A27045:145
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.
I stand to the judgement of any true Logician, nay or expert Lawyer, or rational person, whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it, to give an instance to infringe it. Should you say, no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my parish, save my self, and another should deny what you said; would not you, or any rational man in your case, answer him, that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them, and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was: which till he did, you still remained the sole just possessor of your Benefice as before; and every one will judge, that he had no reason to deny your ⟨p. 36⟩assertion, when he brought no proof against it. This is our case.
I stand to the judgement of any true Logitian, nay or expert Lawyer, or rational person, whether a Negative proposition be to be proved otherwise then by obliging him who denies it, to give an instance to infringe it. Should you say, no man hath right to my Benefice and Function in my parish, save my self, and another should deny what you said; would not you, or any rational man in your case, answer him, that by denying your proposition he affirmed that some other had right to them, and to make good that affirmation was obliged to produce who that was: which till he did, you still remained the sole just possessour of your Benefice as before; and every one will judge, that he had no reason to deny your ⟨p. 36⟩assertion, when he brought no proof against it. This is our case.
The Contradiction, which you would draw from this, against my Nego, Concedo, &c. exacted from the Respondent, and nothing else, follows not. For that prescription is to be understood, that the Respondent of himself, without scope given him by the opponent, was not to use any other forms in Answering; But if the opponent should require that the respondent give reasons, or instances, or proofs, of what he denies, that then the Respondent is to proceed to them. And this is most ordinary in all Logical Disputations, where strict form is observed, and known to every young Logician. Instances therefore demanded by the opponent, were not excluded, but only such excursions out of form, as should proceed from the respondent, with out being exacted by the opponent.