A27045:266
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.
And he begins his Book (after a few words) thus, [Causa itaque hujus dissidii, ⟨p. 124⟩&c. The cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity: For other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind: This therefore is not the cause of the dissension; much less is it the speech of the Scripture it self, which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted. For to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault. But who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits.] He next shows, that it is not for want of learned men on both sides, nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy, and then concludeth it as before. He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him; and that his Primacy is no Governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sale: and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself. If you say that, This point was the first cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the only or ⟨p. 125⟩chief cause afterward. The Manner of bringing in the [filioque] by Papal authority without a general Council, was it that greatly offended the Greeks from the beginning.
And he begins his Book (after a few words) thus, [Causa itaque hujus dissidii, ⟨p. 124⟩&c. The cause therefore of this difference, as I judge, is not the sublimity of the point exceeding mans capacity: For other matters that have divers times troubled the Church, have been of the same kind: This therefore is not the cause of the dissention; much less is it the speech of the Scripture it self, which as being concise, doth pronounce nothing openly of that which is controverted. For to accuse the Scripture, is as much as to accuse God himself. But God is without all fault. But who the fault is in, any one may easily tell, that is well in his wits.] He next shews, that it is not for want of learned men on both sides, nor is it because the Greeks do claim the Primacy, and then concludeth it as before. He maintaineth that your Pope succeedeth Peter only as a Bishop ordained by him, as many other Bishops that originally were ordained by him in like manner do succeed him; and that his Primacy is no Governing power, nor given him by Peter, but by Princes and Councils for order sale: and this he proves at large, and makes this the main difference. Bellarmines answering his so many Arguments might have told you this, if you had never read Nilus himself. If you say that, This point was the first cause, I deny it; but if it were true, yet was it not the only or