A26871:65
Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an…
Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an holy and heavenly state of heart and life : lamented, described, detected, and unanswerably [sic] proved to be the devilish nature, and the militia of the devil against God and Christ and the church and kingdoms, and the surest sign of a state of damnation / by Richard Baxter, or, Gildas Salvianus ...Cain and Abel malignity that is, enmity to serious godliness, that is, to an holy and heavenly state of heart and life : lamented, described, detected, and unananswerably [sic] proved to be the devilish nature, and the militia of the devil against God and Christ and the church and kingdoms, and the surest sign of a state of damnation / by Richard Baxter, or, Gildas Salvianus ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
Chapter 1: A Lamentation for the case of the Deluded, Malignant, Militant World.
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 are not they for Monarchy in the state? How come they then to plead for a Sovereign Aristocracy over the Catholic Church, and how come even the French Clergy to be for the power of a Church Parliament above the Pope? I cannot answer that; let the Pope and they debate it.
But are not they for Monarchy in the state? How come they then to plead for a Soveraign Aristocracy over the Catholick Church, and how come even the French Clergy to be for the power of a Church Parliament above the Pope? I cannot answer that; let the Pope and they debate it.
But I wonder that A. Bishop Laud should be for the derivation of all power from the Body, as Richard Hooker is: See Dr. Stillingfleets ⟨p. 36⟩Defence of him p. 544. 545. &c. [No Body collective, whensoever it assembled it self, did ever give more power to the representing body of it, than a binding power upon it self and all particulars; Nor ever did it give this power, otherwise, than with this Reservation in nature, that it would call again and reform, and if need were, abrogate any law or ordinances upon just cause made evident, that the representing Body had failed in trust or truth. And this power no Body collective, Ecclesiastical or Civil, can put out of it self, or give away to a Parliament or Council, or call it what you will, that represents it—The power which a Council hath to order, settle and define differences arising concerning faith, it hath not by any immediate institution of Christ, but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example.] See Dr. Stillingfleets Defence.
I confess that the generality of Politicians and Lawyers, Heathens, Papists and Protestants go much this way, as to Civil Government, and say that the Majestas personalis is in the King or Senate, but the Majestas realis in the Body which giveth the Organical power, and on just cause may take it away. It is no honour to be singular in Politics, and I have said enough of this elsewhere (Christ. Direct. p. 1.) But if it be the Body of the whole Church on Earth that must give Church Officers and Councils their power, and recall it when there is cause, if