or to die in the stead of another, is of the nature of an Expiatory Sacrifice: And he might as well say, Christ is our Intercessor without mediating for us; as that he was our Sacrifice, and not be sacrificed for us; or be a Sacrifice for us, and yet not suffer in our stead.
3. 'Tis not more reasonable to suppose God admitted us to Conditions of Pardon for his own mercy's sake, than it is to suppose that he suffer'd in our steads, and to reconcile us to God: For that is not unreasonable which hath God for its Author.
But will he say, the difficulty is not yet solved; for 'tis God's Recon∣ciling us to himself, and Suffering for himself, and Paying to himself the Debt of the Debtor, and Satisfying the wrong done to himself? Which saith he is a Mock-satisfaction, such a ridiculous so••ne, that begets Laughter or Contempt in considering men. Surely he means such as himself, that writes Considerations.
Our Author is so used to forget himself, to leave out, put in, or alter, that he can no more flip an occasion, (how small soever) than those that are used to another way, can let go an opportunity, though it be but a a Petty-larceny. Thus he saith, His Lordship and his Party suppose that God himself suffer'd in our steads, as well as took on him the form of a Servant.
Now to say the truth, his Lordship had not this Scene in his eye under Mystery the 6th; for in that he is speaking of the Incarnation of our Sa∣viour, when he took on him the Form of a Servant; but it was in Mystery the 5th that he spoke of Christ's Sufferings and Sacrifice. His Lordships words are, The Son of God took upon him the Form of a Servant; so that he was so far from saying, God suffer'd in our stead, &c. that he did not so much as say, the Son of God suffer'd in our stead, (though it be true.)
But will he say, Is not this all one, when he that suffer'd and died, is, in our opinion, God as well as Man?
I answer No, with respect to his Observations.
For restore Son of God to its place (as it is in his Lordship) instead of God, and then we shall see the difference.
As 1: 'Tis more reasonable to suppose with the Unitarians, that God hath admitted us to Terms of Pardon for his own mercy's sake, &c. than that his Son should suffer in our stead, to reconcile us to God.
2. It's an Incomprehensible Mystery, that God should rather chuse to send his Son to suffer for us, than to forgive us.
3. 'Tis a Paradox, for the Son of God to pay the Debt of the Debtor to God, and to satisfy for the wrong done to Him.
How is the Scene changed upon this? And where doth the Absurdity lie? While indeed he put God in the place of the Son of God, it look'd somewhat speciously; but restore the term Son of God to its place instead of God, and the pretended Absurdity lies apparently at his own door.
But may he urge, Don't you acknowledge the Son of God to be God? And then it may be as well said, God himself suffer'd in our stead, &c. as the Son of God suffer'd, &c.
I answer, God (as that signifies the Divine Nature in Christ) could not suffer: All that we say is, That the person that took upon himself the Form of a Servant was God, and not Man, before such an Assumption of