A27050:513
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.
2. Doth not his own proof evidently confute him. 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia. Are the last words Tautological? doth [with] signify no addition at all. If by [the Church which is at Corinth] be meant all the Churches and Christians in Achaia, what sense is there in the addition of [with all the Saints which are in Achaia?] O what kind of proof will satisfy some Learned Men!
2. Doth not his own proof evidently confute him. 2 Cor. 1. 1. To the Church of God which is at Corinth, with all the Saints which are in all Achaia. Are the last words Tautological? doth [with] signifie no addition at all. If by [the Church which is at Corinth] be meant all the Churches and Christians in Achaia, what sense is there in the addition of [with all the Saints which are in Achaia?] O what kind of proof will satisfie some Learned Men!
3. Was it all the Churches of Achaia that the incestuous person. 1 Cor. 5. dwelt with? and that are chidden for suffering him in their Communion? and that are directed when they meet together to cast him out, and not to eat with him?
4. Would it not be Calumny according to all rational Laws, to accuse all the Churches of Achaia, of all those Crimes which the Church at Corinth is accused of, without a better proof than this?