A27014:77
Sacrilegious desertion of the holy ministry rebuked, and tolerated preaching of the gospel vindicated,…Sacrilegious desertion of the holy ministery rebuked, and tolerated preaching of the gospel vindicated,…
Sacrilegious desertion of the holy ministry rebuked, and tolerated preaching of the gospel vindicated, against the reasonings of a confident questionist, in a book called Toleration not abused; with counsel to the nonconformists, and petition to the pious conformists / by one that is consecrated to the sacred ministry, and is resolved not to be a deserter of it ...Sacrilegious desertion of the holy ministery rebuked, and tolerated preaching of the gospel vindicated, against the reasonings of a confident questionist, in a book called Toleration not abused; with counsil to the nonconformists, and petition to the pious conformists / by one that is consecrated to the sacred ministry, and is resolved not to be a deserter of it ...
London : s.n., 1672
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.
And this One Imperial Church (under one Emperor) is taken to be One Universal Church; as if the Indians, Persians, and all other Christians (even the Abyssinian Empire) had been part of it, and the Orbis Romanus had been Orbis Universalis. 3. And then no man is a Christian that is not baptized into this Papal Church, and made a Subject of the Pope. Tell us what you mean by our Schism from the Church of England? We divide not our selves from the King or Kingdom, or from the particular Churches as concordant in any necessary thing. If it be only that we agree not with the Major Vote in all Subscriptions, Oaths, Discipline or Ceremonies: No more did the Bishops in the Roman Empire, who had various Liturgies; nor Gildas with the Britons, nor Ambrose and Martin with the French and Italian Bishops; nor the Episcopal party in Scotland heretofore with the Presbyterians, when they were the major part. Is every difference in things unnecessary from the major part, a Schism from them? The ⟨p. 39⟩Bishops thought not so in England fifteen years ago: We do not go so far with you, as Gildas with his British Clergy, who pronounced him non eximium Christianum, no excellent Christian, that called them Priests or Ministers, and not rather Proditores, Traitors, as he himself did. Nor do we make such a Schism as Martin seemed to do, who renounced Communion with the Bishops and their Synods (all his life) who had prosecuted the Priscilianists with the Secular Sword. Yet neither of these holy men are called Separatists or Schismatics.
And this One Imperial Church (under one Emperour) is taken to be One Vniversal Church; as if the Indians, Persians, and all other Christians (even the Abassian Empire) had been part of it, and the Orbis Romanus had been Orbis Universalis. 3. And then no man is a Christian that is not baptized into this Papal Church, and made a Subject of the Pope. Tell us what you mean by our Schism from the Church of England? We divide not our selves from the King or Kingdom, or from the particular Churches as concordant in any necessary thing. If it be only that we agree not with the Major Vote in all Subscriptions, Oaths, Discipline or Ceremonies: No more did the Bishops in the Roman Empire, who had various Liturgies; nor Gildas with the Britains, nor Ambrose and Martin with the French and Italian Bishops; nor the Episcopal party in Scotland heretofore with the Presbyterians, when they were the major part. Is every difference in things unnecessary from the major part, a Schism from them? The ⟨p. 39⟩