Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 2 · Section 12 (1 of 2)
The next Days Argument.
§ 220. Oppon. To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion is sinful.
But to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion.
Ergo. to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all that dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is a Sin.
Resp. We deny the Minor.
Oppon. The Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion, even all the weak in the Faith, who are charged with no greater Fault than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful.
But many of those who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament are (at the worst) but weak in the Faith, and charged with no greater Fault, than erroneously refusing things lawful as unlawful.
Ergo, To enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all who dare not kneel in the Reception of the Sacrament, is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion.
Resp. We say, This is no true but a fallacious Syllogism, of no due Form: For this Reason, That whereas both Subject and Predicate of the Conclusion ought to be somewhere in the Premises, here neither Subject of the Conclusion (viz. to enjoin Ministers to deny, &c. nor the Predicate of the Conclusion (viz. is to enjoin them to deny, &c.) are any where found in any part of either of the Premises, so that here are not only quatuor, but quinque termini.
Oppon. You have both subject and Predicate in the Premises as to the Sense. If you will have each Syllable, take it thus.
If to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to Men for no greater Fault than being weak in the Faith, and refusing things lawful as unlawful, be to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required us to receive to the Communion, then to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to all, &c.
But to enjoin Ministers to deny the Communion to Men for no greater Fault than being weak in the Faith, and refusing things lawful as unlawful, is to enjoin them to deny the Communion to such as the Holy Ghost hath required them to receive to the Communion.
Ergo To enjoin &c. (as in the Minor).
Resp. We distinguish to that Term [things Lawful]: for both Things lawful, and by no lawful Power commanded to be done are called such: And also things lawful, and by a lawful Power also commanded to be done, are called such.
If you take things lawful in the former Sense, we deny your Major. If you take things lawful in the later Sense, we deny your Minor.
Oppon. In Rom 14. 1, 2, 3, and 15. 1. The Apostle by the Holy Ghost speaking of things lawful and not commanded, yet being himself a Church-Governor, commandeth them not, but requireth even Church-Governors as well as others to receive the Dissenters and forbear them, and not to make these the matter of Censure or Contempt. Ergo, the Minor (or Consequence) is good.
Resp. We answer four things: 1. We deny the Consequence of the Enthymeme.
2. Our Discourse proceeding wholly about things lawful and commanded by a lawful Power, they profess to proceed only upon things lawful and not commanded by a lawful Power (in which Sense only of things lawful, and not commanded also, we denied your Major): For they that prove the Major, which was not denied by us but in such a Sense, profess to proceed in that Sense.
3. Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3. speaks of things lawful and not commanded by your Acknowledgment: And we all along have professed to debate about things lawful and also commanded. So that the Text brought by you, is manifestly not to the purpose of this debate.
4. To receive them in Rom. 14. is not forthwith to be understood of immediately receiving to the holy Communion: And for this Reason again that Text makes nothing to prove for their receiving to the holy Communion.
§ 221. When this Answer was given in, it was almost Night, and the Company brake up: And because I perceived that it was hard (especially among such Disturbances) to reduce all in a moral Subject (that must have many Words) to an exact Syllogistical Form to the last, without Confusion; and that the only Advantage they could hope for was to trifle pedantically about the Form of Arguments, I resolved to imitate them in their last Answer, and to take the Liberty of more (explicatory) Words.
§ 222. The next day I brought in our Reply to their Answer at large, as here followeth.
Oppon. The Syllogisms necessarily growing so long, as that the Parts denied cannot be put verbatim into the Conclusions, without offence to those that are loath to read that which is pedantick and obscure, we must contract the Sense, and divide our Proofs.
The Sense of your Answer to the hypothetical Syllogism was, That if we speak of things lawful and not commanded, then you deny [that those that we must deny Communion to are such as the Holy Ghost commandeth is to receive, though those were such that are described in the Antecedent]. But if we mean such lawful things as are commanded by lawful Power, then you [deny that these are such as the Holy Ghost requireth us to receive.
To take away this Answer—If your Distinction be frivolous or fallacious, as applied by you in your Answer, and one Branch of it, but a begging of the Question, Then your Answer is vain, and our Argument standeth good. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo so is the Consequence.
1. It is frivolous and obscure, and rather making than removing ambiguity, and ergo useless. 1. It is obscure: For we know not whether you mean (commanded simply without any Penalty] or [commanded with the enforcement of a Penalty]: [if the latter, whether you mean it of [a Command with such a Penalty as we speak against] or [some other Penalty]. And whether you mean [commanded by such as have a Lawful Power ad hoc] or [only ad aliud.] Your distinction must necessarily be distinguished of before it can be pertinent, and applied to our Case: Ergo, it is frivolous through obscurity.
If you speak of a Command without Penalty, or with no other Penalty than such as is consistent with [Receiving, not despising, not Judging, and all the indulgence mentioned in the Text] then your very Distinction granteth us the Cause. But if you speak of [a Command with such Penalty us is inconsistent with the said… Receiving and other indulgences] then this Branch of your Distinction as applied by you Resp. 2. is but the begging of the Question, it being such Commanding that we are proving to be forbidden by the Text—If there be no Power that may command such things any further than may stand with the Reception and other Indulgences of the Text, then must you not suppose that any Power may otherwise command them. But the Antecedent is true: Ergo so is the consequent.—For the Minor, if Paul and the resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no Power to command such things; further than may stand with the said Reception and indulgences, then no others have such Power. But Paul …nd the Resident Pastors of the Church of Rome had no such Power: Ergo, there are no others that have such. And so your Distinction being frivolous and fa…ious, the Argument stands good.