being a a lawfull Command THis proposition being brought by us viz. That Command which commands an Act in it self lawfull and no other act or circumstance unlawfull is not sinfull Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus One is Because that may be a sin per accidens which is not so in it self and may be unlawfully commanded though that accident be not in the command Another is That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against is not sinfull Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason given in with his own hand in writing thus Because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawfull and be commanded by an unjust penalty though no other Act or circumstance commanded be such Again this Proposition being brought by us That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawfull nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same Reasons Peter Gunning John Pearson The Postscript LEst Mr. Baxter should say I have defamed him once more by charging him with devising and publishing Maxims of Treason Sedition and Rebellion which till he should as publickly recant I thought it unfit to restore him to the exercise of any Act of the Ministery in my Diocese I think my self obliged to set down some few of his Political Theses or Aphorisms in his own words as they are extant though it be strange such a Book should still be extant in his Holy Common-wealth most falsly and profanely so called Mr. Baxter 's Theses of Government and Governours in General I. GOvernours are some limited some de facto unlimited The unlimited are Tyrants and have no right to that unlimited Government P. 106. Thes. 101. II. The 3. qualifications of necessity to the being of Sovereign Power are 1. So much understanding 2. So much will or goodness in himself 3. So much strength or executive power by his interest in the People or others as are necessary to the said ends of Government P. 130. Thes. 133. III. From whence he deduceth 3. Corollaries viz. 1. When Providence depriveth a man of his understanding and intellectual Capacity and that statedly or to his ordinary temper it maketh him materiam indispositam and uncapable of Government though not of the name Thes. 135. 2 If God permit Princes to turn so wicked as to be uncapable of governing so as is consistent with the ends of Government he permits them to depose themselves Thes. 136. 3 If Providence statedly disable him that was the Sovereign from the executing of the Law protecting the just and other ends of Government it makes him an uncapable subject of the power and so deposeth him Thes. 137. IV. Whereunto he subjoyns that though it is possible and likely that the guilt is or may be theirs who have disabled their Ruler by deserting him yet he is dismissed and disobliged from the charge of Government and particular innocent members are disobliged from being governed by him V. If the person viz. the Sovereign be justly dispossess'd as by a lawfull War in which he loseth his right cially if he violate the Constitution and enter into a Military state against the people themselves and by them be conquered they are not obliged to restore him unless there be some special obligation upon them besides their allegiance Thes. 145. VI. If the person dispossess'd though it were unjustly do afterwards become uncapable of Government it is not the Duty of his Subjects to seek his restitution Thes. 146. No not although saith he the incapacity be but accidental as if he cannot be restored but by the Arms of the Enemies of God or of the Commonwealth VII If an Army of Neighbours Inhabitants or whoever do though injuriously expell the Sovereign and resolve to ruine the Commonwealth rather than he shall be restored and if the Commonwealth may prosper without his restauration it is the duty of such an injured Prince for the Common good to resign his Government and if he will not the people ought to judge him as made uncapable by Providence and not to seek his restitution to the apparent ruine of the Common-wealth Thes. 147. Where by the way we are to note he makes the People judge of this and all other incapacities of the Prince and consequently when or for what he is to be Depos'd or not Restored by them VIII If therefore the rightfull Governour be so long dispossess'd that the Commonwealth can be no longer without but to the apparent hazard of its ruine we that is we the people or we the Rebels that dispossess'd him are to judge that Providence hath dispossess'd the former and presently to consent to another Thes. 149. IX When the people are without a Governour it may be the duty of such as have most strength ex charitate to protect the rest from injury Thes. 150. and consequently they are to submit themselves to the Parliament or to that Army which deposed or dispossess'd or murthered the rightfull Governour X. Providence by Conquest or other means doth use so to qualifie some persons above others for the Government when the place is void that no other persons shall be capable competitours and the persons doth not he mean the Cromwells shall be as good as named by Providence whom the people are bound by God to chuse or consent to so that they are usually brought under a divine obligation to submit to such or such and take them for their Governours before those persons have an actual right to Govern Thes. 151. XI Any thing that is a sufficient sign of the will of God that this is the person by whom we must be Governed is enough as joyned to God's Laws to oblige us to consent and obey him as our Governour Thes. 153. XII When God doth not notably declare any person or persons qualified above others there the people must judge as well as they are able according to God's general rules Thes. 157. XIII And yet All the people have not this right of chusing their Governours but commonly a part of every Nation must be compelled to consent c. XIV Those that are known enemies of the Common Good in the chiefest parts of it are unmeet to Govern or chuse Governours but such are multitudes of ungodly vicious men Pag. 174. So that if those that are strongest though fewest call themselves the Godly Party
I charge him with as being indeed the necessary Consequences of it For if the command of a lawfull thing by lawfull Authority be unlawfull if it may by accident be the occasion of Sin then indeed it will necessarily follow first that there ought to be no such Command or Imposition and secondly too that if there be any such Command or Imposition it ought to be taken away For Vno absurdo dato mille sequuntur that is If you grant one absurdity a thousand will follow at the heels of it and from this Topick he may conclude against the lawfulness of any Command whatsoever as I said before and as I then told him Whereupon as it is in my Letter when I first charged him with the horrible consequences of this Assertion of his he denyed the Assertion it self I mean he denied that he had asserted it untill the very words of it which he had written a little before with his own hand were produc'd and read before all the Company then indeed he added another reason why the Command of a lawfull thing by lawfull Authority might be unlawfull namely if it were commanded under an unjust penalty Whereunto he afterward added another or a 3d reason also namely if the Evil per Accidens were such as was foreseen and ought to have been prevented or provided against by the Commander But neither of these two last or additional reasons did make him quit or forego his first For it was that and onely that which he stuck to at last when his other two reasons were by our Disputants wrested from him or made useless to him as may appear to any rational man that will but cast an eye upon their Arguments and his Answers to them as they are annex'd to my Letter at the end of it where he shall find that our Disputants being to prove that what our Church commands to be done in the publick service of God by those of her Communion was lawfull for her to command Their first Argument was this viz. That Command supposing it to be the Command of a lawfull Superiour which commands an Act in it self lawfull and no other act or circumstance unlawfull is not sinfull But such were all the Commands or Injunctions of our Church in the book of Common-Prayer Ergo c. I Subjoyn the Minor to the Major of this Syllogism because by Mr. Baxter's not denying of the Minor which every one believed and expected he would have denied he seems to grant that to be true and consequently that there is nothing in that Book injoyned or commanded by our Church but what is lawfull in it self otherwise no doubt he would have denied the Minor rather than the Major but as I said before he denied the Major first because that may be a Sin per accidens which is not so in it self and therefore the command thereof may be unlawfull though that Accident be not in the Command This I say was the first reason he gave for his denying of the Major as he himself confesseth in his printed Address to those of Kidderminster Afterwards indeed upon my urging him with those horrid consequences of such an Assertion he added another reason for his denying the Major or for his denying the lawfulness of the command of a lawfull thing by a lawfull Superiour namely if it were commanded under an unjust penalty for the invalidating or nullifying rather of which second reason our Disputants second Syllogism was this That Command which commandeth an act in it self lawfull and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoyned c. is a lawfull command But that which the Church commands is in it self lawfull and is not commanded under an unjust penalty Ergo c. And here again one would have thought Mr. Baxter would have denied the Minor but he did not and therefore as his not denying the Minor of the first Syllogism was in effect a Confession that our Church commands nothing in that Book but what is lawfull in it self so his not denying of the Minor of the second Syllogism is in effect a confession also that the Church injoyns nothing in that Book under an unjust penalty for still the Proposition he denies is the Major in this Syllogism as well as in the former without taking any exception to the Minor in either of them But why did he deny the Major of this Syllogism or what reason or reasons did he give for it Why the very self same and no other than he gave for his denial of the former namely because the first Act commanded may per Accidens be unlawfull and be commanded under an unjust penalty which in plain terms is all one as if he had said The Command of a thing lawfull in it self is sinfull because a thing lawfull in it self may by Accident become sinfull which is the very Assertion I charge him withall or because a thing commanded under no unjust penalty may be commanded under an unjust penalty Whereas our Major Proposition which he denied asserts the lawfulness of such a Command onely as is commanded under no unjust Penalty Yet because there was one starting hole more which Mr. Baxter might think to get out at namely that though the thing commanded were lawfull in it self and though it were commanded under no unjust Penalty yet if by Accident it might be the occasion of such an evil as the Commander ought to provide against the commanding of it must needs be sinfull and unlawfull to stop up this gap or starting hole I say our Disputants added a third Syllogism to the former of which the Major Proposition was this That Command which commandeth an Act in it self lawfull and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is injoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of it and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per Accidens unlawfull nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty But such are all the things commanded by our Church in the aforesaid Book Ergo c. And here again Mr. Baxter without excepting against the Minor Proposition denied the Major without giving any other reason for it but what he had given before which was in effect to grant both the Premisses and deny the Conclusion for the Major is so self-evident a Proposition that We thought he that could have the confidence to deny it was not a man any longer to be disputed with Now that these were our Arguments and that these were his Answers written and given in with his own hand appears by the attestation of Dr. Gunning now Bishop of Ely and Dr. Pearson now Bishop of Chester and then both of them the Primarii Professores Theologiae the King 's and the Lady Margaret's Professours of Divinity in the University of Cambridge and two of
will not conform but the Parliament That is the King with the consent of Lords and Commons and not the Bishops who doe nothing but in obedience to those Laws are the Men whom Mr. Baxter if he speaks properly as he would be thought to do always must needs mean by the men of confounding Practices which how he will justifie if he be called in question for it he were best to consider But as for the men of confused Conceptions and such as could not be reconciled to distinctness and congruity of speech I doubt not but he meant Me for one as I doubt not neither but he meant me for one of the men of confounding Practices also but as he meant more besides my self when he speaks of men of confounding Practices so he must do also when he speaks of men of confus'd Conceptions because he speaks of men in the plural number speaking of both the sorts of them and therefore by the men of confused Conceptions though he may and I believe doth mean me for one yet he must needs mean those that disputed with him as well as me and rather them than me or any other of the Bishops that were there for the Disputants on our part were they that he and his Assistants had to deal with And they were men that I dare say were never thought by any but Mr. Baxter to be men of such confus'd Conceptions and so irreconcileable to distinctness and congruity of speech that is so utterly without Logick or Grammar as he would have them thought to be I am sure the University of Cambridge did not think them to be so when two of them were made the Primary Professours of Theology in that famous University Neither did the King think them to be so when he made all three of them Bishops nor did We that were then Bishops think them to be so when we made choice of them to be ours and the Churches Advocates in a Cause of so high concernment as that was But Mr. Baxter having been so shamefully nonpluss'd as he was at that Disputation would have it to be believed by those that were not there that he had or should have had much the better of it if the men he had to deal with had not been men of such confus'd Conceptions that they could not understand his meaning by his words or of such impatience for that 's part of his character of them also that they would not give him leave to explain himself more fully than he did This might have had some colour of reason in it if the Conference betwixt our and their Disputants had been oral or by word of mouth which is always indeed lyable to heat and eagerness and impatience and misunderstanding of one another whilst they are arguing as likewise to misreporting afterwards of what was said of either side But this Conference was by writing to prevent jangling and all other the aforesaid inconveniences which oral interlocutory Disputes are subject to as likewise that each party might have time to consider what they were to stick to and abide by before they writ it down and to peruse it afterwards and if need were to alter or amend any thing they saw amiss in it before they delivered it to those that were to answer or reply to it And thus were our Arguments delivered unto them by us and thus were their Answers to our Arguments delivered unto us by them all of them written with Mr. Baxter's own hand who seem'd to be the Dominus factotum The Ruler of the Roast in the business The Arguments and the Answers that were written down and interchangeably delivered from one Party to the other were the very same in terminis which I have before recited and which are attested by the subscriptions of the aforesaid witnesses printed above 20 years since and now again reprinted with the Letter whereunto they were first annexed which Attestation together with the Arguments and Answers which are attested I desire the Reader seriously and impartially to peruse and consider and then to judge whether the men Mr. Baxter had to deal with were Men of such confus'd Conceptions and so irreconcileable to distinctness and congruity of speech as he would have them thought to be or whether indeed he himself were not evidently and inextricably confus'd puzzled and perplexed in his Answers to their Arguments especially when he gave his final Answer to their last Syllogisme the Major Proposition whereof I am confident would never have been denied by either of his Assistants had not he being such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Lover of preheminence such a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so contentious and self-will'd as he is overruled them both For who not blinded with prejudice or transported with passion as Master Baxter often is and as it seems then was would have denied as he did the truth of this Proposition viz. That Command which commandeth an act in it self lawfull and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoyned nor any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per accidens unlawfull nor of commanding an act under an unjust penalty This this I say was the Proposition which Mr. Baxter did in Writing with his own hand finally deny to be true and this is that which I charge him withall and from which as I then told him it necessarily follows that no Law either humane or Divine can be lawfull because there is no Law of either sort but may by some accident or other be the cause or occasion of sin For example Preaching and Fasting and Praying and Thanksgiving are all of them God's holy Ordinances but may not any nay all of these Ordinances of God himself be by accident the occasion of sin nay were not all of them so in a very high degree in the late Times being made use of in their several seasons to stir up and encourage the People to rebell against their Sovereign and to plunder and murther their fellow Subjects But did this make God's commanding all or any of these holy Ordinances to be unlawfull by Master Baxter's Logick it must do so because by accident they were the cause or occasion of very many and very great sins and such sins as the Commander foresaw they would be the occasion of and might have prevented if he would by suffering no ill use to be made of them which is more than any humane Lawgiver can doe and yet he did not nor would not prevent those accidental evils either by forbearing to make such Laws as he knew would be the occasion of sin or by repealing or altering or dispensing with them after they were made or by remitting and not inflicting the punishment that was due
for the better ordering and governing of the Church but also taking away all Legislative Power from the King and Parliament and even from God himself I delivered at the same time my reason for what I said which was briefly this because there can be no Act so good of it self but may prove per Accidens or by Accident a sin And therefore if to command an Act which may prove per Accidens a sin be a sin then every Command must be a sin And if to command be a sin then certainly God can command nothing because God cannot sin and by the same reason Kings Parliaments and Churches ought not to command any thing because they ought not to sin Thus far I then charged Mr. Baxter and to this Charge he gave then no satisfaction Neither can I yet conceive it possible to give any satisfaction but by one of these two ways either by proving that the Assertion with which I charged him was never his or by shewing that the consequence I urged is not good neither of which was he then able to doe and by what he hath now been pleased to publish it is more than probable that he can never perform either of them For in his bold but weak Apology he doth not so much as pretend to shew any Invalidity in my Inference and for the Assertion with which I charged him he denies it so poorly and goes about to prove another instead of it so manifestly that he may without any injury be interpreted to yield it He saith indeed now That he told us that his Assertion made not every Evil Accident to be such as made an Imposition unlawfull But whether he ever said so before this time or no it was then clearly proved that he did assert That an Act for nothing else but because it might be per Accidens a sin could not be commanded without sin And now in his publick Appeal he hath taken a strange way to wipe off all this for he makes a very brief Narration and most notoriously imperfect and then says You know my Crime as if that were all that had been or could be objected against him Besides in the relating of this short Narrative he relies wholly upon his own memory not so much as endeavouring to satisfie himself before he presumed to satisfie others How his memory may be in other things I know not in this if it hath been faithfull to him he hath been very unfaithfull to others He relates an Answer in what terms he pleaseth and brings one Proposition as made by his Opponents in what terms he thinks fit and the Application of this answer to that Proposition he propoundeth as all his Crime whereas his Answer was far more largely given and that to several Propositions in several Syllogisms of which the Proposition which he relateth was but one or rather none so that he hath most shamefully abused his Disciples at Kidderminster with a short and partial Narrative of his Fact As for his Concurring with Learned Reverend Brethren which he would pretend to be part of his Crime and his invidious insinuation That they are not forbidden to Preach for it though he be the reason is clear He had often delivered this Assertion before the Company his Brethren had not the words of the Answer were written with his hand not with his Brethrens His Brethren had several times declared themselves not to be of his Opinion as particularly when he affirmed That a man might live without any actual sin And therefore we were so just as not to charge them with this Assertion especially considering they did shew themselves unwilling to enter upon this dispute and seemed to like much better another way tending to an amicable and fair compliance which was wholly frustrated by Mr. Baxter's furious eagerness to engage in a Disputation All his Discourse which followeth after his imperfect Narrative in justification of himself is grounded first upon a misreporting of his own Assertion secondly upon the dissembling of the several Propositions to which his Answer was so often applied thirdly upon his pretending That he says more now than that which had offended formerly which is most palpably false and in all probability if he have any memory against his own Conscience And this will presently appear by the vanity and impertinency of all those specious instances which he brings to mollifie his Assertion To Command a Navy to Sea he says is lawfull but if it were foreseen that they would fall into the Enemies hand or were like to perish by any accident it were a sin to send them Is this more than he said before or is it any defence of his Assertion at all It is not certainly because the Opponents had put it expresly in the Proposition That the Act in it self lawfull was to be supposed to have nothing consequent which the Commander of it ought to provide against and yet being so stated Mr. Baxter affirmed That if the Act might be per Accidens sinfull the Commanding of it was sin Now certainly the falling of a Navy into the Enemies hand or the perishing of it any other way if foreseen ought to be provided against by the Commander whereas Mr. Baxter's answer did import That if any Prince did Command a Fleet to Sea though he did not foresee the Fleet would fall into the Enemies hand or perish any other way yet if by Accident it miscarried that or any other way which he could not foresee or were not bound to provide against the very Command at first was sin The same reason nullifies his instances of the Poison and the Knife because the sin in selling them supposeth the murther of the buyer to be foreseen and consequently that the seller ought to prevent it but if he will speak in correspondence to his former Answer he must shew that though the seller do not foresee that the buyer will use the Poison or the Knife to his own or any other man's destruction yet if by any Accident or mistake either the buyer or any other perish by the Poison or the Knife the seller is guilty of his death His instance of setting a City on fire or putting Gunpowder under the Parliament House when the King and Parliament are there is of the same nature and needs no addition of answer but onely this that Mr. Baxter in a sense too true hath been very instrumental in setting the City on fire and in adding powder to the Parliament The rest which follows betrays the same weakness because the inconveniences are urged upon a Duty to prohibit them and his Answer did charge the Command with sin in respect of such Accidents as it was no part of the Commander's Duty to provide against It is therefore most certain that no one of those instances singly nor all of them jointly have any force in any measure to justifie that Assertion which Mr. Baxter did maintain and whereof he is accused As for that last instance
there be such a cause or no in this and the like particulars it is the Church that is to be the Judge So that there is nothing that can be collected either from the Canons of the Councils or from the practice of the Primitive Church no nor from Christ's own example that can prove Kneeling at the Sacrament to be a sin neither doth Mr. Baxter himself believe it to be sinfull for if he did he would not say as he does Pag. 411. of his Five Disputations that he himself would kneel rather than disturb the Peace of the Church or be deprived of its Communion In which words he confesseth First that Kneeling at the Sacrament is not sinfull or unlawfull Secondly that not to Kneel when it is imposed is to disturb the Peace of the Church and Thirdly that the imposing of it upon penalty of being deprived of the Communion is an effectual means to make those that otherwise would not kneel to conform to it and consequently that the imposing of it upon such a penalty is prudent and rational and whatsoever is prudent and rational cannot be unlawfull so that not onely the Act of Kneeling it self but the imposition of it by lawfull Authority must needs be lawfull Neither indeed would the People scruple at the imposition if they had not been taught that the thing it self were unlawfull or if Mr. Baxter would yet teach them to believe what he himself believes namely that it is lawfull which with what Conscience he can refuse to do I know not for sure he is obliged to teach them obedience not to Divine Authority onely but to Humane Authority also in all lawfull things and not to let them go on in such an erroneous opinion as will disturb the Peace and deprive them of the Communion of the Church and consequently make them sin against God and Man and their own Souls Of which sin of theirs he must needs be a partaker in a great measure if he do not perswade them from it seeing as he himself saith Qui non vetat peccare cum potest jubet And what Power he hath to lead or mislead those kind of men their venturing to kill and be killed in an unrighteous quarrel upon his perswasion hath more than enough demonstrated during the time of the late troubles unless he will say that he hath conjured up a Spirit that he cannot lay Howsoever by how much the more faulty he hath been in misleading them heretofore by so much the more zealous he should be to reduce them into the right way hereafter which if he and the rest of his Brethren can doe as I am confident they can if they will they will make some amends for the mischief they have done and then there will be no fear or danger of Ministers being Ejected for their tenderness towards the People nor of the Ejecting of any of the People from the Communion of the Church for not conforming themselves to the Orders and Commands of it and consequently there will be no Schisms or Divisions amongst us when we shall all worship the same God the same way But if they will not doe this which by all obligations humane and Divine they are bound to doe for my part I know no better way for undeceiving and reducing of the People than by removing such Ministers and then we shall see when the blowing of those boysterous winds ceaseth whether the waves will not be still or no In the mean time I hope the removing of erroneous and seditious will not necessitate the introducing of ignorant and scandalous Ministers though Mr. Baxter ought to remember that as there is no sin more heinous than Rebellion so no teacher ought to be more scandalous I am sure there is none more dangerous than a teacher of Rebellion And now to use Mr. Baxter's own words I think there is no man to be found on earth that hath the ordinary reason of a Man but will confess That it is indeed destructive of all Government and Legislative power to Assert as Mr. Baxter did Assert the command of a thing in it self lawfull by lawfull Authority under no unjust punishment with no evil circumstance which the Commander can foresee or ought to provide against for all these pre-cautions were expresly put in the proposition which Mr. Baxter denied is a sinfull Command for no other reason but because the Act Commanded may be by Accident a sin Let Mr. Baxter then know and if he have ingenuity enough confess that the words I spoke as to this particular were words of truth and words of Charity also as being intended and spoken to no other end but to undeceive that People who by having his person too much in admiration as if he could neither deceive nor be deceived had been so long and so dangerously misled by him so that it was not I that defamed him then but it is he that hath defamed me now Neither could I expect less from the boldness of this man and that party who have had the confidence publickly to own the obligation of the Covenant even since it hath been condemn'd to be burnt by the Parliament And truly I see no reason why all those Books and Sermons which have been Preach'd and Printed in defence of the Covenant or to maintain the same or worse principles of Sedition than are in the Covenant should not be burnt also Nay I dare be bold to say that if the Authours of such Books and Sermons were not still of the same opinions and if they be God deliver us from such Preachers if they were not still I say of the same opinions but did truly repent of them and were heartily sorry for the horrible mischief they have done by them they would with those converted Exorcists Act. 19. 19. bring all those Conjuring Books of theirs together and to save the Hang-man a labour would publickly burn them all with their own hands that so though by the burning of their works they may perhaps suffer some loss in point of reputation with some of their Disciples yet they themselves may be saved but so as by fire 1 Cor. 3. 15. At least they ought to be enjoyned to write Books of Retractation as St. Augustine did having much more reason to doe so than St. Augustine had And this Sir is all I have to say upon this occasion and more a great deal than I ought to have said or than perhaps was needfull to be said to one that knows Mr. Baxter and me as well as you do which if it satisfie you as I hope it will you may doe what you please with it in order to the satisfying of others for this is the first and last trouble I mean to put my self to of this kind whatsoever provocation I may have from him hereafter Your very affectionate Friend and Servant G. Worcester The Attestation of Dr. Gunning and Dr. Pearson Concerning a Command of Lawfull Superiours what was sufficient to its
Mr. Baxter by his denial of the aforesaid Proposition is obliged to prove to be unlawfull and therefore the more of such Instances as these he doth or may alledge the more he seems to prevaricate in his own cause and to argue against himself just as I have heard a Pleader at the Barr did in Westminster Hall when the Judge interrupting him said to him You such a one if you love your Client or his cause speak no more for you are all this while speaking against him though you think you speak for him The like may I say of Mr. Baxter and of his Instances because they do not onely not disprove but prove and confirm the truth of my Charge against him For if it be the Commander's foreseeing and being obliged to prevent such an evil or mischief as his Command will be though but per Accidens the occasion of that makes his command to be unlawfull then if the Commander do not foresee it or be not obliged to prevent it the Command is not unlawfull as Mr. Baxter by his denying of the aforesaid Proposition must needs conclude it was so that all his aforesaid Instances are as I said before frivolous and impertinent as to the disproving of my Charge against him or to the proving of it to be a gross mistaking Charge as he saith it is CHAP. X. His other Instance of Kneeling at the Sacrament as imposed by an unjust Penalty were it true reacheth not his Case ANd so is the other Instance of his likewise which makes the two reasons which in his aforesaid Answer he did severally insist upon to be but one namely Supposing saith he to kneel at the Sacrament to be never so lawfull in it self if it be imposed by a penalty incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence that Penalty is an accident of the Command and maketh it by Accident sinfull in the Commander This instance I say of his though he speaks of it as very pertinent and argumentative yet is it as frivolous and impertinent as any of the former I mean as to the discharging him from the Charge I charge him with and which his denying of the aforesaid Proposition proves him to be guilty of For supposing all that he supposeth in this Instance to be never so true namely that the penalty for not receiving the Sacrament is an accident to the command of Kneeling and supposing too that penalty to be incomparably beyond the proportion of the offence and consequently must needs make the command it self to be Sinfull in the Commander of it under such a penalty supposing all this I say to be true what then Doth this prove the Command of a thing lawfull in it self and commanded under no unjust penalty to be sinfull in the Commander of it For this it must prove or it proves nothing at all as to the discharging Mr. Baxter from what his denial of the aforesaid proposition proves against him For doth not that proposition say 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or in express words that The command which it affirms to be a lawfull command must first command an act in it self lawfull and secondly no other Act whereby an unjust penalty is injoyned nor thirdly any circumstance whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against And yet such a Command so qualified did Mr. Baxter then deny to be lawfull as appears by the aforesaid subscribed Attestation And now what he then denied to be lawfull though it were not commanded under an unjust penalty he would by this instance prove to be unlawfull because it is commanded or rather because he supposeth it to be commanded under an unjust penalty Quo te constringam Protea nodo What tye can hold one who so Proteus like shifts his shape For whether it be or be not commanded under an unjust penalty the command it seems must be alike unlawfull if Mr. Baxter and his Disciples list not to obey it that is if they themselves are not the Commanders of it Again supposing but not granting Mr. Baxter's supposed unjust penalty for not kneeling at the receiving of the Sacrament to be an Accident to the command of kneeling I ask him whether it be such an accident as the Commander ought to provide against or no If not how can it be sinfull in the Commander to command it or how can it make his commanding of it to be unlawfull But if it be such an Accident as the Commander ought to provide against as indeed every unjust penalty is then this instance of his is altogether as frivolous and impertinent as any of his former For that command which we affirmed and he denied to be lawfull and consequently asserted to be unlawfull was to be such a Command as commanded an Act lawfull in it self and no other Act whence directly or per Accidens any Sin is consequent which the Commander ought to provide against But this instance of his is of such a Command as is per accidens at least the cause or occasion of some such evil or sin as the Commander ought or is obliged to provide against Whereas if he had meant to speak pertinently in order to the discharging himself from my charge against him he should have given us an Instance of the unlawfulness of a lawfull command by lawfull Authority where no evil which the Commander ought to provide against was any way consequent either directly or by Accident onely But this he hath not done yet nor I dare say ever will doe or can doe though the Metaphysical Limbeck of his brain sweat never so much for it CHAP. XI Those Instances of his as they are Impertinent so they are Fraudulently design'd ANd thus having as I suppose made it appear that all Mr. Baxter's Instances are frivolous and impertinent as to the proving what I charge him with to be a gross mistake or indeed any mistake at all I am now to make it appear also that those before specified Instances of his are not onely frivolous and impertinent but fraudulent scandalous and injurious and I am afraid malicious also as to the intention and design of them And first they are fraudulent and fraudulently alledged by Mr. Baxter because by all and every of those Instances he would make his Readers to believe that all that he had asserted at the Conference in the Savoy was onely the unlawfulness of such commands as the Commander of them foresaw would by accident at least be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as the Commander ought or was obliged to hinder or provide against or of such Commands as were commanded under an unjust penalty For as to make his Readers believe the former he produceth the instances of commanding a Navy to Sea by him that foresees it would fall into the enemies hands and the selling of Poyson by him that foresees it will be used to kill the buyer
or some body else with it and of setting Fire on Straw foreknowing that by another's negligence or wilfulness it is likely to set fire on the City or the Parliament-House as by these and the like instances I say he would make his Parishioners at Kidderminster and others of his Readers believe the former namely that when he asserted that the command of a thing lawfull in it self was unlawfull if it might by accident be the cause or occasion of sin he meant it onely of such commands where the evil or sin which by accident they would or probably might be the cause of was foreseen or ought to have been hindred by the Commander So by the last of his instances namely supposing to kneel at the receiving of the Communion to be lawfull yet the enjoining of it under an unjust penalty makes the Command it self to be unlawfull he would make it to be believed that he did not deny the command of a lawfull thing by lawfull authority to be lawfull unless it were injoined or commanded under an unjust penalty such as he supposeth the penalty for not receiving the Sacrament kneeling to be So that adding this last instance to the former and considering them one with another or all of them together his design in alledging of them must needs be this to make it to be believed that whereas Bishop Morley chargeth him with having affirmed the Command of a lawfull Act by lawfull Authority to be unlawfull if by accident it might be the cause of sin all that he said or at least all that he meant was this that such a Command was unlawfull if the evil it might by accident be the cause of was foreseen and ought to have been prevented by him that commanded it or if it were commanded under an unjust penalty and consequently that Bishop Morley's charge of him was a gross mistake Whereunto Bishop Morley replies by referring himself to Mr. Baxter's aforesaid answers to our Disputants aforesaid Propositions especially to the third or last of them which affirming such a command of a thing lawfull in it self under no unjust penalty and neither directly nor by accident the cause of any such evil or mischief as the Commander of it did foresee and ought to prevent was a lawfull command Mr. Baxter by denying this proposition to be true and consequently such a command to be lawfull because it might be evil by accident cannot be imagined to mean such an accident as the Commander did foresee and ought to prevent nor the enjoining what he commanded under an unjust penalty both which kinds of accidents the proposition he denyed had in terminis excluded and therefore he must needs mean such an accident as the Commander did not foresee or was not obliged to prevent and such a Command as had no unjust penalty annexed to it and consequently some such accident as either the peevishness or perverseness or some fault or other in those to whom such a command is given and who ought and will not submit to it is the cause of That therefore which I did then and do still charge Master Baxter withall is that he did then at the aforesaid Conference assert the Command of a thing lawfull in it self to be unlawfull if by accident it might be the occasion of Sin now that by accident he did not nor could not mean either the injoyning of it under an unjust penalty or any other accidental evil which the Commander was obliged to prevent or provide against is evident from his denying the Proposition to be true which affirmed such and no other but such a command of a thing lawfull in it self to be lawfull as was neither commanded under an unjust penalty nor could by accident be the occasion of any either evil or mischief which the Commander was answerable for or ought to prevent From Mr. Baxter's denying of this Proposition I say and from his giving no other reason for his denying of it but that such a command as the Proposition affirmed to be lawfull might by accident be unlawfull it is undenyably evident he must needs mean such an accident or accidental evil as the Commandee not the Commander may be guilty of and if no Command be lawfull that may be the occasion of such an evil then as Mr. Baxter truly tells his Kidderminster Friends Bishop Morley did infer that no Command either of God or man could be lawfull or as he is pleased to word it That neither God nor man can enjoyn any thing without Sin if the sinfulness it may by accident be the occasion of in those to whom the Command is given be to be imputed either to the Command or to the Commander which I think is little less than blasphemy to affirm and therefore Mr. Baxter had reason to disguise the Assertion I charge him with by giving such instances of it as are nothing a kin to it for all his aforesaid instances are instances of the unlawfulness of such Commands as are or may be the cause or occasion of some such evil or mischief as the Commander foresees and is obliged to prevent or of such as are commanded under an unjust penalty Whereas if he would have dealt ingenuously and pertinently he should have given us one instance at least if not more of the unlawfulness of such a Command as he asserted at the Conference to be unlawfull namely of the unlawfulness of such a Command as was neither commanded under an unjust penalty nor was the occasion or cause of any such evil mischief or sin as the Commander did not foresee or was not bound to prevent For how does the unlawfulness of selling of Poyson by an Apothecary to one whom he knows or suspects will poyson himself or some body else with it prove the unlawfulness of selling of poyson by him that doth not know or suspect any such use will be made of it because it may fall out that some body or other may be poysoned with it Or how doth the unlawfulness of commanding a Navy to Sea when the Commander foresees it will fall into the Enemies hands prove the unlawfulness of such a Command because by such a chance as the Commander did not nor could not foresee it did fall into the Enemies hands or lastly how doth the unlawfulness of commanding to kneel at the receiving of the Sacrament if it were commanded under an unjust penalty as he supposeth but did not nor cannot prove it is prove the unlawfulness of the same command if it be not commanded under an unjust penalty as We and all other Protestant Churches in the World as well as ours say it is not for proof whereof I refer the Reader to what I have said long ago in my printed Letter CHAP. XII Further those Instances are scandalously Injurious His disingenuous humour of Calumny taken notice of AND now having shewed what in truth it was that I charged Mr. Baxter withall and that I charged him