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^Mil U I WHBlll
'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)eference 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; 0 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 Jliimfrediiss Latin T'ranlJation and Edition
* ?€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 0 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 0 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 them 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^ 0 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.
|
:|^^ |
Is. |
•r |
'"«" |
T^' |
'" |
||
|
^ |
M |
'!^" |
•r; |
'f-' |
'^ |
»^ |
•fe |
|
»,■ . |
>•' |
i- ^^: |
if |
'"^A m |
|||
|
'^\ |
^': |
'f^ |
'?■ |
.I'V |
^i^ |
^p". |
■^ |
|
,r |
^ |
'H |
.i/ |
# |
'tx- |
^K |
■•W |
|
4( |
f: |
^ |
:ik |
■Uti |
'^ |
■*^ |
|
|
^r |
^ |
li^ |
'fl |
'^ |
i |
•Jfr-; |
•^ |
|
'i* |
i-^ |
.gj' |
^iK" |
.r |
^'fei' |
#; |
'W |
■kl '¥^ -i^^ '^^
.r ^^ >^, ^*-.
.^. .«t .$. >-.
.^' .ir- 'ilv 5^- ^■
^^ t ^ J
V ^- \«;'>^ ^' ^
:# ^' M*
.^- ^% '.i
A' ^' l^-