A80640:549
The way of Congregational churches cleared in two treatises. In the former, from the…
The way of Congregational churches cleared in two treatises. In the former, from the historical aspersions of Mr. Robert Baylie, in his book, called, A dissuasive from the errors of the time. In the latter, from some contradictions of Vindicæ Clavium : and from, some mis-constructions of learned Mr. Rutherford in his book entitled The due right of presbyteries. / By Mr. John Cotton, sometime preacher at Boston in Lincoln-shire, and now teacher of the Church at Boston, in New-England.The way of Congregational churches cleared in two treatises. In the former, from the historical aspersions of Mr. Robert Baylie, in his book, called, A disswasive from the errors of the time. In the latter, from some contradictions of Vindicæ Clavium : and from, some mis-constructions of learned Mr. Rutherford in his book intituled The due right of presbyteries. / By Mr. John Cotton, sometime preacher at Boston in Lincoln-shire, and now teacher of the Church at Boston, in New-England.
London: printed by Matthew Simmons for John Bellamie, 1648
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.
First that the Church of Believers destitute of Officers, hath received some part of the Power of the Keys: as Power to receive Members, to elect Officers, and to do such other Church Acts, as do not require Office-Rule, or Office-Power.
First that the Church of Believers destitute of Officers, hath received some part of the Power of the Keyes: as Power to receive Members, to elect Officers, and to do such other Church Acts, as do not require Office-Rule, or Office-Power.
Secondly, that the Church of Believers, though for the present destitute of Officers, hath in it a Radical or Virtual Power, whereby it may call forth such Officers, as may Administer all those Acts of office Rule, or Power, which of it self without them, it could not exercise.
Against these two Assertions, I do not find any thing in his distinctions or conclusions, or Arguments which doth prevail with me to depart from them, as indeed he doth not directly so much dispute against these conclusions which we hold, as against that question (which himself by mistake gathered from the Proposition) which we hold not.