C H A P. 14. Mr. Baxter's opinion of cbrift's saretysóüpe examined. io5 Anf. And I think ( fuch is the difcordance of Mens apprehenfions ) that his explication darkeneth what is clear enough by the diftinálion given. I-Iis Reality & Acceptation , is , in our cafe , as darkning a diftinEtion , as the others , if not more , and is againft the Common fenfe of the Law , & the plaine Common fenfe and under[tanding of men, when fpeaking ofLaw- matters. Who doth not underftand how the Suretys payment is really , in the fenfe of the Law , the payment of the debtor , & not meetly accepted for him ? If the payment were purely accepted , neither could it be faid, that the Surety was anteriourly obliged , nor that the Creditor might not refufe that payment , neither of which can be affirmed. As for the frfl fenfe of his Acceptation , we owne it not , more than he : & the fecond is true , but not full & plaine , being only general ; nor is it , as thus general- ly expreffed , any fenfe of his Acceptation : for when two perlons are obli- ged for a fumme conjunctly & feverally , & the Creditor may diftrefs either for the whole; when one payeth the whole, he maybe Paid to pay for the other ; & yet Common fenfe will not Suer us to fay , that his payment was only accepted for the other. He tels us afterward , that Spoilers & Sureties with us , are offeveralSorts, & that they,who lay all upon the very name of a Surety , air if the word had but one fiignifi'cation, (15' all Sureties properly reprefented the Perfon of the Principal obli- ged perfon , do deal very deceitfully. Anf. But there is no remedie againft To- me Mens cenfures. Some will pofïìbly think , that his dealing is not faire, to fpeak , in the Anfwere , of Sureties reprefenting the principal :debtors, when the Objection, as himfelf fet it down , fpeaketh only of their being one perfon in Law fenfe ; & thefe two are not every way the fame ; every one that reprefenteth another , is not his Surety , or Sponfor ; nor doth the Surety , in every cafe , reprefent the Principal debtor ; neither is he Paid fo to do. But fine , it is plaine dealing to take the word Surety , or Spon- for, in that fenfe wherein it is alwayes taken by Men that ufe it , until! he demonftrat, that of neceflìty it mutt have a peculiar fenfe , in this matter, & in this place : and it is not faire, to object deceitful dealing to us, in this, untill he bath firft difcovered the deceit. He reckoneth up , three or foute various things, in which perlons may become Sureties , as Debt , Punifh- ment, Duty, & the like; But to what purpofe, I know not. Doth he think, that we make Chrift fuch a Surety , as agreeth in all things with eve- ry Surety, among men ? We know , there never was, nor never will be fuch a Surety, as our Lord Jefus is : A Surety, notwithftanding, we ac- knowledge Him to be ; becaufe He is fo called : & in what refpecfis He is a Surety, we know from the Scriptures, where that is aboundantly declared, & not from theliimple naine ofa Surety : The name tels us, that that muff be faid of Chrift, which agreeth to all Sureties, or is commonly acknow- ledged to agree unto them ; & that is , that they , in fo far as they are obli- ged, or have obliged themfelves, whether before or after the Principal Debtor flood obliged ( for this maketh no difference as to the obligation nflit. fidejuf d7 fj.eod. 1, dJ t r.) are one perfon in Law - fenfe with the prin- cipal Debtor; fo that their payment & Satisfaction is acknowledged in Law, Bb z as the r t
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=