A27045:300
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.
7. You add, that they humbly begged of him that the Patriarch of Constantinople might h•ve the first place next Rome, which notwithstanding the Council had consented to, as had also the third general Council at Ephesus before, yet they esteemed their grants of no sufficient force, till they were confirmed by the Pope.] Reply. So far were the Council from what you falsely say of them, that they put it into their Canons, that Constantinople should have the second place, yea and equal privileges with Rome, and that they had this on the same grounds as Rome had its Primacy, even because it was the Imperial Seat: Vid. Bin. pag. 133, 124. col. 2. And not only Ephesus, but the second general Council at ⟨p. 158⟩Constantinople, they tell you had decreed the same before. You see then (contrary to your fiction) that three general Councils (of the greatest, likened by Gregory to the 4 Evangelists) not only judged without the Pope, but by your own confession against him (for you say, he consented not) yea so much did they slight the Popes consent, that when his Legates dissented, they were not heard: See Bin. pag. 134, 136. They persisted in the Council to maintain their Canon 38. notwithstanding the contradiction of Lucretius and Paschasinus, and by the Judges it was accordingly pronounced, p 137. And unanimously the whole Synod consented, never stopping at the Roman dissent. Pergamius Bishop of Antioch saith [in omnibus sanctissimum Archiepiscopum Regiae civitatis novae Romae in honore & cura sicut Patrem praecipuum habere nos convenit.] No man contradicted this: And is not this as much or more, then you allege as spoke to Leo? They call Leo (you say) Father: And the Bishop of Constantinople is pronounced the Chief Father in all things, in honour and Cure. And Eusebius Bishop of Doryl. the chief adversary of Dioscorus, witnessed that he himself, in the presence of the Clergy of Constantinople, did read this Canon to the ⟨p. 159⟩Pope at Rome, and he received it. Upon which your Historian hath no better an observation, then that [either Eusebius lied, or else at that hour he deceived Leo.] Its true that the Synod writ to him for his consent: but not as suspending any of their Decrees on it; but telling him over and over, that the things were by them defined and confirmed already, pag. 140.