A26864:525
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression…
Rich. Baxters apology against the modest exceptions of Mr. T. Blake and the digression of Mr. G. Kendall whereunto is added animadversions on a late dissertation of Ludiomæus Colvinus, aliaà Ludovicus Molinæs̳, M. Dr. Oxon, and an admonition of Mr. W. Eyre of Salisbury : with Mr. Crandon's Anatomy for satisfaction of Mr. Caryl.
London: printed by A.M. for Thomas Underhill, 1654
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.
Argu. 19. If the Distribution of the Church into visible and invisible, be but of the subject by divers Adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, then that part, or those members which are merely visible, are indeed no part or members of the Church so distributed, (but are only equivocally called a Church, Christians, Church-Members, &c.) But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
Argu. 19. If the Distribution of the Church into visible and invisible, be but of the subject by divers Adjuncts, and not of a Genus into its Species, then that part, or those members which are meerly visible, are indeed no part or members of the Church so distributed, (but are only equivocally called a Church, Christians, Church-Members, &c.) But the Antecedent is true; therefore.
The Antecedent is not only the common Doctrine of the Reformed Divines against the Papists, but is expressly affirmed by Mr. Blake in this his Book. The consequence is undeniable, in that Adjuncts are no part of the Essence, much less the Form, or the whole Essence; and therefore cannot denominate, (but equivocally) instead of the Essence. Note, that visibile is not the same with visum.
Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment, had coram Deo Right to be there, then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding Garment? If you will help him that was speechless to an answer, and say for him, Lord, he was compelled to come in all thy command; I Reply, He that compelled him by invitation, did not only bid him come, but to come, not only to come in, but to come in as a Guest should, to honour and not disgrace the Feast. At lest it should have been known as implied. It was no unrevealed thing.
Argu. 20. If the man without the wedding Garment, had coram Deo Right to be there, then would not the Lord have challenged him therein with a friend, how camest thou in hither, not having on a wedding Garment? If you will help him that was speechless to an answer, and say for him, Lord, he was compelled to come in al thy command; I Reply, He that compelled him by invitation, did not only bid him come, but to come, not only to come in, but to come in as a Guest should, to honor and not disgrace the Feast. At lest it should have been known as implyed. It was no unrevealed thing.