io Of the death of Chrift. But truly, fuch is my dulnefs, I cannot as yet be won to his mind herein:. But I agree with my Pelf, perhaps I do not with the Truth. That dcfcription of folutio tantidem, viz. That it is a payment of that which is not the fame, nor- equivalent unto it, but only in thegracious acceptationof the 'creditor, is pecu-' culiarly oppofed. To make this exprefon obnoxious to an exception, Mr. B. divides it, that h it may be entangled with a fallacy, /rape rdr aaaa, itrrnps1ay. And fi'Ji, he asks, as before, what I mean by not equivalent, and hereunto fuppoling two anfwcrs, to the ftrfi he oppofeth a fhadow, to the latter himfelf. Pill. If, faith he, by not equivalent, you mean aot'ofequal value, you fight with a fbadoso, andwrong Grotius s however I do not ufe fo to Engliffl folutio tantidem: Bynot equivalent I mean that which is not ofequal value, or certainly I ntiflook the word; and if fo, had need enough to have gone to Mr. B. or fosse other- learned man, tohave learned to englifh folutio tantidem. Bue, do I not then fight with a fhadow ? Truly cut my words thus off in the middle of their fence, and they will be found fit to cope with no other adverfary: but take them as they lie, and as intended, and there is fcarce any fhadow of oppofition to them, call by Mr. B. puffing by. My words are, It isnot equivalent,-but only in the graciosa acceptation of the creditor : iB not the plain meaning of there words, that tantundem in fatisfaftion is not equivalent to idem snkm "s, but only sassvi? what is denied of it abfolutély, is affirmed in fonce refpeft: He that Pays, it is not equivalent, but only in gracious acceptation, in that fenfe affirms it to be equivalent ; and that it is in refpeft of that fettle, that the thing fo called, is laid to be tantundem,, that is, equivalent. Now what excepts Mr. B. hereunto? Both he alfert tantundem to be in this ]natter equivalent unto idem tuna "s? It is the very thing he oppofeth all along, maintaining that folutio tantidem fiends in need of gracious acceptance, ejufdem of none : and therefore they are not as to their end izads, equivalent. Or will he deny it to be equivalent in God'sgracious acceptance ? This he elfo contend-, eth for himfelf. Though refufable, yet equivalent. What then is my crime ? I wrong Groins! Wherein? In impofingon him, that he should fay, Iwo, not of equal value to the idem, that Chr f paid. Notone fach word, in any of the places mentioned. I fay, Grains maintains, that the fatisfaftion of Chrifi, was folutio tantidem. Will you deny it ? Is it not his main endeavour to prove it fo ? A- gain, tantundem I fay is notin this cafe equivalent to Idem ¿-matt but only sass sl c Both not Mr. B. labour to prove the "fame? Where then is the difference ? Were it not for Ignoratio Elenchi in the bottom, and Fallacies plurium interrogationum at the top, this difcourfe would have been very empty. Secondly, But he calks my words into another frame, to give their (core another appearance; and faith, If you mean that it is not equivalent in procuring its end, ipfo fallo, delivering the debtor without the intervention of a new coacefon or contrail of the creditor, as folutio ejufdem sloths then I could; Grotius is againft you, and fo am I. Of Grotius I !hall (peakafterwards : for the ptefent I apply my fell to Mr. /1 and fay, t. If he intend tooppofe himfelf to any thing I handle and affert in the place be,eonfdereth, he doth by this query plainly µsnebaieno eta ea do, ),B-, and that from a fecund inadvertency of the argument in hand ; it is of the nature of the penalty undergone, and not of the efficacy of the fatisfaftion made thereby, that I there dilpute. z. I conceive that in this interrogation and anfwer, he wholly gives up the caufe, that he pretends to plead, and joyas with me, as he conceives my ferio to be, againft Grotieu and himfelf. If, faith he, he mean that it is riot equivalent, in procuring its end, ipfo faelo, without the intervention of a new concefon or contrail ai folutio ejufdem doth, then I am again!? him. Well then, Mr. B. maintains that folutio tantidem is equivalent with folutio ejufdem in obtaining its end ipfo falo ` for faith he, if I fay it is not equivalent, he is againft me. ea Ca, imeg Col ¡sty°Pas' But is this his mind indeed ? Will hiswords bear any 'other fence ? g, Whether tantundem and idem in the way of fatisfaftion be equivalent to the obtaining the end ipfo folio'aimed at {vhich he'here-tifferts, though elfewhere cosffant-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=