A27045:292
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.
Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is merely impertinent: We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, &c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council. You cannot but know that Councils have ⟨p. 153⟩been called without the Pope: and that neither this, nor an Emperors forsaking his error, is a sign of the Popes Universal Government. That Emperor gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those days the Pope was taken for fallible and controllable, when they excommunicated him: But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them. Till then this is enough, with this addition, that the Emperors subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects: No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.
Your next instance of Theodosius his not permitting the Council at Ephesus to be assembled, and his reconciling himself to the Church, is meerly impertinent: We know that he and other Princes usually wrote to Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, &c. or spoke or sent to more then one of the Patriarchs before they called a Council. You cannot but know that Councils have ⟨p. 153⟩been called without the Pope: and that neither this, nor an Emperours forsaking his errour, is a sign of the Popes Universal Government. That Emperour gave sufficient testimony, and so did the Bishops that adhered to Dioscorus, that in those dayes the Pope was taken for fallible and controlable, when they excommunicated him: But when you cite out of any Author the words that you build on, I shall take more particular notice of them. Till then this is enough, with this addition, that the Emperours subjection, if he had been subject (not to an Ambrose, or other Bishop, but) only to Rome, would have been no proof that any without the Empire were his subjects: No more then the King of Englands subjection to the Archbishop of Canterbury, would have proved that the King of France was subject to him.