A27045:320
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.
21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant. And there's no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholic Church, or the sea of Rome. But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the Universal Head. So might one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come to, and how shamefully ⟨p. 174⟩naked you have left your cause.
21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant. And there's no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholick Church, or the sea of Rome. But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the Universal Head. So might one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come to, and how shamefully ⟨p. 174⟩naked you have left your cause.
In sum, of all the testimonies produced, 1. You have not named one man that was a Papist (Pope Leo was the nearest of any man) nor one testimony that ever a Pope of Rome had the Government of all the Church without the verge of the Roman Empire; but only that he was to the Roman Church, as the Archbishop of Canterbury to the English Church: And as between Canterbury and York, so between Rome and Constantinople, there have been contentions for preheminency: But if I can prove Canterbury to be before York, or Rome before Constantinople, that will prove neither of them to be Ruler at the Antipodes, or of all the Christian world. 2. Much less have you proved that ever any Church was of this opinion, that the Pope was by Divine Right the Governor of all the world, when you cannot prove one man of that opinion. 3. Much less have you proved a succession of such a Church from the Apostles, having said as much as nothing concerning the first 300 years. 4. And yet much less have you proved, that the whole Catholic Church was of this opinion. 5. And least of all have you proved, that the whole Church took this Primacy of Rome, to be of necessity