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-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
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
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 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 't is not Humour Interest or Faction but final 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 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 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 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 received So that the Protestants not receiving the Books they call Apochryphal 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 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 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
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 enough for a Reader who has not abated of his due Veneration for the most Sacred Word of God Fu un di che Joseph dovea far una letera a un Valente huomo st guardo el legname perche volea far quella letera trovo curto uno cavo piu che l'altro fu molto turbato per che non haveva el legname ala misura Iesu veniva di fora da solazo conli fanciulli e entro in casa e trovo Joseph cruciato perche elli non havea trovato el legname sufficiente Iesu disse a Joseph non havere malinconia dicendo che lui pigliasse da un capo e luy pigliare be da l'altro tanto tirono che el legname fu longo come bisognava vedendo Joseph che el legname stava bene benedisse el nome de Dio in quello tempo fini Iesu 7 anni It was upon a Day that Ioseph was to make a Bedstead for a Worthy Man and so looking upon the Wood of which he designed to make the Bedstead he found one side shorter than the other and was much troubled because he had not Wood according to the measure And Jesus came from abroad from his Play with the Boys and enter'd into the House and found Ioseph very much troubled because he had not found the Wood sufficient And Jesus bad Ioseph not to be melancholick saying That he should take hold on one end and himself would take hold on the other and they pull'd so much that the Wood was as long as was needful And Ioseph seeing that the Wood was fit blessed the Name of God. And at this time Jesus had finished the 7 th Year of his Age. 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 Answer If he lik'd not the Word as he says St. Hierom himself did not he approv'd of the Article 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 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 Object 2. Ecclesiastes says Luther has never a perfect Sentence 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 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 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 for instance sake of the Constitution of Cardinal Gallon 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 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 It is noted in Commendation of St. Athanasius by a deposing-Author 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 account be excused from HERESY 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 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
force against them that they removed it out of many Copies Instances are infinite I will produce but one out of St. Hilary 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 CHAP. V. Mr. P. consider'd with Relation to what he hath said about the Lateran Council MR. Poulton had mistaken some hundreds of Years in time about the great Lateran Council and he was tax'd for it in particular manner before Mr. M. and neither of them then deni'd it and now 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 't is certain 't was 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 for the Extirpation of Heresie owned afterwards by the Bull of Martin the 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 CHAP. VI. Mr. P. considered in relation to what he has said touching the antiquity of Popery in England THREE things on this subject Mr. Pulton asserts yet there is not one of them which he can maintain 1. He asserts 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 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 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 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
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