A27035:443
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. 31. When p. 138, 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Confusions, to deny, 1. that the Kings Nomination of Bishops. 2. and the Patrons of Parish Pastors proveth them no Usurpers, but true Pastors, is he not an unreverend dishonourer of Bishops himself, who maketh them all that for a thousand years held the same that I do, to be the authors of all imaginable Confusion? Is he not unreverend to their Canons? and to antiquity? ⟨p. 92⟩and to the universal Church itself? Whatever in his third part he Cavils against it, he cannot be so strange to Church-history as not to know that they were commonly against him.
Sect. 32. The matter of the next accusation is p. 139, 140. having said Plea p. 41. 42. [If any make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate, imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion, and expelling those that will not so sin] I add [If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin, but also prosecute them with Malice, Imprisonments, Banishment or other Persecution to force them to transgress, this were heinous aggravated Schism.] Ans. And is not this true? or doth his bare repeating it disprove it? Is he a zealous Enemy of Schism that taketh all this for none? I did not steal it out of his defence of Archbishop Laud, but less than this is there made Schism. Yet he tells us that he sets not mans Laws above Gods, nor pleads for Persecution. But lest the repeating of my words should shame the Accuser he hath two handsome devices 1. He puts [complying with them in sin, that is, Conformity,] as refused, instead of [those that will not so sin, in sinful terms of Communion forbidden by God, &c.] 2. He forgeth an addition as mine [and therefore it is no sin to separate from such] when I have no such words, being only there telling what is Schism, and not what is not. I confess it will sound oddly to say [It is Schism not to communicate with those who excommunicate, imprison and banish me by Law, if I will not do that which God forbids, and they make a Condition of my communion.] For I must not sin: And in prison and Banishment under Excommunication they deny me communion. And yet I say not that it's always faultless, For if they do not execute their own Law, in some cases, where public good requireth it, I may best communicate with them as far as they permit me without the imposed sin, till they do execute them. But this excuseth not their Schism.