Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

5. Arg. That Doctrine which destroyeth Prayer for the Pardon of Sins, yea and teacheth Men not to be thankful for Pardon, nor to acknowledge themselves beholden to God for it, nor to need it; is not of God. But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. For if it deny pardon, it must needs deny Prayer for it, and thanks, &c.

5. Arg. That Doctrine which destroyeth Prayer for the Pardon of Sins, yea and teacheth Men not to be thankful for Pardon, nor to acknowledg themselves beholden to God for it, nor to need it; is not of God. But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. For if it deny pardon, it must needs deny Prayer for it, and thanks, &c.

6. Arg. That Doctrine which maketh Men to be in Christ before they believe, or are entered into his Covenant, is not of God: But such is this opposed: Therefore, &c. The Major is plain from the Scope of the Gospel: And if it were needful I might cite an hundred Texts; which show that unbelievers, are not in Christ, ⟨p. 72⟩that it is by Faith that we are his Members, and Children of God • and not in him till then. The Minor is plain, that they make all the Elect to have been in Law Sense in Christ dying and satisfying; and so make the Members of Harlots and Satan Members o• Christ.

6. Arg. That Doctrine which maketh Men to be in Christ before they believe, or are entered into his Covenant, is not of God: But such is this opposed: Therefore, &c. The Major is plain from the Scope of the Gospel: And if it were needful I might cite an hundred Texts; which shew that unbelievers, are not in Christ, ⟨p. 72⟩that it is by Faith that we are his Members, and Children of God • and not in him till then. The Minor is plain, that they make all the Elect to have been in Law Sence in Christ dying and satisfying; and so make the Members of Harlots and Satan Members o• Christ.

7. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which maketh wicked Unbelievers to be in Gods special favour as reconciled, and from under his wrath, and quite out of debt to him, as to any due punishment. But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c.

The Minor's confessed.

8. Arg. That Doctrine is not of God, which consequentially denieth the Justice of his Judgments: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c.

Prob. Min. That Doctrine which chargeth God with punishing those that have made him full payment, doth consequentially deny the justice of his Judgments. But such is the Doctrine in question. Therefore, &c. 1. That it teacheth that we have fully paid the debt in Christ, is past question▪ ••• that God punisheth the Elect ⟨p. 73⟩1. Is put out of doubt by frequent express testimony of Scripture, 2. And is confessed by themselves as many as are of competent understanding, and moderation. For 1. that paternal Chastisements is a species of punishment, is known to all that know what punishment is; viz. Malum Passionis propter malum culpae: V•l privatio boni naturalis propter privationem boni moralis: Or suffering inflicted for a fault. 2. However, I have met with few of an ordinary understanding, that will deny that God punisheth his Elect, before, Conversion, while they are Children of wrath, and condemned already, and under the Curse of the Law.

The Major is also plain. It is injustice to punish those to whom no punishment is due: But no punishment is due to them that have fully suffered for all Sin: Therefore to punish them that have so suffered is injustice. I know God is absolute Lord of the Creature, and therefore may in that regard use them as he please: And therefore I say, as Twice, that he may without injustice torment or afflict the most innocent Creature, (supposing him not to have promised the contrary, and to be only Dominus, & non Rector): But (saith Twice) he cannot punish the innocent: For that is a contradiction and so impossible. For all punishment is for sin. Affliction is but the matter of punishment and not the form. Besides; God being Rector of the reasonable Creature, and having expressed in his Laws, that he will not punish Men that deserve it not, it is not to be charged on him. If any say, God is not capable of injustice, if you should suppose the breach of his promise? I say, 1. as Abraham Gen. 18. 25. ⟨p. 74⟩that be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the Righteous with the wicked, and that the Righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from thee: Shall not the judge of all the Earth do Right? 2. We cannot suppose God to reconcile contradictions: Such it is to punish the Innocent.

The Major is also plain. It is injustice to punish those to whom no punishment is due: But no punishment is due to them that have fully suffered for all Sin: Therefore to punish them that have so suffered is injustice. I know God is absolute Lord of the Creature, and therefore may in that regard use them as he please: And therefore I say, as Twisse, that he may without injustice torment or afflict the most innocent Creature, (supposing him not to have promised the contrary, and to be only Dominus, & non Rector): But (saith Twisse) he cannot punish the innocent: For that is a contradiction and so impossible. For all punishment is for sin. Affliction is but the matter of punishment and not the form. Besides; God being Rector of the reasonable Creature, and having expressed in his Laws, that he will not punish Men that deserve it not, it is not to be charged on him. If any say, God is not capable of injustice, if you should suppose the breach of his promise? I say, 1. as Abraham Gen. 18. 25. ⟨p. 74⟩that be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the Righteous with the wicked, and that the Righteous should be as the wicked; that be far from thee: Shall not the judge of all the Earth do Right? 2. We cannot suppose God to reconcile contradictions: Such it is to punish the Innocent.

And that those who have made full payment or suffered all that was due are not guilty, i. e. obligati ad poenam is past dispute.

9. Arg. That Doctrine is not true which saith of the wicked, He is Righteous: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked thou art Righteous. Nations shall Curse him, People shall abhor him. Prob. Minor. He that hath fully satisfied for all Sin, is Righteous: But according to this Doctrine, the wicked have fully satisfied for all their Sin: Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. He that hath satisfied for all, oweth nothing, as to punishment and therefore is Righteous. What Law can require more then all? Or what justice can refuse to acquit him that hath paid all that was due? Or to justify him if he be accused as liable to punishment? If any on the old grounds shall say, that besides the Righteousness Negative, (which is not guilty of punishment) there is requisite a positive righteousness, to give Right to the reward, and this they want. I reply 1. One righteousness, doth both, I think. 2. If it were not so yet Christs satisfaction is meritorious of the reward. 3. If that were not so, yet remember, that the same Men that object this, do teach also, that Christ did as strictly represent us in obeying; and ⟨p. 75⟩that in him we fulfilled the Law 4. If that were not so, yet it crosseth the Scripture to call the wicked Righteous, in the first Sense, i. e. non reos poenae Pprob Minor. They say, all the elect have satisfied in Christ. But multitudes of the Elect are wicked. Therefore, &c. Prob. Minor. He he that doth wickedness is wicked, and is of the Devil, saith the Apostle: But such are many of the Elect before Conversion: Therefore, &c. This argument is in sense, but the same with the 7th, but that the terms differ, John saith, He that doth Righteousness is Righteous, and this Doctrine saith consequentially, He that never did Righteousness is Righteous. Paul saith, His Servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of Sin unto death or of obedience unto Righteousness. But this Doctrine saith, consequently, His friends ye are whom you never obeyed; and that the Elect before conversion, who obey the Devil, and so are his Servants, and never had obedience unto Righteousness, are yet Righteous, as having paid all their debt.

9. Arg. That Doctrine is not true which saith of the wicked, He is Righteous: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. Prov. 24. 24. He that saith to the wicked thou art Righteous. Nations shall Curse him, People shall abhor him. Prob. Minor. He that hath fully satisfied for all Sin, is Righteous: But according to this Doctrine, the wicked have fully satisfied for all their Sin: Therefore, &c. Prob. Major. He that hath satisfied for all, oweth nothing, as to punishment and therefore is Righteous. What Law can require more then all? Or what justice can refuse to acquit him that hath paid all that was due? Or to justifie him if he be accused as liable to punishment? If any on the old grounds shall say, that besides the Righteousness Negatiue, (which is not guilty of punishment) there is requisite a positive righteousness, to give Right to the reward, and this they want. I reply 1. One righteousness, doth both, I think. 2. If it were not so yet Christs satisfaction is meritorious of the reward. 3. If that were not so, yet remember, that the same Men that object this, do teach also, that Christ did as strictly represent us in obeying; and ⟨p. 75⟩that in him we fulfilled the Law 4. If that were not so, yet it crosseth the Scripture to call the wicked Righteous, in the first Sence, i. e. non reos poenae Pprob Minor. They say, all the elect have satisfied in Christ. But multitudes of the Elect are wicked. Therefore, &c. Prob. Minor. He he that doth wickedness is wicked, and is of the Devil, saith the Apostle: But such are many of the Elect before Conversion: Therefore, &c. This argument is in sence, but the same with the 7th, but that the terms differ, John saith, He that doth Righteousness is Righteous, and this Doctrine saith consequentially, He that never did Righteousness is Righteous. Paul saith, His Servants ye are to whom ye obey, whether of Sin unto death or of obedience unto Righteousness. But this Doctrine saith, consequently, His friends ye are whom you never obeyed; and that the Elect before conversion, who obey the Devil, and so are his Servants, and never had obedience unto Righteousness, are yet Righteous, as having paid all their debt.

10 Arg. That Doctrine which denieth Christs Satisfaction for us in strict Sense, is not of God: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. The Major is plain. Prob. Minor. That Doctrine which affirmeth Christs sufferings to have been the Idem which was required by the Law, and not the Tantundem, doth deny satisfaction in strict Sense: But so doth this opposed: Therefore, &c. The Major is proved by the definition of satisfaction; which strictly taken, is Redditio aequi valentis, as Scotus and other Schoolmen, and Amesius (contra Bellar) from them approving it) or it is, solutio tantidem, ⟨p. 76⟩as Grotius and others, and is distinct from solutio ejusdem, which is solutio strictè sic dicta. Minor. Prob. They that affirm us to have suffered all that the Law required, do affirm us consequently to have suffered the Idem, and not merely the tantundem. But so do they that teach, that we suffered in Christ, &c. Therefore, &c. More of this anon

10 Arg. That Doctrine which denieth Christs Satisfaction for us in strict Sence, is not of God: But such is this opposed. Therefore, &c. The Major is plain. Prob. Minor. That Doctrine which affirmeth Christs sufferings to have been the Idem which was required by the Law, and not the Tantundem, doth deny satisfaction in strict Sence: But so doth this opposed: Therefore, &c. The Major is proved by the definition of satisfaction; which strictly taken, is Redditio aequi valentis, as Scotus and other Schoolmen, and Amesius (contra Bellar) from them approving it) or it is, solutio tantidem, ⟨p. 76⟩as Grotius and others, and is distinct from solutio ejusdem, which is solutio strictè sic dicta. Minor. Prob. They that affirm us to have suffered all that the Law required, do affirm us consequently to have suffered the Idem, and not meerly the tantundem. But so do they that teach, that we suffered in Christ, &c. Therefore, &c. More of this anon

11. Arg. Christ suffered and satisfied in the Person of Mediator; therefore not in the Person of the Elect or Offender: Because a mediator is a middle person, and Christ sustained not two persons as a sufferer.

12. Arg. The Scripture oft speaks of Christs taking on him our nature, and our Sins, but not (in suffering) our person: Therefore it is not to be affirmed, Isa. 53. &c.

13. Arg. That Doctrine is not tolerable which makes Man his own Redeemer, or to have satisfied or suffered for his own Sins: But such this seems therefore, &c. For if the Law say, that we satisfied in Christ, then in Law Sense, we satisfied for own Sins, and consequently redeemed our selves.

13. Arg. That Doctrine is not tollerable which makes Man his own Redeemer, or to have satisfied or suffered for his own Sins: But such this seems therefore, &c. For if the Law say, that we satisfied in Christ, then in Law Sence, we satisfied for own Sins, and consequently redeemed our selves.

As for their Objection, that no other way but representing our persons could suffice to save us by the satisfaction of another; it is a gross mistake and naked affirmation without proof.

And for them that say, Christ suffered in persona nostrâ, but not satisfied or merited so: I answer. They speak inconsistencies: Satisfaction and Merit are necessary results from the nature of the suffering considered with the Dignity of ⟨p. 77⟩the Person, and the Divine acceptance. Now if Christ suffered not in his own person, whose dignity was to communicate a value to his sufferings, then his sufferings are defective in their value. And if we did in Christ or by him suffer all that was due, it is impossible but God should take that suffering for satisfactory, in the larger Sense, it being solutio ipsius debiti, in strict Sense. So that if the Law or Law-giver say, the Elect suffered in Christ; they must needs say, the elect satisfied in Christ, or rather paid the debt of the due punishment. And this God could not but accept, (consequenter ad Leges) For who can refuse the proper debt? Or deny an acquittance to him that dischargeth it? But from a sponsor he might have refused it.

And for them that say, Christ suffered in persona nostrâ, but not satisfied or merited so: I answer. They speak inconsistencies: Satisfaction and Merit are necessary results from the nature of the suffering considered with the Dignity of ⟨p. 77⟩the Person, and the Divine acceptance. Now if Christ suffered not in his own person, whose dignity was to communicate a value to his sufferings, then his sufferings are defective in their value. And if we did in Christ or by him suffer all that was due, it is impossible but God should take that suffering for satisfactory, in the larger Sence, it being solutio ipsius debiti, in strict Sence. So that if the Law or Law-giver say, the Elect suffered in Christ; they must needs say, the elect satisfied in Christ, or rather paid the debt of the due punishment. And this God could not but accept, (consequenter ad Leges) For who can refuse the proper debt? Or deny an acquittance to him that dischargeth it? But from a sponsor he might have refused it.