A27045:238
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.
But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, [Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire?] Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope, which is the thing in question, is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such public fact, to put such a question as this, Whether they were under another kind of Government? 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own: and so far their Government was of the same kind. 2. If any of them, or all, did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived, and so held National Councils, and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis, then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches, and not of another kind. The Roman Government ⟨p. 401⟩was no other, but One, thus Ordered, in one Empire: And if there were also One, so ordered, in England, one in Scotland, one in Ethiopia, &c. this was of the same kind with the Roman. Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth, is even (as to that humane mode) of the same kind (if a humane mode must be called a Kind.) It may be of that same kind, and mode, without being part of the same Individual.
But what say you now to the contrary? Why 1. You ask, [Were those Primitive Christians of another kind of Church order and Government then were those under the Roman Empire?] Answ. When the whole body of Church history satisfieth us that they were not subject to the Pope, which is the thing in question, is it any weakening of such evidence in a matter of such publick fact, to put such a question as this, Whether they were under another kind of Government? 1. We know that they were under Bishops or Pastors of their own: and so far their Government was of the same kind. 2. If any of them, or all, did suit their Church associations to the several Commonwealths in which they lived, and so held National Councils, and for order sake made one among them the Bishop primae sedis, then was that Government of the same kind with that of the Imperial Churches, and not of another kind. The Roman Government ⟨p. 401⟩was no other, but One, thus Ordered, in one Empire: And if there were also One, so ordered, in England, one in Scotland, one in Ethiopia, &c. this was of the same kind with the Roman. Every Church suited to the form of the Common-wealth, is even (as to that humane mode) of the same kind (if a humane mode must be called a Kind.) It may be of that same kind, and mode, without being part of the same Individual.