A27045:268
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 add your Reason, because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation, and then fell off as dead branches. ⟨p. 126⟩Reply. This is but an untruth in a most public matter of fact. All the truth is this. 1. Those Indians, Ethiopians, Persians, &c. without the Empire, never fell from you, as to subjection, as never being your subjects. Prove that they were, and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his Annals. 2 The Greeks, and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your Communion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection, having given you but a Primacy, as Nilus shows, and not a Governing power over them. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches, if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering. You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree, and the greater part (two to one) the Branches; but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities.
You add your Reason, because these beforenamed were at first involved in your Congregation, and then fell off as dead branches. ⟨p. 126⟩Reply. This is but an untruth in a most publick matter of fact. All the truth is this. 1. Those Indians, Ethiopians, Persians, &c. without the Empire, never fell from you, as to subjection, as never being your subjects. Prove that they were, and you have done a greater wonder then Baronius in all his Annals. 2 The Greeks, and all the rest within the Empire, without the Roman Patriarchate, are fallen from your Communion (if renouncing it be a fall) but not from your subjection, having given you but a Primacy, as Nilus shews, and not a Governing pewer over them. The withering therefore was in the Roman branches, if the corruptions of either part may be called a withering. You that are the lesser part of the Church may easily call your selves the Tree, and the greater part (two to one) the Branches; but these beggings do but proclaim your necessities.
In good time you come to give me here at last some proof of an ancient Papacy, as you think. But first, you quite forget (or worse) that it is not a man or two in the whole world in an age, but the universal