« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
Roman Catholick Church, you beg the Question, and take for granted what is the greateft point of Controversy between your Church and ours, as much as if you had faid, your Separation from the holy Catholick Church. For if the Roman be either the Catholick, or a Catholick Church, we cannot justifie our Separation ; but we deny it to be either the Catholick, or a Catholick Church: This you know to be the Question between us and you, and yet you take it for granted; which among other reasons gave me that occafion to say without any Passion, that had I not been told
you were one appointed
. to manage the Controversy between your Church and ours, I should rather bave thought that your Query, as you call it, had been penned by some Novice, for one cannot easily imagine, that a Person skilful in Controversy, if he were ingenuous, would make his Query terminate in füpposing that to be true, or taking that for granted, which the Respondent neither could, nor could be thought to grant.
II. 2dly, Had I mistaken the Word Holy for Reman, it had been only a verbal and not a real Mistake; because the Roman Church, according to its own Doctrines and Principles, is the holy Catholick Church, nay the 4 holy Catholick Apoftolick Church, as I told Mr. G---+, when he begged pardon for his Mistake. And therefore, Sir, 1 could have no defign in making the Mistake, had it been mine, becaufe it would have been of no Advantage to me, but it is of fome Advan, tage to you to suggest to your Profelyte, as if I had wilfully mistaken it; and therefore you
† Bulla Pii Papæ IV. fuper formå juramenti profeffionis fidei. Laud against Fisher $ 38. 01. 26. But A. C, tells us ir iş to be learned of the one holy Catholick, Apostolick, always visible and infallible Roman Church.
must give me leave to add, that you have not cleared your felf from the dishonourable Charge of begging the question, which is a t common Prar. ctice among you, and fro there is not an end of that Quarrel, (I use your Words) as you confidently affirmed to your Profelyte there was.
HII. In your XVIL Paragraph you lay another miftake to my Charge, of the Infollibility for the Indefedibility of the Church. But neither was that miftake, if it was one, mine, but Mx. Gn's; who firft defir'd we might have a Conference before his Sister of Tranfubftantiation, and then some Days after came to tell me, that the Gentleman, as he stiled you, defired it might be of the Infallibility of the Church. When I told him of this, he could not deny it, nor do I fuppofe he will deny it now. And perhaps he may remember, when he faid ube Infallibility of the Church, that I asked him, if it was the Infallibility or Indefectibility of the Church? To which he answered, The Infallibility of the Church. And therefore when I saw the Query you fent me in order ta our Proceeding, as Mr. G------92 faid in his Letter, I gave it as the first Reafon in my Anfwer to it, why I thought it drawn up by fome Novitiat, because it was nothing to the purpose of Infallibility, the Subject in which I thought we were to be engaged. In another part of my Letter there were chefe Words : I confefs the Suppofition relates to the Indefe&ibility of the Church, but neither that, nor any thing else in his Query, as he improperly calls it, relates to the Infallibility of
Ne&tarii Patriarche Hierosol. confutatio imperii Pupe. L011don MDCCIL. P. 63. Atque equidem ex inscriptione à prima pagina falfam tuam fuppofitionem confut abo. scil. eam, quam prius debuifti firmè probare, ut confessam aßumpfifti, & nunc, G in sequentibus.
the Church. Methinks these Expressions written with such an appearance of Simplicity, might have obliged you to ask Mr. G-----n, what he told me the Subje&t was to be, upon which you invited me to a Conference, before you had charged me with a wrong Imagination of it, and by Confequence with a very great Impertinence, in sending you so many Queries relating to a Subject, which was not to be the Matter of Controversy between us. How this Mistake happened between you and him, you best know, and whether it was designed or no. But if Infallibility was to be the Subject of Controversy between us, I think first I had as much Right to send you those Queries relating to it, as you to send me a Complex Query, which I neither defired nor expected from you; and therefore to use the Words in your XVIII. Paragraph, I am willing that any impartial Man should be fudge between us, whether
you or I were less acurate, or if you please less impertinent; you, · who under the name of one plain Query sent me ma:iy, attended with a Supposition and a Challenge ; or I, who sent you many single, plain, distin& Queries relating to what, I really thought, was to have been the Subject of Controverfy between us. All the Answer you think fit to give them is this, We will answer them when we have done with these ; and then you say, that there are 15 or 16 Points before one Dispute, and several of them of very different Natures, and enough to fill whole Volumes. I will not tell you in your own Words, that this is trifling, nor that it is a bard Matter to bring you to the Bar, &c. But you must give me leave to tell you, that all thofe Queries you call Points, are all Points to the Subject of Infallibility, and diretly relate in their different Natures to it; and
that they are so far from requiring Volumes to answer them, that you might have made a distinet Answer to them in as small a Compass as I proposed them. Was it for Instance so tedious a Matter to have answered Yes or No, to the Question in which I asked you, whether by the Church's Infallibility you meant, that the Church hath always a living infallible Judge? Or to have told me, whether that living infallible Judge was a single Person, or a Senate or Council? and if a single Person, where he was always to be found, where his infallible Chair was? or if the Church knew of any infallible Judge, in the time of Vincentius Lirinensis? or if it did, how he came to be ignorant ofit? Plain fimple Answers to such plain fimple Questions would not have ta. ken up much Paper, or much of your time, had you been disposed to make them. And as for my Questions, I had not proposed them, but that sincerely believing the Infallibility of the Church was to be the Subject of Controversy between us, I was willing to put you in remembrance by them of the great, and give me leave to tell you, I think, insuperable Difficulties with which that Doctrine is attended ; and shew your Proselyte that the Infallibility of the Church (by which you still precariously mean the Church of Rome) is it self to far from being certain, that it is one of the greatest Controversies that ever was among Chriftians, not to be proved by. Scripture and Catholick Tradition, or Antiquity, Universality, and Consent. You yourself acknowledge, there are 15 or 16 disputable Points in it of different Natures, and enough to fill whole Volumes; How then can a Doctrine fo full of difputable Points be clear and certain, or the Church that pretends to it be the Guide of Faith? For this reason I desired,
that your Profelyte might have the deliberate pefufal of my anfwer to your Query, thinking that you might have begun with her at that Doctrine which if it could be proved, would be a compendious way of ending all Controversies in Religion, especially ithofe between our Church and yours, and the imoft speedy and effectual means that can be taken of reducing us to your Fold. This Confideration, methinks, should have made you embrace the Oportunity, which the mistake gave you, of preferring the Subject of the infallibility to that of the Indefe&tibility of the Churdb, if you thought it to be a clear Christian Verity. But you have promised to consider it hereafter; and then I willexpect a Solution of all the Dif ficulties which lie wrapt up in my Queries, and of all thofe which are expressed in a Letter of Mr. Ghillingworth to Mr. Leagar, concerning the Church of Rome's being
of Faith, printed with his Book entituled The Religion of Protestants a fafe way to Saluation, 1687. As alfo in the Preface of a Book published since I received your Anfwer, which is intituled Certamen Religiofum, printed at Oxford in 8° 1904. Perhaps you may know the Man, who began the Dirpute, in fix Queries, with the learned Author of that' Book. His way of Writing and yours are very much alike in complex and captious Queries, in joining the Socinians and Protestants together in charging your Adversary with Cavils, Contradi&tions, and protracted Distinitions; in undervaluing of him and his Answer, in confident Expres. fions, and treating of him with uncivil Language. Mr. Chillingworth, in his Letter before mentiond, makes the faine Objection against Infallibility that I do, from Vincentius Lirinenfis ; to which in your answer you make this
Reply in your XVIII.