A27045:211
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.
Where you say, your Major should have been granted or denied without these distinctions: I Reply, 1. If you mean fairly, and not to abuse the truth by Confusion, such distinctions as you your self call [Learned and substantial] can do you no wrong. They do but secure our true understanding ⟨p. 84⟩of one another: And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards. When I once understand you, I have done: And I beseech you, take it not for an injury to be understood.
Where you say, your Major should have been granted or denyed without these distinctions: I Reply, 1. If you mean fairly, and not to abuse the truth by Confusion, such distinctions as you your self call [Learned and substantial] can do you no wrong. They do but secure our true understanding ⟨p. 84⟩of one another: And a few lines in the beginning by way of distinction are not vain, that may prevent much vain altercation afterwards. When I once understand you, I have done: And I beseech you, take it not for an injury to be understood.
As to your conclusion, that you used no fallacy ex Accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I Reply, that's the very life of the Controversy between us: And our main Question is not so to be begged. On the grounds I have showed you, I still aver, that [the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church, as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman;] And though you say, It is Essential, and of Christs Institution, that maketh it neither Essential, nor of Christs Institution; nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentials.
As to your conclusion, that you used no fallacy ex Accidente, and that my instances are not apposite; I Reply, thats the very life of the Controversie between us: And our main Question is not so to be begged. On the grounds I have shewed you, I still averr, that [the holding of the Papacy is as Accidental to the universal Church, as a Cancer in the breast is to a woman;] And though you say, It is Essential, and of Christs Institution, that maketh it neither Essential, nor of Christs Institution; nor doth it make all his institutions to be essentialls.