this be his intention, as it must be if there be sense in his words, that God's readiness to pardon sinners is revealed in the Scripture without respect unto the person of Jesus Christ, it is a piece of dull Socinianism, which, because I have sufficiently confuted elsewhere, I shall not here farther discover the folly of. For a knowledge of God's essential properties by the light of nature, it was never denied by me, yea, I have written and contended for it in another way that can be impeached by such trifling declamations. But yet with his good leave, I do yet believe that there is no saving knowledge of, or acquaintance with God, or his properties to be attained, but in and through Jesus Christ as revealed unto us in the gospel. And this I can confirm with testimonies of the Scripture, fathers, schoolmen, and divines of all sorts, with reasons and arguments, such as I know this author cannot answer. And whatever great apprehensions he may have of his skill and abilities to know God and his properties by the light of nature, now he neither knows nor is able to distinguish, what he learns from thence, and what he hath imbibed in his education from an emanation of divine revelation; yet, I believe there were as wise men as himself amongst those ancient philosophers concerning whom and their inquiries into the nature of God, our apostle pronounces those censures, Rom. i. 1 Cor. i.

But on this goodly foundation he proceeds unto a particular inference, p. 44. saying, And is not this a confident man to tell us that the love of God to sinners, and his pardoning mercy could never have entered into the heart of man, but by Christ; when the experience of the whole world confutes him? For whatever becomes of his new theories, both Jews and heathens who understood nothing at all of what Christ was to do in order to our recovery, did believe God to be gracious and merciful to sinners, and had reason to do so; because God himself had assured the Jews that he was a gracious and merciful God, pardoning iniquity, transgressions, and sins. And those natural notions heathens had of God, and all those discoveries God had made of himself in the works of creation and providence, did assure them that God is very good, and it is not possible to understand what goodness is, without pardoning grace.'

I beg his excuse; truth and good company will give a modest man a little confidence sometimes. And against his

experience of the whole world falsely pretended, I can oppose the testimonies of the Scripture, and all the ancient writers of the church, very few excepted. We can know of God only what he hath one way or other revealed of himself, and nothing else; and I say again, that God hath not revealed his love unto sinners, and his pardoning mercy, any other way but in and by Jesus Christ. For what he adds as to the knowledge which the Jews had of these things by God's revelation in the Scripture; when he can prove that all those revelations or any of them had not respect unto the promised seed the Son of God, to be exhibited in the flesh to destroy the works of the devil, he will speak somewhat unto his purpose. In the meantime, this insertion of the consideration of them who enjoyed that revelation of Christ, which God was pleased to build his church upon under the Old Testament is weak and impertinent. Their apprehensions, I acknowledge, concerning the person of Christ, and the speciality of the work of his mediation, were dark and obscure; but so also proportionably was their knowledge of all other sacred truths, which yet with all diligence they inquired into. That which I intended is expressed by the apostle;' 1 Cor. ii. 9. It is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him; but God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit.' What a confident man was this apostle, as to affirm that the things of the grace and mercy of God did never enter into the heart of man to conceive, nor would so have done, had they not been revealed by the Spirit of God in the gospel through Jesus Christ.

But this is only a transient charge; there ensues that which is much more severe, p. 45. as for instance; he tells us, 'that in Christ' (that is, in his death and sufferings for our sins) 'God hath manifested the naturalness of this righteousness' (i. e. Vindictive justice in punishing sin), ' that it was impossible that it should be diverted from sinners without the interposing of a propitiation; that is, that God is so just and righteous, that he cannot pardon sin without satisfaction to his justice. Now this indeed is such a notion of justice as is perfectly new, which neither Scripture nor nature acquaints us with; for all mankind have accounted it an act of goodness without the least suspicion of injustice in it, to remit

6

injuries and offences without exacting any punishment; that he is so far from being just, that he is cruel and savage who will remit no offence till he hath satisfied his revenge.' The reader who is in any measure or degree acquainted with these things, knows full well what is intended by that which I have asserted. It is no more but this; that such is the essential holiness and righteousness of the nature of God, that considering him as the supreme Governor and Ruler of all mankind, it was inconsistent with the holiness and rectitude of his rule, and the glory of his government, to pass by sin absolutely, or to pardon it without satisfaction, propitiation, or atonement. This, I said, was made evident in the death and sufferings of Christ, wherein God made all our iniquities to meet upon him, and spared him not, that we might obtain mercy and grace. This is here now called out by our author as a very dangerous or foolish passage in my discourse, which he thought he might highly advantage his reputation by reflecting upon. But as the orator said to his adversary, Equidem vehementer lætor eum esse me, in quem tu cum cuperes, nullam contumeliam jacere potueris, quæ non ad maximam partem civium convenerit;' so it is here fallen out. If this man knows not that this is the judgment of the generality of the most learned divines of Europe, upon the matter of all who have engaged with any success against the Socinians, one or two only excepted, I can pity him, but not relieve him in his unhappiness, unless he will be pleased to take more pains in reading good books, than as yet he appeareth to have done. But for the thing itself, and his reflections upon it, I shall observe yet some few things, and so pass on. As first, the opposition that he makes unto my position is nothing but a crude assertion of one of the meanest and most absurd sophisms which the Socinians use in this cause; namely, that every one may remit injuries and offences as he pleaseth without exacting any punishment. Which as it is true in most cases of injuries and offences against private persons, wherein no others are concerned but themselves, nor are they obliged by any law of the community to pursue their own right; so with respect unto public rulers of the community, and unto such injuries and offences as are done against supreme rule, tending directly unto the dissolution of the society centring in it, to suppose that such

rulers are not obliged to inflict those punishments which justice and the preservation of the community? doth require, is a fond and ridiculous imagination; destructive if pursued unto all human society, and rendering government a useless thing in the world. Therefore what this author (who seems to understand very little of these things) adds, 'that governors may spare or punish as they see reason for it;' if the rule of that reason and judgment be not that justice, which respects the good and benefit of the society or community, they do amiss and sin in sparing and punishing, which I suppose he will not ascribe unto the government of God. But I have fully debated these things in sundry writings against the Socinians, so that I will not again enlarge upon them without a more important occasion. It is not improbable but he knows where to find those discourses, and he may when he please exercise his skill upon them, Again, I cannot but remark upon the consequences that he chargeth this position withal, and yet I cannot do it without begging pardon for repeating such horrid and desperate blasphemies; p. 46. The account,' saith he, of this is very plain, because the justice of God hath glutted itself with revenge on sin in the death of Christ, and so henceforward we may be sure he will be very kind, as a revengeful man is when his passion is over; p. 47. the sum of which is, that God is all love and patience when he hath taken his fill of revenge, as others use to say that the devil is very good when he is pleased; p. 59. the justice and vengeance of God, having their actings assigned them to the full, being glutted and satiated with the blood of Christ, God may,' &c. 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 with respect unto the holiness and righteousness of God as the author of the law, and the supreme Governor of mankind. And is this language becoming a son of the church of England? Might it not be more justly expected from a Jew or a Mahometan, 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 complain; those who are pleased with these things let them be so. But what if after all, these impious, blasphemous consequences do follow as much upon

this author's opinion as upon mine, and that with a greater shew 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 until 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 says, 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, whethe 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 will and wisdom, when he might have done otherwise, without the least disadvantage unto his righteousness 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 proceed unto a farther declaration of it, because I abhor the rehearsal of such horrid profaneness. The truth 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 transporting desire to gratify himself 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