A27035:439
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.
Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers, viz, 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers, at least to the people that consent not: But Law and Usurpation are contrary. Answ. 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not: If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper, though some odd persons consent not. He is the Churches Pastor, though not the refusers. 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them, were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples. 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers; many of them have the Churches after-consent, though not their Election. Yea I often said, 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good. 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent. But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation. And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true, and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches, it's an unsatisfactory course to me, to leave it unanswered, and suppose himself in the right. Not only the first 300 years, but even under Constantius, Valens, Theodosius Junior, Zeno, Basiliscus, Anastatius, Philippicus, Justinian, &c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary, keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors; and other Bishops Seats the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice. Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostoms Joannites, in his imperial City were of another mind. Is his Rule true only in England, or in France, Spain, Italy, Muscovy, &c. also, or where, that the Law maketh men true Pastors?
Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers, viz, 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers, at least to the people that consent not: But Law and Usurpation are contrary. Answ. 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not: If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper, though some odd persons consent not. He is the Churches Pastor, though not the refusers. 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them, were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples. 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers; many of them have the Churches after-consent, though not their Election. Yea I often said, 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good. 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent. But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation. And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true, and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches, it's an unsatisfactory course to me, to leave it unanswered, and suppose himself in the right. Not only the first 300 years, but even under Constantius, Valens, Theodosius Junior, Zeno, Basiliscus, Anastatius, Philippicus, Justinian, &c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary, keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors; and other Bishops Seates the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice. Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites, in his imperial City were of another mind. Is his Rule true only in England, or in France, Spain, Italy, Muscovy, &c. also, or where, that the Law maketh men true Pastors?