A vindication of the Animadversions on Fiat lux

Again, you suppose the Law of Christ to be rejected, and therefore say that his Person may be so also. But this contains an application of the general Thesis unto your particular case, and thereupon the begging of the thing in Question. Our enquiry was general Whither things at first delivered by any Persons that preach the Gospel may not be rejected without any impeachment of the Authority of the Gospel it self? Here, that you may insinuate that to be the case between you and us, you suppose the things rejected to be the Law of Christ, when indeed they are things rejected because they are contrary to the Law of Christ, and so affirmed in the Assertion, which you seek to oppose. For nothing may be rejected by the Commission of Christ, but what is contrary to his Law. The truth is, he that rejects the Law of Christ as it is his, needs no other inducement to reject his Person; for he hath done it already in the rejection of his Law: but yet it may not be granted, though it belong not unto our present discourse, that every one that rejects any part of the Law of Christ, must therefore be in a propensity to reject Christ himself, provided that he do it only because he doth not believe it to be any part of his Law. For whilst a man abides firm and constant in his faith in Christ and love unto him, with a resolution to submit himself to his whole Word, Law, and Institutions, his misapprehensions of this or that particular in them, is no ⟨p. 334⟩impeachment of his faith, or Love. Of the same importance is that which you add, namely, Did not the Jews by pretence of their love to the immortal God, whom their forefathers served, reject the whole Gospel at once? and why may not we possibly by piece meal? You do only cavil at the expression I used, of doing the thing mentioned for the love of Christ, but I used it not alone, as knowing how casie a thing it was to pretend it, and how unwarrantable a ground of any actings in Religion such a pretence would prove; wherefore I added unto it, his Commission, that is his Word. And so I desire to know of you whither the Jews out of love to God and by the direction of his word did reject the Gospel or no. This you must assert if you intend by this instance to oppose my assertion.

Again, you suppose the Law of Christ to be rejected, and therefore say that his Person may be so also. But this contains an application of the general Thesis unto your particular case, and thereupon the begging of the thing in Question. Our enquiry was general Whither things at first delivered by any Persons that preach the Gospel may not be rejected without any impeachment of the Authority of the Gospel it self? Here, that you may insinuate that to be the case between you and us, you suppose the things rejected to be the Law of Christ, when indeed they are things rejected because they are contrary to the Law of Christ, and so affirmed in the Assertion, which you seek to oppose. For nothing may be rejected by the Commission of Christ, but what is contrary to his Law. The truth is, he that rejects the Law of Christ as it is his, needs no other inducement to reject his Person; for he hath done it already in the rejection of his Law: but yet it may not be granted, though it belong not unto our present discourse, that every one that rejects any part of the Law of Christ, must therefore be in a propensity to reject Christ himself, provided that he do it only because he doth not believe it to be any part of his Law. For whilest a man abides firm and constant in his faith in Christ and love unto him, with a resolution to submit himself to his whole Word, Law, and Institutions, his misapprehensions of this or that particular in them, is no