A26859:302
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.
XXIV. Is it Schism, or Sinful Separation, to Disobey a Command about Religion, which no Man hath true Authority to Give? Authority is the Objectum Formale of Obedience; and where there is no Authority, there is no Disobedience, in a formal Sense, or privative. Most Politics say, That Princes have no Authority against the Common Good: All Power of Princes and Pastors is of God, and is for Edification, and not for Destruction. God giveth no Power against Himself, or his Laws, nor the Souls of Men. If the King should Command me to Marry a Wife, whom I know to be intolerably unmeet for me; or to Feed my self, and Family with Food, which I find to be against our Health; or to use a Physician, whose Ignorance or Negligence, or Untrustiness, would endanger my Life: I am ⟨p. 56⟩not bound to Obey him, both because it is a Matter that is without the Verge of his Governing Authority, and because it is against the End of Government. Regal Power destroyeth not Family-Power, nor Personal Interest and Self-Government: No Man hath Power to Destroy or Endanger the Souls of Men, nor forbid them seeking their own Edification and Salvation. I Repeat Bishop Bilson's Words, p. 236. of Subjection: [Princes have no Right to Call or Confirm Preachers; but to Receive such as be Sent of God, and give them Liberty for their Preaching, and Security for their Persons. And if Princes Refuse so to do, God's Labourers must go forward with that which is Commanded them from Heaven: Not by Disturbing Princes from their Thrones, nor Invading their Realms, as your Father doth, and defendeth he may do; but by mildly Submitting themselves to the Powers on Earth, and meekly Suffering for the Defence of the Truth, what they shall Inflict.—Pag. 399. The Election of Bishops in those Days, belonged to the People, and not to the Prince: And though by plain Force, he placed Lucius there; yet might the People lawfully Reject him as no Bishop, and cleave to Peter, their Right Pastor.] On this, I further ask,
XXIV. Is it Schism, or Sinful Separation, to Disobey a Command about Religion, which no Man hath true Authority to Give? Authority is the Objectum Formale of Obedience; and where there is no Authority, there is no Disobedience, in a formal Sense, or privative. Most Politicks say, That Princes have no Authority against the Common Good: All Power of Princes and Pastors is of God, and is for Edification, and not for Destruction. God giveth no Power against Himself, or his Laws, nor the Souls of Men. If the King should Command me to Marry a Wife, whom I know to be intolerably unmeet for me; or to Feed my self, and Family with Food, which I find to be against our Health; or to use a Physician, whose Ignorance or Negligence, or Untrustiness, would endanger my Life: I am