A26859:224
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.
And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite, that I must suppose you know it, though you seem to dissemble it, that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be (not the whole Church meeting at one time and place, but) personal, presential Communion in Doctrine, Worship, and Holy Conversation, as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only. Your Parish is associated for such personal presential Communion, and yet they meet not all at once, but some one day, and some another, and some not at all, which is a fault in exercitio, but overthroweth not the being of the Church, while it is personal present Communion which they associate for and profess, and that states the Church-relation. And they meet not all in one place, but some in the Bishop of Ely's Chapel, (and it is pity but you had many more); and yet Chapels of Ease consist with some Obligations on the whole Parish ordinarily, to have per vices sometime personal Communion in the Parish-Church.
And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite, that I must suppose you know it, though you seem to dissemble it, that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be (not the whole Church meeting at one time and place, but) personal, presential Communion in Doctrine, VVorship, and Holy Conversation, as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only. Your Parish is associated for such personal presential Communion, and yet they meet not all at once, but some one day, and some another, and some not at all, which is a fault in exercitio, but overthroweth not the being of the Church, while it is personal present Communion which they associate for and profess, and that states the Church-relation. And they meet not all in one place, but some in the Bishop of Ely's Chappel, (and it is pity but you had many more); and yet Chappels of Ease consist with some Obligations on the whole Parish ordinarily, to have per vices sometime personal Communion in the Parish-Church.
If you would have told us plainly, that Parish-Churches are no Churches, or that God never ordained such single Churches, as are associated for personal Communion in Presence, in Doctrine, Worship, and Conversation, which have their proper Pastors, we should have known what to say to you. But if you deny not such, (which we undertake fully to prove) plainly confess their Constitution, Worth, and Privileges, and we shall readily next debate the Case with you, how far Men may associate these into larger Churches of another species. But still we say, that as Families cease not to be Families, when they are combined into a Village or City; no more do particular Churches lose their Constitution or Administration by being associated into any lawful larger Churches.