bigger any fault is, one would think it should be more easily espied. Now these men separate from us, merely because we have abandoned those wicked doctrines and practices, which are of themselves a most necessary cause of separation from any church in the world, that should impose them; and therefore, they are of all men the most notorious schismatics that can be imagined. And I beseech God to open their eyes to see it, and to recover into the way of truth, all such as have erred and are deceived, that those, who have hitherto been obstinate, may prove all things, and that those who can be persuaded to consider these things, may hold fast that which is good. Dr Clagett's Difference of the Case, &c. p. 70*.

*. In the foregoing defence of our Reformed Church, we must recollect that its Reformation is defended, only as far as relates to the resumption of its primitive rights as a free Episcopal Church; as for the Manner of Proceeding in our Reformation, this has been ably vindicated, amongst others, by Bishops Burnet and Smallridge, and Drs Saywell and Clagett, in answer to Saunders, Varillas, Walker, &c. But it is proper to state, that it is not material what were the true motives of Henry VIII. or any others, who were engaged in a struggle with the Popish usurpations; for Jehu did a good work when he destroyed the idolatry of Baal, though neither his motives nor his manner of proceeding in it were justifiable. Our religion has no dependance on the historical relations of any mens' actions; God's Truth and Revelation is the ground we depend upon.

CHAP. V.

THE IMPRACTICABILITY OF AN UNION BETWEEN THE
REFORMED EPISCOPAL AND PRESENT ROMAN CHURCH.

POPERY, as Archbishop Wake long since observed, in its proper colours is so unlike catholic christianity, that it is in vain ever to hope to promote it, if it appears in its own shape. It is necessary, therefore, that the religion, like the prophet, should come in sheep's clothing, and the heresy be made to look as orthodox as possible. Some things are denied, others mollified, all disguised, and a double benefit thereby obtained. Popery is to be received as a very innocent harmless thing, and the Protestants, especially the ministers and first reformers, represented to the world as a sort of people that have supported themselves by calumny and lies, and made a noise about errors and corruptions, which are no where to be found but in their own brains or books, and which the Church of Rome detests as well as we.

None pursued this method of disguising the Romish doctrines and practices, with such dexterity and art, as Bossuet in his Exposition of the Catholic Faith. But the perfidious sophistry of this author was satisfactorily unmasked by Archbishop (then Mr) Wake, in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England, and his two Defences of that Exposition, 1687. It was attempted also by the author of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented, and in a book entitled an Agreement between the Church of England and Rome. The former of these was answered by Drs

Stillingfleet and Clagett, in 1687; and the latter by Dr Sherlock and Mr Williams, in 1688. Methinks, says Dr Sherlock, it argues some distrust of their cause, that they dare not downright defend it, but are forced either to represent it away almost into Protestant heresy, or to shelter themselves in their agreement with a Protestant Church; but the best way is, to turn Protestants themselves, and then we will own our agreement with them.

Being overturned in their attempts to recommend their doctrines by means of books written professedly by Romanists, they endeavoured next to promote them under the disguise of ministers of the Church of England, and accordingly they published, in 1703, An Essay for Catholic Communion, by a Minister of the Church of England. This attempt to disguise Popery under a Protestant name and dress (says the Rev. Nath. Spinckes, the learned confuter of it,) is such an instance of treachery and insincerity, as would put any impartial observer out of hope, that any good can come from so unfair an adversary. Had he pulled off his mask, every body must have owned him as a generous adversary. But this would not answer his design, which was under the notion of a friend to get into our bosoms, and to find an opportunity of instilling his poison, before he was suspected. Besides this answer of Mr Spinckes, there was another by the Rev. Samuel Grascome, entitled Concordia Discors. Mr Spinckes's answer is well worthy of being reprinted *.

Since the first edition of this Treatise was published, a new edition of the Essay has been sent into the world, most impudently dedicated to the Parliament and Subjects of the United Kingdom," and styled in the disgusting cant of the times, "a Liberal

The very same paltry arts of misrepresentation and fraud, the emissaries of Rome are pursuing at this day. Bossuet's Exposition, and the Papist Misrepresented, have been lately reprinted in England, and in this country we have been favoured with a Protestant

Essay!" Lond. 1812. There has also been lately published, by a Mr Nightingale (a Dissenter, formerly a Methodist preacher,) what he calls A Portraiture of the Roman Catholic Religion, Lond. 1812. He must surely possess a very slight degree of acquaintance with the nature of that religion, when he takes up its tenets, not from its authorised creeds, catechisms, and public offices, but from the Papist Misrepresented, the work of an obscure author, and which, as has been plainly proved, contradicts the standard doctrine of that church. "Though that religion, as varnished by the French ex¬ positor (Bossuet,) and English representer (Gother,) observes one who had formerly been a professor in the Romish Church, appear not so deformed; yet if we barely considered it as delivered in Pope Pius's Creed, we shall find it black enough. If we gather it from their public offices, authorised devotions, and general practice, we shall find it of a deeper dye. The old spirit still remains ;—the kingkilling doctrine as much countenanced at Rome as ever :-we still find people obliged to obey without reason, to believe against sense, and to pray without understanding,” (Aylmer's Recantation Sermon, preached at St Martin's, Oxford, Sept. 30. 1713, p 7.) He must be equally unacquainted with the arts of that church, when he speaks of the Essay for Catholic Communion, as written by a "pious and learned minister of the Church of England," and pronounces it a "most excellently well-meant essay," and a "valuable work," and at the same time adopts the sentiments contained in it, as the real and genuine doctrine of the Romish Church.Since he has made use of a quotation from Baxter as a motto, I beg leave to recommend to him another, from the same author : "We fear the masked Papists and infidels more than the barefaced, or than any enemy." Key for Catholics in Ep. Ded. See also The Missionary's Arts Discovered, or An Account of their Ways of Insinuation, their Artifices, and Methods of which they serve themselves in making Converts, Lond. 1688; a very curious and amusing pamphlet, but extremely scarce.

Apology for (what is called) the Catholic Church, Dub. 1809, in which, Popery is pretended to be proved from the testimonies of Protestants *. But this is an old. trick, attempted above 200 years ago by one Brerely, whose book, likewise entitled a Protestant Apology, was completely exposed and confuted by Bishop Morton, in his Catholic Appeal, 1610, in which he produces, on our behalf, as many confessions of Papists, as Brerely produced of pretended ones of Protestants, on behalf of the Romish Church.

To this author's 'testimonies, produced from the writings of foreign Protestants, I briefly reply with Bishop Bramhall,—that whatever were the opinions or private errors of Calvin, Luther, or the Magdeburgenses, or other foreigners (whom he quotes in abun

* It is most surprising that any men of sense should attempt to convince us of the truth of Popery, by the garbled testimonies of a few Protestants? Ought they not to have known, that our rule of faith, is not the fallible testimony of any modern doctor whatsoever, but the inspired gospel of Christ? "We have often told you (says Archbishop Wake,) that our faith depends not on any human authority. Such concessions may shew the weakness or error of him that made them, but they are nothing available to prescribe against the truth of the gospel," (Second Defence of Exposition, Part II. p. 9.) It were anxiously to be wished, in order to the bringing of controversies to a speedy decision, that all parties should lay aside such inconclusive methods of attack and defence, and appeal only to those testimonies, which are acknowledged to be valid and conclusive in the opinion of the respective disputants, such as the holy scriptures, and, in subordination to them, the creeds, confessions of faith, &c. This principle I have adopted in this edition, and have, in consequence, omitted a great number of the mere confessions of adversaries which were retained in the former (except those relating to modern matter of fact.) My reasons for making use of the quotations from our own divines in expressing my thoughts, have been already sufficiently accounted for in the Preface to the first edition.