are conformable with thofe of the other Doctors of his Church, who teach that their Church is nothing but ours reform'd; which this Gentleman explains by the Comparisons of a dirty Face wafh'd, amuddy River cleans'd, and a fick Man heal'd. But I hope to prove to you, that if their Religion were true, our Religion would have been none at all, and confequently uncapable of being reform'd; from which I will draw other Confequences of great Importance, and this as briefly as may be, not to be tedious.

X. FIRST then, It is effential to a true Church of Chrift, not to teach and practice Idolatry: But the Roman Catholick Church, according to their Principles, teaches and practifes Idolatry: This they not only grant, but preach in every Pulpit; we commit Idolatry in worshipping an Hoft; Idolatry in the invocation of Saints; Idolatry in the worship of Images; nay, this very Gentleman told you, that we gave divine Worship to a wooden Crofs: Therefore the Roman Catholick Church is no true Church of Chrift, nor was when they went from it.

"

XI. 2dly, I prove it out of the forefaid 19th Article of their own Church, thus, The vifible Church of Chrift is a Congregation of faithful Men, in the which the Sacraments be duly miniftred according to Chriff's Ordinance: But in the Roman Catholick Church, according to their Doctrine, the Sacraments are not duly miniftred, &c. For they hold but two Sacraments; and of thofe two it's certain, that according to the Proteftants, we do not minifter the Eucharift according to Chrift's Ordinance: It remains then that according to that, we minifter only Baptifm duly, which is but one Sacrament, not Sacraments: Therefore we have not the due Miniftration of Sacraments

in our Church, as their own Definition of a Church requires: Therefore the Roman Catholick Church is not (nor was when they left it) the vifible (nor a vifible) Church of Chrift.

XII. 3dly, AGAIN, out of the forefaid Article, The vifible Church of Chrift is a Congregation of faithful Men, in the which the pure Word of God is preached, &c. But in the Roman Catholick Church, according to their Dourine, the pure Word is not preach'd, nor was when they left it. For pure is contrary to corrupt, and they teach, that our DoAtrine is and was corrupt, and our Religion full of grofs and damnable Errors; nay, they give that for the Reafon of their pretended Reformation: Therefore the Roman Catholick Church is not, nor was not when they went from it, the visible (nor a vifible) Church of Chrift.

XIII. THUS I have proved, that according to their Principles, the Roman Catholick Church was not a Church of Chrift, when they pretended to reform it: From whence it follows, ift, That no Proteftant Church could reform it, no more than one can wash a Face that has no Being; fo that they are not a reform'd Religion, but abfolutely a new Religion, that is a falfe Religion: For it's evident that their Religion's new, if it was not reformed: But I have proved clearly, that it was not reform'd: Therefore it's evident it is new: Therefore it's evident it is falfe.

XIV. It follows 2dly, That if the Roman Catholick Church was no Church of Chrift, as I have proved it was not according to their Principles, it follows, I fay, that the true Church of Chrift abfolutely perifh'd, and was quite destroy'd for many Hundred Years, from whence we may clearly fee the Proteftant Religions to be all falfe, from the Truth of which would follow fo abfurd and blafphemous

phemous a Doctrine, as that the Church of Chrift was quite deftroy'd.

XV. IT follows 3dly, That the Roman Catholick Church is the true Church, for fome Church must be the true Church of Chrift, and it can be none, to whom the Promifes of indefectibility or perpetual Duration bave not been made good: But thofe Promifes have not been made good to any but the Roman Catholick, and have evidently fail'd all Proteftants for the fpace of 900 or 1000 Years: Therefore the Roman Catholick Church is the true Church of Chrift.

XVI. To conclude, Sir, this their Pretence of afferting their Religion from the Imputation of Newnets, and confequently of Falfity, by faying it is the fame in Subftance with ours, is too vifibly falfe to impofe upon any one that will open his Eyes. For they hold but two Sacraments, we hold feven; according to them we commit grofs Idolatry, they horrible Impieties and Prophanations according to us: We follow the guidance of the Church, they their own; which of the one fide is the fource of many and important Errors. It would be too long to reckon up all the Differences between us, infomuch that it feems clear, that either their Religion or ours is a damnable Herefy; and whetherfoever it be, theirs is falfe. For if our Religion be a damnable Herefie, theirs is a new one, as I have proved; and if theirs be a Herefie, it needs no Proof that it's falfe, and fo 1 conclude.

XVII. THUS, Sir, the Gentleman may fee, that what I writ concern'd the Indefectibility and not the Infallibility of the Church, which I never dream'd of, nor intended, as he is pleas'd to imagine. If he defigns an Answer to any thing in this, I defire it may be direct and home to the Point; and if there

be any Word of uncertain Signification, let it be answered by diftinguishing according to the Cuftom of fair and learned Adverfaries, and not be fent back with a Number of new Queries to attend it, which is a Fashion newly invented by this Adverfary.

XVIII. As to his many Questions concerning the Infallibility of the Church, we will anfwer them, when we have done with this; in the mean time, let any Impartial Man be our Judge, whether he or I are the lefs accurate. I, that for a ground of one Query fuppos'd a clear Truth, which he dare not deny: Or he, who for one Difpute, has propos'd fifteen or fixteen Points, and feveral of them of very different Natures, and enough to fill whole Volumes. As for Vincentius Lirinenfis, we are now actually examining one of his Rules Tet down in the very Place he cites, where Vincentius afferts thofe only to be Catholicks, who hold what has been believ'd every where, always, and by all. And I think I have fufficiently proved, that the Church of England has not been always. Let us try one Rule at once, which I'm fure thofe will never be against, who have a mind to speak clofely to any one,

་

IF the Gentleman fhould answer this in the fame Stile he did the Query, I fuppofe you will know how to make a Difference betwixt big Words and great Arguments, betwixt ill Language and good Senfe. I am,

SIR,

Your moft Humble Servant,

A. B.

Dr.

Dr. Hickes's ANSWER to the Reply: Sent from the unknown Author by Mr. G-----n.

SUP

CHA P. I.

UPPOSING this for true, That the Church of Chrift can never perish, I defire to know (if the Proteftant Church be the true one) where it was for many Hundreds of Years before Luther? Name your Bifhops, Writers, Churches, nay one Single Congregation or Village of Proteftants, for 900 or 1000 Tears, before your Separation from the holy Catholick Church.

I. SIR, thefe are the Words of the Paper, which you called your Query, as they were fent to me by Mr. G-7 in his Letter, in which are these Words. I here fend you, as from him, the above written Query. I thought it convenient for feveral Reafons, one of which is my own Juftification, to transcribe it in the head of this Answer to your Reply; in which, Sir, you charge me in your VII Paragraph with a voluntary Miftake, in changing the Words Roman Catholick Church into holy Catholick Church. For if I was pleafed, as you speak, to make that Miftake, it was a voluntary and inexcufable Miftake; but it was not my Miftake, but Mr. G-----n's, as I can fhew from his Letter, and as he himself acknowledged to me; nor had I any Temptation wilfully to miftake the Words. For in your Challenge, name your Bishops, &c. for 900 or 1000 Years before your Separation from the

Roman