A26859:159
Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries…
Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denieth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendered, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries necessary for the understanding of his accusation, II. a reply to his letter which denyeth a solution, III. an answer to his printed sermon : humbly tendred, I. to himself, II. to the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the court of aldermen, III. to the readers of his accusation, the forum where we are accused.
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1680
Letter: To the Reverend Dr. Edward Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Pauls, &c.
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.
2. We that are accused by you do not say that [we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely:] viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms, or their imposing Power, we never denied this difference. But we say, [in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles,] as distinct from the Form of Government, and imposed Abuses, we agree. And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church, that yet held, only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Universal Church, and would take none that confess it not, for Christians, were it a Sin to separate from that Church?
2. We that are accused by you do not say that [we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely:] viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms, or their imposing Power, we never denied this difference. But we say, [in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles,] as distinct from the Form of Government, and imposed Abuses, we agree. And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church, that yet held, only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniversal Church, and would take none that confess it not, for Christians, were it a Sin to separate from that Church?
3. Suppose that Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and you, and make themselves our Pastors against our wills, is it unlawful to separate from them, though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worship? And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right, which for 700 yea 1000 years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election, and the Peoples Election or Consent. I need not tell you how far this will reach.
4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worship will not receive you, unless you will deliberately profess or subscribe an Untruth, or covenant against some Duty, or commit a known Sin; is it intolerable for you rather to separate from them than to sin? And must we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do?