A26860:288
An answer to Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlock, confuting an universal humane church-supremacy aristocratical…An answer to Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlocke, confuting an universal humane church-supremacy aristocratical…
An answer to Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlock, confuting an universal humane church-supremacy aristocratical and monarchical, as church-tyranny and popery : and defending Dr. Isaac Barrow's treatise against it by Richard Baxter ; preparatory to a fuller treatise against such an universal sovereignty as contrary to reason, Christianity, the Protestant profession, and the Church of England, though the corrupters usurp that title.An answer to Mr. Dodwell and Dr. Sherlocke, confuting an universal humane church-supremacy aristocratical and monarchical, as church-tyranny and popery : and defending Dr. Isaac Barrow's treatise against it by Richard Baxter ; preparatory to a fuller treatise against such an universal soveraignty as contrary to reason, Christianity, the Protestant profession, and the Church of England, though the corrupters usurp that title.
London: printed for Thomas Parkhurst, 1682
Chapter 5: Wherein Mr. Dodwell's deceits, and the danger of them do consist.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
CHAP. V. Wherein Mr. Dodwell's deceits, and the danger of them do consist.
§. 1. AS to his Method of disputing, that you may detect his fallacies, he hath got this absurd pretence, p. 90. That there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige men to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretends to have skill in Causes.
§. 1. AS to his Method of disputing, that you may detect his fallacies, he hath got this absurd ptetence, p. 90. That there is but one sense of all Terms, which Causes oblige men to mean; and that every one ought to know, who pretends to have skill in Causes.
Ans. Would you have thought that ever a man should publicly use such a Cothurnus among the Learned? What a man is obliged to mean, is one thing, and what he doth mean is another. And is there any one that knoweth what humane Language is, that knoweth not that almost all words have various ⟨p. 64⟩significations? Doth he not know by how good reason the Schools oblige Disputants, first to explain their Terms? And what need there is of Definition to explain them? He instanceth in the words Bishops, and the Church of England; And might have added, the Catholic Church. And doth he not know that it is the species of Bishops that we differ about? and will the general name here explain each parties sense? When we are for one sort of Bishops, and against another? And is it not such fraud as souls should not be abused by, to refuse wilfully to define the Episcopacy that he meaneth, and then plead that all should understand him? And why is it not as much ignorance in him not to understand me, as in me not to understand him, when I use distinct explication, which he obstinately refuseth?