« PoprzedniaDalej »
Paragraph. As for Vincentius Lirinenfis, we are
Cap. ii. Hoc eft verè proprié que Catholicum. Cap. xxxvii. Id pro indubitato, certo, ratóque habeatur. Cap. xli. Id verum & Catholicum abfque ullo fcrupulo judicaretur.
Church; nor hath the Church of Rome been always either as a formed, or a deformed Church. But what then? May not a Church be Catholick, that was not always or at all times from the beginning of Christianity, if it teaches and holds all Catholick Doctrines, that Antiquity always taught in all Churches with one Confent? According to your reafoning, a Church cannot be a Catholick Church, because it was not always; then there never was any Catholick Church, but that of + Ferufalem, which was the first of all Chriftian Churches. Nor could the Church of England, which you fuppofe to be an heretical and fchifmatical Church, by confequence from your Answer, become or recommence Catholick, although the fhould (which God forbid) return to your Church. Had I been admitted to an oral Conference with you before your Profelyte, I fhould have fhew'd the Weaknefs of your Answer in this Reply; I would have fhew'd you, how contrary it was to the reafoning of Tertullian. But any pretended Answer was to ferve the turn. She was not to wait a few Months for the Iffue of the Controverfy [between us]; fhe might dye, as her Brother faid, in the mean time: She was in haste to be gone. Pray, good Sir, did you make the forefaid Anfwer for her ufe about the Church of England in hafte, and through overfight, or no?
Luke 24.47. Acts 1. 4.
Turtul. de præfcriptione Hæretic. Cap. 31. Ad hanc itaqueformam probabuntur ex illis Ecclefiis, que licèt nullum ex Apoftolis, vel Apoftolicis Auctorem fuum proferunt, ut multo pofteriores, que denique ac quotidie inftituuntur; tamen in eâdem fide confpirantes, non minus Apoftolica deputantur, pro confanguinitate Do&trina. In this manner will they be tried by thofe Churches, which though they cannot fhew any Apostle or Apoftolick Man for their Founder, as being much later, and founded every Day; yet agreeing in the fame Faith, are reputed not less Apoftolical for the Confanguinity of their Faith.
If it was in hafte and through overfight, however, it ought to be matter of Humiliation to you; but if you did not make it in hafte and by overfight, it was from a worfe caufe, which I will not name, or if I did, fhould it provoke me to return your own Words in the Conclufion of your IV. Paragraph, which I cannot yet bring my felf to repeat, though I think it no indecency to put you in remembrance of them. For the reafon why I ask this plain Queftion is, because after you had faid, you bad proved the Church of England was not always, you add with an Affurance, as well as a Reflection upon me, which my Anfwer did not deferve, Let us try one Rule at once, which I am fure thofe will never be against, who have a mind to speak clearly to any one. Here you apparently split Vincentius's one Rule, which, to ufe your own Words, confifts of every where, always, and by all; and this one Rule is a Teft of Doctrines, which all Churches ought to believe, at what time foever formed or reformed: But you make it a Teft for the Age of a Church, or for the time of its being formed or reformed; implying that a Church which was not always, cannot be Catholick; and if you had split that excellent Father's one Rule, in reference to place, as you do to time, to try our Chureh by, you might by the fame Logick have obferved to as little purpose, that it hath not been every where.
HERE are many fuch particular Answers, and other paffages unworthy of you, fcattered about in your Reply, which I must take notice of [by themselves] that I may not seem D
to omit any thing, before I come to answer the more principal parts therof.
I. Firft THEN, I must observe how ill you acquit your felf of the Charge of fending me a manifold Query, under the Name of one in terms of uncertain Signification; nay of fending under that Name a Suppofition and a Challenge, as well as a Query, to which you answer nothing, in defence of your felf for putting a Challenge to your Query. And as for the Suppofition, you only fay in the XVIII. Paragraph, that you fuppofed a clear Truth for a Ground of one Query, which I dare not deWhether I dare deny your Supposition in ny. your fenfe to be a clear Truth, fhall be feen by and by; but in the mean time, my Charge of your want of Skill and Accuracy, as I then thought, in fending ine three things fo different under the Name of a Query, would reft upon you; but that I now find by your Reply, it was not want of Skill and Accuracy, but want of fomething elfe, that made you couch fo many things in the Lines you call'd your Query. And therefore, Sir, I beg your Pardon for faying, that bad I not been told you were appointed by your Superious to manage the Contro verfy, I should have thought it had been penned by fome Novice: I fay, Sir, I beg your Pardon for that Miftake, which proceeded from my Charity: But now I find it was drawn up by a Veteran (or as I have now juft reafon rather to fay) a Veterator in Controverfy, who knew how to embroil and perplex, to contrive Snares and Fallacies; to make plain things intricate, by involving many things in one, which were to be feparated, in order to a diftinct Answer; and by expreffing them in Terms of ambiguous and uncertain Signification, to prevent coming to a clofe Difpute.
pute. You fay, you fuppofed a clear Truth for ibe Ground of one Query; but why then did you call your Farraga of a Suppofition, of a Question, and of a Challenge, a Query? Why muft one part of your Melange give a denomination to the whole? And why did you not fay, that you added your Challenge as a Superftructure of your one Query, as well as premised your Suppofition for the Ground thereof? At this rate you might have joined what you would with it under the Name of Grounds, and Superftructures, and Buttereffes, and other terms of Building you might as well have premifed another Query, as a ground to your one Query: But why do I fay as well? for it had been better to do fo, and more like a fair and a generous Scholaftical Adverfary, and by confequence more for your Ho nour to propofe things diftinctly; and if I do not mistake your Reply, which is not written with Perfpicuity, all that you propofe as matter of Controverly between us, is contained in these following Queries, which you might have penned thus, or to this purpofe. Sir, I defire to know, ft. If the one holy Catholick Church of Chrift can perifh? If not, then, 2dly, I defire to know, if the Roman Church from which you Separate, be nor that one holy Catholick Church? 3dly, I defire to know, if the being of it, as a Church, can confift with fuch Errors, Innovations, Abufes, and Corruptions, as you charge it with? If not, then, 4thly, I defire to know, if it was no Church, or in other terms not a Church of Chrift, when you pretended to reform it? If so, sthly, I would know, how a Reformation could be made of no Church, or of a Church that had no being ? Or how you could re form that into a Church, which was not a Church of Chrift? Laftly, If the Church of Rome was