A27045:321
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.
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 ⟨p. 175⟩to the very Being of the Church, and to our salvation; and not only ad melius esse, as a point of Order. So that you have left your Cause in shameful nakedness, as if you had confessed, that you can prove nothing.
In summ, 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 Governour 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 Catholick 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 ⟨p. 175⟩