A26859:195
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.
§. 16. Serm. [By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations, which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves, and upon their owning Christianity, incorporated into one Christian Society, under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government.]
Ans. 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire? (as Abyssinia, &c.) 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right? Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did? 3. Christian Societies are of divers species: Do you mean Christian Civil Societies, Kingdoms, free Cities, &c. or Churches? Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same, as the Erastians do? If so, I suppose half the Conformists will be against you, as well as I. At least you must confess, that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church, it is equivocally; and that there is a sort of ⟨p. 32⟩Christian Churches which are of another Constitution. Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church, or that a Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of Regent part, that had the Power of the Keys. Two species of Governors make two species of the Societies, if they are not subordinate, but prime constitutive Parts: But the Prince and the Pastor are two species, well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection. And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church, you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you. 4. And what be the common Ties and Rules of Order which you mean? Are these notifying Terms for a Definition? 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government, and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents. 2. There are Rules made by Contract (such as Grotius thinks Canons are), and Rules made by Governors, which are binding Commands or Laws. 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governors to be enforced by the Sword, and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys. Do you mean all these? Or which of them?