A27035:103
A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and…
A second true defence of the mere nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease public worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.A second true defence of the meer nonconformists against the untrue accusations, reasonings, and history of Dr. Edward Stillingfleet ... clearly proving that it is (not sin but) duty 1. not wilfully to commit the many sins of conformity, 2. not sacrilegiously to forsake the preaching of the Gospel, 3. not to cease publick worshipping of God, 4. to use needful pastoral helps for salvation ... / written by Richard Baxter ... ; with some notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and impartial Protestant, and Dr. L. Moulins character.
London: printed for Nevil Simons, 1681
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.
Page 325. I do say it now; and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, who ever they were, who first made the Separation. But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only, but of causal Separation. For (as I said before) the Schism is theirs, whose the cause of it is: and he makes the Separation, that gives the first just cause of it; not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A. C. cannot deny it, for he says it is most true.
Page 325. I do say it now; and most true it is, That it was ill done of those, who e're they were, who first made the Separation. But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only, but of causal Separation. For (as I said before) the Schism is theirs, whose the cause of it is: and he makes the Separation, that gives the first just cause of it; not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding. And this is so evident a Truth, that A. C. cannot deny it, for he says it is most true.
That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversy concerning Schism; the upshot of which, is, that it is agreed between both parties, that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism, but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it.
That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism; the upshot of which, is, that it is agreed between both parties, that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism, but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it.
Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church, but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies; for Separation is a violation of some Union: Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches, they do not separate from the whose, because those things, which one separates from those particular Churches for, are not such, as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholic Church. This must be somewhat further explained. There are two things considerable in all particular Churches; those things which belong to it as a Church, and those things which belong to it as a particular Church. Those things which belong to it as a Church, are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches, which taken together make up the Catholic Church: