C it A P. z, Ehrifi/ randenvent the Cttr fe of the Laus: 447. whether it was the fame, or the equivalent, were a meer needlefs cornett' abouta word. And if it be but juft fo here , in our prefent debate , every- one will judge it very hard, to call that a fubverfion of Religion , which, after examination& trial , is found to be but a ttrifc about a word. Now how will Mr. Baxter prove that the fufferingof the Idem , is only,when it is fupplicium ipfit+r deiinquentir ? And not alto, when the fame punishment, in all its effentral ingredients, is undergone `k; fuffered by another ? When the Law impofeth the penalty of death , or of fuch a great fumme of money , on a perfon tranfgref ing fuch a Law ; common difcourfe- would fay , & I fup- pole the Law give allowance thereto , that , when another came, & payed the fame penalty for him , without the leaft abatement , he payed the fame penalty , which he Law impofed , and not another ; and not meeriv a va-- Iuableconfideration. It is true , the Law threatened only the tranfgre¡Iour,,. & obliged him to fu(fer; but notwithttanding , another might pay the very fame thing , which the Law threatned & requireth. He faith next ( p. ego. ) the Law never threatned a Surety : nor granteth ant liberty ;.of fubflitution : that was an all of God above the Law : If therefore the thing due were payed, it was we ourfelves morally or legally , that fuffered. Anf. ., Sure, fume Lawes of men will threaten Sureties , & grant Iiberty of fub- ftitution too :° But if he fpeak here only of the Law of God, we grant, that it threatned only the tranfgreffour; & that it was anatofGodabove the Law, & difpeníing therewith , that granted a fubftitution; Yet notwith- ¡landing ofthis it is not proved, that that Subftitute did not , or could not, fufe, the fame punishment, which the Law threatned. And if Mr. Baxterr. think , that the lawes not threatning a Surety , nor granting liberty of a-. fubltitution , will prove it; it is denied. Next His other confequence is as uncleare, vi .T. That if the thing 'due were payed , it was we ourfelves that - fufffred perfonally : all thefe confequences. rim upon the firfl falfe ground, that no man can pay the Idem, hut the very tranfgreifour. What he mea4- neth by,we our felves morally, he would do welt to explicate. And as for legal- ly , we ourfelves may be ¡rid to dolegally, what our Surety & undertaker cloth for us. 'And ifthisbeall he meaneth , vet. thatifthe thing due (to wit by Law, as ihreatued there) be payed either we in our own perfons r or= our Surety for us , & in our room & Law place, payed it , is is true, but fubverfive of his hypothetic : It mull then be force other thing that he meaneth. -. by morally or legally & it muff be the fame wi! h , or equivalent to perfonally r or the like;. but his next words cleare his meaning; for he added) ;. And it would not be ourfelver legally , becaufe it was not ourfelves naturally. And what- lawyer I pray , will yeeld to this reafon ? I fuppofe, they will tell us , that' we are laid to do that legally , which our Cautioner, or Surety doth for use But if herhink otherwayes here alfo, that nothing can be accounted tobe- done-by us legally , but what is done by our felves Naturally (which is a word' of many lignitications.,. & might occation much difcourfe) that is,perfenally; Yet it will not follow , that no other can fuffer the Idem:, that was threat- ned , hutthe delinquent himfelf :- AAt length he tels us, That if it had been ourfelves legally, then the ffrickeft `:` Ili 3 ufiice,.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=