Chap. 3. by Infallibility, means a great deal more; we Queft.5. may remember, that this noble Champion, when his all ist Stake, is fighting without an Adversary.

However, says he, p. 77, bere is nothing about the Church of Rome in particular and to be guided into all Truth does not imply that the Guidance must of neceffity be effectually fol low'd, nor does being taught all Things

ply Infallibility.

im

ANSWER, This is Harping on the old broken String; and Dreaming of the Church of Rome, when it is no Part of the Queftion. However Mr. Trapp judges right. For the very Naming of the Church of Rome, how impertinent foever, carries more Conviction with it on a judicious Rabble, than a Million of real Demonftrations.

How far the Apostles may be in danger of forfeiting their Charter, by what he adds; I am not willing to examine. But am fully perfwaded, that if the universal Church has an infallible Promife of being TAUGHT ALL THINGS,and of being GUIDED INTO ALL TRUTH FOR EVER, her Definitions of Faith both are and will be always INFALLIBLE.

IV. It would be here an unneceffary Digreffion (if not unfafe, till Scholars have led and clear'd the Way) to attempt the Character. of a Treatife, which was newly offer'd to the publick, under a double Guard from Cenfure and Reproach, being Dedicated to the King, and Infcrib'd, The Church of England defended against the Calumnies and falfe Reafonings of the Church of Rome, in Anfwer to a late Sophiftical, and infolent, Popish Book &c.

But

But I cannot forbear to fay, that if Mr. Trapp Chap. 3. had treated his Adversary with more Humani- Queft.5: ty, and would have fuffer'd him to speak Sense now and then; his Caufe would have loft nothing by it, and his Zeal for the Church of England, which is now fo frequently ruffled, fo oft tranfported with Indignation and Rage, if not into down right Nonfenfe, would have appear'd with a more becoming Grace and Luftre. For he, who can talk of nothing else, but of an Ocean of Falfhoods and Abfurdities, of Antichriftian Errors, of Unchristian Calumnies, Impudence, Sophistry, and Nonfenfe; is almoft fure to fall into Extravagance and Folly, without being either help'd or pitied. Whether this be Mr. Trapp's Cafe or not, the Reader may judge by this remarkable Inftance. It is the very Clofe of his Anfwer. He had told us pag. 414, that from this Place [p. 319] to the end of the Book, his Adversary strains all his Nerves, draws his Arguments to a Head, and labours bis Point with the utmost Diligence: And promis'd to fhew, that his boafted strength is the most defpicable Weakness, by diffecting it minutely, and anfwering it Sentence by Sentence. But let Mr. Trapp and his Adverfary agree about Matters, as well as they can. they can. What I pretend to prove is only this, that the latter is not allow'd to speak Senfe, tho' what he fays is uncontestably Evident.

Mr. Trapp's Antagonift exprefs'd himself thus, p. 328: My Question or Dilemma, to which I demand a direct Answer, is precifely this: viz,, Whether before the Reformation the Church Rome with all the Churches in Communion with that See, was that One, Holy, Catholick, and

L

Apoftolick

Chap. 3. Apoftolick Church, the Belief whereof we proQueft.5.fefs in the Nicene Creed, or not? If they Say not; then the Creed was falfe before the Refor mation. Because they cannot fhew any other Society of Christians, which was that Church. But if they anfwer in the Affirmative, then theChurch of Rome, with all the Churches in Communion with that See, was not only a true Church, but THE SOLE and only true Church of Christ upon Earth. And, by Confequence, England was, by its pretended Reformation, cut off FROM THE SOLE and only true Church of Christ upon Earth. And there I leave it. For I have now done. Thus his Antagonist.

To this, after a Shuffle, and fome Obfcurity, Mr. Trapp gives a direct Answer.

1. His Shuffle is this, p. 449, Here you alter the Question. Just now you faid, the Church of Rome: Here you fay, the Church of Rome, with all the Churches in Communion with that See. But Explaining the Question is not Altering it. Thefe words, the Church of Rome, may be, and are, frequently enough underftood, two different Ways. First, for the Church AT ROME. Thus they are often taken by Protestant Writers, and by Mr. Trapp in particular. Secondly, they may be, and are underftood, of Rome and the Church or Churches in its Communion; and Mr. Trapp's Adverfary, whoever he was, took the words in this Senfe. So that his being accus'd of altering the Queftion is a meer Shuffle.

2. The Obfcurity, with which I charg❜d Mr. Trapp, does not confift in his Diftinguishing, p. 449, betwixt Communion with Rome, and Subjection to Rome (tho' it is notorious, that Rome,

in

in S. Gregory's Time, challeng'd as truly a Sub- Chap. 3. jection of all other Bishops to her, as fhe does Queit.5. at prefent) but in his faying, p. 450, If any particular Church or Churches, that of Rome among the reft, were caufelefly out of Communion with any Church; they were Schifmatical, but Still they were Churches: tho' IF THEY WERE NOT, 'tis nothing to our prefent Purpofe.

ANSWER. This is very intricate, if not false. For the Question was, Whether before the Reformation the Church of Rome with all the Churches in Communion with that See, was that One, Holy, Catholick, and Apoftolick Church, the Belief whereof we profefs in the Nicene Creed, or not? And if Neftorians, Eutychians, Photians, and Vaudois were separate from other Chriftians without a fufficient Caufe (of which there was never any doubt among Catholicks) they were certainly Schifmaticks, and confequently no Churches, as Mr. Trapp gives us Leave to fuppofe. If fo, 'tis plain, that Rome and the Churches in her Communion were before the Reformation, the univerfal Church, or the Sole and only true Church of Christ upon Earth. Earth. And if it be repugnant to Mr. Trapp's System, to grant, that Rome and the Churches in ber Communion were then the univerfal Church; how can he truly fay, that the Suppofition, of Schifmatical Sects being no Churches, is nothing to his PRESENT PURPOSE, tho' this were fuppos'd to give nothing peculiar to Rome?

3. But after all he gives a direct Answer, p. 451, to his Adverfary's Dilemma, in thefe words: Before the Reformation, the Church of Rome with thofe in Communion with her, and in

Chap. 3. Subjection to her, WAS NOT that One, &c. Be Queft.5. caufe of the Greek Churches, and many more which I have mention'd, p. 438.

His Adversary would doubtlefs tell him, that this does not deferve the Name of an Anfwer. For the Queftion was concerning that Church, the Belief whereof we profefs in THE NICENE CREED. And the NICENE CREED it felf tell's us, that this Church is ONE: that is, as the Catholick Church in all Ages has understood this Part of the Creed, it is ONE IN FAITH AND COMMUNION. For She never imagin'd, that Christ's Seamless Garment confifted of diffected Parts, like fo many Patches in a Beggar's Coat. She never imagin'd, that Diffenters were any Part of her, or that she was an Aggregate of Catholicks and them, a disjointed and difunited Society. Christendom was always rent afunder by Herefies and Schifms: but the Catholick Church had never fuch a mean Opinion of herfelf, as to esteem herself a Mixture, a Compound of divided Churches but ONE CHURCH IN FAITH AND COMMUNION. Much lefs did fhe imagine, that the word, ONE, which She added to the CREED, to exclude the Macedonians, the Novatians, the Montanifts, the Quartodecimans, and other Heretical and Schifmatical Sects, fhould ever be fuppos'd to include Diffenters and Schifmaticks, and to make them Members of the Catholick Society, and of the Church of Chrift. All this Mr. Trapp's Antagonist in his Argument Suppofes. And therefore

Mr. Trapp's Anfwer, to Speak modeftly of it, is evidently no Answer at all. For neither the Greek Church, nor any of the others which

he