A27045:604
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.
Prop. 1. As the word [Heretics] signifieth Schismatics as such, so Heretics with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only, may yet be parts of the who•e (even with those parts from which they separate). If they say [You are no parts, and therefore we disown you, and will have no Communion with you] this ⟨p. 297⟩maketh neither cease to be parts] and while both own the Head and the Body as such, they have an union in tertio, and so a communion in the principal respects, while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects. Besides that the local or particular Communion, is it that is proper to members of a particular Church, and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church. But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal, which may be still continued. But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such, and separate (not from this or that Church, but) from the whole, or from the Church Universal as such, this man would be no member of the Church.
Prop. 1. As the word [Hereticks] signifieth Schismaticks as such, so Hereticks with drawing from some parts of the universal Church only, may yet be parts of the who•e (even with those parts from which they separate). If they say [You are no parts, and therefore we disown you, and will have no Communion with you] this ⟨p. 297⟩maketh neither cease to be parts] and while both own the Head and the Body as such, they have an union in tertio, and so a communion in the principal respects, while they peevishly disclaim it in other respects. Besides that the local or particular Communion, is it that is proper to members of a particular Church, and therefore the renouncing it only separates him from that Church. But it is the general Communion that belongs to us as members of the Church Universal, which may be still continued. But should any renounce the Body of Christ as such, and separate (not from this or that Church, but) from the whole, or from the Church Universal as such, this man would be no member of the Church.