A26859:73
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
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.
14. Whether there be the same obligation now lying upon Ministers to preach the Gospel, in a Nation where the Gospel is confessed to be truly preached, when they are forbidden to do it by the Laws of the Land; as there was upon the Apostles to preach it first to the World, notwithstanding •he prohibitions of men?
- 1§. 25.
The disparity seems so obvious to me, that I could hardly believe men of understanding would allege the Apostles words to justify their present practises, had I not so often seen it done. But that the old Non-conformists did truly understand the disparity of the case, you may see it in 3 instances in the former Book, which I shall refer you to.1
The disparity seems so obvious to me, that I could hardly believe men of understanding would alledge the Apostles words to justifie their present practises, had I not so often seen it done. But that the old Non-conformists did truly understand the disparity of the case, you may see it in 3 instances in the former Book, which I shall refer you to.1
- 1§. 16.
But you ask one material Question in behalf of the People, viz. Are none of our hearers more competent judges than their Accusers what profiteth their own souls? And is this in your judgment, a tolerable Plea for Separation? then there can be no such thing as an unjustifiable or sinful separation; since the people are left to be their own judges. For where was any separation made but upon such a pretence? And upon this ground the people may leave you to morrow, and go to Doctor O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists, and from them to the Quakers; and still plead that they are more competent judges than their Accusers, what profiteth their own souls.