A27045:638
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.
R. B. Reply. Q 1. Repl. ad 1m 1. You see then that your Definitions signify nothing: no man can know your meaning by them. First you make the Catholic Church to consist only of visible Assemblies: and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are of no visible Assemblies 2. You now mention subjection to the supreme Pastor as sufficient, which in your description or definition you did not. 3. If to be only in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve, then inexistence is not necessary. To be only in voto of the Catholic Church, proves no man a member of the Catholic Church, but proves the contrary, because it is Terminus diminuens. Seeing then by your ⟨p. 313⟩own confession, inexistence in a particular Church is not of necessity to inexistence in the Catholic Church; why do you not only mention it in your definition, but confine the Church to such? will you say you meant in voto? who then can understand you, when you say they must be of visible Assemblies, and mean, they need not be of any, but only to wish, desire or purpose it? 4. But yet you say nothing to my case in its latitude. Many a one may be converted to Christ by a solitary Preacher, or by two or three, that ne•er tell him that there is any supreme Pastor in the world: How then can he be subject to that supposed Pastor, that never heard of him? The English and Dutch convert many Indians to the faith of Christ, that never hear of a supreme Pastor. 5. If it be necessary that a particular Church must be assigned for such members by the supreme Pastor, then they are yet little the better that never have any such assignation from him (as few have▪)
R. B. Reply. Q 1. Repl. ad 1m 1. You see then that your Definitions signifie nothing: no man can know your meaning by them. First you make the Catholick Church to consist only of visible Assemblies: and after you allow such to be members of the Church that are of no visible Assemblies 2. You now mention subjection to the supream Pastor as sufficient, which in your description or definition you did not. 3. If to be only in voto resolved to be of a particular Church will serve, then inexistence is not necessary. To be only in voto of the Catholick Church, proves no man a member of the Catholick Church, but proves the contrary, because it is Terminus diminuens. Seeing then by your ⟨p. 313⟩