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 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 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 Two places may at present suffice The first is In his Book of the City of God 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 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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
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 and to better purpose than has yet been manifested by him I mean Mr. Ellies du Pin 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 dedicated to Pope Leo the Tenth the Pope in whose time Luther liv'd and in express words 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 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 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. Article 6. Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to Salvation So that whatsoever is not read therein nor may be proved thereby is not to be required of any Man that it should be believed as an Article of the Faith or be thought requisite or necessary to Salvation In the name of the holy Scripture we do understand those Canonical Books of the Old and New Testament of whose Authority was never any doubt in the Church Of the Names and Numbers of the Canonical Books Genesis Exodus c. And the other Books as Hierom saith the Church doth read for Example of Life and Instruction of Manners but yet doth not apply them to establish any Doctrine Such are these following the three Books of Esdras c. Mr. P's great and leading Authority is the third Council of Carthage 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 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 that the Council of Carthage was confirm'd in the sixth Council of Constantinople in the Year 680. he forbears to add 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 in the Collection of his dear Friends Labbâ— 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 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 the latter part of that supposed Canon for there the Fathers would have it known to
common Bread to be the Body of Christ not by an Hypostatical Union but by a Divine Presence and Energy For this seems to me to have been his Opinion viz. That all true Believers were to be made partakers of the Divine Nature by the body and blood of Christ in us and so we become of the same body and blood with him but he never imagined this to be done by the Eucharistical Bread being changed into the substance of Christ's Body in Heaven but that it being changed by the Holy Ghost it was thereby made the Body of Christ which being receiv'd he thought it did not pass into the draught but was distributed through the whole man for the benefit both of Soul and Body This as far as I can judg was his true opinion I am not now to examin whether it were reasonable or not but I think it is evident to any common understanding that this is far enough from the Roman Tenet for which Mr. P. hath so solemnly vouched his Authority But the Greek Fathers were men of finer thoughts than to entertain so gross a notion as that of Transubstantiation which was first started by a Western Monk of no great capacity and was opposed by the men of Wit and Learning at that time One who had been much in the East and suckt in the opinions of the Greeks was the most earnest opposer of it But Ignorance and Superstition prevailing in the Western Church it came by degrees to be owned and received by it especially after the Bishops of Rome concerned themselves in the quarrel against Berengarius From that time the Authority and Infallibility of the Roman Church and Transubstantiation have been so closely united that they cannot part with this though like an Ephialtes it lyes so heavy upon it without giving up the other But as long as Learning and Liberty continued in the Greek Church they were utter strangers to it what Barbarism and a very prevailing Argument among the Modern Greeks may have done as to the receiving Transubstantiation I am not much concerned to enquire But as to the Learned Greek Fathers as far as I can find they knew nothing at all of it They had a notion among them of a real Body of Christ in the Sacrament after Consecration but they still supposed the substance of the Elements to remain as fully appears by that very Discourse M. P. nibbles at but it will break his Teeth to answer it I am unwilling to end my Answer to this charge of most disingenuous dealing about St. Cyril's Testimony without putting him in mind of an extraordinary instance of this kind in a Reverend Father of the Society even before the pretended infallible Head of the Church In the time of Clement the Eighth the Controversie de Auxiliis was carried so high between the Iesuits and Dominicans that the Pope himself resolved to have the hearing of it And the Generals of both Orders were to chuse their Divines and to be present with them Greg. de Valentia was of one side and Father Lemos of the other The Controversie came to a passage of St. Augustine which Greg. de Valentia alledged the other answer'd it was not so in his Book and desired to see that which Greg. de Valentia used he was very unwilling but the Pope commanded him F. Lemos cried out the Text was falsified and desired a third Person might read it and upon reading it it was so found upon which the Pope with a stern look and a dreadful note cried to him Ho! which struck the poor Father into such a consternation that he fell down in a swoon and was taken up half dead and carried out and never more appear'd in any Congregation but was sent away to Naples where he died some Months after This story is very lately printed with evident proofs by Roman Catholicks out of the Original Acts of that Congregation And this I think was most disingenuous dealing with St. Augustin If Mr. P. can find any such dealing among us let him charge it home upon us But I think I have said enough at present for my own Vindication As to his other Charges which concern your self I doubt not but in short time to see a satisfactory Answer from a better hand I am Octob. 12. 1687. Sir Your Faithful Friend and Servant E. S. ACCUS 5. D. T. has without a Text of Scripture for it Published four of Mr Pulton's Letters and very injuriously conceal'd his fifth which was the most material of all containing A. P's clearing himself from the Doctor 's false aspersions whereby he charges A. P. with not having stood to the Agreement ANSWER He needed no Text he gave Mr. Pulton fair warning of it and was not forbidden by him for in these words I wrote to him in my Answer to his Fourth Letter You have my Letters and I yours c. do with them what you please and write what you please further and I will take the like freedom And thus the very great injury is vanished But if that fifth Letter was very injuriously conceal'd why does he not thank me for the publishing of the rest for all of them were as worthy of the light as this I had answer'd before what was material in it his denial of an Agreement and I did not think it worth the while to publish the same things so very often Yet seeing he thinks this Letter very injuriously conceal'd I will make amends for the injury and publish it here and it shall come forth in its original English of write for written and wrighting for writing and all that have an eye can see how material it is The Savoy Octob. 14. 1687. Honoured Sir YOU were pleased to insist again in your last upon my not standing to my agreement I must mind you again that your own conscience is witness all our discourse of WRIGHTING was in reference to the quotation of St. Ambrose and farther carrying on the matter in debate and that no body mentioned a title of giving or not giving an account of the pure matter of fact past However take it as you please I never gave a Copy otherwise then to be WRITE out and that with express order of distributing no copies nor shall you ever produce the man that had one from me or by my order knowlege or consent till I had sent you your's and this I can prove and if you charge me with the contrary it shall be incumbent on you to make it out I return you many thanks for your obliging profer of sending me the first sheet I desire you will not give your self that trouble it will suffice that you send me a Copy of the whole the evening before you publish it if such be your resolutions and I will do the same For your remarks upon the narrative which I here send you at large I leave it to you to send them or not and I will proceed therin as you shall
howsoever they sounded when they were heard from his Pulpit are 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 hath given his Church Whom then makes He himself when he goes about to confute it and whom does he make me when to ME he ascribes the Rule 'T is 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 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 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
Trent 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 'T is 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 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 For Hoveden in relation to the Decree of Nice about Image-Worship his Testimony is this 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 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 From Knyghton I had asserted 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 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 al 's 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 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 CHAP. VII Mr. P. Considered in his Accusations ACCUSAT I. HE cannot step over two Pages before he is gotten into his Innuendo's and his This reflects upon the King He accuseth me for want of Respect in charging the Religion of which the sworn Head of his own Church is a Principal Member which as themselves the Protestants confess flourished in this Kingdom near a Thousand Years before Protestancy was ever heard of to be such whence a moping lying and uneasie temper naturally flows All this I believe he might write himself it is original For want of respect or rather the humblest duty where it is so just a tribute I shall never fail to pay it And here in this instance the fault with which he taxeth me he himself committeth He wears the Sacred name of a King by using it upon every unnecessary occasion Whereas they who understand the profound civil veneration which Crowned Heads may challenge are at the same time frugal in the mentioning of their Names and free and abounding in their Allegiance Add to this that they less honour a Prince than they ought who create any uneasiness to his Subjects and that is an uneasiness which is not pleasing when in common conversation men are under Terror when they have a suspicion that their words shall be watcht and each innocent phrase which the Hearer likes not shall be called a Reflection upon the King. But to come to the strength of his Accusation what a false and invidious consequence is here I. S. grew worse upon Mr. Pulton's tampering with him and so it appear'd to D. H. and Mr. V. and divers others therefore the Roman Religion is such whence a Mopish lying and uneasie temper NATURALLY flows I suppose this consequence was not drawn by him by the Art of Thinking which the ingenious Iansenists have published Must that be Natural to a Religion which may be the effect of dissettlement and the fault of the method of the Tamperer There are many made worse by Empyrical practicers though the Physick it self might not Naturally do it Mr. P. talkt so much of Luther and the DEVIL and of DAMNATION out of his Church that I. S. might for some time be under an affrightment If I may say it in his own light way he ought to have forborn his stories of Goblins when he was putting his Child to rest in his Mothers bosom From his Premises then the Conclusion is not my want of duty if he draws it not with Jesuitical but Logical Art. I wish him a greater share of Loyal duty himself He will he says REFER himself to the JUDGMENT OF HIS MAJESTY which seems a familiarity bordering on irreverence His Half-sheet-Friend has written a FULL ANSWER to the SIX CONFERENCES concerning the Eucharist a Full ANSWER in the same sense that Mr. Pulton's Book is a FULL ACCOUNT And he likes me not the worse I hope because he finds in me a little of the Aequivocator For I openly call my self the PUBLISHER but in his opinion I am secretly the AUTHOR Now he THREATENS me with a smarting Discipline when the Church of
Iohn said There are three that bear record in Heaven he should have told us there are but three 5. He charges me with three Calumnies upon my telling the story of Abbot Theodore tho it be told by me out of the Acts of his Council of Nice as published by his Brethren Labbe and Cossart whose very Pages are cited 6. He has found in one of his Store-houses i.e. in the Guide in Controversie that the Rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Greek is in the Syriack Kypha which is of the Masculine Gender as if the Primitive Translator if Saint Matthew's Gospel was Translated out of Hebrew could have better render'd his sense by a word of the Masculine than of the Feminine Gender If that had been his opinion he would have done it 7. He formerly reflected on the Greeks as Lyars and Hereticks Now he professes †that he said it not in his own but in my opinion This is for the sweetning of the Greeks in the Morea He is very politick in nicking of Junctures 8. He says I mistake when I assert That the Roman Church proves her being and Authority out of the Scriptures To say that they can or do prove it out of the Scriptures is a mistake I am not apt to be guilty of but to say that they attempt to do it is none for to this purpose they alledg so very often Hear the Church and Thou art Peter c. 9. He calls for our Catalogue of Witnesses against their Errors Yet he had heard of the Works of Illyricus and others of this nature And I am not ashamed to own that I published in the English Tongue divers Months ago the Testimonies of Writers in the several Ages of Christianity against Transubstantiation 10. He pull'd a Book of written Collections together with his Breviary out of his Pocket as sure as he put my Paper into it and there were eyes enough to discern it and now he denies he ever produced it perhaps he never read out of it or according to his Evasion about shewing Luther's works he never produc'd it in the Pulpit 11. He mentions a place in St. Ambrose which in his Opinion is evidently against me and which he says I refused to hear It was not worth either my Attention or my Answer for I had before told him the true Meaning of all such Places viz. That Consecration altered Sacramental Elements from common to Sacred things in use and benefit and that the Fathers used the same Expressions about the Water in Baptism as about Bread and Wine in the Lords Supper whilst no body imagines the Substance of the Water is by the most powerful benediction remov'd In that very Chapter a fragment of which is cited by Mr. P. St. Ambrose compares the Change in the Lords Supper upon Consecration with that in Baptism and proves the Change of Baptismal Regeneration by that with which he had just before illustrated the Change in the Eucharist the Miraculous Conception of Christ in the Blessed Virgins Body Disputants who like unsatisfied Beggars will still ask on extort a Reproof instead of a Grant. 12. He Charges me with a Reflection upon the Apostles who preached in rich and warm Countries because I took notice tho from Balzac a Papist that Missionaries chose such places rather than Nova Zembla But he takes no notice of the Argument it self That the talk of Conversions and of Places and Numbers and Qualities is insignificant unless it be first prov'd that men are not made Proselytes as the Scribes and Pharisees made them but converted to True Religion But enough if not too much has been said in Answer to Objections which are not real Difficulties Perhaps my Readers have already taken Compassion on themselves and left off some Pages before they have come at this And I think it is time to relieve my self after having been concern'd in a Controversial matter which in the nature of it I do not much relish and which by the length of it has created in me a most ungrateful Satiety FINIS ERRATA PAge 20. l. 15. for Homouslon read Homousion Marg. for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 21. Marg. l. 9. f. At r Aut p. 26. l. 30. f. it must be r. they would have it be p. 29. l. 39. f. design r. designs p. 33. and often elsewhere Objection f. Objections p. 52. l. 27. f. Churches r. Church There are other mistakes which are left to the Correction of the Judicious Reader ADVERTISEMENT WHereas there has been a Paper cry'd by some Hawkers as a Sermon preached by D. T. at the Funeral of M. E. Gwynn this may Certify that that Paper is the Forgery of some Mercinary people (a) Mr. Pulton's Remarks p. 38. (b) Concl. of Pax Vobis (c) Reason and Antiquity p. 45. (d) A Reply to the Def. of the Expos. of the Church of England (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 32. (a) Advice to the Pulpits p. 26 27 28 29. (b) See his Rem p. 36. (a) 2 Mr. P's Rem p. 35. (a) M. P's True and full Account Ep. to the Reader (b) M. P's Full Account p. 11. (b) See his Letter here published chap. 7. (a) D. T 's Ac. p. 82. Parag. 17 18. (a) 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 (a) I. B's Life of Luther S. Omers 1624. p. 17 29 39 44 52 c. (b) Mr. P's Full Account p. 11. (a) Fioreti de la Bibia Vulgari Historiati c. Novamente stampati in Milano C. 170. An. 1524. (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 8. (b) Luth. contra Latom Homousion quod Hieronymus optavit aboleri (c) 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 * Bell. Pref. ad l. de Chr. p. 227. M. L. contra Jac. Latomum Scribens Anima mea inquit odit hoc verbum 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (a) Mr. P's Rem p. 8. * L. Op. Tom. 3. fol. 231. Liber multis nominibus dignus qui omnium manibus tereretur fol. 232. Relig. causâ sordidissimè victitârunt Neque 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 (b) Mr. P's Rem p. 9 10. (c) Conc. Decr. Synod S. Rotomag Eccles. Const. Gall. Capitul 1. p. 209. Moneantur quoque ne MATRES vel Uxores aliasque conjunctas personas secum habeant cum quibus etsi nihil saevi criminis faedus naturale existimari permittat tamen frequenter suggerente