Imágenes de páginas
PDF
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

debated wag k Concerning a command of lawful Superiors, “ what was fufficient towards its being a lawful command ?" This following proposition was brought by the conforming party:

« That command which commands an act in itfelf lawful, " and no other act or circumstance unlawful, is not finful.”

Mr. Baxter denied it for two reasons, which he gave in with his own hand in writing thus: One was, " Because that may “ be a fin per accidens, which is not fo in itself; and may be un“ lawfully commanded, though that accidene be nor in the com• mand." Another was, “That it may be commanded under “ an unjuft penalty."

Again, this propofition being brought by the Conformists, " That command which commandeth an act in itfelt lawful, " and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor “ any circumstance whence per accidens any fin is confequent " which the commander ought to provide against, is not finful.”.

Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason, then given in with his own hand in writing, thus: “Because the first act commanded “ may be per accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an un“ just penalty, though no other act or circumstance command«ed be such."

Again, this proposition being brought by the Conformists, " 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 finiscona, , “ fequent, 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.” Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same reafons.

Peter GUNNING .
JOHN PEARSON b.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« AnteriorContinuar »