his little touches at me I had like to have slipt I know not how over his saying I impose sillily upon the Reader when in answer to the Objection made about no one 's denying the Bishop of Rome 's power of Excommunicating the Asiaticks I had said Every Bishop might deny to communicate with any other Bishop or Church against whom they had sufficient reason As if says he denying to communicate were the same thing as to Excommunicate to the doing of which an Authority or Jurisdiction over them who are Excommunicated is required whilst refusing Communion may be done without any such power Well then this Man shall have his Will and I therefore tell him that by denying Communion I meant a doing it authoritatively that is a putting the other Bishop from them by Ecclesiastical Censure but I must also tell him that an Authority or Jurisdiction over the persons to be Excommunicated is not required but that an Equality of State with the other persons is sufficient and this of his is dangerous Doctrine since every Greek can prove their Bishops of Constantinople to have Jurisdiction over the Bishop of Rome by this Argument since Photius's time who did Excommunicate the then Bishop of Rome and the Bishops of that Church do continue to excommunicate yearly to this day the Bishop and Church of Rome and not only the Greeks but the French Bishops also may by this Argument also be proved to be above the Pope since they so long ago as Monsieur Talon told the Parliament of Paris the other day threaten'd the Pope that if he came to Excommunicate them He should be Excommunicated himself for medling in things he had nothing to do with So that I suppose I shall hear no more of my imposing sillily about this thing nor the Compiler have any thanks for his untoward Observation Such little things will not serve to build that Supremacy upon which is pretended to by the Bishops of Rome And as the Primitive Fathers neither knew of nor believed nor therefore could submit to any Supremacy of the Bishop of Rome for the first six Centuries so they were as far from the Romish Doctrines about Tradition grounding all Matters of Faith as we do upon the Holy Scriptures and were as far from Invocating Saints as we of the Church of England and from the Belief of Purgatory or Transubstantiation and did detest the Worship of Images and Reliques as much as we can so that since in all these Points their Doctrines were contrary to the Doctrines of the Church of Rome and their Practices contrary to the present Practices of that Church we are bound to vindicate them to the world and to inform our Readers that they were no more Papists as to those Points mentioned by the Compiler in his Nubes Testium than we of the Reformation are and therefore I have Reason to conclude my Defence as I did my last Book against the Nubes with asserting it upon further Reasons That the Primitive Fathers were no Papists THE END Books lately Printed for Richard Chiswell A Papist not Misrepresented by Protestants Being a Reply to the Reflections upon the Answer to A Papist Misrepresented and Represented 4 to An Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England in the several Articles proposed by the late BISHOP of CONDOM in his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholick Church 4to A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the Exceptions of Mons de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator 4to A CATECHISM explaining the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome With an Answer thereunto By a Protestant of the Church of England 8vo A Papist Represented and not Misrepresented being an Answer to the First Second Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the Papist Misrepresented and Represented and a further Vindication of the CATECHISM truly representing the Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome 4to The Lay-Christian's Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures 4to The Plain Man's Reply to the Catholick Missionaries 24. An Answer to THREE PAPERS lately printed concerning the Authority of the Catholick Church in matters of Faith and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to A Vindication of the Answer to THREE PAPERS concerning the Unity and Authority of the Catholick Church and the Reformation of the Church of England 4to Mr. Chillingworth's Book called The Religion of Protestants a safe way to Salvation made more generally useful by omitting personal Contests but inserting whatsoever concerns the common Cause of Protestants or defends the Church of England with an exact Table of Contents and an Addition of some genuine Pieces of Mr. Chillingworth's never before Printed viz. against the Infallibility of the Roman Church Transubstantiation Tradition c. And an Account of what moved the Author to turn Papist with his Confutation of the said Motives An Historical Treatise written by an Author of the Communion of the Church of Rome touching Transubstantiation Wherein is made appear That according to the Principles of that Church this Doctrine cannot be an Article of Faith. 4to The Protestants Companion or an Impartial Survey and Comparison of the Protestant Religion as by Law established with the main Doctrines of Popery Wherein is shewn that Popery is contrary to Scripture Primitive Fathers and Councils and that proved from Holy Writ the Writings of the ancient Fathers for several hundred years and the Confession of the most learned Papists themselves 4to The Pillar and Ground of Truth A Treatise shewing that the Roman Church falsly claims to be that Church and the Pillar of that Truth mentioned by S. Paul in his first Epistle to Timothy chap. 3. ver 15. 4to A Sermon preached on St. Peter's Day published with Enlargements A short Summary of the principal Controversies between the Church of England and the Church of Rome being a Vindication of several Protestant Doctrines in answer to a late Pamphlet intituled Protestancy destitute of Scripture-Proofs 4to An Answer to a late Pamphlet intituled The Judgment and Doctrine of the Clergy of the Church of England concerning one special Branch of the King's Prerogative viz. In dispensing with the Penal Laws A Discourse of the Holy Eucharist in the two great Points of the Real Presence and the Adoration of the Host in Answer to the Two Discourses lately printed at Oxford on this Subject To which is prefixed a large Historical Preface relating to the same Argument Two Discourses Of Purgatory and Prayers for the Dead The People's Right to read the Holy Scriptures asserted The Fifteen Notes of the Church as laid down by Cardinal Bellarmine examined and confuted 4 to With a Table to the whole Preparation for Death being a Letter sent to a young Gentlewoman in France in a dangerous Distemper of which she died By William Wake M. A. 12mo The Difference between the Church of England and the Church of Rome in opposition to a late Book Intituled An Agreement between the Church of England and the Church of Rome 4to A Private Prayer to be used in difficult Times A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at London Sept. 29. 1687. between A. Pulton Jesuit and Tho. Tenison D. D. as also of that which led to it and followed after it 4to The Vindication of A. Cressener Schoolmaster in Long-Acre from the Aspersions of A. Pulton Jesuit Schoolmaster in the Savoy together with some Account of his Discourse with Mr. Meredith A Discourse shewing that Protestants are on the safer side notwithstanding the uncharitable Judgment of their Adversaries and that Their Religion is the surest way to Heaven 4to Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist wherein is shewed That the Doctrine of Transubstantiation overthrows the Proofs of Christian Religion A Discourse concerning the pretended Sacrament of Extreme Vnction with an Account of the Occasions and Beginnings of it in the Western Church In Three Parts With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bishop of Condom The Pamphlet intituled Speculum Ecclesiasticum or an Ecclesiastical Prospective-Glass considered in its false Reasonings and Quotations There are added by way of Preface two further Answers the first to the Defender of the Speculum the second to the Half-sheet against the Six Conferences A Second Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England against the new Exceptions of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom and his Vindicator The FIRST PART in which the Account that has been given of the Bishop of Meaux's Exposition is fully vindicated the Distinction of Old and New Popery Historically asserted and the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in point of Image-Worship more particularly considered 4to The incurable Scepticism of the Church of Rome By the Author of the Six Conferences concerning the Eucharist 4to Mr. Pulton considered in his Sincerity Reasonings Authorities Or a Just Answer to what he hath hitherto published in his True Account his True and Full Account of a Conference c. His Remarks and in them his pretended Confutation of what he calls Dr. T 's Rule of Faith. By Th. Tenison D. D. A Full View of the Doctrines and Practices of the Ancient Church relating to the Eucharist wholly different from those of the Present Roman Church and inconsistent with the Belief of Transubstantiation being a sufficient Confutation of Consensus Veterum Nubes Testium and other late Collections of the Fathers pretending to the contrary 4to An Answer to the Representer's Reflections upon the State and View of the Controversy With a Reply to the Vindicators Full Answer shewing that the Vindicator has utterly ruin'd the New Design of Expounding and Representing Popery An Answer to the Address presented to the Ministers of the Church of England
Church in relation to her Practice about Festival Days However our Compiler now he has laid aside his Disguise advances the same Accusation against me in his own Person but considering what Church he was of could do no less than give me Thanks for my Concessions Well then since this Man is not ashamed of serving us up again the very same Objections which I had already answered I must e'en be forced to trouble the Reader with Repetition since the importunity of an Adversary that cannot blush forces me upon it and must tell the Compiler a second time that when our Church doth set apart Days for the commemorating of the Saints which is all the Honour she either gives or intends Them she only appoints them for to bless God for the good and pious Examples of his Saints and Martyrs not to put up Prayers to the Saints themselves nor to offer Praises unto Them but to their God which was the genuine Practice of the Primitive Church as I shewed from the Example of the Church of Smyrna in relation to S. Polycarp their Martyred Bishop Our Church pays no Religious Worship to the Saints themselves but the Church of Rome does not only worship them but is very lavish and extravagant in it as it were easie to shew however as they of the Church of Rome are not imitated by us so neither have they the Example of the Primitive Church to defend their present Practices We do with the Primitive Church honour the Martyrs and Saints and have often enough declared it to be such an Honour as was given to them in the Primitive Times and what that Honour was S. Austin shall determine who in answer to a false Aspersion of the Manichees of the Church's worshipping the Saints upon their Festival Days and at their Monuments told Faustus the Manichee that the Church did indeed worship the Martyrs but that it was with no other Worship than that of Love and Fellowship which is paid to the (e) Colimus ergo Martyres eo cultu dilectionis societatis quo in hâc vitâ coluntur sancti homines Dei. D. Aug. cont Faust Manich. l. 20. c. 21. in Tomo 6. Oper. August Holy Men of God while they are alive on Earth That this was no other than a civil worship or respect I hope will not be denied by my Adversary since I suppose he will not pretend to shew that mortal and frail men while on Earth are used to have Religious Worship paid unto them and solemn Prayers offered up to them with all the external indications of devotion As to the Concessions which he pretends I have made and supposes it here again because I did not particularly consider the Testimonies under that Head I must tell him a second time that I neither did grant all that he had collected in the Nubes Testium upon that Subject nor seemed to grant it but did set them aside as needless and am notwithstanding our Compiler far from joining with them in this Point as he falsly would insinuate that I do but this is not the first of such wrongs done to me by this Compiler When he is next come to the Chapter about Invocation of Saints he tells the Reader that I appear with some disconfidence of my cause and therefore says the Compiler p. 19. tho' he pretended in the Title Page that Antiquity for the first five hundred years did not favour this or any Doctrine of the Church of Rome here he has considered better on 't and therefore cutting off Two of the Five he says we cannot shew this to have been the Practice of the first Three Centuries So that here he is willing to give us the Fourth and Fifth Ages as Practising the Invocation of Saints The Compiler quotes for all this the 43. page of my Answer to the Nubes Testium and a little after tells the Reader that I grant that Invocation of Saints was practised in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries If ever I was surpized at the reading any thing in my life it was at this account of my Book against that Chapter in the Nubes my memory of what I had written and this account of it were so diametrically opposite that I could not but immediately look into my Book to see whether was in the fault and quickly found that this Compiler had need to have a very large forehead that would venture at this when my Book was in so many hands For first as to his saying I have cut off two of the five Centuries and only insist on their being not able to shew that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the First Three Centuries it is very false I neither cut off two of the five nor insisted upon the three first Centuries only but said in that very page and place quoted by the Compiler that I would pass on to Invocation of Saints and see whether the Compiler did shew this to have been the practice of the Three first Centuries and so on does and so on here signifie nothing I did intend it and I question not but the World understood it to mean the two next Centuries to wit the Fourth and Fifth in Controversie betwixt us and yet this Writer hath the assurance to tell the World I had cut them two off He next tells them that I am willing to give the Papists the Fourth and Fifth Ages as practising Invocation of Saints and a little lower that I have granted that Invocation of Saints was practis'd in the Fourth and Fifth Centuries This is just as true as the other for to expose this bold falshood I need turn over only to the next page in my Book and transcribe what I had said there which I intreat the Reader to compare with what the Compiler says of it here Speaking in defence of the Church of England's not practising Invocation of Saints I have these very expressions We have far more reason to reject Invocation and solemn Prayers to Saints as Superstitious since it is against Scripture and against the Practice of the Three first Centuries AGAINST A COUNCIL in the FOURTH CENTURY and WANTS A PATTERN EVEN IN THE FIFTH and SIXTH and hath NO EXAMPLE in ANY of the PLACES produced by our Compiler on this head With what face then could this man write that I had given up the fourth and fifth Centuries Who can believe that such men have in reality either Religion or Conscience that can with so much deliberation commit such a deliberate wrong Had he had any regard to Truth or Honesty his Conscience must have flown into his Face and told him that what he was then writing was a very great injustice and directly false Good God! that men who make such shew of Religion make such frequent appeals unto the God of purer Eyes than either to behold iniquity or to let it go unpunished that talk so often of a day of Judgment and severe reckoning can do such things as must force
she would have made her Intentions plain enough by putting down the Praises for the Martyrs as distinctly and as properly as she would the Prayers for others I must not forget to prove this also from that Prayer in the Canon of the Mass urged by our Compiler wherein they pray not only for those Servants of God who have gone before them with the Seal of Faith and rest in the Sleep of Peace but for ALL WHO REST in CHRIST which does comprehend all even Martyrs as well as Saints or Men of Lesser Sanctity and as it includes Martyrs it prays for those whom the Compiler and his whole Church believe to be in Heaven But this Prayer is no more consistent with the Doctrines of the present Writers of the Church of Rome than it is with the present Purgatory of that Church which supposes the Faithful deceased to endure Fiery Torments in order to Expiation whereas this very Old Prayer supposes them to rest in the Sleep of Peace That they prayed also even for the Damned is plain from S. Chrysostom who in his above-quoted Third Homily upon the Philippians did advise such Prayers upon this Perswasion that tho' they could not obtain a Release for them from Hell yet they would procure for them some Alleviation of Torments some small Relief and S. Austin himself seems to be for the same thing when he speaks of the Prayers of the Living profiting so much as either p Aut ad hoc prosunt ut sit plena Remissio aut certe tolerabilior fiat ipsa Damnatio D. August Enchirid. ad Laur. c. 110. to procure a compleat and full Remission or that their Damnation should be made more tolerable Our Compiler cavils before he leaves this Point very rudely at me for saying S. Chrysostom only advises the Oblation of Alms for the Increase of Happiness to his Son's Soul and does very scornfully ask me what means S. Chrysostom's bidding him also pray for the discharge of his Son's Guilt I can answer him without such rudeness in a very few Words That the Increase of Glory was the sole Intention of his praying for the discharge of the Guilt of Sin and that the latter was wholly design'd for the former Thus I have got through that Chapter about Purgatory and have fixed all that I had proved before in my Answer to the Nubes Testium that the Fathers neither knew of nor taught any such Purgatory as the Church of Rome doth and therefore since they believed the Romish Purgatory no more than we of the Church of England they are no more Papists than we are in this thing When he is come to the next great Controversy about Transubstantiation he was resolved to divert himself and his Reader and in order to it by perverting of my sense to make himself sport He pretends to be mightily at a loss what I would have the Doctrine of our Church to be about the Eucharist and brings me in first saying Christ's Body is really present in the Eucharist then that 't is the Body of Christ Figuratively only but within four lines after that it is the Flesh and Blood of Christ ABSOLUTELY without any addition of really or figuratively yet that in the next page 't is not Christ's True Natural Body but his Figurative or Symbolical Body So that he says I play backward and forward in declaring the Doctrine of our Church and make the Sacrament to be really Christ's Body and yet to be Figuratively only that is really not his Body But does this Man believe himself in all this Does he from his heart think that I am guilty of all this confusion and contradiction about this thing I am well enough assured that no Man of the least sense doth find such stuff in my Book it self and therefore that the Compiler did not but was forc'd to abuse my sense and falsify my words in order to his ridiculing of them and me For as to the first passage about Christ's Body being really present in the Eucharist it was occasion'd by my telling Him that the Controversy betwixt the Church of England and Rome is not about a Real Presence which the Church of England did believe when she looks upon the Consecrated Elements not to be the Body and Bloud of Christ themselves but to be appointed by God to exhibit to every faithful Receiver not to every Receiver the Body and Bloud of Christ But for the Consecrated Elements themselves she believes them to be Figuratively only Christ's Body and Bloud the Reason of which I so often inculcated because BREAD and WINE CAN NO OTHERWISE BE THE BODY and BLOUD of CHRIST AND BREAD STILL AT THE SAME TIME and therefore our Compiler ought to blush at his great disingenuity when he brings me in contradicting those very words within four lines of them and says I grant there that It that is the Sacrament is the Flesh and Bloud of Christ ABSOLUTELY WITHOUT ANY ADDITION of Really or Figuratively whereas any Man else would have carried my meaning along with him for so short a way as four lines had I said so absolutely without any Addition of Really or Figuratively but this is absolutely false for immediately after I had granted as to Justin Martyr's words that the Consecrated Food was the Flesh and Bloud of Christ to prevent any such misinterpretation of my words as the Compiler would make notwithstanding it I added these very words However to corroborate what we said above which was that the Blessed Bread is the Flesh of Christ but Figuratively only it is evident to a Demonstration that This Consecrated Food was still Bread and NOT TRANSUBSTANTIATED into the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ Did I here then say it was the Flesh of Christ absolutely without any Restriction or Explication of my words and sense Is this the Candour that becomes a Scholar Is this the Sincerity that becomes a Christian Is this the Veracity of a Priest of the Living God Well Well If this be answering an Adversary I perceive it is no matter whether it be true or false which we write nor whether it be right or wrong which we assert so that we secure our main design of ridiculing or abusing our Adversary That I might state the Controversy betwixt us and Rome aright in this great point I shewed our Compiler that it was whether upon Consecration the Bread and Wine were transubstantiated into that very Body and Bloud of Christ which was nail'd and pour'd out upon the Cross or whether after Consecration there is no other substance there but the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ This I told him we expect they should prove and that it is to no purpose to bring us only passages of the Fathers to shew that they gave to the Consecrated Elements the Name and Appellation of the Body and Bloud of Christ and that they said of the Elements that they were Consecrated made or turned into the Body and Bloud of