1^ 
 
^•^ 
 
 -^1 - 3 
 
 '•€, 
 
 / 
 
 / 
 
 I THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY, | 
 I Princeton, N.J. | 
 
 # 
 
 From the PUBLISHER. 
 
 D Vase, Division.,,, .^ 
 
 '% Hhelf\ ^ . ' '^, 
 
 I BOO,,'''"'" ;; t 
 
 SC-C-. 
 
 
6y 
 
 j-C^rt^J TT'/lo^ ^/''-^ 
 
 ,1 
 
 // 
 
 Ci'7-^^^^y 
 
 &* m/ 
 
 y 
 
 V/l/l ^^^^'^ 
 
■■■■■}■ 
 
 * * 
 
 V t 
 
 d^ 
 
 if.. 
 
T H E 
 
 C H U R C H 
 
 E NGLJND 
 
 Defended againft the 
 
 Calumnies andFalfe Reafonings, 
 
 OF THE 
 
 G H U R C H 
 R O °M K 
 
 In ANSWER to a late Sophlftical, 
 
 and Infolcnt, Popiili Book j Entitled^ 
 E N G L A N dV Converjion and Keformation 
 compard^ &c. 
 
 By Jo s E p H Tr a i> p, M. A. Minifter of the 
 United Pariflies of Chrifi-Church^ and St LeoncircPs 
 Fofter-Lane, Londoiu 
 
 At which Boldnefs of rhcir.s \vc fliouJd much wonder; but 
 that we confider that Bankiapts commonly do then moft 
 brag of their Ability, when their Eftatc is at the lowcft : 
 Perhaps alfo that hnorance might be it, which did be^-et itl 
 them this Boldnefs. Bp. Vfier's Anfwer to the Jefuite's 
 
 Challenge. P. :;i. 
 
 London : Printed for y. Smith, at Inigo %nes's Head ovcr- 
 againft Exeter-Exchange in the Strand, fV. Af ears at the 
 Lamb without Temph-Bar^ and f, Batley at the Dove in 
 Taternofier Rqiv, iizf^ 
 
T O T H E 
 
 KING 
 
 SIR, 
 
 HIS Book, written 
 to vindicate That 
 Faith and Religion 
 of which Your Ma- 
 jesty is Defender, That Church 
 of which under God You are 
 Head and Prote(5lor, happening 
 
 to 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 to fee the Light at the Time of 
 Your aufpicious Acccflion to 
 the Throne of thcfe 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 againit the 
 Doctrines, and Priclices of 
 Thofe, fome of whom at leaft 
 would exempt a great and very 
 confiderable Fart of the Chri- 
 ftian World, the Clergy, fom 
 all Subjection to Sovereign 
 Princes ; but is particularly a 
 Defence of Your M a j e s t y's 
 Supremacy in Eccleliaflical Af- 
 fairs, as declar'd by the Laws of 
 This Realm, and made an Ef- 
 
 fential 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 fential Part of the Conftitution 
 of our Government. Notvvith- 
 ftanding- which, it is openly de- 
 ny'd and rejedled by Thofe a- 
 gainft whom l write ; who would 
 wreft from Your Majesty 
 This valuable Branch of Your 
 Prerogative, one of the brighteft 
 Jewels in That Imperial Crown 
 to which You happily fucceed. 
 
 That it may long flourilli 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; Th^t God 
 would pour all his Blellings in 
 This World and the Next, up- 
 on Yourfacred PvIa jesty, Your 
 
 Royal 
 
DEDICATION. 
 
 Royal Confort our Gracious 
 Queen, and all Your Royal 
 IfTue, is the iincere and hearty 
 Prayer of, 
 
 May it pleafe Totir M a j e s t y^^ 
 Tour M A J E s T y's mofl Loyal, 
 and nDtitifnl, 
 SiibjeU, and Servant^ 
 
 Joseph Trap p 
 

 THE 
 
 PJREFACE 
 
 j|;5^^^!?^r^i J' ^^^ happen dy as it ufu- 
 
 ISi 1 ifSi '''^ does tnThefe Cafes : 
 %m,U^m [promisd Striciures upon 
 
 ^^^^^1 a Book ; a?id ha^e heen 
 
 infenjibly drawn in toghe it a com 
 pleat Anfwer, For I pretend [to^ uje 
 our JiUhors JFord) that This is fuch:; 
 There is not the Shadow of an Ar^i- 
 ment in his boalled Terformance^ 
 which Iha'ije not fully conjiderd; and, 
 I think at leaji^ conjuted, 
 
 Boalled, I faj : For hefides ^the 
 Brags nvhich Joe himjelf makes of his 
 Jirong Reajonings infc^veral Tarts of 
 his 'Dialogue ; the Tarty, I hear, has 
 pronounc'd it abfolutely iinaniwer- 
 
 abic- 
 
fhe Preface. 
 
 able. When, in truth, all the Mat- 
 ters of Fa6l It contains are either 
 impertinent^ or ftilfe ; And in point 
 of Aigumentation^ it is little more 
 than a perpetual String of Sophifms, 
 or Fallacies. u4ll falfe Reafonings 
 are fallacious in a wide Senfe : But 
 mofi of His are firid^ly Fallacies^ 
 as they are marked out m the common 
 Boolzs of Logick. I ha^'oe ^-oenturd to 
 'be guilty of fo much Pedantry^ as to 
 call two or three of them hy their 
 ScholaiiickiV^.^/(?j; Which, l flatter 
 my felfy will he the more eafily ex- 
 cujed; in ccmfideration that our Au- 
 thor tempted me to it, hy his dealing 
 fomaich ^//Syllcgilins, and Diieinmas. 
 I take it for granted, hecaufe it is 
 an ohjeciion always in the Mouths of 
 Thoje who ha^e nothing elje to fay , 
 that IJJjallhe accusd hy Him, and his 
 f^riends, of treating htm with too 
 little Ceremony. 1 acknowledge I 
 Jja've treated him with Freedom j 
 hit not^ with ill Mmmers. The 
 
 rougheji 
 
"/he P R E F A C E.. 
 roiighejl IFords I have us d were not 
 made a Tart of Lan'^uage for no- 
 thing : And I appeal to the PForld^ 
 whether I have not apply d them pro- 
 perly, 7iot tranfgrej/tng the Rules of 
 Decency, Civility, or true Chrtftian 
 Charity. I know not who 7ny Anony- 
 mous Antagonift is ; and therefore 
 may he allow d to write ^ as if I 
 qvrote again ft no particular Perlbn, 
 tut againft Popery, Sophilhy, and 
 Infolence. For his Behaviour to the 
 Church, and Clergy of E>iigland, is 
 heyond meafure infolent^ and ahu- 
 five. Which ^ even fHe hadfet his 
 Name to his Book^ would have jufti- 
 fyd much inore yJfperiiy than I have 
 Jhewn towards him. 
 
 What I have any where [aid of 
 This Kind^ I defire may he apply d^ 
 as it was intended to he, not to the 
 Roman Catholicks {as they are call d) 
 in general ; hut only to the Factors 
 or Agents for Topery, the Trie/Is^ 
 and Mijfonaries. Tbere are doubt ■ 
 
 lefs 
 
Jhe Preface. 
 
 lefs many ivorthy Gentlemen among 
 us; Jo unfortunate as to he hred up 
 in That corrupt Religion, Again fl 
 the Behaviour of Thefe I olject no- 
 thing : I honour their Tcrfons ; pity 
 their Errors ; and heartily pray for 
 their Con^perjion, and the Salvation of 
 their Souls. So indeed I do for the Con^ 
 ^erjton and. Salvation of their mtjfonary 
 Triefls Themfehes : But then Thefe 
 hajl ha^e not a Right to the fame. 
 Treatment with Tbofe Others. Be- 
 fides the Reafon already gi^en, They 
 are ravening Wolves^ watching all 
 Opportunities to de^vour our Flocks ; 
 and therefore muf pardon us if we. 
 call them ly their true Names^ and 
 cry aloud to our Flocks ^ when the 
 Wolf is coming. 
 
 Efpecially if the Wolf as upon 
 Thefe occafwns. He generally doesy 
 comes in Sheep's Cloathing. / have 
 therefore (iete^ed the cunning Craf- 
 tinefs of my Adverfarys godly Talky 
 againf Trejudice, Selflnterejf a?id 
 
 Love 
 
77;^? P R E F A C E. 
 Lo^e of tJje JVorld. Thefe are Baits 
 to deceive the Unlearned ; qvho do 
 7iot confide r^ or it may he do not know ^ 
 that no Falfjood can irfinuate ttfelf 
 without the Mixture of fome^ thd 
 ^ery impertinent ^ Truth V And in 
 Religious matters, none will he [wal- 
 low d hy Terfons Religioufly difposd^ 
 unlefs it he gilded ivith the yl^pear- 
 mice of SanBity. 
 
 JVhenever I [peak contemptuouily, 
 as I [ometimes do, hecaufe the he/l 
 Reafon / have tells -me it is in [uch 
 Cafes fit to do [o ; / deftre to he mu 
 der flood not ofmyAdver[arysVt\:^ 
 fon^ hit of his Arguments. For he- 
 fides thai in general, I de[pife not the 
 Terfon of the Meaneji upon Earth ; 
 He ifi particular may he a Man of 
 Learning, afid nihilities, for any 
 thing I know. Nay, I think in this- 
 <very Terformance he has fjewn that 
 he is : And [o were Bellarmine, and 
 Suarez hefore him. But the Caufe 
 is [o indefenfihle ; that it makes the 
 
 greatefl 
 
7he Preface. 
 
 greatefl Men talk ridiadoujly. The 
 ^le/i we can Jay of their Reafo?iings 
 iSy that thej are learned Abfiirdities : 
 j4nd That is hit Jlender Traije. 
 There may le much Learning in them; 
 tut there'^s no Common Senfe. 
 
 If 7 ha'de mifapprehended any 
 Facis^ asllelie've I have Not j they 
 are fuch, as^ whether true, orfalfe^ 
 no way affect the Merits of the Caufe. 
 For in all material ones lam certain 
 I have made no material Mi/iake, 
 Should the Romanifts therefore be 
 alle^ as I am well afjurd they will 
 not, to convict me of an Hijhrical 
 Error, relating, for inftance, to Au- 
 ilin, or Dinoth^ Cranmer, or the 
 §lueen of Scots^ in which the Topifb^ 
 and Troteftant Religion are not con- 
 cern d ; They will have no manner 
 of Reafon to triumph in That, or 
 fuch like Trifles : A JVeaknefs to 
 which Thojc are alwajs extremely 
 prone ^ who have Nothing to triumph 
 m. That is iblid^ or fubitantial 
 
 T H E 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS- 
 
 -i\ 
 
 TO t^^ 7 IKS r Dialogue, En- 
 titled^ The General Grounds of the 
 Catholick Faith : SM. L Entitled^ 
 The Obligation of fubmittiiig our private 
 Judgment does not exclude Examination. 
 
 Tage 3 
 
 TCo the Second SeWion j Entitled^ Faith is 
 not againft Reafon* t- ^% 
 
 1^0 theT-hird Setiion ; Entitled^ Faith de- 
 pends in a different manner on the Tefti- 
 mony of God, and on the Teftimony of 
 Men. f* 47. 
 
 T^o the Eotirth SeUion ; Entitled, The 
 Church of Chrift confider'd as Infallible. 
 
^/^^ C O N T E N T S. 
 
 "To the Fifth SeUmi ; Entitled:, The 
 Church's, perpetual Iiidcfcdibility, and In- 
 fallibility, prov'cl from the ninth Article of 
 the Creed. p. 84 
 
 T'o the Sixth ScUion : The Rule of Faitli. 
 
 p. 109 
 
 To the Set'enth SeUion: Of Scriptures^ 
 and Church- Authority. p. 145 
 
 T^o the Eighth SeUio^i ; Entitled^ A 
 Recapitulation of the foregoing Seitions^ 
 
 p. 168 
 
 ^0 the Second Dialogue^ Eyi- 
 titled^ Containing a brief Hiftorical Ac- 
 count of the Convcrfion of the "Britons and 
 Saxons j with Proofs of their Agreement in 
 Faith ; and fome Remarks upon Circum- 
 fiances relating to the Converfion of the 
 Saxons, f* i?^ 
 
 ^0 the Eirft SeUion ; Entitled^ The Im- 
 portance of Enquiring into the Marks of 
 the true Church ,- in which alone Salvation 
 h prov'd to be poff.ble. f- 173 
 
 'to 
 
^he CONTENT S. 
 
 ^0 the Second SeUion ,• 'Entitled^ Nei- 
 ther Education, nor Intereft are to be 
 confulted, in the Choice of our Religiono 
 
 To the Third SeUion : Of the firft En- 
 trance of Chriftianity into "Britain -, it's 
 Progrefs and Eftablilhment there, in the 
 Reign of King Lncizis. p. i88 
 
 To the Fottrth SeUicn : Of the Convcr- 
 fion of the Engiifi Saxons from Paganifm 
 to Chriftianity, P' ^91 
 
 7o the Fifth SeBion ; Entitled^ A Rela- 
 tion of St. Jtigttjiins Conference with the 
 ^ritijlj Bifliops, p, 1516 
 
 To the Sixth SeUion ^ Entitled^ St. Ati" 
 ^f//?/;2 Vindicated. p. iP7 
 
 T'othe Se^'enth SeUion-, Entitled 'Komaix 
 Catholicks profefs to this Day the Faith 
 which St. Aiigiifiin preach'd. p. 203 
 
 To the Eighth SeUion ,• Entitled^ The 
 fame Faith, was preach'd to the Saxons^ as 
 had been preach'd four hundred Years be- 
 fore to the "Britons. p. 252 
 
 To 
 
"The CONTENTS. 
 
 To the Ninth SeUion -, Eiititled^ The 
 fame Subjcft continued. p. 265 
 
 To the Tenth SeUion ; Entitled^ Some 
 Obfervations upon the Converfion of Eng- 
 land undcv Pope Gregory* /?. 276 
 
 T(? the Third Dialogue^ and The 
 Pref A CF, p. 281 
 
 ^he Method of Anfwering^ Se'ction hy 
 SeUion-, departed fro7n^ and Why. /?. 282 
 
 ^0 the ObjeUion ; That the Jgents in 
 our Heformatton were Perfonsof wicked and 
 Scandalous Lives. ^.283 
 
 Of K. Henry VIIL p. 284 
 
 Of Archbifliop Cranmer. p. 285 
 
 Of the Duke of Somerfet^ &c. in K. 
 Edward fl\ Reign. p, 28^3 25^03 2^1. 
 
 Of Qiicen Elizabeth. ibid 
 
 Our 
 
7^^ C ON T E N T S. 
 
 Our Juthors mifreprefenting fome Fadts, 
 and his falfe Reafonings from others, con-- 
 fiderd. From p. 29 2, to p, 309 
 
 The Sum of the Whole under This 
 Head. p' 309 
 
 ^0 the OhjeUion j that The Keformaticn 
 was begun, and carried on, by unlawful 
 Means ^ and an incompetent Authority j by 
 Force^ and Violence ; and tlic Encroach- 
 ments of the Ci^il State^ invading the Spi- 
 ritual Rights of the Churchy and Clergy. 
 
 p, 3IO5 &c. 
 
 The King s Supremacy. p. 320, &c. 
 
 The Sum of the whole under This 
 Head. f- 37^ 
 
 T^o />&^ Fourth Dialogue; E7i- 
 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. 
 
 ?• 379 
 
 ^0 the firfi^ Second J and ^hirdSeU ions. 
 
 p. 381: 
 
 B 5l? 
 
57:^^ C O N T E N T S. 
 
 ^0 the Fourth SeUion ; Entitled:, The 
 Unity of Faith on the one fide com- 
 pared with the Difagreements on the other. 
 
 y. 392 
 
 ^0 the 'Fifth and lafi SeUion ; 'Entitled^ 
 The general external Marks of the true 
 Church on the cne fide^ compared with 
 the entire want of them on the other. 
 
 ^. 41 X 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 Popith BOOK, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 E N G L A N D V Converjion and Re^ 
 formatiGn compafd^ 6cg. 
 
 U R Atathor's "Preface (fctting a- 
 fide the Account of his T^eftgn and 
 Method^ which we have nothing 
 to do with) being no more than a 
 Supplement to his Third T>ialogue ; I (hall 
 poftpone my Refledions upon it, 'till we come 
 to the Exammatio7i of ihat dialogue \ in 
 Cod junction with which, it iliall be fully and 
 particularly confider d. 
 
 B "To 
 
2 An Answer to a fopi/h Book^ 
 To the Firjl Dialogue^ Se6l. 1. 
 
 '^I^^HIS Firit Dialogue (if vvc may believe 
 JL the Title C)f \t) contains the general 
 Grounds of the Catholic^. Faith. All which^ 
 after much divilionand fubdivifion, explain- 
 ing and diftinguifliingj faying and unfaying^ 
 giving with one hand, and taking away with 
 the other, are refolv'd at laft into This fingle 
 Principle, ^^ That the Church of Komo is to 
 *^ be implicitly believed, whatever flic fays. 
 That I do not mifreprefent the Matter, and 
 that Tliis, and nothing elfe, i$ the Refult 
 oi Eight different Seltions (whatever Tattles 
 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 ^ 
 ^loe Obligation of ftihmitting our private 
 Judgment: does not exclude Examiriation. In 
 the Difcourfe itfelf, thoyotmg Gentleman and 
 his Treceptor talk of ^ jearching diligently 
 into the eery bottom of the Caufe ; and the 
 Former is charmed to hear the Latter fay. 
 He may and ought to do fo. But then we 
 are told at the fame time. That t:;e ought 
 to capticate our U72derJ}a7iding unto the Obe- 
 dience of Faith ^ andpay ane7itire Submiffion 
 
 lag. I, «. 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Converf.on^ 8cc. 5 
 
 U the T>eciJions of the Catholick Church* 
 Pray obfervc how prettily they are coupled ,• 
 as if Captivating our IJnderjianding to the 
 Obedience of Faith ^ and paying an entire 
 Stihrniffion to the T)ecifions of the Catholick 
 Churchy were ail one. And, indeed, to con- 
 found thefe Two with each other^ is the 
 principal Defign of his whole Book. Yet 
 vjc are charg'd with wronging the Churcli 
 of Ro?ne^ for faying that her Members are 
 kept in the T>ark "^ by their politick Guided ^ 
 and bid to flmt their Eyes againfi the Light 
 of Reafon ^ left it Jhoidd difcoz^er to them the 
 Follies J and Errors of their R eligion* W h y, 
 does not That Church require an abfolute^ 
 hnplicit Submiifioa to all her Diftates, be 
 they what they will? Is it not the main 
 Drift of This very Author's Performance> to 
 fro've that fuch a Submiffion is dtte ? And is 
 not This keeping us in the Dark ? No, fays 
 the Gentleman^ Submiffion doesiiot exchide 
 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 Submiffion is mt 
 due j and if yet the Church oi Rome requires 
 it, as All agree fhe does ; it muft be granted, 
 that llie keeps People in the T>arky and bids 
 them flout their Eyes againfi the Light of 
 Reafon. That fuch a Submifjwj then is due. 
 
 B i This 
 
4 An Answer to a Topifh ^oqTz^ 
 
 This i\uthor affirms, and I abfolutely deny% 
 To fliGW that Sulmtitting and Hxamining 
 may he johid 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 trans- 
 cribe them ^ becaufe (as he truly faysj they 
 arc agreed to without ContradiUion^ hy Tro^ 
 tejiants as well as Catholicks : except only 
 one Expreffion in the fecond of them, {^ne- 
 cer fo jeemingh contrary to Reafon'] of which 
 more hereafter. 
 
 But I cannot imagine what Ufe he makes 
 of tnein, fince they prove nothing, but what 
 no Chriilian denies* The thing to be made 
 out is, not that an implicit Submiflion is due 
 to repeat d Truths \ but that it is due to the 
 Church. In reference to thefe reveafd Truths^ 
 the Trinity^ &c. Rcafofi ("^ fays he) ca7i have 
 n-i other Tart to aU^ than that of an entire 
 Suhniffion. Well, we grant it: Meaning, 
 after the Perfon is fatisfy'd that they are re- 
 vealed. But what are the next Words? 
 Whene^'er the Re^velation of them is declared 
 to Its (pray mind it) hy that Authority which 
 Chrifc has appointed to he oar Guide : And 
 That GvAde is the Church ; and That Church 
 ic the Church oi Ro7ne. Here w-e have the 
 whole ^'lyftjry of the Matter. This is the 
 grand Point he drives at from the firft Page 
 
 tq 
 
Entitled^ V.n^?indi^sConverfion^Scc. 5 
 
 to the laft. As we fliall meet with it very 
 often in the Progrefs of This Controvcify^ 
 and thefevc-ral Parts of it fliall here.i cor lc 
 diftindtly conlider'd, I at prefent only defie 
 the Reader to take Notice, that there is i 
 wide difference between a Rccelatio;?^ atid 
 the Senfe oi^'^Ihing re'veafd ; between l^e- 
 daring that a Point is rec:cal\I^ and Inter- 
 freting the Scnfc of it ^ between modejily 
 and joberly Interpreting a difficult Pointy and 
 arbitrarily ^v^d infolently Interpreting ^ plain 
 one, contrary to common Reafon ,♦ bctweca 
 Interpretingtho old^ /^r/zd; Word of God, and 
 making a nezi>)y faljeVsi or A of God ; between 
 T^eftiynony^ and Authority \ or, if you pleafe, 
 between the Authority of T'eftimony^ and 
 Authority in general^ or any other Species of 
 Authority in particular 1 between a Gtiide^ 
 and a JVitnefs ; between the Church Unicer- 
 fal^ and the Church of Rome^ or (in other 
 Words) between the Whole ^ and a Tart^ 
 Let the Reader '(I fay) take This Clue of 
 plain T)ifUnUio7ts at his firft letting out i 
 for we fliall perpetually make Vfe of it, in 
 the Labyrinth through which we are tQ 
 travel. 
 
 For furely (continues he "^ ) z^hoo^jer gives 
 his interior Ajjent to any thing abo<ve his 
 Underjlanding^ is properly [aid to fnbmit his 
 
 
6 Jn ANSWER Jo a Topip Book^ 
 
 Judgment to it. Queftionlefs. Jnd this is 
 JLL the Suhmiffi072'we require of the Me7n-> 
 hers of our Church. That I totally deny. 
 You require SubmilTion not only to Things 
 ahoi'e our Underftanding ; but to Things con- 
 trary to our Underllanding, and our Senfes ; 
 not only to Things revenfd by Qod^ but to 
 Things which he has 7?^^ reveard, nay^ which 
 are contrary to Thofe which he has reveal'd, 
 bo that we need not turn Atheifis^ and 
 ^eifts ; t and may yet refufe to turn Ta- 
 piJIs. 
 
 We do not fay (as he affirms we do +) that 
 the T>$Urine of Suhmiffion is hut in E0U a 
 f offer "Terinfor hlind Ohedience^ &c. 'Tis ac- 
 cording as the Siihrrdfjion is^ that we a(fert 
 This, or not affert it. And This alone is a 
 fufficient Anfwer to his Argument from thofe 
 Texts, Heh. xiii. 17. and Matth. xviii. 17, 
 They prove fuch a Submiffion as We grants 
 not fuch a one as our Komijh Adverfaries 
 contend for. Does it follow, that becaufe 
 'Ecclcfiafiical Kukrs are to be Oheyd^ and 
 contumacious Terfons to be Excommuni-- 
 cated^ &c. therefore the Church is to be 
 implicitly fubmitted to ^ though fbe affirms 
 that a Triangle and a Circle are the fame ? 
 But what is here \yanting in Suhfiance^ is 
 plentifully fupply'd by l^hoijc-^ zwdfalfe Jpm 
 
 fcarance I 
 
Enthledy England's Convey fion^ Sec 7 
 
 pearmice ^ by Noife and ^Inflerhgt to con- 
 found weak ytidgmefits. * It jcems then 
 ^t» Paul was a ranklmpoftor^^ when he wrote 
 thus to the Hebrews ; Ohey them that hace 
 the Ktile over jou^ &c. f Nay-^ all this "'Buf- 
 foonery will reach the Terfon ofChrift him- 
 felfy who has declard^ that he who will mt 
 hear the Church (i. e. ftihmit to her IJecifl- 
 ons) dec, 1 1 Howc'ver^ Iflooiild not wonder to 
 hear an Jtheiji^ or T>eift^ who makes a 
 Mockery of F^et^elation^ difcotirfe in this 
 Manner > hut it founds eery ahfurdly in the 
 Mouth of, a Trot eft ant >, who makes profejfh 
 on of believing a reveaTd Religion, So that 
 becaufe we will not be convinc d by an Ar- 
 gument, wliofe Premlfes have no more to do 
 with the Concluiion, than empty Swagger- 
 ing has with folid Reafoning ; we muft im- 
 mediately be compaf d with Deifo and A- 
 theifts. "^^ To own all this, Ifay^ and at the 
 fume time ridicule an bumhle Suhmiffwu to 
 fttchTritths ? Meaning, fuch as are ahove 
 our Reafon. How do We ridicule an hum- 
 ble Submiirion to /J/^Z? Truths? Even becaufe 
 ive ridicule an humhle (i. e. an implicit^ %i^ 
 miffion to the Church of Rome. We do, 
 indeed ,* and notwithftanding all This Fanfa- 
 ronade^ thefe big Words thrown out to fright 
 us, fliali continue ftill to do f^. Nor fhall 
 
 B 4 anjj 
 
8 'An Answer to a Topifb Boolzj 
 
 any Church upon Earth, no not the Unl^ 
 verfal Church in all Ages, much lefs the pre-- 
 fent Church of Romc^ extort from us fuch a 
 SubmiiTion as is due to God only. After- 
 wards, if poflible, he rifes in his Ratling ; 
 and concludes thus. ^ Is not this fapping the 
 eery Foundations of Faith^ and encouraging 
 e-very 'Body to fet tip the proud Idol of his own 
 private Judgment^ againji the Revelation of 
 Gody and believe no fart her than his poor 
 narrow Capacity can comprehend? No, 'tis 
 not j nor any thing hke it : And that for this 
 plainKcafoUj becaufe the Church is not God: 
 Let Him prove that it is, and I will fuhmit 
 indeed. 
 
 Since-, therefore^ (fays the young Gentle^ 
 man t) TroteJia7its themjelves profefs the he^ 
 lief of many incomprehenflhle Myfieries^ they 
 fuhmit their Judgments pifi as zi'c do. Not 
 exadlly, young Gentleman; becaufe You, 
 and your Tutor, and the reft of you, fubmit 
 your Judgments, not only to incomprehefift" 
 hie Myfleries^ butalfo to flat ContradiUions i 
 not only to the Scriptures, but to Things 
 not contain din the Scriptures, nay, contrary 
 to them. We fubmit implicitly to God only ^^ 
 You fo fubmit to your own Church ; which 
 you fh all never perfuade us todoj unlefs 
 your Preceptor, or feme body elfe, can bring 
 
 ^ p. 5. t /W 
 
 better 
 
Enthled^ England'i Convet^fion^ 8cc. 9 
 
 better Arguments to convince us, than have 
 been brought yet. We do not, therefore, 
 as you fay we do "^^ aU incoherently (a Word, 
 in which You, and your Tutor much rcjoyce ,- 
 meaning by it, 1 fuppofe, inconfiftently) hi rC 
 dktilivg inyon^ what we are ohligdto prac- 
 tife otirfehts. 
 
 What follows in the remaining Part of This 
 Page, and in all the next, is true j though not 
 to the Purpofe. 
 
 T. 7. We are taught, that we have the 
 greatefi Authority upon Earth to ajfure tts 
 [that God has re^'eafdThis or That] to wity 
 the Catholick or JJni'verfal Church 5 founded 
 ly Chriji Himfelf^ and hy Flim appointed to 
 he 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 Atithority of the Catholick 
 Church in This Cafe, is no more than the 
 Authority of a Witnefs to a Matter of FaU ; 
 though Thofe Words, to he our Guide in all 
 fpiritual Matters^ are plainly thrown in, to 
 confound Thefe two very difiinU Ideas, Wit- 
 vefs to a FaU^ and Guide in all jpiritual 
 Matters : Intending too fuch a Guide, as muft 
 be ahfolutely and implicitly bcliev'd in overy 
 Thing, though never fo contrary to Scrip- 
 ture, Reafon, and our Senfes. Thirdly, E- 
 
 ven 
 
lo An Ansv/er to a Tofijh Soo}, 
 
 ven in witneffing to This Faft, that God has 
 reveafd:, &c. i. e. that the Scriptures are 
 the Word of God^ the Church does not ^&, 
 in her fpiritual Capacity j or, more plainly, 
 'tis not the Church, as the Church, but the 
 Body of Chriftians, coniider'dtoo not as Chri- 
 Jiian3^ but as ratmial^ honcji Me^i^ and not 
 Chriftians onlj:, much lefs the Clergy mily^ 
 which is what our Adverfaries mean by the 
 Church in This Controverfy, but other Me7iy 
 even Enemies to Chriftianity, Jews, Turks, 
 Pagans, who are, or have been, Witncffes 
 to the Genuinenefs of the Scriptures, or P.e^ 
 ceivers of them 2is genuine, or Both ^ as I 
 have elfe where obferv'd. St. Jtifiin (he fays"^) 
 declares that nothing hit the moft infolent 
 Madnejs could hinder am Man from fiilmit- 
 ting to its \the Church^ syDecifions. So fay 
 I / provided by fuhmitting to^ be meant 
 acquiefcing in^ or not oppofiyig ; and provi- 
 ded thofe Decifions be in Matters of T^ifci-^ 
 pline^ or in ohfcure difiictdt Points of Reli- 
 gion y and St. Jugujiin meant no more, f 
 Jnd that he would not helie^je the Gofpels 
 thenifelves^ unlefs the Authority qftke Church 
 compelld him to it : That is, he would not 
 believe the Gofpels to be the Word of God, 
 uniefs he had fufficient Authority of Tefti- 
 monies to convince him that they were fo s 
 
 ♦p. 7. MhU. ^ ^ 
 
 And 
 
Entitled^ England' j" Converjlon^ S^o 1 1 
 
 And no more would I. Which Authority o£ 
 Tellimonies he fuppofed to be in the 
 Church:, or Body of Chriftians : And fo do I 
 too, chiefly^ though not fok/y ; as I faid before. 
 To pais over his ftrange Ufe ot' Words in 
 That Claufe^ ^ the Truth or Nature of the 
 Myfteries ; as if the Truth of them, and the 
 Nature of them were the fame ^ and his af- 
 firming that it is impoffihle we JJmdd exa- 
 mine the Truth of a Thing we cannot tinder" 
 jiandt, (becaufe Thefe are Curiofities only by 
 the Bye, and do not at all affcd our prefent 
 Controverfy) I fay, to pafs over Thefe, I go 
 on to what muft by no means be pafTed over, 
 as it ftands in the next Page, f The proper 
 SuhjeUofour Examination is ^whether we ba've 
 fufhcient Moti'vcs to helie^oe that fuch^ or 
 fuch a Toint of DoUrine has been effeUually 
 revealed by God. That is one Subjed: of Ex- 
 amination, I grant, and a very great one ; 
 but *tis not the only one. Another is. What 
 is the true Senje and Meaning of fuch or fuch 
 a Thing, after we are fatisfy'd it is reveafd 
 by God. This^ I know, our Popidi Adverfa- 
 ries will deny : They infift, that for This we 
 muft abfolutely fubmit to the Church, and 
 make no ufe of our own private Reafon. But 
 they muft prove this, as w^ell as alTcrt it ^ 
 they muft not take it for granted.; jFor it is 
 
 Utd. t P. S. 
 
11 An Answer to a Topi/h 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 how they prove no fuch thing, has been 
 (hewn. But, perhaps, he is now proceeding 
 to That Queftion : For after thofe Words, 
 rez'ealed hy Gody it follows thus : |l "That is 
 to faV:, whether the "Proofs and Inducements 
 {commonly called the Motives of Credibility) 
 are of fu^cient Weight to convince a rational 
 Man^ that the Chitrclos Authority declaring 
 the Re^'clation of the DoUrine^ may he fe- 
 Citrely depended upon in the importa7it Con-- 
 cern of our Sonfs Sahation. So that accor- 
 ding to him, to helievc that God has receafd 
 a T.hing^ and to be coniincd that the Church's 
 Authority declaring the Re^velation of that 
 ^oBrinCy may he fectirely depended npon^ 
 is the fame thing. To fhew the comphcated 
 Sophiftry of thole Words, the Church's An- 
 thority^ declaring the Rez'elation^ 1 refer 
 back to the Clue of Diftinftions ,• as alfo to 
 p. 9, lo. Motices of Credihility {iov Motives 
 of Faith) is only a Solecifm ; and therefore 
 I do not infift upon it. 'Tis agree'd, however, 
 that we are to examine whether the Church's 
 Authority may he fecurely depended upon ^ 
 i. e. whether we are oblig'd, ahfolutely and 
 implicitly to fubmit to it. After which our 
 
 Author 
 
Entitled^ England'i' Converfun^ &c. i 5 
 
 Author concludes the Sedion in thefe Tr^ 
 umphant Words : "^ Jnd wiU any cne^ after 
 ihls^ have the Confidence to reproach Us^ 
 that We ehlige onr Teople to proceed blindly ^ 
 and forbid them to examine the Grounds of 
 their Faith ? Nothings ftirely^ hit a prejti- 
 died Heart can prompt them to imagine any 
 fttch tlmig. And I ask, will the Papiits, 
 after all, fuffcr People to examine the Deci- 
 iions of their Church, and contradict and 
 rejeft 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 SubmifTion > 
 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 Submiffion are 
 reconcil'd. I anfvver, Firft, This is an Jjier- 
 thought ; and the 'Keform.ation may be 
 thank'd for it \ as it may for m.any other 
 Concefllons from the Church of Rome^ and 
 in fome Meafure for the Reformation of the 
 Church of Kome itfelf. E^'en ncw^ 'tis well 
 known that in Topifj Countries People are 
 told, they muft implicitly fubmit to the 
 Church's Authority , and T^his Point is no 
 more fuffer'd to be cam^ajsd than any other : 
 
 'Tfs 
 
14 An Answer to a Topi/h Bool^ 
 
 ' Ji^ Herefy to deny it, or even queftion it. 
 Secondly^ This their Account of the Mat- 
 ter excludes the moji material Part of Ex- 
 amination, c7^. Whether the Church be 
 right in deciding^ and explaining each parti- 
 cular Article of Faith. It would, fureiy, 
 be blind Obedience to a King, were we 
 permitted only to enquire whether he had a 
 Right in general to be abfolutely obeyed ^ 
 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 Submiffion (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 fhewn already, and partly fhall fliew 
 hereafter) then notwithftanding This pretend- 
 ed Liberty of Examination, ihe ftill ground- 
 lefsly and ttnreafonahly obliges Teople to pro- 
 ceed blindly^ as This Gentlemam expreffes 
 himfelf Fourthly, Were the Arguments 
 to prove fuch a Submifiionas feemingly ftrong 
 and cogent, as any of that nature can well 
 be imagined j they could not conmnce any ra- 
 tional Man, however they vci\^\, puzzle and 
 cofifoiind Him. Should I find in the Bible it- 
 felf fuch a Propofition as This, A Tiece of 
 ^read is really and tndy a human "Body ^ 
 or, the fame Body can be in T'en thotifand 
 Places at once : 1 could not believe it. Would 
 I then deny what God a$rms ? No ; but I 
 
 Ihould 
 
Entitled^ England'j- Converjlon^ 8cc. 1 5 
 fhould be lure God did not affirm This. The 
 Text could not be genuine ; bccaufc God 
 cannot aflert a Contradidion. Nay, fliould 
 I fee a Man raife the T>ead^ and hear him 
 declare the Propofitions aforefaid to be true ,• 
 I could not believe him : Becaufe I hiom 
 the Things to be impoJJiUe in Rcafon and 
 Nature. And as for the T'efiimony of my 
 Senfes^ That Argument would be fet afide 
 by the Perfon requiring my Aflent ; becaufe 
 he would require me to believe contrary to 
 my Sejifes : Befides, upon the Evidence of 
 Keafon and my Senfes put together^ I can- 
 not be fo fire that a dead Man is really 
 raisd^ as I am that thofe Tropojitions can- 
 not he true. 
 
 To the Second Sedton. 
 
 P JlTH is not againji Reafon. That is 
 •*^ the T'ltle o£ This Sedion ; but why it is^ 
 I know not. It might as well have been 
 calfd J Continnatio7t of the fame SnhjeU : 
 Or if it muft have a new Title, it fhould 
 have been This ; T'he Church of Rome fu- 
 perior to the Scriptures and the Jpoflles : 
 For That is plainly the Scope of This Scftion^ 
 and, in truth, of the whole Book. Faith^ 
 however, is not againji Reafon. It is not, 
 indeed i i* e. the Chriftian Faith is not ^ but 
 
 the 
 
1 6 ^;7 ANSWER ^^ a TopifhBoo}, 
 
 the TcpiJ}} Faith is againft Reafon^ and out* 
 Sevfes too. 
 
 ^Pr^j^'j 4S'/r (feys "^ ^Z?^ j''^//;;^ Gentleman) 
 will you do me the fa^jour to explain y our felf 
 ly fo7ve particular Example, He means to 
 explain himielf upon x.hQChurcljs Authority ^ 
 &c* as in the foregoing Sedtion. 
 
 P. With all my Heart ,• and I ainnot do 
 it better^ than by snaking the Application of 
 what Iha'vefaidtothe Trcceedingsof thefirft 
 Chrijlians converted hy the Jpojiles^ Ihe 
 VaU is this ; Tweke poor illiterate Men, 
 &c. and fo goes on for almoft two Pages, 
 giving us the Hiftory of the Converfion ot 
 Three thoufand Jews and Gentiles, by the 
 firft Preaching of the Apoftles. This is to 
 puzzle and confound y to make poor ignorant 
 People gape and Jiare^ as if fomething ex-^ 
 traordinary were coming. He draws his Ar- 
 gument (you fee) from the Fountain Head y 
 begins with the very ^egi^inings of. Chrifii^ 
 anity y from whence you are to conclude, 
 that Chriftianity and Popery are one and the 
 fame thing. Pray obferve the Sound of the 
 Words : l^he FaU h this ; l^':^ehe poor^ il- 
 literate Men in whom there appear d no-* 
 thing to recommend them to the Eyes of the 
 Worlds prejented themfehes on a fudden in 
 
 the 
 
Entitled^ En gland V Converfion^ Sec. \ 7 
 
 the open Streets ^Z' Jerufalcm, (jc. They did 
 fo j and in fliort tlioy converted Three thou- 
 flind Souls : You have it iq the Second Chap- 
 ter of the jUs of the Jpojiles^ and much bet- 
 ter told than it is here. And Thofc who 
 believed, he tells us, aUed rationally in fo 
 doing "^j tboti^b the T>oUrine contain d Myf 
 teries I ttr prizing to human Reafon. Much 
 might be faid to fliew that what was then 
 preach'd w^as not fo very Myjrerions^ efpc- 
 cially tothey^-r^^j*. t But waving That^doubt- 
 lefs they adted 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 Apoftlcs ; and be- 
 caufe the Dodrme preach'd had nothing in 
 it contrary to Rcafon, Scripture, or natural 
 Religion, much lefs their Senfes. And from 
 hence is to be deduced a Train of Argumenta- 
 tion to prove thQ^Ckirch's Authority in de- 
 claring^ Sic. as aforefaid : Whereas it might 
 as well have taken its Rife from the Cre- 
 ation offhe Worldy as from the Com^erjion of 
 the fir Ji Chriftians. But it looks folcmnly and 
 pompoufly, as I obferved ; 'Tis a grand Ta- 
 rade of Words ^ tho' moft impertinent ones ,• 
 It amiifesinjudicions People, and makes their 
 Heads giddy j and then they are in an apt 
 
 * ?. 9. t They were in Troth nil jFews^ either Natives 
 ©r 'Brofeljt^s. 
 
 C Difpo- 
 
i8 An Answer to a fopi/h Book^ 
 
 T^ifpofition for the Reception of Topery: 
 Thefe firft Concerfs to Chriftianity belicv'd 
 raticnally ; Er^o, the Church of Rome is to 
 be believed implicitly. Nay, he proves it a 
 fortiori : For after the yoni?^ Gentleman has 
 ask'd him (as well he raight)^ 'what Confe- 
 qnence he draws from thence i "" He anfwers, 
 I infer that if thefe Motives were a ftmcient 
 and j olid Ground of a rational Suhmijfion to 
 the Church'' s Faith, et^en in her Infancy, when 
 the "Prophecies concerning her future Bncreaje, 
 Mamfice7ice, and Sple7idor^ were not yet 've- 
 rify d^ as they are now y thofe we have at pre- 
 fect to convince us of the Keafonahlenefs of 
 'vur relying upon her Authority^ are much 
 moreforcih'e, when Millions of Martyrs have 
 feat d her Faith with the laft drop of their 
 Wood', when ihe has peopled, ^c. and fo goes 
 on defcribing the glorious St ate oii\i^ Church 
 (Dieaning, 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. A rational Suhmiffwn to the Church s 
 Faith ! Thefe three thoufand Jews and Pro- 
 felytes had then no F'houghtsoH Church, as 
 fuch i muchlefs of her Mthority, or of Faith, 
 as Her Faith. Before their Converfion, the 
 Apoftles and Difciples of our Saviour were 
 
 p. w. 
 
 m 
 
Entitled^ England'j Converfion^ See. ! 9 
 
 all the Church in Being : And did thcfe Con- 
 verts fubmit to The^n^ upon a Principle of 
 Submili:on to Church' /hit b or it yl "I'is plain 
 they fubmittcd to the Evidence of Miracles^ 
 feconded by God s Grace^ and to nothing 
 elfe j as our Author himfcif rcprcfents it in 
 the Words immediately preceding. Why 
 then a Submiffion to the Churcljs Faith j 
 when Cbnrehfhip had nothing to do in the 
 Bulineis j there being in truth no Church 
 formd^ as the Word is now us'd. ? The Rea- 
 fon is plain : Bccaufe all^his Writer labours 
 at is eltablilliing the Authoriiy of the Church: 
 And fo That Word rnufl: be dragg'd in liere, 
 when ^rational SnhmiJJion istaik'd of; tho' 
 there is not the lead Connexion between the 
 One and the Other. 
 
 What follows in the PafTage cited is an 
 Argument to prove, that the Church of Ro7ne 
 (for That is always meant here hythe Church j 
 is more to be credited, and is of greater 
 Authority, than the Jpojiles. They, and 
 the other Difciples of Jefus^ w^hcn St. Te^ 
 ter preach' d This Sermon, w^ere but the 
 Church in her "very Infancy -, when the Trc-- 
 fhefies^ &c. ^ut Thofe Motives we have at 
 frefent to convince us of the Reafcnahknefs 
 of relying upon her Authority are much more 
 forcible^ Admitting that, all things confi- 
 dered. We have now more Evidence for the 
 ^ruth of Chriftianity^ th^n They had who 
 liv'd in the Days of the Apoftles, and faw 
 
 C 2 their 
 
lO J.n A^SWEK to a Topifh ^ooh^ 
 
 thc^ir Miracles^ as Some have affirm'd we have j 
 and in one Senfe it is undoubtedly true : Or 
 more plainly to our prefent Purpofe, admit- 
 ting that we have now more lorcible Mo- 
 tives to convince us of the Keajonahknefs of 
 relying npou T^heir Juthorit]\ than They had 
 who law them ^ yet it by no means follows 
 from hence, that We have more reafon to 
 rely upon the prefent CJnircJjs Authority^ 
 than They had to rely upon That of the A- 
 fOjiles : And upon anotlicr account wc 
 have not near fo much j Becaufe the Apoftles 
 were iiifpired^ and the prefent Church is 
 not. 
 
 Neither does our Author's Argument in the 
 leaft prove his Point i but is egregioufly tri- 
 fling and fophiftical. In the firft Part of 
 it by the Church is meant That in the A* 
 pofiles T)ays^ and chiefly the Apoftles them- 
 jehes ; 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 'L'hing ; T^'he Church even in her Infan- 
 cy — At prefent to convince us — of her Ah- 
 thority. Every body knows, that the Same- 
 nefs of a flux^ fucceffive Body is not the fame 
 ■with That of a Jingle 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 tlie Argument) that becaufe we 
 have at prefe?it more Evidence for the Trut/7 
 
Entitled^ EnghncVsConverJioy?^8cc. c i 
 
 ^!f Chrifiiamt]\ than Thofe had who liv'd in, 
 the Jpojiles T>avs^ (fuppofingtlie Fad to be 
 true) therefore Ifi have more Reafon to 
 rely upon tlie prefcnt Clmrcljs Authority, 
 than 'They had upon That of the Church then 
 hi'Being^ /. e, chiefly the Apoftles ; tho' Tliey 
 were dhnnely infpir d^ and the preient Chiirch 
 is not. For I dcfire the Reader to coniider, 
 tho' oar Author does not, that the the7i 
 Church (like the firft created Man) tho' an 
 Infant in Age, was adult in Wifdorn, and 
 Authority ; and of far greater Authority, 
 than any Church fince could ever juftly pre- 
 tend to. 
 
 Looking back upon what I have written, 
 I am both afham'd and am.az'd to have una- 
 wares us'd fo many Words in vindicating 
 the Jpojiles againft the Church of Rome. 
 But let Thofe doubly bluili, who urge fuch 
 Arguments, that it is almoll an Abfurdity 
 to anfw^er them. And^ fo I leave the odious 
 Subjcvft with This Rcflcftion ^ that if Popery 
 and Chriflianity were more confiftent With 
 each other, the Defenders of the Former 
 wou d be forc'd to make uf e of lefs Blafphe- 
 my againft tho Latter. 
 
 P/i I . G. T'hefe Motives of CrediUlity^ as 
 you call them^ (He might well fay, as Ton 
 call them^ for furc they were never calfd 
 fo by any body elfe) are Jiro77g indeed -, and 
 muji either fiifiice to render the ChurcVs Tff- 
 timouy credible y or there is ro Tefiiraony tip^ 
 
 C J on 
 
at An Answer fo ^ Topipj BWe, 
 
 on Earth to he fccurc/y depended npov. 
 
 P. Whcez'er examines them JerioufJy^ will 
 7noft certainly find them. fo. Inftead of the 
 Church's Tefiimcny read the I.)' nth ofChriflia^ 
 mty;^nd there will be more Senfe and Truth 
 in it. Jndjince (continues the PrcccptorjTZ^^y 
 contain nothing hit Hiflorical FaUs^ which 
 viay eafily he examirid y the Cafe fairly ft a-^ 
 ted hetween l^rotefiants^ and the Church of 
 Rome may he decided hy this one Trinciple > 
 to wit^ that it is an indifpenfahle iJuty^ 
 and hy confequcnce moft highly rational^ to 
 helieve a Thing thd nether fo feeming^ con- 
 trary to Keafon^ when we haz-e a moral 
 Certainty that God has feoeafd it. 
 
 G. I 'think theTrinciple is felf-e^'ide7it. 
 
 Tho' This l^rinciple, if true, would be of 
 no Service to Him (^fince the Romanifts, as 
 I iliall fliew hereafter, have not a moral Cer-- 
 tainty^ nor any thing like it, that God has 
 re^eafd the Dodrines they would ohtriide 
 upon us) yet I ioiift that it is fo far from 
 being lelf-C'vident^ that it is utterly falfe. 
 Nc'fer fo fee mi^igly contvary to Reafon ! Sure 
 if a Thing be as feemingly contx2iry to Rea- 
 fon as pojfihh'y it is really contrary to it : 
 At leaft as to Him, to whom it fo feems* 
 If then we have only a 7)20" a I Certainty on 
 the one hand that a thing is fo or fo, and in- 
 /alii hie T)emoriftration^ or felf-etident Certain- 
 ty c: the other, that it is not, and cannot be 
 fp, (as it cannot, if it be contrary to R^eafon) 
 
 the 
 
Entitled^ England's Convcpfionj See. ^ j 
 
 the Latter ouglit to preponderate ; nay it will, 
 and muft^ and it cannot be otherwiic. A 
 moral Certaifity of any Faci (fays he "" fpeak- 
 ing oiTefthiioiiy and external E^jidcuce j ex- 
 chicles all reajonahle Dotiht of it. Net fo, 
 fay I5 if in the nature of the Thing there 
 be 7nore than moral Certainty againfl itc 
 Or (if you pleafe) Things (landing thus, i 
 hat'e not a moral Certainty of it ; Take 
 which you will. 1| Jnd if I hace no T^oiiht 
 htit God has rec'eafd jttch^ or fttch a thing ; 
 I miifi he an Jtheifl^ or Madman^ not to be- 
 lieve it. But in the Cafe fuppofcJ, I have 
 more than a T)ouht of it i I am ^jery fttre 
 God did not reveal it : becaufe God camiot 
 reveal a Contradict ion to Reafon. f For my 
 refiifing to heliet'c it in that Caje is nothing 
 lejs than rejeUi7ig^ or fetting at Nought the 
 1^ePJ777ony of God himfeif^ thereof 1 am fiip- 
 fos'd to hai'e a fnoral Certainty. 1 anfwer 
 as before, in effed^ that in the Cafe fuppos'd 
 I either haz'e not fuch a moral Certainty, 
 that God Z^^^j-reveal'dit : Or if I have, it is ont- 
 ^Wg"Z?Vbyfoniethingf??(?r6' than moral Certain- 
 ty, that He has not revealed it. I put it both 
 W' ays, to prevent Quarelling about Words. For 
 the further clearing of this Matter, I beg the 
 Reader to caft his tye back to P. 14. I.. 
 22. Fourthly y Were th^ Jrgmnents^ dec. to 
 the End of the Sedion. 
 
 Ibid. 11 l^i\ t ^^•^^• 
 
 C 4 Halving 
 
24 An A^SWE R to a Tcjn(h Bool, 
 
 Having fliewn This weighty Principle to 
 Ic fcilfe j I Inall now fliew^ as I propos'd^ that 
 our ToPiJJj Adverfliries can have no Jd^'an- 
 tage irom it, Jnppoimf^ it were trtte. 
 "But how do Tou proce (fays the young Gen- 
 tleman) that all controcerjml Toints het'ween 
 "-Protefimits mid Us^ may ho decided by this 
 one ge7icral Principle ? 
 
 P, I proce it thus. Whate^ver FaU has 
 the Tefiimo7iy of the grcateft Authority^ &c. 
 All contain d in This Paragraph amounts to no 
 morCj than that if w^e have fufficicnt Evi- 
 dence attefting any matter of Fad^ we ought 
 to believe it : Which is deny'd by no body, that 
 I know of. And what follows to the End of 
 the Scc^tion^ is to prove that there is fuch a 
 moral Certainty^ (founded on the Churches 
 Juthority) for the + Revelation of all the 
 Points of Chriftian Dodrine held by Papifts, 
 and deny'd by Protcftants. The Argument 
 ftands Thus. |1 Woatet-er FaU has the I'ef- 
 timoyiy of the greatefi Authority^ &c. 'Btit 
 the Ke'velation of all the Toints of Chriftian 
 ^oUrine held by Romanijis^ and denyd by 
 Trot efi ants ^ is attejled by fuch an Authority. 
 Ergo, &c. Not to infift at prefent that the 
 'Kevelation (even when it is true) is not pro- 
 perly the matter of FaU j but the Mira- 
 cles which are the ObjeUs of Scnfe^ are the 
 
 
Tci^s to which the Witneffcs give their Tef-^ 
 timony^ which Faucis are T roofs of the Ke^ 
 K:cliition : I fay not to infift upon l^his ; fince 
 our Author calls the Reclamation of the Ro^ 
 miJJo Dodlnno, as oppofite to ours, a FaU^ 
 and puts it (as to the Evidence of it) upoa 
 the fame Foot with the heft grotwded Hiftc- 
 rical FaUs ; f I ^^k him, are we then to con- 
 fider it as a plain hidorical FaU attefted by 
 the Church, or are we not ? If we arc not ; 
 Why does He talk in this manner ? Why 
 docs he confound Matters ox FaU withmat^ 
 ters of T)oUrine f The T^eftimony of a Wit^y 
 nefs^ with the Jnthorityoi^. T>iUator ? If we 
 are j how does the Church (even their own 
 Churchjthe Church Q>iR.07nc)attefi the R^eze^ 
 lation of the Pope's Supremacy, the Infallibili- 
 ty of the Church, TranfubftantiationjCommu- 
 nion in one kind, and tw^enty more ? If fhe 
 prcces them from Scriptttre 5 I am anfjoerd 
 ^s to the T'ritth of them : But This is not 
 Wityieffng. If file proceqds upon any other 
 Foot • I ask. Does flie tell us when, and 
 where^ God revealed them ? Does (he tell us 
 by what MeJJengers or ^Prophets He reveal- 
 ed them ; and what Miracles they wrought 
 as Credentials of their MifiTion ?. Does flie 
 tell us whetherthey were revealed all in a 
 Itimp^ or at different tim.es ? Nil hornm i 
 ^'erho,'a^ (j' grandis^ &c. Not one Syl- 
 
 t Ih\d. 
 
 lablo 
 
^6 An Answer to a Topi/h ^ool^ 
 
 lable of all This ,• but we are toid in general, 
 in a confus'd "^ Huddle of Words (which 
 ftiall be taken to pieces in its prop t place) 
 that the Church has from Age to Age de>- 
 liver'd down abundance of ^£riiths as re- 
 peal d by God, fome in Writings and fome 
 by word of Mouthy &c. /, e. in fliort. The 
 Church of Rome fays, That all the Church 
 of Koyiie fays is to be taken for Gofpel. 
 But This is not witnelJifig to an hiftorical 
 FaU, or Talis : 'Tis T>iUating, not Wit- 
 fieffing i And fo we are juft where wx were 
 before. 
 
 But we proceed. The Thing to be pro- 
 ved is, that the Revelation of the diftin- 
 guifliing KomiJJj Doftrines, has the Tcftimo-' 
 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 Prm-- 
 ciple^ [Viz. T^hat it is an indifpenfahle T)ttty^ 
 and hy ccnfeqtience moft highly ratio7ial^ to 
 heliez^e a thiiig^ tho 7iet'er fo feemingly con* 
 trary to Kealon^ when we have a moral Cer- 
 tainty that God has revealed it ] /j- certain: 
 And the immediate Conjeqtience that flows 
 frora it is a f till Confutation of Atheifts and 
 
 '* The fccond Side of the nnpag'd Leaf between/'. 12, & 
 a;. Noiv this Chm-chfomJded hyChriJ} Umf elf y &C,/jp. l/{,-^TOt 
 ^fes as reVeaVd 'Truths. 
 
 t ifiy fide of thetinpag'J leaf, 6^.% 
 
 T^eifls* 
 
Entitled^ England'j* Converjion^ Sec. 27 
 
 ^cijls, I have fliewn that it is not very 
 certain ; nay that it i% utterly falfe and ah- 
 fiird. What the immediate Coiifeqneiice 
 which flcvcs frcm it is. He docs not teil us ; 
 but I am fatisfy'd, that Nothing which flows 
 from it can be any Confutation of Atheifis 
 and njeijis. So far otherwife, that it w^ould 
 expofe us to the Scorn of Thofe Infidch : 
 The Atheifis w^ould call it "Begging the cftef- 
 tion^ as fuppofing the Being of a God, which 
 He denies ; and both He and the Deift would 
 fee the Abfurdity of it, as I do ^ and yet I 
 am fure, I am neither an Atheift, nor a 
 Deift, 
 
 "But to prez'ent (continues he t) your mij^ 
 taking my meanings when I told you that 
 the Cafe fairly fiated between Troteftants 
 and the Church of Pvome may he decided, 
 hy this one Principle j I pretended not that 
 there is the fame extenfive Etidence^ or T.ef- 
 timony^ for ez'ery Jrticle of Faith in which 
 we differ from Trotejiants^ as there is for 
 Chrifiianity in General. No, God knows ; 
 becaufe every one of Their Articles of Faith, 
 as diftin(5t from Ours, depends entirely upon 
 their own Authority : But the Truth of Chri- 
 ftianity is proved by the Authority (meaning 
 the Teftimony) of the Church Univerfal, 
 and of Others too -, as well as by much inter- 
 
 t m^, 
 
 nal 
 
iS An Answer to a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 nal Evidence. He indeed gives another Rea- 
 fon for his Caution, and 'tis This j *" Jie- 
 cauje it has happen d more than once^, that 
 the CathoUck Church has been filent for fome 
 time in refer e^ice to Articles of Faith ^ ecen 
 alloiiod of as ftich by Troteftants. "The Rca- 
 fon whereof is ^ becaiife the Chvsch ne-ver de- 
 cides any T>oUrine to be an Article of Faith ; 
 V/7/ after the mo ft diligent Enquiry^ and ma- 
 ture ^Deliberation^ and generally upon Occa^ 
 Jion of T>ifpittes raised about it. If they are 
 really Articles of Faith 7iow ; they were al- 
 'ways fo : tho' perhaps not fo explicitly de- 
 clard^ nor iojirongly guarded. I take no- 
 tice of This y bccaufe 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 feme 
 l^oints, as Articles of Faith ^ which have not 
 fo extenfii'e an Ecidence^ as the Ifrtith of 
 Chriftianity ingeyieral •-, He inftancesin Tzc?^, 
 t which He fays we ourfelves allow to be 
 Articles of Faith ; which yet were not al- 
 ways recciv'd as fuch, and at laft were re- 
 ceived as fuch only upon the Authority of 
 the Church's Deciiions. Thefe Points are^^ 
 
 'Hh'il t ^^^'^- ancl next ?♦ 
 
 i/, That 
 
Entitled^En^\d.nd^s Converfion^ &c. cp 
 
 iji. 1'hat all the 'Books both of the Old and 
 New Tefiament^ as printed in our "Bible:, 
 *is>ere written by T>i^'ine hifpiration. idly^ 
 That Baptifm adminifterd by Hereticks is 
 'valid. I anfwcr, i/?. It is abfolutely falfe that 
 we rJlow Thcfe Points (which, by the way, 
 are ftrangcly coupled) to be Articles of Faith. 
 The 'Firft of them is indeed a Truth f mid a- 
 mental to Chriftianity, and previous 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 exped any. Be- 
 fides. This Author himfelf, (as the Tenden- 
 cy of his Argument ncccllarily 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 Uncanonicalncf^ 
 of feme Books for fome Ages ^ tho' a great 
 deal might be faid t3 it, yet I pafs itover 
 here j becaufe it does not affe<ft our prcfent 
 Argument. The other Point He mentions, 
 was never declared by the Church to be an 
 Article of Faith i nor do We receive it as 
 fuch. 
 
 I anfwer, i.dty. If we did acknowledge 
 Thcfe Points to be Articles of Faith, and 
 
 I'hat 
 
50 An Answer to a Topi/h Booi^ 
 
 That upon the Autliority 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 Tcftimony and Authority 
 of the fame Catholick Church againff; them 
 for the Articles difputed hetween us and 
 them j our "Belief of them is grounded upon 
 the fame Moral Evidence ^ or Certainty^ as 
 their "Belief is of the two abo've-mentiond 
 Articles. But wx cait produce the Teftimo- 
 ny, (jc. I deny the Minor : And let us fee 
 how it is proved, f Now this Church foun- 
 ded by Chrift Himfelf to be our Guide to 
 Hea'-jen , this Church fo ^wnerable for her 
 Antiquity^ cmd the lineal 'Defcent-^ &c.. 
 This Churchy I fc^y:> &c. And I fay. Which 
 Church ? For that the Church of Rome is 
 the Church, I will never grant. To thofe 
 Words, founded by Chrift himfelf^ to be oiir 
 Guide to Hea'cen-y I anfwer, ift- We are 
 now^ fpeaking of the Church as a JPitnefs^ 
 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. || Well -, but this Church hath al- 
 ways att eft ed the following Hiftorical FaUs^ 
 to wit^ that the twehe Apoftles {the fir ft 
 
 2d fidee^ir. t IblL IJ P. 13. 
 
 Planters 
 
Entitled^Et)g\and''s Converjion^ Sec. ^ i 
 
 Planters of her FciitJj) were all infpircd 
 Men; that whatfoecer they taught relativg 
 to the Chrifiian T>oclriney either by Word 
 of Mouthy or by JPriting^ were T^ruths re- 
 z^erled by God^ and diUated by the Holy 
 Ghoft. The Apoftles were undoubtedly /V 
 fpird Men ,• and their Dodrines were 
 Truths reveal'd by God : And fo they would 
 have been, whether the Church had attefted 
 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 atteftsj but the Church therefore 
 attefts, becaufe the Thing is true : And O- 
 th .Ts, who never were of the Church, but 
 mortal Enemies to it, atteft the Truth of 
 many Fads, which prove the Truth of Chri- 
 ftianity. ^T^hat they com7nittedthefeT^ruths^ 
 cither in Writings or by Word of Mouthy 
 as a f acred T^nifl^ to their SucceJforSy the 
 ^ifljops and Tafiors ordain d by them. But 
 did they commit them to 710 body elfe ? Did 
 they preach and write to no body but Bi- 
 fhops and Paftors? Did not they commit 
 them to all, who would hear or read them? 
 According to This way of talking, one would 
 think, at leaft, that the Apoftles, immedi- 
 ately before their Death, very folemtdy and 
 
 formally 
 
51 An ANSWER to a Top'ijh Booh^ 
 
 formally g^\'c Copies of all the Divine Truths 
 they had written, to the ^ijljops and Ta- 
 Jtors y and calFd to their remembrance all 
 they had fpoken , and that This precious 
 ^cpofitum^ This facred Trufi ^(as our Au- 
 thor calls it) was committed to Them 07ily. 
 Whereas the Apoltlos (as all the World 
 knows ) preach'd the Gofpel to ecery 
 Creature y 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 wxre Bi- 
 fhops or Paftors) w^ere received by the 
 Church, as of Divine Authority, feme 
 fooner, and fome later^ according as the E- 
 vidence of their Authority appear d : Which 
 Evidence was not produced by Bifhops and 
 Paftors only* But This again was a Caft of 
 our Author's skill, to amnfe ignorant People y 
 and bewilder their Underftandings with 
 ftrange Notions about the Church. And the 
 next Words arc in the fame ftrain. "^ That 
 thefe (Bifliops and Paftors) were likewife 
 Com7ni(]ioned to dclit'er them to thofe who 
 were to fucceed them in the j acred Miniftry^ 
 Which fuppofes that the Biftiops and Pa- 
 ftors only^ in virtue of their Co7nmiJfion^ or 
 holy OrdersS^ as Biiliops and Paftors> had 
 
 l^M i l U I WH B ll l 
 
 'Authority 
 
Entitled^ ¥.nghniVs Converfion^ Sec, ^ ^ 
 
 'Jntbority to deliver dcwn the rc'vealed 
 Truths, whether fpokcn or ^r it ten : And 
 That too Of//y to tlieir S'licccJJors in their he- 
 ly FimUions, Than winch nothing can b^ 
 more contrary to Reajo??^ or Matter of i^^7£?; 
 The Scriptures were diffused nH ocer th^ 
 Worlds as other Books are, by innumerable 
 Copies i and have in all Ages been the 
 Property and PofleiTion of private Perfons, 
 Laity as well as Clergy. Of unwritten A- 
 poftolical Traditions I fay nothing | bccaufe 
 I deny that there are any : Of which here- 
 after, ^ Jnd that hy thefe^ and their Sue- 
 cejfors after thern^ They ha'Ve thus been 
 handed down to us for re^jeatd Truths fro7n- 
 Jiifloop to WJljopJrom T aft or to Tafioryfrc7n 
 Father to Son^ and from Generation to Ge^ic- 
 ration-, throughout all Ages to this c^ery time^ 
 as the Apoftles Creed ha^ heen. Thofe in- 
 definite Wordsj they^ and thus^ leave us at 
 a great Uncertainty. wniKtlruths, as Hea- 
 cenlyT'ruths^^vQ deliver'd, is the main Qiiefti- 
 on between Us and Them ^ and That fhail bo 
 
 difcuffed prefently. thus handed down 
 
 He muft mean eitlier by TFriting^ or by 
 Word of Mouthy or by both. All Dodrincs 
 pretended to be revealed Truths, and 
 to be handed down to us by TFord of Mouth 
 only^ we utterly rejefl: 5 becaufe there is no 
 
 P Proof 
 
■'f An Answer to a Topifh Boolij 
 
 Proof of their bcinc; revealed Truths, unlofs 
 the Church of Rew/s bare Word in her own 
 Caufe may pafs for Evidence. As for the 
 JpoPJes Creed, it has been handed down (as 
 every Body knows) both by Word of Mouth, 
 and by Writine;. Andbefidesj y.c rcccivc 
 the Truths contained in it, as Articles ct 
 raith,upon the Authority, not of the Church 
 
 but of Scripture. , . 
 
 We muft here obferve, that our Au- 
 thor, extends the Word CbnrcB to t\io pre jent 
 Church J For how can any but the prcjent 
 attell a Thing down to this cerv time-. 
 And that the Romanifts acknowledge no 
 Church but their own, is notorious to the 
 World. The Force of his Argument there- 
 fore IS, that the Church oiReme (for That, 
 according to Him, is the Church) in all A- 
 c-es has, and now does, atteft that the A- 
 %oftles u^ere infpird, and that ^vliat they 
 lid, and writ, relating to the Chrifttan Doc- 
 trine, were Truths repealed hy God: And 
 this gives us a moral Certainty^ that tbojs 
 FaUs 'Ulcere true. You fee, all depends up- 
 on the Church of Rome; taking former A- 
 g;es and the prefent in conjunaion. T/^/J 
 Ch'vch attefts (obferve the prefent Teme) 
 and has always attcfted that the twek's 
 Jpofiles, £cc. '* Now, what if the prele^it 
 
 * As d'iv^. 
 
 Churcli 
 
Entitled^ England^ Convey foUy Sec. ^ 5 
 
 Church of Ro772e (hould ceafe to ^Jteft thefc 
 things? Why then ^according to This Argu- 
 mentation) there s an end of our 'E^jidcnce 
 for the Infpraticn of the Jpqftles^ and the 
 UJhine Jnthority of the Scriptures. The 
 Jpofiles and the Scriptures therefore dcri'je 
 their Authority (as to Us^ or any Ufe we 
 can make of it) from the prefent Church of 
 Kome. Let This be ferioufly conlidcrM by 
 the Chrifiian Reader. Let it be obfervcd 
 too, idly. That the Infpiration of the A- 
 poftles^ and the T>imne Authority of the 
 Scriptures^ are here put upon xhQ fame foot 
 with whatever the Church of Rome fliall 
 hepleafedto obtrude upon us. And ^dly. That 
 to eftablifli all Her peculiar T>oUrines^ flie 
 is both "Judge and Witnefs in her o'wn Caufe 5 
 producing no Evidence hut this^ That what- 
 foever ftie fays is true, becaufe flie fays it. 
 7 his Church (i. e. the Church of Rome) at- 
 tejisy &c. 
 
 Our Author proceeds. "^ T^hefe^ I fay^ 
 are FaUs which ha^ve the l^efiimony of the 
 Church of Chrifi in all Ages ; that is of the 
 fnofi credible^ and illuftrious "Body or Socie- 
 ty of Men upon Earthy to much for the 
 Uruth of them, Suppofing he here under- 
 ftood the Vniverfal Church in our Trot eft ant 
 Senfe, as 'tis plain he does not ; yet even 
 
 P i thei^ 
 
Yt> An Answer to c. Topifh ^ool^ 
 
 the.! his Rcafoning would be moft abfurcL 
 The Churchy when fiie appears as a Wit7ie}s 
 to Fads, proving that fach and fuch Points 
 are repealed Tntths^ muft lay afide Her 
 Character of 7110 ft illnftrious -, and her Cha- 
 rader of CJmrchjhip it fclf ^ becaufe fhe re-- 
 cokes it fL'om Thofe re-vealed Truths. To 
 fay that the Scriptures^ for inftance^ arc 
 divinely infpir'd, becaufe the Churchy which 
 is th3 moft ilhiftrions Body^ ^c. fays they 
 are, when flie can no way prove that She 
 is fo illnftrtoiis^ nor that She is ^ Churchy 
 but from the Scripttires^ is a mere tircle ; a 
 Figure in Logick, to which the Papifts are 
 extremely addided ,• 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 ozm 
 Sir, they (the FaUs^ as above reprefented, 
 and as attefted by the Church, i. e. the 
 Church of Rome) are an unanfwerahh 
 'proof of the TVnth of Chrijiiariity in gene- 
 raL No, but they are not : So far from 
 it, that they nnderrnine Chriftianity in ge- 
 neral, [ct afide the real^ irrefragable Prook 
 of it, and juhftitutefalfe ones in their ftead ; 
 fls I haveihewn. However, the young Gentle- 
 man s next Words are pertinent cnous;h: 
 
 IBtit 
 
Entitled^ ^n^^andi sCorriKyfioyi^S^Q. ^7 
 
 ^ Btit what is this to the Toint in (Itiejii" 
 on ? 
 
 P. p'ery muchy Sir; fir they (the Tads) 
 fully JJoew the Weight of the 'lejlimony and 
 Authority of the illujirions Twdy^ or Society 
 oj Men^ which we call the Cathclick Church 
 in all Ages. "They/j^fc? the weight of the 
 T^efimiViy of the Church ? He has all along 
 been proving that the '\feftimony of the 
 Church flocws the weight of Them ; Some 
 of it, at leaft 5 if their 2l7/rZ? be any part 
 of thci* Weight. What follows is more 
 plain, t In a UmA^ they fliew her to be 
 a Society fo very facred, that her Tefiimo- 
 ny in any Age is a fufficient E-vidence^ &c. 
 rni.Y Jloew hep.? According to the whole 
 Drift of his Argument, she ihewsTHEM. Ti? 
 he a Society fo eery facred? &c.^ Why, he 
 has all along (as we have fccn) fipposd her 
 to be a Society fo very Sacred ; and there- 
 fore of fufficient Authority to eftablilli thofe 
 Truths by her Teftimony. Now it feems, 
 Thofe very Truths attefted by Her, and 
 receiving their Authority from her, give 
 Authority to her, as a TcftifVer. Obferve 
 too, by the Way, thofe remarkable Words in 
 any Age: Here he fpeaks more plainly, con- 
 firming VN^hatlbefore took notice of concern- 
 ing the prefsnt Church. And admirable- 
 
 .* Vag, 13, and 14. t ?. 14. ^ 
 
 P 3 Do. 
 
^8 An Answer to a ToplfiBool^ 
 
 Dodrine it is indeed. But to go on ; repeat- 
 ing (as we arc forc'd to do) feme of the 
 Words already cited, they /JjewnEK to he 
 a Society fo I'ery f acred \ that her T^ejiimo- 
 ny in any Age is a fiifficicnt E'vidence to 
 make tis reafonahly heliece thofe things 
 veveatd which Jhe propofes as reveoFd 
 T.niths. If this be not rounds and round, 
 in as true a Circle as ever was dcfcribed y I ne- 
 ver faw a Circle in my Life. But tho' by 
 this thrifty and compendious way of Argu- 
 ing, he proves the FaUs by the Autlm'ity of 
 the Church and the Authority (f the 
 Church by the FaUs , yet Care is takea 
 to fet the ChitrcJjs Authority in the firong- 
 eft Light* It is mention'd lad, and clofes 
 the whole Argument ^ that it may make the 
 deeper Imprefiion. J fitfficie^it Evidence to 
 make tts reafonably belie^x thofe things re^ 
 veafd^ which She propofes as rez'eatd Truths, 
 i. e. We muft ftill remember, that all re- 
 veal'd Truths, w^hether in the Scriptures^ 
 or ayiy where elfe^ depend upon Rer Te- 
 ftimony and Authority. 
 
 Whence^ I infer (fays He '^^^that We hate the 
 fame Moral Certainty of the Revelation of 
 Chrifi's real Trefencefor example^ in the ^lef 
 fed Sacrament^ of the T>oUrine of T^ranfuh" 
 fiantiation^ Turgatory^ Invocation of Saints^ 
 Honotiringof Reliques,&cc> as both We^ and 
 
 Trotejlants 
 
Entitled^ England'^s Convcrfioy^ Sec* 59 
 
 ^rotejiants ha^ve of the dhine Infpiration 
 of Scriptures. "Becaitfe We ha^je the fame 
 J^eftimcny or Authority to rely-iipon^ for the 
 T'rtith ('/Both ; Nor can v:e reajonahly rejeU 
 the one without rejcUing the other. And then 
 we may hid Adieu to all re-veafd Religion. 
 Clmixs real PrefenCe^ asdiftinft frcm "Tran- 
 pahjiautiation^ need not have been menti- 
 oned ^ becaufe we do not deny a fpiritual 
 real Prefence. To the reft I anfwer : We 
 have mt the faiDe Teftimony or Authority 
 to rely .upon for the Truth oF Tranjuhfian- 
 tiatioii^ Purgatory^ &c. as we have for ths 
 Truth of the ditnne Infpiration of the Scrip-- 
 tures. For the Latter^ we have the Tefti- 
 mony of the Church zmicerfal \ and in fome 
 meafure of Thofe^ who arc out of the Church. 
 We have as much Proof of it, as the nature 
 of the Thing will admits and no FaB was 
 ever Letter attefied. For the Former, we 
 have only the Church of Rome witneffing 
 and judging in hor owjz Catife , in dired oppo- 
 fition to the Teftimony and Authority of all 
 other Churches, and of tlie Ihly Scriptures 
 too, which ilie acknowledges to be divinely 
 infpifd: So that wc may fafcly rejeft ^Pope- 
 ry ^ without bidding adieu to all rez'eafd Re- 
 ligioiu Nay, we cannot acknoitdedge the 
 Fiift, without contradiuivg and under^ni- 
 ning the Laft, Jf the Tfefipnony or Autho" 
 
 B 4 rity 
 
40 An AkS WER ^<? ^ Toj)i[h Boohj 
 
 rity of the Church (He argues i)fi!ffices to 
 com'ince a Proteftant's Judgment of the Inlpi- 
 ratioii of Scriftnres^ mid to oblige him to 
 ^jeritvse his Sonfs Salvation npon the 'Belief 
 ff it ; why will not the fame 'Tefcimony and 
 Jiithonty ohligc him likcwife to helie^je the 
 'Revelation cf the other Jrticles jiifi now meft- 
 tiond? I anfwer, ift. as before, I have not 
 the fame Teftimony and Authority for Both, 
 ^dly^ If the Scriptures were not divinely in- 
 fpir'd ,• my BeUef that they are^ would not 
 hazard my Soufs Saloation<, ^dly. 1 have 
 not only not the fa^ne Evidence for the 
 Truth of the Popifn Tenets, as I have for 
 That of the Infpiration of the Scriptures 5 
 but I have no Proof of it at all y nay, I have 
 dired proof againfi it, both from Scripture^ 
 and the Tcflimony and Authority of the 
 Church. Therefore ^hly. The Belief of 
 them would indeed hazard my Soiifs Salva- 
 tion i bscaufe they are wicked as well as 
 falfe^ and directly contrary to the Word of 
 God. Buf He goes on. "^ For either thv 
 Churchy appointed by Chrift to he our Guide^ 
 may he fectirely relyd upon j or not. If not ; 
 a TProtefxants Belief of the Infpiration of 
 Ecriptures is raflo^ and inconfiderate. But 
 if it may he fecurely relyd upon ; he aiis in-- 
 
 t Ihid, p. 14. 15. 
 
 cohe^ 
 
Entided^ England^' Converfion^ 8cc^ 4 1 
 
 coherently in not believing the other Jlrticles 
 declard by her to be repeat d Truths. 
 
 G, / coiifefs I do not fee by what Slight or 
 Jrtifce Trotejlants can cfcapefrom the two 
 Horns of this T)ilemma. For whether they 
 fay 7eSy or No j it gives their Church a mor- 
 tal "Blow* You are very complaifant to your 
 Tutor, ycung Gentleman j but 'tis really 
 more Your Goodnefs, than his Dcfert. If 
 You, Sir, dont fee hew we can efcape; I 
 think, I do : Nor is fo muchy/^/^Z?/, or ar- 
 tifice requir d, as You imagine : So far from 
 it, that they are a Couple of the weakefi 
 Horns that ever piiflod. But v^hy muft wc 
 needs fay Tes^ or i\&, without any more /r- 
 doe ? Did your Tutor never tell You that, 
 in foaie Cafes, before we fay Yes, or Noj 
 'tis rcquiiite to difti^iguiflj ? If by the Church 
 be aieanc the Church of Rome ; I deny that 
 She was appointed by Chrift to be our Guide : 
 and moreover to the firft Horn I anfwer, 
 Ko ; She is not to be feairely relyd upon : 
 So far otherwife, that She is the falfeft Wit^ 
 ncfs, the mod corrupt Judge, and the blind- 
 eft Guide, upon the Face of the Earth. Nor 
 does it follow, that bccaufe She i^ not to be 
 fecurcly rely d upon, therefore a Troteflanfs 
 belief of the Injpiration of the Scriptures is 
 rafj an.^' inconjiderate \ bccaufe He has 0^ 
 ther^ and much better^ Proof that the Scrip- 
 ture is infpired, than her Authority. This 
 being fo^ the other Horn is of courfc iifelcfs. 
 
 For 
 
42 An Answer to a Topi/h Boolj 
 
 For the Cafe ftanding^ as I have faid j the 
 Proteftant does not aU incoherently in 7iot 
 helieznng the other Articles declard hy Her 
 (the Church of Ro7ne') to he rcveafd "Intths. 
 If by the Church be meant the tinlverfal 
 Church, or the Catholick Church truly fo 
 called ; I anfwer, iji. Even She is only a 
 Guide in Subordination to the Scripture ,* 
 and if She fliould teach any thing plainly 
 contrary to theplaineji Scripture^ or to Rea-- 
 fon^ or to our Senfes; it ought to be rejeded. 
 Therefore idly* She may he feciirely relyd 
 iiipon^ when llie attefts a "^plain FaU ,• efpeci- 
 ally when the Fad: is proved by other Evi- 
 dence, both external and internal ; but not 
 if fhe fliould teach things plainly contrary 
 C^f. 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 rcvcal'd Truths, 
 but what are in Scripture, ^thly. There- 
 fore, as to the ift Horn, a Troteftant's "Be- 
 lief of the Infpiration of Scripture is not rajlo 
 and inconfiderate I bccaufeHe believes it up- 
 on the Tefiimony of the Catholick Churchy 
 and upon other Evidence ^ all which put to- 
 gether amounts to a T)em,onJiration^ as far 
 as any FaU is capable of it. As to the id^ 
 He does not dot incoherently in not heliemng 
 the other Articles declard hy her, to he re^ 
 <vealed Tenths ^ becaufe She declares not any 
 to be fo, but what are in Scripture ; every 
 
 Tittle 
 
Entitled^Eng]^nd'*s Converjion^ &g 43 
 
 Tittle of which the Protcftant believes: Or 
 if She did. He would not aB incoherently 
 ill not believing them, efpccially 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 iliameful So- 
 phifm therefore in Thofe Words/^^^/r^/j;r^/)^W 
 ^lpon. You might have told Your Tutor, if he 
 had tutor'd you as he ought to have done j that 
 'tis the 'Fallacy^ call'd A diUo fecttndam quid 
 ad diUum Jimpliciter. You may obferve 
 (if You pleafe) that I have given You more 
 than I ov ed You : For to break one Horn 
 of a dilemma is fufficient at any time \ But 
 Ithink I have effcdually broken "Both. 
 
 To the next Paragraph (obferving in a Word 
 that ll'itnejjing^ and T>eciding^ T'ejiimony^ 
 and Gitide^ are here confounded, as before) 
 lanfwer , th^t God has undoubtedly given us 
 jjifficiejtt means to knew what Truths He has 
 reveakd^y what not : But that the Church of 
 Chrifi^ as it fignifies the Church of Rome^ 
 is not a fufficient means to conz'ey downfecure- 
 ly to us all receafd Trttths^ for the Reafons 
 aforefaid. And the Proteftant being defired^ 
 pr rather challenged, to mark out fome tetter 
 and furer Giiide^ fit fliould be means of 
 Com'eyance) does with great Intrepidity 
 mark out the floly Scripturesy and the Arts 
 
 of 
 
44 ^^ Answer to a Topi/h Bo4j 
 
 of Writing and Trinting them ; together 
 with the "teftimony of the Univerfal Churchy 
 and Others, concerning them. If he means 
 the Church trii^ univerfal in our Senfe ^ the 
 Argument will do' him no fervice, for the 
 Rcafons above alledg d. 
 
 Nor is This ehding the T^ifpculty^ in- 
 ftead of clearing it i 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 ftrcrgth 
 on our lide) that the Church of Ko7?2e 
 Is the Catholick Church, or elfe tliat He 
 means the Catholick Church as We do j That 
 We have no Evidence for the Divine Autho- 
 rity of the Scriptures, hut the Teftimony 
 of the Catholick Church -, And laftly, that 
 the Catholick Church (as we mean, it) 
 delivers down all the TopiJJo Dodrines as 
 reveal'd Truths. I fay we will fuppofe 
 all Tliis on Their fide, tho' not one Word 
 of it is true ,• Even then let us fee how his 
 Argument will ftand. For it remains fi ill 
 mianfwered (fays He II ) hew a Trotefiant^ 
 without relying upon the Church's Teftimo- 
 ny^ or Authority^ can ha^ve a rational Mor- 
 tice to affure him of the divine Infpirdtion 
 of the Scriptures, Jnd if he he obliged to 
 depend upon her T^eflimony in this capital 
 
 i p. j^. II ihu. 
 
 "point 
 
Entitle d^'EDgl'And'^s Converjioyj^ Sec. 45 
 
 Toint ; bc^ can he reafonahly rejufe to 
 pay the fame Suhmiffwn to her in other 
 Articles^ as pofithely declared by Her 
 to he rec'eala 'Iniths^ as the dwine In" 
 fpiration of the Scriptures ? For fmely 
 all the 'Motives of Credibility are as 
 ftrong on her fide in her Teftimo7iy 
 of the one as of the other. To pa fs 
 over his Abfurdity above-mention d^ in 
 calling the T)idne Infpiration of the 
 Scriptures^ a reveal' d Truth i I anfwer^ (as 
 I have, in effcd., done ten times over alrea- 
 dy) It does not follow, that becaufe a Man 
 may be fafcly depended upon as a Witnefs^ 
 that fucli a one faid^ or writ fo or fo ; 
 therefore He has Authority to interpret it 
 as he pleafes ; or that he is to be beliec^edj 
 tho' his Interpretation be nianifeftly 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 1 
 may admit of his Teflimony in This Cafe : 
 Yet am not therefore oblig d to admit the 
 Senfe which he puts upon the particular Ex- 
 preflions contained 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 
 afts inconfiftently, if notwithftanding That 
 lie difputes the Senfe of it with him. 
 
 I 
 
46 An Answer to a Topi/h Book^ 
 
 I have only to add. That there is a pre- 
 cious Sophifm lurking in thofe Words, this 
 capital Point , infmuating, belike, an Argu- 
 ment a majori ad minus. " If we muft be- 
 lieve the Church ailerting the Divine Infpira- 
 tion of the Scriptures, upon which all Chri- 
 ftian Truths depend ^ much more muft we 
 believe Her in other Articles (^c. " I anfwer ,• 
 That Point may be the moft Capital^ and 
 yet witneffmg to it may not be, and in rea- 
 lity is not, an Ad 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, makiyig other 
 Articles, tho' lefs Capital. A Prince's Title 
 to the Crown is a very capital Point ; yet 
 Witneffing to it, and proving it (which the 
 meaneft private Subjed: may do) is not near 
 fo capital an Ad, as ufurping an Authority 
 to interpret his Laws, quite contrary to 
 their plain Meaning ^ and to make Laws, 
 not only withotit him, but in open Defiance 
 (if him. This, by the way, would, I doubt, 
 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 V7ith 
 Capital PuniJJnmnt. 
 
 to 
 
Entitled^l£.n^d,i\d''s Converjiony 8cc. 47 
 To the Third Sedion : 
 
 WH I C H has for its Title ; ^ Fmtb 
 depends in a different manner on 
 the T^eft'miony of God^ and on the T^eftimG" 
 nj of Men. If He pleafcs. Faith is two-fo/d; 
 Human and Divine. By Hitman^ We be- 
 lieve the Scriptures to be the Word of God ; 
 and by "Dhine-, We believe whatever is con- 
 tained in them to be true. 
 
 All in This, and the next Page, I pafs over ^ 
 as being partly anfwxr'd already, and part- 
 ly nothing to the Purpofe; (tho' had I a 
 Mind to be Critical^ I could eafily point out 
 fome Inacctiraciesy not to fay Abfurdities 
 in it) 'till AVe come to Thcfe Words : f 
 Tor this Reafcn^ {Viz. becaufe it is necef- 
 fary to depend upon the Church's Teftimo- 
 ny for reveal'd Truths) St, Taiil faith, that 
 Faith is by hearing^ora. 10. c. 17. to witj 
 by hearing the Voice of the Churchy appoint- 
 ed by God to be our Guide. For unlefs we 
 hear the Voice of the Church fpeaking to 
 fis by the Mouths of her ^ijljops and Tajiors; 
 how floall we know what are rez^eatd Truths 
 and what not ? No doubt, ordinarily fpeak- 
 ing, Faith comes by Hearing ^ and by Read- 
 
 * p. 16, p. 17, 18, 
 
 ing 
 
48 ^^ ANSWER ^^ a ToplJhBool^ 
 
 ing likevvifc • For I hope the Gentleman vrill 
 not i^iy, that the Apoftle by mentioning one 
 intended to exclude the other. The Church 
 too, ordinarily fpeaking, that is, her Bi- 
 iliopSj and Pallors, arc to be heard : But it 
 ispotJible that Faith may come v:ithont Hear- 
 ings /. e. by Reading 07zly. And even when 
 we do hear the Church j it is not proved 
 from This Text, that we are to heliei'e hei*, 
 when we hear her teach Things diredtly 
 contrary to what we read : I mean in the 
 Holy Scripture. To That Queftion therc»- 
 forc^ Unlefs We hear the Voice of the Churchy 
 &c. How ftoall We knew what are repealed 
 U^niths, and what not ? I anfwer^ by read- 
 ing the "Bihle \ and confidering the 'Emdence 
 which proves it to be the Word of God. The 
 next Paragraph, ^ T^he Voice of the Church 
 is an Echo between the Word of God and 
 iis^ &c. (Tetting afide the ftrange Fantafti- 
 calncfs, and indeed Nonfenfe, of the Expref- 
 lion) is nothing but the fame over and 
 over again ; and has been anfwered over and 
 ever already. 
 
 t We are told in the next place, Whyy 
 tho' the Church is infallible^ he has hither- 
 to not confidered Her as filch j hii>t barely 
 as a creditable ilhjlrious Society. 
 
 Reminding the Reader pf my having ftiewa 
 
 ♦ p. 18. t P. iS. & 1?, 
 
 that 
 
Entitled^ England V Converjlon^ 8cc. 49 
 
 that to prove the Scripture by the Churchy 
 even as an illuftriotis^ tho not ivfaUihle So- 
 ciety^ is a mere Circle j I fliall confider tho 
 Reafons He al ledges. "^ i^/^^?, (fays he) 
 lecaiife her T^cfiimon)\ barely as fuch^ Jti^i- 
 ces alone to render our 'Belief of the Kevela- 
 tion ei'en of the darkeft and fuhlimefl Mv- 
 Jieries perfe^ly rational: Which is the Totnt 
 I jtift now midertook to pro've. But I have 
 fully fhewnyou have not proced it j whatever 
 You tindertooh If the Myfteries the Church 
 puts upon us, are not in Scripture ^ they are 
 not to be believed : as I Ihall ftiew, when 
 we come to the Article of T'raditien. If 
 they are in Scripture j We believe them 
 upon the Authority of God^ not of the 
 Church i tho' the Church's Teftimony goes 
 a great way to prove the Scripture in ge- 
 neral to be God's Word. Befides ; I tell 
 you again and again, that if the Myfteries 
 be not only dark and fuhlime^ but down- 
 right ContradiUions^ 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 confidered the Church as In- 
 fallible, tho' he infifts that it really is fo, f 
 is to amid the juft reproach ofjnppofing z::)hat 
 He ought jirji to prove. Jbr (fays he) ths 
 
 JE Church's 
 
50 Jn Answer u a Tofijh Book^ 
 
 Chiircljs Infallihility is itfelf a reveal' d 
 ^Tuth ; and if IJJoonld pro<ve the Reafona- 
 hlenefs of my 'Belief of it from the Church's 
 'I'eftimony co7?fiderd as Infallible^ my Ar^u- 
 ment woidd run Thus : 'TCis reafonahle to 
 helicz'e that the Church's IrfalliUlity is a 
 re^jeafd I'ruth^ lecaufe the infallible Church 
 declares it to be fo^ ; which is the fame ab- 
 furd '■JO ay of Arguing^ as if Ifhotddfay^ it is 
 reafonahle to belie've a thing is fo^ becaufe it is 
 fo. fiut fince the Church' sl'ejiimony^thd con-- 
 fider'd barely as the T'efiimony of Men^ has 
 the fame Weight and Authority i7i declaring to 
 its the dizneRet'elation of her own Infallibility 
 as it has in declaring all other Ke^veafd 
 truths:, IfiUas rationally infujferin^ my f elf to 
 be direUed by her Judgment in iLhis Pointy 
 as in any other. Here the Gentleman would 
 fain avoid the famous C//T/^of the Romanifts : 
 But tlio' He does not run into it fo groffly 
 as Some of them Jiave done j and as He him- 
 felf has done into fome others, which I 
 have taken notice of j Yet what He fays ^- 
 mounts to much the fame thing. He does 
 not indeed argue, that 'tis reajonable to he^ 
 He've that the Church's Infallibility is a re- 
 fveaVd Truths becaufe the infallible Church 
 declares it to be fo \ but He argues that we 
 jnuii; believe the Church to be Infallible^ be- 
 caufe the Church fays fo^ tho' She be not 
 confidered as Infallible^ while She fays fo. 
 And where is the mighty difference? She 
 
Entitledy England's Convey fion^ 8cc. 5 1 
 
 ftill proves her own Authority by her own 
 Authority: For hfallihilhy implys Jn- 
 thority in the higheft degree. After all, 
 therefore, is the Church's Authority (whe- 
 ther (he be confidered as Infallible, or no) to 
 be ahfvlntely and implicitly fubmitted to, 
 when She declares reveafd Truths, and a- 
 niong the reft her own InfaUihility ; or is it 
 not? Ifitbe;;^/^ there's an End of what 
 our Author has been labouring all this while, 
 and indeed of the whole Popifli Caufe. If 
 it he ; how can ihe be more fubmitted to, if 
 She be confider d as Infallible ? Or what 
 does itfignijy^ whether She be confidered as 
 Infallible, or no? Can ^greater SubmiiTion 
 than an ahfohite and i^nplicit one be yielded 
 to God himfelf ? If this Author fhould reply 
 (for I w^ould fain prevent all Wrangling 
 about Sounds) that he has not us'd the Words 
 ahfohite or implicit as join'd with SubmiiTion 
 to the Church ^ I anfwer, i it. The young 
 Gentleman P. 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 homid 
 to pay an entire Stibviijfion to the T>ecifions 
 of the Catholick Clntrch. What does entire 
 mean, lefs than ah folmxe and implicit ? idly. 
 By SubmiiTion to the Church, does he all 
 along mean an ahfolute and im.plicit one 
 (tho' he leaves out the Wordsj or does he 
 not ? If he does not ,• He has been beating 
 
 i. z the 
 
51 An Ai^^SWER t^ a To^ifh ^ook^ 
 
 the Air : For We acknowledge a Submiflion 
 to the Church, fo far as it is confiftent with 
 Reafon and Scripture j we being allowM the 
 free ufe of Both. If he docs -, the Argument 
 Hands juft as it did before : and fo I leave 
 it. 
 
 What follows to the End of the Seilion, 
 except the laft Paragraph, has nothing in 
 it, but a Repetition of what has been evea 
 frequently repeated by him, and, to my 
 ^reat Trouble, by me likewife ^ and is, be- 
 fides, little or nothing to the Matter in hand. 
 I only obfcrve that tho' he fecms fo careful- 
 ly to diftingniJJj between T>i'vine and Htt- 
 man Faith ^ yet he in effefl: confounds them 
 with each other. For, as I took notice a- 
 bove, his Dodrine is, that even human Faith 
 (Faith in the Church) muft be implicit ; and 
 what can divine be more ? 
 
 The laft Paragraph runs thus. "^ How a- 
 onofigft many other 'Truths clearly deliver d 
 in holy Writ^ That of the Church's Infalli^ 
 hility may juftly claim an eminent place : 
 thd '^ rot eft ants zife their utmofi 'Efforts to 
 ridicule what they cannot Jolidly confute. 
 That will foon be feen j viz. in the Exami- 
 nation of 
 
 Ti. 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Conyerfion^ &c, y 5 
 
 The Fourth SECTION; 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Church of Chrtfl conjider^d as In- 
 fallible. 
 
 *" T T E R E we have, in a great deal of 
 XJL fcurrilous Language, a tedious and 
 moft impertinent Declamation about Pre/ti- 
 dice and Self-intereft ^ by which alone (if 
 we will believe This Writer) Proteftants 
 are hinder d from acknowledging fo clear 
 and evident a T^riuh^ forfooth, as the /;;- 
 fallibility of the Chtirch ; underftanding (as 
 always) the Church of Rome. It is eafy 
 for Them to fay This j and full as eafy 
 for Us to fay, that it may with great ad- 
 vantage be retorted upon Themfelves ,• that 
 We, as to This matter, are free from the 
 Guilt here charg'd upon us, as They are 
 deeply involved in it ; and that nothing but 
 the hlindefi Trejudice^ or the ftrongell 
 Attachment to worldly Interefi^ could pre- 
 vail with them to maintain fo fenfelefs and 
 ridiculous a Notion, As there is no Argu- 
 ment in T)eclaiming^ and Railings upon flip- 
 
 zi, 22, 23, ?4, 25 \ 28, 29, 
 
 E 2 pofttio'a 
 
54- An Ams WER to a Topi/h Book^ 
 
 fofition that a Thing is ^r//^, which is the 
 very Point to be provd y in telling us, that 
 Trejiidice and Cocetotifnefs are very had 
 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 fliort Remarks upon our Au- 
 thor's more fingular Sayings within That 
 Divifion • and then to give a full Jnfwer 
 to hisArguments from the T^'exts oiScripttirey 
 which he urges as fo many Troofs of the 
 'Churches InfaUihUity. 
 
 To run down the Church's InfalliUlity 
 (He fays '^) is our AIL Be it fo : Is it not 
 Their All to defend it ? The Quoftion is 
 which Party maintains its All beft j and of 
 That let Mankind judge. 
 
 As idle is it, to tell us that t cdl the re- 
 formd Churches^ thd disagreeing among 
 themjehes in many other T>oUrinal TPoints^ 
 join una7iimcujly in oppojin^ this. And Rea- 
 fon good 5 becaufe 'tis fo notorioufly falfe. 
 Was there ever fuch Trifling ? But do all 
 the reformed Churches agree in oppofing no 
 ether Doftrinc of the Papifts but This ? Sure 
 they do, in cppofing many more -, not that 
 it is in the ieaft material^ whether they do or 
 no. 
 
 P. ZZ. t ?. 22, 
 
 His 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ Sec, 5 5 
 
 His Reflexion upon the thorough godly 
 Reformation (as He Ironically f fpeaks) 
 with regard to the Rnds and Vic^^s of Thole 
 who begun and promoted it^ might have been 
 fpared here, were not Scandal fo delicious 
 a Morfel^ becaufe 'tis nothing to the prcfent 
 *Pointt as he himfelf in effed: acknowledges : 
 And becaufe he has faid fo much upon it in 
 his Treface^ and Third T>ialogue^ to which 
 it properly belongs j and in the Examina- 
 tion of which, it fliali 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 Ufagc the poor 
 innocent Church of Rome recciv'd at the 
 Reformation, He has thefe Words. "^ Tho" 
 they had thcmfehes ackncwledgd and re- 
 Jpetied her for federal Tears^ as the heatiti- 
 fill Spotife of Jeftts Chrift^ without Spot or 
 Wrinkle in her Faith s They cotild^ at that 
 time^ fee no Remains in her of her former 
 beauty. That is, XHo'they had been long 
 in Ignorance and Error j yet now they o- 
 pen'd their Eyes, and were refolv'd to grow 
 wifer and better- What a liornd Abfurdity, 
 and Wickednefs, were they guilty of? Fie 
 goes on. t T.he cenerahle yhitiqnity of her 
 T>oUriney her Catholicity^ the Ltiflre of her 
 
 E 4 Mfaclcu 
 
56 An A N S WER ^<? ^ Tofi[h Boolzj 
 
 MiracleSy the StauUnefs and Solemnity of 
 her Hierarchy^ derwd from the Jpoftles 
 themfekes^ the Celibacy of her Clergy^ the 
 aitfterc Litres of her religiozts Orders^ and 
 the Majefly of her puhlick Serz'ice {all which 
 had informer Ages render' d her the Admi- 
 ration of Mankind) and with their power- 
 fid AttraUives drawn multitudes of Infi- 
 dels into her Fold^ had then loft all their 
 Charms in the Lyes 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 1)o- 
 UrinCy I own^ was pretty a^icient (as many 
 other damnable Errors are) but not near fo 
 ancient as Chrifiianity j with refpeft to 
 which, it is a pure No'velty. Nor is every 
 thing 'venerable that is ancient : If it were^ 
 Original Sin would be more venerable than 
 Topery it felf* Her Catholicity (as He calls 
 it. We fay Catholicifm) is a Chimara ^ for 
 fhe is Catholick in no fenfe of the Word. 
 The Luftre of her Miracles is nothing ; for 
 fhe 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 i and that 
 too deri'vd from the Apoftles themfehes : 
 And if they have it not iioftately andfolemny 
 as She has ; 'tis becaufe J heir Clergy are 
 not fo rich J proud^ and powerful^ as Hers^ 
 and do not place fo much Religion in out'v 
 
 xvard 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converjion^ 8cc. 57 
 
 ward Pomp and Oflentation. Her injoining 
 Celibacy upon the Clergy is milawfttly and 
 attended with pernicious Confeqtiences. The 
 Liz'es of many of Her Religions Orders are 
 not atiftere^ but ^oUiptnous ; Others are more 
 auftere than they ought to be ^ are both the 
 Efleft and the Caufe of much Superfiiticn ; 
 or, at belt, do more hurt to Rehgion thaa 
 good. What He calls the Majejiy of her 
 pihlick Worjhip^ is Foppery amd Formalityy 
 contrary to the Genius of the Gofpel^ and 
 does infinite Mifchief to the Souls of Men. 
 Thefe things might in former Ages render 
 Her the Admiration of Mankindy (i. e, a 
 great part of it ^ for if he means more^ it 
 is not true ) but Mankind was ignorant and 
 wicked:, and Mankind is oh^n miftakem 
 And if Infidels were drawn into her Fold hy 
 thefe JttraUiveSy they were drawn into it 
 upon a wrong Principle, Nor were her ChiU 
 dren^ of whom he fpeaks^ rehellious : Be- 
 caufe it was their Duty to ohc^ God^ rather 
 than men. If it be objected, that I have 
 only faidy but notprovd-, I fay the fame 
 of Him, and fo we are even : Here, I mean 5 
 for upon the whole we are not fo. Becaufe 
 I have elfewhere pro<vd what I have here 
 affertcd j "^ Let Him difprove it, if He can. 
 
 * Pooery ti-ulv ftated, ^c 
 
 P- 24. Js 
 
58 An Answer to a Topijh Book^ 
 
 P. 24^ Js for tbeFatberSy T^hey eafily 
 got rid ofthem^ by faying they were all Tar-^ 
 tieSy and a^vowd Abetters of Topery. To 
 what ptirpofe {faid the couragions Martin 
 iMther) J/jotdd any Man rely on the anci- 
 ent Fathers ? &c. Ltither is but One^ and 
 fo cannot anfwer to the Word They, And 
 Ihowever contemptuoufly he fpoke of the Fa- 
 thers, or whatever other foohfli or wicked 
 things he is fuppofed to have faid, or done, 
 'tis nothing to Us^ or to our Caufe : The 
 fame, and much more (We having, in 
 truth, nothing to do with Him ) being 
 to be faid with relation to Him^ which 
 Ihall be faid mth relation to feme of our 
 frji Reformers here in England^ in anfwer 
 to the Preface, and Third i)ialogne ; whi- 
 ther I refer the Reader. For our fches ; 
 next 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 againji the Corruptions of the 
 Church of Rome, than the Latter. 
 
 P. 25. Js to the Faith of former Jges i 
 le fides that both Luther, and Calvin, con- 
 fefsd without Hefitationt that they had fe^ 
 parated themfehes from all the pre-exijiing 
 Churches in the World \ the ^ook of Homi- 
 lies, highly 'valued by the Church of Eng- 
 land, declares poffiti'vely that both Laity and 
 Clergy, Learned and Unlearned, all JgeSy 
 S0Sy and degrees of Men, Jfomen, and 
 
 Children^ 
 
Entitled^En^cind''s Converjion^ Sec. 59 
 
 Children^ of whole Chriftenclom^ hace 
 been., at once^ drowned in ahominahle Idola- 
 try -^ and that for the fpaee ^f eight hun- 
 dred YEARS, AND MORE. Wloich^ tho in 
 
 I'ery ahnfrje Language^ is a full Jchww- 
 ledgment of a FaU which does no honour to 
 the Reformation ; to wit^ that not one of 
 the reformed Churches had a oifihle "Being 
 in the World for eight hundred Tears ^ and 
 more: And fo the Faith of former Jges^ 
 fiigmatizd indeed with the injurious Title 
 of abominable Idolatry ^ was fairly given up to 
 the Church of Rome, and acknowledged to 
 have been wholly on the Topifh ftde. Tho* 
 whatever Luther and Calvin faid, it affeds 
 not JJs or our Caufe \ and the faying oi fome 
 falfe things defiroys not even their perfonal 
 Reputation ; fo that fuppofing what our Au- 
 thor here affirms to be true, it is nothing to 
 his purpofe ^ yet it may well be anfwcr 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 explain d in a found fenfe -, fo 
 as not to prejudice Them, or their Reforma- 
 tion. For Example, Ihey feparatcd them- 
 fehes from^ &c. i. e- They were obligd in 
 Confcience not to communicate extern alh 
 with^ drc. The Separation^ properly fpeak- 
 ing, being made by their Adverfaries^ iicc 
 by Ihem\ Not that This is matter of Faith^ 
 
 after 
 
6o An Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 after all, but of Tra'ctice : And befides, the 
 Word Former^ as apply'd to Jges by This 
 Writer, is very ambiguous j of which here- 
 after. 
 
 As to the Quotation out of the "Booh of 
 Homilies ; it fhall be fully confidered, partly 
 here, and partly elfewhere : our Author lay- 
 ing great ftrefs upon it, and twice repeating 
 It'y ^iz. P. 115 & 280. Reckoning ;a^ in- 
 deed I think it ought to be reckoned) the 
 Tfcvalency of the Idolatry here fpoken of 
 {mz. Image-WorJIoip) from the eftabHfliing 
 of it by the 2d Council of Nice in the Year 
 787 to the Year 1550, when it may be faid 
 to have been in Thefe Parts of Europe 
 pretty well abolifh'd ; the Homilift is 
 miftaken by 38 Years, fuppofing by 800 
 and more, he meant juft 07ie more. And let 
 our Author make the moft of This Con- 
 ceflion : We do not pretend that the Homi- 
 lies are Infallible : We fubfcribe only to the 
 main Subftance and Dodrine of them, not 
 to every Word contained in them. But as 
 He reckon d a little higher ; 'tis no more 
 than an Hyperbolical Exprefllon, 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 Jges, SeUs^ and "Degrees of 
 Men:, Womeny and Children^ of whole Cbrif 
 tendom^ ha^ve been drown d^ &c. do not im- 
 port (as This Author in P, 2Sq;, moft falla- 
 
 ^ioufly 
 
Entitled^En^hnd's Converjion^ &c. 6 1 
 
 ciouily takes it for granted) that there was 
 not one fingle Clergyman or Lay^nan^ but 
 was dro':joned in Idolatry i The plain Mean- 
 ing is, that Terfo7is of all Orders, Ages,* 
 Secfts, (^c. not that all Pcrfons of all Orders, 
 Ages, Seds, cjf . were fo corrupted : That 
 Lait is not faid, nor any thing like it. 
 
 The pretended full acknowledgment of a 
 TaU which does no honour to the Keforma^^ 
 tion^ to wit^ &c. Shall be fully confidered, 
 w^hen we come to P.i 1 5. where it is repeated^ 
 and to which it more properly belongs./^////'/- 
 lity fliall likewife be confider d in its proper 
 place. At prefent we are upon Injallihility^ 
 Here therefore I only ask our Author, when 
 he Hiys The Faith of former Ages was given 
 up to the Church of Rome ,• what former 
 Jges He means? If He means th^firft and 
 pttrefi Ages, agreed to be fo even by Them- 
 felves j for inftance, the firft 300 Years ; I 
 abfolutely deny his Affertion. For i/?. We 
 do not fiigmatize the Faith (the TraUice^ 
 it fliould be) of Thofe Ages with the Titk 
 of Idolatry* Nor idly do we give it up to 
 the Church of Kome^ nor acknowledge it 
 to ha^ e been wholly :, or at ally on the Topifh 
 fide I but infift upon the dired contrary. 
 ^dly. The Homily cannot mean T'hofe Ages : 
 Foi toi Ycc^rs from the Reformation back- 
 ward:, f'reckoi mg the Reformation in the Year 
 155^) will L )t bring us up to the laft Day 
 (of them by 44 j[ Years. If by former Jges 
 
 He 
 
6a An Answer to a Topi/h liook^ 
 
 He means TopiJJo Ages ; no doubt we feirly 
 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 tbe Church's Infallibility 
 * from the imanimctts Tefiiniony of the An- 
 tient Fathers^ mid from the confiant Faith 
 of former Je^es ; But weaves it, becaufe Pro- 
 teftants, ho- fays, deny the Authority of Both. 
 
 '£nt as to the T^exts of Holy Scripttires 
 ( He adds t) which Trot eft ants own to be 
 dimnely infpird^ and by Confequence out of 
 the Reach of a godly Kcj-or7nation^ &c. Cer- 
 tainly the Gentleman forgets Himfelf^ other- 
 wife He would net have given us This unlucky 
 Hint, putting is m mind of tne ToptfJj godly 
 'Reform^ati: n of the Scriptures ; which the 
 Romanijis have fo reformed in Teverai pla- 
 ces, as to ftr ike out fome Words, and put in 
 others. This is a godly Reformation which 
 Proteflants never attempted i It belongs 
 wholly to Tapifis. And fo That witty 
 Irony upon us might have been let alone. 
 
 It feems, however, as to Texts of Scrip- 
 tttre upon the Article of Infallibility^ Ave are 
 :?: put to c^ery hardjJoifts. For the Texts are 
 clear i and firong ; and miifi be torttird i^i 
 
 ths 
 
Entitled^ England'j- Converfion^ &c. 6 j 
 
 the moji unmerciful manner^ or read hack- 
 wards^ to difcover any thing in them hut 
 the Churches perpetual Infallibility^ fettled 
 ^ipon the mofi folid Foundations. Thefe 
 Words are introdudory to his Scripture^ 
 Proofs of the Church's Infallihility ; meaa- 
 ing too (as every where elfe) the Church of 
 Home* If Thole Proofs be indeed irrefra^ 
 gable y let This big Talk pafs off unrefleded 
 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 Vcrfe ia 
 Genefis has with the DocSrine of Tranfmb- 
 ftantiation ,• all W'hich I undertake to prove 
 immediately : then his Charge of torturhig^ 
 and reading backwards^ returns upon Him- 
 felf; All This Apparatus is nothing but 
 empty Swaggering, and the Perfedion of 
 Impudence j which deferves any other fort 
 of Treatment almoft that can be nam'd^ 
 rather than an Anfwer. Now then to the 
 Bufinefs. 
 
 "^ G. ^ray^ Sir^ dome the facmir to la- 
 me hear thofe Texts. You have reafon^ 
 Young Gentleman : For after a Treparation 
 oifrje 7ages^ 'tis really high time to come 
 
 ' to 
 
^4 An Answer to a Tofijh Booh, 
 
 to the Arguments themfelves ,• which take 
 up juft /jd/t That Quantity of Paper. 
 
 P. Theflrji is Chrijfs pofttive ^Promije to 
 luild his Church upon a Rock^ and that the 
 Gates of Hell Jlo all not pre'vail a^ainft it. 
 Matth. 6. c. i8. Vor if the Word of God 
 may he [ecurely depended upon\ nothing jure- 
 ly ca7i he clearer^ dnd Jtronger than this 
 ^romife. Since it is manifefi^ that if the 
 Church of Chrift were e^ver guilty of the 
 damnahle Errors Trotejiants hat^e chargd 
 her with 5 the Gates of Hell would have ef- 
 feUually prevailed againft her^ and her 2)/- 
 mne Founder provdfalfe to his Word* 
 
 G. T^hats Blafphemy with a Witnefs. 
 
 So much Blunder, Inconfequence, Fallacy, 
 and Falfhood^ was, I believe, fcarce ever 
 crouded into fo few Words hefore. Sup- 
 pofing, at prefent, what he takes for 
 granted, to be true^ which however (as I 
 fliall fhew hereafter) He ought not to have 
 taken for granted j Viz. That by th^ gates 
 of Hell is meant the fame, as if it had been 
 faid, the T>e':jil : I anfwer, Firfi^ He is guil- 
 ty ofagrofs Falihood, in faying we have 
 chargd the Church of Chrift with heing 
 guilty of damnahle Errors ; as if we allow a 
 the Church of Chrift and the Church of 
 Rome to be all one. Secondly^ He takes it 
 for granted, tho' it ought to have beea 
 prov'd, not fuppos'd, that the Devil preoails 
 (according to the Senfe iu which our Savi- 
 our 
 
Entitled^ England'i" Converjlon^ 8cc. 65 
 
 our usd the Word Kunx^^ViHv ) againft the 
 Churchy if it be guilty of daymujule Errors. 
 But how does he prove that our Saviour 
 meant fo by the Word ? To pre-vail againft 
 it, according to almoft all the Commenta- 
 tors and Tranflators, is to dcflroy^ at ieaft 
 to conquer it. But is it dcflroy'd, or fo much 
 as conquered, by being guilty of damnable Er- 
 rors ? Is Q.finglc Man ncceliarily deftroy'd in 
 This Worid^or damnVi in the Next; bccaufc 
 he believes, and does, many damnable things ? 
 Can he not repent^ and refmn ? And cannot 
 the fame Qiicftion be ask'd of a Church ? 
 By the way, This Argument will as well (if 
 not better) prove the Church to be m- 
 peccable^ as infaUihle : For the Devil 
 prevails by &';/, as much as by J^rr^r,- or 
 rather more. And yet that the Church is 
 impeccable, No body affirms. If our Au- 
 thor proceeds upon the Erigliflo Tranflatioii 
 only, as he feems to do ; by pre^'ailing a^ 
 gainft is certainly meant conquering : And 
 a man, I hope, is not ncccffarily conquer'd 
 becaufe he is much wounded. This there- 
 fore is no better than a poor Tetitio 
 ^rincipii^ or "Begging the Queflion. As 
 3^/)'. The next is no better than a forry 
 Ig7ioratio Elenchi^ or miftaking the Que- 
 ftion. If the Church of Chrift were guilty 
 of the damnable Errors^ &c. the Gates 
 qf Hell woidd^ &c. The Qucftion is not whe- 
 j;her the Church be fecured frpm failing into 
 
 E dam- 
 
66 An Answer to a Topijh Book^ 
 
 damnable ErrorSj, but whether the Church be 
 InfulUhlc} Thefe are evidently diftindThings. 
 For the Church may neither be deftroyd^ nor 
 permitted to fall into damnahle Errors ^ and 
 yet not be Infallihle: As on the other hand, 
 which hasbeen before taken notice of^ ihomav 
 fall into dmnnahle^rroxs^^ndiyctnothQde- 
 Jlrcyd, Had his Argument, inftead of Sjj the 
 Church were guilty of the davmaUe Errors^ 
 &c.] ran Thus; If the Church were not in- 
 fallible-^ as Proteflants pretend She is not, the 
 Gates of Hell would have prevaifd againji 
 Her ^ it would have been to the Purpofe : 
 Tho' ^thly altogether Inconclufive and Ab- 
 furd. For how does it follow that becaufe 
 a Perfon, or Number of Perfons, is not infaU 
 lible i therefore He, or They, mull needs be 
 conquer d 2X\a fubdu'd by the T^ezil? Accor- 
 ding to This, All but the Pope, and Bi- 
 iliops, even of the RomiJJj Church, and They 
 too (the Bifliops) alTembled in a Council^ muft 
 neceffarily be damn'd. For I fuppofe they will 
 not fay that by the Church they mean theX^/- 
 ty^ or that any one of Them is infallible, nor 
 any of the inferior Clergy, nor the Prelates 
 themfelves, unlefs affembled in a Council- It 
 fccms then there is not fo very certain a Paf- 
 fage from the Church of Komes Bofom to J- 
 Iraham^ ; And 'tis fcarce worth while toturn 
 ^apiji .; unlefs one were fure to be 'Popey 
 or at leaft a "Bifloop^ and to have a general 
 Council always fuhfijiing i befides many o- 
 
 ther 
 
Entitled y England's Convey fion^ Sec. 67 
 
 ther Difficulties ^vhich I could mention. And 
 yet the Argument^ if it be any thing to our 
 Subject, ftands as I faid : If the Church were 
 not infallible^ the Devil would have been 
 too hard for her. The Dialogue proceeds. 
 ^ ^ut will not Trot eft ants fajj it is not the 
 true Church ofChrift^^ hut the corrupt Church 
 i?/^Rome, they accufe of damnable E?Tors; 
 and that Thefe are as different as Lights 
 and T>arknefs ? They will be apt to fay fo 
 indeed ; and let us hear the Anfwer to it. 
 
 t P. Sir^ The T>ifpute is prjecifely concern-^ 
 ing the Church founded hy Chriji ; which 
 They maintain to he not only fallihle^hut that 
 it has effeUually fallen into the damnable 
 "Errors of Topijh Idolatry and Super ft itio^i^ 
 1 anfwer, \ft. It is abfolutely falfe that the 
 Difpute is precifely about the Church found-- 
 ed by Chrift : 'Tis about the Church of 'R^ome 
 only ; no other Church pretending to be In^ 
 fallible : Tho' I own we, incidentally, de- 
 ny that any Church, the univerfal Church 
 itfelf, is fo, zdly. All the World knows 
 that Papifts by the Church mean the Church 
 of 'Koyne only 5 as our Author in particulai" 
 all along does : And therefore upon his Prin- 
 ciples, the Diftindion He here makes, or ra- 
 ther feems to make, is impertinent, idly. 
 i'Tis falfe to fay we affirm, that It thc(Church 
 
 P. :t^. t IhU. 
 
 F jj^ founded 
 
68 An ANSWER to a Topfh (Bool^ 
 
 founded by Chrift) has fallen into the dam- 
 liable Errors of Topiflj Idolatry and Sniper- 
 ftition. All Churches, 'tis true, may have 
 fallen into Errors : Several, befides the Ko- 
 mifl:i^ actually have into grievous Ones ; nay, 
 feme, as the Gr^t^/^' Churchy into the/}?;;?^ with 
 many of the 'Popijh Ones : But they have 
 not fallen into them as Popifh , becaufe they 
 deny, firft, the Topers. Supremacy ; and fe- 
 condly, the Dodrine of Infallihility^ the 
 Point now in Difpute. 'TLis therefore in cain 
 (continues He "^3 to pretend to elude the force 
 of the aho've-faid Text^ by faying it is not 
 the true Church of ChriJ}^ but the corrupt 
 Church of l\ome, they accufe of damnable 
 Errors -, and there is an unanfwerable 2)/- 
 lemma againji them. For Chrift either had 
 a true Church upon Earth before the Kefor- 
 mat ion ; or he had not. If not ^ the^i his 
 Church was deftroyd^ and by confequence 
 the Gates of Hell prevailed againji it^ con- 
 trary to his Trc772ije. "But if he had a true 
 Church upon Earthy the Church of Rome' 
 was mo ft certainly That Church : Since ^ ac* 
 cording to the large Concejfton made in the 
 ^ook of Homilies^ it was in pcffefjion of whole 
 Chrift endoni for 7nany Ages before the Refor- 
 mation. Jnd if that Church was in all 
 that fpacc of Tfime guilty of abominable Ido- 
 
 f p. 25. ;;nd tj, 
 
 iatrj^ 
 
Entitled^ Engldnd'^s Convrrfion^Scc. ^9 
 
 /atr)\ as is pretended ; then the true Church 
 ofChrifl was guilty of it , And fo what Tart 
 foezwr of the T>ilemma Troteftants chiije^ 
 they charge Chriji with a'BrcachofTromife 
 in fnffcring the Gates of Hell to prez^ail a- 
 gainft his Church: God forbid we fliould 
 thus charge God foolifljly : And the beft of 
 it is^ we are not bound to ftand or fall by 
 your "DiUatcs : We fhould be 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 Avas a tnte^ tho' a moft 
 corrupt^ Part. I fay Tart : For to his Argu- 
 ment, by whish, upon our pretended Con- 
 cefTion, he endeavours to prove that it was 
 the Whole, I anfvver .- iji> The Homily 
 lays, I grant, that whole Chri(lendo7n was 
 drowned in Idolatry t But does That make 
 whole Chrijiendom the Church of Rome ? 
 Would That Church engrofs all the Idolatry 
 of the World to Her feif ? 'Tis true ail 
 thorough Papifts are Idolaters ; but all Ido- 
 laters are not Papifts. Nay, Image-worJIoip 
 (of which alone the Homily fpeaks) began,, 
 as every Body knows, in the Greek Church, 
 not in the Church of Rome, Yet Thus 
 Hands This Argument; The Church ^fRomo 
 was moft certainly T'hat Church ,• fmce ac- 
 cording to the lar^e ConceUwn made in the 
 
70 An A^JS WER to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 Sook of Homilies^ i t was in pojjcjjion of whole 
 Chriflendomfor many Jges^ before the Re- 
 formation* The Church of Rome^ it feems, 
 is not only iMatrotis^ but Idolatry it felf. 
 For becaufe the Homily fays Idolatry was 
 in pcffejfion^ &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 deftroyed^ or 
 quite conquer d by the Devil, nor the Gates 
 of Hell entirely fre^cail againfl her, God 
 own'd the Church of the '^ews^ as his 
 Church ; when it was over-run with Idolatry, 
 and all other Corruptions, 
 
 I have hitherto been reafoning upon Sup- 
 pofition^ that otir Juthors Stippofition is true ; 
 mz. that by the Gates of Hell is meant the 
 Power of the If^emt ; And even upon That 
 foot have fliewn tlie wTetched Abfurdity of 
 his Arguing. But v;bat if after all it fhould 
 mean no fuch Thing ? As 'tis evident, almofi: 
 to a Demonftration, it does not : Then all he 
 fays about damnable Errors (j'c. and indeed 
 the whole Strefs of his Argument will be yet 
 more roving and extravagant. The word 
 •'AcTm?, here render d Hell^ is not the Place 
 of the JDamned (jiinct is the Name for That) 
 but the Gravey or the Tlace of departed 
 Souls : For fometimes it fignifies the One, 
 and fometimes the Other. The beft Senfe 
 of the Paifage therefore is this : The Church 
 
 ftiali 
 
Entitled^ England'j- Converfion, &:c. 7 1 
 
 fliall continue to the World's End^ notwith- 
 flanding the Terjeciitions and ^Jiolent TJeaths 
 of the Jpojiles^ and multitudes of th^firfi 
 ChriftianSj and the Mortality of its 1 each- 
 ers and Go'vernonrs in all Jges. This^ I 
 own, is an Argument for the Tcrpetuity or 
 Indefeftibihty of the Church in general, not 
 That of Ro772e in particular ^ But what it 
 has to do with Infafiibihty I cannot imagine : 
 Uniefs they wall argue that Perpetuity infers 
 Infallibility. If they do j 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 prc- 
 fent Debate, I need not mention. But be the 
 Meaning of it what it will j any Body of 
 common Reafon may fee what is not the 
 Meaning of it. One may as well fqueeze 
 Water out of a Pumice, as the Church of 
 'Kome% Infallibility out oi: Thefe Wnds : 
 T^hou art peter -, and tipon this Rcch I will 
 htiild my Church ; and the Gates of Hell 
 JJoall not pre'-jail againfi it. In lliort, tha 
 Cafe ftands Thus : Our Saviour faid He 
 w^ould always have a Churcli upon Earth ; 
 againft which all the Power and Malice of 
 Men, Devils, and Death, ihouldnot prevail; 
 Therefore the Church of Ro7ne is Infallible. 
 ^tiod erat Demonjirandmn. Was there c- 
 ver fuch * clear andjfrong Reafoning ? Who, 
 
 F 4 zmth^ 
 
7^ An Ans WE R to a Topifh Book^ 
 
 without torturing This Text in the moft tin^ 
 mercifid manner^ or reading it backwards^ 
 can difcoc^er avy thing in it hut the Church's 
 perpetual Infallihility ? 
 
 P. 27, 2dly. Chrijfs Tromife to his A- 
 poftlcs ^fabiding with them always even unto 
 the end of the World. Matth. 28. c. 20. efta" 
 lliJJjes the Church's perpetual Infallibility 
 asftdly^ and clearly^ as the other. Juft as fully 
 and clearly :, I confcfs. Our Author might have 
 fpared his learned Confutation of the Opi- 
 nion of Thofe, who ccnhne This promife 
 to the three or four firft Ages : For I know 
 No bcdv that ever fo confin'd iv. Or if 
 there be any fuch ; I agree with Him that 
 -they are in the wrong. Bat then He him- 
 felf is fo, in faying that it comprehended 
 equally the SucccJJbrs of the Apoftles with 
 the Jpojiles themfehes : For fure it chief- 
 ly and principally regarded the laft mentio- 
 ned. Our Saviour was more with Them, 
 than witli any of thuir Succeffors, All 
 He farther lays worth our notice is This. '^ 
 If therefore Chrifi has kept his Word^ which 
 no Man can deny without Blafphemy j one 
 of thefe two things muft be granted^ to wit^ 
 that either he promisd to refnainwith Ido- 
 laters in order to be their Guide even ti7%to 
 
 * p. 27, 2S. 
 
 tie 
 
Entitled^ England%' Converjlon^ &c. 75 
 
 the end of the World {and that is moji high- 
 ly ahfnrd) or that his Church by being i^t 
 all Jges wider the promijcd T^ircUicn^and 
 jffiftance of her heavenly Giiide^ has al- 
 ways continued untainted in her Faith^ and 
 will continue fo to the World's End. To 
 which I anfvver. i/?. Here is tlie fame fort of 
 Blunder as before, in miflaking tlie Qiicftion : 
 The Church may cofitinue tmta^inted^ in her 
 Faith to the World's End^ without being 
 Infallible. Suppofe a fingle Man never to 
 have fallen into any one Error^ or com- 
 mitted any one grievous Sin all his Days ; 
 Was He therefore Infallible ? an Infallible 
 Judge oi^iW Controverfies? (jrr .Which fuggefts 
 to us 2dly. that This Argument, like the for- 
 mer, will as well prove the Church's Impec- 
 cability^ as Injallibility. idly. This too, 
 like That, is an Argument for the Church's 
 perpetuity y not Infallibility, I fpeak of the 
 Church in general t, for as to the Church 
 of Ko772e^ our Saviour never faid one Word 
 about it. But c^thly. To come ciofer to our 
 Author's Reafoning ; I deny the "DisjunUion. 
 For Chrift may be with his Church to the 
 World's End ,• and yet neither have promis'd 
 to remain with Idolaters &c. nor his Church 
 have always cowimuc^untainted inher Faith^ 
 and fo always continue. The Medium is 
 (One, I mean, for I fliall afterwards afUgn 
 Another) his not fufferinghis Church totally 
 -^0 fail:^ or ceafe to be a true Church. This 
 
 Writer 
 
74 ^^^ Answer if ^ ^2^ Topijh Booh^ 
 
 Writer never enquires into the Senfe of 
 the Words am with Toti^ upon which All 
 turns j but, according to his ufuai compendi- 
 ous way of Begging the Qucftion, takes it 
 for ^r^;2^^^ that his own Arbitrary Interpre- 
 tation is the only true one. ^dly, Chriil 
 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 w^ththe Jews^ as we have feen 
 before) and have promifed to he with his 
 Church to the end of the Worlds tho' 
 it fliould in fome places^ and at fome times^ 
 or even for fome time in all places^ more^ 
 or lefs^ be Idolatrous. For belides that He 
 might have thoufands of true Worfhippers 
 among the falfe ones, as it happened in 
 Elijah's time ,• Idolatry it felf does not 
 defiroy the Church : As we have above [ob- 
 ferved. 
 
 But wbat if, after all, the Text fliould 
 inean no more than This, as it very w^ll 
 may not, that Chrift will teyider his Grace 
 and Afftftance to the Church 'till the World's 
 End ? Muft the Church therefore be InfaU 
 iible ? May it not on the contrary be o^'er■' 
 rim with all manner of 'Errors in Faith, 
 and Vice in Pradice ? God's Grace is pro- 
 mifed to all Chriftians ; yet Millions reje^ 
 It, and quench his Spirit. In like manner^ 
 Chrift has promis'd to he with his Minijlers 
 m matters of Faith i and yet Thofe Minify , 
 
 ters 
 
Entitled^En^d.nd''s Converjiony 8cc. 75 
 
 ters may rejed his tendered Influence, tlirongh 
 Self-views, Ignorance, or Prejudice. While 
 a Liberty of Choice is left in Men ; any 
 Affiftance, That of God himfelf, may be 
 reje£tcd. The Sum of This clear and 
 ftrong Argument, the Light of w hich we 
 cannot reiift without moft umnerciftilly tor- 
 turing the Scripttires^ or reading them hack- 
 waras^ amounts to Thus much : Our Savi- 
 our promised to he with^ i, e. to a[Jifl^ chief- 
 ly his Jpojiles^ and in fome meafure his 
 Church in generaly to the World's End, with- 
 out the lead Hint about the Church of Rome ; 
 Therefore the Church of Rome is Infallible. 
 The ^Argument mull needs be tmaitfwerahle ^ 
 becaufe there is not a Syllable in the Tre- 
 mifes of what is contained in the Co7iclufion. 
 The Conclufion joins IvfaUihility to the 
 Church of Rome \ whereas in the Premifes 
 there is no Mention either of the Church of 
 Rome^ or Infallihility. 
 
 P. 28. 3dly. The ChnrcFs Charter ofperpe^ 
 tual Infallihility is CG7ifirm'dto her hy our Sa- 
 'vionr s "Promt fe offending the HolyGhofi^not 
 only to the Jpoftles^ hut to all their SucceJJors. 
 I will pray my Father, and He fliall give you 
 another Comforter, that he may abide with 
 you FOR EVER j the Spirit of Truth. John 14. 
 c). 1 5, 17. ^tit to what end was he to abide 
 with them for e^jer ? Let tts hear Chrijl him- 
 felf anfwer the QtiefHon. When the Spirit 
 of Truth comes j he will guide you into cill 
 
 Truth. 
 
76 An Answer to a To]^i[h Bool^ 
 
 Truth. John i ^. ^. 1 3. Jnd again. The Holy 
 Ghoft, whom the Father will fend in my 
 NamCj will teach you all things, and bring all 
 things to your remembrance which I have 
 faid unto you. John 14. c 26. Our Author, it 
 feems, takes This Proof of the Church's In- 
 fallibility to be felf-ezident j for he iliys no- 
 thing to eyiforce 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; Keally^ Sir^ I am afionijlod^ &c. 
 as 1 fhall prefently cite the whole Paffage. 
 Neverthelefs^ I fhall add a few Words by way 
 of Anfwer, tho"tismore than lamoblig'dto : 
 I having as good a Right to fay, without 
 any Proof, that thefe Texts are not to the 
 Purpofe j 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 the foregoing one. T^he Spirit 
 ofT^ruth may abide for et'er with the Teach- 
 ers of the Gofpel, fo as to tender his Grace 
 and Affiftance to them ; and yet they may 
 refift his Motions, and fo have no Benefit 
 from fuch his abiding^ 'with them. Kmzs) 
 Te not^ (fays St. Taitl) that Tour "Bodies are 
 temples of the Holy Ghofi? i Cor. 6. 19. 
 And yet He warns the Corinthians to fiee 
 Fornicationy and not to /In againji their 
 
Entitled^EngVdnd'^s Converjion^ &c- 77 
 
 cwn Hodies. So that the Ahidin^of the Ho- 
 ly Ghoft in the Temples of their Bodies, was 
 no Argument that they muft neceflarily be 
 always itnpolhited : And as little is his JIji- 
 ding with the Church an Argument of its 
 always being in the Rights much Icfs of its 
 being always^ or ecer^ Infallible. The 
 two other Texts fubjoincd to This, out of 
 the fame Difcourfe of our Saviour, plainly 
 relate in their pri^nary ^nA principal Senfe, 
 at leaft^ to the Terfons of the Jpoftles j and 
 all three of them piay at leaff^ which 
 is fufficient to our prefcnt purpofe, relate 
 to Them only. For the Word for ecer^ as 
 all the World knows, is in Scripture, ia 
 all Writings, and in common Difcourfe, often 
 us'din a reftraiiid Signification ; according to 
 the StthjeU to which it is apply'd : Nay con- 
 fidering the Time^ and Occajion^ of our 
 Saviour's Difcourfe, there is little Icfs than, 
 ^emonftration that they do relate to Theni 
 only. However to put it at the loweft, here 
 is nothing about the Church of Ko7ne in par- 
 ticular : Or if it were otherwife ^ To be 
 guided into all Truths does not imply that 
 the Guidance muft of necejfity be ejfiFedually 
 followed ^ nor does being taught all things, 
 or ha.ving one's Memory refreflod^ imply In- 
 fallibility. For a man may be not only 
 inftruUed in, but very learned in, all Lan- 
 guages, all Arts and Sciences,' all Points 
 
 of 
 
78 An Answer u a Topi/h S^A, 
 
 of Morality and Divinity, without being 
 ahjolute Mafter of all the "truths con- 
 tain'd in them, or any thing like Infal- 
 lible^ I ftiall be a little more pirticu- 
 ciilar in fumming up the Subftance of the 
 Argument from Thefc Texts, upon the two 
 differ eni-SuppQ fit ions concerning th< Senje 
 of theroi Suppoiing our Saviour to fpeak 
 this of the Jpofiles only^ as 'tis t;,n thou- 
 fand to one but He did > (yet I deny not 
 but the Affiftance of his Holy Spirit, tho' 
 noX. Infallibility^ is in other places, whether 
 ic be here or no, promised to his Church in 
 general through all Jges) 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 Gboji ,• who ihould not, as He 
 had done^ continue with them for a little 
 while ^ but for ever -^ during their whole 
 Li'ves; fliould guide them into all truth ^ 
 teach them all things^ and bring all things 
 to their remembrance : Therefore the Church 
 of 'Ro7ne is Infallible. If we interpret the 
 PafTage as relating to the Jpojiles and their 
 SucceOors in Conjundion, (though certainly 
 we cannot interpret it eqiialh' of Both ; for 
 then I cannot conceive what Superiority or 
 Preheminence the Apcftles would have over 
 their Succeflfors j and in reality 'tis fcarce 
 common Senfe to interpret it of the Latter 
 
 at 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converjion^ &D 79 
 
 at all :) then we ili all have it Thus. Our 
 Saviour promised, that the Holy Ghoft (hould 
 ahide with^ i. e. affift, 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, (neccffary to their Salvation ; 
 for fure He fpeaks of nothing elfe) tho' 
 Thofo: who are fo taught ^XiAremJnded m^iy 
 neither learf?^ nor remember^ as they iliould 
 do : Therefore the Church of Ko7ne is In- 
 fallible. Q. E. D. How unmercifully miiji 
 We torture Thefe Texts, oxread themhaclz- 
 wards ^ not to dif cotter in them the perpetual 
 Infallihility aforefaid ! 
 
 I might here very well conclude my An- 
 fwer to This Sedion ^ all the Argument atien 
 being over. But the Confidence and Info-- 
 lence which fucceeds it, is fo ridiculous^ 
 (and, being fo, it is to me not in the leaft 
 provoking^ that contrary to my Defign, and 
 almoft Promife, in the Beginning, I cafinot 
 forbear diverting my Reader with it. A famous 
 Critick tells us, that the Height of Impti^ 
 dence is perfettly ComicaL 1 am of his 
 Mind ; It moves Laughter, rather than In- 
 dignation. Can any thing be more whlmfi- 
 cally extravagant, than for a Man to ///- 
 trodiice fuch Arguments as have not tha 
 leaft Shadow of Reafon in them, with fuch 
 formalTreparatiov^^wA Uujiring T^anguage^ 
 as I have above recited ; and after having 
 
 produced 
 
8o Jn Answer u a Topi/I^ Booh^ 
 
 produced them, to triumph, and plume him- 
 ielf, as if he had made a Demon ftration as 
 plain, as any in Nuclide ; then to. add a 
 lon^ Speech againft Trejtidice^nd •Self-Iiitereft^ 
 caliimniatwg and cilifying his Adverfaries, 
 as if they had not common Honefiy^ for 
 not believing againft commo7i Scnfe ? You 
 fiiall have it all at length in his own Words : 
 And I need be at no further Trouble ^ For 
 to tranfcrihe it, is to nnjwer it. 
 
 "^ G. Really^ Sir^ I am aftonijlod that 
 Terfons who pretend to belietw that the 
 Scriptures are dhinely infpird^ and contain 
 the pure Word of God y 7iay and profess to 
 make them the only Rule of their Faith {as 
 you hace often told me) can read thefe re- 
 peated T romifes exprefsd in Terms fo s t r o k g 
 and clear, fo obvious, and^K%x^ that e- 
 ^'e7i the moft ordinary Capacities cannot well 
 mifiake their meanings without studying 
 TO deceive themselves ; yet at the fame 
 time ha^ve ^Z^^ confidence tooppofe the T>0C' 
 trine^ thus plainly averted by thcm^ with 
 the fame vosirivi.i<iEsSy and obstwacy^ as 
 if they had the alcoran, inflead of the 
 WORD OF god before them. The Pupil, 'tis 
 to be hop'd, has done his Part. And what 
 fays the Tutor i 
 
 * 28, 29. 
 
 ..,..;_..,_ 2' Sir, 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converfion^ &c. 8 1' 
 
 P. Eh\ Tou hm-e all the Re a f on in the 
 World to he aJhniJJjd at it : Jnd I 'verily 
 believe^ that ^ a Friend jJmdd leaie to any 
 Troiefiant a confiderable Legacy^ or fettle 
 an EJiate upon hi in and his Heirs for ecer^ 
 in Terms as firci^g and clear as our hkjjed 
 Saz'iom\ hy his lafl IVill and Tejiament^ he- 
 queath dto his Church thedijpine Legacy of his 
 perpetnal'DireUion andjjjifiance ^ he v:Gidd 
 he clear-fighted enough to underfiand the 
 true Meaning of it , there z^joald he no need 
 of any Terfnafke Jrgtwients^ or Reafons^ to 
 convince him of the Jtifticeofhis Title. If 
 by perpetual T)irctiion and Jjjiftance He 
 means fuch as bellows Intallihflity^ as He 
 7n7tft if He means any thing to t\\Q pnrpofe ; 
 I profefs lincercly, I would not give a lingle 
 Farthing for au Eftatc of Ten thoufand a 
 Year, upon no better a Title. The Will 
 would Infallibly bo fet afide in Chancery ,• 
 fliould I be Fool enough to Hand a Suit 
 there : And I fliould not only lof^ my Caufe, 
 and my Money in profecuting it, but be 
 laugh'd at into the bargain. He goes on. 
 ^Biit alas to a Terfon whofe Heart is insin- 
 cere, and BiAssD by an interest irrecon- 
 
 CILEABLE WITH THE GOSPEL, tO fliCh a One^ 
 
 Ifay^ the Word of God is a Seed that falls 
 upon barren Ground^ and remains 'without 
 Fniit. The zwry clearest light is T)ark- 
 nefs to him 5 and he can cxtraU Falfmd 
 
 G out 
 
8a An Answer to a Topi/Jj Booh^ 
 
 out of T^riith itfelf^ when it chimes not with 
 
 his INTEREST. 
 
 G. '7/j* c'^rj certain that whoe^'er has his 
 Heart Jiro77gly jet upon any worldly interest 
 fees every thing through falfe Glajfes. For 
 it Icjfens or magnifies Things^ and makes 
 them appear beautiful^ or deform d^ right 
 or wrongs true^ orfalfe^ juji as they flattery 
 or thwart that interest. And we may 
 with ah72oft as much Hopes of Snccefs^ tiw 
 dcrtake to cahn a Storm^ or filence a Hur- 
 ricane with demonstrations, as make a 
 Man yield to reason againfi an interest 
 that lies near his Heart. Nay 1 have known 
 Terfons as floarp-fighted in their temporal 
 CONCERNS as the cunningeft Sophiflers upon 
 Earth ; yet at the fame time as didU arid 
 Hind as 'Beetles^ in all matters relating to 
 the Concerns of Ki<^om'cK world. So true 
 is it^ that INTEREST hoth opens y and ftmts 
 Mens Byes \ according as the Ohje'cis that 
 prefent themfehes^ are agreeable^ or difa-- 
 greeable to it, I have fet down This curious 
 Paffage at large ^ to fliew Thefe Gentlemen 
 that we are not afraid of it : And alfo to 
 give the Reader a Saonple of This J^ea^ 
 fo7iing j which our Author makes great ufe 
 of, frequently repeating it in his Book. How 
 often foever it occurs, I (hall take no notice 
 of it hereafter \ having here anfwerdit once 
 for alU i- e. tranfcriVd it. That Men, who 
 are fuch Slaves to Prejudice and Self-Intereft, 
 
Entitled^ England's Convcrfion^ 8cc. 85 
 
 as to beiievCj or profcfs that they believe, 
 contrary not only to the plainelt Reafon 
 and Scripture^ but to their Sevfcs^ that fuch 
 I fay, ilioiild accufe Vs of Prejudice and 
 Self-Intcrcft, for not affenting to fo grofs 
 an Abfurdity, as the Ro777?Jh Infaliibiiity, 
 upon the Evidence of Arguments as abfurd 
 as it felf, would really be very furpri?.ing ; 
 were we not acquainted with the Modefty 
 of Popiili Writers. They might conlider, how- 
 evcr, that JVe could make Thefe Declamati- 
 ons upon Thein^ as well as They upon Us ; 
 were we idle, and impertinent enough, to do 
 fo. But w^e 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 Rea/onings^ mere Cobweb- 
 Snares ; which as None but poyjonotts LtfeUs 
 will weave, fo None but ligbt^ and Jilly ones 
 will be catch'd by. 
 
 G i To 
 
84- An Answer fa a Toftp^ ^ooky 
 To the Fifth SECTION; 
 
 EKTITULED, 
 
 The Churclfs poyetual IndefcciihiUty^ 
 and L^fallibility^ frovd jrom ths 
 mnth /Irlick o^f the Creed. 
 
 THE Young Gentleman, in the laft 
 Words of the Laft Sedicii, having. 
 ask'd why the Church'' s Infallibility^ fince it 
 is fo important a Point, has not a place in 
 the Jpofiles Creeds is anfwer'd by his Pre-- 
 ceptor at the Beginning of This ; that many 
 other Doftrines oi great Importance are not 
 in the Creed y but it does not follow, that 
 therefore tlicy are not to he helicjed. This 
 I grant , but then by his Leave, their 
 Churcli's Infallibility is an Article of fuch 
 infinite Moment and Confequencc (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 Thefc 
 Words in the Creed ; / heliece the Church 
 cf Rome to be Infallible. But the real Rea- 
 fon of it is This ; There is nothing in the 
 Creed^ but w^hat is in the Scriptures. 
 
 This Article, however, if we will take his 
 \v0rd3 is vcrtually in the Creed j and fo are 
 
 aii' 
 
Enthkdj Engiand'j Conner fion^ Sec. 8 5 
 
 ^11 other Popifli Tenets. * ^ecaitfe^ heliecing 
 the Church implies 'Believing h^r whole 
 T>oUrin€, To which I anfwcr^ and 'tis An- 
 fwcr fufficient^ that We may believe the Ho^ 
 ly Catholiclz Churchy without h^XiZMmgall the 
 Church of Rome fays : Bccaufc \ft. 'tis one 
 thing to believe there is a Holy Catholick 
 Cliurch, which is all This Article means i 
 and another, to bchevc that w^hatev^r She 
 fays is certainly true. idly. The Church 
 of Ko7ne is not the Catholick Church. Nor 
 3^/)'. is the isohole T)ocirii.w of the Church 
 of Rowe agreeable to the Dodrine of the 
 Catholick Church. 
 
 Tho' This Creed was certainly not com- 
 posed by the Apoftles, whatever t St. Leo 
 (jc. have faid of it ; yet our Author 
 need not fo \ formally hace profd from the 
 Eighth of our Thirty nine Articles^ that 
 We receive it as agreeable to Scripture 3 fo 
 that we have pinnM our feives down, and 
 cannot deny the Authority of it, after He 
 fliall have irrefragably procd the Church's 
 Lfallibility iiQvci it; Which is I believe, 
 fuch a mixture of Abfurdity, and Confi- 
 dence, as is not eafily to be match Vl. I won- 
 der He did not, mutatis mutandis^ preface 
 his unanfwerable Arguments from Scripture 
 
 P* 30. t thu. « P. 30, 3T. 
 
 Q X in 
 
86 An Answer to a (popfo Bool^ 
 
 in the fame folcmn Words. ^ 'But I defire 
 yoii to take notice^ that^ accordhg to their 
 Sixth and Seventh Articles of Religicn^ the 
 Scriptures cannot he falje j i II:. Becatife &c. 
 2dly. "Becatife &c Now ftirely nojalfehood 
 &c. Nor can the ContradiUory &c. This Fop- 
 p3ry is fo filly on the one hand3 and fo fancy 
 on the other ; that it deferves mucli worfe 
 Words than I have given it, and ought 
 not only to be deteUedy but exploded. His 
 jlrgttments from the Creed^ We arc to un* 
 derftand, will be fo T^emonflratpve -^ that We 
 of the Church of Englaiid IHall have no Re- 
 fource, no Way to come off, hvitde7iyiiig the 
 Authority of it ; Whereas they are juft as 
 Demcnftrative, as Thofe from Scripture in 
 the foregoing Sedlion, which w^e have fully 
 confidered y /• e. 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^ JpoftoUck Churchy and a Communion of 
 Saints \ Therefore the Church of Rome is 
 Infallible. 
 
 In order to turn our own weapons againft 
 us. He is pleasM to give us a long Quotation 
 from Bifhop Tearfon^ t His Words ^ fays He, 
 csfar as relating to my SuhjcU:, are I'hefe. 
 
 If 
 
Entitled^ 'En^^ndi^sConverfiQn^Scc, 87 
 
 If He had cited nothing but what related to 
 his Suhjeit^ He had cited nothing at all ,• for 
 He might as well have tranfcribed the whole 
 Book, as what He has tranfcribed. Yet 
 fays the Young Gentleman, *" It really ap- 
 pears to me^ that (f the Church of Rome had 
 gh^en this Troteftant ^ijfjop a Fee to plead 
 her Cattle^ he could not haz^e do7w it more 
 effeUually, And it puts me in mind of 
 this celebrated Maxim^ magna eft Veritas 
 et pr^valet. 2'i&^ Force of Truth is great ; 
 and triumphs ocer Faldoood^ ez)en by the 
 Judgment of its Ene7mes. One would 
 think Bifliop Tearfon in the Pafra8;e quoted 
 liad either in Terms given up the Caufe ^ 
 or at leaft laid down fuch To/itions^ that 
 one fingle T)eduUio7i from themmuft TJemon^ 
 firate the Church of Ro7nes Infallibility, 
 Whereas he fays not one Word about the 
 Church of Rome^ or Infallibili/y: And as 
 for the Conclufion^ which may be drawn from 
 His Trinciples ; He lays 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 feme Trifling 
 not worth our notice, t and confounding a 
 True Church with ^n Orthodox one, which I 
 
 * 34. t P. 34. 
 
 G 4 have 
 
88 A}t AkSWE R to a Tofiflj Bofjhj 
 
 have (hewn to bo very different Ideas, has 
 thefe Words. "^ "But vchat arc the cjfential^ 
 and iw change able Tropcrtiesof this Churchy 
 according to thejamc Creed? ^heyconjiftinher 
 heingOne^ Hoh:, Apoftoiical^ and the Com^nii- 
 nion of Saints. Now this is an U7ianfwerahle 
 Tro(f^ both of Her IndefeUihility, and Injal- 
 Ubility. Anfw, IndefeUibility We have no- 
 thing'to do with at prefent. Biihop Pearfcn 
 I grant, aflerts it, nor do I deny it : Tho', 
 by the way, it does not follow from the 
 Church's being One^ Hol]\ Jpofiolick^ and 
 the Communion of Saints^ that therefore it 
 is IndefeUihle* Neither is the V/ord Jpofic- 
 lick in This Creed ; tho' it be in Anotherj 
 which we equally receive. Inftead of Jpofio-- 
 lick^ I (hould have faid Catholick ; which 
 is in This Creed, and which our Author 
 cynits. I might add moreover, that to be the 
 Communion of Saints^ tho' it is made a Part 
 of the pth Article, is not an AffeUion of the 
 Churchy as Unity ^ Holinefs^ and Catholicifm 
 are ^ nor does Bifliop ^Pearjon make it fo ; 
 nor can g^ood Senfe 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 ,• t what is 
 the T>iffcre72Ce between the Church's Inde^ 
 
 fe^ibility 
 
Entitled^ England'j Converfion^ 8cc. 89 
 
 fiUihility and Infallihility ? I thought tlte 
 Young Gentleman had undcrftood Latin ; 
 and if fo, one would wonder ho fliould ask 
 fo idle a Queftion. But 'tis not for nothing, 
 we muft think, that he is made to ask it; 
 'Tisto intvod.-ce che ufual Piec" of Sophiftr^ 
 which a Papift cannot live withouc. Con- 
 founding the Church Cathmck with the 
 Church of R.0772e. "^ Sir^ by the former is 
 meant^ that she nc^-er will perifJo^ &c. In 
 like manner if she fmdd teach 'DoUrines 
 oppofite to the Faith &c. As to the ift. 'Tis 
 trne^ that She^ the Catholic k Church, will 
 fiet'e^^ perijJj y but tlie Church of Rome may. 
 As to' the 2d. 'Tis falje^ that She^ the 
 Church of RomCj cannot teach T>oUrines 
 oppofite to the true Faith. The Words jP7- 
 fible and Invifihle^ as apply'd to tlie Churchy 
 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 fmild t impofe aho7pinable Errors^ 
 fiich as Idolatry and Stiperftitions^ upon the 
 Faithfid^ and demand of the^n Terms of 
 Communion^ which are inconfiftent with Sal- 
 ovation ^ She woidd mofi certairdy ceafe to he 
 an unerring Guide. To which I add i But 
 
 the 
 
^O j4n AlSlSWER to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 the Church of Rome long has impos'd, and 
 ftill does impofe, ahominahle Errors &c. 
 and T'erms of. Co7nmiinion inccnfiftent 
 with Sahation ; (I mean in their Nature 
 and T!endency-y however God may have 
 Mercy upon Thofe, who igjwrantly em- 
 brace them :) Therefore The Church of 
 Kome ceafes to he an tmerring Guide^ if 
 ever flie were fo. The Argument is plain. 
 The Major is his own ; and the Minor is 
 prov'd from their Worihip of Images, and 
 Reliques, Saints, and Angels ^ Communion 
 in one Kind ,• Purgatory ^ their Dodrine of 
 Attrition j Opus Operatum \ and many oth^r 
 Corruptions. And, indeed, it is much 
 clearer and ftronger Reafoning to argue 
 Thus^ The Church of Rome adually errs, 
 therefore She is not lufallible : Than Thus ^ 
 the Church of 'Kome is Infallible, therefore 
 She cannot err. Of which more hereafter. 
 The pretended Tromifes of God^ "^ upon 
 which the Church's Infallibility is (aid to be 
 founded, I have proved to be no fuch Promifes ; 
 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- 
 
 ♦ P. 3^' 
 
 munion 
 
Entttled^Ev]g\^nd'*s ConverJio7t^ Sec. 91 
 
 munion of Saints. * If She fhould either fail 
 entirely^ or ceafe to he either One^ or Holy^ 
 or Jpoftolical^ or the Communion of Saints ; 
 the ninth Jrticle of the Creed wotild then 
 he falfe : Jnd whofoe-ver floould at that time 
 fay it^ would utter a downright Lye^ in ma- 
 king Trofeffion of the Chrifiian Faith. Jnfw. 
 ThV the Church fhould/;?//. This Article 
 would not be falfe j becaufe hidcfcUihility 
 is not aflerted in it. Unity is eflential to e- 
 very Being; fo that as long as the Church 
 is at all^ She is certainly One. Holy^ and 
 Apoftolickj She will likewife always be in 
 fome Senfe or other ^ as long as She is at all i 
 And She will be the Coramunion of Saints 
 tco, as long as She ccntinues^ if by That 
 be meant the fame as Her being Holy ; 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 fliall by 
 profelTing the Faith of the Creed, fay, 
 there is a Holy Catholick Church, when 
 at the fame time there is none^ will utter 
 a downright Faljhood ; FaHhood, Ifay^ for 
 it may not be a Lye : But I conceive 
 there is no Danger of it j becaufe if the 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 Church 
 
9^ An Answer to a Topi/I:) Bool^ 
 
 Church fhould be loft, I imagine the Pro- 
 fcffion of That Faith would be loft too. "^ 
 ^Biit Jincc it is manifeft Blafphemy to fay^^ 
 that the Creed^ which may he proved by 
 f}2oJi certain Warrant of Holy Scripture^ can 
 en:er he falfe^ or that a Terfon can he gtiiU 
 ty of Lyi7ig in profejfmg the Chriftian TJoc- 
 trine taii^t hy the Jpoftks ; itfolhi^s^ that 
 the aho^ve-faid ninth Jrticle of the Creed 
 contains a deinonfirati've Troof^ that the 
 Church of Chrift has always heen^ and will 
 always he^ an unerring Guide ; that is^ In- 
 fallihle in all her T)cciftGns of Faith. 1 
 deny the Confequencc. It does not follow, 
 that becaufe the Church is One, Holy, A- 
 poftoHcal, and the Communton of Saints, add 
 Indefe«flible, if You pleafe, tho' that is not 
 in the Article ,• therefore She ever was, is, 
 will be, or can be, InfoUible, This is fo far 
 from being a ^emonfirati^ve Proofs that it 
 has not the Icaft Shadow of any Proof. Our 
 Author w^ill prefently endeavour to reinforce 
 his Argument ; and then I fhall more fully 
 iliew the Weaknefs of it. f And that hy 
 Consequence^ She necer was guilty of the^ 
 ahominahle Errors laid to her Charge hy 
 her rehellious Children. Beyond Contro- 
 verfy, if She was Infallible ^ She could not 
 
 ho 
 
Entltled^Enghnd's Converjjon^ 8cc. 95 
 
 be guilty of abominable Errors. But tlion 
 She^ not only the Church of Rome^ but any 
 Churchy was never Infallible, And She^ 
 the Church of RoDie^ has been guilty of 
 abominable J nay damnable. Errors ; and 
 therefore her Children were not rebellions 
 in rejecting them. ^ 'Jhat the Creed in the 
 fuppofed Cafe 'wotdd he falfe^ is manifefi to 
 comraon Senfe ; becaufe if the Char eh really 
 fell into the damnable Eorors^ &c. Here is 
 the old Blunder, fo often repeated in the 
 foregoing Seftion. The Church may not fall 
 into damnable Errors, and yet not be InfaU 
 lihle : And whether She be Infallible or not, 
 is the only Qiieftion. Our Author's Argument 
 therefore fliould not have ran Thus, If 
 the Church really fell into damnable Errors -^ 
 but Thus, If the Church were not Infallible : 
 t HcuD can it he faid ; that She 'was then 
 either One^ or Holy^ or Jpoftolical^ or the 
 Comrannion of Saints ? However, I will take 
 it juft as it ftands -, and if we fliew that the 
 Church, even the Church in general, not to 
 mention That of Rome in particular, may con- 
 tinue to be One, Holy^ &c. and yet not 
 only be capable of falling, but adually fall, 
 into damnable Errors ^ underftanding by 
 damnable y tending in their own nature to tho 
 
 57. t I'^'i^ 
 
 Damnation 
 
94- An Answer to a Topi/h 'Booh, 
 
 Damnation of Thofe who hold them, not 
 necejfarily caufing their Damnation j It will 
 follow a fortiori \ that She may be One^ 
 Holy^ &c. and yet not be Infallible. '^ Ihis^ 
 fays our Author, ^^iz. [that the Church 
 Ihould be Oiie^ Hol]\ dec. and yet fall into 
 damnable Errors^'] implies a man if eft Con- 
 tradiUion. For in the fir ft place ^ She would 
 then moft certainly haz^e forfeited her Unity ^ 
 hy falling from her former Faith. If She 
 "wholly fell from her former Faith ; She 
 would, indeed, forfeit her Unity : Be- 
 caufe She would forfeit Her lieing -y juft as 
 a Man forfeits his Life^ by dying of any T^if- 
 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 con'junUiun with it. For, tho' 
 fuch Errors are in reality repugnant to fome 
 Particulars of the true Faith, yet She may 
 not be fenfible of itj Confequences may 
 really follow from Her Dodrine, which She 
 fees not, but rejedts and abhors, f For can 
 a Church that changes her Faith he properly 
 calfd one^ and the fame ? Yes ; if changing 
 Her Faith mc^ns falling into damnable Er- 
 rors ; as it mull mean, if it means any thing 
 
 * P. ihU. t lh\i' 
 
Entitled^ England'j^ Converjion^ Sec- 95 
 
 to the prejent Point ^ tho' even That is no- 
 thing to the main Point, which is the In-' 
 fallibility of the Church. I fay. She may 
 fall into damnable Errors j 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 fick at another ? '^ On the contra- 
 ry^ inficad of continiiirig what floe was by 
 her dicine EftablifJjment^ viz. the T.'rue^ and 
 
 only Orthodox Church of Chriji She 
 
 may be Tme^ and not Orthodox ; as before 
 obferved : She may hold damnable Errors ; 
 and yet be a T'rne Church in one Senfe, 
 tho' not Orthodox, t She woidd ha^'e be- 
 come an Heretical Communion^ and the 
 rjery Synagogue of Sataii. ift. All Errors^ 
 even damnable ones, are not Herejtss. zdly* 
 She might hold feme Herefies^ and yet not 
 be quite tho Synagogue of Satan. Or ^dly. 
 She might be fo in fome Refpeds, and not 
 in others, /{thly. If by being the Synagogue 
 of Sata^i^ be meant being extremely corrupt ^ 
 She may be even That^ and ftill be one^ 
 and trtie^ in the Senfe above-mentioned ; 
 I add, good^ metaphyfically, tho' not morally, 
 t Nay^ a fource of "Dimfions^ and Author of 
 Schifm. So that whatever Church holds 
 
 *ihid. t ihid. i Ibid. 
 
 dafitnahls 
 
96 An Answer to a Topi/h Booh, 
 
 ^amnahk Errors.^ is the Author of Schijm % 
 But the Church of Kome holds damnable 
 Errors : JErgo^ (jc* The Schifm therefore, 
 with regard to the Separation between ^J'hem 
 and Us^ is T heirs, not Ours. "*" In as much 
 {IS her O'ucn Children 'would then hat'e been 
 lound to jeparate them fehes from Her. Not 
 from Her^ but from Her Errors : But how- 
 ever, be That as it will j She, not They, 
 would be anfwerable for the Separation, 
 according to our Author's own Concefi'ion. t 
 Nor could She then he Holy -.tmlefs Idolatry :i 
 or other grofs Errors^ he a holy. T>cUrine. 
 She might then be Holy in fome refpeds ; 
 tho' not near fo Holy, as She fljould be : 
 Holy, in the Faith which She might ftill re- 
 tain j Holy, with refpedt to her Vocation^ 
 the Original End of Her Inftitution^ &c. Let 
 me have Leave to quote a Pafiage out of 
 BiiTiop Tearfon upon This very Article,- 
 W'hich our Author feems to have overlooked. 
 ^ I conclude the^^cfcre^ as the antient Catho- 
 licks did r':iain(i the T)matifts^ that within 
 the Churchy in the puhlick Trofejfton^ and 
 external Com7niinion thereof^ are contain d 
 Terfo7is truly good-, andjanciifyd^ and here- 
 after faod ; and^ together with thef??^ other 
 Terfons^ I'oidofalljaving Grace^ and here- 
 
 * IhU. ] Ibid, :[: Ex|DofitionoftheCreed. p. 344. 
 
 efter 
 
Entitled^ England 'j- Converfio-n^ Sec. 97 
 
 '^afur to he damnd\ Jnd that the Church-^ 
 containing Thefe of both Kinds^ may isoeli he 
 caltd Holy, as St. Matthew call'd Jenifa' 
 lom^ the holy City, e-ven at that time^ when 
 our Saz'iotir did but begin to preachy z:::hcn 
 '-jce know there was in 'That City a general 
 Corruption in Manners and Worjlnp, Tho 
 Church then, even holding damnable Er- 
 rors, may in this Senfe be Holy ; and yet /- 
 dolatryy and othcr^r^/} Errors^ not be Holy 
 T)oUrines. He adds, Ncr Jpojrolieal ; hecatife 
 the Apoftlcs ne'i'er 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. 
 Kor finally^ concludes he, the Coynmunion of 
 Saints \ hecatife 'J hey cannot he Saints^ who 
 C07nmu7iicate with an Idolatrous Church, ift. 
 It is not faid, that She is the Communion of 
 Saints \ nor is it Senfe to fay fo. idl)\ Thofe 
 who communicate with an Idolatrous Church, 
 in her Idolatry, or any other grofs Errors, 
 affurcdly arc not Saints, nor tolerably good 
 Chriftians ; at lead as fo communicating : 
 But doing it ignorantly, they may be good 
 in other refpe^b. idly. 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 
 They may be the Saints here on Earth ; 
 holding Communioyi^ in fome meafure, even 
 xvith the corrupt Church, the' chiefly with 
 
 H Ono 
 
98 Jn Answer to a Top{fh Book^ 
 
 One another, with the Saints in Heaven, 
 and with God hiinfclt. In iliort, the whole 
 Church may be ovcrfpread with Corruptions, 
 even with Idolatry, and yet not lofe its Be- 
 ing ; as the Jewifh Church did not, when 
 it was fo overfprcaJ : And to fay that it is 
 One, Holy, Catholick, and Apoftolical, fofar 
 as in the Senfe in which I have explained 
 it, and no farther, amounts to no more 
 than to fay, that It is hi 'Bei7ig^ and that Ihefe 
 ^Properties are ejjential to it. Neither is it 
 necelTary that the Creed fhould intend any 
 more, nor has our Author provM that it 
 does J- but on the contrary. His Arguments, 
 as I have fhewn, are utterly groundlefs and 
 inconclufive. 
 
 But flay, not too faft 5 Here is more to 
 come. 
 
 * G. <V/r, If I ha'-je a true TJnderflanding 
 of your meaning':, the Suhftance of what you 
 hat^e [aid may he [ummd up in this Jhort 
 Syllogifm, If the Churchy which in the Creed 
 we profefs to he One^ Rcly^ Jpoftolical^ 6cc. 
 ftooidd ez'erfall into any Errors^ deftruUi've 
 to the famng Faith ^ ^^^ filft delii^erd to the 
 Saints j then the Creed would hefalfc : 'But 
 the Creed cannot hefalje ; therefore fi:e can 
 Qie^jerfall into any fnch Errors. And is^ by 
 
 CON^ 
 
Untitled^ England's Converfioyi^ See 99 
 
 coNSEauENCEj infallible in all herTiecifwns 
 of Faith. 
 
 P. 7ou have taken my Meaning very ex^ 
 aUly '^ and I dare pyefimie to fay ^ the Jr^ii- 
 ment is conch five again (I all ftich as pretend 
 to believe the Creed, Tho' the Preceptor 
 exprefl'es himfelf ftrangely ; yet, waving Cri- 
 ticifm, I anfwer to the Major : ift.If by de~ 
 firuUive to^ be meant aUually defiroying ; 
 even then the Sequel is not true. For, tho' 
 I doubt not but the Church is Indefecl'hky 
 yet the Creed do^s not afjcrt it , nor does it 
 follow that becaufe, while She is at all^ She 
 is One^ Holy, Apoltolical, &c. therefore 
 She mud continue /^r ever. idly. If by thofc 
 Words be meant direUly tending to deflroy^ 
 repugnant tc^ and the like ; much lefs is 
 the Sequel tvuQ. For, as I have fhewn, the 
 Church may be One, Holy, (j^c. and con- 
 tinue fo for ever; and yet fall into Errors, 
 in this laft Scnfe, definitive to the Faith* 
 The Young Gentleman's laft Words, Jnd is 
 by confequence Infallible in all her DccifionS 
 if Faith^ contain This Propofition , That 
 Church which cannot fall into Errors de- 
 ftrudive to the Faith, muft be Infallible 
 in all Her Decifions of Faith. I deny it, 
 not only in the former Senfe of the Words 
 dejiruUive to^ but even in the latter. A 
 Church may be prefervM from falling into 
 ErrorSjWhich are only repugnant to the Faith, 
 without (Mually deflroyin^ it, or to fpcak, 
 
 H 2. as 
 
ICO An Answer ^^ (^ Tofifb l^oolz^ 
 
 as we have all along done, into Errors damna^ 
 hie in one Senfe j and yet not be Infallible 
 in all Her Dccifions of Faith. For there are 
 fome Points of Faith^ (at leaft as the Church 
 may make them^ and as the Church of Rome 
 adually does make them) in a Dccifion of 
 which, an Error, tho' of dangerous Confe^ 
 quence^ 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 Bifnops, at Icaft in a Patriarchal Senfe ; 
 Xho He has no manner of Right to fuch a 
 Submiflion, and fuch a Submillion would be 
 of v^ery dangerous Confequence. Therefore, 
 to helicc'e and to profejs^ that He is fo- fu- 
 preme, may not be a damnable Error* 
 Their Dcdrine of the Sec'en Sacraments I 
 take not to be damnable^ tho' dangerous. If 
 then it be admitted, that the Church is fo 
 direded by the Holy Spirit ^ nay, is fo far 
 Infallible^ if We muft ufe That Word, that 
 She cannot fall into damnable Errors j yet 
 it docs not follow that She is Infallible in 
 all Her Dccifions of Faith : Becaufe there 
 may be many Errors in Dccifions of Faith, 
 which may not be damnable, tho' fjery dan- 
 gerous. 1 fay, very dangerous. To which 
 therefore I add, that if I believe Her Infal- 
 lible in ^7// Her Dccifions, when She isnot.; 
 fuch a Belief niay^ and very probably a'/7/:> 
 draw me into damnable Errors, tho* She 
 
 Her 
 
Entitled:^ England^ Conner fioyi^ Sec, \ o i 
 
 Her fclf falls into none that arc fo. But 
 in This Argument, T/jc Church cannot fall 
 into damnable Errors^ therefore She is Infal- 
 lihle in all her l^ccifwns ; We need not in- 
 iift upon the Falfity of the Coufeqncnce^ tho*, 
 as I have iliewn, it is moft filfe -, fince, as 1 
 have inore fully fliewn, and That I chiefly 
 infift upon, the Antecedent has not been made 
 out. The Church may fall into damnable 
 Errors, and yet be One^ Hoh\ &c.nor has This 
 Writer produc d tlie gUmmering of an Argu- 
 ment to the contrary. Here likewife, as al- 
 ways upon thcfe Occaiions, it muft be rcniom- 
 ber'd, that, if he had prov'd what he under- 
 took concerning the Churchy He had done 
 nothing, unlefs He had likewife prov'd, that 
 the Churcli of Ro7ne is the Church • which, 
 tho' I have here for the greater Strength of 
 the iVrgument 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 ihail bo furo 
 to meet with an Anfwer. 
 
 At prcfent he quotes i "Jim. 3. 15. where 
 He "^ lliys, St. T^aid pronounces the Church 
 of Chrift to he the Tillar and Support of the 
 Truth, And then asks feveral Queftions, 
 How can this he true ^ if the Churchy efta- 
 
 p. 3S, 
 
 H 3 hlijljd 
 
loi An Answer to a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 hlijlod by Cbrift^ ever prcpofesfalfe T)oUnnes 
 for reveal d T'ritths ? Or requires things in^ 
 confiftent with Salvation for Conditions of 
 Communion ? Can She always he the Millar 
 and Support of the Truth ^ unlefs She he aU 
 ways an unerring Guide in matters of Faith ? 
 Anfwer. i/?. It is far from being certain 
 that Thofe Words, the Tillar^ drc relate to 
 the Church : They may perhaps relate to 
 limothy ^ and it is the Opinion of very learn- 
 ed Men, that they do. %dly. If St. 'Paul 
 fpeaks of the Church ^ he fpeaks either of 
 the Church in getter al^ or the Church of 
 Ephefus in particular, mofl certainly not of 
 the Church ofRome. ^dly. By the Church's 
 being the Pillar and Qround of Truths may 
 very well be meant no more, than that ac- 
 cording to the Intent of her Inftitution^ She 
 always ought to be fo, not that She always 
 aftually 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, and lays fo much 
 Strefs upon it. But, /\thly. and chiefly. 
 The Church may maintain all necejfary 
 Trtith^ and yet propofe falfe jDoBrines^ 
 and Terms of Communion inconfiftent with 
 Salvation i or, in other Words, as we have, 
 in effedt, often faid already, hold the Truths 
 and huild Ealflwod upon it \ as th^ Church 
 
 of 
 
Entitled^ Englanc^' sConverfioHy &c. lo j 
 
 of Rome actually does. She may therefore 
 be the Tillar a^id Support of the Truths 
 without being an unerring Giiide^ or fo 
 much as free from great and grievous Er- 
 'rors. * J7id ij\ concludes He, She he fnch a 
 Guide j I ask one f^ueftion more^ hozv can 
 her Faith he reform d} How indeed? But 
 if She, the Church of Rome, be 7iot an un- 
 erring Guide j but, on the contrary, over- 
 run with grofs and damnable Errors, as well 
 as with all manner of Wickednefs and Vice, 
 proceeding from Thofc Errors ^ w hich is the 
 real Truth of the Cafe ; then her Faith, 
 and Pradice too, may, and ought to be re- 
 formed. 
 
 t G. I fee no other Jnrd::erto he made to l^his 
 (^nefiion^ hut hoidly ajjertivg^ that St. Paul's 
 Epifles^ vay^ and the Gcfpels^ as ij::eU as the 
 Creed ^ all which give Evidence to the T)oc- 
 trine of Infallihiltty^ fiandfttll as much in 
 need of a thorough godly Reformation^ as the 
 Church of Rome it fclf. This is a continua- 
 tion of the aforefaid I! Mcdefty ; and That 
 is Anfwer fufficient. What he fays to the 
 Queftion, hew a Society of Men can be In- 
 fallihle^ when all its part icidar Mcmhers arc 
 fallihle^ is nothing to the Purpolb; becaufe 
 We utterly deny, and They can never prove. 
 
 Ih'id, \lh'il II Sec?. 85,85. 
 
 H 4 thai 
 
1 04- ^^ Answer to a Topifh Book^ 
 
 that any Society of Men is Infallihle. T!he 
 Church s Infallihility^ fays He, depends not 
 upon any extraordinary inward Lights^ &c. 
 hitt upon the gratuitous Tromifes of God : 
 And cannot lie heftow^ This Tri^jilege^ (j'C. 
 Ay J But I have proved that there are oto 
 fuch gratuitous Promifes of God to the 
 Churchy 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 ftruck off ^ and I 
 need fay no more of it. Yet I cannot 
 forbear taking notice of one Paffage in it. "^ 
 Jpor^ as 'Bijhcp Pearfon has eery judicioiifly 
 oh[ervd^ tho the Troddence of God has juf- 
 ferd ecen whole particular Churches to pe- 
 rijh y yet the Tromifes of the fame God will 
 net'er permit that they all periflj at once. 
 I ask This Writer, whether He does not be- 
 lieve in his Confc'cnce, that ^vhen Biflhop 
 Tearfcn wrote This, He thought the Church 
 of Rome to be as much a particular Church 
 as the Church of 'England ? And ^% likely 
 to pcriflo^ as any other particular Church ? 
 If fo; I ask again, with what Confciencc 
 he could quote That excellent Prelate's 
 Words, fpoken of the Church in general^ as 
 
 * P. 5P" 
 
 fcrvung 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converfion^Scz. 105 
 
 ferving the Caufe of the Church of Kome ; 
 and amrm, that He talks as if He had taken 
 a Tee to fie ad for her ? 
 
 Before I conclude, I cannot but obfervc, 
 that our old Objedion ftands good againft what 
 This Author difcourfes about Infallibility, 'viz. 
 that he does not tell us where it is to he found. 
 For thQChurch is too loo/e and general a Word. 
 Does He mean ConncNs only ? Mull the Tope 
 neceffarily concur, or no ? (j^c. But not to 
 infill upon This, and that we may bring the 
 matter to fome lifue ; I fuppofe it will be 
 granted on all fides, that, according to the 
 Komanills, the Definitions of the Council 
 of T'rent^ ratify'd by the Pope, are the De- 
 finitions of the Church. Our Author, as wo 
 have feen, * inftances in Tranfubflantiation, 
 Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, and Honour- 
 ing of Reliqucs, to which He might have ad- 
 ded Image-Worlhip, Half-Communion, &c\, 
 as T)oUrines of the Church. And We all 
 know the Council of T^rent makes them ne- 
 cejjary to Sahation. Here then I fix ; Every 
 one of Thefe Doftrines is grojly falfe ; there- 
 fore the Church of Ro7?2e aUually errs^ and 
 therefore is not Infallible. That They are 
 falfe, I have elfewhere prov'd. f Imagc-JVor-- 
 Jfxip is contrary to the Second Command- 
 
 P. 58, t. Popery truly dated, Qpr^ 
 
lio6 j4n Ajs^swERto a Topi/h BooTz^ 
 
 ment. All Creature-WorJIoip is contrary to 
 many Texts of Scripture, particularly T^eiit. 
 6. 13. Matth. 4, 10. Com7ntmion in one 
 Kind is contrary to the exprefs Words of 
 our Saviour's Inftitution ; as They themfelves 
 acknowledge. T^ranfuhftantiation is contra- 
 ry, i/?. To Scripture ; which aflures us, that 
 the Bread and Wine continue Bread and 
 Wine after Confecration. Matth. 26- 29. 
 2 Cor* X. 17. xi. 26, (jc. idly. To Rea-- 
 fon ; becaufe it implies an hundred Contra- 
 diftions, * as well as many Blafphemous Im- 
 pieties : That the fame Body, for inftance, 
 is in Heaven and on Earth at the fame time ^ 
 that Man can make God, &c. 3dly. 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; (puzzlings to weak^ ignorant People ; 
 for, to All who k720w any thing of the 
 matter, nothing, as I have made it appear, 
 can be more defpicahlyfooliJJo) 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. ChllUnp-woYth reckons np thirty in a Breath. Religion 
 4 Fr»teJla?Jts, &c. Chap. 4. :^ 4^, 
 
 She 
 
Entitled^Er)g\ixnd''s Converjion^ 8cc. 1 07 
 
 She licSy which is worfe : And can neither 
 way be an Infallihle Guide^ or any true 
 Guide at all. 'Tis much furor Reafoning, 
 as I hinted before, to argue thus a pojieri^ 
 oriy The Church of Kome adually 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 demonjiratwely clear ^ 
 and the moft Illiterate may underftand 
 them: In the Latter, They are difficult ^nd 
 ohfcare at beft ; they may poiTibly puzzle^ 
 but can never com'ince. Had I, which no 
 body ever will have, as much Evidence 
 that their CJmrcFs Ivfallihility is trtie^ as 
 I have that Tra^ifnhftantiation is falfe ; 
 even then I fhould be but in an Eqtiilihritimy 
 and could not affent to either. How necef- 
 farily then muft my Aifent be clearly de- 
 termined J when I have Scripture^ Common 
 Reafcn^ and my outward Se^ifes^ to comince 
 me on the one Hand ^ and nothing but T^uji 
 and T>arknefs to blind and confound ny^y oia 
 the other ? I fpeak This Lafl, in the Per» 
 fon of one of the Vulgar^ and Unlearned: 
 To Thofe of a different Charafter the Ar-. 
 guments for Infallibility have, as I faid, 
 no "Difficulty in them ; nothing but tranfpa- 
 rent Sophijiryy fhamcful InconfeqiiencCy and 
 palpable Jhfurdities. This I may have 
 Leave to affirm ; becaufe I have procd it, 
 Suppofe then a Perfon perfe<ftly indif£ rent. 
 
io8 An Answer to a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 and unj>rejudic'd3 and a Stranger in Thefe 
 Parts or the Worlds to be concern'd in This 
 Enquiry, whether the Church of Ro7ne 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 E^idy and Mifemploying 
 his time^ for Him to pefter himfelf with a 
 long Train of perplex* d^ and at iQadfeeming- 
 ly inconclulive Deductions, pretending to 
 prove that She cannot err ^ when He may 
 in fix Minutes, the Arguments at/r/? Sight 
 looking eafy and natural^ demouftrate b(J- 
 yondall Con tradition, that She actually does 
 err ? But to conclude, by applying my felf 
 to the meanefi Reader : Suppofe Ycu fliould 
 hear a Man brag, and pretend to prove by 
 unanfwerable Arguments, that He is Incnl-- 
 iierahle^ and Incapable of any Sicknefs or 
 Difeafe whatfoever. Perhaps He might amufc 
 you with Sophijiry^ which Ton would not 
 be able to anfwer ^ but would yofr therefore 
 believe him 1 when youfhould/^^ him at that 
 ^jery time devoured with XJlcers^ and fcro- 
 fiilotis Humours^ cover d Over from Head 
 to Foot with Wounds -i and Bruifes^ and 
 putrifying Sores? He would tell you^ it 
 may be^ that they are not Ulcers, Sores, 
 (^c, but Signs of Healthy and in themfelves 
 Beauties, But I ask again ^ Would You 
 lelieve Him ? If You would , I know not 
 which of the Two would be more extraor« 
 
 dinary^ 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converfm^ &c. 109 
 
 dinary. His Modejfyy or Your Vnderfiand- 
 
 ing. 
 
 The Rule of Faiths 
 
 ^ ^ I ^HIS, fays He, leads me to the Rule 
 X ^y "johich the Catholick Church di- 
 reBs it felf in all its Tiecijions of Faith. 
 What is it to Us what Rule She dircfts her 
 felf by ? She is hifallihle^ it feems ^ and 
 That's enough. If we muft fubmit to Her 
 Decifions, tho' contrary to the Word of 
 God, our Reafon, and our Senfes ; 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 Ufe of Seeing, Hearing, SmelHng, 
 Tailing, and Handling. According to This, 
 She is. Her felf :^ the Rule as well as Judge-, 
 
 the 
 
1 lo An Answer to a Topi/h ^ook^ 
 
 the Standard and Meafure of Right, and 
 Wrong, of Truth, and Falfehood. In the 
 Controverfy about the Rtde of Faith^ be- 
 tween Papifts and Proteftants, the Rule, as 
 I apprehended, was fuppos'd to be a Rule to 
 all Chriftians ,• and the Queftion was, wine- 
 ther Scripture only, or Scripture and Tra- 
 dition in Conjunction, were the Ruie 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 hlm- 
 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 bimfelf, if fome o- 
 ther Doctrines of Popery be true, is fuperflu- 
 ous, not to fay ridiculous. If it be confin'd to 
 the Church j what imports it, whether Scrip- 
 ture only, or Scripture and Tradition toge- 
 ther, be the Rule of Faith to Her ^ 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, 
 mz^ her Infallibility, and her Rtght of declar- 
 ing what is Scripture, and Tradition, and what 
 
 notj 
 
Entitled^ England'^ ConverJion^SiC. 1 1 1 
 
 not ; She is a Rule, and Law, not only to 
 Others, but to her Self likevvife ; and fo to 
 talk of any other Rule is fuperfluous, and 
 irrational. If the Enquiry be, what is the 
 Rule of Faith to all Chriftians to You, and 
 Me, and Every body elfe in particular ? the 
 Abfurdities 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 5 if I am to 
 take Both ahfolutely tipcn T'ruft from the 
 Infallible Church j and muft implicitly de- 
 pend upon Her, not only as to the Senfs 
 and Meanings but as to the Reality^ and 
 ^eing of them ? According to This, She a- 
 lone is my Rule of Faith ,• and I can have 
 no other. 
 
 Neverthelefs, fince our Author is pleas'd 
 to give us a bciSion upon This Qucftion, 
 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 fliall fol- 
 lowhim as He leads, maintaining This Thefis^ 
 That Scriptme onl% without Iraditiony is 
 the T/Vord of God^ and the Rule of our 
 Faith. 
 
 The Contrary, "^ he tells us, has been 
 fully demonjirated in a ^ooky entitled^ T'he 
 
 P. 40' 
 
 Rule 
 
Ill ^/^ ANSWER /^^ TofiJhBoolz^ 
 
 Rule of Fait b 'y printed Anno. 17 21. I ne- 
 ver faw the Book : but am fo well acquaint- 
 ed with TopiJJo Tiejnonflrations^ and TopiJIj 
 Mo deft y^ and all the Papifts have to fay, 
 upon This, or any other Argument j 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 Fa^^ ift. That 
 Chrifi himjelf laid the Foundation of the 
 Church by preaching only ^ sdly. That he 
 ne-ver laid any Comyyiand upon the Apofiles 
 to write ^ hut only to preach the Gofpel to all 
 nations j (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 it by the 
 Holy Ghoft ?) and 3dly T.loat in effeU they 
 preached for fe^jeral Tears ^ before they wrote 
 any of the Canonical "Books of Scripture ; He 
 adds, and thd they hadne^jer written at all^ 
 as the Papifts, 'tis plain, are heartily vex d 
 
 they 
 
Entitled^ England V Converfio'^^&cc. i /^ 
 
 they ever did^ and would abolifli their Wri- 
 tings from the Face' of the Earth, if they 
 were able ; hut delh^erd the 'uohole Chrifiian 
 DoUrinc by JFord of Mouth to Thoje who 
 fucceeded the7n in their Jpofiolical Charge j 
 we Jlooidd have been obligd to recei've it as 
 the Word of God^ and therefore with the 
 fame RefpeU as we now do the holy Scrips 
 tare. 
 
 Tho they had necer written at all^ &c ! 
 But They ha^ve written • and fo the Cafe is 
 alter'd. "Xo T^'hofe who fucceeded them in 
 their Jpoftolical Charge ! Stridly fpeaking, 
 there w^ere None who fucceeded them in 
 their Apoftolical Charge ; but let That pafs. 
 This is liarping upon the old String ; * as 
 if the Apoftles dehvcr d the Gofpcl, both by 
 Speaking and Writing, not to the whole 
 Worlds but to ^ifmps and Tafiors only* 
 But not to infift upon That neither : T^'ho 
 They had delit^e/d the Chrifiian T>oarine 
 only hy Word of Mouth ; JVe fJjotdd ha^ve 
 been obligd^ He fays, to receizw it as the 
 Word of God. True \ if we could prove 
 This or That Dodirine to have been deli- 
 <vered by Hhem^ tho' b"^ Word of Mouth on- 
 ly. But T^hat is the grand Point of all : Tho' 
 according to This Gentleman, 'tis a Circum- 
 
 Seep. 31, $2, 33. 
 
 I ftaiKe^ 
 
1 14 An A^5SWER to a ToptJJj Bool^ 
 
 fiance not worth taking notice of ^ for he 
 fays nothing at all about it. His next Words 
 are thcfe. "^ Whence it jollcws^ ift. "Jhat 
 the uirj^rittcn Word of God 'was the whole 
 Rztle of Faith to the primitive Chriftians^ 
 hefore the Scriptures could poffihly he a Tart 
 cf it. Without doubt, the Written Word 
 was the whole Rule, before the Scriptures 
 w^ere Part of it ; as furely as one Unit is 
 the Whole, before another is added to it. 
 t And it might haz'e continued fo for e^cer^ if 
 TrO't'ideuce had pleafed to order it fo. It 
 might fo i Nay, (which is more) it certainly 
 woiild^ if Providence had fo ordered it. But 
 it has pleafed Providence to order it other- 
 wife, by giving the World a Written Gof- 
 pel^ which, no doubt, w^as for this plain 
 Reafon, becaufe it was morally impojfihle 
 that the Chriftian Dodrine fliould be deli- 
 vered down thro' all Ages by W^ord of Mouth 
 only. 
 
 II It follows^, idly, continues He, that Scrip- 
 tures are fo far from being the whole necef- 
 fary Rule of the Chriftian Faith -^ that they 
 are not (ahfolutely (peaking') ecen a necef- 
 fary Tart of that Rule : as the aho've-faid 
 Juthor has fully prodd. That is, becaufe 
 Chrift laid the Foundation of the Church 
 by Preaching only; and did not command 
 
 p. 41. t IhiL 11 IhlL 
 
 his 
 
Entitled^ England's Convcrfion^ &c. 1 1 5 
 
 his Apoftles to write ; and bccaufc They 
 preach'd before they wrote ^ and if they liad 
 never written at all, but delivered their Do- 
 drinc only by Word of Mouthy we had 
 been bound to receive it : TKEK^FOiiE the 
 Scriptures arc fo far, &c. This Ccv/}" 
 qnence confifts of tv/o Branches, ift. That 
 the Scriptures are not the whole necejjhry 
 Rule of Faith. 2dly. That they arc not 
 (abfolutely fpeaking) fo much as a neceifa- 
 ry Tart of it. As to the Firft ,• Does it 
 follow^ that bccaufe our Saviour and his A* 
 poftles didThus orThus^ and might ha^ve done 
 Thus or Thus, and ij- they had^ we had been 
 obligd to do Thus or Thus^ as above recited \ 
 Therefore They ha^je fo proceeded, as that in 
 Tacl^ the Scriptures are not the whole neccUli* 
 ry Rule of Faith 1 We fliy, that tho' Chrift 
 founded the Gofpel by preaching only • tho* 
 we iliould grantj as we do not) that he ne- 
 ver commanded his Apoftles to write ; tho* 
 They preach'd before they wrote ; and if 
 they had deliver d their Dodrine by Word 
 of Mouth only, we (hould have been obliged 
 to receive it as God's Word ,• provided Vv'e 
 could prove T^is or That Doftrine to have 
 been deliver d by them : Yet Now-^ as Ihings 
 ftand, there is acitially no Part of the Rule 
 of Faith, but in the Scripture. Let our 
 Adverfaries prove there /j any other i and 
 fhew us what it is , and where it is : 
 And they will do their Bufinefii effcitually. 
 
 I 2 But 
 
1 i6 At ANSWER to a Topifb ^ook^ 
 
 But it can never be made out by fo inconfe- 
 qucnt a Confequence as This is. The Se- 
 cond Branch of the Confequence is, That 
 the Scriptures are not {ahfokitely [peaking) 
 ei-en a neccjfary Tart of the Rule of Faith. 
 What means he by ahfokitely [peaking^ Are 
 they fo infaU^ and as 'Things now ft and -^ 
 or are they not ? He afterwards grants they 
 are -, and I will not cavil. The Meaning 
 there Fore feems to be, tho' 'tis llrangely 
 cxprcfs'd, that it is not in the Reafon^^ and 
 Nature of T. hinges ^ effentially, and ahfolute- 
 ly neccflliry, that even a Tart of the Rule 
 of Faith ihould be committed to Writing ; 
 becauie it 7night have been, (tho' in fadt 
 he grants it is not) all dehver d by TFord of 
 Mouth. It might indeed : But it w^ould have 
 been ufelefs^ if it had i for*any confiderable 
 Time^ I mean j or at any confiderable di- 
 ftancc of Tlace from the Speakers. It might 
 be truly deliver'd to a few^ Perfons by Word 
 of Mouth only , but not to Millions of Mil- 
 lions ^ not for 1700 Years; not all the 
 World over. Yet our Author infifts, that "^ 
 all neceffary Toints of retreat d Faith could 
 ha^ce been fafely conccyd to Us, tho the 
 New Teftament had 7iet^er been writ. For 
 This Aff^rtion he gives no Reafon ; unlefs 
 his own further Ailertions of the fame Thing 
 
 * p. 42. 
 
 may 
 
Entitled:^ Englancrj Convcrfmi^ Sec. \ i j 
 
 may pafs for Reafons- t T/^e Creed could 
 hm^e been remember d in all Jges^ Sic. All 
 iieceffary ^Points 7night hace been reduced to 
 fo jmcill a Compafs^ that they might have 
 been tranfmitted to the mofi difiant Jges^ 
 'with the jame Safety as the Creed it Jelf^ 
 by T'r adit ion only. And the faithful might 
 haz'e prefers d them in their Hearts and 
 Minds^ thd they had ne^'er had thofe far- 
 ther Lights 'which the New Tefiament now 
 fimiifljes them with. All this is fairly [aid -y 
 but how is it^r(/C^W? On the contrary, I appeal 
 to the common Senfe and Experience of Man- 
 kind, whether the Thing be not morally i7n- 
 pofjible, I have juft now given my Reafons i 
 and fliall not repeat them. But I have fome- 
 thing to add here ; w^hich is. That I doubt 
 our Author's Doftrine borders upon Blafphc- 
 my ; or rather is fo. The Scriptures are 
 dictated by God ; and, according to his Ac- 
 count, arc, as to all neceflary Points, iuper- 
 fluous. Does not doing Things fuperfluous 
 argue Weaknefs, and Want of Wifdom ? 
 Whatever therefore our Authors above-faid 
 Author is pretended to have fully pro'vd^ 
 it appears from what I have Here, tho' very 
 Briefly, allodg'd, that he neither has prov'd, 
 nor can prove, the Point proposed ; unlefs he 
 can fhew that Nonfenfe is agreeable to hu- 
 
 I 3 ^nan 
 
1 18 Jn Ans WER to a fopi/h Booly 
 
 man Reafony and Tilafphemy to the Chri* 
 fiian Keligion. 
 
 '^ Hov:ecer^ as Tyo^iidciice has m'-derd 
 Tubings y the Holy Scripttires^ he is pleasVito 
 grant, are tj^ithotit all ^ifpiite a moji in" 
 eft m able 'Treafiire^ and an InfalUUe Rule 
 of 'Faith ■■, WKEN rightly understood. 
 That Laft was well put in : To infinuate 
 that they are fo obfcure as not to be intelli- 
 gible to private Perfons ^ that for the right 
 tJnderflanding of them, we are wholly ob- 
 liged to the Church'^ and are to acquicfce 
 in her Interpretations of them, tho' never fo 
 contrary to their plain Meaning. This is 
 the known Doctrine of the Romanifts ^ and, 
 notwithfianding This forc'd Compliment 
 upon the Scriptures, it quite evacuates Thofe 
 facred Writings, ^nd makes them no Rule 
 at all, t S^''^ 'l^hat they are not the whole 
 Jitile oj Faith^ and that unwritten Jpofioli- 
 €(in*raditio72s hai'e always he en at leaji a 
 necejjary Tart of this Rnle^ may^ He affirms, 
 he clearly made out. And he accordingly 
 fets himfelf to make it out, both from Scrips 
 tztre^ and the Writings of the Fathers. 
 
 His Proofs from Scriptttre are, according 
 to Cufrom, quite hefide the ^ueftion ; prove 
 nothing but what Nobody denies i and are no- 
 thing at all to the Turpofe^ He obferves ? 
 
 * Ibid, t ih'id^ 
 
Entitled^ England V Converfion^ Sec, 1 1 9 
 
 pirft, that ^ If (the Scripture) 110 'where de- 
 clares that all the particular 'Points of the 
 Cbriftian T)oUrine^ which the jipojHes 
 taught by IFord of Mouthy are exprefsd in 
 their Canonical Writings. What it it does 
 not declare fo ? Our own Reafon tells us 
 that nothing is to be received by us, as the 
 Word of God. but what we can pro^je to be 
 fuch : And That is fufiicient. Does it any- 
 where declare that Itfelf is infufficicnt ? Or 
 that any thing unwritten is to be receiz'd 
 as Gods Word throughout all Jgcs ? Yes ^ 
 if we will take things as our Author rcprc- 
 fents them^ without any txamination. For 
 he proceeds Thus. II It oi:er and aho-ve recom- 
 mends Jpqflolical I'raditions^ in the 'inofi 
 exprefs arid pofitice Terms. Who denies 
 Jpoftolical Iraditionsl He fets out with 
 his ufuai ilumbling, and niiftakes the Qiic- 
 ftion in the Firft Words. He himfeif, but 
 five Lines before, proposM to prove that 
 Scripture is not the whole Rule^ and that 
 unwritten Apoflolical Traditions have al^ 
 WAYS heen a necejfary Tart of it. Now he 
 is proving that the Scripture recommends 
 Jpofiolicanraditions \ and in tiuth, his al- 
 ledg*d Texts will prove no more. But what is 
 This to the Point ? Who doubts but that there 
 were Apoltolical Traditions^ even by Word 
 
 li'iL t Ih'A II UAL 
 
 I 4 of 
 
lOO An A-^SWEK to a Topifh Booly 
 
 of Mouth, ill the Times of the Apoftles ? 
 There are feme Apoftohcal Traditions Now ; 
 The Scriptures are fuch. 'Ihere 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 pro'vd to 
 us, that there are any relating even to Points 
 of Faith ', v/e would certainly receive them. 
 But is This the fame Thing as to fay^ that 
 th^ Scriptures are not now the whole 'Kale 
 of Vaith', hit that unwritten Jpoftolical 
 traditions hace been alw^ays a necejfary 
 ^art of it ? Or does the one follow from the 
 other by any thing like a Confeqiience ? To 
 fhew I do not wrong our Author, 1 will pro- 
 duce his Proofs at large ^ diftinguifliing the 
 Empbatical Words, as He does, "^'iV^z^? J 
 praife you "Brethren y (fays St. Paul, i Cor* 
 xi. 2.) becattfe you remember me in all things^ 
 and keep the Traditions as I have deliver d 
 them to yon. And again^ i Thef. ii. 15. 
 "Therefore^ "Brethren^ ft and faft^ and hold 
 the "Traditions :, which you have been taught^ 
 whether by word, or by our Epiftle. And 
 foon after^ 2 Thef. iii. 6. Now we command 
 you^ 'Brethren^ in the Name of our Lord 
 Jefus Chrift^ to withdraw yourfelves from 
 fvery "Brother that walks diforderiy^ and 
 not after the Tradition which ye receivd of 
 
 Ibid, and P. ,.'• - 
 
 Us. 
 
Entitled^^ng\d.n(\''s Converfion^ Scc^ 1 2 i 
 
 Us. To Theic three Texts, the Anfwcr is 
 the fame ; and has been given ah*eady. It 
 does not follow, that becaufc the Apoftles 
 dehver'd then- Doftrines by ^/^^'^Xv;;^, as well 
 as JVritJvg^ and it ought to be receiv'd either 
 way, when known to be their Doctrine, 
 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 Troteftant Author of a Book entitled 
 T^r adit ion neccffary : Who fays. Here we 
 fee plain Mention of St. Paufs T'raditions^ 
 confcqiiently of Jpoftolical T'raditions deli- 
 c'erd hy Word of Mouthy as well as by E- 
 fifties^ or in Writing ^ a^id a Condemnation 
 of thofe who do not equally ohferi^e both- 
 This Trotejiant Author, whoever he be, for 
 I know him not, fpeaks a little inaccurate- 
 ly : But I fee no Reafon, why our TopiJIy 
 Author fliould cite Thefe Words as favou- 
 ring his Caufe ; or fuppofe the Writer of 
 them to be, upon This Concelfion, in danger 
 t of falling under that Condemnation for 
 continuing a Proteftant in This, or any o- 
 ther Article. Becaufe we do not rejei^t any 
 Jpoftolical Tfradition : Had we liv'd in the 
 Apoflles' Times, we would have receiv'd the 
 
 * P. 43. t Ibicf, 
 
 oral 
 
i7'2 An Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 oral ones as of equal Authoriry 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 prood to be really Jpofto- 
 lical. But He has more Proofs behind. * 'ihis 
 howe'ver is certain that the Jpqfiles were ex- 
 tremely c'igilant in juicing full InftrtiUions to 
 Thoje they ordain d ; that they might alfo he 
 able to inJxruU others. Doubtlefs. But what 
 folemn Trifling is This ? And whither tends 
 it ? Why, t Tloeje hiftnCclions are the facred 
 dcpofitam, of which St. Paul fays to Timo- 
 thy, keep T'hat which is com7nitted to thy 
 Trifl. I Tim. vi. 20. liniothy was to keep 
 'That which was committed to his Truft j 
 Therefore our Kiile of Faith is both Scrip- 
 ture^ and oral Tradition, Had there been 
 any Mention of Tradition ; even Then it had 
 been nothing to the Purpofe, for the Rea- 
 fons aforcfaid : But here is really no Mention 
 of it. And again ; hold faft the For7n of 
 fotmdWordsy which thon hafi heard of me i, 
 That good Iriijt which was committed to 
 thee^ keep hy the holy Ghoji^ which dwelleth 
 in its. 2 Tim. xiii. 14. Jnd more fidlyy 
 (how much more f idly ^ I dcfire the Reader 
 to obferve) the Things which thou haft 
 HEARD from me^ he fore many Witnejfes^ the 
 fame cofumit thou to faithful Men s who may 
 
 IhlL t Ibid. i. Ihld 
 
 I 
 
Entttled^Eii^ciaiys Converjion^ Sec. \ 1 5 
 
 he able to teach others alfo, 2 Tim. ii. 2. 
 In iliort, "Timothy had heard Things from 
 St. Tanl ', and was to prefcrvc inviolate, 
 and faithfully to deliver to other Teachers, 
 what he had heard^ that they might be 
 able to teach others; Ergo^ our Rule of 
 Faith is both Scripture, and oral Tradition. 
 And is not This an Admirable Confequence ? 
 The form of found Words ^ what iimothy 
 had heard, and all Pomts of Faith, which 
 at firfi were only fpoken, were afterzcards 
 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, i//. We are not 
 bound to prove it j 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, fomething 
 elfe is the Word of God, befide Scripture, 
 We reply, non con ft at : Let them proce any 
 Dodrine3or Tradition, not contain'd in Scrip- 
 ture, to be the Word of God ; and We will 
 embrace it as fuch. Not but that, 2^/5'. Wo 
 can prove our AfTertion from Scripture itfclf, 
 which They acknowledge to be the Word of 
 God. I mean from Thofe Texts which de* 
 clare the Snfiiciencv of Scripture - Particu- 
 larly, 2 Tin, ii . 15, 16, 17. For if the 
 Scripture be fufficient, it muft contain tho 
 whole Word of God ,• and if fo, our A Jver- 
 
 faries 
 
124 ^^^ Answer ^^ a Topi/h Book^ 
 
 faries thcmfelves will acknowledge there is 
 no Word of God any where elfe. 
 
 What our Author adds as from his alot'e- 
 mentiondTrotefiant Wrha\ (how truly he 
 has quoted. He bed knows) does indeed 
 favour the Caufe he is defending^ and fo I 
 fliall confider it, as if it were his own. ^ 
 Thus it is e'vident from Scriptures them^ 
 fehes^ that the whole of Cbrifiianity was 
 atfirjt deliver d to the Wfloops face ceding 
 the Jpo files hy oral Tradition , and they 
 were alfo commanded to keep it^ and deli- 
 ^^er it to their Succejfors 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 [o7ne things were deliver d by Word 
 of Mouth to the Bifhops fucceeding the 
 Apoftles, does it follow that all were fo ? 
 Did not the Apoffies write the Gofpel, as 
 well as preach it ? And were not their 
 Writings of at lead as much Ufe, as their 
 verbal Inftrudtions ? According to This Man's 
 Account, one would think the Apoftles had 
 told their Succelfors, that though 'tis true 
 They had written the Gofpel ^ yet it was no 
 Matter whether They took any Notice of 
 it, or not. That Thefe Succeffors were 
 
 '■» ■ ' ■ ■>■ 
 
 to 
 
B^/^>/^^,England'i- Converfiovi^ 8cc* \ 15 
 
 to deliver the 'who/e of Chrifiianity^ or in- 
 deed any Part of it, to their Succeffors in 
 the fame manner^ that is, by Word o£ 
 Mouth, there is not the leaft Hint of Evi- 
 dence : For does it follow, that becaufe 7/- 
 mothy was to commit to others what he had 
 hcard^ therefore he muft needs do it by 
 fpeaking ? Could he not deliver down the 
 Writings of the Apoflles, in which wxrc 
 contain d all Points of Faith, which he had 
 heard':, tho' they were not all written, ZiOheji 
 he heard them ? But the Trotefiant^ or To- 
 pifj^ Writer proceeds. "^ Nor is it any 'where 
 found in Scripture hy St. Paul, or any other 
 of the Apoftles^ that they wotdd either 
 jointly^ or feparately^ 'write down all that 
 they had taught as necejfary to Salvation ; 
 or that they wotdd make inch a compleat 
 Canon of thcm^ that nothing ftootdd he necef 
 fary to Salvation^ hut what flooidd he found 
 in thofe JFritings* pound in Scripture hy 
 St. Paul, dr^? I fuppofe he would fay, 
 afferted^ or fome fuch Word. But what if 
 it be not found in Scripture ? 'Tis found in 
 Common Scnfe, (which is the Gift of God 
 as well as Scripture,) that nothing is necef- 
 fary to Sahation but what God 7nakes fa ; 
 and that we ought to receive nothing as the 
 "Word of God, but what is proi'd to be fuch. 
 Our Author's Proofs from the f Fathers 
 
 * P, lb]d. t ^' 44, 45. 
 
 were 
 
1 26 An Answer to a Topi/h 'Boohy 
 
 were colledcd to his hand in their renowned 
 Nuhes T.eftium : And the Confutation of 
 them is as ready made to Mine, in an An- 
 fwer to That infamous Heap of folfe and im- 
 pertinent Qiiotations, printed at London for 
 Heyiry Mortlock in 1688. T. 36. Chap. 
 iii. Concerning Tradition : To which I refer 
 the Reader. "^ The pretended Proof from 
 St. Chryjoftom is anfwer'd, 'P. 41. That 
 from St. 'BafiU jP. 40. Thofofrom Epipha- 
 niiiSy P. 41. That ixom T'crtullia7iy P. 40. 
 That from Irenccus^ P. 365 38,393 40. As to 
 the four Firft, the Sum is This : The Tra- 
 ditions They fpeak Or, relate either to the 
 ^imes of the Apofiles^ or to Matters of 
 PraUice^ Kites^ and T>ifcipHne in the 
 Church, nor to Points of Faith ; and there- 
 fore are nothing to our Purpofe : Thofe ve- 
 ry Fathers, in otlier Places, affertlng the Suf- 
 ficiency and Ftdlnefs of the Scriptures for 
 all things neceffary to Salvation. Upon /- 
 renins I fliall 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 ^ou may have 
 Tntth^ fays That Father, as he is quoted, 
 and tranflated by our Author, fro772 the 
 
 * See alfo a Book entitled The ^rlmitlvs Fathers no Pa- 
 fij}( ; in Aiifwer to the Vindication of Niibes 'Tejilum* P» 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 Church ; 
 
Entitled^ England^ ConverJlon^Sc^c. i ay 
 
 Church j 'ooith ^hich the Jpoftles have de- 
 po/tted all T^ruth. But what has This to 
 do with wircoritten T^raditkn ? Tlic Apoftles 
 depofitcd the Scriptures with the Church ,- 
 and the Creeds fo far as it went; And in 
 them are contained all Truth. "^ We nmft 
 learn from Her the Tradition of Faith. 
 I anfwer, \Ji. This is wrong tranflated : In 
 Ireudtis 'tis f the Tradition of Truth, 2diy 
 Suppofing the Word Faith had been hero 
 Visd j 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 Confent of the Uni^^erfal 
 Church in all Ages ; or, by the Confeflfion 
 of all Parties, the pureji Ages. And This 
 We Proteftants heartily Embrace. Befides; 
 many things might be faid of the Churchy 
 and Tradition^ in Irenmiss Time, who 
 liv'd in the next Age to That of the A- 
 poftles I which will by no means quadrate 
 with our prefent Circumftances. ii For if the 
 T)ifptite were of any little Matter ; flwuld 
 'we not ccnfuh the moft antient Churches^ 
 a7id derice our Evidence from F hence ? Yes ; 
 But wliat is This to Toi7its of Faith deli- 
 
 * Ih'id. t Trad'ithvem Veritatis. Lib. Hi Chap. 4. P. 
 
 L05. £dir, Grabiaii. \\ Ibid. 
 
 ver'd 
 
ver'd by oral Traditio^t only ? when here is 
 no Mention oiToints of Faith (for fure they 
 are not little Matters) or oi orallradition, 
 I obferve too, that our Author leaves out a 
 Material Claufe : IrevMis fays in antiqnijfi- 
 mas recurrere Ecckfias^ in q,vibus apos- 
 TOLi coNVERSATi SUNT. By which laft 
 Words, which are here omitted. He lays 
 the Strcfs of his Argument upon the Jti- 
 thority of the JpoJileSy not of the Churchy 
 or of her Traditions. * And what if the 
 Jpofiles had left- as no Scriptures ; miifl we 
 not follow the Ktde of "Tr adit ion entmfted 
 with them^ to whom they left their Sees ^ 
 Tho' fcveral Words are here again wrong 
 tranfiated j yet to let That pafs, and takethe 
 Whole as our Author gives it us : I anfwer 
 J ft. It makes againft him : For it implies that 
 fince the Apofties ha've left us Scriptures, 
 we ought to be guided by Them, And if 
 he reply They have left us oral Traditions 
 likowife ; I anfwer, idly. Let him prove 
 That NOW, as Iren^tis fuppofes the Tra- 
 dition He fp iks of, could have been pro'vd 
 to be Theirs then ; and he will fay fome- 
 thing to th? Parpofe, otherwife Not. f J^ 
 many barbarous Nations^ without any 'Books 
 of Scripture^ yet belie^jing in Chrift ha^je 
 Salvation written in their Hearts by the 
 
 Holy 
 
JEntitledj England'i ConverJlon^8cc. i "l^ 
 
 Holy Gboji^ and carefully prefercc the old 
 traditions. I anfwer, \ft. Wc have over 
 and over granted, that a People may be 
 converted by Word of Mouth only j and 
 preferve the Chriftian Dodrine, without 
 Books, for a little time, but not for many 
 Ages. idly. Here again. We anfwer as of- 
 ten Before ; Thofe oF whom This Father 
 fpeaks, had fufficicnt Evidence that the Tra*- 
 ' ditions w^ere genuine : Let the Papifts give 
 us fufficient Evidence that Theirs are fo, 
 and we will receive them. 
 
 Upon the Whole, Irenxns (as the above- 
 named Writer fliews in the Places referred 
 to) condemns Thofe Hereticks, who caliLrani- 
 ated the Scriptures^ and defended their 
 'Errors by oral "Tradition. The Tradition 
 he Himfelf fpeaks of, is w-hat the Jlpofiles 
 hs,d preach' d ; and what they preach' d, 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 ha^je the Know- 
 ledge of the Oeccnomy of our Sahatioyt hy 
 no Others than Ihofe^ hy whom the Gofpel 
 came to ns. Which Gofpel then indeed they 
 
 * Non enim per alios Difpofiticncm Salutis noftra 
 cognovimtis, quam per cos per quos Evanj2;clinm pcrvenic 
 ad nos ; Qtjod quidem tunc prccconiavenmt ; pofrea zero per 
 Dei voluntatcm in Scripturis nobis tradidcrnnt, fiindamentum 
 et columnam Fidei uoftra futurum. Lib, 3. Chap. i. P. i^iJ. 
 Edit. Grab. 
 
 ]^ preached'^ 
 
I ;o An Answer to a Topip Book^ 
 
 preached; hut afterwards hy the Will of 
 GOD, they deU'verd it to us in the scrip- 
 tures, that IT might he the foundation, 
 and .V 11.1. kK of our faith. Ircuceus there- 
 fore is fo far from favouring the Popifh 
 Caufe in this Point ; that he is cxpreffly, 
 and dirc^^tly againfl: it. 
 
 * G. Sir^ Toil hac'e here produced the 
 clear Tefiimonies both of Scriptures^ and the 
 ancient Fathers for Apoflolical Traditions. 
 How clear his Teftimonies are both from 
 Scripture^ and Fathers^ to prove the oidy 
 *Thi7ig vviiich he ought to prove, we have 
 throughly confider'd : As for Jpoftolical T'ra^ 
 ditions^ I know Nobody among Us that 
 denies the Authority of them, f S//^ can 
 yoii give me any particular Inflances of 71^- 
 ceffary T>uties^ or Articles ofChriJiian Faith j 
 allow d for fuch hy Troteftants themfekesy 
 which cannot he pro'vdfrom Scriptures^ and 
 are grounded wholly upon Jpoftolical Tra- 
 ditions ? We tell them again, and again. 
 We are ready to acknowledge any Duty as 
 7iecel]ary^ any T>o^rine as an Article of Faith ; 
 ir it be provd to be fo by Apoftolical Tra- 
 dition trtdy fuch. And therefore the Argu- 
 ment contain'd in the Anfwerto This Quef- 
 tion, tendino; to prove us incoherent with our-- 
 jelveSy for receiving fo7ne Apoftolical Tra- 
 
 dltions. 
 
Entitled J England's Converfion^ 8cc. 15 1 
 
 ditions, and rejecting others^ is impertinent, 
 and goes upon a falfc Suppofition. Howe- 
 ver, tho' 'tis more than I am oblig'd to, 
 I will examine it particularly. 
 
 ^ P. I could produce a covfideraUe Nttrn" 
 ler \ hut to at' oid being tedious^ Ijloall 7nahe 
 choice only of three ^ allow d of^ as you dc- 
 fire^ by Trot eft ants the7nfekes. ift. T^he Ob- 
 (hxance of the Chrifiian Sabbath againfi 
 Jews^ and Sabbatarians. 2dly. T'he Vali- 
 dity of Infant-'Baptifm againfi Jnabaptifls. 
 3dly. The Validity of "Baptif^n adminiftefd 
 by Hereticks againfl the l^onatifts^ &c. I an- 
 fwer, \ft. 'Tis falfe, to fay that Protcftants 
 acknowledge any one of Thefe to be an 
 Jrticle of Faith. He is Here in the fame 
 Millake, or Mifrcprefentation3 before taken 
 notice of P. 2p. The lafl of Them is fo far 
 from being an Jrticle of Faith ^ that 'tis 
 not a certain Truth. This Author himfelf 
 owns it was a SubjeU of T)ifpute between 
 St. Cyprian^ and Pope Stephen ; And we 
 all know St. Cyprian livM and dy'd in the 
 Opinion that juch Baptifm was in^jalid. 
 And did That eminent Saint, and Martyr, 
 a Saint in the Church of Kome'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 Sai7it^ and Martyr I e- 
 
 * ihiL t P. 4: 
 
 K 2 vcr 
 
13^ An A'^SWEK to a Topifb (Boo\ 
 
 ver heard of. But of This more in its place. 
 2d!y, The Obfcrvance of the Chriftian Sab^ 
 lath^ as a necejfary T>ut}\ is founded partly 
 upon the Eqiiif^ of the fourth Commandment, 
 obliging us to keep holy one day out of y^- 
 fven ; partly upon the 'Example of the Apo files 
 recorded in Scripture, (and therefore upon 
 Scripture itfeir') changing the (c^)enth Day 
 of the Week to the Fir/L Thir therefore is 
 ii 7ieccjj}rry Tjitty j but it \% f c unci ed upon Scrip- 
 ture. And fo, in the next place, is the 'Va- 
 lidity of Infant-'Baptifm ; tho' there be not 
 any plain Text for it, if by a plain one he 
 means a Text direftly, and exprefly aifert- 
 ing it. But is nothing to be prov d from 
 Scripture, but what is exprefly ajferted in 
 it ? What will become of the Church of 
 'Kc^ve's Infallibility ? Our Saviour inftituted 
 ^Baptijm in the Room of Circnmcifion \ and 
 Infants were circumcifed. 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 neccifary Part. If it 
 be faid They could not be included, be- 
 caufe 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^ laid his hands 
 ipon them^ blejfed them^ and declared 
 that the 'Kingdom of Hca'ven belongs to 
 them. And bt, ?*^f//pronoviuces them hok\ 
 
Entitled J Englancri Coyiverfior,^ Sec. i ^ j 
 
 ^ It is evident from Scripture therefore that 
 they are capable of Baptifm; and confc- 
 qucntly that if otIierCircumllancesbe right, 
 which is here fuppos'd on all Sides, their 
 Baptifm is calic/. But i^ly. Suppofo wo 
 had nothing but extra-fcriptural ApoftoUcal 
 U-'r adit ion for Thefe two Points; ftill it is 
 tnie Apoftolical Tradition : Let the Pa- 
 pifts proi:e theirs to be /^ j as I have often 
 Ikid. 
 
 And the fame I thus far fiy of the Va- 
 lidity of the 'Baptifm adminiflerd by Here^ 
 ticks. IF it be prov'd by true Apoftolical 
 Tradition ^ Well, and Good j Wc receive 
 it ; Nay, we will embrace it as an Article 
 of Faith; if\t, be fliewn, that the Apofiles 
 made it fo. The Scripture indeed fays no* 
 thing about it ; nor Apoftolical Tradition 
 neither, as I know of. And yet it may be 
 trtie^ for all that, t It was^^ fays our Au- 
 thor, the StibjeU of the "Difptite between St. 
 Cyprian, and Tope Stephen ; and afterwards 
 between the Donatifts, and the Catholick 
 Church. "But St. Auftin who drew his learn- 
 ed Ten in defejice of the Catholick Caufe a- 
 gainft Thofe Hereticks^ &c. The T)onatifi:s 
 were not Heretichs^ nor fo accounted by 
 the Catholick Church, for denying the Va- 
 lidity of thofe Baptifins ', for St. Cyprian 
 
 * I Cor, ■}, 14. t P' 47. 
 
 K 3 was 
 
l;4- An Answer to a (PopifI:f Booh^ 
 
 was of the fame Opinion, and I hope He 
 was no Heretick. But as the NoK^atians^ 
 with whom St. Cyprian himfelf had fuch a 
 ftrugglc, were not deem'd Hereticks aud 
 Schifmaticks for their Opinion againftreftoring 
 the Laps d to the Communion of the Church ; 
 fp neither were the "Donatifts afterwards for 
 their Opinion above-mention d : But "Soth were 
 efteem'd Hereticks and Schifmaticks by the 
 Church, partly for being hke the Tapijis^ 
 that is^ for calHng their own Faction the only 
 Churchy and making all the JFor Id Herctlcksy 
 and Schifmaticks, except themfehes. For my 
 part, I wonder at the Confidence of a Papift in 
 talking of the Herefy and Schifm of the 
 T)onatiJis^ or Nocatians ; Thofe Ancient 
 Pefts of the Church fo exadly refembling 
 Thefe modern ones in This particular. St. 
 Jiiftin^ however, "^ frankly ownd^ it feems, 
 that It [the Vahdity of Heretical Baptifm] 
 cotild not he decided by Scripture. "But that 
 after the T>eath of St. Cyprian, the Church 
 had i7iterposd her Authority in the Coun- 
 cil of Aries, and determined the matter by 
 the Ivfallible Rule of Jpojiolical Traditim. 
 St, kuKiv'sJfords are remarkable. Ofthis^ 
 fays he, the Jpofiles ha^je left us m D/- 
 reUion in Writing. 'But the Cuftom which 
 was ohjeUed againft St. cyprian must be 
 
 BELIEVFD TO HAVE BEGUN BY TRADITION 
 
 PROM THEM, Js thcrc arc many T^hings:^ 
 
 * ILicL 
 
 whicb 
 
Entitled^ England^' Converfon^ 8cc. i ^ 5 
 'which arc held h]^ the Whole Churchy and 
 are therefore rightly belied' d to ha-ve been or- 
 der d by the JpoftleSy altho' they be not 
 FOUND IN scRiPTUKE. /. 5. dc bapt. contrii 
 Don. c. 23. 1 have tranfcrib'd all our Au- 
 thor's Capital Letters j that I might give 
 every thing the full Strefs he lays upon it. 
 Tho' I cannot find in This PalTage, or any 
 Place near it, or any other part ot St. yht- 
 gujiins Works, the Council of Jrles men- 
 tioned by Name, or Thofe Words the In^ 
 fallible Ride of Jpoftolical L'radition ; tho' 
 St. 6Vj!7/7^7?'s Judgment, for ought I know, 
 may Ire as cgnliderable as St- Anguflin\^ 
 and the Authority of the Council of Aries 
 not fupcrior to That of two more ancient 
 ones at Carthage^ which determin'd the 
 Contrary ,• and laftly, tho' 'tis a mere gratis 
 diUum of St. Juguftins^ that the Ciijiom 
 hefpeaks of must be bflieved, (jc. 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 true^ not falje ones ; 
 and that we ought to acknowledge fome 
 things not only as true, but as deriv'd from 
 the Apoftles, tho' they be not found in Scrip- 
 ture. And who among Vs denies either of 
 Thefe Propofitions ? Do We rcjeft either 
 the Traditions of the Apoftles, or the Cuf- 
 toms and Pradices of the Primitive, and 
 Univerfal Church r Do we not prove £/?//r^- 
 K 4 facy^ 
 
i:^6 Jn A-^SWEK to a To fi(h BooJcy 
 
 pacy^ for inftancc, to be of JpqftoUcal Infti- 
 tution, by the Teftimony and conftant 
 Practice of the Church, from the Days of 
 the ApoftleSj down to our own ? Sure This 
 Author forgets he is writing againft the 
 Church of England t, and thinks he has to 
 do with Enthitfiafts^ and Fanaticks. 
 
 * He will needs have it, that ourDodrine 
 is different from This of St- Jttgtijiin^ be- 
 caufe we declare in our 6th Article that 
 Scripture contains all thi^igs necejjary to Sal- 
 cation^ and that nothing is an Article of 
 Faitb^ but what may be prov'd from thence. 
 But St- Auguftin^ 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 tnie^ and fome Apoftolical^ which 
 are not m Scripture ; therefore there are Af" 
 ticks of Faiths which are not in Scripture ? 
 
 The Young Gentleman goes farther ; and 
 is ftire that the Church ^/England, by That 
 ^oUrine of the 6th Article is incoherent 
 with herfelf, W For does She not^ fays he, 
 require of any man (I fuppofe it lliould 
 be, e^'ery man) to believe the indifpenfihle 
 Obligation of the Chriftian Sabbath ? And 
 where is that read in Scripture^ or how can 
 it be proc'd thereby ? I have fhew^i how it 
 can be ^/W^ thereby- P- 132. t Again^ does 
 
 * Ihld. t Ibid, [\ P, 4S, t Ihid. 
 
 ftod 
 
Entitled^'England'^s ConverJion^Scc. 137 
 
 She not require of all true Trotejiants to he-* 
 lieve the Validity of Infant-'Baptijm ? Not 
 as I know of: She juppofes it to be trtie^ if 
 he pleafes -, She ajjerts^ that Infants 777ay be, 
 and otight to be baptizM j and requires that 
 her Minifiers (not all true Trot eji ants) juh- 
 fcribe to this AlTertion, 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 InfanP'Baptijm is clearly^ 
 and plainly to be proved from Scripture , as 
 I have fhew^n P. 132. &c- "^ Jnd [does She not 
 require all true Vrotefiants to helie^'e'] that 
 T^his Sacrament is ^mlidly adminifterd by 
 Hereticks ^ No, She does not j Nor did any- 
 Church upon Earth (unlefs the Church of 
 'Rome does) ever dream that it was an Ar- 
 ticle of Faith ^ or the BeHef of it necejfary to 
 Salvation, f Or does She require of them to 
 believe both the one^ and the other ^ 'without 
 judging theHelief of them neceJTary to Salva- 
 tion ? 'That would be ftrange indeed. She 
 requires nothing, as to this Matter, but that 
 (ail her Me7nbers being fupposd to believe 
 all the Articles of the Chriftian Taitlo) her 
 Minifiers^ for the Prefervation of Unity, 
 fliouid fub fcribe not only to T^hem^ but to 
 many other Articles, which She believes to 
 be true^ tho' the Belief of them is not necef 
 
 is*« ' ' .I"- 11..1 ■■■■■■■■■II " . 
 
1 jS An Answer to a Topi/b Boo\ 
 
 fary to Sahation^ (for every thing that is 
 tme^ is not an Article of Faith) and chari- 
 tably hopes, that None adinitted to her 
 Miniftry will profefs them, unlefs They like- 
 wife helieve them. And where is the mighty 
 Strangeness of This ? She does not, by her 
 own Authority, require any body to helie^'e 
 wiy thing ; tho' She requires certain parti- 
 cular Perfons to profefs their ^Belief oi fome 
 Thifigs, if they do beliez^e them : Or, in 
 plaii^er vVords, She does not require any 
 body to-believe any thing, becaufe She fays 
 it. That belongs to the Church of Rome^ 
 not to Her. 
 
 * The Preceptor charges us with ayiother 
 remarkable Incoherency^ (They are Both very 
 liberal of their hicoherencies) in the fame 
 6th Article. For^^ fays he, it goes on thus. 
 ^^ "By holy Scriptures we miderjiand thofe 
 " Canonical Books of the old and new l^ef- 
 '*^ tamenty of whofe Authority wasnerjer any 
 ^^ T>otiht ill the CHURCH." Now I prefuvie 
 the Belief of the Canonical Books ^ both of 
 the Old and Hew T'eftament^ is required 
 iy the Church of England, as an Article 
 of Faith neceffary to Sahation. Enough 
 having been faid of the Word require in tho 
 foregoing Paragraph ; I anAver, i/?. That 
 the Scriptures are of divine Infpiration, is 
 
 r- ■ ' — ' ' — ~^ — "^ — """^ ■ 
 
 not 
 
Entitled^Er)^^n^'*s Converjlon^ Sec. i^p 
 
 not anJnickofFaith aslhavefliewn above; 
 nor does the Church of England fay it is ; 
 Tho'3 2d/y. To believe that the 0/d and 
 New T^eftamcnt are, in general^ or in the 
 main^ the Word of God, is ordinarily^ and 
 Jiatcdly^ necejjary to Sahatio??^ in a Chriftian 
 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: itfclf, that 
 they are the Word of God, is eafy to be 
 proved. Nor docs This imply any thing inco- 
 herent with the Jixth Article of our Church; 
 Becaufc That Article by its very Title [^ofthe 
 fiifficiency of Holy Scriptures for Sakatio7t\ 
 manifeftiy prcfuppofes the Belief of their be- 
 ing the Word of God ; and therefore when 
 She fays they contain all things necejfary to 
 Sahation^ This Point is manifeftiy excepted i 
 Efpecially confidering that She joins thofe 
 Words necejfary to Sahation with Articles 
 of Faiths which is remarkable : And 
 ^his Point is not an Article of Faith ; as 
 Before obferv'd. 2>^ly. Tho' the Cliurch of 
 England upon good Evidence recs^ives all 
 thofe Boo&s, (jc. as Canonical ; yet She nq 
 where fays, that it is necejfary to Salvation^ 
 to receive every one of them as fuch. In- 
 deed, according to our Author, She mufl 
 
 fay fo ; ^ Unlcfs She will allow Salvation 
 
 .__ _.^._ _ ^ 
 
 to 
 
140 An Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 to Verfons who deny any part of the Word of 
 God^ when it is declard to them that it is 
 the Word of God hy fttfficient Juthority. In- 
 ftead of, when it is declard^ &c. by ftifii- 
 cient Authority^ putj when it is frot'd hy 
 fiifUcient Emdence^ and the Perfons them- 
 felves are, or ought to be, convinc d 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 
 conliftently withherfelf^ not abfolutely 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 ahove-faid Article refers 
 as to the Jtidgnient of the Churchy and tiot 
 to Scriptures tloemfehesi^which indeed would 
 le abftird) to learn what 'Books are Cancni- 
 caL So it may, without any Inconfiftency^ 
 as I have ftiewn. f And what is This^ hit 
 making tradition the only Ktile of difiiit" 
 giiifloing betwixt infpird-, and miinfpird 
 Writings ? That is^ the only Rnle of a twry 
 important Article of Chriftian Faith. Not 
 the only Rule ^ tho a Rule : becaufe there 
 is internal Evidence, as well as. extertial. 
 But not to infift upon That ; I tell him once 
 more, we own T^radition is a very good 
 Rule in many Cafes, and This is one of 
 them : But this Point, tho' a moft important 
 
 * IhU. and p. 4^0 f ■?• 4P« 
 
 Jriitb 
 
Entitled^Eng\d,nd^s Converjion^ &c, 14.1 
 
 Tnith^ is not a moft important Article of 
 Faithy 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* 
 [aid Article y to wit, " of wbofe Authority 
 " was never any doiiht in the Church ^ inftan- 
 cing in fome Books of Scripture received by \5% 
 as Canonical, which he fays were doubted 
 of by eminent Men in the Churchy even till 
 the end of the fourth Century. For a full 
 and fatisfadory Anfwer to this Objedion, 
 I alledge the Words of a learned Writer of 
 our Church, f " The Reafon of our rejed- 
 '' ing them (the Books which we account 
 ^* Apocryphal) is, becaufe they were not 
 " receiv a as Canonical by the ancient 
 " Church 5 whereas the ancient Church did 
 '^ unanimouily receive thofe which we now 
 '' receive, I do not fay that there was never 
 a Man, efpecially among the Hereticks, 
 that doubted of, or even rejected, fome of 
 Thofe that we receive. But I fay, that 
 the main "Body of Orthodox Chriftians 
 did always receive Thofe Books which 
 we receive ^ when once they became ac- 
 ^' quainted with them^ and had Opportu- 
 '' nity of examining into their Authority. 
 " Now the far greater Part of Thefe Books 
 
 * Ihid. t Dr. Bemiets's Dirc£lions for ^ix^Y'^ngy ^<^* 
 P. 60, Ci. (5j. 
 
 were 
 
141 An Answer to a Topi/h !Booh^ 
 
 *^ were thus univcrfally rcceiv'd in the firfl: 
 *^ and fecond Centuries ; and Others that 
 '^ were at firft fufpeded by fome confidera- 
 
 *^ ble Bodies of Chriftians^ who were not as 
 *^ yet acquainted w^ith them, were, after 
 ^^ Examination made^ recciv'd alfo by 
 ^" Thofe n)ery "Bodies of Chriftians, and 7ie^ 
 ^^ cer after either rejeUed^ or even ftifpec^ 
 *^ ted by them. When therefore the Ar- 
 ^^ tide afferts, that there ne^jer was any 
 '^ T)otiht in the Church of the Authority 
 *^ of Thofe Books w^hich w^e receive, and 
 ^' approve as Canonical ; it muft be under- 
 ^^ flood in a limited Senfe^ not ahfolutcly^ 
 *' but refpeUi^'ely. There have been Doubts 
 *^ concerning fome of them ^ but fo few-^ fo 
 *^ fl)ort^ fo [mall:, fo inconfiderahle^ that 
 " comparatively^ and with refped to the 
 *^ Greatnefs of the Chiirclos Extent^ they 
 " are nothing^^ and none at all. And in This 
 *^ the Tapifls^ as well as our firfl: Reformers, 
 " agreed. They well knew what Sufpicions 
 *' had been entcrtain'd in fome Churches for 
 " a time concerning fome Books which we re- 
 ^^ ceive^ upon the Account before-mentioned ,• 
 " and what Doubts fome particular Men 
 *^ have exprefs'd in their Writings concern- 
 " ing them. And yet both our Reformers, 
 ^^ and the Papifl:s, did allow that Thofe Books 
 " which we admit into the Canon were 
 *^ never doubted of in the Church. But in 
 !^ what Seufe? Why, They were never 
 
 " doubted 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converjion^&^c. 14.5 
 
 *^ doubted of, when once known, [/. e, whea 
 the Evidence of their Gcnuinenefs appeared] 
 '' by the Church in general, or even by 
 " any confiderable Part of That di&five 
 ^"^ Body* This Therefore was infallibly the 
 ^' Meaning of the Compilers of our Arti- 
 cles; and They muft be underftood in 
 This Senfe. What is comparatively noner 
 they muft be fuppos'd here to call none 
 at all ; as wx often do in common Con- 
 verfation, and all forts of Writings, And 
 if This be the Senfe of this Article (as 
 it nianifeftly is) 'tis certainly a founds and 
 ^^ a true one. " 
 
 Our Author concludes This Sedion by 
 aflerting, ^ that the Canon both of the old 
 and new T^ejiament was fettled upon the 
 fame footing ahoiitthe end of the fourth Cen- 
 tury^ as it has been fince by the Council of 
 TRENT, This is a grofs and notorious falf- 
 hood in Fad : The Council of T^rent^ as 
 'tis ridiculoufly call'd, (for it does not de- 
 ferve the Name fo much as of a Cou7icilj 
 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 
 
I4.4- ^*^^^^^^^^^^^ "PofiJhBool^ 
 at all, in any Age, by any Church, not the 
 Church of Rome itfelf j * 'till That ftiame- 
 lefs Cabal, a few of the Pope's Creatures 
 at Trcni\, about 250 Years ago, afluming to 
 Themfelvcs the Title of a General Council, 
 t declared Thofe Books to be Part of God's 
 Word ; fcattering their Firebrands^ Jrrows^ 
 and "Deaths like the Madman in the Pro- 
 verbs, curfmg, and fending to Hell, all who 
 ftiould dare to fay otherwife, 
 
 I think I have given a full Anfwer to 
 what our Author has advancd upon This 
 great Article, the Rule of Faith. I con- 
 clude, by deliring the Reader ever to remem- 
 her, ift. That what the Tapijis 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. 
 
 * Se« This prov'd in BiOiop Cofin\ Scholaftical Hiftoiy of 
 the Canon oi Scripture ; a Book (among many others) which 
 no Papift evcr^ve^cwi^^toanfwer. 
 
 t Whereas at Jlrji there were but twenty to make cp This 
 Aflembly : ne'Ver fo many ab fifty ; Of Thefe not one from 
 the Greek Church ; not one from England^ (in a publick Cha- 
 rafter ;) not one from the Helvetlany German^ and Northern 
 Churches ; but two from France, hve from Spain, one from 
 Jllyr'icum-, all the reft Italians. Of whom again fome were the 
 Tc^ie's Penjioners ; feme merely Titular, fomc wretchedly illite- 
 rate, &c And This is Their Oecumenical ov General Council, 
 (forfo 'tis expreflyfti I'd) reprefcntative oiallCbrifiendom. This 
 Impudence alone, if there were nothing elfe, is enough to roia 
 the Caufe of Popery with nil reafonabk Perfons. 
 
 adly* 
 
Emitledj Enghnd^s ConverJion^Scc. 145^ 
 
 2dly. That fuppofing what They fay about 
 miwritteii Jpofiolical l^raditions i\\ general 
 were true and to the purpofc, as I have 
 fliewn it not to be ^ yet ftill T^hofe in parti- 
 cular which They put upon us for Jpofiolical 
 are not pro'ved to he fo ; Nay, w^e can prO'Ve 
 that moft of them are not fo. Becaufe 
 They are contrary to Scripttire , wiiich is 
 allow'd on all Hands to be apostolical. 
 
 To the Seventh SE C T I O N; 
 
 O? Scriptures^ and Church-Authority, 
 
 TO the Young Gentleman's Queflion, ^ 
 hoi2) comes it that Proteftants are fo 
 zealons for the Scriptttres^ and yet fo little 
 regard Church-Authority^ fince 'without 
 T%at Authority we flooidd not e^cen he fure 
 of the Scriptures them j ekes ; / anfwer^ ift. 
 The Suppofition is falfe 3 We haz'e a due 
 "Regard for Church-Authority, ^dly. Here 
 is the old Quibble upon the Word Authority^ 
 and the old Sophiftry about Church and 
 Scriptures ^ of which more than enough has 
 
 * P. 49. 
 
 L been 
 
146 An A ISIS WE R to a Toptjh Book^ 
 
 been faid already : Particularly, P. 9, i ol 
 to which I refer. 
 
 His ^Preceptor indeed anfwers very diffe- 
 rently. '^ ''lis zrry hard (fays He) to give a 
 Keajcnfor the Trocee dings of Men^ when 
 they are once^ &c. And fo on, againu Pre- 
 judice^ and Self-Inter eft. Then it follows 
 Thus, t The Refcrrn d Churches^ as yoti oh- 
 fercej affcA a 'coonderful Zeal for Scrip- 
 tnreSy and pretend to make them the 'whole 
 Rnle of their Faith. And woidd not any one 
 now i^nagine to find them the mofi zealous 
 people in the Worlds for ecery thing the 
 Scriptures recom7nend> 
 
 G. IJJjould really think fo. 
 
 P. ''Btit^ Sir^ it is not a Trotefiant Vir- 
 tue to Ipeah or aU coherently^ in Religious 
 Matters. Ton ha^ve already had fome Spe- 
 cimens of their true Zeal for Scriptures in 
 rejeUing the TjcUri7tes of Infallibility, and 
 Oral Tradition, thd eftahlijlodhy fuch ftrong 
 Scriptural Texts^ &ic. I floall nozo gi^je yoti, 
 another Specimen of it^ in their Oppofttion 
 to Omrch- Authority j tho it has likewife 
 the plaineft Teftimonies 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 .^l^^^^^', ox pretended 'i nay, whe- 
 
 thcr 
 
Entitled^ England's Convcrfion^ Sec. I47 
 
 thcr he is not fatisfy'd that Ours for the 
 Scriptures is as finccrc^ as Theirs is for their 
 Church and 'Traditions ? And if fo ^ I ask him 
 another Queftion -, with zjohat Confcicnce 
 could he put Thofe Words upon us ? But how 
 does it appear, that we are not zealous for 
 cjery thing the Scriptures reco7nmeiid ? Why 
 partly becaufe we rejeft the Dodrines of In- 
 fallibility^ and oral Tradition ; for which 
 there are fuch Jirong Scriptural Texts. How 
 ftrong they are, we have fecn ; and the Rea- 
 der, if he does not remember it, is defir'd to 
 look back upon the Examination of the 
 three foregoing Seftions. Now our Author 
 is giving another Specimen of our no Re- 
 gard to Scripture : rjiz, m our oppofition 
 to Church-Jiithority. And I take notice of 
 This, as another Specime7i of his fingular 
 Mode fly I Concerning which fee P. 79. The 
 Texts he produces * to prove the Authority, 
 we are faid to oppofe, are Matth. xvi. i5. 
 Matth. xxviii. 18, 19, 20* Matth. xviii- 
 17. Jofon XX. 21. Tiifze x. \6. AUs xx. 18. 
 Jleh. xiii. 17. Tjph. iv. 11, 12, 13, 14. 
 Moft of Thefe Texts have been prcduc'd 
 by him, and confider d by me, already : Some 
 upon This fame Subjeft oi CfotircfO' Authority -^ 
 Others upon That of Infallibility. What I 
 faid Before f of two of them, I now fay of 
 
 ♦ P. 50,51,52. IP. ^. 
 
 L 2 them 
 
14.8 An Answer f^ ^ Tofffh ^ook^ 
 
 them all y That they prove no more than 
 ftich an Authority in the Churchy as JFe 
 allow, not fiTch a one as our ^07niJIj Adver- 
 faries contend for : There is not a V/ord 
 about an Authority in it, which mufi be 
 iinplicitly and ablohtely iubmitted to. If 
 our Author did not intend to prove ftich 
 an Authority, he intended to prove nothing 
 to the Purpofe j If he did^ he might as well 
 have tranfcrib'd the whole Bible, as Thefe 
 Texts. Let the Reader coniider them at his 
 ieifure j and remember that I infiji upon This 
 as a ftdl Anfwer to the Argument drawn 
 from them. Our Saviour ga^'e Taftors^ and 
 Teachers J &c. B.phef. ' iv. 1 1 . Ergo^ The 
 Church (the Church o? Rome) muft be im- 
 flicitly helic'vd^ and oheyd-y wiiatever She 
 fays^ or commands. And fo of all the 
 Veft. 
 
 * Speaking of the Paftors of the Church, 
 and explaining Thofe Words, that we he no 
 more like Children^ carry d to andfro^ &c. 
 it belongs to theje Guides^ fays He, to fix the 
 wacering Judgments of the Teople^ &c. 
 True J to fix them, // they can ; or to do 
 what they can towards it; But what if 
 fome watering Judgments will not be fix'd 
 hy them? The Infallihle Church her felf 
 has not yet fix d them alL If She had j there 
 
 would 
 
Entitled^ ¥^ng\and^ s Converjioyr^ Sec. 149 
 
 would not be fach a Variety of Opinions, fo 
 many Difput js, fo many Self- Con tradiuti- 
 ons, among ber Me7nbcrs^ as there ever have 
 been^ and ftill are. But whatever belongs to 
 Theje Guides j it docs not belong to them 
 (at leafl: it ought not) to impofe Lies, falfe 
 Doftrine, and Nonfenfc upon Mankind, as 
 the Papiftsdo, even in order to thcjf.m^of 
 their wa-veriiig J-itdgments. 
 
 From what has been fiid may be col- 
 ledtedj that his Affertion in the next Para- 
 graph "^ is a Calumny upon the firft Refor- 
 mers : They did not rejeU the Authority 
 which the Scripture expreJJy recommends^ 
 by rejeding/f/^^an Authority as the Church 
 oiRome arrogates to herfeif. The Railing^ 
 and malicious RefleUions which follow, I pafs 
 
 over, as immatcnaj 
 
 P. 53. G. "But are not the firft Reformers^ 
 and their Followers^ as pofitiz^ely condcvind 
 by their cwn Rtde^ I mean the Scriptures^ 
 as hy the Authority of the Catholick Church ^ 
 Yes ,• much at one. We put the whole If • 
 fue of our Caufe upon Scripture^ and the 
 Catholick Church y and have proved a thou- 
 fand times that They^ not We^ are con- 
 demned by Both, t And why then have they 
 fo great a Spleen againfi the one^ andfloew 
 Jo great a Re/peci for the other ? 
 
 ? I'M. t Ihld. 
 
 L 3 P. Jhe 
 
1 5o An Answer to a fopifjj Book^ 
 
 p. ^'he Keafou in JJoort is^ hecatife the 
 Church is fomewhat harder to he managd 
 than the Scripture: And fo on, to the Mid- 
 dle of the next Pase. The Subftance of what 
 is here alledgd by This Writer, and the 
 Author of the Ktde of 'Faith quoted by him^, 
 is Thi^ : That the dead Letter of the Scrip- 
 ture cannot //'^.^X^/(?r it felf^ nor explain its 
 own Meanings and fo any body may fafely 
 torture^ and ahtife it j but 'tis quite other- 
 wife with the Churchy who is a lining Judge* 
 And TJiis is the Reafon, why Proteftants 
 have fuch a Splee7i againji Church- Authorit]^^ 
 &c. Protefting, once more, that the FaU is 
 not true, and abfolutely denying that we 
 ha've fuch a Spleen^ as is here fuppos'd ; 
 upon thofe Words, ^ an Infallible Rule 
 (as Scriptures donbtlefs arcy w^hen rightly 
 UNDERSTOOD^ zolthout an Infallihle Inter* 
 preter^ puts little or no Rejiraint^ &c. hut 
 an Infallihle Interpreter:, dec. I obferve, i/?. 
 The iSuppofition is groundlefs ; The Church is 
 not Infallible, and there is no InfalUblc Inter- 
 preter i as We have prov'd. idly. To af- 
 firm that the Scriptures, tho' complimented 
 with the Name of an Infallihle Ride 'when 
 rightly undcrftood^ cannot be rightly under- 
 ffood W'ithout an Infallihle Interpreter^ is 
 to make them utterly ufelefs, and good for 
 nothing. If This be the Cafe ; to what pur- 
 
 pole 
 
Entitled^ EnglancFi ConverfoVj See, 1 5 1 
 
 pofe were they written ? Why could not 
 God from time to time reveal his Will to his 
 Infallible Church 'without llriting^ as well 
 as make it Infallible in explaining what is 
 Written ? Is it not as eafy (or rather much 
 ealier) to reveal a Thing once for aJl^ than 
 to reveal the Scnfe of what was written 
 by Revelation, and yet cannot be under- 
 ftood without another Revelation ? But we 
 have more of This ''Blafphemy afterwards. 
 The dead Letter of the Scriptures^ Tliat 
 profane Cant of Tapijis and Ouakers^ is 
 an ExprelFion twice made ule of in the Com- 
 pafs of a few Lines. And what is meant 
 by it ? That the Ink and CharaUers are 
 not ali'Ve^ cannot fpeak^ or do not tivder- 
 Jiand xho Senfe contained in them? This 
 is Childifli, and Trifling. Or, that the 
 Holy Ghoft coiild not, or z^onld not^ have his 
 Meaning exprefs'd intelligibly ? This is Blaf- 
 phemy. If They fay, the Latter [he z^onld 
 not^ is no Blafphemy ; becaufe he has ap- 
 pointed an Infallible Expounder, to make 
 it intelligible : I anfwcr, ifh The above- 
 mentioned Inconvenience recurs. According 
 to This, the Scripture is ufclcfs ; God docs 
 That per plura^ which may much better be 
 done per panciora\ He ads fiiperfluciiliy^ 
 by confequence ahfurdly : And to fay That 
 is flaming 'Blafphemy. 2diy. This their 
 Account of the matter fuppofes, that the 
 divinely infpired Writings v;ould be unin- 
 
 L 4 telligibic 
 
i^i An AnSWE "^to a Topifh Boohy 
 
 tcUigible, without an Infallible Interpreter; 
 and that there is none^ We have prov'd : 
 Therefore the Blafphemy remains. The 
 famej in effedt, may be faid of That fine 
 Stroke of His ,• "^ Tbo' It: (the ^ead Letter 
 of Scripture) he necer fo much put to the 
 torture ; it cannot complain^ nor make any 
 farther T>(fcocerieSy nor gwe us any farther 
 
 LfghtS^THAl^ 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 truei how does 
 their Church enlighten us in the underftand- 
 ing of the Scriptures ? Do not Tloey difpute 
 about the Senfe of them altogether as much 
 as IVe ? Are there not many Texts which 
 They do not fo much as pretend to under- 
 ftand P Or if it be otherwife ; why does not 
 This Infallible Church, once for all, publirti 
 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 ohfcure^ but to ob- 
 [cure Vv^hat is plain : This is the Ufe She has 
 always made of her Infallibility. 
 
 "But 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Converjion^ Scc^ 15^ 
 
 "^ Szit the Infallihle Interpreter^ the 
 Churchy he fays, is not jo tame, The 
 Church which pretends to be Infallihle^ is, 
 I confcfs, not very tame : Witnefs Smith- 
 feld. He goes on. t So that if her 'Decrees 
 he caUd ifi ^lieftiow. She can exert her 
 Tower ^ avd ft and up in Defence of them* 
 POWER indeed is a material Point j and the 
 Church of Ro7ne has made a thorough ufe 
 of it j but it is not always accompanied with 
 Truth, Right, and a good Caufc. Ihis 
 fort of Tower^ I grant, the Scriptures have- 
 not ^ tho' they are in another fenfe very pew- 
 erfnl' To flicw, farther, the great Superio- 
 rity of their Church over the Scriptures 
 /^for we are ftill upon the fame ^lafphemy 
 as Before) She^ Vv^e are told, il is a tiling 
 Interpreter , and^ if her Words he miftnter- 
 prcted^ can do her j elf Juftice^ hy explaining 
 her own true Meaning: Whereas the poor 
 helplefs Scriptures are not able to explain 
 Their... The Bible, it is true, is not alice i. 
 And II it be tcrturd^ as He wifely obferves, 
 itcan ,ot cry out. But notwithftanding Thefe, 
 and fuch like Sayings, it is a very good and 
 fufficient Rtile y fince (God having given 
 common Reafon to the Bulk of Mankind) 
 it is i7i the main capable of being under- 
 flood by ordinary Capacities : And as it may 
 
 Ih'id, t Ibid. II P. 54- 
 
 be 
 
154- -^^ Answer if ^ ^ Toj^iJ]:> Boolt^ 
 
 be tortur d^ and mifapply'd, by Some j fo it 
 may be, and aftually is, well nsd^ and 
 duly apply d^ by Others. Nor can we infer 
 that becaufe it is capable of being 7nifap- 
 flyd-, therefore it is no true Rule ^ if That 
 were a Confequence, there would be no true 
 Rule in the World. 
 
 Neither has the livings and pretended 
 Infallible Churchy any Advantage over the 
 dead Scriptures (as the Quakers and Papiils 
 call them ^ ^^yia ^^i^to, Iwing Oracles^ St. Ste- 
 pheii and We Proteftants call the^i) even 
 in refpevS of explauiing^ and z^indicatiiig its 
 own Meaning. For, lil. Is ^ General Coun- 
 cil to be fummon'd upon every perverfe, or 
 ignorant Creature's mifreprefenting, or mif- 
 nnderftanding the Churcl)'s Scnfe f Or even 
 upon occafion of the Ignorance, or Perverfe- 
 nefs of great Numbers ? The I'hing is mani- 
 feftly impoiTibie. At this rate, We muft have 
 a General Cotmcil at lead once a Qiiartcr : 
 For no Council lefs than a General one is 
 pretended to be Infallible'^ or to deferve 
 the Name of the Church. Befides^ 2dly. 
 As Thofe who belic've not Mofes and the 
 Prophets, will not he perjwaded^ tho one 
 roje from the Dead; fo Thofe w^ho cannot, 
 or will not, undcrftand the neceffary Doc- 
 trines of Scripture, which are fufficicntly in- 
 telligible to the meancft Capacity, cannot, 
 or will not, in the fame perverfe Humour, 
 underftand any thing eife. The Church 
 
 then 
 
Entitled^ England'j' Converjion^ &c. 1 5 5 
 
 then defines This, or That^Thefe People mifiii- 
 terprct her Words : She explains her Meaning ; 
 Thofe who were ignorant, or obftinate Before, 
 continue lo flill; wanting an Explanation of 
 the Explanation , and fo on in lufmtum. 
 Is not This a pilpable Abfurdity ? Cannot 
 a licivg Man's Senfe he mifrcprcfcnted, or 
 miiapply'd, as well as a ^^^^ one's ? Or Mans 
 as wTii as God's ? The Truth is, the Vani- 
 ty of That Notion, an Infdllihle Judge to 
 determive Contro'vcrjies^ will appear in miy 
 Light .; or on 'whatecer Side it be confider'd. 
 Suppoiing there '^ji^ere fach a one, as there 
 is Net j He would not certainly determine 
 Controverfies, and quaili Herefies* ift. Be-. 
 cauic he mi^ht he InfJaillible ^ and yet by 
 Many not helieod fo. For, I hope, our Ad-- 
 verftnes themf^^lves will net affirm, that tlic 
 Arguments to prove him fo ^xc felf-C'Z'ideuty 
 and irreji''iihle. Or if they will ; I think 
 I have at leafl: fliewn the Contrary to That. 
 2dly- He might be heliei'd Infallible ; and 
 yet not ohefd. How many believe the Scrip- 
 tures to be God's Word ; and, notwithftand- 
 ing, a(3: contrary to them? '^dly. They 
 might either ignorantly, or wilfully, mif- 
 undcrftand his Deciiions ^ which is what wo 
 are no'V ccnfidering. Upon the Whole ; the 
 JpoftleSy and among the Reft St. 'peter 
 Himfelf, could not, in their own time, hin- 
 der or fupprcfs all Herelics ; And I luppofo 
 None of their Succellbrs are 7rwre Infallihh 
 
 Guides. 
 
156 An Answer f^ a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 Guides than They. It may perhaps be objed- 
 ed, that this Reafoning will as avcU prove that 
 the Scriptures are not an Infallible Guide. I an- 
 fwer. They are not indeed j nor was it ever 
 intended they fhould be ; fo as to necejfttate 
 Men to be de facto infallibly guided by them : 
 Tho' they are in themfelres infaUibiy tnie^ 
 and a fafkcient Rule to Thofe who make a 
 true Ufe of them. 
 
 T'he Leaders of the Reformation (He 
 adds '^) hated the Church ; and appeafd from 
 her Authority to the dead Letter of Scrip-^ 
 tare. L'hey hated the Churchy as Cri^ni- 
 nals hate the Judge ^ by 'whoyji they are fure 
 to he condem7id. Doubtlefs, They had no 
 great Love for the Church of Rome^ as 
 corrupted , and were fure enough to be con- 
 demned 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 Afiertions. To 
 fay We hate the Church (^the tndy Catho- 
 lick Church) or are condemn d by her Jtidg" 
 ment^ is falfe, and fcandalous j as 1 have 
 often been forced to plead. That Vapifis 
 are condefujid by Scripture^ we have abun- 
 dantly provd ' And that They hate it, is 
 evident ,• Bccaufe, even while they are en- 
 deavouring to face Appearances by pretend- 
 
 Ibid. 
 
Entided^Enghnd's Converfwi^ Sec, \ 57 
 
 ijig to honour it, in fpight of T^iffimiilation-i 
 They cannot forbear hlajphemiug it. He adds, 
 ^ And their appealing to Scriptures was^ 
 in effeU^ appealing to their o w n private Judg- 
 ment, Sir, there 7miji be prii'ate Judgment j 
 or there can be 710 Judgment at all. Common 
 'Reafon necellarily requires itj Chrift and 
 his Jpoftles appeal to it, and not only per- 
 mit^ but command^ the Exercife of it ; You 
 yctirfehes make 'life of it, and force Us to 
 make ztfe of it, even by your arguing^ and 
 difputing againfi it. But why was their 
 Appealing to Scripture in effeU appealing to 
 their own pri^'ate Judgment 1 Bccaufe of 
 their pricate Interpretations^ no Doubt j 
 that is. They were fo abfurd, and fo wicked, 
 * as to make ufe of their Reafon^ in reading 
 the Scriptures. But tho' they us* d their own 
 private Judgment ; yet they appeal' d not to 
 That only^ but to the pricate Judgment 
 and common Senfe of Ecery-hody^ and to 
 the puhlick Judgment of the truly Catho- 
 lick Church likewife. Where (continues 
 He t) i. e* in their own private Judgment, 
 they were as fafe^ as they could wifi. For 
 what Criminal wotdd fear to appear hefore 
 a Tribunal^ where Him felf fits as Judge 
 and Interpreter of the Law^ by which he is 
 to be tryd? He cannot, I imagine, be convc- 
 
 Ihid. t Ibid, 
 
 nientlv. 
 
 .^ 
 
i^% An Answer to a Tofijh "Booh, 
 
 niently at the Sai^^ and upon the Sencb^ 
 at the fame time : But however, I grant it 
 is poffible that a Man may be Judge in his 
 own Catife 'y 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 Caufc, as I have often 
 ftiewn : But I have juft now fliewn that by 
 appealing to the Scripttires^ and employing 
 our Reajon in reading them. We are not fo 
 in Ours. 
 
 What follows in the next Words, And in-- 
 deed the World foon f aw the Vmits^ &c. to 
 the End of the firft Paragraph in P. 5 (5. is a 
 ^Declamation upon the Ahiife of Scripture by 
 ^rotejiants^ and the various SeUs^ and D/-' 
 mfions among them, occafion'd by their be- 
 ing permitted to read Thofe facred Wri- 
 tings. As he often repeats This doughty 
 Argument ; I fhallchufe topafs it over Here, 
 and confider it once for all, when I come 
 to That Part of his Book, where he lays 
 out his chief Strength upon it ; mz. Dial. 
 iv. Se6t. 4. At prefent, I only obferve, \fl. 
 That to argue from the Ahufe of a Thing 
 againft the ^Ufe of it, is That filly Sophifm^ 
 call'd Fallacia Accidentis : According to 
 which Argumentation, there is no good 
 
 Ibid 
 
 Thing 
 
Entitled^ England' j- ConverJion^S^c. i ^p 
 
 JMng in the World; and Religion itfelf 
 ought to be baniili'd out of it. Muft not a 
 Man drink JVine^ becaufe drinking too much 
 of it will make him drunk'i Muft he not 
 ufe a K7iife^ hccau^Qhy playing the fool with 
 it he may happen to cnt his finger's ? 2dly. 
 Thofe Words of His/ "^ The written Word 
 of God heing wrejled out of the Hands of 
 ITS OWN LAWFUL Interpreter /-y??^ Catholick 
 Church (or, in other Words, the Church of 
 Rome) a7id feizd on hy Thefe nfurping In- 
 truders^ &CC, contain a jliameful and noto- 
 rious Untruth, contrary to That very Word 
 of God, to the Pradice 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 Skiii, fupplying the 
 Dcfeds of it, as well as he can, by the AfliC- 
 tance of others, ^dlj, I do not underftand 
 how the Church of JEngland fent their Re- 
 prefentati'ves to the Synod of ^ort. f The 
 Kings Commiffion did not, I think, make 
 Thofe who went thither the Church's Re- 
 prefentatives. 
 
 His next Affertion is a round one. |1 / 
 conclude in the Whole^ that Scriptures alone 
 are fo far from heing a ftdk mid compleat 
 
 IhU' t p. 55. I! P' 5<J* 
 
 Rule 
 
l6o Jn ANSWER to a Topi/h Booh, 
 
 Rule of Chriftian Faith y that they are no 
 Rule at all: at leafl in any doubtful or 
 difpiited Cafe-y mtlcfs they he interpreted 
 by THAT Authority which Chriji has efta- 
 llijlded upon Earthy to he our Guide^ and to 
 which he has promised his perpetual Jffif" 
 taiice. If That be the Cafe j they are in, 
 and of Themfehes^ good for nothing : And 
 yet the Romanifts acknowledge them to be 
 divinely infpir d. This is the fo often re- 
 peated Wafphemy in yet ftronger Expreflions. 
 It is directly exploding the Scriptures, and 
 making them a pure Nullity without Their 
 Churchy For She, and She only, is the 
 Guide they talk of. Without Her, accord- 
 ing to This, They are a dead Letter indeed ^ 
 tnere iinfensd CharaUers (another profane 
 Expreflibn of Theirs) having no Life, nor 
 Soul, any farther than as She is pleas'd to 
 Ireathe into them j no Senfe, or Meaning, 
 any farther than as She is pleas'd to put one 
 upon them : At leaji in douhtful^ a7id difpu- 
 puted Cafes ', and e^'ery Cafe fhall be fo^ 
 .which She thinks fit to make fo. If This 
 be not fetting Themfelves aho^^e Scripture, 
 which they own to be the Word of God, and 
 making it ahfolutely fuhjeU to them ,• Their 
 Language is as unintelligible, ^s they repre- 
 fent the Scriptures to be. 
 
 "^ The Scriptures^ He fays, read without 
 the Suhmiffion and T)efe rence which is due 
 
 ' * Ibid. ' 
 
 to 
 
Entitled^ England V ConverJlon^Scc. 1 6 1' 
 
 fbe Guides appointed hy Trocidence^ to lead 
 its into the tnie Meaning of the^n^ haz^e been 
 the Caufe of all the T>ifputes that haz'e divi- 
 ded whole Chrijlendom thefc two hundred 
 lafl Tears \ hut 7ie^jer put an End to avj\ 
 Are there no Difputes then among the Mem- 
 bers of Their Church ^ It is well known 
 there are a great Number. Is there no Caufe 
 of Difputesj but Reading the Scriptures with- 
 out That Deference which He fuppofes 
 fliould 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 coukl give 
 him feveral Inftances to the Contrary ; but 
 I will mention only one ; if it may be calFd 
 Oney it being, in Truth, a Chijier of mam\ 
 The Qtiinqiiarticular Controverfy has long 
 been quite extind: 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 
 Biiliop "Bull efpecially. 
 
 "^ For hoW:, He adds, corn T.loat he a pro- 
 per Means to end T>ijptiteSj which^ in all 
 
 M Con- 
 
i6i An Answer to a Toftjh Book^ 
 
 Controt'crftes that are to be decidedly Scrip-- 
 tnresy is itfelf the Principal SuhjeU of the 
 T)ifpute ? Not fo : It is not the prin- 
 cipal Subjed of the Difpute ^ it is only the 
 fecondary ,* and may very well be decided^ 
 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 adually finifh'd, and determin d. 
 * 'Tis impojftble^ He fubjoins, the contend-^ . 
 ing ^Parties JJjould come to an Agreement 
 [about the Senfe of Scripture] unlefs they 
 facrifice their own private "Judgments^ and 
 fuhmit to a T.rihiinal from which there is 
 no JppeaL By facrifcing their private Judg- 
 ments, it is evident, he means implicitly re- 
 figning up their Judgments, and making no 
 JJje of them. That they ought to do fo, 
 I deny ; for the R^afons fo often mention'd. 
 An external Tribunal in Thefe matters, 
 fi'om which there ought to he no Appeal, in 
 any Cafe v/hatfoever, is not yet found y nor 
 do they tel! us z^here w^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 jribvnal is plac'd. An internal one 
 
 * P. 57: 
 
 there 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ 8cC. 1 6 5 
 
 there is ; and That is the Tribunal of rights 
 unprejudic d^ well-inform'd Reafon^ and Con- 
 fcience ; 'To which if we will not appeal^ 
 andfrojn which if we ^/7/ appeal ^ 'tis our 
 own Faulty and Folly : and we muft give 
 an Account for it at the j'uprejne Tribtmal 
 in another World. What the young Gentle- 
 man anfwers is the famCj in other Words, 
 which his Preceptor faid juft Before. Speak- 
 ing of Difputes about the Senfe of Scripture, 
 and from thence inferring the NeceflTity of a 
 Judge to determine tliem^ They Both feem 
 to forget that there are great Difputes about 
 That Judge even among the Romanics Them- 
 felves j about the Tope^ the Churchy and the 
 Infallibility^ of Both. And therefore why 
 the Scripture fliould be fo uncertain a Kulcy 
 (if it were at all an uncertain one, as I have 
 fliewn it is Not) and Their Church fo cer- 
 tain a Judge ; or why the Lad mention'd 
 may not be call'd "^ the t^ery Jpple of Tiif- 
 cord-i and a Source of endlefs IJilpiites^ at 
 leaft as well as the Other, I can by no means 
 underftand. 
 
 He concludes Thus, t Suppofe there were 
 a Nation that foould give full Liberty to e- 
 eery one to interpret its Laws by his ow>i 
 pri'vate Judgment ; would it be poiTiblc in 
 that Cafe^ to condemn any CriininaLj or put 
 
 P. 5^. t P. 57. 
 
 M 2 an 
 
164- -^^ A^SWE?. to a Toplfh <Booh^ 
 
 an end to any JLaw-fiiit ? Nay^ would not 
 Anarchy and Confufion he the imavoidahle 
 Confequence of it ? 'Ihe matter will not hear 
 a TDifpiite, And therefore there is not a ci- 
 mlizd Nation in the World ^ hut has a fii- 
 premeTrihimal eftablifh'd jrc^n which there 
 is no Appeal. Premiling This Obfervation 
 that We deny not, nay wc exprefly ajjert^ 
 and contend for, an Authority in the Churchy 
 in every National Church, as to Articles of 
 Faith, and the Interpretation of Scripture, 
 which Authority mud be in a great mea- 
 fure fubmitted to -, tho' not ahfolutely^ and 
 without Appeal^ in any Cafe whatfoever ; 
 i. e. She muft not be fubmitted to, if her 
 Decifions be manifefily erroneous, and impi- 
 ous : I fay, premifing This, I anfwer, i/?. 
 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 expeding that his "Judges fhould ahide 
 by his Interpretation; there never was, nor 
 ever will be, one lingle private Perfon, fool- 
 ifh enough to think of any fuch thing. To 
 make a Suppofition therefore that a Nation 
 fliould grant to e^'ery one^ what no one can 
 be concciv'd to dejire^ is extremely weak, 
 and trifling. And the fame^ by the Bye,, may 
 
 be. 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converjion^ &c. 1 6 5 
 
 be faid of private Judgment in Keligions mat- 
 ters, idly. From the Necclfity oi' an exter- 
 nal ftipreme T'ribunal^ to which an ahfohite 
 Submiffion is due, as to temporal Jffairs^ 
 cannot be inferr'd the Neceility of fuch a 
 one in this World, as to matters of Religion, 
 and Confciencc. 'Tis neceflfary 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 Trihtmal^ qvcw In 
 This World, as above-obferv'd ; and there 
 is another, an external one, in the Next, 
 before w^hicli we fliall be condemn d, if we 
 do not make a right Uie of That juil now 
 mentioned, which he has given us in This. 
 3^/>'. This Reafoning fuppofes that 'tis as 
 necejfTarj there fliould be an ahfohite judicial 
 Determination of Contro^verfies in Religion, 
 as that Civil Crimes fliould be puniili'd^ 
 and Lawfuits determined ^ than which no- 
 thing can be more groundlefs. Human So- 
 ciety cannot fubiift without the Latter, but 
 it very well may w^ithout the Former. A 
 Man may at any time hold his own prioate 
 Opinion^ without Prejudice, or Injufdce to 
 Another who differs from him ; but the fame 
 cannot be faid of holding an Eftate : And 
 as to Criminal Cafes^ the Matter is plain 
 of itfelf. Or if Difputes in Religion come to 
 difturb the Peace of the St^te, as I grant 
 they may^ tho' it is not necefjary they flmild i 
 
 M 3 thQ 
 
i66 ^^^ Al^SWER to a^oftfhBool^ 
 
 the Chil Towers may, and ought to re- 
 ftrain Thofe "Dijorders which are the Con-^ 
 feqttences of them ; There is no occafion of 
 recurring to any other Tribunal ,- Or rather 
 there is no other, before which fuch Difor- 
 ders are cognizable, ^thly. As the fupreme 
 Tribunal in the State does not pttt an end 
 to Robbery, Murder, and going to Law ; 
 fo neither would fuch a one in the Churcbj 
 if there were one, put an end to Errors^ 
 and Controverfies ; Unlefs it could firft 
 put an End to all human Corruption^ and 
 Infirmity. As one Difpute fhould be deter- 
 min d ; another, or perhaps the fame in a- 
 nother Shape, would ftart up : and the uni- 
 verfal infallible Judge in Spirituals w^ould 
 have as much Bufinefs upon his Hands, as the 
 fallible ones in Temporals, ^thly. There fj 
 in ^aU fuch a fupreme Tribunal in all Civil 
 States ^ but not in the Church, as We have 
 prov'd. And fince God has not appointed 
 one, it is not neccflary there fhould be one. 
 To which we may add from "^ Mr. Chilling- 
 ^orth. 6thly. In cizil Controverfteswe are oh- 
 ligd only to external ^ paffive Ohedie^ice-y hut 
 not to internal and aUi've. "But in matters of 
 Religion juch a Judge is required [ac- 
 cording to Papiils] whom we Jhould be obli-- 
 ged to believe to have judgd right * And to 
 
 be 
 
Entitled^ Enghnd' sConverfion^ Sec. 167 
 
 be ohligd to hel^e^'e a thing, I add, is nei- 
 ther reafonabJe^ nor po0le. ythly. In 
 ci'vil Controverfies the Cafe cannot he pit Joy 
 hut there may he a fudge to end it^ who is 
 not a Tarty : In Controverfies of 'Religion^ 
 it is in a manner impojfihle to he amided 
 hut the fudge muft be a Tarty. For this 
 miiji he the Firji^ whether he he a Judge^ 
 cr no 'y a7id in Tfhat he muft he a Tarty, 
 ^he Tope (and the fame may be faid of the 
 Church of Rome) is manifeftly a Tarty in 
 This <very Cafe, 
 
 In fliort, God has flimifh'd us with Means 
 fufficient to know, and do our Duty, both 
 in Faith and TraUice^ without an Infalli^ 
 hie Judge, or any Judge, from whom, what^ 
 . e^'er he determines, there can be m Jp^ 
 peal y For I hat is what our Adverfaries airrj 
 at : Some Church-Authority io T^'hefe Mat- 
 ters, and a great deal too. We acknowledge, 
 as well as I^hey. Or if there were fuch an 
 Authority, fuch a Tribunal, as They con- 
 tend for i it would not bring That Teace upon 
 JEarthj which They imagine. Neither has 
 God any more provided Means which fiiall 
 necejfarily put an end to all Errors^ and 
 ^ifputeSy than to all Vice. Nor is it lit 
 he Ihould. The JFill is left free ; our Utt- 
 derfiaiidings are imperfe^l : And as long as 
 fo many Men are weak^ and wicked ; there 
 will be a Poflibility of HerefteSy and SchifmSy 
 as well as of other Sins. 
 
 M 4 To 
 
i6S An AmWEKtoaTopi[hBoo}c, 
 To the Eighth SeSlion, 
 
 1 
 
 ^HIS, to my great Refrefliment, is En- 
 
 titled J KecapiUilation of the fore-^ 
 
 going SeUions. It is therefore anfwer'd al- 
 ready : And let Him recapitulate what he 
 pleafes, I will recapitulate Nothing ; having 
 been long fmce fufficiently tired with Tau- 
 tology* i fhsll only remark upon two, or 
 three Sentences, which are not included in 
 the aforefaid Recapitulation, 
 
 P. 58. Some ti7ne after his KefurreUion he 
 committed the Charge of his whole Flock 
 in a fpecial maimer to St, Peter. John xxi, 
 c'. 15. &Co Th^t 7}2y Sheep implies all my 
 Sheep, He fuppofes; and I deny: And That's 
 Anfwer enough. Nor did our Saviour com* 
 mit any Sheep in an efpecial mariner to 
 St. Teter^ more than to the reft of the 
 Apofties j Tho' He particularly applies him^ 
 Icif to Him, Locefi thou me^ Sic ? bccaufe 
 St. Teter had denfd Him, which no other 
 Apofile had done. 
 
 P. 59- -^-i" ^'^^ attefted hy St. Paul, in 
 
 his Epiftle to the Romans, Chap- i. a 8. 
 %z)hich was written hiitffteen Tears after 
 4S'^ PeterV coming to Rome. In all probability, 
 and according to the bcft Accounts, it was 
 written many Years hefore St, Tcter eame 
 
 tQ 
 
Entitled^'En^^,nd''s ConverJion^ScC 169 
 
 to Rome. "^ Not that This is, cither way, 
 material to our prefent Controverfy. 
 
 P. 65. G. Sir^, Ton ha^oe gicen me a f till 
 mid clear Idea of the Authority of the Churchy 
 &c. In (hort, th? young Gentleman is ready 
 to burft with Conviction, and Satisfadion ; 
 upon Evidence, which I hope i have proved 
 to be no Evidence at all. Hut Jtnce^ fays 
 He^ there are a great number of Churches 
 — -all pretendmg to be the true Church 
 
 how is This Church to be found ? &:c. 
 
 This is repeated in the next Dialogue ,♦ 
 In the Examination of which, and elfe« 
 where, it fhall be thoroughly confidcr'd. 
 
 See Dr. Cave*s Life qF Su Veter^ and St. Taul, 
 
 
 ^!^>k 
 
 (m'^ 
 
 Jjyr 
 
 An 
 
A N S W E R 
 
 T O A 
 
 Popifti BOOK, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 England'/ Converjion and Re- 
 formation compared, dec. 
 
 ToThe Second DIALOGUE: 
 
 Contairing (as it's Title fets forth) A 
 brief Hijiorical j4ccount of the Con- 
 verjion of the Britons, am Saxons ; 
 <witb Proofs of their Jlgreement in 
 Faith 5 and fome Remarks upon Ctr-- 
 ctmijlances relating to the Converjion 
 of the Saxons. 
 
 ■■'-^"•-aBii^^ 
 
 HAT our Author attempts iii 
 This Second Dialogue, is to 
 fliew that the Religion of the 
 prefent Church of Rome is the 
 ^^ery fame with That to which 
 King Ethelbert and his Saxons \wqxq converted 
 
 by 
 
 SI 
 
i^i An Answer to a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 by Jujiin the Monk, and the other Miflionaries 
 or Pope Gregory the Great, at the End of 
 the 6th Century : Which was the fame with 
 That to which King Lticms^ and his Sri- 
 tons were converted by the Millionaries of 
 Pope Eletitherius^ in the 2d Century : 
 Which muft needs be the true genuine Chri- 
 ftianity; the Church of R.ome being on 
 all hands confefs'd to have been Then un- 
 corrupt : From whence it follows, that what 
 is at prefent injurioufly traduced by the 
 Nickname of Topery^ is indeed the true 
 gentiine Chriftianity. I think I have col- 
 leded 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 ho 
 comes to the main Point, He gives us two 
 Se(Sions by Way of Introduftion, 
 
Entitle(l^'Enghr\d''s Converfion^ &c, 17J 
 
 ToThefirJl SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Impartance of Enquiring into the 
 Marks of the True Church o/Chrift j 
 in which alone Salvation is proved to be 
 fojjible. 
 
 ACCORDING to his Cuftom, he 
 fets out upon a faJfe Suppojttion 5 ta- 
 king it for granted that "^ the great Kimher 
 of Churches in the Worlds tho differing 
 from one another^ preterid all to he the trtte 
 Church of Chrift. I hope all is ufed diftri- 
 htitit^ely^ for E-very one y Otherwife, I doubt, 
 'tis neither good Senje^ nor Grammar. How- 
 ever it be, the Propofition is notorioufly 
 untrue -, No Church upon Earth, but That 
 of Rome^, pretends to be the true Church : 
 All the reft confider the Difference between 
 J and The-, and are neither io fiiipid^ nor 
 fo fraudzdent^ as to confound them with 
 each other. 
 
 That which follows about t Chriftian 
 Churchy true Churchy ^ CathoJick Churchy 
 and a particular Church s heing united with^ 
 
 P. (J^. t P. ^> 
 
 or 
 
174 ^^^^ Answer to a Topi/h ^ool, 
 
 vr feparated from^ the CathoUch Churchy 
 &c. is very dark and confus'd, to lay ^ppie- 
 henfion. Were it well looked into j I believe 
 there would be found but little Senfe^ or 
 little Truth m it: But as it affed:s net the 
 Main of our Caufe, nor do I undeiftand what 
 life our Author makes of it, I pafs it over : 
 Only obfervins; 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 Churchy &c. and People's Negli- 
 ^ence in not enquiring into them, as they 
 Ihould do, amounts to Thus much. Exa- 
 mine yourfel'ves^ whether ye he in the Faith^ 
 2 Cor. xiii. 5. And what is a man profited^ 
 if he jJ:>aU gain the whole Worlds and lofe 
 his own -S'^/// ? Matth. xvi. 26. Dodtrines^ 
 I acknowledge, of the utmoft Importance i 
 and, in requital of our Author's Kindnefs, 
 I return them to him, hoartily recommend- 
 ing the ferious Confideration of them to 
 Himfeif, and the Ro7nan Catholicks in ge- 
 neral j for None want it more ; and earneft- 
 
 
Entitled^ England'^ ConverJion^Scc. 175 
 
 ly befeeching God, that both We, and T/jey^ 
 may have Grace to praUife them. 
 
 This Gentleman would not have been at 
 fo much Pains to prove that there can be *" 
 no Salvation but in the true Church i 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 
 Iinpoffihility of Sakation to Thofe who 
 are not Members of the true Church, and 
 our allowing a To(fibility of their being 
 fav'd^ is partly Calumny^ and partly Miftake^ 
 or Mifreprefentation. The Church of En^ 
 gland is no Latitttdinarian upon This Sub- 
 jeft ; as fufficiently appears from her i8th 
 Article. But we may very confiftently with 
 That Article, with Reafon, and with Scrip- 
 ture, allow a "Pojfihility of Sahation, (Sal- 
 vation in the ftrideft Senfe, and according 
 to the Covenant of Grace) to Chriftians^ 
 t whatever Churchy or Communion they are 
 of:, fo they live moral Lives^ &c. according 
 to the beft of their Knowledge ; and provi- 
 ded their Knowledge be the beft they can 
 obtain. Nay, we may very confiftently with 
 all three, | extend our Charity even to Hea- 
 thens^ and Mahometans ; fo far as to allow 
 that 7 hey may he favd by an uncovenanted 
 
 * p. ^8 71, 72. t ?. dp, ^ihu^ 
 
 Mercy : 
 
176 An A-^S^^JEK to a TopiJhBooh^ 
 
 MeTCy : Meaning by faz'd^ in fome meafure 
 rcwardedy tho' They have certainly no 
 Hight to the Chriftian Sahatioru Moft of 
 what our Author urges to the contrary from 
 Scriptures, Fathers, and Billiop Tearfon^ 
 may be folvM by applying the Diftinftioii 
 juft now mention'd, between Co^jenanted^ 
 and Uncocenanted^ being favd according to 
 the Chriftian Uifpeiifationy and being in 
 fome T>cgree re^jDarded. But his Argument 
 from Gal i. 8. is very fmgular. "^ St. Paul 
 lays his Cnrfe ec^en upon an Angel from Hea- 
 *ven^ if he fmdd preach any other Gofpel^ 
 ©r Faith, than T^hat which he himjelf had 
 f reach d. That is, Becaufe no Faith, but 
 the true, is to be preach' d-^ thfrefore No- 
 body can, in any Senfe, be poffihly favd 
 without hanng it preach d to him. An ad- 
 mirable Confequence ! 
 
 In the next Paragraph, from Heathens 
 and Mahometans he returns to Chrifiians. 
 t The fame Jpofile tells ns^ that as we are 
 -coUd to one Hope^ one Lord^ and one "Bap- 
 tifm^ fo to ONE Faith. Eph« 4- v. 5. Jnd 
 he affures us likewije^ that without Faith it 
 is impoffihle to pleafe God^ Heb. ii, v. 6. 
 JSlow thefe two T'exts joind together onalze 
 tip a demonftratirceTroof that there is hut 
 one Church:, or Communion:^ in which Sal- 
 
 ''jation 
 
Entitled^ ^x\^dvA\^ ConverJion^Scc. 177 
 
 ZhVion is poljible. Not fo very dcmonftra- 
 tive ', beciiufc the Word Faith does notiiG;- 
 nify the fluiie thing in both Texts. In the 
 former, it means by a Metonymy^ the Ob* 
 jeU of our Faith^ the Doftrine ot the Gof- 
 pel ; in tlie latter, it means the "Belief of^ 
 ox more properly the JJfent to^ Thefo 
 Truths, that Qvd is^ and that he is a Re- 
 warcer of Ihoje who diligently feek him* 
 He purfues his Argument Thus. "^ For if 
 there he but one Faith (and who can doubt 
 it"?) it follows that among the many Church- 
 es^ which all teach different Faiths^ there 
 can be but one which teaches the Faith St* 
 Paul [peaks of; which is tmdoiibtedly the 
 trne 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 moil vain, and groundlefs Suppofition ! 
 Thofe who dffer from one another in 'many 
 things, may have, and aftually have, the 07ie 
 true Faith m the main : Even 'Papifts have 
 it, tho* with fpurious Additions ^ -x'iJVe have 
 it, without any. The Remainder of the 
 Paragraph is anfwer'd of courfe, by what has 
 been faid. 
 
 His abufing Billiop Pearfon f for adhering 
 to the Church of England^ out of FitereCi 
 
 * Hid, 
 
 N and 
 
178 Jn Answer to a Topijb Bool^ 
 
 and Trejudice^ I pafs over ,• becaufe I have 
 promis d to make no more Remarks upon 
 his Reclamations of That Kind. But his 
 malicious Slanders, and infolent Reflexions, 
 upon all mir Jiiflwps in general, fhall be ta- 
 ken notice of in a more proper Place : I mean 
 in the Examination of his 'Third T>ialogtie^ 
 which is made up of Scaiidaly and little 
 elfe. 
 
 "^ He concludes by inferring, that it he- 
 Too'ves uSy as we tender our Sahation^ to ex- 
 amine — by what Marks we may clearly 
 hiow This one tnie Church, Very well then ,• 
 Let ^:^s havejTi'r Marks : We have had "Bel- 
 Idrmine'i, long ago ,- And fuch a Mark has 
 been [et upon them by feveral Learned Di- 
 vines of our Church as will not eafily bo 
 wip'd off. 
 
 * p. 72 
 
 Ja 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfwn^ 5cc. 179 
 
 To The Second ^"ECT 10 J^i 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Neither Education, nor Intereft, are 
 to be conjultedin the choice of our Ke^ 
 Itgion. 
 
 IN This Sedion (to what end it was made 
 a SeUion^ or at all inferted^ I no more 
 underftand, than I do how the T^itle of it 
 came to be falfe Graimnar) we have little 
 more than a Repetition of the fo often re- 
 peated Harangue, upon the noble Subjeft of 
 Intereft^ and Prejudice. 
 
 This continnes for "^ leveral Pages ^ and, it 
 being more than once anfwer'd already, 
 I fliall only remark upon a few Senten- 
 ces in Thofe Pages, with a view to fomething 
 elfe. 
 
 P. 73. ^tit ms [viz. To be fatisfyd 
 with miy Religion, only becaufe we were 
 educated in it J is as irrational^ as if any 
 one Jhoiild argtte T'husx I have got the Le^ 
 profy^ or Kings H'vil of wy Tarents^ there-^ 
 fore I ought to reft content with it^ and not 
 
 "^ ^* r-7 73, 74, 75, 1^' 
 
 N a give 
 
i8o Jn Answer to a Topifh ^ook^ 
 
 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 prafticaliy apply it to Them- 
 fehes. If They did ; the Leprofy^ or Kings 
 ^Eml of Popery would not be fo reigning, 
 and epidemical, as it is. 
 
 P. 74. To prove the Impoffibility of Sal- 
 vation to Thofe who have not the true Faith, 
 he alledgcs, Mark xvi. 16. He that helie^veth 
 not jJoall he condemn d. That is, if it be 
 his own Fault that he believeth not : Which 
 was the Cafe of Thofe Unbelievers, to 
 xvhomthe Apofllesworking Miracles preach'd ,- 
 and of whom our Sa\^iour here fpeaks ; as 
 appears from the Context both Before, and 
 After. 
 
 Ibid. "But is their T^efire to find the 
 T^ Tilth as he arty :, and fine ere -, &c. Are they 
 ready to imitate the courageous Virtue of 
 Toby, who^ when allfiocKd to the Golden 
 Cahes fet up hy Jeroboam, feparated him- 
 f elf from the Commimion of his Fellow-Citi- 
 zens and went alone up to the Temple at 
 Jerufalem, &c ? This was exadly the Cafe 
 oi o\XY fir/i Reformers: But the Church of 
 England has no golden Cahes j nor any o- 
 xhQv golden Images to worjhipy as the Church 
 of Rome has ; nor any abominahle Corrupt 
 tion whatfoever, as the Church of Rome 
 has a thouiand. 
 
^ 
 
 Entitled^ England'^ Converjion^ 8cz. 1 8 \ 
 
 P. 75. His Reflection upon our perfectly 
 ting Laws^ as He calls them^ might well 
 have been omitted, for a ReafoUy which 
 fliall be coniiderd in due time, and 
 place. 
 
 Having done with Self-Interefl^ and Tre- 
 jtidicey for the prefent^ He advances to fome- 
 thing which looks like fomething to the 
 Purpofe. "^ If Tou can fully conmnce mcy 
 fays the Young Gentleman^ that all the 
 Marks of the trite Church of Chriji belong 
 fo wholly^ and folcly to the Church of ^om^.^ 
 [Ay, prove *Ihat^ fay I] that they cannot with 
 any Appearance of l^ruth he appropriated 
 
 to the Church t^' England The Church of 
 
 T^ngland dees not pretend to appropriate 
 them to herfelf ^ but owns they belong to 
 other Churches, as well as to Her. Be- 
 
 fides j "Belong fo folely to one, that they 
 
 cannot he appropriated^ i. e. helon^ folely 
 to another, is very odd Senfe : If they he- 
 long folely to one, they cannot at all be- 
 long to another. If This Writer, as He is 
 not very exad: in his Language, by appro- 
 priated means apply di I abfolutely deny 
 his Allertion, and let him prove it if he can. 
 After the Words Church of England^ the 
 young Gentleman adds; t "^or hy Confequence 
 to any other oj the reform d Churches :, as be- 
 
 P. 77- t ^^'^- 
 
 N 3 ing 
 
i82 An Answer to a fopi/h Bool^ 
 
 ing all upon the fame 'Bottom. If the Marks 
 of a true Church do not belong to the Church 
 of E^iglandy it will indeed not only follow, 
 but follow a fortiori^ that they do not be- 
 long to any other Church, whether reform'dy 
 or unreform'd. But, by his Leave, all the 
 reformed Churches are not quite upon the 
 fame bottom with the Church of JLnglandi 
 for a very material Reafon i Which if our 
 Author does not know% he is very ignorant ^ 
 if he does^ he is very unjujff. 
 
 Were not Tautology as delightful to Himy 
 as it is naufeous to Me ^ /. e. as much as 
 poffible : He would not here fo formally, 
 with \fi. 2dly. and ^dly. \y^vo repeated "^ 
 his Texts about the "P ill ar of Truth ,• Chrift's 
 being always with his Church j the Gates 
 of Helf &c. to prove That there is true 
 Faith in the trtie Church : Which Nobody 
 denies that I know of. 
 
 Ify t fiiys he, the reform'' d Church of 'En-^ 
 gland can effe'clually prot^e that fhe has on 
 her Side the neceffary^ and effential Marks 
 of THAT Jpofiolical Church which Christ 
 eftahlifh' d upon Earthy and to which he made 
 the Tromifes of a perpetual Jffiftance ^ / 
 will then own her to he a Tart of the true 
 Church of Chrift. That is to fay, if She 
 (tho' She pretends to no fuch thing) can 
 
 from 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Converfion^ Sec. 1 8 5 
 
 pYO^e herfelf to be the TVJjole ^ 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 Contradi(a:ion. He adds, 
 "^ ^tit ify on the contrary^ I make it appear 
 manifeftly that they belong entirely to the 
 Church in Co7nmunion with the See of 
 RomCj exchifi'vely of all the reform d Church" 
 es i the7i the Church of England mufi own 
 that She is engagd in a defencelefs Caufe- 
 I grant the Confequence ; but deny the 
 Antecedent ; And deiire the Reader care- 
 fully to obferve how he proves it, here, or 
 any where eifc. t Jnd can have no "Title to 
 the Tromifes^ 'tillflje returns to her old Mo- 
 ther Church ; whereof jhe was a Tart for 
 the (pace of no lefs than nine hundred Tears. 
 The Church of Ko7ne is not Mother to the 
 Q\\mQkioi 'Eyigland 'y There was a Church 
 in "Britain^ as foon as at Kome^ if not foon- 
 er ; And if They argue from the Con- 
 verfion of the Saxons , The Church of Ko777e 
 is no more the Mother of Ours upon That 
 Account, than one Man becomes tiie Fa- 
 ther or Matter of another Man by convert- 
 ing him to Chnftianity. Neither did the 
 Englifh Church upon That Account, be- 
 come a Tart of the Komifh^ as ftiail be 
 
 N 4 flaewn 
 
i84. An Answer to a'Topfb Booh 
 
 fliewn in our Examination of the Fourth Di- 
 alogue : In which our Author difcourfes of 
 This matter more at large. 
 
 We are to fcniz a Judg7ncnt^ He fays^ "^ 
 I ft. Whether theCorwerfion^ or Kef or mat ion 
 of England, was properly the Work of God. 
 For He could not he 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 
 Falfhood.t 2dly. Whether the ejfential Marks 
 of the true Churchy to wity her perpetual Vt- 
 Jibility^ herimintemiptedSuccejfion ofHiJhops 
 and Paftors in the fame Communion from 
 the Jpofiles down to This time^ and her 
 Catholicity^ or Unicerfality both of Time^ 
 and Tlace^ are applicable to the Church of 
 England, or to the Churches in Communion 
 with the See ^/^Rome. Thefe then are his three 
 effential Marks of the true Church : Let the 
 Reader carefully attend to them , For the 
 whole Iffue of the Caufe, it feems, is to turn 
 upon them. Perpetual Vifihilityy of one fort, 
 or other, belongs to the Church in general ; 
 but neither to the Church of Rome^ nor the 
 Church of Englaiidy in particular. An ujt- 
 interrupted Succejfton of ^Bifhops^ and Tafiors 
 
 * P. 79. t /^/'^. 
 
 from 
 
Entltled^l^ngl^nd's Conver/ion^Scc, i8j 
 
 from the Jpoftles 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, /;z the fame Commii^ 
 nion ? Cardinal "Bellarmine fpeaks out, and 
 fays the fifth Note of the Church is the Stic- 
 ceffon oi^ijhops^ &c. in \hQChiirch of Rome. 
 Which, tho' it be proving a thing by itfelf, 
 the conftant Way of Topifo 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 Comratinion , implying that the Church 
 of England is not the jame Communion Ihe 
 was before the Reformation. And why fo^ 
 I pray ? Even becaufe She is not now in 
 Communion with the Church of Rome ; 
 and has thrown off all Thofe Dodrines, and 
 Pradices, which We call Romijh Corruptions. 
 The Sophiftry of This (not to mention 
 the odd life of the Word Comfnmiion^l have 
 elfewheredetefted, by diftinguifiiing between 
 what is effential^ and what is accidental^ 
 and obferving that the jame Man may be 
 fick at one time, and found 2X another. Ca- 
 tholicity of T'ime I take not to be Senfe : 
 What he would fay, if I rightly underftand 
 him, falls in with Terpeittity^ and fo fhould 
 not have been nam'd as another Mark. If 
 Catholicity of Tlace means pofjeffing ther 
 whole World -^ it is no Mark even of the 
 Church in general^ much Icfs of any parti-^ 
 
 ctilar 
 
1 8^ Jn Answer to a Topi/b Boo\ 
 
 Ciilar one* If it means hei72g the Whole^ or 
 including all the Tarts ; 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 ContradiUion to ap- 
 ply it to any Church, or Churches in parti- 
 cular. But more of This in our Examina- 
 tion of the laft Sedion of ths laft Dia- 
 logue ,' where our Autnor niake? his AlTump- 
 tion, and enforces his whole Argument. 
 At prefent I make the following Obfer- 
 vations. 
 
 \fi. Here again, as above. We muft diftin- 
 guifii, tho' They do not, between Thofe ma- 
 terial Particles J^ and The. Doabtiefs, 
 there ought to be, and actually are, Marks^ 
 or Notesy by which a Church, meaning 
 'ThiSy 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 "Part to be the Whoky 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 afTign'd will never be able to do ^ 
 Nor indeed any other, ^d^. We grant 
 that Theirs is a true Church in one Senfe i 
 meaning a real Church : And they do but 
 vainly endeavour to prove that Ours is not 
 fo» But idly. The great Queftion is, or 
 ought to be^ what makes a true Church in 
 
 the 
 
Entitled^Et]^cLad''s Converjion^ 8cc. iSy 
 
 the other Senf^:) i> e. 2ijoztnd^ and good one : 
 And This Queftion the Papifts, for a very 
 flain Reafon^ carefully avoid. Trnth^ Sound- 
 nefs^ and Tnrity of Faith ^ and T^oUrine^ 
 according to the only true Rule, the Word 
 of God^ are undoubted eff^ntial Properties, 
 and abfolutely neceflary Marks or Notes of 
 a true Church in This figniiication ; 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. /^thly. The Marks or Notes 
 of a falfe Church, Thus underftood, /. e. an 
 mifotmd^ corrupt Church, are plahty and 
 ohoious to e^ery body that can read the S/- 
 lie with the common Underjianding of a 
 rational Creature \ not fuch dark and Uind 
 ones at beft (for many of them are evidently 
 710 Marks at all) as the Papifts lay dovv^n to 
 diftinguifh the true Church ^ which require 
 much more Explanation than the Thing 
 they are pretended to ^a:/?/^/;?. That Church 
 is certainly andmanifejily unfound, and cor- 
 rupt, which emdently contradids the Scrip- 
 tures in fome of the nioft material Points ; 
 impofes Terms of Communion, a Comply- 
 ance with wiiich 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 i /. e. really a Church : 
 
 But 
 
i88 An Answer to a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 But we may be damnd for commiimcatin<f 
 with it, for all That. Nay, we certainly 
 fl^all be fo ^ unlefs incohmtary Ignorance ex- 
 cufe us, or (which we have not the ieaft 
 Reafon to hope for) uncoz^enanted Mercy be 
 extended to us. 
 
 To the nir^ SECTION; 
 
 0/ the firjl Entrance of Chrtfliamty in^ 
 to Britain ; its Trogrefs^ and Efta- 
 hlifhment there^ in the Reign of J^ing 
 Lucius. 
 
 Avery few Words will be fufficient to 
 difpatch This Seftion ; becaufe it con- 
 tains nothing but a Recital of Fafts, which, 
 whether true, or falfe, do not affed our 
 prefent Controverfy. For what is it either 
 to Us, or our Romifi Adverfaries, that 
 St. Peter went to Rome at fuch a time ; that 
 Claudius came into "Britain \ that ^Britain 
 was reduced into a Roman Province under 
 ^omitian j that Lttcitts was the Son of 
 0////i"King oi "Britain^ in the Reign of T'r^z- 
 jan j that He fent to Pope Eleutheritis^ who 
 Yent T>amianus^ and Fugatitts^ &c. in fhort, 
 that at laft Britain was converted to Chri- 
 ftianity ? I k^ow no Ufe our Author could 
 
 make 
 
Enthled^Enghnd's Converfion^ 8cc. 189 
 
 make of This, and indeed the greateft Part 
 of what follows in This Dialogue ; unlefs 
 it were to dijplay his great Readin^^ or to 
 amtifc weak Minds with the Sole^nnity and 
 'Formality of fo much Hijiory. 
 
 Here therefore, and wherever elfe I meet 
 with the fame Sort of Learning, 1 fliall be 
 very brief; only taking notice of fome few 
 Particulars which feem the moft confidera- 
 ble. 
 
 "^ When he tells us that St. Teter went 
 to 'Rome in the 2d Year of Claudius ; ho 
 agrees indeed with Jiaronius^ and "Bellar" 
 mine^ from whom he had it ^ but not with 
 St. I^uke in his Jets of the Jpojlles^ from 
 which the Contrary is demonftrable. And 
 
 in That Pallage, ~ t According to Eu- 
 
 febius, who writes T^hus of him ; Peter the 
 Jpofile of the Countrv of Galilee, the firff 
 
 chief ^ifJoop of Chriftians — remain d 
 
 Jiifloop of ihat City for 2 y Tears together^ 
 Euf. in Chron. An. Chrifti 44. He puts a 
 falfe Quotation upon us ; there being no 
 fuch Words as fa[ft chief 'BiJJoop of ChrifU- 
 ans II I nor remain d !Bifmp 8cc. in the 
 Place referred to. Nor does Eufehius either 
 there, or any where elfe, fay that St. Te- 
 ter was Bifhop of Rome 25 Years,- 
 
 f p. 80. "f Ih'td, \\ Unlefi 9 MSixp^Q" niay be fo rendcr'J. 
 
 or 
 
ipo An Answer u a Tomfh ^ook^ 
 
 or that he was ever Biiliop of Kome at 
 all.* 
 
 t He fays, Xm^; Lucius refoh'd ferioufly^ 
 andpromisd^ to embrace openly the Chrifiian 
 Faith I thd he did not judge it feafonahle till 
 fome Tears after^ to put this good Ttirpofe 
 effeUually in Executinu. T'here 'tsoere two 
 main Ohfiacles^ (both of them from worldly 
 Intereft) which tho he was a Convert in his 
 Hearty kept him hack^ &c. That is. He con- 
 tinued a Heathen in outward Pradice 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 
 w-as a heinous Crime, that in King Henry s 
 Reign ii He was a Lutheran in his Hearty 
 
 and did not throw off the Mask^ till 
 
 the next Reign. And the Bifhop oi Meaux^ 
 as quoted in the Preface, rf: is perfectly tran- 
 fported againfl him upon That Account^ 
 If Cranmer was guilty of Diffimulation, fo 
 was JLiiciiis : And thus the chief hifirziments 
 of 'England's Converfion^ and Reformation^ 
 w-ere upon an equal Foot in That refped. 
 Why fhould the fame Thing be fo faong 
 an Argument againft the One, and none at 
 
 * See Dj». avz\ Life of Sr. .V;?*-. Soft, xi, Lhroughout. 
 1 P. 85. II P. 175, 17(5. * P^ei^, P. xiii, xiv. k'y^c, 
 
 ail 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^8c€. I9 1 
 
 all againft the Other? If our Author ij?/i/fs 
 upon This 1 cpick. He condem;:s the Comber- 
 Jion \ If he gi^^es it ///>, he fo far acquits 
 the Keforraation. It is in truth no Argu- 
 ment againft Either : If it were ; it would 
 go much farther^ than the Komanijis would 
 have it : For St. Tcter himfelf, even while 
 he was making Converts, was guilty of Ccw- 
 ardife^ and UJiffirmdation. ^ 
 
 Tho' with regard to the Point we are no^^ 
 confidering, 'tis no Bufinefs of mine torefled 
 upon the Memory of Pope Eletithemis i The 
 Church of Ro7ne in his time being undoubt- 
 edly pure, whatever He was ^ yet I think 
 he deferves not the Title of Saijit^ which 
 our Author bcftows upon him : f Unlefs 
 SaiiitJJjip be confiftent with Montanifm, |J 
 Which latter^ by the way, is certainly incon- 
 (iftcnt with IvfaUihiUty. 
 
 Speaking of our owing our jecond Coii- 
 <verJion to the ^ifljop of Rome^ Ke concludes 
 the Section in Thefc Words. + In recompenco 
 whereof^ his holy See has fince heen diftin- 
 guifUd here hy the hortoiiraUe litle of 
 the Where of Babylon, and his [acred Ter- 
 [on hy that of Jntichri^. The Church of 
 England does not call Na'niesAn This man- 
 ner j however fomo particular Perfons may : 
 
 * GaL II. 12. 13. 14. -f p. 85, jj See Dr. Cave's 
 Life vfIreK4ns, P. 164. :|: P, BS: 
 
 and 
 
191 ^^ ANSWER t^^ TopipoBooh^ 
 
 and even They, couudering the Provocation 
 given them, may well enough be excus'd. 
 She infifts, if he pleafes, that both the See^ 
 and the 'BiJJoop:, -dre damnably cormpt: And 
 if This be true, as We have prov'd it is j 
 where is the Ingratitude^ or Inj7iftice in fay- 
 ing fo? We fhould be guilty of neither; 
 cv'en \iWe were th^ftrft converted^ and the 
 prcfhit Pope, and Church of Rome our Con- 
 verters : Becaufe it would be our indij pen- 
 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 ; does Gratitude oblige me to fol- 
 low him, or even not to declare againft 
 him ? How much ftronger then is our An- 
 fwer ; when it is confider'd how many Cen- 
 turies have pafs'd fince£;;g/^7;^'sConverfion ; 
 and that the Church of Rome confifts not 
 Now of the fame Indimditals it did T'hen ? 
 This Author, and his Friends, when their 
 Turn is ferv'd by it, can coin a thoufand nice 
 "T)iftinUio77S without a difference. And on 
 the other hand, when their Turn is ferv'd 
 by it too, cannot diftinguijb between the 
 Whole ^ and a Vart-^ between Vaft:, and 
 ^Prefent ; between Perfons now livin 
 ^nd Perfons dead eleven hundred Years a 
 goe, ^ 
 
 * See backwards, P. 20: 
 
 To 
 
 or 
 
Entitledy EnglcindV ConverJlon^Scc. }():^ 
 
 To The Fourth SECTION.^ 
 
 Of the Converfion of the Englifli S:ix- 
 ons from Paganilm to Chriltia* 
 
 nity. 
 
 IN This, likeivife, and the two following 
 Sedions, wc meet with little to our Pur- 
 pofe. The Converfion of the Saxons by 
 Jujiin 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 Hi ft or y 
 of it in This Place, I cannot imagine ; un^ 
 lefs it were for the two Reafjns I Before 
 aflignd. P. 189. I therefore purfuethe Me- 
 thod then proposed. 
 
 Tho' it be no very material Circumflctnce^ 
 isoToat Pope it was, whom "^ Gregory^ when 
 a private "Prieft^ folicited to jend fome a^ 
 hie Minifters to "Britain ; This Writer is 
 perhaps too pofitive in faying it was Bcne=- 
 diU : Becaufe I find another very good Au- 
 thor t telling us it was Talagitis II» 
 
 '*' p. Sff, t VerftegarJ, Reftitution, &c. P, 141. 
 
 Q He 
 
194 ^^ Answer to a Tofifh Book^ 
 
 He acquaints us "^ from S^^^, that Jtiftiiz 
 and his rcUow-MiflTionaries, being upon 
 their Journey for 'England^ were feizd with 
 ajlothftd Fear, and humbly defirM Pope Gre- 
 gory that They might be permitted to drop 
 their Defign of converting the Saxons^ and 
 return home : Jttftin Himfelf hom^fent hack 
 to make That Requeft. Sure This Cowar- 
 difc^ and Tergh'crjation of Theirs was al- 
 moft as bad as Cranmers: And the One 
 ahnoft as good an Argument againft This 
 Second Com'erfion -, as the Other againft tho 
 'Refor772ation. 
 
 His Reflection t upon pulling down the 
 Crofs in Edward VVs Time , with his fay- 
 ing, that to the ez^erlafting Shame of Chrifti- 
 anity it was treated as an Image of fome 
 infamous Traytor^, hy the hlejfed Reforma- 
 tion ; is fraudulent, and fland'rous. It was 
 puird down only to prevent Idolatry in Wor- 
 fhipping the Crofs, not as^ a Mark of Igno- 
 miny upon the Crofs itfelf ; Which latter is 
 always the Cafe, when the Statue of a 
 'I'ravtor is defacVi. The Image of the Crofs 
 is (till ^/jW among us, tho' not adord: It 
 (lands upon our Churches ; and our Fore- 
 heads are fignd with it in our Bap- 
 tifm. 
 
 The 
 
Entitled, England's Converfion, Bcc. Ip j 
 
 The following Paflagc is remarkable e- 
 nongh. ^ For He [King Etbelbert^ had 
 learn d from his InfirttUors^ and Leaders to 
 Sahation^ that the Service of Ckrifl ought to 
 he cohtntary>y not by Compidficn- So We Pro- 
 teflants fay* And Wc add thac Papifts now 
 adays have not iearn'd the fame Dcdtrine : 
 Witnefs the liqiiifition ; and their Laws a- 
 boiit the 'Bminng of Hereticks. We have 
 Proof therefore, and 'tis confefs'd, that 
 Thofe Inftrudors then taught one Dodrine 
 at leaft different from what the Church of 
 Rome teaches 720W> So that the Religion 
 of Rome was not exaftly 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 Emphaiis upon them by printing 
 them in a different Charafter ; It was to re- 
 fled upon the perfecutivg Spirit of cur 
 Chuich, 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 
 Thol^^ W' ords of His, t Jil the 'BiJJwps of 
 Britain were by Vope Gregory put wider 
 St. Auguftin's Jurifdiction ; as alfo upon 
 SAYii g"^ Mass, the Ufe of Holy Water, 
 and Relicks in Jujiins Time : Which our 
 
 P. P5. t lii^' 
 
 O z Author 
 
i()6 An Al^SWER to a Topifh ^ook^ 
 
 Author, for feme important Reafon we 
 mufl: think, has taken Care to have printed 
 in Capital Letters. 
 
 ron^F////)SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 A Relation of St. Aiiguftin's Confer 
 rence ^juitJo the Britifli (BiJJdops. 
 
 1 
 
 T is no wonder that This Gentleman is 
 _ "^ f o angry with the "Britijh Bifliops^ and 
 takes fo much pains to blacken them : The 
 Reaion is plain -, They were refraftory, in- 
 fifted 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 f at Auftins Oke^ as 
 related both by Camhden^ and "Bede^ I have 
 nothing to fay at prefent ; farther than to 
 obferye, \ft. That Auftiiis Miracle in open- 
 ing the Eyes of the Blind, being intended 
 to convince the "Britons j it would have been 
 lefs liable to fufpicion, had the Man^ upon 
 
 whom 
 
Entitled^ England^ s ConverJion^Scc. 197 
 
 whom the Miracle was to be wrought^ been 
 of the "Britijh Race, not of the Englijh. 
 idly. That the Story of the filly Advice 
 given by the Hermit to the 'Britiflj Bifhops, 
 concerning the Judgment tliey were to make 
 of A'liftin^ from his fifing np^ or not rifing 
 up, when they came to him, is in my Judg- 
 ment a very ftrangc one, and fcarce credible ; 
 tho' related by 'Bede himfelf. Not that it 
 fignifies any thing, either way. Of the 
 three Joints faid to be propos'd by Jii/iiji 
 to the Britons^ notice enough will be taken ; 
 when we come to the jExamination of the 
 Ninth Sedion. 
 
 ToThe Sixth S-ECTlOl^: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 St. Auguilin Vindicated. 
 
 LE T St. Jufiin^ in God's name, be ^jin- 
 dicated from any mijttfi Afperficns, 
 which have been caft upon him : As fc?nej 
 no doubt, there have been ^ Tho' after all, 
 much might be faid to prove him not fo great 
 a Saijtt as the Romanifts make him. And 
 fince I have mentioned This^ I cannot for- 
 bear adding, that the fame may be with 
 truth obferv'd of the great St. Gregory him- 
 
 O 3 Mi 
 
IpS An ANSWER to a ^opi/J:f Book^ 
 
 felf. To pafs over other Inftances, his ful- 
 fom, and little lefs than blafphemous Letter 
 to That Mifcrcant Thocas^ when he had 
 got Poflfefrion of the Empire^ his fliameful 
 Ingratitude in rcjoycing over the INJurder of 
 his great Benefactor the Emperor Maiiritms^ 
 and iliamefally j^^^rm?.;^ his Murderer^ will 
 for ever be enough to fhew that it is not al- 
 together ^ fo impertinent^ as our Author 
 fuppofes, to accttjh That e^ninent Saint of 
 Safenefs * And moreover, that among the 
 Qualifications for which he was fo t defer- 
 c'edly ftirna^nd the Great, Holinefs was 
 not the moft confiderable. I juft touch upon 
 This Subjea-, not that I take Delight in 
 making fuch Refiedions, tho' never fo true; 
 but to put our Adverfaries in mind that it is 
 no great Wonder, if St. Gregor)'^ and St. 
 Jtiftin^ 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 
 (ome few \ For that Ti^^/r Religion was not 
 the fame as the prefent Topery^ we fhall lee 
 in due time. Thofe who have affirm'd that 
 it was> have indeed afpers'^d tnom -y As our 
 Author, among others, has done. For done 
 it He has, (tho' I confefs with a quite dif- 
 ferent De{ign)as well as t HolinJIoead^ and ho-^ 
 
 neS 
 
Entitled^ En^^m^isConverfion^ Sec. 199 
 
 neft John "Bak^ as he merrily exprefle5 
 himfelf. In the mairij we honour the Me- 
 mory of both Thofc eminent Perfons, St. 
 Gregory^ and St. Auflin^ as the Inftruments 
 of our Converlion ; and blefs God for the 
 iueftimable Benefits which by Their Means 
 were convey'd to us. 
 
 The famous Controvcrfy about the * Her- 
 mit's wife Advice, together with the Cha- 
 racter given of him 5 as alfo the Difcuilion of 
 That important Queftion concerning St. 
 t Jttftins Behaviour, whether he were/^^/;;^/ 
 fittings ox ftanding'^ I wholly give up to our 
 Author, to be by Him made the moft of, 
 aad determined either way, as He ihall think 
 proper. I only obferve, that confider- 
 ing how much Pains he takes, and how many 
 Pages he fpends, in clearing St. Aupin from 
 the Imputation of Tride laid to his Charge 
 by the "BritiJJo Bifliops, He fecms hard prefs'd 
 in his Defence of him : And if Jiiftin were 
 a proud Man, he was certainly no great 
 Saint. 
 
 How blameablc foever the Tiritons might 
 be, in not i celebrating Enfter according to 
 the Determination of the firft Nicene Coun- 
 cil ; That Fad at Icaft fliews that they re- 
 ceived their Cuftoms from the Eqft^ net 
 from Rome : And the fame Argument may 
 
 P. 105, 104. t ^' 'o5» i^<^, 107- 
 
 04 
 
aoo An Answer to a Top(h Book^ 
 
 be drawn from their Difagreeing with the 
 'KomiJIo Church in the Adminiftration of 
 Jiaptifm. From whence it appears that 
 before St. Jufiins Coming, Kome had no 
 dominion over them. It may here too be 
 very properly ask'd, fince our Author fo 
 confidently appeals in This Cafe to the firft 
 Kicene Council j 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^ a^x^^ ^^'^ K^AJsirco^ 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. Jujlhis "^ thinking himfelf Metropo- 
 litan^ and Trimate^ over the 'BritiJJj Pre- 
 lates, ftiall be fully fpoken to in our Exa- 
 mination of the Ninth Sedion. 
 
 Tho' we are not oblig'd to vindicate every 
 thing written by Holingfhead^ "Bale^ and 
 J^cx \ not one of whom is by Us efteem'd 
 any great Champion of the Reformation*. 
 t yet our Author had little Reafon to be fo 
 very gay, and witty, in triumphing over 
 them. "^ Johi "Bale^ and his mofi faith- 
 ful Dorothy* il Haze a little Tatience • / 
 ha^e a "Brace more of Trotefia^it Hiftori- 
 ms^not at all inferior^ &c. honeji John Bale^ 
 
 mid 
 
Entitled ^'England's Converfjon^Scc^ aoi 
 
 and his Namefake John Fox, I^ct him 
 have as many 'Brace of them, as he plcafes ; 
 Let Thofe he here mentions be never fo 
 wrcjig in feme things, they were right m 
 refonning from the Errors and Abominati- 
 ons of Popery. Whatever Miflakcs have 
 been committed by IBox in his Acls^ and Mo- 
 numents -^ He has laid TCnith enough in them 
 to make the Church of Kome l)luili as red 
 as the Blood ilie has fpilt : Were it in her 
 Nature to be capable of hlujinng at any 
 thi7ig. - 
 
 That Fox is fo "^ cile an Author.^ as T^his 
 Jiithor reprefents him j That there are mo- 
 deftly [peaking at leaft ten thoufand noto- 
 rious Lies either expreJJy ajfertcd^ or infmu- 
 ated by him j that to call a Man one of Fox s 
 Saints^ is procerhially heco7ne the fame as to 
 call hi7n a great Rogne^ unlefs it be among 
 Papifts ; are themfelves fo many fcandalous 
 and malicious Falfhoods : And That is as 
 much Jnfwer^ as Thefe tmprod'd^ and un- 
 grounded AfTertions deferve. 
 
 We have likev/ife his hare Jford for it, 
 and nothing elfe, that t the Slaughter of 
 the 1200 Mo7iks [at Bangor] happen d ahot^e 
 a Tear after St. Auftin s T)eath ; and 1:0 as 
 order d hy a Tagan King of the North um- 
 bers, with whom S^ Auflin 7iecer had the 
 
 
 O' 
 
201 An Answer to a Topijh Booh^ 
 
 leaft Commimicaticn. The contrary AiTertion 
 is much better fupported by the moft learn- 
 ed Primate Jiramhall (a Name that will 
 for ever be the Terror of Rome) Avho in his 
 Juft Vindication^ &c. P. 84. Edit. T>iihlin. 
 writes Thus. They refusd indeed to their 
 own coft y Twehe hundred innocent Monks 
 of Bangor afterwards loft their Lives for it. 
 Rome was ez'er hnilded in "Blood. Howfo- 
 ever thefe Words (quamvis Augtifiino prius 
 Mortuo) hai'e Jince been forgd, and inferted 
 into 'venerable Bede, to palliate the matter^ 
 which are wanting in the Saxon Copy* To 
 wliich we may add the Teftimony oi Geoff ry 
 of Monmouth ; "^ who agrees with the other 
 as to the Main of the Fa<ft : An Hiltorian 
 whom our Author afterwards f quotes, and 
 That in the Words itmnediately preceding 
 This Narration^ without the leaft Reflexion 
 upon his Ability, or Veracity, 
 
 The young Gentleman at the ConcKifion 
 need not have given himfelf the Troubld 
 of fo many Deduft^ons to prove ^ that Mr. 
 Collier^ was conHncd in his Heart that St. 
 Auftin and his Followers preach' d the true 
 Faith in T^his Ifland. He might have faid 
 the fame of Proteftants in general, if he had 
 pleas'd : We all acknowledge it as an un- 
 doubted Truth* And fo I proceed. 
 
 '^ Book xi. Chap, 13- j ^> 'SP- ^ ^^ 1 14. 
 
 To 
 
Entttled^Engl^r\d''s Converfion^ Sec. 203 
 
 To The Seventh SECT I0:t^: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Roman Catholicks frofefs to this T>ay 
 the Faith "which St. Auguftin 
 weach\i. 
 
 WE acknowledge This too : But then 
 They profefs much more than That 
 Faith, and what is in its Nature i7icoiiJift- 
 ent with it. But w^e go on with our Au- 
 thor. That "^ it is impojfihle the fame Chri-^ 
 fiian Faith Jlooiild he true in one Jge^ and 
 ial{ei7i another^ I grants and fagely obferv'd 
 it was. But thofe Words, f The Faith and 
 'Religion profefs d at This time hy the E7i- 
 glifj Roman Catholicks^ cannot hut he the 
 true one^ if it he the fame as was taught 
 hy St jugtifiin^ require fome Animadvcr-, 
 fion. If by the jame as was taught be 
 meant what was taught ; I grant the Ar- 
 gument is fo far conclufivc, tha't their Religion 
 is fo far true as it agrees with what" Sto 
 Auftin taught in the Main. I add thofc 
 laft Words, for a Reafon whicli will ap- 
 pear immediately. But if it means not hi n^ 
 
 hit 
 
204 An Answer >^ a Topi/b Bool^ 
 
 hit what was taught ^ I deny that in This 
 Senfe the prefent Roman Catholicks profefs 
 the fame Faith and Religion that was taught 
 by St. Jujiin. That we may proceed the 
 more clearly I here lay down three Tropo- 
 fttions^ as the Foundation of what I have 
 to offer upon this Head j and to which Refe- 
 rence may be had, as occafion fliall re- 
 quire- 
 
 L Were it true that the Rehgion which 
 St Juftin brought into England was alto- 
 gether the fame as That which Papifts profefs ; 
 yet we might very coniiftently 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 ; thoVwe were taught 
 "Both at the fame time^ and equally adherd 
 to ^oth for nine htmdred Tears 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 fcolijly^ or wicked^ if 
 upon better Information 1 keep the Wheat, 
 and throw the Tares away ? Even upon this 
 Suppofition we fliculd have been oblig d to 
 St. Juftin^ who from Heathens made us 
 Chriftians : But, does it therefore follow that 
 we are not at all obliged to Thofe who 
 from had Chriftians in Faith and Doftrine 
 made us good ones ? 
 
 11. Some 
 
Enlitled^Enghnd's Converfion^ &c 205 
 
 II. Some Corruptions of Topery were in- 
 <leed creeping into the Church, when St. 
 Aiiflin came hither ,• tho' but ^^ery few. For 
 This Reafon I added the Words in the Main^ 
 above-mentioned. He himfelf might poffibly 
 teach fomething erroneous, befides the Pa- 
 pal Jurifdiftion ^ tho' it does not appear that 
 He did. For tho' Gregory who fent him was 
 fnperjiitions enough, and afferted the Doc- 
 trine of Ttirgatory ^ yet the Church of Rome 
 in general embrac'd not That, nor any other 
 Doctrine wiiich We now call TopfJo. And 
 therefore 
 
 III. To affirm that the Rehgion of the 
 'R.omijl) Church w^as entirely the fame Then 
 as it is Now, is a moft grofs^ 2inA Jhamefal 
 Untruth ; As will appear from what I fliall 
 difccurfe, and even from our Author's own 
 Account of This Matter. 
 
 If all the Roman Catholick "^ Hijiorians 
 affirm This ; I am fure many Roman Catho- 
 lick Writers declare the Contrary. Thofe 
 do, for Inftance, f who place Tranfiihftan- 
 tiation fome hundred Years lower than Jti" 
 fiiiis time j 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 one 
 
 * Ihid, I Sec them quoted by Tdhtfon again^f! Tranfub- 
 ilantiation. P, 30^. 
 
 Ki72d 
 
2o6 An Answer to a Topijh ^ool^ 
 
 Kind was firft eftablifli'd by the Council of 
 Conftance y and the fioe Sacraments^ 
 which We do not receive^ firft invented by 
 Teter Tjomhard'i As for Proteftants; Ho- 
 Imgfljead^ "Bale^ and Fox^ have been fpoken 
 of already. But to fay that "^ all Troteftant 
 WitneJJes agree in Siihfiance that Auguftin 
 and his Fellow-Miffioners brought Topery in- 
 to England^ is an Aflertion worthy of our Au- 
 thor's Modefty. He himfelf cannot but know, 
 as 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 Jtiflin 
 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 TJDhole Chrijiendom was drown d 
 in ahominahle Idolatry^ and that for the 
 
 (pace of EIGHT HUNDRED YeARS, AMD 
 
 MORE. I iliall repeat nothing of what I 
 have already anfwer'd ; but refer the Rea- 
 der to P. 59. 60. (j-c. What he fays new 
 upon the Argument is in Thefe Words, f 
 TFhich in trite Proteftant Language brings 
 
 * p. 114, 115. t P. 115. 
 
 Topery 
 
Entitled^ England'i" ConverJion^Sc^Q. 207 
 
 popery not only in Great Britain, lut in 
 "whole Chrijieiidoin^ tip to the ^very Time of 
 England's Concerfion. Suppofing Topery and 
 Idolatry^ in true Trotejiant Language^ to 
 be all one j tho' it is a Tapiji, not a Tro- 
 tejiant^ that talks at That fbolifli rate, con- 
 cerning which fee P. 69. This does not bring 
 it lip to the cerv time e/'England's Com^er/wn^ 
 by 153 Years: Reckoning the Reformation 
 in 1550,- ILnglands Converfion by Aiifiins 
 Coming in 596, as Ail agree it was ; and 
 meaning by 800 and more^ juft 801, as we 
 very well may. Take it how you will j It 
 does not hing it up to England's Conver- 
 fion, by ahoiit 150 Years, as we ufuaily, 
 and properly fpeak. Yet This Account in 
 the Homily, He pofiti^ely afferts, brings To-* 
 pery^ up to the very I'ime of England's Con- 
 verfion. The very Time exaUly ! It only 
 wants 1 50 Years : And That is fo inconfide- 
 rahle -, that it may very well pafs for No- 
 thing. The Subjed we are upon is the State 
 of a Nation, or Nations, with refpcd 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 adually have been, ut- 
 terly cha7ig'd : Old Empires may be fubvert- 
 cd, and new ones eroded ^ Whole Kingdoms 
 from Heathen become Chriftian, from Chrif- 
 tian Mahometan, or Heathen again.. Yet 
 fuch a Trad of Years, in our Author's Chro- 
 nology, 
 
ao8 ^;^ Answer ^^^ Topljh Booh^ 
 
 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 muit That iMan have of our Under- 
 Handings ; who could think of impofing fo 
 clumfey a Faliliood upon us? 
 
 His pofitive Affertion that "^ the "Belief of 
 the Mafs was tmquejlionahly a Term of Ccm-- 
 miiuion in the T'ime of Gregory the Great^ 
 had need be well fupported ; efpecially fince 
 it is back'd by thele ftrong Expreffions : f 
 The Thing is notoriously known; and 
 Mr* Collier cannot ha^ve the Confidence 
 to deny it. Yet he produces nothing to 
 prove it, but the w^eakeft Kind of Arguing, 
 Arguing from a Word. It is related by 
 Hede^ that Jnftin and his Fellows said 
 Mass. But w^as Mafs the fame Thing Then 
 as it is Now ? For a full Anfwer to This 
 powerful Argument, I refer to the Word 
 Mijfa in Littletons Di6tionary. If ufing 
 That Jlord be a Proof of a Man's being a 
 Tapif'y I confefs, not only St. Gregory ^ 
 'but St. Jnguftin^ St. Amhrofe^ 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 
 fliould Now have none with the Church of 
 Hcmey were there Nothing to be objected 
 
 againft 
 
Entitled^ England'j" ConverJlon^Scc. 209 
 
 againft her, but That. In (hort, Mafs fig- 
 nify'd ^hine Sewice^ efpecially the iiacrn- 
 ment of the Lord's Supper : 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 Sacrifce^ of the 
 Elevation^ and Jdoration of the Hoff. When 
 therefore our Author accufes Mr, Collier of 
 Infincerity and Unfair Deahng, for tran- 
 flating Bedes Words, by perform' d all the 
 Offices of Religion inllead of by laid AJa/s; 
 He is extremely guilty of it himfelf. They 
 may as well be render'd the former Way, 
 as the latter ,• or rather much better, con- 
 fidcring how the Word Majs is new us'd. 
 Not that the Argument would be of any 
 Force, were the Tranflation as He would 
 have it ; for the Reafon I have now 
 given. 
 
 "^ He affirms that the Ufe of f acred Vef- 
 fels^ Ornaments for Altars^ VeftmLcnts for 
 Trieftsy Keliqties of the holy JpoftleSy and 
 MartyrSy as alfo fprinhling Churches with 
 holy Water^ all praftis'd in St. Gregory* s 
 Time, is as plain Topery as ecer was 
 praUis'd. Indeed ? Has the Church of JS;/- 
 gland at prefent no jacred Vejfels^ Orna- 
 ments for Altars^ or Veftmcnts for Trie ft si 
 As for Reliques y an innocent and pious Ufe 
 
 * P. 116. 117. 
 
 P was 
 
S!o An A NSWER fa a Toftfi Book^ 
 
 was made of them at firft : But it began to 
 degenerate into Superilition long before Gre-- 
 gorys Time ^ and /;/ his Time, That Super- 
 ftition was come to a confiderable Height : 
 Concerning which I refer to the ifl: and 2d 
 Propofitions. But of WorJJjip:, or Jdoratmi^ 
 paid to them even in his Time^ there is no 
 Appearance \ nor has This Author given 
 us the leaft Proof of an)^ fuch Thing. 
 
 The Ufc of Wate)\ to fpr 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 Stiperfiitioii 
 mixM with it : If there was ^ I refer to the firft 
 and fccond Propofitions, as before. Certain 
 it is, there was no fuch Holy Water in Thofe 
 l)ays5 as there is in Ours : No fuch Verttiej 
 or Effxacy^ afcrib'd to any Water Then, as 
 there is Now. Here again therefore our 
 Author only plays with a Word ; 'Tis Quib- 
 bhng, not Arguing. It is further to be no- 
 ted upon the Words 31afs^ Holy-Water^ 
 &c. as us'd by 'Bede^ that He wrote his Hif- 
 tory 1 00 Years after Gregorys^ and Aufiins 
 Time ,• when Superftition had made greater 
 Advances: And therefore it does not follow 
 that he us'd fuch Words in the fame Senfe 
 us They did, if ever They us'd them at all. 
 Calling Churches by the Names oi %2A\\X.Sy 
 is not the fame as Confecrating^ or T}edica^ 
 ting Churches to them : Nor is placing Re- 
 
 liques 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 211 
 
 liqites 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 TiUures^ more 
 at large prefcntly. f Turgatory^ and a Mid- 
 dle State of Souls^ are not all one ; as He 
 fallacioufly fuppofes. However^ We grant 
 Pope Gregory believ'd a Purgatory j and in- 
 fill, as we well may, becaufe we have often 
 prov'd it, that He was erroneous in fuch his 
 Belief. Prop. IL Aid it is to he chferd'd 
 (fays He +) that Acrius, and Vigilantius, were 
 condemned by the Church as Hereticks^ in 
 the ^th Jge^ about 200 Tears before ^^ Gre- 
 gory ; the one for oppofing the T)oUrine of 
 Purgatory ; and the other for holding that 
 all Trayers made to Saints deceasa were 
 fruitlefs and ^vain^ that no honour was to be , 
 paid to them^ and that to give any refpeUto 
 their Relicks was downright Idolatry, "lis 
 therefore plain that thefe three Jrticles con- 
 cer?2ing Turgatory^ invoking the Saints^ and 
 paying a religious RefpeU to their Reliques^y 
 were Therms of Communion in St. Gregory s 
 "time ,• fince the Tenets contrary to them had 
 been condemn d as Hereftes long before. . How 
 were Thofe Men condemn d by xho Church 
 as Hereticks? Were they condemn dy and 
 declared Hereticks by any Council ? One ot 
 
 ♦ p. 117. t /^'V. ^ Ihld> 
 
 p i them. 
 
ill An Answer to a Topifh ^ook^ 
 
 them, Jerms^ is "^ faid indeed to have taught 
 Heretical, as well as Schifmatical, Doctrines ; 
 but I never heard that his Denial of Ttirga- 
 tory was one of Them. He condemn d pray- 
 ing for the T>ead^ I confefs ^ and, by the 
 way, I do not find that even This was 
 deem'd Herejy ; tho' it was Contradiding 
 one general Opinion and Pradice of the 
 Church : But Trayersfor the T)ead as Then 
 us'd had no Relation to Tiirgatory. Of Vi- 
 gilantiufs Opinion we know nothing, but 
 what St. Jerom has told us. t About pray- 
 ing to Saints he fays not one Word ; He fays 
 indeed, in Anfwer to Vigilantius^ that the 
 Saints pray/(9r us j but This does not prove 
 that We are to pray to them. And if our 
 Author can prove that to condemn fticb 
 graying was efteem'd Herefy by the Church 
 about St. Jerom s time, or any Time before it ; 
 I will yield the Caufe to him. The Truth 
 of the Matter is; Vigilantitis condemn'd 
 fuch Honour 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 
 Zeal, and Severity, as if he had deny'd the 
 Refurredion. Yet in all That Sharpnefs, and 
 
 * St. Auguft. de Haeicfibus. Hasr. 55. t Epift. ad 
 Ripaiium ; una cum Traflatu proximc fequenti adverfus 
 Vigilaniium. Tom. 2, P.. i20» Edit. Froben. 
 
 Fervency 
 
Entitled^ England^ s Cony erJion^Scc. ai^ 
 
 Fervency of Contradidion^ which is apt to 
 carry Men into the other Extreme^ He is fo 
 far from favouring any Worflnp^ or Adora- 
 tion of Saints, or their Reliques ; that He 
 protefts againft it in the cleared, and ftrong- 
 eft ExpreSions. "^ We are are fo far from 
 *^ worfliipping, or adoring the Reliques of 
 ^^ the Martyrs ; that we do not worlhip the 
 *^ Sun, nor the Moon, nor Angels, nor 
 " Archangels, (yc. We honour the Reliques 
 ^^ of the Martyrs; that we may adore 
 ^^ Him, whofe Martyrs they are. " I know 
 our Author will tell us. This is the very 
 Refped T^hey pay to Reliques ; They only 
 honour them, but do not worjhip them# 
 And This fhall be anfvver'd, when we come 
 to Images^ and Ti^iires, It may here be 
 further obferv'd, that St, Jerom in This E- 
 piftle takes notice of Vtgilantms\ not being 
 fo much as cenjurd by his own ^ifhop: 
 Much lefs was He then condemned by the 
 Churchy is an Heretick. From what has 
 been faid it appears that Thofe Words 
 of our Author, 'T'is therefore plain 
 that thefe three Articles^ &c. to the 
 End of the Paffage laft cited, either 
 
 * NojS autem non dico Martyrum rel;<]nias, Ccd ne folem 
 
 quidem, et lunam, non Angelos, non Aiclianjrclos coli- 
 
 mos, et adoramus. Honoramus autem relicjuias Martyrum ; 
 «t cum, cujus fu nt Marty res, adoremuii. Hieron% adverj'us Vi- 
 gilant, uhi fupra, 
 
 P 3 pro* 
 
014 An Answer to a (Popi/h Bool^ 
 
 proceeded from fhameful Ignorance, or 
 are fhamefully fraudulent, and collufive. 
 Vtirgatoy was not deny'd by Jerhis; 
 nor Inmking the Saints^ nov worflnpping Re- 
 liqztesy or (if you pleafe) Paying fnch a reli- 
 giotis RefpeU to them as xhQ prefeitt Tapifts 
 do, condemn'd by Vigil ant his : Becaufe there 
 were ..ofiich Doctrines, and Practices, in T^heir 
 time. Nor could our Author have urg'd a 
 more unlucky Evidence than This of Vigi^ 
 lantiiis : Becaufe while St Jerom inveighs 
 againfl Him, for decrying ftich an Honour as 
 was then paid to the dead "Bodies^ and 
 ^ombsy of the Martyrs ; He declares that 
 the Church in his Time did not worjhip them : 
 And fo This Inftance turns direftly agaiiiji 
 the Popifh Caufe. Farther ; According to 
 our Author's own Account, Vigilantius main- 
 tain'd that no Honour, m Refpeft, iliould 
 be paid to Saints, and their Reliques : And 
 from the Church's condemning TChis Doc- 
 trine as Heretical [tho' it never did fo] in- 
 fers that Paying a religious Rcfped was a 
 Term of Communion, ^c. Is there no Re- 
 fpeft, but religious Refped ? What a Con- 
 fequence is This ? 
 
 In the next Page "^ two In fiances are gi- 
 ven, as quoted from 'Baronius by Mr. CoU 
 lier-y of otiT Departure from the Religion 
 
 * P. iiS. 
 
 which 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ 8c6 115 
 
 which Jtijiin introduced : The one is, our 
 aboliihing the Movajiick Life j for Jiifrin 
 was a Monky and now We have no Monks : 
 The Other is our not making the fame Ufe 
 of the Crofsy and of our Sa'vioiirs TiUtire^ 
 as was made in his Time. Supj)ofing Both 
 were true ,• I hope Monkery is not ejjential 
 to Chriftianity^ or Churchjlnp i And if Jn- 
 Jiin^ and his Followers, made an Idolatrous 
 or even Siiperftitious Ufe of the Crojs^ and 
 our Swvioiirs T^iUure ; we are not bound to 
 do fo. But 2dly. Our Author fays nothing 
 to Mr. C^///^r'j Obfervation that the Church 
 of England has not declared againft the Mo^ 
 naflick Life in any of her Articles. To his 
 Obfervation^ * that the T>iJ]ohition of Jhhies 
 here was an JU of the State^ not of the 
 Church J that it was prior to the Keforma^ 
 tion^ &c. He anlwcrs, that it was more pro- 
 perly an AU of the Church than of the State. 
 "BecaufeVifitingy 'Reformings andDiJfok'ivg 
 'Religious Hoiifes^ is mo ft certainly an Ex-' 
 ercife of Ecclefiafiical JurifdiUion. What 
 if it be? Cannot Ecclefiafrical Jurifdidion 
 he ufiirp'di" But befidcsj It is not an A6t 
 of Ecclefiaftical Jurifdidtion ^^r/c?/)' fo calFd : 
 Of which we fliali have Occafion to fay a 
 great deal, when the T/&/r^ Dialogue comes 
 under Confideration. Then likewife will oi 
 
 P 4 Courfc 
 
zi6 An Answer to a Topifh Book, 
 
 Courfe be anfwer'd what He here adds in 
 the next Words ^ ^ "Be fides that the T^i0o- 
 hition oj them was commanded hy K, Hen- 
 ry not as temporal Sovereign in his T)omi'' 
 nions^ hit as ]upre7ne Head of the Churchy 
 &c. At prefent I only obferve^ ift. That 
 whatever Tic did of 1 his Kind^ He did by 
 AU of Tarliament ; which I think belongs 
 to the Sta^e^ not to the Church. 2dly. Sup- 
 pofing all This had been done by the 
 Church ; ftiil 'twas a TopiJI) Church : Po- 
 pifh in all Refpefts, except That of acknow- 
 ledging the Topc\s Supremacy. Our Author's 
 faying that t T^^his E:>:i:cption fpoils ally is 
 extremely Trifling. For :io Man (adds He) 
 was ez^er acknowledged to he a Member of 
 the Church ^/'Rome, "jsho deny d the Tropes 
 Supremacy. Well, be it fo : vVe do not fay 
 They were Members of tiie Church of ^ome ^ 
 but They profefs'd the Kcligion of the 
 Church of Kome in all other Refpedls. 
 They w^ere not Trotcftants therefore : They 
 were Papifts in every Inftance, but one; and 
 not only fo^ but zealous for That Religion* 
 * Neither (fays He) was the T>iJfohition of Ah^ 
 hies 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 VL and J^t^een Elizabeth. 
 
 So 
 
Entitled^Enghn(X*s Conver/ion^Scc. itj 
 
 So he might very well mean j and You your- 
 felf in effeft own he might. P. 25 1^ 252. 
 Of which hereafter, in the l^hird dialogue. 
 There aifo, in Anfwer to what the Bifhop 
 of Meaux difcourfes, Ihall be confider'd what 
 our Author Here lays down, as a Pofition of 
 undoubted Truth; That difcarding the 
 ¥ope^ and veiling the fprhnai Supremacy 
 in the Crown^ was not only a Tart^ but 
 the very capital "Branchy of the Refor- 
 mation. 
 
 His whole DIfcourfe about the Crofs^ /- 
 mages^ and the TiUure of Chrifi^ is Nothing 
 but a Repetition of the well known Popifli 
 Shuffdng upon the Words Ho7tour:, RejpeU^ 
 Worjhip^ Idolatry^ &c. "^ I am glad (fays 
 
 the Young Gentleman) that the Church 
 
 (?/ England has a great Regard to the Crofs^ 
 
 and TiUttre of our Saviour. However 
 
 the Nakednefs of Troteftant Churches feems 
 to [peak another Language. For 1 have jeen 
 indeed the TiUures of Mofes, and Aaron in 
 fome of them 'y hut never found a Crucifix, or 
 ViUure of our Saviour in any. So have I 
 found Both : They are Both to be fecn in 
 fome Proteftant Churches ,- if the Pidure 
 of our Saviour upon the Crofs may be call'd 
 a Crucifix. Not that it would be any great 
 Refledion upon us, if all he fays were true - 
 
 * P. 120. 
 
 and 
 
2i8 An Answer to a Topi/h Boo}^ 
 
 and if fome of our Churches were in This 
 refpecft 7mre naked than They are. He 
 takes it for granted^ that the innumerable 
 Images, Pictures, Crucifixes, and other Ke- 
 ligiotis Furmmre^vJith 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 procey than to fitppofe. "^ No better fnp- 
 ported is the Preceptors Affertion, That it 
 Tjoas the "Pr del ice of Chrijiians ahd've 1400 
 Tears ago to blefs themfelves^ upon all occa- 
 fi07iSy with the Sign of the Crofs. Nor docs 
 the Paffage fo often cited from Tertttlliaiiy 
 deCorona^ C. 3. in the lead prove it. From 
 thence indeed it appears that they tisd 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- 
 iion, as a Mark of Diftindtion, to fliew that 
 they glory d in the Crofs^ while they liv'd 
 among Heathens who defpisd it ; Not a 
 Word about blejfmg themfehes with it, or 
 their placing fo much Vertue^ and Ffficacy 
 in it, as Papifts do at prefent. 
 
 But now for the WorJInp of the Crofs^ 
 our Saviour s PiBure, and other Images : 
 To which I add Reliqiies ; the Fvafions of 
 pur Adverf^ries being the fame as to all of 
 
 them.' 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ &c. a r 9 
 
 t hem. If (^ fays the Preceptor) he means 
 to injiniiate that We pay Idolatrous Worjlnp 
 to hnages^ andTiUures ; He wrongs 71s moji 
 gricvoujly^ and I fear his own Confcience in-- 
 to the Hargain. For a Man of his Learn- 
 ing cannot he ignorant^ what our tnie^ and 
 real T)oBri7ic 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^hemfekes arc 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 Perfons underftand Theirs : But what 
 is This to the Doctrine of the Gtnerality ? If 
 This G^uitieman, and Others, be not for 
 Woijhipping^ but only Honouring ,- many of 
 their greateft Men have declar'd them- 
 felvcs on the concrary Side. Thomas Aqiii-- 
 nas determines pofitively, that the jarne 
 'Keocrence is to be paid to the Image of 
 Chrift as to Chrijl himfelf j and that the 
 Image is to be ador'd with Latria , which, 
 according to their own Account, is the high- 
 eft Sort of Worfhipping ^ and greater cai;inot 
 be paid to God. The fame he fays of the 
 Crofs^, in the very next Article. To omit 
 
 * p. 1 21. I -equitiir quod eadem rcvercntia exhiScatur 
 imagini Chrifti et ipfi Chnfto. Cum ergo Chrifius adorctii^, 
 adoratione latria;, conrequens eft qrjod ejtis imago i\t adoia- 
 lione latrias adoranda, 3. Q^ 25. Attic 3. 
 
 JicnO'' 
 
iio An Answer to a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 Sonatrjiturey Capreohsy Caftro^ ^ Canifms^ 
 TurriamiSy and many more (^ Vafqnez reck- 
 ons thirty, and adds himlelf to the Number) 
 the great ^JBellarmine t will have Images 
 worfliipped not only upon Account of the 
 Prototype, or Thing fignify'd, but for their 
 own Sakes ; fo that the Worfhip may be 
 terminated in the Image. Nay, the Crofs 
 itfelf is invoUd^ and prayd to in the Paflion- 
 Hymn. Thomas Aquinas makes This a Me^- 
 dium to prove that the Worihip of Latria is 
 due to it. * He argues. " To That in which 
 '^ we place the Hope of our Salvation We 
 ^^ pay the Worihip of Latria : But We place 
 ^' the Hope of our Salvation in the Crofs ; 
 " For Thus the Church fings; Crofs^ 
 '' our only Hope^ hail^ in This "Time of the 
 ^^ Taffion^ increafe the righteoufnefs of the 
 " .7^7^5 cindgit^e Pardon to the Accusd^ or 
 ^^ Guilty. Therefore the Crofs is to be a- 
 " dor'd with Latria. '' An admirable Argu- 
 ment / And I lliall not go about to difprove 
 it. I only ask, does not the Church ftng the 
 fame Song ftill ? I never heard ihe had left 
 
 ♦ See Tnrrctin. Inftitut. Vol. %* P. 5f. Nay He {Vaf- 
 quez) infifts upon it thai ar*y inanimate Thingwhatfoever may 
 be ador'd 'with Latria. t Li^ do Imag. Chap. 21. apud 
 eund. Turret. + Illi exhibemus latrix cultum in quo po- 
 nimos fpcm falutis; fed in crucc Chrifti ponimus fpem falutis : 
 Cantat enim ficclefia ; O Crnx ave, fpes nnica, hoc paflionis 
 tempore, ange piis juftitiam, reisque dona veniam. Ergo crox 
 Chri(H eft adoranda adoratione latrise. 3 Q. 25. Arc. 4. 
 
 it 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converjion^ 8cc, iir 
 
 it off: Or if flie will fay fhe has \ We have 
 as good an Anfwcr 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 
 Crofsi The Quire anfvvers,- 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 diftingiiijl^ d from 
 the Other, t T^hoti only wert worthy to hear 
 the Ttir chafe of the World: i. e. Chrift. 
 
 Not but that take it how you will^ the Trac* 
 tice we are confidering is totally and abfolute- 
 \y forbidden. Call it Worfjip. Honour^ Refpe^y 
 what you pleafe^ nay, declare in the moft fo- 
 lemn manner that it is not Wor/Ijip^ but jR^- 
 fpeU ; ftill it is a Religious Refpedt : Our Au- 
 thor himfelffeveral times ftiles it fo. And all 
 Religious Refpefts, directed to^ or towardsy 
 Images, are utterly unlawful. We are forbid- 
 den to how down to^ or hejore^ them. II Do not 
 ^apifis bow down to^ or before^ them ? We are 
 forbidden to ferine them : fo even T>tdia is cut 
 
 * Ecce VipYium Crucis. Chor- Venitey adoremus- Tnrret, abi 
 fupra t ^^^^ digna fuifti fcrre pretiiim fcctiii- Ibid. J( For t^ 
 them, and before them, figni fy the fame. 5ce txod. 20. 5 
 compar'd with 2 Chron. 25. 14. In the original Hebrew 
 it is more plain. 
 
 off. 
 
^11 An Answer to a Topi/h ^ooh, 
 
 off. We are forbidden even to make them^ or 
 hav^e them^ /. e. for any ReUgiotis Purpofe. 
 They will fay. This is not Idolatry : Admit 
 it; For tho' 1 am far from granting it, 
 1 will not cavil about That Word neither ; 
 All this while \\s forbidden ; 'Tis a Sin^ w^he- 
 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 ; and That too not only 
 againft particular Perfons, as above, but a- 
 gainft the Church of Kome herfelf. For be- 
 iide^ her pnhlick T)emtions juft now cited, to 
 which might be added a Multitude more, 
 containing rank Idolatry^ and ^lafphemy^ 
 if there be fuch Things in Nature ^ our Au- 
 thor, as well he may, refers us, for her 
 true Senfe, to Pope Tiiiss Creed, and the 
 Council of T*rcnt. That Council refers us 
 to the 2d Council of ISlice^ "^ which in joins 
 Jdofation oi Images^ in the ftrongeft Terms ; 
 and anathematizes Thofe who fo much as 
 doiiht concerning it. And when Some de- 
 fir'd that the Word Adore^ which feem'd too 
 harili, might be changed for Venerate^ which 
 founded fofter; the Council pronounced Them 
 Hypocrites who would profefs to venerate 
 Images, yet not adore them ; and declared 
 them guilty cf remling the Saints. Now 
 
 * 5ee Turret, p. jS 
 
 the 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ &c. -2 a ^ 
 
 the Council of T'rent appealing to This of 
 Nicc^ and explaining its own Meaning by it, 
 nianifeftly declares, and enadis the very fame 
 Thing. Or to return, and put it upon the 
 other Suppofition, the. lower ^ andfofter Scnfe i 
 If the Religmts RefpcU^ as our Author calls 
 it, which even He, and Thofe of his Opi- 
 nion, pay to Images y be not Worjloipping theniy 
 there is no fuch Thing as WorJIoipping them 
 at all s (for Nobody was ever fottiili enough 
 to woriliip any Image as God) And This 
 makes Nonfenfe of the fecond Command- 
 ment ; and That is Blafphemy. The Main of 
 what has been now faid about Images may 
 be apply'd to Keliques, They how^ and 
 hieel down to them ; They kifs them in* a 
 religious \vx^ 'y They pray before them ^ Nay, 
 they fwear hy them ; which \%flat Idolatry. 
 Or if they reply, it is not ^ Let them for 
 Argument's fake, as Before about Images, 
 enjoy their Saying; It is unlawful^ and a 
 damnable Sin^ whatever Name it is call'd 
 by. 
 
 At beft j their moft learned Men are di- 
 cided in their Opinions concerning the Sciife 
 of this Religious RefpeU. What flball the 
 Ignorant^ and Illiterate do ? 'Tis plain 
 They give all the outward Signs of Jdo- 
 ration to thefe I'hings^ that they can give 
 to God himfelf. Can they, when they 
 outwardly do what God has forbidden, 
 be fccur d from inward Idolatry, or feme 
 
 Sin 
 
aa4. ^^ Answer f^^ TopfhBoolz^ 
 
 Sin of That Kind -, by vertue of thofe Refine- 
 ments^ Niceties^ and T)iftinUions^ which 
 they never heard of; or, if they did, can no 
 more underjiand^ than they do the Coptic 
 Language; and concerning which their j?r(?- 
 foundejt T)oUors are not agreed i 
 
 I think I have taken effectual Care to bring 
 This Matter to a plain IJJiie ; avoiding That 
 Peft of Jrgtiingy and almoft of Common 
 Senfe, Wrangling about Words. If, when we 
 fee thefe Men kneel^ hom^ kifs^ and the like. 
 They will tell us we are mifiaken^ and that 
 it is not properly-, Kneeling, Bowing, and 
 Kifling ; then, I confefs, a new-^ and noble 
 Scene of Controverfy is opened : And 'twill 
 be time enough to difcufs it, when it comes 
 before us. In the mean while ; let them call 
 This Bowing, Kneeling, and KifTmg, in a 
 religmis way too, (for fo they all agree it 
 is) let them call it, I fay, by the Name of 
 Worlhip, Adoration, Veneration, Honour, 
 Cult, Refpeft, or whatever elfe they pleafe : 
 Still it is contrary to the exprefs Commands 
 of God, and his Vengeance is denounc d up- 
 on Thofe who break them* 
 
 But, as Papifts manage the Difpute, the 
 Queftion is not, whether T'hey worjhip Ima- 
 ges ; but whether there can he 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 KefpeU 
 for the holy Scriptures \ The fame may be 
 
 faid 
 
Enthledy Enghnd's ConverJion^Scc. 71^ 
 
 faid of their Diftindions (for they are in of- 
 fed; the fame) about the Worfliip of Saint5, 
 and Angels. According to which Method 
 of Proceeding, /. e. interpreting the plaincft 
 Words contrary to their plaineft Meaning, 
 one may diftinguiili away ail the Ten Com- 
 mandments, all the Precepts of the old 
 and new Teftament^ all the Laws of God^ 
 and Man. 
 
 Jnd as it is thus flated (fays He) It has 
 heen a Term of Comraimion ez'er Jince the 
 Manichees he^an to JJjew themfehes profcfs'd 
 ILncynies of holy TiUnres ,• that is^ jhne A- 
 ges before St. Gregory's tiiiie. This is to 
 teach us two Things, ift. That to deny 
 Image-Worfhip is a Part of the Manicha- 
 an Herefy. 2dly. That Image-Worlliip ob- 
 tain'd in the Church fome Ages before St. 
 Gregorys Time. Both w^hich are grofs and 
 moft impudent Falflioods. I add, the firft 
 of them is a moft iivpiotis^ as well as impu- 
 dent one. Good God! That to oppofc a 
 Pradicc which the divine Law^ forbids in 
 the plaineft Words that can be devis'd 
 fhould by any Chr^ftian be call'd a Part of 
 the moft filthy, deteftable, diabolical Com- 
 plication of Herelies that ever appeared in 
 the World ! What if the Manichees were 
 Hiiemies to fttch 'FiUnres as he calls holy ? 
 The Devil himfelf may fpeak Jome Truth. 
 The Jews^ we grant, are at this Day a- 
 verfc from Image-Worfloip ^ but we will ne- 
 
 Q vcr 
 
^.iG An AnsVv^er to a Toftjh Bool^ 
 
 ver grant that therefore it is Jtidaifm to bo 
 fo. T^hey acknowledge the C3ld Teftament^ 
 niuft We therefore deny it ^ This Author 
 fureiy will not fay that every thing is Tro- 
 teftdntijm w hicli Troteftaiits hold j any 
 more than We fay that every thing is 
 Topery which Tapifts hold. But I am a- 
 fhanf dof 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 liifiory:, that the Manichees^ 
 in any Age, were profefsd 'Enemies to holy 
 IHjtires^ as He calls them. And if He fays 
 I wrong him, becaufc he does not affirm that 
 'tis Manichaiira to oppofe them ^ I ask 
 ift. Whether he does not affirm that the 
 Manicbecs were profcfs'd Enemies to them ? 
 2dly. Vv^hethcr he does not confider the 3/^- 
 nichees as Manicbecs -, or reckon This as 
 one of THEIR Errors ^ And 3dly. whether 
 every Error of the Manicbecs^ as fitcb^ be 
 not Manicbdijfm ^ If to the fecond Queftion 
 he anfwers. No ; I ask once more, to what 
 purpofe all This was brought in, unlefs it 
 were ad conflandmn Invidiam^ and to infi- 
 miate^X icaftthe ungodly Scandal aforcfaid ? 
 He proceed^. "^ I dare tberefore ccnfJently 
 ajjttre Mr. Collier;, that be may with the 
 
 p. 121, 122. 
 
 famC' 
 
Entitled^ Engliind's Converfion^ 8cc. 2ij 
 
 fame fafety of CGnfcicnce carry his Refpecls 
 for ihoje pious Ohjeuls [Images] to the 
 Lengths of the Church of Rome, as he kif- 
 fQ<^ the Bible, or bows to the Communion- 
 Table, or to the venerable Name of Jejus : 
 Or fin ally J as he keeps holy Days in Ho- 
 noiir r/ Saints departed. I anfwer ; Neither 
 the jBihlcy nor tlie CommtmiGfi-T ahle^ nor 
 the Name of Jefus^ nor a Holy-'Day^ is an 
 Image : Bowing to Images is forbidden in 
 Scripture, and was ever by all Mankind^ 
 in all JgeSj deem'd worfloipping them, or 
 paying religions Honour to them, "lowing 
 to the Commiinio7i-T. able is not forbidden ; 
 nor can it in the common Language, and 
 Senfe of Mankind, be calFd worJJjipping it : 
 Tho', by the Way, we do not fo properly 
 bow to the Co7n7nnnion-T ahle^ as towards 
 the Eaft ; which is founded upon an antient 
 Cuftom, univerfally praftis'd in the pri- 
 mitive Church : Not that 'tis enjoin'd 
 by our Church ; Or if it were, 'tis a Cere- 
 mony^ and nothing elfe. Bowing to^ or ra- 
 ther aty the Name of Jefiis is not only not 
 forbidden, but in effedt commanded. Kij- 
 fing the iiihle is only the Tor7n 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 ■CA.gr at efdlono to their Me77tories : And 
 that we worfjip the 1)ays thcmfelves, I 
 hope Nobody w'ill affirm ; Our religious Ho- 
 
 Q 2 nour 
 
2^% Jn ANSWER to a Toptfh (Boolj 
 
 tiouv upon Thofe Days, as well as others^ 
 is paid to God only. '^ All 'which (continues 
 He) are nndoiihtedly religious RefpeBs, as 
 being paid upon a religious Moti^ey and ul- 
 timately referred to God himfelf. If by 
 religions Kefpects 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^ as by the Word paid he 
 feem's to do ; I deny it, for the Reafons juft 
 mention'd. Thofe Words idtimately referrd 
 to God himfelfy are fallacious and delufive^ 
 and manifeftly defign'd to infinuate an Un- 
 truth in Fa6t, mz. That they are by Us at 
 all referred, as Religious Honours, to any 
 other Being, t And of This nature^ He 
 adds, was the Religious T>e<votion which 
 St. Auftin, a7td his Company paid to the 
 Crofs^ and TiUure of our Samour , when it 
 was carry d as a "Banner before them. I an- 
 fwer^ there is no Hint that they paid it 
 an^ religious Devotion at all. They did 
 not how to it, or proftrate themfelves before 
 it, as Papifts do now. But of This more 
 in what follovv's. \ lis t^ery true indeed^ 
 there is rot the leafi hitimation in Bede 
 that they worJJoipped^ it. And God forbid 
 there foould he any fuch Intimation s if by 
 
 . the 
 
Entitled^ EnglandV Converjion^ 8cc. z 2 9 
 
 tbe JPord Werjfnp {the AMmovov^ fi^nifca" 
 tion whereof is of wonderful nfe to Protes- 
 tants in This Co7itroc'erly)hQ mocxnx, pay- 
 ing divine Honours to it : 'I his indeed is not 
 intimated hy Bede, This I have abundant- 
 ly anfwerd already^ and iliewn that the 
 ambigtiotts fignification of the Word JVorfjip 
 Is of fingular Ufe to Tapifis^ not Trotejiants. 
 But That Parenthefis is another Specimen of 
 our Author's Modelty. Who proceeds Thus. 
 ^ "But the Kelation of the z^ery FaU before 
 ns^ is more than a bare Intimation that they 
 paid a Religious Devotion to it : This beifig 
 wholly infeparable 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 RefpeU to the Crofs, 
 Piilures, and Images, but religions T)e-vo- 
 tion : For T)evotion is fomething more than 
 Refpecl. 2d]y. Why muft their walking tip 
 to YAngEthelbert in d. folemn manner^ with 
 the Crojs before them, be cali'd a religious 
 Troceffiony 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 TroceJJion, For 3dly. If 
 carrying the Crofs as a Banner gave it the 
 Nature of a Religious ProcciTion ^ then Con- 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 Q .9 fiantm 
 
250 An An SWER to a (popi/h Book^ 
 
 Jtanthw the Great, whenever He march' d 
 his Jnnj'y after He became a Chriftian, made 
 a religious Troceffion likewife. But He en- 
 forces his Argument. ^ For I presume Mr. 
 Collier will not deny that when in our fo- 
 lemn Troce[fions abroad^ we ha^ve the Crofsy 
 and the 'Keliqiics^ and TiUtires of Saints 
 carry d before ns^ we intend to pay a religious 
 Honour to'emby fo doing. And fo did without 
 allT>ifpute St. Auftin andhis Company -^ who 
 hy their own Example i7itroduced^I hat Form 
 of T>e'VOtion into This If] and* I grant the 
 Firft, and deny the Second. Papifts cer- 
 tainly pay religious Honour to thofe Things ^ 
 and would therefore own they worJJjip them^ 
 were not the ambiguous Signification of 
 That Word of great Ufe to them. This I 
 not only grant, but have above infifled upon^ 
 to Ihew the vile Shuffling of This Writer in 
 playing with the ambiguous Signification of 
 Words, and by vertue of That fometimes 
 a^^rming^ and fometimes denying the very 
 fame thing ; according as his "Furn is beft 
 fer^Jd by either. But that St. Auflin and 
 his Company paid fuch Honour to the Crofs 
 and Pifture^ we have not the leaft Evidence -^ 
 unle fs it be our kMX\\ox\without allF>ifpute^ 
 and fo forth. 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 ^ 'But 
 
Entitled^ Englmid'^sConverfionj &:c. 2 5 i 
 
 * Silt fuppofe they had pro^rated them- 
 fehes before the CroTs^ or V'.'cinre of Chrijf^ 
 or how d down to it-, and kijsd it^ 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 'Bible j^nA the Co7nmimion-Tahle -^ys'i'di the 
 Addition of fomething concerning our Sacra- 
 7ncntal "breads and Wine : t To which wo 
 do not pay any religious lionotir.ov 'RcjpeUy 
 by kneeling down before thern -, As he very 
 well knows, or may know if ho pleaf^3s ; Our 
 Church having fafficiently declared herjelf 
 upon That Subjed. 
 
 Pope Gregory 1. was fo far from fending 
 Image-Worfhip into 'England , that he ex- 
 prefly condemns it, in his two Letters to 
 Sereims^ Bifhop of Marjeillcs. For notwith- 
 {landing the Jhameful E^jaficns of our Au-^ 
 thor, the plain Fad Vv^as This. Iraages (xni. 
 Pidures having fbme time before been intro- 
 duced into Churches, the People of Mar- 
 feilles began to worfhip them , I nican, to 
 hieel^ how^ and profirate themfeives, before 
 them. Upon which, the good Bifliop pull'd 
 them down, and broke them to pieces. 
 Gregory commends his Zeal for hindering the 
 Worfhip of them j but difapprovcs of his 
 
 (X 4 breaking 
 
a 5^ An Answer to a Tofi[lo Book^ 
 
 lre<^l^iug them; becaufe he thought they 
 might in fome mcafure fupply the Want o£ 
 Jiooks to the poor People who could not read. 
 His Difapprobation even Thus far is in very 
 gentle Terms : * But as for the Jdoration 
 of them, he frequently declares againft it 
 in the ftrongelt Exprcflions. To This what 
 fays our Author ? 
 
 t P. Si]\ Tope Gregory writes nothing 
 in T^hat Letter hut what ecery Roman Ca- 
 tholick in the Wo7id will fiihfcrihe to. That 
 is, Tlicy will dotihle^ and prevaricate^ and 
 quibble upon the Words Worjhip^ Honour^ 
 and KcfpcU as Before ^ and interpret Pope 
 Gregory^ as They do the Scriptures. II ^he 
 people at Marfeilles had effectually carry d 
 their l^-e^Gtion to the Tictures hung up in 
 their Churches ecen to a criminal Excefs, 
 as St, Gregory calls it. Which ^ by the hy^ 
 
 is AT LEAST AN UNANSWERABLE PrOOF-, 
 
 that holy Images and Pictures were not only 
 Izept in Churches ^ but a religious Honour 
 was paid to them long before that Time. 
 For Tecple do not ufually come to Exces- 
 ses all on a fuddcn ,• but pafs gradually^ and 
 ' by Steps^f)o7n the moderate life ofllmigs to 
 (171 Jbuje cf them^ when that happens to bo 
 
 * 5cd frangcrc easdcm imagines non debiiifle judicamus. 
 .. »- — Ti^a iginn- fratcrnitas et illas fcrvare, et ab earrm 
 adoratu popilnm prohiberc, dsbiiir. Lib, VII. Epiil. 
 |p^. I Void, |J Ih'id, 
 
 the 
 
Entltled^EDglamVs Converfion^Scc.i^^ 
 
 the Cafe. Would not one think now, by, 
 This formal Argumentation, that Gregory 
 really 'ays^ what he is here reprefented to 
 fay ? A crhnmal Excefs^ as St. Gregory 
 calls it ! Teople do not tifually come to ExceJ^ 
 
 fes >- Whereas there is not one Word iii 
 
 Gregory^ about criminal Excefs^ or any 
 thing like it. He fuppofes Trojiration to 
 imply Adoration^ and the Adoration of a 
 Pidure to be a Sin ; "^ Abfolutely forbids all 
 forts of Worfhip to Images, and Pidures ; 
 t all Sorts of Creatnre-Worflnp whatfoever : 
 and quotes Luke IV. 8. for That purpofe. 
 J In another Quotation, II Thofe Words 
 ^"^ And our Worflnp at the fame time he all 
 ^"^ of it refer'd to God^ and directed to 
 ^' the Holy l^rinity^ " are wrong tranflated. 
 Gregory fays, + and that they may proftratc 
 themfehcs in adoring the holy omnipoteyit 
 trinity only. Everybody knows the Ufe 
 which Papifts make of the Word referrd 
 upon the Subjed of Image- Wordiip : The 
 Diftindion of direU and indireU^ idtiynate 
 
 * In adoratione profternantur. Lib. \x, Epift. 9. Et po- 
 pulus in adorarc Pifturs minirac peccarcc. Lib. vii Ep. 
 lof. f Adorare vcm imagines omnibus'modis dcvita- 
 
 Vq\^. Frangi vcro non dcbuit, quod non ad adova7idum, fed ad 
 inftrucndas folummndo Mcntes ncfcienticim fiiit co.'iocatum. 
 Ibid. rf: (Yum omne Manufaftum adorare non liccat ; qi^o- 
 niam fcriprum eft, Dominum ttmm Deum ador,'his, ci lUi foil 
 fervies. Ibid. || P. j 24. :f: Er in adcationG foliusomni- 
 potentis San£laB Trinitatis humilitcr pioflcrnanuir. Lib. 
 >x. Epift. 9. 
 
 and 
 
2? 4 ^'^ Answer to a Tofifh Bool^ 
 
 and fuhordinate^ turns upon it, ♦Whereas 
 St. Gregory fays pofitively that the Trinity 
 only is to be adord , not a Syllable about re- 
 ference^ or any fuch thing. In the fame Paf- 
 fage, the Tranflation has it ; Talie care that 
 nothing madehy them [Statuaries, and Pain- 
 ters] may he honour'd to Adoration. 
 As if They might be honour d fhort 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 ; A'void the Adoration of Images 
 BY ALL Means, or Ways. And 1 hope thofe 
 Words, which I have above cited too in the 
 Original Language, Tlacd in Churches not 
 for Adoration^ but only/^^ Inftniciion^ are 
 utterly exclufive of all Adoration^ Honour^ 
 'Kejpe'ct^ or what You pleafe , of all Sorts^ 
 and T)egrees^ of Keligious Regard whatfoe- 
 ver ; in fliort, of every things but InftniUion 
 only. Our Author tlierefore might have 
 been afliam'd to reproach Mr. Collier^ and 
 Others, for applying what Gregory fays of 
 the People of Marfeilks to the prefent 
 Church of Vs-omc, I heartily pray God 
 (^ fays He) to forgive Him^ and his 'Bre- 
 thren^ the Injtifiice they cofitinually do ns in 
 their Mifreprefentations of our T>oUrine. 
 
 p. 124. 
 
 What? 
 
£wr^V/f(^^England^' Converfion^ Sec. 2^5 
 
 What ? Arc wc to have the old Story over 
 again,^ about J "Papiji mifreprefcntcd^ and 
 reprefcntcd ? "^ Or do we want a new Mon- 
 iieur de Meaux^ to obHgc us with another 
 Expojition of the T>oUrine of the Ca- 
 t ho lick Chnrch ? f Such an Account has 
 been long fince given of Tliat matter; as 
 to ftiew, to the everlafting Infamy of 
 Thefe Men^ that no Perfons upon Earth 
 can be more guilty of Mifreprefentationy 
 than Papifts when they complain of being 
 mifreprefented. 
 
 To give the Reader a thorough Notion 
 of their Sincerity and Modejiy upon This 
 Article ^ I will produce a remarkable Paffagc 
 from the Learned Jnfwerer of their Niihes 
 leftium j to whom I have elfewhere refer'd. 
 If the Romanijis do not worfiip Creatures^ 
 as they declare they do not^ tho' we fee they 
 do y one would " m wonder at the Index Ex- 
 " pitrgatorizis of the prefent Church of 
 " Ro7ne^ i which commands Solus "Detis 
 " Jdorandiis {God only is to he adord) to 
 " be flruck^ out of the Marginal Notes of 
 J liimfrediiss Latin T'ranlJation and Edit ion 
 
 * ?€e£everal Pamphlets with that Tide, and the feveral 
 Anfwers to them, in the Years 1685, and j6S(>. 
 
 I i'ee a Pamplct fo call'd ? and an excellent Anfvvcr to it, 
 entituled, An Expofttion of the Vc^rine of the Church of En- 
 ,clxnd &c. with feveral Vindications of it. London Printed 
 for Richard Chi/well 1686,— -87.— 88. |( P. 83, C^c. :(: In- 
 dex L'lbror. Prohibit; & Expi^rgandorum, p. 234. Edit, Madij- 
 t 1 6(57; 
 
 of 
 
256 An Answer to a Tofi[h Bool^ 
 
 of St. Cyril of Alexandrids Comment 
 upon Efaias; "^ and out of the Margi-^ 
 nal Notes in Robert Stephens's "Bible print- 
 ed 1557. Sermendiim Soli T)eo ; t {that 
 we miift fer^ve God only ;) whereas both 
 thefe Tajfages are the ^^ery Words of our 
 Saviour himfelf^ Matthew 4. i o. I would 
 fain know of any Komanift^ how this is 
 ^^ not virtually and in effeB to command 
 that that Verfe in the Gofpel Ihould be 
 '' Jintck out ^ though /V contains (9f/r -fec/- 
 ^^ ours own exprejfions^ who fhould furely 
 '^ be allowed to underftand his own 'Keligion 
 ^^ as well as the Managers of tbe Index Ex- 
 l^ purgatorius. 
 
 '^ And for what relates to the Crofs it 
 '^ felf^ they have ^ ordered that non nt A- 
 " doremus {not that we Jlootild adore ir) 
 ^^ fliould be ftruck out o^MaJius his Learn- 
 ^^ ed Commentary w^on JoJIma 22.2%. Thefe 
 ^^ are things fo very notorious , that my won- 
 ^^ der increafeSj and 772y admiration at thofe 
 " Teople^ who (notwithftanding all this^ 
 " would fain have as believe, that they 
 " do not worfhip the Crofs it felf: When 
 ^' not only their T NT IF IC J L, and 
 '' their SER VICE on Good-friday, teach 
 ^^ and JJjew that they of the Church of Rome 
 
 * CynWm ex V€y[. HumficdJ Bafil. 15^5. p. ^5^. t /»" 
 
 dex E^c^urg, p. <J9, i hdex Exparg. p^ 47. col 2. 
 
 ^^ adore 
 
Entttled^Enghnd's Converfion^ &CCI17 
 
 ^^ adore the Crofs -, but their Index Expttr- 
 " gatorius is fo careful to ftrike out of the 
 '^ Indexes to the Fathers TVorks any thinz^ 
 " that doth but appear to thwart or contra- 
 " diU fuch worJJjip. 
 
 " If the Church of Kome doth not wor- 
 ^^ JJjip Images \ why is 7!?;^ fo careful to llrike 
 *^ out ^ of the ///^^^ to St. IIiero7ne fuch 
 " innocent parages as /y^^y^^ Adorare Statuas 
 ^^ ^'el Imagines^ Cultores T>ci non dehent ; 
 " the Worjhippers of God ought not to 
 " JT>ORE Statues or Images i Imago 
 ^^ una tantum ^eneranda^ One Ofily L- 
 " mage^ [to wit^ God the Son^ the exprefs 
 " Image of hisFather'\ is to he worjhipped? 
 " Why doth the poor Index fuffer here, and 
 ^^ not St. Hierome in whom t />5^<?y^ c'^rj 
 " Expreffiojis are> 
 
 " If the Church of jR^;;?^ give 7zf? Adora^ 
 ^^ tion to Saints or Aiigels ^ why doth Z?^r 
 ^^ /;z^^^ Exptirgatorius command ///rZ? ^af- 
 ^^ J ages as thej'e following to be ftruck out 
 " of * the 7;2^<^:^ to St. Athanajius\ Works > 
 " Adorari folius T>ei eft^ nullius autem ere- 
 " atura \ Adoration is to he paid to God 
 " alone^ and to no Creature with him ; Ajz- 
 
 geli non funt Adorandi^ Angels are not 
 
 cc 
 
 Vl 
 
 * Index Expitrv. /» 3I1. j Nos autem ttnum hahemui 
 
 rum^ & TJ N A M veneramur Ima^inem^ c^u^ ell inviJlbUh Qp 
 omnipoteyitis Dei, V. Hier. in Ezek. /. 4. c, 16, ^ Index. 
 KxpHrg' p. 52, 
 
 !' to 
 
a ^^8 An Answer r^ti Topi/Ij !Booh, 
 
 ^^ to he adored ; Creatnra nulla adoranda^ 
 *' nulla im'ocanda^ immo earn adorare Jri- 
 *^ a7tortt7n & Ethvicomm fa i No Creature 
 ^^ is to be adored or imvcatedy to adore 
 " which woidd he to play the Arian 
 '^ or the Tagan. I would fain know why 
 '^ the Index to his TVorks muft be d^alt fo 
 *^ fe'verely with^ while Jthanafms Imnfelf 
 ^^ is gtiilty (if there be any Crime in them) 
 *^ of e-tery ExpreOlon in the paffa^^es which 
 *^ are condemned by the Index Expttrgato^ 
 
 " nns. 
 
 cc 
 
 " Let any one look into St. J7iathafitiss 
 " third Oration agaitift the Arians^ and 
 " fli? may there find this Great Father 
 
 (jipon occafan of his mentioning St. John's 
 
 ofer to worflnp the Angel) fpeaking out 
 plainly enough^ that God alone is to he 
 " adored^ and that the Angels (fince they 
 " are but Creatures^ notwithfiandifig their 
 " Excellencies are in the niimher of Wor- 
 " Jlyipp^'^''^:> ^^^ ^f "^he worfloipp^d. In his 
 " Epiftle to "Bifhop Adelphius He himfelf 
 ^^ fays, (what the Index to him did but 
 " tranlcribe,) I'hat we do not adore any 
 
 Creature ; God forbid (fays the Good Fa-^ 
 
 cc 
 
 q!:^(rKm^ ^v r Ai'Trinv^ 1^* Atlianaf. Orat, 3. contra Ani^nx 
 t. 204. Mdiu Commel. 1^00. 
 
cc 
 
 cc 
 
 Entitled^ England'^* ConverJiofi^S^c. 239 
 
 ther '") tbat isoe Jlmild^ fincc this would 
 he the fame fin that the Avians and Pa- 
 gans are guilty of y hut we do adore the 
 ^^ Lord of the Creation^ the incarnate Word 
 " of God. 
 
 ^^ If the Church of Rome doth not adore 
 ^^ the Martyrs ^nd their Reliques^ why doth 
 her Index Expurgatorius ftrike out of the 
 Index to St, Hierome^ Ncn adorantur 
 Martyr es-^ Martyrs are not to he adored'^ 
 Adoramus Solum T>eum^ honoramtis Re- 
 Uqnias Martyrum ^ We adore God alone ^ 
 and honour only the Reliques of the 
 Martyrs? The Managers of the Index 
 Expurgatorius ought to have confider d, 
 that if there be any crime in thefe Taf- 
 fages^ St. Hieromc himfelf ought to an- 
 fwer for them; fince it was He that faid, 
 Chrijiians did not adore the Martyrs^ f 
 much lefs their Reliques. 
 ^' Either the prefent Writers of the Church 
 of Rome are not ferious and in earnefi 
 " w^ith usy or they think our eyes fhut, and 
 " that we do not fee fome of their Sooks : 
 " It is very vain to talk (as our Compiler 
 l^ doth) of refpeU only and honour to Saints 
 
 ^r &i^ Ao^v (Zffi^ffxwi^^S^ r>.Athan.£/;. rt-^y Adciph-/). 531. 
 
 t J^^/i fw/w, O hifanum caput ^ aUqtia7ido MartjYns ado- 
 raiit, cjiius hominem patavit Veum ? ^Of V, Kicr. r*. Vigilan. 
 
 % 2* p. 122. 
 
 and 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 fC 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
^4-0 An Answer to a TopifJj Bool; 
 
 ^^ and tbelr Reliqnes and Images^ when 
 '^ we fee that any thing which offers to de- 
 ^^ ny Adoration to all theje is condemned 
 " by their Jtithentick earthly Tiirgatory^ 
 ^^ the Koman Index. 
 
 ''^ \ will infift no farther on thefo fcanda- 
 ^^ lous things^ but hope I may, under the 
 <* ^roteUion^ and after the Example of 
 ^^ Gregory the Greats, conclude, not only 
 " againfl Images, (as t Be did,) but againft 
 ^^ ever^^ Creature animate or inanimate^ 
 " that NO RELIGIOUS WOR- 
 *^ SHIP is or can he due or given to any 
 " of themy hecatife of that jaying of our 
 " hleffed Saviour : Thoufhalt WORSHIP 
 ''THE LOR'D THT GOT>, and 
 !' HIM NET floalt thou SER VE. 
 
 To This give me Leave to add another 
 Quotation from a very great Man. Jnfwer 
 to a Papif mifreprefentcd (jc. P. ii* and 
 j6. " To perform thcfe Ads [Kneeling, 
 '^ Burning; Incenfe 6C'1 before Images with- 
 " out a bcfign to worfiiip^ them, is decla- 
 *' red by Great Divines of the Church of 
 " Rome to be next to Herefy. Suarez 
 *' fays this Way of T)urandus (who was 
 " againft direftly worfliipping them) is dan- 
 '' gerous, rafti^ and favours of Herefy. 
 *' He adds, ^'^^^ '^^^ ^^^^^ Opinion, that Ima- 
 
 * Greg. M. f:/'. 9>U9' 
 
 ^ ges 
 
Entitled^ England V ConverJlon^Scc, i\l 
 
 '' ges were truly and properly to be wor- 
 " fliippcd, was generally rcceiv'd by their 
 '^ Divines. And therefore I need name no 
 
 ** more. Dares he deny Veneration to 
 
 '^ Images ; when the Council of 'Trent f^ys, 
 *^ eisqite Venerationem impcrtiendam ? iicl- 
 ^^ larmine has a Chapter en purpofc to 
 " prove that true and proper wor flip \s to 
 ^^ be given to Images. And was Ho a Mif- 
 " reprefenter ? " 
 
 Let every Chrifticni^ as he tenders his e- 
 ternal Salvation, abhor the Tri^iciples^ Sixid 
 Praoikes^^nd acoidthe'Ihiets ofthefcwicked 
 Meji; who will contradidOneanother/fhem- 
 felveSj the plaineft Facts, Reafon, Scripture, 
 ourSenfesi affirm, or deny, fay^ or do ^ any 
 things to dccei^je Souls ^ and hicreafe their 
 own FaUion ; w1io, while they are labour- 
 ing That Point, proceed upon a Maxim di- 
 rectly counter to thofe Words of the A- 
 poftle. Let God he true^ and e-very Man a 
 Liar: On the contrary, fay Thefe m Effcd-, 
 let all Mankind befides, let Reafon, and 
 cur Senfes, and God himfelf, be Liars ^ 
 fo the Church of Rome be but helieced to 
 [peak Lruth^ while flie is telling the mod 
 Monftrous and Impudent Lies in Nature. 
 The Popes Supremacy is the next Point. 
 And here our Author comes with That emp- 
 ty Diftindion f between the Church oiRcme 
 
 t iW. and P. 1:5, 
 
 R and 
 
^4-^ ^^^ ANSWER to a Topi/bBooh^ 
 
 and the Court of Rome; declaring himfelf 
 Zealous for the One, but not defirous of 
 having any thing to do with the Other: 
 That is, he declares for Fre^ich Popery ; 
 which we all know the Evgliflo Papifts gene- 
 rally profef^. But notwithftanding this Di- 
 ftinCtion, 1 do not fee how a Man can be a 
 Clergwian at leaft of the Church oiRome^ 
 without declaring for the Court of ~R.07ne in 
 the ftrongeft Terms imaginable j if Aflert- 
 ing the Fullnefs of the Topes Tcwer^ and 
 JtirifdiUioyi^ may be fo accounted. For does 
 not every Ecclcfiailic^even in France^iwe^v 
 to the Creed of Pope Tius IV ? Of which 
 Creed This is one Article;"^ ^*I do acknow- 
 ledge the holy Catholick and Apoftolick 
 Roman Church, to be the Mother and 
 Miftrefs of all Churches ^ and I do promife 
 and fwcar true Obedience to the Bifliop 
 of Rome^ the SuccelTor of St. Teter^ the 
 Prince of the Apoftles, and Vicar of Je- 
 " fus Chrift." And this is part of That Faith, 
 which is afterwards declared neceffary 
 to Salvation f. Nay, I do not fee how a 
 Man can be fo much as a Member of the Ro- 
 miili Church without aflenting to this Do- 
 drine. For befides that the Ecclefiaftics 
 fwear to teach it^ and preach it to all un- 
 
 * Art 2^ I Hanc veram Catholicam Fidem, extra 
 cjuam nemo falvuji cfic potcft, 
 
 der 
 
Entitled^ England's Convey fion^ 8cc. 14.^ 
 
 dcr their Care,- '"^ To make a Man a Mem- 
 ber of That Church (fliys a t learned 
 Writer) he muft declare that he holds the 
 fame Faith which the Church of i?^;;^^ 
 
 cc 
 cc 
 
 " holds; And this is as much the Faith of 
 ^^ the Roman Churchy as the Pope and the 
 
 " Council of Trent can make it. And it 
 is now printed in the Horn an Ritual at 
 Taris^ fet forth by Tatd the 5th as the 
 Confelfion of Faith own'd by the Church 
 of Rome!' I am fenfible the Gallican 
 Clergy ftrenuoufly oppofe this Dodrine ^ but 
 if they are inconjiftent with themfelves, Wc 
 cannot help That. 
 
 * His limttivg the Tope^ and giving him 
 fo much Power, as he thinks fit^ both here, 
 and in other Parts of his Book, i;: is purely 
 Arbitrary ; and fo is liis declaring that n Lt- 
 fallibility [of the Pope] and the T)epofing 
 Tower neither are now^nor e^jer zojere^ Terms 
 of Commzinion. I? He is for a limited Stt- 
 premacy ; The Council of Tre7it is Not ,• 
 Hellarmine is Not ; the Generality of Ro- 
 raanifls are Not. So it was jiift now about 
 Ivzage-WorJJjip: He takes it in This, or That 
 Senfe ,• but the main "Body of Papifts, and 
 the Church of Rome^ as a Churchy take it 
 otherwife. What Authority has He to im- 
 
 f Anfwer to Paplft mifreprefentcJ, Qrci p. 7. 
 * P. 125. t t 127. 141. II P. 125. 
 
 R 2 pofe 
 
244- ^^^ A^^SWER to a Topifh ^ook^ 
 
 pofc his own Topcry upon us ? Nay, why 
 arc we bound to take Popery as France 
 gives it us j when the Topery oi Spain^ Tor- 
 tiigal^ Italy^ and Gerynany^ is different ? Had 
 any Pope (fays he) + e^-er declard himfelf 
 [o as to regard all other "Bifloops as his 
 
 'Deputies^ and Tricars ; he had reckon^ 
 
 ed without his Hoft. And he denys I! that 
 the Tope has an Juthority to fend ocer 
 a foreign JrchbiJJjop with a Commi(fio7i to 
 exercife ordinary yuriidiUion o^^er another 
 Jrchhijloop. But did he never hear of thofe 
 innumcraUe Writers^ many ^Popes^ and ev?- 
 rious Councils^ which have given the Pope 
 an ahfolute^ milimited Monarchy ^ making 
 the "Bifhops^ as w^^U as others, his ahfolute 
 SithjeUs and Vajfals^ which is fomething 
 more than his TJeptities^ and Vicars ? But 
 now the PoDe's Supremacy^ it feems, is 
 become as difficult a Point as the Infallihilty ^ 
 the R^forniaticnhavlng puzzled the Caufe, 
 and made it more difficult than it was before, 
 tho* it w^as necer fully agreed upon. I 
 would only ask our Author, what He himfelf 
 means hythcPope's Sitpremacy ^ or how much 
 Supremacy he is pleafed to allow him. In one 
 place ^ he calls it Siiperintendency : But how 
 are we the wifer for Ihat^ Or what does 
 This Siiperintendency imply ? He only tells 
 
 \ p. 127. 11 p. 141. '^ P. 127. 
 
 us 
 
Entitled^ En^ancVsConVerJiort^Scc. 24.5 
 
 us of Jo me Tower which he docs not yield 
 to himj 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 
 T'rent'^^ Or at it? Or is it Now generally 
 received in Popifli Countrys ? * 
 
 If the Topes Infallibility was never a Term 
 of Communion-^ it is at leaft afferted, and 
 Zealouily contended for, by great Men of 
 the Romifli Church. But is our Author ve- 
 ry fure that the "Dcpofwg "DoUrine neither 
 /J, 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 Cccna T)07nini. For in That, 
 under more Articles than one, the Pope ex- 
 ercifes an abfoiute Authority over tem- 
 poral Princes in their own Dominions: And 
 if He be thus King cf Kingj^ He has cer- 
 tainly a Right to depofe them, for their 
 Difobedience. 
 
 HisAlTertion, That "^ St. Gregory main- 
 tain d the divine Right of his Supremacy 
 cjer the whole Church as i-igorotijly as any 
 Tope C'Ver 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 
 Leo I. at the Council of Ch alee don : Where, 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 R 3 by 
 
246 An Answer to a fopijh Book^ 
 
 by the Bye, it was decreed that the Billiop 
 oiConJiaiitinople iliould enjoy the fame Pri- 
 vileges as the V}'i^o^oi Rome. Nor is there 
 any doubt but Gregory himfelf had Ambi« 
 tion enough j which appears^ to omit other 
 Proofs, from That Inftance relating to otir- 
 fehes^ which has been before hinted at, and 
 will hereafter be confidered more at large^ 
 his aflfuming an Authority over the "Britifh 
 Bifliops. See Prop. 11. But as for Suprema- 
 cy over the whole Churchy and by divine 
 Right too ^ it was not come to That in his 
 Days. And how does our Author prove it 
 was ? "*" ift. From Gregorys faying (Lib. 11. 
 Epift. 56.) If it is pretended that the S/- 
 Jloop has neither a Metropolitan nor Tatri-^ 
 arch ; lanfwer that his Cattfe is to he heard 
 and decided by the See Jpojiolick ; Which 
 IS THE Head of all Churches. But may 
 not Sedes Apoflolica as well fignify any 0^ 
 ther See Apoftolick as That of Rome ? For 
 were there not more Apoflolica! Sees than 
 One? What thinks our Author oi Jntioch 
 particularly ; of which St. Teter himfelf was 
 Bifliop ? And then why may not the Words 
 all Churches be reftrain'd to all Churches 
 in That "DifiriU ? He proves it, idly. From 
 Lib. p. Epift. 59. vmtten, as He fays, to the 
 Bifliop of Syraciife. Js to what they write 
 of the Church <?/'Conftantinople, who doubts 
 hut that it is fuJjeU to the See Jpoft click ? 
 
 I 
 
Entitled^ Enghnd' sConverfion^ Sec. iJ^j 
 
 Ihave look*d into two Editions, (whethor our 
 Author's Edit. cct. be one of them, I know 
 not) and cannot findtJiis Paflage j nor isEpi/f. 
 59. Lib. 9. written to the Billiop of Svraciife. 
 But we will take it for granted that the Words 
 are Gregorys, l^ConftantinopIo \\<\s fubjcd to 
 any Apoftoiick See, one would think it ilioud 
 be rather Jjitwch than Rome; becaufe Co^z- 
 Jiantinople belong d to the Eaftem ChurcJi^ 
 and Empire, not to the //'"^//^n^ > being, as 
 Jntioch was, when the Empire was divided 
 by Conftantine^ under thi^TriefeUtts-Trxtcrio 
 of the Eafi^ not as Romewas^ under That of 
 Ifa/y. Then here is nothing of ^/c7>;^i<^/^/3? 
 fomuchas hinted at, in either of ourAuthor's 
 Proofs ; yet That is Part of what he un- 
 dertook to prove. And if he objeds that I 
 ftrain Gregorys Words, and put an arbitrary 
 Interpretation upon them ; I Anfwer, ift. Let 
 any indifferent Perfon judge, whether, confi- 
 der'd alone, or by themfelves, they do not 
 bear my Senfe, at lead as well as b/'s; if 
 not better. 2dly If they arc coniidcr'd in 
 Conjundion witli w^hat Gregory elfewhere 
 fays ; they cannot hoar bis Senfe, unlefs we 
 will makeThat eminent Saint contradidt him- 
 felf. • For declaring againft the Title ox Oe- 
 cumenical 'BijJwp affum'd by John Patriarch 
 oi Conjiantinople^ he at the fame time, and 
 in the ftrongeft Exprcflions, declares againft 
 any fuch Power, in any Terjon whatfoever, as 
 the Popes have fince arrogated to themfelves, 
 
 R 4 This 
 
a 4-8 An Answer t^ rt^ Top{Jj Book^ 
 
 This he does hi feveral Letters to the Emper* 
 
 or MaurititiSj J5?//^^/>/j' Bifliop o^ Alexan- 
 dria^ John the Patriarch of Conjiantinople 
 Himfclf, and Others. 
 
 But this our Author tells us "^ is a thread" 
 hare Argument -, a hundred times repeated^ 
 and ^s~ often anfwcr d. 'Tis aseafy for him 
 to fay tht^ fame of all our Arguments,* and 
 as eafy for Us to fay the fame of all Theirs. 
 But to the Point, t As that Saint ttnderjiood 
 it^ he fays, the "Title was mrjtiftifiahle on fe- 
 ^wral Accounts. Firji^ hecatife it jeemd to 
 import yarifdiUion over the whole Church. 
 Very well: Pr^ay let it be remember'd, that, 
 according to our Author's Conceffion, Gre- 
 gory opposed it under That Notion. ^ Which 
 [JurifdiCtion over the whole Church] did 
 not belong to the 'Bijloop of Conftantinople, 
 nor was \ndeed challen^ d hy him. Accord- 
 ing to Greff^ory^ it did not belong to the Bi- 
 iliop of Conftantinople, nor to any body elfe : 
 For he abfohttely condemns the Title which 
 it is acknowledged he took to imply Jurif- 
 diftion over the whole Churchy as fuch 
 pronouncing it ftiperftitions^ profane^ blaf- 
 phemoiis^ diabolical., and the Fore-runner 
 of Antichrift. It is indeed probable enough 
 that it w^as not challeng d by the Bifhop of 
 Qonft antinople in That Scnfe ^ but 'tis plain 
 Gregory oppos'd it in That Senfe ; and our 
 
 p. \i^, \ P. 127. 4 Ibid. 
 
 Author 
 
Entitled^Eng\B,nd's ConverJioyj^Scc. 249 
 
 Author owns he did : Which, together with 
 his oppofing it abfolutely, or as appiy'd to 
 any Perfon whatfoever, is the very thing we 
 affert, and all we want in this Argument. 
 ^ Jnd2dly. (continues He) hecaiifeit feem- 
 ed to import that he was the only Jiijhop 
 in the World y or at leaji that all other 
 3iiJloops were htit his T)epiities^ and Vicars. 
 I anfwer, ift. Admitting This 5 'Tis no more 
 Power than Popes have aflum'd, and the 
 Jefuits and others allow them. 2dly. 'Tis 
 evident that Gregory^ in the place cited by 
 our Author, did not ufe the Word only in 
 an ahfolnte^ but comparative Signification. 
 Becaufe he explains himfelf, in very many 
 Paffages, to mean no more than a Paramount 
 Authorifw or Trehemincnce^ ufurp'd over all 
 other Bifliops. He fays, for Inltance, the 
 Patriarch of Conftantinople imitated the De- 
 vil ^ who would have exalted himfelf above 
 the other Angels, ad ctilmen Singtdaritatis^ 
 to the Height of Siiigtdarity. i3id the De- 
 vil think 7^^^ would have made Him the on- 
 ly Jvgel^ and the other Angels 710 Angels at 
 all,but only \\\sVicars^orT>eptiti es ? It would 
 have made Hi7n Monarch, if you plcafc, 
 and Them his Subjeds j which is the Cafe of 
 the Pope's Pretenfions, as to other Bifliops. 
 But as our Author follow^s "Bellarmine \n 
 this Piece of Chicane j for a full and parti- 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 cular 
 
2 JO An ANSWER to a Tofifh Boo\ 
 
 cular Anfwer to it, I refer the Reader to 
 the moft learned Dr. Forhes "^ of Scotland : 
 who in eight Jnti-Thejes^ as He calls them, 
 has largely expos'd the Sophiftry of That 
 Cardinal upon this Argument, f T^ou would 
 wondcriS^ys he) at the T)efence which our 
 Ad'verfaries here make for themjehes. He 
 might well fay fo^ for 'tis iliameful SJui- 
 fling indeed, 
 
 Obferve then, with how much Truth our 
 Author afferts that i^ no 'Pope in a^iy Age 
 C'ver took upon him the Title of Unicerfal 
 ^£iJJjopy in the Senfe that it was im^ciglod 
 againfty and rejeUed hy St, Gregory. No ? 
 Not as importing a JurifdiUion o^ver the 
 whole Church ? For in That Senfe he owns 
 Gregory inveigh'dagainftit; and He inveighed 
 againft it, as I faid, absolutely ^ox as apply 'd 
 to any Perfon. Let our Author s Conceflion 
 therefore, and That Pope's ^^^;/^r^/ Invedive 
 be put together^ and fee what will be the 
 IfTue. Indeed, had Gregory intended to have 
 apply'd this Title to himfelf in this Senfe, as 
 well as to have deny'd it to every body elfe ,• 
 it is not to be conceived but that He would 
 have faid fo. In fliort ; does the Pope affume 
 ^ JurifdiUion O'ver the whole Church ; or 
 not ^ If be dqes not 5 Where is his Suprc7na^ 
 
 * Foibcfii a Corfc Inftrua Hiftor-Theolo^, ?♦ 784, O^f, 
 ad fineni. t Mircris qua hie defcnfior^e fe Adverfaiii 
 
 I 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converfion^ Sec. 2 5 1 
 
 cy ^ or in what does it confift ^ If he /^oesy as 
 all the World knows he does; Heaflumes 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 cxprelly diiclaims it. ^ None of the 
 Roman ^ijlwpj (fays he) did e-ver ajpiime 
 T.hat Name of Singidarity. 
 
 Let it be obferv'd too, with what Modefiy 
 our Author affirms that the belief of the 
 Pope's t Supremacy over the whole Church 
 was ^Term of Communion in ^opeGrQ'- 
 gory's Ti772e^ as well as now. Suppofing 
 there w^ere then fuch a Thing pretended to, 
 as I have flicwn there was Not ; how does 
 it appear that the Belief of it was a 
 Term of Communion 1 Why, our Author 
 poftti'vely ajferts it was ; We have no otiier 
 Proof; nor was there ever a grolfer Falflmd 
 Utter'd by Man. 
 
 ^ Jnd jo he will always infift npon it as 
 an tine mtefi all e Truths that Roman-Catho- 
 licks profefs to this T>ay^ the Faith which 
 St, Auguftin preach' d. This AiTertion, I hope^ 
 I have fully confider'd. H "Becaiife it is im- 
 poQible to prove fro7n any Juthentick Hijlo^ 
 ry that there happend any Change^ &c. 
 
 * Ad Maurit. Epi/l. 32. Ntilliis Romanorum Pontiiicnm 
 upt^tiam hoc 5ir.gulaiicatis vocabulum pATumfit' As to him/elf 
 ipe /peaks more plain/y^ ad Luh^. hpift. 30. L. }- i p. 
 
 J25. 4 P. l^^S, II Ibid. 
 
 This 
 
152 .^^ Answer ^^ a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 This fine Argumentation fhail not fail to 
 have Juftice done it in our Examination of 
 the next Sedion j in which it is unfolded 
 at large. "^ InaUwJfichfpaceoftime^from 
 England's Converfion to the Reformation^ our 
 Jncefiors^ fays a Troteftant Writer^ were 
 allTapifis with a Vengeance ; Unlefsfome- 
 times a few Lollards ft arted up-, &cc* Why 
 does not he name his Proteftant Writer ? 
 And (hew us that he truly rcprefents his 
 Meaning ? Or if ^ Proteftant Writer didi^^y 
 this; he faid what was falfe: Which is an 
 Anfwcr at lead as good as the Argument. 
 
 To the Eighth SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The fame Faith i^as freacFd to the 
 Saxons, as had been preach'^d four 
 hundred Tears before to the Britons. 
 
 ALmoft the fame, undoubtedly; tho* 
 perhaps not quite. But we will ad- 
 mit that it was altogether the fame : And 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 our 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converfion^ &c lyg 
 
 our Author s fetting himfelf fo formally to 
 proc'e it, is the moit folcmn Piece of Imper^ 
 tinence we have had yet- Could he but 
 fliew that prejent Topery is the fame Re- 
 ligion as Aiiftin taught, without tracing it 
 any higher ; he would, as to Antiquity, do' 
 bis Bulinefs effectually. He might therefore; 
 have fpar'd his Pains in fhewing that there 
 was no Change in the Religion of V^ome be- 
 tween Eletitheriits's and Qregorfs time. He 
 knows we grant there was none ^ at lead 
 none confiderable : Tho' he has taken a 
 ftrange Way to prove even This ^ and his 
 Arguments are utterly trifling, and incon- 
 clulive. What occafion had he to mifplace 
 the good old Sopbiftr^^ fo ufeful to Papifts, 
 and fo much us'd by them, about Changes- 
 in Religion^ and our being oblig d to fliew 
 when^ and how^ and hy 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 
 Sedion "". It is impojfible (fays he) to proc^e 
 from any Aiithentick Hiftory that there hap- 
 pened a?iy Change in the puhlick Faith of 
 the Englifh Church-, from its Cojit-erfion 
 mider the Saxon Kings^ till the pretended 
 Kejorfnation. This is to the Purpofe; tho 
 
 ♦ mi 
 
 there's 
 
554- ^^ Answer to a Topi/h ^ook^ 
 
 there's no Truth in it. But to take it as a 
 Thing demonftrated, by Arguments which 
 I hav^e fhewn to be groundlefs and abfurd^ 
 that prefent Topery and the Rehgion of 
 Home in Jufthi^ time are all one, than 
 which nothing can be more notorioufly 
 falfe i and, upon this Suppofition, to go fo 
 gravely to Work, proving that there were no 
 Inno'Dations between Eleutheritiss time and 
 Gregory Sy (which Nobody denys) and con- 
 fequently that Topery^ as it now is, was 
 the Religion of the fecond Century 5 is, if 
 poilible, more pompoujly ridictdous than a- 
 ny thing we have hitherto met with. The 
 Reader iliall have a Tafte of it. Taking it 
 for pro'vd (how well it is fo, we have feen) 
 that ^ Gregory was a Majjing Tope^ and 
 that all the other Topijh Articles mentioned 
 in the foregoing Sedion were current in his 
 Time, He proceeds Thus. If therefore alt 
 theje were Innovations hrotigbt in betwixt 
 the Second and Sixth Century; if there was 
 no Mafs faid at Rome in the T>ays ^Eleu- 
 therius ; If that Tope was not acknowledgd 
 Supreme Head of the Church -y If in his time 
 there was no Invocation of Saints.^ no Ho^ 
 mour paid to their Reliques^ no praying for 
 the "Dead &cc> I mufi make hold to demand 
 a particular Jccount taken from good Re-^ 
 cords^ and Authe^itick Hijiory:, &c. And 
 
 fo 
 
Entitled^ England'j- Converjion^ Sec. 255 
 
 fo goes on with the Argumentation which I 
 iliall prefently cxaminejtho' as it will be more 
 properly apply^d. Here I only ask our Au-' 
 thor, will He then really and with a feri- 
 oiis Face affirm^ that there were fuch things 
 as Mafs in the Senfe of the prefent Church 
 oiRome^ as the Tope's 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; '*■ htit then^ fays He, it mtift he proc- 
 eed from tmqtiejiionahle Hiftorical FaUs, 
 that Rome changd its Faith in the letter- 
 n^alofT-ime^ between the Con^verjion of the 
 Britons and that of the Saxons. For the 
 Reafons juft now given, inftead of the laft 
 Claufe read, between the Con'verfion 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 I- 
 mage-WorJhip was eftablifli'd by the fecond 
 Council of Nice^ at the latter end of the 
 
 * ?. 129. 
 
 Sth, 
 
^56 An Answer to a Tofijh Bool^ 
 
 8th Century, under Ire^ie j 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 ; but Uni-verfal Suprc^nacy was firft 
 pretended to by 'Boniface III. at the Be- 
 ginning of the 7th. Century. The Number 
 oi fe^jenSacraments^'x^ firft ftarted by "Peter 
 Lombard in the 1 2th Century, and efta-- 
 blilli'd by the Council oiL'rent about 150 
 Years ago. Lranfuhfiantiation^ and the 
 Half-Commwno7i:, are own'd to be New by 
 Papifts themfelves. But sdly. and chiefly. 
 We cannot indeed give an Hiftorical Ac- 
 count of the R//>, and Growth^ oimany Po- 
 pifh Corruptions ; But then it is not in the 
 leaft incumhent upon us to do fo, nor has 
 the Church of Kome any manner of Right 
 to demand it. That they are in Being we 
 hiow-y becaufe we /^^ 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 
 110 with the Kings E<vili w^ould not his 
 Jrg^ments and his Modefty be very fingu- 
 lart iliould he difcourfe Thus ? If you pre- 
 tend that I have the Leprofy, or the King's 
 
 Evil 
 
Entitled^ England'i ConverJion^Scc. a 57 
 
 Evil ; "^ to mahe good this hold Jjfertion^ yoi^ 
 muji produce plain^ and 2i7idc7ii able FaUs to 
 prove that there was a Change in my State 
 of Health between the ^th. and 3i5th. Year 
 of my Age : f And to render this credible ^you 
 miift dejcend to Tartictdarities^ and fpeci- 
 fy the 7noJi remarkable Circumftances of it ; 
 Js in what Tear^ what Months and what 
 T)ay of the Months I began to be ill; 
 What IDifiurbance it cattfedm the Family ; 
 What Dodors and Surgeons were fent for, 
 and what they faid /^r^?, and ^^^2, about it. 
 For theje are the ccnftant and natural effeUs 
 of Changes in one's Health : And ifanyjuch 
 Changes had really been in mine^ in the 
 Inter "oal of Time above named ^ it is as in-- 
 credible as the moji palpable of FiUions 
 that no Notice fliould be taken of it". Juft 
 fo, and in thefe very Words, mutatis mu- 
 tayidis^ our Author argues about Changes 
 in Religion. + They miift produce plain and 
 undeniable hijiorical FaUs-^ As in what Age^ 
 and wider what Topes^ and Emperors it 
 happen d\ who were the chief Promoters ^ 
 and Oppofers of it ^ what T>iftiirbances it 
 caufed 'y what "Books were writ for^ or a- 
 gainfi it ; and what Synods were calld to 
 approz'e^ or condemn it. O! abfolutely ne- 
 ceffary it muft needs be to have every one 
 
 S of 
 
258 An Answer to a <?ofipo Book^ 
 
 of Thefc Evidences : Othcrwife there can 
 he no Corruptions^ the' we fee there are 
 a thoufand. As if Corruptions could not 
 hegin^^wA creep on inle7tfibly^^x\(\ atlaft fwell 
 to a prodigions "Btilk-^ yet Nobody be able 
 to trace out the Original^ and Trogrefs of 
 them. Some indeed 7nayhc fo traced, but o- 
 thers may not. And therefore our Author gains 
 nothing to his Caufe^ when he tells us that 
 were the "^ 'Primacy of the See of Ca^iter- 
 httry pretended to be an Innovation ; He 
 who Ihould fo pretend muft produce tin- 
 deniable hiftorical FaUs to prove it. For 
 befides that the Tcpes Supremacy is not near 
 io plain and lindijpiited^ Point as \\iQArch- 
 hiJJdOp of Canterhtirys Primacy j Changes 
 and Innovations of Ihis Kind are of fuch 
 a Nature, that they are more likely to make 
 a Noife than Others : Not but that even 
 Thefe ma"^ be fo gradual^ as not to be taken 
 notice of in Hiftory. And inFaft, 2.^ Changes 
 in Got'cr 71777 ent are fometimes fuddain^- fo 
 they are fometimes gradual^, and made by m- 
 perceptible Tieldances and 'Encroachment si 
 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 Arian^ Ma- 
 
 P I'P, 130' t P J34- 
 
 cedonia% 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ 8c6 259 
 
 cedoniai?^ Nejiorian^ and Etitychian Here- 
 fics condemn'd by General Cotmcils, Who 
 doubts but that fome Errors may be fo fud" 
 dain ^x^A flagrant, as to allarm the whole 
 World at tholr frfi Jppearancei And yet 
 the Cafe may be quite difterent with others. 
 We may be fure to a T>ay w^hcn a Man fell 
 fick ofaPk'^r, or the Small-Tcx: And yet 
 does it follow, that Another monftroufly 
 Iwollen with the T)ropfey^ has 7iot the Drop- 
 ley i becaufe neither He himfclf, nor any 
 body elfe, can tell when the Diftemper firft 
 hegan^ and by what Advances \tgrew upon 
 him ? There is no NecelTity therefore, as 
 our Author pretends there is, that "^ We 
 fliould inform them rjery particttlarly who 
 was the firft Tope that laid claim to the 
 Supremacy ,• (tho' we can do, and ha^je done 
 even Ihat :) Who it was that introduced 
 the In^jocation of Saints^ the Verier aticn of 
 their 'Keliques -^ the Honouring of pious L- 
 mages (as he calls them) and TiUures ; and 
 praying for the Souls departed. Why we 
 muft Above All let them know who was 
 the firft Tope that faid Mafs i And why 
 Tfhis was an Inno^jation^ if it was cne^ of 
 fo Extraordinary a Nature^ that no 
 Hiftori an could V^ossiBLY he ignorant either 
 of its "Beginnings Trogrefs^ or full Efta- 
 
 ♦ p. 131 
 
 S 2 hlifloment 
 
tio An An^SWER to a Topifj ^ook^ 
 
 hlijljnient in the Church of Rome, I can by 
 no means underftand. What is there fo ve- 
 ry partictilar in This Inftance ? And why 
 does he not give us Ibme Rcafon for iopji- 
 tke an Aflcrtion ? The Word Majs^ as I 
 have above obferv'd, did not always lignify 
 the fame as it does Now in the Church of 
 Kome : And why could not Corruptions, 
 by infenlible degrees, one after another, 
 creep into the DoBrine^ and Ser^'ice of the 
 Euchariji^ till they fwelfd at iaft to That 
 frightful Size of Superjiitwn., Idolatry^ and 
 ^Blafphemy^ which we now behold ? 
 
 P. 133. Here the Preceptor fo batters the 
 Trotefiant Caiife with ^ucftions and 23/- 
 Ummas'y that by the Moije of his Cannon, 
 you would think it impoilible for us to hold 
 out an hour longer. Efpecially confider- 
 ing how He and his Pupil trhwiph over us, 
 after the formidable Interrogatories are put. 
 * When Jljefe few Oueftions are clearly 
 anfwered ; Ifloall ha^je doiihle the Number 
 ready for any 07ie that is difposd to tinder- 
 take that Task. Dreadful ! What will be- 
 come of us ? 
 
 G. I fear indeed there will not le many 
 pretenders to it. For I pcrceiz^e there lie 
 OhjeUions in Jmhufcade^ to what fide foe^ver 
 the Jnjwerer /ball turn himfelf 
 
 * Ibid. 
 
 P. 
 
Entitled:, Enghnd^sConVerJion^Scc. i6i 
 
 P. / heliec'c indeed he will meet with fome 
 Knhs in his Way. Well; unfortunately for 
 ine, it feems, I have undertaken That def- 
 perate Task : And I mull go on^ whatever 
 happens. 
 
 "^ 'But 7'his wonder fid Change is ei-^ 
 
 ther recorded in fome ancient Iliftory ; or it 
 is not. Anfwer. Vart of it is^ and Tart is 
 mt. t If not ; hy what means have the hold 
 Jffertors of it come 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 Suppofition : And wo come fairly and 
 honeftly to the Knowledge of the reft ^ be- 
 caufe we fee it. i For Ifhoidd he apt to 
 fiifpe^ that they had dealt in the Hack Art^ 
 and conjurd up fo7ne Spirit to inform them 
 of what had pafsd in reference to the pre- 
 tended Inno^'ations' One may ho, Conjtir" 
 
 er enough to helie've what one lees^ with- 
 out dealing with the T>evil y And fo there 
 was no occaiion for That Rant, f 'But if 
 it he recorded in any ancient Hiftory {as it 
 mufi nndotthtedly he^ if it happen d at all ; 
 which I5 to make ufe of the fame Parcnthc- 
 fis, have (hewn to be tindouhtedly falfe, and 
 ridiculous) Ideftre to know when and hy what 
 Methods this fitipendioiis Kc'volution was 
 
 Void, t Ih'td, i Ih'id, 
 
 S 3 hrotigh$ 
 
adi An Ai^SWER to a Topifh Booh^ 
 hrotight to pa/s ? Tho' for the Reafons a- 
 bove affign 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 isohether it was 
 done dandefiinely^ or openly ? Whether hy 
 Violence^ or Frmtd ? Part of it clandeftme- 
 ly ,• and Part openly : Some by Violence^ 
 fome by Frauds and fome by ^oth. t Whe- 
 ther England, (for, according to my Me- 
 thod, I put nat inftead of whole Chri- 
 fiendom) was hriVd^ or hilly d^ intoT^his 
 Jirange Jpojiacy ? It might be in fome mea- 
 fure hriha by the Pope's Money ^ tho' That 
 See w^as always more addicted to recehe than 
 to gwe \ but it was chiefly Hilly d into it 
 by the Pope s Hulls. + Whether it was com-' 
 fafsd ail at once^ or hy Degrees ? Moft cer- 
 tainly hy degrees. And if the Querift had 
 W'Cll confider'd the true Anfwer to l^hat 
 Quefiion ^ he need not have been at the 
 Trouble of asking the 'reft. "^ And whether 
 it met with any Oppojition^ or not ? Several 
 Parts of it, as the Pope's Supremacy, and I- 
 mage-Worfhip, met with much Oppofition : 
 Some met with but little ; Others ftealing 
 in by Moonlight^ or in the "Dark^ or by in^ 
 fenfthle T)egrees^ might meet with none. 1 
 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 165 
 
 think our Caufc remains unhurt by all Thefe 
 terrible Interrogatories, notwithftanding the 
 loud Bluftring above recited ; Which proves 
 to be Powder without liall, 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, t and 
 Part of the next preceding it, proceed 
 manfully fghtihg with his own Shadow ; 
 proving, and demonfiraWig^ that there was 
 no Change in the Vaith of Rome^ between 
 Ekfttheriitss^ and Gregorys Time : Of 
 which I have faid enougli, perhaps more than 
 enough, already. 
 
 There is, however, in the laft of thefe 
 Pages one Aflfertion which is very material, 
 
 and mult by no means be negleded. • St. 
 
 Auguftin (fays he) who brought from Rome, 
 and preach d to jT;^^ Saxons, All the Tapi- 
 ftical "DoUrines we now profefs. To which 
 I anfwer; He himfclf has mention d but fix: 
 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 himfeii- i Nor has our Author (as I have 
 
 *P, 134, 135, 13^3 137. tP' i3^t 
 
 J S 4 fliewu 
 
064 Ad Answer to a TopifJj Bookj 
 
 fliewn) brought any more than the Sha- 
 dow of an Argument at moft, to prove that 
 any one of them was , Nay I have prov'd that 
 two of them. The Pope's Supremacy, and 
 Worfliipping the Crofs, &c. were not. The 
 laft of them. Purgatory, was indeed held 
 by Pope Gregory^ but not by the Church 
 of Rome -, Nor does it appear that Atftin in 
 particular either preaclod^ or helievd it. 
 But fuppofe every one of T^he[e Points was 
 then maintain d by the Church of Rome in 
 general, and brought into England by An- 
 jiin: Are Thefe All the Tapiftical Toints 
 which Papifts now prrfefs ? Where are the 
 Seven Sacraments ; Communion in one Kind 5 
 Denying the Laity the Ufe of the Scriptures ; 
 Prayers in an unknown Tongue ,- Exempting 
 the Clergy from Civil Jurifdidion ; The 
 Doftrine of excommunicating and depofing 
 Kings, Their innumerable Ceremonies and 
 Supcrftitious Fopperies j Their Dodrines en- 
 tirely calculated for XhoDa772nation ofSouls^ 
 as Attrition v^^ithout Contrition, Auricular 
 Confeffion, and Optts operatzim : Laftly, and 
 to omit a multitude more. Their DovSrine 
 of Indulgcncies, and the Sale of them, 
 confequcnt of it ; as appears from That filthy 
 Book caird the 2^.v of the Jpojiolical Cham- 
 ber^ or Chancery^ in " which (as "^ one of 
 
 * Ej}enc<)ii!sivi Epiil. ad Tit. C. I. P.4'P' 
 
 Pf 
 
cc 
 
 Entitled^Enghnd's Converfion^$cc. 165 
 
 of their own Writers aflures us) may be 
 learn d more forts of Wickedncfs than 
 from all the Summaries of all Vices ; and 
 a JLicence for fome^ but Ahfokition for 
 " all (many of them are fo horrid and un- 
 " natural that they are not to be named 
 '^ without Immodefty ) is offered to thofe who 
 " defire to buy them" ? In this prcciousS^^y^ 
 of^ates^ the fcv^eral Prices of the Indul- 
 gencies, and Pardons, are annexed to them, 
 according to the magnitude of the feveral 
 Sins j As for Murder^ fo much ; For Adul^ 
 terjy fo much ; For Terjury fo much. Our 
 Author therefore was a httle Forgetful, or 
 guilty of a wailful i7nperfcU Envjneration ; 
 when, even according to his own Account, he 
 affirm d that St, Jngnjim brought All the 
 Papiftical Dodrines into England. 
 
 To the iV/MSECTlON: 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 The fame SuhjeSl continued. 
 
 * TLJO ^^^ far our Author does and does not 
 XjL agree with Mr. Collier, is nothing 
 to Me, or to our Caufe. He elfewhere pro- 
 duces a Quotation t from That Hiftorian, 
 
 . P. 138. -j- Of v,'hich hereafter in 7 he 3d, Di^'^logne. 
 
 with 
 
266 An ANSWER to a Tofiflo ^ool, 
 with reference to which I differ from Mr* 
 Collier^ as well as from Him : But in This 
 neither the Church of Englmid., nor the 
 Church of E(?;72^5 is conern d. Here, how- 
 ever, he is unjuft in accufing Mr. Collier of 
 Inftncerity:, for telling his Reader that of the 
 Jrticles propos'd by Jtijiin to the jBritifh 
 Bifliops, Owning the Topes Juthority was 
 one : ^ Whereas (fays our Author) T^here is 
 not a TVord of this Article in Bode. But 
 can nothing be true, but what is in Jiede'i Be- 
 fides; our Author afterwards acknowledges 
 that^Mr, C endeavours at leaft to prove his 
 Aflertion frome "Bedc himfelf; and takes 
 a great deal of Pains to anfwer the Argu- 
 ment : With what fuccefs we iliall fee pre- 
 
 fcntly. 
 
 In the mean time t he owns that Geof- 
 
 fry of Monmouth an antient Hijiorian • 
 
 [peaks ^/Dinoth the Ahhot of Bangor, as 
 'prolocutor of the Jjfemhly en the Britifli 
 Side ; and tells us that the Jnfwer he gave 
 to St. Auftin's Tropofals was, that the Tri- 
 tons owd no SuhjeUion to hifi?^ as having 
 an ArchhijJoop of their own. In This An- 
 fwer, our Author is poiitive, there is not 
 II the leafi Infmuation that St Auftin had 
 injilied on their owning the^ Topes Supre- 
 macy. Supremacy, univerfal Supremacy, 
 We do not fay Pope Gregory pretended to , 
 
 
Entitled^ Engla.nd'^s ConverJion^Scc. 0.6 j 
 nay We have fliewn that he difclaim'd it : 
 But as to AiLthority^ or JurifdiZiion in Sr/- 
 tain ; to my Apprehenfion^ there is in This 
 Anfwer of ^inotJjs a Ihtle Infinucition 
 that Auftin had mention'd fome fuch Thing. 
 But let That pafs ^ together Vvith cur Au- 
 thor's Reafonings in all this Paragraph : 
 Which I leave him to enjoy without Diitur- 
 bance. 
 
 But the Weljlj Maniifcript cited by Sir 
 Henry Spelman is exprefs for T)inGth's ab- 
 folutely rejeding the Pope's Authority. And 
 how Mr. C. "^ gives ^ede the Jlip^ in quoting 
 This Manufcript) I do not underhand ; Or 
 if it muft be caii'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 he goes ; is there any thing 
 abfurd, or unfair, in my quoting another^ 
 to fttpply his defeUs? For the Authority of 
 this Manufcriptj about which the Preceptor is 
 not fatisfy'dj I refer to Sir Henry Spelman^ 
 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 Manufcript to the fame Pur- 
 pofe; which feems of more undoubted Au- 
 thority. 
 
 But it is moft probable, at leaft, from 
 "Bede himfelf, that the "BritiJJj "Bijloops re- 
 fused all manner of Submiflion to the Pope : 
 And that They did, is conftrm'd by the 
 
 ♦ Ibid, 
 
 Teftimony 
 
268 An Answer ^^ a Toftjh Bool^ 
 
 Teftimony of other Hiftorians. From ^ede 
 himfelfjl lay, it is at lead highly probable: 
 becaufe he allures us that Thofe Prelates 
 refus'd to acknowledge Auftin as their Arch- 
 hijhop. * But This Argument^ our Au- 
 thor tells us, will not hold Water* For tho 
 it he true indeed that the Britons refits d 
 to receive St. Auguftin/^r their ArchhiJJjopy 
 it does not follow from it that therefore they 
 difownd the Tope's Supremacy. And the 
 Keafon of This is, becaufe they mi^ht own 
 his Supre772acy^ without owning that f his 
 Authority extended to the placing one as an 
 ordinary Superior o-ver their own Archhif/wp, 
 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 i ihewn to be abfurd. What 
 Thanks he will receive for this from other 
 Romanifis, is not difficult to guefs. But 
 'tis pleafant enough to hear any Papift ufe 
 Thefe Words: •' l^ecaufe they might think 
 that the Tope had carried his Tretenftons 
 too high j in degrading^ as it were^ their own 
 Archbifiopy and fuhjeUing both Him^ and 
 Them to a Foreign Jurisdiction. Is the 
 Pope a Native of Great "Britain ? Or the 
 
 * p. 141. t Ibid. :t:Pcp. mily ftatcd. || P. 141- 
 
 See 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converjion^ Sec. i6^ 
 
 See of 'Rome a "Britiflo See ? Is not the 
 Papal Jurifdiftion then as to Us, if it be 
 any thing at ail a foreign Jurifdid:ion ? 
 But be That as it will -, All the World knows, 
 that, fince What wx call Popery was fully 
 eftablifli'd, the Papal Supremacy was both 
 by thofe who claim d it, and by thofe who 
 achwwledgd it, efteem'd ahfohtte and mv- 
 limited \ And 'tis no lefs certain tlmt Ju- 
 ftin thought the Pope had Authority to place 
 an ordinary Superior^ and that a foreign one 
 too, 01: er an JrchhiJJoop. This Writer him- 
 felf acknowledges as much, St. Ju^uftin 
 (fays He "^ ) doiihtlefs thought himfelf their 
 Metropolitan^ and 'Primate-^ fpeaking of 
 the BritiJJj Bifliops: And that he ciaim'd 
 under the Pope, is moft certain, and this 
 W^ritcr himfelf again once t exprefly affirms, 
 and all along fuppofes. 'Tis true he twice 
 tells us i he will not preftime to decide 
 whether his Title wxre good, or not. 
 And yet he feems to decide it j when he 
 fays, wJJjould He (the Vo^Q)take upon him 
 to fend ot'er a foreign Jrchhifjop with a 
 Commijfion to exercije an ordinary Jtirif- 
 diUion oz'cr the Archhifloop of Prague, To- 
 ledo, or Paris, for example ; he would he 
 as dgorotijly oppofed 7icw\ as St. Augu- 
 ftin was hy the Britifti Clergy-^ and in all 
 
 ^ P. 107. j p. 95. % p, 107. and 144. II P- 14^. 
 
 Likelihood 
 
270 An Answer to a Topi/h Bool^ 
 
 Likelihood he feyit hack with the fame An- 
 fwer as that 'Prelate wasy to wit^ That 
 they would not recei^je him as their Arch^ 
 hiJJjop. It fecms 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. 
 Elfe5why does he alledge their Authority ? 
 At Icaft he grants that fuch is their Opinion : 
 And even according to That, Popery is not 
 in all refpeds the fame now as the Dodrine 
 which Atiftin taught 3 tho' This Writer flre- 
 nuoufly infills that it is. I fay again, St. Aiiftin 
 (according to our Author himfelf) thought 
 the Pope had a Right to make him ordinary 
 Superior to the BritiJJj Archbifliop j For he 
 claim'd underThat fuppofed Right. Andcon- 
 fidering, as I obferv d, that the Pope's Supre- 
 macy was, after the thorough Eftablifliment 
 of Popery, ever accounted abfolutely Mo- 
 narchical; it follows that by rejefting any of 
 his Authority, They rejeded fttch a Sii- 
 premacy as the TopiJJ:f Church of Rome has 
 generally afcrib'd to the Pope, and Popes 
 to themfelvesj whether Gregory I. laid 
 Claim to it, or no. 
 
 "^ I only add, fays He, that there are 
 innumerable Inftances in Ecclefiaftical Hi- 
 Jiory of particular Churches^ maintaining 
 
 * p. 14'- 
 
 their 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converfion^ &c. 27 i 
 
 their Tri^^ileges againfi the See of Rome. 
 There are indeed : and this is a frank Con- 
 feflion. "^ JndThat without derogating a^ 
 ny more from the divine Right of the^opes 
 Stipremac]\ than a SithjeU is fiippofed to de* 
 rogate from the jiifi Trerogati^'e of the 
 Crown when he goes to Law with his So- 
 rjcreigiu I tell him again, the Pope's Su- 
 premacy is by the Popes and the Church 
 of Rc7ne maintained to be an ahfolutc Mo- 
 narchy-^ and therefore This is no Parallel. 
 In Evgla7id a Man may go to Law with his 
 Sovereign; bccaufe the E7iglifj .Monarchy 
 is a hmited one. But is it fo in Turkey or 
 Mufco'vy ? As for the Authority of f a Fa- 
 ther over his Son^ 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 Co772m and oi his Father, which 
 only Appears Unreasonable to hhni I 
 think a Father's Authority extends a great 
 deal farther than That comes to. If the 
 Son ads thus, he really t difowns the Au- 
 thority his Father has by Nature ot^er 
 him. 
 
 Upon the Whole of This Matter, con- 
 cerning Auftin^ T)inothy and the ^ritifh 
 Prelates ; I refer the Reader to Sir Henry 
 Spehnan^ Counc. Anno 601. ^Bedc^ Hift. 
 
 ♦Ibid. tlJ^id. i IbiJ, 
 
 Lib. 
 
ayi ^^ Ai^swER to a Topjh Bool^ 
 
 Lib I, 2. Geo/, of Mo Jim. Lib. ii.Sram- 
 halh Juft Vindication, CJ^. P. 84. Schifm 
 Guarded P.269. «^V/7//7/^/^^^ Antiq. o^Erit. 
 Churches^ Chap. 5. d^. Adding e^ this 
 Obfervation, that were what our Author 
 fays of it really true i it would but invali- 
 date one fmgle Argument of Ours, among 
 ivery many others which are unanfwerable ,• 
 or at moft w^ould amount to no more than 
 that one Point of Popery, among a hundred, 
 is a little older than We affirm : Which 
 w^ill never be a Ballance even in Behalf of 
 That fmgle Point the Topes Supremacy^ 
 ao"aiaft Thofe innumerable demonftrative 
 A^-^uments which utterly overturn and de- 
 
 ftroy it. 
 
 His faying that perhaps neither St. 
 Gregory, not the Britilli "Bijhops were in the 
 Wron^-i as to this Notion of the extent of 
 the Papal Powers becaufeS^^Z? might think 
 they h^d Reafon on^their Side; when they 
 are fuppofed to have been of 4iredly con- 
 trary Opinions ; is what I can by no means 
 account for, and fo I leave it. 
 
 Nor does it follow, t that becaufe Mr. C 
 fays, If Gregory s Succejfbrs hadmovdwith^ 
 in the Compafs of his Tretenfions^ the T>i- 
 <vifions of Chriftendo7n might ha've been pre- 
 centedi Therefore it was his Judgment 
 
 that 
 
Entitled:^ EnghiKT sConVerJioH^Scc. 275 
 
 tbat St. Gregory rlld not carry his Pr^- 
 tenficns to any exccfs^ when he corifiitttted 
 St. Auguftin Superior ocer the Britiih S/- 
 JJoops. For, tho' Mr. C exprcffes himfelf 
 fomewhat loofcly ; Thofc Pretenfions iii 
 Greogory might be exccffivc, as they cer- 
 tainly were, and yet if his Succeffors had 
 not proceeded to greater ExcelTcs, fuch 
 Divifions in Chriftendonij as have jQnce actual- 
 ly happened, might have been prevented. 
 '*' Aid as to the Dooirine taught hy That 
 Saint (continues He) / appeal to Mr. Cs 
 own Confcience, whether Roman Catholicks^ 
 or TP rot eft ants keep clofer to it. And I won- 
 der ^tT h'^ Confcience^ 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 
 Subjed. 
 
 t His affirming, that Gregor]! had the paf- 
 
 toral Care of all Churches incumbent upon 
 
 him i Calling the liritiflo Church an an-^ 
 
 ■ tient part of Vi.\s Flock:, And talking oipla- 
 
 I cing a Siiperior o<ver it^ with Full Powers 
 to reform, it ; is all reducible to the old Po- 
 
 I pifli Way of Argumentation, "Begging the 
 ^tiejiion^ which I have often taken notice 
 of. 
 
 X From 
 
17 ^ An Answer to a foftjh Booh^ 
 
 From P. 1445 to P. 148. He is upon the 
 old wrong Scents proving what Nobody de- 
 nys (meaning always in the main) that the 
 fame Faith was preach d to the Britons, and 
 Saxons : Of which more than enough al- 
 ready. It were indeed very eafy to fliew 
 what trifling Arguments he produces to prove 
 even This; and how many ridiculous things 
 he fays upon it. But I have fomething elfe 
 to do with my Time than to expofe Him, 
 and his Reafonings; unlefs when it is ne- 
 cejjary^ or at leaft highly expedient. 
 
 I only obferve therefore, that tho' what 
 ^ he tells us from ^ede^ of St. German^ 
 and St. X^^/^^/J, about the Year 440, working 
 a Miracle by a ^ox of Keliques &cc. is a 
 Fad: which I do not believe, for we arc not 
 bound to believe every thing !Bede fays; yet 
 admitting it were true. This does not ifa- 
 fvour fo rank of modern Topery^ as he fup- 
 pofes : Becaufe God may work a Miracle 
 upon a Perfon, when a ^Box of Reliques is 
 apply d to him ; and yet it does not fol- 
 low that Reliques may he adord. As for 
 t the Story cf St. Jlbans Blood (^c. tho* 
 here again we are not obliged to believe the 
 Fad ; I have already granted that the 
 ftiperfiitious Ufe o£ Reliqzies -^^s pretty early 
 in the Church ; and let our Author make 
 
 * p. 147. * Ibid. t Ibid. 
 
 the 
 
Entitled^ England' sConverfion^ Scoij^ 
 
 the moft of it. The WorfJ:^ip of th'^m, con-^ 
 earning which nothing is here faid is much 
 later. Not b t that it would be unlawful^ 
 tho' it were never fo early^ 
 
 P. 14S. T^o Conchide^ I argue thus from 
 the Tremifcs I hm'e eflabliflod^ Tbe Eng- 
 lifli Roman Catholic ks profcfs the lame 
 Faith now^ as was preadS d by St Augiftiii 
 
 — 'But the Faith preach' d bv St^ Augu- 
 
 flin was the jar^e that St. Fugatius 
 
 and Damianus preach' d Thtrejcre^ &c. 
 
 In fliort, he funis up his Argumtnt as i have 
 done in the Beginning of my Anfwer to This 
 Seition. P. 171, 172. And then adds. If 
 ^'his argument be not conclufi've ; / dcfire 
 to know where the T)ejeU of it lies. I tell 
 him where it lies : It lies chiefly, tho' not 
 folely, in the firft Propofition. The Eng^ 
 Ulh Roman Catholicks do not profefs the 
 fame Faith now, as was preach'd by St, Aii,^ 
 Jlin above ele^jen hundred 7' ears ago. This 
 I have largely, and fully proved: And let 
 him anfwer it, if he is able. Nor is the 
 fecond Propofition altogether true i tho'up* 
 on That w^e do not infift He fubjoin^, J^ut 
 if it be conchifi^je^ as I concei've it is; the 
 Reform d Churches are in a defencelejs Con^ 
 dition ; as being corwiUed of teachings in 
 every Article wherein they differ from the 
 Church of Rome, a T)oUrine direUly con- 
 trary to That of the primitit'e Church. I 
 anfwer j But if it be not conclufivc^ as I have 
 T % proo'd 
 
^76 An Answer to a To})i(h Bool, 
 
 prcud it is not; and if the dired Contrary 
 be tme^ as I have^r^c^Vit is ; Then ^' the 
 " Topijh Churches arc in a defencelefs Con- 
 '^ dition, as being convivSed of teaching, in 
 ^^ every Article wherein they differ from 
 *' the "Keformd Churches, a Do6lrine di- 
 ^^ recSly contrary to That of the Primitive 
 '' Church". 
 
 TotheTenth SECTION: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 Some Obfervations upon the Converfion 
 of England under To^e Gregory. 
 
 THIS, 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 Coyiverfton and 
 Thofe oi \isKeformation againft each other, 
 as if they were directly oppofite ; in order 
 to blacken and calumniate the Latter. This 
 Slander fliall be fully confidered in our Exa- 
 mination of the Kext T>ialogue i to w^hich 
 
 the 
 
Enthledy England's Conver/ion^Scc, ijj 
 
 the Conclufion of 1/j/s is a Kind of Prepara- 
 tion or Introdudion. Here therefore I 
 have nothing to do^ but to make a few 
 airfory Strictures upon particular PafTages,- 
 without repeating what has been faid alrea- 
 dy ^ or JoreJla//ing what {\vdll be faid here^ 
 after. 
 
 That Pope Gregory:, or any other Pope, 
 "^ u'as the andotthted Succej}or of St. Tetcr^ 
 in the Senfe which Papifts ufually mean^ is 
 falfe 5 as I have prov'd in another Treatife. 
 That he had his Authority, as Bifhop, 
 from the Apoftles, and fo from Chnft, 
 and that the Milfionaries he fent were le- 
 gally ordain'd, and authoriz'd, I readily 
 grant : But that the Protcftant Bifliops were 
 not, and are not fo, which is what our Au- 
 thor would infinuate, I abfoiutely and to- 
 tally deny. It has been often demonjirated 
 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 fhewn. 
 His asking whether it be better |1 to venture 
 cue's Soul with St. Gregory :, or with oztr Re- 
 formers^ is fallacious, as I have like wife 
 fhewui becaufe there is not That Op pq/i- 
 tion between them, which He fuppofes. 
 After what I have abundantly made out in my 
 
 * P. I4P. t P- 150. II Ibi^^ 
 
 T 5 Anfwer 
 
57S An ANSWER to a TofifJ^ Booh, 
 Anfwer to this Dialogue i let the Reader 
 obferve what a mixture o^Trnth^^nA Cha- 
 rity there is in Thefe Words^ which our 
 Author puts into the Mouth of his young 
 Gentlemen. * For if true Faith he necejfary 
 to Salvation^ as you hai'e provd it to he \ 
 I really helie^ve the Company of thofe Gen- 
 tlemen [meaning the Proteftants]ze^y&^ apofta- 
 tizdufrom the Faith taught hy St. Gregory, 
 and is faithful T)ifciple St. Auguftin, is 
 not much to he coveted in another World. 
 They, not We, ^^rn//>f^^theReligion taught 
 by Gregory and Juliin j and God give them 
 Grace to reform it. 
 
 The Prcteftant Churches in general did 
 not t hy their pretended Keformation dimde 
 th em f elves from allthepre^exifiing Churches 
 in Chrifiendom^ as to Faith and T>oUrine 3 
 nor the Church of England in particular, 
 either as to T^oUrine^ or T>ifcipline: Of 
 which, w^hen we come to the Fourth Dia- 
 logue, 
 
 Our pretended Breach * of the Vnif^ cf 
 Faith fhall there too be confider'd. 
 
 He enlarges upon || St. Jufiins Miracles,' 
 by way of Refle^Sion 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. ?;r. tibid. i Ibid. |l lUd. and P, 152. 
 
 Page 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 079 
 
 Page together upon the Ufcfulnefs, and Ne- 
 ceflity of Mh'acles to eftabUfli newly re^ 
 ^^eal d Trtiths is extremely impertinent ; 
 And his faying that Jziftins Miracles, tho* 
 fuppos'd to be true, and genuine, * haz^e not 
 the dhine Authority of Scriptural Miracles^ 
 is flat Nonfenfe. 
 
 t It is the diftingtiiJJoing CharaUer^ He 
 fays, of Falfloood to efiahlijh itfclf ly Vio- 
 lence and Impofture. Nothing more certain : 
 And fo Popery, not Proteftantifm, eftab- 
 liili'd it feif. The Confidence, and Folly of 
 the Man is prodigious. With the fame Blind- 
 nefs and Infatuation, as if he had owed 
 himfelf a Shame, he reflects upon the Re- 
 formation, for \ domineering^ and tyranizi^ig 
 O'ver Mens Faith. This to Us ! And from 
 a Tapift ! The main Defign of his Book is 
 to defend fuch Tyranizing y And of 772ine^ 
 to defiroy it. 
 
 His redoubted Dilemma || Either there- 
 forcy the Church whereof England became 
 a Tart^ was then the true Churchy &c- 
 tho' it has, in etfed, been more than once 
 anfwered before, fliall 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. 
 
 P. 153. t Ibid. rf: p. 157. » P- »55, '5^- . 
 
 T A His 
 
fHis Rhetorication againfl: the Rapine and 
 J/iolence of Thofe he calls Refor^ners^ (for 
 all of them were not really fuchy' and 
 then asking whether th^HolyGhoft could have 
 a Tart in fuch Councils^ meaning indifcri- 
 minately Thofe of the Reformation, is That 
 Jitipid Fallacy by which jeveral ^ncftions 
 which ought to be feparated^ are jumbled 
 together in One. As This is often repeated 
 by Him, and his trufty Ally the Bifliop of 
 Meaux j I will here give a fliort Anfwer 
 to it, for good and all. What was /"// ci- 
 ther ahotit^ or at^ the time of the Rcfor- 
 formation, the Holy Ghoft had 7io part in : 
 What was good He had a part in. '^ God 
 za^as 7iot in tho great Windy the Earthquakcy 
 and the FirCy which demolifli d ail Religi- 
 ous Houfes without Diftinftion, and ftrip d 
 the Church of its Revenues ; which was 
 the Work of Papifts, not of . Proteftants : 
 All in a manner, I mean ; all the Former^ 
 and at leaft ninteen parts in twenty of 
 the Flatter : But He was in the fitll 
 fmall Voice of the Scriptures, dilating, 
 a^d prefcribing a E^eformation of Religion : 
 And had the Whole Englijh Nation then 
 liften'd to the Lafiy as it ought to have 
 done, all the Mifchiefs, and Confufions 
 occafionM by the Other Three would moft 
 certainly have been prevented. 
 
 A N 
 
^>t5 
 
 
 
 A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 TO A 
 
 PopifllBOOK: 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 England'/ Converjion and Re- 
 formation compafd^ &c. 
 
 To the ThirdDl A LOG UE; 
 
 AndThe PREFACE. 
 
 I N CE the Subjca: of our Author s 
 Preface, and of his Third Dia-- 
 logue is the fame ,♦ I chofe to con- 
 fidcr them together^ that I might 
 avoid Repetition as much as poflible. For 
 this Reafon3 and moreover bccaufe a ve- 
 ry great Part of what He advances3 even 
 
 fcveral 
 
3 
 
 282 An ANSWER ^^^ Po^^y/^ (^^^i^ 
 
 feveral long Sedions 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'dj which was to follow him 
 Sedion by Sedion. But I (hall, notwithftand- 
 ingj be fo far from dillembling or avoid- 
 ing, the Force of any one of his Arguments ^ 
 that I Ihall, if poflible, 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 
 were Pcrfons of wicked and fcandalous 
 Lives. 
 
 II. That it was begun, and carry'd on, by 
 unlawful Means^ and an incompetent ^///^Z?^ 
 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 Trotejiant 
 Hiftorians i "^ 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 KomiJJ:^ Church in 
 general, both Clergy, and Laity, by Their 
 own Writers^ by Roman Catbolick Hifio" 
 
 ♦p. 1(^1. 
 
 rians 
 
Entitled^ England'i" ConverJion^Scc. ag j 
 ria^^S'y Among the many Fads pretended 
 to be quoted by our Author, and the Bifliop 
 of Meaux^ from Heylin^ "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 in- 
 conchfit^e Argument : Few of them are to 
 the Turpofe ; and one general wro7ig Con- 
 fe(fiience is drawn from them AIL 
 
 I. For the Firft of thefe Heads , our Au- 
 thor, alTifted by the Bifhop of Memix^ re- 
 vives the o\di 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 mV- 
 reprefented by our Adverfaries. If, on the 
 Contrary, Bifliop "Burnet^ or any other Wri- 
 ter, has been too lavidi in his * Traijes^ (or 
 "Boajis^ if you will call them fo) of Ter^ 
 fons atling:, and Meafures 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 fliall Ihew in 'due 
 time that it is foreign to the Caufe, and that 
 theConfequence theydraw from it is ground- 
 
 Fpcf. p. ir. and 54. Third Dial, fa^wu 
 
 lefs 
 
a84 An Answer to a Topi/b Booh^ 
 
 lefs. The Falfity of the Confequence drawn 
 from the Fafts is what I chiefly inlift up- 
 on : Yet I fhall firft touch upon the Fads 
 themfelves. 
 
 The Bifhop of Mcaux, fpeaking of ]Ie7i- 
 ry VIIL has thefe Words. * Whatever Mr. 
 Burnet is pleafedto fay^we are not difpofedto 
 accept of the Commtmion which he jeems to 
 cffer as of that Trince. Jndftnce he throws 
 him out of his own i the immediate Covfe- 
 qiience is^ that the frfi Author of the Td.ng- 
 liili Reformation^ who in reality laid the 
 'Foundation of it^ hy the Hatred he inftiird 
 into his SiihjeUs againfi the Tope^ and the 
 Church of Rome , is a Terfon equally re- 
 hUed^ and anathematizdh both "Parties^' 
 'Not anathematizd by Us^ tho' by the 
 Church of Rome :^\xt let That pafs. We 
 have t elfewhere a Reafon given us (and I 
 have X elfewhere confider'd it) why he was 
 not of Their Communion 5 namely, becaufe 
 he caft off the Pope's Supremacy, the Ac- 
 knoAviedgment of which is neceffary to make 
 a Member of their Church. We do not fay 
 he was in Communion with the Romijh 
 Church 5 He Vv^as excommunicated^tho' lie ne- 
 ver intended to feparate, from it. But 
 we do fay, and infift, that he was chiefly 
 of the RomiJJ) Religion 5 and our Author 
 
 ♦ Pref. P. 10. t P. 1^9. ^ P- -i^-. _ _ 
 
 humclt 
 
Entitled^V^ngland's ConverJion^Scc. '285 
 
 himfclf affirms that * be C07itinued in mofi 
 things a Zealous T^apift to the I aft. And (b 
 far was he from intending the Reformation 
 which folloiv'd ; that he liv'd and dy'd a fie- 
 ry Bigot to the worfl: of Popifh Corrupt!* 
 ons, and a Perfecutor to Death <)f 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 Occafton of it : And his layi7ig 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 infiiUd into his SuhjeUs an 
 equal Hatred of both ^ He is guilty of a great 
 Fallacy, or under a great Miftake. 
 
 ArchbifhopCf ^;/^;^^r, I grant, was more than 
 a bare Inftrument in That Work; He hearti- 
 ly wifh'd well to it, and induftrioufly laboured 
 in it. And if he has been too much extoll'd by, 
 Bifhop "Burnet^ and Others ; He has been too 
 much blacken'd by this Writer, and his Party. 
 Be That as it will y he at laft laid down his 
 Life for his Religion j which, it ishop'd,may 
 be feme Anfwer to the Charge oi Hypocrijy^ 
 and Inftncerity t fo heavily laid againft him. 
 
 * P^ 215. jPfcf. awd ^d, Dhl [>ajpf^. 
 
 Upon 
 
1^6 An A^'SWER to a Toflfh Bool^ 
 
 Upon the S\jih')eSt q£ Cranmers Sincerityjour 
 Author gives us a remarkable Specimen of 
 his Own. From the Incident of That Mar- 
 tyr's Heart not being burnt when his Body 
 was confam'd to Ailies, f he tells us Bifhop 
 Siirnet CoiiCLVDEs^that tho his Hand err d 
 yet his Heart had continued true. For this 
 he quotes P. 3 J y oiBitrnet's Hiftory j and the 
 young Gentleman is very lliarp in expofmg 
 the Nonlcnfe^and ContradiUun of it. Now 
 Bifhop Surnet's Words are Thefe. Which 
 tho the Reform d would not carry fo far^ 
 as to mah a Miracle of it^ and a clear 
 T roof that his Heart had continued true^ 
 tho his Hand errd\ yet they ob;e 'ed it to 
 the Tapifts that it was certainly fuch a 
 Things that if it had fallen out in any of 
 their Church:, they had made it a Miracle. 
 So that he makes no fuch Conclufion as our 
 Author pretends j He only fays that the 
 Reformed would not make it. This is the 
 Gentleman who fo loudly complains of our 
 Infincerity-t and Unfair 'Dealing. 
 
 Nor do I fee in P. 92. of the fame Hi- 
 ftory quoted by our Author || that Bifhop 
 Gurnet fays " Cranmer was a I^utheran in 
 ^^ l/is Heart even when He was a private 
 " Fellow in the Univerfity of Cambridge^ 
 It is faid indeed P. 79. Vol. L that, '' He 
 " marry'd when he was Fellow of Jefus- 
 
 '^. College 
 
Entttled^Eng\aad''s Converjion^ 8cc. 287 
 
 " College in Cambridge^ and loft his Fel- 
 ^' lowfliip upon it." But if this prov'd him 
 a Lutheran^ he was one openly: And He 
 openly opposed the Six Articles in King He^i- 
 ry^ Reign ; which I think was a Proof of 
 fome Sincerity. As for his Recanting, whea 
 he was under the Sentence of Condemnati- 
 on, which our Author bafely calls "^ twice 
 ferjuring himfelf^ and inhumanly triumphs 
 over ; common Charity would afcribe it to 
 human Infirmity wrought upon by the Fear 
 of Death ^ fmce he recanted his Recmitati- 
 on^ voluntarily burnt off the Hand that fign'd 
 it, and fealed his former Profeflion with his 
 Blood. 
 
 Under the fameArticle o{ Sincerity we may 
 remark, that as our Author, and the Billiop 
 of Meaiix^ take notice from BiOiop "Burnet 
 t o^Cranmers extravagant TioUrinetouch-^ 
 ing Church Governmet ,• it would have be- 
 came them to have taken notice from the 
 fame Writer, of his formally retraUing 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 
 Objedions come with an ill Grace from the 
 Mouths of Papifts ^ whofe Doftrine it is that 
 
 * P. 180. tPref, P, 23, 24. 
 
 the 
 
288 An Answer ^^ a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 the Intereft of Holy Church, and the true 
 Rehgion, fliould be fupported by any Means, 
 and at any Rate. Cranmer^ it may be, might 
 for feme time retain fo much Popery, as to 
 proceed upon this Principle. 
 
 As for the long Story about f K. Har- 
 rys Divorce ,1 anfwer in ihort (the' '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 
 tJniverfities upon That occafion ; They were 
 Papills who took them. 
 
 The Tlunder of the Church likewife in 
 That Reign, which was fifty times more 
 than in all other Reigns, was the Work of 
 Papifts. 
 
 The T>iJ}olution of Monafleries was folely 
 in That Reign j fet on toot by Cardinal 
 Woolfey^ carry'd on, and finilh'd by a Popilli 
 King, and Parliament. Not but that the 
 Aftion in the main was good, tho' accom- 
 pany'd with many Abufes. The Number 
 and over-grown Wealth of Thofe JR^eligiotis 
 Hoitfes as they were call'd (tho' fome few 
 of them perhaps might well enough have 
 been fpar'd) was grown a Burthen infuppor- 
 table to the Nation: They were mifchievous 
 both to the Ci'vil State^ and to Keligioui 
 
 t 3d. Dial, ift, 2d, and 3d. Se6lions throoghoat. Pref. 
 
 and 
 
Entitled^ Englcind^ s Converfi on ^ 8cc. 289 
 
 and ftill are fo in Popifh Countries. And 
 notwitliftanding our Author's long Quotati- 
 on from ^ Sir JVillJam T)ngdale-y it were 
 eafy to prove from good Authors, even from 
 Sir William T)ugdale Himfeif, that the hi-- 
 habitants of them were not generally fo 
 chafte^ and iinhlamcahle in their Lives and 
 Converfations, as they are by Some reprc- 
 fented. 
 
 t ^he frequent and prc7nifcnotts Exectt* 
 tions of 'Proteflants as zsoell as Cathclich 
 mider this Sanguinary Tritfce are, I con- 
 fefs, hicwn to all Mankind. But it is as well 
 known that T^his Sanguinary l^rince q'k.qcxX'- 
 tedProtefiants for hei^ig Proteflants ^ Catho- 
 licks, as They are cali'd, not for being Ca- 
 thoHcks, but for denying his Supremacy, and 
 afferting the Pope's. He hangd Tapifts for 
 Crimes againft himfelf; but bttrnt Trote^ 
 Jiauts for being Trotejiants, 
 
 X In Edward t\\Q Sixth's Pveign, they tell 
 US that the Duke of Somerfet^ Lord Pro- 
 teftor, was a very wicked Man \ and car- 
 ry'd on the Reformation with no View, but 
 to advance his own Worldly Inter efi ; That 
 the Re-ve?mes of the Church w^re further 
 retrench' d^ and Churches fpoifd of their rich 
 Ornaments-^ to furnifli the Houfes of Cour- 
 
 *^Sea. 5. p. 195. 
 Pref. P. 30. &c. 
 
 t Prcf. Pi(J. 
 
 tieri 
 
090 An Answer ^(? ^ Tofiflj Booh^ 
 
 tiers, and great Men : That t Queen E- 
 lizaheih was a perfidmis^ hypocritical^ cruel 
 Woman, not without many a Refledtion up- 
 on her Chaftity ; that ihejiripd the Church 
 yet further ; that fhe had the moft wicked 
 Minifiry that ever livM^ that Skv^z fomented 
 the Rebellion of the Scots againft their So- 
 vereign 5 and that the Death of the Queen 
 of Scots is an in ^ehble Stain upon her Cha- 
 r2idizr. Mero we have a mixture of Truth 
 and Faliliood, 'i he Duke of So?nerfet^ I 
 believe, was no very good Man ; and the 
 Principle uDon which he aded in the Refor- 
 mation might, f ■• ought I kiiow, be none 
 of the bed. Tno', 2lf I may here very well 
 obfervc, (and the Cbfervation is applicable 
 to other Agents in This great Work, as 
 well as to the Duke of Scmerfet) it by 
 no means follows that becaufe fuch or 
 fuch a Thinr; is the natural and certain Con- 
 lequence of This, or That Aftion, there- 
 fore a Man muit neceflkrily propofe That 
 Thing as the end of That Adtion. 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 ftronger, when it is apply'd 
 to Perfons of an tmbleraij^jd ChareideYy or of 
 
 t Scil. p. and p^-rjpm, Pref. P. 42, 43. &c. 
 
 whofe 
 
Entitled:, Ellwand'' s ConverJioy?^8cc. 29 1 
 
 whofe Characters wc^ k/?ow nothing: Of 
 which more hereafter. Whoever apply'd 
 the Materials, Utcnfils, or Ornaments of 
 Churches to private and common Ules, as 
 particularly in the famous Cafe of Building 
 Somerfet-Hotife t fo much infilled upon, was 
 guilty of Profanenefs, and Sacrilege. But 
 let Thofe who did it anfwer for it : What 
 is it to Us, or our Rehgion ? Thofe who 
 alienated the Revenues of the Church, pur- 
 lued the Path whicli the Papifts had mark'd 
 out for them ,- and did very ill, I think. 
 Queen Elizabeth was certainly not all Per- 
 fedion, as fome Proteftants perhaps have 
 reprefented her; but it is ascertain 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 of 
 the Queen oiScots^ in particular, is too much 
 aggravated. For after all, tho' flic had 
 hard Meafure; fhe was not entirely imwcenti 
 And the reftlefs Attempts, Plots, and Trea- 
 fons, of the Popiih Faftion may at leaft in 
 fome Degree excufe Queen Elizabeth's ex- 
 torted Confpnt 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 (he did well as 
 a Refor772er ; but are not bound to juftify all 
 her Actions as a ^tteen and a Politician. 
 
 t P. 221. 
 
 U a But 
 
^92 An Answer to a <Pofifh Booh^ 
 
 But fuppofing Kcr, and all the reft of 
 tlie Reformers panicithnly namd by our 
 Author, to have been as bad as he makes 
 them : There were very man'^ other great 
 Men who adcd in it^ and were they all alike ? 
 This charitable Gentleman would have 
 it believ'd that they were. * And what is 
 7nofl remarkable (fays He) we ha^ve not found 
 one (ingle Terfon of Note concern d in the 
 promoting of his fo much hoafted Work of 
 Light ^whofe CharaUer would not at any tifne 
 he aScandal toa Cauje of far lefsMoynent^ &c. 
 What if we had not found one fuch, that 
 is, upon Record, in Hiftory, and mentioned 
 by Name ? Both Houfes of Parliament, and 
 Convocation, the Judges, and great Officers 
 of State, w^ere deeply concern d 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 lefsthan Fifty, 
 in the three Reforming Reigns put together: 
 And was not there one among them, but 
 wnuld have been a Scandal to any Caufe ? 
 (For 'tis Begging the Queftion to fay they 
 w^ere Prcfii2;ates hecaufe they were Refor- 
 mers.) Is fuch a Thing to be fuppofed in 
 common Charity, or even to be conceived 
 in common R rafon ? But befidesj as it 
 happens, we .ha<ve found feveral Righteous 
 ^erjons in the City which our Author repre- 
 
 * Prev p. 5j, 
 
 fonts 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c 295 
 
 fents to have been worfe than Sodom. Tue 
 Compilers of the Common Prayer, whofe 
 Names are upon Record, were Men of Note^ 
 and of Tiety too: Dr. ^^)7/;75 whom 'J^his 
 Writer often quotes, tells us they were * Men 
 famous in their Geveraticn^ and the hoyiottr 
 of the Jge they livd in. So were many 
 who promoted the Reformation, by fulFer- 
 ing Martyrdom for it. All Thtfo wer^ not 
 a Scandal to their Caufe. What thinks our 
 Author oi Edward\L and the Lady Jc^ne 
 Grey ? The lafl, 1 fuppofc. He will fay w^as 
 a Rebel and Ufurper : But it is well known 
 how file may be at ^oaft excused 2is to That 
 Matter : In other refpetts^ fhe was a Pro- 
 digy of Wifdom? Lcarning,and PieLy. And 
 fo was Edward VI. Who, that I may here 
 obferve it once for all, was not fo c^ry a 
 Childy as our Author all along reprefcnts 
 him. Even when he came to the Crown, 
 he was much more than juft of an Jge to 
 legin to learn his Catechijin : 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 
 fixtecn and feventeen wiien he dy'd^ and 
 confidcring; that he w^as a Prince of amazin«; 
 Parts, and Learning above his Years ; and 
 of a manly Genius in every thing, as the 
 
 * Reformation Juflify'd. P. t 5, 
 
 U 3 JournaJ 
 
194 An k^SWEK to aTopifh^ool^'iO^c* 
 Journal he wrote, which is now extant, 
 fufficiently teftifies : I leave it to all e- 
 qual Judges, whctlier our Author be not 
 injurious to Truth in making a 977ere Child 
 of him. But to return to the Reformers in 
 general : The main Body of the Clergy was 
 equivalent to fevcral Perfons of Note ; and 
 they promoted the Reformation by embra- 
 cing it : I hope there were fome good Men 
 among them. If we v;ill believe the Biftiop 
 of Meaii^^ indeed 5 they embracd it upon a 
 vicious Principle. It will be worth While 
 to tranfcribe one Paragraph upon That Sub- 
 jeft ; to give you a Sample of the Reft, 
 "' ^ In the Myftery of the Holy Eucha- 
 ^^ rift the Senfes were flattcr'd, and deliver'd 
 " from their Subjeftion to the Obedience of 
 ^^ Faith. Priefts were difcharg'd from their 
 '^ Celibacy, Monks from their folemn Vows^ 
 *^ and all in general from the Yoke of Co'Hr 
 ^^ feffion : Which, tho' a wholfome Prefer- 
 ^^ vative againft Vice, is a Burthen to Na- 
 '' ture. A more commodious Morality was 
 ^^ therefore preach'd up > which Mr. "Bur- 
 " net fays markM out a plain and eafy Way 
 ^^ to Heaven. Now fuch good-natur d In- 
 "^^ jun6tions could not but meet with an eafy 
 ^' Compliance. So that of i(5ooo Eccleli- 
 ^' afticks, 12 000, if Mr. S/zn^^/ may be be- 
 
 •"■'■='■ nkvu 
 
Erahledy England V ConverJlon^Sc-C. 295 
 
 " liev'd, renounced their Celibacy in the 
 " lliort Reign of Edward VL and all 
 ^' thofe rotten Members of the Church of 
 " Rome^ became good Trotejimits by be- 
 '' coming unfaithful to their Vows. 
 
 ^' 'Tvvas thus the Clergy was gain'd.'' 
 Was it thus only ; as the whole Difccurfe 
 manifeftly tends to perfuade us ? Did they 
 change their Religion upon no other Mo- 
 tive? Is Moniieur de MeaitX fmo they did 
 not? If not^ can any thing be more Un- 
 chriftian, than to fay they did not? "'hey 
 were, like the Jews upon x\vc'Keformati,7i by 
 Chrijlianm^ deliver a from an intolerable 
 Yoke of Ceremonies, and outw^ard Obfer- 
 vances, (only with This Difference, Thofe 
 of the Jews were imposed by God himielf, 
 Thofe of the Papifts were inipos'd partly 
 without any Law of God, partly contrary 
 to one) but does it therfoie follow that 
 they aded with no View but to be fo deli- 
 vered ? Nay, does it follow, that they acced 
 with That Vicw^/- all\ Some temporal Eafe, 
 and Advantage to theiii was a Ccnfcquence 
 of their being Reformed : But it is ;zi?Confe- 
 quence that they were Reform'd for That 
 Reafon. Or if they v/ere. partly for That 
 Reafon,tho' chiejHy for Another j That is no 
 Argument againft them. \Vit:h regard to a 
 good Life in general, a Man may very lawful- 
 ly make the Temporal Advantages cfVertuc 
 one End of his being Vertuous^ tho' not the 
 U 4 the 
 
1^6 An Answer u a ToftP^ Book^ 
 
 the chief. All this Reprefentation of the 
 Matter therefore by Monfieur de Meattx is 
 by no means for the Honour of fo great 
 a Man. As for the Particulars he menti- 
 ons, it will be fufficient to fpcak one Word 
 to each of them. In the ILucharifi^ as 
 well as every where elfe, it was and is fit 
 that the Senf'es 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 
 Themfeives they ought to have been broken 
 orkept^ and whether Thofe who made them 
 were by fufficient Autnority difcharg d from 
 them, it is no Bufinefs of Ours to enquire: 
 Monafteries were diifolv'd hefore the Refor- 
 mation, a. -.ve have obferv'd. But the Bi~ 
 ftiop is miftaken in faying that the Clergy 
 {]t the Reformation broke their Vows of 
 Celibacy j B^:caufe they made none, as "^ 
 Bifhop Biirvet has fhewn. Confefponw^c have 
 not fee afide ; We not only grant, but infift, 
 that in general it is highly expedient, and 
 in fome Cafes little icfs than neceflary : Its 
 being ahjolutely necejfary to Sahation^ and 
 that the "Belief of fuch Nccejfity is fo, is 
 all we deny concerning it. With re- 
 fpeft to bodily Exercife^ and Things un- 
 commanded by God, which in truth have 
 
 '" hJU. of cne Kcfprra. i^art z, \\ 512, 
 
Entitled^ Eng]and''s ConverJiofj^Scc. 197 
 
 no Morality in them, our Church indeed has 
 marUd out a more ealy Way to Hempen than 
 the KomiJJj lias done : But Popery, as I have 
 fhewn in another Treatife_, f has with refpeCt 
 to Morality in general marked 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 gahid. % As to the Laity ^ the Riches^ 
 \ and Ke^evnes of the Church laid open to 
 ' Jiapi72e was become their 'Bait. 'The Tlate 
 belonging to Churches Jilt d tbe 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 lead of the Laity. The Zeal which 
 the Bifhop fhews for the Memory of:]: "Bec- 
 kett That Holy Martyr^ as He calls liim, 
 (and it is as eafy for Us, tho' we deteft the 
 Murther of him^ which was perpetrated by 
 Papifts, not Proteflants, to give him a quite 
 different Title) is no more an Argument 
 for him, than our Abhorrence of his Prin- 
 ciples, and Pradices is an Argument againft 
 him I And in his 1| Comparifon oiBecket and 
 Craumer^ he all along fiippofes what we fhall 
 never grant. I ju(t obfcrvca that one 
 may not only quefiiony but deny the Miracles 
 
 j Popery truly fiatcd. i Prcf P. 37, |1 Picf.. P 40, 41. 
 
 faid 
 
!298 An AksWER to a Topijh Booh^ 
 
 faid to be wrought at That Prelate's Tomb, 
 without turning all Hiftory into Scepticifm -, 
 as Monfieur de Meaux, pretty odly in my 
 Opinion, is plcafed to exprefs himfelf. 
 
 t 'But amidji all Thefe Reformations 
 (fays He) there was one that made no Tro- 
 orejs; to wit the Reformation of Manners, 
 'iha've already taken notice ofjhe Decay of 
 Tiety which follow d LutherV Reformati- 
 on /;? Germany. And we need hut read Mr. 
 Burnet'i" Hiftory to he condncd that the 
 Englifli Reformation producd the eery fame 
 EffeBs. Henry Vlll. was the firji^ &c. And 
 fo proceeds with That King, and the Duke 
 oiSomerfet^ of whom enough already ^ with- 
 out giving any other Inftance of the Decay 
 of Piety upon the Reformation here in Eitg-- 
 land\ And nothing is more certain than 
 that true Chriftian Piety increas'd, not de- 
 cay d, upontheDifcardingofPopifh Tyran- 
 ny, and Super (lit ion. And fo it did in Ger- 
 many too j Notwithftanding Thofe acciden- 
 tal Corruptions which followed theReforma- 
 tion there, but were not the genuine Lffeds 
 oi it, as Moniieur de Mcanx fophiflically 
 fuopofes. It ill becomes a Papift to talk of 
 the Reformation of Manners i I have ^ elfe- 
 where fhewn that m faci^ ^s bad as We 
 are They are a great deal worfe^ that 
 
 \ V '^1 * Por>. truly (lilted. 
 
Entitled^Eng\d.vA's Conveffion^ Sec. a 99 
 
 Their Religion m, and cf itfelf naturally 
 tends to make Men vicious, and that Ours 
 as naturally tends to the^ Contrary. 
 
 Which puts me in mind of what I chiejly 
 infiji upon ; viz. That the Queftion between 
 Us and Them is^ or at leaft ought to be, 
 of Thims rather than of Terfo7is, Suppo- 
 fmg not only fome, but all the Refor- 
 mers to have been as wicked as the Roma- 
 nifl^ would maki' them, than which, as we 
 have feen, nothing can be more falfe ,• what 
 would They infer irom it? That therefore 
 the Reiormaticn is null, and void? Or the 
 reform' d Rehgion vicious, and -orrupt ? I 
 deny the Conf-'quence. A very ill I'^Ian may 
 have lawful Authority : And a very ill Man 
 may do a good Thing ,• ^and that toe with 
 a o-ood Defign : Nay tho^ he does it v;ith an 
 iirD^'fign, That docs not make the Thing 
 ceafe to be good j in itfelf I mean, tho' it 
 does as to Hh72. Farther, the word Adions 
 of the worft Men may be, and often have 
 been, fo turn d and difpos'd by the Provi- 
 of God, as to produce Effeds quite contra- 
 ry to the Intention of the Agents, 
 
 But here the Bifhop of Me mix comes 
 upon us with an Anfwer. t Mr. "Bnrnet (fays. 
 He) takes a great deal of Tains to heap 
 Examples nfon Exf.7nples of ^jiciciisTrinces 
 
 \ Pref. p. 24- 25. 
 
500 An Answer r^^ Topi/Jj^ "Bool, 
 
 whom God has made tife of to bring ahont 
 great "Dejigns. And who doubts it ? liiit 
 can he bring a Jingle Example to pro've that 
 Almighty God intending to re^veal to Men 
 fome important Trttth Unktsown Before, 
 has chofen fo wicked a Trince as Hcnry^ 
 and fo fcandalotis a 'BiJJjop as Cranmer, to 
 he the iin7nediate Inftrtiments of (itch a Mer^ 
 cyi If the Englifli Reformation be a divine 
 Jpork, nothing is more dizine in it than the 
 
 Kings Ecclejiaftical Supremacy.^ — 
 
 Now then it feems^ forfooth^ that God chofe 
 Henry as a proper Terfon to re^^eal this 
 new Article of Faith to &c. I anfwer ift. 
 Neither K. HenrV:, nor Cranmer:, pretend- 
 ed to any new Revelation ^ nor do we in 
 the leaft pretend They had any. 2dly. The 
 K'^gs Supremacy was not unknown "Beforcy 
 was no new Article of Faith ^ nor any Arti- 
 cle of Faith at all : It was, and is, true ^ 
 but not an Article of Faith. It was not 
 firft broach'd at the Reformation i but was 
 the ancient, known, fundamental Dodrine 
 of the EngliJJo Confiitution, So there was 
 no need of a new Revelation in its favour. 
 3dly. What does the Bifhop mean by a di- 
 K)ine Work ? A Work brought about by the 
 Affiftance of immediate Infpiration ? We do 
 not fay the Preformation was a divine Work 
 in That Senfe. Or a Work relating to divine 
 Things, and effected by the extraordinary 
 Providence of God ? In That Senfe the Re- 
 formation 
 
Entitled^Englnad'^s Converjion^ Sec. ]0| 
 
 formation was a divine Work. ThisDiftindi- 
 on is very true, and material ; tho' the Biiliop s 
 Arguing from either Senfe of the Words is 
 ftrangely fingular. If the Englifh Refor- 
 mation he a dhlne Work j nothing can he 
 more divine in it than the Kings Ecclefia- 
 Jiical Supre7nacy ; fince it not only was the 
 fir ft Catije of a Separation from the Church 
 of Rome, which^ as Trotefiants generally 
 Maintain ^is a fiecejJ'aryConditionwith which 
 e'very good and folid Reformation ought to 
 hegin^^ dec. That is. If This be a beautiful 
 Houfe ; nothing can be more beautiful in it 
 than the Fomidation : If That be an excel- 
 lent "Difcomfe ; nothing can be more ex- 
 cellent in it, than the firfi Sentence : Not 
 to infift upon his confounding the T)cUrine 
 itfelf with the Maintaifiing and Jjferting 
 of That Doftrine. Befides ; the Reforma- 
 tion (meaning here the reformed Religion, 
 for of That he fpeaks, tho' he does not fpeak 
 clearly) may be a divine Work even in the 
 highcft Senfe, 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 reformed ReH- 
 gion therefore may be divine ,• notwithftand- 
 ing which, the King's Supremacy, dcftrudive 
 of the Pope's, maybe one of it's Dodrines, 
 and a very true one too, and yet not be 
 divine. Nay the Jffcrting of That Dodrine 
 xaight occajwn the Reformation in Reliction • 
 
 o * 
 
 and 
 
^o2 An Answer to a Topi/h Book^ 
 
 and yet That Dodrine be a very little Part 
 of tlie Religion fo reform J^ or no Part of it at 
 all. When he fays Trotejiants maintain that 
 Separaticn from the Church ^/Rome is a ne-- 
 cejjary Condition^ with which ez^ery good and 
 jolid Reformation ought to begin , He puts a 
 Piece of falfe Dodrine^ andNonfenfe upon us, 
 of which we are wholly innocent. Churches 
 may want to be reformed, and many actual- 
 ly do, which were never in Subjedion to 
 the See of Ro772e ; and other Corruptions 
 ought to be reform'd befidesThofe of Popery, 
 Even They who wifely and difcrcetly throw 
 off the Popifh Corruptions feparate from 
 the Church oiRome only in her Corruptions, 
 or (if you would have it in other Words) 
 only as flie is corrupt, not as fhe is the Church 
 of Rome : And fuch a Separation, if thofe 
 Churches had no Corruptions but Popifli 
 onesj is not only the "Beginjiingoi^ true and 
 [olid Reformation ; but the "Beginnings Mid- 
 dle ^ and End of it too. Let it be obferv'd 
 herc^ as always upon This Subjeft, that 
 when Communion is broken off betw^een two 
 Churches upon the Score of real Corrupti- 
 ons in one of them ; That corrupt Churchy 
 not the other, is properly the Separatift. 
 
 But the Bifliop of Meaux fays, This Point 
 [the Kings Supremacy] "^ is to this "Day 
 the only Toint in which Proteftants ne^er 
 €aryd fince the "Beginning of the Schifm : 
 
 And 
 
Entitled^Engld.nd'^s ConverJlon^Scc, 305 
 
 And from thence likewife infers, that if the 
 Reformation he a divine Work; Ibis ^oiiit 
 is as divine as any timig i?i it. The Ar- 
 gument then, upon Suppofition that the Re- 
 formation is a divine Work, (lands Thus. 
 Whatfoev er 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 i] But the King's Suprema- 
 cy is the only Point in which Protcftants 
 never vary'd : Therefore the King's Supre- 
 macy is as divine as any thing in the Re- 
 formation. I deny both Propofitions : The 
 Major is falfe in Reafon ; and the Minor 
 mFaU. TheFormer proceeds uponThis erro- 
 neous Principle, that a Dodrine's being more^ 
 or lefs vary'd, makes it more, or lefs di- 
 vine j at leail 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 contained in it may be va- 
 ry'd, or difputed, and be divine notwith- 
 ftanding. The Latter is a moft notorious 
 Untruth in Fa6t; For have Proteftants 
 maintain'd no Dcdrine without Variation, 
 but That of the King's Supremacy? How 
 have they vary'd in the Rejcdion of Infalli- 
 bility, the Condemnation of Image-W^or- 
 iliip, Invocation of Saints, Indulgencies, 
 
 and 
 
30| An Answer to a Tomp:> Bool^ 
 
 and Prayers in an unknown Tongue ? How 
 have they vary'd in aflerting that Scripture 
 is the bnly Rule of Faith, that Contrition 
 is ncccffary to Salvation, ^c ? By the way, 
 the Bi(hop takes it for granted that they all 
 agree in the King's Eccleiiaftical Suprema- 
 cyi Which cannot he true of Proteuant Coun- 
 tries that have not Kings; nor is it true of all 
 that have. What he fays about God's Judg- 
 ments upon He7iry VIII. is nothing to the 
 Merits of our Caufe : He was an ill Man no 
 doubt ; and we arc now arguing upon a Sup- 
 pofition, tho' a falfc one, that ail the Refor- 
 jiiers were fo ; tho' That Prince was not one of 
 them. O*^ This Paflage therefore I only 
 obferve, that as it is not pertinent to our 
 Subjed:, fo I am afraid it is not very good 
 Senfe in itfelf. I know of but one Sort 
 of God's JudgraLnts by which Men can bs 
 made "^ an Exafnple: And That is the In- 
 fiiftion of fome fig^ial^ diflinguijloing Pu- 
 niilim.ent ,- not their being barely t delherd 
 tip to their own Tajfions^ and the Flatteries 
 of T'hcje that are about thefu; which is 
 not fo much, if at all, taken notice ofhy 
 the World. 
 
 The Queftion then is not, whether the 
 Reformers were good Men, but whether 
 the Rcform'd Religion be a good Religion. 
 
 * Ibid. t p. >^V- 
 
 Our 
 
Entitled^ England'^ sConverfion^ See. 305 
 
 Our Author Himfelf, after having been at 
 the Expence of fo many Sedions in this 
 Third Dialogue, upon perfonal Scandal, for- 
 gets himfelf in the Fourth, knocks it all 011 
 the Head, and gives up the whole Topick. 
 
 G, ^ £nt pray\ S/r, may not a good 
 Caufe he tmdertakeri^ and forwarded upon 
 had Motwes ? If jo ^ as it cannot he que- 
 ftiond hut it may-, why may not the Re- 
 formation he perfcUly good and juftifahle in 
 it felf^ t ho* it was fetonfoot^ and managd 
 by Terfons of corrupt Morals^ and upon in-- 
 terefted Views ? 
 
 V. Sir^ I dont pretend that efpcnjing a 
 Canje upon interefted or wicked Motives ei- 
 ther fuppojes it to he had^ or renders it fo. 
 ^ecaufe the 'very hcji Caufe may poffibly 
 be efpoiifed with the mofi corrupt Intentions^ 
 and hy Terfons zmd in reality of all Senfe 
 of Religion. £ut I think we ought to he ^ve- 
 ry circumfpeU^ and wary in tnifiing fuch 
 corrupt and mercenary Wretches in matters 
 of Religion i let them profefs as much Zeal 
 for it as they pleafe. 
 
 .So, We have it at laft ^ He has been talking 
 impertinently all this Avhile,^according to his 
 ov^n Account. Not fo, he will fay j We 
 fnufl he n:ery circiimfpeU^ and wary in 
 trtifting fuch Wretches. Is That all ? Has 
 
 X fo 
 
:^o6 An Answer t^ ^ Tofi(h Book^ 
 
 fo much Pains been taken for no more ? 
 Tho' he could not forbear throwing the 
 Dirt 5 hoping it would ftick^ notwithftand- 
 ing This ConcefTion, which ,the unwary 
 Reader very likely might not obfcrve : Yet 
 Prudence ni providing for a Retreat, or, it 
 may be, the irrefifdble Force of Truth, 
 obliged him to make This Acknowledge- 
 ment. He could not therefore avoid taking 
 notice of the ObjeClion : But what an An- 
 fwer has he given to it ? We muft be very 
 wary^ and circnmfpeU j So we are, and Hg 
 knows it : More wary than they defire we 
 ftiould 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 Ozirs. So all 
 this Scandal has been rak'd together, mere- 
 ly for the fake of Scandal j and that ac- 
 cording to his own extorted, tho' tmwaryj 
 Confeffion. 
 
 That from the Corruption of the Refor- 
 mers then, fuppofing them to have been all 
 very wicked, cannot be truly inferred the Cor- 
 ruption oi theReformation, appears from what 
 been difcours'd ; or rather is evident of itfelf. 
 What then ? Is the Confideration oiTerfons 
 to be wholly fet afidc in Cafes of This na- 
 ture ? Not fo neither. If the Things be 
 doubtful, and difficult; the Charaders of 
 Perfons ought to have fomo Weight. But 
 
 when 
 
Entitled^ ^n^'andJs Cmverfion^Scc. 507 
 
 when the Firft are plain, and felf-evident ; 
 the Laft are to be difregarded. Now the 
 Corruptions of Popery were fo flagrant; 
 that it was neceffary to calliicr them, what- 
 ever were the PerfonalCharadlcrs, and Views 
 of Thofe by whom they were to be cafhicr'd. 
 Admitting therefore Henry VIIL to have 
 been a Reformer \ to his objcfted Morals I 
 oppofo the infutferable Ufurpation, and 
 Tyranny of the Tope. Againfl: Cramner^ (fup- 
 pofing him to have been as bad, as they 
 would make him, tho' nothing can be more 
 falfe) I fet Image-Worfliip, Communion in, 
 one Kind, with about a Dozen 'more : And 
 Tranfubftantiation will at any time be a 
 Match for the Duke of Sornerfeu Purga- 
 tory, the Do(ftrine of Merit, Indulgencie^, 
 and the Deftruftion of all Morality and 
 common Honefty by Opits Operatuin^ will 
 at leaft be a Ballance to the profligate Prin- 
 ciples and Pradice of Queen Elizabeth^ and 
 her Minillry ; (I fpeak in the Language of 
 a Papifl) And the Fact of the Death, call 
 it Mttrther^ if you will, of Mary Queen 
 of Scots^ was not near fo great a Blemifli 
 upon That Proteftant Reign, as the Doc- 
 trine of Depofing and Murthcring 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, 
 ^^ere That the only Confideration. But it 
 
 X 2 happens 
 
3c8 An Answer to a <Poftfh Book^ 
 
 happens to be quite otherwife, Befides ,• 
 Were all This Arguing from Fads to Do- 
 (ftrines, from Perfons to Things, really con- 
 clulivcj it maybe retorted upon the Roma- 
 nifts, and holds full as ftrongly againft Them, 
 as againft Us. To pafs over That Monfter 
 Thocas^ who firft encouraged the Pope's Su- 
 premacy ; as aifo the flagitious Lives of very 
 many Popes themfelves ; let us confine our 
 Remarks to the Times of which we are 
 fpeaking, wlien the Struggle w^as made 
 about the EngUflj Reformation. Queen 
 ili/^rjpromifed the Norfolk and Sttffolk Men, 
 and her Council, that flie w^ould make 
 no Alteration in Reiigion. Did She mean 
 that She would continue the Reformation, 
 as it was in her Brother's Reign ? If fo ^ She 
 broke her folemn Royal Promife, in a Thing 
 of the mcft important and facred Nature. 
 Did She mean that She would reilore Po- 
 pery? Ifloi 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 "Baliol^ and many other 
 Places, caft no Slurupon 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 fhall have Occafion to fpeak 
 more in another Place. Did not Gardiner 
 
 promote 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ Sec. ^09 
 
 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 "Bonner ? Concerning 
 which Latter it may be added that he is 
 faid to have favoured the Lutherans in Hend- 
 ry VIII's Reign j tho' he was fo cruel a Per- 
 fecutor in Queen Marys. 
 
 To fumm up the w^hole Evidence under 
 This Head. ift. All thofe whom our Ad- 
 verfaries call Reformers were not fo. idly. 
 The word: Things done in thole Times which 
 They objed againft, were done by Papifts, 
 not by Protcftants. sdly. Some of the Re- 
 formers might indeed be bad Men. Tho' 
 4thly. They were not fo bad as our Ad- 
 verfaries reprefent them. 5thly. Many of 
 them were excellently good Men. 6thly. 
 Suppofe all This were quite otherwife, and 
 all the Fads were exacSly fuch^as the Papifts 
 have delivered them to us ; yet the Confe- 
 quence is utterly falfe ; The Reformers 
 might be all vicious ; and yet the Reform'd 
 Religion may be pure and holy. And we 
 have prov'd from Reafon, and Scripture, that 
 it is fo. 7. Laftly, the Argument may 
 be retorted upon our Adverfaries^-and proves 
 as ftrongly againft Them as againft Us. 
 
 X 3 The 
 
tio An A^SV^'EK to aTopifh^ool^l^c. 
 
 The next Objedion is about the Means by 
 which the Reformation was effedtedo To 
 which I anfwer, ift. That tho' a good End 
 does not excufe, much lefs fan(itify5 bad 
 Means (to fay it does, is Popifh^ not Pro- 
 teftant Dodrine) yet a good End may be 
 brought about by bad Means 5 and the Bad- 
 nefs of the Laft-mention'd deftroys not the 
 Goodnefs of the Other , I mean as to the 
 Thing itlelf, tho' it does as to the Agent. 
 But 2dly. We will confider the Fafts alledg'd. 
 And the fir ft is Force and Compiilfton. By 
 what our Author 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 23/V 
 clefian. Whereas, in truth, there was no Force 
 us'd by our Proteftant Reformers, but what 
 was necellary to guard the Laws of the Land; 
 No Papift was burnt for Religion mEdward 
 VI. and Queen Elizabeth's Time, as Many 
 Proteftants were in Q. Marys. With what 
 face ^an 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 VL and Q. Elizabeth j but 
 moft falfe of Q. Mary. But no Wonder 
 that Thofe who deny the Towder-Tlot^ 
 fliould a^irrn This ^ or indeed affirm, or de- 
 ny, any thing clfe. Let the Reader upon 
 This Article look into Primate ^ramhaUs 
 Jtiji Vindication^ P. 6^^ 66. 
 
 Apd 
 
Entitled^ England ^j* ConverJlon^Scc. 511 
 And This leads me to our Author's curious 
 Reafoning upon the Statute whereby^ as *^ 
 He affirms, faying Mafs is made High 
 Treafon^ a^id being prefent at it Felofiy. 
 No doubt % pe7ial Laws can never change 
 the Nature^ or EJJhice of Things^ 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 Virtue, or Vice into another. 
 This is true, but not to the Purpofe. For 
 I ft. Treafon, properly and ft:iftiy fpeaking, 
 is a Political Crime. " High Treafon f 
 ^^ (fays the Law oi England) is an Offence 
 " committed againft the Security of the 
 " King or Kingdom." If it be confideredas 
 a &';?, or an Offence againft the Lawof God j 
 It is call'd Undutifulnefs, Refiftance, or Dif- 
 obedience to the Higher Powers, Rebelhon^ 
 (jc. not Treafon. Treafon is a Law Term ^ 
 not an Ethical, or Theological one. 2dly. Hu- 
 man Laws may change the Nature of Crimes 
 in a Civil tho' not in a Theological Senfe. 
 Murder itfelf is one Thing in Divinity, and 
 another in Law : And the Law may make 
 That to be Murder, politically fpeaking, 
 which was not fo before. For Inftance, 
 What is now barely Manflaughter may be 
 made Murder ; and perhaps in feme Cafes, 
 
 * P. 270, to 273. tP. 270e ]Woofi\n^h\xiV» $87. 
 
 it 
 
^i^ jln Answer to a Topjlo Book^ 
 
 it would not be amifs, if it were. sdly. 
 The Laws, after all, making (as 'tis cali'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 A6ts of Parliament, are, flmll he tahn^ 
 deenid^ adpidgdto he High Treafon \ which 
 may mean no more than treated as if it 
 were f o : And more plainly. The Terfons 
 CofwiU Jhall ftiffer 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 Ihews the Inconfequence 
 of our Author's Arguing. "^ Hence it follows ^ 
 fays He, that if ^. Elizabeth'j- JLaw was 
 jtift^ faying Mafs hoth is, and has always 
 heen^ a Sin of as hlack a T>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 enafted and declard 
 that it Jhall be fo. What t He here offers 
 in Juftification of faying Mafs, in Point of 
 
 '^ Hid, t W 
 
 Jleligion. 
 
Entitled^ England'^" ConverJion^ScQ* 5 1 5 
 
 Religion, from the Example of St. Gregory^ 
 and Others, has been elfewhere fufficicntly 
 confider'd ; and is nothing to the prefent 
 Purpofe. I fliould not have been fo 
 particular upon This ; but that our Author 
 raifes fuch Tragedies about it. Jnd there^ 
 fore^ fays He, % I cannot hut regard that 
 Sanguinary Statute of ^. Elizabeth, which ^ 
 during her lo7igKeigny was executed with 
 the utmoft Violence^ and Rigor^ as one of 
 the hlackeji Stains in her CharaUer. That 
 it was executed with the utmoft Violence, 
 and Rigour, is utterly untrue : If ever 
 there was fuch a Statute at all j As it is 
 pretty plain to Me, there never was. But 
 That is a Circu7nftance^ which we wave 
 at prefent. The next Words are Thefe. 
 
 II "Buty Sir^ Trot eft ants will fay ^ that ^. 
 Ehzabeth regarded theT>oUrine of the Mafs 
 as an execrable Herefy. And when Jhe made 
 Laws againfi it^ and executed thofe Lawf^ 
 She only follow d the ^Examples of her Father 
 Henry, and Sifter Mary ^ who had put Je-^ 
 oeral Terfons to "Deaths ii,pon the Score of 
 Herefy. Before the Preceptor fpeaks, \i^t 
 me put in one Word by way of Anfwer 
 to the young Gentleman. Q. Elizabetb 
 might, and that very juftly, regard the Do- 
 
 * P. 171. II Ibid, 
 
 (flrine 
 
514 AnAj^SWERtoa Topijh Booh^ 
 
 drine 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 he queftioned hut that Me- 
 refy is riot only a mofi grievous Sin^ hut ma- 
 ny times of pernicious Confequence to the 
 Etate-y and may therefore in certain Circum- 
 fiances he mftly pttnijlid with T>eath. I 
 am glad he puts it upon That Foot ; Their 
 Laws about hurning Hereticks^ make He- 
 refy as Herefy punifhable with Death. 
 t 'Btit whether hoth Henry and Mary had 
 always a due regard to Ihofe Circum- 
 dances^ 1 will not undertal'e to determine. 
 One may without any Prefumption under- 
 take to determine, that they regarded Thofe 
 .whom they calfd Hereticks as Hereticks, 
 and punifti'd them with Death for being 
 fuch : And in fo proceeding they afted ac- 
 cording to the Principles of their Religion. 
 ± T^his howe^ver I am fure of^ That their 
 Caje was 'vcry different from that of ^. E- 
 lizabcth." It was indeed ; and I have above 
 taken notice how it was. || Hecaufe they on- 
 ly puniflU Herefy which had heen con- 
 
 ♦ Ihid i P. 272. ilhld, II Ihid, 
 
 demn d 
 
Entitled^Enahnd's Converfion^ &c, ; f y 
 
 demnd many J^es hefore hy the JJnherfal 
 Church. No I'uch matter: And I have 
 fully flievvn the FalQiood of This confi- 
 dent AfTertion. '^ /Fy&^r^^i* ^ 0. Elizabeth 
 thought jit (^as ftipreme Head of the Church) 
 to regard the T)oUrine of the Mafs as a 
 Herefy-y it was a Her efy form d in her own Im-^ 
 agination^ncver thought ^nor heard of at leaji 
 hefore the Reformation^ in any ChriftianNa" 
 tion under the Sun. I anfwer, ift. Q. Eliza- 
 beth alone nei her did, nor could, make 
 This, or any other Statute : She made it, if 
 it was made at all, in Conjundion with her 
 two Houfes o£ Parliament. 2dly. She did 
 not aft in That matter, as fupreme Head of 
 the Church, but in her Civil Capacity, ^dly. 
 She and her Parliament did not Here 
 regard the T>oUrine of the Mafs as 
 Her efy I but the Saying arid Heading of 
 Majs as prejudicial and pernicious to the 
 Kingdom. 4thly. If They did regard the 
 Do(ftrine of it as Herefy, They were in 
 the Right j as it were eafy to Shew. 
 Therefore, 5 thly. It was not a Herefy form d 
 in ^. Elizabeth'j own Imagination. 6thly. 
 This Herefy w^as mAQed never thoitght^ 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 
 
 of 
 
^i6 An Answer ^ofi Topi/h !Boohy 
 
 of as a Herefy^ before the Reformation ; and 
 yet be one from its Birth. "^ Nay She her- 
 f elf at her fir fi Coming to the Crown, or- 
 derd a folemn Mafs to be [aid for the Soul 
 of her Sifier Mary, and a^iother 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 Hifiory^^ and 
 there is no Truth in it. Or if it were true,- 
 it would be nothing to the Purpofe. t litit 
 after ally Sh\ the Triejis that fufferd in 
 her Keign did not ftiffer for Herejy^ but 
 for Treajon. Very well ^ And all Papifts 
 that futfer'd in her Reign, fufter'd for Po- 
 litical Crimes, not for Religion ^ as Pro- 
 teftants did in Q. Marys. After allj what 
 fingle Prieft did fuffer, as a Traytor, in Q. 
 Elizabeth's Reign, for faying Mafs j or what 
 fingle Perfon as a Felon, for being prefent 
 at it ? After all too, what Statute is This, 
 of which our Author fpeaks ? When w^as 
 it made ? and how is it worded ? Why 
 there is no fuch Statute in Being ,• 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 Felo7iy ior being 
 at Mafs. And 2dly. as to the Treafon^ 'tis 
 not faying Mafs that is made fo : But it j^ 
 
 * Ibid. t Ibid. 
 
 enaifled 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converjion^ Sec. 3 1 7 
 
 enaded that whoever fliall fay, or hear 
 private Mafs, and refufe the Oaths of Su- 
 premacy^ (jc. after they are twice tendered, 
 fhall^ be guilty of Treafon. 'Tis therefore 
 refufing the Oaths in Them who fliall 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 involv'd 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 
 Objcdion. 
 
 To our Author's pofitive Affertion, "^ that 
 It was not fo much as pretended that the 
 Priefts, who thus fufferdy were gnilty of a- 
 ny Endeatmirs to fithvert the Go'vernment^ 
 or of any treafonahk TraUifes^ except That 
 of faying Mafs^ I anfwer ift. Whatever 
 is to be laid of T'hem in particular, if there 
 were any fuch ; it is pretty plain from the 
 Preamble to 27 J5fe. Cap. 2. That fome 
 Popilli Priefts were pretended at leaft to 
 be guilty of fuch Pra<ftifes in That Reign. 
 *' Whereas divers Perfons calfd or profefs'd 
 *' Jefuits, Seminary Priefts, and other Priefts 
 
 " have of late Years come, and been 
 
 fent, and daily do come, and are fent in- 
 to this Realm of E^iglandy and other 
 
 ' Ibid. 
 
 tl the 
 
 cc 
 
3i8 An Answer to a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 *^ the Queen's Majefty's Dominions, of 
 *^ Purpofe (as it hath appear d as well by fun- 
 '^ dry of their own Examinations., and Con- 
 *^ feifions, as divers other manifeft Means, and 
 '^ Proofs) not only to Withdraw her High« 
 *' nefs's Subjects from their due Obedience 
 *^ to her Majefty, but alfo to ftir up and 
 " move Sedition, Rebellion, and open 
 *^ Hoftility within the fame her Highnefs's 
 *^ Realms and Dominions, to the great 
 " endangering of the Safety of her moft 
 *^ Royal Perfon, and to the utter Ruin and 
 '' Delolation of the wholeRealm, if the fame 
 ^^ be not the fooner by fome good Means 
 " forefeen, and prevented : Be it enafted 
 " Cjr." 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 Bifhops, and fome of the In- 
 ferior Clergy, who would not comply with 
 it. But is T his fo great a Hardftiip ? Such 
 mighty Force and Violence ? Is it fitting, 
 or agreeable to Common Senfe, that a Pro- 
 
 * 240, 254. and elfewhere, 
 
 teftant 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converfion^ &c. 3 1 9 
 
 teftant Government fliould fuflfer a Popifh 
 Prelacy and Clergy ? Would any Popifh 
 Government fuffer Bifliopricks, or other 
 Eccleiiaftical Preferments, to be held by Pro- 
 teftants Mf 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 iliall have occafion to cite hereafter, adly. 
 By asking, whether it be not known to all 
 the World that Bifliops were deprived by 
 the Regal Authority only, in Q. Mary\ 
 Reign, as well as in Q. Elizabeth^ s ? 
 
 And This brings us to their grand Objefti- 
 cn of all, concerning the Ufiirpations-^ and 
 Encroachments of the State upon xXv^Church* 
 And here is a heavy Accufation indeed. If 
 we will take Things as "^ This Author and 
 the Bifliop oiMeaux 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 enflav'd by the 
 Court, and abfolutely quitted to the Crown 
 all the CommifiTion they had received from 
 Chrift: It was, and is, the Doftrine of the 
 Reform'd Church of England^ that all Ec- 
 clefiaftical Powers are deriv'd from the Ci- 
 vil, and the Church is a mere Creature 
 
 * Pref. and 3d. Dial, pajftm* 
 
 of 
 
520 An Ai>[SW ER to a Topjh Bool^ 
 
 of the State : The Reformation was made 
 entirely, or very near entirely, 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 Monfier unheard 
 of Before ^ as a Thing to the laft degree 
 abfurd, and impious. To which I anfwer, 
 I ft. King Henry VIH. who, as They fay, 
 firft qffiimd 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, and to the conftant Pradtife of God's 
 Church, both Jewifti, 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 Sramball particularly. 
 And therefore when our Author affirms * 
 that King Henry VIII. was made Supreme 
 Head of the Church by the Parliaments 
 he is doubly miftaken j He was not Made 
 
 ♦ Pref. p. I (J. 
 
 fo. 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Converfion^ 8cc. 5 z i 
 
 fojbut Declar'd fo ; and not by the Par^ 
 lia7neut only, but by the Clergy in Convo- 
 cation alfo : Of which latter more in ano- 
 ther place. That there iliould be fuch a 
 Supremacy as We contend for, is neccfiary 
 to the Well-being at kiift of Civil Go- 
 vernment, if not the very Being of it. There 
 would otherwife be really Impcrhim in Im--- 
 feriOy or rather the greateft Danger oilm-- 
 fermm contra Imperium^ in the fame Na-* 
 tion. If the Sovereign Prince had not a 
 Right to take Cognizance of all Caufes, 
 Ecclefiaftical, as well as Civil, and fomo 
 Authority over them ^ He Vv^ould be but a 
 Piece of a King in his own Dominions, and 
 his Government w^ould be manifeftly preca- 
 rious. The Church by Vertue of Thofe 
 Words in or dine ad Spiritualia^ might (as 
 P&pes have adually done) exercife tem- 
 poral Authority, and deltroy the Regal 
 Power. Such a Supremacy therefore is 
 " a Right due to all ChrilHan Princes 
 " by the Laws of God and Nature/* as Pri- 
 mate "Bramhall fpeaks ^. ' 
 
 I lay, fiich a Supremacy as We contend 
 for. If then we are ask'd, what Suprema- 
 cy ? I own, the right QuelHon is, what 
 is the Princes Power over the Church, and 
 how far does it extend ? Our Adverfaries 
 
 * Schifm guarded P. 360. 
 
 X mil 
 
5^1 An A^SVJEK to aTopfh^ooh^lffc. 
 
 will have it that we mean This, or That 
 by iti whether JVe will, no. They take 
 notice of our Explanations, but will not ad- 
 mit of them y that is, they will not fuffer 
 us to underftand our own Meaning, but are 
 refolv'd to underltand it better than we 
 Ourfelves. I fay but little of This Matter, 
 as it flood in the Reigns of He^iry VIII. and 
 Edward VI. becaufe all that is incumbent 
 upon Us Now, is to juftify the Reforma- 
 tion as it Now is. This we may be allowed 
 to plead, upon our Author's own Conceffion. 
 t T'lms then^ fays He, fpeaking of Queen 
 Eliz-ahetlSs Reign, was laid the JBoimdati- 
 on of the Refomd Engliih Churchy as it 
 Now fiands. For all former JUs relating 
 to the Supremacy having been repeat d in 
 O, Mary V Keign ; the Reformation began 
 ^entirely npon a new Footing in the 7 ear 
 1558, which was the frft of Queen Ehza- 
 beth'j Keign. And tho it commonly takes 
 its T>ate from the 7ear wherein King 
 Henry affu7nd the Spirittial Supremacy^ and 
 thereby opend the way to the fe^^eral Re- 
 formations that follow dy yet To Speak 
 Properly, the Refoprid Chtirch of 'Eng- 
 land, as to it^s prefent Fftablid^ment^ and 
 Confutation^ can trace it's Original no high- 
 er^ than the 7 ear 1558 j when it's Founda- 
 
 t P. 251. 
 
 Uon 
 
'Entitled J England 'j" ConverJion^Scc. ^ 2 j 
 
 tion was firji laid upon ^aeen Elizabeth^ 
 Spiritual Supremacy-, as its chief Ground-' 
 work. Tho* fomething may be here liable 
 to juft Exception, as to the Date of the 
 Reformation, with refpedt to many Points ,• 
 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 [peak improperly : And therefore^ 
 had it not been for the fake of Scandal, a 
 very great Part of his hoajied Performance 
 might have been fpared. I fliall, notwith- 
 Handing, 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 
 ahundanti^ and more than I am oblig'd to. 
 He afferts t that the Act of Supremacy 
 left owed upon K.ing Henry VIII. "J'hat fame 
 Supreme Spiritual JurifdiUion mid Hutho* 
 rity of which they haddifpojfefsd the Tope : 
 AndT^hat differs as much from the Tem- 
 poral JurifdiUion and Authority of Kings ^ 
 as the Kegal andEpifcopal CharaUcrs differ 
 from one another. I anfwer, ift. The Thing 
 itfelf is not true : There are nofuch Words 
 in the Adt^ which he juft before recites, as 
 
 Y ^ the 
 
^24 ^^^ Answer to a fopifh Book^ 
 
 the ftipreme Spiritual JurifdiUion of which 
 the Tope was difpojjejfed: Nor can fuch aPow- 
 er be inferred from the Words of That, or 
 any other Aft, join'd with the Pradice which 
 explains them, ^dly. He fuppofes that the 
 Pope, in vertueof his Supremacy, afted as 
 a ^ifljQp ; Which is mod falfe: He afted as 
 a Monarch , a Monarch not only in Spiri- 
 tuals, but in Temporals ^ 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 W^ri- 
 ter to give the Pope no more than an Epif- 
 copalCharader ? Did He claim no more ? Or 
 if he did jdoes theEpifcopal Charafter import 
 afupremcfpiritualMonarchy over allBifliops? 
 And did notPopes pretend to fuch aMonarchy? 
 What I further obferve upon This Headjfliall 
 be apply'd as an Anfwer to the Bilhop of 
 Meatixs AiTertions. " t To prepare the 
 " Way, fays He, for their intended Refor- 
 '^ mation in the King s Name {Edward the 
 '^ Sixth's) He was immediately declared, as 
 '^ his Father had been before him, fupreme 
 '- Head in Spirituals, as well as Temporals, 
 ^^ of the Church of Englafid. For from 
 ^' the Time that Henry took upon him the 
 " Spiritual Supremacy, it became a Maxim, 
 " that the King was Pope in England. But 
 " greater Prerogatives v/ere beftow'd upon 
 
 tPref. P. 31, 
 
 Thi5 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 575 
 
 ^^ This new Pope, than the Popes of 'Ko^ne 
 ^^ had ever claim'd. For the Bifhops were 
 " obHg'd to receive new Commiffions from 
 '^ King Edward revocable at Picafure , as 
 '^ King Henry had before, (^c'' Notwith- 
 ftanding the Cafe pf the Commiirions re- 
 vocable at Pleafure (which is the worft they 
 can fay, and which I confcfs is bad enough^ 
 it is untruly afferted 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 claimVi a pie- 
 nitude of Tower to do what they fleas d 
 with all Bifliops, and indeed with every 
 Body elfe, both in Spirituals, and Tem- 
 porals. And accordingly they fet up, 
 and pulfd down, put in, and turn'd out, 
 whom they lik'd, or diflik'd : For not only 
 the Power of the Bifliops to exercife their 
 Funftions, but their Bilhopricks, and their 
 very Orders, were re^'ocahle at pleafiire. 
 
 The repeated Clamours of our Author,and 
 Monfieur de M. againft the Spiritual Pow- 
 ers fuppos'd to bo ufurp'd by the Crown, and 
 yielded by the Clergy, in Thofe Reigns, 
 will of courfe,be anfwered, when we come 
 to Queen Elizabeth's (upon which, for the 
 above-mention'd Reafon, we fhall chiefly 
 infift) becaufe That will necefiarily have 
 a Retrofped to the other Two. Here I 
 only ask : Do our Adverfaries really^ and 
 in carnep; infift, that according to Us all 
 
 Y 3 Manner 
 
526 An Answer to a Topijh Book^ 
 
 Manner of Spiritual Power and Authority is 
 originally in 'the Crown, and derived from it 
 to the Bifhops and Clergy ; or do they Not > 
 If they do Not ; why do This Author and 
 the Bifliop oi Meatix talk as if they did i 
 and That fo very often, and in as plain 
 Words as can be Utter d ? If theydo fo infift ; 
 was there ever any thifig more falfe and ab- 
 furda than fuch an AfTertion? Do they not in 
 their own Confciences know it to be falfe ? 
 And do they not fnamefuUy contradid them- 
 felves by owning that even Henry VIII. 
 had not Power given liim to preach, and 
 adminifter the Sacraments ? For fo This ^ 
 Writer acknowledges exprefly ; and the Bi- 
 fliop of Meaux^ and all Mankind, muft ac- 
 knowledge the fame. Is it not evident e- 
 ven to Them, that whatever be meant by 
 feme ftrange ExprefTions in Atts of Parlia- 
 ment, CommiiTions, (iyc. That ca?mot be 
 the Meaning of them which Thefe Writers 
 pretend ; or at lead that it is not our Mean- 
 ing Now, and was not in Q. IBjUzahetJos 
 Days ? ^ But our Author, as I faid^ will 
 not fuffer us to know our own Meaning, 
 and to explain it our own Way. / infifi 
 fo paYticiilarly upon This^ fays He, t he- 
 caufe when the aU of Supremacy^ which 
 %£as repeat d in ^ Mary's Reigny wets a- 
 gain renewed infa^vour of ^ Vslizahcth^and 
 
 grea-^ 
 
Enthkdy En^^nd'sConverJlon^ 8cc. 3^7 
 
 great 'Numbers appear d fcandalizd 
 
 that a Woman JJjould he dcclard Supreme 
 Head^ &c. to cot'er the Scandal of it^ the 
 Compofers of the 39 Articles were obligd to 
 glofs it over with this jlraind Interpret 
 tatiouy that the Act meant vo more than to 
 gi^w that Trerogati've to the (^tieen which 
 had been gicen to all godly Trinces^ &c. 
 Art. 37. Hut who fees not that This was 
 hit a Gilding of the Till, &c ? 'But ^nore 
 of this hereafter. Hereattcr then we fha'l 
 meet with it ; and fliall not in the Icaft be 
 afraid of it. At prefent I obferve, ift. That 
 Q Mary did not lay afi.de the Title of 
 Head of the Churchy till the Third Parlia- 
 ment of her Reign ^ with Reluftancy did it 
 even Then ; and very likely had not done 
 it at all, but that it was neceifaryj 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 Churchy was fo abfurd and 
 wicked, as apply'd to a Woman ; what iliall 
 we fay of their Favourite Q. Mary^ who for 
 fo long a time ufurp'd it ? 2dly. The Article 
 was notcontriv'd to glofs over the Scandal 
 of a Woman's being declared Head of the 
 Church 'y For Q. Elizabeth^ who never lik'd 
 That Title, laid it afide before the Articles 
 were compos'd, 
 
 ^ See Dr. Hajjimond^s Works Vol. I. P. 525. 
 
 Y 4 i: G. 
 
5 2g An Answer to a Topi/^j Bool^ 
 
 t G. But may we net take theOath ofSuprc 
 " macy with This Interpretation tack'd to it ? 
 P. " I fliould be loath to do it. And my 
 *^ Reafon is, becaufeOaths are facred Things, 
 and not to be trifled with ; Nor can any 
 Man warrant me to fwear one thing and 
 mean another. As I cannot, for example^ 
 fwear that the King of Great "Britain is 
 "^^ the Czar oi Mufcoty -, tho' he that fhould 
 " tender this Oath fliould alTure me that 
 " nothing more was meant by it than that 
 '^ the King of Great "Britain is the Supreme 
 " Head and Gcz'ernor in his own Domini- 
 " ons, as the Czar of MufccDy is in his, 
 " Bccaufe Tho' this Interpretation imports 
 " a real Truth, it differs wholly from the 
 " obvious Meaning of the Words of the 
 *^ Oath.'' Oaths are certainly facred Things ; 
 fo facred, that I cannot reconcile the Popifli 
 Dofirinc of Equivocation and mental Refer-? 
 yation with their Sacrcdnefs. But is this Pro- 
 polition, T'he King of Great Britain is in his 
 czjon l'3o7ni7iions Supreme O'ver all Tcrfons^ 
 in ail Caufes^ JLcclefiafiical^ and Cimh as 
 manifcftly falfe as This, T'he King of Great 
 Britain is the Czar of Mufcovy ? And are 
 Thefc Words, We do vot mean that the 
 King- of Great Britain has Authority to 
 f reach J and ad^ninifier the Sacraments^ hut 
 'only that he has thefajne Trerogatiz^e which 
 
 has 
 
Entitkd^ England^ Conver/ion^&cc- 319 
 
 /jas been gicen to all godlyTrinces^ to rule all 
 Eftates and T>egrees^ &c. as different from 
 the obvious Scnfe of the Former ; as Thefe^ 
 nothing more is meant hy it than that tha 
 King of Great Britain is th^ Suprefne Head 
 and Go'ternour in his own Dominions^ as 
 the Czar of Mufcovy is in His^ manifeft- 
 ly are from the obvious Senfc of the Lat- 
 ter? Anybody, that has Eyes, may fee 
 the Contrary, 
 
 * In the firfi Tlace^ continues He, it 
 made him Supreme Judge in all Contro- 
 'verfies of Religion^ &c. And fo proceeds, 
 displaying under three diftinft Heads the 
 Plenitude of Spiritual Power afcrib'd toK. 
 Henry by the k&: of Supremacy- To all 
 which I have given a general Anfwer al- 
 ready i and referve a more particular one 
 for a more proper Place. His affirmins; that 
 t the Tarliame7it a^Sed with jttji as' much 
 Treedom as a Man deli'vers his Pmfe when 
 he has aTiftol prefented to his"Breaff^ is a lit- 
 tle odd. That the Clergy were in fome Mea- 
 fure influenc'd by Fear, I grant ; and iliall 
 fpeak to That Objeaion hereafter. But that 
 the Tarliamenis Voting was extorted by 
 Fear^ isnotfo plain: I never heard of any 
 Tremunire They had incurred. 
 
 X His next Words arc?, Ifhoidd he ^lad 
 to know from T^hich of the Jpofiles King 
 Henry defcended. Really, I cannot inform 
 
 .*P^ 1^0, i^u Wh'id, % Ibid. 
 
 him 
 
3^o An Answer to a Topi/h Bool^ 
 
 him : Neither am I fenfible that King Heji^ 
 ry ever imagin'd 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- 
 folve; preach'd at lead once a Month to 
 exercife his Faculty ; and adminifter'd all 
 the fe^'en 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 s that Henry VIII. did 
 not dream of governing the Church as a 
 CUrgymai^^ but as a King. 
 
 Which brings us back to our Main Point, 
 the Nature^ and Extent^ of the Regal Su- 
 fremacy in Ecchfiajiical P^-^^irs ; accord- 
 ing to the true Senfe and Meaning of our 
 Churchy and State too, upon That Head. 
 This will be beft cleared by our confidering 
 the Explication of it in Q. Elizaheth\ 
 time before hinted at, and now to be more 
 fully difcufs'd. Our Author, fpeaking of 
 the 37th. Article, tells us, || i{i. "Tbat the 
 precariczis Interpretation of a few private 
 Terfons cannot invalidate the force of a 
 folemn AU of Parliaments with the Royal 
 Sanction to it. I anfwer, ilh All the Bi- 
 fliops, and the whole Reprefentative Body 
 of the Clergy in Convocation, can with no 
 
 tolerable 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's ConverJion^Scc. 5 j I 
 
 tolerable Propriety be call'd a few private 
 Perfons. Not a few; becaufe there are in 
 both Provinces, above. 200 of them. Not 
 prhate Terfons , becaufe they are aflbmbled 
 in a Parhamentary Way, and ad in a pub- 
 lick legiflative Capacity. 2dly. The Par- 
 liament then in Being acquiefc'd in This 
 Interpretation^ and fo did the Queen, for 
 whofe Ufe the Aft was made, sdly. A 
 fubfequent Parliament confirmed, and efta- 
 blifh'd This Interpretation by * confirm- 
 ing and eftablifhing the 39 Articles. 
 
 He fays,, idly That the Interpretation 
 contain d in the I'-jth Article^ if meant of the 
 One ens Supremacy over the Clergy ^as well as 
 Laity )inT^emporcils only^is hothfri^volons^ and 
 contrary to the plain Meaning ofthejU. It is 
 indeed, if That be JIL 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 Efiates^ 
 and T>egrees , which im.plies more than all 
 Men : All Eftates, and Degrees ; L e. as 
 fnch ; Which includes Things as well as 
 Terfons, If it be objefted tliat I interpret 
 the Interpretation arbitrarily j I reply, I 
 do not : Becaufe the Interpretation t re- 
 fers to the Queen's Injunftions ^ and the 2)/^- 
 /j)', and Allegiance acknowledgd to he duo 
 to Henry VIII. and Edward VI. which ia 
 
 *I5 El'tz* Chap. 1 2. fee Wood Inflit. P. 5;, ')A. ] See 
 Art $7. and Q: Eliz,\, Injun£l. S^arroiv^ Collect* P. 77, 7S\ 
 
 the 
 
the ftrongeft Terms (too ftrong in our Au- 
 thor's Opinion, and perhaps in Mine like- 
 wife) relates to Caufes, and Things, as well 
 as Perfons. t The Word Caiifes 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 Cattfes Ecclejiaftical. See Can. 
 I. II. LV. Our Author therefore might 
 iave fpar'd his Pains in proving fo trium- 
 phantly what Nobody denies (a Task in 
 which upon all Occafions lie takes great 
 Delight) X that Eccleiiaftical, or Spiritual 
 Things and Causes are in exprefs Terms 
 mention'd in the Oath annex'd to the Ad: 
 of Supremacy, and the Senfe of them con- 
 tain'd in the Ad itfelf : But his Inference 
 from it, that therefore the Explanation in 
 the 37th. Article is inconfiftent xntli the 
 *hCt and Oath, is vain and groundiefs. The 
 moft can be faid is, that the Explication 
 might have been more explicit i and I own 
 it might : But That infers not Inconfiftency, 
 or Contradidion. But I am foreftaliing 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 Keafonings will 
 be anfwered with a great deal of Eafe. 
 
 f See A^ of ^Snpi'em. 16 Hen, VlITt Cap, i, ± p 25T, 
 
Entitled^ Englaad'i Converfion^ &c. 555 
 
 "^ It is fri'VolGiis^ fays He^ [meaning the 
 Interpretation of the Aft in the Article] 
 hecanfe it renders the JU itfelf a mere 
 
 Mock-AU- For what Man in his Senfes 
 
 ever doiihtedhtit that a Sovereign Trince — 
 has the Supreme Aiithcrity ot^er both Clergy^ 
 and Laity ^ in "Temporal Concerns ? &c. He 
 then argues that if no more had been meant 
 by the Adj it would not haye met with 
 fo much Oppofition : Giving a particular 
 Account of That Oppofition, which fliall 
 be elfewhere confidered j 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 j not by fuppofing 
 that the Ad of Supremacy gave fo little 
 Tower as our Author reprefents the 37th 
 Article to intend ; but that it gave m^iich 
 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 Childifli Suppofition 
 than the other. But this Speech, upon which 
 our Author lays fo much Strefs as to % recite 
 This Part of it at large, mufl (as Bifliop Tyur- 
 net obferves ||) have been a Forgery pit out 
 
 *P. 248, 249. fP. 249. *P.;43, to P. 247, 
 11 HiiJ. Jlcf. Vol. 2. P. 587- 
 
 in 
 
354- ^^ Answer to a Topijh Boo\ 
 
 in his Name. For he is made to [peak of the 
 Supremacy^ as anew and unheard of Thing. 
 Which he:, who had j worn to irfo often in K. 
 Henry' J-, arid K. Edwards Times^ could 
 not have the Face to jav. For the reft, I 
 have anfweredThis Paragraph already ; fince 
 it proceeds upon aSuppofition that theExpia- 
 nation in the Article makes the Supremacy 
 mean no more than a Supremacy in Tempo- 
 rals, which I have fliewn to be faife. 
 
 Upon the fame wrong Principle he de- 
 ceives himfelf, or labours to deceive others^ 
 in what follows. ^ Hat this Interpret at i- 
 en of the Aci is not only frivolous ; hut over 
 and ahove incovfifientwith the Words both 
 of the JU and the Oath annex d to it. He 
 recites them; and then proceeds, telling us, 
 that if This Aft, and Oath, did not fix 
 the Supreme Ecclefiafhcal Authority in Q. 
 Elizabeth', Words mtifi lofe their obvious 
 Signification. I fay fo too ; And with This 
 the Article is entirely confiftent. But then 
 he goes on^ and gives a wrong Turn to c- 
 veryThing ; making the Ad and Oath import 
 much more than They really do. 
 
 t Firft^ the Jet itfelf gave the Otieen 
 allfuch Spiritual and Fcclefiafticaljurij- 
 diUion in general^, as by any Spiritual^ and 
 Ecclefiafiical Authority had ever been^ and 
 
 can 
 
Entitled^Engld.nd's Converjion^ Sec, 535 
 
 can lawfully be exercifed. This is a fliame- 
 ful Prevarication ; After the Word exercifedj 
 it follows Thus j ^^ or ufed : for the Vifitati- 
 *^ on of the Ecclefiaftical State, and Perfons, 
 *^ and for Reformation, Order, and Cor- 
 " redion of the fame, and of all manner of 
 Herefies, Errors, (jc. which manifeftly re- 
 ftrains \t to outward JurifdiUioni Whereas 
 the OmilSon of thofe Words quite alters the 
 Senfe, and extends it to all Spiritual Au- 
 thority. "^ And was not This declaring Her 
 Supreme Heady &c. She was not ftiled fo,- 
 but let That pafs« f Was it not 'vefting in 
 her Terfon all the JurifdiUion which a- 
 ny Ecclefiajiical Terjon^ &c ? No. For the 
 Words, however they may found, are ca- 
 pable of another Senfe i and have been ex- 
 plain'd accordingly, both by otherWords,and 
 by conftant Vx^&xce. That flie was vefted 
 with the fame Tower ^ with all the Author i-- 
 /y, which any Ecclefiaftical Perfon had 
 ever exercifed, is neither exprefs'd, nor in>» 
 ply'd. All the World knows Ihe was not : 
 This Author himfelf both knows, and has 
 faid, ftie 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 
 
 Ibid. t J^bid. 
 
 had 
 
::^:^6 An Answer to a Topi/h Bool^ 
 
 had more Power than her Father, the Ad 
 of Supremacy in his Reign being more full 
 and ftrong than That in hers 
 
 * 2clly^ It ga've her a fpecial Tower or 
 AiithGrity^ to vifit^ reform^ and correU all 
 manner of Errors^ Hercfies^ and Schifms^ 
 &c. Jll which are properly Exercifes of 
 Ecclefiajiical Jtirifdiuion^ &c. They are 
 fo i and the Crown has Ecclefiaftical Ju- 
 rifdidion (how far, and in what Senfe, we 
 iliall 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 Bifhops they are 
 limited to their refpeUive T>ioceJfes^ and 
 fometimes reftraind by particular 'Except- 
 tions\ the full exercije of this Ecclefiafti' 
 cal JurifdiUion was on the contrary J)y vir- 
 tue of the qforefaidJU^ gra^ited to £. Eliza- 
 beth ocer all the T^iocefes in her T)omi- 
 nions without Reffri^'io>?y or Limitation. 
 That is, the Queen^ Junfdi6tion extended 
 over all her Dominions ; Whereas Tliat of 
 every Bifliop is limited to his own Diocefs. 
 Had This Ecclefiaftical Jurifdiftion been at 
 all granted to her (for^ as we muft ftill 
 remember, it was not granted, but only 
 declar'd) it would have been ftran^e indeed, 
 had it not extended over all her Dominions. 
 
 What 
 
Entitled^ England'.f Converfion^ Sec. 5^7 
 
 What Trifling is This ! ^ ^ut ^cfly. the 
 Oath anne^'d to the JU declares in expreft 
 Terms^ &c. In fliort it declares the Qijeen 
 Supreme in all Things and Causes Ecciefia- 
 ftical, &c. i' Which diners z^ery much from 
 the other ^ and imports no lefs than thatJJje 
 was the Supreme Jtidgc of all Contrcverfies in 
 'Religion. It does not import that ilie was 
 Supreme Judge, or any Judge, in Controver- 
 lies 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 Eccleftaftical^ as well asT'emporal Ju- 
 rifdiUio7i in her T)cmi7iions. Hecaufe as 
 all Temporal Juthority or JurifdiUion in 
 e^ery Gonjernment flows from the Secular 
 Heady fo all Spiritual JurifdiUion flews 
 from the . Spiritual Head^ as from its 
 Source. lanfwer; 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 Adl, 
 and the Oath. In the coercive, or coadive 
 Part of This, which confifts in impofing out- 
 ward Penalties, the King is not only Su- 
 preme; but from him, as from the Source, 
 
 P. 251. t lh)d, % IhU. 
 
 Z all 
 
258 ^fz Answer t^ aToft[h^o()\ to'c. 
 
 all the Power is deriv'd. The regulative, 
 or dire£tive Part oF it, as making Ecclefia- 
 flical Laws and Canons, is jointly in the 
 Crown, and Clergy. Here too the King is 
 Supreme, while he at all Afts. But the Power 
 is not originally (in the highefi and mod 
 proper Senfe of the Word originally) deri- 
 ved from Him as the Source : Becaufe if 
 the State Ihould 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 Bufinefs here to difpute. 
 Befides which Power of JurifdiUion^ there 
 is alfo a Power of Order^ which confifts in 
 Preaching, Admin iftering the Sacraments, 
 Ordaining, dr^. Both thefe Powers, That of 
 internal Jurifdiftion, and That of Order^ 
 are derived from Chrift alone as from their 
 Head and Source. The Civil Magiftrate can 
 neither give them, nor execute them j the' 
 he may limit, regulate and determine the 
 Exercifc 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 
 
Entitled:^ England V ConverJion^Scc. ^ J9 
 
 The Regal Supremacy therefore which 
 we intend^ is no other than (as Primate * 
 ^ramhall fpeaks) the 'Political^ or Exter- 
 nal Kegimen of the Church. And fince I 
 have mentioned That great Prelate j I will 
 from Him cite a remarkable Paflage relat- 
 ing to our Prefent Subject, t '^ There are 
 ^^ feveral Heads of the Church. Chrift a- 
 " lone is the Spiritual Head ; The Sove- 
 reign Prince the Political Head ^ the Ec- 
 cleliaftical Head is a general Council ^ 
 and under That, each Patriarch in his 
 Patriarchate, and among the Patriarchs, 
 the Bifhop of Rome^ by a Priority of Or- 
 '^ der. We who maintain the King to be 
 *^ the Political Head of the EvgUJfj Church 
 ^^ do not deny the Spiritual Headfliip of 
 *^ Chrift, nor the Supreme Power of the 
 ^^ Reprefentative Church, that i$ a Gene- 
 ^^ ral Council, or Synod j nor the executive 
 ^^ Headfliip of each Patriarch in his Patri- 
 ^^ archate ; nor the Bifliop of Rome's Head- 
 
 ^^ fliipof Order, among them. We have 
 
 ^' introduc'd no new Form of Ecclefiaftical 
 ^' Government into theChurchof jE;;g/^;7^i 
 " but preferved to every one his due Right, 
 " if he will accept of it. And We have 
 *^ the fame Dependance upon our Ecclefia- 
 
 * Schifm Guarded. ?. 340. t ^' 3^3. 
 
 Z a r ftical 
 
!>4o An ANSWER to a fopijh Book^ 
 
 ^^ ftical Superiors, as we had evermore 
 ^' fron-) the Primitive Times/' 
 
 But Thofe Words^ T*he King is the Fotifi' 
 tain of all vjanner of Ecclejiaftical Jtirif- 
 diiiion and Authority^ will perhaps be ftill 
 infifted upon, I anfwer, ift. They are not 
 in the AcS of Parliament concerning the Su- 
 premacy \ but only in the Commiffions in 
 King Henrys, and King Edward's Times, 
 which We have nothing to do with. 2dly. 
 Thofe Words themfelves, tho' us'd very 
 improperly, cannot mean what they feem 
 to mean, h\xt only all manner oi External^ 
 or Tolitical Jurifdidion in Ecclefiaftical Af- 
 fairs. Becaufe, as I have been often forced 
 to fay, it is agreed by all the World that 
 the Power of Adminiftering, 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 Exprcffion in it may not be {lri(5lly 
 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 
 refpefl: of the External, and Political Regi- 
 men of the Church, It is faid, that " He 
 ^*^ ftiall have Power to vifit, redrefs, and re- 
 " form all fuch Herefies as by any manner 
 " of Spiritual Authority lav/fully may be 
 " reformed." But, to ufe the Words of an 
 
 ingenious 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ 8cc. 541 
 
 ingenious and learned Writer : * " This A6t 
 " will be without the reach of our Au- 
 '' thor's Cavils i if it be obferv'd,! liat the 
 " Power by which the King vifits, and 
 " reforms, is not Spiritual^ but Tolitical ; 
 *^ that a Power is not given him to de- 
 '' dare Errors, but to re pre Is them j that 
 *^ the Determination of Herefy is by kOi 
 " of Parliament limited to the Scriptures, 
 " firft General Councils^ and Affent of 
 " the Clergy in their Convocation: Thit 
 theKini; hath not all the Power given him 
 which by any manner of Spiritual Ai- 
 thority may be lawfully exercifcd, (for 
 He has not the Power of the Keys) but 
 a Power given him to reform all Herefies 
 " by the Civil Authority, which the Church 
 
 " can do by her Spnitual, c^r, — 
 
 " Laftly, that the Prince is obiig'd to take 
 " care that all Ads of reforming be exe- 
 ^^ cuted by their proper Minifters^ becaufe 
 ^^ elfe he trangrcflbs the Pov;er prefcnb'd 
 " in This Statute, fo to reform as way he 
 " moft to the Tkajtire cf Almighty God^ 
 Indeed all thofe concL.ding Words - — - 
 ^^ moft to the Pleafure of Almighty Gcd, the 
 ^^ Increafe of Vertue in ChrllFs PvcUgion, 
 ^^ and the Confervation of the Peace and 
 '^ Tranquihty of the Reahn, any Ufage, 
 .'^ Cuftoms, foreign Lazics. foreign Tre- 
 
 * Kefle^lions on the Hiilorical Pa;r of Chnrch-Covcni- 
 
 Z 5 fcripticns 
 
i^^i An Answer to a Topifh Bool^ 
 
 ** fcriptionsy Or any Thing or Things to the 
 ^^ contrary thereof notwithftanding,** are 
 plainly explanatory of the whole Aft ; con- 
 fining it to the Aflerting a Supremacy over 
 the Chnrch in a Political Senfe only, and 
 excluding all foreign Authority and Jurif- 
 diftion 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 qiianUim per legem 
 Chrifti 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 Ad under the 
 three Heads I before hinted at. "^ In the 
 frft Tlace^ fays he, it made Mm Supreme 
 Judge in all Controtwrjies in Keligion^ hy 
 giving him full Tower to mfit all Errors^ 
 and Herejies^ &c. This does not make him 
 Supreme Judge, or any Judge, in Contro- 
 verlies; as I have obferved of Q. Elizabeth. 
 t The plain meaning of which is^8>cc. in fliort, 
 that he had the fame Tower as the Tope 
 had "Before. The plain Meaning of it is no 
 fuch Thing ; nor can any fuch Thing be in- 
 ferr'd from it y nor is it true in Fad, that 
 the fame Power was given to Him as the 
 
 * p 
 
 P, 190, i/^;U 
 
 Pope 
 
Entitled:, ^n^^ndi^sCpnVerfion^&cc. 54.^ 
 
 Pope had. See backwards. P. 323 C^^: Neither 
 had He, (* as This Writer affirms) 27:?^ fame 
 ^Fower as the 'Bljhops hi their federal IJich 
 cejfes : Becaufc he had no Power purely Spi- 
 ritual by Vertue of a Commiirion frcmi 
 Chrift; as all Billiops have. 
 
 t Hitit zdly. 'By impowering him to inftt 
 'with Supreme Juthority, it tinited^ as 
 I may fay ^ in his Ferfon alo7ie the JFhole 
 Epifcopal JurifdiUion 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 Jurifdiftion purely 
 Spiritual, and derived from Chrift ; and fo 
 not the Whole. And even his outward Ju~ 
 rifdiition made him only Superintendent 
 over the Bifliops, but did not take away 
 Theirs. X Which Epifcopal Jurifdidion 
 before was divided^ as in other National 
 Churches^ among the BifJwps. So it was 
 afterwards, and is ftill. || T'o whom alone 
 it hclongdto 'vifit. To them alone it be- 
 longed to vifit, as Bifliops • and fo it does 
 ftill : But, notwithftanding That, the King 
 might vifit as a King. And that only in 
 their own refpeUive T>ioceJfes^ according to 
 the Canons. Doubt Icfs, a Bifliop was, and 
 ftill is, to vifit only in his own Diocefs, 
 and according to the Canons : But to 
 
 Ibid, t P- ipi- i /^''^. II /^i^i 
 
 X 4 what 
 
544 ^^ ^ NSWER to a Toptjh 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 
 allj for the Reafon above alledgd. Or 
 at leafi rendered the Exercife of their 
 JurijdiUion wholly precarious. Not fo , Be- 
 caufe the Ad: does not meddle with fome 
 Part of their Jurifdidion ; and even That 
 which it does meddle with may have a pa- 
 ramount Authority over it, and yet not be 
 wholly precarious: Which isadually the 
 Cafe; as every body knows. And they 
 were after no better than the Kings Vicars^ 
 &c. Which wasgivinghim a greater Tow- 
 er than any Tope^ &c. Not fo ; for the 
 Reafons aforefaid. ^dly* It ga^ve the King 
 a Tower to retife and anmd any Ecclefia^ 
 fiical T)ecree or Conftitiition^ thd enaUed 
 hy the whole "Body of the Englifh Clergy. 
 How fo ? There are ro fuch Words in the 
 Ad, as He himfelf cites it : Nor was it 
 ever defign'd to veft a Legiflative Power 
 in the King only, with refped to the 
 Church, any more than to the State. Who 
 hy that Means were di'vejied of their di- 
 n)ine Right of feeding and guiding their 
 Flocks; and became 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^ 
 not Proteflants, are to anfwer for it. 
 
 The 
 
Entitled^ Engl and' j- ConverJion^Scc* 545 
 
 The Account therefore of the whole Mat- 
 ter is no more than This. Our Kings have 
 as they ought to have, a Tolitical Stipre^ 
 macy in Ecckfiafiical Jffairs. Some, who 
 are far enough from favouring the KomijJ^ 
 Caufe, cannot be reconciled to the Word 
 Ecdejfiaftical^ much lefs Spiritual^ added 
 to That Supremacy 'y but will call it a 
 Civil Supremacy in Ecclefiaftical Caufes. 
 Which, to my Apprehenfion, is a mere Lo- 
 gomachy j cunlidering how Thofe who ufe 
 it explain their Meaning even of the Word 
 Ecclefiaftical, as apply'd to That Suprema- 
 cy. Or if they pleafe, they 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 
 Subje<a. 
 
 Not but that, were it otherwife ; there 
 would be no reafonable Ground of Com- 
 plaint. The Wprds of the Great Conftan- 
 tine to the . Biihops, recited by Eufehim ' 
 
 . t are very remarkable s And we hear of 
 no Objedion to them. Which, methinks 
 fliould have fome Weight with our Ad- 
 verfaries. " You, fays He, arc Bifliops of 
 " Thofe Things that are within the Churcli ^ 
 
 t Dc Vita Conflant. Lib. IV. Cap 24. 
 
 <c 
 
€C 
 
 ^46 An Answer to a Toftfh Book^ 
 
 I am a Bifliop as to externals.'* If it ^c 
 faid that the Latter Words may relate tofc- 
 cular Things ; I anfwer it is far more proba- 
 ble from theConnexion of thcNarative, that 
 they relate to the externals of the Church : 
 And 'tis plain Faft that Co7iJiantme 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. Hammondy in his Difcourfe of 
 Schifm. Two of them I cannot forbear 
 tranfcribing. / am King andTrkJi^ faid 
 Leo Ifaurus to Gregory the 2d. And was 
 not for This reprehended by That Popti. 
 And by Optattis t it is noted and cenfur'd 
 as a Schifmatical Piece of Language in the 
 ^onatifts j ^nid Imperatori cum Ecck/ta ^ 
 What has the Emperor to do with the 
 Church ? 
 
 By this time^ I hope, any one may give 
 a ready Anfwer to all Objedions about 
 Lay-Supremacy in Ecclefiaftical Matters. 
 However This or That Commiflion, or Ad 
 of Parliament, is worded ; it does not^ it can- 
 not mean what our Adverfaries pretend. 
 Words muft be explain d by other Words ,• 
 
 t Lib- 3' 
 
 and 
 
Entitle d^^nglB^nd's Converfion^Scc. :?47 
 and Laws by univerfal Piadlice. Even That 
 fo much decry'd ExpreiTion Head of the 
 Churchy explained as we have feen it was 
 ever meant, is not fo very Avicked and ab- 
 furd \ no not when apply'd to a CbUd^ 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 JEd-* 
 ward VI. in his Minority, and to Q, Eliza-- 
 heth. Whereas it is well known ta 
 
 All who know any thing of Thefe Mat- 
 ters, that as the King of Engla^id ne^Yet 
 dies, fo the King of England \^ never aChild ; 
 and the Regal Authority is of no Sex. A 
 Headfhip of the Church ftriftly fpeaking^ 
 i. e. an Authority purely Spiritual, can no 
 more belong to a Layman, than to a Wo- 
 man, or a Child ; but iefs properly fpeaking, 
 which is what We mean, it may belong to 
 cither of the two Laft, 'as well as to the 
 Firft i becaufe it is inherent in the Crown, 
 whoever wears it. Since oui- Author fo ve- 
 ry often repeats This Obje(aion, and infifts 
 fo very much upon it ,• I cannot forbear fay- 
 ing, that 'tis an Objection 'fit only for a Child i^ 
 A Woman^ of Common Reafon and In- 
 genuity, would be afliamed of it. 
 
 Not; 
 
34-S An Answer ^(?^ Tofijh ^ool^ 
 
 Not that We are bound, after all, to de- 
 fend every Rhetorical, improper, or ftrain'd 
 Exprefifion in This or That A<a of Parlia- 
 ment. Our Author (that I may here bor- 
 row + Bilhop "Btirnet's Words) is much more 
 " concern d to juftify all Papal Bulls, than 
 " We can be to juftify all the Words of our 
 ^' Laws 5 efpecially the Rhetorick that is 
 f^ in their Preambles. Becaufe He believes 
 the Pope to be at leaft the Centre of Unity, 
 if not Infallible; and we do not pretend that 
 our ParUament is Either. " Now when our 
 ^^ Author will undertake to juftify all the 
 *^ Preambles of Bulls that^ are in the 
 ^ "Biillcinum ; then We may undertake 
 *^ to juftify all the Flourifhes which may 
 ^^ be in any Aft 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 clamoi:ous againft Thefe ExpreflTions^ 
 T'beKing is Head of the Churchy He has 
 Power to reprefs Herejtes^ &c. What would 
 they have faid, were the King ftil'd a 2/- 
 (hop ? Yet Conjiantine call'd himfelf fo. 
 What if he were ftiled a Trieji ? Yet Leo 
 Ifaurus called himfelf fo. And no Ex- 
 ception was taken at Either : Becaufe the 
 Meaning was explain'd, and well under- 
 
 4:Apud Uickes Treat, of the Piicfth. Prcf, P. 153. 
 
 ftood; 
 
Entitled^ England'j Converjion^ Sec. ^49 
 
 flood ; tho' the ExprefTions were much more 
 harfh and improper, than any in the Ads 
 of Parliament we are now confidering. 
 
 The Suhmiffion 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 againft Luther. Not 
 that it was a^t entire Suhmiffion to the King 
 in matters of Keligion^ as our Author moft 
 falfely calls it -, but only a SubmifTion, 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 Succeflors ^ 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 Aft of theClergy, 
 now Subfifting. There is indeed an Ad of 
 Parliament founded upon That Suhmiffi- 
 on ; which our Lawyers % tell us is declara- 
 tory of the Common Law. Notwithftand- 
 ing which, if our Adverfaries can fliew that 
 it is contrary to the Law of God ; we will 
 
 t p. 185. ^c, ^ Coks 4.1nftit. 52?; apod Wood 
 
 Inftit. P, 864. 
 
 cer- 
 
5=50 An Answer to a Tofijh Boo\ 
 
 certainly rcfufe Obedience to it. But whaf 
 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 JP^^r t by which This Submiflion 
 of the Clergy is faid to have been extorted ^ 
 I ft. Our Author mifapprehends the Fa(5t. 
 The Tremtmire was relax d, by kGt of Par- 
 liament long before the Submiflion was 
 made. But fince the Cafe was confef- 
 ledly otherwife, when the fame Clergy 
 acknowledged the King s Headfliip of the 
 Church ; I anfwer, 2dly. A Man, or Num- 
 ber of Men, may do a Thing purely out 
 of Fear j and yet it may not be unlawful^ 
 nay it may be their Duty. 3dly. The Oc- 
 calion of their Debates might be Fear j and 
 yet the Refult of them be guided by Truth, 
 and Reafon, and Convidion of Confcience. 
 Nearly related to what we are now upon, 
 is our Author's Objedion againft theCo^nmit^ 
 tee of fixteen Clergy^ and fixteen Latt)\ 
 appointed to examine^ cojifirm^ or amitil^ cer- 
 tain ConftitutiGns and Canons^ &c. /. 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, effeded. Here^ fays He, we hate 
 aCommittee eftahliflod of thirty two Terfons 
 
Entitled^England^s Converfwi^ &c 551 
 
 half Laymen &c. Why fliould they not 
 be half Laymen ^ when the Prerogative of 
 the Crown, and the Libertys and Benefit of 
 the Subje^a, were as much conccrnM as the 
 Rights of the Church ? This Writer feems 
 to forget Thofe Words, in the Preamble of 
 the Ket : " And where diversConftutions, Or- 
 " dinances, and Canons, Provincial, or Syno- 
 " dal, w^hich heretofore have been enaded, 
 " and be thought not only to be much prejudi- 
 cial to the King's Prerogative Royal, and re- 
 pugnant to the Laws and Statutes of thisr 
 Realm^but alfo overmuch onerous to his 
 Highnefs and his Subjects.'' f So that if the 
 Sixteen Laymen (continues He) — —could 
 hilt gain O'ver to their Side any one Clergy- 
 man of the whole Committee^ which was 
 to he entirely model' d^ and packd by the 
 Court \ am thing they pie a fed was jure 
 topafs. It does not neceffarily follow that 
 they muft be entirely pack'd by the Court, 
 becaufe the King is to Name them. But, 
 however, be it fo ^ and morever let On« 
 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 affeded 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 P^ 184, i^^ '~~ ^ 
 
 ther 
 
551 Ad Answer to a Tofijh Boo\ 
 
 ther handjthat theClergy may draw off one 
 ofthe Laity; and no Harm done to the State 
 neither. But at worft, L^t it be remem- 
 bcr'd that This whole Affair was founded 
 upon a Petition of the Clergy, the Popifh 
 Clergy. T'be [aid Clergy (fays the kSt) 
 hath mofi humUy he fought -- that the [aid 
 
 Conftitntions he committed to thirty 
 
 two whereof fixteen to he of the 
 
 ^emporahy^ &c. 
 
 And This brings us to the laft Branch of 
 this Objeftion againft the Reformation ; 
 and it would be a terrihle one indeed, if it 
 were true. According to the Account:}: 
 given by this Writer and the Bifhop of 
 Meatix^ That great Work was effected 
 wholly^ or almoft wholly, by the Civil 
 "Power 5 the Ecclejiaftical had little or no 
 Hand in it. Whereas in the three Reigns 
 under Confideration, there was nothing 
 done with regard to the Church and Re- 
 ligion, ^ but what was a(ited by the Cler2;y 
 ^^ in their Convocations, or grounded on 
 fome Ad of Theirs precedent to it, 
 with the Advice, Council, and Confcnt 
 of the Bifliops, and othor learned Men 
 Affembled by the King s [or Queen's] Ap- 
 '"^ pointment ; and the Pa iiaments did no- 
 thing in it, but that fometimes upon the 
 
 <f 
 
 :^ 3d. Dialf and Pref. pajfim. 
 
 Poft. 
 
Entitled^ England'j Convey fiony Sco ^ 5 ^ 
 
 ^^ Poft-fad, it was thought fit to add fome 
 ^ ftrength to the Decrees and Detcrmina- 
 ^ tion of the Church (efpecially in infliding 
 ^^ Puniil-iments on the Difobediennt) by Ci- 
 " vil Sandions." This is fully iliewn by 
 Dr. Hcylin in a Treatife written onPurpofe: 
 * Part of the Preface to which I have now 
 recited. As the Treatife is Qicrt, I refer 
 the Reader to the Whole : To quote all 
 from it which confirms our Caufe, would 
 be to tranfcribe almcft every Sentence in it* 
 Our Author makes great Ufe of Dr. Hcylw^ 
 and cites him very frequently : Let Us be 
 permitted to make fome Ufe of him in our 
 Turn. 
 
 In fhort, the JLefor7ning Temporal Powers 
 meddled no more with Religious Matters in 
 tlie three Reigns aforefaid, than the ^c- 
 fifJo Temporal Powers did in Q, Marys, 
 That Qiioen and her Parhament as much 
 cftablifliM "Popery^ as any Prince or Parlia- 
 ment eftabiifh'd Trcteftaiitifm: And the 
 Clergy had as great a Share in making the 
 Reformation, as They had in any Publick 
 Ad in Q. Mary\ Reign. So that Ours is 
 as much a Spiritual, or Ecclefiaftical Religi- 
 on, as Theirs j and Theirs was as much a 
 State Religion, or Parliament Religion, as 
 Ours. 
 
 * Refoi'mation oT the Ch. o^End* juftificd, 
 
 A a ^ But 
 
354- Jn ANSWER to aTopfh^ooh^]f^c. 
 
 But, fays the Bifliop o? Meauxy * from the 
 ^iine of He-iryV afjiiming the Supremacy 
 (he lliould have faid, from the Time of the 
 Clergy s Suhmiifivn) the Clergy had no 
 Jiithority to intermeddle in Religions Mat- 
 ters^ milefs they had his Orders for it. 
 He fliould have faid, his Termijfi07i^ or 
 Licenfe. t Jnd the only Remon(ira?ice they 
 made againfi this Hardfmp put upon them 
 wasy that it was an V.ncroachment upon 
 their privileges. He does not tell us where 
 he met with this Hiftory ^ nor can I tell A- 
 nybody elfe. Not tl^at it at all affeds the 
 Merits of the Caufo on either Side j w^he- 
 ther it be true, or falfe. % As if the med- 
 dling in Matters of Religion were hut a 
 hare Trivilege^ not an ejfential Treroga- 
 tive of the Ecclefiaftical Ordtr. To med- 
 dle with Matters of Religion, abfolutely, 
 and fimply fpeaking, is not a bare Privi- 
 lege, but an effential 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- 
 fiances^ is neither an effential Preroga- 
 tiv, nor an tffential Privilege belonging 
 to it. For Example ; according to the 
 Prafiife of the Church, both Jewifh, and 
 
 33' 
 
 IhlL % Ihid. 
 
 Chriftian 
 
Entitled^ England^ ConverJi^on^Scc. ^ ^5 
 Chriftian, as well as to the Nature and 
 Rcafon of the Thino;^ no Synods ought to 
 be held, nor Eccleliallical Laws to be' made, 
 without the Concurrence of the Civ 1 Pnwer. 
 "^ In Edward the Sixth's 'i^ime, the Bi- 
 fhop informs us, the Tarhmizent took upon 
 itfelf to regulate the Form of confecrating 
 ^ifl:>ops^ or Trie ft s, and to prefcrihe the Forfit 
 cfTublick Trayers^ and the Manner of ad^ 
 miniftering the Sacraments. Would not a-^ 
 ny one think by This, That the Parlia- 
 ment 7nade Thofe Forms, and originally^ 
 and of itfelf, prefcrib'd 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 Sandions. Sqq HeyliiisRefor^na- 
 tionjuftified^ P. 15, 16. The Bifliop fur- 
 ther tells us that in the fame Reign (King 
 Ed-ward the Sixth's) the Cowjocation of 
 the Clergy only hegd of the Tar I lament that 
 no Statute might pafs concerning Keligion 
 without their Jdzice j hut it could not he 
 obtain d, I have read that the Lower Houfe 
 defir'd the Upper to make fuch a Rc- 
 qucft to the King, and Parliament; but 
 That it coidd not he obtain d^ I can no 
 where find. It is Fad that no fuch Law. 
 was made, without the Advice of the 
 
 p. 52* 
 
 A a i Clergy 
 
?56 An A-^sv^^EK to a foptp Book^ 
 
 Clergy ; and That is enough. That the 
 King's Vifitors * requird of the 'Jii'hops an 
 exprefs T>eclaration that they would teach 
 fiich T)oBrhtes^ as /Jjoidd fro7n time to 
 time he eftahUjlod and explain d hy the 
 King and Clergy^ is hkcwife Hiftory of his 
 own \ as far as I can perceive : However, 
 He himfelf does not pretend that the Bifhops 
 agreed to it. As f*jr the King's prohibiting 
 Vreaching^ for fome time ; 'tvv^as nothing but 
 what was proper, and juft : And Q. Mary 
 did the fame Thing. 
 
 But there is another dreadful Article a- 
 agb'inft us, dill behind. Our Author fpends 
 a whole Section || and Part of another, to 
 prove that Q. Elizabeth's Supremacy was 
 eftablilVd by the Secular Tower only, with- 
 out the Concurrence or Confent of the Clergy. 
 And This, he imagines, mull quite confound 
 us,- and utterly overturn the whole Fa- 
 brick of the Reformation. He begins Thus. 
 ^ut as the Eftahliffoment and Covftitution 
 of the Reformed Church of England^ as it 
 710W ftandsy was built upon a wrong Foun- 
 dation ; to wit-i the Spiritual Supremacy 
 of a Terfon incapable by her eery Sex can 
 of the loweft T>egree of Eccleftaftical T>ig' 
 nity^ or EunUion — Pleafe to obferve how 
 This ftrong Reafoning looks, after it 
 
 * Ihd. \^. 54. II Sea. 10, II 
 
 has 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ See. 557 
 
 has been fuliy anfwered^ and expos'd. Our 
 Reformacion is not founded upon the Su- 
 premacy, tho' the Acknowledgement of the 
 Supremacy prepar'd the Way ro it j but up- 
 on the V. ord of God, and eternal Truth: 
 And as for Q. Elizabeth^ Sex, enough I 
 hope has been faid of That. * So has It 
 another effhitirJ Flaw that necer will he 
 repair dy I mean the Nitllity of that eery 
 Power ^ or Juthority^ by which It was 
 efiabl'ijlod. For It was carry d entirely by 
 the fecidar Tower^ &c. By which It he 
 means the Supremacy ^ tho' good Syntax 
 would make one think he meant the Rc^ 
 formation. 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 j 
 and that even in Parliament all the Bi- 
 ihops, except One, were againft it. To w^hich 
 I anfwer, ift. The Queens Ecclefiaftical 
 Supremacy was not Then gitx^n 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 alrea- 
 dy appeared. And furely the Parliament 
 had a Right, and Authority, without the 
 Convocation, to declare the Laws and 
 Conftitutions of the Realm. And that tho 
 
 A a 3 Biiliops 
 
358 Jn Answer to a Top[}^ Book^ 
 
 Biiiiops in Parliament were outvoted, is, 
 I hopcj no Argument That the Proceed- 
 ings of 1 hat Ailembly were illegal. 2dly. 
 It is nothing Strange that i hofe Popifli Bi- 
 ihops (for fo They were) fliould oppofe 
 the Reformation , towards which They 
 knew the Affci nng of the Supremacy was a 
 great Step. Not but that 3 dly. Moft of tUem 
 had before been /^r the Supremacy j I mean, 
 in the Re.gns of //^?zri' VIII. and£^^^r^ 
 VI. Both Houfes of Convocation, the 
 main Body of the Clergy, Biihops as well 
 as Presbyters, had acknowledgd it: And 
 among the Reft, the greater Number 
 of Thefe very Bifliops themfelves. 4thly. 
 The whole Body of the Clergy, not long 
 afterwards, acknowledgd the Supremacy 
 of Q, Elizabeth -, and in the ftrongeft 
 Terms ratifyVl,and confirmed it, by the pub- 
 lick Aft of both Houfes of Convocation, 
 in the 39 Articles, To This itisobjefted, 
 ^ that in order to ferve That Turn, the 
 old Biihops were deprived, and new ones put 
 h their Places^ by illegal Means, and an 
 infufficient Authority- I anfwer with Dr. 
 Bammond. t Firft, '' That the Death of 
 " Cardinal Tool^ Archbiiliop of Cmiterhiiry^ 
 falling near upon the Death of her Pre- 
 deceffor Q. Mar-^ ^ it was very regular 
 
 ;5?' &c. t Wcrlcs in Folio, P. 2^5. ^^6 
 
 "for^ 
 
 £C 
 
Entitled:, En^^n^^sConVerfioyi^&LC. 559 
 
 " for Q. Elizciheth to aflign a Succcflor 
 " to That See then vacant, Arcliblfliop 
 " Tarker. Secondly,^ That Thol^j Bifhops 
 " which in Q. Marys Days had been ex- 
 " il'd, or dcpriv'd, and furviv'd That Ca- 
 '^ lamity, were with all Juftice reltor'd 
 ^' to their Dignities. Thirdly, That the 
 '' BiiTiopsby^Her [Q, Eii-iiheth] diveded, 
 ^' and deprived of their Dignities, were fo 
 " dealt with, for refufmg to take the Oath 
 " of Supremacy, forni'd and enjoin'd in the 
 " Days of Henry Vill. and in the firft Par- 
 ^^ liament of This Queen reviv'd, and the 
 " Statutes concerning it reftor'd to full 
 " Force, before it was Thus impos'd on them. 
 
 So that for the Juftice of the Caufe of 
 " their deprivation, it depends immediately 
 " upon the Right and Powder of the Su- 
 '^ preme Magiftratc to make Laws, to im- 
 
 pofe Oaths, for the fccuring of his Go- 
 " vernment, and to inflid the Punifliments 
 " prefcrib'd by the Laws, on the Diibbedi- 
 " ent ; but originally upon the Truth of 
 " That Decifion of the Bifhops, and Cler- 
 " gy, and Univerfities, in the Reign of 
 " Henry VIII. That no Authority belong d 
 " in This Kingdom ot England to the Bi- 
 " fhop o£Ro7ney more than to any other 
 ^^ foreign Bifhop. The Former of Thefe 
 ^^ I iTiall be confident to look upon as an 
 '^ undoubted Truth, in the Maintainance 
 ^ of v/hich all Government is conccrn\.l, 
 
 A a 4 and 
 
(C 
 
 ;6o An AlSISWER to a TopiJJj Bool^ 
 
 ^' and hath nothing peculiar to our Preten- 
 *^ fions, which fliouid fuggeft a Vindication 
 " of it in this Place. And the Second 
 " hath, I fuppcle, been fufficiently clear'd 
 ^^ in the former Chapters of this Difcourfe ,• 
 '*^ which have CKamin'd all the Biiliop o£ 
 ^^ jR.6??;7^'s Claims to This Supremacy. And 
 '^ Both thefe Grants being acknowledg d^ or 
 ^' fuppofed ('till they be invalidated^ or dif- 
 ^^ proved) to liave Truth and Force in them ; 
 ^' the Conclufion will be fufficiently induced, 
 '^ That there was no Injuftice in That Ad 
 " of the Qiieen's which divefted Thofe Bi- 
 ^^ (hops, who thus refus'd to fecure her Go- 
 " vernmentj or to approve their Fidelity to 
 ^^, their lawful Sovereign.'' 
 
 It is further objefted,^ '"■ That the Gene- 
 rality of the inferiour Clergy concur'd out 
 of Hope^ Fear J hazinejs^ Lot^e 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 Comparifon 
 he makes between t the Fatiguing T)ttties 
 incnmhent onthe Vaftors of the Catholick 
 Churchy and the eafy Li^jes^ comparati'vely^ 
 of Troteftara Minifters , as He is pleafed 
 to fpeak: between which^ He tells us^ there 
 is as great "Dijference as between the broad 
 
 'md 
 
Entitled^ England'^' ConverJion^Scc- 561 
 
 and narrow Way menticrid in the Gofhel. 
 Decent^ and handfome, I muft needs lay ! 
 But as for the t Malles, and daily long 
 Offices, ConfeflTions, five times more Holy- 
 days than We have, frequent pubHck Ser- 
 vices for the Dead, and fo forth, incumbent 
 upon the Catholick Paftorsj They are in- 
 deed fufficiently laborious : And They may 
 take their Labour for their Pains. Who hath 
 requird thefe things at their Hands ? 
 Thefe, and abundance more, are fo many. 
 Fopperies, and Fooleries, of their own In- 
 venting j contrary to the Spirit of Chrifiiani- 
 ty, doing infinite Mifchief to Religion, and 
 the Souls of Men ; and therefore no great 
 Matter oi'Boafting. On the other hand, 
 the Church of IBjngland Clergy are fuffi- 
 ciently Uirthend with Tafioral Cares -^ 
 Many of them, efpecially in This City, and 
 in all great Pariihes, || in danger of being 
 overhurthend with them. Nor has every 
 one of them % a good Liz'ing feri'ing to 
 maintain a Female Companion in a Comfor- 
 table Way. I could not but tranfcribe That 
 cutting Sentence of the young Gentle- 
 man s; becaufe he who put it into his Mouth, 
 I fuppofe, imagined it to be Wit : And I 
 would by all means have both his Wit, 
 and good Manners, as well as Arguments, 
 
 Ihid, II Ibid, t nil 
 
 appear 
 
562 An Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 appear and fliinc in their full Luflre, Not- 
 withilanding which, 'tis very fit that every 
 one of the Clergy if He pleatesyjjjou/d baz^e 
 a Fema/e Companion ; and 'tis damnably 
 wicked to make it anlawfid \ 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 (tho' it is a Burthen purely Chrifti- 
 an^ not Popifh) confidering the Labour of 
 the Church-Service. Admin iftering the Sa-> 
 crament5i conftant Preaching Catechizing 
 and Expounding the Catechifm, Vifiting the 
 Siclr, Inllruaing the Ignorant^ reclaiming 
 the Vicious ; f that we can ill afford time 
 to anfwer Topifh 'Boohs^ and antidote the 
 Venom of TopiJhTnefts^ who in This Town 
 are fupofed to be a: liumerous as Thofe of 
 the Church o£ England. In behalf of which 
 Latter, I think we lii-^y add . this further 
 Confideration, That 'Lhey are of the E- 
 ilablifhmentjAvhether 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 Popifh Country^ I il^ould 
 think myfelf guilty of exceeding ill Man- 
 ners, fliould I Thus treat Their Clergy ,• 
 and that'too, if I could do it with Safety : 
 As I am fare I could not. So far otherwife^ 
 
 that 
 
Entitled^^ng\d,nd'*s ConverJlon^S^cc. 565 
 
 that I could not, without the utmoft Dan- 
 ger of Imprifonment and Death, endeavour 
 to promote my own Religion ; tho' I trea- 
 ted the Clergy, and all other Profeflors of 
 Theirs, with the greateft Refpeft. Which, 
 by the Way, is not equal Dealing. 
 
 Now I am upon This, I think it proper 
 to bcftow a Remark upon what our Author 
 fays in another Place. Where, after a moft 
 impertinent Piece of Sophiftry, tending to 
 prove that becaufe Bilhop Tear [on made it 
 neceflary to be of the Church, therefore ho 
 muft needs ferve the Caufe of Popery ; 
 he imputes That excellent Prelate's not o- 
 penly profefling it to Worldly Intcreft. % 
 T'he honourable CharaUer of a "BijJwp is not 
 exchangd without great KehiUance^ &c. 
 Jfid the Recenues afinex'd to it are a moft 
 powerful Terfuafi^e againfi Topery on this 
 Side Of the Seas, As if it were not cafy for 
 fo great a Man as Bifhop Vearfon^ had he a 
 Mind to turn Papift, to have a much better 
 Biftioprick on the other Side of the Seas, 
 than That of Chefier ; or than almoft any 
 Bilhoprick Here. Where the "Bifhop s La" 
 dy (continues He, making another (hrewd 
 Gibe upon the Clergy's Marria2;e) with her 
 dear Children^ tafie the Sweets of the eafy 
 Income of her Spiritual Lord; and cm- 
 
 % P. 71. 
 
 ploys 
 
;($4 ^^ Answer /(9^ Toftfh 'Book^ 
 
 ploys her heft Rhetor ick to con^jince his LorJ- 
 floip that State and Thnty are much pret- 
 tier T'hings than E'vanrelical To^'trty. 
 Which alone fuftices toftifie the leftThoiights^ 
 and rerder the heft HJifpofitions towards a 
 Change inejfeUuaL For a Papift to talk 
 fo gravely of Evangelical ^Po'vert'w 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 Bifliops^ that 
 They fuffer fuch Infolence as This, from 
 Perfons who are every day obnoxious to 
 the Penalties of the Law. / 
 
 5thly. Whereas This Writer adds that 
 the Spiritual Supremacy was fettled on Q. 
 JEjli'Z^aheth not only without, but % in di- 
 reU Oppofition to the Judgment of the whole 
 $ody of the Englifli Clergy ; becaufe f ^he 
 Convocation put forth 5 Articles^ &c. con- 
 cerning the realTrefence y Tranjuhftanti^ 
 ationy and the Majs ; the Tope's Suprema- 
 cy y and the Incapacity of Layme^i 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» ^56* 
 
 lin^ 
 
b 
 
 Entitled^Englaad'^s Converjlon^ 8cc. ^6^ 
 
 underfraL:d the Points in Queftionj had a 
 Right, even in Oppolition to the whole 
 Church, to rcjed fuch grofs notorious 
 Falilioods, and Contradi^Sions to Rcafon, 
 Sci'.pture, and Antiquity, as Tranfubftan- 
 ti'ition, and St. Tcters and the Pope's Su- 
 premacy. And the Convocation (fuppofing 
 the Fact to bu true) by determining that \tbe 
 Jiithority of treating and defining Matters 
 relating to Faitlo^ Sacraments^ and Church 
 T)ijnpline^ belong d only to the Tajiors vf 
 the Ciyurch^ and not to Laymen^ meaning 
 th^^reb;. to exclude the Civii Magiftrate s 
 Authority in the external Regimen of the 
 Church, were Judges in their ou n Caufc ; 
 and tl leir Judgment was not true3 as I have 
 prov^d. His Mertion that this was a Mat- 
 ter purely Spmtual % Ihavealfb fliewn to 
 bo talfe. 6thly. That which is here ob- 
 jeaed was, at Worft, but a Corruption, ao 
 Encroachment, an Irregularity ,• The moft 
 They can infer from it is, the Nullity of 
 This Eccleiiaftical Supremacy in the 
 Church i not the Nullity of the Refoniia- 
 tion. It does not, as he imagines it does, un-' 
 church us^ or vacate the Orders of our 
 Bifliops and Clergy : Our Reformation, 
 as I obferv'd, being not built upon the Su- 
 premacy he fpeaks of, the' That led the 
 
 mi % p. 257. 
 
366 jin ANSWER to a Topi/h Bool^ 
 
 Way to it , but upon the Foundation of the 
 Apoftks^ and Trophets^ J^fits Chriji him- 
 [elf being the chief Corner-Stone. And as 
 for the Aiithority by which it was made ^ 
 it was, as We have feen, the joint Authori- 
 ty of Church and State \ W'hatever becomes 
 of the Eccleliaftical Supremacy. Not but 
 that there is, and muft be, fuch a Suprema- 
 cy in the Crown, as We aflert, and have 
 proved, and They will never by any Argu- 
 ments be able to invalidate. 
 
 t / conclude^ fays He, with this Uilemma : 
 to wit Epifcopal Government either is 
 'ejfential to the Conftitiition of Chriji's 
 Churchy or it is Not. Suppofe we take 
 the Former Part, and fay it is ; Let us 
 fee how this Horn will pufli us. % If it he 5 
 the prefent reform d Church ^England has 
 an effential T)efeU in its 'very Foundationy 
 I mean the Supreme Spiritual Authority 
 of a Lay-Head. One would think You 
 fliould have meant the Want of Epifcopal 
 Government in the prefent reform'dChurch 
 o£ England 'j> for to mean any thing elfe is 
 to mean moft illogically, and ridiculoufly. 
 And is there not Epifcopal Government 
 ill the prefent reformed Church of England ? 
 Befides ; Is not the Supreme Spiritual Au- 
 thority of a Lay-Head a ftrange kind of De- 
 feW^ You will fay, I know, that You mean 
 (but I had rather you would fpeak Senfe in 
 
Entitled^Ungland'^s Converjion^ Sec i6j 
 
 the very Letter, and fpeakaccurately^ cfpeci- 
 ally in T>ilcmmas) that the Suprenjc Spiri- 
 tualAuthority of the Lay-Head deftroy^ Er- 
 pifcopal Government. But why do not You 
 pVGZ'e This ? Or rather how is it pofllbie 
 to be prov'd ? For will you argue againft 
 Fad ? Is there not, I ask once more, Epif- 
 copal Governmen . in the Church of iW- 
 lancl> And docs not all the World Xv;^ 
 it ? If You reply, there is indeed the 
 Name of it3 but its Forcc\ Vertucy or Towe}\ 
 is evacuated by the Supremacy aforfaid j 
 I anfwer, I have proved the Contrary ; 
 and fully fhewn that fuch an Eccleliafti- 
 cal Supremacy in the Crown as We main- 
 tain, and according to the Senfe in which 
 our Laws and Pradife explain it, 15 entire- 
 ly confiftent with Epifcopal Jurifdidion, 
 and Authority, both outward, and inw'ard, 
 both Political, and purely Spiritual, ^IVhicb 
 alfo [the Supreme Spiritual Authority of 
 a Lay-HeadJ it deriz^es wholly and folely 
 from the fecidar Tower •, without the leafi 
 Concnrrence or Approhation cf the EpifcG-^ 
 pal Authority^ as has heenfnlly pro^jed. And 
 I fay I have fully anfwered all This: 
 Which is Here Anfwer fufficient. Tho' I' 
 am not oblig'd to meddle with the other 
 Branch of his Dilemma, having already 
 made my Option ^ yet ex ahiindanti^ and 
 
 for 
 
^^^ An ANSWER to a Topi/h BgoIz^ 
 for Curiofity's fake, We will examine That 
 too. * ^tit if Epijcopal Go^^ernment he not 
 cjfential:, &c. and may he either fet tip^ or 
 laid afide-^ like ordinary htmian Inftittitions 
 
 then the Trefhyterians &c. ha^ve as 
 
 fair a Title to he a Tart of ChriJPs true 
 Churchy as the Church of England can pre- 
 tend to. He might have gone on in This 
 Declamation for iifty Pages more, if he had 
 pleafed j but who among Us fets aiide E- 
 pifcopal Authority? t For if Epifccpal Ati' 
 thority may he fet afide at one time^ I fee 
 no Reafon why it may not he ca(i off for 
 good and alU 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, II J72d if the fectdar Tower 
 may legally new model the Hierarchy fo as 
 to '^conftitute a Lay-Head o^jer the Churchy 
 and et'en that independently of the Epifco- 
 pal Authority \ I am not floarp-fighted e- 
 nough to fee any folid Reafon why the fame 
 Tower may not as legally commit forever 
 the whole Government of it toftich Terfons 
 ns it thinks fitting j whether they he Lay- 
 Minifiers made jo hy Eay-Ordination^ or of 
 Ihat Rank whom the Church of England 
 calls Hifjops. 1 tell him again, the fecu- 
 
 * IhU. and p. 258. t P. 258. II Ibid, 
 
 lar 
 
I 
 
 Entitkdy ^n^^ndCs Convey fion^&cc. 369 
 
 lar Power did not new model the Hie- 
 rarchy ; nor is it in England new modeFd 
 at all. Tbofe whc7n the Church of Eng- 
 land calls 'BiJJ.wps. Why are they not Bi- 
 ill ops .^ If he fays. No; let him arjfwer 
 Mafon^ TiramhaU., and the late French Au- 
 thor of his own Church and Religion, wiio 
 have demonftrated the Contrary. If ho 
 dares not fay fo \ what does That paltry 
 Flirt fignify ? * Nay^ I dont fee why the 
 fecular Tower-^ when their Hands were in^ 
 might not have gone through Jlitch^ and 
 declard ^. Ehzabeth in exprefs Terms uni- 
 ^'erfal Tatriarch^ as well as Supreme Head 
 of the Church of England, For the one is 
 no more than the other contrary to the ex- 
 prefs lnftittitio7i ofChriJi. Where have you 
 prov'd it contrary to the exprefs Inftituti- 
 on of Chrift that Sovereign Princes ia their 
 own Dominions fhould have fuch a Power 
 in Church-Matters, as We affert ? You 
 have no where prov'd it, and never can j but 
 have only miftaken the Queftion, and moft ab- 
 furdly confounded one thing with another. 
 Or if You think You can prove it, begin 
 as fooa as you pleafe ; and I undertake to 
 anfwer You. 
 
 Nor could the Parliament as well have de- 
 clared the Queen Uni'verfal "Patriarchy as 
 
 Ibid. 
 
 B b Supreme 
 
'jno An Answer to a (poftjh Book^ 
 
 Supreme Head {Go^^ermur, He fliould 
 have faid) of the Church of En^^land '. Be- 
 'caufe the One is fcdfe^ as Everybody ac- 
 knowledges i the other is tme^ as I have 
 
 flie^n. 
 
 And thus much for Comwcatmis, and / ar- 
 Uaments. If the Vkargeneralihip of CfGrn- 
 z^ell in K. liemy the Eighth's Time or 
 rather his being Lord Vicegerent in Eccleli- 
 aftical Matters, was not very decent ', what 
 is it to Us ? K. Henry VUI. and Cromwell 
 too were Papifts. Not that it was lo por- 
 tentous and unheard of a Thing, as the 
 Biihop of Meanx, "^ nor fo ahjnrd^ and ri- 
 diculous, as our Author t repref jnts it. So far 
 otherv^' ife ; that it may not only be excus d^ 
 but ]uliifyd. Let us hear Dr. He)4in once 
 more. " + That which is moft infilled on 
 ^' is the delegating of This Power by K. 
 " Henry to Sir "Thomas Cromwell^, &c. And 
 " This, (efpecially hisprefidingin theCon- 
 " vocation) is look'd upon both by Sanders 
 " and fome Proteftant Doftors as a Kind 
 " of Monftrofity in Nature. But certainly 
 *' Thofe Men forget (tho' I do not think 
 " my felf bound to juftify all K. Harry sAdi- 
 " ons) that in the Council of Chalcedon the 
 ^' Emperor appointed certain Noblemen 
 *' to fit as Judges, whofe Names occur in 
 
 *Pref. P. II. 1 P' J92- t Rcf, Jiift. P. 42' 43- ,, , 
 
 '^ the 
 
cc 
 
 cc 
 
 cc 
 
 Entitled^ ^n^d^nA^sConverfion^ Sec 571 
 
 • the firft Adion of That CounciL The 
 Ukc we find excmpUficd in the B^phcjine 
 ^^ Council, in which by the Appoint. i cnt 
 oiThecdofius^ and Valenthiian^ th'e R^- 
 man tmperorSj Candidiamis^ a Count 
 Imperial fate as Judge, or Prelidcnt; who 
 " in the Management of That Truft over- 
 " aded any thing that Cromwell did, ^c. 
 But This Office of Vicegerent in Spirituals, 
 * our Author t^^Hsus, was certainly mi Ec- 
 clefiaftkal l^ignity* Juft as much fo as 
 the King's Ecclefiaftical Supremacy, from 
 which it was deriv'd : And That wx have 
 abundantly confidcr'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 j he may certainly have 
 a Lay-Deputy, or Vicar, in them. Yet 
 our Author is fo facetious upon This fuppc- 
 fed Incongruity ; that I cannot forbear tran- 
 fcribing fome of his Words, f And who do 
 Tou think was the Terfon he pitch'' d up- 
 on for this e7ninent Station "> 
 
 G. 1 hat's more than I can guefs. "But 
 according to my weak Jpprehenfwn I con- 
 cein)e it to he moft probable^ that it was 
 either the Archbijloop of Canterbury, who 
 is Trimate of England ; or at leafi jome 0^ 
 ther eminent "Bifloop. 
 
 p. 19:. 
 
 B b 2 P, 
 
 i • 
 
oni An A:^^SV/ER to a Topifb Bool^ 
 
 p. Indeed^ Sir, Ton are eery much out 
 of the way inyottr Gttejs. It was one Tho- 
 mas Cromwell, a Laymauy and the Son of 
 a&ackjmitk. r^ ? 7 ? 
 
 G. / flmUd as loon hac^e gmjs a that foe 
 had made a Corn-cutter his prime Mini- 
 Jjer of State; or his Coachman high Ad- 
 rairal of England. 
 
 He need not have quoted Sir Rtcbaia 
 ^aher, backed by the Authority of my Lord 
 Herbert, for the Truth of the Fad. All 
 the World acknowledges it : And This 
 Writer's lliarp Refledlions upon it may re- 
 ceive a full Anfwer from what has been 
 faM • Except That Circumltance o? Crom- 
 welh being the Son of a Blackfmith ; 
 Which 1 wholly give up, and leave our 
 Author to triumph in, as much as He 
 pleafes. I only make two fliort Obferva- 
 tions. ift. 'Vhat he is rude in calling him 
 O^^' Tfhomas Cromwell', when (notwith- 
 ftandiag his mean Birth, which w^as rather 
 an Honour, than a Difgrace to him) he 
 'vvai. Earl of Mex, and Knight of the 
 Garter. 2dly- That iince the King thought 
 fit to appoint fuch an Officer, for which 
 I think there was no Occafion, and which 
 h^d better have been let aione ; it was more 
 P opcr to appoint a Layman than a Clergy- 
 man : iiccaufe the King, who was reprefen- 
 tedbv Him, was a Layman Hhnfelfi And 
 
Entitled^ England'j^ Converfion^Scc ^ J ? 
 the Ecclefiaftical Authority belonging to the 
 Clergy is of a differoit Nature from That 
 which belongs to the King. 
 
 Nor are we in the leaft conccrn'd to vin- 
 dicate Cromwelh ^^' Thofe who adtcd un- 
 der him, in the Execution of their Office, 
 in their t Vifitations^ &c. any more than 
 we are to vindicate every thing K. Hen- 
 ry did. Let them ftand, or fell by their 
 own Management i We have nothing to 
 
 do with it. 
 
 As little are wc concerned in the Com- 
 miifwvs from the Crown given to, and 
 accepted of, by the Bifliops, and rezwcahle 
 at Tleafitre^ in the Reign of Henry VIII. 
 and Edward VI. fo much inveigh'd againft 
 by our Author, and the Biftiop of Meatix. 
 They were undoubtedly fcandalous enough ; 
 but IBomier condefcended to take one of 
 them, as well as Cranmer. Not that e- 
 ven Thefe were fo ^ery 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 CommilTions, and never 
 granting new ones j I anfwer. That 
 does not follow ; becaufe the Bilhops and 
 Clergy have Authority to aft without them. 
 
 ^^ B b J They 
 
^-ji An Answer to a TopiJIj Bool^ 
 
 They might always have afted without 
 thcnij if they w^ould : And their having ac- 
 cepted of them docs not cancel the Autho- 
 rity which they received from Chrift. 
 While the Church and State are in Ac- 
 cord with each other, and the Former is 
 protefted and encourag d by the Latter ^ 
 the Church may yield fomething to the 
 Stare, without annulling its own Charter 
 and Conftitution. But in the Cafe now 
 fuppofcd, the State would perfccute the 
 Church ; and fo the Lalt-mention'd would be 
 neceflitated to exert it's original Right of 
 afting independent on the State. The Ec- 
 clefiajlical Tower afcrib'd to the Crown 
 in thefe Commiirions has been ellewhere 
 fufficie itly ccnfidered. The Exprcffion is 
 indeed ftretch'd too far, and by no means 
 proper • but I have fliewn that it does not, 
 cannot, imply fo much as the T-apifts^ and 
 fome Trotefiavts too, pretend. 
 
 Since our Author has upon This Occa- 
 fion, given us a long, and pompous Quo- 
 tation" fr>m Mr. Collier; I fliall confider 
 fo much of it as is material to our Purpofe. 
 '^ " A'ld after the King lias thus declar'd 
 " himf If Tatriarch in his Dominions, 
 " claim'd all manner oi Spiritual hxx^ho- 
 
 rity, and prcnounc'u the Bifhops his De- 
 
 (C 
 
 + r. 2i8. 
 
 cc 
 
 : legates 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ Sec :^'Ji 
 
 ^^ legates at Pleafure" How did the 
 
 King declare himfeli- Patriarch in his Do- 
 minions ? In exprefs Words ? There is no 
 fuch Word in the Commiirion he refers to. 
 In Effed^ or by Confequence ? I have ilicwn 
 the Contrary. That Kxpreflion all 7nanner 
 of Ecclefurfiical Jurijcliciion and Jtttho- 
 rity has hkcwife been fully difcufs'd. 
 Then again^ how does the King pronounce 
 the Bifhops his Delegates at pleafure ? Trc- 
 noiinchig^ one would think, fhould be in 
 plain Words ; For to pronounce by Confe- 
 quence is very odd , efpecially in Things of 
 io folemn a Nature, as Commilnons, and 
 other legal Afts, or Inftruments. Nor does 
 he fo much as by confequence pronounce 
 tliem his Delegates at pleafure, in the Com- 
 miffion as here cited ; but only afferts an 
 Authority in Himfelf to reftrain the adual 
 Exercife of the external Part of their 
 Jurifdidion. *^^ ^ After This, continues 
 *^' He, thefe Words are thrown into the 
 Comm^iTion to give it the more palTable 
 Complexion ,• hefides Thofc things which 
 are known from holy Scripture to be- 
 long to you hy T>icine Rif^ht. Now, with 
 Submiffion, this Claufe feems to come in 
 too late ^ and is utterly inconfiftcnt with 
 *^ the former Part of the Ccminifiion." Now 
 
 * IbiJ; 
 
 B b 4 to 
 
576 ^w Answer to a Tofiflo ^ooh^ 
 
 to my Apprehcnfion, it is very material ] 
 and not merely throw^i in^ to give, (jc It 
 docs not come in too late ^ is entirely con- 
 fiftcnt with the former Part of the Commif- 
 iion j and clearly afferts an Authority in the 
 Bifliops derived from Chrift^ and indepen- 
 dent of the Civil State. Let us fee how 
 the Contrary is prov'd. "^ " For if the 
 •^ King is the Fountain^ &c. then without 
 '^ queftion the Hierarchy can have no Ju- 
 *' nfdicftion alfign'd in the New Teftamcnt, 
 " nor any Authority deriv'd from our Savi- 
 " our. But if the Church is a diftinft, (^c. 
 
 " then " Thofe who fuggefted the 
 
 " Draught of this Inftrument were No great 
 '" Divines." The Fallacy of all This Rea- 
 foning will be file wn by remarking upon 
 the material Claufes in it, which, to pre- 
 vent Repetition, I have not yet cited j and 
 referring to what has been already faid. 
 By all maimer of Ecclefiaftical Jtirif' 
 diUiony as afcrib'J to the Crown, is meant 
 only all manner of external^ ^nd political 
 Jurifdidion in Ecclefiaftical Affairs. It is not 
 pretended in the Commiffion that " the 
 *' King's t Lay- Vicegerent might lawfully 
 ^^ fupply the Room of all the Bifliops in 
 " England^' nor of any Bifhop in Efig'^ 
 land^ totally, and entirely, but only in 
 
 p. 219. t Ih'iA. 
 
 feme 
 
fome things, as Before, and not one of them 
 purely Spiritual. It is not faid, nor fomuch 
 as hinted, that t ^^ the Bifliops in the Exc- 
 " cution of their Office are only the King s 
 " Rcprefcntatives ,• nor that they are re- 
 vocable at pleafare ;" but only as above. 
 Nor were the Powers which the King 
 claim'd in pure Spirituals j and therefore 
 it is not to the Purpofe to argue, that X 
 the Church in pure Spirituals is indc- 
 " 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 Bifliops and 
 Clergy ? Suppofe the Church iliould encroach' 
 upon the State,as we fay the Church of Hoyne 
 does j That would not deftroy the King's exe- 
 cutive Authority, nor His, and the Parlia- 
 ment's legiflative. Befides ; The Pope cn- 
 croach'd upon thcRights of the Church, much 
 more than any of our Princes and their Parlia- 
 ments ever did : And the Bifliops much more 
 gave up their Rights by fuh772itting to Hhrty 
 than ever they did by juhmitting to any 
 King'j even, the' They took Commiflions 
 from the Latter revocable at Pleafure. 
 
 Iri 
 
57^ ^n Answer to a Topi/I:^ 'Boohy 
 
 In a Word ; that there were irregu- 
 lar thhigs done at the Infancy of the 
 Reformation^ is granted : Bat what then ? 
 Nay, what if Henry VIIL and the Pro- 
 teaor in Edward VI's time firetch'd 
 their Ecclefiaft'Cal Jurifdidion even farther 
 than was intended by fome Laws ,• which 
 Laws thcmfelves were too far ftretch'd ? 
 And what if all This was for a Time 
 fabmitted to? The whole Nation, both 
 Clergy, and Laity, were in Hurry and 
 Uncertainty; and did not well know wiiere 
 they w'ere, nor how^ they w^ere to ad:: 
 As it always happens in great Changes^ tho' 
 never fo good^ and necejfary^ whether in 
 Church, or State, or Both. But in a little 
 time, much lefs than could rcafonably have 
 been cxpeded, the Church of England 
 was tndy reform'd, and that by legal An- 
 thority : Nor have our Adverfaries any 
 thing but Falhuies in Kealonhtg , and Fal- 
 JJjQods in FaUy to alledge againft Either. 
 
 The Sum of what has been difco rfed un- 
 der This Head (that we may here obferve the 
 fame Method .^.s before) is reducible to the 
 foilovv^ing Particulars, ift. Many of the 
 Things objcded were done by Papifts. As 
 declaring the King's Ecclefiaftical Suprema- 
 cy ; The Submiflion of the Clergy, Crom- 
 i0elfs Vicegcrcncy in Spirituals, (^c. 2dly. 
 What even T'hey did was juftiiiable in the 
 Main ,• particularly the King s Supremacy, as 
 
 then 
 
EntuIerl^Eng^land'i ConverJion^Scc- 577 
 
 then declared, was no Innovation ; whereas 
 That of the Pope is a real one. 3dly5 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 
 Hands. 4thly5 It is faiio. That even in 
 K. Henrys and K. Edwdrd's Reigns, the 
 State encroach'd fo much upon the Church, 
 as our Adverfaries pretend. 5thly5 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 ^ I mean in 
 the Beginning of Q. EUzaheth'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 objed to Us may be retorted upon 
 Themfelves ,• and fome of it with great 
 Advantage. For inftance, T^heir Parha- 
 ments have meddled in Religious and Ec- 
 clcfiaftical Affairs, as much as Onrsj par- 
 ticularly in Q. Marys time : Q; Mary gave 
 Inftrudiions to her BiGi 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 Roign of five 
 Years only, than by all the Proteflant Kings,' 
 and Queens, from the Beginning of the Re- 
 formation to this very Day. A N 
 
A N 
 
 ANSWER 
 
 T O A 
 
 PopiOi BOOK, 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 E N G L A N d'j" Converjion and Re- 
 Jormation compafd, &c. 
 
 Tothe Fourth DIALOGUE. 
 
 [S This Dialogue is the fliorteft 
 of the Four ; fo it might very 
 well have been much Qiorter 
 than it is. For there is little 
 in it, befides Repetition. Which 
 indeed the very Title of it imports, ACoftZ" 
 parifon between the moft remarkable Cir- 
 cumjiances of England'^ Cont'erfion on the 
 one handy and it's pretended Reformation 
 
580 An Answer to a Topip Booh^ 
 
 en the other. That \s^ in effedl:, the General 
 Title of his Book ^ England 'j- Conner ficn,, 
 and Reformation compard: What has he 
 been doing all this while, efpecially in the 
 2d and 3d Dialogues, but making fuch a 
 Comparifon c* It may peradventure be re- 
 ply'd, that he has hitherto laid down the 
 Means, and Methods of the Converfion on 
 the one Tide, and the Reformation on the 
 other, fcparately, and diftindtly ; but now 
 he brings them clofe together ^ fets them in 
 Contrafte, as Oppofites ^ and more particu- 
 larly and briefly, compar-^s them with each 
 other. But tho' this was not neccffary, even 
 This, he has done already : I mean in the laft 
 Sedion 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, as He really is^ He 
 is much more fo Here ^ by repeating what 
 he has there repeated. It is true. He here 
 preteads to give his Pupil "^ a LeUure upon 
 the Ufey and Application that is to he made 
 of the CollcUion of Fa'cts he has hitherto en- 
 tertain d him with. This Ufe, or Applica- 
 tion, one would imagine, fhould be drawing 
 Inferences :, or Corollaries not yet mentioned : 
 Whereas 'tis nothing but a naufeous Repeti- 
 tion of Thofe Fad:s, moft of t hem falfe . 
 
 * p. 274. 
 
 and 
 
Entttled^Eng\and''s Converfion^ 8cc. |8 1 
 
 and of hb 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 pofuble to avoid 
 it : For fometimeSj 1 doubt, it will Not. 
 Whatever i meet with that looks like fome- 
 thing yet unanfwer'dj fliaii not fail to have 
 ample Juftice done it. 
 
 To the Firji^ Second^ and Third Se^lions. 
 
 'yHE very Titles of thefe Sedions, as 
 -^ well as That of the Dialogue in ge- 
 neral, ihew the Truth of what i have faid. 
 Sed. I. The refpe^we ^ualifiCatwns of the 
 chief Inftruments of England^ Cmicerfion 
 and Reformatmi co^npar^^. Sed. II. l^he 
 Methods and Means of EnglandV Concerfi-- 
 072 y and Reformation compard. Seft. iil. 
 The Moti'ves ^Z' EnglandV Con-rerfion^ arid 
 Reformation compard. Have we not had 
 enough of all this long ago ? Why muft we 
 again be baited with the old Story of St. 
 Jtiftiii^ Gregory^ &c. on the one hand ; 
 of Henry VIII. the Duke of Somerfet^ Q. 
 'Elizabeth^ &c. on the other 1 And that too 
 without the leaft Variety in the Air^ and 
 Manner j without any Reinforcement of the 
 Argument ,• or fctting it in any new Light 
 whatfoever ? 1 have fufficiently cxpos'd the 
 Falfliood of his Hiftory, and the Abfurdi- 
 ty, or Impertinence of his Arguments, in my 
 
 Examina- 
 
'^Ri At Answer to a Topifh Booh^ 
 
 Examination of his 2d. and 3d. Dialogues : 
 Yrty fliould my Reader, and 1 be teizVi with 
 the i-iine Sfiif over again ? I appeal to 
 Every one^ of what Perfuafion foever^ who 
 has cur Author's Book in his hands, ev-n to 
 its Author himfelf, wiiether wliat 1 fay of 
 his Cra7nhe be not htterally, and ftriftly 
 true : And w^hether I can be juftly charged 
 with leaving one Word in his Book un- 
 anfwer'd^ tho' 1 pafs by many Pages to- 
 gether, without taking the leaft Notice of 
 them. All I have to do therefore in this 
 Divifion (as Before in fevcral 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 
 dovvQ in Thcfe three ^ and the remaining 
 two Scutions, under nine diftind: Heads ; as 
 formally as if he had hitherto left thofe 
 Matters nntoticJjd: He no lefs folemnly 
 premjfes fix general Maxims^, as he calls 
 them ; which he thinks are inconteflahle. 
 "^ His Fir ft ^ that the Comber/ton of a Kingdom 
 to the T'rne Faith is the Work of God^ &c. 
 is true, in fome S.jnfe, or other; but no- 
 thing to the Purpofe, His Second^ con- 
 cerning the Terfonal CharaUers of Coiicerts 
 and Reformers m^Ay receive Anfiver enough 
 from what I have difcours'd. The T^hird^ 
 that a Change from one Religion to ano- 
 
 * i, 275, &c. 
 
 ther 
 
cc 
 
 cc 
 
 RntitUd:^ England'^ Conifer Jion^ Sec. ^ 8 j 
 
 thcr is a ^rcat "BleJJJng^ or a great Curfc^ is 
 profoundly wife -, and I need {liy no more of it. 
 ThQfcttrth is. That " the common People, 
 '' and Perfons of no Learning, who have 
 ^^ neither Capacity, nor Leifure, to examine 
 " every controverted Point of Rehgion by 
 it felf, muft have recourfe to certain ex- 
 ternal Marks to judge by in the Cafe of 
 a nLitional Change from one Religion to a- 
 nothcr, whether it be a Change from Truth 
 "to Falfbood, or from Fallliood to Truth ; 
 " and by confequence W'hether God, or the 
 " Dovil bsthe principal Author of it." I an- 
 fvvcr I ft. The common People have Ca- 
 pacity to know^ at leaft to be inftntUed i7?y 
 all the plain neceifary 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 fliould examine, 
 or meddle with ,• yet they may very w^ell 
 judge of Points wiiich nothing but the Height 
 of Impudence could have made contro'verted 
 ones: A Child^ that can read the "Bible ^ may 
 know that Topery isfalfe. 2dly, The ex- 
 ternal Marks he refers to, are a thoufand 
 times more diffiudt^ and lefs intelligible to the 
 tinleariied^ than the internal ones ; or than 
 the thing of which they are pretended to be 
 Marks : As I have above obfervM. [See p. 
 187.] But in this Paffage our Author fpoke 
 the very Heart and Soul of a TopifJo Trie ft : 
 The Common Teople (whom 'tis his Bufinefs 
 
 C G to 
 
7?6 An Answer to a fopijh Booh^ 
 
 to fedtice) have not Learning and Capacity 
 
 to judge of T>oUr'htes^ but they maj ealily 
 
 judge of plain outward FaUs ; That is, they 
 
 may be made to flare, and be allonifli'd, at a 
 
 Story about the wicked Lives of Harry VIIL 
 
 and the Duke o{ Somerjet ; about Q. Eliza- 
 
 heth^^nA Mary^ Q. tcots &c. They may have 
 
 their Headb- turn d with a Clatta* oi Words 
 
 about Antiquity^ Cathclkhy^ the Churchy 
 
 th" Principle ofUiiity^ and fuch Hke, which 
 
 they underiland juft as much of as they do 
 
 of Greek and Hebrew \ and all this, in order 
 
 to hinder and di^jtr' 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 the pi aine ft 
 
 Cajes^ contradicts the Word of God, Reafon, 
 
 and our Senfes, as Topery does, cannot be 
 
 true. The fifth is^ That the good or had 
 
 CharaUers of the chief jUors in it^ &c. are 
 
 external Marks on which a [olid Judgement 
 
 may he grounded ^ &c. But internal ones are 
 
 much b' ttcr, and furer; and thofe external 
 
 ones nr' v^ry fallacious as I have fhewn. 
 
 ( 'fie of the Marks laid down by "Bellarmine 
 
 him^eK(rho' he makes a Ilrange ufe of it) 
 
 is SanUity of ^}oBvine\ y- 1 our Author 
 
 tikes no notice of Thit. To which we may 
 
 very well add, that the external Marks He 
 
 here mentions are none of the three which 
 
 h' laid down at frP>'^ I mean in his fecond 
 
 plaiOgue//. 78, 7^» Of which I have faid 
 
 fome- 
 
Entitled^ Engl^.nd'* sConverfiony 8cc. 587 
 
 fomething already, and of which more here- 
 after 'l^he /ixtb Maxim is, 'T/jat if the 
 Covreyfion of England/r^;;? Vaganifm to the 
 Roman Catholick F 'ith {?oy fo he will havG 
 it, tho' nothing, as I have demonftrated, caa 
 be more faife) has the external Marks of an 
 extraordinary Mercy on it's Side^ [he might 
 have added, and the internal too, had he 
 meant, as he ought to have meant, that^;^- 
 gland was converted to Chriftianity^ not to 
 Popery"] andthe Reformation of that Faith 
 has on the contrary all thofe external Marks 
 againft it [add, tho' all internal ones for it] 
 then an unhiajs'd Terjon^ &c. I have abun- 
 dantly fliewn the Falfliood of the Fafts here 
 fuppos'd to be true; andthe Falfliood of the 
 Confequences drawn from them, even if they 
 had been true. 
 
 P. 279. "BiitTrotefiayits will fay that the 
 Parliament took az^ay all T)efe'cis hy in^ve fl- 
 ing them [i. e. the Layman Henry VUL 
 the Child Edward VI, and the Woman 
 Queen Elizabeth ] with the fuprejve Ec- 
 clefiafiical Authority. No, but they will not: 
 The Crown, whoever wear§ it, has fuch aa 
 Author'ty inherent in it. 
 
 He alferts * that ^rot eft ants run down all 
 Miracles as pious Frauds. This is of apiece 
 w^ith what he fays P. 181. I pre fume that 
 
 p. 2po. 
 
 C c 2 Trd^^ 
 
388 Jn Answer to a Topifh Boo\ 
 
 Trot epT ant "BiJIoops will nor allow of Miracles. 
 Was there ever fuch Folly, and Infolence ? 
 Becaufe we deny TopiJJo Miracles, which arc 
 falfe and fpurious , therefore we muft deny 
 ctll Miracles, even ihofc of Mofes and the 
 Prophets, Chrift, and his Apoftlcs, which arc 
 true and genuine. Becaufe we will not be 
 Tapijls^ we mii^fi be Infidels. He and his 
 young Gentleman continue their Boafis of 
 Miracles in the Church of Rc7ne : " And I 
 infiit, that We w^ork as many as They. If they 
 have That Power ; why do they not fiiew 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 j there w^as fw Occa/ion for 
 them : Nor would there have been any, had 
 the Reformation, as he falfly afferts it did, 
 oppos'd the whole Chrifiian World. For it 
 did not introduce a new^ Religion, but re- 
 eftablifli an oU 'one. The Gofpel was in 
 Being ; That the Scripture was the Word 
 of God, was granted by A^U : They had 
 therefore nothing to do, but to obey the 
 Voice of Reafon, fpeaking like That which 
 St. Jngtiftiiw heard at his Converfion, T^olle^ 
 Lege-^ Take up the Book, and read. Keading^ 
 and plain commGu iSV;.7^,w^erefL{fScient5 \vith- 
 out frefli Miracles. Thefe general, and n.oft 
 
 * p. i5)o, jpr. 
 
 true 
 
Entitled^ England^ ConverJio:i^Scc. ^89 
 true Obfervations being made ,• it will be cafy 
 to unravel all our Authoi-'s particular So- 
 phifms. * In the Concurrence of two contra- 
 diUory T>ocirines^ if one of them has the 
 'E'vidence of Miracles on its Side^ the other is 
 manifeftly conciUed of FalJJjood. ift. Their 
 Doftrines have no fuch Evidence, any more 
 than Ours> 2<M.y^ Miracles ^/^/w^ are not fuf- 
 ficient Evidence. See "^Deiiteron. xiii. i^ 
 2, 3. Nay the true Doftrine may want them, 
 and thefalfe have them. The Nature of the 
 T>ocirine mud be confidered, in Conjundioii 
 with the Miracles, j' This^ viz, a Cafe in 
 whicli Miracles are required, was the Cafe of 
 Mofes, &c. That was to atteft a new Revel a- 
 tion : We do not pretend to any. When 
 therefore we were delivered from our w- orfc 
 than E^yptia7i Bondage ; there was no need 
 of a Mofes to work Miracles. || This was 
 likewife the Cafe of the ylpojiles. I anfwxr, as 
 above ; The A^pcftles introduced a new Re- 
 ligion ^ and it was ncceflary that Chriftiani- 
 ty lliouid originally be eftablifli'd by Miracles. 
 % Now I dare hoUly fay there was fcarce 
 eoer a religious Caiife that flood 7nore in need 
 cf Miracles to proce that it was the Canfe of 
 God-, than that of the pretended Rcforfiiati' 
 on. Why ? Becaufe the Reformers opposed 
 the whole Chriftian Church in all Ages, con- 
 
 ibu. i ihi^. ^ n ihid, i Ibid. 
 
 C c 3 fcqucntly 
 
^90 Ad A]S33WER to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 fequently j| pretended to new 'Kcvelations ; 
 and fo on to the End of the Paragraph : 
 Every Word of which I have here, a id elfe- 
 where, prov'd to be falfe. f If the Trot eft ant 
 ^oUrine^ as far as it is oppojite to Tcpery^ 
 he a rez'cald T>Gcirine {for otherwije God 
 has no Share in it) the frft Tfeachers ofit^ 
 to whom we 7nuft fuppofe it was rezeafd^ 
 were bound to proz'e the Pye^jelation of ity by 
 theT'eftimony of uncontefted Miracles, l^his 
 is palpably coUufive. The Prot- flant Dod- 
 rine is an old re-veafd Dodrmc^ (and fo God 
 has a Share in it) not 7tewlv re^^eatd to the 
 Reformers, nor pretended to be fo. The firfl 
 Teachers of it, who were Chrift and his A- 
 poftlesj not the Reformers^ did pro've^ the 
 Revelation of it by Miracles ; and That 
 was fufficient. 
 
 His Saying p,2g6. that the Duke of Somer- 
 fet was a Zxunglian^ who at p. 176, was a 
 Yuuk Cahinift^ is a Trifle not worth our 
 Notice. And his affirming that in K. Ed^ 
 wards Time all the Cathedrals^ TariJIj- 
 Churches', and Chapels in the Kingdom were 
 ftripd as naked as Jluakefs Meetiyig-Hotifes^ 
 fo that nothing but thenar e Walls ^were left 
 fianding^ is a notorious Falfhood j but That 
 too^ among fo many others of far greater 
 Moment^ may well pafs for a Trifle. 
 
 II P. 292, t "P- -P3. 
 
 p. 301. 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ Sec :^^i 
 
 P. 301. ^tit I cannot believe that Chrifi 
 was in the midft of them^ [the Rctormen :] 
 or that they could fay with the Apoftles at 
 the Council of Jerufalem, it has feemed good 
 to the Holy Ghoft, and to Us, (jc. Acis 1 5. 
 c. 28. I anfwer, ift. The Ho'y Gh'4t was 
 in the midft of them, tho not by Infpiiari- 
 on, when they did well ; not w^hen they did 
 ill. 2dly. Tho' the Apoftles themleives 
 were infpir'd Perfons, yet \hey were not fo 
 in all things, sdly. Therefore the b> ft 
 Senfe of Thofc Words it feemed gocd^ &c. 
 appears to be, not that they related to the 
 Holy Ghoft's prefiding in the Council at '/>- 
 rujalem^ tho' he might, and did pr^'fide 
 There, and that in all likelyhood after an 
 extraordinary manner ; but to the Holy 
 Ghoft's being given to the Gentiles ^2.s well as 
 to the Jews. See t\ 8, 9. Which putt in-/ no 
 difference between them^ was a Tcftimony 
 given by th^ Holy Ghoft, that the Yoke of 
 the Jcwifli Ceremonies was not to be im* 
 pos*d upon the Gentile. And it having thus 
 appear'd to have feemd good to the Holy 
 Ghoft j it therefore y^^;7?V^^^^/-<; the Apoftles 
 likewife. So that our Author's bringuig in 
 That Text, to I'^flen and vilify the Reform- 
 ers, was upon all Accounts extremely idle. 
 
 P. 302. "Bifloop Burnet acquaints us that 
 
 Oj Elizabeth fcrupled at ftrfi ^veyy much to 
 
 accept the Supremacy. He does not^fay fo. 
 
 He only fays fhe did not like the T^itk of 
 
 C c ^ Sttp^me 
 
39^ jdnA'^SWEK to a Toi/ip^f (Bool^ 
 
 Supreme Head, t Jnd welljhe wight (con- 
 tinues our Author) /^r 7^/^? cctdd not hut know 
 herfelf miqitahlyd by her eery Sex^ &c. 
 This was not the Reafon , Bifliop Jj^irnet 
 cives us a very different one : His Words are 
 Thefe. ^ Nor did fcc like the Title of Su- 
 ^^ preme Head. She thvought it imported too 
 ^^ great Power, and came too near the Au- 
 *^ thority which Chrift only had over the 
 5' Church. 
 
 t Ibid. * Kift Ref. Vol.2. P. 37^. 
 
 T 
 
 To the Fom^th SECT I O:^ 
 
 ENTITULED, 
 
 The Unity of Faith on. the one fide 
 com^ard with the X^fagreements on 
 the other, 
 
 SOMETHING has been faid of This 
 above ; in our Examination of Sed. 7, 
 Dialogue I. "" A great Part of what our Au- 
 thor bi.th Here^ and There^ infifts upon, 
 is not much to his Purpofe- His Book^ as 
 
 j See P. 15S, 1 5 St 
 
 It? 
 
Evtitled^En^l^nd's Converfio^^ Sec, ^95 
 
 its Title fcts forth, is written againlt the 
 Chmch oi En^lajj^ : And the Church of 
 'FjUgland IS not obiig^^d to vindicate all the 
 Reformers and Prot* ftants of Chriftendom^ 
 in every thing they did, or do. Whatever 
 therefore were the Differences between 
 t Lnther , Carol ft adius , Oecolampadius , 
 Zuinglhis^ ar\dCak'in ^ 1 know not how We 
 came to be conccrn'd with them. Not but 
 that it is utterly falfe to fay, as He does, 
 that they fell i7ito the ntmoft Covfnfion, and 
 Varmnce^ like the 'Builders ofBahel-. They 
 differed in fome Things, it is true ,• and they 
 were hit Men. But are there not many 
 Seds, and Divifions, among the Papirts ? 
 '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 mentioned, to be fo witty 
 and triumphant upon This Subjed:, and 
 another which lie joins w^ith it, and wliich 
 is indeed nearly ally'd to it, the Abufe of 
 the Scriptures by feme Men's diftorting them 
 to their own pre-conceiv'd Opinions. % Thns 
 Martin Lnther (fays He) Car clft adius ^ ckc. 
 found it plain in Scripture that folernn Vows^ 
 &c. to the End of the Paragraph. I anfwer 
 J ft. The Errors he mentions are not worfe 
 
 than 
 
;94 ^'^ Answer to a Topi/h ^ook^ 
 
 than thofe of Popery. 2dly, They are only 
 the Opinions of private Peifons ; but thofe 
 which We call Popiih are the Dof^rines of 
 the Church of Rome. 3dly> It does not 
 folio vv tb at becaufe the Scriptures may be 
 abLS d^ therefore they are not fit to be tts^d. 
 He coQtinues. '^ T'hus fnally the Scriptures^ 
 as managd by the Reform d Churches^ are 
 plain and po fit he for Lutheranifm in Ger- 
 many, for Calvinifm at Geneva, fyc. It 
 niir.^bc fo; but they are agalnji 'Popery in 
 all Coimtries ; and that not as they are ma- 
 nag dy &Cr but re ally J and in themfehes. 
 Nor are they wrefted, and tortured by any 
 Set of Men upon Earth, more than by Pa- 
 pills. Thus again : f Y^x'^^x found his T^oc-- 
 trine plainly in ScripHirey a?idfo did Calvin 
 
 bis^ &c. Nay no one found his OoUrine 
 
 mt&re dearly in Scripture^ than honeji James 
 Nay lor ; as his whole Crew of Qi-takers 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 Groimd as any SecS in Chri-- 
 Jtendom-y who, after all This Clutter too^ 
 make ufe of their own pri'vate Judgment 
 m reading the Scriptures, and put others up- 
 on doing the fame : Elfe what do they 
 mean by arguing with us from Scripture ? 
 
 But 
 
Enthled^^no^amVs Converjlon^ ^c. 595 
 
 But to put it at the Worft, 'tis much better 
 to be in ^£>angcr of making an /// ufe of our 
 Eycs^ than to have No^ie ; or to be hinder d 
 from feeing with them : Better there 
 fhould be a hundred falfe Opinions in the 
 World, than no trne Judgment : Better difi'er 
 among ourfelves about a thonjand 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 Subjcd: ? It amounts 
 to thus much. Becaufe there is a great deal 
 of Error among Proteftants, therefore tho 
 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 World^hQCSLufo 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. T'he Lu- 
 tlicrans, who led up the T)ance^ were re- 
 fornid hy the Zuinglians, and Tfhey by the 
 
 Calvinifts. —What if they were? Is it 
 
 any juft Prejudice againft a Reformation, 
 
 i See a Book fo Entitled. Printed in idSS, 
 
 that 
 
^cj6 An A-^SWER to a Topifjj Booh^ 
 
 that it was not all made at once ? ^^ MdThey 
 " again by the Anahaptifls'' To rank Them 
 with the Reformers^ is an Unchriftian Ca- 
 lumny. " And at home K. Homy s Refor- 
 mation was reform d by K. hdward, aiid 
 his by £. Elizabeth." That is, the Reforma- 
 tion was gradual^ and grew better, and bet- 
 ter ^ as I anfwer'd Before. '^ Jnd has fine e 
 ^^ been reform d by the ^Presbyterians-^ In- 
 dependents^ Fanaticks^ Q^^iakers^ and the 
 Lord knows hew many moreT There are 
 not many more j But however, as I juft now 
 faid of the Anabaptifts abroad, 'tis an in- 
 famous flander upon the Church of Eng- 
 land to call Thefc Schifmaticks, and Here- 
 ticks her Reformers : Nor is Their Schifm, 
 or Herefy, any Argument againft Her; as I 
 have partly fncwn, and partly fnali fhew in 
 the Sequel. 
 
 t His Refledions 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 fcrviccable to 
 his Caufe. A Reformation, tho never fo 
 good, cannot be made in a Day -, any more 
 than P^ome^ Popiili P^07ne^ could be built 
 in one. Differences, and Errors too, there 
 will be for a time : But j?;;^ Gold is never 
 the lefs fine, becaufe the Parts of it were 
 
 P. 506 
 
 m 
 
Em it led ^'England'' s Converfion^dcc. 55>7 
 
 in a rapid Jgitaticn^ before it became 
 fo. 
 
 X His abufive, and malicious Invedives a- 
 gainfl: Thofe cmlfindijij JdceiitnrerSy as ho 
 ftiles them, who came over into Tivglaiid in 
 K. Bdwiird\ Reign, are agreeable to the reft. 
 Jolm Alajco-y he tells us, was a profefsd Ann- 
 haptift. Sure he miftakcs John Jlajco for 
 John a Leyden: For I do not find that tlie 
 Firft w-as an Anahaptifi i, but I find that he 
 w^as a Nobleman oi" great Parts^ Learning, 
 Piety^ and Wifdcm. His faying that "Peter 
 Martyr^ and Martin 'Bttcer^ w^ere Jpoftate 
 Triejis^ hv.othmghvit calling Names^ and 
 hegging the Ouefticn. What if Tetcr Martyr 
 W'as a Ziiinglian^ and 'Bncer partly a Ztt- 
 ivglian^ and partly a Lutheran ? It does not 
 loliow that they broiight ccer^with thejjidij- 
 jcrent Syftems of Faith ^ as He untruly af- 
 ferts they did, Thiey might differ in Jhne 
 ^oUrines^ or in the manner of explainins; 
 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 
 II Vitals of Chrifiian Religion half fo nmcli 
 de^jotird by all the Schifms, and Herefics a- 
 mong Proteftants, as by the damnable Doft- 
 rines of Tcpery^ utterly deftrudive of Cri- 
 fiianity, and even of common Morality. 
 
 ± P. 307. 11 30S. 
 
 His 
 
^98 An A^SWEK to a Topt/h Boo\ 
 
 His triumphing over the poor Church of 
 "Eingland^ as t I octree keeping tipon its Legs 
 &c. always complaining of its being in danger 
 from the Tresbyterians^ Independents^ Ana- 
 b apt I ft s^ Quaker s^ — Antitrinitarians^ Free- 
 thinkers^ &c. to whom He might have added 
 Tapifts^ 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 maHgn d, attack'd, under- 
 min'd, betray'd, flander'd and traduced, is no 
 more an Argument again ft any Church, than 
 to be in a State of dired Terfecution ftriftly 
 and properly fo calfd. It was never tho 
 Church of E7igland'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 
 Athcifts 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 ; {lie can always with 
 humble Confidence ufe the Language of 
 God's Church, as tranfmitted to us by the 
 Prophet Micah^ chap^ 7. c. 8. Rejoice not 
 againft me^ mine 'Enemy ; when I fall ^ I 
 
 Ibid, 
 
 floall 
 
Entitled^Englaad'^s Converfion^ Sec 599 
 
 Jloallarife : Whe7i I fit inT)arknefs^ the Lord 
 Jljall be a Li^ht unto me. 
 
 By a very natural Tranfition from This, 
 we may well obferve ; that when the Church 
 oi Engl mid co\Ad not keep tipon her LegSy 
 when fhe was in all Appearance^ and human 
 Probability, quite deftroy'd by Presbyterians, 
 and Independents, Hypocrites and Atheifts ; 
 when file fecm'dto be dead and bury'd beyond 
 Hope of a Refurreftion ; when her Serz^ants 
 could only think upon her Stones^ and it pi^ 
 tyd them to fee her in the T)ttft : 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 the Day of Judgment. For Proof of 
 This, to omit others, let Bramhall only be 
 my Witnefs. 
 
 His calling the feveral Sefts, Schifms, and 
 Herefies, which he has mention'd, '^younger 
 broods of the Reformation^ is a Complication 
 of two Sophifms I Arguing from what is ac- 
 cidental^ to what is effential^ and afligning 
 That for a Caufe^ which is not fo. Our 
 Saviour faid he came not to fend Teace upon 
 Earthy hut T>it)ifion : i. e- Divifion would 
 be the accidental Ccnfeqtience of his Coming. 
 
 WiU 
 
^oo An Answer f^ afofifh Bool^ 
 
 Will the Komanifts fay tliat the one was 
 the proper gcmiine Ccuife of the other ? The 
 Cafes are the fame. 
 
 For what our Author afferts :|: here, and 
 in many other Places, mz. that the Church 
 of England feparated from the Church of 
 Komc upon the ^-ery fame Trincipkj as our 
 feveral SeUaries proceed upcn in feparating 
 from tts^ is altogether groundlcfs and unjuft. 
 
 G. '' But if it be noBlemilli to the Church 
 " of liome^ that the Reform'd Churches 
 " have feparated themfelves from her Com- 
 '^ munion ; why fliould it be a Biemifh to 
 ^' tlie Reform'd Church of England^ that 
 
 the Djjjhiters have feparated themfelves 
 
 cc 
 
 't r, 
 
 trom 
 
 Her ? 
 
 T. '^ Sir, I perceive you don't apprehend 
 me right. For I don't pretend that the 
 Separation of one, or many Softs from 
 any Church can juftly caft a Biemifh upon 
 it ; unlefs their Separation naturally 
 flow from a Principle avow'd and main- 
 tain'!) by T'hat 'very Church from which 
 t\\^y feparate themfelves. Now^ this is the 
 vEPvY Casf between our Englijlo DiJJenters, 
 and the Church of England as Eftablifli'd 
 *^ by Law-. Becaufe it is a fundamental 
 ^^ Principle of this Church, that every Man's 
 " only Rule of Faith is the v/ritten Word 
 
 i P. 308, 30C), 
 
 ■ ' of 
 
Entitled:^ England^j- Converfion^ Sec. 40 1 
 
 ^^ of God^ not as interpreted by the Church, 
 ^l but as underftood by Himfelf." 
 
 I anfwer, ift. We do not fay, not as inteV'^ 
 fretcd by the Churchy hut as tinderftood by 
 Himfelf: We fay both as interpreted by the 
 Church, and underftood by himfelf. idly. 
 Is it a NATURAL Confcqucnce that becauie 
 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 
 fliould 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 neceffary : And 
 the Fatdt is wholly their own. His Queftion, 
 t For where will Schifms fiop^ &c. has been 
 fully anfwer'd SeU. 7. Dial I. Nor will this 
 Principle infie ad of uniting them naturally 
 divide them : 'Tis not the Principle that 
 does it j but the /// TJfe that's made of it. % 
 IBut they [the feveral SoSts of Proteftants, 
 the Church of England among the reft] 
 all took care it Jhould be Scripture interprez 
 
 D d tea 
 
401 An Answer to a ^opijh Book^ 
 
 tedhy themfehes. So it ought to be, accor- 
 ding to the beft of their ownjtncere Endea- 
 vours to underftand it, and the beft Jjfiflance 
 they could obtain. + Jnd contrary to the 
 Judgment of that Churchy which was the only 
 mfihle Catholick Church ttpon Earth before the 
 Reformation, ift. It is falfe that the Church 
 of Rome was the only Church, idiy. Ac- 
 cording to the excellent Rule of Vincentitis 
 Tuirinenjis * if any novel Contagion has over- 
 fpread the whole Church ; in fuch a Cafe 
 Chrijlianus CatholicuSy the Catholick Chri- 
 ftian^ niuft not ftand to the Award of the 
 prejent Church, but antiquitati inharere ; 
 ftick to Antiquity. This was the Cafe at 
 the Reformation, upon Suppofition that the 
 Church of Rome was the only Church : And 
 fo the Reformers^ even upon That Suppofiti- 
 on, which is falfe too, aftcd like true Catho- 
 lick Chriftians. But our Author proceeds. And 
 is it then a JVonder the ^JiJJenters from the 
 Church of England floould challenge the fame 
 privilege to themfehes^ and follow the Rule 
 they receivd as a Sacred Trufl from the 
 I'ery Jpoftles of the Reformation ? Anfw. 
 What privilege ^ The Privilege of ahti- 
 fing a good Rule 1 Do they follow it by ahu- 
 fing it ? And was the Jhufe of it a Sacred 
 Truft^ &c ? He adds, f What was main- 
 tain d — hy the Heads of the Reformation 
 
 i Com. I. Chap. 4, 6. f Ibid. 
 
 who 
 
Entitled^ Enghnd^ s Converfion^ Sco 405 
 
 who — fet up the proud Idol of private Judg- 
 ment^ &c, cannot he juftly hlanid in Thofe 
 
 [meaning our Dijfenters^ v:ho guided 
 
 themf elves by the ^^ery Ktile^ and Trificipky 
 they had taught them. As much as to fay ; 
 Becaufe all Proteftants agree in Thefe Prin- 
 ciplesj that Men arc to judge for themfelves, 
 and that Scripture only is the Rule of Faith : 
 Therefore the Proteftant Diffenters who fe- 
 parate from the Church of "England Con- 
 trary to Reafon and Scripture, a6l juft 
 as the firft Reformers did, who feparated 
 from the Church of ^ome 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 its fnppofe a T>oUor of the Church 
 of England floould tell a T>ijjenting Mini- 
 Jier that he ought to fuhmit himjelf to the 
 Judgment and Authority of the Church 
 eftablifJod by Law. The Minifter wotdd 
 readily anfwer him^ that This was [appivg 
 the very Foundation of all the refornid 
 
 Churches For if there were an Obliga-- 
 
 tion of fubmitting a Mans private Judg- 
 ment to any human Author if^:, &c. to the End 
 of the Paragraph. All This may receive a 
 full Anfwer from what has been difcoursM ; 
 and is nothing but Quibbling upon two or 
 three Words, or JExpreflions. As ift, Suh" 
 
 D d 2 mit 
 
404. An Answer to a Topt[h Bookj 
 
 mit to the Judgment y and Authority of the 
 
 Church We tell no Diffenters that they 
 
 rnuft fubmit to Our Church, as Papifts teach 
 we mud to \iheirs. There is, or ought to 
 be, a SubmilTion to the Church ^ but not 
 fiich a one as They require, idly, Troci- 
 ded They [the Difl'enters] were hut allow d 
 to he Themj'ekes the Interpreters of the Word 
 of God. So they fliall be, and are allow'd 
 to be, themfelves the Interpreters of it ; 
 meaning, They iliall be allow'd to make 
 life of their own Reafon, 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 forcM Conftrudion upon the 
 Scriptures, dragging them to his own pre- 
 conceived Opinions, and refolving that They 
 fliall fpeak his Seafe, whether they will, or 
 no. But the T>ijfenting Minijiery our Au- 
 thor may objeft, will fay. We do fo and 
 They do Not : And I anfwer, Saying is not 
 Tro'ving. If it be ask'd, Who fliall be Judge ? 
 I anfwer, true, right, unprejudiced Reafon: 
 Which Everybody may have, if he pleafes ,• 
 And if he has it not, 'tis his own fault. I hope 
 it does not follow that becaufe a Man/^jj- he 
 is in the Right, therefore he is in the Right: 
 If That be the Cafe, we m.uft argue about 
 Nothing ; from Scripture^ or any thing elfe. 
 According to This way of Reafoning, Kea-^ 
 foning itfelf is Nonfenfe. 3dly5 It was. He 
 
 fays^ 
 
Entitled^ England V ConverJlon^Scc, 405 
 
 fays, a fimdamental Trinciple of the Re- 
 formati07z that the Word of God^ as Inter- 
 preted accordhig to e^very Mans private 
 Confciencey is the ofily Rule of his Faith* 
 The Word of God is in^ and of it felf the 
 Rule : As to it's being interpreted according 
 to e'very Mans private Confcience ^ If the 
 Man has informM his Confcience, or rather 
 Judgment^ as well as he is able. Prejudice 
 being fet afide, He makes a good Ufe of the 
 Rule 'y otherwife, a had one. 
 
 "^ In the next Paragraph he repeats the 
 Words Quaker:, Jnahaptiji^ Socinian^ and 
 Free-thinker^ which do him wonderful Ser- 
 vice 'y infifting that They can all mai^itain 
 their Ground againft the Church of Fng- 
 land^ upon the Principle we are fpeaking of : 
 But what I have now faid fhews all This to 
 be empty Noife j and fo I leave it. 
 
 The Reformation therefore has f not been 
 hy^ it's z^ery Principles the fruit ftd Mother 
 of endlcfs 'Divi/ions ; but Popery by it's z^ery 
 Principles has been, and is, the fruitful 
 Mother of all Manner of Wickednefs ^ as I 
 have in This, and Another Treatife fuffici- 
 ently prov'd. 
 
 However, He Is fure % the Reformation 
 was fwt the Work of the Holy Ghoft, And 
 I have Before anfvver d, that what was good 
 
 .=* p. 311. t l^i^^ i ^' IT2. 
 
 D d 3 in 
 
4o6 An ANSWER to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 in it was the Work of the Holy Ghoft j 
 what was bad was Not. || Jnd the?!^ fays 
 He, it is eafy to guefs what Spirit prejided 
 in their Councils. That is, becaufe our Re- 
 formers read the Scriptures^ andalTerted the 
 Right of pri^^ate Judgment ^ and upon 
 Thofe Principles, both They and their Succef- 
 fors were likely enough to differ among them- 
 felves in jome Things, and aftually did fo 
 differ ; Therefore the T>e^il prefided in their 
 Councils. Fine Arguing indeed ! They 
 agreed in the Main of their Dodrine, in 
 the great "Points of Chriftianity : And fo do 
 Wej We of the Church of England at leaft : 
 And in many things of lefs moment We may 
 very faft^y differ. 
 
 As for the t^ariotis SeUs among Prote- 
 ftants, the Argument drawn from Them 
 will hold as well againft Chrifiia7iity^ as 
 againfl Troteftantifm ; nay better ; For 
 Chriftendom includes all Seds of Prote- 
 ftants, and Papifts too : And fo there are 
 more Se^Ss among Chrifiians than among 
 Trot eft ants. And, which more nearly con- 
 cerns our Author and his Party, it proves 
 as flrongly againft Them^ as againft Us. 
 t It could not he the Spirit of T'ruth^ whom 
 Chrift promised to jend^ &c. To This Text 
 I hope I have faid enough under another 
 
 Ij Ibid, t Ihld. 
 
 Article 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ Sec. 407 
 
 Art cle in the Firft Dialogue, f For the 
 Spirit of Iriith is effentially the Spirit of 
 Unity and Concord : Jnd therefore as he can^ 
 not C07itradiul himfelf fo he cannot he the 
 Jtithor of ContradiUions in Thoje who are 
 guided by him. 'Tis certain he cannot be 
 the Jtithor of Contradictions in l^hofe who 
 are guided by him ; nor in any Others : 
 Becaufe he cannot be the Author of Con- 
 tradidions 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 thingSj notwithjianding That Gui- 
 dance, tho' not becaufe of That Guidance. 
 If Thofe among whom are any Divilions, 
 have not the Direction of the Holy Spirit ; 
 the Church of Kome has it not, for the 
 Reafbn juft mentioned. "^ Chrift prayd for 
 them that were to be^ &c. that they might 
 he perfeUly one. John xvii. ver. 23. And he 
 nether prayd in 'vain. Whatever be the 
 Senfe of This Text, the Papifts are no more 
 pcrfeUly one than We are^ and fo caa 
 make no more Ufe of This Pafiage. Some- 
 thing might be faid too of our Saviour's ne- 
 ver praying in n)ain ; but as it is not to our 
 Purpofe, I pafs it by. % St. Paul exhorts 
 the Faithful to be of one Jccord^ and one 
 
 D d 4 Mind 
 
4o8 ^n Answer to a Topfh ^ook^ 
 
 Mind. Phil. ii. ver. 2. St. Tattl does not 
 There ufe the Word Faithfiil ,• Thofe who 
 are truly fuch Avill of courfe be of one 
 Mind in the main. But were All whom He 
 exhorted to be of one Mind aUtially of 
 one Mind ? And did They ceafe to be Mem- 
 hers of the Churchy by not being fo ? He 
 ^ exhorts the Corinthians^ to be perfeUly 
 joind together in the fame Judgmenty 
 I Cor. i. ver. 10. That is, belike, in en- 
 tirely fubmitting to the Church of Rome^ 
 whatever fhe faid : For, according to Herj 
 no other Judgment w'as allow'd them. 
 
 t Tray tell me^ Sir^ could the Holy 
 Ghoft he the Infpirer of Lutheran ifm in 
 Saxony, of Zuinglianifm /;/ Switzerland, 
 of Calvinifm at Geneva, of Fanaticifm in 
 Scotland, avd of a Religion differeyit from 
 them all in England ? Not to infill that 
 Thefe are not fo different from one ano- 
 ther, as He is pleas'd to fuppofe ; Tray:, 
 Shy fays a Heathen, a Mahometan, or a 
 Jew, could the Holy Ghoft he the Infpirer 
 of Topery^ and all it's Seds, in Italy^ 
 France^, Germany ^^ Spain^ and Torttigal ; 
 of Troteftantifm, and all it's Sedts, in 
 England^ Holland:^ Switzerland^, Germany^ 
 and fo forth ? % What other Spirit there- 
 for e^, hilt the Spirit of Lyings and SedtiUi- 
 
 Ibid, t Z^^'^- i ^^''^' 3"^ P- 3^3" 
 
Entitled^Engla^nd's Converjjon^ Sec, 409 
 
 m^ can have been the Author of a Kefor- 
 mation [meaning Chriftianity] hiiilt tipon a 
 Trinciple^ v:hich has been an inexhaztftj" 
 lie Source of T>wiJions^ wherever it got 
 footing ? For Chriftianity^ in general, as 
 I have II elfewhere fliewn, is no lefs 
 hdlt upon the Trinciple of reading the 
 Scriptures^ and tmderftanding the^n with 
 cur own Under ft andings^ than Protcftan- 
 tifm in particular. 
 
 P. 314. G. T.'he Unity you fpeak of is 
 mofi certainly a Mark of Truth, For 
 "Truth is efjentially one j hit the Errors 
 oppofite to it are infinite. Becaufe Truth 
 is one, and the Errors oppolite to it are 
 infinite ,• Therefore whatever People 
 unite in muft be Truth. I can fee no man- 
 ner of Connexion between Thefe two Pro- 
 pofitions. Truth may be one, as it cer- 
 tainly is J and the Errors oppofite to it in- 
 numerable, as they certainly may he^ for it 
 is not necejfary they floould he \ and not- 
 withftanding This, a vaft Number or Men, 
 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 2}/- 
 
 ii Frp. truly ^l^X., 
 
 ' vifwns 
 
4IO An Answer /i7^ Tofifh ^oohy 
 
 mjtons is no lefs ftrong againff Chriftla- 
 nity than agaiuft Proteftantifm ; fo his 
 Reafoning from the Unanimity^ of Pa- 
 pifts is as ftrong for Heathenifm^ or Ttir- 
 cifmy as for Popery. To have all it's Pro- 
 felTors agree in every thing, or to have 
 many Differences in Opinion among them^ 
 is purely accidental to ajiy Religion r 
 The One does not prove it to be true; 
 nor the Other to be falfe. Not that^ 
 after all, there is more Harmony among 
 T'hem than among Us ^ as I have often 
 been compell'd to obferve. 
 
Entitled^ England'^ ConverJion^Scc- 411 
 
 To the Fifth^ and Loft 
 SECTION; 
 
 ENTITLED, 
 
 The General external Marks of the 
 true Church on the one Side^ com^ 
 pared 'with the entire jVant of them 
 on the other. 
 
 I Hope the Reader will pardon my chufing 
 to refer him, as I fomctimes 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 
 T. 181, to the ^End of That Sedion, be- 
 fore he proceeds with This. 
 
 P. 315, England, hy it s Convey fion^ he- 
 came a Tart of That Society of Chri- 
 ftians which alone can glory in having all 
 thofe external Marks of the true Churchy 
 &c. meaning by That Society of Chriftians 
 the Church of Rome. Whereas England 
 by it's Converfion became united with all 
 the Societies of Chriftians in the Worlds as 
 well as with the Church of Rome: It be- 
 came a Part of the Catholick Church • of 
 which the Church of R.07ne herfcif was, 
 and is, no more than a Part. His affirming 
 
 that 
 
412 An Answer to a Topi/h Boo\ 
 
 that She only has the Marks^ comes next 
 to be confider'd. 
 
 * Terpetnal Vifihilit}\ and Catholicity^ 
 He fays, are two external Marks injepar- 
 able frora the Church of Chrift^ and in- 
 comrmtvicahle to a new raisd^ Communion. 
 The Church of England by the Reforma- 
 tion was not a new-raisd Communion; 
 us we fiiali fee prefently. As for the Marks 
 he mentions ,• he might have fpar'd his Pains 
 in fpending two Pages, to pro^^e that the 
 Church is^jifihle. It certainly is fo, and al- 
 ways will be, one way or other. Not that 
 Jn'vifibility^ or the Notion of the Church 
 coniiderd as inmfible^ is % repugnant to the 
 c'cry End for which Chriji has eftablijlod 
 Sapors and Preachers in his Churchy con- 
 fidcr'd as viftble : Of which hereafter. 
 Much might be faid too upon This Subjed, 
 diftinguifhing the feveral Sorts of Vifibility : 
 Concerning which I refer to a (hort Trea- 
 tife of Bifliop Sanderfofis^ written with the 
 trueft Judgment, and good Senfe (as every 
 thing of That incomparable Prelate's is) en- 
 titled, A T>ifcourfe concerning the Churchy 
 in Ihefe following Particulars ,- The Viji- 
 hility of the true Church ; The Church of 
 Rome i Trotefiant Churches^ &c. London, 
 "Printed for R. Taylor, 1688. Their Church, 
 
 •^ Ihll :|: p. 317. 
 
 we 
 
Entitled^ England'^ Converjlov^ 8cc^ 4 1 ^ 
 
 we grant, was, and is vifible: Ours was 
 once fubjcd to Theirs , and was Then c7- 
 /ibky tho'' corrupt^ and is Now ci/tbk^ tho' 
 reform d. || As to the Church's Catholicity^ 
 or Unic'erfahty^ both in regard of Time mid 
 "Place^ &c. to the End of the fecond Para- 
 graph. This is anfwer'd in the Place I re- 
 ferred to at the Beginning of this Scdion. I 
 therefore only cbferve upon Thofe Words "^ 
 
 // the Jpojiolical Siiccefjion j'hoitld in 
 
 one and the fame Cojnmiinion be at any time 
 entirely extinU-, it could not he faid that 
 Chri ft has remain dwith^&cc. to thcEndofthe 
 World : That if by cne^ a7id the fame Com- 
 mu7iion be meant the univerfal Church, it is 
 true ; If it means a particular Church, as we 
 muft crave leave to fay the Church ot Rome 
 is, till the contrary is proved ; it is falfe. 
 Have not many particular Churches adually 
 perifli'd ? f Sir^ fays the young Gentleman, 
 / fee €'ery plainly that perpetual Vijibility 
 and Catholicity are external Marks infepa- 
 Table from the true Church of Chriji. 1'his 
 is, in Effed, the fame juggling as before. If 
 the Church mejans the Church univerfal, as 
 it ought to do ; it is true, but no Difcovery, 
 and nothing to the Purpofe, that perpetual 
 Vifibility and CathoHcity are infeparable 
 from her ,• tho', by tlie way, the Unicerfality 
 
 IIP. 117, 118. *P IlS, t Ib'd. 
 
 of 
 
414. An Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 of the Church Unwerfal^ that is in plain^ 
 tho' bad EngliJJo^ the Wholenefs of the Whole ^ 
 is an odd Kind of Marh If the Church 
 means a Church, as it ought not to do ; nei- 
 ther perpetual Vifibility, nor Catholicity is 
 an infeparable Mark of it : Nay, to fay the 
 latter is fo, is a Contradidion. But 1 am 
 infenfibly breaking my Promife, and una- 
 wares repeating what 1 have faid in the Place 
 referred to. 
 
 "^ I pretend tofiew^ fays the Preceptofj 
 that as England was by its Converfion made 
 a Tart of that Society ofChriftians to which 
 T'hofe Marh of the true Church mofl un- 
 dotihtedly 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 
 ftrains all his Nerves, draws his Argument 
 to a Head, and labours his Point with the 
 utmoft Diligence, to prove that the Church 
 of Engl and hy the Reformation loft its 'Beings 
 and is now no Church at all. Let the Rea- 
 der be z^ery attentive in obferving the Force 
 of his Reafonings ; For I fliall produce them 
 in their full Force ,• and do pretend to fhew^ 
 on the contrary, that his boafted Strength is 
 the moft defpicable Weaknefs. I fliill be at 
 the Pains of tranfcribing almoft every thing 
 
 P. 319. 
 
 he 
 
Entitled^ England'i Converjlon^ 8cc. 415- 
 
 he fays, diffed it minutely, and anfwer it 
 Sentence by Sentence. 
 
 t Js to the Mark ofVifihiUty^ England 
 'was hy its Coiwerfton incorporated with the 
 Church of Rome ; that is to fay^ with the 
 whole 'Body ofCh:iftia7is then in Communion 
 with the See of Rome. " This is very dark ; 
 and his T^hat is to fay^ is a ftrange one. Does 
 he mean that the Church of Rcme was the 
 whole Body of Chriftians, bccaufe all the 
 Chriftian Churches in the World were then 
 in Communion with herc^ (As they very 
 well 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 Parifli is in 
 perfed Friendfliip with John^ therefore John 
 is all the ParilTi. But why fhould not //^5/- 
 Uam^ T^homas^ or Richard^ have as good a 
 Right to That Catholick Title? They being 
 ^^//fuppos'd to be in Friendfliip with each 0* 
 ther. Was not the Church of Rome as much 
 in Communion with all other Churches, as 
 all other Churches with Her? Why 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 all the Chriftian Churches 
 
 being 
 
^i6 An Answer to a fopijh Booh^ 
 
 being then in Communion with That of RomCy 
 whatever Society became a Part of the 
 Church of Ro7ne^ became a Part of the 
 Church Univerfalp 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 ; our Author feems to have a Fetch 
 in expreffing himfelf thus amhigtwufJy : 'Tis 
 to make the Church of R ome look at leaft like 
 the whole Church ; and That is better than 
 Nothing- Let him mean what he will,- 1 fay, 
 as I laid above, and more will be faid of it 
 immediately, that 'England ^t its Converfion 
 was no more incorporated with the Church 
 Q^'Ro'me, than with any other Church. 
 
 ^ NowtheTaftors of "This Church had An 
 their own Cormniinion^ an uninterrupted €'/- 
 fihle Succeffion of ^ijhops, from the Jpoftles 
 down to the TifJte wherein England was 
 con'verted. Well , fo had the Paftorsof other 
 Churches: And what then ? It therefore 
 lee am e a Tart of that Church, &c. Does 
 it follow that England 2.t it's Converfion be- 
 came a Part of the Church of R^;;^^, becaufe 
 the Church of Rome had a Succeffion of 
 Bifliops down to that time ? This there- 
 fore is as flrange as the that is to fay above- 
 mention'd. England^ as I faid, became Part^ 
 
 * Ibid. ^ Ibicf. 
 
 not 
 
Entitled -EnglaniVsConverfiony 8cc. 4. 17 
 
 not of the Church Ol Rome^ but of the uni- 
 verfal, or Cathoiick Church. Why does he 
 not prove, as well as affirm, that it became a 
 Part of the Church of Rome ? Its being 
 converted by Miiiionarics from Rome proves 
 no fuch thing. Ungland is converted to 
 Chriftianity by Romans : Or, if you pleafe, 
 a Church in Ejngland^^ or the Cliurch of £;z- 
 gland^ is planted by Rojnans : Is the Church 
 of jE//^/^/;/^ therefore a Part of the Church 
 of Rome ^ The fame Argument will as well 
 prove that the Nation of England is a Part 
 of Italy. According to this, the Church of 
 IB^ome it felf was but a Part of the Church of 
 yeriifakm 3 for it was planted by Jew's. 
 Not that it would fignify any thing to the 
 Merits of the Caufe, if his AiTertion were 
 true: If the Church of ^//^/^r/;/^ at firft were 
 a Part of the Church of Ro7ne ; fhe after- 
 wards did well in fo far ceafing to be a Tarf 
 of her, as to renounce her Corruptions, and 
 be no longer a Tartaker of her Sins. Nor 
 did This imchuYch her : On the contrary, it 
 made her a much hetter Church th^in fhe vv^as 
 before. Suppofe the Church of England 
 (our Adverfaries, for Argument's Sake, ad- 
 mitting her to be now a true Church) fhould 
 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 
 
4^8 ^^ Answer to a'popfh ^oo]e, 
 
 would neither be Heretical, nor Schifmatical, 
 in rerufing to communicate with the reft of 
 the Church of England. ^ Which Church 
 (continues He, meaning That of Rome) had 
 the Mark of its being the true Church de- 
 ononftrahle in its perpetual Vifihility. Does 
 he mean this perpetual Viiibility a parte 
 ayite^ or d parte poft ; backwards, or for the 
 time to come, or both ways ? Was the Church 
 of Rome perpetually vifible in the high^ glo- 
 rious Senfe, as the Romanijis always mean ? 
 Was it fo, when it did not confift: of above 
 twenty, or thirty Souls? Or if it was ; were 
 no other Churches fo ? This is but a poor 
 Mark oi the true Church : And if we con- 
 fider it as to Futurity^ it is a worfe. For 
 how can That be a Mark to us now^ which we 
 fhall never fee till the Day of Judgment ? 
 The Church of Rome's future perpetual Vi- 
 fihility is a demonftraUe Mark of its being 
 the true Church : 'I' hat is, we are Now to be 
 guided by a Mark which nothing but T'ime 
 can fhew us j and which in Probability will 
 never be (hewn at all. Befides; if the Church 
 of R me fliould continue to the World's End, 
 as I 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? 
 Fc r our Author muft not here at leaft take it 
 
 11 4> 
 
 for 
 
Eyititled^ ^v.^^nA's Co-nverfion^Scc, 419 
 
 for granted that fli^ is the only Church j be- 
 cauie That is the very thing to be vow prov'd. 
 He adds;, "^ Wheji therefore it (the Churcli of 
 'England: by its pretended Reformaticu fepa- 
 rated itfelf from the Cojnmimioii of the Church 
 of Home, and fo became a new raisd Com- 
 munion 5 it ceasd to be a 7 art 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 Ko7ney 
 but the Church of Ko7ne 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 Subjedion to the See of Rome. She 
 did not therefore by the Reformation ceafe 
 to be a Part of the true Church ; Be- 
 caufe ftie never was a Part of the Church of 
 Rome : Or, if flie had been, tVie Church of 
 Rome was never the true Church. 
 
 t Sir^ /f England, when it feparated it- 
 felf from the Church of Rome, did not at the 
 fame time feparate itfelf from the true 
 
 Church. Here one would exped he 
 
 fhould prove the Church of Rome to be the 
 
 B e 2 true 
 
410 An ANSWER to a ToftOo 'BooTz^ 
 
 true Church. Inftcad of which, Ave are put 
 off with a ShufB-e, laying the Burthen or Proof 
 upon Us j contrary to the Laws of Difputa- 
 tion, and right Reafon. t T'/je Jdcocates 
 for the Church ^/'England are hound to mark 
 Gilt to us in what other cifible Society of 
 Chriftiar:S the true Chuch fuhjifted before 
 the Reformation, ift. Had the Church of 
 Rome^ and all other Churches belides ours, 
 utterly perifh'd before our Reformation, and 
 no Society of Chriftians remained in the 
 Worldy but in JLngland j Tha:: would have 
 been fufficient to fecure the Being of the true 
 Church : The true Church would have fub- 
 fifted in That , pure at firft, afterwards cor- 
 rupt, then pure again. So we are not hound 
 to mark oiit^ &c. Not but that, 2dly. No- 
 thing is more eafy to be done. The true 
 Church, before the Reformation, fublifted in 
 many other viilble Societies of Chriftians, 
 commonly call'd particular Churches, belides 
 That of Rome , not only in Europe^ and a- 
 mong others in England^ but alio in Jfia^ 
 and Mricay the Greek Churches efpecially : 
 All thcfe were true particular Churches, 
 tho' all, both Eaftcrn and W^eftern, vei-y cor- 
 rupt ; and in them the trueUniverfal Church 
 fubiifted. "^^ Nay over and ahoc'e they mufi 
 Jhew that at the time ofiis Separation from 
 
 Rid, 
 
 ^ the 
 
Entitled^ EnglandV ConverJion^SiC. 42 1' 
 
 the Church of Rome, it hecame a Tart of^ 
 and WIS incorporated with ^ that other pre- 
 exifteut cifible Church, ift. It was not ne- 
 ceflary it iliould be a Part at alJ j tho' in Fadi 
 it was fo j it might have been itfelf the 
 Whole. This Gentleman fcems to have a 
 very lingular Notion, that it is cliential to a 
 Church to be a Tart^ to be incorporated. As 
 if any particular Church, That of 'England 
 for example, muft ncceilariiy pcrifn, if all o- 
 thersfhouid: In That Cafe, inftead of being 
 a Church, it would be the Church. Accor- 
 ding to this Notion, the firft Cliurch, That 
 of Jerufalem^ was no true cnc; And if fo^ 
 I am fure there has been none lince. adly. 
 There were however, as we have feen, many 
 other Churches at the Reformation. But 
 why muft we iliew that the Church of En- 
 gland thutn became incorporated with them? 
 She w^as incorporated with them before, as 
 Part of the Univerfal Church ; and fo conti- 
 nued ; only file became more pure than any of 
 them were, or than flic herfelf had been. 
 She continued incorporated witl) all tlio 
 Churches in the World, the Church of Ro777e 
 itfelf among others, in all things except their 
 Corruptions. 
 
 t Now for his famous T^ilemnja : For tho' 
 it be abundantly anfwerM by wijat has. been 
 
 1 320. 
 
 £03 faid; 
 
4ti An Answer to a Topifh Boohy 
 
 faid J yet fince it is a T)ilemma^ we muft 
 have the Anfwer over again. When theyje- 
 parated i h em f elves from the Church of 
 Rome ; it either was the true Church of 
 Chrift-, Grit was nor. I anfwer, it was Not 
 THE true Church ; it was only A true Church, 
 and that too in the loweft Senfe of the Word. 
 1 1/ thej fay it was Not ', they rnttft either 
 JJjew us another 'vifible Society of Chriftians 
 upon Earthy in which the true Church of 
 Chriji was prefers d before the Keformation^ 
 and this is impossible /^r /Z?^m to do \ or 
 they muft fay that Chrifi had no true Church 
 upon Harth before that time^ and that by 
 Confequence the Creed was falfe for many 
 Jges y which is downright jBlafphemy. i ft. 
 'Tis not neceffary to fhew another vifible So- 
 ciety before the Reformation^ befides That 
 of Rome^ or any other befides herfelf Had 
 fhe been the only Church in the World^ ilie 
 would have been the whole Churchy fothat 
 even then Chrift would have had a true 
 Church, tlW a corrupt one. We may here 
 obfcrve in palTing^ that our Author feems to 
 think there can be no Reformation of a 
 Church 5 unlcfs there be a Church of RofJie 
 to be leparatcd from. sdly. We do fhew 
 many other fuch Churches ; and I have na- 
 med them, t 'But if they own that the Chtirch 
 
 M Ibid, j /r.^ 
 
 Of 
 
Entitled^ England V ConverJlon^Scc. 4.1 ^ 
 
 pf Rome was the true Church of Chriji he- 
 fore the Reforvtation ; then they 7nufi own 
 of coiirfe that they feparated thcmlekjesfrom 
 the true Church of Chriji^ and continue fepa- 
 rated from it to this T>ay j which is pro- 
 notmcing their own Condemnation, ift. The 
 Church of Kome was not the true Church,- 
 nor do we own any fuch thing. 2dly. If it 
 had been ; fuppofingthe whole Church to be 
 as corrupt as That of Kome was^ it would 
 be not only lawful, but nccelHiry tor an^ one 
 Part, or Dillrift of it, to reform itfelf ; whe- 
 ther the reft would or no. Nor would fuch 
 a Diftri^l: become Schifmatical, by refufingto 
 communicate v/ith the reit in their abomm- 
 able Corruptions ; but they would be Schif- 
 matical, in impofing unlawful Terms of Com- 
 munion, t Unhappy Reformation^ concludes 
 he, which cannot anfwer for it f elf without 
 renouncing the Greedy or confejfing it felf guilty 
 of Schijm. And unhappy Church of Rcme^ 
 fay I, which cannot aflault the Reformation, 
 with any Weapons,but grofs Forgeries inftead 
 of true Fa&, and tranfparent Sophiftry in- 
 ftead of folid Reafoning. 
 
 The young Gentleman having, as ufual, 
 paid his || Complements to the T)ilemma^ re- 
 cognized and faluted hoth its Horvs^ taik'd 
 of the no Hole we have to creep out at, and 
 
 E e 4 of 
 
ci thQ mortal JVom^d giw en us, 'wNca ecer 
 Avay we tur7i^ ourfcives^ the Preceptor, in the 
 Fuhiefs -of Satisfadion and Triumph, pro- 
 cseds Thus. "^ -fi'/r, /> was the Force of this 
 Argument [O ! the irrcfiftible Force of it] that 
 chligd Jeceral Trot eft ant Writers to haz'e 
 recourfc to the wretched Chimera of an 
 iwjifihle Churchy as the heft expedient they 
 coidd thm fhink oj to maintain the Authority 
 of their T)oBrine, and the Siicceftion of their 
 Yaflors. He ihould, I think, have nam' 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 1 have 
 fhewn. The Church of Ro?ne was vifible 
 before the Reformation ; and is {till, both vi- 
 fible, and vifibly corrupt : The Church of 
 JEjVgland was vifible, when in Communion 
 with the Church of }icv7e ^ and is vifible ftill, 
 tho' not in Communion with the Church 
 of Ro'me. t / call n a Chimera \ hecattfe 
 an im'ifible Church is in Reality a Churchy 
 and no Church.'^ An outward invifthle 
 Church, if he pleafes, is a Contradidi- 
 on. But we may without any Abfurdity 
 Hiy there is an invifible Church j or ra- 
 ther, that the Church in general, or any 
 Church in particular, may be confider'd in 
 
 ♦i£:;j. aci Pc 521. \lhld. 
 
 ■ '' two 
 
Entitled^tugl^nd^^ ConverfioP^&cc. 415 
 
 two Refpcfts i as vifible, in its external Re- 
 gimen and Ordinancjs ,• as inviiible with re- 
 lation to Chrilt, bolides which, there is a- 
 nother Notion oF an invilible Church made 
 ufe of by fome Divines ; who mean by it^ 
 and properly enough, 1 think, the whole 'Body 
 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 Terjons re- 
 dticd to this miferahle Shijt gi'te up the 
 Caitfe^ &c. What \i 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. '^ I add that a 
 Ottaker^ or Mnggletonian needs vo't he in any 
 Tain to trace the Antiquity of his Church, 
 aiidT)oUrine^ ei'en to Noah, or Adam, if he 
 •pleafes ;fo he he hut allow d to hace recourfe 
 to an imifihle Church to make good his Tre- 
 ten/tons.'' Thefe Qjiakers^ and Muggletoni" 
 ans^ &c. are of wonderful Service to him. 
 But lanfwer ; Their Dodrines are falfc), 
 and would be fo, tho' they could be traced 
 up to Noah^ or Adam : And the fame may 
 be faid of Topijh ones. Could Qjiakers and 
 Muggletonians have recourfe even to a Tijible 
 Church, underftanding; by the Word a vifiblc 
 Body, or Sed: of Men, and run it up to the 
 
 Days 
 
426 ^;^ Answer ^^^ ToptJhBoo\ 
 
 Days of Noah^ or Jdam himfelf ,• That 
 would not prove them a Churchy as both Pa- 
 pifts, and We, ufually and properly under- 
 ftand the Word ; btcaufe Thev have no Or^ 
 ^ers. Nor would it prove th jir DjUvines to bo 
 true y becaufe falfe Doftrine may be, and 
 actually is, as old as Adam^ and E've^ For 
 the Devil taught falfe Dodrino to the Latter. 
 JVe^ on the contrary, have dcmonftrated our 
 doctrines to be true, and our Orders to be 
 as good as Thofc of our Popifli Adver- 
 faries. 
 
 "^ When therefore they were drwe^i out of 
 This^ &c. many of them^ as the Calvi- 
 nifts in France, calfd to their Aid all the 
 hoken^ and Jhatterd T'rorps of condemn d 
 Hereticks to patch tip a kind of ridiculous 
 Succeffton. Thefe were the old Icoftoclafts^ 
 Jlhigeois^ Vaudois^ &c. What is This to 
 the Church of England ? Thofe of whom 
 he fpeaks put it upon another wrong 
 Foot : There was no more occafion for re- 
 curring to T.^his^ than to the Notion of an 
 imifihle Church- [Tho', by the way. This 
 Ihews that Popery was not in quiet Poff^lTi- 
 on, for many Ages before the Reformati- 
 on.] They fhould have continued the Suc- 
 ceffion of Orders, as We did in Ejigland. 
 However, Thofe whom our Author here 
 
 calls 
 
Entitled^Enghnd's Converfion^&cc^ 427 
 
 calls Hcreticks were not Hereticks. The 
 Ekonoclajis^ in plain Englifli Image-'Break- 
 ers^ were much more Orthodox Cbriftians 
 than hnage-WorJJoippers : I'he Albik^cois 
 were not a Spawn of the Manich^ans : 
 The ^erengarimis^ Huffites^ Vaudois^ and 
 Bohemian ^rethren^ were imperfeU Kcfor- 
 mers : They were guilty of fome EiTors, 
 but were much better than Papifts. * A 
 firange fort of Apoftolical Siicce(]ion ! Which 
 began not till many Ages after the ApoftleSy 
 zcas i7iterrupted with Gaps of federal hun- 
 dred Tearsy and compos a of SeUs all dif- 
 fering^ &c. Afterwards he tells us, All 
 l^hcfc, as Proteftants pretend, j prefer'vd 
 the ChtircVs Vifihility^ and continued the 
 Succeffwn of her Tajiors in the right Line. 
 W E fay no fuch Thing : The Church of 
 Kome^ and Thofe in fubjedion to her, tho' 
 corrupt in Dodrine, and Pradice, kept up 
 the SucceflTion of Paftors in the right Line. 
 
 X As to the Trotefiants of the Church of 
 England, / know not what way they pre- 
 tend to derit'e their Ecclefiaftical Succeffio7i 
 from the Apoftles* Are you in earn eft ? 
 Did You never hear, that We pretend at 
 leaft, to derive it in the fame Line that 
 You do ? II 07ily this I am Jure of that 
 Thomas Cranmer was the firfl Trotefiant 
 
 Ih'id. I P. 322. i IhU. \\ Ibid, 
 
 'BiJJ:op 
 
r 
 4a§ An Answer to a Topflj Booh^ 
 
 Sif/jopy and Trimate of England; He had 
 not therefore any TredcceJJors of the Truie- 
 ftant Communion. That is, there was no 
 Proteftant Bifliop before there was a Pro- 
 teftant Bifliop : Which I grant. || Md by 
 confeqiience^ thq he fate in the Jrchiepif 
 copal Chair^ &c« he coztld not jiifh pre- 
 tend to derive his Sue cefjion from the JpoftleSy 
 after he had feparated himjelf from the 
 Co7nmiinion of ^hofe who were the true 
 and ttndotihted Snccejfors (f the Jpjflles. 
 ift. He^ and his Brother Reformers, Billiops^ 
 as well as others, w^cre not properly, and 
 fchifmatically Separatifls. 2dly, It They 
 had been ; their Epifcopal Character had 
 continued. But I in{ift upon the Former, 
 * For purely the jpoftles will ne-ver own any 
 for their true^ and lawful Succcffors^ but 
 "Bijfwps a7id Taftors of their own Communi- 
 on^ and Members of T^hat Church which 
 They founded' I have read, in the Acis^ \ of 
 the ' Jpofiles Fellcwflnp^ or Co7nmunion (to 
 which, by the way, is added their ©^^nW, 
 wherein the Church of Ro777e does not corir 
 timf>e fiedfaft f) but how the Church of 
 Ko7ne^ efpeciailv as corrupted, and deprav'd, 
 comes to bj Their Communion, and that 
 exciuiively of all other Churches, i can by 
 no means underftand. A.ny more than I can^ 
 
 H Void, "^ Ih'ul t Aas 2. 42. 
 
 how 
 
I' 
 
 Rntitled^ England's Converfion^ Sec, 429 
 
 how the Apoftles founded ^/j^t Clnirch, as 
 fo corrupt ; or that they founded no ot/yer 
 Church at all. Cranmer. was as tnie^ and 
 nnr^cubred a Sticcejjor of the Anoftles, as 
 Tinofe from whom our Author fays He fepa- 
 rated : And They were the Schifmaticks in 
 continuing to impofe unlawful Terms of 
 Communion , not He in refufing any longer 
 to comply with them. % If Thomas Cran- 
 mer e^-^j* entitled to a Tlace in the Jpvftoli'- 
 cal Family j all the Arian^ Novatian, mid 
 Donatift Bifrjops were likewife entitled to tbc 
 fame Trero^ative, ift. The Arian^ No^a- 
 tian^ and T)onatiJi Bifliops continued to be 
 of the Jpofiolical Family^ as Bilhops^ tho" 
 not as Arians^ No-vatians^ and T}(matijis^ 
 sdly, Cranmer was neither an Arian^ a 
 No-vatian^ nor a 7)onatift ; nor guilty either 
 of Herefy, or Schifm, by refufing to con- 
 tinue in Communion with the Church of 
 Ro7ne. On the contrary, the Papifts were, 
 and are, both Hercticks, and Schifmaticks. 
 * Bnt This has not hinder d hut that they 
 hm^e been always regarded as a fpnrious 
 'Race^ unworthy to he counted a^nong the 
 SncccUcrs of the Apoples. A fpurious Race 
 in D^drioes and Pradifes, as the Papifts 
 are \ but true Succeffors of the Apoftles ia 
 point of Epifcopacy, as the Popifli Bifliops 
 
 IhU. * Ibid. 
 
 are 
 
450 An Answer to a Tofifh Book^ 
 
 are likewife. Be it as it will ; This affeds 
 not Cranmer : who was in neither refped: 
 fpurious. t ^^^^ '^^•^y fo ^ "Becaiifc by teach- 
 ing Do^rines zmknown to the "Biflwps that 
 ^ent before them [as Cranmer did Not\ 
 they broke off^ or were fpewdotit of the Com- 
 munion of Thofe^ who were the tnie^ and 
 undoubted Sticcejfors of the Jpojiles. Why 
 fo much of tnie and undoubted 1 As if 
 Cranmer were not as true and undoubted 
 a SuccelTor of the Apoftles, as any other 
 Bilhop. 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 diredly : The Arians^ Not^atianSy 
 and T>onatifts unjuftly broke off, or were 
 juftly fpew'd out, or Both : But the Re- 
 verfe is Cranmer s Cafe. % So that we may 
 put the Queftion to Archbiflwp Cranmer, 
 wherewith TertuUian puzzled the Here- 
 ticks of his time. Qj^d efiis ms ? ^mndo^ 
 et imde 'venifiis ? You may put the fame 
 Queftionsi but not with the fame Reafon : 
 And we are not afraid of being near fo 
 much puzzled by them. Defiring the Rea- 
 der to remember what I have abundantly 
 prov'd in my Examination of the 2d, and 
 3d, Dialogues, I will put the Qucftions to 
 
 \ Ibid, and P. 323- * ^- 3^3- 
 
 Cra^imer 
 
Entitled^ ^n^^nd^ s Conve7^Jion^ &c 451 
 
 Cranmer in our Author's own Words ; and 
 Cranmer fliall be fupposd to anfwer them 
 in His. 
 
 Vapijl* *" Who are you, Thomas Cranmer? 
 " when, and whence did you come ? 
 
 Cranmer. Strange Queftions to a Man of 
 my Dignity, and high Station. You know I 
 am Archbilliop of Canterbury^ and Primate 
 of all 'England \ two of the mcft illuftrious 
 Titles in the Chriftian World : Tho' you are 
 pleas'd to call me by the familiar Name of 
 Thomas Cranmer. As to your when^ and 
 whence \ if you mean (for I fuppofc you do 
 not expcd I fliould tell you I came this Mor- 
 ning from Lambeth :) Who gave me my Ju- 
 thority as Archbifhop ? tho' you have none to 
 examine me : I ftill v/onder at your Queflion : 
 Since you know, as well as I ; and do not 
 yourfelves pretend but that my Authority, 
 in this refped, is unqueftionable. 
 
 Tapift. ^^ Who gave you a Commiflion to 
 *^ enflave the Hierarchy to the fecular 
 '' Power? 
 
 Cranmer. Nobody ^ Nor did I, or any one 
 elfe, fo enflave it. 
 
 Tapift. " Or to make a Layman and a 
 ^ Child fupreme Judges of Controverfies in 
 ^^ Religion, and the Fountains of [all] Ec- 
 " clefiaftical Jurifdi(ftion ? 
 
 * p. 323- 
 
 Cranmer 
 
452 An Answer to xi Tofijh Boo\ 
 
 Cranmer. I had no fuch Commififion 3 Nor 
 is any fuch thing done^ by Me^ or Anybody 
 elfe. 
 
 Tapift. " Whence had you your Powers 
 " to turn upfide down the Frame of the 
 '^ Church committed to your Charge , to 
 '^ change the Faith and Woriliip which St. 
 ^' Augiiftine had cftabhfli'd ; and introduce 
 ^^ Doctrines to which the Bifliops your Pre- 
 " dcceffors had been utter Strangers for 90c 
 " 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 Eccleliaftical 
 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 Woriliip which St. Atifiin eftab- 
 lifli'd is not chang'd, but reftord , Neither 
 were the Bifhops myPredeceffors utter Stran- 
 gers for 900 Years to the Do£trines which 
 you fay are introduced, but which are, in 
 truth, onlyreftor'd: They profefs'd the fame 
 for about 200 Years ; And fo did the Uni- 
 verfal Church from the Time of the Apofllcs 
 before them. And if any of thofe Primitive 
 Worthies were now living ; They would 
 be utter Strangers to your Religion. 
 
 ^ Now 
 
Entitled, England's Conver/ioMj &c: 4 j 9 
 
 Y^ 'k^T/"' ^^"'"^r, I defy him, 
 ace. J his T>efance happens to be anfwer'd 
 already : And fo I fay no more of?t 
 
 There is no Tsiffercvce, He fays, t be- 
 tween tne Cafe of Cranmer and O Eli- 
 
 Tnfl ' ^fT ' ^''' "^^'^^ '''^^'^' rather 
 tothetrDifadz-antage. Secauje the Vali- 
 dm ^y CranmerV Ordination never was 
 dijputed by Any. Whereas 'That of Q. Eii^ 
 zsh'^ths mnwps has neroerheenaiuydof 
 hy the Church of Rome, Jnd her Authority 
 tsof no jmall Weight, ift. That of a 
 J^hzabeths Bilhops was never queftion'd bv 
 any Member of the Church of Rome, till 
 
 wf^ 4? \''^l\ ^J''' "^^^'^ Ordination : 
 When That fenfelefs Lye oftheNair's-Bead 
 was hrft invented, .dly, The clurch tf 
 Romes Authority is of no Weight at all • 
 becaufe She is Judge in her own Caufe. 
 + J^ut Juppofing tt were 'valid • it would 
 avatl them nothing in the main. Tor 
 they would at the be ft he hut upon the fame 
 Level with Cranmer, (^c. And That, as I 
 
 f^C't'^^.r' ''/"°"Sh •• For the Sophiftry 
 ot Thofe Words /fe>t,^;2C^;;,^^,^,-^ a^^ 
 
 the jame Communion, which are * here agaia 
 a liu";. ^^^^<^" fufficiently kid open,' 
 And Ihofe, f There was no vifibk Trote- 
 
 IIM. UhU, +/W. ,ndP. 3^4. ♦p. 3,^. ^^^.j 
 
 ^ f Jiant 
 
4.;4- ^^^ Answer to a fofifh Bool, 
 ftant Communion before there was a Tme- 
 liant Reformation comes to This ; Ihere 
 {vaf no Reformation before there was a 
 
 ^i'Th^Mark caUd Catholicity, we are 
 told, was ne.er deny d to the Church tn Com- 
 •nJmn With the See of Rome e.enhyt^^ 
 profelsd Enemies. Yes but it was, and 
 Sill s • in both Scnfes of the Word. She 
 no CathoUck, as it fignifies Univerfal t 
 ror That is a Contradiftion, making a 
 Pat to be the Whole. She isnotCatho- 
 Uck as it fignfies teaching the Doanne of 
 the'truly CathoHck Church = m/rhat Senfe 
 the Church of EnS,land isCatholickj and 
 the Church of Borne is not. 
 
 11 my in all Trotefiant Countries -- we 
 Je as^well diftinguifl^d by theJ^^^J^ 
 of Catholicks ; as a Natrve of^^Z^f^J 
 1,0'^.n bv the Name of an Enghjhman. 
 Thi^ is a moft admirable Argument An 
 ilrumontfroma IVord ; I'ke That about 
 th- Mais elfewhere mention d. But ilt. 
 ^'ri5 not true that This Language obtains 
 univerfally. Few, or None among us, ot 
 I earn ng and Knowledge in thefe Matters, 
 c.!! hem Catholicks, or Roman Cathohcks 
 ekhct 2dly, If all Mankind, to avoid 
 quarrelling Ibout a Word, did make mfe o£ 
 
 4 mi libil' ri£^^^ 
 
EnUtledy England V ConverJloyi^Scc, 455 
 
 This to diftinguifli a certain Set of Men, 
 who ridiculoully call themfelves by That 
 Name i yet it would not follow that All 
 others muft allow them to be what They 
 themfelvi3s fretend to be. Nevcrthelefs, I 
 muft do our Author the Juftice to own 
 that This Argument, as foolifli as it is, is 
 made ufe of by the great "Bellarmine ; who 
 ^lakes the Name Catholick his firji Note of 
 the Church. 
 
 It is here to be obferv'd that dur Author 
 in This Paragraph has twice This Expreffi- 
 on, the Church in Communion with the See 
 of Kome. In all his Argument hitherto, 
 it has been the Church of Rome : Now 'tis 
 the Church in Communion with the See of 
 Ro0ne. 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 prefent. 
 
 The Church of Ro?nej '^ He fays, has 
 Uni^'erfality of ^ime^ by having had an 
 uninterrupted mfible 'Being from the "lime of 
 the Apoftles to this T>ay. I anfwer, fo has the 
 Church oiEngla^id. -\JndofTlace^ by hav- 
 ing not only extended her Faith to the moft 
 remote^ and barbarous Nations \ tho now 
 
 Apoftatiz'd from it Her Faith? 
 
 What ? Did the Church oiKome plant the 
 
 p. 325. t ^h\^' 
 
 F f i Aftan 
 
4?6 An Answer f(?(z Toftjh ^ooky 
 
 Jfian and Jfrican Churches, which are 
 now extinct? This is News to us. I thought 
 St. John;, St. Jhomas^ and the reft of the 
 Apoftles, and Apoftolical Men, who never 
 were Members of the Church of Rome^ 
 bad planted them. Befidesj had the Primi- 
 tive Church of Rome extended Her Faith 
 to Thofe Nations ; That Faith was not 
 the Faith of the prefent Church of 
 
 Jiome. t '^^^^ J^y heing likewife in full 
 
 pojjhljion of all thofe Nations of Europe 
 where the reform d Churches are now eftab^ 
 Ufhd. How was She in poffeflion 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. + Na)\ flje has at this 'very time 
 Sifhops^ and Taftors propagating the Gof- 
 pel among the Infidels both of the Eaft^ and 
 Weft Indies. So have We^ Paftors, tho' not 
 Bifhops : And there is even a Bifliop over 
 Thofe Paftors ; tho' he does not refide in 
 any of Thofe Countries- "^ Therefore Uni- 
 *verfality of Tlace which St. Auguftine calls 
 the Confent of People^ and Nations^ cannot 
 he denyd her* What ? Has She the Con- 
 fent of all People, and Nations ? Or is ftie 
 
 t Ibid. + Ibid. * Ibid. 
 
 diffus'd 
 
Entitled^ England^ Converjion^ &c. 457 
 
 diffused over the Face of the whole Earth > 
 Not that it would be any Argument 3 if 
 flie 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 abov^e a fixth Part of the 
 World is poffefs'd by Chriftians of all De- 
 nominations put together, f Nor can it con-' 
 feqiiently he denyd hut that England hy it's 
 Converjion had the Ad^jantage of being made 
 Partaker of the illuftrious "fitle of Catho- 
 lick, in the full Extent of it's Signification. 
 In other Words,- Becaufe the Church of 
 'Rome extends over all the World, which it 
 daes noty and ne^er did: Therefo re 
 England at it's Converfion being made a 
 Part of the Church of Rome which it 
 was not, became Partaker of the il- 
 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 Chrijiian^ all of it Topiflj ? So 
 
 F f 3 far 
 
45S An ANSWER to a To^ifb ^ooh^ 
 
 far otherwifej that the Members of the 
 Church of Rome bear no Proportion to the 
 infinitely greater Number of Chriftians who 
 condemn many of her Doftrines, and rejeft 
 all her Authority. Even in Thefe Parts of 
 JEtirope^ Papifts do not out number Chrifti- 
 ans, near fo much as it is commonly imagined. 
 "^ But if to the Reform a Churches in Thefe 
 PartSj we add all the Chriftian World be- 
 fides, which is not Popilli, in Europe^ ^fi^y 
 and Jfrica\ the boafted Amplitude of the 
 'RomijJj Church, and Number of Roman- 
 Catholicks will be inconfiderable. To 
 pafs over the vaft Bodies of Armenian 
 Chriftians , Ahaffnes , Jacobites , and 
 Multitudes more ; f " We need not in- 
 *' fiance in any befidcs the Greek Church. 
 ^^ Which has had an uninterrupted Succef- 
 '^ fion of Billiops from the Apoftles, is o£ 
 *^ greater Antiquity than the Church of 
 '^ Rome i and has produced more fathers 
 ^^ than That Church. This Church is di- 
 ^"^ vided into many Nations ^ as the Hybe^ 
 *^^ rians^ the People of Colchis, now call'd 
 '^ Miu^relia^ the Arabians^ Chald^ans^ 
 ^' Mihiopiavs^ Mg'^ptians^ MufcoHtes^ "BiiU 
 V- garians^ Eclazvnians^ AlbanianSy Cara^ 
 
 * Set Bv-'e-u^oodj Enquiries, "f See Bp. FonvJer on BelUr^ 
 fjiine^s 4t!j Note of the Church. 
 
 !' maniacs. 
 
Entitled^ England^s Converjion^ &c 4^9 
 
 maniansj WalachianSy Moldavians Gre- 
 cians^ &c. And we may guefs what a 
 huge Difproportion there is in Largenefs, 
 between all the Greek Churches and, 
 Thofe fubjedt to the Church of RcmCy 
 by This, that the Countries in Europe^ 
 and Jjta^, which the Mtifco'vites alone 
 inhabit, are computed to be near of as 
 great an Extentj as all Europe befides." 
 I know very well the Papifts have a fhort 
 Anfwer to This : All Thefe are not true 
 Churches, nor tru,e Chriftians i And they fay 
 the fame of Us, They are very corrupt, I 
 confefs I and fo is the Church of Borne, 
 But why muft They be no Churches ? Ko 
 true Chriftians ? Why becaufe they are not 
 Papiftso 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 l^hey 
 only are the Church : when the very Point 
 in Queftion is, whether they are, or no. 
 
 "^ ^tit did it's Separation from the Com- 
 munion of the Church 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 Purity of Chrifiian Religion, f Jfas 
 
 ^ lhi4' "t Ibid, 
 
 Ff4 the 
 
44-0 j4n Al^SWEK to a fopijh Book^ 
 
 there heftdes the Roman Catholick Churchy 
 another Catholick Church of a different Com- 
 munion — 1 There cannot be two Catho- 
 lick, i e. Univerfal Churches, of a different 
 Communion, nor of the jame Communion ; 
 becaufe there cannot be twoWholes with re- 
 fpeft to the fame Aggregate of Parts : Or, 
 in plainer Words, becaufe one Thing can- 
 not be two Things. % 'To which England 
 was affociatedy &c. That's giving the Lye 
 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, 
 11 Or finally did England itfelf become the 
 Catholick Church by its Separation from the 
 Church (f Rome ? No, Tho' it might 
 haoe been the Church, as I obferv'd ; And 
 would ha^je been, if all other Churches had 
 perifh'd. \ That is fiillftr anger ^ and fir an- 
 per ! And indeed the fame ftupendious Won* 
 der^ as if a little dinger cut off from the 
 Sody fhoidd become the whole "Body* Juft 
 fo we fay of the Church of Rome ,- and 
 with much more Rr';;fon, ill. Becaufe the 
 Church of Enghiiid iid not fchifmatically 
 cut off, or divide herfelf from Her, 
 
 11 Hid. i lUd. aad p. 3z5. 
 
 2dly, 
 
Entitled^En^^nd'*s Converjion^ 8cc. 4^5.1 
 
 idly, Becaufe the Church of England ne- 
 ver pretended to be the whole Body ; and 
 the Church of Rome does. To this we 
 may well add, that his Companfon is in- 
 congruous, and improper. Becaufe the 
 Church confifts of homogeneous Parts j not 
 of heterogeneous^ as a human Body does. 
 Nor is This an empty Subtilty : but very 
 material to our prefcnt 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 j 
 as every Drop of Water is Water, every 
 Piece of Gold is Gold; including the whole 
 Nature of Water, or Gold. If a Limb, 
 when join'd to a human Body, is not a hu- 
 man Body ; much lefs, if poiTible, can it be- 
 come a human Body by being feparated 
 from one : So far otherwife, that it muft 
 foon perifh ^ and even while it continues, it 
 is of no Ufe. But if all the Catholick 
 Church, except one Part of it, /, e one 
 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. 
 
 t Howet'er 
 
441 An Answer to a ^pofifh Booh^ 
 
 t Howe^jer^ as it is much e after to con- 
 fute^ than filence certain Teople^ [Popilli 
 Priefts, for example] there are fo7ne who 
 anjzoier by owning^ &c. in fliort, that the 
 QhVirchoi Rome vj^s^ and is, a fr^/^ Church ,- 
 becaufe it holds all the 'Ejfentials. t A n d 
 so Chrifi always had a Church iipon Earth, 
 By your Leave, we do not anfwer So. 
 We fay indeed that the Church of Rome is 
 in 07?e Jhi/e a true Church ; but we fay with- 
 al^ that Chrift wouldhavehada true Church 
 upon Earth, tho' That of Rome had long 
 fiiice perifh'd. ^ 
 
 G. But how then do They jufiify 
 their Separation from the Church of Rome ; 
 if it both is, and was, a true Church before 
 " the Reformation ? 
 
 " p. By faying that befidesEffentials, itim- 
 ^^ pofes many Articles as Terms of Commu-^ 
 ^^ nion, which at the beft are doubtfn/y and 
 ^* not fieceffary to be believ'd.. For which 
 ^^ reafon they compare it to a human Body 
 *^ disiigur d with Weris^ and other "Blemijhes- 
 ^^ tho' it has all the noble, and effential 
 '^ Parts of a true Body." You are pleas'd to 
 make usexprefs ourfelves very tenderly i Of 
 which prefently. 
 
 '' G. Very fine indeed ! The Thought is 
 quaint, and new/' Afmart Anfwer, young 
 
 Gentle- 
 
 €C 
 CC 
 
 cc 
 
Entitled J England^ s ConverJioi^^Scc 44 1 
 
 Gentleman : not to fay, fomewhat pert. But 
 the Thought is not new j it may perhaps be 
 qniiint enough : So quaint, that your Church 
 Avill not eafily get over it. How docs your 
 Tutor himfelf come oft ? 
 
 *:' p. I know not whether it be old, or 
 •^ new ^ but I am fure, &c.'' in fliort, that 
 it only throws Duft into ignorant People's 
 Eyes. '^ For ift, Their charging the Church 
 " of Rome with impofing Articles as 'Terms 
 of Communion is:hich are not neceffary to 
 he hel'k^Jd^ is a mere precarious Aflertion, 
 ^r. On the contrary, it has been demon- 
 ftrated a thoufand times that their preten- 
 ded Wens^ and "Ble^nifloes are found Apo- 
 ftolical Doftrines, (jyc^ I anfwer, ift. We 
 charge them with much more than impofing 
 Terms of Communion, which are not necef- 
 fary to Sahaticn ,* we charge them with im- 
 pofing fuch Terms as direUly lead to T^am- 
 nation. We infift that thcir'^Church has not 
 only Wens and "Blemijhes^ but the Tlague i 
 that tho' fhe retains the EJfentials^ yet fhe 
 i^ deeply 'vitiated even in thein ; and has 
 blended abominable Corruptions with the 
 very Vitals of Chriftianity. adJy, This Af- 
 fertionof ours is not precarious^ but has been 
 demonftrated a thoufand times. I my felf 
 have demonftrated the Truth of it, in This, 
 and another Treatife. Not one of the di- 
 ftinguiftiing Doarines of the Church o( Rome 
 
44-4 ^^ Answer to a Topi/b Bool^ 
 
 h^ found or Jpoftolical^ as ancient as Chri^ 
 Jiianity it felfy taught in the ^ery primiti've 
 JgcSy and h abided down as a Term of Catho^ 
 lick Communion from Age to Age from this 
 eery time ^ as our Author with unparalieFd 
 Confidence aflferts they all are. They are 
 contrary to the Dodrine and Practice of the 
 Apofties, and the primitive Church : They 
 are fo many Corruptions^ and Adulterations 
 of Chriftianity- 
 
 He anfwers, || 2dly5 *Th'a.tfrom otir own-- 
 /;2^the Church of 'Rome to be a true 
 Church before the Keformation^ it will fol- 
 low that Chrift, in our Opinion, has e^er 
 fince the Reformation had more than one true 
 Church upon Earth. So he has ^ and had 
 before the Reformation. /. e, more than one 
 particular Church \ tho' but one Catholick. 
 And where is the Abfurdity of This ? ||" For 
 '^ fince, continues He, they are fo generous as 
 " to allow the Church of Rome to be one ; 
 ^^ I prefume they have no worfe Opinion ei- 
 '' ther of their own, or other reformed Chur- 
 " ches. So thatthefe, tho'allcontradiiftmg 
 '^ one another in many important Points, 
 '^ are neverthelefs all true Churches : Which 
 " I think is Nonfenfe with a Witnefs." ift, 
 They do not all contradid one another in 
 many iniportant Points. 2dly. They may do 
 
 fos 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 44.5 
 
 fo; and yet be all true Churches, You will 
 not take notice of the plain Diftinftion upon 
 the Word true i which I have repeated fo 
 often that I am refolv'd to repeat it no 
 more. Cannot two Men contradid one an- 
 other in the moft important Points ; and yet 
 both be trite^ u e. real Men ? The Cafe is 
 exadly parallel as to Churches. This there- 
 fore is not No77Jenf€ with a Witmfs'y but ve- 
 ry ^^e?^ Senfe. in another Place * you fay, 
 it the thing of which you are fpeaking be 
 not fo, and fo ; you are yet to learn what 
 Nonfenfe 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 he much mended 
 ly their Sayings that they are all but one 
 Church to Chrift ; inafmuch as they all be^ 
 liete in Chrifi* Who fays this? They are no 
 otherwife 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 aliow'd 
 '' of ; the MylUcal Body of Chrift, inftcad 
 " of being compos d of uniform Parts, will 
 *^ rather refemble the Monfter dcfcrib d by 
 " Horace with a Man's Head join'd to a 
 '^ Horfe's Neck, ^v. And his Garment, in- 
 " ftead of being Seamlefs^ will be flitch'd 
 "^^ up together with as many different Pieces 
 
 p, 317. \ih}d. 
 
 as 
 
44^ ^'^ Answer to a Tvpifh Book^ . 
 
 " as there are Patches in a Beggar's Coat.'' 
 He had heard of the Church's confiiiing of 
 fjGmogeneonS:, whicli he calls ^miform Parts, 
 which I juft now took Notice of ; but either 
 did not underftand it, or would not rightly 
 apply it. /rhe Body of a Man, or of a Horfe, 
 as truly ccnfifts 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 iii many Things even of Im- 
 Jjortancc. Nor docs this laft break it's Uni- 
 ty ;fince, notwithftanding That^ they may 
 hold Communion with each othct, and agree 
 in all neccffary Points. '^ "But is it not fome- 
 what fitrfrrizing that all the refojmd Chur- 
 cbes:^ and the Church of Komc^ T^hat ChuAxh 
 fo hated^ (j'C, Jhozdd he fonjid at length to be 
 but one^ and the fame Church ? Who, again, 
 fays This ? The Church of Rome is certainly 
 diftind from the Reformed Churches, and 
 They from each other, as particular Church- 
 es : And the Cathohck Church is made up 
 of Them, and all other particular ones, t 
 Or that fo many Churches of differe^it Com- 
 munions and Religions fhoidd he the One^ 
 Holy:, Catholick:, and Jpojilick Churchy 
 'is)hich we profefs to helien:e in the Creed? 
 I ft* We do not fay that the Church of Rome^ 
 
 
Entitle d^Eugl^^nd's Converfion^Scc. 447 
 
 and the Reform'd Churches arc the 0je^ &c^ 
 There are many other Churches in tho 
 World befides Thefe, 2dly. They may be of 
 (J?ffere7it Comnmnions. (tho'if they be, there 
 muft be a Schifm fomewhcre) and oi diffe- 
 rent Reiigions in jome refpeds ^ and yet all 
 put together be the one^ &c, for Reafons 
 which I have often given. Neither Schifm, 
 nor Herefy, neccffarily defiroys a Church ; 
 tho' either of them makes it a cormpt Chmch. 
 There is 072 e Son of Schifm indeed, which 
 makes Thofe who are guilty of it no Mem- 
 hers of the Catholick Church, becaule it 
 makes them no Members of any particular 
 one. But This is befide our prefent Que- 
 flion. 
 
 t He fays, 3dly, That according to this 
 ConcefiTion of ours, ciz, that the Cnurch of 
 Kome is a true Church, we muft regard the 
 wery heft of our Writers and Treachersj as a 
 Tack of the ml eft Calumniators upon Earth. 
 He fliould not furely call the beft of our 
 Divines by fo mle a Name^ without a good 
 Reafon : And what is That? In co7i- 
 
 tinually charging the Chtirch of Rome with 
 ahomiiiahle Idolatry. For He cannot poffibly 
 concei've how Idolatry can he reconcile with 
 the Effentials of a true Church. What 
 does he mean by Recoficifd ? Doubtlefs in 
 
 the 
 
44-8 Ayi Answer to a Topi/h Booh^ 
 
 the Nature of things there is no more 
 Concord between Idolatry and the Effenti- 
 als of a true Church, than there is betwqen^ 
 Chrifi and "BeliaL But yet as to Terfons^ 
 a Church may be Idolatrous^ and at the 
 fame time retain the Effcntials of a true 
 Church : As I have often faid of the 
 Jews. 
 
 * Laftly^ T'heir owning that the Church 
 of Rome was A true Churchy is a mere 
 'Put off'-, and does not anfwer either Tart 
 of my Tjilemma direUly^ Studious of Bre- 
 vity as i am^ I let pafs fomething which 
 might here be remark'd upon , and permit 
 him to proceed without Interruption, t For 
 my ^uejiion is not whether the Church of 
 Rome was A true Church before the Kef or- 
 mation : For T'hat imports 7to more than 
 asking whether it was a Part of the 
 true Church of Chrifi- This is the firft 
 time he has fpoke out upon This Subject, 
 and fpoke to the Purpofe. Let the Rea- 
 der attend with the utmoft Dihgence to 
 what follows. ^ "But my ^iieftion^ or 2)/- 
 lemma [accurately exprefs'd] to which 1 
 
 DEMAI^D A DIRECT AnSWER is pre- 
 
 cifely This : mz. Whether before the Kef or- 
 mation the Church of Rome with all the 
 Churches in Communion with That See was 
 
 that 
 
Entitled^ England^ ConverJicAi^ S<c, 449 
 
 tbat One^ Holy^ CathoUck^ and Jpofiolich 
 Churchy the jBelief whereof we profefs to 
 heliet^e in the Creeds or not ? Here You alter 
 the Queftion : Juft now you faid the Church 
 of Kome : Here You fay the Church of 
 Home, with all the Churches in communi- 
 on with That Sec. And I ask, what do 
 You mean by in Communion with > In Suh- 
 jeUion to ? Or barely in Communion^ &c, 
 according to the common Avay of fpeak- 
 ing ? If the Former ; I anfwer, as direUly 
 as You can defire, that before the Refor- 
 mation the Church of Roine^ with all the 
 Churches in Communion with That See 
 (meaning^ tho' very improperly in SuhjeUi- 
 on to it^ was not That One^ Holy^ Ca- 
 tholick^ and Apoftolick Churchy the "Belief 
 whereof we profefs in the Nicene Creeds 
 If the Latter ; *tis impoflible to anfwer 
 You direUly ; becaufe 'tis neceflkry to di- 
 fiingtiifh with refped to different times i 
 Which Diftinftion You carefully avoid, as 
 You do many others ; for a Reafon too ob- 
 vious to be mention'di In the primitive 
 times, when all the Churclies iyi the World 
 were in Communion with That of Kome^ 
 as they well might be, flie being 
 Then uncorrupt ; the Church of l^ome 
 with all in Communion with her was That 
 One, (jyc. Or rather, to fpeak much morQ 
 properly, the Church of Rome^ a n d all 
 in Communion with her were That one^ (jc* 
 
450 Ayi Answer to a foptjh Book^ 
 
 i. e. All the Parts made up the one Whole. 
 But then who fees not that every particular 
 Church in the AVorld^ as well as That of 
 Kome^ might have been partictdarly men- 
 tioned hy^Nanie (for there is really no 
 more in it) all the reft being taken in the 
 Lump. As Thus ; The Church of Jenifa- 
 I em with all in Communion with her is That^ 
 One, (jc. The Church of Antioch with all 
 in 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 : i\nd if He w41U He fhall en- 
 joy his Saying without Difturbance. With 
 refpeft to other times^ particular Churches 
 might be, and aftuaily w'ere, in, or out of. 
 Communion with That of Rome^ according 
 as it happen d: But their being out of Com- 
 m^union with Her no more made them 
 ceafe to be true Churches, than their be- 
 ing out of Communion with aiiy other par- 
 ticular Church. If any particular Church, 
 or Churches, That of Rome among the 
 reft, were caiijekjly out of Communion 
 with any Church '•, They were Schifmatical, 
 but ftillthey were Churches ; Tho' if they 
 were Not, 'tis nothing to our prefent Pur- 
 pofe ; bncaufe This gives nothing pecttUar 
 to the Church of Rome. Whenever there- 
 fore all the Churches in the World were 
 
 UQt 
 
Entitled^ Englmd'sConverfiony &c. 45 i 
 not in Communion with That of Rome; 
 it would have been Faife to fay, " The 
 '^ Church of Ro7ne with all the Churches 
 " in Communion with That See is That 
 .'' One, (^c. ^ 
 
 But perhaps I need not have made This 
 Diftinftion -, becaufe, according to the Ro- 
 manifts^ and as 'I'hey manage the Matter 
 no Church can he in Commiinmi with the 
 Church of Rome^ v/ithout being in Snb- 
 jeUion to her. Upon which Foot, I anfwer 
 direUly as Above : Before the Reformati- 
 on, the Church of Rome with Thofe in 
 Communion with her, and in Subjedion to 
 her, was N o T That One, (jc Becaufe of 
 the Greek Churches, and many more which 
 I have mention'd. So that his Affumption 
 upon This Part of the Dilemma, "" l/ they 
 fay not ,• then the Creed was falje before the 
 Reformation^ hecaufe they cannot Jhew any 
 other Society of Chrifiians^ which was That 
 Churchy is utterly falfe, and groundlefs. 
 Tho' I might well flop here ,• yet as I have 
 hitherto anfwer'd both the branches of his 
 Dilemmas, I will not now at laft depart 
 from That generous Method, t "But if they 
 anfwer in the Affirmative ; then the Church 
 of^ Rorne, with all the Churches in Commti- 
 tzion with That See^ was not only A true 
 
 G g 2 Church 
 
45"^ At Answer ^^^ Tofijh 'Booh^ 
 
 Churchy hut The Sole, a7id only true 
 Church of Chriji upon Earth* So, we have 
 it out at laft. This is the grand Toint he 
 has been labouring all this while j tho' he 
 never fpoke the Words 'till Now: : He men- 
 tions them liit cnce^ as if he were ajhamd 
 of them, as well he may be : But That 
 once is at the Clofe of all, in order to make 
 the deeper and more iafting Impreffione 
 The Axfiertion itfeli 1 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 Anjwcr. 
 Neverthelefs, the Reader fliall fee the Si- 
 tuation of the Argument as it Here ftands» 
 'But if they anfwer in the Afflrmatvje [as, 
 remember, we do Not :] /. e. If We fay 
 the Church of Rome, with all the Churches 
 in Communion with that See^ was That One 
 Holy^ &c. then the Church of Rome with all 
 in Communion^ &c. was The Sole, ^c. 
 Which amounts to thus much in fewer, and 
 plainer Words; If the Church of ii^>;^^ was 
 the only Churchy the Church of 'Kome was 
 the only Church ; Underftanding the Church 
 of Rome^ as the Word is us'd in it's wideft 
 Extent, Bu- not to infift upon That, let 
 us confider the Confequence he draws from 
 This, fuppoiing the Propofition to be true, 
 as I have prov'd it to be mod falfe. "^ Jnd 
 by confequevce England was hy its pretend- 
 
 * ihld. and p. 329, 
 
 ed. 
 
Entitled^ England's Converfion^ &c. 455 
 
 ed Reformation ait off from the fole^ and 
 only true Church of Chriji upon Earth. I 
 deny That. If a Separation was necellary; 
 as We have fliewn it was ; Thofe who 
 made it neceflary were the Schifmaticks, as 
 I have often faid : ^hey were cut off^ not 
 We. According to This Arguing of his, 
 Elijah^ and the fc^^en thoiifand who would 
 not worfliip 'Baal^ were cut off from the 
 only Church ; and Jhahy and the Idolatrous 
 Majority, were the true Catholicks. To 
 talk plain Englifh, and common Senfe j upon 
 This Suppofition, ^iz, that the Church of 
 ^ome and her Adherents were the only 
 Church (tho' they were Not) every fingle 
 National Church, confequently the whole 
 Church of Chrift, was corrupted ; England^ 
 among the reft. She reform d herfelf-^ and 
 Others did not. How is She cut off I She 
 is pure, and They continue corrupt : She is 
 therefore in a better Condition than They 
 arej and than She herfclf 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 
 1% i meaning England: t And there^ fays 
 
 H^ 
 
^54- ^^ A^'SwER to a Tofijh Boo\ 
 He, Jlea^^e it. His next Sentence is tke 
 bcft in his Book3 ^ JPor 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^ Falfhoods, Swaggerings/ Re- 
 petitions, and Impertinencies. 
 
 t The young Gentleman, having return d 
 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 Controverfy by it[elf\ yet he is 
 fufficiently capable of difcerning White from 
 IBlach By your favour. Sir, according to 
 the Principles of your Church, You have 
 ho Authority, any farther than She thinks 
 fit, to difcern White from "Black ; 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 refoke^ 
 &c. as folidly as the ableft Scholar :, I have 
 anfwer'diP. s^5y&c. anddefire every T^radef- 
 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, and intreating him never to 
 forget it I for the more deeply he thinks of 
 it, the more he will be convinced of its 
 Truths and Importance : That fuppo- 
 
 fing 
 
Entitl€d^Engl^ad''s Converjion^ &cc. 455 
 
 iing the f articular Corruptions of Popery to 
 be fuch as We have demonftrated them to be, 
 the general Arguments of Papifts againft 
 our Reformmg as we did, are no better than 
 fo many Arguments againft Repentance^ 
 whenever a Mtiltititde is concern'd. Be- 
 caufe we were involv'd in a vaft Body 
 which was corrupt ^ 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 Anfwer to which. We, in 
 the Main, and with due Alterations ac- 
 cording to the particular Circumftances, 
 apply to Ourfelves as compared with the 
 Romanifts^ Thofe Words of St. Peter (the 
 pretended Founder of the Papal Authority) 
 concerning Chriftians as compar d with Hea- 
 thens. '^ For the time paft of our Life 
 may fttffice tis to have wrought the will of 
 the Gentiles ; when we walHd in lafci'vi- 
 oufnefs^ hiflsy excefs of wine^ revellings^ 
 hanquetings ^ and abominable idolatries. 
 And by the Grace of God we will continue 
 to be what They unreafonably condemn j 
 tho' They continue to f fpeak evil of uSy 
 and think it strange that we run not 
 with them to the fame excefs of riot. 
 
 * I Pet, 4. 3. t V-. 4. 
 
 TIKIS, 
 
E R RJ 7 -J. 
 
 p. 27. i. p. XQSid Atheifi, P. 56. 1. 6. dele 7hofe. I. 7. 
 dele for Infiarice, P. 1 14. J. 7. vead unwritten, P. 144. I. 4. 
 read 150. P. 213. 1. 22. read /ts, P. 241. 1. I5» read Tients, 
 P. 272. I. 19, for this read the> P. 365. 1. 24. for Church 
 irevid Crowru 
 
( 
 
7 U 
 
 / 
 
 L 
 
w.