P A a. T II. Reverend Mr. Richard Baxter. 353 your, grofs injufticehath 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, wasnot 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! ofFaith, 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 nodifparicy againR us, we do what weundertake : And that a Sin againft the commandof God immediately, is as well worthy of Punifhmenc as a Sin -a- gainft the commandof Man immediately cateris paribus is true, and all that we affirmed;and all that wewerebound to prove. . Yet you importuneus to anfweryou a Queftion, [Whether is not the Erroneous re- fulling of lawful thingscommandedb lawfulAuthority, as Mal, the refifsng of things as lawful that were not tobefo refilled?]yWe Anfwer you , i. But with them and you it is the Thing in Controvert ? , Whether they are lawful Things, or nor z.lfthey be, What then ? Why you fay, [ f fö, then even according to your own regorig, if youream at all, tbefe Refuf rs to kneelfm againft God, and the Rale our flves l ydawn 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 didfallacioufly intimate the one to break the Command of God, and the other tobreak the Command of Mm]. But really, is it not fò ? Ifyou 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 beyielded 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 manywords you tell us ofa 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 Defpariryon the other fide. 4. The thing in queftion (Kneeling) bathno- 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, [ fRom. r4. & t s. fpeak of things lawful , and no farther commanded than mayconfsftwith [ Receiving andForbearing], 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 tobe 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 thatthey cannot, and you will call it an tgnora- tieElenchi, if we will not grantyou allinqueftion, but will'endeaVour to prove the contrary to what you would have granted, this is that whichwe before called even the Refpondenrs begging of the Queflion, when he 'accufeth the Opponentfor 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 Dffariry of the Offences : Ego by [filch things) we mean [ Jncb things] as are mentionedRom_ r4.& o f. And our Conclufion there goeth no further; that Matter beingfurther 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 weprove are to be received to Communion, muff be immediateóy received; when we neveraffirmed it; as long as you teil, us not whether you fpeak de immediatione temporis, vel conditionis, eelflatus, or what youmean by immediate- ly : In regard of lime, no Man in the Church isimmediately to be received tti the Sa ;rament, till the very time come: 2 z
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=