« ΠροηγούμενηΣυνέχεια »
viz. that a Pariicular is the Universal, and a most Corrupt a Catholick Church. The like I Observed of your Challenge ; and finding your little Paper ambiguous in all the Parts of it, I was willing to think that Ambiguity proceeded father from want of Art, than an ill use of it ; and therefore I said it looked, as if it was penned by a Novice of some new Convert; which you in your Letter of April roth. say that is like a fool. But, Sir, is there no difference between being a Fool and a Novice, or a. recent in Controversy?. When St. Paul fáid, Oportet effe Epifcopum non Neophytum, a Bishop must not be a Rovice or new Ćónvert, did he mean not a Fool? I shew'd my Answer to your Query to several Men of temper, before I sent it to you, only to have their opinion, whether there was any thing of provoking or undecent Language in it ; and they all were of Opinion, there was nothing of that nature therein : But
you cry out of passion and injurious Language; I which I know to be an Art among your Writers,
to create Prejudice in your Catechumens against your Adversaries, as Men of violent" Passions, who cannot argue fairly, but instead of Arguments give ill Words, because they find themselves baf fied. Nay, they often do so, when they find themselves like to be worsted, that they may have a Pretence to defift. I knew one who accused his Antagonist of ill Language, because he said one of his Propofitions was false; and for as little Reason you accuse me for saying I thought your Query was written by a Novice, who was not skilled in Controversy. But whether you have not given me provoking, passionate, and injuriOus Language in ample Measure, inconsistent with your formal Prayer, I appeal to your own I will endeavour (say you) to pick an E 2
Answer out of his Words, by which I may begin to frame an Argument or two, which perhaps he will make it his study not to understand, left if he should understand them, he may begin to find that he cannot answer them. It's evident he jhut bis Eyes bere again, for fear of seeing the true sense of the Word. Let us see how he winks, that he may not see the meaning of the Words in the Query. The
disingenuous trifling of the Gentleman, who is reSolu'd to take the Words in all other senses, but the right one. Those Gentlemen are grown such Stranggers to Christ's Church, ibat when it is named they lift up their Heads; and know not what it means. I do not understand why he should be angry with me, for not taking of him to be such a Knave, as to be of a Religion he would not say was the true one. His next Trifling is to know what I mean by the Protestant Church. I am sure this Answer is Sophistical, and a great Imposition both upon you and me. I defy him to give a Reafon, except the Fancy bit now, and not then
He bas resolved to bave a new Cavil in reserve for this place. It is a barder thing to bring this Gentleman to the Bar, and make him speak out plainly Guilty, than perhaps it would be to convict him, after he had once made bis Plen. Away, away, this is visibly idle, it's a difficult thing to draw him to a dire& Answer. Thus, Sir, you pray and reproach ; bless and persecute; forgive pretended Injuries, and return them at the same time. Give me leave to put that Question of St. James to you, doth a Fountain send out at the same place sweet Water and bitter? And let me put you in mind of what the Satyr said to the Man in the Fable, who blew both hot and cold with the fame Mouth. It was for this Reason, that in my Reply to your Letter of April 2. I pray'd you to write, when
you wrote next, not only with more Care, and Perspicuity, and Propriety of Expression, as it becomes a Controversial Writer ; but with more Gravity, and in a more modest Stile, and with more respect to your Adversaries; that in case your Papers came to be published, you might not be obnoxious to the just Censure of the learned,' sober, and judicious" Men, of all Religions. To this you reply'd, that it had been more modeft and just in me to have given my Advice in these terms, Let us boib hereafter write with more Gravity, and in a more modest Stile ; and this, because I was tempted to think by the ambiguous terms in which you penned your uncertain and complex Query, &c. that you were a. beginner, who was not much experienc'd in Controversy; and you are offended at me for my Charity, in thinking that it was want of skill, rather than a worse defect, that made you pen it as you did, beg the question, and suppose things which were not to be supposed ; and I fear you will be more offended when I have told you, that your Reply hath obliged me to change my Opinion.
VIII. AMONG other things in it, which I have taken notice of above, give me leave to observe one more which shews you to be a Man of Art. The Challenge-part of your little Paper, as you call it, is pennd in these Words, Name your BiShops, Writers, Churches, nay one single Congregation or Village of Protestants. for 900 or 1000 lears, before your Separation from the holy. (mistaken for Roman Catholick Church. After I had observed how you begged the question, I also took notice to your Disciple Mr. G----- (for my Answer was written to him) that your Challenge was fallacious and sophistical, in asking me to
name our Bishops, Writers, and Churches, that is, said I, our reformd Bishops, Writers, and Churches, before the Reformation: which is tbe Same, as if be had asked me to name our reformed Bishops and Churches, before they were reformed., and as absurd, as to ask us to shew the Alteration and Change of any other Society or Thing, before it was so altered and changed. I farther added, that you might as reasonably have asked me to Name our Protestant Kings and Courts before Edward VI. to shew him how captious and tricking your Challenge was. Now in your Reply to this, you say that my Answer is Sophistical, and a great imposition upon you and him, because you bad no such Words, as reform’d Bishops and Writers. Say you, have I any such Words as reformed Bishops and Writers And did I say you had ? No, what I said was, that to ask me to Aame our Bishops, Writers, and Churcbes before the Reformation, was the same as to ask me to Name our reformed Bishops, Writers, and Churches before they were reformed. These are not your Words, but as I observed the obvious and plain import of your Words; for no unreformed Writers, Bishops, or. Churches can in any propriety of Speech be called Ours. And if you did not design it for a captious Challenge, why did you not, as I took notice, put it in these or the like Terms ? Name any Bishops, Writers, or Churches, nay, any one single Congregation or Village of Christians of your Religion for 900 or 1000 Year's before your Separation from the Roman Catholick Church. Had you done fo, you had had a fair and plain Answer. But this, as you tell your Convert and her Brother, was putting the question (for so you now call your Challenge) in my own sophistical Words, because I could not
answer it in yours. But pray, Sir, is there any Sophistry in the Challenge put in my Words? If there is, why did you not shew it? For saying is no proving. Why did you not fhew which of the Words are fophistical? Why did you nor shew their ambiguous and uncertain fignification, which makes them to be fallacious and fophiftical, as I have done by all. yours. But it is an evident proof, whatever you pretend, you thought them not sophistical ; because they have forced you, tho' with an ill grace, to explain your Challenge in the plain, certain, and reasonable fense, which, in my Words, they offer at the first fight. Let the Gentleman (say you) know then, that by the Word Protestant, I mean Christians profeffing their Religion. Do you fo, Sir, then the fense of your Challenge is plainly this, Name
any Bishops, Writers, Churches, nay one single congregation of Christians, that profesed your Religion 900 of 1000 Tears before your separation from the Roman Catholick Church, And here, Sir, I will join issue with ycu, and anfwer your Challenge in this fenfe, after I have preinised two or three things in order to a plain aud clear Answer to it.
IX. First then, in case I could not name any Bishops, Writers, Churches, or Christian Congregations, that professed our Religion 900 of 1000 Years before our Separation from your Church, it ought to be no Argument against the truth of it, if I can fhew that it was professed by all faithful Bishops, Writers, and Churches through all Centuries, from the time of the Apo. stles to either of those períods. On the contrary, it will be a demonstrable Argument for the truth of it, according to the Rule of Vincen: tius Lirinensis, who afferts that, and that only