A True and Perfect Copy of the Whole DISPUTATION AT THE SAVOY, That was managed by the Episcopal Divines, AS OPPONENTS, To prove that there is nothing sinful in the LITURGY.  
Published to make intelligible the Fragment already published by the Lord Bishop of Worcester, under the hands of Dr. Pierson, and Dr. Guning; and so much of his Lordship's Book against Mr. Baxter, as concerneth that Disputation.  
Printed in the year 1662.   

A True and perfect Copy of the Whole Disputation at the Savoy, that was managed by the Episcopal Divines, as Opponents, to prove that there is nothing sinful in the Liturgy.  
Oppon. 
 MY Assertion is, Nothing contained in the Liturgy is sinful.  
This general Assertion I am ready to make good in all particulars, in which our Brethren shall think fit to charge the Liturgy with sinfulness.  
And because our Brethren have as yet by way of Disputation, charged no other part of it with the imputation of sinfulness, but that which concerneth kneeling at the Communion; therefore my first Assertion as to that particular is this,  
The Command contained in the Liturgy concerning kneeling at the Communion, is not sinful.  
This Truth I am ready to prove by several Arguments.  
First, This only command [The Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people in their hands kneeling] is not sinful.  
The Command contained in the Liturgy concerning kneeling at the Communion is this only command [the Minister, etc.]  
Ergo, 
 The Command contained in the Liturgy, concerning kneeling at the Communion, is not sinful.  
Resp. Neg. Major.  
Op. Prob. Major.  
That Command which commandeth only an Act in itself lawful, is not sinful.  
This only Command [the Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people in their hands kneeling] commandeth only an Act in itself lawful; Ergo,  
This only command [the Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people in their hands kneeling] is not sinful.  
Resp. Negatur Major & Minor.  
Op. Prob. Major.  
That Command which commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, or Circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.  
That Command which commands only an Act in itself lawful, commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful: Ergo, 
 That Command which commandeth only an Act in itself lawful, is not sinful.  
Resp. 

1. We deny the Major; and (for brevity) give a double reason of our denial; one is, because that may be a sin per Accidens, which is not so in itself, and may be unlawfully commanded, though that Accident be not in the Command. 

Another is, that it may be commanded under an unjust penalty.    
2. We deny the Minor, for both the same reasons.    
Op. Prob. Minor.  
The delivery of the Communion to persons kneeling is an Act in itself lawful.  
This only Command [the Minister shall deliver the Communion to the people in their hands kneeling] commandeth only the deliver of the Communion to persons kneeling.  
Ergo▪ This only Command [the Minister, etc.] commandeth only an Act in itself lawful.  
Resp. We distinguish of Delivering to persons kneeling it signifieth either exclusively (to those and no other) or not exclusively to other. In the first sense we deny the Major, in the second sense we deny the Minor.  
Op. You deny both our Propositions, for two Reasons, both the same; we make good both our Propositions, notwithstanding both your Reasons.  
The Major first.  
That Command which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly, or per Accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, is not sinful.  
That Command which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, or Circumstance unlawful, commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance, whence directly or per Accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against.  
Ergo, 
 That Command, which commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.  
Resp. 1. The Proposition denied is not in the Conclusion.  
The Major is denied, because the first Act commanded may be per accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other Act or Circumstance commanded, be such.  
Op. The Minor next.  
That Command, which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly, or per Accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against; commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful.  
That Command, which commands only an Act in itself lawful, commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly, or per Accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against.  
Ergo, 
 That Command, which commands only an Act in itself lawful, commands an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act or Circumstance unlawful.  
Op. We prove our Major, notwithstanding your Reason alleged.  
That Command which hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an Act per Accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty, is not sinful, notwithstanding your Reason alleged.  
That Command, which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, 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 unlawful, nor of commanding an Act under an unjust penalty.  
Ergo, 
 That Command, which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and no other Act, whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any Circumstance whence directly, or per Accidens any sin is consequent, which the Commander ought to provide against, is not sinful, notwithstanding your Reason alleged.  
Resp. The Minor is denied upon the same Reasons, which you do nothing to remove; such a Command hath not in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a Command, because though no other Act be commanded, whereby an unjust penalty is enjoined, yet still the first Act may be commanded sub poena injustâ And though no other Act, or Circumstance be commanded, that is a sin per Accidens, yet the first Act itself commanded, may be a sin per Accidens.  
Op. Either our Minor is true, notwithstanding your Reason, or else the first Act may be a Command commanding an unjust punishment, and be an Act lawful, or the first Act itself being lawful in itself, and all Circumstances, may yet be a sin per Accidens, against which the Commander ought to provide.  
Posterius utrumque falsum, both the latter Members are false.  
Ergo prius verum, therefore the first is true.  
Resp. 

1. Neg. Major; Because 1. The subject is changed; you were to have spoken of the first Act commanded, and you speak of the first Act commanding, in the first Member; you should have said [else the first Act may be commanded sub poenâ injustâ, and yet be in itself lawful which is true.  
2. Because in the second Member, where you should have spoken only of the commanded Circumstances of the Act, you now speak of all its Circumstances, whether commanded, or not.  
3. We undertook not to give you all our Reasons, the Minor may be false upon many other Reasons.    
And were your Major reduced in the points excepted against, we should deny the Minor as to both Members.  
And we should add to our Reasons,  

1. That Command, which commandeth an Act in itself lawful, and only such, may yet be sinful privatively, by omission of some necessary part, some Mode, or Circumstance.  
2. It may sinfully restrain, though it sinfully command not.  
3. It may be sinful, in modis, commanding, that universally, or indefinitely, or particularly, or singularly, that should be otherwise; though in the Circumstances (properly so called) of the Act, nothing were commanded that is sinful.  
4. It may through culpable ignorance be applied to undue Subjects, who are not Circumstances, as if a people that have the Plague be commanded to keep Assemblies for Worship; the Lawgiver being culpably ignorant that they had the Plague. Many more Reasons may be given.   
Op. We make good our Major, by showing that the Subject is not changed: thus,  
If whensoever the first Act is commanded sub poenâ injustâ, and no other Act is commanded, whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined (which were your words) the first Act commanding, must command an unjust punishment (which were ours) then we have not changed the Subject.  
But the Antecedent is true, therefore the consequent.  
FINIS.