But they yet say, " If God can freely j)ctrdon sin, u>hy doth he not do it without satisfaction? If he cannot, he is iveaker and more imperfect than man, who can do so."
Ans. 1. God cannot do many things that men can do; — not that he is more imperfect than they, but he cannot do them on the ac- count of his perfection. He cannot lie, he cannot deny himself, he cannot change ; which men can do, and do every day.
2. To pardon sin without satisfaction, in him who is absolutely holy, righteous, true, and faithful, — the absolute, necessary, supreme Governor of all sinners, — the author of the law, and sanction of it, wherein piuiishment is threatened and declared, — is to deny himself, and to do what one infinitely j^eryeci cannot do.
3. I ask of these men, why God doth not pardon sins freely, with- out requiring faith, repentance, and obedience in them that are par- doned; yea, as the conditions on which they may be pardoned? For, seeing he is so infinitely good and gracious, cannot he pardon men with- out prescribing such terms and conditions unto them as he knoweth that men, and that incomparably the gi-eatest number of them, will never come up imto, and so must of necessity perish for ever? Yea, but they say, " This cannot be: neither doth this impeach the freedom of pardon ; for it is certain that God doth prescribe these things, and
OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST. 429
yet be pardoneth/V-eeZy; and it would altogether uubecome the holy God to pardon sinners that continue so to live and die in their sins/' But do not these men see that they have hereby given away their cause wliich they contend for? For, if a prescription of sundry things to the sinner himself, without which he shall not be pardoned, do not at all impeach, as they say, the freedom of pardon, but God may be said freely to pardon sin notwithstanding it ; how shall the receiving of satisfaction by another, nothing at all being required of the sinner, have the least appearance of any such thing? If the freedom of for- giveness consists in such a boundless notion as these men imagine, it is certain that the prescribing of faith and repentance in and unto sinners, antecedently to their participation of it, is much more evi- dently contrary unto it, than the receiving of satisfaction from another who is not to be pardoned can to any appear to be. Secondly, if it be contrary to the hohness of God to pardon any without requiring faith, repentance, and obedience in them (as it is indeed), let not these pei'sons be offended if we believe him when he so fi-equently decla.res it, that it was so to remit sin, without the fulfilling of his law and satisfaction of his justice.
Secondly, they say, " There is no such thing as justice in God re- quiring the punishment of sin; hut that thattvhich in him requireth and callethfor the punishment of sin is his anger and lurath; ivhich expressions denote free acts of his will, and not any essential pro- perties of his nature." So that God may punish sin or not punish it, at his pleasure ; therefore there is no reason that he should ]-equire any satisfaction for sin, seeing he may pass it by absolutely as he pleaseth.
A71S. 1. Is it not strange, that the great Governor, the Judge of all the world, which, on the supposition of the creation of it, God is naturally and necessarily, should not also naturally be so righteous as to do right, in rendering unto every one according to his works?
2. The sanction and penalty of the law, which is the nde of punishment, was, I suppose, an effect of justice, — of God's natural and essential justice, and not of his anger or wrath. Certainly, never did any man make a law for the government of a people in anger. Draco's laws were not made in wrath, but according to the best apprehension of right and justice that he had, though said to be written in blood; and shall we think otherwise of the law of God?
3. Anger and wrath in God express the effects of justice, and so are not merely free acts of his will. This, therefore, is a tottering cause, that is built on the denial of God's essential righteousness. But it was proved before, and it is so elsewhere.
Thirdly, they sa}^, " TJiat the sacrifice of Christ was only meta- 2:)horically so," — that he was a metaphorical priest, not one properly
430 OF THE SATISFACTION OF CHRIST.
SO called ; and, therefore, that his sacrifice did not consist in his death and blood-shedding, but in his appearing in heaven upon his ascen- sion, presenting himself unto God in the most holy place not made with hands as the mediator of the new covenant.
Ans. 1. When once these men come to this evasion, they think themselves safe, and that they may go whither they will without control. For they say it is true, Christ was a priest ; but only he was a metajihorical one. He offered sacrifice; but it was a metaj^horical one. He redeemed us; but with a metaphorical redemption. And so we are justified thereon ; but with a metaphorical justification. And so, for aught I know, they are like to be saved with a metaj^horical salvation. This is the substance of their plea in this matter: — Christ was not really a priest; but did somewhat like a priest. He offered not sacrifice really ; but did somewhat that was like a sacrifice. He redeemed us not really; but did somewhat that looked like redemp- tion. And what these things are, wherein their analogy consisteth, what proportion the things that Christ hath done bear to the things that are really so, from whence they receive their denomination, it is meet it should be wholly in the power of these persons to declare. But,—