A27045:317
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.
20. You say you will conclude with the saying of your priest Philip, and Arcadius at Ephesus: And 1. You take it for granted that all consented to what they contradicted not: But your word is all the proof of the consequence. Nothing more common, then in Senates and Synods to say nothing to many passages in speeches, not consented to. If no word not consented to in any mans speech must pass without contradiction, Senates and Synods would be no wiser Societies then Billingsgate affords; nor ⟨p. 171⟩more harmonious then a Fair or vulgar rout: What confusion would contradictions make among them?
2. You turn me to Tom. 2. pag. 327. Act. 1. I began to hope of some expedition here: But you tell me not at all what Author you use: And in Binnius which I use, the Tomes are not divided into Acts, but Chapters, and p•g. 327. is long before this Counc•l. So •hat I must believe you, or search paper enough for a weeks reading to disprove you: This once I will believe you, to save me that labour, and supposing all rightly cited, I reply: 1. Philip was not the Council. You bear witness to your selves, therefore your witness is not credible. Yet I have given you instances in my [Key] (which I would transcribe if I thought that you could not as well read Print as M. S.) of higher expressions then Caput and fundamentum, given to Andrew by Isychius, and equal expressions to others, as well as Rome and Peter. And who is ignorant that knoweth any thing of Church-history, that others were called successors of Peter as well as the Bishop of Rome? And that the Claves regni were given to him, is no proof that they were not given also to all the rest of the Apostles. And ⟨p. 172⟩where you say [Arcadius condemneth Nestorius for contemning the command of the Apostolic Sea.] (You tell me not where to find it.) I answer you still, that its long since your Sea begun to swell and rage, but if you must have us grant you all these consequences, [Celestine commanded, therefore he justly commanded, therefore another might not as well have commanded him: (as one Pastor may do another, though equal, in the name of Christ): and therefore he had power to command without the Empire, even over all the Catholic Church; and therefore the Council was of this mind: yea, therefore the universal Church was of this mind, that the Pope was its universal head.] You still are guilty of sporting about serious things, and moving pity, instead of offering the least proof.