Richard Baxters answer to Dr. Edward Stillingfleet's charge of separation containing, I. some queries…

Ans. 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a [Church] is. 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species. There must be more. The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united; and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms; and so is a Christian Kingdom as such; and so is a Provincial Church, and a Diocesan Church, and a particular Parochial Church: yet all these are not of the same species, for they have different terminos in specie. 3. This is a very defective Definition, where 1. [Men] are made the qualified Subject, when it should have been [Christians]. 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned, as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects. 3. They are said to be united in general, without telling us what uniting is meant, whether only by force, command, or consent; whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture (Baptism) as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse, as to the Visible Church. 4. It is said they ⟨p. 36⟩are united [for Order and Government,] as if these were but the Terminus; and so may those by agreement de futuro, that yet have no Government: whereas the Government is the constitutive Form. 5. This Definition leaving out the specific Form and Terminus, maketh an Army, a Navy, a Ship, a company of Christian Merchants, or Corporation, &c. to be a Church: For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government, according to the Rules of the Christian Religion: For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies. These are not the usual ways of defining, nor give me any true notice of your sense. 6. And you make it not intelligible, whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule? and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond, or only as a Rule to some humane Rule? But though the application look this way, yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse, that are [united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion]. If this will serve, those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order, &c. But is not this against those Churches, that take not the Bible, but Canons, or other humane Laws, for the bound of their Church-Union, or their Rule.

Ans. 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a [Church] is. 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species. There must be more. The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united; and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms; and so is a Christian Kingdom as such; and so is a Provincial Church, and a Diocesan Church, and a particular Parochial Church: yet all these are not of the same species, for they have different terminos in specie. 3. This is a very defective Definition, where 1. [Men] are made the qualified Subject, when it should have been [Christians]. 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned, as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects. 3. They are said to be united in general, without telling us what uniting is meant, whether only by force, command, or consent; whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture (Baptism) as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse, as to the Visible Church. 4. It is said they