A27035:745
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.
§. 22. He next instanceth, ex Euseb. l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Bishops in Narcissus place at Jerusalem.
§. 22. He next instanceth, ex Euseb. l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Bishops in Narcissus place at Hierusalem.
Answ. 1. His argument, if any, must be this: Eusebius saith, the ⟨p. 140⟩Bishops Ordained them, not mentioning the peoples consent or choice: Ergo, their consent or choice was not used. How easily might he have known that we would deny the consequence? Doth any of us deny that the Bishops were the Ordainers of Bishops? 2. And even the words of Eusebius confute him, saying, That when Narcissus showed himself again, the brethren (no doubt the Laity) entreated him to enjoy his Bishopric again.
Answ. 1. His argument, if any, must be this: Eusebius saith, the ⟨p. 140⟩Bishops Ordained them, not mentioning the peoples consent or choice: Ergo, their consent or choice was not used. How easily might he have known that we would deny the consequence? Doth any of us deny that the Bishops were the Ordainers of Bishops? 2. And even the words of Eusebius confute him, saying, That when Narcissus shewed himself again, the brethren (no doubt the Laity) intreated him to enjoy his Bishoprick again.
§. 23. His next instance is, [Severus Bishop of Milevis, in his life time appointed his successor, acquainting only the Clergy with it: And Augustine prevented the peoples disturbance and got them to receive him.]