A27045:301
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.
that which they desired of him was, what Synods ordinarily did of Bishops of their Communion that were absent [Haec, sicut propria, & amica, & ad decorem convenientissima, dignare complecti, sanctissime & beatissime pater.]
13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Justinian deposed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperor & the Empress.] Reply. 1. And doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly, yea and as the Governor of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Julius (Sozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly, ⟨p. 160⟩or as his Governors. Honorius the Emperor deposed Boniface 1. Oath with a Synod deposed Johan. 13. Justinian deposed Sylverius and Vigilius: Will you confess it therefore justly done? 2. As to the history I refer you to the full answer of Blondel to Perron. cap. 25. sect. 84, 85. 3. Usurpation and deposing one another by rash sentences was then no rare thing, Eusebius of Nicomedia threatened the deposing of Alexander of Constantinople, who sure was not his subject, Socrat. lib. 1. c. 37. (vel. 25.) Acacius of Caesarea and his party depose not only Eleusius, Basilius and many others, but with them also Macedonius Bishop of Constantinople: Socrat. lib. 2. c. 33. (vel. 42.) Did this prove Acacius the Vice-Christ? What should I instance in Theophilus actions against Chrysostom, or Cyril's against Johan. Antiochen. and many such like? 4. Still you suppose one Empire to be all the Christian world: We must grant you that in all your instances!
13. In your Margin you tell me that Agapet in the time of Iustinian depo•ed Anthymius in Constantinople against the will of the Emperour & the Empress.] Reply. 1. And doth it follow, that because he did it, therefore he did it justly, yea and as the Governour of that Church? when Menna Bishop of Constantinople excommunicated Pope Vigilius, was he not even with him? and did that prove that Rome was subject to Constantinople? Niceph. l. 17. c. 26. When Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, and an Eastern Synod excommunicated Iulius (Sozom. l. 3. c. 11.) that proves not that they did it justly,