A26924:121
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated…
The English nonconformity as under King Charles II and King James II truly stated and argued by Richard Baxter ; who earnestly beseecheth rulers and clergy not to divide and destroy the land and cast their own souls on the dreadful guilt and punishment of national perjury ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1689
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.
L. How prove you that our Bishops intend any more, when they say, it is only to satisfy the Law, that you may be capable in England.
L. How prove you that our Bishops intend any more, when they say, it is only to satisfie the Law, that you may be capable in England.
M. 1. That it is not a mere relation to some particular cure that they mean, is undeniable: 1. Because they call that by the name of Institution and Induction, and not of Ordination. 2. Because they never ordain any over and over upon removals. 3. Because the words of Ordination in the Book tell it us. 2. That they do it not as a Repetition of the same valid Ordination is past doubt. 1. Because the same repeated by the same men will not serve. 2. It is to be done, again ten or twenty years after the first. 3. He is to be fined in an hundred pound that administereth the Sacrament without it. 4. He is taken for no true Minister without it, which cannot be true of a bare repetition of words: No reasonable men would lay so much on that. 3. It is undeniable that they take men for unordained, and no Ministers till they ordain them: 1. Because they all disown reordaining; they know that the Canons called the Apostles, and the whole ancient and later Church condemn it as like Anabaptistry; and no one Bishop in England will not renounce it: Therefore its certain that they take the first Ordination for null. 2. And they have so declared their judgment in many words and writings, and in the Act of Uniformity, it is plainly intimated in the penalty.
M. 1. That it is not a meer relation to some particular cure that they mean, is undenyable: 1. Because they call that by the name of Institution and Induction, and not of Ordination. 2. Because they never ordain any over and over upon removals. 3. Because the words of Ordination in the Book tell it us. 2. That they do it not as a Repetition of the same valid Ordination is past doubt. 1. Because the same repeated by the same men will not serve. 2. It is to be done, again ten or twenty years after the first. 3. He is to be fined in an hundred pound that administreth the Sacrament without it. 4. He is taken for no true Minister without it, which cannot be true of a bare repetition of words: No reasonable men would lay so much on that. 3. It is undeniable that they take men for unordained, and no Ministers till they ordain them: 1. Because they all disown reordaining; they know that the Canons called the Apostles, and the whole antient and later Church condemn it as like Anabaptistry; and no one Bishop in England will not renounce it: Therefore its certain that they take the first Ordination for null. 2. And they have so declared their judgment in many words and writings, and in the Act of Uniformity, it is plainly intimated in the penalty.