A27035:350
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.
These are the questions which, as my accuser, (in his Book) he should have handled, had truth been his design. 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done, and here describe, it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists, or mixed ones, as I have done? 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation (or Separation as commonly taken for Schism) be disingenuous▪ and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion.
These are the questions which, as my accuser, (in his Book) he should have handled, had truth been his design. 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done, and here describe, it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists, or mixt ones, as I have done? 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation (or Separation as commonly taken for Schism) be disingenious▪ and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion.
Sect. 6. Three things he saith, p. 94. we cannot deny, 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of th• Doctrine of their Church.
Answ. 1. We distinguish of Separation: There is no reason to separate from you as no Church, or further than we do; there is reason to ⟨p. 64⟩deny our consent, 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation, not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels. 2. To your included Doctrine implied in your Impositions, viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government, yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery, Profaneness, and Schism; there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it. These and such other Doctrines we separate from, so far as to reject them.