Some Farther REMARKS ON THE LATE ACCOUNT Given by Dr. TENISON OF HIS Conference with Mr. PULTON.  
Wherein the Doctor's Three Exceptions against EDWARD MEREDITH are Examined, Several of his other Misrepresentations laid open, Motives of the said E. M.'s Conversion shown, and some other Points relating to Controversy occasionally treated.  
TOGETHER WITH An Appendix, in which some Passages of the Doctor's Book entitled, Mr. Pulton Considered, are Reconsidered; and in the Close the best Means of coming to true Faith proposed.  
To all which is added, A Postscript in Answer to the Pamphlet put forth by the Schoolmaster of Long-Acre.  Ego injuriantem novi, & sustinentem. 
Published with Allowance.  
LONDON: Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for His Household and Chapel; And are to be sold at his Printing-house on the Ditch-side in Blackfriars. 1688.   

To the Readers.  
YOu are informed at the beginning of the following Discourse what Accident engaged me in it. And since (as you will perceive) it was not Choice but Necessity, I have a Title to your  perusal. When persons offer themselves at the Bar for the Defence of Others, it is expected they should be Eloquent (that is) qualified for such an Undertaking: but when a man is brought thither to plead for himself, it is enough if he come with Sincerity, and an intelligible Expression.  
Again, if outward Objects have so much influence on the Conceptions of the Mind, as they are believed to have on those of the Body, you will not look for great matters in this Pamphlet, when you consider not only my own Inability, but also what lay before my eyes whilst I composed it: For certainly whatever Dr. Tenison may have shown himself in other Writings, these which have been the Subject of my Remarks do not challenge our admiration for their Excellence.  
As for Method, I take that which is usual in Remarks, by suffering my Author to lead me which way he pleases, and therefore whatever leaps I am forced to make from one Matter to another, must be attributed to those Hedges and Ditches over which I am conducted by him. But to say the Truth, how unpleasant soever these Incoherences may appear to the Reader, they were of no small Convenience to me: For having no time for this Task, but what was greatly interrupted both by Business and Sickness, my Memory would hardly have served me to have carried the Matter of any large and connected Discourse through so many Intermissions, and such variety of other thoughts, whereas this broken and incoherent Theme was (as it happened) very suitable to my leisure.  
However, these Interruptions must apologise for that slowness wherewith this Pamphlet comes abroad; For tho' much time be passed since Dr. Tenison's Books called on me (especially the former) yet that which has been at my disposal has not been much. Nay, on the contrary, it has been so little, that what comes forth with so much seeming deliberation, was really written in more haste than my Forces (which have not been much exercised this way) could well comply with. And indeed had I not considered that things of this nature grow out of season like Gazettes and Almanacs, I should have had so much respect for my Readers, as to have spent a few more hours in preparing for their Entertainment.  
The Doctor, whether it be to manifest the quickness of his Parts, or to show us that his Parishioners are so 
* Epist. to his Parishioners.  pious, and so * steady, that they need not the looking after, is very fruitful in such Productions; but Nobis non licet esse tàm disertis.  
But altho' in the Method of this Discourse (as I have intimated) I follow my Author, yet I do it not so closely, but that sometimes I make a stand, and take a view of such things as lie within prospect. My thoughts have not been so wholly busied in vindicating myself (as I have had occasion to take notice of in some places of the following Paper) much less in annoying my Adversary, that I have not considered which way to benefit my Readers: And herein if I have treated of some things which may seem beneath the Dignity of the Press, (for I have attended in my choice more to ordinary Conversations than to Books) I hope it may pass without Censure. For since all higher Points are already sufficiently discussed by Learned Pens, I am not to be blamed if I choose some of those which are not only more proportionable to my strength, but also may be taken up with less Presumption, for having been rejected by better Writers as not worth their while.  
And yet, had these matters which I here speak of been only the peculiar Extravagances of some overstrained Fancy, they might, and aught perhaps to have been contemned: But when such trivial things (if you will call them so) are daily both spoken with Confidence, and heard with Patience; nay, when oftentimes (at least in outward show) they are the sole hindrances of Conversion, they cease to be trivial; and we must rectify that Idea, which we have of them from the bare consideration of their Nature, by weighing their Effects. A Chirurgeon is not so much to attend to the prick of a Thorn, as to the Gangrene which possibly may have been caused by it.  
And now I will not deny but it is the greatest of my Desires that all my Protestant Readers might be Converted. They will not take this in ill part, when they know I firmly believe there is not other way for their Salvation. However, what I ask of them at present is much less, and even what themselves cannot refuse, without pleasing me much better, viz. by changing their Religion. This will be no longer a Paradox, when I tell them, It is only that (for some time at least) they would be truly Protestant's: My meaning is, That whereas they affirm, first, that their Faith is not to be pinned on another's Sleeve; and secondly, that none ought to pretend to Infallibility, they would now conform themselves to their own Principles, and consequently neither be so far enchanted by the Name or Reputation of their Teachers on the one side, as to take things from them without farther Examination, nor so far tied to their own Opinions on the other, as not to suspect them where they are contradicted by Men as Wise, as Learned, and (as far as may be guessed by the exterior) as Good as themselves. This, I say, is all I ask of my Protestant Readers; and this (as I hinted) is nothing else in effect than that they would be Protestant's. The Reformation itself was grounded on the first of these two Principles, and the second is a Natural Result from the first: For how could Christians have separated from their Church-Guides in order to a Reformation, had they not fancied an Obligation of Distrusting them? And having once (for the necessary justification of this Proceeding) denied Infallibility to these Guides, with what shadow of Modesty could they arrogate the same to themselves?  
Nothing therefore is so primarily Essential to Protestants, as to conclude both Themselves and their Leaders Fallible, and in consequence of this to Distrust both. And from hence it follows (according to what I intimated before) that when they do otherwise (that is, absolutely confide in either) their Protestancy is at an end.  
This in Truth is consonant to Reason, and therefore one would think that what I here ask were already granted. But alas! Reason was never more Pretended, nor less Used; and these Gentlemen are so far from having it in our present Case, that one Part of them, whilst they decry all dependence on Men for their Faith with the greatest impatience, repose so entirely on This, or the Other Reverend Doctor, or on Several of them together, that altho' these very Doctors 
* By a necessary Consequence from their Doctrine, viz. That the Church is to be followed no farther than it agrees with Scripture, and each man is left to judge how far she so agrees.  teach them the contrary, they are ready to believe them in every thing but this; and the Rest wondering at General Councils for pretending to Infallibility, talk in the mean while themselves with so much Authority, and so little Diffidence, as if they spoke by immediate Inspiration from Heaven.  
This is what truly passes in the World; but this is notwithstanding what ought not to pass: For whatever Allowances may be made to Ignorance where men proceed according to the best of their Knowledge, there is certainly no excuse for Protestants, whilst they declare that both their Teachers and their own Judgements are liable to Error in Doctrines of Faith, if nevertheless they suffer themselves to be deceived by either.  
Wherefore, my dear Friends, I hope you will not say you may be mistaken, and yet act as if you could not; but that, reflecting on the Uncertainty which even your own Principles show you to be in, you will do what so much danger naturally suggests, viz. have recourse to Almighty God, who is our only Refuge in all Distresses, earnestly and constantly beseeching him, that since you cannot please him without Faith, nor have Faith whilst you have Doubt, he would bring you to such a Faith as may rationally exclude all Doubting, and so yield you a solid Foundation for both your Hope and Charity.  
This Resolution of addressing yourselves to God by humble Prayer is of so great moment, that tho' I could hearty wish that this were now your Preparation of mind for the reading of this Pamphlet, yet I should be very well contented if it should prove the fruit of your Perusal, and that when you made an end of Reading, you would be throughly convinced of the necessity of Praying. And it is for this reason that I make the same Request to you once more in my Close. And certainly I may well despair of obtaining any other favour from you, if after all my Entreaties you deny me What your own Teachers, your own Principles, and your own greatest Interest asks of you as well as myself.  
E. M.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
The Citations in the Margin refer to Dr. T.'s Account of the Conference, excepting where it is otherwise expressed.  
Page 15. line 22. for Doctor himself, read Doctor and himself. What other faults have escaped the Press are easily corrected.   


Some Farther REMARKS ON THE Late Account, given by Dr. Tenison of his Conference with Mr. Pulton.  
THERE are few persons (I suppose) but such as have a great conceit of themselves, who are willing, that all the words which drop from them in the heat of a tumultuous and unprepared Discourse, should be Published through the present Age, or recommended to Posterity; at least, in no better dress, than the hast they were spoken in would allow. But when such casual expressions, are not only divested of their Antecedent and Consequent Circumstances, but must bear the Additions and Defalcations of Craft and Malice over and above; nay, when a Disputing Adversary, not only takes care to Interrupt his Opponents Discourse, and by that means renders his Propositions maimed and imperfect; but also, when he has them at home, mangles them yet farther, and in this plight (like a deformed Samson) exposes them to mockery; the injury is too great to need any other aggravation, than barely the being told. However, this Injustice is heightened, when to make these misshapen Sentences of his Antagonist appear yet more ugly, his own are trimmed up and placed by them with a far better Air in Print, than that which they had at the Conference.  
And yet how provoking soever this injury may be, I call God to witness, that my own Reputation (tho' it suffer as far as either Dr. Tenisons Tongue, or Pen is a Slander) should never have prevailed with me to have appeared in its Defence: Since (over and above the Repugnance I still have to this kind of coming upon the Stage) it ought to be a greater comfort to a Christian to bear an Affront with patience, than to ensure the Praise of the whole World. And those who have been the most acquainted with the exercises of a virtuous life, have always asserted, that Applause in this warfare is much an harder Enemy to deal with, than Calumny. It is not my Reputation then (any farther than the preservation of it is a Duty) which calls upon me at this time to take the Pen into my hand: But it is that which seems to be so united to it, as to suffer with it, I mean my Religion. For altho' personal defects (unless they come to be general) ought to cast no blemish on any Profession, yet how far shall we think that such things will influence weak persons, when a 
* Gubbard whom D. T. (in his Ep. to his Parishioners) mentions to have succeeded his Father in his Benefice of Mondesly, and afterwards to have Preached Purgatory, &c: might (for aught the Doctor pretends to know) during his stay in that place come first to be convinced of the truth of such points as he Preached, so that what the Doctor takes for Dissimulation (which probably would not have discovered itself where there was a good Benefice to be lost by it) might be Change. It being great pity, that every one should be as Immutable in Evil as D. T. This might be the case, or else this G — might be a Church of England-man as others have observed.  supposed Crime of a supposed Jesuit made so violent an Impression on Dr. Tenison, whilst he was Young, against their whole Order, that (maugre his entire Doctorship of Divinity) he is like to carry it with him to his Grave: And consequently to the Tribunal of that Judge, who, when he was our Master, taught us more Charitable Lessons? And to such a strange degree of partiality does this rash Judgement arrive, that with many Protestants one good Man is sufficient to bring their Religion into Repute, and one evil Christian enough to Discredit ours. Which, tho' unreasonable in them, is yet a good Argument to us; in the first place, that we should take the utmost care, not to afford any just ground for Aspersions; and in the next, that we should endeavour (as far as modesty gives leave) to rescue ourselves from those, which are unjustly thrown upon us. Wherefore, tho' I am not ignorant how hard a thing it is for the plainest reason to break through the prejudices of prepossessed and embittered minds; yet because I hope there are still some impartial (at least not extravagantly partial) Men in the World, I will not decline this task, which I shall look on as sufficiently recompensed, if it shall help to bring any one Soul from under those mistakes which Dr. Tenisons less sincere and less Generous 
Ep. to his Parishioners.  Artifices may have involved it in.  
Dr. T. is not so ill a Painter, as not to know, that a few strokes of the Pencil, will quite change the Countenance of the Picture, nor (as we perceive by his Narrative) so disinterested, as not to make use of this knowledge, when it is for his advantage.  
However, that we may not make our Composition with him more difficult than is needful, there is one part of that Misrepresentation which I noted above, viz. the supposititious Ornaments of his own say, for which we shall not lay much to his charge; for, altho' his part of the Conference hath been licked since its Birth into as much shape as it was capable of, yet after all this paternal industry it is but an homely Creature still, and neither doth us much harm, nor (I am verily persuaded) would it have appeared to the Doctor himself worthy of Publication, had it not been in virtue of that Instinct, whereby The Crow thinks her own Young ones the whitest.  
Mr. P. was the chief (and indeed, the only person Originally concerned) in this Conference, and, as such, he hath given the World a just account of it. What relates to myself, is much shorter and of less moment, for tho' a vein of my Name runs through the Doctor's whole Narrative, which makes people think, that I was a principal Combatant in this occasion; yet in truth, coming only as a witness, and under an obligation of silence, I Religiously observed it, unless it were, when the Doctor applied his Discourse to me: And then too I spoke no longer than the Doctor pleased, which was not half so long, as was necessary for the making out, or even proposing any one Argument. Which I could not take ill for two Reasons; First, because I was not his proper Antagonist; And Secondly, because he used him that was so, after the same fashion. I say, I never meddled in the Controversy, but when the Doctor spoke to me, and it would have been ill breeding not to have answered him: Excepting only, at the latter end of the day, when the Disputants risen up, and there seemed to be a Liberty of Conscience for speaking; especially when the Doctor blurted out a Proposition, which all good Men, who should have reflected on its consequences, aught to have taken notice of.  
Besides, I was separated from them for a very considerable time: viz. (as I believe) during the greatest part of the Conference. For Mr. P. having entreated me not to meddle with the Disputation, and a Catholic Gentlewoman, or two observing, that Dr. Tenison when he had no desire to answer Mr. P's. Questions, would turn abruptly towards me, and as soon as he had a mind to break off with me (which as I have said already, was very soon) he turned as abruptly back again to Mr. P. They advised me to withdraw; one of them telling me; that the Doctor by the opportunity he had of turning to and fro in that manner, not only evaded the prosecution of the Arguments, but had also a plausible pretence of boasting (as he did) that he had two to deal with. Whereupon I thanked them for their advice, and not greatly apprehending the loss, I was like to sustain by being absent from the Discourse, I retired into another corner of the Room; where (according to what I have said) I continued a great while, talking with several persons (all Strangers to me) and not knowing what passed between the Disputants; for tho' soon after my going off, Dr. Tenison (having some occasion, as I suppose, for diverting the Discourse) called for me back; yet I excused myself, telling him, that he had excepted against my Company at first, and that therefore I might venture on so much ill breeding, as to refuse it to him now, or to that purpose: Neither did I return to him, till his clamour and his party's importunity even forced me to it, which (as I take it) was not very long before the Conference broke up. And then too as soon as the Doctor shook me off by turning again to Mr. P. I retired as before.  
I mention this, that my Readers may have a true notion of that part which I bore in this Conference, and not be misguided by the Doctor's Relation, which scarce allows me any interval of absence, and seems to make me privy to Discourses, which I knew nothing of, and therefore can say nothing to. And whosoever considers what I have here related of my own concern in this Dispute, and how little even Dr. T. himself says of any body else, excepting only Mr. P, will not judge that the Doctor, tho' he speaks of nine Priests or Priests fellows, was overmatched by number.  
Moreover had Mr. P. stood in need of the Doctor's Craft, and applied himself to the standers by, the might have had the Credit and Convenience of (at least) Twenty Antagonists. And even without his seeking he had two or three besides the Minister: Particularly the Schoolmaster, whom I look upon as next to a Minister, with as much Reason (I presume) as the Doctor looked on me as next to a Priest. Besides, for the Doctor's farther encouragement, the Cry was on his side: To hear him speak, not to interrupt him (that is, to suffer him to interrupt you) and the like, which are of no small advantage in such engagements, where to speak most, is to argue best.  
But not to detain my Readers any longer from a more particular and methodical account (as far as so much confusion will allow of method) of what concerned me in this wonderful business, I must acquaint them, that on Michaelmass day last, having been at the Savoy Chapel, to comply with the Obligations of that Festival; at my going thence, I met with Mr. P. who told me, That at three of the Clock in the Afternoon he was to have a Conference with Dr. Tenison; That it had been occasioned by an Apprentice, who had come to him, to be instructed in the Catholic Religion, and thereby greatly displeased his Friends, and particularly his Master. That it was thought convenient, he should not go alone, but take some person with him who might observe what passed, and hinder, as much as might be, the bad effects of such Misrepresentations, as experience shows us, are hardly avoidable on these occasions. That he desired, that I would be the person, who accompanied him. Lastly, That it would not be my Province to speak any thing, but only (as he had said) to take notice of what passed.  
I must confess, my willingness to be engaged in this affair was not extraordinary. It had not been very long, since I had drawn a sufficient trouble on myself by harkening to such another Invitation, and had learned at the expense of losing that Privacy which I would have preserved, how unsafe it is to share (tho' never so inconsiderably,) in a Difference with Men, who possibly may have better Wits than Consciences, and care not how they wound the latter, so they may secure the Reputation of the former. However, considering that we were not born for ourselves, and that our reward hereafter, will be proportionable to our labours here; I resolved to comply with Mr. P's. desire, and leave the event to Providence, which disposes all things for the best, and will not suffer us to be 
* 1 Cor●c. 10. v. 13. ●  tried beyond that which we are able to bear-Wherefore I told Mr. P. that I was to Dine at an House in Spring-Garden, near Charing-Cross, and that if he pleased to call on me there, at two of the Clock, I would wait on him to the place appointed for the Conference, which (as he had told me) was in Long-Acre.  
Mr. P. came to me at the prefixed hour, having no body in his Company, as several worthy persons can witness, and I (likewise alone) immediately departed with him.  
Whilst we were on our way, Mr. P. told me, that he intended to propose a Rule of Faith for the Subject of the Conference: Which I very much approved, as being that, whereon (according to my judgement) the whole business of Controversy depends; for, since all sides agree, that there are some things necessary to be Believed in order to Salvation, and hence it is rationally inferred, that Almighty God must have left some means of coming to the knowledge of such necessary things: Which means we call the Rule of Faith; It follows, that when we have the Rule of Faith, we have the means of knowing what we are bound to believe, and what not; which is the end of all Controversy.  
And therefore I wonder, that Dr. T. should so often say, 
* Pag. 13. 17, 21. etc.  that he desired to fix Mr. P. to something in his Disputation, that he could keep him to nothing, and the like. As if he had proposed nothing for the matter of their Debate, when he proposed a Rule of Faith; whereas it is the main, or indeed the only thing which ought to be well settled. For particular Articles of Faith may be True according to one Rule, and False according to another, and therefore unless we know what Rule is true, we shall not be able to distinguish what Articles are true. As for instance, the Quakers Article of the unlawfulness of all manner of Swearing is true according to the Rule of 
* Swear not, neither by Heaven, neither by Earth, neither by any other Oath, etc. St. James c. 5. v. 12.  Scripture interpreted by themselves, but false according to the Rule of Scripture interpreted by the Tradition of the Church, and there will be no means of telling the Quakers, which Doctrine they ought to believe, unless you can tell them, which of the two Rules they ought to follow.  
I hope, the Reader will pardon this Digression, for the great importance of the matter, and when he hath well considered it, will not be of Dr. T's. mind, and think the adjusting, or ascertaining a Rule of Faith, to be so trivial a thing, nay, to be nothing, as the Doctor makes it. But because I believe, that I shall have occasion of saying more on this subject hereafter, I will say no more at present.  
Mr. P. having (as I said) acquainted me with the Question he had chosen out for the subject of the Conference, I told him, That having had some experience of such meetings, I foresaw that all would end in confusion, unless what was spoken on both sides by way of Argument, were immediately Written down. And therefore I advised him to propose as soon as we met, that it might be so.  
Being come to Long-Acre, we went into an House, which was not far from that where the Conference was to be, and stayed there till news was brought us, that Dr. T. was come.  
During our stay in this House, there came in a Gentleman to us, whom I had never seen before: Nor (as I understood afterwards) was he so much as known by name to Mr. P. He looked, as if his Curiosity, or some better Motive led him, to know what should happen at the Conference. We were told also, that it had been noised abroad, and that there would be many Protestants at it. For my part I thought, that the more persons were present, the more good would probably be done, in case the Conference were fairly carried on, and especially by Writing. I had never heard that it was agreed on, that the Meeting should be private, nor cared that it should be so. For, Veritas non quaerit Angulos, and the Catholic Faith was never yet afraid of Appearing, but always of being Hidden, that is, by Lies, Slanders and other Misrepresentations kept from the People's knowledge.  
Word being brought, that the Doctor was come, we (viz. Mr. P. and myself) went immediately to him. Who followed us, I neither knew, nor troubled myself to observe; having always understood, that there were but two concerned, Mr. Pulton as the Controvertist, and myself only as a witness: And that the rest (whether Protestants or Catholics) came only as Hearers.  
As soon as we entered into the Room, where Dr. T. was, the Doctor Greeted us with a Cavil, saying somewhat to this purpose : Look you here, I am come without so much as a Friend or Servant: This (viz. The coming in of so much Company) is not according to our agreement. M. P. replied to this effect, That he had only brought one Gentleman with him, viz. Me: That I was not to speak at all in the Controversy, but only came as a witness of what passed: That he thought this caution reasonable in regard of the many Misrepresentations, which had been but too frequent of late in things of this Nature. Hereupon the Doctor addressed himself to me, and asked me (in a Tone more imperious than I have usually met with) whether I was a Priest or not: Saying, that now (to his grief, I suppose) I need not be afraid to own it. I answered him, (tho' I 
* Pag. 15.  thought it a condescension to an impertinence) that I was not. He continued, that he would know who I was: And I was so much in the Condescending humour, that I told him my Name was Meredith. At which words the Doctor seemed to start, crying out immediately, that he excepted against me: 
* Dr. 't's. 1st. Objection against me.  That I had given out a 
* Had Dr. T. heard both sides? No, but if Dr. St— s. Authority be not sufficient to make a thing be credited without farther Examination, what will become of Dr. 't's.  false Copy of the Conference between Dr. St—. and Mr. G—. and that he had received this Copy from his friend Captain O. It was not without some surprise, (as those who are better acquainted with me will imagine) that I heard these things. However (as the Doctor is pleased to say) I calmly replied. That I had been present at the Conference, he spoke of. That one had Written there for Dr. St—. and another for Mr. G—. That Mr. G—. had caused some Copies to be made of that which his Writer took. That he had delivered one of those Copies to me. And that it was this Copy which I lent to Captain O. That I did not apprehend there was any difference between this Copy and Dr. St— s. That therefore had there been any fault in the case, it had not been mine. For further particulars I referred the Company (as I do now my Readers) to what I had 
* A Letter to Dr. E. S, etc.  Published in this matter. In which the whole matter of Fact is represented with so much fairness, that notwithstanding what a subtle and concerned Adversary has been able to allege against it, I question not, but it still remains most satisfactory with all those, whose prejudices stand not more in need of Grace for their removal, than Arguments. And for this reason, being informed, that the Controversial part of this affair was undertaken by better hands (a task in which, there is nothing laborious save only the great copiousness of that which easily offers itself to be spoken against Dr. St— s Argumentations) I could not but think, that to meddle any farther with the bare matter of fact, would savour more of a fond, or ambitious desire of having the last word, than of any thing else: Especially when other more useful and necessary employments required as much attendance from me at that time as my health could spare. And therefore to those Protestants, who have spoken to me of this business, I have scarce said any thing more, than that I desired them to compare both Accounts, viz. Dr. St— s and mine, and then judge.  
I think there was one thing new, whereof Mr. G—. was accused, in Dr. St— s second Letter, viz. That over the second Disputation in some of Mr. G — s Copies, was written this inscription, Stillingfleets First Question. Whereas (says the Doctor) the first Question of that Disputation was put by Mr. T—. He looks on this as a wilful mistake, and that it was designed to make the World believe, that the Doctor broke 
* How accessary the Dr. was to the breaking off of the first Disputation is shown in the Letter to Dr. E. S. etc.  off the first Disputation. Now, I dare say, that this never came into Mr. G— s head, nor would come into any one's else, who was not at a very great loss for Objections, and had not Authority enough to make a trifle pass for one.  
The meaning of that Inscription was, that as in the first Disputation, Mr. G— was the Proponent and Dr. St—. the Respondent, so in this last Dr. St—. was the Proponent: For tho' Mr. T. put this first Question, yet Dr. St—. abetted it, and was still looked on as the only person engaged in the Dispute, and as such he put all the rest of the Questions. And this is the Explanation of this Mysterious Inscription. In which, I think, there was nothing to be blamed, save only the omission of the Doctor's Title.  
It doth not occur to me at present whether, or no, there were any other new accusation in the forementioned Letter. But whatever there was, I am sure, it was of no other complexion than this.  
I have ventured on this Digression, not only to save myself the trouble of a Book, but also that my Readers may know, what petty and wretched debates a Man must be engaged in, who is to give an account of Modern Conferences, and consequently how much Compassion the employment deserves. But as miserable as it is, I must now return to it.  
During my abovementioned Reply to Dr. Tenisons Objection, and after it, the Doctor still grumbled; but to give him his due, his interruptions were always so thick whilst I spoke, that I was not then assured, whether he attended to what I said, or not.  
Mr. P. seeing Dr. T. dissatisfied with my Company, was unwilling, that the time should be consumed in wrangling, which was designed for Disputation, and therefore offered the Doctor, that I should withdraw and another Gentleman, who accidentally came in after us remain as a witness. Which, for my own part, I should have agreed to without any great resentment; for (I must confess) the small taste I had of the Doctor's Conversation, made me not over fond of his farther acquaintance. But I did not find that the Doctor was mightily satisfied with this proposal, who seemed to look after Exceptions more than Accommodations, and was in no great haste to begin the dispute; and therefore I made another to him, which yet had the ill fortune to please him less. I told the Doctor, That he need not trouble himself, what witnesses were present, That he should appoint his own Writer, who should Pen down what was said by way of Argument on both sides, and that this should be looked on as the only Authentic account of what passed. This, I said, would free the Doctor from all danger of being Misrepresented: And in this proposal Mr. P. joined with me and was very earnest for it. The Doctor answered, that he had no Pen and Ink nor Writer [things hard to be come by in London] And then, all his Objections against me vanishing on the sudden, and insisting no longer on the clearing of the Room, he desired Mr. P. and myself to sit down by him, saying, that he would Discourse on some Preliminaries, which I could make no other construction of, than that Dr. Tenison had much rather have to do with a witness, whose Credit he had taken care to lessen, than with a Record, the Testimony whereof had been undoubted.  
It will be proper here to make some short remarks on the Doctor's Relation. He says, pag. 4. that he espied Mr. Meredith in the Room, whom he looked upon as next to a Priest. One would conclude by this expression, that Dr. T. had known me, whereas by his questioning who I was, etc. he seemed not to know me: But whether he dissembled or not, I will not determine. He says, p. 4. that Mr. P. was content to dismiss all besides a witness for himself, and Mr. Meredith was proposed. This again looks, as if Mr. P. had brought several in his Company, and that having chosen me out of them for a witness, he was persuaded to dimiss the rest; whereas on Dr. T— s first complaint, Mr. P. declared, that he had only brought me with him; That I came merely to observe what passed in the Conference, and was not to dispute in it. That if the Doctor did not approve of me, he would take another: Or, if the Doctor so pleased, he was content, that all should retire, excepting only the Doctor himself, together with the Boy, for whose sake (as Mr. P. had always understood) the Conference was held. How much of this is in the Doctor's True Account? And yet the Doctor (if you will believe him pa. 43.) is too blunt a Man, to be a Man of Artifice.  
After this he says: Against Mr. Meredith, Dr. T. made three Objections: And again, pa. 5. After these exceptions taken at Mr. M. as a witness, Dr. T. perceiving it next to impossible to clear the Room, etc. called Mr. Meredith to him. Whereas he called me to him on mine and Mr. P— s proposing to have the Controversy taken in writing, and he had then made but one of his Objections against me. And then for the Impossibility of clearing the Room, the Doctor never put it to the Trial; nor came to any agreement with Mr. P. about it: I am sure, that the Room might very easily have been cleared of my Company, and therefore I wonder, how the Doctor after such solid exceptions taken at Mr. M. as a witness, came to call Mr. Meredith to him, and place himself between Mr. P. and Mr. Meredith.  
One would think, that Dr. Tenison were framing a piece of Dramatic Poetry, and that he thought it allowable for him to vary from the true History, as often as it was for the advantage of his work, which (as the Reader will perceive by what he finds here) is very often. Indeed the Doctors Narrative is like the wrong side of the Hang, where there is nothing right, or in its due proportion, but a confused Resemblance of what it should be. And this is sufficient to deceive those, who are (either by interest or humour) very willing to be deceived.  
The Doctor then sitting down, and causing us (Mr. P. and myself) to place ourselves by him, said (as I have already told you) that he would treat of some Preliminaries. But the Coast being now clear, and in appearance the danger of having the Arguments Penned down, quite over, Dr. Tenison (perhaps for my having been so unfortunate as to propose Writing) was resolved to have another bout with me. He told me, that he had other Objections against me, and 
* Dr. 't's 2d. Objection against me.  one was, that I had been already Disposing of his Parish, and had cantoned it out for Friars. This Objection I must confess was a most sensible one; but it was not more touching to the Doctor, than it was astonishing to me, since I could not remember, that I had ever had the least thought of any such thing. But the Dr. adding, That I had said, his Benefice would maintain Thirty Friars, and that his friend Captain O. had given him the Information; I discovered whence this grand Objection had its rise, or rather its pretence. I called to mind, that in some discourses concerning the great want of Charity and Religious Zeal, which had come into the World together with the Reformation, or (if you please) ushered it in; amongst other things I said, that this appeared not only in the discontinuance of Missions abroad for the Conversion of Infidels, but likewise in the scarcity of Pious and Charitable works at home. I instanced particularly, that whilst Men were busy in Building private Houses, they took no care for Churches: And that hence it came to pass, that the Parishes in the Suburbs were unreasonably large; and that it must needs be impossible for the Curates and those few Readers their Assistants to comply with the Duties belonging to their Employments, in such manner as they ought. I observed, that in the Parishes within the Walls (which were Established before the Reformation) there seldom died above one or two a week in each Parish, and in some of the out-Parishes there died (for the most part) forty or fifty: So that, according to the Proportion appointed by our Ancestors, we ought to have thirty, or forty Parishes and Parish-Churches instead of one. I said farther, that where forty or fifty died in a week, there were probably ten, or twenty times as many sick, and in danger of death: Who would all stand in need of their Pastor's help: And how could it be possible for one Man (or indeed any ten Men) to visit a thousand persons every week, (which amounted to more than a hundred and forty a day, one day with another) staying with them so much time, as was necessary for the giving them the Communion and doing all those other things which are appointed to be done by the Common-Prayer-Book in the Visitation of the Sick, as also for the Instructing, Exhorting, and Comforting them, as occasion shall be seen? I said, how could it be possible for so small a number of Men to do all this, and yet at the same time comply with all their other Parochial Functions; such as were, Reading Common-Prayer Daily, Preaching once or twice a Week, Marrying, Burying, Christening, Catechising, Reconciling Enmities, Resolving Doubts, with many other things of this kind, which are incumbent on Curates, and whereof there is scarce any one Branch, which in these large Parishes is not enough, if not too much, for one Man.  
[Wherefore for the future, Dr. T. needs not take so much pains to convince the World, that he is able to Dispute against Nine Jesuits at once, since those who can believe that he performs what of necessity must be incumbent on him in two such populous Parishes, as he possesses, will easily be persuaded, that he is able to make his party good against forty of those Fathers. Nay, he may well be equal to Nine Priests, who has the Employment of above an Hundred.]  
I said likewise, That I had heard, there were Thirty Thousand Communicants belonging to St. Martin's Parish, if not more; that if these should have a mind to Assemble together for the receiving the Sacrament, or hearing a Sermon, it would not be possible for them to do it, The Church (as I supposed) not being able to contain one quarter of that number; and that the English Clergy ought not to wonder, that there were so many Dissenters, since their Parishioners were forced to go to Meeting-houses for Elbow-room, or even for any opportunity of doing something like the serving of God. And for this reason They ought not to have manifested so much Zeal for the Suppression of Conventicles, till the fervour of their exhortations had inspired More into their hearers for the Building of Churches.  
To this I added, That over and above, that in Catholic Countries the Parish Priests were more numerous, and held a better proportion with their Flocks, than amongst us, there were great numbers of Regulars, or Religious Men, who were no small assistance to the Secular Clergy in saying Mass, Preaching, Catechising, Hearing Confessions and the like. But, that this (I meant, such a plentiful provision of Spiritual Guides) was not so practisable in England, in regard that most of the English Curates had Families to provide for, and consequently stood in need of greater Benefices, than those who had obliged themselves to a single Life: And for the same reason, what was sufficient for many Pastors beyond Seas, would scarce be enough for one here. Especially, I said, the Regulars were maintained for very little, and that 600 l. per annum (which I heard the Parsonage of St. Martin's was worth, tho' perhaps it may be more) would keep Thirty of them, at least with the conve●●ence of an House to dwell in. Hinc illae Laohrymae! Now, such Discourses as these, I do confess, that I have made more than once; and particularly I remember, that I spoke somewhat of this kind to C. O. and I am so far from being ashamed of it, that I cannot but think that the cause of shame lies at their door, who are more concerned for the extent of their Jurisdiction or Profit, than for the benefit of the Souls committed to their care: And when I understand that Dr. Tenison is one of those, it is then, that I shall begin to do, what he said I had done, viz. pity the State of St. Martin's.  
It was according to what I have said here, that I answered the Doctor telling him withal, that I had spoken of the largeness of the Out-Parishes in general, and not of his in particular: And this (as one would have thought) would have satisfied any reasonable Man. But the French say, A scalded Cat dreads cold Water, and it seems the Doctor (which I then knew nothing of) had so deep an 
* See the Drs. Epistle to his Parishioners.  Impression made on him in his Youth by the loss of his Father's Benefice, that now the least hint, which so much as brings it to his mind, raises his Suspicion and Indignation to an high degree.  
Moreover, the Doctor seemed to take it ill, that I undervalved the Reformed Charity, and said, that there were too many Churches within the Walls, and that in some places there were two in one Churchyard. He talked somewhat likewise, of an Act of Parliament for Building of Twelve new Churches for the Suburbs, which was no small confirmation of what I had said of the want of them. I looked on that compulsive way of doing good Works as not so 
* Certainly the Statute of Mortmain was a better sign of the Charity of former Ages, than this Act for building Churches is of that of the present.  clear a Demonstration of Charity, as when they are done voluntarily and without constraint, and therefore I told the Doctor, that it argued some defect in theirs, that it stood in need of Acts of Parliament, for doing things, which were, in a manner, absolutely necessary.  
The Doctor answered, that he wished, he could see some of our Charity, or some such like words. What he meant by this wish, I could not well tell, viz. whether he would have us employ our present Liberty in Building Churches, that, when time served, they might dispossess us of them, as they did of our Ancient ones, and so be Provided without burdening the People by Act of Parliament, or something else? In this doubt I asked him only, whether he would have us Build Churches now in England? To which he made me no answer, but seemed to attempt something for the proof of Protestant Charity. But all, that I can remember he said, was, that he would not brag of himself: Which I esteemed a Rhetorical way of doing it. And certainly he must needs be put hard to it for an instance of Charity, who is forced so far to entrench upon Humility for it, as to begin with himself.  
I am not ignorant, (all this while) that some Hospitals, Almshouses and Churches have been Built by Protestants: But there is more proportion between Dr. Tenisons two Parishes and a couple of the poorest Vicaridges in Wales, than there is between the Monuments of Catholic Zeal, 
* For some proof of what is here said, see a Book lately Primed at Oxford, called Pietas Romana & Parisiensis. By which in some measure the rest may be guessed.  and whatever of that kind hath been done by Protestants. It will be a great while before the Reformation builds the fortieth part of what it hath pulled down. Nay, (supposing that this poor Nation is not to return to its Ancient Religion) there is more likelihood, that Reformations following one another, like Egyptian Plagues, the succeeding ones should still devour what the preceding leave, than that Men who have taken Sacrilege for the Service of God, should endeavour to repair any part of that which is already Destroyed.  
The Doctor having finished his Second Objection, put an end to my defence, by bringing on his Third, without telling me, whether he thought, that what I said was true, or if it were, whether he judged it satisfactory, or not. But every Man minds his own business: And it was not the Doctor's to Absolve, but to Accuse. There is yet (said the Doctor) another 
* Dr. T ' s. 3d. Objection against me.  Objection against you, which is, that you are One, who have forsaken our Church.  
That which then immediately occurred to me for an Answer, was the parallel of what I had often heard from Protestants, concerning such as turn to them, viz. That I was then the better judge, having known the Doctrines of both Churches. But I had forgotten, that what is 
* When Church of England-men dispute with Dissenters, Church Authority is of great force, and no Scripture is of private Interpretation:— But When Catholics argue with them, the case is altered, and every Man is to be his own Judge.  reason in a Protestants mouth, is stark naught in a Catholics. The Doctor replied, That I went away Young from their Church, and that if I had understood it better, I should not have left it.  
I know not what the Doctor accounts Young: But it was not, till I had gone through one of the best and most careful 
* Westminster-School.  Schools in England, and spent above three years at the University, and as many in Spain. And I question not, but the Doctors of the Church of England will allow, that after all this I must needs have been come to the Age of judging for myself, since I find that for this Liberty in others they do not require so much Education, as mine amounted to. And had it been so, that I had embraced the Roman Catholic Religion without sufficient consideration, the last fifteen, or sixteen years, which I have lived in it, had been time enough for the Correction of an Error, which my Interest, and Necessities would have prompted me to have laid aside. But (I thank God) I have not been the least shaken in my Faith ever since my Conversion, either by what I have seen written, or heard spoken by the most Learned Protestants. But on the contrary I have been so far from repenting, that I turned so Young, that the more I read or discoursed of these matters, the more I discerned the Excellence of the Catholic Religion on the one hand, and the blindness of so many of my fellow Creatures on the other, and consequently I had no other causes for grief, than first, that my Conversion was no sooner, and next, that I had not yet been grateful enough, that it was so soon.  
The Doctor says, that 
* Pag. 5.  no Man, who well understands their Church, departs from it, upon true Principles. And I am much mistaken, if there be not very many, who know well enough what the Church of England Teaches, and yet departed from her, on no other principles than those which they learned from herself, viz. That the Church is to be followed no farther than she agrees with Scripture, and every particular Man is left to judge how far she agrees with it.  
It would be tedious and unnecessary to set down here all those Principles or Motives, upon which I departed from the Church of England, since I cannot so much pretend to extraordinary things as to deny, but that they are the same, which have led others from her both before and since, and may be seen at large in many Books. However, (if my Readers will give me leave) I will lay before them some of those Points which began my doubts, and prevailed more particularly with me.  

* Some Motives of my Conversion to the Catholic Faith.  First, I had been taught, that the Church of Christ continued pure for the first Five Hundred Years after its Institution, and that from thence downwards several gross Errors and Corruptions had crept into it, and that it had been infected with these Plagues for about a Thousand Years: And that then Almighty ●od out of his Infinite Commiseration enlightened Martin Luther, Zuinglius, and other (as I thought) Pious Men so far, as that they clearly discerned these Corruptions, Preached against them, and by that means rescued a great number of Christians from that darkness, which the Gates of Hell (contrary to our Lords promise) or some unaccountable Fatality had engaged them in. And Lastly, that I myself had been so happy as to be one of this number.  
This was that Idea of Christianity, which I then had: For as to what they talked of a constant Succession of Protestants from the fifth Age down to our times, I had never heard it from any Wise Man, nor indeed can such an Imposture find place with any one, who is so much an Historian, as the common Discourse will make him. Every body knows, that the first Reformers, when they left the Roman Church, joined with no other Society or Sect of Christians then in the World either in Communion or Doctrine, which must have been done, had this pretended Succession continued. Their pretence was at that time to Reform the whole Church, and not to seek out any True one, which then had a Being, and stood in no need of Reformation. Nay, they were so far from thinking it necessary to join with any former Church in order to the preserving a Succession, that they did not unite with one another: But parted their stock, and each Adventurer set up for himself.  
This than was the most Rational Account, that I could give of my Faith, viz. That our Church finding, that all Christian Churches had been in Error for a Thousand Years, forsook that Error, and reform itself according to the pattern of the first Five Hundred Years after Christ. For to be of a Christian Church, which never had any being from Christ's time till this present, I thought a most unreasonable thing.  
Now, none can write after a Copy without having that Copy which they pretend to Write by. I mean, it was impossible for the Church of England to Reform itself according to the first Five Hundred Years of Christianity, without knowing what those Christians Taught and Practised. And how could this possibly be done, but by the Holy Fathers and other Writers of those times? Wherefore I firmly believed (as I am persuaded many Thousands do) that these Writers were mere strangers to all those Doctrines which we had forsaken, and consequently, that no mention was made amongst them of Purgatory, Prayer for the Dead, Invocation of Saints, Veneration of Holy Images and Relics, the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Reality of Christ's Flesh in the Eucharist, the Decisive Authority of the Church in Controversial matters, the Spiritual Supremacy of St. Peter and his Successors, with some other things of this nature; I say, I took it for granted, that nothing of all this was to be found in those Primitive Records of the Christian Religion. But when I looked into them I found it quite otherwise, and that those things, which hitherto I had accounted Novelties, were as clearly set down in these Writings as any other Points of Christian Doctrine. For instances, to avoid length, I will refer my Readers to a Book not long since Published, Entitled, Nubes Testium, which hath Collections out of some of those Books which then fell into my hands, and must weigh with Men of any tolerable moderation, notwithstanding that which is, or can be said against it.  
Now, what was there for me to be done in this condition? I had taken it on trust, that I was a Member of a Church which had Copied out the first Five Hundred Years, but found my Error.  
It was not unknown to me, that several Quotations out of the Fathers were produced in the behalf of Protestant Opinions: But-to me they all seemed wrested, or, at least, capable of interpretations, which were not repugnant to what the same Father's more plainly and fully speak in other places for a contrary Doctrine. In a word, what appeared to me in favour of the Catholic Cause was clear, full, and incapable of any other meaning, But that which offered itself in opposition to it was obscure, short and interpretable in another sense; and indeed, for the most part, evidently requiring another, when joined to its antecedents and consequents.  
Others said, That the Fathers were Men and had Errors, and that they contradicted one another, and themselves to boot. But this Plea was as little to my satisfaction as the former: For this serves only to weaken the Authority of the Fathers, and if good, evinces nothing, but that They are not to be relied on. And then, how can the Church of England make out, that she follows the first Five Hundred Years, when she hath no other means of knowing what was believed in those times, but by such Authors as are not to be trusted?  
For what some People say, of our being able to know by Scripture what was the Belief and Practice of these Primitive Christians, is wholly absurd: For we know not from Scripture (at least, according to the Principles of the Church of England) whether the Christians of the first Five Hundred Years, lived according to the Scripture, or not. The Scripture does not tell us of a Church, which is to continue only to the end of the Fifth Age. It tells us, indeed, of one which is to continue to the End of the World: And this Church (I hope) may be found as well in the Fourteenth Age, as in the Fifth. For if all the Christians of the Fourteenth were Erroneous and Corrupted, and stood in need of Reformation, those of the Fifth might have been so too, for any thing which the Scriptures can assure us to the contrary.  
This Rock then of my Protestant Faith being shaken, I mean, a Belief, that the Church of England had Modelled itself according to the Doctrines of the first Five Hundred Years, it will not be wondered at, if (at least) I gave way to some doubts.  
I found no better footing in that way, which was taken by those Church of England-men, who conversed more with Roman Catholics than with Protestant Dissenters, viz. Scripture, as it is understood by every private Man.  
First, Because those who took that way differed from one another in most material things, and also, Such as were esteemed Heretics by the Church of England, followed the same Rule.  
Secondly, Because according to my own Judgement (who were by this Rule to judge for myself) the Church of England was beholding to Tradition for some Parts of her Doctrine and Practice, as Infant-Baptism, the Observation of the first Day of the Week, and the like, having no clear Scripture for them, and therefore could not hold them, and require them to be held, by the Rule of Scripture Interpreted without the help of Tradition.  
Thirdly, Because it was sincerely my own Judgement, that the Scripture was much clearer for the Catholics than for the Protestants, particularly in Transubstantiation, Sacramental Confession, Extreme Unction, Purgatory, St. Peter's Supremacy, and lastly and chief (being that which includes all other Points) the Decisive Authority of the Church; wherefore if I must follow Scripture Interpreted by myself, I must at the same time necessarily cease to follow the Church of England.  
These certainly were Motives, if not for an absolute departure from the Church of England, yet still, at least (as I have already hinted) for the doubting of her Truth.  
About this time I remember, that I had two notions concerning Faith.  
First, That Faith was not that which must necessarily suit with the Fancies of particular Men (since then it ought to be as various as those Fancies were) but it was that, which God would have us believe, whether we fancied it or not, viz. That, which he would have us 
* Bringing into Captivity all understanding into the Obedience of Christ, 2 Cor. c. 10. v. 5.  submit our Fancies and Judgements to, merely because it was revealed by him. And in this submission (as I thought) consisted both the Difficulty and Merit of Faith. And consequently, that I ought not so much to consider the nature of the things proposed to be believed, as the Authority by which they were proposed.  
Secondly, That this Faith was the 
* Ephes. c. 2. v. 8.  Gift of God, and for that reason, that more confidence was to be put in humbe Prayer for the obtaining it, than in any Human Skill or Industry. Wherefore (as far as God Almighty's Grace assisted my weakness) I endeavoured to obtain this Gift by that means, making it my earnest Prayer to his Divine Goodness, that I might know the Truth, and firmly purposing to embrace that which I should be convinced of, tho' it should be ever so contrary to my Worldly Interest, as the Roman Catholic Religion at that time most apparently was.  
To Prayer I judged it necessary to add a serious endeavour of amending my Life, lest otherwise I should be found to sue Hypocritically for more light from Almighty God, whilst I made no use of that which I had received from him by complying with what I already knew to be his Will. This is a Point, which all those, who are in search of the True Faith, aught to examine their Consciences upon, and therefore I would not omit the mention of it in this place.  
Amidst these doubts I confess ingenuously, that what our English Doctors have made so light of, was of great moment with me, viz. That the Church of England-men affirmed, that Salvation might be had amongst the Roman Catholics; but the Roman Catholics absolutely denied, that the like was to be had amongst them. For Salvation in the Roman Communion both Churches concurred; whereas for the latter, we had only the bare word of Protestants in their own behalf; Who likewise at the same time told us, they were fallible, and consequently, for aught they knew, might be mistaken. And if they were actually mistaken, I should be undone by rarrying with them; whereas on the other side, if they were not mistaken, I could receive no damage by being amongst the Roman Catholics. In a word, I considered, that if the Protestants were true, I should be safe with the Roman Catholics; but, if the Roman Catholics were right, I could not be so with the Protestants.  
This Motive is so strong in its own Nature, that many Protestants confess, that it must needs have great Power with those, who (as they say) cannot throughly examine the differences betwixt us; and these I take to be the greatest part of Mankind. And if so, I will venture to add, that GOD Almighty having taken as much care of the Ignorant, as of the Learned, would never permit Falsehood to be supported by such Arguments, as must in common Prudence oblige all unlearned persons to be engaged in it.  
But above all methinks, this Argument should be of force with those Universal Gentlemen, who pretend, that their Religion is the Catholic, because they believe nothing, but that wherein all agree, forgetting, that such a Restraint of their Belief is peculiar to themselves, and not common; whereas here is an Agreement of all Parties (at least, such as have any Esteem with them) on which they may safely rely, viz. That Salvation may be had in the Roman Catholic Church, which is all, we do, or at least ought to aim at by our Religion. As for those other Points, which perhaps they hold, viz. A Deity, a Saviour, and the like, tho' they have the universal consent of all Christians for their Truth; yet they have it not for their sufficiency to Salvation (especially so as to exclude the Necessity of believing other Articles, when they are duly proposed) and it will be of small Consequence to them, that what they hold common with others, proves True, if their additional Article, which holds this Truth to be sufficient, should prove False.  
What was urged in derogation of this Argument, as if the Protestants showed a greater Charity by thinking well of Catholics, than Catholics did by thinking ill of them, was nothing to my purpose: For I was then in search of True Faith, and not of Charity, and knew withal, that how great appearance soever there might be of Charity, it could not be Real, unless it were grounded on 
* Without Faith it is impossible to please God, Heb. c. 11. v. 6.  Orthodox Faith.  
It seemed to me to be a surer mark of Charity for Men to adventure both Estate and Life, for the Conversion of others, as formerly the Apostles and now the Catholic Missioners did, than to keep at home, and in our warm Beds, and cry, We hope (or we declare) they may be saved, tho' they are in an Error. Which, if it were a Charity, was in my opinion a very Lazy one:  
Moreover, if the Protestant Religion were false, it was more Charitable in the Catholics to tell them so, than by soothing them in their Error, to engage them faster to it. Wherefore the Protestants ought not to fetch an Argument (as some most unreasonably do) for the Truth of their Religion from their having (as they imagine) a greater Charity than Catholics, since it must first be proved, that their Religion is true, before it will appear, that the Catholics want Charity in condemning it.  
Lastly, If it must pass for a Sign of Charity to think well of more Religions than one, the Turkish Tenets will have the advantage of the Nine and Thirty Articles, forasmuch as the Mahometans declare, that every one will be saved in his own Religion, and the Articles on the other side confine Salvation to the 
* See 18th. Article.  Christians only. But both these Charitable Religions must give way to the Origenists, who will have neither Men nor Devils to be Eternally Damned.  
Wherefore it is apparent, that this plausible pretence of Greater Charity weakens not the force of the forementioned Argument, but leaves it Such, as that the most cautious Christian may safely repose on it; Nay, the more cautious a Man is in his everlasting concerns, the better and safer this Argument will appear to him. For, those who have a quicker Sense of their Temporal Interests, than their Spiritual, will not so much consult, what is safe for their Souls as what is secure for their Estates. And if both cannot be made sure alike they will trust a scanty probability (or rather an Improbability) with the former, so that they may have Demonstration (which yet, Gods knows, can be but Imaginary) for the latter.  
Now, what would Dr. Tenison have me do in these circumstances? Would he have me Read the Scriptures? Iread them: Would he have me peruse the Fathers? I did it without his advice. Would he have me make use of (what he calls) 
* Pag. 18.  Ministerial Guides? I heard the Instructions of the English Clergy for many Years. Would he have me pray? I looked on Prayer as the chief means of obtaining true Faith, and therefore omitted it not. Would he have me be humble? In this Point I can only say, that during this search I had so mean an Opinion of my own understanding, that I could not but conclude, that Almighty God, whose Providential care appeared in all other things, had likewise provided some 
* Such a guide must be one who could not Err himself (i. e.) Infallible.  Guide for me, that I might not Err in so important a concern, as that must needs be, without which it was impossible to please him, viz. 
* Ut supra Hebr. 11. 6.  Faith.  
Wherefore having thus far observed (as I suppose) the Doctor's directions, what would he have me do after all? Doth he require the interior Sense, he speaks of, pa. 10? That also pleaded for the Roman Catholics. And now, if this be all he looks after, would he have me (according to what he says, p. 15.) at last Judge for myself? Why then, I do Judge, and Pronounce too, (I mean for myself) that Holy Scriptures, Ancient Fathers and Common Reason are all for the Roman Catholics, and against the Protestants.  
And what shall interpose between this Sentence and its Execution, I mean, between Concluding, that the Roman Catholic Religion is the best, and Embracing it as such? Doth the Church of England pretend, that I ought to submit my private Judgement to her Public Decisions? She doth not: Nor, if she did, would Dr. Tenison be her Advocate.  
And therefore to conclude, if Dr. T—. (being as I conceive, no great friend to Retractations of this kind) will still affirm, that I departed from the Church of England on false Principles, he must at least acknowledge, that those principles were such as I had received from her. So that in effect I am censured by my Teachers for doing that very thing, which they Taught me to do. An hard case and that which certainly must prevail with us to observe our Saviour's Command in being 
* Matth. c. 7. v. 15.  ware of such Teachers for the future!  
I have said nothing here (at least, directly) of the marks of the True Church, viz. Unity, Holiness, Universality, Perpetuity, Conversion of Infidels and the like, nor of many other things, which concurred at that time to convince me of the truth of of the Religion I embraced: But thus much I have said, that, since Dr. Tenison hath been pleased to make the World acquainted with my Conversion, it may not be wholly ignorant of those Motives which occasioned it. And since we are Commanded 
* Ready always to satisfy every one that asketh you a Reason of that Hope which is in you, 1 Pet. c. 3. v. 15.  to give a Reason of the hope, which is in us, to every one that asks, when we are upbraided with our change in this public manner, the public seems to demand this Reason, and consequently we seem to lie under an obligation of rendering it. Which, I hope will excuse me with my Readers, for so long a Comment on the Doctors Text.  
And now (to return to my Remarks) methinks Dr. Tenison conceiving, that I had left his Church for want of due Information, ought not to have pressed so much for my being excluded from that Conference, but rather to have been glad of this opportunity, wherein by his great Learning he might have rectified my understanding and been a means of reducing me to one of his two fair Flocks, viz. to St. Martin's in the Fields, or St. James Westminster: For tho' those Flocks are so numerous, that one stray Sheep can hardly be found missing, yet (we know) it was the property heretofore of a good Shepherd to leave the Ninety Nine, that he might seek after the Hundred [this being, perhaps, in former days a competent number for one Shepherd] I say, it had been a clearer sign not only of the Doctor's Charity, but also of his confidence in the goodness of his cause, to have admitted me to his Conference, than to pretend my turning Roman Catholic through Ignorance, as an Argument, for the sending me away, and consequently, depriving me of (what he ought to think) an opportunity of being better informed.  
But perhaps, the Doctor who thought this Conference 
* Pa. 3. And yet D. T. was displeased with Mr. P for proposing a Rule of Faith for the Subject of that Conference, because it was not that point which the Boy had mentioned to him, viz. of Luther, whereas had be designed a more public Good (as be seems to pretend, Mr. P's Question was the more proper.  to no purpose as to the Boy, for his having been at Mass two Months before, concluded that it would be less available with me, who had been many years since, not only at Mass (as many 
* who else are those who carry intelligence from the Mass-house, to Dr. Horneck? p. 79.  Protestants daily are) but also actually reconciled to the Church of Rome. And indeed, for as much as concerns this Point, I am persuaded that the Doctor is not out in his Observations: For let but a Man be truly Converted to the Roman Catholic Faith (I do not say for two Months, but) for one single moment, and it will be impossible for all the Doctors in England to remove him from it, till such time as his own negligence and ingratitude shall oblige Almighty God to withdraw this Marvellous Light from him. And it is on this account, that I have often said amongst my Protestant acquaintance, that I wished they were but Catholics for one half hour.  
Dr. Tenison says, that those who forsake the Church of England for the Church of Rome, are 
* Pag. 5.  more partial, and possessed with a Spirit of fiercer Bigotry than those who are Romanists from the beginning.  
It is indeed usual for Converts to show somewhat more of warmth in Religion, than they had before their Conversion, [or perhaps, than some who owing their Faith to their Birth and Education, have not yet sufficiently considered the value of it.] One of the most essential proprieties of Goodness is to be Communicative, and therefore as soon as Men are brought to the true Faith, one of the first desires which they perceive in themselves, is that of the Conversion of others. 
* When thou art once Converted, confirm thy Brethren, Luke c. 22. v. 32.  Tu aliquando Conversus (said our Blessed Saviour to St. Peter) confirma fratres tuos. The Samaritan Woman as soon as she was Converted, left her Employment, 
* The Woman therefore left her Waterpot, etc. John c. 4. v. 28.  and ran to call her Neighbours. And it is not without Mystery, that the Holy Ghost is careful to Record of several Converts in the Gospel, that when they believed, 
* See ibid. v. 53.  their whole Household believed with them.  
This indeed is a zeal so proper to Converts, that where nothing of it appears, the Conversion is shrewdly to be suspected: Especially, when it shall so happen, that the causes of Pretence, are more apparent, than the Symptoms of Reality.  
And it is this zeal (as I conjecture) which the Doctor calls Bigotry. Wherein he imitates the rest of the World, who think it sufficient, for the discredit of a Virtue, to mis-name it. Such, I mean, as give the Title of Niggardliness to Temperance, of Sheepishness to Modesty, of Folly to Conscientiousness, and lastly, (where the Doctor falls in with them) of Bigotry to Christian Zeal,  
And probably it was this Zeal, which rendered the Boy so 
* Pag. 2.  uneasy to his fellow Servants, [those who are loser in their manners being seldom complained of for this kind of troublesomeness] For, Men are generally so much in love with the enjoyments of this life, that whosoever talks to them of the last Reckoning Day, and that care wherewith they ought to provide for it, is but very ill Company. And so, oftentimes, we forfeit the love of our friends, by showing them ours. And (believe me) there can never be a greater Demonstration of our Affection for them, than when we hazard the loss of their kindness to us, which is our Good, for the sake of their Salvation, which (setting aside the Merit of a Good Work) is purely their own.  
But whereas the Doctor fancies, that original Romanists would be more propitious to his Party than Converts: If I may guests by my own experience, he is much mistaken. It has been my observation, that some who have been bred Catholics from the beginning, having never been without that clearness wherewith the Truth of our Holy Faith is represented to them, are very hardly to be persuaded, but that such Protestants as Dr. Tenison, viz. Men of some Learning, must needs know that they are in the wrong, and consequently, persisting in it, be Hypocrites. And indeed, the Motives for the Catholic Faith are so palpably evident throughout all the Writings of the Ancient Fathers and Ecclesiastical Historians, (which ought to come into the hands of those who pretend to the Study of Divinity) that I believe I should have been very apt to have Joined with them in this censure, had I been unacquainted with the prejudices of Inclination, Education and Interest, or with those obscurities which they never fail of bringing upon the mind: Whereunto may be added, that blindness, which God Almighty often 
* Spargit Deus paenales caecitates super illicitas cupiditates. Aug, Confess.  inflicts on us for the punishment of our other Sins. But as it is, and in regard that I have been under the same circumstances, tho' not with so much Learning, haud ignarus mali, miseris succurrere disco [I have spoiled the Verse, that I might not Err in the 
* Pag. 10.  Gender, the Doctor being, as I see, curious in th●se matters] I have now learned to have compassion for Those as persons deceived, whom otherwise I might have abhorred as Dissemblers.  
And when the Doctor shall have considered these things well, I believe that if the Sincerity of his Profession should come to be tried by a Jury of Catholics, he would not prefer Original ones before Converts▪  
No Gentlemen, Converts are not fiercer towards you, than other Catholics, but you deal less fiercely with others than with them; the Yellowness which appears to a Jaundiced person is not in the Object but in his Eye. The fierceness is in your breast towards the Converts, and not in theirs towards you. And this the Doctor knows well enough, and therefore hath recommended me under so advantageous a Character to the acquaintance of his Parishioners. Which (as he thinks) will stand me in some stead another day.  
Now it is not hard to guests at the Reason, why Converts are more severely handled by their Protestant Neighbours than other Catholics : [and the nearer, for the most part, the Neighbr-hood, or Relation is, the rougher the usage.] It is because, when a Protestant is Converted, we are more sensibly put in mind of what we ought to do, than by those who have never been otherwise than Catholics. [And by a Neighbour, or Kinsman, still more sensibly than by a stranger, or one at a distance] We are disturbed by such an Example in that drowsy Principle, that every one ought to continue in that Church wherein he was 
* Some go farther, and say, that Men ought to continue in that Religion wherein they were Educated, whether it be Christian, or not.  Baptised. And we are such stupid Lovers of ease, that we are angry at such as endeavour to awaken us out of our Sleep, at least till we come to be thoroughly awake, and so understand, that had it not been for this Charitable Troublesomeness, we should have been burnt in our Beds. I say, this Principle, of abiding in that Communion where we once are, is more immediately attacked by Converts than by others, and therefore of consequence the Converts are more displeasing to those, who have made a shift to lay their Consciences a-sleep upon it. And yet how much soever this Principle is beloved at present, it is that which the Protestants (if they have any kindness for their Religion) have no reason to be fond of, since, if this Rule had been always observed, their Reformation had not been, and consequently, the World had still continued without any Protestants at all.  
There is yet one remark which offers itself to me concerning this Aspersion which the Doctor is pleased to cast on all Converts, viz. That it reflects on me in very good Company: But I will not insist on this, lest the Doctor who confesses, he is apt to be 
* Ep. to his Parishioners.  Suspicious, should have a fresh occasion of suspecting (as he did at the Conference) that I intent to inform against him: However for the future (as I told him then) I would have him take a little more time to consider, before he speaks.  
When the Doctor told me, that I had been turned in Spain, where the People had no Bibles, what I replied was very true, viz. that going over in the Company of a public Minister, we had the liberty of using what Books we pleased, and consequently, we carried with us not only Bibles, but a great number of other English Books and amongst them many of our best Protestant Controvertists. And I farther inform the Doctor, that during my forementioned doubts, I frequently perused the Writings of those Men, and particularly of Chillingworth whom I looked on as the subtlest of them all, and the Fountainhead from whence Dr. St. and most others of our Modern Controversy-writers had derived their Notions. And before my Conversion, to the best of my remembrance, I never Read one line in any Roman Catholic Controvertist (having always an inbred aversion to, and a fear of being deceived by them) unless the Doctor will take the Ancient Fathers to be such, as indeed, he very well may.  
But after all, why should the Doctor say, that I have forsaken his Church? Does a Man leave the House, who goes out of one Room into another? The Learned Dr. Jackson (as he is 
* Pag. 58.  Quoted by the Learned Dr. Tenison) says, that the Church of England was in the Romish Church before Luther's time, and is yet in it. Now, how have I left the Church of England, when both the Church of England and myself are in the same Church? London is no farther from Paris, than Paris is from London. If the Church of England could come so far from the Church of Rome, as she hath done by her Reformation, without Separating from her (as the Doctor seems to 
* Ibid.  affirm;) may not a Church of England-man go all that way back again without separating from the Church of England? If the Denying of Transubstantiation, break no Union with those who Hold it; how comes, the Holding it to dis-unite us from those who Deny it? Wherefore the Doctor might have spared his Third Exception against me at this time, and first considered whether the matter on which it was grounded were true, or not.  
But the Churches of Rome and England must be two distinct Churches, when it is for the Doctor's turn: And One and the same when a contrary purpose requires it. That is, when my Apostasy is to be proved, they are two; and when the Doctor's Succession is to be made out, they are but One. It was not without cause, that the Ancients said, Oportet mendacem esse Memorem, since it is so very hard, for much to be spoken in the Defence of Falsehood without the stumbling upon some Contradiction or other.  
It is not impossible, but Dr. T. may Answer what is added by his abovesaid Learned Brother, viz. that the English Church is in the Church of Rome, neither as a Visible Church altogether distinct from it, nor any Native Member of it. But this, (to say nothing of the fancifulness of the Notion) will not serve for the Doctor's excuse. For he charges me roundly to have forsaken the Church of England, whereas (according to this Learned Man) he ought to have said, that I had not altogether left it, but had still, at least one foot in its Communion, or some such like Church of England-Oracle, which, like their Real Presence, might have been interpreted either way. This is not trifling (tho' it may seem so at first sight) but a clear Manifestation of what most naturally proceeds from the admirable Harmony of Protestant Doctrines.  
I have now done with the Doctor's Preliminary Exceptions: But before I pass to any other part of his Account, I will do him so much right as to acknowledge, that I am verily persuaded, that he made these Exceptions not out of much malice towards me, or for any great weight he imagined to be in them, but merely to spend the time, and amuse the Auditors, or, it may be, to discompose his Antagonists, and render them less present to themselves: Such Salutations (ordinarily speaking) being but an ill tuning of the mind for calm and serious Discourses. For (as I have already hinted) if Dr. Tenison had thought it both unreasonable and inconvenient, that I should be present at the Conference, why had he not accepted of that person, whom Mr. P. proposed in my stead, or otherwise insisted on it, that I should have withdrawn; which I assure him, had been no less a favour to me, than he could think it a convenience to himself?  
Dr. T. says in the beginning of his 6th. page, 
Pag. 6.  that Mr. P. [after his sitting down] spoke first about Pen and Ink, and an Amanuensis, but Dr. T. having brought no person with him, and the Crowd pressing, Mr. P. began a Verbal Conference, by saying the Protestants had no Bible, desiring Dr. T. to prove they had one, and ask him how, and whence they had one, and what was their Rule of Faith.  
This looks, as if there had been but a slight mention made of having the Arguments taken in Writing, and that it was after our sitting down, and only by Mr. P. and that Mr. P. without insisting much for it had begun a Verbal Conference: Whereas both Mr. P. and myself were very earnest for it, and proposed it before our sitting down; Nay, it was on this proposal of ours, that the Doctor invited us to sit down, after having first told us, that he had no Pen and Ink, nor Writer, etc. According to what I have said above p. 14. Possibly Mr. P. might mention this again after he sat down, tho' I do not remember it.  
Moreover, after this first sitting down, the Doctor added two of his Objections against me, and offered at some Preliminary things as he called them. And it was after these Discourses (tho' they are omitted as trivial in Mr. P— s account) that Mr. P. began his Argumentation, and not immediately after the proposal of having it Written (as Dr. T. says) for Mr. P. perceiving, that the Doctor had a mind to consume the time in unprofitable Cavils, endeavoured to cut him short, by putting him in remembrance of the business, for which they had met.  
I mention these particulars, that the not admitting of this Proposal of Writing, may appear (what truly it was) the Doctor's Tergiversation. Had Mr. P. been then as well acquainted with Dr. T. as he is now, he would absolutely have refused the Conference, had not his desire of Writing been yielded to. And this is the resolution, which he has taken for the future: Which, in my judgement, is but shutting the Stable-door, after the Steed is Stolen: For (I believe) he is never like to have the Doctor's Company on such hard terms, notwithstanding that he seems to offer p. 70. what he refused at the Conference.  
Whereas he says, Mr. P. began a Verbal Conference, by saying the Protestants had no Bible. It was not so: For, he began the Conference, by desiring the Doctor to Assign his Rule of Faith: Having first given us some account, how the Youth (for whose sake the Conference was) came to entertain thoughts of making himself a Member of the Roman Catholic Church. And to that Proposition (after much debate concerning these Desires in the Youth) the Doctor replied (being again and again pressed to it by Mr. P.) that his Rule of Faith was the Holy Scripture. And it was on this Answer, that Mr. P. asked the Doctor, how he could prove, that the Book which he called Holy Scripture, was truly such, and not before, as it is made by the Doctor's Account; which (as I have complained before) is one of the most intricate things I ever met with, and no more like the Conference, than it is usual for the new hands at Cards (after the Pack is well shuffled) to be like the former ones. The Cards, it is true, are all the same, but their places being changed, the Games are different. I do not say, that this Account is more confused than the Conference, but the confusion has quite another shape, or figure than it had.  
But the matter of Fact being cleared, as above, it becomes more evident, how much Dr. Tenison dissembled, when instead of proving his Bible to be true Scripture, as was desired, he offered to dispute 
Pag. 6.  out of that Book which Mr. P. should own to be Scripture, since it could not but be manifest to him, that Mr. P. did not only ask him for the proof of those places, wherein his Bible differs from ours, but for the proof of the whole, or if he had demanded a proof of such places only, it was not for the sake of any Arguments which the Protestants take thence for the defence of their Religion, but that it might appear on what Testimony they had received the Scripture, and consequently on what grounds their Reformation had proceeded. And therefore when to avoid this proof he offered to dispute out of Mr. P's Bible (which he might easily have done by the help of his own Interpretation) it was a plain (tho', with the Rabble, a very plausible) evasion.  
This 
* Ibid.  Method [viz. of Disputing out of Mr. P's Bible] says the Doctor, Mr. P. would not allow, but repeated his Discourse about our not having a Bible, and our not being able if we had one, to prove we had one; and asked again about the Rule of our Faith. Dr. T. before he answered to this, applied himself to Mr. M. (who seemed to be the calmer person, etc.  
Here the Doctor discovers his way of Disputing. How comes the Doctor to apply himself to Mr. M. whereas Mr. P. had begun his Conference with him, and proposed the main Question of it? How come we not to receive an Answer to this Question till two or three Pages full of wrangling after it was proposed, nor then neither (as he confesses, p. 9) till Mr. P. and Mr. M. not suffering him to tell a Story, pressed him to it, nor even then (as he farther 
* Pag. 9  owns) till he had chid Mr. P. for ask him Questions, and seeming to Catechise him. Surely after so long an Expectation the Answer must needs be extraordinary.  
In the next place, how comes Mr. M. tho' a Convert, and 
* Pag. 5.  possessed with a Spirit of fiercer Bigotry than other Romanists, to be the calmer person? But Dr. T. wants an excuse for turning away from his Antagonist, and speaking to one who (as he was told at the beginning) was to have no part in the Dispute. And as for the Compliment, he is resolved, that I shall pay dear for it, before he parts with me. Besides, some such appearance of Candour (the common Artifice of Detractors) is necessary for the obtaining a belief to the basest of Calumnies which is to 
* Pag. 23.  follow.  
Dr. T. 
* Pag. 6.  put Mr. M. in mind, that such Discourses as these [concerning the proof of Holy Scripture] and some others lately used by the Romanists about the Trinity and Transubstantiation, would rather make the People Atheists or unbelievers, than Converts. And that the Indifferent were ready to say, Content: We cannot believe Transubstantiation, and we will have no Trinity; We cannot have the Bible unless we take it upon Roman Authority, and none we will have. Mr. M. said, That would not be the consequence; but gave no reason why he said so.  
But Mr. M. can give a very good reason, why he then gave none. It is, because before he could pronounce Six words, Dr. T. turned back again to Mr. P. And it was not for one (as I have intimated already) who looked on himself as wholly unconcerned in the Controversy, to interrupt it so far, as to press the Doctor to hearken to him.  
What I would have then said (had the Doctor been pleased to stay for it) was, That those who would give themselves leave to consider, would find so good Authority in the Roman Church, for the belief of the Trinity, and the Holy Scripture, that tho' there were no other Authority for them (as indeed there is none) yet this alone would be sufficient. And consequently, that there would be no danger of Atheism, but where Obstinacy and Perverseness should interpose, which would never leave Men destitute of a Pretence for Incredulity, tho' they should want a just reason for it ever so much. I should have added, that it was an excellent Argument of the Truth of a Religion, when it could be shown, that either such a Religion was True, or else that none was so. Wherefore if it could be proved, that on the denial of this Roman Authority (as the Doctor calls it) Men would have no reason to believe a God, it must needs have followed, that the Roman Authority was not to be denied.  
Besides: An Arian might have upbraided the Ancient Catholics after the same manner and said, that so much insisting on the necessity of believing a Trinity, would rather make the People Atheists or unbelievers, than Converts. And that the Indifferent would be ready to say, content: We cannot believe the Trinity, and we will have no Deity. For Athanasius tells us, that it will stand us in little stead to believe a God, unless we also believe (what is plainly repugnant to our Reason) a Trinity of persons in an Unity of Substance. And this Discourse would not have been less conclusive in the Arians Mouth, than it was in the Doctors.  
This was the Answer, which the Doctor by the Spirit of Prophecy thought not worth the tarrying for, and therefore faced about to Mr. P. Which I should not have complained of, had it been to have Answered Mr. P's. Question. But instead of this, to show how solicitous he was for the Discovery of Truth in so important a Point as a Rule of Faith he 
* Pag. 6. near the end.  falls into an insignificant cavil. Where I leave him, it being too troublesome for me to trace him through all his turn and wind. However, what is here said, may serve to give the Reader some kind of Notion of them.  
He says, p. 14. Mr. M. had some while before asked 
Pag. 14.  Dr. T. (who had said, that we find the Bible, which we now have, Quoted by the Ancient Fathers) how he came to know they were Fathers? To which Question he thought an Answer in that place a condescension to an Impertinence.  
The Doctor had been asked, upon what Authority or Testimony [for the Doctor distinguishes between them] he had received his Bible. He answered (amongst other things) that he found his Bible Quoted by the Ancient Fathers. Now, I considered that the Fathers, and their works stood in need of some Testimony themselves for their being relied on. And therefore I asked the Doctor, how he knew they were Fathers? By Fathers, I suppose he meant Orthodox Bishops or Doctors of the Church. Wherefore the meaning of my Question was, how he could prove those whom he accounted Fathers to be Orthodox? If he should have said, that they had been allowed to be such by all Christians; It would have been denied him, there having been, and still being several Societies of such as Profess Christianity who assert the contrary. And therefore unless the Doctor could give us a mark whereby we might know which sort of Christians are in the right, and which in the wrong, it would be impossible for us to understand from their Testimony whether the Fathers were Orthodox or not.  
If he should have replied, that these Fathers were approved by ourselves; That also would have been as little to his purpose. For, if he looks on our Authority as Good, he ought to receive several other things upon it, which he does not. And if he takes it not to be such, he cannot confide in it either for Scripture or Fathers. Since here, they are not Arguments ad hominem (or concerning only the Private difference between us and them) but general Arguments which we require of them. I mean such, as may serve to evidence the certainty of Holy Writ to the whole World. And if the Doctor would have granted, that this could have been done by our Authority, it may easily be believed, that we should have asked no more.  
Lastly, If he should have said, that he knew those Ancient Fathers to be Orthodox no otherwise, than by the Conformity which he observed in their Tenets to the Doctrine of the Scriptures (which is the Protestant way of proving the Orthodoxness of either particular Men or Churches) he would have involved himself in a Circle, by proving the Fathers to be true from their agreement with the Scriptures, and the Scriptures to be so from the approbation of the Fathers.  
By this time, I suppose, it sufficiently appears to unbyass'd Readers, that Doctor Tenison would have showed his Learning more by Answering this Question, than he has done his Manners, by calling it Impertinent.  
Here I cannot but take notice, that this Question of mine is inserted in a wrong place, to make People believe, that I was present to so much of the Conference: Whereas I am as certain, as my memory can make me, that I heard none of those Discourses from the middle of the Doctors 10th. Page, till towards the latter end of his 17th. When the Doctors loud Clamours about the Quotation out of St. Ambrose brought me back from the Window, whither I had retired long before, viz. before the abovesaid Discourses which begin at the middle of the Tenth Page. I say, I was present to none of those Discourses between the middle of the Tenth, and the latter end of the 17th. Page, excepting somewhat which is misplaced, viz. Mr, P's Reprehension of the Schoolmaster for his Wry Mouths, etc. which was soon after the beginning of the Conference, and a little while before I withdrew: But the Doctor sets it down in this 
Pag. 15.  place, that the People may not imagine, that the Schoolmaster came so soon to his Assistance, as in Truth he did. Neither was this Reprehension occasioned (as the Doctor would have it) by any Discourse concerning the Lateran Council which was not then spoken to, but on the Schoolmasters producing a Picture in a Breviary, and (to show his Wit) laughing at it. Which was an action no way pertinent to the matter then in debate. And therefore the Doctor, to disguise the Schoolmasters intrusion, says nothing of the Discourse, which happened about the Picture. It is unhappy (says the Doctor p. 65.) that amidst so many things we can have nothing sincere, and in its Naturals. The reason of it is, because in such occasions the Truth is seldom honourable for both sides. And I question not, but the Doctor is convinced by this time, that he was much in the right, when he chose rather to trust his own Memory, than his own Amanuensis.  
Concerning what he says, p. 14. viz. Mr. M. asked what Writers? I do not remember that Question, neither did I hear the Discourse of that Paragraph. What he said also to me in Derogation of Mr. P. tho' he hath it, p. 15. was a long time after. But the Doctor is resolved to spread my Controversy through his whole Narrative, tho' by this means it be very thin, and neither much for my credit, nor his: It is possible, that the Doctor thinks to help it out, by putting my Name at length, so 
* Six times in two Pages.  often as he doth, throughout this famous Story, whereas the rest of the persons of his Drama (excepting only one, as I take it) have only the first Letter of Theirs. However lest the Doctor should design a Favour by it (tho' his not dealing so by his most worthy Friends might make one think otherwise) and since (whilst I am contented to yield to him in Contumely and Abuse) I am resolved not to come one jot behind him in Point of Courtesy, I have desired the Printer to pay him the same Respect, as often as he can do it conveniently: That his NAME may rumble as much in my Pamphlet, as mine doth in his. And altho' this should prove to be a sign of ill Will (for I know not what to make of it) our Spleen would not be misplaced upon the Doctor's Name, since it is That which has done us Ten times more harm than his Arguments, tho' indeed ever since his late Book, we have some reason to hope, that its Authority is much lessened with all Those, whose minds are at liberty to Consider.  
There is one thing which, with my Readers Licence, I desire to take notice of, before I pass on to the remainder of the Doctor's Relation, which is the gross fallacy wherewith some Protestant Divines are wont to delude the Common People, whensoever they are called upon by Catholics to show, on what Authority they receive the Holy Scripture. The Papists (say they) question the Authority of Scripture. Again, when it is alleged, that the Scripture left to the Interpretation of each private person can decide no Point of Controversy, since doubtlessly every one will declare, that the Scripture is for him; and in effect he does declare it by holding his particular Tenet (whatsoever it be) as grounded on Scripture. I say, when this is urged; They cry, The Scripture is undervalved by the Papists. And this makes such deep Impression on the unthinking Multitude (or, shall I say, strikes such a damp on their Spirits) that many times it surpasses the skill of the ablest and plainest Logician to undeceive them. And yet it is not because they cannot think Rationally enough to discern the Fallacy, but because they will not; since there is no understanding amongst them so dull or , but if it be made use of, must see through it.  
None can have a greater respect for the Holy Scripture, than Catholics have. I myself have known several of them beyond-Sea, who amongst their other Devotions Reading some part of the Holy Scripture every day, to show their profound Veneration for it, were always wont to Read it on their Knees; which whosoever observes, and compares with that very indifferent behaviour, wherewith it is ordinarily handled here in England, will not say that Catholics have a less regard for the Holy Scripture, than Protestants. And consequently, they do as little question it's Authority.  
Why then do the Catholics urge the Protestants to show on what Authority or Testimony they receive the Bible, since its Authority is undoubted on both sides? It is, because the Catholics would take this occasion of showing their Adversaries, that of necessity a True and Uncorrupted Church must be allowed to have been in the World, when they began their pretended Reformation, viz. about a hundred and fifty years ago: For, since they received their Bible from some Church then in the World; in case there were at that time no true nor uncorrupted Church, it must follow, that they had no good Authority for their Bible. And on the contrary, if the Protestants will own that they received their Bible from good hands, they must acknowledge, that they had it from a True Church, and consequently, that there was such a one in the World when they began to Reform. And from hence it will immediately follow, that the first Reformers separating from the whole World, (as hath been said) did also separate from the True Church which (as we here suppose them to confess) was then in it: And therefore must be accounted Schismatics, unless they can give us some better Definition of Schism, than that which hitherto we have had, viz. of its being a Separation from the Obedience and Communion of the True Church.  
There is yet another Reason, why we ask the Protestants, on what Authority they receive the Scriptures. And it is, because we would likewise put them in mind of what I hinted above, viz. that they ought to admit other things, and indeed, the meaning of the Scripture, upon the same Authority, on which they admit the letter. And therefore when they say, that they had the Scripture from the Roman Catholics, we tell them, that if the Roman Catholics may be relied on for the reception of the Scripture, they may be credited for other Doctrines. If they are bad Witnesses, no part of their Testimony can be valid. Wherefore if any part of it be so, they must be looked on as Good Witnesses, and consequently their whole Testimony ought to be embraced. And this is another cause of this Question.  
But why do the Catholics derogate so much from the most abundant Perfection of Holy Scripture, as to affirm that it is insufficient of itself to decide our Controversies in Faith? It is, because the daily and palpable experience of Mankind Teaches it to be so. Neither is it any derogation to a Law, to say, that it stands in need of what never yet any Law was without, viz. A Judge, or Interpreter of it.  
And I wonder, that the Protestants, who confess that every Man is fallible, and as such may be mistaken in the Sense of Scripture, and that, to his Damnation, should look on it as a Derogation to the same Scripture, to think that God (whose Mercy is over all his Works) hath appointed some means to keep us from being so mistaken. Especially when this help is not so much for the Scripture, as for our understandings. It arguing no more a defect in those sacred Volumes, that our narrow Intellects are not able to comprehend their meaning without an Interpreter (as it fared with the 
* And Philip ran thither to him [the Eunuch] and heard him Read the Prophet Esaias, and said, understandest thou what thou Readest? And he said, how can I, except some Man should guide me? etc. Act. c. 8. v. 30.31.  Eunuch spoken of in the Acts of the Apostles) than it doth a fault in a good Print, that it cannot be Read by weak Eyes without the assistance of a Glass.  
To conclude, if it be a Derogation to the Scripture to say, that it stands in need of somewhat besides itself for its being understood by us; How will those Protestants defend themselves, who affirm that Prayer, Humility and 
* See Pa. 18.  Ministerial Guides are necessary for this purpose? What greater affront is it to the Scripture to declare, that it cannot be understood without the Authority of the Church, than it is to say, that it cannot be understood without Ministerial Guides? Nor even with them (according to Protestants) any more than fallibly; which is, in truth, not to be understood at all; for, how can a Man be said to know the meaning of a thing, whilst he doubts whether he know it, or not; as all those must do, who consider that they are Fallible, and therefore may be Mistaken in their Interpretations?  
There is also another supposed Irreverence towards the Holy Scripture, that the Catholics are accused of, which consists in this, that they make the Tradition of the Church to be of equal credit with it. On this Point I shall only ask this short Question, viz. Whether it be not as much to be believed, that St. Matthews Gospel is the word of God, which is the Tradition of the Church; as it is, that our Saviour Fasted Forty Days and Forty Nights, which is part of that Gospel? If it be (as I presume none will deny) than it must follow, that Tradition, which is the unwritten Word of God, must oblige us to believe, as much, as Scripture which is his written Word. And, indeed who is there that can doubt but that heretofore, the Apostles Sermons and Verbal directions (and that which the Faithful remembered of them) were of equal Authority with their Epistles and other Writings? Shall we not think, that what was laid up in their Memories was as Obligatory, as that which was committed to Paper, Especially whilst we hear St. Paul Commanding the 
* 2 Thes. c. 2. v. 15.  Thessalonians to hold fast those Traditions, which they had learned, whether it had been by word of Mouth, or by Epistle?  
On the whole matter I dare boldly affirm, that there is none, who shall impartially consider what hath been said here, but will perceive, that the Catholics have a greater respect for the Holy Scripture than the Protestants, and this, with relation both to its Authority and usefulness.  
First, As to its Authority [I mean, it's Authenticness] the Catholics Declare, that it hath been handed from the time of the Apostles down to ours by a True and Uncorrupted Church. Whereas the Protestants do not allow that they received it from any Society of Christians but such as (according to their own sentiments) were Corrupted. The Inference of this, and of what follows, is too plain, to need the making.  
Secondly, As to it's Usefulness. The Catholics affirm, that God hath left us some sure means of understanding it a-right, so far forth as it shall be necessary for our Salvation, whereas the Protestants assign no other way of understanding the Scripture, but what they acknowledge to be Uncertain.  
And here I cannot but take notice, that a Bible in an unknown Tongue, which is capable of being rightly Interpreted, and is daily so Interpreted to the Common People, is incomparably of more use to them than one in the Vulgar Tongue, which can be understood no otherwise than fallibly, That is (as I have said 
* See above Pag. 56.  above) cannot be 
* And consequently, indeed can be of no use, but rather hurtful.  understood. An unknown Tongue which may be Interpreted being certainly less inconvenient, than an unknown Sense which may not be Found out.  
Wherefore, if Scripture appear both more Authentic and more Useful by Catholic Tenets, than it doth by Protestant, can it be thought to have less Respect amongst us, than it has amongst them?  
There is yet another plausible Pretence which serves rather to Amuse, than Argumentatively to deceive the Common People whenever this Point viz. the Testimony, on which Holy Scripture is to be received, comes into Debate. They say, that the Holy Scripture hath a sufficient Authority from itself, that it is discerned by its own Light, and that its Style, Contexture and Precepts are such, as necessarily speak it to be Divine, insomuch that it stands not in any need of being recommended to us by any Extrinsic Testimony whatsoever.  
Certainly if this were so, the Apostles would have had an easier task in the Conversion of the World, than it proved to them. They needed only to have Translated their Gospels into the Languages of all Nations, and so by Ordinary Messengers to have dispersed them from one end of the World to the other. And by this means, they might have been in those days as sparing of their Journeys, as their pretended Successors of the Church of England are in these. And forasmuch as concerns those Miraculous Gifts, which were Communicated to them, for the propagation of the Faith, all of them had been Superfluous, excepting only that of Tongues. Their Scripture would have discovered itself by its own Light to be the word of God, and what was Plain in it (according to our Modern Doctrine) would be sufficient for Salvation. But since this was quite otherwise, and that the Word of God was heretofore recommended to Mankind by the great Labours, Holy Lives, and frequent Miracles of those who Preached it, and even with all these helps found not that Credit with the greatest part which it ought, we must conclude that this Holy word stands in need of some Extrinsic Testimony, since at the beginning it pleased God (who does no unnecessary thing) to accompany it with 
* But they [the Apostles] going forth Preached every where, our Lord working withal, and Confirming the Word with Signs that followed, Mark c. 16. v. 20.  such, and that even when it came from the Blessed Mouth of his own 
* The Works that I do in the name of my Father, they give Testimony of me, John c. 10. v. 25. And again, ver. 38. Believe the Works, that you may know and believe that the Father is in me, etc.  Son.  
And yet, tho' we should grant that there is somewhat so admirable in these Writings, that forasmuch as concerns the whole frame of them, it must necessarily appear (at least, to a well-disposed mind) that they can have no other Author than God himself: Will it therefore follow, that every Verse is such, every Historical passage, or that some Syllable or Word may not be added, or taken away in some Mystery of Faith, without breaking in upon the Majesty of the Style, or whatever else bespeaks our veneration for this Book? May not (I say) somewhat of this Nature be done, which may change the Meaning of a Sentence, and yet thence no evidence arise that this Sentence so changed is not from God?  
For further Illustration and Proof of what I say, let us suppose that there were two Editions of the Bible, delivered to us by an Extrinsic Testimony or Authority so equal, that we could not discern which Testimony were best, and that in one of these Editions our Saviour's words in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament should be, THIS is a Sign of my Body, and in the other (what they now are) THIS is my Body. Would it appear from the sound, or any thing else, which of these two Sentences was spoken by Christ? I presume that (considering the various opinions which are now in the World concerning this Mystery) you are ready to say, that it would not. Suppose then, that I, or any other private person should put forth an Edition of the Bible, which should have the former Sentence, This is a Sign of my Body, instead of the latter, This is my Body. It is evident, indeed, that such an Edition, would be of no Credit. But why? Not for any defect in the sound, or other intrinsic fault (as hath been shown) but because the Authority of one single person, which recommends the first Sentence, cannot weigh with that of the whole World, which delivers the last. For could these two Sentences change their Extrinsic Testimonies, they would change their Credit also.  
Much more of this Nature might be added: But we need not have Recourse to Suppositions for an Evidence of this Truth, which is sufficiently confirmed by that Difference in the Translations of the Scripture, which is already in the World.  
By Difference in Translations, I mean, a Difference in 
* Viz. when one Translation hath Words expressing a different Sense from those which are in another.  Sense, and not in Language, as Dr. St— was pleased to Mistake my meaning, in his second Letter to Mr. G—. In which piece for the most part he Answers my Objections by mistaking them. And certainly Books may be Answered with ease, when Ignorance itself (as Mistaking is) either Real or Pretended, is able to do the work. The prevention of such mistakes was one of the Reasons, why I preferred Personal Conferences before the Writing 〈◊〉 ●ooks, though, indeed, for the securing such Conferences from such after misrepresentations, as we have here, I thought it convenient, that what was said in them should be committed to Writing immediately upon the place.  
I say then, that this Difference of Sense in the several Translations of the Bible which are now in Being, is an undeniable proof, that the Scripture does not manifest itself to us by it's own Lustre (as is pretended) at least in all its parts: For since all these Differences of Sense, expressed by Different words, are held for Authentic, by Different Bodies of Christians, whereas at most, there can be but one of these Different Expressions, Genuine, or True; it must follow, that the Truth of every parcel of Scripture is not evident to All alike, and consequently not Evident from itself. And indeed, to say the truth, I never knew that any sort of Christians endeavoured to justify the preference of their own Version before that of others from the Sound or Texture of the Expressions, but always from its Conformity to the Original Languages, Ancient Copies, or the like, which they would not have done, could the bare Sound, or Frame have sufficiently pleaded for it.  
What is here proved from the Difference in the Translations of the Bible, may be yet farther evinced by that which there is in the number of the Canonical Books; since if the Scripture were evident of itself, how come whole Books to be received by some, and rejected by others? [And here a new Reason offers itself to me, why Protestants should be asked more particularly, what Testimony they have for their Bible, since they lay aside so much of that Canon which was confirmed by the Council of Carthage, in the year 397. (subscribed to by St. Augustin) as also by the sixth General Council, A. D. 680. and hath been so generally in use ever since, for want (as they pretend) of that Testimony which is sufficient.  
I should design an endless piece of work, should I purpose to set down all the absurdities which necessarily are derived from this Assertion viz. that the Scripture is Proved by itself. Dato uno absurdo, mille sequuntur. I hope, what I have said, is enough for the rejecting a Position, which ought rather to be esteemed it's own dis-proof, than the Scripture can be looked on as it's own Proof: For since it is most apparent, that the Sense of all the parts of Holy Scripture is not Plain to us by it's own Light; how comes it to pass, that without further help we may know the Words which we Read, to be the Words of the Holy Ghost, and not know the Sense, which we have of them, to be the Sense intended by the same Holy Ghost: The Sense being that which immediately is from God, whereas the words are from Men; At least, in such Translations as are not made by Divine Revelation or Inspiration; Which, as I take it, the Reformed Church of England doth not pretend to? Wherefore I cannot think, that any one will say, that the Phrase, or Form of Words in any place of Scripture is such, as manifestly shows itself to be from God, and yet that at the same time he is ignorant whether the Sense, which he conceives of those Words, be from God, or from himself.  
It follows from these Considerations, That Scripture how Sacred and Divine soever it be, is not manifested to us by it's own light, and, consequently, it is neither impertinent in itself, nor derogatory to the Scripture, to ask, upon what Extrinsic Testimony it is received and acknowledged for Such.  
Give me leave to add one word by way of Corollary to what hath been said, which is, that seeing the Holy Scriptures are not made Evident by themselves, and that no Prudent Man can receive any thing upon the credit of False and Corrupted Witnesses, it must be inferred, that the Protestant Reformers ought to quit their pretence of being Guided by Scripture, since they have no other Rule of knowing what is such, and what not, but the bare Letter of that which is called so, and the Testimony of those, whom they accounted to have so much Corruption and Falseness, that they separated from them, without the least apprehension of the Gild of Schism. For, separating from the whole World (as hath been said) they must needs separate from those, upon whose Authority or Testimony they received their Bible. And this in effect was the sum of Mr. P's Argument against Dr. T.  
I should not have insisted so tediously on the foregoing points, had I not known that how frivolous soever those pretences (of our vilifying Scripture, looking on it as Insufficient, and the like) may seem to any thinking Man, yet the common People are most grossly, and almost incurably deluded by them. And we are 
* Rom. 1. v. 14.  Debtors both to the Wise and to the Unwise. And forasmuch as concerns this last Point, which I have spoken to, viz. the pretended self-evidence of the Scripture, it hath dropped in my hearing not only from the Mouths of the middle sort, but even from those of the Learned World. And even Dr. T. himself glances at it in his Tenth Page: Nothing being more Necessitous, or putting a Man upon worse shifts, than an ill Cause.  
But, tho' I have been very long on this subject, yet I cannot but make one Observation more, before I proceed to another, which is, that the Protestants, when they find themselves destitute of solid Proof (as in truth, they always do) for the Support of their peculiar Tenets, are wont to heap a great many Unconcluding things together, that so (if possible) what is wanting in Strength may be made out by Number: Which however like Ciphers, tho' making as great or greater show than Figures, amount to no sum. For example (to instance in the matter of our present Consideration) when we ask them, how they prove their Bible, They tell us, by its own light, 
* See Pag. 9 and 10.  Their interior Sense, and by the Testimony of Jews, Turks, Infidels, and lastly of whole Bodies of Erroneous and Corrupted 
* Viz. Such Christians as are accounted Erroneous and Corrupted by them.  Christians; whereas the Catholics have but one poor Testimony to oppose to all these, viz. That of a true, uncorrupted and uninterrupted Church.  
Now, it is not every ordinary Head which (at least without settling) will serve for a just Balance to these two Proofs, and not be weighed down by that which is most Bulky, tho' least Weighty. And yet one would think, that it were impossible, but that rational Creatures should see the plain Nullity of the former, and the most abundant Sufficiency of the latter.  
But to return to my business: Dr. T. says in the latter end of his 17th. Page, That Mr. M. took Pen, and Dr. T. delivering him the Paper he had signed in order to a regular proceeding, he began to Write the first words of these Questions; Whether God Almighty has left us any Guide, etc.  
The truth of the matter of Fact is this, Dr. Tenison having after much time spent in vain (if that may be said to be so which was spent as was most for the Doctor's purpose) drawn Mr. P. from that point which he had designed for the subject of the whole Conference, viz. The Rule of Faith, and fallen into particular matters, where there is much more Sea-room for Controversy, and consequently less danger of being run aground, whilst these things were under debate, Mr. P. happening to produce some proofs out of the Fathers in favour of Transubstantiation, and particularly quoting a passage out of St. Ambrose de Sacramentis for one, The Doctor (to use his own words) catched at it, crying out, that the Book was Spurious, and none of St. Ambrose's. And in this transport called for Pen, Ink and Paper. And (to show what a willing Mind may do) that, which was so hard to come by, when the Writing of the Conference was proposed, was brought him in a trice. He writes down his Doughty Challenge: Which was to this purpose, That the Book cited by Mr. P. was Spurious and a late Book, and none of St. Ambrose's, and that he [Dr. Thomas Tenison] would show it to be such. This he valiantly subscribed. Now, indeed, according to due Form Mr. P. should have underwritten, That he would not fail to meet this bold Challenger, desiring only a fair Stage, and of him no favour. But this, it seems, he refused for those reasons which he has already 
* See Mr. P 's Account, p. 10. and sequ.  Published.  
Now all this was done with so much noise and Triumph on the Doctor's part, and with such Tumultuous applause of his Adherents, that (being over and above called upon by them with great importunity) I thought it convenient to put myself into the midst of the Bustle, that I might come to know the matter, and keep the Peace if it should lie in my Power.  
As soon as I understood what had been the cause of so much Tumult, I immediately applied myself to the Doctor (who had made some kind of Appeal to me) and told him, That indeed I could not but look on it as a very disingenuous proceeding, that he should importune Mr. P. to Subscribe to One single Quotation, as if that had been the Only thing that in so many hours he had been able to produce for the defence of his Religion: Which would have appeared very Ridiculous (whether the Book could be proved Authentic, or not) to any Wise Man of either Church. I added, That the Doctor should permit Mr. P. to do what he had desired, viz. Writ down all his Quotations and Arguments and Sign to them (which would look like something) and that then the Doctor should do his Best. And, lastly, that this was no more, than what was Fair and Reasonable. The Doctor having little regard to what was said either by Mr. P. or myself, still pressed Mr. P. to subscribe.  
But Mr. P. not being drawn by the Doctors repeated instances, nor by the Importunity of his 
* Pag. 70. and in Mr. P's Acc. pa. 11.  Ingenious Women, to what he judged neither Prudent nor Equitable, I took the Pen into my hand, and taking the Paper from Dr. Tenison's, I told him, that I would Write something, which should look more like the substance of the Conference, than what he had Written, and in itself be more Efficacious towards the ending of the Controversy. What I would have set down, was as follows.  
Whether God Almighty hath left us any Guide or Guides to direct us in the Interpretation of Scripture in things necessary to Salvation? [Or]  
Whether he hath left every one to his own Understanding in such Interpretation, without obliging him to submit his Judgement to any other?  
But I had scarce Written the three first Words of these Questions, before the Doctor snatches away the Paper, and blots out my Writing (as much as he could) with his Fingers. Which was, as I suppose, lest 
* Pag. 70.  some weight might be laid upon Ones Writing and Signing, and the others Refusing. For this 
* Viz. Dr. 't's Writing and Signing, and Mr. P's Refusing to Sign.  was to be the Sign of Dr. Tenisons carrying the day. And if I had Written, and the Doctor had refused to Sign (as it was Ten to one but he would) all had been spoiled, and the business had been but a drawn Battle at best.  
Now I must confess, that there was no great weight, to be laid upon my three Words, especially after the Doctor had blotted them. But certainly the Doctors not giving leave to Write will bear as much Weight, as Mr. P's refusing to Sign.  
But Dr. T. said, that I was drawing them away from their Point. I know not how far it drew them from their Point: But I am sure it drew them back to that Point which was proposed for the Subject of their Conference, and which they ought to have been upon, viz. The Rule of Faith: And which, had it been once fixed, would have settled even that Point which they had then rambled to. Wherefore (as I have said already) I told the Doctor that I would propose somewhat, that might be looked on as the substance of the Conference with more justice, than what he had Written. And as he had taken the liberty to pick out of this Conference what pleased him best for Writing, so he ought to have permitted us to make choice of that which we had a mind to, for the like purpose. Especially when in Truth the Question which Mr. P. had proposed and Mine were of the same nature, and the Doctor by Answering▪ One would have Answered Both; Or, indeed when my Question was but the second Branch of Mr. P's. Mr. P. asked from whom we were to receive the Scriptures. My Question was from whom we were to have the Meaning of them. Now St. Augustin will tell you, that you ought to receive the Sense or meaning of the Scripture from those, on whose Testimony you admit the Letter [according to a 
* Aug. contra▪ Epist. Fundam.  passage which I formerly Quoted to Dr. St—. And which he (not liking, as I suppose, St. Augustins' Judgement) took no notice of.] Wherefore, (according to the Sense of this Father) if Dr. Tenison had found out those Christians, on whom he might have relied for the receiving of the Scriptures, which was Mr. P's. Question; he would have known whom to have trusted for the understanding them, which was Mine.  
Which being so, I leave my Readers to Judge, whether either of these Questions were not much more to the purpose, than that which the Dr. set up.  
Indeed, it was so little to our Controversy, whether that Book were truly St. Ambrose's or not, that I wonder, that a grave Man should forget himself so much, as to lay any stress on it, when other Proofs were offered full as plain, and out of Writers of as great Authority as St. Ambrose, and even, when there is a passage to the same purpose, and (to a great degree) in the same words, in an undoubted Work of St. Ambrose. Nay, one of the Arguments which is brought against the Authority of this Book De Sacramentis, is that the words of this Quotation are in another Work of the same St. Ambrose, and that it is improbable, this Author would use the same Words and Phrases in two distinct Books. Which, if a good Argument against the Authority of that Book, is likewise a very good one for the Authority of the Passage. Wherefore if that passage which was alleged, or one Equivalent to it were undoubtedly St. Ambrose's, of what moment could it be, whether that particular Book which was first named, were St. Ambrose's or not? If the passage prove what it was produced for, it is (at least Equivalently) in an undoubted work of St. Ambrose: And if it prove nothing, why so much clutter, whether the Book be Authentic or not?  
Here the Reader may be put in mind of another Method, which the Protestants use in their Disputations. When the Work of any Father is Quoted by Catholics, if it were ever doubted of, there is no remedy but it must pass for Spurious. And when it shall happen to be Undoubted, they will do as much as in them lies to render it Dubious, at least in those places which are Quoted. But when nothing of this will do, their last shift is Interpretation, which, indeed, does their business effectually.  
This Interpretation is laid up like a Treasure, which is never to be brought forth but in cases of urgent necessity. Otherwise they would need no other Fond for the carrying on of almost all their Controversial Expeditions. For, what need is there, that they should spoil their Eyes with poring on old Wormeaten Manuscripts, for the disproof of an Author, when perhaps the passage which they would evade, is not half so plain against them, as that of some unquestioned Book, which already they have set aside by their Interpretation? What Obligation is there, that Words in a Spurious Work should have quite another Sense, than the selfsame words in one which is Legitimate? No, but this knack of Interpreting is too great a cheat to be often Practised, and therefore, when any thing else will serve the turn, this must not appear.  
I said, that Interpretation was their last shift. But (unless this be understood with some restriction) I think, I was too hasty in my Reckoning. Their shifts are like the Privileges of some Parliaments not so. easy to be numbered. For sometimes when the Author is unquestioned, the passage too palpably plain to be wrested, and the Party somewhat more indifferent, and not so greedy of being imposed on, and when, for these reasons, the Gordian-knot cannot be untied, what should they do but follow Alexander's example? They lop off a Century or two out of the Five Hundred Years which their Brethren are wont to Appeal to; and it is great odds, but the Father, that is Quoted (most of them, and those the most Celebrated being in the fourth and fifth Centuries) drops with them, and loses his Authority, not out of any particular picque that they have against this Father whoever he be, but because he lived in ill times, and when Popish Errors began to be predominant. But if it shall so happen, that they do not see him lying on the ground, together with these Two Hundred Years, the third Century is sure to follow, and then it is a Thousand to one but they have him down. However, if after all this he shall yet remain untouched: Perhaps another Branch may fall (for these Errors were very early in the Church) or else the Fathers are sicut caeteri Homines, and (as Dr. T. intimates, p. 16.) there is no Decisive Determination to be built on what they say. This you will say, as I have said 
* See above pa. 27.  before, agrees not well with an Appeal to the first Five Hundred Years. However, this gradual Proceeding argues great Moderation (a thing that is sometimes bragged of) and shows, that the Members of this Church are not for carrying matters to Extremities, but where Necessity (which hath no Law) obliges them.  
I intimated above, that it was ten to one, but Dr. Tenison would have refused to Write or Sign any Answer to my Questions. Which was no groundless Conjecture of my own. For, had he not differed from himself he would most certainly have done so. A Gentleman of my acquaintance (than a Protestant) had formerly carried him these Questions, and desired his Answer to them in Writing. In the first place the Doctor took a very sufficient time for consideration. And in the second, he absolutely refused to give any thing under his hand, saying in excuse, that he knew not what Inference might be made. Whereupon (I remember) I advised the Gentleman to put him in mind at their next meeting of the Logical Maxim, A veris possunt nil nisi vera sequi, telling him (consequently) that if his Answer were true, he need not fear, that any thing should follow from it but Truth.  
In the mean time I am not ignorant, that there is something in the Doctor's Narrative, which is a kind of 
* Pag. 18.  Answer to my Questions. But (as the Reader will perceive) it is not offered by the Doctor as his Answer to them, neither is there any thing else set forth as such throughout his whole Pamplet, save only the mention of two Books, pag. 56. and a little one (which perhaps might be one of them) that Mrs. V had from him, pag. 24. I say, there is nothing else but these Books which is proposed by Dr. T. as an Answer to those Questions.  
Now, for my own part, I must confess, that oftentimes, I think it much easier to return a Book to a Question, than an Answer. My meaning is, that when a Difficulty pinches, it is much easier by long and Crafty Circumlocutions to Deceive, than by a short and plain Answer to Satisfy. The first may be done by Books; but it is only Brevity and Plainness which can appear well in a Personal Conference. Wherefore, to appeal from such a Conference to Books is most commonly to love Darkness rather than Light, and by entering into a Labyrinth of Words, rather to lose an Objection, than to solve it.  
It hath happened to me several times, that when I have offered any Difficult Point to some Disputants, they have told me for Answer, That the matter was handled in such a Book, and that there I should find my satisfaction. I have replied, that the Difficulty lay within a narrow Compass, that the Solution needed not to be very long, that therefore I desired, they would tell me, what the Book said of it. All the Answer I could have, was That they had forgotten the Particulars; that the Book satisfied them, when they Read; and they supposed that it would have the same effect on me. Which I have taken for an evident Sign, that they had been Deluded, and not Instructed by their Author. Since had they met with a concise and solid proof, instead of a protracted and noisy Fallacy, it would have been hardly possible for them not to have born it away, especially when they had neither ill Wits, nor ill Memories.  
Wherefore, I take leave to descent from the Doctor, where he looks on it, as a piece of 
* Pag. 56.  ill breeding, to ask Questions in a Conference, which [as he thinks] are already Answered in Books. Since, there being scarce any Point which is not spoken to in Books, a Conference for the most part is nothing else, but a trial (as far as it may be) whether the Books have said right or not: Wherefore to refer us to them for 
* Certainly that Cause which the Dr. referred to 10000 pounds worth of Books was as safe, as the Felon would have been, had his request been granted of being tried by the 12 Apostles.  Answers, is to send us thither, from whence we have Appealed. And could the Titles of Books pass for Arguments in these Conferences, a Booksellers Apprentice would out-argue Dr. Tenison, unless it be, that the late care he hath had of a Library may have greatly qualified him for this kind of Disputation.  
On the other side, it is a shrewd Argument with me, that this Doctor was somewhat Conscious of the Truth, of what I have said here, touching that room which there is for Fallacies in Books of Controversy, since notwithstanding he was so well prepared for the Answering my Questions, that he had 
* Pag. 56.  Written on the same Subject, and since he catched at all occasions of showing his Superiority over us, he yet boggled so much to give us his Answer upon the place; and in conclusion chose rather to turn us over to a Book. Which in the Doctor's Judgement must stop every one's mouth who doth not think it worth his while to Answer it in Print. And yet the Doctor ought to be mindful of his own proceeding, so far as to give us leave to be silent, where we think an Answer a 
* Pa. 14. and 15.  Condescension to an Impertinence. But, it is not the Doctor's way, to reflect, so much as this comes to, on what he doth himself. For had it been so, it is probable, he would not have laid any Weight on Mr. P's. Refusing to Sign his Paper (a thing unreasonable itself) when he considered, not only, that at this very time he hindered us from Writing, as hath been shown, but also that at the beginning of the Conference he made a most frivolous excuse from Having the whole Written. Which Refusal, if compared with Mr. P's. was at least a Millstone to a Feather. Were it easy for us to see our own faults, one would think, that here were a Speculum that would help the Doctor to such a sight. However, in our present case, I am afraid, he is not so defective in his own sight, as he is careful to provide dust for the Eyes of others.  
This Storm about the Quotation out of St. Ambrose lasted a great while, and with so much Commotion, that I will not undertake to describe it. Amongst the rest of the noise, the Doctor cried often, that Mr. P. had falsified and was a Falsisier. Whereupon I ventured to tell him, that really, he was too severe in his Censures: For tho' it should happen, that the Book Cited by Mr. P. could not be proved to be St. Ambrose's, yet he knew well enough, that it had been always Published under his Name, and ranked among his Works. Which circumstances might lead a Man into this Error without the Gild of being a Falsifier. Dr. Tenison seemed to yield to this, and to be willing to compound the business, and rest satisfied, so that, at least Mr. P. might pass for an Ignorant Person. The Cause now being quite out of Doors, and the Dispute (as the Doctor had managed the matter) growing merely personal, and, consequently, nothing to our purpose.  
The Doctor's new terms of Reconciliation seemed yet too hard: For why should Mr. P. be reputed Ignorant for Quoting an Author, which had been doubted of, unless he were convinced of the reasonableness of that doubt by those Arguments which were offered for it; which he was not, nor (possibly) ought to be? Tho' on the other side (as hath been intimated) it would have been an imprudence in him to have Signed this single Quotation, as if he had nothing else to produce on the behalf of his Cause, especially when we have to deal with Men whose Interest, Prejudice or Passion strongly inclines them to Believe against us. And facilè credunt, quod volunt. But I was so far from having an opportunity of urging this latter part of my Mediation, that I ought to be very thankful for the room, I had, of rescuing Mr. P. from the Doctor's first Imputation of a Falsifier. Such a Permission of speech being (as I must assure you) a very great favour at our Conference.  
Dr. Tenison in his 18th. Page says, Mr. M. and Dr. T. talked a little while about a Guide in Controversy. It was, indeed, a little while. For, notwithstanding towards the latter end of the Conference I attempted three or four times to have spoken something on that subject (which I looked upon as the most important one, or rather, as I have said, the only one of all Controversy:) all my endeavours were defeated, the Doctor still, by turning off the Discourse, either not Answering to my Questions, as not suffering me to Reply to his Answer, Excepting only some few Words, which for haste, I was forced (as the Doctor well expresses it) to mutter out when I took my leave.  
Now since, Dr. T. sets down, what he told me in short, concerning a Guide in Controversy, viz. That a Man after using all Christian means, and 
Pag. 18.  the help of all Ministerial Guides possible, must at last judge for himself, and that this was not to run on his own head: As also, that their People, could know the Voice of their Church, it being in their own Language, but not so readily the Voice of the Church of Rome, it being in an unknown Tongue; for the true Interpretation of which, the unlearned depend upon the particular Priest, that instructed them. I say, since the Doctor Publishes what he said to me on this subject he ought to have added what I replied to him, tho' likewise it were but very short for the Reasons already given. My Talk was to this purpose, viz. That if Men, after the use of those Christian means, and Ministerial Guides he spoke of, were by God's appointment to follow their own Understandings, Those Laws must needs be unjust, which punished them for doing so. And consequently what could the English Penal Laws have to say for themselves, which did not inquire whether Men had used Christian Means, and Ministerial Guides, or not, but punished them for following their own Understandings, altho' they should have used ever so many Christian means, etc. beforehand? Neither do Men suffer by these Laws, only for Doctrines relating to the Civil Government (as perhaps the Doctor would insinuate by what 
* Pag. 24.  follows) but for Points merely Religious, such as are Transubstantiation, Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, not going to a Protestant Church, etc. For all which Points they are punished; and this (to make the case yet harder) by such Men, as owning themselves Fallible, must likewise own, that those Opinions for which they punish, may be Truths, and Those, which they would compel us to embrace, Errors, for aught they know.  
This Subject is so plain and obvious in its own Nature, and there hath been so much said on it already, that I shall only add one word by way of of a Recapitulation, which is, That on the one side we have the Church of England. Teaching us to Judge for ourselves in Religious Matters, and on the other Hanging us for following her Doctrine. If we are to be our own Judges, why are we Condemned for it? And if not, why are we Taught to be so? Most Religions have their Mysteries, and therefore this may be allowed to the Protestants. But for my part, I can sooner admit, that God is able to do more than I am able to understand, in the Belief of Transubstantiation, than that Men can at once have a just ground for the Approbation and Condemnation of the selfsame Proceeding. It being easier to  our Senses when our Creator Commands, than to forego our Reason, when we have no higher Motive for it, than the Will of our Fellow-Creatures.  
I must confess, that my Discourse on this Subject at the Conference, was not so large, as it is here, by reason of the shortness of those Interlocutory spaces that were allowed us by the Doctor, which seemed to be designed by him, not so much for our Speaking, as for his own Breathing, so that I was forced to cramp what I had to say into a few concise and general Propositions, and to throw them out, before the Doctor was ware of them. Viz. That in case we were not bound by Almighty God to submit our Judgement to any others, but (presupposing the use of the Doctors Christian means) were left to the Guidance of our own Understanding, in matters of Faith; we ought not to be hindered from, or (which is the same thing) punished for Taking it for our Guide in such matters. That the Penal Laws Punished us for so doing, and therefore were unjust: And the like. Which Propositions, tho' too brief perhaps for their being thoroughly Comprehended by the Rabble of our Hearers, were yet sufficient to let the Doctor know what I meant, and consequently for a larger Account of them, than what we have from him, pa. 24. Viz. Mr. M. took leave, and just at the Door Muttered something about Penal Laws. In which (as the Reader will have found) there is no Information either of the nature, or of the occasion of that Discourse: The matter being so obscurely expressed, that a Protestant Gentleman of my acquaintance was so far deceived by the Doctor's Terms, that he imagined, that I had risen up in a heat, and threatened something as I went away. And therefore for the future, when Dr. Tenison shall tell us, That he thinks it will give the greater satisfaction to tell the whole Truth,— That Truth is best Painted at full length,— and that he will let the World know, the whole Truth, so far as his Memory with all due helps will serve him, as he doth, pag. 45. 46, and 50. We will be so civil to him, as not to understand him in a Literal Sense.  
Dr. T. says in the place above cited, that we are to have the help of all Ministerial Guides possible, before we must Judge for ourselves. Now, I suppose, that by all Ministerial Guides possible, the Doctor does not mean, all sorts of Guides True or False. First, Because the Penal Laws hinder us from conversing with those of other Communions. And, Secondly, Because our Saviour himself Commands us to 
* Matth. c. 7. v. 15.  beware of false Prophets. Wherefore I would fain know, what mark the Doctor hath to distinguish such Ministerial Guides as may be Addressed to, from such as may not. If he say, that we shall know these Guides by the purity of their Doctrine, [the only Mark commonly assigned by Protestants, as was intimated above, for That of the True Church.] Then it must follow, that I must first Judge what Doctrine is Pure, before I can know what Guides to have recourse to, and consequently I must Judge for myself [in the particular 
* Viz. In the Interpretation of the Scripture.  Doctrines of Christianity] before I use the help of these Ministerial Guides. Which according to the Doctor is not to be done. The Circle in other Terms, and more concisely is thus. We cannot know what Doctrine is Pure without Guides: And we cannot know what Guides to consult without first knowing what Doctrine is Pure. If he shall Name Succession, Universality, or any thing else for the mark of these Guides, than we will consider, whether That which is assigned, belong to the Church of England, or not.  
The Doctor seems to say in the close of his 
* Pag. 18.  Answer (which as the Reader will perceive was nothing less than one of his usual Digressions from the Point in hand) That their People knew the Voice of their Church, and needed not to depend upon the Learning of any Particular Priest for it. If so: How could the Doctor blame this Apprentice (as he doth in his 55th. Page,) for not coming to him with his doubts? Would he have him repair to a particular Priest for Instruction, whilst he Herd and Knew the voice of their Church, and therefore (according to the Doctors own assertion) needed it not?  
But, perhaps, the Doctor will say, that for the Verbal Translation of the Scripture the Protestants are not necessitated to have recourse to particular Men, the Bible being Translated to their hands, and warranted by public Authority (tho' here too they will be at a loss, unless it appear to them, that they may confide in this Authority) but for the Sense in all dubious places they ought to Address themselves to their Ministers. They may do it if they please: And if not (I suppose) they may let it alone; and this last, with most safety: For, according to our late Divines, all things necessary to Salvation are plain in Scripture, and therefore to look after the meaning of dubious places is to do more, than of bounden Duty is required, and has the appearance of a Work of Supererogation, which is such an abominable thing with the Church of England, that they have a whole 
* See 14th. Article.  Article against it, and declare that it cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety, much less (as I suppose) PRACTISED. Wherefore as yet, there appears no cause, why the Apprentice should be chidden for not having waited on Dr. T. in this occasion. And indeed, if that be the case, viz. That the Members of the Church of England are to go to their Ministers for the Construction of these dubious places, I do not perceive, that they have any great advantage over those of the Church of Rome, tho' what the Doctor says were true, viz. That Roman Catholics were to apply themselves to particular Priests for the Translation of the Scriptures, since the Protestants themselves must make the same application for the Sense and Meaning of these Scriptures. And this Sense is that which is of the greatest importance, or rather That which is of any Importance at all.  
But in Truth they are not particular Priests which Catholics depend on for either the Translation or Sense of the Scripture in any necessary Point of Faith, but it is on their Church, whose Voice is as Intelligible at least, and (with the Doctor's leave) much farther Herd than that of the Church of England. For is it not full as evident in England, and much more evident in other Parts of the World, that the Church of Rome Teaches a Purgatory, than it is, that the Church of England Teaches the contrary? And so of other Doctrines.  
This is an Age, wherein Men, whilst they Scepticize on evident Truths, are Positive in Absurdities, and therefore there want not Those, who ask, how the Members of the Church of Rome can know what their Church holds. But when they shall have considered, how they themselves come to know what That Church holds, whilst they Condemn its Doctrines, as also how a Man may come to understand what is held by the Church of England, they will not (I suppose) expect any farther Answer. This were it not so Common (and even with Men of no Common Wit,) would have been too frivolous, to have been taken notice of.  
One endeavour which I used for the speaking somewhat of a Guide in Controversy, was on the following occasion. Dr. T. having called me to him, and desiring (as he said) that 
* Pag. 21.  Mr. P. would stick to something, took upon him to explain a Text of Scripture, which had been long before Cited by Mr. P. for the Authority of the Church, viz. That of St. Matthew, c. 18. v. 17. If he will not hear the Church let him be to thee as an Heathen and a Publican. The Doctor said, that considering the Antecedent Verses, this aught to be understood of ordinary Trespasses, such as the not paying of a just debt, etc. And not of Articles of Faith, making use of a tedious Instance to that purpose, the sum whereof was 
* Ibid.  that in case a Man should refuse to pay his debts after one or two demands, he is put into the Ecclesiastical Courts (supposing it proper for their cognisance:) And if he will not stand to their Sentence, than he is Excommunicated, and Treated as such a One. Whereupon I told the Doctor, that for my own part, I understood that Text of Scripture quite otherwise than he did, being persuaded that we were obliged by it to Hear the Church in all those things, wherein the same Church doth declare, that she hath Power to Judge. And most especially in matters of Faith: Which in their own Nature seem more proper for the Cognisance of Ecclesiastical Courts than a Question of Debt. That it was not unusual for our Blessed Saviour on a particular occasion to deliver a general Precept; as for instance, when the Jews asked him whether or no it were lawful to pay Tribute to Caesar, he 
* Mat. c. 22. v. 19, etc.  called for the Tribute-money, and asked whose Image it bore; and being Answered that it was Caesars; he gave this Rule, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's. Which Rule, I suppose, is general, and hath regard not only to Tribute, but also to whatever else is due from Subjects to Sovereign Princes, as Respect, Obedience, and the like; tho' the occasion on which the Rule was made, and that which immediately preceded it, seem to be Particular, and to look no farther than his Pecuniary Rights. That in like manner, tho' this Text, viz. If he will not hear the Church, etc. might be spoken in a Particular occasion, it could not be thence inferred, that it was not of a more large Extension, especially if we should compare it with other Texts, such as are, 
* Joh. c. 20. v. 21.  As my Father sent me, so I send you. 
* Matth. c. 28. v. 19, 20.  Go and Teach all Nations— and lo I am with you always even unto the end of the World. 
a Luke c. 10. v. 16.  He that Heareth You, Heareth ME, etc. 
b Eph. c. 4. v. 11, etc.  And he gave some Apostles: and some Prophets: and some Evangelists: and some Pastors and Teachers, for the perfecting of the Saints, for the Work of the Ministry, etc. That we henceforth be no more Children, 
c If Pastors are left to keep us from being tossed to and fro, it follows that we must hearken to them, as also that they must be kept from being tossed to and fro themselves. Otherwise they will not be able to effect that for which they were left.  tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of Doctrine, etc. 
d Hebr. c. 13. v. 17.  Obey those that are set over you,— for they watch as being to render account for your Souls. All which places (at least, according to my own Judgement) are clear for that Perpetuity, and that Authority of the Church, which are believed by Roman Catholics.  
But above all, this Truth seems to be most apparent to me, when I consider what immediately follows in this place of Scripture, viz. When our Saviour had said, If he will not hear the Church, let him be to thee as an Heathen, and a Publican, which is the subject of our present Controversy, He adds in the very next Verse [speaking to his Church] Verily, I say unto you, whatsoever you shall Bind on Earth, shall be Bound in Heaven, etc. 
* The Doctor ought to have considered what came after his Text, as well as what went before, the one having as manifest a regard to it as the other.  This Term WHATSOEVER, whether it regard the Persons, or the Things which fall under the Ecclesiastical Censure, or else Both, is of a most general Signification: So that it is evident, that the Power given in this place hath no other Restriction, or Limit, but the Will and Determination of those to whom it is given, there being nothing more required for the Binding, or Losing a Thing in Heaven, than that the Church should determine to Bind, or Lose it on Earth. Which proves what I asserted above, viz. That the Church hath Power to Judge in all those things, wherein she Declares Herself to have it. [It is true however, that being always Guided by the same Holy Spirit, which invests her with this Authority, she can never Declare Herself to be our Judge, but where she ought, and where it is highly for our Advantage, that she should be so.]  
My Discourse on this occasion was to this effect, but (as I have said of those on other subjects) much shorter, tho' this was the fairest opportunity of speaking that Dr. Tenison allowed me, during the whole Conference. In Conclusion, I assured the Doctor, that I was wholly convinced that the abovementioned Text (as I declared before) had quite another meaning, than what he gave of it. And therefore I asked him, whether, being so convinced as I was, I ought to follow his Interpretation or my own. He Answered, that he would appeal to the Company, whether the Sense, which he gave of the place, were not 
* Had it been plain it would not have stood in need of his explanation.  plainly so. I told him that this would not serve my turn, for tho' that Company should happen to be all of his Mind (as they were not, there being some amongst them of my own Judgement) yet so long as my opinion continued as it was, I should be still at the same loss, unless the Doctor could inform me, whose Judgement I was to trust, my Own, or Theirs. The Doctor said, that for the right Interpretation of Scripture, I ought to examine the Originals, consult Learned Men 
* Why so much ado for what be said was plain? Had the Company, he appealed to, done all this?  etc. Whereas, said he, this Boy did none of these things: he came not to Me, nor to his Master, etc. and so striking out of the Road, with a Cavil about the Boy, I could never get him into it again.  
Had I been able to have held him to the Point a little longer, he must have granted me according to his own principle of Every one's Power of Judging for himself, That seeing I Judged the Sense of Holy Scripture to be Different from what he thought, I was as much bound to  his Doctrine, as he was to believe it. Which would have been an excellent instance, how much Dr. Tenison's Rule of Faith tended to the Unity of it; And undoubtedly must have sounded very strangely in the Ears of his Parishioners, notwithstanding their great esteem and affection for him. Which I question not, but the Doctor was well ware of, and therefore thought it more to his purpose, to chide the Boy for not having washed his Face (as the Story goes of such another Answerer) than to suffer the Disputation to proceed. And yet this is the Doctor, who in this very place desires, that his Adversary would 
* Pag. 21.  stick to something. But non videmus id Manticae, quod à tergo est.  
I have already taken notice of a Sentence or two, which the Doctor sets to my account, more than I can remember myself to have been guilty of: There is another of them pa. 21. viz. Mr. M. asked Dr. T. if he could tell Chapter and Verse throughout the Bible. And I think there are one or two more of the like nature: But they are of so little importance one way or other, that (tho' I believe they were never spoken by me, yet) they shall be said, or not said, as the Doctor pleases. But touching what he says, pa. 18. Of something spoken to me about the Conference betwixt some Gentlemen of the Church of Rome, and Dr. Stillingfleet and Dr. Burnet, I remember nothing of it. Neither had I any concern in that Conference, or in any thing relating to it.  
In the Doctors 22d. and 23d. Pages, the Reader will find the following Lines. — After this Dr. T. said to Mr. P. there was one thing remaining and fit to be said to him: He had in a Printed Paper promised not to tamper about Religion with the Protestant Boys who should come to the Savoy-School; it had appeared, that he tampered with Boys out of his care, and would do so much more with those under it: he said it did not follow, because of his word which he would not break, and that for this Boy he had done it in order to his everlasting Salvation. Dr. T. answered, that being your Principle, that all out of your Communion are Damned, you being a Jesuit and a Papist, must break your word in that Paper for the necessary good (as you think) of the Souls of the Boys, especially you having hope of turning Boys under your care. Mr. M. said to Dr. T. This reflects upon the King. Another more loud, this reflects upon the King, and suggests, that he will break his word: And Mr. P. joined in the Accusation, but many of the Hearers cried out against them, and said it was a Knavish trick. Mr. M. was going away, Dr. T. called to him, and desired him not to run away with a false Tale. Mr. M. denied he said such words, Dr. T. told him he did, and that for his part he thought his Loyalty at this time to be more valuable than Mr. M's. Because he as a Son of the Church of England, professed he would not Rebel against the King, notwithstanding he might be of another Religion, whereas Mr. M. being of the same Religion, could not so well separate Loyalty from Interest. Dr. T. being concerned at this false and unworthy way of catching Men, did say, to Mr. M. at the Door of the first Room, that if he had persisted in this Trick, he could not have forborn to have given him the Name of Evidence Meredith.  
Here it is, that the Doctor Storms indeed! Here it is, that his Rage breaks forth !— Hunc tu, Roman, Caveto! Here it is, that he manifests the Truth of what he tells us in his Epistle to his Parishioners, and convinces us at length, that amidst so many things there is somewhat sincere! Here it is, that the loss of his Father's Benefice gins to work, and raises his Suspicion and Indignation to so high a pitch, that, as he says, it is a difficulty to him to Temper himself!  
Out comes— A Knavish trick— A False tale— A False and unworthy way— Evidence Meredith!  
What a deal of Billingsgate Rhetoric have we here, and all crammed into half a Page? Is this Dr. Tenison that speaks, — Tantaene animis Caelestibus Irae! Is it possible for the Anger of a Reverend Divine to boil up to so much scum? Does he who was so ready at the Conference with St. Jude's Reproof against Railing, so soon forget his own Instructions? When we see Practices so different from Words, can we think, that his former Reprehension, was any other, than the doing that very thing which he seemed to Reprehend?  
Out of the abundance of the Heart the 
* Luke c. 6. v. 45.  Mouth speaketh. And where the Streams are so bitter, it is not hard to guests, how much Gall there is at the Fountain. Certainly had I been as well acquainted with this Gentleman's Temper before our Conference, as I am by it, I should have had one single Exception against Dr. T. which would have put his three Exceptions against Mr. M. out of Countenance: I say, his Exceptions, not Himself.  
But, forasmuch as Dr. Tenison seems to lay the blame of all his immoderate Heat on those Impressions that were made on him during his Childhood, I will not lose so excellent an Opportunity (since I design rather to Benefit others, than Right myself) of letting my Readers know the strange Force of such Impressions, and consequently the great Care which the Education of their Children exacts from them. Which (I believe) I shall do, if I let them see, that Dr. Tenison had not the least Glimpse of Reason for all this Fury, but, that the whole (as far as we could perceive) was entirely owing to that pernicious Tincture which most unfortunately he had received, whilst he was Young, and it is probable, before he came to the Years of discretion. And I question not, but the matter of fact rightly stated, and freed from the Doctor's disguises will effect This. And it is as follows,  
Dr. Tenison spoke to this purpose, that whereas the Jesuits had Published a Paper, in which they promise not to tamper about Religion with the Boys that come to their Schools, Mr. P. had meddled with one who was not his Scholar, and therefore it was probable, he would much more do so with such as were. Mr. P. replied, It did not follow, he having given his word for the one, but not for the other; adding, that he neither had, nor would break his word in that matter: Whereupon the Doctor said the following words, If you are a Papist you must break your word. On these words, and spoken in these Circumstances, I said — This reflects too far— These things are not fit to be heard— And then retiring a step or two, I came back to the Company again, and perceiving that no notice was taken by the Doctor of what I had said on purpose that he might forbear such Discourses as, according to my judgement, might draw after them pernicious consequences, that my Admonition might be yet plainer to him, I said — This reflects upon the King— which was no more than what I meant by my former words, tho' then I forbore to name the King, as well out of a respect to His Majesty, as because I had no desire, that the hint I then gave should be taken notice of, any farther than by the Doctor himself; So far was I from any intention of catching him, as he expresseth it; and even when I saw it necessary to speak more plainly, that what I said might have some effect, I did it in so low a voice, that I am confident the greatest part of the Company did not hear me, at least I desired they should not.  
I beg of my Readers to pause here a little while, and consider, what it is, that is so heinous in all this proceeding: Let them discuss every part and parcel of it as rigorously as they please, and then tell me, whether or no they can discover any other Motive, the Doctor had to his severe Language on this occasion, save only That, which (as he acquaints us in his forementioned Epistle) had lain by him for so many Years.  
Can any one affirm at this time of day, that such Propositions, [viz. Papists are Breakers of their word, or If you are a Papist you must break your word] are fit to be vented, and Instilled into the Common People, and this too (that they may receive it with less hesitation) from the Mouths of those, from whom they expect nothing but Gospel? Was not the Jealousy which the Author of the late Letter to a Dissenter endeavoured to raise, as if his Sacred Majesty would be hindered by his Religion from complying with his 
* Viz. Of Liberty of Conscience.  promise, the most Seditious part, of that most Seditious Piece, and (as I may say) the Venom of that Viper? And had not Dr. Tenisons Loyalty been more valuable by such Expressions of his Abhorrence for that Pamplet, as the World hath received from the Tongues and Pens of many other Worthy Persons, than it can appear by seeming, at least, to join with the Author of it in that very Insinuation, which (above all the rest) renders him the most Detestable? And lastly was it so weighty an Offence in me, to give the Doctor a Friendly hint of the inconvenience of such Discourses, that he is not contented with those opprobrious Terms, he bestowed on me at the Conference, and wherewith he hath since aspersed me in this Narrative, but still (as I am told he does in a later Pamphlet) heaps Abuse upon Abuse, as if I had unpardonably Injured him by suffering the worst of Injuries from him without Returning them, or (hitherto) so much as Complaining of them? If this be the Doctor's Loyalty, God grant his Majesty better Subjects. If this be his Justice, God keep me from another Experiment of it. And lastly, if this be his Morality: Will the Doctor take it ill, if we should have so good an Opinion of those Parishioners whom he so much extols, as to hope that in his two large Parishes there are not Many but what are better Christians than their Pastor?  
It is true, that the Experience of many Years has rendered our Prince's Justice and Constancy so well known to all sorts of People, that it must needs be hard for such Insinuations as these to find place amongst them. However, when Men have been prevailed with to believe, that Christ himself hath not made good a Promise of his, viz. That of being with his Church to the end of the World, shall we think it impossible, but that they may come to entertain as mean a thought as this of an Earthly Sovereign, how Great and Good soever he may be, especially when these Talents which have succeeded so well in the greater undertaking, are employed for the compassing of the less? The same vicious Inclination to Disobedience and mistaken Liberty, that rendered them pliable to the first Imposture, is not lessened but increased by their being deceived, and therefore of Consequence leaves them still more disposed for the second. And certainly for these Reasons, a moderate Caution, where any thing of this Danger appears, ought not to be looked on as either too Officious, or Superfluous.  
Had this business been fairly Represented, Dr. Tenison himself had been ashamed of letting so much Choler break forth, where (even according to Worldly Maxims) there was so little cause for it: And therefore if you take notice, you will find, that he has not permitted himself so far to be transported by his Passion, but that he hath taken Wit in his Anger, and notwithstanding his 
* Pag. 83.  abhorrence of Shifting and Insincerity hath (for reasons easily discernible) related the matter of Fact quite otherwise than in truth it was. And therefore since this Gentleman in his 46th. Page, promises a just Representation of the whole, we must from henceforward conclude, that they are not Papists only, who are breakers of their Word.  
Dr. Tenison seems to affirm (as you will have seen) That it was on his saying to Mr. P. the following words [viz. That being your principle, that all out of your Communion are damned, you being a jesuit and a Papist, must break your word in the Paper for the necessary good (as you think) of the Souls of the Boys, especially you having hope of turning Boys under your care] I say he seems to tell us, That on these words, Mr. M. said to Dr. T. This reflects upon the King. Now for my own part I desire, that my Portion in God's favour may be no farther sure, than this is False: Which, were I not very certain of what I here relate, I would not say for ten thousand Worlds. The words which I took notice of, and on which I spoke the forementioned Sentences, viz. This reflects too far, etc. were those which I noted above, viz. If you are a Papist, you must break your word. For had the Doctor spoken of this matter in the words of his present Narrative, I am well assured, that I should not have made that Reflection on it: For altho' the speech, even as himself puts it, cannot be looked on as very seasonable in this juncture of Affairs, yet that Restriction of — you being a jesuit, (however forced and improper as may appear by what 
* See Mr. P's. Account pag. 14. & sequ.  Mr. P. hath said of it) would have hindered me from saying, That it reflected on the King, since I can assure him (over and above what I have told him already) that I was so far from seeking an occasion of speaking what I did, that I was sorry that which he offered for it, was so necessary to be taken: My nature (if I am not mistaken in it) being too little inclined to Displease, for the making such unwelcome Addresses, but where as Sense of Duty absolutely requires them.  
The Sentence which I reflected on was so plainly liable to such a Remark, that (as Dr. Tenison confesses) two or three immediately joined with me in it. Nay, who can doubt, but that even the Doctor himself was of the same persuasion, when he thought it for his purpose to Change it, and that, by so considerable an Alteration, as hath been shown, viz. by restraining that to jesuits only, which (as it was spoken) extended to all Catholics?  
I must confess, that this kind of Retractation (I mean, a Disowning of the Expression that was complained of) is a better Argument of Dr. Tenisons Repentance, than it would have been to have offered at its Justification. However, the Doctor ought not to appear Virtuous at his Neighbour's cost, he ought not so far to consult his own Good Name, as not to care what becomes of mine. Especially, when the value of Reputation is so well known to him, that he thinks it worth his while (as may be perceived by his  Dedicatory Epistle) to raise the whole posse of two large Parishes to 
* But twice as much would be little enough to preserve it, should it please God, that the Truth of this very passage alone, were fully known.  preserve it.  
Why must I suffer, because the Doctor is a shamed of what he said? He might learn by that unwillingness which he finds in himself to own his Gild, how grievous the Imputation of it must be to another. Certainly, had his Conscience been awake whilst he Penned this Account, he would have seen that the — Knavish Trick, the — False Tale, the — False and Unworthy way, could not have been so fitly sent abroad, as kept at home, and because such Accounts [in the Cant of the Mobile] Denominate, as well as Evidences (if Dr. 't's example be as good a Warrant for Ribaldry, as St. Paul's 
* Mr. P's Account, pag. 5.  was for a Grave, tho' sharp Reprehension) give me leave to say, That Narrative-Tenison would have been as good a Jest, and (I am sure) as the case stands, a far juster reproach than Evidence-Meredith. But for such merry conceits as these, I must confess, it is my Opinion, that both our Coats (tho' mine be not Canonical) ought to be of another Colour.  
But that, which renders my Complaint on this occasion yet more reasonable, is, that Dr. Tenison was under no precise necessity of taking such a course as this, for the clearing of himself. He might have declared, that this Sentence dropped from him in the eagerness of Discourse and at unawares. We should not have been so severe to his lapses, as he is to 
* Viz. Mis-spellings, and the like.  ours. We do not think, that our Cause is so near Sinking, that we should catch at such Twigs to keep it above Water. He might have said, that tho' his Expression reached to all Roman Catholics, he had no intention of including more than the Jesuits. This (in some measure at least) would have saved both his Credit, and mine. Nay, if he had so pleased, he might have blamed the Inference which I had drawn from his Discourse, since I had much rather, that his Censure should have fallen on my Judgement than on my Integrity. For I can assure him, that I esteem it (whatever he may do) a less Inconvenience to be thought Weak in the former than Defective in the latter. Wherefore to conclude, there having been other ways of complying with that strong innate principle of self-preservation, it is somewhat the more afflicting to me, that he should pitch on no other means of wiping off his own Spots, but by Aspersing me.  
Methinks, this hasty and inconsiderate Speech (if it were such) might have seemed to him as fair an opportunity of ask pardon, as some other of his say have done, such as were, 
* Pag. 13. and 17.  That he would not come under Mr. P's Ferula, and that Mr. P. might give his Papers for Kites to his Boys. And the crying Peccavi in those trivial occasions, and the omitting it where his Prince's honour, and his fellow-Subjects Reputation lay so much at stake, does it not look somewhat like Straining at a Guat and Swallowing a Camel?  
It is true, that immediately after the Doctor had ended his wrangling about this matter with Mr. P. he called after me, and (as I think) desired me not to run away with a false Tale, telling me, that his words were — You being a jesuit and a Papist, etc. and that (he hoped) the King was not a jesuit, and therefore that his speech could not concern him. I replied, in these express Terms. Your words [viz. Those which I had taken notice of] were not You being a jesuit and a Papist, etc. but If you are a Papist, you must break your word. I said moreover, that I had no design to Inform against him, as some in the Crowd had muttered, and that my Intention in taking notice of his words was no other, than (what I have had occasion to intimate before) that he might learn to be somewhat more Cautions and Deliberate in his Discourses for the future. Now, how comes the Doctor's True Account to be wholly silent in so material a passage? But the Causes of Complaint come so thick, that I must beg leave to forbear the making it now and then: It being hard for me to vary my phrase as often as a new Injury seems to require it.  
Mr. M. says the Doctor, denied he said such words, viz. That the Doctor's Proposition had reflected on the King.  
The confusion was so great at this time (there being then three or four bawling about my Ears at once) that I cannot well call to mind what I said; only thus much I distinctly remember, viz. That one of the Doctor's Friends affirmed again and again, that I had not spoken those words, whom I did not contradict, partly because I was not well assured whether or no I had said, what was then particularly mentioned, in such manner as to be heard by any of the Company, having (as I said before) spoken very low; and partly because I desired that the Doctor might receive as little dissatisfaction, as it was possible, and therefore since I understood, he knew already what fault had been found with his Proposition (which was all I aimed at) I was loath to disquiet him farther by repeating That, which, tho' reasonably enough urged, had yet been ungrateful to him. But if any word dropped from me through suddenness of Speech, that employed such a Denial as the Doctor mentions, it was more than I intended, and must be attributed to that distraction of mind which is hardly avoidable amidst such Peals of various Discourses, where the Attention being called upon by many Different matters at once, is sufficiently applied to none. For as soon as the Doctor (who seemed to suspect, that I meditated on some Information against him, and therefore, not to be contented with my Silence) urged me by the continuance of his Expostulations to declare myself in more express Terms, I was far from Disowning that I had Reflected on his forementioned Proposition, as the Reader will have perceived by what he met with in my last Remark, where I repeat some part of our Discourse on this occasion, in which I acknowledged that I had Reflected on the Doctor's Words, but denied that it was with any other Design, save only, that he himself might Reflect a little more on such as he should purpose to speak for the future: A Caution which (God knows) the best of us stand in need of.  
But whereas some persons of that Company spoke as if I had declared, that the Doctor had Reflected on the King, and that on such a supposition I had an Intention of Informing against him, it is not improbable, but that this (or any thing else which I should have taken to have had this meaning) might have been flatly denied by me. For I looked on it as one thing, For the Doctor to have Reflected on the King, and another for his Proposition to have done so; since for the Truth of the former, it seemed necessary to me, that the Doctor should have actually thought on the King (and Reflected on him in his mind) when he spoke those Words; which possibly he might not do. [Nay, I cannot do him so much Injury as to imagine, that he understood (I do not say, the whole extent, but even) the obvious Consequences of many of his Speeches at this Conference; since, if he had done so, I question not, but he would have omitted them.] But on the other hand, that a Proposition may be truly said to Reflect on the King, nothing else is required, than by a Natural and Easy Inference, It should appear to include him within its Censure. As for Example, when all Papists are said to be Breakers of their Word (since we cannot have a better instance than we have in the present Case) the King is manifestly included: Tho' perhaps the Speaker may not reflect that he is so. Wherefore I say, I might deny, that I had accused the Doctor of Reflecting on the King, and yet at the same time affirm, that his Proposition did.  
This consideration leads me to another Remark, which is, that tho' every tittle of what the Doctor here relates should be true (as it is not) and tho' I should have had a purpose of Informing (as was likewise falsely imagined) yet the Doctor was too hasty in charging me with running away with a false Tale. For what Tale had the Doctor heard from me, that was False? The Doctor had spoken certain words: And I affirmed that such words Reflected on the King. Where is the Falseness of this Story? Or rather, what Story is there in This? I said not (as I told you just now) that the Doctor Reflected on the King, but that his Words Reflected on him; which tho' it had been false (unless I had spoken contrary to my own mind) had been the Error of Judgement, or a fault in my Inferring Faculty, and not a Lie, as the Doctor would have it. I presume, that those who hold Transubstantiation and Purgatory will not pass for Liars with the Doctor, according to the propriety of our Common Speech, tho' at the same time he may take such Tenets to be Erroneous, and the Arguments that are brought to prove them, Sophisms. Wherefore in this Particular Case, altho' my Inference had been Bad, my Conscience might have been Good, since it must needs go very hard with the World if every Man were to be as ill a Christian, as he is a Logician.  
All the Information (had I intended any such thing) which I could, or should have given in this matter, was, that Dr. Tenison, had spoken such Words as I had heard from him, and that according to my Judgement those Words Reflected on the King. But whether they did so, or not, or how far the Doctor was culpable or innocent, must have been left to others to determine. And after this if the Doctor, and his Words both, should have been Acquitted; it might perhaps have appeared to him how greatly it was for his advantage, that his Words were not left to a Private Interpretation (as he leaves God Almighty's) but that proper Judges had been chosen out and Authorized for that purpose. This Reflection, I say, might Naturally enough have come into the Doctor's mind. But I cannot think, that it would have appeared to those Judges (whosoever they should be) or to any other sober person, that I had been guilty of any Perjurious Testimony in this Proceeding, as the Doctor's Knavish Trick, False Tale, and the rest of his Civil Language would imply. And this is another Reason why the Doctor's Civilities ought not to have gone from before his own Door.  
The bare matter of Fact in the forementioned business singly related (as I said at first) would have been sufficient, to have shown the unreasonableness of Dr. Tenisons Passion; however I have added these few Remarks, that it might the more fully appear, how lasting and forcible an Influence these Early 
* Quo semel est imbuta recens, etc.  Tinctures have upon our minds, and consequently what great Reason all Fathers of Families (as I intimated above) have to take notice of what is said by the Poet, viz. Maxima Debetur pueris Reverentia.  
But if former Impressions may pass as an excuse for present Transports in Mortals of a lower stamp (for I take it for granted that Wise Men ought to be Superior to all these Irregular Motions, whether 
* Sapiens Dominabitur Astris.  Natural, or Accidental) there does not want something of this kind, which it would have been in my Power also to have produced as a Motive to severe Language, had I been guilty of any, I mean, an Impression made likewise on Me, not in my Childhood, but in my ripest Age; not by the behaviour of one of the Doctor's Brethren, real, or supposed, but by his own; nor Thirty or Forty Years since, but no more than a few Months ago, and lastly not unreasonably, but with a great deal of Reason.  
To let the Reader know what I mean without farther preamble : During the late Commission for the Licensing of Pedlars, a Roman-Catholic Addressed himself to Dr. Tenison for his Certificate, in order to the obtaining of one of those Licenses. The Doctor having found out, what Religion he was of, told him, that no Papist could be a good Subject, and thereupon absolutely 
* I am told, the Dr. says, that for mere Religion no one was ever an hair of his head the worse by his means. How well these Stories agree?  refused to do what he desired. Now, this Story I received from so good hands, that I could not question the Truth of it, and therefore I may leave it to my Reader to consider, what Impression it must needs make on me, to see, not only myself, but the Christians of so many Ages and Countries traduced and blasted all at once, and left even without so much Reputation as was necessary for a 
* To make amends, the Dr. will allow me to be a Salesman at an Auction of Arguments.  Pediar. It is true, I upbraided not the Doctor with this Story, at the opening of our Conference, tho' his Stories concerning me might have provoked me to it, and tho' this alone had been worth them all: However I believe, that none will think it strange if it left my mind a little more disposed to take notice of what the Doctor said, and not to conclude those things, which otherwise I should have reputed dangerous, to be innocent merely because they were spoken by him: Neither is it wonderful if the Resentment of an Injury should be somewhat greater where former wounds (and deep and fresh ones too) render us more sensible, than it would have been in another circumstance. But enough of this: I am unwilling to rip up (if that term may be used of such as are not yet well closed) even new sores. Neither would I open them at present, did I not think it necessary in order to a Cure.  
Can but these Gentlemen Examine themselves a little, and reflect a while upon their own Proceed, we should not have such hard measure at their hands.  
The Reader has 
* Above pa. 17. & sequ.  seen how innocent my Discourse was touching the largeness of the Parishes in the Suburbs and the necessity of more Churches, and yet Dr. Tenison looked on it as so great a Crime, that he thought me not fit to be trusted as one of the Hearers of his Conference, merely on that account, and the best Name he could allow me (for the Doctor has an excellent Invention at Calling-Names) was that of an Intermeddler.  
In like manner, in my Letter to Dr. St. I had these words — If all places were to be avoided, wherein Lies are told I am afraid, that Dr. St—. would run the hazard of being silenced for want of a Pulpit, which might be ventured on. This the Doctor stretched to a Compliment on the London Clergy in 
* See Dr. St.'s second Letter to Mr. G. in the end. If he means by London-Clergy in this place only some of them (for I suspect a Loophole whilst I am dealing with this Gentleman) what is here said will not belong to him; and then he is only to be blamed for an obscure and ensnaring Expression.  General; and (to show his good Nature) reserved it for his own Compliment to me at parting; or else (more properly indeed, considering the Genius of this Writer) for the Point of his Controversial Epigram. The Expression was used by me on this Occasion: I offered somewhat in defence of such as frequented Coffeehouses; and intimated, amongst other things of that kind, that it was no good Reason why those Houses ought necessarily to be forborn, because it often happened that Seditious or Lying 
* 
One good end for which I said these places might be visited, was to take such Opportunities as should happen for the diverting Discourses from what was Seditious, Idle, or Profane, to that which was Serious and Useful, either for This Life, or the Next, etc. This, I said, was a Mission●●y Zeal, and therefore what the Children of the Reformation were little acquainted with. The Doctor answers, That tho' he be no Friend to Seditious, Idle, or Profane Discourses, yet it looks oddly to turn Places of Diversion into Schools of Disputing. He still puts things upon the stretch, as if there were no other way of diverting those Discourses, but by Scholastic Disputations, which were not mentioned by me. However, the Doctor must be too great a Friend to Seditious Discourses, not to think even such Disputations much better; and therefore, at least when there is no other way of putting an end to the former, it cannot be ill done to introduce the latter. But the Doctor likes not this Missionary Zeal: as if, forsooth, it were the worse because it wanted his Approbation. I question not but he likes the Reformation as well for not sending Missions into China, as for not endeavouring to do good in Coffeehouses. The Doctor may call to mind what Instructions were given by St. Paul to Timothy, viz. That he should be zealous in his Exhortations, even to importunity, Preaching as well out of season, as in it; and then perhaps he will not think it such a mortal Offence to endeavour the reclaiming of a Soul from Error or Vice, wheresoever a probability of doing it, or even a possibility, shall appear, especially when he considers that some men are such studious shunners of Pious Instructions, that unless they meet with them amidst their Pastimes, and when they least think of them, they will always want them. Such is the goodness of our Lord, that when the Guests come not where they may be regularly invited, he sends his Servants into the Highways, etc. to call them.  
But the Keepers of these Houses will be Losers by such Disputes, for men do not love to lace their Coffee with Controversies. Dr. St. knows how great an Argument Gain is with most men. The Author of a Seasonable Discourse against Popery did it before him, when he addressed two of his main Dissuasives to the Graziers and the Lawyers, putting them in mind that if Catholic Religion should be restored in England, the one would be impoverished by Fasting-days, and the other by Appeals to Rome, and so engaging that Passion [viz. the love of Money] to be of his side, which as a Divine he ought to have preached against. But no damage ought to be apprehended from that which is good. And forasmuch as concerns Coffeehouses, if men love not to lace their Coffee with Controversy, they may lace it with somewhat else, or else drink it plain; here being variety of Discourses, as well as Liquors, and a great Liberty of Conscience of calling for what they please. Neither is Disputation itself such a Nuisance to this Trade as Dr. St. imagines; for let but the Doctor (since he thinks it no crime to go to a Coffee-house) honour one of them with his Presence, tho' with a Disputing design, and I will undertake it shall have Custom enough, and particularly Mr. G.'s as often as he is in Town.  
This Marginal Note is too long: but the matter lay so near my Road, that I could not forbear the taking a view of it.   Discourses were vented in them; there being no places so Sacred, which such things as these had not access to some time or other; no, not the Pulpits themselves. I considered indeed, that Misrepresentations of late had been more frequent in Pulpits than formerly; wherefore I hinted, it was to be feared that e'er long none of them would be left, but what would have met with some Misrepresenter or other. I will not deny (what indeed is evident in itself) that I reflected on some Preachers; but how this could pass for a Compliment on the whole London-Clergy, I stand in need of Dr. St.'s Subtilty to make out; for as my saying that some Lies were told in Coffeehouses, did not reflect on all those who frequented them, (nay, I was then actually endeavouring to excuse the frequenting them) so neither could my intimating that the Pulpits had been liable to some part of that Misfortune, concern all those who Preached in them. Indeed my Compliment (as the Doctor calls it) was so far from being designed by me to all the London-Clergy, that I directed it not to Dr. St. himself, any farther than his own Conscience should look on it as belonging to him. However, had he taken it to himself, I should not have contended so much to have rescued it out of his hands. I question not but there is a great deal of sincerity amongst the London-Clergy, and even so much as to acknowledge, that every individual Member of that Body hath it not. And, after all, had it been true (as it was not) that I had reflected on this whole Clergy; what had That been in comparison of Dr. Tenison's — If you are a Papist, etc. which takes in so many Countries and Ages, and even his own Sovereign?  
These are two Instances what Use these Gentlemen can make of their Inferring Faculties, when they see it for their purpose. Is there any thing here half so plain, or so naturally deduced, as that which I drew from Dr. Tenison's Proposition? Nay rather, are not the Inferences of these two Doctors evidently forced, whereas mine is genuine, and obvious even to the meanest Understanding? And yet base and unworthy ways of catching men, are laid to my charge, and these Gentlemen pass for Plain-dealers. But this will not always be so. There is a time to come, in which there will be nothing of what is now hidden, but what shall be revealed. And then it will appear how ill a choice those have made, who have preferred Fame before Truth, and the saving of their Credit before the saving of their Souls.  
The Doctor says farther, That for his part he thought his Loyalty at this time to be more valuable than Mr. M. 's, because he, as a Son of the Church of England, professed he would not Rebel against the King, notwithstanding he might be of another Religion: whereas Mr. M. being of the same Religion, could not so well separate Loyalty from Interest.  
Now, for my part, tho' I hold Works of Supererogation, yet I am far from thinking Loyalty (at least, as it is here 
* Viz. A not Rebelling against the King.  described) to be one of those: And therefore it is my opinion, that we ought as little to value ourselves on our not being Rebels, as we would do on our not being Thiefs or Murderers; nay, rather less, forasmuch as Theft and Murder are certainly less Criminal than Rebellion. And therefore a Loyalty to be boasted of (if there be any such) must be somewhat more than an ordinary Obedience. However, if the Doctor think his Loyalty at this time more valuable than mine, because he demeans himself peaceably under a Prince of a different Religion, he ought to remember, that for three years which he hath lived so, it has fallen to my share to pass over twelve in the same manner, only with this difference, that He enjoys entire Privileges of a Freeborn Subject, (sitting under a large Figtree, and gathering the Fruit of a well-spread Vine) and is promised the continuance of them; having no other 
* Unless perhaps a Restraint from vexing others, and consequently the want of the old & more effectual method of silencing Jesuits, be an inconvenience to him.  cause of disquiet, save only (what ought to prompt him to nothing but Gratitude) the bare Contemplation, that were it not for the Goodness of his Sovereign, it might have been otherwise. These, I say, are his Enjoyments during this great trial of his Fidelity: whereas I, on the other side, during my Probation, was not only debarred of those Advantages which my Education might have pretended to, but for some time even of the Open Air; and even this kind of Life was so precariously enjoyed by us, and we were so far from being assured of any Continuance of it, that were it not for our Confidence in God's Mercy, we could have expected nothing else but immediate Destruction. Now, when these two things are put into the Balance; I mean the two different Trials of Dr. Tenison's Loyalty and Mine; I cannot but think that the Advantage will be on my side: and this even tho' the Doctor himself (which perhaps is a bold word) should hold the Scales. Wherefore, if any value accrue to Loyalty from such kind of Trials, That certainly which has undergon the longest and severest, aught to be the most prized. Neither is there any reason why my Loyaly should lose that value in the Calm, which (according to this Rule) it must have acquired in the Storm. On the contrary, it is then chief that the Labours of a Soldier are considered, when the War is at an end; and even by Rewards his Merit is not lessened (tho' his Pretention be) but declared.  
For which reasons it is probable that this Comparison of the Doctor● will appear to the World to have many more Grai●● of Self-Love, than of Consideration: And for m● 〈◊〉 part, I cannot but look on it as an ill sign, 〈…〉 Loyalty should sit so heavy on any Man's shoulders at this time of day, and amidst so much ease and security, as to be thought a thing of any weight.  
Besides, had the Doctor been that Loyal Man he pretended, tho' he had thought me a little too hasty in this occasion; ought he to have snapped me up so discourteously, and with so much bitterness of Spirit, for an expression, which, tho' taken by him for ill-grounded, could not but be looked on as Loyal? Methinks (I say) the Loyalty of my Admonition might have made some Atonement for the supposed Error of it; and the Doctor, who is so good at giving Grains of Allowance, might (one would think) 
Page 7.  have extended his Charity to Me also; especially when the Zeal for Loyalty needed not to have been extraordinary in him, for the overlooking of so small a Fault.  
Similis simili gaudet: Haddit the Doctor been as much a Loyalist in his Heart, as (seemingly at least) he was the contrary in his words, he would have cherished Loyalty, wherever he had found it, even even tho' mingled with some Indiscretion. He may remember how cordially the Old and Loyal Churchof England-men and the Roman Catholics loved one another during the Civil Wars; when the difference of Persuasion was not more powerful to divide their Understandings, than a constant Fidelity to their Prince to unite their Affections. But these days are somewhat changed. The first Reformers (to give them their due) thought nothing enough for the 
* Declaring him Head of their Church, and Supreme Governor in all Ecclesiastical and Spiritual Things or Causes. They cared not what Church-Power he took, so that he would exercise it in giving them Church-living.  King; but it is to be feared there are some amongst their Successors, who thin● ●●ery thing too much. Wherefore the late Representer of Old and New Popery may (if he pleases, for his diversion) transfer his parallel Columns to his own Church. I question not but he will be able to fill them: And for some Materials I would recommend him to a late * Work of one of his own 
A Discourse for Abrogating the Taste, etc.  Prelates; Others he may have in the Uarious Translations of the Scripture, Common-Prayer-Books, Rubrics, Forms of Ordination, and the like.  
But after all, I will not much contend with Dr. Tenison in the forementioned Point. I wish, that he thought his Loyalty ten times more valuable than he does. The greater Treasure he takes it for, the more careful in all probability he will be to preserve it. And had the Doctor's esteem for Loyalty been so extraordinary before our Acquaintance, his Discourse had not drawn such a fruitless Admonition from me, nor my Admonition so much unjust Anger from him.  
There are several other Remarks which would offer themselves to me on this Subject: But the Filth which is so copiously raked together in this Paragraph, is no such inviting sight, as that I should continue to poor on it. However, there is one Observation which prevails with me for a little longer stay. I cannot but call to mind what Sacred things the King's Witnesses were, during the late pretended Popish-Plot, notwithstanding that those who presented themselves for that Employment were known to be the most profligate Wretches alive: whereas as soon as that Phantôm vanished, and a true Plot (bred under the Shadow of this false One) was happily detected, than nothing was so scandalous with some Men as one of these Witnesses; such, I mean, as were then for the King: Such a strange Perverseness is there in some Natures, that what is for their turn, tho' ever so Diabolical, shall be Saintly with them; but what is otherwise, tho' Truth, Justice, or Piety, shall be looked on as the most detestable thing in the World. Whilst the Witnesses were False, it was a sin to asperse them; but as soon as they came to be True, their former Treasons were held less Crimes, than their present Discovery of them. And it was about this time, viz. whilst the Real Plot was under Prosecution, that the Doctor's Nick name of Evidence began to come in use. Indeed the former Witnesses were every way so abominable, that the very name of a Witness seemed Ignominious; and therefore it was the easier for the Enemies of the Crown to represent that as Odious in itself, which was only so when accompanied with Falsehood. And hence, instead of vilifying Perjured Witnesses in particular, they slily brought a discredit on all Witnesses in general, at least on Those who (as I have said) were for the King, and so falsely pretending to remedy one Evil, they endeavoured to introduce a Greater; it being certainly a less Mischief to the Commonwealth, that some False Witnesses should be believed, than that None should be looked on as True. Wherefore I hope the Doctor means somewhat worse by the Nickname he bestows on me, than barely the being a Witness for the King, since (blessed be God) I am not yet so unmortified, but that I had rather be reputed a False Evidence, tho' the worst of Disgraces, than that the being a True Evidence on the King's behalf should be esteemed a Disgrace: It being better that His Majesty should want the Testimony of one single Person, tho' ever so unjustly, than that he should be deprived of That of all his Subjects.  
This Pamphlet grows more bulky than I intended; and therefore, having said as much as I thought fit on the things contained in Dr. Tenison's Narrative, I purpose to be much shorter concerning that which remains.  
The Doctor in his 57th Page quotes a 
* Viz. His Diff. betwixt Prot. and Socin. Meth. p. 26.  Work of his own in these Words; Though he [the Right Socinian] thinks a Doctrine is plain in Scripture, yet if he believes it to be against HIS REASON, he assents not to it. And p. 27. A Man of this Church [of England] suspects not Reason itself, but his own present Art of Reasoning, whensoever it concludes against that which he reads, and reads without doubting of the Sense of the Words. This he lays down for the Difference between the Church of England and the Socinians.  
Hitherto I have taken the Socinians at least for a witty Generation: But henceforward, if the Doctor's Character of them be true, I must hold them all for Blockheads, on pain of being held for one myself. For what is it to think a Doctrine plain in 
* Supposing Scripture to be the Word of God.  Scripture, but to think it to be revealed by God? And consequently, what is it not to believe a Doctrine which is thought to be plain in Scripture, but not to believe what is thought to be revealed by God? And is not this in other terms to suppose that it is possible for God to reveal a Falsehood? Wherefore if this be the sign of a Right Socinian, as the Doctor would have it, a Bedlam is fit for him than an Inquisition. But the truth is, the Socinians are not such Fools as this Gentleman would make them; They do not think the Doctrine they reject to be plain in Scripture: Nay, before they reject it, they conclude it not to be 
* The Arians and Socinians are so far from thinking the Catholic Doctrine touching the Divinity of our Saviour to be plain in Scripture, that they think the contrary to be plainly there; bringing for in many Texts; as, My Father is greater than I, Joh. 14. 28. and the like; which the Doctor knows well enough.  plain. Wherefore in those points wherein they differ from the Catholics, what the One understands Literally in the Word of God, the Other interprets Mystically or Figuratively. And in reference to these Texts they behave themselves no otherwise than the Protestants do towards those Words of our Saviour in the Institution of the Blessed Sacrament, viz. This is my Body; which they will not understand in a Literal Sense.  
Again, the Doctor says, That a Church-of-England-man suspects not Reason itself, but his own present Art of Reasoning. I have not time to speculate on the nicety of this Distinction, and so I let it pass; altho' I believe that a Socinian would be extreme glad to know how he might come to be guided by Reason itself, when he suspects his present Art of Reasoning 
* What causeth a Church-of-England-man to suspect his present Art of Reasoning? Is it not his present Art of Reasoning? Can Reason guide him without any Reasoning? The Doctor seems to be very subtle here. . Is not the Faculty to be suspected, when its Operation is faulty? Can the Reason be Perfect, and yet the Reasoning which flows from it Defective? But whereas the Doctor's Church-of-England-man suspects his own present Art of Reasoning, whensoever it concludes against that which he reads, and reads without doubting of the Sense of the Words: I dare likewise engage, that whatsoever the Right Socinian reads in Scripture without doubting of the Sense of the Words, he shall believe as firmly as any Church-of-England-man in the World. This is proved already; and if the Doctor think otherwise, I shall have cause to suspect (if not his Reason, yet at least) his present Art of Reasoning.  
The Reason why I have examined this Quotation is, because it is taken out of a Book, which I am recommended to by the Doctor for an Answer to those Questions I would have proposed to him at the Conference. The Readers have my sense 
* Above p. 73. & sequ.  already concerning the Answering of short Questions [and proposed in a Personal Conference] by a Reference to long Books: which seems to be but the putting off the Trial at best. What Encouragement I have from this Quotation to have recourse to that Book in particular, out of which it was 
* But if this he the choice, what is the refuse?  chosen by the Author himself, let them Judge. For, if we may guests at the Stuff by the Pattern, they will be able to do it.  
A. P. pressed Writing (says the Doctor, pag. 60.) yet when Dr. T. began to do so, he declined it. The Reader will have 
* Above, p. 67. & seq. See also Mr. P. 's Acc. p. 10. & seq.  seen, that A. P. had a great deal of reason to decline the signing an insignificant Wrangle about the Authority of one single Book, which was all the Writing Dr. T. proposed; and that the Doctor had no Reason at all to decline what was proposed to him, viz. the writing of the whole Conference, unless it be such as he will be loath to own.  
Whereabouts (proceeds Dr. T.) would these Disputers 
Pag. 60.  be? A while ago they were all for Verbal Conferences, when Written ones were offered, as more safe and useful; Now when Verbal Conferences are agreed to, Writing is pressed. What a pretty Sophism is here? Does not Dr. Tenison know whereabouts these Disputers would be? Did not those who were all for Verbal (or rather Personal) Conferences, desire that the Argumentative part of such Conferences might be taken in 
* Viz. for hindering such after misrepresentations as we have had from our Dr. as I said before, pa. 61.  Writing; and that nothing else might be published as Authentic, but what was so written? And were not Conferences so managed, viz. Personally and by Writing, 
* See the  Letter to Dr. E. S. p. 26. & seq.  preferred before the carrying on of a Disputation by Books, and not Verbal Conferences, (as the Doctor insinuates) before Written ones? Was the Doctor ignorant of this? I do not think he was. But a pretended Mistake is an excellent Instrument in the hand of a Controvertist. It serves to deceive his own Party, and, at least, to make Work for his Adversaries.  
And now I would not have the Sense of what I have said here, or elsewhere, on this Subject, so far mistaken, as that I should be thought to look on such Personal and Written Conferences as infallible means of deciding Controversies; whereas I only prefer this way of proceeding in them before that of writing Books. I know there is nothing of this Nature, which some time or other is not liable to the undermine of Craft; and therefore (as far as I have been able to observe) when such kind of Conferences are obtained, (which is only where they cannot be kept off with any credit) the Protestants either refuse to dispute of the Main Points, such as the Rule of Faith, the Proof of Scripture, or the like, and fall on some other Branch, where (as I have said before) there is more room for disputing, unless the matter be soon brought to the Rule of Faith, as it may, and indeed aught to be: Or else, if they admit of any such Point, they endeavour to spend the time in Preliminaries, so that they may be forced to break off before any Argument comes to bear. All the Written Conferences that I have heard of (which have not been above two or three) have been of this sort. However the Truth of what passes at a Conference is better known by this means, and the shuffling (on which side soever it shall happen to be) more discernible. Besides, I never knew that any of these Conferences were followed by Noise, tho' the Copies of them have been distributed through many hands. All things have been hushed, and no contradictory Narratives have come abroad to the dividing, rather than satisfying the World: Excepting only Dr. St.'s Conference with Mr. G. where Mr. G.'s Amanuensis happening to take away his Copy without comparing it with Dr. St.'s, there chanced to be a small difference between those Copies which Mr. G. dispersed, and that which the Doctor retained; and from this trivial Oversight (to say the utmost of it) Dr. St. took a pretence to accuse Mr. G. of Insincerity, and to refuse the meeting with him any more. But this (as is evident) may easily be prevented, and Mr. G. himself did it afterwards, viz. by trusting the Protestants themselves to write both his part and their own, 〈◊〉 then taking his Copies from them: So far was he from desiring that any Forgery 〈◊〉 the least Falsification, should be in such Copies. And after these Conferences (as I have said) we have been very quiet. And certainly, if there were no other convenience in Writing, This alone were enough to render it desirable. And as for the Conferences themselves, tho' (as I have said) there is care taken to spend the time (which the Writing also helps to do) in useless Discourses, yet after the first or second Meeting, when all the lose Earth shall be digged away in order to a Foundation, it is probable that somewhat may be built.— But the worst of the matter is, that for the most part we are careful to take such Exceptions at the First Meeting, as may justify our refusal of a Second.  
He says (pag. 64.) Mr. M. stayed much longer, (viz. than what Mr. P. mentions) for he began to write on the back of Dr. T. 's Paper. This writing was not till after I had retired from Dr. T. and Mr. P. and came back again to them, according to what I have related above. And this may be farther proved from what the Schoolmaster says in his 9th page, viz. When the Question of [How the Protestants could tell that the Bible they used was really what they (the Protestants) thought it to be, the Word of God?] had been canvased some while, Mr. M. arising, went to the other end of the Room, etc. Now this Question was at the beginning of the Conference, as appears by Dr. Tenison's own Narrative; whereas the writing was not till after the Question of Transubstantiation had been started.  
He goes on; And he [Mr. M.] removed, upon a Gentlewoman's coming to him with a Masque in her hand; which gave occasion to another of that 〈◊〉 to say to Mr. M. He chose to dispute rather with Ladies than Doctors. I acquainted my Readers in my 5th page, That not long after the beginning of our Disputation, a Catholic Gentlewoman advised me to withdraw from it. But really whether she had a Masque in her hand, or not, I cannot tell; and therefore herein I must yield to the Doctor, and confess that He is the more curious Observer of Ladies of the two. Neither did she come then into the Conference, as the Doctor seems to express it, but had been there for some time; for she had observed that Dr. Tenison took the advantage of my being near him, to turn frequently from Mr. P. to me, and 
* Above pa. 5.  so vice versâ from Me to Him, by which means the Prosecution of the Arguments was hindered. And it was for this reason (as she told me) and also that the Doctor might not have a false pretence of his contending with two at once, that she desired me to retire, according to the account I have given of this matter in the  place. It was not therefore to avoid disputing with Dr. Tenison, as the Doctor's Lady surmised (for it seems there were Ladies on both sides) that I withdrew, but it was that the Doctor might not avoid disputing with Mr. P. And if I am not mistaken, I was then talking with the Schoolmaster, when this Witticism [recorded by the Doctor] was spoken. There was a second Gentlewoman who joined with this in the same Advice; but neither of them spoke before Mr. P. had desired me of his own accord to leave the Disputation, tho' the Doctor seems here to suppose the contrary.  
The Doctor takes occasion in several places of his Book to give us to understand that the forementioned Apprentice was much changed in Humour and Countenance after his Conversion, and particularly that he seemed often as if he were 
* Pag. 2.  moped. And Dr. Hornec seems to concur with him in this account. We know what kind of Spectacles Love and Hatred are to look through, and how much for the most part they impose upon our Fancies. Certainly the Boy's * smiling at Dr. H.'s pretending to Succession was no sign of Stupidity; the wisest man in the World 
Pag. 79. in Dr. H. 's Letter.  might have been guilty of some Laughter on that occasion. But for my own part, that which I think most worth the smiling at in this passage, is that Dr. H. makes no bones of proving this Succession; whereas Dr. T. said at the Conference, that it could not be done under Ten Thousand pounds' worth of Books. Something (says Dr. H.) I dropped 
* I suppose it was accidentally, Succession being a Point which of their good will they seldom mention.  accidentally about Succession, which he laid hold of, and with a kind of scornful smile demanded, What Succession we could show? I told him both for Men and Doctrine, and Proved it to him. How light does this Doctor make of that which is such a Bugbear to the other? It is much that Dr. Tenison had not learned that Receipt of proving a Succession of Protestants from his Brother before his Publication of the Conference, that so he might not have put us off in a Question of so much Importance with 
* Pag 13.  Despair instead of Satisfaction. And therefore I am apt to think that Dr. T. gave not much credit to this part of Dr. H.'s Letter, whatever he did to the rest.  
There is but one way (that I know) of reconciling these two Doctors, and that is by laying it down as a Principle, That there are Two ways of Manifesting a Protestant Succession. One is, by showing Societies or Persons in all Ages, who have openly professed the Doctrine of the Church of England. And this, I presume, cannot be performed under Ten or Twenty Thousand pounds' worth of Books. And even after all, it is my opinion that the 
* ●hat makes all Doctrines plain and clear? About two hundred pounds a year. Hudib.  Money will be able to make it out better without the Books, than with them. The other is, by saying (according to Dr. Jackson's Notion) 
* See above, pag. 41.  that the Church of England before the Reformation was in the Church of Rome; and then the Proof of this Succession will come very cheap, and if you give  for it, it will be more than it is worth. Now for such as will not or cannot go to the price of the former, (which I take to be the Boy's case) it is but reasonable that they should be contented with the latter. If the Doctors think that I am somewhat too light on this Occasion, they must pardon me; for I knew not how to make them agree on better Terms.   

THE APPENDIX.  
Whilst these latter Sheets were in the Press, Dr. Tenison's new Book [entitled, Mr. Pulton Considered] came forth. I cast my Eye on it; but having read the Preface, I found so many things which required the Black Note, that I was afraid to enter farther into the Book, lest I should be overwhelmed with matter, and so either tempted to lengthen my own Pamphlet, (which I would not willingly do) or else remain under a kind of vexation by seeing many Fallacies without exposing them when they should seem to lie in my way. Wherefore, to avoid both these Inconveniences, I desired a Friend who had read the Book to inform me what there was in it that had any relation to myself, that so I might either note, or neglect it, as I should see cause. And as for the rest of this Worthy Piece (wherein the Doctor, as far as I observed him, hath outdone himself in many of those laudable Qualities I have spoken of above) I knew that so far as it should be thought necessary, it would be under the Examination of a better Artist.  
The Doctor says in his forementioned Preface, That he went to this Conference in the simplicity of a Christian, as to a private Discourse; which (says he) the Arts of others have improved into a public Brawl. Whom the Doctor means by others in this place, I cannot well tell: But I am apt to imagine, that They who were conscious either of the Weakness of their Cause before the Conference, or of their ill Success in it, would not be overfond of making the thing public. For my part, I am so charitable as to think there were no Arts used by either Side for this purpose; the business was so carried, that it could not well be otherwise: Nay, there were so many Hearers of both Sexes, (and Five of the Doctor's Party for One of ours) at this Conference, that it had been the greatest Art in the World to have kept it secret: But for the admittance of these People, if there were any fault in it, I know not whom to blame, unless it be the Master of the House, who doubtlessly might have refused entrance to as many as he pleased. But perhaps the Good Man reckoned upon nothing less than a complete Victory, and (in consequence of that) the Recovery of his lost Sheep, and therefore (according to a Gospel-Example, tho' somewhat too soon) invited his Neighbours and Acquaintance to rejoice with him. And if this proved inconvenient to the Doctor, he may learn by it, that it is not always for his advantage that his Parishioners should have too great an Opinion of him; but in the mean time there is no manner of reason why he should be angry at Us, because his own Admirers were mistaken; unless it be such as men that stumble have of quarrelling with those who shall happen to be near them, tho' they contributed nothing to their Mischance.  
He goes on to amuse his Parishioners, by telling them of high Accusations laid by Catholic Writers on several of his Brethren, of Insincerity, Disingenuity, Want of Modesty, and the like. And this Charge is set forth by a pompous Company of Great and Reverend Names, that in view of so much Reverence and Grandeur, our Disrespect may appear the more Notorious. It is pity that so much Art should be so ill employed. Are these terms of Insincerity, Disingenuity, etc. any thing else but the plain and simple (nay, the softest) Appellations of such things as these Gentlemen are taxed with? Let them forbear to do, or prove they have not done, what they are unwilling should be named, and all will be well. If they have any thing to say against those Proofs wherewith we endeavour to make good our Accusations, it will be to their purpose; but as long as they shall give us Occasion for Complaints, they must be contented to receive them in such Language as our Ancestors have left us, till they themselves shall teach us one that is more to their satisfaction.  
And yet what are these Terms which the Doctor complains of, in comparison of those which the Ancient Fathers bestowed on the Separatists of their Time, and that merely for Deserting the Church, and without regard to any sinister way they might take in particular to support and justify their Schism? To omit a multitude of Instances to this purpose, be pleased to hearken to St. Augustin (who was far from wanting Compassion for such as were seduced by Heresy) and observe how he delivers himself in respect of a Reformer of those days. 
* Sed ill a Ecclesia, quae fuit omnium Gentium, jam non est, periit.— Hoc dicunt, qui in illâ non sunt. O impudentem vocem! Illa non est, quia tu in illâ non es? Hanc vocem abominabilem & detestabilem, praesumptionis & falsitatis plenam, nullâ Veritate suffultam, nullâ Sapientiâ illuminatam, nullo Sale conditam, vanam, temerariam, praecipitem, perniciosam, praevidit Spiritus Dei, etc. D. Aug. Enarr. 2. in Psalm. 101.  That Church which was composed out of all Nations is no more; she is perished; [or, in our Modern Reformation-Language, corrupted.] This, says he, is the saying of those who are not in the Church. O impudent saying! Is she not, because thou art not in her?— This most abominable and hateful saying, full of Presumption and Falsehood, destitute of Truth, void of Wisdom, insipid, vain, rash, precipitate, pernicious, was foreseen by the Spirit of God, etc. Such, and much more, was the Language of these Holy men on such occasions. The Apostles themselves, notwithstanding that Meekness which they learned from their Blessed Master, both by Precept and Example, were no less liberal in this kind than others, as sufficiently appears by all their Writings. St. Judas (to give you one Instance of these also) in that very Epistle wherein he reprehends Railing, is so far from thinking severity of Language towards Schismatics to be so, that his whole Work seems to be nothing else but (if I may so speak) an Holy Invective against them. He calls them  Men, and compares them to Brute Beasts: By and by he styles them, Follower's of Cain, Balaam, and Core; Spots, Clouds without Water, carried about of Wind, Trees without Fruit, twice dead and plucked up by the Roots; Raging Waves of the Sea, Wand'ring Stars, Mockers in the last time, with much more of this nature. And lastly, that we may know whom he means by all this, he gives us their Mark and their Crime in one single word: These (says he) be they who SEPARATE themselves. This therefore being the Phrase of the Apostles and Saints, (viz. so sharp, so penetrating, so full of perfect abhorrence) towards those who violated, what they had so tender a concern for, the Unity of the Church; I shall need few words for the Justification of a sharpness of Language, which comes far short of theirs. For if bare Separation deserved so much severity, what shall we say when erroneous Doctrine is added to Separation, and both are maintained by unjust and fraudulent Proceed? On the contrary, I am afraid it would be a harder task to excuse that coldness wherewith we often treat such things as these. It may very well be apprehended, that whilst we play the Courtiers too much in Controversy, we may leave the Crimes of Heresy and Schism divested of that Horror wherewith they ought always to be represented. And therefore, to say the truth, it was not so much for the defence of the severity of our Language towards Protestants that I have chosen these two Instances out of numberless others of the same time, and to the same purpose; but it was chief that I might take this occasion of showing my Readers what great apprehensions the Primitive Christians had of those things whereof now-adays we make so little account, that so what the Age will not bear from my Pen, they may receive from those whom they pretend to follow. There is but little difference (say some) between Us and the Catholics; as if that were little for which the Unity of the Church is broken; or, indeed, as if the mere breach of that Unity were little. Let them who have this thought, consider these two passages which I have cited, and for farther satisfaction (if they shall yet want it) compare on the same Subject the rest of the Scriptures with the One, and the rest of the Fathers with the other, and then it is probable they will be of another Opinion. I am sure they will have reason to be so.  
I intimated, that the principal Design of my alleging the Examples of St. Judas and St. Augustin, was not to defend the sharp Language of our Controvertists: This indeed had been superfluous, and my Readers might well have blamed me for an unnecessary Paragraph. For besides that what I said at first of the necessity we are in of using such Expressions is abundantly sufficient for their excuse, we have the Example of our very Accusers for the same sharpness, should we stand in need of any farther justification: For could but Dr. Tenison consider Himself and his Friends but half so narrowly as he doth his Adversaries, he would find that those Reverend Gentlemen he mentions are not behindhand with us on that score, but rather they give us two for one. What I have collected out of his own Pamphlet may serve for a small Instance. There are other Books as well stored: But what need of more? It is well known, that Superstitious, Idolatrous, Antichristian, Devilish, etc. are Terms of course, and as ancient as that of Papists. And indeed, as the matter is now between us, if sharpness were an undoubted sign of an Apostolical Spirit, They would pass for Apostles, and We for Schismatics. It is true there is a difference between sharpness and scurrility, and therefore we ought to be careful that whilst we imitate the Fathers in the One, we may not follow the Heretics in the Other; the One being the result of Zeal, the Other of Malice. And this last kind of Eloquence was heard so early amongst our Reformers, (witness Luther's especial Talon in this way) that it may well be termed the Vagitus or First-Cries of the Reformation.  
But, says the Doctor, They say this ill of us, not because we are such, but because we are not theirs. This he SAYS, and because 
* Ep. Ded. in his new Book.  Defending and Proving is so disagreeable an Employment to him, he expects that his Parishioners (who 
* Ep. to his Parishioners in his first Book.  pass as high Obligations on their Pastor as man can have to man) will continue their high Obligations so far as to believe him without Proof.  
He tells them by and by, That J. S. is now under better hands. This looks like an Insinuation, as if there were some hopes of reclaiming him. I thought the Boy had been past recovery. He was assured (as he says in the 3d page of his Narrative) that this Conference would be to no purpose as to the Boy. And since neither Dr. Hornec's Things of Moment, 
* Pag. 3.  nor Dr. Tenison's Great Conference, wherein Nine (some say Fifteen) Jesuits were silenced, could do any good upon this Youth, he had so much perverseness in his heart, and so 
* Pag. 2.  strange a figure in his Countenance, it is probable that those Hands from which the Doctor seems to hope so great success, must go some other way to work with him, than by (what the Doctor doth not care for) Defending and Proving.  
In Dr. T.'s former Volume we had some Confessions and Retractations, and might have imagined that a new St. Augustin had risen up amongst us: But in This he retracts his Retractations, and so St. Augustin (
* Ep. to his Par. in his first Book  as it were) vanishes away, and Dr. Tenison is left us in his stead. When he published his first Book, he voluntarily owned what he THAN thought less decent. But his Friends reproved him, for making Apologies for Warmnesses which they cannot find: And he will not so much suspect their Sagacity, as to imagine they are in the wrong; especially where the suspecting it is so little for his Credit. Wherefore he now changes his Note. In his first Epistle to these Parishioners, he spoke thus: What I said either with less Strength or more Warmth than I ought, I have set down, and laid it before your Charity. It may be I have a motive to severe Language towards that sort of Men, which few have besides me. Then he tells the Story of Gubbard, and concludes, This Instance of such gross Hypocrisy and Injustice made Impression upon me when I was young, and so raised my Suspicion and Indignation, that where I have met with any thing of a like nature, it has been some difficulty to me to temper myself: But nothing (I hope) shall ever so transport me, as to prevent the doing of my Duty among you, etc. Here the Doctor asks pardon for some Warmnesses of his at the Conference, and endeavours in some measure to excuse them, by letting his Parishioners know what a peculiar Motive he had to severe Language, from the Impression that was made on him in his Youth by Gubbard's Behaviour. And in the close he seems to tell them, That altho' perhaps his Wrath may have been somewhat excessive towards a certain sort of men whom he points at in the beginning, yet his Parishioners are so Goo● and so Generous, that he hopes that no Transport will ever hinder him from being their humble Servant. This, I say, one would take to be the plain Construction of the foregoing words: And I doubt not but the Parishioners understood him just in this manner. But we are all mistaken: The Doctor says he means no such thing; and surely it belongs to him to know what he means. 
* See his Epist. Ded. in his new Book.  The Indignation he spoke of, was towards Hypocrisy and Injustice, and not towards Persons and Orders : His Resentment, such as it was, reasonable; and as for his Memory, it offered him a wholesome Admonition. What is become of the Fault, and the Excuse? Here is every thing just as it should be. How comes the Doctor to have so peculiar a motive to hate Hypocrisy and Injustice? Does he not think that other people may have as great Motives as He to hate those two Vices? And is it not Motive enough for their being hated, to consider that they are highly displeasing to Almighty God? But how comes a Motive to severe Language against a sort of Men, to be nothing else but a Motive to Indignation against Vice? The Jesuit (says the Doctor) would fix that Indignation I spoke of upon Persons and Orders, when in express words I make the Object of it to be Hypocrisy and Injustice. The Doctor than fixeth his Indignation upon Hypocrisy and Injustice; but on what will he fix his Suspicion which he joins with his Indignation in the same Sentence? Has that nothing to do with 
* To suspect Hypocrisy, is to suspect some person or persons guilty of it, or to suspect that it will make them Instruments of some further Mischief, which is still to suspect the persons.  Persons neither? Surely they amongst whom such Language passes, ought not to inveigh against Equivocation. In his first Letter he complained▪ that the Impressions of his Youth made it difficult for him to temper himself: But here he declares, that his Memory offered him a wholesome Admonition. How comes that which is so wholesome to bring the Doctor so near to a Distemper? Or why should the Doctor endeavour by te●●ering himself to restrain his hatred against Vice, viz. against that which deserves an infinite Hatred? And lastly, how happens it that so just an Indignation, and so reasonable a Resentment, should occasion such Transports as should make him apprehensive of being hindered from doing his Duty among his Parishioners? Detestation of Sin is no such improper quality in a Pastor, unless it be where a Pastor thinks it his Duty to flatter his Parishioners, which ought to be nowhere.  
No, Doctor; your Gloss will not serve the turn. Your first thoughts were too well worded to be misinterpreted by your second; and therefore we will no more part with this story, than with that of Luther and the Devil.  
But if you please you shall have my Comment on it also; which, if I am not mistaken, is much more probable than Yours. Briefly thus: You thought this Story of Gubbard would make the same Impression on your Parishioners, as (you pretend) the thing itself did on You: And this, you wisely imagined, would be an excellent preparation of mind towards the reading of your Pamphlet. But it pleased God in his Justice to permit that whilst you were so very intent on digging a Pit for others, you should omit that care which was necessary for the keeping out of it yourself: For whilst you endeavoured to make the Catholic Priests or Jesuits pass for Hypocrites and Oppressors, your own Story hath represented you as one of a rash Judgement, and of a Temper hardly to be appeased, and so whilst you undermined our Credit, you ruined your own; with such, at least, whose good Opinion is any credit.  
Mr. P. had 
* Rem. Epist. Ded.  said, That Gubbard might have preached up Purgatory, and yet be neither Priest nor Romanist, as well as Mr. Thorndyke desire to have an Ora pro Animâ engraven on his Tomb, and yet die in the Communion of the Church of England.  
The Doctor does not deny, but in one sense a man may hold Purgatory without being a Romanist: For, says he, Bellarmin argues for a Purgatory out of the Poet Virgil. But (proceeds the Doctor) it was not certainly that Purgatory out of which men are relieved by Masses. And such a Purgatory (notwithstanding Mr. P. 's suggestion) Mr. Thorndyke could not hold, having forbidden his Nieces to Marry with any who should go to Mass.  
Mr. P. was no way inquisitive what Purgatory Mr. Thorndyke hold; it might be the Poet Virgil's for ought he knew, (and so might Gubbards too for any thing the Doctor hath yet discovered) or he might hold none at all. [However it must be noted, That Mr. Thorndyke might have held a Purgatory, where Souls are relieved by Prayer, without holding it lawful to go to Mass.] All this was nothing to Mr. P.'s purpose; what he would evince being only, that the Belief of Purgatory could be no surer sign in Gubbard of his being a Romanist, than the Approbation of Prayer for the Dead was in Mr. Thorndyke; either of these Points (forasmuch at least as concerns outward Profession) being as Popish, that is, belonging as peculiarly to the Roman Catholic Religion, as the other. But for the manner of understanding them, Gubbard's Sense might, for aught we can tell, differ as much from the Roman Church, as Mr. Thorndyke's: as I intimated before.  
For which reason, altho' (according to the Doctor's Suggestion) Mr. Thorndyke's Ora pro Animâ should not have been in Mr. Pulton's way, it sounded as if it were; and therefore was as sufficient for this surmise, as what the Doctor says of Gubbard. And what way soever this [Ora pro Animâ] was in, it was so far out of Dr. Tenison's, that when he has put his best Construction on it, he judges it a Weakness, and so far again out of the Church of England's, that tho' Mr. Thorndyke, as hath been said, died in their Communion, yet (it seems) they permitted not his Executor to comply with the Earnest Charge he lays on him by his Last 
* See an Extract of the Will set down by Dr. T. after his Ep. in his new Book.  Will of writing the following words on his Grave-stone, viz. Tu, Lector, Requiem ei & beatam in Christo Resurrectionem precare; which is, as near as I can render it, Thou, O Reader, Pray for his Rest, and Happy Resurrection in Christ.  
He [Mr. Thorndyke] says the Doctor, imitated some Christians about the Fourth Age, who wished Rest to none but those who, as they thought, already enjoyed it. And even this Wish of theirs, if it had Charity, it had also (in my Opinion) Weakness in it.  
And truly it had so in my Opinion too (for I must not always differ with the Doctor) if they wished Rest to none but those whom they supposed to enjoy it already. For, would it not be a Weakness in Me, (or in any one else whom the Doctor should take for a better Friend) to wish that Dr. Tenison were possessed of the two Parishes of St. Martin's and St. James'. And if a man should wish (tho' ever so hearty) that the Doctor had a great deal of Sincerity, I am afraid that he would take it for somewhat worse than a Weakness, tho' at the same time the Party should tell him, that he imitated some Christians about the Fourth Age in wishing to Folks no more than what they believed they had already.  
But why should the Doctor fancy thàt those Holy and Learned Men, I mean the Ancient Fathers, those Pillars of Christianity, during the first and purest Ages of the Church, and those whom not only Mr. Thorndyke, but the whole English Reformation pretends to imitate; why, I say, should he imagine that these Great Men were guilty of so much Weakness? Certainly if Christian Religion be a 
* Rom. 12. 1.  Reasonable Service, we cannot think that the Best Christians were the most Unreasonable Men.  
These Fathers prayed for the Dead in most express Terms; they offered Sacrifices for them; they begged of Almighty God to forgive them their sins; they exhorted the Faithful to do the like; they declared that such Prayers and Sacrifices were beneficial to the Souls of the Deceased. St. Augustin hath a whole 
* Viz. De curâ pro Mortuis.  Book on this Subject, and there is scarce any one of the Fathers who hath not somewhat to the same purpose. And were all these Do for nothing? Did they think that their Prayers would help none but those who stood in no need of their help, which is as much as to say that they would help none at all? Certainly the Doctor cannot think this. But all Truths are not to be spoken at all times. It is better that the Fathers should pass for Weak Men in 
* Would not such Praying also be a Mocking of God, the Taking his Name in vain, and the Being guilty of Idle words, even at our Devotions?  Praying where they knew it was to no purpose, than that the Papists should have so strong a proof of Purgatory from the Consent of the Ancient Church, that the Dead in some cases might be helped by the Prayers of the Living. And their praying for none but whom they 
* If by thought he means [absolutely supposed.]  thought to be already in Happiness, is so far from being true, that they prayed not for the 
* Ideoque habet Ecclesiastica disciplina quod Fideles noverunt, cùm Martyres recitantur ad Altare Dei; ubi non pro ipsis oretur, pro caeteris vero commemoratis Defunctis oratur: Injuria est enim pro Martyre orare; cujus nos debemus orationibus commendari. St. Aug. Serm. 17. de verb. Ap. cap. 1.  Martyrs, merely because they concluded them to be Happy, and consequently not to stand in need of their Prayers.  
It is worth observing after what fashion this matter is spoken of by the Doctor: He imitated, says he, some Christians about the Fourth Age. By some Christians, I suppose, he means all the Holy Fathers of that Time; and indeed he might have taken in the whole Catholic Church, in which, as 
* In Machabaeorum libris legimus oblatum pro mortuis Sacrificium. Sed etsi musquam in Scripture is veteribus omninò legeretur, non parva tamen est Universae Ecclesiae, quae in hac Consuetudine claret, Authoritas; ubi in precibus Sacerdotis, quae Domino Deo ad ejus Altare sunduntur, locum suum habet etiam commendatio mortuorum. St. Aug. lib. de Curâ pro mortuis. c. 1.  St. Augustin assures us, this Practice of Praying for the Dead was Universal. By about the Fourth Age, I suppose he means the said Fourth, and the two next to it both before and after, viz. the Fifth and the Third; and to these he might, if he had so pleased, have added the Two First. So that we have the settled Custom of all Antiquity delivered to us as the peculiar or private Practice of some Christians about the Fourth Age. Neither is this without Mystery: For having said in his first Book, p. 16. that he would not part with the Fathers, and having now an occasion of dismissing them as weak men, he signs their Discharge in other Names, that he may not seem to be worse than his word. When he can discover any thing in their Writings which may be wrested for his purpose, they shall be as much Fathers as you please: but when he catches them holding a Popish Doctrine, they are out of Favor, and must be turned into some Christians about the Fourth Age.  
But if the Doctor means, by what he says in this place, that there were some Christians about the time he mentions, who imagined that Souls could not be helped by Prayers or Wishes, and therefore wished Rest to none but whom they supposed to enjoy what they wished them, and so dissented from the Universal Church, which (as hath been shown) prayed for the Dead out of another Principle: There might, for aught I know, have been some such Christians, but as yet I never heard of them.  
Lastly, if by some Christians wishing Rest to such as they thought to have it, he means that they had so good an Opinion of those they prayed for, as to think they were already received into Bliss; he need not play the Antiquary so much as to go to the Fourth Age for such Christians as these: They may be found in the Seventeenth: We ourselves [the Catholics of these times] are not so uncharitable, but that we think that many of our Deceased Brethren, whom we recommend to Almighty God in our daily Prayers, are already in the fruition of that Glory which we so earnestly solicit for them; but because we do but think so, and are not certain of it, we still continue our usual Intercessions, left possibly it may not be so well with them as we imagine: And so our Charity is exercised both ways, as well by offereing this Relief to our Friends, as by having so good an Opinion of them at the same time as to think they need it not. And in this manner St. Augustin prayed for his Mother. For tho' (as he says himself) she lived so virtuously, that he had reason to hope she contracted nothing since her Baptism which might retard her admission to Eternal Happiness; yet because, for aught he knew, it might be otherwise, he thanks 
* Ego itaque Deus cordis mei, sepositis paulisper bonis ejus actibus, pro quibus tibi gaudens gratias ago, nunc pro peccatis Matris meae, deprecor te, etc. St. Aug. lib. 9 Confess. c. 13.  Almighty God for his Mother's Good Deeds on the one hand, and beseeches him to pardon such Sins as possibly she might have committed on the other. And he is so Zealous in this Charitable Employment, that he is not contented to offer up his own Prayers only for this purpose, but begs of such as should read his Book of Confessions, wherein he gives an Account of these things, that they likewise would join Their Petitions to His: 
* Ut quod illa à me poposcit extremum, uberius ei praestetur in multorum orationibus. Ibid.  That so (adds this Holy Bishop) what my Mother made her last Request to me, may the more plentifully be performed for her by the Prayers of Many.  
Other parts of this Dedicatory Address might likewise be dissected and read upon; but I fear that my Lecture is too tedious already: Neither should it have been so long, had I not been willing to show my Reader what just cause I have to decline the perusal of the whole Book, when a few Lines of Preface afford so much (and so trivial) work. Wherefore I shall not stay to examine with what probability of Truth he asserts, That the Souls of his Sheep are much dearer to him than their Fleeces, when he seems to be so 
* See above, p. 17. & sequ.  loath that any farther Division should be made in the Fleeces, tho' for a better Attendance on the Souls. Neither will I ask him how he comes in the close of his Letter to call the English Protestant Church 
* I suppose not from Missions.  Apostolical, as if it came down by perpetual Succession from the Apostles, when every body knows (that has not read his Ten thousand pounds worth of Books) that it began in the last Age, and brags of no other Succession than what it pretends to have received from that Church, to which in Truth, and even according to its own Profession, it neither succeeds in Doctrine nor Discipline. And lastly, whereas the Doctor says, That the Established Church, so far as he can understand the Temper of it [which is somewhat difficult for him to do] had rather suffer Injuries, than do them: I shall only say, That if this be so, I presume he will give us leave to hope that this Established Church will not look on the power of doing those Injuries as part of Her Establishment.  
And so much for the Preface: I come now to what concerns me in the Book.  
I am told that Dr. Tenison in the 58th page of his new Book calls me a Manager in Conference. And again, page 96. he says, That I am the very Salesman at every Auction of Arguments. What the Doctor means by this, I cannot well tell, nor I suppose He himself. Possibly it was somewhat that came into his Head, whilst the Pen was in his Hand, and down it went at all Adventures. For this was the second Conference I was ever at in my Life, (excepting casual and unsought Rencounters) and how unwillingly I came to this, I have already given my Readers an Account. It is true that I had like to have been at one or two more in Mr. G. 's Company, had not the Ministers who were to be his Antagonists disappointed him twice or thrice. But this was before Dr. St. had published his first Letter to Mr. G. and so given me to understand how great an Advantage Latitudinarian Wits have over one (not only much less, but also) tied within the straight Rules of Sincerity. It is true, the Goodness of a Cause is of great Weight, but the Disingenuity of an Adversary is a shrewd Counterpoise.  
Now, I say, how my Being at these two Conferences (and that accidentally too, and forasmuch as concerns the latter, very unwillingly) could render me that Manager, and Salesman at Auctions of Arguments, which the Doctor's Nick-naming Faculty would make me, I do not perceive. But the Doctor has a Rule for this, as well as for the rest which he has been pleased to bestow on me, viz. Calumniare fortitèr, aliquid adhaerebit, and therefore I shall say no more of it. [And yet it is hard to find out why the Doctor turns that into a Calumny, which fairly represented would be a Commendation. For what could any man do better, who had a Talon proper for it, than employ his time in freeing Souls from Error; an Employment for which our Blessed Lord came into the World, and for which his Holy Apostles traveled through it? But I forget that the Retrenchment of Missions was one of the most considerable parts of the Reformation.]  
However, tho' I have not been at many of these Conferences, yet I will not deny but that I imagine myself to have arrived to some competency of skill in them; and for some proof of this, and because I desire to be communicative in so precious a Talon, I purpose to make my Readers partakers of it, as a Reward of that Patience wherewith they have hitherto endured such tedious and immethodical Discourses, promising myself, that for the sake of this one Treasure only, they will think the rest of their time well bestowed.  
Now, forasmuch as the worse the Cause is, the greater skill is required in the Management of it, I will lay down some brief Rules, whereby, as I conceive, an ill Cause may be managed in Conference to the best advantage; and so as that the Defender of it (especially if the Hearers be no wiser than some of Dr. Tenison's Parishioners) may come off with great Applause.  
First then, let the Scene of your Conference be 
Brief Rules how an ill Cause may be managed to the best advantage.  laid amongst your own Friends, and therefore, if the Disputer be a Protestant (and such he must be to stand in any need of these Instructions) let it be in a Protestant Family. Before the Conference, and the arrival of your Antagonist, endeavour to possess your Favourers with a prejudice against him; prophesy something which you are sure will come to pass, that when it doth so, they may have the better Opinion of you. For Example: Tell them that you are come alone, without so much as either Friend or Servant, [when you know that the whole House are your Friends, and that none can be readier to serve you than they are.] And then lay a wager that your Antagonist brings some one with him, [because you think it imprudent, and therefore unlikely, that he should trust himself to the Reports of your Party, without some Witness of his own.] But this, as you shall word it, must argue Confidence in You, and Diffidence in Him. And when you shall see that he complies with what you thought Reasonable, turn to your Company, and say, Did I not tell you that he would not come alone? Be sure to begin the Conference with that which hath nothing to do with it. Make many Exceptions [at the Company, the Persons, or somewhat else] without harkening to any Accommodations. Let the first hours of your Conference be spent in such things as these, which your Adversary never thought of, and consequently is not provided for. This possibly may disturb him so as that he will forget his Arguments, at least it will deprive him of that time which would be necessary for the carrying them on. [If Writing be proposed, let it be waved as earnestly (but as plausibly too) as may be: but when it cannot be otherwise, let the whole Conference be taken up in preliminary and frivolous matters, or at least artificially broken off before any material point be concluded. But in these Written Conferences there is little room for after-Misrepresentations, and consequently little Credit to be obtained, and therefore what follows, for the most part, has relation only to such as are purely Verbal.]  
But now, your first Cavils being once weathered, (which by the by, must not be, so long as you can hinder it) and your Adversary finding room to propose a Question, have a care of returning any Answer to it immediately. No, such precipitation would argue a great want of skill; and therefore be sure to start some new thing, offer some Objection to your Adversary, and urge him to solve it. And let all this be done as prolixly, and in as many words as your Invention can furnish: And he is a poor Artist that is not able to keep his Adversaries Question out of sight for one half hour at least. By this means you may promise yourself one of these two Advantages, viz. That either your Adversary, by answering your impertinent Objection, will be diverted from his Point, (and when he is once capable of being so, you may deal with him as you please) or else by not answering it he will give occasion to the Parishioners to think that you have puzzled him.  
When the Diversion will hold no longer, and your Adversary becomes so obstinate and importune, that, maugre all the fine things you say to hinder it, he throws out his first Question once more, and the Hearers at length seem to expect your Answer: Here it is that you must show your Art Let your Answer be tedious and intricate, seeming much, but being little to the purpose. But when your Answer is once given, stay for no Reply: Suppose that none can be given; and therefore, as if this Question were already become your prize, begin a new Matter; Raise some notable Objection (as you did before) and ask him what he says to it; Make use of some opprobrious Term; Out with some reflecting Tale: Perhaps his Passion will be moved, and he will think himself obliged in Honour to defend himself against these New Attacks, and so quit his former hold, and then the Day is your own. But if, contrary to your Opinion, his tenaciousness should still continue, yet still you have this advantage: He answers not your Objections, and this disgraces him with the Parishioners; and it is so long since you returned an Answer to his Question, that he knows not what it was, and therefore is forced to propose his Question anew. The people are nauseated with this Crambe: You tell him that you have answered this long ago, and for proof you repeat your Answer, with some variety of Phrase; and to avoid Reply, run aside again, and lead him such another Dance through Cavils, Similitudes, and Tales, as you did before. You have here the whole Method of Disputation, and you have nothing else to do, save only to repeat these Rounds so often till the day be gone, the Hearers grow weary, or your Antagonist lose all hope of advancing one step farther.  
There are some particular strokes of Art which your own Mother-wit will be likely to suggest as occasion shall be offered. When your Adversary will not go from his first point, be sure to complain that he will stick to nothing. Lay a great stress on trivial things, and make no account of such as are most material. Let the Rule of Faith be not worth the naming, and let the Cause of both Churches depend upon a single Quotation. Turn frequently from your Adversary with an Appeal to the Hearers. This wins their Affection, disturbs your Antagonist, and (what ought to be your principal care) is of singular Use towards the consumption of time. Place yourself between your Adversary and his Friend, whom you must represent as his Second; and when the Argument presses too much on one side, turn to the other, and so vice versâ: By which means you shift the Disputation to and fro, as Boys do a live coal from one hand to the other, with such quickness that neither is burnt. You may also brag, that you have Two Adversaries, when in Truth you have not so much as One; for instead of adding them together to make Two, you subtract them one from the other; and what remains?  
To these things may be added the Merriments of some Droll, the Applause of the Company on the one side, and their Rudeness on the other, and the like.  
When the Conference is ended, call a Council of War; take a View of the Field of Battle; reckon what 
* See D. T. 's Narr. p. 4.  Yellow Perukes, Plain Bands, and other Ensigns of the Enemy lie there, that so you may compute the Number of the Slain, and understand the Greatness of your Victory: Indict a Triumph; and remember that a False Story differs not in Language from a True one, and for the most part men believe as they are affected: And then it is your own fault if the Common Fame be not on your side.  
You have here my whole skill in the Art of Wrangling; and it is so much, that I question not but when I tell you that I learned it all (in a manner) at one Lesson, you will conclude either that I am a very apt Scholar, or else that I had an excellent Master: And for my own part, if this will not support an ill Cause, I know not what will.  
In the last of the  places the Doctor represents me as one who love to be engaged; and tells me, that possibly some or other may oblige me in the Art of Wrangling; but, as for him, he hath Employment more worthy his time.  
It is strange that the Doctor having publicly aspersed me at the Conference, and since more publicly posted me up in Print under several Ignominious Characters, besides what (I hear) he hath been pleased to bestow on me in his private Conversations, should after all look on it as an Irregular Appetite to Wrangling in me, that I should publish any thing in my own Vindication. He might have remembered how his Friend Dr. St. made the Nation ring with Complaints, because Mr. G.'s Amanuensis had casually left out a few words in his Copy, which (for any thing they added to the Sense) might have been as well 
* See the Letter to Dr. E. S. pag. 18.  out, as in. Dr. St. may do this; but as for me, I must be contented to sit down under the heaviest Reproaches, on pain of being thought a Wrangler. And even in our present Case Dr. Tenison is the Aggressor, and yet Mr. M. loves to be engaged. How high are some men carried in their own Conceits! They imagine that the whole World was made for them, that as for the rest they may tread upon them at pleasure, and if These turn again, (as they say a Worm will do) the Others are hugely affronted! God deliver us all from this Spirit, which is so diametrically opposite to that of a Christian!  
And here (besides what I have already said to this purpose) I will assure the Doctor, That I am far from being a Lover of Controversy. Had I Time, Health, and other Talents necessary for Writing, I should much more willingly employ them on Books of Devotion; and this because I am persuaded that with most men the Will stands in more need of being moved, than the Understanding of being convinced, at least I believe that when the First is done, the Last will soon follow. Such Conversions, as I have been more intimately acquainted with, have ever (as far as I could perceive) begun this way. And agreeably hereunto, our Saviour generally lays the blame of Unbelief not on any Defect of the Understanding, but on the Vices of the Will: 
* John 3. 19  Light, says he, is come into the World, and men loved Darkness rather than Light, because their Deeds were evil. And again, John 5. 44. (where particularly he notes Pride as a principal hindrance of Faith) How can you believe, who receive Honour one of another, and the Honour which is from God only you seek not? And forasmuch as concerns even our present Hesitations in point of Faith, I question not but they all proceed from the same Root. The Hardness of Transubstantiation, or some other Mystery may be pretended, but the Real Hindrance is somewhat else; some foreseen Persecution, or other Temporal Inconvenience; the Displeasure of Friends, the Censure of the World; (if not these, yet) the disagreeableness of Confession and doing Penance, the difficulty of some Restitution, or of breaking with some beloved Vice, the enjoined Celibacy of a leading sort of Men: These things, I say, and some others of the like quality are (in their turns) the ordinary source of all our Repugnances against Religion. I do not mean that men are generally hindered by such irregular Passions from professing what they believe, (tho' it may be feared that this also too often happens) but that they are hindered by them from believing what they ought, and what (were it not for such Byasses) they would.  
Wherefore, if the main (I might say only) Obstacle of true Faith be a perverseness of Will, it follows that such Books as tend to the warming of the Affection are more probable means of Conversion, than such as are directed for the enlightening of the Understanding: Not but that Books of Controversy are useful too in their season, and those who are qualified for this way of Writing do well in making us Partakers of their Labour, and indeed the Proceed of our Adversaries in a manner exact it; but as for me, I am led by Judgement and Inclination to give the preference to Treatises of another kind. And therefore those who have taken in that Character which the Doctor is pleased to give of me in this place, as if I loved Controversy, are (if it imports them to know it) much deceived; this being an Art no less contrary to my Liking, than it is above my Capacity. But forasmuch as concerns my present Task, I cannot but promise myself that the Necessity that was put upon me will excuse the Undertaking, and the Goodness of the Cause bring me through it.  
The Doctor (if I mistake him not) threatens to leave me engaged with a new Antagonist. But why should he, who thinks I do too much in taking notice of what himself writes, imagine that another Pen is able to engage me? He seems to think that I might have let Him alone without Disgrace; and what then should oblige me to Combat his Second? On the contrary, it is my opinion, that when such Calumnies are first vented, somewhat is to be done to satisfy the Judicious: but afterwards, when Old Calumnies are defended by New, the best Refutation of them is Contempt. And therefore, unless the Doctor's Second come into the Field with better Weapons than his Principal hath done, I shall leave him an Enemy worthy such a Champion, viz. his own Shadow.  
And here, tho' I cannot but think it a little hard that the Doctor should begin the War, and then leave me engaged with fresh Adversaries, unless my Revenues were as well able to hire Auxiliaries as his own; yet I must acknowledge, that his excuse for not Writing is so just, that I wonder how he could find any for Writing. One would think that two such 
* Above p. 17. & sequ.  Parishes should find him work enough. And certainly, were it not for a singular Art of converting Cures into Sine-cures, I should have heard as little from Dr. Tenison, as he would have done from me without a Provocation.  
Dr. Tenison (as I am farther informed) having said that Mr. P. accuses him of answering nothing to a certain Query that had been put to him, viz. How the Church of England, granting herself to be Fallible (and for aught she knew in actual Error) could be the Church built upon a 
* Matt. 16. 18.  Rock, & c? hath the following words: It is much that I had nothing to say upon this Argument, when Mr. Meredith may remember, that upon the Objection as made by him, I gave him this Answer, to which he has not yet replied; That our Church was no more Fallible than any other in the World; That God's Providence would not suffer all to fail together; That we had a certain Rule, and sufficient means; That we were as infallibly sure of the Necessaries of Faith, as a man is of casting up a Sum right, tho', by Misattention, 'twas possible to commit a mistake; And that our Church could prove, it had rightly computed. This was said to him at the side of the Bed in the second Room, about the close of our Talk.  
Now it is very possible that Dr. Tenison might be readier with an Answer to a Query at one time than at another. No man (generally speaking) is always equally present to himself; a Passion may sometimes interpose, and darken the Understanding; and this especially is not to be wondered at in One who has peculiar Motives to Indignation. Besides, he might live and learn, and finding himself puzzled to day, he might study the point better against to morrow; for which reasons it is not impossible but the Doctor might have said nothing to his former Quaerist, and yet afterwards say something to Me on the same Subject. There is no great Miracle in all this. But that which is truly to be admired is, that he should take that which he said to me for something. For my part I do not remember what passed herein at the Conference with distinction enough to be able to relate it, wherefore I shall take it for granted that the Doctor gives us a faithful Account of the whole Affair; neither indeed is it so much for his advantage, that I should suspect a Fraud. What the Doctor says of my not replying, is likewise extremely probable: I told him at the beginning of the Conference, that I came not as a Disputant, but an Hearer, and he treated me ever after (and even when he disputed with me) accordingly, viz. as one who was to hear, and not to speak. And in the present Case, whether it be probable that my silence proceeded from the want of a Reply, or of the Liberty of giving it, I shall freely leave my Readers to judge, after a short Reflection on the Doctor's words.  
The Doctor (it seems) had been asked how the Church of England, granting herself to be Fallible, could be the Church built upon a Rock, etc. viz. one that could not fail? To this he says, (and calls it an Answer) that their Church is no more Fallible than any other in the World. What trifling is here! The Quaerist supposes, that according to Scripture there must be an Infallible Church, (viz. as I have said, one that cannot fail) and that the Church of England acknowledges herself to be Fallible; and then concludes, by ask, How that, which by its own Confession is Fallible, can pretend to be what is truly Infallible? The Answerer neither tells him (at least plainly) whether there be any Infallible Church, or whether the Church of England deny, or own herself to be Fallible, but answers like one who knew not what to say. The Church of England, says he, is no more Fallible than any other; which is as much as to say, She is no more Fallible than those whom she takes to be in Error. An excellent Security! For whilst he pretends that his Church is no more Fallible than others, he doth not deny it to be as Fallible as others. Wherefore the whole Discourse amounts to this: Gentlemen, here are many Churches that have fallen into Error, and we have been so wise as to separate from them on this account; and now (for our comfort) we are as Fallible as they, and for aught we know may be as much mistaken. But (proceeds the Doctor) the Providence of Godwill not suffer 
* One would think however, that the Providence of God had suffered all Churches to sail together, who should consider that the Reformers could find none amongst them with which (if you will believe them) they could join with safe Consciences, and so were forced to separate from ALL. The common Answer is, That before the Reformation there were some Church's sound in Necessaries of Faith; which, say they, is a sufficient fulfilling of our Lord's Promise of being always with his Church. So then, it seems, we are assured by a Divine Promise, that at least some Church or Churches were sound in Necessaries before the Reformation: But that a Church separating from all others, shall be so, they do not, they cannot pretend that they have any Promise from God, nor other security than what they receive from a Bankrupt Ensurer, viz. their own Presumption. And this certainly deserves their most serious Consideration. Members may fail without the Destruction of the Body.  all to fail together. The place of Scripture alluded to by the Quaerist speaks of one Church, whereas the Doctor talks of several. It is true, that this one Church to which this Promise of Infallibility is made, consists of divers particular Churches as its Members, and that it is possible for any of these Members to 
* So far as such  fail in Particular, but not for all of them together, and therefore if the Doctor had proved either that his Congregation was this whole Infallible Church here spoken of, or else shown some such whole Church whereof the Church of England was a Member, he had done his business. But whereas he does neither of these things, the Query continues still without an Answer.  
But because what is defective in Strength may be supplied by Number, (according to what I have said 
* Pag. 64.  above) out comes another cipher. We have (says the Doctor) a certain Rule, and sufficient Means. I suppose the meaning of this is, That the Scripture is certain, and I will add in the Name of the Church of England, That if we could hit on the right Sense of it, we should be so too: But because we are uncertain whether we have this Right Sense or not, notwithstanding our certain Rule, we must continue uncertain; And then because we have no means of knowing when we have this Right Sense, and when we have it not, whatever our means are sufficient for, they do not suffice for Certainty. Hitherto we have made but little progress; let us therefore make room for what comes next.  
We are (adds the Doctor) as infallibly sure of the Necessaries of Faith, as a man is of casting up a Sumright; tho', by Misattention, 'twas possible to commit a mistake. Not to ask the Doctor at present, By what Scales he weights the 
* I thought the Infallibility of a Church had been from God's Promise, and consequently somewhat more than what is merely natural.  Infallibility of the Church of England, and finds it neither more nor less than a man has in casting up a Sum: Is not what he says here also as much as to say, that they are as Infallible as a man that may be mistaken, which was never (that I know of) denied to the Church of England? But here I take it for granted (tho' the expression, as well as that which follows, seems to be somewhat doubtful) that the Dr. does not intent to say thus much, viz. That tho' indeed His Church might be mistaken in casting up its Sum, were it guilty of Misattention, yet now being assured that it is guilty of none, it is impossible for it to mistake. I suppose, I say, he does not mean this: For if there be no possibility of mistaking in this Computation but by Misattention, and the Church of England is sure that it has no Misattention when it computes, it is sure likewise that it is Infallible, because it is sure by being without Misattention that it is without a possibility of mistaking, which is contrary to the supposition of the Query, (which was not denied by the Doctor) and to the Fallibility which this Church owns of herself. The like must be said of that which follows, viz. That the Church of England can prove it hath rightly computed. For if a right Computation be liable to no mistake, and the Church of England can prove that it hath this right Computation, it proves at the same time that it is liable to no mistake, and therefore Infallible. In a word, if what the Doctor says imports that his Church is Infallible, I say, it is contrary to our supposition (not denied by him) and to her own Profession; and if he understands less than that, the Query remains, viz. How that which is less than Infallible, can be that which cannot fail?  
And yet how frivolous and unsatisfactory soever these last Positions are, I cannot but applaud the Contrivance of them: For could any thing be better calculated for a Vulgar Capacity? How! says a Long-Acre-Artisan, am I as sure that the Protestant Religion is true, as I am that I have cast up a Sum right? Why then I am safe enough: I have cast up many a Bill, and have never been mistaken yet, especially when I have taken care. And (it seems) this is done without that supernatural Infallibility which the Papists talk of: And therefore what need is there of it? This is a very pleasing Delusion with People who care for no more Security in Religion than what will barely suffice for the keeping their Consciences in some tolerable Quiet; and the more it pleases them, the greater hazard I shall run of their ill will by endeavouring to lay it open. However, because I am more intent on doing Benefits to them, than desirous of receiving any from them, I will state the matter aright, and by that means show them truly how the Case stands. They suppose already with the Doctor, that the finding out of true Religion is like the casting up of a Sum, and that Seekers in Faith are of the same quality with Accomptants in Arithmetic. And now let them suppose with me, that twenty several Accomptants were employed about casting up of the same Sum, and that the Life of each of these in particular depended on his right Computation; that these Accomptants were of equal capacity, and that in outward appearance they all used the same diligence and application; and lastly, when their respective Computations were finished, that their Totals were wholly different one from the other. We will now suppose that the honest Artisan, whom I mention above, is one of these Accomptants: What do you think? would he hold his Life secure, whilst he differed in his Computation from Nineteen others, who had every way as sufficient means of being in the right as himself? The Application is easy: There are Twenty several Computers in Religion (I might say many Twenties) of equal Skill and 
* I say of equal Industry, that I may suppose most advantageously for the Protestants. For in truth it cannot be allowed that their Industry in Religion is equal to ours: Witness our Laborious and Dangerous Missions, Penitential Retirements, the general obligation of Confession and doing Penance, with much more which the Protestants have discarded.  Industry; Salvation depends on their being in the right; They all differ in their Computations; The Church of England is one of these Computers, and it is Nineteen to One that she is in the wrong; and this is all her Security. Let the L. A. Tradesmen consider whether they would trust Five Pounds on the like. And yet what is That (or indeed their whole Worldly Interest) compared to HEAVEN!  
And now what is become of this Famous Answer, which wanted a Reply? Was it not truly Froth, which looks like something, but vanishes whilst it is looked on? These Gentlemen deal with their Clients, as Nurses do with little Children; bid them hold fast, when they put nothing into their hands; and the poor Infants are so long deceived, till their Curiosity, (or some other Appetite) prevails with them to pry into their Treasure.  
This was just such another 
* Dr. St. 's second Letter to Mr. G., p. 17.  Purse as Dr. St. put into Mr. T.'s hand. Mr. T. desired to know, Whether the Protestants were absolutely certain that they held all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles? Dr. St. undertook to show that they were; and for proof says, that there was an absolute Certainty for the New Testament from the concurrent Testimony of all Christian Churches, as well Heretical as Orthodox; which is all he either said at the Conference, or published since in his Letters to Mr. G. to prove that Protestants held all the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles; and consequently the Absolute Certainty which he delivered to Mr. T. was no more than what at the same time he bestowed on the 
* Note that the Arians & other Heretics take the Scripture for their Rule of Faith, as well as Protestants.  Arians (who deny the Godhead of our Saviour) and all other Heretics both Ancient and Modern. Of the Arians you may say, That they are Absolutely Certain they hold the same Doctrine that was taught by Christ and his Apostles, because there is an Absolute Certainty for the New Testament; and so of the rest. Wherefore, had Dr. St. when he made a Present of this Absolute Certainty to Mr. T. been so ingenuous as to confess that what he then gave him was no more than what Heretics possessed as well as he, viz. a Certainty of the New Testament, I suppose he would not have been so well pleased with it as he seemed to be. And therefore I would advise him to open his 
* Mr. T. hath the Paper he took at the Conference, and may peruse it at leisure.  Purse once more, and try what he can discern in it. And if upon a second Computation he finds himself no richer than an Arian, or any other Heretic, I suppose he will return back to the Doctor for a better Legacy. For if we are not as careful in laying up Spiritual Treasures; as we are in gathering Temporal Ones, we may be Rich for a Moment, but we shall be Poor for a whole Eternity. And here, tho' Mr. T. hath great Reason to look about him, from what hath been said, (viz. that for any thing he learned at the forementioned Conference he is no surer that he is in the right than an Arian) yet I must tell him, That this is not the worst of his Case, because whilst Dr. St. gives him an Absolute Certainty for a part of Scripture from the Universal Testimony or Tradition of Christians with one Hand, he takes it away with the Other, by telling him that Tradition is no Infallible Conveyance of Matters of Faith. For tho' the Doctor endeavours to reconcile this Contradiction in his Second Letter to 
* Page 33. Where the Dr. raises a Mist by telling us what his Adversaries hold, that he may keep his own Contradiction out of sight. In his next let him speak plainly, and tell us how he himself comes to hold, That Tradition is a Ground of Absolute Certainty for the Scripture, and yet no Infallible Conveyance in Matters of Faith; or let him deny that he holds these two Propositions, or either of them.  Mr. G. yet I will leave it to Mr. T. to consider (provided he promise me to take time for it) how well he hath succeeded in his Undertaking.   

THE CLOSE.  
I Have now run through all those parts of both Dr. Tenison's Pamphlets which I have thought fitting. I am not conscious to myself of any thing wherein I have dealt unjustly by him, save only (it may be) in the want of that Negligence wherewith he 
* See his Epist▪ Ded. to his new Book.  threatens to do Justice upon Mr. P. Which piece of Justice if I have been defective in hitherto, I shall be a more careful Observer of it for the future. Only thus much I judged convenient to be said, that when I shall think it reasonable to say less, the World may not be mistaken in the Cause of my Silence. A moderate Defence (according to what I have said above) is due to Truth; but when Calumnies grow excessive, they answer themselves by appearing what they are.  
It may be objected, That in some places of this rambling Discourse, I deliver my sense somewhat more largely than I did at the Conference itself, whereas at first I seemed to blame such proceeding. What I blamed was, that those who have full Liberty in any Conference of speaking what, and as much as they please, (especially by way of Argument) should afterwards, when they pretend to give Account of it, render their own Speeches more full and plausible than they were, and yet represent them as truly spoken. This, I say, is what I blamed: But on the other side, when either a man is wholly hindered from Answering, or else cut short in his Answers by the Authority or Rudeness of his Adversary, and when by that means most of what he has to say remains in petto; it is but just he should have that freedom in the Press, which was denied him at the Conference, provided that whatever is added on any Subject be related not as what was, but as what would have been said, had an Opportunity been given. And this I have taken care of.  
I have already told my Readers after what manner Dr. Tenison dealt with me at the Conference. He made his Applications to me as often and as fully as he thought fit, excepting only when I withdrew to avoid them: But as for me, I was to speak no longer than he pleased, (I must confess a most effectual way of silencing) sometimes not a word, sometimes a few, but never so many as were needful. Neither is this the first time that I have made this Complaint: I did it at the Conference; and particularly, the Doctor may remember, I told him there was no possibility of prosecuting any Argument, so long as he spoke all, and heard nothing. I added, that this indeed became a Doctor, but not a Disputant: My meaning was, That it was proper for one who was Teaching, but not for one who was in the disagreeable Employment of Defending and Proving.  
But tho' the Doctor's Interruptions were remarkable enough in all his Discourses with me, yet they seemed to be more than ordinary a little before the conclusion of our Conference: For when I perceived that our Disputations had no other visible effect than the embittering of minds, and a farther alienating of affections, I thought it not amiss, before we took our leaves, to offer something that might tend to the calming and re-settling of our Spirits, that so, tho' we came to no Agreement in our Religion, we might yet at least part Friends and Wellwishers to one another. As soon as I opened my Mouth for this purpose, the Doctor immediately stopped it: Not a word must pass. Sir, said I, I am not going to Dispute, but only to take my leave, and would offer a word that it may be amicably. No, it must not be; the Doctor is inexorable; and tho' I attempted it three or four times, it was impossible for me to get above three words over without an Interruption. Whether it were that the Doctor (out of his great propensity to 
* Ep. to his Parish. in his first Book.  suspicion) suspected that I would put an Argument upon him in disguise, or for some other reason, I cannot yet tell: But I despaired of prevailing with him, and so gave over my importunity.  
What I should have said (had it been allowed me) was to this effect, That I could not perceive our Meeting had been to any great purpose; That I would not then dispute on whose side the fault lay, much less who were in the right, and who in the wrong, as to Religion; That I desired we might, notwithstanding the difference of our Opinions, live peaceably together; only at present I would entreat them to consider, that whilst they imagined the Catholics to be Mistaken, they themselves were but Men, and consequently as liable to Error as their Neighbours; and therefore I would advise them in so important a Point as That whereon their Eternal Salvation depended, that they would have recourse to Almighty God, and earnestly beseech him, That if they were in the right, he would confirm them in it; but if in the wrong, that he would bring them to the right. This is all I would have said, and this (upon the word of a Christian) I was not permitted to say; which I think is sufficient to show of what nature the Doctor's Interruptions were.  
But what I had no leave to say at the Conference, I speak here; and the liberty of doing it makes some amends for all that trouble I have had, and all those pains I have taken on this occasion: And could I be sure that my Counsel would be followed, I should desire no farther Reward. Wherefore I earnestly exhort my Protestant Readers, That for an Establishment in the true Faith they would make their chief Applications to Almighty God, whose 
* Ephes. 2. 8.  Gift it is. Should I send them to Catholic Priests, their Prejudices might perhaps make them think it unreasonable; should I send them to their own Ministers, they might suspect a Gubbard, [or Papist in Masquerade] and at best could hope but for a Fallible Director; should I send them to the Scripture, what would it 
* Unless by some plain Texts they are directed to an Infallible Interpreter, as indeed they might be.  profit them, so long as they carry with them their own Fallible Interpretation? Lastly, should I send them to Controversial Treatises, they might complain of their tediousness and intricacy: I say, should I send them to any of these things, they might find somewhat to be afraid of. But what Apprehensions can they have, when I send them to Almighty God? This is an Advice wherein there can be no danger but in not following it.  
Wherefore (my dear Countrymen) I hope that you will neither hearken to the Suggestions of Pride on the one hand, as if you needed not God's Assistance; nor to those of Sloth on the other, as if earnest and persevering Prayer were too dear a Purchase of it; but that fixing your Eye on that ETERNITY which lies at stake, you will despise whatsoever either by Flatteries or Threaten shall strive to divert you from so necessary an Undertaking. I do not say that other means are to be neglected, but I affirm that our chiefest Confidence is to be placed in This: And this is always to be put in practice, that our other Industries (whatsoever they be) may not prove ineffectual.  
And lastly, when by following this Counsel you shall arrive at a solid and immovable Faith, as I question not but you will, if you persevere in your Pious Negotiation with such Sincerity and Diligence as are requisite to so Important a Business; I beg of you that you would employ some of those Prayers on My Behalf, which you have found so Beneficial to yourselves, That as God has led me ever since my Conversion through many other kinds of Adversities with Safety, so now he would vouchsafe to assist me under this new Load of Calumny, which his Providence (always-Good) hath permitted to be laid upon me; giving me Grace to bear it as I ought, and to Those who impose it, as much Felicity as I wish to myself; and both to Them and Me (if it shall so please his Divine Goodness) a joyful Reconciliation on Earth, and an Eternal Union in Heaven.  
Edward Meredith.   

THE POSTSCRIPT, In Answer to the Pamphlet put forth by the Schoolmaster of Long-Acre.  
AS for the Schoolmaster, (who has made my Name his Captive, and carried it, as I suppose, in Triumph to the Pastry-men long before now) I shall say as little to his Insincerities in Print, as, he says, I did to his Arguments at the Conference: For tho' he has grossly Misrepresented me, yet at the same time he has given the World so just a Representation of himself, that his Misrepresentation is like to do me little harm.  
He seems to be a man (as far as may be guessed by his Work) so equally composed of Insincerity and Ignorance, that it is hard to tell which Ingredient has the advantage; tho' for his sake I am willing to give it to the latter.  
He represents me as one who several times interrupted Dr. T. in his Disputation with Mr. P. A thing utterly false, and what Dr. T. himself (whose Charity has not greatly appeared in covering our Faults) never complained of. Nay, on the contrary, he confesses in his 6th page, That when Mr. T. had asked him a Question, he turned from him before he would answer it, and expressly applied himself to me.  
He uses the same Ingenuity in the Account he gives of his two Discourses with me conerning Images and Confession; which I shall endeavour to set right as briefly as I can.  
The first of Images passed in this manner: He had brought several of the common Sophistries against the Use and Veneration of Holy Images, and received Answers to them all. At length he urges, That it would be a Dishonour to God, who is Infinite, to be represented by an Image, which is Finite. I replied, That his Argument was stark naught; for by the same Reason we ought not so much as to think of Almighty God, for we being Finite ourselves, and all our Faculties, we could make no other Representation of him in our Thoughts but what was Finite. Ay but, says he, the nearer we come to the Nature of God, the better. That, I told him, brought on a new Question, [viz. Whether the Representing of God by an Image were remoter from his Nature than such other Representations as are used?] but as for what he then affirmed (viz. That God being Infinite, ought not to be represented by any thing that was Finite) he might perceive that it was altogether false. My intention was to let him see the Error of one Notion, before I proceeded to undeceive him in another; since otherwise our Disputation would serve for no other purpose than making a noise. I cannot tell whether the Schoolmaster understood what I meant by this Answer, or not; but he replied nothing.  
He seemed to me by his Behaviour to be very selfconceited, and therefore I took it for granted that it would be in vain to endeavour the convincing him by Argument, unless I could first persuade him that it was possible for those lofty Imaginations of his to be deceived. But because I concluded he had too good an Opinion of his own abilities to humble himself before Men, I counselled him to do it in the Presence of God, considering that (whatever he might fancy) he was really no better than his Fellow-Creatures; and if he thought others Mistaken, he might, for aught he knew, be so himself. I added somewhat more of the same nature, much according to that which (as I say above) I had designed to have spoken at my parting with Dr. Tenison. He seemed to be well pleased with what I said, and thanking me for it (as he says himself) went his way.  
Whereas had he returned with his last Argument against Images, (viz. That we ought to come as near as may be to the Nature of God in our Representations of him) That also might have been answered as easily as any of the rest: For tho' it may be granted that our Thoughts are immaterial, and therefore more proportionable Representations of an immaterial Being, yet when we communicate our Thoughts, (viz. these Mental Representations) to Others, we are forced to make use of Material things: Of Air, when we speak; of Ink, or the like Matter, when we writ; of Wood, Stone, etc. when Letters are carved or engraven; Lastly, of the same Materials, when we signify these Thoughts by Holy Signs or Images. Now, since all these ways of Representing consist of material things, it cannot be said that one of them comes nearer to the Divine Nature than another. Neither indeed is it of any importance which way the Representation be made, provided that which way soever it be made, the 
* Viz. That which is communicated to the Mind.  Representation be still the same; and therefore when an Holy Sign or Image brings into my mind the same Thoughts concerning God which are brought by Words spoken or Written, that Representation by an Image cannot be said to be farther from his Nature, than this by Words; the Representation (or that which is conveyed to the Mind) from both being perfectly the same. And therefore, when that Symbolical Figure (used by Protestants as well as Catholics) of a Triangle awakens in me the same Notion which the word Trinity would do, how comes there to be a greater distance between the Figure and the Notion to which it corresponds, than there is between the same Notion and the Word; the one doing the same thing by the Eye, which the other does by the Ear?  
And if (as hath been said) the Representation by Images is the same with that by words, there is no more reason why the Church should deprive herself of the Former, than of the Latter, especially when she may speak to her Children by Images in those places, (viz. in Highways, Markets, private Houses, and the like) where she has no opportunity of doing it by Words, at least to such as cannot or have not the time or will to read Inscriptions. And even in those places which are set apart for Sermons or other Verbal Instructions or Exhortations, the Church hath no other way of perpetuating these Instructions and Exhortations, but by Images, which are her constant 
* The Doctrines of the Blessed Trinity, of the Incarnation, Life, and Passion of our Lord; as also the Consideration of Death, Judgement, Hell, Heaven, etc. being oftentimes brought to our minds as movingly by Images, as by the most Eloquent Preachers.  Preachers and Catechists, and speak as often as they are looked upon. Wherefore, to conclude, since Thought is the root of Action, the removal of things so proper for the inspiring us with good Thoughts can be esteemed no other than a Stratagem of the Devil, who is sure of keeping Goodness from our Works, so long as he can keep it from our Minds. And if we consider what kind of Pictures have succeeded to these Pious Ones in many Cabinets, we shall have little cause to doubt on whose instigation the first Possessors were displaced.  
It may be objected, That forasmuch as concerns Symbolical Figures, or any Representation of God by an Image, it is probable they will misguide the less-knowing, by making them think that God is such in Shape, or some other Finite Quality as they find in the Picture. To which I answer, That there is no more danger of this, than there is that the same Persons should be misguided by reading those places of Holy Writ where God is represented as having Eyes, Hands, Feet, and the like. The Schoolmaster perhaps will tell me, That such Expressions as these are Metaphorical, and not Literal; and that the common People are taught to understand them so: And he must give me leave to tell him in return, That they have a like Lesson with us in respect of the forementioned Images, and the same care that prevents their mistaking in one Case, will do it in the other.  
So much for the Schoolmaster's first Discourse. His second was concerning the Secrecy of Confession, and much of the same strain with the former.  
He asked me, Whether if Treason should be discovered to a Priest in Confession, he were bound to reveal it? I told him, No; but on the contrary not to reveal it. I added, That tho' the secrecy of this Sacrament might seem at first sight (and particularly in this Case) to be prejudicial to the Commonwealth, yet in Truth it was not so at all, but rather very profitable. The first, because the Commonwealth loses no Discoveries by it; for were it not for this obligation of Secrecy, Traitors would own their Crimes no more to Priests, than they would do to other Men, that is, not at all, unless they intended to make a Discovery, or hoped to find a Fellow-Conspirator. The second, because where there is such Security of Confession, it is probable that some of these Criminals, either through some remorse of Conscience, or some imperfect desire of difengaging themselves, may disclose their Conspiracies to Priests, and thereby give them opportunities of dehorting them from such Villainous Undertake, of encouraging them to such Discovery as shall be necessary for the prevention of the Mischief, by showing them how they may do it with safety, and helping them in it, and lastly, (when no such Discovery can be obtained from their false Penitents) of doing all those things towards the hindering of these evil Designs, which may be done without the violation of this Trust. These certainly are great Advantages, and such as the Commonwealth would be deprived of, were it not for the secrecy of Confession.  
The Schoolmaster said, That Traitors must needs receive great encouragement from such Confessions towards the Proceeding in their Treason; which was so absurd a Notion, that, I must confess, I took my Antagonist to be somewhat unsound in his Intellectuals, and therefore thought it would be but loss of time to have any farther discourse with him. For what encouragement could he think it to be, for the going on in one Crime to commit another, unless this second should some way conduce towards the carrying on of the first? What comfort can a Traitor have by adding Sacrilege (as his approach to this Sacrament without Repentance would be) to his Treason? What new Incentives to Villainy can such a Miscreant receive from those Dehortations and Menaces which a good Priest ought to denounce against him on the part of Almighty God, if he persist in his Wicked Undertaking? Lastly, What an odd encouragement must it be in a Conspiracy to disclose it to one who (as the Conspirators ought to think) will be sure to hinder the Design, as far he shall be able to do it without discovering the Persons? I do not say but this Sacrament may be abused as well as others; but I think that the Schoolmaster has hit on one of the most fantastical ways of abusing it that ever could come into any man's Imagination. And yet, if any one should have his Brain so strangely turned as to receive an encouragement in his Treason by Confessing it, as the Schoolmaster supposes; a good Institution is not to be laid aside, because there is a Madman in the World.  
You have here a true state of both my Discourses with this famous Gentleman. How he has Misrepresented me in both. you may see, if you think it worth the while, by comparing my Relation with his: But for my part, I do not owe you so ill a turn, as that I should transcribe so much of him as is necessary for it; especially since it will be needful for me to trouble you with some fragments of his Discourse by and by.  
So much for the Insincere part of this Paper, viz. its Mispresentations. I come now to the Ignorance of it, which is in so great a proportion, that, I confess, I have some scruple for laying any part of the blame on Want of Sincerity, when the Ignorance, as it appears to me on second thoughts, would have been sufficient to have born the Whole.  
And in this point (according to what I intimated just now) I shall leave the Schoolmaster to speak for himself, since none can do it more to purpose. The good qualities of his Paper are conspicuous enough without a Commentator, and he that runs may read them. Only I shall add a few Notes, for the sake of such as (my Acquaintance with this Author convinces me) there are amongst us. And we are Debtors (as I observed 
* See above, P. 64. & sequ.  formerly) both to the Wise, and to the Unwise: And this being a Debt of Charity, we own the most where most is needed.  
The Schoolmaster speaking, How Mr. P. had told him, That seeing God had appeared to Daniel in the shape of an Old Man, he might be pictured, so that we meant not to delineate him sub Specie propriâ, hath these following words: To this A. C. answered, (which our Adversary hath concealed) That as for the Text before us, what this Prophet saw, was only in a Vision, which was a Representation of God's coming to Judgement, and fitted only to that particular Occasion, and therefore ought not to be prostituted to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever. Who says (I pray) that such Representations of Almighty God ought to be prostituted to all Intents and Purposes whatsoever? Let the Schoolmaster consider for what Intents and Purposes this Vision is recorded by the Holy Ghost, and why the History of it is so often 
* The History of this Vision is permitted to be read by private persons, as often, and for such Intents & Purposes as they please. Will the Schoolmaster say that it is prostituted?  read in our Churches, and then perhaps he will discern for what Intents and Purposes such Representations are used by Catholics. But, says our subtle Disputant, That was a Representation of God's coming to Judgement, and fitted only to that particular Occasion. As if God might be represented as coming to Judgement, but not as governing the World, pardoning Sinners, or in any other Divine Action, and as if the Shape of an Old Man, wherein he was represented by that Vision, hath by Nature a greater relation to his coming to Judgement, than to any other of those Works which I have mentioned. And this is the TREASURE which the Schoolmaster complained that Mr. P. had concealed from the World.  
He goes on; And then for the Lawfulness of Representing God, provided it was not meant to do it sub Specie propriâ, A. C. answers now, (he confesses he did not answer to this last part of the Objection at the Conference) Any one may see (if he will but take a little pains) the vanity of this distinction; for if God's Image be not given us sub Specie propriâ, with relation to his own Essence, 'tis no more the Image of God, but the Sign of his Power which is represented in the  Chapter of Daniel; His Throne was like the fiery flame, etc. But suppose all our Disputant says were true, what comfort could it be to a poor Soul, who is charged with dishonouring God, who is Infinite, by representing him by an Image that is Finite, and terminated by Visible Dimensions, to be told by Mr. P. That he does not dishonour God, because he hath no intention to represent him, sub Specie propriâ? What think you, does this famous piece of Logic need a Comment? If God's Image, says he, be not given us sub Specie propriâ, with relation to his own Essence, 'tis no more the Image of God, but the Sign of his Power, which is represented in the  Chapter of Daniel. Mighty subtle! If that which is exhibited by Catholics, as God's Image not sub Specie propriâ, be not God's Image, as the Gentleman says, why are we accused for making God's Image? But if it be, than the Gentleman is in the wrong. However it is to be understood that such a Representation is not God's Image properly, (for so much is meant by our saying that it is not sub Specie propriâ) but Symbolically, or in the Nature of a Sign, as he himself speaks, without understanding what he says.  
But the Representation in Daniel 's Vision was a Sign of God's Power, and not of his Essence. A little above it was a Representation of God's coming to Judgement; now, it seems, it is not of God's coming, but of his Power's coming. This will be sine sense by and by.  
Besides, how comes God's Power to be more capable of being represented than his Essence? Are not both Infinite alike; and therefore what dishonours the One, will it not be an equal disrespect to the Other? Wherefore if the Schoolmaster allow that God's Power may be signified by an Image, he must not deny but that his Essence may. But indeed there is nothing in God but what is God, and therefore his Power and his Essence are the selfsame thing. Had our Disputant's Divinity reached so far, it might easily be imagined that he would not have endeavoured to evade this Instance of Daniel's Vision by telling us that God's Power was represented there, but not his Essence.  
But suppose, quoth he, all our Disputant says were true, what comfort could it be to a poor Soul who is charged with dishonouring God, who is Infinite, by representing him by an Image that is Finite, and terminated by Visible Dimensions, to be told by Mr. P. that he does not dishonour God, because he hath no intention to represent him sub Specie propriâ? Mr. P. says, It is lawful to represent God by an Image, provided it be not meant sub Specie propriâ: Wherefore if all the Schoolmaster 's Disputant says be true, what discomfort could it be to a poor Soul to do so? And why does the Schoolmaster beg the Question, by supposing (without proof) that a poor Soul will be charged with dishonouring God, for representing him by an Image? As for his Infinite and his Finite I have spoken to them already.  
A word or two more, and the Schoolmaster shall hold his peace: For because A. C. said not this [viz. what is here repeated] at the Conference, he does intent to add but one word or two more. And first, That he might here observe, that if it were granted that we might picture each of the Three Persons of the B. Trinity apart; That this could be no Argument at all for its resembling it (the Trinity) because such resemblances do not only make Three Persons, but Three Gods; such Images as these represent not only a Distinction of Persons, but a Diversity of Substance. I leave our Jesuit to think of this. I believe this Philosopher is shrewdly puzzled when he looks on some of our Sheet-Almanacs: On his right hand he sees an Old man with Wings, and on his left a Serpent biting his Tail. He is told that the first is a Symbol of Time, the second of a Year. Now by deep Speculation he discerns that Time is a mere Accident, and that a Year is nothing else but such a parcel of Time, and consequently as much an Accident as the former, or rather the selfsame with it. Next he ponders how these two things (viz. the Old man and the Serpent) which are brought to signify Time and a Year, do represent two living Creatures, and consequently do not exhibit Accidents only (which is what they ought to do) but even Substances also, and this is to outrun the Constable. To conclude, he either blames the Painters, (as I suppose) or knows not what to make of the business. I leave him to think of this; and I promise myself that when he has sound out the Mystery, as also how the Appearances of Bodies represent Angels who have none, and how the Virtues, Vices, Death, Eternity, (where by the way he may note that an Infinite is represented by a Finite) and suchlike things are painted: when, I say, he has discovered all this, I question not but he will begin to understand how a Trinity of Persons may be signified by a Figure without any necessity that such Figure should also signify a Trinity of Substances. Such Signs as these, (tho' they have some Foundation in Nature) are of the quality of Words, and signify just as men agree they shall.  
And now having dissipated the Schoolmaster's Sophistry, it will be an harder Task to defend myself for having taken any notice of him. Indeed I had fully purposed to have left him in the quiet possession of all that Glory he had obtained (at least in fancy) by his Pamphlet; but espying the Name of my Lord Archbishop's Chaplain in his Title-page, I thought I could do no less than accept of him for an Enemy whom so great a Person had thought worthy of being a Champion. But what respect I have now paid to this Gentleman's Name, I hope he will have for it himself for the future, and not prefix it where it is so little for his Credit; otherwise I shall think my Compliment very ill bestowed, and have just occasion of forbearing it another time.   
FINIS.   

ADVERTISEMENT.  
NOt having Dr. Jackson's Works by me whilst I penned what the Reader finds in my 41th. page, I am afraid on second thoughts, that the obscurity wherewith Dr. T. quoted a passage out of that Author may have misled me; so that whereas I imagined his meaning to be, That the Church of England was in the Church of Rome before Luther, and still continues in it; I begin to think be only means, That it was in the Church of Rome before Luther, and nothing more. It matters not much which way soever he means. However even this latter meaning is sufficient for my purpose in that place: For if this Church of England, whose Being we inquire after, were in the Church of Rome before Luther, it must be in it still; because a Church holding Communion with Rome cannot be the same with one separating from it; and therefore if the Church of England acknowledge herself to be separated from the Church of Rome, she cannot be the same with that which held Communion with it, and consequently it must not be said, That she was in the Church of Rome before Luther, since she is not the same with that which was so; for, at least, this present Church of England differs from that former one by her Separation, whatever she doth otherwise.