A27045:226
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.
But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say that you [oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expressly ⟨p. 92⟩denying it; but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it.] Reply, I confess your first part is very ingenuous and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving [a Church that denied the Papacy formally & expressly.] But as to what you yet demand. 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say •'le sail you: I have answered your desire. But 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor, (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas its you that must prove that there was such. I prove our Religion: do you prove yours: though I say to pleasure you, I'll disprove it, and have done it in two books already.
But you fairly yield me somewhat here, and say that you [oblige me not to prove a continued visible Church formally and expresly ⟨p. 92⟩denying it; but that it was of such a constitution as was inconsistent with any such supremacy, or could and did subsist without it.] Reply, I confess your first part is very ingenuous and fair. Remember it hereafter, that you have discharged me from proving [a Church that denied the Papacy formally & expresly.] But as to what you yet demand. 1. I have here given it you, because you shall not say •'le sail you: I have answered your desire. But 2. It is not as a thing necessary, but ex abundanti, as an overplus. For you may now see plainly, that to prove that the Church was without an universal Pastor, (which you require) is to prove the Negative, viz. that then there was none such; whereas its you that must prove that there was such. I prove our Religion: do you prove yours: though I say to pleasure you, I'le disprove it, and have done it in two books already.