A27035:458
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
AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS, &c. › Chapter 7: The Reply to his Third Part: The beginning.
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. VII. The Reply to his Third Part: The beginning.
Sect. 1. IN his third Part I first find my self accused p. 242, &c. And that is not only by insisting on a false accusation of my words, but adding a confutation of himself, as if he discerned not that he did it. In Treat. of Concord I say, [If it holdeth that God instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches, as for present Communion, then none of the rest instituted by man may deprive them of their privileges granted by Christ.] I put it but with an (If it be so) because I told them my own doubt of it. After I say, [To devise new species of Churches without Gods Authority, and impose them on the World; yea in his name, and call all Dissenters Schismatics, is worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies and Liturgies.] And can any Christian deny either of these? But he saith, [This supposeth Congregational Churches to be so much the institution of Christ, that any constitution above these is unlawful and unsupportable:] which is more than the Independent Brethren do assert. And is any word of all this true? 1. The Independents much insist on this? I refer him now but to Amesii Medul. de Eccl. Minist. 2. Do the words suppose that which is plainly excepted in them? If it were granted. 1. That the Congregational only are so instituted. 2. And that others are not set over them by God, 3. And yet are obtruded in his name, without his authority. 4. And all Dissenters called Schismatics,] then I say they are unlawful. 5. To confute himself plainly he confesseth that I say, The question is not whether the Archbishops should be over the particular Churches, as Successors to the Apostolical and General Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office. Nor whether Patriarchs, Diocesans, Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King, exercising Magistracy be lawful.] And yet he saith that I suppose the contrary. He next pretends to give my Reasons: And the chief is, because it overthroweth the species of Gods making; when I only say, That which overthroweth it is unlawful; which is not the Archbishops that are over the lower Bishops, but those that put them all down, and governed the Carcasses of the mortified particular Churches as the lowest Bishops of many score or hundred such as themselves. And he saith I am for the full exercise of Discipline within the particular Church; while he confessed I spake not against Archbishops.