A27035:581
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.
15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial, Diocesan and Provincial Churches in England. Have none of these, have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part? Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico? You dare not say, No. If they are, You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole (by which I bring in the Pope, because you think Christ will not serve the turn:) And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England? And if you deny it to have one Regent part, do you not then either destroy the rest, or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal?
15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial, Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England. Have none of these, have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part? Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico? You dare not say, No. If they are, You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole (by which I bring in the Pope, because you think Christ will not serve the turn:) And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England? And if you deny it to have one Regent part, do you not then either destroy the rest, or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal?
16. I pray you tell us, from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power? If you say from the Bishops, and so Inferiors or Equals may give power, why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops, and generare speciem? If it must come from Superiors, the Church of England hath none such.
16. I pray you tell us, from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power? If you say from the Bishops, and so Inferiours or Equals may give power, why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops, and generare speciem? If it must come from Superiours, the Church of England hath none such.