294 A VINDICATION OF
satiated with the blood of Christ, God may," etc. I desire the reader to remember that the supposition whereon all these inferences are built, is only that of the necessity of the satisfaction of Christ vnth respect unto the holiness and righteousness of God as the author of the law, and the supreme governor of mankind. And is this language be- coming a son of the church of England? Might it not be more justly expected from a Jew or a Mohammedan, — from Servetus or Socinus, from whom it is borrowed, — than from a son of this church, in a book published by licence and authority? But it is to no purpose to com- plain : those who are pleased with these things, let them be so. But what if, after all, these impious, blasphemous consequences do folloAV as much upon this author s opinion as upon mine, and that with a greater show of probability? and what if, forgetting himself, within a few leaves he says the very same thing that I do, and casts himself under his own severest condemnation ?
For the first : I presume he owns the satisfaction of Christ, and I will suppose it imtil he directly denies it ; therefore, also, he owns and grants that God would not pardon any sin, but upon a supposition of a previous satisfaction made by Jesus Christ. Here, then, lies all the difference between us; — that I say God could not, with respect unto his holiness and justice, as the author of the law and governor of the world, pardon sin absolutely without satisfaction : he saj^s, that although he might have done so without the least diminution of his glory, yet he would not, but would have his Son by his death and suffering to make satisfaction for sin. I leave it now, not only to every learned and impartial reader, but to every man in his wits who understands common sense, whether the blasphemous consequences, which I will not again defile ink and paper with the expression of, do not seem to follow more directly upon his opinion than mine. For whereas I say not that God requireth any thing unto the exercise of grace and mercy, but what he grants that he doth so also ; — only I say he doth it because requisite unto his justice; he, because he chose it by a free act of his Avill and wisdom, Avhen he might have done otherwise, without the least disadvantage unto his righteous- ness or rule, or the least impeachment to the glory of his holiness. The odious blasphemies mentioned do apparently seem to make a nearer approach unto his assertion than unto mine. I cannot pro- ceed unto a farther declaration of it, because I abhor the rehearsal of such horrid profaneness. The tmth is, they follow not in the least (if there be any thing in them but odious satanical exprobrations of the truth of the satisfaction of Christ) on either opinion ; though I say this author knows not well how to discharge himself of them.
But what if he be all this while only roving in his discourse about the things that he hath no due comprehension of, merely out of a
TPIE PRECEDING DISCOURSE. 295
transporting desire to gratify liimself and others, in traducing and making exceptions against my writings ? What if, when he comes a little to himself, and expresseth the notions that have been instilled into him, he saith expressly as much as I do, or have done in any place of my -vvi-itings? It is plain he does so, p. 49, in these words: — " As for sin, the gospel assures us that God is an irreconcilable enemy to all wickedness, it being so contrary to his own most holy nature, that if he have any love for himself, and any esteem for his own perfections and works, he must hate sin, which is so unlike him- self, and which destroys the beauty and perfection of his workman- ship. For this end he sent his Son into the world to destroy the works of the devil," etc. Here is the substance of what at any time on this subject I have pleaded for: — " God is an in-econcilable enemy to all wickedness," — that it " is contrary to his holy natm'e, so that he must hate it; and therefore sends his Son," etc. If sin be contrary to God's holy nature, — if he must hate it, unless he will not love him- self, nor value his o\m perfections, and therefore sent his Son to make satisfaction, we are absolutely agreed in this matter, and our author hath lost " operam et oleum" in his attempt. But for the mat- ter itself, if he be able to come unto any consistency in his thoughts, or to know what is his own mind therein, I do hereby acquaint him that I have written one entire discourse^ on that subject, and have lately reinforced the same argument in my Exercitations on the Epistle to the Hebrews, wherein my judgment on this point is de- clared and maintained. Let him attempt an answer, if he please, unto them, or do it if he can. What he farther discourseth on this subject, pp. 46, 47, consisteth only in odious representations and vile reflections on the principal doctrines of the gospel, not to be men- tioned without offence and horror. But as to me, he proceeds to except, after his scoffing manner, against another passage, pp. 47, 48, — " But, however, sinners have great reasons to rejoice in it, when they consider the nature and end of God's patience and forbearance to- wards them, — viz., That it is God's taking a course, in his infinite wisdom and goodness, that we should not be destroyed notwithstand- ing our sins; that as before, the least sin could not escape without punishment, justice being so natural to God that he cannot forgive without punishing; so the justice of God being now satisfied by the death of Christ, the greatest sins can do us no hurt, but we shall escape with a ' notwithstandmg our sins.' This, it seems, we learn from an acquaintance with Christ's person, though his gospel instructs us otherwise, that ' without holiness no man shall see God.'" But he is here again at a loss, and understands not what he is about. That