Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 8 · Argument 1
CHAP. VIII. Arguments againſt Univerſal Satisfaction anſwered.
Argum. I. ALL thoſe are certainly ſaved for whom Chriſt Satisfied: But all men are not Saved: Therefore Chriſt Satisfied not for all men.
The Major is proved thus: It will not ſtand with Gods Juſtice to puniſh one ſin twice, or to puniſh twice for one ſin; the firſt puniſhment being a full ſatisfaction for that ſin▪ God can require no more: But Chriſts ſufferings were a full ſatisfaction for every ſin of thoſe perſons for whom he ſuffered: Ergo, &c. The Satisfaction was full.
1. In reſpect of the ſins of the perſon; there being none unſatisfied for.
2. As to God who was offended; he being fully reconciled, or well-pleaſed, with the Sinners for whom the Satisfaction was made, and not only conditionally or in part.
Anſw. This is the main Argument urged by Dr. Twiſs and moſt others againſt Univerſal Satisfaction; and which prevaileth moſt with thoſe of that way, ſo far as I can find: But it is grounded on an unhappy ignorance of the Nature of Satisfaction, and a confounding of ſatisfaction and ſolution of the proper Debt; and a ſore miſtake about Chriſt's undertaking and performance.
Solutio ipſius debiti, ſtrictè ſic dicta, the proper diſcharge of what was due, was ſupplicium ipſius Delinquentis, and of any other in his ſtead (as I have proved before:) The Law did neither Threaten the Innocent, nor make any mention of a Surety. And therefore Chriſt did not fulfill the Law, in Suffering as he did in Obeying; or the Law was not properly fulfilled on Chriſt in his Suffering. Satisfaction is taken ſometime generally, for the fulfilling of anothers deſire: and ſo a Believing, Repenting, Obedient perſon, may be truly ſaid to ſatisfie God himſelf. But this is not all the ſenſe of the word as it's now in queſtion with us in the preſent caſe.
2. Sometimes it is taken ſpecially, for a debtors ſatisfying his Creditor (not by ſubmiſſion and deprecation, but) by ſuch a ſufficient way, as that the Creditor ſhall be no loſer by him. From a Creditor and Debtor it is by tranſlation applied to a Rector and Delinquent. In this ſpecial ſenſe Satisfaction is taken.
1. Sometime more looſely and largely for the Payment of the proper Debt: the ſame with Solutio ipſius Debiti. Or,
2. More ſtrictly and properly: For the Satisfying the Creditor by giving him as good a thing, or taking ſuch a courſe as that he ſhall be no loſer, though the Debt be not paid. And in this ſenſe is the word Satisfaction ordinarily uſed, as its proper ſtrict ſenſe, the former ſenſe being one of them too general, and the other improper and looſe. And ſo Satiſfaction is commonly by Lawyers and Schoolmen defined to be Redditio aequivalentis, alias indebiti: or ſolutio vel Redditio tantidem: and it is contradiſtinguiſhed from ſolutio ſtrictè ſumpta; which is ejuſdem quod debetur. And ſo in Criminal Caſes, the Puniſhment of the Offender is the Ipſum Debitum, and not properly ſatiſfaction to the Comminatory part of the Law; (though all Puniſhment may be called a ſatiſfaction as to the Preceptive part of the Law, becauſe it is not the ipſum quod debetur, as to the Precept, but ſomething to provide that the Law and Lawgiver loſe not by the delinquent:) But if any other ſufficient means be found which, without the Puniſhment of the offender, may provide for the Indemnity of the Law-giver, and the publick good, and this both for what is paſt by reparation, and for time to come by Prevention, that ſo the main ends of the violated Law may yet be attained, this is ſatisfaction to the Lawgiver; Satisfaction alway ſuppoſeth the non-payment of the Debt: And in Criminal Caſes (as ours is) ſatisfaction ſtill ſuppoſeth the Duty, or Puniſhment, or both to be overpaſſed which the Law required. The Puniſhment of the Delinquent himſelf, (which may be called a ſatisfaction to the Law) ſuppoſeth that the Precept was violated, by Omiſſion or Commiſſion. The puniſhing of another for us, or any other ſuch Satisfaction, ſuppoſeth the Delinquent himſelf not to be puniſhed. So that it muſt needs be remembred by all true Chriſtians, that Chriſt did not only ſatisfie for our not obeying, but for our not ſuffering the Puniſhment threatened by the Law, and ſo due to us for our diſobedience: yea moſt directly did he Suffer for our not Suffering, and ſo ſecondarily for our Sinning. Further it muſt be remembred, that ſatisfactio eſt ſolutio Recuſabilis; ſed ſolutio ejuſdem eſt non recuſabilis; The Creditor or Rector may chuſe to take ſatisfaction, by receiving the value in another kind: But he cannot refuſe the proper Debt, unleſs by remitting it freely: He can require nothing elſe but the Debt: Moreover, ſatisfaction being a refuſable payment, the Creditor may take it on his own terms, and there muſt intercede a New Agreement for the accepting of it, and if the Satisfier will not come to the Creditors terms, he may refuſe it, as no ſatisfaction: whereas if the Debt it ſelf be paid, he muſt ipſo facto acknowledge the Debtor acquit and to be no longer a Debtor: The like may be ſaid in the Puniſhment of a Delinquent. To apply all to the caſe in hand: Chriſt was not the offender, therefore Chriſts Sufferings (as is ſaid before) were not the fulfillin; of the Law; but ſatisfaction to the Law-giver. His Satisfaction ſuppoſeth that no man was himſelf Puniſhed when Chriſt ſatisfied (morally by undertaking his natural ſuffering) nor ever was to be puniſhed meerly on the old ſcore; that is, meerly for violating and incuring the penalty of the firſt Law, by God as Rector according to that Law. God might have refuſed to accept Chriſts Sufferings as a Satisfaction for Sinners; much more, to have freely provided it out of his own Treaſure, as it were; when God therefore did freely himſelf provide a Satisfaction, and freely Accept it, He did both only on theſe terms; that [as Legiſlator of the ſtrict Law of Works as ſtanding without remedy, he would puniſh no Man, but yet he would not actually and abſolutely diſcharge them, for they are ſtill his Subjects; and now by a double right and bond, viz both of Creation, and Redemption, and therefore muſt ſtill be governed by him, and therefore muſt ſtill be Governed by Laws, and therefore muſt ſtill be under Precepts, Prohibitions, Promiſes, and Threatnings, which are the Parts of the Law. For the Nature of Man is ſuch, as that it muſt be governed not meerly by Commanding, but alſo per Praemia & Poenas, (Experience tells us that of the beſt Men on Earth) as propounded to them; therefore God in mercy would make a New Law, commanding all men to repent, and (that hear the Goſpel) to Believe; and giving to the Redeemed the actual pardon of all their Sins on theſe Conditions, making Chriſt the Fountain of our Life, and Head of all that ſhall be Saved, and Ordaining that Chriſt, and with him Pardon and Adoption, and the Spirit, (for further Sanctification) and Salvation, ſhall be given to all that will take Chriſt, and that thoſe that refuſe him ſhall be unpardoned for all his Sacrifice and Satisfaction, and ſhall moreover incur a far ſorer puniſhment.
Theſe are the terms on which God took Chriſt's Sufferings as ſatisfactory to his Juſtice, which terms are well pleaſing to the Son himſelf, nor did he ever deſire to ranſom them on other terms, or to bring them into any other Condition, than under this his own Government and Laws, nor to convey Pardon and Glory (the Fruits of his Death) to any that refuſed him; (ſtill ſuppoſing his Everlaſting ſecret Decree of procuring his choſen infallibly to perform the Conditions, and partake of the benefits which belongs to another part of Theology.)
Alſo it muſt be well obſerved (as the very Principal Point for avoiding the common Errours in this buſineſs) that the ſatisfaction is made to God as Legiſlator, and ſo Rector per Leges; and ſo hath its main direct reſpect to his Legiſlative Will. His Will de Eventu is naturally Antecedent to it, and the Cauſe of it as Event: But his Law was the cauſe or occaſion of it, as due or morally neceſſary; and alſo there are no Acts of his Decretive Will de Eventu cauſed by it, but there are Acts of his Laws (and ſo as to our manner of conceiving of his Will de Debito) cauſed by it; and ſo it was not for Chriſt's Death that God decreed to give Faith to any, and conſequently to give actual Pardon and Glory: But God Decreed to give theſe for Chriſt's death, when he ſo gives them: And it is becauſe of Chriſts death that they are due; though not immediately from his death, but mediante donatione Teſtamenti vel faderis, Chriſt's death is the Cauſe of Faith, but not of the Decree to give it.
Again it muſt be underſtood, that it is not God as Legiſlator of the New Law, that is ſatisfied for Sin by Chriſt's death, that were to dye to ſatisfie himſelf, the Mediator, for the Non execution of his own remedying Law: But it is God as Legiſlator of the Law of Works; conſtituting Everlaſting Death the due Penalty of every Sin: Or if any had rather ſay, that it is not formally the Law of Works which is now in force, conjunct with the Law of Grace, but it is become part of the Law of Grace; the matter comes all to one ſenſe, though we change the words: There is one Law that ſaith [He that Sinneth ſhall dye,] call it what you will; this Law as to the end Chriſt hath ſatisfied, i. e. he hath properly ſatisfied the Law-giver: There is another Law (or as they call it, the peremptory part of the New Law) which ſaith [He that believeth ſhall be Saved, and he that believeth not ſhall be Damned;] Chriſt hath not ſatisfied the Juſtice of this Law by his Sufferings. The ſenſe of the Commination is [He that in the time of this Life believeth not ſhall be Damned.] This Law is ever executed on all that are guilty, and by it obliged to Everlaſting Death; that is, on thoſe that in their life time here, do not Repent and Believe. For the violation of the precept of this Law, as it requires Belief, or other Duty at the preſent time, Chriſt did dye, but not for the non-performance of the Condition which Death is threatned to.
Laſtly, It is therefore certain that Chriſt dyed not for the Sin of Final Impenitency (in a prevalent degree) and unbelief, or Final Rebellion againſt himſelf, or his Father.
And therefore when I ſaid before that he ſatisfyed God as Legiſlator of the Law of works, for ſin as ſin, it is to be underſtood of the Law of Works, as contradiſtinct from the Law of Grace; and ſo all the ſins peremptorily Condemned by the Law of Grace, are excepted from the ſatisfaction: Not only (nor at all) becauſe they are the ſins of ſuch Perſons, but becauſe they are ſuch excepted ſins, who ever the perſon be.
Now therefore to the Argument, and firſt to the Major, I deny it, and never ſaw any fair colour of proof of it; and therefore (having full plain Scripture to the contrary) do confidently believe, that all thoſe are not Saved that Chriſt ſatisfied for; and to the Proof brought I anſwer▪
1. It is untrue that Chriſt ſatisfied for every ſin of every Man for whom he ſatisfied; and it will never be proved. He hath excepted all thoſe Sins which are comprized in the final nonperformance of the Condition of Salvation.
Object. None that he ſatisfied for are ever guilty of that, and that's the Reaſon why he may not be ſaid to dye for ſuch Sins.
Anſw. That's denyed, and to be better proved before it can be received, by Sober Men. I have already proved that he dyed and ſatisfied for thoſe that are final Unbelievers, or Apoſtates, and ſo periſh. And I now prove that the Reaſon why Chriſt ſatisfied not for ſuch ſins (as final Impenitency, Infidelity, or Rebellion) is not accidental from the ſtate of the Redeemed, viz. becauſe none of them are guilty of ſuch; but it is directly from the Nature of the ſin, without reſpect to this perſon more than that.
If Chriſt have expreſly excepted the final non-performance of the Goſpel Conditions from among the number of thoſe ſins which he hath ſatisfied for, and that even in the New Law which he hath enacted for all (Elect, or Non-Elect,) then it is not only accidentally, or becauſe it is not found in thoſe he ſuffered for, but it is directly à volunt ate Dei Redemptoris & … Natura peccati, becauſe God would not accept, nor Chriſt give any ſatisfaction for that kind of Sin, (or for any ſin ſo qualified or circumſtantiated,) but the Antecedent is certain, therefore I prove the Antecedent thus: It is the very Nature of every Condition added to any Donation, Condonation, Premiant Law, &c. that it be or contain an exception of the Non-performance of that Condition from among the … of thoſe things that are given, forgiven, conſtituted, due, &c. (Becauſe the Condition is to ſuſpend the Gift 'till it be performed.) But the New Law or Teſtament as made to all (Elect, or Non-Elect) doth conſtitute this its Condition, viz. That all that will be Juſtified, Repent, and Believe, and take Chriſt affectionately, and thankfully for their only Lord and Saviour; and that all that will be Saved do perſevere herein, and in adding further ſincere Obedience to God's Laws: Therefore by making theſe the Conditions, the Law excepteth the non-performance thereof from among the number of thoſe things that are given, forgiven, or granted thereby. And Conſequently theſe ſins are excepted from among the ſins that Chriſt bore on the Croſs, or ſatisfied for: For whatſoever kind of ſin he hath ſatified for, he beſtoweth the Pardon of it, Conditionally at leaſt, (and that in his Law to them to whom his Law is made,) ſo far is he from making an expreſs exception of that from among the number of pardonable ſins: But theſe he excepteth from among that number.
If a Man by Legacy give you 1000l. per annum, on Condition you pay his Heir out of it an 100l. per annum, Rent: Here this 100l. per annum is expreſly excepted from the Sum given, becauſe the payment of it is required as the Condition of enjoying the reſt.
If a Man to whom you owe 1000l. make you an Acquittance and Diſcharge, on Condition you pay him a Penny in token of thankfulneſs, here that Penny is plainly excepted from among the number, or from the Sum given, or forgiven.
If a King paſs an Act for the pardoning of all Offences committed againſt him, on Condition Men will thankfully acknowledge his Clemency; here the not acknowledging it thankfully is plainly excepted from among the number of Faults Pardoned.
2. Moreover this Law being thus conſtituted for all, (Elect as well as others) it is undoubted, that if we may ſuppoſe an Elect man to be guilty of final unbelief, or impenitency, it would be to him an unpardonable ſin, and conſequently Chriſt dyed not for it..
If you ſay, this is not to be ſuppoſed, I Anſwer,
1. It is ſupponendum, though not ponendum.
2. The Holy Ghoſt ſuppoſeth it poſſible (etſi non futurum) in that the Law is made to them as well as others; and in that he expreſly requires them ſo oft to take heed leſt they fall, and come ſhort of the Promiſed Reſt, through unbelief, &c.
And therefore we alſo may put ſuch a Suppoſition. Do not thoſe that oppoſe us in this, uſe ſo to Expound ſuch Scriptures, frequently, both about Redemption, and when they Diſpute againſt the Apoſtacy of the Saints; and ſay it is ſuppoſed only; but Suppoſitio nil ponit in eſſe: Moreover the Scripture makes it plain, that theſe Sins of Total Apoſtacy, and other unpardonable (becauſe uncurable) Sins, are in them for whom Chriſt dyed: For they bring on themſelves ſwift Deſtruction, by denying the Lord that bought them: They tread under foot the Blood by which they were Sanctified, and do deſpite to the Spirit of Grace; and ſo there remaineth no more Sacrifice for (their) Sin, but a fearful looking for of Judgment. So that is is plain that Chriſt dyed not for all the Sins of all Men for whom he dyed, excepting by his new Law, the final Non-performance of the Conditions of the Promiſe, in whomſoever without exception. Yea, Chriſt's real giving all Men under his hand the Pardon of all their Sins, on Condition they Repent and Believe; ſhews beyond all doubt, that he bore on the Croſs all their other Sins, but bore no Man's final Impenitency, or Unbelief.
2. And the other Principle, which is ſuppoſed in this Argument of Chriſt's ſatisfying God to a full Reconciliation) is as falſe as the former, and in the beſt Senſe needs cautelous explication.
1. It is certain that no Man is actually reconciled to God, Pardoned or Juſtified 'till he believe, (or others Believe for him, as Infants at leaſt ſo far as is revealed,) God ſtill hateth all the workers of Iniquity, and we are all by Nature the Children of Wrath. By receiving Chriſt, we receive power to become the Sons of God, and by Faith only are we juſtified, and not before we believe: And who but the Antinomians will ſay the contrary?
2. The end to which God (as Legiſlator of the Old Law) accepted ſatisfaction, was that the impediments of Remiſſion being taken out of the way, he might (without any derogation from the honour of himſelf, or his Law, and without fruſtration of the ends of that Law) give out in a New Law, a Free Pardon and Salvation with Chriſt to all that will accept them. So that the end of ſatisfaction as ſuch, and not any accidental or collateral effect muſt direct us to judge of its extent and ſufficiency.
3. To this end Chriſt hath made full ſatisfaction to God's Juſtice, and Mens After-Sufferings, are not from any defect in Chriſt's ſatiſfaction. God hath granted a Pardon under his hand to all that will accept it in and with Chriſt, and for Mens final rejecting of Chriſt and Mercy he received no ſatisfaction. God may not be ſaid properly to be conditionally ſatisfied: He is ſatisfied actually and abſolutely, as far as ever he required ſatisfaction. But the Benefits of that ſatisfaction are only conditionally given out to the Ranſomed, and not abſolutely. If it be objected that God is ſo far ſatisfied as to give Faith it ſelf, which is the Condition to all for whom he is ſatisfied.
I anſw. 1. It is untrue: and never was proved, nor ever will be.
2. Faith is a remote effect of Satisfaction, and not the proper direct effect: It floweth not from Satisfaction as Satisfaction; but from Satisfaction as connexed with Election, as I ſhall anon more fully open, and therefore deſire the Reader, to peruſe what we ſhall purpoſely write of that point by it ſelf.
I deny therefore their great Medium, that [God cannot in Juſtice puniſh one ſin twice] that is [for one ſin] (for it is not the ſin that is puniſhed, but the man for the ſin.) Though I eaſily grant that if the violated Law be once fully executed, it cannot be again or in a double meaſure executed (for that's impoſſible as being a contradiction: for it is no execution of the Law, which goes beyond the ſenſe of the Law.)
But conſider 1. The Law was not executed on Chriſt in his ſufferings; and therefore may well be executed on all Unbelievers in their own damnation. Chriſt did by his Sufferings only pay, as it were that which is a valuable conſideration, for the non-execution of the Law as to all that will perform the conditions of the Goſpel or New Law.
Obj. Did not Chriſt bear the Curſe of the Law for us, that he might Redeem them that were under the Law?
Anſw. Yes, he bore the Curſe of the Law Materially; that is, that Curſed Death which the Law threatned; But he bore it not ex formali Legis obligatione, ſed tantum ex obligatione ſponſionis propriae, & precepti paterni; The Law obliged us to puniſhment, but it never obliged Chriſt to Puniſhment; only its obliging us to it, was the occaſion of Chriſts Obligation, becauſe it occaſioned him to Oblige himſelf by his own voluntary ſponſion, that he might free us. But ſtill it was only his own ſponſion that obliged him (together with that peculiar will of his Father, that he ſhould undertake and diſcharge our debt;) ſo that you ſee the Law is but once executed, even on the Damned (as to full execution, for mans mortality and ſufferings here, are a ſmall part of the Execution which Chriſt ſaw it not meet to take off.) And ſo the ipſum Debitum is paid but once; Chriſts Sufferings being not ſolutio ejuſdem, ſed ſatisfactio, i. e. ſolutio aequivalentis alias indebiti.
2. Nay, conſider further, that the equivalency lay not in the proportion of Puniſhment (pain or loſs) equal to that which was due to all or to the Elect; but in the ſufficient aptitude of that Degree or Puniſhment, which Chriſt bore (becoming a publick ſpectacle of ſhame, for the demonſtration of Juſtice, &c.) from the exceeding Dignity of the perſon, to be a means to Gods obtaining the remote ends of his Law, (viz. the demonſtration of Juſtice, and right governing the Creature, and preſerving the Authority of the Lawgiver) though the neareſt ends of that Law were not attained (viz. the perſonal obedience of man, and for want of that, his perſonal ſuffering.) Many Learned Divines have written largeiy to prove that Chriſt did not properly ſuffer the pains of Hell on his Soul; I will not meddle much with that queſtion; But doubtleſs it was a very great part of our puniſhment which Chriſt was uncapable of undergoing; much leſs may any dare to affirm that his Sufferings Materially were as great as All the Sufferings of All that he died for ſhould have been. The Death due to us was Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal. The Temporal Death is ſo much the leaſt, that many Divines will not be perſuaded that it hath now to the Godly any nature of Puniſhment, but is only materially a ſuffering. The Spiritual Death, ſo far as it conſiſted in the loſs of Gods Image, and privation of Holineſs, and Dominion of Sin and Slavery to Satan, Chriſt bore not at all. Nor yet as it lay in any Torments or Gripes of Conſcience, which are the fruits only of perſonal proper guilt, in the remembrance of the Folly, or Wilfulneſs, or Negligence, or Unkindneſs, or the like Evils manifeſted in Sinning. Chriſt had no ſin of his own to look on to torment him: and other mens Sins could not procure to him the gripes of a Guilty Conſcience. Nor yet was his Soul or Body ſo deprived of Gods Love as are the wicked, nor ſo hated by God, nor at all diſunited from God: For upon the loſs of Union with God, and Spiritual Communion with him, would have followed, the loſs of Grace, and depravation of the Soul, and prevalency of ſin: nor yet were any of Chriſts ſufferings Eternal. Yet did he endure that debaſedneſs and publick ſhame, and that forſaking of God by the denial of Spiritual Comforts, and by giving him up to the Will of his Enemies, and by an inward ſenſe of Gods diſpleaſure, in trouble of Soul, which was a full ſatisfaction to Juſtice, or a Sacrifice ſufficient for God to do what he did, upon the reception of it. But you ſee that quoad Materiale poenae there was much difference between Chriſts Sufferings and the Damneds in Hell.
3. Conſider Chriſts ſufferings being not ſolutio ipſius Debiti but ſatisfactio; as is before explained, therefore it was ſolutio recuſabilis, God might have choſen to accept it; and there muſt intercede, as it were, a new agreement for its acceptance. Now God did accept it, and Chriſt ſuffer it only on theſe terms, that none ſhould for all that have the Pardon of his ſins, till he accepted Chriſt as his Lord Redeemer and Repented of his ſins: and this is the true reaſon why Chriſts Satisfaction, is no hinderance to the puniſhment of thoſe that reject him and his favours.
4. The Satisfaction of Chriſt is ſufficient and perfect ad ſuum finem, to all its own ends, but not ad omnem finem, to every uſe and end: and it was not its uſe and end to acquit ipſo facto any ſinner, but only to acquit all on condition of Repenting and Believing, (it being alſo the full intent of God to give that condition to all his Elect, as ſhall be anon opened.) Some very Wiſe, Godly, and Learned men that I have ſpoke with, wiſh that the Word [Satisfaction] had been never here uſed, but inſtead of it the terms of [an Expiatory or Propitiatory Sacrifice:] becauſe the laſt is the Scripture phraſe and the firſt is not: But yet Satisfaction is no ſuch unfit term but that it may well be uſed, though ſtill Scripture phraſe I confeſs is better.
5. As Chriſt hath ſatisfied the Father, ſo the Father hath ſatisfied Chriſt (in the larger ſenſe, i. e. he hath fulfilled his deſire.) It was not man himſelf that ſatisfied, but Chriſt for man; nor did Chriſt ſatisfie in our perſon, as a delegate pays a Debt in the Debtors name, ſo as in Lawſenſe Civiliter, it is the Debtor himſelf that pays it; For then it ſhould have been Solutio not Satisfactio; There being no Vicarius Poenae allowed by the Law, it is indeed impoſſible, for ſuch a ſolution to be made; For it ſhould be the Idem and not the Idem quod debetur, quia non naturaliter per eundem, and conſequently not civiliter per eundem. Yet a ſatisfaction may be made by ſuffering alterius loco; and ſo Chriſt did. But as Chriſt ſuffered in his own perſon, viz. Sponſoris, and not our ſelves; ſo the effect that he deſired was, that he might himſelf be the firſt Recipient of the fruits of that ſatisfaction (in that ſenſe as he is capable of receiving them) that he might be the Head and the publick Treaſury of all the Mercy procured by his Death; and being made Lord of all, might give them out to whom, and when, and how he pleaſed; and in ſpecial, that he might make a general Deed of Gift of himſelf, and Pardon and Salvation to All that would accept it, and might ſend forth the Spirit and Word to bring in men to himſelf in what meaſure he pleaſe; and in particular in an infallible prevalency to his choſen: And that none might periſh merely on the old ſcore, or be judged meerly by the Old Law; but all ſtand or fall according to their improvement or abuſe of recovering Mercy. And all this God hath hereupon granted to his Son: And ſo he hath ſatiſfaction for his ſatisfaction; though many that he hath ſatisfied for do periſh.
6. Beſides conſider, though men be puniſhed for the ſame ſins that Chriſt ſuffered for, yet as to God, the ſame do become new ſins, and ſo men ſuffer for them as it were, as for new ſins: For,
1. The old Obligation was ſo far made void or diſabled, that of it ſelf it could never more bind them to puniſhment, by reaſon of the addition of a remedying grant.
2. God did quantum in ſe as Legiſlator of the old Law, forgive them all the debt, (except the ſins of non-performance of the Goſpel conditions, which God ſtill excepted and Chriſt never ſuffered for) for God hath delivered the obligation out of his own hand (as ſtanding in that firſt Relation of Rector ſecundum Legem Naturae ſ…lum) and given it up into the hand of the Redeemer, to give Remiſſion to whom he pleaſe. He hath alſo made a free Deed of Gift of an Univerſal Pardon, to all that will accept it. So that though men be not actually pardoned, yet God may conveniently be ſaid to have pardoned them, in that he did his part as Rector ſecundum Leges. As he ſaith to Iſrael, I have healed thee and thou art not healed. When a true Believer is actually Pardoned, God doth put forth no new act to Pardon him, but doth it by the general Grant or Act of Oblivion, whereby he Pardoned All men conditionally as well as them. The Law, ſaith a man, hath done a thing or given a benefit when he hath done his part, though the effect follow not, and the Work be yet undone: For Moral Cauſes may do all their part, and …et the effect not follow, for want of the performance of conditions in the receiver, or becauſe con-cauſes do not their part. And therefore if the effect follow not, the Law enquires, Who it is long of? Whoſe fault was it? if of the Patient or Receiver, then the Donor or Agent is ſaid to have done the thing, though yet it be not done. For as to him moraliter vel Civiliter it is done: There being no default on his part. If any ſay that God followeth not the Rules of Humane Laws. I anſwer, God is the Fountain of all right Laws, and Reaſon, and Juſtice, and I ſpeak not of any unjuſt or miſtaking Laws. This is an ill pretence for men to judge their Maker by; when they will not allow him that reaſonable apology, nor make that conſtruction of his ways according to common undeniable equity, as they will do of the ways of men. Right Reaſon, and the Laws made thereby, are a beam of Gods perfect Wiſdom and Juſtice. If any ſay that God doth not Totum quod ad ſe attinet, all his part, in making a Deed of Gift of Chriſt and Pardon, and Glory, to all that will accept it, unleſs he alſo give Faith which is the acceptance it ſelf. I ſhall now only ſay this much (till we come to the point by it ſelf) that God doth Totum quod ad ſe attinet ut Legiſlatorem vel Rectorem juxta Leges, all that belongs to him as Rector according to Laws; (though not all that belongs to him as abſolute Lord and Diſpoſer of events and all Creatures.) And it is in that Reſpect, ſub foreign Rectoris that Chriſt made ſatisfaction to him, and not in the foreign the Relation of an Eternal-Elector or Abſolute Proprietary and Diſpoſer of all.
So that you ſee now that quoad Deum all men are pardoned all their ſins (except thoſe excepted in the conditions of the Grant,) though quoad delinquentis Receptionem they are ſtill unpardoned. They may have Chriſt and Pardon if they will. And when they are deprived of the Gift meerly becauſe they will not have it, no Reaſon can ſay, God did not give it, or Chriſt did not procure it, or that God is unjuſt in that they are without it. So that it is not now meerly the obligation of the firſt Law, as unremedied that binds them over to puniſhment, nor as it is in the Hands of God as Creator or Rector ſecundum Legem operum; but it is the Obligation of the new Law primarily (He that believeth not ſhall not be forgiven nor be ſaved) and conſequently of the Old Law, as the obligation is in the Redeemers hands to be charged only on the Rejecters of Grace. It is not primarily for ſin as ſin, according to this Law; [Whoſoever ſinneth ſhall dye,] but it is primarily for Rejecting the Remedy, and then that ſin, by neceſſary conſequence remains unpardoned: ſo that it is not directly becauſe they were guilty of Death by the firſt Law, but propter rejectam Remiſſionem for deſpiſing the Remiſſion of that guilt. So that quoad Deum it may be called the return of Sin or Guilt Remitted, and ſo to be more properly ex novd obligatione from the New Obligation of the Law of Chriſt, binding all their ſins again upon them; though as to them and their reception it is both from the New Obligation and the old. And therefore Jude calleth ſuch, twice dead, and pluckt up by the Roots. If an hundred Traytors be condemned, and the Prince Ranſom them all at a Price, agreeing in the payment of it, that they ſhall now be all his own, and none of them be delivered for all that, who will not thankfully own him and acknowledge his favour: Here it is juſt that all the Refuſers of Pardon yet periſh: And their Death is directly for the refuſing of the Remedy, and ſecondarily from their old crime becauſe they would not have it remedied. So that though Materialiter they loſe but one Life, yet it may be ſaid that the Life they now loſe, Civiliter is not the ſame that before they loſt; but it is vitam de novo donatam, a Life newly given them, for they were dead in Law, and the King gave them a new Life, Moraliter etſi non Naturaliter. And it is the rejecting of the Gift by which they loſe their former Natural Life, and their New-given Mortal Life. And will any man be ſo ill adviſed in this caſe as to ſay, that it is injuſtice in the King or Prince to puniſh the ſame perſons that were before Ranſomed? Yea if it were not by Money but by ſuffering publick ſhame that the Prince had Ranſomed them.
Having thus Explained the Caſe, and Anſwered the Argument, I will (looking at Edification, and not the uſual form of Diſputing) go beyond the task of a meer Reſpondent, and give you two or three Arguments to prove that it is no injuſtice in God to puniſh thoſe for whom Chriſt hath ſatisfied, or for whoſe ſins he was a ſacrifice.
And, 1. I argue thus; If it be no injuſtice in God to oblige men to puniſhment for all Chriſts ſatisfaction, then it is no injuſtice actually to puniſh men for all Chriſts ſatiſfaction. But the former is true, therefore ſo is the latter.
Firſt, I will prove the conſequence of the Major Propoſition thus; from the eſſential offices of the Law.
1. The Law is Juris conſtitutiva, vel ſaltem declarativa. It conſtituteth Right, or at leaſt declareth right; (I put in the latter [declareth] not as my own ſenſe, but to prevent the quarrel of any that may think this or any Right was conſtituted from Eternity before there was any Law, or at leaſt before that which we ſay obligeth ſinners to puniſhment: Though indeed the Law doth conſtitute before it declare.) And ſo the Law is Regula juſsiti…; vel ſaltem regula juſta: And if ſo, then to execute ſuch a Law can be no injuſtice.
2. The Law is Norma judicii; that's paſt queſtion. I ſpeak of a Law in force, and as to the ſubjects to whom it is in force. And if ſo, then it can be no injuſtice to execute it. But I think few ſober men will deny the Major, and therefore I leave that. And one would think none ſhould doubt of the Minor: Whether it be any injuſtice in God, by his Law to oblige to puniſhment thoſe that Chriſt Died for? But becauſe the Antinomians deny it, let us prove it. If God do de facto oblige to puniſhment thoſe for whom Chriſt Died, then it is no injuſtice ſo to do: But God doth ſo actually, Ergo, &c.
I hope if we prove that God doth it, none dare ſay it is unjuſt. If he be not Juſt he is not God. And that God doth it I prove thus.
1. Thoſe that God Hateth, and are Children of Wrath, and without Hope, and without God in the World, and Strangers to the Covenant of Promiſes, and Aliens to the Common-Wealth of Iſrael, &c. are certainly obliged to puniſhment: But ſuch many have been and ſtill are, for whom Chriſt Died, Ergo &c. God hateth all the workers of Iniquity, and they are all by Nature Children of Wrath, &c. But many that Chriſt Died for, are before Regeneration workers of Iniquity, Ergo, &c.
2. All that are under the Curſe of the Law are obliged to puniſhment. But many that Chriſt Died for, were under the Curſe of the Law ſince his Death, undertaken (when his ſatisfaction was in force) yea ſince his actual ſuffering; Ergo. &c. Many Scriptures ſhew both that we were under the Curſe of the Law when Chriſt actually ſuffered, and that all the Elect are under it ſtill as well as others, till their converſion. I am loth to trouble the Reader in heaping up Teſtimonies.
3. All that are condemned already, and the Wrath of God abideth on them, are doubtleſs obliged to puniſhment. But ſuch are many for whom Chriſt Died; (even all the Elect as well as others, while they are unbelievers, John 3. 18.
4. All that are guilty are obliged to puniſhment: (Proved, Reatus eſt obligatio ad poenam, they are all one thing) But ſome that Chriſt Died for are Guilty. Ergo, &c. Even all before pardon, and that is all before Converſion are guilty.
5. All thoſe whoſe ſins Chriſt doth pardon were firſt guilty or obliged to puniſhment. But, ſome that Chriſt Died for have their ſins pardoned. Ergo, &c.
The Major is proved beyond all doubt from the formal Nature of Pardon, which is the Remitting of Guilt, or the Diſſolving of an Obligation to puniſhment; therefore where is no ſuch obligation there can be no Diſſolution of it: For that which is not, cannot be diſſolved: And ſo there is no capacity for pardon; no more than a living man can be raiſed from the Dead, or a Man cured of a Diſeaſe, which he never had. The like may be ſaid of Juſtification alſo. Our Divines have fully proved againſt the Antinomians, that we are unpardoned, and unjuſtified till we believe: We are Juſtified by Faith, and therefore were unjuſtified before Faith.
6. If none be obliged to puniſhment for whom. Chriſt Died, then none ſuch may pray for Pardon, nor confeſs that they need any Pardon from Chriſt. (For Pardon being the diſſolving of an obligation to puniſhment, there can be no pardon, where there is no obligation; and therefore no need of it, nor of prayer for it) But the conſequent is very wicked: We muſt daily pray, Forgive us our Debts and Treſpaſſes: Ergo, &c.
The Second Argument is this, If God do actually puniſh thoſe for whom Chriſt Died, then he may juſtly puniſh them. But God doth actually puniſh ſuch: Ergo, &c.
The Major is unqueſtionable.
The Minor is fully proved thus.
1. The expreſs words of Scripture ſhew it, Lev. 26. 41, 43. Lam. 3 39. and 4. 6, 22. Amos 1. 3, 6, 9, 11, 13. and 2. 1, 4, 6. 2 Cor. 2. 6. 1 Pet. 2. 14. Jer. 44. 13. Ezra. 9. 13. Hoſ. 4. 9, 15. Jer. 9 25. Read the places.
2. The execution of that ſentence, Gen. 3. 16, 17, 18 19. is certainly puniſhment. [I will greatly multiply thy ſorrow and thy Conception, in ſorrow thou ſhalt bring forth Children, &c. Curſed is the ground for thy ſake▪ in ſorrow ſhalt thou eat of it all the days of thy Life, &c. Duſt thou art, and to Duſt ſhalt thou return.] But this ſentence is executed on thoſe that Chriſt Died for, Ergo, &c.
3. Thoſe whom God chaſtiſeth he puniſheth: But he chaſtiſeth thoſe whom Chriſt Died for▪ Ergo, &c.
The Major is undeniable to all that know what chaſtiſement and puniſhment is: Puniſhment is the Genus (being a Natural Evil, or the privation of a Natural Good, inflicted for a Moral Evil, the privation of a Moral Good:) Rigorous vindictive Puniſhment tending moſt to the ruine of the Sinner, is one ſpecies of it, Chaſtiſement is another ſpecies, which, by the hurt of a ſinner tendeth to his good. And though this be called Paternal, yet, 1. Chaſtiſement is not the proper act of Parents. Maſters may Chaſtiſe Servants, and Princes their Subjects. 2. It is Metaphorically called Paternal in one reſpect, as God exerciſeth it; when yet in other reſpects it is the act of God as Rector per Leg…s, for ſo all Gods Chaſtiſements are according to his Laws.
Object. All ſhall work together for good to them that Love God, to the Called, &c. therefore nothing is Puniſhment.
Anſw. 1. The beſt Interpreters (according to the plain truth) expound that Text of Affliction only, and moſt of ſuch Affliction as is ſuffered for Chriſts cauſe, or at leaſt not for hainous ſinning againſt God. And it is unlikely it ſhould be otherwiſe.
1. Becauſe the defect of Love to God ſeems excepted in limiting it to them that love God: But one that Chriſt Died for may be defective in love to God, therefore that is not promiſed to work for good.
2. Every Man dieth in ſome ſin, and how that ſhould do him good is hard to diſcern.
3. If we had a Promiſe that ſin and all ſhould work for the beſt, then we had no evil to fear, nor avoid, nor pray againſt, nor lament; but that is not true.
4. Such a Promiſe would be a dangerous encouragement to ſin; if every Chriſtian knew by promiſe before hand that how much ſoever they ſinn'd it ſhould be better for them than if they had not ſinned.
5. The good of a Chriſtian lyeth in the enjoyment of God, by knowledge, love, joy, &c. therefore his want of knowledge, love, &c. is not that which is Promiſed ſhall work for the beſt.
6. It is poſſible for a believer by Revolting to decline in Grace, and conſequently in Happineſs; (elſe we need not fear declining nor lament it.) But if ſin ſhould all work for the beſt to them, then it were impoſſible their Happineſs could decline: for nothing but ſin, or ſo much as ſin can cauſe it.
7. They that have leaſt improved their Talents, and have leaſt Grace, ſhall have leaſt Glory: God is enjoyed hereafter in various degrees according to mens various capacities; therefore that defect of Grace, or that ſin here which cauſed their leſs degree of Glory did not work for their greater good. Yet I confeſs, 1. That God may and oft doth make ſin an occaſion of good to his People. 2. And always brings good out of it to his own Glory; But he hath not Promiſed that every believers ſin ſhall work together for good to him.
8. The word [working together] expreſſeth a cauſality, and a concauſality with God, which cannot be aſcribed to ſin, it being at the beſt but an occaſion of good.
2. If this Promiſe were ſo to be underſtood, it were nothing againſt what I ſay: And if it do extend to all ſufferings as well as thoſe for Chriſt, yet it is not againſt it. For it proves no more but that they are chaſtiſements that ſhall produce a greater good than the ſuffering is evil. But yet chaſtiſements are puniſhments, and the evil is ſtill evil though it occaſion good: It is evil in it ſelf or directly, it doth us good but by accident. Or whatſoever you conclude of chaſtiſements in ſuffering, certainly it is a heavy Puniſhment when God permitteth his People to ſin (as he did David, Peter, &c.) yet ſuch as Chriſt hath Died for do ſuffer this Puniſhment. Again, is not Original ſin the loſs of Gods Image, and the pravity of Nature a Puniſhment for the firſt ſin? I mean Gods withdrawing his Grace, which is the Antecedent.
Laſtly, If all this were nothing as to the Regenerate, yet who ever ſaid that God never puniſheth any of his Elect while they are Unregenerate? Are none of their ſins Original or Actual, nor any of their ſufferings or diſunion from Chriſt and Alienation from God, puniſhments to them? It is beyond all diſpute. I conclude therefore that it is a point of undenyable evidence, that God doth actually puniſh ſome, yea all for whom Chriſt Died; and he doth it juſtly. And therefore it is not injuſtice to puniſh men that Chriſt Died for, (meerly as if God could not do it, leſt he puniſh twice for one ſin.
Object. But the great Puniſhment of everlaſting Death, would be injuſtice, though leſſer be not.
Anſw. Degrees here make but a gradual difference. If it be therefore injuſtice to inflict puniſhment becauſe Chriſt hath ſatisfied for the ſin, then a leſſer puniſhment would be a leſſer injuſtice: But God is as uncapable of the leaſt injuſtice as of the greateſt.
3. The Third Argument; It is no injuſtice in God to make a Law to thoſe that Chriſt Died for, which threatneth Puniſhment to them conditionally, and commandeth them to fear it, and avoid it; therefore it is no injuſtice in God to puniſh ſome for whom Chriſt Died. The Antecedent is doubtleſs becauſe God doth actually make ſuch Laws as threaten to all both Temporary and Everlaſting puniſhments. If it be ſaid that [they threaten none but final Unbelievers; and Chriſt Died for none ſuch.] I anſwer, (to omit the begging of the Queſtion in this Objection) Gods new Law threatneth Temporal Puniſhment to thoſe that are not ſuch Unbelievers, and Eternal Puniſhment conditionally to All; viz. If they believe not: And it threatneth no man but conditionally, for the diſcovery of abſolute Non-election, and the certainty of the periſhing of all the Non-elect, is not properly a threatning but a Prediction; yet improperly may be called a threatning: Even as the diſcovery of abſolute Election, and of the certainty of the Salvation of all the Elect, is improperly called a Covenant or Promiſe; which is properly a Prediction de eventu only, not conſtitutive of any Right. If the whole New Law (He that believeth ſhall be Saved, and he that believeth not ſhall be Damned) be made to all, Elect as well as others; and muſt be preached or promulgate to every Creature, then the comminatory part is made to all, Elect, as well as others: But the Antecedent is true, Ergo, &c.
2. For the Conſequence of the Argument, I need not ſay much more than is ſaid already in the firſt Argument.
Object. But the Elect will all certainly Believe, and therefore God cannot juſtly execute that threatning on them.
Anſw. 1. But he may on others, for whom Chriſt ſatisfied.
2. The reaſon why he cannot on them, is not properly becauſe they are ſatisfied for, but becauſe they believe, and ſo are not the proper ſubjects of the penalty.
3. They will certainly believe; not meerly or directly becauſe Chriſt ſatisfied for them; but becauſe God hath choſen them to Faith and Salvation, and Chriſt in Dying for them had a peculiar intent of ſaving them infallibly, and giving them Faith to that end; they being given him peculiarly by his Father.
4. The Fourth Argument is the ſame that I have elſewhere handled, viz. If it be injurious or unjuſt to puniſh the ſame man for whom Chriſt Died, then it is injurious to ſome one: But it is injurious to no one; therefore it is not unjuſt or injurious at all.
The Major is evident. All injury is an injury to ſome, and ſo is all injuſtice injurious to ſome.
Object. It may be that injuſtice which is contrary to Vertue or Univerſal Juſtice, though it be injurious to none.
Anſw. That's not ſo; for that Unrighteouſneſs is injurious to God, and perturbeth the order of Nature, and is injurious to our ſelves. But this God is not to be conceived as capable of, ſeeing it conſiſteth in a diſconformity to his will.
And, 2. It's apparent that it is Gods diſtributive Juſtice, as to men, and his commutative Juſtice as to Chriſt, which is here pleaded by Divines to prove a neceſſity of the Salvation of all that Chriſt Died for.
Let us therefore go to the proof of the Minor Propoſition: And it is proved thus.
If Gods puniſhing the ſame men that Chriſt Died for be injuſtice or injurious, then it is either a wrong to God himſelf or to Chriſt the Redeemer, or elſe to the Sinners that periſh: But it is no wrong to God the Father, Chriſt the Redeemer, nor the Sinner: Therefore it is no injuſtice nor wrong at all.
The Major conſiſteth of two parts, both which are beyond diſpute.
1. That whatſoever is injurious, is injurious to ſome perſon or Society.
2. That the enumeration is ſufficient in the preſent Caſe. None elſe can be imagined to be wronged but God, or the Redeemer, or the Sinner.
And, 1. That it is no wrong to God himſelf is paſt doubt, for God cannot and will not wrong himſelf.
Object. But it would be contrary to the goodneſs of his Nature, and ſo contrary to himſelf, and to Univerſal Righteouſneſs.
Anſw. Not ſo: There can nothing in Gods Nature be manifeſted which ſhould neceſſitate or cauſe him certainly to ſave all that Chriſt Died for. Not his Juſtice, for that requires him to give every Man his Right. But I ſhall ſhew you that this was never the Right of all that Chriſt Died for, nay, I have ſhewed already that all of them are after Chriſts Dying for them actually obliged to puniſhment; ſo that puniſhment was then their Right. Not his truth: For he hath no where promiſed it.
2. It is no injury to Chriſt that ſome ſhould periſh for whom he Died.
1. Becauſe it is his own will: He never intended to ſave any that he Died for, but only thoſe that accept him and his benefits.
2. It is according to the contract (as we may improperly call it) between him and the Father. God never required nor accepted ſatiſfaction, nor did Chriſt ever give it, but on theſe terms, that only thoſe ſhould be ſaved by it that accept him and it. God hath done what he promiſed to the Redeemer. He hath delivered up all mens Obligations into the hands (i. e. the power and diſpoſe) of Chriſt; and ſo hath remitted the Debt to all that will accept it: Chriſt may now give pardon to whom he pleaſe. It was not we, but Chriſt that made the ſatiſfaction; and therefore it is not to us immediately that God hath delivered up the Obligation; but to Chriſt that ſatisfied. As it is uſual among men, for a friend that is ſurety for another to have his obligation delivered to him for his own ſecurity. So hath Chriſt, that if Sinners prove unthankful rejecters of his kindneſs, he may puniſh them for it accordingly.
3. It is Chriſts own doing to condemn thoſe for whom he Died: And he will not wrong himſelf. And he therefore doth it, becauſe they will not accept him and his favour, nor thankfully acknowledge what he hath done for them.
4. No man can ſhew one word in Scripture where God hath promiſed Chriſt to ſave all that he Died for. I conclude therefore that God is no more bound to ſave all that Chriſt Redeemed, than to ſave all that himſelf Created: And the vulgar Argument of the Prophane [God did not make us to Damn us] or [God made us; therefore he will not Damn us] is as good as this [Chriſt Died for us; therefore he will not Damn us.]
3. That it is no injury or injuſtice to the Damned themſelves is as eaſily manifeſted: (and yet here is all the ſhew of injury that is.)
1. It is no wrong to give men their due: But Damnation is the due of all Unbelievers; even thoſe that Chriſt Died for: Therefore it is no wrong for God to Damn them. The Major is paſt doubt. The Minor is as clear as any point that I know in the Goſpel. A ſingle obligation makes it their due: but here is a double obligation.
1. That of the Law of Works, obliging them to Death as Sinners: which is not diſſolved becauſe they accepted not of Pardon in and with Chriſt: and ſo they are condemned already: For none is pardoned till he Believeth: and Puniſhment remaineth due, till men be Pardoned.
2. The obligation of the new Law both binding their former guilt on them by a peremptory irreverſible Decree, and condemning them for contempt of recovering Mercy, to a ſorer Puniſhment: This laſt I mention as belonging only to final Unbelievers. The firſt obligation lyeth on the Elect themſelves till they Believe: And moreover the New Law pronounceth them all that time, non-liberatos, unpardoned, and doth not give them any remiſſion; though it paſs not on them the peremptory irreverſible Sentence.
Obj. If this be ſo, then God ſhould do the Elect themſelves no wrong if he did damn them before they Believe.
Anſw. None at all; nor dare any …ober knowing man tell God, that he had wronged him if he had ſo done: But on the contrary it's the uſe of all Godly Orthodox men, Miniſters or private perſons (ſo far as ever I could obſerve) to confeſs to God in their Prayers, that he might juſtly have cut them off before their Regeneration, and have caſt them into Hell; and that it was then their due; yea, that he might have ſent them to Damnation from the Womb: yet it followeth not that God might Damn the Elect: For he hath Decreed the contrary: But the Purpoſe or Decree of God doth no more give them a Right to Pardon or Salvation, than my Purpoſe to make ſuch a man my Heir, or to give him 100 l. doth give him right to that 100 l. or to my Inheritance. So that God Damns not any of his Elect: but the reaſon is not becauſe that Damnation was not due to them before they believed, or becauſe God could not damn them in Juſtice, or without wronging them; but becauſe he cannot change his Purpoſe or Will; which properly is to ſay, God will not Damn the Elect, rather than, He cannot.
Obj. But it would be a wrong to Chriſt: for they are given him to ſave effectually, by the Covenant between God and Him.
Anſw. I am indifferent how this is anſwered, ſeeing we are agreed in the ſenſe, that God never will condemn his Elect: But by [the Covenant between the Father and Son] either they mean, ſomewhat from eternity, or before the Fall; and this is but Gods Decree; and is no more a Covenant indeed, than any other Decree of God is: Doth God make Covenants with himſelf?
2. Or elſe they mean the Prophecies and Promiſes in the Old Teſtament (or Scriptures before Chriſts Incarnation) made to or of Chriſt as God-man to be Incarnate: and theſe are more properly Predictions de ſuturo, as other Prophecies are, (which God cannot but fulfil becauſe he is immutable and infallible) than the Divine Obligations, (which God muſt fulfil becauſe he is Juſt:) or if any will ſay, that they are ſtrictly obligations (about which I will not contend) yet the Elect are not named or individuals mentioned in them: Or ſuppoſe that the Individuals names be implied, yet this is nothing to the time before ſuch promiſes were made▪ Or if they had been made in the beginning, ſtill this is nothing to the point in queſtion. If God were obliged to Chriſt to ſave all the Elect, yet he was never obliged to them, till they believed; (I ſpeak of Obligation in ſuch an imperfect ſenſe as it may be applied to God.) Much leſs did he ever oblige himſelf to ſave all that Chriſt died for.
2. And that Chriſts actual ſuffering gives no man right, appears from what was ſaid on the former Propoſition, It was not man himſelf, that ſinned who was the ſufferer or ſatisfier, either in ſenſu Naturali or Civili. And therefore he cannot have the benefit till it be made over to him by ſome further conveyance.
3. And therefore it is no wrong to the ſinner to ſuffer; becauſe he ſuffereth but once, and ſuffereth no more than he deſerved. So much againſt the firſt argument, as moſt forcibly managed.