A26859:445
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.
§. 63. To pag. 36. I Answer, 1. Your Text is so clear and full a Confutation of your Sermon, that it's hard to know how a mind not strongly prejudiced could have preached such a Sermon, or pleaded for the silencing of so many such Ministers from such a text; Yea, or can need any more to confute you than to read your Text: 1. It is supposed that it was All that had attained to the truth of Christianity that must walk by the same rule. 2. It was a Divine Rule then known. 3. They were to bear with each other in loving Communion while they grew up to more. If this condemn not making and imposing new humane unnecessary Rules, containing that which multitudes of impartial Conscionable men as wise as their Reproachers cannot excuse from much heinous sin, and silencing and excommunicating all that obey them not, and when they forbid them Communion, call them Separatists; I do despair of understanding sense.
§. 63. To pag. 36. I Answer, 1. Your Text is so clear and full a Confutation of your Sermon, that it's hard to know how a mind not strongly prejudiced could have preached such a Sermon, or pleaded for the silencing of so many such Ministers from such a text; Yea, or can need any more to confute you than to read your Text: 1. It is supposed that it was All that had attained to the truth of Christianity that must walk by the same rule. 2. It was a Divine Rule then known. 3. They were to bear with each other in loving Communion while they grew up to more. If this condemn not making and imposing new humane unnecessary Rules, containing that which multitudes of impartial Conscionable men as wise as their Reproachers cannot excuse from much heynous sin, and silencing and excommunicating all that obey them not, and when they forbid them Communion, call them Separatists; I do despair of understanding sence.
And to pag. 37. We come as near you as we can in Conscience; and we know our own Consciences better than you do. But whether you condemn not your selves as Separatists in denying communion where we preach as if you only were the Church, and any that want but your Liturgy were none, Yea when we had the License of the King; unbiased men will be able to discern.