And for the first, about an acquitment ipso facto upon the payment of the idem in the obligation, with my answer, [he] refers it, to be considered in an- other place; which, though I receive no small injury by, as shall be there declared, yet, that I may not transgress the order of discourse set me, I pass it by also until then.
The second argument of Grotius, with my answer, he thus expresseth: —
" To the second argument, that the payment of the same thing in the obliga- tion leaveth no room for pardon, he answereth thus : —
"' God's pardoning compriseth the whole dispensation of grace in Christ; as, — 1. The laying of our sin on Christ; 2. The imputation of his righteousness to us, which is no less of grace and mercy. However, God pardoneth all to us, but no- thing to Christ; so that the freedom of pardon hath its foundation, — 1. In God's will freely appointing this satisfaction of Christ; 2. In a gracious acceptation of the decreed satisfaction in our stead; 3. In a free application of the death of Christ to us.* To which I answer," etc. So far he.
Though this may appear to be a distinct expression of my answer, yet because it seems to me that the very strength of it as laid down is omitted, I shall desire the reader to peruse it as it is there proposed, and it will give him some light into the thing in hand. I aj^ply myself to what is here expressed, and answer : —
To the objection proposed from Grotius, as above, 1 gave a threefold answer: —
1. " That gracious condonation of sin, which I conceive to be the sum of the glad tidings of the gospel, seemeth to comprise those two acts before recounted, both which I there prove to be free, because the very merit and satisfaction of Christ himself was founded on a free compact and covenant or constitution."
Now, I had three reasons (among others) that prevailed with me to make gra- cious condonation of so large extent, which I shall express, and leave them to the thoughts of every judicious reader whether they are enforcing thereunto or no, being exceedingly indifferent what his determination is; for the weight of my answer depends not on it at all. And they are these : —
(1.) Because that single act of remission of sins to particular persons (which is nothing but a dissolution of the obligation of the law as unto them, whereby they are bound over to punishment), as it is commonly restrained, is affirmed by them whom Grotius in that book opposed (into whose tents he was afterward a renegado) to be inconsistent with any satisfaction at all; yea, that which Grotius maintains per tantimdem. But now, if you extend that gospel phrase to the compass 1 have mentioned, they have not the least colour so to do.
(2.) Whereas the Scripture mentioneth that "through Chi-ist is preached the forgiveness of sins," Acts xiii. 38, I do suppose that phrase to be compi-ehcnsive of the whole manifestation of God in the covenant of grace.
(3.) God ex[)rossly saith that this is his covenant, " That he will be merciful to our unrighteousness," Heb. viii. 12.
By the way, I cannot close with Mr B. that this place to the Hebrews, and the other of Jeremiah xxxi. 31-34, do comprise but part of the covenant, not the whole, God saying expressly, " This is my covenant." To say it is not, is not to interpret the word, but to deny it. It is true, it is not said that is the whole covenant; no more is it that Christ is the way, the truth, and the life only. As
THE PENALTY UNDERGONE BY CHRIST. 445
the want of that term of restriction doth not enlarge in that, no more doth the want of the note of universality restrain in this. To say thus because here is no condition expressed is -^rpoffxo'miv ik x^'P'^- If yo^ mean such a condition as God requireth of us, and yet worketh in us, it is there punctually expressed with re- ference to the nature of the covenant whereof it is a condition, which is to effect all the conditions thereof in the covenanters. This by the way, having resolvedly tied up myself from a debate of those positions which Mr B. dogmatizeth ; though a large field, and easy to be walked in, lies open on every hand for the scattering of many magisterial dictates, which, with confidence enough, are crudely asserted.
This is (to return) my first answer to the fore-mentioned objection, with the reasons of it; whereunto Mr B. excepteth as followeth: —
1. " Pardon imijlieth Christ's death as a cause; but I would he had showed the Sci'ipture that makes pardon so large a thing as to comprise the whole dispensa- tion of grace, or that maketh Christ's death to be a part of it, or comprised in it.
2. " If such a word were in the Scripture, will he not confess it to be figurative and not projier, and so not fit for this dispute.
3. " Else when he saith, that Christ's death procured our pardon, he meanetli that it procured itself." So he.
To all which I say, —