THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES

 
 A Single 
 
 COMBAT 
 
 O R, 
 
 Perfonal Difpute 
 
 BETWEEN 
 
 M R TRAPP, 
 
 AND HIS 
 
 Anonymous ANTAGONIST* 
 
 The Contents whereof are all reducible to this ofie 
 
 QUESTION, viz. 
 
 Whether Mr. Trapp, or the Author bis Adverfarj 
 has writ NONSENSE? 
 
 If at bis Title T bad drop 1 d bis Quilt, 
 
 ST might have pafe'd for a great Genius Jii!I t 
 
 But T , alas ! (etccufe 'bi?n if you can] 
 
 Is now a Scribler, who was once a Man. 
 
 Love of Fame, &c. Sat. I. p. $, 
 
 ANTWERP. 
 PRINTED in ths Y E A R, MDCC3CXVH4
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 PAGE 8. Line 18. inftead of any read an. -p. 12. 
 1. 29. inftead of their read there, p. 23. J. 27. inftead 
 of fuffice read /K$W. p. 47. 1. 28. after dtmonftratively 
 read''anJ M aU. p. 57. 1. 22. blot out then, p Sa.l. Jaft 
 and laft but one, inftead of Evidence, -which gives read Evi- 
 Jeaces, vkifh give. p. 84. 1. i. inftead of si am Jttrt read 
 Jam Jure. p. 90 J. 2p. inftead of him/elf read ''/</T. p. 
 1 08. 1. ii. hlor out /*rw. p. 122. J. II. inftead of vouch 
 for it read vowfc /or them. p. 145. 1. 39. inftead of or 
 read a</. p. 147. 1. 34. inftead of there be read there b: 
 nor.
 
 eG3OSX9SS!IS&^^ 
 
 9*fl**9M%****%<%?*H%i*fl*i*<* -T>v.. 
 
 PREFACE, 
 
 HE Charge of Nonfenfe, Blunders, 
 Abfurdities, &c. is fo often repea- 
 ted in Mr. Trapp'j pretended Con- 
 futation of the Book entituled, En- 
 gland'j Converfion, fcfr. that it 
 began to make me fomewhat uneafy, 
 and fufpecl myfelf to be non compos mentis : 
 efpecially upon reflecting, that it has been the un- 
 happy Cafe of many, who at the fame Time have 
 thought themfehes in their perfeft Senfes, and 
 all thofe mad, who judg'd them to be otherwife. 
 And why then, faid I to myfelf, may not this 
 be my Cafe? However, finding upon fecond 
 Thoughts that 1 'was , as formerly, treated by thofe 
 I converfed with, as a rational Creature, I began 
 to pluck up my Spirits, and think it pojjible, that 
 Mr. Trapp may have miftaken Senfe for Non- 
 fenfe in his Adverfary's Book, as grojly as (ac- 
 cording to the Judgment of fever -al learned Rea- 
 ders) he has miftaken Nonfenfe for Senfe in bis 
 own. This encouraged me to refolve upon Repri- 
 fals, and turn Mr. Trapp'j own Artillery againft 
 him. 
 
 Here then ftands the Cafe. Mr. Trapp is 
 fleafed to be of Opinion, that the Author of En- 
 gland'j Converfion, &c. has writ nothing but 
 Nonfenfe, and the Author has the fame Opinion 
 of Mr. Trapp' s pretended Confutation of it. But 
 it is yet undecided, which of the two is on the right 
 Side of the Quejlion : Andfince the Parties them- 
 A 2 felves
 
 Jv PREFACE. 
 
 and the Teftimony of Men. Sect. 3. And that 
 Chrift has promifed to be with his Church, and 
 preferve her from Frrors in Faith to the End 
 of the World. Sect. 4. 5. Thefe are the inoffen- 
 five SubjeRs of tbefe Sections, which Mr. Trapp 
 has attacked with a great deal of Heat and bad 
 Language in the five firft Sections of his Book ; 
 end of which I have ventured to undertake the 
 Defence against his abovefaid Charge of Nonfenie, 
 Blunders, Abfurdities, &c. for no other End, 
 than to convince the Reader , that Mr. Trapp 
 bimfelf is the greateft Mafter in that noble Way 
 of Writing of any Man that ever fet up for an 
 ^Author. This I will endeavour to make out in 
 the following Sheets, which contain Remarks upon 
 thofe five Sections only, where I ftop ; not for 
 Want of more Nonfenfe to animadvert upon, for 
 there is fcarce a Page in his whole Book free from 
 if, but becaufe, it is but a reafonable Prefumption, 
 that a Perfon, who has crouded fo much Nonfenfe 
 into fo fmall a Compafs, is not capable of writing 
 Senfe ; and that by Confequence all the reft is of 
 a Piece. 
 
 However, I could not confine my Remarks fo 
 fcrupukujly to that Part of Mr. Trapp'j preten- 
 ded Confutation, but that I found myfelf obliged 
 fometimes to touch paffingly upon feme of his remo- 
 ter Pieces, which have a Connexion with fome 
 of the Subjects handled in the faid Sections : but 
 even then I have taken great Care to keep always 
 at a refpeftful Distance from the forbidden Fruit. 
 In like manner I could not avoid fometimes taking 
 Party in fome particular dogmatical Controverfy 
 between the two Churches : But "'tis only when 
 Mr. Trapp, to draw the Author out of his Jlrong 
 Hold of general Arguments, which are untoward 
 
 to
 
 PREFACE. v 
 
 to deal with* removes the Queftion with great 
 Addrefs to fome particular Difpute, where with 
 the Aid of bis Auxiliary Troops of common 
 Places againft Popery, be thinks bimfelf abfolute 
 Matfer of the Field. But even in this Cafe I keep 
 within the Bounds of a blamelefs Defence, and 
 enter no further into the Difcujfwn of the Question 
 than is abfolutely necejjary to Jhew, that (what- 
 ever the real Merits of the Caufe may be) Mr. 
 Trapp has not defended it like a Man of Judg- 
 ment or Learning. For this is the Point I always 
 have in View. 
 
 As for Instance: From the general Argument 
 relating to the Duty of Submiflion to the Judg- 
 ment and Decifions of the Catholick Church, 
 (of which the Author treats in his firft Seftion) 
 Mr. Trapp flips very dextsroufly to Tranfubftan- 
 tiation, the dale Topic of it's being a Contra- 
 diction to our Senfes, and the Impofiibility of 
 the fame Body being in many Places at once. 
 And here it is, that to Jhew how far he is from 
 being difpofed to fubmit to the Decifions of any 
 Church, when they appear to be contrary to his 
 private Reafon, be makes this furprizing Decla- 
 y'ation, that tho* he fhould find in the Bible 
 fuch a Propofition as this, to wit, that the fame 
 Body can be in Ten thoufand Places at once, 
 nay, tho' he mould fee a dead Man raifed to 
 Life in Teftimony of it, he could not believe 
 it : and that he could not be fo fure of what he 
 Ihould fee with his own Eyes, as he is fure 
 that the aforefaid Propofition is falfe. And why 
 fo? ^Becaufe forfooth he KNOWS the Thing 
 to be impoflible in Reafon and Nature. But 
 has any. fiber, judicious, and learned Proteftartt 
 Writer ever reafon'd in this Manner before him ? 
 Is this arguing like a Divine?^ Here
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 therefore, fence I could not let fuch an 
 extraordinary Piece pafs without Animadverfions 
 upon it, I found myfelf obliged, contrary to my 
 Inclination, to engage in the particular Controverfy 
 cf Tranfubflantiation, both to vindicate that 
 numerous and honourable Society, 'whereof I am 
 a Member, from being regarded as a Body com- 
 pofed of flupid Animals without Senfe or Rea- 
 fon ; and chiefly to expofe the Extravagance and 
 Prefumption of Mr. Trapp' j unexemplified De- 
 claration : From whence no other Confequence can 
 be drawn, than that a Man of more Fire and 
 Self-conceit than Judgment and Knowledge has 
 had the Forwardnefs to obtrude bimfelf to be the 
 Advocate of a Caufe, to which he has done more 
 Prejudice than Honour by his Mifmanagement of 
 it. And tho 1 I cannot but for efee, that this will 
 ~be very difagrseable to a Perfon, who by the Airs 
 he gives bimfelf throughout his whole Book, and 
 his Dedication of it to the King, appears to have 
 no fmall Opinion of bis own Abilities, I may rea- 
 fonably prefume it will not give Offence to thofe 
 of the Prelatick Order, who will eafily diftinguijh 
 between the Caufe of a particular Perfon, and 
 that of a whole Church ; and know very well, 
 that the Queslion, whether Mr. Trapp has writ 
 Senfe or Nonfenfe do*s not at all affeft the main 
 Controverfy between the two Churches. For the 
 Difpute here is not, whether Mr. Trapp'j- Caufe 
 or his Adverfarfs be the better, but which of 
 the two is the Sir Martin Mar-all of the Play. 
 In a Word, the whole Drift cf the following 
 Pages is to prove, that Mr. Trapp wants both 
 Judgment, Learning, and Temper to fet up for a 
 Writer of Controverfy . 
 
 THE
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS- 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 SOme preliminary Remarks upon the Title, Pre- 
 face, and Dedication of Mr. Traft's Book. p. i 
 
 II. Mr. Traff proved guilty of foul Dealing, p.ia 
 
 III. Mr.Tm^'s Clue of Diftinftions examined p, 21 
 
 IV. Of Snlmffion. p. 25 
 
 V. The fame Subjeft continued.- p. 3 1 
 
 VI. Of Examination, p. 36 
 
 VII. The fame Subjeft continued. p. 44 
 
 VIII. Mr. Trap's Blunder. His unparalell'd Pre- 
 fumption. p. 48 
 
 IX. A Digreflion concerning Tranfuiftantiatiotj, and 
 the Teflimony of our Senjes. p. 5 5 
 
 X. Continuation of the fame Subject. p. <fo 
 
 Xf. Remarks upon Mr. Trap's pretended Confu- 
 tation of the Author's fecond Settion. p. 68 
 
 XII. The Author no Trifler. p. tf 
 
 XIII. The Copies not injured by the Author. p.8i 
 
 XIV. The Author's Principle defended againft Mr. 
 Trap's falfe Reafoning. p. 89 
 
 a XV. Tho
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 XV. The Author's Principle ^fu^ofeJto he true] Is 
 of great Advantage to Mr. Trap's Popifh Advet- 
 faries. p 93 
 
 XVI. Mr. Tratfs Cavils anfwered. p. 99 
 
 XVII. Mr. !>*/>/> proved guilty of Slander, p. 104 
 
 XVIII. Mr. Trap's Doftrine concerning the Divine 
 Infiiration of Scriptures, and Baptifm adminifter'd 
 by Pierttifkj. p. 109 
 
 XIX. Mr. Trapfs trifling Cavils anfwered. p. 115 
 
 XX. Mr. Trap's unwarrantable A flertions. p. is.z 
 
 XXI. The Author falfly accufed of running round 
 in a. Circle. p. 127 
 
 XXfl. Remarks upon Mr. Trvi/>/>'s Anfwers to the 
 concluding Part of the Author's zd Stffion. p. i ja 
 
 XXIII. Remarks upon Mr. Trapfs Third Se- 
 ciion. p. 159 
 
 XXIV. Remarks upon Mr. Trapps Arifwer to the 
 Author's 4fb ScBion concerning InfaHiyHtty. p. 14^ 
 
 XXV. Remarks upon Mr. Traty's Interpretations 
 of the Texts alledg'd by the Author. p. 154 
 
 XXVI. Remarks upon Mr.7V<tty>'s pretertded Con- 
 futation of the Author's jtb Seflion. p 164 
 
 XXVII. The Author's Argument from the Ninth 
 Article of the Crttd truly ftated, and Mr. Trapfz 
 Anfwer to it. p. i 75
 
 
 SECT. I. 
 
 Some Preliminary Remarks upon the Tz//<f, 
 Preface^ and Dedication ok Mr. TRAPP'S 
 Book. 
 
 F the Defence of the Church of - 
 /aW againft the Book, entituled, 
 England's Convetjion and Reformation 
 compared, be a Caufe that has the 
 Advantage of Truth and Reafon 
 on it's ude, I muft needs fay, it 
 has had the Misfortune to fall into very bad Hands ; 
 I mean, into the Hands of one, who, tho s he ftiles 
 himfelf Mafttr o/ ,4m, has the Arts of writing folid- 
 ly and politely yet to learn, and feems to want A- 
 bilities, as well as Temper, to qualify him for a 
 Taflt of that Importance. For befides that he /hews 
 himfelf little vers'd in the Rules of arguing juttly, 
 there appears throughout his whole Performance fo 
 much Heat and Paffion on the one Hand, and fo 
 little Regard to Decency and good Manners on the 
 other, that his Readers will find themfcives very 
 much difappointed, if they expect calm and fober 
 Reafoning from him : Bur if they delight in blu- 
 itring, bad Language, and infulting over an Adver- 
 fary, even when there is the leaft Occafion for it, 
 I recommend to them the reading of Mr. Trap's 
 Book, where they will be plentifully entertained 
 that Way, and find their Inclinations fully gratify'd. 
 Mr. Trtfp himfelf forefeeing, as he might well, 
 that this would be thrown into his Difh, hasendea* 
 B vour'd
 
 vour'd to apologize for it in his Preface, where he 
 writes thus : / tak, f '* f or granted, becaufe it is an Ob- 
 jetJion always in the Months of thofe, who have nothing 
 eljf to fay, that I JhaU be accufed by him [his Adverfary] 
 and his Friends, of treating him with too little Ceremony : 
 I acknowledge 1 have treated him uith Freedom^ but not with 
 til Manners. Mr. Trapp then is of Opinion, that trea- 
 ting an Adverfary with bad Language is no Trefpafs 
 againft good Manners. But his Reafon for it is fome- 
 whnt pleafanf. The rougheft flora's, fays he, I 
 have'u/ed t nitre not made a Part of Language for no- 
 thing j and I appeal to the World whether 7 have not appli- 
 ed them property. Well then ^ I am very much mi- 
 flaken, if Billingsgate may not here challenge the Be- 
 nefit of Mr. Trapp's Vindication of himfelf j becaufe 
 the roKgfy/? Words ufed there are moft certainly good 
 Englifb 5 nor vere thy made a Part of Law* 4 for no- 
 thing 5 and if the proper Application of fuch Words will 
 juftify the Ufe of them, then any Man, who is really 
 a prefumptuotts , affuming^ impertinent Coxcomb^ may be 
 called fo to his Face, without tranfgrefling the Rules 
 of n rrency and good Manners : Since thofe Words 
 are without all DiCpute property applied in fuch a Cafe, 
 and tt(y KC-? not made a Part of the Engli/h Tonue for 
 mthiKg. This > Mr Trapp's ingenious Way of ar- 
 guing : And the Church of England may judge from 
 this Specimen, what an able Advocate /he has to 
 plead her Caufe. 
 
 However, let not Mr. frapp flatter himfelf, that I 
 give it for granted, that the rf<u?h Wordt, with which 
 he owns he has treated his Adverfary,are applied pro- 
 perfy, rho' he appeals to the World for Proof of it, and I 
 appeal to the World for Proof of the contrary, and fo 
 we are upon equal Terms, 'till we come to a more 
 folid Sort of Proofs than empty Bravadoes, which 
 are as little to the Purpofe in a Paptr-War t as in 
 Field Battles. 
 
 ^ut it is fomewhat remarkable, that this warm 
 Gentleman had not even Temper enough to mode- 
 rare the Acrimony of his Pen in the very Title of 
 
 his
 
 ( s ) 
 
 his Book, which contains a three fold Accufation, of 
 Calumny, Sophi&ry, and Infolence. It is worded thus : 
 The Church of England defended, againft the CALUM- 
 NIES and falfe Reafonings of the Cbunb of Rome, in 
 Jnfuer to a late SOPHISTICAL and INSOLENT Poftjb 
 foo^entitttlea&c. This is the Title ; and J muft here 
 put Mr. Trapp in Mind, that Calumny is a heavy 
 Charge, and ought to be proved with the utmoft - 
 vidence againft the Party accufed of it; becaufe it 
 is not only a heinous Sin,but over and above accoun- 
 ted bafe and vile, even by thofe who do not other- 
 wife make Profeflion of the ftricteft Morals. But 
 be that as it will, I cannot reconcile, either with fair 
 Dealing or common Senfe, his pronouncing in his 
 Title, the O urcb of Rome guilty of that black Crime, 
 and placing to her Account the Calumnies pretended 
 to be contain'd in the Popifb Boo^, againft which he 
 has writ his Defence For let us now fuppofe the 
 Author of that Book really guilty of Calumny (which 
 I defy any Map to convict him of) how comes the 
 Chwrh of Rome m general to be involv'd in his perfonai 
 Guilt ? is the State an Accomplice in the Crimes, 
 which it's Subjects commit ? or does not the Church 
 of Rome condemn the Sin of Calumny, and exprefs 
 her utmoft Abhorrence and Deteftation of it by her 
 very Practice, in obliging all her Penitents, that ac- 
 cufe themfelves of it, to a publick Retractation, as 
 a Condition, without which, they cannot obtain the 
 Pardon of it in this World, nor hope for Salvation in 
 the next ? The Matter is beyond all Queftion j and 
 by Confequence, the Church of Rome is as little con- 
 cerned in the Calumnies laid to the Author's Charge, 
 even tho' they were fully proved againft him, as the 
 State is in the Crimes of it's Subjects, which it con- 
 demns and punifhes. 60 that, whether we call this 
 
 Part of Mr. Trapp's Title, Nonjfnfe or unfair Dealing, 
 
 or both, it is no good Prognoftickof what we are like 
 to meet with in the Body of his Book. 
 
 As to the Accufation ofSopbiJiry, he has done well 
 
 to tell us in his Preface, that bt k,nov,s not v/ho bis ano- 
 
 B 2 nymout
 
 ( 4 ) 
 
 nymou* Jatagoaijt Is ; fot if he had been perfonally 
 acquainted with him, he would have known him to 
 be a plain-dealing Man, and a hearty Enemy to So- 
 fbiftry, Fallacies, and Equivocations ; nor do I know him 
 guilty of any one intended, fbphiftical Reafoning in 
 any Part of his Bock ; though theclear-fighted Mr. 
 Trapp pretends to have difcover'd hundreds j and he 
 can fcarce get a Page over of the Author's Book.but 
 the poor Gentleman fancies he feeszSophifm or Fallacy 
 lying in Ambufcade to entrap him : But they are 
 all form'd in his own fruitful Imagination, which, 
 like a falfe Glafs, makes him fee double Meaning!, 
 even where the Author's Expreflions are the moft 
 plain and Jimple. 
 
 In EfFeft, the real Fault of the Author's Book is, 
 that it is too plain, that it delivers his Thoughts with 
 too much Opennefs and Freedom, and fets the 
 Caufe he pleads for in too clear and ftrong a Light 
 to be endured by it's Enemies. . '7 is this alone has 
 given Offence, and made M r.TVrt/?/? and his Brethren 
 fo very angry at him : \\* hereas if he had only dealt 
 in Fallacies and Sopbifm*, which .never do much Exe- 
 cution, but only render an Author contemptible, his 
 Book might have pafs'd without Noifeor Molefta- 
 tion ; and Mr. Irapp himielf would, in all Likeli- 
 hood, have thought it beneath him to enter the Liit 
 againft fo defpicable an Adverfary. 
 
 However, the Author is heartily furry for having 
 been, tho' undefignedly, the Occafion of giving Of- 
 fence to any, but efpecially to higher Pouers, whom 
 he knows he is bound to refpecl;. I fay KaV/^W/y, 
 becaufe he could not forefee that a Book, treating 
 purely of religious Matters, and in which there is not 
 the leaft reflecting Word,eithcr directly or indirectly 
 upon his Majefty's Government, fhould be thought 
 to be of that dangerous Consequence, as to deferve 
 to be arraign'd at the Bar in W r eftiniJ1er Hull. 'Tis 
 true, the Author has made ufe of the cleareft an4 
 ilrongeft Arguments his Reafon fuogeOed to him, 
 to maintain his Caufe, nor could he do otherwif<$ 
 
 without
 
 ( 5 ) 
 
 without prevaricating $ and as the Motive that in- 
 duced him to write his Book (as is manifeft from 
 the whole Tenor of it) was to inftrucT; and fortify 
 thofe of his own Perfuafion againft the powerful 
 Temptations they lie under of falling from their 
 Religion, as many have of late, is it a Wonder he 
 Hiould make Choice of the moft powerful Antidotes 
 and Prefervatives againft that dangerous and catch- 
 ing Evil? 
 
 'Tis this the generous and good-natur'd Mr.Tra/p 
 calls Injoltnce in the Title of his Book, to keep up, 
 as I prefume, the Difpleafure of the Government 
 againft him : And this is one of that Sort of Words 
 which he fays were not m*de a Part of Language for - 
 thing. But is the Application of it proper, and free 
 from Paflion ? Could it not have been applied more 
 properly, if Mr. Traff had been animated with a 
 true Chriftian Zeal, and had only had the Intereft of 
 Religion at Heart ? I think it is beyond all Q.ue- 
 ftion, that he might have found many other Books 
 to pafsthat fevere Cenfure.upon much more defer* 
 vedly. Has he never found in the jittvertijemeatt of 
 publick News-papers, any Books with the Author's 
 and Printer's Names fet to them, fome of which 
 tend manifefty to the promoting of Immorality,and 
 others attack directly Chriftianity itfelf, and under- 
 mine the very Foundations of reveal'd Religion ? 
 This, indeed, may be call'd Infolence in a high De- 
 gree, both in Regard of the fcandalous Contents of 
 thofe Books, and the open Manner of their Publica- 
 tion. But can the Author, whom Mr. Trapp has fin- 
 gledoutfor his Adverfary, beaccufed of any thing 
 like this? Did he publifh his Book with Sound of 
 Trumpet ? Was it advertised in any of the News- 
 papers ? Or had he the Preemption to fet his 
 Name to it ? Again, does his Book contain any 
 Thing dei'rufHve of Morality, or the Fundamen- 
 tals of reveal'd Religion? On the contrary, the 
 principal Subjeftof his firft Dialogue is a Defence of 
 
 the
 
 the Catholic^ r%ttrcb and Chriftianity in general, as is 
 
 plain to any impartial Reader. 
 
 But let us now fuppofe the Author may defer- 
 
 vedly beaccufed of Info'ence, tor having fpoken his 
 
 Wind too freely 5 Mr. Trapp, at Jeaft, was not a pro- 
 per Man to charge him with it For tho' it may 
 
 become a Perron vefted with publick Authority,fuch 
 as his Majefty's 4ttorney-Gteraf, to ufe fuch Ex- 
 preflions at the Bar, where he profecutes an Offen- 
 der in the King's Name, and is bound in Duty to 
 exaggerate his Ofience as far as he thinks it will 
 bear; yet for a Perfon in a private Capacity, and 
 known only by his Forwardness to givehimfelf fuch 
 Airs, and take upon him to treat an Adverfary with 
 Language ufually given to Footmen, is both injudi- 
 cious and unbecoming Uponrhe whole, it is plain, 
 that Mr. Trapp has fhew'd himfelf too paflionate a 
 Writer, even to furniOi out a correft and decent Tit ft ; 
 and after this, there will be no need of a prophetick 
 Spirit to fbrefee what the Book itfeif will be. 
 
 After the Title, follows in good Order the DeJi- 
 ratvy EpijUt. But I muft here beg Mr Trap's leave 
 to think, he has made a very great Compliment to 
 himfelf, and but a very indifferent one to the King, 
 in dedicating his Book to his Majefty. For nothing 
 of that Kind ought to approach the Throne, but 
 what is accompli fh'd and unexceptionable in all Re- . 
 fpefts Grub-jirtet and Billingsgate ought to be kept 
 at as great a Diftance from his Majefty's Perfon as 
 an unmannerly Mobb ; whereas a great deal of both 
 will be found in this Gentleman s Performance.Nay 
 his very dedicatory F.piftle, though it be very fhorr, 
 (which is the only judicious Thing in it) will not 
 bear the Teft of a ftrid Examination, by the Rules 
 cither of good Senfeor Truth. This fioo^ (fays he) 
 happening to Jtt the Light at tkf Time of your aufpic tout 
 jfcctjjion to the Throne of thefe Kingaoms,it was N ATU R AL 
 fr it's j^Hthor humbly to implore the Favour and Honour 
 of laying it anj h'mff/f at your Majtffy's Feet. This 
 
 feems to be a kind of Innuendo^ thatunlefs his Ma- 
 jefty
 
 ( 7 ) 
 
 jefty had mounted the Throne in that very Nicfc. 
 of Time, Mr. Traft would never have thought of 
 him. 
 
 But allowing this to be too harfli a Conftruftion, 
 I am fomewhat puzzled to find a Reafon why the 
 bare cafual coming forth of a Book at the Time of 
 the King's A cceflion to the Crown, fhould render it 
 Natural for the Author to dedicate it to him j he had 
 furely fome better Reafon, not hard to be guefs'd, 
 which rendered it indeed very natural for the Author 
 to get the Start of all his Brethren, in making his 
 Court to a Prince juit mounting the Throne. For 
 this is as natural as it is to court the Favour of a 
 young Heir newly poflefs'd of a plentiful Fortune j 
 or as it is for a poor Gardiner to make fome trivial 
 Prefent of Fruit or Flowers to a rich Lord, in Hopes 
 of being well paid for it. 
 
 But Jet this pafs, as being foreign to the main 
 Point. What follows is of greater Confequence, for 
 he goes on thus : Efyecially confiJtring that it [hi* 
 Book] is only pointed again/I the Doflrints and Praffteet 
 of tboft, fome of uhom, at leafi, -would exempt a great aaJ 
 very confidence Part of the Chriftian World, the Otrgy, 
 ftom ALL Sutyeftion to Chriftian Princes. I grant the 
 Clergy is a very great and confiderable Part of- the 
 Chriftian World : But pray, good Mr. Traff, who 
 are the Some you fpeak of, tl-ut -uould exempt the Clergy 
 from ALL SutyBion to Chrtftian Princes ? Where are 
 they to be found ? In Fr mr y Spain, Ita/y, Germany \ 
 Portugal, Poland, or any other Chriftian Country in 
 Europe? I never heard of any >n thofe Countries, 
 who dare maintain, that the Prince has no Authori- 
 ty over the '".l^y and I am very lure your Adver- 
 fary, againft whom your Book is chiefly pointed, as 
 you call it. has never taught any fuch fcandalous 
 Doftrine j fo that you talk at random, and the Some 
 you fpeak of, will, upon a ferious Enquiry, be 
 found to have no Being but in your own prejudiced 
 Imagination:But,Sir,his Majefty is too wife a Princo 
 to give into fuch idic Grub-Jlreet Tales. He knows
 
 <: s ) 
 
 it to be the Do&rine of all Catlolic^s in tlie tVorlcf, 
 according to what they are taught in the Gofpel, 
 that the Thin^f ithich belong to Ceefar, are to be rentier'*! to 
 Gefar, and that ail are bound to be fuijell to h^her 
 Powers, according to St. PW. Nay, he knows by his 
 own Experience,thatthe Catholickj in his own Coun- 
 try, both C/ergy and Laity, are as faithful Subjects, 
 and profefs as unfeign'd a Loyalty to him as thofe 
 of his own Perfuafion. I could fay a great deal more 
 to flop Mr' Trap's Mouth upon this Head, but think 
 it not proper 5 and he is very fenfible of the Advan- 
 tage he has over his Adverfary, in being at full Li- 
 berty to advance as many Falfhoods as he pleafes a- 
 cainft Popery imf/une^ whereas a Papift cannot even 
 Ipeak Truth, in many Cafes, without incurring the 
 Danger of a Premumre. However, this unfair Dealing 
 cannot but give his Majefty an unfavourable Opini- 
 on of any Author, who has endeavour'd to impofe 
 upon him in the very Epiftle addrefs'd to him, 
 where nothing but the niceft Truth ought to have 
 dared to appear. 
 
 He continues thus : But it is particularly a Defence 
 of your Maj'jiy'i Supremacy in Ecclefiajrical sfjfairs by the 
 Laws of this Realm, ami made an rjjenttxl Part of the Con- 
 ftitution of our Government, Very fine ! but I afTure 
 
 his MajeOy, that Mr. Txi/'p has managed his De- 
 fence of it in fuch a Manner,as to have left his Ma- 
 jefty nothing hut the empty Title of it above wh it 
 every ChrilVian Kingdom in the World will ac- 
 knowledge, to be an eflcntial Prerogative of the 
 Crown 5 tho'not one of them will indeed own THAT 
 SoFKRMACV in Ecciefiifticul sfjfairs, which by A6ls 
 
 of Parliament, is fettled upon the Crown of Great- 
 Britain ; and Mr. Trap? himfelf, has fo handled it, 
 as to make nothing of it. 
 
 He goes on again. NofwithftanJing it is openly de- 
 yV and rejefled, by thofe againft "whom I write, ivbo uoulA 
 ^01 eft from yaur Majefty this valuable Branch of your Pre- 
 rogative, one of the brighteft Jewels in that Imperial Crown, 
 to which you happily Succted. 1 readily grai^t that Mr.
 
 ( 9 ) 
 
 * Adverfary, according to the Principles of Mi 
 Religion, maintains that the Government of the 
 Church in Ecc/ejiafl>cai siff.urs, belongs who ly ar.d 
 foleiy to the Epifcopal Or^r, and their Subordina;c 
 Paftors, who alone are tommiffioned by ChriU to 
 fieel bis Flocl^: And the learned Mr Cnll-tr. for wh< fe 
 Judgment, I prefume Mr Tr,.^ has fome Regard* 
 maintains the fame throughout his whole Fcclefi- 
 afHcal Hiftory* But I deny, that either of them 
 has the Prefumption to u-rejt any nm R><.imbet tie 
 J?oy<i/ Prerogative out of bit Majefty's HOMO'S but leaves 
 it to him as whole and entire, as it was poffefs d by 
 any of his Royal Predect {Tors, for the fpaceofww* 
 Hundred Y*<ir< amongft whom, there were many 
 wife and excellent Princes, who understood the tall 
 Extent of their Prerogative much better than Mr. 
 Traft is able to inform us ^ yet not any <>ne of theOi 
 ever laid Claim to the Spiritual ^upremacy before H'- 
 ry V11I. as all the World knows And tho' Mr. 
 Tr^ calls it the hri^Heft Jewel in his Maje/iy's Im^eri^l 
 Crovn, he can mean no more by it than an empty 
 Compliment, made for the i'akc of the pretty jingle 
 of the Words, if he be in earneft, when he comes 
 to explain himfelf againft his Adverfary upon that 
 Subject, where he has To depreciated the /VW, and 
 tarnifVd the Lttftre of that^ht 7'uW, that in com- 
 paring it with that, which the Parliament beftow'd 
 upon King Henry, King Edward, and Queen Eliza- 
 beth, and her SuccefTors, no Man will know it to be 
 the fame. 
 
 t (hall end this Section with a few more Re* 
 marks upon the Pref.ire $ where he advenifev hit 
 Reader, that the rough Language he has u'ed is 
 to be applied wholly' and folely to th F a *lor< ,W 
 jj^ent! for Pot>ery, the Pritflt and M/ffiot fr<. They 
 ^re much obliged to him for his charitable Ap- 
 plication, and the care he has taken, to let therri 
 Jcnow hijg good Will towards them 5 conformably to 
 which, in the following, Page, he ca"s rherrj raven- 
 , yifitfbwgaH pWcrtunities to devour Proteftant 
 
 C
 
 ( 10 ) 
 
 But under Mr. Tratfs Favour, their princi- 
 pal Bufinefs is to guard and feed their own : tKo* if 
 any ttray'd Sheep come of their own accord, to be 
 taken into the Fold, they think themfelves bound in 
 Conscience, to receive them ; and, if this raifes a 
 Clamour, they may juftly anfwer with St. Pfter, 
 ^uJge ye, -whether it he right in the Sifht of God, to bear- 
 ken unto you more than unto Goal. Afts c. 4. v. I p. 
 
 In the Page following, after having, to the Au- 
 thor's great Supprize, made him a Compliment up- 
 on his Abilities and Learning, and even done him 
 the Honour to join him with Bellarmine and Suarei, he 
 kicks all down again with a But in the very next 
 Lines. But, fays he, their Caufe isfo very lndeffnfole t 
 that it maizes the greateft "Men tall^ riJiculoufly 5 t ke heft 
 ait can fay of their Reafoningt, is, that they are learned 
 SJbfurdities, there may he much Learning in them, but there's 
 no common Senfe. This is very fmart indeed, but 
 fomcwhat Enigmatical. What / much Learning 
 without any common Senfe ! For my Part, I have al- 
 ways thought, that Learning improved the natural 
 good Senfe a Man is born with : But it feems, it is 
 a Misfortune peculiar to Papifts, to forfeit their na- 
 tural good Senfe, by becoming learned Men 5 and 
 both Bellarmine and Suarei, two Perfbns eminent for 
 Learning, are dreadful Examples of it : 'Tis, how- 
 ever, to be hoped, that the Author, his Adverfary, 
 who is far from pretending to the Learning and Abi* 
 lities of thefe two great Men, has not reafon'd al- 
 together fo ridiculoufiy as they, becaufe he is not fo 
 Learned by a great deal as either of them. Mr. 
 Traft, at leaft, is in no Danger of being Itamtdly ri- 
 diculous, tho' I will not give Security for him, that 
 he will not often talk veryridic uloufly without any 
 Learning. 
 
 But to be fomewhat more Serious than the Mat- 
 ter really deferves, if Popery, as it is ufually nick- 
 named, be fuch an indefenfible Religion, that it 
 cannot bemaintain'd, even by it's ableit Advocates, 
 wirhout running into Abfurdities and Nonfenfe, 
 
 how
 
 ( II ) 
 
 fcow comes it that the Church of England, tho' en- 
 compafs'd and attack'd by numberlefs Proteflatit Dif- 
 ftnters, has always been moft jealous of Papiftf, and 
 regarded them as her moft dangerous Adverfaries ? 
 Forfince their Numbers in this Kingdom are con- 
 temptible, and their Intereft nothing at all, as being 
 excluded from all Offices, both military and civi/ t 
 and even not fuffer'd to come to Court, I can fee no- 
 thing but the force of their Arguments, and ftrength 
 of their Reafonings, that can give a colourable Pre- 
 tence for thofe continual Jealoufies, and fears of the 
 Growth of Popery, inftill'd into the People, upon all 
 Occafions, by their Leaders. I muft confefs, it ap- 
 pears to me wholly inconceivable, from what Quar- 
 ter the Danger fhould threaten, if befides all the 
 worldly bifadvantages and Difcouragements their 
 Religion lies under, it has over and above the 
 ftrength of Argument, and plain Evidence of Rca- 
 fon againll it. Gan there be any Danger of a Pro- 
 teftant's turning Papift, in fpite both of worldly In- 
 tereft, and a full Conviction of Confcience ? Now, 
 that it is his Intereft to continue a Member of the 
 Church of England, needs no Proof j and if the Con- 
 viction of his Confcience be fo ftrongly guarded by 
 Truth and Reafon, that nothing but jtiurdtttes and 
 ridiculous Nonfenfe can be oppofed againft it, as Mr. 
 Trapp pretends, where is the Danger fo much appre- 
 hended of Proteflmts becoming Profelvtesto Popery ? 
 unlefs our Miflionary p riefts be fuppofed to deal 
 in the Black Art, and by Magical Preparations firft 
 make Nonffnfe itfelf, lull Reafon and Confcientt afleep, 
 and then with the fame Charms bewitch Men fo, 
 as to make them fall in Love with Penal Laws, 
 
 JouMeTaxes, Contrmpt, and Perfections. For thjs is alt 
 they muft hope for in this World, by turning Pap-ft\ 
 on this fide of the Seas. 
 
 In a Word if Popoy be a Religion as Indcfenfi-' 
 
 ble as Mr. Trapp represents it, and nothing but rank 
 
 Nonfenfe can be writ to fupport it, his Church's 
 
 continual Fear of it's Growth is as fenfelcfs, as if all 
 
 C z the
 
 the Troops of firrat-RritatM fhould be kept up in 
 .Arms Day and Night, for fear of a Company of 
 Boys arm'd with Fo^-guns 5 and 1 cannot f rbear 
 faying that according to Mr. Trap's contemptible 
 Opinion of a 1 Potu/b Performances in controverfial 
 JV alters, his Adverfary's Book has had too much 
 Honour dune it in being thought confsderable 
 enough to be taken Notice of by higher Pavers j 
 which hasraifed the i.uriofity of many to read it, 
 who would not have given hemfelves that trouble 
 other wife and amongit whom, there are fome of 
 Opinion, that Vr. Trap has bur little Reafon to re- 
 proach his Adverfary with Nonfenfe ; and are even 
 und rfome Apprehenfion, that unlefs he learns to 
 write better 5 enfc than he has done hitherto, he is 
 in no Tmall danger of Living and Dying Conjrffor 
 
 tion PoHtiJ'X. 
 
 S.E CT. 2. 
 
 Mr. ratq> proved guilty of foul Dealing, 
 
 THIS fierce Champion againft Popery, has at 
 his very entering the Lirt, inftead of Foiling 
 his Adversary wounded moft grievoufly his own 
 Keputation in that very Part where it ought to 
 have been the ttrongeft guarded, and whereof he 
 ought to have been the moft tender : I mean, that 
 FaitMjtfpift and .W^my, with which a controverfial 
 Writer is hound ro repreferjt the Doftrine, Senfe, 
 and Arguments of rhe Author, he prerends to con- 
 fute. This douhtlefs, is an indifpenfabie Law, and 
 to tranfgrtfs agamlt it, is properly call'd foul IJeat- 
 ii, and fu^flces alone to blait the Credit of any 
 Author found Guilty of it Now that Mr. Tr*pp is 
 potor.oufly Guilty of this Tran r grcffion, by repre- 
 fentjng with the utmoft Unfairhfulnefs and Infin- 
 ccnty, the Doftrine- of his Adverfary in the very 
 
 beginning
 
 beginning of his pretended Confutation of him, and 
 that by confequence, he is not nttus in curia in his 
 comroverfial Capacity, but has forfeited all Title to 
 be believed in any thing barely upon his own Cre- 
 dit and Reputation, is the Charge 1 ihall now make 
 out clearly againft him 
 
 He begins his Attack upon the Author's/??/? D/- 
 /**,&/ i in the following Manner, p. 2. Tbisfrft 
 Dialogue, fays he, (jftve believe the Title of it) contain} the 
 Itneral Gionndt oj the Catholic!^ Faith : sill which, after 
 riwch Divtjion And Suba l iviJiort t Explaining and Diftinguijb- 
 ?w, Spying andUnfi-yingi Giving with one Hand nd ta- 
 king with the other, [Take Notice by the by, that it 
 is a moft fhameful Falfhood to aflert, that the AU- 
 t'rnf fays and Hnfays, &c.] are refolvt d at loft into this 
 Principle , That the Church of Rome is to be believed l M- 
 PLICITLV -whatever foe fays. That I do not mijreprefent 
 the M<tttfr y and that this, and nothing elje y is the Rejult of 
 eight different SeBioni t (whatever Title they bear) muft be 
 very plain /* any Rtader of no extraordinary Sagacity; 
 .Moft ftoutly fa id ; and doubtlefs Mr. Trapp is one of 
 thofe Readers of no extraordinary Sagacity. And a- 
 gain, p. 5. W\y do'< not tJ'at CV-r< h retjtiirt an ABSO- 
 
 LUTE IMPLICIT SUBMISSION to allher Di- 
 
 Zffltes, he they what they will ? Is it not the main Drift of 
 ibis duthor'f Performance to prove that fetch a Suhrr.ifjion 
 if due ? No, Sir, it is not. 7 he Author abfblutely 
 difclaims it as a grofs Impofition upon him, and has 
 proved the contrary, even to a Demonftration, in 
 rhe two firft Sections of his Book, but chiefly in the 
 firlt, where he makes his young Gentleman propofe 
 it twice as an Objection, and his Preceptor to anfwer 
 it a* often Nay Mr Trapp himfelf fcems to have 
 had fome SqueamiHinefs of Confcience about the 
 Matter in the very next Period after the Words a- 
 bove mentioned. / fonf'fs, fays he, this firft Seffion 
 Ifftm to promife the contrary j lecau/e in the Front it f terns 
 m carry thffr Words as tie Contfnts or Summary of it. 
 
 THE OBLIGATION OF SUBMITTING 
 OUR PRIVATE JUDGMENT, DO's NOT 
 
 EX-
 
 ( 14 ) 
 EXCLUDE EXAMINATION. In tie Difc ourfe 
 
 itftlf the young Gentleman and his Preceptor talk ofjearch- 
 ing diligently into the Bottom of tbe Caufe, and the former 
 is charm' J to hear the latter fay he may and ought to dofo. 
 
 Very right. But can it then be faid, that a Perfon 
 is under an Obligation of believing implicitly, when 
 he is not only permitted, but exhorted to examine 
 with the utmoft Diligence the Grounds and Motives 
 of his Belief ? Or can that Submiflton be called 
 implicit, the Reafonay/enejs whereof a Perfon is con- 
 vinced of by the cleareft and ftrongeft Proofs ? Or, 
 finally, does the Author require of his young Gen- 
 tleman any other Submiffion than that which Rea- 
 fon itfelf prompts him to ? Mr. Trapp mud have a 
 forehead of Brafs to fay he do's : Nay, I leave it 
 to the Decifion of any Man, who has but Eyes to 
 read, and common Senfe to underftand what he 
 reads, whether the whole Tendency of the Author's 
 two firft Sections be not to prove, that the Suhmiffion 
 he requires, ought to be the Refult of the moft di- 
 ligent and ferious Examination of the Grounds and Mo- 
 tives, without which, that Submiffion would not be 
 a reajonable Aft. The two Sections, I point to, may 
 be read over in a Quarter of an Hour.and the read' 
 ing of them will fuffice abundantly to convince any 
 Man of the grofs and palpable Difingenuity of the 
 Adversary I have to deal with. 
 
 However, for the Satisfaction of thofe who may 
 not fee the Author's Book, which is hard to be got, 
 1 fhall tranfcribefome Part of that Sedion, which, 
 as Mr. Trapp exprefTes himfelf, Jeems in the Title t 
 promt fe t be contrary, viz. to the DoflrSne of implicit 
 Sukmtjffion, which he charges the Author with 5 and 
 we fhall find that he is fo far from only feeming ta 
 promife the contrary, that he has perform'd it 
 effectually. 
 
 Firft then the Author, or his Reprefentative the 
 Preeeptor Jays down four general Principles, to make 
 the young Gentleman unrlerltand, how jubmitting and 
 may be. join'd together, vii, i. That there
 
 is fttch a Thing at a revealed Religion, which no Actctentft 
 if Wit> or Strength of hitman Reafon could ever have dtf- 
 cover' d t or can comprehend now it is difcovered to tts. 2. 
 That whatever God reveals, is moft infallibly trite, tho* it 
 lot never fo feemingly contrary to human Reafon, 5. That 
 there it a wiae Difference between a Thing being above 
 Reafon, and againft if. And 4. That Truth has always 
 Reafon on it's Side. 
 
 Mr. Trapp, p. 4. allows thefe Principles to be a- 
 greed to, without Contradiction, ty Protejiants at well a(Ca- 
 tholicl(s, except only one Exprefion in the fecondofthem ne- 
 ver Co feemingly contrary to Reafon] of which, fays 
 he, more hereafter. But he adds, tkat he cannot imaging 
 what Ufe the Author mattes oft bem, fence thty prove nothing 
 tut what no ChritJian denies. I am heartily glad of it. 
 But it appears very ftrange, that Mr. Trapp /hould 
 not fee what Ufe the Author maizes of them, fincc he 
 draws two important Confequences from them in 
 the very next Lines. From the two jirft of thefe Princi- 
 ples (Cays he) it follows , that captivating ourUnderftatt- 
 ding, or fubmitting our private Judgment tojuch reveal'J 
 Truths, as are above our Reajon is an indijpen/able Duty ; 
 and from the two latter it follows, that th'n Submffion if 
 perfectly reafonable j and if it be reafonable, it muft be 
 grounded upon foltd Motives, and thefe "Motives cannot af- 
 fecJ us, or have an Influence upon our Faith, unlefs thty bt 
 kj-.ojcn and examined. 
 
 The Preceptor continues thus : 4s to theObliatio* 
 offuhmitting,it is mtmff/i that amongft therevtal'dTruths 
 of Cbriftian Religion, there are My/levies fo fublime as f 
 be above all human UnJrrftanding : Such as the bleficd 
 Trinity, the Incarnation and Death of the Son o 
 God, jyr. and in Reference to thfje, and fitch others, Rea- 
 fon can have no other part to aft than that <jf an entire Sub- 
 miffion, whenever the Revelation of them is declared to s 
 by that Authority which Cfcr//? bai appointed to be ourGuide. 
 For Proof whereof he quotes (p. 4 ) St. Pau' to the 
 Hebrews : Obey them that have the Rule over you, and fub- 
 mit your felves $ for they wat(h over your Sou/s, at being t9 
 
 give an Accwnt. Heb. 15. v. 17. and the Word* of 
 
 our
 
 our Saviour, declaring that he who vstU not bear tit 
 Chr ( b,Jl>*Il be reputed ai a Heathen and a Publican. Mat. 
 l8. v. 17. 
 
 After this to (hew, that the Obligation of fulmittin^ 
 9ur private Judgment do's not exclude xawarJo(which 
 is the Title of the Seffion) he makes the young Gentle- 
 man propofe his Objection againft it in the ftrongelt 
 Terms thus : T/JO' (fays he, p. 5.) 1 am now convinced 
 that the Submiffion you fpeal^ of it absolutely necffiry, in 
 Rtference to all fuch Truths as are above our Undfrjianding, 
 1 am not yet fat'ujiedas to the Bufincjs of Examination.Nay, 
 the more I am convinced of the Necejfity and Reafonab/ene, .' 
 of Submitting, the more I am at a Lo/i to find, any roo>n 
 left for Examination. For to what purpofe is it to eX'i- 
 tnine, when 1 am convinced it is my Duty to fubmit ? To 
 which the Preceptor anfwers as follows : Sir, if it 
 be a Duty, it mutt be reasonable $ for we cannot aft again/i 
 Reafon in doin% our Duty and if it be reasonable, thtrz 
 vnuft be folid Grounds ana Motives for the doing of it : 
 that is, jWfrReafoas,Grounds and Motives as exclude ai! 
 rational Doubt f, and ought to be yielded to by any Man that 
 pretends to a& rationally. Since therefore no Mi can bt 
 convinced by Reafons or Motives, unlefs he l(novt tleir 
 Weight , and this cannot be krioian -without a dili?;nt Exa- 
 mination, theConffqueHce is, that every one, according to the 
 Mtalure of his Capacity, ought to examine them tvitb all the 
 Serioufnef! and jjpplication jpoflible ^ to the End, that ly 
 this diligent Examination he may render himfelf a competent 
 Judge of the Re-ifonablenefs of his Su^miffion, Whenie it 
 fo'tou-s, that Examination is fo far from being inconjifient 
 voitb Su^nrffion, that even the principal End of it is no other 
 than a fu'1 Conviction that our ^ubmifjion is not a rafe and 
 incofiderate ^ff, lut grounded upon foiiJ MotivfS. 
 
 Kow let any Proteft.mt be the Judge (for I am 
 not afraid oFappealing to any rational Man, ler his 
 Religion be what it will) whether what the Preceptor 
 here teaches, and inculcates into his Pupil, be confi- 
 dent -a/it-h what Mr. Tr<ifp taxes the Author wirhj 
 vn.. That the ivhote Content! cf his firfi Dialogue are t<> bt 
 refolved into this Principle, That tbe Gkitrcb .f Rame if to 
 
 lit
 
 It Miwl IMPLICITLY -whatever fie f a y s : and that 
 the main Drift of bis uhofe Performance it to prove that an 
 
 ABSOLUTE IMPLICIT SUBMISSION W 
 TO all herDiffaty. The Cafe, fairly Oared, Hands thus, 
 viz.. Whether a Submiffion, which is manifeftly rta- 
 fanaUe, the Refuit of a diligent Examination, and 
 grounded upon the moft folid Motives, can be call'd 
 implicit ? If it can, then I grant that Mr. Trapp ha? 
 not wrong'd the Author, who requires fuch a Sub- 
 miffion, and no other, of his Pupil, as is undeniably 
 manifeft from the whole Piece I have tranfcribedj 
 But if fuch a Submiflirm cannot be called implicit^ 
 without wrcfting that Word from it's obvious and 
 natural Meaning, and as we may be fare it is meant 
 by Mr. Tr<>f>f>, unlefs he be an errant Trifler ; then I 
 appeal to any Man of common Senic, whether he> 
 does not ftand convicled of a moft fcandalous Mif* 
 reprefentation of the Author's Meaning. 
 
 It cannot furely be denied, but that this is fuch a 
 flagrant Inflance of this Author's Infincerity and foul 
 Dealing, as might alone fufficc to cafr. attain upon 
 his whde Performance. But we /hall find him all 
 of a Piece: Nay, he could rior get through the 4th 
 Page of his Book without repeating once more rho 
 abovefaid Mifreprefentation. The TbtHt (fays he) 
 JO It made out ii not that an implicit Snbmijjion is due to 
 revral'J Truths, hut that it if fine to the Church. I flatly 
 deny, that tb'n is the Tbinz to f-e made our, and have pro-^ 
 ved the contrary fo plainly and fuily, as may como 
 to put Mr. Trapp himfeif to the Blufh, if he be ca- 
 pable of it. 
 
 Immediately after this he cites a Scrap of the Au- 
 thor's fourth i'age, hut mangled in fuch a Manner, 
 that no Man canunderftand it, and in all Likelihood 
 on Purpofethat no Body fhould underftand it. This 
 obliges me to repeat the whole Paffage, that both 
 Sides may be clearly uhderdood. <4s to the O^li^at tort 
 of fu^mitting (fays the Preceptor) it is maniftft, that a- 
 rr.OH'ift tbr reveal A Trnth< ofChriftian Reli&on, tbtre art 
 MyfterifS fo fublimt at to be above a" buwan Underftanding, 
 Mi tbt Trinity,^. </,/ Referetto to theft anJfueb otbtrr, 
 D Rtafw
 
 Reafon can have no other Part to aft, than that of an en- 
 WHENEVER THE REVELA 
 
 TION OF THEM IS DECLARED TO US 
 BY THAT AUTHORITY WHICH CHRIST 
 HAS APPOINTED TO BE OUR GUIDE. 
 
 He grants the firft Part of it to be true, but boggles 
 at the CJaufe mark'd by me in Capital Letters.^// 
 (fays he) we grant it [to wit, the Obligation of fub- 
 jnitting to fuch reveal'd Myfteries as are above our 
 Undemanding] meaning afttr a Perfon is fatisfy'd, that 
 they are reveal' d. But />rvi)'(fays he) mind the next Words. 
 Very well : we will take Care that they /hall not 
 cfcape the Reader's Notice. They are as follows : 
 Whenever tie Revelation of them is declared to tts by that 
 Authority, ithich Cbrift \\M appointed to be our Guide. I 
 cannot imagine what the poor Man would be at, un- 
 lefs it be to fquabble about the figurative Word 
 [4ntbority] which is as common and familiar a Fi- 
 gure, as when we fay higher Powers inftead of Perfons 
 in Pouer. If this be the only Thing he had in View, 
 it was not worth his exciting fo carneftly the Rea- 
 der's Attention with a But pray mind -what coma next, 
 as if fome monftrous Abfurdity were immediately 
 following} whereas the contrary is manifeft, fince 
 Mr. Ti*pp himfelf has already granted the Obligation 
 of ft bmittina ourfflves to fuch Myfteries a>s are above our 
 
 Under/land,*^ AFTER A PERSON IS SATIS- 
 FY'D THAT THEY ARE REVEAL'D. Here 
 then I afk how a Perfon can be, with greater Securi- 
 ty, fatisfyd concerning what Myfteries are reveal' J t 
 than by the Direction )( a Guide appointed by Cbrift 
 himfelf for that End ? If Mr. Trapf> knows of a bet- 
 ter, let him tell us where he is to be found. As to 
 the Author, he has told us very plainly, that the 
 C/wrbefrablifhed upon Earth by Chrift is alone ve- 
 iled with fuflficicnt Authority to be that Guide j and 
 /he has her Warrant for it from Chrift himfelf, fay- 
 ing, that he iiho /// not hear tke Church foall be reputed M 
 a Htathen avd a Publican. Matrh. 1 8. v. 17. and again, 
 he that Itanyim. bears nit, and he that deft ifef you', defyifes 
 
 me. JLuke.io.TaKT. HehasalfoSt. Augiftm* Word 
 
 for
 
 for it, declaring pofitively, that he-u^uldnot liVeve th 
 Go/pets thtmjelva, unlffs tbt .Authority of the Church com- 
 pcirj him to it. Com. Epift. Fund .4. Nay, he 
 has Mr. Tr^'s own Church for it, declaring in her 
 2.cth Article of Religion, that//?? Cl urch hat Authority in 
 Controverts of Faith. For how can flic have Authority 
 in Contrui:erjje; nf Fa'>th,un\QCs /he has receiv'da Pow- 
 er from Chrift to decide what Doclrines are reveal'd 
 by him? And what is this but being conftituted by 
 him to be our Judge and Guide in all things appertai- 
 ning to Faith ? 
 
 But what Exception then has Mr. Trrff? againft 
 the faid Claufc ? It is entirely owing to hisownfalfe 
 Comments upon it. That Guide (fays he) theChurth t 
 and that Church tht Church of Rome. Here ve have the 
 whole Myftery of the Matter. This it that grand Point be 
 drives at from thefrft Page to the la ft. That the Catho~ 
 Hcl^ (.burfb: viz. the Church which we profefs in the 
 Creed, is the Guide our Author fpeaks of, is unde- 
 niable j nor can Mr. Trap? himfelf deny it, without 
 giving the Lye to Chrift's own Words, and the 2Ctb 
 Article of his own Church into the Bargain; as is 
 manifeft from the preceding Paragraph. But as to 
 his adding, and the Church of Rome is that Church, this 
 is confounding, contrary to the Intention of the Au- 
 thor, two Queftions together, which differ entirely 
 from one another. For it is one Thing to fay, that 
 the Catholicl^Chitrch is appointed by Chrift to be our 
 Guide, and another, that this Church is the Church of 
 Rome. Now 'tis manifeft that the Author, when 
 he maintains, that the Church is appointed to be our 
 Guide, fpeaks only of the Cathoticl^ Church in general, 
 of the Church eftablifh'd by Chrift upon Earth 3 in 
 a Word, of that Church which we profefs in the 
 Creed to be Holy, Catholic^ and Jpojiolick^i in the 
 fame manner as the Proteftant Compoferof the 2Otb 
 Article fpeaks undoubtedly of the Church ofChriff in 
 general, when he declares* that fine h^ Authority in 
 Controvtrfies of Faith ; which is but faying the fame 
 Thing in other Words : but both abftraft entirely 
 from the Queftion, whether that Church be the 
 D 2 Cbarcb
 
 fcrr6of Rome, or the Church of England : for this It 
 the Subject of a quite different Difpute ; tho' as it 
 is to be prefumed, that the Compofer of the Articles 
 of Religion had an Eye upon the Church of England, 
 when^he faid, that the Church has Authority in Con- 
 trovtrjies of ftiith j fo it cannot be queftion'd, but 
 that the Author believed his own Church to be 
 that Guide, which all are bound to follow, and has 
 proved it effectually in his fourth Dialogue, which was 
 the proper Place to determine that Queftion : but 
 he abflracls entirely from it in the Claufe, which 
 Mr Trapp has crinciz'd upon with as little Judgment 
 as Candor : becaufe there is a large Difference be- 
 tween abftracling from a Queftion, and pronouncing 
 peremptorily upon it. 
 
 Kay, tho' there were nofuch Thing as a Church 
 of Remt in Being, as is obfcrved before ; and tho* 
 the whole Dioccfe of Rome were fwallowed up by 
 an Earthquake, the Author would maintain the ve- 
 ry fame Doclrinc relating to the O'ttrch ofChrift, the 
 Chureh Univtrfa/, or the Catko/ic^ Church profefs'd in 
 the Creed, as he does now, vit. That Cbrifl has ap- 
 pointed Her to be our Guide in matters appertaining 
 to Faith. That he has depofited with Her all re- 
 veal'd Truths, and promifed to he u-ith Her to the End of 
 ihe World. That therefore She is, and will always 
 be the Pillar and Support nf Truth ; and that by con- 
 fequcnce, the Faithful arc bound to pay an entire 
 Submiflion to Her Decifions. All this, I fay, he 
 would mainiain, tho' there were no fuch Thing as 
 a partietc.'ar Cl-urch of Rome upon the Face of tho 
 JEarth : And 'tis manifeft, that the Subjeft of every 
 Section of t\\c fir fJ Dialogue has entirely a Reference 
 to the Church of Cbrift in General. Nay, the Church 
 of Rome is not menrion'd in it, except twice or thrice 
 paflingly ; and where it is, none but a Trifler will 
 underhand it of the particular To-vcn or Diocefe of 
 Rome, but of the whole Body of Chriitians in Com- 
 Muman wijh that See, as the Author himfclf has ex- 
 plain'd it in the Place, where it was proper. So 
 that whatever Mr. Trapp fays, concerning the Chunb 
 
 *f
 
 ef Row, as it is apart of the Whole, is all Beating tho 
 Air, Eluding the Queftion, Talking wide from the 
 Purpofc, and Abufmg the Patience of his Readers 
 by Repetitions of the fame fulfom Nonfcnfe, a- 
 bove a hundred Times over. 
 
 SECT. Ill- 
 Mr. Trapp's Clue of Diflindtions examined. 
 
 MR. Trapp, having after his own Fafhitn, ac- 
 quainted his Reader with the Author's main 
 Drift, proceeds thus, page 5, 4f u-efeall meet -with 
 it wry ofren in the Pro^rtjs of this Contra verfy, and tbt 
 ftvtral Parts of it Jkall hereafter be conjjder'd, 1 at f>refe*t t 
 only defire tht Rtader to take Notice, that there is a large 
 Difference. 
 
 1. Between a Revelation, and a Thing reveal* J. 
 
 2. Betii-een Declaring that a Point is reveal'd, and In- 
 ttrpretin^ the Sen/e of it. 
 
 5. Between Modefiy and foberly Interpnting a difficult 
 Pointy and Arbitrarily and Jnfoltntly Interpreting a plain 
 one, contrary to common Reajon. 
 
 4. Retu-een Interpreting the old true Word of God, and 
 thp^Mg a neu-fa/fe Word of God. 
 
 5. Ret-ween leftimonyand Authority. Or if you pleafe, 
 between the Authority if Tiftimony, and Authority in 
 Central, er any other Species of Authority in Particular. 
 
 6. between a Guide and a Witnefs. 
 
 7. Brtu-ern the Church Univerfal, and the Church of 
 Rome. Or, in other Words, between the Whole and a Part. 
 
 Let the Reaaer, 1 fay, tal{e this Clue of plain DiftinBi* 
 on', at his jirft fitting out for -we ftoatl perpetHaNy mal^e 
 U/f of it in the Labirinth, through ubi(h we are to travel. 
 
 Very fine ! They are truly precious Ones, and 
 the learned World would fuffcr an irreparable Lofs, 
 if .any one of the Seven fhould pafs unregarded. 
 Nay, I have had fo great a Regard for the whole 
 Cue, that tho' Mr. Trafp himfelf, has very much en- 
 tangled
 
 tangled it, by Packing it up in one confufed Bundle, 
 I have clear'd it from all Confufion, 'by prefixing to 
 each Diftinftion it's proper Number ; to the End, 
 that when Mr. Trapp refers his Reader to any one 
 of them, or I my fclf fhall do it for him, he may 
 caft his Eye immediately upon it, without any far- 
 ther Trouble. This furely, is fair Dealing, and 
 Mr.Traty is bound to acknowledge it as a Favour. 
 I fhail now Animadvert upon each Diftinftion a part. 
 
 Ta!(t Notice, fays he, that tbtre if a large Difference. 
 
 I. Between a Revelation, and a Thin^ reveal' J t that 
 3s, between the Facl, that God has fpoken to his 
 Creatures, and the Thinzfpo(cn by him. A won- 
 derful Difcovery ! But we muft wait for the Ufe, 
 that is to be made of it. 
 
 z. Betu-een detlaring that a Point is r.VM/V, and In- 
 terpretinz the Senfe of it. Well, but are the People 
 then to learn the rtveafd Chriftian Doclrine, con- 
 tain'd in the GW, like Parrots, without knowing 
 any thing, what the meaning is of the reveal'd 
 PoHrine it contains ? Nay, are not their Teachers 
 bound to explain every Article to them, according to 
 the Senfe of the Catholick Church 7 . They are without 
 ail Difpute. And by confequence, the Catholic!^ 
 Church has Authority, not only to declare, what are 
 Points of reveal'tt Faith, but alfo to interpret the Senfe 
 and Meaning of rhcm : Nay, otherwise, how /hould 
 She have Authority i Controverjies of Faith, when 
 their happens to be a Controverfy about the Senfe 
 and Meaning of any Text of Scripture ? Pray, 
 what is the dtbanafian Creed, which the Church of En- 
 flanA receives as containing nothing but reveal'^ 
 Doclrine 5 what is it, I fay, but a large Explica- 
 tion of the two great Myfteries of the Trinity and 
 Incarnation ? And yet it concludes with this remarka- 
 ble Sentence, This is the CatkoUcI^ Faith, which unlefs a 
 Perfon lotlirves finctrtly and firmly, he cannut he Saved. 
 The Exposition therefore of a reveal'J Point, is a 
 Part of the Chriftian Revelation. 
 
 5. Between meJeftly and fiberly interpreting a difficult 
 Pif, And arbitrarily and infolently interpreting a plain
 
 owe, contrary to ctmmvn Reafon. I grant the difference 
 is full as great, as there is between a modeft, grave, 
 and fober Divine, and a paffionate, impertinent 
 Scribler, or a Madman. 
 
 4. Between interpreting the old Word of God, and nta- 
 kjngane-wfalfeff'ord of GoJ. All I fhail fay to this, 
 is, to give Mr. Trrfp my charitable Advice, to take 
 a dofe otHittelort, to fettle his Head, for he {lands 
 highly in Need of it 3 and 'tis all the Anfwer> fuch 
 vile Stuff defer vcs. 
 
 5. En-ween Tfftirr.ony and sftithority ; r if you f>fea fa 
 between the Authority of Trftimony and Authority inGe- 
 rxral, or any other S(xcia of Authority in particular. If 
 Mr. Trap's Reader is to take this Part of his Cmt 
 at his fitting out, to direft him in his Way, I fear 
 he will be in fome danger of being bewilder'd in 
 the Laberinth, through ubith he if to travel. For I own 
 frankly, I am my felf too dull to underftand it, and 
 fhould be glad, if for the Puhlick Good, he would 
 vouchfafe to write a comment upon it, in the fe- 
 cond Edition of his Book. As to the intelligible 
 Part of this Diftinclion, to wit, the Difference be- 
 tween Tfflimony and Authority . I anfwer, that ac- 
 cording to the fore mention'd aoth An'iclt of Rtli- 
 t',on, the Church has AUTHORITY in Controvrr- 
 fesef Faith, and her AUTHORITY gives Weight 
 to her TESTIMONY: Which fuffice to /hew the 
 Difference between them. 
 
 6. Ketwten a Guide and a W'nnejs. *Tis very cer- 
 tain, that tho* every Witnt/s be not a Guide ; yet the 
 Catboficl^ Church, is in Effect, both the one and the 
 other, in her Decifions of Faith. 
 
 7. Between the Church Univerfal, and the Chnr<h of 
 Rome. Or, in otJier WorJs, hetu-een the Whale and * 
 Part. What an ineftimable Obligation has the learn- 
 ed World to Mr. Traft t for the wonderful Difcove- 
 ry he has here made ; to wit, that the Hiad t a Lt 
 or Arm, a Finger or Tor, is not the vhote Body \ and 
 that in like manner, the particular Church, or Diocefe 
 of Rome, is not the Whole or Univerfal Church. But 
 who was ever fuch a Blockhead, as to fay it is ? I
 
 am furc the Author cannot be accufed of it, with- 
 out the moft palpable Injuftice, and impofing on 
 the Publick in the grofleft manner. Forji'ft, it is 
 tnanifeft to any unprejudiced Header, that the Au- 
 thor fpeaks every where of the Church founded ty 
 Chrift> i. e. of that Church which we proiefs in the 
 Nicene Creed^ to be One, Holy, Cathohcl{_ and 4fo8o- 
 lick. And sdly, 1 hat when he calls the Church, 
 whereof he is a Member, the Church of Rome, either 
 for Brevity Sake, or to diftingui/h her from the 
 Church of England, and other RtJorm'J Churcke?, 'tis 
 apparent from the whole Context, that he means 
 rot the Dioeefe of Rome, but the whole Body, or Society 
 of Cbrijiians all the World over y that are in Communion 
 with the See of Rome. 
 
 Nay, he ha* over and above declared this hi-s 
 Meaning in exprefs Terms, five fcveral Times, if 
 not oftner j for I would not give my felf the trouble 
 to look any further. F/>/?, p. 319. in thefe Words. 
 4s to the marl^ of P^ijjbility t England was by it's Cow 
 verjion, incorporate* with the Church of Rome, that it 
 
 to fay, WITH THE WHOLE BODY OF CHRl- 
 STIANS THEN IN COMMUNION WITH 
 THE SEE OF ROME, adly.p. 324. thus. It 
 remains now only tofpeal^a Word of the other external 
 Marl^ tairj C<itholicity t which never waf denied TO 
 
 *THE CHURCH IN COMMUNION WITH 
 THE SEE OF ROME. 3 <//y, ibid. thus. There- 
 
 fore, as England \?y it's Conversion, became a Port of 
 
 the CHURCH IN COMMUNION WITH THE 
 
 SEE OF ROME, fo it became by confequence t a Part 
 ef the Catholicl^ Church, that is to fay, of that Church t 
 which ve profefs to be/reve, in the ninth Article of tht 
 Nicene and Apoftles Creed. 4thly and 5thly, p 328. 
 in the following Words. My jj>ur/lto or Dilemma, to 
 whiib I demand a direct slnfwer, is precifely thn t viz. 
 Whtber tyore the Reformation, the CHURCH OF 
 
 ROME, WITH ALL THE CHURCHES IN 
 COMMUNION WITH THAT SEE, vat that 
 nt Holy, Catholic^ and ^foffolic^ Church, the Belief 
 
 vbereof
 
 whereof we profefs in tie Nicene Creed, or not ? Jfthtf 
 fay not, then the Creed was falfe before the Reformation^ 
 becaufe they cannot forw ariy other Society of Chriftiant t 
 which Wat that Church. But ifthiy anfiter in the stftirma*- 
 
 tive, then THE CHURCH OF ROME, WITH 
 ALL THE CHURCHES IN COMMUNION 
 
 WITH THAT SEE, v*t rtt only A true Church, but 
 the/oft and only true Church of Chrift Hfon Earth j viz. 
 before the Reformation. 
 
 If this be not clear and precife, I know not how 
 any Man can fpeakhis Mind clearly. Yet Mr. Trapp 
 will needs make his Readers believe* that the Au- 
 thor in Spight of his repeated Declarations of the 
 contrary, and the cleareft Explanations of his owri 
 true Meaning, makes no Difference between the 
 f articular Church or Diocefe of Rome, and the whole Colle- 
 8ion of Churches in Communion with that See. 'Tis 
 this he has plainly fuggefted in his -jth DiftinHion t v'n t 
 The Difference between the whole and a Part. For 'tis 
 here he has laid the Foundation of the dforefaid 
 fcandalous Mifreprefentation of the Author's Mea- 
 ning ; which runs as a continued Vein throughout 
 his whole Book, and is repeated, as I faid juft now, 
 above a hundred Times. This is his laft Refource 
 upon all Occafions, and is kept as a Corps de rcferva 
 to help him out when he is at a Plunge. 
 
 &X&$3*&&^^ 
 
 SECT. IV, 
 
 Of SUBMISSION. 
 
 FRom the Remarks I have now made upon Mr, 
 Trap's Clue of Diftinflions, which he exhorts hii 
 Reader to taly-with him for his Direction, and pro- 
 mifes to make uje of \>tr$itua\ly^ we ma jr guefs what 
 fort of Trafh we fhall meet with hereafter. If! 
 Efe&, he begins hi$ 6tb Page with fonae of his Grub 
 E Jlrttt
 
 . 
 
 firett Vmw Pi-Mi againft Popery, and repeats the 
 fame /># 9'h and prb. In the fame tfffc />og?, as well 
 as the two following, we find him again, according 
 to his ufual Candor, taxing the Author with the 
 Doclrine of implicit Submffott&nd fighting moft man- 
 fully againft his own Shadow. 
 
 But his Reafon why he will not fubmit implicitly 
 to any Church whatever, as he pretends we do to 
 ours, is fomewhat curious ^bteattfe, fays he, the Church 
 it not God. p 8. This, indeed, is a Piece of fingular 
 Erudition, and ought to be well remember'd. But 
 tho' the Church he not God, does it therefore follaw,that 
 the Suhmiflion infixed upon by the Author is not 
 due to her Dceifions ? Has not Almighty God ap- 
 pointed certain Perfons upon Earth to be his Repre- 
 Jtntativa, SuLJIituttt, or Picere^eMts, and, by Confe- 
 quence, vefted them with an Authority,which who- 
 foever tefiOsor violates, refiftsor violates the divine 
 AuthoFity of God himfelf? St. Ptm/has anfwer'd 
 this Queilion in the Affirmative. Let every &/, faya 
 he t bt (.ul-jffl 10 tht Higher Powers 5 for there is HO Power 
 but of Gorf. Whoever tbertfort rejiftetb tie Povtr, refiftttb 
 tkfOrjivwt'tf God. Rem. c. 1 5. v. i, a Men there- 
 Core conflitutcd in Power are God's JK&/?/'rKfr/,veftcd 
 by him with Authority to command and govern 
 their Subjefts : and this regards the Cburch as well 
 as State, as is undeniably aflerted by Chrift himfelf 
 faying to hia Apoftles and their SuccefTors, ke vbo 
 tears ycu hears me, and he who Jefpifes you, Jefpijes me t 
 L,uke 10. v. \6. and declaring, Matth. 18. v. 17. 
 that be uho will not bear the Church, Jbatt he reputed as a 
 Heathen and Publican. In confequence whereof, St. 
 Pau', the faithful Interpreter of Chrift, commands 
 the Hebrews to obey them that have the Rule over tbem,anct 
 fubrtiitthemfefves^c. i^.v. i y. 
 
 J-Tow from thefe Texts it is apparent, that Men, 
 (though they be not Gods, as Mr. Trapp, out of his 
 great Wifdom, has taken Care to inform us) are ap- 
 pointed by God to be his Substitutes or Piceregents in 
 the Government of his Church upon Earth j that 
 
 they
 
 ( 27 ) 
 
 they are the Rfprefematives vf his facred Perfon, and 
 acl by Commiflion from him. It is Jifcewifc very 
 apparent from the fame Texts.that there is a Sukmij- 
 fan due to them in Etc fefiiftical or Spiritual Matters. 
 For otherwife their Spiritual Authority would be 
 wholly precarious, and of no manner of Ufe. Here 
 then I fhould be glad to know, what fort of Sub- 
 miflion our RlefleJ Saviour and St P<"</ after him, re- 
 quires of the Faithful, to prevent their being guilty 
 of R($W> God, and being reputed a< H.-atbem and PnL, 
 licam. Is their SubmHfton to be timitt A or unltmitfd ? 
 Are they to fubmit to all the DecifionsoftheCtarrt, 
 or only to fome ? I am fure our BlcfTcd Saviour has 
 put no Limirs to it, but fays without Reftriclion or 
 Limitation, Ht who htarr yott hears mr, and he ufco de- 
 fpifes you dfjpifes me : and St. Paul do's the fame, in 
 laying this pofitive unlimited Command upon the 
 HrbrtTVS 5 obry them that have the Rule over you, and fulf- 
 mityourfffvef. But Mr Truff is plcafed to be of a- 
 nother Mind, and quarrels with the Author, p. 2. 
 for faying that ise ottght to pay a*t entire SuhmijJiM to the 
 Dec'Jlom of the Catholifl^ Chunk. He complains further 
 p. 3. that the Author confounds together this Su^m-ffion to 
 the C7?)Tfc,and captivating our tfrtJr*ftditcf}* to the O^edi- 
 ince of Faith. But that's a grofs Ovcrfight For tho' he 
 joins them together in one Claufe or Sentence, he 
 never affirms them to be one and the felf Hxme thing. 
 He joins them indeed together, becaufe they are 
 infcparable. For whoever captiv^ttt hit Undfrft^ndmg 
 to the Obeditnce of Faith (which regards prccifely the 
 Myficrit! themfelves, that are rvwa/V, and which he 
 believes purely upon the infin'tr Vir.icny of God, as 
 the only ejfintia/ Motive of his Faith) whoever, I fay, 
 thuscafjtivates HsUndfrftaneHn^muR firft fubmit to the 
 Church's Dfcifion, that fuch or fuch a Myftery is tru>ly 
 reveal' d; And on the other Hand again. whoever fub- 
 mits to the Church's Drf//ron,that fuch or fuch a Myrte- 
 ry is rfvfa/VbyGod,muft turn /itheiftnot to captivatt 
 andtnz to the Belief of it. In a Word, his 
 has for it's Ground or Motive the Te(li- 
 E a mony
 
 ( 28 ) 
 
 ftjony and Authority of the Catholic^ Church, efla- 
 blifh'd and appointed by Chrift to be his Guide $and 
 the captivating f bis Undtrftandin^ has for it's file , im- 
 mediate, and effential Motive the Teftimony and Au- 
 thority of God himfelf: which clearly diftingui flies 
 the one from the other. Nay, this very Diftinftion 
 is the whole Subjeft of the third SetHon of the Au- 
 thor's frft Dialogue, which bears for Title, that Faith 
 depends in a different Manner on theTeftintony of God, and 
 the Tetfimony of Men. And how then could Mr. Trapp 
 have the Confidence to tell his Reader, p. 3. that to 
 confound theft ttco ivith racb other it the principal Defyn of 
 the Author's "whole Roo^ I therefore take the Free- 
 dom to aflc once more, whether fiich a Man be fit 
 to write ? 'Tis manifeft at leaft, that whatever he 
 writes, deferves no Credit upon his aflerting it. 
 
 It remains now to examine whether an entire Sut>- 
 tnijfion to the Decifions of the Catholic^ Church be the 
 fame as an implicit one. This Mr. Trapp appears to 
 be cock-fure of 5 though the Author has proved the 
 contrary with the utmoft Evidence,by fhewing.that 
 a Submifion which is manifeftly reafonable, the Refult 
 of a diligent Examination, and grounded upon the 
 mod folid Motives, is the very Reverfe of what we 
 ufually call an implicit one. Becaufeto a& implicitly 
 is the fame as to aft Mindly 5 and a Man cannot be 
 faid to aft hlindly, when he proceeds upon/V/W Mo~ 
 mw,and follows the Diftates of his Reafon. If there- 
 fore fubmittinz entirely our private Judgments to the 
 Decifions of the Catholic^. Church be manifeftly a rea- 
 fonallt Aft, that is, an Aft, to which we are guided 
 by our own Reafon, the Confequence is undeniable, 
 that in fo doing we cannot be charged with afting 
 implicitly or blindly. 
 
 But, to prevent Mr. Tr^'s favourite Evafion, I 
 muft here defire the Reader to take Notice, that 
 the Author fpeaks of the Catholic^ Church, that is.the 
 Church UntverjaL That Church, I fay, the Belief 
 \vhereofwe profefs in the Creed, which was founded 
 Vy Chrift to be our Guide in Matters appertaining to 
 
 Salvation,
 
 ( 29 ) 
 
 Salvation, and will remain upon Earth as long as 
 the Cried is true; In a Word, that Church (in what- 
 ever Body or Society of Chriftians it is to be found) 
 which Chrift has promifed to fecure againft all the 
 Powers of Darknefs, with which he has promifed to 
 remain to the End of the World, and which therefore 
 St. Paul calls the Pillar and Support of Truth. Now if 
 it be not rtafataeft to repofe an entire Confidence in 
 the Guide I have here defcribed, and of which the 
 Author fpeaks throughout his whole Book, I con- 
 fefs I know not what it is to acT: reafonab/y -. and if 
 Mr. Trapp will needs call this an implicit or blind Sub- 
 miflion., ketping the People in the Darl^ and bidding then* 
 fiut their Eyes againft the Light ofReafon,l will not envy 
 him the Credit of talking Nonfenfe as long as he 
 pleafes. But wo be to them, who abandon the Guide 
 appointed by God himfelf to follow the Delufions of 
 their own proud Imaginations. Their Sentence of 
 Condemnation is already pronounced by Chrift,fay- 
 ing, that ht -who -will not hear the Church, flail be reputed 
 as a Heathen and a Publican. 
 
 But fince Mr. Trapp will not allow of an entire Sul* 
 mffiou to the Decifions of the Catholic!^ Church, where 
 then is it that our Submifiion is to flop ? How muft 
 v/e know when we are bound to acquiefce to her 
 Judgment, when not ? Neither Chrift nor St. Paul 
 have fixt the Boundaries, but fpeak without Reftri- 
 Bion or Limitation. Let us then make the beft Ufe 
 we can of the Light, which Mr. Trapp has given us 
 in the third Dfiinflion of his C/c, which was doubt- 
 lefs moft charitably intended by him to direcl us in 
 fo dark and perplex d a Point. For he there warns 
 his Reader to make a Difference between modeftly and 
 fo'frerly interpreting a difficult P\iint t and arbitrarily and 
 info/fntlyinterpretinga plain one contrary to commonReafon. 
 Whence 1 conclude. that as long as the Catholicl^Churcb 
 (tor the whole Queftion is concerning her alone) as 
 long, I fay, as (he keeps within the Bounds of De- 
 cency, and contents herfelf with mndeftly and foberfy 
 interpreting a difficult Point, we may fafely fubmit to 
 
 her
 
 ( 30 ) 
 
 her DecHions. But when, like a meer Bedtamer, /he 
 prefumes to interpret a plain one arbitrarily andinfolent- 
 ly contrary to common Reafon, then her Children are 
 abfolvcd by Mr. Trapp (and well they may) from 
 all Obligation of fubmitting their private Judgment 
 to her Decifions ; for who can be obliged to follow 
 a mad Guide? And therefore, to fliew he is in 
 carneft, he makes this formal Declaration, p. 8. in 
 the Name of all his Proteftant Brethren j Nor (hM 
 any Church upon Earth, (fays he) no not th; Univerfal 
 Church in all /iges, ever extort fuck a Submifffen from f. 
 However this Diftinftion, which Mr. Trapp 
 feems to regard as his ftrongeft Bulwark againft 
 Popery, will, I believe, fcarce pafs without fome 
 Cenfure, even from his own Church. For fince the 
 principal End of it is to caution his Readers againft 
 an entire Sttlmifion (which he calls an implicit one^ to 
 the Decifions of any Church upon Earth, even thrlJni- 
 wrfal Church of atlJws, (as he exprefles himfelf in 
 the Words juft now quoted from him) do's not this 
 in thejir/? Place caft a very injurious Reflection up- 
 on, and give us the moft contemptible Idea poflible 
 of the Catholic^ Church profefs'd by Protejtants as well 
 as us in the Cited, in uippofing her capable of inter- 
 prttinz 'I' fa' WorJofGoJ ARBITRARILY, IN- 
 SOLENTLY, AND CONTRARY TO COM- 
 MON REASON? Is this a proper Idea of a 
 Church purchafed with the facred Blood of ytfm 
 Chri/i, and appointed by him ro be our Guide to 
 Heaven ? Is this the Idea of a Church which St. 
 Paul calls the PHlar and Support of Truth ? But idly, 
 do's not Mr. Trapp's Diftinclion render over and a 
 bove all Church Authority, and all Subrniflion to ir, 
 entirely precarious? 'Tis plain it do's j becaufe 
 whenever any of her Children are but difpofed to 
 be fo impertinent and audacious as to accufe her 
 Deciiions of beinp arbitrary, tnjotent, ana contrary to 
 common Reafon (as Heretickj in all Ages have done) 
 then this noble Diftinftion will difcharge them in a 
 Trice from all Obligation of Obedience to her: nay, 
 
 if
 
 ( 3* ) 
 
 if but properly applied, it will likewife fully juftify, 
 at leaft in the Court of Con ff fence, the Rebellion of 
 Subjccls againft their lawful Sovereigns $ bccaufe 
 Confcience obliges us as much to obey our Efdefi.iffi- 
 cal Governors as the civil Mnfiftrate : and whoever 
 withdraws his Obedience from the one upon pre- 
 carious Pretences, will make no Scruple of refming 
 the other. 
 
 SECT. V. 
 The fame Subjefl continued. 
 
 LET us now fee, whether Mr. Trap's Anfwers 
 p. 5>th and loth, are any Thing better. The 
 Author, in order to maintain the Reajonab/eneff of an 
 entire Submffion, has the following Words, p. 7. We 
 have the great tft Authority upon Earth to ajjure us, that 
 God has reveal** [fuch or fuch a Myftery] to -wit, tfjf 
 Catholic^ or Univerfal Cbitrch, founatd ly Cbrijl bintftff, 
 and by hint appointed to be our Guide in aftJpirifHal Mat~ 
 ten. Which Proportion, I think, is undeniable $ tho* 
 Mr. Traff is pleafed to give no Jefs than three An- 
 fwers to it j as if he meant to outface Truth with 
 Numbers, and render Nonfenfe formidable by 
 the Largenefsofit's Bulk. 
 
 I an fiver /zr/?, fays he, the Catholic]^ or Univerfnl 
 Church if not the Church of Rome. But with Mr Tni^'s 
 good Leive, the Cathot'uk or Univerfal Church is moft 
 certainly the Catkof/ck,or Univerfal Cbnrch t in whatever 
 Body or Society of Ghriftians it is allowed to be : 
 And thedrfeo//r^or Univerjal Church is likewifemoft 
 certainly the Church founded ly Chrift, and appointed 
 ly him to be our Guide in all fpiritual 'Matter! : which is 
 all the Author aflerts : and by Confequence Mr. 
 Trapp's firtt Anfwer is impertinent and frivolous. 
 
 Secondly, fays he'tta Authority of the Catholic^ Church 
 in thii Cafe is no more than the Authority of a ff'itnrfsirt 
 
 a Matter
 
 ( 3* ) 
 
 a Matter of Faff 5 ffco' theft Words to be our Guide irt 
 all fpiritual Matters, are plainly thrown in to confound 
 thtfe tuo dtftinfl Ideas^ Witnefs to a FaB t and Guide in nil 
 Spiritual Matters. Here Mr. Traft pretends to teach 
 the Catholicli Cburch her Leflbn, and let her know, 
 that in declaring the Revelation of any Point of Chri- 
 $ian Doctrine (for 'tis of that the Author fpeaks in 
 the PafTage quoted from him) /he afts not as a Guide 
 or Judge vefted with Authority to pronounce upon 
 the Point under Debate, but only as&Witnefs, that 
 gives Tfftimony to a Matter of Faff, Which is not only 
 falfe, but contrary to the zoth Proteftant Anir.lt of 
 Religion, declaring that the Church has AUTHORI- 
 TY in Controverfies of Faith ; the chief Exercife where- 
 of is in Deciding upon due Examination, that fuch or 
 fuch aPointofDoftrine, as happens to be contro- 
 verted, was reveal' a to the Apoftles, and by them 
 tranfmitted down to their Succeflbrs : Which furely 
 is not afting barely as a Witnefs to a FaB t but likewifc 
 as a Judge of the Chriftian Do6trine, and a Gut At of 
 the Faithful. But Mr. Traft found it neceflary to 
 depreciate, as much as laid in his Power, the Au- 
 thority of a Church which condemns him, and will 
 be a Witnefs againft him at the laft Day. 
 
 However, let us now abftra6l from the Authority 
 of the Catholicl^Church as Judge in Controverfies of 
 paith, and confider her barely as a Witnefi 5 for tho* 
 confider'4Jn this View alone, we /hall find the 
 Weight of her Teftimony to be fuch, that a Man 
 rnuft be void ofSenfe not to yield to it. For wha^ 
 is the Ttftimony of the Catkolifl{ Church ? 'Tis the 
 Teftimony (as the Author has exprefs'd himfelf.p. 
 62) of a Handing vjfibleBody or Society of Men, 
 whereof Cfcr//?himfelf is th^fttpremt invifjhle Hea^and 
 which he has, in it's Paftors, entrufied with all the 
 facred Myfteries of faving Faith. 'Tis the Tefti- 
 mony of Millions in every Age fince it's Eftabli/h- 
 ment : The T'eftimony, not of a Rabble only con* 
 fiderablc for it's Numbers, but of the greateft t the 
 wf'ftt the moil; learntd and^ Men in all Ages, and 
 
 Nation*
 
 ( si ) 
 
 Rations of the Univerfe. Finally, a Teflimoriy 
 confirm'd by thoufands of unconteftable Miracle^' 
 and feal'd with the Blood of many thoufand illuftri- 
 ous Martyrs. This is that Teftimony, of which Mr 1 . 
 Trapp is pleafed to fpeak as flightingly as if it were 
 no more than the/^Vaw> of a finglc Pcrfon in fome 
 trivial Law Suit. 
 
 His third Anfwer has the fame Tendency, and 
 is flill worfe than the former. -Thirdly t fays he, even 
 in u'itneffing to thzi Faff, rfc.zf God has rcveal'd, 5?r. 
 i; c. that the Scriptures are the Word of God, the 
 Church Joes not aft in her fpirituttl Capacity^ or more plainly 
 'tis not the Church as the Church, litt the Body of Chri/iiansj 
 (onJiAer'dtbo not at Chriftians,^ as rational boneft Men$ 
 ana 1 not Chriftiansvnly, much lefs the Clergy only, which it 
 what our ^4avfrfarits mean by the Church in this CWfrrf- 
 vtr/y t but other Men,e*jen Etittniei to Chriftiann^^ai Jews,' 
 Turks, or Pagans, who are or have been Witrtfjjes to the 
 Genttinenefi of the Script Mres t orRe c ei 'vcn of them as genuint t 
 or loth. 
 
 Before I take under Examination this Heap of 
 profound Nonfenfe, 1 obferve frft, that the whole 
 Queftion wherein the Author is here concern'd, re 
 lates to the Catbolicl^ Church according to the ufual 
 Acceptation of thofe Words. If therefore Mr. Trapp 
 will needs talk of the Catholic^ Church under an Ab- 
 ftraftion in which the Cdtholicl^ Church is not the Ca 
 tholick Church, and by which Jews, Tnrkj y and Heatheni 
 are put upon the Level with her, he may enjoy the 
 Diverfion of talking Nonfenfe by himfelf as long as 
 hepleafes. 
 
 1 obferve fecottdly, that the Author, in the" Claufe 
 which Mr. Trapp here pretends to anfwer, fpeaks 
 not of the Catholic^ Church precifely as a Witnefs l but 
 as a Guiae or Judge t by whofe Direction and Decifi- 
 ons we are to be certify'd of the Truths which God 
 has-rvwa/V. So that all the Clutter he makes here 
 about Witneffinz is entirely out of the Way, and 
 dragg'd in by Head and Shoulders, only to let his 
 # Readets 

 
 ( 34 ) 
 
 Readers fee, as I imagine, how learnedly he could 
 hold forth upon fo barren a bubjeft. 
 
 This is manifeft from the Author's whole Drift 
 and Context. For the Queftion being put, p. 7. 
 bow -at are affured that God has reveal 'd the Myftery of the 
 Ele/pd Trinity [which alone ismention'd expreflyfor 
 Example Sake in the preceding Page] the Anfwer 
 is, becaufe we have the greatefl Authority upon Earth to 
 fijjure us of if, to wit, the Catholicl^orUniverfal Church, 
 founded by Chri/i bimfelf, and appointed by him to be our 
 GUIDE in all Spirit Hal Matters. And immediately 
 after the Author /hews how great a Refpecl and 
 "Value St. Jluguftin had for the Authority and Decijiont 
 of that Church. Whence it is plain, that hefpeaks 
 there of her as a Guide authorized by God to direct 
 us, and not barely as a Witnefs, fuch as many thou- 
 fands are amongft the Faithful, who are not appoin- 
 ted to be Guides, but, on the contrary, to be guided : 
 But Mr. Trapp had an irrefiftable Itching to write 
 the fine Things I have tranfcribed from him j and 
 they would have been utterly loft, unlefs his Ad- 
 vert ry wasfuppofed to fyeak there of the Church 
 as a Witntfs : neither could his jfru'j,Tn(;f and Pagans 
 have been decently brought into Play, unlefs he had 
 firft fhifted the Queftion, and inftead of the great 
 Chriftian Myftery of the B.Tr//j/(in which the Au- 
 thor has exemplified)fubftituted in it's Place the Ge- 
 ttuhjentf! ofScripturei,or as he exprefles it a little be- 
 fore, that Scriptures are the Word of God : upon which 
 our Oracle pronounces, that in Witnr{pg this Fafl the 
 Church does not aff in her Spiritual Capacity^ of as tbe 
 Church^ or even as the Pody of Chriffians considered as 
 Chrifliatts, but barely as 1-onfft rational Men, fuch as many 
 Jews, Turks, and Pagans have been. 
 
 But where is it, that Mr Trai-p has pick'd up this 
 out of the Way- Notion ? For methinks fome Proofs 
 would not have been altogether unfeafonable 5 be- 
 caufe the Matter is not fo clear, but that it appears 
 liable to fome Objections. Forjfry?, it renders ^u-j, 
 and Pagans as competent and creditable Wit- 
 
 mffn
 
 f 35 ; 
 
 wflesto a very important Article of Chriftian Reli- 
 gion, as the Bifhops andPaftors themfelves of the 
 Catholic^ Church 5 becaufe they may Jay claim to as 
 great a Share of natural Reafon and moral Honefty, as 
 many Perfons conftituted in Ecclefiaftical Dignities. 
 zdlyj. have not yet read any where thatjfetw.Tiw^*, 
 and Pagans have ever witnefled, that the NEW 
 TESTAMENT is the Word of God-, and if they 
 have not, Mr. Irapp had as good difmifs them as 
 keep them any longer to trouble his Readers with j 
 iince they can be of no ufe to him in regard to that 
 Part of the War J of Go J, which is the ftrongeft Bul- 
 wark of Chriftianity. 
 
 3<//y, I hope the Jpoftles acled in their Jpofloticat 
 Capacity, when rhey deliver'd to the Bifhops their 
 Succeflbrs the Books of the Old and New Teftument t 
 as containing the pure Word of GoJ. And why then 
 did not the Bijhops their Succeflbrs a6l likewise in 
 their Epifcopal Capacity, when they handed them 
 down as fucb to their Succeflbrs, and fo forth ? Or 
 were they not then Witntffti of their containing the 
 Word of God ? 
 
 4thly, andlaftly, when Bifhops are aflembled in 
 a General Council to determine any con roverted 
 dogmatical Point, in this Cafe furely, if ever, the 
 Church, whofe Reprefentatives they are, adls in her 
 Spiritual Capacity. But are they not here Wnneffts as 
 well as Judys of the Faith ? Or do they lay afidc 
 their Epifcopal and even Chriflian Capacities to be 
 duly qualified as Witneffti ? 
 
 Thefe are fome Objections out of many,that may 
 be made againft Mr. Trap's ingenious abftracled 
 Notion of the Church confider'd as no Church, of B/- 
 feopi confider'd as o Bifhops, and Chriftiam confider'd 
 as no Cbri&ians. Fine Stuff to be brought to Court, 
 and prefented to his Majefty ! 
 
 Fa SSCT.
 
 C tf ) 
 
 SECT. VI. 
 Of EXAMINATION. 
 
 PAGE ir, Mr. Traft, to excite the Reader's At* 
 tention, tells him, that be muft ty no means pafs 
 over a Piece *# it Jiands in the jtfutbor's next Page [j. e, 
 p. 8.] There it ftands, indeed, and will ftand it's 
 Ground in fpite of what Mr. Trapp either has faid, 
 or can fay againft it. But inftead of parcelling it 
 out into feveral Scraps,as he has done, the Reader 
 fhall have it all at once, as it ftands in the Author's 
 Book. 
 
 " We do not pretend (fays the Author) to fearch 
 
 ' into the Nature of the Myfterics themfelves ; 
 
 ' becaufe they are infinitely above the Reach of 
 
 1 our Underftanding, and no natural Principles can 
 
 ' lead us to any Idea of them. Nor do we examine 
 
 ' whether a reveal'd Myftery be true or falfe $ for 
 
 { if it be reveaPd^t is Impiety to queftion the Truth 
 
 of it j becaufe God's infinite Veracity is as effen- 
 
 Cl tial to him as his very Being. But the proper 
 
 " Subject of our Examination is, whether we have 
 
 " fufficicnt Motives to believe that fuch or fuch a 
 
 V Point of Doctrine has been effectually reveal'd ky 
 
 " God : that is to fay, whether the Proofs or In- 
 
 '? ducements (commonly call'd the Motives of CreJi- 
 
 ' Wity) are of fufficient Weight to convince a Man 
 
 'f that the Church's Authority declaring the ReveUtivn 
 
 " of that Do6lrine,may be fecurely depended upon 
 
 " in the important Concern of his Soul's Salvation: 
 
 For without this, our Belief that fuch or fuch a 
 
 Ppint of Doctrine is revealed lyGod, would not be 
 
 a reafonablc Ail, but rafh and inconfiderate : as 
 
 it is inconfiderare in any Man to believe a thing 
 
 without fufficient rational Motives to induce him 
 
 to it. And will any one after this have the Con- 
 
 fidenceto reproach us, that we oblige our People 
 
 to
 
 ( 37 ) 
 
 lc to proceed Mindly, and forbid them to examine the 
 " Grounds of their Faith ? Nothing, furely, but a 
 " prejudiced Heart can prompt them to imagine 
 *' any fuch Thing. 
 
 This is the Piece, wherewith the Author ends 
 his _/iry? Sefiion 5 and I think it is perfectly orthodox 
 and rational. Yet Mr. Tra^>, who feems to have 
 declared War againft Truth and common Senfe,has 
 a World of Cavils about it. I grant, fays he, that 
 this ii otieSubjetl of our Examination, and a very great one 
 [to wit, whether we have fufficient Motives to be- 
 lieve that fuch or fuch a Point of Doctrine has been 
 effectually reveal* d by Go/] but it not the only one. 
 Under Mr. Trapp,'s Favour, 'tis the only one previ- 
 oufly neceflary for our Belief of it. For who bur 
 an jttbeift or Madman will hefitate to believe any 
 Point of Doctrine, after he is convinced that God bos 
 ejfiB*afly rtwrfJiil For Example, let us fuppofe a 
 Perfon full y convinced of the Divine Revelation of the 
 two great Myfteries of the Trinity and Incarnation, 
 can he doubt of the Truth of ihem,even tho' he has 
 not yet had the Opportunity of examining the full 
 Extent of the true Senfe and Meaning of them ? I 
 think not. 
 
 Mr. Traty himfelf fuppofes this Examination may 
 be made after a Perfon is convinced of the Revela* 
 tioM of fuch or fuch a Myftery. For his Words im- 
 mediately after thofe juft now quoted from him are 
 thefe : Another [SubjecT: of Examination] ts^iubatu 
 the true Senfe and Meaning of fucb or fuch a Thing, AF- 
 TER WE ARE SATISFY'D THAT IT IS 
 REVEAL'D BY GOD. Very right. But, fays 
 he, / k w our Pop'fe stdverfaries will deny this. How 
 does he know this ? Whence has he his Intelli- 
 gence ? I prefume from the World in the Moon : for 
 I have not yet heard of any Sublunary Popifo Divine, 
 that ever deny'd it. As to the Author, he has only 
 excepted againft two Things in the Paragraph quo- 
 ted 5 to wit, i/?. againft the dangerous Curiojjty (for- 
 bid
 
 ( 38 ) 
 
 bid by the Word of God itielf ) offearcbing or Jiving 
 into the Nature of a Myttery which is above our Un- 
 derftandin j that is, endeavouring to comprehend that 
 which is tncomprehenjjble : and a^ty.againft examining 
 whether a reveal' el Myftery be true orfa/fe, after we 
 are convinced that it is revealed by God, 
 
 Thefe are the Author's two Exceptions relating 
 to the Subject of Examination : fo that Mr. Trapp 
 could not learn of him, that the other he has men- 
 tion'd deny'J Ay bu Popi/h JJ-jerfaries : but over and 
 above the contrary is manifeft from their univerfal 
 Practice. For is it not the principal Bufinefs of all 
 Popi/b Paftors to explain to their Flocks the true Senfe 
 and Meaning of the Creed, and other Branches of the 
 Chrifiian Ooftrine? Nay, for what End are Cate- 
 tbifins printed, and put into the Hands of the Peo- 
 ple, if it be not that they may, by the reading of 
 them, ftudy their Religion, and examine what is 
 the true benfe and Meaning of the Myfteries propofed 
 to them as the reveal' d Word of God j juft in the fame 
 Manner as Perfons read the Scriptures to ftudy and 
 examine what they are to believe and praftife. 
 
 Again, for what other End have Popfo Authors, 
 both before and fince the pretended Reformation, 
 writ fo many learned Comments upon the Old and 
 New Teflamrnt, but that the Readers may, by thofe 
 Lights, examine the true Senfe and Meaning of the 
 Truths reveal' d in thofe facred Writings ? Mr. Trapp 
 is therefore guilty of a notorious Falfhood in afler- 
 fing that his Popi/b Jdverfanes difallow of an Exami- 
 nation, which they manifeftly encourage by all 
 Means poffible. And fo 'tis plain the Author had 
 great Reafon to conclude with this vehement Inter- 
 rogation, Jnd -will any one after this have tht Confi- 
 dence to reproach uf, that we oblige ottr People to proceed 
 blindly y and forbid them to examine the Grounds of their 
 Faith ? 
 
 However,Mr. Trappls pleafed to put this off with 
 a Banter, and has cook'd up this fine Speech for us ; 
 But ob vie are permitted to examine, -whether the Church 
 
 ought
 
 ( 39 ) 
 
 ottghttole implicitly fttbmittedto or HO$ *J 1 has *x*. 
 mination and Submifjion are reconciled. No, Sir, we arc 
 permitted to examine the Motives, which render 
 our Submiflion to the Catholicl^Cburch a rational A& ; 
 and it is rank Nonrenfe to fay, that a rational Sh- 
 mijjion grounded upon /o//*/and weighty Motives is the 
 fame as fubmitting implicitly or blindly. 
 
 1 fhall propofe an Example, which will fet the 
 whole Matter in the cleared Light. Let usfuppofe 
 a Perfon is to travel on a Road hard to be found, 
 full of Dangers, and which he knows nothing of. 
 In this Cafe, if he will travel with Safety, he muft 
 take a Guide 5 and to acl rationally, fuch a Guide 
 as he can entirely depend upon 5 that is to fay, a 
 Perfon, whofe Probity and Skill, after a diligent En- 
 quiry, he is morally aflured of. Now I afk, whe- 
 ther fuch a Traveller would aft blindly or implicitly 
 in repofing an entire Confidence in his Guide, and 
 giving himfelf up entirely to his Conduct ? A Man 
 muft be void of common Senfe to fay that this is 
 acting blindly : and the Application of it (which is 
 obvious in itfelf) to thofe, who pay an ent ire Sttbmif- 
 fion to the Decifions of the Catholic^ Ctwrrfc.will /hew 
 their Cafe to be exactly parallel : only with this 
 great Advantage on their Side, that the Catholic^ 
 Church is appointed by God himfelf to be our Guide 
 in our Way to Eternity, and his own facred Word 
 is our Security, that we /hall not be mifled by her. 
 
 This expofes in the cleareft Manner Mr. Trapes 
 Way of reafoning upon this Head. J .^ (fays he, 
 p. 15. will the Papi/t, after all, fujfer People to examine 
 the Decifjons of their Church, and contradict and rejetl any 
 om cfthem, if they do notice it ? Tranfubftantiation 
 for liiftance ? If they -will not (M in Truth they u-tll not) 
 what do they left than require a blind Submiflion ? I an- 
 fwer firft, that they require nothing but a reafonable 
 Su^mtffion j which being grounded upon/o/'W Motives, 
 cannot be called a blind one, as is obvious to com 
 mon Senfe. I anfwer iflYy, that Papifts require no 
 other Submiflion to the Deci/ions of the Catbolicl^ 
 
 Church,
 
 ( 40 ) 
 
 than the Church of England requires of thd 
 whole Body of her Clergy to the Thirty nine Articles 
 of Religion. 
 
 B. Burnt jfhall be my Voucher, who in his 
 Iixpofition of thofe Articles (which he calls the 
 Church of England's Profejpon of Faith) fpeaking of 
 the Sulfcriftiens the Englifo Clergy is bound to, in Re- 
 ference to the faid Articles, writes thus. 
 
 " If we in the next place confider the Declarati- 
 " on, that the Church has made in the Car.om, we 
 ** lhall find, that tho' thejift h Canon, which relates 
 " to the whole Body of the People, fuch are only 
 " declared excommunicated //>/o fatto t who /hall af- 
 " firm any of the Articles to be erroneous, or fuch 
 41 as he may not with a good Confcience fubfcribe 
 " to, yet the $6th Canon is exprefs for the Clergy, re- 
 *' quiring them to fubfcribe willingly and from their 
 " Hearts, and acknowledge all and every Article to \>e a- 
 *' greeablg to the WordofGod. Upon which Canon it 
 " is, that the Form of Subfcriptions runs in thefe 
 " Words, which feem exprefly to declare a Man's 
 " own Opinion, and not a, hare Confent to an Article 
 '* of Peace, or an Engagement to Silence and Submijjion. 
 The Statute of the r yb of Queen Elizabeth C.i 2. 
 which gives a legal Authority to our Submiffion 
 in order to a Man's being capable of a Benefice, 
 requires that every Clergyman fhall read the Ar- 
 ticles in the Church, with a Declaration of his 
 unfeigned Jffent to thtm. Thefe Things make it 
 t{ appear plain, that the Subfcriptions of the Clergy 
 *' muft be confider'd as a Declaration of their own 0- 
 " pinion, and not- as a hare Obligation to Silence, page 
 
 Thus B. Eurnet ; who has not here barely 
 aflerted as his own private Opinion, but proved 
 unanfwerably from the Canons of the Church of - 
 glana'tjirft, that even a Layman, who fhall ^r>,that 
 any of the Articles contain d in her Prnfefion of Faith 
 are erroneous, or cannot be fukfcribrd to -with a good Con- 
 f deuce, that fuch a one, I fay, is excommunicated ipfo 
 
 fafo.
 
 faffo. And idly, that as to the Body of tit Cfrrgy* 
 not only an out-ward Acquiefcence, Stler.ce, arid Sub- 
 tnijfion is required of rhem, but over and above an />> 
 ward unfeigned ^jfent to all and every sfrtic-le t M being 
 agreeable to the Word of God. 
 
 Now this, I think, is what may properly be dall'd 
 an entire Submffion to the Decifions of the Church of 
 England. But will Mr.Trapp call this an implicit or 
 Hind Sv,\>mif]ion ? If he does, he muft take Care that 
 his own Bifhops do not fall foul upon him for fay- 
 ing, that their Church obliges the Clergy to fubmit 
 blindly or implicitly : befides that he himfelf has then 
 fubmitted blindly as often as he hath fubfcribed the 
 Thirty nine Articles. But if he fays not, he muft 
 fhew a plain Difference between the entire bttbmtffiott 
 of a Papijt, and that of a Protejiant : he muft fhew, 
 that the Protttfant Clergy may be obliged tofubmit en- 
 itrtly to the Dtcijiom of the Church of England with? 
 out acling blindly or Implicitly : but that Papifis act 
 blindly and implicitly in pay-ing an entire Sttbmiffion to 
 the Decifions of the Catkolicl^ Chirch. 
 
 Thirdly therefore I anfwer dire&ly to Mr. Traft's 
 abovefaid Queftioh, which contains the whole 
 Strength of his Argument, vii. that Papifti will/wj^r 
 the People to examine the Decifions of their Church in the; 
 fame manner as Proteftants fuffer the People to exa- 
 mine the Thirty nine Article^ not to centradifl or reject 
 any of them, but to underftand their trfte Senfe and Mean-', 
 ing, and with the fame Chriftian Difpofirion that 
 Perfons ought to read and examineftheV$Vr//>ram. If 
 Mr. Traft will allow either the Entfiflt People orCYer- 
 ^y to contradift or r-ejefl anV of the Thirty nine ArticltS^ 
 let him look to himfelf : if not, all he has faid upon 
 this Head is but Babble and BbnJer as is his Saying 
 ]). 1 2. that to examine whether the Church's stuthnrity may 
 ix fecurely depended upon ts the fame at to examine uhfther 
 we are obliged tojubmit implicitly to it. For (befides- 
 a plain Innuendo, which perhaps he will not be 
 thank'd for, that the Church of England's sfitthonty 
 cannot be fecurely depended upon) it is a flat Corr- 
 G tradi&iog
 
 tradition in itfelf, and the fame as faying, that it 
 is examining, whether the Church is to be fubmitted 
 to without Examination j becaufe fubmitting blindly 
 or impl'cit'y is in EffecT: the fame as fubmitting with- 
 out Examination. But, as all Chriftians, who fub- 
 ipif to the Decifions of others, have a Right to 
 judge of the Keafonaklenefs of their own Submffion, 
 and rhis Judgment cannot be form'd, but by a di- 
 ligent Examination of the Motives, upon which their 
 Submiflion is grounded, to fay that after fuch an 
 Examination their Submiflion is blind or implicit,!^ 
 the fame Nonfenfeas to fay, that a Traveller afts 
 blindly or implicitly in fubmitting to his Guide, after 
 he has thoroughly examined into the Character of 
 the Man, and is fully convinced of his Fidelity and 
 Skill. 
 
 SECT. VII. 
 
 
 
 The fame Subjeft continued. 
 
 MR. Trapp having made himfelf a little merry 
 with the Author's Way of reconciling Exami- 
 nation and Sulmiflion, which (tho 5 he will not allow a 
 P apt ft capable of writing common Senfe) will I 
 hope by this Time begin to appear fomewhatmore 
 rational, than, his pretended Confutation of it ; he 
 goes on thus : J anfivtr firft, This it an sffter- thought, 
 find toe Reformation may be thanl^d for it t at it may for 
 wavy other Conceftonsfrow the Church of Rome, and itt 
 fowe meafure for the Reformation of the Church of Rome 
 itfelf. p. i;. What does the poor Man mean by his 
 sifter-thought ? Was nothing ever writ concerning 
 the Motives, of Credibility lejore the Reformation ? Or 
 did not Papifts then know, that their being convinced 
 by Examination of the Solidity of thofe Motives ren- 
 der 'd their SttbmijjiQn to the Dscfons of the Catholic^ 
 
 Church
 
 ( 43 ) 
 
 Church perfectly reafonable ? But the Conceit of the 
 Church of Rome's being reformed by the Reformation 
 (which with his other common Places again't Popery 
 he has ftol'nfrom Mr. LeJlysCa/ejiated) tickled his 
 Fancy fo powerfully, that he could not forbear drag 
 ging it in, tho' never fo far out of the Way, and 
 wide from the Purpofe. 
 
 He goes on again in the following manner : Even 
 tiow 'tis will kjiown, that in Popifh Countries the Peo- 
 ple art told thy muft IMPLICITLY futmit to the 
 Church's Authority, aud this Point is no more fujfcr'd to be 
 canvafs'ci than any other j 'tis Htrefy to deny it, or even 
 qtteftion it. I have heard fome fay, that Mr. Trapp 
 is a pretty Poet, and I am apt enough to believe it, 
 becaufe I find him very good at Fiflion which tho' 
 it be the peculiar Privilege of Poets, is a very bad 
 Quality in a Divine or Controvert ift, I prefume then 
 it is from Mount Parnaffw he has received his Intel- 
 ligence, That in Popifh Countries tie Peotle are bound to 
 fubmit to the Church IMPLICITLY, that is to fay, 
 blindly, and that 't ii H er *fy to do othfr-wi/e. But I 
 think 1 have better Intelligence from other Parts, 
 that the People in Popifh G>Krr/ have the very fame 
 Liberty of 'examining as either the En^hjh Lany or 
 Utrty have allow'd them by the Canons of their 
 Church. 
 
 He comes now to his Hnme pu/h. But through 
 an Over eagernefs to purfue his Popifb Enemies, he 
 has left himfelf unguarded againft a far more nu- 
 merous Hoft, I mean the whole Body of Dffinters in 
 Great Britain, as will appear immediately. Secondly t 
 fays he, this their Account of tie Matter includes tht 
 wofimattr'tal Part of Examination, viz WHETHER 
 
 THE CHURCH BE RIGHT IN HER DE- 
 CIDING AND EXPLAINING BACH PAR- 
 TICULAR ARTICLE OF FAITH. It uwld 
 
 Jitrety be blind Obedience to a Kin%, were tee permitted only 
 to enquire ii'hfther behad a Right in genera! to be absolutely 
 obey > J, tut not to enquire -whether bts Commands vatre in 
 tbemfelves juft and lawful 
 
 G a I an-
 
 ( 44 > 
 
 I anfwer, that when the whole Body of the Catha* 
 hcl^ Church, whether coUetliv: or di/ujive, has after 
 inature Deliberation pronounced canonicatly upon 
 any Article of Faith, it is both highly impertinent and 
 prefumptuous in any particular Perfon to queftion 
 fter Decifions : Nor was this ever allow'd of by 
 her, as will appear manifeftly from the following 
 Inftances. 
 
 When the Catholic!^ Cburcb had folemnly decided 
 the Cen/ulftantiality of the Son againft Arm** the Di- 
 'vinity of the Holy Gkofl againft Macedonia!, the inert a- 
 ted Perfenality ofJefusCbrift againft Ntftorius, and the 
 Diftinflion of two Natures in Chrift againft Eutyches, 
 were thofe four Hereticks after that permitted to 
 queftion her Decifions, or examine whether the Church 
 bad done right in decidingthofe Article 1 ; againft them? 
 On the contrary they were commanded under pain 
 of Excommunication to fttlntit, and fubfcribe with an 
 unfeign'd slffent to all her Decrees 5 juft as the En$lift> 
 Clergy is obliged by the Canons of the Church of Eng- 
 land to fubfcribe with the fame unfeign'd Jjjent to 
 Jier Profiffion cf Faith contain'd in the Thirty nine 4r~ 
 titles. 
 
 'Tis true, s/rius, MaceJonitts, Neftoritts and Euiyc.bes 
 were all four of Mr. Trap's Mind. And has he not 
 jfreat Reafon to be proud of fuch good Company ! 
 They had the Preemption to think themfelves 
 wifer than the Catho/ic^Cbttrch^nc] therefore claim'd 
 a Right to queftion her Diet/ions, and examine by 
 the Pi ord of God (but intrrpretid by tbemfelves, as all 
 Hireticl(s do)whether the Decrees againft them were 
 j/?and right $ and judging that they were allierowg, 
 and contrary to the Word of God, they refufed tofubtnit. 
 Put what has been the Fruit of their Preftfwption ? 
 Their Herefies fubfift to this Day, and may. for 
 ought we know, laft to the End of the World. Yet 
 this is the Prejumptioa, which Mr. Traft preaches up 
 Jn aflerting, that tht moft material Part of Examination 
 if, K briber the Church he right in her deciding ana explain' 
 ing each particular s4rticle of Faith. 
 
 !. .-. Let
 
 (45 ) 
 
 'Let us confider the Confequences of this Doftrine 
 in a Cafe nearer home. The Baptising of Infants is 
 eftabli/h'd by the Doarineand Praftice of the U- 
 nl verfal Churc b,and by the 27^ Article of the Church 
 of England's Profeflion of Faith in thefe Terms : 
 The Baftifm of young Children it in any -uiije to he retain' J 
 in the Church, M moft agreeable with the Inftitution of 
 Chriff. Now fuppofe an ^nabaptift fhould come to 
 Mr. Trapp and tell him, that upon a diligent and 
 impartial Examination of this Article itappear'd ma- 
 nifeft to him, that the Church of England has made 
 a very wrong Decifion, and fal'ninto a Popifi Error 
 jn declaring, that the Bapttfm of Children ought by 
 all means to be retain 'd in the Church. For whatever 
 Judgment the Church may be of, it is plain to him 
 that this Practice is contrary to Scripture becaufe 
 in the Commiffion given by Chrift to his Apoltles, 
 Inftruflion (whereof Infants are wholly incapable) is 
 join'd with Baptifm $ befides that there is not a fin- 
 gle Inftance in the whole New Teffamtnt of an Infant 
 being baptized by any of the ^ttojlla or Difdples. 
 That therefore he cannot in Conscience Jubmit to 
 the Decifion of the Church. 
 
 I fhould be glad to know what Anfwer Mr Trapp 
 would give to this stnabaptijl. For he could not 
 poflibly confute him by Scnpture $ becaufe there is 
 no Scriptural Textfo plain for Infant- Paptifm, as the 
 Text quoted by 4nabaptiji.< is feemingly againft it. 
 Neither could he have the Face to tell him, that 
 the Catbolick Church is u-ifer and under{tands-r//>/rv 
 better than he ; and that therefore he ought tofub- 
 jit his private Judgment to her Decifion : For 
 tho' this be in itfelf a rational and folid Anfwer, as 
 is manifeft to common Senfe, it would be abfurd 
 and ridiculous in Mr. Tmpp's Mouth, who has made 
 it his Budnefs to run down this ^u^mfffton as a blind 
 and implicit Acl, and the Reafon he has given us, 
 why it ouoht to be regarded as fuch is, becaufe if 
 ex( bidet, as he tells us, tbemojl matirid Tart of Exami-
 
 C 4 ) 
 
 f, viz, "S-hethtr the Church be RIGHT in btr Jcc't- 
 ajn^ and explaining each particular Article of Faith; 
 
 Since then according to the Ddflrine and Princi- 
 ples of this worthy Gentleman, every particular 
 J-'erfon has an undeniable Right to examine, whether 
 the Decijlom of the Church be rl^H or MOT, let us confider 
 the Confequences of it. For it follows firji, that if 
 the Examiner judges the Church's Decifion not to be 
 right, he has full Liberty to reject it : for otherwife 
 his Liberty' to examine would be a meer empty 
 Word, and to no manner of purpofe It follows 
 a.!y, that the fifrh Canon which declares thofe of the 
 Laity excommunicated ipfo faHo, who fhall affirm 
 any of the Articles to be erroneous t is moft highly 
 unjuft 5 becaufe nothing can be more unjuft, than 
 to excommunicate a Perfon for rejecting as erroneous 
 a Decifion, which he has a Right to examine, whe- 
 ther it be orthodox or not, and by ("onfequence to re- 
 jefl, if he judges it to be unorthodox, ^J!y, Mr. Trapp's 
 Principle is a full Vindication of all the Diffenttrs in 
 Gnat Britain j becaufe it is upon that very Principle 
 of their having an undeniable Right to examine and 
 judge for themfelves, that they have feparated them- 
 felves from the Chxrrh of En^Jami, and go to private 
 Conventicles of their own : So that in the Heat of 
 his fiery Zeal againft Popery, he has here furnifh'd 
 the mortal Enemies of his own Church with Arms 
 ro fight againft her. ^.th/y and laftly, this Principle 
 has a barefaced Tendency not only to the perpetua- 
 ting of Sc hifms already made, but to the multiplying 
 of them without End. 'Tis Mr. Trapp's Bufinefs to 
 confider how he will anfwer this heavy Charge, if 
 he fliould happen to be called to an Account by his 
 Betters. 
 
 As to what he adds concerning a KV, I anfwer 
 directly, that if he can /hew me a King, whom 
 Chrift has promifeclto remain with during the whole 
 Courfe of his Reign, and whom the Holy Ghofl by 
 the Pen of any Apoftle has ftiled the Pillar and Sup - 
 fort of Truth and Juftice in his Kingdom : In a 
 
 Word,
 
 ( 47 ) 
 
 Word, if he can fhew me a King, of whom I have 
 the fame Jolid Motives to believe he will never abufe 
 his Authority, as 1 have to believe the Church of 
 Chnft will never abufe hers, I /hall then make no 
 Difficulty of paying an entire Obedience to his Com- 
 mands without enquiring u-beiker tbiy five jutl and {,ns 
 ful. And in this Supposition, without which the two 
 Cafes are not parallel, my entire Obedience to a King 
 could not be call'd a IJjiHtOlxJienee, but would be as 
 perfectly rational as my entire Suhrn'jion to the Deci- 
 fions of the CatMicI^ Church now is, tho' I do not pre- 
 fume to rake upon me to call her Becifions before 
 the Tribunal of my own private Judgment. If 
 Mr. Trat>f> has a meaner Opinion of his Cnurch than 
 I have of the Church Unii>erfa1 t fo much the worfc? 
 for him j let him look to it, and confider, whether 
 Salvation be not worth following the fafe ft Guide. 
 
 He goes on thus : Ikirdly (fays he, p. 14.)* if that 
 Chttrch requires fuch an abfoh'.te Submiflion, ,x all the World 
 grants fee floes, and yet it not due^ and if the Argument? 
 to prove it due are to the \afl Degree trifftivg anA abjurd t 
 as J have partly Jbfw'ei a/ready, and partly Jb all flew here- 
 after, then notwithftanding this pretended Liberty of Exa~ 
 fnination,./bej}itlgrottndl'jly anJunreaJvtiabty obliges Peojtk 
 to proceed blindly. To return Mr. Trxpp the famo 
 Number of IFS as he has brought, I a.nfwer, that 
 if that Church requires nothing but a rtafoable Sttb- 
 mffon, as I have proved demonstratively^ as all 
 Men of Senfe muft grant (he does 5 and if Mr. 
 Trapp has hitherto produced nothing but the rankeft 
 Konfenfe to difprove it, as I have fully fhew'd he 
 has, then it is plain,that the Submiflion flie requires 
 cannot be call'd Blind and Implicit. Here 5s If for f/*j 
 and I dare venture mine againft his, in fpite of the 
 Airs he gives himfclf. 
 
 SECT.-
 
 
 SECT. VIII. 
 
 Mr. Trapp's Blunder. His unparalell'd 
 Prefumption. 
 
 TH E Piece I am going to animadvert upon la 
 as follows. Should I find, fays he, in the Bible 
 fuck a Proportion as thx, A PIECE OF BREAD 
 
 IS REALLY AND TRULY A HUMAN 
 BODY, or, THE SAME BODY CAN BE IN 
 TEN THOUSAND PLACES AT ONCE, / 
 
 could not believe it. Would I then deny -what God affirms ? 
 No. But I Jboitld he fure that God did not affirm this. 
 The Text would not be genuine, becaufe God cannot ajjert a 
 ContradtBion, Nay, jjlaould I fee a Man raife the Dead^ 
 and declare the Propositions aforefaid to be true, 1 coud not 
 believe him t becaufe I kjiow the Things to be impofjible in 
 Re aj "on and Nature, p. 14, 15. 'Tis manifelt that 
 Mr. Trapp's Disbelief regards equally the two Pro- 
 pofitions menrion'd by him : And as it is his whole 
 Bufinefs to write againft Popery, whoever reads this 
 Piece, and judges that he was in his Senfes when 
 he wrote it, will moft certainly conclude, that it is 
 an Article of our Faith, that a Piece of Bread if really 
 and truly a hitman Body But does Mr Trapp himfelf 
 believe this to be our Doctrine or not ? If he does, 
 he ought to return back to School, and learn his 
 Leflon better, before he takes upon him to write 
 Controverfy againft the Church of Row?. If nor, 
 what can be viler than to charge us with it, and 
 make a Boaft or" his manly Refolution never to be- 
 lieve it, tho* he fbouj find it in the Bihfe j nay, tho' the 
 Ferfon affirming it (houJ raife the Dtad to Life ? To 
 wha End is all this Noife and Buftle, but to feduce 
 the People into a Perfuaiion, that Papiftf are fuch 
 
 monftrous
 
 r 49 ) 
 
 inonftrous Blockheads, as to believe, that a Piece df 
 iBread if really and truly a human Body, that is, the Body 
 9/CbriJ}. 
 
 But has not Mr. Trapb told us, p. 13. that Ptfifts 
 dare not contradict any of their Church's Decifions, 
 TranftJfJitntiationfor lnj}&nct ? And pray what elfs 
 is Tianfubft<intiatio, but the Change of the Bread and 
 Jfine into the Body and Blood of Cbrift ? I muft needs 
 fay, Papfis are a ftrange Sort of Animals, who in 
 Mr. Trapp's i$fh Page believe that the BrtaJ is chan- 
 ged into the Body of Cbrift, and in the very next Pago 
 believe it to be the very Body of Cbrift. What ! do 
 they believe that it both Is and Is not changed ! that 
 it is made the Body of Cbrift, and yet continues to be 
 'Bread 1 . I rather think,, that Mr. Trapp will by all 
 Men of common Senfe be judg'd guilty of a grois 
 Contradiction and Blunder. 
 
 This fuffices to make good the firft Part of the 
 Title, which regards only his firft Proposition* As 
 to the fecond, viz. that tbe fame Body [meaning the* 
 33ody of Chrift in the Eucbarift^ can be in ten thoufantf 
 Places at once, tho' Mr. Trapp has been pleafed to a{- 
 fociate it with very bad Company, to make it ap- 
 pear equally ridiculous with the other, I am very 
 far from diibwning it, let Mr. Trapp be as incredu- 
 lous as he thinks fitting, or proclaim with Sound 
 of Trumpet to the World his Refolution not to be- 
 lieve it, tho' be Jboud find it in tbe Bible, or fee a Mira- 
 cle u-roupbt in Proof of it : as in Reality numberlefe 
 have been in teftimony of the real Pre fence of Chrift's 
 facred Body and Rlood in the holy Eucbarift which 
 comes fully up to the Pointjunlefs the beft attefted 
 Fah in Ecclcfiaftical Hiftory are to be call'd in 
 Queftion, and thrown into the Catalogue of Fables 
 or Romances. 
 
 As to Scripture, tho' the aforefaid Proportion is 
 not to be found there in exprefs Terms, there is a 
 Text very favourable to it in St. Paul's iff Epiftle 
 to the Corinthian;, C. 15. v. 7, 8. where he writes 
 thus : 4ftir that le [Chrift] was ften by James, then 
 
 H *
 
 ( 50 ) 
 
 ty all tke dpoftlet 5 and loft of all be was feen by mi alfo t 
 & by one born out of due Time. Well,here S. Pa/fpeak& 
 of Chrift's appearing to him after his ^fcenjion, in 
 the fame Manner as he had appear'd to his Apoftles 
 before it, St Paul therefore faw the real Boay of 
 Chrift upon Earth, as the other Apoftleshad done. 
 But was not his Body at the fame Time in Heaven 
 alfo ? Cornrlius a Lapide, a learned Commentator 
 upon St. Paul, ispofitive that it was j and proves it 
 from the ^Hs, C. 3. v. 21. But fince Mr. Traff will 
 perhaps have more Regard for his own Church, 
 than a Popfe Commentator, I prove the fame from 
 the 4th Article of Religion, where I find the following 
 Words : He afcendcd into Heaven^ where be Jitteth until 
 he return to judge all Men at the loft Day. Which Ar- 
 ticle is in all Likelihood grounded upon the very 
 Text quoted by Cornelius a Lapide. 
 
 Whence I argue thus. 'Tis manifeft on the one 
 Hand from St. Paul, that Chrift appeared to him 
 after his Afcenfion into Heaven in the fame Man- 
 ner as he had appear'd to his Apoftles before it : 
 ed on the 
 
 and it is granted on the other by the yh Article of 
 Religion, that he will not depart from the Place to 
 which he afcended until be return to judge Men at the 
 loft Day 5 it follows therefore that his facred Body 
 was in two Places at once, when he a"ppear'd to St. 
 Paul : and there is no greater Repugnance for the 
 fame Body to be in ten than/and than in two Places 
 at once, as is felf-evident. Mr. Trapp has therefore 
 Ihew'd more youthly Heat and Pertnefs than folid 
 Judgment in faying, that If be flou* d find this Propo- 
 Jition in the Bible, viz. that the fame Body can be in ten 
 thotijand Places at oce t nay t tho' be Jhoudfee a Man raifc 
 tbe Dead, and affirm it, he eou*d not believe it. 
 
 But what Reafon has Mr. Traff for this his In- 
 credulity ? For furely after fuch a Politivenefs as 
 is without Example, nothing lefs can be expefted 
 from him, than inconteftable Evidence and Demon- 
 firation. But alas.' we muft be content with what 
 he can afford. His whole Proof is this, btcauje, fays 
 
 he
 
 he, 7 KNOW tbe Thing to be impofitte in Reafon An* 
 Nature. Is not this a moft profound Reafon, and 
 becoming a learned Divine ! Mr. Traft forfooth 
 KNOWS the Thing to he impofible in Reafon and Nature. 
 But there are Thousands, nay Miliions, I mean the 
 whole Latin and Greel^ Church, who as they believe 
 both the real Preface and Tranfubftantiation, not only 
 know the Thing poffible, but actually true 5 and know 
 it with the Tame infallible Certainty, as they know 
 and profefs all other Articles of Faith, to wir, be- 
 caufe God has reveal'd it j and they k*ioiv that God 
 has revealed it, becaufe the Catholic/^ Church, with 
 which all Truths once deliver'*! to the Saints, ate de- 
 pofited, has declared the Revelation of it. And is 
 it not then an unparalell'd Prefumption in Mr. 
 Tratf to oppofe his ridiculous I KNOW THE 
 THING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE againft the 
 Teftimony and Authority of Millions, not only in the 
 prefent Age, but all Ages of Chriftianity both fince 
 and before the Reformation ! Nay and to declare, 
 upon this his conceited Knowledge, that be wou'd 
 Mot believe it, tbo* he jhou'd Jind it in the Bible! 
 
 However,not to draw uponhimfelf the Reproach 
 of rejecting in the Cafe fuppofed the plain Word of 
 God, he puts this Queftion to himfelf, Would I then 
 denyrahat God affirms j No, fays he, hut 1 Jhould be 
 fare that God did not affirm this. The Text could not be 
 genuine, becaufe God cannot affert a Contrad/cJio. The 
 plain En^ttfi whereof is, that whenever Mr. Trapfa 
 upon confulting his own weak Reafon and narrow 
 Capacity (as all human Underftanding is) judges 
 a Thing to be impofliole in Renfon and Nature, then 
 tho' he fr.ould find a plain Text in the Ribte for ir, 
 be would not be/ieve it j but inftead of owning himfelf 
 to be in an Error, would conclude peremptorily, 
 that the Text is not $inui*t 5 and fo reform the Bible 
 by his own veeal^ Reafon, inftead of correcting tho 
 Error of his Reafon by the Bible. 
 
 Whither will not Pride and Self conceit curry a Man 
 
 that gives himfelf up to it ! and into what a bottom- 
 
 H z lefs
 
 t V ) 
 
 Jefs Gulf of Extravagances has Mr.Traty here plun- 
 ged himfelf, if he will pretend to argue confequent- 
 ly ! For my Part, I cannot fee how numberlefs 
 Scripture- Miracles will ftand their Ground againft the 
 terrible Force of Mr. Trap's I KNOW THE 
 THING TO BE IMPOSSIBLE IN REASON 
 AND NATURE. JQay, the Creation itfelf will 
 fcarce efcape being thrown out by him into the 
 Number of Jpocrypbah $ becaufe according to natu- 
 ral Reafon and Philofophy, ex nibilo nihilft , Nothing 
 is made out of nothing. But St. sfmbrofe, L. de initiatis 
 has drawn an Argument from the Creation to prove 
 the Doftrine of TranfuhflaHtiation, and by Confe- 
 quence more than the bare Poffihility, that a human 
 "Body can be in ten thoufand Places at once. Let us hear 
 this great Doclor fpeak. We read, fays he, of all 
 Creature: in the World, HE SAID AND THEY 
 WERE MADE, HE COMMANDED, AND 
 THEY WERE CREATED. 7; not then the Word 
 of Cbrtfty which could give a Being to that which bad none, 
 nblt to change thofe Things which are, into what they wert 
 not before ? For it is not Iffs to give new Natures t9 
 Things than to change their Natures. 
 
 He argues in the fame manner, L. 4. C. 4. de Sa- 
 eramentis, where he writes thus. If therefore there ke 
 fuch an Efficacy in the Words ofChriJt, that they gave <t 
 Being to Things that were not j hoiv much more powerful are 
 they to ma^e a Change in Things that are ? The Htavens 
 were not, the Sea was not, the Earth was not. EM hear 
 
 Us Words. HE SAID AND THEY WERE 
 MADE, HE COMMANDED, AND THEY 
 
 WERE CREATED. Wherefore, to anfwer thee, the 
 JWv ofChriftwas rot before the Confecration, but ltellthee t 
 
 THAT AFTER THE CONSECRATION, 
 THERE IS NOW THE BODY OF CHRIST. 
 I hope St. ^mbrofe had at leaft as much Reafon and 
 good Senfe as Mr. Traft ; and yet we find here the 
 Doctrine ofTranful>ftati*tMn&tid by confequence all 
 that follows from it profefTedly taught by this great 
 Man. For which Reafon the four ^German Proteftant 
 Cettturifts judg'd it neccfTary to give him a Repri- 
 mand
 
 ( 53 ) 
 
 *nand for it, faying, Ambrose did not write well ofTran* 
 fuh it ant i at ion. Cent. 4. C. 4. which is fairly owning 
 the Thing, and fully anfwers my Purpofe. 
 
 But leaving the Creation to fhift for itfelf, as being 
 otherwifc pretty well fortify'd againft Mr. Trap's 
 ImpoflibUity in Reafon and Nature, I am ftill in fome 
 Pain for St. John's r Epift. C. 5. v. 7. where I find 
 thefe Words : There are three that give Tejiimony in 
 Heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghoft, and 
 THESE THREE ARE ONE. What! Can 
 three he one \ Is that /?o^rfc/? in Reafon and Nature ! Can 
 fuch a Text be genuine ! Moft certainly it cannot 
 according to Mr. Trapp's Way of arguing, to wit, 
 becaufe God cannot affert a Contradiction. However, my 
 Comfort is, that God can aflert a divine, eternal, and 
 infallible Truth, which Mr. Trap's /hallow Capacity 
 may mifapprehend to be, and his Prefumption call 
 a Contradiction. And therefore, tho' the mort Lino 
 of human Reafon cannot fathom the Depth of the a- 
 bovefaid Myftery, St. John's Text not only may be, 
 but is moft certainly genuine $ and Mr. Trapp's De- 
 claration, that // be foould find this Proportion in the 
 Bible, to wit, that the fame Body can he in ten thoufanel 
 Places at once, be would not believe it, but would judge 
 the Text not to be genuine, is ra/h and prefumptuous 
 in the higheft Degree. 
 
 I /hall add fome Scriptural Fafls, two out of the 
 OlA and as many out of the New Tejtament, to give 
 ftill more Light to the Matter before us. Thefoft 
 is thus related in Exodus, C. 14. v. 29. ^nd the Chil- 
 dren of Ifrael walled upon dry Land in the Midfl of the 
 Sea : and the Water! were a WaU unto them on the Right 
 Hand and on the Left. The Setond is the Miracle 
 wrought by Elijha in making an 4x~H>ad, which fell 
 by chance into the River Jordan, fwim upon the 
 Water, z Kings C. 6. v. 5, <5\ 7. Both which mi- 
 raculous Events, befides feveral others, are infifted 
 upon by St. sfmtrofeas Proofs, that the Change of the 
 Bread and W int into the Body and Blood of Chrift is 
 no more out of the Reach of God's infinite Power, 
 
 than
 
 ( 54 ) 
 
 than it was to make Water, contrary to it's fluid 
 2S!ature, ftand up like a Stone Wall, and Iron like- 
 wife, contrary to it's Nature, fwim upon the Water 
 like a Piece of Corl^. The third and fourth, which 
 have a greater Affinity to the Matter under De- 
 bate, are our Saviour's facred Body rifing out of 
 Sepulchre cover'd with a heavy Stone. Mark 15. v. 
 46. and his entring to his Difciples tit Doors being 
 jhut. John 20. v. 19. 
 
 Now thefe two lad Scriptural Fails are a full 
 Proof, that a glorify a or JpintuaWJ I'.ady is not con- 
 fin'd to the Laws of a Body in it's mortal or corrup- 
 tible State j fince we find here Chrift's facred Body 
 (the' made of real fltjh and Ronef, as he told his A- 
 poftles in the very Evening after his Refurre&ion, 
 iukf 24. v 39-) w e find it, I fay , penetrating the Grave 
 Stone, and the Doors that werejbut : which is a Thing 
 as inconceivable to human Reaf*n, as it's being m ma- 
 y Places at once. Nor have I yet heard any one fay, 
 much lefs prove, that the one is lefs pofjible in Reafoti 
 and Nature than the other : and if it be not, Mr. 
 Trapp muft either drop his pretended Impofibility of 
 Chrift's Body being \nten thousand Places at once, to- 
 gether with his prefumptuous Declaration, that he 
 would not believe it rfco' he fit ould find it in the Rib/e, or 
 he muft reform the/owr Gofyeh, and declare the two 
 Fab I have mention'dto lie 4poiryt>hal. 
 
 But what was it that indue d Mr. Trapp to make 
 this extravagant Declaration? It was his Over- 
 eagernefs to run down his Adverfary's Dodrine of 
 Snbrnijjion to the Dectjjonf of the Catboltcl^ Church, For 
 he thought he could not do it more effectually than 
 by declaring, that tho' her Decifions were warranted 
 by a plain Text of Script ure,\\c could not believe /r,be- 
 caufe he k^ e "^' fcrfooth, that is, he had the Vanity 
 and Preemption to think, that he kew the Thing to 
 be impnffible in Reafon and Nature : and thus inflead of 
 reviving divine Faith into the Revflation of God con- 
 vey'd to-us by the Teftimony and Authority of the Ca- 
 t Mr. TraM has found out a much furer 
 
 Way
 
 ( 55 ) 
 
 Way of refo.lving it into every Man's private Judg- 
 ment of the Truth or faifjood of any Doctrine pro- 
 pofed 5 tho' the Judgment of the LJniverJal Lkur f b 9 
 and the Bible itfelf be againft him. Is this Man fit 
 to be the Guide of a numerous Flock ! What fol- 
 lows is ftill worfe. 
 
 SECT. IX. 
 
 A DigrefTion concerning TRANSUBSTAN- 
 
 TIATIOK, and the Teftimony of our 
 
 SENSES. 
 
 MR. Trapp having made the abovefaid Decla- 
 ration, that he would not believe fuch a Pro- 
 pofition as this, viz. that the fame Body can he in te 
 thaufand Places at once, tho' he fhould find it in the 
 B'rble, or fee a dead Man raifed to Life in Teftimo- 
 ny of it, concludes thus : AnJi at to the Teftimouy of 
 my Senfes, that Argument would be fet ajide by the Perfon 
 requiring my ^ffent > becattfe he would require me to believe 
 contrary to my Senfes. Beftdes upon the Evidence of Rea 
 fan ana my Senfts put together t I cannot be fo Jure that A 
 tieaa Man is really raifed, as I am that the Proportion can- 
 not be true. p. i j; The true Meaning of thefe laft 
 Words is, that tho' Mr. Trapp /hould with his owa 
 Eyes fee a dead Man really raifed to Life.he could 
 not be fo fure of it, as he is 
 cannot be infeveral Places at ence. 
 
 This exorbitant AfTurance would appear incredi- 
 ble, were it not found by Experience, that nothing 
 renders a Perfon more intollerably pofitive than Tg- 
 mrance and Stlf-conceit, And I muft therefore do this 
 
 Juftice
 
 . 
 
 Juftice to other EngHfl> Proteftant Writers, that tho* 
 they agree with Mr.Trapp in the mainQueftion,he is 
 the firft I have ever met with, that has carry 'd the 
 Point of Prefumption to fuch a ridiculous Height. 
 Let us confider, what an over-weaning Conceit of 
 his own Judgment this Man muft have, from the 
 Numbers of thofe that differ from him in the Point 
 before us. i. He has Antiquity againft him, as I 
 have already proved from the Teftimony of an un- 
 exceptionable Witnefs, I mean St. AnAf9jt t and fhall 
 prove more fully by and by. 2. He has againft 
 him all the learned Men of the Eaftern as well as 
 tyefitrn Patriarchate both fince and before the Re- 
 formation ; befides the whole Body of Lutherans, 
 whofe Doctrine of Impanation or Confulftantiation im- 
 plies the real Prefence of Chrift's Body and Rlooct in the 
 Sacrament no lefs than that of Tranfutftantiation, and 
 by Confequence the real Exiftence of Chrift's facred 
 ~>ody in ten thoufand Places at once. 
 
 Thefe Fa&s are unqueftionable. Yet all this 
 notwithftanding, here comes a Smatterer in Divi- 
 nity (whofe chief Stock of controverfial Learning 
 lies within the narrow Compafs of his Book of com- 
 mon Places againft the Church of Row?) and inftead 
 of having fome Regard at leaft for the Judgment 
 of that Cloud of Learned Witneffts, who are againft 
 him, has the Vanity to think, and Arrogance to 
 boaft, that he is furer that the Propofition, which they 
 all maintain as an Article of their Faith isfalje,than 
 te can be that a dead Matt is raifed to Lije, when he isf- 
 an Eye-witnefs of it 
 
 This is in EfFecl: regarding all his Adverfaries 
 (that is to fay, at leaft/or Parti in jive of Chriftendom 
 even now in Being) as fo manyftupia 1 Duma compa- 
 ratively to himfelf. For how can he look upon them 
 otherwife than as fo many Dunces or brute Beafts, 
 who cannot fee a Thing, which Mr. Trapp by the 
 Force of his Reafon 5s/w of than of any Thing 
 he fees with his Eyes? St. Jmlrofe himfelf was 
 a meer Dunce, if compared to Mr. Traff. For trie 
 
 Word*
 
 ( 57 ) 
 
 Words I have quoted from him, are a full Proof* 
 that he was too dull to fee the Contradiction or Jm- 
 poflikility, which this clear-fighted Gentleman is , r urer 
 ef, than of any Thing he fees with his Eyes. St; 
 Chryfoftom and St. Cyril of Jerufulem (to omit many 
 others for Brevity Sake) were both in the fame de- 
 plorable Condition. Let us hear fome of their 
 Words. They may perhaps give fome Check to 
 his extravagant Affiirance, if he can but give him- 
 felf a Moment of Reflection, that thefe great Lights 
 of the Catholic^ Cturch, the Purity of whofe Faitfi 
 was never doubted of, and who lived twelve hun- 
 dred Years nearer than we do to the ^poftolicl^ Age, 
 taught that very Doflrine, which he regards with 
 jfo much Difdain, and of the Falfhood whereof he 
 pretends to b&Jurer t than of any Thing he fees with 
 his Eyes. 
 
 , St. Chryjoftom teaches three important Truths re- 
 lating to the Doftrine of Tranfttlftantiation t which 
 Mr. Traty (I cannot now reflect in what Page") pre- 
 tends to have been invented in the twelfth Century 5 
 becaufe the Word itfelf was then firft made ufe of 
 by the Council of Lateran to exprefs the ancient Ca- 
 tholic^ Faith, and diftinguifh it from the tftrtfy then 
 newly broach'd againft it by Btrengariitt^ in the very 
 fame Manner as the Word Confulftantial was firft 
 made ufe of by the great Nicetie Council upon Occafi- 
 on of the/^riaw Htre/'y, to exprefs the Equality of the 
 Son to the Father tho' the Doclrine itfelf was as an- 
 cient as Chriftianity. The three Truths taught by 
 St. Chryfoftom are thefe. 
 
 Fir/?," That the Body and BWof Cbrifl are in the 
 facred Vcflels. 
 
 2//y, That the BoJy ofChrift is at the fame Time 
 in Heaven and upon Earth. And 
 
 3<#y, That we muft not truft our Stnfts in this 
 
 The firft Truth is deliver 'd in the following 
 
 Words : The ^o/i/r, fays he, tells J, that re hat is in- 
 
 the Chalice, is the famt #s that ubicb fo-w'el from 
 
 I
 
 ( 58 ) 
 
 dnd tie Wife "Men adored, that Body even lying in thf 
 Manger: But you do not fee it in tbe Manger, bat upon 
 the ^LT^K. Horn. 24. in i Cor. C. 10. v. 16. 
 
 Thefecond Truth is deliver'd by the fame Father 
 in the two following Paflages. Miracle \ divine 
 Bounty \ He who Jits at tke Right Hand of the Father, is at 
 the very fame Jnftant in all Men's Hand}. L. de Sacerdo- 
 tio. C 4. 
 
 And again. This My fiery here changes for thee Earth 
 into Heavensfor I will Jhcw thee here placed upon Earth 
 even that, uhich is moft precious and adorable in Heaven. 
 'The Body of the King [Chrift] is the moft magnifi- 
 cent Thing in Heaven ; but you may now fee it upon Earth. 
 Horn, dejanfto Philogonio. 
 
 Here we have Mr. Trapes formidable Go/ias, that 
 defies the Armies of Jfrael, knockt down at one Blow 
 by this ancient Champion of the Catholic^ Church. 
 
 The Third Truth is thus fet forth at large by the 
 fame holy Doftor. Let us always believe God, and not 
 
 contradict him, THO THAT WHICH HE SAYS 
 SEEMS TO CONTRADICT BOTH OUR 
 THOUGHTS AND OUR SENSES. For his 
 
 Words cannot deceive tts, BUT OUR SENSES 
 MAY BE EASILY DECEIVED. He never errr t 
 BUT THESE ARE OFTEN MISTAKEN. 
 Sir.ce therefore he Jays y This is my Body, let us be 
 fuf'y perjiiaded of it.- Hov> many fay now, that I 
 could fee hint in h:s ou' Shape \ or his Cloaths^ or any Thing 
 about hint ! Believe me you Jee him, you touch him, you 
 tat him. You would be content to Jee his Cloaths, and, 
 he lets you r.ot only fee him, but alfo to touch him and 
 eat liWi and receive him within you. Horn. 83. in S. 
 Matth. 
 
 Before I quote St. Cyn/'s Words, I /hall make a 
 /hort Remark upon the two firft Lines of this Pa 
 fage, in which St. Chryfoftom exhorts his Flock not to 
 contradiB God, tho' that which he fays feems to contradict 
 both their Thoughts andSenJes. Mr. Trapp on the con- 
 trary declares, he could not believe the Doclrine 
 here clearly taught by this Father, tho' he Jboula'finJ
 
 ( 59 ) 
 
 it In the Bible. And why fo ? Becaufe bt KNOWS 
 it to be impojpble in Reafon and Nature, and becaufe 
 God cannot offer t a Contradiction. Which are the very 
 Reafonings, againft which St. Cbryfoftom here pre- 
 cautions his Flock : becaufe what feems a Contra- 
 diction to our weak Reafon, may not be fo in itfelf ; 
 and we are fure it is not one, if God afTerts it. Ei- 
 ther therefore StsChryfo&om or Mr. Trapp is in the 
 Wrong. For my part, tho' every Body Is at full 
 Liberty to choofe what Side he pleafes, I fliall ra- 
 ther hazard my Soul upon the fame Bottom with 
 St. Cbryjoftom, than with Mr. Trapp. Let us now 
 hear St. Cyril, who writes thus. 
 
 Jefus Cbrift, fays he, in Cana of Galilee changed 
 Water into Wint> which has fame Affinity with Blood, by 
 I? if Jf^ill alone, and can we not believe him, that HE 
 
 CHANGED THE WINE INTO HIS OWN 
 
 BLOOD ? Let your Soul rejoice in the Lor A, bt~ 
 
 ing ferfuaaed of it AS A THING MOST CER- 
 TAIN, that the Bread, which appears to our Eyes, is not 
 
 Kreaa, THO' OUR TAST DO JUDGE IT TO 
 
 BE SO, but that it is the Body of Jefus Chrift : and 
 that the Wine, -which appears to our Eyes, is not Wine % 
 
 THO' OUR SENSE OF TAST TAKES IT 
 FOR WINE, but that it is the Blood of Jefus Chrift.- 
 Catecb. Myftag. 4. 
 
 Here we have two eminent Fathers be fides St. 
 sfmbrofe, whom I quoted before, teaching the Do- 
 ftrine of Tranfulftantiation as clearly, as BeUarmin 
 himfelf, and refuting Mr. Trapfs principal common 
 Place from the Teftimony of our Senfes, which he has 
 repeated above fifty Times, as an irrefragable Ar- 
 gument againft the Church of Rome. 'Tis his very 
 Achilla, and the Rugbear with which he frightens all 
 the old Women and Children of his two united Pa- 
 rjkft from Popery, as a Religion, that will oblige 
 them lo put out their Eyes, forbid them to fet, feel, or 
 tiff, and debar them the Ufe of their Reafon as well 
 as Seiijfi. 
 
 I a SECT.
 
 SECT. X. 
 Continuation of the fame Subjeft. 
 
 I Shall now return back to the firft three Lines 
 of Mr. Trapfs laft Words, which are thefe : At 
 to theTeflimony of my Senfes, that Ar^umtnt would be ftt 
 ffide by the Perjon requiring my Affent : because he would 
 ftquirt me to believe contrary to my Senfes. That is to 
 fay, if it be required of him as a Duty and rea- 
 fonable Thing not to judge of the Thing prefent 
 jn the Bleffed Sacrament by the Information of bis Senfef, 
 then according to his Logick, he muft renounce the 
 Ufe of his Senfes for ever, and not truft his Eyes,, 
 tho' he fhould fee a Miracle wrought before him. 
 
 This Argument, the Weaknefs whereof cannot 
 but be vifible to any Man of common Senfe, Mr. 
 Tr<j/>/7 has taken upon Truft from Mr Ltjlys Cafc 
 flated, p. 144. Which Book, befides the learned An- 
 fwerm de to it by the Author of the Church of Cbrifl 
 Jlieii'edi cVc. has fince been anfwer'd Word for Word^ 
 in two fmall Volumes printed at Rouen An. 1 7 z i by 
 tl^e Author of thefe Remarks . and there needs no 
 more to fliew what wretched Stuff Mr. Traft has 
 pick'd up, than to repeat the Anfvver there given 
 to Mr. Lejliy. 
 
 LESLEY. 
 
 c All our Senfes are contradi&ed in TranfnlftaMtia- 
 tion : and 1 ftand upon it, that fince the Creation 
 of the World God never did nor faid any Thing, 
 which contradicted the Senfe of any Man. It 
 would be deftroying the Certainty of every 
 Thing. Miracles are Appeals to our Stnjet, and 
 without believing our Senfes we can truft to no 
 11 Miracles, and by Confequence to no Revelation. 
 
 ANSWER.
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 " You tell me, YouJtattJ upon ir, that/iff thf Crea- 
 *' tion of the World God never did nor Jaia any Tlin^ 
 *' which contradicted the Stnfe of any Man, 'Tis very 
 " ftoutly faid indeed. But let us fee whether you 
 *' can ftand your Ground. 
 
 " Pray, Sir, how long was it before the Creation 
 " of the World, that an An$tl appeared to Joj1u<* 
 " in the Likenefs of a Man ? Jofh. 5. v. 15, 14. 
 " That God the Father appeared unto Daniel in the 
 *' Likenefs of a venerable Old Man ? Dan. 7. v. 9. 
 " That the Holy Ghoft appear'd over our Saviour's 
 " Head in the Likenefs of a Dove ? Matth. 3. v. nft 
 ** And, to omit many other Inftances, that two An- 
 ** gels appear'd to the Women at the Sepulchre in 
 *' the Likenefs of two Men? Luke 24 v. 4. For 
 " I ftand pofitively upon it, that in all thefe Scrip- 
 " tural Fafts the Senfes were contraJifteJin the famo 
 *' Manner as they are \nTranfuyflantijtion. Could 
 " yo&ua, difcern by the Miniftry of any of his &/", 
 *' that it was not a M<*, but an Angel whom he faw 
 *' with a Sword drawn in his Hand y and whofc Voice 
 " he heard commanding him to put ofl hn Shoes, be- 
 Cl caufe the Ground upon which he ftood was holy? 
 " And proportionably of the reft. 
 
 " But you tell me, it "would he deftroyin^ the Certatn- 
 " tyof every Thiug. That is, if T hings ever appear 
 " otherwife to our Eyes, than they are in them- 
 " felves, we muft never truft them any more. Pray, 
 41 Sir, take Care then never to look at the Sun, or 
 " Moon, or Stars. For they all appear to \ourEyes 
 11 much otherwife than they are in themfelves. But 
 *' Reafan corrects the Mifinformation of our Stnftt $ 
 " and fo it do s: when Revelation tells us, that the 
 " Thing, which appears to be Rre.-ij, is the !-ody of 
 Cbrifl VERILY and INDEED [as Mr. Trap's 
 own Cb*rcb-Cat((btfm exprefTesit ] 
 
 Laftly.
 
 ( 62 ) 
 
 u Laftly, you tell me, that Miracles are sfppeals to 
 tl our Senjes, and without believingour Senjes, vie can trttft 
 *' to no Miracles, and consequently to no RevelaticM. The 
 ' true Meaning hereof is, that unlefs in all Occafi- 
 " ons whatfoever, we jud^e according to the Inform*- 
 " tion of our Senfef, no Man can rationally believe he 
 c ever faw a Miracle. Now let us examine the Truth 
 * of this Aflertionfrom aFacl, which every Body 
 " is acquainted with. 
 
 " St. Peter was imprifon'd in JerufaletH, and the 
 " very Night before he was to be deliver'd up to the 
 " People, an -dngel came to him as he laid afleep 
 bound with two Chains, and firiiijitgbim on the Side, 
 raifed him up, and bade him follow him. Where- 
 upon the Chains fell off from his Hands, and when 
 he came to the Iron Gate, which led to the City, 
 it open' d of it's own decor A. But as foon as they 
 came together to the End of the firft Street, the 
 4ngtl difappear'd : and then It was that St. J'ettr 
 knew for certain, that God had font an Axytl to de- 
 liver him. Jlft. ii. 
 
 " Here then is a.Faft, wherein St. Ptttr both 
 Ixlteveei and disbelieve a 1 the Information of his Senfe $. 
 For it is certain that no Senfation either of Seeing, 
 Hearing, or Feeling could inform him, that it was an 
 jfgel t whom God had fent for his Deliverance. 
 On the contrary, had he judged according to the 
 Information of any of his &/, he muft have fain 
 into an Error, in believing that he felt, heard, and 
 fcnv a VIO.YI. Yet at the fame Time he believed 
 his Eyes, and had nothing but his Eyts to truft to in 
 believing that he faw tuo Miracles wrought in Fa- 
 vour of him, viz. the jM' off f bis Cbaitu, and 
 the Iron-Gate's opening of it's own Accord. Now 
 we do not find St. Pfter argued as you do [-W ^ 
 Mr. Trapp o'o'j] viz. that wihoitt Relieving bisSmfts 
 in a!l Thing;, I e cou'd believe no Mirnc'es. Neither do 
 we find him arguing thus : MySeufes inijjnfornSame y 
 when ] feerncl to my (elf to fee, feel, and Jv*r a Man : 
 tlxrifort Imttft w btlitvt any of the innumerable Mir a-
 
 " clet 7 have feen Chnft worl^ with my otrn Eyes ; tier \>y 
 " Consequence believe any Revelation. 'Tis therefore 
 '* falfe, nay blafphemous what you fay, viz. that 
 '* without believing our Senfet (in every Thing} we ca*t 
 " rry? to no Mraclif, nor by Conference to any Revela- 
 " tion, especially when Revelation itfelf obliges us 
 " not to judge according to the Information of our 
 " Senfes. 
 
 LESLEY. 
 
 " I take it for a certain R/?, that we muft either 
 " believe our Senfes in every Thing, or in nothing. 
 " p. 144. 
 
 ANSWER. 
 
 " Now, Sir, you fpcak out boldly, and like a 
 " true Froteftant Hero. But if this be true, it fol 
 c lows firft, that they, who at our Saviour's Bap- 
 " tifm faw the Likenefs of a Dove over his Head, 
 11 were bound to believe it was a real Dow, and not 
 " the Holy Gkoft, and fo the Evangelifts are made 
 " the Authors of a Fal/hood. It follows aJ/y, that 
 " the Women at the Sepulchre afted abfurdly in be- 
 ' lieving that they fay two Angels. Yet they be- 
 " lieved it firmly, and told the Difciples, that they 
 " had feen a Vifion of Angels. Luke 24. V. 23. It fpl- 
 " lows 5<//y, from your Rule, that S. Peter was grof- 
 " ly miftaken, when he faid, Now I know for certain, 
 that God has fen t bii An$et t and has delivered me out of 
 the HanJs of HeroJ. A6t. 12. v. it. Laftly, it fol- 
 lows from yourrr<i/'w Ra/e t thattho' God fhoiild 
 at any Time tell me, that my Eyes mifinform me, 
 I am bound not to believe him, or renounce the 
 Ufe of my Senfes for ever : Which if it be not 
 Blafphemy or Madnefs, I defire to know what is. 
 
 This is abundantly enough to expofe the Weak- 
 nefsof that ftale Argument againft Tranfttb ft ant ration 
 
 taken
 
 taken from the Contraction it has to' ovrSenfts t an 
 Argument fo void of all Solidity, whether examined 
 by the Standard ofReafon t Scripture, ot Tradition, that 
 tho' it may pafs well enough for the Subjeft of a 
 School queftion to exercife the Wits of young Schol- 
 lars in their Academical Difputes, it is beneath a 
 judicious and grave Divine to lay any Strefs upon it 
 in a ferious Controvcrfy- But to repeat it over and 
 over again till the Readers are naufeated with it, as 
 Mr- Tratf has done, and that with fuch triumphant 
 Airs, as if he carried all before him with the irre- 
 fiftable Force of it, is moft fuper'atively ridiculous- 
 
 As for Example, when the Author infills upon 
 the Subm'iflion due to theDecifions of the Catholic ^Church, 
 Mr. Traft conies flap-dafh. upon him with Tranfub- 
 ftaMtiation, and "declares he cannot believe a Thing, 
 which is fo contrary to his Reafon and Stnfes. Again, 
 when the Author fpeaks of the Promt [es of 'Infallibility , 
 which Chrift has made to his Church, Mr. Trapp, 
 after a deal of profound Nonfeufe in interpreting 
 thofe Promifes, as will appear hereafter, fhitcs the 
 Queftion from the Gurch (Jniverfal to the particular 
 Church of Rome, only to have an Opportunity to hit 
 her in the Teeth with Tranfulftjnttatron and fome o- 
 ther fuch enormous Errors, as an unanfwerable Proof 
 that /he is not infallible. In a Word, when anyg- 
 reral Jrvument proves troublefom, 1>ntie-vor/Z>ip t Huf- 
 CCHKM'CW,&C. but above all Trafuty}anttition\s fare 
 to pay dear for it : And here he thinks himfclf fo 
 ftrongly entrench'd. that nothing can come at h;m. 
 
 Let us hear him talk like one that has an Enemy 
 at his Feet,afterhis imaginary Defeat of theCfim/;'* 
 Infallibility, p. 105, ic5. Our Author (fays he) aiive 
 t'avt fttn, i>;fi<inces in Trarju^ftantiation, Pur^atory^ Invo- 
 cation of Saint!, and ho*our>ng of Reliquts : To ii-hch hi 
 tnight have adatA Jma^e If 'or/kip, Half-Communion &C. ai 
 the Doftrinesofrhe Church : and v;ealj l>notv t^t Council of 
 Trent makes them necffjliry to Solv-it'ton. This is by 
 Way of Introduction; and the only Remark I Oiafl 
 make upon it is,that the Author has mention'd Tra
 
 (6S ) 
 
 filflantiation y Purgatory, Sic. but once in his frft E)/d- 
 fogue, p. 14. and that but paflingly, without entring 
 jnto the Queftion : After that we hear no more 
 Mention of them in that Dialogue 5 nor are they 
 any where elfe profefledly treated of. Imaft-Warjla'p 
 (as Mr. Trapp calls it) te nor 5 mention'd but in the 
 fttond DM/ogtte in Anfwer to Mt> n Co'Her $ and I don't 
 remember,thatCoj>wKHo/o>^fW( which he nick- 
 names Half-Communion] is Co much as once fpoken of 
 in the Author's whole Book. But Mr. Trapp, with- 
 out Regard to the Laws of Method or Connection^ 
 was refolved to drag all thcfe Pof fo Criminals by 
 Head and Shoulders before his jerritye Tribunal, in 
 Order to make Examples of them,, but particularly 
 Tranjutyla'ntiation, tho' it did whit it could to keep 
 cut of his Way, and wa*s riot by 18 Pages within the 
 Reach of him, when he laid hold of it. But let us 
 hear him pronounce Sentencciwith the Gravity of a 
 Judge on the Bench. 
 
 Here then, fays he, I fx. Ever} one oftbefe DotlritieS ' 
 '* Z r lflyf a V e i therefore the Cbttrcb o/Rome tonally ern, 
 and therefore is not infallible. I anfwer, that whatever 
 may be the Fate of the Own* of Rome, Mr. 
 
 errs grojly in the very dating of the Queftion j be- 
 caufe the Author s whole Difcoiirfe concerning the 
 Church's Infallibility regards entirely the Church of Chrift 
 in general, that is, the ChitrcbUrtivrrfal. or the Cat J*//Vfc 
 Chureb prbfefs'd in the Creed j in whatever Body or 
 Society of Chriftians it is o#n d to be; and he would 
 maintain the fame Doftrine, tho' the City of Rome 
 had never had a Being Mr. Trdfjf therefore either 
 owns that Body of ChrifHans, which is actually in 
 Communion with the See of Rome to be the Catholic!^ 
 Church profefs'd in the Creed or not ; if not, his two 
 Confequences are wholly impertinent, and foreign 
 to the Queii ion. If he dos, he lofes his Caufc. 
 
 To prove that every one of the abovefaid DoclrineS 
 is zrvjlyfa!ff y he refers us to his own Bookjentituled, 
 Pottery triti'y ftated (as wretched a Piece as ever durft 
 appear in Print) and then go's on thus :
 
 ( 66 > 
 
 jkty i* contrary to the fecond Commandment: All Creature* 
 Worfoty is contrary to many Texts of Scripture, part rtt/arly 
 Deut. 6. 13- Mattb. 4. 10. I anfwer, that Mr. Trapp 
 feems to know juft enough of Scripture to abufe it. 
 Fortho' he had given us no other Inftances of it, the 
 Texts we are here $efe,rr'd to, would fuffice abun- 
 dantly -to convince anv^ unprejudiced and difpaffio- 
 nate Reader either ot the Man's grofs Ignorance,or 
 wilful Abufe of the true iienfc of Scripture. In rea- 
 lity, there needs no more than common Sen t t to decide 
 the Queftion about Images : fet but a fide the ambi- 
 guous Meaning of the Word Worfbip, and the Dif- 
 pute is at ao End. But as Mr. Trtfp is refplved not 
 to deprive himfelf of the Benefit of this J^a/e common 
 P/d,which furnifheshim with inexhauftible Matter 
 for Declamation againft the Church of Rome t and is 
 perfectly well calculated for the moft ignorant Po- 
 pulace, it would be unreafonable to expect common 
 Senff from him upon this Subject. Nay, in his pre- 
 tended Confutation of the Author's Anfwer to Mr, 
 Collier's Objection relating to this Subject, Dial. a. 
 <). 7. he, writes rather like a Hercules fur em ,ora Man 
 in a raging Fit of Madncfs, than a fedate Divine. 
 
 .But let us proceed. Communion in one Kind, fays 
 he, is contrary to the exprefs Words ofeur Saviour's Infti- 
 tution, at they themfelves acknowledge. I fhall ufe no 
 Ceremony with him, and therefore anfwer, that it 
 is a moft fcandalous and impudent FaJfhood to af- 
 fert, that we ourfelves acknowledge, that Communion in 
 onf "Kind is contrary to the exprefs Words of our Saviour's 
 Jnftitutton. But the poor ignorant Man, who has 
 taken this upon Trull from Mr. Leflty, knows no 
 better. I therefore refer him to the Church of Chrjft 
 fee^-l, Sec. upon that Subject, where he may be 
 better inform 'd of the Truth. 
 
 But now Tranfu'ftiiHtiar/on is brought to the Bar to 
 receive Sentence : and here Mr T-.J^/ ftruts and bfu- 
 flcrs like a Grenadier, and lays about him without 
 Mercy. But I fear his Bluftring will appear fome- 
 wiat unfeafonable after all thu lus been faid upon 
 
 that
 
 r 67 ; 
 
 that Topic; Tranfubflantiation, fays he, 'it contrary 
 rlt to Scripture, whtc b azures us that the Bread and Wine 
 continue Bread a,nd Wme after the Conjecration. Matth. 
 26. 29. i Cor. c 10. v. 17. c II. v. s.6. Quite 
 the contrary, as has been proved a thoufand Times. 
 Secondly, to Kfafon, becaufe it implies a hundred Cott 
 traditions, as well as h/afphemotts Impieties, [the Man is 
 furely mad!] as that the fame Body, for Inftance, is in 
 Heaven and on Earth at the fame Time. [St. Ambrofe, 
 St. Chryfoftom, and St. Cyril have taught it in exprefs 
 Terms, and I hope they were not Blafphewen'] That 
 Man unmakf Gob, &c. [The Expreflion is extrava- 
 gant, and ufed by no Catholick Author I ever read 
 or heard of. Let us therefore hear St. Jerom fpeak 
 more properly and decently, Epft. ad He Hod. where 
 he writes thus, and I hope without BJafphemy. God 
 forbid, fays he, that 1 Jkould fie*^ detraBtngly of thofe 
 Men, who fucceeding the sfpojiles in their Funflions do 
 
 MAKE THE BODY OF CHRIST -with their 
 facred Mouths.] 
 
 Thirdly,'m a Contradiction to our Senfes 5 becauje -what 
 Papifts tell us is the Body and MoodofCbnft, we fee, fmell, 
 and taft to ye Bread and Wme. Both St. Chryjoftom 
 and St. Cyril, thofe two great Pillars of the Church, 
 have exprefly precaution'd rhe Faithful not to truft 
 to their Senfes m the Myfteryofthe holy Eucharift. Is 
 Mr. Trap's Judgment of more Weight than theirs ? 
 
 He concludes triumphantly thus : In vain therefore 
 do they come upon us with their fophiflical, perplex'd, ful- 
 ling Heap of Stuffy puding to weal^, ignorant feople. For 
 to alt, who know any thing of the Matter , nothing, *i Thave 
 made it appear, can be more DESPICABLY FOOL- 
 ISH : endeavouring to prove that their Church cannot err$ 
 when common Senfe and our jive Senfes tell us foe do's err j 
 or if foe do's not err, (he LIES, which if worfe. 
 
 Was there ever fuch a paflionate Writer ! What 
 an outragious Cenfure is here pafs'd upon all the 
 Catholicti Bifoops, Doftors, and other Learned Divines in 
 Chriftendom, who in Refpe<5l to their Numbers, as 
 well as continual Application to all the Parts of theo- 
 K 2 logical
 
 (68 ) 
 
 logical Literature and Erudition, may, without any 
 Partiality, be counted the moft learned Body in the 
 whole World ; yet are here reprefented as a Com- 
 pany either of defiic*yie fools, or, what is wor/i.as pro- 
 fligate Liars I What will not Ignorance, join'd with 
 a "ftrong Conceit of one's own Abilities and Judg- 
 ment, prompt a Man to fay ! Was Mr. Trapp eompos 
 mentis when he wrote this Piece ! The beft Excufe 
 that can be made for him is, that he was not. 
 
 SECT. XI. 
 
 Remarks upon Mr. Trap's pretended Confu- 
 tation of the Author's Second Sefiion. 
 
 MR. Trapp in the Beginning i>f his pretended 
 Confutation of the Authors feconel Seftton feems 
 to have been in a very quarrelfom Humour. For 
 in the firft place he carps at the very Title of it, 
 which is, that Faith is not againft Reafon : and dictates 
 Very magifterially to the Author, how it ought to 
 have been worded 5 but I fear he will prove fo in- 
 doci), as to let it {land as it is, and take it's Chance. 
 However, fays he, Faith if not againft Reafon, that ar, the 
 ChriJJtan Faith it not, lut the Popijh Faith is againft P^eafon 
 and our Senfgf too, p. 15, i5. This is the old Cue. 
 ^oo's Tune over again, and already fufficiently ex- 
 ploded. However, if the Popijb Faith be not the 
 Chriftian Faith, Mr. Trapp will do well to inform us in 
 \vhat Part of the orthodox World the Chnffian Faith as 
 divHnft from Popery, was profefs'd for many Ages 
 before the Reformation, Tor 'tis a Matter of great 
 
 Moment,
 
 Moment, and nothing lefs depends upon it than the 
 Saving of the ninth Article of the Creed from having 
 been falfe in that whole Space of Time. 
 
 After that he quarrels with the Author's Rela- 
 tion of St. Peter's firft Sermon,and the Succefs it had 
 in the Converfion of three thoufand Souls. You have 
 it (fays he) m the fecond Chapter of the Afts of the sfpo- 
 flles t and much better told than it it here, p 17. Very 
 right, but very impertinent ! unlefs it be fuppofed, 
 that whoever relates a Scriptural Fact without doing 
 it in Scriptural Language, has the Prefumption ta vie 
 with, or correcl the Sacred Penman, out of whom he 
 takes it $ which is moft highly ridiculous. 
 
 But not content with this, ho falls foul upon tho 
 Author for bringing in this Story for nothing elfe (as 
 he pretends) but to make a Parade, and puzzle ig- 
 norant People. Let us hear himfpeak: T7w,fays 
 he, H to puale and confound, to make poor ignorant Peo- 
 pie gape and ft are \ #s if fomething extraordinary were com- 
 ing. He drarot bis Argument, you fee, from the Fountain- 
 Head $ begin! from the very Beginning of Chriftianity 5 
 from "whence you are to conclude that Chriftianity and 
 Popery are one and the J 'ante Thing, p 16. Pray good 
 Mafter Trapp how is that poffible ! For if he would 
 have us conclude, that Chnjiianity and Popery are one 
 and the fame thing,itmuft alfo have been his Inten- 
 tion to make us conclude, that Pup/fis alone are Chri- 
 ftians, which I never yet heard any Body fay. How- 
 ever wo be to thofe who cannot derive the Religion 
 they profefs from the Fountain-Head j that is, the 
 Jpoftles themfelves. 
 
 He refumes his infulting Buffoonery in the very 
 next Page : where having granted that the Fa!tb of 
 the firft Converts to Chriftianity was rational, be- 
 caufe grounded upon fo/id Motives, he go's on thus : 
 sindfrom hfnffii to be dti'uced a Train of Argumentation 
 to prove the Church': Authority in Declaring [the Revela- 
 tion of difputed doctrinal Points] u-h-rejt it might of 
 'if ell have fallen it's Rife from the Creation oj the World, as 
 from tbe Convfjion of the firft Cbrifttans. But it looks 
 
 foltmnly
 
 ( 70 ) 
 
 fokmnly and pompovjly^ at I have obferved. 'Tts a grand 
 Parade of Words, tho* raoft impertinent ones, h amufes 
 injudicious People, and makes their Head* giddy, and then 
 they are in an apt Difpojition to receive Popery. THESE 
 FIRST CONVERTS TO CHRISTIANITY 
 BELIEVED RATIONALLY, THEREFORE 
 THE CHURCH OF ROME IS TO BE BE- 
 LIEVED IMPLICITLY, p. 17, 18. 
 
 If being notorioufly injudicious, and having one's 
 Jlfad turn d be proper Difpofitions to receive Popery, 
 then Mr. Trapp would in all Likelihood have been 
 long fince the ftancheft Papiji in Great Britain. For 
 nothing furely but a delirous Head could have been 
 capable of the chira-cham Turn he has given to the 
 Author's Words relating to the Church's Authority $ as 
 if by fpeaking of the Converjron ofthtfrft Cbriffianshs 
 had made that the Source of it, which is moft cmi* 
 nently ab r urdj becaufetho' S.Peter had not conver- 
 ted one fingle Soul by his firft Sermon, the Church's 
 Authority would be upon the fame Foot as it is now: 
 Kay, the Author has inculcated every where, when- 
 ever an Occafion offer'd itfelf, that the Authority, 
 wherewith the Church is vefted, flows originally from 
 Chriit himfelf, as it's Divine Founder, and chief Cor- 
 Mtr-Stwe 5 and after him immediately from the Ji- 
 poft/es, who tranfmitted it to their SucceflCbrs. This 
 js the Author's conftant Doftrine, and not the phan- 
 taftical Train of 4rgnmentatio t which Mr. Trapp has 
 fathered upon him. 
 
 But where is it, that the Author argues in the ex- 
 orbitantly ridiculous Manner as he is made to do by 
 this egregious Trifler in the two Lines which I have 
 xnark'd out in Capital Letters, viz,. Theft jirft Con- 
 verts to Chrtflianity believed rationally, therefore the Church 
 o/Rome is to bi believed implicitly! *Tis the Work- 
 man fhip of Mr. Trapp*& own Brain ; he is the fole 
 Proprietor of it; and as himfeif alone ha$ been at 
 the Trouble of making the Fool's Cap, I know not 
 any Head it will fit but his own. The Author rea- 
 fons <piite otherwife 5 his Argument runs thus : The 
 
 faith
 
 < 7- > 
 
 Taitb of thefrft Converts to Cbrifiiantty vnu perfectly r*. 
 lional t becaufe it was grounded upon [olid Motives. Thus 
 far Mr. Trapp grants, and therefore needs no further 
 Proof. But the immediate undeniable Confequence 
 of it, which the Author has eftablifti'd in his first 
 Settion, is this general Proportion, to wit, that all Faith 
 r Submiflion which is grounded upoa foltd Motives, is per- 
 fetily rational, and cannot by Confequence be call'd a 
 blind or implicit Faith. Then he proceeds to /hew, 
 that the external Motives, upon which the Chnjiiau 
 Faith is now grounded, are in feveral Rejpefls more 
 forcible and cogent than thofe were, which render'd 
 theFaith and Submijpgn ofthefirft Chriftian Converts 
 a reafonable A61 : whence he concludes veryjuftly, 
 that Faith it not aga'mft Reafon ; and that the Submif- 
 fion, which he requires of his young Gentleman, is not 
 a blind or implicit one, but perfectly reasonable, as be- 
 ing grounded upon ftrong and folid Motives. 
 
 This is the Author's Argumentation, when fet in 
 it's true Light, and I infer from it jlrft, that his 
 Relation of the abovefaid Scriptural Faft was not 
 intended, as Mr. Trapp has told us, to puii.tt and con- 
 found, or to mal^e ignorant People gape and ftare, but to 
 Jead his Readers direclly to the Point propofed in 
 the Title, to wit, that Faith is not againft Reafon, of 
 which it is a clear Proof. 
 
 I infer idly, that Mr. Trapp is a notorious Mifre- 
 prefcnter of the Author's Argument, in fathering 
 upon him this ridiculous Piece of Nonfenfe : The 
 frjt Converts to Chrtftianity believed rationally, er%o the 
 Church of Rome ts to he believed implici:ly. Whence it 
 is manifeft that all the real Nonfenfc and Blunders, 
 which he has hitherto charged upon the Author, 
 are Goods of his own importing. 
 
 But to render my Remarks upon the reft of Mr. 
 Tratp's pretended Confutation of the Author's Ar- 
 gument eafy to be underftood by thofe who have 
 not his Book, I (hall here tranfcribe it, but without 
 Mr. Trapp's mutilating & cetera, which has cut offa 
 full half of it 5 whereby the Reader will be able 
 
 to
 
 to judge whether it deferves the fcurrilous aha* in- 
 jurious Reflections he has made upon it. It ftands 
 thus, p. 10. 
 
 GENTLEMAN; 
 
 But what Conftquence Jo you draw from this ? Thi* 
 inoffenfive Queftion, which is nothing but a cufto- 
 mary Tranfition in Dialogues, Mr. Trapp could not 
 let pafs without a Flirt, to fhew the profound Soli- 
 dity of his Judgment* 
 
 rsg-v. If ridh; 
 
 PRECEPTOR. 
 
 c 
 
 " I infer from it, that if thefe Motives were a 
 
 ct fufficient and folid Ground of a rational Submffion 
 
 " to the Church's Faith even in her Infancy, when the 
 
 ' Prophecies concerning her future Evcreaf'e, Magnifi* 
 
 4 cence, and Splendor were not yet verified, as they 
 
 ' are now, thofe we have at prefent to convince us 
 
 of the reafonablenefs of our relying upon her Au- 
 
 ' thority are much more forcible, when Millions of 
 
 ' Martyrs have feai'd her Faith with the laft Drop 
 
 *' of their Blood 5 when fhe has peopled both Earth 
 
 " and Heaven with Multitudes of holy '-'onj effort and 
 
 44 Virgins, whofe ftupendious Lives and Miracles pro- 
 
 " claim the Purity of her Doctrine ; when Katg^Ad 
 
 " Nations have flock'd to her from the remoteft 
 
 41 Parts of the World, and the greateft Monarchs 
 
 11 upon Earth have fubmitted to her Laws : when 
 
 44 finally (he has now already had a vifible Bein% for 
 
 41 near upon i 700 Years in fpite of all the Perfecu- 
 
 41 tions raifed againft her by the Powers of Darl^nefs^ 
 
 4< and can fhew in her own Communion an uninter- 
 
 41 rupted Succeflion of Bijbipt and Paflort down to 
 
 4< this very Day. 
 
 This is the Author's Argument, which in reality 
 contains a /hort Defence of Chriftiavity in ventral a 
 gainft Atbeifts and Drifts, Yet Mr. Trift (fo dange- 
 rous
 
 ( 73 ) 
 
 rous a Thing it is to have to do with a fagaciou 8 
 and judicious Adverfary ! ) is not content to call it 
 egregioujly trifling and fopbtftical, p. 20. but employs 
 both Drollery to ridicule it, and the moft malicious 
 Reflections to give it a foul Afpecr, : All which he 
 concludes with this amazing Paragraph. 
 
 " Looking back, fays he, upon what I have writ- 
 ten, I am both afhamed ana amazed to have un- 
 awares made fo many Words IN VINDICA- 
 TING THE APOS'l LES AGAINST THE 
 CHURCH OF ROME. But let thofe doubly 
 blufh, who urge fuch Arguments, that it is almoft 
 an Abfurdity to anfwer them. And fo I Jeave 
 '* the odious Subject with this Reflection, that if 1 
 *' Popery and Chrijtianity were more confident witfi 
 " each other, the Decifions of the former would be 
 " forced to make ufe of lefs BLASPHEMY againft 
 ' the lattir. 
 
 This is the Paragraph I call awid-un^ and believe it 
 will appear fo to every calm and difpafiionate Rea- 
 der. For which Reafon I have here placed it as 
 rear as I could to the Author's Argument, that the 
 Reader may more eafily make a true Judgment of 
 it. Firft then let us fee the ridiculous Airs the poor 
 filly Man here gives himfelf, astf he had been at 
 hard Labour for the common Cauj'e of ChnHiantty, and 
 came triumphant from confuting forne Jew or A- 
 
 tbeifl. 
 
 Loo^/n* Lacl^ (fays he, with the Gravity of a Mart 
 of Importance) upon ubat 1 have written, I din both a- 
 Jbamtd an amai(d to havt unawdrts ufedfo maxy Words 
 IN VINDICATION OF THE APOSTLES. 
 He has all the Reafon in the World to be doth a- 
 Jhamed and amaifJ at it : but tho' he were not, I 
 cannot bur think, that every judicious Reader, who 
 confronts his extravagant Reflections and Expref- 
 ions wirh the Author's Jr^Hmtnt, will be heartily 
 td for him: aad the moll favourable Judgment 
 L hii
 
 ( 74 ) 
 
 his very Friends will in all Probability make of him 
 is, that he has the Misfortune to be fubjeft to deli- 
 rout Fits, and that he was in one of them when he 
 wrote the Piece before us. For I fee no other Apo- 
 logy or Excufe that can be made for it. It really 
 moves me to Laughter as well as Indignation to hear 
 Mr. Trapp talk big of Vindicating the Jpoftles : to 
 Laughter in Regard of the Man's Vanity, and to f- 
 <lination in Regard of his Ma'ice. For can any 
 Thing be more ridiculoufly vain, than his fetting 
 up for a Champion or Vindicator of the ^o/?/</,when 
 no Body, that I know of, has attack'd them either 
 <HretJy or indirectly ! or more vilely malicioui, than 
 to tax the Author with it, when 'tis apparent to 
 any one, that has but Eyes to read, that his Argu- 
 ment has not the leaft Tendency towards it. 
 
 The reft of the abovefaid Paragraph is fo exor- 
 bitantly out of the Way in all Refpecls, that it is 
 doing an Injuftice to human Reafon to fay he was 
 compos mentis, when he wrote it. For befides the 
 extravagant Rodomontade of this Claufe, twt let 
 thofe dot<lly k!uft> t who urgt fuch Arguments, that it if al- 
 woft an j4 J j[ttrdity to anfiatr them, how is it poflible, 
 that a Man in his right Senfes ihould find any Thing 
 5n the Author's Argument that favours of Blafphemy I 
 Is it Btafphemj to fay, that the Prophecies concerning 
 the Church's future Encreafe, Magnificence and Splen- 
 dor were not, as they are now, verified, when S. Peter 
 preach'd his firft Sermon? Or is it Blafphemy to 
 fay, that the Church was then in her Infancy? Is 
 it Blafpbimy to fay, that Millions of Martyrshzvc fincc 
 that Time feal'd her Faith with the laft Drop of 
 their Blood ? That /he has peopled both Earth 
 and Heaven with Multitudes of holy Confeffon and 
 Virgins ? That Kings and Nations have fince that 
 Time flock'd to her from the remoteft Parts of the 
 World, and that the greateft Monarchs upon Earth 
 have fubmitted to her Laws ? Or finally, is it Blaf- 
 pbtmy to fay, that (he has now had a vifibie Being, and 
 an uninterrupted Succeffion of Biftofs and Paftors'fot 
 
 almoft
 
 ( 75 } 
 
 almoft 1 700 Years in fpite of all the Persecutions that 
 have been raifed againit her by the Powers of Darl^- 
 nefs * Hitherto furely there is no Appearance of 
 Blafphemy, unlefs fetting forth the fignal Bleflings, 
 which the Divine Bounty has in all Ages beftowed 
 upon his holy Church, to render her Authority refpefta- 
 ble, be Rlafphetny in Mr. Trap's Judgment. 
 
 But perhaps it confifts in the Author's maintain- 
 ing, that the external Motives of Credibility are now in 
 fevera! Refpefts more forcible and cogent than thofe 
 were, which render a the Faith and Submiffion of the 
 firft Chriftian Converts a rtufonable A&. But do's this 
 derogate any Thing from the Honour or Authority 
 of the Jpoftles, whom Mr. Trapp, like a Den htixoe 
 fighting againft Windmills, moft ridictiloufly pretends 
 to vindicate, as if they had been highly injured by 
 the Author ? Can one Truth derogate from ano- 
 ther ? Or is it not unqueftionably true, that we 
 have Advantages now, which the firft converted 
 Chriftians had not ? We now fee the Prophecies of 
 Jfaiah accompli fh'd, which they faw not. We have 
 the facred Writings of the Jpoftles and EvangtliRs, gi- 
 ving ample Teftimony of Chrift and his holy Church, 
 which they had not. We have Millions of iiluftri- 
 ous WitnefTes of the Faith once delivered to the Saintt, 
 which they had not. In a Word, we have the Ad- 
 vantage, which they had not, of feeing, that whilft 
 all other States and Kingdoms upon Earth have had 
 their Revolutions, Chri/i's Spiritual Kingdom alone has 
 been preferved in an uninterrupted lineal Defcent 
 otBifonps and Paftors from the Jpoftles down to this 
 very Time, and the Church's Faith eftablifh'd upon 
 fuch firm Foundations, that neither the moft bloody 
 Perfecutions of three hundred Years could over- 
 throw it, nor the various Monfters of Herefies 
 which have fprung up in every Age, corrupt the 
 Purity of it. Will Mr. Trapp fay either that thefe 
 are no Advantages, or that it is Blafpbemy to acknow- 
 ledge the Blcflings of God upon his Church ? Do's 
 praijing God depreciate his dpsftles ? 
 
 La SECT;
 
 C 76 > 
 
 SECT. Xn. 
 
 The Author no T R i F L E R. 
 
 BU T let us now hear our styoffalical Vindicator 
 fpeak. He quarrels with the Author's Argu- 
 ment upon a double Account. Namely on the Score* 
 frft of Nonfenje, and zaly of Blafphemy. On the fir/I 
 he writes thus, p. 18. I <///> r # ffef Reader to taly parti- 
 fttlar Kotice of tbis Rcafoning [meaning the abovefaid 
 Jlrguyfnt~\ for it really a Rarity. It would be fo in 
 Mr. Trapp's Book, where Senjt is as rare as. a white 
 Crow or llt>t^ Su-an. However, he endeavours to 
 make good his witty Encomium thus : Theft three 
 thoufaKttJeus and Profelytes bad then no Thoughts of a 
 Clwfb AS SUCH, much lefi of her Authority, or of her 
 Faith, AS HER FAITH. Thefe two Reftriclions, 
 <**/rfe, and M ler Faith, either fignify nothing, or they 
 imply, that the three thoufand Converts hadTkoavhts 
 both of a Church, tho' not aifuch, and of Faith, rho* 
 not M her Faith But was not Mr. Trapp here bound 
 to let his Readers know, what their Thoughts 
 were in Reference to them both ? They thought 
 it feems of a Church, but not as fucb. As what then/ 
 They alfo thought of Faith, but not as her Faith. As 
 ukofe Faith then ! But a Man that writes without 
 Thought, and }ias no Meaning himfelf, cannot com? 
 municate it to others. 
 
 He go's on thus : Ptfore their Cower/ion the dpoJJles 
 and Dijdp/ei of our Saviour were all ths Church in Being ; 
 j4nd did theft Converts fitlimit to them upon a Principle of 
 Sulmffon to Church Authority ? 'Tit plain, theyJul-mitteJ 
 to the Evidence of "Miracles fecfjnded by God's Grace, and 
 fo nothing elfe, <*t the Author himfelf reprefents it in the 
 Words immediately preceding. [The Author only fays, 
 tfyat their Faith and 5&w/$T0 was an EfFeft of God's 
 
 Gract,
 
 '(. 77 ) 
 
 Grace, which no Body doubts] Winy then a Submffiott 
 totbeCbitrcb, when CHURCH-SHIP baJ nothing to 
 Jo in the Bujinejs, there heing IN TRUTH NO 
 CH U RCH, ,** the Word H now ufed ? The Reafon t* 
 plain $ becaufe all this Writer labour? at is ESTA- 
 BLISHING THE AUTHORITY OF THE 
 CHURCH. And fo that Word muftbe Jragg'J in, 
 ivhen a ratlonalSukmiffjon u taffy* J of, tho' there not the 
 lea/} ConnnecJton between the one and the other. 
 
 'Tis very ilrange there fhould not be the leaft 
 Connexion between Ckurcb-j4ittbority t and a rational Sub" 
 tniflion to it. For what is Authority either in Church op 
 State without Submffion but a meer Cypher ? Or is 
 not all Submiflion properly paid to Authority, that is, 
 to Perfons in Pouer, as the Apoftles doubtlefs were by 
 Virtue of their Commiffion received immediately 
 from Chrift himfelf ? 
 
 But as to Mr. Trapfs faying, that all the Author 
 labours at ii eftablijhing the Authority of the Church, I 
 thank him heartily for acknowledging a Truth fo 
 much to the Author's Honour ; tho' it dropt from 
 his Pen without thinking,as aimort every Thing he 
 writes do's. For the Author truly glories in it, and 
 would bluih to employ his Pen in vilifying, as Mr. 
 Trapp takes all Occafions to do, the moft jacred Au+ 
 thoriiy upon Earth j an Authority e^ablifh'd imme- 
 diately by Chrift himfelf : In a Word, the Autho- 
 rity of a Church founded for the Salvation of Souls, 
 redeem' d by the Son of Goa^ and efpoufij to himfelf 
 with his moft precious Blood. Yet Mr. Trapp thinks 
 fit to reproach the Author for his Zeal in ftanding 
 up for this Authority. 
 
 But let us now examine the other Branches of 
 the abovefaid Piece. Before their Converfion, fays he, 
 the s!pofllei and Difciples of our Saviour wtrt all the Church 
 in Being. Very right. And did theft Converts fuhntit 
 TO them upon a Principle of Svbmiffian to h'tr ch~ Authori- 
 ty ! \ am fure they could not fuhmit upon a better 
 Principle, than that of Submi/fion to the Authority of 
 the jjpoftief, who were then the only teaching and go- 
 verning
 
 ( 78 ) 
 
 Part of the Church, and by their miraciJout 
 Gift of Tongues gave Teftimony, that their Commifion 
 or Authority was from God. 
 
 But '//?/<', fays he, they Jutunitted to the Evidence 
 ef Miracles, and to nothing elfe. What ! is it plain 
 that they fubmitted, and yetfubmittedtt no Body \ Un- 
 der Mr. Trap's Favour therefore the Expreflion is 
 ffphtftifaJ, and he is caught in his own Trapp. For 
 tho' it be very true, that the Evidence of Miracles was 
 the Motive, upon which they fulmitted, and which 
 render 'd their Submiffion reafonable, yet it is very 
 certain, that when they fubmitted, it was to fome 
 Body they fubmitted. And pray who were the 
 Perfons they r ubmitted to but the Jpoftles ? whom 
 from the miraculous Gift of Tongues, and infufed Know- 
 ledge of Strictures they juftly concluded to be in/fired 
 "Mm ; and that by Confequence they were bound 
 to fulmit to their Direclions, and embrace the Faith 
 l&ey preach'd. 
 
 Thus it was that the Gift of Miracles, with which 
 the stpoflles appeared endued at their very fetting 
 out upon their Miffion, were, as I may fay, their Cre- 
 dentials and Pou-ers t upon Sight whereof the firft con* 
 verted Chriftians (God enlightning their Under- 
 ilanding, and touching their Hearts, as the Author 
 has very jufljy obferved) knew them to be the Mi- 
 nifitn efGod, and Emhffidors of Heaven, vefted with 
 jiutbarity to preach to them the Word of Life : and 
 "twa$ to this Sutler hy manifefted to them in fo fig- 
 nal a manner that they fubmitted themfelves, and 
 embriiced the Gofyel. But if Mr. Trapp will needs 
 confound the Motive of their Submffion with the fa~ 
 tred Authority, to which they fubmitted, 'tis becaufe 
 he feeks all he can to hide it from the Eyes of his 
 Readers, as is manifeit from his following extrava- 
 gant Words. W\-y then, fays he, a Sultm/pon to the 
 Church*! Faith, -when Church fhip had nothing to do in tbt 
 tixfitiefs, there being in Truth no Church, *t the WorA is 
 wn? Jtfed ! 
 
 What!
 
 ( 79 ) 
 
 What! both Church and o Church ! Were we not 
 told but eight Lines before, that tbt sfpoftles and Dif- 
 ciples were tbtn all the Church in firing ! And how then 
 can he tell us in the fame Breath, that Cbttrcbfoip 
 (as he calls it) bad nothing to do in tbt Btijineft, and 
 that IN TRUTH there was noCburch\ He adds 
 very craftily, M tbeWord is now uftd, which is inten- 
 ded for a Back-door to flip out at, and fecure his 
 Retreat. But it will be of no Ufe to him : for all 
 is again contradicted in the next Page but one,wher 
 he writes thus : I d'Jire, fays he, the Reader to conjidtr t 
 tbo' cur Author did rot, that the THEN-CHURCH* 
 lij{f the jirfl created Man t tho' an Infant in Jlge t was <i- 
 duh in Wifam and AUTHORITY. [Very right.] 
 
 jind of far greater Authority than any Church Jince lOttld 
 tver juflly ptetend to. p. 21. This is more than the Aa- 
 thor affirms, or Mr.Traft can make our. For here he 
 overOioots his Mark as much as he fell below it 
 two Pages before. But it feems the Cafe was then 
 alter'd. When the Author was to be proved a Trifltr 
 for mentioning the Church's Faith and Cburch-jfutbori- 
 ty, then CburfhjJaip bad nothing to do in the Bttfintj't^ 
 and tbtrevaslN TRUTH m Chimb. But when 
 he was to be traduced for a Bl'iffihemer, then thd 
 Reader is defired to conjia'er that the THEN* 
 CHURCH li!<e thefirff created Man, tbo' an Infant in 
 Jge, tuat adult in Wifdom and AUTHORITY, and of 
 far greater Authority than any Church fince conld ever pre* 
 tend to. 
 
 By his faying, any Church face, one would be apt 
 to think, that the Church of Chrrft is not the fame in 
 all Ages. But to let that pafs, what can we make 
 of this clafhing inconfittent Stuff! Page 18. the A* 
 foftles and Dtfciplts vere aft the Church in Being. Yet in 
 the very next Page, there u-at then in Truth no Church. 
 Kay, what is ftill more furprizing, this very Ourcb t 
 which pip was in Truth no C.burch, is p. a I. a Church 
 of far greattr Atrbority, than any Church Jince routd tvef 
 fretend to. Again, p. 19. Church/trip (that is to fay, 
 ; for that's the very Thing he there 
 Jfnarla
 
 C 8 ) 
 
 fnarls at, and reproaches the Author for his Zeal 
 in maintaining it) bad nothing to <to intbcBufaefs, yet 
 p. 21. the THEN-CHURCH &' " Jf"t in Jge t 
 was adult In Wijdom and Authority. Whoever can re- 
 . concile thefe Inconfiftencies, erit mihi magtius Jpolh. 
 But had not Mr. Traft a ftrange Stock of Confi- 
 dence to make aPrefent of fuch Trafh as this is to 
 the Kmi I 
 
 But what can the poor Man mean by faying, 
 that there was then in Truth MO Church, AS THE 
 WORD CHURCH IS NOW USED? For this 
 implies a Diflinclion, to wit, that there was in Truth 
 a Church in one Sen ft > hut not in another 5 and who- 
 ever anfwers with a Diflinliion, is bound to explain 
 both the Parts of it, as well for the Reader's Satif- 
 faclion, as his own Juftificaticn. All fair Writers 
 do fo : tho' I confefs this new Method of Dflin- 
 ui/bing without Explaining is both taper and fafer 5 
 becaufe it gets rid of an Argument without Study, 
 or Hazard of being non-plus'd: As when Mt.Trapp 
 tells his Reader, as he often do's, that fuch or fuch 
 a Thing is true in oneSenfe, without letting him know 
 in what Senfe it Is true or fa Ij e, what can an Adver- 
 fary fay to fuch a Trifler, who in all Appearance 
 either knows not what he means himfelf, or is a- 
 /hamed to fpeak out ? This is all the Anfwer fuch 
 little tricking Ways deferve. 
 
 However, to fay fotnething upon the Point be- 
 fore u$, if Mr. Traft had any Meaning, I am fure' 
 it could be nothing to the Purpofe : becaufe there 
 never was but one true Church of Chr-ft upon Earth, 
 and the only true eflfential Notion of that Church 
 is, that it is a vtfiUe Society or Con^regntionof true Be- 
 lievert unaer their lavful Paftors. Now 'tis plain, that 
 before the 3000 Converts made by St. Petir t there 
 Was fuch a viftb'.t Society or Congregation compofed of 
 lavful Paflors and true Relievers under them. For 
 our Saviour af er his Refurreclion appeared to above 
 500 Brethren at once. I Cor. C. 15. v. 6. And was 
 jwt this in Truth a Cbttrcb as tit Word if now ufed ? 
 
 Was
 
 r 81 ; 
 
 Was it not then truly the MyflicalEoJy ofCbrift, that 
 js to fay, bis hoty Church ? Was it not then the Commu- 
 nion of Saints, to which the Lord added drily fucb as 
 Jhouldhe faved. Aft. 2. v. 47. 'Tis therefore a meer 
 unintelligible Jargon, fit only to raifea Mift before 
 People's Eyes, to fay, that there was then in Truth no 
 Church, as the Word is now tiftd. For tho' it had not 
 
 then the P*f*fiwntft, it had all the fame true Effence 
 and Properties of a Church, as it has now. It was 
 then the Hofy t ^ojlolicl^ Church, it was the true My 
 ftical Body of Cbriji, a vifih/e Congregation of true Be* 
 lievers under their lawful Paflori, and the Communion of 
 Saints: And I am an utter Stranger to any other 
 true Senfe, in which the Word Church' is now ufed. 
 
 ^ 
 
 SECT. XIII. 
 The APOSTLES not injured by the Author* 
 
 FROM what has been faid, it is made very 
 plain, that Mr. Trapp had no Reafon to infulr, 
 as he has done, over his Adverfary, by telling him, 
 that his Argument is eyetjonjly tfifli#g t much Ief3 
 to break out into this extravagant Declamation, Lee 
 tl.oft doubly bbtfi, uho life Jach slrnumfnts, that it is at- 
 mnji an ^bfurdtty to anfverthem. For what could havo 
 been faid more, tho' the Author had even equall d 
 Mr. Trapp in Nonfenfe ? 
 
 Let us now fee how he makes good his Charge 
 of Rlafihemy, upon which he grounds his ridiculous 
 Boafl 'of r^indicatir,^ the Jpoftlet. The whole Sub- 
 flance of his Charge iscontain'd in the four follow- 
 ing Lines. What follows, fays he, in the Pafflige (tted 
 M it
 
 if an Argument to prove that the Church of Rome (far 
 that is always meant by the Church.} is more to be credited* 
 and 'a of greater Authority than th( jfpoftles. Thefe 
 four Lines contain two impudent Fal/hoods. I call 
 them /w/WfMf,becaufe he may be convicted of them 
 by any Man, that has but Eyes to read. 
 
 The firft Falfhood they contain is, that the Church 
 of Rome [which the Author abftrafts entirely from] 
 js the intended Subject of his Argument : becaufe 
 nothing can be plainer, than that he fpeaks no more 
 of the Church of Rome than of the Church of England, 
 tut of the Church ofChrift, in whatever Body or Society 
 of Chrtftians it is own'd to be. So that whatever he 
 proves in that Argument has wholly and folely a 
 Reference to the Catholicl^ Churchy or Church of Chrift 
 in general. And if Mr. Trapp can fhew, that the 
 Church of England is that Church, the Author readily 
 gives up to her all the Advantages he there fpeaks 
 of, and promifes to be a Convert to her. 
 
 The fecond glaring Falfhood is, that it is the 
 Drift of the Author's Argument to prove, that the 
 Church of Rome is more to be credited, and is of greater 
 Authority than the j4poft!es. For how is it poffiblc 
 he /hould have had any fuch Thought ? Since 
 (fuppofing even, what is already proved to be pal- 
 pably falfe, that the Church of Rome is meant in the 
 Author's Argument) fince, I fay, in the Paragraph 
 immediately before it, he takes particular Notice, 
 that the 3000 firft Converts obferving in the Apo- 
 tftles the miraculous Gift of Tongues, and an tnfuftd 
 Knowledge of Scriptures, concluded very jutfly from it, 
 that they were inftirtd Men, and that this was the 
 immediate external Motive of their Converfion. From 
 whence he pafles immediately to his comparing the 
 external Motives of Credibility, which we have now, 
 with thofe of the firft Chriftian Converts, of which 
 enough has been faid. 
 
 'Tis therefore manifeft, that the Author's Com- 
 parifon is wholly confined to the external Evidence 
 which give Teftimony .for the Truth of Cbriftian 
 
 Doctrine
 
 c 83 ; 
 
 DofJriHt. And if thefe are far more numerous now, 
 than they were in the Church's Infancy, as it can- 
 not be queftion'd but they are, nay if thefe gather 
 Strength in every Age, without lofing any Thing of 
 the Weight or Force of thofe in former Ages, what 
 Man in his Senfes can deny that they are now more 
 forcible and cogent than they were then ? 
 
 To explain my felf, we have now all the Mo- 
 tives that they had who lived in the ^poftdicl^ A$e t 
 of depending upon and fubmitting to the Church's 
 Decifions } becaufe what they were Eyt-raitneffts and 
 Ear'ivitntffei of, we fee and hear with the Eyes and 
 Ears of Faith : And I have the fame infallible Cer- 
 tainty both of the Miracles the Jlpoftles wrought, and 
 of the Truth of the Doctrine they taught, as if I 
 were my felf an Eye and Ear witnefs of them. 
 Thus far then we are upon equal Terms. But 
 they who lived in the Jpoffolicl^ Age, could not have 
 the Advantages above mention'd, which we now 
 have over and above, as is obvious to common 
 Senfe. 
 
 Nay, I find Mr. Traft himfelf ftrangely emba- 
 rafs'd about the Matter, and tottering, as it were, 
 between denying and grantipg the Point in Quefti- 
 on. For immediately after the aforefaid four 
 Lines, he writes thus. ^dmittin^ fays he, that 
 ALL THINGS CONSIDER'!), w have u< 
 
 more Evidence for the Truth of Chr/Jiianity than they had 
 who lived in the Days of the ^poftles, and f.iw their Mi~ 
 racle*, or fomt have affirm' 'd ire have t and IN ONE 
 
 SENSE IS UNDOUBTEDLY TRUE. What 
 fhuffling Work is here ? Why does he not tell us, 
 what he means by his M Things cofider'd? Why 
 does he not explain the one Stnfe, in which it un- 
 doubtedly trit?, that ive have now more Evidence for the 
 Truth of Chriftianity, than they had who livtd in the 
 s of t 
 
 Days of the SJptiftlei, and faw their Miradtt ? For this 
 is in Reality, the whole Subftance of what the Au- 
 thor affirms ; and if this be u*dwl>tf<tl/ tnit in one 
 &nfe, 'tis to be hoped, it is fo in the Senfc inten- 
 M z ded
 
 eted by the Author. A am fure, at leaft, he has 
 a Right to be underftood fo, till the contrary be 
 proved againft him. 
 
 But what follows, promifes to give fome Light 
 to the Matter j tho' I cohfefs the Light it promifes 
 is Darknefs to me. Or, fays he, more plainly to our 
 Purpofe, Admitting that lit have now more forcible Motives 
 to convince us of the Reafonahlenffs of Relying upon their 
 Authority thin they who faw them 5 yet it by no means 
 follows from hence, that we have more Reajon to rely upon 
 the prefent Church's Authority, than they bad to rely upon 
 thatofthesff>oft!es$ and upon another Account, we have 
 not nearfo much, becaufe the sfpoftles were infpired, and 
 the prefent Church is not. p. 20. 
 
 I anfwer, that the Author's Argument, which 
 M 1 *. Trapp here makes the Foundation of his, is ra- 
 ther burlefqued hy him, than ftated fairly. For 
 he ought to have argued thus, Admitting that ire 
 fcwMti MORE FORCIBLE MOTIVES to con- 
 vince us of the Reafanakltnffs of Relying upon the CHUR- 
 CHES AUTHORITY, than the firfl Cortflian Con- 
 verts had, [for that's precifely the Point maintain'd 
 by the Author,] yn it ty no Means follows from hence , 
 that we have MORE REASON to rely t<po her AH- 
 thority than they kid. This would have fet the Au- 
 thor's Argument in it's true Light 5 but that Light 
 would have difcover'd Mr. Trapp's Xonfcnfe. info 
 glaring a Manner, that the moft vulgar Reader 
 would have blufh'd for him. He therefore judg'd 
 it fafeft to emhroil the Matter, by flily /liifting the 
 Queftion from the Church's Authority to the perjonal 
 ghiali fixations of the ^pvflles, and ftretching the Au- 
 thor's Comparifon beyond the Bounds where he 
 has fix'd it, to a Point entirely out of the Qiieftion. 
 
 This is plain from his laft Words, viz. tircaufe the 
 jjpofttes were INSPIRE I), and the preftnt Church if 
 not. For, as I have already obferved, the Author's 
 Comparifon is precifely between the external Mo- 
 tives of relying upon the Church's Authority, which 
 \vc haveow, and thofe which the firft Chriftian 
 
 Convert*
 
 Converts had : But he never offers the leaft at com- 
 paring the perjonal Qualifications of the Succejjors of 
 the Jpoftles in After ages with thofe of the Jpojlles 
 themfelves. He knows very well, that thefe were 
 infpirea 1 , that their knowledge was Supernatural and 
 infufed, that they were fill'd with the Holy Gboft,nnA 
 confirm'd in Grace j whereas nothing of this can 
 he attributed to their Succeffors in After-ages, that 
 is, to the Church in any Age after them : for She 
 never pretended to any new Revelations, nor (as the 
 Author of Charity and Truth, has very juftly obfer- 
 ved, p. 178-) tvtr ca me to the knowledge of the primitive 
 "Revelation of Chritfiaa DocJrine by any Revelation made 
 immediately to htr, but only ly natural and humane Means , 
 which the Providence of God forefaw, -would have tbii 
 Ejfeft, according to bis Promife, tlat She (hottld alwayt 
 te what She is, the Catho'icl^and orthodox Church. That 
 is, an unerring Guide \n Faith. I heartily recommend 
 the Book I have here quoted to Mr. Tr<i/>/>, for it 
 will teach him fome folid Divinity, which hefeems 
 to he wholly ignorant of. 
 
 But let this be as it will, do thcperfonat^dvaNtages, 
 which the -dffiles had above their SucceJJors derogate 
 anything from the Truth of the Author's AfTerti- 
 on, viz. That we have now more external fividence for the 
 Truth of the Chrijlian DocJrine than they bad, "who lived 
 in the days of the jjpoftles, and fa-w their Miracles ? 
 Nay, has he not granted this to be undoubtedly irut 
 in one Senfe ? which I am fure can be no other than 
 the Senfe, in which the Author has explain'd him- 
 felf. And docs it not manifefHy follow from hence, 
 that ive have MOW mare forcible Motives to convince us of 
 the ReafoMablene/s of relying ufon the Church* '< Author ?/y, 
 than thefrft Cbriftian Converts bad, which is but fay- 
 ing the fame thing in other Words ? 
 
 Hence again ir ismanifeft, that the Author do's 
 not compare the Church's Authority in one y/W with 
 that in another much lefs give the Preference to 
 that in latter Ages before that^n thtApofaliek ^V ; 
 becaufe her Authority is the fame in all Ages. The
 
 ( 86 ) 
 
 les receiv'd theirs immediately from Chrift. 
 As my Father fent rat, fo 7 fend you $ and that very 
 Authority, which they had received from Chrift, they 
 communicated to their Succejfirs, and has been by 
 them transmitted down throughout ail Ages to this 
 very Time ; fo that the prefent Chunk has no Au- 
 thority, but what fhe derives from the Jpotfles, as 
 the Author teaches upon all Occaiions. And how 
 then can Mr. Trapp have the Face to charge him 
 with Teaching, That the Church of Rome is of greater 
 Authority than the j4f>oftles ? which is the pretended 
 Blafphemy, he accufes him of. But who can help it, 
 if Mr. Traf>[> be fo ftupid, that he cannot diftinguifh. 
 between the external Evidences of the Church's Autho- 
 rity, and the Authority it /elf I The external Evidences 
 of it may be greater in one Age than another, as 
 is manifeft to common Senfe ; but the Authority it 
 fe/f always has been, and will always be the fame 
 to the End of the World. It neither encreafes nor 
 decreafes with Age : and tho' infufedGtfts t Holineft 
 of Life, and ii-orl^in^of Miracles may give a greater 
 Luftre to it at one Time than another 9 it is in it 
 felf the fame, and the fame RefoeB, Ohdtence, and 
 Su ! omiffion is due to it, when lodged in Perfons defti- 
 tute of thofe Qualifications : As the Chair ofMoJes 
 loft nothing of it's Authority, tho' wicked Scribes and 
 Phanjtef fat in it. 'Tis therefore falfe what Mr. Trrfp 
 aflerts, that the Church of Ckrift was of far greater Au- 
 thority in the /4f>aftolict{ .dge, than any Churchjittce could 
 ever prettnd to : unlefs he means Heretical or Schifma- 
 tical Churches, which are wholly out of the Que- 
 ftion ; but as the Catho/ick. Church is the fame Catho- 
 licl^ Chur/h in all Ages, that is, the Church efta- 
 blili'dupon Earth by Chrift, her divine Founder, 
 fo 'tis manifeft, that fhe has always the Authority 
 which Chrift at firft beftow'd upon her 5 unlefs it 
 can be fhew'd that her Commifionor Charter has been 
 revoked in After ages. And had not Mr. Trapp 
 then Reafon to boaft of the Pains he has taken in 
 radical ingthz stpofl.'tf, as if he hadpcrform'd fome 
 
 glorious
 
 ( .87 ) 
 
 glorious Feat, when every Thing the poor Man has 
 faid upon that Head, is either falfe, or Nonfenfe, 
 or againft himfelf ? 
 
 It any one be difpofcd to accufe me of being 
 fomewhat too rough with Mr. Trapp,. 1 anfwer _/ir# , 
 that Blajphemy is too heavy a Charge to he wiped 
 off with fo t Language. 1 anfwer z<t!y, that Mr. 
 Trafp himfelf having fet the Patrern, cannot take it 
 ill, if I fometimes copy after him, but efpecially 
 if the Copy comes /hort in all Refpecls of the 
 Original. 
 
 But I muft defire Mr. Trapp to refleft, that s 
 Authors, we are upon equal Terms, and upon this 
 Foot, he has no Reafon to expecl to be treated 
 with more Ceremony than he has ufed towards his 
 Adverfary, who has not, however as yet, lafli'd 
 out into any fuch undecent Declamations as this j 
 But Itt tkojf doubt/y blafb, who urge ji'.cb sirgum<ht! t that 
 it is almojt an slbfurdity to anfver them. 
 
 Or this, p.^3- Jll this Apparatus is nothing but empty 
 Swaggering^ and the Perfection of Impudence, which deferves 
 any Sort of Treatmint almoft that can be named rather than 
 an -Anjuer. 
 
 Or this, p. <5"4. So tnttch Blunder, Inconfcqitence, Fal- 
 lacy, and Fa/flood vas I believe fcarce ever crottded into fo 
 fell' Words. 
 
 Or this, p. 8<5". Tils Foppery isfojilly on the one Had t 
 and fo SAUCY on the other, that it Jeferves much vsorfc 
 Words than I can give it. 
 
 Or finally (to pafs over numberlefs Inftanccs of 
 the fame pafTionate Sallies) as this, p. 45 3. Why i 
 'tis palpable, ridiculous, strutting, over-bearing, impudent 
 jtfonjenje, contrived to delude ignorant Souls, and impofe 
 the zrojjeft Corruptions upon them. 
 
 Was Mr. Trpp in his right Senfes, when he wrote 
 this ? I hope not. But there is one Thing fingular 
 in this exorbitant Sally of Paflion, or rather Fury, 
 viz. that the Occafion given to it by the Author is 
 nothing more than the following inoffenfivc condi- 
 tional PropoJjtioM) to wit, If they anfvier in the Affirma- 
 tive,
 
 ( S8 ) 
 
 thtn the Church of Rome, with all the Churches in Commu- 
 nion with that See, u-tts not only A trut Ckurch, but the 
 Cole a,nd only true Church ofChrtft upon Earth j and \>y con- 
 fequence the Church of England -was ly it's prereva'cJ Re- 
 formation cut ojffrom the fole and only true Ch:irch ofChri(l 
 upon Earth. 
 
 Now a meer conditional Propojition as this is, never 
 hurts any Ad verfary, unlefs the Condition be allow 'd 
 ofby him. As if I /hould fay, // Juch or Jt<ch a Man 
 bt an errant Coxcoml, he not a Man of found ^ud^ment. 
 This would not prove him to be a Man of no found, 
 Judgment, unlefs he were firft allow'd to be an er- 
 rant Coxcomb. Or fuppofing, for Inftance, I /hould 
 fay, If Mr. Trapp i; a meer Smatterer in Divinity, he 
 is not Jit to write Controversy : Tho' the Proportion 
 would be unqueftionably and unanswerably true, yet 
 being meerly conditional, it would no more afifeft Mr. 
 Trapp than the Great Mogul, unlefs he granted him- 
 felf a meer Smatterer in Divinity, as I dare fwear he 
 will never do. He had therefore no Manner of 
 Provocation to fly out into fuch an undecent Pafiion, 
 much lefs to take Leave of his Adverfary in this 
 unmannerly Language : Never before did I lalour 
 through fuch a tirefome Maie of Fallacies, Falfooods, Swag- 
 Brings, Repetition!, and Impertinences. I really believe 
 he was not a little puzzled to get well out of it 5 
 efpecially that troublefom Dilemma in the End of the 
 Author's Book : one flngle Claufe whereof ruffled 
 his Spirits fo, and threw him into fuch a violent Fit, 
 that 1 heartily wifh it may not have prejudiced his 
 Health. I cannot therefore forbear obferving here, 
 that Mr. Trapp (and I own it is but natural) always 
 cries out loudeft, when he is the hardert pinch'd 
 by his Adverfary : and the Reader may take it for 
 a certain Rule, that he never falls into a more vio- 
 lent Tranfport of Paffion, or is in a more fcurrilous 
 and boifterous Mood, than when he has nothing to 
 fay to the Purpofe. 
 
 But afldng the Reader's Pardon for this Digrcfli- 
 on, I anfwer $dly tothofe who are perhaps difpofed 
 
 to
 
 to blame me for fometimes ufing Mr. Trapp with 
 too much Freedom, that I have not only his Exam"' 
 pie for fo doing, and Provocation beyond all Mea* 
 fure> but over and above, what I fhall never forget, 
 his admirable Juftification of the rouzbeff Language 
 that can be given to an Adverfary. For, fays he, 
 the roughejr Words -were not made a. Part of Lantt,ie for 
 nothing : and / appeal with him to the World, whether 
 thofe I have ufed (tho' they come far fhort either 1 
 of the fcurrilous Language, whereof I have quoted 
 a few Specimens, or of what he deferves) be not 
 properly applied. So that having fo powerful an Ad- 
 vocate even in an Aducrfary, as Mr. Trapp is, to 
 plead for me, I cannot but hope to be abfolved ei* 
 ther by a Prottftant or 
 
 SECT. XIV. 
 
 The Author's Principle defended againft Mr, 
 's falfe Reafonings. 
 
 THE Author lays down thi^ Principle, p. tit 
 to wit, that it t* an tndifpenfable Duty, and by 
 Confequence moft highly reafonable, to believe a Thing, tho' 
 never J~e SEEMINGLY contrary to Reafon, irben vie 
 havt a moral Certainty, tbat God k^reveaTd i'r. Which 
 he proves thus. Becatife a moral Certainty of any FaB 
 excludes att reasonable Doubt of it ; and if I h*ve no Ren- 
 Con to doubt but that God has revealed fuch or fuck a thing, 
 I muft be an dtheift or Madman not to believe it. For my 
 refujjng to believe it in that Cafe^ if nothing lef( than re- 
 jecting or fetting at nought the TeftimonvofGodkintfelfj 
 thereof I am fuftofej to have a moral Certainty. 
 
 N Ai*.
 
 ( 90 ) 
 
 Mr. Traf-p, who feems to have declared War & 
 gainit common Senfe, and refolved to contradict the 
 Author, tho' he fhould fay that White is White, and 
 ~Bl<tcl{ is Rtack., pretends to confute this Principle two 
 Ways ifoft, by denying the Truth of it ; and 2.^/y, 
 that tho' it were true, his Popife stdverfaries can have 
 no JJ vantage from it. 
 
 I ii'jift, fays he, p. 2 a. that it is fo far from Icing 
 felf-evident, that it is Uttsrly falfe. And to prepare, 
 as it were, his Reader for Demonftrations ; he begins 
 with this pathetick Exclamation, NEVER SO 
 SEEMINGLY CONTRARY TO REASON ! 
 Yes, good Mr. Traft, never Jo ftem'in^Iy contrary to 
 Jieafon. If indeed the Author had faid, tho' never 
 fo REALLY contrary to Reafon, Mr. Trapp would 
 have been in the Right to //?#, that his Principle 
 5s utterly falfe, and exprefs the greateft Surprize at 
 it. But I hope that feemingly and really are not fynoni- 
 inous Terms. Becaufe that is properly faid to be 
 feeminfy contrary to Reafon, which tho' really, nay 
 infallibly true, is not only incomprehenfible to all 
 human Reafon, but would appear abfolutely falfe 
 even to the greateft Wit and beft Underftanding 
 upon Earth, if not enlightened by Faith. But in Re- 
 ference to the fublime Myfteries of Chriftian Reli- 
 gion, concerning which alone the Author difcourfes, 
 Faith comes to the humble Chriftian's Aid, and ei- 
 ther prevents or corrects the Errors, which his weak 
 JReafcn left to himfelf, would unavoidably betray 
 him into. 
 
 I fhall only exemplify in this Text of St. John : 
 There are three that give Teftimony in Heaven, the Father, 
 rttWorJ. a>,J the Holy Ghojt, and THESE THREE 
 
 ARE ONE. J Epift. C. 5. v. 7. This Propofiti- 
 
 qn, tho' in kfelf a Jiviue, eternal, and infallible Truth, 
 is without ail Difpute as Jeemingly a Contraction, as 
 poffibly can be, to human Reajon. But is it there- 
 fore a real one ? God forbid it /hould. Yet it would 
 be a real one according to Mr. Trapp's Way cf argu- 
 ing, who writes thus : Surely if a Thing be as SEEM- 
 INGLY
 
 C 91 ) 
 
 INGLY contrary to Reafon a! is poffile, it is RE AL- 
 LY contrary to it, at leaft f to hi;n to ivkom it fo feints, 
 Under Mr. Trap's Favour, the very Reverfe of 
 what he fays is moft unqueftionably true : becaufe 
 it I judge a Thing to be only Jtemingly fo or fo, 'tis 
 very certain I do not at the fame Time judge it to 
 be really fo. And fo it is in fpeaking. For what 
 Man in his Senfes ever faid a Thing is feemingly fo, 
 without intending to imply, that it really isnotfo! 
 As if I /hould fay, that the Children of this World 
 are feentingywife, would notevery Body understand 
 my Meaning to be, that they are really fools? The 
 Author'* Principle will therefore ftand it's Ground 
 in fpite either of Mr. Trapfs mighty Surprise, or his 
 fiout infilling that it is utterly falff. 
 
 He go's on thus : Jf therefore we have only a moral 
 Certainty on the one Hand t that a Thirty is reveal' el by God t 
 
 and INFALLIBLE DEMONSTRATION or 
 
 felf-evident Cirtainty on tke otber,that it is not and cannot 
 
 he fo (AS IT CANNOT, IF IT BE CON- 
 TRARY TO REASON) tfc* /amr ought to prepon- 
 derate y nay it u-ill, and ntttft, anet it cannot he other-wife. 
 The poor Man has here the Weaknefs to fuppofe, 
 that he has effectually proved,that a Thing feemingly 
 contrary to Reafon is really contrary to it, as is plain 
 from the Parentbejis, which I have mark'd in Capi- 
 tal Letters. And 'tis upon this fandy Foundation he 
 builds his Argument. To which I anfwer, that, 
 fuppofing this Abfurdity, viz. that a SEEMING 
 ContracliUion to Rtafon is the fame a! a REAL one, 
 nothing is more certain, than that God cannot re- 
 veal a Thing, which is feemingly contrary to Reafon, 
 becaufe he cannot reveal a Thing which is reaHy con- 
 trary to it. But then 'tis likewifo unqueftionable, 
 that we cannot in this Supposition have the moral 
 Certainty (which the Author fpeaks of as the Bafis 
 of his Principle) that God has reveal'*! it. For how 
 can there be a moral Certainty of the Revelation of a 
 Thing on the one Hand, and an infaHitslt Demonftra- 
 tion ofit's Falfiood on the other ! This is furely fuch 
 N a aCfci-
 
 ( 9' ) 
 
 ft Chimera, as never was form'd but in the Brain of 
 a Man, that is ripe for Bedim : becaufe a moral Cer. 
 tainty, that God has revealed a Thing, is infeparable 
 from the fame Certainty, that the Thing reveal'dis a 
 Divine Truth, and by Confcquence not contrary to 
 Reafon ; and 'tis here the Author's Principle takes 
 Place, to wit, that it is an indifpenfable Duty, and by 
 Conference mofl highly reafonable to Believe it : becaufe 
 it is impoffible that God fhould command us either 
 to Jo or believe any Thing again/I Reafon. 
 
 To the Author's faying, that a moral Certainty of 
 any Faff excludes all reafonable Doubt of it, Mr. Trapp an- 
 
 fwers with the Gravity of an Oracle, NOT SO 
 
 SAY I. If in the Nature of the Thing there be more than 
 a moral Certainty a^ain/i it. Which is the fame Chimera 
 repeated over again : for 'tis the very fame Contra- 
 diction as if he fhould fay. If there be and be not a mo- 
 ral Certainty of it : becaufe there can be no moral Cer- 
 tainty of a Thing, which has evident Demonftration a* 
 gainft it. 
 
 But he begins now to fee his Blunder. Or if you 
 phafe, fays he, Things tfanding tl:ns [that is, fuppofing 
 that there be evident Demonftration againftthe Revela- 
 tion of any Thing} ' have not a moral Certainty of it. 
 Very right. For that is juft what I have faid : but 
 he cannot write Senfe two Lines together : for after 
 having repeated in the very next Line thefc Words 
 
 pf the Author, nd if 1 have no Reafon to doubt but 
 
 reveal d fuck or fu 
 or Madman not to believe it, he anfwers thus : 
 
 that God has reveal d fuck or fuch a Thin, 7 wvfl be an 
 
 "But in the Cafe f u^ofed ] have more than a Doubt of it. I 
 am very fure God did not reveal it t becaufe he cannot re- 
 veal a Contradifiion. 
 
 Now the Cafe fttppojed by the Author (whom Mr. 
 T'app pretends to anfwer) is, that a Perfon has a mo- 
 ral Certainly, that God has reveal'd fuch or futh a 
 Thing: in which Cafe, fays the Author, he muft be an 
 */?tbe>ft or Madman not to believe it. And tis precifely 
 this Confcquence which Mr. Trapp is obliged to con. 
 fute, by proving, that tho' a Man has a moral Certain*
 
 ( 93 ) 
 
 fy that God has reveal' a fuch or fuch a Thing, hew 
 neither Jtbeijl nor Madman in refufing to believe it. 
 Nothing but this can prove the Author's Principle to 
 'bcfalfe. For the Queftion here is not, whether I 
 have a moral Certainty, that God has reveal'^ fuch or 
 fuch a Thing, but whether lam not hunj to believe 
 it, if I have fuch a Certainty of it's being reveal'*!. 
 But if Mr. Trapp will entirely alter the State of the 
 Queftion, and inftead of the Author's Suppofition, 
 fubftitute one of his own, that is contraditiory to it, 
 what Feats may he not then perform ? Becaufe 
 fontraditiory Co'nclufions cannot but follow from contra- 
 Jiffory SuftofitJons. But is this anfwering an Adver 
 fary fairly and upon the Square ? 
 
 All this notwithstanding Mr. Trapp walks off tri- 
 umphantly thus, p. 24. Having jhe-wn this weighty 
 Principle to le falfe [I pity the poor Man] I Jlall now 
 ft>ew t rf> 7 have propofea 1 , that our Popifb sfa'verfaries can 
 have no ^Jvanta^e from if, fnpf'ojing it were true. 
 ftoutly faid. But let us hear his Proof. 
 
 SECT. XV. 
 
 The Author's Principle [fuppofed to be true] 
 
 is of great Advantage to Mr. Trapp's 
 
 Popifh Adverfaries. 
 
 MR. Traty begins his pretended Proof, that hi* 
 i'opifb Adverfaries can have no Advantage 
 from the Author's Principle, tho* [ubpofeti to he true, 
 he begins it, I fay, with a broken Scrap of the 
 Author's Application of it, and fupplies the reft 
 with an & c*tera y according to his laudable Cuftom. 
 
 And
 
 ( 94 ) 
 
 Avd. who dares fay, that this is not dealing above 
 Board, and fctting an Adverfary's Argument in 
 the faireft and cleareft Light? I /hall however make 
 bold to trouble the Reader with the whole Piece, as 
 it {lands in the Author's Book. 
 
 The young Gentleman propofes this Queftion : 
 Btff kaw do you prove, that all controverjial Points between 
 Proteflants and tn may be decided by this one general Prin- 
 ciple} To which the Preceptor anfwers : " I prove 
 * it thus. Whatever Faft has the Teftimony 
 " of the greateft Authority upon Earth to vouch for the 
 u Truth of it, has on it's Side an Evidence amoun- 
 " ting tofuch a Degree of Certainty as is wholly in- 
 w confident with a reafonable Fear or Sufpicion of 
 Falfhood. And this is what we call a moral Cer- 
 " tainty : which tho' it relies wholly upon human 4tt- 
 * thority, that is, the Ttftimony of Men confider'd bare- 
 *' ly as fuch, and is therefore far inferiour to the /- 
 ** fallible Certainty of Divine Faith, yet it is a Certain- 
 u ty of fuch a Nature, that a Man of found Judg- 
 ** ment cannot but yield to it j and none but Perfons 
 ** extremely prejudiced can refift the Force of it. 
 ** For if it were rational to refufe our A (Tent to a 
 ** Facl thus attefted, it would likewife be rational 
 * to deny many of the beft grounded hiftorical 
 " Fa6]s, fince we neither have nor can have any 
 *' more than a moral On ainty to depend upon for the 
 ** Truth of them. p. 12. 
 
 All this Mr.Trapp grants. For having cited the 
 two firft Lines of it, he writes thus : All contained in 
 tbis Paragraph amounts to no more, than that if we have 
 Jttffifiant Evidence atteftin^ any Matter of Faff, ue ought to 
 InHtve ti j whith is deny' A ly no Body, that I Ignore of. p. 
 14. I am heartily glad of it. For I don't Jove 
 fquabbling, mcerly for fquabbling-fake. All then 
 that the Author has to do after this in Order to 
 Ihew the LJje and Application of his Principle, which 
 is now fttppofex 1 to be trnf t is to prove, that the Reve- 
 'atio-f} of the aotlrin.il Points^ wherein we differ from 
 is a Faff, which has the Evidence fpoken 
 
 of
 
 ( 95 ) 
 
 fcf in the preceding Paragraph : it being now gran- 
 ted that all the Contents of it are true. 
 
 But before I recite the Author's Argument upon 
 this Head, I /hall endeavour to remove a Scruple 
 Mr. Trapp fcems to have concerning the Author'* 
 calling the Revtfatrvn of daftrinai Poixtt a Facl : For he 
 writes thus, p. 24, 25. Not to iffi at prefent that tbt 
 Revdation, even "when it istrtie^ is not properly the Matter 
 of a Fafl, tut the "Miracles t which are the Ohjefff erf Sffe t 
 are tht Faflf, to which the Wttneffes give thetr Teftimony t 
 li-hifh FaBs are Proofs of the Revelation : 1 fay not to injtft 
 upon this- He has done very difcreetly in not iniift- 
 ing upon it. For furcly Mr. Trapp is not in earneft 
 when he tells us, that the Revelation of doftrinal Pointt 
 is not properly a Matter of Faff . What ! are there no 
 F<i7; properly fo call'd related in the GC^V/J, but the 
 Miracles which Chrift wrought ? Were not his Words 
 the Objeclof Senfe as well as his ^Hions ? Is it not 
 Matter of Fafl t that he preach'd his two celebrated 
 Sermons, the one on the Mount, and the other at his 
 laft Supper? That is to fay, is it not Matter of Faft t 
 that in thofe Sermons he revealed to his^/w/?/ the 
 heavenly Doctrines which they contain ? 'Tw 
 therefore plain, that the Revelation of AvBrinal Points 
 is proper/y a Matter of Faff : and the Miracla, which 
 our Saviour wrought, were not in Teflimony of the 
 Revelation (as Mr Trapp has moft grcfly miftaken) 
 but of the Truth of the Doftrines reveal'd : That is 
 to fay, Chrift did not work his Miracles to bear Wit- 
 rtf<, that he had/r^rfcVfuch orfuch Doclrines (for 
 that was plain to the Seufet of all his Hearers) but 
 to give Teftimony, that the Doctrines he had 
 preach'd were true. 
 
 Since therefore Chrift reveal'd his heavenly Do- 
 ctrine to his Apoftles by fpeaking to them,as Ke did 
 afterwards to St. Paul by immediate Jnfpiraticn it 
 follows, that as his having^o<^ fuch or fuch things 
 is properly a Matter of Faff, fo his having reveal' J them 
 is likewife properly a Matter of Faff. But has not 
 Mr. Trapp here forgot the vcryjirff Dftintfion of his 
 
 famous
 
 ( 96 ) 
 
 famous Clue, viz. between a Revelation and the Tbitig 
 reveal' J? If he had been as mindful of it as I am, 
 he could not have made the Blunder I have here 
 animadverted upon ; which is ftill the more remar- 
 kable, becaufe it is the very firft Time that Occa- 
 fion has offer'd itfelf of making the proper Appli- 
 cation of that Diftinftion ; but it is Mr. Trapfs 
 Misfortune to fee the Edge of it turn'd dire&ly a- 
 gainft himfelf. 
 
 Having thus /hewn, that Mr. Trapp has acled very 
 prudently in not infixing upon a Point, wherein ho 
 is moft certainly on the wrong Side of the Queftionj 
 I fhall now repeat the Author's Argument to prove, 
 that the Revelation of the docJrinal Points, wherein 
 we differ from Proteftants, is a FaR, which has the 
 Evidence fpoken of in the aforefaid Paragraph, and 
 which Mr. Trapp has granted to be all true. 
 
 The Author premifes firft, that Proteftants them- 
 felves are obliged to depend upon the Evidence fpo- 
 ken of in that Paragraph, to wit, the Teftimony and 
 stuthority of the Catbolic^Cl-urcb in feveral Articles of 
 Faith allow'd of as fuch by themfelves 5 and inftan- 
 ces in two, viz. i. The Divine lustration of all the 
 Canonical Bool{i both of the Old and New Ttftamtnt j 
 and idly, The Validity of Baptifm adminifter'd by 
 Heretickj. After which he argues thus. 
 
 " P. What folid Motives can Proteftants have for 
 41 their Belief of the 'Revelation of the two above 
 44 mention'd Articles of Faith befides the Authority 
 4< and Teftimony of the Catbolick. Church ? I may bold- 
 " ly defy them to produce any other. If there- 
 ' fore we can produce the Tefttwony and Authority 
 ' of the fame CatbeJifl^Cbttrfk againft them for the 
 " Articles difputed betwixt us and them, our Be- 
 41 lief of them is grounded upon the fame moral 
 " Evidence or Certainty, as their Belief is of the two 
 ' above mention'd Articles ; and by Confequcnce 
 
 we aft as rationally in believing them to be re- 
 Article!, as they do in believing the InfyirA- 
 
 tie*
 
 r 97 ; 
 
 ** tian of the Canonical Books of Scripture, and the 
 *' Validity of Ba^ttfm adminifter'd by Heretic^. 
 
 " Now this Church founded by Chrift himfelf tb 
 " be our Guide to Heaven 5 this Church fo venera- 
 " ble. for her Antiquity and the lineal Defcent of her 
 " Blfeops and Pa&on in the fame Communion down fron 1 * 
 " the ^oft>'ts t fo eminent for her Learning, fo re- 
 " fpeclable for the many crown'd Heads and Natr- 
 *' ons fubdued by her, not by Violence or Force of 
 *' Arms, but by the Luftre of her Miracles and Ho- 
 " linefs of her Do&rine : finally, fo illuftrious for 
 *' the Millions of Holy Martyrs, and other eminent 
 " Saints all nurfed in her Bofom : this Church, I 
 *' fay, attefts and has always attefted the following 
 " hillorical Fafts, to wit, that the twelve Apoftles 
 " (the firfl Planters of her Faith) were all infrtreJ, 
 " Men j that whatever they taught relating to the 
 " Chriftian Doclrine either by Word of Mouth, or 
 " by Writing, were Truths reveal'd by God, and 
 " diclated by the Holy Gkofl j that they committed 
 '* thefe heavenly Truths either by Writing or by 
 V Word of Month as a facred Truft to their SuccefTora 
 * c the Bi/liopsand Paftors ordain'd by them ; that 
 " thefe were likewife commiflion'd to deliver 
 ct them to thofe, that were to fucceed them in the 
 " facred Miniftry ; and that by thefe and their 
 * Succeflbrs after them, they have been thus han- 
 " ded down to us for reveal'dTruths from Bifhop tor 
 *' Bifhop, from Paftor to Paftor, from Father to 
 " Son, and from Generation to Generation through- 
 *' out all Ages to this very time, as the Jpojllei Creed 
 *' has been. 
 
 " Thefe, I fay, are Fafts, which have the Te* 
 *' fiimony of the Church of Chrift in all Ages, that is, 
 of the moft credible and illuftrtottt Body or Society 
 *' of Men upon Earth to vouch for the Truth of 
 " them. 
 
 44 G. I own^ Sir, they are an unanfwerable Proof 
 '* of the Truth of Cbrtjiianhy in gtneritf. But what 
 ** is this to the Poim in Queftiop ? 
 
 O P. Very
 
 <* P. Very much, Sir. For they fully fliew the 
 '* Weight of the Tf/bmony and Jutbority of that illu- 
 ** flrious Body or Society of Men, which we call 
 f * the Catkolicl^ Church of all Ages. In a Word, they 
 " /hew her to be a Society fo very facred, that her 
 *' Teftimony in any Age is a fufficient Evidence to 
 '* make us reafonally believe thofe Things reveal' J 9 
 '* which /he propofes as reveal' a 1 Truths. 
 
 ' Whence I infer, that we have the fame moral 
 " Certainty of the Revelation of Chrift's real Prefence, 
 *' for Example, in the B. Sacrament, of the Doctrine 
 * c ofTranfuhJiantiation, Purgatory,, Invocation of Saints, 
 * Honouring of Rdiquts, &c. as both we and Prote- 
 " JJants have of the Divine In/miration of Scriptures : 
 *' becaufe we have the fame Teflimony or Authority 
 " for the Truth of both : nor can we reafonably re- 
 " jeft the one without rejecting the other j and then 
 '* we may bid adieu to all reveal'J Relfciott, 
 
 *' Suppofe I fhould aft a Proteftant, how he comes 
 *' to be aflured that all the Canonical Booty of Scrip- 
 *' ture were written by Divine Infiiration, and con- 
 " tain the pure Word of God? For the Infliration o 
 " them is neither evident to any Man's Senfes, nor 
 " can it be drawn as a neceflary Confequence from 
 " any Principle of pure Reafon : what other Mo- 
 " tive or rational Inducement could he alledge for his 
 " Belief of this capital Point, than the Teftimony or 
 " Authority of the Church of Chri# y afTerting it to be 
 *' an unqueftionable Truth ? But if this fuffices 
 ** to convince his Judgment of the lustration ofScrip- 
 " tares, and to oblige him to venture his Soul's Sal- 
 *' vation upon his Belief of it, why will not the 
 " fame Tejiimony and Authority oblige him likewife 
 " to believe the Revelation of the other Articles 
 11 juft now mention 'd by me ? For either the 
 ct Clunk appointed by Chrift to be our Guide may 
 " he fecurely relied on or not. if not, a Proteftant's 
 *' Belief of the fnfytration of Scriptures is rafh and in- 
 4 * confiderate. But if it may be fecurely relied 
 '* upon, he ails incoherently in not believing the 
 
 other
 
 ( 99 ) 
 
 ft other Articles declared by her to be 
 " Truth!, p. 13, 14, 15. 
 
 This, I think, is abundantly enough to fliew, that 
 the Author's aboverfaid Principle being fuppofed, as 
 it now is, to be true, Mr. Trapp's Popifh Adverfaries 
 have the greateft Advantage poflible from it : be- 
 Caufe if a moral Certainty, that God has revealed fuch 
 or fuch a Thing, obliges us to believe it (for this is 
 the Principle) and if there be this Certainty of the 
 Revelation of the doftrinal Pointy wherein we differ 
 from Proteftants, it follows manifefty, that all are 
 bound to believe them. But the Author has now 
 proved, that the Teftimony and Authority of the C<i 
 tholicl^Chttrch declaring them to be reveal' d Doflrines, 
 is a Sufficient Ground to build this Certainty upon, 
 the Confequence therefore is, that Mr. Trapp's Po- 
 pifti Adverfaries have this Certainty on their Side ; 
 which is precifely the Advantage intended to be 
 drawn from it. Let us now fee what Mr. Trapp 
 has to fay againft it. 
 
 SECT. XVI. 
 Mr. Trapp's Cavils Anfwer'd. 
 
 . 
 
 HE begins thus, p. 2 5. Since our dutlwr caffs 
 the Revelation of the Romifh Doflrine, 01 oppe- 
 Jite to ours, a Fa3, and puts it (M to the Evidence of />) 
 upon the fame Foot with many of the beft grounded hiftoric al 
 Fafis, I as!^ him, are iye then to confjjer it at a plain htfto- 
 rical Fa8 attefled by the Church or not ? If we are not, 
 tobydosbg tall^in this Manner? Why do's he confvunj 
 Q 2^ Matters
 
 Matters ofFaR with Matters of DocJritte ? Tie Ttftimony 
 pf a Wttneji with tbe Authority of a Diftator ? 
 
 The Title of Dictator, as applied to the Church, is 
 new : But fince /he hat Authority in Controversies of 
 Faith, even according to the acrb Article oftheChurcb 
 of England's Profeffion of Faith, I have often heard 
 her call'd the Supreme Tribunal or Judge in Contro- 
 verfies of Religion j and whenever /he decides any 
 controverted Point, her Bifiops are to be confider'd 
 both as Witneffes and ^^of the Faith once deliver A 
 to the Saints. As Witneffes, they give Testimony like 
 their fuba/ternate Paftors j but as Judges, they pro- 
 nounce Sentence with Authority, and their Authority, 
 which is their effential Prerogative, gives Weight 
 to their Teftimony asWitneffes. li Mr. Tr aft can di- 
 flingui/h better than I have done between the Tr- 
 ftimony of a Witnefs, and the SJHtlority of a ^uctge^ as 
 they have a Relation to the Church ofChrift, I /hall 
 be glad to learn of him. 
 
 Now to Mr. Trap's firft Queftion, viz. iilethfr tut 
 an then to confider it M a plain hiftor'ual Tail or not ? I 
 anfwer categorically, that if by a plain bitforica! Fact 
 he means fuch a one as has no Manner of ConnecU 
 on with any Part of the Cbriftian DocJrine (of which 
 there are numberlefs Examples even in the New 
 Teftament) in this Senfe we are not to confider the 
 Revelation of the Romijb Doflrines as a plain hiftoricat 
 Faff. But we are to confider it as a plain hiftorical 
 faff in the fame Senfe as we confider the Rev;!ation, 
 pf other Articles of Faith as fuch. As for Example, 
 who will deny it to be a f/'iiw .hiftorieaf- F<i*7, that 
 Chrifl inftituted the P. Sacramtnt at his I aft Supper in 
 the Eve of his Pa/on ? But it is an biftorical Fa8 of 
 fuch a Nature, as has an immediate and infepara- 
 bJe Connection with a Jogmatual Point of Cbrijia^ 
 Rtligion : and fuch is the Revelation of the Rr^4 
 DoHrinsi, as Mr. Trtfp is pleafed ro call them. Or, 
 to inftance in another Example, fuch is the F<iff (as 
 Mr. Traffp himfelf calls it p. 10 ) witnefs'd by the 
 Church, that God b<v rrvra/V the Striftura <o lit tbe.
 
 Word of God : becaufe neither of thefe is a plain 
 Jlorical Faff in the former Senfe, but in the latter : 
 it being manifeft, that they are infeparably conne- 
 led with two important dogmatical Points. 
 
 This is likewHe a plain Anfwer to Mr. Trapp's 
 warm Queftion, Why then Jo's be [the Author] talk 
 in this Manner ? Why do's be tonfound "Matter* of Fa& 
 viitb Matters ofDoftnae ? For if it be rank Nonfenfe 
 to fay, that mentioning together two Things, which 
 are infeparably connefted (fuch as the Revelation of 
 a Thing, and the Thing reveal'd moft certainly are) if 
 I fay, it be rank Nonfenfe to call this confounding 
 Things together, then Mr. Trap's Queftion is entirely 
 void of Senfe 5 and (to fet the Matter in an eafy 
 Light) his Queftion is in Effeft as wife and perti- 
 nent, as if upon my faying, that Mr. Trapp is the 
 Mtnifter Q two united Panfoes, he fhould aflc me with 
 the fame Warmth, Why I confound the Minifter'witbhjf 
 two Parities ? Becaufe as it is impoflible to mention 
 the Minifler of tu-o Panfies without mentioning tvo 
 Parifies:, fo 'tis impoffible to mention the Revelation 
 of a Tiling without mentioning fome Thing reveafd. 
 The fecond Part of his Queftion relating to the Au- 
 thor's confounding the Teftimony of a Witnrfs with 
 the Authority of a D/fifafor, is but a Continuation of 
 the fame Blunder, and has already been anfwer'd. 
 
 But I fhall now put a Queftion to Mr. Traft t 
 which he will not fo cafily anfiver . to wit, How a 
 Thing, which is j^nVpage the iotb, can be denied 
 page the 24^ ? For page the lorfc, juft now quoted 
 by me, he calls the Revefation of the Scriptures heinf 
 the Word of God a Fa#, juft as the Author do's 3 yet 
 page the :4rfche tells us, that the Revelation of doftri- 
 *al Points it not properly the Matter f a Faff. Here 
 then we have Mr. Trapp againft Mr. Tra^, and I 
 leave him to reconcile the two Antagonifts. But 
 this only paflingly. 
 
 He go's on thus with his Queftions. How do's the 
 Church (even their own Churchy the Church o^Rome) at- 
 ttft the Revelation of the Pafis Supnmacy, the Infallibility 
 
 "
 
 ( 102 ) 
 
 if the Church, Tranfuiftantiation, Communion In tme KinJ t 
 ant twenty more ? The Author fpeaks of the Catho- 
 lick Chunk ; and if the Church of Rome be that Church, 
 fo much the worfe for Mr. Trapp $ for in that Cafe 
 his Damnation is unavoidable, unlefs he turns Pa- 
 fiff 5 becaufe Salvation is impofiible out of the Ca- 
 iboticl(. Church 5 as Dr. Pearfen B. ofChefttr teaches ex- 
 prefly in his ExpofitSon of the pfb Article of the 
 Creed. I anfwer therefore, that the Church attefts the 
 Revelation of the doftrinal Points mention'd, in the 
 Definitions of her general Councils, and in the very 
 fame Manner as /he attefts the Revelation of the Con- 
 fntyftantiality of the Son 5 the Divinity and Fraction of 
 the Holy Gboft$ the Divine Perfonality and DiftincJion 
 cfrwo Natures in Chrift,S?f. All which fhe proves 
 from the Word of God, that is, from Scripture, and A- 
 foftolical Tradition ; which are the Rule of her Faith. 
 
 But, fays Mr. Trapp, if fhe proves them from Scripttire t 
 J am anfvHr'a 1 M to the Trttth of them. But this it not 
 Witniffln. What ! do's a Perfbn ceafe to be a Wit- 
 </>, or deftroy the Credit of his Evidence by proving 
 the Facl to which he gives Ttftimony \ What Man oz 
 common Senfe ever argued thus ! 
 
 He go's on thus : If foe proceeds upon any other Foot, 
 lasb &c. My Anfwer is, that fhe proceeds upon 
 no other Foot, than the Rule of Faith juft now men- 
 tion'd by me. And fo with Mr. Trap's good leave 
 his other Questions, which are indeed fuperlatively 
 frivolous, may be fuperfeded without any Lofs to 
 the Publick. 
 
 He concludes the Paragraph with this witty Ban- 
 ter : In fl>ort, fays he, the Cbttrch o/"Rome fays, that 
 aU that the Church of Rome/<^f M to he taken for Gofrst. 
 B*f this if not Witnejfing, but Dilating. Sir, it is not 
 barely Witnejfing, becaufe whenever the CatkolicI^ 
 Church pronounces juridically upon any controverted 
 Point, fhe is both Judge and Witnefs in Reference ta 
 Matters belonging to the Faith onte delivered to the 
 Saints, As to his Burlefque upon the Church of 
 Rome's faying, &c. I anfwer, that it has been the Ca- 
 
 tholick
 
 tfiolick boclrine in all Ages, that the Faithful are 
 bound to fubmit to the Dedjions of that Holy, Catbo- 
 Jit^Churcb, which we profefs in the Creed. Nay St. 
 jfuguftin gives it no fofter Name than that of the 
 motf injolent Madnefs not to do it : and our BlefTcd 
 Saviour, her Divine Founder, has commanded thofe, 
 that fhall refufe to do it, to be rank'd amongft Uta.- 
 thtns and Publicans. Matth. 18. v. 17. I therefore 
 hope, that the Catholic^ Church, of which alone the 
 Author fpeaks, may command Obedience to her 
 own Decrees and Deciflons without deferving to be 
 lampoon'd for it by one, who cannot write common 
 Senfe. 
 
 'Tis howover fomewhat ftrange, that the Author 
 cannot mention the Catholick Church, or draw a 
 true and faithful Picture of her, as he has done in 
 the abovefaid long Paflage, but Mr. Trapp immedi- 
 ately points at the Church of Rome, and cries our, 
 This is the Church he means. For furely the Re- 
 femblance between them muft be very great,or eHe 
 the Pifture of the one would not fo eafily put him 
 in mind of the other. 
 
 In the next Paragraph, p. 27. Mr. Trapp is very 
 fmart upon the Author for faying, that his Princi- 
 ple contains a/tf Confutation of Atheifts and Deifls 5 be- 
 caule, fays he, it f*f>po/es the Being of a Gad, which an 
 jitbetft denies, and will therefore call Begging theQue- 
 fi'wn. This, to the beft of my Remembrance, is the 
 firft Time Mr. Trapp has argued juftly, .and I con- 
 gratulate with him for it : but I anfwer, that the 
 Author do's not here take the Word Atkeift in it's 
 moft rigid Acceptation for one that denies the Be- 
 ing of a God, of which Sort 1 believe there are but 
 few in rtrum waf;<rfl,and fcarce worth writing againft 5 
 but of that Sort of Perfons, who tho' they believe 
 the Being of a God, talk as profanely of all reveal' d 
 Religion as Infidels themfelves. Now as fuch pro- 
 phane Difcourfes are commonly and properly call'd 
 ^theiflical, fo the Authors of them may juftly be 
 charg'd with the Name of dtbeiftt. And fo this 
 
 weighty
 
 ( '04 ) 
 
 weighty Difficulty againft a Word dropt paffingly, 
 and of no Confequence as to the main Queftion, is 
 got over. 
 
 In the fame Page he tells us, that every one of our 
 Articles of Faith <& dijlinB from thtje of Proteftants de- 
 fends entirely upon (fur own Authority. I anfwer, that 
 we have received the Revelation ot them like that of 
 thofe in which we agree, from the Teftimony and 
 Authority of the Catholicl^Church j and /he received 
 it immediately from the jfpoftles. If Mr. Trapp be 
 not fatisfy'd with this, he will do well to /hew us a 
 better and furer Way of conveying the Revelation of 
 the Ckriflian Doftrine down to this Time : but I hope 
 he will no more call his Jfws, Tur(s t and Pagans to 
 the Aid of the Catho I ict^ Church, which ftands in no 
 need of thefe foreign Troops to fupport the 
 ly and Credit of her Teflimony. 
 
 SECT. XV1L 
 
 *\r. t.'\ ..;no3^.| 
 
 Mr. Vrapp proved guilty of SLANDER. 
 
 ,;'; : :: A 
 
 IN Artfwer to thefe Words of the Author : ft has 
 happen' J more than once, that the Catholick Churcli 
 bas been JileM for Jomt Time in Reference to Articles of 
 Faith, even dfftt'W0f<M fuch ly Proteftants. The Reafon 
 whereof if t ktcaufe the Church never decides any DoBrine t9 
 be an Article of Faith 'till after the moft diligent Enquiry 
 and mature Deliberation, and generally upon Occajion of 
 ])ifputes raiftd about it. In Anfwer, I fay, to thefe 
 Words Mr. Trapp writes thus, p. 28. If they be realty 
 Articles of Fatth no-w t they u-ere always fo j tho* perhaps 
 fo explicitly dttlared t norjoftrongfy guarded. Very 
 
 right s-
 
 ( '05 ) 
 
 fight : but is not this plainly the Author's Meaning ? 
 or what are the Church's Dedfwns but her juridical 
 Declarations after Examination, that fuch or fuch Do- 
 6trines (which this or that Heretick calls in Que- 
 fUon) are and have always been Articles ofFatth > But 
 were they therefore always explicitly JecLrtdto befo 
 by the Cat ho/icl^ Church ? The contrary is manifeft, 
 and own'd by Mr. Trap* himfelf. 'Tis therefore 
 plain, that there are certain Articles ef Fattb, in Re- 
 ference to which the Church has for fome Time been 
 Jilent as to any explicit Declaration of them, 'till new* 
 broach'd Herefies, unknown and unforefeen before, 
 obliged her to pronounce Sentence by the Definiti- 
 ons of her Councils, in Order to guard the Faithful 
 againft the fpreading Poifori. And what Reafon 
 then could Mr. Traff have to fnarl at the Author 
 upon this Head, but the irrefiftable Itching he has 
 to contradi6l his Adveffary, tho' without Rhime or 
 Reafon ? 
 
 But his following Words contain a moft impudent 
 Slander. For, having faid, that if they he realty Ar- 
 ticles of Faith OTP, they unreal-ways fo, (which is moft 
 certainly true) he continues thus : 1 ta(e Notice of, 
 ik* % l>eca*fe BY DECIDING A DOCTRINE TO 
 BE AN ARTICLE OF F A1TH,THE PAPISTS 
 
 MEAN MAKING IT SO 5 where* -we utterly deny, 
 that the Church hat Authority to ntal^e an Article of Faith. 
 The Propofition, 1 have mark'd in Capital Letters, 
 is what 1 call a moft impudent Slander. For in Rea- 
 lity ah Accufation, which makes the whole Body of 
 (.iitholick. Bi/bops and DocJors no better than fo many 
 "Madmen, is too enormous to be anfwcr'd in polite 
 Language. I therefore boldly challenge Mr. Trat>p 
 to produce any one Divine of the Church of R ome y who 
 has taught, that ly DECIDING <* Article of Faith 
 u meant the fame a* MAKING IT TO BE ONE. 
 Which if he cannot do, I leave the Publick to de- 
 termine, what Judgment is to be made of fuch a 
 Writer. 
 
 P Howevcf,
 
 However, for the Satisfaction of the Reader, I 
 fhall here tranfcribe a Paffage from the Author of 
 Clarity and Truth, containing the very Reverfe of 
 what Mr. Trapp charges his Popifl Advcrfaries with: 
 The learned Author of this Book, who has taught 
 Divinity for many Years, and is therefore above all 
 Sufpicion of not knowing the true and genuine Do- 
 c/trine of his own Church in any Branch of it, writes 
 thus, C. 3. Q.8. p. 178, 179, 180. 
 
 " But did the Catholick Church make nets Art'i- 
 " c lei of Faith, when /he defined againft the Dona- 
 " tifts, that Baptifm may be valialy adminijltr'd out 
 ' of the Catholic ^ Church, and when /lie fettled the 
 *' whole Canon of Scripture ? For the firft was not 
 *' an Article of Faith in St. Cyprian's Time, nor the 
 *' latter even in the fourth Century. ANSWER. She 
 " made indeed, as an Orthodox Guide, thofetwo Ar- 
 ' tides (of which fome of her Children had for- 
 * merly doubted) lyimnn to the Faithful : BUT 
 " SHE DID NOT MAKE THEM ARTICLES 
 ' OF FAITH; FOR THIS IS MORE THAN 
 " THE APOSTLES THEMSELVES COULD 
 < DO. Articles of Faitb are the Worl^ ofGoJatom. 
 He made them all by revealing them to the ^po- 
 lles, who were commiffion'd to make them known 
 to the Catholic!^ Church j as /he is commiffion'd, 
 when the primitive and Apoftolical Faith is call'd 
 in Queftion, to make it known to her Children. 
 For to ma^e Articles of Faith, and to make them 
 k*iou-n, are quite different Things. Goa made them 
 Articles of Faith 5 but the Catholick Church and the 
 sipoftles made them ^ou-w, as orthodox and authen- 
 tick Publifhers of the Divine Revelation. EngliJJj 
 Laws are not made but by the King and Parlia- 
 ment -j but thofe, who print them by Authority, 
 make them known to the Publick. 
 " It was therefore an Article of Faith in St. Cyfri- 
 ^IK'S Time, that Raptifm may be validfy adminifter'd 
 by Hereticks and Scifnuticks. But many Catho- 
 
 licks
 
 ( io 7 ) 
 
 licks (as St. Cyprian and his three Councils at Car* 
 
 &"&'} did not know it. For the Catholic^ Church, 
 
 the Orthodox Judge of Controverfies, had not <*- 
 
 mined and decided the Queftion, fince Jgrippinus 
 
 had ftarted it. And it was her Authority that 
 
 convinced S. -^wgK/?/, as it would have convinced 
 
 S. Cyprian, had he lived to fee it. Neither durf} 7, 
 
 fays he, be pojjtive [that Baptifm can be admi- 
 
 ' nifter'd validly out of the Catholick Church] if 
 
 c I were not fupported by the unanimous Authority of the 
 
 whole Church j to which he \_S. Cyprian] would aoubt- 
 
 lefs have furrendsr'd, if the Truth of thii )ueftion had 
 
 " keen then upon a diligent Enquiry declared and fe ttled by 
 
 ' a Central Council. For if he extols S. Peter for being 
 
 ' patiently and peaceably correcJed by one later dpoftle , hoia 
 
 ' much fooner would ht and his Provincial Council, when 
 
 " Truth appear'd, have yielded to the Authority of the whole 
 
 World ? Lib. de Bapt. C. 4. 
 
 ** It was reveal' d to the ^poftles (and was therefore 
 " an Article of Faith from the Beginning) what Books 
 41 were infrired. But, in Relation to fomc ofthefo 
 ' Books, it was not a l^nown Article of Faith in the 
 11 fourth Century. For the whole Chriflian Revelation 
 41 is not known to all the Faithful at all times j nor 
 " is every Article of it in particular always propo- 
 ' fed to them to be believed. 'Tis fufficient for 
 ' them to believe as much as they have anOppor- 
 " tunity to know : and as for the reft, to be aflured, 
 " that they have an infallible Rule } and an orthodox 
 " Guide. 
 
 ** What then do's the Catholic^ Church propofe to 
 *' her Children to be believed in particular ? i. 
 " AH Things which are clear in Scripture, zdly, 
 * all Things defined by any general or particular 
 * Councils, which are known to have deliver'd her 
 " Faith> or which fhe is known to have approved. 
 
 Thus far this Author, who, I am very fure, tea- 
 ches nothing but the current DoSrine of the Church 
 
 P. /
 
 C o8 ) 
 
 of Rome, and to which every Divine of that Commu- 
 nion would readily fubfcribe, if there wereOccafi- 
 <on for it. And how then has Mr. Trapp the Confi- 
 dence to affert, that by Dtcicling a Doftrine to he an 
 Article of Faitb,Papifts mean ~Ma]<jngittobefo? If there 
 be any Ground for it, why is it aflerted without 
 any Proof? Why are not the very Words of the 
 Authors that maintain it fairly quoted, to prevent 
 all Sufpicion of foul Dealing ? If Mr. Tratf fays 
 he was told fo by his Matters at the Univerfity, 
 this Excufe might ferve pafs in a young Scholar, 
 but not in one, that fets up for a DoBor in Ifrael, and 
 Writer of Controverfy ; whofe firft Bufinefs ought 
 to be to inform himfelf exactly of the Doctrine of 
 his Adverfaries : and this is only to be learnt from 
 their own Books, from theDecifions of their Coun- 
 cils, cr authentick Profeffions of Faith 5 but not to 
 be taken upon Truft from the Mifreprefentations of 
 their profefs'd Enemies. I therefore recommend 
 once more to him the Writings of the Author, I 
 have juft now quoted : For if he defigns to conti- 
 nue Writing againft Popery, as it is nick-named, 'tis 
 high Time for him to come thoroughly acquainted 
 with the m<?and real Popery, which he is to confute, 
 and not the ffuriow one, which Papifls utterly difown, 
 and are as ready as himfelf to confute. In a Word, 
 wherever Mr. Trapp has pick'd up his Slanders a- 
 gainft. the Ckurc b of Rome, whether at School orelfe- 
 where, his retailing.them in Print will only publifli 
 his Ignorance or Infincerity, but never recommend 
 liim for a learned or judicious Writer 
 
 S C T*
 
 SECT. XVIII. 
 
 Mr. Trapp's Doctrine concerning the Divine 
 
 Injpirationof Scriptures, and Baptifm ad- 
 
 minifter'd by Hereticks. 
 
 TH E Author has exemplified in two Art'tcfa of 
 Faith, which he fays are own'd as fuch by the 
 Church of England, and for the- Revelation of which, 
 ilie is obliged to depend upon the Teftimony and ^ 
 thority of the Catholicli Church. Thefe two Article* 
 arejirft, that all the Booths of the Old and New Teftamenr, 
 of printed in the Protejlant Bible, were "written by Divine 
 Ivfriration : and zdly, that Baptifm if validly admini- 
 Jlcr'd by Hereticly. To which Mr. Traff anfwers 
 thus, p. 29. If if abfolutely fttlje, that we allow thefe 
 Points to be Articles of Faith. The firft of them it indeed 
 a Truth fundamental to Chriftianity, but it if not itfelfan 
 Article of Faith. 
 
 Is Mr. Trapp in earneft ? And will the Church 
 of England adopt this Doctrine ? I rather believe 
 /lie will call him to an Account for it. Bccaufe if 
 the Divine In/jiiration of Scriptures be not an Article of 
 her Faith, it follows plainly and demonftratively, 
 that it is not an Article of her F^.i^that the Canonical 
 Booty of Scripture contain the Word of God : for to be 
 infyired by God, or reveal'd immediately by God y and to 
 be the Word of God is one and the felf-fame Thing. 
 So that whoever denies the Scriptures to be written 
 by Divine Infpiration, denies at the fame Tinje, that 
 they are the Word of God : and by Confequence 
 whoever denies it to be an Article of Faith, that they 
 were written by Divine Infpiration, denies it TO be an 
 Article of Faith, that they are the -written Word of 
 God. By another Confequence he denies ir to be an 
 Article of Faith, that the [acred Penmen were infpired 
 
 Writers. In a Word, he denies it to be an Article of
 
 Faith, that the four Evangelifts when they wrote their 
 Qoels, orS. Paul, or the other Writers of the Cano- 
 s, were tnfpired Men. For if the Divine 
 of Scriptures be not an Article of Faith t it 
 cannot be an Article of Faith, that they who wrote 
 them were infyired. What a Wound do's this give 
 to the Belief of a revea?d Religion ? How glad will 
 thofe modifh Gentlemen be, who make a Jeft of it, 
 to have this important Conceffion made them by a 
 Minifter of the Church of England, and in a Book 
 folemnly dedicated to the King? 
 
 As to Mr. Trapfs faying, that the Divine Infpira- 
 t'ien of Scriptures is a Truth fundamental to Chriflianity, 
 and previous to aU our Faith. I anfwer, that wherever 
 he has pick'dthis up, 'tis a meer evafive Jingle of 
 Words, intended to throw Daft before the Eyes of 
 jgnorant People, who will miftake it for profound 
 Learning: Becaufe if it be only a Truth previous to 
 Chriftianity, 'tis not itfelf a Branch of the Chrijiian 
 Paith, and by Confequence it is no Hirefy to deny 
 jt : For all Herefy is contrary to fome Article of the 
 Chrijiian Faith. Whence I infer again, that accor- 
 ding to Mr. Trap's Dotrine it is no Herefy to deny 
 that the four Evangelifts and the other ftcred Writers 
 were infyirea Men : Neither is it Herefy to deny that 
 Scriptures are the WorA o/ ( God ; and fo to prevent all 
 Scruples of tender Consciences, Proclamation ought 
 to be made to both Sexes of the united Parties of 
 Cbr id-Church andS. Lfonard's,th<it when they read the 
 Bible, or hear Mr. Trapf> quote a Text of 6r ript ure t 
 they may deny it to be the Word of God without in- 
 curring the Guilt of Herefy ; flnce their own Reve- 
 rend Minifter has now taught them in pofitive 
 Terms, that the Divine Jnfpiration of Scriptures is no 
 ./tn'icle of Faith, and no Man can be guilty of Herefy, 
 unlefs he denies fome Article of Faith. For my Part, 
 cannot have fo bad an Opinion of the Chmh of 
 /<W, as to think fhe will approve of this Do- 
 ^rinc. 
 
 Mr,
 
 ( "I ) 
 
 Mr. Trapp having told his Reader, that the D*- 
 !>/< Infpiration of Scriptures is no Article of Faith, pro- 
 pofes the following Queftions : For how it tbi* Point 
 reveal'd to us ? In Scriptures ? That's circular arguing 
 or proving a Thing by itfe/f. By any other Revelation ? W*e 
 pretend to none, and it would be irrational to expeff any. 
 The firft and principal Quettion, viz. How the Divine 
 Jnfpiratisn of Scriptures i* reveal'd to us"*, is already an- 
 fwer'd directly by the Author of Charity and Truth 
 in thefe Words : It WM reveal'd'to the Apoftles (and 
 VIM therefore an Article of Faith from the Beginning) u-hat 
 Boo^f were infpired. Rut in Relation to fame of thefe 
 Boojjr, it ISM not a f^noivn Article of Faith in the fourth 
 Century. For the whole Chrijlian Revelation if not l^no'wn 
 to all the Faithful at all Times. This Anfwer I (land 
 to : and fo Mr. Trapp might have kept to himfelf 
 his Other Queftinn, to wit, -whether it he reveal'd in 
 Scriptures 7 , becaufe the Author's profefs'd Intent is 
 to maintain, that tho' the Divine Infpiration of Scrip- 
 tures be an unqueflionable Article of the Chriftian 
 faith, yet this important Article cannot be proved 
 from Scripture : and as he had no Reafon to liifpet 
 that this Article would be difputed with him, he 
 made ufe of it asanlnftance to prove, that there 
 are fome Articles of Faith allow'd of asfuch by both 
 Churches, which were not known as fuch to all tht 
 Faithful at aU Times, and for the Revelation whereof 
 both Churches are obliged to depend upon the To 
 ftimony and Authority of the Catho/ic!{ Church. 
 
 I am fure this was S. Auguftix's Judgment in Re- 
 ference to the Article in Queftion, when he decla- 
 red that he U'Ottla not believe the Gofpels themfelves, unless 
 
 the AUTHORITY OF THE CHURCH compell'd 
 bint to it. cont. Epif. fund. C. 4. which is as plain 
 and formal a Declaration as can be exprefs'd in 
 Words of the entire Dependance he had on the Au- 
 thority of the Catho/icl^Churth in Reference to the Ar- 
 ticle under Debate. But what Interpretation do's 
 Mr. Trapp put upon thefe plain Words of S. Au- 
 *Tis really fliameful, nay a vifible Banter 
 
 on
 
 oh Mankind. S. Auguftin, fays he, means no more ly 
 tbofe Words, than that he would not believe the Gofpels to 
 le the Word of God, unlefs be had SUFFICIENT An- 
 tbority of Tejiimony to convince him tbat tbey irerefo, 
 p. 10. 'Tis very certain, that S. Au^uflin judg'd the 
 Authority, he fpeaks of, to be a fuffident one to de- 
 pend upon. But has he left it uncertain what Au- 
 thority he means or fpeaks of ? Has he left any 
 Room for Doubts or precarious GuefTes ? Has ha 
 not fpecified by Name the Authority of the Church, and 
 told us it is that very Authority, which compell'd 
 him to believe the Gofpels to he the Word of God, and 
 without which he would not have believed it ? And 
 will not then Mr. Trap's Interpretation appear mcft 
 highly impertinent and frivolous to all Men of 
 Senfe ? Will not all judicious Readers be moved 
 to Indignation at the Man's intolerable Aflurance 
 3n attempting to irnpofe fo groily on their Judg- 
 ments ? 
 
 How much the honefter and fincerer Part did 
 Tdartin Luther, the great Patriarch of the Reformation^ 
 acl, when he declared that be cared not a, Rufe, if a 
 tboufand Auguflins or a tkotifand Cyprians flood againft 
 bitn* cont. Reg. Ang. Tom. 2.. Fol. 344. 2. Nof 
 concern d bimfe If ivhat Ambrofe, Auguftin, tbe Coun- 
 cils, or Practice of Ages fay. For, fays'he, 7 l^now tbeir 
 Opinions fo veil, that I have declared againft tbem. Ibid. 
 Fol. 347. i. This Dealing above Board is certainly 
 much more commendable than rackingand torturing 
 the Words of the Fathers, and making them in fpite 
 of common Senfe fpeak Things palpably foreign' 
 to their mod obvious and natural Meaning. 
 
 After the Queftions p. 29. now anfwer'd, Mr. 
 Traff adds very gravely, the Author bimfelf, as tbe Ten. 
 dency of bit Argument necejjarily requires, puts it [the 
 Divine IJpiration of Scriptures^ upon tbe Authority oj tbe 
 Cl-unb ; and be very well knows, tbat we do not ackjiow- 
 ledze tbe Authority of the Church and the Authority ofGoJ 
 to fo equal, much left to he one and the fame Thing, If 
 
 Mr. Traft be not blinded with Prejudice, he muft 
 
 know
 
 i 113 J 
 
 ihow the fame of us. Tis however very true, that 
 the Author puts it upon the Authority of the Church j and 
 a no lefs Man than S. jZttgttflin has done the fam6 
 above eleven hundred Years before the Reforma- 
 tion. But did this great Dodlor of the Catholic^ 
 Church in fo doing acknowledge the Authority of the Church 
 and the Authority of God to be equal, or one and thefetf- 
 fame thing? Did he make rio Difference 1 .between 
 fhe Authority ofGoJ, who alone biases Articles of Faith 
 by reveling them, and the Authority of the Church 
 commiflion'd to declare and make them known td 
 ihe Faithful ? Cannbt Children acknowledge the 
 Authority of their Parents without derogating froni 
 the fupreme Authority of God ? And is not the C.atho*. 
 Jick Church ou'c Spiritual Mother, whom God has ap- 
 pointed to be our Guide in Things appertaining to 
 Salvation, arid whofe Voice he has commanded us 
 to hear urider pain of eternal Damnation ; as is ma- 
 riifeft from his own facred Words already fo often 
 repeated? Or do we affrOntGod, and put him 
 upon the Level with his Creatures, by refpefting 
 and obeying that Authority, which himfelf has efta- 
 jblifti'd, and commanded us to refpeft and obey? 
 What wretched Stuff then has Mr. Tr^.here 
 obtruded upoti the Publick ? To fay nothing of the 
 flbominablb Calumny his Words imply by infinua- 
 ting, that Papifts mal(e the Authority of the Church equal 
 ii}ith that of God, nay one and the Jeff -fame Thing. But 
 I fhall make^boJd to adrhonifh this unthinking 
 Scribbler, whofe Paflion has got entirely the Ma- 
 tter of his Reafon, that, tho' the Authority of the 
 Catho!ick_Chunh be infinitely, inferior to that of Goe} 
 who is thfc Source of all Authority upon Earthi yet he- 
 will certainly have his Portion in the other World 
 amongft Heathens and Publicans, if he refufes to hear 
 lur Voice ; and amongft Slanderers^ whom St. Paul ex- 
 cludes from the Kingdom of Gael, unlefs he retrails 
 the Calumnies, he has publifh'd againft lys 
 Adverfary,
 
 ( "4 ) 
 
 As to the other j4rtich t to wit, tie Validity of Bap* 
 t'ifnt adminifter'd ty Heretic^, which Mr. Trapp alfo 
 denies to be an Article of theCfcrrfc of England's Faith, 
 'tis plain at leaft, that it was an Article of rhe Or- 
 thoeioxor Catho/icl^Church': Faith in S. 4uguftin$ Time, 
 who was the Church's chief Champion in Defence 
 of it againft the Donatijls - y and in his Difputes with 
 thofe Heretick* declared likewife exprefly, that it 
 cannot be proved from plain Scripture, but that the 
 Churd'i Decrjion of it ought to be fubmitted to, and 
 depended upon. 
 
 That it was undoubtedly an Article of the Orthodox 
 or Catho/icl^Church's Faith in St. Aug*flin& Time, is 
 already proved from the Words of that Father quo- 
 ted by the Author of Charity and Truth. I /hall re- 
 peat a Part of them. Neither attr/1 1 (fays S. ^uguftin 
 Hi. de Bap. C. 4.) be pojitive, tflu-ere not Jupporttdby 
 the unanimous Authority of the ivho'e Church, to which be 
 [S. Cyprian} would doultlcfs have furrender'd, if the 
 Truth of the Qusftion had been then, upon a diligent . 
 y/ry, declared and fettled by a General Council. It feems 
 then that when S.j4uytfii wrote his Book de Bap- 
 tifmo, the Validity of Baptiftn adminifter'd out of the 
 Church, or by Hereticks,was an Article declared and 
 fettled, after diligent Enquiry, by the Authority of the 
 Uuiverfal Church. Now it appears very ftrange, that 
 what was a declared Article of the Church's Faith in St.- 
 ^^K/?;'S Time, /hould be denied by Mr. Trapp to 
 be an Article of the Church o/England'j Faith now. 
 BefiJes if it be reafonable to judge of a Church's 
 Faith by her Practice, as the Church of England's Pra- 
 clice, in Reference to this Article, is conformable to 
 that of* the Univerfal Church t fo it is reafonable to 
 |udge her Faith to be fo too : tho' Mr. TVd/?/>,whofe 
 Knowledge is not anfwcrable to his Aflurance, has 
 pofitively deny'd it. 
 
 But let us now fuppofe the Author had inflanced 
 in another Article, to wit, the Lavtfulnefs oflrfant- 
 , will Mr. Trapp pretend either to prove this 
 
 from
 
 r us ; 
 
 from any plain Text of Scripture, or deny it alfo to 
 be an Article of the Church of England's Faith ? If he 
 do's, frft, the Anabaptifts, whofe capital Error con- 
 lifts in denying if, will triumph over him : and zdly t 
 the 27th Article of the Church of England's Profeffion 
 of Faith, as B. Burnet exprefly calls it, will rife in 
 Judgment againft him. Yet this Article alone is 
 iufficient for the Author to gain his principal Point. 
 But as Mr. Traty affefts very much to have two 
 Strings to his Bow,tho' the one is generally as weak 
 and rotten as the other, he anfwers, zdly, that tbo' he 
 did acknowledge the two Points to be Articles of Faith, and 
 that upon the Authority of the Catbolicl^Church's Dtcifionf, 
 yet U'hat the Author aims at would by no means follow, p. 
 29,50. No.' that's very ftrange. For if the Church 
 of England acknowledges the two abovefaid Points 
 to be Articles of Faith, and that purely upon the Autho- 
 rity of the Catbolicl^ Church's Decrfions, do's it not follow, 
 that other Points decided by the Authority of the fame 
 Catholic^ Church to be Articles of Faith, ought like wife 
 to be acknowledg'd at fuch ? And is not this the 
 very Point the Author drives at. 
 
 SECT. XIX. 
 Mr. frapp* s trifling Cavils anfwer'd. 
 
 BU T, fays Mr. Traft t which Church ? For that 
 the Church of Rome the Church, fays he, / w'tf 
 not^rant. But I hope, good Sir, you will grant at 
 leaft that the Ctbolick.Cbttrcb is the CatbolickChurcb : 
 and have not you yourfelf now put the Queftion 
 Q. * upon
 
 C ??$ ) 
 
 that Foot ? But, tho' you had not, pray vihat 
 rch has our prefent Difpute the leaft Reference 
 to but the Catholic^. Cburcb every where, as diftin&ly 
 named and fpecified as it is in the Apoftles Creed, 
 ijLet the Reader but look back upon {he i $tb SeHion, 
 where he will find the whole Piece, about which 
 the Difpute is, and then let him judge whether the 
 Author fpeaks of any Thing but the Cburcb of Cbr\ft 
 in general^ or the Catbolic^Cburcb profefs'd in the Creed, 
 which is there fo fully defctibed, that it is impofll* 
 Ble to miftake the Author's Meaning. If the Pi- 
 tfture there drawn (which Mr. T ra ft has clapp'd un- 
 der an & tcetera to hide it from his Readers) has an 
 exact Refemblance with that Bfy of Society ofCJbrj- 
 tfiaus, who are in Communion with the See ef Rome, 
 1 repeat once more, then wo be to Mr. Traff $ for 
 he not only lofes his Ca,ufe, but his Soul into the 
 .Bargain. But if (whether that be fo or no) it be 
 the true and faithful Picture of the Cburcb cfCbrift, 
 of the CatboHc!^ Cburcb, in a Word, of the Church we 
 profefs in the Creed, in whatever Body or Society of 
 Cbrtjfttm it is own'd to be,what can be more trifling 
 than to drag in by Head and Shoulders the Cburcb 
 *f Rome, which is wholly out of the Queftion ? 
 
 TO thefe Word of the Author, This Cburcb fow 
 eJ ly Cbrift bimfclf to. be our Guide to Heave. Mr, 
 "trapfr anfwers, I. We are now fyealyng cf tbe Cburcb a* at 
 Witnefs, not M a Guide. What ! barely as a Witnefi, 
 and not a Guide ! Are we not, according to Mr, 
 Trapp's own Agreement in his a-bove-faid id An fwir 
 (which he muft not forget fo foon) fpeaking of the 
 Idutbortty of the Catbolid^Cburcb deciding the Reve!atit> 
 of the two 'Jfrticfts in Queflion f Ar\c\ is" Ihk fpeak- 
 ing of her barely as a Witnef< y and not as a Guide ? 
 
 But he anfwers zaly. that the Scriptures art our f>rin- 
 f!pai Guide fo Heaven t the Cbttrcb. K only auf Se'conJ.ary^ 
 aitei the lift u m linger a tntt Gyijt, than ^ itfilf is CK/- 
 dfd by tbe firft. p. 50. This Anfwer confounds the 
 Kotion of a Rxle with that of a Guide. The reveal'sl 
 WordQ/Gjid} Vfhcther, wn-ten Qvutrn'rittefi^^ the Au- 
 thor
 
 ( "7 ) 
 
 ffcor lias fully proved, is the whole and fole R*k of 
 Faith : but the CatbolicI^ Church is the Guide, that di- 
 recls her Children by that Rule : and the Difference 
 between them is the fame as there is between the 
 Law and the Judge that interprets it, or pronounces 
 Sentence according to it. This is the controversial 
 Language of all I have ever read upon this Subject 
 befides Mr- Tw/'/', who loves to confound Things, 
 and fipds his Convenience in fo doing. 
 
 'Tis very true, that the Catholic!^ Church is entire- 
 ly guided by the Word of God, either vritte or un- 
 wrinen, as 1 have faid, and never pronounces defini- 
 tively or dogmatically, but according to it, which there- 
 fore is properly call'd her Rule of Faith by all con- 
 troverfial Writers ; but as there are fome obfcure 
 Texts of Scripture, and the Dead Letter cannot inter- 
 pret it felf; And as there are likewifefeveral dog- 
 matical Points, which cannot be proved from Scripture, 
 (I /hall now only mention the Lawfullnefs of Infant- 
 Babtifm againft Jlnakafrifts} in both thefe Cafes, the 
 Cath!icl^ Church is a neceflary Guide to us j and 'tis 
 from her Mouth we muft learn what God has re- 
 veal'd, what not. Thus a Torch-bearer, that walks 
 before a Man, and conducls him through dark and 
 ynknown Paths, is properly his Guide, tho' himfelf 
 be guided by the Light of the Torch which he car- 
 ries in his Hand. The Application is obvious to 
 common Senfe, and (hews how much Mr. Trapp de- 
 lights in little trifling Cavils. 
 
 But nothing can be more Trifling than his An- 
 fwer to a Part of the above quoted long Paflageof 
 the Author. Mr.Trapp has parcell'd it out into fe- 
 veral Pieces. But becaufe it will be clearer being 
 put together, and is but /hort in it felf, I /hall re- 
 peat it once more. This Church (fays the .Author, 
 fppaking of thQCatholicl^Churfh, mention'd and def? 
 cribed juft beforej atte&s, and has al-u/nyi atteftedtbt 
 JoHo-wing Hiftorical Faffs, to wit, that the twelve j4f>oftlcs, 
 thejirfl Planters of her Faitb, were allinfpirfd Men j 'tb.it 
 whatever they Tattgbt t relating to tie Cbrjftiatt DocJrine hy 
 
 Word
 
 Word of Mouth, or by Writing, vert Truths rtvfat'J 
 ly God. That they committed thofe heavenly Truths either 
 in Writing, or by Word of Mouth, as a facredTruft 
 to their SucceJJors the Bijbops and Paftors ordained by them : 
 that theft ivere lilifwife Commijjiend to deliver them to thoft 
 that were tofucceed them in the Sacred Miniftry j and 
 that by thefe t and their SucceJJors after them, they have 
 leen handed down to us as reveal 'd Truths/row Bifoop to 
 Kifeop, from Paftor to Paflor, jrom Father to Son, and 
 from Generation to Generation, throughout all s/ges to thi$ 
 very Time, as the Apoftles Creed has been. 
 
 This is the Paflage, in Anfwer to which, Mr. 
 Trapp has fill'd five Pages with fuch trifling Stuff^ 
 that I will not waft my Time and Paper in follow- 
 ing him Step by Step, as I have done hitherto, but 
 leave him to the Judgment of his Readers. I can- 
 not however, pafsover fome very learned Criticifms 
 here and there interfperfed, as i. That the Doftrines 
 taught by the dpoftleSy would have been Truths revealed by 
 GoJ~ t ~j}kether the Church had attested it or Hot. z. That the 
 Baffles Creed has been handed down both l*y Word of Moutb 
 and Writing yfy, That the Author faying, this 
 Churfh attefts, fpeaks in the prefent Tenje. And 4.thly, 
 that the jfpoftles- did not preach to Bifbops and Pastors only, 
 l*t y ai all the World lyiOiffS, they Preach'd the G off,' el to 
 every Creature that n-ott/d hear them. Who can forbear 
 Admiring the profound Erudition of this Writer/ 
 *Tis hovvever, highly probable, that the Apoftles 
 were particularly vigilant and careful to Inftru6l 
 thofe, that were to fucceed them in the Sacred W- 
 *$tyt as 1 may prefume that thofe, who arc de- 
 tfgn'd for the Entftjb Cttrgy, are train'd up to Lear- 
 ring in the Universities with greater Care than 
 Gentlemen, who at their Return home intend to 
 tarn Statefenen, Soldter< t Lawyers, or Fox-Hunters : and 
 'tis but fitting indeed, that a B^w/ fhould be a bet- 
 ter Divine than the Lieutenant-General of an Army, 
 and a Parfon more learned than a Con/trite, or .7ij/?/' 
 fthePface} tho' Mr. Trapp indeed i$ no Inftance 
 of it. 
 
 In
 
 In like Manner therefore, though the Apofllea 
 preach'd to ail and wrote for all, we cannot entertain 
 fo mean an Opinion of their Zeal for the perpetua- 
 ting of the whole reveal'd Chriftian Doftrine, and 
 the trut Senfe of every Branch of it, as to imagine 
 that they took not a peculiar Care to inftruft thofe, 
 whom they defign'd for Holy Orders, and thofe above 
 all others, whom they made Choice of for Succef- 
 fors in the hi^hefi Ecclefiafttcal Dignity, and who were 
 by Conference to be the Guides and Governors of 
 the Flocl^ of Cbrift after their Deceafe ; as S. P<</ex- 
 prefly told the Epbefian Eldtrs j to whom after having 
 made a kind of Protection, that be JW not &ud 
 to declare to them all the Counfel of God, he fpoke thus 3 
 T^kf bad therefore tinto yourfdves, and to all the floct^ 
 over the "which the Holy Gboft has made you Overfeers t+ 
 rule the Church of God. Ad:. 2.0. v. 27, 28. And tho 
 fame Apoftle writes thus : Let a Mm fo account of 
 us itsoftheMiniftersofChrifi, and Stewards of the Myfte- 
 ritsofGod. i Cor. C. 4. v. j. which is-doubtlefa 
 to be underftood of the Epifcopal Order in all Ages 5 
 tho' Mr. Traff feeim flrongly inclin'd to the It-veiling 
 Principle. For in Anfwer to the Author's faying* 
 that the Bi/Z>of>s and Paftors ordain'd by the Slpoftlet ivtr* 
 Itkfwift commifioned to deliver them [the Doclrines de- 
 pofited with them] to thofe u-ho -were to fucceed tltm in 
 the facred Mnijlry. This (fays Mr. Traft) fuffofet 
 that Btfljops and Pajtors only. in Virtue of their Commffion 
 or Holy Orders at Bijhops and Paftors, have Authority to- 
 deliver down the reveal'd Truths whether ffiol>en or written, 
 Yes furely ; for is it not the proper Office of Bifiopt 
 and Paftorf, by Virtue of their Commijfion derived o- 
 riginally from Chrift and his Apoftles, to preach the 
 Word and propagate the Goftel ? Would Mr. Traft 
 have Perfons without Orders, Commffion, or Authority 
 mount the Pulpit, and turn Preachers ? Truly he 
 will do well to explain himfelf, to prevent his fal- 
 ling under the Difpleafure and Cenfure of the Su- 
 periors of his own Church, who all Jay Claim to 
 a lintal Defcent from the ^ofllts t and to a Commffion 
 
 or
 
 ( J20 ) 
 
 or Jhtthority in Controversies of Faith (as the 20^ Ar-> 
 tide of Religion exprefles it) flowing down to them 
 from the very Fountain-Head. 
 
 But be that as it will, thofe of the Episcopal Order 
 have been regarded by all Antiquity as the Dtpofit*- 
 ries of the reveal' d Truths of Chriftian Religion. Thefe 
 alone give Sentence definhivtly, or as Judges in Mat- 
 ters of Faith in general Councils. In a Word, it was 
 with thefe, that the ^potties depofited the Revelations 
 they had received immediately from God, and the 
 true Senfe of them j I mean with the B't/bof>f t whom 
 they themfelves ordain'd : to the end that they 
 might tranfmit them to their SucceCfors 5 and that 
 if any Herefies fhould arife againft the reveal'd 
 Faith, as there did even in the Apoftolical Age, 
 they and their Succeflors might ftand in the Gap' 
 againft them : or if any Difficulty fhould be ftarted 
 about the true Senfe of any Scriptural Text, as it has 
 happen' d in every Age,they might be the authentic^ 
 Juelgef and Interpreters of it, according to the Inftru- 
 flions they had received from the Apoftles. 
 
 Thefe Inftruftionsare that Depojitum, of which S. 
 Paul fays to Timothy 5 Timothy, keep that -which it 
 fommilteJ to thy Trufl. i Tim. C. 6. v. 20. And 
 again, Hold faft the Form of found Words, -which thott 
 baft HEARDo/'w? ; that good Thing which -was com- 
 tnitttd to thee, keep ly the Holy Ghoft, -who dwelteth in 5. 
 a Tim. C.i. v. 13.14. Take Notice that he do's not 
 fay \icre t vfhich thou haft READ, but -which thouhaft 
 HEARD OF ME: An unanfwerable Argument 
 for slpoftolical Traditions. And to fhew how careful 
 the dfoftle was to have thefe Traditions handed dowrr 
 toPofterity, he writes thus more fully to the fame 
 Holy Bifhop : Th Things, which thou baft HEARD 
 from ms Itfore many Witneffes, tie fame COMMIT thott 
 to faithful Men t isho may be able to teach others alfo. a 
 Tim. 2. 2. 
 
 What Reafon then had Mr.Traft to carp at the 
 Author's faying, that the Bifeops and Paftors ordain'd 
 ly the 4j?oftjes inert Itkeviift cQmmijjiotfd to deliver the
 
 Doflriaes tie pofited with them to thofe, -who were to fttcceeel 
 t^etn in the facred Mmiflry ? Unlefs he defigns to 
 confute S. Paul as well as the Author. But who 
 can help it, if Mr. Traft has not Judgment enough 
 to diftinguifh between what is right, and what not, 
 but thinks himfelf bound to fnarl at every Thing his 
 Popfo Adverfary fays ? Or is fo fill'd with his Pre- 
 poffeffion that a Papift cannot write common Sonfc, 
 that even the plained Truths coming from his Peri 
 are in his prejudice^ Imagination turn'd into Falfo- 
 hoods,and have accordingly no Quarter given them, 
 tho* an jipojile himfelf Ihould give Securiry for their 
 Orthodoxy 5 as in Reality is the very Cafe of the 
 Author's Proportion we have before us. 
 
 But the Matter trifling Piece is yet to come, t 
 mean a Seven-fold Repetition [p. 34, 35.]^ the fame 
 ftale Topic relating to the Church of Rome, as had 
 been already repeated nine Times before. What 
 would the poor Man do, were it not for this Re- 
 fource, as wretched a one as it is ? For my part, 1 
 am fo naufeated with his frequent Repetitions of 
 it, and fo weary of anfwering it, that I muft defire 
 my Readers to look back upon what I have already 
 but too often faid upon this Head. I fhall only add, 
 that what the Author has hitherto faid of the Catho- 
 lic^ Church in general \s either true or falfe. Iffalfe, 
 let Mr. Trapp confute it fairly and upon the Squares 
 and not play at crofs Purpofes by flinking from the 
 Queftion, by fhifting the Difpute from one Thing 
 to another, and dragging the Church of Rome into it 
 in fpite of his Adverfaries Protection againft it. 
 But if what the Author has faid or will fay in Com- 
 mendation of the Cathoticl^ Church, or in Defence of 
 her Authority be true, Mr. Trafi ought to rejoyce at 
 it and glory in it, if he be convinced in Confcience,' 
 that the Church of England is a Part of that Church : 
 becaufe whatever is fpoken advantageoufly of the- 
 Church of Chrift in general, redounds unquestionably 
 to the Honour of every frrf/V/r national Church t
 
 ( 122 ) 
 
 which is a Part of that Mvftrioiu BoJy or Society of 
 Chriftians, But if he has not this Conviction of 
 Confcience, as one would be apt to guefs he has 
 not by his perpetually fnarling at the Author's E- 
 logiums of it, all I fhall fay to him is, that he is in 
 a very bad Way. 
 
 SECT. XX. 
 Mr. Trapp's unwarrantable Affertions. 
 
 AFter the Paflage of the Author juft now quo- 
 ted, follows this Claufe : Tkefe> fays he, are 
 FacJs, tvbicb have the Ttftimony vfthe Church of Cbrtft in 
 alleges, that is, of the moft credible and illuftrious BoJy or 
 Society of Men upon Earth to vouch for it. To 
 which Mr. Traff anfwers thus, p. 35, $6. Suftojing 
 })t here ttnderftood the Univerfal Church in our Prote- 
 flant Senje [The Author underftands it as all Men of 
 Senfe antf Religion do, when they fay the CrteJ] 
 yet even then his Reafoning would be moft ahfurJ. The 
 Church, ivhen /he appears a* a Wttnefi to FaRs proving that 
 fuch and fuch Points are re veal' J Truths, MUST LAY 
 
 ASIDE HER CHARACTER OF MOST IL- 
 LUSTRIOUS, AND HER CHARACTER 
 OF CHURCHSHIP IT SELF , becaufe foe receives 
 it from tho/e rtveaCd Truths. 
 
 Infteadof the Author's Reafoning being moft abfitrj, 
 it will be very much fufpe&ed that Mr. Trapp was 
 in one of his delirous Fits, when he wrote this 
 .Anfwer to it. What/ muft the Church lay ajjde 
 both her Title of an Hluftrious Society, and even her 
 Ckurchfaij) itfelf, when (he afttart as a Witnefs to 
 
 Facls,
 
 Fa&s, which prove the Revelation of fuch or fuch 
 doftrinal Points ? Was there ever fuch an E^tra- 
 vagance aflerted by a Man in hisSenfes? For 
 what is it that renders the Catholic^. Church the moft 
 cred&le and iltttftrious Body or Society upon Earth ? 'Tis 
 the Dignity of her firft Founders, the Antiquity of 
 her Eftabiifhment, the Purity of her Do&rine, the 
 perpetual Vijilntity and uninterrupted Succefion of her 
 Bifltops and i'aftors for fo many -Ages. 'Tis her ha- 
 ving flood the Shock of the moft bloody Perfecu- 
 tions for the Space of three hundred Years, nay her 
 encreafing and gathering Strength under thofe very 
 Perfecutions ; her having carried the Light of the 
 Gofpel to the moft remote and barbarous Nations 
 under the Sun, her having made King! and Emperors 
 fubmit to her, and become her Children in Jffus 
 Chrift by the Power of her Preaching and Luftre of 
 her Miracles, and peopled both Earth and Heaven 
 with Millions of holy Martyrs, Confiffors, and Virgins. 
 Thefe and fuch other Confederations, call'd Mo- 
 tivts of Credibility (tho* iMr. Trapp out of his profound 
 Ignorance is pleafed to carp at the Expreflion) have 
 render'd her the moft Hluftrious BoJy or Society upon 
 Earth : and all thefe are or may be known by the 
 publicly Voice of whole Chriftena'om independently of any 
 Antecedent Knowledge of the Scriptures ; which 
 /hews the Frivoloufnefs of Mr. Trap's Reafon for 
 his unwarrantable Aflfertion ; and fo it is to be hoped 
 that he will, upon better Information, be fo good-na- 
 tur'd hereafter as not to oblige the Catholicl^Cburcb to 
 lay ajide both her Charafler of moft itlttftrious, and her 
 CharafterofChurchfoip, when fee appears at aW'itnefsto 
 FaflSjproving that (uch and fuch Points are reveal' el Truths^ 
 becaufe, her Character of the moft Hluftrious Society 
 (from which, as being altogether Spiritual, that of 
 her Church/hip is infeparable) depends not upon thofe 
 reveal'd Truths, but is founded upon the inconreftable 
 Truth of the Motives of Credibility, which I have men- 
 tion'd$ and which, whoever will deny,' muft deny 
 R 2 the
 
 |he Truth >f all Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, that ever 
 was writ. 
 
 If Mr, Trapp had reflecled upon this, it would 
 have put him in Mind of the Difference there is be- 
 tween the Catholic^ Church confider'd barely as an 
 illuflrious Society, and as fhe has the Promifes made 
 to her in Scriptures, that fie ft all always ye an unerring 
 Guide. By means of which Diftindiion, we have a 
 large Door open to let us put of the pretended vici- 
 ous Circle, which Mr. Trapp touches upon, p. 36. and 
 of which fays he, the Author will prefently give Juch an x- 
 amplf, as be believes can hardly be equaWd. We fhall fee, 
 when we come to the Point, whether this Mountain 
 will not bring forth a Moufe. Jn the mean Time 
 his Market is already pretty well foreftall'd. 
 
 To the young Gentleman's faying, / own, Sir, theje 
 Falls are an unanswerable Proof ofCbriJlianity in general^ 
 Mr. Trafp anfwers thus : No but they are not. So far 
 fnm it, that they undermine Chriftianity in general, fit 
 ajide the realirrefragal;leProof}ofit t andful>ftitutefalfeones 
 tnit''sf}ead yasllave fiewn. j^s he has /hewn ! where 
 is it that he ha$ /hewn this ? This Trick of fend- 
 ing his Readers back upon a Fool's Errand is of no 
 fmall Life to him upon feveral Occafions. But let 
 Vs now confider his bold, I may fay mad Aflertion. 
 What ! do's the Church's Teftimony of thefe Fails, to 
 wit, that the twelve sfpoftlts wire infy'ued Men j that 
 ybatever they taught relating to theCbrrftian Doflrine wen 
 Truths reveal^ ly God, and JiSateJ Iy the Holy Glofl ; 
 that tbfy deposited t hefe heavenly Truths with their Succef- 
 fors, the Hi/hops and Pa/lors ordained ly them ; that thefe 
 were likjwife commiQion'dto deliver them to tbofe, who were 
 to fuccetJ them in the f acred Miniftry, and that by theft- 
 and their Sttcctjjors after them they have been ban Jed down 
 throughout all sfges to this very time : Do's, I fay, the 
 Church's Teftimonyof thefe Tach undermine Chriftianity in 
 general") If fo, it muft be either by Reafon of the 
 Fatfroodof rheFacls themselves, or the Difrtfutation 
 and lncomjj>ettncy of the Wiinefs that attefls them. 
 
 Lee
 
 Let Mr. Trapp choofe which of the two lie pleafes, 
 it will turn to his Confufion. Nay I wifli it may 
 not be found that he himfelf is in reality the Under- 
 miner. For fince the Church's Authority has always 
 been juftly regarded as the great Bulwark, of Cbrijlia. 
 vity, his undermining the one by bringing it into Con- 
 tempt, iseffeftually undermining the other. And will 
 not the Church of England have Reafon to complain, 
 that whereas fhe has always confider'd herfelf as an 
 illitftrious Portion of the CathoHcl^Churcb, and claim'd it 
 as a Right to be confider'd as fuch by others* Mr. 
 Trapp has, by depreciating as much as in him lies the - 
 Authority of the Cburck Univerfal, wounded the Naf/'o- 
 nal Church of England in that very Part of her Ho- 
 nour, whereof fhe is fo tender ? Becaufe every 
 Part of a Society is a Sharer both in the Honour 
 and Dishonour of the whole ; and the Authority of 
 a National Church will make but a mean Figure in 
 the World, when that of the Cat holicl^ or Univerfal 
 Church is reprefentcd under a contemptible Cha- 
 racter. 
 
 But the Bifiops of every National Church are chiefly 
 concern' d in this Matter. Becaufe the Ecclefaftical 
 Authority is unqueftionably lodg'd in the Epijcopal 
 Order, whom God has charged with the Govern- 
 ment of his Church. Aft. 20. v. z8. What will then 
 the Bifiops of the Church of England think of a Man, 
 who even reproaches his Adverfary for maintaining 
 ffc Authority, and requiring a Submiffion to it accor- 
 ding to the Doftrine of St. Paul? Heb. 15. v. 17. 
 What will they think of one, who will not allow 
 them to aft as Judges in Controversies of Faith, or 
 as Guides of the Faithful, but barely as Witneffes t 
 when they declare the Revelation of any doftrinal 
 Point? p. 9. For is not this diverting them of the 
 Authority, which God has put into their Hands ? 
 
 The zcth Article of Religion declares, that the Church 
 ^M stuthorny in Controverts of Faith, and the undenia- 
 ble Ccnfcquence of it is, that fhe is a Jitdge and 
 Guide in fuch Cpntroverfies. But what do's the Ar- 
 ticle
 
 ( 126 ) 
 
 tide mean by the Word Church ? Do's it mean the 
 iy-fo f k ? ^ fu re ty 5 f r thefe have no Authority 
 in Controverts of Faith. It therefore means the Go- 
 Turning Part of the Church> that is, the Clergy only. 
 Tho* Mr. Trapp has, p. 10. r,eproach'd his Popijb 
 Adverfaries for taking the Word Church in this 
 Senfe. But it means principally the Epifcof?<zl Order, 
 whofe Authority in therefore direftly ftruck at by 
 him, when he aflcrts, as he do's p. 9. that the Au- 
 thority of the Catholicl^ Church in Jtclanng the divine Injpi- 
 rat ion of Scriptures is no more than the Authority of a Wit- 
 ejs to a Matter of FaB. That is to fay, no Authority 
 at att. Becaufe isitneffing barely as -uiitneffing is no Ex- 
 ercife o^ Authority : and the Difference between de- 
 riding and vritneflino is obvious to common Senfe. 
 Kay Mr. Trapp himfelf in the 5th and tfth Diftin- 
 ftion of his C/w<-, which mark out the Difference be- 
 tween Ttftimony and Authority , and the Difference be- 
 tween a Gut fie and a Witneft, and which he there? 
 promifed to make Ufe of perpetually, has fuffici- 
 cntly intimated his Intention of Gripping the Catho- 
 licl^ Church of the Authority of a ^tiJff and Guide in 
 ControverfieSjand leaving her no other Part to aft 
 than that of a Witntfs. So that it was not a paffing 
 Thought or Inadvertency, but a premeditated De- 
 fign from the very Beginning to run down the 
 CkureVt j4uthrity, and in Confequence to humble 
 the Brfoops, in whom that Authority is lodg'd by God 
 himfelf : and this Mr. Trapp thought necefTary in 
 order toanfwer the Author's frft Dialogue, the Con- 
 tents whereof are the general Grounds of the Catbo- 
 licl^ Faith : and as the Authority of the Catholicl^ Chttrcb 
 is the ftrongeft Bulwark of the Catholic^ Faith, the 
 Author's main Drift thoughout that Dialogue is to 
 maintain that Author ity t as he is exprefly reproach'd 
 by Mr. Trapp. 
 
 But this Enemy of Authority go's flill further 
 in his pious Endeavours to make the Church, that is 
 to fay, the Bfoops, who are her Reprefentatives in all 
 Debates, wherein the Catbolick Faith is concern'd, ap- 
 pear
 
 ( '27 ) 
 
 pear as defpicable as is poffible. For has he hot 
 juft now told us, rhatffo Untverfal Cburcb, eve* as *- 
 dertfood in the Proteftant Senft, when foe appears at a 
 Witnefs to Facls proving that fuch or fucb Points are re- 
 oeaVd Truth, muff lay ajide ber Cbarafler cfntoff illuflri- 
 owf, and her Cbarafter of Cburcbfiip itfeiff Nay has he 
 not explain'd himfelf upon this Head yet more ful- 
 ly, p. 10. where after having p. 9. ftripp'd the 
 Cburcb of her Judicial Authority t and brought her 
 down to the low Condition of a bare Wftweft^C tells 
 his Readers, that even in ivitnefljng that God bat re- 
 veaPdj &C. tbe Cburcb do's not a& in ber Spiritual Capa- 
 fity, r more plainy *tis not tbe Church as Cburcb^ but 
 tbe Body of tbriftians confined d too not as Chriftians, lnt 
 as rational hneft Men. Miferable Church I Mife- 
 rableBifhops! who have no Authority to aft as 
 Judges, no Authority to Define what are revtardTrutbi, 
 what not$ and as Wittnfft^ are no better than boneft 
 rational Coblers or Porters. Will the Bi/bopt of Eng- 
 land relifh this levelling Doarine ? Will they fuf- 
 fer themfelves to be thus thrown by one of their 
 own Minifters into the Rubbi/h of the very mean- 
 eft of their Lay-Subje<3s. 
 
 SECT. XXI. 
 
 The Author falfly accufed of running round 
 in a Circle. 
 
 MR. Tr*pp labours hard p. 37 and 38 to prove, 
 that the Author runs round in a Circle. The 
 Piece accufed of this Abfurdity is as follows. 
 
 P. Theft
 
 P. "fluff t I f a y* are Fafff * vkich have the Tefti m oy of 
 tit Church of Cbrifl in all <dges, that is, of the moft credible 
 and tllujliiout Body or Society of Men to vouch for the 
 'TRUTH of them. 
 
 G. / ou-w, Sir, thefe areanunanfuerableProofofthe 
 Truth ofCMJiianity in general 5 [Mr. Trapp fays they 
 undermine it] but what it this to the Point in ^ueflion ? 
 
 P. Very much, Sir : for t bey fully fit-no the Weight of 
 the Taftimony and Authority of that illuftriotts Bo fly or So- 
 ciety of Men, -which ice call the Git holic!^ Churc h of alleges'. 
 In a Word, they Jkev) her to he a Society fo very facred, that 
 ~herT((iimony in any Age is a fuffcient Evidence to mafy M 
 reasonably believe thofe Things re vfa/V, which fee propofes 
 as reveal'd Truth. 
 
 This is the Piece, which Mr. Trapp fays xfuch an 
 Example of Running round in a Circle, at be believes can, 
 hardly be ffa//V ; But we fhall foon fee, whether 
 We are indebted to his profound Penetration or pro- 
 found Ignorance for this wonderful Difcovery. 
 
 An Argument is then call'd by Logicians a viciotts 
 Circle, when two Proportions prove each other reciprocally^ 
 and neither of them can be proved but by ir'j awn Conclttforr. 
 AH then we have to confider is, whether this be 
 the Cafe we have before us. 
 
 To thefe Words of the Author, thty [the Facls 
 juft mention'd]/K//y/?^w the Weight of the Teftimony 
 and Authority of that illttftriout Body or Society of 'Men\ 
 which we call tht Catholic^ Church : Mr. Trapp anfwers 
 very fmartly thus : Tluyfeew the Weight of theleftimony 
 of the Church! He htts all along been proving, that the Te- 
 ftimony of the Church proves the Weight of them* That's 
 falfe ; and being fo fpoiis the Circle to all Intents 
 and Purpofes. I prove it to be falfe, becaufe the 
 Fafl< here fpoken of were never fo much as menti- 
 on'd before. How then can it be true, that the Au- 
 thor h*s been all along proving, that the Testimony of the 
 Church proves the Weight of them ? The Facts, which 
 prove the Church to be the moft credible and illuftri- 
 out Society upon Earth, are wholly different from 
 
 ihofe
 
 ( "9 ) 
 
 rtiofe that are attefted by her, as fuch a Society i a3 
 will appear more fully by and by. 
 
 Hence it is apparent, that the Author had Rea- 
 fon to add, that tbofe facts (which in Mr. Trap's 
 Judgment undermine Chriftianiry) Jhe-w the Church to 
 be a Society ft vtry facred, that her Tejiimony in any A$ 
 is a Jujpcient Evidence to makf ut reafonably believe thoft 
 Things reveal'd) which flat propofes as revealed TVrta:Here 
 Mr. Trapp aflcs again very fmartly, THEY SHEW 
 HER / Yes, Sir, they /hew her. For do notfuch 
 Fads /hew a Society to be very J 'acred both in her 
 Jnftltut'ton and all other Refpe6fo, which (hew her* 
 to be the fyptfitory of all the [acrid Truths reveal'd to 
 the Apoftles, and her Pafiors. to be (as S. /Wexpref- 
 fes it) the Mini ft en ofChrift, and Stewards of the hdyftt* 
 riesof'God? i Cor. C 4. v. I. 
 
 But, fays Mr. !>/>/>, he has all along fuppoftd her to 
 le a Satiety fo very facred, and therefore of Efficient AH* 
 thority to eftablijh thoje Truths ly her Tefttmony. Now it 
 Jeems thofe very Truths atteffed by her, and receiving theif 
 Authority from her, give Authority to her as a Teftifyer. 
 
 I anfwer, that the Author has not only fitppofeJ 
 but proved the Church of Chrift to be the mbft credible^ 
 and illuftrioM Society upon Earth. But how has h 
 proved it ? Pray mind this. He has proved it 
 trom Faffs notasattefted by her, but asattefted by 
 all Ecclefiaftical Writers, and the Voice of whole 
 Chriftendom. In a Word, he has proved it from FaRt 
 of the moft pubUcl^ Notoriety. This Church (fays the 
 Author) founded by Chrift biwfelf to be our Guide to Hea~ 
 ven , this Church Jo venerable for h-r Antiquity, anA the 
 lineal Dejcent of her Bi/bops and Paflors in the Jame Com~< 
 munion down from the Apoftles :,fo eminent for her Lear- 
 Ilingj/o rrfieclablefor the many crown 'd Heads and Nations 
 fubdued by her, not by Violence or Force of Arms^ but by 
 the Litflre of her Miracles andHolinefs of her Doflrim : 
 finally :, fo illxftr iota for the Mi'liont of holy Martyrs and 
 other eminent Saints all nttrjed in her Bofom. This Church j 
 fays he, attefts, and has always attefted the following 
 Fafa. &c. 
 
 S Then
 
 Then he proceeds to a Detail of the abovefardl 
 Faffs attefted by her : that is to fay, after he has 
 fully proved theCburcb ofCbrift to be the moft credi- 
 ble and illuftriotts Society upon Earth from the Motives 
 of Credibility here reckon'd up by him. And can it 
 be denied, that the illuftriou* Cbaraffer of the Church 
 being thus eftablifhed by the Motives of Credibility, 
 her Teftimony is a legal and fufficient Evidence 
 for the Truth of the other Faffs attefted by her ? 
 But who can help it if Mr. Trapp be fo blinded 
 with Prejudice, that he cannot diftinguifh between 
 faffs and Faffs ? That is, between Faffs {roving the 
 Church to be a credible and ittuftrioti* Society^ and Fafft 
 proved from her Teftimony, rf* fit ii fuck a Society : 
 whereas they are plainly diftinguifh'd in the Au- 
 thor's Difcourfe, and both the one and the other 
 placed before him, not at a Diftance, but in the 
 ^very fame Page of his Book. 
 
 All thisnotwithftanding Mr. Traff (according to 
 his laudable Practice when he trifles moft) cries 
 VtBoria, p. 38- If this, fays he, he not round and round 
 in as trm a Circle ttt ever VIM defended, I never fa-w a Cir~ 
 fie in my Life. For my Part, I fee nothing that runs 
 round and round but Mr. Trap's Head turn'd with 
 the Circles of his own Imagination. Nay, I really 
 believe he is as ignorant of the true State of the 
 Queftion relating to the Grc le as my Lord- Mayor's 
 Sword- Bearer. But if he has a Mind to be better 
 inform'd, I recommend to him a little Book, enti- 
 tuled, 7be Rule of Faith 5 where immediately after 
 the Preface to the zd Part, he will find the Queftion 
 fully treated from p. j6 to p. 8p. in Anfwer to Dr. 
 Stillixg-fteet, who, as he was a moft exquifite Pmi!e. 
 Caufe, as well as pleafant Droll, was probably the 
 firft Inventer of this ingenious Mag ical Circle, wherein 
 poor Papi&s are forfooth condemn'd to dance eter- 
 nally round : tho' the Author of that Book has 
 fhewed, that they have no fewer than five Afferent 
 Way* to get out of it. 1 only add, that if any Thing
 
 c i3' ; 
 
 new were ofFer'd in Reply to the many fplid An- 
 fwers Jong fince made^o it, the frequent Repetition 
 of it would be excufable : but to have the Tame 
 ftale hackney Topic without any Improvement or 
 Addition, to give it fomenew Life or Force, or the 
 leaft Notice taken of our Anfwers to it, conn'd over 
 and over again Jike a School-Boy VJLcffon, is really 
 infupportable. 
 
 But let that be as it will, the Author's Difcourfe 
 has not the leaft Appearance of a Circle in it, that 
 is, of what Logicians call a vicious Circle. He begins 
 with eftablifhing the Credit and Weight of the Church's 
 Testimony from the Motives of Credibility, that is, from 
 Fafls not proved from the Church's Teftimony t b\it from 
 the unanimous Agreement of Ecclefiaftical Writers, 
 their publick Notoriety, and the Voice of whole 
 " Chriftendom : and this alone fuffices to let us out 
 of any Circle objected againft us, as I have already 
 obferved. The Author having thus eftablrfli'd the 
 Credit of the Church's Teftimony as an iHuftriow 
 Society, brings her in as a legal and unexceptionable 
 Witnefs totheTrwrb of Fatts t which prove her to be 
 the Dtpofitory of all the facred Truths reveal d to the 
 sfpoftles, and her Paftors the Stewards df the Myjlerics of 
 God, and concludes from it, that be r Teflimony at all 
 times a Jujftcient Evidence to make * reafonabfy believe 
 tkofe things reveal' d y which foe propofet as reveal* d Truths. 
 If this be not fair arguing, I know not what is : un- 
 iefs it can be faid, that when a Perfon or Society, 
 the Credit of whofe Teftimony is already fully efta- 
 bli/h'd, witnefTes Faff* of fucha Nature, as give ftili 
 a Beater Force and Weight to his Teftimony 5 unlefs, 
 I fay, it can be faid, that in this Cafe to prove the 
 Truth of thofe Faftsfrom his Teftimony is proving a 
 thing by itfelfi and Running round in a Circle, which is 
 moft highly abfurd. But will not all the good old 
 Wives of the tu-o united Pari/hes ftare, when they 
 hear their Reverend Minifler talk of Circles \ I wifrt 
 they may not fufpecl him to be a Conjurer. But 
 Si 1 can
 
 w 
 
 I 1 can fafely affure them, that Mr. Irapf is n Con- 
 jurer, nor in any apparent Danger of ever being 
 
 one. 
 
 WTT 
 
 SECT. XXII. 
 
 Remarks upon Mr. Frapp's Anfwers to the 
 
 concluding Part of the Author's Second 
 
 SECTION. 
 
 IN my ipth Se&ion I took Notice of Mr. Traft's 
 Seven-fold Repetition of that wretched evaiive Shift 
 of altering the State of the Queflion by removing 
 it from the Catholi(l{, Church in general to the particular 
 Church of Rome, and referr'd my Readers to the fe- 
 veral Anfwers I had before made to it : tho' it bo 
 in Reality fuch trifling Stuff, as deferves not one 
 fcrious Anfwer. But Mr. Traff finds it fo ufeful 
 nay neceffary for his Purpofe, that he can no more 
 be without it, than he can be without Shoes to hi$ 
 Feet, or a Sh'rt to his Back $ and fo we have it a- 
 gain^Jvf Times repeated in his Anfwer to the conclii" 
 ding Part of the Author's Second StBion. 
 
 To the Author's faying, that ve have the fame Te- 
 ftimony or Authority far the Revelation o/Tranfubftan- 
 tiation, Purgatory, $$c. M we have for the Divine hfyi* 
 ration of Scnptttret, Mr, Tr.j^ answers thus, p. 59. 
 for tbe latter we ha-ve the ftjiimony of the Church Uni~ 
 verfal ; but fo,r the former ite hve only the Church of Rc>nt 
 tvitntjpn^ and' judging in her oivnCauJe, in JireflOffofition 
 to the Teftimony and Authority of all other Churches. I 
 have already obferved, that nothing is fo bold an<J 
 t as 1$noranct : and tho' Mr. Trapp has al- 
 ready
 
 ( 133 ) 
 
 ready furnifhed us with many flagrant Inflances of 
 the Truth of this Obfervation, he has here even out- 
 done himfelf. 
 
 But fince the Doctrines of Tranfulflantiatio y Pur* 
 gatory, &c. are ail upon the fame Bottom, and Trani 
 fulftantiation is that Popijb Article, which Mr. Trapp 
 quarrels moft with upon all Occafions, and regards 
 as the moft defenceleis amongft them: I (hall there- 
 fore, to avoid both Prolixity and Confufion, confine 
 my Remarks upon his Anfwer to that Article alone, 
 and endeavour to give fome Check to this pofitive 
 Gentleman's Aflurance, by fhewing, that this very 
 Article has nothing lefsthan the Teftimony and ^- 
 tbority of the Church LfnivrrJ'al to fupport it : In order 
 whereto I fhall lay down two Principles, which I 
 think are inconteftable. Ftrfl, that the Body of Ca- 
 tholick Btflops, when aflembled in a General Council, 
 are the Reprefentatives of the Church Univerfal, as the 
 Body of the Englifo Bifbops, when aflembled in a N- 
 tional Council, are the Reprefentativcs of the Church of 
 England. And zdly, that the Decijlons of the Reprr- 
 fentdtives of the Church Univer/al are the Dfcifions of 
 the Church Universal 5 Juft as the Lavs made by the 
 Reprefentatives of the BritiJJj Nation are the Laws of 
 Great Britain. 
 
 This being premifed, I muft give Mr. Traft to 
 underftand, that in the Year 1215, that ' s > three hun- 
 dred Years and upwards before the very Beginning 
 of the En^liJJa Reformation, there was held a General 
 Council, commonly call'd the Great Lattran Ccuncil, 
 in which there were prefent four hundred and 
 twelve Bifoops, amongft which were the two Eaftern 
 Patriarchs of Conjiantinopfe and Jerufaltm in Perfon, 
 and the other Patriarchs of Alexandria and slntioch 
 by their Deputies or Proxies : befides the Embaf- 
 fadors of the Emperors of the Ea& and Weft, and of 
 feveral Kings and Sovereign Princes of Europe. In 
 this Council, which was one of the moft numerous 
 that ever was, it was defined, that the Eucharijlical 
 $read and Wine are, by Virtue of the Words of Con- 
 
 fecration,
 
 ( 134 ) 
 
 fecration, rfoj/into the real Body and Blood of Chrift j 
 and the Word Trafnhft an tuition was adopted as a 
 proper Term to exprefs that Change, in the fame 
 Manner as the Word Confi&ftantial was adopted by 
 the gnat Nictnt Council to exprefs the ancient Do- 
 firine of the Church concerning the Divinity of 
 Chrift, and Equality of tie Son to the Father : and both 
 the one and the other were made choice of by the 
 Church to diftinguifh orthodox Believers from he- 
 retical Diflenters 
 
 Let us now fee how Mr. Trapp will make good 
 his bold Aflertion, that we have not the Tejiimony and 
 Authority of the Church Univtrfal for the DocJrine of 
 Tranfubftantiation, but only the Church of Rome witnej- 
 fin? and judging in her own Caufe, in direSl Obpofirion to 
 the Teftimony ana Authority of all other Churches. Which 
 is plainly the fame as to fay, that we have only the 
 Teitimony and Authority of the particular Church of 
 Rome M Jiftingitifo'd from all other Churches. Now I 
 yrefume Mr. Trapp will grant, that there was a 
 Church Univerfal or Catholic!^ Church in Being, when 
 the Lateran COKOC'I! was held : for if there was not, 
 the 9th Article of the Creed was then falfe, which I 
 believe he will not venture to fay, as bold a Man as 
 lie is. But if there was fuch a Thing as a Church 
 Univerfal or Catholicl^Church then in Being, I afk,whe- 
 ther the Lateran Council was the Reprefentative of that 
 Church or not ? If it was, it follows, that the Do- 
 ftrine of Tran^ubftantiation was uitnefs'd and defined 
 by the Church Univerfal, and not by a particular Church 
 /y, in direft Offnfition to the Teftimony and Authority of 
 'att other Churches. But if it was not, Mr. Trapj? is 
 bound to bring us acquainted with fome other Body 
 of Onhoelvc Chr ijiian f, which were at that Time the 
 Univerfal or Catholick Church, and were not reprefen- 
 ted by the Bifhops of that Council. But I fear he 
 will be forced to look for them either in Terra Jtt- 
 
 eognita, or the World of the Moon, 
 
 If Mr. Traft alledges, that the Lateran Council^ 
 tho' never fo numerous, was a PopiJJy Council r , in 
 
 which
 
 ( '35 ) 
 
 which the Pope himfelf prefided in Perfon, and was 
 therefore the Reprefentative only of the Church of 
 Rome, but not of the Church Univerfa/^ I anfwcr, 
 that as to the Pope's prefidingin Perfon, if that be 
 a legal Exception againft its having been a General 
 Council, or the Reprefentative of the Church Univerfal, 
 It will follow, that the four firft Gene ral Counc ils, ac- 
 knowledg'd as fuch by the Church of England, muft 
 Jikewife be {truck out of the Catalogue of General 
 Councils : for tho' the Pope prefided not in them in 
 Perjon, he prefided in them by his Legates, which is 
 equivalent: and all thefe Councils were likewile 
 Judges in their ovn Caufe, as all Supreme Tribunals are, 
 from which there is no Appeal : tho' Mr. Trapp looks 
 upon this as a weighty Objection. But it was the 
 Objection of the Brians, the Macedonians, Neftorians, 
 and Eutycbians againft the four firft General Councils : 
 as it was likewife the Objection of the Jrminians 
 againft the Synod of Dorr, held An. itfiS. Thefe 
 Gentlemen prorefted againft the Legality of that 
 Synod chiefly upon Pretence, that the principal 
 Members of it were Parties, and therefore unquali- 
 fy 'd to be Judges in their own Cattfe. But their Plea 
 was unanimously over-ruled by the Synod rand the 
 Reafon given by the Englifi Divines there prefent 
 for rejecting it as frivolous is remarkable : For, faid 
 they, if it be allow'd, it will utterly overthrow the Au- 
 thority of the jirft four General Councils. 
 
 I add, that if the Later&n Council was a Ptfijb Coun- 
 cil, the Reafon muft be, becaufe whole Chriftendont 
 was then drown'd in Popery ; and if it was the R>- 
 frefentative of the Cturch of Rome, many will be apt 
 to infer, that the then Church of Rome, that is to fay, 
 that Body of Cbriftian<,w\\Q were then in Communion 
 with the See of Rome, was the Church Univerfal 5 
 which will not make for Mr. Trapp's Caufe. 
 
 The Confequence of all is, that we have the 
 fame Teftimony and Authority for Tranfoftantia- 
 tiw, &c. as we and Prottftants have for the Divint
 
 of Scriptures : that is, the Teftimony anct 
 Authority of the Church Umverfal ; which is precife* 
 3y the Point the Author undertook to prove, and haa 
 effe&ually proved. 
 
 Mr. Traft't 40th Page has nothing material in it 
 but a Repetition of what I have now anfwer'd. In 
 the next Page he falls a railing at the Church of 
 Rome, and tells us, that fie tbefalftft Witness, the 
 woft corrupt Jud^e, and ffiinJefl Guide upon the Face of thi 
 Earth. But befides that we have nothing but Mr. 
 Trapp's Word for it, which is not worth a Burton ^ 
 the Church of Rome is wholly out of the Queftion. 
 For the Author fpeaks of the Church Univerjal,w\\\ch 
 he fays anointed ly Chrift to be our Guide, and may he 
 fccttreiy rely d upon. So that this Anfwer of his, viz, 
 if by the Church he meant the Church of Rome, is as im- 
 pertinent as his Reflections upon that Church arc 
 fcurrilous, and favouring flrongly of Paflion. 
 
 But tho' this fame impertinent and frivolous An- 
 fwer be repeated thrice in the two following Pages> 
 and is his conftant Refuge, whenever he finds him- 
 feJf in Diftrefs, yet in one of them, viz. p. 42. he 
 has the Condefcenfion for once to take the Que- 
 ftion by the right Handle, and writes thus : Iffy the 
 Church be meant the Univerjal Church or Catholic!^ Church 
 truly fo caft'd, I anjiver fir ft, even fee it only a Guide in 
 Subordination to the Scriptures. This is again confoun 
 ding the Notion of a Rule with that of Guide, and he 
 repeats it again, p. 43. So that one Anfwer will 
 ferve both. 1 fay then, that the Church is the Guide t 
 but the Wordof God is the Rule /he go's by : and the 
 Difference between them is the fame as there is be- 
 tween the Law and the Judge that interprets it, or 
 pronounces Sentence according to it 5 as I have al- 
 ready ohferved . 19. to which I refer the Reader. 
 He go's on thus : And if fee [the Catholic^ Church 
 truly (o cairj] p 3 ould teach any Thin% PLAINLY 
 
 C ONTRARY TO THE PLAINEST SCRIP- 
 TURE, or to REASON, or to OUR SENSES, 
 it ou^ht to be rejdted. He repeats the fame more ful- 
 ly
 
 ( '37 ) 
 
 Jy thus in the following page : Iffle did (that is, if 
 the Cttlolicl^ Lkurch truly jo tall'd fliould declare any 
 Articles, but what are in Strictures, to be reveal'd 
 Truths) the Proteflant would not aft incoherently in not 
 believing them, (fiecially if they -were contrary to Scripture, 
 or to Reafon, or to our Senfes. Becaufe one may ra- 
 tionally rely upon a Perfon or Number of Perfons, when 
 they affirm nothing l-ut v.hat rational, and yet not re'y 
 upon them in -what* IRRATIONAL, IMPIOUS, 
 AND ABSURD. The fame Anfwer is repeated 
 inSubftance, p. 45, $6. So that my R<wr(* upon 
 the Piece before us will be a fufficient Anfwer to 
 thofe two pages. 
 
 Firft then, as to what he fays concerning the 
 Church's teaching any Thing contrary to our />;, 
 enough has already been faid in my ictb Seflion, 
 where it is fully fhewn, that the Scripture itfelf tea- 
 ches many Things as contradictory to our Senfes as 
 Tranfulfttintiation itfelf, which is here pointed at. So 
 that betides thecourfe Compliment Mr. Trapf> here 
 makes to the Catholic!^ Ctttrcb in aflerting, that we 
 muft truft her no farther than we can fee, and fq 
 far we would truft the vileft Creature upon Earth, 
 he muft likewife refolve to reject the plaineft Serif- 
 turet, when they relate Facls, in which the Senfes of 
 thofe, who could bear, fee, and feel as well as Mr. 
 Trapp can, were contradifltd in the fame Manner as 
 ours are in the Myftery of Tranfubftantiation. For 
 Proof whereof I refer the Reader to the abovefaid 
 lOtbSeffton. 
 
 zaly y As to what he fays concerning the Church's 
 teaching any Thing contrary to Reafon, fince he has 
 already told us,p.22.that -whatever SEEMINGLY 
 contrary to Reafon } is REALLY contrary to it t & to him, 
 to whom it fofeems, I fear he will likewife be obliged 
 to reject the facred Myftery of the B. Trinity, he- 
 caufe nothing can be more feemingly contrary to 
 Reafon than that three are one, as that Myftery is 
 exprefs'd by S. John i Epift. C. 5. v. 7. Whoever 
 therefore makes his own Private Reafon the K/ 
 T and
 
 iand SlandarJ of his Faith, and judges every Thing 
 that is fftmingfy contrary to Reafon, to be really con- 
 trary Jo it> cannot pofitbly believe this Myftery : 
 And Mr. Tr*ft's faying, that ;/ the Church fiould 
 teach any Thing plainly contrary to Reajon, it ought to lot 
 rejetted, brings in Effect all the fublime Myfteries of 
 Faith to the Teft of private Reafon, and is but a Con- 
 firmation of his former mad Declaration, viz. that 
 tho' the Univerfal Church /riould define any Thing 
 to be an Article of Faith, nay tho' he fhould find it in 
 pxprefs Terms in the Bible, and even fee a dead 
 Man rai fed to Life in Teftimony of it, he would 
 pot believe it, if he jit J Jit to he imp ofpkle in Reafon 
 and Nature, 
 
 But I obferve $dly and chiefly the injurious Cha- 
 racier, under which the Church of thrift is here re- 
 prefented : for the Reader muft not forget, that 
 Mr. Trapp fpeaks here of the Catholic^ Church truly 
 fo call'd-, and 'tis of this Church he tells us, that ve 
 mitj} not rely upon her, tj- foe Jhtt!<l te*.ich ay Thin? } 
 
 PLAINLY CONTRARY TO THE PLAIN- 
 EST SCRIPTURES, or v-bat IRRATIO- 
 NAL, IMPIOUS, AND ABSURD. I grant 
 the Propofition is true in itfelf: but the Supposition 
 it implies ]& injurious in the higheft Degree to the 
 Chtrchof C/.-r//? t becaufe it reprefents her as capable 
 of teaching Doftrines not only plainly contrary to the 
 flaineft Scriptures, but what are in themfelyes irrario- 
 
 pal, impious, and abfurd. 
 
 How contrary is this to the noble Idea S. P<tul 
 had of her, when he reprefcn ed her to the Ephfiitti 
 as the cbafl Sfouje of Chnft. Husband, fays he, lov? 
 your Wives, ev( <& Cbrift alfo lovidht) Church, and gave 
 bimfi'f for it, that he might fanQify it, and (lean ft it 
 with the Wafting of Water by the Word. Ephef. 5. v. 
 3 5, 26. And fpon after fpeaking of the indiflolva- 
 b)e Tie of Marriage adds, Thu is ayeat M$fkrf, but 
 J l^eal(_ concerning Chri& aJ the Church, v. 52. Allu- 
 ding to which S. Cyprian tit Unit. Eccl. writes thus ; 
 "fbe Sptw/e afChriJl cannot be an dauttertfs, fie h incorrupt 
 
 and
 
 aJ fare. But Mr. Traff fuppofes her capable of 
 turning the mod profligate yf^n/tere/s. by abandoning 
 the Word of God, ai'Oftatizing from the Faith once de- 
 liver'd to the Saint!, and falling into the moft abfurd 
 and intyiotit Errors. Very ftrangQ, that the Catfolifk 
 Church truly fo taU'd (for 'tis of her hefpeaks) fhould 
 be capable of fuch an ^poftacyl Is it thenpoffiblc 
 that the Creed fhould ever befilfe ! Or will it not 
 be falfe in the Cafe fuppofed ! Will the Cathoficl^ 
 Church be ko!y t if fhe falls into irrational, at>fi<rd t and 
 impictM Errors againft the plain Ward of God \ Will 
 fhe be the Communion of Saints, if /he impofes on her 
 Children Doftrines, which muft unavoidably lead 
 them to eternal Damnation 1 Is this the Church, 
 which he who refnfts to bear, /hall be reputed as a 
 Heathen and Publican ! In a Word, is this the Church* 
 whofe Voice Chriil has commanded us to hear with 
 the fame Refpefl, as if himfelf fpoke to us ! He 
 11-1:0 bean you, bean me, and he ivbo de/fiifes you, dfiifet 
 me. Let Mr. Trapp extricate himfelf as he can out 
 of thefe Difficulties. But I fear he will repent his 
 having quitted his old Entrenchment of the Au^ 
 thor's pretended Meaning of the Church of Rome, and 
 ventured to appear in the open Field of the Catholic!^ 
 Church truly fo call'd j where he will always find a 
 formidable Enemy* the Baffles CretA itfelf, in hi* 
 Way. 
 
 
 SECT. XXIli, 
 Remarks upon Mr. frtytf* Third Section. 
 
 MR. Trapp bas been very obliging to the Pab- 
 lick in being very fhort in his Anfwer to the 
 T a Author's
 
 ( '40 ) 
 
 Author's Third Section: but he would have obliged 
 them much more, if he had faid nothing at all. For 
 Silence is always better than faying nothing to the 
 Purpofe. And pray what can be objected to the 
 Purpofe againft a Difcourfe, the whole Subjeft and 
 Tendency whereof is to (hew, that Faith defends :n a 
 different Manner on the Ttjlimony of God, tHtJ'theTeJUmo- 
 tjy of Men ? Can either Catholick or Proteitant que- 
 ftion this Truth ? Yet Mr. Trapp thinks rt an Aft 
 of Grace to have pafs'd over fome Part of it. Al 
 in thu, fays he, and the next Page I pajs over, of being 
 partly anfwered already, and partly nothing to the Purpofe- 
 tbo* bad I a, "Mind to be critical, I could eafjly point out 
 fome Inaccuracies, not te fay jlbfurdities in it. p. 47. 
 This is to let his Readers know what mighty Feats 
 he could have done, if he had been fo difpofed 5 and 
 how good-natur'd an Adverfary Mr. Trapp is, as it 
 appears indeed in all his Writings. We may there- 
 fore be fure, that what follows is a Confutation of 
 fome unpardonable Abfurdiry or Blunder, which 
 he could not poflibly pafs over. Let us fee what 
 it is. 
 
 The Author writes thus, p. 17, 18; 'But becaufe 
 the Divine Tejiimony or Revelation it not Self-evident, 
 therefore to render our belief of it rational , it if necejjary 
 to depend upon the Church's Teftimony to inform #5, what 
 thofe Truths are, which -were reveal' 'd to the ^4poJ}/er t and 
 by them committed of a f acred Truft to their SucceJJort, in 
 Order to be handed down to w from j4%e to Ait. Thus 
 far Mr. Trapp has generoufly pafs'd over, and only 
 animadverted upon the Piece immediately follow- 
 ing. For the Author go's on thus : For this Reafon 
 &. P&ulfays that Faith comes by Hearing. Rom. 10. 
 v. 17. tou-it t hy Hearing the Voice of the Church appointed 
 by God to be our Guide. For unlefe ir hear the Voice of 
 the Church fj?ca!(i tip to M by the Mouths of her Bifeops and 
 Paftors, howfoall ive l^voiv what are reveal' d Truths, what 
 . not ? To which Mr. Tr^anfwers thus : No doubt 
 ordinarily ffxal<jii Faith comes by Hearing : and by 
 Reading lily-wife, for 1 hope the Gentleman will not Jay 
 
 that
 
 that tie Jpoftle ly mentioning one, intended to exrfttde tk 
 vther. The Church too (ordinarily freaking) that iV, her 
 Bfoops and Pajiors are to \>e beard. But it is poffible that 
 Faith may come "without Hearing^ /. e. by Reading only. 
 P. 47. 48. 
 
 To fay nothing of Mr. Trap's Obfcrvation, that 
 the Church too is to he heard ordinarily, which is the 
 fame as to fay, that Chrifl too, who commands us to 
 bear the Ctttrch, is to he obey A ordinarily j I really be- 
 lieve, that many, upon reading this Anfwer, will be 
 puzzled to judge, whether it was intended for a 
 Confutation of the Author, or a Banter upon St. 
 Paul. What Piry is it, that when the Apoftlc wrote 
 his Epiftle to the Romany he had not a Friend a- 
 bout him to revife it, and put him in Mind, that 
 Faith may come without Hearing, that is, by Reading 
 cxly, and fo advife him to correct his unlimited Ex- 
 preflion. 
 
 Leaving however S. Paul's Text to defend itfelf, 
 I /hall only fay a Word or two in the Author's Be- 
 half, by obferving, that the Word Hear, and Vo\ct^ 
 and fuch other Words are often ufed in Scriptural 
 Language, as well as common Difcourfe, in a Me- 
 taphorical Senfe, as in this celebrated Texr, He who 
 ixVl not HEAR the Church, Jball he rebttted, &C. that i$ 
 to fay, He who will not fubmit to the Ckurch's Detijionf t 
 when fufficiently propofed to him : As on the con- 
 trary a Perfon that receives the Church's Faith by 
 fubmitting to her Decifions, whether declared to 
 him by the Mouths of her Paffors or in Writing is pro- 
 perly faid to hear her Voict, And thus all Faith comet 
 ly Hearing. Tho' indeed S. Paii/'s Words may be 
 literally underftood of the firft Chriftian Converts, 
 whofe Faith came by hearing the Apoftles preach, 
 before any of the Canonical Books of the New 
 Teftament were written. 
 
 To the Author's Queftion, for untejs -we bear the 
 Voice of the Church tyeakjng to as, bou> Jball we t(nw vrhttt 
 are reveal'd Trutbf, wkaf not* Mr. Traj>j> anfwew 
 
 thus;
 
 thus : By Reading the Bible, and c onfidcring tie EviJttote, 
 which proves it to be the Word of Gael. But what J3 
 this Evidence ? Let us once more hear S. Auguftin 
 fpeak: 1 von! a 1 not believe the Gofyels tkemfelves (to be 
 the Word of God) unleft the Authority of the Chunk 
 fomfeird me to it. It was therefore the Voice of the 
 Church, which induced him to believe, that the 
 Divine Inftiration of Scriptures is a reveal'd Truth. Af- 
 ter this great Doctor let us hear an eminent Divine 
 cf the Cburch of England fpeak 5 I mean Dr. Co/w, 
 who writes thus concerning the Number of Cano- 
 nical Books, p. 5. for which, fays he, ve have no bet- 
 ter, NO OTHER external Rule or Teftimony to guide 
 t<l than the CONSTANT VOICE of the Catholic!^ 
 And Univerfal Chttri'b t as it has been delivtr'd to Hi from 
 Generation to Generation. N. B. that neither of thefe 
 Writers call'd to their Aid the Teftimony of Mr. 
 Trap's Tr^?, Jews, or Heathens. And indeed who 
 amongft thefe ever gave Teftimony in Favour of 
 the C*noicalnefs or Injpiratioa of the NOD Tefiament ? 
 If therefore we muft rely entirely upon the Church's 
 Testimony and Authority for the Bible itfelf, Mr. Traft's 
 referring us to the Bible in Anfwer to the Author's 
 QuefHon, How isie Jkall know -what are revealed Trttths t 
 what not, is a mcer /liuffling Evafion , and the Au- 
 thor's AfTertion, that Faith comes by hearing tht Void 
 of the Church, remains unanfwered. 
 
 The reft of Mr. Trap's third SeBion contains no- 
 thing but a Repetition of two {tale Objections al- 
 ready fully anfwercd. The jirft relating to the Cir- 
 \e. anfwer'd $. 21. and the ftcond relating to implicit 
 Faitl anfwer'd $. a. $. 4. . 5. What he fays of the 
 Cjrclt confirms me ftiil more and more in my Opi- 
 nion of his being an utter Stranger to the true Senfe 
 qf the QuefiionVelating to it : nay he profefles him- 
 felf to be fo dull as not to fee any difference between 
 proving the Church's Infallibility from her Teftimony 
 confider'd as ivfaBilik, and proving it from her Te- 
 itimony confidei-'d barely as /he is an H!nftriaM Sode-
 
 ( "43 j 
 
 ty ; that is, without any Regard to the P>o-mifes of 
 Infallibility made to her : And furely a Perfon, who 
 can fee no Difference between thcfe two, is inca- 
 pable of being fatisfied with any Anfwcr. 
 
 As to implicit Faith, he attacks the Author with a 
 Dilemma thus : Is the Church's Authority (whether foe be 
 fouftdtr'd M infallible or o) to be a^fofutely AND IM- 
 PLICITLY fubmitted to, when flit declares reveal d 
 Truths, and among the reft her own Infallibility, or is Jle 
 not ? // not , there is an End of what our Author }>M been 
 labouring all this wlile, and indeed of the whole Popi/b 
 Caufe. I need not quote any more, becaufe I anfwer 
 direftly in the Negative, to wit, that the Church's 
 Authority isnot to befubmitted to abfolutely AND 
 IMPLICITLY. Becaufe no oth'er Submiffion is 
 required of the Faithful, but what is highly reafona- 
 b'e, that is, grounded upon {olid Motives j andaSub- 
 miflion grounded upon folia Motives cannot be called 
 an implicit or blind Submifion, which are the fame, 
 All this the Author has demonftrated principally 
 <j. 4th and 5th. 
 
 Hence it is plain, that it do's not follow from my 
 anfwering in the Negative, that all is here ttnaove^bat 
 the Author has been doing all the while, or that the whole 
 Popiflj Caufe is here given up. But it only follows from 
 it, that Mr. Trapp is a moft eminent Trifier 5 and 
 that as juit now he could not fee the Difference be- 
 tween a Circle and no Circle, fb here again he cannot 
 fee the Difference between repofing an entire Conji* 
 deuce in a Gufde, when Reafon convinced by the (Iron- 
 grft Motives prompts us fo to do, and following hirn 
 implrcitly or blindly which is the very Reverfe of the 
 other. And fo Mr Trapp's Queftion towards the 
 End of his aforefaid Page 51. viz. What do's entire 
 mean lefs than abfa/ute and implicit, is" anfwer'd- I only 
 sdd, that the Word alfolute is equivocal, and either 
 may or may not fignify any more than tntire : but 
 implicit go's a great deal farther j becaufe to act /'w- 
 plicitly is always taken for the fame as to aft blindly- 
 
 and
 
 ( 144 ) 
 
 nd it can never be the Duty of a rational Creature 
 to aft Mindly, for then it would be his Duty to aft 
 xnrea/onably, which is impofiibie : and fo I tako my 
 Leave of Mr. Trapfs third &8io*. 
 
 SECT. XXIV. 
 
 Remarks upon Mr. Trapp's Anfwer to the 
 Author's Fourth Se&ion concerning 
 
 INFALL IBILIT Y 
 
 MR. Traty is in a very angry Mood, f may fay 
 Pafilon, for eleven Pages together (that is, 
 from page 55 to page 6" 3 inclufively) at the Author's 
 Preamble of his Proofs of the Church's Infallibility. 
 He accufes him firft of Scurrility : If he had faid, 
 Sharpnefs in fome Expreflions, he would not have 
 wrong'd him. But I conceive there is fome Diffe- 
 rence between Sharpnefs and Scurrility j for I have 
 read many Pamphlets that were fearf> and cutting, 
 tho' r\otfcnrri!otis. I have likewife heard of cutting 
 *n ddvtr fury's Throat u-itb a Feather j tho' Mr. Trapp 
 feems to take more Delight in doing it with a But- 
 eher's Knrft : and has taken Care, by Way of Apo- 
 logy, to let his Readers know, that USertugiefl pf'tnts 
 tsert not made a Part of Language for nothing. 
 
 After that he is very angry with his Adverfary 
 for accufing thcfrft Reformers of Pnjudite and Self- 
 Jnterefteeinejs in their unanimous Agreement to run 
 tjown the Church's Infallibility : and this he calls a. 
 tefaut and moft impertinent Declamation about Prejudice 
 
 Mtt
 
 ( '45 ) 
 
 &ni$ttf~lntere/t. But under Mr. Trapfo Favour, I 
 think it is very pertinent to the Author's Purpofb 
 by Way of Preamble, and therefore not impertinent. 
 But his Way of retorting is fcmewhar extra- 
 ordinary, If tafy, fays he, for thfnt to fay tbts j and 
 full M eafy for M to fay , that it may with ret sidvtn- 
 tage he rttvrted upon t'hemfelves 5 that vf t as to this Matter, 
 are at free from the Guilt here charged upon *, M they arc 
 dstply involved in it 5 find that nothing tut the blincteft 
 Prejudice, or the ffrongetf jfttaclwent to worldly Intertjt 
 tattld pnvail with them to maintain fo ftnfelefs and fo ri- 
 diculous a Notion, p. 53. I hope Mr. Trapp do's not 
 fpeak here of Englifij Reman Catholicfe, tor whom 
 alone the Author wrote his Book, and who can 
 furely have no ivorld/y Interefl at Heart in continuing 
 what they are : nay, would deferve to be begg a 
 for Fools, if Confcience would permit them to con- 
 form to the Religion eftahlifh'd by Law. This 
 Part therefore of the Charge cannot be retorted upon 
 us : and as to our being under the blindcft Prejudice^ 
 as Mr. Trapp is pleafed to tell us, that Prejudice muft 
 be very blind indeed, which cannot be cured by 
 Sufferings on the one Hand, and the moft inviting 
 Allurements of Eafe and Plenty on the other. Thefe 
 are moft certainly an admirable Antidote againft 
 Prejudice;, and the beft Specific!; in the World for their 
 Cure. So that 'tis very ftrange, that our En^tfo C- 
 iholickj, who have a Feeling of Sufferings, and know 
 the Convenience of Eafe arid Plenty as well as their 
 Fellow- Mortals, fhould readily fubmit to the heavy. 
 Yoke of double Taxes, and the Forfeiture even of 
 their Birth right in many Cafes, and choofe to he' 
 excluded from all Employments, both Military of 
 Civil, and all Preferments either in the Church or 
 State, rather than conform, if they had nothing to 
 hinder them from fo doing but meer Prejudice*, and 
 thofe too grounded upon the moft fenfelefs and rid/cu- 
 tout Notions, as Mr. Trapp is pleafed to reprefent 
 them. But enough of this. 
 
 U Ifl
 
 ( 146 ) 
 
 In the fame Preamble the Author writes thius : 
 Jr i* HO Wonder that all tie Reform' J Churches , tbo' <///> 
 freeing in many other doBnnal Points, join'd unanimoujly 
 in oppojing the Church's Title to Infallibility, becaufe their 
 .ALL -KM at Stake in this Controverjy. To which Mr. 
 Traff anfwers thus, p. 54. Be it fo. Is it not their 
 ALL to defend it ? No, Sir, it is not 5 the Diffe- 
 rence . is plain : becaufe the Faith of an infallible 
 Church is imformablt, as is manifeft to common 
 Senfe ; and by Confequence all the Reform' J 
 Churches lofe their Caufe of Courfe, if the Church 
 of Cbrift be proved to be infallible $ and fo their All 
 was at Stake in this Controverfy. But the Church 
 tfChrift would always have been the Church of Cbrift, 
 and always have had the Authority of the Church of 
 Chritf, tho' no Promife of Infallibility had ever been 
 made to her: and therefore her AH was not at Stake 
 in defending it. 
 
 I /hall here add the excellent Words of the Au- 
 thor of the Church of Cbrift firw'd, :>d Part, Ch. 5. $. 
 3. p. 207. " The Catholic^ Church, fays he, has a 
 " double Authority 5 one, as file is an iUujlriotii So- 
 ciety, and the Church ofChritf $ another, as by his 
 peculiar Promife, fho is the Pillar and Ground of 
 Truth ; that is, infallible in Points of Faith, and 
 Ccntroverfies of Religion. But tho' he had not 
 given her this Privilege, fhe would yet have been 
 the mort illuftrious Society upon Earth, becaufe 
 fhe would have been his Church, One, Holy, Ca- 
 thoUc!^ and Afaftolical (with a lawful Miffion and 
 continual Succeffion from the Apoftles) awarded 
 on every Side with the Writings of the Holy Fa- 
 thers, as with a thou/and Puckers and Shields of might J 
 Men 5 with many thoufands of Martyrs, and with 
 unqueftionable Miracles. A Society in fine fo very 
 facred, that her Teftimony,if not manifeftly dis- 
 proved, would have been Evidence enough to 
 make us reafonahly believe thofe Things reveal' J t 
 which fhe fliould propofe as reveal' a Truths. 
 
 N, B.
 
 ( '47 ; 
 
 K. B. That I wave faying any more in Defence 
 of the Author's Preamble. Ftr(i t becaufe the po- 
 fi tive Proofs of the Church's Infallibility have no 
 Dependanceon itj but chiefly, becaufe the Author 
 has touch'd paffingly in it upon the Argument,which 
 has given Offence ; and no Provocation either of 
 Nonfenfe or bad Language /hall make me change 
 my Refolution of not meddling with that Subject, 
 as 1 muft have done in fome Meafure, if I had 
 continued my Remarks upon Mr Trapp's Anfwers 
 to that Piece. So leaving his undecent as well as. 
 injudicious Railings to the Cenfure of the Publick, 
 ] come to p. 63, where he repeats the Author's con- 
 cluding Words of the Preamble, which are as fol- 
 lows : The Texts are clear andftrong, and muft he tortured 
 in the moft unmerciful Manner, or read backward* to dif- 
 cover any Thing in thetn but the Church's perpetual Infallibi- 
 lity fettled upon the moft folid Foundations. Then follow 
 immediately the Author's Proofs from thofe Texts. 
 
 But before I proceed to any particular Remarks 
 upon Mr. Trap's Anfwer to this Paflage, I obferve 
 in general, that no Man has labour'd more effeclu- 
 ally to prove the Truth of the Author's AflTertion, 
 than Mr. Trapp himfelf : for never were there any 
 Texts more unmercifully tortured than thofe, which the 
 Author has alledg'd for his Proofs, are tortured by 
 Mr. Trapp, as will be fully proved in the following 
 Section. He begins his Anfwer thus: Thefe fiords 
 are introducJory to his Scripture- Proofs of the Church's In- 
 fallibility : meaning too, ** every where elfe, the Church of 
 Rome. This is t\\Q Six and twentieth Repetition of the 
 old School-hoy's Topic. But let us hear him out : 
 Jfthefe Proofs (fays he) are irrefragable, let this big TalJ^ 
 fafs vnreflefted upon. Hut if on the contrary there be the 
 LEAST GLIMPSE of an Argument in thtm : If the 
 Texts alled^d be alledgd MOST IMPERTINENT- 
 LY, and have no mote to do with the Matter in Difoiitt t 
 
 THAN THE FIRST VERSE OF GENESIS 
 HAS WITH TRANSUBSTANTIATIONj 
 
 all u'hicb I undertake to prove immidiattly, then his Charge, 
 U a of
 
 (. 148 ) 
 
 of Torturing and Reading lafkwards returns upon limfe/f. 
 Ml this Apparatus is nothing but empty Swaggering and tkf 
 Perfection of Impudence, which deferves any Sort of Treat- 
 mint altnoft that can he named, rather than an j4nfiitr. 
 
 I have the Charity to think the poor Man was 
 Jn fome very great Diforder when he wrote this 
 Piece : 4tt this Apparatus, fays he, is notbinglut empty 
 Suag&er'iKg. For my Part, I fee neither the Solemni- 
 ty of an Apparatus, nor the Exceffes cf an empty 
 Swaggering in the Author's Words 5 becaufe nothing 
 is more common among Controverts, than to fay 
 that Texts, which appear to them clear and plain, 
 cannot be anfwer'd without being tortured unmerci- 
 fully, or fomething equivalent to it. If Mr. Traff 
 will needs call this Svaggeriug, I hope at leaft to 
 convince the Reader, that it is nor an empty one ; 
 nay, that it will on the contrary be fully juftified 
 by Mr. Trapp himfelfv as I have already obferved. 
 But it feems the Author's Paftage is not only 
 tmpty StfazgertKg, but the Perffflton of Impudence. If he 
 had faid the Height of Impudence, it would at leaft 
 have been good Englifo, tho' very /W Lan^ua^e. But 
 he that as it will, the Author will not difpute the 
 Preeminence of that noble Perfection with Mr. 
 Trapp, but yield it up to him as due in all Refpe&s 
 to his Merits. So that he needs not be at a Lofs 
 to refblve, u-hat other Treatment inftead of an ^nfu'er the 
 Author may aeferve^ for Reward and Merit ought to go 
 together. I hope however Mr. Tra^p do's not mean 
 to threaten his Adverfary with ^r^mtntum bacttlinum 
 (rho' it looks fomething like it) for if he do's, the 
 Author muft knock under 5 being too near the de- 
 crepid Part of Life to enter the Lift in that Sort of 
 JDifpute againft a Man of Youth and Vigour, who 
 in all Likelihood is better at managing a Cudgel 
 than an Argument. 
 
 Hitherto the Author has been atrack'd per&naliy, 
 and the Charge againft him appear d too ridiculous 
 to defcrve any othW than a jocular Anfwer Bur 
 the other Part of Mr. Trapfc Words calls for more 
 
 ferioiis
 
 ( 149 ) 
 
 ferious Reflexions. If this unthinking Gentleman 
 had contented himfelf with repeating the Anfwers 
 he has borrowed of others, tho* never fo much out 
 of the Way, there would have been nothing fingular 
 in it. But Mr. Traft thinks he do's nothing, unlefs 
 he go's greater Lengths than thofe who have gone 
 before him, and fo overfhoots his Mark for the moft 
 Parr, by being ambitious to out-itrip his Predecef- 
 fors, and fay fomething that may be calld his 
 own. 
 
 'Tis a good Obfervaticn of a modern Writer, 
 that there is a Kind ofCbarafterijlicl^ftamp'clupQn every 
 Man's LTttdtrftanding, ly which he may be l^noivn as well as 
 ly his Limbs and Features. He adds, that certain Writers 
 are often \>ttt upon jometbing very ridiculous, thro' the Am- 
 bition of appearing what they tbinl^ SMART. This may 
 be juftly applied to Mr. Trap's injudicious Sallies 
 inrerfperfed throughout his whole Book : in which 
 we are fure to find fomething not faid before. But 
 that Something is for the moft Part cicher nothing to 
 the Purpofe, or fomething fo very extravagant, that 
 we may know who is the Author of it as well as we 
 may know an Afs by hisEraying. 
 
 As for Inftance, Mr. Trapp in his Preface writes 
 thus of the whole Body of Catholic!^ Controvert ijis. Their 
 Caufe, fays he, # fo very indefenfille, that it maizes the 
 grta&ft Men tall^ ridiculoufly. The left ive can fay of their 
 Reafonings if, that they are learned Slbfurelities. There 
 way be much Learning in them^ut there is no common Senfe. 
 Has any fober Proteftant Divine ever writ fo extra- 
 vagantly before him ! But Mr. Trapp thought it to 
 be a high Flight : and without all Difpute expected 
 nothing Icfs than to be cry'd up for it by aJl the good 
 old Wives of his double Parifh for a fmart Writer. 
 
 Again, thofe who deny both Tranfuhftantiation 
 and Conliilfl'intiation or Impanation, maintain general- 
 ly, that '.V:T;/?'j real V.ociy cannot be in many P/aeef at 
 once. But no Man before Mr. Traft was ever fo 
 prefumptuous as to declare, that r/o' he foonlti f*t 
 that Proportion itt tbt Bible , orfetaMaJt raife tbe Dead,
 
 .( 150 
 
 *nJ affirm it to le true, be isonld not believe it. Nay 
 that in this Cafe he could not befofttre of -what befoouM 
 fee -with hi s own Eyes, as be is fur e that that Proportion is 
 falff. All this we may be fure is Mr. Trap's own, 
 and he may be known by it as well as by his Limbs 
 and Features. 
 
 In like Manner (to come now to the Piece we 
 have before us) all Enemies of the Church's InfaUt^i- 
 lity endeavour indeed to the utmoft of their Power 
 to give the Text r alledg'd by Catholicks for Proof 
 of it fome Turn or other to invalidate the Force of 
 them : and nothing lefs can be expected from them 5 
 becaufe the whole Superstructure of the Reforma- 
 tion falls to the Ground of Courfe, unlefs they can 
 make it appear, that they will bear a different In- 
 terpretation from that, in which they are underftood 
 by all Catholick Writers. But Mr. Traf>(> 9 to keep 
 p to the Character of a ftnart Man, and fay fome. 
 thing of his own, go's a great deal farther, and tells 
 s, that tbefe Texts have not the LEAST GLIMPSE 
 *f ait jfrgumetit in them, that they are alkidg'A MOST 
 IMPERTINENTLY, and have no more to Jo with 
 fe Matter in Dffitte, than THE FIRST VERSE 
 
 OF GENESIS HAS WITH TRANSUBSTAN- 
 TIATION. M which, fays he, I undertake 
 
 Qnldferet hie tanta dignum fromiffbr biatu ? 
 
 Parturiunt mantes , nafcetur ridiculus mm. Hor 
 A bare Recital of the Texts themfelves alledg'd 
 by the Author will (hew the Extravagance of this 
 ZravaJo. For in Reality they are beft feen in their 
 own genuine Light without any Comments upon 
 them. The Author has omitted the Text of ljuiih 
 C 59. v. 21. as likewifethat of St. Paul, Ephef.4. 
 v. ii, 12, 15, 14. tho' they might alone have fufE- 
 ced to prove his Point, and contented himfelf with 
 fix in all f one from St. Paul to Timothy, and five 
 out of the Gofpels. They are as follow. i&. 
 Mutb. itf. v. 1 8. L7j>e tbit RacI^ I wilib*il<jniy Church^ 
 
 AND
 
 AND THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT 
 PREVAIL AGAINST IT. aly, Mattb. 28. v. 
 20. Lo, I am with you ALWAYS, EVEN UNTO 
 THE END OF THE WORLD. 5 ly,3cfci4. 
 v. 16. I will pray my Father, and he is ill give you another 
 Comforter^ that he may abide with you FOR EVER, 
 tit Spirit of Truth. 4thly, v. ^6. The Holy GbvfttUhoH* 
 my Father will fend in my Name f will teach you ALL 
 
 THINGS, AND BRING ALL THINGS TO 
 1OUR REMEMBRANCE, vbub 1 bave JaiJ *t* 
 
 you. 5thly, john 16. V. 13. Wbtn the Spirit of Truth 
 cometb, he will guide you into ALL TRUTH. And 
 tfthly, S. Paul 's declaring the Church ef Cbritf to be 
 THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF TRUTH. 
 1 Tim. 3. v. 15. 
 
 Thefe are the Texts the Author has alledg'd. 
 And can it be faid by any Man in his Senfes, that 
 they are moff impertinently alledg'd I that there is aot the 
 leafi Gtimpje of an Argument in them, and kave no more 
 to do with the Suljecl in Difpute t than tbefrft Verje o/Ge- 
 nefista; with Tranjtilftantiat ion ! How much more ju- 
 dicious would it have been, if he had faid, that the 
 Texts have indeed their Difficulty,but are not unan- 
 fwerable,and that he would anfwer them in Effect ? 
 This he might have faid without Prejudice to his 
 Caufe : but to blufter after the moft exorbitant 
 Manner, and that too entirely mat a propos, as will 
 appear hereafter, betrays both a Want of Judgment 
 in the higheft Degree, and an Aflurance not to be 
 match'd. I lhall therefore here make bold to re- 
 turn Mr. Trapp the civil Compliment he juft now 
 made the Author, and hope he will not take it ill 
 to be told in his own Language, that this is the very 
 PerfeBion of Impudence. 
 
 But to fhew, that this is not an empty Compliment 
 but a real Truth, I only defire the Reader to confi- 
 der, that Hundreds of Perfons eminent for Learning 
 are here thrown into the Lilt of eminent Blocl^eaJs 
 by this poor Dabler in Controverfy. I fpeak 
 cf all thofe Authors, whether ancient or modern, 
 
 who
 
 tvho have ever drawn their learned Pens in Defence 
 of the Churches Infallibility $ amongft which there are 
 great Numbers admired for their Wit and Erudition 
 even by their profefs'd Enemies. Now thefe agree 
 unanimoufly in eftabli/hing the Doftrine of Infalli- 
 bility principally upon the Promt fes of Chrift contain'd 
 in thofe very Text s, which Mr. Trapp rejects with fo 
 much Arrogance and Difdain. Very Grange i that 
 not one amongil them fhould ha vejudgment enough 
 to fee the Impertinence, as he calls it, of thofe Texts .' 
 Not one of them Brains enough to fee, that there is 
 Hot the leaft Glimpfe of Argument in tbem,a.nd have no more 
 to do u-ith Infallibility, than the Jir/? Verfe of Genefjs has 
 with Tranfubftantiation ! How true is the Saying of 
 the abovefaid Writer, that Men are cften put upon 
 fometking very ridiculous thro' the Ambition of appearing 
 tobat they call fmart ! 
 
 Biit how /hall we bring off even fomc of the 
 ancient Fathers, who have made Ufcof the very 
 Texts in Queftion to prove the Church's Infallibility ? 
 Muft thefe alfo come within the Lafh of Mr. 
 Trapp's Pen, and be accufed by him of Impertinence 
 in the Application ? S. JritgttjPm, Serm. de Symb. ad 
 Catec. writes thus : Jfter a Confejjion of the Trinity 
 follows the Holy Church. Here it Jheivn God and his 
 Temple which if thf ho'y Church : the One Church, the 
 True Church, the Catholick Church, -which fahts a^ainft 
 all Herefos. Fight foe may, BUT SHE CANNOT 
 BE FOIL'D. M Herefies have gone out of her lily 
 ttfefefs Branches lopp'a 1 off from the Vine. But ft>e remains 
 in her Root, in her Vine, 'in her Charity. THE GATES 
 
 OF HELL SHALL NOT PREVAIL A- 
 GAINST HER. Ma'th. 16. v. 18* Here we 
 have the Church's Infallibility not only aflerted by 
 this learned Father, but proved from one of the 
 Texts fo defpifed by Mr. Trapp. But has S. Jugu?ti 
 alledg'd it impertinently ? 
 
 The fame Text is alluded to by S. Cyril of ^!ex- 
 anJria, Dial, dt Trin. L. 4. where he writes thus i 
 He gave the Name of the Rocl( to nothing el ft but the UM-
 
 ( '53 ) 
 
 nd con ft ant Faith of the Difciple, on "which th? 
 Church ofChrifl is fo fettled andeftabiifctt AS NEVER 
 
 TO FALL,r to BEAR UP AGAINST THE 
 
 GATES OF HELL, and Jo to remain for ever. 
 
 S. Leo, who prefided by his Legates at the fourth 
 General Council, and for his great Abilities is juftly 
 firnamed the Great, writes thus of the Faith of the 
 Catholick Church : Ibis Faith overcomes the Devil ', anil 
 ArM/^j the Chains of his Captives : this Faith dijingages ut 
 from the World, and maizes Heaven our Alode, AND 
 
 THE GATES OF HELL SHALL NOT* 
 PREVAIL AGAINST IT. For God bss tftabli/b 'J 
 it upon Juch folid Foundations, that neither Herefy can 
 corrupt it, nor Ptiganifir, overthrow it. 'Tis plain, that 
 this eminent Father regarded this Text of S. Mit- 
 thew as a folid Proof not only of the Church's perpe- 
 tual Duration (as Mr. Trapp has taken a World of 
 Pains to perfuade his Readers) but alfo of her per- 
 petual Orthodoxy or Infallibility. 
 
 Tertullitn L- de Pra?fc. C. 28. has thefe Words: 
 What then ! Have all the Churches err'dl Was the ^poftle 
 of Chrft miftaken in his Teftimony \ Did the Holy Gloft 
 take Care of None to hid them into Truth, BEING 
 
 FOR THIS REASON SENT BY CHRIST, 
 BEING FOR THIS INTENTION PETI- 
 TIONS OF THE FATHER, THAT HE 
 MIGHT TEACH THEM ALL TRUTH! 
 This I think is a plain Allufion to the Texts of St. 
 3ohn alledg'd for a Proof, that the Chur ( h Univtrfat 
 cannot err": and would this great Man allude to 
 Texts, that have not the leaft Glimpfe of Argument in 
 them. 
 
 This is abundantly enough to give the Reader at 
 true Idea of Mr. Trapp's unparalcll'd Affurance in 
 advancing Extravagances, which no Man in his 
 Senfcs can give into, without taking for granted a 
 Suppofition as fhocking to common Senfe, as if I 
 ihould fuppofe, that ail the brighteft Men in Great 
 Britain are Fools or Madmen. But Mr, Trapp has un- 
 X cicrtaker}
 
 ( 154 > 
 
 dertaken to make good his Wordj that is to prove* 
 that all the Texts in Queftion are moft impertinently 
 atieJg'J, c. Let us then fee, whether the Perfor- 
 mance will anfwer this ridiculous Boaft. 
 
 SECT. XXV. 
 
 Remarks upon Mr. Frapp's Interpretations of 
 the Texts alledg'd by the Author. 
 
 I Once intended to have barely referr'd the Rea- 
 der to the Author of Charity and Truth for a fatif- 
 factory Anfwer to Mr. Trap's ftrain'd Interpreta- 
 tions of the Texts in Queftion, and fo fave myfelf 
 the Trouble even of a Tranfcription. But reflecting 
 with myfelf, thatthefe Remarks may fall into ths 
 Hands of fome, who perhaps will never fee that 
 other Book, I thought it belt for the Convenience 
 of thefe to tranfcribe the whole Piece ; to which I 
 will not pretend to add any Thing, but only adver- 
 tife the Reader, that this Author begins with the 
 Text of S. Paul to Timothy, tho' it be the laft quoted 
 in EngfaHtTsConverJion, &c. and accordingly the laft 
 animadverted upon by Mr. Traff. The other Text.t 
 are handled in the fame Order, as they are placed 
 in the Author's Book. 
 
 This being prernifed, I come now to the Author 
 of Charity and Truth, who, notwithstanding his great 
 Learning and Abilities, has been fo grofly overfeen 
 as to alledge, as impertinently as any of his Prede- 
 ceflors, thofe very Texts : and therefore thought 
 himfelf bound to give fome Satisfaction to Mr.
 
 < '55 ) 
 
 He writes thus, Chap. 3. j^^/J.-j. p. 134. 
 
 44 The Reader, fays he, may here expect to fee 
 " the late Exceptions of Mr, Trapp againft the Ap- 
 " plication of the Texts above mention'd. For 
 ' tho' his moft diftinguifhing Talent is owing to 
 { Billingsgate, and he feems frequently in the argu- 
 -' ing Part fcarce to know what he would have us 
 ** think, yet his Replies to the Scripture are chiefly 
 " taken from others of a much brighter Genius. 
 
 " Firft then to j Tim. C. 3. v. 15. he has four 
 " Anfwers. Altho' perhaps if they had been good 
 ' fur any thing a lefler Number might have fer- 
 * ved. Ftrft (fays he, p. 102) it is far from being 
 certain that thoft Word, THE PILLAR AND 
 " SUPPORT OF TRUTH, relate to the CHURCH : 
 <{ they may perhaps relate to Timothy, anJ it it the Opi- 
 " nion of very /earned "Mert % that they Jo, 
 
 Anfwer. Learned Men may be in very great 
 Streights : and thefe certainly were, when they 
 " were forced to interpret their Bible contrary to the 
 11 Bible itfelf, and with fo much Violence to the 
 " Text, as could only come into the Heads of fuch 
 as are in the utmoft Diftrefs. [This ea-H'J by 
 Mr. Trapp the PerfeHion of Impudence] Dr. Ham- 
 mond is more fincere, and tells us (Paraphrafe and 
 Annot. p. 732. Co/. 2.) that of this Houfe of God 
 two Titles are here fet down. The -firfl Title is the 
 { Church of the living God. The fecod Title is , that 
 it is the Pillar of Truth, &C. 
 
 " But Mr. Trapp has a ficond, and, as it is to be 
 " hoped, a better Anfwer. za'y, fays he, if S. Paul 
 < fpeal^i of the Church, he fpealy either of the Ckttrch in 
 ' general, or the Church of Ephefus in particular t moft 
 * c certainly not of the Church of Rome. 
 
 An fair. Smartly faid, if it were either pertinent 
 
 '* or true. S; Timothy was not indeed to converfe 
 
 " in Rome : and yet St. Paul fpeaks of the Church 
 
 *' in Communion with Rome, which Proteftants call 
 
 X z the
 
 f. For when S. Paul wrote this 
 An. Cfc. 64, was not the Church in gene- 
 ' rai in Communion with Rowland with it's Biftiop 
 ' St. Frfr ? Was not then theCfcwrrfc o/ Epbtjtis in 
 Communion with Row? ? If it was, whether S. 
 Paul fpeaks of the Churcb of Ephefus, or of the 
 Cburch in genera/, he fpeaks of a Church or of the 
 Church in Communion with Rom^which Mr. Traty 
 calls the Church of Rome. So that the thirj Part 
 ' of his Anfwer evidently contradicts the two frft. 
 *' It is certain, that when S. Paul wrote to the Ro- 
 ' mans An. Chr. 58, there was a Church in Rome : 
 ' Rom. i. v. 7. and that the Faith of this Church 
 *' was celebrated through the -whole World, v. 8. Is it 
 ' then moft ceriairi, that tho' S. Paul writing to Timo- 
 * c thy An, Ch. 64, fpeaks of the C'hurc h in general, or 
 ' of the j4Jiatict Chriftians, yet he fpeaks not of tho 
 ' Church in Communion with Rome. 
 
 *' And that Mr. Traft may fee, that his feconJ 
 *' 4fver is neither fntintnt nor rrf, I muft defire 
 *' him to obferve a Thing, which all Men know 
 *' befides himfelf : 1 mean, that thefe Queftions 
 " are very different, ift, Is the Umverja! Church 
 *' infallible ? zdly, /; the Chunk in Communion ivitb 
 *' ~R.omc the Uuiverfal Church ? and ^dly, Is the Church 
 ' -which is in Rome the Univerfal Church ? To the 
 * c frft and fctond Queftion we fay, Yes. To the 
 ^' if/);>^ we fay, No. Hence Mr. Trapp's fecond 
 *' Anfwer is moft certainly impertinent, whether 
 41 it be true or falfe. For it is as clear as the Sun, 
 *' that his Adverfary was only treating the frft 
 " ^*S/?/<w* (i f is what Mr. Trvzp/> himfelf grants, p. 
 " 101) n^ was proving his Aflertion from i Tim. 
 v C. 5. v. 15. But inftead of replying to the^irtf 
 " ^ e .ft' c> ^ as he ought, Mr. "!>*/>/>, as if he had 
 " been playing as Children do at (rofs Purpofes, 
 *' thought fit to anfwer to the feconel or rhW, and 
 *' very gravely tells us, that the Chunk o/"Rome is 
 ** vet infallible, or that S. P<:*/ do's not fpeak of the
 
 ( 157 ) 
 
 u Church of Rome. This Impertinence the Reader 
 " will find at every Turn throughout the whole 
 u arguing Part of Mr. Trap's Book. Befides his 
 ' fecond jfrfiser is not only impertinent, but moft 
 * certainly falfe, if he means, that St. ftzu/fpeaks 
 " not of the Church in Communion with Rome. 
 *' The tbird4*futr of Mr. Trapp is as weak as the 
 other two, and he had Reafon not to infift upon 
 it. Thirdly, fays he, by the Church's being the PIL- 
 LAR AND GROUND OF TRUTH may 
 very well be meant no more, than that according to the 
 Intent of her Inflitntionfje always OUGHT to befo, 
 t!0t that Jibe always aBually will be fo. Our Lord tefls 
 his Diftiples, they are THE SALT OF THE 
 EARTH, and yetjuppofes that the Salt may lofe it's 
 *' Savour. 
 
 jinj-vser. Is this then Mr. Trapp's Comment on S. 
 " Paul, THE CHURCH IS, that is, THE 
 CHURCH IS NOT, but only OUGHT to be 
 
 the Pillar and Support of Truth ? And why may not 
 " Infidels fay in the fame manner, SAINT PAUL 
 IS, that is, HE IS NOT, but only ought to be * 
 " Teacher of Truth ? For the true and obvious Senfe 
 e< of his Words i Tern. 3. v. 15. (from which they 
 ** cannot be wrefted without Sophiftry and Preju- 
 < dice) is that there are two Properties or Titles 
 *' of the HonfeofGod$ the jirft, that it is the Houfe of 
 " the living Cod ; the fecond, that it is the Pillar and 
 " Support of Truth. And Mr. Trap, I prefume, is not 
 *' to be taught, that Properties in Rigour are infe- 
 ' parable from the Thing itfelf. So that the Houfe 
 ' o/Go^(that is, the whole Society of orthodox Chriftians, 
 " or the Jfatick Chriftiansas agreeing with the reft 
 " in Faith and Communion) can no more ceafe to 
 " be the Pillar and Support of Truth, than it can ceafe 
 " to be the Church of the living God. 
 
 " Mr. Trap's InOance of Salt is very infipid. The 
 <l Difciples by receiving the Holy Ghoft, Aft. 2. 
 *' v. 4. became moft effectually the Light of the 
 
 World,
 
 ( 158 ) 
 
 < WirlJ, and the Salt of the Earth. Before thi* they 
 *' were like other Men, and both might and did loje 
 their Savour. JudM hang'd himfelf, Peter deny'd 
 ' his Matter, alt the Jptjikt firfook kirn. Matth. 
 ^6. v. 36. It is therefore undeniably evident in 
 " the Scripture, in what manner the Difciples were 
 * call'd the Light of the World, and the Salt of the Earth, 
 Matth. C. 5. v. 15. 14. And when Mr, Trappp 
 ' has given us as great Evidence of the Fail of the 
 * Catholick Church, as S. Matthew has done of the 
 *' Fall of S. P<ter t Matth. 26. v. 74. I promife to 
 " fubfcribe to his third Anfwer 5 tho' I perceive he 
 ** do's not much like it : but the next will make full 
 Amends. 
 
 " Fourthly, fays he, and chiefly, t hi Church maymain- 
 tain all neceffary Truth, and yet proptfe FALSE DO- 
 CTRINES, an* Terms of Communion INCONSI- 
 
 STENT WITH SALVATION She may 
 
 ' therefore be the Pillar and Support of Truth with- 
 *' out lein^ an unerring Guide, or /o much M free FROM 
 
 GREAT AND GRIEVOUS ERRORS, p. 
 
 ** 102, 103. 
 
 J[nfver. If the chief and beft Anfwer be Nonfenfc, 
 - l wo be to all the reft. And is it not evident Non- 
 fenfe (give me Leave to ufe Mr. Trap's tamiliar 
 Words) to fuppofe that the fame Church, at the 
 fame time, in tit Pillar and Support of 'Truth ? and that 
 it falls into ^eat and grievous Errors ? Is it not 
 evidently Nonfenfe to fuppofe, that the fame 
 Church, at the fame Time, m^y maintain ALL 
 NECESSARY TRUTHS.W yet profofe f!f e 
 DMrinet INCONSISTENT WITH SALVA- 
 ** T1ON ? For is not Truth call'd necejjary in order 
 l to Salvation ? And do's a Church teach all neref- 
 * fary Truth, if fhe teaches Falfhood iwonfifttft -with 
 <l Salvation, and even requires the Profeflion of it in 
 *' the Terms and Conditions of Communion with her ? 
 " No certainly : for all necffary Truth is not taught, 
 " unlcfs it be taught in fuch a manner as is neceffary 
 " to Salvation,: that is, unlefs it be taught without 
 
 Contradiction
 
 ( '59 ) 
 
 " Contradi&ion or Inconfiftency in Regard to Sal- 
 " vation. So that his chief Anfwer is as bad, if 
 " not worfe than any of the reft. 
 
 44 To S.Mattbno C. i6.v. 1 8. Mr. T/>/> has a 
 " Jong Objection (page 64. 6*,. 66. &c.) or if yea 
 " pleafe a long Anfwer,which amounts only to this, 
 " that from thofe Words of Scripture nothing can 
 " be concluded but the perpetual Duration of the 
 Church of Chrift. 
 
 Anfcer. Nothing can be concluded from them, 
 " but the perpetual Duration of the fore Church of 
 " Chrift } and this undoubtedly may. For the plairi 
 " and obvious Senfe of his Words is this: (Jfoit 
 " thii Rocl( I ii-ill build my pure and true Church <t;i<t 
 " the Gates o r Heflft>all not prevail a^ainft it. But thefc 
 " Words of Chrift cannot be falfe, therefore his 
 " Church cannot fall into any Error againit Faith. 
 " For how can it fall into any fuch Error, and yet 
 be at the fame time the true Church of Chrift, and 
 pure from Error ? Nothing can be more abfurd, 
 than what Mr. Trafl> affirms in the Courfe of thisr 
 Objection, p. 70. I mean, that notwithstanding 
 this Text, ALL THE CHURCHES UPON" 
 EARTH, or ifpnpkafa THE CHURCH U- 
 NIVERSAL MAY BE GUILTY OF IDO- 
 LATRY IT SELF. Andlprefumehewill not 
 take it ill, if I return the Compliment in his own 
 Words p. tf4,which he paflesupon his Adverfary 
 without any Appearance of Reafon, that fotntcb 
 Blunder, ln(enfe<jtience, Fallacy an dFa'fooodu-M I believe 
 *' fcarce ever crowded into foftiv Words before. 
 
 "To S. Matthew C. 2 8. v. 20. what Mr. Tr^ 
 *' objects, do's not reach the Difficulty. Our bleffed 
 *' Saviour had faid to his Difciples, bt vbo hears you 
 " bears me. Luke C. 10. v. \6. and before his Af- 
 41 cenfion he fays to his Apoftles : Go teach all Na. 
 " tions ' teaching them to obfervt, &c. an A behold F 
 *' am teaching with you always even unto the End of the 
 
 " World. This is a Part of what the Words implf . 
 
 For
 
 C 1*0 ) 
 
 c For the true and full Senfe is, BeboU J am going, 
 *' teaching and baptizing with you, even to the End of 
 the World : this being the moft natural and plain 
 ' Signification of the Words. If fo, whatever the 
 Church of Chrift teaches, and propofes to others 
 as the Do&rine of Chrift, is taught by Chrift 
 " himfelf [He who bears you hears mt~\ but what Chrift 
 ' teaches cannot be falfe, therefore whatever the 
 ' Church of Chrift teaches, and propofes to others 
 as the Do&rine of Chrift, cannot be falfe. 
 
 " Laftly, to S. >fc C. 14. v. 16. 17. Mr. Trapp 
 ' has fome Objections. Firji he fays p. 78. that it 
 t it [caret common Senfe to interpret it of the SucceJJors of 
 the sfpojlles at all : rfco' 1 deny not, fays he, lut the 
 ' jJffiftanceofCbrift's Holy Spirit if in other Places, vibt* 
 *' tber it be here or no t promt fed to his Church in gtneral 
 * through all 4ges. That is, it is fcarce common Senfe 
 ' to fay. that for ever fignifies/or ever j or to fuppofe 
 ' that for ever do's not end with the Death of the 
 ' Apoftles. And iftbt Jfiftance ofChrift's Holy Spirit 
 is in other Places promifed to his Church IN ALL 
 AGES, why may not thefe Words, My Father 
 " will %iveyou another Comforter, that he may abide u-itb 
 you FOR EVER, t he Spirit of Trtttb, without any 
 *' Danger of Nonfenfe fignify the fame ? But if 
 * ( they do, Mr. Trapp is fafe. For there is not a Word, 
 " fays he,p.79.rt&0KrftaC/;rffco/ : Ro>tt?.ThegoodMan 
 is ftill at crofs Purpofes. For the Queltion here 
 *' is not, whether the Church in Communion with 
 " Rome be the Univerfal Church, but whether the Uni- 
 * vtr/al Church be always Orthodox in her Decifions 
 " of Faith, and an unerring Guide in deciding Con- 
 " troverfies of Religion. 
 
 " But if our Saviour (fays Mr. Trapp p. 79.) pro- 
 <c rnijtd, that the Holy Gboft fljouldaffift not only the J4po~ 
 * files, hut the Miniilers of bis Church to the World's End, 
 ** teach them andremindtbetn of all things neceffary to their 
 ' Salvation (for fure be freaks of nothing el fe) yet thofe 
 * who art fo taught and reminded MAY NEITHER 
 
 LEARN
 
 LEARN NOR REMEMBER AS THfiT 
 " SHOULD DO. 
 
 s}njv.'er. An admirable Comment upon thefe 
 ' Words of Chrift, S. 5oft C. rtf. v. 15. #>. the 
 Spirit of Jrutb * came, be WILL GUIDE YOU 
 INTO ALL TRUTH. And S. John C. 14; 
 < v.a5. Tfcp Ho/yGhofti whom my Father will fend in my 
 
 . t N, WILL TEACH YOU ALLTHlNGSj 
 AND BRING ALL THINGS TO YOUR 
 ' REMEMBRANCE, WHATSOEVER I 
 " HAVE SAID TO YOU. For how are all things 
 *' faK&i'f,if they are not learn" W? Howare they 1-ronght 
 ' fo Remembrance, if they are not rwf #f&r;V i j And 
 tc fince this Anfwer fuppolbs, that this Prom ife. of 
 <c the ^o/r/f o/ 7 Trwrfe is made in the very fame 
 et Words to the stpoftles, and to their SuccefTors 5 
 , c if both were equally indued with free Will j how 
 ' can we be fure, that, the Jpofiles were efte6lually 
 guided into all Trffe,and were effeftually taught all 
 " rfcwgf ? For Mr. Trapp informs us p. 76. that tht 
 '* Spirit of Truth may aki defer ever with the Teachers ojf 
 ce the 'Go/pel; fo ai to tender bis Grace and ^fiftance to 
 tc them,and yet they may RESIST HIS MOTIONS^ 
 <t <ina fo bave NO BENEFIT by ftub h -abiding 
 u with them. Thus the ingenious Mr. Trapp. 
 " But fiill he is not fatisfy'd. For the abiding 
 (fays he p. 77.) of the Holy Ghoft with the Church is 
 no Argument of it's being always in the Right , much 
 lefs of it's being always or ever infallible, 
 Anfwer. If the Remaining of the Holy Spirit with 
 ** the Church/or ever, and his Guiding it into all re- 
 * veal'd Truth be no Argument, that the Church is 
 tc always in the Right in deciding Controverfies o" 
 <4 Religion, I cannot but fear that in thefe Chap- 
 ti ters of S. John the slpoftles will have no Promifb 
 if of being always or ever infallible in what they 
 taught or writ. 
 
 " As to the Suppbfitiori of the ingenious Mr- 
 <c Iraft, that tho' the Church of Chrift were 
 X
 
 *' waff in the Right, /he would not be infallible, tills, 
 " if his own Language may be us'd without Of- 
 11 fence, is a mo& egregious Blunder. Infallibility is 
 ** a Term, which 1 do not find, that the Univerfal 
 " Church in any of her General Councils has ap- 
 4t plied to herfelf $ tho' as her Divines underftand 
 " it, it is certainly true. For when they fay that 
 " the Univerfal Church is infallible, they only mean 
 ' that fhe is always orthodox $ thar fhe is and always 
 " will be an unerring Guide in deciding Controversies 
 * of Religion, and that in this /he is always in tbe 
 Right. But fince Mr. Trapp by Infallibility means 
 " a great deal more, we may remember that this 
 " noble Champion, when his ALL is at Stake, is 
 " fighting without an Adverfary. 
 
 " However, fays he, p. 77. here is nothing about the 
 " Church of Rome in particular and to be guided into 
 att Truth do's not imply that the Guidance muff ofNeceJ- 
 " fay be effiBually followed, nor do's being taught , all 
 " things* imply Infallibility. 
 
 jjnpwtr. This is harping on the old broken String, 
 " and dreaming of the Church ofR.ome t when it is no 
 *' Part of the Queftion. However Mr. Trapp judges 
 '* right. For the very naming cf the Church of Rome, 
 " how impertinent foever, carries more Conviftion 
 44 with it on a judicious Rabble, than a Million of 
 " real Demonftrations. 
 
 N. B. ThatMr.Tr^hasRecourfetothisfhuf- 
 3ing Way of eluding the Queftion no lefs than thirty 
 times within the Compafs of the ru-o &ff;ojonly, 
 which are upon the Subject of Infallibility : I prefume 
 for the Reafon here fo juftly obferved by our Au- 
 thor, who continues hi* Anfwer to Mr. Trap's laft 
 Words thus. 
 
 " How far the Jpoftles may be in Danger of for- 
 " feiting their Charter by what Mr. Trapp adds, I 
 *' am not willing to examine : but I am fully per- 
 41 fuaded, that if the Universal Church has an in fallible 
 Pnmife of being TAUGHT ALL THINGS, 
 
 and
 
 r 163 ; 
 
 "andof being GUIDED INTO ALL 
 " TRUTHS FOR EVER, her Definitions of 
 " Faith both are, and will be always infallible. 
 
 Thus far this Author. And I appeal now to the 
 Judgment of the Reader, whether Mr. Trapp has 
 not tortured S. Jobn full as unmercifully, as S. /*</ and 
 S. M^tthnu, to make him fpeak Things againft his 
 Knowledge and Confcience ? And whether his 
 Affura.nct was not a great deal too hard for his Judg- 
 ment, when he engaged himfelf to prove, that the 
 Texts alledg'd by the Author have not the haft Glimpje 
 of Argument in them ? that they are alledgd mo(i imper- 
 tinently, and have no more to Jo with the Matter in Dif- 
 pttte, than the Jlrft Verfe o/Genefis hoi -with Tranfubftan- 
 tiation ? Yet Mr. Trapp, p. 8tf glories in the Feats 
 he has done, and allures his Reader, that he h*s fully 
 cnjiaer'd thofe Texts, i. e. that they are not in the leaji to 
 the Purpofe, the Premifes having no manner of Relation to 
 the Conclttfon. But this is in \iisjifth Sfflion, where 
 we fliall meet it again by and by. 
 
 P. 78. he has a Line or two, which I cannot let 
 pafs unanfwer'd, viz. that if we interpret the Paffage 
 (i. e. the TeKt of S. John C. itf. v. 13 ) ** relating 
 totbeApoftlesand their SucceJJort in Conjunction, I cannot 
 conceive, fays he, u-hat Superiority or Preeminence the A" 
 pottles would have over their SucceJJort. \ anfwer, that 
 every Apoftle, as fuch, after the Defcentof the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft was perfonally infallible in delivering the 
 Chriftian DoHrme, and had his Knowledge of reveal' tl 
 Truths by immediate [nitration, befides other fuper- 
 natural gratuitous Gifts, which their Succeflbrs 
 have not. So that I hope Mr. Trapp is now fa- 
 tisfied. 
 
 The Remainder of his fourth StBion, tho' it con- 
 tains nothing material, has a Piece p. 79 remarka- 
 ble for what in Mr. Trapp's Stile may be call'd the 
 Perfection of Impudence, Billin^i^ate- Language, and Non* 
 fcnfe. I leave it to the Reader's Speculation, and 
 "pafs to his fftb Section. 
 
 la SECT;
 
 C 164 ) 
 
 SECT. XXVI. 
 
 Remarks upon Mr. frapp's pretended Con- 
 futation of the Author's Fifth Section. 
 
 IN this Seftion the Author proves the Church's 
 Infallibility from the ninth Article of the Creed, and 
 B. Pearfans Expofition of it. This is the whole 
 Subjeft of that Se&ion : and, to iofe nothing of Mr. 
 Trapfs pretended Confutation of it, I fhall follow 
 him in fome of his firft Pages Step by Step, and 
 fubjoin /hort STRICTURES (to ufe his elegant 
 Word) as Occafion fhall require. 
 
 The young Gentleman, fays he, p. 84. in the lafl W^ords 
 cfthe lafl SecJion having asld, why the Church's Infallibi- 
 lity, y?rf it if fo important a Point, has not a Place in the 
 jlpoftles Creed, # anfwer'd by his Preceptor at the Begin- 
 ning of this, that- many other DoBrines of great Importance 
 are not in the Creed : But it do 1 ! not follow that therefore 
 they are not to he believed. This I grant, but then by hit 
 Leave, their Church's Infallibility is an Article of fttcb 
 infinite "Moment and Conference, all the reft in truth de- 
 fending on if [that's a Miftake, becaufe all Articles, 
 that are revealed Truths now, would have been fb, 
 tho' Chrift had made no Promife of Infallibility to 
 his Church, as has been fully proved . 24.} that if 
 there be any furh thing, ] c tnnot imagine hois it comes to 
 fafs, thafwe find not thrfe Words in the Creed, I believe 
 theChurch of Rome to be infallible.Br the reaf Reajon 
 *r this $ there it noticing in the Creed, but -what is in Scrip- 
 ture. But there are many Things in Scripture, which 
 are not in the Creed, of which the DoBrine of Jnfattil>i- 
 iity is one, as has been proved in the preceding Se- 
 $ion. However, a better Reafon than what Mr.
 
 ( ,6 5 ) 
 
 >ives why it is not mentioned in the Creed \* t 
 becauie (fuppofing the Creed to be always true) if 
 flows from the 9th Article of it as an immediate 
 Confequence : and fince the jjpoftfes Creed was inten- 
 ded for the ihorteft Summary poffible of the mod 
 capital Points of the Chriftian Doctrine, it was 
 improper to clog it with Confequences. But a very 
 good Reafon why Rome is not mention'd in it is, 
 becaufe tho' it be an inconteftable Truth, it is no 
 Article of Faith, that S. Peter was Bifhop of Rom?. 
 
 He go's on thus, p. 84, 85. This Article however 
 [of Infallibility] if -we will ta\e the ^uthor's Word, is 
 virtually in the Creed, and fo are all Popifb Tenets, becaufe 
 believing the Church implies believing her -whole Dotfrine. To 
 which 1 anfwer, and 'tis Anfwer fujficient, that we may be- 
 lieve the Holy CatholicI^ Church y "without believing all the 
 Church of R.omc fays. [If this be a fu/ficiene Anfwer, 
 a very childifh and impertinent Anfwer is y^Vr, 
 becaufe the Queftion here is not,whether theOrrf> 
 of Rome be tho Catholic^ Chunh.'] But let us hear 
 him out. Becaufe ift, it is one thing to believe there is a 
 Holy Catholic^ Church, -which is all the Article meant, and 
 another to believe, that whatever foe fays ts certainly true. 
 [The one follows as a Confequence from the other : 
 becaufe I cannot believe her to be the HolyCatholicl^ 
 Church, unlefs I believe her to be Holy and Catholic^ 
 in her Doctrine] id'y, the Church of Rome is not the 
 Catholic!^ Church nor 5^(y, the ivhole Doflrine of the 
 Chttrch of Rome agreeable to the Doclrine of the Catholic!^ 
 Chunh. [All this again is impertinent and out of 
 the Queftion. But Mr. Trapp feems refolved to 
 cram it down the Throats of his Readers, tho' long 
 fince naufeated with the Repetitions of it. 
 
 He go's on again, p. 85. Tho' this Creed was cer- 
 tainly Mff cempofedby the sJpoftles, -whatever S. Leo, f?r. 
 "have faidof it. ['Tis of no Confequence, whether it 
 was or not : only I would not venture to be fo dtci- 
 Jjve as the learned Mr. T>-apf>^ yet our Author need 
 not IQ family have proved from the eighfb of ourthirt.y 
 
 nine
 
 ( 166 ) 
 
 nine Articles, flat we receive it <ts agreeable to Scripture j 
 fo that we have pinn'd our [elves down, and cannot deny the 
 Authority of it, after be JJaall have irrefragably proved the 
 Church's Infallibility from it : which it I believe SUCH 
 
 A MIXTURE OF ABSURDITY AND CON- 
 FIDENCE, AS IS NOT EASILY TO BE 
 MATCH'D. Is the Man mad ! The Reader will 
 be apt to fufpeft him to be fo, when he has corn- 
 pared his paffionate and injudicious Anfwer, which 
 I fhall quote immediately, with the Author's inof- 
 fenfive PafTage here hinted at : which, tho' but 
 ihort, is fo mangled by Mr. Traft's^ three & cxtera's 
 p, 8tf. that a Man muft be a Conjurer to difcover 
 the Contents of it : I fufpeft he was confcious, that 
 if he had quoted it entire, the comparing it with 
 liisfcurr ileus Anfwer would do him no Honour ; and 
 therefore thought it beft to wrap it up in fuch a 
 manner under the Cover of $3 r*f#r<i**,that the Rea- 
 der might fufpefl there was fomething very /hock- 
 ing in the Author's Words, which are as follows. 
 
 " I defire you to take Notice [fpeaking to the 
 young Gentleman] that according to the 8/fc Prote- 
 ftant Article of Religion neither of the two above- 
 faid Creeds [viz. the jfpojUes and Nicene Creed] can 
 be falfe. i#. becaufe both the one and the other 
 may be proved by moft certain Warrant of' Holy Scrip- 
 ture : and zd/y, becaufe we are bo4nd throughly to 
 receive and believe them. Now furely no Faljbood can 
 be proved by moft certain Warrant of Holy Scripture j 
 nor can the contradictory to that, which is fo 
 
 " proved, be the neceflary Objed of a Chriftiana 
 
 " Faith, p. si. 
 
 Thefe are the Author's inoffeK/jve Words : to 
 which Mr. Trafp (who, as I have already once ob- 
 fcrved, has nut Judgment enough to know when 
 he is to be angry, when not) anfwers thus, p. 8tf. 
 This Foppery it fo filly on tbe one Hand, anafo SAUCY
 
 dn tlie other t that It defervts much worfe Wgrds than 1 
 bave given it, and alight not only to be dttetlid, lut explt- 
 Jed. BONA VERBA, good Sir. SAUCY is a 
 Reproach, which carries with it an Air of Autho- 
 rity, and is never ufed but towards Infer tours. A 
 Father may fpeak fo to his Son t if he talks imperti- 
 nently, and a Mafterto his Servant In the like Cafe* 
 But pray who is this Gentleman (if a Perfon capable 
 of fuch clowni/h Language can poflibly be one) 
 who is he, I fay, that gives himfelf rhefe Airs, and 
 treats his Adverfary, who do's not know himfeif 
 inferior to him in any thing, like a Footman ? 'Tis 
 true, the Author cannot ftile himfelf Mafte r of ^rts. 
 But, alas, we have enough of thefe in foreign Unl- 
 verfities to pave the Streets with ; and the greateft 
 Blockheads in Nature are amongrt them. Neither 
 has he the Aflurance to fee his Name to his Bookj 
 nor the Impudence to dedicate it to the King. But 
 I hope this do's not make him forfeit his Title to be 
 treated with common Decency. 
 
 Well 5 whether Mr. Trap} be the fineft Gentle- 
 man in the World, or the very Reverfe of it being 
 nothing to the main Queftion, let us hear him go 
 on thus : His [the Author's] Arguments from the Creed 
 we art to unAerftand will he jo demonjlrative, that u-e of 
 the Chttrch of England Jball have no Rejonrce t no Way to 
 comt offkut denying the Authority of it [to deal candidly, 
 fince I have read Mr. Trapp's Anfwers, I am more 
 convinced than ever, that the Author's Argument is 
 demonilrative] -whereas they are juji M Jemonjirative at 
 thofe from Scripture in the former SeBion [many a ferious 
 Truth has been fpoken in Jeft] which we have fully 
 tonfiJered, i. e. not the haft to the Purpofe j the Premi/ef 
 having no Relation to the Conference. [Mr, Tr<j^> has 
 no Reafon to boaft of his pretended Confutation of 
 that Section jT7*y are all reducible to this $there ONE, 
 
 HOLY, CATHOLICK, and APOSTOLICK 
 
 Church, and a COMMLNION OF SAINTS, 
 therefore the Church of Rome infallible. Mr, Trapp 
 
 hu
 
 ( 168 ) 
 
 lias full Liberty to reduce them to what ridiculous 
 Konfenfe he pieafes, and no Man has a better Ta- 
 lent than himfelf at penning a ridiculous Argument 
 J3ut this is not the Author's Way of arguing $ but 
 the Conclufion he draws from that Article of the 
 Creed is this, viz. that fince the Creed has always been 
 true in every Article, there has always been upon 
 Earth a Holy, Catholic^, and Jpoftolicl^ Church, which 
 is the Communion of Saints : and if that Holy, Catholic'^ 
 and ^poftoltci^ Church, &c. was not before the Refor- 
 mation in that Society of Chriftians, who were in 
 Communion with the See of Rome, his Adverfaries 
 are then bound to let him know in what other So- 
 ciety of Chriftians this Church was before that 
 Time. Tis precifely this that galls Mr. Trapp, 
 and reduces him to the moft extravagant Afler- 
 tions for his Defence ; as will appear hereafter. 
 
 Immediately after his laft Words, he comes to the 
 Author's long Quotation from B. Pearfon, and fays 
 p. 87. that ifht bad cited nothing but what related to his 
 Subjeft, he had cited nothing at all, for he might a* u-ell have 
 tranfcribed the whole Boti!{, as uhat he has tranfcribed. [fay- 
 ing and proving are two Things 5 and Mr. Trapp is 
 always moft confident and noify when he is moft in 
 the Wrong] However he is very fure Ibid, that B; 
 Pear fan fays not a Word about the Church of Rome or In- 
 fallibility [He do's not name the Word Infallibility ; 
 Nor do the Scriptures name if yet I think it has been 
 pretty well proved from half a dozen Scriptural Texts. 
 Nor do's he mention the Church of Rome, becaufe he 
 was not difpofed to trifle by confounding two Que- 
 ftions like Mr Tr<ipp~] And M for the Conc/ujrons, which 
 may be drawn from his Principles, he fays the Church of 
 Chrift is One, Holy and Catholick, and will continue 
 to the End of the World. Js the Church of Rome there* 
 fore infallible ? (the old ftale imper inent Stuff over 
 again] Yes, if -we believe this Writer, who after Jonte m- 
 /we, aJ confounding * TRUE Church with a* OR- 
 THODOX one, which I have fawn to It very different
 
 C 1*9 ) 
 
 Words, &c. [What ! is not every true 
 -Church an Orthodox one, and every Orthodox Church 
 a mtf one ! Or are not true &nd Orthodox, when ap- 
 plied to a Ctarrfr, convertible Terms ! Again, when 
 a Church is by Wcr^ cutoff from the true Church of 
 Chrift, do's fhe ftill continue a Part of the true Church 
 ofChriftl that is, is /he both cut off and not cut off 
 from his. Church ! Or can any particular Church 
 be a true Church without being a Part of the true 
 Church tfCbriftfi 
 
 But Mr. Tnz/r/> it feems has fliew'd^ that the ^. 
 thor h.ts confouKfied two different Ideas : I remembef 
 very well indeed his memorable Saying in the fore- 
 going Section, viz. that the Church may maintain all 
 rtfcffiny Truth, and yet prbpoje FALSE DOC- 
 TRINES, and Terms of Communion INCONSIS- 
 TENT WITH SALVATION; and that foe may 
 therefore he THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF 
 TRUTH without bans free from GREAT AND 
 GRIEVOUS ERRORS. But the Author of 
 Charity and Truth has already expofed the extrava- 
 gant Abfurdity of thefe AlTertions, which the Au- 
 thor's Proof of the Church's Infallibility from the $tb 
 Article of the Creed has obliged Mr. Trapp to have Re- 
 courfe to for his Defence. 
 
 His three next Pages, vizs. 88th, 8pth, and octrt. 
 contain fuch trivial Reflections as are not worth my 
 Notice ; and he himfelf is fomodeft as not toinfift 
 upon them. However the Church of Rome is again 
 dragg'd in by Head and Shoulders no lefs than four 
 Times in thofe three Pages, and in the Jaft of them 
 is brought to the Bar,impeach'd of abominable Errors, 
 and receives Sentence, that foe if not infafli'^le. But 
 the poor Man will not refleft, that all this is entirely 
 out of the Queftion. 
 
 He comes at length to the Point, viz. whether the 
 Church's Infallibility can be proved from the yb Arti- 
 cle of the Creed, and begins with the Author's follow- 
 ing Words : If the Church fanM titbrrfiil entirely, or
 
 rt*ft to be eit^r One, r Holy, or Apoftolical, or the 
 Communion of Saints, the $th Article of the Creed 
 WOK/J then be fatfe, and -whofoever foould at that time fay 
 jt t isoul Gutter a dou-nri^lt Lye, in rnal'jnaProfe/pon of 
 the Chriftian faith. The Author would haveipoken 
 more properly, if he had faid Fafoood inflead of Lye. 
 But the Argument is the fame $ to which Mr. Traft 
 anfwers thus : Tfro' the Church fiould FAI'L, this Ar- 
 ticle uould not be FALSE : becaufe Indtf edibility is not 
 (ijjerted in it. 
 
 But B. Pearfon fpeaks another Language, and 
 maintains in the ftrongeft Terms, that the Church's 
 Indefeftibility is aflerted in the ptb Article of the 
 Creed. For he writes thus in his Expofition of it : 
 Whoever then profefles to believe the Holy Catko- 
 " Hcl^ Church, is underftood to declare thus much. I 
 ' am fully perfuaded and make a free Confeffion 
 " of this as of a neceffary and infallible Truth, that 
 " Chrift, by the preaching of the Apoftles, did ga- 
 *' ther unto himfelf a Church, confifting of Thou- 
 " fandsof believing Perfons and numerous Congre- 
 " gations, to which he daily added fuch aijhould be faveJ. 
 " jVcl. 2. v. 47. and will fuccefllvely and daily add 
 " unto the fame to the End of the World. So that by 
 11 Virtue of his All-fufficient Promife I am aflured, 
 *' that there was, has been hitherto, now , and hereafter 
 ' it-ill be M ton< as the Sun and Moon endure, a Church 
 " of Chrift one and the fame.dnd tlw, fays he, 
 " J believe the Cathotick. Church* 
 
 How different is the Solidity of this grave Au- 
 thor from Mr. Tr^'srafh and inconfiderate AfTer. 
 tion ! But what follows is a Chip of the fame Block. 
 Unity, fays he, is tjjential to every Being, fo that as long 
 as the Church is at all, (be is certainly One. Mofl pro- 
 foundly fpoken ! 'Tis Pity however that the Bi- 
 ^tops of the fecond General Council, who model'd 
 the ^th Article of the Nicene Creed, did not word it 
 thus : 1 believe thf Holy Catholic^ and ^oftolicl^ Church to 
 
 h ENS, UNUM, VERUM, BONUM. For 
 
 then
 
 then the Article would have been complete, and 
 perfectly fitted for Mr. Trap's learned Comment 
 upon the Word ONE. But was that Word then 
 expreily added in the Nicene Creed for no other End, 
 than to exprefs an Unity, which is ejJentUl to every 
 Being ? That is, to inform the Faithful, that as 
 every Thing which has a Being is One, fb likcwifc 
 the Church is One. Did S. Cyprian compofe his lear* 
 ned Treatife of the Church's Unity for no other End, 
 than to make this weighty Difcovery? 
 
 But what then do's the Word One import? It 
 imports that the Cburcb of Chrift is One in Faith and 
 Commttnion. It imports, that the Faithful, who com- 
 pofe Cbrift's Myftical Bo^y, which is the Church, thp' 
 they differ in all Things eife, as Language, Cujloms, 
 Government, Intertft, &c. are all butOw* Body or Society 
 of Cbriftians united by the Belief and Profejjien of 
 the fame Faith, and Participation of the fame Sacra- 
 ments, under one Head. Let us hear Dr. field fpeak 
 L. 2. C. 2. *' The Notes (fays he) that perpetu- 
 ally diftinguifh the true Catholic!^ Church from all 
 ' other Societies of Men and Profeflions of Reli- 
 " gion in the World are thefe : F/r/?, the entire Pro- 
 * fejpon of fupernatural Verities, which God has 
 " reveal'd in Chrift his Son. Secondly, the Ufe of 
 <* fuchholy Ceremonies and Sacraments, as he has 
 " inftituted and appointed. Thirdly, an Union or Con- 
 ' ntxion of Men in this Profe/fion and Ufe of thefe Sa- 
 craments under lawful Pafiors and Guides appoin- 
 " ted, authorifed, and fan&ified to direft and lead 
 them in the happy Way of eternal Salvation. 
 
 What Difference again is there here between the 
 Notion this learned Proreftant had of the Church's 
 Unity, and Mr. Trapfs trifling Account of it ? which 
 in reality betrays an Ignorance fcarce pardonable in 
 one, that has but learnt his Catechifm. 
 
 What follows is a Continuation of the fame wret- 
 ched Stuff, ifnotworfs. Hb(y, fays he, an 
 1 a
 
 lick fit win tikf'f' *&"9* bt IN SOME SENSE 
 
 OR OTHER, as lon% as [he is at all. [IN SOME 
 SENSE OR OTHER do's he fay ! But what 
 jsthis/oiwf Senfe or other, in which fhe will be always 
 Holy and ^oftolic'^ ? 'Tis this we want to know.] 
 jlnAfoe ivitibe the Communion of Saints too as long as 
 (he continues, if by that he meant the fame as HOLY. 
 '[That is, if it be meant IN SOME SENSE OR 
 .OTHER] Other-wife I tal^e her being the Communion of 
 Saints to lie no Senje at all. A Communion of Saints in- 
 deed there island 1 ever will be j hut 'tis abjurd to fay the 
 Chu'ch is that Communion. Well faid, Mr. Trapp | But 
 fince we fliall have the fame rare Doctrine repeated 
 by and by, I will then make my Remarks upon it. 
 He concludes page 91, which contains all the a- 
 bovefaid Abfurdities, thus: Doubtlefs "whoever fiall by 
 proffj/fing the Faith of the Creed fay there is a Holy Ca- 
 tholick Church, tabtn at the fame Time there is none t 
 WILL UTTER A DOWNRIGHT FALS- 
 
 HOOD. Hut J conceive tktre is no Danger of it 5 be- 
 faufe if the Church feoula It loft, I conceive the Proftfion 
 of that Faith would be loft top. Has he not told us juft 
 now,- that tho* the Church ftoutdfail, this Article uould 
 not be falfe ? And here he tells us on the contra- 
 ry, that vkotver (kail fay there is A HOLY CA' 
 THOLICK CHURCH, vken at the fame Time there 
 is none, will utter a doiinright Falfoooa 1 . If thjs be not 
 Denying and ^firming the felf-fame Thing, n ) Man 
 in the Worid was ever guilty of a Contradiction. 
 
 As to what he fays, that/fr^ Church fiou'.d be loft t 
 the Creed -ufl/</ lee loft too ^ and To there ivqufd be no Dan- 
 ger of prjiffffini a Fo'fiood ty faying it. This is a rare 
 'Expedient indeed to put the Creed out of all Danger 
 of ever being fa-'fe -. because a Profcffion of Faith, 
 ;haf is quite loft, and has no Being in Nature, can 
 neither be true nor falje. But may not the Letter of 
 the CreeJ be prefervcd, tho' the whole Church fhould 
 deny (for Example) the Divinity ofChrifl ? [n which 
 pafe it i$ pUin, that the Church, which we pro- 
 
 fefs
 
 ? '73 ) 
 
 fefs to be Out, Ho!y t Catholic^, y//?o/?o//4, and the Com- 
 munion of Saints, would have no longer a Being in 
 the Senfe of the Creed and yet theCw/ would Tub- 
 fift, and fo be manifeftiy ftlfe. But as Mr. Trapp 
 abounds in Expedients, he has another Way, what- 
 ever fhould happen, to fave the Creed from being 
 ftilfe $ the Extravagance whereof will convince the 
 Reader that either the Advocate has a bad Caufe, 
 or the Caufe has a very bad Advocate. 
 
 
 SECT. XXVII. 
 
 The Author's Argument from the Ninth A 
 tide of the Creed truly dated, and Mry 
 Trapp's Anfwer to it. 
 
 TH E Subftance of the Author's Argument 
 from the Ninth Article of the Nicene and Baptif- 
 Hirf/ Creed join'd together, is fum'd up in this fhort 
 Syllogifra : 
 
 " If the Church, which in the CrteA we profefs to 
 be One, Holy, Catholict^ t ^foftolic^ and tie Communion 
 of Saints, fhould ever fall into any Errors deftru- 
 clive to the f<tvin% Faith once deliver' J to tkeSaintf, 
 [that is, inconfiftent with it] then the Creed would 
 be/o//? , but the Creed can never be .fa Iff, there- 
 fore /he can never fall into any fuch Errors, and 
 is by Confequence infallible in all her Decifions 
 of Faith, p. 57. 
 
 The
 
 ( '74 ) 
 
 The Author proves ibid, that the Creed would then 
 be/*// f > becaufe in the Cafe fuppofed the Church 
 would forfeit her Unity, her Holinefs, &c. and by 
 Confcquence whoever fliould at that Time profefs 
 her to be One, Holy, &c would profefs a Falfhood. 
 He proves that flie would forfeit her Unity, becaufe 
 a Church that changes her Faith cannot be call'd One 
 and the fame : as the Church of Rome and the Church of 
 England cannot be call'd One and the felf-fante Church, 
 as long as they differ in Articles of reveaVd Faith. 
 Neither could flie then be Holy or Catholic^, becaufe 
 damnable Errors are not a. Holy nor Catbolicl^ Doctrine : 
 nor JtpvftoKii^ j becaufe the slfoftles never taught any 
 damnable Errors. Nor finally, the Communion of S ints, 
 becaufe they cannot be Saints, who hold Commu- 
 nion with an Heretical or Idolatrous Church 5 that 
 is, make an external Prcfeffion of damnable Errors. 
 
 This is the Author's Argument : and the Sub- 
 fiance of Mr. Trap's direct Anfwer to it (which he 
 pretends to make good) is, that tbe Church, even the 
 Church in general, may continue to be One, Holy, and 
 Apoftolick, and y ft not only be capable of faflin%, but 
 actually fall int a damnable Errors, p. 93, This indeed 
 is making fure Work. For according to this Do- 
 ctrine the whole Church may turn Anaa, and deny the 
 Divinity of Chriff, and yet continue to be that One t 
 Holy, Catholic^, and sfpofloHcl^Cburch, which we pro- 
 fefs in the Creed. This Paradox he fupports by two 
 ftrange Proportions : i/?, that fee may retain all her 
 former Faith, and yet hold damnable Errors in Conjunfttou 
 with it. p. 94. But is it then poffible for the Church 
 to profefs Jtriani/m y for Example, and at the fame 
 Time retain all her former Faith ! zdly t that^ may 
 fall into damnable Errors, and yet be one and the fame 
 Church, p. 95. which he proves from this ridiculous 
 (Similitude : Cnnnoc, fays he, one and the fame Man, 
 and it holds M utll in a Community, If in perfeH Health at 
 one Time, and very ficl^ at another ? Yes he may : be- 
 
 caufe Sicfyefs or Health is not the elTential Conftim* 
 
 ent
 
 ( '75 ) 
 
 ent of a "Man ; but true Faith is the efl*ential 
 
 tuent of a true Church 5 and damnable Error* in Faith 
 
 deftroy true Faith. 
 
 He go's on thus : She may be true and not orthodox, 
 a* before otfirved. That is to fay, if his Words have 
 any Meaning to the Purpofe, /he may be true and 
 not true at the fame Time, according to his former 
 Blunder, which he repeats once more in the fol- 
 lowing Words :' She may bold damnable Errors, and y ft 
 be a true Church in one Stnje, tho' not orthodox. 
 
 Mr. Trapes following Proportion, viz. All Error*, 
 evtn damnable ones, are not Htrrjies, is a Contradiction 
 to common Senfe : For I prefume he fpeaks of r- 
 rors in Faith, all other Sorts of Errors being out of 
 the Queftion : and therefore the Author had Rea- 
 fon not to take Notice of the Paffage quoted by 
 Mr. Trapf> out of B. Pearfon j becaufe the whole 
 Drift of that Paflageis only to /hew, that the Eletl 
 and Reprobate have always been and will always be 
 mix'd together in the external Communion of the 
 true Church, which no Catholick everdeny'd. But 
 has B. Pearfon^ or any Man in his Senfes, ever in- 
 ferr'd from thence with Mr. Trapp, that the Church 
 may teach damnable Errors, and yet continue Holy in 
 the Senfe of the Creed ; which is precifely the 
 Point in Queftion ? Or has any one ever maintain'd 
 with him, that Errors, even damnable ones [in Faith} 
 are not Herejies ? 
 
 After this he pretends to /hew how the Church, 
 tho' fain into damnable Errors, may be Holy. His 
 Words are very curious upon this Subject. She 
 might rfc?(fays hep. <?<f.) be Holy in fome Refiefff, 
 tho' not near Jo Hoiy Mjheftxuila be. Holy in tie Faith f 
 which foe might Jlill retain : Holy with Refiefl to her Vo- 
 cation, the original End of her Inftitution, &C. That 
 is to fay, Hie might then be holy in the fame man- 
 ner as a common Proflitute may be call'd holy in fome 
 Refiefls, tlo' not near fo holy as Jbejbould be. For not- 
 withftanding her Irregularities in one Kind, /he 
 
 may
 
 niay have Tome very good Qualities. She may 
 alfo be Holy in her Faith, -which fie may flill retain^ 
 tho' /he be wicked in her Morals. In a Word, 
 Holy vith Rtfye8 to her location and Santfification in 
 Haptifm, and the original Intention of her Creator to 
 render her erernally happy. But is not this a moft 
 admirable Explanation or the Creed \ 
 
 To the Author's adding, that in the Cafe fuppo- 
 fed the Church could not be call'd ^pojlolical, be- 
 caufe the dpoftles never taught any damnable Errors , 
 Mr. Trapp anfwers in the fame manner as before. 
 She might, fays he, ye j4poftolical as -well as Holy in fame 
 RefieRs, tho' not in others, p. 97. But the Queftion 
 is, whether if the Church fhould renounce the Do- 
 ftrine of the Jpoftlts by teaching Idolatry, or other 
 damnable Errors, fhe could then be abfolutely call'd 
 jipoflolick, as fhe is in the Creed? If not, the Creed 
 would then befalfe. 
 
 Laftly, to the Author's faying, that in the Cafe 
 fuppofed the Church would ceafe to be the Commu~ 
 tiion of Saints, Mr. Trapp denies again as before, that 
 it is faid in the Creed, that the Church is the Commu- 
 nion of Saints, or that it is Sinfe to Jay fee is. Very 
 Grange ! For what then is the Meaning of this 
 Article of the Apoftles Creed, I believe the Holy Ca- 
 tholic^ Church, the Communion of Stints ? Do's not eve- 
 ry one who recites it, make an external Profeffion 
 of his Belief, that there is a Body or Society of 
 Chrirtians upon Earth, which is call'd the Communion 
 of Saints ? Nay, do's he not likewife make a Pro-' 
 feflion of his Belief, that the Holy Catholic^ Church is 
 that very Body or Society of Chriftians ? Mr. Trapp 
 indeed aflerts confidently, that it not S?nfe to fay, 
 that the Church this Communion. But what is the Con- 
 fequence of this mad Proportion ? It follows from 
 if, that the Communion of Saints is not within the 
 Pale of the CatbtlidtCkurtb 5 and that by Confequence 
 we m'uft go out of the Pale of the Catholic^Church t t\iAt 
 is to fay, turn Heretic^ or Schifmatic^s to become 
 
 Members
 
 ( '77 ) 
 
 Members of that facred Society, which ths CreeJ 
 <;all$ the Communion of Saints. And is not this rare: 
 Doctrine ! Would any Man that has a Grain or 
 common Senfe write thus/ 
 
 He concludes p. 98 with thefe Words : Infiort tkt 
 li-hole Church may he ovtrfereadwith Corruptions, even li-ttb 
 Idolatry^ and yet riot tofe it't Being. \ know not what he 
 means by not lofin? it's Being^nor is it capable of any 
 Meaning, that can be a rational Artfwer to the Au- 
 thor's Argument. For my part, I confefs my No- 
 tion of the Church's Periling or Lqpng her Being (if 
 it were confident with the Promifcs of her Divine 
 Founder to furFer fuch a Thing) I fay my Notion 
 of it is, that the GtrW/V^Church, at fuck then feri/Jjts 
 or lefts ber Bein?, when file renounces the Faith (he 
 formerly profefs'd 5 that is, the Faith reveal'd to, 
 and taught by the ^oftles, and falls into Errors in- 
 confiJtent with it. For then it may be truly faid, 
 that /he is no longer the Church fhe was before. 
 
 As for Inftance, (uppofethe whole Church of Eng- 
 land fhould fall \r\lo Judaij mot IJoltry^\\\ Mr.Trapp 
 fay, that in this Cafe the Reform^ Proteftant Church 
 of En^lanJas fuch would ftill remain in Rting ? if 
 he do's, he contradicts plain common Senfe. For 
 how can a Body or Society of Jews or Idolaters be 
 call'd the Reform^ Proteftant Church of England 1 But 
 if he grants that in the Cafe fuppofed that Church, 
 which is now call'cl the Reform'ci Protefttnt Crutch of 
 England would Lofe it's Bein^ becaufe there would be 
 no fuch Thing upon Earth, as a Body or Congre- 
 gation of Perfons prof effing the Protfftant Kf/rg/WoC 
 the Church of England as eftablijk'j by Law, how can 
 Mr. Tratf afTert, that tho' the Church ifniver/al that 
 is, the Catholic^ Church eftablifVd by Chrift /hould 
 fall into ldo!atry t or Other damnable Errors, yet would 
 not Lofe it's 'g, flnce the two fuppofed Cafes ard 
 exactly parallel, as is manifeft to common Senfc. 
 I had almoft overlook 'd Mr. Tr^'s rare Diftin* 
 p. 95. where in Anfwer to the Author's fa^ 
 A a ing,
 
 . ( V* ) 
 
 ing, that In Cafe ike Church fioud have ever fallen Into 
 tiamnab'e Errors, ivftead of continuing tahatjhe VIM ly her 
 "Divine Eft ablijhment, viz. the true and ortboa'ox Church of 
 Cbrtft, foe voiidhave became an heretical Communion, and 
 the very Synagogue of Satan. In Anfwer, I fay, to 
 this Mr. Tr^/7 writes thus : If by being the Synagogue 
 oj~ Satan be meant extrtmely corrupt, fee may be even that, 
 and flill be One and true in the Senfe above mentioned : 
 
 1 ADD GOOD METAPHYSICALLY, THO' 
 KOT MORALLY. 
 
 This is again to the Tune of Ens,unum, veruw, bo- 
 rum, the infcparahle MetafJbyfyal Proprieties of every 
 Being upon Earth, and muft he own'd to be a 
 moil admirable Expedient to fave the Creed from 
 ever being falfe t happen what will. For tho' the 
 Church fhould become the very Synagogue of Satan, 
 that is, extremely corrupt in her Faith, yet fhe would 
 ftill continue to be metaphyfically one, metaphyfi- 
 eally true y and metaphyfically good, tho' not morally, 
 according to Mr. Trapp's ingenious Diftindion. But 
 is it not manifeft, that the whole Difpute is not con- 
 cerning the Metapkyfica/ Proprieties of that Body of 
 Chriftians, which we call the Catholic^ Church (for 
 thefe belong as much to a Herd of Cattle as to that 
 facred Body) but concerning the Proprieties attribu- 
 ted to it in the Creed? In a Word, the Difpute is 
 concerning the Catholic^ Church confider'd precifely 
 rf$ fucb that is to fay, as it is a Body or Congregation 
 of true Believers, or of Perfons believing and profefftng the 
 Dofirine reveal' d to, and taught by the sfpoftles : and the 
 only Queftion is, whether if this whole Body fhould 
 apoftatize from the true Faith, it would neverthe- 
 lefs continue to be the true Holy, Catholic^ and *dpo- 
 Jtolick C"urck of Chrifl according to the Senfe intended 
 by the Creed ? So that in Reality the Queftion is 
 much the fame, as if we fhould aft, whether if a 
 virttcc-M Woman /hould turn ddnlterefs (tho' without 
 all Difpute Hie would be metaphyjtcalty the fame)fhe 
 could then be properly call'd the fame virtuottf Wo-
 
 r 179 ; 
 
 JH<W fhe was before ? If not, as furely flie cannot 
 without offering Violence to common Scnfe, how 
 then can the chaft Spoufe of Cbrtft (as the Catholic^ 
 Church is ftiled by S. Cyprian) become falfe to her 
 former Faith, and turn Adulterefs, yet continue the 
 fame chaff Spoufe, that is, f/o/y, Catholic'^ ^ofto!ict^ % 
 and the Communion of Saint* as before ? But, this be- 
 ing manifeftly inconfiftent with common Senfe, it 
 follows i/?, that the Creed, which beftows thofe Ti- 
 tles upon her, would be, falfe in the Cafe fuppofed. 
 And 2<//y, that Mr. TYvi/>/>'s Evafion to fave it from 
 FalftooJ in that Cafe, by faying, that the Church 
 would ftill continue to be one, true, and good mera 
 phyfically, is moft exorbitantly trifling, and unbe- 
 coming a ferious Writer. 
 
 I fhall now fum up all the extravagant Aflertions 
 Mr. Trapp has had Recourfe to in Anfwer to the 
 Author's tu-o Sell tons upon the Subject of Infallibility 5 
 and refer it to the Judgment of the Reader, whe- 
 ther he has defended the Proteftant Caufe like a 
 Man of Judgment and Learning. 
 
 fr>/?, in Anfwer to S. Paul i Tim C. 3. v. 15. It 
 if far, fays he, from bein% certain, that theft W'ords^ 
 
 THE PILLAR AND SUPPORT OF TRUTH 
 
 relate to the Church. But Dr. Hammond, as zealous a 
 Proteftant as Mr. Traty, but a more judicious Wri- 
 ter, afferts pofitively, that they do : and whoever 
 reads the Text with unprejudiced Eyes, will be of 
 his Opinion. 
 
 zdly, In Anfwer to the fame Text, by the Church's 
 hiZ (fays Mr. Trapp) THE PILLAR AND SUP- 
 PORT OF TRUTH may very well he meant no more, 
 than that according to the Intent of her Inftitutionjbe al- 
 vays OUGHT TO BE, not that fie always affually 
 vain be fo. An admirable Comment upon S. Paul ! 
 The Church , that is, the Church not, but only ought 
 to be the Pillar and Support of Truth. 
 
 $d<y, And ftill worfe than the former Anfwers; 
 
 The Cbureb t fays he, may maintain ALL NECES$ A- 
 
 A a a RI
 
 RY TRUTH, and yet propofs falfe Docfrtnts, ax\ 
 Tow of Communion INCONSISTENT WITH 
 SALVATION: She may therefore he THE PIL- 
 LAR AND SUPPORT OF TRUTH *-irfco*t 
 lein% an unerring Guide, or fo much M free from 
 
 GREAT AND GRIEVOUS ERRORS. O 
 
 ye Heavens, be aftonifh'd at this extravagant Do- 
 ctrine! Eutfince a great deal more of this is (till 
 to come, and Mr. Trapp will /hew himfelf to be no 
 Plincher, 1 /hall only defire the Reader to obferve 
 \vhat a deal of Pains the poor Man has here taken 
 to extraft Falfhpodout of Truth, and make S. Paul 
 talk Nonfenfe. May it not be faid without defer- 
 ving the Reproach of Impudence, that 'the abovefaid 
 Text is moji unmercifully tortured by Mr. Trapp. 
 
 4th!y, To the celebrated Text of S.Matth. Ut>w 
 rb> Ror^ / viQ build my Church, and the Gates ofHeUfiatl 
 not prevail again/} it, he anfwers, that notwithffanding 
 t hit Text t all the Church' a upon Earth, or if you pleafe, the 
 
 UNIVERSAL CHURCH y h guilty of IDO- 
 LATRY it/elf. Upon which the Author of Charity 
 i>:d Truth has returned him the civil Compliment he 
 made his Adverfary, that fo nfucb Bluuder, Inconfe- 
 *}uence t and Falfoood ISM fcant ever crouded into fo few 
 Words. 
 
 5tb/y, To the other Text of S. Mattb. viz. BeloM, 
 J am li'ith yon always, even unto the End of the World t ^/[r. 
 Trapp anfwers with his ufual AfTurance, that it i.s 
 fcarce common Senfe to interpret it of the Succfjfjors of the 
 jjpoft'esataB.. That is (fays the Author of Charity 
 and Truth) that it is fcarce common Senfe to fay, that 
 for ever fignihes for ever j or to fuppofe, that for ever 
 do's not end wirh the Death of the ApofUes. 
 
 6tbly y To favc the Cntd from being falfe, in Cafe 
 the Church fhould fall into damnable Errors^ or even 
 Ido'atry, he has the following furprizing Aflertions. 
 
 I. That the Church, even the Church in general, 
 jnny continue to be Hofy, (.atholic^ and dpojiolid^ 
 ;md yet rot only be capable of Falling, but actually 
 fciii into datKKalli Error f.
 
 a. That fhe may fall into damnab/e Error/.and yet 
 be <; and the fame Church : as the fame Mn'n may he in 
 ferftEl Health at one Time, and veryjicl^ at another. The 
 Propofition is extravagant, and the Parity to prove 
 it ridiculous. 
 
 3. That flic may hold damnable Errors, and yet be 
 a true Church, tho' not orthodox. 
 
 4. That all Errors [in Faith] even damnable ones, 
 are not Herefjes, 
 
 5. That in the Cafe fuppofed, the Church may 
 be both Holy and AMftolie^ in fome Refi : flf t tho' not in 
 others : which at the beft is but fhuffling or trifling 
 inftead of anfwering folidly. 
 
 6. That it is not faid in the Creed, that the Church 
 is the Communion of Saints, and that it it not Senfe to 
 fay fhe is. 
 
 7. That the whole Church may be overhead with Cor- 
 ruptions, even u-ith Idolatry, and not lofe it's Being. But 
 how fo ? Becaufe all this notwithstanding fhe may 
 ftill be One, and True, and Good, metaphyfeally, tho' 
 riot morally, and thus the Cried is moft ingenioufly 
 fecured againft all Poflibility of ever being falfe ; 
 tho' the Universal Church fiiould ceafe, to be a Congre- 
 gatien of true Believers, profefs damnable Errors, renounce 
 Chrtjlianiry, and fet up Idolatry in it's Place. 
 
 Thefe are the Extravagances, which Mr. Trapp 
 has made choice of to maintain the Protejlant Caufo 
 againft his Adverfary's Proofs of the Church's In- 
 fallibility. But I muft beg Leave to tell him, that 
 fuch a wretched Defence is worfe than none at all j 
 and that there is no Difference between a Perfon's 
 being. non-plus'd, and reduced to write Abfurdiries. 
 I obferved in the Clofe of the preceding 6e<5tion, 
 that in fuch a Cafe either the Advocate has a bad 
 Caufe, or the Caufe has a very bad Advocate ; but 
 will not pretend to determine, whether Mr. Traff 
 or his Caufe be in the Fault : tho' 1 dare venture to 
 fay, that let the Caufe itfelf be what it will as to 
 it's imrinfick Merits, Mr. Tra/>has not defended it 
 *
 
 ( 182 ) 
 
 like a Man of Judgment or Learning : Which, as 
 it is all I undertook at finl to prove in Reference to 
 the fae frft SeffioM only of his Book (as being a- 
 bundantly fufficient to ferve as a Specimen of what 
 the Reader ma>y expeft from him in the other Parts 
 of his Performance) fo I think it no Prefumption 
 to fay, that the Remarks I have now made upon 
 tbofe Seflion* are a full Performance of that Engage, 
 ment. And fo I take my Leave of Mr. Tra/^,whom 
 I heartily wi'li all Happinefs both in this Life and 
 the next ; but advife as a Friend to drop Controverfy, 
 which (whatever Qualifications he may have in 
 other Refpeclsj is not his Talent : and I believe 
 there are not a few of my Opinion, that his Repu- 
 tation would not have futter'd by it, if he had got 
 fome Perfon of greater Abilities engaged to draw 
 his learned Pen in Defence of the Proliant Caitfe, 
 
 FINIS.
 
 p
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
 
 . ifcos Angeles 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 
 
 Form L9-Series 444
 
 BX 
 
 5136 
 
 T68cZm