Universal Redemption of Mankind, Chapter 6
CHAP. VI. Prop. III. It was not the Law it ſelf properly that Chriſt ſatisfied, but the Legiſlator, as above Law.
FOR the underſtanding of this, you muſt diſtinguiſh between fulfilling the Law, and ſatisfying for not fulfilling: Between fulfilling the the Precept and the Commination; between ſatisfaction largly taken, pro deſiderij impletione; and ſtricty taken pro ſolutione aequivalentis; and between the Law i… ſelf and its end. And ſo Iſay, 1. Man fulfilled not the Precept of the Law, 2. Nor is the threatning perfectly fulfilled on man by God; ſpecially on the ſaved. 3. The ſuffering of the penalty may be called ſatisfaction of the Law, as to the Precepts; that is, the Law is ſatisfied for our violation of its commands; but as to the threatning, it is properly the fulfilling of it. 4. Chriſt did fulfil the precept of the Law in his own perſonal perfect obedience, and ſo was himſelf Righteous q…oad continuationem, being initially Righteous before, from his conception. 5. Chriſt did not fulfil the threatning of the Law as to himſelf, for it did not threaten him. 6. Chriſt did not fulfil the threatning of the Law, as to us; for that had been nothing elſe but to Damn us all. 7. Chriſt might improperly be ſaid to ſatisfie the ends of the Law: I mean the remote Ends which are not Eſſential to it; but not the immediate neareſt end, which entereth its difinition; viz. The terminus: The Debitum Poenae pro comminationem Conſtitutum. God made Laws to rule men, and therein by threatnings expreſſeth his hatred of Sin, &c. This is as fully expreſſed in the ſufferings of Chriſt, as if the threat had been fulfilled. 8. Chriſt did not ſatisfie the Law it ſelf. (I mean the ſence of the Law,) but the Legiſlator. This is it which I muſt prove, having firſt removed this Objection.
Object. The end of Law, is the Law: But Chriſt ſatisfied the End of the Law: Ergo, &c.
Anſw. The next end, called the terminus, enters the definition in Relations. This Chriſt did not ſatisfie. The Law did conſtitute the dueneſs of our perſonal puniſhment (which is remitted) but not Chriſts puniſhment (which was ſuffered) The remote ends of the Law, are not truly the Law but proverbially ſo called by ſome. The letter and ſence, is the Law, and not thoſe ends. Now that Chriſt ſatisfied not the Law, I prove thus.
Argu. 1. If the Law know no ſatisfaction, (or be capable of none) but the fulfilling of it, (which is not ſtrictly ſatisfaction) then Chriſts ſufferings were no ſatisfaction to the Law. But the Law knoweth no other, Ergo, &c.
We doubt not of his fulfilling the Precept himſelf, but that is not ſatisfaction to the Law directly and properly for anothers violation of it. The Major is unqueſtionable if we prove that Chriſt fulfilled not the threat: And that I have done already.
1. If Chriſt was not threatned by the Law, (or if it threatned none but ipſum delinquentem;) then Chriſts ſufferings were not the fulfilling of the threat: (for he was not the delinquent) But, &c. Ergo, &c.
2. If Chriſt therefore ſuffered to relax the Law, and that its threatning might not be fulfilled, then his ſufferings were not the fulfilling of the Law. But, &c. Ergo, &c. Prob. Min. that the Law knoweth no other ſatisfaction, but fulfilling.
Argu. 1. Satisfaction ſtrictly (as diſtinct from fulfilling) is Redditio aequivalentis. But the Law, (as continuing the ſame) cannot commute or ſubſtitute the aequivalens vel tantundem, for the Idem or proper Debt.
2. It is eſſential to the Law to conſtitute the Debitum vel officij vel Poenae. But it conſtitutes not the Debitum alterius ſpeciei, vel tantidem; (elſe it ſhould confound the ipſum debitum with the aequivalens.) The Law never impoſed it on Chriſt to ſatisfie for our ſins: This was the obligation of his own Sponſion.
3. Satisfaction which is the giving of the value for the proper Debt, implyeth a relaxation of the Law to its acceptance: But the Law cannot relax it ſelf. Ergo, &c.
4. To admit of ſatisfaction, is the Act of the Lawgiver or Rector, as he is above Law; therefore it is no act of the Law. As to make a Law, to pardon an Offender, to abrogate a Law, &c. are acts of one above the Law, ſo is the relaxing of the Law in pardoning the Sinner, and taking Chriſts ſufferings for ours. Can any obligation diſſolve or remit it ſelf?
5. If the Law did neither threaten Chriſt in the firſt enacting of it, nor hath power to change it ſelf ſince, by aſſuming another ſenſe, then Chriſts ſufferings were neither a fulfilling nor ſatisfaction to the Law. At verum prius Erg…. If the name of Chriſt were put into the threatning after the Law was made, then the Law was changed, and ſo is not the ſame; and it could not change it ſelf. Indeed if another for you pay a Debt, the Bond is ſatisfied, becauſe it was the ipſum debitum. But if another will bear the Death that you deſerve, the Law that threatens you is not ſatisfied nor fulfilled; But the Law-giver is ſatisfied, and the ends of the Law attained. But here note, that this relaxation and non fulfilling of the Law, is not total and abſolute; nor ſuch as derogateth at all from the honour of the Law or Lawgiver; but it is a relaxation upon ſuch terms as preſerve both fully; the full weight of the threatned Puniſhment being born or undertaken by the Son of God, before God would relax his Law.
6. To this and the two former together, I add: If the Laws Commination be fulfilled, or if Chriſt ſuffered the ſame that was threatned, or if we ſatisfied fully in Chriſt, then we are not by that Law obliged to obedience during this Life. But the conſequent is falſe Ergo, &c.
The reaſon of the conſequence is this. The Law obligeth aut ad obedientiam, aut ad poenam, disjunctively pro eodem tempore, and not & ad obedientiam & ad poenam. Now Chriſt hath ſatisfied for our ſin not only againſt the Law of Works by Adam, but againſt all Laws of Nature or Grace ſince, except the non performance of the condition of the new Covenant, and this to our Death. So that if we have in Chriſt fully ſatisfied the threatning for all ſin in this Life, then we cannot be bound by the Precept after ſuch ſatisfaction, till after this Life be ended. To ſay we are not obliged to the ſame Ends, is no anſwer: For that Law can oblige us to no ends, which is fulfilled already, and which did never oblige but aut ad obedientiam, aut poenam propter obedientiae defectum.