A27035:573
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.
7. How can they be Schismatics for disobeying them that are not their Governors.
7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours.
8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent? If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them? yea and declare their own dissent, as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy, yea and their chosen representatives? Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves?
9. You unhappily err with Hooker in your popular Politics, if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives, or that as such they make them. Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rulers or Legislators, and not merely as if we made the Laws by them.
9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks, if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives, or that as such they make them. Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators, and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them.