A27058:724
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
The particular Defence of the History of Councils and Schisms. › Chapter 18: Of his Second Chapter.
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.
I would he would freely tell us, Q. 1. Whether he think at this day the generality of Bishops (in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the Greek Church, Muscovy, Armenia, Syria, &c.) are so commendable, as not to be notably blamed? Q. 2. If not, When was it that he thinks they ceased to be generally so commendable? Was it in Hildebrand's Time, or any time before? Q. 3. Can you believe that the generality turn from good to bad just in one Age? Or rather that they degenerated by degrees? If they were mostly bad in a thousand, or nine hundred, or eight hundred, can you think that they were not drawing towards it and near as bad a little before; Q. 4. What was it think you in which the Corruption of the Clergy did consist? Was it not most in a proud, domineering worldly Spirit? Is it not that that you blame the Popes for? Was not their Ascent their Corruption? Sure you all agree of that. Q. 5. And did the Papacy Spring up in a year? Did not Leo begin to arrogate, and others after him (to say nothing now of those before him) rise higher and higher by degrees as Children grow up to manhood, till in Greg. 7. it came to Maturity? I know no Protestant that denieth this? Q. 6. And can you or any sober man think that in so many hundred years it was only the Bishop of Rome that was sick of this disease, and that all or most of the other Bishops were Free? Were they not commonly for ascending with them: Did not they in the East strive to be greatest? And the Bishops of the West strive to rise with, and by the Pope? Were they not, and are they not as his Army? And did he prevail against the Primitive Purity and Simplicity without them? Did not his Councils, and Prelates, as his Armies, do his greatest works? Yea, have they not oft out-done him, and over-topped him in Mischief (as in the deposing of Ludov. Pius against his will? say good Historians.)
I would he would freely tell us, Q. 1. Whether he think at this day the generality of Bishops (in Italy, Spain, France, Germany, Poland, the Greek Church, Moscovy, Armenia, Syria, &c.) are so commendable, as not to be notably blamed? Q. 2. If not, When was it that he thinks they ceased to be generally so commendable? Was it in Hildebrand's Time, or any time before? Q. 3. Can you believe that the generality turn from good to bad just in one Age? Or rather that they degenerated by degrees? If they were mostly bad in a thousand, or nine hundred, or eight hundred, can you think that they were not drawing towards it and near as bad a little before; Q. 4. What was it think you in which the Corruption of the Clergy did consist? Was it not most in a proud, domineering worldly Spirit? Is it not that that you blame the Popes for? Was not their Ascent their Corruption? Sure you all agree of that. Q. 5. And did the Papacy Spring up in a year? Did not Leo begin to arrogate, and others after him (to say nothing now of those before him) rise higher and higher by degrees as Children grow up to manhood, till in Greg. 7. it came to Maturity? I know no Protestant that denyeth this? Q. 6. And can you or any sober man think that in so many hundred years it was only the Bishop of Rome that was sick of this disease, and that all or most of the other Bishops were Free? Were they not commonly for ascending with them: Did not they in the East strive to be greatest? And the Bishops of the West strive to rise with, and by the Pope? Were they not, and are they not as his Army? And did he prevail against the Primitive Purity and Simplicity without them? Did not his Councils, and Prelates, as his Armies, do his greatest works? Yea, have they not oft out-done him, and over-topt him in Mischief (as in the deposing of Ludov. Pius against his will? say good Historians.)