" In p. 140 [267] he states the question far otherwise, and yet supposeth it the same, namely, — Whether Christ paid the idem or the tantundemf which he inter- preteth thus, ' That which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the gracious acceptation of the creditor.' Now, what he means by ' not equivalent' I cannot tell.
" If he mean, not of equal value, then he fights with a shadow. He wrongeth Grotius, for aught I can find in him, who teacheth no such doctrine. However, I do not so use to English solutio tantidem. But if he mean, that it is not equiva- lent in procuring its end ipso facto, delivering the debtor, without the interven- tion of a new concession or contract of the creditor, as solutio ejusdem doth, then I confess Grotius is against him, and so am I.
" So, also, God's gracious acceptance is either in accepting less in value than was due, and so remitting the rest without payment (this I plead not for); or else it is his accepting a refusable payment, which, though equal in value, yet he may choose to accept according to the tenor of the obligation. This is gracious acceptance, which Grotius maintaineth, and so do I ; and so distinguish betwixt solutio and satisfactio, ' payment' and ' satisfaction.' " Thus far he.
Sundry things are here imagined and asserted: — First, Several passages are pointed at in my treatise, and a contradiction between them intimated. Secondly, Various conjectures given at my plain, very plain meaning, and divers things objected answerable to those conjectures, etc.
1 The figures iu bracliets indicate where the passages are to he found in the present volume.— Ed.
438 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
Wherefore, to clear the whole, I shall, — 1. Give you in the passages opposed; and, 2. Vindicate them from mutual opposition, with what is besides charged on them.
The first place mentioned in my treatise is in p. 137 [265], where, after I had discoursed of the nature of satisfaction, in reference both unto things real and per- sonal, I laid down a distinction in these words : —
" There may be a twofold satisfaction, — First, By a solution or payment of the very thing that is in the obligation, either by the party himself who "is bound, or by some other in his stead ; as, if I owe a man twenty pounds, and my friend goeth and payeth it, my creditor is fully satisfied. Secondly, By a solution or pajdng of so much, although in another kind, not the same that is in the obligation, wlaich by the creditor's acceptation stands in lieu of it ; upon which also freedom follow- eth from the obligation, by virtue of an act of favour."
What now says Mr B. to this ? Why, " it is nothing to the business he hath in hand."
Let then this pass, and look to the next passage which is opposed, and supposed to stand in opposition to the other.
Having laid down the former distinction, passing on to some other things con- cerning the nature of satisfaction, and the establishment of that of Christ from the Scripture, in p. 140 [267], I apply that distinction laid down before in general to the kind of satisfaction made by Christ, in these words: —
" Whereas I said that there is a twofold satisfaction whereby the debtor is freed from the obligation that is upon him,— the one being solutio ejusckm, payment of the same thing that was in the obligation; the other solutio tantidem, of that which is not the same, nor equivalent unto it, but only in the gracious acceptation of the creditor, — it is worth our inquiry which of these it was that our Saviour did per- form."
And accordingly I refer it to the first.
" This," saith Mr B,, " is a stating of the question far otherwise than before, yet sujjposing it the same."
But this I was so far from once mistrusting before, as that, being informed of it, I cannot as yet apprehend it to be so.
In p. 137 [265] I lay down a distinction in general about the several kinds of satisfaction, which, p. 140 [207], I plainly apply to the satisfaction of Christ, without any new, much less changed stating of the question. My whole aim, in that in- quiry, was to search out that kind of punishment which Christ underwent in making satisfaction for sin,— namely, " Whether it were the same that was threatened to the transgressors themselves, or whether something else which God accepted in lieu thereof, relaxing the law not only as to the person suffering, but also as to the penalty to be undergone ? "
The first of these, and that with the concurrent suffrage of far the greatest number of protestant divines, I assert with sundry arguments, pp. 141, 142, etc., 154-156 [268, etc., 280-282]. Unto which assertion he neither opposeth himself nor once attempteth to answer any of the arguments whereby I proved it.
This being my intendment, p. 137 [285], I intimate that Christ paid the same thing that was in the obligation ; as if, in things real, a friend should pay twenty pounds for him that owed so much, and not any thing in another kind. And p. 140 [207], I affirm that he paid idem, that is, the same thimj that was in the obliga- tion, and not tantundem, something equivalent thereunto, iu another kind.