of Smyrna against praying for St. Polycarp. Now what can be more childish and impertinent than fuch Anfwers as these? And what would be think, if a Papift should argue at this rate in Defence of Purgatory and Tranfubftantiation, and when prefs'd with Teftimonies from Scripture and Antiquity, bould fouffle and strive to evade them, by faying, This Text does not fay, there is no fuch Place as Purgatory? This Father does not caution us against Transubftantiation. How can we expect to find things oppofed and contradicted, before they were ever heard of? Or would be have it accounted a Proof of a thing's being a Scripture Doctrine, or Apoftolical Tradition, that we can find nothing about it either in Scripture, or the Apoftolical Fathers? He ought rather from the Silence of Scripture and the purest Antiquity, to have learn'd, as the CHURCH of ENGLAND advifes, in the third Part of the Homily of Prayer, not to dream any more, that the Souls of the dead are any thing at all holpen by our Prayers: And then he would not have been fo fuperftitious an Adorer of his own groundless Opinions, as to imagine, that it is a Reflection on St. Paul to fay, be knew nothing of this Doctrine, as he affirms, Page 64; or that correcting his Mifapplications of Scripture is making bold with, and correcting the Scripture it felf, as he infinuates, Page 65.

In this Queftion, be fometimes reprefents me, particularly, Page 71. as condemning Prayers for the dead as erroneous, unlawful, and finful; fometimes, viz. Page 92. as allowing them to be lawful; both which are grofs Mifreprefentations, and I fear, wilful ones too; for it is plain, from Page 98, that he knew my Judgment to be, that as there is no Precept for them, no Promife made to them in Scripture, we have fufficient reafon to doubt of their Lawfulness, and decline the Practice of them. This is the true

State

State of the Queftion; and when it is fo ftated, all his Specious Cant about flandering the Catholic Church, and throwing Dirt in the Face of Antiquity, will appear to be nothing but Sophiftry and Amusement.

With the fame Difingenuity, he accufes me Page 81. of exhibiting a Charge of Montanifm against the Nicene Council; as if to agree with Montanus in one particular, were the fame thing as to revolt to his Sect, and embrace the whole of his Herefy. Our Adverfaries themselves have fufficiently jhewn the Inconclufivenefs of this way of reafoning, when they argue, that the Tertullian bad received the Tradition concerning Prayer for the Dead, together with his Montanism, it would not follow, that it was erroneous. My Anonymous Antagonist has indeed the Confidence to say, Page 78. that this Argument is entirely my own and that no fuch thing has been faid in the Courfe of this Controversy, no Argument formed upon fuch a Suppofition. But with how little regard to Truth be affirms this, will appear from the following Paffage in Mr. Collier's Vindication of his Reasons and Defence, Part 2. Page 33, 34. "But Prayer for "the dead was used by the Montanifts: Granting "that; was every Part of their Devotion unwarran "table? Were they not Catholic in most things?

In the fame infincere manner, tho' my Words, even as quoted by himself, Page 83, Speak only of Small Errors, and unneceffary Ufages; be charges me with giving up the whole Catholic Church to Herefy and Corruption: And indeed throughout the reft of the Controverfy, he has either fo wretchedly mistaken, or wilfully mifreprefented my Arguments, that there is nothing can be a more effectual Confutation of all that he has faid, than impartially to compare it with the Abridgment.

Page 97. he asks, how comes the Abridger to take no notice of Purgatory? But it may with much more Rea

Son

on be demanded, what he means by the Queftion, when the Abridger had particularly named Purgatory, Abr. Page 55. and expressed his Fears, that one of this Author's Party was writing directly in favour of it, under another Name. The Book has been fince publish'd; and whether I was right in my Conjecture, or not, every Reader of Mr. Campbel's Treatife on the middle State is now a Judge.

1 fear, I have tired my Reader's Patience by being Jo particular in Anfwer to an Author, whofe chief Bufinefs is to mifrepresent and equivocate: I shall therefore be very brief on the two following Points, viz. the Invocation-Prayer, and the Oblation. As to the former, Mr. Collier himself acknowledges in his Reafons, Page 25. that he is " willing to believe. "it may be contain'd by Implication in the prefent "Office" And if fo, why is this made one Plea for the Separation? As to the latter, their other Oracle, Mr. Johnfon, has proved our Liturgy to be already fufficiently express and perfect. Our anonymous Author pretends indeed, Page 116. that he has alter'd his Sentiments; but while Mr. Johnfon adminifters by the LITURGY of the CHURCH of ENGLAND, there is plain ocular Demonftration of the

contrary.

In the Clofe, Page 117, 118, that he might end with the fame modeft Regard to Truth, as he began, having quoted a Paffage from the Abridgment, where they are charg'd with pleading first for King Edward's Liturgy, then compofing Forms of their own, and bringing in Unction in Confirmation and Unition of the Sick, he calls this a Heap of unprov'd Crimes; whereas their printed Offices are a full and demonftrative Evidence of the Truth of it; and thither I appeal for the Justice of the Charge.

POSTSCRIPT.

A

T the End of this excellent Anfwer to the Abridgment, as it is modeftly call'd, Page 121. is added an Appendix, containing fome Remarks on my hiftorical Account of the first Review of the ENGLISH LITURGY. The Point this Author undertakes to prove is, that the Alterations then made were defign'd to gratify Calvin, Bucer, and Peter Martyr, by whofe Influence the Review was occafion'd. This fcandalous Afperfion on our excellent Church, I had clearly confuted by Teftimonies from Calvin and Peter Martyr's own Letters, to which my pretended Anfwerer has not replied one Word, tho the whole Merits of the Caufe depended upon it. And yet he has the Confidence, in the Beginning of his Appendix, to fay, that in my Relation of that Affair I am plainly mistaken in fome hiftorical Matters of Fact; tho' he has not inftanced in fo much as one. He would indeed infinuate, Page 132, that I have no Authority for what I fay, concerning Bishop Ridley's Sermon in Defence of the Review; but I hope, when I refer him to Mr. Collier's Church Hiftory, Vol. II. Page 325. he will confefs, that I had an unexceptionable Authority for it. Nay, be feems already fo fenfible of the Truth of it, that he does all he can, to detract from the Character of that admirable Prelate, and justifies even Bonner's Cause against him: So much eafier is it with thefe Gentlemen, to overlook Rebellion, Contu

macy

macy to a Metropolitan, and the blackest and most deteftable Ingratitude, than a zealous Oppofition to their new Effentials.

Page 127. he undertakes to give an hiftorical Account of that Affair; and here, if any where, we might expect fomething to the Purpofe. But inftead of giving us any Light into the Hiftory of the Review, he fobs us off with fome Inftances of Calvin's rude Importunity, and an Account of Bucer and Peter Martyr's being made Divinity-Profeffors in the two Univerfities. And what is all this to the Review? Where has he fo much as attempted to dif prove one fingle Argument of mine? Or what is there in his whole historical Account, from Page 127. to Page 132. that relates fricly to the Point in Difpute?

At last, he felters himself under the Authority of Dr. Heylin, who was of Opinion, that Bucer and Calvin had too much Influence in this Review; and it cannot be denied, that that great and learned Man did indeed affirm fo: But I do not think my felf obliged, to give Credit to his bare Affertion, in a Fact of which he could have no perfonal Knowledge, in Oppofition to the clearest Teftimonies of the very Perfons concern'd, to the contrary. As to his Infinuation of my accufing the Doctor of laying fo heavy a Charge on our Reform'd Church, that all which the Malice of the Papifts has yet invented, falls fhort of it; it is a most unjuft Calumny, and wilfull Mifreprefentation of my Words: For nothing can be more evident to every common Reader, than that I do not lay this heavy Accufation to the Charge of them, who thought Calvin and Bucer had too much Influence in the Review; but only them, who affirm, that on their Account, half of the inftituted Matter of Chrift's Cup was laid afide, the Communion of Saints implicitly renounced, and the only full and complete Confecration of the Euchariftic Elements expunged. This Dr. Heylin was

L 2

far