A27045:151
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 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 ⟨p. 38⟩as well, that a Mahumetan 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 Mahumetan; and he says, that you may be saved being a Christian. See you not, that the obligation of proof in Logicall 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?
To what you say of an Accident and a corrupt part, I have already answered.
To what you say of a vice-king, not being necessary to the Constitution of a kingdom, but a king and subjects only, is true, if a vice-king be not instituted by the Full power of an Absolute Authority over that kingdom, to be an ingredient into the essence of the Kingdom, in the Kings absence: But if so constituted, it will be essential; now my proposition saith, and my Argument proves, that by the Absolute Authority of Christ, Saint Peter and his Successors were instituted Governors in Christs place of his whole visible Church; and whatsoever Government Christ institutes of his Church, must be essential to his Church. You see now the Disparity.