A27035:794
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.
2. The true case Socrates (cited) thus describeth: The people were the choosers: They were for Proclus; but some adversaries objected a Canon, that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another, and he being a Bishop already they could not have him: Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon; but the people were fain to take Maximianus. The Emperor being for dispensing with that Canon, and gratifying the people that had before declared themselves for Proclus, did not himself bring him in, but got Celestine Bishop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexand. John Bishop of Antioch and Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica to satisfy them to do it; and so got Proclus in. What is this against the peoples right? These be all the Doctor's instances on this point.
2. The true case Socrates (cited) thus describeth: The people were the chusers: They were for Proclus; but some adversaries objected a Canon, that a Bishop might not be removed from one Church to another, and he being a Bishop already they could not have him: Socrates pleadeth for the dispensableness of this Canon; but the people were fain to take Maximianus. The Emperour being for dispensing with that Canon, and gratifying the people that had before declared themselves for Proclus, did not himself bring him in, but got Celestine Bishop of Rome to write to Cyril of Alexand. John Bishop of Antioch and Rufus Bishop of Thessalonica to satisfie them to do it; and so got Proclus in. What is this against the peoples right? These be all the Doctor's instances on this point.
§. 45. His 5th note is, [On the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before: ⟨p. 148⟩Because of Princes endowing Churches, the Royal assent was fit,—though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People.]