A27045:235
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.
My conclusion, that all have been against you for many hundred years, must stand good, till you prove that some were for you: yet I have herewith proved that there were none, at least that could deserve the name of the Church.
Do you think to satisfy any reasonable man by calling for positive proof from Authors, of such Negatives? yet proof you shall not want, such as the nature of the point requireth, viz. That the said Churches; of Ethiopia, India, the outer Armenia, and other extra-imperial Nations, were not under the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Rome. 1. You find all these Churches, or most of them at this day (that remain) from under your jurisdiction: and you cannot tell us when or how they turned from you. If you could, it had been done. 2. These Nations profess it to be their Tradition, that the Pope was never their Governor. 3. No history or authority of the least regard, is brought by your own writers to prove these Churches ⟨p. 98⟩under your jurisdiction: no not by Baronius himself, that is so copious, and so skilful in making much of nothing. No credible witnesses mention your Acts of jurisdiction over them, or their Acts of subjection, which Church history must needs have contained, if it had been true, that they were your subjects. 4. Their absence from general Councils, and no invitation of them thereunto, (that was ever proved, or is showed by you) is sufficient evidence. 5. Their Liturgies, even the most ancient, bear no footsteps of any subjection to you. Though your forgeries have corrupted them: as I shall here (digressively) give one instance of: The Ethiopic Liturgy, because of a [Hoc est corpus meum] which we also use, is urged to prove that they are for the corporal presence, or Transubstantiation: But saith Usher, de success. Eccles. In Ethiopicarum Ecclesiarum universally Canone, descriptum habebatur [Hic panis est corpus meum]: In Latina translation contra fidem Ethiopic. Exemplarium (ut in prima operis edition confirmat Pontificius ipse Scholiastes) expunctum est nomen [Panis.] 6. Constantine's Letters of request to the King of Persia for the Churches there (which Euseb. in vit. Constant. mentioneth) ⟨p. 99⟩