A27045:469
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.
Object. But they have possession, and therefore you that would dispossess them, must disprove their title.
Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholic Church where they have no possession: therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof. 2. This is a mere fallacious diversion: for we are not now upon the question of their Title, but the matter of fact and history: we make good the negative, that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself: and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title. But when the question is de facto, whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles days, they that affirm must prove, when we have disabled their title from the Law.
Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholike Church where they have no possession: therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof. 2. This is a meer fallacious diversion: for we are not now upon the question of their Title, but the matter of fact and history: we make good the negative, that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself: and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title. But when the question is de facto, whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles daies, they that affirm must prove, when we have disabled their title from the Law.
2. But what must we prove? that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation, or only some in every age? of all its no more necessary to us, then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles. If a piece of the Church may turn Heretics, or but Schismatics, as the Novatians, and African Donatists, why may not another piece turn Papists?
2. But what must we prove? that all the Church hath been guiltless of the Papal usurpation, or only some in every age? of all its no more necessary to us, then to prove that there have been no Heresies since the Apostles. If a piece of the Church may turn Hereticks, or but Schismaticks, as the Novatians, and African Donatists, why may not another piece turn Papists?