886 s N A D E B T. Book IV. M E T A P H 0 R. D I S P A R I T Y. out which he fhall not be pardoned, cloth not at all impeach, as they fay, the Free– dom of Pardon, but God may be faid freely to pardon Sin notwithftanding ir ; how rnall the receiving of SatisfaCtion by another, nothing at all being required of the Sinner, have the leafl: Appearance of any fuch Thing? If the Freedom of For– oivenefs conofts in fuch a boundlefs Notion as rhefe Men imagine, it is certain that ~he prefcribing Faith and Repentance unto Sinners antecedently to their Participation of it, is much more evidenrly contrary unto it, than the receiving SatisfaCtion from another, who is not to be pardoned, can to any appear to be. Secondly, If it be .contrary to the Holinefs of God, to pardon any, without requiring Faith, Repentance and Obedience in them, as it is indeed; let not thefe Perfons be offended, if we be– lieve him, when he fo frequently declares it, that it was fo, to remit Sin, without the fulfilling his Law, and fatisfying of his J uftice. Dr. Owm. IV. Oft-times, nay, mofr com– monlv,Men, as foon as fame Debts are p~id, or Satistaftion made by the Debtor, or his Surety, the D ebtor may demand a Difcharge .or Acquittance immediately from the faid Debts, &c. IV. But it is not fo here in Reference to this Debt; for though Chrift, as our Surety, bath made a full Compenfation to the Law and J uftice of God, yet Sinners are not immediately ac– quimd; neither doth it follow, faith the DoCtor, that on the Suppolition of SatisfaCtion, pleaded for the Freedom, Pardon, and Acquitment of Perfons originally guilty, and liable to Punifh– ment, mu!t immediately, and ipfo faCto enfue, it is not of the Nature of every Solu– -Tion or Satisfaction, that Deliverance muft ip(o faCto follow. And the Reafon of it is, becaufe this SatisfaCtion by fuccedaneous Subftitution of one to undergo Punifhment for another, muft be founded in a voluntary CompaCt and Agreement ; for there -is required unto it a Relaxation of the Law, though not as unto Puniihment to be in– iliCl:ed, yet as uoto the Perfon to be punifhed. And it is otherwife in perfonal Guilt, than in pecuniary Debts : In thefe, the Debt itfelf is fu lly intended, and the Perfon obliged with Reference thereunto; in the other, the Perfon is firtlly and principally under the Obligation. And therefore when the pecuntary Debt is paid, by whomfo– ever it be paid, the Obligation of the Perfon himfelf unto Payment ceafeth ipfo faCto: But in Things criminal, the guilty Perfon httnfelf being firllly, immediately, and inten– tionally under the Obligation unto Punifhment, when there is introduced by Compact a vicarious Solution, in Subftimtion of another to fuffcr, though he fuffer the fame ab– folutely, which the Perfon fhould have done for whom he fuffers; yet becaufe of the Acceptation of his Perfon to fufrer, which might have been refufed, and could not be admitted without fome Relaxation of the L aw, Dehverance of the guilty Perfon can– not anfwer ipfo faCto, but by the l ntervention of the Terms fixed in the Covenant or Agreement, for an Admittance of the Sub{\Jtution. It appears from what bath been faid, that in this Matter of Sin being called a Debt, and of SatisfaCtion, Sin is not to be conlidered as fuch a Debt, and God a Creditor, and the Law as an Obligation to the Payment of that Debt, as fame Men feem to run it: But Sin is a Tranfgrd1ion of the L aw, and thereby obnoxious and liable to the Punifhment conftimted in it, and by it anfwerable unto the J uftice and H olincfs of another; and God, as the infinitely holy and righteous Author of that Law, and fu– preme Governor of all Mankind, accocding to the Sanction and Tenor of it. ' The • Subftitution of Chrift was meerly voluntary on the Part of God, and of himfelf, un- • dertaking tp be Sponfor, to anfwcr for the Sins of Men, by undergoing the Punifh– ' ment due unto them. Th"t to this End there was a Rtlaxation of the Law, as to the ' Perfons that were to fuffer, though not as to what was to be fuffered : Without the ' former, the Subftiturion mentioned could not have been admitted ; and on fuppofi– ' tion of the latter, the Suflerings of Chrift could not have had the Nature of Punifh– ' ment, properly fo called ; for Punifl1ment relates to the J uf\ice and Righrenufnefs • in Government of him that infliCls it; and this theJuftice of God cloth not but by ' Law. Nor could the Law be any way fansfied or fulfilled by the Sufferin" of Chrift ' if antecedcnrJy thereunto, its Obligation, or Power of obliging unto the P~nalty con: ~ ftitutcd in irs SanEtion unto Sin, was relaxed, diffolved, or difpenkd v...ithal. Nor ' was it agreeable to J uflice, nor would the Nature of the Things tbemfelves admit • of it, tlut another Punifhment fl1ould be inflicted on Chrift, than what we had de- .' ferved ;I
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=