A27035:107
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.
Though they did, we separate not from them as Catholic, but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches.
Though they did, we separate not from them as Catholick, but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches.
Pag. 336. To rectify such gross mistakes as these are for the future, you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken always imports something criminal in it, and there can be no just cause for a sin; But besides that there is that (which if you understand it) you would call the materiality of it, which is the separation of one part of the Church from another. Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it, becomes lawful or unlawful, that is, as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary, for separation is not lawful but when it is necessary; Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances, there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it, till all those reasons and circumstances be duly examined, and if there be no sufficient grounds, for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation; If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation, but it can be no Schism. And because the union of the Catholic Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths, therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholic Church, but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism; it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose belief is necessary to Salvation. And whosoever doth so, thereby makes himself no member of the Church, because the Church subsists on the belief of fundamental truths. But in all such cases wherein a division may be made, and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church, the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it. For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing ⟨p. 9⟩But what is just and reasonable: And it being possible on the other side, that, a Church, calling her self Catholic, may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice, as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions, but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her, it is necessary, where there is a manifest separation, to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it; and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause, which is pleaded for it.