Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical, (which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women) if your Logic be no better, should not a Relative Assembly be defined by its subject, fundamentum & terminus? 1. Your Genus is too general; it should have been a nearer Genus. 2. Your subject is partly false (as taking in besides Bishops, other chief Prelates, and excluding Presbyters), and partly ambiguous, what [other chief Prelates] you mean? and specially too narrow, not at all differencing this Council from any inferior Synod. 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed, and so no difference put between a Council, and an Assembly of Prelates called, for any common civil use, as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince. 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum, or the ratio fundandi; the true fundamentum is totally omitted, which is the mutual consent, 1. of the Churches choosing and sending their Bishops or Delegates; 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation; 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends. And a fundamentum is mentioned, which is, 1. Insufficient and as nothing; being but a Genus [called by those that have sufficient authority,] instead of a species in your own opinion, who think that the Authority is only in the Pope. 2. And when you so explain your self, it is false, as shall he showed. 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned; which is the relation which the assembled members have to the Churches which they represent, and to each other, and to the intended end and work. So that here is a definition that is no definition, nor hath any thing like a definition, yet defended by this great disputer: Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it. And how can we dispute intelligibly, when you can no better explain your terms?
Ans. You do ill to refuse all disputes but what are exactly Logical, (which is your custom for advantage to amuse the women) if your Logick be no better, should not a Relative Assembly be defined by its subject, fundamentum & terminus? 1. Your Genus is too general; it should have been a nearer Genus. 2. Your subject is partly false (as taking in besides Bishops, other chief Prelates, and excluding Presbyters), and partly ambiguous, what [other chief Prelates] you mean? and specially too narrow, not at all differencing this Council from any inferior Synod. 3. Here is no end or terminus expressed, and so no difference put between a Council, and an Assembly of Prelates called, for any common civil use, as if it were but to choose or attend a Prince. 4. Here is no just notice of the fundamentum, or the ratio fundandi; the true fundamentum is totally omitted, which is the mutual consent, 1. of the Churches chusing and sending their Bishops or Delegates; 2. of the Bishops to go in that Relation; 3. of all the Bishops to convene and agitate conciliar business for the proper ends. And a fundamentum is mentioned, which is, 1. Insufficient and as nothing; being but a Genus [called by those that have sufficient authority,] instead of a species in your own opinion, who think that the Authority is only in the Pope. 2. And when you so explain your self, it is false, as shall he shewed. 5. Yea the very formal Relation is not mentioned; which is the relation which the assembled members have to the Churches which they represent, and to each other, and to the intended end and work. So that here is a definition that is no definition, nor hath any thing like a definition, yet defended by this great disputer: Nor can any man tell what a General Council is by it. And how can we dispute intelligibly, when you can no better explain your terms?
