A27045:225
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.
As to your contradictory impositions I Reply, 1. Your exception was not expressed, and your imposition was peremptory. 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove [that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship] you say that you [have proved it by this argument, that either he hath that supremacy, ⟨p. 91⟩or some other Church; denying that he hath always had it, hath been always visible,] and that Church you require should be named. I Reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation, till you had forced me to contradict some common principle. 2. If you should show these Papers to the world, and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not that it hath always been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Popery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresy be opposed or condemned before it doth arise?
As to your contradictory impositions I Reply, 1. Your exception was not exprest, and your imposition was peremptory. 2. I told you I would be a Papist if you prove [that the whole visible Church in all ages hath held the Popes universal headship] you say that you [have proved it by this argument, that either he hath that supremacy, ⟨p. 91⟩or some other Church; denying that he hath alwaies had it, hath been alwaies visible,] and that Church you require should be named. I Reply, 1. Had not you despaired of making good your cause, you should have gone on by Argumentation, till you had forced me to contradict some common principle. 2. If you should shew these Papers to the world, and tell them that you have no better proof of the succession of your Papacy, then that we prove not that it hath alwaies been denied by the visible Church, you would sure turn thousands from Popery, if there be so many rational considering impartial men that would peruse them, and believe you. For any man may know that it could not be expected that the Churches should deny a Vice-Christ before he was sprung up. Why did not all the precedent Roman Bishops disclaim the title of universal Bishop or Patriarch, till Pelagius and Gregory? but because there was none in the world that gave occasion for it. How should any Heresie be opposed or condemned before it doth arise?