4.0 APPENDIX Numb. II. Quarters. And therefore betide the Paine-which it willcofi me todifebarge the Task, the !cry Fear which I Jhall be in leaf Ifhould mifcarry in the Managing, makes me more than willing to take a Supetfedeas bere. But if this cannot be done, you fhall have the ref which I promifed, performed in the fame order as your felfhave flipalated, viz. before I make any Reply to yours, I pa endeavour to difcharge the three otherParticulars which re mainbebind, and all in due time from, Wamborn, Oflob. G. r6S3° SIR, Your 'Fellow-labourer, and Enquirer after Truth, M. johnfon. For my Reverend, ere. very worthy Friend, Mr. Baxter, Minifter of the Word at Kidderucinifter, Theft. Mr. Johnfon's ThirdLetter to Mr. Baxter. SIR, N my late Letter which I lent you, I told you, That I could not refolve my ' felfwhether you had anfweredmy Arguments or not, but intended to cry my ' ownReafona little farther, before I would fay pofitively that you had not. And ' now upon further Confederation, I return you this toyour whole Difcourfe : r. Whereasyou fay to my tuft Argument that it was neceffary for our English Bi- ' ¡hops to prove an interrupted Succef/on againft the Papifis, becaufe they might ' thereby argue ad hominemmore ftrongly againft them. I anfwer, That fuch learn- ed Men as I have had the luck to meet withal, do not intend their Argumentsor ' their Pai es to any fachend, and I prove that fufHciently thus. Becaufe they that do ufe fach kind ofReplies do ufually frame their Anfwers thus : r. That there is no neceffrty of filch a Succeflion. But, Secondly, If therewas a neceffity, yet the ' nullity of our Calling would not follow, becaufe we can provefach' a Succeflion. ' But fay I, the learned Authors which -I have hithertomet withal, have no fach ' Conceflions : And becaufe you feem often to hint fome fach thing, I defire you ' would point me out to tome English Bilhop, who having written about this Sub- '.jeet, do concede, that a Succeffion in Office, or a Succeflion of legitimate Ordi- ' nation is not neceffary. And I do the moreconfidently require this from you, be- KDr.Ham- cáufe I have it from . one who is much better acquainted with Authors than my mond inhis' (elf, that the Socinian Faltion were the firft that ever owned that Affertion. And six ,ì25e- s if hebe able to make good whathe faith, yougain as little Credit by abetting filch -rics;P.36;.^ Faetion as they are, in your Affections, as we get byabetting the Papifts, while we plead for the quite contrary. But Secondly, Whereas youdeny the Confequence, and tell me that all which they thought necefflary is not neceffary, they being not infallible. I anfwer, that yon lay more ftrefsupon my firft Argument than l intended For I never intend- ' ed to argue thus: That therefore it was infallably neceffary becaufe they thought. ' it heceffary, but that it was a good inducing Motive to perfaade that it was a ' matter of-more confequence than your Papers made of it, fence learned Men took fo much Pains about it: And though this indeed will not extend to a De- ' monitration, yet it may ferve as faras I intended it, viz. as far as an Argument will reach, drawn onlyfrom that inartificial Topick aTeftimonio, which you know in all contelle is familiarly ufed, and not to be reje/ìed if ehe Teflees be Men of Worthand Learning. And if fo, then this Argument will hand good fo far as it will ferve, orwas intended, notwithftanding any thing that hath been faid to ' the Contrary. 'To
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=