No Communion, that is Newly rais'd, can be the whole prefent Church of Chrift. The most it can pretend to, is only to be a Part of it. Neither can Rome, for pretended Errors, be Un-Church'd, but the Eastern and Southern Churches, for the fame Errors, or greater (as Greeks, Ruffians, Armenians, Cophtes, or Egyptians, Abyffines, or Ethiopians, &c.) muft of neceflity, fall under the like Cenfure. This obliges Proteftants to grant, that Roman-Catholicks are Members of the Visible Church of Chrift. But the Church in Communion with the See of Rome, cannot poffibly think more favourably of Proteftants, than She hath always done of fo many others, both Ancient and Modern Reformers of her Faith; that is, She cannot (as long as they remain in a Separate Communion from Her) grant them to be any Part of Chrift's visible Church.

I should be forry to find that either Mr. L. or any one for him, fhould Contest all or any one of the Articles hitherto exprefs'd, as Agreed upon betwixt us. For, I do not well fee how fuch an Attempt should be undertaken, with any other Defign, by Perfons of Eruditi on, but only of Deceiving and Deluding Ignorant Souls: And I hope the Cheat is too grofs, to be apprehended; fince Luther's Revolution (which occafion'd the late Reformation, and fo many other New-rais'd Communions) will ftand upon Record, and be known to all the Learned World, as long as History and Monu

ments remain.

Laftly, I think, we may very well fuppofe, there are Three other Points, in which both Churches are Agreed.

C 2

THE

THE Ft is, that, If the Church of Chrift be always and only visible in one Communion; then Proteftants, being a New-rais'd Communion (having within it felf no Succeffion of Paftors, from the Apostles time) are neither the Church of Christ, nor any Part of it.

THE Second is, that, If Chrift committed the Government of his whole Flock to St. Peter and his Succeffors; and thefe de facto be no other than the Bishops of Rome: then Proteftants (as long as the Divifion remains betwixt them, and the Church Communicating with the See of Rome) are not in the Flock of Chrift.

THE Third is, that, If the visible and ftanding Church of Chrift in all Ages, Committed to St. Peter, be Infallible, in propofing all reveal'd Truths to her Children, then Proteftants must, of neceffity, be involv'd both in Herefie and Schifm. In Herefy, because the Decree of the fecond Nicene Council, anno 787 (for the Veneration of Images of Chrift and his Saints) before Luther's Separation, was Univerfally received and pra&tifed, both by the Latin and Oriental Churches; or, as our Homily-Book expreffeth it, by all Christendom, and had been fo for eight hundzeni Pears and mo2e. In Schifm, because then our pretended Errors, will be found to be reveal'd Truths; and their Separation, Groundless.

AGAIN, If the True Church of Christ ирож Earth be only in One Communion, under the Spiritual Government of St. Peter and his Succeffors; it follows, that, As all Men, to whom the Gofpel is duly Preach'd, are obliged to be Chriftians; So are all Christians obliged, to be enrolled in that Communion; and cannot be Saved. out of it, unless they be excufed by invincible Ignorance.

Ignorance. For, what Chriftian does not ly under a very great Obligation of profeffing Chrift, and of being a Member of his Church?

§. III.

The Plea of the Church of England.

L. THE Church, in Communion with the See of Rome, having been, anno 1520, the visible Church, in which the first Proteftants were Chriften'd, and from whofe Communion they firft broke off; The Reformation cannot be juftified any other way, but by Accufing the Church of Rome of Errors, which he made the Condition of her Communion; as, the holding of Tranfubftantiation, Invocation of Saints, Vene ration of Holy Images, and Reliques, Praying for the Dead, the Supremacy of the Pope."

2. BUT, are thefe fuppofed Errors, against the Fundamentals of Religion? Are they against Faith? Or, in themfelves Damnable? Concer ning Fundamentals, Dr. Potter tells us, p. 63. The most neceffary and Fundamental Truths which conftitute a Church, are on both Sides unquestion'd. Concerning Faith, Mr. Stilling fleet affures us, in his Rational Account of the Grounds of Proteftant Religion, P. 54. That the Church of England makes no Articles of Faith, but fuch as have the Teftimony, and Approbation of the whole Christian World of all Ages, and are acknowledg'd to be fuch by Rome it felf. So Monfr. Daillie, in his Treatife of Faith founded upon the Scripture, informs us, that, Tho they do not hold all our Opininions, yet we hold all their Articles of Faith. And concerning Errors, Destructive of Salvation, Mr. Thorndike,

C3

Thorndike, in Epilog. p. 146, fays, I muft, and da freely profefs, that I find no Pofition neceffary to Salvation prohibited, none deftructive to Salvation, enjoin'd to be believ'd by the Church of Rome. And in his Treatife of fuft Weights and Measures, ch. 2. Let not them who charge the Pope to be Antichrift, and the Papists Idolaters) (as Mr. L, pretends. p. 155, 156, 157, 160.) lead the People by the Nofe, to believe, that they can prove their Suppofition, when they cannot.

3. BUT of what kind foever you fuppofe them; Plaufible Arguments from Scripture it felf (which fcarce any Herefy hath ever wanted) will not be enough to justify the Reformation, Nothing less than Undeniable Evidence, can do the work. For, unless it be Evident; that the Church in Communion with the See of Rome exceeded her Power, when the prefcrib'd the Terms of her Communion; it is Evident the Reformation was a Rebellion; and that the Continuing in it, is only a Continuing in the fame Rebellion. Upon this Foot,St. Augustin,after his Converfion from the Manichaan Herefy,to the Catholick Church, required of the Manichees Undeniable Evidence,or a Truth foManifest,ut in dubium venire non poffit. To that he promises to Submit; and to nothing elfe, against the Motives of Credibility, which held him in the Catholick Communion. As we fhall fee hereafter.

S. IV.

§. IV.

What is how meant by the Church of Rome.

I.

M R. L. p. 21. lets his Reader know, out

of Du Pin, with fome concern, that: formerly even the Latin Church, had not the. Name of the Church of Rome. It is true, fays Du Pin, that at prefent the Name of the Church of Rome, is given to the Catholick Church; and that these two Terms, pass for Synonymous. But in Antiquity no more was intended by the Name of the Church of Rome, than the Church of the City (and Diocefs) of ROME: And the Popes, in their Subfcriptions, took fimply the Quality of Bishop of Rome. From whence Mr. L. concludes, p. 25. It has been fhewn (out of Du Pin) that the Church of ROME, hath no Right to the Title of the Latin Church it felf, far lefs of the Univerfal.

I Answer, 1. What Du Pin here fays, is very true. 2. What Mr. L. infers, is alfo true (understanding the Church of Rome as he does) but nothing to the purpofe. For did ever any Catholick imagine, that the City (or Diocess) of Rome, and its Bifhop, were either the Latin or the Univerfal Church? Muft Du Pin be our Monitor for this? But we fay, with Du Pin,that now thefe words the Church of Rome, are often taken for the whole Church in Communion with the See of Rome, which comprehends Italy, with the Neighbouring Iflands, France, Spain, Portugal, and the if Mr. E. Catholicks all over the World. 3. I defire to means only know, whether Mr. L. in his Cafe Stated, takes the Diocess thefe words the Church of Rome, for the whole of Rome, be muft ReChurch in Communion with the See of Rome, or not. ftate bis

G4

If Cafe.