Justification onely upon a satisfaction, or, The necessity and verity of the satisfaction of Christ as the alone ground of remission of sin asserted & opened against the Socinians together with an appendix in vindication of a sermon preached on Heb. 2, 10, from the exceptions of H.W., in a pamphlet called The freeness of Gods grace in the forgiveness of sins by Jesus Christ / by Robert Ferguson.

SECT. II.

••t guilty of any of the three faults •• inexcusable in a Preacher▪ The do∣ctrine momentous, Heb. 2. 10. opened, and the necessity of a satisfaction ju∣stified to be the truth of that Scripture.

••HE three faults proposed as inexcusable in a Preacher, •• too confessedly so, to be apo∣••gized for: but whatever other ••aknesses, I may have been guil∣•• of, yet that I am innocent

from the whole of that charg•• comes now to be justified.

1. That the Doctrine I discours•• is of the highest import, and tha•• to mistake in it, is to erre in a matte•• of the greatest concernment. readily acknowledge, and do fu••¦ther add, that it is of such weig•• in the matter of a Christians b••¦lief, that not to be sound there, •• to erre in a main fundamental, a•• consequently to be unavoidab•• obnoxious to damnation. Whe•• as their are some truths whi•• we are only bound to believ•• in case we know them to be ••¦vealed; this is a truth we •• bound to know and believe •• be revealed, in order to be•• saved. If there be any fun••¦mentals of faith at all, these ••¦ctrines wherein we and the S••¦nians differ, are maximes of t•• nature. As to that exceptio•• have heard of a certain pers•• whose name out of respect I ••

••ea••, that they cannot be funda∣mentals, because controverted by learned men; if it concludes any ••hing, it concludes that there is ••o fundamental at all, there being ••o one truth so evident, which ••ome have not denied: yea, it will not be a fundamental that ••here is God, forasmuch as there ••ave been some, and still are, who ••are gainsay it. The matter then ••herein my Adversary and I differ, ••eing of this moment, I would ••eset it to the Reader to arbitrate, ••n whose side the truth lies; whe∣••er with them who can demon∣••rate their Opinion to have been ••e belief of all the faithful down ••om the Apostles to the present ••ge, not one dissenting, who hath ••ot been by all the Churches of Christ branded for a Heretick; or ••ith those who in some whole ••ges can instance none of the same ••ntiments with them, and those ••hom in other times they pro∣duce

are such as the Catholick Church hath from time to time voted unworthy the name o•• Christians.

2. Whether the Doctrine I the•• insist••d on, be the truth of any Scri∣pture, the former tract hath ac¦counted for, where I hope it is no•• only made evident to be a truth but one of the most considerabl•• truths of the Gospel, the very b••¦si•• of our Religion, the foundatio•• of our present comforts and futu•• hop••••.

3. The third, and at present ma•• particular, and that which ••a•• now under consideration is, wheth•• it be the truth of that Text, fro•• which in my Sermon I deduced i•• And here I must complain of t•• unworthiness and disingenuity •• my Adversaries, that when I h•• endeavoured at some length •• prove, that the point then insist•• on, arose not only naturally fro•• the place, but was one of ••

main doctrines intended in the words, they have been so far from refuting what was alledged to that purpose, that they have not men∣tioned one word of what was of∣fered in that matter. Was ever such tergiversation known, as pub∣lickly to reproach a person for a conclusion, without examining either the premises whence it is drawn, or the method of inferring ••t. The least I could have expect∣••d, was either the overthrowing ••he principles upon which I raised ••t, or else the evidencing some mis∣••ake in the way of deduction. At ••his rate of procedure, there is no ••ruth deducible from any Text of ••he Bible, but by saying it is not ••ightly drawn, they may with the ••ame facility refute. The Reader ••ad been spared this labour, if my ••dversaries had been but so just, ••s in common honesty they ought, ••amely, if when they declaimed ••gainst my doctrine, they had ta∣ken

notice of the foundations up∣on which I raised it: but seeing they have put me upon this task, the speediest way to bring it to an•• issue, will be to open the Text I then discoursed on, viz. Heb. 2. 10. For it became him for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the Captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. The Apostle in the preceding Chapte•• having largely treated of Christ as supream Prophet, and having ad∣vanced him above all other mini∣sterial revealers of God's will, so far as a Son is preferable to a ser∣vant, after some improvemen•• made in the beginning of thi•• Chapter of what he had delivere•• to that purpose in the foregoing by an admirable thread and line o•• wisdom he slides from the Prophe••¦tical office of Christ to his Sacer••¦dotal: and having affirmed tha•• Christ through the benignity an••

grace of God was given to taste and suffer death for men, he here assigns the impulsive reason or pro∣curing cause of Christ's suffering, It became God, &c. i. e. if God would save sinners his essential ju∣stice and righteousness could not allow that it should be otherways. That this is the intendment of the words a little further opening of them will confirm. We have first then a design of God towards fallen rebellious mankind, and that is the bringing many of them as sons to glory. The making a company of enemies who lay obnoxious to hell and wrath, to be God's Sons, and the bringing them to life. 2ly. We have the method and means pitched on for the compas∣sing of that design, and that is the dedicating and consecrating Christ by suffering to be a Captain of sal∣vation, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, we render it to make perfect, and that sense some∣times it hath; but it signifieth here

to consecrate or dedicate unto an office, and in this sense the Septua∣gint use it, Exod. 29. 35. and Lev. 21. 10.—〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. And the same Apostle seve∣ral times in this Epistle, see Chap. 5. 9. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, consecratus, Bez. being consecrate or set apart, he be∣came the author of eternal salvation, &c. And chap. 7. 28. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 consecrated, hence Baptisme a∣mong the Greek Fathers was cal∣led 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, because they were thereby consecrated and dedicated to the service of Christ. This was the method pitched on by▪ God for the bringing sinners to glory; namely, the dedicating and setting apart Christ by suffer∣ings to be a leader and Saviour. 3ly. We have the ground and rea∣son of this procedure of God, in making Christ to suffer, and thereby consecrating him to be a Captain. It became God, &c. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, decebat. It was just and meet, and upon

supposition that God would save sinners, it could not without inju∣stice otherwise be. The word signifies frequently that which is incumbent upon one and ought to be done: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, paena quam infligi decet & par est, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, are often equivalent to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. It signifieth in many places that which is so decent and meet, that either the omission of it, or the commission of the con∣trary is unjust and evil, Ephes. 5. 3. 1 Tim. 2. 10. Tit. 2. 1. Mat. 3. 15. And in this sense our Apostle useth it elsewhere in this very Epi∣stle chap. 7. 26. For such an high▪ Preist became us, who is holy, harm∣less, &c. It was just and necessa∣ry that our High Priest should be such an one, otherwise he had nei∣ther been fit Priest nor Sacrifice. So that the clear intendment of this expression, it became him, is, that ••pon supposition that God would ••ave sinners, the holiness and ju∣stice

of his nature required, that it should be by constituting Christ to suffer in their stead, and so to become the Author and Captain of their salvation. This is ad∣mirably strengthened from the next words, it became God for whom are all things, and by whom are all things; where we have clearly the rise and ground of this becomingness, or the necessity o•• God's acting after this manner, i•• case he would recover man; •• little opening of the words wil•• fully enlighten the whole matter Man being of God, and made b•• him an intellectual and rationa•• creature, in an aptitude and fit¦ness for moral government, it wa•• necessary that he should appoin•• him to be for him, that is, tha•• he should govern him, and a••¦cordingly precribe him a law b•• which he should signifie his ow•• will, and declare man's duty: No•• man having broken the law of h••

creation, and therein shaken off his dependance upon God, and his obedience to him as Governour, it was meet and right that God as Rector and Governour should pu∣nish this rebellion and disobedi∣ence; for if this rebellion should not be punished, either God were not the Governour of the world, or else he governs it not in justice, and therefore on supposition that he would not inflict the punish∣ment on men himself, but that he would recover him by Jesus Christ to be for him again, it was neces∣sary that Christ should be made suffer in their steed. So that by this time I hope the Reader will be satisfied, that the doctrine then in∣sisted on, was not only agreeable to other Scriptures, but the very truth of the Text I drew it from: Neither is there any such vast diffe∣rence betwixt the terms of the text and the doctrine, but that a person unpr••possessed, provided he be in∣sighted

into Scripture may easily reconcile them. As to that ••e say•• that supposing Christ hath made •• satisfaction, yet that it doth not fol∣low, but that we might have bee•• saved otherwise, &c. I answer, God was under no necessity of sa∣ving us at all, he was free to hav•• damned us, as well as to save us •• but supposing that he would save us, it was necessary he should save us, in ways agreeable to his ju∣stice and holiness. Though h•• was under an absolute freedom•• whether he would do it or not, yet he was not under a freedom whether he should do it in a way of righteousness or not. Th•• first absolutely depended upon his will, but he is restrained as to the second by his nature; And there∣fore when my Adversary can show me, how the justice of God coul•• have been satisfied without the in∣tervention of the sufferings o•• Christ, I shall then think my sel••

to have been too presumptuous and dogmatical in my doctrine; but forasmuch as he hath not hi∣therto attempted it, and I am sure will never be able to perform i••, I abide in my former persuasion, viz. that there was no other way possible for God to bring sinners to glory, but by the death and sufferings of Christ, who was set apart and consecrate to be the Author and Ca∣ptain of salvation.

Whereas he says, that the intend∣ment of the Text is only Christ's be∣ing a Captain to lead, pity, assist, and supply his people. I absolute∣ly deny it, it is only part of the in∣tendment of the Holy Ghost in the place, but not the whole; yea, he had never been a Captain of sal∣vation to us, but in the way, and upon the termes of making God a satisfaction: It was only by this means that he was consecrate to be a Leader. And I would have it observed, that the doctrine I pro∣pounded

was the very scope of the whole verse, which is a better way of deducing doctrines, than to draw them from words and ex∣pressions. Not that I deny but one may rationally offer from them, that Christ is our Captain, but I affirm that his being so is only consequential upon his un∣dertaking, and being ordained to make satisfaction. So that' upon the whole, the Adversary hath both wronged the truth and me, in affirm∣ing my Doctrine neither to have been in the Text, nor yet deducible from it.