" The first of these is nothing to our purpose," saith JNIr B., " but the latter crossing the former."
But truly, such is my dulness, I cannot as yet be Avon to his mind herein. But I agree with myself; perhaps I do not with the truth. That description of solutio tantidem, namely, that it is a payment of that which is not the same, nor equiva-
NATURE OF THE PAYMENT MADE BY CHRIST. 439
lent unto It, but only in the gracious acceptation of the creditor, is peculiarly op- posed.
To make this expression obnoxious to an exception, Mr B. divides it, that so it may be entangled with a fallacy, ^apa rav -rXuav Ipurnfiaraiii. And, first, he asks as before what I mean by not equivalent; and hereunto supposing two ansv^ers, to the first he opposeth a shadow, to the latter himself.
First, " If," saith he, " by not equivalent, you mean not of equal value, you fight A\ith a shadow, and wrong Grotius. However, I do not use so to English solutio tantidem."
By not equivalent, I mean that which is not of equal value, or certainly I mis- took the word; and if so, had need enough to have gone to Mr B., or some other learned man, to have learned to Enghsh solutio tantidem. But do I not, then, fight with a shadow ? Truly, cut my words thus off in the middle of their sense, and they will be found fit to cope with no other adversary ; but take them as they lie, and as intended, and there is scarce any shadow of opposition to them cast by Mr B. passing by. My words are, " It is not equivalent, but only in the gracious acceptation of the creditor." Is not this the plain meaning of these words, that tantundem in satisfaction is not equivalent to idem kvXuu but only xara r/? What is denied of it absolutely is affirmed in some respect. He that says it is not equiva- lent but only in gracious acceptation, in that sense affirms it to be equivalent, and that it is in respect of that sense that the thing so called is said to be tantundem, that is, equivalent.
Now, what excepts Mr B. hereunto ? Doth he assert tantundem to be in this matter equivalent unto idem avXas ? It is the very thing he opposeth all along, maintaining that solutio tantidem stands in need of gracious acceptp.nce, ejusdem of none; and, therefore, they are not as to their end k'xXu;, equivalent. Or will he deny it to be equivalent in God's gracious acceptance? This he also con- tendeth for himself: " Though re/usable, yet equivalent." What, then, is my crime ? I wTong Grotius! Wherein? In imposing on him that he should say, "It was not of equal value to the idem that Christ paid." Not one such word in any of the places mentioned. I say, Grotius maintains that the satisfaction of Christ Avas solutio tantidem. Will you deny it? Is it not his main endeavour to prove it so? Again : tantundem, I say, is not in this case equivalent to idem a-rXa;, but only xara tI. Doth not Mr B. labour to prove the same? Where, then, is the difference? Were it not for Ignoratio elenehi in the bottom, and Fallacia plu- rium interrogationum at the top, this discourse would have been very empty.
Secondly, But he casts my words into another frame, to give their sense another appearance, and saith, —
" If you mean that it is not equivalent in procuring its end ipso facto, deliver- ing the debtor without the intervention of a new concession or contract of the creditor, as solutio ejusdem doth, then I confess Grotius is against you, and so ami."
Of Grotius I shall speak afterward; for the present I apply myself to Mr B., and say, —
1. If he intend to oppose himself to any thing I handle and assert in the place he considereth, he doth, by this query, plainly f/.traCa.lti'.iv lU to aXXo yivos, and that from a second inadvertency of the argument in hand. It is of the nature of the penalty undergone, and not of the efficacy of the satisfection made thereby, that I there dispute.
2. I conceive that in this interrogation and answer he wholly gives iip the cause that he pretends to plead, and joins with me, as he conceives my sense to be, against Grotius and himself. "If," saith he, "he mean that it is not equivalent in procuring its end ipso facto, without the intervention of a new concession or contract, as solutio ejusdem doth, then I am against him." Well, then, Mr B. maintains that
440 OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
solatia tantidem is equivalent with solutio ejusdem in obtaining its end ipso facto ' for, siiith he, if I say it is not equivalent, he is against me. To <rov Stap <rot If/tyovf/.a.i. But is this his mind indeed? Will his words bear any other sense?
3. Whether tantundem and idem, in the way of satisfaction, be equivalent to the ol)taining the end ipso facto aimed at, ^\'hich he here asserts, though elsewhere constantly denies, — couching in this distinction the ■^furov 4'iu'Sos of a great part of his discourse, — certainly it is nothing at all to the question I there agitated, main- taining that it was idem, and not tantundem, that Christ paid, and so the end of it obtained ipso facto answerable to the kind of the efficacy and pi'ocurement thereof.