Some Farther REMARKS ON THE Late Account, given by Dr. Tenison of his Conference with Mr. Pulton.

THERE are few persons (I sup­pose) but such as have a great conceit of themselves, who are willing, that all the words which drop from them in the heat of a tumultuous and unprepared Dis­course, should be Published through the present Age, or recommended to Po­sterity; at least, in no better dress, than the hast they were spoken in would allow. But when such casual expressions, are not only divested of their Antecedent and Consequent Circumstances, but must bear the Additions and Defalcations of Craft and Malice over and above; nay, when a Disputing Adversary, not only takes care to Interrupt his Opponents Discourse, and by that means renders his Propositions maim'd and imperfect; but also, when he has them at home, mangles them yet far­ther, [Page 2] and in this plight (like a deform'd Sampson) exposes them to mockery; the injury is too great to need any other aggravation, than barely the being told. However, this Injustice is heighten'd, when to make these mishapen Sentences of his Antagonist appear yet more ugly, his own are trimm'd up and placed by them with a far better Air in Print, than that which they had at the Conference.

And yet how provoking soever this injury may be, I call God to witness, that my own Reputa­tion (tho' it suffer as far as either Dr. Tenisons Tongue, or Pen is a Slander) should never have prevailed with me to have appeared in its Defence: Since (over and above the Repugnance I still have to this kind of coming upon the Stage) it ought to be a greater comfort to a Christian to bear an Affront with patience, than to ensure the Praise of the whole World. And those who have been the most acquainted with the exercises of a vertuous life, have always asserted, that Applause in this warfare is much an harder Enemy to deal with, than Calumny. It is not my Reputation then (any farther than the preservation of it is a Duty) which calls upon me at this time to take the Pen into my hand: But it is that which seems to be so united to it, as to suffer with it, I mean my Religion. For altho' personal defects (unless they come to be general) ought to cast no blem­ish on any Profession, yet how far shall we think that such things will influence weak persons, when a Gubbard whom D. T. (in his Ep. to his Parishion­ers) mentions to have succeed­ed his Father in his Benefice of Mondesly, and afterwards to have Preached Purgatory, &c: might (for ought the Doctor pretends to know) during his stay in that place come first to be convinced of the truth of such points as he Preached, so that what the Doctor takes for Dis­simulation (which probably would not have discovered it self where there was a good Benefice to be lost by it) might be Change. It being great pity, that every one should be as Immutable in Evil as D. T. This might be the case, or else this G — might be a Church of England-man as others have observed. supposed Crime of a supposed Jesuit made so violent an Impression on Dr. Tenison, whilst he was Young, against their whole Order, that [Page 3] (maugre his entire Doctorship of Divinity) he is like to carry it with him to his Grave: And con­sequently to the Tribunal of that Judge, who, when he was our Master, taught us more Chari­table Lessons? And to such a strange degree of par­tiality does this rash Judgment arrive, that with many Protestants one good Man is sufficient to bring their Religion into Repute, and one evil Christian enough to Discredit ours. Which, tho' unreasonable in them, is yet a good Argument to us; in the first place, that we should take the utmost care, not to afford any just ground for Aspersions; and in the next, that we should endeavor (as far as modesty gives leave) to rescue our selves from those, which are unjustly thrown upon us. Where­fore, tho' I am not ignorant how hard a thing it is for the plainest reason to break through the pre­judices of prepossessed and embittered minds; yet because I hope there are still some impartial (at least not extravagantly partial) Men in the World, I will not decline this task, which I shall look on as sufficiently recompensed, if it shall help to bring any one Soul from under those mistakes which Dr. Tenisons less sincere and less Generous Ep. to his Parishoners. Artifices may have involved it in.

Dr. T. is not so ill a Painter, as not to know, that a few strokes of the Pencil, will quite change the Countenance of the Picture, nor (as we per­ceive by his Narrative) so disinterested, as not to [Page 4] make use of this knowledge, when it is for his advantage.

However, that we may not make our Composi­tion with him more difficult than is needful, there is one part of that Misrepresentation which I noted above, viz. the supposititious Ornaments of his own sayings, for which we shall not lay much to his charge; for, altho' his part of the Conference hath been lick'd since it's Birth into as much shape as it was capable of, yet after all this paternal in­dustry it is but an homely Creature still, and nei­ther doth us much harm, nor (I am verily perswad­ed) would it have appeared to the Doctor himself worthy of Publication, had it not been in vertue of that Instinct, whereby The Crow thinks her own Young ones the whitest.

Mr. P. was the chief (and indeed, the only person Originally concerned) in this Conference, and, as such, he hath given the World a just ac­count of it. What relates to my self, is much shorter and of less moment, for tho' a vein of my Name runs through the Doctors whole Narrative, which makes people think, that I was a principal Combatant in this occasion; yet in truth, coming only as a witness, and under an obligation of silence, I Religiously observed it, unless it were, when the Doctor applied his Discourse to me: And then too I spoke no longer than the Doctor pleased, which was not half so long, as was necessary for the mak­ing out, or even proposing any one Argument. Which I could not take ill for two Reasons; First, because I was not his proper Antagonist; And Second­ly, because he used him that was so, after the same [Page 5] fashion. I say, I never meddled in the Controver­sie, but when the Doctor spoke to me, and it would have been ill breeding not to have answered him : Excepting only, at the latter end of the day, when the Disputants rose up, and there seemed to be a Liberty of Conscience for speaking; especially when the Doctor blurted out a Proposition, which all good Men, who should have reflected on it's conse­quences, ought to have taken notice of.

Besides, I was separated from them for a very considerable time: viz. (as I believe) during the greatest part of the Conference. For Mr. P. having intreated me not to meddle with the Disputation, and a Catholic Gentlewoman, or two observing, that Dr. Tenison when he had no desire to answer Mr. P's. Questions, would turn abruptly towards me, and as soon as he had a mind to break off with me (which as I have said already, was very soon) he turned as abruptly back again to Mr. P. They advised me to withdraw; one of them telling me; that the Doctor by the opportunity he had of turn­ing to and fro in that manner, not only evaded the prosecution of the Arguments, but had also a plau­sible pretence of boasting (as he did) that he had two to deal with. Whereupon I thanked them for their advice, and not greatly apprehending the loss, I was like to sustain by being absent from the Discourse, I retired into another corner of the Room; where (according to what I have said) I contin­ued a great while, talking with several persons (all Strangers to me) and not knowing what pas­sed between the Disputants; for tho' soon after my going off, Dr. Tenison (having some occasion, as I suppose, for diverting the Discourse) called [Page 6] for me back; yet I excused my self, telling him, that he had excepted against my Company at first, and that therefore I might venture on so much ill breeding, as to refuse it to him now, or to that pur­pose: Neither did I return to him, till his clamor and his parties importunity even forced me to it, which (as I take it) was not very long before the Conference broke up. And then too as soon as the Doctor shook me off by turning again to Mr. P. I retired as before.

I mention this, that my Readers may have a true notion of that part which I bore in this Conference, and not be misguided by the Doctors Relation, which scarce allows me any interval of absence, and seems to make me privy to Discourses, which I knew nothing of, and therefore can say nothing to. And whosoever considers what I have here related of my own concern in this Dispute, and how little even Dr. T. himself says of any body else, excep­ting only Mr. P, will not judge that the Doctor, tho' he speaks of nine Priests or Priests fellows, was overmatch'd by number.

Moreover had Mr. P. stood in need of the Doctors Craft, and applied himself to the standers by, the might have had the Credit and Convenience of (at least) Twenty Antagonists. And even with­out his seeking he had two or three besides the Mi­nister: Particularly the School-master, whom I look upon as next to a Minister, with as much Rea­son (I presume) as the Doctor look'd on me as next to a Priest. Besides, for the Doctors farther encouragement, the Cry was on his side: To hear him speak, not to interrupt him (that is, to suffer him to interrupt you) and the like, which are of no [Page 7] small advantage in such engagements, where to speak most, is to argue best.

But not to detain my Readers any longer from a more particular and methodical account (as far as so much confusion will allow of method) of what concerned me in this wonderful business, I must acquaint them, that on Michaelmass day last, ha­ving been at the Savoy Chappel, to comply with the Obligations of that Festival; at my going thence, I met with Mr. P. who told me, That at three of the Clock in the Afternoon he was to have a Conference with Dr. Tenison; That it had been occasioned by an Apprentice, who had come to him, to be instructed in the Catholic Religion, and thereby greatly displeased his Friends, and particularly his Master. That it was thought convenient, he should not go alone, but take some person with him who might observe what passed, and hinder, as much as might be, the bad effects of such Misrepresentations, as experience shews us, are hardly avoidable on these occasions. That he desired, that I would be the person, who accompanied him. Lastly, That it would not be my Province to speak any thing, but only (as he had said) to take notice of what passed.

I must confess, my willingness to be engaged in this affair was not extraordinary. It had not been very long, since I had drawn a sufficient trouble on my self by hearkening to such another Invitation, and had learnt at the expence of losing that Privacy which I would have preserv'd, how unsafe it is to share (tho' never so inconsiderably,) in a Difference with Men, who possibly may have better Wits than Consciences, and care not how they wound the latter, so they may secure the Re­putation of the former. However, considering [Page 8] that we were not born for our selves, and that our reward hereafter, will be proportionable to our labors here; I resolved to comply with Mr. P's. de­sire, and leave the event to Providence, which dis­poses all things for the best, and will not suffer us to be 1 Cor [...]c. 10. v. 13. [...] tryed beyond that which we are able to bear-Wherefore I told Mr. P. that I was to Dine at an House in Spring-Garden, near Charing-Cross, and that if he pleased to call on me there, at two of the Clock, I would wait on him to the place appointed for the Con­ference, which (as he had told me) was in Long-Acre.

Mr. P. came to me at the prefixt hour, having no body in his Company, as several worthy per­sons can witness, and I (likewise alone) immedi­ately departed with him.

Whilst we were on our way, Mr. P. told me, that he intended to propose a Rule of Faith for the Subject of the Conference: Which I very much ap­proved, as being that, whereon (according to my judgment) the whole business of Controversie de­pends; for, since all sides agree, that there are some things necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation, and hence it is rationally inferred, that Almighty God must have left some means of com­ing to the knowledge of such necessary things : Which means we call the Rule of Faith; It follows, that when we have the Rule of Faith, we have the means of knowing what we are bound to believe, and what not; which is the end of all Contro­versie.

And therefore I wonder, that Dr. T. should so often say, Pag. 13. 17, 21. &c. that he desired to fix Mr. P. to something in his Disputation, that he could keep him to nothing, and the like. As if he had proposed nothing for the [Page 9] matter of their Debate, when he proposed a Rule of Faith; whereas it is the main, or indeed the on­ly thing which ought to be well settled. For par­ticular Articles of Faith may be True according to one Rule, and False according to another, and therefore unless we know what Rule is true, we shall not be able to distinguish what Articles are true. As for instance, the Quakers Article of the unlawfulness of all manner of Swearing is true ac­cording to the Rule of Swear not, neither by Hea­ven, neither by Earth, neither by any other Oath, &c. St. James c. 5. v. 12. Scripture interpreted by them­selves, but false according to the Rule of Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church, and there will be no means of telling the Quakers, which Doctrin they ought to believe, unless you can tell them, which of the two Rules they ought to follow.

I hope, the Reader will pardon this Digression, for the great importance of the matter, and when he hath well considered it, will not be of Dr. T's. mind, and think the adjusting, or ascertaining a Rule of Faith, to be so trivial a thing, nay, to be nothing, as the Doctor makes it. But because I believe, that I shall have occasion of saying more on this subject hereafter, I will say no more at present.

Mr. P. having (as I said) acquainted me with the Question he had chosen out for the subject of the Conference, I told him, That having had some experience of such meetings, I foresaw that all would end in confusion, unless what was spoken on both sides by way of Argument, were immediately Written down. And therefore I advised him to propose as soon as we met, that it might be so.

Being come to Long-Acre, we went into an [Page 10] House, which was not far from that where the Conference was to be, and stayed there till news was brought us, that Dr. T. was come.

During our stay in this House, there came in a Gentleman to us, whom I had never seen before: Nor (as I understood afterwards) was he so much as known by name to Mr. P. He looked, as if his Curiosity, or some better Motive led him, to know what should happen at the Conference. We were told also, that it had been noised abroad, and that there would be many Protestants at it. For my part I thought, that the more persons were present, the more good would probably be done, in case the Conference were fairly carried on, and especially by Writing. I had never heard that it was agreed on, that the Meeting should be private, nor cared that it should be so. For, Veritas non quaerit Angulos, and the Catholic Faith was never yet affraid of Ap­pearing, but always of being Hidden, that is, by Lies, Slanders and other Misrepresentations kept from the Peoples knowledge.

Word being brought, that the Doctor was come, we (viz. Mr. P. and my self) went immediately to him. Who followed us, I neither knew, nor troubled my self to observe; having always un­derstood, that there were but two concerned, Mr. Pulton as the Controvertist, and my self only as a witness : And that the rest (whether Protestants or Catholics) came only as Hearers.

As soon as we entred into the Room, where Dr. T. was, the Doctor Greeted us with a Cavil, say­ing somewhat to this purpose : Look you here, I am come without so much as a Friend or Servant: This (viz. The coming in of so much Company) is not [Page 11] according to our agreement. M. P. replyed to this effect, That he had only brought one Gentleman with him, viz. Me: That I was not to speak at all in the Controversie, but only came as a witness of what passed: That he thought this caution reasonable in regard of the many Misrepresentations, which had been but too fre­quent of late in things of this Nature. Hereupon the Doctor addressed himself to me, and asked me (in a Tone more imperious than I have usually met with) whether I was a Priest or not: Saying, that now (to his grief, I suppose) I need not be affraid to own it. I answered him, (tho' I Pag. 15. thought it a con­descention to an impertinence) that I was not. He continued, that he would know who I was: And I was so much in the Condescending humor, that I told him my Name was Meredith. At which words the Doctor seemed to start, crying out im­mediately, that he excepted against me: Dr. T's. 1st. Objection a­gainst me. That I had given out a Had Dr. T. heard both sides? No, but if Dr. St—s. Authority be not sufficient to make a thing be credited with­out farther Ex­amination, what will become of Dr. T's. false Copy of the Conference between Dr. St—. and Mr. G—. and that he had received this Copy from his friend Captain O. It was not without some surprise, (as those who are better acquainted with me will imagin) that I heard these things. However (as the Doctor is pleased to say) I calmly replyed. That I had been present at the Conference, he spake of. That one had Written there for Dr. St—. and another for Mr. G—. That Mr. G—. had caused some Copies to be made of that which his Writer took. That he had delivered one of those Copies to me. And that it was this Copy which I lent to Captain O. That I did not apprehend there was any difference be­tween this Copy and Dr. St—s. That therefore had there been any fault in the case, it had not been mine. For further particulars I referr'd the Company (as I [Page 12] do now my Readers) to what I had A Letter to Dr. E. S, &c. Published in this matter. In which the whole matter of Fact is represented with so much fairness, that notwithstanding what a subtile and concern'd Ad­versary has been able to alledge against it, I questi­on not, but it still remains most satisfactory with all those, whose prejudices stand not more in need of Grace for their removal, than Arguments. And for this reason, being informed, that the Contro­versial part of this affair was undertaken by bet­ter hands (a task in which, there is nothing labo­rious save only the great copiousness of that which easily offers it self to be spoken against Dr. St—s Argumentations) I could not but think, that to meddle any farther with the bare matter of fact, would savor more of a fond, or ambitious desire of having the last word, than of any thing else: Especially when other more use­ful and necessary employments required as much attendance from me at that time as my health could spare. And therefore to those Protestants, who have spoken to me of this business, I have scarce said any thing more, than that I desired them to compare both Accounts, viz. Dr. St—s and mine, and then judge.

I think there was one thing new, whereof Mr. G—. was accused, in Dr. St—s second Letter, viz. That over the second Disputation in some of Mr. G —s Copies, was written this inscrip­tion, Stillingfleets First Question. Whereas (says the Doctor) the first Question of that Dis­putation was put by Mr. T—. He looks on this as a wilful mistake, and that it was designed to make the World believe, that the Doctor [Page 13] broke How acces­sory the Dr. was to the breaking off of the first Disputation is shewn in the Letter to Dr. E. S. &c. off the first Disputation. Now, I dare say, that this never came into Mr. G—s head, nor would come into any ones else, who was not at a very great loss for Objections, and had not Authority enough to make a trifle pass for one.

The meaning of that Inscription was, that as in the first Disputation, Mr. G— was the Proponent and Dr. St—. the Respondent, so in this last Dr. St—. was the Proponent: For tho' Mr. T. put this first Question, yet Dr. St—. abetted it, and was still look'd on as the only person engaged in the Dispute, and as such he put all the rest of the Questions. And this is the Explanation of this My­sterious Inscription. In which, I think, there was nothing to be blamed, save only the omission of the Doctors Title.

It doth not occur to me at present whether, or no, there were any other new accusation in the forementioned Letter. But whatever there was, I am sure, it was of no other complexion than this.

I have ventured on this Digression, not only to save my self the trouble of a Book, but also that my Readers may know, what petty and wretched debates a Man must be engaged in, who is to give an account of Modern Conferences, and conse­quently how much Compassion the employment deserves. But as miserable as it is, I must now re­turn to it.

During my abovementioned Reply to Dr. Teni­sons Objection, and after it, the Doctor still grum­bled; but to give him his due, his interruptions were always so thick whilst I spoke, that I was not then assured, whether he attended to what I said, or not.

[Page 14] Mr. P. seeing Dr. T. dissatisfied with my Com­pany, was unwilling, that the time should be con­sumed in wrangling, which was designed for Dis­putation, and therefore offered the Doctor, that I should withdraw and another Gentleman, who accidentally came in after us remain as a witness. Which, for my own part, I should have agreed to without any great resentment; for (I must con­fess) the small tast I had of the Doctors Conver­sation, made me not over fond of his farther ac­quaintance. But I did not find that the Doctor was mightily satisfied with this proposal, who seemed to look after Exceptions more than Accom­modations, and was in no great hast to begin the dispute; and therefore I made another to him, which yet had the ill fortune to please him less. I told the Doctor, That he need not trouble himself, what witnesses were present, That he should appoint his own Writer, who should Pen down what was said by way of Argument on both sides, and that this should be looked on as the only Authentic account of what passed. This, I said, would free the Doctor from all danger of being Misrepresented: And in this proposal Mr. P. joyned with me and was very earnest for it. The Doctor answered, that he had no Pen and Ink nor Writer [things hard to be come by in London] And then, all his Objections against me vanishing on the suddain, and insisting no longer on the clearing of the Room, he desired Mr. P. and my self to sit down by him, saying, that he would Dis­course on some Preliminaries, which I could make no other construction of, than that Dr. Tenison had much rather have to do with a witness, whose Credit he had taken care to lessen, than with a [Page 15] Record, the Testimony whereof had been un­doubted.

It will be proper here to make some short re­marks on the Doctors Relation. He says, pag. 4. that he espied Mr. Meredith in the Room, whom he look'd upon as next to a Priest. One would conclude by this expression, that Dr. T. had known me, whereas by his questioning who I was, &c. he seemed not to know me: But whether he dissem­bled or not, I will not determin. He says, p. 4. that Mr. P. was content to dismiss all besides a witness for himself, and Mr. Meredith was proposed. This again looks, as if Mr. P. had brought several in his Company, and that having chosen me out of them for a witness, he was persuaded to dimiss the rest; whereas on Dr. T—s first complaint, Mr. P. declared, that he had only brought me with him; That I came meerly to observe what passed in the Conference, and was not to dispute in it. That if the Doctor did not approve of me, he would take another: Or, if the Doctor so pleased, he was content, that all should retire, excepting only the Doctor himself, to­gether with the Boy, for whose sake (as Mr. P. had always understood) the Conference was held. How much of this is in the Doctors True Account? And yet the Doctor (if you will believe him pa. 43.) is too blunt a Man, to be a Man of Artifice.

After this he says: Against Mr. Meredith, Dr. T. made three Objections: And again, pa. 5. After these exceptions taken at Mr. M. as a witness, Dr. T. perceiving it next to impossible to clear the Room, &c. called Mr. Meredith to him. Whereas he called me to him on mine and Mr. P—s proposing to have [Page 16] the Controversie taken in writing, and he had then made but one of his Objections against me. And then for the Impossibility of clearing the Room, the Doctor never put it to the Tryal; nor came to any agreement with Mr. P. about it: I am sure, that the Room might very easily have been cleared of my Company, and therefore I wonder, how the Doctor after such solid exceptions taken at Mr. M. as a witness, came to call Mr. Meredith to him, and place himself between Mr. P. and Mr. Meredith.

One would think, that Dr. Tenison were fram­ing a piece of Dramatic Poetry, and that he thought it allowable for him to vary from the true History, as often as it was for the advantage of his work, which (as the Reader will perceive by what he finds here) is very often. Indeed the Doctors Narrative is like the wrong side of the Hangings, where there is nothing right, or in its due proportion, but a confused Resemblance of what it should be. And this is sufficient to deceive those, who are (either by interest or humor) very willing to be deceived.

The Doctor then sitting down, and causing us (Mr. P. and my self) to place our selves by him, said (as I have already told you) that he would treat of some Preliminaries. But the Coast being now clear, and in appearance the danger of having the Arguments Penn'd down, quite over, Dr. Teni­son (perhaps for my having been so unfortunate as to propose Writing) was resolved to have ano­ther bout with me. He told me, that he had other Objections against me, and Dr. T's 2d. Objection a­gainst me. one was, that I had been [Page 17] already Disposing of his Parish, and had canton'd it out for Fryers. This Objection I must confess was a most sensible one; but it was not more touch­ing to the Doctor, than it was astonishing to me, since I could not remember, that I had ever had the least thought of any such thing. But the Dr. adding, That I had said, his Benefice would maintain Thirty Fryers, and that his friend Captain O. had given him the Information; I discovered whence this grand Objection had it's rise, or rather it's pretence. I called to mind, that in some discour­ses concerning the great want of Charity and Re­ligious Zeal, which had come into the World to­gether with the Reformation, or (if you please) usher'd it in; amongst other things I said, that this appeared not only in the discontinuance of Missions abroad for the Conversion of Infidels, but likewise in the scarcity of Pious and Charitable works at home. I instanced particularly, that whilst Men were busie in Building private Houses, they took no care for Churches: And that hence it came to pass, that the Parishes in the Suburbs were unreasonably large; and that it must needs be impossible for the Curates and those few Readers their Assistants to comply with the Duties belonging to their Employments, in such manner as they ought. I observed, that in the Parishes within the Walls (which were Established before the Refor­mation) there seldom died above one or two a week in each Parish, and in some of the out-Parishes there died (for the most part) forty or fifty: So that, ac­cording to the Proportion appointed by our Ancestors, we ought to have thirty, or forty Parishes and Parish-Churches instead of one. I said farther, that where forty or fifty died in a week, there were probably ten, or [Page 18] twenty times as many sick, and in danger of death: Who would all stand in need of their Pastors help: And how could it be possible for one Man (or indeed any ten Men) to visit a thousand persons every week, (which amounted to more than a hundred and forty a day, one day with another) staying with them so much time, as was necessary for the giving them the Com­munion and doing all those other things which are ap­pointed to be done by the Common-Prayer-Book in the Visitation of the Sick, as also for the Instruct­ing, Exhorting, and Comforting them, as occasion shall be seen? I said, how could it be possible for so small a number of Men to do all this, and yet at the same time comply with all their other Parochial Functi­ons; such as were, Reading Common-Prayer Daily, Preaching once or twice a Week, Marrying, Bury­ing, Christening, Catechizing, Reconciling En­mities, Resolving Doubts, with many other things of this kind, which are incumbent on Curates, and whereof there is scarce any one Branch, which in these large Parishes is not enough, if not too much, for one Man.

[Wherefore for the future, Dr. T. needs not take so much pains to convince the World, that he is able to Dispute against Nine Jesuits at once, since those who can believe that he performs what of necessity must be incumbent on him in two such populous Parishes, as he possesses, will easily be perswaded, that he is able to make his party good against forty of those Fathers. Nay, he may well be equal to Nine Priests, who has the Employ­ment of above an Hundred.]

I said likewise, That I had heard, there were Thirty Thousand Communicants belonging to St. Martins [Page 19] Parish, if not more; that if these should have a mind to Assemble together for the receiving the Sacrament, or hearing a Sermon, it would not be possible for them to do it, The Church (as I supposed) not being able to contain one quarter of that number; and that the English Clergy ought not to wonder, that there were so many Dissenters, since their Parishioners were forced to go to Meeting-houses for Elbow-room, or even for any opportunity of doing something like the serving of God. And for this reason They ought not to have manifested so much Zeal for the Suppres­sion of Conventicles, till the fervor of their ex­hortations had inspir'd More into their hearers for the Building of Churches.

To this I added, That over and above, that in Catholic Countries the Parish Priests were more nu­merous, and held a better proportion with their Flocks, than amongst us, there were great numbers of Regulars, or Religious Men, who were no small assistance to the Secular Clergy in saying Mass, Preaching, Ca­techizing, Hearing Confessions and the like. But, that this (I meant, such a plentiful provision of Spi­ritual Guides) was not so practisable in England, in regard that most of the English Curates had Families to provide for, and consequently stood in need of greater Benefices, than those who had obliged themselves to a single Life: And for the same reason, what was suf­ficient for many Pastors beyond Seas, would scarce be enough for one here. Especially, I said, the Regu­lars were maintained for very little, and that 600 l. per annum (which I heard the Parsonage of St. Mar­tins was worth, tho' perhaps it may be more) would keep Thirty of them, at least with the conve [...]ence of an House to dwell in. Hinc illae Laohrymae! Now, [Page 20] such Discourses as these, I do confess, that I have made more than once; and particularly I remem­ber, that I spake somewhat of this kind to C. O. and I am so far from being ashamed of it, that I cannot but think that the cause of shame lies at their door, who are more concerned for the extent of their Jurisdiction or Profit, than for the bene­fit of the Souls committed to their care: And when I understand that Dr. Tenison is one of those, it is then, that I shall begin to do, what he said I had done, viz. pity the State of St. Martins.

It was according to what I have said here, that I answered the Doctor telling him withal, that I had spoken of the largeness of the Out-Parishes in ge­neral, and not of his in particular: And this (as one would have thought) would have satisfied any reasonable Man. But the French say, A scalded Cat dreads cold Water, and it seems the Doctor (which I then knew nothing of) had so deep an See the Drs. Epistle to his Parishioners. Impression made on him in his Youth by the loss of his Fathers Benefice, that now the least hint, which so much as brings it to his mind, raises his Suspicion and Indignation to an high degree.

Moreover, the Doctor seemed to take it ill, that I undervalued the Reformed Charity, and said, that there were too many Churches within the Walls, and that in some places there were two in one Church-Yard. He talked somewhat likewise, of an Act of Parliament for Building of Twelve new Churches for the Suburbs, which was no small confirmation of what I had said of the want of them. I looked on that com­pulsive way of doing good Works as not so Certainly the Statute of Mortmain was a better sign of the Charity of former Ages, than this Act for building Churches is of that of the pre­sent. clear a Dem [...]stration of Charity, as when they are done voluntarily and without constraint, and [Page 21] therefore I told the Doctor, that it argued some defect in theirs, that it stood in need of Acts of Par­liament, for doing things, which were, in a manner, absolutely necessary.

The Doctor answered, that he wish'd, he could see some of our Charity, or some such like words. What he meant by this wish, I could not well tell, viz. whether he would have us employ our pre­sent Liberty in Building Churches, that, when time served, they might dispossess us of them, as they did of our Antient ones, and so be Provided without burthening the People by Act of Parlia­ment, or something else? In this doubt I asked him only, whether he would have us Build Churches now in England? To which he made me no answer, but seemed to attempt something for the proof of Protestant Charity. But all, that I can remember he said, was, that he would not brag of himself: Which I esteemed a Rhetorical way of doing it. And certainly he must needs be put hard to it for an instance of Charity, who is forced so far to in­trench upon Humility for it, as to begin with himself.

I am not ignorant, (all this while) that some Hospitals, Alms-houses and Churches have been Built by Protestants: But there is more proportion between Dr. Tenisons two Parishes and a couple of the poorest Vicaridges in Wales, than there is be­tween the Monuments of Catholic Zeal, For some proof of what is here said, see a Book lately Primed at Ox­ford, called Pietas Roma­na & Parisi­ensis. By which in some measure the rest may be guessed. and whatever of that kind hath been done by Prote­stants. It will be a great while before the Refor­mation builds the fortieth part of what it hath pulled down. Nay, (supposing that this poor Nation is not to return to it's Antient Religion) [Page 22] there is more likely-hood, that Reformations fol­lowing one another, like Egyptian Plagues, the succeeding ones should still devour what the pre­ceding leave, than that Men who have taken Sacri­lege for the Service of God, should endeavor to re­pair any part of that which is already Destroyed.

The Doctor having finished his Second Ob­jection, put an end to my defence, by bringing on his Third, without telling me, whether he thought, that what I said was true, or if it were, whether he judged it satisfactory, or not. But every Man minds his own business: And it was not the Doctor's to Absolve, but to Accuse. There is yet (said the Doctor) another Dr. T 's. 3d. Objection a­gainst me. Objection against you, which is, that you are One, who have forsaken our Church.

That which then immediately occurred to me for an Answer, was the parallel of what I had often heard from Protestants, concerning such as turn to them, viz. That I was then the better judge, ha­ving known the Doctrins of both Churches. But I had forgotten, that what is When Church of England-men dispute with Dissenters, Church Autho­rity is of great force, and no Scripture is of private Interpretation:—But When Catholics argue with them, the case is alter'd, and every Man is to be his own Judge. reason in a Prote­stants mouth, is stark naught in a Catholics. The Doctor replyed, That I went away Young from their Church, and that if I had understood it better, I should not have left it.

I know not what the Doctor accounts Young: But it was not, till I had gone through one of the best and most careful Westmin­ster-School. Schools in England, and spent above three years at the University, and as many in Spain. And I question not, but the Doctors of [Page 23] the Church of England will allow, that after all this I must needs have been come to the Age of judging for my self, since I find that for this Liberty in others they do not require so much Education, as mine amounted to. And had it been so, that I had embraced the Roman Catholic Religion without sufficient consideration, the last fifteen, or sixteen years, which I have lived in it, had been time enough for the Correction of an Error, which my Interest, and Necessities would have prompted me to have laid aside. But (I thank God) I have not been the least shaken in my Faith ever since my Conversion, either by what I have seen written, or heard spoken by the most Learned Protestants. But on the contrary I have been so far from repent­ing, that I turned so Young, that the more I read or discoursed of these matters, the more I discerned the Excellence of the Catholic Religion on the one hand, and the blindness of so many of my fellow Creatures on the other, and conse­quently I had no other causes for grief, than first, that my Conversion was no sooner, and next, that I had not yet been grateful enough, that it was so soon.

The Doctor says, that Pag. 5. no Man, who well un­derstands their Church, departs from it, upon true Principles. And I am much mistaken, if there be not very many, who know well enough what the Church of England Teaches, and yet depart from her, on no other principles than those which they learnt from her self, viz. That the Church is to be followed no farther than she agrees with Scrip­ture, and every particular Man is left to judge how far she agrees with it.

[Page 24] It would be tedious and unnecessary to set down here all those Principles or Motives, upon which I departed from the Church of England, since I cannot so much pretend to extraordinary things as to deny, but that they are the same, which have led others from her both before and since, and may be seen at large in many Books. However, (if my Readers will give me leave) I will lay before them some of those Points which began my doubts, and prevail'd more particularly with me.

Some Motives of my Conver­sion to the Ca­tholic Faith. First, I had been taught, that the Church of Christ continued pure for the first Five Hundred Years after it's Institution, and that from thence downwards several gross Errors and Corruptions had crept into it, and that it had been infected with these Plagues for about a Thousand Years: And that then Almighty [...]od out of his Infinite Commiseration enlightned Martin Luther, Zuing­lius, and other (as I thought) Pious Men so far, as that they clearly discern'd these Corruptions, Preach'd against them, and by that means rescued a great number of Christians from that darkness, which the Gates of Hell (contrary to our Lords promise) or some unaccountable Fatality had en­gaged them in. And Lastly, that I my self had been so happy as to be one of this number.

This was that Idea of Christianity, which I then had: For as to what they talk'd of a constant Suc­cession of Protestants from the fifth Age down to our times, I had never heard it from any Wise Man, nor indeed can such an Imposture find place with any one, who is so much an Historian, as the common Discourse will make him. Every body knows, that the first Reformers, when they left [Page 25] the Roman Church, joyned with no other Society or Sect of Christians then in the World either in Communion or Doctrin, which must have been done, had this pretended Succession continued. Their pretence was at that time to Reform the whole Church, and not to seek out any True one, which then had a Being, and stood in no need of Reformation. Nay, they were so far from think­ing it necessary to joyn with any former Church in order to the preserving a Succession, that they did not unite with one another: But parted their stock, and each Adventurer set up for himself.

This then was the most Rational Account, that I could give of my Faith, viz. That our Church finding, that all Christian Churches had been in Error for a Thousand Years, forsook that Error, and reformed it self according to the pattern of the first Five Hundred Years after Christ. For to be of a Christian Church, which never had any being from Christs time till this present, I thought a most unreasonable thing.

Now, none can write after a Copy without ha­ving that Copy which they pretend to Write by. I mean, it was impossible for the Church of Eng­land to Reform it self according to the first Five Hundred Years of Christianity, without knowing what those Christians Taught and Practis'd. And how could this possibly be done, but by the Holy Fathers and other Writers of those times? Where­fore I firmly believed (as I am persuaded many Thousands do) that these Writers were meer stran­gers to all those Doctrins which we had forsaken, and consequently, that no mention was made a­mongst them of Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, [Page 26] Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Holy Images and Relics, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Reality of Christs Flesh in the Eucharist, the Decisive Authority of the Church in Controversial matters, the Spiritual Supremacy of St. Peter and his Successors, with some other things of this nature; I say, I took it for granted, that nothing of all this was to be found in those Primitive Records of the Christian Religi­on. But when I looked into them I found it quite otherwise, and that those things, which hitherto I had accounted Novelties, were as clearly set down in these Writings as any other Points of Christian Doctrin. For instances, to avoid length, I will refer my Readers to a Book not long since Published, Entituled, Nubes Testium, which hath Collections out of some of those Books which then fell into my hands, and must weigh with Men of any tolerable moderation, notwithstanding that which is, or can be said against it.

Now, what was there for me to be done in this condition? I had taken it on trust, that I was a Member of a Church which had Copied out the first Five Hundred Years, but found my Error.

It was not unknown to me, that several Quota­tions out of the Fathers were produced in the be­half of Protestant Opinions: But-to me they all seemed wrested, or, at least, capable of interpre­tations, which were not repugnant to what the same Fathers more plainly and fully speak in other places for a contrary Doctrin. In a word, what appeared to me in favor of the Catholic Cause was clear, full, and incapable of any other meaning, But that which offered it self in opposition to it was obscure, short and interpretable in another sense; [Page 27] and indeed, for the most part, evidently requiring another, when joyned to it's antecedents and con­sequents.

Others said, That the Fathers were Men and had Errors, and that they contradicted one another, and themselves to boot. But this Plea was as little to my satisfaction as the former: For this serves only to weaken the Authority of the Fathers, and if good, evinces nothing, but that They are not to be relyed on. And then, how can the Church of England make out, that she follows the first Five Hundred Years, when she hath no other means of knowing what was believed in those times, but by such Authors as are not to be trusted?

For what some People say, of our being able to know by Scripture what was the Belief and Practice of these Primitive Christians, is wholly absurd: For we know not from Scripture (at least, accor­ding to the Principles of the Church of Eng­land) whether the Christians of the first Five Hun­dred Years, lived according to the Scripture, or not. The Scripture does not tell us of a Church, which is to continue only to the end of the Fifth Age. It tells us, indeed, of one which is to continue to the End of the World: And this Church (I hope) may be found as well in the Fourteenth Age, as in the Fifth. For if all the Christians of the Fourteenth were Erroneous and Corrupted, and stood in need of Reformation, those of the Fifth might have been so too, for any thing which the Scriptures can assure us to the contrary.

This Rock then of my Protestant Faith being shaken, I mean, a Belief, that the Church of Eng­land had Model'd it self according to the Doctrins [Page 28] of the first Five Hundred Years, it will not be wonder'd at, if (at least) I gave way to some doubts.

I found no better footing in that way, which was taken by those Church of England-men, who con­versed more with Roman Catholics than with Pro­testant Dissenters, viz. Scripture, as it is understood by every private Man.

First, Because those who took that way differed from one another in most material things, and also, Such as were esteemed Heretics by the Church of England, followed the same Rule.

Secondly, Because according to my own Judg­ment (who were by this Rule to judge for my self) the Church of England was beholding to Tradition for some Parts of her Doctrin and Practice, as Infant-Baptism, the Observation of the first Day of the Week, and the like, having no clear Scripture for them, and therefore could not hold them, and require them to be held, by the Rule of Scripture Interpreted without the help of Tradition.

Thirdly, Because it was sincerely my own Judg­ment, that the Scripture was much clearer for the Catholics than for the Protestants, particularly in Transubstantiation, Sacramental Confession, Extreme Ʋnction, Purgatory, St. Peters Supremacy, and lastly and chiefly (being that which includes all other Points) the Decisive Authority of the Church; wherefore if I must follow Scripture Interpreted by my self, I must at the same time necessarily cease to follow the Church of England.

These certainly were Motives, if not for an abso­lute departure from the Church of England, yet still, at least (as I have already hinted) for the doubting of her Truth.

[Page 29] About this time I remember, that I had two no­tions concerning Faith.

First, That Faith was not that which must ne­cessarily suit with the Fancies of particular Men (since then it ought to be as various as those Fancies were) but it was that, which God would have us believe, whether we fancied it or not, viz. That, which he would have us Bringing into Captivity all understanding into the Obedi­ence of Christ, 2 Cor. c. 10. v. 5. submit our Fancies and Judgments to, meerly because it was revealed by him. And in this submission (as I thought) con­sisted both the Difficulty and Merit of Faith. And consequently, that I ought not so much to consider the nature of the things proposed to be believed, as the Authority by which they were proposed.

Secondly, That this Faith was the Ephes. c. 2. v. 8. Gift of God, and for that reason, that more confidence was to be put in humbe Prayer for the obtaining it, than in any Human Skill or Industry. Wherefore (as far as God Almighties Grace assisted my weakness) I endeavored to obtain this Gift by that means, making it my earnest Prayer to his Divine Good­ness, that I might know the Truth, and firmly purposing to embrace that which I should be con­vinced of, tho' it should be ever so contrary to my Worldly Interest, as the Roman Catholic Religion at that time most apparently was.

To Prayer I judged it necessary to add a serious endeavor of amending my Life, lest otherwise I should be found to sue Hypocritically for more light from Almighty God, whilst I made no use of that which I had received from him by comply­ing with what I already knew to be his Will. This is a Point, which all those, who are in search of the True Faith, ought to examin their Consciences [Page 30] upon, and therefore I would not omit the menti­on of it in this place.

Amidst these doubts I confess ingenuously, that what our English Doctors have made so light of, was of great moment with me, viz. That the Church of England-men affirmed, that Salvation might be had amongst the Roman Catholics; but the Roman Catholics absolutely denyed, that the like was to be had amongst them. For Salvation in the Ro­man Communion both Churches concurr'd; where­as for the latter, we had only the bare word of Pro­testants in their own behalf; Who likewise at the same time told us, they were fallible, and conse­quently, for ought they knew, might be mistaken. And if they were actually mistaken, I should be undone by rarrying with them; whereas on the other side, if they were not mistaken, I could re­ceive no damage by being amongst the Roman Catholics. In a word, I considered, that if the Protestants were true, I should be safe with the Roman Catholics; but, if the Roman Catholics were right, I could not be so with the Prote­stants.

This Motive is so strong in it's own Nature, that many Protestants confess, that it must needs have great Power with those, who (as they say) cannot throughly examin the differences betwixt us; and these I take to be the greatest part of Mankind. And if so, I will venture to add, that GOD Al­mighty having taken as much care of the Ignorant, as of the Learned, would never permit Fal­shood to be supported by such Arguments, as must in common Prudence oblige all unlearned persons to be engaged in it.

[Page 31] But above all methinks, this Argument should be of force with those Ʋniversal Gentlemen, who pretend, that their Religion is the Catholic, be­cause they believe nothing, but that wherein all agree, forgetting, that such a Restraint of their Be­lief is peculiar to themselves, and not common; whereas here is an Agreement of all Parties (at least, such as have any Esteem with them) on which they may safely rely, viz. That Salvation may be had in the Roman Catholic Church, which is all, we do, or at least ought to aim at by our Re­ligion. As for those other Points, which perhaps they hold, viz. A Deity, a Saviour, and the like, tho' they have the universal consent of all Christi­ans for their Truth; yet they have it not for their sufficiency to Salvation (especially so as to exclude the Necessity of believing other Articles, when they are duly proposed) and it will be of small Consequence to them, that what they hold com­mon with others, proves True, if their additional Article, which holds this Truth to be sufficient, should prove False.

What was urged in derogation of this Argu­ment, as if the Protestants shew'd a greater Chari­ty by thinking well of Catholics, than Catholics did by thinking ill of them, was nothing to my purpose : For I was then in search of True Faith, and not of Charity, and knew withal, that how great appearance soever there might be of Chari­ty, it could not be Real, unless it were grounded on Without Faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. c. 11. v. 6. Orthodox Faith.

It seemed to me to be a surer mark of Charity for Men to adventure both Estate and Life, for the Conversion of others, as formerly the Apostles [Page 32] and now the Catholic Missioners did, than to keep at home, and in our warm Beds, and cry, We hope (or we declare) they may be saved, tho' they are in an Error. Which, if it were a Charity, was in my opinion a very Lazy one :

Moreover, if the Protestant Religion were false, it was more Charitable in the Catholics to tell them so, than by soothing them in their Error, to engage them faster to it. Wherefore the Pro­testants ought not to fetch an Argument (as some most unreasonably do) for the Truth of their Re­ligion from their having (as they imagin) a grea­ter Charity than Catholics, since it must first be proved, that their Religion is true, before it will appear, that the Catholics want Charity in con­demning it.

Lastly, If it must pass for a Sign of Charity to think well of more Religions than one, the Turkish Tenets will have the advantage of the Nine and Thirty Articles, forasmuch as the Mahometans declare, that every one will be saved in his own Religion, and the Articles on the other side con­fine Salvation to the See 18th. Article. Christians only. But both these Charitable Religions must give way to the Ori­genists, who will have neither Men nor Devils to be Eternally Damned.

Wherefore it is apparent, that this plausible pre­tence of Greater Charity weakens not the force of the forementioned Argument, but leaves it Such, as that the most cautious Christian may safely re­pose on it; Nay, the more cautious a Man is in his everlasting concerns, the better and safer this Ar­gument will appear to him. For, those who have a quicker Sense of their Temporal Interests, than [Page 33] their Spiritual, will not so much consult, what is safe for their Souls as what is secure for their E­states. And if both cannot be made sure alike they will trust a scanty probability (or rather an Improbability) with the former, so that they may have Demonstration (which yet, Gods knows, can be but Imaginary) for the latter.

Now, what would Dr. Tenison have me do in these circumstances? Would he have me Read the Scriptures? Iread them: Would he have me peruse the Fathers? I did it without his advice. Would he have me make use of (what he calls) Pag. 18. Ministerial Guides? I heard the Instructions of the English Cler­gy for many Years. Would he have me pray? I looked on Prayer as the chief means of obtaining true Faith, and therefore omitted it not. Would he have me be humble? In this Point I can only say, that during this search I had so mean an Opinion of my own understanding, that I could not but conclude, that Almighty God, whose Providential care appeared in all other things, had likewise provided some Such a guide must be one who could not Err himself (i. e.) Infallible. Guide for me, that I might not Err in so important a con­cern, as that must needs be, without which it was im­possible to please him, viz. Ut supra Hebr. 11. 6. Faith.

Wherefore having thus far observed (as I sup­pose) the Doctors directions, what would he have me do after all? Doth he require the interior Sense, he speaks of, pa. 10? That also pleaded for the Roman Catholics. And now, if this be all he looks after, would he have me (according to what he says, p. 15.) at last Judge for my self? Why then, I do Judge, and Pronounce too, (I mean for my self) that Holy Scriptures, Antient Fathers and Common Reason are all for the Roman Catholics, and against the Protestants.

[Page 34] And what shall interpose between this Sentence and it's Execution, I mean, between Concluding, that the Roman Catholic Religion is the best, and Embracing it as such? Doth the Church of England pretend, that I ought to submit my private Judg­ment to her Public Decisions? She doth not: Nor, if she did, would Dr. Tenison be her Advocate.

And therefore to conclude, if Dr. T—. (being as I conceive, no great friend to Retractations of this kind) will still affirm, that I departed from the Church of England on false Principles, he must at least acknowledge, that those principles were such as I had received from her. So that in effect I am censured by my Teachers for doing that very thing, which they Taught me to do. An hard case and that which certainly must prevail with us to observe our Saviours Command in being Matth. c. 7. v. 15. aware of such Teachers for the future!

I have said nothing here (at least, directly) of the marks of the True Church, viz. Ʋnity, Holi­ness, Universality, Perpetuity, Conversion of Infidels and the like, nor of many other things, which con­curr'd at that time to convince me of the truth of of the Religion I embraced: But thus much I have said, that, since Dr. Tenison hath been pleased to make the World acquainted with my Conversion, it may not be wholly ignorant of those Motives which occasioned it. And since we are Com­manded Ready always to satisfie every one that asketh you a Reason of that Hope which is in you, 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 15. to give a Reason of the hope, which is in us, to every one that asks, when we are up­braided with our change in this public manner, the public seems to demand this Reason, and con­sequently we seem to lie under an obligation of rendring it. Which, I hope will excuse me with [Page 35] my Readers, for so long a Comment on the Doctors Text.

And now (to return to my Remarks) methinks Dr. Tenison conceiving, that I had left his Church for want of due Information, ought not to have press'd so much for my being excluded from that Conference, but rather to have been glad of this opportunity, wherein by his great Learning he might have rectified my understanding and been a means of reducing me to one of his two fair Flocks, viz. to St. Martins in the Fields, or St. James Westminster: For tho' those Flocks are so numerous, that one stray Sheep can hardly be found missing, yet (we know) it was the property heretofore of a good Shepherd to leave the Ninty Nine, that he might seek after the Hundredth [this being, per­haps, in former days a competent number for one Shepherd] I say, it had been a clearer sign not only of the Doctors Charity, but also of his confidence in the goodness of his cause, to have admitted me to his Conference, than to pretend my turning Ro­man Catholic through Ignorance, as an Argument, for the sending me away, and consequently, de­priving me of (what he ought to think) an op­portunity of being better informed.

But perhaps, the Doctor who thought this Conference Pa. 3. And yet D. T. was displeased with Mr. P for proposing a Rule of Faith for the Subject of that Conference, because it was not that point which the Boy had men­tioned to him, viz. of Luther, whereas had be designed a more public Good (as be seems to pretend, Mr. P's Question was the more proper. to no purpose as to the Boy, for his ha­ving been at Mass two Months before, concluded that it would be less available with me, who had been many years since, not only at Mass (as many [Page 36] who else are those who carry intelligence from the Mass-house, to Dr. Horneck? p. 79. Protestants daily are) but also actually recon­ciled to the Church of Rome. And indeed, for as much as concerns this Point, I am persuaded that the Doctor is not out in his Observations: For let but a Man be truly Converted to the Ro­man Catholic Faith (I do not say for two Months, but) for one single moment, and it will be im­possible for all the Doctors in England to remove him from it, till such time as his own negligence and ingratitude shall oblige Almighty God to with­draw this Marvellous Light from him. And it is on this account, that I have often said amongst my Protestant acquaintance, that I wished they were but Catholics for one half hour.

Dr. Tenison says, that those who forsake the Church of England for the Church of Rome, are Pag. 5. more partial, and possessed with a Spirit of fiercer Bigottry than those who are Romanists from the begin­ning.

It is indeed usual for Converts to shew some­what more of warmth in Religion, than they had before their Conversion, [or perhaps, than some who owing their Faith to their Birth and Educa­tion, have not yet sufficiently considered the value of it.] One of the most essential proprieties of Good­ness is to be Communicative, and therefore as soon as Men are brought to the true Faith, one of the first desires which they perceive in themselves, is that of the Conversion of others. When thou art once Con­verted, confirm thy Brethren, Luke c. 22. v. 32. Tu aliquando Conversus (said our Blessed Saviour to St. Peter) confirma fratres tuos. The Samaritan Woman as soon as she was Converted, left her Employment, [Page 37] The Woman therefore left her Water-pot, &c. John c. 4. v. 28. and ran to call her Neighbors. And it is not without Mystery, that the Holy Ghost is careful to Record of several Converts in the Gospel, that when they believed, See ibid. v. 53. their whole Houshold be­lieved with them.

This indeed is a zeal so proper to Converts, that where nothing of it appears, the Conversion is shrewdly to be suspected: Especially, when it shall so happen, that the causes of Pretence, are more apparent, than the Symptoms of Reality.

And it is this zeal (as I conjecture) which the Doctor calls Bigottry. Wherein he imitates the rest of the World, who think it sufficient, for the discredit of a Vertue, to mis-name it. Such, I mean, as give the Title of Niggardliness to Temperance, of Sheepishness to Modesty, of Folly to Conscientious­ness, and lastly, (where the Doctor falls in with them) of Bigottry to Christian Zeal,

And probably it was this Zeal, which rendred the Boy so Pag. 2. uneasie to his fellow Servants, [those who are looser in their manners being seldom complain­ed of for this kind of troublesomeness] For, Men are generally so much in love with the enjoyments of this life, that whosoever talks to them of the last Reckoning Day, and that care wherewith they ought to provide for it, is but very ill Company. And so, often-times, we forfeit the love of our friends, by shewing them ours. And (believe me) there can never be a greater De [...]nstration of our Affection for them, than when we hazard the loss of their kindness to us, which is our Good, for the sake of their Salvation, which (setting aside the Merit of a Good Work) is purely their own.

But whereas the Doctor fancies, that original [Page 38] Romanists would be more propitious to his Party than Converts: If I may guess by my own expe­rience, he is much mistaken. It has been my ob­servation, that some who have been bred Catholics from the beginning, having never been without that clearness wherewith the Truth of our Holy Faith is represented to them, are very hardly to be persuaded, but that such Protestants as Dr. Teni­son, viz. Men of some Learning, must needs know that they are in the wrong, and consequently, persisting in it, be Hypocrites. And indeed, the Motives for the Catholic Faith are so palpably evi­dent throughout all the Writings of the Antient Fathers and Ecclesiastical Historians, (which ought to come into the hands of those who pretend to the Study of Divinity) that I believe I should have been very apt to have Joyned with them in this censure, had I been unacquainted with the prejudices of Inclination, Education and Interest, or with those obscurities which they never fail of bringing upon the mind: Whereunto may be ad­ded, that blindness, which God Almighty often Spargit Deus paenales caecitates su­per illicitas cupiditates. Aug, Confess. inflicts on us for the punishment of our other Sins. But as it is, and in regard that I have been under the same circumstances, tho' not with so much Learning, haud ignarus mali, miseris succur­rere disco [I have spoiled the Verse, that I might not Err in the Pag. 10. Gender, the Doctor being, as I see, curious in th [...]se matters] I have now learnt to have compassion for Those as persons deceiv'd, whom otherwise I might have abhorred as Dis­semblers.

And when the Doctor shall have considered these things well, I believe that if the Sincerity of [Page 39] his Profession should come to be tryed by a Jury of Catholics, he would not prefer Original ones be­fore Converts▪

No Gentlemen, Converts are not fiercer towards you, than other Catholics, but you deal less fierce­ly with others than with them; the Yellowness which appears to a Jaundic'd person is not in the Object but in his Eye. The fierceness is in your brest towards the Converts, and not in theirs to­wards you. And this the Doctor knows well e­nough, and therefore hath recommended me under so advantagious a Character to the acquaintance of his Parishioners. Which (as he thinks) will stand me in some stead another day.

Now it is not hard to guess at the Reason, why Converts are more severely handled by their Pro­testant Neighbors than other Catholics : [and the nearer, for the most part, the Neighbr-hood, or Re­lation is, the rougher the usage.] It is because, when a Protestant is Converted, we are more sensibly put in mind of what we ought to do, than by those who have never been otherwise than Catholics. [And by a Neighbor, or Kins-man, still more sen­sibly than by a stranger, or one at a distance] We are disturbed by such an Example in that drousie Principle, that every one ought to continue in that Church wherein he was Some go far­ther, and say, that Men ought to continue in that Religion wherein they were Educated, whether it be Christian, or not. Baptized. And we are such stupid Lovers of ease, that we are angry at such as endeavor to awaken us out of our Sleep, at least till we come to be thoroughly awake, and so understand, that had it not been for this Chari­table Troublesomeness, we should have been burnt in our Beds. I say, this Principle, of abiding in that Communion where we once are, is more imme­diately [Page 40] attack'd by Converts than by others, and therefore of consequence the Converts are more displeasing to those, who have made a shift to lay their Consciences a-sleep upon it. And yet how much soever this Principle is belov'd at present, it is that which the Protestants (if they have any kindness for their Religion) have no reason to be fond of, since, if this Rule had been always obser­ved, their Reformation had not been, and conse­quently, the World had still continued without any Protestants at all.

There is yet one remark which offers it self to me concerning this Aspersion which the Doctor is pleased to cast on all Converts, viz. That it reflects on me in very good Company: But I will not in­sist on this, least the Doctor who confesses, he is apt to be Ep. to his Parishioners. Suspicious, should have a fresh occa­sion of suspecting (as he did at the Conference) that I intend to inform against him: However for the future (as I told him then) I would have him take a little more time to consider, before he speaks.

When the Doctor told me, that I had been turn'd in Spain, where the People had no Bibles, what I replyed was very true, viz. that going over in the Company of a public Minister, we had the liberty of using what Books we pleased, and consequent­ly, we carried with us not only Bibles, but a great number of other English Books and amongst them many of our best Protestant Controvertists. And I farther inform the Doctor, that during my fore­mentioned doubts, I frequently perused the Writ­ings of those Men, and particularly of Chillingworth [Page 41] whom I looked on as the subtilest of them all, and the Fountain-head from whence Dr. St. and most others of our Modern Controversie-writers had derived their Notions. And before my Conver­sion, to the best of my remembrance, I never Read one line in any Roman Catholic Controvertist (having always an in-bred aversion to, and a fear of being deceived by them) unless the Doctor will take the Antient Fathers to be such, as indeed, he very well may.

But after all, why should the Doctor say, that I have forsaken his Church? Does a Man leave the House, who goes out of one Room into another? The Learned Dr. Jackson (as he is Pag. 58. Quoted by the Learned Dr. Tenison) says, that the Church of England was in the Romish Church before Luthers time, and is yet in it. Now, how have I left the Church of England, when both the Church of England and my self are in the same Church? London is no farther from Paris, than Paris is from London. If the Church of England could come so far from the Church of Rome, as she hath done by her Reformation, without Separating from her (as the Doctor seems to Ibid. affirm;) may not a Church of England-man go all that way back again without separating from the Church of England? If the Denying of Transubstantiation, break no Union with those who Hold it; how comes, the Holding it to dis-unite us from those who Deny it? Where­fore the Doctor might have spared his Third Ex­ception against me at this time, and first consider­ed whether the matter on which it was grounded were true, or not.

[Page 42] But the Churches of Rome and England must be two distinct Churches, when it is for the Doctors turn : And One and the same when a contrary pur­pose requires it. That is, when my Apostacy is to be proved, they are two; and when the Doctor's Succession is to be made out, they are but One. It was not without cause, that the Antients said, Oportet mendacem esse Memorem, since it is so very hard, for much to be spoken in the Defence of Fal­shood without the stumbling upon some Contra­diction or other.

It is not impossible, but Dr. T. may Answer what is added by his abovesaid Learned Brother, viz. that the English Church is in the Church of Rome, neither as a Visible Church altogether distinct from it, nor any Native Member of it. But this, (to say nothing of the fancifulness of the Notion) will not serve for the Doctors excuse. For he charges me roundly to have forsaken the Church of Eng­land, whereas (according to this Learned Man) he ought to have said, that I had not altogether left it, but had still, at least one foot in it's Communion, or some such like Church of England-Oracle, which, like their Real Presence, might have been inter­preted either way. This is not trifling (tho' it may seem so at first sight) but a clear Manifestation of what most naturally proceeds from the admirable Harmony of Protestant Doctrins.

I have now done with the Doctors Preliminary Exceptions: But before I pass to any other part of his Account, I will do him so much right as to ac­knowledge, that I am verily persuaded, that he made these Exceptions not out of much malice to­wards [Page 43] me, or for any great weight he imagined to be in them, but meerly to spend the time, and a­muse the Auditors, or, it may be, to discompose his Antagonists, and render them less present to themselves: Such Salutations (ordinarily speaking) being but an ill tuning of the mind for calm and serious Discourses. For (as I have already hinted) if Dr. Tenison had thought it both unreasonable and inconvenient, that I should be present at the Con­ference, why had he not accepted of that person, whom Mr. P. proposed in my stead, or otherwise insisted on it, that I should have withdrawn; which I assure him, had been no less a favor to me, than he could think it a convenience to himself?

Dr. T. says in the beginning of his 6th. page, Pag. 6. that Mr. P. [after his sitting down] spake first about Pen and Ink, and an Amanuensis, but Dr. T. having brought no person with him, and the Crowd pressing, Mr. P. began a Verbal Conference, by saying the Protestants had no Bible, desiring Dr. T. to prove they had one, and asking him how, and whence they had one, and what was their Rule of Faith.

This looks, as if there had been but a slight mention made of having the Arguments taken in Writing, and that it was after our sitting down, and only by Mr. P. and that Mr. P. without in­sisting much for it had begun a Verbal Conference: Whereas both Mr. P. and my self were very ear­nest for it, and proposed it before our sitting down; Nay, it was on this proposal of ours, that the Doctor invited us to sit down, after having first told us, that he had no Pen and Ink, nor Writer, &c. According to what I have said above p. 14. [Page 44] Possibly Mr. P. might mention this again after he sat down, tho' I do not remember it.

Moreover, after this first sitting down, the Doctor added two of his Objections against me, and offer­ed at some Preliminary things as he called them. And it was after these Discourses (tho' they are o­mitted as trivial in Mr. P—s account) that Mr. P. began his Argumentation, and not immediately after the proposal of having it Written (as Dr. T. says) for Mr. P. perceiving, that the Doctor had a mind to consume the time in unprofitable Cavils, endeavored to cut him short, by putting him in re­membrance of the business, for which they had met.

I mention these particulars, that the not admit­ting of this Proposal of Writing, may appear (what truly it was) the Doctors Tergiversation. Had Mr. P. been then as well acquainted with Dr. T. as he is now, he would absolutely have re­fused the Conference, had not his desire of Writ­ing been yielded to. And this is the resolution, which he has taken for the future : Which, in my judgment, is but shutting the Stable-door, after the Steed is Stolen: For (I believe) he is never like to have the Doctors Company on such hard terms, notwithstanding that he seems to offer p. 70. what he refused at the Conference.

Whereas he says, Mr. P. began a Verbal Con­ference, by saying the Protestants had no Bible. It was not so: For, he began the Conference, by de­siring the Doctor to Assign his Rule of Faith: Ha­ving first given us some account, how the Youth (for whose sake the Conference was) came to en­tertain thoughts of making himself a Member of [Page 45] the Roman Catholic Church. And to that Pro­position (after much debate concerning these Desires in the Youth) the Doctor replyed (being again and again pressed to it by Mr. P.) that his Rule of Faith was the Holy Scripture. And it was on this Answer, that Mr. P. asked the Doctor, how he could prove, that the Book which he called Holy Scripture, was truly such, and not before, as it is made by the Doctors Account; which (as I have complained before) is one of the most intricate things I ever met with, and no more like the Conference, than it is usual for the new hands at Cards (after the Pack is well shuffled) to be like the former ones. The Cards, it is true, are all the same, but their places being changed, the Games are different. I do not say, that this Account is more confused than the Conference, but the confusion has quite ano­ther shape, or figure than it had.

But the matter of Fact being cleared, as above, it becomes more evident, how much Dr. Tenison dissembled, when instead of proving his Bible to be true Scripture, as was desired, he offered to dis­pute Pag. 6. out of that Book which Mr. P. should own to be Scripture, since it could not but be manifest to him, that Mr. P. did not only ask him for the proof of those places, wherein his Bible differs from ours, but for the proof of the whole, or if he had de­manded a proof of such places only, it was not for the sake of any Arguments which the Protestants take thence for the defence of their Religion, but that it might appear on what Testimony they had received the Scripture, and consequently on what grounds their Reformation had proceeded. And therefore when to avoid this proof he offered to [Page 46] dispute out of Mr. P's Bible (which he might easily have done by the help of his own Interpretation) it was a plain (tho', with the Rabble, a very plau­sible) evasion.

This Ibid. Method [viz. of Disputing out of Mr. P's Bible] says the Doctor, Mr. P. would not allow, but repeated his Discourse about our not having a Bible, and our not being able if we had one, to prove we had one; and asked again about the Rule of our Faith. Dr. T. before he answered to this, applyed him­self to Mr. M. (who seem'd to be the calmer person, &c.

Here the Doctor discovers his way of Disput­ing. How comes the Doctor to apply himself to Mr. M. whereas Mr. P. had begun his Conference with him, and proposed the main Question of it? How come we not to receive an Answer to this Question till two or three Pages full of wrangling after it was proposed, nor then neither (as he con­fesses, p. 9.) till Mr. P. and Mr. M. not suffering him to tell a Story, pressed him to it, nor even then (as he farther Pag. 9. owns) till he had chid Mr. P. for asking him Questions, and seeming to Cate­chize him. Surely after so long an Expectation the Answer must needs be extraordinary.

In the next place, how comes Mr. M. tho' a Convert, and Pag. 5. possessed with a Spirit of fiercer Bi­gottry than other Romanists, to be the calmer per­son? But Dr. T. wants an excuse for turning away from his Antagonist, and speaking to one who (as he was told at the beginning) was to have no part in the Dispute. And as for the Complement, he is resolved, that I shall pay dear for it, before he [Page 47] parts with me. Besides, some such appearance of Candor (the common Artifice of Detractors) is necessary for the obtaining a belief to the basest of Calumnies which is to Pag. 23. follow.

Dr. T. Pag. 6. put Mr. M. in mind, that such Dis­courses as these [concerning the proof of Holy Scrip­ture] and some others lately used by the Romanists about the Trinity and Transubstantiation, would ra­ther make the People Atheists or Ʋnbelievers, than Converts. And that the Indifferent were ready to say, Content: We cannot believe Transubstantiation, and we will have no Trinity; We cannot have the Bible unless we take it upon Roman Authority, and none we will have. Mr. M. said, That would not be the consequence; but gave no reason why he said so.

But Mr. M. can give a very good reason, why he then gave none. It is, because before he could pronounce Six words, Dr. T. turn'd back again to Mr. P. And it was not for one (as I have inti­mated already) who looked on himself as wholly unconcerned in the Controversie, to interrupt it so far, as to press the Doctor to hearken to him.

What I would have then said (had the Doctor been pleased to stay for it) was, That those who would give themselves leave to consider, would find so good Authority in the Roman Church, for the belief of the Trinity, and the Holy Scripture, that tho' there were no other Authority for them (as indeed there is none) yet this alone would be suffici­ent. And consequently, that there would be no danger of Atheism, but where Obstinacy and Per­versness should interpose, which would never leave [Page 48] Men destitute of a Pretence for Incredulity, tho' they should want a just reason for it ever so much. I should have added, that it was an excellent Ar­gument of the Truth of a Religion, when it could be shewn, that either such a Religion was True, or else that none was so. Wherefore if it could be proved, that on the denyal of this Roman Au­thority (as the Doctor calls it) Men would have no reason to believe a God, it must needs have followed, that the Roman Authority was not to be denyed.

Besides: An Arian might have upbraided the Antient Catholics after the same manner and said, that so much insisting on the necessity of believing a Trinity, would rather make the People Atheists or Ʋnbelievers, than Converts. And that the Indiffer­ent would be ready to say, content: We cannot be­lieve the Trinity, and we will have no Deity. For Athanasius tells us, that it will stand us in little stead to believe a God, unless we also believe (what is plainly repugnant to our Reason) a Trinity of persons in an Ʋnity of Substance. And this Discourse would not have been less conclusive in the Arians Mouth, than it was in the Doctors.

This was the Answer, which the Doctor by the Spirit of Prophecy thought not worth the tarrying for, and therefore faced about to Mr. P. Which I should not have complained of, had it been to have Answered Mr. P's. Question. But instead of this, to shew how sollicitous he was for the Discovery of Truth in so important a Point as a Rule of Faith he Pag. 6. near the end. falls into an insignificant cavil. Where I leave him, it being too troublesome for me to trace him through all his turnings and wind­ings. [Page 49] However, what is here said, may serve to give the Reader some kind of Notion of them.

He says, p. 14. Mr. M. had some while before ask­ed Pag. 14. Dr. T. (who had said, that we find the Bible, which we now have, Quoted by the Antient Fathers) how he came to know they were Fathers? To which Question he thought an Answer in that place a condescention to an Impertinence.

The Doctor had been asked, upon what Autho­rity or Testimony [for the Doctor distinguishes between them] he had received his Bible. He an­swered (amongst other things) that he found his Bible Quoted by the Antient Fathers. Now, I con­sidered that the Fathers, and their works stood in need of some Testimony themselves for their being relyed on. And therefore I asked the Doctor, how he knew they were Fathers? By Fathers, I suppose he meant Orthodox Bishops or Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the meaning of my Question was, how he could prove those whom he accounted Fathers to be Orthodox? If he should have said, that they had been allowed to be such by all Christians; It would have been denyed him, there having been, and still being several Societies of such as Profess Christianity who assert the contrary. And there­fore unless the Doctor could give us a mark where­by we might know which sort of Christians are in the right, and which in the wrong, it would be impossible for us to understand from their Te­stimony whether the Fathers were Orthodox or not.

If he should have replyed, that these Fathers were approved by our selves; That also would [Page 50] have been as little to his purpose. For, if he looks on our Authority as Good, he ought to receive several other things upon it, which he does not. And if he takes it not to be such, he cannot confide in it either for Scripture or Fathers. Since here, they are not Arguments ad hominem (or concern­ing only the Private difference between us and them) but general Arguments which we require of them. I mean such, as may serve to evidence the certainty of Holy Writ to the whole World. And if the Doctor would have granted, that this could have been done by our Authority, it may easily be believed, that we should have asked no more.

Lastly, If he should have said, that he knew those Antient Fathers to be Orthodox no other­wise, than by the Conformity which he observed in their Tenets to the Doctrin of the Scriptures (which is the Protestant way of proving the Or­thodoxness of either particular Men or Churches) he would have involved himself in a Circle, by proving the Fathers to be true from their agree­ment with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures to be so from the approbation of the Fathers.

By this time, I suppose, it sufficiently appears to unbyass'd Readers, that Doctor Tenison would have shewed his Learning more by Answering this Question, than he has done his Manners, by calling it Impertinent.

Here I cannot but take notice, that this Question of mine is inserted in a wrong place, to make People believe, that I was present to so much of the Con­ference : Whereas I am as certain, as my memory [Page 51] can make me, that I heard none of those Discourses from the middle of the Doctors 10th. Page, till towards the latter end of his 17th. When the Doctors loud Clamors about the Quotation out of St. Ambrose brought me back from the Window, whither I had retired long before, viz. before the abovesaid Discourses which begin at the middle of the Tenth Page. I say, I was present to none of those Discourses between the middle of the Tenth, and the latter end of the 17th. Page, excepting somewhat which is mis-placed, viz. Mr, P's Reprehension of the School-master for his Wry Mouths, &c. which was soon after the begin­ning of the Conference, and a little while before I withdrew: But the Doctor sets it down in this Pag. 15. place, that the People may not imagin, that the School-master came so soon to his Assistance, as in Truth he did. Neither was this Reprehension occasioned (as the Doctor would have it) by any Discourse concerning the Lateran Council which was not then spoken to, but on the School-masters producing a Picture in a Breviary, and (to shew his Wit) laughing at it. Which was an action no way pertinent to the matter then in debate. And therefore the Doctor, to disguise the School-masters intrusion, says nothing of the Discourse, which happened about the Picture. It is unhappy (says the Doctor p. 65.) that amidst so many things we can have nothing sincere, and in it's Naturals. The reason of it is, because in such occasions the Truth is seldom honorable for both sides. And I question not, but the Doctor is convinced by this time, that he was much in the right, when he chose rather to trust his own Memory, than his own A­manuensis.

[Page 52] Concerning what he says, p. 14. viz. Mr. M. asked what Writers? I do not remember that Question, neither did I hear the Discourse of that Paragraph. What he said also to me in Derogation of Mr. P. tho' he hath it, p. 15. was a long time after. But the Doctor is resolved to spread my Controversie through his whole Narrative, tho' by this means it be very thin, and neither much for my credit, nor his: It is possible, that the Doctor thinks to help it out, by putting my Name at length, so Six times in two Pages. often as he doth, through­out this famous Story, whereas the rest of the persons of his Drama (excepting only one, as I take it) have only the first Letter of Theirs. How­ever lest the Doctor should design a Favor by it (tho' his not dealing so by his most worthy Friends might make one think otherwise) and since (whilst I am contented to yield to him in Contume­ly and Abuse) I am resolved not to come one jot behind him in Point of Courtesie, I have desired the Printer to pay him the same Respect, as often as he can do it conveniently: That his NAME may rumble as much in my Pamphlet, as mine doth in his. And altho' this should prove to be a sign of ill Will (for I know not what to make of it) our Spleen would not be mis-placed upon the Doctors Name, since it is That which has done us Ten times more harm than his Argu­ments, tho' indeed ever since his late Book, we have some reason to hope, that it's Authority is much lessened with all Those, whose minds are at liberty to Consider.

There is one thing which, with my Readers [Page 53] Licence, I desire to take notice of, before I pass on to the remainder of the Doctors Relation, which is the gross fallacy wherewith some Protestant Divines are wont to delude the Common People, whensoever they are called upon by Catholics to shew, on what Authority they receive the Holy Scripture. The Papists (say they) question the Au­thority of Scripture. Again, when it is alledged, that the Scripture left to the Interpretation of each private person can decide no Point of Controversie, since doubtlesly every one will declare, that the Scripture is for him; and in effect he does declare it by holding his particular Tenet (whatsoever it be) as grounded on Scripture. I say, when this is urged; They cry, The Scripture is undervalued by the Papists. And this makes such deep Impres­sion on the unthinking Multitude (or, shall I say, strikes such a damp on their Spirits) that many times it surpasses the skill of the ablest and plainest Logician to undeceive them. And yet it is not because they cannot think Rationally enough to discern the Fallacy, but because they will not; since there is no understanding amongst them so dull or short-sighted, but if it be made use of, must see through it.

None can have a greater respect for the Holy Scripture, than Catholics have. I my self have known several of them beyond-Sea, who amongst their other Devotions Reading some part of the Holy Scripture every day, to shew their profound Veneration for it, were always wont to Read it on their Knees; which whosoever observes, and compares with that very indifferent behaviour, wherewith it is ordinarily handled here in England, [Page 54] will not say that Catholics have a less regard for the Holy Scripture, than Protestants. And con­sequently, they do as little question it's Au­thority.

Why then do the Catholics urge the Protestants to shew on what Authority or Testimony they receive the Bible, since it's Authority is undoubted on both sides? It is, because the Catholics would take this occasion of shewing their Adversaries, that of necessity a True and Uncorrupted Church must be allowed to have been in the World, when they began their pretended Reformation, viz. about a hundred and fifty years ago: For, since they received their Bible from some Church then in the World; in case there were at that time no true nor uncorrup­ted Church, it must follow, that they had no good Authority for their Bible. And on the contrary, if the Protestants will own that they received their Bible from good hands, they must acknowledge, that they had it from a True Church, and conse­quently, that there was such a one in the World when they began to Reform. And from hence it will immediately follow, that the first Reformers separating from the whole World, (as hath been said) did also separate from the True Church which (as we here suppose them to confess) was then in it: And therefore must be accounted Schismatics, un­less they can give us some better Definition of Schism, than that which hitherto we have had, viz. of it's being a Separation from the Obedience and Communion of the True Church.

There is yet another Reason, why we ask the Protestants, on what Authority they receive the Scriptures. And it is, because we would likewise put [Page 55] them in mind of what I hinted above, viz. that they ought to admit other things, and indeed, the meaning of the Scripture, upon the same Authority, on which they admit the letter. And therefore when they say, that they had the Scripture from the Roman Catho­lics, we tell them, that if the Roman Catholics may be relyed on for the reception of the Scripture, they may be credited for other Doctrins. If they are bad Witnesses, no part of their Testimony can be valid. Wherefore if any part of it be so, they must be look'd on as Good Witnesses, and consequently their whole Testimony ought to be embraced. And this is another cause of this Question.

But why do the Catholics derogate so much from the most abundant Perfection of Holy Scrip­ture, as to affirm that it is insufficient of it self to decide our Controversies in Faith? It is, because the daily and palpable experience of Mankind Teaches it to be so. Neither is it any derogation to a Law, to say, that it stands in need of what never yet any Law was without, viz. A Judge, or Interpreter of it.

And I wonder, that the Protestants, who con­fess that every Man is fallible, and as such may be mistaken in the Sense of Scripture, and that, to his Damnation, should look on it as a Derogation to the same Scripture, to think that God (whose Mercy is over all his Works) hath appointed some means to keep us from being so mistaken. Especially when this help is not so much for the Scripture, as for our understandings. It arguing no more a defect in those sacred Vo­lums, that our narrow Intellects are not able to comprehend their meaning without an Interpreter [Page 56] (as it fared with the And Philip ran thither to him [the Eun­uch] and heard him Read the Prophet Esaias, and said, un­derstandest thou what thou Readest? And he said, how can I, except some Man should guide me? &c. Act. c. 8. v. 30.31. Eunuch spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles) than it doth a fault in a good Print, that it cannot be Read by weak Eyes with­out the assistance of a Glass.

To conclude, if it be a Derogation to the Scrip­ture to say, that it stands in need of somewhat besides it self for it's being understood by us; How will those Protestants defend themselves, who affirm that Prayer, Humility and See Pa. 18. Mini­sterial Guides are necessary for this purpose? What greater affront is it to the Scripture to declare, that it cannot be understood without the Authori­ty of the Church, than it is to say, that it cannot be understood without Ministerial Guides? Nor even with them (according to Protestants) any more than fallibly; which is, in truth, not to be understood at all; for, how can a Man be said to know the meaning of a thing, whilst he doubts whether he know it, or not; as all those must do, who consider that they are Fallible, and therefore may be Mistaken in their Interpretations?

There is also another supposed Irreverence to­wards the Holy Scripture, that the Catholics are accused of, which consists in this, that they make the Tradition of the Church to be of equal credit with it. On this Point I shall only ask this short Question, viz. Whether it be not as much to be believed, that St. Matthews Gospel is the word of God, which is the Tradition of the Church; as it is, that our Saviour Fasted Forty Days and Forty Nights, which is part of that Gospel? If it be (as I presume none will deny) then it must follow, that Tradition, which is the unwritten Word of God, must oblige us to believe, as much, as Scrip­ture [Page 57] which is his written Word. And, indeed who is there that can doubt but that heretofore, the Apostles Sermons and Verbal directions (and that which the Faithful remembred of them) were of equal Authority with their Epistles and other Writings? Shall we not think, that what was laid up in their Memories was as Obligatory, as that which was committed to Paper, Especially whilst we hear St. Paul Commanding the 2 Thes. c. 2. v. 15. Thes­salonians to hold fast those Traditions, which they had learnt, whether it had been by word of Mouth, or by Epistle?

On the whole matter I dare boldly affirm, that there is none, who shall impartially consider what hath been said here, but will perceive, that the Catholics have a greater respect for the Holy Scrip­ture than the Protestants, and this, with relation both to it's Authority and Ʋsefulness.

First, As to it's Authority [I mean, it's Authen­tickness] the Catholics Declare, that it hath been handed from the time of the Apostles down to ours by a True and Uncorrupted Church. Where­as the Protestants do not allow that they received it from any Society of Christians but such as (according to their own sentiments) were Cor­rupted. The Inference of this, and of what fol­lows, is too plain, to need the making.

Secondly, As to it's Usefulness. The Catholics affirm, that God hath left us some sure means of un­derstanding it a-right, so far forth as it shall be ne­cessary for our Salvation, whereas the Protestants assign no other way of understanding the Scripture, but what they acknowledge to be Uncertain.

And here I cannot but take notice, that a Bible in [Page 58] an unknown Tongue, which is capable of being rightly Interpreted, and is daily so Interpreted to the Common People, is incomparably of more use to them than one in the Vulgar Tongue, which can be understood no otherwise than fallibly, That is (as I have said See above Pag. 56. above) cannot be And conse­quently, indeed can be of no use, but rather hurtful. understood. An unknown Tongue which may be Interpreted being certainly less inconvenient, than an unknown Sense which may not be Found out.

Wherefore, if Scripture appear both more Au­thentic and more Ʋseful by Catholic Tenets, than it doth by Protestant, can it be thought to have less Respect amongst us, than it has amongst them?

There is yet another plausible Pretence which serves rather to Amuse, than Argumentatively to deceive the Common People whenever this Point viz. the Testimony, on which Holy Scripture is to be received, comes into Debate. They say, that the Holy Scripture hath a sufficient Authority from it self, that it is discerned by it's own Light, and that it's Style, Contexture and Precepts are such, as necessarily speak it to be Divine, insomuch that it stands not in any need of being recommended to us by any Extrinsic Testimony whatsoever.

Certainly if this were so, the Apostles would have had an easier task in the Conversion of the World, than it proved to them. They needed only to have Translated their Gospels into the Languages of all Nations, and so by Ordinary Mes­sengers to have dispersed them from one end of the World to the other. And by this means, they might have been in those days as sparing of their [Page 59] Journeys, as their pretended Successors of the Church of England are in these. And forasmuch as concerns those Miraculous Gifts, which were Com­municated to them, for the propagation of the Faith, all of them had been Superfluous, excepting only that of Tongues. Their Scripture would have discovered it self by it's own Light to be the word of God, and what was Plain in it (according to our Modern Doctrin) would be sufficient for Salvation. But since this was quite otherwise, and that the Word of God was heretofore recommended to Man­kind by the great Labors, Holy Lives, and frequent Miracles of those who Preached it, and even with all these helps found not that Credit with the great­est part which it ought, we must conclude that this Holy word stands in need of some Extrinsic Testimony, since at the beginning it pleased God (who does no unnecessary thing) to accompany it with But they [the Apostles] go­ing forth Preached every where, our Lord working withal, and Confirming the Word with Signs that followed, Mark c. 16. v. 20. such, and that even when it came from the Blessed Mouth of his own The Works that I do in the name of my Father, they give Testimony of me, John c. 10. v. 25. And again, ver. 38. Believe the Works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, &c. Son.

And yet, tho' we should grant that there is some­what so admirable in these Writings, that foras­much as concerns the whole frame of them, it must necessarily appear (at least, to a well-disposed mind) that they can have no other Author than God himself: Will it therefore follow, that every Verse is such, every Historical passage, or that some Syllable or Word may not be added, or taken away in some Mystery of Faith, without breaking [Page 60] in upon the Majesty of the Style, or whatever else bespeaks our veneration for this Book? May not (I say) somewhat of this Nature be done, which may change the Meaning of a Sentence, and yet thence no evidence arise that this Sentence so changed is not from God?

For further Illustration and Proof of what I say, let us suppose that there were two Editions of the Bible, delivered to us by an Extrinsick Testimony or Authority so equal, that we could not discern which Testimony were best, and that in one of these Editions our Saviour's words in the Instituti­on of the Blessed Sacrament should be, THIS is a Sign of my Body, and in the other (what they now are) THIS is my Body. Would it appear from the sound, or any thing else, which of these two Sentences was spoken by Christ? I presume that (considering the various opinions which are now in the World concerning this Mystery) you are ready to say, that it would not. Suppose then, that I, or any other private person should put forth an Edition of the Bible, which should have the former Sentence, This is a Sign of my Body, instead of the latter, This is my Body. It is evident, indeed, that such an Edition, would be of no Cre­dit. But why? Not for any defect in the sound, or other intrinsic fault (as hath been shewn) but because the Authority of one single person, which recommends the first Sentence, cannot weigh with that of the whole World, which delivers the last. For could these two Sentences change their Ex­trinsic Testimonies, they would change their Credit also.

Much more of this Nature might be added: But [Page 61] we need not have Recourse to Suppositions for an Evidence of this Truth, which is sufficiently con­firmed by that Difference in the Translations of the Scripture, which is already in the World.

By Difference in Translations, I mean, a Dif­ference in Viz. when one Translation hath Words expressing a dif­ferent Sense from those which are in another. Sense, and not in Language, as Dr. St— was pleased to Mistake my meaning, in his second Letter to Mr. G—. In which piece for the most part he Answers my Objections by mistaking them. And certainly Books may be Answered with ease, when Ignorance it self (as Mistaking is) either Real or Pretended, is able to do the work. The prevention of such mistakes was one of the Reasons, why I preferr'd Personal Conferences be­fore the Writing [...] [...]ooks, tho, indeed, for the securing such Conferences from such after mis-re­presentations, as we have here, I thought it con­venient, that what was said in them should be committed to Writing immediately upon the place.

I say then, that this Difference of Sense in the several Translations of the Bible which are now in Being, is an undenyable proof, that the Scrip­ture does not manifest it self to us by it's own Lustre (as is pretended) at least in all it's parts: For since all these Differences of Sense, expressed by Different words, are held for Authentic, by Different Bodies of Christians, whereas at most, there can be but one of these Different Expressions, Genuine, or True; it must follow, that the Truth of every parcel of Scripture is not evident to All a­like, and consequently not Evident from it self. [Page 62] And indeed, to say the truth, I never knew that any sort of Christians endeavored to justifie the preference of their own Version before that of o­thers from the Sound or Texture of the Expressions, but always from it's Conformity to the Original Languages, Antient Copies, or the like, which they would not have done, could the bare Sound, or Frame have sufficiently pleaded for it.

What is here proved from the Difference in the Translations of the Bible, may be yet farther evinced by that which there is in the number of the Canoni­cal Books; since if the Scripture were evident of it self, how come whole Books to be received by some, and rejected by others? [And here a new Reason offers it self to me, why Protestants should be asked more particularly, what Testimony they have for their Bible, since they lay aside so much of that Canon which was confirmed by the Council of Carthage, in the year 397. (subscribed to by St. Augustin) as also by the sixth General Council, A. D. 680. and hath been so generally in use ever since, for want (as they pretend) of that Testimony which is sufficient.

I should design an endless piece of work, should I purpose to set down all the absurdities which ne­cessarily are derived from this Assertion viz. that the Scripture is Proved by it self. Dato uno ab­surdo, mille sequuntur. I hope, what I have said, is enough for the rejecting a Position, which ought rather to be esteemed it's own dis-proof, than the Scripture can be look'd on as it's own Proof: For since it is most apparent, that the Sense of all the parts of Holy Scripture is not Plain to us by it's own [Page 63] Light; how comes it to pass, that without further help we may know the Words which we Read, to be the Words of the Holy Ghost, and not know the Sense, which we have of them, to be the Sense intended by the same Holy Ghost: The Sense be­ing that which immediately is from God, where­as the words are from Men; At least, in such Translations as are not made by Divine Revelation or Inspiration; Which, as I take it, the Reformed Church of England doth not pretend to? Where­fore I cannot think, that any one will say, that the Phrase, or Form of Words in any place of Scripture is such, as manifestly shews it self to be from God, and yet that at the same time he is igno­rant whether the Sense, which he conceives of those Words, be from God, or from himself.

It follows from these Considerations, That Scrip­ture how Sacred and Divine soever it be, is not ma­nifested to us by it's own light, and, consequently, it is neither impertinent in it self, nor derogatory to the Scripture, to ask, upon what Extrinsic Testimony it is received and acknowledged for Such.

Give me leave to add one word by way of Co­rollary to what hath been said, which is, that see­ing the Holy Scriptures are not made Evident by themselves, and that no Prudent Man can receive any thing upon the credit of False and Corrupted Witnesses, it must be inferred, that the Protestant Reformers ought to quit their pretence of being Guid­ed by Scripture, since they have no other Rule of knowing what is such, and what not, but the bare Letter of that which is called so, and the Testimo­ny [Page 64] of those, whom they accounted to have so much Corruption and Falsness, that they separated from them, without the least apprehension of the Guilt of Schism. For, separating from the whole World (as hath been said) they must needs se­parate from those, upon whose Authority or Testimony they received their Bible. And this in effect was the summ of Mr. P's Argument a­gainst Dr. T.

I should not have insisted so tediously on the foregoing points, had I not known that how fri­volous soever those pretences (of our vilifying Scripture, looking on it as Insufficient, and the like) may seem to any thinking Man, yet the common People are most grosly, and almost incurably de­luded by them. And we are Rom. 1. v. 14. Debtors both to the Wise and to the Ʋnwise. And forasmuch as con­cerns this last Point, which I have spoken to, viz. the pretended self-evidence of the Scripture, it hath dropt in my hearing not only from the Mouths of the middle sort, but even from those of the Learned World. And even Dr. T. himself glances at it in his Tenth Page: Nothing being more Necessitous, or putting a Man upon worse shifts, than an ill Cause.

But, tho' I have been very long on this subject, yet I cannot but make one Observation more, be­fore I proceed to another, which is, that the Pro­testants, when they find themselves destitute of solid Proof (as in truth, they always do) for the Support of their peculiar Tenets, are wont to heap a great many Unconcluding things together, [Page 65] that so (if possible) what is wanting in Strength may be made out by Number: Which however like Cyphers, tho' making as great or greater shew than Figures, amount to no summ. For ex­ample (to instance in the matter of our present Consideration) when we ask them, how they prove their Bible, They tell us, by it's own light, See Pag. 9. and 10. Their interior Sense, and by the Testimony of Jews, Turks, Infidels, and lastly of whole Bodies of Erroneous and Corrupted Viz. Such Christians as are accounted Erroneous and Corrupted by them. Christians; whereas the Catholics have but one poor Testimony to oppose to all these, viz. That of a true, uncorrupted and un­interrupted Church.

Now, it is not every ordinary Head which (at least without settling) will serve for a just Ballance to these two Proofs, and not be weighed down by that which is most Bulky, tho' least Weighty. And yet one would think, that it were impossible, but that rational Creatures should see the plain Nul­lity of the former, and the most abundant Suffi­ciency of the latter.

But to return to my business: Dr. T. says in the latter end of his 17th. Page, That Mr. M. took Pen, and Dr. T. delivering him the Paper he had signed in order to a regular proceeding, he began to Write the first words of these Questions; Whether God Almighty has left us any Guide, &c.

The truth of the matter of Fact is this, Dr. Tenison having after much time spent in vain (if that may be said to be so which was spent as was most for the Doctors purpose) drawn Mr. P. from that point which he had designed for the subject of the whole Conference, viz. The Rule [Page 66] of Faith, and fallen into particular matters, where there is much more Sea-room for Controversie, and consequently less danger of being run a-ground, whilst these things were under debate, Mr. P. hap­pening to produce some proofs out of the Fathers in favor of Transubstantiation, and particularly quoting a passage out of St. Ambrose de Sacramen­tis for one, The Doctor (to use his own words) catch'd at it, crying out, that the Book was Spuri­ous, and none of St. Ambrose's. And in this trans­port called for Pen, Ink and Paper. And (to shew what a willing Mind may do) that, which was so hard to come by, when the Writing of the Con­ference was proposed, was brought him in a trice. He writes down his Doughty Challenge: Which was to this purpose, That the Book cited by Mr. P. was Spurious and a late Book, and none of St. Am­brose's, and that he [Dr. Thomas Tenison] would shew it to be such. This he valiantly subscribed. Now, indeed, according to due Form Mr. P. should have underwritten, That he would not fail to meet this bold Challenger, desiring only a fair Stage, and of him no favor. But this, it seems, he refused for those reasons which he has already See Mr. P 's Account, p. 10. and sequ. Published.

Now all this was done with so much noise and Triumph on the Doctors part, and with such Tu­multuous applause of his Adherents, that (being over and above called upon by them with great im­portunity) I thought it convenient to put my self into the midst of the Bustle, that I might come to know the matter, and keep the Peace if it should lie in my Power.

As soon as I understood what had been the cause of so much Tumult, I immediately applyed [Page 67] my self to the Doctor (who had made some kind of Appeal to me) and told him, That indeed I could not but look on it as a very disingenuous proceeding, that he should importune Mr. P. to Subscribe to One single Quotation, as if that had been the Only thing that in so many hours he had been able to produce for the defence of his Religion: Which would have ap­peared very Ridiculous (whether the Book could be proved Authentic, or not) to any Wise Man of either Church. I added, That the Doctor should permit Mr. P. to do what he had desired, viz. Write down all his Quotations and Arguments and Sign to them (which would look like something) and that then the Doctor should do his Best. And, lastly, that this was no more, than what was Fair and Reasonable. The Doctor having little regard to what was said either by Mr. P. or my self, still pressed Mr. P. to subscribe.

But Mr. P. not being drawn by the Doctors re­peated instances, nor by the Importunity of his Pag. 70. and in Mr. P's Acc. pa. 11. Ingenious Women, to what he judged neither Prudent nor Equitable, I took the Pen into my hand, and taking the Paper from Dr. Tenison's, I told him, that I would Write something, which should look more like the substance of the Con­ference, than what he had Written, and in it self be more Efficacious towards the ending of the Con­troversie. What I would have set down, was as follows.

Whether God Almighty hath left us any Guide or Guides to direct us in the Interpretation of Scripture in things necessary to Salvation? [Or]

Whether he hath left every one to his own Ʋn­derstanding in such Interpretation, without obliging [Page 68] him to submit his Judgment to any other?

But I had scarce Written the three first Words of these Questions, before the Doctor snatches a­way the Paper, and blots out my Writing (as much as he could) with his Fingers. Which was, as I suppose, lest Pag. 70. some weight might be laid upon Ones Writing and Signing, and the others Refusing. For this Viz. Dr. T's Writing and Signing, and Mr. P's Re­fusing to Sign. was to be the Sign of Dr. Tenisons carrying the day. And if I had Written, and the Doctor had refused to Sign (as it was Ten to one but he would) all had been spoiled, and the busi­ness had been but a drawn Battel at best.

Now I must confess, that there was no great weight, to be laid upon my three Words, especially after the Doctor had blotted them. But certainly the Doctors not giving leave to Write will bear as much Weight, as Mr. P's refusing to Sign.

But Dr. T. said, that I was drawing them away from their Point. I know not how far it drew them from their Point: But I am sure it drew them back to that Point which was proposed for the Subject of their Conference, and which they ought to have been upon, viz. The Rule of Faith: And which, had it been once fixt, would have settled even that Point which they had then ram­bled to. Wherefore (as I have said already) I told the Doctor that I would propose somewhat, that might be look'd on as the substance of the Conference with more justice, than what he had Written. And as he had taken the liberty to pick out of this Conference what pleased him best for Writing, so he ought to have permitted us to make choice of that which we had a mind to, for the like purpose. Especially when in Truth the [Page 69] Question which Mr. P. had proposed and Mine were of the same nature, and the Doctor by An­swering▪ One would have Answered Both; Or, indeed when my Question was but the second Branch of Mr. P's. Mr. P. ask'd from whom we were to receive the Scriptures. My Question was from whom we were to have the Meaning of them. Now St. Augustin will tell you, that you ought to receive the Sense or meaning of the Scrip­ture from those, on whose Testimony you admit the Letter [according to a Aug. contra▪ Epist. Fun­dam. passage which I former­ly Quoted to Dr. St—. And which he (not liking, as I suppose, St. Augustins Judgment) took no notice of.] Wherefore, (according to the Sense of this Father) if Dr. Tenison had found out those Christians, on whom he might have relyed for the receiving of the Scriptures, which was Mr. P's. Question; he would have known whom to have trusted for the understanding them, which was Mine.

Which being so, I leave my Readers to Judge, whether either of these Questions were not much more to the purpose, than that which the Dr. set up.

Indeed, it was so little to our Controversie, whether that Book were truly St. Ambrose's or not, that I wonder, that a grave Man should forget himself so much, as to lay any stress on it, when other Proofs were offered full as plain, and out of Writers of as great Authority as St. Ambrose, and even, when there is a passage to the same purpose, and (to a great degree) in the same words, in an undoubted Work of St. Ambrose. Nay, one of the Arguments which is brought against the Au­thority of this Book De Sacramentis, is that the [Page 70] words of this Quotation are in another Work of the same St. Ambrose, and that it is improbable, this Author would use the same Words and Phrases in two distinct Books. Which, if a good Argument against the Authority of that Book, is likewise a very good one for the Authority of the Passage. Wherefore if that passage which was alledged, or one Equivalent to it were undoubted­ly St. Ambrose's, of what moment could it be, whe­ther that particular Book which was first named, were St. Ambrose's or not? If the passage prove what it was produced for, it is (at least Equiva­lently) in an undoubted work of St. Ambrose: And if it prove nothing, why so much clutter, whether the Book be Authentic or not?

Here the Reader may be put in mind of another Method, which the Protestants use in their Dispu­tations. When the Work of any Father is Quot­ed by Catholics, if it were ever doubted of, there is no remedy but it must pass for Spurious. And when it shall happen to be Undoubted, they will do as much as in them lies to render it Dubious, at least in those places which are Quoted. But when nothing of this will do, their last shift is Interpre­tation, which, indeed, does their business effectu­ally.

This Interpretation is laid up like a Treasure, which is never to be brought forth but in cases of urgent necessity. Otherwise they would need no other Fond for the carrying on of almost all their Controversial Expeditions. For, what need is there, that they should spoil their Eyes with por­ing on old Worm-eaten Manuscripts, for the dis­proof of an Author, when perhaps the passage [Page 71] which they would evade, is not half so plain a­gainst them, as that of some unquestioned Book, which already they have set aside by their Interpre­tation? What Obligation is there, that Words in a Spurious Work should have quite another Sense, than the self-same words in one which is Legiti­mate? No, but this knack of Interpreting is too great a cheat to be often Practised, and therefore, when any thing else will serve the turn, this must not appear.

I said, that Interpretation was their last shift. But (unless this be understood with some re­striction) I think, I was too hasty in my Reckon­ing. Their shifts are like the Priviledges of some Parliaments not so. easie to be numbred. For sometimes when the Author is unquestioned, the passage too palpably plain to be wrested, and the Party somewhat more indifferent, and not so greedy of being impos'd on, and when, for these reasons, the Gordian-knot cannot be untyed, what should they do but follow Alexanders example? They lop off a Century or two out of the Five Hundred Years which their Brethren are wont to Appeal to; and it is great odds, but the Fa­ther, that is Quoted (most of them, and those the most Celebrated being in the fourth and fifth Centuries) drops with them, and loses his Autho­rity, not out of any particular picque that they have against this Father whoever he be, but because he lived in ill times, and when Popish Errors began to be predominant. But if it shall so happen, that they do not see him lying on the ground, toge­ther with these Two Hundred Years, the third Century is sure to follow, and then it is a Thou­sand [Page 72] to one but they have him down. However, if after all this he shall yet remain untoucht: Perhaps another Branch may fall (for these Errors were very early in the Church) or else the Fathers are sicut caeteri Homines, and (as Dr. T. intimates, p. 16.) there is no Decisive Determination to be built on what they say. This you will say, as I have said See above pa. 27. before, agrees not well with an Appeal to the first Five Hundred Years. However, this gradual Proceeding argues great Moderation (a thing that is sometimes bragg'd of) and shews, that the Members of this Church are not for car­rying matters to Extremities, but where Neces­sity (which hath no Law) obliges them.

I intimated above, that it was ten to one, but Dr. Tenison would have refused to Write or Sign any Answer to my Questions. Which was no groundless Conjecture of my own. For, had he not differed from himself he would most certainly have done so. A Gentleman of my acquaintance (then a Protestant) had formerly carried him these Questions, and desir'd his Answer to them in Writing. In the first place the Doctor took a very sufficient time for consideration. And in the second, he absolutely refused to give any thing under his hand, saying in excuse, that he knew not what Inference might be made. Whereupon (I re­member) I advised the Gentleman to put him in mind at their next meeting of the Logical Maxim, A veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi, telling him (con­sequently) that if his Answer were true, he need not fear, that any thing should follow from it but Truth.

In the mean time I am not ignorant, that there [Page 73] is something in the Doctors Narrative, which is a kind of Pag. 18. Answer to my Questions. But (as the Reader will perceive) it is not offered by the Doctor as his Answer to them, neither is there any thing else set forth as such throughout his whole Pamplet, save only the mention of two Books, pag. 56. and a little one (which perhaps might be one of them) that Mrs. Ʋ. had from him, pag. 24. I say, there is nothing else but these Books which is proposed by Dr. T. as an Answer to those Questions.

Now, for my own part, I must confess, that oftentimes, I think it much easier to return a Book to a Question, than an Answer. My meaning is, that when a Difficulty pinches, it is much easier by long and Crafty Circumlocutions to Deceive, than by a short and plain Answer to Satisfie. The first may be done by Books; but it is only Brevity and Plainness which can appear well in a Personal Conference. Wherefore, to appeal from such a Conference to Books is most commonly to love Darkness rather than Light, and by entring into a Labyrinth of Words, rather to lose an Objection, than to solve it.

It hath happened to me several times, that when I have offered any Difficult Point to some Disputants, they have told me for Answer, That the matter was handled in such a Book, and that there I should find my satisfaction. I have replyed, that the Difficulty lay within a narrow Compass, that the Solution needed not to be very long, that therefore I desired, they would tell me, what the Book said of it. All the Answer I could have, was That they had forgotten the Particulars; that the [Page 74] Book satisfied them, when they Read; and they sup­posed that it would have the same effect on me. Which I have taken for an evident Sign, that they had been Deluded, and not Instructed by their Au­thor. Since had they met with a concise and solid proof, instead of a protracted and noisie Fallacy, it would have been hardly possible for them not to have born it away, especially when they had neither ill Wits, nor ill Memories.

Wherefore, I take leave to dissent from the Doctor, where he looks on it, as a piece of Pag. 56. ill breeding, to ask Questions in a Conference, which [as he thinks] are already Answered in Books. Since, there being scarce any Point which is not spoken to in Books, a Conference for the most part is nothing else, but a tryal (as far as it may be) whether the Books have said right or not: Where­fore to refer us to them for Certainly that Cause which the Dr. referred to 10000 pounds worth of Books was as safe, as the Felon would have been, had his request been granted of be­ing tryed by the 12 Apostles. Answers, is to send us thither, from whence we have Appealed. And could the Titles of Books pass for Arguments in these Conferences, a Booksellers Apprentice would out-argue Dr. Tenison, unless it be, that the late care he hath had of a Library may have greatly qualified him for this kind of Disputati­on.

On the other side, it is a shrew'd Argument with me, that this Doctor was somewhat Con­scious of the Truth, of what I have said here, touching that room which there is for Fallacies in Books of Controversie, since notwithstanding he was so well prepared for the Answering my Questi­ons, that he had Pag. 56. Written on the same Subject, and since he catch'd at all occasions of shewing his Superiority over us, he yet boggled so much [Page 75] to give us his Answer upon the place; and in con­clusion chose rather to turn us over to a Book. Which in the Doctors Judgment must stop every ones mouth who doth not think it worth his while to Answer it in Print. And yet the Doctor ought to be mindful of his own proceeding, so far as to give us leave to be silent, where we think an An­swer a Pa. 14. and 15. Condescention to an Impertinence. But, it is not the Doctors way, to reflect, so much as this comes to, on what he doth himself. For had it been so, it is probable, he would not have laid any Weight on Mr. P's. Refusing to Sign his Paper (a thing unreasonable it self) when he considered, not only, that at this very time he hindred us from Writing, as hath been shewn, but also that at the beginning of the Conference he made a most frivolous excuse from Having the whole Writ­ten. Which Refusal, if compared with Mr. P's. was at least a Mill-Stone to a Feather. Were it easie for us to see our own faults, one would think, that here were a Speculum that would help the Doctor to such a sight. However, in our present case, I am affraid, he is not so defective in his own sight, as he is careful to provide dust for the Eyes of others.

This Storm about the Quotation out of St. Ambrose lasted a great while, and with so much Commotion, that I will not undertake to describe it. Amongst the rest of the noise, the Doctor cryed often, that Mr. P. had Falsisied and was a Falsisier. Whereupon I ventured to tell him, that really, he was too severe in his Censures: For tho' it should happen, that the Book Cited by Mr. P. [Page 76] could not be proved to be St. Ambrose's, yet he knew well enough, that it had been always Publish­ed under his Name, and ranked among his Works. Which circumstances might lead a Man into this Error without the Guilt of being a Falsifier. Dr. Tenison seem'd to yield to this, and to be willing to compound the business, and rest satisfied, so that, at least Mr. P. might pass for an Ignorant Person. The Cause now being quite out of Doors, and the Dispute (as the Doctor had managed the matter) growing meerly personal, and, con­sequently, nothing to our purpose.

The Doctors new terms of Reconciliation seemed yet too hard : For why should Mr. P. be reputed Ignorant for Quoting an Author, which had been doubted of, unless he were convinced of the rea­sonableness of that doubt by those Arguments which were offer'd for it; which he was not, nor (possibly) ought to be? Tho' on the other side (as hath been intimated) it would have been an imprudence in him to have Sign'd this single Quo­tation, as if he had nothing else to produce on the behalf of his Cause, especially when we have to deal with Men whose Interest, Prejudice or Passion strongly inclines them to Believe against us. And facilè credunt, quod volunt. But I was so far from having an opportunity of urging this latter part of my Mediation, that I ought to be very thank­ful for the room, I had, of rescuing Mr. P. from the Doctors first Imputation of a Falsifier. Such a Permission of speech being (as I must assure you) a very great favor at our Conference.

Dr. Tenison in his 18th. Page says, Mr. M. and [Page 77] Dr. T. talk'd a little while about a Guide in Contro­versie. It was, indeed, a little while. For, not­withstanding towards the latter end of the Con­ference I attempted three or four times to have spoken something on that subject (which I look'd upon as the most important one, or rather, as I have said, the only one of all Controversie:) all my endeavors were defeated, the Doctor still, by turning off the Discourse, either not Answering to my Questions, as not suffering me to Reply to his Answer, Excepting only some few Words, which for haste, I was forced (as the Doctor well expresses it) to mutter out when I took my leave.

Now since, Dr. T. sets down, what he told me in short, concerning a Guide in Controversie, viz. That a Man after using all Christian means, and Pag. 18. the help of all Ministerial Guides possible, must at last judge for himself, and that this was not to run on his own head: As also, that their People, could know the Voice of their Church, it being in their own Language, but not so readily the Voice of the Church of Rome, it being in an unknown Tongue; for the true Interpretation of which, the unlearned depend upon the particular Priest, that instructed them. I say, since the Doctor Publishes what he said to me on this subject he ought to have added what I replyed to him, tho' likewise it were but very short for the Reasons already given. My Talk was to this purpose, viz. That if Men, after the use of those Christian means, and Ministerial Guides he spoke of, were by Gods appointment to follow their own Understandings, Those Laws must needs be unjust, which punished them for doing so. And conse­quently [Page 78] what could the English Penal Laws have to say for themselves, which did not enquire whe­ther Men had used Christian Means, and Ministe­rial Guides, or not, but punished them for follow­ing their own Understandings, altho' they should have used ever so many Christian means, &c. be­fore-hand? Neither do Men suffer by these Laws, only for Doctrins relating to the Civil Govern­ment (as perhaps the Doctor would insinuate by what Pag. 24. follows) but for Points meerly Religious, such as are Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invoca­tion of Saints, not going to a Protestant Church, &c. For all which Points they are punished; and this (to make the case yet harder) by such Men, as owning themselves Fallible, must likewise own, that those Opinions for which they punish, may be Truths, and Those, which they would compel us to embrace, Errors, for ought they know.

This Subject is so plain and obvious in it's own Nature, and there hath been so much said on it al­ready, that I shall only add one word by way of of a Recapitulation, which is, That on the one side we have the Church of England. Teaching us to Judge for our selves in Religious Matters, and on the other Hanging us for following her Doctrin. If we are to be our own Judges, why are we Con­demn'd for it? And if not, why are we Taught to be so? Most Religions have their Mysteries, and therefore this may be allowed to the Protestants. But for my part, I can sooner admit, that God is able to do more than I am able to understand, in the Belief of Transubstantiation, than that Men can at once have a just ground for the Approbation and Con­demnation of the self-same Proceeding. It being [Page 79] easier to dis-believe our Senses when our Creator Commands, than to forego our Reason, when we have no higher Motive for it, than the Will of our Fellow-Creatures.

I must confess, that my Discourse on this Sub­ject at the Conference, was not so large, as it is here, by reason of the shortness of those Interlo­cutory spaces that were allowed us by the Doctor, which seemed to be designed by him, not so much for our Speaking, as for his own Breathing, so that I was forced to cramp what I had to say into a few concise and general Propositions, and to throw them out, before the Doctor was aware of them. Viz. That in case we were not bound by Al­mighty God to submit our Judgment to any others, but (presupposing the use of the Doctors Christian means) were left to the Guidance of our own Un­derstanding, in matters of Faith; we ought not to be hindred from, or (which is the same thing) punished for Taking it for our Guide in such matters. That the Penal Laws Punished us for so doing, and there­fore were unjust: And the like. Which Propositi­ons, tho' too brief perhaps for their being thor­oughly Comprehended by the Rabble of our Hear­ers, were yet sufficient to let the Doctor know what I meant, and consequently for a larger Ac­count of them, than what we have from him, pa. 24. Viz. Mr. M. took leave, and just at the Door Muttered something about Penal Laws. In which (as the Reader will have found) there is no Infor­mation either of the nature, or of the occasion of that Discourse: The matter being so obscurely ex­press'd, that a Protestant Gentleman of my ac­quaintance was so far deceived by the Doctors [Page 80] Terms, that he imagined, that I had risen up in a heat, and threatned something as I went away. And there­fore for the future, when Dr. Tenison shall tell us, That he thinks it will give the greater satisfaction to tell the whole Truth,—That Truth is best Painted at full length,—and that he will let the World know, the whole Truth, so far as his Memory with all due helps will serve him, as he doth, pag. 45. 46, and 50. We will be so civil to him, as not to understand him in a Literal Sense.

Dr. T. says in the place above cited, that we are to have the help of all Ministerial Guides possible, before we must Judge for our selves. Now, I sup­pose, that by all Ministerial Guides possible, the Doctor does not mean, all sorts of Guides True or False. First, Because the Penal Laws hinder us from conversing with those of other Communi­ons. And, Secondly, Because our Saviour himself Commands us to Matth. c. 7. v. 15. beware of false Prophets. Wherefore I would fain know, what mark the Doctor hath to distinguish such Ministerial Guides as may be Addressed to, from such as may not. If he say, that we shall know these Guides by the purity of their Doctrin, [the only Mark com­monly assigned by Protestants, as was intimated above, for That of the True Church.] Then it must follow, that I must first Judge what Doctrin is Pure, before I can know what Guides to have recourse to, and consequently I must Judge for my self [in the particular Viz. In the Interpretation of the Scripture. Doctrins of Christi­anity] before I use the help of these Ministerial Guides. Which according to the Doctor is not to be done. The Circle in other Terms, and more [Page 81] concisely is thus. We cannot know what Doctrin is Pure without Guides: And we cannot know what Guides to consult without first knowing what Doctrin is Pure. If he shall Name Suc­cession, Universality, or any thing else for the mark of these Guides, then we will consider, whe­ther That which is assigned, belong to the Church of England, or not.

The Doctor seems to say in the close of his Pag. 18. Answer (which as the Reader will perceive was nothing less than one of his usual Digressions from the Point in hand) That their People knew the Voice of their Church, and needed not to depend upon the Learning of any Particular Priest for it. If so: How could the Doctor blame this Apprentice (as he doth in his 55th. Page,) for not coming to him with his doubts? Would he have him re­pair to a particular Priest for Instruction, whilest he Heard and Knew the voice of their Church, and therefore (according to the Doctors own as­sertion) needed it not?

But, perhaps, the Doctor will say, that for the Verbal Translation of the Scripture the Protestants are not necessitated to have recourse to particular Men, the Bible being Translated to their hands, and warranted by public Authority (tho' here too they will be at a loss, unless it appear to them, that they may confide in this Authority) but for the Sense in all dubious places they ought to Address themselves to their Ministers. They may do it if they please : And if not (I suppose) they may let it alone; and this last, with most safety : For, according to our late Divines, all things necessary [Page 82] to Salvation are plain in Scripture, and therefore to look after the meaning of dubious places is to do more, than of bounden Duty is required, and has the appearance of a Work of Supereroga­tion, which is such an abominable thing with the Church of England, that they have a whole See 14th. Article. Ar­ticle against it, and declare that it cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, much less (as I suppose) PRACTISED. Wherefore as yet, there appears no cause, why the Apprentice should be chidden for not having waited on Dr. T. in this occasion. And indeed, if that be the case, viz. That the Members of the Church of England are to go to their Ministers for the Construction of these dubious places, I do not perceive, that they have any great advantage o­ver those of the Church of Rome, tho' what the Doctor says were true, viz. That Roman Catholics were to apply themselves to particular Priests for the Translation of the Scriptures, since the Protestants themselves must make the same application for the Sense and Meaning of these Scriptures. And this Sense is that which is of the greatest importance, or rather That which is of any Importance at all.

But in Truth they are not particular Priests which Catholics depend on for either the Transla­tion or Sense of the Scripture in any necessary Point of Faith, but it is on their Church, whose Voice is as Intelligible at least, and (with the Doctors leave) much farther Heard than that of the Church of England. For is it not full as evi­dent in England, and much more evident in other Parts of the World, that the Church of Rome Teaches a Purgatory, than it is, that the Church of England [Page 83] Teaches the contrary? And so of other Doctrins.

This is an Age, wherein Men, whilest they Scepticize on evident Truths, are Positive in Ab­surdities, and therefore there want not Those, who ask, how the Members of the Church of Rome can know what their Church holds. But when they shall have considered, how they themselves come to know what That Church holds, whilest they Condemn it's Doctrins, as also how a Man may come to understand what is held by the Church of England, they will not (I suppose) expect any farther Answer. This were it not so Common (and even with Men of no Common Wit,) would have been too frivolous, to have been taken no­tice of.

One endeavor which I used for the speaking somewhat of a Guide in Controversie, was on the following occasion. Dr. T. having called me to him, and desiring (as he said) that Pag. 21. Mr. P. would stick to something, took upon him to ex­plain a Text of Scripture, which had been long before Cited by Mr. P. for the Authority of the Church, viz. That of St. Matthew, c. 18. v. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican. The Doctor said, that considering the Antecedent Verses, this ought to be understood of ordinary Trespasses, such as the not paying of a just debt, &c. And not of Ar­ticles of Faith, making use of a tedious Instance to that purpose, the summ whereof was Ibid. that in case a Man should refuse to pay his debts after one or two demands, he is put into the Eccle­siastical Courts (supposing it proper for their cog­nisance:) [Page 84] And if he will not stand to their Sentence, then he is Excommunicated, and Treated as such a One. Whereupon I told the Doctor, that for my own part, I understood that Text of Scripture quite otherwise than he did, being persuaded that we were obliged by it to Hear the Church in all those things, wherein the same Church doth de­clare, that she hath Power to Judge. And most especially in matters of Faith: Which in their own Nature seem more proper for the Cognisance of Ecclesiastical Courts than a Question of Debt. That it was not unusual for our Blessed Saviour on a particular occasion to deliver a general Precept; as for instance, when the Jews ask'd him whe­ther or no it were lawful to pay Tribute to Caesar, he Mat. c. 22. v. 19, &c. called for the Tribute-mony, and ask'd whose Image it bore; and being Answered that it was Caesars; he gave this Rule, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesars. Which Rule, I suppose, is general, and hath regard not only to Tribute, but also to whatever else is due from Subjects to Sovereign Princes, as Respect, Obe­dience, and the like; tho' the occasion on which the Rule was made, and that which immediately preceded it, seem to be Particular, and to look no farther than his Pecuniary Rights. That in like manner, tho' this Text, viz. If he will not hear the Church, &c. might be spoken in a Parti­cular occasion, it could not be thence inferr'd, that it was not of a more large Extension, especially if we should compare it with other Texts, such as are, Joh. c. 20. v. 21. As my Father sent me, so I send you. Matth. c. 28. v. 19, 20. Go and Teach all Nations — and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World. [Page 85] Luke c. 10. v. 16. He that Heareth You, Heareth ME, &c. Eph. c. 4. v. 11, &c. And he gave some Apostles: and some Prophets: and some Evangelists: and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, &c. That we henceforth be no more Chil­dren, If Pastors are left to keep us from be­ing tossed to and fro, it follows that we must hearken to them, as also that they must be kept from being tossed to and fro them­selves. Other­wise they will not be able to effect that for which they were left. tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrin, &c. Hebr. c. 13. v. 17. Obey those that are set over you,—for they watch as being to render account for your Souls. All which places (at least, according to my own Judgment) are clear for that Perpetuity, and that Authority of the Church, which are believed by Roman Catholics.

But above all, this Truth seems to be most ap­parent to me, when I consider what immediately follows in this place of Scripture, viz. When our Saviour had said, If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen, and a Publican, which is the subject of our present Controversie, He adds in the very next Verse [speaking to his Church] Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever you shall Bind on Earth, shall be Bound in Heaven, &c. The Doctor ought to have considered what came after his Text, as well as what went before, the one having as mani­fest a regard to it as the other. This Term WHATSOEVER, whether it regard the Persons, or the Things which fall under the Ecclesiastical Censure, or else Both, is of a most general Signification: So that it is evident, that the Power given in this place hath no other Restriction, or Limit, but the Will and Determination of those to whom it is given, there being nothing more required for the Binding, or Loosing a Thing in Heaven, than that the Church should determin to Bind, or Loose it [Page 86] on Earth. Which proves what I asserted above, viz. That the Church hath Power to Judge in all those things, wherein she Declares Her self to have it. [It is true however, that being always Guided by the same Holy Spirit, which invests her with this Authority, she can never Declare Her self to be our Judge, but where she ought, and where it is highly for our Advantage, that she should be so.]

My Discourse on this occasion was to this effect, but (as I have said of those on other subjects) much shorter, tho' this was the fairest opportu­nity of speaking that Dr. Tenison allowed me, during the whole Conference. In Conclu­sion, I assured the Doctor, that I was wholly con­vinced that the abovementioned Text (as I de­clared before) had quite another meaning, than what he gave of it. And therefore I ask'd him, whether, being so convinced as I was, I ought to follow his Interpretation or my own. He An­swered, that he would appeal to the Company, whether the Sence, which he gave of the place, were not Had it been plain it would not have stood in need of his explanation. plainly so. I told him that this would not serve my turn, for tho' that Company should happen to be all of his Mind (as they were not, there being some amongst them of my own Judgment) yet so long as my opinion continued as it was, I should be still at the same loss, unless the Doctor could inform me, whose Judgment I was to trust, my Own, or Theirs. The Doctor said, that for the right Interpretation of Scripture, I ought to examin the Originals, consult Learned Men Why so much ado for what be said was plain? Had the Company, he appealed to, done all this? &c. Whereas, said he, this Boy did none of these things: he came not to Me, nor to his Master, &c. and so [Page 87] striking out of the Road, with a Cavil about the Boy, I could never get him into it again.

Had I been able to have held him to the Point a little longer, he must have granted me according to his own principle of Every ones Power of Judg­ing for himself, That seeing I Judged the Sense of Holy Scripture to be Different from what he thought, I was as much bound to dis-believe his Doctrin, as he was to believe it. Which would have been an excellent instance, how much Dr. Tenison's Rule of Faith tended to the Ʋnity of it; And undoubtedly must have sounded very strange­ly in the Ears of his Parishioners, notwithstanding their great esteem and affection for him. Which I question not, but the Doctor was well aware of, and therefore thought it more to his purpose, to chide the Boy for not having wash'd his Face (as the Story goes of such another Answerer) than to suffer the Disputation to proceed. And yet this is the Doctor, who in this very place desires, that his Adversary would Pag. 21. stick to something. But non videmus id Manticae, quod à tergo est.

I have already taken notice of a Sentence or two, which the Doctor sets to my account, more than I can remember my self to have been guilty of : There is another of them pa. 21. viz. Mr. M. asked Dr. T. if he could tell Chapter and Verse through­out the Bible. And I think there are one or two more of the like nature: But they are of so little importance one way or other, that (tho' I believe they were never spoken by me, yet) they shall be said, or not said, as the Doctor pleases. But touching what he says, pa. 18. Of something [Page 88] spoken to me about the Conference betwixt some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, and Dr. Stil­lingfleet and Dr. Burnet, I remember nothing of it. Neither had I any concern in that Conference, or in any thing relating to it.

In the Doctors 22d. and 23d. Pages, the Rea­der will find the following Lines. —After this Dr. T. said to Mr. P. there was one thing remaining and fit to be said to him: He had in a Printed Paper promised not to tamper about Religion with the Pro­testant Boys who should come to the Savoy-School; it had appeared, that he tampered with Boys out of his care, and would do so much more with those under it: he said it did not follow, because of his word which he would not break, and that for this Boy he had done it in order to his everlasting Salvation. Dr. T. an­swered, that being your Principle, that all out of your Communion are Damned, you being a Jesuit and a Papist, must break your word in that Paper for the necessary good (as you think) of the Souls of the Boys, especially you having hope of turning Boys under your care. Mr. M. said to Dr. T. This reflects upon the King. Another more loud, this reflects upon the King, and suggests, that he will break his word: And Mr. P. joyned in the Accusation, but many of the Hearers cryed out against them, and said it was a Knavish trick. Mr. M. was going away, Dr. T. called to him, and desired him not to run away with a false Tale. Mr. M. denyed he said such words, Dr. T. told him he did, and that for his part he thought his Loyalty at this time to be more valuable than Mr. M's. Because he as a Son of the Church of England, professed he would not Rebell against the King, not­withstanding [Page 89] he might be of another Religion, where­as Mr. M. being of the same Religion, could not so well separate Loyalty from Interest. Dr. T. being concerned at this false and unworthy way of catching Men, did say, to Mr. M. at the Door of the first Room, that if he had persisted in this Trick, he could not have forborn to have given him the Name of Evidence Meredith.

Here it is, that the Doctor Storms indeed! Here it is, that his Rage breaks forth !—Hunc tu, Romane, Caveto! Here it is, that he manifests the Truth of what he tells us in his Epistle to his Pa­rishioners, and convinces us at length, that amidst so many things there is somewhat sincere! Here it is, that the loss of his Fathers Benefice begins to work, and raises his Suspicion and Indignation to so high a pitch, that, as he says, it is a difficulty to him to Temper himself!

Out comes—A Knavish trick—A False tale—A False and unworthy way—Evidence Mere­dith!

What a deal of Billings-gate Rhetoric have we here, and all cramm'd into half a Page? Is this Dr. Tenison that speaks, —Tantaene animis Caele­stibus Irae! Is it possible for the Anger of a Re­verend Divine to boyl up to so much scum? Does he who was so ready at the Conference with St. Jude's Reproof against Railing, so soon forget his own Instructions? When we see Practices so dif­ferent from Words, can we think, that his former Reprehension, was any other, than the doing that very thing which he seemed to Reprehend?

Out of the abundance of the Heart the Luke c. 6. v. 45. Mouth speaketh. And where the Streams are so bitter, it [Page 90] is not hard to guess, how much Gall there is at the Fountain. Certainly had I been as well ac­quainted with this Gentlemans Temper before our Conference, as I am by it, I should have had one single Exception against Dr. T. which would have put his three Exceptions against Mr. M. out of Countenance: I say, his Exceptions, not Him­self.

But, forasmuch as Dr. Tenison seems to lay the blame of all his immoderate Heat on those Im­pressions that were made on him during his Child­hood, I will not lose so excellent an Opportunity (since I design rather to Benefit others, than Right my self) of letting my Readers know the strange Force of such Impressions, and conse­quently the great Care which the Education of their Children exacts from them. Which (I believe) I shall do, if I let them see, that Dr. Tenison had not the least Glympse of Reason for all this Fury, but, that the whole (as far as we could perceive) was entirely owing to that per­nicious Tincture which most unfortunately he had received, whilest he was Young, and it is pro­bable, before he came to the Years of discretion. And I question not, but the matter of fact rightly stated, and freed from the Doctors disguises will effect This. And it is as follows,

Dr. Tenison spoke to this purpose, that whereas the Jesuits had Published a Paper, in which they promise not to tamper about Religion with the Boys that come to their Schools, Mr. P. had meddled with one who was not his Scholar, and therefore it was pro­bable, he would much more do so with such as were. Mr. P. replyed, It did not follow, he having given [Page 91] his word for the one, but not for the other; adding, that he neither had, nor would break his word in that matter: Whereupon the Doctor said the following words, If you are a Papist you must break your word. On these words, and spoken in these Circumstances, I said —This re­flects too far—These things are not fit to be heard—And then retiring a step or two, I came back to the Company again, and perceiving that no notice was taken by the Doctor of what I had said on purpose that he might forbear such Dis­courses as, according to my judgment, might draw after them pernicious consequences, that my Admonition might be yet plainer to him, I said —This reflects upon the King—which was no more than what I meant by my former words, tho' then I forbore to name the King, as well out of a respect to His Majesty, as because I had no desire, that the hint I then gave should be taken notice of, any farther than by the Doctor himself; So far was I from any intention of catch­ing him, as he expresseth it; and even when I saw it necessary to speak more plainly, that what I said might have some effect, I did it in so low a voice, that I am confident the greatest part of the Company did not hear me, at least I desired they should not.

I beg of my Readers to pause here a little while, and consider, what it is, that is so heinous in all this proceeding: Let them discuss every part and parcel of it as rigorously as they please, and then tell me, whether or no they can discover any o­ther Motive, the Doctor had to his severe Lan­guage [Page 92] on this occasion, save only That, which (as he acquaints us in his forementioned Epistle) had lain by him for so many Years.

Can any one affirm at this time of day, that such Propositions, [viz. Papists are Breakers of their word, or If you are a Papist you must break your word] are fit to be vented, and Instilled into the Common People, and this too (that they may receive it with less hesitation) from the Mouths of those, from whom they expect nothing but Gospel? Was not the Jealousie which the Author of the late Letter to a Dissenter endeavored to raise, as if his Sacred Majesty would be hindred by his Religion from complying with his Viz. Of Liberty of Con­science. promise, the most Seditious part, of that most Seditious Piece, and (as I may say) the Venom of that Vi­per? And had not Dr. Tenisons Loyalty been more valuable by such Expressions of his Abhorrence for that Pamplet, as the World hath received from the Tongues and Pens of many other Worthy Persons, than it can appear by seeming, at least, to joyn with the Author of it in that very Insinuation, which (above all the rest) renders him the most Detestable? And lastly was it so weighty an Offence in me, to give the Doctor a Friendly hint of the inconvenience of such Discourses, that he is not contented with those opprobrious Terms, he bestow'd on me at the Conference, and wherewith he hath since aspersed me in this Nar­rative, but still (as I am told he does in a later Pamphlet) heaps Abuse upon Abuse, as if I had unpardonably Injured him by suffering the worst of Injuries from him without Returning them, [Page 93] or (hitherto) so much as Complaining of them? If this be the Doctors Loyalty, God grant his Majesty better Subjects. If this be his Justice, God keep me from another Experiment of it. And lastly, if this be his Morality: Will the Doctor take it ill, if we should have so good an Opinion of those Parishioners whom he so much extolls, as to hope that in his two large Parishes there are not Many but what are better Christians than their Pastor?

It is true, that the Experience of many Years has rendred our Prince's Justice and Constancy so well known to all sorts of People, that it must needs be hard for such Insinuations as these to find place amongst them. However, when Men have been prevailed with to believe, that Christ him­self hath not made good a Promise of his, viz. That of being with his Church to the end of the World, shall we think it impossible, but that they may come to entertain as mean a thought as this of an Earthly Sovereign, how Great and Good soever he may be, especially when these Talents which have succeeded so well in the greater undertak­ing, are employed for the compassing of the less? The same vitious Inclination to Disobedience and mistaken Liberty, that rendred them plyable to the first Imposture, is not lessened but increased by their being deceived, and therefore of Conse­quence leaves them still more disposed for the se­cond. And certainly for these Reasons, a moderate Caution, where any thing of this Danger appears, ought not to be look't on as either too Officious, or Superfluous.

[Page 94] Had this business been fairly Represented, Dr. Tenison himself had been ashamed of letting so much Choler break forth, where (even accord­ing to Worldly Maxims) there was so little cause for it: And therefore if you take notice, you will find, that he has not permitted himself so far to be transported by his Passion, but that he hath taken Wit in his Anger, and notwithstand­ing his Pag. 83. abhorrence of Shifting and Insincerity hath (for reasons easily discernible) related the matter of Fact quite otherwise than in truth it was. And therefore since this Gentleman in his 46th. Page, promises a just Representation of the whole, we must from henceforward conclude, that they are not Papists only, who are breakers of their Word.

Dr. Tenison seems to affirm (as you will have seen) That it was on his saying to Mr. P. the fol­lowing words [viz. That being your principle, that all out of your Communion are damned, you being a Iesuit and a Papist, must break your word in the Paper for the necessary good (as you think) of the Souls of the Boys, especially you having hope of turning Boys under your care] I say he seems to tell us, That on these words, Mr. M. said to Dr. T. This reflects upon the King. Now for my own part I desire, that my Portion in Gods favor may be no farther sure, than this is False: Which, were I not very certain of what I here relate, I would not say for ten thousand Worlds. The words which I took notice of, and on which I spoke the fore­mentioned Sentences, viz. This reflects too far, &c. [Page 95] were those which I noted above, viz. If you are a Papist, you must break your word. For had the Doctor spoken of this matter in the words of his present Narrative, I am well assured, that I should not have made that Reflection on it: For altho' the speech, even as himself puts it, cannot be look'd on as very seasonable in this juncture of Affairs, yet that Restriction of —you being a Ie­suit, (however forced and improper as may ap­pear by what See Mr. P's. Account pag. 14. & sequ. Mr. P. hath said of it) would have hindred me from saying, That it reflected on the King, since I can assure him (over and above what I have told him already) that I was so far from seeking an occasion of speaking what I did, that I was sorry that which he offered for it, was so necessary to be taken: My nature (if I am not mistaken in it) being too little inclin­ed to Displease, for the making such unwelcome Addresses, but where as Sense of Duty absolutely requires them.

The Sentence which I reflected on was so plainly lyable to such a Remark, that (as Dr. Tenison confesses) two or three immediately joyn­ed with me in it. Nay, who can doubt, but that even the Doctor himself was of the same perswa­sion, when he thought it for his purpose to Change it, and that, by so considerable an Alteration, as hath been shewn, viz. by restraining that to Iesuits only, which (as it was spoken) exten­ded to all Catholics?

I must confess, that this kind of Retractation (I mean, a Disowning of the Expression that was [Page 94] [...] [Page 95] [...] [Page 96] complained of) is a better Argument of Dr. Tenisons Repentance, than it would have been to have offered at it's Justification. However, the Doctor ought not to appear Vertuous at his Neigh­bors cost, he ought not so far to consult his own Good Name, as not to care what becomes of mine. Especially, when the value of Reputation is so well known to him, that he thinks it worth his while (as may be perceived by his above-cited Dedica­tory Epistle) to raise the whole posse of two large Parishes to But twice as much would be little enough to preserve it, should it please God, that the Truth of this very passage alone, were fully known. preserve it.

Why must I suffer, because the Doctor is a sham­ed of what he said? He might learn by that un­willingness which he finds in himself to own his Guilt, how grievous the Imputation of it must be to another. Certainly, had his Conscience been awake whilst he Penn'd this Account, he would have seen that the —Knavish Trick, the —False Tale, the —False and Ʋnworthy way, could not have been so fitly sent abroad, as kept at home, and because such Accounts [in the Cant of the Mobile] Denominate, as well as Evidences (if Dr. T's example be as good a Warrant for Ribaldry, as St. Pauls Mr. P's Ac­count, pag. 5. was for a Grave, tho' sharp Reprehension) give me leave to say, That Narra­tive-Tenison would have been as good a Jest, and (I am sure) as the case stands, a far juster reproach than Evidence-Meredith. But for such merry con­ceits as these, I must confess, it is my Opinion, that both our Coats (tho' mine be not Canonical) ought to be of another Colour.

But that, which renders my Complaint on this occasion yet more reasonable, is, that Dr. Tenison [Page 97] was under no precise necessity of taking such a course as this, for the clearing of himself. He might have declared, that this Sentence dropt from him in the eagerness of Discourse and at unawares. We should not have been so severe to his lapses, as he is to Viz. Mis­spellings, and the like. ours. We do not think, that our Cause is so near Sinking, that we should catch at such Twigs to keep it above Water. He might have said, that tho' his Expression reach'd to all Roman Catholics, he had no intention of including more than the Jesuits. This (in some measure at least) would have sav'd both his Credit, and mine. Nay, if he had so pleased, he might have blamed the Inference which I had drawn from his Discourse, since I had much rather, that his Censure should have fallen on my Judgment than on my Integrity. For I can assure him, that I esteem it (whatever he may do) a less Inconvenience to be thought Weak in the former than Defective in the latter. Wherefore to conclude, there having been other ways of complying with that strong innate principle of self-preservation, it is some­what the more afflicting to me, that he should pitch on no other means of wiping off his own Spots, but by Aspersing me.

Methinks, this hasty and inconsiderate Speech (if it were such) might have seem'd to him as fair an opportunity of asking pardon, as some other of his sayings have done, such as were, Pag. 13. and 17. That he would not come under Mr. P's Ferula, and that Mr. P. might give his Papers for Kites to his Boys. And the crying Peccavi in those trivial occasions, and the omitting it where his Princes honor, and his fellow-Subjects Reputation lay so much at stake, [Page 98] does it not look somewhat like Straining at a Guat and Swallowing a Camel?

It is true, that immediately after the Doctor had ended his wrangling about this matter with Mr. P. he called after me, and (as I think) desired me not to run away with a false Tale, telling me, that his words were —You being a Iesuit and a Papist, &c. and that (he hoped) the King was not a Iesuit, and therefore that his speech could not con­cern him. I replyed, in these express Terms. Your words [viz. Those which I had taken notice of] were not You being a Iesuit and a Papist, &c. but If you are a Papist, you must break your word. I said moreover, that I had no design to Inform against him, as some in the Crowd had mutter'd, and that my Intention in taking notice of his words was no other, than (what I have had oc­casion to intimate before) that he might learn to be somewhat more Cautions and Deliberate in his Dis­courses for the future. Now, how comes the Doctors True Account to be wholly silent in so material a passage? But the Causes of Complaint come so thick, that I must beg leave to forbear the making it now and then: It being hard for me to vary my phrase as often as a new Injury seems to require it.

Mr. M. says the Doctor, denied he said such words, viz. That the Doctors Proposition had re­flected on the King.

The confusion was so great at this time (there being then three or four bawling about my Ears at once) that I cannot well call to mind what I said; [Page 99] only thus much I distinctly remember, viz. That one of the Doctors Friends affirmed again and a­gain, that I had not spoken those words, whom I did not contradict, partly because I was not well assur'd whether or no I had said, what was then particularly mentioned, in such manner as to be heard by any of the Company, having (as I said before) spoken very low; and partly because I desir'd that the Doctor might receive as little dis­satisfaction, as it was possible, and therefore since I understood, he knew already what fault had been found with his Proposition (which was all I aimed at) I was loath to disquiet him farther by repeat­ing That, which, tho' reasonably enough urged, had yet been ungrateful to him. But if any word dropt from me through suddenness of Speech, that implyed such a Denyal as the Doctor mentions, it was more than I intended, and must be attributed to that distraction of mind which is hardly avoid­able amidst such Peals of various Discourses, where the Attention being called upon by many Different matters at once, is sufficiently applyed to none. For as soon as the Doctor (who seemed to suspect, that I meditated on some Information against him, and therefore, not to be contented with my Si­lence) urged me by the continuance of his Expo­stulations to declare my self in more express Terms, I was far from Disowning that I had Reflected on his forementioned Proposition, as the Reader will have perceived by what he met with in my last Re­mark, where I repeat some part of our Discourse on this occasion, in which I acknowledged that I had Reflected on the Doctors Words, but denyed that it was with any other Design, save only, that [Page 100] he himself might Reflect a little more on such as he should purpose to speak for the future: A Cau­tion which (God knows) the best of us stand in need of.

But whereas some persons of that Company spoke as if I had declared, that the Doctor had Re­flected on the King, and that on such a supposition I had an Intention of Informing against him, it is not improbable, but that this (or any thing else which I should have taken to have had this mean­ing) might have been flatly denyed by me. For I look'd on it as one thing, For the Doctor to have Re­flected on the King, and another for his Proposition to have done so; since for the Truth of the former, it seem'd necessary to me, that the Doctor should have actually thought on the King (and Reflected on him in his mind) when he spoke those Words; which possibly he might not do. [Nay, I cannot do him so much Injury as to imagin, that he under­stood (I do not say, the whole extent, but even) the obvious Consequences of many of his Speeches at this Conference; since, if he had done so, I question not, but he would have omitted them.] But on the other hand, that a Proposition may be truly said to Reflect on the King, nothing else is required, than by a Natural and Easie Inference, It should appear to include him within its Cen­sure. As for Example, when all Papists are said to be Breakers of their Word (since we cannot have a better instance than we have in the present Case) the King is manifestly included: Tho' per­haps the Speaker may not reflect that he is so. Wherefore I say, I might deny, that I had ac­cused the Doctor of Reflecting on the King, and [Page 101] yet at the same time affirm, that his Proposi­tion did.

This consideration leads me to another Remark, which is, that tho' every tittle of what the Doctor here relates should be true (as it is not) and tho' I should have had a purpose of Informing (as was likewise falsely imagined) yet the Doctor was too hasty in charging me with running away with a false Tale. For what Tale had the Doctor heard from me, that was False? The Doctor had spoken cer­tain words: And I affirmed that such words Re­flected on the King. Where is the Falseness of this Story? Or rather, what Story is there in This? I said not (as I told you just now) that the Doctor Reflected on the King, but that his Words Reflected on him; which tho' it had been false (unless I had spoken contrary to my own mind) had been the Error of Judgment, or a fault in my Inferring Faculty, and not a Lie, as the Doctor would have it. I presume, that those who hold Transubstantiation and Purgatory will not pass for Lyars with the Doctor, according to the propriety of our Common Speech, tho' at the same time he may take such Tenets to be Erroneous, and the Arguments that are brought to prove them, Sophisms. Wherefore in this Particular Case, altho' my Inference had been Bad, my Con­science might have been Good, since it must needs go very hard with the World if every Man were to be as ill a Christian, as he is a Lo­gician.

All the Information (had I intended any such thing) which I could, or should have given in [Page 102] this matter, was, that Dr. Tenison, had spoken such Words as I had heard from him, and that ac­cording to my Judgment those Words Reflected on the King. But whether they did so, or not, or how far the Doctor was culpable or innocent, must have been left to others to determine. And after this if the Doctor, and his Words both, should have been Acquitted; it might perhaps have ap­peared to him how greatly it was for his advan­tage, that his Words were not left to a Private Interpretation (as he leaves God Almighties) but that proper Judges had been chosen out and Au­thorized for that purpose. This Reflection, I say, might Naturally enough have come into the Doctors mind. But I cannot think, that it would have appeared to those Judges (whosoever they should be) or to any other sober person, that I had been guilty of any Perjurious Testimony in this Proceeding, as the Doctors Knavish Trick, False Tale, and the rest of his Civil Language would imply. And this is another Reason why the Doctors Civilities ought not to have gone from before his own Door.

The bare matter of Fact in the forementioned business singly related (as I said at first) would have been sufficient, to have shewn the unrea­sonableness of Dr. Tenisons Passion; however I have added these few Remarks, that it might the more fully appear, how lasting and forcible an Influence these Early Quo semel est imbuta recens, &c. Tinctures have upon our minds, and consequently what great Reason all Fathers of Families (as I intimated above) have to take notice of what is said by the [Page 103] Poet, viz. Maxima Debetur pueris Reverentia.

But if former Impressions may pass as an excuse for present Transports in Mortals of a lower stamp (for I take it for granted that Wise Men ought to be Superior to all these Irregular Motions, whether Sapiens Dominabitur Astris. Natural, or Accidental) there does not want something of this kind, which it would have been in my Power also to have produced as a Motive to severe Language, had I been guilty of any, I mean, an Impression made likewise on Me, not in my Childhood, but in my ripest Age; not by the behavior of one of the Doctors Bre­thren, real, or supposed, but by his own; nor Thirty or Forty Years since, but no more than a few Months ago, and lastly not unreasonably, but with a great deal of Reason.

To let the Reader know what I mean without farther preamble : During the late Commission for the Licensing of Pedlars, a Roman-Catholic Addressed himself to Dr. Tenison for his Certifi­cate, in order to the obtaining of one of those Licenses. The Doctor having found out, what Religion he was of, told him, that no Papist could be a good Subject, and thereupon absolutely I am told, the Dr. says, that for meer Re­ligion no one was ever an hair of his head the worse by his means. How well these Stories agree? refused to do what he desired. Now, this Story I received from so good hands, that I could not question the Truth of it, and therefore I may leave it to my Reader to consider, what Impression it must needs make on me, to see, not only my self, but the Christians of so many Ages and Countries traduced and blasted all at once, and left even without so much Reputation as was necessary for a To make a­mends, the Dr. will allow me to be a Sales­man at an Auction of Ar­guments. Pediar. It is true, I up­braided not the Doctor with this Story, at the opening of our Conference, tho' his Stories con­cerning [Page 104] me might have provoked me to it, and tho' this alone had been worth them all : How­ever I believe, that none will think it strange if it left my mind a little more disposed to take no­tice of what the Doctor said, and not to conclude those things, which otherwise I should have re­puted dangerous, to be innocent meerly because they were spoken by him: Neither is it wonder­ful if the Resentment of an Injury should be some­what greater where former wounds (and deep and fresh ones too) render us more sensible, than it would have been in another circumstance. But enough of this: I am unwilling to rip up (if that term may be used of such as are not yet well closed) even new sores. Neither would I open them at present, did I not think it necessary in order to a Cure.

Could but these Gentlemen Examin themselves a little, and reflect a while upon their own Pro­ceedings, we should not have such hard measure at their hands.

The Reader has Above pa. 17. & sequ. seen how innocent my Dis­course was touching the largeness of the Parishes in the Suburbs and the necessity of more Churches, and yet Dr. Tenison looked on it as so great a Crime, that he thought me not fit to be trusted as one of the Hearers of his Conference, meerly on that account, and the best Name he could allow me (for the Doctor has an excellent Invention at Calling-Names) was that of an Intermedler.

In like manner, in my Letter to Dr. St. I had these words —If all places were to be avoided, wherein Lies are told I am afraid, that Dr. St—. would run the hazard of being silenced for want of a [Page 105] Pulpit, which might be ventur'd on. This the Doctor stretched to a Complement on the London Clergy in See Dr. St.'s second Letter to Mr. G. in the end. If he means by London-Clergy in this place only some of them (for I suspect a Loop­hole whil'st I am dealing with this Gentleman) what is here said will not be­long to him; and then he is only to be blam'd for an obscure and ensnaring Expression. General; and (to shew his good Nature) reserv'd it for his own Complement to me at part­ing; or else (more properly indeed, considering the Genius of this Writer) for the Point of his Contro­versial Epigram. The Expression was used by me on this Occasion: I offer'd somewhat in defence of such as frequented Coffee-houses; and intimated, amongst other things of that kind, that it was no good Reason why those Houses ought necessarily to be forborn, because it often happened that Seditious or Lying One good end for which I said these places might be visited, was to take such Opportuni­ties as should happen for the diverting Discour­ses from what was Seditious, Idle, or Profane, to that which was Serious and Useful, either for This Life, or the Next, &c. This, I said, was a Mission [...]y Zeal, and therefore what the Children of the Reformation were little ac­quainted with. The Doctor answers, That tho' he be no Friend to Seditious, Idle, or Profane Discourses, yet it looks oddly to turn Places of Diversion into Schools of Disputing. He still puts things upon the stretch, as if there were no other way of diverting those Discour­ses, but by Scholastic Disputations, which were not mentioned by me. However, the Doctor must be too great a Friend to Seditious Discourses, not to think even such Disputations much bet­ter; and therefore, at least when there is no other way of putting an end to the former, it cannot be ill done to introduce the latter. But the Doctor likes not this Missionary Zeal: as if, forsooth, it were the worse because it want­ed his Approbation. I question not but he likes the Reformation as well for not sending Missi­ons into China, as for not endeavouring to do good in Coffee-houses. The Doctor may call to mind what Instructions were given by St. Paul to Timothy, viz. That he should be zealous in his Exhortations, even to importunity, Preach­ing as well out of season, as in it; and then perhaps he will not think it such a mortal Of­fence to endeavour the reclaiming of a Soul from Error or Vice, wheresoever a probability of doing it, or even a possibility, shall appear, especially when he considers that some men are such studious shunners of Pious Instructions, that unless they meet with them amidst their Pastimes, and when they least think of them, they will always want them. Such is the good­ness of our Lord, that when the Guests come not where they may be regularly invited, he sends his Servants into the High-ways, &c. to call them. But the Keepers of these Houses will be Lo­sers by such Disputes, for men do not love to lace their Coffee with Controversies. Dr. St. knows how great an Argument Gain is with most men. The Author of a Seasonable Discourse against Popery did it before him, when he ad­dressed two of his main Dissuasives to the Gra­siers and the Lawyers, putting them in mind that if Catholic Religion should be restored in England, the one would be impoverish'd by Fasting-days, and the other by Appeals to Rome, and so engaging that Passion [viz. the love of Money] to be of his side, which as a Divine he ought to have preached against. But no damage ought to be apprehended from that which is good. And forasmuch as con­cerns Coffee-houses, if men love not to lace their Coffee with Controversie, they may lace it with somewhat else, or else drink it plain; here being variety of Discourses, as well as Liquors, and a great Liberty of Conscience of calling for what they please. Neither is Dis­putation it self such a Nuisance to this Trade as Dr. St. imagins; for let but the Doctor (since he thinks it no crime to go to a Coffee-house) honor one of them with his Presence, tho' with a Disputing design, and I will under­take it shall have Custom enough, and par­ticularly Mr. G.'s as often as he is in Town. This Marginal Note is too long: but the matter lay so near my Road, that I could not forbear the taking a view of it. Discourses were vented in them; there being no places so Sacred, which such things as these had not access to some time or other; no, not the Pulpits themselves. I consider'd indeed, that Mis­representations of late had been more frequent in Pulpits than formerly; wherefore I hinted, it was to be feared that e'r long none of them would be left, but what would have met with some Misrepresenter or o­ther. I will not deny (what indeed is evident in it self) that I reflected on some Prea­chers; but how this could pass for a Complement on the whole London-Clergy, I stand in need of Dr. St.'s Subtilty [Page 106] to make out; for as my say­ing that some Lyes were told in Coffee-houses, did not re­flect on all those who frequen­ted them, (nay, I was then a­ctually endeavouring to ex­cuse the frequenting them) so neither could my intimating that the Pulpits had been lia­ble to some part of that Misfor­tune, concern all those who Preached in them. Indeed my Complement (as the Doctor calls it) was so far from being design'd by me to all the Lon­don-Clergy, that I directed it not to Dr. St. himself, any far­ther than his own Conscience should look on it as belonging to him. However, had he ta­ken it to himself, I should not have contended so much to have rescu'd it out of his hands. I question not but there is a great deal of sincerity a­mongst the London-Clergy, and even so much as to acknow­ledge, that every individual Member of that Body hath it not. And, after all, had it been true (as it was not) that I had reflected on this whole Clergy; what had That been in comparison of Dr. Tenison's —If you are a Papist, &c. which takes in so many [Page 107] Countreys and Ages, and even his own Sove­reign?

These are two Instances what Use these Gentle­men can make of their Inferring Faculties, when they see it for their purpose. Is there any thing here half so plain, or so naturally deduced, as that which I drew from Dr. Tenison's Proposition? Nay rather, are not the Inferences of these two Doctors evident­ly forced, whereas mine is genuine, and obvious even to the meanest Understanding? And yet base and unworthy ways of catching men, are laid to my charge, and these Gentlemen pass for Plain-dealers. But this will not always be so. There is a time to come, in which there will be nothing of what is now hidden, but what shall be revealed. And then it will appear how ill a choice those have made, who have preferred Fame before Truth, and the saving of their Credit before the saving of their Souls.

The Doctor says farther, That for his part he thought his Loyalty at this time to be more valuable than Mr. M. 's, because he, as a Son of the Church of Eng­land, professed he would not Rebel against the King, notwithstanding he might be of another Religion: whereas Mr. M. being of the same Religion, could not so well separate Loyalty from Interest.

Now, for my part, tho' I hold Works of Superero­gation, yet I am far from thinking Loyalty (at least, as it is here Viz. A not Rebelling a­gainst the King. describ'd) to be one of those: And therefore it is my opinion, that we ought as little to value our selves on our not being Rebels, as we would do on our not being Thieves or Murderers; nay, rather less, forasmuch as Theft and Murther are certainly less Criminal than Rebellion. And [Page 108] therefore a Loyalty to be boasted of (if there be any such) must be somewhat more than an ordina­ry Obedience. However, if the Doctor think his Loyalty at this time more valuable than mine, be­cause he demeans himself peaceably under a Prince of a different Religion, he ought to remember, that for three years which he hath lived so, it has fallen to my share to pass over twelve in the same manner, only with this difference, that He enjoys entire Pri­viledges of a Free-born Subject, (sitting under a large Fig-tree, and gathering the Fruit of a well-spread Vine) and is promis'd the continuance of them; having no other Ʋnless perhaps a Restraint from vexing others, and consequent­ly the want of the old & more effectual method of silencing Jesuits, be an inconvenience to him. cause of disquiet, save only (what ought to prompt him to nothing but Grati­tude) the bare Contemplation, that were it not for the Goodness of his Sovereign, it might have been otherwise. These, I say, are his Enjoyments during this great trial of his Fidelity: whereas I, on the other side, during my Probation, was not only de­barr'd of those Advantages which my Education might have pretended to, but for some time even of the Open Air; and even this kind of Life was so precariously enjoy'd by us, and we were so far from being assured of any Continuance of it, that were it not for our Confidence in God's Mercy, we could have expected nothing else but immediate Destru­ction. Now, when these two things are put into the Ballance; I mean the two different Trials of Dr. Teni­son's Loyalty and Mine; I cannot but think that the Advantage will be on my side: and this even tho' the Doctor himself (which perhaps is a bold word) should hold the Scales. Wherefore, if any value accrue to Loyalty from such kind of Trials, That certainly which has undergon the longest and seve­rest, [Page 109] ought to be the most prized. Neither is there any reason why my Loyaly should lose that value in the Calm, which (according to this Rule) it must have acquir'd in the Storm. On the contrary, it is then chiefly that the Labours of a Souldier are con­sidered, when the War is at an end; and even by Rewards his Merit is not lessen'd (tho' his Pretensi­on be) but declared.

For which reasons it is probable that this Compari­son of the Doctor [...] will appear to the World to have many more Grai [...] of Self-Love, than of Considera­tion: And for m [...] [...] part, I cannot but look on it as an ill sign, [...] Loyalty should sit so heavy on any Man's shoulders at this time of day, and a­midst so much ease and security, as to be thought a thing of any weight.

Besides, had the Doctor been that Loyal Man he pretended, tho' he had thought me a little too hasty in this occasion; ought he to have snapt me up so dis­courteously, and with so much bitterness of Spirit, for an expression, which, tho' taken by him for ill-grounded, could not but be look'd on as Loyal? Methinks (I say) the Loyalty of my Admonition might have made some Attonement for the supposed Error of it; and the Doctor, who is so good at gi­ving Grains of Allowance, might (one would think) Page 7. have extended his Charity to Me also; especially when the Zeal for Loyalty needed not to have been extraordinary in him, for the overlooking of so small a Fault.

Similis simili gaudet: Had the Doctor been as much a Loyalist in his Heart, as (seemingly at least) he was the contrary in his words, he would have cherished Loyalty, where-ever he had found it, even [Page 110] even tho' mingled with some Indiscretion. He may remember how cordially the Old and Loyal Church­of England-men and the Roman Catholics lov'd one another during the Civil Wars; when the difference of Persuasion was not more powerful to divide their Understandings, than a constant Fidelity to their Prince to unite their Affections. But these days are somewhat changed. The first Reformers (to give them their due) thought nothing enough for the Declaring him Head of their Church, and Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Things or Causes. They cared not what Church-Power he took, so that he would exercise it in giving them Church-Li­vings. King; but it is to be feared there are some amongst their Successors, who thin [...] [...]ery thing too much. Wherefore the late Represent­er of Old and New Popery may (if he pleases, for his diversion) transfer his parallel Columns to his own Church. I question not but he will be able to fill them: And for some Materials I would re­commend him to a late * Work of one of his own A Discourse for Abrogating the Tast, &c. Prelates; Others he may have in the Uarious Translations of the Scripture, Common-Prayer-Books, Rubricks, Forms of Ordina­tion, and the like.

But after all, I will not much contend with Dr. Te­nison in the forementioned Point. I wish, that he thought his Loyalty ten times more valuable than he does. The greater Treasure he takes it for, the more careful in all probability he will be to preserve it. And had the Doctor's esteem for Loyalty been so extraordinary before our Acquaintance, his Dis­course had not drawn such a fruitless Admonition from me, nor my Admonition so much unjust An­ger from him.

[Page 111] There are several other Remarks which would offer themselves to me on this Subject : But the Filth which is so copiously rak'd together in this Pa­ragraph, is no such inviting sight, as that I should continue to pore on it. However, there is one Ob­servation which prevails with me for a little long­er stay. I cannot but call to mind what Sacred things the King's Witnesses were, during the late pretended Popish-Plot, notwithstanding that those who presented themselves for that Employment were known to be the most profligate Wretches alive: whereas as soon as that Phantôm vanished, and a true Plot (bred under the Shadow of this false One) was happily detected, then nothing was so scandalous with some Men as one of these Wit­nesses; such, I mean, as were then for the King: Such a strange Perverseness is there in some Natures, that what is for their turn, tho' ever so Diabolical, shall be Saintly with them; but what is otherwise, tho' Truth, Justice, or Piety, shall be look'd on as the most detestable thing in the World. Whil'st the Witnesses were False, it was a sin to asperse them; but as soon as they came to be True, their for­mer Treasons were held less Crimes, than their pre­sent Discovery of them. And it was about this time, viz. whil'st the Real Plot was under Prose­cution, that the Doctor's Nick name of Evidence began to come in use. Indeed the former Witnesses were every way so abominable, that the very name of a Witness seem'd Ignominious; and therefore it was the easier for the Enemies of the Crown to re­present that as Odious in it self, which was only so when accompanied with Falshood. And hence, in­stead [Page 112] of vilifying Perjur'd Witnesses in particular, they slily brought a discredit on all Witnesses in ge­neral, at least on Those who (as I have said) were for the King, and so falsly pretending to remedy one Evil, they endeavoured to introduce a Greater; it being certainly a less Mischief to the Common­wealth, that some False Witnesses should be belie­ved, than that None should be look'd on as True. Wherefore I hope the Doctor means somewhat worse by the Nick-name he bestows on me, than barely the being a Witness for the King, since (bles­sed be God) I am not yet so unmortified, but that I had rather be reputed a False Evidence, tho' the worst of Disgraces, than that the being a True Evi­dence on the King's behalf should be esteemed a Dis­grace: It being better that His Majesty should want the Testimony of one single Person, tho' ever so unjustly, than that he should be depriv'd of That of all his Subjects.

This Pamphlet grows more bulky than I intend­ed; and therefore, having said as much as I thought fit on the things contain'd in Dr. Tenison's Narra­tive, I purpose to be much shorter concerning that which remains.

The Doctor in his 57th Page quotes a Viz. His Diff. betwixt Prot. and Socin. Meth. p. 26. Work of his own in these Words; Though he [the Right So­cinian] thinks a Doctrin is plain in Scripture, yet if he believes it to be against HIS REASON, he assents not to it. And p. 27. A Man of this Church [of Eng­land] suspects not Reason it self, but his own present Art of Reasoning, whensoever it concludes against that which he reads, and reads without doubting of the [Page 113] Sense of the Words. This he lays down for the Dif­ference between the Church of England and the So­cinians.

Hitherto I have taken the Socinians at least for a witty Generation : But henceforward, if the Do­ctor's Character of them be true, I must hold them all for Blockheads, on pain of being held for one my self. For what is it to think a Doctrin plain in Supposing Scri­pture to be the Word of God. Scripture, but to think it to be revealed by God? And consequently, what is it not to believe a Doctrin which is thought to be plain in Scripture, but not to be­lieve what is thought to be revealed by God? And is not this in other terms to suppose that it is possible for God to reveal a Falshood? Wherefore if this be the sign of a Right Socinian, as the Doctor would have it, a Bedlam is fitter for him than an Inquisition. But the truth is, the Socinians are not such Fools as this Gentleman would make them; They do not think the Doctrin they reject to be plain in Scripture: Nay, before they reject it, they conclude it not to be The Arians and Socinians are so far from thinking the Catholic Doctrin touching the Divinity of our Savior to be plain in Scri­pture, that they think the contrary to be plain­ly there; bringing for in many Texts; as, My Father is greater than I, Joh. 14. 28. and the like; which the Doctor knows well enough. plain. Wherefore in those points wherein they differ from the Catholics, what the One un­derstands Literally in the Word of God, the Other interprets Mystically or Figuratively. And in reference to these Texts they behave them­selves no otherwise than the Protestants do to­wards those Words of our Savior in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament, viz. This is my Body; which they will not understand in a Literal Sense.

[Page 114] Again, the Doctor says, That a Church-of-Eng­land-man suspects not Reason it self, but his own pre­sent Art of Reasoning. I have not time to speculate on the nicety of this Distinction, and so I let it pass; altho' I believe that a Socinian would be extreme glad to know how he might come to be guided by Reason it self, when he suspects his present Art of Rea­soning What causeth a Church-of-England-man to suspect his present Art of Reasoning? Is it not his present Art of Reasoning? Can Rea­son guide him without any Reasoning? The Doctor seems to be very subtil here.. Is not the Faculty to be suspected, when its Ope­ration is faulty? Can the Rea­son be Perfect, and yet the Reasoning which flows from it Defective? But whereas the Doctor's Church-of-England-man suspects his own present Art of Reasoning, whensoever it concludes a­gainst that which he reads, and reads without doubting of the Sense of the Words: I dare likewise engage, that whatsoever the Right Socinian reads in Scri­pture without doubting of the Sense of the Words, he shall believe as firmly as any Church-of-Eng­land-man in the World. This is proved already; and if the Doctor think otherwise, I shall have cause to suspect (if not his Reason, yet at least) his present Art of Reasoning.

The Reason why I have examined this Quota­tion is, because it is taken out of a Book, which I am recommended to by the Doctor for an Answer to those Questions I would have propos'd to him at the Conference. The Readers have my sense Above p. 73. & sequ. al­ready concerning the Answering of short Questions [and proposed in a Personal Conference] by a Refe­rence to long Books: which seems to be but the putting off the Trial at best. What Encourage­ment I have from this Quotation to have recourse to [Page 115] that Book in particular, out of which it was But if this he the choice, what is the re­fuse? chosen by the Author himself, let them Judge. For, if we may guess at the Stuff by the Pattern, they will be able to do it.

A. P. press'd Writing (says the Doctor, pag. 60.) yet when Dr. T. began to do so, he declin'd it. The Reader will have Above, p. 67. & seq. See also Mr. P. 's Acc. p. 10. & seq. seen, that A. P. had a great deal of reason to decline the signing an insignificant Wrangle about the Authority of one single Book, which was all the Writing Dr. T. propos'd; and that the Doctor had no Reason at all to decline what was propos'd to him, viz. the writing of the whole Conference, unless it be such as he will be loth to own.

Whereabouts (proceeds Dr. T.) would these Dis­puters Pag. 60. be? A while ago they were all for Verbal Confe­rences, when Written ones were offer'd, as more safe and useful; Now when Verbal Conferences are agreed to, Writing is press'd. What a pretty Sophism is here? Does not Dr. Tenison know whereabouts these Disputers would be? Did not those who were all for Verbal (or rather Personal) Conferences, desire that the Argumentative part of such Conferences might be taken in Viz. for hin­dring such after misrepresentati­ons as we have had from our Dr. as I said before, pa. 61. Writing; and that nothing else might be published as Authentic, but what was so writ­ten? And were not Conferences so managed, viz. Personally and by Writing, See the above­mentioned Let­ter to Dr. E. S. p. 26. & seq. preferr'd before the carrying on of a Disputation by Books, and not Ver­bal Conferences, (as the Doctor insinuates) before Written ones? Was the Doctor ignorant of this? I do not think he was. But a pretended Mis­take is an excellent Instrument in the hand of a Controvertist. It serves to deceive his own [Page 116] Party, and, at least, to make Work for his Adver­saries.

And now I would not have the Sense of what I have said here, or elsewhere, on this Subject, so far mistaken, as that I should be thought to look on such Personal and Written Conferences as infalli­ble means of deciding Controversies; whereas I only prefer this way of proceeding in them before that of writing Books. I know there is nothing of this Nature, which some time or other is not liable to the underminings of Craft; and therefore (as far as I have been able to observe) when such kind of Conferences are obtained, (which is only where they cannot be kept off with any credit) the Pro­testants either refuse to dispute of the Main Points, such as the Rule of Faith, the Proof of Scripture, or the like, and fall on some other Branch, where (as I have said before) there is more room for dispu­ting, unless the matter be soon brought to the Rule of Faith, as it may, and indeed ought to be: Or else, if they admit of any such Point, they endeavor to spend the time in Preliminaries, so that they may be forced to break off before any Argument comes to bear. All the Written Conferences that I have heard of (which have not been above two or three) have been of this sort. However the Truth of what passes at a Conference is better known by this means, and the shuffling (on which side soever it shall happen to be) more discernible. Besides, I never knew that any of these Conferences were followed by Noise, tho' the Copies of them have been distri­buted through many hands. All things have been hush'd, and no contradictory Narratives have come [Page 117] abroad to the dividing, rather than satisfying the World: Excepting only Dr. St.'s Conference with Mr. G. where Mr. G.'s Amanuensis happening to take away his Copy without comparing it with Dr. St.'s, there chanced to be a small difference be­tween those Copies which Mr. G. dispersed, and that which the Doctor retained; and from this trivial Over-sight (to say the utmost of it) Dr. St. took a pretence to accuse Mr. G. of Insincerity, and to refuse the meeting with him any more. But this (as is evident) may easily be prevented, and Mr. G. himself did it afterwards, viz. by trusting the Protestants themselves to write both his part and their own, [...] then taking his Copies from them: So far was he from desiring that any Forge­ry [...] the least Falsification, should be in such Co­pies. And after these Conferences (as I have said) we have been very quiet. And certainly, if there were no other convenience in Writing, This alone were enough to render it desirable. And as for the Conferences themselves, tho' (as I have said) there is care taken to spend the time (which the Writing also helps to do) in useless Discourses, yet after the first or second Meeting, when all the loose Earth shall be digg'd away in order to a Foundation, it is probable that somewhat may be built.—But the worst of the matter is, that for the most part we are careful to take such Exceptions at the First Meeting, as may justifie our refusal of a Second.

He says (pag. 64.) Mr. M. stay'd much longer, (viz. than what Mr. P. mentions) for he began to write on the back of Dr. T. 's Paper. This writing [Page 118] was not till after I had retir'd from Dr. T. and Mr. P. and came back again to them, according to what I have related above. And this may be far­ther proved from what the Schoolmaster says in his 9th page, viz. When the Question of [How the Pro­testants could tell that the Bible they used was really what they (the Protestants) thought it to be, the Word of God?] had been canvass'd some while, Mr. M. arising, went to the other end of the Room, &c. Now this Que­stion was at the beginning of the Conference, as appears by Dr. Tenison's own Narrative; whereas the writing was not till after the Question of Transub­stantiation had been started.

He goes on; And he [Mr. M.] removed, upon a Gentlewomans coming to him with a Masque in her hand; which gave occasion to another of that [...] to say to Mr. M. He chose to dispute rather with Ladies than Doctors. I acquainted my Readers in my 5th page, That not long after the beginning of our Dis­putation, a Catholic Gentlewoman advis'd me to withdraw from it. But really whether she had a Masque in her hand, or not, I cannot tell; and therefore herein I must yield to the Doctor, and confess that He is the more curious Observer of Ladies of the two. Neither did she come then into the Conference, as the Doctor seems to express it, but had been there for some time; for she had observed that Dr. Tenison took the advantage of my being near him, to turn frequently from Mr. P. to me, and Above pa. 5. so vice versâ from Me to Him, by which means the Prosecution of the Arguments was hin­dred. And it was for this reason (as she told me) and also that the Doctor might not have a false pre­tence of his contending with two at once, that she de­sired [Page 119] me to retire, according to the account I have given of this matter in the afore-cited place. It was not therefore to avoid disputing with Dr. Tenison, as the Doctor's Lady surmized (for it seems there were Ladies on both sides) that I withdrew, but it was that the Doctor might not avoid disputing with Mr. P. And if I am not mistaken, I was then talk­ing with the Schoolmaster, when this Witticism [recorded by the Doctor] was spoken. There was a second Gentlewoman who joyn'd with this in the same Advice; but neither of them spoke before Mr. P. had desir'd me of his own accord to leave the Disputation, tho' the Doctor seems here to suppose the contrary.

The Doctor takes occasion in several places of his Book to give us to understand that the foremention'd Apprentice was much chang'd in Humor and Coun­tenance after his Conversion, and particularly that he seem'd often as if he were Pag. 2. mop'd. And Dr. Hornec seems to concur with him in this account. We know what kind of Spectacles Love and Hatred are to look through, and how much for the most part they impose upon our Fancies. Certainly the Boy's * smiling at Dr. H.'s pretending to Succession was no sign of Stupidity; the wisest man in the World Pag. 79. in Dr. H. 's Letter. might have been guilty of some Laughter on that occasion. But for my own part, that which I think most worth the smiling at in this passage, is that Dr. H. makes no bones of proving this Succession; whereas Dr. T. said at the Conference, that it could not be done under Ten Thousand Pounds worth of Books. Something (says Dr. H.) I dropt I suppose it was accident­ally, Succession being a Point which of their good will they seldom mention. acciden­tally about Succession, which he laid hold of, and with a [Page 120] kind of scornful smile demanded, What Succession we could shew? I told him both for Men and Doctrin, and Prov'd it to him. How light does this Doctor make of that which is such a Bugbear to the other? It is much that Dr. Tenison had not learnt that Receipt of proving a Succession of Protestants from his Brother before his Publication of the Con­ference, that so he might not have put us off in a Question of so much Importance with Pag 13. De­spair instead of Satisfaction. And therefore I am apt to think that Dr. T. gave not much credit to this part of Dr. H.'s Letter, whatever he did to the rest.

There is but one way (that I know) of recon­ciling these two Doctors, and that is by laying it down as a Principle, That there are Two ways of Manifesting a Protestant Succession. One is, by shew­ing Societies or Persons in all Ages, who have openly professed the Doctrin of the Church of England. And this, I presume, cannot be perform'd under Ten or Twenty Thousand Pounds worth of Books. And even after all, it is my opini­on that the [...]hat makes all Doctrins plain and clear? About two hundred pounds a year. Hudib. Money will be able to make it out better without the Books, than with them. The other is, by saying (according to Dr. Jackson's Notion) See above, pag. 41. that the Church of England before the Reformation was in the Church of Rome; and then the Proof of this Succession will come very cheap, and if you give Six-pence for it, it will be more than it is worth. Now for such as will not or cannot go to the price of the former, (which I take to be the Boy's case) it is but reasonable that they should be contented with the latter. If the Doctors [Page 121] think that I am somewhat too light on this Oc­casion, they must pardon me; for I knew not how to make them agree on better Terms.