dance,) he ought not to have charged them on our Reformed Church; for they were mere strangers to our affairs, and many of them died before controversies were rightly stated, or truly understood, and for none of whom our church is obliged to be responsible. As for his quotations from our English writers, I answer, that in general, he mangles and misapplies them contrary to the true sense of the author, as I have proved in several instances, and quotes them in such a manner, that, upon enquiry, they appear to be directly and positively against him, as has been clearly shewn by Mr Spinckes in his Answer to the Essay for Catholic Communion, and by Bishop Morton. But I cannot see, why the authority of some very few persons should bear sway against the constant opinion of our church ever since the Reformation. Thus, as for our charge of idolatry against the Church of Rome, if Mr Thorndike held something singular on this subject (but which he changed before his death,) is his opinion to be esteemed the judgment of the church, contrary to the constant opinion of all our most learned bishops and divines (even Montague, Heylin, and Laud,) ever since the Reformation ?

To this pretended Apology there is prefixed an Introduction, in which the author, finding it impracticable to vindicate the Roman doctrines and practices upon true catholic principles, palliates every thing that appears shocking, denies others, plead for others that they are not obligatory, and represents all in general as nearly approaching to the principles of our church.

But we must observe that this author's exposition of the doctrines of the Romish Church, is very dif ferent from what they are represented in their coun

cils, creed, and in the generality of their learned writers, and from what their church does really profess and their people continually practise, especially in Italy or any other Popish countries. But Protestants are not to be told all at once; there are several mysterious and important things, which are not. fit to be communicated to those whom they are endeavouring to bring over to the Romish Church. These things

must be reserved till their proselytes are got into safe custody, and afterwards, when they have given away all liberty of judging for themselves, and "must receive the interpretation of scripture, in the sense in which holy mother church hath held and still holds it," (Pius's Creed, Art. 14.) then they may be entrusted with the discovery of even the greatest absurdities, for they have gone too far to recede; and if they discover any hesitation, or give suspicion of their being shocked at such discoveries, their sincerity is immediately questioned, and where their church has power in her hands, they must expect some motherly correction for their pains; and it is well if they escape being burnt for heretics.

It might have been justly expected that this writer (treating professedly of a reconciliation between the churches of England and Rome,) should have presented us with clear and evident proofs from scripturé and antiquity, of the lawfulness and necessity of half communion, purgatory, Bishop of Rome's supremacy, transubstantiation, prayers in an unknown tongue, sacrifice of the mass, &c. and whether the apostles would have rejected our communion for those reasons, for which the Church of Rome now rejects it.

But instead of entering into particular points of controversy, and proving their faith, worship, and go

vernment to be agreeable to scripture and antiquity, our adversaries (and this one amongst the rest,) choose rather to dispute and wrangle about general and intricate matters, and wave those which are capable of being made plain and evident to the meanest capacities. So that, though in particular controversies it often appears as clear as light, on which side the truth is (as whether prayers ought to be in a known tongue, whether the communion ought to be given in both kinds, whether the scriptures are to be read by the people, whether confession to a priest is necessary to the forgiveness of sins, &c.) yet in order to avoid these, they run into the general controversies of infallibility, church authority, confession of adversaries, resolution of faith, &c. where there is more room for cavil and sophistry, and by which means they can lead men, if not into scepticism, yet into a maze and labyrinth, from whence they shall not easily extricate themselves. Their usual method, is to wave all par

*Mr Payne's Exam. of Bellarmin's Sixth Note. Preserv. Tit. 3. p. 105. Which way of theirs seems to me (says Mr P.) just as if a person, in a plain controversy about weight or measure, should, to avoid that, think fit to run into the perplexed dispute, what is the true standard of weight and measures, or whether matter consists of divisible or indivisible parts; and at the same time would not be brought to yield, that a pound was heavier than an ounce, or an ell longer than an inch.-Another art of theirs is, to deny that errors have come into a church, merely because the punctual time of their coming cannot be assigned. But will any one question the birth of an infant, because he cannot know the time of its conception? Will any one deny there are tares in the field, because he did not see them sown? and our Saviour has told us, that the "time of sowing tares by the enemy, was when the men were asleep.” So we say, that the errors of your church came in, in a time of great ignorance, and when little notice was taken of them, (See Tillotson's Rule of Faith, Part III. sect. 7. and Preserv. Tit. I. p. 10. 30.

ticular disputes, and to attempt to prove that some church must be infallible, and that the Church of Rome is that church. This they pretend to be the shortest way to end controversies.

32.)-We may have sufficient reason to judge what are errors in a church, though we cannot fix on the time when they came in, viz. by comparing them with that rule of faith which is delivered down by an uninterupted tradition to us, and with the practice of the first ages of the christian church. What is apparently contrary to either of these, we have reason to reject, though we cannot exactly determine when it came in.-We have never declined this challenge, as our learned writers have proved to the world. See Stillingfleet's Defence of Archbishop Laud, p. 316.

At another time, they endeavour to shift off the true state of the question, by attacking the "scandalous characters" of Luther and other Reformers of the sixteenth century. But, even granting that these were such vile characters, it amounts to nothing against our cause, for we never made them the pillars and grounds of the gospel, or the rule of our faith. But if this argument be valid, what shall we think of the Roman Church, which has had for its heads some of the greatest monsters in nature: "Fifty Popes (says Cardinal Baronius, ad An. 897.) rather apostatical than apostolical, homines monstruosi, vita turpissimi, moribus perditissimi, usquequaque fædissimi." But, says Mr Manning, the Protestant rule of faith, is scripture interpreted by a man of sound judgment. Now, if Protestants stand to this principle, they are all equally accountable for every thing taught by their reformers, even when they contradict one another, (Shortest Way, p. 175.) This objection (as Bishop Grove remarks,) is the complete epitome of the well-known Popish book, entitled Pax Vobis. But let us see, how Mr M. will defend his church against the force of his own consequence. The Popish rule of faith, he tells us, is scripture, as interpreted by the Pope and Council; therefore by this way of inference, whatever Thomas, or Suarez, or Bellarmin, or any other of sound judgment, that owns this rule, have taught or may teach, must be the doctrine of the Church of Rome. If he thinks to excuse his church, by saying, that their authors may mistake the sense of Pope and Council he cannot be so ignorant, as not to know that we believe that ours too may sometimes mistake the sense of scripture. So that hither

Now, not to shew at present how vainly the Church of Rome challenges to herself the title, privileges, &c. of the Catholic Church; nor to examine the texts, on which this pretence of infallibility is founded *. I only say, that when such errors and corruptions are notoriously evident, though but in any one instance, to argue that the church has not erred, because she cannot err, is to dispute against matter of fact, like the philosopher disputing against the possibility of motion; and no argument whatever, is good against matter of fact. True, it will be replied, if it were notoriously evident that the church has erred, there was an end of her infallibility; but this is matter of dispute, whether she has erred or not, and then if you can prove that she cannot err, you effectually prove that she has not erred.-By no means; for if she is charged with errors, and plain evidence brought that she has actually erred, unless you can as plainly take off this evidence, it weakens and overthrows all the proofs for infallibility. And therefore, when they begin with the proof of infallibility, they begin at the wrong end; for when the church is charged with error, if they would not lose their labour they must prove that she has not erred, before they prove her to be infallible, for otherwise, after all the pains they have taken to prove her infallibility, if they cannot deliver her from the charge of having erred, their labour is lost; and therefore it is best to try that first.

Accordingly, to the objection "that our Saviour

to we stand, at least, upon equal terms; nay, I am sure, any misapplication of the rule, is much more pardonable in a church that never thought herself infallible, than it can be in that one that pretends to be so. Bishop Grove's Answer to P. V. Pres. V. 60. * APPENDIX No. V.