A27050:365
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.
All his talk, p. 80. against shallow giddy Heads, that see no further than their Nose end, because it was denied that Pastors were set in single Congregations to convert also the Infidels about, I have nothing to do with: For I assert that as all Ministers are bound to endeavour the conversion of such, if they have opportunity (not wanting power,) so those are most bound to it that have best opportunity, which is the Neighbour Bishops. But till men are converted they are no parts of the Church; no, nor of that particular Church, eo nomine, because converted by that Bishop (as shall be proved,) without some further consent and ground. The rest about the largeness of the Church of Jerusalem, &c. shall be considered in due place.
In his Chap. 6. p. 104. I desire it may be noted that he saith, [I do not deny but that at the first, and namely in the time of the Apostle Paul, the most of the Churches so soon after their conversion, did not each of them exceed the proportion of a populous Congregation. And p. 114. that Metropolitans he thinks were intended by the Apostles, or at least, suadente naturâ & necessitate flagitante, as Beza saith: And I suppose a Diocesan Church will find no better ground than a Metropolitan, viz. Humane Prudence, or (I think intended.)
In chap. 7. He pretendeth to prove, that in the Apostles times Parishes began to be distinguished under one only Bishop, &c. But what's the proof? Rome and Alexandria are all the Instances. †But, 1. his proof that Evaristus divided Parishes about An. 100 is worth nothing, as having no sufficient evidence, but fabulous reports. 2. He allegeth Eusebius, l. 2. •. 15. saying of St. Mark, that he is said first to have constituted the Churches of Alexandria. But this is no proof. 1. Because Eusebius's following words out of Philo do make it most probable, that by [the Churches of Alexandria] he meant [the Churches in and about Alexandria,] which proveth not many in the City it self. 2. If he had planted many Churches in the City, it is no proof that he varied from the practice of the other Apostles, who (as