Page images

not Arguments against iny Distinctions, which I have here proved to be fair, and just, and neceffaty by the Rules of Logick and Disputation, to shew the complex and intangling Nature of it. And whereas you tell your Difciples, that return ing Queries to Queries is a Fashion newly invented by me, you impofe upon their Understandings, and abuse their Credulity. For there is no thing more common in Controversy, than for one Adversary to return Queries for Queries to another ; especially to an Adversary, who propo ses ambiguous, captious, and fophiftical Queries. This is often neceffary to thew an Adversary the fallacies of his Queries, or others the Impertinence of them, or to obviate fome Design he had in proposing of them, or to chaftise his Confidence, and silence him by a Query of the like Nature; and not to mention others, you may find this Fashion much used by Mr. Chillingworth in his Safe way, and Conference with Lewgar. But what need I name Mr. Chillingworth? A greater than he, a greater than Solomon, to guard against entangling Questions, return'd Queries to Queries. Math. XXI. 23, 24, 25, XXII. 16, 17, 18, 19, 20.

VI. In your tenth Paragraph you tell your Dif ciples, I said that you gave Divine Worship 10 a wooden Crofs. It is true, Sir, I did say that you gave Divine Worship to a material Cross; and I said it to them, and offered to prove it, but they declined it. And that neither you or they may think I cannot make my saying good, I here undertake the Proof of it, out of the Roman Pontifical de Benedi&tione nova Crucis, where after the folema Consecration of a material Cross or Crucifix by Incense , holy Water, and Prayers, it is said in


the Rubrick, tum Pontifex flexis ante Crucem genibus, ipfam devotè adorat, & ofculatur ; idem faciunt, quicunque alii voluerint: then the Bishop kneeling before the consecrated Cross, devoutly adores and kisses it; and as many as will, may do the same. So in the Rubrick of the Ordo ad recipiendum proceffionaliter Imperatorem. Crux Legati, quia debetur ei Latria, erit a dextris, & Gladius Imperatoris a Sinistris. † Here I observe, that the Worship Signified by Latria is due to the material Cross : But Divine Worship is signified by Latria : Therefore Divine Worship is dge to the material Cross. The Major is evident, for the Cross of the Pope's Legat is a material Cross, as the Emperor's Sword is a material Sword and the Minor needs no Proof to Roman Priests, who know the special Sence of Larria for Divine Worship, in their own Church, and among their own Writers, as well as among the Greeks. To this agree your Churches invocations of and addresses to the material Cross in the Roman Breviary.

[ocr errors]


O Crux ave Spes unica
Hoc paffionis tempore !
Piis adauge gaudium,
Reisque dele Criminá.

Nobile lignum exaltatur.
Chrifti fides rutilat,
Dum Crux ab omnibus veñeratur.

+ To this add the Rubrick of the Misal, in feriâ vi. de paa rafceue, beginning with these words Completis orationibus, Sacerdos, &c.

* In sabbato ante Dominicam paffionis. In Festo invencioonis Crucis. In Fefto exalrationis Crucis.

THIS Addrefs is made to the Arbor decori & fulgida, &c. the beautiful and resplendent Tree, upon which ouț Lord hung.

[merged small][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors]

THIS Address shews it is the material Cross you invocate, when kneeling before it you fay as above, or here below.

O Crux ave

Spes unica,
In hâc Triumphi Glóriá
Piis adauge gratiam,

Reifque dele Crimina.
O Crux,

Splendidior cun&tis astris, mundo celebris, hominibus multùm amabilis, Sanctior universis, quæ fola fuisti digna portare talentum Mundi: Dulce lignum, dulces clavos, dulcia ferens pondera: Salva præsentem Catervam in tuis hodie Laudibus


congregatam. Add to these those out of the Millal Secundùm ufum Sarum, part of the English corrupt Worship before the Reformation; Deus concede propitiis, ut qui ad adorandam vivificam crucem adveniunt, à peccatorum fuorum nexibus liberentur. In Exalt. Sancta Crucis. Sir, I hope I haye now made good my Charge ; and I beseech you to be so jult, as to translate these Invocations faithfully to your new Convert, for I am ashamed to translate them; and if you can shew me any such Prayers and Addresses to the material Cross upon record in any Office of your or any other Church (to use your own Epoch) çoo or 1000 Years ago, I will be


Prose lyte too.

VIL I have not yet taken notice of your first Paragraph, in which you say, when you fent your short Query, to be proposed to a learned Do&tor (as I presume, you speak Ironically,) you. could not imagine there had been either so much ambiguity in it, as to render it uncapable of an Answer, or much less any thing to provoke a Man to Pasion or injurious Language. add; as to the ill Language, it is by me unanswerable, only by praying God Almighty to bestow upon him all the true Bleshngs he can desire; and that it may be my Mare always to receive, rather rhangive in that kind.

How much Ambiguity there was in your short Query, hath been shewn already, and as the badness of your Cause requires you should shelter it in Ambiguities, and begging the Question, and supposing the Truth of things which are in dispute, and using other Sophistries (as + Ne

– P. 6, 63, 72, 86, 127, 245, do 249. Quam varia est ars tua Sophistica, vel hoc solo te veritati non in nutritum apud tuos do&toresilla demonstrat.



And then you

or more

[ocr errors][ocr errors]

&arius of Hierufalem hath observed it is com-
mon for your Writers to do so, none endeavours
to do so more than you. Thus knowing it usu-
al with you by the Church, or the Church of
Christ, or the true Church, or the holy Catholick,
Apoftolical Church, to understand your own Church;
in my Answer to your Query, I desired to
know what you meant by the true Church of Christ
in your Supposition, whether the universal
Church dispersed over the Earth, or fome part of
it greater or less, comprehending one
Churches ? I put this Question to you, because
I perceived you only meant your own Church;
and I find I was not mistaken, for in your Re-
ply you say you took it for the true Church, only,
to which the promise of perpetual Duration was
given, and for the one holy Catholick, Apoftolick
Church. Thus in your third Paragraph. But
then in your fifteenth you speak more plainly,
asserting the Roman Catholick Church- (as you
call it) to be the true Church of Christ, to whom
all the Promises of Indefe&tibility and perpetual
Duration have been made good. Now, Sir, this
being your meaning, why did you not at first
word your Supposition thus? Supposing this for
true, that the Roman Catholick Church can never
perish, I desire to know, &c. Thus plainly pro-
posed, your Supposition had been void of all Am-
biguity and lurking meanings, and we had come
presently to argue the main Point before your
Profelyte and her Brother : But this you durft not
do, because you knew I should have told you
in my Answer, your Supposition was not true;
and that you supposed what, you knew, we
could not grant, begging the grand Question be-
tween us, and presuming that to be true, which
is not only altogether false, but partly absurd,


[ocr errors][ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »