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

The question is determined on the determination of the former, having necessary ⟨p. 80⟩dependence on it, and being tantum non in Sence the same. And therefore all the Arguments which I used for the former will serve to this; and therefore I need not repeat any of them, but refer you to them, desiring you to peruse them and apply them to this; for all the same absurdities (or near all) do follow upon this as on the other. Indeed these two together (that Christ paid the Idem, the debt it self and not the value, by personating us in his sufferings, so that in Law Sense, we satisfied in him) are the very foundation of the whole frame of that Religion commonly called Antinomian, but much more fitly Anti-evangelical. To touch again on some few. It is evident that this Doctrine utterly destroyeth all possibility of pardon of Sin, and consequently all repenting and believing, praying for pardon, all thankfulness for it, all Testamental or Evangelical Conveyance of it by the promise, all Gospel and Ministerial tenders of pardon; all Sacramental exhibition and obsignation of pardon; and a Christians enquiries, examination, and seekings after pardon, and his comforts living or dying in assurance of pardon; and instead of all, asserteth us so righteous, that we need no pardon. You will sure confess, that if this will follow, then almost all Religion is overthrown at a blow. And that it follows, seems to me past doubt. For what can any Law in the World require or any Lawgiver, in exactest justice, but that the Law be perfectly fulfilled? What can any creditor require, but the Idem, the very debt it self which the obligation did contain? Can he have all his debt, and remit it too? Is the obligation fulfilled, and remitted or relaxed ⟨p. 81⟩too? Doth the Judg execute all the penalty; and yet forgive it? Is not he unjust that denieth him an acquittance and the cancelling of the obligation, who hath fully paid him all his due? If any shall conceive, with the Socinians, that the same inconveniences will follow, upon the asserting of Christs full satisfaction for us, I answer, Not one of them: Nay there is no way, I think, but this that I now maintain to confute a Socinian, and defend Christs satisfaction.

The question is determined on the determination of the former, having necessary ⟨p. 80⟩