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 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
only a Theological Conclusion 10. By this Representation I was soon forced to confess That the whole Scene was changed the first part of the Words remaining the same but the second of the Beatifical Vision of the Saints which were my only Concernment wholly transform'd that which before was join'd with the Spirituality of Angels as not yet held matters of Faith but only Theological Conclusions being now annex'd to the Validity of Baptism by Hereticks and so affirm'd to be a Tradition and that is with him a matter of Faith and decided by it And then I had Reason to acknowledge the Candour of that Romanist who proceeding on these Appearances had laid no heavier a Censure upon me than that of either mistaking or perverting Mr. White 's Words 11. In this new posture of Affairs first it was presently discernable That the very many Changes which I had foreseen had been really made to bring this about And as all this was obvious and credible to be done by a new Edition of the Book so it remained uncertain to me whether mine or that other so contrary to it were the True and Authentick Edition This therefore was my next care to examine 12. And herein again I met with an Intricacy For if the Title-Pages and a Concurrence of all obvious Indications might be believed there was all this while but one Edition both Copies carrying in their Front A Paris chez Iean Billain Rue S. Iacques à l'ensign S. Austin 1654. the same Volume Print Number of Pages beginning and end of every Page c. This soon suggested that which was the only clue to extricate me then and the Reader now out of this Labyrinth For sending to the Stationers for another Copy of the Apology as from one I received a Copy perfectly agreeing with mine so by the help of another I was furnish't with one exactly accordant to what my Monitor from the Romanist had represented to me yet not discernably differing from my own in any other save in this one Passage and looking more narrowly first the Paper and Ink wherein the Leaf was Printed discernibly differing from all the rest of the Book was apt to inject some suspicion But I soon saw that I had no need of this or other obscurer intimation it being grosly visible that in this place a Leaf had been cut out and a new one pasted in And what Gordian Knot might not have been untied by the like instrument 13. When this change was thought fit to be made I did and still want Augury to divine only this is apparent that it was a Work which Second thoughts suggested after the Book was published else my Copy which came regularly to me from the Worcester Stationer in the Year if my Memory fail me not 1655. and another now sent me from another Stationer which assures me there be many more must have had their parts in the Change. 14. Having given the Reader a brief and single view of this matter I abstain from any farther Observation or Reflection on it than what a Quo teneam vultus mutantem will amount to But that is also unnecessary my whole Design being compleated in this That it is now manifest to the most imperswasible of their Disciples that dare read what is written against their Masters which I perceive few are permitted to do That I neither mistook nor perverted the Apologist's Sense or Words those I mean which I read in his Book from which alone I could be imagined to receive cognizance of them not being able to forecast that what I had thus really transcrib'd from him would be so soon snatch't from me again or that what was to me so visible should vanish and become invisible to other men 15. This indeed is an unexpected Proof of what S. W. had told me concerning the Wits enormous Power to transform Testimonies which yet shall not discourage me from dealing in that Ware being firmly resolved never to make use of my duller Faculties to work such Metamorphoses nor yet from diverting sometimes into such pleasant Fields adorned with so great Varieties as that Apologist frequently affords the World hoping that I shall not again meet with such misadventures as these or any greater interruptions in reading him than what a competent Attention and a Table of Errata shall enable me to overcome 16. This Account I conceived would more pardonably because more moderately divert the Reader at this time than if I should stay till it were solemnly and articulately call'd for and moreover deliver S. W. from some temptation himself to think or to perswade others that he had sprang some real Game to invite his Chases some Guilt to support his Contumelies and perhaps prevail with some of their most credulous followers to think it equitable to subject the Suggestions they meet with to some other ways of Examination and Trial than the bare Authority or Confidence of the Suggesters THE END CHAP. III. Mr. Pulton's Chief Reasonings and Authorities consider'd and refuted And here first of his Reasonings and Authorities about Luther 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 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 which he complains of and at the same time is guilty of may be avoided He will by no 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