A27058:423
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended…
The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Cork and Ross in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to show their dangerous error, who think that a general council, or college of bishops, is a supreme governor of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entitled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...The true history of councils enlarged and defended against the deceits of a pretended vindicator of the primitive church, but indeed of the tympanite & tyranny of some prelates many hundred years after Christ, with a detection of the false history of Edward Lord Bishop of Corke and Rosse in Ireland ... and a preface abbreviating much of Ludolphus's History of Habassta : written to shew their dangerous errour, who think that a general council, or colledge of bishops, is a supream governour of all the Christian world ... / by Richard Baxter ... ; to which is added by another hand, a defence of a book, entituled, No evidence for diocesan churches ...
London: printed for Tho. Parkhurst, 1682
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. As for my using Hanmer's Translation of Eusebius and Socrates, my case was •s before described: Valesius I had not: Grineus I made use of heretofore. But since I was by constraint deprived both of my books and money to buy more, when I wrote that Abridgement, I had only Hanmer's Translation left me. And if that sort of men that forced me to give away my books, to keep them from being distrained on, will make use of this to prove me ignorant of them, the matter is very small to me.
§ 2. As for my using Hanmers Translation of Eusebius and Socrates, my case was •s before described: Valesius I had not: Grineus I made use of heretofore. But since I was by constraint deprived both of my books and money to buy more, when I wrote that Abridgment, I had only Hanmers Translation left me. And if that sort of men that forced me to give away my books, to keep them from being distreined on, will make use of this to prove me ignorant of them, the matter is very small to me.
If you say, I should not then have written, I answer, could they so have silenced us in the Pulpit, they had more answered their own judgment than mine. I had no use for Critics, nor for any thing in Eusebius and Socrates that depends on the credit of the Translator.
If you say, I should not then have written, I answer, could they so have silenced us in the Pulpit, they had more answered their own judgment than mine. I had no use for Criticks, nor for any thing in Eusebius and Socrates that depends on the credit of the Translator.
§ 3. As to his oft noting that in Translations, and sometime in Chronology I err by following Binnius, I answer, had I written a full Church History, I should better have examined him and others. But I lay no stress of my cause of any of Binnius his Translations, nor will I undertake for any Historian that I cite: My business was but to tell those that believe Binnius and Baronius, and such other, what they say. Nor do I yet intend to bestow any time, in examining whether he wrong Binnius or not, it being nothing to my cause nor me, whether he mistook a year, or the meaning of a word of the Authors whom he citeth.