A27035:166
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.
CHAP. III. The beginning of the Doctors unreasonable Accusations examined: His stating of the Case of Separation.
§ 1. This much instead of an intelligible stating of our Controversy he giveth us, Page 2. [By separation we mean nothing else, but withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and joining with Separate Congregations, for greater purity of worship, and better means of Edification.] And may we be seen by this, that we understand the difference.
§ 1. THis much instead of an intelligible stating of our Controversie he giveth us, Page 2. [By separation we mean nothing else, but withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church, and joyning with Separate Congregations, for greater purity of worship, and better means of Edification.] And may we be sene by this, that we understand the difference.
1. Whether by [Our Church] he meant the Parochial Church, (and if so, whether some or all) or the Diocesan Church; or the Provincial, or the National, or all I know not. But I know well, that some withdraw from some Parish Churches which join with others. And some think they withdraw not from the Diocesan or Provincial, if they communicate with any one Parish Church in the Diocese: And some renounce the Diocesan Church, which constantly join with the Parochial: And for the National Church, who can tell whether we have Communion with it, till we know what they mean by it? Indeed in the latter part, (after the long dispute) he condescendeth beyond expectation to explain that term; But its so as plainly to deny that there is any such thing as a Church of England in a Political sense, that hath any constitutive Regent part: But even there so late he maketh it not possible to us to know, whether we be members of the Church or not: For he maketh it to be but all the Christians and Churches in the Kingdom joined by consent expressed by their Representatives in Parliament, under the same civil Government and Rules of Religion (Doctrine, and Worship, and Government) 1. As it is a Christian Kingdom, we are sure, that we are members of it. 2. As it is all the Churches of the Kingdom consenting to the Scriptures, yea, and to Articles of Doctrine, and all that Christ or his Apostles taught, we are sure that we withdraw not from it: 3. But if every Chancellor, Dean, Commissary Surrogate &c. Or every form or word or Ceremony be essential to their Church, we cannot tell who is of it and who not? Or really whether any reject not some one form, word or office? If every such thing be not essential, he never in all the book tells us what is, or how to know it, or who is of it.