A27045:158
The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members…
The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members I. defended against the opposition of Mr. William Johnson, II. proved by many arguments / by Richard Baxter ; whereunto is added 1. an account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far heretics are or are not in the church, 2. Mr. Js. explication of the most used terms, with my queries thereupon, and his answer and my reply, 3. an appendix about successive ordination, 4. letters between me and T.S., a papist, with a narrative of the success.The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members I. defended against the opposition of Mr. William Johnson, II. proved by many arguments / by Richard Baxter ; whereunto is added 1. an account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far hereticks are or are not in the church, 2. Mr. Js. explication of the most used terms, with my queries thereupon, and his answer and my reply, 3. an appendix about successive ordination, 4. letters between me and T.S., a papist, with a narrative of the success.
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1660
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.
are there no proofs in the world, but what you have seen? or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen, though you esteem them not so? and can you think it reasonable, upon your single not-seeing, or not-judging only, to conclude absolutely, as you here do, that all have been ⟨p. 42⟩against us for many hundred years? In your Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India, as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire, whom you deny to have acknowledged any supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops. You might have done well to have cited at least one ancient Author for this Assertion. Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire*? When the Roman Emperors were yet Heathens, had not the Bishop of Rome the Supremacy over all other Bishops through the whole Church? and did those Heathen Emperors give it him? How came St. Cyprian, in time of the Heathen Empire to request Stephen the Pope to punish and depose the Bishop of Arles, as we shall see hereafter? Had he that authority (think you) from an Heathen Emperor? See now how little your Allegations are to the purpose, where you nominate any determinate Congregations to satisfy my demand.
are there no proofs in the world, but what you have seen? or may not many of those proofs be valid which you have seen, though you esteem them not so? and can you think it reasonable, upon your single not-seeing, or not-judging only, to conclude absolutely, as you here do, that all have been ⟨p. 42⟩against us for many hundred years? In your Num. 5. You name Ethiopia and India, as having been without the limits of the Roman Empire, whom you deny to have acknowledged any supremacy of power and authority above all other Bishops. You might have done well to have cited at least one antient Author for this Assertion. Were those primitive Christians of another kind of Church-order and Government, then were those under the Roman Empire*