A26865:870
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II.…
An apology for the nonconformists ministry containing I. the reasons of their preaching, II. an answer to the accusations urged as reasons for the silencing of about 2000 by Bishop Morley ..., III. reasons proving it the duty and interest of the bishops and conformists to endeavour earnestly their restoration : with a postscript upon oral debates with Mr. H. Dodwell, against his reasons for their silence ... : written in 1668 and 1669, for the most of it, and now published as an addition to the defence against Dr. Stillingfleet, and as an account to the silencers of the reasons of our practice / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for T. Parkhurst and D. Newman, 1681
AN APOLOGY FOR THE SILENCED MINISTERS, Especially for their not cea… › Postscript › Section
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 foregoing Reasons of our Accusation are sufficiently answered already.
I. Where it is said that our Calling is dependent on the Bishops! I answer: It is yet lis sub judice, whether such a Prelacy be of God, we mean the English Species (that is, for one man to destroy a thousand, or many hundred Churches, and make them but Parts of one Diocesan Church, and without any Bishop under him, to Rule and exercise the Power of the Keys over that one Church by a Lay-Chancellor, in a secular manner, and deny the Power of the Church-Keys to all the demi-Presbyters)?
If these Diocesans were of God, so is not every one that by worldly power gets possession of the place, being neither chosen by the Clergy or the people, any more than one that forcibly usurpeth the name and dignity: What maketh that man a Bishop over me any more than another man? Had they said the King, I should have reverenced the answer at least (Though the Arians had the same in Constantius and Valens's days): But when they trust not to this, but to their divine right, what is it that is their title? They say, Consecration. I answer, 1. Consecration is but a Ministerial investiture (like Marriage) of one that before had right by election: This they deny, and lay all on Consecration, and not Election. 2. But if so, then if the unjustest claimer be ⟨p. 244⟩Consecrated, he is our Bishop. And then the Consecrators have more power to determine who shall be Bishops than Kings and People. 3. But who be these Consecrators? Are they any Bishops whatever, or some in special above the rest? If any, then any wicked Bishops may make more, and undo the Church? And then, what if three Bishops Consecrate one, and three another, and three another, over one Diocese? Are they all the Bishops of that Diocese? or which? 4. But the Objectors confess that Consecration doth but make one a Bishop without a determinate Church; but to make him the Bishop of this or that Church, humane application is necessary. But, 1. Where find they in Scripture a Bishop made, that was not made the Bishop of a particular Church? I believe that a Minister of Christ in general, and an Evangelist in specie, may be made before he is fixed to any particular Church: But not a Bishop, if Scripture must be the rule. 2. But if he be Consecrated a Bishop, and not my Bishop, (or any other mans) this layeth on me no obligation to obey him. 3. But they are forced at last, to resolve all their power and our duty into Humane will or institution. It is Man that must make him my Bishop: And this they call the application of the power! But by what Act is this application? Is it by Election? or by another Consecration? or how? sure they will say by Election. And doubtless some one must first Elect him to be a Bishop indeterminately? It's strange that men must be Consecrated that no men choose. Then they choose themselves: And then the Consecrators must Consecrate any one that will choose himself to be a Bishop: