A26859:370
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.
But I will not be one of those that will fight for man against God; for I know who will overcome. If you can prove that Christ gave your Church authority to pull down the Church Offices and form which he appointed, and set up another, and call it the Churches growth, or emendation, I will obey them.
But I have elsewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form. If the first Church (of Gods making) it was only the universal headed by Christ, and particular Churches for personal Communion, if these made the new forms, tell us who, when, and by what power, and why they may not unmake them, if there be cause: and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child. If you say that Bishops of Parishes did […] by consent in Asia or elsewhere above a thousand years ago, how come we in England to be bound by them? If you say that Princes were the ⟨p. 72⟩makers of the new Church Species. 1. Heathen Princes did it not. 2. The Bishops will give you little thanks, if you grant not that it was done before there were any Christian Princes to do it. 3. One Prince cannot make Laws for another's Country. 4. Prove that ever Christ authorized Princes to change the Constitution of the Churches instituted by him, and make new ones above his form; except making officers for the Circa Sacra or variable accidents. 5. And what Princes do, they have power to undo.
But I have elsewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form. If the first Church (of Gods making) it was only the universal headed by Christ, and particular Churches for personal Communion, if these made the new forms, tell us who, when, and by what power, and why they may not unmake them, if there be cause: and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child. If you say that Bishops of Parishes did 〈…〉 by consent in Asia or elsewhere above a thousand years ago, how come we in England to be bound by them? If you say that Princes were the ⟨p. 72⟩