P A ß T IL ReverendMr. Richard Batter. 349 go fo ie the confequent.- ---For the Minor, f.Paul and the refident Paflore of the Churchof Rome badno Power to command fucb things, further than mayfiend with the PaidReception and Indulgences, then no others have fucb Power. But Paul and the Re- pent Paflors of the Church ofRome bad no flub Power i Ergo, there are noothers that have/mob. And fo your Diflinilian being frivolous and fallacious, the .Argument ftando good. TheSen/ of our Entbymerne was, that [ there things being therefore not commanded, becaufe they ought not to be commanded any farther than may fiend with the fail Reeep. tien and indalgences in the Text, .God having there forbidden Men any otherwilee to com- mand them i therefore the Confequence flank good, your Difliniiian being either imper- tinent, is granting as the Poffulatum, or begging the Queflian.' And fo we have replied to your firFl Anfwer. Ad 2m. Again f you fpeak of a fsmple Command, enforcing no farther than confsfletb with the forefaid ReceptionandForbearance ; is You grant the thingin que/lion a Or thus 2. If there be no fucb Difparity of the Cafes as may warrant your Difparity óf Penalty againfl your Brethren, then our Argument fish flank good.. But there ee no :Inch Difpa- rity of theCafes no may warrant your Difparity of Penalty againi your Bretben o-- $ For the Minor : If thofe that Paul fpeak+of that mull be received and, forbern, did fm ageing the Conimand of God, in the weaknefs òf their Faith, and their erroneous re- fufal of tbingt asfmful that were not fo tobe r ufed, then there it no flabDifparity in the Cafe, e, &c. For you fuppafe chafe that refute kneel, to break the Command of Man, and thafe that Paul fpakeef brake the Command of God, and yet were ta'be received and forborn. But if youbere alto [peak of [a Command enforced by Penalties inconfflent with thefail receiving andForbearance]; we reply, If our prefect Work be to prove that God bath forbidden all (each Commands, then our proceeding(in proving it) n regular, and-our fuppefsng the things not fo commanded (ha- Ting proved it); and your Dtfcourfe wholly proceeding of things fo commanded (before youanfwer our Proof that they ought nod to be Commanded) re an irregular Suppofttion, and begging of the Queflion But our, &c. Ergo - &c. Ad Refp. 3'. If Rom. 14. r, 2, 3, and t S. r. &c. fpeak of thingi Lawful andno further commandedthan mayconftft with [receivingand forbearing]; forbidding any other commanding of fucb things, then the Text it moll pertinent toprove that there ought to be no fucb Commands, and that they are fnful. But the Antecedent h true- Er go- Ad Refp. ,p°. [Immediately] was no Term in our Quekion. Bat that Rom; r4i is fpeaketb of receiving to the Holy Communion we prove: If the Holy Ghat command the receiving of Men to that Church-Communion in whole or in general without Exception, whereof the Communion in the Holy Sacrament is a moft eminent part, then be thereby commanektb the receiving,them to the Holy Communionin the Sacrament, as a principal Part: But the Antecedent'i, true : Ergo, fo is the Confequent.' The Summ of our Reply is, That when we are proving fromRom. 14, and iç, that God bath forbidden Men to command (stab things indifferent on pain of Exclufsan from Communion for you now [to ds inguifh of things commandedby Authority, and things not commanded] and then to fay [ har if theybe not fo commanded, then wegrant that Mg (Iaould not be fo commanded i but if they befo commanded, then God bath notforbid- den fo to command them] this is tomake the Fait of Man antecedent to the Law of God, or the Law to forbid the Fait, inCafe no Man will do it, butnot toforbid it if it be done: As if you bad fail [Gad forbad David to commit Adultery incafe it be net commmitted by bin], but not incafe it be committed. § 224 When this Reply was read, Dr.Ganning fpaae à few,Words againit the length- of it; and defined a Copy of it, . that he might take it home with him, to bring in an Anfwer the next Day. In the mean time I urgedDr, Pin-fen to per- form his Promife, in taking the Opponents part, and making good their Impofiti- ons q 'and fu at laft they cameto ir. Their Difputations, to avoidthe ReadersCon- fafion, Ihall come laftafter our next Reply; § 224. The next day Dr. Gunning brought in a large Difcoarfe, in anfwér to out laft Reply. His Anfwer it felt was tuft of infulting Words, efpeciallybecaufe I úfed theWords [begging the .Queftion] (though fùfficiemly explained) as applied tó than that were Kelpondents. I told them that Iconfeffed it was not anufual Speech; but I thought knotunfit s and that when the Refpondentwill needs have the thing queftienitl
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=