N20568:7445
The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being…
The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being Fox's Book of martyrs, revised and corrected, with additions and great improvements. : Containing an authentic account of the lives, persecutions and sufferings of the holy martyrs; and the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ in all parts of the world, by pagans, Jews, Turks, papists, and others, from earliest ages of the church to the present period. ... The whole forming at once a general Christian martyrology, and a complete history of persecutions. / By the Rev. Mr. John Fox, M.A. late of Magdalen College, Oxford. ; Now revised, corrected and improved, with many additional articles, relating to the acts and monuments of the church. By Paul Wright, D.D. ; Embellished with forty elegant copper plate engravings. ; In two volumes. Vol. I[-II].The new and complete book of martyrs; or, An universal history of martyrdom: being Fox's Book of marytrs, revised and corrected, with additions and great improvements. : Containing an authentic account of the lives, persecutions and sufferings of the holy martyrs; and the many dreadful persecutions against the Church of Christ in all parts of the world, by pagans, Jews, Turks, papists, and others, from earliest ages of the church to the present period. ... The whole forming at once a general Christian martyrology, and a complete history of persecutions. / By the Rev. Mr. John Fox, M.A. late of Magdalen College, Oxford. ; Now revised, corrected and improved, with many additional articles, relating to the acts and monuments of the church. By Paul Wright, D.D. ; Embellished with forty elegant copper plate engravings. ; In two volumes. Vol. I[-II].
New-York: printed by William Durell, 1794
Title page typeset from the transcription.
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.
Peter indeed was a shepherd of the sheep, but such a one as bestowed his labour on them so far, as he could stretch himself by his ministry. But the papists prate that he hath full power over all churches: wherein they may see St. Paul to disprove them, for else he hath done unjustly in denying him the superior place. Howbeit, who ever yet read that St. Peter ever took any thing upon him over churches committed to other men? Was not he sent by the church, and sent by one not having rule over the rest? I grant that he was an excellent instrument of God, and for the excellency of his gifts, whensoever they met together, place therefore was commonly given unto him. But what is this to the purpose, to make him head and ruler over all the whole church, because he was so over a small congregation. BUT be it so, that Peter had as much given unto him as they do affirm: who yet will grant that Peter had a patrimony given for his heirs? He hath left (say the papists) to his successors the self-same right which he received. O Lord God! then his successor must be a Satan: for Peter received that title from Christ himself. I would gladly have the papists to show me one place of succession mentioned in the scriptures. I am sure that when Paul painteth out the whole administration of the church, he neither maketh one head, nor any inheritable primacy, and yet he is altogether in commendation of unity. After he hath made mention of one God the Father, of one Christ, of one Spirit, of one body of the church, of one faith, and of one baptism, then he describeth the means and the manner how unity is to be kept; namely, because unto every pastor grace is given after the measure wherewith Christ hath endued them. Where, I pray you, is now any title [plenitudinis p•testatis] of fullness of power? When he calleth home every one unto a certain measure why did he not forthwith say, One pope? which he could not have forgotten, if the thing had been as the papists make it. BUT let us grant that perpetuity of the primacy in the church was established in Peter; I would gladly le•••, why the seat of the primacy should be rather at Rome th•• elsewhere. Marry, say they, because Peter's chair was at Rome.
Peter indeed was a shepherd of the sheep, but such a one as bestowed his labour on them so far, as he could stretch himself by his ministry. But the papists prate that he hath full power over all churches: wherein they may see St. Paul to disprove them, for else he hath done unjustly in denying him the superior place. Howbeit, who ever yet read that St. Peter ever took any thing upon him over churches committed to other men? Was not he sent by the church, and sent by one not having rule over the rest? I grant that he was an excellent instrument of God, and for the excellency of his gifts, whensoever they met together, place therefore was commonly given unto him. But what is this to the purpose, to make him head and ruler over all the whole church, because he was so over a small congregation. BUT be it so, that Peter had as much given unto him as they do affirm: who yet will grant that Peter had a patrimony given for his heirs? He hath left (say the papists) to his successors the self-same right which he received. O Lord God! then his successor must be a Satan: for Peter received that title from Christ himself. I would gladly have the papists to shew me one place of succession mentioned in the scriptures. I am sure that when Paul painteth out the whole administration of the church, he neither maketh one head, nor any inheritable primacy, and yet he is altogether in commendation of unity. After he hath made mention of one God the Father, of one Christ, of one Spirit, of one body of the church, of one faith, and of one baptism, then he describeth the means and the manner how unity is to be kept; namely, because unto every pastor grace is given after the measure wherewith Christ hath endued them. Where, I pray you, is now any title [plenitudinis ptestatis] of fulness of power? When he calleth home every one unto a certain measure why did he not forthwith say, One pope? which he could not have forgotten, if the thing had been as the papists make it. BUT let us grant that perpetuity of the primacy in the church was established in Peter; I would gladly le, why the seat of the primacy should be rather at Rome th elsewhere. Marry, say they, because Peter's chair was at Rome.