A26859:406
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.
I cannot imagine what you will reply to this? unless you say that, [it is neither the Title, nor the Orthodoxness of Princes, which is necessary to make their Laws the bond of Church unity: but it is the goodness of their Laws: at least that they impose no sin upon us]. Ans. 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin, they were Schismatics that obeyed them not. •. Let that be the rule: who shall be judge whether it be sin or not? If I be a discerner for my self, I have told you how much and great sin I fear, till you are displeased with the intimation: And when you have proved all those particulars named, to be no sins, you have done more than yet is done: And if you think you can or do prove it, must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid, and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying.
I cannot imagine what you will reply to this? unless you say that, [it is neither the Title, nor the Orthodoxness of Princes, which is necessary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity: but it is the goodness of their Laws: at least that they impose no sin upon us]. Ans. 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin, they were Schismaticks that obeyed them not. •. Let that be the rule: who shall be judge whether it be sin or not? If I be a discerner for my self, I have told you how much and great sin I fear, till you are displeased with the intimation: And when you have proved all those particulars named, to be no sins, you have done more than yet is done: And if you think you can or do prove it, must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid, and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying.
§ 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is [they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth.