A27045:208
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.
You now satisfy me that you mean it universally, viz. [ •ll that Congregation (or Church) of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ, doth acknowledge, &c.] which I told you I deny.
You now satisfie me that you mean it universally, viz. [ •ll that Congregation (or Church) of Christians which is now the true Church of Christ, doth acknowledge, &c.] which I told you I deny.
6. To my following distinction you say [that all the world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by Christs institution, cannot be meant of any accidental thing, but of a necessary unchangeable and essential thing, in Christs true Church,] To which I Reply, Either you see the gross fallacy of this defence, or you do not: If you do not, then never more call for an exact Disputant, nor look to be delivered from your errors by argumentation, though never so convincing. If you do, then you are not faithful to the truth. In your Major proposition the words being many (as you say, you penetrated divers ⟨p. 81⟩arguments together,) ambiguities were the easier hidden in the heap. That which I told you is Accidental to the Church (and that but to a corrupted part) was [the Acknowledging of the Papacy as of Christs Institution,] and therefore if it were granted that a thing [of Christs Institution] could not be Accidental, yet [the Acknowledgement] that is, the Opinion or asserting of it may. If the Church by mistake should think that to be Essential to it which is not, though it will not thence follow that its Essence is but an Accident, yet it will follow that both the false opinion, and the thing it self so falsely conceited to be essential, are but accidents, or not essential. You say [It cannot be meant of any Accidental thing] But 1. That Meaning it self of theirs may be an Accident. 2. And the question is not what they [Mean, that is, Imagine or affirm] it to be; But what it is in deed and truth. That may be an Accident, which they think to be none.