logy for my Style. For, though this Letter, if it were to appear abroad, ought to have been dreffed out to Advantage, yet it may be permitted to wait upon a Friend in an Undress and Deshabillé of Thought. If I have faid any Thing that may contribute to fatisfy you, I fhall be glad of it. But if not, I had rather you fhould call in Question my Abilities to serve you, than my hearty and fincere Inclination to shew you how much I am, at all Times,

Your intirely-affectionate Friend,

From the School

at Richmond.

JER. SEED.

POSTSCRIPT.

In the Body of my Letter I have faid, "that the Right of punishing

was

was vested in God as the fovereign Lawgiver of the whole, who "could not confiftently with the common Good of the whole, for ought we can prove, have remit"ted the Punishment without a Sa"tisfaction." This you will scarce be able to difprove. Why might not then our Saviour fatisfy to God the Father, confidered in this Capacity? You will answer; that if God was the fupreme Lawgiver, and our Saviour God, then the fupreme Lawgiver fatisfied to the fupreme Lawgiver. But what if our Saviour might be truly God, (i. e. ennobled with all the Essential Perfections of the Godhead) at the fame Time that he divefted himself of the Capacity of a Lawgiver; I mean, during the Time that he was tranfacting

the gracious Scheme of our Redemption? For to be the fovereign Lawgiver is no essential Perfection of the Deity If it were, He could

never have been without it. He must have been Lawgiver ab æterno: that is, he must have been Lawgiver when there were no Beings to give Laws to. It is plain then, that to be fovereign Lawgiver is no ef fential Perfection of the Deity, but only a relative Property.

This feems to overturn your main Argument, that the Divine Nature Satisfied itfelf. For if God did not require Satisfaction, as vefted with the Divine' Nature, or, as God, but as the supreme Lawgiver; then your Argument, to have been valid, ought to have run thus: that the fupreme Lawgiver fatisfied the fupreme

Lawgiver which, I have shewn, was not the Cafe.

To be Lawgiver, then, is no Perfection essential to the Nature of the Deity -Confequently our Saviour, ftill retaining the effential Properties of the Godhead, might put off the Character of Lawgiver confequently needed no Satisfaction himfelf and fo might fatisfy the Father, in whom that Character was lodged. The reft your own Thoughts will fupply.

The

42

DEAR SIR,

A

FTER having attempted to fhew, that you had proved no absolute Impossibility in the Doctrine of the Satisfaction, my Intention was to caution you against mistaking Difficulties for Impoffibilities, and letting your Thoughts fally out into Matters where you could have no Sure Footing. My Caution was well meant. I was afraid the Difputer of this World would get the better of the Chriflian. If my Fears were ill-grounded, pardon my Mistake, and accept of my good Defign. Though No-body can have an higher Opinion of your diftinguished Abilities and difinterested