the Blood of God, is the Reason, Cause, and Foundation of that Merit, which attends both.

2. It was an eminent Act of free and foreign Favour to Christ, as Man, to ordain his human Nature to a personal Union, with the Word the Son of God: This, which is his highest Honour, as Man and Mediator, is a free Gift, or it is a Fruit of the Father’s everlasting and eternal Love to him (John 17:24.). This he did not, he could not merit; for our Saviour can’t be supposed to have merited that, which rendered him a Subject capable of meriting. Which Augustin well improves as an Argument against Merit in us. And Calvin from him insists upon the same Argument in his Institutions (Lib. II. Cap 17.). Limborch very much misrepresents Calvin’s Sense in this Pointf2. His Opinion was not, that intrinsick Merit, did not attend what Christ did and suffered; this he pleads for; but inasmuch as this Union of the human Nature with the Divine, is the Result of God’s Decree, he resolves Christ’s Merit into that Decree, as the Origin of it; and represents the Grace of God as the supreme Cause, and the Merit of Christ, as the subordinate Cause of Salvation.

3. As a supreme, and subordinate Cause, are not inconsistent, so Salvation though it is merited by Christ, it is still freely given; the Grace of God is to be considered, as the supreme Cause, and Fountain of it: For since, the Merit of Christ, (as we shall find it is, if we trace it up to its Source) is to be resolved into, the free, and sovereign good Will of God, we affirm nothing incompatible, with the Freeness, Riches, and Sovereignty of Divine Grace, when we say, that our Salvation is merited, by the Obedience, and Sufferings of our Saviour. The Reason is, a Cause supreme, and subordinate, are by no Means repugnant.

4. Infinite Merit attended, what Christ did and suffered for his People, and by Virtue of the Union which subsists between him, and them, that Merit becomes theirs.

1st. His Obedience to the Law, had an infinite Merit attending of it. In order to give the Reader, a clear, and distinct, and just Idea of this most important Point, I observe.

(1.) It was by a special Divine Constitution, that Christ became Subject to the Law, Men are born under the Law, or Covenant of Works, as the natural Descendants of Adam, with whom, that Covenant was made, but so was not Christ: The first Adam was not a Head to the last Adam; and therefore, if the last Adam, comes under the Obligation of that Law, which was given to the first Adam, it must be, by an Appointment, and Decree peculiar to himself; hence as Christ was made of a Woman, i.e. as his human Nature was produced in a supernatural Manner, or not according to the settled Law of Nature, so he was made under the Law, by a special Appointment (Galatians 4:4.), otherwise he would have had no Concern, with the Law, or Covenant of Works, as a Subject of it. For as the first Man, was not a Head to the second Man, who is the Lord from Heaven (1 Corinthians 15:47.), nor he a natural Descendant from him, he was not, nor could be obliged to the Observation of that Law, or Covenant, (but by special Appointment) which was given to, and made with the first Man.

(2.) Christ as Man, by Vertue of his personal Union, with the Word, the Son of God, was raised above the Condition, and State of a mere Creature; or, had a Right to Glory, and Blessedness, even to Glory, as great as we may suppose, his human Nature thus advanced was capable of enjoying, for he was appointed Heir of all Things (Hebrews 1:3.); he was rich (2 Corinthians 8:9.), and his stooping to a low State was a voluntary Act of Condescension, being found in Fashion as a Man, be humbled himself (Philippians 2:8.); and therefore Obedience to the Law, became not due from him, in order to the Fruition of God: As he was exalted above the State, and Condition, of all Creatures, by Vertue of this Union, he is not to be considered under the same Obligation with them. And this is the great Mystery, and Glory of the Gospel; Oh that my Soul may for ever, admire, and adore it!

3.) Though he was not a mere Creature, but God as well as Man, and was thus exempted from the common State, and Condition of Creatures, yet, by a special Designation of the Father, and his own voluntary Agreement, he became subject to the Law., or Covenant of Works, not on his own Account, for that was impossible, but for the sake, of others; or with a gracious View, to their Redemption, from that Law, considered as a Covenant of Works.

(4.) Those, on whose Account he became subject to the Law, or Covenant of Works, are such, for whom he was a Surety to the Father, or to whom he was constituted a representative Head, and no others: For as his Obligation to the Law, or Covenant of Works, wholly arises from the Father’s sovereign Will, and his own voluntary Consent, it can’t be thought, that he stood obliged to fulfil that Law, or Covenant, for those, whole Surety he was not, and to whom he was not appointed, representative Head, until therefore, we shall see it clearly proved, that Christ is a Head, to such, who are not of his Body the Church, we shall continue to firmly believe, that he only fulfilled the Law for them, and that he is not, or was designed to be the End of the Law for Righteousness to

any others.

(5.) Our blessed Saviour was perfectly conformable to the Law, his Nature was pure, and his Conduct unblemished, he did no Sin, neither was Guile found in his Mouth (1 Peter 2:22.). His Obedience was commensurable to, or every Way, such as the Law required, he always did those Things which pleased the Father.

(6.) As in his Obedience, he is to be considered a Surety and Head, his Righteousness, or Obedience, is imputed those, and only to those, for whom he became a Surety, and to whom. he was appointed a Head. He is not a Head to all Men, he only is to his Body the Church, i.e. the Church of First-born, who are written in Heaven, or the Elect of God, who we know are not all Men: All Men therefore ate not interested in his Obedience, and the Merit of it, which was the Point to be proved.

(7) The Deity of Christ infinitely exhalted his Obedience: Immense Honour arose to the Law by Christ’s Subjection to it, and Observation of it, he magnified the Law, and made it honourable (Isaiah 42:21.). The Obedience of our Lord is attended with Merit suitable to the Dignity of his Person, which Merit becomes theirs, on whole Account, he was made under the Law, and for whom as a Surety, and Head, he fulfilled it; they therefore are entitled to all those Benefits and Blessings which are the Result, of his Obedience; hence says the Apostle, That being justified by his Grace, we should be made Heirs, according to the Hope of eternal Life (Titus 3:17.).

(8) Infinite Merit attended the Sufferings of Christ: The Blood of our Redeemer, is equal in Value, and Worth, to the Greatness and Dignity his Person. Now he is the Brightness of the Father’s Glory, and the express Image of his Person (Hebrews 1:3.). It therefore is no Diminution, or lessening of the Father’s Honour, to esteem him, his EQUAL (Philippians 2:6.); of Consequence, he is a Person infinitely great and glorious. And if his Sufferings are allowed to have any thing of superior Worth in them, to those of a mere Creature, on Account of his Deity, if we will be consistent, and carry up our Reasoning, to its proper Pitch, in an Affair, wherein it is absolutely necessary to be done, we must grant, that as they have any thing more of Merit, in them, than those of a mere Creature, they have infinitely more and greater Worth: Hence it follows, that his Suffering are an adequate, and every Way sufficient Price, for our Redemption: An infinite Justice was offended, and an infinite Person suffered: Here was an Equality between the Judge, who punished, and the Subject, on whom Punishment was inflicted. And if the Death of Christ

was a full, and adequate Price, of Redemption, then all those, for whom he died, in Justice, have a Right and Claim to a Discharge from Guilt, Freedom from Condemnation, and Security from the penal Effects of Sin. Whether these Things can consist with the universal Extent of his Death, a small Degree of Discernment, in spiritual Truths, will enable any Person to discover. It is impossible to maintain the true Merit of Christ, without granting, that all those partake of the Benefits which he merited, for whom they were procured; for it is unjust, to withhold that, to which a Person hath a Right; Merit gives Right to those Favours, which are supposed to be merited, whether that Merit, is personal, or it is the Merit of another, but becomes ours, by Vertue of the meritorious Action being done by one between whom and us, there is such a Union, as lays a proper Foundation, for the Imputation of that Action to us, which is the Case here, as plainly

appears by what has been before observed. This cannot be denied, without an entire Subversion of the Gospel, in the most weighty Points, it recommends to our Faith and full Assent.

REDEMPTION which is effected by the Death of Christ, Is a clear and cogent Argument in Favour of the limited Extent of his Death.

1. Redemption may be considered as metaphorical; that is a mere Deliverance out of Misery and Servitude, without the Payment of any Price. Thus the Israelites are said to be redeemed (1 Chronicles 17:21.) out of the Hands of the Egyptians, when no Price, or valuable Consideration, was given for their Release from Bondage. The Socinians maintain, that such is our Redemption by Christ, that he paid no Price, or valuable Consideration, for our Deliverance from the penal Effects of Sinf3.

2. It is proper, and that is when a Price is given, or a valuable Consideration, is yielded by him who acts the Part of a Redeemer, for those who enjoy Liberty in Consequence of his so doing, (1). This may have Place in the Deliverance of Captives, who are held under

Confinement by a Conqueror. (2.) In the Deliverance of Criminals from deferred Punishment, in this View, our Redemption is to be considered, for we are Criminals, and obnoxious to very severe Penalty, for our Offences, against God, our Sovereign, and our Judge.

3. Christ as our Redeemer paid a valuable Price, or Consideration, for our Redemption. In order fairly to make out this, it will be necessary to prove — That he suffered in our Stead — That his Sufferings were that Penalty, to which we were obnoxious — That those Sufferings of Christ were a proper Price, or valuable Consideration, for our Deliverances and Exemption from Punishment.

I. Christ suffered in our Place and Stead not merely for our Good, as the Socinians and Armininians urge: For though it is certain, that in suffering in our Room he suffered for our Good, yet this he might be supposed to do, without suffering in our Stead. The observation of two Things will fully clear up this.

1. Christ was a Surety to God for those Persons, on whose Account he died; hence he is said to be the Surety of a better Testament, or Covenant, diaqhkhv (Hebrews 7:22.). For this Reason, his Blood is called the Blood of the everlasting Covenant (Hebrews 13:11.). He was not a Surety for God to Sinners, as the Socinians, and Arminians contendf4; he stood in no Need of a Surety. to make good his Engagements; it is blasphemous to imagine it, the Thought thereof is a horrid Reflection, on the Power, or Veracity of God. And therefore if Christ was a Surety at all, he was our Surety, and took our Debt upon him, as such, he died, in order to clear that Debt, which necessarily supposes his Substitution in our Place, or Relation to the Law of God.

2. He is expressly said to have suffered for us; i.e. in our Stead; for the Preposition uper evidently designs the Substitution of one Person in the Room and Place of another ina uper sou diakonou, That in thy Stead be might have ministered (Philemon 1:13.), uper Crisou deomeqa. We pray you in Christ’s Stead (2 Corinthians 5:20.), uper gar tou agaqou for a good Man (Romans 5:7.), i.e. in the Stead of a good Man, and no Reason can be assigned, why it should not be taken in this Sense, when it is said, Crisov uper hman apeqane, Christ died for us; the Just suffered for the Unjust (Peter 3:18.), uper adikwn in Stead of the Unjust, agreeable to the Sense of the Preposition in other Places, until therefore some substantial and clear Reason is assigned for a different Sense, we shall not grant what is merely begg’d, the Cause is too important to allow of such a Complement. The Reason which is urged against this Sense, taken from its being said that Christ suffered pdei amartiwn, i.e. for Sins (1 Peter 3:18.), is so far, from militating with it, that it abundantly confirms it, for he of whom it is declared, that he suffers for the Crimes of another, must be understood to suffer in the Stead of that other Person, when it is affirmed that he suffers for him.

II. Christ suffered the Penalty, that they were liable to, on whole Account he died. Which thus appears:

1. Their Guilt was imputed to him: He was made Sin for them (2 Corinthians 5:21.), the Lord laid on him the Iniquities of us all (Isaiah 53:6.), he bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree (1 Peter 2:24.). Christ was in himself innocent, but by Imputation, he was made Sin or Guilty, without that, his Sufferings could not be of a penal Nature, for proper Punishment is the Infliction of the Evil of Suffering, for the Evil of Sin; Penalty therefore always bears Respect to a Charge of Offence, committed either by the Person himself who suffers, or by others, for and in whose Stead he suffers, which is the Care here. Nor is there any thing unjust in this, if the Party offended, hath a Power of excusing the guilty Party and of accepting the Engagement of another to suffer for him, and he who engages, hath a Power over his Life, if that is at his Disposal, and he is free to resign it, which Things though they are not found among Men, they are all true, and actually found here, or else we are undone for EVER.

2. He was made a Curse: That very Thing from which we are freed, by the Death of Christ, he was made in dying for us, which is the Curse and Condemnation of the Law, he redeemed us from the Curse of the Law being made a Curse for us (Galatians 3:12.). No, say the Socinians and Arminians, he was not properly made a Curse, if not properly, then not at all; for there is no improper Sense, in which he could be made a Curse, the Apostle affirms, he was made a Curse for us, every one knows whom we ought to believe, the inspired Writer rather than those Men.

3. Our gracious Redeemer sustained the Shock of the Father’s vindictive Displeasure: What less, than this, can be the Import of such Modes of Expression as these: It pleased the Lord to bruise him, he hath put him to Grief ( Isaiah 43:10.), and awake, O Sword, against my Shepherd, against the Man that is my Fellow, finite the Shepherd ( Zechariah 13:7.). This awful Language is expressive of a real and positive Act, of God himself against his Son, as the Surety of Sinners, and standing charged with their Guilt, which must be an Act of Vengeance. The whole Punishment due to Sin, when punished in such a Subject as Christ is, was inflicted on him, who had infinite Dignity, whole Sufferings therefore were of infinite Value, and of Consequence, it was not necessary that they should be endless in Duration, because they were in Value immense: Hence it is evident that the Shortness of the Time of his Sufferings, is no just Objection, to his undergoing that very Punishment, which was due to, or from us; though Socinians and Arminians are pleated to argue it is.

III. Christ’s Sufferings were a proper Price, or valuable Consideration for our Redemption. The Socinians deny that his Death was a Price, though it is expressly so called, Lutron, (Matthew 20:28.), i.e. a Price of Redemption, which is the proper Signification of the Word. The Arminians will nor allow, that it was a full, and adequate Price; but that it was so according to the Estimation of God, or his gracious Acceptation. And tome others, who perhaps would take it amiss, to be reckoned of that Party, agree with them therein; thus Dr. Doddridge speaking of what Christ paid for us, faith, it was GRACIOUSLY ALLOWED of God, as a valuable Consideration . This is infinitely to sink the Merit of the Redeemer, below its true Nature; for his Death must needs be an adequate and full Price of Redemption, or a complete Payment of our Debt; because he suffered that very Punishment, which was due to the Criminals he intended to redeem, and was equal, in Dignity, to their offended Judge, who inflicted that Penalty. The Sufferings of an innocent Person, in the Room of the Guilty, ought to be allowed and accepted, as a valuable Consideration, for their Deliverance, if he suffers all that penal Evil which the Law threatens, Justice requires it, it is not an Act of Favour, but of Righteousness: And therefore, if Christ really suffered for Sinners, the WHOLE of that Punishment, which was due to, or from them, in Right and Justice, they are intitled to Impunity: If indeed he has not, but a Part of it only, then we are left in a miserable Condition; for we are unable to bear the least Part of the Penalty our Sins deserve. But the Father expects no more for our Deliverance and Redemption, than Christ has paid: And therefore all those for whom he died, have Remission of Sins, Freedom from Condemnation, and Security from WRATH. In whom we have Redemption through his Blood, the Forgiveness of Sins (Ephesians 2:7.). Where is therefore now no Condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus (Romans 8:1.). Being justified by his Blood, we shall be saved from Wrath through him. The universal Extent of the Death of Christ, supposes the Reverse of there Things, so plainly expressed, in the Holy Scriptures: That the Surety bore Sin, and that the Sinner remains under a Charge of it. — That our Saviour was made a Curse, and that the Offender continues under it. That our Lord sustained the infinite Displeasure and Wrath of God, and that those (at least many, yea the greater Part of them) for whom he so did, will eternally lie under his awful Vengeance. Thus Men take the Liberty to depreciate the Merit of the Redeemer under a Pretence of extending it, and to contradict the plainest Evidence of the Word of God, in Favour of their own Opinions, which have no Foundation in the sacred Writings, as I hope fully to evince and prove hereafter. The Author of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, makes a Concession which (if I mistake not) is entirely inconsistent with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, though he appears a zealous Advocate for it, (in a marginal Note.) It is this, I cannot find that Scripture once asserts, that Christ redeemed all Men, or died to redeem them all. I beg Leave to ask this Gentleman, Whether Christ died with an Intention to redeem such for whom he paid a Price of Redemption? Surely he must: The Scripture represents his Death as a Price of Redemption; and I should think his Death was that in his Intention, which it was in Fact; if therefore he died for all Men, in his Death he intended to pay a Price of Redemption for all Men, or died to redeem them all. The Arminians in order to reconcile the Doctrine of universal Redemption, with particular Salvation; or the Happiness of a Part of human Nature only, with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death, distinguish upon Redemption, as impetrated, and as applied. They suppose that Redemption was impetrated for all Men; but that it is applied to some only, the Reason of which is, all do not perform those Conditions, upon which the Application of Redemption dependsf5. To this I answer: Though the Impetration of Redemption, and the Application of it, may be distinguished, they cannot be separated: For it is unjust to render the Enjoyment of that uncertain which is impetrated, or obtained, by the Payment of a proper, and full Price, to those for whom it is so obtained, by the Injunction of any Conditions on them. It would be acting an injurious Part to him, who paid that Price. And therefore, since Redemption is not applied to all Men, but to some only, it was not impetrated, or obtained for all Men, but for a Part of the human Nature only. Upon the Whole, we may safely conclude, That the Extent of Christ’s Death is not universal, but particular, and limited to some.

THAT Reconciliation which Christ effected by his Death, seems to me, a nervous Argument in Favour of the limited Extent of it. The Doctrine of divine Reconciliation supposes not any Change, in the Disposition of Gods or from a Purpose of inflicting Punishment, to friendly Design of conferring Benefits, neither of which are compatible with the Perfections of God: And therefore Apprehensions of this Sort, are by no Means to be entertained, when we speak of that Peace which Christ has made for Sinners. But it supposes an infinite Displeasure with Sin, in God.

A Disapprobation of our Persons, considered as Offenders; and the Engagement of divine Justice against us, as Transgressors: All which are perfectly consistent, with the everlasting Love of God to us, and with his gracious Choice of us in Christ to eternal Salvation; and with the invariable Approbation of our Persons, as view’d in the Beloved. Hence it appears, That Reconciliation with God, by the Death of Christ, is not a Procurement of divine Favour, as the Socinians object to us: But it really is an Effect thereof, There is no Repugnancy, between the free, sovereign, and eternal Love of God to his Elect, and the Doctrine of real Peace, being made for them by the Blood of Christ’s Cross. The pretended Inconsistency of God’s good Will and Favour, Love to and Delight in his People, with actual, and proper Reconciliation, which is effected by the Sufferings of the Redeemer, is no other than a foolish Objection of the Socinians, who are professed Adversaries, to the Merits and Satisfaction of Christ. And it is Pity, that any through a Desire to maintain the precious Truth of God’s Free, immutable, and eternal Love to his People should in the least countenance an Objection formed by the worst Enemies, which

the Gospel has, against the proper and real Atonement of Christ: Since there is no Inconsistency in these Things; but both are alike true, and of equal Moment, in our Salvation, viz. The free Love of God to his People, and Atonement made for their Sins, by the Sufferings of our blessed Lord. The Ground of this Mistake, is, considering God as attended with human Passions, than which, nothing more dishonourable to the divine Being, can by a Creature be deviled. Reconciliation is not a Change in the Heart of God, from an angry Disposition, to a friendly Affection, as it is in Men; but it is a full, and proper Satisfaction to his violated Law, and offended Justice, Nor is another Objection which the Socinians make, of the least Weight; i.e. That God is never said to be reconciled to Men; but that we are said to be reconciled to him, by the Death of his Sonf6. For the Party to whom Christ offered himself, as a Sacrifice, is reconciled, which was not

Men, but God. Besides, it is the usual Mode of speaking, to express Reconciliation, by the Party who offends, becoming reconciled, to the Party offended: Go thy Way, and first be reconciled to thy Brother (Matthew 5:24.). God in this Affair is to be considered, as a Judge, insisting on a plenary Satisfaction to his Law, and Justice, which being given, he hath no farther Demand to make; and therefore is most properly said to be appeased, or reconciled to Sinners.

I. Christ was to make Peace or Reconciliation: Let him take hold of my Strength; i.e. on Christ who is the Son of Man, whom God has made strong for himself: And is called the Power of God, that he may make Peace with me, and he shall make Peace with me (1 Corinthians 1:24; Isaiah 27:5.). One gracious End of the Messiah’s being cut off; but not for himself, was to make Reconciliation for Iniquity (Daniel 9:24-26.). The Church under the legal Dispensation, was taught to expect the great Benefit, of real Atonement, or Peace and Reconciliation, by and through the Sufferings of the Messiah: And the Saints then acted Faith on that Atonement: The Chastisement of our Peace was upon him, and with his Stripes we are healed (Isaiah 53:5.).

II. The Nature of the Sufferings of our blessed Redeemer, is an evident Proof, that he suffered in order to make Peace and Reconciliation. His Sufferings were penal, and therefore, so far as he sustained that Punishment, which was due to, or from Sinners, they must be satisfactory to the Law, and Justice of God. Sin was imputed to him; The Curse of the Law was inflicted on him: And the Sword of divine Justice smote him. Which Things are a full Evidence, that in suffering he was punished: And if the Whole of that Penalty which Sin demerits, was endured by our Saviour, the certain Effect thereof, must be real, and perfect, Peace, or Reconciliation with God. If indeed he suffered only a Part of that Punishment, then complete Atonement is not made, he is but a partial Saviour, and was not made perfect through Sufferings. But this we can, by no Means, allow of, not only because it dreadfully affects our eternal Interest, but also because it impeaches divine Wisdom, and Justice, and reflects the greatest Dishonour on Christ himself.

III. The Gospel is a Report of Peace and Reconciliation. It is called The Gospel of Peace: And the Word of Reconciliation (Ephesians 6:15. 2 Corinthians 5:19.). Because it assures us, That Peace is made, by the Blood of the Cross of Christ. And that when we were Enemies, we were reconciled to God by the Death of his Son. And that we are healed by the Stripes, i.e. the Sufferings of our Lord. It is not a Report of a Disposition,

or Inclination in God, to be reconciled to sinful Men, on Account of the Suffering, and Death of Christ; but it is a clear, and glorious, and gracious Discovery, or Proclamation of real, and actual, and perfect Peace, or Reconciliation effected by his Passion and Death, The Divine Will to Reconciliation is not an Effect, but it is the Cause of Christ’s suffering for Sinners, in order to his making Peace for them; Hence we read, that the Apostles preached Peace by Jesus Christ (Acts 10:31.); not a Will or Disposition in God to a Reconciliation with offending Creatures, but real Peace, or actual Atonement, and Reconciliation. And therefore some Gentlemen must excuse me, if I say that they are very different Preacher, from the Apostles, and bring us another Gospel (which is not another, no Gospel of Christ at all) who represent God as only willing to be reconciled to Sinners, thro’ the Death of his Son) and not actually reconciled.

IV. The Distinction of a first, and second, or of a former, and a latter Reconciliation, the former as common to all Men, and the latter as peculiar to Believers upon Believing, which the Arminians urge, is an Invention of their ownf7. They suppose that which cannot in Justice be granted; viz. That Christ: by his Death obtained a conditional Grant, of Pardon and Life for all Men: This they call the first, or former Reconciliation; and thus much are they pleased to allow to the Merits of our Saviour; but not that he merited that Grace, which is necessary to enable Men to perform those Conditions, on which the latter

Reconciliation is to be enjoyed, (and herein the Author of The Ruin and Recovery of Mankind, agrees with them, as to the larger Number of Men, for whom Christ died.) This I say is supposing what Justice forbids us to allow, in this Care, or in any Affair of this Nature. For it is manifestly unjust, to require an innocent Person to suffer for a Criminal, that Punishment which he deserves, and enjoy any Conditions on the Criminal, which may render his Impunity precarious, and for Want of the Performance of such Conditions, actually punish him; of this the Arminians are fully sensible; and therefore they deny that in a strict Sense Christ was punished. And so to must our Author also, if be will be consistent with himself. I should think this Gentleman can’t esteem it an unreasonable Request, if I ask the Favour of him, to tell us plainly, whether he apprehends Christ was really punished for Sinners in his Sufferings? Whether he endur’d the Whole, or a Part only, of that Penalty which was due to, or from them, for whom he died? And whether he thinks it agreeable to Justice to inflict the whole Punishment, due to Offenders, on a Surety for them, and punish them also.

I t seems clear to me, even to a Demonstration; that if our precious Saviour was punished in his Sufferings: That if he underwent the Whole of that Punishment, to which they were liable for whom he died: And if it cannot consist with Justice, and Righteousness, to inflict Penalty on a Surety, and on Offenders also: That all those for Right to Impunity, whom Christ suffered, have a Pardon, and Life; or that the Law and Justice of God are satisfied, that no Fury is, or can be in God, against those Persons; but that he is actually reconciled to them, or pacified towards them for all that they have done. Which is evidently inconsistent with the universal Extent of Christ’s Death; and therefore, I cannot but apprehend that it is particular; and limited to time.

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