A27045:522
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.
But 2. His other reason is worse then this; forsooth [because the question was only whether John of Constantinople should have this title, and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it: and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and profane, that is, as given to John, (but not to himself) yet he refused it himself, though due to him, that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople.] Ans. The sum is then, that Gregory did merely lye and dissemble for his own end. He labours to prove that blasphemous, sacrilegious, &c. ⟨p. 265⟩which he desired; But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do. Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man? doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title? and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it, and make so heinous a matter of it, and yet all this while approve it as for himself? Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical, that calls it an imitation of the Devil? You see now what the Roman Cause is come to, and whether their Church as Papal, that is, their Universal Sovereignty, be not sprung up since Gregory's days.
But 2. His other reason is worse then this; forsooth [because the question was only whether Iohn of Constantinople should have this title, and not whether the Bishop of Rome should have it: and therefore Gregory simply and absolutely pronounceth the name sacrilegious and prophane, that is, as given to Iohn, (but not to himself) yet he refused it himself, though due to him, that he might the better repress the pride of the Bishop of Constantinople.] Ans. The sum is then, that Gregory did meerly lye and dissemble for his own end. He labours to prove that blasphemous, sacrilegious, &c. ⟨p. 265⟩which he desired; But we will not judge so odiously of the Pope as Papists do. Doth he charge the other Patriarchs and Bishops to give it no man? doth he blame them after in other Epistles that gave him that Title? and doth he profess that never any of his Predecessors received it, and make so hainous a matter of it, and yet all this while approve it as for himself? Who will believe a Saint to be so diabolical, that calls it an imitation of the Devil? You see now what the Roman Cause is come to, and whether their Church as Papal, that is, their Universal Soveraignty, be not sprung up since Gregories dayes.