A26859:188
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.
Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing, […] divers?
Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing, 〈…〉 divers?
Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean? When there are […] many things which may distinguish? 1. Communion in distinct places you take […] ⟨p. 31⟩for Separation. 2. Nor Communion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops. 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes, or Aristocracies in Cities, as such. 4. Nor under distinct Laws (merely as such) of the same Prince. 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents. Why any of these should be called Separation I know not, unless as the word doth signify but Diversity or Distance.
Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean? When there are 〈…〉 many things which may distinguish? 1. Communion in distinct places you take 〈…〉 ⟨p. 31⟩for Separation. 2. Nor Commnion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops. 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes, or Aristocracies in Cities, as such. 4. Nor under distinct Laws (meerly as such) of the same Prince. 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents. Why any of these should be called Separation I know not, unless as the word doth signifie but Diversity or Distance.
Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the same sense as before and after; or Equivocally? If Equivocally, why did you not tell us what you here meant; besides the difference of Subjects: If univocally, then