A27050:975
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.
Yea, Dissert. Epist. Sect. 30, 31. he will have the question stated only of a Bishop [in singulari Ecclesia] & [in singulari coetu.] The controversy is not, Quibus demum nominibus cogniti fuerint Ecclesiarum rectores; sed an ad unum in singulari Ecclesia, an ad plures potestas ista devenerit? Nos ad unum singularem praefectum, quem ex famosiore Ecclesiae usu, Episcopum vulgo dicimus, potestatem istam in singulari coetu ex Christi & Apostolorum institutione, nunquam non pertinuisse affirmamus. So that it is a Bishop of one Assembly or Church which Doctor Hammond will have the question stated about. 2. And such a Church or Assembly as great Cities a while had divers of, and so divers Bishops. 3. And this was after the Scripture times; for they had divers Bishops with a divers Clergy. 4. But that in Scripture times, the Order of Sub-Presbyters cannot be proved instituted. 5. And in his Annotations he expoundeth all the Texts of the New Testament of Bishops that mention Presbyters. 6. But in his Answer to the London Ministers, not daring yet to hold that they were of Humane and not of Divine Institution, he holds that they were instituted in the end of St. John's days after all the Scripture was written (which was about two or three years before his death) and so were of Divine Institution, though all the rest of the Apostles were dead.
Yea, Dissert. Epist. Sect. 30, 31. he will have the question stated only of a Bishop [in singulari Ecclesia] & [in singulari coetu.] The controversie is not, Quibus demum nominibus cogniti fuerint Ecclesiarum rectores; sed an ad unum in singulari Ecclesia, an ad plures potestas ista devenerit? Nos ad unum singularem praefectum, quem ex famosiore Ecclesiae usu, Episcopum vulgo dicimus, potestatem istam in singulari coetu ex Christi & Apostolorum institutione, nunquam non pertinuisse affirmamus. So that it is a Bishop of one Assembly or Church which Doctor Hammond will have the question stated about. 2. And such a Church or Assembly as great Cities a while had divers of, and so divers Bishops. 3. And this was after the Scripture times; for they had divers Bishops with a divers Clergy. 4. But that in Scripture times, the Order of Sub-Presbyters cannot be proved instituted. 5. And in his Annotations he expoundeth all the Texts of the New Testament of Bishops that mention Presbyters. 6. But in his Answer to the London Ministers, not daring yet to hold that they were of Humane and not of Divine Institution, he holds that they were instituted in the end of St. John's days after all the Scripture was written (which was about two or three years before his death) and so were of Divine Institution, though all the rest of the Apostles were dead.