A27045:148
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 tell me if I prove the Popes universal ⟨p. 37⟩Supremacy, you will be a Papist: And I tell you, I have proved it by this very Argument, That either He hath that supremacy, or some other Church; denying that he hath always had it, hath been always visible; and that Church I require should be named, if any such be, and whilst you refuse to name that Church (as here you do) you neither answer the Argument, nor become a Papist.
You tell me if I prove the Popes universal ⟨p. 37⟩Supremacy, you will be a Papist: And I tell you, I have proved it by this very Argument, That either He hath that supremacy, or some other Church; denying that he hath alwaies had it, hath been alwaies visible; and that Church I require should be named, if any such be, and whilest you refuse to name that Church (as here you do) you neither answer the Argument, nor become a Papist.
You say I affirm, and I must prove. I say in the proposition, about which we now speak, I affirm not, and so must not prove; and you by denying it, must affirm, and so must prove.
You prove it is not your part here to prove, because the Popes supremacy could not be denied, before it was affirmed; and you must be obliged to prove that denial. I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expressly denying it, but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it; which is an Affirmative.
You prove it is not your part here to prove, because the Popes supremacy could not be denyed, before it was affirmed; and you must be obliged to prove that denyal. I oblige you not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly denying it, but that it was of such a Constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it; which is an Affirmative.