A27045:284
The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members…
The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members I. defended against the opposition of Mr. William Johnson, II. proved by many arguments / by Richard Baxter ; whereunto is added 1. an account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far heretics are or are not in the church, 2. Mr. Js. explication of the most used terms, with my queries thereupon, and his answer and my reply, 3. an appendix about successive ordination, 4. letters between me and T.S., a papist, with a narrative of the success.The successive visibility of the church of which the Protestants are the soundest members I. defended against the opposition of Mr. William Johnson, II. proved by many arguments / by Richard Baxter ; whereunto is added 1. an account of my judgement to Mr. J. how far hereticks are or are not in the church, 2. Mr. Js. explication of the most used terms, with my queries thereupon, and his answer and my reply, 3. an appendix about successive ordination, 4. letters between me and T.S., a papist, with a narrative of the success.
London: printed by R.W. for Nevil Simmons, 1660
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.
9. Your ninth proof is from the applications that the Arians and Athanasius made to Julius: Ex Athan. ad solit. Epist. Julius in Lit. ad Arian. apud Athan. Apol. 1. p. 753. Theodoret. lib. 2. c. 4. Athan. Apol. 2. Zozom. l. 3. c. 7.] Reply. I marvel you urge such rancid instances, to which you have been so fully and so often answered: I refer you to Blondell de Primatu cap. 25. sect. 14, 15. Whittaker de Roman. Pontif. p. 150. & passim. Dr. Field of the Ch. l. 5. c. 35, &c. Briefly, this may show the vanity of your proof. 1. Sozomen in that place saith, that though he alone wrote for them, yet he wrote in the Name and by the consent of all the Bishops of the West. 2. The advantages of Rome by its reputation and greatness, and the number and quality of the Western Bishops, made their Judgement and Communion valuable to others: Basil before cited tells you on what grounds when Churches disagree, those that are distant are supposed to be impartial, especially when numerous. To which is added, which Basil intimates, that some hope of help from the Secular ⟨p. 144⟩powers, by the interposition of the Western Bishops, made them the more sought to. 3. And the Primacy of Rome (though it had no Sovereignty) made it seem irregular, that a Patriarch should be deposed without the knowledge and judgment of the Patriarchs of the precedent Seats. This was the custom that Julius spoke of, and the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Alexandria might have said as much, if the Patriarch of Jerusalem or Antioch had been deposed without them. 4. Every Patriarch might absolve the Innocent, and hold communion with them in his own Patriarchate; and if any be against it, (as the Arians here were, and sent false accusations against Athanasius to Julius) he may require them to prove their accusations, if they will have him moved by them. Our own Communion with men, is to be directed by the judgment of our own well informed consciences. Julius desired not any more then to be one with a Council that should decide the case. Councils then had the Rule, and Patriarchs were the most honourable Members of those Councils, but no Rulers of them. 5. Yet Sozomen and others tell you, that Julius, when he had done his best to befriend Athanasius and ⟨p. 145⟩Paulus could do no good, nor prevail with the Bishops of the East, till the Emperors commands prevailed: