THE Iesuit has usher'd in his Second Pamphlet with a pompous Company of Testimoni­als; With Testimonies in Favour of A. P. A new stile in Certificates, which ought to be written, either without Fear, Affection, or Favour. There was as little necessity for any of them, as there is sincerity in some. For I affirm'd, from very good Evidence, That several Persons enter'd with him; but I repeated it in the Second Page of my Account, that I did not say they were all of Mr. Pulton' s bringing. Nor did I affirm there was one Iesuit there besides him­self: For certainly all Orders are not swallow'd up in his, how widely soever he may open for that pur­pose.

I do not dispute either the L. S. I's, or the Provinci­al's Certificate; but if others under his Obedience have the like Sincerity with Mr. Pulton, they may have been there, without saying they were so, as well as Katharine Lamb might not at first be there, yet say she was.

Well; his false Quotations will not be swallow'd, and now his Refuge is Certificates. But they have likewise fail'd him. And he that reads the following Testimonies, and enquires after the Integrity of those who subscrib'd [Page 2] them, and the Capacity they have been in of knowing the Truth; and considers the little Reason they have had to expose themselves to the ill will of many, if their love of Truth would have suffer'd them to be private: Such a person (I say) for the buying of Truth, will not be apt to go to Mr. Pulton to purchase it. And when our Disputant lays his hand upon his heart, and reflects in Chri­stian manner upon this insincerity, he will (I hope) make­a moreopen acknowledgment for a publick Scandal, than an Auricular Confession can amount to. And let him henceforth forbear his Raillery about Katharine Boren, left he put people in mind of Katharine Lamb. This Katharine Lamb, for ought I know, may be a vertuous and true Woman. But as She is represented in Mr. Pulton's Certificate, she is a very extraordinary person. Certainly she must have some Relation to that Famous Dr. Lamb, whom the Mobile believ'd to be a Conjurer: For to be in a Room kept on purpose private, by Mrs. R. till D. T. and Mr. Pulton should come in, and neither to be seen by her or him; or, in her passage, by any of the Family; if it has nothing in it of one Black Art, I'm sure in the telling it, it has something of another. If she was there, she must have come in by some unsuspected way, such as the Chimney, or the Key-hole: And if there she re­main'd, she must have put her self into the shape of some such thing as a Table, a Chair, or a Candle­stick.

This Long-Acre Miracle will not pass, nor make many Conversions. For the People understand, that if Ka­tharine Lamb did not certifie this, there's Forgery in it; and if she did, there is False Evidence. Now this, as our Representer pleases to speak, of a Query, (2) Mr. P's Rem. p. 35. is a Horn­ed Beast of an Argument. It is a curst Dilemma, which [Page 3] hath long Horns, and let him take heed that they do not push him.

But let us see what Mr. Pulton himself says to this mat­ter; for he is an Artist at mending a business, by making more holes in it. On Novemb. the 4 th he Publish'd his Remarks. That Night the false Certificate of Katharina in Nubibus, was publickly expos'd. This came to his Ear, and it was, no doubt, as welcome to him as the next days History. On the Lord's day following, in the Af­ternoon (the better the day, the worse the deed), he closes his Sermon with this Iargon, not deliver'd without a Concern in his Looks, and Disorder in his Voice.

‘I was mistaken this Week in one thing of my last Pa­per, which, tho true, yet I had it not from the person's own hand, tho it came as if it came from them: It is about one of the Evidences, or Testimonials, which I shall clear by a Printed Paper to morrow, and satisfie therein about it The thing I say is true, but the Evi­dence not made by the Person to me, tho it came as from their own hands. But I shall give an account of it to morrow by a Printed Paper.’

Now commend me to the Infallible man, who was thus mistaken; to the man who will be plain in nothing rela­ting to me. He is the man in the World who is good at a Conclusion. He is that Wise man in my Lord Bacon's Es­says, who reserves his great business for a Postscript.

He is concern'd in a false way; let him neither dance, nor dance in a Net; for he is seen through his Cover, and he shews his halting as often as he stirs.

As to the Famous Paper he promis'd to publish the ve­ry next day, with such Solemnity; no Person; that I can hear of, has ever yet beheld it, tho inquiry after it has not been wanting.

[Page 4]And now I have greater Compassion than ever for deluded I. S. for he hapned upon a man, who, if he is a Lover of Truth, has a very notable Art in concealing his Affection.

CUrsory Notes have already been made both upon the Iesuit's True; and his True and Full Account: And I do not yet see any great Reason given by him for the blotting out of a single line. Something, hovvever, may be added, seeing he has been pleas'd to make both Additions and Alterations. He has added an Advertise­ment, and a Preface; and in both of them he is a plea­sant man. In his Advertisement he excuses his false Eng­lish, by his having been Eighteen Years out of England; And yet he can write two English Books in a few Weeks, and in one of them, use three several Stiles. I do not enquire whereabouts he has liv'd: one would think by his Narratives and Certificates, that he has liv'd among the Cretians. But seeing he speaks English as readily as any man, it may reasonably be demanded, how, in his Tra­vels, a man of his Profession, retains the Pronunciation, and loses the Grammar of his Native Language? Now, perceiving that the Printers are become Criticks in the English Tongue, he sends me a Challenge to dispute with him in Latin. Latin, it seems, is so belov'd a Lan­guage, that he chuses to have both Prayers and Conferen­ces in that Tongue, for the Edification of the People; for certainly the Learned have no need of our assistance; I fear we may rather become their sport.

[Page 8]After this, our Champion advanceth with his Preface, and there he imitates the ruggider Duellists, who, without any Embraces, make fierce passes at one an­other.

He accuses me of Mistakes, and Misrepresentations, and want of Sincerity, not thinking of his own guilt, whilst he traduces his Neighbour. Nay, I am become so potent in these Arts, that I have confounded the whole matter, and truly M. P's True and full Account. Ep. to the Reader. inverted the whole Order of the Conference. I have done a wondrous thing in represent­ing that as Confusion which was so: By whose means, the unbyass'd can tell.

But what, if in the little method that was us'd, Mr. P. himself should be the man who has inverted the Order? Why then, he wants either Memory or Sincerity.

Now after having spoken of the Words of St. Ambrose, he introduces the story of Luther, and the Courtezans. This was mention'd at the beginning, and St. Ambrose to­wards the end. And if the setting of the last first, and the first last, be Order, Mr. P. is a man of Method, and no Inverter. But perhaps it was in him a Point of Good Manners, to set St. Ambrose before Luther, and let it go so. Of this true Relation he says, that D. T. recounted he knows not what Story of some Priest at Rome. And yet the Story is told as plainly as a Story can be told, and it needs no Interpreter. He is a singular man: He will nei­ther tell a thing plainly himself, nor understand another that does so. He goes on, and informs the World (for it is informing), That I was M. P's Full Account, p. 11. offering at another long passage in Luther' s Works; and yet it was a Story out of the Acts of his beloved Second Synod of Nice, as set forth by the Iesuites Labbe and Cossart. If the Iesuites Collection of Councils, and Popes Epistles and Decrees, be Luther's Works, the Lutherans and Romans are in a marvellous ac­commodation, [Page 9] which none of them know of. This is a Discovery worthy the invention of the invisible Catharine. But why is my I know not what Story of a Priest, so very idle? He gives a false Account of Luther's leaving the Mass, and I requite him with a true one. He from Luther's bit­ter Adversaries, and I from Luther himself. The Prote­stants thought it not at all amiss, that I should give him an Allen for his Duncomb.

But, to come to his Artifice. He sends me his Second Narrative in Writing. He expects my Notes upon it. He desires, in order to his easier finding of my Objections, that I will observe the Numbers of his Paragraphs See his Letter here published, chap. 7.. I do this little Service for him. I send him my Account and Notes in Print, on Wednesday. My Man carries a Book to him, before he brings one either into my own House, or Parishes. He reads these words in it, D. T's Ac. p. 82. Parag. 17, 18. Observe here the Fidelity either of Mr. P' s Memory, or his Conscience. ‘He, says the Dr. told a Story of some Priest at Rome, who having pronounced the Words of Consecration, was heard to say aloud, That he believed not as the Roman Church obliged. Whereas the Story, as be­fore repeated, was about the Courtezans over-hearing the Priest say, Bread thou art, and Bread thou shalt be, &c.’

Notwithstanding this, without any notice given me, or any acknowledgment in either of his Books, he (besides many other Variations, not so material) makes in Print, this alteration from the MS. he sent me: ‘He recounted I know not what Story of some Priest at Rome, who pro­nouncing the words of Consecration, was heard to say, Bread thou art, and Bread thou shalt be; Wine thou art, &c.’

To what end do you imagine is this Alteration made without giving any notice? Is it not that Readers obser­ving [Page 10] first the Words I cite, as his, and then perusing his Account, and finding in it, that I tax him with failure in Memory, or in Conscience, may be induc'd to think I fal­sifie? Some who came to me, pleas'd to use the freedom, for which I thank them, and to ask how this could come about? I show'd them the Account in MS. which Mr. Pul­ton sent me, and compar'd it with the Account which he had Printed, and they were satisfied about the truth and fullness of his Narrative. He had better have left a void space in his Story, than have fill'd it with things which should not have been put in.

But he must not arrogate to himself this Artifice: It is an old Invention; and I am going about to give a Re­markable Instance of it in the case of the Reverend, the Learned, and (that for which I most esteem him) the Pi­ous Dr. Hammond. He had cited a Passage out of Mr. White; the Leaf was cut out, and another pasted in; and then the Dr. was charg'd by his Adversary W. S. with falsifying a Quotation. I will give you this in Dr. Ham­mond's own Words, both that it may not rest upon my slen­der Authority, and that People may see it without the trouble of buying a great Book, not in every hand Dr. H. H. Works. Vol. 2. at the end of his Dispatcher dispatch'd, or Third Defence of his Book of Schism, against S. W. p. 253, 415. NOTE. This S. W. has been generally supposed to be the same Person with I. S. who at this present writes the Pamphlets call'd the Catholick Letters..

MR. Pulton's Chief Reasonings and Authorities may be consider'd, in relation,

• 1. To Luther.
• 2. To the Rule of Faith.
• 3. To the Lateran Council.
• 4. To the Antiquity of Popery in England.

1. For Luther he has rais'd up the Ghost of Mr. Iohn Brerely, Priest, for the encountring of the celebrated Daemon of Martin I. B's Life of Luther. S. Omers 1624. p. 17, 29, 39, 44, 52, &c.. And tho he was in the Confe­rence, referr'd to a late unanswered Book, called, The Spirit of Martin Luther, yet he will take no notice of it, but bring up the Old Objections, and by Re­petition attempt that which he cannot do by Argu­ment.

Now the most material part of that which he certifies, not in favour of Luther, may be reduc'd to Six Heads, that the rambling Mr. P's Full Account. p. 11. which he complains of, and at the same time is guilty of, may be avoided. He will by no [Page 18] means grant (even after grains of allowance for hu­mane infirmity, for Monkish Education, for the Dark­ness and Abuses of those times, for Natural Tem­per, for highest provocations to be rugged with the rugged), that Luther was an excellent instrument of God.

• 1. Because he express'd his Passion against the word Ho­mousion.
• 2. Because he spake irreverently of Ecclesiastes.
• 3. Because he spake indecently about Marriage.
• 4. Because he spake with disrespect of Henry the Eighth.
• 5. Because he disgusted the Doctrine of Transub­stantiation, upon Conversation with Courtizans.
• 6. Because he left the Mass upon the perswasion of the Devil.

Now I will first tell Mr. P. one of my Reasons in ju­stice to Luther, and then consider his.

My Reason is this: God used Luther as an Instrument of bringing forth the Bible from under that Rubbish of Canonists and Schoolmen, which had hid it from the World. The Roman Doctors did not put the Bible into Luther's Hands, but he found it by God's Pro­vidence, in a Library, where he look'd not for it. There was need of that Light in so ignorant and ill an Age, in which Tales (even Fables not cunning­ly devised) were Printed and Re-printed in the Vulgar Tongue (in which the true Scriptures were not to be had), and call'd by the Name of Flowers out of the Bible. If One Example be produc'd, it will be [Page 19] enough for a Reader, who has not abated of his due Veneration for the most Sacred Word of God Fioreti de la Bibia Vul­gari Historiati, &c. Novamen­te stampati in Milano. C. 170. An. 1524..

[Page 20]This is one of my Reasons for him; his being an Instru­ment of bringing better Scripture into the Peoples Hands. Let some of Mr. Pulton's Reasons be laid in the Bal­lance against this One, that we may see how heavy they are.

Object. 1. ‘My Soul (saith Luther) hates Homousion, and the Arians did very well in expelling it, left so prophane and new a word should be us'd in the Articles of Faith Mr. P's Rem. p. 8..’

Answer. If he lik'd not the Word (as he says Luth. contra La­tom.— Homousion quod & Hie­ronymus op­tavit aboleri. St. Hierom himself did not), he approv'd of the Arti­cle Luth. cont. Latom. —Etsi Ariani malè senserunt in fide, hoc ta­men optimè sive malo sive bono animo exegerunt, ne vocem profa­nam & Novam in Regulis fi­dei usurpare liceret., as all Lutherans do, and it is the first we meet with, in the Confession of Wirtemburg ( d). But what if Mr. P. has not cited Luther faithfully? Why then his Hand is still in at False Quotations. For his Words are not, My Soul-hates, &c. but, Quod si odit anima mea vocem Homouslon, & nolò eâ uti, non ero Haereticus, —but if, or upon supposltion that my Soul hates the Word Homousion, and I refuse to use it, I shall not, (or will not) be a Heretick. This false Quotation was used by Bellarmine himself Bell. Pref. ad l. de Chr. p. 227. M. L. contra Jac. Latomum Scribens, Ani­ma mea, in­quit, odit hoc verbum [...]., whom many have in such ad­miration, that without examining, they transcribe his very Faults; and make that to be absolutely, which was conditionally spoken. Luther was not pleas'd with this Word, neither did he, with St. Hierom, like the Word Hypostasis; but the Doctrine he taught. And Chemnitius and Gerard inform us, that he was not pleas'd with the Word Trinity, because in the German Tongue it seemed to import rather Triplicity than Trinity.

[Page 21] Object. 2. ‘ Ecclesiastes (says Luther) has never a perfect Sentence, Mr. P's Rem. p. 8. the Author had neither Boots nor Spurs, but rid on a long Stick, or in begging Shoes, as he did when he was a Fryer.’

Answer. This is cited not from Luther's true Works, but from a Book called Luther's Table-talk, which, if he were alive, he would not own, and which is of no Authority with any judicious Man. Let such a Man look into the Commentary of Luther upon Ecclesia­stes: There he will find him highly commending that L. Op. Tom. 3. fol. 231. Liber multis nomi­nibus dignus qui omnium manibus tereretur, fol. 232. — Relig. causâ sordidissimè victitârunt. — Ne (que) enim contemnit faelicitèr mundum qui vivit solitarius — at qui abstinet à pecuniis, ut Franciscani, sed qui in mediis rebus versatur, neabque; tamen earum affectibus rapitur. wise Book, and explaining its notion of the con­tempt of the World against those who (as he says) mistake Sordidness for Religion.

Object. 3. ‘ As it is not in my Power (saith Luther) that I should be no Man Mr. P's Rem. p. 9, 10. , so it is not in my Power that I should be without a Woman.’

Answer. This (with other such sayings) is but less decent expressing of that which St. Paul de­liver'd in more tender Language, in that very wise Casuistical Sentence, It is better to marry than to burn. Luther (possibly) had not spoken of the necessity of Marriage in such plain terms, if he had not been opposed by those who urg'd Monastick Vows, and held the Marriage of the Clergy to be dishonourable and unlawful. The Spirit of Luther might be moved upon observation of unchast Celibacy. There has been too much of that out of the World, as well as in it. Otherwise what need would there have been [Page 22] (for instance sake) of the Constitution of Cardinal Gallon Conc. & Decr. Synod. S. Rotomag. Eccles. Const. Gall. Capitul. 1. p. 209. Moneantur quo (que) ne MA­TRES vel Ux­ores, alias (que) conjunctas personas secum habeant, cum quibus etsi nihil saevi criminis faedus naturale existimari per­mittat, tamen frequenter, suggerente Diabolo, cum talibus noscitur fuisse facinus perpetratum. forbidding, so much as MOTHERS to have Domestick Conversation with Priests; and ad­ding as a reason, that tho so foul a Crime is against Na­ture, yet notwithstanding, frequently through the suggestion of the Devil, that Wickedness is known to have been, even with SUCH, committed. It seems the Devil and Luther have not been the only Familiars.

Object. 4. ‘ Luther Mr. P's Rem. p. 11. calls Henry the VIII. more fu­rious than Madness it self, more foolish than Folly it self, &c. most wicked and impudent Harry; and a­gain, thou liest in thy Throat, foolish and sacrile­gious King.’

Answ. This is one of the Grains to be allow'd to Luther. However, it is capable of a Retort against them, tho not of a defence in the nature of the thing it self. They call Hen. VIII. sacrilegious, but Luther must not. Lucifer Calaritanus calls Constantius most impudent Emperour Pro S. A­than. l. 1. p. 25..

It is noted in Commendation of St. Athanasius by a deposing-Author J. E. Right of the Prelate and the Prince, p. 144. imprinted with License from Superiours, Anno 1621., that he often in one Epistle stiles Constantius the Praecursour of Antichrist. If such ill Language was a Crime in Luther, it was certainly so in them, they being those Emperours Subjects.

The Romanists and Latiniz'd Greeks revile Con­stantine, and miscall him Copronymus, he being an Ene­my to the Worship of Images: But in Luther all ill Names are unsufferable. They reprove not the Jesuit BELLARMIN, for reviling King IAMES THE FIRST, and asserting that he could not (upon any [Page 23] account be excused from HERESY Apol. R. Bellar. pro Resp. suâ ad L. Jac. M. B. Re­gis, &c. Cap. 7. p. 98. Jac. Regem ab Hae­resi excusari nullâ ratione posse.. But if Luther touches a Prince with an undutiful Tongue, he is straightway of as black a Mouth as Satan his Fami­liar. GRETZER the Iesuit (the same Gretzer whose Grammar Mr. Pulton uses) is not reproved, yet he begins his Book with these Contents of his first Chapter. That the Faith which King James professeth, and defendeth, IS NOT TRVLY CHRISTIAN Jac. Gr [...]tseri Soc. Jes. Comment. exeget. Ingol­stad. 1610. c. 1. p. 13.. But if Luther utters any frothy words, they are all poysonous, and he is run mad, and wo to every Man that stands in his way. I. S. has a Letter fra­med for him, of which the latter part was written in Mr. Pulton's own Hand D. T' s Account, p. 71.: And in that Letter he is taught to revile King Henry the VIII, by the name of Leacher. This has been observ'd to Mr. P. but still he goes on, and rebukes Luther for such ill Man­ners as he himself is a Teacher of. And here with sincere, not hypocritical Charity Mr. P's Rem. p. 32. The Charity D. T. hypocritical­ly pretends to. I pity I. S. who has had such ill Example set him, both of Falshood and Incivility. His Crime was the less, that he copied and did not invent. God pardon and amend him.

Object. 5. Luther learned, ‘That Consecrated Bread was still Bread, not from the Colledg Mr. P's Rem. p. 13. of Cardinals, Bishops, and Prelats — but from the very Courtizans. — And here the Doctor has unawares pointed us out the true Motive of Lu­ther's Change of Life and Doctrine, viz. the Con­versation of Courtizans; which he knew, being a Fryer, he could not easily enjoy.’

Answer. I had thought they had been then con­nived at at Rome: For the state of the single, and not [Page 24] the married. But however we have here another In­stance of Mr. PVLTON'S SINCERITY, D.T. had thus reported that Story from Luther, and from the Writer of his Life D. T' s Account, p. 8.. He had been at Rome, and said Mass there, and heard it said, and he took no­tice of the PROFANENESS of the MASS­PRIESTS, and he OVER-HEARD the very Courtizans jeeringly say, that some who consecrated, had used these words, Bread thou art, and Bread thou shalt be, Wine thou art, and Wine thou shalt be. This Sto­ry sticks in Mr. Pulton's side, but as yet he never would rightly repeat it. Sometimes it is, I know not what Story Mr. P' s MS. Account. of a Priest that was heard to say aloud, that he believed not as the Roman Church obliged. Now Luther learn'd it only from the Courtizans, tho he said he himself took notice of the Profaneness of the Mass-Priests. But here again his Dexterity in equivocating can fetch him off; for the Mass-Priests were not Car­dinals, Bishops, or Prelats.

But his main Point is that of LVTHER and the DEVIL, with that he began with I. S. that he pursued, and that he will not part with.

Whether his Affection to that Fable will permit him to part with it, is not a very material Inquiry. It seems as dear to him as Katherina in the Clouds. But I am apt to believe that the impartial will dismiss it upon due attention to that which follows.

[Page 33]His other Objections about Luther are as inconsi­derable as these I have answer'd, and they have been spoken to by others; and instead of being press'd with the force, I am wearied with the weakness, and the repetition of them. For Mr. Pulton has done like the frugal Man, who saved firing by carrying the same Billets out of one place into another. Mr. P. has brought his Wooden Objections out of Bellar­mine's and Brerelie's Cellar, into his Chamber; and he may please, if he needs to be warmer than he natu­rally is, to carry them back again.

I Purpose (if God permit) as soon as the ap­proaching Solemnities of Christ's Nativity are (for this Year) past, to publish a distinct Treatise about the Rule of Faith. Something I have attemp­ted in the Tract entituled, A Discourse of a Guide in matters of Faith, but that seems a little too Scholasti­cal for ordinary Readers. I intend a shorter and plainer Book for more common use. In that I shall deliver the Reason of the Case, without further re­gard to Mr. Pulton, or any other Disputer, than as the Rule shows it self, and that which is crooked.

At present I shall offer that which may refute Mr. Pulton's Reasonings, which, howsoever, they sounded, when they were heard from his Pulpit, are [Page 34] now, that they come to be seen and felt, no such formidable things.

1. If I had wholly refus'd to return an Answer to his Question about the Bible, I had not departed from Reason. When two Iews dispute, they do not con­tend about the Truth of the Writings of Moses. When two Mahometans dispute, neither of them do call in question the Alcoran. And when two Chri­stians Dispute, he that questions the Bible does un­necessarily contend about that which he allows.

2. If I had persisted in the Suggestion concerning such Discourses, as tending to Atheism, or rather Un­belief; No Man who is tender of the moments of Religion would have blam'd me, considering some of the Company that was about us. By such Questi­ons such Converts are made, as Father Simon has made by his Critical History of the Old Testament, S. Paul's Rule is little observed by the Controvertists of this World: ‘Him that is weak in the Faith re­ceive, but not to doubtful Disputations.’

3. If I had answer'd his Questions with Questions, the way had been justifiable before all equal Judges. I mean (among others) such Questions as these, about the Copy to which the Romanists are tied in all Disputes, by the Council of Trent. Why do you make a Translation your Rule, and not the Origi­nal? Why do you not follow the ancient Italic Translation us'd in the Latin Church? Why is St. Hierom for one Translation, and your Popes for ano­ther? What Latin Translation was the Church tied to in St. Austin's time, when there were numberless Translations? and why did the Church suffer them if one was their Rule? Why did the Popes Sixtus Quintus and Clement the 8th ▪ differ from one another [Page 35] in many places, besides those which might be Errors of the Press? Why did not St. Gregory the Great go by this Rule? Why did Cardinal Zimenes, Pagnin, and Mariana, correct it? Why did Cardinal Cajetan help himself in the Translation by a Jew? Why do's the very Learned French Bishop Huetius here and there touch it over again? Why do's Father Simon Sim. Hist. Crit. p. 313. himself, who differs so much from it, tell us, that it serves as a Rule? And if it be, what Rule is it to the People who understand no Latin? And what Translation of it have they by their Church into the Vulgar Tongue? Last of all, (to refresh his Memo­ry about Pope Innocent the Third); Inno. 3. op. fol. 105. Why did not HE go by the Rule of the Vulgar, if in his Time it was a Rule? He varies from it often, and particu­larly in the Text of the Penetential Psalms, where he thus pleasantly begins his Elucidation.

‘This Psalm, according to the Translation which the Roman Church holds, contains nine Verses, by which the Penitent gradually ascends to the nine Orders of Angels, because there is greater joy among the Angels of God over one Sinner that repenteth, than over 99 just Persons, who need not Repen­tance, although the number of ten Verses, which according to another Translation it is known to have, agrees well to reason; because Man who fell by Sin, rises by Repentance, that by him the Tenth Order may be restored. Deservedly also this Psalm has Three Ternaries, because Repentance ought to have Three Parts, Confession by the Mouth, Contrition in the Heart, and Satisfaction by the Work.’

Now here's your Pope for observing a Rule, and giving an infallible Interpretation.

[Page 36]4. The Universal Testimony which I mentioned as separate from Authority, and proving the Books of Scripture to be such Writings as they are taken to be, depends upon a firm Principle which Mr. Pulton has not shaken; to wit, that so many Persons of such different Places, and Conditions, and Interests, and Perswasions; could not possibly be Confederates in a false Testimony in this Matter; [...] no not so easily as in the Testimonies given for the Offices of Cicero, the History of Livy, and the Existence of the Cities of Ierusalem, or Rome. The sense of this was thrice re­peated in the Conference; and now the Answer is, a Denial that ever it was said. Father Nicole would have yielded what Father Pulton would not; for thus he speaks De l'unitie de l'Eglise, p. 183. Quand le consent­ment de l'Eglise Universelle est general dans tous les sie­cles aussi bien que dans tou­tes les Communions, ce con­sentement unanimè sait une demonstration. both his own and Monsieur Iurieu's sense. ‘When the consent of the Universal Church is ge­neral in its several Ages, as well as in its several Communions, this unanimous consent makes a Demonstration.’ But perhaps Monsieur Nicole is not Father Pul­ton's Pope.

5. But why has he chang'd his Rule of a General Council for a living Judg? And for what Reason do's he call the Bible MY RULE of Faith? It is the Rule of all the Reformed; It was the Rule of the Ancient Church. It was St. Austin's Rule, and he thus owned it to be so: In those things which are plain­ly contained in the Scriptures, all those things are found which contain Faith and Manners of living. S. Aug. de Doctr. Christ. l. 2. c. 9. p. 45. In iis enim, quae apertè in Scripturis po­sita sunt, inveniuntur illa om­nia quae continent Fidem mores (que) vivendi. For the Creed, or sum of things to be believed, S. Irenaeus called it the Rule of Truth; and Tertullian, the Rule of Faith. The Scripture is the Rule which God [Page 37] hath given his Church; Whom then makes He himself when he goes about to confute it Mr. P' s Rem. in the Title Page. A Confutation of the DOCTOR'S RVLE OF FAITH. And p. 14. The DOCTOR'S RVLE of FAITH prov'd insufficient.? and whom does he make me, when to ME he ascribes the Rule? 'Tis wonderful surprizing that Mr. P., tho he venerates Creatures, should make ME, whom he reviles, the Object of his Worship. But so at the same time they worship'd Mercury, and threw Stones at him.

6. Against this Rule he has taken exception, and it will soon appear whether they are, or are not, causeless.

I will first examine his more General Reasonings and Authorities, and then descend to his more special Points, about the Sabbath, Easter, Infant-Baptism, and the Holy Trinity.

His more General Reasonings are Six.

OBIECT. 1. ‘Hereticks have from Christ's time appeal'd to the written Word of God, Mr. P' s Rem. p. 15. which therefore cannot be the Rule of one true Church that is essentially different from an Heretical one.’

Answer 1. This is not true in History: for Irenaeus and Tertullian mention Hereticks who re­fus'd the Scriptures, and were (as the latter calls them) Fleers from the Light.

2. This Argument proves nothing because it proves too much: for it is an Argument against [Page 38] all Rules. Hereticks have appeal'd to REASON, therefore Reason is no Rule. Hereticks have appeal'd to the dictate of the Spirit of God, therefore that is not a true Spirit. Hereticks have pleaded Tradition, therefore Tradition is not to be pleaded. Heathens have pleaded universal Con­sent, [ All Asia and all the World worship'd Diana] therefore universal Consent is not to be regarded. Contentious Men in Civil Kingdoms plead Customs and Presidents, and Maxims of Law, and Statutes, therefore none of these are Rules in Govern­ment. Many have appeal'd to Popes in Uncanonical Causes, therefore the Pope is no Judg. The later Arians pleaded the Councils of Sirmium and Rimini, therefore Councils are not to be pleaded. Miracles have been pretended to from the beginning by Im­postors as signs of Truth, therefore true Miracles are no Proofs. False Appeals to a true Judg or Rule do not argue against the Truth of Judges and Rules, but against the confident and restless Contentious­ness of the Appellants.

Further, if Hereticks from the beginning appeal'd to the Scriptures as their Rule, so did single FA­THERS and Councils of them too: Therefore Mr. P. concludes equally against the written Word of God, as an insufficient Rule, from Fathers and Coun­cils, as from Hereticks. And thus with great discre­tion, he has shut out the Witnesses whom he accepts of, that he may exclude those, to whom he is un­willing to give admission. In sum, the Church may be one, the Society may be one, and the Rule one, and very sufficient, tho ill Men will either pretend [Page 39] to it, or reject it. Many false Christs have risen up, yet one only is true, and he did many real Signs, and those who saw them would not yet believe in him.

All this Objection is a transferring the fault from the Men and fixing it upon the faultless Rule.

Object. 2. ‘Ay! Mr. P' s Rem. p. 16. but when Hereticks appeal to the Scripture, a living Judg will condemn them, and secure the Government of the Church, as a living Judg do's the Quiet of the State.’

Answer. All Churches rightly constituted have living Iudges, and such as are as infallible, as the Judg or Judges in the Roman Church. That is, having a true and plain Rule in Necessaries, it is their own wilful failure, if they pronounce in ne­cessary Doctrine, or Rule of Life, a false Sentence. But still Mr. P's difficulty remains; for Hereticks will no more regard the Judg than the Rule, and they will no otherwise have a regard in their Judg­ment to the living Judg, than as they believe he goes by the dead Rule. And that which keeps the Peace in Churches and States is such Authority, to which their Fears submit, when their Reason or Interest do not. Therefore where Infallibility is pretended, where Men are at the feet of the seven Hills, whence the Fountain of it is said to spring, it is by thousands no further regarded, than as it has Power to enforce it. And the Keys of the Inquisition keep such more quiet in that Inclosure, than those of St. Peter. For the rest, some know better, and fear by their Separa­tion in necessary things, to open a gate to Atheism [Page 40] and utter Disorder, and so groan secretly under a Burden which they openly profess to have no weight: And others, born in that Communion, being set by their Teachers against Examination as private Pre­sumption and damnable doubting, and a way to end­less Uncertainty, remain with the multitude in that way, of which they have not yet asked the Que­stion whether it be the old and the good one, or not.

Object. 3. If a Man uses all Ministerial Helps, and cannot be satisfied in himself, Mr. P' s Rem. p. 16, 17. that he either has suffi­cient helps, or that he has us'd them, and be left after this, to his own Conscience, may not this Man's Conscience be erroneous, and actually err in things necessary to Salvation? If so, then his Religion may be Fancy, and not Divine Faith.

Answer. Here again our Iesuit has taken up a two-edged Weapon. For his living Judg is but still a ministerial help [not (saith St. Paul) that we are masters of your Faith, but helpers of your Ioy]. For such a Man, before he accepts him for a Judg, must be convinc'd that he ought to accept him. And what if he be a Man of Pisa or Basel, and will bring him to the Canons of the ancient Church? And what if he be a Man of weak Capacity, and cannot understand the Arguments for such a Judg? What if he be a learned Man, and understands the Arguments better than the Imposer? and what if he has a scru­pulous Mind which cannot be satisfied, not for want of outward Means, but through inward Distraction and Anxiety? Why then such a one must be left to his Conscience, whatsoever it be, in the Roman Commu­nion [Page 41] as well as the Reform'd. If that Church can in­struct him, so can ours. If it has cause to excom­municate him, we have that Spiritual Power also, but would not exercise it where there is demonstration that Men are sincere in their Perswasion and have taken due Pains, and are, in their dissentings, modest and peaceable.

If they are violent by blind Zeal, or by Faction cover'd under the venerable Name of Conscience, then, when the Common-Wealth is Christian, the Civil Powers in their way, preserve the Peace of the Church.

In fine, when we speak of very scrupulous and un­perswadable Men, what effect can Infallibility have upon them? For if they cannot be convinc'd that they have taken sufficient pains, and that the Mini­stry, under which they are, is sufficient; how will they be convinc'd merely by hearing it said to them, they must not dispute, they must submit to an Infallible living Judg? For that is the great Thing which so many Thousands scruple even among them­selves. That was an Expedient among the Pytha­goreans, who were to be in Quietude and Silence, and submit in all things to, THE MASTER SAID IT. Yet they divided into many Sects, as is evident in the History of the Italic Philosophy. To say, there is a certain Guide, and on him you must de­pend wholly for your way, is to spend Breath and Confidence in vain, till the Wanderer knows who this Guide is, and whether he may absolutely depend upon him. If he still questions him, he must take his own way; and if he takes him, 'tis still in effect [Page 42] his own way, for he takes him upon this last Act of his own Judgment, that he is an Infallible Guide.

But what if his Conscience prove Erroneous, and his Faith be Fancy?

I Answer, First, as above, he has as good security in this Church, as in any other, for he has as suffi­cient means, and better than in some.

Secondly, A Man of good Capacity using these Means in Christian manner, if nothing distracts his Judgment, and disables his Capacity, shall not be brought to such Scruples as shall end in Fancy instead of Faith.

Thirdly, If he has natural Incapacity, God will not judg him for a Talent he had not. Such a Man even under the Gospel, may be as much without that Law, as the Heathens were without the Law of the Jews. For an Ideot, or a Man under a distraction, is without that as a Rule, which he is not capable of using or apprehending.

Fourthly, If a Man has Capacity, without Probity of Mind, and pretends Scruples, he ought not to abuse the Good Word, Conscience. He should say it is his Lust, or his Appetite, or his Fear, or his Profit, or his Vanity. And to such a one, all Church-Govern­nours, who give best Revenues and most Ease to Flesh and Blood, are sufficiently infallible. They give him security of Pleasure and Profit, and that is as much Assurance as he asks.

[Page 43] Fifthly, If a Man has had a good Capacity, and an honest Mind, but is shatter'd into variety of doubt­ful Thoughts, by bodily Distemper, by suddain wordly Losses, by Terrors from the Anathema's of the Bold and Uncharitable, by being call'd to by se­veral at the same time, with great and restless Im­portunity, saying, This is the Way, the right Hand is the Way, the left Hand is the Way; I say, if such a Man, by such Disturbance, by repeated dinns of Clamour, and by such other Mechanick Influences, has the Frame of his Head so open'd, as to let in a Scruple which cannot be remov'd, or an Error which cannot be resisted; let not Man judg such a one, his Case must be reserv'd to God.

This is the safety of Men, and the true Bottom on which they may be easy in all Times of Controversy, and in all Places and Circumstances, viz. That they, doing their present best, with a good Heart, both for Judgment and Manners, and repenting sincerely of the Omission or Abuse of former. Means, God will accept of them according to what they have, and not according to what they have not. And this antici­pates Mr. Pulton's

Object. 4. ‘That Men of his Communion using all possible means for Truth, are not therefore to be punished with Draconic or Sanguinary Laws; M. P. Rem. p. 17, 18. be­cause, when all is done, they are to be left to their Conscience.’ For this is yielded to Men of all Com­munions, upon supposition that the Government is sa­tisfy'd, 'tis not Humour, Interest, or Faction, but fi­nal [Page 44] Conscience, and not present Perswasion, which needs only consideration for the altering of it, and may be put upon consideration by Discipline. Pro­vided also, that Publick Peace be secured: which Peace if Men disturb out of final or present Consci­ence, (as Saul did that of the Assemblies of Christi­ans) a careful Governour uses Civil Power against them for Example to looser Men, and to them by way of Restraint rather than Punishment. And in such Cases their Confinement is a Bethlem.

Object. 5. ‘The Primitive Christians made a True Church. Mr. P' s Rem. p. 18. To a True Church, the Rule of a Church is Essential. This Church subsisted many Years without a compiled Canon, for several Years past, without any written Gospels or Epistles, either di­vulg'd or compil'd into a Canon: Wherefore the written Word of God can't be the only true Rule of Faith.’

Answer. Part of this Objection is false History, and part of it is fallacious Reasoning.

Part of this Argument is false History.

For, First, The first Christians were not without the Old Testament, which is the same Rule with the New, though the New is clearer: And that Rule was illuminated by the very coming of Christ.

Secondly, St. Matthew's Gospel was written and di­vulged, and accepted within very few Years after Christ's Ascension, and so was St. Paul's first Epistle [Page 45] to the Thessalonians; and the whole of the New Te­stament was written during part of the Life of a Man; for St. Iohn, a Disciple of Christ, was the last Writer.

Part of this Argument is fallacious Reasoning.

For, first ▪ The New Testament was a Rule to the Christians before it was compiled into a Canon: for by compil'd, he means compil'd into a Codex, or Volume of Canons by a Council: for Canons, Laws, and Statutes, are Rules before they are col­lected into a Body; and we see the Sacred Scrip­ture cited as the Rule, by St. Ignatius, Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, and other Ancient Christians be­fore any Council met to compile them. And the Jews had the Law for their Rule, before Esdras (as they say) put the Holy Writers together.

2. Writing or not writing does not alter the Chri­stian Rule which is the same spoken or written. But a Rule, which may be preserved without writing for a few Years, and whilst the Apostles were alive and to be consulted, and Evangelists commission'd by them, (who wrought amongst them real Miracles, whilst they taught the Christian Doctrine, and ex­pounded the Old Testament, and after the manner of Christ opened the Understanding of the People, that they might understand the mystical Sense of the Old Covenant) was not likely to be preserved so entirely and so usefully, without writing, to the end of the [Page 46] World: Nor was the Law trusted without writing. When therefore, we say that the Scriptures are our Rule, what else do we mean, but that the Doctrine of the Messiah first taught by him, and afterwards written down by Evangelists and Apostles for the sake of Posterity, (to whom nothing could have been accurately transmitted for so long a time from Mouth to Mouth) that this Doctrine first preached, and then writ­ten, is the Rule of his Disciples. It is a Fallacy then to say, that a Rule once not written and afterwards written, is not the same, because one is not written and the other is. And it is so weak a one, that no Man of Judgment will be insnar'd by it. For he knows in his own little Affairs that an Account made first by word of Mouth, and afterward written down for the avoiding of Mistakes, and for the Pre­servation of that which frail Memory would lose, is but the same Account. So our Rule which was first dictated and then written, is but one Rule. When our Saviour said it, and St. Paul repeated it, and St. Luke wrote it down, that it was more blessed to give than to receive, the Rule was not altered but preserved: And our Saviour said many other things which, because they were not written down, are not known.

Object. 6. ‘Neither the universal Church, nor any part of it, deliver'd the Protestants the Bible, as they have it—The other Books being brought under examination in the Year 397. were found to be of equal Authority with those which were for­merly [Page 47] received. So that the Protestants not recei­ving the Books they call Apochryphal, Mr. P' s Rem. p. 18, 19. want ten parts of the Rule.’ For the making good of this Reasoning, he mentions the Authorities of the Councils of Carthage, Constantinople, and Florence, and of the Fathers, S. Austin, Pope Innocent the first, Pope Gelasius, and Pope Eugenius.

Answer. His Reasoning shall be first consider'd, and then his Authorities.

1. His Reasoning is not right upon two Accounts.

First, The Rule of the Scripture is not like a Mechanick Rule, of which just so much serves for measuring. For the Scripture is both a sufficient and an abundant Rule. And, strictly speaking, our Rule of Faith is rather in the Scripture, than the entire Volume. For the necessary Doctrines are few, and they are often repeated: and the same things are said more than once, by Moses, by the Prophets, E­vangelists, and Apostles: There is good use to be made of all the Books extant, but if some of them had been wanting, the Rule of Faith might still have been contained in the rest.

If therefore we lay aside some Books he calls Ca­nonical, it does not thence follow that the Rule of Faith is shortned, because the Code of the Canon is less. All things in Scripture are useful, but all [Page 48] things are not Doctrines absolutely necessary to Sal­vation.

Secondly, Whilst he argues for a Rule larger than the Primitive Church received, and adheres to a later Canon, he argues against Tradition. For he takes up that which is later, and prefers it before that which was earlier in the Church. Whereas Tradi­tion descends, but does not ascend. Now Learned Men of his own Communion allow that the ancient Church did not receive his Additional Canon any more than the Reformed will allow his Additional Creed. When both are reduc'd to the ancient Stan­dard, the Church of God will enjoy a greater mea­sure both of Truth and Peace. I will lay before the Iesuit the Judgment of a Sorbonist, who has read as many Ecclesiastical Books, and made as great Collections as he pretends to Mr. P 's Full Account, p. 9.— had read all Eccles. Hist. and had Volumes of Notes, &c., and to better purpose, than has yet been ma­nifested by him. I mean Mr. Ellies du Pin Du Pin Nov. Bibl. des Auteurs Ecclesiastiques, tom. prem. p. 653. Livres Mis hors du Canon par les Juiss, & par plusi­eurs Antients Chretiens, & receus depuis dans L'Eglise. Tobie, &c., ‘Who says of Tobit, Iudith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, the second Book of Maccabees, the History of Susanna, and Bell, that they are Books left out of the Canon by the Jews, and by many ancient Christians, and since that, received by the Church.’ He says this, but in other places, he, for Church-Reasons, is not so constant to himself.

I might therefore have rather mention'd the great Cardinal Ximenes, whose Polyglot Bible was [Page 49] dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth (the Pope, in whose time Luther liv'd) and, in ex­press words Consensu Leonis mo­tu proprio & ex certâ Sci­entiâ comprobantis, &c. by that Pope approv'd. That Cardinall in his Preface does thus instruct his Readers, ‘That the Pen­tateuch is set forth in a threefold Tongue, Hebrew, Chaldee, Greek, (with La­tin Interpretations of each). That the Hagio­grapha and Prophetical Books are in a two­fold Tongue, Hebrew and Greek, with Latin Versions. But (as he goes on) the Books out of the Canon which At. verò libri ex­tra Canonem, quam Eccle­sia potius ad aedificationem Populi, quam ad Authori­tatem Ecclesiasticorum Dog­matum confirmandum reci­pit, &c. the Church receives rather for the Edification of the People, than for confirming the Authority of Ecclesi­astical Doctrines, are only in Greek, but with a twofold Latin Transla­tion, the one St. Hierom's, the other the Inter­linary (reading) word for word.’

This may satisfy Mr. P. (if he be a reasonable Man) that he was not infallible when he denied there was any Canon like ours at Luther's ap­pearing.

Mr. P. will perhaps say (for something some Men will say when they cannot say that which amounts to an Answer) that he has produc'd greater Autho­rities; and that du Pin and the Cardinal are not his Popes.

[Page 50]I come therefore,

2 dly, To the Examination of his Authorities, after having suggested this general Answer to those or any others which he shall be able to bring forth out of his Magazine of voluminous Collections. That is to say, that the Apochryphal Books being valua­ble, some Churches received them as a Secondary Canon (so his own Sixtus Senensis called them) and yet not as a Canon of Faith, but Manners. And the Fancies of Men after some Apocryphal Books were read in Churches, being apt to affect the introducing of more; it was thought Prudence to limit that Secondary Canon, lest Books should be multiplied to the hinderance of the Scripture, and the prejudice of Truth. Our Church instructs the People in the Reason of the Reception of the Apocryphal Books, and the distinction of them from the Primary Canon out of S. Hierom.

See Canon 47. Mr. P's great and leading Authority is the third Council of Carthage Mr. P' s Rem. p. 18, 19. in which (if you give credit to a Man that witnesses for himself, that he has read all Ecclesiastical History) the Books we call Apocryphal, were found to be of equal Authority with the rest, and consequently received into the Canon.

Here I intreat the Reader to make with me these Observations.

First, Mr. P. notes on his Margin Mr. P' s Rem. p. 18. concern­ing the Council of Laodicea, that it was only a National Council of no general Obligation; but he points not at his Council of Carthage (which was later, and but a Provincial Council) with any such marginal Finger.

Secondly, Whereas he says Pag. 19. that the Council of Carthage was confirm'd in the sixth Council of Constantinople in the Year 680. he forbears to add, [Page 52] that there was no Enumeration of Books in that Council, and that the National Council of Laodi­cea was there confirmed as well as the Provincial Council of Carthage: And he observes not that the Council of Laodicea was confirm'd by the great Council of Chalcedon, not so the Council of Car­thage. This sure was done to show his Impar­tiality.

Thirdly, He observes not that the Council of Lao­dicea was taken into the Code of the Universal Church, but not the Council of Carthage. The first Collection of that Code ends with the second General Council, the first of Constantinople. It is true that Coun­cil ended about 16 Years before the Synod of Carthage, but the Collection was not made so soon, tho before the Year 431. Nor is the Council of Carthage added to that Code in the Collection made afterwards. It is true, it is in the African Addition in Dionysus Exiguus, but in the more ancient one it is not to be found.

Fourthly, He omits the Note Concil. Tom. secund. Conc. Carth g. 3. p 1177. Quidam vetustus Codex sic habet. De confirmando isto Canone Transmarina Ecclesia consulatur. in the Collection of his dear Friends Labb [...] and Cossart, put under this 37 th Canon of Carthage about the Scriptures, ‘[A certain Ancient Code has it thus Touching the confirming that Canon Let the Transmarine Churches be consulted.]’ There was no full Satisfaction among them in these Additional Books; and for satisfaction they did not refer meerly to the Roman Church.

[Page 53] 5ly, This Canon could not be a Canon of the third Council of Carthage, held (as Mr. P. says) in the year 397. for Relation is had in it to Boniface, who began his Pontificate about the year 419.

6ly, It is not true, that this Council found these Books to be of equal Authority with the rest.

1. Learned and impartial Romans do not say what Mr. P. does; and the Presumption of the Fathers of Trent, in setting them upon the same Level, is very heinous, as well as very new. Cardinal Cajetan was much of another mind, but neither is he Mr. Pulton's Pope.

2. The former Books of the Old Testament (for about that Canon is the Contest) were own'd by Christ himself and St. Paul; But these were not, could not be so: And the Canon of the Israelites (in Iose­phus) is ours.

3. The Council of Carthage call'd these Books Cano­nical upon no other account than as Books allow'd to be read in Churches. This is clear'd by A Patribus ista accepimus in Ecclesia le­genda. the lat­ter part of that supposed Canon; for there the Fa­thers would have it known to Boniface and other Bi­shops, in order to the confirming of this Canon, that they had received these Books to be read in the Church; and then they give leave also, that the Passions of Martyrs may be there read too upon their Anniver­saries.

2 ly. It is true that St. Austin (his next best Autho­rity) was a Consenter in general to the Council of Car­thage; and by that which he teaches about the Ad­ditional Books, we shall understand them not to have been esteemed of equal Authority with the former Ca­non; [Page 54] so that Mr. P. by producing St. Austin, has brought us a Key to the Council of Carthage for the shutting out of himself.

Let us hear St. Austin in the very place cited by Mr. P. and afterwards in other places, in which his mind is not ambiguously delivered.

The place cited by Mr. P. is in St. Austin's Book De Doctrina Christiana, in which Book that Father as­serts a Mystical sense in the Sixth Chapter of St. Iohn, (and in the very next S. Aug. de Doct. Chri­stiana, c 9. Chapter to that ci­ted by Mr. P.) the Sufficiency, and Perspicuity of the Scriptures. If his Authority be valid for the Canon, Why is it not for these latter Points? But how very wide is Mr. P. of St. Austin's sense in this very place about the Canonical Books? St. Austin affirms they are not all of equal Authority, and Mr. P. affirms they are. St. Austin before the Enumeration of them, lays down these Rules of Caution: ‘A man must hold this measure in the Canonical Books; he is to prefer those Scriptures which are received of all Catholick Churches [where note, he speaks of more Catholick Churches than one; that is, by Catholick he means Apostolick and Orthodox] before those which some, do not receive, and in those which are not received of all, let him prefer those which the greater number, and the more considerable Churches receive, before those which the Churches which are fewer and of lesser Authority receive. But if he shall find some to be received by the greater number of Churches, and others by the more considerable, (tho' this will scarce be found) yet my opinion is, that such are to be esteem'd of equal Authority.’

There are many other places in S. Austin, which make his mind very plain to those who are not so blind that they will not see.

[Page 55]Two places may at present suffice.

The first is,

In his Book of the City of God August. de Civitate Dei. l. 18. Cap. 36. Tom. 6. p. 1096. Ab hoc tem­pore apud Ju­daeos restituto Templo, non Regessed Prin­cipes fuerunt usq (que) ad Aristobulum; quorum supputatio temporum, non in scripturis sanctis, quae Canonicae appellantur: sed in alils invenitur, in quibus sunt & Macchabaeorum Libri; Quos non Judaei sed Ecclesia pro Canonicis habet, propter quorundam Martyrum pas­siones vehementes, atque Mirabiles: Qui antequam Christus venisset in Carnem, usque ad mortem pro Dei lege certaverunt, & mala gravissima, atque horribilia per­tulerunt.. There he speaks of other Books which are not Canonical, and amongst them reckons those of the Macchabees which were not in the Canon of the Israelites, received as canonical by the Church by reason of the Suffering certain Martyrs; by which passage it appears, that the Church read them not as a primary Canon of Faith, but a secondary Canon of Manners.

The next place is in his second Book against the Epistle of Gaudentius S. Aug. l. 2. contr. Ep. Gaud. c. 23. p. 353—hanc quidem scrip­turam, quae appellatur Macchabaeo­rum, non ha­bent Judaei si­cut legem, Prophetas & Psalmos, quibus Dominus Testimonium perhibet, tanquam Testibus suis—Sed recepta est ab Ecclesia, non inutiliter si sobrie legatur vel audiatur, maxime propter illos Maccha­baeos, qui pro Dei lege sicut veri Martyres, &c. in which he asserteth that the Writings of the Macchabees were not received by the Iews as they received the Law, the Prophets, the Psalms, for which our Lord bears Testimony as his Witnesses; but that it is received by the Church, and not unprofitably if it be soberly read or heard, especially by reason of the Macchabean Martyrs. As to the rest of his Autho­rities, they are a further Testimony of the choice he made in his great Collection.

For his Epistle of Innnocent, it was shuffled at last into the Roman Code, which was very long with­out it.

Nor was the Decree of Gelasius known to the World, [Page 56] till some Hundreds of years after his death; and then it came forth out of the Dark Ware-house of Isidore Mercator. Nor does it speak of the Order of the Canoni­cal Books, but of the Books of the Old Testament; and it makes mention but of one Book of the Maccha­bees.

Further, to what purpose is it, after so great a gap in time as is betwixt these Authorities, to mention the Council of Florence, not held till the Year 1438. in which there was no Decree at all about the Apocryphal Books, tho' he asserts the contrary, from the no Autho­rity of those who deceived the modern Epitomizer Caranza. What Pope Eugenius might do, is in this Cause insignificant. As to that whole Council, the Greeks at their return, and when they were at Liberty, undid that which, out of fear and hope of Succour, they seem'd to agree to whilst they were in the Ter­ritories of the Papacy.

2. Touching his particular Points, seeing he only mentions them, and asks Questions about them, with­out further Discourse upon them; I will return him here a very brief answer, reserving the further conside­ration of them, for the forementioned Tract.

First, For the Lords-day; seeing a time is to be set apart for the Worship of God, and that the Israelites by God's appointment, kept one Day in Seven Sacred; and that tho' the Law written in Tables of Stone, so far as it was Typical and Mosaic, was done away; and that Christ came to perfect, and not destroy the Law; and that Christ rose on that day; and that on that day at Pentecost his Church properly began; and that this day was generally observed by Christians, not meerly by Romans; there is so strong a Scriptural Reason for the [Page 57] observation of it, that no Church-Authority can omit or alter it without doing that which is irra­tional and unbecoming a Christian Society: And if the Roman should make this Attempt, it ought not to be obey'd.

2. Concerning the Feast of Easter, and the time of its observation, I do not know who they are among Christians, who make it one of the Necessaries to Sal­vation. There is reason for making a solemn Memorial of Christ's Resurrection; but that the Apostles setled the time, is contrary to the express words in the Epi­stle (not of Philippus, as the Editor mistakes, but The­ophilus) in the Council of Caesarea. Post Re­surrectionem vel Ascensio­nem Domini Salvatoris, Apostoli quomodo Pascha deberent observare, nihil ordinare potuerunt: Quia dispersi per universum mundum ad praedicandum fuerunt occupati. Which Epistle, tho it is not so very ancient, yet it is set out as such by the Jesuit Bucherius.

3. Concerning Baptism (Mr. P's third Point) he says 'tis necessary to Salvation.

If he had said generally necessary, our Catechism had thus far agreed with him. And St. Austin fetches his proofs for Infant-Baptism out of the Scripture against the Pelagians, as our Church-Office does. And they who consider, that Infants are capable of ent'ring into Covenant with God, and that Christ hath mentioned no other Gate of admittance into his Church, but Bap­tism, will fear the omission of Baptizing Infants. And he who has regard to the Analogy of both Covenants, will as readily construe our. Saviour, as requiring the Baptizing of Infants in that command, Go and bring in­to the Christian School All Nations, as a Iew would have construed Moses, as requiring the Circumcising of Infants, if he had said, Go and Circumcise all Nations.

[Page 58]4. For the Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, the Ari­ans opposed it by Tradition, and the Fathers prov'd it by Scripture. And the place in St. Iohn's Epistle, There are three that bear Record in Heaven, was by the Ari­ans believed to be of such force against them, that they removed it out of many Copies.

Instances are infinite: I will produce but one out of St. Hilary St. Hil. de Trin. lib. 5. Propheta lo­quitur, Evan­gelium testa­tur, Aposto­lus interpreta­tur, Ecclesia confitetur ve­rum Deum esse, qui visus sit, cum tamen Deum Patrem visum nemo fateatur. which shews the way of the Fathers in proving the Divinity of Christ out of the Scriptures. St. Hilary compares the places in Isa. 6. St. Ioh. 12. and Rom. 10. and then draws this Conclusion: ‘The Pro­phet speaks, the Gospel witnesseth, the Apostle inter­preteth, the Church confesseth him, who was seen to be the true God, whilst no man owneth that God the Father was seen.’

MR. Poulton had mistaken some hundreds of Years in time, about the great Lateran Council See D. T's Account, p. 15, 81.; and he was tax'd for it in particular manner before Mr. M. and neither of them then deni'd it; and now M. P's Full Account, p. 9. he turns it off by an Evasion (which Katherine heard) that he appealed to a General Council, and troubled not himself with a private Man Rem. p. 26, 27., meaning the Monk Pascha­sius Radbertus. If this had been his Answer, what oc­casion could there have been for this Question, put aloud to Mr. Merideth, Why do you bring a Man [for [Page 59] Mr. M. is a manager in Conference] who has not common skill in History? But notwithstanding, He certifies for himself, that he has profound skill, for he had read M. P's Full Account, p. 9. all the Ecclesiastical History [especially the Acts of In­nocent the third] and had Volumes of Notes relating thereunto: Volumes better worth 10000 l. than the Books which I am wont to boast of, before Catharine in the Cloudes, and other such Witnesses.

For this Lateran Council, let us weigh a little (for a little' weighing will suffice for a Feather) these Rea­sonings and Authorities about the Lateran Council.

He proves it to be a General Council, because Binius, Labbe and Carranza, give such an Account of it; and because I oppose it by Father Walsh the Franciscan, who (it seems, weak man) is nothing in the hands of three such Defenders of the August Assembly M. P's Rem. p. 27.. That it may appear the more August, he Notes that it was held a­gainst the Heresies of the Albigenses.

Now he should either have left out the Persecution of the Albigenses on his side; or his Epithets of Sangui­nary, Bloody, Penal, on ours; for as long as the Saint of the Lateran Council (St. Dominic) is remem­bred, Blood and Penalties will not be forgotten.

This by the by, and he will chide me for Rambling. I return to Father M. P's Ac­count, p. 11. Walsh and Binius. And

• 1. I did not prove this Council by the mere Autho­rity of Father Walsh, but only noted how Father Pul­ton, and Father Walsh agreed about their Rule of Faith in the great Article of Transubstantiation; and how Mr. P. had own'd a Deposing Canon, and denied it's Deposing Doctrine; but this was with nimble art to be so clearly skipt over, as not to be touched
  D. T's Ac­count, p. 81.
  .
• [Page 60]2. I do (in one point at least) value Father Walsh, above his very famous Binius and Labbe, for they were friends of the Deposing Doctrine, and he has been an open Ene­my to it, and for that Reason drawn no small hatred upon him.

Binius has Bonif. VIII. Vita & Epist. ap. Lab. Tom. II. part 2. p. 1398. words to this effect in his Collection of Councils; Bonifacius VIII — Justly Excommuni­cated Philip the IV. of France, sirnamed the Fair, for his Violation of the Law of Nations: Labbe repeats them in the August Edition of the Louvre without any Note in the Margent against them; but this giving Offence, in the next Edition a Note is added, which is rather an Evasion than a Reproof of that Doctrine Ib. A. 1294. Errat Binius; tantum abest, ut Philippus juste excom­municatus fu­erit, ut ne fue­rit quidem Excommuni­catus.

He Notes that Binius err'd, he does not say in the Doctrine of Excommunicating the King, but in the Histo­ry; because Philip was not (in one Jesuits Opinion, tho he was in another's) Excommunicated at all. Moreover in the second Apparatus, of Labbe, and Cossart, Jesuits, to their Collection of Councils, Jacobat de Concil. l. 7. de Cap. Concil. p. 329. 2 col. unde Gl. 1. in. they have publish'd without Reflection this dangerous Doctrine, That the Pope alone has power to depose an Emperor, Kings, and any other kinds of Power.

After this, is it possible for any man to guess, why this Franciscan is not this Iesuits D. T's Ac­count, p. 15. Mr. P. answer­ed. Father Walsh was not his Pope. Pope?

You will be wide of the Mark, if you say it is be­cause Father Walsh is an open Remonstrant, and against deposing. Whether the Acts of this Council were ge­nuine or not, I now dispute not. But 'tis certain, 'twas no truly General Council, and yet that the major Part of Romish Writers have said it was. And seeing Mr. P. is become one of that number, let him, with more Art than others have done, attempt the evading the genuine Sense of its Decree Conc. Lat. 4. cap. 3. for the Extirpation of Heresie, owned afterwards by the Bull of Martin the [Page 61] V. It was then thus decreed, ‘That if a temporal Lord being requir'd and warn'd by the Church, should neglect to purge his Dominions of Heresie, he should first be excommunicated by the Metropolitan, and the other Bishops of his Province; whereof, if with­in a years time, he gave no satisfaction, the Pope was to be warned, who might absolve his Subjects from their Allegiance, and expose his Dominions to be seiz'd on by Catholicks; who having destroyed the Hereticks, might thenceforward possess it with­out any contradiction, and preserve it in the purity of the Faith, saving the Right of the Principal Lord, on CONDITION that he put no hindrance.’ And it is expresly added, that the same Course is to be ob­serv'd towards them, who have no Principal Lords.

THREE things on this subject Mr. Pulton asserts; yet there is not one of them which he can main­tain.

1. He asserts M. P's Rem. p. 2. that Popery flourished in this King­dom, near a Thousand years (he might as well have added my number of Ten thousand) before Protestancy was ever heard of; and that we our selves confess it. Whereas we say, that the British Bishops protested [Page 62] against the Popes Jurisdiction above a Thousand years ago; that we had Witnesses against Romish Errors be­fore Luther rose: That our Faith is the Faith in the Ancient Creeds; and that if our Protestations against Romish Errors are new, it is because they were new, and that we could not sweep out the Dirt, till they had brought it in; and that we are the same Church as from the beginning, the Corruptions only being re­mov'd.

2. He avers M. P's Rem. p. 26. that the Corruptions I mention are but supposed, and that I shall never be able to shew that St. Gregories Faith was not that which Rome now teaches.

I had said already that Gregory the Great D. T's Ac­count. p. 77. ‘had not sent into the Land the same Canon the Romanists now go by; for he would not allow the Books of Macchabees to be Canonical.’ Now according to Mr. Pulton's Art of Logic, if old Popery has a shorter, and new Popery has a longer Rule, the Popery is not the same; But then was then, and now is now.

3. He asserts concerning the Doctrines of the Two famous Synods, the Second of Nice, and that of Trent, M. P's Rem. p. 26. that they are not here oppugn'd, unless by Here­ticks desirous to retain the name of Catholicks.

The name Catholick is sometimes with them a mark of the Church, and now Hereticks covet and use it: 'Tis a mark and no mark. Now for the Synod of Nice, he commits a mistake, for I cited Hoveden, for the opposition of it to the Worship of Images, and not, as he forgets, to the Corporal presence. And because he is just now in good humour, and promises a fair and candid Answer M. P's Rem. p. 26. when my proofs out of Beda and Hoveden are produced, I will produce a place or two. He will do well for varieties sake, to say some­thing that is fair and candid.

[Page 63]For Hoveden in relation to the Decree of Nice about Image-Worship, his Testimony is this Rog. de Hoveden An­nal. pars prior. p. 405. — Anno 792. Carolus Rex Francorum misit synoda­lem librum ad Britanniam, si­bi a Constan­tinopoli dire­ctum, in quo libro (heu proh dolor) multa incon­venientia, & verae fidei contraria re­periebantur; maxime, quod pene omnium Orientalium Doctorum non minus quam trecen­torum vel eo amplius Episcoporum unanimi assertione confirmatum fuerit, Imagines ado­rari debere, quod omnino Ecclesia Dei execratur; contra quod scripsit Albinus Epistolam ex authoritate divinarum Scripturarum mirabiliter affirmatam; illamq (que) cum eorum Libro ex persona Episcoporum ac Principum nostrorum Regi Francorum attulit.: ‘In the year 795. Charles King of the Franks sent that Sy­nodical Book to Britain, which had been directed to him from Constantinople, in which Book (alas and wail the day) many inconvenient things, and CON­TRARY TO THE TRVE FAITH, were found; but the greatest grief was, that it was con­firmed by almost all the Oriental Doctors, no less than Three hundred, if not more, Bishops with una­nimous suffrage, THAT IMAGES OVGHT TO BE WORSHIPPED, WHICH THE CHVRCH OF GOD VTTERLY AC­CVRSETH. Against which [Decree] Albinus wrote a Letter wonderfully strengthened by the Authority of the Divine Scriptures, and brought it, together with the said [Synodical] Book to the King of the Francs in the name of our Bishops and Princes.’

As to Beda, in relation to the Corporal presence, one place may suffice, tho' in him there are many. Now in his Commentary on St. Luke he teaches, that Beda in Lucae Evang. cap. 22. lib. 6. p. 424. Col. 2. — Ut viz. pro carne Ag­ni, vel sanguine suae Carnis san­guinisq (que) Sa­cramentum in panis ac vini figura substi­tuens, ipsum sese esse monstraret, cui juravit Dominus, & non poenitebit eum tues sacerdos in oeternum, secundum ordinem Melchisedec; frangit autem, &c. ‘Instead of the Flesh and Blood of the Paschal Lamb, he did substitute the Sacrament of his own Flesh and Blood in the FIGURE of Bread and Wine.’ And the words following show that he meant it of such Bread and Wine as Melchisedeck gave to Abraham, who certain­ly was not presented with mere shows and Accidents.

[Page 64]From Knyghton I had asserted, D. T's Ac­count, p. 78. That even in the latter time of Wickliff, there was no such Doctrine then in England as Transubstantiation publickly imposed as an Article of Faith. I cited not then the Recantation of Wickliff, nor the Book in which that Author is; and Mr. P. not finding it (as I conjecture) in his Volumes of Collections, he passed it over in silence.

I will oblige him with it at length, tho it is hard Language for a man that has been Eighteen Years out of England.

I knowleche H. de Knyghton de Event. Anglice l. 5 p. 2647, 2648. that the Sacrament of the autar is verry Goddus Body in fourme of Brede: but it is in another manner Goddus Body then it is in hevene. For in heven it is sene fote in fourme and figure of Fleshe and Blode. But in the Sa­crament Goddus Body is be myracle of God in fourme of Brede, and is he nouther of sene fote: Ne in mannes figure, but as a Man leeves for to thenk the kynde of an Image whether it be of Dke or of Ashe, and settys his thoouzt in him of whome is the Image: so myche more schuld a Man leve to thenk on the kynd of Brede, But thenk upon Christ, for his Body is the same Brede that is the Sacrament of Autere, and with alle clennes, alle devocion, and alle charite that God would gif him, worschippe he Crist, and then he receyves God gostly more medefully than the Prist that syngus the Masse in lesse Charite. For the Bodely etyng ne profytes nouth to Soule, but in als mykul as the Soule is fedde with Charite. This sen­tence is provyde be Crist that may nouzt lye. For as the Gospel says, Crist that Night that he was betraied of Iudas Scarioth, he toke Brede in [Page 65] hise Handes, and blesside it, brak it, and gaf it to hise Disciplus to ete. For he says, and may not lye. This is my Body.

HIS Triumphs are made up of Two things.

• 1. His performances in the Conference.
• 2. The wonderful Success that followed it.

1. He perform'd mightily in the Conference; and as if he had had a double Portion of the spirit of every one of his Six Vncles who were Iesuits Mr. P's Rem. Ep. Ded.. I will give you a true Representation of his way of performing in the Conference; and I submit it to you, whether he who has perform'd so little as he has done in Two printed Books upon deli­beration, could perform so much as his Party has boasted of together with himself, in his talk at adventure.

His way of performing, consisted in repeating the Names of some of the Fathers, and some Questions over and over, without condescending either to accept the Answer, or to enervate it. What is the Rule of Faith? How do you prove the Bible? From what Copies had you it? What Copies? What Copies? When? How? Where? St. Iustin Martyr, St. Irenoeus, &c. St. Iustin Martyr, St. Irenoeus, &c. And when [Page 94] I was desiring to speak to St. Ambrose which he first alledged, he was still at his Cries, St. I. Martyr, St. Irenoeus, &c. He was at more than his Once, Twice, Thrice, at his Auction of Strong Reasons. In good ear­nest, this is no Mockery; it can be attested by the Oaths of many Judicious and Serious People present; this is as true as it would be pleasant, if the Confe­rence had not been about Religion. And thus because he would ask on, and throw the same Stone again into the Well after it had been taken out and laid before him, he calls this VICTORY; but by his leave, a Grammarian who gives words their freedom, and sets them at liberty from their signification, recedes from his Art. They were used to these Victories beyond the Alps, whilst the Iesuits preached the Mountebanks down from their own Stages. I believe such a man as the Excellent Bishop Saanderson would have been silenced by this way: And his Reputation would have suffer'd through his modesty; but I who had less Learning and more confidence than he, did set my Face against his Face, as well as my Reason, and what he calls my Rule, against his shews of Reason and Authority.

Now I must confess an Infirmity, and own to my Reader, that he still stands in my Fancy, in the Fi­gure of a Man of Huffing Valour, who asks for his Ad­versary, tho' he is in readiness; and threatens to draw, and immediately to slay him; and still he does nothing, tho' there is no Lock upon his sheath. He goes away and triumphs, and at last shows his Sword to the World, and it appears to be a weapon of Lath.

But, Secondly, as he triumphs in his performance in the Conference, so he glories still more in the success that attended it Mr. P's Rem. p. 33. Singular Ef­fects of D. T's Conference.. He will tell you it himself; for he has the Art of putting the Laurel on his own Head. He [Page 95] glories not indeed in Mrs. R. in Mr. V. or Mrs. V. who were all come over in the Taverns and Coffee-houses, but confirm'd at home. But let that pass; he has other Triumphs which will render him, a Man of Fame to Posterity. There are Rem. p. 33. he says (and we have found him a man of his word) at least two a gaining; (two in fieri, in his beloved Latin); and I. S. is in facto esse; Why! here's the success of the D. of Lorain and Morosi­ni. Nay further, the Report of that Catholick Ladies Leaving the Roman Faith, is false; we have it upon his Certificate in the Margin: [but what if more than Two are coming from his Church, and from under his very Wings, tho' they are not Ladies?] And that the Tyber loses more ground on the one side, than it gains on the other. If he had had a FAIR CONFERENCE, he que­stions not but he should have been yet more successful; if he might have read on in his Specutum and Breviary, and been suffer'd to set time back some hundreds of years, and brought Paschasius acquainted with Innocent the Third, no doubt he had been the Xaverius of the Savoy. But as it was, he carry'd off young I.S. and Ten days after I.S. was reconciled. I had thought they were very good friends before; but the Mayor is no Mayor till the Show be over.

I pity any that are seduced, from the bottom of my Heart; but if any shall go away upon noisy Talk, and such Motives as Mr. P. has yet given either in his Dis­course, or Catechizing, or Printed Books (in which the World may see his strength) they are either very weak in Capacity, or strong in their inclinations to wander.

Now, seeing he has writ what he would have said about his main point, and no body has given him inter­ruption, and some-body (they say) has given him help; we shall surely, ere long, have his Two turn'd to Fifty; for his REMARKS must certainly carry all before him.

[Page 96]And now methinks I see him in the figure into which Valerian the famous Capuchin once condescended to put himself. ‘Has it not been told you? have you not read (says the humble Valerian) Val. Mag. Actio 5. profide Cath. p. 227. Sed num tibi relatum non est, num non legisti Bartho­lomeum Ni­grinum, vi­ctum in di­sputatione publica? Ille ego sum qui prostravi illud Columen Cal­vinismi in Po­lonia. how I overcame Bar­tholomew Nigrinus in a Publick Disputation? I am the man who laid along that Pillar of Calvinism in Poland.’ But what said some of our Inns of Court, after hearing Mr. Pulton when they came out of the Door of the Sa­voy Mass-house? This man does banter finely. Atheists he may make by such discourse; but if he makes any Pa­pists, he works a Miracle. And this (I assure him) is not Invention, but History.

HE has both promised and threatn'd what he would do. His promises he is not very likely to perform; for he has said he will give an Answer to certain places, when produc'd from Beda and Hoveden, and such others. There can be no Answer, there may be evasion.

He has threatned, if I tell any more Tales of Iulio's and Past-board-Heads, that he will come forth with what I know not Mr. P's Rem. p. 32, 33. 40, &c.. It may be, he intends a second Century of Scandalous Ministers, and an Appendix to the Cobler of Glocester. But let him remember the man that blew the Coal, till the sparks put out his Eyes. He threa­tens me with himself, and Mr. Meredith his Second. Let Mr. M. come forth: Possibly some or other may oblige him in the Art of wrangling, for he loves to be engaged. He is the very Salesman at every Auction of Argu­ments. [Page 97] He may still find himself business if he pleases; but I have Employment more worthy my time.

He Threatens me with an Answer Mr. P's Rem. p. 38. about S. Ambrose; if he can effect that, he will be greater than his very great Cardinal Bona: And let the Ball be between them for the showing of their Unity. He will do more, he will show my Contradictions M. P's Rem. p. 38.. Alas, good Man! they are innocent things, a man cannot celebrate Mass with­out them; but he will shew them like Catharine Lamb, whom no body could see.