A27045:319
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.
Yet fear you not to say [that in the time of the holy Ecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholic Church was for you in this point.] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests. 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholic Church? 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? ⟨p. 173⟩So that they were but such as we now call National Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one Republic. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so expressly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it (Can. 28. Conc. Chalced.) but that they spoke falsely? And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.
Yet fear you not to say [that in the time of the holy Oecumenical Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, the universal consent of the whole Catholick Church was for you in this point.] The Lord keep our consciences from being the servants of our opinions or interests. 1. Was the Popes Legate the whole Catholick Church? 2. Was there one man at either of these Councils but within the Empire, yea a piece of the Empire? ⟨p. 173⟩So that they were but such as we now call National Councils, that is, consisting only of the subjects of one Republick. 3. Did the Council speak a word for your power without the Empire? 4. Do they not determine it so expresly to be of humane right, that Bellarmine hath nothing regardable to say against it (Can. 28. Conc. Chalced.) but that they spoke falsly? And yet your opinion or interest hath tempted you to appeal. viz. to the Sun that there is no such thing as light.
21. After the conclusion you have a supernumerary in your Margin, from Greg. lib. 10. Epist. 30. But there is no such word in that Epistle, nor is it of any such subject. But is the 31. Epistle its like that your leader meant. And there's no more but that a Bishop not named (person or place) having fallen into Schism voluntarily, swore never more to depart from the Unity of the Catholic Church, or the sea of Rome. But 1. So may a Bishop of the Roman Province do (or Patriarchate) without believing Rome to be the Universal Head. So might one in any other Province have done: And yet it follows not that he ought to do so, because he did so. You see now what all your proofs are come to, and how shamefully