A27045:218
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.
My argument from the Indians and others, is not solved by you. For 1. You ⟨p. 86⟩can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the Captive maid, nor to the Indians by Frumentius. 2. Thousands were made Christians and baptized by the Apostles, without any preaching or profession of a papacy, Act. 2. & passim. 3. The Indians now Converted in America by the English and Dutch, hear nothing of the Pope, nor thousands in Ethiopia. 4. Your own do or may baptize many without their owning the Pope, who yet would be Christians. And a Pastor not known, or believed, or owned, is actually no Pastor to them.
To your confirmation, I Reply: You misread my words: I talk not of [Invisible.] I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universal Head: and is Visible 1. In the members. 2. In the Profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not Invisible, though one of a million see him not, no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: Whether you will Call Christ visible or not, I leave to you: I think he is visible: But ⟨p. 87⟩that which I affirm, is, that the universal Church hath no other visible universal Head or Pastor: But particular Churches have their particular Pastors all under Christ.
To your confirmation, I Reply: You misread my words: I talk not of [Invisible.] I say it is true that the Universal Church is united to Christ as their universall Head: and is Visible 1. In the members. 2. In the Profession. 3. Christ himself is visible in the Heavens, and as much seen of most of the Church as the Pope is, that is, not at all. As the Pope is not Invisible, though one of a million see him not, no more is Christ, who is seen by most of the Church, and by the best part, even by the glorified. You know my meaning: Whether you will Call Christ visible or not, I leave to you: I think he is visible: But