to prove Papifts to be Idolaters in Spite of common, Senfe.

I should be glad I had no Reason to complain of Falfifications, because the Charge is foul and odious. But, as I have been obliged to make his Lordship expose them, when they fell in his Way; I shall here take Notice of one, which indeed is notorious. The Reader will find it in the 8th Section, 2d Part ; the Title whereof is, ST AUSTIN FALSIFIED. It con-. tains a Paffage taken from that Father upon the 96th Pfalm, which, if fairly render'd, bears a Sense wholly different from what the Gentleman has fix'd upon it by the most unfaithful Tranflation, that perhaps ever ventured to appear in Print: And what is very remarkable, he repeats it four or five Times afterwards, and lays a fingular Stress upon it to prove the Unlawfulness of our Invocation of Saints and Angels. However I am inclined to think the Gentleman is rather the Copier, than primary Author of the fcandalous Falfification I fpeak of;, it being very probable he found it in the Writings of his Proteftant Predeceffors, and took it upon Trust either through Want of Leisure to examine it himfelf, or too good an Opinion of the Authors, from whom he transcribed it. This is the most favourable Conftruction I can put upon this, and other unfaithful Quotations that will be hereafter laid to hisCharge.

But I cannot make the fame Apology for fome notorious Untruths, and Calumnies fcatter'd up and down in the Gentleman's Cafe ftated. Because there was no Need of a tedious Search into Authors to detect the Falfehood of thefe. The Dictates of his his own Confcience and Reason fufficed alone to

convince him of it: and he is equally inexcufable, whether he be the Forger, or Difperfer only of fuch Slanders: I shall here mention only two. First, that the Scriptures and Legends have the fame Foundation in the Church of Rome; that is, her Authority: and that therefore the common People believe them both alike, and the Men of Senfe believe neither. pag. 159. and 2dly, that the Pope's Supremacy is the only Article in our Creed to be believed explicitly. As for others, implicite will do for them all, that is, it is no Matter, whether we believe them or not. pag. 197.

Is it poffible a Perfon of the Gentleman's Judg ment and Learning believed a Word of this, when he wrote it? If he did, it is a flagrant Inftance, to what exceffive Degree Prejudice will blind a Man. If not, it shews how little Juftice Roman Catholicks can expect from a Proteftant Writer; and fuffices! abundantly to give the Reader a just Idea of what the Gentleman himself thought of the Caufe, he undertook to plead. For he could not be ignorant of this received maxim, that Truth ftands always firm upon it's own Bottom, and needs not the little Triks of Sophistry, much lefs the Help of Falsehood and Slander to fupport it. If therefore a Perfon of his Capacity durft not hazard the Iffue of his Caufe upon a fair Trial, but found himfelf obliged to have Recourse to fuch Artifices, as I am fure a good Caufe ftands not in Need of, muft we not cond clude, he had himself an entire Miftruft of the Goodness of his Caufe, fince he effectually Judg'd it ftood in Need of thefe Artifices, and employ'd them accordingly? I may therefore confidently fay," that all the unfair and finifter Ways, the Gentle man has made Ufe of to afperfe and traduce the Church of Rome are fo many authentick Testimo.

nies of his own Producing, that the Truth is against him.

There is one Thing very remarkable in the Gentleman's Cafe ftated. For in the Title page of his Book he promises to shew two Things. 1. That the Doubt and Danger of Salvation is in the Communion of the Church of Rome. And 2dly, that the Certainty and Safety is in the Communion of the Church of England. Now Í muft own he has labour'd hard to prove the former. Nay he has gone much farther. For he has employ'd near 30 pages (I hope it will not do him much Honour) to prove us as rank Idolaters as the Heathens ever were. And fo inftead of Doubt and Danger of Salvation, he ought to have promised to shew, that nothing but Hell and Damnation can be hoped for in the Church of Rome : fince thefe will furely be the juft Reward of heathen Idolatry practifed by Chriftians themselves.

than

But as to the latter Point, viz, his Shewing the Certainty and Safety of Salvation in the Church of England, the Gentleman has been pleafed to fuperfede that Part of his Task; as Judging it much easier to lampoon and traduce the Church of Rome, defend his own. For there is not one fingle Argument in the Gentleman's whole Book to convince the Reader, that the Communion of the Church of England is preferable to that of any other reform'd Church. And why then is the Church of England alone mention'd in the Title-page with this pompous Elogium, that the Certainty and Safety of Salvation is in her Communion. Will not every one, who reads this Title expect to find fome pofitive Proofs to convince him that he ought to prefer her Communion before any other? And will he not be ftrangely disappointed to find nothing but a meer Satyr

Satyr upon the Church of Rome, and not one folid Argument to induce him to embrace the Gentleman's Church rather than that of Lutherans, Calvinifts, Independents, Anabaptifts, Quakers, &c. in Cafe he either has his Religion yet to chofe, or is difpofed to leave that, in which he has till then been educated?

If the Gentleman had declared that his whole De fign was to make a Non-Papift of his Lordship, I should have own'd his Book and Title were exact ly of a Piece. For I confefs I never read a more artful Lampoon upon Popery in my whole Life. But to make a folemn Profeffion of showing that the Certainty and Safety of Salvation are in the Communion of the Church of England without giving one fingle Reafon to prove her Communion to be preferable to that of any diffenting Proteftant Church, or Offering at one diftinctive Mark to shew her to be that One, Holy, Catholick and Apoftolick Church profefs'd in the Nicene Creed, is fuch an Omiffion will not eafily be excufed.

as

What! Did he defign to laugh his Lordship out of all reveal'd Religion? If fo, I cannot but approve of the Method he has taken... But if he intended to make him a Convert to the Church of England preferably to any other Church, why did he not fet forth her peculiar Advantages over other Proteftant Communions all differing from one another, to the End that when his Lordship should be refolved to renounce Popery, he might not turn Atheist or Deift for Want of knowing where to find the true Church of Chrift? Why did he nor endeavour to convince him of the Antiquity of the reform'd Church of England; her perpetual Visibility from the firft Preaching of the Gofpel in Great Britain; her

uninterrupted Succeffion of Proteftant Bishops derived from the Apostles themselves; Her Catholicity, that is, her having always been a Part of that Church, which has Univerfality both of Time and Place; And laftly, the wonderful Miracles her Proteftant Children have wrought in Confirmation of her Doctrine, as it is diftinguish'd both from Popery, and that of other reform'd Churches? For these are the external Marks of the true Church of Chrift, which convinced St Auflin of the Truth of her Doctrine. And if the Gentleman had but remember'd to shew thefe Marks in the Church of England, his Lordship could not have refifted the Force of fuch Evidence against him. I leave the Reader to confider the Reasons why he did not. I believe they are all comprifed in his short Sentence, ultra poffe non datur fe: which may be english'd thus, a Man can do no more than he can do.

But there feems to be another Omiffion in the Gentleman's Cafe ftated. For tho the Pope's Supremacy be the Article fingled out by him, against which he was employ'd the beft Part of his Time and Skill; tho he begins and ends with it; nay tho he refumes it feveral Times, and even drags it in by Head and Shoulders, yet he has not vouchfafed in the whole Converfation to mention fo much as once the visible Head of his own Church. This furely was not fair. For fuppofe he should have lampoon'd his Lordship into a Refolution to throw off his former Head, was it not an Act of Juftice to fupply him with another? Or was he fo ashamed of him that he durft not name him? For my Part I will not refolve the Question, but leave it to the Reader to do it for me.

These are the most material Things, of which