A27035:289
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.
Sect. 18. The same I say of Parker and Gifford, and I again tell him that he may name many more; Hildersham, Paget, Aim, &c. I am of their judgment in their opposition to the Brownists; but it is a notorious untruth (pag. 33.) that the force of all the Non-Conformists reasonings against Separation, lay in two Suppositions. 1. That nothing could justify Separation from our Church, but such corruptions which overthrew the being and constitution of it, &c. And 1. It must be remembered that Separation being a word of very many senses, they held indeed that [none ought to separate from a Church accusing it to be none, but for that which proved it to be none.] 2. But did they deny that which all the Christian World confesseth? viz. 1. What if our English Divines gathered by Bishop Hall against Burton, be in the right, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, as a Thief is a true man, (though I think otherwise) must not such Bishops or Conformists therefore separate from them?
Sect. 18. The same I say of Parker and Gifford, and I again tell him that he may name many more; Hildersham, Paget, Ame, &c. I am of their judgment in their opposition to the Brownists; but it is a notorious untruth (pag. 33.) that the force of all the Non-Conformists reasonings against Separation, lay in two Suppositions. 1. That nothing could justifie Separation from our Church, but such corruptions which overthrew the being and constitution of it, &c. And 1. It must be remembred that Separation being a word of very many sences, they held indeed that [none ought to separate from a Church accusing it to be none, but for that which proved it to be none.] 2. But did they deny that which all the Christian World confesseth? viz. 1. What if our English Divines gathered by Bishop Hall against Burton, be in the right, that the Church of Rome is a true Church, as a Thief is a true man, (though I think otherwise) must not such Bishops or Conformists therefore separate from them?
2. What if a Church impose some Lye, false Oath, or Subscription, or some actual Sin in Worship, as a condition sine qua non of her Communion; is it not lawful to separate into better Assemblies?