A27045:467
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.
Object. But at least, (say they) you must prove a Church that hath been without the universal Vicar negatively, though not against him positively.
Answ. 1. In all reason, he that affirmeth must prove: It is not incumbent on us to prove the negative, that the Church had not such a Roman head; but they must prove that it had.
Object. But they have possession, and therefore you that would dispossess them, must disprove their title.
Ans. 1. This is nothing to most of the Catholic Church where they have no possession: therefore with them they confess themselves obliged to the proof. 2. This is a mere fallacious diversion: for we are not now upon the question of their Title, but the matter of fact and history: we make good the negative, that they have no Title from the Laws of Christ himself: and so will not dispossess them without disproving their pretended Title. But when the question is de facto, whether they have ever had that possession from the Apostles days, they that affirm must prove, when we have disabled their title from the Law.