A26911:446
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter…
The defence of the nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of the matter of their nonconformity against Mr. J. Cheney's answer called The conforming nonconformist, and The nonconforming conformist : to which is added the second part in answer to Mr. Cheney's Five undertakings / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Benjamin Alsop, 1680
A DEFENCE OF THE NON-CONFORMIST'S Plea for Peace, AGAINST Mr. J. CH… › Chapter 30
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.
Ans. What reason did you think we have in such an Historical Assertion, to believe your bare word? In what Synod did they declare it? Why did you neither name the Bishops, nor the Time, or Place, or Witness, by which it might be proved ⟨p. 120⟩the common sense? But could you think this should convince me, that know it to be false?
§ 5. You tell us, pag. 119. [If it were a part of Assent and Consent, that Ordination by good and substantial Presbyters were null, it would be a hard point indeed,—to Unchurch Churches, and Unbaptize the Baptized, and plead the cause of Satan, the Pope, and all Malignants of the Ministry, in the Name of Christ.
Ans. Excuse us then for not Conforming. I before gave you this Proof, that it is the sense of the Law-makers, or Bishops: They that abhor Reordination (or twice ordaining to the Priesthood) and yet require those to be ordained by Bishops, who were before ordained by Presbyters, must be judged to hold the said Ordination by Presbyters to be null.— But, &c. Ergo.