A27035:556
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 8: What the National Church of England is?
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.
4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversy, from the necessity of a Regent head, to the necessity of his visibility? As if our question had not been, Which is the Regent part of the Church of England? but whether it must be visible? Is this edifying?
4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie, from the necessity of a Regent head, to the necessity of his visibility? As if our question had not been, Which is the Regent part of the Church of England? but whether it must be visible? Is this edifying?
5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible. 1. In its parts and members on earth, and their profession. 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth; 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws; 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven; as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects; 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World. Thus far and no further (save as seen extraordinarily to Paul, Stephen, &c.) is the Universal Head Visible. And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church▪ and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it? Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously.
§. 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope? Why, first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny? or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to? And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope? Will he turn Papist if this be proved, ⟨p. 119⟩and the Christian World be not deceived? Is this our Champion against Popery now? I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion? But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it, and therefore thither refer the Reader. Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying, 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself, 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it. 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts. Christians will reject me for the former, and Politicians deride me if I hold the last.