Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 2
CHAP. II. Some further neceſſary Diſtinction.
1. IN the next place as I told you that it was Eſſential to Chriſts Puniſhment in Specie that he ſuffered noſtro loco; ſo becauſe here lies the firſt and greateſt point of the Controverſie in hand, quorum loco, in whoſe ſtead Chriſt ſuffered, and whoſe ſin or guilt did lie upon him. And alſo becauſe the right or wrong underſtanding of this point hath ſo great an influence into moſt of the conſequent points in the Body of Divinity, as either much to help us, or quite to overturn all; I think it exceeding neceſſary, that we here carefully diſtinguiſh of the Phraſe Noſtro loco, or in our ſtead. Underſtand therefore that a thing may be ſaid to be done or ſuffered [In our ſtead] in theſe two ſences, 1. When he that doth or ſuffereth it, doth therein Legally Perſonate us, or Repreſent our Perſons, or do it in our Name; ſo far that though Naturally the Agent or Patient be another perſon: yet Legally Morally or Civiliter he is not another. Thus a Deputy, Delegate▪ or Vicarius whom I ſend in my Name to pay a Debt, is herein Legally my ſelf: What he payeth I pay Civiliter or in Law ſence. I ſhall ſhew you when I come to my Propoſitions how intollerable and deſperate an Error it is, overthrowing the very frame of Chriſtianity, to affirm that Chriſt did thus Die or Satisfie Noſtro loco in our ſtead, or any Mans ſtead.
2. Or one is ſaid to Do or Suffer Loco alterius in anothers ſtead, when it is done to ſave another from doing it that was obliged to do it; or that ſuffered that which another was obliged to ſuffer toward the freeing him from it, being materially the ſame, but not formally from the ſame Obligation, but from the Obligation of a voluntary Sponſion; and being not done or ſuffered in the Name or in Repreſentation of the Perſon of the other: But in a Third Perſon, viz. in the Perſon of a Mediator, Redeemer or Friend. I ſay, when a Mediator or Sponſor conſenteth to bear the Puniſhment deſerved by the Offendor, and ſo far to have his faults imputed to him; this is to ſuffer in his ſtead. And thus I ſhall anon prove that Chriſt ſuffered in the ſtead of all Mankind, having that Puniſhment on him which all mens ſins deſerved.
2. We muſt alſo diſtinguiſh between Chriſts Dying Loco noſtro in the foreſaid ſence, and his Dying In noſtrum Beneficium: Or between his Dying for us Subrogative and Effective: The former being the preſuppoſed ground of the latter. Chriſt is conſiderable firſt as Dying for our Sins as the pro-cauſa Meritoria, before he is conſiderable as Dying for our Benefit, In regard of the order of Execution, as the Efficient Cauſe is before the end obtained. I ſhall after ſhew that he Dyeth Loco omnium aequaliter; all mens Sins, except the after excepted, being equally the Cauſe of his Sufferings; but not In omnium Bonum aequaliter, not to procure equal Benefits for all, or for ought we can prove, for any two.
3. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the Sins whoſe Guilt Chriſt took upon him and bore on the Croſs; and thoſe which he never took upon him or bore: That is, the final non-performance of the Conditions of the New Covenant.
4. And ſo we muſt diſtinguiſh between, 1. That Law whoſe Curſe Chriſt took upon him, and bore, that he might deliver men from it who were obnoxious to it, and obliged to bear it; that is, the firſt Law of Works. And 2. That Law whoſe Curſe he never took upon him nor bore▪ nor ever freeth any man from who is once properly, Actually and I eremptorily obliged to bear it, or whom it doth actually condemn as guilty of the threatned Penalty: That is, the Law of Grace, which is his own New Law, condemning the finally Impenitent.
5. We muſt alſo diſtinguiſh betwixt the fulfilling of the Law, which is when it attaineth its moſt immediate or neareſt Ends: And the ſatisfaction to the Law-maker for not fulfilling it. It is fulfilled either, 1. In reſpect of the Precept, and that is only by Perfect Obedience. 2. Or in reſpect of the Th…eatning; which is fulfilled only per ſupplicium delinquentis, and not in anothers ſuffering. For if it never threatned another: then the threatning is not fulfilled in anothers ſuffering. You muſt diſtinguiſh alſo between ſatisfaction to the Law, and Satisfaction to the Lawgiver. The fulfilling of the threatning may be called ſatisfaction to the Law, for the not fulfilling of the Precept. I ſhall ſhew you that Chriſt did not this, but that he ſatisfied only the Lawgiver, and not properly the Law; ſeeing the Law cannot relax it ſelf, and therefore cannot accept of ſatisfaction in ſtead of fulfilling: Yet improperly it may be ſaid to be ſatisfied, in that its pricipal ends are obtained, though not its neareſt. But we muſt not uſe improper ſpeeches without neceſſity,
6. We muſt diſtinguiſh between the ſatisfying of God as Rector per leges and the ſatisfying him as Dominus abſolutus. Chriſt did not ſatisfie God properly as Dominus abſolutus, but as Rector per Legem, yea as Rector per hanc Legem …p…m; and ſo ſatisfied him by doing and ſuffering that by which the chief ends of that Law may be attained. Much leſs did God require ſatisfaction ſtrictly and properly as a Creditor for a Debt: Though Metaphorically our Sins and our Puniſhment are called Debt; and ſo we are called Debtors and God the Creditor; And ſo ſatisfaction is the Redditio equivalentis vel Tantidem, non Ejusdem. Yet without a metaphor, puniſhment may be called Debitum, Due: But it is Due to us from God, and not properly to God from us; much leſs due to God as a Debt to a Creditor, or Goods and Poſſeſſions to a Proprietary.
7, We muſt diſtinguiſh betwixt ſuffering ex obligatione Legis & merito peccati, as we ſhould have done if we had ſuffered our ſelves; and ſuffering ex obligatione ſolius ſponſionis propriae; as Chriſt did without any Merit or Legal obligation; His own Sponſion being inſtead of both, and our Sin and Obligation being but the Occaſion, or Loco Cauſae meritoriae & Obligatoriae. Theſe Diſtinctions are chiefly to ſhew what Christ did, which muſt be known before we can clearly diſcern for whom: The uſe will be after manifeſt. More Diſtinctions are neceſſary, eſpecially about his Obedience or Fulfilling the Preceptive part of the Law, (and not the commination) and that in his own perſon, as obligatory to himſelf, (for the Precept obliged him, though the threatning did not) and not in Perſonâ noſtrâ or as obliging us: But I will proceed to thoſe Diſtinctions which concern the Effects.
8. We muſt further diſtinguiſh between Chriſts Death as ſatisfactory to Juſtice, and as a Price meritorious to purchaſe further Benefits: For I ſhall manifeſt that the former is the immediate next Effect; and that it could not be Purchaſing, meritorious, no nor accepted, but as it is firſt ſatisfactory; and that Chriſt did not Merit or Purchaſe further Benefits Loco noſtro, ſo far as he did ſuffer Loco nostro.
9. We muſt diſtinguiſh between Gods acceptance of Chriſts ſatisfaction▪ and Acquittance and Justification of him thereupon, as having diſcharged all that he undertook; and Gods Acquittance, Juſtification and Acceptance of Sinners themſelves. God proclaimeth himſelf well pleaſed in his Son, as having done all his work perfectly; when yet he is not well pleaſed with and in men themſelves till Chriſt be formed in them: nor perfectly, till Chriſt be perfectly formed in them, and till he have preſented them perfectly ſanctified▪ and juſtified to his Father without ſpot or blemiſh, and fit for him to take full delight in.
10. We muſt diſtinguiſh between that Redemption of Mankind, which Chriſt procured immediately by his ſatisfaction; [viz. That all ſhould be ſaved from that legal neceſſity of periſhing, and God ſhould Remit his Right of Puniſhing, and the advantage which his Justice had against man, into the Power and diſpoſe of the Redeemer; and that Mankind ſhould be all delivered up to Chriſt as their Lord and Ruler, to be dealt with hereafter upon terms of Mercy and not upon the old terms of the Law of Works in meer rigor of Juſtice] And that full recovery which Chriſt afterward maketh by the giving out of his Grace and Benefits. And ſo (as part of this) we muſt diſtinguiſh beween Mercy and Life Given to Christ for men, and Mercy and Life Given by Christ to Men themſelves directly. For as Chriſt and not we did make the ſatisfaction to God▪ ſo the Actual benefits are given first to Christ, and not directly to us; and ſo by Christ to us: Not that Pardon or Juſtification formally is given to Chriſt; but Power to pardon and justifie; to be exerciſed on the terms which we ſhall afterwards expreſs: God having not directly and fully forgiven the Sinners themſelves but remitted his Right of Puniſhing as he is Rector according to the old Rigorous condemning Law; delivering the Obligation into the hands of the Redeemer (as we do the Debtors Obligations into the of hands of the ſurety for his ſecurity;) to be put in ſuit only in Caſe of rejecting of his conditions of Grace.
11. We muſt as is ſaid before diſtinguiſh between Chriſt (and the Father in him) as Rector per Leges or Legiſlator, and as Dominus Abſolutus. And ſo we muſt diſtinguiſh between thoſe Benefits which Chriſt as Rector giveth by his Laws; and thoſe which as meer Benefactor and Abſolute Proprietary he giveth, though not contrary to his Laws or Covenant; yet over and above what by Covenant or Law he giveth. Alſo we muſt diſtinguiſh between the Event and Nature of things as ſuch; and the Right to, and Dueneſs of of things as ſuch. And conſequently we muſt moſt carefully diſtinguiſh between Gods Will de Rerum Eventu, and his Will de Debito, as ſuch. The clear diſtinguiſhing of theſe two is a ſingular Key to the opening of the ſence of Scripture, and in particular of this Controverſie. For indeed, it is to diſtinguiſh between our Phyſicks and our Ethicks. Gods will about Natural Beings as ſuch ſtands at the top of Phyſicks, as the firſt Cauſe. Gods will de Debito as ſuch, ſtands at the top of our Ethicks, as the firſt Cauſe. And you may eaſily conceive, how the confounding of our Phyſicks and Ethicks muſt needs blind us and loſe us in our Divinity, as it would do in Philoſophy. I joyn all theſe Diſtinctions together, for in ſome they all come to one, or are of neceſſary conſideration joyntly that any one of them may be underſtood. Our Divines uſually with the Schoolmen diſtinguiſh between voluntatem ſigni and Beneplaciti. But in the ordinary School Senſe, that is not the ſame diſtinction with that which I here intend. Dr. Twiſſe oft uſeth the diſtinction between voluntatem propoſiti & praecepti, and meaneth in effect the ſame that I do: But he oft ſpeaks of it as being but Metonymically Gods will, and not properly; by which I muſt conclude that he meant quoad Eventum, and not quoad Debitum; for God properly willeth that this ſhall be Mans Due or Duty.
I ſhall therefore a little further explain this Diſtinction, and then ſhew you the ſoundneſs of it, and then the exceeding uſefulneſs and neceſſity of it; both in this and many other Controverſies. 1. For the Title, I chooſe rather to denominate it from the Object than the Act; becauſe the Diverſity is in the Object, but none in the Species of the Act naturally conſidered: Debitum and Natural Being are two diſtinct things; but [To Will] one, and [to Will] the other, is all one as to the Nature of Willing. God doth as properly Will Duty, as he wills Natural Beings: Yet if I muſt denominate it from the Acts, I would diſtinguiſh between Gods Directive Will, and his Legiſlative. For to call it volunt as Praecepti is too narrow a term; for the Precept is but one part of Gods Law, and determineth only of one ſort of Right; that is, of the dueneſs of obediential Actions, or forbearance of forbidden Actions. But there is alſo a Debitum praemii, & Beneficii-purè vel abſolute-dati, & Debitum Poenae, which the reſt of the Law, Teſtament or Covenant of God determineth of; which muſt all be here included as well as the former. In ſum, the Law determineth, 1. What Shall be due from us; 2. And what Shall be due to us, and on what terms. I call it therefore, The Will of God de Eventu, & de Debito, as ſuch. I ſay. [as ſuch] for elſe they are coincident: For Gods Will de rerum Naturâ, vel exiſtentiâ determineth de Debito quatenus evenit eſſe Debitum, but not quâ Debitum. And his Will de Debito determineth of the Dueneſs of ſome Events, not as eventual but as due: Or to avoid all ambiguity call it Gods will de ente mere naturali; and his will de debito Morali; or Legiſlative or Governing. 2. And for the Nature of the diſtinction, underſtand further, that there are two Acts which I call Gods will de Debito. The firſt is that immanent Act of his Will by which he ſtrictly and properly willeth what ſhall be due. This alſo is twofold; 1. Productive or Inſtituting dueneſs: 2. And approbative or taking complacency in Duty. The former of theſe I principally intend, but exclude not the latter. God doth eternally will every Due, but it is not therefore eternally or from Eternity Due: For he willeth from Eternity (to ſpeak vulgarly) only that this ſhall be due at ſuch a time, and by ſuch a means. I ſay by ſuch means: For though Gods will produce all dueneſs, yet only by means doth he produce it. That means is, the Revelation of his will. 2. This Revelation of Gods will de Debito, we call his Law. This therefore is the ſecond thing which I call Gods will de debito, or his Legiſlative will; that is, the Law as it is ſignum voluntatis Divinae, that is, formally as a Law. This I call Gods will de Debito, only Metonymically, as it is the ſign of his will before expreſſed. If the proper will of God were ſeparated from this, it would then be no producer of Dueneſs or Right at all; for it would be no Law no ſignum; it would loſe its Nature as Abrogated Laws do.
Alſo obſerve, that you muſt here carefully diſtinguiſh between Gods Act in making a Law, and the Moral Act of that Law, or of his will by that Law when it is made. I call not Legiſlation it ſelf [Gods will de Debito] or, [his Legiſlative will.] His ordaining the ſign it ſelf, or making the Law which is his inſtrument, is an Act of his will de rerum Eventu vel Naturae For it only maketh that inſtrument or ſign by which Right ſhall be after produced; but doth not directly thereby produce that Right. But it is the ſignification and Moral Act of that Law, which floweth from its Nature which doth produce Right, and which we here intend. The Scribe that writes a Statute, and the Sovereign himſelf, in compoſing the Matter, Order and Terms, doth but make that Signum or Inſtrument, which being made doth therefore Inſtitute Right, becauſe it ſignifieth the Sovereigns will to inſtitute it. So much for the explication of my meaning in this Diſtinction.
2. Next I ſhall ſay ſomewhat to prove the ſoundneſs of it, which is therefore neceſſary, becauſe ſome ignorant perſons laugh at it; as if we feigned two wills in God, and one of them contrary to the other. Otherwiſe, to men of underſtanding it is not very needful: And therefore I ſhall ſay but this briefly▪ It is not two Wills in God, as two diſtinct Eſſences or Faculties that I aſſert; but only two diſtinct Acts: Diſtinct, I ſay, in regard of their diſtinct products or Effects, and ſo to mans apprehenſion, though in God, we ſay there, is no diverſity or diſtinction. Yet as we cannot hanſomely conceive of his will to ſave Peter, and his will to damn Judas, as one act, having ſuch different Effects; ſo it is here. Who knows not that Naturality and Morality. Phyſicks and Ethicks, Event and Right are different things, and conſequently we may and muſt diſtinguiſh of Gods willing them accordingly. When a Man ſaith, [You ſhall do this,] preceptively, he doth only ſay [It ſhall be your duty to do it] but ſaith not that eventually you ſhall do it. Nor are his words falſe if you never do it. He that ſaith prophetically or by prognoſtication [you ſhall do this] means that it ſhall ſo come to paſs; and if it do not his words are falſe: But he doth not ſay, [It is or ſhall be your Duty.]
12. Accordingly we muſt diſtinguiſh between the antecedent and conſequent Acts and Will of Chriſt as Ruler of Mankind. For the underſtanding of which and avoiding miſtakes, obſerve, 1. That we ſpeak not now of Eternal Decrees, but of the will of Chriſt in this Relation as he is the Ruler of the World and Church, and as he is the conveyer of his mercies according to and by his Covenant, and as he judgeth the World according thereunto. 2. That by his Antecedent will, and acts, we mean only that which in his Government is Antecedent to Mans Obedience or Diſobedience; which is principally Legiſlation, and and making his new Covenant; and alſo the giving of Preachers, and other acts, which are the firſt part of his Adminiſtration. And by his conſequent Acts and Will, we mean only that ſecond part of Government, which findeth Man Obedient or Diſobedient, and is commonly called Judgment and Execution. And when we ſay that by his Antecedent Acts and Will Chriſt giveth Pardon, Juſtification and Right to Glory, equally to all; we mean that as Legiſlator and Promiſer, he hath antecedently made an Univerſal Act of Oblivion or Deed of Gift Conditionally Pardoning, &c. all, and no farther than Conditionally Pardoning any. And when we ſay that he conſequently juſtifieth and ſaveth none but true Chriſtians, and in that Sence dyed for no other according to his conſequent will, we mean that as Judge of Mankind he will give Juſtification and Salvation to Believers and to no others; nor ever intended to do otherwiſe.
(Let the Reader know, that the foreſaid Scheme of the Effects of Chriſts Death, is more accurately, and yet more briefly done in my Methodus Theologiae: And therefore let him that diſliketh the Number or Order of Diſtributions paſs it by: But I have not time to reform it here.