What then does Baxter quarrel about? That our Bishops take a humbler
title than they have a right to claim;--that being in fact Archbishops,
they are for the most part content to be styled as one of the brethren!
Ib. p. 185.
I say again, No Church, no Christ; for no body, no head; and if no
Christ then, there is no Christ now.
Baxter here forgets his own mystical regenerated Church. If he mean
this, it is nothing to the argument in question; if not, then he must
assert the monstrous absurdity of, No unregenerate Church, no Christ.
Ib. p. 188.
Or if they would not yield to this at all, we might have communion
with them as Christians, without acknowledging them for Pastors.
Observe the inconsistency of Baxter. No Pastor, no Church; no Church, no
Christ; and yet he will receive them as Christians: much to his honor as
a Christian, but not much to his credit as a logician.
Ib. p. 189.
We are agreed that as some discovery of consent on both parts (the
pastors and people) is necessary to the being of the members of a
political particular Church: so that the most express declaration of
that consent is the most plain and satisfactory dealing, and most
obliging, and likest to attain the ends.
In our Churches, especially in good livings, there is such an
overflowing fullness of consent on the part of the Pastor as supplies
that of the people altogether; nay, to nullify their declared dissent.
Ib. p.
Pages:
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107