A27045:240
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.
3. But you add that [The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop.] Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not persuade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable. 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. [Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.] And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire, and leave out Ethiopia (Pisanus new inventions we regard not.) 3. I deny ⟨p. 103⟩that the Patriarch of Alexandria was under the Government of the Bishop of Rome, any more then the Jury are under the Foremen, or the junior Justices on the bench are under the senior, or York is under London, or the other Earls of England are under the Earl of Arundel. 4. But if both these were proved, that Ethiopia was under Alexandria, and Alexandria under Rome, I deny the consequence, that Ethiopia was under Rome: for Alexandria was under Rome but secundum quid, and so far as it was within the Empire, and therefore those without the Empire that were under Alexandria, were not therefore under Rome. 5. And if it could (as it never can) be proved of Abyssinia, what is that to all the other Churches in India, Persia, and the rest of the world? Sir, If you have impartially read the ancient Church history, and yet can believe that all these Churches were then under the Pope, despair not of bringing your self to believe any thing imaginable that you would have to be true.
3. But you add that [The Abassines of Ethiopia were under the Patriarch of Alexandria anciently, and he under the authority of the Roman Bishop.] Reply. 1. Your bare word without proof shall not perswade us that the Abassines were under the Patriarch of Alexandria for above three hundred, if not four hundred years after Christ. Prove it, and then your words are regardable. 2. At the Council of Nice the contrary is manifest by the sixth Can. [Mos antiquus perdurat in Aegypto, vel Lybia & Pentapoli, ut Alexandrinus Episcopus horum omnium habeat potestatem, &c.] And the common descriptions of the Alexandrian Patriarchate in those times confine it to the Empire, and leave out Aethiopia (Pisanus new inventions we regard not.) 3. I deny ⟨p. 103⟩