them, or shew how that which we maintain is not concerned in them, nor opposed by them.

First, therefore, It is objected, that the punishment which we should have undergone, was death eternal. But this Christ did not, nor could undergo, so that he underwent not the same punishment that we should have done. Answ. Death as eternal was in the punishment due unto our sin, not directly but consequentially; and that a natura subjecti, not a natura causa. For that the punishment of sin should be eternal, arose not from the nature and order of all things, namely of God, the law, and the sinner, but from the nature and condition of the sinner only. This was such, as that it could no otherwise undergo a punishment proportionable unto the demerit of sin, but by an eternal continuance under it. This therefore was not a necessary consequent of guilt absolutely, but of guilt in or upon such a subject, as a sinner who is no more but a finite limited creature, is. But when by God's appointment the same punishment fell on him, whose person upon another consideration was infinitely distanced from those of the sinners themselves, eternity was not of the nature of it. But then it may be said, that the admission of one to pay or suffer for another, who could discharge the debt in much less time than the other or offender could, is not the same that the law required. For the law takes no notice of any other, than the person who had offended. And if a mediator could have paid the same, the original law must have been distinctive, that either the offender must suffer or another for him. Answ. These things are for the most part true, but not contrary to our assertion, as is pretended through a misapprehension of it. For the law requires no such thing as one to suffer for another; nor absolutely considered doth admit of it. This was from God's gracious dispensation of or with the law, as the supreme Lord and ruler over all. The law itself takes notice only of offenders, nor hath any such supposition included in it, that the offender must suffer or a mediator in their stead, but this the law hath in it, and inseparable from it, namely that this kind of punishment is due to the transgressor of it. And by God's gracious substitution of Christ in the room of sinners, there was no relaxation made of the law as to the punishment it required. Nor is there any word in the Scripture giving countenance unto such an apprehension. That there was a dispensation with the law so far as that one person should undergo the punishment (namely the Son of God) which others did deserve, he becoming a mediator for them, the Scripture every where declares. Upon the supposition of his substitution in the place and stead of sinners, could there be any word of Scripture produced intimating such a relaxation of the law, as

that it should not require of him the whole punishment due to sin, but only some part of it, or not the punishment which was due to sinners, but somewhat else of another kind that was not in the original sanction and curse of it, there would be an end of this difference. But this appears not, nor is there any thing of sound reason in it, that one should suffer for another, in the stead of another, and thereby answer the law whereby that other was bound over unto punishment, and yet not suffer what he should have done. Nor is it pleaded in this case, that the dignity of the person makes up what was wanting in the kind or degree of punishment, whence it is supposed that it would follow that then he who so suffered, suffered not what others should have done, who were not so worthy. It is only said, that from the dignity of the person undergoing the same kind of punishment that others should have done, that respect of it which consisted in its duration, and arose from the disability of the person liable unto it otherwise to undergo it, could have here no place.

It is yet farther pleaded, That if the same be paid in a strict sense, then deliverance would have followed ipso facto. For the release immediately follows the payment of the same; and it had been injustice to have required any thing farther of the of fenders, when strict and full payment had been made of what was in the obligation. Answ. To discuss these things at large, would require a larger discourse than I shall now divert unto. But, 1. It hath been shown already, that although we allow the expression of paying the same, it is only suffering the same for which we contend. Christ underwent the same punishment the law required, but that his so doing should be a payment for us, depended on God's sovereign dispensation; yet so, that when it was paid, it was the same which was due from us. 2. This payment, therefore, as such, and the deliverance that ensued thereon, depended on a previous compact and agreement, as must all satisfaction of one for another. This compact, as it concerned the person requiring satisfaction, and the person making it, we have before described and explained. And as it concerns them who are to be partakers of the benefit of it, it is declared in the covenant of grace. Deliverance, therefore, doth not naturally follow on this satisfaction, but jure fœderis, and therefore was not to ensue ipso facto, but in the way and order disposed in that covenant. 3. The actual deliverance of all the persons for whom Christ suffered, to ensue ipso facto upon his suffering, was absolutely impossible. For they were not, the most of them, when he suffered. And that the whole of the time, way, and manner of this deliverance dependeth on compact, is evident from them who were delivered actually from the penalty, long before the actual sufferings of Christ, merely VOL. II.

K

upon the account of his sufferings which should afterwards ensue. 4. Deliverance is no end of punishment considered merely as such, none is punished properly that he may be delivered; however the cessation of punishment may be called a deliverance. 5. Mere deliverance was not the whole end of Christ's sufferings for us; but such a deliverance as is attended with a state and condition of superadded blessedness. And the duties of faith, repentance, and obedience, which are prescribed unto us, are not enjoined only, or principally, with respect unto deliverance from punishment, but with respect unto the attaining of those other ends of the mediation of Christ, in a new spiritual life here, and eternal life hereafter. And with respect unto them, they may justly be required of us, though Christ suffered and paid the same which we ought. 6. No deliverance ipso facto, upon a supposition of suffering or paying of the same, was necessary, but only the actual discharge of him who made the payment, and that under the notion and capacity of an undertaker for others, which in this case did ensue. For the Lord Christ immediately on his sufferings was discharged, and that as our surety and representative.

But it may be further objected, That it is impossible to reconcile the freeness of remission, with the full payment of the very same that was in the obligation. For it is impossible that the same debt should be fully paid, and freely forgiven.' Answ. It is well if those who make use of this objection, because they suppose it of force and weight, are justified in their own answers to the Socinians, when it is much urged and insisted on by them. For it seems at first view, that if the freedom of pardon unto us, exclude any kind of satisfaction to be made by another for us, that it excludes all. For as to the freedom of pardon, wherein soever that freedom doth consist, it is asserted in the Scripture to be absolute, without any respects or restrictions. It is not said that God will so freely pardon us, that he will not require all that was due, the same that was due, but somewhat he may and will. It is not said that he will not have a suffering of this kind of punishment, but the suffering of another kind of punishment he will. And so to suppose, is a thing unworthy of the grace and righteousness of God. To say, that God freely remitted our sins, abrogating the law and the curse of it, requiring no punishment, no satisfaction for them, neither from ourselves nor from the Mediator, hath, at first view, an appearance of royal grace and clemency, until, being examined, it is found inconsistent with the truth and holiness of God. To say that God required the execution of the sentence and curse of the law, in the undergoing of the punishment due to sin, but yet, out of his love and infinite grace, sent his Son to undergo it for us, so to comply with his holiness, to satisfy his jus

tice, and fulfil his truth and law, that he might freely pardon sinners, this the Scripture every where declares, and the so doing is consistent with all the perfections of the divine nature. But to say that he would neither absolutely pardon us without any satisfaction, nor yet have the same penalty undergone by Christ which his justice and law required as due to sin, but somewhat else, seems to be unworthy of the holiness of God on the one side, which is but partially complied withal, and of his grace on the other, which is not exalted by it, and is a conceit that hath no countenance given to it in the Scripture. Wherefore the absolute freedom of pardon to us, is absolutely consistent with Christ suffering the same penalty which was due to our sins.

And whereas it is pleaded, that' satisfaction and remission must respect the same person; for Christ did not pay for himself but for us, neither could the remission be unto him; so that what was exactly paid by him, it is all one as if it had been paid by us ;' unless it be cautiously explained, it hath a disadvantageous aspect towards the whole truth pleaded for. The Scripture is clear, that God pardoneth us for Christ's sake; and no less clear, that he spared not him for our sakes. And if what Christ did be so accounted as done by ourselves, or that payment and remission respect immediately the same person, then be it what it will, more or less that was so paid, or so satisfied for, we are not freely pardoned, but are esteemed to have suffered or paid so much, though not the whole. This is not that which we do believe. But satisfaction was made by Christ, and remission is made unto us. He suffered, the just for the unjust, that we may go free. In brief, Christ's undergoing the punishment due to our sins, the same that we should have undergone, (or to speak with respect to that improper notion, his paying the same debt which we owed), doth not in the least take off from the freedom of our pardon, yea it much consists therein, or at least depends thereon. I say not that pardon itself doth So, but the freedom of it in God, and with respect to us, doth so. For God is said to do that freely for us, which he doth of grace, and whatever he doth of grace, is done for us freely. Thus the love and grace of God, in sending Jesus Christ to die for us, were free, and therein lay the foundation of free remission to us. The constitution by which he suffered the same punishment which was due to our sins, as the Surety and Mediator of the new covenant, was free, and of mere grace, depending on the compact or covenant between the Father and Son before explained. The imputation of our sin to him, or the making him to be sin for us, by his own voluntary choice and consent, was in like manner free. The constitution of the new covenant, and therein of the way and law, of the partici

pation of the benefits of the sufferings of Christ, was also free and of grace. The communication of the Holy Spirit unto us, enabling us to believe and to fulfil the condition of the covenant, is absolutely free. And other instances of the freedom of God's grace, with respect to the remission of sin, might be given. To us it is every way free. In our own persons, we make no satisfaction, nor pay one farthing of our debt. We did nothing towards the procurement of another to do it. We bring neither money nor price to obtain a pardon, but are absolved by the mere free grace of God by Jesus Christ. And there is nothing here inconsistent with Christ suffering the same that we should have done, or his paying the same debt which we owed, in the sense before explained.