A26859:240
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.
4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane ⟨p. 41⟩Laws and Rules, yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean: for else, 1. I am of the same National Church that you are; yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you, and such as you, I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am. 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do (at least) 3. But then it can be but sincere (not perfect) Obedience to God's Laws and Rules, which must prove one to be of this Church; or else no Man is of it. And then you must show us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink, or a Ceremony, or Liturgic Form, or Diocesan order, do cut one off from that Church. If yea, than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it? which we fear.
4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane ⟨p. 41⟩Laws and Rules, yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean: for else, 1. I am of the same National Church that you are; yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you, and such as you, I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am. 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do (at least) 3. But then it can be but sincere (not perfect) Obedience to God's Laws and Rules, which must prove one to be of this Church; or else no Man is of it. And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink, or a Ceremony, or Liturgick Form, or Diocesan order, do cut one off from that Church. If yea, than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it? which we fear.
But supposing that you mean Humane Laws. 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church? If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse, the Christians that I have read and conversed with, think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore; why then should they be in the Definition, and only they?