A27045:500
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.
1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them: nor did he authorize any other to do it, nor did they receive or hold their power from him. 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by. 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him. 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equal Privileges with him. So that here is nothing like to Sovereignty and subjection, nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion indeed they held with Rome, as they did with one another, till pride divided them; but Communion is one thing, and Subjection is another. The Greek Church never gave them this.
1. The Pope never chose the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, &c. 2. It did not belong to him to ordain them: nor did he authorize any other to do it, nor did they receive or hold their power from him. 3. They receive no Laws of his to Rule by. 4. They were not commanded or Judged by him. 5. The Patriarch of Constantinople had equall Priviledges with him. So that here is nothing like to Soveraignty and subjection, nor any acknowledgement of an universal Vicar of Christ. Communion indeed they held with Rome, as they did with one another, till pride divided them; but Communion is one thing, and Subjection is another. The Greek Church never gave them this.
Arg. 6. My next Argument to prove the Novelty of their Church as Papal, and consequently that the Universal Church was void of Popery, and therefore of the same Religion with Protestants, shall be from the testimony of their own most magnified Bishops.
Gregory 1. Epist. Regist. l. 4. c. 80. speaking against the Patriarch of Constantinople, for usurping the Title of Ecumenical Patriarch, or Universal Bishop, saith (fol. 181, 182. Edit. Paris. 1551.) [Sicut enim veneranda vestra sanctitas novit, mihi per sanctam Chalcedonensem Synodum Pontifici sedis Apostolicae, cui Deo disponente deservio, hoc Universalitatis nomen oblatum est: sed Nullus unquam decessorum meorum hoc tam prophano vocabulo uti consensit. Quia viz, si Unus Patriarcha Universalis dicitur, Patriarcharum nomen Caeteris derogatur. Sed absit hoc, absit à Christiana mente, id sibi velle quempiam arripere, unde fratrum suorum honorem imminuere ex quantulacunque parte videatur. Cum ergo nos hunc honorem nolumus oblatum suscipere; pensate quam ignminiosum sit hunc sibi quempiam violenter usurpare voluisse Propterea sunctitas vestra in suis Epistlis neminem Universalem nominet, ne sibi debitum detrahat, cum alteri honorem offert indebitum.]