6o6 The HIS T 0 R Y of the PuRiTANS. Vot II. King 11 by azahori~y, became neceifary. Th~ minilters replied, that things Charles • b t I . h h . b c. b 1 b . . 16 6 1 • a o~ w 11c t ere ts to e a 10r earance oug 1t not to e enJOined by au- ~ thonty, and made neceifary; and fur governors to reje{l: men by this rule is to defeat the apofl:le's reafoning, and fo contradi{l: the law of God. But K. Ch. p. when Dr. Gum1ing had read certain citations and authorities for the other so6, fide of the queftion, bilhop Cojim the moderator called out to the refl: of the bilhops and do{l:ors, and put the quefl:ion, all you that think Dr. Gun– ning has proved that Romans xiv. j'peaketh not if receiving the facrament Jay ay. Upon which there was a general cry among the hearers, ay, ay; the epifcopal divines having great numbers of their party in the hall; whereas the minijlers had not above two or three gentlemen and fcholars who had the courage to appear with them. Neverthelefs they main– tained their point, and (as bilhop Bumet obferves) inlifted upon it, that a law which excludes allfrom the facrament ~vho dare not kneel, ~vas tmla~vJ'u!, as it was a limitation in point if communion put upon the laws of Chrifl, which ought to be the only condition qf thqje that have a right to it. At length the epifcopal divines became opponents upon the fame quef– tion, and argued thus; that command wbich enjoim on0• an act in itje!f iaw– ful is not )inful. Which Mr. Baxter denied. They then added, that that command which e1yoins only an act in iife!f lawfitl, and no other act o.r circumflance zmla7vjul, is notjirgul. This alfo Mr. Baxter denied. They then advanced further, that command which enjoins only an act in i(ft!f /mv– ful, and no other act 'whereb;• an zmjujl penalty is enjoined, or any circum– jlance, ~vbence directly or per accidens any jilz is con{equent which the com– mander ought to provide againjl, bath in it all things requf!ite to the law– fit!nefs qf a command, and particularly cannot be charged Wfth mjoining an act per accidens unlaw fit!, nor qf commanding an act under an unjujl penal– ty. This alfo was denied, becaufe though it does not command that which is finful, it may refl:rain from that which is lawful, and it may be K. Chr, p. applied to undue fubjetl:s. Other reafons were affigned; but the dif– sos. pute broke off with noife and confufion, and high refleCtions upon Mr. Baxter's dark and cloudy imagination, and his perplexed, fcholaf~ tic, metaphylical manner of diftinguilhing, which tended rather to con– found than to clear up, that which was doubtful ; and bifnop Saunderfon being the in the chair pronounced that Dr. Gunning had the better of the argument. Remarks. Bi!hop Morley laid, that Mr. Baxter's denying that plain propofition was deftrutl:ive of all authority human and divine ; that it fl:ruck the church out of all its claims for making canons, and for fettling order and difcipline; nay, that it took awa~ all legiilative power from the kin~ a~d parliament, and even from God h1mfelf; for no aCt can be fo good m Jtfelf
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=