A27045:287
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.
And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help; as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries, but not as to an Universal Governor or Judge: no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperial; much less of all the Catholic Churches.
And for what you say again in your Margin of Theodoret; I say again, that he appealeth to the Bishop of Rome for help; as a person who with the Western Bishops might sway much against his adversaries, but not as to an Universal Governour or Judge: no not as to the Universal Judge of the Church Imperiall; much less of all the Catholick Churches.
10. Your tenth proof is from Chrysostoms Case, where you say some things untrue, and some impertinent. 1. That Chrysostom appeals to Innocent from the Council of Constantinople is untrue, if you mean it of an Appeal to a superior Court or Judge; much more if as to an Universal Judge: But indeed in his banishment, when all other help failed, he wrote to him to interpose and help him as far as he could. I need no other proof of the Negative then, 1. That there is no proof of the Affirmative, that ever he made any such appeal. 2. In his first Epistle to Innocent, he tells him over and over, that [he appealed to a Synod, and required Judgement] and that he was cast into a ship for banishment [because he appealed to a Synod and a righteous judgement] ⟨p. 148⟩never mentioning a word of any such appeal to the Pope. Yea he urgeth the Pope to befriend and help him, by that argument, that he was still ready to stand to uncorrupted Judges, never mentioning the Pope as Judge. By all which it appears it was but the assistance of his intercession that he requireth: and withal, perhaps the excommunicating of the wicked, which another Bishop might have done. Yea, and it seems it was not to Innocent only, but to others with him that he wrote; for he would scarce else have used the terms [[Greek or Hebrew]] But what need we more then his own words to know his request: saith he [Let those that are found to have done so wickedly, be subject to the penalty of the Ecclesiastical Laws: but for us that are not convicted, nor found guilty, grant us to enjoy your Letters, and your charity, and all others whose society we did formerly enjoy.] The Ecclesiastical Laws enabled each Patriarch and Bishop to sentence in his own Diocese; though the person sentenced lived out of their Diocese, yet they might renounce all communion with him: Churches that have no power over one another, may have communion with one another; and that communion