A27050:1442
A treatise of episcopacy confuting by Scripture, reason, and the churches testimony that sort…
A treatise of episcopacy confuting by Scripture, reason, and the churches testimony that sort of diocesan churches, prelacy and government, which casteth out the primitive church-species, episcopacy, ministry and discipline and confoundeth the Christian world by corruption, usurpation, schism and persecution : meditated in the year 1640, when the et cætera oath was imposed : written 1671 and cast by : published 1680 by the importunity of our superiors, who demand the reasons of our nonconformity / by Richard Baxter.A treatise of episcopacy confuting by Scripture, reason, and the churches testimony that sort of diocesan churches, prelacy and government, which casteth out the primitive church-species, episcopacy, ministry and discipline and confoundeth the Christian world by corruption, usurpation, schism and persecution : meditated in the year 1640, when the et cætera oath was imposed : written 1671 and cast by : published 1680 by the importunity of our superiours, who demand the reasons of our nonconformity / by Richard Baxter.
London: printed for Nevil Simmons, 1681
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 I would have leave to debate the Case of the Church of England a little with these Humanists, and to ask them, If no Church Form be of Gods making, 1. Why may not the King and Parliament put it down as aforesaid? ⟨p. 100⟩2. But specially who made the Form of the Church of England which we must swear to—If another Church, then that other was not of the same Form; otherwise that Form was made before, which is a contradiction. If it was of another Form, I ask, what it was? and who made the Form of that other Church which made this Church Form? and so to the Original? If Bishops or Synods made it, still they were parts of a Church, or of no Church. If of no Church, what Bishops were those, and by what power did they make new Church Forms that were of none themselves? If an Emperor or King first made them, either he was himself a member of a Church, or of no Church. If of a Church, what form had that Church? And why should not that first form stand? And who made that form? and so ad originem. If he was of no Church, how came he by power to make Church forms, that was of none himself? Nemo dat quod non habet. It's no honour to Prelacy to be so made. And were they Christians or no Christians that made the Diocesan Form? If Christians, were they orderly Christians, or rebellious? If orderly, how happened it that they were of no Church themselves, when the Apostles settled so much of Church Form and Order, as I have before named? If rebellious, they were a dishonourable original of Diocesans.
And I would have leave to debate the Case of the Church of England a little with these Humanists, and to ask them, If no Church Form be of Gods making, 1. Why may not the King and Parliament put it down as aforesaid? ⟨p. 100⟩2. But specially who made the Form of the Church of England which we must swear to—If another Church, then that other was not of the same Form; otherwise that Form was made before, which is a contradiction. If it was of another Form, I ask, what it was? and who made the Form of that other Church which made this Church Form? and so to the Original? If Bishops or Synods made it, still they were parts of a Church, or of no Church. If of no Church, what Bishops were those, and by what power did they make new Church Forms that were of none themselves? If an Emperor or King first made them, either he was himself a member of a Church, or of no Church. If of a Church, what form had that Church? And why should not that first form stand? And who made that form? and so ad originem. If he was of no Church, how came he by power to make Church forms, that was of none himself? Nemo dat quod non habet. It's no honour to Prelacy to be so made. And were they Christians or no Christians that made the Diocesane Form? If Christians, were they orderly Christians, or rebellious? If orderly, how happened it that they were of no Church themselves, when the Apostles setled so much of Church Form and Order, as I have before named? If rebellious, they were a dishonourable original of Diocesanes.