A27045:149
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 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.
You affirm, that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy, and you say that I may be saved though I hold it, therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove, but I to prove my negative proposition. But this would prove ⟨p. 38⟩as well, that a Mahometan is not bound to prove his religion to you, but you to prove yours to him, because you say he cannot be saved being a Mahometan; and he says, that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not, that the obligation of proof in Logical form depends not of the first position, or Thesis, but must be drawn from the immediate proposition, affirmative or negative, which is or ought to be proposed?
You affirm, that because I say you cannot be saved if you deny that Supremacy, and you say that I may be saved though I hold it, therefore you are not bound to prove what I reprove, but I to prove my negative proposition. But this would prove