THE LIBRARY 
 
 OF 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY 
 OF CALIFORNIA 
 
 LOS ANGELES 
 
 FREDERIC THOMAS BLANCHARD 
 ENDOWMENT FUND

 
 THE 
 
 Church of ENGLAND 
 
 Defended againft the 
 
 CALUMNIES 
 
 AND 
 
 Falfe REASONINGS 
 
 OF T HE 
 
 CHURCH of ROME. 
 
 In Anfwer to a late Sophiftical, and Inlblent 
 Popifh Book, entitled^ ENGLAND'/ Cov 
 verjion and Reformation comgar'd, &Cc. 
 
 By JOSEPH TRAPP, M. A. Minifter of the Uni- 
 ted Parifhes of Chrifl-Church and St. Leonard's 
 
 Fofter-Lane, London. 
 
 At which Boldnefs of Theirs we fliould much wonder 5 
 but that we conjider that Bankrupts commonly do then 
 mofl brag of their Ability, when their Eftate /j at 
 the lowefl : Perhaps alfo that Ignorance might be 
 it, which did beget in them this Boldnefs. Bifiop 
 UflierV Anfwer to the Jefuit's Challenge. Page 3 1 
 
 London: Printed for J. HAZARD, at the Bible over-againft 
 Stationers-Hall; J. SMITH, at Inlgo Jones's Head over- 
 againft Exeter-Exchange in the Strand; W. MEARS, at 
 the Lamb without lemple-Bar; and J.BATLEY, at the 
 Dove i n Pater- Nojier-Row.
 
 TO -THE 
 
 ex 
 
 5-iifc 
 
 K 1 N G 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HIS Book, written 
 to vindicate That 
 Faith and Religion 
 of which Yoyr MA- 
 JESTY is Defender, That Church 
 of which under God You are 
 Head and Protector, happening 
 
 to
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 to fee the Light at the Time of 
 Your aufpicious Acceflion to 
 the Throne of thefe Kingdoms ; 
 it was natural for its Author 
 humbly to implore the Favour 
 and Honour of laying It, and 
 Himfelf, at Your MAJESTY'S 
 Feet. 
 
 Efpecially, confidering that it 
 is not only pointed againft the 
 Doctrines, and Practices of 
 Thofe, fbme of whom at leaft 
 would exempt a great and very 
 confiderable Part of the Chri- 
 ftian World, the Clergy, from 
 all Subje&ion to Sovereign 
 Princes; but is particularly a 
 Defefice of Your M A j E s T Y'S 
 Supremacy in Ecclefiaftical Af- 
 fairs, as declared by the Laws of 
 This Realm, and made an Ef- 
 
 fential
 
 DEDICATION. 
 
 fential Part of the Conftitution 
 of our Government. Notwith- 
 ftanding which, it is openly de- 
 ny 'd and rejected by Thofe a- 
 gainft whom I write ; who would 
 wreft from Your M A j E s T Y 
 This valuable Branch of Your 
 Prerogative, one of the brighteft 
 Jewels in That Imperial Crown 
 to which You happily fucceed. 
 
 That it may long flourifh up- 
 on your Head, in Peace, and 
 Glory, for the Comfort and Be- 
 nefit of This Church and Na- 
 tion, and for the Maintenance 
 and Encouragement of true Re- 
 ligion and Virtue; That God 
 would pour all his BleOings in 
 This World and the Next, up- 
 on Yourfacred MAJESTY, Your 
 
 Royal
 
 . 
 
 Royal Confort our Gracious 
 Queen, and all Your Royal 
 HTue, is the fmcere arid hearty 
 Prayer of, 
 
 May it $Uafe Tour M A j E s T Y 3 
 Tour M A 3 E s T Y'S mo ft Loyal y 
 
 Subject, \-and Servant > 
 
 JOSEPH TRAPP
 
 '-^.'- '.-+"/ '/.*:.**'. ".'-,.?'-*' i--". .'.-;. '. .--.'. 
 
 THE 
 
 PREFACE 
 
 T has happen d, as it ufu- 
 1 ally does in Thefe Cafes : 
 I promts d Strictures upon 
 
 a Book ; and have leen 
 
 infenfibjy drawn in to give it a corn- 
 pleat Anfwer. For I pretend (to ufe 
 our Authors Word] that This is fitch: 
 'there is not the Shadow of an Argu- 
 ment in Ins boafted Terformance, 
 which I have not fully con/iderdj and, 
 I think at lea ft, ^ confuted. 
 
 Boafted, I fay : For lefides the 
 Brags which he himjelf makes of his 
 ftron^ Reajonings in federal Tarts of 
 his "Dialogue j the Tarty, I hear, has 
 pronounced it absolutely unanfwer- 
 
 able-
 
 The PREFACE, 
 
 able. When, in truth, all the Mat* 
 ters of Faft // contains are either 
 impertinent, or falfe ; j4nd in point 
 of Argumentation, it is little more 
 than a perpetual String of Sophifms, 
 or Fallacies. All falfe Reafonings 
 are fallacious in a wide Senfe : But 
 mojl of His are firittly Fallacies, 
 as they are marled out in the common 
 Books of Logick. I have <venturd to 
 le guilty of fo much Pedantry, as to 
 call two or three of them by their 
 Scholaftick^T^jv Which, I flatter 
 my [elf, 'will le the more edfily ex- 
 cufed; in conjideration that our Au- 
 thor tempted me to it, ly his dealing 
 fo much in Syllogifms, and Dilemmas. 
 I take it for granted, lecaufe it is 
 an objection always in the Mouths of 
 Thoje 'who have nothing elfe to fay, 
 that IJballbe accused by Him, and his 
 friends, of treating him with too 
 little Ceremony. I acknowledge I 
 have treated him with Freedom ; 
 tytt not with ill Manners. The 
 
 rougheji
 
 T'he P R E F A c E,. 
 
 rougtoeft PPords I have us diver e not 
 made a Tart of Language for no- 
 thing : And I appeal to the World, 
 whether Iha<ue not apply d them pro- 
 perly, not tranfgrej/ing the Rules of 
 Decency, Civility, or true Chriftian 
 Charity. I know not who my Anony- 
 mous Anta^oruft is ; and therefore 
 may be allow d to write,, as if I 
 wrote againft no particular Perfon, 
 but again/f Popery, Sophiltry, and 
 Infolence. For his Behaviour to the 
 Church, and Clergy of England, is 
 beyond meafure info lent, and abu- 
 fwe. Which., even if He had fet his 
 Name to his Book,, would have jufti- 
 fyd much more Slfperily than 1 ha^e 
 Jhewn towards htm. 
 
 What I have any where faid of 
 This Kind, I defire may ~be apply d, 
 as it was intended to be, not to the 
 Roman Catholicks (as they are calld) 
 in general j but only to the Faff or s 
 or Agents for Topery -, the Trie ft -^ 
 find Miffionaries, There ate doubt- 
 
 lefs
 
 ? R E F A G B^ 
 
 Jef v wort?}' Gentlemen among 
 &s- mforttxiate as to be bred up 
 'in That 'corrupt Religion. Again/I 
 the Behaviour of Thefe I object no- 
 thing : I honour their Terfons j pity 
 their Errors j and heartily fray for 
 their Confer/ion, and the Salvation of 
 their Souls. So indeed I do for the Con* 
 <verjion and Salvation of their miffionary 
 Trie/Is Them f elves : But then Thefe 
 Lajl have not a Right to the fame 
 Treatment with Thofe Others. Be- 
 fides the Reafon already given., They, 
 are ravening Wolves, watching all 
 Opportunities to devour our Flocks ^ 
 and therefore mu/t pardon us if <we 
 call them ly their true Names,, and 
 cry aloud to our Flocks -, when- the 
 Wolf is coming. 
 
 Especially if the Wolf, as upon 
 Thefe occafions, He generally does, 
 comes in Sheep's Cloathing. / have 
 therefore detected the cunning Craf- 
 tinefs of my Adversary s godly Talk y 
 again/I Trejudice, 'Self-lntereft, and 
 
 Love
 
 of the World: Thefe are Baits 
 to deceive the Unlearned ; who do 
 not confide r, or if may be : donvt : kncw, 
 that no Falfljood can infatuate it j elf, 
 Without" the Mixture of fome, tho 
 very impertinent. Truth : And' in 
 Religious matters, none will be [wal- 
 lowd by Terfons Religiouffy dijfosd, 
 unlefs it be gilded with the Appear- 
 ance of San&ity. 
 
 Whenever I J'peak contemptuouflyv 
 as I fometimes do, becaufe the bejl 
 Reafon / have tells me it is in fuch 
 Cafes fit to do fo ; / defer e to lie un~ 
 derjlood not of my Adverfarys Per- 
 fon, but of his Arguments. For be- 
 fides thai in general, I defpife not the 
 TerfonoftheMeaneJlupon Earth; 
 He in particular may be a Man of 
 Learning, and Abilities, for any 
 thing I know. Nay, I think in this' 
 <uery Terformance he has foe^n that 
 he is : Andfo were Bellarmine, and 
 Suarez, before him. But the Caufe 
 is fo indefenfeble ; that it makes the 
 
 greatejl
 
 greateft Men talk ridiculoufly. The 
 left we can fay of their Reafonings 
 is, that they are learned Abfurdities : 
 And That is but Jlender Traife. 
 There may be much Learning in them; 
 but there's no Common Senfe. 
 
 If I have mif apprehended any 
 Fads, as I believe I have Not j they 
 are [uch, as y whether true, orfalfe, 
 no way affe& the Merits of the Caufe. 
 For in all material ones lam certain 
 I have made no material Miftake. 
 Should the Romanifts therefore be 
 able, as I am well ajjurd they will 
 not) to convict me of an Hiflorical 
 Error, relating, for injiance, to Au- 
 ilin, or Dinoth, Cranmer, or the 
 Queen of Scots, in which the Topijb, 
 and Trot eft ant Religion are not con- 
 cern d ; They will have no manner 
 of Reafon to triumph in That., or 
 fuch like Trifles : A Weaknefs to 
 which Thoje are always extremely 
 prone , who have Nothing to triumph 
 in, That is folid, or fubltantial 
 
 THE
 
 THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 TO the F i R s T DIALOGUE, En- 
 titled^ The General Grounds of the 
 Catholick Faith : Se%. L Entitled, 
 The Obligation of fubmitting our private 
 Judgment does not exclude Examination. 
 
 Tage 2 
 
 To the Second Seftion -, Entitled, Faith is 
 not againft Reafon. p- 1 5 
 
 Ttf tleHhird Seftim ; Entitle^ Faith de- 
 pends in a different manner on the Tefti- 
 inony of God, and on the Teftimony o 
 Men. ^. 47 
 
 To the Fourth Settion 5 Entitled, The 
 Chjurch of Chrift confider'd as Infallible. 
 
 ^ 53
 
 ^CONTENTS. 
 
 fo the Fifth Section ; Entitled, The 
 Church's, perpetual Indefe&ibility, and In- 
 fallibility, prov'd from the ninth Article of 
 the Creed. p. 84 
 
 *fo the Sixth Se&ian : 'The Rule of Faith. 
 
 p. 109 
 
 T0 the Seventh SeUion : Of Scriptures, 
 and C-hurch^Authbrity. p. 145 
 
 5Ti the Eighth Seffion , Entitled, A 
 .Recapitulation of the foregoing Sedions. 
 
 p. 1 68 
 
 2~0 the SECOND DIALOGUED En- 
 titled^ Containing a brief Hiftorical Ac- 
 
 . count of the Converfion.of the ;Br.itons, and 
 Saxons ', with Proofs of their Agreement in 
 
 . Faith j and fome Remarks upon Circum- 
 ftances relating to the Converiion of the 
 Saxons. p. 171 
 
 Ti the Firft Seffion ; Entitled, The Im- 
 
 ,/portance of Enquiring into, the \Marks of 
 
 the tme Church i in which alone Salvation 
 
 is prov'd to be pcflble.
 
 The C ON T EN T S. 
 
 T0 the Second Section ; Entitle^ Nei- 
 ther Education, nor Intereft are to be 
 confulted, in the Choice of our Religion. 
 
 ? 17* 
 
 *T(? 'the Third Setfion : Of the firft En- 
 trance of Chriftianity into Britain , it's 
 Progrefs and Eftablifliment there 3 in the 
 Reign of King Lucius. p. 188 
 
 To the Fourth Section : Of the Conver- 
 fion of the Englijh Saxons from Paganifm 
 to Chriftianity. p. 
 
 To the Fifth Section -, Entitled^ A Rela- 
 tion of St. Auguftiris Conference with the 
 Bifhops. p. 196 
 
 To the Sixth Seffiion j Entitled, St. Au- 
 giiflin Vindicated. p. 197, 
 
 To the Seventh Section-, Entitled Roman 
 Catholicks profefs to this Day the Faith 
 which St. Auguftin preach'd. p. 203 
 
 To the Eighth Settion ,- Entitled., The 
 fame Faith, was preach'd to the Saxons^ as 
 had been preach'd four hundred Years be- 
 fore to the Britons. p. 253
 
 <fbe CONTENTS. 
 To the Ninth Section ; Entitled, The 
 fame Subjed continued. />. 265 
 
 To the Tenth Section ,- Entitled^ Some 
 Obfervations upon the Converflon of Eng- 
 land under Pope Gregory* p. 276 
 
 To the THIRD DIALOGUE, and The 
 PRE F A CF. p. 281 
 
 Ike Method of Aufering.> Seffiicn by 
 ftioni departed froniy and Why. p. 282 
 
 the Objection ; That the Agents in 
 our Reformation were Perfons of wicked and 
 Scandalous Lives. /> 283 
 
 Of K. Henry VIIL />. 284 
 
 Of Archbimop Cranmer. p. 285 
 
 Of the Duke of Somerfet, &c. in K. 
 Edward ^7's. Reign. f. 2$$, 290, 291. 
 
 Of Queen Elizabeth. ibid. 
 
 Our
 
 72* C O N T N T S. 
 
 Our Authors mifreprefenting fome Fads, 
 and his falfe lieafonings from others, con- 
 fiderd. From p. 29 2 , to p. 309 
 
 The Sum of the Whole under This 
 Head. p. 309 
 
 *fo the Objection ; that The Reformation 
 was begun, and carried on, by unlawful 
 Means, and an incompetent Authority > by 
 Force, and Violence ; and the Encroach- 
 ments of the C/-/7 &rfte, invading the Spi- 
 ritual Rights of the Church, and Clergy. 
 
 p. 310, &c, 
 
 The King's Supremacy. p. 320, &c. 
 
 The Sum of the whole imder This 
 Head. ^^ 
 
 fo the FOURTH DIALOGUE; En- 
 titled, Containing a Comparifon between 
 the moft remarkable Circumftances of Eng- 
 land's Converfion on the one hand, and 
 its pretended Reformation on the other. 
 
 ? 372 
 
 fo the frfa Second, and f bird Sections. 
 
 p. 381! 
 
 B ft
 
 <fbe CONTENT S. 
 To the Fourth SeUion ; Entitle^ The 
 Unity of Faith on the one lide com- 
 par'd with the 'Disagreements on the other. 
 
 p. 392 
 
 Zo the fifth and I aft Seffiion ; Entitled, 
 The general external Marks of the true 
 Church on the me fide, compared with 
 the entire 12 ant of them on the other. 
 
 f. 411
 
 A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 PopiOi BOOK, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 ENGLAND'/ Converjion and Re- 
 formation compared, &c. 
 
 U R Author's Treface (fetting a- 
 fide the Account of his 'Dejign and 
 Method^ which we have noth :no- 
 to do ivith) being no more than .,- 
 Supplement to his Third ^Dialogue ; I <ha'. [ 
 poftpone my Refledtions upon it, 'till we ccr 
 to the 'Examination of 1'hat 'Dialogue -, \ 
 Con junftion with which, it iliall be fully an 
 particularly confider'd.
 
 i An ANSWER to a <popift> 
 
 To the fir ft Dialogue^ Scft. 1. ' 
 
 THIS Firft Dialogue (if we may believe 
 the Title of it) contains the general 
 Grounds of the Catholick Faith. All which, 
 after much divifion and fubdiviiion, explain- 
 ing and diftinguiftiing, faying and unfaying, 
 giving with one hand, and taking away with 
 the other, are refolvM at laft into This fingle 
 Principle, " That the Church of Rome is to 
 <c be implicitly believed, whatever fhe fays. 
 That I do not mifreprefent the Matter, and 
 that This, and nothing elfe, is the Refult 
 of Eight different Sections (whatever Titles 
 they bear) muft be very plain, to any Reader 
 of no extraordinary Sagacity. This firft Sec- 
 tion, I confefs, feems to promife the contra- 
 ry : Becaufe in the Front it carries thefe 
 Words, as the Contents , or Summary of it ; 
 The Obligation of fubmitting our private 
 Judgment does not exclude Examination. In 
 the Difcourfe itfelf, the young Gentleman and 
 his Treceptor talk of * jearching diligently 
 into the very bottom of the Catife > and the 
 Former is charm d to hear the Latter fay, 
 He may and ought to do fo. But then we 
 are told at the fame time, That we ought 
 to captivate our Understanding unto the Obe- 
 dience of Faith j and pay an entire Stibmiffion 
 
 19
 
 Entitled^ England V Converfion, &c. 5 
 
 f0 # T^ecifions of the Catholick Church. 
 Pray obferve how prettily they are coupled ; 
 as if Captivating our Underft anting to the 
 Obedience of faith , and paying an entire 
 Submiffion to the c Decifions of the Catholic^ 
 Church^ were all one. And, indeed, to con- 
 found thefe Two with each other, is the 
 principal Defign of his whole Book. Yet 
 we are charg'd with wronging the Church 
 of Rome, for faying that her Members are 
 kept in the T)ark * by their politick Guide?, 
 and bid to jJmt their Eyes a^ainfl the Light 
 of Reafon , left it Jhould dif cover to them the 
 Follies., and Errors of their Religion. Why, 
 does not That Church require an abfohtte y 
 implicit Submiflion to all her Dictates, be 
 the^ what they will? Is it not the main 
 Drift of This very Author's Performance, to 
 prove that fuch a Submiilson is due ? And is 
 not This keeping us in the Dark ? No, fays 
 the Gentleman, Stibmijjion doesnot exclude 
 Examination ; becaufe we are at liberty to 
 examine whether fuch a Submiffion be due 
 to the Church, or not. Be it fo then : If it 
 fhall appear that fuch a Swbmiffion is not 
 due j and if yet the Church of Rome requires 
 it, as All agree fhe does $ it muft be granted, 
 that fhe keeps Teople in the Ttark, and bids 
 them JJmt their Eyes againfl the Light of 
 Reafon. That/#r# a Siibmiffion then is due, 
 
 B 2; This
 
 4 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 This Author affirms, and I abfolutely deny; 
 To mew that Submitting and Examining 
 may be joirid together (and that they may 
 I readily grant, in one Senfe, though not in 
 His) he very formally and mathematically 
 lays down four Principles. I do not tranf- 
 cribe them ; becaufe (as he truly faysj they 
 are agreed to without Contradiction^ by Tro~ 
 tenants as well as Catholicks : except only 
 one ExprefTion in the fecond of them, \_ne- 
 ver jo feemingh contrary to Reafoii] of which 
 more hereafter. 
 
 But I cannot imagine what Ufe he makes 
 of them j fince they prove nothing, but what 
 no Chriftian denies. The thing to be made 
 out is, not that an implicit Submiffion is due 
 to reveal'd Truths j but that it is due to the 
 Church. In reference to thefe reveal'd Truths, 
 the Trinity., &c. Reafon (* fays he) can have 
 no other Tart to affi y than that of an entire 
 Submiffion. Well, we grant it: Meaning^ 
 after the Perfon is fatisfy'd that they are re- 
 vealed. But what are the next Words ? 
 Whenever the Revelation of them is declared 
 to us (pray mind it) by that Authority which 
 Chrift has appointed to be our Guide : And 
 That Guide is the Church 5 and That Church 
 is the Church of Rome. Here we have the 
 \vhole Myftcry of the Matter. This is the 
 grand Point he drives at from the firft Page 
 
 td
 
 Entitled^ England' j Confer Jlon^ &c. 5 
 
 to the laft. As we final 1 meet with it very 
 often in the Progrefs of This Controverfy, 
 and the fevoral Parts of it fhall hereafter be 
 diftin&ly confider'd,. I at prefent only clelire 
 the Reader to take Notice, that there is a 
 wide difference between a Revelation^ and 
 the Senfe of a Diking reveaFd between 21 t- 
 claring that a Point is reveafd^ and Inter- 
 preting the Senfe of it .j between modeflly 
 and foberly Interpreting a difficult Point, and 
 arbitrarily ax\& indolently Interpreting a. plain 
 one., contrary to common Rcafon j between 
 Interpreting the old, trite Word of God, and 
 making a nezs>, falje Word of God ; between 
 feftimony^ and Authority \ or, if you pleafe, 
 between the Authority of fefiimony^ and 
 Authority in general^ or any other Species of 
 Authority in particular ; between a Guide^ 
 and a Witnefs ; between the Church Univer- 
 faly and the Church of Rome, or (in other 
 Words) between the Wbole^ and a *Part. 
 Let the Reader "(I fay) take This Clue of 
 f/rf/;z *Difiinft4ons at his firft fetting out \ 
 for we iliall perpetually make Ujte of it, in 
 the Labyrinth through which we are to 
 travel. 
 
 For furely (continues he * ) whoever gives 
 his interior Ajjent to any thing above his 
 ^ is properly f aid to fubmit his 
 
 B
 
 6 An ANSWER to a 
 
 judgment to it. Queftionlefs. And this is 
 ALL the Submiffion we require of the Mem- 
 bers of our Church. That I totally deny. 
 You require Submiilion not only to Things 
 aboze our Underftanding ; but to Things con- 
 trary to our Underiknding, and our Senfes ; 
 not only to Things reveal d by God^ but to 
 Things which he has not reveal'd, nay, which 
 are contrary to Thofe which he has reveal'd. 
 So that we need not turn Atheifts^ and 
 ^Deifts -, t and may yet refufe to turn To* 
 fifts. 
 
 We do not fay (as he affirms we do t) that 
 the f D^irine of Submiffion is but in EjfeU a 
 foftcr Term for blind Obedience., &c. 'Tis ac- 
 cording as the Submiffion ts 3 that we affert 
 This, or not affert it. And This alone is a 
 fufficient Anfwer to his Argument from thofe 
 Texts, Heb. xiii. 17. and Matth. xviii. 17, 
 They prove fuch a Submiffion as We grant, 
 not fuch a one as our Romijh Adverfaries 
 contend for. Does it follow, that becaufe 
 Ecclefiaftical Rulers are to be Obeyd, and 
 contumacious Terfons to be Excommnni- 
 catedy &c. therefore the Church is to be 
 implicitly fubmitted to ,- though fhe affirms 
 that a Triangle and a Circle are the fame ? 
 But what is here wanting in Subftance^ is 
 plentifully fupply'd by Show, w&falfe 
 
 P. 4- * /H 
 
 fearance }
 
 Entitled, England's ConverftW) &c. j 
 
 fearance > by Noife and c Bhiftering- t to con- 
 found weak Judgments. * It feems then 
 St. Paul was a rank Impopor> when Joe wrote 
 thus to the Hebrews ; Obey them that have 
 the Rule over you> &c. \ Nay\ all this Buf- 
 foonery will reach the Terfon ofChrift him- 
 felf\ who has declard^ that he who will not 
 hear the Church (L e, fubmit to her < Dccifi- 
 ons) dec. 1! However^ Iflmild not wonder to 
 hear an Atbeift^ or 2>//?, wbo makes a 
 Mockery of Revelation, difcourfe in this 
 Manner j but it founds very abfurdly in the 
 Mouth of a Trot eft ant, who makes frofejfi- 
 on of believing a reveafd Religion, So that 
 becaufe we will not be convinced by an Ar- 
 gument, whofe Premifes have no more to do 
 with the Conclufion, than empty Swagger-> 
 jng has with folid Reafoning ; we muft im- 
 mediately be compared with Deifls and A- 
 theifts. *"* To own all this, I fay> and at the 
 fame time ridicule an humUe Submiffan to 
 fuch Truths ? Meaning, fuch as are above 
 our Reafon, How do We ridicule an hum- 
 ble SubmiiTion to fuch Truths ? Even becaufe 
 we ridicule an humble (i. e. an implicit} $ub~ 
 mifjion to the Church of Rome, We do, 
 indeed ; and notwithftanding all This fanfa- 
 ronade^ thefe big Words thrown out to fright 
 us, ihall continue (till to do fa. Nor 
 
 II w. ** P. 5. 
 B 4 anj
 
 8 An ANSWE R to d Tdpifo Book, 
 
 c Church upon Earth, no not the Uni- 
 verfal Church in all Ages, much lefs the pre- 
 fent Church of Rome, extort from us fuch a 
 Submiiuori as is due to God only. After- 
 wards, if pofifiblc, he rifes in his Ratling j 
 and concludes thus. * Is not this fapping the 
 very Foundations of faith, and encouraging 
 every 'Body to fet up the proud Idol of his own 
 private Judgment, againft the Revelation of 
 Gody and believe no fart her than his poor 
 narrow Capacity can comprehend? No, 'tis 
 not i nor any thing like it : And that for this 
 ^/j/wReafon, becaufethe Church is not God: 
 Let Him prove that it is, and I will fubmit 
 indeed. 
 
 Since, therefore, (fays the young Gentle- 
 man t) Trot eft ants them] elves profefs the be- 
 lief of many incomprehensible Myfteries, they 
 fubmit their Judgments juft as'we do. Not 
 exadly, young Gentleman; becaufe You, 
 and your Tutor, and the reft of you, fubmit 
 your Judgments, not only to incomprehenfi- 
 ble Myfteries, but alfo toflat Contradictions ; 
 not only to the Scriptures, but to Things 
 not contain d in the Scriptures, nay, contrary 
 to them. We fubmit implicitly to God only ; 
 You fo fubmit to your own Church ; which 
 you ihall never peifuade us to do; unleis 
 your Preceptor, orforne body elfe, can bring 
 
 better
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfdn, &c. 9 
 
 better Arguments to convince us, than have 
 been brought yet. We do not, therefore, 
 as you fay we do *, act incoherently (a Word, 
 in which You, and your Tutor much rejoyce ; 
 meaning by it, I fuppofe, inconjiftently) in ri- 
 diculing injotty what we are obligdto prac- 
 tijc ourfefaes. 
 
 What follows In the remaining Part of This 
 Page, and in all the next, is true j though not 
 to the Purpofe. 
 
 C P. 7. We are taught, that we have the 
 great eft Authority upon Earth to ajjure us 
 {that God has reveal* d This or That] to wit, 
 the Catholick or Univerfal Church > founded 
 ly Chrift Himfelf^ and by Him appointed to 
 be our Guide in all fpiritual Matters. To 
 which I anfwer, Firft, The Catholick or U- 
 niverfal Church is not the Church of Rome. 
 Secondly, The Authority of the Catholick 
 Church in This Cafe, is no more than the 
 Authority of a Witnefs to a Matter of Faffi ; 
 though Thofe Words, to be our Guide in all 
 Spiritual Matters^ are plainly thrown in, to 
 confound Thefe two very difthM Ideas, Wit- 
 nefs to a FaU, and Guide in all j pi ritual 
 Matters : Intending too fuch a Guide, as muft 
 be abfolutely and implicitly believM in overy 
 Thing, though never fo contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, Reafon, and our Senfes. Thirdly, E- 
 
 ven
 
 lo An AKSWER to a Topi/b 
 ven in witneffmg to This Faft, that God has 
 rewatdi & c * * t ^ at t ^ ie Scriptures are 
 the Word of God> the Church does not ad: 
 in her fpiritual Capacity ; or, more plainly, 
 'tis not the Church, as the Church, but the 
 Body of Chriftians, confider'd too not as Chri- 
 ftianS) but as rational, honefl Men, and not 
 Chriftians -only, much leTs ihe-C/ergy only^ 
 which is what our Adverfaries mean by the 
 Church in This Controverfy, but other Men y 
 even Enemies to Chriftianity, Jews, Turks, 
 Pagans, who are, or have been, WitnefTes 
 to the Genuinenefs of the Scriptures, or Re- 
 ceivers of them as genuine, or Both ; as I 
 have elfewhere obferv'd. St. Jlttftin (he fays*) 
 declares that nothing but the mo ft infolent 
 Madnejs could hinder any Man from fubmit- 
 ting to its {the Churctis\ c Decifwns. So fay 
 I ; provided by fubmitting to y be meant 
 acquiefcing in, or not oppofing \ and provi- 
 ded thofe Decifions be in Matters of ( Difci- 
 fline, or in olfcure difficult- Points of Reli- 
 gion and St. Auzuftin meant no more, f 
 And that he would not believe the Gofpels 
 themfehes, unlefs the Authority of the Church 
 compel? d him to it : That is, he would not 
 believe the Gofpels to be the Word of God, 
 unlefs he had fufficient Authority of Tefti- 
 monies to convince him that they were fo : 
 
 * P. 7. t ibid. 
 
 And
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion, &o 1 1- 
 
 And no more would I. Which Authority of 
 Testimonies he fuppofed to be in the 
 Church^ or Body of Chriftians : And fo do I 
 too, chiefly > though notfolefy $ as I faid before* 
 To pafs over his ftrange Ufe of Words ia 
 That Claufe, * the 'Truth or Nature of the 
 Myfteries - 3 as If the Truth of them, and the 
 Nature of them were the fame ; and his af- 
 firming that it is impoffible we fljould exa- 
 imine the Truth of a "Thing we cannot under- 
 Jland > (becaufe Thefe are Curiofities only by 
 the Bye, and do not at all affeft our prefent 
 Controverfy) I fay, to pafs over Thefe, I go 
 on to what muft by no means be palfed over, 
 as it ftands in the next Page, f The proper 
 StiljeUofoiir Examination is ^whether we have 
 fiifficient Motives to believe that ftich^ or 
 fuch aToint of 'Doffirine has been eff equally 
 'revealed by God, That is one Subject of Ex- 
 amination, I grant, and a very great one $ 
 but 'tis not the only one. Another is, What 
 is the true Senfe and Meaning of fuch or fuch 
 a Thing, after wef are fatisfy'd it is reveal'd 
 by God. ThiSj I know, our Popifh Adverfa- 
 ries will deny : They infift, that for This ive 
 muft abfolutely fubmit to the Church, and 
 make no ufe of our own private Reafon. But 
 they muft prove this, as well as aifert it ; 
 they muft not take it for granted j for it is 
 
 the
 
 17 An ANSWERS a Topifb Book, 
 
 the main Point in Difpute. Nothing has 
 been urg'd by our Author to prove it as yet ; 
 except the two Texts above-mentioned 
 and ho\v they prove no fuch thing, has been 
 (hewn. But, perhaps, he is now proceeding 
 to That QuefUon : For after thofe Words, 
 revealed /^GW> it follows thus : It That is 
 to fav> whether the 'Proofs and Inducements 
 (commonly called the Motives of Credibility} 
 are of fufficient Weight to convince a rational 
 Man, that the Church's Authority declaring 
 the Revelation of the T)oUrine y may le fe- 
 curely depended upon in the important Con- 
 cern 'of our SouFs Salvation. So that accor- 
 ding to him, to believe that God has reveafd 
 a Iking, and to be convincd that the Church's 
 Authority declaring the Revelation of that 
 f Doffirine ) may le fecurely depended npon^ 
 is the fame thing. To fhew the complicated 
 Sophiftry of thofe "Words, the Chuictis Au- 
 thority., declaring the Revelation^ 1 refer 
 back to the Clue of Diftinctions ^ as alfo to 
 P. 9, i o. Motives of Credibility (for Motives 
 of Faitti) is only a Solecifm and therefore 
 I do not infill upon it. 'Tis agree'd, however, 
 that we are to examine whether the Church s 
 Authority may be fecurely ^depended upon; 
 i. e. whether we are oblig'd, abfolutely and 
 implicitly to fubmit to it. After which our 
 
 Author
 
 Entitled, England*; Cenvw/kri, &c. i j 
 
 Author concludes the Se&ion in thefe Trr 
 umphant Words : * And will any one, after 
 this, have the Confidence to reproach U> 3 
 that We oblige o^tr Teople to proceed blindly , 
 and forbid them to examine the Grounds of 
 their Faith ? Nothing^ furely^ but a pre)u~ 
 died He an can prompt them to imagine any 
 fuch thing. And I ask, will the Papiits, 
 after all, fuffer People to examine the Deci- 
 fions of their Church, and contradict and 
 reject any one of them, if they do not like 
 it ? Tranfubftantiation, for Inftance? If they 
 will not, (as in truth they will not) What 
 do they lefs than require a blind Submiflion ? 
 Oh ! but we are permitted to examine the 
 Grounds of Faith ; becaufe we are permit- 
 ted to examine, whether the Church ought 
 to be thus implicitly fubmitted to, or no : 
 And thus Examination and SubmiiHon are 
 reconcil'd. I anfwer, Firft, This is an Jfter- 
 thought j and the Reformation may be 
 thank'd for it j as it may for many other 
 Concefllons from the Church of Rome y and 
 in fome Meafure for the Reformation of the 
 Church of Rome itfelf. Even new, 'tis well 
 known that in Topifo Countries People are 
 told, they muft implicitly fubmit to the 
 Church's Authority $ and fbis Point is no 
 more fuffer'd to be canvafsd than any other :
 
 14 An ANSWER to a Tofijb Book, 
 
 'Ti* Herefy to deny it, or even queftion it. 
 Secondly, This their Account of the Mat- 
 ter excludes the mcft material Part of Ex- 
 amination, viz. Whether the Church be 
 right in deciding^ and explaining each parti- 
 cular Article of Faith. It would, furely, 
 be blind Obedience to a King, were we 
 permitted only to enquire whether he had a 
 Right in general to be abfolutely obey'd ; 
 but not to enquire whether his Commands 
 were in themfelves juft and lawful. Thirdly, 
 If (as I faid in the Beginning") That Church 
 requires fuch an abfolute Submiflion (as all the 
 World grants fhe does) and yet it is not due, 
 and the Arguments to prove it due, are to 
 the laft degree trifling and abfurd, (as I have 
 partly flievvn already, and partly fliall fliew 
 hereafter) then notwithftanding This pretend- 
 ed Liberty of Examination, ie ftill ground- 
 lefsly and unreafonably obliges Teople to pro- 
 ceed blindly ) as This Gentlemam exprefTes 
 himfelf- Fourthly, Were the Arguments 
 to prove fuch a Submiflion as feemingly ftrong 
 and cogent, as any of that nature can well 
 be imagin'd ; they could not convince any ra- 
 tional Man, however they might puzzle and 
 confound Him. Should I find in the Bible it- 
 felf fuch a Proportion as This, A Tiece of 
 'Bread is really and truly a human "Body ; 
 or, the fame Body can be in fen thoufand 
 ^Places at once: 1 could not believe it. Would 
 I then deny what God affirms ? No ; but I 
 
 fhould
 
 Entitled^ England'^ Converjlon, Sec. 1 5 
 
 fhould be lure God did not affirm This. The 
 Text could not be genuine j becaufe God 
 cannot affert a Contradiction. Nay, iliould 
 I fee a Man raife the 'Dead) and hear him 
 declare the Proportions aforefaid to be true , 
 I could not believe him : Becaufe I know 
 the Things to be impojjible in Reafon and 
 Nature. And as for the Teftimony of my 
 Senfes, That Argument would be fet afide 
 by the Perfon requiring my Affent ; becaufe 
 he would require me to believe contrary to 
 my Senfes : Befides, upon the Evidence o 
 Reafon and my Senfes put together > I can- 
 not be fo fure that a dead Man is really 
 raisd.> as I am that thofe Tropofaions tan- 
 not be trtie. 
 
 To the Second Seflion. 
 
 FJlTH is not againft Reafon. That is 
 the Title o This Se&ion ; but why it is, 
 I know not. It might as well have been 
 calFd A Continuation of the fame Suljeft : 
 Or if it muft have a new Title, it fhould 
 have been This : The Chtircb of Rome fu- 
 ferior to the Scriptures and the Apoftles : 
 For That is plainly the Scope of This Sedion, 
 and, in truth, of the whole Book. Faith., 
 however, is not againft Reafon. It is not, 
 indoed j /, e. the Qhriflian Faith is not > but 
 
 the
 
 l6 An ANSWER to a Toflfb Book, 
 
 the Topi/I) Faith is againft R&afon, and our 
 Senfcs too. 
 
 Tray, Sir (fays * the young Gentleman) 
 will you do me thefavoiir to explain yo2irfelf 
 by feme particular Example. He means to 
 explain hirafelf upon the Church's Author ity> 
 &c. as in the foregoing Section* 
 
 P. With all my Heart - y and I cannot do 
 it letter, than by making the Application of 
 what Ik ave (aid to the Proceedings of 'the firft 
 Chriftians converted by the Apojtles. Ibe 
 Fatt is this-, Iwefae poor illiterate Men+ 
 &c. and fo goes on for almoft two Pages, 
 giving us the Hiftory of the Converfion of 
 Three thoufand Jews and Gentiles, by the 
 firft Preaching of the Apoftles. This is to 
 puzzle and confound-, to make/wr ignorant 
 People gape and flare^ as if fomething ex* 
 traordinary were coming. He draws his Ar- 
 gument (you fee) from the Fountain Head - y 
 begins with the very Beginnings of Cbrifti- 
 anity \ from whence you are to conclude, 
 that Chriftianity and *Pop$ry are one and the 
 fame thing. Pray obferve the Sound of the 
 Words : ^Lhe FaU is this ; fysefoe poor, il- 
 literate Men in whom there appear d no- 
 thing to recommend them to the Eyes of the 
 World, prefented themfelves on a fudden in 
 
 IM.
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion^ Sec. 1 7 
 
 the open Streets 0/Jerufalem, &c. They did 
 fo ; and in fhort they converted Three thou- 
 fand Souls : You have it in the Second Chap- 
 ter of the Afts of the Apoftles^ and much bet- 
 ter told than it is here. And Thofe Who 
 believed, he tells us, affied rationally in fo 
 doing *, thotigh the f Dctr/ne contain d Myf~ 
 teries jurprizing to human Reafon. Much 
 might be faid to iliew that \vhat was then 
 preach'd was not fo very Myft-crious^ efpe- 
 cially tothey^mr; t But waving That,doubt- 
 lefs they a&ed very rationally in believing ; 
 becaufe of our Saviour's late Miracles, and 
 That which was prefent before their Eyes, 
 the Gift of Tongues in the Apoftles $ and be- 
 caufe the Do&rine preach'd had nothing in 
 it contrary to Reafon, Scripture, or natural 
 Religion, much lefs their Senfes. And from 
 hence is to be deduced a Train of Argumenta- 
 tion to prove the Church's Aitthority in de~ 
 daring^ &c. as aforefaid : Whereas it might 
 as well have taken its Rife from the Cre- 
 ation of the World, as from the Conversion of 
 thefrft Chriftians. But it looks folemnly and 
 pompoufly, as I obferved , 'Tis a grand *Pa- 
 rade of Words > tho* moft impertinent ones j 
 It amufes injudicious People, and makes their 
 Heads giddy ; and then they are in an apt 
 
 * P. 9. f They were in Truth all J?ws t either Natives 
 
 C
 
 / 1 
 
 i8 An ANSWER to a 
 
 ^Difpofition for the Reception of *Popery 
 Thefe fir ft Converts to Chriftianity believ'd 
 rationally ; Ergo, the Church of Rome is to- 
 be believ'd implicitly. Nay, he proves it a 
 fortiori : For after the young Gentleman has 
 ask'd him (as well he might) what Confe- 
 quence he draws from thence ; * He anfwers, 
 I infer that if thefe Motives were a fufficient 
 and foli d Ground of a rational Submijfion to 
 the Church's Faith^ even in her Infancy > when 
 the 'Prophecies concerning her future TLncreafe* 
 Magnificence , and Splendor, were not yet ve- 
 rify d^ as they are now j thofe we have at pre- 
 fent to convince us of the Reafonablenejs of 
 our relying upon her Authority are much 
 moreforcib'e^ when Millions of Martyrs have 
 feafd her Faith with the loft drop of their 
 $lood i when flic has peopled-* &c. and fo goes 
 on dcfcribing the glormis State of the Church 
 (meaning, as always, the Church of Rome} 
 for near upon Seventeen hundred Tears. I 
 defire the Reader to take particular No- 
 tice of This Reafoning ; for 'tis really a 
 Rarity, ^rational Sulmiffion to the Church's 
 Faith ! Thefe three thoufand Jews and Pro- 
 felytes had then no Thought soi a. Church, as 
 fuch i muchlefs of her Authority, or of Faith 3 
 as Her Faith. Before their Converfion, the 
 Apoftles and Difciples of our Saviour were 
 
 * p. I*. 
 
 all
 
 Entitled, England'^ Conveffiw, &c. 1 9 
 
 all the Church in Being : And did thefe Con- 
 verts fubmit to *fbeni) upon a Principle o 
 Submiifcon to Church- Authority ? 'Tis plain 
 they fubmitted to the Evidence of Miracles^ 
 feconded by God s Grace^ and to nothing 
 elfe , as our Author himfelf rcprefents it in 
 the Words immediately preceding* Why 
 then a Submiflion to the Church's Faith $ 
 when Churehfliip had nothing to do in the 
 Bufmels - y there being in truth no Church 
 formd^ as the Word is now us'd. ? The Rea- 
 fon is plain : Becaufe all T. his Waiter labours 
 at is efiabliiliing the Authority of the Church: 
 And fo That Word muft be dragg'd in here 5 
 \vhen a rational SulmiJJion istalk'd of; tho' 
 there is not the lead Connexion between the 
 One and the Other. 
 
 What follows in the Pafifage cited is an 
 Argument toprove^ that the Church of Rome 
 (for That is always meant here \>ytbe Church J 
 is more to be credited, and is of greater 
 Authority, than the Apoftles. They, and 
 the other Difcipks of Jefus, when St. Te- 
 ter preach' d This Sermon, were but the 
 Church in her very Infancy , when the Trc-* 
 phefies^ &c. 'But Thoj'e Motives we have at 
 prefent to convince us of the ReafcnaWenefi 
 of relying upon her Authority are much more 
 forcible. Admitting that, all things confi- 
 de red, We have now more Evidence for the 
 ffMb of Chriftianity, than They had who 
 liv'd in the Days of the Apoftles, and faw 
 C $ their
 
 ao An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 their Miracles, as Some have affirm'd we have \ 
 and in one Senfe it is undoubtedly true : Or 
 more plainly to our prefent Purpofe, admit- 
 ting that we have now more forcible Mo- 
 tives to convince us of the Reafonablenefs of 
 relying upon Their Authority > than They had 
 who law them ; yet it by no means follows 
 from hence, that We have more reafon to 
 rely upon the prefent Church's Authority^ 
 than They had to rely upon That of the A- 
 poftles : And upon another account we 
 have not near fo much ; Becaufe the Apoftles 
 were infpired, and the prefent Church is 
 not. 
 
 Neither does our Author's Argument in the 
 leaft prove his Point ; but is egregioufly tri- 
 fling and fophiftical. In the firft Part of 
 it by the Church is meant That in the A~ 
 poftles 2)tfjJ, and chiefly the Apoftles them- 
 felves i in the other is meant the prefent 
 Church : And yet He jumbles his Words to- 
 gether, as if in both Places it meant the 
 fame 'Thing : T'he Church even in HER Infan- 
 cy At prefent to convince us of HER Au- 
 thority. Every body knows, that the Same- 
 nefs of a jfe, fucceffive Body is not the fame 
 with That of a finale Perfon, or Thing. 
 There is a Quibble too in the Words Autho- 
 rity ', and Relying upon it ; which I have be- 
 fore taken notice of. Nor does it follow 
 (to refume the Argument) that becaufe we 
 have at prefent more Evidence for the *Trutb 
 
 of
 
 Entitled, England' j- Confer fwi^ Sec. ai 
 
 of Chriftianit}\ than Thofe had who liv'd in 
 the dpoftles SD^r, (fuppofmg the Fad to be 
 true) therefore We have more Reafon to 
 rely upon the prefent Church's Authority, 
 than Tibey had upon That of the Church then 
 tn Being, i. e. chiefly the Apoftles ,- tho' They 
 were divinely infpir V, and the prefent Church 
 is not. For I defire the Reader to confider, 
 tho' our Author does not, that the then 
 Church (like the firft created Man) tho' an 
 Infant in Age, was adult in Wifdom, and 
 Authority ; and of far greater Authority, 
 than any Church fmce could ever juftly pre- 
 tend to. 
 
 Looking back upon what I have written, 
 I am both afham'd and amaz'd to have una- 
 wares us'd fo many Words in vindicating 
 the Apoftles againft 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 leave the odious 
 Subjed with This Refledion ; that if Popery 
 and Chriftianity were more confiftent with 
 each other, the Defenders of the Former 
 wou'd be forc'd to make uf e of lefs Biafphe- 
 my againft the Latter. 
 
 P. 1 1 . G. T^hefe Motives of Credibility^ as 
 you call thent^ (He might well fay, as Tou 
 call thern^ for fure they were never call'd 
 fo by any body elfe) are firong indeed^ and 
 muft either fujjice to render the Churctis "fef- 
 tiwony credible i or there is no I'eftimony up- 
 C 3 on
 
 ii An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 on Earth to be fccnrely depended upon. 
 
 P. Whoever examines them ferioujly, will 
 wo ft certainly fnd them fo. Inftead of the 
 Church's "lejlimony read the Truth ofChriftia- 
 Mty-,and there will be more Senfe and Truth 
 in it. jlndjince (continues the Preceptor)7&?j; 
 contain nothing but Hiftorical Faffs, which 
 may eajily be examind the Cafe fairly ft a- 
 ted between Proteftants^ and the Church of 
 Rome may be decided by this one Trinciple ; 
 to wit, that it is an indifpenfable 2tej', 
 and by confequence moft highly rational^ to 
 believe a Thing tho never fo feemingly con- 
 trary to ReafcT?, when we have a moral 
 Certainty that God has reveal 1 d it. 
 
 G. / think the Principle is felf-evident. 
 
 Tho' This Principle, if true, would be of 
 no Service to Him ^(ince the Romanifts, as 
 I {hall fhew hereafter, have not a moral Cer- 
 tainty^ nor any thing like it, that God has 
 reveafd the Doctrines they would obtrude 
 upon us) yet I infift that it is fo far from 
 being felf-evident, that it is utterly falfe. 
 Never fo feemingly contrary to Reafon ! Sure 
 if a Thing be as feemingly contrary to Rea- 
 fon as pojfible, it is really contrary to it : 
 At leaft as to Him, to whom it fo feems. 
 If then we have only a moral Certainty on 
 the one hand that a thing is fo or fo, and/- 
 jalliblc Tlemonft ration> vc f elf -evident Certain- 
 ty on the other, that it is not, and cannot be 
 fo, (as it cannot, if it b>e contrary to Reafon) 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England's Converfitn, See. i j 
 
 the Latter ought to preponderate j nay it will, 
 and muft, and it cannot be otherwife. A 
 moral Certainty of any Faffi (fays he * fpeak- 
 ing of Teftimony and external Evidence) ex- 
 cludes all reajonable tDonbt of if. Not fo, 
 fay I, if in the nature of the Thing there 
 be more than moral Certainty againfl it. 
 Or (if you pleafe) Things (landing thus,! 
 have not a moral Certainty of it : Take 
 which you will. |j And if I have no 'Doubt 
 lut God has reveatd fuch., or fuch a thing j 
 Imnfl le an Atheift^ or Madman^ not to be- 
 lieve it. But in the Cafe fuppofed, I have 
 more than a *Doubt of it ; I am very fure 
 God did not reveal it : becaufe God cannot 
 reveal a Contradiction to Reafon. f For my 
 refiifmg to believe it in that Caje is nothing 
 lefs than rejecting, or fetting at Nought the 
 < feflimony df God him f elf ^ whereof I am fup- 
 pos'd to have a moral Certainty. I anfwer 
 as before, in effect, that in the Cafe fuppos'd 
 I either have not fuch a moral Certainty, 
 that God has reveal'd it : Or if I have, it is out- 
 weigtfdby fomething more than moral Certain* 
 ty, that He has not revealed it. I put it both 
 ways, to prevent Quarelling about Words. For 
 the further clearing of this Matter, I beg the 
 Reader to caft his Eye back to P. 14. L, 
 32. Fourthly > Were the Argument s^ frc.to 
 the End of the Section, 
 
 * /AW. ii #*v, t /*w. 
 
 C 4 Having
 
 04 An ANS w E R to a Topifb Book, 
 
 Having fliewn This weighty Principle to 
 befalfe ,- I faall now (hew, as I propos'd, that 
 our Topifo Adverfaries can have no Advan- 
 tage from it, juppoflng it were true. * 
 33ut how do Ton prove (fays the young Gen- 
 tleman) that all controverfialToints between 
 'Proteftants and Us, may be decided by this 
 one general 'Principle ? 
 
 P. I prove it thus. Whatever Faff has 
 the Teftimony of the great eft Authority &c. 
 All contain'd in This Paragraph amounts to no 
 more, than that if we have fufficient Evi- 
 dence attefting any matter of Fa<5t 3 we ought 
 to believe it : Which is deny'd by no body, that 
 I know of. And what follows to the End of 
 the Se&ion, is to prove that there is fuch a 
 moral Certainty, (founded on the Church's 
 Authority) for the * Revelation of all the 
 Points of Chriftian Doftrine held by Papifts, 
 and deriy'd by Proteftants. The Argument 
 ftands Thus. || IVhatever Fatt has the ?ef- 
 timony of the great eft Authority .> &c. Bat 
 the Revelation of all the ^Points of Chrifiian 
 T^oUrine held by R0mantfts 3 and denyd by 
 ^Proteftants^ is attefted by fuch an Authority. 
 Ergo, &c. Not to infift at prefent that the 
 ~&evelation (even when it is true) is not pro- 
 perly the matter of Fatt -, but the Mira- 
 cles which are the QbjeUs of Senfe y are the 
 
 II, 12, *P. 12. |J MJ. 
 
 Fatfs
 
 Entitled) England'.? Converfion, Sec. 15 
 
 Faffs to which the Witneffes give their Tef. 
 timony, which Fafts are T roofs of the Re- 
 relation : I fay not to infift upon This ; fince 
 our Author calls the Revelation of the Ro-> 
 9nijh Doctrine, as oppofite to ours, a Faffi 9 
 and puts it (as to the Evidence of it) upon 
 the fame Foot with the befl grounded Hifto- 
 rical fads j 1 1 ask him, are we then to con- 
 {ider it as a plain hiftorical Faffi attefted by 
 the Church, or are we not ? If we are not j 
 Why does He talk in this manner ? Why 
 does he confound Matters of Fdffi with mat- 
 ters of 'Do&rine ? The T^eftimovy of a Wit* 
 nefs^ with the Authority dt a^Diffiator ? If we 
 are j how does the Church (even their own 
 Churchjthe Church of Rome)atteft the Reve- 
 lation of the Pope's Supremacy, the In fallibili- 
 ty of the Church, Tranfubftantiation,Commu- 
 nion in one kind, and twenty more ? If.ihe 
 proves them from Scripture 5 I am anfwerd 
 as to the Truth of them : But This is not 
 Witneffing. If fhe proceeds upon any other 
 Foot I ask. Does fhe tell us when, and 
 where, God revealed them ? Does ftie tell us 
 by what MeJJengers or ^Prophets He reveal- 
 ed them ; and what Miracles they wrought 
 as Credentials of their Million ? Does ihe 
 tell us whether they were revealed all in a 
 lump, or at different times ? JV/7 horum ; 
 verbofa, & grandts, &c. Not one Syl- 
 
 t /WA 
 
 kble
 
 36 An ANSWER to a Topijh 
 
 lable of all This ; but we are told in general, 
 in a confus'd * Huddle of Words (which 
 fliall be taken to pieces in its proper place) 
 that the Church has from Age to Age de- 
 liver'd down abundance of frttths as re- 
 veatd by God, fome in Writing^ and fome 
 by word of Mouth, &c. i, e. in fliort, The 
 Church of Rome fays, That all the Church 
 of Rome fays is to be taken for Gofpel. 
 But This is not witnfffing to an hiftorical 
 Faff, or Fa8s : 'Tis T)iftating, not Wit- 
 nefjing $ And fo we are juft where we were 
 before. 
 
 But we proceed. The Thing to be pro- 
 ved is, that the Revelation of the diltin- 
 guifhing Romifh Do&rines, has the Teftimo- 
 ny of the greateft Authority upon Earth ; 
 and therefore has a moral Certainty on its 
 fide. But before our Author comes to prove 
 this, he tells us once more that t the <Prin- 
 ciple, [Viz. lhat it is an indifpenfable *Duty^ 
 #nd by confequence moft highly rational, to 
 believe a thing, tho never fo feemingly con- 
 trary to Real on, when we have a moral Cer- 
 tainty that God has revealed it ] / s certain: 
 And the immediate Conjeqtience that flows 
 from it is a full Confutation of Jtheifts and 
 
 * The fecond Side of the nnpag'd Leaf between^. 12, & 
 13. Now this Church founded by Clrijt kimfelf, &C. tt p. 
 fcftt at reveal'd Truths. 
 
 j i/. fide of the unpag'd Leaf, fir.-,
 
 Entitled) England' j 1 Converjion, &c. 27 
 
 'Deifts. I have fhewn that it is not very 
 certain -, nay that it is utterly falfe and db- 
 furd. What the immediate Confeqiiencv 
 which few s from it is. He does not tell us j 
 but I am fatisfy'd, that Nothing which flows 
 from it can be any Confutation of Atheifts 
 and ^Deifts. So far otherwife, that it would 
 expofe us to the Scorn of Thofe Infidels : 
 The Atheifls would call it Begging thequef- 
 tion^ as fuppofmg the Being ofa God, which 
 He denies ; and both He and the Deift would 
 fee the Abfurdity of it, as I do 5 and yet I 
 am fure, I am neither an Atheift, nor a 
 Deift. 
 
 'But to prevent (continues he t) your mij- 
 taking my meaning^ when I told you that 
 the Cafe fairly ftated between Troteftants 
 and the Church of Rome may be decided 
 ly this one ^Principle - y I pretended not that 
 there is the fame extenfive Evidence^ or lef- 
 timony^ for every Article of Faith in which 
 we differ from *P rot eft ant s^ as there is for 
 Cbriftianity in General, No, God knows $ 
 becaufe every one of Their Articles of Faith a 
 as diftinft from Ours, depends entirely upon 
 their own Authority : But the Truth of Chri- 
 ftianity is proved by the Authority (meaning 
 the Teflimony) of the Church Univerfal, 
 and of Others too j as well as by much inter-
 
 i8 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 nal Evidence. He indeed gives another Rea- 
 fon for his Caution, and 'tis This ; * $e- 
 caule it has happen d more than once., that 
 the Catholick Church has been filent for feme 
 time in reference to Articles of Faith) even 
 allow d of as fuch by Troteftants. The Rea- 
 fon whereof is, becatife the Church never de- 
 cides any T)offrine to be an Article of Faith ; 
 V/// after the mo ft diligent Enquiry, and ma- 
 ture Deliberation, and generally upon Occa- 
 fion of Qifputes raisd about it. If they are 
 really Articles of Faith now ; they were al- 
 ways fo : tho' perhaps not fo explicitly de- 
 clard, nor foftrongly guarded. I take no- 
 tice of This j becaufe by deciding a 'Doc- 
 trine to be an Article of Faith, the Papifts 
 mean making it to be fo ,- whereas we ut- 
 terly deny that the Church has Authority 
 to make an Article of Faith. 
 
 To fhew that, according to our own Prin- 
 ciples, we Proteftants ought to receive fome 
 Points, as Articles of Faith, which have not 
 fo extenjwe an Evidence, as the Truth of 
 Chriftianity in general , He inftancesin TW 3 
 t which He fays we ourfelves allow to be 
 Jrticles of^ Faith ; which yet were not al* 
 ways receiv'd as fuch, and at laft were re- 
 ceiv'd as fuch only upon the Authority of 
 the Church's Decifions. Thefe Poin^ are, 
 
 and r.ext P, 
 
 \fti That
 
 Entitled^ England 1 * Converjion, &c. 29 
 
 i/?. That all the 'Books loth of the Old and 
 New Teflament^ as printed in our "Eible^ 
 z?tre written by ^Divine Infpiration. idly- 
 That Baptism adminifterd by Hercticks is 
 valid. lanfwer, ift.lt is abfolutely falfe that 
 we allow Thefe Points (which, by the way, 
 are ftrangely coupled) to be Articles of Faith. 
 The Firft of them is indeed a Truth funda- 
 mental to Chriftianity, and prevmis to all 
 our Faith -, but it is not it jelf an Article of 
 it. For how is This Point reveal'd to us ? 
 In Scripture ? That's Circular Arguing, or 
 Proving a Thing by it felf. By any other 
 Revelation ? We pretend to None ; and it 
 would be moft irrational to expecl: any. Be- 
 fides, This Author himfelf, (as the Tenden- 
 cy of his Argument neceflfarily requires) puts 
 it upon the Authority of the Church : And 
 He very well knows, that We do not acknow- 
 ledge the Authority of the Church and the 
 Authority of God to be equal ; much lefs 
 to be one and the fame thing. As to what 
 he fays about the fuppos'd Uncanonicalnefs 
 of fome Books for fome Ages ; tho' a great 
 deal might be faid ta it, yet I pafs it over 
 here j becaufe it does not affect our prefent 
 Argument. The other Point He mentions, 
 was never declared by the Church to be an 
 Article of Faith $ nor do We receive it as 
 fuch. 
 
 I anfwer, tdfy. If we did acknowledge 
 Thefe Points to be Articles of Faith, and 
 
 That
 
 ? o An ANSWER to a Topfo Book, 
 
 That upon the Authority of the Catholick 
 Church's Decifions ; yet what our Author 
 aims at, would by no means follow. He 
 purfues his Arguments thus. * If therefore 
 we can produce the Teftimony and Authority 
 of the I'ame Catholick Church againfl them 
 for the Articles diffuted between us and 
 them \ our Belief of them is grounded upon 
 the fame Moral Evidence, or Certainty, as 
 their 'Belief is of the two above-mention d 
 Articles. But we can produce the Teftimo- 
 ny, &c. I deny the Minor : And let us fee 
 how it is proved, t Now this Church foun- 
 ded by Chrift Himfelf to be our Guide to 
 Heaven ; this Church fo venerable for her 
 Antiquity., and the lineal Ttefcent; &c.. 
 THIS Church, I fay, &c. And I fay, WHICH 
 Church ? For that the Church of Rome is 
 the Church, I will never grant. To thofe 
 Words, founded by Chrifl himfelf^ to be ottr 
 Guide to Heaven-, I anfwer, \fl- We are 
 now fpeaking of the Church as a Witnefs, 
 not as a Guide, -idly. The Scriptures are 
 our ^Principal Guide to Heaven, the Church 
 is only our Secondary -, and the Laft is no 
 farther a true Guide, than as itfelf is guided 
 by the-Firft. II Well ; but this Church hath al- 
 ways attefted the following Hiftorical Faffis y 
 to wit, that the twelve Jpoftles (the frft 
 
 * :d fide &t. f Ibid. \\ ?, 13. 
 
 Plotters
 
 ^ England^ Converjlon, Sec. 3 i 
 
 Planters of her Faith) were all inspired 
 Men ; that whatfoever they taught relating 
 to the Chriftian T)oUrine, either by Word 
 of Motith, or by Writing, were Truths re- 
 vealed by God) and dictated by the Holy 
 Ghoft. The Apoftles were undoubtedly in- 
 fpird Men ; and their Doctrines were 
 Truths reveal'd by God : And fo they would 
 have been, whether the Church had attefled 
 it, or no. But 'tis the manner of Papifts to 
 talk as if the Church made the Apoftles and 
 Scriptures of Divine Authority. Whereas 
 the Thing is not therefore true, becaufe the 
 Church attefts ; but the Church therefore 
 attefts, becaufe the Thing is true : And O 
 thers, who never were of the Church, but 
 mortal Enemies to it, atteft the Truth of 
 many Fads, which prove the Truth of Chri- 
 ftianity. ^Tbat they committed thefe Truths^ 
 either in Writing^ or by Word of Mouth, 
 as a facred Tmft y to their Succeflbrs, the 
 ^Bijhops and Taftors ordaind by them. But 
 did they commit them to no body elfe ? Did 
 they preach and write to no body but Bi- 
 ihops and Paftors ? Did not they commit 
 them to all, who would hear or read them? 
 According to This way of talking, one ivould 
 think, at leaft, that the Apoftles, immedi- 
 ately before their Death, very folemnly and 
 
 formally
 
 }i An ANSWER to a Tofi/b Book, 
 
 formally gave Copies of all the Divine Truths 
 they had written to the Bifljops and *P^- 
 flors i and calfd to their remembrance all 
 they had fpoken j and that This precious 
 f Depvfitnm ? This j acred Imft (as our Au- 
 thor calls it) was committed to Them only. 
 Whereas the Apoftles (as all the World 
 knows ) preach'd the Gofpel to every 
 Creature, that would hear them. And 
 the four Gofpels, and the Epiftles, being writ- 
 ten at different Times, and Places, and 
 upon different Occafions, and to diffe- 
 rent Perfons, (very few of whom were Bi- 
 fhops or Paftors) were received by the 
 Church, as of Divine Authority, fome 
 fooner, and fome later, according as the E- 
 vidence of their Authority appeared : Which 
 Evidence was not produced by Bifhops and 
 Paftors only. But This again was a Caft of 
 our Author s skill, to amitfe ignorant Teople, 
 and bewilder their Underftandings with 
 ftrange Notions about the Chiircb. And the 
 next Words are in the fame ft rain. * That 
 thefe (Bifhops and Paftors) were likewife 
 Commiffioned to deliver them to tbofe who 
 were to fucceed them in the ] acred Miniftry. 
 Which fuppofes that the Bifhops and Pa- 
 ftors only^ in virtue of their Commijfion, or 
 holy Orders^ as Bifhops and Paftors, had 
 
 'Authority
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, dec. 3 3 
 
 Authority to deliver down the revealed 
 Truths, whether fpoken or written : And 
 That too only to their Sticcejjors in their bc^ 
 ly Functions. Than which nothing can be 
 more contrary to Reafon^or Matter of Faffi: 
 The Scriptures were diffus'd all over the 
 World) as other Books are, by innumerable 
 Copies i and have in all Ages been the 
 Property and Poffeflion of private Perfons, 
 Laity as well as Clergy. Of unwritten A- 
 poftolical Traditions I fay nothing ; becaufe 
 I deny that there are any : Of which here- 
 after. * And that by thefe, and their Sue- 
 cejjors after them> They have thus been 
 handed down to us for reveafd Truths fiom 
 %ijhop to 'Bijbopifrom Taftor to Taftor^from 
 father to Son, and from Generation to Gene* 
 ration, throughout all Ages to this very time^ 
 as the Apoftles" Creed has been. Thofe in- 
 definite Words, they> and thus^ leave us at 
 a great Uncertainty. \vu\Tlmths, as Hea- 
 venly Truths,&rQ deliver'd, is the main Quefti- 
 on between Us and Them ^ and That fliall be 
 difcuffed prefently. THUS handed down 
 He muft mean either by Writing^ or by 
 Word of Mouthy or by both. All Do&rines 
 pretended to be revealed Truths, and 
 to be handed down to us by Word of Mouth 
 only-) we utterly reject ; becaufe there is no 
 
 D Proof
 
 34 An ANSWER to a 
 
 Proof of their being revealed Truths, nnlefs 
 the Church of Romes bare Word in her own 
 Caufe may pafs for Evidence. As for the 
 Jpoftles* Creed^ it has been handed down (as 
 every Body knows) both by Word of Mouth, 
 and by Writing. And befides j we receive 
 the Truths contained in it, as Articles of 
 Faith, upon the Authority^notof the Churchy 
 but of Scripture. 
 
 We muft here obferve, that our Au- 
 thor, extends the Word Church to the prefent 
 Church ; For how can any but the prefent 
 atteft a Thing down to this cerv time 2 
 And that the Romanics acknowledge no 
 Church but their own, is notorious to the 
 World. The Force of his Argument there- 
 fore is, that the Church of Rome (for That, 
 according to Him, is the Church) in ail A- 
 ges has, and now does, atteft that the A- 
 poftlcs were infpird^ and that what they 
 faid, and writ, relating to the Chriftian Doc- 
 trine, were Truths revealed by God: And 
 ihis gives us a moral Certainty, that thofe 
 Faffis were true. You fee, all depends up- 
 on the Church of Rome > taking former A- 
 ge? and the prefent in conjunction. 'This 
 Church attefts (obferve the prefent Tenfe) 
 and has always attefted that the twelve 
 &c. * Now, what if the prefent 
 
 * At 
 
 ChurcH
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion., &c. 3 5 
 
 Church of Home fhould ceafe to atteft thefe 
 things ? Why then /^according to This Argu^ 
 mentation) there s an end of our "Evidence 
 for the Infpiraticn of the Apofths^ and the 
 'Divine Authority of the Scriptures. The 
 Apoftles and the Scriptures therefore derive 
 their Authority (as to Us, or any Ufe we 
 can make of it) from the prefent Church of 
 Rome. Let This be ferioufly coniider'd by 
 the Cbriftian Reader, Let it be obferved 
 too, idly. That the Infpiration of the A- 
 poftles, and the 'Divine Attthority of the 
 Scriptures, are here put upon the Jame foot 
 with whatever the Church of Rome fhall 
 be pie a fed to obtrude upon us. And $dly. That 
 to eftablim all Her peculiar *Doftrines$ Hie 
 is both Judge and Witnefs in her own Caufe ,- 
 producing no Evidence but this, That what^ 
 foever fhe fays is true, becaufe Hie fays it* 
 Ihis Church (i. e. the Church of Rome} at* 
 tejts, &c. 
 
 Our Author proceeds. * T'hefe, I fay, 
 are Fafts which have the Teftimony of the 
 Church qf Chrift in all Ages ; that is of the 
 mojl credible, and ilhiftrious 'Body or Socie- 
 ty of Men upon Earth, to vouch for the 
 fruth of them. Suppofing he here under- 
 ftood the Universal Church in our Trot eft ant 
 Senfe, as 'tis plain he does not -, yet even 
 
 P i then
 
 36 An ANSWER to a Toptfb 
 
 then his Roafoning would be moft abfurcL 
 The Church, when me appears as a Witnejs 
 to Fa&s, proving that fuch and fuch Points 
 are revealed ttuths, muft lay afide Her 
 Character of moft illuftrious ; and her Cha- 
 rader of CbttTchfhip it felf i becaufe fhe re- 
 ceives it from Thofe revealed Truths. To 
 fay that the Scriptures^ for inftance, are 
 divinely infpir'd, becaufe the Church, which 
 is the moft illuftrious Body, &c. fays they 
 are, when me can no way prove that She 
 is fo illuftrious i nor that She is a Church, 
 but from the Scriptures, is a mere Circle j a 
 Figure in Logick, to which the Papifts are 
 extremely addicted ; and of which our Au- 
 thor will prefently give us fuch an Exam- 
 ple, as, I believe, can hardly be equalled. 
 
 The young Gentleman anfwers, f I own 
 Sir, they (the Faffs, as above reprefented, 
 and as attefted by the Church, /. e. the 
 Church of Rome) are an unanswerable 
 Troof of the 'Truth of Chriftianity in gene- 
 ral* No, but they are not : So far from 
 it, that they undermine Chriftianity in ge- 
 neral, jet afide the real, irrefragable Proofs 
 of it, and jubftitute fcdfe ones in their ftead , 
 as I haveihewn. However, the young Gentle- 
 man's next Words are pertinent enough: 
 
 t P. 13-
 
 Entitled, England** Confer Jion, Sec. 37 
 
 * "But what is this to theToint in Qitefti- 
 on ? 
 
 P. Very much^ Sir-, for they (the Fads) 
 fully flsew the Weight of the Teftimony and 
 Authority of the illuftrious ^Body^ or Society 
 of Men> which we call the Catholick Church 
 in all .Ages. " They Jhew the weight of the 
 Teftimony of the Church ? He has all along 
 been proving that the Teftimony of the 
 Church Jhcws the weight of Them ; Some 
 of it, at Icaft ; if their Truth be any part 
 of their Weight. What follows is more 
 plain, f In a Word* they fhew her to be 
 a Society fo very facred, that her Teftimo- 
 ny in any Jge is a fufficient Evidence, &c. 
 TULIV Jhcw HER? According to the whole 
 Drift of his Argument, SHE jliews THEM . To 
 le a Society fo very f acred"? &c. Why, he 
 has all along (as we have feen) fuppos d her 
 to be a Society fo very Sacred j and there- 
 fore of fufficient Authority to eftablifh thofe 
 Truths by her Teftimony. Now it feeais, 
 Thofe very Truths attefted by Her, and 
 receiving their Authority from her, give 
 Authority to her, as a Teftifyer. Obferve 
 too, by the Way, thofe remarkable Words in 
 any Age: Here he fpeaks more plainly, con- 
 firming what I before took notice of concern- 
 ing the prefent Church. And admirable 
 
 13. jind 14. t P. J 4 
 
 D 5 Do-
 
 }8 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 Doctrine it is indeed. But to go on ; repeat- 
 ing (as we are forc'd to do) feme of the 
 Words already cited. THEY foew HER to be 
 a Society fo very f acred , that her Teftimo- 
 ny in any Age is a fufficient Evidence to 
 make us reafonably believe thofe things 
 reveal d which foe propofes as reveaPd 
 truths. If this be not round, and round, 
 in as true a Circle as ever was described ; I ne- 
 ver faw a Circle in my Life. But tho' by 
 this thrifty and compendious way of Argu- 
 ing, he proves the Faffs by the Authority of 
 the Church and the Authority of the 
 Church by the Facts , yet Care is taken 
 to fet the Churctis Authority in the Jlrong- 
 efl Light. It is mentioned laft, and clofes 
 the whole Argument ; that it may make the 
 deeper ImprelHon. A fufficient Evidence to 
 make us reafonably believe thofe things re- 
 veal? d, 'which She propofes as r eve a fa 1 Truths. 
 i. e. We muft ftill remember, that all re~ 
 veal'd Truths, whether in the Scriptures, 
 or any where elfe> depend upon Her Te- 
 ftimony and Authority. 
 
 licence, 1 infer (fays He *}that We have the 
 fame Moral Certainty of the Revelation of 
 Chrifis realTrefence/or example, in the ^lej- 
 fed Sacrament, of the T)ottrine of fyanfub- 
 ftantiation, Turgatory, Invocation of Saints, 
 Honouring of Reliques* &c. as both We, and 
 
 yroteftauts
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn^ Sec. 39 
 
 tproteftants have of the divine Infpiratim 
 of Scriptures. Becaufe We have the fame 
 T'eftimony or Authority to rely upm^ for the 
 Truth ^Both ; Nor can we reafonably rejeft 
 the one without rejecting the other. And then 
 we may bid Adieu to all reveafd Religion. 
 Chrift'-s real T re fence ^ asdiftincl: from c tran- 
 fubftantiation^ need not have been menti- 
 onM ; becaufe we do not deny a fpirittial 
 real Prefence. To the reft I anfwer : We 
 have not the fame Teftimony or Authority 
 to rely upon for the Truth of Tranjubftan- 
 tiation. Purgatory^ &c. as we have for the 
 Truth of the divine Infpiration of the Scrip- 
 tures. For the Latter, we have the Tefti- 
 mony of tho Church univerfat ; and in fome 
 meafure of Thofe, who are out of the Church. 
 We have as much Proof of it, as the nature 
 of the Thing will admit ; and no FaEt was 
 ever better attcfled. For the Former, we 
 have only the Church of Rome witneffing 
 and judging in her own Caufe ,- in dired; oppo- 
 (ition to the Teftimony and Authority of all 
 other Churches, and of the Holy Scriptures 
 too, which fhe acknowledges to be divinely 
 infpird: So that we may lafely rejeft Tope- 
 ry, without bidding adieu to all reveatd Re- 
 ligion. Nay, we cannot acknowledge the 
 Fivft, without contradiding . and undermi- 
 ning the Laft, If the Teftimony or Autho- 
 B 4 rity.
 
 40 An ANS WE R to a Topifb Book, 
 
 rity of the Church (He argues t) fuffices to 
 convince a Proteftant's Judgment of the In/pi" 
 ration of Scriptures^ ana to oblige him to 
 venture his Souls Salvation upon the 'Belief 
 of it i why will not the fame teftimony and 
 Authority oblige him likewife to believe the 
 'Revelation of the other Articles juft now men- 
 tion d? I anfwer, ift. as before, I have, not 
 the fame Teftimony and Authority for Both. 
 idly^ If the Scriptures were not divinely in- 
 fpir'd ; my Belief that they are> would not 
 hazard my Souls Salvation, {dly. I have 
 not only not the fame Evidence for the 
 Truth of the Popifli Tenets, as I have for 
 That of the Infpiration of the Scriptures ; 
 but I have no Proof of it at all ; nay, I have 
 direft proof againft it, both from Scripture* 
 and the Teftimony and Authority of the 
 Church. Therefore qtbly. The Belief of 
 them would indeed hazard my Souls Salva- 
 tion j becaufc they are wicked as well as 
 falfe^ and directly contrary to the Word of 
 God. But He goes on. * For either the 
 Church^ appointed by Chrifl to be our Guide > 
 may lefecurely relyd upon > or not. Jf not ; 
 a Troteftants Belief of the Infpiration of 
 Scriptures is raft* and inconfiderate. But 
 if it may be fecurely relyd upon ; he affis in- 
 
 t IK* P.
 
 Entitled^ England'.* Converfion, &c. 41 
 
 coherently in not believing the other Articles 
 declard by her to be reveal d I'ruihs. 
 
 G. Icon-fits I do not fee by what Slight or 
 Jrtifae Trot eft ants can efc ape from the two 
 Horns of this 'Dilemma. For whether they 
 fay Tes y or No ; it gives their Church a mor- 
 tal "Blow. You are very complaifant to your 
 Tutor, ycung Gentleman ; but 'tis really 
 more Your Goodnefs, than his Defert. If 
 You, Sir, dont fee how we can efcape-, I 
 think, I do: Nor is fo muchfaigbty or ar- 
 tifice requir'd, as You imagine : So far from 
 it, that they are a Couple of \hv weakeft 
 Horns that ever pu/tid. But why muft we 
 needs fay Tes> or JVb, without any more a- 
 doe ? Did your Tutor never tell You that, 
 in fome Cafes, before we fay Yes, or No, 
 'tis requifite to diftingtufo ? If by the Church 
 be meant the Church of Rome ; I deny that 
 She was appointed by Chrifl to be our Guide : 
 and moreover to the firft Horn I anfwer, 
 No j She is not to be fecurely relyd upon : 
 So far otherwife, that She is the faifeft Wit- 
 nefs, the moft corrupt Judge, and the blind- 
 eft Guide, upon the Face of the Earth. Nor 
 does it follow, that becaufe She is not to be 
 fecurely rely'd upon, therefore a c Proteflans 
 "Belief of the Inlpiration of the Scriptures is 
 rajh and inconjiderate ; becaufe He has 0- 
 ther^ and much better > Proof that the Scrip- 
 ture is infpired, than her Authority. This 
 being fo 3 the other Horn is of courfc ufeiofs. 
 
 For
 
 4i An ANSWER to a Topijh $ook y 
 
 For the Cafe (landing, as I have faid j the 
 Proteftant does not affi incoherently in not 
 lelieving the other Articles declara by Her 
 (the Church of Rome') to be reveafd Tmths. 
 If by the Church be meant the univerfal 
 Church, or the Catholick Church truly fo 
 called j I anfwer, \fl. Even She is only a 
 Guide in Subordination to the Scripture ; 
 and if She fhould teach any thing plainly 
 contrary to the plainefl Scripture, or to Rea- 
 fin> or to our Senfes; it ought to be rejected. 
 Therefore idly. She may be fecurely relyd 
 upon^ when fhe attefts a plain Faffi , efpeci- 
 ally when the Fad is proved by other Evi- 
 dence, both external and internal : but not 
 if fhe fhould teach things plainly contrary 
 &c. as aforefaid. ^dly. She neither does^ 
 nor ever did teach fuch things, tho' the 
 Church of Rome does , nor does She pre- 
 tend that there are any reveal'd Truths, 
 but what are in Scripture, ajhly. There- 
 fore, as to the ifi Horn, a Troteftant's Be- 
 lief of the Infpiration of Scripture is not rajh 
 and inconfiderate > bccaufeHe believes it up- 
 on the Teftimony of the Catholick Church^ 
 and upon other Evidence ; all which put to- 
 gether amounts to a { DemOHftration y as far 
 as any Faffi is capable of it. As to the 2^, 
 He does not aU incoherently in not believing 
 the other Articles declaraby HER, to be re- 
 vealed truths i becaufe She declares not any 
 to be fo 3 but what are in Scripture ; every 
 
 Tittle
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, &c- 43 
 
 Tittle of which the Proteftant believes : Or 
 if She did. He would not act incoherently 
 in not believing them, efpecially if they 
 were contrary to Scripture &c. becaufe one 
 may rationally rely upon a Perfon or num- 
 ber of Perfons, when They affirm nothing 
 but what is rational j and yet not rely upon 
 them, when They affirm what is irrational, 
 impious, or abfurd. There is a ihameful So- 
 phifm therefore in Thofe Words/ecare/yretyd 
 upon. You might have told Your Tutor, if he 
 had tutorM you as he ought to have done j that 
 'tis the Fallacy ', call'd A ditto fecundum quid 
 ad dittum fimpliciter. You may obferve 
 (if You pleafe) that I have given You more 
 than I owed You, : For to break one Horn 
 of a ^Dilemma is fufficient at any time ; But 
 Ithink I have effectually broken ^Botb. 
 
 To the next Paragraph (obferving in a Word 
 that Witnejflng, and Tieciding^ feftitrwgL 
 and Guide, are here confounded, as before) 
 I anfwer j that God has undoubtedly given us 
 fufficient means to know what truths He has 
 revealed^ what not : But that the Church of 
 Chrifl, as it fignifies the Church of Rome, 
 is not aftifficient means to convey downfecure^ 
 ty to us all reveaTd truths, for the Reafons 
 aforefaid. And the Proteftant being defired, 
 or rather challenged, to mark out fome letter 
 and furer Guide, (it fhould be means of 
 Conveyance} does with great Intrepidity 
 out the Holy Serif tares, and the Arts 
 
 of
 
 44 'An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 of Writing and ^Printing them; together 
 \vith the Teftimony of the Universal Churchy 
 and Others, concerning them. If he means 
 the Church truly univerfal in our Senfe ,- the 
 Argument will do him no fervice, for the 
 Reafons above alledg'd. 
 
 Nor is This eluding the ^Difficulty ^ in- 
 
 ftead of clearing it j as He with fufficient 
 
 Confidence is pleas'd to affirm, f To fhew 
 
 the Weaknefs of his Reafons for This Af- 
 
 fertion, We will fuppofe at prefent (for 
 
 Argument's fake, and for it's greater ftrength 
 
 on our fide) that the Church of Rome 
 
 is the Catholick Church, or elfe that He 
 
 means the Catholick Church as We do ; That 
 
 We have no Evidence for the Divine Autho- 
 
 rity of the Scriptures, hit the Teftimony 
 
 of the Catholick Church ; And laftly, that 
 
 the Catholick Church (as we mean it) 
 
 delivers down all the Topife Doctrines as 
 
 reveal'd Truths. I fay we will fuppofe 
 
 all This on Their fide, tho' not one Word 
 
 of it is true , Even then let us fee how his 
 
 Argument will ftand. For it remains ftill 
 
 unanfwered (fays He II ) how a Trot eft ant, 
 
 withozit relying upon the Churches lejlimo- 
 
 ny^ or Authority., can haze a rational Mo- 
 
 tive to affure him of the divine Inspiration 
 
 of the Scripttires. And if he be obliged to 
 
 depend zipon her T^eflimony in this capital 
 
 p.
 
 Entitled^ England 1 s Converjiou^ Sec. 45 
 
 Tohit ; bow can he reafonabfa refufe to 
 pay the fame Submiffton to her in other 
 Articles^ as pojitively declared by Her 
 to be reveatd Truths^ as the divine In- 
 fpiration of the Scriptures ? For furely 
 all the Motives oj Credibility are as 
 ftrong on her fide in her Teftimony 
 of the one as of the other. To pafs 
 over his Abfurdity above-mention'd, in 
 calling the 'Divine Inspiration of the 
 Scriptures^ a reveal" d Truth y I anfwer, (as 
 I have, in effecl, done ten times over alrea- 
 dy) It does not follow, that becaufe a Man. 
 may be fafely depended upon as a Witnefs^ 
 that fuch a one faid^ or writ fo or fo ; 
 therefore He has Authority to interpret it 
 as he pleafes ; or that he is to be believed^ 
 tho' his Interpretation be manifeftly contra- 
 ry to the plain Meaning of the Words, to 
 common Reafon, to Religion, and our Sen- 
 fes. A Man may produce good Proof, that 
 certain Writings (concerning an Eftate) in 
 his Keeping, are true and genuine , and T 
 may admit of his Teftimony in This Cafe : 
 Yet am not therefore oblig'd to admit the 
 Senfe which he puts upon the particular Ex- 
 preflions contain d in them- It happens eve- 
 ry Day in the Courts of Juftice; One 
 who allows Another to be a good Witnefs, 
 that a Deed is genuine, does not think he 
 a&s inconfiftently, if notwithftanding That 
 he difputes the Senfe of it with him. 
 
 I
 
 46 An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 I have only to add. That there is a pre- 
 cious Sophifm lurking in thofe vv'ords, this 
 capital 'Point $ insinuating, belike, an Argu- 
 ment a majori ad minus. " If we mutt be- 
 lieve the Church averting the Divine infpira- 
 tion of the Scriptures, upon which all Chri- 
 ftian Truths depend j much more muft we 
 believe Her in other Articles &c " I anfwer ; 
 That 'Point may be the moil Capita^ and 
 yet witneffing to it may not be, and in rea- 
 lity is not, an Aft of fo great Authority^ 
 (nay properly fpeaking, it is no Authority 
 at all) as declaring^ deciding^ defining^ i. e. 
 in ihort, as They manage it, making other 
 Articles, tho' lefs Capital. A Prince's Title 
 to the Crown is a very capital Point ; yet 
 Witneilmg to it, and proving it (which the 
 nieaneft private Subject may do) is not near 
 fo capital an A<5t, as ufurping an Authority 
 to interpret his Laws, quite contrary to 
 their plain Meaning ; and to make Laws> 
 not only without him, but in open Dehance 
 of him. This, by the way, would, I doubt 3 
 be called a Capital Crime ; and the Per- 
 fon, notwithftanding his good Service to the 
 King in proving his Title, would have un- 
 common good Luck, if he did not meet with 
 Capital Tunijhment,
 
 ) Sec. 47 
 To the Third Seflion : 
 
 WHICH has for its Title ; * Faith 
 depends in a different manner on 
 the T'eftimony of God, and on the feftimo- 
 ny of Men. If He pleafes, Faith is two-fold '; 
 Human and Divine. By Human, We be- 
 lieve the Scriptures to be the Word of God $ 
 and by c Divine> We believe whatever is con- 
 tained in them to be true. 
 
 All in This, and the next Page, I pafs overj 
 as being partly anfwer'd already, and part- 
 ly nothing to the Purpofe,- (tho' had I a 
 Mind to be Critical I could eafily point out 
 fome Inaccuracies, not to fay Abfurdities 
 in it) 'till we come to Thcfe Words : f 
 For this Reafon, (Viz-. becaufe it is necef- 
 fary to depend upon the Church's Teftimo- 
 ny for reveal'd Truths) St. Tatil faith, that 
 Faith is by bearingj^om. 10. &. 17. to wit^ 
 by hearing the Voice of the Church 3 appoint - 
 ed by God to be our Guide. For unlefs we 
 hear the Voice of the Church fpeaking to 
 us by the Mouths of her Bijkops and 'Paftars; 
 how jkall we know what are reveatd Truths 
 and what not ? No doubt, ordinarily fpeak- 
 ing, faith comes by Hearing $ and by Read- 
 
 p. i$. p. 17, i$. 
 
 ing
 
 48 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 ing likewife ' For I hope the Gentleman will 
 not fay, that the Apoftle by mentioning one 
 intended to exclude the other. The Church 
 too, ordinarily fpeaking, that is 5 her Bi- 
 fhops, and Paftors, are to be heard : But it 
 \spoQibk that Faith may come without Hear- 
 ing, i. e. by Reading only. And even when 
 we do hear the Church ; it is not proved 
 from This Text, that we are to believe her, 
 when we bear her teach Things directly 
 contrary to what we read: I mean in the 
 Holy Scripture. To That Queftion there- 
 fore, Unlefs We hear the Voice of the Churchy 
 &c. How Jhall We know what are revealed 
 Truths, and what not ? I anfwer 3 by read- 
 ing the Bible j and confidering the Evidence 
 which proves it to be the Word of God. The 
 next Paragraph, * fbe Voice of the Church 
 is an Echo between the Word of God and 
 us, &c. (Tetting afide the ftrange Fantafti- 
 calncfs, and indeed Nonfenfe, of the Expref- 
 fion) is nothing but the fame over and 
 over again ; and has been anfwered over and 
 over already. 
 
 f We are told in the next place, Why'y 
 tho' the Church is infallible^ he has hither- 
 to not confidered Her as fuch ; but barely 
 as a creditable illuftrious Society. 
 
 Reminding the Reader of my having (hewn 
 
 * p. 18. t P. 1 8. & IP. 
 
 that
 
 Entitled, England V Converfion, &c. 49 
 
 that to prove the Scripture by the Church> 
 even as an illttftrioits y tho' not infallible So- 
 ciety, is a mere Circle ; I iliall confider tho 
 Reafons He al ledges. * Firft, (fays he) 
 lecaufe her Teftimony^ barely as fuck, ftiffi- 
 ces alone to render our Belief of the Revela- 
 tion even of the darkeft and fublimeft My- 
 Jleries peifeUly rational: Which is the Toint 
 I juft now undertook to prove. But I have 
 fully fhewn you have not proved it ; whatever 
 You undertook. If the Myfteries the Church 
 puts upon us, are not in Scripture ; they are 
 not to be believed : as I iliall fhew, when 
 we come to the ^Article of Traditim* If 
 they are in Scripture; We believe them 
 upon the Authority of God, not of the 
 Church ,- tho' the Church's Teftimony goes 
 a great way to prove the Scripture in ge- 
 neral to be God's Word. Befidesj I teli 
 you again and again, that if the Myfteries 
 be not only dark and jliUime^ but down- 
 right Contradict ions y as Yours are; they 
 cannot be a part of God's Word, and no 
 Body in his Wits can believe them. 
 
 His other Reafon allcdg'd by Him, why 
 He has not yet coniidered the Church as In- 
 fallible, tho' he infills that it really is fo, f 
 is to avoid the juft reproach ofjuppofing what 
 He ought frft to prove. For (fays he) the 
 
 P. if. t * '9 
 
 E ChtrcUs
 
 50 An ANSWER to a Topijb 
 
 Church's Infallibility is itfelf a revealed 
 Truth -, and if Iflmild prove the Reafona-^ 
 blenefs of my ^Belief of it from the Church* s 
 I'eftimony conjiderd as Infallible, my Argu- 
 ment would run Thus: 'Tis reafonable to 
 believe that the Church's Infallibility is a 
 reveal' d Truth ', lecaufe the infallible Churcb 
 declar.es it to be fo, ; 'which i / the fame ab- 
 furd way of Arguing, as if IJhotildfay, it is 
 reafonable to believe a thing is fo y lecaufe it is 
 fo. But fine e the Church's Tejiimony, t ho con- 
 jiderd barely as the T^ejlimony of Men, has 
 the fame Weight and Authority in declaring to 
 us the divine Revelation of her own Infallibility 
 as it has in declaring dll other Reveafd 
 1'riiths-ylactas rationally in fufferingmyfelfto 
 be directed by her Judgment in 'ibis 'Pointy 
 as in any other. Here the Gentleman would 
 fain avoid the famous Circle of the Romanifh : 
 But tho' He does not run into it fo grofjly 
 as Some of them have done ^ and as He him- 
 felf has done into fome others, which I 
 have taken notice of. Yet what He fays a- 
 motints to much the fame thing. He does 
 not indeed argue, that 'tis reasonable to be* 
 Heve that the Church's Infallibility is a re- 
 veal* d Truth, lecaufe the infallible Church 
 declares it to be jo ; but He argues that we 
 mud believe the Church to be Infallible ' y be- 
 caufe the Church fays fo, tho' She be not 
 considered as Infallible., while She fays fo. 
 And where is the mighty difference ? She
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn^ &c. 5 i 
 
 ftill proves her own Authority by her owri 
 Authority : For Infallibility implys Au* 
 thority in the higheft degree. After all 5 
 therefore, is the Church's Authority (whe- 
 ther (he be confidered as Infallible, or no) to 
 be abfohitely and implicitly fubmitted to 5 
 when She declares reveal'd Truths, and a-* 
 mong the reft her own Infallibility ; or is it 
 not ? If it be not 5 there*s an Eild of what 
 our Author has been labouring all this while^ 
 and indeed of the whole Popifh Caufe. If 
 it be ; how can fhe be more fubmitted to, if 
 She be confider'd as Infallible ? Or what 
 does it fignify^ whether She be confidered as 
 Infallible, or no? Can a greater Submiflion 
 than an abfalute and implicit one be yielded 
 to God himfelf ? If this Author fhould reply 
 (for I would fain prevent all Wrangling 
 about Sounds) that he has not us'd the Words 
 abfokite or implicit as join'd with Submiflion 
 to the Church ,- I anfwer, ift. The young 
 Gentleman T* 2. fays without any reproof 
 from his Preceptor, and therefore we may 
 fuppofe with his approbation, that He (the 
 Preceptor) has often told him^ we are bound 
 to pay an entire Submijfwn to the *Decifion$ 
 of the Catholick Church. What does entire 
 mean, lefs than abfoluteand. implicit ? idly* 
 By Submiflion to the Church, does he all 
 along mean an abfolute and implicit one 
 (tho' he leaves out the Wordsj or does he 
 not ? If he does not -, He has been beating 
 E ^ the
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi 
 
 the Air : For We acknowledge a Submiffton 
 to the Church, fo far as it is confiftent with 
 Reason and Scripture ; we being allow'd the 
 free ufe of Both. If he does ; the Argument 
 Hands juft as it did before : and fo I leave 
 it. 1 
 
 What follows to the End of the Se<5tion 3 
 except the laft Paragraph, has nothing in 
 it, but a Repetition of what has been even 
 frequently repeated by him, and, to my 
 great Trouble, by me likewife - 3 and is, be- 
 (ides, little or nothing to the Matter in hand. 
 I only obferve that tho' he feems fo careful- 
 ly to diflinguifh between ^Divine and Hu- 
 man Faith j yet he in effect confounds them 
 with each other. For, as I took notice a- 
 bove, his Doctrine is, that even hitman Faith 
 (Faith in the Church) muft be implicit 5 and 
 what can divine be more ? 
 
 The laft Paragraph runs thus. * Now a- 
 mongft many other truths clearly deliver d 
 in holy Writ, That of the Church's Infalli- 
 lility may jnftly claim an eminent place : 
 tho Tret eft ants ufe their utmoft Efforts to 
 ridicule what they cannot Jolidly confute. 
 That will foon be feen ; viz. in the Exami- 
 nation of 
 
 20. 
 
 TLc
 
 Entitled, England'.? Conversance, yj 
 
 The Fourth SECTION; 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Church of Cbrift confidcr'd as In- 
 fallible. 
 
 * T T ERE we have, in a great deal of 
 .LA Scurrilous Language, a tedious and 
 moft impertinent Declamation about 'Prejti-* 
 dice and Self-inter eft ; by which alone (if 
 we will believe This Writer) Proteftants 
 are hindered from acknowledging fo char 
 and evident a T^nith^ forfooth, as the In- 
 fallibility of the Cburcb j underftanding (as 
 always) the Church of Rome. It is eafy 
 for Them to fay This ; and full as eafy 
 for Us to fay, that it may with great ad- 
 vantage be retorted upon Themfelves j that 
 We, as to This matter, are free from the 
 Guilt here charg'd upon us, as They are 
 deeply involv'd in it ; and that nothing but 
 the Uindefl 'Prejudice.) or the ftrongeft 
 Attachment to worldly Inter eft ^ could pre- 
 vail with them to maintain fo fenfelefs and 
 ridiculous a Notion. As there is no Argu- 
 ment in 'Declaiming-) and &#///*, upon fup~ 
 
 .* |. si, 22, 23, 24, M ; 28, 29. 
 
 E 3 fojition
 
 54 An ANSWER to a<Popi/h Book^ 
 
 fofttion that a Thing ^is true y which is the 
 very Point to be provd ; in telling us, that 
 ^Prejudice and Covetoufnefs are very bad 
 Things^ and fo forth ; what I have now 
 faid in one Word, is a fufficient Anfwer 
 to confiderably above Half of This SeUion. 
 For the reft, it will be more than fufficient 
 to make fome fhort Remarks upon our Au- 
 thor's more fingular Sayings within That 
 Division j and then to give a full Anfaser 
 to hisArguments from the Texts of Scripture, 
 which he urges as fo many Proofs of the 
 Church's Infallibility, 
 
 1o run down the Churctfs Infallibility 
 (He fays *) is our All* Be it fo ; Is it not 
 Their All to defend it ? The Quoftion is 
 which Party maintains its All beft ^ and of 
 That let Mankind judge. 
 
 As idle is it, to tell ^ us that t all the re* 
 formd Churches^ tho disagreeing among 
 themjelves in many other tDoffirinal Toints> 
 join unanimouJJy in oppofing this. And Rea- 
 fbn good i becaufe 'tis fo notorioufly falfe. 
 Was there ever fuch Trifling ? But do all 
 the reformed Churches agree in oppofing no 
 Other Doctrine of the Papifts ; but This c 1 Sure 
 they do, in oppofing many more ; not that 
 it is in the leaft material, whether they do or 
 no* 
 
 * P. 2i, t P. 22* 
 
 His
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, &c. 5 5 
 
 His Reflexion upon the thorough godly 
 Reformation (as He Ironically f fpcaks) 
 with regard to the Ends and Views of Thofe 
 who begun and promoted it, might have been 
 fpared here, were not Scandal fo delicious 
 a Morfel ; becaufe 'tis nothing to the prefent 
 'Point, as he himfelf in effect acknowledges : 
 And becaufe he has faid fo much upon it in 
 his Treface^ and Third "Dialogue^ to which 
 it properly belongs; and in the Examina- 
 tion of tvhich, it fhall not fail to be confi- 
 der'd. At prefent I pafs it over, as entirely 
 foreign to the Point in hand. 
 
 Speaking of the barbarous Ufage the poor 
 innocent Church of Rome received at the 
 Reformation, He has thefe Words. * Tho 
 they had tbemfehes ackncizledgd and re^ 
 f peeled her for federal Years, as the beauti- 
 ful Spou fe of Jefns Chrift,, without Spot or 
 Wrinkle in her Faith j They coitld^ at that 
 time, fee no Remains in her of her former 
 'Beauty. That is, ino'they had been long 
 in Ignorance and Error - y YET now they o- 
 pen'd their Eyes, and vvere'refolv'd to grow 
 wifer and better- What a horrid Abfurdity, 
 and Wickednefs, were they guilty of ? He 
 goes on. f *Ihe venerable Antiquity of her 
 1)oUrine y her Catholicity the Luftre of her 
 
 */* t P. 3. 
 E 4
 
 56 An A NSVVER to a Topifi Book, 
 
 Miracles, the Statelinefs and Solemnity of 
 her Hierarchy^ derivd }rom the Apoftles 
 themfehes, the Celibacy of her Clergy ', the 
 atiftere Lives of her religious Orders,, and 
 the Majefty of her puUick Service {all which 
 had informer Ages rendered her the Admi- 
 ration of Mankind) and with their power- 
 fyl Attractive* drawn multitudes of Infi- 
 dels into her Fold, had then loft all their 
 Charms in the Eyes of her own rebellious 
 Children. This is a fad Lamentation indeed; 
 but it fuppofes half a dozen Particulars to 
 be true, which are utterly falfe. Her 2)0- 
 ftrine> I own, was pretty ancient (as many 
 other damnable Errors are) but not near fo 
 ancient as Christianity $ with relpect to 
 which, it is a pure Novelty. Nor is every 
 thing venerable that is ancient : If it were, 
 Original Sin would be more venerable than 
 ^Popery it felf. Her Catholicity (as He calls 
 It, We fay Catholicifm) is a Chimera \ for 
 fhe is Catholick in no fenfe of the Word. 
 The Luftre of her Miracles is nothing ; for 
 (he never worked any ; but has made her 
 felf infamous and ridiculous^ in pretending 
 to That Power. The Hierarchy other 
 Churches have, as well as She \ and that 
 too derivd from the Apoftles themf elves : 
 And if they have it not foftately and folemn* 
 as She has ; 'tis becaufe "I heir Clergy are 
 not fo rich., proud > and powerful^ as Hersj 
 aqd do not place fo much Religion in out- 
 ward
 
 Entitle d^ England J Canverjion, &c. 57 
 
 ward Tomp and Oftentation. Her injoinlng 
 Celibacy upon the Clergy is unlawftil^ and 
 attended with pernicious Consequences. The 
 Juices of many of Her Religious Orders are 
 not auftere, but voluptuous > Others are ^0r e 
 auftere than they 0&g,tf to be ; are both the 
 Efleft and the Caufe of much Superftition ; 
 or, at beft 5 do more hurt to Religion than 
 good. What He calls the Majefly of her 
 publickWorJhip) is Foppery amd Formality^ 
 contrary to the Genius of the Gofpel, and 
 does infinite Mifchief to the Souls of Merc, 
 Thefe things might in former Ages render 
 Her tie Admiration of Mankind^ (i. e. a 
 great part of it j for if he means more, it 
 is not true ) but Mankind was ignorant and 
 wicked y and Mankind is often miftaken : 
 And if Infidels were drawn into her Fold by 
 thefe AttraffiiveS) they were drawn into it 
 upon a wrong Principle. Nor were her Chit- 
 dren^ of whom he fpeaks, rebellious: Be- 
 caufe it was their Duty to obey God., rather 
 than men. If it be objected, that I have 
 only faid) but not^wW; I fay the fame 
 of Him, and fo we are even : Here, I mean ; 
 for upon the whole we are not fo. Becaufe 
 I have elfewhere provd what I have here 
 afferted j * Let Him difprove it, if He can. 
 
 * Popery truly ftated, &c, 
 
 - 'At
 
 58 An ANSWER to a Tofi/b 
 
 P. 2$, As for the Fathers, T'hey eafily 
 got rid of them, by faying they were all Tar- 
 ties, and avow a Abetters of Topery. ?o 
 what purpofe (Jaid the couragioiis Martin 
 JLuther) Jhould any Man rely on the anci- 
 ent fathers ? &c. Luther is but One, and 
 fo cannot anfwer to the Word They. And 
 However contemptuoufly he fpoke of the Fa- 
 thers, or whatever other fooliih or wicked 
 things he is fuppofed to have faid, or done, 
 'tis nothing to Us, or to our Caufe : The 
 feme, and much more (We having, in 
 truth, nothing to do with Him ) being 
 to be faid with relation to Him, which 
 fhall be faid with relation to fome of our 
 frfl Reformers here in England, in anfwer 
 to the Treface, and Third ^Dialogue , whi- 
 $her I refer the Reader. For our fehes ; 
 jiext to the Scriptures, we defire to be try'd 
 by the Writings of the Fathers : Nor do any 
 Writings, except the Former, give fuller 
 Teftimony againft the Corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome, than the Latter. 
 
 P. 25. As to the Faith of former Jges $ 
 lefides that loth Luther, and Calvin, con- 
 fefsd without Hefitation, that they had fe- 
 parated th em f elves from all the pre-exifting 
 Churches in the World-* the Book of Homi* 
 lies, highly valued by the Church of Eng- 
 land, declares po/Jitively that hoth Laity and 
 Clergy, Learned and Unlearned, all Ages, 
 and 'Degrees of Men, Women, and
 
 on^ Sec, 59 
 
 Children, of whole Chriftendom, have 
 leen, at once, drowned in abominable Idola- 
 try -, and that for the fpace of EIGHT HUN- 
 DRED YEARS, AND MORE. Which, tho ttl 
 
 very abufae Language, is a full Acknow- 
 ledgment of a Faff which does no honour to 
 the Reformation ; to wit, that not one of 
 the reformed Churches had a vifible *Being 
 in the World for eight hundred Tears, and 
 more: And jo the Faith of former Ages^ 
 ftigmatizd indeed with the injurious Titfo 
 of abominable Idolatry, was fairly given up to 
 the Church of Rome, and acknowledged to 
 have been wholly on the Topifhjide. Tho' 
 whatever Luther and Calvin faid, it affe&s 
 not Us or our Caufe j and the faying of fome 
 felfe things deftroys not even their per/anal 
 Reputation , fo that fuppofing what our Au- 
 thor here affirms to be true, it is nothing to 
 his purpofe ; yet it may well be anfwer'd : 
 Firft, Where do they confefs this ? Why 
 does he not quote the Books and Pages > 
 Secondly, Their Words, fuppofing them to 
 be the fame which are here fet down, may 
 be very well explained in a found fenfe -, fo 
 as not to prejudice Them, or their Reforma- 
 tion. For Example, Ihey feparated them- 
 felvesfrom, &c. /'. e> They were obligdin 
 Confcience not to communicate externally* 
 with, &c. The Separation, properly fpeak- 
 ing, being made by their, Javerfaries, not 
 by Them, No that This is matter of Faith; 
 
 afte?
 
 60 An ANSWER to a Tofifb Book, 
 
 after all, but of Traftice : And befides, the 
 Word Former, as apply'd to Ages by This 
 Writer, is very ambiguous > of which here- 
 after. 
 
 As to the Quotation out of the Book of 
 Homilies ; it ftiallbe fully coniidered, partly 
 here, and partly elfewhere : our Author lay- 
 ing great ftrefs upon it, and twice repeating 
 It; viz. P. 115 & 280. Reckoning (as in- 
 deed I think it ought to be reckoned) the 
 Trevalency of the Idolatry here fpoken of 
 (viz, Image-WorJhip) from the eftabliftung 
 of it by the ad Council of Nice in the Year 
 787 to the Year 1550, when it may be faid 
 to have been in Thefe Parts of lEurope 
 pretty well abolifli'd ; the Homilift is 
 miftaken by 38 Years, fuppofing by 800 
 and more, he meant juft one more. And let 
 our Author make the moft of This Con- 
 cefllon : We do not pretend that the Homi- 
 lies are Infallible ; We fubfcribe only to the 
 main Subflance and Doctrine of them, not 
 to every Word contained in them. But as 
 He reckoned a little higher- - y 'tis no more 
 than an Hyperbolical Expreifion, at moft, 
 as to the Prevalency of the Corruption ; 
 and may very well be juftify'd. For Thofe 
 Words Laity and Clergy ', Learned and Un 
 learned^ all Ages^ Setts, and 'Degrees of 
 Men, Women, and Children, of whole Cbrif* 
 tendom, have been drown d, &c. do not im* 
 port (as This Author in Pj a.8o, moft f
 
 Converjion, Sec. 61 
 
 cioufly takes it for granted) that there was 
 not one Jingle Clergyman or Layman^ but 
 was drowned in Idolatry ; The plain Mean- 
 ing is, that <Perfons of all Orders, Ages, 
 Se&s, &c. not that ^//Perfons of all Orders, 
 Ages, Se&s, &c. were fo corrupted : That 
 Laft is not faid, nor any thing like it. 
 
 The pretended full acknowledgment of & 
 FaU which does no honour to the Reforma- 
 tion, to wit, &c. Shall be fully considered, 
 when we come to 5P.i 1 5. where it is repeated, 
 and to which it more properly belongs J^//^/* 
 lity fhall likewife be confider'd in its proper 
 place. At prefent we are upon Infallibility. 
 Here therefore I only ask xnir Author, when 
 he fays The Faith of former Jges was given 
 np to the Church of Rome ,- what former 
 4ges He means ? If He means the firft and 
 $urefl Ages, agreed to be fo even by Them- 
 felves ,- for inftance, the firft 300 Years; I 
 abfolutely deny his Affertion. For ift. We 
 do not ftigmatize the Faith (the 'Pra'chce^ 
 it fhould be) of Ihofe Ages with the Title 
 of Idolatry* Nor idly do we give it up to 
 the Church of Rome., nor acknowledge it 
 to have been wholly > or at all-) on the 'Popifh 
 fide ; but infift upon the direct contrary. 
 idly. The Homily cannot mean fbofe Ages: 
 ror 80 1 Years from the Reformation back- 
 wards ( reckoning the Reformation in the Year 
 1550) will not bring us up to the laft Day 
 <pf "Ihem by 449 Years. If by former Ages 
 
 He
 
 61 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 He means Toptjh Ages j no doubt we fairly 
 give up the Faith of T'hem to the Church of 
 Rome^ and acknowledge it to have been 
 wholly on the Popifti fide. 
 
 However, if we will take things as This 
 Writer reprefents them -, He could produce 
 abundant proof of the Church's Infallibility 
 * from the unanimous Teftimony of the An- 
 tient Fathers, and from the conftant Faith 
 of former Ages ; But waves it, becaufe Pro- 
 teftants,h& fays, deny the Authority of Both* 
 
 'But as to the Texts of Holy Scriptures 
 ( He adds | ) which Troteftants own to be 
 divinely injpird, and by Confequence out of 
 the Reach of a godly Reform at ion, &c. Cer- 
 tainly the Gen tleman forge tsHimfelf.; other- 
 wife He would not have given us This unlucky 
 Hint, putting us in mind of the Topifh godly 
 Reformation of the Scriptures $ which the 
 Romanifts have fo reformed in feveral pla- 
 ces, as to ftrike out fome Words, and put in 
 others. This is a godly Reformation which 
 Troteftants never attempted ; It belongs 
 wholly to Tapifts. And fo That witty 
 Irony upon us might have been let alone. 
 
 It feems, however, as to Texts of Scrip* 
 ture upon the Article of Infallibility ', we are 
 t put to very hardfiifts. For the Texts are 
 ftear y and flrong > and muft be torturd in 
 
 * P. 24. t P. a* * P. 5. 
 
 in
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion, &c. 6 5 
 
 the moft unmerciful manner, or read back- 
 wards, to difcover any thing in them but 
 the Church's perpetual Infallibility, fettled 
 upon the mofl folid Foundations. Thefb 
 Words are introductory to his Scripture- 
 Troofs of the Church's Infallibility ; mean- 
 ing too (as every where elfe) the Church of 
 Rome* If Thofe Proofs be indeed irrefra- 
 gable** let This big atk pafs off unrefleSed 
 upon. But if, on the contrary, there be not 
 the leaft Glimpfe of an Argument in them ; 
 if the Texts alledg'd be alledg'd moft im- 
 pertinently, and have no more to do with 
 the matter in Difpute, than the firft Verfe in 
 Qenefis has with the Doctrine of Tranfub- 
 flantiation i all which I undertake to provo 
 immediately : then his Charge of torturing^ 
 and reading backwards^ returns upon Him- 
 felf ; All This Apparatus is nothing but 
 empty Swaggering, and the Perfection of 
 Impudence ; which deferves any other fort 
 of Treatment almoft that can be nam'd, 
 rather than an Anfwer, Now then to the 
 Bufinefs. 
 
 * G. <Pray> Sir, do me the favour to let 
 we hear thofe Texts. You have reafon, 
 Young Gentleman : For after a 'Preparation 
 e Tages y 'tis really high time to come 
 
 to
 
 64 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 to the Arguments themfelves ; which take 
 up juft Mf That Quantity of Paper. 
 
 P. Thefrft is Cbrifis po/itive Twmife to 
 luild Ms Church upon a Rock., and that the 
 Gates of Helljhall not prevail againfl it. 
 Matth. 6. i). 1 8. For if the Word of God 
 may be fecurely depended upon-, nothing fure- 
 ly can be clearer, and Jironger than this 
 Tromife. Since it is manifefl^ that if the 
 Church of Chrift, were ever guilty of the 
 damnable Errors Troteftants have chargd 
 her with ; the Gates of Hell would have ef- 
 f equally prevail 'd againft her y and her 'Di- 
 vine Founder - pr ova faff e to his Word. 
 
 G. That's $lafpbemy with a Witnefs. 
 
 So much Blunder, Inconfequence, Fallacy, 
 and Falfhood, was, I believe, fcarce ever 
 crouded into fo few Words before. Sup- 
 pofing, at prefent, what he takes for 
 granted, to be true,- which however (as I 
 fiiall fliew hereafter) He ought not to have 
 taken for granted j Viz. That by the gates 
 of Hell is meant the fame, as if it had been 
 faid, the 'Devil : I anfwer, Firft> He is guil- 
 ty of a grofs Falfhood, in faying we have 
 charg'd the Church of Chrift with being 
 guilty of damnable 'Errors ; as if we allowed 
 the Church of Chrift and the Church o 
 Rome to be all one. Secondly, He takes it 
 for granted, tho' it ought to have been 
 prov'd, not fuppos'd, that the Devil prevails 
 (according to the Senfe in which our Savi- 
 our
 
 Entitled) England^ Converjion, &c. 65 
 
 bur us'd the Word jurn&vetv ) againft the 
 Church, if it be guilty of damnable Errors. 
 But how does he prove that our Saviour 
 meant fo by the Word ? To prevail againft 
 it, according to almoft all the Commenta- 
 tors and Tranflators, is to deftroy^ at leaft 
 to conquer it. But is it deftroy'd, or fo much 
 as conquer'd, by being guilty of damnable Er- 
 rors ? Is 2ifingle Man neceilarily deftroy'd in 
 This World, or damn'd in the Next; becaufe 
 he believes, and does, many damnable things ? 
 Can he not repent^ and reform ? And cannot 
 the fame Queftion be ask'd of a Church ? 
 By the way, This Argument will as well (if 
 not better) prove the Church to be im* 
 peccable, as infallible : For the Devil 
 prevails by Sin, as much as by Error; or 
 rather more. And yet that the Church is 
 impeccable, No body affirms. If our Au- 
 thor proceeds upon the Englifo Tranflation 
 only, as he feems to do ; by prevailing a* 
 gainft is certainly meant conquering : And 
 a man, I hope, is not neceffarily conquer'd 
 becaufe he is much wounded. This there- 
 fore is no better than a poor 'Petitio 
 Trincipi^ or Begging the Queftion. As 
 %dly. The next is no better than a forry 
 Ignoratio Elenchi^ or miftdliing the Que- 
 ftion. If the Church of Chrift were guilty 
 of the damnable Errors, &c the Gates 
 (f Hell would i &c. The Queftion is not whe- 
 tl\er the Church be fecured from falling into 
 E
 
 66 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 damnable Errors, but whether the Church be 
 Infallible? Thefe are evidently diftin&Things. 
 For the Church may neither be deftroyd? nor 
 permitted to fall into damnable Errors , and 
 yet not be Infallible: As on the other hand > 
 which has been before taken notice of, {he may 
 fall into damnable Errors, and yet not be de- 
 firoyd. Had his Argument, inftead of \iftbe 
 Church 'were guilty of the damnable Errors., 
 &c.] ran Thus j If the Church were not *- 
 fallille-, as Proteftants pretend She is not, the 
 Gates of Hell would have prevaifd againfl 
 Her ; it would have been to the Purpofe : 
 Tho' qthly altogether Inconclufive and Ab- 
 furd. For how does it follow that becaufe 
 a Perfon, or Number of Perfons, is not infal- 
 lible j therefore He, or They, muft needs be 
 conquer d and fubdu'd by the f Dei'il ? Accor- 
 ding to This, All but the Pope, and Bi- 
 fhops, even of the Romijh Church, and They 
 too (the Bifhops) afTembled in a Council^ muft 
 neceflarily be damn'd. For I fuppofe they will 
 not fay that by the Church they mean theLai- 
 ty, or that any one of ^bem is infallible, nor 
 any of the inferior Clergy, nor the Prelates 
 themfelves, unlefs affembled in a Council. It 
 feems then there is not fo very certain a Paf- 
 fage from the Church oR0m,is Bofom to A- 
 Irahams : And 'tis fcarce worth while toturn 
 'Papift y unlefs one were fure to be T&pe^ 
 or at leaft a 'Bifoop, and to have a general 
 Council always fubfifting ; beiides many o- 
 
 ther.
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, Sec. 67 
 
 ther Difficulties which I could mention. And 
 yet the Argument, if it be any thing to our 
 Subject, (lands as I faid : If the Church were 
 not infallible, the Devil would have been 
 too hard for her. The Dialogue proceeds. 
 * But will not Trot eft ants fay^ it is not the 
 true Church ofChrift> but the corrupt Church 
 of Rome, they accufe of damnable Errors ; 
 and that Ihefe are as different as Light, 
 and T^arkncfs ? They will be apt to fay fo 
 indeed ; and let us hear the Anfwer to it. 
 
 t P. Sir, The T)ifpute is precifely concern- 
 ing the Church founded by Chrift ; which 
 They maintain to be not only fallible ^but that 
 it has ejf equally fallen into the damnable 
 Errors of Topijh Idolatry and Superftition. 
 I anfwer, iji. It is abfolutely falfe that the 
 Difpute is precifely about the Church found- 
 ed by Chrift : 'Tis about the Church of Rome 
 only i no other Church pretending to be In* 
 fallible : Tho' I own we, incidentally, de- 
 ny that any Church, the univerfal Church 
 itfelf, is fo. -idly. All the World knows 
 that Papifls by the Church mean the Church 
 of Rome only $ as our Author in particular 
 all along does : And therefore upon his Prin- 
 ciples, the Diftin&ion He here makes, or ra- 
 ther feems to make, is impertinent. $dly. 
 !Tis falfe to fay we affirm, that/if the(Church 
 
 P. 26. f M*.
 
 68 An ANSWER to a Topifo Boofe, 
 
 founded by Chrift) has fallen into the dam- 
 nabk Errors of Topi/h Idolatry and Super- 
 ftition. All Churches, 'tis true, may have 
 fallen into Errors : Several, betides the Ro- 
 wiifo, a&ually have into grievous Ones $ nay, 
 fome, as the Greek Church, into the fame with 
 many of the Topffi Ones : But they have 
 not fallen into them as Popifti j becaufe they 
 deny, firft, the 'Pope's Supremacy -, and fe- 
 condly, the Doctrine of Infallibility^ the 
 Point now in Difpute. '27j therefore in vain 
 (continues He *) to pretend toehide the force 
 of the above-faid text, by faying it is not 
 the true Church of Chrift, hit fhe corrupt 
 Church of Rome, they accufe of damnable 
 Terrors $ and there is an unanfwerable 'Di- 
 lemma againfl them. For Chrift either had 
 a true Church upon Earth before the Refor- 
 mation y or he had not. If not j then his 
 Church was deftroyd; and ly confequence 
 the Gates of Hell prevaitd againft it y con- 
 trary to his 'Promife. 'Rut if he load a true 
 Chtirch upon Earth, the Church of Rome 
 was mo ft certainly 'That Church : Since y ac- 
 cording to the large Conceflion made in the 
 Book of Homilies, it was in pojfejjion of whole 
 Chrift endom for many Ages before the Refor- 
 mation. And if that Church was in all 
 that fpace of Time guilty of abominable Ido- 
 
 * z6. ;ad 27. 
 
 latrp
 
 Entitled^ England 1 'sConverJion^&c. 9 
 
 latry^ as is pretended , then the true Church 
 afChrift wasgttilty of it j Ana 1 h what Tart 
 foever of the IDilemma 'Proteftants chuje^ 
 they charge Chrift with a "Breach of 'Promt fe 
 in fujfering the Gates of Hell to prevail a- 
 gainfl bis Church. God forbid we fhould 
 thus charge Godfoolifhly : And the beft of 
 it is, we are not bound to ftand or fall by 
 your Initiates : We fhould bo in a wretch- 
 ed Condition indeed, if we were. To avoid 
 the danger of This horrid Blafphemy, I 
 chufe the latter Part of the Dilemma ; and 
 fay, our Saviour, before the Reformation, had 
 a true Church upon Earth : Of which the 
 Church of Rome was a true, tho' a moft 
 corrupt^ Part. I fay Tart : For to his Argu- 
 ment, by which, upon our pretended Con- 
 ceflion, he endeavours to prove that it was 
 the Whole, I anfwer .- ift. The Homily 
 fays, I grant, that whole Christendom waj 
 drowned in Idolatry : But does That make 
 whole Chrift en dom the Church of Rome 2 
 Would That Church engrofs all the Idolatry 
 of the World to Her felf ? 'Tis true all 
 thorough Papifts are Idolaters : ; but all Ido- 
 laters are not Papifts. Nay, Image-worflrip 
 (of which alone the Homily fpeaks) began^ 
 as every Body knows, in the Greek Church, 
 not in the Church of Rome. Yet Thus 
 ftandsThis Argument: The Church <?/~Rom* 
 was moft certainly That Church - y fince ac- 
 cording to the large Conceffton made in the 
 F
 
 70 An ANSWER to a <popi/b 
 
 Book of Homiliesy IT was in pojjeffton of whole 
 Chriftendom for many Jges, before the Re- 
 formation. The Church of Rome, it feems, 
 is not only Idolatrous, but Idolatry it felf. 
 For becaufe the Homily fays Idolatry was 
 in pojfejjion^ &c. This Writer infers that it 
 fays the Church of Rome was fo. idly. All 
 the Churches upon Earth (or, if You pleafe, 
 the Church univerfal) may be guilty of Ido- 
 latry it felf ; and yet not be deflroyed^ or 
 quite conquered by the Devil, nor the Gates 
 of Hell entirely prevail againfi her. God 
 own'd the Church of the Jews, as his 
 Church j whe"n it was over-run with Idolatry, 
 and all other Corruptions. 
 
 I have hitherto been reafoning upon Sup- 
 pojition.> that our Juthors Snppojition is true ; 
 viz, that by the Gates of Hell is meant the 
 Power of the T>evil : And even upon That 
 foot have ihewn the wretched Abfurdity of 
 his Arguing. But what if after all it fhould 
 mean no fuch Thing ? As 'tis evident, almoft 
 to a Demonflration, it does not : Then all he 
 fays about damnable Errors &c. and indeed 
 the whole Strefs of his Argument will be yet 
 more roving and extravagant. The word 
 AJW, here render d Hell^ is not the Place 
 of the ^Damned (TWO, is the Name for That) 
 but the Grave, or the Tlace of departed 
 Souls : For fometimes it fignifies the One, 
 and fometimes the Other. The beft Senfe 
 of the Paflage therefore is this : The Church 
 
 fhaU
 
 Entitled, England' j Cenvc-fion, &c. 7 1 
 
 fhall continue to the World's ILnd^ notwith- 
 ftanding the Terfecntions and violent Deaths 
 of the Jpoftles^ and multitudes of \hsfrft 
 Chriftians, and the Mortality of its \Lf ack- 
 ers and G&vemours in all Ages. This, I 
 own, is an Argument for the Terpetuity or 
 Indefedibility of the Church in general, not 
 That of Rome in particular $ But what it 
 has to do with Infallibility I cannot imagine : 
 Unlefs they will argue that Perpetuity irfers 
 Infallibility. If they do ; let the Argument 
 be produced, and I am ready to anfwer it. A- 
 nother Interpretation has been put upon This 
 Text j which, it being immaterial to the pre- 
 fcmt Debate, I need not mention. But be the 
 Meaning of it what it will ; any Body of 
 common Reafon may fee what is not the 
 Meaning of it. One may as well fquceze 
 Water out of a Pumice, as the Church of 
 Rome's Infallibility out of Thefe Words : 
 tfbeu art Teter ; and upon this Rock twill 
 build my Church , and the Gates of Hell 
 foall not prevail againft it. In ihort, the 
 Cafe (lands Thus: Our Saviour faid He 
 would always have a Church upon Earth ,- 
 againft which all the Power and Malice of 
 Men, Devils, and Death, iliould not prevail ; 
 Therefore the Church of Rome is Infallible. 
 Quo d erat ^Demonjirandum. Was there e- 
 ver fuch * clear zn&ftrong Reafoning ? Who, 
 
 * P. *5, 
 
 F 4
 
 7 2 A* ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 without torturing This Text in the mofl un~ 
 merciful manner^ or reading it backwards^ 
 can difcover any thing in it lut the Churctis 
 perpetual Infallibility ? 
 
 P. 27. adly. Chrijfs Tromife to his A* 
 poftles 0^ abiding with them always even unto 
 the end of the World. Matth. 28. c. 20. efta- 
 Uffies the Chttrctfs perpet-ual Infallibility 
 as -fully ', and clearly , as the other. Juft as fully 
 and clearly, I confefs. Cur Author might have 
 fpared his learned Confutation of the Opi- 
 nion of Thofe, who confine This promife 
 to the three or four firft Ages : For I know 
 No body that ever fo confin'd it. Or if 
 there be any fuch ; I agree with Him that 
 they are in the wrong. But then He him- 
 felt is fo, in faying that it comprehended 
 equally the SucccJJors of the Apoftles with 
 the Apoftles themfelves : For fure it chief- 
 ly and principally regarded the laft mentio- 
 ned. Our Saviour was more with Them, 
 than with any of their Succeffors. All 
 He farther fays worth our notice is This. * 
 If therefore Chrifl has kept his Word^ which 
 no Man can deny without %lafphemy ; one 
 (f thefe two things muft be granted, to wit^ 
 that either he promisd to remain with Ido- 
 laters in order to be their Guide even unto 
 
 5 P.
 
 Entitled, England'j Converfion, &c. 73 
 
 the end of the World (and that is mqft high- 
 ly abftird) or that his Church by being in 
 all jges wider the promt fed Ttireftion, and 
 Jffiflance of her heavenly Guide, has al- 
 ways continued untainted in her Faith, and 
 will continue fo to the World's End. TJO 
 which I anfwer. ift. Here is the fame fort of 
 Blunder as before, in miftaking the Queftion : 
 The Church may continue untainted in her 
 Faith to the World's End, without being 
 Infallible. Suppofe itfingh Man never to 
 have fallen into any one Error, or com- 
 mitted any one grievous Sin all his Days ; 
 Was He therefore Infallible ? ^Infallible 
 Judge si. all Controverfies? cJr .Which fuggefts 
 to us idly, that This Argument, like the for- 
 mer, will as well prove the Church's Impec- 
 cability, as Infallibility. $dly. This too, 
 like That, is an Argument for the Church's 
 Terpetttity, not Infallibility. I fpeak of the 
 Church in general -, for as to the Church 
 of Rome, our Saviour never faid one Word 
 about it. But qthly* To come clofer to our 
 Author's Reasoning : I deny the ^Disjunction. 
 For Chrift may be with his Church to the 
 World's End ; and yet neither have promis'd 
 to remain uoitb Idolaters &c. nor his Church 
 have always con\\r\ViZ&untainte din her Faith, 
 and fo always continue. The Medium is 
 (One, I mean, for I fhall afterwards aflign 
 Another) his not fufferinghis Church totally 
 to fail, or ceafe to be a true Church. This 
 
 Writes;
 
 74. <d* ANSWER to a Topi/h 
 
 Writer never enquires into the Senfe of 
 the Words am with btt y upon which All 
 turns , but, according to his ufual compendi- 
 ous way of Begging the Queftion, takes it 
 for granted that his own Arbitrary Interpre- 
 tation is the only true one. idly. Chrift 
 may, without any fuch mighty Abfurdity, 
 be with even Idolaters^ in order to be their 
 Guide and Teacher, tho' not as Idolaters ; 
 (He was fo with the Jews, as we have feen 
 before) and have promifed to be with his 
 Church to the end of the World, tho' 
 it ihould in fome places^ and at fome times^ 
 or even for fome time in all places, more, 
 or !efs > be Idolatrous. For beiides that He 
 might have thoufands of true Worihippers 
 among the falfe ones, as it happened in 
 Elijah's time ; Idolatry it felf does not 
 deftroy the Church : As we- have above [ob- 
 ferved. 
 
 But what if, after all, the Text fhould 
 mean no more than This, as it very well 
 may not, that Chrift will tender his Grace 
 and Affiftance to the Church 'till the World's 
 End ? Muft the Church therefore be Infal- 
 lible ? May it not on the contrary be over- 
 run with all manner of 'Errors in Faith, 
 and Vice in Pradice ? God's Grace is pro- 
 mifed to all Chriftians ; yet Millions rejeft 
 it, and quench his Spirit. In like manner, 
 Chrift has promis'd to be with his Miniflers 
 in matters of Faith ; and yet Thofe Minif-
 
 Entitled) England ^ s Converjion, Sec. 75 
 
 ters may reject his tender'd Influence, through 
 Self-views, Ignorance, or Prejudice. While 
 a Liberty of Choice is left in Men ; any 
 Afliftancc, That of God himfelf, may be 
 rejeded. The Sum of This clear and 
 ftrong Argument, the Light of which we 
 cannot reiift without moft unmercifully tor* 
 turmg the Scriptures, or reading them lack- 
 war as ^ amounts to Thus much: Our Savi- 
 our promis'd to be with^ /. e. to ajjift, chiek 
 ly his Apoftles^ and in fome meafure his 
 Church in general^ to the World's End, with-* 
 out the leaft Hint about the Church of Rome ; 
 Therefore the Church of Rome is Infallible. 
 The Argument muft needs be unanfwerable j 
 becaufe there is not a Syllable in the *Pre- 
 mifes of what is contained in the Conchi/ion. 
 The Conclufion joins Infallibility to the 
 Church of Rome ; whereas in the Premifes 
 there is no Mention either of the Church of 
 Rome, or Infallibility. 
 
 P. 28. 3dly. Ihe Churches Charter of perpe- 
 tual Infallibility is confirm d to her by our Sa- 
 viours Tromife offending the Holy GhoftjioP 
 only to the Jpoftles^ but to all their SucceJJors* 
 I will pray my Father, and He fhall give you 
 another Comforter, that he may abide with 
 you FOR EVER j the Spirit of Truth. John 14. 
 0. 1 6, 1 7. 2to to what end was he to abide 
 with them for ever ? Let us hear Chrift bim- 
 felf anfwer the Qneftion. When the Spirit 
 of Truth comes 5 he will guide you into all 
 
 Truth,
 
 7 6 An ANSWER to a Topifh 
 
 Truth. John i6.v.i$. And again. The Holy 
 Ghoft, whom the Father will fend in my 
 Name, will teach you all things, and bring all 
 things to your remembrance which I have 
 faid unto you. John 14. v. 26- Our Author, it 
 feems, takes This Proof of the Church's In- 
 fallibility to be f elf-evident > for he fays no- 
 thing to enforce it. And the young Gen- 
 tleman being without any more adoe con- 
 vinc'd by the irrefiftible force of This Argu- 
 ment., as well as of the Others, immediately 
 anfwers; Really , Sir> I am aftoniftidj &c. 
 as 1 mall prefently cite the whole Paffage. 
 Neverthelefsj lihalladd a few Words by way 
 of Anfwer, tho' 'tis more than I amoblig'd to : 
 I having as good a Right to fay, without 
 any Proof, that thefe Texts are not to ths 
 Purpofe ; as He had to quote them, without 
 any Proof that they are. Among many 
 other Anfwers then which might be given ; 
 the fame may be apply'd to the firft of 
 Thefe Texts, which was given to the Ar- 
 gument from +h& foregoing one. T'be Spirit 
 of Truth may abide for ever with the Teach- 
 ers of the Gofpel, fo as to tender his Grace 
 and Afliftance to them ; and yet they may 
 refift his Motions, and fo have no Benefit 
 from fuch his abiding with them. Know 
 Te not., (fays St. Tauf) that Tour Bodies are 
 temples of the Holy Ghoft? i Cor. 6. 19. 
 And yet He warns the Corinthians to flee 
 fornication, and not to fm againft their
 
 Entitled^ England^ Converjion, Sec- 77 
 
 wsn 'Bodies. So that the Abiding of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft in the Temples of their Bodies, was 
 no Argument that they muft neceflfarily be 
 always wnfolluted : And as little is h?s Abi- 
 ding with the Church an Argument of its 
 always being in the Right , much lefs of its 
 being always., or ever* Infallible. The 
 two other Texts fubjoined to This,, out of 
 the fame Difcourfe of our Saviour, plainly 
 relate in their primary and principal Senfe, 
 at leaft) to the Terfons of the Apoftles - y and 
 all three of them may at leaff, which 
 is fufficient to our prefcnt purpofe, relate 
 to Them only. For the Word for ever, as 
 all the World knows, is in Scripture, in 
 all Writings, and in common Difcourfe, often 
 us'din a re/train d Signification -, according to 
 the Subjeffi to which it is apply'd : Nay con- 
 fidering^ the Time, and Occafion y of our 
 Saviour's Difcourfe, there is little lefs than 
 ^Demonftration that they do relate to Them 
 only. However to put it at the ioweft, here? 
 is nothing about the Church of Home in par- 
 ticular : Or if it were otherwife ; To be 
 guided into all Truth, does not imply that 
 the Guidance niuft of necejjlty be effectually 
 followed i nor does being taught all things, 
 or having one's Memory refreftid., imply In- 
 fallibility. For a man may be not only 
 inflrulied in, but very learned m^ all Lan- 
 guages, all Arts and Sciences^ all Points 
 
 of
 
 78 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 of Morality and Divinity, without being 
 absolute Mafter of all the truths con- 
 tain'd in them, or any thing like Infal- 
 lible. I fhall be a little more par'ticu* 
 eular in fumming up the Subftance of the 
 Argument from Tfcefe Texts, upon the two 
 different Suppofaions concerning the Senje 
 of them. Suppofing our Saviour to fpeak 
 this of the Apojlles only, as 'tis ten thou- 
 fand to one but He did ; (yet I deny not 
 but the Affiftance of his Holy Spirit, tho' 
 not Infallibility, is in Other places, whether 
 it be here or no, promis'd to his Church in 
 general through all Ages) then the Argu- 
 ment (lands Thus. Our Saviour, being juft 
 ready to leave the World, comforts his A- 
 poftles, who upon That account were in great 
 Trouble and Perplexity, with the Promife 
 of the Holy Ghofl > who fhould not, as He 
 had done, continue with them for a little 
 while, but fcr ?r?r , during their whole 
 Lives > fhculd guide them into all Truth, 
 teach them all things, and bring all things 
 to their remembrancer Therefore the Church 
 of Rome is Infallible. If we interpret the 
 PaiTage as relating to the Apoftles and their 
 SuccelJors in Conjunction, (though certainly 
 we cannot interpret it equally of Both j for 
 then I cannot conceive what Superiority or 
 Prcheminence the Apofties would have over 
 their Succeffors $ and in reality 'tis fcarce 
 common Senfe to interpret it of the Latter 
 
 at
 
 Entitled, England' j- Converjion^ &c- 79 
 
 at all :) then we fhall have it Thus. Our 
 Saviour promised, that the Holy Ghoft (hould 
 abide with, i. e. aflfift, not only the Apoftles, 
 but the Minifters of the Church (not a word 
 about That of Rome in particular) to the 
 World's End ; teach them, and remind them 
 of all Things, (neceffary to their Salvation ; 
 for fure He fpeaks of nothing elfe) tho* 
 Thofj, who are fo t 'aught , and reminded^ may 
 neither learn^ nor remember^ as they would 
 do : Therefore the Church of Rome is In- 
 fallible. Q. E. D. How unmercifully muft 
 We torture Thefe Texts, otreadtbembatK- 
 isardS) not to difcover in them the perpetual 
 Infallibility aforefaid ! 
 
 I might here very well conclude my An- 
 fwer to This Section j all the Argumentation 
 being over. But the Confidence and Info- 
 lence \vhich fucceeds it, is fo ridiculous^ 
 (and, being fo, it is to me not in the leaft 
 prtwokfag) that contrary to my Defign, and 
 aimoft Promife, in the Beginning, I cannot 
 forbear diverting my Reader with it. A famous 
 Critick tells us, that the Height of Impu- 
 dence is perfectly Comical. 1 am of his 
 Mind ; It moves Laughter, rather than In- 
 dignation. Can any thing be more whimfi- 
 cally extravagant, than for a Man to in- 
 troduce fuch Arguments as have not the 
 leaft Shadow of Reafon in them, with fuch 
 formalTreparatioi?) and bluflring Language , 
 as I have above recited j and after having 
 
 produced
 
 80 An ANSWER to 
 
 produced them, to triumph,. and plume him- 
 felf, as if he had made a Demonftration as 
 plain, as any in Euclide ; then to add a. 
 long Speech again ft Prejuttfceand Self-Inter eft^ 
 calumniating and vilifying his Adverfaries, 
 as if they had not common Ronefly, for 
 not believing againft common Senfe ? You 
 jliall have it all at length in his own Words : 
 And I need be at no further Trouble ; For 
 to tranfcribe it, is to anjwer it. 
 
 * G. Really., Sir., I am aftonijtid that 
 *Perfons who PRETEND to "believe that the 
 Scriptures are divinely infpird^ and contain 
 the pure Word of God > nay and PROFESS to 
 make them the only Rule of their Faith (as 
 you have often told me) can read thefe re- 
 feat ed romifes exprefsd in Termsfo STRONG 
 and CLEAR, fo OBVIOUS, and EASY, that e- 
 ven the moft ordinary Capacities cannot well 
 miftake their meaning^ without STUDYING 
 TO DECEIVE THEMSELVES i yet at the fame 
 time have /^CONFIDENCE tooppofe the 'Doc- 
 trine^ thus PLAINLY ajferted by them> with 
 the fame POSITIVENESS, and OBSTINACY, as 
 if they had the ALCORAN, inftead of the 
 WORD OF GOD before them. The Pupil, 'tis 
 fco be hop'd, has done his Part. And what 
 fays the Tutor ? 
 
 .* 28,
 
 Entitled, England'.* Converjion^ Sec. 8 1 
 
 P. Sir, TOU have all the Reafon in the 
 World to be aftoniflid at it : And I verily 
 believe ) that if a Friend ftmdd leave to any 
 Trot eft ant a confiderable Legacy^ or fettle 
 an Eft ate upon him and his Heirs for ever^ 
 in Terms as ftrong and clear as our bltjtfea 
 Saviour^ by his laft Will and Teftament^ be- 
 queath' a* to his Church the divine Legacy of his 
 perpettialTtireUion and Jffiftance ; heiamdd 
 be clear-fighted enough to underftand the 
 true Meaning of it $ there vsotdd be no need 
 of any Terfua/ive Arguments^ or Reasons, to 
 convince him of the Jtifticeofhis Title. If 
 by perpetual Tlircction and JJJtftance He 
 means fuch as beftows Infallibility ^ as He 
 miift if He means any thing to the purpofe \ 
 I profefs fincerely, I \vould not give a fingle 
 Farthing for an Eftate or Ten thoufand a 
 Year, upon no r better a Title. The Will 
 would Infallibly be fet afide in Chancery j 
 fliould I be Fool enough to ftand a Suit 
 there : And I fhould net only lofs my Caufe, 
 and my Money in profecuting it, but be 
 laugh'd at into the bargain. He goes on* 
 $af alas to a Terfon whofe Heart is INSIN- 
 CERE, ^WBIASS'D BY AN INTEREST IRRECON- 
 
 CILEABLE WITH THE GOSPEL, tO fitch a One, 
 
 Ifay y the Word of God is a Seed that falls 
 
 upon barren Ground^ and remains without 
 
 Fmit, The very CLEAREST LIGHT is llark-* 
 
 nefs to him > and he can cxtrdft Faljhooet 
 
 Q cup
 
 8s An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 out of T^ruth itfelf, when it chimes not with 
 ftis INTEREST. 
 
 G. "lis very certain tbat whoever has his 
 Jleart ftrongly fet tipon any worldly INTEREST 
 fees every thing through falle Glffjfes. For 
 it hffens or magnifies things, and makes 
 them a f pear beautiful, or deform d y right 
 er wrong) true* orfalfe, jtift as they flatter, 
 w thwart that INTEREST. And we may 
 with almoft as much Hofes of Succefs, un- 
 dertake to calm a Storm, or filence a Hur- 
 ricane with DEMONSTRATIONS, as make a 
 Man yield to REASON again ft an INTEREST 
 that lies near his Heart. Nay I have known 
 *Perfons as fharp-fighted in their TEMPORAL 
 CONCERNS as the cunningeft Sophifters upon 
 Earth ; yet at the fame time as dull-* and 
 Wind as, ^Beetles, in all matters relating to> 
 the Concerns of AN OTHER WORLD. So true 
 is it, that INTEREST loth opens, and fonts 
 Mens Eyes -, according as the Objects that 
 frefent themfekes, are agreeable, or difa- 
 greeable to it. I have fet clown This curious 
 Paffage at large ; to fliew Thefe Gentlemen 
 that we are not afraid of it : And alfo to 
 give the Reader a Sample of This Rea- 
 jbning y which our Author makes great ule 
 of, frequently repeating it in his Book. How 
 often foever it occurs, I mall take no notice 
 of it hereafter ; having here anfwerd'tf. once 
 for rf/7, i. e. tranfcritid it. That Men, who 
 are fuch Slaves to Prejudice and Self-Intereft,
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, &c. 8 3 
 
 as to believe, or profefs that they believe, 
 contrary not only to the plaineit Reafon 
 and Scripture^ but to their Senfes^ that fuch 
 I fay, fhocld accufe Us of Prejudice and 
 Self-Intereft, for not aflenting to fo grofs 
 an Abfurdity, as the RomiJJ} Infallibility, 
 upon the Evidence of Arguments as abfurd 
 as it felf, would really be very furprizing ; 
 were we not acquainted with the Modefty 
 of Popiili Writers. They might confider, how- 
 ever, that We could make Thefe Declamati- 
 ons upon Ibem, as well as They upon Us ,- 
 were we idle, and impertinent enough, to do 
 fo. But \ve fcorn it ; and only remind our 
 weaker Readers, that there is no Argument 
 in all This Outcry ; which is only contrived 
 to amufeand confound their Underftandings : 
 And that the .Clamours of our Adverfaries 
 are, like their Reafomngs, mere Cobweb- 
 Snares i which as None but poyjonous Infers 
 will weave, fo None but light , and filly ones 
 will be catch'd by.
 
 84- An ANSWER to a 
 To tie Fifth SECTION; 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Church's perpetual Indefefiibility, 
 and Infallibility^ prov'd from the 
 ninth Article of the Creed. 
 
 THE Young Gentleman, in the laft 
 Words of " the Laft Section, having 
 ask'd why the Churctis Infallibility, (ince it 
 is fo important a Point, has not a place in 
 the Apoftles Creed., is anfwer'd by his Pre- 
 ceptor at the Beginning of This j that many 
 other Dodrines of great Importance are not 
 in the Creed $ but it does not follow, that 
 therefore they are not to be believed. This 
 I grant j but then by his Leave, their 
 Church's Infallibility is an Article of fueh 
 infinite Moment and Confequence (all the 
 reft, in truth, depending upon This) that, 
 if there be any fuch Thing, I cannot imagine 
 how it comes to pafs that we find not Thefe 
 Words in the Creed ; I believe the Church 
 of Rome to be Infallible. But the real Rea- 
 fon of it is This ; There is nothing in the 
 Greedy but -what is in the- Scriptitres. 
 
 This Article, however, if we will take his 
 word, is vertually in the Creed ; and fo arc 
 
 all
 
 Entitkd, England' j- Conversion ,&c. 85 
 
 all other Popifli Tenets. * 'Becanfe^ believing 
 the Church implies 'Believing her whole 
 IDoffirine. To which I anfwer, and 'tis An- 
 fwer fufficientj that We may believe the Ho- 
 ly Catholick Church^ without believing all the 
 Church of Rome fays : Becaufe i/?. 'tis one 
 thing to believe there is a Holy Catholick 
 Church, which is all This Article means j 
 and another, to believe that whatever She 
 fays is certainly true. idly. The Church 
 of Rome is not the Catholick Church. Nor 
 $dly. is the whole 'Doffirine of the Church 
 of Rome agreeable to the Do&rine of the 
 Catholick Church. 
 
 Tho' This Creed was certainly not coni- 
 pos'd by the Apoftles, whatever | St. Leo 
 &c. have faid of it ; yet our Author 
 need not fo || formally have provd from the 
 Eighth of our Thirty nine Articles, that 
 We receive it as agreeable to Scripture j fo 
 that we have pinn'd our felves down, and 
 cannot deny the Authority of it, after He 
 fhall have irrefragably provd the Church's 
 Infallibility from it : Which is I believe, 
 fuch a mixture of Abfurdity, and Confi- 
 dence, as is not eafily to be matched. I won- 
 der He did not, mutatis mutandis^ preface 
 his unanfwerable Arguments from Scripture 
 
 P. 30* t /to*. II P. 5o, jr.
 
 86 An ANSWER to a <Popift> 
 
 in the fame folemn Words. * jBut I defire 
 you to take notice, that, according to their 
 Sixth and Seventh Articles of Religion, the 
 Scriptures cannot be falfe $ i ft. *Becaufe &c. 
 2dly. 'Becattfe &c Now furely no falsehood 
 &c. Nor -can the Contradictory &c. This Fop- 
 pery is fo filly on the one hand, and fo faucy 
 on the other ,- that it deferves much worfe 
 Words than I have given it, and ought 
 not only to be detected, but exploded. His 
 Arguments from the Creed, We are to un- 
 derftand, will be fo Iteinonftrative $ that We 
 of the Church of England frail have no Re- 
 fource, no Way to come off, \M& deny ing the 
 Authority of it : Whereas they are juft as 
 Demonftrative, as Thofe from Scripture in 
 the foregoing Section, which' we have fully 
 confidered ; /". ^. not in the leaft to the Pur- 
 pofe, the Premifes having no manner of Re- 
 lation to the Conclufion, They are all re- 
 ducible to This : There is one Holy, Catho- 
 lick, Apoftolick Church, and a Communion of 
 Saints $ Therefore the Church of Rome is 
 Infallible. 
 
 In order to turn our own weapons againfl 
 us, He is pleas'd to give us a long Quotation 
 fromBifhopTV^r/^z. t His Words, fays He, 
 as far as relating to my Subjeffi, are fhefe. 
 
 31. t P. 3*. 
 
 if
 
 Entitled, England' j ConverfiWj &c. 87 
 
 If He had cited nothing but what related to 
 his Subject, He had cited nothing at all ,- for 
 He might as well have transcribed the whole 
 Book, as what He has tranfcribed. Yet, 
 fays the Young Gentleman, * It really ap- 
 pears to me, that if the Church of Rome had 
 given this Troteftant Biffiop a Fee to plead 
 her Cartfe^ he could not have done it more 
 eff equally. Jnd it puts me in mind tf 
 this celebrated filaxim^ magna eft veritas, 
 ct prxvalet. The force of Truth is great $ 
 and triumphs over Falfocod) even by the 
 Judgment of its Enemies. One would 
 think Bifhop 'Pear (on in the Paflage quoted 
 had either in Terms given up the Caufe ,- 
 or at leaft laid down fuch *PoJiticns> that 
 one iingle 'Deduction from themmuft ^Demon- 
 jlrate the Church of Rome's Infallibility. 
 Whereas he fays not one Word about the 
 Church of Rome, or Infallibility: And as 
 for the Ccnclufion, which may be drawn from 
 His r P)incipks ; He fays the Church of Chrift 
 is One* Holy^ and Catholick., and will continue 
 to the end of the World: Is the Church of 
 'Rome therefore Infallible ? Yes ; if We be- 
 lieve This Writer j who, after fome Trifling 
 not worth our notice, t and confounding a 
 True Church with an Orthodox one, which I 
 
 34. t P. 34- 
 
 G 4 have
 
 88 An ANS WE R to a Top '(h Rook, 
 
 have (hewn to bo very different Ideas, has 
 thefe Words. * But what are the ejjential> 
 and unchangeable Tropertiesofthis Church ^ 
 according to the fame Creed? They confift in her 
 leingOne^ Holy, Apoftolical^ and the Commu- 
 nion of Saints. Now this is an unanswerable 
 5Pw/ 3 loth of Her IndefeZtibility, and Infal- 
 libility. Anfw. Inde feasibility We have no- 
 thing to do with at prefent. Bifliop Tearfon 
 I grant, tfferts it, nor do I deny it : Tho\ 
 by the way, it does not follow from, the 
 Church's being One, Holy, Apoflolick^ and 
 the Communion of Saints, that therefore it. 
 is Indefe&ible* Neither is the Word Apoftv* 
 lick in This Creed ; tho' it be in Another, 
 which we equally receive. Inftead of Apofto- 
 lick) I fhould have faid Catholick ; which 
 is in This Creed, and which our Author 
 omits. I miajht add moreover, that to be the 
 Communion of Saints^ tho' it is made a Part 
 of the 9th Article, is not an JffeUion of the 
 Church^ as Unity > Holinefs, and Catholicism 
 are -, nor does Bifliop Tear/on make it fo ; 
 nor can good Scnfe be made of it. But not 
 to infill upon thefe Niceties ; let us take it 
 as it (lands, and confider the force of this; 
 Argument. But before we can do fo. We 
 are interrupted by an Enquiry j t what is. 
 the ^Difference letvceen the Church's Inde- 
 
 35,.
 
 Entitled, England'^ Conver/ion, &c. 89 
 
 fcUibility and Infallibility ? I thought the 
 Young Gentleman had underftood Latin ; 
 and if fo, one would wonder he fliould ask 
 fo idle a Queftion. But 'tis not for nothing, 
 we muft think, that he is made to ask it : 
 Tisto introduce the ufnal Piece of Sophiftry 
 which a Papift cannot live without^ Con- 
 founding the Church Catholick with the 
 Church of Rome. * Sir, by the former is 
 meant, that SHE never will perifc, &c. In 
 like manner //SHE flwvld teach T)otrines 
 oppoflte to the Faith &c. As to the ift. 'Tis 
 true, that She^ the Catholick Church, will 
 never perifli ; but the Church of Rome may. 
 As to the 2d. 'Tis falfa that She, the 
 Church of Rome, cannot teach c Do&rines 
 vppofite to the true Faith. The Words Vi- 
 Jible and Invtftble^ as apply'd to the Church^ 
 are here brought in again j But That mat- 
 ter fliall be confidered once for all, in our 
 Examination of the Fourth Dialogue. At 
 prefent our Author tells us, that if the 
 Church JJmtld t impofe abominable Errors, 
 fuch as Idolatry and Superftitions, upon the 
 Faithful, and demand of them Terms of 
 Communion, which are inconfijlent with Sal- 
 vation j She would mo ft certainly ceafe to be 
 an unerring Guide. To which I add , BUT 
 
 the
 
 cjo An ANSWER to a Tofi/b 
 
 the Church of Rome long has imposed, and 
 ftill does impofe, abominable Errors &c. 
 and T'erms of Communion inconfiftent 
 with Salvation-^ (I mean in their Nattire 
 and c fendcncy<> however God may have 
 Mercy upon Thofe, who ignorantly em- 
 brace them :) Therefore The Church of 
 Rome ceafcs to be an unerring Guide^ if 
 ever ihe were fo. The Argument is plain. 
 The Major is his own -, and the Minor is 
 prov'd from their Worfhip of Images, and 
 Reliques, Saints, and Angels ; Communion 
 in one Kind , Purgatory ; their Doctrine of 
 Attrition ; Opus Operatum ; and many other 
 Corruptions. And, indeed, it is much 
 clearer and ftronger Reafoning to argue 
 Thus j The Church of Rome actually errs, 
 therefore She is not Infallible : Than Thus - y 
 the Church of Rome is Infallible, therefore 
 She cannot err. Of which more hereafter. 
 The pretended Tromifes of Qod^ * upon 
 which the Church's Infallibility is faid to be 
 founded, I have proved to be no fuch Promifes j 
 and fo what is here alledg'd upon that Head, 
 of courfe, falls to the Ground. 
 
 But now for the unanfwerable Argument ; 
 proving the Church's Infallibility, from Her 
 being One, Holy, Apoftolick, and the Com- 
 
 * f. 36. 
 
 munion
 
 Entitled, England'^ Converfion, &c. 91 
 
 munion of Saints. * If She Jhould either fail 
 entirely., or ceafe to be either One, or Holy, 
 or ApoftoUcal) or the Communion of Saints ; 
 the ninth Article of the Creed woidd then 
 le falfe : And whofoever Jhould at that time 
 fay it) would utter a downright Lye> in ma- 
 king TrofeJJion of the Chriflian Faith. Anfw. 
 Tho' tho Church (hould/rf/7, This Article 
 would not be falfe j becaufe Indefectibility 
 is not afferted in it. Unity is elTential to e- 
 very Being ; fo that as long as the Church 
 is at all., She is certainly One. Holy^ and 
 Apoflolicky She will likewife always be in 
 fome Senfe or other ^ as long as She is at all ' : 
 And She will be the Communion of Saints 
 too, as long as She continues, if by That 
 be meant the fame as Her being Holy j O- 
 therwife, I take Her being the Communion 
 of Saints not to be Senfe. A Communion 
 of Saints^ indeed, there is and ever will be; 
 but 'tis abfurd to fay the Church is That 
 Communion. Doubtlefs, whoever fhall by 
 profefling the Faith of the Creed, fay* 
 there is a Holy Catholick Church, when 
 at the fame time there is none., will utter 
 a downright FalJhoo4-> Falfhood, I fays for 
 it may not be a ' Lye : But I conceive 
 there is no Danger of it j becaufe if the 
 
 Church
 
 91 An ANSWER to a Tofifh Book, 
 
 Church ihould be loft, I imagine the Pro- 
 feifion of That Faith would be loft too. * 
 33ttt fmce it is manifeft Blafphemy to fay 9 
 that the Creed., which may be proved by 
 rtqft certain Warrant of Holy Scripture, can 
 ever be falfe^ or that a Terfon can be guil- 
 ty of Lying in ^ of effing the Chriftian 'Doc- 
 trine taught by the Apoftles j it follows, that 
 the above-faid ninth Article of the Creed 
 contains a demonftrative Proof, that the 
 Church of Chrift has always been, and will 
 always be, an tin err ing Guide > that is, In- 
 fallible in all her Tlecijions of Faith. 1 
 deny the Confequence. It does not follow, 
 that becaufe the Church is One, Holy, A- 
 poftolical, and the Communion of Saints, add 
 Indefectible, if You pleafe, tho' that is not 
 in the Article j therefore She ever was, is, 
 will be, or can be, Infallible. This is fo far 
 from being a 'Demonftrative Proof,- that it 
 has not the leaft Shadow of any Proof. Our 
 Author will prefently endeavour to reinforce 
 his Argument j and then I iliali'more fully 
 ftiew the Weaknefs of it. f And that by 
 Confequence^ She never was guilty of the 
 abominable Errors laid to her Charge by 
 per rebellious Children. Beyond Contrcn 
 yerfy,ifShe was Infallible j She could not
 
 's Converjion^ Sec. 93 
 
 be guilty of abominable Errors. But then 
 She., not only the Church of Rome, but any 
 Church.> was never Infallible. And She, 
 the Church of Rome, has been guilty o 
 abominable, nay damnable, 'Errors ; and 
 therefore her Children were not rebellious 
 in rejecting them. * T.hat the Creed in the 
 fuppofed Cafe would be falfe^ is manifeft to 
 common Senfc ; becaufe if the Church really 
 fell into the damnable Eorors, &c. Here is 
 the old Blunder, fo often repeated in the 
 foregoing Section. The Church may not fall 
 into damnable Errors-, and yet not be Infal- 
 lible : And whether She be Infallible or not, 
 is the only Queftion.Our Author's Argument 
 therefore fhould not have ran Thus, If 
 the Church really fell into damnable Errorsj 
 but Thus, If the Church were not Infallible: 
 t How can it be faid ; that She j&as then 
 either One, or Ho/y, or ApoftvUcal^ or the 
 Communion of Saints ? However, I will take 
 it juft as it ftands ; and if we fhew that the 
 Church, even the Church in general, not to 
 mention That of Rome in particular, may con- 
 tinue to be One-) Ho/}' y &c. and yet not 
 only be capable of falling, but actually fall, 
 into damnable Errors-, underftanding by 
 damnable > tending in their own nature to the,, 
 
 P. 37. t &* 
 
 Damnation
 
 94 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 Damnation of Thofe who hold them, not 
 necejfarily caufing their Damnation ; It will 
 follow a fortiori $ that She may be One^ 
 Holy, &c. and yet not be Infallible. * Ihis^ 
 fays our Author, viz. [that the Church 
 Ihould be One> Holy* &c. and yet fail into 
 damnable Errors,] implies a manifeft Con- 
 tradiction. For in the fir ft place., She would 
 then mo ft certainly have forfeited her Unity > 
 ty falling from her former Faith. If She 
 wholly tell from her former Faith ; She 
 would, indeed, forfeit her Unity : Be- 
 caufe She would forfeit Her 'Eeing ; juft as 
 a Man forfeits his Life, by dying of any ^Dif- 
 temper* But She might fall into damnable 
 Errors, and yet not wholly fall from Her 
 former Faith : Nay, She might retain all 
 Her former Faith, and yet hold damnable 
 Errors in conjunUion with it. For, tho' 
 fuch Errors are in reality repugnant to fome 
 Particulars of the true Faith, yet She may 
 not be fenfible of it,- Confluences may 
 really follow from Her Dodrine, which She 
 fees not, but rejects and abhors, f For can 
 a Church that changes her Faith be properly 
 caHd one^ and the fame ? Yes ; if changing 
 Her Faith means falling into damnable Er- 
 rors ; as it muft mean, if it means any thing 
 
 * P. Kid. f Kid. 
 
 to
 
 Entitled, England' s Converjlon, &o 95 
 
 to the prcjent Point - 3 tho 1 even That is no- 
 thing to the main Point, which is the In- 
 fallibility of the Church. I fay. She may 
 fail into damnable Errors,- and yet be one 
 and the fame Church. Cannot one and the 
 fame Man, and it holds as well of a Com- 
 munity, be in perfed Health at one time, 
 and very (ick at another ? * On the contra- 
 ry ', inftead of continuing what fhe was by 
 her divine ILflaUiflyment^ viz. the "frue^ and 
 
 only Orthodox Church of Chrift She 
 
 may be Inte, and not Orthodox ; as before 
 obferved : She may hold damnable Errors j 
 and yet be a Ir&e Church in one Senie, 
 tho' not Orthodox, t She would have be- 
 come an Heretical Communion^ and the 
 very Synagogue of Satan, ift. All Errors^ 
 even damnable ones, are not Herefas. idly. 
 She might hold fome Herejies, and yet not 
 be quite the Synagogue of Satan. Or ^dly. 
 She might be fo in fome Refpeds, and not 
 in others, tfhly. If by being the Synagogue 
 of Satan^ be meant being extremely corrupt j 
 She may be even Tbat> and ftill be cne^ 
 and true^ in the Senfe above-mentioned ; 
 I add, good) metaphyfically, tho' not morally* 
 t Nay> a fource of ^DiviJtonS) and Author of 
 Schifm. So that whatever Church holds 
 
 f ibid. $ ibid. 
 
 damnable
 
 96 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 damnable Errors, is the Author of Schifm : 
 But the Church of Rome holds damnable 
 Jirrors : Ergo, &c. The Schifm therefore, 
 with regard to the Separation between Them 
 and Us, is Theirs, not Onrs. * /;/ as mucb 
 as her own Children would then have been 
 bound to feparate themfehes from Her. Not 
 from Her, but from Her Errors : But how- 
 ever, be That as it will - y She, not They, 
 \vould be anfwerable for the Separation, 
 according to our Author's own Conceiiion. f 
 Nor could She then be Holy ; unlefs Idolatry, 
 or other grofs Errors, be a holy Tioftrine. 
 She might then be Holy in fome refpe&s ; 
 tho' not near Co Holy, as She Jhould be : 
 Holy, in the Faith which She might ftill re- 
 tain y Holy, with refpeft to her Vocation, 
 the Original End of Her Inftitution, &c. Let 
 me ha.ve Leave to quote a Paffage out of 
 Bifhop Tear fon upon This very Article,- 
 which our Author feems to have overlooked. 
 * I conclude therefore, as the antient Catho- 
 licks did againft the T)onatifts, that within 
 the Church, in the ptiblick Trofejficn, and 
 external Commtmion thereof, are contain d. 
 *Perfcns truly good, audfanUifyd, and here- 
 after favd ; and, together with them, other 
 'Perfons, void of all fai'ing Grace, and here- 
 
 * Kai. \ Ibid. Expofition of the O'ecd. P. 344. 
 
 afui:
 
 Entitled) England^ Converjitm^ &c. 97 
 
 after to be damrid : And that the Church 
 containing Thefe of both Kinds ^ may well be 
 cattd Holy, as St. Matthew caltd Jerufa- 
 lem, the holy City, even at that time y when 
 our Saviour did hit begin to preach., when 
 we know there was in 'That City a general 
 Corruption in Manners and Worflrip. The 
 Church then, even holding damnable Er- 
 rors, may in this Senfe be Holy j and yet I- 
 dolatry ? and other grofs Errors, not be Hofy 
 ^DocJrmes. He adds. Nor Apoflolical ; becaufe 
 the Apoftles never taught Idolatry^ nor any 
 damnable Errors. The Anfwer is the fame, as 
 before ; She might be Apoftolical, as well as 
 Holy, in fome refpefts, tho' not in others. 
 Nor finally > concludes he, the Communion of 
 Saints ; becaufe Ibey cannot be Saints^ who 
 communicate with an Idolatrous Church, i ft. 
 It is not faid, that She is the Communion of 
 Saints ; nor is it Senfe to fay fo. idly. Thofe 
 who communicate with an Idolatrous Church, 
 in her Idolatry, or any other grofs Errors, 
 aiTuredly are not Saints, nor tolerably good 
 Chriftians ; at leaft as fo communicating : 
 But doing it ignorantly, they may be good 
 in other refpe&s. $dly. The Church may 
 be Idolatrous, and yet many of her Mem- 
 bers refufe to communicate with Her in her 
 Idolatry, or any other Corruptions : And 
 <fhey may be the Saints here on Earth ; 
 holding Communion? in fome meafure, even 
 with the corrupt Church, tho' chiefly with 
 H Ono
 
 98 An ANSWER to a Tofijb Book, 
 
 One another, with the Saints in Heaven, 
 and with God himfelf. In fhort, the whole 
 Church may be overfpred with Corruptions, 
 even with Idolatry, and yet not lofe its Be- 
 ing ; as the Jewiih Church did not, when 
 it 'was fo overfpred: And to fay that it is 
 One, Holy, Catholick, and Apoftolical, fo far 
 as in the Senfe in which I have explained 
 it, and no farther, amounts to no more 
 than to fay, that It is in 'Being, and that Ibefe 
 'Properties are e/Jential to it. Neither is it 
 neceifary that the Creed mould intend any 
 more, nor has our Author prov'd that it 
 does , but on the contrary, His Arguments, 
 as I have flicwn, are utterly groundlefs and 
 inconclufive. 
 
 But ftay, not too faft - 3 Here is more to 
 come. 
 
 * G. Sir 3 If I have a true Under (landing 
 of your meaning, the Subftance of what you 
 have faid may be f&mmd up in this fhort 
 Syllogifm. If the Church, which in the Creed 
 we profefs to be One, Holy, Jpoftolicat, &c. 
 flwuld ever fall into any Errors, deftruffiive 
 to the faving Faith, at frfl deliver d to the 
 Saints ,- then the Creed would befalfe : ^But 
 the Creed cannot lefalfe ; therefore jhe can 
 never fall into any fuch Errors. And is, BY 
 
 tON-
 
 Entitled, England's Converjlon^ &c, 99 
 
 CONSEQUENCE, infallible in ALL her'Decifons 
 of Faith. 
 
 P. 2ou have taken my Meaning very ex- 
 attly ; and I dare prefume to fay> the Argu- 
 ment is conclusive again ft all fuch as pretend 
 to believe the Creed. Tho' the Preceptor 
 exprefles himfelf ftrangely ; yet, waving Cri- 
 ticifm, I anfvver to the Major : i ft. If by de- 
 ftriLckive to^ be meant actually deftroying ; 
 even then the Sequel is not true. For, tho' 
 I doubt not but the Church is Indefectible, 
 yet the Creed does not afjert it $ nor does it 
 follow that becaufe, while She is at all> She 
 is One, Holy, Apoftolical, &c. therefore 
 She muft continue/0r ever. idly. If by thofe 
 Words be meant direffily tending to deftroy^ 
 repugnant to> and the like - 3 much lefs is 
 the Sequel true. For, as I have fhewn, the 
 Church may be One, Holy, &c* and con- 
 tinue fo for ever; and yet fall into Errors, 
 in this laft Senfe, deftru'ctive to the Faith. 
 The Young Gentleman's laft Words, And /> 
 ly confequence Infallible in all her ^Deci/ions 
 of Faith, contain This Proportion $ That 
 Church which cannot fall into Errors de- 
 ftru&ive to the Faith, muft be Infallible 
 in all Her Decifions of Faith. I deny it, 
 not only in the former Senfe of the Words 
 definitive to, but even in the latter. A 
 Church may be preferv'd from falling into 
 Errors,which are only repugnant to the Faith, 
 without actually deftroying it, or to fpeak, 
 H
 
 loo An ANSWER to a Toplfb Book, 
 
 as we have all along done, into Errors damna- 
 ble in one Senfe , and yet not bo Infallible 
 in all Her Decifions of Faith. For there are 
 fome Points of Faith, (at leaf! as the Church 
 may make them, and as the Church of Rome 
 actually does make them) in a Dcciiion o 
 which, an Error, \hri dt dangerous Confe- 
 qucnce* may not be in its Nature damnable. 
 For inftance $ We cannot fay, it would be a 
 damnable Sin for the whole Chriftian World 
 to fubmit to the Pope, as fupreme over o- 
 ther Bifhops, at lea ft in a ^Patriarchal Senfe ; 
 tho' He has no manner of Right to fuch a 
 Submififion, and fuch a Submiflion would be 
 of very dangerous Confequence. Therefore, 
 to believe and to profefs^ that He is fo fu- 
 preme, may not bs a damnable Error. 
 Their Dodrine of the Seven Sacraments I 
 take not to be damnable., tho' dangerous. If 
 then it be admitted, that the Church is fo 
 dire&ed by the Holy Spirit ; nay, is fo far 
 Infallible, if We muft ufe That Word, that 
 She cannot fall into damnable Errors; yet 
 it does not follow that She is Infallible in 
 all Her Decifions of Faith : Becaufe there 
 may be many Errors in Decifions of Faith, 
 which may not be damnable, tho* very dan- 
 gerous. I fay, very dangerous. To which 
 therefore I add, that if I believe Her Infal- 
 lible in all Her Decifions, when She is not ; 
 fuck a Belief may^ and very probably willy 
 draw me into damnable Errors, tho' She 
 
 Her
 
 Entitled, England'^ Converjion^ Sec. i o 1 
 
 Her felf falls into none that are fo. But 
 in This Argument, The Church cannot fall 
 into damnable Errors, therefore She is Infal- 
 lible in all her 'Decijions - 3 We need not in- 
 fift upon the Falfity of the Consequence, tho', 
 as I have fhewn, it is moft falfe ; iince, as 1 
 have more fully ftiewn, and That I chiefly 
 infift upon, the Antecedent has not been made 
 out. The Church may fall into damnable 
 Errors, and yet be One, Holy, tec.nor has This 
 Writer produc'd the glimmering of an Argu- 
 ment to the contrary. Here likewife, as al- 
 ways upon thefe Occaiions, it muft be remem- 
 ber d, that, if he had prov'd what he under- 
 took concerning the Church, He had done 
 nothing, unlefs He had likewife prov'd, that 
 the Church of Rome is the Church ; which, 
 tho' I have here for the greater Strength of 
 the Argument proceeded upon That Suppo- 
 fition, He will never be able to do : Nor 
 has He yet attempted it. Hereafter indeed 
 He will attempt it , and then He lhall be fare 
 to meet with an Anfwer. 
 
 At prefent he quotes i 2Y;. 3. i j. where 
 He * fays, St. Taul pronounces the Church 
 of Chrift to le the "Pillar and Stippon of the 
 *Iruth. And then asks feveral Queftions, 
 can this le true > if the Church^ efta- 
 
 38. 
 
 H 3 11$ A
 
 101 An ANSWER to a <Popi/h Book, 
 
 Uiftidby Cbrift, ever propofes falfe 'Doctrines 
 for reveafd Truths ? Or requires things in- 
 confiftent with Salvation for Conditions of 
 Communion ? Can She always be the 'Pillar 
 and Support of the Truth, unlefs She be al- 
 ways an unerring Guide in matters of Faith ? 
 Anfvver. ift. It is far from being certain 
 that Thofe Words, the Tillar^ &c relate to 
 the Church : They may perhaps relate to 
 Timothy j and it is the Opinion of very learn- 
 ed Men, that they do. idly. If St. Taut 
 fpeaks of the Church ; he fpeaks either of 
 the Church in general^ or the Church of 
 Fjpheftis in particular, molt certainly not of 
 the Church of Rome. ^dly. By the Church's 
 being the Tillar and Ground ofT^ruth^ may 
 very well be meant no more, than that ac- 
 cording to the Intent of her Inftitution y She 
 always ought to be fo, not that She always 
 a&ually will be fo. Our Lord tells his 
 Difciples, they are the Salt of the Earth $ 
 and yet fuppofes that the Salt may lofe its 
 Savour. Not that there is any fuch Word 
 as always in the Text cited ; tho' our Au- 
 thor twice mentions it 3 and lays fo much 
 Strefs upon it. But, qthly. and chiefly. 
 The Church may maintain all necejjary 
 Truth^ and yet propofe falfe TtoUrineSy 
 and Terms of Communion inconfiflent with 
 Salvation ; or, in other Words, as we have, 
 in effeft, often faid already, hold the Tiruthy 
 and build Faljbood- upon it -, as the Church 
 
 of
 
 Entitled, England 1 'sConverfion, Sec. 10 j 
 
 of Rome actually does. She may therefore 
 be the Tillar and Support of the Truth, 
 without being an unerring Guide^ or fo 
 much as free from great and grievous Er- 
 rors. * And if\ concludes He, She be fuch a 
 Guide; I ask one Queftion more, how can 
 her Faith be reformdt How indeed? But 
 if She, the Church of Rome, be not an un- 
 erring Guide i but, on the contrary, over- 
 run with grofs and damnable Errors, as well 
 as with all manner of Wickednefs and Vice, 
 proceeding from Thofe Errors ; which is the 
 real Truth of the Cafe : then her Faith, 
 and Pra&ice too, may, and ought to be re- 
 formed. 
 
 t G. I fee no other Anfwerto be made to This 
 Queftion> but boldly ajjerting., that St. Paul's 
 Epiftles, nay, and the Gofpels^aswell as the 
 Creed> all which give Evidence fo the "Doc- 
 trine of Infallibility, ft and full as much in 
 need of a thorough godly Reformation., as the 
 Church 0/Rome it felf. This is a continua- 
 tion of the aforefaid II Modefty ; and That 
 is Anfwer fufficient. What he fays to the 
 Queftion, how a Society of Men can be In- 
 fallible^ when all its particular Members are 
 fallible, is nothing to the Purpofe ; becaufe 
 We utterly deny, and They can never prove, 
 
 Had. llbid H See P. 85, 85. 
 
 H 4 that
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 that any Society of Men is Infallible. The 
 Church s Infallibility., fays He, depends not 
 upon any extraordinary inward Lights, &c. 
 'but upon the gratuitous Tromifes of God: 
 And cannot Tie beftow Ihis 'Privilege, &c. 
 Ay; But I have prov'd that there are no 
 fuch gratuitous Tromifes of God to the 
 Church, any more than to private Perfons $ 
 and that the Arguments to prove the Con- 
 trary, are beyond meafure trifling and ri- 
 diculous. So all that follows upon a Suppo- 
 fition of fuch Promifes is flruck off,- and I 
 need fay no more of it. Yet I cannot 
 forbear taking notice of one Paffage in it. * 
 For, as Ilijhop Pearfon has very judiciou/Iy 
 obfervd, tho the Trovidence of God has fuf- 
 ferd even whole particular Churches to pe- 
 ri/h} yet the Tromifes of the fame God will 
 never permit that they all perijh at once. 
 I ask This Writer, whether He does not be- 
 lieve in his Conscience, that when Bifhop 
 Tear fen wrote This, He thought the Church 
 of Rome to be as much a particular Church 
 as the Church of England ? And as likely 
 to perijh* as any other particular Church ? 
 If foi I ask again, with what Confcience 
 he could quote That excellent Prelate's 
 Words, fpoken of the Church in general, as 
 
 P. 33- 
 
 ferving
 
 Entitled^Englantfs Converjion,&c. 105 
 
 ferving the Caufe of the Church of Rome ,* 
 and affirm, that He talks as if He had taken 
 a Fee to plead for her ? 
 
 Before I conclude, I cannot but obferve, 1 
 that our old Obje&ion (lands good againft what 
 ThisAuthor difcourfes about Infallibility, viz. 
 that he does not tell us inhere it is to be found. 
 For \hzChurch is too looje and general a Word. 
 Does He mean CouncUs only ? Muft the Tope 
 neceffarily concur, or no ? &c. But not to 
 infift upon This, and that we may bring the 
 matter to fome Iffue j I fuppofe it will be 
 granted on all fides, that, according to the 
 Romanifts, the Definitions of the Council 
 of Tratfj ratify'd by the Pope, are the De- 
 finitions of the Church. Our Author, as we 
 have feen, * inftances in Tranfubftantiation, 
 Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and Honour- 
 ing of Reliques, to which He might have ad- 
 ded Image Worfhip, Half-Communion, &c. 
 as ^Doctrines of the Church. And We all 
 know the Council of 'Trent makes them ne- 
 cejfary to Salvation. Here then I fi^.- Every 
 one or Thefe Do&rines isgro/ly falfe ; there- 
 fore the Church of Rome actually errs., and 
 therefore is not Infallible. That They are 
 falfe, I have elfewhere prov'd. f Image-Wor- 
 Jlrif is contrary to the Second Command- 
 
 * P. 38. t Popery truly 
 
 jitent.
 
 io6 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 ment. All Creature-WorJhip is contrary to 
 many Texts of Scripture, particularly T>eut. 
 6. 13. Mattb. 4. 10. Communion in one 
 "Kind is contrary to the exprefs Words of 
 our Saviour's Inftitution ; as They themfelves 
 acknowledge. Tranfubftantiation is contra- 
 ry, ift. To Scripture j which allures us, that 
 the Bread and Wine continue Bread and 
 Wine after Confecration. Mattb. 26. 29. 
 i Cor. x. 17. xi. 265 &c. 'idly. To Rea- 
 fon y becaufe it implies an hundred Contra- 
 dictions, * as well as many Blaiphemous Im- 
 pieties : That the fame Body, for inftance, 
 is in Heaven and on Earth at the fame time ; 
 that Man can make God, &c. sdly. To our 
 Senfes-, becaufe what Papifts tell us is the 
 Body and Blood of Chrift, We fee, feel, 
 fmell, and tafte, to be Bread and Wine. In 
 vain therefore do they come upon us with 
 their Sophiftical, perplex'd, puzzling Heap of 
 Stuff; (puzzJingy to weak, ignorant People ; 
 for, to All who know any thing of the 
 matter, nothing, as I have made it appear, 
 can be more defpicably fooliflj) endeavouring 
 to prove, that their Church cannot err : 
 When Common Senfe, and our five Senfes 
 tell us She does err : Or if She does not err, 
 
 * Mr. Ckillinfrwortb reckon's ap thirty in a Breath. Religion 
 / Protejtants, &c. Chap. 4. J 4$. 
 
 She
 
 Entitle d^n^atfsCQnvtrJwfii Sec. 107 
 She lies, which is worfe : And can neither 
 way be an Infallible Quide^ or any true 
 Guid$ at all. 'Tis much furer Reasoning, 
 as I hinted before, to argue thus a pofteri- 
 ori) The Church of Home actually errs, 
 therefore She is not Infallible; than thus 
 a priori, the Church of Rome is Infallible, 
 therefore She cannot err. In the Former, 
 the Arguments are demonstratively clear* 
 and the moft Illiterate may underftand 
 them : In the Latter, They are difficult and 
 obfcure ac beft ^ they may poflibly puzz!e y 
 but can never convince. Had I, which no 
 body ever will have, as much Evidence 
 that their Church's Infallibility is tme 3 as 
 I have that Tranfubftantiation is falfe- t 
 even then I iliould be but in an Equilibrium^ 
 and could not affent to either. How necef- 
 farily then muft my Alfent be clearly de- 
 termined j when I have Script ure^ Common 
 Rea/on, and my outward Senfes^ to convince 
 ni en the one Hand , and nothing but T>uft 
 and Tsarknefs to blind and confound 'me., on 
 the other ? I fpeak This Laft, in the Per- 
 fon of one of the Vulgar^ and Unlearned : 
 T--> Thofe of a different Character the Ar-. 
 guments for Infallibility have, as I laid, 
 no Difficulty in them ,- nothing but tranfpa^, 
 jrent &pbiftry 9 ihameful Inconfequence^ and 
 palpable Jbfurdities. This I may have 
 Leave to affirm ; becaufe I have pro'vd it. 
 Suppofe then a Perfon perfectly indifferent, 
 
 and
 
 Io8 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 and unprejudiced, and a Stranger in Thefe 
 Parts of the World, to be concern'd in This 
 Enquiry, whether the Church of Rome be 
 Infallible, or no ? and to be told, that there 
 are the two different Schemes of Arguments 
 above-mentioned : Would it not be Begin- 
 ning at the wrong End, and Mifemploying 
 his time, "fpr Him to pefter himfelf with a 
 long Train of perplexed, and at les&feeming- 
 ly inconclufive Deductions, pretending to 
 prove that She cannot err ; when He may 
 in fix Minutes, the Arguments at^/zr/? Sight 
 looking eafy and natural, demonftratc be- 
 yond all Contradiction, that She actually does 
 err ? But to conclude, by applying my felf 
 to the meaneft Reader : Suppofe Ycu fhould 
 hear a Man brag, and pretend to prove by 
 unanfwerable Arguments, that He is Invul- 
 nerable, and Incapable of any Sicknefs or 
 Difeafe whatfoever. Perhaps He might amufe 
 you with Sophiftry, which Ton would not 
 be able to anfwer ; but would you therefore 
 believe him ? when youfhould/<? him at that 
 very time devoured with Ulcers, and fcro- 
 fulous Humours, cover'd Over from Head 
 to Foot with Wounds, and Bmifes, and 
 putrifying Sores? He would tell you, it 
 may be, that they are not Ulcers, Sores, 
 &c. but Signs of Health, and in themfelves 
 ^Beauties. But I ask again , Would You 
 believe Him? If You would j I know not 
 which of the Two would be more extraor- 
 
 dinary a
 
 Entitled^Englznfrs Converfiov, &c. 109 
 
 dinary, His Modefty* or Your Underftand- 
 ing. 
 
 TotheSixthSECTION: 
 
 The Rule of Faith. 
 
 * ^IT^HIS, fays He, leads me to the Rule 
 X by which the Catholick Church di- 
 retts it I elf in all its Tlecifions of Faith. 
 What is it to Us what Rule She directs her 
 felf by ? She is Infallible ', it feems ; and 
 That's enough. If we muft fubmit to Her 
 Decifions, tho' contrary to the Word of 
 God, our Reafon, and our Senfcs ; it figni- 
 fies nothing to us, what Rule She goes by, 
 or whether She goes by any Rule, or no. 
 Or, in other Words, there is an End, as to 
 thefe Matters, of all Enquiry, and Argu- 
 mentation ; of the Word of God, unlefs 
 what She, by her own Authority, is pleas'd 
 to call fo ; of common Senfe, and Reafon ; 
 of the Ule of Seeing, Hearing, Smelling, 
 Tailing, and Handling. According to This, 
 She is, Her felf, the Rule as well as Judge $ 
 
 * P. * 
 
 the
 
 1 10 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 the Standard and Meafure of Right, and 
 Wrong, of Truth, and Falfehood. In the 
 Controverfy about the Rule of Faith, be- 
 tween Papifts and Proteftants, the Rule, as 
 I apprehended, was fuppos'd to be a Rule to 
 all Chriftians - y and the Queftion was, whe- 
 ther Scripture only, or Scripture and Tra- 
 dition in Conjunction, fwere the Rule of 
 Faith to You, and Me, and Every body ? 
 But This Author confines it to the Church, 
 (as, in truth, he can hardly prevail with him- 
 felf to talk about any thing elfe) underftand- 
 ing by That Word the Teachers and Go- 
 vernours of the Church. Not but that the 
 Queftion about the Rule .of Faith, to whom- 
 foever it relates, as ufually ftated, and as 
 ftated by This Author himfelf, if fome o- 
 ther Do&rines of Popery be true, is fuperflu- 
 ous, not to fay ridiculous. If it be confin'd to 
 the Church ; what imports it, whether Scrip- 
 ture only, or Scripture and Tradition toge- 
 ther, be the Rule of Faith to Her j fince 
 nothing, as She fays, is either Scripture, or 
 Tradition, but what She pleafes to call fo ? 
 Or to put it more ftrongly, how can the one, 
 or the other, or both together, be any Rule 
 to her at all ? How can She guide her felf 
 by the Authority of That, which has no 
 more Authority than She thinks fit to allow 
 it ? According to this Suppofition, therefore, 
 c?/3. her Infallibility, and her Right of declar- 
 i*i what is Scripture, and Tradition, and what 
 
 not j
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion,&c. I i i 
 
 not j She is a Rule, and Law, not only to 
 Others, but to her Self likewife j and fo to 
 talk of any other Rule is fuperfluous, and 
 irrational. If the Enquiry be, what is the 
 Rule of Faith to all Chriftans to You, and 
 Me, and Every body elfe in particular ? the 
 Absurdities are the fame. What is it to me, 
 whether Scripture only, or That and Tradi- 
 tion together, be my Rule ,- or rather how 
 can Either be my Rule at all , if I am to 
 take Both abfolutely upon T'ruft from the 
 Infallible Church j and muft implicitly de- 
 pend upon Her, not only as to the Senfs 
 and Meaning^ but as to the Reality^ and 
 Being of them ? According to This, She a- 
 lone is my Rule of Faith j and I can have 
 no other. 
 
 Neverthelefs, fince our Author is pleas'd 
 to give us a Section upon This Queftion, 
 What is the Rule of Faith-, and fince We, 
 who deny, and have fufficiently difprov'd the 
 Church's Infallibility, &c. may difcufs it with- 
 out Incongruity, tho' He cannot -, I fhall fol- 
 lowhim ^ He leads, maintaining This Thefis, 
 That Scripture only, without Tradition, is 
 the Word of God> and the Rule of our 
 Faith. 
 
 The Contrary, * he tells us, has been 
 fully demonjlrated in a jBoofc, entitled, *fbe 
 
 ?. 40. 
 
 Rule
 
 in An ANSWER /* a TofiJbBodk, 
 
 Utile of Faith - y printed Anno. 1721. I ne- 
 ver faw the Book : but am fo well acquaint- 
 ed with Topijb T)emonftrations, and Topifo 
 Modefty* and all the Papifts have to fay, 
 upon This, or any other Argument ; that I 
 almoft as well know the Subftance of it, 
 as if I had read it. Befides ,- our Author 
 will undoubtedly give us the Flower of the 
 ^Demonftration : And with Him therefore we 
 proceed. 
 
 Having faid, * it is plain Faft , ift. That 
 Chrifl himjelf laid the foundation of the 
 Church by preaching only j idly. T.hat he 
 never laid any Command upon the Apoftles 
 to write i but only to preach the Gofpelto all 
 Nations ; (He feems to be angry with the 
 Apoftles for their over Officioufnefs in Wri- 
 ting at all : But how does he prove that our 
 Saviour never laid his Commands upon them 
 to write ? Did He fay nothing to his Apoftles 
 but what is recorded in Scripture ? Howe- 
 ver, did they write purely of their own 
 Heads ? Were they not mov'd to k by the 
 Holy Ghoft ?) and 3dly ; That inQfeft they 
 preached for fever al Years, before they wrote 
 any of the Canonical "Books of Scripture ; He 
 adds, and tho they had never written at all^ 
 as the Papifts, 'tis plain, are heartily vex'd 
 
 * P. 41*
 
 Entitled) England'j" ConverJlo^Scc. I f 3 
 
 they ever did, and would abolifti their Wri- 
 tings from the Face of the Jbarth, if they 
 were able ; but deliver d the whole Cbrijttan 
 'Do'ctrine by Word of Mouth to 'Ihoje who 
 fticceeded them in their dpoftolical Charge j 
 we Jlmild have been obligd to receive it as 
 the Word of God^ and therefore with the 
 fame Refpeffi as we now do the holy Scrip- 
 ture. 
 
 Tho they had never written at #//, &c ! 
 But They have written ; and fo the Cafe is 
 alter'd. T*o T^hofe who fiicceeded them in 
 their dpoflolical Charge ! Stri&ly fpeaking, 
 there were None who fucceeded them in 
 their Apoftolical Charge ; but let That pafs* 
 This is harping upon the old String ; * as 
 if the Apoftles deliver'd the Gofpel, both by 
 Speaking and Writing, not to the whole 
 World* but to BiJJwps and Taftors only. 
 But not to infift upon That neither : 'Tho 
 \They had deliver d the Chriftian 'Doffirine 
 only by Word of Mouth ; We Jhould have 
 been obligd^ He fays, to receive it as the 
 Word of God. True ; if we could prove 
 This or That Doctrine to have been deli- 
 vered by Them, tho' by Word of Mouth on- 
 Jy. But T^hat is the grand Point of all : Tho' 
 according to This Gentleman, 'tis a Circum- 
 
 Seep. 31,52, 53.
 
 H4 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 fiance not worth taking notice of $ for he 
 fays nothing at all about it. His next Words 
 are thcfe. * Whence it follows^ ift. lhat 
 the unwritten Word of God was the whole 
 Rule of Faith to the primitive Chriftians, 
 before the Scriptures could poffibly be a c Part 
 of it. Without doubt, the Written Word 
 was the whole Rule, before the Scriptures 
 were Part of it ; as furely as one Unit is 
 the Whole, before another is added to it. 
 t And it might have continued fo for ever, if 
 ^Providence had pie a fed to order it fo. It 
 might fo j Nay, (which is more) it certainly 
 would) if Providence had fo ordered it. But 
 it has pleafed Providence to order it other- 
 \vife, by giving the World a Written Gof- 
 pel ,- which, no doubt, was for this plain 
 Reafon, becaufe it was morally impojfible 
 that the Chriftian Do&rine fhould be deli- 
 ver'd down thro 1 all Ages by Word of Mouth 
 only. 
 
 || It follow s> 2dly. continues He, that Scrip- 
 tures are fo far from being the whole necef- 
 fary Rule of the Cbriftian Faith >, that they 
 are not (absolutely /peaking) even a necej- 
 fary Tart of that Rule :, as the above- f aid 
 Author has fully provd. That is, becaufe 
 Chrift laid the Foundation of the Church 
 by Preaching only ; and did not command 
 
 * P, 41. f #M. H ttuL 
 
 his
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion^ &c. 115 
 
 his Apoflles to write j and becaufe They 
 preach'd before they wrote; and if they had 
 never written at all, but deliver'd their Do- 
 ctrine only by Word of Mouth, we had 
 been bound to receive it : THEREFORE the 
 Scriptures are fo far^ &c. This Covfe- 
 qiience confifts of two Branches, ift. That 
 the Scriptures are not the whole necejjary 
 Rule of Faith. 2dly. That they are not 
 (abfolutely fpeaking) fo much as a ncceffa- 
 ry Tart of it. As to the Firfl ; Does it 
 follow^ that becaufe our Saviour and his A- 
 poftles ^/WThus or Thus, and might haze done 
 Thus or Thus, and if they had^ we had been 
 oblig'd to do Thus or Thus, as above recited \ 
 Therefore They have fo proceeded, as that in 
 Faff, the Scriptures are not the whole neceflfa- 
 ry Rule of Faith ? We fay, that tho' Chrift 
 founded the Gofpel by preaching only , tho* 
 we fliould grant, as we do not, that he ne 
 ver commanded his Apoftbs to write \ tho* 
 They preach'd before they wrote ; and if 
 they had delivered their Doctrine by Word 
 of Mouth only, we Ihould have been obliged 
 to receive it as God's Word ; provided we 
 could prove This or That Do&rine to have 
 been deliver'd by them : Yet New* as Things 
 ftand, there is actually no Part of the Rule 
 of Faith, but in the Scripture. Let our 
 Adverfaries prove there is any other ; and 
 fhew us what it is , and where it is : 
 And they will do their Bufmsf$ effe&ually. 
 I 2 But
 
 1 16 An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 But it can never be made out by fo inconfe- 
 quent a Confequence as This is. The Se- 
 cond Branch of the Confequence is, That 
 the Scriptures are not (alifolutely f peaking) 
 even a necejjary Tart of the Rtite of Faith. 
 What means he by abjblutely fpeaking ? Are 
 they fo in faffy and as Things now ft and ^ 
 or are they not ? He afterwards grants they 
 are > and I will not cavil. The Meaning 
 therefore feems to be, tho' 'tis llrangely 
 exprefs'd, that it is not in the Reafon, and 
 Nature of I/rings, effentially, and abfohite- 
 ly neceffary, that even a Tart of the Rule 
 of Faith mould be committed to Writing ; 
 becaufe it might have been, (tho' in faci 
 he grants it is not) all delivered by Word of 
 Month. It might indeed : But it would have 
 been ufelefs, if it had ; for any confiderable 
 lime^ I mean ; or at any confiderable di- 
 ftance of 'Place from the Speakers. It might 
 be truly deliver'd to a few Perfons by Word 
 of Mouth only j but not to Millions of Mil- 
 lions j not for 1700 Years; not all the 
 World over. Yet our Author infifts, that * 
 all neceffary Joints of reveatd Faith could 
 have been fafely convey d to Us, tho the 
 New Teftament had never been writ. For 
 This A(fcrtion he gives no Reafon ; unlefs 
 his own further Aflertions of the fame Thing 
 
 4*.
 
 Entitled, England'^ Conver/toty Sec. 1 1 7 
 
 may pafs for Reafons. t The Creed could 
 have been remember d in all Ages^ &c. All 
 neceflary Taints might have been reduced to 
 fo jmall # Compajs^ that they might have 
 been tranfmitted to the mqft diftant Ages^ 
 with the fame Safety as the Creed it jelf\ 
 by Tradition only. And the faithful might 
 have prefer d them in their Hearts and 
 Minds^ tho they had never had thofe far- 
 ther Lights which the New T.eflament now 
 ftirniffies them with. All this is fairly [aid ; 
 but how is \tprovd2 On the contrary, I appeal 
 to the common Senfe and Experience of Man- 
 kind, whether the Thing be not morally im~ 
 pojfible. \ have juft now given my Reafons j 
 and fhall not repeat them. But I have fome- 
 thing to add here ; which is, That I doubt 
 our Author's Dotftrine borders upon Biafphe- 
 my ; or rather is fo. The Scriptures are 
 dilated by God ; and, according to his Ac- 
 count, are, as to all neceffary Points, fuper- 
 fluous. Does not doing Things fuperfluous 
 argue Weaknefs, and Want of Wifdom ? 
 Whatever therefore our Author's above-faid 
 Atithor is pretended to have fully provd\ 
 it appears from what I have Here, tho' very 
 Briefly, alledg'd, that he neither has prov'd, 
 nor can prove, the Point propos'd ; unlefs he 
 can fhew that Nonfcnfe is agreeable to btt- 
 
 man
 
 1 1 8 An ANSWER to a popi/b 
 
 man Re a f on, and Blafphemy to the Cbri- 
 Jiian Religion. 
 
 * However, as Trovidence has order d 
 'things, the Holy Scriptures^ he is pleas'd to 
 grant, are without all *Difpute a moft in- 
 eftimable Treafure, and an Infallible Rule 
 of Faith > WHEN RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD. 
 That Laft was well put in : To infmuate 
 that they are fo obfcure as not to be intelli- 
 gible to private Perfons , that for the right 
 Underftanding of them, we are wholly ob- 
 liged to the Church $ and are to acquiefce 
 in her Interpretations of them, tho' never fo 
 contrary to their plain Meaning. This is 
 the known Doctrine of the Romanifts ; and, 
 notwithftanding This forc'd Compliment 
 upon the Scriptures, it quite evacuates Thofe 
 facred Writings, and makes them no Rule 
 at all. f But that they are not the whole 
 Rule cj- Faith, and that unwritten dpoftoli- 
 cal Traditions haze ALWAYS been at leaft a 
 necejfary Tart of this Rule, may, He affirms, 
 be clearly made cut. And he accordingly 
 fets himfelf to make it out, both from Scrip- 
 jure, and the Writings of the Fathers. 
 
 His Proofs from Scripture are, according 
 to Cuftom, quite bejide the Queftion ; prove 
 nothing but what Nobody denies ; and are no- 
 thing at all to the Tttrpofe. He obferves $ 
 
 Ibid. f iZfo 
 
 Tirfr,
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, Sec. 1 1 9 
 
 Firft, that * It (the Scripture) no where de- 
 clares that all the particular ^Points of the 
 Chriftian 'Doctrine, which the Jpoftles 
 taught by Word of Mouthy are exprefsdin 
 their Canonical Writings. What if it does 
 not declare fo ? Our own Reafon tells us 
 that nothing is to be receiv'd by us, as the 
 Word of God, but what we can prove to be 
 fuch : And That is fufficient. Does it* any 
 where declare that It f elf is inefficient ? Or 
 that any thing unwritten is to be receivd 
 as God's Word throughout all ^ges ? Yes j 
 if we will take things as our Author repre- 
 fcnts them., without any Examination. For 
 he proceeds Thus. I! It ever and above recom- 
 mends Jpoftolical 'Traditions^ in the mofl 
 exprefs and pofitive T!erms. Who denies 
 dpoftolical traditions? He fets out with 
 his ufual {tumbling, and miftakes the Que- 
 fh'on in the Firft Words. He himfelf, but 
 five Lines before, propos'd to prove that 
 Scripture is not the whole 'R.ule^ and that 
 unwritten Jpoflolical traditions have AL- 
 WAYS been a necejjary Tart of it. Now he 
 is proving that the Scripture recommends 
 Jppflolical Traditions j and in truth, his al- 
 ledg'd Texts will prove no more. But what is 
 This to the Point ? Who doubts but that there 
 were Apoftolical Traditions, even by Word 
 
 Ibid, f Ibid. || Ibid. 
 
 I 4
 
 no An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 of Mouth, in the Times of the Apoftles ? 
 There are fome Apoflolical Traditions Now $ 
 The Scriptures are fuch. There may now 
 be fome which are not in the Scriptures, re- 
 lating to Difcipline, and Order, tho' not to 
 Points of Faith : And could it be frovd to 
 us, that there are any relating even to Points 
 of Faith ; we would certainly receive them. 
 But is This the fame Thing as to fay, that 
 the Scriptures are not NOW the whole Rule 
 of faith \ but that unwritten Apoftolical 
 traditions have been ALWAYS a neceffary 
 *Part of it ? Or does the one follow from the 
 other by any thing like a Confequence ? To 
 fliew I do not wrong our Author, I will pro- 
 duce his Proofs at large j diftinguifhing the 
 jEmphatical Words, as He does. * Now I 
 praife you Brethren y (fays St. Paul, i Cor. 
 xi. 2.) becauje you remember me in all things ^ 
 and keep the Traditions as I have deliver d 
 them to you. And again^ 2 Thef. ii. 15. 
 therefore., Brethren^ ft and f aft ^ and hold 
 the traditions., which yott, have been taught, 
 whether by WORD, or by our Epiftle. And 
 focn after., ^ Thef. iii. 6. Now we command 
 you, ^Brethren, in the Name of our Lord 
 Jefus Cbrifti to withdraw yourfelves from 
 every "Brother that walks diforderiy, and 
 not after the Tradition which ye receivd of 
 
 * Ibid. and jf, 43*, 
 
 Us.
 
 Entitle ^England'j Conversion, See. ni 
 
 Us. To Thefe three Texts, the Anfwcr is 
 the fame ; and has been given already. It 
 does not follow, that becaufe the Apoftles 
 deliver'd their Do&rines by Speaking., as well 
 as Writing^ and it ought to be recejv'd either 
 way, when known to be their Dodrine 5 
 which is all Thefe Texts prove, and which 
 Nobody denies $ therefore the Scriptures are 
 not Now fufficient, but Traditions are ne- 
 ceffary. Our Author fays nothing of his 
 own, to reinforce his Argument ; but quotes 
 * a 'Proteftant Author of a Book entitled 
 tradition neceffary : Who fays, Here we 
 fee plain Mention of St. Paul's Traditions, 
 conjequently of jlpoftolical Traditions deli-* 
 verd by Word of Mouth > as well as by E- 
 piftleS) or in Writing - 3 and a Condemnation 
 of thofe who do not equally obfer-ve both- 
 This Trotejiant Author, whoever he be, for 
 I know him not, fpeaks a little inaccurate* 
 ly : But I fee no Reafon, why our Topi/h 
 Author Ihould cite Thefe Words as favou- 
 ring his Caufe,- or fuppofe the Writer of 
 them to be, upon This Conceffion, in danger 
 t of falling tinder that Condemnation for 
 continuing a Proteftant in This, or any o- 
 ther Article. Becaufe we do not rejedt any 
 Jlpoftolical Tradition : Had we liv'd in the 
 Apoftles' Times, we would havereceiv'd the 
 
 * P. 43. t
 
 An ANSWER to a 
 
 oral ones as of equal Authority with the 
 written ones ; and are now as ready to re- 
 ceive any of the former Kind as of the lat- 
 ter, if They are provd to be really Apofto- 
 licaL But He has more Proofs behind- * this 
 however is certain that the Apoflles were ex- 
 tremely vigilant in giving full Inft ructions to 
 Thofe they ordaind- y that they might alfo be 
 able to inftruft other s. Doubtlefs. But what 
 folemn Trifling is This ? And whither tends 
 it ? Why, f Tbeje Inftnickions are the facred 
 depofitum, of which St. Paul fays to Timo- 
 thy, keep T^hat which is committed to thy 
 Iruft. i Tim. vi. 20. limothy was to keep 
 That which was committed to his Trufl ,- 
 Therefore OUR Rule of Faith is both Scrip- 
 ture y and oral Tradition. Had there been 
 any Mention of Tradition ; even Then it had 
 been nothing to the Purpofe, for the Rea- 
 fons aforefaid : But here is really no Mention 
 of it. And again j hold faft the form of 
 found Words y which thou haft HEARD of 'me ; 
 That goodTruft which was committed to 
 thee^ ' keep ly the holy Ghoft, which dwelleth 
 in us. ^ Tim. xiii. 14. And more fully > 
 (how much more fully ', I defire the Reader 
 to obferve) the things which thou haft 
 HEARD from me, before many Witnejfes y the 
 fame commit thou to faithful Men > who may 
 
 Ibid, t &*. * /*i 
 
 fa
 
 ) Sec. 11$ 
 
 be able to teach others alfo. ^ Tim. ii. 2. 
 In fhort, timothy had HEARD Things from 
 St. Tatily and was to preferve inviolate, 
 and faithfully to deliver to other Teachers, 
 \vhat he had HEARD, that they might be 
 able to teach others ; Ergo> OUR Rule of 
 Faith is both Scripture, and oYal Tradition. 
 And is not This an Admirable Confequence ? 
 'Ihe form of found Words what timothy 
 had heard, and all Points of Faith, which 
 at Jirft were only fpoken, were afterwards 
 written, and are now contained in Scripture. 
 Or, in another and perhaps plainer Way 
 of fpeaking, there is now no Word of God, 
 but what is in Scripture. If I am ask'd, how 
 We prove That : I anfwer, \ft. We are not 
 bound to prove it ; but our Adverfaries are 
 bound to prove the Contrary. We and They 
 agree in receiving the Scriptures as the Word 
 of God : But then They fay, fome thing 
 elfe is the Word of God, befide Scripture, 
 We reply, non conftat : Let them prove any 
 Doctrine, or Tradition, not contain a in Scrip- 
 ture, to be the Word of God ^ and We will 
 embrace it as fuch. Not but that, ^dl}\ We 
 can prove our AfTertion from Scripture itfelf, 
 which They acknowledge to be the Word of 
 God. I mean from Thofe Texts which de^ 
 clare the Sufficiency of Scripture i Particu- 
 larly, 2 Tim. iii. 15, 16, 17. For if the 
 Scripture be fufficient, it muft contain the 
 whole Word of God j and if fo, our Advsr-t 
 
 furies
 
 U4- An ANSWER f* a Topifh 
 
 faries thcmfelves will acknowledge there is 
 no Word of God any where elfe. 
 
 What our Author adds as from his above- 
 vnent ion d Trot eft ant Writer., (how truly he 
 has quoted. He beft knows) does indeed 
 favour the Caufe he is defending ; and fo I 
 ftiall confider it, as if it were his own. * 
 Ihus it is evident from Scriptures them- 
 felves^ that tbe WHOLE of Chriflianity was 
 at frjt deliver d to the ISifhops fucceeding 
 tbe Apoftles by oral Tradition; and they 
 were alfo commanded to keep />, and deli- 
 ver it to their SticceJJbrs in the fame manner. 
 Is there one Word about the WHOLE of 
 Chriftianity in the Texts alledg'd ? Let 
 the Reader look upon them again. Does 
 oral Tradition exclude Writing? And be- 
 caufe fome things were deliver'd by Word 
 of Mouth to the Biihops fucceeding the 
 Apoftles, does it follow that all were fo ? 
 Did not the Apoftles write the Gofpel, as 
 \vell as preach it ? And were not their 
 Writings of at leaft as mmb Ufe, as their 
 verbal Inftru&ions ? According to This Man's 
 Account, one would think the Apoftles had 
 told their SuccefTors, that though 'tis true 
 They had written the Gofpel ; yet it was no 
 Matter whether They took any Notice of 
 it, or not. That yhefe Succeffors were
 
 W/Z,Englandv Converfion, Sec- 115 
 
 to deliver the whole of Chriftianity^ or in- 
 deed any Part of it, to their Succeffors in 
 The fame manner, that is, by Word of 
 Mouth, there is nt>t the leaft Hint of Evi- 
 dence : For does it follow, that becaufe 2Y- 
 mothy was to commit to others what he had 
 heard) therefore he muft needs do it by 
 fpeaking ? Could he not deliver down the 
 Writings of the Apoftles, in which were 
 contain'd all Points of Faith, which he had 
 heard-, tho' they were not all written, when 
 he heard them ? But the Troteftant, or To- 
 pijb, Writer proceeds. * Nor is it any where 
 found in Scripture by St. Paul, or any other 
 of the Apoftles^ that they would either 
 jointly ', or Separately ^ write down all that 
 they had taught as necejjary to Salvation ; 
 or that they would make juch a complcat 
 Canon of them^ that nothing Jhould be necef- 
 fary to Salvation^ but what fhould be found 
 in thofe Writings. FOUND in Scripture by 
 St. Paul, cJr? I fuppofe he would fay, 
 afferted j or fome fuch Word. But what if 
 it be not found in Scripture ? 'Tis found in 
 Common Senfe, (which is the Gift of God 
 as well as Scripture,) that nothing is necef- 
 fary to Salvation but what God makes fo ; 
 and that we ought to receive nothing as the 
 Word of God, but what is provd to be fuch. 
 Our Author's Proofs from the f fathers 
 
 * P. /ML t P. 44, 45- 
 
 were
 
 n6 An ANSWER to a Topfo Book, 
 
 were colle&ed to his hand in their renowned 
 Nubes leftiwn : And the Confutation of 
 them is as ready made to Mine, in an An- 
 f\ver to That in famous Heap of falfe and im- 
 pertinent Quotations, printed at London for 
 Henry Mtrtlock in 1688. ?. 36, Chap. 
 iii. Concerning tradition : To which I refer 
 the Reader. * The pretended Proof from 
 St. Cbryjoftom is anfwerd,'. . 41. That 
 from St.* fiafil, <P. 40. Thofe from Epipba- 
 niusy 7 > . 41. That from Tcmtlliany < P. 40. 
 That from IrenotuSy f P. 3 6, 38,39, 40. As to 
 the four Firft, the Sum is This: The Tra- 
 ditions They fpeak of, relate either to the 
 fifties of the dpoftles, or to Matters of 
 Tra&icey Rites, and Tfifciptint in the 
 Church, nor to Points of Faith $ and there- 
 fore are nothing to our Purpofe : Thofe ve- 
 ry Father:-, in other Places, averting the Suf- 
 ficiency and fullnefs of the Scriptures for 
 all things neceflfary to Salvation. Upon I- 
 rentus I fhall be more particular j becaufe 
 what is faid of the Quotation from Him by 
 the Writer to whom I refer, may very well 
 admit of a Supplement, t 2ou may have 
 Truth, fays That Father, as he is quoted, 
 and tranflated by our Author, from tbe 
 
 * See alfo a Book entitled < fbe Primitive Fathers no Pa- 
 s ; in Anfwer to the Vindication of Nubcs Teftium* P 
 
 ' 8*. 
 t IML 
 
 Cburcb }
 
 Entitled, England' j Converjlon^&c. 127 
 
 Church ; witb t which the Jpoftles have de- 
 fofited all Truth. But what has This to 
 do with unwritten Tradition ? The Apoftles 
 depofited the Scriptures with the Church ; 
 and the CreeJ> fo far as it went : And in 
 them are contained all Truth. * We muft 
 learn from Her the Tradition of Faith. 
 I anfwer, ift. This is wrong tranflated : In 
 Irentus 'tis f the Tradition of Truth, idly- 
 Suppofing the Word Faitb had been here 
 us'd ; We have it from the Church, by ha- 
 ving it from the Scriptures, which are depo- 
 fited with her : Thofe Scriptures being, 
 moreover, interpreted, in doubtful and dif- 
 ficult Points, by truly Catholick Tradition $ 
 that is, by the Consent of the Univerfal 
 Church in all Ages j or, by the Confeffion 
 of all Parties, the pur eft Ages. And This 
 We Proteftants heartily Embrace. Befides ; 
 many things might be faid of the Churchy 
 and Tradition, in Ifen<tus Time? who 
 liv'd in the next Age to That of the A- 
 poftles ; which will by no means quadrate 
 with our prefent Circumftances. II For if the 
 *Difpute were of any little Matter $ Jhould 
 we not consult the moft antient Churches^ 
 and derive our Evidence from 1 hence c Yes 5 
 But what is This to Toints of Faith deli- 
 
 * Ibid. | Traditiwem Verltatis, Lib, iii. Chap. 4. P* 
 
 205. Edit. Grabian. || Ibid. 
 
 verd
 
 ia8 An ANSWER to a, Topi/b Book, 
 
 ver'd by oral Tradition only ? when here is 
 no Mention o Points of Faith (for fure they 
 are not little Matters) or of oral 1r adit ion. 
 I obferve too, that our Author leaves out a 
 Material Ciaufe : Iren<eu$ fays in antiquijjl- 
 mas recur rere Ecclefias, IN Q.UIBUS APOS- 
 TOLI CONVERSATI SUNT. By which laft 
 Words, which are here omitted. He lays 
 the Strefs of his Argument upon the Au- 
 thority of the Apoftlesy not of the Church^ 
 or of her traditions. * And what if the 
 Apoflles had left us no Scriptures , muft we 
 not follow the Rule of Tradition entrufted 
 with them, to whom they left their Sees ? 
 Tho' feverai Words are here again wrong 
 tranflated $ yet to let That pafs, and take the 
 Whole as our Author gives it us : I anfwer 
 i ft. It makes againft him : For it implies that 
 fincc the Apoftles have left us Scriptures, 
 we ought to be guided by Them. And if 
 he reply They have left us oral "Traditions 
 likewife j I anfwer, idly. Let him prove 
 lhat NOW, as Ircntens fuppofes the Tra- 
 dition He fpeaks of, could have been provd 
 to be Theirs THEN - y and he will fay fome- 
 thing to the Purpofe, otherwife Not. f As 
 many barbarous Nations , without any JSooks 
 of Scripture^ jet believing in Chrift have 
 Salvation written in their Hearts by the 
 
 * out. | IM. 
 
 Holy
 
 , England'/ ConverJlon^Scc. 129 
 
 Holy Gbqft, and carefully preferve the old 
 traditions. I anfwer, iff. We have over 
 and over granted, that a Peopie may be 
 converted by Word of Mouth only ; and 
 preferve the Chriftian Doctrine, without 
 Books, for a little time, but not for many 
 Ages. idly. Here again. We anfwer as ot- 
 ten Before : Thofe of whom This Father 
 fpeaks, had fufficient Evidence that the Tra- 
 ditions were genuine : Let the Papifts give 
 us fufficient Evidence that Theirs are fo 5 
 and we will receive them. 
 
 Upon the Whole, Iren<us (as the above- 
 named Writer fhews in the Places referred 
 to) condemns Thofe Hereticks, who calumni- 
 ated the Scriptures^ and defended their 
 'Errors by oral tradition. The Tradition 
 he Himfelf fpeaks of, is what the Jtpoftles 
 had preactid ; and what they preaclod, he 
 fays they afterwards committed to writing. 
 In the firft Chapter of this very Book, from 
 which our Author makes his Quotation, 
 He has Thefe Words. * We have the Know- 
 ledge of the Oeccnomy of our Salvation by 
 no Others than Ihofe, by whom the Gofpel 
 came to tis. Which Gofpel THEN indeed they 
 
 * Non enim per alios Difpofiticnem Salutis noftrse 
 cognovimus, quam per eos per quos Evangelium pervenic 
 ad nos ; Quod quidem tune prsconiaverunt ; poftea /ero per 
 Dei voltmtarem in Scripturis nobis tradiderunt, fundamentum 
 et cohimnam Fidei coftras ftitarum. Lib. 3. Chap. i. P. 198. 
 Edit. Grab. 
 
 K, preached.
 
 1 30 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 preached* but AFTERWARDS ty the Will OF 
 GOD, they deliver d it to us in the SCRIP- 
 TURES, that IT might be the FOUNDATION, 
 find PILLAR of our FAITH. Iren<eus there- 
 fore is fo far from favouring the Popifh 
 Caufc in this Points that he is expreffly, 
 and directly againft it. 
 
 * G. Sir, Ton have here produced the 
 clear leftimonies both of Scriptures, and the 
 ancient Fathers for Apoftolical traditions. 
 How clear his Teftimonies are both from 
 Scripture^ and Fathers^ to prove the only 
 Thing which he ought to prove, we have 
 throughly confider'd : As for Apoftolical Tra- 
 ditions^ I know Nobody among Us that 
 denies the Authority of them, \ But can 
 you give me any particular Inftances of ne- 
 cejjary TtutieS) or Articles ofChriftian Faith, 
 allow d for fuch by Trot eft ants themfelves, 
 which cannot be provdfrom Scriptures, and 
 are grounded wholly upon Apoftolical Tra- 
 ditions ? We tell them again, and again, 
 We are ready to acknowledge any <Duty as 
 neceffary^ any ?Do$rine as an Article of Faith j 
 if it be provd to be fo by Apoftolical Tra- 
 dition truly fuch. And therefore the Argu- 
 ment contained in the Anfwer to This Quef- 
 tion, tending to prove us incoherent with our- 
 fekes, for receiving fome Apoftolical Tra- 
 
 ditions,
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, &c. 131 
 
 ditions, and reje&ing others., is impertinent, 
 and goes upon a falfe Suppodtion. Howe- 
 ver, tho' 'tis more than I am oblig'd to, 
 I will examine it particularly. 
 
 * P. / could produce a considerable lum- 
 ber ; but to avoid being tedious, Ifhall make 
 choice only of three -, allot d of, as you de- 
 fa -e, by Trot eft ants themfekes. ift. *fbe Ob- 
 ftrvance of the Cbriftian Sabbath againft 
 Jews, and Sabbatarians. 2dly. The Vali- 
 dity of Infant-'Baptifm againft Anabaptifts. 
 3dly. *be Validity of Baptifm adminifter'd 
 by Hereticks againft the ^Donatifts, &c. I an- 
 fwer, 17?. 'Tis falfe, to fay that Proteflants 
 acknowledge any one of Thefe to be an 
 Article of Faith. He is Here in the fame 
 Mittake., or Mifreprefentation, before taken 
 notice of P. 29. The laft of Them is fo far 
 from being an Article of Faith ; that 'tis 
 not a certain Truth. This Author himfelf 
 owns it was a Stibjeffi of ^Difpute between 
 St. Cyprian y and Pope Stephen-, And we 
 all know St. Cyprian liv'd and dy'd in the 
 Opinion that jucb Baptifm was invalid. 
 And did That eminent Saint, and Martyr, 
 a Saint in the Church of Rome's Account, 
 as well as Ours, live and dye in the De- 
 nial of an Article of Faith > If he did ; he 
 was the Strangeft Saint, and Martyr I e- 
 
 ibid, t P. 47. 
 
 K. a; ver
 
 ij* An AKSWERfaa Topifb Book, 
 
 ver heard of. But of This more in its place. 
 zdfy. The Obfervance of the Chriftian Sab- 
 bath, as a ueceffary jD/j, is founded partly 
 upon the Equity of the fourth Commandment, 
 obliging us to keep holy one day out of fe- 
 ven ; partly upon the Example of the ^poftles 
 recorded in Scripture, (and therefore upon 
 Scripture itfelf) changing the feventh Day 
 of the Week to the Firft. This therefore is 
 a neceffary Ttufy ; but it Is founded upon Scrip- 
 ttire. And fo, in the next place, is the J^a- 
 lidhy of Infant-ftaptijm ; tho' there be not 
 any plain Text for it, if by a plain one he 
 means a Text directly, and exprefly affert- 
 ing it. But is nothing to be frova from 
 Scripture, but what is exprefly ajjerted in 
 it^ What will become of the Church of 
 Homes Infallibility ? Our Saviour inftituted 
 %aptijm in the Room of Circumc ijion - 3 and 
 Infants were circumcifcd. He commanded 
 his Apoftles to baptize all Nations ; and 
 in Them Children are included. The A- 
 poftles baptized whole Families ; and of Fa- 
 milies Children are a necelTary Part. If it 
 be faid They could not be included, be- 
 caufo they are not capable of Baptifm ; I 
 anfwer, they are as capable of Baptifm as 
 of Circumcifion. Our Saviour commanded 
 Children to be brought to him, I aid his hands 
 upon them^ blejjed them^ and declared 
 that the Kingdom of Heaven belongs to 
 them. And St. 2 '^//pronounces them holy.
 
 Entitled, England'j 1 Confer fiou, Sec. 13$ 
 
 * It is evident from Scripture therefore that 
 they are capable of Baptifm; and confe- 
 quently that if other Circumftances be right, 
 which is here fuppos'd on all Sides, their 
 Baptifm is valid. But ^dly. Supnofc we 
 had nothing but extra-fcriptural Jpofttficai 
 tradition for Thefe two Points -, ft ill it is 
 true Apoftolical Tradition : Let the Pa- 
 pifts froze theirs to be fo , as I have often 
 faid. 
 
 And the fame I thus far f-iy of the Va- 
 lidity of the 'Baptifm adminifterd by Here- 
 ticks. IF it be prov'd by true Apoftolicaf 
 Tradition ; Well, and Good > We receive 
 it : Nay, we will embrace it as an Article 
 of Faith ; if it be iliewn, that the Apoftles 
 made it fo. The Scripture indeed fays no- 
 thing about itj nor Apoftolical Tradition 
 neither, as I know of. And yet it may be 
 true^ for all that, f It was^ fays our Au- 
 thor, tbe Sub) eft of the Tlifpute between St* 
 Cyprian, and Tope Stephen - y and afterwards 
 between the Donatifts, and the Cathollck 
 Church. 'But St. Auftin who drew his learn- 
 ed Ten in defence of the Cathclick Caufe a-< 
 gainfl Thofe Hereticks, &c. The T)onatifts 
 were not Hereticks, nor fo accounted by 
 the Catholick Church, for denying the 7^7- 
 lidity of thofe Baptifms > for St. Cyprian 
 
 J Cor. 7. 14. | P. 47- 
 
 K 3 was
 
 ij4- -4 ANSWER ^ a <Popi/h Book, 
 
 was of the fame Opinion ^ and I hope He 
 was no Heretick. But as the Novatians y 
 with whom St. Cyprian himfelf had fuch a 
 ftruggle, were not deem'd Heretick s and 
 Schifmaticks for their Opinion againftreftoring 
 the Laps' dto the Communion of the Church - y 
 fo neither were the T>onatifts afterwards for 
 their Opinion above-men tion'd : But Botb were 
 efteem'd Hereticks and Schifmaticks by the 
 Church, partly for being like the Tapifts^ 
 that is, for calling their own Faction the only 
 Church^ and making all the World Hereticks, 
 and Schifmaticks, except themfehes. For my 
 part, I wonder at the Confidence of a Papift in 
 talking of the Herefy and Schifm of the 
 'DonattftSy or Novatians } Thofe Ancient 
 Pefts of the Church fo exa&ly refembling 
 Tliefe modern ones in This particular. St. 
 Juftin^ however, * frankly cwnd, it feems, 
 that It [the Validity of Heretical Baptifm] 
 could not be decided by Scripture. But that 
 after the T)eath of St. Cyprian, the Churcb 
 had interposd her Authority in the Coun- 
 cil of Aries, and determined the matter by 
 the Infallible Rtile of Apoftolical Tradition* 
 St. Auftin's Words are remarkable* Ofthis y 
 fays he, the Jtpofttes have left us no f Di- 
 rettion in Writing* 'Eut the Cuftom which 
 was objected againft St. CYPRIAN MUST BE 
 
 BELIEVFD TO HAVE BEGUN BY TRADITION 
 
 FROM THEM. As there are many Ibings 
 
 * ibid.' 
 
 which
 
 Entitled, England'.; Conversion, Sec. I ? 5 
 which are held by the Whole Church^ and 
 are therefore rightly believd to have been or- 
 der d by the Apoftles^ ALTHO' THEY BE NOT 
 FOUND IN SCRIPTURE. /. 5. de bapt. contra 
 Don. c. 23. 1 have tranfcrib'd ail our Au- 
 thor's Capital Letters - y that 1 might give 
 every thing the full Strcfs he lays upon it. 
 Tho I cannot find in This PafTage, or any 
 Place near it, or any other part of St. Au- 
 gtiftins Works, the Council of Aries men- 
 tioned by Name, or Thofo Words the In- 
 fallible Rule of Apoftolical Tradition > tho' 
 St. Cyprians Judgment, for ought I knew, 
 may be as confiderable as St- Auguftiri^ 
 and the Authority of the Council of Aries 
 not fuperior to That of two more ancient 
 ones at Carthage^ which determin'd the 
 Contrary ; and laftly, tho' 'tis a mere gratis 
 dtftum of St. Align/tin's.) that the Cuftom 
 he fpeaks of MUST BE BFLIEVED, &c. yet wa- 
 ving all This ; St. Juguftin here aflerts no- 
 thing, to our prefent Purpofe, but that A- 
 poftolical Traditions are to be received, un- 
 doubtedly meaning tme y not falfe ones ; 
 and that we ought to acknowledge fome 
 things not only as true, but as deriv'd from 
 the Apoftles, tho 1 they be not found in Scrip- 
 ture. And who among Us denies either of 
 Thefe Proportions ? Do We rejecl: either 
 the Traditions of the Apoftles, or the Cuf- 
 toms and Practices of the Primitive, and 
 Univerfal Church ? Do we not prove Epifco- 
 K4
 
 136 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 pacy, for inftance, to be of Apojlolical Infti- 
 tution, by the Teftimony and conftant 
 Practice of the Church, from the Days of 
 the Apoftles, down to our own ? Sure This 
 Author forgets he is writing againft the 
 Church of England - 3 and thinks he has to 
 do with EnthiifiaftS) and Fanaticks. 
 
 * He will needs have it, that ourDo&rine 
 is different from This of St- Auguftin^ be- 
 caufe we declare in our 6th Article that 
 Scripture contains all things necejjary to Sal- 
 vation., and that nothing is an Article of 
 Faith., but what may be prov'd from thence. 
 But St- Auguflin., as we have feen, fays no- 
 thing Here about Articles of Faith ; nor 
 any thing elfe but what we acknowledge. 
 Does it follow, that becaufe innumerable 
 things are trtie., and fome Apoftolical, which 
 are not in Scripture j therefore there are Ar- 
 ticles of Faith) which are not in Scripture ? 
 
 The Young Gentleman goes farther $ and 
 is jure that the Church ^/"England, by That 
 ^Doffirine of the 6th Article is incoherent 
 with herfelf. \\ For does She not^ fays he, 
 require of any man (I fuppofe it ihould 
 be, every man) to believe the indifpenfitte 
 Obligation of the Chriftian Sabbath ? And 
 where is that read in Scripture., or how can 
 it be provd thereby ? I have {hewn how it 
 thereby- P- 132. * Again^ does 
 
 Ml f /<* II P. 45. t IM.
 
 'j Converfiov, Sec. 1 3 7 
 
 She not require of all true Trot eft ants to be- 
 lieve the Validity of Infant-'Eaptijm ? Not 
 as I know of : She fuppofes it to be true^ if 
 he pleafes ; She ajjerts, that Infants may be, 
 and ought to he baptiz'd ; and requires that 
 her Minifters (not all true Trot eft ants} fub- 
 fcribe to this Aflfertion, among many others ; 
 not one in ten of which is, or is pretended 
 to be, an Article of Faith. Not but that 
 the Validity of Infant* % apt t/m is clearly ^ 
 and plainly to be proved from Scripture ; as 
 I have fhewn P. 132. &c- * And^does She not 
 reqtiire all true Troteftants to believe] that 
 nts Sacrament is validly adminiftcrd by 
 Hereticks ? No, She does not j Nor did any 
 Church upon Earth Qunlefs the Church of 
 Rome does) ever dream that it was an Ar- 
 ticle of Faith) or the Belief of it necejjary to 
 Salvation, f Or does She require of them to 
 believe both the cne^ and the other ^ without 
 judging the Belief of them neceffary to Salva- 
 tion ? T'hat would be ft range indeed. She 
 requires nothing, as to this Matter, but that 
 (ail her Members being fupposd to believe 
 all the Articles of the Chriiiian Faith} her 
 Minifters^ for the Prefervation of Unity, 
 fhould fubfcribe not only to T'hcm^ but to 
 many other Articles, which She believes to 
 be true.> tho' the Belief of them is not necef* 
 
 f #
 
 i j8 An ANSWER to a Top/b 
 
 fary to Salvation, (for every thing that is 
 trne y is not an Article of faith) and chari- 
 tably hopes, that None admitted to her 
 Miniftry will profefs them, unlefs Ihey like- 
 wife believe them. And where is the mighty 
 Strangenefs of This ? She does not, by her 
 own Authority, require any body to believe 
 any thing ; tho' She requires certain parti- 
 cular Perfons to profefs their Belief 'of fome 
 Things, //they do believe them : Or, in 
 plainer Words, She does not require any 
 body to -believe any thing, becaufe She fays 
 it. That belongs to the Church of Rome y 
 not to Her. 
 
 * The Preceptor charges us with another 
 remarkable Incoherency^ (They are Both very 
 liberal of their Incoherences) in the fame 
 6th Article. For, fays he, it goes on thus. 
 4C *By holy Scriptures we underftand thofe 
 " Canonical Books of the old and new Tef- 
 <c tament) of who fe Authority was never any 
 " 'Doubt in the CHURCH. " Now I f re fume 
 the c Bdiefofthe Canonical Sooks, both of 
 the Old and New T'eftament^ is required 
 y the Church of England, as an Article 
 of faith neceffary to Salvation. Enough 
 having been faid of the Word require in the 
 foregoing Paragraph ; I anfwer, \ft. That 
 the Scriptures are of divine Infpiration, is 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 not
 
 on, Sec. 139 
 
 not an. Article of Faith aslhavefhewn above; 
 nor does the Church of England fay it is ; 
 Tho', 'zd/y. To believe that the Old and 
 New T^eflament are, in general, or in the 
 main,, the Word of God, is ordinarily r , and 
 ftatedly 9 neceffary to Salvation, in a Chriftiati 
 Country j and the Church of England fup- 
 pofes fo. Becaufe, ordinarily fpeaking, it 
 is previous and preparatory to all Articles 
 of the Chriftian Faith, and all Duties of the 
 Chriftian Religion : And the Fad itfelf, that 
 they are the Word of God, is eafy to be 
 proved. Nor does This imply any thing inco- 
 herent with the Jixth Article of our Church ; 
 Becaufe That Article by its very Title [of the 
 Sufficiency of Holy Scriptures for Salvation} 
 manifeftly prcfuppofes the Belief of their be- 
 ing the Word of God > and therefore when 
 She fays they contain all things neceffary to 
 Salvation, This Point is manifeftly cxceptedi 
 Efpecially confidering that She joins thofe 
 Words neceffary to Salvation with Articles 
 of Faith, which is remarkable : And 
 This Point is not an Article of Faith j as 
 Before obferv'd. idly* Tho' the Church of 
 England upon good Evidence receives all 
 thofe Books, &c. as Canonical ; yet She no 
 where fays, that it is neceffary to Salvation^ 
 to receive every one of them as fuch. In- 
 deed, according to our Author, She muft 
 fay fo j * Unlcfs She will allow Salvation 
 
 to
 
 "140 An ANSWER^ a 
 
 to Terfons who deny any part of the Word of 
 God> when it is declard to them that it is 
 the Word of God by fufficient Authority. In- 
 ftead of, when it is declard^ &c. by fujfc- 
 cient Authority^ put, when it is provd by 
 fufficient Evidence, and the Perfons them- 
 felves are, or ought to be, convinced by it ; 
 put it fo, I fay ,- and the Church of England 
 will certainly not allow Salvation, in the or- 
 dinary Way, to fuch Perfons : Yet She may, very 
 confidently withherfelf 3 not abfoluteiy damn 
 all thofe, to whom, without their Fault, 
 That Evidence may not appear, and who' 
 therefore are not convinced by it. * And yet 
 (continues He) the above-faid Article refers 
 its to the Jitdgment of the Church ', and not 
 to Scrifttires them fekes (which indeed would 
 be abjurd) to learn what Books are Canoni- 
 cal. So it may, without any Inconftftency^ 
 as I have ftiewn. t And what is This, but 
 making Tradition the only Rule of di ft in- 
 guijhing betwixt infpirdt and tininfpird 
 Writings'* That is> the only ~R.ule of a very 
 important Article of Chriflian Faith. Not 
 the only Rule ; tho a Rule : becaufe there 
 is internal Evidence, as well as external* 
 But not to infift upon That > I tell him once 
 more, \ve own Tradition is a very good 
 Rule in many Cafes, and This is one of 
 them : But this Point, tho 1 a moft important 
 
 * Jtid. and P. 49. t P. 49. 
 
 Truth
 
 itle d^ England'.; Converjion, &c. 
 
 is not a moft important Article of 
 Faith, nor any Article of Faith at alL 
 
 * He jays nothing (he tells us) of the grofs 
 Miftake imply d in Thofe Words of the above- 
 faid Article-, to wit, ". of whofe Authority 
 
 >c was never any doubt in the Church ; inftan- 
 cing in fome Books of Scripture received by Us 
 as Canonical, which he fays were doubted 
 of by eminent Men in the Church ', even till 
 the end of the fourth Century. For a full 
 and fatisfa&ory Anfwer to this Obje&ion, 
 I alledge the Words of a learned Writer of 
 our Church. \ " The Reafon of our reject- 
 " ing them (the Books which we account 
 c * ApocryphaT) is, becaufe they were not 
 " received as Canonical by the ancient 
 
 c Church ' y \vhereas the ancient Church did 
 cc unanimoufly receive thofe which we now 
 Ci receive. I do not fay that there was never 
 cc a Man, efpecially among the Hereticks, 
 cc that doubted of, or even rejected, fome of 
 " Thofe that we receive. But I fay, that 
 cc the main 'Body of Orthodox Chriftians 
 <c did always receive Thofe Books which 
 
 c we receive ; when once they became ac- 
 <c quainted with them^ and had Qpportu- 
 ;c nity of examining into their Authority. 
 " Now the far greater Part of Thefe Books 
 
 * IbM. f Dr. Bennett's Dire&ions for ftucfying, & c * 
 P. do, 61, 6 1. 
 
 were
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 cc were thus univerfally receiv'd in the firft 
 <e and fecond Centuries j and Others that 
 <e were at fir ft fufp?c~ted by fome confidera- 
 <c ble Bodies of Chriftians, who Were not as 
 cc yet acquainted with them, were, after 
 <c Examination made, receiv'd alfo by 
 <c Thofe very Bodies of Chriftians, and ne- 
 <c ver after either rejected^ or even fufpec- 
 <c ted by them. When therefore the Ar- 
 <c tide afferts, that there never was any 
 " *Doul>t in the Church of the Authority 
 <c of Thofe Books which we receive, and 
 <e approve as Canonical -, it muft be under- 
 ec ftood in a limited Senfe, not dbfolutelfr 
 * but refpe&ively. There have been Doubts 
 <c concerning fome of them $ but fo few, fo 
 <c Jbort, fo fmal!) fo inconjiderdble^ that 
 <c comparatively and with refped to the 
 <c Greatnefs of the Church's Extent, they 
 <c are nothing and none at all. And in This 
 <c the TapiftS) as well as our firft Reformers, 
 <c agreed. They well knew what Sufpicions 
 <c had been entertain'd in fome Churches for 
 < a time concerning fome Books which we re- 
 " ceive* upon the Account before-mentioned ; 
 cc and what Doubts fome particular Men 
 <c have exprefs'd in their Writings concern- 
 <c ing them. And yet both our Reformers, 
 <c and the Papifts, did allow that Thofe Books 
 " which we admit into the Canon were 
 " never doubted of in the Church. But in 
 ? what Senfe? Why, They were never 
 
 doubted
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion,&c. 14; 
 
 " doubted of, when once known, [/. e. when 
 the Evidence of their Genuinenefs appear'd] 
 c ' by the Church in general, or even by 
 <c any confiderable Part of That difrufive 
 <c Body. This Therefore was infallibly the 
 " Meaning of the Compilers of our Arti- 
 cc cles,- and They mud be underftood in 
 " This Senfe. What is comparatively none 
 <c they muft be fuppos'd here to call none 
 cc at all ; as we often do in common Con- 
 " verfation, and all forts of Writings. And 
 cc if This be the Senfe of this Article (as 
 " it manifeftly is) 'tis certainly a found, and 
 
 a true one. " 
 
 Our Author concludes This Section by 
 averting, * that the Canon loth of the eld 
 and new rfeftament was fettled upon the 
 fame footing aloutthe end of the fourth Cen- 
 fury^ as it has been fmte by the Council of 
 TRENT. This is a grofs and notorious fal- 
 hood in Fad : The Council of Irent^ as 
 'tis ridiculously calFd, (for it does not de- 
 ferve the Name fo much as of a Council^ 
 much lefs of a General one) with moft 
 audacious Impiety, added many Books to 
 the Canon of Scripture, which were not 
 received in the Church, as Canonical, a- 
 bout the End of the fourth Century, nor 
 for twice four Centuries after, nor indeed 
 
 at
 
 144 An ANSWER fa a Topifi Book, 
 
 at all, in any Age, by any Church, not the 
 Church of Rome itfelf; * 'till That fliame- 
 lefs Cabal, a few of the Pope's Creatures 
 at Trent, about 250 Years ago, afTuming to 
 Themfelves the Title of a General Council, 
 t declared Thofe Books to be Part! of God's 
 "Word j fcattering their Firebrands, Arrows , 
 find T)eath> like the Madman in the Pro- 
 verbs, curling, and fending to Hell, all who 
 fliould dare to fay otherwise. 
 
 I think I have given a full Anfwer to 
 what our Author has advanc'd upon This 
 great Article, the Ru/e of Faith. I con- 
 clude, by defiring the Reader ever to remem- 
 ler, i ft. That what the Tapifts drive at 
 under this Head (and indeed under almoft 
 all their general ones, as Infallibility^ Ca- 
 tholicifm. Church- Authority^ &c.) is to make 
 Their Church Judge in her own Caufe. 
 
 * See Thisprov'd in Bifliop Cojtns Scholaftical Hi/lory of 
 the Canon of Scripture ; a Book (among many others) which 
 no Papift ever pretended to anfwer. 
 
 f VVhereas at firjl there were but twenty to make up This 
 Aflembly; never fo many as ffty \ Of Thefe not on from 
 the Greek Church ; net one from'TZngtand, (in a ptiblick Cha- 
 raSer ;) not one from the Helvetian, German, and Northern 
 Churches ; but two from France, five from Spain, one from 
 Illvr/rum, all the reft Italians. Of whom again fome were the 
 foPe's fenfloners ; fome merely Titular, fome wretchedly illite- 
 
 r _ * 1 rg^l rr-t x\ r _ J. 
 
 rate, &c \nd This is Their Oecumenical or General Council 
 (forfo 'riser nr-flyftil'd) reprefentative tfattCbriftendom. This 
 
 *t to rain 
 
 2diy. 
 
 Impudence :i !--ne, if there were nothing elfe, is enough to rain 
 the Caufe 01 . . po.y \vith all reafonable Perfons.
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion^&c. 1 4 j 
 
 adiy. That fuppofing what They fay about 
 unwritten Apoftolical Traditions in general 
 were true and to the purpofe, as I have 
 {hewn it not to be j yet ftill T#0/tf in parti- 
 cular which They put upon us for Apoftolical 
 are not proved to be fo : Nay, we can prove 
 that mofl of them are not fo. Becaufe 
 They are contrary to Scripture , which is 
 ^llow'd on. all Hands to be APOSTOLICAL. 
 
 To the Seventh SECTION; 
 
 Of Scriptures^ ^.nd Church-authority. 
 
 TO the Young Gentleman's Queftion, * 
 how comes it that Proteftants are fo 
 zealous for the Scriptures., and yet fo little 
 regard Church- Authority^ Jince withotit 
 nat Authority we jhould not even be ftire 
 of the Scriptures them f elves j / anfwer^ ift. 
 The Suppofition is falfe i We have a due 
 "Regard for Church-Authority, 'idly. Here 
 is the old Quibble upon the Word Authority^ 
 and the old Sophiftry about Church and 
 Scriptures 5 of which more than enough has 
 
 been
 
 146 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 been faid already : Particularly, P. 9, i o; 
 to which I refer. 
 
 His ^preceptor indeed anfwers very diffe- 
 rently. * >c fis <v cry .hard (fays He) to give a 
 Reaj'onfor the 'Proceedings of Men., when 
 they^ are once,, &c. And fo on, again ft Tre- 
 judice, and Self-Intereft. Then it follows 
 Thus. \T.he Reformd Churches, as you ob- 
 ferve, affe& a wonderful 7,eal for Scrip- 
 tures, and pretend to make them the whole 
 Rule of their Faith. Jnd would not any one 
 now imagine to find them the moft zealous* 
 ^People in the World, for every thing the 
 Scriptures recommend r 
 
 G. I jhould really think fo. 
 
 P. flut^ Sir, it is not a "Proteftant Vir- 
 tue to fpeak, or affi coherently, in Religious 
 Matters. Tou have already had fome Spe- 
 cimens of their true Zeal for Scriptures in 
 rejecting the 'DcUrines of Infallibility, and 
 Oral Tradition, tbo eftablifljdby fuch ftrong 
 Scriptural Texts, &c. IJhall now give you 
 another Specimen of it, in their Opposition 
 to Church- Authority j tbo it has likewife 
 the plainefl leftimonies of Scriptures to re- 
 commend it. I ask This Writer in the firft 
 Place, whether he does not from his Heart 
 believe, that our Zeal for the Scriptures is 
 more than ajfe&ed, or pretended} nay, whe- 
 
 Ibid. P. 50. 
 
 ther
 
 Sktifled, England's Convirfion, Sec. 147 
 
 ther he is not fatisfy'd that Ours for the 
 Scriptures is as fincere^ as Theirs is for their 
 Church and Traditions ? And if fo j I ask him 
 another Queftion - y with what Confidence 
 could he put Thofe Words upon us ? But how 
 does it appear, that we are not zealous for 
 every thing the Scriptures recommend ? Why 
 partly bscaufe we rejed the Do&rines of In- 
 fallibility ', and oral tradition ; for which 
 there are fuch ftrong Scriptural Texts. How 
 ftrong.they are, we have feen ,- and the Rea- 
 der, if he does not remember it, is defir'd to 
 look back upon the Examination of the 
 three foregoing Sections. Now our Author 
 is giving another Specimen of our no Re- 
 gard to Scripture : viz. in our oppofition 
 to Church-Authority* And I take notice of 
 This, as another Specimen of his fingular 
 Modefty j Concerning which fee P. 79. The 
 Texts he produces * to prove the Authority 
 we are faid to oppofe, are Mattb. xvi. 16. 
 Mcitth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20. Mattb. xviii- 
 17. John xx. 21. Luke x. 16. jffis xx. 18. 
 Hel. xiii. 17. Eph. iv. u, 12, 13, 14. 
 Moft of Thefe Texts have been prcduc'd 
 by him, and confider'd by me, already : Some 
 upon This fame Subject of Chur cb- Author ity- y 
 Others upon That of Infallibility. What I 
 faid Before t of two of them, I now fay of 
 
 * P. 50, 51, 52. t P. 6. ' 
 
 L 2' them 
 
 - - Ui^
 
 '148 An ANSWER to a T opt [b 
 
 them all > That they prove no more than 
 fuch an Authority in the Church, as We 
 allow, not fuch a one as our Rcmifo Adver- 
 faries contend for : There is not a Word 
 about an Authority in it, which mufl be 
 implicitly and abtolutely fubmitted to. If 
 our Author did not intend to prove fuch 
 an Authority, he intended to prove nothing 
 to the Purpofe ; If he did^ he might as well 
 have tranfcrib'd the whole Bible, as Thefe 
 Texts. Let the Reader confider them at his 
 leifure j and remember that I infifl upon This 
 as a full Anfwer to the Argument drawn 
 from them. Our Saviour gave Pa/tors, and 
 Teachers., &c. Epbef. iv. u. Ergo, The 
 Church (the Church of Rome) muft be im- 
 plicitly believdy and oleyd^ whatever She 
 favsy ~or commands. And fo of all the 
 reft. 
 
 * Speaking of the Paftors of the Church, 
 and explaining Thofe Words, that we be no 
 more like Children^ carry d to andfro^ &c. 
 it belongs to theje Guides^ fays He, to fix the 
 wavering Judgments of the ^People^ &c. 
 True ; to fix them, if they can ; or to do 
 what they can towards it: But what if 
 fome wavering Judgments will not be fix'd 
 ly them? The Infallible Church her felf 
 has not yet fix'd them all. If She had; there 
 
 P. 52.
 
 Entitled, England' s Confer fwu ^ &c. 149 
 
 would not be fuch a Variety of Opinions, fo 
 many Difputes, fo many Self-Contradidi- 
 ons, among her Members, as there ever have 
 been, and ftill are. But whatever belongs to 
 1'befe Guides -, it docs not belong to them 
 (at leaft it ought not) to impofe Lies, falfe 
 Doctrine, and Nonfenfe upon Mankind, as 
 the Papiftsdo, even in order to the /#/;? of 
 their wavering Judgments. 
 
 From what has been faid may be col- 
 lected, that his AiTertion in the next Para- 
 graph * is a Calumny upon the frfl Refor- 
 mers : They did not rejeft the Authority 
 which the Scripture exprejly recommends* 
 by rejecling/z/# an Authority as the Church 
 or Rome arrogates to herfelf. The Railing, 
 and malicious Reflexions which follow, I pals 
 over, as immaterial. 
 
 P. 53. G. "But are not the frfl Reformers^ 
 and their Follower s^ as pofitively condemn d 
 ly their own Rule^ I me an the Scriptures^ 
 as by the Authority of the Catholick Church ? 
 Yes j much at one. We put the whole If- 
 fue of our Caufe upon Scripture, and the 
 Catholick Church -, and have proved a thou- 
 fand times that They^ not We^ are con- 
 demn'd by Both, f And why then have they 
 fo great a Spleen againji the one^ andfhew 
 jo great a Refpeffi for the other 3 
 
 * Ibid. f Ibid. 
 
 L .3 P.
 
 150 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b 
 
 P. The l&eafon in Jhort is, becaufe the 
 Church is fomewhat harder to be managd 
 than the Scripture : And fo on, to the Mid- 
 dle of the next Page. The Subftance of what 
 is here alledg'd by This Writer, and the 
 Author of the Rule of Faith quoted by him, 
 is This : That the dead Letter of the Scrip- 
 ture cannot fpeakfor it felf y nor explain its 
 own Meaning^ and fo any body may fafely 
 torture^ and abufe it j but 'tis quite other- 
 wife with the Church^ who is a living Judge* 
 And This is the Reafon, why Proteftarits 
 have fuch a Spleen againft Church- Author ity> 
 &c. Protefting, once more, that the FaU is 
 not true, and abfolutely denying that we 
 have fuch a Spleen^ as is here fuppos'di 
 upon thofe Words, * an Infallible Rule 
 (as Scriptures doubtkfs are, WHEN RIGHTLY 
 UNDERSTOOD") without an Infallible Inter- 
 preter > puts little or no Reftraint, &c. but 
 an Infallible Interpreter., &c. I obferve, i/?. 
 The Suppofition is groundlefs - y The Church is 
 not Infallible, and there is no Infallible Inter- 
 preter j as We have prov'd. idly. To af- 
 firm that the Scriptures, tho' complimented 
 with the Name of an Infallible 'Rule when 
 rightly underjleoa 1 ^ cannot be rightly tinder- 
 flood without an Infallible Interpreter, is 
 to make them utterly ufelefs, and good for 
 nothing. If This be the Cafe - 3 to what pur- 
 
 pofe
 
 Entitled^ England'.* Converfion, &c. 1 5 1 
 
 pofe were they written ? Why could not 
 God from time to time reveal his Will to his 
 Infallible Church without Writing as well 
 as make it Infallible in explaining what is 
 Written ? Is it not as cafy (or rather much 
 eafier) to reveal a Thing once for all, than 
 to reveal the Senfe of what was written 
 by Revelation, and yet cannot be under- 
 flood without another Revelation ? But we 
 have more of This 'Blafphemy afterwards. 
 The dead Letter of the Scriptures, That 
 profane Cant of Tapifts and Quaker^ is 
 an ExprefFion twice made ufe of in the Com- 
 pafs of a few Lines. And what is meant 
 by it ? That the Ink and Charters are 
 not alive.) cannot fpeak^ cr do not under- 
 fland the Senfe contain'd in them ? This 
 is Cbildim, and Trifling. Or, that the 
 Holy Ghoft cottld not, or would not^ have his 
 Meaning exprefs'd intelligibly ? This is*Blaf- 
 phemyMf They fay, the Latter [he would 
 noi\ is no Blafphemy ; becaufe he has ap- 
 pointed an Infallible Expounder, to make 
 it intelligible : I anfwer, \fl. The above- 
 mentioned Inconvenience recurs. According 
 to This, the Scripture is ufelcfs ; God does 
 That per plura> which may much better be 
 done per pane tor a i He ads jt!perfluou/Jy> 
 by confequence abfurdly : And to fay That 
 is flaming 'Blafphemy. zdiy. This their 
 Account of the matter fuppofes, that the 
 divinely infpired Writings would be unin- 
 L 4 telligible
 
 1 51 An ANSWE R to a Toptfb Book, 
 
 telligible, without an Infallible Interpreter; 
 and that there is none. We have prov'd : 
 Therefore the Blafphemy remains. The 
 fame, in effect, may be laid of That fine 
 Stroke of His j * 'Tbo It (the dead Letter 
 of Scripture) be never fo much put to the 
 torture - y it cannot complain^ nor make any 
 farther 'Difcoveries, nor give us any farther 
 
 Lights, THAN THE SACRED PENMEN THOUGHT 
 FIT TO COMMUNICATE TO US IN THEIR 
 
 WRITINGS. As if Thofe were not enough,- 
 nay, as if they were next to nothing, or ra- 
 ther nothing at all : For that is the real Cafe ; 
 as This Author and his Brethren reprefent 
 it. And fuppofing it were true j how does 
 their Chttrcb enlighten us in the underftand- 
 ing of the Scriptures ? Do not They difpute 
 about the Senie of them altogether as much 
 as We ? Are there not many Texts which 
 They do not fo much as pretend to under- 
 fland ? Or if it be otherwise ; why does not 
 This Infallible Church, once for all, publifh 
 to the World an entire Comment upon the 
 Bible, fo as to fix the Senfe of every Word 
 in it, and prevent all Difputes for the fu- 
 ture ? But alas ! it has been always her Way 
 not to explain what is obfcure, but to ob- 
 fcure what is plain : This is the Ufe She has 
 always made of her Infallibility.
 
 J3f if /^England'.* Converfan,&c t 153 
 
 * <But the Infallible Interpreter,, the 
 Church, he fays, is not fo tame. The 
 Church which pretends to be Infallible, is, 
 I confefs, not very tame : Witnefs Smith- 
 feld. He goes on. t So that if her 'Decrees 
 be caHd in Quefti<m\ She can exert her 
 Tower ^ and ft and tip in 'Defence of them* 
 POWER indeed is a material Point j and the 
 Church of Rome has made a thorough ufe 
 of it i but it is not always accompanied with 
 Truth, Right, and a good Caufe. Ihis 
 fort of Tower^ I grant, the Scriptures have 
 not j tho' they are in another fenfe very pow- 
 erful. To fhew, farther, the great Superio- 
 rity of their Church over the Scriptures 
 ffor we are ft ill upon the fame Blafphemy 
 as Before) She, we are told, II is a living 
 Interpreter j and^ if her Words be mifinter- 
 preted^ can do her f elf Juftice^ by explaining 
 her own true Meaning : Whereas the poor 
 helplefs Scriptures are not able to explain 
 Theirs. The Bible, it is true, is not alive ; 
 And if it be torturd^ as He wifely obferves, 
 it cannot cry out. But notwithftanding Thefe, 
 and fuch like Sayings, it is a very good and 
 fufficient Rule j fince (God having given 
 common Reafon to the Bulk of Mankind) 
 it is in the main capable of being under- 
 flood by ordinary Capacities : And as it may 
 
 * ibid, t Kid. II P. $4. 
 
 be
 
 154 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 be tortur'd, and mifapply'd, by Some j fo it 
 may be, and a&ually is, well usd^ and 
 duly apply V, by Others. Nor can we infer 
 that becaufe it is capable of being mifap- 
 plyd*, therefore it is no true Rule ; if That 
 ivere a Confequence, there would be no true 
 Rule in the World. 
 
 Neither has the living^ and pretended 
 Infallible Church^ any Advantage over the 
 dead Scriptures (as the Quakers and Papilts 
 call them j ^yia. vi* y living Oracles^ St. Ste^ 
 pben and We Proteftants call them) even 
 in refped of explaining^ and vindicating its 
 own Meaning. For, i (h Is a General Coun- 
 cil to be fummon'd upon every perverfe, or 
 ignorant Creature's mifreprefenting, or mif- 
 underftanding the Church's Senfe r Or even 
 upon occafion of the Ignorance, or Perverfe- 
 nefs of great Numbers ? The Thing is mani- 
 feftly impoflible. At this rate, We muft have 
 a General Council at leaft once a Quarter : 
 For no Council lefs than a General one is 
 pretended to be Infallible - y or to deferve 
 the Name of the Church. Befidesj 2dly. 
 As Thofe zsho believe not Mofes and the 
 Prophets, will not be perfaaded^ tho cue 
 yoje from the c Dead^ fo Thofe who cannot, 
 or will not, underftand the neceffary Doc- 
 trines of Scripture, which are fufficiently in- 
 telligible to the meaneft Capacity, cannot, 
 or w T ill not, in the fame perverfe Humour, 
 underftand any thing elfe. The Church 
 
 then
 
 on^ Sec, 155 
 
 then defines This, or ThatjThefe People miim- 
 terpret her Words : She explains her Meaning ; 
 Thofe who were ignorant, or obftinate Before, 
 continue lo ftill ; wanting an Explanation of 
 the Explanation > and fo on in Infnitum. 
 Is not This a palpable Abfurdity ? ~ Cannot 
 a living Man's Senfe be mifreprefented, or 
 .mifapply'd, as well as a. dead ones ? Or Mans 
 as well as God's ? The Truth is, the Vani- 
 ty of That Notion, an Infallible Judge to 
 determine Controcerjies^ will appear in any 
 Light i or on whatever Side it be conftder'd. 
 Suppofmg there were fuch a one, as there 
 is Not j He would not certainly determine 
 Controverfies, and quaih Herefies. ift. Be- 
 caufe he might le Infallible j and yet by 
 Many not : believd fo. For, I hope a ourAd- 
 verfaries themfelves will not affirm, that the 
 Arguments to prove him fo are jelf-evident) 
 and irrefiftible. Or if they will,- I think 
 I have at leaft fhewn the Contrary to lhat. 
 idly He might be \elievd Infallible j and 
 yet not obeyed. How many believe the Scrip- 
 tures to be God's Word j and, notwithftand- 
 ing, a^t contrary to them ? $dly. They 
 might either ignorantly, or wilfully, mil- 
 underfland his Decifions ,- which is what we 
 are now confidering. Upon the Whole ; the 
 jfoQftles, and among the Reft St. 'Peter 
 Himfelf, could not, in their own time, hin- 
 der or fupprefs all Heretics ; And I iuppofe 
 None of their Succefibrs are more Infallible 
 
 Guide*
 
 156 An ANSWER to a Topift 
 
 Guides than They. It may perhaps be obje&- 
 ed, that this Reafoning will as well prove that 
 the Scriptttreswrv not an Infallible Guide. I an- 
 fwer. They are not indeed ; nor was it ever 
 intended they fhould be , fo as to necejfitate 
 Men to be Jefa&o infallibly guided by them : 
 Tho* they are in themfelves infallibly true y 
 and a fufficient Rule to Thofe who make a 
 true Ufe of them. 
 
 The Leaders of the Reformation (He 
 adds * } hated the Church ; and appeafdfrom 
 her Authority to the dead Letter of Scrip- 
 ture. They hated the Church^ as Crimi- 
 nals hate the Judge ^ by whom they are fure 
 to be condemned. Doubtlefs, They had no 
 great Love for the Church of Rome, as 
 corrupted $ and were fure enough to be con- 
 demn'd by Her. For the Reft, I fay ; juft 
 fo, and for That very Reafon Tapifts hate 
 the Scriptures. But then there is a mighty 
 Difparity between the two Affertions. To 
 fay We hate the Church (the truly Catho- 
 lick Church) or are condemn d by her Judg- 
 ment^ is falfe, and fcandalous ; as I have 
 often been forced to plead. That Wapifts 
 are condemn d by Scripture, we have abun- 
 dantly provd - And that They hate it, is 
 evident j Becaufe., even while they are en- 
 deavouring tofave Appearances by pretend- 
 
 * Kid.
 
 Cower/tin, Sec. 1 57 
 
 ing to honour it, in fpight of 'Dijfimutation, 
 They cannot forbear blajphemivg it. He adds, 
 * And their appealing to Scriptures was, 
 in ejfeffi, appealing to their o w N private Jtidg- 
 ment. Sir, there muji be private Judgment $ 
 or there can be no Judgment at all. Common 
 Reafon neceiTarily requires it; Cbrift and 
 his Jpoftles appeal to it, and not only per- 
 mit ', but command-^ the Exercife of it , You 
 yourfehcs make ufe of it, and force Us to 
 make ufe of it, even by your arguing, and 
 difputing againft it. But why was their 
 Appealing to Scripture in effeU appealing to 
 their OWN private Judgment ? Becaufe of 
 their private Interpretations, no Doubt 5 
 that is, They were fo abfurd, and fo wicked, 
 as to make ufe of their Reafon, in reading 
 the Scriptures. But tho' they usd their own 
 private Judgment ; yet they appeal? d not to 
 That only, but to the private Judgment 
 and common Scnfe of Every-body, and to 
 the publick J^ldgment of the truly Catbo- 
 lick Church likewife. Where (continues 
 He f) / e* in their own private Judgment, 
 they were as fafe, as they could wijh. For 
 what Criminal would fear to appear before 
 a Tribunal, where Him f elf fits as Judge 
 and Interpreter of the Law, by which he is 
 to be try a? He cannot, I imagine, be conve- 
 
 m. t MI 
 
 niently^
 
 158 An ANSWER/*^ Topi/b Soak, 
 
 niently at the !Bar, and upon the Benchy 
 at the fame time : But however, I grant it 
 is potfible that a Man may be Judge in his 
 own Caufe j and Nothing can be more con- 
 trary to Reafon, and Equity. But then 
 This is the Cafe of Papifts, not of Protef- 
 tants. They are both Judges, and Witnef- 
 fes in Their own Caufe, as I have often 
 fliewn : But I have juft now iliewn that by 
 appealing to the Scriptures, and employing 
 our Re a/on in reading them. We are not fo 
 in Ours. 
 
 What follows in the next Words, And in- 
 deed the World foon j aw the Fruit s, &c. to 
 the End of the firft Paragraph in P. $6. is a 
 Reclamation upon the Abtife of Scripture by 
 ^ProteftantSy and the various SeUs, and !Z)/- 
 vifions among them, occafion'd by their be- 
 ing permitted to read Thofe facred Wri- 
 tings. As he often repeats This doughty 
 Argument ; I mall chufe to pafs it over Here, 
 and consider it once for all, when I come 
 to That Part of his Book, where he lays 
 out his chief Strength upon it > viz. ^DiaL 
 iv. Se&. 4. At prefent, I only obferve, ift. 
 That to argue from the Abufe of a Thing 
 againft the Ufe of it, is That filly Sophifm, 
 cail'd Fallacia Accidentis: According to 
 which Argumentation, there is no good
 
 Entitled, England' s Convfrjiow^&c. 1 59 
 
 Ihing in the World ; and 'Religion itfelf 
 ought to be banifli'd out of it. Muft not a 
 Man drink Wine., becaufe drinking too much 
 of it will make him drunk ? Muft he not 
 ufe a Knife j , becaufe by play ing the fool with 
 it he may happen to cut his fingers ? 2dly. 
 Thofe Words of His, * The mitten Word 
 of God being wrefted out of the Hands of 
 
 ITS OWN LAWFUL INTERPRETER the Cathotick 
 
 Church (or, in other Words, the Church of 
 Rome) and feizd on by fhefe ufttrping In- 
 truders^ &c. contain a fhameful and noto- 
 rious Untruth, contrary to That very Word 
 of God, to the Practice of the Primitive 
 and truly Catholick Church, and to the firft 
 Principles of Reafon. According to all which, 
 every Chriftian has a Right to read the 
 Scriptures, and interpret them too, accor- 
 ding to the beft of his Skill, fupplying the 
 Defects of it, as well as he can, by the Atfif- 
 tance of others. %dly. I do not underftand 
 how the Church of England fent tbeir Re- 
 prefentatives to the Synod of ^Dort. \ The 
 Kings CommiJJIon did not, I think, make 
 Thofe who went thither the Church's Re- 
 prefentatives. 
 
 His next Aflfertion is a round one. || / 
 conclude in the Tybo/e, that Scriptures alone 
 are fo far from being a full* and compleat 
 
 Ibid- f P- 55- II P. 5*- 
 
 Rule
 
 160 An ANSWERS a Topifl Book; 
 
 Hale of Cbriflian Faith -> tbat they are NO 
 RULE AT ALL: at haft in any doubtful or 
 difputed Cafe$ tmlefs they be INTERPRETED 
 ly THAT AUTHORITY which Chrift has efta- 
 bliffied upon JLarth^ to be our GUIDED and to 
 which he has promised bis perpetual Affif- 
 tance. If That be the Gale ; they are in, 
 and of IhemfefoeS) good for nothing : And 
 yet the Romanifts acknowledge them to be 
 divinely infpir'd. This is the fo often re- 
 peated ftlafphemy in yet ftronger Expreffions. 
 It is directly exploding the Scriptures, and 
 making them a pure Nullity without Their 
 Church j For She, and She only, is the 
 Guide they talk of. Without Her, accord- 
 ing to This, They are a dead Letter indeed ; 
 mere unfensd Characters (another profane 
 Expreflion of Theirs) having no Life, nor 
 Soul, any farther than as She is pleas'd to 
 breathe into them j no Senfe, or Meaning, 
 any farther than as She is pleas'd to put one 
 upon them : At leaft in doubtful^ and difpu~ 
 futed Cafes-, and every Cafe fliall be fo, 
 which She thinks fit to make fo. If This 
 be not fetting Themfelves above Scripture > 
 which they own to be the Word of God, and 
 making it abfoluretyftibjeffi to thQm - y Their 
 Language is as unintelligible, as they reprer 
 fent the Scriptures to be. 
 
 * Ihe Scriptures^ He fays, read without 
 the Sttbwiflion and ^Deference which is due 
 ~* ibid. 
 
 to
 
 Entitled^ England^ Converjlon^c. 1 6 ? 
 
 the Guides appointed by Trovidence^ to lead 
 us into the true Meaning of them, have been 
 the Caufeof all the "Difputes that have d 
 ded whole Chriftendom thefe two bw. 
 I aft Tears - y but never put an End to tiny. 
 Are there no Difputes then among the Mem- 
 bers of T.heir Church ? It is well known 
 there are a great Number. Is there no Caufe 
 of Difputes, but Reading the Scriptures with- 
 out That Deference which He fu^pofes 
 iliould be paid to their Church ? May not 
 Ignorance, Pride, even human Infirmity, 
 and the Imperfection of our prefent State, 
 have a confiderable fhare in them ; whether 
 the Scriptures are read with the aforefaid 
 Deference, or not ? And is He very fure 
 that the Scriptures, among us, never put an 
 End to any Difpute ? I believe I could give 
 him feveral Inftances to the Contrary j but 
 I will mention only one , if it may be call'd 
 One y it being, in Truth, a Clufter of many. 
 The ^uinquartictdar Controverfy has long 
 been quite extinft among us : And it was 
 owing to Scripture., interpreted according to 
 Scripture, and good Senfe, by feveral learn- 
 ed Church of England Divines, the great 
 Bimop Still efpecially. 
 
 * For how> He adds, can T^hat le a pro- 
 per Means to end T)ifputes, which, in all 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 M Con-
 
 An ANSWER to a Topijb 
 
 Cont rover fie s that are to be decided by Scrip- 
 tures, is itfelf the 'Principal StibjeU of the 
 *Difpute ? Not fo : It is not the prin- 
 cipal Subject of the Difpute j it is only the 
 fecondary - 3 and may very well be decided 3 
 if Men will be wife^ and honeft. If they 
 will not i it is their own Fault, and They 
 muft anfwer for it. But as bad as the World 
 is, there are fome Men both Wife, and Ho- 
 neft , and Difputes have by Scripture duly 
 apply'd been actually finifh'd, and determin'd. 
 1 jT/j impofjible^ He fubjoins, the contend- 
 ing 'Parties jliould come to an Agreement 
 [about the Senfe of Scripture] unlefs they 
 facrifce their own private Judgments, and 
 fubmit to a tribunal from which there is 
 no Appeal, By facrifting their private Judg- 
 ments, it is evident, he means implicitly re- 
 figniug up their Judgments, and making no 
 Ufe of them. That they ought to do fo, 
 I deny ; for the Reafons fo often mention'd. 
 An external Tribunal in Thefe matters, 
 from which there ought to be no Appeal, in 
 any Cafe whatfoever, is not yet found ; nor 
 do they tell us where w r e may find it : The 
 Church being a Word too indeterminate, and 
 of too great Latitude ; and They themfelves 
 not agreeing in what 'Part of the Church 
 This ^Tribunal is plac'd. An internal one 
 
 * P. 57- 
 
 there
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion^ &c. 1 6 j 
 
 there is \ and That is the Tribunal of right, 
 unprejudiced, well-in fbrm'd Reafon, and Con- 
 fcience ,- To which if we will not appeal, 
 an dfrom which if we will appeal ; 'tis our 
 own Fault, and Folly : and we muft give 
 an Account for it at the fupreme Tribunal 
 in another World. What the young Gentle- 
 man anfwers is the fame, in other Words, 
 which his Preceptor faid juft Before. Speak- 
 ing of Difputes about the Senfe of Scripture, 
 and from thence inferring the Neceflity of a 
 Judge to determine them. They Both feem 
 to forget that there are great Difputes about 
 That Judge even among the RomaniftsThem- 
 felves i about the Tope, the Church ', and the 
 Infallibility of Both. And therefore why 
 the Scripture fhould be fo uncertain a Rti/e, 
 (if it were at all an uncertain one, as I have 
 fhewn it is Not) and Their Church fo cer- 
 tain a Judge ; or why the Laft mentioned 
 may not be call'd * the very Apple of Trif- 
 cord) and a Source of endlefs < Dijpiites. t at 
 leaft as well as the Other, I can by no means 
 underftand. 
 
 He concludes Thus, t Stifpofe there were 
 a Nation that jkould give full Liberty to e- 
 very one to interpret its Laws by his own 
 private Judgment ; would it be pofjible in 
 that Cafcy to condemn any Criminal, or put 
 
 * P. 5- t P. 57- 
 
 M 2 an
 
 164 d* ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 an end to any Law-fuit ? Nay y would not 
 Anarchy and Confu/wn be the unavoidable 
 Confluence of it ? Ihe matter will not bear 
 a *Dtfcute. And therefore there is not a ci- 
 viliza Nation in the World^ but has a fu~ 
 preme 'Tribunal eftablijJJd from which there 
 is no Appeal. Premifing This Obfervation 
 that We deny not, nay we exprefly affert^ 
 and contend for, an Authority in the Church ', 
 in every National Church, as to Articles of 
 Faith, and the Interpretation of Scripture, 
 which Authority muft be in a great mea- 
 fure fubmitted to -, tho* not abfolutely, and 
 without Appeal^ in any Cafe whatsoever ; 
 i. e. She muft not be fubmitted to, if her 
 Decifions be manifeftly erroneous, and impi- 
 ous : I fay, premifmg This, I anfwer, iff. 
 Every one may, without Abfurdity, barely 
 interpret even human Laws, as far as he is 
 able, by his own private Judgment ; nor is 
 it in the Power of his Governours to hinder 
 him. But if by interpreting them be meant 
 (as it muft, if any thing to the purpofe be 
 meant) interpreting them in his own Caufe, 
 or expecting that his fudges mould abide 
 by his Interpretation , there never was, nor 
 ever will be, one (ingle private Perfon, fool- 
 im enough to think of any fuch thing. To 
 make a Suppofition therefore that a Nation 
 fhould grant to every one^ what no one can 
 be conceiv'd to defire, is extremely weak, 
 and trifling. And the fame 3 by the Bye, may 
 
 be
 
 Entitled, England'^ Converfion, &c. 165 
 
 be faid of private Judgment in Religious mat- 
 ters, idly. From the Neceifity of an exter- 
 nal fupreme TLribunal^ to which an abfohite 
 Submiffion is due, as to temporal Affairs^ 
 cannot be inferr'd the Neceflity of fuch a 
 one in this World, as to matters of Religion, 
 and Confcience. 'Tis neceflary that there 
 ftiould be fuch a Tribunal in This World, 
 with refpeft to the Things of it : With re- 
 gard to Thofe of the Next, God has given 
 us an Internal fupreme Iribuna/, even in 
 This World, as above-obferv'd ; and there 
 is another, an external one, in the Next, 
 before which we (hall be condemn'd, if we 
 do not make a right Ufe of That juft now 
 mention'd, which he has given us in This. 
 ^dly. This Reafoning fuppofes that 'tis as 
 neceffary there fhould be an alfolute judicial 
 Determination of Controverfies in Religion, 
 as that Civil Crimes fhould be puniili'd, 
 and Law-fuits determined - y than which no- 
 thing can be more groundlefs. Human So- 
 ciety cannot fubfift without the Latter, but 
 it very well may without the Former. A 
 Man may at any time hold his own private 
 Opinion^ without Prejudice, or Injuftice to 
 Another who differs from him ; but the fame 
 cannot be faid of holding an Eft ate : And 
 as to Criminal Cafes y the Matter is plain 
 of itfelf. Or if Difputes in Religion come to 
 difturb the Peace of the State, as I grant 
 they may^ tho' it is not neceffary they flmifd ^ 
 M tho
 
 166 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b Book, 
 
 the Civil Towers may, and ought to re- 
 ftrain Thofe Ttiforders which are the Con- 
 fequences of them - y There is no occafion o 
 recurring to any other Tribunal , Or rathe? 
 there is no other, before which fuch Difor- 
 ders are cognizable, qtbly. As the fupreme 
 Tribunal in the State does not put an end 
 to Robbery, Murder, and going to Law 5 
 fo neither would fuch a one in the Church, 
 if there were one, put an end to Errors, 
 and Controveriies : Unlefs it could firft 
 put an End to all human Corruption^ and 
 Infirmity. As one Difpute fhould be deter- 
 min'd j another, or perhaps the fame in a- 
 nother Shape, would ftart up : and the uni- 
 verfal infallible Judge in Spirituals would 
 have as much Bufinefs upon his Hands, as the 
 fallible ones in Temporals, jtbfy. There is 
 in faffi fuch a fupreme Tribunal in all Civil 
 States j but not in the Church, as We have 
 prov'd. And fince God has not appointed 
 one, it is not neceffary there fhould be one. 
 To which we may add from * Mr. Chilling- 
 worth. 6thly. In civil Controverfaswe are ob- 
 ligd only to external, pa/five Obedience ; but 
 not to internal and active. *But in matters of 
 Religion Juch a Judge is required [ac- 
 cording to Papifts] "johom we Jlwuld be obli- 
 ged to believe to have judgd right. And to 
 
 * Ckff, : n 17. 19. 
 
 be
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion^ Sec. 167 
 
 be olligd to believe a thing, I add, is nei- 
 ther reafonable, nor pofjible. ythly. In 
 civil Controverts the Cafe cannot be put fo, 
 but there may be a Jtidge to end /Y, who is 
 not a Tarty: In Controversies of Religion, 
 it is in a manner impojjible to be avoided 
 but the Judge muft be 'a Tarty. For this 
 wuft be the Firft^ whether he be a Judge^ 
 or no ; and in That he muft be a Tarty. 
 'The Tope (and the fame may be faid of the 
 Church of Rome} is manifeftly a Tarty in 
 This very Cafe. 
 
 In fhort, God has furnifh'dus with Means 
 fufficient to kiww> and do our Duty, both 
 in Faith and TraUice^ without an Infalli- 
 ble Judge, or any Judge, from whom, what- 
 ever he determines, there can be no Ap~ 
 peal ; For 1 hat is what our Adverfaries aim 
 at : Some Church-Authority in Thefe Mat- 
 ters, and a great deal too, We acknowledge, 
 as well as They. Or if there were fuch an 
 Authority, fuch a Tribunal, as They con- 
 tend for i it would not bring That Teace upon 
 Earth, which They imagine. Neither has 
 God any more provided Means which iliall 
 necejjarify put an end to all Errors^ and 
 'Difputes, than to all Vice. Nor is it fit 
 he 'ihould. The Will is left free ; our Un- 
 derftandings are imperfect : And as long as 
 fo many Men are weak^ and wicked , there 
 will be a Pofllbility of Herefies^ and Schifms* 
 as well as of other Sins. 
 
 M 4 To
 
 i68 An ANSWER to a Tofifo Book, 
 
 To the Eighth Sefiion. 
 
 THIS, to my great Refreshment, is En- 
 titled A Recapitulation of the fore- 
 going Sections. It is therefore anfwer'd al- 
 ready : And let Him recapitulate what he 
 pleafes, I will recapitulate Nothing $ having 
 been long fince fufficiently tired with Tau- 
 tology. I (hall only remark upon two, or 
 three Sentences, which are not included in 
 the aforefaid Recapitulation. 
 
 P. 58. Some time after his Re fur re fit on Joe 
 committed the Charge of his WHOLE Flock 
 in a fpecial manner to St. Peter. John xxi, 
 v. 15. &c. That my Sheep implies ALL my 
 Sheep, Hefuppofes; and I deny: And That's 
 Anfwer enough. Nor did our Saviour com- 
 mit any Sheep in an efpecial manner to 
 St. Teter^ more than to the reft of the 
 Apofties ; Tho' He particularly applies him- 
 felf to Him, Love ft thou me> &c ? becaufe 
 St. Teter had denfd Him, which no other 
 Apoftle had done. 
 
 P. 59. As is attefted by St. Paul, in 
 his Epiftle to the Romans, Chap- i. v. 8. 
 which was written but fifteen Tears after 
 St. Peter'j coming to Rome. In all probability, 1 
 and according to the beft Accounts., it was 
 written many Yeajs before St. Teter came 
 
 to
 
 'j Converjion,&c. 169 
 
 to Rome. * Not that This is, either way a 
 material to our prefent Controverfy. 
 
 P, 65, G. &>, You have given me a full 
 and clear Idea of the Authority of the Church ', 
 &c. In (hort, the young Gentleman is ready 
 to burft with Convi&ion, and Satisfaction , 
 upon Evidence, which I hope I have prov'd 
 to be no Evidence at all. Sat fince^ fays 
 He, there are a great number of Churches 
 
 all pretending to be THE true Chiirch 
 
 how is Ihis Church to be found ? &c. 
 
 This is repeated in the next Dialogue $ 
 In the Examination of which, and elfe- 
 where, it fhall be thoroughly confider'd. 
 
 * See Dr. Cave's Life of St. Ptter, and St. Paul. 
 
 An
 
 3120 
 
 re?- J<T V>^> J^E^F^ **& 3E* *^^ hV^3; 
 
 5^msii^%m jp */|M a3fe 
 
 A N s'w E R 
 
 T O A 
 
 Popifh BOO Iff 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 E N G L A N D'J- Converjion and Re- 
 formation compar'd, &c 
 
 ToThe Second DIALOGUE: 
 
 Containing (as it's Title fets forth) A 
 brief Hiftorical Account of the Con- 
 verjion of the Britons, and Saxons ; 
 <witb Proofs of their Agreement in 
 Faith aud fome Remarks upon Cir- 
 cumflances relating to tfe Converjflon 
 of the Saxons. 
 
 HAT our Author attempts hi 
 This Second Dialogue, is ta 
 t fhew that the Religion of the 
 prefent Church of Rome is the 
 very fame with That to which 
 King Etbelbert and his Saxons were converted 
 
 by
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 by Avftin the Monk, and the other Millenaries 
 of Pope Gregory the Great, at the End of 
 the 6th Century : Which was the fame with 
 That to which King Lucius^ and his Bri- 
 tons were converted by the Miflionaries of 
 Pope TLhutheriuS) in the 2d Century : 
 Which muft needs be the true genuine Chri- 
 fHanity ; the Church of Rome being on 
 all hands confefs'd to have been ?ben un- 
 corrupt : From whence it follows, that what 
 is at prefent injurioufly traduced by the 
 Nickname of 'Popery^ is indeed the true 
 genuine Cbriftianity. I think I have col- 
 lefted the fcatter'd Parts of his Argument., 
 and put it all together, in a ftronger, and 
 clearer Light, than He himfelf has any 
 where done : And a clear Anfwer ihall be 
 given to it in the Sequel. But before he 
 comes to the main Point, He gives us two 
 Sections by Way of Introduftion.
 
 , England'.? Cornier fion, Sec. 173 
 
 ToThefirJl SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Importance of Enquiring into the 
 Marks of the True Church o/Chrift 5 
 in which alone Salvation is frovd to be 
 fofftble. 
 
 AC C O R D I N G to his Cuftom, he 
 fets out upon a falfe Supfofition ; ta- 
 king it for granted that * the great Number 
 of Churches in the World, tho differing 
 from one another, pretend ALL to be THE true 
 Church of Chrlft. I hope ALL is ufed diftri- 
 btitively^ for Every one -, Otherwife, I doubt, 
 'tis neither good Senfe^ nor Grammar. How- 
 ever it be, the Proportion is notorioufly 
 untrue ; No Church upon Earth, but That 
 of Rome, pretends to be the true Church : 
 AH the reft confider the Difference between 
 A and The-, and are neither fo ftupid, nor 
 fo fraudiilent^ as to confound them with 
 each other. 
 
 That which follows about f Cbriftian 
 Church, true Church, CathoJick Church, 
 and a particular Church's being united with, 
 
 * P. 6f. t *. *; 
 
 or 

 
 174 A* ANSWER to a Topi 
 
 or feparated from, the Catholick Church, 
 &c. is very dark and confus'd, to my Appre- 
 henfion. Were it well look'd into j I believe 
 there would be found but little Senfe, or 
 little Truth in it : But as it affe&s not the 
 Main of ourCaufe, nor do I underftand what 
 TJfe our Author makes of it, I pafs it over : 
 Only obferving Thus much, that Catholick 
 Church, and the Church of Rome, feem to 
 be confounded ; and that there feems to be 
 an Equivoque in the Word true as apply'd 
 to Church j Both which Pieces of Chica- 
 nery we have often noted. 
 
 What he fays * concerning the great 
 Importance of enquiring into the Marks of 
 the true Church, &c. and People's Negli- 
 gence in not enquiring into them, as they 
 ihould do, amounts to Thus much. Exa- 
 mine yourfelves, whether ye be in the Faith, 
 i Cor- xiii. 5. And what is a man profited, 
 if he Jhall gain the whole World, and lofe 
 his own Soul? Matth. xvi. 26. Doctrines, 
 I acknowledge, of the utmoft Importance ; 
 and, in requital of our Author's Kindnefs, 
 I return them to him, heartily recommend- 
 ing the ferious Confederation of them to 
 Himfelf, and the Roman Catholicks in ge- 
 neral , for None want it more ; and earneft- 
 
 e*. to 7*.
 
 Entitled, England'* Converjion^&c. 175 
 
 Iy befeeching God, that both We, andTfejp, 
 may have Grace topraUife them. 
 
 This Gentleman would not have been at 
 fo much Pains to prove that there can be * 
 no Salvation but in the true Church > did 
 he not take it for granted, that the Church 
 of Rome only is That Church : Which he 
 muft needs know We do not acknowledge. 
 For the reft, what he difcourfes about the 
 Impoffibility of Salvation to Thofe who 
 are not Members of the true Church, and 
 our allowing a Toflibility of their being 
 favd, is partly Calumny., and partly Miftake y 
 or Mifreprefentation. The Church of En- 
 gland is no Latitudinarian upon This Sub- 
 je& ; as fufficiently appears from her i8th 
 Article. But we may very confidently with 
 That Article, with Reafon, and with Scrip- 
 ture, allow a 'Pojfibility of Salvation, (Sal- 
 vation in the ftrifteft Senfe, and according 
 to the Covenant of Grace) to Chriftians* 
 f whatever Church^ or Communion they are 
 of, fo they live moral Lives, &c. according 
 to the beft of their Knowledge - y and provi- 
 ded their Knowledge be the beft they can 
 obtain. Nay, we may very confidently with 
 all three, * extend our Charity even to Hea- 
 thens, and Mahometans ; fo far as to allow 
 that Ihey may le favd by an ttncovenanted 
 
 * p. *8 71, 72- t P. <Jp. * IM. 
 
 Mercy :
 
 176 ^ANSWER tea Topi/b Book, 
 
 Mercy : Meaning by favd> in fome meafure 
 rewarded^ tho' They have certainly no 
 TLight to the Chriftian Salvation. Moft of 
 what our Author urges to the contrary from 
 Scriptures, Fathers, and Bifhop Tearfon^ 
 may be folv'd by applying the Diftinciion 
 juft now mention'd, between Covenanted, 
 and Uncovenanted) being favd according to 
 the Chriftian ^Difpenfation, and being in 
 fome ^Degree rewarded. But his Argument 
 from Gal i. 8. is very fingular. * St. Paul 
 lays his Curfe even upon an Angel from Hea- 
 ven, if he Should preach any other Gofpel, 
 or Faith, than T^hat which he himfelf had 
 freach'd* That is, Becaufe no Faith, but 
 the true, is to be preach' d-, THEREFORE No- 
 body can, in any Senfe, be poffiUy favd 
 without having it preachd to him. An ad- 
 mirable Confequence ! 
 
 In the next Paragraph, from Heathens 
 and Mahometans he returns to Chriflians. 
 t Ihe fame Apoftle tells us^ that as we are 
 falld to one Hope^ one Lord* and one *Bap- 
 tifrn^ fo to ONE FAITH. Eph- 4- v. 5. And 
 he affures us likewifa that without Faith it 
 is impoffible to pleafe God^ Heb. n. v. 6. 
 Now thefe two 'Texts joind together make 
 tip ademonftrativeTroofthat there is but 
 one Church, or Communion, in which Sal- 
 
 vation
 
 Entitled^ England V Converjion^&c. 1 77 
 
 vation is fojfible. Not fo very demonftra- 
 tive becaufe the Word Faith does not fig- 
 nify the fame thing in both Texts. In the 
 former, it means by a Metonymy, the Ob- 
 feft of our 'Faith) the Doctrine of the Gof- 
 pel j in the latter, it means the 'Belief of> 
 or more properly the 4fjent to 9 Thefe 
 Truths, that M is, and that be is a Re- 
 warder of Thole who diligently feek him. 
 He purfues his Argument Thus.- * For if 
 there be but one Faith (and who can doubt 
 it ? ) it follows that among the many Chtirch- 
 es, which all teach different Faiths, there 
 can be but one which teaches the Faith St. 
 Paul f peaks of-, which is undoubtedly the 
 true one. Undoubtedly it is : But then You 
 talk, as if there were as many Faiths in 
 the World as there are Churches ; or as if 
 every different Church had a different Gof- 
 pel. A moft vain, and groundlefs Suppofition ! 
 Thofe who differ from one another in many 
 things, may have, and a&ually have, the one 
 true Faith in the main : Even *Papifts have 
 it, tho' with fpurious Additions ; as//^ have 
 it, without any. The Remainder of the 
 Paragraph is anfwer'd of courfe, by what has 
 been fa id. 
 
 His abufing Biiliop *Pearfon f for adhering 
 to the Church of England, out of Intereft 
 
 * ttld.
 
 178 An ANSWER to a Topijh Book, 
 
 and Prejudice, I pafs over ; becaufe I have 
 prcmis'd to make no more Remarks upon 
 his Reclamations of That Kind. But his 
 malicious Slanders, and infolent Reflections, 
 upon all wtr Bifhops in general,, mall be ta- 
 ken notice of in a more proper Place : I mean 
 in the Examination of his Third 'Dialogue, 
 which is made up of Scandal, and little 
 elfe. 
 
 * He concludes by inferring, that it "be- 
 hoves us, as we tender our Salvation, to ex- 
 amine by what Marks we may clearly 
 know This one true Church. Very well then ; 
 Let us havejw/r Marks : We have had 'Eel- 
 larminis long ago $ And fuch a Mark has 
 been fet upon them by feveral Learned Di- 
 vines of our Church as will not eaiily be 
 ivip'd off. 
 
 *?. 7*
 
 Entitled, England's Conwrfion, &c. 179 
 
 ToThe Second SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Neither Education, nor Interefl^ are 
 to be consulted in the choice of our Re* 
 
 IN This Se&ion (to what end it was mad* 
 a Seffiion, or at all inferted, I no more 
 underftand, than I do how the fitle of it 
 came to be falfe Grammar} we have littlo 
 more than a Repetition of the fo often re- 
 peated Harangue, upon the noble Subjeft of 
 Intereft, and YrefttdiCf. 
 
 This continues for * leveral Pages ; and 3 it 
 being more than once anfwer'd already, 
 I lhail only remark upon a few Senten- 
 ces in Thofe Pages, with a view to fomething 
 elfe. 
 
 P. 73. $ut This [viz. To be fatisfyd 
 with any Religion, only becaufe we were 
 educated in it j is as irrational, as if any 
 one foould argue Tbusi I have got the L>e- 
 profy, or Kings Evil of my 'Parents, there-' 
 fore I ought to reft content with it y and not 
 
 73, 74, 75, ?* 
 
 N gtw
 
 *8o An ANSWER to a Topifb <Book, 
 
 give my Self the trouble of fe eking after Re- 
 medies for my Cure. So fay I too : And 
 would to God the Tapifts would duly con- 
 fider it, and pra&ically apply it to Ihem- 
 J elves. If They did ; the Leprofy, or Kings 
 Evil of Topery would not be fo reigning, 
 and epidemical, as it is. 
 
 P. 74. To prove the Impoflibility of Sal- 
 vation to Thofe who have not the true Faith, 
 he alledges, Mark xvi. 1 6. He that belie veth 
 not JJjall be condemn d. That is, if it be 
 his own Fault that he believeth not : Which 
 was the Cafe of Thofe Unbelievers, to 
 whom the Apoftles work ing Miracles preach'd; 
 and of whom our Saviour here fpeaks as 
 appears from the Context both Before, and 
 After. 
 
 Ibid. *Bnt is their T)e(ire to find the 
 Iruth as hearty., and fincere, &c. Are they 
 ready to imitate the courageous Virtue of 
 Toby, wbo, when all flock d to the Golden 
 Cakes fet up by Jeroboam, feparated him- 
 f elf from the Communion of his 'Fellow-Citi- 
 zens and went alone up to the temple at 
 Jerufalem, &c ? This was exadly the Cafe 
 of our frft Reformers-. But the Church of 
 England has no golden Cakes 3 - nor any o- 
 ^osx "golden Images to worflnp^ as the Church 
 of Rome has ; nor any abominable Corrup- 
 tion whatfoever, as the Church of Rome 
 has a thouiand.
 
 Entitled, England^ Confer Jlov, Sec. 1 8 1 
 
 P. 75. His Reflexion upon our perfecu- 
 ting Laws, as He calls them, might well 
 have been omitted ; for a Reafon, which 
 jQiall be confider'd in due time, and 
 place. 
 
 Having done with Self-Inter eft, and Tre- 
 jndice, for the prefent, He advances to fome- 
 thing which looks like fomething to the 
 Purpofe. * If Ton can fully convince me, 
 fays the Young Gentleman, that all the 
 Marks of the true Church of Chrifl belong 
 fo wholly ) and folely to the Church of Rome, 
 [Ay, prove Tihat^ fay I] that they cannot with 
 any Appearance of T^ruth be appropriated 
 
 to the Church <y/England The Church of 
 
 ^England dees not pretend to appropriate 
 them to herfelf ; but owns they belong to 
 other Churches, as well as to Her. Be- 
 
 iides i ^Belong fo folely to one, that they 
 
 cannot be appropriated ^ i. e. belong folely 
 to another, is very odd Senfe : If they be- 
 long foldy to one, they cannot at all be- 
 long to another. If This Writer, as He is 
 not very exaft in his Language, by appro- 
 priated means apply d\ I abfolutely deny 
 his Aflertion, and let him prove it if he can. 
 After the Words Church of England^ the 
 young Gentleman adds ; \nor_ by Conference 
 to any other of the reform d Churches^ as be- 
 
 P. 77. t IM* 
 
 N 3
 
 An ANSWER^ a 
 
 ing all upon the fame Bottom. If the Marks 
 of a true Church do not belong to the Church 
 of England; it will indeed not only follow, 
 but follow a fortiori^ that they do not be- 
 long to any other Church, whether reform'd, 
 or unreform'd. But, by his Leave, all the 
 reformed Churches are not quite upon the 
 fame Bottom with the Church of England-, 
 for a very material Reafon : Which if our 
 Author does not know, he is very ignorant j 
 if he does, he is very uvjtift. 
 
 Were not Tautology as delightful to Him 
 as it is naufeous to Me , i. e. as much as 
 poflible : He would not here fo formally, 
 with \ft. idly, and -$dly. have repeated * 
 his Texts about tie Tittar of Truth ; Chrift's 
 being always with his Church - 3 the Gates 
 of Nelly &c to prove That there is true 
 Faith in the true Church : Which Nobody 
 denies that I know of. 
 
 If, t fays he, the reformed Church of En-^ 
 
 fland can ejf equally prove that Jhe has on 
 er Side the neceJTary> and effential Marks 
 of THAT Apoftolical Church which CHRIST 
 eft ablijtidtipon Earth) and to which he made 
 the Tromifes of a PERPETUAL Jfliftancti I 
 will then own her to be a 'Part of the trite 
 Church of Chrift.. That is to fay, if She 
 (tho* She pretends to no fuch thing) can 
 
 * aid i P. 78.
 
 Entitled^ England' j Converfion, &c. 1 8 3 
 
 pr ove herfelf to be the Whole ; He will own 
 her to be a Tart. Very indulgent indeed ! 
 But the Favour would have been fo much 
 the greater j if it had not been founded upon 
 Nonfenfe, and Contradiction. He adds, 
 * But if) on the contrary ^ I make it appear 
 manifeftly that they belong entirely to the 
 Church in Communion with the See of 
 Rome, cxelufioely of all the r ef or md Church- 
 es y then the Church of England muft own 
 that She is engagd in a defencelefs Caufe- 
 \ grant the Confequence ; but deny the 
 Antecedent : And defire the Reader care- 
 fully to obferve how he proves it, here, or 
 any where elfe. t And c&n have no 'Title to 
 the 'Promifes^ 'tilljhe returns to her old Mo- 
 ther Church ; whereof '/he was a Tart for 
 the fpace of no lefs than nine hundred Tears. 
 The Church of P^ome is not Mother to the 
 Church of England -, There was a Church 
 in 'Britain., as foon as at Rome, if not foon- 
 er: And if They argue from the Con- 
 verfion of the Saxons ; The Church of Rome 
 is no more the Mother of Ours upon That 
 Account, than one Man becomes the Fa- 
 ther or Mafter of another Man by convert- 
 ing him to Chriftianity. Neither did the 
 Engli/h Church upon That Account, be- 
 come a Tart of the R.omifh y as ihall be 
 
 Kid. t Ibid. 
 
 N 4 iliewn
 
 '184- An ANSWER** a Tofifb Book, 
 
 fhewn in our Examination of the Fourth Di- 
 alogue : In which our Author difcourfes of 
 This matter more at large. 
 
 We are to form a Judgment^ He fays, * 
 i ft. Whether the Confer /ion ^ or Reformation 
 of England, was properly the Work of God. 
 For He could not le the Author of 'Both. Why 
 fo ? Becaufe, as He attempts to prove, the 
 Religion to which "England was converted 
 was the fame as Popery ; Which I totally 
 deny ; and than which nothing, as it will 
 appear, can be a more grofs and notorious 
 FaiOiood . t idly. Whether the ejjential Marks 
 of the true Church, to wit^ her perpetual Vi- 
 JiMlity^ heriininternipiedSitcce(Jion(f c Bi(hops 
 tind Toft or s in the fame Communion from 
 the Apoftlcs down to T.his time^ and her 
 Catholicity^ or Univerfality loth of Time, 
 find 'Place) are applicable to the Church of 
 England, or to the Churches in Communion 
 with the See of Rome. Thefe then are his three 
 ejjential Marks of the true Church : Let the 
 Reader carefully attend to them ,- For the 
 whole IfTue of the Caufe, it feems, is to turn 
 upon them, perpetual Vifibility* of one fort, 
 or other, belongs to the Church in general > 
 but neither to the Church of Rome y nor the 
 Church of England, in particular. An un- 
 interrupted Succejfton of e ifiops> and Taflors 
 
 79, t //* 
 
 from
 
 Convffrj&nfet. 18 j 
 
 from the Apoftles down to this time^ the 
 Church of England has, as much as the 
 Church of Rome. But what is the Mean- 
 ing of Thofe Words, in the fame Commu- 
 nion ? Cardinal 'Eellarmine fpeaks out, and 
 fays the fifth Note of the Church is the Sue- 
 cejfion of jBtfiops, &c. in the Church of Rome. 
 Which, tho' it be proving a thing by itfelf, 
 the conftant Way of 'Popijh Arguing, is how- 
 ever fpeaking fo as to be plainly underftood. 
 But our Author has a more delicate, and 
 moft ufeful Fallacy in Thofe Words, the 
 fame Communion j implying that the Church 
 of "England is not the fame Communion fhe 
 was before the Reformation. And why fo, 
 I pray ? Even bccaufe She is not now in 
 Communion with the Church of Home ; 
 and has thrown off all Thofe Doctrines, and 
 Practices, which We callRomiflj Corruptions. 
 The Sophiftry of This (not to mention 
 the odd life of the Word Communioii) I have 
 elfe where detected, by diftinguifhing between 
 what is effential) and what is accidental^ 
 and obferving that the fame Man may be 
 fick at one time, and found 'at another. Ca- 
 tholicity of Time I take not to be Senfe : 
 What he would fay, if I rightly underftand 
 him, falls in with 'Perpetuity, and fo iHould 
 not have been nam'd as another Mark. If 
 Catholicity of *Place means poffeffing the 
 whole World -, it is no Mark even of tha 
 Church in general, much lefs of any parti- 
 cular
 
 186 An ANSWER to a Topifi 
 
 cular one. If it means leing the Whole, or 
 including all the Parts $ no doubt it belongs 
 to the Church in general ; that is to fay, 
 no doubt the Whole is the Whole : But for 
 the fame Reafon, 'tis a Contradiction to ap- 
 ply it to any Church, or Churches in parti- 
 cular. But more of This in our Examina- 
 tion of the laft Se&ion of the laft Dia- 
 logue ; where our Author makes his Affump- 
 tion, and enforces his whole Argument. 
 At prefent I make the following Obfer- 
 vations. 
 
 ift. Here again, as above. We muft diftin- 
 guifli, tho' They do not, between Thofe ma- 
 terial Particles A^ and The. Doubtiefc, 
 there ought to be, and adually are. Marks, 
 or Notes, by which a Church, meaning 
 This, or That particular Church, may be 
 prov'd a true Church. But the Papifts will 
 needs find out fuch Marks as prove Their 
 Church to be The Church j that is, either 
 prove a Tart to be the Whole^ which all 
 the Marks in the World will never be able 
 to do : Or prove Their Church to be the 
 only true one, which the particular Marks 
 by Them aflign'd will never be able to do $ 
 Nor indeed any other, -idly. We grant 
 that Theirs is a true Church in one Senfe ; 
 meaning a real Church : And they do but 
 vainly endeavour to prove that Ours is not 
 fo. But idly. The great Queftion is, or 
 pught to be, what m^kes a true Church in 
 
 the
 
 Converfwn^ Sec. 1 87 
 
 the other Senfe, i. e. a Jound, and gwd? one : 
 And This Qucftion the Papifts, for a very 
 f lain Reafon^ carefully avoid. %rtftfa Sound- 
 nefs^ and 'Purity of Faith> and ^DoUrine^ 
 according to the only tme Rule, the Word 
 of God, are undoubted effential Properties, 
 and absolutely neceifary Marks or Notes of 
 a true Church in This ilgnification : And 
 Thefe are Marks which our Author takes 
 no notice of. According to Thefe, Ours is 
 in This Senfe a true Church, and Theirs 
 a falfe one. qtbly* The Marks or Notes 
 of a falfe Church, Thus underftood, /'. e. an 
 unfound) corrupt Church, are plain, and 
 obvious to 'every body that can read the < Bi- 
 lle with the common Underftanding of a 
 rational Creature \ not fuch dark and blind 
 ones at beft (for many pf them are evidently 
 no Marks at all) as the Papifts lay down to 
 diftinguiih the true Church j which require 
 much more Explanation than the Thing 
 they are pretended to explain. That Church 
 is certainly andmantfeftiy unfound, and cor- 
 rupt, which evidently contradicts the Scrip- 
 tures in fome of the moft material Points $ 
 impofes Terms of Communion, a Comply- 
 ance with which the Law of God forbids ,- 
 teaches Doctrines which encourage all man- 
 ner of Wickednefs, and utterly evacuate- 
 the whole Defign of the GofpeL It may, 
 not withftan ding all This, be a true Church 
 in the other Senfe $ /. e. really a Church .- 
 
 But-
 
 i88 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 But we may be damnd for communicating 
 with it, for all That. Nay, we certainly 
 fhall be fo ; unlefs involuntary Ignorance ex- 
 cufe us, or (which we have not the leaft 
 Reafon to hope for) uncovenanted Mercy be 
 extended to us. 
 
 To the Third SECTION; 
 
 Of the firft Entrance of Cbriftianity in- 
 to Britain ; its Trogrefs, and Efta- 
 llifhment there^ in the Reign of f(ing 
 Lucius. / 
 
 A very few Words will be fufficient to 
 difpatch This Section ; becaufe it con- 
 tains nothing but a Recital of Fads, which., 
 whether true, or falfe, do not affed our 
 prefent Controverfy. For what is it either 
 to Us, or our ~R.omifli Adverfaries, that 
 St. Teter went to Rome at fuch a time j that 
 Claudius came into Britain ; that Britain 
 was reduced into a Roman Province under 
 *Domitian - y that Lucitis w r as the Son of 
 CW/#.rKing ofSritain, in the Reign of Tra- 
 jan i that He fent to Pope JLleutherius.> who 
 fent IDamianuS) and Fugatitis, &c. in fliort, 
 that at laft ^Britain was converted to Cbri- 
 ftianity ? I know no Ufe our Author could 
 
 make
 
 Converfion, &c, 189 
 
 make of This, and indeed the greateft Part 
 of what follows in This Dialogue ; unlefs 
 it were to dijplay his great Reading or to 
 anmfe weak Minds with the Solemnity and 
 Formality of fo much Hiftory. 
 
 Here therefore, and wherever elfe I meet 
 with the fame Sort of Learning, 1 mall be 
 very brief j only taking notice of fome few 
 Particulars which feem the moft confidera- 
 ble. 
 
 " When he tells us that St. Tcter went 
 to Rome in the zd Year of Claudius ; ho 
 agrees indeed with Baronins, and Cellar- 
 mine^ from whom he had it ,- but not with 
 St. Luke in his Acts of the Apoftles^ from 
 which the Contrary is demonftrable. And 
 
 in That Pailage, f According to Eu- 
 
 febius, who writes 'Thus of him ; Peter the 
 Apoftle of the Country of Galilee, the fir ft 
 
 chief Itifljop of Chriftians remain d 
 
 KJtvp. of That City for 25 Tears together. 
 Euf. in Chron. An. Chrifti 44. He puts a 
 falfe Quotation upon us ; there being no 
 fuch Words as frfl chief ^op of Cbrijii- 
 ans II ; nor remain d Bifoop &c. in the 
 Place referr'd to. Nor does Etifebius either 
 there, or any where elfe, fay that St. Te- 
 ter was Bifhop of Rome 25 Years; 
 
 f P. So. t IMA II UolcA 5 wf v^auO- m7 be fo render 'd. 
 
 or
 
 190 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 or that he was ever Bill op 'of Home at 
 all.* 
 
 f He fays. King Lucius refolvd ferioufly, 
 aridpromisd, to embrace openly the Chriftian 
 Faith -, tho he did not judge it feaf enable till 
 fome Tears after, to put this good Turpofe 
 effectually in Execution, there were two 
 main Obftacles, (both of them from worldly 
 Intereft) which tho he was a Convert in his 
 Heart, kept him back, &c. That is. He con- 
 tinued a Heathen in outward Pra&ice for 
 fome Years after he was a Chriftian in his 
 Heart. This, it feems, our Author does not 
 blame in Him ; but in his Third Dialogue, 
 he is very fevere upon Cranmer for a Pre- 
 varication of the fame Nature. In him it 
 was a heinous Crime, that in King Henry s 
 Reign II He was a Lutheran in his Heart, 
 
 and did not throw off the Mask, till 
 
 the next Reign. And the Bifhop of Meaux, 
 as quoted in the Preface, $ is perfectly tran- 
 fported again ft him upon That Account, 1 
 If Cranmer was guilty of Diffimulation, fo 
 was Lttcius : And thus the chief Inftruments 
 of England's Confer/ton, and Reformation, 
 were upon an equal Foot in That refpect. 
 Why ftiould the fame Thing be fo ftrong 
 an Argument againft the One, and none at 
 
 * See Dr. avs's Life of St. Peter. Set. xi. throughout. 
 t P. 85, H P. 175, J 7<>' * Prcf. P. xiii, xiv. &c
 
 Entitled, "England^ Converjion^&c. 19 1 
 
 all againft the Other ? If our Author infifls 
 upon This Topick, He condemns the Conver- 
 fion j If he gives it up, he fo far acquits 
 the Reformation. It is in truth no Argu- 
 ment againft Either : If it were *, it would 
 go much farther, than the Romanifts would 
 have it : For St. Teter himfelf, even while 
 he was making Converts, was guilty of Cow- 
 ardife^ and T)ijfimulation. * 
 
 Tho' with regard to the Point we are novf 
 confidering, 'tis no Bufinefs of mine to reflect 
 upon the Memory of Pope Eleutherius -> The 
 Church of Rome in his time being undoubt- 
 edly pure, whatever He was j yet I think 
 he deferves not the Title of Saint, which 
 our Author beftows upon him : f Unlefs 
 .Saintjhip be confident with Montanifm. \\ 
 Which latter., by the way, is certainly incon- 
 jfiftent with Infallibility. 
 
 Speaking of our owing our jecond Con- 
 verfion to the 'Eifhop of R.ome y He concludes 
 the Section in Thefe Words. * In recompence 
 whereof^ bis holy See has fince been diftin- 
 guijtid here by the honourable Title of 
 the Whore of Babylon, and his f acred Ter- 
 fon by that of Jntichrift. The Church of 
 England does not call Names in This man- 
 ner j however fome particular Perfons may : 
 
 * Gal. ii. 12. 13. 14. f p. 36. \( See Dr. Cave's 
 Life of Irenes. P. 164. $ P. 88: 
 
 and
 
 faa Topl/b Book, 
 
 and even They, confidering the Provocation 
 given them, may well enough be excus'd. 
 She infifts, if he pleafes, that both the See, 
 and the Bifhop, are damnably cor nipt : And 
 if This be true, as We have prov d it is 5 
 where is the Ingratitude^ or Injuflice in fay- 
 ing fo? We fliould be guilty of neither; 
 even if We were the frft converted^ and the 
 prefent Pope, and Church of Rome our Con- 
 verters : Becaufe it would be our indijpen- 
 fable Duty to proteft againft, and avoid 
 fuch Corruptions. If a Man converts me 
 to the true Faith, afterwards revolts from 
 it Himfelf, and would perfwade me to do 
 the like j does Gratitude oblige me to fol- 
 low him, or even not to declare againfl 
 him ? How much ftronger then is our An- 
 fwer ; when it is confider'd how many Cen- 
 turies have pafs'd fince England's Converfion ; 
 and that the Church of Rome coniifts not 
 Now of the fame Individuals it did T^ben ? 
 This Author, and his Friends, when their 
 Turn is ferv'd by it, can coin a thoufand nice 
 "'Diftivttions without a difference. And on 
 the other hand, when their Turn is ferv'd 
 by it too, cannot diftinguijh between the 
 Jfflole, and a Tarty between Toft, and 
 Trefent ; between Perfons 'new living, 
 and Perfons dead eleven hundred Years a- 
 
 See backwards, P. 20: 
 
 To
 
 Entitled, England V Converjlon^&c. 193 
 
 * 
 
 To The Fourth SECTION: 
 
 Of the Converjlon of the Englifh Sax- 
 ons from Paganifm to Chriftia- 
 nity. 
 
 IN This, likewife, and the two following 
 Sections, we meet with little to our Pur- 
 pofe. The Converfion of the Saxons by 
 Aujlin the Monk under Pope Gregory I. at 
 the End of the fixth Century is well known 
 to the World And what Occafion our Au- 
 thor had to give us fuch & formal Hiftory 
 of it in This Place, I cannot imagine ; un- 
 lefs it were for the two Reafons I Before 
 aflign'd. P. 1 89. I therefore purfue the Me- 
 thod then proposM. 
 
 Tho' it be no very material Circumflance, 
 what Pope it was, whom * Gregory > when 
 a private Trieft, folicited to fend fovne a- 
 lie Minifters to "Britain ; This Writer is 
 perhaps too pofitive in faying it was jBene- 
 diffi : Becaufe I find another very good Au- 
 thor f telling us it was Talagius II. 
 
 * P. 85, f Verftegav. Reftitntion, &c. P. 141. 
 
 Q He
 
 An ANSWER to a Tofljh Book, 
 
 He acquaints us * from Bede, that Auftin 
 and his Fellow-MifTionaries, being upon 
 their Journey for England, were feizd with 
 aflothful Fear, and humbly defir'd Pope Gre- 
 gory that They might be permitted to drop 
 their Defign of converting the Saxons^ and 
 return home : Aiijlin Himfelf being fent back 
 to make That Requeft. Sure This Cowar- 
 difc^ and Tergiversation of Theirs was al- 
 moft as bad a. Cranmers: And the One 
 almoft as good an Argument againft This 
 Second Conversion ; as the Other againft the 
 Reformation. 
 
 His Reflection t upon fulling down the 
 Crofs in Edward VI's Time j with his fay- 
 ing, that to the everlafting Shame of Chrifti- 
 anity it was treated as an Image of fome 
 infamotis ? ray tor, by the llejjed Reforma- 
 tion y is fraudulent, and fland'rous. It was 
 pull'd down only to prevent Idolatry in Wor- 
 ihipping the Crofs, not as a Mark of Igno- 
 miny upon the Crofs itfelf : Which latter is 
 always the Cafe, when the Statue of a 
 Traytor is defac'd. The Image of the Crofs 
 is ftill usd among us, tho' not adord: It 
 ftands upon our Churches ; and our Fore- 
 heads are fign'd with it in our Bap- 
 tifm.
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, &c. Ipy 
 
 The following Paffage is remarkable e- 
 nough. * For fie [King Ethelbert] had 
 learn d from bis Inftruttors, and Leaders to 
 Salvation* that the Service of Chrift ought' to 
 be voluntary, not by Compuljion. So We Pro- 
 teftants fay. And We add that Papifts now- 
 adays have not learn'd the fame Dextrine : 
 Witnefs the Inquijition > and their Laws a- 
 bout the turning of Hereticks. We have 
 Proof therefore, and 'tis confefs'd, that 
 Thofe Inftructors then taught one Dodrine 
 at leaft different from what the Church of 
 Rome teaches now* So that the Religion 
 of Rome was not exactly the fame Then as 
 it is Now ; tho' our Author aifures us it was : 
 Of which hereafter. I very well know what 
 was his Defign in quoting Thofe Words, and 
 laying an Emphafis upon them by printing 
 them in a different Character j It was to re- 
 flet upon the perfecuting Spirit of our 
 Church, and the Force us'd at the Reforma- 
 tion : Of which too in a more proper Place. 
 To a more proper Place, likewife, we refer 
 our Remarks upon what is contain'd in 
 Thofe Words of His, f All the $ijhops of 
 Britain were by *Pope Gregory put under 
 St. Auguftin's Jwrifdt&ion ; as alfo upon. 
 SAYING MASS, the Ufe of HOLY WATER, 
 and RELICKS in Auftiris Time : Which our 
 
 P.
 
 196 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 Author, for fome important Reafon we 
 muft think, has taken Care to have printed 
 in Capital Letters. 
 
 To The Fifth SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 A Relation of St. Auguftin's Confe- 
 rence with the Britifh Bi/bops. 
 
 IT is no wonder that This Gentleman is 
 * fo angry with the %ritifh Bifhops, and 
 takes fo much pains to blacken them : The 
 Reafon is plain j They were refractory, in- 
 filled upon their own Rights, and would not 
 fubmit to the Papal Jurifdidion ; however 
 he afterwards pretends to fet another Face 
 upon That matter. 
 
 Of the Conference t at Auflins Oke^ as 
 related both by Cambden^ and 'Bede^ I have 
 nothing to fay at prefent ; farther than to 
 obferve, ift. That duftins Miracle in open- 
 ing the Eyes of the Blind, being intended 
 to convince the Britons - y it would have been 
 lefs liable to fufpicion, had the Man a upon 
 
 * P. ?"> ?8, & Paffim. j p. 99, 100, loi. 
 
 whom
 
 Entitled, England** Con verjlon^ &c 1 9 7 
 
 whom the Miracle was to be wrought, been 
 of the Britijb Race, not of the Englijb. 
 -idly. That the Story of the filly Advice 
 given by the Hermit to the 'Eritiflj Bifhops, 
 concerning the Judgment they were to make 
 of Auftin^ from his rifing *//>, or not rifing 
 up, when they came to him, is in my Judg- 
 ment a very ftrange one, and fcarce credible j 
 tho' related by *Bede himfelf. Not that it 
 fignifies any thing, either way. Of the 
 tbrec 'Points fa id to be propos'd by Auftin 
 to the "Britons^ notice enough will be taken ; 
 when we come to the Examination of the, 
 Nintb Section. 
 
 To The Sixth SECTION; 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 St. Auauftin ^indicated. 
 
 o 
 
 LE T St. Auftin^ in God's name, be vin- 
 dicated from any twjiift Afperfions, 
 which have been caft upon him: As fome y 
 no doubt, there have been ; Tho' after all t 
 much might be fa id to prove him not fo great 
 a Saint as the Romanifts make him. And 
 fince I have mention'd This; I cannot for- 
 bear adding, that the fame may be with 
 truth obferv'd of the great St. Gregory him- 
 O 3 felf
 
 198 ^ ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 felf. To pafs over other Inftances, his ful- 
 fom, and little lefs than blafphemous Letter 
 to That Mifcreant Thocas, when he had 
 got Poflfeflion of the Empire, his fhameful 
 Ingratitude in rejoycing over the Murder of 
 his great Benefa&or the Emperor Mauritius^ 
 and fhamefully flattering his Murderer, will 
 for ever be enough to fhew that it is not al- 
 together * fo impertinent^ as our Author 
 fuppofes, to accufe lhat eminent Saint of 
 Bafenefs And moreover, that among the 
 Qualifications for which he was fo f defer* 
 vedly furnamd the Great, Holinefs was 
 not the moft confidcrable. I juft touch upon 
 This Subjetf, not that I take Delight in 
 making fuch Reflections, tho' never fo true ; 
 but to put our Adverfaries in mind that it is 
 no great Wonder, if St. Gregory, and St. 
 Auflin y tho' they converted Part of our If- 
 land, yet made unjuft Encroachments upon 
 it ; and if fome few Corruptions crept into 
 the Church even in Their Days. I fay 
 fome few -, For thatT'teV Religion was not 
 the fame as the prefent Topery^ \ve fhall fee 
 in due time. Thofe who have affirmed that 
 it was, have indeed afpersd them ^ As our 
 Author, among others, has done. For done 
 it He has, (tho* I confefs with a quite dif- 
 ferent Defign)as well as t Holinfoead> and hen 
 
 * P. ioo. t p, 88. 
 
 heft
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, Sec. 
 
 neft John *Bale^ as he merrily exprcflfes 
 bimfelf. In the main, we honour the Me- 
 mory of both Thofe eminent Perfons, St. 
 Gregory, and St. Auftin^ as the Inftruments 
 of our Convention - 3 and blefs God for the 
 iueftimable Benefits which by Their Means 
 were convey 'd to us. 
 
 The famous Controverfy about the * Her- 
 mit's wife Advice, together with the Cha- 
 rader given of him - 3 as alfo the DifculTion of 
 That important Queftion concerning St. 
 t duftins Behaviour, whether he were found 
 fitting^ vrftanding - y I wholly give up to our 
 Author, to be by Him made the moft of, 
 and determin'd either way, as He fhall think 
 proper. I only obferve, that confider- 
 ing how much Pains he takes, and how many 
 Pages he fpends, in clearing St. duftin from 
 the Imputation of Trifle laid to his Charge 
 by the "Britijh Bilhops, He feems hard prefs'd 
 in his Defence of him : And if Jluftin were 
 a proud Man, he was certainly no great 
 Saint. 
 
 How blameable foever the 'Britons might 
 be, in not * celebrating ILafter according to 
 the Determination of the firft Nicene Coun- 
 cil ; That Faft at leaft fliews that they re- 
 ceiv'd their Cuftoms from the Eaft, net 
 from Rome : And the fame Argument may 
 
 * ?, 103, 104. t P- '05. tt 10 : t P. ioy.- 
 
 Q 4 be
 
 200 An ANSWER to a Tofifb Book, 
 
 be drawn from their Difagreeing with the 
 Romifh Church in the Adminiftration of 
 JSaptifm. From whence it appears that 
 before St. jfaftiris Coming, Rome had no 
 'Dominion over them. It may here too be 
 very properly ask'd, dnce our Author fo 
 confidently appeals in This Cafe to the firft 
 Nicene Council , how it comes to pafs, that 
 the Church of Rome flips over another Ca- 
 non of the fame Council ? I mean the Sixth ; 
 the famous T* <i<sya. 9 jt?IT. A Canon, 
 which alone, if there were no other Argu- 
 ment, as there are a thoufand, would be 
 enough to ftrike the Topes Supremacy dead 
 forever. 
 
 St. Auftins * thinking himfelf Metropo* 
 litan y and Trimate, over the $riti/h Pre- 
 lates, fliall be fully fpoken to in our Exa- 
 mination of the Ninth Section. 
 
 Tho' we are not oblig'd to vindicate every 
 thing written by Holingjbead^ "Bale., and 
 Fox y not one of whom is by Us efteem'd 
 any great Champion of the Reformation : 
 f yet our Author had little Rcafon to be fo 
 very gay, and witty, in triumphing over 
 them. * John ^Bale y and his moft faith- 
 ful ^Dorothy. H Have a little Tatience - y I 
 have a ^Brace more of Trot eft ant Hiftori- 
 ans, not at all inferior ^ &c. honeft John 
 
 * P. 107, f P> iop. * Ibid. HP. US.
 
 JEwfifW,England*j Conversion, 
 
 and bis Namefake John Fox. Let him 
 have as many "Brace of them, as he pleafes ; 
 Let Thofe he here mentions be never fo 
 wrong in fome things, they were right in 
 reforming from the Errors and Abominati- 
 ons of Popery. Whatever Miftakes have 
 been committed by Fox in his^&j, and Mo- 
 numents - y He has la id frutb enotif[frin them 
 to make the Church of Rome bium as red 
 as the Blood ftie has fpilt : Were it in her 
 Nature to be capable of blujbing at any 
 thing, 
 
 That Fox is fo * vile an Author^ as This 
 Author reprefents him ; That there are mo- 
 deflly fpeaking at leafl ten thoufand noto- 
 rious Lies either exprejly afferted^ or infinu- 
 ated by him ^ that to call a Man one of Fox's 
 Saint s^ is proverbially become the fame as to 
 call him a great Rogue, unlefs it be among 
 Papifts , are themfelves fo many fcandalous 
 and malicious Falfhoods : And That is as 
 much jtyfwer, as Thefe unprovd^ and - 
 grounded AiTertions deferve. 
 
 We have like wife his I are Word for it,' 
 and nothing elfe, that f the Slaughter of 
 the 1 200 Monks [at Bangor] h append above 
 a Year after St. Auftin's 'Death - 3 and was 
 order d by a 'Pagan King of the Northum- 
 bers, with whom Sf. Auftin never had the 
 
 P.I Icy \lb\A* 
 
 haft
 
 20* An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 leaft Communication. The contrary Affertion 
 is much better fupported by the moft learn- 
 ed Primate BramhaH (a Name that will 
 for ever be the Terror of Rome) who in his 
 Juft Vindication, &c. P. 84. Edit. ^Dublin. 
 writes Thus. *f&ey refusd indeed to their 
 own coft ; 1 we fee hundred innocent Monks 
 of Bangor afterwards loft their Lives for it. 
 Rome was ever builded in "Blood. Howfo- 
 ever thefe Words (quamvis Auguftino prius 
 Mortuo) have fine e been forg'd, and infer ted 
 into venerable Bede 5 to palliate the matter ^ 
 which are wanting in the Saxon Copy. To 
 \vhich we may add the Teftimony otGeoJFry 
 of Monmouth -, * who agrees with the other 
 as to the Main of the Fa<ft : An Hiitorian 
 whom our Author afterwards f quotes, and 
 That in the Words immediately preceding 
 This Narration $ without the leafl Refle&ion. 
 upon his Ability, or Veracity. 
 
 The young Gentleman at the Conclufion 
 heed not have given himfelf the Trouble 
 of fo many Dedu&ions to prove * that Mr. 
 Collier ', was convincd in his Heart that St. 
 Auftin and his Followers preactid the true 
 faith in fbis I/Jand. He might have faid 
 the fame of Proteflants in general, if he had 
 pleas'd : We all acknowledge it as an un- 
 doubted Truth. And fo I proceed. 
 
 * Book xi. Chap. 13: f P. 139, * ?. 114. 
 
 To
 
 Entitled) England^ Converfion^ &c. 103 
 
 To The Seventh SECTION 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Roman Catholicks p rofefs to this *Day 
 the Faith which St. Auguftm 
 yreach'd* 
 
 WE acknowledge This too : But then 
 They profefs much more than That 
 Faith, and what is in its Nature inconjift* 
 ent with it. But we go on with our Au- 
 thor. That * it is impojfible the fame CM" 
 ftian faith Jhould le true in one Age., and 
 falfe in another., I grant ,- and fagely obferv'd 
 it was. But thofe Words, f The Faith and 
 Religion profefsd at Ihis time by the En- 
 gtffi Roman Catholicks^ cannot biit be the. 
 true one> if it be the fame as was taught 
 ly St Auguftin, require fome Animadvert 
 fion. If by the Jame as was taught be 
 meant what was taught ; I grant the Ar- 
 gument is fo far conclufive, that their Religion; 
 is fo far true as it agrees with what St. 
 Auftin taught in the Main. I add thofe 
 laft Words, for a Reafon which will ap- 
 pear immediately. But if it means nothing 
 
 * Sai, f UH&
 
 204 'An ANSWER to a Topi/h Book, 
 
 lut what was taught - y I deny that in This 
 Senfe the prefent Roman Catholicks profefs 
 the fame Faith and Religion that was taught 
 by St. Anflin. That we may proceed the 
 more clearly I here lay down three Tropo- 
 fitions^ as the Foundation of what I have 
 to offer upon this Head ; and to which Refe- 
 rence may be had, as occafion fhall re- 
 quire- 
 
 I. Were it true that the Religion which 
 St. Auftin brought into 'England was alto- 
 gether the fame as That which Papifts profefs ; 
 yet we might very confiftently with Reafon, 
 and with ourfelves, retain fo much of it as is 
 pure and genuine, and reject fo much of it 
 as is falfe and fpurious ; tho' we were taught 
 'Both at the fame time., and equally adherd 
 to %oth for nine hundred Years and upwards, 
 Suppofe a Man gives me a quantity of Wheat 
 and Tares mix'd together > and I, without 
 ' knowing the difference between them, for a 
 long time make ufe of Both promifcuoufly , 
 Am I therefore either fooliflj^ or wicked^ if 
 upon better Information I keep the Wheat, 
 and throw the Tares away ? Even upon this 
 Suppofition we fhould have been oblig'd to 
 St. Aufti'n-, who from Heathens made us 
 Chriftians : But does it therefore follow that 
 we are not at all oblig'd to Thofe who 
 from lad Chriftians in Faith and Doctrine 
 made us good ones ? 
 
 II. Som$
 
 , Englandv Converfon, &c. 20 j 
 
 II. <&W Corruptions of 'Popery were in- 
 deed creeping into the Church, when St. 
 Jitftin came hither ; tho' but very few. For 
 This Reafon I added the Words in the Main, 
 above-mentioned. He himfelf might poffibly 
 teach fomething erroneous, befides the Pa- 
 pal Jurifdi&ion $ tho' it does not appear that 
 He did. For tho 1 Gregory who fent him was 
 fttperftitious enough, and afferted the Doc- 
 trine of Purgatory , yet the Church of Home 
 in general embraced not That, nor any other 
 Do&rine which We now call Topi fa. And 
 therefore 
 
 III. To affirm that the Religion of the 
 Romi/h Church was entirely the fame Then 
 as it is Now, is a moft grofs, and Jhameftil 
 Untruth : As will appear from what I fhall 
 difcourfe, and even from our Author's own 
 Account of This Matter. 
 
 If all the Roman Catholick * Hiftorians 
 affirm This ; I am fure many Roman Catho- 
 lick Writers declare the Contrary. Thofe 
 do, for Inftance, f who place I'ranfubftan- 
 tiation fome hundred Years lower than Att- 
 ftiris time ; as all the World knows it ought 
 to be plac'd. But what need I refer to par- 
 ticular Writers, or Perfons ? Do not all the 
 Papifts acknowledge that Communion in ons 
 
 * IKd. [ See them quoted by Ttlbtfon againft Tranfub- 
 ftantiatioo. P. 306. 
 
 Kind
 
 20$ An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 Kind was firft eftablim'd by the Council o 
 Conflance ; and the five Sacraments^ 
 which We do not receive, firft invented by 
 Teter Lombard ? As for Protcftants ; Ho- 
 lingfloead, Bate, and Fox y have been fpoken 
 of already. But to fay that * all Trot eft ant 
 WitneJJes agree in Siibftance that Auguftin 
 and Ms fellow- Mi flioners brought Topery in- 
 to England, is an AfTertion worthy of our Au- 
 thor's Modefty. He himfelf cannot but know, 
 ds all the World does, that the whole Body of 
 the Church of England^ and all Proteftant 
 Churches, infift upon it that there was fcarce 
 any thing of Popery for the firft 600 Years : 
 It was within the fixth Century that Auftin 
 came into This Ifland ; How then can They 
 acknowledge that He brought Popery into 
 it ? Popery, in all its Tarts : For That 
 is what This Writer all along means. 
 
 Here he refumes his beloved Argument 
 from our Homily, declaring that before the 
 Reformation whole Chriftendom was drown d 
 in abominable Idolatry, and that for the 
 
 fpaCe Of EIGHT HUNDRED YEARS, AND 
 
 MORE. I fh all repeat nothing of what I 
 have already anfwer'd , but refer the Rea- 
 der to P. 59. 60. &c. What he fays new 
 upon the Argument is in Thefe Words, f 
 Which in true Troteflant Language brings 
 
 * p. 114, 115. t f- IJ 5
 
 Entitled, England'* Converfwn,&c. 207 
 
 Topery not only in Great Britain, but in 
 whole Chriftendom, up to the very 'lime of 
 England's Confer fion. Suppofing Topery and 
 Idolatry, in true Troteftant Language, to 
 be all one j tho' it is a Tapift, not a Tro- 
 teftant, that talks at That foolifti rate, con- 
 cerning which fee P. 69. This does not bring 
 it up to the very time #f England's Converjion, 
 by 153 Years: Reckoning the Reformation 
 in 1550; England's Converfion by Auftiris 
 Coming in 596, as All agree it was ,- and 
 meaning by 800 and more, juft 80 1, as we 
 very well may. Take it how you will ; It 
 does not bring it up to England's Conver- 
 fion, by about 150 Years, as we ufually, 
 and properly fpeak. Yet This Account in 
 the Homily, He pofitively alferts, brings To- 
 per y up to the VERY 'lime of England's Con- 
 verfion. The very Time exaffily ! It only 
 wants 1 50 Years : And That is fo inconjide- 
 rable ; that it may very well pafs for No- 
 thing. The Subject we are upon is the State 
 of a Nation, or Nations, with refpect to 
 Religion. In 1 50 Years, in half That Time, 
 in half a quarter of That Time, the Con- 
 ftitutions of Nations both in Church, and 
 State, may be, and actually have been, ut- 
 terly changd : Old Empires may be fubvert- 
 ed, and new ones erected j Whole Kingdoms 
 from Heathen become Chriftian, from Chrif- 
 tian Mahometan, or Heathen again. Yet 
 fuch a Traft of Years, in our Author's Chro- 
 nology,
 
 ao8 An ANSWER ^ a Popifl> Book, 
 
 nology, while he is fpeaking of Thefe Mat- 
 ters, goes for juft Nothing. Did he ima- 
 gine we could not tell Twenty ? What an 
 Opinion muft That Man have of our Under- 
 ftan dings ; who could think of impoflng fo 
 clumfey a Falfhood upon us ? 
 
 His pofitive Affertion that * the Belief of 
 the Mafs was unquestionably a Term of Com- 
 munion in the Time of Gregory the Great., 
 had need be well fupported -, efpecially fince 
 it is back'd by thefe ftrong ExpreiTions : f 
 The Thing is NOTORIOUSLY known-, and 
 Mr. Collier cannot have the CONFIDENCE 
 to deny it. Yet he produces nothing to 
 prove it, but the weakeft Kind of Arguing, 
 Arguing from a Word. It is related by 
 $ede y that Auftin and his Fellows SAID 
 MASS. But was Mafs the fame Thing Then 
 as it is Now ? For a full Anfwer to This 
 powerful Argument, I refer to the Word 
 MiJJa in Littletons Di&ionary. If ufing 
 That Word be a Proof of a Man's being a 
 Tapift; I confefs, not only St. Gregory^ 
 *but St. Juguftiii) St. Ambrofa and St. Cy- 
 frian were Papifts : And did the Church of 
 England retain it at This Day, I (hould 
 have no Quarrel with her for it: As I 
 Ihould Now have none with the Church of 
 were there Nothing to be obje&ed 
 
 \ Hid. 
 
 againft
 
 Entitled, England^ ConverJion^Stc. 109 
 
 again ft her, but That. In fhort, Mafs fig- 
 nify'd 'Divine Service^ efpecially the Sacra- 
 went of the Lord's Slipper : But not a Word 
 or Thought, in Thole Days, of the real 
 'Body and 'Blood of Chrift in it, of its being 
 a propitiatory , expiatory Sacrifice^ of the 
 Elevation, and Adoration of the /&/?. When 
 therefore our Author accufes Mr. Collier of 
 Infincerity and Unfair Dealing, for tran- 
 flat ing 'Bedes Words, by perform d all the 
 Offices ofReligion inftead of by j'aid Maff} 
 He is extremely guilty of it himfelf. They 
 may as well be rendered the former Way, 
 as the latter 5 or rather much better, con- 
 fidering how the Word Mafs is now us'd. 
 Not that the Argument would be of any 
 Force, were the Tranflation as He would 
 have itj for the Reafon I have now 
 given. 
 
 * He affirms that the Ufe of f acred Vef- 
 fe/Sy Ornaments for Altars^ Veftments for 
 Trie ft s.> TLetiques of the boh Apoftles^ and 
 Martyrs, as alfo fprinkling Churches with 
 holy Water., all pra&is'd in St. Gregory's 
 Time, is as plain *Popery as ever was 
 praxis d. Indeed ? Has the Church of En- 
 gland at prefent no f acred Fefie/s, Orna- 
 ments for Altars^ or Veft merits for Tr lefts* 
 As for 'R.eliques y an innocent and pious Ufe 
 
 * p. ntf. 117. 
 
 ? was
 
 2 TO An ANSWER to a Topijh Book, 
 
 was made of them at firft : But it began to 
 degenerate into Superftition long before Gre- 
 gory s Time ; and in his Time., That Super- 
 itition was come to a considerable Height : 
 Concerning which I refer to the ift and 2d 
 Prop6fitions. But of Wor/hip^ or Adoration^ 
 paid to them even in Ms Time, there is no 
 Appearance - 3 nor has This Author given 
 us the leaft Proof of any fuch Thing. 
 
 The Ufe of Water., to far inkle Churches at 
 their Confecration^if there was any fuchThing, 
 might be innocent even Then : It might be 
 a pure Ceremony^ for Decency and Solemnity ; 
 Or perhaps there might be tome Sziperflition 
 mix d with it : If there was ; I refer to the firft 
 and fecond Proportions, as before. Certain 
 it is., there was no fuch Holy Water in Thofe 
 Days, as there is in Ours : No fuch Venue ^ 
 or Efficacy^ afcrib'd to any Water Then, as 
 there is Now. Here again therefore our 
 Author only plays with a Word, 'Tis Quib- 
 bling, not Arguing. It is further to be no- 
 ted upon the Words Mafs, Holy-Water^ 
 &c. as us'd by c Bede^ that He wrote his Hif- 
 tory i oo Years after Gregory s^ and Auftiris 
 Time ; when Superftition had made greater 
 Advances : And therefore it does not follow 
 that he us'd fuch Words in the fame Senfe 
 as They did, if ever They us'd them at all. 
 Calling Churches by the Names of Saints, 
 is not the fame as Confecrating, or *Dedica- 
 ting Churches to them : Nor is f lacing Re- 
 
 Uqties
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion^ &c. 2 1 1 
 
 liques in Churches^ the fame as adoring 
 them. Which may ferve as a full Anfwer 
 to what our Author fays * about Thofe 
 Matters. Of Images and TiffiureS) more 
 at large prefently. f Turgatory, and a Mid- 
 dle State of Souk) are not all one ; as He 
 fallacioufly fuppofes. However., We grant 
 Pope Gregory believ'd a Purgatory ; and in- 
 fiir, as we \vell may, becaufe we have often 
 prov'd it, that He was erroneous in fuch his 
 Belief. Prop. II And it is to be obferv\t 
 (fays He t) that Aerius, and Vigilantius, were 
 condemn d by the Cburcb as Hereticks^ in 
 the ^th jlge, about 200 Tears before St. Gre- 
 gory; the one for oppojing the 'Boffrine of 
 'Purgatory ,- and the other for holding that 
 all 'Prayers made to Saints deceasd were 
 fruitless and vain, that no honour was to be 
 paid to thcm^ and that to give any refpeU to 
 their Relicks was downright Idolatry. *]i$ 
 therefore plain that thefe three Articles con- 
 cerning Turgatory y invoking the Saints., and 
 paying a religious Re/peffi to their Keliqties y 
 were Therms of Communion in St. Gregory's 
 1'ime ,- fince the Tenets contrary to them had 
 leen condemn d as Herefies long before. How 
 were Thofe Men condemn'd by the Church 
 as Hereticks? Were they condemn d, and 
 declared Hereticks by any Council ? One of 
 
 * P. 117. f Ibid. * IKd- 
 
 P a them,
 
 m An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 them, dcriuS) is * laid indeed to have taught 
 Heretical., as well as Schifmatical, Doftrines ; 
 but I never heard that his Denial of 'Purga- 
 tory was one of Them. He condemned pray- 
 ing for the 'Dead) I confefs ; and, by the 
 way, I do not find ^ that even This was 
 deem'd Herejy > tho' it was Contradicting 
 one general Opinion and Practice of the 
 Church : Bat Tracers for the "Dead as lloen 
 us'd had no Relation to Turgatory. Of Vi- 
 gil ant ins 1 s Opinion we know nothing, but 
 what St. Jerom has told us. f About pray- 
 ing to Saints he fays not one Word : He fays 
 Indeed, in Anfwer to Plgilantitis, that the 
 Saints pray/0r as , but This does not prove 
 that We are to pray to them. And if our 
 Author can prove that to condemn fuch 
 'Praying was efteem'd Herefy by the Church 
 about St. Jeroms time, or any Time before it; 
 I will yield the Caufe to him. The Truth 
 of the -Matter is; Vigilantius condemn'd 
 fuch Honoiir as was then generally paid 
 to the Reliques, and Tombs, of the Mar- 
 tyrs, Upon which St. Jerom^ in his vehe- 
 ment Way, falls upon him with as much 
 Zal, and Severity, as if he had deny'd the 
 Refurre&ion. Yet in all That Sharpnefs, and 
 
 * St- Anguft. de Hzrefibus. Htsr. 55. f Epifh ad 
 Riparicim ; uru cnm Tra^atu proxime fequenti adverfus 
 VJgilantiura. Tom. 2. P. iao dit. Froben. 
 
 Fervency
 
 Entitled, England *s Converfwn, &c. a i % 
 
 Fervency of Contradiction, which is apt to 
 carry Men into the other Extreme, He is fo 
 far from favouring any Worfltip, or Adora- 
 tion of Saints, or their Reliques ; that He 
 protefts againft it in the cleareft, and ftrong- 
 eft Expredions. * We are are fo far from 
 tc worshipping, or adoring the Reliques of 
 <c the Martyrs ; that we do not worfhip the 
 cc Sun, nor the Moon, nor Angels, nor 
 <c Archangels, dye. We honour the Reliques 
 cc of the Martyrs ; that we may aaor* 
 " Him, whofe Martyrs they are. " I know 
 our Author will tell us. This is the very 
 Refpctt T_'bey pay to Reliques; They only 
 honour them, but do not worflrip them. 
 And This fhall be anfwer'dy when we come 
 to Images^ and Tiffiures. It may here be 
 further obferv'd, that St. Jerom in This E- 
 piftle takes notice of Vigil ant ius\ not being 
 fo much as cenyitrd by his own 'Bifoop : 
 Much lefs was He then condemned by the 
 Church^ is an Heretick. From what has 
 been faid it appears that Thofe W r ords 
 of our Author, 'T/J therefore plain 
 that thefe three Articles^ 6cc- to the 
 End of the Paffage laft cited, either 
 
 * Nos atitcm non dico Martyrom reliquias, fed ne folcm 
 los, 
 
 et lunam, non Angelos, non Archangelos --- coli- 
 mus, et adoramus. Honoramus autem reliquias Martyrum ; 
 ut eum, cujus ftmt Martyrc.s, adoremuv. Hieron* adverfus Vi- 
 gilant. ubi iupra. 
 
 P 3 pro-
 
 2*4 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b Book, 
 
 proceeded from iliameful Ignorance, or 
 are (hamefully fraudulent, and collufive. 
 'Purgatory was not deny'd by Aerius^ 
 nor Invoking^ the Saints, nor worjbipping Re- 
 liqueS) or (if you pleafe) Paying fucb a reli- 
 gious Refpett to them as the prejent Tapifts 
 do, condemn 'd by Vigilantius : Becaufe there 
 were nc fitch Doctrines, and Practices., in T^beir 
 time. Nor could our Author have urg'd a 
 more unlucky Evidence than This of Vigi- 
 lantius : Becaufe while St Jerom inveighs 
 againft Him, for decrying fucb an Honour as 
 was then paid to the dead 'Eodies^ and 
 fombf} of the Martyrs ; He declares that 
 the Church in his Time did not z0r/2?//them : 
 And fo This Inftance turns directly againft 
 the Popifli Caufe. Farther ; According to 
 our Author's own Account, Vigilantius main- 
 tain'd that no Honour, no Refpect, fhould 
 be paid to Saints, and their Reliques : And 
 from the Church's condemning 'T. bis Doc- 
 trine as Heretical [tho' it never did fo] in- 
 fers that Paying a religious Refpecl: was a 
 Term of Communion, &c. Is there no Re- 
 fpc&, but religious Refpect ? What a Con- 
 fequence is This ? 
 
 In the next Page two Inftanccs are gi- 
 ven, as quoted from Saromus by Mr. Col" 
 lier> of our Departure from the Religion 
 
 * P. us, 
 
 which
 
 Entitled, England'* Converfion, Sec* 1 1 5 
 which Auflin introduced : The one is, our 
 aboliming the Monaftick Life ; for Auftin 
 was a Monk., and now We have no Monks : 
 The Other is our not making the fame Ufe 
 of the Croft) and of our Saviours TiffiurC) 
 as was made in his Time. Suppofing Both 
 were true ; I hope Monkery is not ejjential 
 to Chriftianity^ or Churcbjhip : And if AU- 
 Jlin^ and his Followers, made an Idolatrous 
 or even Super ft it ions Ufe of the Crofs^ and 
 our Saviours Tiffiure ; we are not bound to 
 do fo. But 2dly. Our Author fays nothing 
 to Mr. C0///Vr'j- Obfervation that the Church 
 of England has not declared againft the Mo~ 
 naftick Life in any of her Articles. To his 
 Obfervat:on_, * that the 'Dijfylution of Allies 
 here was an del of the State^ not of the 
 Church -, that it was prior to the Reforma- 
 tion, &c. He aniwers, that it lisas more pro- 
 perly an Aft of the Church than of the State. 
 ijtecattfe Vifiiingp Reforming and ZDiJJofoi'ng 
 Religious Houfis, is mo ft certainly an Ex- 
 ercife of Ecclefiaftical JurifdiUion. What 
 if it be? Cannot Ecciefiaftical Jurifdicl:ion 
 \fixrfd\ But bciides; It is not an Ad 
 of Ecclefiaftical Jttrifdi&ionjftj?^? fo call'd : 
 Of which we ihall have Occaiion to fay a 
 great deal, when the Third 'Dialogue comes 
 under Confideration. Then likevvife will o 
 
 P 4 Courfe
 
 ii6 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 Courfe be anfwer'd what He here adds in 
 the next Words ; * Be 'fides that the 'DiJJb- 
 luticn of them was commanded by K. Hen- 
 ry not as temporal Sovereign in his 'Domi- 
 nions , hit as fupreme Head of the Church, 
 dec. At prefent I only obferve, ift. That 
 whatever he did of This Kind, He did by 
 Jffi of ^Parliament , which I think belongs 
 to the State> not to the Church. 2dly. Sup- 
 pofing all This had been done by the 
 Church ; ftill 'twas a Tcpifh. Church : Po- 
 pifh in all Refpefts, except That of acknow- 
 ledging the Topes Supremacy. Our Author's 
 faying that f This Exception fpoils all^ is 
 extremely Trifling. For no Man (adds He) 
 was ever acknowledged to be a MEMBER of 
 the CHURCH p/'Rome, who deny d the Tope's 
 Supremacy. Well, be it fo : We do not fay 
 They were Members of the Church of Rome j 
 but They profefs'd the Religion of the 
 Church of Rome in all other Refpects. 
 They were not Trot eft ants therefore : They 
 were Papifts in every Inftance, but one ; and 
 not only fo, but zealous for That Religion. 
 * Neither (fays He) was the T>iJJolution of db- 
 II es wholly prior to the Reformation^ as Mr. 
 Collier is pleas' d to tell us : Unlefs he means 
 that it was prior to the Reformation in the 
 Reign of Edward VI. and Queen Elizabeth* 
 
 * f- ^p. f Ibid. ? /M. 
 
 So
 
 Conversion, &c. 2*7 
 
 So he might very well mean $ and You your- 
 felf in efreft own he might. P. 251^ 252. 
 Of which hereafter, in the Yhird Dialogue. 
 There alfo, in Anfwer to what the Bifhop 
 of Meaux difcourfes, fliall be confider'd what 
 our Author Here lays down, as a Pofition of 
 undoubted Truth ; That difcarding the 
 Tope, and vefting the fpiritttal Supremacy 
 in the Crown, was not only a Tart., but 
 the very capital 'Branch^ of the Refor- 
 mation. 
 
 His whole Difcourfe about the Crofs, I- 
 mages^ andthc'PjffiureofCbrtft., is Nothing 
 but a Repetition of the well known Popifli 
 Shuffling upon the Words Honotir, Re/peffi, 
 Worflrip^ Idolatry, &c. * I am glad (fays 
 
 the Young Gentleman) that the Church 
 
 0/ England has a great Regard to the Crofs> 
 
 and Tiffiure of our Saviour* However 
 
 the Nakednefs of Trot eft ant Churches feeras 
 to fpeak another Language. For 1 have Jeen 
 indeed the Tiffiures of Mofes 5 and Aaron in 
 fome of them ; but never found a Crucifix, or 
 Titttire of our Saviour in any. So have I 
 found Both : They are Both to be feen in 
 fome Proteftant Churches,- if the Pifture 
 of our Saviour upon the Crofs may be call'd 
 a Crucifix. Not that it would be any great 
 upon us, if all he fays were true : 
 
 P. ISO. 
 
 and
 
 t8 An ANSWER to a Topi/h 
 
 and if fome of our Churches were in This 
 refped more naked than They are. He 
 fakes it for granted, that the innumerable 
 Images, Pi&ures, Crucifixes, and other Re~ 
 ligious Furniture., with which Popifli Church- 
 es are crouded, tend very much to the Ho- 
 nour of God and Chriftianity : But That is a 
 Point, which it would become them rather 
 to prove ) than to fuppofe. * No better fup- 
 ported is the Preceptor's Aflfertion, Ibat it 
 was the T raft ice of Chriftians above 1400 
 'Tears ago to llefs themfelves, upon all occa- 
 fans, with the Sign of the Crofs. Nor does 
 the Patfage fo often cited from T^ertullian^ 
 -de Corona^ C, 3. in the leaft prove it. From 
 thence indeed it appears that they usd the 
 Sign of the Crofs very much ; even upon the 
 moft common Occafions of Life : But they 
 us'd it as a Badge or Token of their Profef- 
 fion, as a Mark of Diftinftion, to fhew that 
 they glory d in the Crcfs, while they liv'd 
 among Heathens who defyisd it j Not a 
 Word about Uejjing themfelves with it, or 
 their placing fo much Vertue^ and Efficacy 
 in it, as Papifts do at prefent. 
 
 But now for the Worfoip of the Crofs y 
 our Saviour's 'Piffiiire-t and other Images : 
 To which I add R clique s ; the Evafions of 
 pur Adverfaries being the fame as to all of 
 
 them.
 
 Entitled) England *s Converfwn, Sec. 1 1 9 
 
 t hem. If (* fays the Preceptor) he means 
 to infmuate that We pay Idolatrous Worjhip 
 to Images^ and T inures ; He wrongs us mofl 
 grievoufyl and I fear his own Confcience in- 
 ^to the Bargain. For a Man of his Learn- 
 ing cannot be ignorant, what our true y and 
 real T)offirine is^ in reference to the Matter 
 before us. He might be a Man of the great- 
 eft Learning in the World, and yet be igno- 
 rant of This : For they T^hemfelves are fo ,* 
 and could never yet agree in any one Mean- 
 ing about it. Our Author, to be fure, un- 
 derftands his own Meaning ; and other par- 
 ticular Pcrfons underftand Theirs : But what 
 is This to the Do&rine of the Generality? If 
 This Gentleman, and Others, be not for 
 Wwjhipping) but only Honouring ; many of 
 their greateft Men have declared them- 
 felves en the contrary Side. Thomas Aqui- 
 nas determines positively, that the jame 
 Reverence is to be paid to the Image of 
 Chrift as to Chrift himfelf ; and that the 
 Image is to be ador'd with Latria > which, 
 according to their own Account, is the high- 
 eft Sort of Worshipping 5 and greater cannot 
 be paid to God. The fame he fays of the 
 ^ in the very next Article. To omit 
 
 * P. 121. t Sequitur quod eadem reverentia cxhibeatnr 
 imagini Chrifti et ipfi Chrifto. Cum ergo Chrirtus adoretur 
 adoratione latrise, confcquens eft guod ejus imago fit adora- 
 tione lamas adovaoda, 3- (^ 2.5. Aitic 3. 
 
 Sena*
 
 220 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 $onaventure y Capreohis^ Caftro, Canifius y 
 TurriamiSy and many more (* Vafquez reck- 
 ons thirty, and adds himfelf to the Number) 
 the great 'Bellarmine t will have Images 
 worftiipped not only upon Account of the 
 Prototype, or Thing iignify'd, but for their 
 own Sakes - y fo that the Wormip may be 
 terminated in the Image. Nay, the Crofs 
 itfe/fis invoked, and prayd to in the Paflion- 
 Hymn. Thomas Aquinas makes This a Me- 
 dium to prove that the Wormip of Latria is 
 due to it. * He argues. <c To That in which 
 c< ^ye place the Hope of our Salvation We 
 cc pay the Wormip of Latria : But We place 
 cl the Hope of our Salvation in the Crofs ; 
 " For Thus the Church fmgs ; Crofs, 
 :c our only Hope., hail, in "Ibis Time of the 
 cc Taffion^ increase the righteonfnefs of the 
 ' Juft-> and give Tar don to the Accus d^ or 
 c Guilty. Therefore the Crofs is to be a- 
 4 <c dor'd with Latria. " An admirable Argu^ 
 ment / And I iliall not go about to difprove 
 it. I only ask, does not the Church (ing the 
 fame Song ftill ? I never heard me had left 
 
 * See Tnrretin. Inftitut. Vol. i> P. 59. Nay He (Vaf- 
 quez.~) infifts upon it that any inanimate Thing whatfoever may 
 fee ador'd with Latria* ~\ Lib. de Imag. Chap. 21. apud 
 eond. Turret. t HH exhibemus latrias cultum in qno po- 
 tiimns fpem falutis; fed in cruce Chrifti ponimus fpem falutis 3 
 Cantat enim Ecclefia ; O Crux awe, fpes unica, hoc pafiionts 
 (empore, auge piis joflitiam, reisque dona veniam. Ergo crux 
 Chrifti eft adoranda adoratione latriae. 5 Q. 25. A- 4> 
 
 it
 
 Entitled^Enghnfrs Converfion, Sec. ill 
 
 it off: Or if fhe will fay fhe to , We have 
 as good an Anfwer to give her upon That 
 Suppofition, as upon the Other. To which 
 we may add, that to prepare the Way for 
 This precious Hymn, the Prieft, uncovering 
 the Crofs, fays ; * Behold the Wood of the 
 Crofs: The Quire anfwers; Come, let us 
 adore. This is the Good-Friday Hymn. And 
 left we fhould imagine that by the Crofs is 
 metonymically meant Chrift crucify 'd upon it ; 
 Care is taken to prevent That Conftrudion : 
 For the One is exprefly diftingttiftid from 
 the Other, f Ihou only wert worthy to bear 
 the Ttir chafe of the World \ i. e. Chrift. 
 
 Not but that take it how you will, the Prac- 
 tice we are confidering is totally and abfolute- 
 ly forbidden. Call it Worjhip, Honour > 'R.efpeU > 
 what you pleafe^ nay ? declare in the moftfo- 
 lernn manner that it is not Worjhifr but Re- 
 fpeU 5 ftill it is a Religious Refpeft : Our Au- 
 thor himfelf feveral times ftiles it fo. And all 
 Religions Refpefts, directed /<?, or towards^ 
 Images, are utterly unlawful. We are forbid- 
 den to low down to> or before, them. 11 Do not 
 Tapifts bow down to, or before, them ? We are 
 forbidden toferce them :* fo even T)ulia is cut 
 
 * EC ce lignum Cruets. Chor- Ventte t adoremus- Turret, iibi 
 fupra f Sola digna fuifti ferre pretium feculi. Ibid. || For to 
 them, and before them, fignify the fame. ,$ee Exod. 20. 5 
 compar'd with z Chroa. zj. 14; In the original Hebrew 
 it is more plain. 
 
 o
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 off. We are forbidden even to make them, or 
 hav^e them j /'. e. for any Religions Purpofe. 
 They will fay. This is not Idolatry : Admit 
 it; For tho' I am far from granting it, 
 I will not cavil about That Word neither : 
 All this while J t\sforlidden ; 'Tis a Sin, whe- 
 ther you call it Idolatry^ or not. Tho' We 
 muft here remember that we could juftly lay 
 the Charge much heavier, than according 
 to This fofter Senfe j and That too not only 
 againft particular Perfons, as above, but a- 
 gainft the Church of Rome herfeif. For be- 
 fides her puUick ^Devotions juft now cited, to 
 which might be added a Multitude more, 
 containing rank Idolatry^ and Blafphemy, 
 if there be fuch Things in Nature j our Au- 
 thor, as well he may, refers us, for her 
 true Senfe, to Pope Tiuss Creed, and the 
 Council of T'renf. That Council refers us 
 to the ad Council of Nice^ * which in joins 
 Adoration olmages y in the ftrongeft Terms ; 
 and anathematizes Thofe who fo much as 
 doubt concerning it. And when Some de- 
 iir'd that the W ord Adore^ which feem'd too 
 harfh, might be changed for Venerate^ which 
 founded fofter i the Council pronounced Them 
 Hypocrites who would profefs to venerate 
 Images, yet not adore them ; and declared 
 them guilty of reviling the Saints. Now 
 
 * See Turret. P. 58. 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England' j Cenverfon, &c. 
 
 the Council of Trent appealing to This of 
 Nice i and explaining its own Meaning by it, 
 manifeftly declares, and enads the very fame 
 Thing. Or to return, and put it upon the 
 other Suppofition, the/po^r, and Softer Senfe ; 
 If the Religious RefpcU^ as our Author calls 
 it, which even He, and Thofe of his Opi- 
 nion, pay to linages^ be not Worshipping them, 
 there is no fuch Thing as Worjhipping them 
 at ally (for Nobody was ever fottifh enough 
 to worfhip any Image as God) And This 
 makes Nonfenfe of the fecond Command- 
 ment i and That is Blafphemy. The Main of 
 what has been now faid about Images may 
 be apply'd to Reliques. They bow, and 
 kneel down to them j They kijs them in a 
 religious way j They pray before them 5 Nay, 
 they faoear by them ; which is fat Idolatry. 
 Or if they reply, it is not $ Let them for 
 Argument's fake, as Before about Images, 
 enjoy their Saying: It is unlaisfuly and a 
 damnable Sin., whatever Name it is call'd 
 by. 
 
 At left j their moft learned Men are di- 
 vided in their Opinions concerning the Senfe 
 of this Religious Refpett. What fhall the 
 Ignorant, and Illiterate do? 'Tis plain 
 They give all the outward Signs of Ado- 
 ration to thefe jTfetfgj, that they can give 
 to Gcd himfelf. Can they, when they 
 outwardly do what God has forbidden, 
 be fecur'd from inward Idolatry, or fome 
 
 Sin
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/bBook; 
 
 Sin of That Kind ; by vertue of thofe Refine- 
 ments, Niceties, and *Biftiriftions, which 
 they never heard of, or, if they did, can no 
 more underftand, than they do the Coptic 
 Language; and concerning which their pro- 
 fo wide ft Tlottors are not agreed* 
 
 I think I have taken effectual Care to bring 
 This Matter to a plain Iffue -> avoiding That 
 Peft of Arguing^ and almoft of Common 
 Senfe, Wrangling about Words. If, when we 
 fee thefe Men kneel, bow, kifs, and the like, 
 They will tell us we are miftaktn, and that 
 it is not properly. Kneeling, Bowing, and 
 Killing ; then, I confefs, a new, and nolle 
 Scene of Contrwerfy is open'd : And 'twill 
 be time enough to difcufs it, when it comes 
 before us. In the mean while j let them call 
 This Bowing, Kneeling, and Kiffing, in a 
 religious way too, (for fo they all agree it 
 is) Jet them call it, I lay, by the Name of 
 Worfhip, Adoration, Veneration, Honour, 
 Cult, Refpeft, or whatever elfe they pleafe : 
 Still it is contrary to the exprefs Commands 
 of God, and his Vengeance is denounced up- 
 on Thofe who break them. 
 
 But, as Papifts manage the Difpute, the 
 Queftion is not, whether T^loey worfliip Ima- 
 ges ; but whether there can be any Image- 
 Worjhip at all: Or, if there be, whether 
 there be any Crime in it, or no. Another 
 Inftance of their great Honour and Refpeffi 
 for the holy Scriptures \ The fame may be 
 
 faid
 
 Entitled, England V Converfion,&c. 
 
 faid of their Diftindions (for they are in ef 
 fed: the fame) about the Worfhip of Saints^ 
 and Angels. According to which Method 
 of Proceeding, /. e. interpreting the pJaineft 
 .Words contrary to their plaineft Meaning, 
 one may diftinguiih away all the Ten Com- 
 mandments, all the Precepts of the old, 
 and new Teftament, all the Laws of God 3 
 and Man. 
 
 And as it is thus flated (fays He) It has 
 leen a Term of Communion ever Jlnce the 
 Manichees began to JJiew themfefoes profefs d 
 Enemies of holy Tiffiures j that is y fome A- 
 ges before St. Gregory's time* This is to 
 teach us two Things, ift. That to deny 
 Image-Wormip is a Part of the Manich^ 
 an Herefy. idly. That Image- Worfhip ob- 
 tain'd in the Church fome Ages before St* 
 Gregory s Time. Both which are grofs and 
 moft impudent Falftioods. . I add, the firft 
 of them is a mod impious, as well as impu^ 
 dent one. Good God ! That to oppofe a 
 Practice which the divine Law forbids in 
 the plaineft Words that can be devis'd> 
 ihould by any Chriflian be call'd a Part of 
 the moft filthy, deteftable, diabolical Com- 
 plication of Herelies that ever appear'd in 
 the World ! What if the Manichees were 
 'Enemies to fuch Tittures as he calls holy ? 
 The Devil himfelf may fpeak jome Truth, 
 The Jews> we grant, are at this Day a- 
 yerfe from Image-Worfoip -> but we will ne- 
 Q ver
 
 3*6 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 ver grant that therefore it is Judaifm to bo 
 fo. 'They acknowledge the Old Teftament, 
 muft We therefore deny it ? This Author 
 furely will not fay that every thing is Tro- 
 teftantifm which Troteftants hold; any 
 mere than We fay that every thing is 
 Topery which Tapifts hold. But I am a- 
 fham'd of having faid fo much about Nothing. 
 Nothing, I mean, in Point of Reafon -, For 
 in Point of Fad, a more wicked, and 
 profane Calumny was never invented. I ask 
 our Author, after all, where He met with 
 this Piece of Hiftory> that the Manicbees y 
 in any Age, were profefsd Enemies to holy 
 Ti3tires> as He calls them. And if He fays 
 I wrong him, becaufe he does not affirm that 
 'tis Manicbtifm to oppofe them , I ask 
 ift. Whether he does not affirm that the 
 Manicbees were profefs'd Enemies to them ? 
 2dly. Whether he does not confider the Ma- 
 nicbees as -Manicbees > or reckon This as 
 one of THEIR Errors ? And 3dly. whether 
 every Error of the Manicbees ', as fucb^ be 
 not Manicfaeifm ? If to the fecond Queftion 
 he anfwers. No j I ask once more, to what 
 purpofe ail This was brought in, unlefs it 
 were .ad confiandam Invidiam^ and to infi- 
 imatez*. leafcthe ungodly Scandal aforefaid ? 
 He proceeds. / dare therefore confidently 
 affaire Mr. Collier, that he may with the 
 
 * P. 121, 122. 
 
 fame
 
 Entitled, England's Converftdn, &c. 217 
 
 fame fafety of Conference carry his RefpeUs 
 for Thole pious Objects [Images] to the 
 Lengths of the Church ^Rome, as he kif- 
 fes the Bible., or bows to the Communion- 
 Table, or to the venerable Name of Jefusi 
 Or finally, as he keeps holy Days in Ho- 
 nour of Saints departed. I anfwer ; Neither 
 the l&tbh, nor the Communion-Table, nor 
 the Name of Jefus, nor a Holy-T>ay, is an 
 Image : Bowing to Images is forbidden in 
 Scripture^ and was ever by all Mankind^ 
 in all Ages, deem'd worshipping them, or 
 paying religious Honour to them, j&owing 
 to the Communion-liable is not forbidden; 
 nor can it in the common Language, and 
 Senfe of Mankind, be call'd worJJoipping it : 
 Tho', by the Way, we do not fo properly 
 bow to the Communion-Table, as towards 
 the Eaft ,- whrch is founded upon an antient 
 Cuftom, univerfally pradis'd in the pri- 
 mitive Church : Not that 'tis enjoin'd 
 by our Church j Or if it were, 'tis a Cere- 
 mony, and nothing elfe. Bowing to, or ra- 
 ther at, the Name of Jefus is not only not 
 forbidden, but in effect commanded. Kif- 
 fing the 'EiUe is only the Form of taking an 
 Oath, and a mere Ceremony. By keeping 
 holy days of Saints., We pay no religious 
 Honour to the Terfons of Thofe Saints, but 
 only a. grateful one to their Memories : And 
 that we worfhip the ^jyays themfelves, I 
 hope Nobody will affirm j Our religious Ho- 
 Q. 2 nour
 
 ai8 An A^ SW&R to a Topifb Boob, 
 
 nour upon Thofe Days, as well as others^ 
 Is paid to God only. * All which (continues 
 He) are undoubtedly religious Refpeffis, as 
 being paid upon a religious Motive ' 5 and ul- 
 timately referred to God himfelf. If by 
 veligious Refpefts he means Circumftances 
 having fome relation to Religion, as every 
 Ceremony in Divine Worfhip has; I grant 
 it : If he means religious Honours to any 
 Being but God y as by the Word paid he 
 feems to do ; I deny it, for the Reafbns jufl 
 mentioned. Thofe Words ultimately referrd 
 to God himfelf., are fallacious and delufive > 
 and manifeftly defign'd to infinuate an Un- 
 truth in Fa&, viz. That they are by Us at 
 all referred, as Religious Honours, to any 
 other Being, t And of Ibis nature^ He 
 adds, was the Religious T)evotion which- 
 St. Auftin, and his Company paid to the 
 Crofs y and Tiffiure of our Saviour > when it 
 was carry d as a banner before them. I an- 
 fwer; there is no Hint that they paid it 
 anv religious Devotion at all. They did 
 not low to it, or prqftrate themfelves before 
 it, as Papifts do now. But of This more 
 in what follows. || T/j- wry true indeed^ 
 there is not the leafl Intimation in Bede 
 that they worflnppcd it. And God forbid 
 there Jhozild le any fuch Intimation j // by 
 
 the
 
 Entitled., England's Conversion , Sec. 129 
 
 the Word Worjhip (the AMBIGUOUS fignifica- 
 tion whereof is of wonderful ufe to PROTES- 
 TANTS in Ibis Controversy) be meant pay- 
 ing divine Honours to it : This indeed is not 
 intimated by Bede. This I have abundant- 
 ly anfwer'd already j and {hewn that the 
 ambiguous Signification of the Word Worjhip 
 is of fingular Ufe to Tapifts, not Troteftants. 
 But That Parenthefis is another Specimen of 
 our Author's Modefty. Who proceeds Thus. 
 * 'But the Relation of the wry Faff before 
 &J 5 is more than a bare Intimation that they 
 paid a Religious Devotion to it : This being 
 wholly infep arable from their carrying it in 
 a religious Proceffion, as a Banner before 
 them, i ft. I obferve that our Author is for 
 paying not only religious R.efpe'd to the Crofs, 
 Pictures, and Images, but religious 'Devo- 
 tion : For 'Devotion is fomething more than 
 Jiefpeffi. 2dly. Why muft their walking up 
 to King Ethelbert in a folemn manner., with 
 the Crofs before them, be call'd a religious 
 Troceffion^ as That Phrafe is now us'd ? He 
 may as well fay that, among Us Proteftants, 
 a Dean and Chapter of a Cathedral, walk- 
 ing with the Virge carry'd before them, 
 make a religious Troceffion. For 3dly. If 
 carrying the Crofs as a Banner gave it the 
 Nature of a TLeligious Proceflion j then Con- 
 
 ft** 
 
 Q 3 Jlantiiw
 
 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b Boob, 
 
 ftantine the Great, whenever He marched 
 his Jrmy, after He became a Chriftian, made 
 a religious Troceffion likewife. But He en- 
 forces his Argument. * For I prefame Mr. 
 Collier will not deny that when in our (o- 
 lemn 'Procejfions abroad^ we have the Croft, 
 and the Reliques, and Tiftures of Saints 
 carry d before us., we intend to pay a religious 
 Honour to'emby fo doing. And fo did without 
 all'Difpute St. Auftin and his Company $ who 
 ly their own Example introduced 'I hat Form 
 of Ttevotion into nis IJJand. I grant the 
 Firft, and deny the Second. Papifts cer- 
 tainly pay religious Honour to thofe Things j 
 and would therefore own they worfhip them, 
 were not the ambiguous Signification of 
 That Word of great Ufe to them. This I 
 not only grant, but have above infifted upon, 
 to fhew the vile Shuffling of This Writer in 
 playing with the ambiguous Signification of 
 Words, and by vertue of That fometimes 
 affirming, and fometimes denying the very 
 fame thing , according as his lurn is beft 
 fervd by either. But that St. Auftin and 
 his Company paid fuch Honour to the Crofs 
 and Picture, we have not the leaft Evidence j 
 unlefs it be our Author's without all ^Difpttte^ 
 and fo forth. 
 
 * .*
 
 Entitled, England' s Conner/Ion, &c,i 3 1 
 
 * $ut fuppofe they had proftrated them- 
 felves before the CroCs^ or Titture of Cbrift* 
 cr bowd down to it-, and kifs'd if, as we 
 do> &c. It feems then They did not : Which, 
 if we confider what has been difcours'd, is 
 fomewhat material. The Remainder of the 
 Paragraph is a Repetition of his Quirks about 
 the jBibte>and the Communion- c TabieiVv\th. the 
 Addition of fomething concerning our Sacra- 
 mental %read*> and Wine : f To which we 
 do not pay any religious Honour, or Refpeffi, 
 by kneeling down before them ; As he very 
 xvell knows, or may know if he pleafes ; Our 
 Church having fufciently declared berjclf 
 upon That Subjecl;. 
 
 Pope Gregory I. was fo far from fending 
 Image-Worfhip into England , that he ex- 
 prefly condemns it, in his two Letters to 
 Sennits^ Bifhop of Marjeilles. For notwith- 
 ftanding the foamefiil Eva/ions of our Au~ 
 thor 5 the plain Fad was This. Images and 
 Pictures having fome time before been intro~ 
 duc'd into Churches, the People of Mar- 
 fellies began to worjkip them; I mean, to 
 kneel) bow-> and proflrate themfelves, before 
 them. Upon which, the good Biihop pull'd 
 them down, and broke them to pieces. 
 Gregory commends his Zeal for hindering the 
 Worjhip of them ; but difapproves of his 
 
 ibid, t P. i*j- 
 
 QL 4 breaking
 
 r An ANSWER u a Topifb Book, 
 
 tweaking them; becaufe he thought they 
 might in fome meafure fupply the Want of 
 Books to the poor People who could not read. 
 His Difapprobation even Thus far is in very 
 gentle Terms : * But as for the Adoration 
 of them, he frequently declares againft it 
 in the ftrongeft Expreflions. To This what 
 fays our Author ? 
 
 t P. Sir, Tope Gregory writes nothing 
 in That Letter but what every Roman Ca- 
 tholick in the World will fubfcribe to. That 
 Is, They will double., and prevaricate., and 
 quibble upon the Words Worjbifa Honour^ 
 and Refpeffi as Before ; and interpret Pope 
 Gregory, as They do the Scriptures. 11 The 
 ^People at Marfeilles had effe'dually carry d 
 their 'Devotion to the Tiffitires hung up in 
 their Churches even to a criminal Excefs 5 
 as St. Gregory calls it. Which ^ by the by, 
 
 is AT LEAST AN UNANSWERABLE PROOF, 
 
 that holy Images and TiUttres were not only 
 kept in Churches ; but a religious Honour 
 was paid to them long before that lime. 
 For People do not ufually come to EXCES- 
 SES all on a fudden j but pafs gradually^ and 
 by Steps^from the moderate life of Things to 
 an Abufe of them, when that happens to be 
 
 * Sed frangere easdem imagines non debuiflfe judicamns. 
 
 _. Xua igitor fmrerniras et illas fervare, et ab earam 
 
 adoratu populum prohibere. dsbuit. Lib VIL Epift.
 
 'j Converfiov, &c. 2 j 3 
 
 Would not one think now, by 
 This formal Argumentation, that Gregory 
 really fays, what he is here rcprefented to 
 fay ? A criminal Excefs, as St. Gregory 
 calls it ! Teople do not ufually come to Excef- 
 
 fes Whereas there is not one Word in 
 
 Gregory^ about criminal Excefs^ or any 
 thing like it. He fuppofes 'Proftration to 
 imply Adoration., and the Adoration of a 
 Pi&ure to be a Sin : * Abfolutely forbids all 
 forts of Worfhip to Images, and Pictures ; 
 t all Sorts of Creature-Worfoip whatfoever : 
 and quotes Luke IV. 8. for That purpofe. 
 * In another Quotation, II Thofe Words 
 ^ And our Worjhip at the fame time le all 
 Cc of it REFER'D to God^ and DIRECTED to 
 * c the Holy Trinity, " are wrong tranflated. 
 Gregory fays, * and that they may proftratc 
 themfelves in adoring the holy omnipotent 
 trinity only. Everybody knows the Ufc 
 which Papifts make of the Word referrd 
 upon the Subject of Image- Worihip : Tho 
 Diftinction of direct and indireffi y ultimate 
 
 * In adorarione profternantar. Lib. ix. Epift. 9. Et po- 
 pulus in adorare Piturae minime pcccaret. tib. vii- Ep. 
 loj. | Adorare vero imagines omnibus modis devita- 
 Ibid. Frangi vero non debuit, qnod non ad adorandum, fed ad 
 inftruendas folummodo Mentes nefcientium fuit co^ocatum. 
 Ibid. ^ Quia omne ManufaSom adorare non liceat ; quo- 
 niam fcriptum eft, Dominum tuum Deum adorablt, et llll foil 
 fervies. Ibid. || P. 124. t Et in adorarione foliusomni- 
 potentis Sanlae Trinitatis homiliter profternantur. Lib. 
 |X, Epift, 9. 
 
 and
 
 2 34 ^ n ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 and fubordinate^ turns upon it. Whereas 
 St. Gregory fays pofitively that the Trinity 
 vnly is to be adord - 3 not a Syllable about re- 
 ference^ or any fuch thing. In the fame Paf- 
 fage, the Tranflation has it j lake care that 
 nothing made by them [Statuaries, and Pain- 
 ters] may be HONOURED to ADORATION. 
 As if They might be honour d ihort of 
 Adoration - } meaning by the Latter fuch 
 Adoration, as is due only to God : For fo our 
 Author explains himfelf. But in the Ori- 
 ginal the Words are, as I have above 
 cited them ; Avoid the Adoration of Images 
 BY ALL MEANS, OR WAYS. And I hope thofe 
 Words., which I have above cited too in the 
 Original Language, Tlacd in Churches not 
 for Adoration^ but oNLY/0r Inftruffiion-t are 
 utterly exclufive of ALL Adoration^ Honour^ 
 Refpetf, or what You pleafe ; of all Sorts y 
 and IJegrees, of Religious Regard whatfoe- 
 ver j in fhort, of every thing^ but Inftruftion 
 only. Our Author therefore might have 
 been afham'd to reproach Mr. Collier ', and 
 Others, for applying what Gregory fays of 
 the People of Marfeilles to the prefent 
 Church of Rome. I heartily pray God 
 (* fays He) to forgive Him^ and his $re- 
 thren^ the Injuftice they continually do us in 
 their Mifreprefentations of our <Dofirine. 
 
 p. 124. 
 
 What?
 
 Entitled, England V Converjion, Sec. 235 
 
 What ? Are we to have the old Story over 
 again, about A Tapifl mifreprefented^ and 
 represented^ * Or do we want a new-Mon- 
 iieur de Meaux, to oblige us with another 
 Expofitien of the T)offirine of the Ca- 
 tholick Church ? t Such an Account has 
 been long fince given of That matter; as 
 to fhew, to the everlafting Infamy o 
 Thefe Men, that no Perfons upon Earth 
 can be more guilty of Mifrcprefentation, 
 than Papifts when they complain of being 
 mifreprefented. 
 
 To give the Reader a thorough Notion 
 of their Sincerity and Modefty upon This 
 Article j I will produce a remarkable PafTage 
 from the Learned Anfwerer of their Nubes 
 leftium i to whom I have elfewhere refer'd. 
 If the Romanifts do not worjhip Creatures, 
 as they declare they do not, tho' we fee they 
 do i one would " M wonder at the Index Ex- 
 cc purgatorius of the prefent Church of 
 cc Rome, * which commands Solus T)eus 
 " Adorandus (God only is to be adord) to 
 " be ftruck out of the Marginal Notes of 
 Humfreduss Latin T'ran/lation and Edition 
 
 * Se feveral Pamphlets with that Title, and the feveral 
 Anfwers to them, in the Years 1685, and 1686. 
 
 t See a Pamplet fo call'd ? and an excellent Anfwer to it, 
 emituled, An Expojition of the Doffrijte of the Clurch of En- 
 gland &c. with feveral Vindications of it. London Printed 
 for Richard Chifwell 1686, 87. 88. || P. 83, &c. 4 In- 
 dex Ltbror. Prohibit: & Expurgandorum, p. 234. Edit. Mada- 
 t 1667; 
 
 of
 
 236 An ANSWER^ a Topifb Book, 
 
 :c of St. Cyril of Alexandria* Comment 
 cc upon Efaias; * and out of the Margi~ 
 :c nal Notes in Robert Stephens 's $/'/ print- 
 :c ed 1557. Serviendum Soli T)eo ; f (/to 
 <c ze;? #z/? /rw G0^ only :) whereas Z^Z> 
 <c thefe Taj/ages are the #ry Words of our 
 u Saviour himfelf, Matthew 4. 10. I would 
 :c fain know of ^;zj; Romanift, how fto is 
 cc not virtually and in $?? to command 
 " that ^^ Verfe in the Gofpel (hould be 
 w ftruck out , though /> contains i?^r Azc/- 
 tf (?^r's ^y exprejfions, who fhould furely 
 <c be allowed to underftand his own Religion 
 K as well as the Managers of tie Index Ex- 
 y purgatorius. 
 
 <c And for what relates to the Crofs it 
 " felfy they have 4= ordered that non ut A- 
 ce dor emus (not that we JlwM adore it) 
 <c fhould be ftruck out otMafais his Learn- 
 " ed Commentary upon Jojhuaii.2%. Thefe 
 c are things fo very notorious j that my won- 
 tc der increafes^ and my admiration at thofe 
 <c Teople, who (notwithftanding all ^/j} 
 " would fain have us believe., that they 
 cc do not worjhip the Crofs it felf: When 
 " not only their PONTIFICAL, and 
 K their SER VI C E on Good-friday^ teach 
 tc ^- 4 /z - that tbey of the Church 
 
 * Cyrillcw w Vcr/. Hnmfredi BafiJ. 15^. p. 25^ t ^ 
 
 p. 47. /. a. 
 
 *! afar*
 
 Convtrjm, 
 
 <c adore the Crofs $ but their Index Expur- 
 <c gatorius is fo careful to ftrike out of the 
 
 " 
 
 Indexes to the Fathers Works any 
 cc that doth but appear to thwart or contra- 
 " dfr'S fuch worjbip. 
 
 cc If the Church of .R0w<? doth not owr- 
 <c ^/p Images j why is^ fo careful to ftrike 
 * c out * of the Index to St. Hierome fuch 
 :c innocent pajfages as /fo/^ Adorare Statuas 
 cc cy^/ Imagines, Cultores 'Dei non delent ; 
 " /^^ Worjhippers of God ought not to 
 ;c JT)ORE Statues or Images-, Imago 
 tantum vencranda^ One only I- 
 3 [to wit, God the Son, the exprefs 
 of Ms father} is to be worjhipped? 
 Why doth the poor Index fuffer here, and 
 not St. Hierome in zy/^flz f /#</ ^rj 
 Exprejfions are 2 
 
 cc If the Church of .R0?;ft? give w^? Adora* 
 //'0 to Saints or Angels , why doth y^^r 
 Index Expttrgatorius command /&# P^ 
 /^J as tbej'e following to be ftruck out 
 of * the Iwd<?# to St. Athanafmss Works ? 
 Adorari folius T)ei efl^ nullius autem cre- 
 atur< , Adoration is to be paid to God 
 alone^ and to no Creature 'with him ; An- 
 geli non funt Adorandi, Angels are not 
 
 * Index Expurg. p 311. j No s autem unum labtmns vl 
 rr, UNA M veneramur Imaelnem^ quA eft invijibilit & 
 omnipotent}* Dei. P. Hier. in z.ek, /. 4. r. j<S. 
 . 52. 
 
 cc
 
 aj8 An ANSWER/oa Topi/b Book, 
 
 cc to bs adored \ Creatura null a adoranda^ 
 tc null a invocanda, immo earn adorare Ari- 
 cc anorum & Ethnicorum fa ; No Creature 
 cc is to be adored or invocated^ to adore 
 <c which would be to play the Arian 
 <c or the Tagan. I would fain know why 
 cc the Index to his Works muft be dealt fo 
 <c feverely with> while Athanafius himfelf 
 cc is guilty (if there be any Crime in them) 
 <c of ezery Expreffion in the paffages which 
 <c are coadema'd by the Index Expurgato- 
 " rius. 
 
 cc Let any one look ipto St. 'Anathafiuss 
 " third Oration againft the Arians^ and 
 cc He may there find this Great Father 
 cc {upon occafion of his mentioning St. John's 
 " offer to worfljip the Angel} fpeaking out 
 " * plainly enough^ that God alone is to be 
 <c adored, and that the Angels (fince they 
 cc are but Creatures^ not with /landing their 
 cc Excellencies are in the number of Wor- 
 " JJnpperSy not of the worflripped. In his 
 " Epiftle to 'Bifcop Adelphius He himfelf 
 cc fays, (what the Index to him did but 
 " tranicribe,) I'hat we do not adore any 
 " Creature-, Gvd forbid (fays the Good Fa- 
 
 v 0EOT MONOT T> 
 
 -ray r e/^JTfcTWv. -U Athanaf. 6r<f. 3. 
 204. rf'V. Commel. 1600.
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion^&c. 239 
 
 cc ther *) that we Jkoiild^ fince this wotdd 
 cc fo /:? fame fin that the Arians and *Pa- 
 <c gans are guilty of-, hit we do adore the 
 cc Lord of the Creation^ the incarnate Word 
 <c of God. 
 
 cc If the Churcb of Rome doth not adore 
 
 cf the Martyrs and their Reliques, why doth 
 
 cc #r Jw^w Expurgatorhis ftrike out of the 
 
 cc /724&x to St. -Hierome^ Ncn adorantiir 
 
 cc Martyr es, Martyrs are not to le adored $ 
 
 <c Adoramus Solum 'Deum^ honoramus Re- 
 
 c liquias Martyrum ; We adore God alone., 
 
 c and honour only the Reliques of the 
 
 cc Martyrs? The Managers of the /wdk;c 
 
 c ILxpurgatorius ought to have confider'd, 
 
 cc that if there be any crime in thefe Taf- 
 
 <c fages y St. Hieromc himfelf ought to an- 
 
 c fv^ r er for them ; fince it was He that faid, 
 
 c Chriflians did not adore the Marty rs^ \ 
 
 <c much lefs their Reliques. 
 
 ft Either the prefent Writers of the Church 
 " of Rc^^ are not ferious and / earnefl 
 c with f/j, or they think our eyes fhut, and 
 c that we do not fee fome of /to> B^ij 1 : 
 c It is very vain to talk (as our Compiler 
 " doth) of refpeffi only and honour to Saints 
 
 Ow 
 
 DAthan. ^. /?rf Adelph- />. 331. 
 
 t 4^/J ^''w, infanum cajut, allquando Martyr as ado- 
 vavlt, (jjitis hominem patavit Dettm 1 &d D. Hier. a Vigilan. 
 
 5T 2f ^. I2S. 
 
 and
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 (( and their Reliques and Images^ when 
 cc we fee that any thing which offers to de- 
 cc ny Adoration to all theje is condemned 
 cc by their Authentick earthly 'Purgatory, 
 J c the Roman Index. 
 
 cc I will infift no farther on ihefe'/baada* 
 cc Ions things, but hope I may, under the 
 Ct Troteffiion, and after the Example of 
 <c Gregory the Great., c6nclude, not only 
 cc againft Images., (as f Zfc did,) but againft 
 cc ^c?^ry Creature animate or inanimate^ 
 " ^r A r O RELIGIOUS WOR- 
 <c ^ #7 jP / J ^r r^z be due or given to any 
 cc of them, becatife of that laying of our 
 cc tteffed Saviour : T^^ (halt WOR SHIT 
 "THE LORT> THT GOT), and 
 ! c HIM NLTfialt thou SE R VE. 
 
 To This give me Leave to add another 
 Quotation from a very great Man. Anfwer 
 to a Tapii ' mifreprefcnted &c. P. n. and 
 1 6. " To perform thefe Ad:s [Kneeling, 
 cc -Burning Incenfe &c.] before Images with- 
 cc out a Defign to worihip them, is decla- 
 " red by Great Divines of the Church of 
 " Rome to be next to Heiefy. Stiarez 
 <l fays this Way of 'Durandus (who was 
 " againft diredly worfhipping them) is dan- 
 w gerous, raih, and favours of Herefy. 
 " He adds, that his own Opinion, that Ima- 
 
 * Greg- M. Ep. 9- ' 9- 
 
 ? ges
 
 ?, England^ Converfion^&c. 24.1 
 
 : ' ges were truly and properly to be wor- 
 <c ihipped, was generally receiv'd by their 
 cc Divines. And therefore 1 need name no 
 <c more. --Dares he deny Veneration to 
 cc Images ; when the Council of f rent fays, 
 :c eisqtie Venerationem impcvtiendam ? %el- 
 :c larmine has a Chapter on purpofe to 
 c prove that true and proper worffiip is to 
 c be given to Images. And was He a Mif- 
 cc reprefenter ? " 
 
 Let every Chriftian, as he tenders his e- 
 ternal Salvation, abhor the Trinciples, and 
 < Pra'cticesjm& avoid tV&Tenets ofthefewicked 
 Men^ who will contradict One another,Them- 
 felves, the plaineft Facts, Reafon, Scripture, 
 ourSenfesj affirm, or deny, fay, or do, any 
 thing, to deceive^ Souls, and increase their 
 own Friction > who, while they are labour- 
 ing That Point, proceed upon a Maxim di- 
 rectly counter to thofe Words of the A- 
 poftle, Let God be true, and every Man a 
 Liar: On the contrary, fay Thefe in Effect, 
 let all Mankind befides, let Reafon, and 
 our Senfes, and God himfelf, be Liars; 
 fo the Church of Rome be but believed to 
 fpeak Intth, while fhe is telling the moft 
 Monftrous and Impudent Lies in Nature. 
 The Topes Supremacy is the next Point. 
 And here our Author comes with That emp- 
 ty Diftin&ion f between the Church of 'Rome 
 
 \ Ibid, and P. 125, 
 
 R and
 
 241 An ANSWER t a Topifi Book, 
 
 .and the Court of Rome j declaring himfelf 
 Zealous for the One, but not defirous of 
 having any thing to do with the Other : 
 That is, he declares for French Popery 
 Which we all know the Englijh Papifts gene- 
 rally profefs. But notwithftanding this Di- 
 ftin&ion, I do not fee how a Man can be a 
 Clergyman at leaft of the Chtirch of Rome, 
 without declaring for the Court of Rome in 
 the ftrongeft Terms imaginable , if Aflfert- 
 ing the Fullnefs of the Topes Tower, and 
 Jurifdiffiiofi} may be fo accounted. For does 
 not every Ecclefiaftic, even in Trance., fwear 
 to the Creed of Pope This IV ? Of which 
 Creed This is one Article: * Ct I do acknow- 
 tc ledge the holy Catholick and Apoftolick 
 cc Roman Church, to be the Mother and 
 Miftrefs of all Churches j andldopromife 
 cc and fwear true Obedience to the Bifhop 
 cc of Rome, the SuccefTor of St. Teter* the 
 ec Prince of the Apoftles, and Vicar of Je- 
 " fus Chrift." And this is part of That Faith, 
 which is afterwards declared necejjary 
 to Salvation f. Nay, I do not fee how a 
 Man can be fo much as a Member of the Ro- 
 miih Church without ailenting to this Do- 
 ctrine. For befides that the Ecclefiaftics 
 fwear to teach it, and preach it to all un- 
 
 * Art 2?. tHanc veram Catholicam Fidem, extra 
 am nemo falvus efle poteft. 
 
 der
 
 Entitled, England's Convetfion, Sec. 
 
 der their Care j : To make a Man a Mem- 
 
 c her of That Church (fays a t learned 
 
 " Writer) he muft declare that he holds the 
 
 " fame Faith which the Church of Rome 
 
 cc holds : And this is as much the Faith of 
 
 <c the Roman Church, as the Pope and the 
 
 cc Council of Trent can make it. And it 
 
 fc is now printed in the 'Roman 'R.itual at 
 
 :c Tar is, fet forth by Tattl the jth as the 
 
 c Confeflion of Faith own'd by the Church 
 
 c of Rome" I am fenfible the Gallic an 
 
 Clergy ftrenuoufly oppofe this Do&rine j but 
 
 if they are inconjiflent with themfelves. We 
 
 cannot help That. 
 
 * His limiting the Tope, and giving him 
 /i much Power, as he thinks fit, both here, 
 and in other Parts of his Book, $ is purely 
 Arbitrary -, and fo is his declaring that n /* 
 fallibility [of the Pope] and the 1)epoftng 
 Tower neither are nowjior e'ver were, Terms 
 of Communion. If He is for & limited Su- 
 premacy ; The Council of Trent is Not ; 
 ^Bellarmine is Not j the Generality of Ro- 
 manifts are Not. So it was juft now about 
 Image-Worflrip : He takes it in This, or That 
 Senfe ; but the main Body of Papifts, an d 
 the Church of Rome., as a Church, take it 
 otherwife. What Authority has He to im- 
 
 f Anfwer to Papift mifreprefented, Qrc. p. 7. 
 * p 4 iz5, ^ P izy- 141. || P. 125. 
 
 R a pofe>
 
 24-4- ^ n ANSWER to a Toflfh 
 
 pofe his own Tcpery upon us ? Nay, why 
 arc we bound to take Popery as France 
 gives it us ; when the Topery of Spain^ Tor- 
 tugal) Italy i and Germany., is different ? Had 
 any Tope (fays he) * ever declard himfelf 
 foas to regard all other iBifhops as Ms 
 ^Deputies) and Vicars ; he load reckon- 
 ed without his Hoft. And he denys 11 that 
 the Tope has an Authority to fend over 
 a foreign Archbijhop with a Commiffion to 
 exercife ordinary Jurijdiciion over another 
 j4rchbifoop. But did he never hear of thofe 
 innumerable Writers^ many Topes y and va- 
 rious Councils., which have given the Pope 
 an abfolute^ unlimited Monarchy -, making 
 the *BifhopS) as well as others,, his abfolute 
 Subjects and T^aJJalSy which is fomething 
 more than his "Deputies., and Vicars ? But 
 now the Pope's Supremacy ^ it feems, is 
 become as difficult a Point as the Infallibilty 5 
 the Reformation having puzzled the Cauie, 
 and made it more difficult than it was before, 
 tho' it was never fully agreed upon. I 
 would only ask our Author, what He himfelf 
 means bytheSP0/v*J Supremacy ; or how much 
 Supremacy he is pleafed to allow him. In one 
 place * he calls it Superintendence : But how 
 are we the wifer/0r ?bat? Or what does 
 Tli is Superintendence imply ? He only tells 
 
 p. 127. li r. 141. ^P. 127. 
 
 us
 
 Entitled, England 1 'sConverJion^&c. 
 
 us of Jo me Power which he does not yield 
 to him,- but what Power he does yield 
 to him, he no where informs us. However, 
 would his French Dodrine of the Pope's Su- 
 premacy have pafs'd before the Council of 
 Trent 2 Or at it? Or is it Now generally 
 received in Popiili Countrys ? 
 
 If the Topes Infallibility was never a Term 
 of Cummunion-j it is at leaft afTerted, and 
 Zealouily contended for, by great Men cf 
 the Romifh Church. But is our Author ve- 
 ry furc that the 'Dcpofing < DoUrine neither 
 is y nor ever was* a Term of Communion ? 
 How then comes it to pafs, that Thofe are 
 excommunicated who deny it ? As they are 
 by the Bull in C<sna "Domini. For in That, 
 under more Articles than one, the Pope ex- 
 ercifes an abfolute Authority over tem- 
 poral Princes in their own Dominions: And 
 if He be thus King of Kings, He has cer- 
 tainly a Right to depofe them, for their 
 Difobedience. 
 
 His Affertion, That * St. Gregory main- 
 tain d the divine Right of his Supremacy 
 o<ver the whole Church as vigorou/ly as any 
 *Pope ever did^ is juft as true as the reft. 
 I grant feveral Popes had made their En- 
 croachments, and grafp'dat more Power than 
 was their due, before his time ; particularly 
 jLeo I. at the Council of Ch alee don : Where,, 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 R 3 by
 
 An ANSWER to a <Poj)i/h 
 
 by the Bye, it \vas decreed that the Biihop 
 oi Constantinople ftiould enjoy the fame Pri- 
 vileges as the Bifhopof Rome. Nor is there 
 any doubt but Gregory himfelf had Ambi~ 
 tion enough ; which appears, to omit other 
 Proofs, from That Inftance relating to our- 
 fefoes, which has been before hinted at, and 
 will hereafter be confidered more at large, 
 his affuming an Authority over the 'Britifo 
 Biiliops. See Prop. II. But as for Suprema- 
 cy over the whole Church, and by divine 
 Right too j it was not come to That in his 
 Days. And how does our Author prove it 
 was ? * i ft. From Gregorys faying (Lib. 1 1 , 
 Epift. 56.) If it is pretended that the *Bi- 
 JJoop has neither a Metropolitan nor 'Patri- 
 arch -, lanf&er that his Caufe is to be heard 
 and decided by the See Jpoftolick - 3 WHICH 
 is THE HEAD OF ALL CHURCHES. But may 
 not Sedes Apoftolica as well fignify any o- 
 ther See Apoftolick as That of Rome ? For 
 were there not more Apoftolical Sees than 
 One ? What thinks our Author of Antiocb 
 particularly ; of which St. Teter himfelf was 
 Biihop ? And then why may not the Words 
 all Churches be reftrain*d to all Churches 
 in That 'Diftriffi ? He proves it, 2dly. From 
 Lib. 9. Epift. 59. written, as He fays, to the 
 Bifhop of Syracnfe. As to what they write 
 of the Church ^Conftantinople, who dotibts 
 lut that it is fiibjeft to the See Jfofi l olick ?
 
 Entitled^ England^ Converfion, &c: 247 
 
 lhave look'd into two Editions, (whether our 
 Author's Edit. vet. be one of them, I know 
 not) and cannot find this Paflfage^nor isEpift. 
 59. Lib. 9. written to the Bifhop of Syracufe. 
 But we will take it for granted that the Words 
 are Gregory s. If Conftantinople was fubjed to 
 any Apoftolick See, one would think it ihoud 
 be rather Antioch\h&b Rome; becaufe Con- 
 ftanlinople belong'd to the Eqftern Church, 
 and Empire, not to the Weflern j being, as 
 Antioch was, when the Empire was divided 
 by Conflantine^ under tiiQ ( Pr<fcffius- ( Pr l torio 
 of the Eaft, not as Rome was, under That of 
 Italy. Then here is nothing of divine Right 
 fo much as hinted at, in either of our Author's 
 Proofs ; yet That is Tart of what he un- 
 dertook to prove. And if he objects that I 
 ftrain Gregorys Words, and put an arbitrary 
 Interpretation upon them ; I Anfwer, ifh Let 
 any indifferent Perfon judge, whether, confi- 
 der'd alone, or by themfelves, they do not 
 bear my Senfe, at lead as well as his $ if 
 not better. 2dly If they are confider'd in 
 Conjunction with v?1a&t Gregory elfe where 
 fays ; they cannot bear his Senfe, unlefs we 
 will makeThat eminent Saint contradict him- 
 felf. For declaring againft the Title of Oe- 
 cumenical ^Biflop aflum'd by John Patriarch 
 of Constantinople^ he at the lame time, and 
 in the ftrongeft Expreifions, declares againd 
 any fuch Power, in any Terjon whatfoever, as 
 the Popes have fince arrogated to themfelves. 
 R 4 This
 
 248 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 This he does in fcveral Letters to the Ernper- 
 or Mauritius^ 'Eulogius Bifhop of Alexan- 
 dria., John the Patriarch of Conftantinople 
 Himfelf, and Others, 
 
 But this our Author tells us * is a thread- 
 bare Argument ; a hundred times repeated^ 
 and as ojten anfwer'd. 'Tis aseafy for him 
 to fay the fame of all our Arguments - y and 
 as eafy for Us to fay the fame of all Theirs. 
 But to the Point, t As that Saint underflood, 
 it, he fays, the T^itle was unjuflifaUe on fe- 
 ver al Accounts. Firfty becaufe it feemd to 
 import Jurifdiffiion over the whole Church. 
 Very well : Pray let it be remember'd, that, 
 according to our Author's Conceffion., Gre- 
 gory oppos'd it under That Notion, * Which 
 [Jurifdidion over the whole Church] did 
 not belong to the 'Eijhop of Conftantinople, 
 nor was indeed challenged by him. Accord- 
 ing to Gregory ', it did not belong to the Bi- 
 fhop of Conftantinople, nor to any body elfe : 
 For he alfohitely condemns the Title which 
 it is acknowledged he took to imply Jurife 
 di&ion over the whole Church ; as fuch 
 pronouncing it faperftitious^ profane^ blaf- 
 fhemousy diabolical, and the Fore-mnner 
 of Antichrift. It is indeed probable enough 
 that it was not challeng'd by the Bifliop of 
 Conflantinople in That Senfe j but 'tis plain 
 Gregory oppos'd it in That Senfe ; and our 
 
 p, u6. I ?. 127. Jibid, 
 
 Author
 
 E/ifW,England'j Conversion, &c. 249 
 
 Author owns he did : Which, together^ with 
 his oppofmg it abfolutely, or as apply'd to 
 any Perfon whatfoever, is the very thing we 
 aflert, and all we want in this Argument. 
 * And^dly. (continues He) b&aufe it feem-* 
 ed to import that le was the only Jtijkop 
 in the World, or at le aft that all other 
 Jtifljops were but his ^Deputies, and Vicars. 
 I anfwer, ift. Admitting This j 'Tis no more 
 Power than Popes have affum'd, and the 
 Jefuits and others allow them. zdly. 'Tis 
 evident that Gregory in the place cited by 
 our Author, did not ufe the Word only in 
 an abfolute^ but comparative Signification. 
 Becaufe he explains himfelf, in very many 
 Pafiages, to mean no more than a 'Paramount 
 Authority., or <Pr eh eminence^ ufurp'd over all 
 other Bifhops. He fays, for Inftance, the 
 Patriarch of Conftantinople imitated the De- 
 vil ; who would have exalted himfelf above 
 the other Angels, ad culmen Singtilaritatis^ 
 to the Height of Singularity. Did the De- 
 vil think That would have made Him the oifr 
 ly Angel^ and the other Angels no Angels at 
 al! 3 but only \\\$T / icars.p? c Deptities ? It would 
 have made Him Monarch, if you pleafe, 
 and Them his Subjects ; which is the Cafe of 
 the Pope's Pretenfions, as to other Bifhops. 
 But as our Author follows c Bellarmine *in 
 this Piece of Chicane - 3 for a full and parti- 
 
 * Ibid, 
 
 culas
 
 2 jo An ANSWER to a Tofl/b 
 
 cular Anfwer to it, I refer the Reader to 
 the moft learned Dr. Forbes * of Scotland : 
 who in eight jlnti-Thefes, as He calls them, 
 has largely expos'd the Sophiftry of That 
 Cardinal upon this Argument, f You would 
 wonder(fzys he) at the Ttefence which our 
 Adversaries Jo ere make for them j elves. He 
 might well fay foj for 'tis ftiameful Shu- 
 fling indeed. 
 
 Obferve then, with how much Truth our 
 Author aflferts that * no Tope in any Age 
 ever took upon Mm the Title of Universal 
 'Bijhops in the Senfe that it was inveigtid 
 againft> and r elected ly^St. Gregory. No? 
 Not as importing a Jurifdi'ction over the 
 whole Church ? For in That Senfe he owns 
 Gregory inveigh'd againftit j and He inveigh'd 
 againft it, as I faid, ab{olutely^ or as apply 'd 
 to any Perfon. Let our Author's Conceflion 
 therefore, and That Pope's general Inve&ive 
 be put together 5 and fee what will be the 
 IfTue. Indeed, had Gregory intended to have 
 apply'd this Title to himfelf in this Senfe, as 
 w ell as to have deny'd it to every body elfe ,- 
 it is not to be conceiv'd but that He would 
 have faid fo. In fliort ; does the Pope alfume 
 a Jurisdiction over the whole Church ; or 
 not ? If he dqes not ; Where is his Suprema- 
 
 *ForbeGi a Corfe Inftrnft. Hiftor-Theolog. P, 784,8*5. 
 ^d finem. t Mireris <jua hie defenfione fe Adverfaiii 
 
 tueantur * P- I2 7-
 
 Entitled) England' j Converfion, Sec. 251 
 
 cy ? or in what does it confift ? If he does, as 
 all the World knows he does ; He aflfumes a 
 Power and Authority which St.Gregory con- 
 demn'd. To which I add that Gregory is fo 
 far from applying this Title to himfelf ; that 
 he exprefly disclaims it. * None of the 
 Roman *BiJhops (fays he) did ever affume 
 lhat Name of Singularity. 
 
 Let it be obferv'd too, with what Modefly 
 our Author affirms that the 'Belief of the 
 Pope's t Supremacy over the whole Church 
 was #TERM OF COMMUNION in Pope Gre- 
 gory's Time^ as well as now. Suppofing 
 there were then fuch a Thing pretended to, 
 as I have (hewn there was Not ; how does 
 it appear that the Belief of it was a 
 'Term of Communion? Why, our Author 
 -pofaively afferts it was : We have no other 
 Proof ; nor was there ever a groifer Falfhood 
 utter'dby Man. 
 
 * And jo he will always infifl upon it as. 
 an imcont eft able Iruth^ that Roman-Catbo^ 
 licks profefs to this T)ay the Faith which 
 St. Auguftin preach' a 1 . This Affertion, I hope, 
 I have fully confider'd. " Secaufi it is im- 
 poffible to prove from any Juthentick Hifto* 
 ry that there happen d any Change ', &Q.' 
 
 *AdMaurit- Epift. 32. Nullus Romanorom Pontificutn 
 unqnam hoc Singularitatis vocabulum affumfit. As to bimfetf 
 le /peaks more plainly ^ ad Eulog. Epift. 30. L. 7- j P. 
 
 1*J. t P. U8. \\lbi4. 
 
 This
 
 25 * 'A* ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 This fine Argumentation fhall not fail to 
 have Juftice done it in our Examination of 
 the next Se&ion ; in which it is unfolded 
 at large. * InanwMchfpaceoftime[from 
 England's Converfan to the Reformation] our 
 Anceftors^ fays a Troteftant Writer ^ 'were 
 allTapifts with a Vengeance-, Unless feme- 
 times a few Lollards ftartedup^&c. Why 
 does not he name his Proteftant Writer ? 
 And (hew us that he truly reprefents his 
 Meaning ? Or if a Proteftant Writer did 'fay 
 this ; he faid what was falfe : Which is an 
 Anfwer at leaft as good as the Argument. 
 
 To tie EigUh S E C T I O N: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The fame Faith 'was freacVd to the 
 Saxons, as bad been preached jour 
 hundred Tears before to the Britons. 
 
 ALmoft the fame, undoubtedly; tho 1 
 perhaps not quite. But we will ad- 
 mit that it was altogether the fame : And 
 
 * Ibid T 
 
 our
 
 BW/J,Englandv Converjiov, &c 253 
 
 our Author's fctting himfelf fo formally to 
 prove it, is the moft fokmn Piece of Imper- 
 tinence we have had yet- Could he but 
 ihew that prejent Topery is the fame Re- 
 ligion as Auflin taught, without tracing it 
 any higher ; he would, as to Antiquity, do 
 his Bufinefs effectually. He might therefore 
 have fpar'd his Pains in fhewing that there 
 \vas no Change in the Religion of Rome be- 
 tween Eleutheriuss and Gregory's time. He 
 knows we grant there was none $ at lead 
 none confide r able : Tho' he has taken a 
 ftrange Way to prove even This j and his 
 Arguments are utterly trifling, and incon- 
 clufive. What occafion had he to mifplace 
 the good old Sophiftry, fo ufeful to Papifts, 
 and fo much us'd by them, about Changes 
 in Religion, and our being oblig'd to (hew 
 when, and bow, and by whom they were 
 made ? Why does he transfer it from it's 
 proper Periods to a Time in which no body 
 pretends there were any fuch Changes ? 
 He himfelf places it right in the foregoing 
 Se&ion *. It is impo/Jible (fays he) to prove* 
 from any Authentick Hiftory that there hap- 
 pened any Change in the puUick Faith of 
 the Englifti Church, from its Converficn 
 under the Saxon Kings, till the pretended 
 Reformation. This is to the Purpofe ; tho 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 there's
 
 254 An ANSWERS a Topi/b Book, 
 
 there's no Truth in it. But to take it as a 
 Thing demonftrated, by Arguments which 
 I have fhewn to be groundlefs and abfurd, 
 that prefent Topery and the Religion of 
 'Rome in Auftiris time are all one, than 
 which nothing can be more notorioufly 
 falfe j and, upon this Suppofrtion, to go fo 
 gravely to Work, proving that there were no 
 Innovations between Eleutherius s time and 
 Gregory 's, (which Nobody denys) and con- 
 fequently that Topery^ as it now is, was 
 the Religion of the fecond Century j is, if 
 poflible, more pompoujly ridiculous than a- 
 ny thing we have hitherto met with. The 
 Reader ftiall have a Tafte of it. Taking it 
 for provd. (how well it is fo, we have feen) 
 that * Gregory was a Majfing Tope, and 
 that all the other Topijh Articles mention'd 
 in the foregoing Section were current in his 
 Time, He proceeds Thus. If therefore all 
 theje were Innovations brought in betwixt 
 the Second and Sixth Century \ if there was 
 no Mafs faid at Rome in the *Days ^Eleu- 
 therius ; If that Tope was not acknowledged 
 Supreme Head of the Church ; If in his time 
 there was no Invocation of Saints^ no Ho- 
 nour paid to their Reljques, no praying for 
 the T)ead &c. / muft make bold to demand 
 a particular Account taken from good Re- 
 cords, and Authentick. Hi/lory, dec. And 
 
 fo
 
 Entitled, England^ Convey -fion, &c. 2 5; 5 
 
 fo goes on with the Argumentation which I 
 fhall prefently examine,tho' as it will be more 
 properly apply* d* Here I only ask our Au- 
 thor j will He then really and with a feri- 
 ous Face affirm, that there were fuch things 
 as Mafs in the Senfe of the prefent Church 
 of Rome., as the Topis Supremacy, Invoca- 
 tion of Saints, fuch an Honour paid to their 
 Reliques as is now paid, and praying for the 
 Dead with a View to Purgatory, in any 
 Part of the Second Century ? If he will,- 
 I appeal to all knowing and unprejudiced Per- 
 fons, even among the Romanifts themfelves, 
 whether there ever was a greater Inftance 
 of Ignorance, or Infincerity. 
 
 A Church, he grants, may change it's Re- 
 ligion; * lut then^ fays He, it muft be pro- 
 ved from unqueftiondble Historical Faffs, 
 that Rome changd its Faith in the Inter- 
 val of lime, between the Converfion of the 
 Britons and that of the Saxons. For the 
 Reafons juft now given, inftead of the laft 
 Claufe read, between the Converfion of the 
 Saxons and the Reformation: And I an- 
 fwer, i ft. We can give an Hiftorical Account 
 of fome ~Romifh Corruptions. For Example, 
 and to pafs by feveral other Particulars /- 
 <mage-Worft)ip was eftablifh'd by the fecond 
 Council of Nice^ at the latter end of the 
 
 P. 129. . * f 
 
 Sth,
 
 256 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 8th Century, under Irene ; as it was con- 
 demn'd about feven Years after, by the Coun- 
 cil of Frankford, under Charles the Great. 
 Several Popes particularly Leo the Firft, 
 had made fome Encroachments upon the 
 Church j but Univerfal Supremacy was firft 
 pretended to by Boniface III. at the Be- 
 ginning of the yth. Century. The Number 
 'of feyenSacramentswas firft ftarted by Peter 
 Lombard in the 1 2th Century, and efta- 
 blifh'd by the Council of Tf ent about 150 
 Years ago. ^ranfubftantiation^ and the 
 Half-Communion, are own'd to be New by 
 Papifts themfelves. But adly. and chiefly, 
 We cannot indeed give an Hiftorical Ac- 
 count of the jR.//>,and Growth^ of many Po- 
 pifh Corruptions , But then it is not in the 
 leaft incumbent upon us to do fo, nor has 
 the Church of Rome any manner of Right 
 to demand it. That they are in Being we 
 knov)y becaufe we fee them: That they re- 
 ally are Corruptions, We prove from their 
 Repugnancy to the plaineft Scripture, to 
 primitive Antiquity, to Natural Religion, 
 and Common Honefty,to Themfelves, to 
 Reafon, and our Senfes. And fhould I fee 
 a Man covered over with Leprofy, or eaten 
 up with the Kings Evil*, would not his 
 Arguments and his Modefty be very fingu- 
 Iar 5 fhould he difcourfe Thus ? If you pre- 
 tend that I have the Leprofy, or the King's 
 
 Evil
 
 Entitled) England^ Converjion^kc. 257 
 
 Evil ; * to make good this bold Jffertion^ you 
 muft produce pi ain^ and tindevii able FaUs to 
 prove that there was a Change in my State 
 of Health between the 6th. and 36th. Year 
 of my Age : f And to render this credibh^you 
 muft dejcend to 'Particularities, and jpeci- 
 fy the moft remarkable Circumftances of it ; 
 Js in what Tear., what Montb^ and what 
 ?Day of the Month^ I began to be ill; 
 What 'Difturbance it caufed in the Family ; 
 What Dolors and Surgeons were font for, 
 and what they faid pro^ and con^ about it. 
 For thefe are the conftant andnaturaleffc'cts 
 of Changes in one's Health : 4ud if avy Jncb 
 Changes had really been in mine^ in the 
 Interval of Time above named - y it is as in- 
 credible as the moft palpable of Fiffiions 
 that no Notice fhould be taken of it". Juft 
 fo, and in thefe very Words, mutatis mu- 
 tandis^ our Author argues about Changes 
 in Religion, t They muft produce plain and 
 undeniable hiftorical Facts > As m what jlge^ 
 and under what Topes, and Emperors it 
 happen d> who were the chief T remoter s^ 
 and Oppolers of it ; what 'Ttifturbances it 
 caiifed y what Books were wiit for, or a- 
 gainft it ; and what Synods were calld to 
 approve^ or condemn it. O! abfolutely ne- 
 cefTary it muft needs be to have every one 
 
 * P 130 
 
 S of
 
 258 An ANSWER to a <popift> 
 
 ofThefe Evidences: Otherwifc there can 
 be no Corruption s, tho' we fee there are 
 a thoufand. As if Corruptions could not 
 begin, and creep on infenfibly, and at laft fvvell 
 to a prodigious Bulk-, yet Nobody be able 
 to trace out the Original., and Trogrefs of 
 them. Some indeed may\>Q fo traced; but o- 
 thers may not. And therefore our Author gains 
 nothing to his Caufe., when he tells us that 
 were the * Trimacy of the See of Canter- 
 bury pretended to be an Innovation j He 
 who fhould fo pretend muft produce tin- 
 deniable hiftorical Faffs to prove it. For 
 befides that the Dope's Supremacy is not near 
 fo plain and undifputedz. Point as the^rr#- 
 bijhop of Canterbury's Trimacy ; Changes 
 and Innovations of 'Jhis Kind are of fuch 
 a Nature, v that they are more likely to make 
 a Noife than Others : Not but that even 
 Thefe may be fo gradual, as not to be taken 
 notice of in Hiftory. And in Fad:, &s Changes 
 In Government are fometimes fuddain,- fo 
 they are fometimes gradual, and made by im- 
 perceptible Tieldances and Encroachments: 
 Yet that they are Changes we may be ve- 
 ry certain., by comparing the prefent State 
 of Things with the former: And here in- 
 .deed Hiftory comes in very properly. To 
 as little Purpofe he cites the f 
 
 * P 129, 130. t P 13$. 
 
 cedonian y
 
 Entitled^ England'j- Converfion, &c 259 
 
 cedonian* Neftorian, and JL&iychian Here- 
 iies condemn'd by General Councils. Who 
 doubts but that fome Errors may be fo fud* 
 dain and flagrant, as to allarm the whole 
 World at their fr ft Appear ancet And yet 
 the Cafe may be quite different with others. 
 We may be fure to a 1)av when a Man fell 
 fick ofaJFk^r, or the Small-Tcx: And yet 
 does it follow, that Another monftroufly 
 iwollen with the c Dropfey, has not the Drop^ 
 ley $ becaufe neither He himfelf, nor any 
 body elfe, can tell when the Diftemper firft 
 legally and by what Advances \\.grew upon 
 him ? There is no Neceffity therefore, as 
 our Author pretends there is, that * We~ 
 fhould inform them very particularly who 
 was the firft *Pope that iaia\claim to the 
 Supremacy > (tho' we can do, and have done 
 even That :) Who it was that introduced 
 the Invocation of Saints^ the Veneration of 
 their Reliques ^ the Honcttring of pious I* 
 mages (as he calls them) and 'Pictures , and 
 praying for the Souls departed. Why we 
 muft ABOVE ALL let them know who was 
 the firft Tope that faid Mafs ; dnd why 
 *fhis was an Innovation^ if it was one y of 
 fo EXTRAORDINARY a Nature, that no 
 Hiflorian could POSSIBLY le ignorant either 
 of it's 'Beginning^ TrogTefs^ or full 
 
 * p. 131 
 
 S\ a Wiflwient
 
 160 An ANSWER to a Topifh $00%, 
 
 llifljment in the Church of Rome, I can by 
 no means undeiftand. What is there fo ve- 
 ry particular in This Inftance ? And why 
 does he not give us fome Rcafon for fo poji- 
 tive an Afiertion ? The Word Mafs, as I 
 have above cbferv'd, did not always fignify 
 the fame as it does Now in the Church of 
 Home : And why could not Corruptions, 
 by infenfible degrees, one after another, 
 creep into the 'Do'drine^ and Service of the 
 Eucharift) till they fwell'd at laft to That 
 frightful Size of Superftition, Idolatry^ and 
 *Blafphemy<) which we now behold ? 
 
 P. 133. Here the Preceptor fo batters the 
 JP rot eft ant Cauje with (hie ft ions and jDz- 
 lemmas ; that by the Noife of his Cannon, 
 you would think it impofllble for us to hold 
 out an hour longer. Efpecially confider- 
 ing how He and his Pupil triumph over us, 
 after the formidable Interrogatories are put. 
 * When fbeje few Queftions are clearly 
 anfwered ; IJhall have rouble the Number 
 ready for any one that is difposd to under- 
 take that Task. Dreadful ! What will be- 
 come of us ? 
 
 G. If ear indeed there will not be many 
 pretenders to it. For I perceive there lie 
 Ob j eft ions in slmbufcade, to what fide foever 
 the Anjwerer foall turn himfelf. 
 
 P.
 
 Entitled, England^ Conversion, 8cc. i6t 
 
 P. I bjslieve indeed he will meet witbfome 
 Rubs in his Way. Weil ; unfortunately for 
 me, it feems, I have undertaken That def- 
 perate Task : And I muft go on, whatever 
 happens. 
 
 * "But This wonderful Change is ei- 
 ther recorded in fome ancient Hiftory ; or it 
 is not. Anfwer. 'Part of it is y and Tart is 
 not. t If not j by what means have the bold 
 jlffertors of it tome fairly and honeftly to 
 the Knowledge of it ?" That Part which is 
 recorded in Hiftory, we came fairly and 
 honeftly to the Knowledge of, according to 
 his own Supposition : 'And we come fairly and 
 hone Illy to the Knowledge of the reft ; be- 
 caufe we fee it. * For IJJmild be apt to 
 fufpeffi that they had dealt in the black Art^ 
 and conjurd up fome Spirit to inform them 
 of what had pafsd in reference to the pre- 
 tended Innovations" One may \>e Conjur- 
 er enough to believe what one jees y with- 
 out dealing with the 'Devil '; And fo there 
 was no occafion for That Rant, f 'But if 
 it be recorded in any ancient Hiftory {as it 
 muft undoubtedly be^ if it happen d at all ; 
 which I, to make ufe of the fame Parcnthe- 
 fis, have (hewn to be undoubtedly falfe, and 
 ridiculous) Idefire to know when and by what 
 Methods this ftupendimis Rezolutjon was 
 
 Ibid, f Ibid. 
 
 S 3 brought
 
 *6i An ANSWER to a yy$ Boot, 
 
 brought to pats ? Tho' for the Reafons a- 
 bove aCGgn'd,' He has no Right to ask That 
 Queftion, nor are we bound to anfwer it,- 
 yet that I may here, as almoft every where 
 elfe, give him more than I owe him, I will 
 follow as he leads. * Js whether it was 
 done clandestinely, or openly ? Whether by 
 Violence, or Fraud? Part of it clandeftinc- 
 ly ; and Part openly : Some by Violence ', 
 fome by Fraud, and feme by 'Both, t Whe- 
 ther England, (for, according to my Me- 
 thod, I put SfiJwjF inftead of whole Chri- 
 flendom) was bribed, or bully d, intol'his 
 ftrange Apojlacy ? It might be in fome mea- 
 fure brib'd by the Pope's Money, tho' That 
 See was always more addided to receive than 
 to give ; but it was chiefly bully d into it 
 by the Pope's 'Bulls. * IVbether it was com- 
 pafsd all at once, or by degrees ? Moft cer- 
 tainly by degrees. And if the Querift had 
 \vell confider'd the true Anfwer to lhat 
 Queftion * 3 he need not have been at the 
 Trouble of asking the reft* * And whether 
 it met with any Opposition, or not? Several 
 Parts of it, as the Pope's Supremacy, and I- 
 mage-Worfliipj met with much Oppofition i 
 Some met with but little'-, Others dealing 
 in by Moonlight, or in the ^ark, or by /'- 
 fenfible Degrees, might meet with none. \ 
 
 p. m. \ im. 
 
 think
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, &c. 
 
 think our Caufe remains unhurt by all Thefe 
 terrible Interrogatories, notwithstanding the 
 loud Bluftring above recited ; Which proves 
 to be Powder without Ball, Noife and no- 
 thing elfe. 
 
 In This and the four next Pages, * he 
 may, without any difturbance from Me, as 
 he has done in the foregoing Page, | and 
 Part of the next preceding it, proceed 
 manfully fighting with his own Shadow, 
 proving, and demonftrating^ that there was 
 no Change in the Faith of Rome., between 
 Eleitthermss, and Gregorys Time : Of 
 which I have faid enough, perhaps more than 
 enough, already. 
 
 There is, however, in the laft of thefe 
 Pages one Alfertion which is very material, 
 
 and mult by no means be neglected. St. 
 
 Auguftin (fays he) who brought from Rome, 
 and preach d to the Saxons, ALL the Tapi- 
 flical ^Do&rincs we now profefs. To which 
 I aiifwer,- He himfeif has mentioh'd but Jtxi 
 to wit, i. The Pope's Supremacy. 2. Saying 
 Mafs. 3. The Ufe of holy Water. 4. 
 The Worfhip oftheCrofs, Images, and Re- 
 liques. 5. Invocation of Saints. 6. Purgato- 
 ry. The firft five of Thefe fix were not held 
 by the Church of Rome., nor by Pope Gre- 
 gory himfeif j Nor has our Author (as I have 
 
 *P. 154, 135, 135, 137.
 
 264 An AKSWEKto aTopifo Book, 
 fhewn) brought any more than the Sha- 
 dow of an Argument at moft, to prove that 
 any one of them was j Nay I have prov'd that 
 two of them. The Pope's Supremacy, and 
 Worfhipping the Crofs, &c. were not. The 
 laft of them. Purgatory, was indeed held 
 by Pope Gregory, but not by the Church 
 of Rome j Nor does it appear that duftin in 
 particular either preactid^ or believd it. 
 But fuppofe every one of fhefe Points was 
 then maintained by the Church of Rome in 
 general, and brought into England by Au- 
 Jlin: Are Thefe ALL the Tapiftical Toints 
 which Papifts now profefs ? Where are the 
 Seven Sacraments j Communion in one Kind, 
 Denying the Laity the Ufe of the Scriptures - 3 
 Prayers in an unknown Tongue j Exempting 
 the Clergy from Civil Jurifdi&ion , The 
 Do&rine of excommunicating and depofing 
 Kings j Their innumerable Ceremonies and 
 Superfluous Fopperies j Their Doftrines en- 
 tirely calculated for ihG^Damnation of Souls ^ 
 as Attrition without Contrition, Auricular 
 Confeffion, and Opus operatnm \ Laftly, and 
 to omit a multitude more. Their Do&rine 
 of Indulgencies, and the Sale of them, 
 confequent of it - 3 as appears from That filthy 
 Book call'd the fax of the Apoftolical Cham- 
 ler, or Chancery ', in " which (as * one of 
 
 * EffencMsin. Epift. ad Tit, C. I. P.47P- 
 
 of
 
 , England^ Converjlov,&.c. 265 
 
 cc of their own Writers allures us) may be 
 " learn'd more forts of Wickednefs than 
 - c from all the Summaries of all Vices ; and 
 cc a Licence for fome y but Abfolution for 
 cc #// (many of them are fo horrid and un- 
 ce natural that they are not to be named 
 cc without Immodefty) is offered to thofe who 
 " defire to buy them" ? In this prccious$00 
 of^ates^ the feveral Prices of the Indul- 
 gencies, and Pardons, are annexed to them, 
 according to the magnitude of the feverai 
 Sins ; As for Murder ^ fo much j For Adid- 
 tery y fo much ; For Terjury fo much. Our 
 Author therefore was a little Forgetful, or 
 guilty of a wilful imperfeU Enumeration > 
 when, even according to his own Account, he 
 affirm'dthatSt.^f^/ brought ALL the 
 Papiftical Doctrines into England. 
 
 To tie AMSECTION: 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 The fame Subjecl continued. 
 
 * T TO W far our Author does and does not 
 JLl agree with Mr. Cottier > is nothing 
 to Me, or to our Caufe. He elfewhere pro- 
 duces a Quotation | from That Hiftorian, 
 
 * P. 138. f Of which hereafter in The 3d. Dialogue. 
 
 with
 
 2 66 An ANSWER to a 
 
 with reference to which I differ from Mr- 
 Collier,, as well as from Him : But in This 
 neither the Church of "England^ nor the 
 Church of Rome, is conern'd. Here, how- 
 ever, he is unjuft in accufing Mr. Collier of 
 Infincerity, for telling Ms Reader that of the 
 Articles propos'd by Auftin to the Britifo 
 Bilhops, Owning the Topes Authority was 
 one : * Whereas (fays our Author) There is 
 not a Word of this Article in Bede. But 
 can nothing be true, but what is in 'Bede* Bc- 
 fides; our Author afterwards acknowledges 
 that Mr, C. endeavours at leaft to prove his 
 Affertion frome 'Eedc himfelf; and takes 
 a great deal of Pains to anfwer the Argu- 
 ment : With what fuccefs we lhall fee pre- 
 fently. 
 
 In the mean time t he owns that Geof- 
 
 jry of Monmouth an antient Hiftorian 
 
 fpeaks of Dinoth the Abbot of Bangor, as 
 'Prolocutor of the Affembly on the Britifti 
 Side ; and tells us that the Anfvoer he gave 
 to St. Auftin's *Propofals was y that the Bri- 
 tons owd no Subjection to him^ as having 
 an Archbifoop of their own. In This An- 
 fwer., our Author is poiitive, there is not 
 l the leaft Infmuation that St Auftin had 
 infifted on their owning the "Popes Supre- 
 macy. Supremacy, univerfal /Supremacy, 
 We do not fay Pope Gregory pretended to ,- 
 
 * Ibid. jlbid. (1 1*. 135. 
 
 nay
 
 Entitled, England V Converjion, Sec. 167 
 nay We have fliewn that he difclaim'd it : 
 But as to Authority ', or Jurifdittion in 'Bri- 
 tain ; to my Apprehenfion, there is in This 
 Anfwer of TUnotVs a little Injlnuation 
 that Auftin had mention'd fome fuch Thing. 
 But let That pafs ; together with our Au- 
 thor's Reafonings in all this Paragraph: 
 Which I leave him to enjoy without Diiiur- 
 bance. 
 
 But the Welfh Manufcrift cited by Sir 
 Henry Spelman is exprefs for TMnotffs ab- 
 folutely rejecting the Pope's Authority. And 
 how Mr. C. * gives Bede thej%> 3 in quoting 
 This Manufcript, I do not underftand ; Or 
 if it muft be call'd by That Name, lam 
 as much at a Lofs to know what harm 
 there is in it. Becaufe I quote one Hi- 
 ftorian, as far as fa gees ; is there any thing 
 abfurd, or unfair, in my quoting another 
 tofupply his defers ? For the Authority of" 
 this Manufcript, about which the Preceptor is 
 not fatisfy'd, I refer to Sir Henry Spclman, 
 who lays no more Weight upon it than it 
 will bear : Whether it be true, or falfe, 
 matters not much : Sir Henry> however, pro- 
 duces another Manuicript to the fame Pur- 
 pofe ; which feems of more undoubted Au- 
 thority. 
 
 But' it is moft probable, at leaft, from 
 ^ede himfelf, that the $ritijb WJkops re- 
 fus'd all manner of Submiflion to the Pope 
 And that They did, is confirm'd by the 
 
 ^* jbU. " ' ! * 
 
 TeHimony
 
 i68 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 Teftimony of other Hiftorians. From *Bede 
 himfelf, I fay, it is at leaft highly probable : 
 bccaufe he allures us that Thofe Prelates 
 refus'd to acknowledge Auflin as their Arch- 
 lifhop. * But Ihis Argument^ our Au- 
 thor tells us, will not hold Water. For tho 
 it be true indeed that the Britons refused 
 to receive St. Auguftin/0r their ArchUJhopi 
 it does not follow from it that therefore they 
 difownd the Topers Supremacy. And the 
 Reafon of This is, becaufe they might own 
 his Supremacy, without owning that t his 
 Authority extended to the placing one as an 
 ordinary Superior over their own Archliflwp. 
 That is to fay. This Writer gives us his 
 own Arbitrary Notion of the Supremacy, 
 enlarges it, or contracts it, as he thinks fit $ 
 of which I have above taken notice ; and is 
 for a limited Pope's Supremacy., which I 
 have elfewhere t fhewn to be abfurd. What 
 Thanks he will receive for this from other 
 Romanifts, is not difficult to guefs. But 
 'tis pleafant enough to hear any Papift ufe 
 Thefe Words: H "Because they might think 
 that the Tope had carried his Tretenfio?is 
 too high ,- in degrading^ as it were, their own 
 Archbifhop) and fubjetting both Him,, and 
 Them to a FOREIGN JURISDICTION. Is the 
 Pope a Native of Great "Britain ^ Or the 
 
 * P. 141. t tf> id - * Pop* trnly fhtcd. II P. 141- 
 
 See
 
 See of Home a 'Britifo See ? Is not the 
 Papal Jurifdi&ion then as to Us, if it be 
 any thing at all, a foreign Jurifdiction ? 
 But be That as it will ; All the World knows, 
 that, fince What we call Popery was fully 
 eftablifh'd, the Papal Supremacy was both 
 by thofe who claim d it, and by thofe who 
 acfaiowledgd it, efteem'd alfolute and tin- 
 limited : And 'tis no lefs certain that Au- 
 ftin thought the Pope had Authority to place 
 an ordinary Superior^ and that a foreign one 
 too, over an Jrchbifoop. This Writer him- 
 felf acknowledges as much. St. Auguftin 
 (fays He * ) doultlefs thought himfelf their 
 Metropolitan, and 'Primate; fpeaking of 
 the Itritijh Bifhops: And that he claim'd 
 under the Pope, is moft certain, and this 
 Writer himfelf again once f exprefly affirms, 
 and all along fuppofes. 'Tis true he twice 
 tells us * he vsill not prefume to decide 
 whether his Title were good, or not. 
 And yet he feems to decide it ; when he 
 fays, \\JJoould He (the Pope) take upon him 
 to fend over a foreign Archbijhop with a 
 Commijjion to exercife an ordinary Jurif- 
 dittton over the Archlifhop of Prague* To- 
 ledo, or Paris, for example ; he would le 
 as vigorotijly oppofed vow, as St. Augu- 
 ftin was by the Britifh Clergy } and in all 
 
 * P, 107. | P. 5>5- * P. 107. and 144. I! P. 141. 
 
 Likelihood
 
 27 -4* ANSWER to a Topijh 
 
 Likelihood be fent back with the fame An- 
 S'wer as that Trdate was, to wit, That 
 they would not receive him as their Arch- 
 Ujhop. It feems then "Bohemia, Spain, and 
 France, would not acknowledge fuch a Pow- 
 er in the Pope ; And our Author, one would 
 think, is of Opinion that they have Reafon. 
 Elfe,why does he alledge their Authority ? 
 At leaft he grants that fuch is their Opinion : 
 And even according to That, Popery is not 
 in all refpe&s the fame now as the Doctrine 
 which Auflin taught; tho' This Writer ftre- 
 nuoufly infiftsthat it is. I fay again, St. Auflin 
 (according to our Author himfelf) thought 
 the Pope had a Right to make him ordinary 
 Superior to the jBritiflb Archbiiliop j For he 
 claim'd underThat fuppofed Right. Andcon- 
 fidering, as I obferv'd, that the Pope's Supre- 
 macy was, after the thorough Eftablifhment 
 of Popery, ever accounted abfolutely Mo- 
 narchical ; it follows that by rejecting any of 
 his Authority, They rejected fuch a Su- 
 premacy as the Topijh Church of Rome has 
 generally afcrib'd to the Pope, and Popes 
 to themfrlves; whether Gregory I. laid 
 Claim to it, or no. 
 
 * / only add- fay> He, that there are 
 innumerable Iw Ranees in TLccleflaflical Hi- 
 flory of panicnlar Churches, maintaining 
 
 * P. 142. 
 
 their
 
 Entitled) England'* Converfion, Sec. 
 
 their 'Privileges again ft the See of Rome. 
 There are indeed : and this is a frank Con- 
 feifion. * And That without derogating a* 
 ny more from the divine Right of the 'Pope's 
 Supremacy, than a SubjeU is fiippofed to de- 
 rogate from ihe jufl 'Prerogative of the 
 Crown when he goes to Law with his So- 
 vereign. I tell him again, the Pope's Su- 
 premacy is by the Popes and the Church 
 of Rome maintain'd to be an abfohite Mo- 
 narchy > and therefore This is no Parallel. 
 In England a Man may go to Law with his 
 Sovereign; becaufe the Englifh Monarchy 
 is a limited one. But is it fo in Turkey or 
 Mufcovy ? As for the Authority of t a Fa- 
 ther over his Son 9 it is more limited than 
 any Monarchy. Not that I am of this Wri- 
 ter's Opinion, that a Son may lawfully re- 
 fufe to obey a Commando^ his Father, which 
 only APPEARS UNREASONABLE to him: I 
 think a Father's Authority extends a great 
 deal farther than That comes to. If the 
 Son a&s thus, he really * difowns the Au- 
 thority his Father has ly Nature over 
 him. 
 
 Upon the Whole of This Matter, con- 
 cerning Aujlin^ *Dinoth) and the Britijb 
 Prelates ; I refer the Reader to Sir Henry 
 Spelman, Counc. Anno tfoi. &<, Hift. 
 
 *!Wd. t ibid. t ibid. 
 
 Lib.
 
 ayi An ANSWER to a Tofijh Book, 
 
 Lib i, 2. Geof.otMonm. Lib. n.Bram- 
 ball, Juft Vindication, &c. P. 84. Schifm 
 Guarded $.269. Stillingjleet^ Antiq. of Brit. 
 Churches, Chap. 5. &c. Adding only this 
 Obfervation, that were what our Author 
 fays of it really true -, it would but invali- 
 date one fingle Argument of Ours, among 
 very many others which are unanfwerable ; 
 or at moft would amount to no more than 
 that one Point of Popery, among a hundred, 
 is a little older than We affirm : Which 
 will never be a Ballance even in Behalf of 
 That fingle Point the Topes Supremacy., 
 againft Thofe innumerable demonftrative 
 Arguments which utterly overturn and de- 
 ftroy it, 
 
 His faying that * perhaps neither St. 
 Gregory, not the Britifh fyjhops were in the 
 Wrong^ as to this Notion of the extent of 
 the Papal Power ; becaufe "Both might think 
 they had Reafon on their Side; when they 
 are fuppofed to have been of directly con- 
 trary Opinions ; is what I can by no means 
 account for, and fo I leave it. 
 
 Nor does it follow, f that becaufe Mr. C. 
 fays, If Gregory's SucceJTors hadmovdwitb- 
 in the Cowpajs of his T retentions, the T)i- 
 vjfions of Chr id endow might have been pre- 
 vent edi Therefore it was his Judgment 
 
 P. 143. tlbid; 
 
 ibat
 
 Entitled^ England'/ Confer fion, &c, 
 
 that St. Gregory " did not cany his ^re- 
 tentions to any excefs, when he conftituted 
 St. Auguftin Superior oi'er the Britiih $/'- 
 Jhops. For, tho' Mr. C expreffes himfelf 
 fomevvhat loofely ; Thofe Pretenfions in 
 Greogory might be exceffive, as they cer- 
 tainly were, and yet if his SuccefTors had 
 not proceeded to greater ExcefTes, fitch 
 Divifions in Chriftendom, as have fince adual- 
 ly happen'd, might have been prevented. 
 * And as to the T)octrine taught ly That 
 Saint (continues He) / appeal to Mr. C's 
 own Conference, whether Roman Catholicks^ 
 or T rote ft ants keep clofer to it. And I won- 
 der at ThyConfciencc, whoever thou art, for 
 making fuch an Appeal to another Man's ; 
 Which is as much as I need fay of it, after 
 what I have largely difcours'd upon That 
 Subject. 
 
 t His affirming, that Gregory had the paf- 
 toral Care of all Churches incumbent upon 
 him ; Calling the ^ritiflo Church an an- 
 tient part of His Flock j And talking of pla- 
 cing a Superior O'ver it> with FULL POWERS 
 to reform it ; is all reducible to the old Po- 
 pifli Way of Argumentation, Begging iht 
 Qiieftion.) which I have often taken notice 
 of. " 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 T From
 
 An ANSWER to a <Poj)ift> Book, 
 
 From P. 1 44, to P. 148. He is upon the 
 old 'wrong Scent, proving what Nobody de- 
 nys (meaning always in the main) that the 
 fame Faith was preactid to the Britons, and 
 Saxons : Of which more than enough al- 
 ready. It were indeed very eafy to iliew 
 what trifling Arguments he produces to prove 
 even This j and how many ridiculous things 
 he fnys upon it. But I have fomething elfe 
 to do with my Time than to expofe Him, 
 and his Reafonings; uniefs when it is ne- 
 ceffary^ or at leaft highly expedient. 
 
 I only obferve therefore, that tho' what 
 * he tells us from ^Bede^ of St. German^ 
 and St. LtiptiSj about the Year 440, working 
 a Miracle by a 2$cx of ILeliques &c. is a 
 Facl: which I do not believe, for we are not 
 bound to believe every thing 'Rede frysj yet 
 admitting it were true, This does not * fa- 
 vour fo rank of modern Topery, as he fup- 
 pofes : Becaufc God may work a Miracle 
 upon a Perfon, when a %ox of Reltques is 
 apply d to him ; and yet it does not fol- 
 low that Reliques may be adord. As for 
 f the Story cf St. Allans Blood &c. tho' 
 here again we are not obliged to believe the 
 Fadt 5 - I have already granted that the 
 fuperftitious Ufeof Reliques w&s pretty early 
 in the Church j and let our Author make 
 
 P. 147. tljbid. j Ibid- 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England'j Cower fiv, Sec. 275 
 
 the moft of it. The Worfhip of them, con- 
 cerning which nothing is here faid, is much 
 later. Not but that it would be unlawful* 
 tho' it were never fo early. 
 
 P. 148. To Conclude, I argue thus from 
 the Tremifes I have eftablijtid, Ihe Eng- 
 liiTi Roman Catholicks profefs the fame 
 Faith ncw-> as was preach' a 1 by St Auguftin 
 
 'But the Faith preaclod by St.. Augu- 
 
 ftin was the fame that St. Fugatius 
 
 and Damianus preactid Tiherefore^ &c. 
 In iliort, he fums up his Argument as 1 have 
 done in the Beginning of my Anfwer to This 
 Se&ion. P. 171, 172. And then adds; If 
 This argument be not conchtjke \ I defire 
 to know where the Ttejeffi of it lies. I tell 
 him where it lies : It lies chiefly, tho' not 
 folely, in the firft Proportion. The Eng- 
 lifo Roman Catholicks do not profefs the 
 fame Faith now, as was preach'd by St. Au- 
 ftin above eleven hundred 2 'ears ago. This 
 I have largely, and fully prov'd: And let 
 him anfwer it, if he is able. Nor is the 
 fecond Proportion altogether true ; tho* up- 
 on That we do not infill. He fubjoins, %ttt 
 if it be conclufive*, as I conceive it is -, the 
 Reform d Churches are in a defencelejs Con- 
 dition ; as being conviUed of teaching^ in 
 every Article wherein they differ from the 
 Church of Rome, a 'Bottrine direffily con- 
 trary to That of the primitive Church. I 
 anfwer 3 But if it be not conclufive, as I have 
 T 2 protfd
 
 An ANSWER \ a, Topifb Book, 
 
 provd it is not; and if the direct Contrary 
 be true^ as I have />r0c/-V it is ; Then " the 
 " Topi]?} Churchps arc in a defencelefs Con- 
 c dition, as being convicted of teaching, in 
 cc every Article wherein they differ from 
 <c the Reformed Churches, a Dodtrine di- 
 <c rectly contrary to That of the Primitive 
 " Church". 
 
 To the Tenth SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Some Ohfervations itfon the Conversion 
 of England under Tope Gregory. 
 
 TH I S, like feveral Others of our Au- 
 thor's Sections, is foon difpatch'd; 
 becaufe it contains nothing but what is elfe- 
 where more largely infifted upon : He only 
 repeats what is paft, and threatens us with 
 what is to come. His main Drift is to fet 
 the Means of England's Conversion and 
 Thofe of tisReftirtnation againft each other, 
 as if they were directly opposite ; in order 
 to blacken and calumniate the Latter. This 
 Slander fhall be fully coniidered in our Exa- 
 mination of the Next Ttialcgiie ; to which 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England *s Converjion,&c. 277 
 
 the Conclufion of This is a Kind of Prepara- 
 tion or Introduction. Here therefore I 
 have nothing to do, but to make a few 
 cur jory StriUttres upon particular Paflages; 
 without repeating what has been faid alrea- 
 dy ', or for eft ailing what fliall be faid here- 
 after. 
 
 That Pope Gregory, or any other Pope, 
 * was the undoubted Succeflor of St. Tetcr, 
 in the Scnfe which Papifts ufually mean, is 
 falfe i as I have prov'd in another Treatife. 
 That he had his Authority, as Bifhop, 
 from the Apefties, and fo from Chrift, 
 and that the Miflionaries he fent were le- 
 gally ordain'd, and authoriz'd, I readily 
 grant : But that the Protcftant Biiliops were 
 aot, and are not 10, which is what our Au- 
 thor would infinuate, I abfolutely and to- 
 tally deny. It has been often demonftrated 
 that Our Orders are as good as Theirs. 
 
 His Declamation f upon Pope Gregorys 
 Character is immaterial to the Controver- 
 fy, and not all together true, as I have (hewn. 
 His asking whether it be better || to venture 
 one's Soul with St. Gregory, or with our Re- 
 formers, is fallacious, as I have likewife 
 {hewn; becaufe there is not That Qppofi- 
 tion between them, which He fuppofes. 
 After what I have abundantly made out in my 
 
 * p. 149. f P. 15. li an. 
 
 T Anfwer
 
 378 An ANSWER to a p^yj B(W ^ 
 
 Anfwer to this Dialogue , let the Reader 
 obferve what a mixture ofTr/#,and Cha- 
 rity there is in Thefe Words, which our 
 Author puts into the Mouth of his young 
 Gentlemen. * For if true Faith lie necejf'ary 
 to Salvation^ as you have provd it to be ; 
 I really believe the Company qf thofe Gen- 
 tlemen [meaning the Proteftants]^^ apofta- 
 tizdrjfrom the Faith taught by St. Gregory, 
 and is faithful f Difciple St. Auguftin, is 
 not much to be coveted in another Worla[. 
 They, not We, ft?rr/tf<^theReligion taught 
 by Gregory and jfttftin , and God give them 
 Grace to reform it. 
 
 The Proteftant Churches in general did 
 not t by their pretended Reformation divide 
 themfelves from allthepre-exifting Churches 
 in Chrijiendom^ as to Faith and 1)oUrine 3 
 nor the Church of England in particular, 
 either as to T)oUrine^ or T)ifcipline: Of 
 which, when we come to the Fourth Dia- 
 logue. 
 
 Our pretended Breach * of the Unity of 
 Faith fhall there too be confider'd. 
 
 He enlarges upon || St. Auftins Miracles, 
 by way of Reflexion upon Us for the want 
 of them at the Reformation : Of which like- 
 wife in the Fourth Dialogue. Here I only 
 take notice that his Harangue for a whole 
 
 * P. J5r. f Ibid, t Ibo<f. I! Ibid, aod P, 152. 
 
 Page 

 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, &c. 279 
 
 Page together upon the Ufefulnefs, and Ne- 
 ceffity of Miracles to eftablifti newly re- 
 veal d Truths is extremely impertinent j 
 And his faying that dufliris Miracles, tho* 
 fappos'd to be true, and genuine, * have not 
 the divine Authority of Scriptural Miracles^ 
 is flat Nonfenfe. 
 
 t It is the diftingiiifhing Chara&er^ He 
 fays, of Falflmd to eftaUih itfelf ly Vio- 
 lence and Impofture* Nothing more certain : 
 And fo Popery, not Proteftantifm, eftab- 
 lifh'd it filf. The Confidence, and Folly of 
 the Man is prodigious. With the fame Blind- 
 nefs and Infatuation., as if he had owed 
 himfclf a Shame, he reflects upon the Re- 
 formation, for * domineering and tyranizing 
 over Mens Faith. This to Us ! And from 
 a Tapjft \ The main Defign of Ms Book is 
 to detend fuch lyranizing ; And of mine y 
 to deftroy it. 
 
 His redoubted Dilemma || ILither there- 
 fore^ the Church whereof England became 
 a Party 'was then the true Church^ &c. 
 tho' it has, in eifed:, been more than once 
 anfwered before, {hall not fail to be taken 
 in pieces, in a more proper place $ For (fo 
 great is this Writer's Love of Tautology) 
 it is, to my no fmall Mortification, more 
 than once repeated. 
 
 153. t Ibid. * P. 157. II P. I55i *5 6 - 
 
 T 4 His
 
 i8o y4w ANSWER to a e Popifb'BoQk,&c. 
 
 fHis Rhetorication againft the Rapine and 
 Violence of Thofe he calls Reformers^ (for 
 all of them were not really fuchy and 
 then asking whether theffofyG/Joft coiildhave 
 a Tart in juch Councils^ meaning indifcri- 
 minately Thofe of the Reformation, is That 
 ftupid Fallacy by which jeveral Queftions 
 which ought to be feparated, are jumbled 
 together in Or.e. As This is often repeated 
 by Him, and his trufty Ally the Biihop of 
 Meatix j I will here give a ihort Anfwer 
 to it, for good and all. What was /'// ei- 
 ther about, or at^ the time of the Refor- 
 formation, the Holy Ghqft had no part in ; 
 What was good He had a part in. * God 
 was not inthz great Windy the Earthquake^ 
 and the F/re, which demolifti'd all Religi- 
 ous Houfes without Diftindtion, and flrip'd 
 the Church of its Revenues j which was 
 the Work of Papifts,, not of Proteftants : 
 All in a manner, I mean - 3 all the Former., 
 and at leaft ninteen parts in twenty of 
 the Latter: But He was in the flill 
 fmall Voice of the Scriptures, dictating, 
 and prefcribing a Reformation of Religion : 
 And had the WHOLE Eng/i/b Nation then 
 liften'd to the Laft, as it ought to have 
 done; all the Mifchiefsj and Confufions 
 occafion'd by the Other 'Three would moft 
 certainly have been prevented. 
 
 A N
 
 A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 Popifti BOOK: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 ENGLAND'J- Converjion and Re** 
 formation compared, &c. 
 
 To tie ThirdDl A LOG UE; 
 
 Aid The PREFACE. 
 
 1 1 N C E the Subject of our Author's 
 Preface, and of his Third Dia- 
 logue is the fame ,- J chofe to con- 
 
 fider therp together, that I might 
 
 avoid Repetition as much as poflible. For 
 this Reafon 3 and moreover becaufe a ve- 
 ry great Part of what He advances, even 
 
 feverai
 
 281 An ANSWER toa < 
 
 feveral long Sections entire, may as well 
 be anfwer'd in ten Lines, as in ten thoufand , 
 I here depart from the Method I have hi- 
 therto obferv'd, which was to follow him 
 Se&ion by Section. But I (hall, notwithftand- 
 ing, be fo far from diflembling or avoid- 
 ing, the Force of any one of his Arguments ; 
 that I fhall, if poflfible, be more particu- 
 lar here, than any where elfe. 
 
 The Subftance of all the Fads contain'd 
 in his Preface, and in This Dialogue, may 
 be reduc'd to the two following Heads. 
 
 I. That the Agents in our Reformation 
 xvere Perfons of wicked and fcandalous 
 Lives. 
 
 II. That it was begun, and carry 'd on, by 
 unlawful Means, and an incompetent Autho- 
 rity, by 'Force, and Violence , and the* En- 
 croachments of the Civil State, invading the 
 Spiritual Rights of the Church and Clergy. 
 
 And all This is averr'd to be taken 
 from our own Writers, from *Proteftant 
 Hiftorians $ * Upon which our Author, 
 and his young Gentleman, triumph exceed- 
 ingly. But befides, that there is a much 
 worfe Account given of wicked Topes, and 
 the Wickednefs of the Romifo Church in 
 general, both Clergy, and Laity, by THEIR 
 own Writers, by Roman Catholick Hifto- 
 
 *P. 161, 
 
 flans
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjion^&c. 
 rians-y Among the many Facfts pretended 
 to be quoted by our Author, and the Bifhop 
 of Meaux> from Heyhn, Burnet, and the 
 reft, there is fcarce one but is either falfe 
 quoted* or miftaken^ or wilfully mifrepre- 
 fented^ or made the Foundation of 'an /- 
 conclufive Argument : Few of them are to 
 the Turpofe ; and one general wrong Con- 
 fequence is drawn from them 411. 
 
 I. For the Firft of thefe Heads ; our Au- 
 thor, afllfted by the Bifhop of Meaux, re- 
 vives the old perfonal Scandals > which have 
 fo long been made ufe of to caft an Odium 
 upon the Reformation. Some of the Alle- 
 gations are true in the Grofs ,- tho' moft, if 
 not all, of them highly agravated and mif- 
 reprefented by our Adverfaries. If, on the 
 Contrary, Biiliop < Burnet^ or any other Wri- 
 ter, has been too lavifh in his * Traijes^ (or 
 jBoafts, if you will call them fo) of Ter- 
 fons dftingi and Meafuret taken at That 
 Time i Let the Romanifts animadvert up- 
 on it, and much good may it do them. 
 What is all This to the Point ? How does 
 it prove Our Religion to be Falfe, or 
 Theirs to be true? I fliaJl fliew in 'due 
 time that it is foreign to the Caufe, and that 
 theConfequence they draw from it is ground- 
 
 *Fpjf. P. H. and 54. Thi* Dial, pajjim. 
 
 lefs
 
 -284 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 lefs. The Falfity of the Confequence drawn 
 from the Fa&s is what I chiefly infift up- 
 on : Yet I fhall firft touch upon the Facts 
 themfelves. 
 
 The Bifhop of Meaux, fpeaking of Hen- 
 ry VIII. has thefe Words. * Whatever Mr. 
 Burnet is pleaded to fay, we are not dijpofedto 
 accept of the Communion which he jeems to 
 offer as of that Trince. Andfmce he throws 
 him out of his own , the immediate Confe- 
 quence is, that the frfl Author oftbeEng- 
 lifh Reformation, who in reality laid the 
 foundation of it, by the Hatred he inftitfd 
 into his SubjeUs againfl the Tope, and the 
 Church </Rome , is a Terfon equally re- 
 jeffied, and anathematizdly both Parties? 
 'Not anathematizd by Us, tho' by the 
 Church of Rome : But let That pafs. We 
 have f elfewhere a Reafon given us (and I 
 have $ elfewhere confider'd it) why he was 
 not of Their Communion j namely, becaufe 
 he caft off the Pope's Supremacy, the Ac- 
 knowledgment of which is necelTary to make 
 a Member of their Church. We do not fay 
 he was in Communion with the Romifh 
 Church j He was excommunicated 3 tho' he ne- 
 ver intended to feparate, from it. But 
 we do fay, and infift, that he was chiefly 
 of the Romifi Religion > and our Author 
 
 * Pref. P. 10. i P. up. t P. 216. 
 
 himfelf
 
 7 England' j CowuwpSte. 285 
 
 himfelf Affirms that * he continued in moft 
 things a Zealous Tapift to the I aft. And fo 
 far was he from intending the Reformation 
 which folhnv'd ; that he liv'd and dy'd a fie- 
 ry Bigot to the worft of Popifh Corrupti- 
 ons, and a Perfecutor to Death of Thofe 
 who declared againft them. He was, it is 
 true, an Inftrument of the Reformation in 
 God's Hand, but not by any Defign of his 
 own. He was not therefore in any Proprie- 
 ty of Speech the Author ', however he might 
 be the Occafwn of it : And his laying the 
 Foundation of it was owing not to his In- 
 tention, but to Divine Providence. When 
 the Bifhop of Meaux therefore couples the 
 'Pope and the Church of Rome together, as 
 if King Henry inftiHd into his SuljeUs an 
 equal Hatred of both ; He is guilty of a great 
 Fallacy, or under a great Miftake. 
 
 ArchbimopCy<27W?<?r, I grant, was more than 
 a bare Inftrument in That Work : He hearti- 
 ly wifh'd well to it, andinduftrioufly laboured 
 in it. And if he has been too much extoll'd by 
 Bifhop %urnet, and Others ; He has been too 
 much blacken'd by this Writer, and his Party. 
 Be That as it will , he at laft laid down his 
 Life for his Religion ; which, it is hop'd,may 
 be feme Anfwer to the Charge of Hypocri/y^ 
 and Infencerity t fo heavily laid 'againft him. 
 
 * P. 115. tlTef. awd 3d. Dial, pajfim. 
 
 Upon
 
 286 An ANSWER toa 3 (j ^ 
 
 Upon the Subjeftof Cranmers Sincerity, our 
 Author gives us a remarkable Specimen of 
 his Own. From the Incident of That Mar- 
 tyrs Heart not being burnt when his Body 
 was confum'd to Afhes, f he tells us Bifhop 
 Burnet CONCLUDES, that tbo his Hand errd 
 yet his Heart bad continued true. For this 
 he quotes P. 3 -> 5 ofBurnet's Hiftory ; and the 
 young Gentleman is very fharp in expoflng 
 the Nonfenfe y and Contradiction of it. Now 
 Bifhop Burners Words are Thefe. Which 
 tbo the Reform d would not carry fo far^ 
 as to make a Miracle of />, and a clear 
 'Proof that his Heart had continued true^ 
 tbo bis Hand errd> yet they ob/eled it to 
 the Tapifts that it ritas certainly fucb a 
 Thing) that if it had fallen out in any of 
 their Church^ they bad made it a Miracle. 
 So that he makes no fuch Conclufion as our 
 Author pretends; He only fays that the 
 Reform' d would not make it. This is the 
 Gentleman who fo loudly complains of our 
 In Sincerity, and Utrfati Dealing. 
 
 Nor do I fee in P. 92. of the fame Hi- 
 ftory quoted by our Ai;thor || that Bifhop 
 Gurnet fays ct Cranmer was a Lutheran in 
 " his Heart ev>-n wh JR ;ie was a private 
 " Fellow in the Univerfity of Cambridge? 
 It is faid indeed P. 79. Vol. I. that cc He 
 w marry'd when he was Fellow of Jefus- 
 
 i P. 18 1- II P. *?5, 17^. 
 
 r CoUege
 
 Entitled) England'^ Converjion, &c, 287 
 
 cc College in Cambridge^ and loft his Fel- 
 <f lowfhip upon it." But if this prov'd him 
 a Lutheran^ he was one openly: And He 
 openly opposd the Six Articles in King Hen- 
 rys Reign j which I think was a Proof of 
 fome Sincerity. As for his Recanting, when 
 he was under the Sentence of Condemnati- 
 on, which our Author bafely calls * twice 
 perjuring himfelf^ and inhumanly triumphs 
 over ; common Charity would afcribe it to 
 human Infirmity wrought upon by the Fear 
 of Death ; fmce he recanted his Recant ati- 
 on^ voluntarily burnt off the Hand that fign'd 
 it, and fealed his former Profefifion with his 
 Blood. 
 
 Under the fame Article of Sincerity we may 
 remark, that as our Author, and the Bifhop 
 of MeaiiX) take notice from Bifhop TSurnet 
 t of Qranmers extravagant T)oUrine touch- 
 ing Church Governmet-, it would have be- 
 came them to have taken notice from the 
 fame Writer, of his formally retracing it ; 
 without Thofe little fallacious Reafonings 
 they make ufe of, to invalidate the Force 
 and Credit of That Retractation. 
 
 But fuppofe Cranmer to have been as falfe, 
 and hypocritical, in carrying on the Re- 
 formation, as They would have him ; Thefe 
 Objections come with an ill Grace from the 
 Mouths of Papifts ; whofe Do&rine it is that 
 
 * P. 180. tPref. P. 23, 24. 
 
 the
 
 i88 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 the Intereft of Holy Church, and the true 
 Religion, fhould be fupported by any Means, 
 and at any Rate. Cranmer^ it may be, might 
 for fome time retain fo much Popery, as to 
 proceed upon this Principle. 
 
 As for the long Story about f K. Har- 
 rys Divorce j I anfvver in fhcrt (tho' 'tis as 
 full an Anfwer, as if it took up a large 
 folio) that he was a Papift all the while. 
 And if He % gave 'Bribes to Divines and 
 "Univerfities upon That occafion j They were 
 Papitb who took them. 
 
 The 'Plunder of the Church likewife in 
 That Reign, which was fifty times more 
 than in all other Reigns, was the Work of 
 Papifts. 
 
 The T) {ffilution of Monet ft eries was jotely 
 in That Reign ; fet on foot by Cardinal 
 WooJfe)^ carry 'd on, and finilh'd by a Popifh 
 King, and Parliament. Not but that the 
 A&ion in the main was good,, tho' accom- 
 pany'd with many Abufes. The Number 
 and over-grown Wealth of Thofe Religious 
 Hcufes as they were call'd (tho' fome few 
 of them perhaps might w^ll enough have 
 been fpar'd) was grown a Burthen infuppor- 
 table to the Nation: They were mifchievous 
 both to the Civil State, and to Religion ; 
 
 tgd. Dial, *ft, ad, and 3^. Se&ions thi'oughont. Pref. 
 pajjim. P, *$i 
 
 and
 
 Entitled^ England' 'sConver ft on , Sec. 289 
 
 and ft ill are fo in Popiih Countries. And 
 notwithftanding our Author's long Quotati- 
 on from * Sir William *Dttgdale ; it were 
 eafy to prove from good Authors, even from 
 Sir William l^ugdale Himfelf, that the In- 
 habitants of them were not generally fo 
 chaftC) and unblamcaUe in their Lives and 
 Converfations, as they are by Some repre- 
 fented. 
 
 t ^1 he frequent and promifctiotts Execu- 
 tions of Troteftants as well as Catholicks 
 under this Sanguinary Trince are, I con- 
 fefs, known to all Mankind. But it is as well 
 known that T'his Sanguinary Trince execu- 
 ted Proteftants for being Proteftants j Catho- 
 licks, as They are call'd, not for being Ca- 
 tholicks, but for denying his Supremacy, and 
 afferting the Pope's. He bang d Tapifts for 
 Crimes again ft himfelf ; but burnt Trote- 
 ftants for being Trotejiants. 
 
 t In Edward the Sixth's Reign, they tell 
 us that the Duke of Somerfct^ Lord Pro- 
 te&or, was a very wicked Man ; and car- 
 ry'd on the Reformation with no View, but 
 to advance his own Worldly Intereft ; That 
 the Revenues of the Church were further 
 retrenctid^ and Chiirches fpoitd of their rich 
 Ornament s-t to furnifh the Houfes of Cour- 
 
 *'Se&. 5. P. 195. t P PI& t^^. 7, 8- 
 
 Pref. T.30. &c. 
 
 U tiers
 
 39 ^ANSWER to a Topifo Book, 
 
 tiers, and "great Men : That f Queen E- 
 lizabeth was a perfidious, hypocritical., cruel 
 Woman, not without many a Reflection up- 
 on her Chaftity, thatftiey?n>W the Church 
 yet further ; that fhe had the moft w r icked 
 Mini ft ry that ever liv'd ; that fhe fomented 
 the Rebellion of the Scots againft their So- 
 vereign - y and that the Death of the Queen 
 of Scots is an indelible Stain upon her Cha- 
 rafter. Here we have a mixture of Truth 
 and Falfhood. The Duke of Somerfet, I 
 believe., was no very good Man ; and the 
 Principle upon which he ated in the Refor- 
 mation might, for ought I know, be none 
 of the beft. Tho', as I may here very well 
 cbferve, (and the Obfervation is applicable 
 to other Agents in This great Work, as 
 well as to the Duke of Somerfet) it by 
 no means follows that becaufe fuch or 
 fuch a Thing is the natural and certain Con- 
 iequence of This, or That A&ion, there- 
 fore a Man mult neceflarily propofe That 
 Thing as the end of That Adion. The Duke 
 of Somerfets Power, and Fortune, might be 
 increafed by the Reformation ; and yet he 
 might promote it upon a quite different, and 
 far better Principle. And this Reafoning 
 will hold much ftrcnger, when it is apply'd 
 to Perfons oc an unblemijtid Character 1 , or of 
 
 f Se&. 9. and paj<im t Pref. P. 42, 43. &c. 
 
 whofe
 
 Entitled, England'.; Converjion, &c. 19 1 
 
 ->> . '.** '. -v^'r:;- 
 
 whofe Characters wed know nothing*. Of 
 which more hereafter. Whoever apply'd 
 the Materials, Utenfils, or Ornaments of 
 Churches to private and common Uies, as 
 particularly in the famous Cafe of Building 
 Somerfet-Hotife \ fo much in lifted upon, was 
 guilty of Profanenefs, and Sacrilege. But 
 let Thofe who did it anfiver for it : What 
 is it to Us, or our Religion ? Thofe who 
 alienated the Revenues of the Church^ pur- 
 iued the Path which the Papifts had mark'd 
 out for them j and did very ill, I think. 
 Queen Elizabeth was certainly not all Per- 
 fe&ion, as fome Proteftants perhaps have 
 reprefented her ; but it is as certain that She 
 was not fo black as the Papifts have paint- 
 ed her; according to whom the Devil him- 
 felf cannot well be blacker. The Death o 
 the Queen of Scots y in particular, is too much 
 aggravated. For after all, tho' me had 
 hard Meafure; {he was not entirely innocent j 
 And the reftlefs Attempts, Plots, and Trea- 
 fons, of the Popifti Faction may at leaft in 
 fome Degree excufe Queen Elizabeth's ex- 
 torted Confent to the Death of That un- 
 happy Princefs. But to put it at the Worft, 
 we can prove, and have prov'd_, both from 
 Reafon, and Scripture, that fhe did well as 
 a Reformer; but are not bound to juftify all 
 her A&ions as a Queen and a Tolitician. 
 
 f P. 221. 
 
 U a But
 
 292 A* ANSWER to a <Popi/h Book^ 
 
 But fuppofmg Her, and all the reft of 
 the Reformers particularly namd by our 
 Author, to have been as bad as he makes 
 them : There were very many other great 
 Men who a&ed in itj and were they all alike ? 
 This charitable Gentleman would have 
 it believ'd that they were. * And what is 
 moft remarkable (fays He) we have not found 
 one (ingle 'Perfon of Note concern d in the 
 promoting of his fo much boafted Work of 
 Light )Wbofe Char after would not at any time 
 le aScandal toa Cauje of far lefs Moment .> &c. 
 What if we had not found one fuch, that 
 is, upon Record, in Hiftory, and mention'd 
 by Name ? Both Houfes of Parliament, and 
 Convocation, the Judges, and great Officers 
 of State, were deeply concerned in promot- 
 ing This Work j and was there not one fmgle 
 Perfon of Note among them ? Sure, to fpeak 
 modeftly, there could not be lefs than Fifty, 
 in the three Reforming Reigns put together: 
 And was not there one among them, but 
 would have been a Scandal to any Caufe ? 
 (For 'tis Begging the Queftion to fay they 
 were Profligates becatife they were Refor- 
 mers.) Is fuch a Thing to be fuppofed in 
 common Charity, or even to be conceived 
 in common Reafon? But befides; as it 
 happens, we have found feveral Righteotts 
 Terfons in the City which our Author repre- 
 
 fents
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, &c. 193 
 
 fents to have been worfe than Sodom. The 
 Compilers of the Common Prayer, whofe 
 Names are upon Record, were Men of Note y 
 and of Tiety too : Dr. Hey tin > whom This 
 Writer often quotes, tells, us they were * Men 
 famous in their Generation^ and the honour 
 of the j^ge they livd in. So were many 
 who promoted the Reformation, by fuffer- 
 ing Martyrdom for it. All Thefe were not 
 a Scandal to their Caufe. What thinks our 
 Author oiEdwardVl. and the Lady Jane 
 Grey ? The laft, I fuppofe, He will fay was 
 a Rebel and Ufurpcr : But it is well known 
 how ilie may be at leaft excuidtt to That 
 Matter : In other refpe&s, fhe was a Pro- 
 digy of Wifdonb Learn ing,and Piety. And 
 fo was Edward VI. Who, that I may here 
 obferve it once for all, was not fo very a 
 Child) as our Author all along reprefents 
 him. Even when he came to the Crown, 
 he was much more than juft of an Jge 10 
 legin to learn his Catechijm : He was be- 
 tween ten and eleven Years old ; and could 
 not only fay his Catechifm, but in a great 
 meafure underftood it. He was between 
 fixteen and feventeen when he dy'd: and 
 confidering that he was a Prince of amazing 
 Parts, and Learning above his Years ; and 
 qf a manly Genius in every thing, as the 
 
 
 * Reformation Juftify'd. P, 15. 
 
 U 3 JournaJ
 
 194 <A n ANSWER to aTopifbfiook, tec- 
 Journal he wrote, which is now extant, 
 fufSciently teftifies : I leave it to all e- 
 qual Judges, whether our Author be not 
 injurious to Truth in making a mere Child 
 of him. But to return to the Reformers in 
 general : The main Body of the Clergy was 
 equivalent to feveral Perfons of Note ; and 
 they promoted the Reformation by embra- 
 cing it : I hope there were fome good Men 
 among them. If we will believe the Bifhop 
 of Meaux indeed, they embrac'd it upon a 
 vicious Principle. It will be worth While 
 to tranfcribe one Paragraph upon That Sub- 
 ject ; to give you a Sample of the Reft. 
 * c * In the Myftery of the Holy Eucha- 
 * c rift the Senfes were flatter'd, and deliver'd 
 " from their Subjection to the Obedience of 
 C Faith. Priefts were difcharg'd from their 
 * Celibacy, Monks from their folemn Vows, 
 tc and all in general from the Yoke of Con- 
 cc fejfion : Which, tho' a wholfome Prefefr- 
 <c vative againft Vice, is a Burthen to Na- 
 *' ture. A more commodious Morality was 
 cc therefore preach'd up ; which Mr. 'Bur- 
 ^ net fays mark'd out a plain and eafy Way 
 < c to Heaven. Now fuch good-natur'd In- 
 cc junctions could not but meet with an eafy 
 <' Compliance. So that of 16000 Ecclefi- 
 " afticks, 1 2 ooo, if Mr, 
 
 *?ref. P.
 
 Entitled, EnglandV Converjlon^c. 295 
 
 " liev'd, rcnounc'd their Celibacy in the 
 cc ftiort Reign of Edward VI. and all 
 Ci thofe rotten Members of the Church of 
 " Rome> became good Trot eft ants by be- 
 Ci coming unfaithful to their Vows. 
 
 C4 'T was thus the Clergy was gain'd.'' 
 Was it thus only ; as the whole Difcourfe 
 mamfeftly tends to perfuade us ? Did they 
 change their Religion upon no other Mo- 
 tive c" Is Monfieur de Meaux fure they did 
 not ? If not $ can any thing be more Un- 
 chrifiian, than to fay they did not? They 
 were, like the Jews upon the Reformation by 
 Chriftianity> deliver'd from an intolerable 
 Yoke of Ceremonies, and outward Obfer- 
 vances, (only with This Difference, Thofe 
 of the Jews were impos'd by God himfelf, 
 Thofe of the Papifts were impos'd partly 
 without any Law of God, partly contrary 
 to one) but does it therfore follow that 
 they ated with no View but to be fo deli- 
 vered ? Nay, does it follow, that they aed 
 with That Vicwdtf all? Some temporal Eafe, 
 and Advantage to them was a Confcqucnce 
 of their being Reform 'd : But it is no Confe- 
 quence that they were Reform'd for That 
 Reafon. Or if they were, partly for That 
 Reafon,tho' chiefly for Another ; That is no 
 Argument againft them. With regard to a 
 good Life in general, a Man may very lawful- 
 ly make the Temporal Advantages of Vertue 
 one End of his being Vertuous a tho' not the 
 U 4 the
 
 296 An ANSWER to a Topifi Book, 
 
 the chief. All this Reprefentation of the 
 Matter therefore by Moniieur de Meaux is 
 by no means for the Honour of fo great 
 a Man. As for the Particulars he menti- 
 ons, it will be fufficient to fpeak one Word 
 to each of them. In the Eucbarifty as 
 well as every where elfe, it was and is fit 
 that the Senfes fhould be fo far flattered^ 
 if We muft call it by That Name, as to 
 be allow'd competent Judges between a hu- 
 man Body, and a Wafer. What thofe Vows 
 were which the Monks made, whether in 
 Themfelves they ought to have been broken 
 or kept, and whether Thofe who made them 
 were by fufficient Authority difcharg'd from 
 them, it is no Bufmefs of Ours to enquire : 
 Monafteries were diiTolv'd before the Refor- 
 mation, as we have obferv'd. But the Bi- 
 iliop is miftaken in faying that the Clergy 
 at the Reformation broke their Vows of 
 Celibacy ,- Becaufe they made none, as * 
 Bifoop Burnet has fhewn. Confeffion we have 
 not fet aiide ; We not only grant, but infift, 
 that in general it is highly expedient, and 
 in fome Cafes little lefs than neceffary : Its 
 being absolutely neceffary to Salvation, and 
 that the ^Belief of fuch Neceffity is fo, is 
 all we deny concerning it. With re- 
 fpe& to bodily Exercife y and Things un- 
 commanded by God, which in truth have 
 
 A 'hilt, of che Xciorm, fajtt z. P. 92. 
 
 no
 
 Entitled, EnglandVGmtfr/j0^&c. 197 
 
 no Morality in them, our Church indeed has 
 marttdout a more eajy Way to Heazen than 
 the Romifh has done : But Popery, as I have 
 (hewn in another Treatife^ f has with refpecl: 
 to Morality in general mark'd out a more 
 eafy Way, than Chriftianity. We had Au- 
 thority to cancel the Laws of Men , but 
 They had None to cancel the Laws of God. 
 Thus then, fays the Biihop, the Clergy 
 was gain a 1 . J As to the Laity ^ the Riches^ 
 and Revenues of the Church laid open to 
 Rapine was become their "Bait. 'The Tlate 
 belonging to Churches filfd tie Kings Coffers 
 &c. This has been anfwer'd already. And 
 what I have juft now faid of the Clergy 
 may, with due Alterations, be apply'd to ma- 
 ny at leaft of the Laity. The Zeal which 
 the Bifhop fhews for the Memory of f %ec- 
 ket^ That Holy Martyr-* as He calls him, 
 (and it is as eafy for Us, tho' we deteft the 
 Murther of hirr 3 which was perpetrated by 
 Papifts, not Proteftants, to give him a quite 
 different Title) is no more an Argument 
 for him, than our Abhorrence of his Prin- 
 ciples, and Practices is an Argument againft 
 him : And in his || Comparifon offlecket and 
 Cranmer^ he all along jupfofa wliat we (hall 
 never grant. I juft obferve a that one 
 may not only queftioft> but deny the Miracles 
 
 t Popery mily ftated. J Pref P. 3 7. || P:cf.. P 40. 41. 
 
 faid
 
 298 An ANSWER to a Topi/h Book, 
 
 faid to be wrought at That Prelate's Tomb, 
 without turning all Hiftory into Scepticifm - 3 
 as Monfieur de Meaux^ pretty odly in my 
 Opinion, is pleafed to exprefs himfelf. 
 
 f 'But amidft all Ihefe Reformations 
 (fays He") there was one that made no Tro- 
 
 fre/s i to wit the Reformation of Manners, 
 have already taken notice of the <iDecay of 
 "piety which follow d Luther' J Reformati- 
 on zVz Germany, jlnd we need but read Mr. 
 Burnett Hiftory to be convincd that the 
 Englifh Reformation producd the very fame 
 E/etts. Henry VIII. was the frft, c. And 
 fo proceeds with That King, and the Duke 
 ofSomerfet) of whom enough already; with- 
 out giving any other Inftance of the Decay 
 of Piety upon the Reformation here in .Eng~ 
 /ana 7 : And nothing is more certain than 
 that true Chriftian Piety increas'd, not de- 
 cay'd, upon theDifcardingof Popifh Tyran- 
 ny, and Super flition. And fo it did in Ger- 
 many too ; Notwithftanding Thofe acciden- 
 tal Corruptions which followed theReforma- 
 tion there, but were not the genuine Effects 
 of it, as Monfieur de Meaux fophiftically 
 fuppofes. It ill becomes a Papift to talk of 
 the Reformation of Manners - 3 1 have * elfe- 
 where fhewn that in fa&> as bad as We 
 are, They are a great deal worfej that 
 
 i? ?. * Pop, truly ftated. 
 
 Their
 
 Converfion, Sec. 199 
 
 Their Religion in, and of itfelf naturally 
 tends to make Men vicious, and that Ours 
 as naturally tends to the. Contrary. 
 
 Which puts me in mind of what I chiefly 
 infift ^lpon -, viz. That the Queftion between 
 Us and Them is, or at leaft ought to be, 
 of Things rather than of JPerfins. Suppo- 
 iing not only fome, but all the Refor- 
 mers to have been as wicked as the Roma- 
 nifts would make them, than which, as we 
 have feen, nothing can be more falfe ; what 
 would They infer from it ? That therefore 
 the Reformation is null, and void ? Or the 
 reform'd Religion vicious, and corrupt? I 
 deny the Confequence. A very ill Man may 
 have lawful Authority : And a very ill Man 
 may do a good Thing $ and that too with 
 a good Defign : Nay tho' he does it with art 
 ill Defign, That does not make the Thing 
 ceafe to be good ; in itfelf I mean, tho' it 
 does as to Him. Farther, the worft Actions 
 of the worft Men may be, and often have 
 been, fo turn'd and difpos'd by the Provi- 
 of God, as to produce Effects quite contra- 
 ry to the Intention of the Agents. 
 
 But here the Biftiop of Meaux comes 
 upon us with an Anfwer. f Mr. Gurnet (fays 
 He) takes a great deal of Tains to heap 
 Examfles upon Examples of vie ions Trine es 
 
 t Pref. P. 24' 25. 
 
 whom
 
 goo An ANSWER to a Topfo 
 
 whom God has made ufe of to bring abotit 
 great T)efigns. And who doubts it ? ^BiLt 
 can he bring a fingle Example to prove that 
 Almighty God intending to reveal to Men 
 fome important Truth UNKNOWN BEFORE, 
 has chol'en fo wicked a Trince as Henry, 
 and fo fcandalous a 'Bijhop as Cranmer, to 
 be the immediate Inftruments offuch a Mer- 
 cy ? If the Englifh Reformation be a divine 
 Jfiork, nothing is more divine in it than the 
 Kings Ecclefiaftical Supremacy. *- 
 Now then it feems, forfooth, that God chofe 
 Henry" as a proper *Perfon to reveal this 
 new Article of Faith to Sec. I anfwer ift. 
 Neither K. Henry, nor Cranmer, pretend- 
 ed to any new Revelation $ nor do we in 
 the leaft pretend They had any. 2diy. The 
 Kings Supremacy was not unknown Before, 
 was no new Article of Faith, nor any Arti- 
 cle of Faith at all : It was, and is, true j 
 but not an Article of Faith. It was not 
 firft broach 1 d at the Reformation $ but was 
 the ancient, known, fundamental Do&rine 
 of the Englifo Conftitution. So there was 
 no need of a new Revelation in its favour. 
 3dly. What does the Bifhop mean by a di- 
 vine Work ? A Work brought about by the 
 Aflfiftance of immediate Inspiration ? We do 
 not fay the Reformation was a divine Work 
 in That Senfe. Or a Work relating to divine 
 Things, and effected by the extraordinary 
 Providence of God f In That Senfe the Re- 
 formation
 
 Entitled) England'.* Converfion, &c. 30 i 
 
 formation was a divine Work. ThisDiftin<5H- 
 on is very true, and material ; tho' the Bifhop's 
 Arguing from either Senfe of the Words is 
 ftrangely fingular. If the Engliili Refor- 
 mation be a divine Work ; nothing can be 
 more divine in it than the Kings Ecclejia- 
 ftical Supremacy ; fince it not only was the 
 fir ft Caujc of a Separation from the Church 
 of Rome, which^ as Troteftants generally 
 Maintain js a neceffary Condition with which 
 every good and folia 1 Reformation ought to 
 begin., &c. That is, If This be a beautiful 
 Houfe j nothing can be more beautiful in it 
 than the Foundation : If That be an excel- 
 lent Tlifcoitrfe ; nothing can be more ex- 
 cellent in it, than the firfl Sentence : Not 
 to infift upon his confounding the Tlo'ctrine 
 itfelf with the Maintaining and Jtfferting 
 of That Doftrine. Befides ; the Reforma- 
 tion (meaning here the reform'd Religion, 
 for of That he fpeaks, tho 1 he does not fpeak 
 clearly) may be a divine Work even in the. 
 higheft Senfc, and yet every thing in it not 
 be divine. I hope it will be allow'd that 
 St. Taufs Epiftles are divinely infpir'd ^ 
 and yet every thing in them is not fo, as 
 He himlelf aflures us. The reform'd Reli- 
 gion therefore may be divine , notwithftand- 
 ing which, the King's Supremacy, deftrudive 
 of the Pope's, may be one of it's Do&rines, 
 and a very true one too, and yet not be 
 divine. Nay the Averting of That Do&rine 
 might occafan the Reformation in Religion ; 
 
 and
 
 501 An ANSWER to a, Tofifb 
 
 and yet That Doctrine be a very little Part 
 of the Religion fo reform^ or no Part of it at 
 all. When he fays Troteflants maintain that 
 Separation from tbe Church of Rome is a ne- 
 cejjary Condition, with which every good and 
 (olid Reformation ought to begin ; He puts a 
 Piece of falfe Do&rine, andNonfenfe upon us, 
 of which we are wholly innocent. Churches 
 may want to be reform'd, and many actual- 
 ly do, which were never in Subjection to 
 the See of Rome $ and other Corruptions 
 ought to be reform'd befidesThofe of Popery. 
 Even They who wifely and difcreetly throw 
 off the Popifh Corruptions feparate from 
 the Church ofRome only in her Corruptions, 
 or (if you would have it in other Words) 
 only as flic is corrupt, not as fhe is the Church 
 of Rome : And fuch a Separation, if thofe 
 Churches had no Corruptions but Popifh 
 ones., is not only the 'Beginning of a true and 
 folid Reformation ; but the 'Beginning^ Mid- 
 dle^ and End of it too. Let it be obferv'd 
 here, as always upon This Subject, that 
 when Communion is broken off between two 
 Churches upon the Score of real Corrupti- 
 ons in one of them ; That corrupt Church, 
 not the other, is properly the Separatift. 
 
 But the Biihop of Meaux fays. This Point 
 [the Kings Supremacy] * is to this 1)ay 
 the only Toint in which Proteftants never 
 varyd flnce the 'Beginning of the Schifm : 
 
 ~* ibid": 
 
 And
 
 Converfion,&c. 305 
 
 And from thence likewife infers, that iftbe 
 Reformation be a divine Work; T.l)is ^Pohtf 
 is as divine as any thing in it. The Ar- 
 gument then, upon Suppofrtion that the Re- 
 formation is a divine Work, ftands Thus. 
 Whatsoever is the only Point in which Pro- 
 teftants never vary'd, is as divine. as any 
 thing in the Reformation ; [more fo, one 
 would think, if there be any thing at all 
 in the Argument j] But the King's Suprema- 
 cy is the only Point in which Proteftants 
 never vary'd : Therefore the King's Supre- 
 macy is as divine as any thing in the Re- 
 formation. I deny both Proportions : The 
 Major is falfe in Reafon , and the Minor 
 \i\fad. TheFormer proceeds uponThis erro- 
 neous Principle, that a Doctrine's being more, 
 or lefs vary'd, makes it more, or lefs di- 
 vine ; at leall that it's being divine has a 
 dependance upon it's being unvary'd. 
 Whereas a certain Point in a Syftem (which 
 is Divine in the grofs) may be un vary'd, 
 undifputed , without being divine at all ; 
 and the others contain'd in it may be va- 
 ry'd, or difputed, and be divine notwith- 
 ftanding. The Latter is a moft notorious 
 Untruth in Fact: For have Proteftants 
 maintained no Doctrine without Variation, 
 but That of the King's Supremacy? How 
 have they vary'd in the Rejection of Infalli- 
 bility, the Condemnation of Image-Wor- 
 fhip, Invocation of Saints, Incjulgencies, 
 
 and
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 and Prayers in an unknown Tongue ? How 
 have they vary'd in aflerting that Scripture 
 is the only Rule of Faith, that Contrition 
 is neceffary to Salvation, fac ? By the way, 
 the Bithop takes it for granted 'chat they all 
 agree in the King's Eccleiiaftical Suprema- 
 cy; Which cannot be true of Proteftant Coun- 
 tries that have not Kings; nor is it true of all 
 that have. What he fays about God's Judg- 
 ments upon Henry VIII. is nothing to the 
 Merits of our Caufe : He was an ill Man no 
 doubt ; and we are now arguing upon a Sup- 
 pofition, tho' a falfe one, that all the Refor- 
 mers were fo ; tho' That Prince was not one of 
 them. Of This Paflfage therefore I only 
 obferve, that as it is not pertinent to our 
 Subject, fo I am afraid it is not very good 
 Senfe in itfelf. I know of but one Sort 
 of GotTs Judgments by which Men can be 
 made * an Example: And That is the In- 
 fiidtion of feme fignal, diftinguifoing Pu- 
 nifhment ; not their being barely f deliver d 
 up to tlcir own Taj/ions, and the flatteries 
 of Tho^e that are about them-, which is 
 not fo much, if at all, taken notice of by 
 the World. 
 
 The Queftion then is not, whether the 
 Reformers were good Men ; but whether 
 the Reformed Religion be a good Religion. 
 
 * ibid. t P. 33- 
 
 Our
 
 Entitled, England' s Converfion, Sec. 305 
 
 Our Author Himfelf, after having been at 
 the Expence of fo many Se&ions in this 
 Third Dialogue, upon perfonal Scandal, for- 
 gets himfelf in the Fourth, knocks it all on 
 the Head, and gives up the whole Topick. 
 
 G> * But pray^ S/>, may not a good 
 Caufe le undertaken^ and forwarded upon 
 lad Motives ? If fo > as it cannot be que- 
 ft ion d hit it may ; why may not the Re- 
 formation le perfeUly good and juftifiable in 
 itfelf) tho* it was fet on foot, and managd 
 ly Terfons of corrupt Morals^ and upon in- 
 ter eft ed Views ? 
 
 P. Sir, I dont pretend that efpoufing a 
 Caufe upon inter eft ed or wicked Motives ei- 
 ther fuppojes it to le lad^ or renders it fo. 
 ^Becaufe the very left Caufe may pofjibly 
 le efpoufed with the moft corrupt Intentions y 
 and ly *Perfons void in reality of all Senfe 
 of Religion. 'But I think we ought to le ve- 
 ry circumfpeffi, and wary in trufting fitch 
 corrupt and mercenary Wretches in matters 
 of Religion $ let them profefs as much Zeal 
 for it as they pleafe. 
 So, We have it at laft , He has been talking 
 impertinently all this while,*according to his 
 own Account. Not fo, he will fayj We 
 vnuft le very circumfpefy and wary in 
 trufting fuch Wretches. Is That all ? Has 
 
 X
 
 306 An ANSWER to a, Topifb Bool, 
 fo much Pains been taken for no more ? 
 Tho' he could not forbear throwing the 
 Dirt j hoping it would ftick, notwithftand- 
 ing This Conceflion, which the unwary 
 Reader very likely might not obferve : Yet 
 Prudence in providing for a Retreat, or, it 
 may be, the irrefiftible Force of Truth, 
 oblig'd him to make This Acknowledge- 
 ment. He could not therefore avoid taking 
 notice of the Obje&ion : But what an An- 
 fvver has he given to it ? We muft be very 
 wary, and circumfpeffi > So we are, and He 
 knows it : More wary than they defire we 
 fhould be. To TRUST any Perfons whatfo- 
 ever, not only fuch Wretches as thofe of 
 whom he fpeaks, without examining their 
 Proceedings and Pretenfions, by Reafon and 
 Scripture, is Their Way, not Ours. So all 
 this Scandal has been rak'd together, mere- 
 ly for the fake of Scandal ; and that ac- 
 cording to his own extorted, tho' unwary y 
 Confeffion. 
 
 That from the Corruption of the Refor- 
 mers then, fuppofmg them to have been all 
 very wicked, cannot be truly inferr'd the Cor- 
 ruption oftheReformation, appears from what 
 been difcours'd \ or rather is evident of itfelf. 
 What then ? Is the Confideration otTerfons 
 to be wholly fet afide in Cafes of This na- 
 ture? Not fo neither. If the Things be 
 doubtful, and difficult; the Chara&ers of 
 Perfons ought to have fome Weight. But 
 
 when
 
 Entitled, England 'sConVerJion^Stc. 507 
 
 when the Firft are plain, and feif-evident ; 
 the Laft are to be difregarded. Now the 
 Corruptions of Popery were fo flagrant; 
 that it was neceflary to calhier them, what- 
 ever were the PerfonalChara&ers, and Views 
 of Thofe by whom they were to be cafhier'd. 
 Admitting therefore Henry VIII. to have 
 been a Reformer ; to his objected Morals I 
 oppofe the infufferable Ufurpation, and 
 Tyranny of the Tope. Againft Cramner, (fup- 
 pofing him to have been as bad, as they 
 would make him, tho' nothing can be more 
 falfe) I fet Image-Worfhip, Communion in 
 one Kind, with about a Dozen more : And 
 Tranfubftantiation will at any time be a 
 Match for the Duke of Somerfet. Purga- 
 tory, the Do&rine of Merit, Indulgences, 
 and the Deftrudion of all Morality and 
 common Honefty by Opus Operattim^ will 
 at leaft be a Ballance to the profligate Prin- 
 ciples and Pra&ice of Queen Elizabeth^ and 
 her Miniftry ; (I fpeak in the Language of 
 a Papift) And the FACT of the Death, call 
 it Mwriber 3 if you will, of Mary Queen 
 of Scots., was not near fo great a Blemifh 
 upon That Proteftant REIGN, as the DOC- 
 TRINE of Depofing and Murthering Princes 
 is upon the Popifh RELIGION. The Argu- 
 ment of our Adverfaries therefore from the at 
 prefent fuppofed Wickednefs of the Refor- 
 mers would be much ftronger than it is, 
 were That the only Confideration. But it 
 X a happens
 
 308 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b 
 
 happens to be quite otherwife. Befides $ 
 Were all This Arguing from Fads to Do- 
 ctrines, frpm Perfons to Things, really con- 
 clufive ; it may be retorted upon, the Roma- 
 nifts, and holds full as ftronglyagainft Them, 
 as againft Us. To pafs over That Monfter 
 'PhocaS) who firft encouraged the Pope's Su- 
 premacy , as alfo the flagitious Lives of very 
 many Popes themfelves j let us confine our 
 Remarks to the Times of which we are 
 fpeaking, when the Struggle was made 
 about the Englijh Reformation. Queen 
 Mary promifod the Norfolk and Suffolk Men, 
 and her Council, that ftie would make 
 no Alteration in Religion. Did She mean 
 that She would continue the Reformation, 
 as it was in her Brother's Reign ? If fo j She 
 broke her folemn Royal Promife, in a Thing 
 of the moft important and facred Nature. 
 Did She mean that She would reftore Po- 
 pery? Iffoj She equivocated, and was guil- 
 ty of infamous Prevarication in the fame 
 momentous and facred Affair. Then was 
 the barbarous Cruelty of Herfelf, or her Mi- 
 nifters, or Both, no Fault? Do the Fires 
 of Smithfeld) and 'Ealiol^ and many other 
 Places, caft no Slur upon That Reign ? Witk 
 what Front can a Papift, as ThisAuthor does, 
 talk of Queen Elizabeth's Cruelty ; who 
 only confiders that She had an elder Sifter ? 
 But of this we ihall have Occafion to fpeak 
 more in another Place. Did not Gardiner 
 
 promote
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion? &c. 309 
 
 promote and fubfcribe K. Henrys Divorce, 
 affert his Supremacy, and difclaim the Pope's, 
 as well as Cranmer ? and prevaricate in Ed- 
 ward the Sixth's Time, as the Other did in 
 Henry the Eighth's ? And cannot the fame, 
 and more, be faid of Conner ? Concerning 
 which Latter it may be added that he is 
 faid to have favour'd the Lutherans in Hen* 
 rv VIII's Reign ; tho' he was fo cruel a Per- 
 fecutor in Queen Marys. 
 
 To fumm up the whole Evidence under 
 This Head. ift. Allthofe whom our Ad- 
 verfaries call Reformers were not fo. idly. 
 The worft Things done in thole Times which 
 They object againft^ were done by Papifts, 
 not by Proteftants. sdly. Some of the Re- 
 formers might indeed be bad Men. Tho' 
 4thly. They were not fo bad as our Ad- 
 verfaries reprefent them, jthly. Many of 
 them were excellently good Men. 6thly. 
 Suppofe all This were quite otherwife, and 
 all the Facts were exactly fuch,as thePapifts 
 have deliver'd them to us ; yet the Confe- 
 quence is utterly falfe : The Reformers 
 might be all vicious $ and yet the Reformed 
 Religion may be pure and holy. And we 
 have prov'd from Reafon, and Scripture, that 
 it is 10. 7. Laftly, the Argument may 
 be retorted upon our Adverfaries^and proves 
 as ftrongly againft Them as againfl Us. 
 
 X 3
 
 3 < o An ANSWER to a 
 
 The next Objection is about the Means by 
 which the Reformation was efr'e&ed. To 
 which lanfwer, ift. That tho' a good End 
 does not excufe, much lefs fan&ify, bad 
 Means (to fay it does, is Popilh, not Pro- 
 teftant Doctrine) yet a good End may be 
 brought about by bad Means $ and the Bad- 
 nefs of the Laft-mention'd deftroys not the 
 Goodnefs of the Other ; I mean as to the 
 Thing itielf, tho' it does as to the Agent. 
 But 2dly. We will consider the Facts alledg'd. 
 And the fir ft is Force and Compulfion. By 
 what our Auther fays upon This, one would 
 think the Reformation was carry 'd on with 
 Fire, and Sword : A more frightful Outcry 
 could not well be madeagainft Nero, or SD/'a- 
 clefian. Whereas, in truth, there was no Force 
 us'd by our Protcftant Reformers, but what 
 was necetfary to guard the Laws of theLand; 
 No Papift was burnt for Religion mILdward 
 VI. and Queen Eli&dbttVs Time, as Many 
 Proteftants were in Q. Marys. With what 
 face can Papifts fay, as fome do, that She 
 put People toDeath only for Political Crimes, 
 not upon the Score of Religion ? This is true 
 of K. Edward VI. and Q. Elizabeth j but 
 moft falfe of Q. Mary. But no Wonder 
 that Thofe who deny the Towder-Tlot, 
 fhould affirm This ; or indeed affirm, or de- 
 ny, any thing elfe. Let the Reader upon 
 This Article look into Primate $r&mhal?s 
 Juft Vindication^ P. 65, 6$. 
 
 And
 
 Entitled, England V Converjion,&c. 3 1 1 
 
 And This leads me to our Author's curious 
 Reafoning, upon the Statute whereby, as * 
 He affirms, faying Mafs is made High 
 Treafon y and being prefent at it 'Felony. 
 No doubt + penal Laws can never change 
 the Nature^ or EJJence of Ibings, in Mora- 
 lity, and Divinity. Murder, for example, 
 is as much Murder, without fuch a Law as 
 with it ; nor can any Law turn Virtue into 
 Vice, or one V irtue, or Vice into another. 
 This is true, but not to the Purpofe. For 
 i ft. Treafon, properly and ft; idly fpeaking, 
 is a ^Political Crime. " High Treafon f 
 " (fays the Law of England^ is an Offence 
 c committed againft the Security of the 
 <c King or Kingdom." If it be coniideredas 
 a Sin, or an Offence againft the Law of God j 
 it is call'd Undutifulnefs, Reiiftance, or Dif- 
 obedience to the Higher Powers, Rebellion, 
 &c. not Treafon. Treafon is a Law Term ,- 
 not an Ethical, or Theological one. sdly. Hu- 
 man Laws may change the Nature of Crimes 
 in a Civil tho' not in a Theological Sqnfe. 
 Murder itfelf is one Thing in Divinity, and 
 another in Law : And the Law may make 
 That to be Murder, politically fp Baking, 
 which was not fo before. For Inftance, 
 What is now barely Manflaughter may bo 
 made Murder ; and perhaps in fome Cafes, 
 
 * P. 270, to 273. * P. 270. f Woof i Inftitm P. 587. 
 
 X 4 it
 
 5ii An ANSWER to a, Topljb Book, 
 
 it would not be amifs, if it were, sdly 
 The Laws, after all, making (as 'tis call'd) 
 This, or That, High Treafon, may not 
 change the fpecific Nature of the Thing, but 
 only add a Penalty to it. The Words in 
 fuch Afts of Parliament, axe^ Jhall be taken, 
 deenid) adjudgdto be High Treafon ; which 
 may mean no more than treated as if it 
 were fo : And more plainly, The 'Perfons 
 Conviffi Jhall fuffer Tains &c. as in Cafes 
 of High 'Treafon. But This I do not in- 
 fift upon : I ftand to what I faid Before, 
 That Human Laws may change the Nature of 
 Crimes in aCivil, tho' not a in Theological, 
 Senfe. And this fhews the Inconfequence 
 of our Author's Arguing. * Hence it follows, 
 fays He, that if Q. Elizabeth'^ Law was 
 juft-> frying Mafs both is, and has always 
 been^ a SIN of as black a 1)ye in THE SIGHT 
 OF GOD, as High Treafon. That it is fo 
 may be true, for any thing he has faid to 
 the Contrary ; But however, the Confe- 
 quence is not true. It may not be fo black 
 in the Sight of God, and yet be* fo per- 
 nicious, Politically fpeaking, as to be fitly 
 and juftly punifh'd as High Treafon, after 
 Human Laws have ena&ed and declar'4 
 that it Jhall be fo. What t He here offers 
 in Juftification of faying Mafs, in Point of 
 
 * IbuL | 
 
 |Uligion a
 
 Entitled, England' j Converfion,&c. 3 1 3 
 Religion, from the Example of St. Gregory, 
 and Others, has been elfewhere diffidently 
 confider'd j and is nothing to the prefent 
 Purpofe. I ihould not have been fo 
 particular upon This , but that our Author 
 raifes fuch Tragedies about it. And there- 
 fore^ fays He, \ I cannot but regard that 
 Sanguinary Statute of . Elizabeth, which ^ 
 during her long Reign, was execiitedwith 
 the utmoft Violence^ and Rigor, as one of 
 the blackeft Stains in her Character. That 
 it was executed with the utmoft Violence, 
 and Rigour, is utterly untrue : If ever 
 there was fuch a Statute at all , As it is 
 pretty plain to Me, there never was. But 
 That is a Circumflance^ which we wave 
 at prefent. The next Words are Thefe. 
 
 II *But, Sir, Trot eft ants will fay, that Q. 
 Elizabeth regardedtheTioctrine of the Majs 
 as an execrable Herefy. And when fhe made 
 Laws againft it, and executed thofe Law$ 9 
 She only follow d the Examples of her Father 
 Henry, and Sifter Mary - 3 who had put je- 
 veral Terfons to T)eath^ upon the Score of 
 Herefy. Before the Preceptor fpeaks, let 
 me put in one Word by way of Anfwer 
 to the young Gentleman. Q. Elizabeth 
 might, and that very juftly, regard the Do- 
 
 clrine
 
 514 An ANSWER to a Topijh Book, 
 
 &r'me of the Mafs as an execrable Herefy ; 
 but that She therefore made Sanguinary 
 Laws againft it, following the Example of 
 &c. No Proteftant will fay. We abhor 
 the thoughts of putting any Perfon to Death 
 for Herefy. But now, begging Pardon for 
 this Interruption, let us hear the Preceptor. 
 * Sir, It cannot be queftioned but that He- 
 refy is not only a mo ft grievous Sin y but ma- 
 ny times of pernicious Confequence to the 
 State-, and may therefore in certain Circum- 
 ftances be iuftly pttnijtid with T>eath. I 
 am glad he puts it upon That Foot : Their 
 Laws about burning Hereticks^ make He- 
 refy as Herefy pumfhable with Death, 
 t *But whether both Henry and Mary had 
 always a due regard to Ihofe Circ.um- 
 fiances^ 1 will not undertake to determine. 
 One may without any Prefumption under- 
 take to determine, that they regarded Thofe 
 whom they call'd Hereticks as Hereticks, 
 and punim'd them with Death for being 
 fuch: And in fo proceeding they a&ed ac- 
 cording to the Principles of their Religion. 
 % Ibis however I am fiire of. That their 
 Cafe was very different from that of Q. E- 
 lizabeth." It was indeed : and 1 have above 
 taken notice how it was. || Becaufe they on- 
 ly punijtid Herefy which had been con- 
 
 * Ibid t P- 2 7 J - *^ ;<i ll M'" 1 ' 
 
 demrid
 
 Entitled^Englanfrs Converfion, &c. j I j 
 
 demnd many Ages lefore ly the Univerfal 
 Church. No fuch matter: And I have 
 fully fhewn the Falfhood of This confi- 
 dent Affertion.. * Whereas if 0} Elizabeth 
 thought ft (as fupreme Head of the Church) 
 to regard the 'DoUrine of the Mafs as a 
 Herefy- 3 it was a Herefy form d in her own 1m- 
 aginationjiever thought ^nor heard of^ at leaft 
 lefore the Reformation^ in any Cbriftian Na- 
 tion under the Sun. I anfwer, ift. Q. Eliza- 
 leth alone neither did, nor could, make 
 This, or any other Statute : She made it, if 
 it was made at all, in Conjunction with her 
 two Houfes of Parliament. 2dly. She did 
 not ad in That matter, as fupreme Head of 
 the Church, but in her Civil Capacity. 3 dly, 
 She and her Parliament did not Here 
 regard the 'Doffirine of the Mafs as 
 Herefy -, but the Saying and Hearing of 
 Mafs as prejudicial and pernicious to the 
 Kingdom. 4thly. If They did regard the 
 Doctrine of it as Herefy, They were, in 
 the Right ,- as it were eafy to Shew. 
 Therefore, 5 thly. It was not a Herefy form d 
 in Q. Elizabeth'^ own Imagination, tfthly. 
 This Herefy was indeed never thought^ nor- 
 heard of, for the firft 800 Years after Chrift ; 
 becaufe in That Time there was no fuch 
 thing at all. ythly. It might not be heard 
 
 Ml 
 
 of
 
 $\6 An ANSWER**** Top ift> Book, 
 
 of as a Herefy, before the Reformation ; and 
 yet be one from its Birth. * Nay She her- 
 felf at her fir ft Coming to tbe Crown, or- 
 der d a folemn Mafs to be f aid for the Soul 
 of her Sifter Mary., and another for Charles 
 V. * Where did he pick up This Hiftory ? 
 I never heard of it Before. Why does he 
 not quote his Author ? The Reafon is plain; 
 'Tis a Piece of Popilh fecret Hiftory r , and 
 there is no Truth in it. Or if it were true ; 
 it would be nothing to the Purpofe. t %at 
 after all. Sir, the Triefts that fufferd in 
 ber Reign did not fuffer for Herejy^ but 
 for Treajon. Very well ; And all Papifts 
 that furfer'd in her Reign, fuffer'd for Po- 
 litical Crimes, not for Religion ; as Pro- 
 teftants did in Q. Marys. After all; what 
 fingle Prieft did fuffer, as a Traytor, in Q. 
 Elizabeths Reign, for faying Mafs $ or what 
 {ingle Perfon as a Felon, for being prefent 
 at it ? After all too, what Statute is This, 
 of which our Author fpeaks ? When was 
 it made ? and how is it worded Why 
 there is no fuch Statute in Being j nor e- 
 ver was; as I can perceive. I fuppofe he 
 means (for there is no other Statute now 
 fubfifting that comes near fuch a one as 
 He imagines) That of 5 Eliz. Ch. i. But 
 i ft. Here is nothing about Felony for being 
 at Mafs. And 2dly. as to the ^Ireafon^ 'tjs 
 faying Mafs that is made fo : But it j s 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 ena&ed
 
 Entitled) England'j Converjion, Sec. 3 1 7 
 
 enaded that whoever {hall fay, or hear 
 private Mafs, and refufe the Oaths of Su- 
 premacy, &c. after they are twice tendered, 
 ihall be guilty of Treafon. 'Tis therefore 
 refuting the Oaths in Them who fhall fay, 
 or hear Mafs, not faying, or hearing it, 
 which is made Treafon. And all Perfons 
 who have any Cure or Preferment in the 
 Church, or Office in an Ecclefiaftical Court, 
 are upon the like Refufal involved in th 
 fame Crime. If there ever was fuch a Law, 
 as he fpeaks of, it is now repealed ; which 
 I hope may be fome Anfwer to This terrible 
 Objeftion. 
 
 To our Author's pofitive Affertion, * that 
 it was not fo much as pretended that the 
 Priefts, who thus fujfefd y were giiilty of a- 
 ny JLndeavours to fulvert the Government, 
 or of any treafonabfo Traffiifes, except That 
 of faying Mafs ; I anfwer ift. Whatever 
 is to be faid of 'them in particular, if there 
 were any fuch ; it is pretty plain from the 
 Preamble to 27 Eliz. Cap. 2. That fome 
 Popifh Priefts were pretended at leaft to 
 be guilty of fuch Practifes in That Reign. 
 c ' Whereas divers Perfons calfd or profefs'd 
 <c Jefuits, Seminary Priefts, and other Priefts 
 
 " have of late Years come, and been 
 
 <c fent, and daily do come, and are fent in- 
 cc to this Realm of England^ and other 
 
 1=r
 
 ? ig An ANSWER to a Toplfb Book, 
 
 <f the Queen's Majefty's Dominions, of 
 cc Purpofe (as it hath appear'd as well by fun- 
 " dry of their own Examinations, and Con- 
 <c feilions,as divers other manifeft Means, and 
 " Proofs) not only to Withdraw her High- 
 " nefs's Subje&s from their due Obedience 
 <c to her Majefty, but alfo to ftir up and 
 " move Sedition, Rebellion, and open 
 c Hoftility within the fame her Highnefs's 
 e Realms and Dominions, to the great 
 " endangering of the Safety of her moft 
 <c Royal Perfon, and to the utter Ruin and 
 " Defolation of the wholeRealm, if the fame 
 <c be not the fooner by fome good Means 
 <c forefeen, and prevented : Be it enacted 
 " &c" I anfwer idly. By asking this Wri- 
 ter ,- are not the Laws in Popifh Countries 
 full as fevere againft Priefts of the Church 
 of England, as Ours are againft Thofe of 
 the Church of Rome ? and at leaft as fe- 
 verely and rigoroufly executed ? 
 
 To the Force, and Violence us'd at 
 the Reformation, they reduce the * De- 
 privation of Biihops, and fome of the In- 
 ferior Clergy, who would not comply with 
 it. But is This fo great a Hardfhip ? Such 
 mighty Force and Violence ? Is it fitting, 
 or agreeable to Common Senfe, that a Pro- 
 
 * 1443, 254. and elfewhere. 
 
 teftant
 
 , England'.* 
 
 teftant Government fhould fuffer a Popifti 
 Prelacy and Clergy ? Would any Popifti 
 Government fuffer Biftiopricks, or other 
 Ecclefiaftical Preferments, to be held by Pro- 
 teftants ? If they fay the Deprivation was 
 illegal, and made by an incompetent Au- 
 thority: I reply, ift. by referring to Dr. 
 Hammond^ whofe Words upon this Subject 
 I fhall have occafion to cite hereafter, zdly. 
 By asking, whether it be not known to all 
 the World that Biihops were depriv'd by 
 the Regal Authority only, in Q. Marys 
 Reign, as well as in Q. E/i&abetlfo ? 
 
 And This brings us to their grand Objecli- 
 on of all, concerning the Usurpations^ and 
 Encroachments of the State upon t\\zCburch. 
 And here is a heavy Accufation indeed. If 
 we will take Things as * This Author and 
 the Bilhop otMeaux reprefent them; the 
 Clergy, at the Reformation, gave up the 
 Power of the Keys, and all Authority pure- 
 ly Spiritual, into the Hands of the Laity : 
 The Biihops were totally enflavM by the 
 Court, and abfolutely quitted to the Crown 
 all the Commiflion they had receivM from 
 Chrift: It was, and is, the Do&rine of the 
 Reformed Church of England^ that all Ec- 
 clefiaftical Powers are derived from the Ci- 
 vil, and the Church is a mere Creature 
 
 Pref. and 3d. Dial, fajpm* 
 
 of
 
 320 An ANSWER to a Topi/b 
 
 of the State: The Reformation was made 
 entirely, or very near entirety, by the Lai- 
 ty , and the Clergy had no Hand, or next 
 to none, in That great Change. This, I 
 fay, is a dreadful Outcry $ but 'tis with- 
 out Truth, or Reafon. 
 
 The Kings Supremacy over the Church 
 is exclaim d againft as a Monfter unheard 
 of Before > as a Thing to the laft degree 
 abfurd, and impious. To which I anfwer^ 
 i ft. King Henry VIII. who, as They fay, 
 firft ajjum'd This Supremacy, and Thofe 
 who yeilded it to him, both Laity, and 
 Clergy, were Papifts. 2dly, Such a Supre- 
 macy as We maintain, whatever King Hen* 
 ry meant, is agreeable to Reafon, and Scrip- 
 ture 3 and to the conftant Practife of God's 
 Church, both Jewifh, and Chriftian. Here 
 in England particularly, the King's Supre- 
 macy in Ecclefiaftical Caufes was held fun- 
 damental to our Conftitution many hundred 
 Years before the Reformation $ nay, from 
 the Beginning : As it has been very largely 
 and fully prov'd, by many learned Men, 
 the great Primate 'Bramhall particularly. 
 And therefore when our Author affirms * 
 that King Henry VIII. was made Supreme 
 Head of the Church by the 'Parliament) 
 he is doubly miftaken $ He was not MADE 
 
 * Pref. P, itf.
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, Sec. 3 1 1 
 
 fo,but DECLARED fo ; and not by the 'Par- 
 liament only, but by the Clergy in Convo- 
 cation alfo : Of which latter more in ano- 
 ther place. That there fhould be fuch a 
 Supremacy as We contend for, is neceflary 
 to the Well-being at leaft of Civil Go- 
 vernment, if not the very Being of it. There 
 would otherwife be really Imperitim in Im- 
 -perio, or rather the greateft Danger oflm- 
 pcritim contra Imperium^ in the fame Na- 
 tion. If the Sovereign Prince had not a 
 Right to take Cognizance of all Caufes, 
 Ecclefiaftica), as well as Civil, and feme 
 Authority over them ; He would be but a 
 Piece of a King in his own Dominions, and 
 his Government would be manifeftly preca- 
 rious. The Church by Venue of Thofe 
 Words in or dine ad Spiritualia, might (as 
 Popes have actually done) exercife tem- 
 poral Authority, and deftroy the Regal 
 Power. Such a Supremacy therefore is 
 <c a Right due to all Chriftian Princes 
 cc by the Laws of God and Nature;" as Pri- 
 mate ftramhall fpeaks *. ' >^*r 
 
 I lay, fuch a Supremacy as We contend 
 for. If then we are ask'd, what Suprema- 
 cy ? I own, the right Queftion is, what 
 \s the Prince's Power over the Church, and 
 how far does it extend ? Our Adverfaries 
 
 * Schifm guarded P. 360. 
 
 y
 
 j a i ^z A K s w R R f afP 
 
 will have it that we mean This, or That 
 by it; whether We will, no. They take 
 notice of our Explanations, but will not ad- 
 mit of them > that is, they will not fuffer 
 us to underftand our own Meaning, but are 
 refolv'd to underitand it better than we 
 Ourfelves. I fay but little of This Matter, 
 as it ftood in the Reigns of Henry VIII. and 
 Edward VI. bccaufe all that is incumbent 
 upon Us Now, is to juftify the Reforma- 
 tion as it Now is. This we may be allow'd 
 to plead, upon our Author's own Conceflion. 
 t Thus then, fays He, fpeaking of Queen 
 JttizabrtV* Reign, was laid the Foundati- 
 on of the Reform d Engliih Cburcb, as it 
 New fiands. For all former dffs relating 
 to the Supremacy having been repeat d in 
 g. MaryV Reign ; the Reformation began 
 entirely upon a new Footing in the 2 'ear 
 1558, which was thefrft of Queen Eliza- 
 beth'j Reign. And tho it commonly takes 
 it's ^Date from the 3ear wherein King 
 Henry ajjumjthe Spiritual Supremacy., and 
 thcrety^tfpend the way to the feveral Re- 
 formations that follow d-> yet To SPEAK 
 PROPERLY, tbe Reform d Church of Eng- 
 land, as to its prefent Eftablifhmentj and 
 Conftitution, can trace it's Original no high- 
 er > than the 2 ear 1558 j when it's Found a- 
 
 t P. 451- 
 
 tton
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjlon,&c. 3 i j 
 
 t ion was frft laid upon Queen ElizabethV 
 Spiritual Supremacy* as it's chief Ground- 
 work. Tho' fortieth ing may be here liable 
 to juft Exception, as to the Date of the 
 Reformation, with refpeft to many Points j 
 yet taking the Whole as our Author gives it 
 us, it follows that to charge the prefent 
 Reformation with Faults, either as toThings, 
 or Perfons, or Both, upon the Account of 
 what was done before That time he fpeaks 
 of, is to fpeak improperly : And therefore, 
 had it not been for the fake of Scandal, a 
 very great Part of his boafted Performance 
 might have been fpared. I fhall, notwith- 
 ftanding, both here, and hereafter, as Oc- 
 cafion offers, make a few curfory Obferva- 
 tions upon what is objected, even as^ relating 
 to thofe two former Reigns : Tho' it is ex 
 abundantly and more than I am oblig'd to. 
 He afferts t that the Affi of Supremacy 
 left owed upon King Henry -VIII. That fame 
 Supreme Spiritual Jurifdittion and Autho- 
 rity of which they haddifpojjefsd the Topei 
 And "That differs as much from the ^em- 
 poral Jurifdiffiion and Authority of Kings, 
 as the Regal andEpifcopal Characters differ 
 from one another. I anfwer, ift, The Thing 
 itfelf is not true : There are no fuch Words 
 in the Aft, which he juft before recites, as 
 
 t P. is?. 
 
 Y a the
 
 3*4 An ANSWER to a <Popi/b Book, 
 
 he fupreme Spiritual Jurifdi'tiion of which 
 he Pope was difpcjjcjjed : Nor can fuch aPow- 
 er be inferr'd from the Words of That, or 
 any other Aft, join d with the Practice which 
 explains them, zdiy, He fuppofes that the 
 Pope, in vertue of his Supremacy, acted as 
 &*Bifkop\ Which is moft falfe: He acted as 
 a Monarch y a Monarch not only in Spiri- 
 tuals, but in Temporals - y and That too not 
 only in his own Dominions,, but in Thofe 
 of other Princes. But let us confider the 
 fpiritual Part only : How comes This Wri- 
 ter to give the Pope no more than an Epif- 
 copaiChara&er ? Did He claim no more ? Or 
 if he did jdocs theEpifcopal Character import 
 a fupreme fpiritualMona'rchy over allBifhops? 
 And did not Popes pretend to fuch a Monarchy? 
 What I further obferve upon This Head>mall 
 be apply'd as an Anfwer to the Bifhop of 
 Meauxs AfTertions. " f To prepare the 
 " Way, fays He, for their intended Refor- 
 c mation in the King's Name (ILdward the 
 cc Sixth's) He was immediately declared, as 
 c his Father had been before him, fupreme 
 :c Head in Spirituals, as well as Temporals, 
 " of the Church of England. For from 
 ' the Time that Henry took upon him the 
 c Spiritual Supremacy, it became a Maxim, 
 ' c that the King was Pope in ^England. But 
 " greater Prerogatives were beftow'd upon 
 
 fPrcf. P. 31. 
 
 i :v: ThiS
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion^ &c. 325 
 
 " This new Pope, than the Popes of 'Rome 
 " had ever claim'd. For the Bifhops were 
 " oblig'd to receive new Commiflions from 
 " King ftdward revocable at Pleafure - y as 
 cc King Henry had before,. &c'' Notwith- 
 ftanding the Cafe of the Com millions re- 
 vocable at Pleafure (which is the word they 
 can fay, and which I confefs is bad enough^ 
 it is untruly alTerted that greater Preroga- 
 tives were given to the King than were e- 
 ver claim'd by the Pope. Not greater,- nor 
 near fo great. For the Popes claim'd a ple- 
 nitude of Tcwer to do what they pie as d 
 with all Bifhops, and indeed with every 
 Body elfe, both in Spirituals, and Tem- 
 porals. And accordingly they fet up, 
 and pull'd down, put in, and turn'd out, 
 whom they lik'd, or diflik'd : For not only 
 the Power of the Bifhops to exercife their 
 Functions, but their Bifhopricks, and their 
 very Orders, were revocable at phajure. 
 
 The repeated Clamours of our Author,and 
 Monfieur de M. againft the Spiritual Pow- 
 ers fuppos'd to be ufurp'd by the Crown, and 
 yielded by the Clergy, in Thofe Reigns^ 
 will of courfe,be anfwered, when we come 
 to Queen Elteabcttfs (upon which, for the 
 above-mention'd Reafon> we fhall chiefly 
 infift) becaufe That w T ill necefTarily have 
 a Retrofpect to the other Two. Here I 
 only ask: Do our Adverfaries really^ and 
 in earneft infift, that according to .Us all 
 Y 3 Manner
 
 316 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 Manner of Spiritual Power and Authority is 
 originally in the Crown, and deriv'd from it 
 to the Biftiops and Clergy j or do they Not ? 
 If they do Not ; why do This Author and 
 the Bifhop of Meaux talk as if they did ; 
 and That fo very often, and in as plain 
 Words as can be Utter'd ? If they do fo infift 
 was there ever any thing more falfe and ab- 
 furd a than fuch an Affertion ? Do they not in 
 their own Confciences know it; to be falfe ? 
 And do they not ftiamefully contradict them- 
 felves by owning that even Henry VIII. 
 had not Power given him to preach, and 
 adminifter the Sacraments ? For fo This * 
 Writer acknowledges exprefly j and the Bi- 
 Ihop of Meaux, and all Mankind, muft ac- 
 knowledge the fame. Is it not evident e- 
 ven to Them, that whatever be meant by 
 fome ftrange Exprefllons in Ads of Parlia- 
 ment, Commiflions, &c. That cannot be 
 the Meaning of them which Thefe Writers 
 pretend ; or at ieaft that it is not our Mean- 
 ing Now, and was not in Q. Elizabeth's 
 Days ? But our Author, as I faid, will 
 not fuffer us to know our own Meaning, 
 and to explain it our own Way. / infift 
 fo particularly upon Ibis, fays He, f be- 
 caufe when the 4$ of Supremacy, which 
 was repeatd in Q. Mary V Reign, was a- 
 gain renewed in favour of ^ """ 
 
 * P. 150. t?. 18$. ~ 
 
 great
 
 I 
 
 Entitled, England^ Cower fion^ &c. 317 
 
 great -Numbers appear d fcandalizd 
 that a Woman foould be declard Supreme 
 Head) &c. to cover the Scandal of it, the 
 Compojers of the 39 Articles were obligd to 
 glofs it over with this flraind Interpre- 
 tation, that the Act meant no more than to 
 ive that 'Prerogative to the Queen which 
 been given to all godly Trinces, &c. 
 Art. 37. $ttt who fees not that This was 
 but a Gilding of the Till> &c ? ut more 
 of this hereafter. Hereafter then we (hall 
 meet with it ; and fhali not in the leaft be 
 afraid of it. At prefent I obferve, ift. That 
 Q; Mary did not lay afide the Title of 
 Head of the Church, till the Third Parlia- 
 ment of her Reign ; with Relu&ancy did it 
 even Then ; and very likely had not done 
 it at all, but that it was necefTary, in 
 order to her Legitimation, to reftore the 
 Pope's Supremacy, with which her own over 
 the Church was inconfiftent. * If this Title 
 Head of the Church-, was fo abfurd and 
 wicked, as apply'd to a Woman - 3 w T hat fhall 
 we fay of their Favourite Q. Mary, who for 
 fo long a time ufurpM it ? idly. The Article 
 was not contriv'd to glofs over the Scandal 
 of a Woman's being declar'd Head of the 
 Church 5 For Q. Elizabeth^ who never lik'd 
 That Title, laid it afide before the Articles 
 were compos'd. 
 
 * See Dr. Hammmf* Works Vol. I. P. 525. 
 
 Y 4 t G.
 
 An ANSWER to a Topijb Book, 
 
 t G. But may we not take theOath ofSupre- 
 " macy with This Interpretation tack'd to it ? 
 P. c I fhould be loath to do it. And my 
 <c Reafon is, becaufeOaths are facred Things, 
 <c and not to be trifled with ; Nor can any 
 cc Man warrant me to fwear one thing and 
 c mean another. As I cannot, for example, 
 cc fwear that the King of Great Britain is 
 <4 the Czar of Mufccvy -, tho' he that ihould 
 :c tender this Oath fhould aflfure me that 
 :c nothing more was meant by it than that; 
 c the King of Great Britain is the Supreme 
 c Head and Governor in his own Domini- 
 " ons, as the Czar of Mufcovy is in his. 
 K Becaufe Tho' this Interpretation imports 
 cc a real Truth, it differs wholly from the 
 cc obvious Meaning of the Words of the 
 " Oath." Oaths are certainly facred Things; 
 fo facred, that I cannot reconcile the Popifh 
 Do&rine of Equivocation and mental Refer- 
 vation with their Sacrednefs. But is this Pro- 
 pofition, T^he King of Great Britain is in his 
 own dominions Supreme over all TcrfonSy 
 in all Caufes^ Ecclefiaftical, and Civil^ as 
 manifeftly falfe as This, I'he King of Great 
 Britain is the Czar of Mufcovy ? And are 
 Thefe Words, We do not mean that the 
 King of Great Britain has Authority to 
 preach^ and adminifler the Sacraments^ but 
 only that he has the fame ^Prerogative which 
 
 has
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjlon^&c- 
 
 has been given to all goctlyTrinces^ to rule all 
 Eflates and ^Degrees^ &c. as different from 
 the obvious Senfe of the Former ; as Thefe > 
 nothing more is meant by it than that the 
 King of Great Britain is the Supreme Head 
 and Governour in his own Dominions, as 
 the Czar of Mufcovy is in His^ manifeft- 
 ly are from the obvious Senfe of the Lat- 
 ter? Anybody, that has Eyes, may fee 
 the Contrary. 
 
 * In the firft Tlace, continues He, it 
 made him Supreme Judge in all Contro* 
 verfas of Religion^ &c. And fo proceeds, 
 displaying under three diftinft Heads the 
 Plenitude of Spiritual Power afcrib'd toK. 
 Henry by the Aft of Supremacy. To all 
 which I have given a general Anfwer al- 
 ready j and referve a more particular one 
 for a more proper Place. His affirming that 
 t the Parliament a&ed with jttft as much 
 freedom as a Man delivers his 'Purfc when 
 he has aTiftolprefented to his'Breaft^ is a lit- 
 tle odd. That the Clergy were in fome Mea- 
 fure influenc'd by Fear, I grant ; and fhall 
 fpeak to That Objection hereafter. But that 
 the 'parliament's Tooting was extorted by 
 Fear, isnotfo plain: I never heard of any 
 ^premtmire They had incurr'd, 
 
 $ His next Words are, Ijhould lie glad 
 to know from which of the dpoftles King 
 Henry defended. Really, I cannot inform 
 
 * p, 190, 191. f J# * #* 
 
 bim
 
 330 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 him : Neither am I fenfible that King Hen- 
 ry ever imagined himfelf defcended from any. 
 By This Man's way of Talking, one would 
 think That Prince took upon him to 
 confer Orders, to excommunicate, and ab- 
 folvej preach'd at leaft once a Month to 
 exercife his Faculty ; and adminifter'd all 
 the feven Sacraments at leaft once a Year, 
 to ihew that he infifted upon every Branch 
 of his Authority. He goes on in the fame 
 ftrain to the End of the Paragraph : And 
 to all of it I anfwer -, that Henry VIII. did 
 not dream of governing the Church as a 
 Clergyman, but as a King. 
 
 Which brings us back to our Main Point, 
 the Nature, and Extent^ of the Regal Su- 
 premacy in Ecchfiaflical Affairs , accord- 
 ing to the true Senfe and Meaning of our 
 Church^ and State too, upon That Head. 
 This will be beft cleared by our confideiing 
 the Explication of it in Q. Elizabeth's 
 time before hinted at, and now to be more 
 fully difcufs'd. Our Author, fpeaking of 
 the 37th. Article, tells us, || ift. fba$ the 
 precarious Interpretation of a few pri&ite 
 ferfons cannot invalidate the force of a 
 folemn 4$ of ^Parliaments with the Royal 
 Sanction to it. I anfwer, ift. All the Bi- 
 fhops, and the whole Reprefentative Body 
 of the Clergy in Convocation^ can with no 
 
 II P. 248.; 
 
 tolerable
 
 Ewf if /<?<?, England'j Converjion,8tc. 5 5 i 
 
 tolerable Propriety be call'd a few private 
 Perfons. Not a few, becaufe there are in 
 both Provinces, above 200 of them. Not 
 private Terfons ; becaufe they are affembled 
 in a Parliamentary Way, and ad in a pub- 
 lick legiflative Capacity, idly. The Par- 
 liament then in Being acquiefc'd in This 
 Interpretation,* and fo did the Queen, for 
 whofe Ufe the A& was made. 3dly. A 
 fubfequent- Parliament confirm'd, and efta- 
 bliih'd This Interpretation by * confirm- 
 ing and eftabliftiing the 99 Articles. 
 
 He fays,. 2dly That the Interpretation 
 contain d in the ^th Article^ if meant of the 
 Queens Supremacy over the Clergy >as well as 
 Laity jnlemporals onlyjs loth frivolous, and 
 contrary to the plain Meaning of the ^0. It is; 
 indeed, if That be All. But who told Him 
 that no more is meant than Supremacy o- 
 ver the Clergy, as well as Laity, in Tem- 
 porals only? It is faid over all Eftates, 
 and 'Degrees j which implies more than all 
 Men : All Eftates, and Degrees -, i. e. as 
 fiich j Which includes Ihings as well as 
 *Perfons. If it be obje&ed that I interpret 
 the Interpretation arbitrarily j I reply, I 
 do hot : Becaufe the Interpretation t re- 
 fers to the Queen's Injunctions ; and the D&- 
 ty 9 and Allegiance acknowledgd to le due 
 to Henry VIII. and Edward VI. which in 
 
 * 13 EJlz. Chap. 1 2. fee Wood Jnftit. ?. 5?, 54. f S# 
 Arj. 37. and Q^ Eliz's. InjunS. Sparrow's Colleci. P. 77, 7-8. 
 
 the
 
 3p An ANSWER to a Topi/h Book, 
 
 the ftrongeft Terms (too ftrong in our Au- 
 thor's Opinion, and perhaps in Mine like- 
 \vife) relates to Caufes, and Things, as well 
 as Perfons. t The Word Caufes is exprefs'd 
 in another Part of This very Article ; which 
 cannot be fuppos'd to recede from it's own 
 Words. And This is the Language of our 
 Church in her Canons : That the King is 
 Supreme in Caufes Ecclefiaftical. See Can. 
 I. II. LV. Our Author therefore might 
 have fpar'd his Pains in proving fo trium- 
 phantly what Nobody denies (a Task in 
 which upon all Occafions he takes great 
 Delight) J that Ecclefiaftical, or Spiritual 
 THINGS and CAUSES are in exprefs Terms 
 mention'd in the Oath annex a to the Ad 
 of Supremacy, and the Senfe of them con- 
 tain'd in the A& itfelf : But his Inference 
 from it, that therefore the Explanation in 
 the 3 ?th. Article is inconfiftent with the 
 Ad and Oath, is vain and groundlefs. The 
 moft can be faid is, that the Explication 
 might have been more explicit ; and I own 
 it might : But That infers not Inconfiftency, 
 or Contradiction. But I am foreftalling my- 
 felf ; To return therefore. 
 
 The Way being thus clear'd by a true 
 general State of the Matter before us; 
 our Author's -particular Reafomngs will 
 be anfwered with a great deal of Eafe. 
 
 t See A$ of Suprem. 26 Sen. VIII* Cap. i. P 251.
 
 Entitled, England*,* Converfion, &c. 3 ; j 
 
 * It is frivolous, fays He 3 [meaning the 
 Interpretation of the Aft in the Article \ 
 Iccaufe it renders the Jtt itfelf a mere 
 
 Mock- Aft For what Man in Ms Senfes 
 
 ever doubted hit that a Sovereign Trince 
 has the Supreme Authority over loth Clergy, 
 and Laity, in 'Temporal Concerns ? &c. Ho 
 then argues that if no more had been meant 
 by the Aft; it would not have met with 
 fo much Oppofition : Giving a particular 
 Account of That Oppofition, which fhall 
 be elfewhere confidered > and draws the fame 
 Inference from Bifhop Heath's Speech. 
 That Prelate, if he at all argued as he is re* 
 prefentedtohave done, f argued like a Child 
 upon a different Account from That here 
 mention' d : I mean by miftaking the Quefti- 
 on in the other Extreme ; not by fuppofing 
 that the Ad of Supremacy gave fo little 
 Power as our Author reprefents the 3yth 
 Article to intend; but that it gave much 
 more than ever was by it felf intended. 
 For he fuppofes it gave the Queen Authori- 
 ty to preach, and adminifter the Sacraments, 
 &c. which was a more Childim Suppofition 
 than the other. But this Speech, upon which 
 our Author lays fo much Strefs as to t recite 
 This Part of it at large, miift (as Bifhop 'Bur- 
 net obferves ||) have been a Forgery put out 
 
 * P. 248, 249. | P. 249. ; p. 243, to P. 247. 
 11 Hift. Ret. Vol. 2. P. 387,
 
 334- An ANSWER to a Topl/b Book, 
 
 in Us Name. For he is made to fpeak of the 
 Supremacy as anew and unheard of Thing. 
 Which he y who had fworn toitfo often in K. 
 Henry' j, and K. Edward'/ Times, could 
 not have the Face to fay. For the reft, I 
 have anfweredThis Paragraph already ; fince 
 it proceeds upon aSuppofition that theExpla- 
 nation in the Article makes the Supremacy 
 mean no more than a Supremacy in Tempo- 
 rals, which I have fliewn to be falfe. 
 
 Upon the fame wrong Principle he der 
 ceives himfelf, or labours to deceive others, 
 in what follows. * "But this Interpretati- 
 on of the jffit is not only frivolous ', but over 
 and above inconfiflent with the Words loth 
 of the Act and the Oath annexed to it. He 
 recites them ; and then proceeds, telling us, 
 that if This Aft, and Oath, did not fix 
 the Supreme Ecclefiaftical Authority in Q. 
 Elizabeth, Words muft lofe their obvious 
 Signification. I fay fo too $ And with This 
 the Article is entirely confident. But then 
 he goes on, and gives a wrong Turn to e- 
 veryThing j making the Aft and Oath import 
 much more than They really do. 
 
 t Firft, the Act itfelf gave the Queen 
 all fuch Spiritual, and Ecclefiaftical JuriJ- 
 dittion in general., as by any Spiritual., and 
 Ecclefiaftical Authority had ever been, and 
 
 * r. 24?. t P 2 5 
 
 can
 
 Converjlon, See. 
 
 can lawfully be exercifed. This is a fhame- 
 ful Prevarication j After the Word exertifod* 
 it follows Thus i " or ufed : for the Vifitati- 
 <c on of the Ecclefiaftical State, and Perfons, 
 <c and for Reformation, Order, and Cor- 
 " re&ion of the fame, and of all manner of 
 Herefies, Errors, & which manifeftly re- 
 ftrains lHQOutwardJurifdiftioni Whereas 
 the Omiifion of thofe Words quite alters the 
 Senfe, and extends it to all Spiritual Au- 
 thority. * And was not This declaring Her 
 Supreme Head y c. She was not ftiled fo,- 
 but let That pafs- f Was it not vefting in 
 her 'Perfon all the Jurifdfttion which ti- 
 ny TLccleflaftical Terjon^ &c ? No. For the 
 Words, however they may found, are ca- 
 pable of another Senfe ; and have been ex- 
 plain'd accordingly, both by other Words,and 
 by conftant Pra&ice. That flie was veiled 
 with the fame Tower > with all the Author i- 
 ty y which any Eccleliaftical Perfon had 
 ever exercifed, is neither exprefs'd, nor im- 
 ply'd. All the World knows flie was not : 
 This Author himfelf both knows, and has 
 fa id, fhe was not ; For he grants, as we have 
 feen, that even Henry VIII. was not in- 
 vefted with the Power of Preaching, and 
 Adminiftering the Sacraments -, And I pre- 
 fume he will not affirm that Q. Elizabeth 
 
 had
 
 336 An ANSWER to a Tofi/b 
 
 had more Power than her Father, the Aft 
 of Supremacy in his Reign being more full 
 and ftrong than That in hers. 
 
 * idly. It gave her a fpecial Tower or 
 ' Authority ^ to vifit, reform^ and correct all 
 manner of Errors., Hercfies., and Schifms, 
 &c. All which are properly Exercifes of 
 JLcclefiaftical Jurifdiaion^ &c. They are 
 fo i and the Crown has Ecclefiaftical Ju- 
 rifdi&ion (how far, and in what Senfe, we 
 fhall hereafter explain) and fo have the 
 Clergy too : And the One does not de- 
 ftroy the Other, as this Writer would have 
 it believed, f And tho in Bifljops they are 
 limited to their refpeffiive 'DioceJJes^ and 
 fometimes reftraind by particular Excep- 
 tions \ the full exercije of this EccJeJiafti- 
 cal Jurifdiffiion was on the contrary ^by vir^ 
 tue of the aforefaidJffi granted to 0. Eliza- 
 beth o<rer all the *DioceJJes in her 'Domi- 
 nions without Reft r iff ion y or Limitation. 
 That is, the Queen's Jurifdidion extended 
 over all her Dominions ; Whereas That of 
 every Bifliop is limited to his own Diocefs. 
 Had This Ecclefiaftical Jurifdi&ion been at 
 all granted to her (for, as we muft ft ill 
 remember, it was not granted, but only 
 declar'd) it would have been ftrange indeed, 
 had it not extended over all her Dominions, 
 
 t P. *5^ 
 
 What
 
 Entitled, England^ Converfion, Sec. 
 
 What Trifling is This ! * "But idly, the 
 Oath annex 4 to the Aft declares in express 
 Terms, &c. la fhort it declares the Queen 
 Supreme in all THINGS and CAUSES Ecciefia- 
 ftical, &c. f Which differs very much from 
 the other., and imports no lefs than that Jhe 
 was the Supreme Judge of all Contr over fies in 
 Religion. It does not import that fhe was 
 Supreme Judge, or any Judge, in Controver- 
 fies of Religion : She might by, her Au- 
 thority reform Errors, Herefies, &c. and 
 yet be advifed by her Clergy what was an 
 
 Error, or a Herefy. $ -And the Source 
 
 of all Ecctefiafticaf, as well as^Temporal Ju- 
 rifditiion in her ^Dominions. Becaufe as 
 all temporal Authority or JurifdiUion in 
 every Government Jlcws from the Secular 
 Head y fo all Spiritual Jurifdiftion flows 
 from the Spiritual Uead^ as from it's 
 Source. I anfwer ; Ecclefiaftical Jurifdidi- 
 on is of two Sorts : External, and Inter- 
 nal. The Firft is, with Us, partly in the 
 Civil Magiftrate, partly in the Clergy: 
 The Second wholly in the Clergy. It is 
 the Former only that is meant in the Act, 
 and the Oath. In the coercive, or coa&ive 
 Part of This, which confifts in impoiing out- 
 ward Penalties, the King is not only Su- 
 preme j but from him, as from the Source, 
 
 P. 251. f ttiJ. * #f. 
 
 Z all
 
 338 ^ANSWER ta a 
 
 all the Power is deriv'd. The regulative, 
 or directive Part of it, as making Eccleiia- 
 ftical Laws and Canons, is jointly in the 
 Crown, and Clergy. Here too the King is 
 Supreme, while he at all A&s. But the Power 
 is not originally (in the higheft and mod 
 proper Senfe of the Word originally) deri- 
 ved from Him as the Source : Becaufe if 
 the State fhould break off from the Church, 
 perfecute, and endeavour to deftroy it j the 
 Church, as a Society inftituted by Chrift, 
 muft have a Right to make Laws by her- 
 felf, becaufe no Society can fubfift without 
 Laws. The latter, Internal Jurifdidion, 
 confifts in binding, or abfolving ; remitting, 
 or retaining Sins, Concerning the Senfe of 
 which it is not our Bufmefs here to difpute. 
 Befides which Power of Jurifdifiion, there 
 is alfo a Power of Ofder^ which confifts in 
 Preaching, Admin iftering the Sacraments, 
 Ordaining, drr. Both thefe Powers, That of 
 internal Jurifdiftion, and That of Order^ 
 are derived from Chrifl alone as from their 
 Head and Source. The Civil Magiftrate can 
 neither give them, nor execute them j tho' 
 he may limit, regulate and determine the 
 Exercife of them, as to Time, Place, and 
 other Circumftances : And has Authority to 
 fee that the Clergy do their Duty in the 
 Execution of thefe Offices. 
 
 The
 
 u 
 
 "Entitled, England V Converjion^&tc. 
 
 The Regal Supremacy therefore which 
 we intend, is no other than (as Primate * 
 Bramhall fpeaks) the Toliticaly or Exter- 
 nal Regimen of the Church. And fince I 
 have mention'd That great Prelate , I will 
 from Him cite a remarkable Paflfage relat- 
 ing to our Prefent Subject, t " There are 
 x feveral Heads of the Church. Chrift a- 
 " lone is the Spiritual Head ; T,he Sove- 
 ' c reign Prince the Political Head j the Ec- 
 
 * cleiiaftical Head is a general Council j 
 and under That, each Patriarch in his 
 Patriarchate, and among the Patriarchs, 
 the Bifhop of Rome., by a Priority of Or- 
 
 >c der. We who maintain the King to be 
 ; c the Political Head of the Englijh Church 
 
 * do not deny the Spiritual Headfhip of 
 c Chrift, nor the Supreme Power of the 
 Ci Reprefentative Church, that is a Gene- 
 >c ral Council, or Synod j nor the executive 
 :c Headfhip of each Patriarch in his Patri- 
 ' c archate ^ nor the Bifhop of Rome\ Head- 
 c fhipof Order, among them. We have 
 
 tc introduc'd no new Form of Ecclefiattical 
 f Government into theChurch of ^England ,- 
 c but preferved to every one his due Right, 
 c if he will accept of it. And We have 
 ^ c the fame Depen dance upon our Ecclefia- 
 
 * Schifm Guarded. P. 340, t P. 3 83. 
 
 Z 2 ' ! c ftical
 
 * ANSWER to a <Popi/b Book, 
 
 c ftical Superiors,- as we had evermore 
 " from the Primitive Times." 
 
 But Thofe Words, The King is the Foun- 
 tain of all manner of Ecclejtaftical Jurif- 
 diUion and Authority^ will perhaps be ftill 
 infifted upon. I anfwer, i ft. They are not 
 in the Aft of Parliament concerning the Su- 
 premacy j but only in the Commiffions in 
 King Henry\ and King 'Edward's Times, 
 which We have nothing to do with. idly. 
 Thofe Words themfelves, tho' us'd very 
 improperly, Cannot mean what they jeem 
 to mean, but only all manner of External, 
 or Political Jurifdi&ion in Ecclefiaftical Af- 
 fairs. Becaufe, as I have been often forced 
 to fay, it is agreed by all the World that 
 the Power of Adminiftcring, Preaching, and 
 Ordaining, was never by any body fuppo- 
 fed to be deriv'd from the Crown. Even 
 K. Henrys Statute of Supremacy, tho* e* 
 very Exprefiion in it may not be ftri&ly 
 right, may with This moft true Explication 
 be very well juftified. He is declar'd Supreme 
 Head of the Church of England-, i.e. in 
 refpe^t of the External, and Political Regi- 
 men ot the Church. It is faid, that cc He 
 ct fkall have Power to vifit, redrefs, and re- 
 " form all fuch Herefies as by any manner 
 " of Spiritual Authority lawfully may be 
 g reformed." But, to ufe the Words of an 
 
 ingenious
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion> &c. 341 
 
 ingenious and learned Writer : * cc This Aft 
 " will be without the reach of our Au- 
 " thor's Cavils ; if it be obferv'd. That the 
 <c Power by which the King vifits, and 
 " reforms, is not Spiritual, but Political ; 
 K that a Power is not given him to de- 
 * dare Errors, but to repress them j that 
 " the Determination of Herefy is by A& 
 :c of Parliament limited to the Scriptures, 
 " firft General Councils, and Aflfent of 
 :e the Clergy in their Convocation : Tte t 
 cc the Kins; hath not all the Power given him 
 :< which by any manner of Spiritual Ai> 
 c thonty may be lawfully exercifed, (for 
 <c He has not the Power of the Keys) but 
 <c a Power given him to reform all Herefies 
 cc by the Civil Authority, which the Church 
 c can do by her Spiritual $ &c. " 
 
 " Laftly, that the Prince is oblig'd to take 
 :c care that all Acts of reforming be exe- 
 " cuted by their proper Minifters ^ becaufe 
 :c elfe he trangreflfes the Power prefcrib'd 
 cc in This Statute, jo to reform as may be 
 " moft to the Tleafure of Almighty G.cd? 
 
 Indeed all thofe concluding Words 
 
 u moft to the Pleafure of Almighty God, the 
 cc Increafe of Vertuo in Chrift's Religion, 
 :c and the Confervation, of the Peace and 
 c< Tranquility of the Realm, any Ufage, 
 , <c Cuftoms, foreign Laws, foreign *Pre- 
 
 * Refleaions on the Hiftorical Part of Chnrck-Govern- 
 Cient, Qrc. P. ?4, 2jr 
 
 Z 3 fcriptions
 
 34-s An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 <f fcriptions, or any Thing or Things to the 
 cc contrary thereof notwithstanding," are 
 plainly explanatory of the whole Act j con- 
 fining it to the Aflerting a Supremacy over 
 the Chnrch in a Political Senfe only, and 
 excluding all foreign Authority and Jurif- 
 di&ion whatfoever. It may here be very 
 properly remarked that the Clergy in their 
 Declaration, upon which This Aft was 
 founded, acknowledge the King to be Head 
 of the Church, only quantum per legcm 
 Cbrifti licet -, fo far as is agreeable to the 
 Law of Chrift. 
 
 What has been offer'd will give us an eafy 
 Key to unlock all our Author's Fallacies, 
 in his Reafonings from this Aft under the 
 three Heads I before hinted at. * In the 
 frft Tlace^ fays he, it made him Supreme 
 Judge in all Controversies in Religion^ by 
 giving him full Tower to vifit all Errors^ 
 and Herejies, 8cc. This does not make him 
 Supreme Judge, or any Judge, in Contro- 
 verfies; as I have obferved of Q. Elizabeth. 
 t The plain meaning of which /j,&c. in fhort, 
 that he had the jame Tower as the Tope 
 had 'Before. The plain Meaning of it is no 
 fuch Thing ; nor can any fuch Thing be in- 
 fer r'd from it j nor is it true in Facl, that 
 the fame Power was given to Him as 
 
 P. ipo. 
 
 Pope
 
 Entitled, England* sConverJion^ Sec. 
 
 Pope had. See backwards. P. 323 $r Neither 
 had He, (* as This Writer affirms) fbe fame 
 Tower as the Bijhops in their fever at T>ic- 
 ceffes : Becaufe he had no Power purely Spi- 
 ritual by Vertue of a Commilfion from 
 Chrift ; as all Bifhops have. 
 
 t "But idly. "By impowering him to vifit 
 with Supreme Authority * it united^ as 
 I may fay^ in his 'Per/on alone the Whole 
 Epifcopal Jurifdi&ion of the Nation. You 
 may not fay it ; becaufe you cannot fay it 
 with Truth. He had in his own Perfon 
 none of the Epifcopal Jurifdidtion purely 
 Spiritual, and derived from Chrift ; and fo 
 not the Whole. And even his oiitvsard Ju~ 
 rifdi&ion made him only Superintendent 
 over the Bifhops, but did not take away 
 Theirs. \ Which Epifcopal Jurifdidion 
 before was divided^ as in other National 
 Churches^ among the Bifliops. So it was 
 afterwards, and is ftill. || To whom alone 
 it belong d to vifit. To them alone it be- 
 long'd to vifit, as Bifliops , and fo it does 
 ftill : But, notwithftanding That, the King 
 might vifit as a King. And that only in 
 their cwn refpeffiive ^DioceJJest according to 
 the Canons. Doubtlefs, a Bithop was, and 
 ftill is, to vifit only in his own Diocefs, 
 and according to the Canons : But to 
 
 * JW. t ? I9I' * Ibid. || Ibid. 
 
 X 4 what
 
 344 dn ANSWER to a Topifl Book, 
 
 what Purpofe This was here inferted, I can- 
 not imagine. So that it degraded in a man- 
 ner the whole Trelatick Order. Not at 
 all, for the Reafon above alledg'd. Or 
 at leaft rendered the Exerc/fe of their 
 Jurijdittion wholly precarious. Not fo ; Be- 
 caufe the Ac~t does not meddle with fome 
 Part of their Jurifdi&ion ; and even That 
 which it does meddle with may have a pa- 
 ramount Authority ovor it, and yet not be 
 wholly precarious: Which is actually the 
 Cafej as every body knows. And they 
 ^ere after no letter than the Kings Tricars, 
 &c. Which was giving him a greater *Pow- 
 er than any Tope., &c. Not fo ; for the 
 Reafons aforefaia. $dly. It gave the King 
 a Tower to revife and annul any Ecclejta- 
 Jlical T>ecree or Conftittttion, tho enafted 
 by the whole 3$ody of the Englifh Clergy. 
 How fo ? There are no fuch W 7 ords in the 
 A<5t, as He himfelf cites it : Nor was it 
 ever defign'd to veft a Legiflatiye Power 
 in the King only, with refpeft to the 
 Church, any more than to the State. Who 
 by that Means were divefted of their di- 
 vine Right of feeding and guiding their 
 Flocks i and lee ante meer Executors of -the 
 Kings, arbitrary Will. Utterly falfe ; as 
 I have fully prov'd. I will further only re- 
 mind our Author that fuppofing all This 
 to be as bad as he would make it ; Papifts 5 
 not Proteflants, are to anfwer for it. 
 
 The
 
 Entitled, England 1 'sConverJton^&c. 345 
 
 The Account therefore of the whole Mat- 
 ter is no more than This. Our Kings have, 
 as they ought to have, a "Political Supre- 
 macy in Ecclefiaftical Affairs. Some, who 
 are far enough from favouring the Romijh 
 Caufe, cannot be reconciled to the Word 
 Ecclefiaftical^ much lefs Spiritual^ added 
 to That Supremacy, but will call it a 
 Civil Supremacy in Ecclefiaftical Caufes. 
 Which, to my Apprehenfion, is a 'mere Lo- 
 gomachy i considering how Thofe who ufe 
 it explain their Meaning even of the Word 
 Ecclefiaftical, as apply'd to That Suprema- 
 cy. Or if they pleafe, thlpy may take it 
 Thus. There is a Difference between Spi- 
 ritual, or Ecclefiaftical Power, and a Po- 
 wer in Spiritual, or Ecclefiaftical Things : 
 Which Latter, not the Former, is the Lan- 
 guage of our Laws and Canons upon This 
 Subjeft. 
 
 Not but that, were it otherwife ; there 
 would be no reafonable Ground of Com- 
 plaint. The Words of the Great Con ft an- 
 tine to the Bimops, recited by Eufebiuf^ 
 t are very remarkable ; And we hear of 
 no Objeftion to them. Which, methinks, 
 ihould have fome Weight with our Ad- 
 verfaries. c You, fays He, are Bifhops of 
 " Thofe Things that are within the Church ; 
 
 j DC Vita Conftant. Lib. IV. Cap. 24.
 
 34-6 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 <c I am a Bifhop as to externals/' If it be 
 faid that the Latter Words may relate tofe- 
 cular Things - y I anfvver it is far more proba- 
 ble from theConnexion of theNarative, that 
 they relate to the externals of the Church : 
 And 'tis plain Fad that Conftantine deep- 
 ly intermeddled in Church Matters, This, 
 I fay, is very material ; both as a Proof., 
 and an Explanation, of fuch a Supremacy as 
 we maintain. For the further Confirmati- 
 on of which, fee many other Teftimonies 
 of the ancient Church, cited by the excel- 
 lent Dr. Hammond^ in his Difcourfe of 
 Schifm. Two of them I cannot forbear 
 tranfcribing. / am King andTrieft^ faid 
 Leo Ifaunts to Gregory the 2d. And was 
 not for This reprehended by That Pope. 
 And by Optatus t it is noted and cenfur'd 
 as a Schifmatical Piece of Language in the 
 "Donatifts ; Quid Im per at or i cum Ecclefia* 
 What has the Emperor to do with the 
 Church? 
 
 By this time, I hope, any one may give 
 a ready Anfwer to all Objections about 
 Lay-Supremacy in Ecclefiaftical Matters. 
 However This or That Commiflion, or Ad 
 of Parliament, is worded ; it does not^ it can- 
 riot mean what our Adverfaries pretend, 
 muft be explain'd by other Words ^ 
 
 t Lib- 3 
 
 and
 
 347 
 
 and Laws by univerfal Practice. Even That 
 fo much decry'd Expreflion Head of the 
 Church, explain'd as we hav^e feen it was 
 ever meant, is not fo very wicked and ab- 
 furd j no not when apply a to a Child^ or a 
 Woman. A fuppofed Incongruity, which 
 our Author repeats, I verily believe, above 
 twenty times ; as if it were Matter of the 
 greateft Triumph over us, that This Title, 
 or one equivalent to it, was given to Ed- 
 ward VI. in his Minority, and to Q. Eliza- 
 beth' Whereas it is well known to 
 All who know any thing of Thefe Mat- 
 ters, that as the King of England nevet 
 dies, fo the King of England is never aChild ; 
 and the Regal Authority is of no Sex. A 
 Headfhip of the Church ftrictly fpeaking, 
 /. e. an Authority purely Spiritual, can no 
 more belong to a Layman, than to a Wo- 
 man, or a Child ; but lefs properly fpeaking, 
 which is what We mean, it may belong to 
 either of the two Laft, as well as to the 
 Firft j becaufe it is inherent in the Crown, 
 whoever wears it. Since our Author fo ve- 
 ry often repeats This Objection, and infifts 
 fo very much upon it j I cannot forbear fay- 
 ing, that 'tis an Objection fit only for a Child*. 
 A Woman^ of Common Reafon and In- 
 genuity, would be afhamed of it. 
 
 Not
 
 348 An ANSWERS a Tofi/b Book, 
 
 Not that We are bound, after all, to de- 
 fend every Rhetorical, improper, or ftrain'd 
 Expreffion in This or That Ad of Parlia- 
 ment. Our Author (that I may here bor- 
 row % Biftiop 'Burnefs Words) is much more 
 " concerned to juftify all Papal Bulls, than 
 " We can be to juftify all the Words of our 
 cc Laws; efpecially the Rhetorick that is 
 f c in their Preambles. Becaufe He believes 
 the Pope to be at leaft the Centre of Unity, 
 if not In fallible -, and we do not pretend that 
 our Parliament is Either. " Now when our 
 " Author will undertake to juftify all the 
 JC Preambles of Bulls that" are in the 
 * ^Bullarium ; then We may undertake 
 <c to juftify all the Flourifhes which may 
 c be in any A& of Parliament." Laws are 
 fometimes exprefs'd in fuch Terms as Prac- 
 tice only, and other Laws* and legal In- 
 terpretations, can explain. Our Adverfaries 
 are very clamorous againft Thefe ExprefTtons, 
 *fbeT&ng is Head oftbe Churcb> He has 
 Power to reprefs Herefies, &c. What would 
 they have laid, were the King ftiFd a $/- 
 /0/>? Yet Conftantine call'd himfelf fo. 
 What if he were ftiled a *Prieft ? Yet Lea 
 Ifaurus called himfelf fo. And no Ex- 
 ception was taken at Either : Becaufe the 
 Meaning was explained, and well under- 
 
 Apud Kicks Treat, of the Piiefth. Pref. P. 150* 
 
 ftoodj
 
 Entitled, F ngland'i Converfion^ &c. 349 
 
 flood j tho' the Expreflions were much more 
 harfh and improper, than any in the A&s 
 of Parliament we are now confldering. 
 
 The Snbmijfion of the Clergy, fo much 
 thrown in our Teeth, and particularly in- 
 fifted upon by this Author, f was the Aft of 
 Papifts; the fame Papifts who complimented 
 Henry VIII. for writing again ft Luther. Not 
 that it was an entire Submiffion to the King 
 in matters of Religion^ as our Author moft 
 falfely calls it ; but only a Submiflion, not 
 an entire one neither, in matters of Con- 
 vocation, in making, promulging, and exe- 
 cuting Canons &c. Whatever it was, let 
 Them anfwer for it, that made it : They 
 did not promife for their SuccefTors j Or if 
 They had, I do not fee that fuch a Pro- 
 mife would have oblig'd their Succeffors : 
 For it was a mere Promife, not a Law ; 
 And befides what they did in K. Henrys 
 Reign they undid in Q. Marys : Nor is there 
 any fuch Submiflion, as an Ad of theClergy, 
 now Subfifting. There is indeed an Aft of 
 Parliament founded upon That Submifli- 
 on j which our Lawyers + tell us is declara- 
 tory of the Common Law. Notwithftand- 
 ing which, if our Adverfaries can fhew that 
 it is contrary to the Law of God ; we will 
 
 t P. 185. & e . * Colts 4.1nftit. $23.- apud Wood 
 
 Inftit. P. 864. 
 
 cer-
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 certainly refufe Obedience to it. But what- 
 ever is, or can be, faid againft it may re* 
 ceive an Anfwer from what has been alrea- 
 dy difcours'd concerning the Power of the 
 Civil State in Ecclefiaftical Matters : And 
 I am for as little Repetition as poflible. 
 
 As to the Fear t by which This Submiffion 
 of the Clergy is faid to have been extorted ; 
 i ft. Our Author mifapprehends the Fact. 
 The Tremunire was relax'd, by Aft of Par- 
 liament long before the Submiflion was 
 made. But fince /the Cafe was confef- 
 iedly otherwife, when ^the fame Clergy 
 acknowledg'd the King's Headfhip of the 
 Church -, I anfwer, 2dly. A Man, or Num- 
 ber of Men, may do a Thing purely out 
 of Fear ; and yet it may not be unlawful, 
 nay it may be their Duty* 3dly. The Oc- 
 cafion of their Debates might be Fear ; and 
 yet the Refult of them be guided by Truth, 
 and Reafon, and Conviction of Confcience. 
 Nearly related to what we are now upon, 
 is our Author's Objection againft theCommit* 
 tee of fixteen Clergy ', and fifteen Laity., 
 appointed to examine^ confirm , or annul > cer- 
 tain Conftitutions and Canons^ flee. /. e. 
 in fhort to reform the Canon Law. And 
 moft unfortunate it was that fo ufeful and 
 excellent a Work was not Then, nor at any 
 other Time, effected. Here, fays He, we have 
 aCommittee eftablffid of thirty two Terfons 
 
 ~T*-i* 
 
 Mf
 
 , England 1 j- Converfwn, &c 
 
 half Laymen &c. Why ihould they not 
 be half Laymen j when the Prerogative of 
 the Crown, and the Libertys and Benefit of 
 the Subject, were as much concern'd as the 
 Rights of the Church ? This Writer feems 
 to forget Thofe Words, in the Preamble of 
 the At : " And where diversConftutions, Or- 
 " dinances, and Canons, Provincial, or Syno- 
 " dal, which heretofore have been ena&ed, 
 <c and be thought not only to be much prejudi- 
 " cial to the King's Prerogative Royal, and re- 
 cc pugnant to the Laws and Statutes of this 
 " Realm.,but alfo overmuch onerous to his 
 " Highnefs and his Subjects." f So tbat if the 
 
 <c Sixteen Laymen (continues He) could 
 
 but gain over to their Side any one Clergy- 
 man of the whole Committee, which was 
 to le entirely model' d, and pacKd by the 
 Court; anv thing they pleajed was jure 
 to pafs. It does not neceiTarily follow that 
 they muft be entirely pack'd by the Court, 
 becaufethe King is to Name them. But, 
 however, be it fo ; and morever let One 
 of the Clergy be gain'd over to the Lay- 
 Side i it does not follow that any Mifchief 
 to the Church muft happen. The Lay-men 
 may be well enough affecled to the Church, 
 and the Churchmen to the State, There 
 is Danger in fuch Cafes, I confefs : But 
 who can help it ? Nothing in this World is 
 certain and fecure. It is poflible on the o- 
 t PS 184, 185. 
 
 ther
 
 35* An ANSWER to a Topi/ 
 
 ther hand, that theClergy may draw off one 
 ofthe Laity; and no Harm done to the State 
 neither. But at worft, let it be remem- 
 ber'd that This whole Affair was founded 
 upon a Petition of the Clergy, the Popifli 
 Clergy, foe faid Clerty (fays the Aft) 
 bath moft humbly be fought that the faid 
 
 Conflitutions be committed to thirty 
 
 two whereof fixteen to be of the 
 
 %empora/tVy &c. 
 
 And This brings us to the laft Branch of 
 this Objection againft the Reformation ; 
 and it would be a terrible one indeed, if it 
 were true. According to the Account + 
 given by this Writer and the Bifhop of 
 Meaux^ That great Work was effected 
 wholly^ or alrnojt wholly, by the Civil 
 'Power j the Ecclefiaftical had little or no 
 Hand in it. Whereas in the three Reigns 
 under Confideraticri, there was nothing 
 done with regard to tho Church and Re- 
 ligion, , c but what was acted by the Clergy 
 
 c in their Convocations, or grounded on 
 <c fome A& of Theirs 'prec^d^nt to it, 
 
 c with the Advic^, Council, ; j nd Confent 
 " ofthe Bifhops, and other learned Men 
 tc AlTeinbled by the King^ [or Queen's] Ap- 
 rc pointment 5 and the Parliaments did no- 
 * c thing in it, but that fometimes upon the 
 
 $ jd. Dial, and Pref.
 
 Entitled, England'j- Converfion, &o 3 5 j 
 
 * c Poft-fa&, it was thought fit to add fome 
 * c ftrength to the Decrees and Determina- 
 ' c tion of the Church (efpecially in inflicting 
 " Punimments on the Difobediennt) by Ci- 
 " vil Sanctions;" This is fully fhewn by 
 Dr. Heylin in a Treatife written on Purpofe ; 
 * Part of the Preface to which I have now 
 recited. As the Treatife is fhort, I refer 
 the Reader to the Whole : To quote all 
 from it which confirms our Caufe, would 
 be to tranfcribe almoft every Sentence in it. 
 Our Author makes great Uie of Dr. Heylin , 
 and cites him very frequently : Let Us be 
 permitted to make fome Ufe of him in our 
 Turn. 
 
 In fhort, the Reforming Temporal Powers 
 meddled no more with Religious Matters in 
 the three Reigns aforefaid., than the To- 
 pijh Temporal Powers did in Q, Marys. 
 That Queen and her Parliament as much 
 cftablifli'd Topery, as any Prince or Parlia- 
 ment eftablifh'd Troteftantifrni And the 
 Clergy had as great a Share in making the 
 Reformation, as They had in any Publick 
 Aft in Q. Mary's Reign. ' So that Ours is 
 as much a Spiritual, or Ecclefiaftical Religi- 
 on, as Theirs ; and Theirs was as much a 
 State Religion^ or Parliament Religion, as 
 Ours. 
 
 * Reformation of the Ch. of;gj. juftified. 
 
 A a Bu$.
 
 354- -4w ANSWER to a 
 
 But, fays theBimop otMeatix, * from the 
 'Time of Henry V ajjuming the Supremacy 
 (he fhould have faid, from the Time of the 
 Clergy s Submifflon) the Clergy had no 
 Authority to intermeddle in Religious Mat- 
 ters, unlefs they bad his Orders for it. 
 He fhould have faid, his TermiJJion, or 
 Licenfe. t And the only Remonflrancethey 
 made againft this Hardship put upon them 
 was* that it was an Encroachment upon 
 their 'Privileges. He does not tell us where 
 he met with this Hiftory ; nor can I tell A- 
 nybody elfe. Not that it at all affects the 
 Merits of the Caufe on either Side j whe- 
 ther it be true, or falfe. % As if the med- 
 dling in Matters of Religion were but a 
 lare Trivilege^ not an effential 'Preroga- 
 tive of the Ecclefiaftical Order. To med- 
 dle with Matters of Religion, abfolutely, 
 and fimply fpeaking, is not a bare Privi- 
 lege, but an elTential Prerogative, of the 
 Ecclefiaftical Order ; but to meddle with 
 fome Matters of Religion, in fuch or 
 fuch a Manner^ at fuch or fuch a Time 
 or Place, with fuch or fuch other Circum- 
 flances^ is neither an effential Preroga- 
 tiv, nor an ElTential Privilege belonging 
 to it. For Example j according to the 
 Pra&ife of the Church, both Jewifa, and 
 
 p. 35. ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 Chnfhan
 
 Entitled, England V Converjlon^&c. j j 5 
 
 Chriftian, as well as to the Nature and 
 Reafon of the Thing, no Synods ought to 
 be held, nor Eccleiiaftical Laws to be made^ 
 without the Concurrence of the Civil Power. 
 * In Edward the Sixth's Time., the Bi^ 
 ftiop informs us, the Parliament took upon 
 it f elf to regulate the form of consecrating 
 BiJhopS) or Trie/Is, and to prescribe the Form 
 cfTublick Trayers^ and the Manner of ad* 
 wiiniftering the Sacraments. Would not a- 
 ny one think by This, That the Parlia- 
 ment made Thofe Forms, and originally^ 
 and of itfelfy prefcritfd That Manner? 
 When in truth the Parliament did but im- 
 pofe upon the People, what the Clergy had 
 before drawn up ; and enforce it with 
 temporal Sanctions. See Heylin s Reform a- 
 tionjuflified) P. 15, \6. The Bifhop fur- 
 ther tells us that in the fame Reign (King 
 Edward the Sixth's) the Convocation of 
 the Clergy only begd of the ^Parliament that 
 no Statute might pafs concerning Religion 
 without their Advice ; but it could not be 
 obtain d. I have read that the Lower Houfe 
 defir'd the Upper to make fuch a Re- 
 queft to the King, and Parliament; but 
 That it could not be obtain d, I can no 
 where find. It is Fad that no fuch Law 
 was made, without the Advice of the 
 
 p, 32- 
 
 A a a Clergy
 
 356 An ANSWER to a Qopijb Book, 
 
 Clergy; and That is enough. That the 
 King's Vifitors * requird of the 'Biflwps an 
 exprefs 'Declaration that they would teach 
 fitch 'DottrineS) as flmild from time to 
 time be eftablijtid and explain d by the 
 King and Clergy, is likewife Hiftory of his 
 own ; as far as I can perceive : However, 
 He himfelf does not pretend that the Bifhops 
 agreed to it. As for the King's prohibiting 
 'Preaching^ for fome time ; 'twas nothing but 
 what was proper, and juft : And Q. Mary 
 did the fame Thing. 
 
 But there is another dreadful Article a- 
 againft us, ftill behind. Our Author fpends 
 a whole Se&ion || and Part of another, to 
 prove that Q. Elizabeths Supremacy was 
 eftablifh'd by the Secular Tower only, with- 
 out the Concurrence or Confent of the Clergy. 
 And This, he imagines, mult quite confound 
 us; and utterly overturn the whole Fa- 
 brick of the Reformation. He begins Thus. 
 Sut as the Eftabli/hment and Con ft it tit ion 
 of the Reform d Church of England, as it 
 now ftands^ was built upon a wrong Foun- 
 dation ; to wit i the Spiritual Supremacy 
 of a Terfon incapable by her very Sex even 
 of the loweft Degree of ILcdefiaftical 2)/g- 
 nity^ or FunUion Pleafe to obferve how 
 This ftrong Reafoning looks, after it 
 
 * UM. t p - 34- 11 Seft. 10, ir 
 
 has
 
 Entitled, England's Converfwn, &c. 557 
 
 has been fully anfwered, and expos'd. Our 
 Reformation is not founded upon the Su- 
 premacy, tho' the Acknowledgement of the 
 Supremacy prepar'd the Way to it -, but up- 
 on the Word of God, and eternal Truth : 
 And as for Q. 'Elizabeth^ Sex., enough I 
 hope has been faid of That. * So has IT 
 another ejjential Flaw that never will be 
 repair* di I mean the Nullity of that very 
 Tower, or Authority, by which IT was 
 cftaUiffid, For IT was carry d entirely by 
 the fectilar Tower, &c. By which It he 
 means the Supremacy - 3 tho' good Syntax 
 would make one think he meant the JR.- 
 fortnation. The Subftance of all he al- 
 ledges is, that every Thing relating to 
 the Supremacy was done wholly by the Par- 
 liament, the Church having no Hand in it ; 
 and that even in Parliament all the Bi- 
 fhops, except One, were againft it. To which 
 I anfwer, ift- The Queen's Ecclefiaftical 
 Supremacy was not Then given her, but 
 only declard'. She had it Before, by the 
 Laws of the Land, and right Reafon, in 
 vertue of her Sovereignty ; as it has x alrea- 
 dy appear'd. And furely the Parliament 
 had a Right, and Authority, without tho 
 Convocation, to declare the Laws and 
 Confutations of the Realm, And that the 
 
 Ittt, 
 
 A a 3 Bifliops
 
 358 An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 Bifhops in Parliament were outvoted, is, 
 I hope, no Argument That the Proceed- 
 ings of That Aflembly were illegal. 2dly. 
 Jt is nothing Strange that Thofe Popiih Bi- 
 fhop.s (for fo They were) fhould oppofe 
 the Reformation ; towards which They/ 
 knew ths AfTert'ing of the Supremacy was a 
 great Step. Not but that 3 dly. Moft of tkem 
 hud before been ^r the Supremacy; I mean, 
 -.lie flejgns of Henry VIII. and ILdward 
 VI. Both Houfcs of Convocation the 
 main Body of the Clergy, Biiliops as well 
 as Pn-sbyters, had acknowledg'd it : And 
 among the Reft, the greater Number 
 of Thefe very Bifhops themfelves. 4thly. 
 The whole Body of the Clergy, not long 
 afterwards, acknowledg'd the Supremacy 
 of Q. Elizabeth - 3 and in the ftrongefl 
 Terms ratify 'd, and confirm'd it, by the pub- 
 lick A<5t of both Houfes of Convocation^ 
 in the 39 Articles. To This it is objected, 
 * that in order to ferve That Turn, the 
 old Bifhops were deprived, and new ones put 
 in. their Places, by illegal Means, and an 
 inefficient Authority- I anfwer with Dr. 
 Hammond, t Firft, ' That the Death of 
 " Cardinal W, Archbifhop of Canterbury^ 
 ' falling near upon the Death of her Pre- 
 " deceffor Q. Mary ; it was very regular 
 
 t P. 358, 259- Gv. f Works in Folio. P. 225, 216
 
 Entitled, England*/ Con verjion^ Sec. 359 
 
 cc for Q. Elizabeth to aflign a Su.cceflor 
 
 " to That See then vacant, Archbifhop 
 
 " Barker. Secondly, That Thofe Bifhops 
 
 " which in Q. Marys Days had been ex- 
 
 " il'd, or deprived, and furviv'd That Ca- 
 
 " lamity, were with all Juftice reftor'd 
 
 " to their Dignities. Thirdly, That the 
 
 f Bifhops by ^Her [Q. Elizabeth'} divefted, 
 
 ce and depriv'd of their Dignities, were fo 
 
 <c dealt with, for refuting to take the Oath 
 
 " of Supremacy, form'd and enjoin'd in the 
 
 " Days of Henry VIII. and in the firftPar- 
 
 c liament of This Queen reviv'd, and the 
 
 " Statutes concerning it reftor'd to full 
 
 c Force, before it was Thus impos'd on them. 
 
 c So that for the Juftice of the Caufe of 
 
 " their deprivation, it depends immediately 
 
 c upon the Right and Power of the Su- 
 
 <c preme Magiftrate to make Laws, to im- 
 
 " pofe Oaths, for the fecuring of his Go- 
 
 " vernment, and to inflicl the Punilhrnents 
 
 cc prefcrib'd by the Laws, on the Difobedi- 
 
 c ent ; but originally upon the Truth of 
 
 :c That Decifion of the Bifhops, and Cler- 
 
 " gy, and Univerfities_, in the Reign of 
 
 " Henry VIII. That no Authority belong'd 
 
 " in This Kingdom of England to the Bi- 
 
 cc fhop of Rome, more than to any other 
 
 cc foreign Bilhop. The Former of Thefe 
 
 cc I ihall be confident to look upon as an 
 
 5 undoubted Truth, in the Maintainance 
 
 c of which all Government is ccncern'd, 
 
 Aa 4
 
 560 An ANSWER to a Topljb Book, 
 
 and hath nothing peculiar to our Preten- 
 
 fions, which ihould fuggeft a Vindication 
 :c of it in this Place. And the Second 
 
 hath, I fuppofe, been fufficiently clear'd 
 Cc in the former Chapters of this Difcourfe ; 
 c which have examined all the Bifhop of 
 Cc Homes Claims to This Supremacy. And 
 Cc Both thefe Grants being acknowledg'd, or 
 *' fuppofed ('till they be invalidated, or dif- 
 f c proved) to have Truth and Force in them; 
 * : the Conclufion will be fufficiently induc'd, 
 cc That there was no Injuftice in That Ad 
 cc of the Queen's which diverted Thofe Bi- 
 " (hops, who thus refus'd to fecure her Go- 
 <c vernment, or to approve their Fidelity to 
 " their lawful Sovereign/' 
 
 It is further objected, * That the Gene- 
 rality of the inferiour Clergy concur'd out 
 of Hope, Fear, Lazinefs, Love of the 
 World^ &c. The Strength and Charitable- 
 nefs of which Argument have already been 
 feveral times taken notice of. Yet I cannot 
 here avoid remarking upon the Companion 
 he makes between f the fatiguing ^Dttties 
 incumbent on the Taftors of the Catholick 
 Church^ and the eafy Lizes, comparatively ^ 
 of Troteflant Minifters ; as He is pleafed 
 to fpeak : ^Between which. He tells us, there 
 is as great Differ ence* as between the broad 
 
 * Ibid. p,
 
 Entitled, England^ Convcrjion^&c. 361 
 
 and narrow Way mention d in the GoffeL 
 Decent, and handfome, I muft needs fay ! 
 But as for the f Mattes, and daily long 
 Offices, ConfeCTions, five times more Holy- 
 days than We have, frequent publick Ser- 
 vices for the Dead, and fo forth, incumbent 
 upon the Catholick Paftors; They are in- 
 deed fufficiently laborious : And They may 
 take their Labour for their Pains. Who hath 
 reqtiifd thefe things at their Hands ? 
 Thefe, and abundance more, are fo many 
 Fopperies, and Fooleries, of their own In- 
 venting i contrary to the Spirit of Chriftiani- 
 ty, doing infinite Mifchief to Religion, and 
 the Souls of Men ; and therefore no great 
 Matter of Boa/ting. On the other hand, 
 the Church of England Clergy are fuffi- 
 ciently lur th end with T aft oral Cares; 
 Many of them, efpecially in This City, and 
 in all great Pariihes, || in danger of being 
 overburthen d with them. Nor has every 
 one of them a good Living femng to 
 maintain a Female Companion in a Comfor- 
 table Way. I could not but tranfcribe That 
 cutting Sentence of the young Gentle- 
 man's y becaufe he who put it into his Mouth, 
 I fuppofe, imagin'd it to be Wit : And I 
 would by all means have both his Wit, 
 and good Manners, as well as Arguments, 
 
 ttld. * IIU. 
 
 appear
 
 An ANSWER to a Popifb 
 
 appear and fhine in their full Luftre. Not- 
 withftanding which, 'tis very fit that every 
 one of the Clergy, if He p\.c&fes>Jhoiifdbave 
 
 a Female Companion ; and 'tis damnably 
 wicltcd to make it unlawful ': As We 
 have proved a hundred times over $ let 
 Him prove the Contrary > if he can. Great; 
 however, is the Burthen of our Parochial 
 Cures ^ v tho' it is a Burthen purely Chrifti- 
 an 5 not Popiflu) confidering the Labour of 
 the Church-Service, Adminiftering the Sa- 
 crainer^, conftant Preaching Catechizing 
 and Lxpounding the Catechifm, Vifiting the 
 Sick, Inftructing th Ignorant, reclaiming 
 the Vicious- j i th.it w.* can \\\. afford time 
 to anfyser Topifo 'Booksy and antidote the 
 Venom oi: Topijh Trieps^ who in This Town 
 are fupofed to be as numerous as Thofe of 
 the Church of England, In beha if of which 
 ^Latter, I think we may add this further 
 Confi deration. That They are of the - 
 iiablifhment,whether They be in the Right,or 
 in the Wrong : It does not therefore become 
 their Romijh Adverfaries, in this Nation, to 
 vilify and outrage them, to treat them with 
 Infolence and Contempt; as This Writer 
 does. Were I in a Popifli Country, I fhculd 
 think myfelf guilty of exceeding ill Man- 
 ners, fhould I Thus treat Their Clergy - 
 and that^too, if I could do it with Safety : 
 As I am fure I could not. So far ptherwifei
 
 . 363 
 
 that I could not, without the utmoft Dan- 
 ger of Imprifonment and Death, endeavour 
 to promote my own Religion j tho' I trea^ 
 ted the Clergy, and all other Profefifors of 
 Theirs, with the greateft Refpeft. Which, 
 by the Way, is not equal Dealing. 
 
 Now I am upon This, I think it proper 
 to beftow a Remark upon what our AutLor 
 fays in another Place. Where, after a me ft 
 impertinent Piece of Sophiftry, tending: to 
 prove that becaufe Bi(hop Tearjcn IT- ..-., it 
 neceflary to be of the Church, therefo - 
 muft needs ferve the Caufe of .''- 
 he imputes That excellent Prelar j' 
 enly profeflmg it to WoriJly \ $ 
 
 honourable Charter of a ^-'( jj net 
 
 exchangd without great 
 
 And the Reeenktts annex d tu it ar 
 
 -powerful TerjiLafae againjt ?'';-._> Alibis 
 Side of the Seas. As i! it were not eafy for 
 fo great a Man as Bifhop Tearfc-^ had he a 
 Mind to turn Papilt, to have a much better 
 Biftioprick on the ether Side of the Seas, 
 than That of Cheftcr ; or than almoft any 
 Bifhoprick Here. Where the 'Bifhofis La- 
 dy (continues He, making another flirewd 
 Gibe upon the Clergy's Marriage) with her 
 dear Children^ tafle the Sweets of the eafy 
 Income of her Spiritttal Lord-, and em- 
 
 P. 71.
 
 %6\ An ANSWER f0fl Topifh 
 
 floys her left Rhetorick to convince his Lord~ 
 (hip that State and Tlenty are much pret- 
 tier Things than Evangelical Poverty. 
 Which alone fujfices toftifle the left 1 bought s, 
 and render the left 'Difpofitions towards a 
 Change tneffMual. For a Papift to talk 
 fo gravely of Evangelical Toverty, when 
 all the World knows the Prodigious Wealth 
 of Their Clergy, and the Poverty of Ours, 
 is fomewhat particular. For the reft, I 
 think it is a Proof of Lenity and For- 
 bearance at leaft, in Proteftant Bifhops, that 
 They fuffer fuch Infolence as This, from 
 Perfons who are every day obnoxious to 
 the Penalties of the Law. 
 
 jthly. Whereas This Writer adds that 
 the Spiritual Supremacy was fettled on Q. 
 Elizabeth not only without, but % in di- 
 reffi Opposition to the Judgment of the whole 
 <Rody of the Englifh Clergy^ becaufe t the 
 Convocation put forth 5 Articles^ &c. con- 
 cerning the real Trefence ; c ranjulftanti- 
 titiojij and the Ma/s -, the *Popis Suprema- 
 cy ; and the Incapacity of Laymen to inter- 
 meddle in Affairs of the Church : I anfwer, 
 i ft. He quotes no Authority for This, but 
 Fullers-, which is very indifferent Authori- 
 ty. 2dly. Not only the Civil Power, but 
 any private Perfon, of Learning enough to 
 
 p. 257. t P. 256* 
 
 un-
 
 ^ England's Converjion^ &c. 
 
 under ftand the Points in Queftion, had a 
 Right, even in Oppofition to the whole 
 Church, to reject luch grofs notorious 
 Falfhoods, and Contradictions to Reafon, 
 Scripture, and Antiquity, as Tranfubftan- 
 tiation, and St. 'Peters and the Pope's Su- 
 premacy. And the Convocation (fuppofing 
 the Fact to be true) by determining that \the 
 Jttthority of treating and defining Matters 
 relating to Faith, Sacraments, and Church 
 'Difcipline, belong d only to the Taftors of 
 the Church^ and not to Laymen, meaning 
 thereby to exclude the Civil Magiftrate's 
 Authority in the external Regimen of the 
 Church, were Judges in their own Caufe ; 
 and their Judgment was not true, as I have 
 prov'd. His Aifertion that this was a Mat- 
 ter purely Spiritual t Ihaveaifo fliewn to 
 be ralfe. 6thly. That which is here ob- 
 jected was, at Worft, but a Corruption, an. 
 Encroachment, an Irregularity; The moft 
 They can infer from it is, the Nullity o 
 This Eccleiiaftical Supremacy in the 
 Church 5 not the Nullity of the Reforma- 
 tion. It does not, as he imagines it does, un- 
 church us, or vacate the Orders of our 
 Bimops and Clergy : Our Reformation, 
 as I obferv'd, being not built upon the Su- 
 premacy he fpeaks of, tho 1 That led the 
 
 Ibid. $ p. 257.
 
 366 An ANSWER to a Topifh Book, 
 
 Way to it -, but upon the Foundation of the 
 Apoflles^ and Prophets, Jefus Chrift him- 
 felf being the chief Corner-Stone. And as 
 for the Authority by which it was made $ 
 it was, as We have feen, the joint Authori- 
 ty of Church and State ; whatever becomes 
 of the Ecclefiaftical Supremacy. Not but 
 that there is, and muft be, fuch a Suprema- 
 cy in the Crown, as We affert, and have 
 proved, and They will never by any Argu- 
 ments be able to invalidate. 
 
 t / conclude, fays He, with this Dilemma : 
 to wit Epifcopal Government either is 
 ejjential to the Conftitution of Chrift 's 
 Church^ or it is Not. Suppofe we take 
 the Former Part, and fay it is ; Let us 
 fee how this Horn will puih us. J If it be ; 
 the prefent reform 'd Church (^England has 
 an effeniial ^DefeU in its very Foundation^ 
 I mean the Supreme Spiritual Authority 
 of a Lay-Head. One would think You 
 fhould have meant the Want of Epifcopal 
 Government in the prefent reform'dChurch 
 of England^ for to mean any thing ele is 
 to mean moft illogically, and ridiculoufly. 
 And is there not Epifcopal Government 
 in the prefent reform'd Church of England ? 
 Befides j Is not the Supreme Spiritual Au- 
 thority of a Lay-Head a ftrange kind of Dc~ 
 feS? You will fay, I know, that You mean 
 (but I had rather you would fpeak Senfe in 
 
 ~fiii 7M. 
 
 the
 
 v Converjion^ &c 567 
 
 the very Letter, and fpeak accurately, efpeci- 
 ally in 'Dilemmas) th:it the Supreme Splri- 
 tualAuthority of the Lay-Head deftroys E- 
 pifcopal Government. But why do not You 
 prove This ? Or rather how is it poffiWe 
 to be prov'd ? For will you argue againft 
 Fad: ? Is there not, I ask once more, Epi- 
 copal Government in the Church of E&g- 
 landt And does not all the World kaow 
 it? If You reply, there is indeed the 
 Name of it, but its Force, Vertue^ or ^Pvwer^ 
 is evacuated by the Supremacy aforfald ; 
 I anfwer, I have proved the Contrary; 
 and fully Ihevvn that fuch an Ecclefiafti- 
 cal Supremacy in the Crown as We main- 
 tain, and according to the Senfe in which 
 our Laws and Pra&ife explaia it, is entire- 
 ly confident with Epifcopal Jurifdi&ion, 
 and Authority, both outward, and inward, 
 both Political, and purely Spiritual. * Which 
 alfo [the Supreme Spiritual Authority of 
 a Lay-Head J it derives wholly and fdely 
 from the fecular Tower^ without the leqft 
 Concurrence or Approbation of the Epjfce- 
 pal duthority, as has leen fully proved. And 
 I fay I have fully anfwered all This: 
 Which is Here Anfwer fufficient. Tho* I 
 am not obligM to meddle with the other 
 Branch of his Dilemma, having already 
 made my Option ; yet ex abundant'^ and 
 
 ' * ibid. 
 
 for
 
 368 An ANSWER to a Popi/b 
 for Curiofity's fake, We will examine That 
 too. * *But if Epifcopal Government be not 
 ejjentiali &c. and may be either fet itp^ or 
 laid afide, like ordinary human Inftitutions 
 
 then the Treflyterians &c. bave as 
 
 fair a Title to le a Tart of ChriJFs true 
 Church^ as the Chtirch of England can pre- 
 tend to. He might have gone on in This 
 Declamation for fifty Pages more, if he had 
 pleafed; but who among Us fets aiide E- 
 pifcopal Authority? t For if Epifcopal Au- 
 thority may le fet afide at one time, / fee 
 no Reafon why it may not le cap off for 
 good and all. Nor I neither -, if by fet 
 afide he means lawfully fet afide : But 
 who affirms that it may at any time be fo ? 
 Why, in the next Words he feems to argue 
 that We do. || And if the fecular Tower 
 may legally new model the Hierarchy fo as 
 to conftitute a Lay-Head over the Church^ 
 and even that independently of the Epifco- 
 pal Authority \ I am not {harp-fight ed e- 
 vougb to fee any f olid Reafon why the fame 
 'Power may not as legally commit forever 
 the whole Government of it tofuch Terfons 
 as it thinks fating j whether they le Lay- 
 Minifters made jo ly Lay-Ordination, or of 
 lhat Rank whom the Church ^England 
 calls $ijhops. I tell him again, the fecu- 
 
 # Ibid, and P. 258. t P. 258. || Ibiet. 
 
 kr.
 
 Entitled, England's Conversion ^8cc. 369 
 
 lar Power did not new model the Hie- 
 rarchy ; nor is it in England new model'd 
 at all. Ibofe whom the Church of Eng- 
 land calls 3$ifhops. Why are they not Bi- 
 fhops ? If he fays, No ; let him anfwer 
 Mafoii) 'Bramhall) and the late French Au- 
 thor of his own Church and Religion, who 
 have dcmonft rated the Contrary. If he 
 dares not fay fo ; what does TJaat paltry 
 Flirt fignify ? * Nay, I dont fee why the 
 fecular Tower, when their Hands were in, 
 might not have gone through flitch, and 
 declard Q Elizabeth in exprefs lerms tmi- 
 verfal 'Patriarch^ as well as Supreme Head 
 of the Church of England. For the one is 
 no more than the other contrary to the ex- 
 prefs Institution ofChrifl. Where have you 
 prov'd it contrary to the exprefs Inftituti- 
 on of Chrift that Sovereign Princes in their 
 own Dominions fhould have fuch a Power 
 in Church-Matters, as We afifert ? You 
 have no where prov'd it, and never can; but 
 have only miftaken the Queftion, and moft ab' 
 furdly confounded one thing with another. 
 Or if You think You can prove itj begin 
 as foon as you pleafe ; and I undertake to 
 anfwer You. 
 
 Nor could the Parliament as well have de- 
 clared the Queen Univerfal Tatriarch, as 
 
 ibid. 
 
 B b Svprtme
 
 An ANSWER to a <popifl> Book, 
 
 Supreme Head (Governour y He fhould 
 have faid) of the Church of England : Be- 
 caufe the One is falfe, as Everybody ac- 
 knowledges i the other is tnie^ as I have 
 ihewn. 
 
 And thus much for Convocations , and 'Par- 
 liaments. If the Vicargeneralfoip of Crom- 
 well in K. Henry the Eighth's Time, or 
 rather his being Lord Vicegerent in Ecclefi- 
 aftical Matters, was not very decent ; what 
 is it to Us ? K. Henry VIII. and Cromwell 
 too were Papifts. Not that it was io por- 
 tentous and unheard of a Thing, as the 
 Bifhop of MeatiXj * nor fo alfurd^ and ri- 
 diculous, as our Author f reprefents it. So far 
 otherwise ; that it may not only be excusd^ 
 but 'luflifyd. Let us hear Dr. Heylin once 
 more. " % That which is moft infifted on 
 cc is the delegating of This Power by K. 
 cc Henry to Sir Thomas Cromwell^ &c. And 
 <c This, (efpecially his prefidingin theCon- 
 c< vocation) is look'd upon both by Sanders 
 <c and fome Proteftant Doctors as a Kind 
 <c of Monftrofity in Nature. But certainly 
 <c Thofe Men forget (tho' I do not think 
 " myfelf bound to juftify allK. Harry sACti- 
 <c ons) that in the Council of Chalcedon the 
 tc Emperor appointed certain Noblemen 
 " to fit as Judges, whofe Names occur in 
 
 *Pref. P. n. |P- 192- *Ref. Jft. P. 42. 43. 
 
 <c the
 
 Entitled^ England* sConverfion, Sec. 37? 
 
 <c the firft Aaion of That Council. The 
 c like we find exemplified in the Epbefine 
 e Council, in which by the Appoint? ent 
 <c ottt0Jf/ttis 3 and Valenrinian^ the Ro- 
 :t man Emperors, Candidianus, a Count 
 ' Imperial fate as Judge, orPrefident; who 
 " in the Management of That Truft over- 
 :c a&ed any thing that Cromwell did, &c. 
 But This Office of Vicegerent in Spirituals, 
 * our Author tells us, was certainly an EC- 
 clefiaftical dignity. Juft as much fo as 
 the King's Ecclefiaftical Supremacy, from 
 which it was deriv'd : And That we have 
 abundantly confider'd. Neither is there 
 a jot more of Abfurdity in the One, than in 
 the Other. If a Layman can be Supreme 
 in Church-Matters ; he may certainly have 
 a Lay-Deputy, or Vicar, in them. Yet 
 our Author is fo facetious upon This fuppc- 
 fed Incongruity j that I cannot forbear tran- 
 fcribing fome of his Words, f And who do 
 Tou think was the *Perfon he pitch' d tip- 
 on for this eminent Station? 
 
 G. that's more than I can gnefs. But 
 according to my weak Jpprefonfion I con- 
 ceive it to be mo ft probable, that it was 
 either the Archlifaop of Canterbury, who 
 is Trimate of England ; or at haft jomc o- 
 ther eminent $i/hop. 
 
 * p, IPS. 
 
 B b 2 P.
 
 An ANSWER to a, Topifb Book, 
 
 P. Indeed, Sir, ou are eery much out 
 of the way in your Gtiefs. It was one Tho- 
 mas Cromwell, a Layman^ and the Son of 
 a "Blackfmith. 
 
 G. / foould as foon have guefsd that he 
 had made a Corn- cutter his prime Mini- 
 fter of State-, or his Coachman high Ad- 
 miral of England., 
 
 He need not have quoted Sir Richard 
 %aker, backed by the Authority of my Lord 
 Herbert., for the Truth of the Fad:. All 
 the World acknowledges it : And This 
 Writer's iliarp Reflexions upon it may re- 
 ceive a full Anfwer from what has been 
 faid: Except That Circumftance of Crom- 
 well's being the Son of a Blackfmith ; 
 Which I wholly give up, and leave our 
 Author to triumph in, as much as He 
 pleafes. I only make two fhort Obferva- 
 tions. i ft. That he is rude in calling him 
 ONE Thomas Cromwell ; when (notwith- 
 ftanding his mean Birth, which was rather 
 an Honour, than a Difgrace to him) he 
 was Earl of EJJcXj and Knight of the 
 Garter. 2dly That fince the King thought 
 fit to appoint fuch an Officer, for which 
 I think there was no Occafion, and which 
 had better have been let alone j it was more 
 proper to appoint a Layman than a Clergy- 
 man : Becaufe the King, who was reprefen- 
 ted by Him, was a Layman Himfelfj And 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England V Converjion,&c. j 7 j 
 
 the Ecclefiaftical Authority belonging to the 
 Clergy is of a different Nature from That 
 which belongs to the King. 
 
 Nor are we in the leaft concern'd to vin- 
 dicate Cromwell^ or Thofe who afted un- 
 der him, in the 'Execution of their Office, 
 in their f Visitations^ &c. any more than 
 we are to vindicate every thing K. Hen- 
 ry did. Let them ftand, or fall by their 
 own Management ; We have nothing to 
 do with it. 
 
 As little are we concern'd in the Com- 
 wiiffions from the Crown given to, and 
 accepted of, by the Bifhops, and revocable 
 at Tleafure, in the Reign of Henry VIII. 
 and JLdward VI fo much inveigh'd again ft 
 by our Author, and the Bifhop of Meatix. 
 They were undoubtedly fcandalous enough ; 
 but Conner condefcended to take one of 
 them, as well as Cranmer. Not that e- 
 ven Thefe were fo very wicked^ as all 
 the Papifts, and fome Proteftants make 
 them. If it be faid, that at This rate 
 it is in the Power of the Civil Magi- 
 ftrate to deftroy the Church, by abfolute- 
 ly revoking fuch Commiflions, and never 
 granting new ones ; I anfwer, That 
 does not follow ; becaufe the Bifhops and 
 Clergy have Authority to aft without them. 
 
 t P. 's>3- 
 
 B b $ They
 
 372 An ANSWER to a Topifo Book, 
 
 They might always have a&ed without 
 them, if they would : And their having ac- 
 cepted of them does not cancel the Autho- 
 rity which they received from Chrift. 
 \Vhile the Church and State are in Ac- 
 cord with each other, and the Former is 
 protected and encourag'd by the Latter - y 
 the Church may yield fomething to the 
 State, without annulling its own Charter 
 and Conftitution. But in the Cafe now 
 fuppofed, the State would perfecute the 
 Church ; and fo the Laft-mention'd would be 
 neceflltated to exert it's original Right of 
 acting independent on the State. The Ec- 
 clefiaflical To&er afcrib'd to the Crown 
 in thefe Commiilions has been elfewhere 
 fufliciently confidered. The Expreflion is 
 indeed ftretch'd too far, and by no means 
 proper ,- but I have ihewn that it does not, 
 cannct, imply fo much as the ^-apifls^ and 
 fome Trot eft ants too, pretend. 
 
 Since our Author has upon This Occa- 
 fion, given us a long, and pompous Quo- 
 tation from Mr. Collier; I ihall conlide'r 
 fo much of it as is material to our Purpofe. 
 * cc And after the King has thus declar'd 
 
 c himfclf ^Patriarch in his Dominions, 
 " claim'd all manner of Spiritual Autho- 
 
 >c rity, and prcncunc'd the Billiops his De- 
 
 f P. us. 
 
 ! c legates
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, &c. 3 7 j 
 
 cc legates at Pieafure" How did the 
 
 King declare himfelf Patriarch in his Do- 
 minions ? In exprefs Words ? There is no 
 fuch Word in the Commifiion he refers to. 
 In Erred:, or by Confequence ? I have (hewn 
 the Contrary. That Expreflion all manner 
 of Ecclejiaftical Jtirijdi'ciion and Atrtho- 
 rity has likewife been fully difcufs'd. 
 Then again, how does the King pronounce 
 the Btfhops his Delegates at pleafure <> Trc- 
 noitncingy one would think, fhould be in 
 plain Words ; For to pronounce by Confe- 
 quence is very odd j efpecially in Things of 
 10 folemn a Nature, as Commiflfions, and 
 other legal A&s, or Inftruments. Nor does 
 he fo much as by confequence pronounce 
 them his Delegates at pleafure, in the Com- 
 mifiion as here cited ; but only afferts an 
 Authority in Himfelf to reftrain the actual 
 Exercife of the external Part of their 
 Jurifdicl;ion. l After This, continues 
 
 w He, thefe Words are thrown into the 
 c * Commiilion to give it the more paiTable 
 c Complexion ; befides Tbc>fe things which 
 ' c are known from holy Scripture to le- 
 " long to you by Ttivine Right. Now r , with 
 :c Submiflion, "this Claufe feems to come in 
 cc too late ; and is utterly inconfiftent with 
 * c the former Part of the Commiflion." Now 
 
 B b 4 to
 
 376 ^ANSWER to a Topifo 
 
 to my Apprehenfion, it is very material ; 
 and not merely tbrcvsn /, to give, &c* It 
 does not come in too late ; is entirely con- 
 fident with the former Part of the Commif- 
 iion i and clearly afTerts an Authority in the 
 Bifliops deriv'd from Chrift, and indepen- 
 dent of the Civil State. Let us fee how 
 the Contrary is prov'd. * cc For if the 
 *' King is the Fountain, &c. then without 
 <c queftion the Hierarchy can have no Ju- 
 " nfdi<ftion aflfign'd in the New Teftament, 
 " nor any Authority deriv'd from our Savi- 
 " our. But if the Church is a diftincl:, &C. 
 
 cc then Thofe who fuggefted the 
 
 cc Draught of this Inftrument were No great 
 " Divines." The Fallacy of all This Rea- 
 foning will be fhewn by remarking upon 
 the material Claufes in it, which, to pre- 
 vent Repetition, I have not yet cited ; and 
 referring to what has been already faid. 
 By all manner of Ecclefiaftical Jtirif- 
 d'tilion^ as afcrib'd to the Crown, is meant 
 only all manner of external., and political 
 Jurifdi&ion in Eccletiaftical Affairs. It is not 
 pretended in the Commiflion that " the 
 u King's f Lay- Vicegerent might lawfully 
 c fupply the Room of all the Biihops in 
 cc TLnzlandJ nor of any Bifhop in Eng* 
 totally, and entirely, but only in 
 
 * P. 219. t #<W. 
 
 feme
 
 Entitled, England' s Converjiow, Sec. 
 
 fome things, as Before j and not one of them 
 purely Spiritual. It is not faid, nor fo much 
 as hinted, that t " the Bifhops in the Exe- 
 cc cution of their Office are only the King's 
 " Representatives,- nor that they are re- 
 vocable at pleafure ;" but only as above. 
 Nor were the Powers which the King 
 claim'd in pure Spirituals 5 and therefore 
 it is not to the Purpofe to argue, that f 
 " the Church in pure Spirituals is inde- 
 " pendent on all the Kings of the Earth."' 
 
 But after all , what if the State did really, 
 and very greatly encroach upon the Church? 
 Did That, as I have before argued upon a- 
 nother Occafion, annul the Church, or 
 vacate the Orders of the Bimops and 
 Clergy ? Suppofe the Church fhould encroach 
 upon the State,as we fay the Church of Pome 
 does j That would not deftroy the King's exe- 
 cutive Authority, nor His, and the Parlia- 
 ment's leg illative. Befides ; The Pope en- 
 croach'd upon theRights of the Church, much 
 more than any of our Princes and their Parlia- 
 ments ever did : And the Bifhops much moro 
 gave up their Rights by fubmitting to Him y 
 than ever they did by fubmitting to any 
 King', even, tho' They took CommifTions 
 from the Latter revocable at Pleafure.
 
 376 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 In a Word ; that there were irregu- 
 lar thrngs done at the Infancy of the 
 Reformation, is granted : But what then ? 
 Nay, what if Henrv VIIL and the Pro- 
 teftor in Edward VTs time ftretch'd 
 their Ecclefiaftical Jurifdi&ion even farther 
 than was intended by fome Laws ; which 
 Laws thcrnfelves were too far ftretch'd ? 
 And what if all This was for a Time 
 fubmitted to? The whole Nation, both 
 Clergy, and Laity, were in Hurry and 
 Uncertainty ; and did not well know where 
 they were, nor how they were to at : 
 As it always happens in great Changes^ tho* 
 never fo good? and neceffary, whether in 
 Church, or State, or Both. But in a little 
 time, much lefs than could reafonably have 
 been expeded, the Church of England 
 was truly reform'd, and that by legal Au- 
 thority : Nor have our Adverfaries any 
 thing but Fallacies in Re atoning , and Fal- 
 JJjoods in Faffi, to alledge again ft Either. 
 
 The Sum of what has been difcourfed un- 
 der This Head (that we may here obferve the 
 fame Method as before) is reducible to the 
 following Particulars, ift. Many of the 
 Things objected were done by Papifts. As 
 declaring the King's Eccleiiaftical Suprema- 
 cy; The Submiffton of the Clergy, Crom- 
 well s Vicegerency in Spirituals, CfC. 2dly. 
 What even fbey did was jnftirlable in the 
 Main ; particularly the King's Supremacy, as 
 
 then
 
 Entitled, England'* Converfion^&c- 377 
 
 then declared, was no Innovation ; whereas 
 That of the Pope is a real one. sdly, That 
 there was fome Irregularity and Corruption 
 at the Beginning of the Reformation., is true ; 
 but That is no Argument againft it as it now 
 ftands, 4thly, It is falfe, That even in 
 K. Henrys and K. Edward's Reigns, the 
 State encroach'd fo much upon the Church, 
 as our Adverfaries pretend. 5thly, Were all 
 they fay really true, thofe Irregularities, and 
 Corruptions could not Unchurch us, or va- 
 cate our Orders. 6thly, In a little time all 
 thofe Diforders were regulated j I mean in 
 the Beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign : 
 The Reform'd Church of England was 
 Then fettled as it Now ftands ; and that 
 by the joint Authority of Church, and 
 State. Laftly, Much of what the Roma- 
 nifts object to Us may be retorted upon 
 Themfelves ; and fome of it with great 
 Advantage. For inftance, Their Parlia- 
 ments have meddled in Religious and Ec- 
 cleliaftical Affairs, as much as Ours', par- 
 ticularly in Q. Marys time : Q; Mary gave 
 Inftrudtions to her Bifh ops about Religion, as 
 K. Edward did to His : She, as well as Q. 
 Elizabeth^ depriv'd Bifhops by her own re- 
 gal Authority. And more Force and Vio- 
 lence, upon the Account of Religion, was 
 made ufe of by Her, during a Reign of five 
 Years only, than by all the Proteftant Kings, 1 
 and Queens, from the Beginning of the Re- 
 formation to this very Day. A N
 
 A N s'w E R 
 
 T O A 
 
 PopiQi BOO K, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 EN G L A N oV Confer/ion and Re- 
 formation comfafdy &c 
 
 Totke Fourth DIALOGUE. 
 
 |S This Dialogue is the fhorteft 
 of the Four 5 fo it might very 
 well have been much dorter 
 than it is. For there is little 
 in it, befides Repetition. Which 
 indeed the very Title of it imports. ACom- 
 parifon between the rnoft remarkable Cir- 
 cumftances of England'/ Converfion on the 
 one bandy and it's pretended Reformation 
 
 on
 
 380 An ANSWER to a Toplfh Boo^ 
 
 on the other. That is., in effect, the General 
 Title of his Book 5 England 's Converfion^ 
 and Reformation compard : What has he 
 been doing all this while, efpecially in the 
 2d and 3? Dialogues, but making fuch a 
 Comparifon ? It may peradventure be re- 
 ply'd, that he has hitherto laid down the 
 Means, and Methods of the Converfion on 
 the one fide, and the Reformation on the 
 other, feparately, and diftinctly; but now 
 he brings them clofe together ; fet$ them in 
 Contrafte, as Oppofites j and more particu- 
 larly and briefly, compares them with each 
 other. But tho' this was not necefTary, even 
 This he has done already : I mean in the laft 
 Section of his Second Dialogue, to my Re- 
 marks upon which I refer the Reader, de- 
 firing him to review them before he proceeds : 
 Becaufe That will fave Me, and Him too, a 
 great deal of Trouble. If our Author even 
 There be Tautological, a.s He really is j He 
 is much more fo Here ; by repeating what 
 he has there repeated. It is true, He here 
 pretends to give his Pupil * a LeUure upon 
 the Ufa aiid Application that is to be made 
 of the Colleffiion of FaUs he has hitherto en- 
 tertain d him with. This Ufe, or Applica- 
 tion, one would imagine, ihould be drawing 
 Inferences, or Corollaries not yet mention'd : 
 Whereas 'tis nothing but a naufeous Repeti- 
 tion of Thofe Facts, moft of them falfe ; 
 
 ^ P. 174. * 
 
 and
 
 Entitled^ England'.* Convsrfwn^ &c. 381 
 
 and of his own falfe Reafonings from them 
 all. Every Tittle of this therefore I have 
 anfwer'd already ; moft of it over and over : 
 And nothing (hall provoke me to any more 
 Repetition ; at leaft if it be po&ble to avoid 
 it : For fometimes, I doubt, it \vill Not. 
 Whatever I meet with that looks like feme- 
 thing yet unanfwer'd, {hall not fail to have 
 ample Juftice done it. 
 
 To the Fir ft) Second^ ami Third Sections, 
 
 HTHE very Titles of thefe Sedions, as 
 -^ well as That of the Dialogue in ge- 
 neral, (hew the Truth of what i have faid. 
 Sect. I. The refpe&ive Qualifications of the 
 chief Inftruments of England'* Converjion 
 and Reform at ion compard. Se<5h II. be 
 Methods and Means cf EnglandV Confer ji- 
 on^ and Reformation compard. Se<S. ilL 
 Tfbe Motives 0/ EnglandV Converfion^ and 
 Reformation cornpard. Have we not had 
 enough of all. this long ago ? Why muft we 
 again be baited with the old Story of St. 
 Auftin^ Gregory^ &c. on the one hand ; 
 of Henry VII I. the Duke of Scmcrfa Q. 
 Elizabeth, &c. on the other ? And that too 
 without the leaft Variety in the Air, and 
 Manner ', without any Reinforcement of the 
 Argument ; or fetting it in any new Light 
 whatfoever ? 1 have fufficiently exposed the 
 Faiihood of his Hiftory, and the Abfurdi- 
 ty a or Impertinence of his Arguments, in my 
 
 Examina-
 
 ^1 An ANSWER to a Tofifh Book, 
 
 Examination of his ad. and 3d. Dialogues : 
 Why fhouid my Reader, and I be teiz'd with 
 the fame Stuff over again ? I appeal to 
 Every one, of what Perfuafion foever, who 
 has our Author's Book in his hands, even to 
 its Author himfelf, whether what I fay of 
 his Crambe be not litteraliy, and ftri<ftly 
 true : And whether I can be juftly charged 
 with leaving: one Word in his Book un- 
 anfwer'd ; tho' I pafs by many Pages to- 
 gether, \vithout taking the leaft Notice of 
 them. All I have to do therefore in this 
 Diviiion (as Before in feveral others) is to 
 remark upon here,, and there, a particular 
 Stroke, which we have not yet met with. 
 
 Before He comes to his Repetitions laid 
 down in Thefe three, and the remaining 
 tzso Sections, under nine diftincl Heads ; as 
 formally as if he had hitherto left thofe 
 Matters untouctid: He no lefs folemnly 
 premifes fix general Maxims, as he calls' 
 them ; which he thinks are incont eft able. 
 * His Fir ft, that the Confer/ton of a Kingdom 
 to the True Faith is the Work of God, dec. 
 is true, in fome Scnfe, or other; but no- 
 thing to the -Purpofe. His Second, con- 
 cerning the Tefhnal Characters of Converts 
 and Reformers may receive Anfwer enough 
 from what I have difcours'd. The *hird* 
 that a Change from one Religion to ano- 
 
 p. 275, &c. 
 
 ther
 
 Entitled^ Engla.nd y sConverJiw^3tc. 385 
 
 ther is a great "Blejjiug^ or a great Curfe^ is 
 profoundly wife ; and I need fay no more of it. 
 ThQfourtb is, That " the common People, 
 " and Perfons of no Learning, who have 
 <c neither Capacity, nor Leifure, to examine 
 cc every controverted Point of Religion by 
 cc it felf, muft have recourfe to certain ex- 
 <c ternal Marks to judge by in the Cafe of 
 " a national Change from one Religion to a- 
 <c nother, whether it be a Change from Truth 
 cc to Falthood, or from Falihood to Truth ; 
 cc and by confequence whether God, or the 
 " Devil be the principal Author of it." I an- 
 fwcr i ft. The common People have Ca- 
 pacity to knotty at leaft to be inftruUed in y 
 all the plain necelfary Points of Religion : 
 And tho' they have not Capacity to exa- 
 mine all controverted Points, and there are 
 many which it is not fit they fbould examine, 
 or meddle with j yet they may very well 
 judge of Points which nothing but the Height 
 of Impudence could have made controverted 
 ones: A Child^ that can re ad the JUkle^ may 
 know that Topery isfalfe. 2dly, The ex- 
 ternal Marks he refers to, are a thoufand 
 times more difficult , and/^/} intelligible to the 
 unlearned, than the internal ones ; or than 
 the thing of which they are pretended to ba 
 Marks : As I have above obferv'd. [See p. 
 187.] But in this Palfagc our Author fpoke 
 the very Heart and Soul of a Topijjh Trie ft : 
 The Common Teople (whom 'tis his Bufmefs 
 C c to 

 
 An ANSWER to a <pop]h 
 
 to feduce) have not Learning and Capacity 
 to judge of 'DoffirineS) but they may eafily 
 judge of plain outward Faffs : That is, they 
 may be made to flare, and be aitcnifird, at a 
 Story about the wicked Lives of Harry VIII- 
 and the Duke of Somerftt ; about Q. Eliza- 
 
 Mary^ Q. Scots &c. They may have 
 their Heads turn'd with a Clatter of Words 
 about Antiquity Catholicity^ the Church, 
 the 'Principle of Unity ^ and fuch like, which 
 they underftand juft as much of as they do 
 of Greek and Hebrew ; and ail this, in order 
 to hinder and divert them from making tife 
 of the common Senfe and Reafon which God 
 has given them : Which will prefently tell 
 them that a Religion which, in thepJatfieft* 
 Cafes , contradicts the Word of God, Reafon, 
 and our Senfes, as Popery does, cannot be 
 true. The fifth is, That the good or lad 
 Char afters of the chief Aciors in />, &c. are 
 external Marks on which a jdid Judgement 
 may le grounded^ &c. But internal ones are 
 much better, and furer ; and thofe external 
 ones are very fallacious, as 1 have fhewn. 
 One of the Marks laid down by "Eellarmine 
 himfelf (tho 1 he makes a ft range ufe of it) 
 is Sanffiity of ^DoUrine : yet our Author 
 takes no notice of That. To which ive may 
 very well add, that the external Marks He 
 here mentions are none of the three which 
 he laid down at firft; I mean in his fecond 
 Dialogue p. 78, 75*. Of which I have faid 
 
 fome-
 
 Entitled^ England^ Converfion, Sec. 387 
 
 fomething already, and of which more here- 
 after The fixth Maxim is, That if the 
 Ccnverjion of England from 'Paganifm to the 
 Roman Cat holt ck Faith (for fo he will have 
 it, tho' nothing, as I have demonft rated, can 
 be more faife) has the external Marks of an 
 extraordinary Mercy on Us Side^ [he might 
 have added, and the internal too, had he 
 meant, as he ought to have meant, that En- 
 gland was converted to Chriflianity^ not to 
 *Poperv\ and the Reformation of that Faith 
 has on the contrary all thofe external Marks 
 againft it [add, ^ tho' all internal ones for it] 
 then an unbiajsd Terfon, &c. I have abun- 
 dantly mewn the Falfhood of the Fads here 
 fuppos'd to be true ; and the Falfhood of the 
 Confequences drawn from them, even if they 
 had been true. 
 
 P. 279. But T rote Hants will fay that the 
 ^Parliament took away all T)efeUs ly invefl- 
 ing them [i. e. the Layman Henry VUL 
 the Child TLdward VI, and the Woman 
 Queen Elizabeth ] with the fupreme EC- 
 clefiaftical Authority. No, but they will not: 
 The Crown, whoever wears it 3 has fuch an 
 Authority inherent in it. 
 
 He afferts * that Troteflants run down all 
 Miracles as pious Frauds. This is of apiece 
 with what he fays P. 181. I pre fume that 
 
 * p. 290. 
 
 C c 2
 
 3 88 An ANSWER to a Topifo Book, 
 
 Trot eft ant Itijhops will nor allow of Miracles. 
 Was there ever fuch Folly, and Infolence ? 
 Be'caufe we deny *PopiJh Miracles, which are 
 falfe and fpurious ; therefore we muft deny 
 all Miracles, even thofe of Mofes and the 
 Prophets, Chrift, and his Apoftles, which are 
 true and genuine. Becaufe we will not be 
 Tapifts, we wmft be Infidels. He and his 
 young Gentleman continue their Boafts of 
 Miracles in the Church of Rome : * And I 
 infift, that We work as many as They. If they 
 have That Power ; why do they not fhew it 
 among us Hereticks, and work Miracles to 
 convert us ? To his whole Argument drawn 
 from our Want of Miracles at the Reforma- 
 tion, I anfwer ; there was no Occajion for 
 them : Nor would there have been any, had 
 the Reformation, as he falfly afferts it did, 
 oppos'd the whole Chriftian World. For it 
 did not introduce a new Religion, but re- 
 eftablifli an old one. The Gofpel was in 
 Being ; That the Scripture was the Word 
 of God, was granted by All : They had 
 therefore nothing to do, but to obey the 
 Voice of Reafon, fpeaking like That which 
 St. Auguftine heard at his Converiion, 20/7^, 
 Lege-, Take up the Book, and read. Reading^ 
 and plain common Senfe, were fufficient; with- 
 out frefli Miracles. Thefe general, and moft 
 
 * p. 290, 29 u 
 
 true
 
 Entitled^ England'^ 1 Converjlon^&c. 589 
 true Obfervations being made ; it will be eafy 
 to unravel all our Author's particular So- 
 ph ifms. * In the Concurrence of two contra- 
 diffiory 3)o$rines, if one of them has the 
 ILvidence of Miracles on its Side> the other is 
 manifeftly convitted of Faljhood. ift. 7 heir 
 Doclrines have no fuch Evidence, any more 
 than Ours. 2dly, Miracles alone are not fuf- 
 ficient Evidence. See 1)euteron. xiii. i, 
 2, 3. Nay the true Doctrine may want them, 
 and the falfe have them. The Nature of the 
 TloUrine muft be confidered, in Conjunction 
 with tho Miracles. \ T^his^ viz, a Cafe in 
 which Miracles are requir'd, was the Cafe of 
 Mofes, &c. That was to atteft a new Revela- 
 tion : We do not pretend to any. When 
 therefore we were delivered from our Worfe 
 than Egyptian Bondage ; there was no need 
 of a Mofes to work Miracles. || T^Tois was 
 likewife the Cafe of the JpoftJes. I anfwer, as 
 above : The Apoftles introduced a new Re- 
 ligion and it was necefTary that Chriftiani- 
 ty fhould originally be eflablifh'd by Miracles. 
 $ Now I dare boldly fay there was fcarce 
 ever a religious Caufe that flood more in need 
 of Miracles to prove that it was the Caufe of 
 God-> than that of the pretended R e formati- 
 on. Why? Becaufe the Reformers opposed 
 the whole Chriftian Church in all Ages 3 con- 
 
 n Ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 3 fequently
 
 390 An ANSWER to a Topifo Book, 
 
 fequently H pretended to new Revelations j 
 and fo on to the End of the Paragraph : 
 Every Word of which I have here, and cife- 
 where, prov'd to be falfe. f If the Trot eft ant 
 ^Do^rine^ as far as it is oppofite to 'Popery.) 
 le a reveafd Tluctrine (for otherwifs God 
 has no Share in if} the fir ft Teachers ofit, 
 to whom we muft fnppofe it was reveal d^ 
 were bound to prove the Revelation of zY, by 
 the Teftimony of imcontefted Miracles. This 
 is palpably collufive. The Proteftant Do&- 
 rine is an ott reveafd Do&rine, (and fo God 
 has a Share in it) not newlv reveafd to the 
 Reformers., nor pretended to be fo. The firft 
 Teachers of it, who were Chrift and his A-r 
 pofties, not the Reformer s, DID prove, the 
 Revelation of it by Miracles ; and That 
 was fufficient. 
 
 His Saying p.i$6. that the Duke of Somer- 
 fet was a Zuinglian* who at p. ij6, was a 
 rank Calvinifl^ is a Trifle not worth our 
 Notice. And his affirming that in K. Ed- 
 wards Time all the Cathedrals^ Tarijh- 
 Churches, and Chapels in the Kingdom were 
 ftripd as naked as Quakers Meet'ing-Houfes y 
 fo that nothing but the bare Walls were left 
 ftanding) is a notorious Faliliood ; but That 
 too, among fo many others of far greater 
 Moment, may well pafs for a Trifle.
 
 Entitled ', England's ConverJMn, &c, 391 
 
 P. 301. 'But I cannot believe that Chrifl 
 was in the midft of them^ [the Reformers :] 
 or that they cotild jay with the dpoftles at 
 the Council of Jerufalem, it has feemed good 
 to the Holy Ghoft, and to Us, &c. Atts 15. 
 c'. 28. I anfwer, ift. The Hoiy Ghoft was 
 in the midft of them, tho' not by Infpirati- 
 on, when they did well ; not When they did 
 ill. 2dly, Tho' the Apoftles themfelves 
 were infpir'd Perfons, yet they were not fo 
 in all things. 3dh r , Therefore the bcft 
 Senfe of Thofe Words it feemed gocd^ &c. 
 appears to be, not that they related to the 
 Holy Ghoft' s prefiding in the Council at Je- 
 rujalem^ tho' he might, and did prefide 
 There, and that in ail likelyhood after an 
 extraordinary manner ; but to the Holy 
 Ghoft's being given to the Gentiles^ well as 
 to the Jews. See c. 8, 9. Which putting no 
 difference between them^ was a Teftimony 
 given by the Holy Ghoft, that the Yoke of 
 the Jewifh Ceremonies was not to be im- 
 pos'd upon the Gentile. And it having thus 
 appear'd to have feemd good to the Holy 
 Ghofl i it there fore Jeemd goodto the ^po files 
 likewife. So that our Author's bringing in 
 That Text, to lefTen and vilify the Reform- 
 ers, was upon all Accounts extremely idle. 
 
 P. 302. 3$i(JMp Burnet acquaints us that 
 
 0. Elizabeth fcrupled at fir ft very much to 
 
 accept the Supremacy. He does not fay fo. 
 
 He only fays ilie did not like the Title of 
 
 C c 4 Supreme
 
 An ANSWER to a Toftfh 
 
 Supreme Head, t And well foe might (con- 
 tinues our Author)/0r/^ could not but know 
 herfelf unqualify d by her eery Sex, &c. 
 This was not the Reafon j Biihep ttttrnet 
 gives us a very different one : His Words are 
 Thefe. * Nor did fhe like the Title of Su- 
 <c preme Head. She thought it imported too 
 ' c great Power, and came too near the Au- 
 <e thority which Chrift only had over the 
 " Church. 
 
 t Ibid. * Hift Ref. Vol.2. P. 37<J. 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Unity of Faith on the one fide 
 comfa^d with the *!) if agreements on 
 the other. 
 
 SOMETHING has been faid of This 
 above j in our Examination of Sect. 7. 
 Dialogue I. * A great Part of what our Au- 
 thor both Here, and There, infifts upon, 
 is not much to his Purpofe* His Book, as. 
 
 f &?. 158,
 
 E^m/e^ England' j- Converfiov, &c 
 
 its Title fets forth, is written aga^nit the 
 Church of England: And the Church of 
 England is not obliged to vindicate all the 
 Reformers and Prott ftants of Chriftendom^ 
 in every thing they did, or do. Whatever 
 therefore were the Differences between 
 t Luther , Carol ft adius , Oecolampadius , 
 ZuingJiuS) andCak'in $ I know not how We 
 came to be concern'd with them. Not but 
 that it is utterly falfe to fay, as He does, 
 that they felt into the utmoft Confufion* and 
 Variance^ like the Guilders ofBabel: They 
 differed in fomc Things, it is true - 3 and they 
 were but Men. But are there not many 
 Sects, and Divifions, among the Papifts? 
 'Tis known there are \ as many as among 
 all Denominations of Proteftants put toge- 
 ther. Our Author therefore has little Rea- 
 fon, both Here, and in the other Part of 
 his Book juft now mention'd, to be fo witty 
 and triumphant upon This Subject, and 
 another which he joins with it, and which 
 is indeed nearly ally'd to it, the Abufe of 
 the Scriptures by fome Men's diftorting them 
 to their own pre-conceiv'd Opinions. \ Thus 
 Martin Luther (fays He) Carolftadius^ &c. 
 found it plain in Scripture that jolemn Vows^ 
 &c. to the End of the Paragraph. I anfwer 
 jft. The Errors he mentions are not worfe 
 
 f P. 305. * P. 54, 55. 
 
 than-
 
 394 ^ n ANSWERS a Toptfb 'Book., 
 
 than thofe of Popery, idly, They are only 
 the Opinions of private Perfons , but thofe 
 which We call Popim are the Do Brines of 
 the Church of Rome. 3dly, It does not 
 follow that becaufe the Scriptures may be 
 abiis d^ therefore they are not fit to be usd. 
 He continues. * t fbui finally the Scriptures, 
 as managd by the Reform d Churches^ are 
 plain and pojitive for Lutheran ifm in Ger- 
 many, for Calvinlfm at Geneva, ($c. It 
 may be fo ; but they are againfl Topery in 
 all Countries ; and that not as they are ma- 
 nagdy &c. but really^ and in tbemfches. 
 Nor are they wrefted, and tortured by any 
 Set of Men upon Earth., more than by Pa- 
 pifts. Thus again : f Luther found his 'Doc- 
 trine plainly in Scrip' tire, avdl'o did Calvin 
 
 btSy &c. Nay no one found his Do&rine 
 
 more clearly in Scripture^ than honefl James 
 Naylor ; as his whole Crew of Quakers do 
 at this very day. I will add one Sed more, 
 and That is the Tapifts: Who pretend ^ to 
 find their Doctrines in Scripture, and that 
 with as little Ground as any becl: in Cbri- 
 jlendom ; who, after all This Clutter too, 
 make ufe of their own private Judgment 
 in reading; the Scriptures, and put others up- 
 on doing the fame : Elfe what do they 
 mean by arguing with us from Scripture ? 
 
 t P. 56. IP. 3s>> 3^ 
 
 But
 
 Entitled, England' j Converfion^ &c. 395 
 
 But to put it at the Worft, 'tis much better 
 to be in 'Danger of making an /// ufe of our 
 EytSj than to have None ; or to be hinder d 
 from feeing with them : Better there 
 ftiould be a hundred fcilfe Opinions in the 
 World, than no true Judgment : Better differ 
 among ourfelves about a thousand things, 
 efpecially if few or none of them be of 
 much moment) than all unite in Nonfenfe, 
 and Ignorance, Vice, and Villany. 
 
 But what is the Drift of our Author's 
 Reafoning upon this Subject ? It amounts 
 to thus much. Becaufe there is a great deal 
 of Error among Proteftants, therefore the 
 Reformation was unjuftifiable : Becaufe ma- 
 ny pretend falfely that their Opinions are 
 fupported by Scripture, therefore none pre- 
 tend it truly. By which way of Arguing, 
 he may as well prove that there is no 'Truth 
 in the J^r/^becaufe there is much Falfe- 
 hood. One Inftance, among many Others, of 
 the Incurable Scepticifm of the Church of 
 Rome. * 
 
 He is upon the fame Argument, in the 
 fame Gaiety of Heart, T. 314. The Lu- 
 therans, who led up the ^Dance, were re- 
 form d by the Zuinglians, and *fhey by the 
 
 Calvinifts. What if they were ? Is it 
 
 any juft Prejudice againft a Reformation, 
 
 See a Book fo Entitled. Printed in 
 
 tha|:
 
 396 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 that it was not all made at once ? c AndThey 
 " again by the Andbaptifts? To rank Them 
 with the Reformers, is an Unchriftian Ca- 
 lumny. " And at home K. Henry V Refor- 
 mation was reform d by K. Edward, and 
 his ly Q Elizabeth." That is, the Reforma- 
 tion was gradual^ and grew better, and bet- 
 ter j as I anfwer'd Before. " And has fine e 
 " been reform d by the 'Presbyterians, In- 
 >c dependents,, Fanaticks^ Quakers, and the 
 tc Lord knows hew many more'' Thrre are 
 not many more ; But however, as I juft now 
 faid of the Anabaptifts abroad, 'tis an in- 
 famous flander upon the Church of Eng- 
 land to call Thefe Schifmaticks, and Here- 
 ticks her Reformers : Nor is Their Schifm, 
 or Herefy, any Argument againft Her ; as I 
 have partly fhewn 3 and partly (hall fhew in 
 the Sequel. 
 
 t His Reflections upon the unfettled State 
 of Things, Variety of Opinions, and Heat 
 of Contention, in K. Henrys and K. Ed- 
 ward's Reigns, are as little ferviceable to 
 his Caufe. A Reformation, tho' never fo 
 good, cannot be made in a Day ; any more 
 than Rome., Popifh Rome, could be built 
 in one. Differences, and Errors too, there 
 will be for a time : But^w Gold is never 
 the lefs fine, becaufe the Parts of it were 
 
 P. 30* 
 
 ill
 
 EwfifW, England'.* Converjiov,&.c. 397 
 
 in a rapid Agitation^ before it became 
 fo. 
 
 His abufive, and malicious Inve&ives a- 
 gamft Thofe otttlandijh Adventurers^ as he 
 ftiles them, who came over into England in 
 K. Edward's Reign, are agreeable to the reft. 
 John Alafco^ he tells us, was a profefsd Ana- 
 bnptift. v Sure he miftakes John Alajco for 
 John a Leaden : For I do not find that the 
 Firft was an Analaptift ; but I find that he 
 was a Nobleman of great Parts, Learning, 
 Piety, and Wifdom. His faying that Teter 
 Martyr^ and Martin 'Eucer^ were Apoflate 
 Triers, is nothing but calling Names^ and 
 legging the Oueftion. What if *Peter Martyr 
 was a Zuinglian^ and 'Bucer partly a Zu- 
 i-ngliaVj and partly a Lutheran ? It does not 
 follow that they brought over with them dif- 
 ferent Syftems cf Faith ; as He untruly af- 
 ferts they did. They might differ in fome 
 c Doffirines, or in the manner of explaining 
 them ; and yet not have different Syftems of 
 Faith. Tho'if they had ; it matters not as 
 to Us, nor in the leaft impeaches the Faith of 
 the Church of England. Neither are the 
 H Vitals of Chriftian Religion half fo much 
 devour d by all the Schifms, and Herefies a- 
 mong Proteftants, as by the damnable Docl- 
 rines of Topery, utterly deftrudive of Cri- 
 ftianity, and even of common Morality. 
 
 $ ?. 307- II 58- 
 
 His
 
 ; v ; ; 
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Boo^ 
 
 His triumphing over the poor Church of 
 England^ as f jcarce keeping upon its Legs 
 &c. always complaining of its being in danger 
 from the Presbyterians, Independents, Ana- 
 baptifts, Quakers, Antitrinitarians, Free- 
 thinkers, &c. to whom He might have added 
 'Papifts, who find their Account from them 
 all, is not very generous, tho' founded upon 
 too much Truth. Neverthelefs He may re- 
 member that to be malign'd, attack'd, under- 
 min'd, betray'd, flander'd and traduced, is no 
 more an Argument againft any Church, than 
 to be in a State of direct Terfecution ftri&ly 
 and properly fo call'd. It was never the 
 Church cf England's way of Reafoning to 
 eftimate the Goodnefs or Badnefs of any 
 Caufe from temporal Profperity or Adverfity. 
 Yet let not her proud Adverfaries of any 
 Denomination, whether Presbyterians, or Pa- 
 pifts, whether Enthufiafts and Fanaticks on 
 the one hand, or Freethinkers, Infidels, and 
 Atheifts on the other, let not any of them, 
 or all of them put together, infult too much 
 over her ; However hated, defpis'd, diftrefs'd, 
 fhe may fometimes be ; ilie can always with 
 humble Confidence ufe the Language of 
 God's Church, as tranfrnitted to us by the 
 Prophet Micah, chap- 7. v. 8. Rejoice not 
 againft me, mine Enemy - y when I fall, I 
 
 t ibid. 
 
 frail
 
 En: it'ed) England'; Converjion, &c. 3 99 
 
 Jhallarife: When I fit in'Darknefa the Lord 
 ffiall be a Light unto me. 
 
 By a very natural Tranfition from This, 
 we may well obfervc ; that when the Church 
 of England could NOT keep upon her Legs> 
 when me was in all Appearance, and human 
 Probability, quite deftroy'd by Presbyterians, 
 and Independ -nts, Hypocrites and Atheifts ; 
 when me feem'dto be dead and bury'd beyond 
 Hope of a Refurre&ion 5 when her Servants 
 could only think upon her Stones, and it pj- 
 tydtbtm to fee her in the ^Duft : Even then 
 fome of her faithful Sons and Servants, wan- 
 dring in Exile, feeking their Bread in foreign 
 Countries, gave the Church of Rome fuch 
 Wounds, as by Reafon and Argument (he has 
 never yet been able to heal ; nor ever will 
 be to th rt Day of Judgment. For Proof of 
 This, to omit ethers, kt BRAMHALL only be 
 my Witne>. 
 
 His calling the feveral Se&s, Schifms, and 
 Herefies, which he has mention'd, * younger 
 'Broods of the Reformation^ is a Complication 
 of two Sophifm; $ Arguing from what is ac- 
 cidental^ to what is e(Te?it/a/ y and afligning 
 That for a Caufe> which is not fo. Our 
 Savicur faid ho came not to fend *Peace upon 
 Earfr, but Ttimfan ' i. e- Divifion would 
 be the accidental Ccnfequence of his Coming. 
 
 ibid. 
 
 Will
 
 4-oo An ANSWER to a <Popi/h 
 
 Will the Romantfts fay that the one was 
 the proper genuine Caufe of the other ? The 
 Cafes are the fame. 
 
 For what our Author afferts J here, and 
 in many other Places 3 viz. that the Church 
 of England feparated from the Church of 
 Rome upon the very fame Trincipte, as our 
 feveral Seffiaries proceed upon in feparating 
 from us, is altogether groundlefs and unjuft. 
 
 G. tC But if it be no Blemifh to the Church 
 cc of Rome, that the Reform'd Churches 
 " have feparated themfelves from her Com- 
 <c munion ; why fhould it be a Blemifh to 
 cc the Reform'd Church of England, that 
 cc the Diflenters have feparated themfelves 
 "from Her* 
 
 T. " Sir, I perceive you don't apprehend 
 cc me right. For I don't pretend that the 
 ' Separation of one, or many Seels from 
 cc any Church can juftly caft a Blemifh upon 
 " it y unlefs their Separation NATURALLY 
 <c flow from a Principle AVOW'D and MAIN- 
 cc TAIN'D by T'bat very Church from which 
 tc thvyfeparate themfelves. Now this is the 
 <c VERY C A SE between our Englijh DiJJenters* 
 <c and the Church of England as Eftablifli'd 
 <c by Law. Becaufe it is a fundamental 
 " Principle of this Church, that every Man's 
 " only Rule of Faith is the written Word 
 
 P. 3o3/ 3 op.
 
 Entitled., England'^ Confer fwn, Sec. 401 
 
 ;c of God, not as interpreted by the Church,' 
 K but as underftood by Himfelf." 
 
 I anfwer, ift. We do not fay, not as inter- 
 preted by the Church^ but as underftood by 
 Himfelf: We fay both as interpreted by the 
 Church, and underftood by himfelf. 2dly, 
 Is it a NATURAL Confequence that becaufe 
 every one's only Rule of Faith is the written 
 Word of God, in reading which he makes 
 ufe of his own Reafon ; THEREFORE People 
 fhould feparate from the Church of Eng- 
 land? The Word of God, if impartially 
 confulted, and interpreted according to the 
 Senfe of the Catholick Church, will tell 
 them that they ought not to feparate from 
 the Church of 'England : But if they will 
 read the Word of God with Trejudice^ and 
 fo pervert its Meaning, or not obey it, when 
 they rightly underftand it ; This is purely 
 accidental^ not natural or necejjary : And 
 the Fault is wholly their own. His Queftion, 
 t For where will Schifmsftop, &c. has been 
 fully anfwer'd Seffi. 7. Dial I. Nor will this 
 'Principle infle ad of uniting them NATURALLY 
 divide them : 'Tis not the ^Principle that 
 does it ; but the ill Ufe that's made of it. J 
 $ut they [the feveral Se&s of Proteftants, 
 the Church of England among the reft] 
 all took care it jhoidd be Scripture interpre- 
 
 t ibid. t m 
 
 D d
 
 401 An ANSWER to a <popiflj Book, 
 
 ted by themfelves. So it ought to be, accor- 
 ding tothebeft of their wnjincere Endea- 
 vours to underftand it, audthebeft Affiflance 
 they could obtain. \ And contrary to the 
 Judgment of that Church, which was the only 
 vifible Catholick Church upon Earth before the 
 Reformation, ift. It is falfe that the Church 
 of Rome \vas the only Church. 2dly, Ac- 
 cording to the excellent Rule of Vincentius 
 Lirinenfis * if any novel Contagion has over- 
 fpread the whole Church ; in fuch a Cafe 
 Chriftiamis CatholicHs, the Catholick Chri- 
 flian^ muft not ftand to the Award of the 
 prejent Church, but antiqnitati inh<trere $ 
 ftick to Antiquity. This xvas the Cafe at 
 the Reformation, upon Suppofition that the 
 Church of Rome was the only Church : And 
 fo the Refornurs^ even upon That Suppofiti- 
 on, which is falfe too, acled like true Catho- 
 lick Cbriftians. But our Author proceeds. And 
 is it then a Wander the 'Dtflenters from the 
 Church of England jlmild challenge the fame 
 Trit'ilege to^ tbemfekes^ and follow the Rule 
 they receivd as a Sacred Tnift from the 
 very Apoftles cf the Reformation ? Anfw. 
 What Privilege,? The Privilege of abtt- 
 fing a good Rule ? Bo they/<?//c^3 it by abu- 
 fing it ? And was the Abufe of it a Sacred 
 Truftj &c ? He adds, f What was main- 
 tain d by the Heads of the Reformation - 
 
 + Com. I. Chap. 4, 6. | Ibid. 
 
 who
 
 Entitled^ England'^ Converfion, Sec. 403 
 
 who fet up the proud Idol of private Judg- 
 ment ^ &c. cannot be juflly blamd in Thofe 
 
 [meaning our 'Diffinters] who guided 
 
 themfelves by the very Ru/e, and Trinciple^ 
 they had taught them. As much as to fay ; 
 Becaufc all Proteftants agree in Thefe Prin- 
 ciples, that Men are to judge for themfelves, 
 and that Scripture only is the Rule of Faith : 
 Therefore the Proteftant Diffenters who fe- 
 parate from the Church of TLngland CON- 
 TRARY to Reafon and Scripture, act jufl 
 as the firft Reformers did, who feparated 
 from the Church of 'Rome ACCORDING 
 to Reafon and Scripture. Or, in other 
 Words, Becaufe two Men, alledging the 
 fame Principle, pretend to be in the Right $ 
 therefore "Both are in the Right, or Nei- 
 ther is. 
 
 t Let us fiippofe a Tlcffior of the Church 
 of England ftwuld tell a 'Di/fenting Mini- 
 fter that he ought to fubmit Mm f elf to the 
 Judgment and Authority of the Church 
 eftabli(l)d by Law. T^be -Minifter wwl 
 readily anj^joer him^ that This was fapping 
 the very foundation of all the reform d 
 Churches For if there were an Obliga- 
 tion of fulmitting a Mans private Judg- 
 ment to any hum an Authority^ &c. to the End 
 of the Paragraph. All This may receive a 
 full Anfwer from what has been difcours'd ; 
 and is nothing but Quibbling upon two or 
 three Words, or Expreflions. As ift, Sub- 
 D d 2 mit
 
 404. An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 rait to the Judgment, and Authority of the 
 
 Church We tell noDii&nters that they 
 
 muft fubmit to Our Church, as Papifts teach 
 \ve mutt to theirs. There is, or ought to 
 be, a SubmilTion to the Church j but not 
 fuch a one as They require, adly, Provi- 
 ded They [the Diflenters] were hit allowed 
 to be Them] ekes the Interpreters of the Word 
 of God. So they fhall be, and are allow'd 
 to be, themfelves the Interpreters of it; 
 meaning, They ihall be allow'd to make 
 Ufe of their own Rcafon, and Judgment, in 
 reading it. But neither They, nor We, 
 nor Anybody elfe, ought to interpret it ar- 
 bitrarily, and with Prejudice : Nobody ought 
 to put his own forc'd Conftru&ion upon the 
 Scriptures, dragging them to his own pre- 
 conceiv'd Opinions, and refolving that They 
 {had fpeak bis Se.ifc, whether they will, or 
 no. But the c Di$enting Mini ft er* our Au- 
 thor may objeft, will fay, We do fo and 
 They do Not : And I anfwer, Saying is not 
 Proving. If it be ask'd, Who fhall be Judge? 
 I anfwer, true,, right, unprejudiced Reafon : 
 Which Everybody may have, if he pieafes ; 
 And if he has it not, 'tis his own fault. I hope 
 it does not follow that becaufe a Man/^r he 
 is in the Right, therefore he is in the Right: 
 If That be the Cafe, we muft argue about 
 Nothing ; from Scripture, or any thing elfe. 
 According to This way of Reafoning, Rea- 
 foning itfclf is Nonfenfe. 3dly, It was, He 
 
 fays,
 
 Entitled, England'.; Converjlon^kc. 405 
 
 fays, a fundamental Principle of the Re- 
 formation that the Word of God,, as Inter- 
 preted according to every Mans private 
 Confcience^ is the only Rule of his Faith. 
 The Word of God is /, and of it felf^ the 
 RtJe : As toitVbeing interpreted according 
 to every Mans private Conscience ; If the 
 Man has informed his Conference, or rather 
 Judgment^ as well as he is able, Prejudice 
 being fet afide, He makes a good Ufe of the 
 Rule , otherwife, a bad one. 
 
 * In the next Paragraph he repeats the 
 Words Quaker, Anal apt ifl^ Sociniar^ and 
 Free-thinker^ \vhich do him wonderful Ser- 
 vice j infixing that They can all maintain 
 their Ground againft the Church of Eng- 
 land ^ upon the Principle we are fpeaking of: 
 But what I have now faid fhews all This to- 
 be empty Noife - y and fo I leave it. 
 
 The Reformation therefore has t not leen 
 fy it's very T rind pies the fruit f til Mother 
 of endlefs )ivifwns \ but 'Popery by it's verv 
 'Principles has been, and ib, the fruitful 
 Mother of all Manner of Wickednefs ; as I 
 have in This, and Another Treatife fuffici 
 ently prov'd, 
 
 Howeyer, He is fure + the Reformation 
 was not the Work of ^ the Holy Ghoft. And 
 I have Before anfwer'd, that what was good 
 
 p. 311. t JW* t P- i |2 - 
 
 P d 3
 
 406 An ANSWER to a Tafijh Book, 
 
 in it was the Work of the Holy Ghoft ; 
 what was bad was Not. || And tben, fays 
 He, it is eafy to guefs what Spirit prefixed 
 in their Councils. That is, becaufe our Re- 
 formers read the Scriptures, and aiTerted the 
 Right of private Judgment -, and upon 
 Thofe Principles, both They and their Succef- 
 fors were likely enough to differ among them- 
 felves in fome Things, and actually did fo 
 differ ; Therefore the 'Devil prefided in their 
 Councils. Fine Arguing indeed ! They 
 agreed in the Main of their Dodrine, in 
 the great Joints of Chriftianity : And fo do 
 We; We of the Church of England at leaft : 
 And in many things of lefs moment We may 
 very fafely differ. 
 
 As for the various Se&s among Prote- 
 flants, the Argument drawn from Them 
 will hold as well againft Chriftianity, as 
 againft Troteftantifm j nay better ; For 
 Chriftendom includes all Ses of Prote- 
 ftants, and Papifts too : And fo there are 
 wore Se&s among Chriftians than among 
 ^P rat eft ants. And, which more nearly con- 
 cerns our Author and his Party, it proves 
 as ftrongly againft Them, as againft Us. 
 t It could not be the Spirit of Truth, whom 
 Chrift promts "d to fend, &c. To This Text 
 I hope I have faid enough under another 
 
 Ibid, t &M. 
 
 Article
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, &c. 407 
 
 Article in the Firft Dialogue, f For the 
 Spirit of Truth is ejjentially the Spirit of 
 Unity and Concord : And therefore as he can- 
 not contradict himfelf, fo he cannot be the 
 Author of Contradittions in 'Thofe who are 
 guided by him. 'Tis certain he cannot be 
 the Author of Contradictions in Thofe who 
 are guided by him ; nor in any Others : 
 Becaufe he cannot be the Author of Con- 
 tradictions at all. But Thofe who have the 
 ordinary Guidance of his Grace (for We do 
 not pretend to the extraordinary Guidance 
 of Infpiration) may differ among themfelves 
 in fome things, notwithstanding That Gui- 
 dance, tho' not becaufe o That Guidance. 
 If Thofe among whom are any Divifions, 
 have not the Direction of the Holy Spirit ; 
 the Church of Rome has it not, for the 
 Reafbn juft mention'd. * Chrift pray d for 
 them that were to be^ &c. that they might 
 be perfe&ly one. John xvii. ver. 23. And he 
 never prayd in vain. Whatever be the 
 Senfe of This Text, the Papifts are no more 
 perfectly one than We are, and fo can 
 make no more Ufe of This Paffage. Some- 
 thing might be faid too of our Saviour's ne- 
 ver praying in vain ; but as it is not to our 
 Purpofe, I pafs it by. \ St. Paul exhorts 
 the Faithful to be of one Accord^ and one 
 
 t m*. * ibid. $ ibid. 
 
 D d 4 KM
 
 40 8 ^ANSWER to a Topifi 
 
 Mind. Phil. ii. ver. 2. St. Tanl does not 
 There ufe the Word Faithful; Thofe who 
 are truly fuch will of courfe be of one 
 Mind in the main. But Avere All whom He 
 exhorted to be of one Mind actually of 
 one Mind ? And did They ceafe to be Mem- 
 bers of the Church^ by not being fo ? He 
 * exhorts the Corinthians to be perfeUly 
 joind together in the fame Judgment^ 
 i Cor. i. ver. 10. That is, belike, in en- 
 tirely fubmitting to the Church of Rome, 
 whatever fhe faid : For, according to Her, 
 no other Judgment was allow'd them. 
 
 t Tray tell me, Sir* could the Holy 
 Ghofl be the Infpirer of Lutheran ifm in 
 Saxony, of .Zuinglianifm in Switzerland, 
 of Calvinifm at Geneva, of Fanaticifm in 
 Scotland, and of a Religion different from 
 them all in England ? Not to infift that 
 Thefe are not fo different from one ano- 
 ther, as He is pleas'd to fuppofe ; Pray, 
 Sir, fays a Heathen, a Mahometan, or a 
 Jew, could the Holy Ghofl be the Infpirer 
 of 'Popery) and all it's Sects, in Italy r , 
 Trance ', Germany, Spain, and 'Portugal* 
 of 'Proteftantiftn, and all it's Sects, in 
 England, Holland, Switzerland, Germany, 
 and fo forth ? $ What other Spirit there- 
 fore, hit the Spirit of Lying, 
 
 *lllct. t tt>id- * Ibid, and P. 313. 
 
 cn,
 
 Converjion, &c, 409 
 
 (My can have been the Author of a Refor- 
 mation [meaning Chriftianity] built upon a 
 'Principle, 'which has been an inexhanftj- 
 lle Source of 'DiviJtonSy wherever it got 
 footing ? For Chriftianity, in general, as 
 I have || elfewhere fliewn, is no lefs 
 built upon the Trinciple of reading the 
 Scriptures^ and under ft anding them with 
 our own Under ft andingS) than Proteftan- 
 tifm in particular. 
 
 P. 314. G. 1'he Unity you fpcak of is 
 mqft certainty a Mark of 'truth. For 
 Truth is effent tally 011 e ', hit the Errors 
 cppofite to it are infinite. Becaufe Truth 
 is one, and the Errors oppoiite to it are 
 infinite - y THEREFORE whatever People 
 unite in muft be Truth. I can fee no man- 
 ner of Connexion hetween Thefe two Pro- 
 pofkions. Truth may be one, as it cer- 
 tainly is j and the Errors oppoiite to it in- 
 numerable, as they certainly may be., for it 
 is not necejfary they Jhoiild be ; and not- 
 withftanding This, a vaft Number of Mcn 5 
 nay all the World, may fingle cut one of 
 Thofe Errors, and unite in it. Neither 
 can it be prov'd by any other Argument, 
 that the Agreement of Multitudes in This, 
 or That, is a fure Sign of it's being true. 
 As our Author's Reafoning from our jDt- 
 
 li Frp. truly Stat, 
 
 vifans
 
 410 An ANSWERfaa Topi/b Book, 
 
 vifions is no lefs ftrong again ft Chriftia- 
 nity than agaiaft Proteftantifm ; fo his 
 Reafoning from the Unanimity^ of Pa- 
 pifts is as ftrong for Heathenifm, or TUT- 
 elfin, as for Popery. To have all it's Pro- 
 feifors agree in every thing, or to have 
 many Differences in Opinion among them, 
 is purely accidetrtal to any Religion : 
 The One does not prove it to be true ; 
 nor the Other to be falfe. Not that, 
 after all, there is more Harmony among 
 Them than among Us ; as I have often 
 been compell'd to obferve.
 
 Entitled, England^ Con verfion,&c. 4.1 1 
 
 To the Fifth, and Lajl 
 SECTION. 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 The General external Marks of the 
 true Church on the one Side^ corn- 
 fared with the entire Want of them 
 on the other* 
 
 I Hope *hs Reader will pardon my chufing 
 to refer him, as I fometimes do., from 
 one Part of my Anfwer to another, rather 
 than to fay the fame Thing over and over. 
 I muft here intreat him to look back upon 
 P. 1 8 1, to the JEnd of That Section, be- 
 fore he proceeds with This. 
 
 P. 31^. England, by its Converfiov^ be- 
 came a Tart of That Society of Chri- 
 ftians which alone can glory in having all 
 tbofe external Marks of the true Church^ 
 &c. meaning by That Society of Chrijlians 
 the Church of Rome. Whereas England 
 by it's Converfion became united with all 
 the Societies of Chriftians in the World^ as 
 well as with the Church of Rome : It be- 
 came a Part of the Catholick Church ; of 
 which the Church of RGMC herfelf was, 
 and is, no more than a Part. His affirming 
 
 that
 
 4\ i An ANSWER to a Topt/h Book, 
 
 that She only has the Marks^ comes next 
 to be confider'd. 
 
 * Perpetual VifibiUty* and Catholicity, 
 He fays, are two external Marks infepar- 
 able from the Church of Chrifl^ and in- 
 communicable to a mw raisd Communion. 
 The Church of England by the Reforma- 
 tion was not a new-raisd Communion 5 
 as we fhall fee prefently. As for the Marks 
 he mentions ; he might have fpar'd his Pains 
 in fpend;ng two Pages, to prove that the 
 Church is zijible. It certainly is fo, and al- 
 ways will be, one way or other. Not that 
 InvijfibiHty^ or the Notion of the Church 
 coniider'd as invifible^ is \ repugnant to the 
 very End for which Chrift has eftablijtid 
 ^Paftors and 'Preachers in his Church^ con- 
 fidcr'd as vifible : Of which hereafter. 
 Much might be faid too upon This Subject, 
 diftinguifhing the feveral Sorts of Vifibility : 
 Concerning which I refer to a fhort Trea- 
 tife of Bilhop Sander fen ^ written with the 
 trueft Judgment, and good Senfe (as every 
 thing of That incomparable Prelate's is) en- 
 titled, A Ttijcourfe concerning the Church^ 
 in Ihefe following ^Particulars ; "The Vifi- 
 bility of the true Church ; The Church of 
 Rome y Troteftant Churches^ &c. London, 
 Printed for R. Taylor, 1688. TheirChurch, 
 
 ibid. * p. 317. 
 
 we
 
 , England'; Conve rjiov, &c. 4. i 3 
 
 we grant, was, and is vifible: Ours was 
 once fubjeft to Theirs , and was Then vi 
 CiUc> tho' corrupt-^ and is Now vifihh, tho' 
 reform d. II ^/J to the Church's Catholicity r , 
 or Univerfality, both in regard of Time and 
 "Place., &c. to the End of the fecond Para- 
 graph. This is anfwer'd in the Place I re- 
 ferr'd to at the Beginning of this Section. I 
 therefore only obferve upon Thofe Words, * 
 
 // the Apoflolical Sncceffion fbould in 
 
 one and the fame Communion lie at any time 
 entirely extinU, it could not .le faid that 
 Cbri ft has remain dwitbjtoc? to theEndofthe 
 World : That if by cne, and the fame Com- 
 mtimov^z meant the univerfal Church, it is 
 true ; If it means a particular Church, as we 
 muft crave leave to fay the Church of Rome 
 is, till the contrary is prov'd ; it is falfe. 
 Have not many particular Churches adually 
 perim'd ? f <$, fays the young Gentleman, 
 / fee very plainly that perpetual Vijibility 
 and Catholic hy are external Marks infepa- 
 r able from the true Church of Chrift. 1 his 
 is, in Effect, the fame juggling as before. If 
 the Church means the Church univerfal, as 
 it ought to do ; it is true, but no Difcovery, 
 and nothing to the Purpofe, that perpetual 
 Vifibility and Catholicity are infeparable 
 from her ; tho', by the way, the Univerfality 
 
 IIP. 117, 118. *P US, j/tof. 
 
 of
 
 414 An ANSWER to a Topifb 
 
 of- the Church Universal, that is in plain, 
 tho' bad'.E^/% the Wholenefs of the Whole, 
 is an odd Kind of Mark* If the Church 
 means a Church^ as it ought not to do j nei- 
 ther perpetual Vifibility, nor Catholicity is 
 an infeparable Mark of it : Nay, to fay the 
 latter is fo, is a Contradiction. But I am 
 infcnfibly breaking my Promife, and una- 
 wares repeating what 1 have faid in the Place 
 referred to. 
 
 * I pretend to (hew ^ fays the Preceptor, 
 that as England was by its Conversion made 
 a Tart of that Society ofChriftians to which 
 fhofe Marks of the true Church lyoft un- 
 doubtedly belong d.> fo was it by its Reforma- 
 tion cut off from that Society. From this 
 Place to the End of the Book our Author 
 drains all his Nerves, draws his Argument 
 to a Head, and labours his Point with the 
 utmoft Diligence, to prove that the Church 
 of England^ the Reformation loft its Being, 
 and is now no Church at all. Let the Rea- 
 der be very attentive in obferving the Force 
 of his Reafonings : For I mall produce them 
 in their full Force ; and do pretend to fhcw^ 
 on the contrary, that his boafted Strength is 
 the moft defpicable Weaknefs. I mail be at 
 the Pains of tranfcribing almoft every thing 
 
 p. 319. 
 
 he
 
 Entitled^ England' j Converjion, &c. 
 
 he fays, ditfccT: it minutely, and anfwer it 
 Sentence by Sentence. 
 
 t As to the Mark ofVifibility-y England 
 was by its Confer/ton incorporated with the 
 Church of Rome ; that is to fay, with the 
 whole 'Body ofCbriftians then in Communion 
 with the See of Rome. " This is very dark ; 
 and his That is to fay, is a ftrange one. Does 
 he mean that the Church of Rome was the 
 whole Body of Chriftians, becaufe all the 
 Chriftian Churches in the World were then 
 in Communion with her? (As they very 
 W T ell might be, (he being'as then pure, and un- 
 corrupt, tho' now the Cafe is much altered 
 with her, and was fo at the Time of the Re- 
 formation.) If this be his Meaning ; he may 
 as well fay that becaufe all the Parifh is in 
 perfect Friendfhip with John^ therefore John 
 is all the Pariih. But why fhould not Wil- 
 liam ^ Thomas, or Richard^ have as good a 
 Right to That Catholick Title? They being 
 <?//fuppos'd to be in Friendfhip with each o- 
 ther. Was not the Cfaurch of Rome as much 
 in Communion with all other Churches, as 
 all other Churches with Her? W 7 hy muft She 
 therefore, upon the Score of Communion, be 
 the whole Body of Chriftians, any more 
 than any other particular Church ? Or 
 does he mean, that ail the Chriftian Churches 
 
 \lbld* 
 
 being
 
 4.1 6 An ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 being then in Communion with That of Rome, 
 whatever Society became a Part of the 
 Church of Rome> became a Part of the 
 Church Univerfal, or the whole Body of 
 Chriftians ? This is very true -, but the fame 
 might as well be faid of joining with any o- 
 ther particular Church upon Earth. How- 
 ever it be ' t our Author feems to have a Fetch 
 in exprefling himfelf thus ambignoufiy : 'Tis 
 to make the Church of R ome look at lea ft like 
 the whole Church ; and That is better than 
 Nothing Let him mean what he will; I fay, 
 as I faid above, and more will be faid of it 
 immediately, that England 'at its Converfion 
 was no more incorporated with the Church 
 of Rcme, than with any other Church. 
 
 * NowtbeTaftors of^his Church had \in 
 then own Communion^ an uninterrupted vi- 
 fible Succeffion of Bifhops, from the dpoftles 
 down to the Time wherein England was 
 converted. Well ; fo had the Paftorsof other 
 Churches : And what then ? // THEREFORE 
 became a Tart ^/THAT Church., &c. Does 
 it follow that England at it's Converfion be- 
 came a Part of the Church of Rome, becaufe 
 the Church of Rome had a SuccefTion of 
 Bifhops down to that time ? This there- 
 fore is as ftrange as the that is to jay above- 
 mention'd. England, as I faid, became Part, 
 
 * ibid. ibid. 
 
 not
 
 Entitled, England 1 ] s Conver [ion, Sec. 417 
 
 not of the Church of Rome, but of the uni- 
 verfal, or Catholick Church. Why does he 
 not prove, as well as affirm, that it became a 
 Part of the Church of Rome ? Its being 
 converted by Millenaries from Rome proves 
 no fuch thing. England is converted to 
 Chriftianity by Romans : Or, if you pleafe, 
 a Church in England^ or the Church of En- 
 gland, is planted by Romans: Is the Church 
 of England therefore a Part of the Church 
 of Rome ? The fame Argument will as well 
 prove that the Naticn of England is a Part 
 of Italy. According to this, the Church of 
 'Rome it felf was but a Part of the Church of 
 Jemfakm', for it was planted by Jews. 
 Not that it would fignify any thing to the 
 Merits of the Caufe, if his Affertion were 
 true: If the Church of England at firftwere 
 a Part of the Church of Rome ; me after- 
 wards did well info far ceafing to be a Tart 
 of her, as to renounce her Corruptions, and 
 be no longer a 'Partaker of her Sins. Nor 
 did This unchurch her : On the contrary, it 
 made her a much letter Church than me was 
 before. Suppofe the Church of England 
 (our Adverfaries, for Argument's Sake, ad- 
 mitting her to be now a true Church) mould 
 all, except one Diocefs, be over-run with the 
 Jrian Herefy, and make the Belief of it a 
 Term of Communion. I hope That Diocefs 
 E e would 
 
 id
 
 4 8 An ANSWER to a 
 
 would neither be Heretical, nor Schifmatical, 
 in refuting to communicate with the reft of 
 the Church of England. * Which Church 
 (continues He, meaning That of Rome} had 
 the Mark of its Icing the true Church de- 
 monftrable in its perpetual J^ijibiliiy. Does 
 he mean this perpetual Vifibility a pane 
 ante, or a pane poft > backwards, or for the 
 time to come, or both Wiiys ? Was the Church 
 of Rome pcrp2tually vifible in the high^ glo- 
 rious Senfe, as the Rcmanifts always mean ? 
 Was it fo, wh^n it did not conlift of above 
 twenty, or thirty Souls ? Or if it was ; were 
 no oth^r Churches fo r 1 This is but a poor 
 Mark of: the true Church : And if we con- 
 {ider it as to Futurity, it is a worfe. For 
 how can That be a Mark to us now, which we 
 {hall never fee till the Day of Judgment ? 
 Tho Church of Rome's future perpetual Vi- 
 Cbility is a demonftrable Mark of its being 
 the true Church : That is, we are Now to be 
 guided by a Mark which nothing but T^ime 
 can fhew us ; and which in Probability will 
 never b 3 (hewn at all. Befides; if the Church 
 of R me fhould continue to the World's End, 
 as 1 verily believe fhe will not; does it fol- 
 low that no other Church muft fo continue ? 
 If not ; how can This be a Mark to Her ? 
 For our Author muft not bere at leaft take it 
 
 a* 
 
 for
 
 Entitle^ England^ Converjlon, &c 419 
 
 for granted that fti3 is the only Church ; be- 
 caufb That is the very thing to be now prov'd. 
 He adds, * When therefore it (the Church of 
 England: by its pretended Reformation fepa- 
 rated itfelffrotn the Communion of the Church 
 <2/*Rome, and fo became a new raisd Com- 
 munion j it ceasd to be a Tart of the true 
 Church, i ft. Properly fpeaking (as I have 
 feveral times had occafion to obferve) We 
 did not feparate from the Church of Rcme y 
 but the Church of Rome from Us : Nor are 
 We fo much as feparated from the Church 
 of Rome in all things, but only in her Cor- 
 ruptions. 2dly, the Church of England did 
 not by its Reformation become a new-rais'd 
 Communion: It continued to be, what it 
 was before, the Church of England. For 
 the Church of England it Was, even when it 
 was in Subjection to the See of Rome. She 
 did not therefore by the Reformation ceafe 
 to be a Part of the true Church ; Be- 
 caufe (he never was a Part of the Church of 
 Rome : Or, if fhe had been, the Church of 
 Rome was never the true Church. 
 
 t <$Vr, if England, when it feparated it- 
 f elf from the Church of Rome, did not at the 
 fame time feparate itfelf from the true 
 
 Church. Here one would expect he 
 
 (hould prove the Church of Rome to be the 
 
 * Ibid. * Wtd. 
 
 B e i true
 
 An ANSWER to a Topi/h Book, 
 
 true Church. Inftead of which, we are put 
 off with a Shuffle, laying the Burthen or Proof 
 upon Us - 3 contrary to the Laws of Difputa- 
 tion, and right Reafon. t T^he Advocates 
 for the Church 0/ England are bound to mark 
 out to us in what other vijible Society of 
 Chriftiavs the true Chuch jubfifted before 
 the Reformation, ift. Had the Church of 
 ~Kome, and all other Churches betides ours, 
 utterly perilled before our Reformation, and 
 no Society of Chriftians remain'd in the 
 World, but in England ; That would have 
 been fufficient to fecure the Being of the true 
 Church : The true Church would have fub- 
 lifted in That , pure at firft, afterwards cor- 
 rupt, then pure again. So we are not bound 
 to mark out, &c. Not but that, 2dly. No- 
 thing is more eafy to be done. r l he true 
 Church, before the Reformation, fubiifted in 
 many other vifible Societies of Chriftians, 
 commonly call'd particular Churches, befides 
 That of Rome ; not only in Europe, and a- 
 mong others in England^ but alto in dfia, 
 and Africa, the Greek Churches efpecially : 
 All thefe were true particular Churches, 
 tho* all, both Eaftern and Wcftern, very cor- 
 rupt ; and in them the true Universal Church 
 fubfifted. * Nay over and above they mtift 
 Jhcw that at the time of it's Separation from 
 
 HitL 
 
 the
 
 Entitled, England^ Converjionfec. 42 j 
 
 the Church of Rome, it lee ante a Tart oft 
 and was incorporated with^ that other pre- 
 exiftent vifible Church, ift. It was not ne- 
 ceffary it fiiould be a Part at all ; tho' in Fa& 
 it was fo; it might have been itfelf the 
 Whole. This Gentleman feems to have a 
 very fingular Notion, that it is eflentiai to a 
 Church to be a Tart^ to be incorporated. As 
 if any particular Church, That of England 
 for example, muft necelTarily perifli, if all o- 
 thers fhould : In That Cafe, inftead of being 
 a Church, it would be the Church. Accor- 
 ding to this Notion, the firft Church, That 
 of J-erufalem^ was no true one $ And if fo s 
 I am fure there has been none fince. 2dly, 
 There were however, as we have feen, many 
 other Churches at the Reformation. But 
 why muft we fhew that the Church of En- 
 gland THEN became incorporated with them? 
 She was incorporated with them BEFORE, as 
 Part of the Univerfal Church ; and fo conti- 
 nued ) only fhe became more pure than any c 
 them were, or than fhe herfelf had been. 
 She continued incorporated with all the 
 Churches in the World, the Church of Rome 
 itfelf among others, in all things except their 
 Corruptions. 
 
 t Now for his famous 'Dilemma: For tho' 
 it be abundantly anfwer'd by what has been
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifo Book, 
 
 faid ; yet fince it is a 'Dilemma^ we muft 
 have the Anfvver over again. When they je- 
 parated 1 h em f elves from the Church of 
 Rome ; it either was the true Church of 
 Chrift) or it was not. I anfwer, it was Not 
 THE true Church ; it was only A true Church, 
 and that too in the loweft Senfe of the Word, 
 t V they fay it was Not ; they muft either 
 Jhew us another <vifible Society of Chriftians 
 upon Earthy in which the true Church of 
 Chrift was preferv d before the Reformation^ 
 and this is IMPOSSIBLE/^ them to do > or 
 they muft fay that Chrift had no true Church 
 upon Earth before that time^ and that by 
 Consequence the Creed was falfe for many 
 Ages j which is downright 'Blafphemy. i ft. 
 'Tis not neceffary to {hew another vifible So- 
 ciety before the Reformation, betides That 
 of Rcme^ or any other befides herfelf. Had 
 fhe been the only Church in the World, ihe 
 would have been the whole Church ; fothat 
 even then Chrift would have had a true 
 Church, tho' a corrupt one. We may here 
 obferve in palEng, that our Author feems to 
 think there can be no Reformation of a 
 Church j unlefs there be a Church of Rome 
 to be leparated from. 2dly. We do (hew 
 many other fuch Churches ; and I have na- 
 med them, t But if they own that the Chtirch 
 
 of
 
 Entitled, England^ ConverJlon^Scc. 
 of Rome was the true Church of Chrifl be- 
 fore the Reformation j then they muft own 
 cf courfe that they feparated themselves from 
 the true Church of Chrijl> and continue fe pa- 
 rated from it to this 'Day j which is pro- 
 nouncing their own Condemnation. i(t. The 
 Church of Rome was not the true Church j 
 nor do we own any fuch thing. 2dly. If it 
 had been \ fuppotmg the whole Church to be 
 as corrupt as That of Rome was, it would 
 bo not only lawful, but neceffary tor any one 
 Part, or Diltri<Tt of it, to reform itfelf ; whe- 
 ther the reft would or no. Nor would fuch 
 a Diftri^ become Schifmatical, by refuting to 
 communicate with the relt in their abomin- 
 able Corruptions j but they would be Schif- 
 matical, in impoling unlawful Terras of Com- 
 munion, t Unhappy Reformation^ concludes 
 he, which cannot anfwer for itfelf^ without 
 renouncing the Cveed^ or confcjjlng it f elf guilty 
 of Schifm. And unhappy Church of Rome, 
 fay I, which cannot afiault the Reformation, 
 with any Weapons,but grofs Forgeries inftcad 
 of true Fads, and tranfparent Sophiftry in- 
 ftcad of folid Reafoning. 
 
 The young Gentleman having, as ufual, 
 paid his || Complements to the 'Dilemma* re- 
 cogniz'd and faluted both its Horns^ taik'd 
 of the no Hole we have to creep out at, and 
 
 t ibid. II IM. 
 
 E e 4 of
 
 n ANSWER to a <Poj)ifh Book, 
 
 of the mortal Wound given us, which ever 
 way we turn ourfelves; the Preceptor, in the 
 Fulnefs of Satisfaction and Triumph, pro- 
 ceeds Thus. * Sir y it was the Force of this 
 Argument [O ! the irrefiftible Force of it] that 
 obligd federal Troteftant Writers to have 
 recourfe to the wretched Chimera of an 
 invifible Church^ as the left expedient they 
 could then think of to maintain the Authority 
 of their Ttottrine, and the Snccejfwn of their 
 Taftors. He fhould, I think, have nani d fome 
 of thefe Writers ; but whoever they be, they 
 might have given a much better Anfwer ; and 
 had no occafion for this Recourfe, as I have 
 fhewn. The Church of Rome was vifible 
 before the Re r ormation ; and is ftill, both vi r 
 fible, and vifibly corrupt : The Church of 
 England was viiible, when in Communion 
 with the Church of Rome j and is vifible ftill, 
 tho' not in Communion with the Church 
 of Rcme. t / call it a Chimera ; becaufe 
 an invifible Church is in Reality a Church^ 
 and no Church". An outward invifible 
 Church, if he pleafes, is a Contradicti- 
 on. But we may without any Abfurdity 
 fay there is an in viiible Church ; or rar 
 ther, that the Church in general, or any 
 Church in particular, may be confider'd in 
 
 aai P. jai 
 
 two
 
 Entitle^ England*; Converfion^ Sec. 415 
 
 two Refpefts ; as vifible, in its external Re- 
 gimen and Ordinances ; as inviiible with re- 
 lation to Chrift. Befides which, there is a*- 
 nother Notion of an invifible Church made 
 life of by fome Divines j who mean by it, 
 and properly enough^ I think, the 'whole %ody 
 of Thofe who by true Faith and Obedience 
 are united to Chrift, and finally fav'd. But 
 be thefe things as they will, they are foreign 
 to our Controverfy. t So that Terfons re- 
 due d to this miferable Shift give up the 
 Caufe, &c. What if they do ? The Caufe is 
 not therefore loft : Since others defend it a 
 much better Way ; and let This Man an- 
 fwer them, if he knows how. * 1 add that $ 
 Quaker , or Muggletonian needs not le in any 
 Tain to trace the Antiquity of his Chitrcb, 
 and 'Doffirine, e'ven to Noah, or Adam, if he 
 Chafes , fo he be but allow d to have recourse 
 to an invifible Church to make good his Tre- 
 tevfans? Thefe Quaker s> and Muggletoni- 
 ans^ &c- are of wonderful Service to him. 
 But I anfwer ; 'I heir Dodrines are falfe ; 
 and would be fo, tho' they could be traced 
 up to Noah, or Adam : And the fame may 
 be faid of Topifl} ones. Could Quakers and 
 Mtiggletonians have recourfe even to a vifible 
 Church, underftanding by the Word a vifible 
 Body, or Seft of Men, and run it up to the 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 Days
 
 4i<5 An ANSWER to a Topifb Book, 
 
 Days of Noab, or Adam himfeJf ; That 
 would not prove them a Church >, as both Pa- 
 pifts, and We, ufually and properly under- 
 hand the Word ; bccaufe They have no Or- 
 ders. Nor would it prove their D-Mvines to be 
 true ; becaufe falfe Doctrine may be, and 
 a&ually is, as old as Adam^ and Eve* For 
 theD-ivii taught falfe Do&rine to the Latter. 
 We 9 on the contrary, have demonftrated our 
 tDoffirines to be true, and our Orders to be 
 as good as Thofe of our Popilh Adver-* 
 fanes. 
 
 * IVben therefore they were driven out of 
 This, &c. many of tbem> as the Calvi- 
 niili in France, CO/fJ to their Aid all the 
 broken^ and Jhatterd Tro(p* of condemn d 
 Hereticks to f>atch up a kind of ridiculous 
 Succeffion. Thefe were the old Iconocla^s^ 
 Albigeois^ Vaudois^ &c. What is This to 
 the Church of England 1 Thofe of whom 
 he fpcaks put it upon another wrong 
 Foot : There was no more occafion for re- 
 curring to 7^/J, than to th^ Notion of an 
 inroifible Church. [Tho 1 , by the way, This 
 fliews that Popery was not in qui t P^fli- 
 on, for many Ages before the Reformat!- 
 on.] They fhould have continued the Suc- 
 ceflion of Orders, as We did in England. 
 However, Thofe whom our Author here 
 
 calls
 
 ., England'.* Co#vcrjion,&c 9 4.17 
 
 calls Hereticks were not Hereticks. The 
 Eiconcclafts^ in plain Englifh Image-break- 
 ers^ were much more Orthodox Chriftians 
 than lmage-Worfoippers\ The Albigeois 
 were not a Spawn of the Manichtans : 
 The ^Berengarians^ Huffites^ Vaiidois^ and 
 'Bohemian %rethren y were imperfeft Refor- 
 mers : They were guilty of fome Errors, 
 but were much better than Papifts. * A 
 flrange fort of Apoftolical Succeffion ! Which 
 began not till many Ages after the Apoftles, 
 was interrupted with Gaps of fever al hun- 
 dred Tears^ and compos d of Setts all dif- 
 fering^ &c. Afterwards he tells us, All 
 Thefe, as Proteftants pretend, f prefer d 
 the Churches Vifibilitj^ and continued the 
 Sticcejfion of her Taflors in the right Line. 
 W E fay no fuch Thing : The Church of 
 Rome, and Thofe in fubje&ion to her, tho' 
 corrupt in Dodtrine, and Practice, kept up 
 the Succcfifion of Paftors in the right Line. 
 
 J As to the Troteftants of the Church of 
 England, / know not what way they pre- 
 tend to derive their ~Ecclefiaftical Succejfion 
 from the Apoftles. Are you in earned > 
 Did You never hear, that We pretend at 
 leaft, to derive it in the fame Line that 
 You do ? || Only this I am ftire of, that 
 Thomas Cranmer was the firfl Troteftant 
 
 t P 3". * Ibid. || ibid.
 
 428 An ANSWER to a Toplfl 
 
 Jtilhop, and Trimate of England ; He bad 
 not therefore any TredeceJJbrs of the Trote- 
 ftant Communion. That is, there was no 
 Proteftant Bifhop before there was a Pro- 
 teftant Biihop : Which I grant. || And by 
 confequence y tbo be fate in the Archiepif- 
 copal Chair y &c- be could not juftly pre- 
 tend to derive his Succeffion from the Apoflles^ 
 after be bad feparated bimfelf from the 
 Communion of tfhofe who were the true 
 and undoubted SucceJJbrs of the Api-ftles. 
 ift. He, and his Brother Reformers, Bifhops, 
 as well as others, were not properly, and 
 fchifmatically Separates. 2dly, If They 
 had been ; their Epifcopal Charafter had 
 continued. But I infifl upon the Former. 
 * For furely the Apoftles will ne^er own any 
 for their true^ and lawful SucceJJors y but 
 3tijbops and Taftors of their own Communi- 
 on^ and Members of T* hat Church which 
 They founded- I have read, in the Acts^ f of 
 the Apoftles Fellow/hip^ or Communion (to 
 which, by the way, is added their ^Dt/clrine^ 
 wherein the Church of Rome does not con- 
 tinue ftedf aft j) but how the Church of 
 Home, efpecially as corrupted, and deprav'd, 
 comes to be Their Communion, and that 
 exclusively of all other Churches, 1 can by 
 no means underftand. Any more than I can, 
 
 Ibij. f Ads *. 4?. 
 
 how
 
 , England's Converfion, &c. 429 
 
 how the Apoftles founded tfbat Church, as 
 fo corrupt ,- or that they founded no other 
 Church at all. Cranmer was as true, and 
 tincfiiibted a Succeffbr of the Apoftles, as 
 Thofe from whom our Author fays Hefepa- 
 rated : And They were the Schifmaticks in 
 continuing to impofe unlawful Terms of 
 C ommunion ; not He in refufing any longer 
 to comply with them. \ If Thomas Cran- 
 mer was entitled to a 1'lace in the Apoftoli- 
 cal Family ; all the Arian, Novatian, attd 
 Donatjft Bifhops 'were likewife entitled to tbe 
 j me 'Pier optative, ift. The Arian^ Nova- 
 tt n y and 'Donatift Bifhops continued to be 
 of the dpoftolical Family^ as Bifhops, tho* 
 not a* ArianS) Novatians^ and ^Dcnattfts. 
 2dly Cranmer was neither an Arian^ a 
 Novatian^ nor a T^onatifl , nor guilty either 
 of Hor^'fy, or Schifm, by refilling to con- 
 tinue in Communion with the Church of 
 Rome. On the contrary, the Papuls were, 
 and are, both Hereticks, and Schifmaticks. 
 * "But This has not hinder d but that they 
 have been always regarded as a fpurious 
 Race, tmworthy to be counted among the 
 Succ efj or s of the Apoftles. A fpurious Race 
 in Do&riaes and Pradifes, as the Papifts 
 are ; but true Succeffors of the Apoftles in 
 point of Epifcopacy, as the Popifli Bifhops 
 
 ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 are
 
 430 An ANSWER to a Vop/h Book, 
 
 are likewife. Be it as it will j This affeds 
 not Cranmer : who was in neither refpeft 
 fpurious. t And why fo ? %ecaufe by teach- 
 ing 'Dcffirines unknown to the *Bijhops that 
 went before them [as Cranmer did Not} 
 they broke off^ or were f pew d out of the Com- 
 munion of Tbofe> who were the true^ and 
 undoubted Succej/brs of the Apoftles. Why 
 fo much of true and undoubted* As if 
 Cranmer were not as true and undoubted 
 a Succeifor of the Apoftles, as any other 
 Bifhop. This Writer himfelf afterwards 
 owns he was. But This is thrown in, to 
 puzzle, and confound \ as I have obferv'd 
 of other Strokes in his Performance. But 
 to anfwer directly : The Arians^ Novatians^ 
 and T)onatifts uhjuftly broke off, or were 
 juftly fpew'd out, or Both : But the Re- 
 verfe is Cranmer s Cafe. J So that we may 
 put the Queftion to Archbijbop Cranmer, 
 wherewith Tertullian puzzled the Here- 
 ticks of his time. Qyi eft is vos ? Q$tando 9 
 et unde veniftis ? You may put the fame 
 Queftions ; but not with the fame Reafon : 
 And we are not afraid of being near fo 
 much puzzled by them. Deflring the Rea- 
 der to remember what I have abundantly 
 prov'd in my Examination of tke 2d, and 
 3d, Dialog ues 3 I will put the Queftions to 
 
 Ibid, and P. 323- * r-S*?' 
 
 Cranmer
 
 Entitled, 
 
 Cranmer in our Author's own Words ; and 
 Cranmer ftiall be fuffosd to anfvver them 
 in His. 
 
 Tapifl* *" Who are you, Thomas Cranmer? 
 ic when, and whence did you come ? 
 
 Cranmer. Strange Queftions to a Man of 
 my Dignity, and high Station. You know I 
 am Archbifhop of Canterbury^ and Primate 
 of all England - 3 two of the moft illuftrious 
 Titles in the Chriftian World : Tho'you are 
 pleas'd to call me by the familiar Name of 
 Thomas Cranmer. As to your wben^ and 
 whence -, if you mean (for I fuppofe you do 
 not expect I fhould tell you I came this Mor- 
 ning from Lambeth :) Who gave me my Avr* 
 thority as Archbifliop ? tho' you have none to 
 examine me : I ftill wonder at your Queftion : 
 Since you know, as well as I ; and do not 
 yourfelves pretend but that my Authority, 
 in this refpecl:, is unqueftionable. 
 
 ^Popift. " Who gave you a CommiCSon to 
 * c enffave the Hierarchy to the fecular 
 *' Power? 
 
 Cranmer. Nobody 5 Nor did I, or any one 
 elfe, fo enflave it. 
 
 'Papift. K Or to make a Layman and a 
 cc Child fupreme Judges of Controverfies in 
 c Religion, and the Fountains of [all] Ec- 
 <c clefiaftical Jurifdidion ? 
 
 * P.
 
 43 2 An ANSWER to a 
 
 '., Cranmer. I had no fuch Comraiflfion ; Nor 
 is any fueh thing done, by Me, or Anybody 
 elfe. 
 
 JPapift. K Whence had you your Powers 
 :c to turn upfide down the Frame of the 
 <c Church committed to your Charge ; to 
 * c change the Faith and Worfhip which St. 
 <4 Atiguftine had eftablifli'd ; and introduce 
 e Doctrines to which the Bifhops your Pre- 
 :c decefifors had been utter Strangers for poo 
 <c Years together ? 
 
 Cranmer. You talk as if the Reformation 
 was made by me only : When you very well 
 know it was made by the joint Legiflative 
 Authority of the Civil and Ecclefiaftical 
 Powers. However ,* the Frame of the Church 
 and Religion was turn'd upfide down Before, 
 and is Now fet upon it's right Bottom. The 
 Faith and Worfhip which St. Auftin eftab- 
 lifh'd is not chang'd, but reftor'd ; Neither 
 were the Bifhops my PredeceiTors utter Stran- 
 gers for 9 QO Years to the Do&rines which 
 you fay are introduced, but which are, in 
 truth, only reftor'd: They profefs'd the fame 
 for about 200 Years ; And fo did the Uni- 
 verfal Church from the Time of the Apoftles 
 before them. And if any of thofe Primitive 
 Worthies were now living ; They would 
 be utter Strangers to your Religion, 
 
 * Now
 
 Entitled, England' sConverfion, 8cc. 433 
 
 * Now whoever will pretend to anfwer 
 Thefe Qiieftions for Cranmer ; I defy him, 
 &c. This 'Defiance happens to be anfwer'd 
 already : And fo I fay no more of it. 
 
 There is no ^Difference) He fays, f be- 
 tween the Cafe of Cranmer and Q. Eli* 
 zabetlis Bifhops < but what makes rather 
 to their > if advantage * Becaufe the J^ali-* 
 dity of Cranmer' j Ordination never was 
 diluted by Any. Whereas that of Q. Eli- 
 zabeth'.? ^Bifhops has never been alley? d of 
 by the Church of Rome ; And her Authority 
 is of no fmall Weight, ift. That of Q, 
 Elizabeths Bifhops was never queftion'd by 
 any Member of the Church of Kome^ till 
 above 40 Years after their Ordination : 
 When. That fenfelefs Lye of theNags-Heact 
 was firft invented, sdiy, The Church o 
 Homes Authority is of no Weight at all ,< 
 becaufe She is Judge in her own Caufe. 
 J *But fuppofing it were valid j it would 
 avail them nothing in the main. For 
 they would at the beft be but upon the fame 
 Level with Cranmer^ &c And That, as I 
 have fliewn, is enough : For the Sophiftry 
 of Thofe Words their own Communion^ and 
 the fame Communion^ w r hich are * here again 
 drag'd in^ has been fufficiently laid open. 
 And Thofe, t There was no vi/ible *Prote- 
 
 * Rid. \ttlA. laid, and P. 324. * P. 324, | Pad. 
 
 P f Jtant
 
 J4- An ANSWER toa 
 
 ft ant Communion before there was a Trote* 
 ft ant Reformation comes to This There 
 was no Reformation before there was a 
 Reformation. 
 
 J Ihe Mark caHd Catholicity^ we are 
 told, was never denyd to the Church in Com- 
 rmmion with the See of Rome., even by it y s 
 prof efsd Enemies. Yes, but it was; and 
 (till is ; in both Senfes of the Word. She 
 is not Catholick, as it fignifies Univerfal : 
 For That is a Contradi&ion, making a 
 Part to be the Whole. She is not Catho- 
 lick, as it fignifies teaching the Doctrine of 
 the truly Catholick Church : In That Senfe 
 the Church of England is Catholick j and 
 the Church of 'Rome is not. 
 
 || Nay in all Troteftant Countries we 
 are as well diftingtiiflf d by the bare Name 
 of Catholicks > as a Native of England is 
 known by the Name of an Englifoman. 
 This is a mcft admirable Argument ! An 
 Argument from a Word; like That about 
 the Majs elfewhere mention r d. But ift. 
 'Tis not true that This Language obtains 
 univerfally. Few, or None among us, of 
 Learning and Knowledge in thefe Matters, 
 call them Catbolicks, or Roman Catholicks 
 either, idly, If all Mankind, to avoid 
 quarrelling about a Wordy did make ufe of 
 
 This
 
 Entitled, England V Converfion,&c. 455 
 This to diftinguifli a certain Set of Men, 
 Who ridiculoufly call themfelves by That 
 Name j yet it would not follow that All 
 others muft allow them to be wh'at They 
 themfelves pretend to be. Neverthelefs, I 
 muft do our Author the Juftice to own 
 that This Argument, as fooliih as it is, is 
 made ufe of by the great "Bellarmine $ who. 
 makes the Name Catholitk his firft Note of 
 the Church. 
 
 It is here to be obferv'd that our Author 
 In This Paragraph has twice This Exprefli- 
 bn, the Church in Communion with the See 
 of Rome. In all his Argument hitherto, 
 it has been the Church of Rome ; Now 'tis.. 
 the Church in Communion with the See of 
 Rome. Three Pages hence it will be the, 
 Churches in Communion with the See of 
 Rome. This does not look fair ,- But we 
 wave it at preient. 
 
 \The Church of Rome., * He fays, has 
 Universality of ime^ by having had an 
 'uninterrupted vijible *Beingfrom the T.ime of 
 the Apoftles to this *Day. I anfwer, fo has the 
 Church of England. -\And offi/ace, by hav- 
 ing not only extended her Faith to the moft 
 remote ) and barbarous Nations, tho now 
 
 Apoftatiz'd from it HER Faith? 
 
 t What ? Did the Church otRowe plant the 
 
 * P. 325. i
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifi Book, 
 
 Jfian and African Churches, which are 
 now extinct? This is News to us. I thought 
 St. John, St. Thomas^ and the reft of the 
 Apoftles, and Apoftolical Men, who never 
 were Members of the Church of Rome> 
 had planted them. Befides,- had the Primi- 
 tive Church of Rome extended HER Faith 
 to Thofe Nations ; THAT Faith was not 
 the Faith of the prefent Church of 
 
 Rome. t c $ut by being Ukewife in full 
 
 pojfl'ffion of all tbofe Nations of Europe 
 where the reform d Churches are now eftab- 
 HJtid. How was She in pofTefllon of them ? 
 They were in communion with her, I own ; 
 partook of her Corruptions ; and were by 
 her Tyranny, and their own Misfortune, 
 or Folly, or Both, in fubjedion to her ; 
 but they were not Parts of her, as we have 
 feen. \ Nay, ffie has at this very time 
 tyijhops., and 'Pallors propagating the Gof- 
 pel among the Infidels both of the Eaft> and 
 Weft Indies. So have J/>, Paftors, tho' not 
 Bifhops : And there is even a Bimop over 
 Thofe Paftors ; tho' he does not refide in 
 any of Thcfc Countries- * Therefore Uni- 
 verfality of Tlace which St. Auguftine calls 
 the Content of 'People, and Nations, cannot 
 be denyd her. What ? Has She the Con- 
 fen t of all People, and Nations ? Or is (he 
 
 Ibid. + Ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 diffused
 
 Entitled, EnglandV Converjion, &c. 437- 
 
 diffused over the Face of the whole Earth ? 
 Not that it would be any Argument, if 
 Ihe were. For being the Catholick Church 
 does not mean being fpread over all the 
 Worlds but being all the Church that is, 
 whether it be greater., or lefs. If the for- 
 mer were the Cafe ; there would have been 
 no Catholick Church at all : And would be 
 none Now. For the Church, at the Be- 
 ginning confifted but of 3000 Souls ; and 
 at this Day not above a iixth Part of the 
 World is pofTefs'd by ChriiHans of all De- 
 nominations put together, f Nor can it con- 
 fequently be denyd but that England by it's 
 Conversion had the Advantage of being made 
 *Par taker of the tiluftrious tfitle of Catho- 
 lick, in the full Extent of it's Signification. 
 In other Words j Becaufe the Church of 
 Rome extends over all the World, which it 
 does not 3 and never didi THEREFORE 
 'England at it's Converfion being made a 
 PART of the Church of Rome which it 
 was not, became PARTAKER of the ii- 
 luftrious Title, of being the WHOLE. The 
 Reader, I hope, by this time pities me for 
 having undertaken to travel thro' fuch an 
 Ocean of Falfhoods and Abfurdities. 
 
 Is even That Part of the World 
 which is -Cbriftian, ALL of it Topifi ? So 
 
 F f 3 far
 
 An ANSWER to a Topifi Book, 
 
 r otherwife, that the Members of the 
 irch of Rome bear no Proportion to the 
 infinitely greater Number of Chriftians who 
 condemn many of her Do&rines, and reject 
 all her Authority. Even in Thefe Parts of 
 Europe, Papifts do not out number Chrifti- 
 $ns, near fo much as it is commonly imagined. 
 * But if to the Reform'd Churches in Thefe 
 Parts, we add all the Chriftiau World be- 
 {Ides, which is not Popifli, in Europe 9 Afia^ 
 and Africa'-, the boafted Amplitude of the 
 Romijk Church, and Number of Roman- 
 Catholicks will be inconfiderahle. To 
 pafs over the vaft Bodies of Armenian 
 Ch-iftians , Abajjlnes , "Jacobites , " and 
 Multitudes more ; f " We need not in- 
 " ftance in any befidcs the Greek Church. 
 : Which has had an uninterrupted Succef- 
 :c fion of Bifhops from the Apoftles, is of 
 <c greater Antiquity than the Church of 
 <c Rome y and has produced more Fathers 
 cc than That Church. This Church is di- 
 e vided into many Nations ; as the Hybe- 
 c riavSy the People of Colchis, now call'd 
 Cc Mivgrelia, the Arabians^ Chaldeans, 
 c ' &iMofianSi JSLgyptians, Mufcocites, "Bui- 
 ^ ganans.) Sclazcnians y Albanians^ Cara- 
 
 See Brtre-wd's Enquiries, f See Bp. Fowler on Bellar- 
 4th Note of the Church.
 
 Entitled, England'/ Converjion, &c, 4.39 
 
 ' c manianSy Walachians, Moldavians G/v- 
 c cians, &c. And we may guefs what a 
 c huge Difproportion there is in Largenefs, 
 <c between all the Greek Churches and, 
 Cc Thofe fubjeft to the Church of Rome, 
 c by This, that the Countries in E&rope, 
 c and JJia y which the Muscovites alone 
 c inhabit, are computed to be near of as 
 <c great an Extent, as all Europe befides." 
 I know very well the Papifts have a fliort 
 Anfwer to This : All Thefe are not true 
 Churches, nor true Chriftians ; And they fay 
 the fame of Us. They are very corrupt, I 
 confefs j and fo is the Church of Rome. 
 But why muft They be no Churches * No 
 true Chriftians ? Why becaufe they are not 
 Papifts. The Argument bottoms, as other 
 Popifli Arguments do, upon the noble Prin- 
 ciple of Begging the Queftion. They prove 
 all others to be no Churches, becaufe tfbey 
 only are tbe Church : when the very Point 
 in Queftion is, whether they are, or no. 
 
 * But did it's Separation from tbe Com- 
 munion of tbe Qburcb of Rome procure it 
 any Advantage equivalent to This ? It 
 procured none at all, if it did not procure 
 an Advantage equivalent to Nothing. But 
 it did procure an ineftimable Advantage, 
 the Ttirity of Cbriftian Religion, f Was 
 
 * ttit i Ibid. 
 
 F f 4 tbere
 
 44-0 ^ANSWER to a fojri/b 
 
 there be fides the Roman Catloolick Church, 
 another Cathohck Church of a different Com- 
 munion ? There cannot be two Catho^- 
 lick, i e. Upiverfal Churches,, of a different 
 Communion, nor of the fame Communion ; 
 becaufe there cannot be twoWholes with re^- 
 fpect to the fame Aggregate of Parts : Or, 
 in plainer Words, becaufe one Thing can- 
 not be two Things, J To which England 
 was ajjociatedy &c. That's giving the Ltye 
 to the Creed, &c. And fo on to the End 
 .of the next Paragraph, with the Unity, and 
 perpetuity of the Church, and the Abfur- 
 dity of Invifibility : All which we have 
 had, about a dozen times over, already, 
 II Or finally did England itfelf become the 
 Cathohck Church lyit's Separation from the 
 Church of Rome ? No. Tho 1 it might 
 have been the Church, as I obferv'd , And 
 would haze ^^been, if all other Churches had 
 perim'd. * That is ftillftr anger, and fir an^ 
 ger ! And indeed ihe lame ftupendious Won* 
 der> as If a little Finger cut off from the 
 'Body Should become the whole 'Body. Juft 
 fo we fay of the Church of Rome , and 
 with much more I$.^fon, ift. Becaufe the 
 Church of hngland' iid not fchifmatically 
 put off, or divide herfelf from ffer. 
 
 II Ibid.
 
 Entitled, England'.* Converjion, &c. 
 
 sdly, Becaufe the Church of England ne- 
 ver pretended to be the whole Body ; and 
 the Church of Rome docs. To this we 
 may well add, that his Comparison is in- 
 congruous, and improper. Becaufe the 
 Church coniifh of hwwgenetMS Parts ; not 
 of bet erigf nevus j as a human Body does. 
 Nor is This an empty Subtilty : but very 
 material to our prefent Controverfy, and 
 that upon more Accounts than One. No 
 Part of a human Body, as a Finger, Hand, 
 Arm, or Leg, is a human Body : But every 
 Part of the whole Church is a 'Church $ 
 as every Drop of Water is Water, every 
 Piece of Gold is Gold; including the whole 
 Nature of Water, or Gold. If a Lirnb, 
 when join'd to a human Body, is not a hu- 
 man Body -, much lefs, if poflible, can it be- 
 come a human Body by being feparated 
 from one : So far other wife, that it muft 
 foon perim ; and even while it continues, it 
 is of no Ufe. - But if all the Catholick 
 * Church, except one Part of it, /'. e one 
 1 'particular Church, be overfpread with Anti- 
 chriftian Errors, and impofe them as Terms 
 ' of Communion , That Part may, and ought 
 to go off from it : Notwithftanding which, 
 it ftill continues a' Church, including in it- 
 felf the ; whole Nature of a Church. 
 
 | However
 
 44 2- 'An ANSWER to a Popi 
 
 t However, as it is much eafar to coit- 
 fute^ than filence certain TPcople^ [Popifti 
 priefts,' for- example] there are feme who 
 'finjvser by owning^ &c. in ihort, that the 
 Church of Rome- was, and is, a true Church 5 
 becaufe it holds all the 'Effentials. t A N D 
 
 'so Chrifl always had a Church upon Earth. 
 By your JEeave, we do not anfwer So, 
 
 : We fay ;iri deed that the Church of Rome is 
 
 ( irr oti$ fenfe'^trtte Church j but we fay with- 
 al a that'Chrift would have had a true Church 
 upon Earth, tho' That of Rome had long 
 fince periili'd. 
 
 * cc G. But how then do They juftify 
 
 <c their Separatipn from the Church of Rome ; 
 c if it both is 5 and was 3 a true Church before 
 
 " the Reformation ? 
 
 " P.ByfayingthatbefidesEflfentials, itim- 
 
 cc pofes many Articles as Terms of Commu- 
 4 nion., which at the beft are doubtful^ and 
 
 cc not 'neceffary to be believ'd. For which 
 c reafon they compare it to a human Body 
 
 cc disfigur'd with Wens^ and other ^Bkmijhes- 
 
 tc tho' it has all the noble., and eflfential 
 
 u Parts of a true Body." You are pleas'd to 
 
 make us exprefs ourfelves very tenderly , Of 
 
 which prefently. 
 
 " G. Very fine indeed ! The Thought is 
 
 " quaint, and new.*' Afmart Anfwer^ young 
 
 t ibid. $ ibid. 
 
 Gentle-
 
 Entitled, England^ Confer fwn,kc. 443 
 
 Gentleman : not to fay, fomewhat pert. But 
 the Thought is not new j it may perhaps be 
 quaint enough : So quaint, that your Church 
 will not eafily get over it. How does your 
 Tutor himfelf come oft ? 
 
 5 C < p. I know not whether it be old, or 
 c new y but I am fure, &c" in fhort, that 
 it only throws Duft into ignorant People's 
 Eyes. cc For ift, Their charging the Church 
 "*of Rome with impofing Articles as Therms 
 " of Communion which are not neceffary to 
 cc "be believd) is a mere precarious Aflfertion, 
 cc &c. On the contrary, it has been demon- 
 cc ftrated a thoufand times that their preten- 
 " ded Wens^ and c fylemijbes are found Apo- 
 " ftolical Dodrines, ^." I anfvver, ift, We 
 charge them with much more than impcfing 
 Terms of Communion, which are not necef- 
 fary to Salvation ,- we charge them with im- 
 poiing Hich Terms as dirctfly lead to 'Dam- 
 nation. We infift that their Church has not 
 only Wens and "Blemijhes^ but the 'Plague ; 
 that tho' ihe retains the Effentiah^ yet fhe 
 is deeply vitiated even in them ', and has 
 blended abominable Corruptions with the 
 very Vitals of Chriftianity. 2d]y, This Af- 
 fertion of ours is not precarious^ but has been 
 demonstrated a thoufand times. I my felf 
 have demonftrated the Truth of it, in This, 
 and another Treatife. Not one of the di- 
 ftinguifhing Do&rines of the Church oiRpme 
 iin L - is
 
 4H dn ANSWER to a Topijh 
 
 is | found or Apoftolical^ as ancient as Chri* 
 Jlianity it felf } taught in the very primitive 
 AgeS) and handed down as aT^erm of Cat ho- 
 lick Communion from Age to Age from this 
 very time , as our Author with unparallei'd 
 Confidence afferts they all are. They are 
 contrary to the Doctrine and Practice of the 
 Apoftles, and the primitive Church : They 
 are fo many Corruptions, and Adulterations 
 of Chriftianity. 
 
 He anfwers, || 2dly, That from our own- 
 ing the Church of Rome to be a true 
 Church before the Reformation, it will fol- 
 low that Chrift, in our Opinion, has ever 
 fince the Reformation had more than one true 
 Church upon Earth. So he has j and had 
 before the Reformation. /. e. more than one 
 particular Church ; tho' but one Catholick. 
 And where is the Abfurdity of This ? || ct For 
 cc fince, continues He, they are fo generous as 
 <c to allow the Church of Rome to be one ; 
 cc I prefume they have no worfe Opinion ei- 
 <c ther of their own, or other reform'd Chur- 
 cc ches. So thatthefe, tho' all contradi&mg 
 cc one another in many important Points, 
 cc are neverthelefs all true Churches: Which 
 <c I think is Nonfenfe with a Witnefs." ift, 
 They do not all contradict one another in 
 many important Points. 2dly, They may do 
 
 IK<L 
 
 fo
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, &c. 44.5 
 
 fo; and yet be all true Churches. You will 
 not take notice of the plain Diftindion upon 
 the Word true , which I have repeated fo 
 often that I am refolv'd to repeat it no 
 more. Cannot two Men contradict one an- 
 other in the moil important Points ; and yet 
 both be.rrftf, /. e. real Men ? The Cafe is 
 exa&ly parallel as to Churches. This there- 
 fore is not Nonjenfc ^ith a Witnefs ; but ve- 
 ry good Senfe. In another Place * you fay, 
 if the thing of which you are fpeaking be 
 not fo, and fo j you are yet to learn what 
 Ncnjenje is. By your talking fo wildly about 
 it, and talking fo much of it, one would 
 think you were indeed. 
 
 t Nor will the Matter le much mended 
 ly their Saying^ that they are all but one 
 Church to Cbrift ; inafmuch as they all be- 
 lieve in Chnft. Who fays this? They are no 
 other wife one., than as being all put together 
 they make up the one Catholick Church : 
 As all the Parts make up one Whole, f " For 
 " if this large Notion of Unity be allow'd 
 :c of i the Myftical Body of Chrift, inftead 
 " of being compos d of uniform Parts, will 
 cc rather refembie the Monfter defcrib'd by 
 <c Horace with a Man's Head join'd to a 
 c HorfA Neck, cfc,. And his Garment, in- 
 <c ftead of being Seamlefs, will be fHtch'd 
 " up together with as many different Pieces 
 
 * P. 317. 
 
 as
 
 ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 " as there are Patches in a Beggar's Coat." 
 He had heard of the Church's confifting of 
 homogeneous^ which he calls uniform Parts.,' 
 which I juft now took Notice of; but either 
 did not underftand it, or would not rightly 
 apply it. The Body of a Man, or of a Horfe, 
 as truly confifts of heterogeneous Parts, as the 
 Monfter he alludes to. And the Catholick 
 Church may confift of uniform Parts, if we 
 muft have That Word ; and yet particular 
 Churches differ in many Things even of Im- 
 portance. Nor does this laft break it's Uni- 
 ty -, fince, notwithstanding That, they may 
 hold Communion with each other, and agree 
 in all necefTary Points. * But is it not fome- 
 what furwizing that all the reformed Chur- 
 ches ^ ana the Church 0/Rome, That Church 
 fp hated) &c. flmild be found at length to lie 
 but one, and the fame Church ? Who, again 3 
 fays This.? The Church of Rome is certaiuly 
 diftinft from the Reform'd Churches, and 
 They from each other, as particular Church- 
 es : And the Catholick Church is made up 
 of Them, and all other particular ones, f 
 Or thatfo many Churches of different Com- 
 munions and Religions foould be the One y 
 Holy, Catholick^ and Apoftlick Church., 
 which we profefs to believe in the Creed? 
 i ft. We do not fay that the Church o 

 
 Entitled, England^ Converjlon,8cc t 447, 
 
 and the Reform'd Churches are the ene, &c. 
 There are many other Churches in the 
 World befides Thefe. 2dly. They may be of 
 different Communions, (tho'if they be, there 
 muft be a Scbifm fomewhere) and of diffe- 
 rent Religions in fome refpeds ; and yet all 
 put together be the one, &c. for Reafons 
 which I have often given. Neither Schifm^ 
 nor Herefy, neceifarily deftroys a Church / 
 tho' either of them makes it a corrupt Church, 
 There is one Sort of Schifm indeed, which 
 makes Thofe who are guilty of it no Mem- 
 bers of the Catholick Church, becaufe it 
 makes them no Members of any particular 
 one. But This is befide our prefent Que- 
 ftion. 
 
 f He fays, 3dly, That according to this 
 Conceflion of ours, viz. that the Church of 
 Rome is a true Church, we muft regard the 
 very left of our Writers and Treacbers, as a 
 Tack of the vileft Calumniators ufon Earth. 
 He mould not furely call the bcft of our 
 Divines by fo vile a Name, without a good 
 Reafon : And what is That ? - - In con- 
 tinually charging the Church of Rome with 
 abominable Idolatry. For He cannot poffibly 
 conceive how Idolatry can be reconcild 'with 
 the EJJentials of a true Church. What 
 does he mean by Reconcifd ? Doubtlefs in 
 
 the
 
 448 An ANSWER to a, Tofifb Book, 
 
 the Nature of Things there is no more 
 Concord between Idolatry and the Eflenti- 
 als of a true Church, than there is between 
 Cbrifl and "Belial But yet as to Terjins, 
 a Church may be Idolatrous, and at the 
 fame time retain the EfTentials of a true 
 Church : As I have often faid of the 
 Jews. 
 
 f Laftly> Their owning that the Church 
 of Rome was A true Church, is a were 
 *Put off', and does not anfwer either "Part 
 of my 'Dilemma direffly. Studious of Bre- 
 vity as I am, I let pafs fomething which 
 might here be remarked upon,- and permit 
 him to proceed without Interruption, f For 
 my Queflion is not whether the Church of 
 Rome was A true Church before the Refor- 
 mation : For That imports no more than 
 asking whether it was a PART of the 
 true Chtirch of Chrift- This is the firft 
 time he has (poke out upon This Subject, 
 and fpoke to the Purpofe. Let the Rea- 
 der attend with the utmoft Diligence to 
 what follows. * <But my Queftion, or T>i- 
 lemma [accurately exprefs'd] to which I 
 
 DEMAND A DIRECT ANSWER IS pre- 
 
 cifely This : viz. Whether before the Refor- 
 mation the Church of Rome with all the 
 Churches in Communion with That See was 
 
 t ibid, t IM* 
 
 that
 
 Entitled, England'^ Convcrjior^ &C 449 
 
 that One, Holy, Catholick, find dpoftolick 
 Chiirch, the ^Belief whereof we pfofefs to 
 lelieve in the Creed, or not ? Here You alter 
 the Queftion : Juft now you faid the Church 
 of Rome : Here You fay the Church of 
 Rome, with all the Churches in communi- 
 on with That See. And I ask, what do 
 You mean by in Communion with ? In Stib- 
 jeUion to ? Or barely in Communion, &c, 
 according to the common way, of fpeak- 
 ing ? If the Former , I anfwer, as directly 
 as You caii defire, that before the Refor- 
 mation the Church of Rome, with all the 
 Churches in Communion with That See 
 (meaning, tho' very improperly in Subjeffii- 
 on to it) was NOT That One, Holy, Ca- 
 thoUck, and Apoftolick Church, the 'Belief 
 whereof we profefs in the Nicene *lreed. 
 If the Latter ; *tis impoflible to anfwer 
 You directly ; becaufe 'tis neceffary to di- ' 
 jlinguifh with refpeft to different times'. 
 Which Diftin&ion You carefully avoid, as 
 You do many others / for a Reafon too ob- 
 "vious to be mention'd. In the primitive 
 times, when all the Churches in the World 
 were in Communion with That of Rome, 
 as they well might be, fhe being 
 Then uncorrupt. ; the Church of ~R.ome 
 with all in Communion with her was That 
 One, dye. Or rather, to fpeak much more 
 properly, the Church of &$tfi&} AND ahl 
 fri CoTflmunion with her were That -one; drc.
 
 450 An ANSWER to a <popt/h Boo^ 
 
 i. e- All the Parts made up the one Whole. 
 But then who fees not that every particular 
 Church in the World, as well as That of 
 Rome> might have been particularly men- 
 tioned by Name (for there is really no 
 more in it) all the reft being taken in the 
 Lump. As Thus ; The Church of Jerufa-^ 
 lem with all in Communion with her is That 
 One, &c. The Church of Jntiocb with all 
 m Communion with her is That One, &c. 
 And fo of the reft. Unlefs our Author will 
 fay that all the other Churches were in Com- 
 munion with That of Rome, but She not 
 in Communion with Them, nor They with 
 one another : And if He will, He fhall en- 
 joy his Saying without Difturbance. With 
 refpect to other times 9 particular Churches 
 might be, and actually were, in, or out of, 
 Communion with That of Rcme, according 
 as it happened : But their being out of Com- 
 munion with Her no more made them 
 ceafc to be true Churches, than their be- 
 ing out of Communion with any other par- 
 ticular Church. If any particular Church, 
 or Churches, That of Rome among the 
 reft, were caufeleJJy out of Communion 
 with any Church ; They were Schifmatical, 
 but ftill they were Churches : Tho' if they 
 were Not, 'tis nothing to our prefent Pur- 
 pofe J becaufe This gives nothing peculiar 
 to the Church of Rome. Whenever there- 
 fore all the Churches in the World were 
 
 not
 
 Entitled, England'^ Converfion, Sec. 4.5 I 
 .not in Communion with That of Rome; 
 it would have been Falfe -to fay, " The 
 
 c Church of Rome with all the Churches 
 ? c in Communion with That See is That 
 <c One, &c. 
 
 But perhaps I need not have made This 
 Diftinc~tion j becaufe, according to the Ro- 
 maniftS) and as They manage the Matter, 
 no Church can be in Communion with the 
 Church of Rome, without being in Sub- 
 jeffiion to her. Upon which Foot, I anfwer 
 directly as Above : Before the Reformati- 
 on, the Church of Rome with Thofe in 
 Communion with her, and in Subjection to 
 her, was NOT That One, &c. Becaufe of 
 the Greek Churches, and many more which 
 I have mention'd. So that his Affumptioa 
 upon This Part of the Dilemma, * If they 
 fay not -, then the Creed waf falfe before the 
 Reformation^ becaufe they cannot Jhew any 
 other Society of Chriftians^ which was "That 
 Church^ is utterly falfe, and groundlefs^ 
 Tho' I might well flop here j yet as I have 
 hitherto anfwer'd both the Branches of his 
 r)ilemmas 3 I will not now at laft depart 
 from That generous Method, f But if they 
 anfwer in the Affirmative j then the Church 
 of Rome, with all the Churches in Commit 
 nion with 'That See, was not only A true 
 
 * Ibid, t /''' 
 
 G g 2 Church
 
 45* An ANSWER to a Topi 
 
 Church., hit THE SOLE, and only true 
 Church of Chrift upon Earth. So, we have 
 it out at laft. This is the grand 'Point he 
 has been labouring all this while j tho' he 
 never fpoke the Words 'till Now : He men- 
 tions them but once> as if he were afhamd 
 of them, as well he may be : But That 
 one e is at the Clofe of all, in order to make 
 the deeper and more lafting Imprefiion. 
 The Affertion itfelf I have fully and par- 
 ticularly difprov'd, in breaking the other 
 Horn of his Dilemma, to which I refer, 
 as alfo in many other Parts of my Anfwcr. 
 Neverthelefs, the Reader fhall fee the Si- 
 tuation of the Argument as it Here ftands. 
 6 But tf they answer in the Affirmative [as, 
 remember, we do Not :] i. -e. If We fay 
 the Church of Rome, with all the Churches 
 in Communion with that See,, was lhat One 
 7/6/r, &c. then the Church of Rome with all 
 in Communion^ dec. was THE SOLE, &c. 
 Which amounts to thus much in fewer, and 
 plainer Words; If the Church of Rome was 
 the only Church, the Church of Rome was 
 the only Church ; Underftanding the Church 
 of Rome, as the Word is us'd in it's wideft 
 Extent. But not to infifl upon That, let 
 us conficler the Confequence he* draws from 
 This, fuppofing the Propofition to be true, 
 as I have prov'd it to be moft falfe. * 4nd 
 bv confequence England was by its pretend- 
 
 * Liid. and P. ;;9, 
 
 ed
 
 Entitled, England's Converfion, Sec. 455 
 
 ed Reformation cut off from the fole> and 
 only true Church of Chrift upon Earth. I 
 deny That. If a Separation was neceflary, 
 as We have fliewn it was ; Thofe who 
 made it neceffary were the Schifmaticks, as 
 I have often iaid : tfbey were cut off, not 
 We. According to This Arguing of his, 
 Elijah^ and the fcven thoufand who would 
 not worfhip c Baal> were cut off from the 
 only Church ; and Ahab^ and the Idolatrous 
 Majority, were the true Catholicks. To 
 talk plain Englifb, and common Senfe ; upon 
 This Suppofition, viz. that the Church of 
 Rome and her Adherents were the only 
 Church (tho' they were Not) every (ingle 
 National Church, confequently the whole 
 Church of Chrift, was corrupted - 3 England^ 
 among the reft. She reform d herfe/f; and 
 Others did not. How is She cutoff? She 
 is pure, and They continue corrupt : She is 
 therefore in a better Condition than They 
 are, and than She herfelf was ; but where*s 
 the cutting off all this while? Why 'tis 
 palpable, ridiculous, ftrutting, over-bear- 
 ing, impudent Nonfenfe : contrived to de- 
 lude ignorant Souls, and impofe the grof- 
 feft Corruptions upon them. ' 
 
 However, according to Him, cut off it 
 is ; meaning England: f And there, fays 
 
 t P. 
 
 320.
 
 ANSWER to a Topi/b Book, 
 
 He, I leave it. His next Sentence is the 
 beft in his Book, * For now I have done. 
 And fo have I, for That reafon : And 
 am heartily glad of it ; For never before 
 did I labour through fuch a tirefome Maze 
 of Fallacies, Falftioods, Swaggerings, Re- 
 petitions, and Impertinencies. 
 
 t The young Gentleman, having returned 
 his Thanks to his Preceptor for the great Care 
 he has taken of him, fays, that tho' he has 
 not yet Capacity enough to examine every 
 ^Branch of Controversy by itfelf^ yet he is 
 Sufficiently capable of discerning White from 
 'Black. By your favour, Sir, according to 
 the Principles of your Church, You have 
 no Authority, any farther than She thinks 
 fit, to difcern White from Slack ; For when 
 You fee a certain Wafer, you are bound to 
 believe it is a human Body. What he adds ? 
 that J an ignorant T^radefman may refolve^ 
 c. as folidly as the aUefl Scholar y I have 
 anfwer'd jP. 385,^. anddefire every T'radej- 
 man, and all other unlearned Perfons of 
 either Sex, as they value their Souls, feri- 
 oufly to confider it. Leaving This alfo with 
 the Reader, nnd intreating him never to 
 forget it j for the more deeply he thinks of 
 it, the more he will be convinced of its 
 Truth, and Importance : That fuppc- 
 
 fmg
 
 Entitled^ England'^ Converjion^ &c. 455 
 
 ling the particular Corruptions of Popery to 
 be fuch as We have demonftrated them to be, 
 the general Arguments of Papifts againft 
 our Reforming as we did, are no better than 
 fo many Arguments againft Repentance^ 
 whenever a Multitude is concern'd. Be- 
 caufe we were involved in a vaft Body 
 which was corrupt 5 therefore We, being 
 as corrupt as the reft, ought for ever to 
 have continued fo. Let every fincere Chri- 
 ftian think with himfelf, what bleffed Rea- 
 foning This is. In Anfvver to which. We, in 
 the Main, and with due Alterations ac- 
 cording to the particular Circumftances, 
 apply to Ourfelves as compar'd with the 
 Romanes, Thofe Words of St. Teter (the 
 pretended Founder of the Papal Authority) 
 concerning Chriftians as compar'd with Hea- 
 thens. * For the time paft of our Life 
 may fuffice us to have wrought the will of 
 the Gentiles - y when we walKd in lafcivi- 
 . oufnefs^ luflsj excefs of wine^ revelling*^ 
 banqueting*^ and abominable idolatries. 
 And by the Grace of God we will continue 
 to be what They unreafonably condemn ; 
 tho' They continue to f Speak evil of us y 
 and think it STRANGE that we run not 
 with them to the fame excefs of riot* 
 
 * i Pet, 4. 3- t v. 4. 
 
 F / N I S.
 
 E R H~ 
 
 P. 27. I. <>. readAthefl. P. 36. 1. 6. dele tffco/*. 1. 7 . 
 dele /or inftancc. P. 114. 1. 7. read unwritten. P. 144. 1.4. 
 read 150. P. 213. 1. 22. read <TJ. P. 241. 1. 13. read Tew*/. 
 P. 272. I. ip, for /u read //&e. P. 355. 1. 24- for Church 
 read Cmw.
 
 JB O K S printed for THOMA s AST L E Y at 
 the Rofe in St. Paul's Church- Yard, 1728. 
 
 TH E Sacred Interpreter : Or, a Pra&ical Introduction to^ 1 
 wards a Beneficial Reading and a thorough Underltanding 
 of the JJoly Bible .- Containing, I. A faithful Hiftory of 
 the four antient Monarchies, (the Aflyriau, Perfian, Grecian, 
 and Roman,) absolutely neceflary for the Knowledge of the 
 Condition of the Jewi/h People. II. A General View of the State of the 
 Jewifli Church to the Deftruction of J en:falem III. Remarks on the Pan- 
 rateuch, and the Piophets in the OLD TESTAMENT, and on the Go;"-, 
 pels, theAfts of the A pottles, and the Epifties in the N E W ; ftewing :-. 
 Defign and chief Scope of each Book. IV. An exa& Chronology oi" the Hoiy 
 Scriptures, taken from Archbifhop U:her and Mr. Archdeacon Echara. 
 V. A Diflertation upon Revealed Religion, and an Account of thole Di- 
 vines who have defended it. VI. Difficult Texts rf Scripture expiauj'a, 
 with a Recital of fuch Sacred Myfteries as ought not to be made the Sub- 
 ject of human Enquiry. Likewife the feveral Parts of the Holy Land are 
 compared with the Accounts given thereof by modern Travellers .- The 
 whole defigned to render the Stuuy of the Holy Scriptures more eafy and 
 inftrufHve. By David Collyer, late Vicar of Great Coxweli, Berks. la 
 Two Volumes, 8 vo. Price los. 
 
 The Truth and Excellence of the Chiiilian Religion aflcrted : Agsir.ft 
 Jews, Infidels, and Hereticks. In Sixteen Sermons, preached at the Lec- 
 ture founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle Efq; for the Years 1701, 
 1702. Wherein is fliewn, I. That the Evidence for this Religion is the 
 zjaoft unexceptionable. II. That it eftabjifoes and pcrtefts the Law. 
 HI. Makes the cleareit Difcoveries of a future State. And, IV. Accomplices 
 the Prophecies of the Old Teftameut. V. That the Belief of its Docirines 
 is reafonable. VI. The Obedience rcquir'd to its Piecepts pra&icabia. 
 VII. The V/ifdom of the Gofpel above any other Religious Inltitotion r 
 And, VIII. Its divine Authority proved from the fuccefsrul Propagation of 
 it. By George Stanhope, D. D. Dean of Canterbury, and Chaplain In 
 Ordinary to his Majefty. 4.10. Price & s. 
 
 . Twelve Sermons Preached on fs\ 
 D. D. Dean of Canterbury, and Cha 
 Nature of that Obedience, whicl 
 God's deferring to anfwer thofc Prayers, which he intends at length 
 to grant. III. Of Preparation for Death and Judgment. IV. The Per- 
 fedhon of Scripture dated, and its Sufficiency argued. V. A Sermon before 
 the Sons of the Clergy. VI. The Happinefs of good Men after Death. 
 VII. The Seaman's Obligations to Gratitude and a good Life. VIII. The 
 Cafe of Miftaken Zeal. IX. The Influence which National Deliverar.c&s, 
 and the Prefervation of True Religion, ought to have upon a People. 
 
 X. The common ObftruSions to Faith and a good Life confidered- 
 
 XI. A Thankfgiving Sermon for the Succeffes of the Campaign, 1701 
 
 XII. The Sin and Foily of immoderate Carefulnefs. Price j s. 6 d. 
 
 An Enquiry into the Nature and Place of Hell : Shewing, I. The Rea- 
 fonablenels of a furure State. II. The Puniftme'nts of the next Lite. 
 III. The feveral Opinions concerning the Place of Hell. IV.That the Fire ot 
 Hell is not metaphorical, but reaL V. The Improbability of that Fire'* 
 being in or about the Centre of the Earth. VI. The Probability of th* 
 Sun's being the Local Hell, with Reafons for this Conjecture, and Objec- 
 wons froni Atheifm, Philofophy, and the Holy Scriptures, anfwer'd. By 
 Tobiat Swhidcn. M. A. late Recior oi Cwcton in Kent. The Sec on4 
 
 A ; .li
 
 Edition. With a Supplement ; wherein the Notions of Archbifliop fiV 
 lotfon, Dr. Lupton, and others, as to ihe Eternity of Hell Torments, arc 
 impartially reprefeuted ; and the Reverend Mr. Wall's Sentiments oi this 
 karned Work. Price js. 6d. 
 
 N. B. The Supplement may be had alone. Price i s. 6d. 
 
 An Eflay on the Duty of Divine Praife and Thankfgiving. By a Cltr- 
 gyman of the Church of England. Price 6d . 
 
 A Compendium : Or, Introduction to Practical Mufick. In Five Pans. 
 Teaching by a New and Eafy Method, I. The Rudiments of Song. 
 II. The Principles of Competition. III. The Ufe of Difcords. IV. The 
 Form of Figurative Deicanc. V. The Contrivance of Canon. By Chrif- 
 topher Sympfon. The Seventh Edition, with Additions : Much more 
 correct than any fpjmer^theExanmles being put in the mott ufeful ClifFs. 
 Price zs. 
 
 Ceitain Sermons or Homilies, appointed to be read in Churches in the 
 Time of Queen Elizabeth, of famous Memory. Folio. Price la s. 6d- 
 
 Fables of jEfop, and others. Newly done into Englifli ; with an Ap- 
 plication to each Fable. Illuftrated with two hundred curious Cuts. 
 The Second Edition. By Sam. Croxall, D. D. Chaplain in Ordinary to 
 Us Majefty. izmo. Pike- 3$. 
 
 A Collection of Nove(s and Tales : Written by that celebrated Wit of 
 France the Countefs D'Anois. In Three Volumes. nw. Vol. I. Contain- 
 ing, I. The Hiftory of Don Gabriel. II. The Royal Ram. III. The 
 Story of Finttta, the Cinder Girl. IV. The Palace of Revenge. V. The 
 Story of Anguiietia. VI. The Story of Don Ferdinand of Toledo. VII. The 
 Story of the Yellow Dwarf. VIII. The Story of Young and Hand- 
 lome. IX. The Hiftory of the new Gentleman Citizen. X. The Story 
 of the White Cat. Vol. II. Containing, I. The Story of Fortunio, tht 
 Fortunate Knight. II. The Story of the Pigeon and Dove. III. The 
 Story of Princcfs Fair-Star and Prince Cherey. IV. The Story of Princcis 
 Carpiliona. V. PerfeaLove: A Story. Vol. III. (which concludes the 
 whole,) containing, I. The Knights Errant. II. The Hiftory of the 
 Pnncefs Zamea, and the Prince Almanzon. III. The Hiftory of Prince El- 
 medorus of Granada, and the Prince Alzayda. IV. The Hiftory of Z,almai- 
 da, Priucefs of the Canary-IQauds, and the Prince of Numidia. V. The Hif- 
 tory Of the Prince of Mauritania, *ud the Princefs of Caftile. VI. The 
 Hiftory of the magnificent Fairy, and Prince Salmafis. VII. The Hiftory 
 of the Fairy of Pfeafurcs, and the cruel Amerdin. VIII. Fiorina: Or, 
 the Fair Italian. IX. The Hiftory of the Princfs Leonice. X. The 
 Tyranny of the Fairies deftroy'd. XI. The Hiftory of the Princefs Me- 
 licerta. The Second Edition. Tranflated from the bcft Edition of the 
 Original French. Price 7 s. 6 d. 
 
 Ovid's Metamorphofes. In Fifteen Books. Made Englifh by Mr.Pope, 
 Mr. Gay, Mr. Philips, and others. Adorned with Cuts. The Second 
 Edition, with great Improvements. ByDr.Sewcll. Vol*. iaw. Pric 
 ft. 6d. 
 
 PhiiUpj's Works, 
 
 ta
 
 [3 ] 
 
 The Shoe Heel : A Poem, in hnitatka ef the Splendid Shilling 
 By Mr. Mitchel. Price i s. 
 
 Nunnery Tales. Written by a young Nobleman, sndtranflatd from 
 is French Manufcnpt into EngUtt. Price 4 s. 
 
 Gay's Paftorals. 
 
 Thc Difpcnfarjr: A Poem. In fix Canto's. By Sir Samuel Gartb, 
 W 'D. The Ninth Edition. Adorn'd with Cuts. nmo. Price i s. 6d. 
 
 A Compleat Key to the Difpenfary. iimo. Price 6d.. 
 
 Poems on feveral Occafions, addrefs'J to the moft eminent Perfons of 
 the Age, by the Lady mentioned by Mr. Pope in his Letters, under the 
 Name_of Sappho, and With whom Mr. Dryden correfpondcd by thac 
 of Corinna. Mr. Dryden declares, as to her Poetical Talents, that ft 
 Wants neither Vigour in her Thoughts, Force in her Expreffions, nor 
 Harmony in her Numbers. Dedicated to her Majcfty. 8vo. Price 3 s. 6 d. 
 
 Diftiouarium Rulticum, Urbanicum, & Botanicum : Or, a Dictionary 
 of Husbandry, Gardening, Trade, Commerce, and all forts of Country 
 Affairs. Illuftrated with a great Number of Cuts. In nvo Volumes, 
 Svo. The Third Edition. Revifed, correfted, and improv'd j with the 
 Addition of above three hundred Articles. Price 9 s. 
 
 Devout Chriftian's Companion : Being a Compleat Manual of private 
 Devotions. Collected from the Works of Archbilhop Tillotfon, Bilhop 
 Taylor, Bilhop Kenn, Bilhop Beveridge, Biihop Patrick, Dr. Scott, Dr 
 Horneck, and' Dr. Stanhope. The Sixth Edition, unio. Price as. 6d 
 
 A Demonftration of the Exiflence and Attribute* of God. Dravni from 
 the Knowledge of Nature, from Proofs purely intellectual, and from the 
 Idea of the Infinite himfelf. Thc Second Edition, with large Additions. 
 By M. Fcnelon, the late famous Archbifliop of Cambray, Author of Te- 
 Icmachus. lamo. Price 53. 
 
 A Sermon preachy at the Funeral of the Right Honourable John Earl 
 cf Rochefter, who died at Woodftock-Park, July 16. 1680. and was 
 buried at Spilsbmy in Oxfordfhire, Aug. 9. By Robert Parfons, M. A. 
 Chaplain to the Right Honourable Anne Counccfs-Dowager of Rochefter. 
 Price 4 d. 
 
 Of Original Sin: A Sermon. By William Delaune, D. D. Present of 
 St. John Baptift College, Oxon, Svo. The Fourth Edition. Price 4. d. 
 
 The Revolutions of Portugal : Written in French by the Abbot Vertot 
 *. the Royal Academy of Inscriptions. Done into Englift from the lft 
 French Edition. Svo. Price 3 s. 
 
 The Figure of Love Unveil'd. Being an Anfwer to one who ws 
 Very inciuifidve to know what Love was. Made Engliflj from the La-
 
 [4] 
 
 tnt of Amoris Effigies. By the Reverend Mr. JohnNorris, of Bemerto:* 
 near Saruzn. nmo. Price is. 
 
 The Wifdom'of God in the Redemption of Man, as delivered in Ho!/ 
 Scripture, vindicated from the chief Objections of our modern Infidels. 
 Preached at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, in the Year 1708. at the 
 
 unded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Efq; In which the 
 
 True Nature and Neceflity of Atonement and Satisfaction for Sins are 
 
 at large explained, and proved both from Scripture and Reafon. By 
 John Turner, D. D. Vicar of Greenwich. Price 45. 6d. 
 
 A Praaical Expofition of the Catechifm of the Church of 
 In Thirty Lectures ; purfuant to the Defign of the late Rev. Dr. Bui- 
 fcy. By Benjamin Farrow, Re&orot Cor.ingihoim in Lincolnshire. Price 
 3 s.6d. 
 
 Thoma; Bennet, S j J_^J2riminatica Hehraca cum Uberrima Praxi 
 in Ufum Tironum, qui Linguam Hebrzam abfque Prceptoribus vica 
 Toce (idque in breviffimo temporis Compendio) edifcere Cupiunt. 
 -Accedit Conn li urn de Studio poecipuarum Linguarum Orientalium, 
 Hebrxx cil, & Chaldsez, Syrx, Samaritanz & Arabics iuftituendo & 
 perficiendo. Ediuo Akera. Pretium is. 6d. 
 
 A Compendious Method for the raifing of the Italian Brocoli, Spani/h 
 Cardoon, Celeriac, Fznochi, and other foreign Kitchen Vegetables ; as 
 alfo an Account of the La Lucerne, St. Foyne, Clsver, and other Grafs 
 Seeds. With the Method of burning Clay, for the improving of Land. 
 By Stephen Swirzer. The Second Edition. Price i s. 
 
 Clavis Ccmercii : Or, The Key of Commerce. Shewing the true 
 Method of keeping Merchants Books, aher the Italian Manner of Deb- 
 tor and Creditor, in one hundred and twenty Proportions, containing 
 molt Cafes relatipg to Merchandize: With a practical Wafte Book, 
 Journal, and Ledger, and -Direftioni huw to balance the Ledger, and 
 transfer the Balance thereof, as an Inventory inro a new Ledger. De- 
 figned for the Help and Affijftance oi young Merchants, at the firft En- 
 trance on their Apprenticeship to their Maiter. By John Hawkins, of 
 Lon.or, Merchan:. The Third Edition : Corrected and amended by 
 Join Rayner, Writing-Mafter. Price 4. s. 
 
 Family Inttruftion for the Church of England: Offered in feveral 
 praaical Difcourfes. By Theophilus Dorrington. Price y s. 
 
 An Eflay concerning che Nature anrf Guilt of Lying. By Charles Brenr 
 W. A. The Second Edition, correfted and enlarged. Price i s. 6d. 
 
 Directions, Counfels, and Cautions, tending to prudent Management 
 of Affairs in common Lite. In Two Volumes. By Thomai Fuller 
 M.D. Pnce js. 
 
 The Hiftory of the Council of Crnftance. By James Lenfante. 
 TianQated from the new- Edition, printed at Amfterdam, 1727. which 
 the Author has not only Kevifed and Corrected, but confiderably aug- 
 mented. Publilh'd MoutMy. Price of each Number 3 8 . The whole- 
 to be pukulh'd m twelve Months. 
 
 An exafl Inquiry into, and Cure of, the acute Difeafes of Infants. 
 By W^er Hams, M . 1). Engliuh'd by William Codcbum, M. D. acrf 
 ie^owot ihc'Reysd-Sdciety. Pike xJ * I
 
 [5 3 
 
 In December, 1728- will be piibli/h'd, 
 
 An Introdu&ion to a general Syftem of Hydroftaticks and HydraulicJw, 
 Phiiofophical and Practical. Wherein the moft reafonable and advanta- 
 geous Methods of raifing and conducing Water, for die \vateilng Noble- 
 irten and Gentlemens Seats, Buildings, Gardens, Sec. are carefully (And 
 in a Manner not yet pwbliflied in any Language) laid down. Contain- 
 ing in general, a Phyfico- mechanical Enquiry into the Original and 
 Rife of Springs, and of all the Hypothefes relating thereto ; as alfo the 
 Principles of Water Works, and the Draughts and Defcriptions of the beft 
 Engines for raifing and diftributing Water tor the Supply of Countrry Pala- 
 ces, Cities, Towns, Fortiftcs,tion3, Meadows, and the like. Deduced from 
 the Theory of Archimedes, Gallileo Torricelli, Boyle, Wallis, Plot, Hook, 
 Marriotte, Defaguliers, Derham, Hawksbee, and others. Reduced to 
 Practice by Vitruvius, Bockler, De caus, and other Architects amongft 
 the antient Romans, Italians, French, Flemings, and Dutch, and much 
 improved by later Practice and Experience. Illuftrated and Explain'd by 
 fiity Copper Cuts, done hy the beA Hands, f the Principles which rend 
 to the Explanation of the whole, and of fuch' rural Grotefque, and 
 cheap Deii"ns for Refervoirs, Cataracts, and Cafcades of Water, Canals, 
 Bafons, Fountains, and Grotto Works, lew f which have been ever 
 yet made publick in Works of this kind. By Stephen Switzcr. 
 
 A Tterbury's Sermons, on feveral Occasions, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Athenian Oracle, 4, Vols. 
 
 Atalands, with a Key. By Mrs. Manly, 4. Vol. iimc. 
 Abridgement of the Statutes, 6 Vols. 8vo. 
 Art ot pleafing in Conversion, French andEnglifli, nmo. 
 Abridgement of the Philofophical Tranf actions, $ Vol. 4* 
 
 Boyle's Philofophical Works, 5 Vol. 410. 
 Eingham's Works, z Vol. Fol. 
 Bradley of Planting and Gardening} 8vo. 
 Biblia Sacra Latina Caftellionis, 4. Vol. nmo. 
 Bennet's Directions for Studying, 8vo. 
 
 .< againft Popery, 8vo. 
 
 Burnet's Sacred Theory of the Earth, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Boyer's French and Englifli Diftionaiy, 4.ro. & STO. 
 
 Telemachus, 2 Vol. i imo. 
 Bifliop's Sermons at Lady Mover's Le&ure, 8vo. 
 Burnet's Sermons at Boyle's Lectures, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Clagget's Sermons on feveral Derations, z Vol. 8v 
 Common-Place Book to the Bible, 4.10. 
 Caflandra a Romance, 5 Vol. i imo. 
 Chandler's Defence of Chriftianity, 3 Vol. ?vo. 
 Clarendon's Hiftory of the Rebellion, 6 VoL 8vo. 
 Clarke on the Being and Attributes of God, 8vo 
 on the Evangelifts, i Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Clergyman's Vade Mecum, / Vol. it mo. 
 Compleat Geographer. By Herman Moll, Fol. 
 Cov.iey's Works, 5 Vol. i zano. ' 
 Cambridge Concordance, Fol. 
 Clu'llingworth's Works, Fol. 
 Cambray's Dialogues of the Dead, izmo 
 Chamber's Dictionary, a. Vol. Fol. 
 
 Domat's Civil Law, 2 Vol. Fol. 
 
 Drelincourt's Defence againft the Fears of Death, ?iro 
 
 's PhyfeoSc Aftro-Theobgy, a Vol. 8vo. Diy
 
 Ztydcn's Plays, 6 Vol. lamo. 
 
 . ... . MifceJanies, 6 Vol. izmo. 
 
 Ditton OB the Refnrreftion, 8 TO. 
 
 Drake's Anatomy, with an Appendix, 3 Vol. Svo. 
 
 JDalton's Country Juftice, Fol. 
 
 Duty of Man's Works, Fol. 
 
 Dictionary of all Religions, andent and modern, SYO. 
 
 Evelyn's Parallel of Architecture, Fol. 
 Echard's Hiftory of England, Fol. 
 
 Roman Hiftory, 5 Vol. Svo. 
 
 . . Gazeteer : Or, News-Man's Interpreter. 
 
 Floyer of Cold Baths, Svo. 
 
 Fuller's Pharmacopoeia Extemppreana.Englifh andLatm. 
 
 . Pharmacopoeia Domeltka, i imo. 
 
 Fiddes's Life of CardinaJ Wolfey, Fol. 
 
 _ __ __ ^ Moramy,'8Vor-^ 
 
 farquhar's Poems and Comedies, 2 Vol. i imo. 
 
 Fieind's Hiftory of Phyfick, a Vol. Svo. 
 
 Cay's Fables. 
 
 Gulliver's "Travels, $ Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Gentleman's Recreation, Svo. & Fol. 
 
 Gentleman inftni&ed, ivo. 
 
 Goodman's Winter Evening Conference, 8v? ^ 
 
 - Penitent pardoned, Svo. 
 Gordon's Geographical Grammar, Svo. 
 Gibfon's Farrier's Guide, Svo. 
 
 L Farrier's Difpenfatory, 8vo- 
 
 Guillim's Difplay of Heraldry, FoJ. 
 
 Hederici Lexicon Grzco-Latinum, ,j,to. 
 
 Foughton's Colleaions of Husbandry, 4 VoL 8vo. 
 
 Hooke's Experiments, publifhed by W.Dsrham, F. R- S- 
 
 Harris's Lexicon Technicum, a Vol. FaJ. 
 
 Hovneck's Crucified Jef us, Svo. 
 
 __ Great Law of Confederation, 8ro. 
 
 . Beft Exercif*,' 8yo. 
 
 Howell's Hiftory of the Bible, 3 VoL Svo. 
 
 Hiftory of England, 3 Vol. Fol. 
 
 Hatton's Merchant's Magazine, 410- 
 
 Hay wood's Novels, 4, Vol. lamo. 
 
 Hooker's Ecclefialtica. Polity, Fol^ 
 
 JenkLi's Life and Letters, a. Vol. Fol. 
 Johnfon's (Ben. ) Plays and Poems, 6 Vol. Svo. 
 Jenkins ot the Chriftian Religion, 2 Vol. 8vo- 
 Journey over England and Scotland, 3 Vol. Svo- 
 Jiluftrious French Lovers, 2 Vol. nmo. 
 Inquiry into the Original of Beauty and Virtue, 8ro< 
 Johnfon's unbloody Sacrifice, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 . Ecclefiaftical Canons, 2 Vol. STO- 
 
 Sennet's Roman Antiquities, Svo. 
 King of the Apoftle's Creed 3 Svo. 
 
 . Conftirutions of the primitive Church, 8vo- 
 
 Ketdewell's Theological Works, 2 Vol. Fol. 
 
 - of the Sacrament, Svo. 
 
 Keay's Praftkal Meifurei ; Or, Pocket Companion, 8v-
 
 C 7 ] 
 
 Keill's Anatomy, iimo. 
 
 Aftronomical LeSures, Svo. 
 
 Introduction to Natural Philofophy, 8vo- 
 
 Locke's Works, 3 Vols. Fol. 
 
 Lamb's Royal Cookery, 8vo. 
 
 Lewis's Origines Hebrass, 4. Vol. Svo. 
 
 L'Eftrange's ^Lfop, with moral Reflections, 2. Vol ST> 
 
 Lemery's Chymilfry, 8vo- 
 
 Lanfdown's Poems, iamo. 
 
 Lady's Library, 3 Vol. lamo. 
 
 Leybourn's Surveying, Fol. 
 
 Life of Mary Queen of Scots, 8vo. 
 
 Morton of Confumptions, 8vo. 
 
 Mifcellanea Curiofa, 3 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Milton's Paradife loft and rgain'd, s. Vnl iiw. 
 
 Mortimer's Husbandry, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Medulla Hifteria: Anglicanae, 8vo. 
 
 Machiavel's Political Works, Fol. 
 
 Miller's Herbal, 8vo. 
 
 Morgan's Philofophical Principles of Medicioe. 8v. 
 
 Moyle's Works, 3 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Memoirs of Utopia, z Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Nichols on the Common Prayer, Fol. & 8ro. 
 Conference, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Nelfon on the Fcalts and Fafts, Svo. 
 
 PracHce of true Devotion, i zmc. 
 Nalfon's Sermons, Svo. 
 
 New Manual of Devotions, in three Parts, iima. 
 Newton's Opticks, Svo. 
 Nelfon's Juitice, 8vo. 
 Norris's Mifcellanies, izmo. 
 
 Ovidii Metamorphofes, in uium Delphim, 8y. 
 Ovid's Arc ot Love, iimo. 
 Epiftles, izrno. 
 
 . -Metamorphofes, 2 Vol. iamo. By Se we 11- 
 
 Osborn's Advice to his Son, 2 Vol. lamo. , 
 
 Oldham's Works, 2 Vol. izmo. 
 
 Otway's Comedies and Tragedies, 2 Vol. i2mo. 
 
 Prideaux's Connexion of the Old and New Teftament, ^ Vol. 8r- 
 Pope's Tranflation of Homer's Iliads, 6 Vol. iinio. 
 
 Tranflation of Homer's Odyfley, y Vol. i amo. 
 
 i Mifcellany Poems, 2 Vol. 1 21110. 
 
 Potter's Antiquities of Greece, 2 Vol. 8vo. ' 
 
 , i Difcourfe on Church Government, 8vo- 
 Prior's Mifcollany Poems, 3 Vol. 1 2mo. 
 Patrick's Devout Chriftian, i2mo. 
 . Chriftian Sacrifice, I2tno. 
 
 Pomet's Hiftory ot Drugs, ^.to. 
 Pearfon on the Creed, Fol. 
 Pitcairne's Elements of Phyfick, Svo. 
 Palladio's Architecture, 410. 
 
 Quincy's Pharmacopoeia Offkinalis/8vo. 
 . Lexicon Medictim, 8vo. 
 
 Tranflation of Pharmacopceia Loudiuenus> 8vo- 
 
 i i Tranflaciou of Sancica-ius, Bv.
 
 [3] 
 
 Rufliworth's Hiftorical Collections, 8 Vol Fol. 
 Kobinfon of the Scoue and Gravel,, Svo. 
 Ray's Wifdom of God in the Creadon, 8vo 
 Robinfon of Confumptions, 8vo. 
 Harm's Hiftory of England, 8vo. Published 
 Religion of Nature delineated, with an Index, 410. 
 Rove's Tranflation of Lucan's Pharfalia, 2 Vol. tamo. 
 Revolutions of Rome, Sweden., and Portugal, 4, Vol. 8v* 
 
 Strother's Materia Medica, 2 Vol. Svo: 
 
 Stone's Mathematical Diftionaiy, 8vo. 
 
 Spelman's Englifh Works, Fol. , 
 
 Stevens's Spanifh Diaionary, 410. 
 
 Smalridge's Sixty Sermons, Fol. 
 
 Shaw's Praaice of Phyfick, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Sherlock on Death, Providence^. Judgment, and Future State, &'/ 
 
 Stanhope's Chriitian Pattern, 8vo.~ 
 
 Sr Aultin's Meditations, 8vo. 
 Speaators, 8 Vol. iamo. 
 Souih's Sermons, 6 Vol. 8vo. 
 Shadwell's Plays, 4 Vol. iamo. 
 Spiiick's Sick Man vifited, 8vo. 
 Spencei-'s Fairy Queen, &c. 6 Vol. izmo. 
 Stillingfleet's Origenes Sacra;, Fol. 
 
 Tilloifan's Works, 3 Vol. Fol. 
 
 Turner's new Art of Surgery^ 2 Vol. 8voi 
 
 i - of Cutaneous Diftempers, Svo. 
 
 i of the Venereal Difeafe, Svo. 
 
 Taclcrs, 4 Vol. nmo. 
 
 Taylor's Holy Living and Dying, Svo, 
 
 Terenuus in ufum Delphini, Svo. 
 
 Tryals of the Regicides, Svo. 
 
 Trap's Praeleaicnes Poeticx, Svo. 
 
 Terms of Law, Svo. 
 
 Tale of a Tub, with Cuts, 1 2ino. 
 
 Virgilius in ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Univerfal Library, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Vanbrugh's Plays, 2 Vol. i zmo. 
 
 Vaughion's Chirurgical Operations, Svp- 
 
 Whitby of the New Teftament, 2 Vol. Fol. 
 
 Wagftaffe's Mifcellaneous Works, Svo. 
 
 WaS of Iniant Baptifm. 2 Vol. Svo. 
 
 i > his Defence of h, 8 TO. 
 
 Wifemau's Surgery, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 
 Waterland's Sermons a,t Lady Meyer's Le&atc, 8vo. 
 
 Wilkins of Natural Religion, 8v. 
 
 Wells of the Old and New Teftamenr. 
 
 Word of God, the beft Guide, i2mo. 
 
 Whifton's Theory of the Earth, Svo. 
 
 Woodward's Natural Hiftoiy of the Earth, 8V0; 
 
 Whycherly's Plays, 2 Vol. 
 
 Wingate's Arithmetick, Svo. 
 
 Wateiland on the Creed, 8vo. 
 
 Young's Love of Fame, in Seven Satyrs, 8vo, 
 Sermons, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 
 With great Variety of Ttys and Novels, &c
 
 ? *'V 
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 Return this material to the library 
 
 from which it was borrowed. 
 
 1988