A27045:146
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.
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.
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 Logicall Disputations, where strict form is observed, and known to every yong Logitian. 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.
You say, though I make a Negative of it, I may put it in other terms at my pleasure. But the question is not what I may do, but what I did: I required not an Answer to an Argument, which I may frame, but to that which I had then framed, which was expressed in a negative proposition.
You tell me if I prove the Popes universal ⟨p. 37⟩