A27045:113
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.
You say [The Minor I prove, by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which always till this present time since Christ hath been visible — save that only which acknowledges &c.] And have I waited all this ⟨p. 19⟩while for this? You prove it by obliging me to prove the contrary. Ridiculous! sed quo jure? 1. Your undertaken form of arguing obligeth you to prove your Minor: You cannot cast your Respondent upon proving and so arguing, and doing the Opponents part. 2. And in your Postscript you presently forbid it me; You require me to hold to a Concedo, Nego, Distingno, Omitto, Transeat; threatening that else you will take it for an Effugium. And I pray you tell me in your next, to which of these doth the nomination or proof of such a Church as you describe belong? Plainly, you first slip away when you should prove your Minor, and then oblige me to prove the Contrary, and then tell me, if I attempt it, you'll take it for an Effugium. A good cause needs not such dealing as this: which me thinks you should be loth a learned man should hear of. 3. Your interest also in the Matter (as well as your office as Opponent) doth oblige you to the proof. For though you make a Negative of it, you may put it in other terms at your pleasure. It is your main work to prove [that All the members of the Universal Church have in all ages held the Popes Sovereignty or Universal Head-ship.] Or [the whole Visible ⟨p. 20⟩Church hath held it] Prove this, and I will be a Papist; you have my promise. You affirm, and you must prove. Prove a Catholic Church, at least that in the Major part was of that mind: (though that would be nothing to prove the condemnation of the rest.) If you are an impartial enquirer after truth, fly not when you come to the setting too. I give you this further evident reason why you cannot oblige me to what you here impose; 1. Because you require me to prove the Visibility of a Church which held not your point of Papacy; and so put an unreasonable task upon me, about a Negative: or else, I must prove that they held the contrary, before your opinion was started: And it is the Catholic Church that we are disputing about; so that I must prove this Negative of the Catholic Church. 2. It is you that lay the great stress of Necessity on your Affirmative, more then we do on the Negative;
You say [The Minor I prove, by obliging the answerers to nominate any Congregation of Christians which alwaies till this present time since Christ hath been visible — save that only which acknowledges &c.] And have I waited all this