Background Image
Table of Contents Table of Contents
Previous Page  387 / 846 Next Page
Information
Show Menu
Previous Page 387 / 846 Next Page
Page Background

P

A

a.

T

II.

Reverend

Mr.

Richard

Baxter.

353

your, grofs

injuftice

hath

no fair pretence, being againftthe Light

of

our Conclu.

fion and

Undertaking;

we

were

but to prove that there

was

no

filch

difparicy,

i.

e.

that

the

fault

of

thofe that kneel

net,

was

not greater,

andfo much

greater

as

might

warrant your penalty: Therefore

as

you will acknowledge kneeling at the

Sacra-

ment to

be

immediately,but the command of

Man,

and

weaknej!

of

Faith,

Errour,

CeaJisring,

&c.

to

be

immediately ,againft

a command-

of

God, (which yet

we fp.,ke

of but

for juft

denomination, andnot to prove

a difparicy

to our advantage), fo

if

we

prove

no

difparicy

againR

us,

we do

what weundertake

:

And that

a Sin

againft

the command

of

God immediately,

is as

well

worthy of

Punifhmenc as a

Sin -a-

gainft the command

of

Man immediately

cateris paribus

is

true,

and

all

that we

affirmed;and all

that

we

werebound

to prove.

.

Yet

you

importune

us

to anfweryou

a

Queftion,

[Whether

is not the Erroneous

re-

fulling

of lawful things

commanded

b

lawful

Authority, as

Mal,

the refifsng

of

things as

lawful

that

were not

to

befo refilled?]y

We

Anfwer

you

,

i.

But

with

them and you

it

is

the

Thing in Controvert

?

,

Whether they

are lawful

Things, or

nor

z.lf

they

be,

What

then

?

Why you

fay,

[

f

fö,

then even according to

your own

regorig,

if

you

ream

at

all,

tbefe

Refuf

rs to kneel

fm againft

God,

and

the

Rale

our

flves l

y

dawn

thereof, as well as

thofe

Rom.

54.]

And what then

?

Is

there therefore a

Dlarity

be.

caufe

they

do

alike

?

Are

fach

as

thefe

the

occafons

of

your

infulting

?

We

Ih:all

then-fufped you

have force grofs

Miftake, whenever we

find

you

thus inihiring.

But you

fay

[That Ergo

we

did

fallacioufly

intimate

the

one

to

break the Command

of

God,

and

the other

to

break

the Command

of Mm].

But

really,

is

it

not

?

If

you

al-

low not the

Diftinetion

inner Leges

Divinas Humanas,

you know how Gngularyou

are,

and

what Confequences will

follow

:

If

you do, why may we not

of

Inch

Denominations

?

But

you

fay

of

thefinfulnefs

[Ir

is

molt evidently

common to

thefar

-'

men

with the

lattera r.

If

the ControverSe be

yielded you

it

is

lo. z.

And what

then

?

becaufe

it

is

common,

Ergo

there

is

filch a

Hilarity

as

may

warrant your

grievous

penalty. We only prove no fuch Difparity and we are notably confu-

ted,

by

your proof that the

Sinfulnefs

is common,

that

is

,

by

yielding what we

prove.

Next

in many

words you

tell us

of

a

Hilarity.

r.

Becaufe

in

oar. Cafe kneeling

is

commanded. 2. Becaufe the things

are

antecedently

helps

to piety.

To

which we have

before anfwered

:

C.

God bath

forbidden

ad

Command,

of

filch

things,

inconfrftenc

with the

Reception and Forbearance in queltion. 2.

Their

Sin

of

Weaknefs

ire

Faith, and Errour, were

alto againft

Commands.

;.

We (hall thew greater Rea

-

Ions

of

Defpariry

on the other

fide. 4.

The

thing

in

queftion

(Kneeling)

bath

no-

thing

antecedent to the Command

to

make the refufal

of

it

frnful

,

no

nor

meet

than other Geltures.

Of

which after.

To

your third Anfwer we replyed,

[

f

Rom. r4.

&

t s.

fpeak

of

things

lawful

,

and

no

farther

commanded

than

may

confsftwith

[

Receiving

and

Forbearing], forbidding

any other commanding

of

filch things, then the

Text

is molt pertinent to-

prove

that

there

ought

to

be

no

filch

Commands,

and that

they

are

finful

].

But

the Antecedent

is

true

Ergo

Here you

tell

us

of

manifejlfallacy,

of

advanrageom Equivocation,

or

elfe

a großig-

noratie

Elenchi

in.

the Conclufion

;

words

eafie

to

be

uttered by you.

But

if

you

will

[

prof

efi

all along,

as

you fay,

to proceed

ordebate

only

of

things

lawful and commanded'

by

lawful

power]

that

is, lawfully,

when our very Queftion

is, Whetherfach things can

be fo

commanded?

and we are proving

that

they

cannot,

and you will call

it an

tgnora-

tieElenchi,

if

we

will

not grant

you

allinqueftion, but

will'endeaVour

to

prove

the

contrary

to what

you would have

granted,

this

is

that which

we before called even

the

Refpondenrs begging

of

the Queflion, when he

'accufeth

the

Opponent

for

pro-

ving what he denieth, and would

put

that into

the

Subjelt

as

not to

be

queftioned;

which

is

in

the

Predicate,

and we are ditproving.

x.

And

remember

that in your

Grf

Paper we were

not

called

to

difpute

the

Parity or D

ff

ariry

of

the

Offences

:

Ego

by

[filch

things) we mean

[

Jncb

things]

as

are mentioned

Rom_

r4.&

o

f.

And

our

Conclufion

there

goeth no

further;

that Matter

being

further to

be carried

on

in

its

proper

place.

To

your fourth Anfwerwe replyed,

That

[immediately)

was

no Term

in

our

Queltion

:

You

fay

yod may diltinguifh:

True;

but you cannot

bind

us

to prove

that the Men

that

we

prove are to

be

received to Communion, muff

be

immediateóy

received; when we never

affirmed

it;

as

long

as

you

teil, us

not

whether you fpeak

de

immediatione temporis,

vel

conditionis,

eel

flatus, or what

you

mean by immediate-

ly

:

In

regard

of

lime,

no Man

in the Church

is

immediately to be received

tti the

Sa

;rament, till the very time come:

2

z