A27045:683
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. Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now! Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent? Is no one way of Election necessary? Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent? And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary? I pray you here again remember then, that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession, ⟨p. 340⟩for want of Episcopal Consecration, or any way of Election▪ If our Pastors have had the peoples consent, they have been true Pastors, according to this reckoning: And if they have now their consent, they are true Pastors. But we have more. 2. By this rule we cannot know of one Bishop of an hundred whether he be a Bishop or no; for we cannot know that he hath the Common consent of the people: yea we know that abundance of your Bishops have no such consent: yea we know that your Pope hath none of the Consent of most of the Christians in the world; nor (for ought you or any man knows) of most in Europe. Its few of your own party that know who is Pope, (much less are called to Consent,) till after he is settled in possession. 3. According to this rule, your successions have been frequently interrupted, when against the will of general Councils, and of the far greatest part of Christians, your Popes have kept the seat by force. 4. In temporals your rule is not universally true. What if the people be engaged to one Prince, and afterward break their vow, and consent to a Usurper? Though in this ease a particular person may be obliged to ⟨p. 341⟩submission and obedience in judicial administrations; yet the usurper cannot thereby defend his Right, and justify his possession, nor the people justify their adhesion to him, while they lye under an obligation to disclaim him, because of their pre-engagement to another. Though some part of the truth be found in your assertion.
R. B. Reply. Qu. 2. Repl. 1. How now! Are all the mysteries of your succession and mission resolved into Popular Consent? Is no one way of Election necessary? Do you leave that to be varied as a thing indifferent? And is Episcopal Consecration also unnecessary? I pray you here again remember then, that none of our Churches are disabled from the plea of a continued succession, ⟨p. 340⟩