A27045:274
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.
It being the custom of the Churches in the Empire, to make the Votes of the Patriarchs necessary in their general Councils, no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they consented; in which as they gave Constantinople the second place, without any pretence of a Divine Right, and frequent appeals ⟨p. 131⟩were made to that Seat; so also they gave Rome the first Seat. Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu, cap. 25. sect. 63. to which I refer you, it being as easy to read it in Print as Writing. Adding this only, that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Empire and the Councils thereof, so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church, nor any more then one man, and therefore if he had held (as you will never prove he did) the Universal Government of the Pope, if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that believe that One man is not the Catholic Church, no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power.
It being the custome of the Churches in the Empire, to make the Votes of the Patriarchs necessary in their general Councils, no wonder if appellations be made from those Councils that wanted the Patriarchs consent to other Councils where they cons•nted; in which as they gave Constantin•ple the second place, without any pretence of a Divine Right, and frequent appeals ⟨p. 131⟩were made to that Seat; so also they gave Rome the first Seat. Of this whole matter Perron is fully answered already by Blondell de primatu, cap. 25. sect. 63. to which I refer you, it being as easie to read it in Print as Writing. Adding this only, that as Flavian (in his necessity) seeking help from the Bishop of the prime Seat in the Empire, did acknowledge no more but his Primacy of Order by the Laws of the Empire and the Councils thereof, so the Empire was not all the world, nor Flavian all the Church, nor any more then one man, and therefore if he had held (as you will never prove he did) the Universall Government of the Pope, if you would thence argue that it was held by all the Church, your consequence must needs be marvelled at, by them that believe that One man is not the Catholick Church, no more then seeking of help was an acknowledging an Universal Headship or Governing power.