A27035:857
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.
The sin lieth in arrogating Christs prerogative, and accusing his Laws of insufficiency. If Christ (by his act and spirit) had not separated one day in seven for the Commemoration of his Resurrection, ⟨p. 156⟩he had not told us that this is his own work as Legislator. But now he hath separated one day, if man will make a Law that another day also of the week shall be separated to the same use, it is as much as to say, 1. We have authority to make such Laws as Christ made. 2. And to amend his Law by this addition. For if it had been fit to be made, there was the same reason then for Christ to have separated two days.
The sin lyeth in arrogating Christs prerogative, and accusing his Laws of insufficiency. If Christ (by his act and spirit) had not separated one day in seven for the Commemoration of his Resurrection, ⟨p. 156⟩he had not told us that this is his own work as Legislator. But now he hath separated one day, if man will make a Law that another day also of the week shall be separated to the same use, it is as much as to say, 1. We have authority to make such Laws as Christ made. 2. And to amend his Law by this addition. For if it had been fit to be made, there was the same reason then for Christ to have separated two days.
So is it in this case. If Christ had made no Sacraments, we might more have doubted whether he took it for his proper work: But where he hath made two, to make more of the same nature, to me seemeth too bold: He could have made the Sacrament of the dedicating Cross if he would have had it. If our Bishops should command us to say we believe Christs resurrection, or to stand up to signify it, to avoid confused noise, we refuse it not: But if they would make a Law that none shall be Christened that will not let the Priest put him into a Coffin or Grave and take him out again to represent the Resurrection, I think it safest to deny obedience to such arrogant usurpation.