Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 5
CHAP. V. Prop. 2. Chriſts ſufferings for Mans Sins, were not the Idem, the ſame thing which the Law threatned to us: Or the fulfilling of the threatening; and diſcharge of the debt it ſelf in kind. But the Aequivalens, or Value, freely paid by him (obliged only by his own ſponſion,) and accepted by God, for our not fulfilling the Law as to its Precept and Commination.
SOme think this Queſtion whether Chriſt paid the Idem or Tantundem? To be not Tantidem, not worth the diſputing. Mr. O, (againſt me) ſeems ſtifly to maintain it to be the Idem, but yielding it to be not per eundem, and the Law to be Relaxed ſo far, doth yield as much as I need, and gives up the whole cauſe; and made me think it a uſeleſs labour to reply to him. As ſmall as this Queſtion ſeems, I think the main Body of Divinity ſtands or falls according to the Reſolution of it. For underſtanding the meaning of it, you muſt know, 1. That it is not of the quality of the ſuffering that we enquire: Whether Chriſt ſuffered the ſame kind of pain, or loſs that we ſhould have ſuffered? Nor of the quantity of Torment, for intenſion or duration? For I am willing to believe as much identity in theſe as I can ſee any ground but of probability to encourage me: Though yet I know how hard it is, for them that ſay, by [Death] in the threatning, was meant, Death, Temporal, Spiritual, and Eternal, to prove that the loſs of Gnds Image was none of the penalty; (for I hope none will ſay, that Chriſt loſt Gods Image) or that Chriſts temporary ſufferings, were the Idem with our Eternal, quoad quantitatem; and not the want of duration made up by the intenſion, or dignity of the perſon, as being Aequivalent: (Which is our ordinary Doctrine, and I think ſound): Or yet that the Eternity of the puniſhment was not in the threatning, but was accidental: Either, as ſome Schoolmen think, for want of power to deliver or overcome; or as others (and with them Parker and Sanford, I think, not ſoundly) becauſe of the everlaſtingneſs of Sinning. I think none of theſe much worth the diſputing, comparatively: Nor 2. is it de perſonâ naturali, who he was naturally that paid the debt, or made the ſatisfaction. It is not therefore de materia debiti, that we enquire, but de formâ: Whether it were the ſame formally which we owed, and the obligation required? Or only the Value, and not the ſame full debt? Alſo you muſt know that, though we may well uſe the word [debt] in this Caſe, becauſe the Scripture doth, yet we muſt acknowledg it but a Metaphor, and the proper terms are, whether Chriſts ſufferings were the ſame thing that the Law in its threatning required, i. e. obliged unto, and made due? And ſo a fulfilling of that threatning? And this with great averfeneſs I deny. The queſtion is determined on the determination of the former, having neceſſary dependance on it, and being tantum non in Sence the ſame. And therefore all the Arguments which I uſed for the former will ſerve to this; and therefore I need not repeat any of them, but refer you to them, deſiring you to peruſe them and apply them to this; for all the ſame abſurdities (or neer all) do follow upon this as on the other. Indeed theſe two together (that Chriſt paid the Idem, the debt it ſelf and not the value, by perſonating us in his ſufferings, ſo that in Law Sence, we ſatisfied in him) are the very foundation of the whole frame of that Religion commonly called Antinomian, but much more fitly Anti-evangelical. To touch again on ſome few. It is evident that this Doctrine utterly deſtroyeth all poſſibility of pardon of Sin, and conſequently all repenting and believing, praying for pardon, all thankfulneſs for it, all Teſtamental or Evangelical Conveyance of it by the promiſe, all Goſpel and Miniſterial tenders of pardon; all Sacramental exhibition and obſignation of pardon; and a Chriſtians enquiries, examination, and ſeekings after pardon, and his comforts living or dying in aſſurance of pardon; and inſtead of all, aſſerteth us ſo righteous, that we need no pardon. You will ſure confeſs, that if this will follow, then almoſt all Religion is overthrown at a blow. And that it follows, ſeems to me paſt doubt. For what can any Law in the World require or any Lawgiver, in exacteſt juſtice, but that the Law be perfectly fulfilled? What can any creditor require, but the Idem, the very debt it ſelf which the obligation did contain? Can he have all his debt, and remit it too? Is the obligation fulfilled, and remitted or relaxed too? Doth the Judg execute all the penalty; and yet forgive it? Is not he unjuſt that denieth him an acquittance and the cancelling of the obligation, who hath fully paid him all his due? If any ſhall conceive, with the Socinians, that the ſame inconveniences will follow, upon the aſſerting of Chriſts full ſatisfaction for us, I anſwer, Not one of them: Nay there is no way, I think, but this that I now maintain to confute a Socinian, and defend Chriſts ſatisfaction. Were it well uſed, it is a Key into a great part of the Body of Divinity, and helpeth to reſolve ſolidly and ſatisfactorily a multitude of difficult objections, which without this admit not of ſolution (though Mr. O. call it my foreign) The Idem, or full debt or ſuffering, is ſolutio non recuſabilis the Value in another kind or way, is ſolutio recuſabilis, (ſtricte dicta ſatisfactio) more plainly, the proper penalty, which is ſupplicum delinquentis, is all that can be required to ſatisfie the Legiſlator or Law: But that an innocent perſon ſhould ſuffer for our Sins, is quid Recuſabile; the Legiſlator may refuſe it. If therefore we had paid the Idem, the very debt we had been acquitted or to be acquitted ipſo facto, as preſently righteous, without Remiſſion; but when another pays it (even the Son of the Law-giver ſent by his own Love aud Mercy, who is neerer him then us) theſe two things follow, 1. That the ſupream Rector may accept it on what terms he pleaſe, or not accept it: And that accordingly God did accept it on terms moſt fitted to his bleſſed ends in governing the World: Among others, that Man ſhould have the ſpecial benefits of this ſatisfaction conveyed to them only in a legal way, in time, on ſuch and ſuch terms or conditions as he ſaw meet, and as is expreſſed in the tenor of the Covenant of Grace, &c. Nay it was the deſire of Chriſt the ſatisfier, that theſe Benefits ſhould only thus be conveyed to the Redeemer: That ſo though the Impetration were wholly by him, and abſolutely wrought, yet the Application might be in part by themſelves and conditional; and the mercy might not croſs Gods ends by making them independent and ſecure, but might further his ends, in drawing them to him, and engaging them to repent, believe, ſeek, ſtrive, fear, care, &c.
If the Idem, were paid, that is, the delinquent himſelf had ſuffered, there had needed no New Covenant, to apply the Benefits, or convey them: But now there doth.
Object. But it may be the Idem, the full due, though not per eundum, by the ſame perſon.
Anſ. Diſtinguiſh (as before) between the Idem Materialiter and Formaliter, alſo between the full debt and a Part. And ſo, if it were a debt of Money or the like 1. It may be fully the ſame materially, and not formally: As a Man may ſteal that ſame Money which you owe another, and pay it to that other as his own debt: 2. Here you muſt diſtinguiſh between Perſonam Naturalem & Civilem vel Legalem: If you pay all that was in the obligation, by your Servant, Friend or any Delegate or Vicar, the Law will ſay, you have paid it your ſelf. It was your deligates perſon naturally, but yours Legally or rather your Inſtrument, Becauſe the obligation required but the thing to be paid in your Name, by what hand ſoever; and ſo you are acquitted▪ without remiſſion: For you have diſcharged the proper debt, and the Creditor can demand no more.
But now in Criminals its otherwiſe: Becauſe the very Perſon offending is in the obligation as the ſubject of the penalty: Noxa Caput ſequitur. So that formaliter it is not the ſuffering which was due to you, which another ſuffers for you. This I add as a main Argument for my propoſition.
If the Law do require only ſupplicium ipſius delinquentis, then Chriſts ſufferings were not the Idem, the ſame thing which the Law required: Nor is the Law fulfilled thereby. But the Law doth require only ſupplicium ipſius delinquentis: Therefore, &c. For the Major, or its conſequence it needs no proof; for Chriſt was not ipſe delinquens; He was made Sin, that is, one puniſhable and puniſhed for Sin; but not really, nor in Law a Sinner. The Law never took any Man for a Sinner that did not Sin. Of this more anon. The Minor is proved from the words of the Law [In the Day thou ea…eſt thou ſhalt dye] [Curſed is he that continueth not in all things] It ſaith, [Thou ſhalt dye] not [another ſhall dye] for them that ſay, It means [thou or thy ſurety] 1. They add to Gods Law, out of their own Brain, 2. They make the Law to know a ſurety before Sin; 3. They confound hereby Law and Goſpel: For it is only the Goſpel that revealed a ſurety. 4. They make the Law to Curſe the innocent, and to threaten Chriſt for our Sin dangerouſly 5. They make Chriſt a ſurety â parte ante, and not ex poſt facto, and ſo corrupt the Doctrine of his Office. Let them therefore prove it before they affirm it. I conclude therefore in this caſe (as Grotius, Eſſenius, &c.) Dum alius ſoluit, ſimul aliud ſolvitur. And therefore Mr. O. and others that grant alius ſoluit, muſt needs grant that aliud ſolvitur. It was us and not Chriſt that the Law threatned, and therefore it is not Chriſts ſufferings that is the Idem, the thing threatned, but ours; nor that is a proper fulfilling of the commination in the execution. So that the obligation is not ipſo facto, in juſtice void on Chriſts ſatisfaction, as it would have been on our payment (had ours been poſſible,) and on the payment of the proper Debt.
Again I argue, as before; that is not true Doctrine which denyeth Chriſts proper ſatisfaction: But ſo doth the oppoſed Doctrine directly. Ergo, &c.
For ſatisfactio (ſtrictè ſumpta) & ſolutio ſtricte ſumpta, are thus different; ſatisfactio is ſolutio tantidem, & ſolutio stricte ſumpta eſt ejuſdem. He therefore that affirmeth that Chriſt paid our proper Debt, denyeth him to have made proper ſatisfaction for our non-payment.
Leſt you ſhould think me ſingular herein, I think it meet to ſhew you in ſome few Teſtimonies, what our greateſt Divines ſay in this point.
1. Great Camero ſaith, (page 363 Operum folio.) Objectio qui pro alio ſatisfecit, is ſoluit quod ille debet At Chriſtus non ſoluit quod nos debebamus: Ergo Reſp. Ad majorem per diſtinctionem: Id ſoluit quod alius debet Pondere & Valore, concedo: Id ſoluit ſpecie; nego. Jam vero Chriſtus id ſoluit quod nos debebamus, pondere & valore; quod ſatis eſt.
2. Rivet Diſput. de ſatisfact. pag. 253, 254. &c. that which he diſputeth for the Laws Relaxation, makes wholly for this.
3. Mr. Ball of the Covenant, page 290. There is a twofold payment of Debt: One of the thing altogether the ſame which was in the Obligation; and this ipſo facto freeth from Puniſhment, whether it be paid by the Debtor himſelf, or by his Surety. Another of a thing not altogether the ſame which is in the Obligation, ſo that ſome act of the Creditor or Governour muſt come unto it, which is called Remiſſion: in which Caſe deliverance doth not follow ipſo facto, upon the ſatisfaction. And of this kind is the ſatisfaction of Chriſt.
4. Grotius in his Excellent Treatiſe De ſatisfactione, hath the ſame more fully.
5. Eſſenius defendeth it in Grotius againſt the cavils of Crellius at large.
6. Bilſ…n of Chriſts Deſcent, page 45. and 262. (as cited by Parker.)
7. And Parker that oppoſeth him, ſaith as much as I do: de Deſcenſu Chriſti, lib. 3. page 108, 109.
Argu. 2. If Chriſt paid the Idem, or fulfilled the Laws threat, then we who were the perſons obliged, may be truely ſaid to have fulfilled it in him. But that is falſe, therefore I mean the Law is not fulfilled by Chriſts Sufferings. Of which ſee the next Queſtion.