A27045:594
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.
1. It is supposed that you and I are not agreed What the Universal visible Church it self is, while you take the Pope, or any mere humane Head to be an essential part; which is an assertion that with much abhorrence I deny. You think each member of that Church must necessarily ad esse, be a subject of the Pope; and I think it enough that he be a subject of Christ; and to his orderly and well-being, that he hold local Communion with the parts within the reach of his capacity, and be subject to the Pastors that are set over him; maintaining due association with and charity to the rest of the more distinct members, as he is capable of communion with them at that distance. So that when I have proved a person to be a member of the Catholic Church, it is not your Catholic Church that I mean: No •ound Christian is a member of yours; it is Heretics (in the softer sense) that are its matter. Its necessary therefore that we first agree of the Definition of the Catholic Church, before we dispute who is in it.
1. It is supposed that you and I are not agreed What the Vniversal visible Church it self is, while you take the Pope, or any meer humane Head to be an essential part; which is an assertion that with much abhorrence I deny. You think each member of that Church must necessarily ad esse, be a subject of the Pope; and I think it enough that he be a subject of Christ; and to his orderly and well-being, that he hold local Communion with the parts within the reach of his capacity, and be subject to the Pastors that are set over him; maintaining due association with and charity to the rest of the more distinct members, as he is capable of communion with them at that distance. So that when I have proved a person to be a member of the Catholick Church, it is not your Catholick Church that I mean: No •ound Christian is a member of yours; it is Hereticks (in the softer sense) that are its matter. Its necessary therefore that we first agree of the Definition of the Catholick Church, before we dispute who is in it.
2. Your word [Properly so called] is ambiguous; referring either to the Etymology, or to some definition in an authentic