A27045:100
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.
To your conclusion. Resp. 1. Either you mean that [there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church, whose part (a minor corrupt part) acknowledgeth the ⟨p. 11⟩Popes Sovereignty] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it.] In the first sense I grant your conclusion (if really you are part of the Church.) There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church, of which you are small corrupted part. In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject. In the third sense I deny the sequel; non sequitur, because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali, the conclusion must be false de parte ista, as excluding the rest.
To your conclusion. Resp. 1. Either you mean that [there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church, whose part (a minor corrupt part) acknowledgeth the ⟨p. 11⟩Popes Soveraignty] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that Universal Church which wholly acknowledgeth it] or else [that there is no Salvation to be had out of that part of the Universal Church which acknowledgeth it.] In the first sense I grant your conclusion (if really you are part of the Church.) There is no Salvation to be had out of Christs Universal Church, of which you are small corrupted part. In the second sense I told you we deny the supposition in the subject. In the third sense I deny the sequel; non sequitur, because your Major Proposition being false de Ecclesia universali, the conclusion must be false de parte ista, as excluding the rest.
But to the unskilful or unwary reader your conclusion seemeth to import, that [the being in such a Church which acknowledgeth the Popes Sovereignty, as it is such a Church, is necessary to Salvation] and so [that the persons acknowledgement is necessary.] But it is a fallacia accidentis cunningly lapped up, that is the life of your imported cause. That part of the Universal Church doth hold to the Popes Sovereignty, is per accidens; and could you prove that the whole Church doth so (which you are unlike to do) I would say the like. And