Page images


Parenthefis, had as many more Queries in it, as there were Protestant Churches, true or false, perfe& or imperfect, heretical or not heretical, of the same or different Reformations. And to this you have nothing to reply, but, if, That it is trifling. 2dly, That I had nothing to complain of, but that you gave me too much Liberty. 3dly, That you bid me name any which I would call thé Protestant Church, but that I had a mind to be confined. And laftly, that you are content to let me be confined to the Church of England. In Answer to the first, I fay, that my defiring to know what Church you meant by the Protestant Church, was not tri- ' fling, as you modestly call it, but observing the Laws of Controversy and the Rules of Difputation; according to which, no ambiguous Term can be defined, before it is distinguished into its various fignifications, nor any ambiguous Question answered, till it is known in which of its Senses it was proposed. To the second I say, that what you miscall Liberty, was sophistical Ambiguity; of which, though I exposed it, I did not complain, otherwise than by saying your Query was not penned, as one would have expected it from a fair and learned Adversary; and if the Laws of Disputation and Controversy be such as just now mentioned, I had reason to say so, and now I say it again. To the third I answer, it is not true, that you bid ine name: äny Protestant Church

; where did you bid me name any; or by whom? Nor in your Query, nor in any Letter, nor by any Message after I received it. And whereas you say, I had a mind to be confined, I answer, it was I that was to confine you by the Rules of Logick and Difputation ; and when you saw I would confine you, then in the last płace you are graciously pleased to say, you are con



tentented to let me be confined to the Churb of Eng. land. And seeing I have forced you to confine your loose Query to that Church, I shall, before I have done, shew you by Gods Affistance, where there was a Church that held all the Articles of the Church of England, nine hundred or a thousand Years ago. But, Sir, to thew you how weak and really trifling your Reply is, let me put the case, that a Gentleman Thould send the following Query to a King at Arms: Sir, I defire, to know if I am qualified to be admitted to the honourable Order of Knighthood) what it would 'cost me to be created Knight? As I put this

Cafe better for the illustration of the Case between us, allow me to suppose the King at Arms sent him this Answer. Sir, your Question is not one, but two, which you should have proposed thus. Sir, I desire to know, if I am qualified to be admitted to the honourable Order of Knighthood; and if I am, fecondly, What it would cost me to be created a Knight? Besides, Sir, there are several kinds or Orders of Knighthood, and of different Dignities and Charges;. and before I can answer these Questions, I muft know what Order of Knighthood you mean. But to carry on the Parallel, I must in the third Place, suppose the Gentleman made him this Reply... Sir, your An fwer is trifling, in defiring to know what Order of Knighthood I meant. I gave you too much Liberty, I bid you name any which you would call an Or. der of Knighthood, but you had a mind to be confined. I sec a small thing will serve you to wrangle about, but you may if you will confine your Felf to the most noble Order of the Garter. Sir, you know for whose fake I have made this Apologue, and you camot but guess to whom I leave the Application.


IV. To your Query, Where the Protestant Church was 900 or 1000 Tears before Luther? I made this Answer, That if by the Protestant Church you meant the Faith, Worship, and Polity of the Church of England, I would tell you where the Church of England was many hundred Years before Luther; or if you please, before the Council of Trent, even where the present Faith, Worship, and Polity of the Roman Church never was, i. e. in the Primitive Church. I told you I faid before the Council of Trent, because Luther was none of our Reformers; and because I should rather have expected, that a fair and learned Adversary would have said, I defire to know where the Church of England, or where your Religion was for god or noco Tears before the pretended Reformation? as I told you, you might have faid without Offence. To this you reply without any Answer, Since the Word Luther ives of

fence, let it be blotted out.' I am glad he is fo hty much ashamed of the great Captain and Patriarch

of the pretended Reformation, the Chariot of Ifrael, and the Horseman thereof, as fome have been pleased to call him, and a most excellent Instrument of God, as great Doctors of bis opon Church have termed' him. His Name I put down only because he makes the great Epoch of the Protestant Religion, by reason of his Priority in Time and Fame above others. But since he desires it, let his Name be removed, and that of Cranmer's be pur dowon, or any other whom he thinks he needs not be afhamed of.

But pray, Sir, who told you I was ashamed of Luther? Or by what Inference do you prove I was? I only meant to shew how absurd it was in you to ask of a Doctor of the Church of England, whom you had challenged as such, where the



But you

Protestant Religion was before Luther? Because,
as I told you, Luther was noņe of our Refor-
mers; and I will now add what was implied in
that Remark, That qurs and the Lutheran are
different Reformations, which made me tell
you, I expected that you should have put the
Question to me about the Church of England,
which as you know, differs from all the Luthe-
ran Churches in one Point of Doctrine, and in
Polity or Government from some. But
could not forbear shewing your Rancour against
the Instrument, which God raised up to expose
the Corruptions of your Church, and to persuade
so great a part of the Northern World to thake
off the Papal Tyranny, which neither we nor our
Fathers were able to bear. Father Paul only
wanted his Courage to do the fame on the other
Side the Alps; and he used to wish that God had
given him the Spirit of Luther, and sometimes
wept to think he had it not. You fhew

You fhew your Rancour also against Archbishop Cranmer, and against all our Reformers, in your Letter of the joth of last April, which is nothing to the Merịt of the Controversy, nor serves for any Purpose, but to invite me to put you in Remembrance of the monstrous Wickedness of

of your Popes, which I could shew out of your own Writers. One of which, + Cardinal Turrecremata, faith of Pope Fohn-XII. (whom Palatina calls John the XȚII.) That because his Life was detestable and wonderful offensive to Christian People, Christ bimself gave out the Sentence of Death against him: For when be was in the A& of Adultery with another Man's Wife, the

[ocr errors]




* See Tortura Torti, p. 219.
Summa de Ecclefia, Lib. 2. cap. 103. ?,

1: PU


Devil struck bim suddenly, and so be died without Repentance.

V. In the XVII. Paragraph you say: If he designs an Answer to any thing in this Reply, I defire

it may be dire& and home to the point. By this time I hope you are convinced, that I designed an Answer to every thing in it, tho’ to the great loss of my precious time; and that you begin to be sensible how direct and home it is in every part to the point. Then you proceed: If there be any Word of uncertain signification, let it be answered by distinguishing according to the Cuftom of fair and learned Adversaries, and not be fent back with a number of Queries to attend it, which is a fashion newly invented by this Adver: fary. This you say to suggest to your Proselyte and her Brother, as if I had not rightly and fairly distinguished your Query into two; and then by observing that there were several different Protestant Churches, shewed that each of them was really as many Questions, as there were different Protestant Churches, which you notwithstanding absurdly and fallaciously call the Protestant Church. And therefore, Sir, to answer you directly and home to the point, I must plainly tell you, that bare Suggestions and Affirmations without Proof against my Distin&tions, as if they were not according to the Custoin of fair Adversaries and the Laws of Controversy, is a Proof that they were. Here you only suggest, or suppose they were not ; in some places you affirm your Query was but one, and a short one, tho' prefaced with a Supposition, and backed with a Challenge ; and in another place, already taken Notice of, you 'refer it to any Man to judge whether it was one Query or two. But these are


« PreviousContinue »