A26965:841
The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things…
The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things in which they are misunderstood written to reconcile and pacify such as by mistaking them hinder love and concord / by Richard Baxter.The nonconformists plea for peace, or, An account of their judgment in certain things in which they are misunderstood written to reconcile and pacifie such as by mistaking them hinder love and concord / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Benj. Alsop, 1679
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.
But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supreme Order: Nay, thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governors of the Bishops while they make Canons for them. 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy, Presbyters might join with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors, and such like, they decried it as Presbytery, and call us Presbyterians ever since: And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supreme Government it self, which obligeth all the Nation, how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians, which they so abhor?
But the far greater part of the Convocation are not of the Supream Order: Nay, thus the Presbyters should be partly the chief Governours of the Bishops while they make Canons for them. 3. When we did but motion that according to Arch-Bishop Ushers form of the Primitive Episcopacy, Presbyters might joyn with the Bishops in proper executive Church-government instead of Lay-Chancellors, and such like, they decryed it as Presbytery, and call us Presbyterians ever since: And if they say that the Presbyters have so great a part in the Supream Government it self, which obligeth all the Nation, how much more would they be themselves Presbyterians, which they so abhor?
§ 44. Having oft said that we desire Christian Kingdoms as the great blessing of the world, we mean not either that 1. All in a Kingdom should be forced to be baptized, or profess themselves ⟨p. 300⟩Christians, whether they are so or not: For lying will not save men, nor please God; and even the Papists are against this: 2. Nor that all should be supposed to be Christians that are in the Kingdom. But that the Kings be Christians, and the Laws countenance Christianity, and the most or ruling part of the Kingdom be Christians, and all just endeavours used to make all the rest so: The Ancient Churches continued them Catechumens till they were fit for Baptism; and though they were for Infant-Baptism, they compelled none to be baptized in Infancy, or at Age, but left it to free choice. They baptized but twice a year ordinarily. They kept many offenders many years from communion. And if Crabs Roman Council sub silvest be true, they at Rome admitted not penitents till forty years (understand it as you see cause:) The true Elibertine Canons kept many out so many years, and many till death, and many absolutely, as showed that they were far from taking all the Nation into the Church. And the Christian Emperors compelled none. It was long before the greatest part of the Empire were Christians. In the days of Valens, the Bishops were some of them banished into places that had few Christians, if any. In France it self, even in St. Martin's days, the Christians of his flock were not the most, but he wrought miracles to convince the Heathens that raged against Christianity, where he dwelt, &c.