444 Cbrifi, underwent the Curfe of the Law. C AP. 2... ,and who therefore cannot fuffer fin to go unpunished withoutadue fatisfa_ &tion had, for the violation of his Lawes. Nor is it to the point to tell us, that Tome hold, that God , if it had plea- fed him, might have pardoned Adam': tranfgrefrion, without the Atone" ment made by the death of Chrift.: for they (peak. not of what God may now do, having determined to manifell the glory of his luftice; but what he tnight have done in f gno rationis ante decretusn. And as for that word Heb. 2: i I. It became hirn. &c. it will as well refpeEt the jftice of God as his wif- dom, feing it became him upon the account of juftice, which he would have glorified.. Mr.'Bamter. in hisConfef. Chap. IX. Sell: 5. pag. 2S9. thinketh that to fay, that Chr +fl paid the fame thing, that the Law required of us, & not only faeirfied' for our not payment ,. it to fubvert the fubflance of Religion : But thisis only in his apprehenfìon, & as he taketh up their meaning, who fay fo; And others poffibly may have no lower thoughts of Tome, who hold,that Chilli only gave, Izich a facrifice to God, as might be a valuable confideration , on which he might grant us the bene)Ste: , on fuch conditions as are moll fùtable to his ends d? honour:. r that he did. not fuffer the fame , which the Law threatned. The fcrewing up of differeoiSes to fuch an hight , as to make either the one, or the other , fub- verfive of the fubftance of Religion,, had need to be upon clear & undeniable grounds, and notfounded on meer fandy and loofe confequences, fuch as thofe feeni to me , by which Mr. Baxter maketh out this Charge. For he tels us. The Idem is the perfell obedience, or the full punishment that the Lail) requires. It is fupplicium ipfius delìnquentis.'Inf. But now, feing fuch, as fay ,. that Chrift paid the Idem , will fay. as well as h-e , that when Chrift fuffcred that , which they call the Idem ,, the perron himfelf that fin- ned , did not fuffer : And I would enquire at Mr-. Baxter ,, whether paid. Chrift t he Idem , as to all other refpeéts.beiide; that is , whether Chrift fuf fered all that penalty, which the Law did threaten to tranfgref ours only this excepted ( which muff be excepted) that he did it in another perron , & tiiat..he.was not the perron himfelf,, that finned,. or not? If he fay, Net,,. then-the difference goeth deeper ; but why doth he not then , to make out this heavy charge , I'nftance fome particulars, threatned in the haw, which Chrift did not undergo ? And why loth he infift only on this one, that he was not ipfe delinquent but another pet fon ? if he grant that in all other re fpeds Chritt paid the Idem; no man , lure, can fee fuch difference here,. ashall make the one fide fubvert the Subttance of Religion : for it ¡is a weer ftrife about a word ; & it cometh all to this, whether when one man layeth down his life , tofaveanothercondernned no death, altrer all fatisfaétionin money,. lands', rentsfervice, or whatelfe.,. bath been re;e.ted, he can be laid to pay the Idem, which the Law regt;ared ,. or not ? Some Lawyers would poffibly fay, he did pay , or (offer the Idem; Mr. Baxter would fay not, . becaufe he was not ipfa perfona delinquent', was not the very perfon , that was condemned,, but another,. And yet death ,, unto which the other man was condemned, was inf_licîed upon him, and no lets would be accepted as fatis- fáótion,, at his hands.; which would make fomefay, that all that debate,. whether
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=