Again you distinguish, that some things are Essentials, or Necessaries, and others Accidents, which are acknowledged or practised in the Church. Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition, you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ, either to be meant of an Essential, or an Accident; when all the ⟨p. 30⟩world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution, cannot be meant of any Accidental thing, but of a necessary, unchangeable and Essential thing, in Christs true Church. If one should advance this proposition, Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ, acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law: and another should distinguish (as you do my proposition) This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church: Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been always in Christs Church and instituted by Christ, cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church. If therefore my Major, as the terms lie expressed in it, be true, it should have been granted: if false, it should have been denied. But no Logic allows that it should be distinguished into such different members, whereof one is expressly excluded in the very terms of the proposition. These distinctions therefore, though learned and substantial in themselves, yet were they here unseasonable, and too illogical to ground an answer in form (as you ground yours) still insisting ⟨p. 31⟩upon them in your address almost to every proposition. Hence appears first, that I used no fallacy at all ex Accidente: seeing my proposition could not be verified of an Accident. Secondly that all your instances of Spain, France, &c. which include Accidents, are not apposite; because your propositions, as they lie, have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts, as mine hath.
Again you distinguish, that some things are Essentials, or Necessaries, and others Accidents, which are acknowledged or practised in the Church. Now to apply this distinction to my Proposition, you must distinguish that which I say is acknowledged to have been ever in the Church by the Institution of Christ, either to be meant of an Essential, or an Accident; when all the ⟨p. 30⟩world knows that whatsoever is acknowledged to have have been ever in the Church by Christs Institution, cannot be meant of any Accidental thing, but of a necessary, unchangeable and Essential thing, in Christs true Church. If one should advance this proposition, Whatsoever Congregation is the true Church of Christ, acknowledges the Eucharist ever to have been by Christs Institution a proper Sacrament of the new Law: and another should distinguish (as you do my proposition) This may be meant either of an Essential or Accidental thing to Christs true Church: Seeing whatsoever is acknowledged to have been alwaies in Christs Church and instituted by Christ, cannot be acknowledged but as necessary and essential to his Church. If therefore my Major, as the terms lie expressed in it, be true, it should have been granted: if false, it should have been denyed. But no Logick allows that it should be distinguished into such different members, whereof one is expresly excluded in the very terms of the proposition. These distinctions therefore, though learned and substantial in themselves, yet were they here unseasonable, and too illogical to ground an answer in forme (as you ground yours) still insisting ⟨p. 31⟩upon them in your address almost to every proposition. Hence appears first, that I used no fa•lacy at all ex Accidente: seeing my proposition could not be verified of an Accident. Secondly that all your instances of Spain, France, &c. which include Accidents, are not apposite; because your propositions, as they lie, have no term which excludes Accidental Adjuncts, as mine hath.
