A27045:291
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.
In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope,] to which you say that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocese, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over.] Reply. 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust: peruse ⟨p. 152⟩that page, and see his words. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Ambrose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed Member of his charge, and he remitted the Censure. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren, Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating, and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over: It is a mere fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate, but suasorily or Synodically.
In your Margin you pretend to confute Chamier p. 498. as saying [That other Bishops restored those wrongfully deposed as well as the Pope,] to which you say that [never single Bishop restored any who were out of their respective Diocess, &c. whereas the Bishop of Rome by his sole and single authority, restored Bishops wrongfully deposed all the Church over.] Reply. 1. It seems you took Chamiers words on trust: peruse ⟨p. 152⟩that page, and see his words. 2. Single Bishops have censured, and therefore might as well remit their own censures. Ambrose censured Theodosius, who was no fixed Member of his charge, and he remitted the Censure. Epiphanius presumed even at Constantinople to excommunicate Dioscorus and his Brethren, Socrat. lib. 6. c. 14. And many instances may be brought both of excommunicating, and again receiving to communion by particular Bishops, even as to those that were not of their charge. And if the fact were not proved, yet the forbearance proveth not the want of power. 3. I deny your unproved assertion, that the Bishop of Rome singly restored all the Church over: It is a meer fiction. How many restored he out of the Empire? Or in the Empire out of his Patriarchate, but suasorily or Synodically.