A27045:305
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.
15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him; of this you give us no proof: But what if it be true? Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ? Prudence might well make Cyril ⟨p. 162⟩cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the Order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected. But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof: And what if Celestine began and first condemned him? I she therefore the Universal Bishop? But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning: And what was it that he threatened, but to hold no Communion with him? Vid. Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. And though Pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others, I can easily prove that if I had then lived, it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretic, though he had been Pope.
15. You say Cyril would not break off Communion with Nestorius till Celestine had condemned him; of this you give us no proof: But what if it be true? Did you think that it proved the Pope to be the Vice-Christ? Prudence might well make Cyril ⟨p. 162⟩cautelous in excommunicating a Patriarch. And we still grant you, that the Order of the Empire had given the Roman Bishop the Primacy therein: and therefore no wonder if his consent were expected. But that Nestorius was condemned by a Council needs no proof: And what if Celestine began and first condemned him? I she therefore the Universal Bishop? But it was not Celestine alone, but a Synod of the Western Bishops. And yet Cyril did not hereupon reject him without further warning: And what was it that he threatned, but to hold no Communion with him? Vid. Concil. Ephes. 1. Tom. 1. cap. 14. And though Pride made excommunication an Engine to advance one Bishop above others, I can easily prove that if I had then lived, it had been my duty to avoid Communion with a notorious Heretick, though he had been Pope.