A27045:742
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.
If I lived at the Antipodes or in Ethiopia, and had never heard that there is such a place as Rome in the world (as many a thousand Christians doubtless never heard of it) this would not hinder my salvation, as long as I believed in the blessed Trinity, and were sanctified by the Spirit of Grace. So that, as I am none of their Judge, so I know not that it much concerneth me, to know whether they be a true particular Church, save for charity or communion. 2. Yet I answer it more directly. 1. If they do not by their errors so far overthrow the Christian faith which they profess, as that it cannot practically be believed by them, then are they a true particular Church, or part of the universal Church. 2. And I am apt to hope at least of most that they do not so hold their errors, but that they retain with them so much of the essentials of Religion as may denominate them a true professing Church. More plainly: ⟨p. 374⟩Rome is considered first as Christian, secondly as Papal: As Christian, it is a true Church: As Papal, it is no true Church: For Popery is not the Church according to Christs Institution, but a dangerous corruption in the Church. As a Leprosy is not the man, but the disease of the man. Yet he that is a Leper may be a m••. And he that is a Papist may be a Christian: But 1. Not as he is a Papist. 2. And he is but a leprous or diseased Christian. So much to your Questions. By this much you may see that it no way concerneth me to prove when Rome ceased to be a true Church. For if you mean such a Church as Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, &c. was, that is, but a part of the Catholic Church, so I stick not much, saving in point of Charity, whether it be true or false. But if you mean as your party doth, a Mistress Church to Rule the whole, and denominate the Catholic Church [Roman,] so I say, its Usurpation is not ceased (that's the misery) and its just title never did begin: and its claim was not of many hundred years after Christ: so that your Question requireth no further Answer. ⟨p. 375⟩But what if you had put the Question, At what time it was that your Church began to claim this universal Dominion? I should give you these two answers. 1. When I understand that it is of any great moment to the decision of our controversy, I shall tell you my opinion of the man that first laid the claim, and the year when. 2.