Universal redemption of mankind, by the Lord Jesus Christ stated and cleared by the…

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 largely taken, pro desiderij impletione; and strictly taken pro solution 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 threatening 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 threatening, 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 threatening of the Law as to himself, for it did not threaten him. 6. Christ did not fulfil the threatening of the Law, as to us; for that had been nothing else but to Damn us all. 7. Christ might improperly be said to satisfy the ends of the Law: I mean the ⟨p. 87⟩remote Ends which are not Essential to it; but not the immediate nearest end, which entereth its definition; viz. The terminus: The Debitum Poenae pro comminationem Constitutum. God made Laws to rule men, and therein by threatenings 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 satisfy the Law it self. (I mean the sense of the Law,) but the Legislator. This is it which I must prove, having first removed this Objection.