Baxters Narrative of His Life and Times, Part 2 · Section 12 (2 of 2)
The Sense of our Enthy… was, that (these things being therefore not commanded, because they ought not to be commanded any farther than may stand with the said Reception and Indulgences in the Text, God having their forbidden Men any otherwise to command them; therefore the Consequence stands good, your Distinction being either impertinent, or granting us the Postulatum, or begging the Question.
And so we have replied to your first Answer.
Ad 2m. Again if you speak of a simple Command, enforcing no farther them consisteth with the foresaid Reception and Forbearance; 1. You grant the thing in question: Or thus 2. If there be no such Disparity of the Cases as may warrant your Disparity of Penalty against your Brethren, then our Argument still stands good. But there is no such Disparity of the Cases as may warrant your Disparity of Penalty against your Brethen: Ergo—
For the Minor: If those that Paul speaks of that must be received and forborn, did sin against the Command of God, in the weakness of their Faith, and their erroneous refusal of things as sinful that were not so to be refused, then there is no such Disparity in the Cases as, &c. For you suppose those that refuse to kneel, to break the Command of Man, and those that Paul spake of brake the Command of God, and yet were to be received and forborn.
But if you here also speak of [a Command enforced by Penalties inconsistent with the said receiving and Forbearness]; we reply,
If our present Work be to prove that God hath forbidden all such Commands, then our proceeding (in proving it) is regular, and our supposing the things not so commanded (having proved it …; and your Discourse wholly proceeding of things so commanded (before you answer our Proof that they ought not to be Commanded) is an irregular Supposition, and begging of the Question—But our, &c. Ergo—&c.
Ad Resp. 3m if Rom. 14. 1, 2, 3 and 15. 1 &c. speak of things Lawful and no farther commanded than may consist with [receiving and forbearing]; forbidding any other commanding of such things, then the Text is most pertinent to prove that there ought to be no such Commands, and that they are sinful. But the Antecedent is true—Ergo—
Ad Resp 4m [Immediately] was no Term in our Question. But that Rom. 14. 1. speaketh of receiving to the Holy Communion we prove: If the Holy Ghost 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 most eminent part, then he thereby commandeth the receiving: them to the Holy Communion in the Sacrament, as a principal Part: But the Ance…dent is true: Ergo, so is the Consequent.
The Summ of our Reply is, That when we are proving from Rom. 14, and 15. that God hath forbidden Men to command such things indifferent on pain of Exclusion from Communion; for you now [to distinguish of things commanded by Authority, and things not commanded] and then to say [that if they be not so commanded, then we grant that they should not be so commanded; but if they be so commanded, then God hath not forbidden so to command them] this is to make the Fact of Men antecedent to the Law of God, or the Law is forbid the Fact, in Case no Man will do it, but not to forbid it if it be done: As if you had said [God forbid David to commit Adultery in case it be not committed by him, but not in case it be committed.
§ 223. When this Reply was read, Dr. Gunning spake a few Words against the length of it; and … a Copy of it, that he might take it home with him; to bring in an Answer the next Day. In the mean time I urged Dr. Pierson to perform his Promise, in taking the Opponents part, and making good their Impositions; and so as last they came to it. Their Disputations, to avoid the Readers Confusion, … co…e last after our next Reply.
§ 224. The next day Dr. Gunning brought in large Discourse, in answer to our last Reply. His Answer it self … of in…u…ing Words, especially because I tried the Words [begging the Question] (though sufficiently explained) as applied to them that were Respondents. I told them that I confessed it was not an usual Speech, but I thought it not unfit; and that when the Respondent will needs have the thing questioned to be put into the Subject as past dispute, which should be in the Predicate, and so would forestall the Opponents proof, it is not unfitly called a begging of the question: But for this I was indifferent: They should have it other Terms if they pleased, it being a Matter that our Cause is not concerned in. I took Dr. Gunning's Paper home, and brought them an Answer the next day we met; and though I took not a Copy of his Paper, for want of time (and he would not lend it me after) yet you may see the Sum and Sence of all his Answer in the following Reply, (which, as the former, my Brethren read over and approved of).