universal proposition in it in place of the word those form required all those Secondly you put more in the medium of the major to wit in its parts then you do in the medium of your minor and so make it consist of 4. terms Thirdly you make the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion This is a hopeful beginning put your sylogism first in form and then I 'le answer it suppose all adjusted I deny your minor Protestants are no part of that Church on earth whereof Christ is head Non-proof 2. 6. Pag. 204. the second sylogism is likewise out of form having no universal proposition in it Adde all to your major to set it in form and I first deny it It is not true that all who profess true Christian Religion in all its essentials are members of Christs Church for to these essentials they may add some error or non-essential as an essential to them and thereby destroy faith as you your self cite Durandus pag. 211. and put a N. B. not a bene upon it I deny also your minor but first prove your major which you have not done Protestants professe not the true Christian Religion in all its essentials you prove that in this manner Non-proof 3. 7. Your third sylogism p. 295. is also out of form for want of an universal proposition add All to your major I grant that and deny your minor Protestants profess not so much as God hath promised salvation upon the Covenant of Grace Non-proof 4. Your fourth sylogism is also out of form not assuming the whole proposition to be proved for in that proposition was this term in the Covenant of Grace which is not to be found in this fourth sylogism To your fourth sylogism therefore page 205. supposing it were in form I deny that part of your major that Protestants have willingness and diligence to know the true meaning of all the law of nature and holy Scripture for if they were willing and diligent they would take the expositions of the universal Church and not follow their novel interpretations and private judgements I deny also that they believe with a saving divine faith any of the mysteries here named or that their profession general and particular affirm this Non-proof 5. 8. Your 5. sylogism p. 206. nu 2. is likewise out of form for want of an universal proposition make it universal and I deny your major they profess not so much as Catecumens and Competentes for those profess to believe implicitly all that was taught as matter of faith by the Catholique Church in that article I believe the Catholique Church which Protestants do not nor can they do it truly since their profest disbelief of many points evinces the contrary Non-proof 6. 9. Your 6. sylogism p. 206. nu 3. is also out of form for the same reasons add all to the major I deny your major their general profession is contradicted by their particular denial of such points as are sufficiently propounded to them as articles of faith Secondly you distinguish not betwixt being implicitly contained in general principles and being expresly contain'd in the Creeds and Scriptures Thirdly Creeds and Scriptures are not enough traditions and decrees of general Councils in matters of faith must be believed Fourthly I deny those Protestants who are such wittingly and willingly and not excused with invincible ignorance believe any article of faith at all with a supernal saving faith Thus in six sylogisms you have not so much as one in form So mighty strong is your first argument Non-proof 7. 10. Pag. 206. sect ad hominem infra p. 207. you cite Bellar. and Costerus to no purpose for our question is not of what is to be believed expresly only but of what is to be believed both expresly and implicitly respectively by all Christians 11. Your second Argument is p. 207. lit b I grant your major and deny your minor Protestants are not members of the true Church as intrinsecally informed 12. Pag. 208. you prove say you your antecedent or minor which is a Syntax in Logick and deserves a ferula for no minor can be an antecedent Pag. 208. The antecedent I deny your minor Protestants formally such have not enough to be brought to the unfeigned love of God above all things and special love to his servants and unfeigned willingness to obey him for had they this they would never have disobeyed and disbelieved all the visible Churches in the world anno 1517. as their first broachers did and they follow that disbelief to this day Pag. 208. I deny your minor what I deny in the former sylogism is not in your profession both general and particular the second shews the contrary and contradicts the first as did the Arrians ut supra 13. Pag. 208. nu 2. I deny you have any certain knowledge or feeling that you love God or his servants or willingness to obey his precepts as you ought to love and obey him if you be a formal Protestant for if you be such your heart deceives you and your false feelings delude you please to peruse Ier. 17.9 Pravum est cor hominis inscrutabile quis cognoscit illud Ego Dominus scrutans cor probans renes qui do unicuique juxta viam suam juxta fructum ad inventionum suarum And Sapient 9.14 cogitationes mortalium timidae incertae providentiae nostrae ponder a while the strange delusion which bewitched the Angel or Pastor of Laodicea Apoc. 3.17 quia dicis quia dives sum locupletatus nullius egeo nescis quia tu es miser miserabilis pauper caecus nudus consider the Pharisee Luk. 18.13 how much he was deceiv'd in his own judgement of his own state and let not that saying of the Wise man pass without reflection Ecclesiastes 9.1 Nescit homo utrum odio an amore dignus sit sed omnia in futurum servantur incerta What would you answer to a new Arrian or Antitrinitarian c. nay to a Turk or Iew which you hold to be no Christian should they urge the like knowledge and feeling in themselves against you to prove they were members of Gods true Church what you would reply to them take as said to your self 14. Pag. 209. num 2. your sylogism is not in form making the predicate of the minor the subject of the conclusion for your conclusion in form should not be as you have it Ergo the Church of which the Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth which is your Thesis to be proved but it ought to have been this Ergo the Church which hath been alwayes visible since the dayes of Christ on earth is that whereof the Protestants are members which is not your Thesis nor the thing you are immediately to prove but supposing it right I distinguish your major if you mean contained in volutely as in general principles I grant
it if expresly containing all things necessary to salvation I deny it Again I distinguish all things necessary to salvation either you mean all things necessary to be distinctly known and expresly believed by all to obtain salvation and so I grant it or all things also to be believed implicitly and to be distinctly known to all and so I deny it These distinctions suppos'd I deny your consequence viz. That the Church whereof Protestants are members hath been visible ever since the dayes of Christ on earth 15. Pag. 210. your authorities prove nothing the aforesaid distinctions applied Bellar. and Costerus speaks of things necessary to be expresly believed by all Ragusa of the Scripture well understood which include the interpretation of the Church Gerson not of articles of Faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private and fallible authority Durandus treats of private conclusions drawn from Scripture by himself as you cite him pag. 212. of delivering nothing contrary to Scripture and of using the interpretation of the Roman Church St. Thomas speaks not a word of Scripture nor so much as names it in those words cited by you and in his summe de veritate addes the interpretation of the Church to Scripture as you cite his words pag. 213. Scotus cited p. 213. is quite against you he sayes add you that many needful things are not expressed in Scripture but virtually contained which is not protestant but sound catholick doctrine Gregor Ariminensis p. 14. speaks not of points of faith but of Theological conclusions drawn by private discourse which is not as you add next more then to intend the sufficiency of express Scripture to matters of faith for the seusteine of faith is infallible and divine Theological discourse only fallible and humane now he sayes diametrically against your tenet that all truths are not in themselves formally contain'd in holy Scripture but of necessity following these that are contained in them c. but here 's the difficulty we say that every point we teach is contain'd as in general principles at least in Scripture and necessarily deduced from it but you adde they must be contained formally for what seems a necessary consequence of Scripture to us seems not so to you and the like is of what seems necessary to you seems neither necessary nor propable to us so that neither of us can be convinced that our respective deductions are points of faith and both you must confess yours are not because you have not infallibly authority deducing them and we do acknowledge that conclusions drawn from Scripture abstracting from the Churches authority oblige us not to receive them as matters of faith 16. Pag. 216. Gulielmus Parisiensis sayes no more then say the former Authors and Bellar. nothing at all to your purpose draw if you can the sufficiency of sole Scripture held by you from words which so cleerly declare its insufficiency Pag. 217. Your whole discourse is a pure parorgon our question is not what is essential or necessary necessitate medii or praecepti to be known and expresly believed by all per se and absolutely but whether one believing all that is essential and necessary in that manner and withal disbelieving any other point of faith whatsoever after it is hic nunc sufficiently propounded as such to any particular person can either be saved or be a true real part of the visible Church of Christ. Now we answer negatively to this question because such a disbelief excludes an implicite belief of that point so disbelieved and consequently a belief of all that God hath revealed and therby all supernatural saving faith To illustrate the truth of this assertion let us instance in a Pelagian who believed all that which you account essential that is the common Articles necessary for all to salvation the Creeds the Scriptures c. And had sufficiently propounded to him the belief of Original sin as a point of Christian faith which he refuses to believe and accounts an errour the question will not be in this case whether that Pelagian believe all these essentials in the account but whether that supposed he be not excluded out of the Church and dismembred from it by that wilful disbelief of Original sin This is our present case controverted betwixt us so that though it were admitted that you believe all that material object of faith which you esteem essential and necessary for all to be expresly believed yet because we accuse and judge you to disbelieve many points of as much concern as is that of Original sin and as sufficiently propounded to you as such as that was to the Pelagians we have as much reason to judge you to be excluded out of the Catholique Church and dismembred from it as we have to judge them either therefore you acknowledge the point disbelieved by you and propounded as matter of faith by us to you to be as sufficiently propounded as was that of Original sin to the Pelagians or you deny it if you acknowledge it you must acknowledge you are as much dismembred from the Church by your disbelief as they were if you deny it then we will put our selves upon the proof of it so that till our proofs be heard and fully answer'd you cannot secure your selves of being parts of the Catholique Church no more then could the Pelagians 17. If you affirm as your principles lead you that even the disbelief of Original sin hinder'd not the Pelagians from remaining parts of the Catholique Church you contradict St. Augustine and St. Epiphanius In Catalogis Haereticorum the Council of Nice all antiquity nay all modern authors even your own and I provoke you to produce so much as one Author who affirms Pelagians to be parts of the Catholique Church CHAP. II. Mr. Baxters authorities NUm 18. Whether Mr. Baxters doctrine about sole scripture agree with Tertullians in his prescriptions Num. 21. Mr. Baxter would send all his adversaries packing if he knew how he supposes his Readers to be very simple Num. 19. Whether St. Augustin taught that common people were to reade-Scipture in the place cited by Mr. Baxter whereas St. Augustine taught there that all things belonging to Christian Faith and manners are expressed in Scripture his two other Collections from St. Augustine examined Num. 22. He knowes not where his Church was An. 1500. Num. 25. He cites two texts of S. Augustine distructive to his own doctrine Num. 25.26 How much Optatus makes for Mr. Baxter Num. 26.27 What Optatus meanes by being within or in communion with the seven Churches of Asia Mr. Baxter cites two texts in Optatus which quite overthrow him Num. 28. Divers of his Effugiums examined and confuted concerning Tertullians prescriptions Num. 29.30 Many texts of Tertullian not Englished by Mr. Baxter make directly against him 18. Hence falls to nothing all you alledge from Bell. Costerus Gulielmus Parisiensis Aquinas Bannes Espenseus c. p. 216.217.218 For they speak of
Church be true or false that 's stated in the Argument but whether it be in a matter Accidental or Essential Now I affirm that nothing which Christ hath Instituted to be ever in the Church is Accidental to the Church for every Accident is separable from the Subject without destroying the Subject whose Accident it is But what Christ ha's Instituted to be ever in his Church is inseparable from it Mat. 19.6 for Quae Deus conjunxit homo non separet Those things which God hath conjoyned man must not separate In the mean time you fairly acknowledge your instances were not home to the present purpose because not in matters Instituted to be perpetual by one of that Authority whose Institution no man can change and consequently not necessary to be ever in those Nations or Commonwealths to whom you ascribe them Baxter Num. 17. For 1. The holding it alwayes done and that of Christs Institution may be either an Accident or but of the Integrity and ad bene esse yea possibly an errour Iohnson Num. 17. If of the Integrity then not Accidental for no Integral part is an Accident to the whole So you yield up your cause and acknowledge your errourâ—â— and 't is laudable in you The question is not what you might have done but what you did your instances given fell short and were plainly fallacious I have already shew'd that nothing can be an Accident to the Church which Christ hath instituted to be ever that is perpetually in the Church and consequently the Churches holding any thing to be so if true is Essential to the Subsistance of the Church if false is essentially destructive of the Church so that whether true or false it will never be accidental to the Church Baxter Num. 18. And I might as easily have given you instances of that kind Iohnson Num. 18. Had you more fully reflected upon your Adversaries words you might have done many things more pertinently then you have done them but here again you acknowledge your error in alledging instances which were not to the purpose But your Readers and I should have been much more satisfied had you amended what you acknowledge to be a fault and brought at least in this your last Reply those instances which you say here you might have given then Be sure therefore in your next to produce instances of Accidentals in such things as Christ hath instituted to be ever in his Church whereby it may appear that this Roman acknowledgment whether true or false is accidental to the true Church So that the acknowledgment of it by all those to whom it is sufficiently propounded is necessary to make them parts of the true Church and the denial of it when so propounded hinders them from being parts of it Baxter Num. 19. To your third Syllogism I reply 1. When you say your Church had Pastors Fallacy 5. as you must speak of what existed and universals exist not of themselves so it is necessary that I tell you how far I grant your Minor and how far I deny it Iohnson Num. 19. What though universalls exist not of themselves may not therefore a Logician expresse things which have existed in an abstract or universal term Is not this a true Logical Proposition Ever since Adam there have been parents and children in the world though the terms abstract from lawful and unlawful from male or female children would you carp at this Proposition as you do here at mine because universalls exist not of themselves or go about to distinguish different sorts of children or parents as you do Pastors here to find out the true meaning of that Proposition No man sayes or need to say in such Enunciations that universalls exist but expresses particulars which have existed by abstract and universall terms Baxter Num. 20. My Argument from the Indians and others is not solved by you For 1. You can never prove that the Pope was preached to the Iberians by the captive maid Fallacy 6. nor to the Indians by Frumentius 2. Thousands were made Christians and Baptized by the Apostles Three non-proofs without any preaching or profession of a Papacie Acts 2. pasâ—â—im 3. The Indians now converted in America by the English and Dutch hear nothing of the Pope nor thousands in Ethiopia 3. Your own doe or may baptize many without their owning the Pope who yet would be Christians And a Pastor not known or beleeved or owned is actually no Pastor to them Iohnson Num. 20. To all these Instances I answer They conclude nothing against my Assertion for I never said that all particular persons or communities are obliged to have an express belief or acknowledgment of the Roman-Bishops Supremacy that being necessary to all neither necessitate medii nor praecepti It is sufficient that they beleeve it implicitely in subjecting themselves to all those whom Christ hath instituted to be their lawfull Pastors and when the Bishop of Rome is sufficiently proposed to them to be the supream visible Pastor of of those Pastors upon earth that then they obstinately reject not his authority To your first instance of the Captive maid and Saint Frumentius I answer we can prove as much at least that to have been preacht to them as you can prove either Justification by Faith only or any other particular point of your doctrine to have been preacht to them And both of us must say that all important Christian Truths both for particular persons and Churches were delivered to those people and till you have evinced this of Supremacy to have been none of those it is to be supposed it was sufficiently declared to those Nations At least in explicating the Article of the Catholike Church to them they must be supposed to have told them it consisted of Pastors and people united and that the people were to obey all their lawful Pastors in which doctrine the Pope is implicitely included To your second from Acts 2. The Scripture relates not there all that S. Peter said but affirmeth vers 40. that he gave testimony to them in many other words And who can tell whether amongst the rest that of his Supremacy might not have been sufficiently intimated to them However it appears by the Text vers 37. that the people addrest themselves first and in particular to S. Peter before all the rest of the Apostles as the prime amongst them and he who first preacht the Gospel to them Prove the English and Dutch Convertites converted by Protestants if you mean those as you must do if your argument have any force to be instructed in the true Faith and then your Instance will have some force prove those of Ethiopia to be Orthodox and Catholick Christians To what purpose produce you instances which are assoon denied as they are proposed Your last touches only particular persons which I have shewed are not obliged to know this expresly to be of the Church the Pope is their true pastor and so
it in your Edition p. 35. But why do you refer what I admit not I say not that every Opponent may come to a Negative at his pleasure as you make me say but when that Negative is deduced by force of Syllogistical form and denied by the Respondent in a matter proveable by instances as this is I affirm and desire it should be sent to both our Learned Universities that he who denies the universal Negative is obliged in Logical process to give some instance to the contrary and that there is no other means to prove that Negative but by infringing the instances which the Respondent produces against it For if the Opponent go to prove his universal negative by Induction viz. in my present Minor But no Congregation of Christians hath been alwayes visible save those which acknowledge St. Peter c. he must come at last to this Such a Congregation is neither that of the Arrians nor of the Eutychians nor of Nestorians nor any other Congregation that can be named Then if the Respondent deny that Proposition and affirm there is some nameable he is obliged to tell which it is otherwise it is impossible to make progress in the Argument which way of arguing notwithstanding is most Logical and usually practised amongst Learned Disputants Baxter Num. 25. We are all agreed that Christianity is the true Religion and Christ the Churches universal Head and the Holy Scriptures the Word of God Papists tell us of another Head and Rule the Pope and Tradition and Iudgement of the Church Protestants deny these Additionals and hold to Christianity and Scripture onely our Religion being nothing but Christianity we have no controversie about their Papal Religion superadded is that which is controverted They affirm 1. the Right 2. the Antiquity of it We deny both The Right we disprove from Scripture though it belongs to them to prove it The Antiquity is it that is now to be referred Protestancy being the denial of Popery it is we that really have the Negative and the Papists that have the Affirmative The Essence of our Church which is Christian is confessed to have been successively visible But we deny that theirs as Papal hath been so and now they tell us that it is Essential to ours to deny the Succession of theirs and therefore require us to prove a Succession of ours as one that still hath denied theirs Now we leave our Case to the Lawyers seeing to them you make your Appeal 1. Whether the Substance of all our Cause lie not in this question Whether the Papacy or universal Government by the Pope be of Heaven or of Men Fallacy 8. and so Whether it hath been from the beginning which we deny and therefore are called Protestants and they affirm and are therefore called Papists 2. If they cannot first prove a Successive visibility of their Papacy and Papal Church then what Law can bind us to prove that it was denied before it did arise in the world or ever any pleaded for it 3. And as to the point of Possession I know not what can be pretended on your side 1. The possession of this or that particular Parish Church or Tythes is not the thing in question but the universal Headship is the thing But if it were yet it is I that am yet here in Possession and Protestants before me for many Ages Successively And when possessed you the Head-ship of the Ethiopian Indian and other Extra-Imperial Churches never to this day No nor of the Eastern Churches though you had Communion with them 2. If the question be who hath possession of the universal Church we pretend not to it but onely to a part and the soundest safest part 3. The Case of Possession therefore is Whether we have not been longer in Possession of our Religion which is bare Christianity then you of your super-added Popery Our Possession is not denied of Christianity yours of Popery we deny and our denial makes us called Protestants Let therefore the reason of Logicians Lawyers or any rational sober man determine the case whether it do not first and principally belong to you to prove the visible Succession of a Vice-Christ over the universal Church Iohnson Num. 25. Fair and softly Sir you are run quite out of the field and have lost your self I know not where The present question is not who is to prove the universal and perpetual Supremacy of the Roman-Bishop See you not that I have already undertaken the proof of that in this present Argument The question at present is nothing but this when I have brought the Argument to this Head that no other Congregation of Christians can be named perpetually visible save that which acknowledges the Roman Supremacy and you deny that negative Proposition of mine whether you be not obliged upon that denial to name some Congregation which has been perpetually visible beside it This and this onely is that which I referr'd and still refer to the the judgement of the Learned as to your Case when it comes in season it shall be resolved This onely ex abundanti for the present whatsoever may be or not be of the Indians and Ethiopians c. which shall hereafter be examined You who confess the Pope to have been constituted Part 2. at least by the Churches grant Patriarch of the West and thereby to have acquired a lawfull Supremacy over the Western Churches and consequently over that of England and was in full and quiet possession of that Right when your first Protestants began to reject it you I say cannot deny those first Protestants at least to have been obliged by reason of that possession to bring convincing proofs that it was unlawfull which notwithstanding you must hold impossible to be done because you hold that Patriarchal power over them to have been lawfull Now what obligation falls upon you as maintaining successively so wrongfull a cause I leave to your consciences to determine Nay it is most evident in time of the first breach with the Roman Bishop he was in as quiet possession of Supremacy over the English Church in quality of Supreme visible Pastor over the whole Church as he was in quality of the Western Patriarch for the English obeyed him as Supreme over all and not as Patriarch of the West onely as appears by thousands of testimonies extant in our National Councils Doctors Bishops Historians Records Decrees c. Therefore those who dispossest him of that possession were bound either to have demonstrated it undeniably to be unlawfull or to have procured a definitive Sentence against him by such as had full Authority to judge him that his possession was unjust neither of which either hath been done nor can ever be done Baxter Num. 26 As to your contradictory impositions I reply 1. Your exception was not exprest and your imposition was peremptory Iohnson Num. 26. But I supposed my Adversaries to be Logicians and stood not in need to be instructed
such as with the belief of what they esteem universally essential and fundamental in themselves not to be joyn'd with an actual disbelief of any point though not so generaly necessary to be expresly believed by every one yet sufficiently propounded to them hic nunc as a point of Christian faith To what purpose cite you Tertul p. 219. What is that rule which he speaks of Is it sole Scripture without Church or tradition prove that or what hurts us in his other sentence c. 8. Do we teach any thing against it prove that or why make you such observations upon Tertullians prescriptions p. 220. why prove you not your observations froÌ„ Tertul. words where say's he the rules of Essentials extracted from the whole Scriptures is the Churches ancient creed that the compleat rule of all points of faith is the whole Scripture what mean you to cite that from Tertullian which destroyes you have you ever yet cleared your selves from denying some Essentials I am sure Tertullian puts in the book cited by you the Eucharist Baptisme amongst the things which he would have to be principal points taught by St. Peter and to be believed by all Christians to whom they were sufficiently propounded are not our controversies about these leave not you many books of Scripture out of the Canon and use you not the large feild of Scripture to puzzle the weak how then can you turne your selves more from the lash of Tertullian then the Hereticks against whom he writes And you say this ancient Author advised the ordinary Christians of his time instead of long puzling disputes to hold them to the Churches prescription of the simple doctrine of the creed do you not confound your own publick practise in perswading every ordinary Christian to read the Scriptures in his own language to maintain their cause by some obscure mistaken passages out of them against the Churches prescriptions nay and the simple doctrine of the Creed too by perverting that article of believing the holy Catholick Church instance if you can the prescription of the Church in the year 1500 to justifie your so many oppositions against the prescriptions of all particular visible Churches in that age and be sure you fail not with all to tell me what Church prescribed in the same year against the Church of Rome in opposing those which you call supplemental traditions held by her and all other visible Churches at that time 19. Page 221. You cite St. Augustine de doctrina Christiana lib. 2. cap. 9. and note in an English parenthesis he was not against the vulgar reading Scripture which how it follows I know not unless you would have him also not against the vulgars being vers'd both in Latin Greek and Hebrew which he here requires for the perfect understanding of Scriptures Secondly you put an N. B. upon St. Augustines words minding your reader to note that he affirms all things which belong to Christian faith and manners are thereby set down in Scripture which N. B. might have been well omitted where you place it and a N. B. put upon his next following words whereby it would have appeared that this holy Doctor speakes not of all manner of points of Faith but de quibus libro superiore tractavimus of such as he had treated in the foregoing book and in that he treates only of the Trinity of the Incarnation of the Church of the resurrection of the dead which we acknowledge are openly set down in Scripture so much heed take you to the words you cite so pertinent is your collection drawn from these words about the sufficiencie of Scripture and so faire are you in your citations let an N. B. passe upon that pag. 223 223. What conclude you from St. Augustines words lib 3. cap. 6. contra lit Petiliani which of us ever thought it lawful to teach any thing praeterquam besides that is against for so 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in greek signifies the law or gospel and as wise is your question collected thence page 223. viz was not the Church then purely protestant in their religion 20. To the proof of the minor by your profession p. 223. I have told you already your particular profession in disbelieving many things conteined in Scripture evidences your general profession of taking Scripture for the sole rule of your faith to be false and nugatorie 21. As to your discourse page 224. tells us first which are all the Essentials of Christianity in your account and then we shall see whether they are all expresly conteined in Scripture or no. The rest is course and unhandsome better suiting with a country ballad then with a controversie You add in good time the parenthesis if you know how to keep those Friars and Iesuits as much out as to keep out the devil I see they stay not in through any want of opposition in you 't is well you have not as much of the knowledge as you have of the malice of him to whom you compare them I beseech God to pardon you for then they had been all sent packing long ere this and t is not I see for want of ignorance in you that you are not quit of them if any such be within the Nation yet if you drive them no more out then you can drive out the devil they have no great reason to fear you You must think your Reader to be very silly when you go about to perswade him that the Popes supremacie and transubstantiation were brought into the kingdome by Friars and Jesuits of late since you begun your new gospel 22 Page 225. you answer the Catholicks question where your Church was c. very profoundly what if you can neither tell where it all was nor half nor a considerable part nor for all ages nor by entire catalogues can you not at least tell where existed any one though a smal part of it in the year 1500 immediately before your doctrine appeared in Germany shew that and we press you no farther at this time Pag. 226.227 You change the terme Protestant Church into Catholick Church the question was where was the Protestant Church and you shew where the Catholick Church was call you this answering nor can you suppose the Protestant to be part of the Catholick for I have shewed that hitherto you have not proved it pag. 227. You first say your Church was in Europe c. 1. and l. 8. you say you 'l say nothing of Europe n. b. 23. Page 227.228.229.230 To what purpose have you taken so much paines in copying the Latin texts of St. Augustine you were afraid I see to English them least the vulgar whom you chiefâ—â—ly lalour to please should finde many flawes in them Intend you therefore to prove no more by those authorities then the Churches being spread all the world over which of us ever denyed nay who amongst us have not constantly asserted that Intend you to shew that whatsoever professors of Christianity are