would not do his business and was not to the purpose and thereupon challenged him to produce Fathers for that Point promising him at the same time a fair Answer But our Compiler durst not offer to accept of the Challenge dares not meddle with such a thing but if two or three bits of the Old Testimonies out of the Nubes may be admitted they are at my Service and from these it is that he would fain prove that even in matters of Belief the Tradition of the Catholick Church is the best Demonstration What better than the Express Testimony of Scripture it self Methinks our ignorant Compiler might have been contented to have made Tradition only as good or equal to Scripture for the Demonstration of Faith which is the highest the Council of Trent it self durst rise in favour of Tradition and never pretended to mount Tradition so much above Scripture as to make it the BEST DEMONSTRATION of Matters of FAITH But when Ignorance and too great a stock of Confidence meet together such Assertions as these are commonly the fruits of them But for this extravagant Assertion he hath a mind to bring in Origen for a Voucher who speaking concerning the Belief of Christ's being the Son of God says that is to be embrac'd which by a Succession from the Apostles is preserved in the Church by Ecclesiastical Tradition but in Answer to this Is not that Truth and Faith concerning Christ's being the Son of God expresly taught and held forth in the Holy Scriptures and which is more doth not Origen himself expresly tell us in this very place for our Compiler is for looking no further than his own Book that that Truth was to be learnt by us ab IPSO from Christ himself whose Words Doctrine and Actions are used to be thought to have been the Subject of the New Testament which I take to be Scripture and as this Doctrine was to be read in the Scriptures so it was delivered down from thence in Ecclesiastical Tradition which can mean nothing else than either that the Scriptures which did comprehend that Faith were delivered down successively from Age to Age in the Church or that this was always taught in the Sermons and Homilies of the Fathers of the Church successively And to give our Compiler a better knowledge of Origen's sence about these things I will refer him to one Passage which I will set down and desire him to consider of it Origen in Leviticum c. 7. Homilia 5. p. 144. Edit Froben 1536. Origen in his Homilies upon Leviticus speaking of the Old and New Testament tells us that in THEM every word that appertaineteh to God by which Expression the least he can mean is that every Point of Faith may be sought after and found out and all Knowledge of things may be apprehended from THEM But if any thing doth remain which the Holy Scripture doth not determine no other third Scripture ought to be received for the Authorizing any Knowledge but we are to commit to the Fire that which remaineth that is we must leave it to God for in this present World God is not for having us to know all things Our Compiler is next for having Tertullian on his side but why does he not then bring us something to prove it or rather why did he not disprove what I had produced for the Authority and Sufficiency of the Holy Scriptures from Tertullian He neither does the one nor offers at the other and yet this must pass it seems for vindicating And just thus he serves me after for when I in Vindication of S. Basil had quoted him declaring for the necessity of Scripture-Evidence for Matters of Faith he says not one Syllable in Answer to it but is for referring me to the old Quotations out of Basil Epiphanius and Lirinensis which I had shewn him before were not to the purpose which is such perfect trifling as none but such a Compiler as he is would be guilty of He then falls to thanking me for saying in relation to the Testimony from Gregory Nyssen that we allow the Tradition of Antiquity to be highly useful and necessary in the Interpreting or giving us the genuine Sense of Points of Faith all the Answer I will give him is much good may it do him however how far that Expression was from doing us any hurt or them any good I have abundantly shewn in my Vindication which I am loth to transcribe hither but that I may not be behind-hand in Civility for the Compiler's Thanks I will present him in Token of my Gratitude with a Passage or two from his Gregory Nyssen and other Fathers which I must recommend to his Consideration Gregory Nyssen in his Dialogue de Animâ Resurrectione lays it down for a Position which no Man ought to contradict that in that only the Truth (b) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Greg. Nyssen Dial. de Animâ Resurrect Tom. 2. P. 639. Edit Paris 1615. must be acknowledged which hath upon it the Seal of Scripture-Testimony And in another part of his Works he calls the Holy Scripture 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Idem in Orat de iis qui adeunt Hierosol Tom. 2. p. 1084. a true or streight and inflexible Rule S. Austin is as clear and full against our Compiler while he assures us that in those things which are laid down plainly in the Scripture all those things are found which concern Faith or Manners (c) In iis quae aperte in Scripturâ posita sunt inveniuntur illa omnia quae continent fidem moresque vivendi August de Doctr. Christianâ l. 2. c. 9. Tom. 3. p. 17 18. S. Hierom speaking of the Hereticks in his time which made so much noise and pretended so highly to Apostolical Tradition gives this severe Doom upon them but those things also which they of themselves invent and yet feign to have received as it were by Tradition from the Apostles without the Authority and Testimonies of the Scriptures the sword of God doth smite (d) D. Hieron in Aggeum c. 1. Tom. 6. p. 230. Edit Basil 1565. I could give him several such Testimonies from other Fathers but I will neither trouble him or the Reader with any more at present it will be time enough to send him the rest when he hath answered these And will now pass to his next Chapter and the Vindication of it But here it seems there was no need of any Vindication for I am brought in as one of their own side for saying and granting that our Church doth honour the Saints in observing days in honour or memory of them and I have the Compiler's thanks for it here we have had this Concession up once already it made one of the most terrible Articles of Popery against me in our Compiler's masquerading Letter from a Dissenter to the Divines of the Church of England In my Answer to that scurrilous Letter I did sufficiently acquit my self and our
opposition to this of Rome or to contend with it I believe I have considered this passage a little better than this confident Gentleman who perhaps never saw it any where but in Natalis Alexandre or some Romish Writer and upon all the care I could take I can see no reason for my being accused of fraud in this thing or for altering my opinion of its denying Cathedra's to the rest of the Apostles It first speaks of the Episcopal Cathedra being bestowed on S. Peter at Rome it immediately calls it the one Chair and requires such an Vnity to be preserved by all in this one Chair as to forbid even the Apostles themselves to erect Cathedra's for themselves and makes it Schism to set up a Chair against this SINGLE Cathedra and to secure us from mistaking his meaning it is just after this called the ONLY or SOLE Cathedra If all this be not enough to satisfie that he speaks here of a single and ONLY Cathedra exclusively to any other Chair I must confess I cannot see what words could do it since had it been as much his design here as I verily believe it was to speak of there being but one single Cathedra in the World he could not have used more full and larger expressions to declare his sense And now if this was his meaning in this passage which it certainly was notwithstanding the Compilers weak defence what crime was it in me to shew that this was contrary to the rest of the Fathers and what can be my fault to assent rather to what was the general and certain doctrine of the generality of Fathers than to a small passage in S. Optatus which does certainly contradict all them This account of that passage will I doubt not acquit me of that hard thing I am accused of in the Opinions of all unprejudiced Readers as for the Compiler's Opinion I do not value it and therefore am far from being solicitous to gain it When I did in the next place declare my dissent to two affirmations quoted from S. Hierom I did as it was just set down the reasons of that my dissent my reasons the Compiler meddles not with because it was too hard for him to answer them but thinks he has got advantage enough and he makes triumphant use of it that I durst be so hardy as not to assent to any thing said by S. Hierom as if the words of S. Hierom were sacred and one might as well deny assent to our blessed Saviour's words as to his whereas had this ignorant boaster but been conversant even in Bellarmine and Baronius he might have found them frequently enough setting aside the Authority and Interpretation of a particular Father of S. Hierom for example whose expressions about Presbyters and Bishops I do not believe this Compiler himself does subscribe to any more than I did to those mentioned above but he is too ignorant in these things and therefore makes such tragical and womanish outcries about things for which he would certainly be laught at by all men of learning even in his own Church Having made a little fluttering as to those three passages he thinks he has done very great feats and therefore needed not to trouble himself to examine the rest as they came in their order but makes one answer to serve for them all by telling the Reader I only shift them off and that the most eminent Protestants did acknowledge that the Popes did exercise a like authority with that which is attributed to the Pope by the Council of Florence and so I am shifted off the reason of which is because this Compiler is too ignorant for such things and since it would be ridiculous here to serve us up again the passages themselves out of the Nubes in the Vindication he hath nothing more for us but thinks all is well if he can but bring in the Concessions of Protestants but suppose he could bring such Protestants in why must we be obliged to stand by what they granted or affirmed any more than he thinks himself obliged to be set down by what some Schoolmen have said whom he does so frequently nay always throw by as abusers or mistakers of the Church's genuine Doctrine I used to wonder whence it came to pass that every little Romish Writer could with so much readiness quote the Protestant Writers insomuch that the most trifling Pamphleteer would not fail to serve you up with a last course of the Protestant Concessions Thus the Antiquary of Putney and the Maker of the Ecclesiastical Prospective-glass and the Representer himself not only here but in his other Pamphlets are very punctual in quoting the Protestant Authors whom they have no more read than the Alcoran in Arabick But as soon as I saw Brerely's Protestant Apology I quickly discovered that this was the Armoury out of which these doughty Writers did furnish themselves and that this is the Book out of which they all borrow and very fairly take things upon his credit the truth or falshood of which they know nothing of but why should not such men take their quotations as well as their Faith upon trust and be as confident about the truth of the first as they are of the certainty of the other I will only tell our Compiler again that I do no more pin my Faith upon the groundless Concessions of some Protestant Writers than he does his upon the Concessions of some of his Church-Writers When he is come to his Point about Tradition he is almost for thanking me for giving him but little trouble by granting there almost all that he contended for about Traditions as I had granted as kind things in favour of the Pope As to any Concessions about the Pope I shewed them to be false and groundless in my Answer to the Representer's Letter from a Dissenter by which Answer I question not but I have laid open sufficiently to the World the great Knavery of the Representer in that matter but here he is for charging me again in his own Shape what be had before accused me of in his Fanatical Disguise I have fully vindicated my self about my pretended Concessions as to Tradition and throughly explained in what sense I spoke of Tradition in my Book and as fully exposed the great Disingenuity of the Representer there I do refer the Reader for these things to my Vindication of my self in Answer to the Dissenter's Letter because I would not do like the Representer transcribe one Book into another In my Answer to the Nubes I told the Compiler that his Testimonies about Tradition did refer to matters of Discipline and Practice which every Church hath power to retain or alter as she sees most expedient and that if he intended them for to prove that Tradition doth hand down to us some Points of Faith which we are to receive tho' they cannot be shewn to be founded upon the Holy Scriptures I told him that Sett of Testimonies
thought I had taught the Compiler a little more care and circumspection when he meddles with Chronology-matters in my Answer to his Nubes Testium but I perceive nothing will do good upon him nor learn him more caution Well then since he is so wilful and cannot be persuaded from making such lamentable blunders in Chronology he must e'en thank himself if he be exposed for it and lasht for it as he does deserve He first then observes that even one of the Four First General Councils was held within the same time that is within the Fourth and Fifth Centuries By this One of the Four First General Councils I suppose he means the Council of Nice and I must needs tell him that he guessed very well to say that that Council was held within the time of those two Centuries but that he had guess'd a great deal better if he had said that even all the Four First General Councils were held within that time for there is no body that pretends to any the least skill in Chronology that would not have readily told him that they were all four held and over within two Years after the middle of the Fifth Century His next Observation is like this he tells us That this General Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error if he means the Council of Nice as I before supposed he did it is a very great Truth that that Council did not censure Invocation of Saints as an Error and there was a very good Reason for it and that was because there was no such thing as Invocation of Saints practised in the Church when that Council was held nor of above two hundred Years after but some men love to make wise Observations tho' they miss their aim too too often Well! But what will the Compiler say if I shew him that tho' not the First yet One of these Four General Councils did censure Invocation of Angels and consequently of Saints as an Error and as a most gross one too This I will do that so he may curse his ill Fate for putting him upon making such an untoward Objection against us and learn for the future if he is not deaf to Advice to look before he leaps into such recoyling Objections The Council of Chalcedon doth in her first Canon admit and approve of the Synod of Laodicea and makes the Canons of that Synod part of the standing Law of the Vniversal Church now among the Canons of that Synod we find the 35th directly forbidding Invocation of Angels I will set down the whole Canon not only because it was made by a Diocesan Synod of a great many Bishops but because it was confirmed by the Greatest and last General Council consisting of above Six hundred Bishops in the middle of the Fifth Century which is the Century most contested for betwixt me and the Compiler and made by them a Rule to the Catholick Church and the Canon is this That Christians ought d 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Laodicen Can. 35. in Biblioth Juris Canonici Edit Justel 1661. not to forsake the Church of God and go into Conventicles and Invocate or pray to Angels and make Meetings all which are forbidden them If any Man therefore be found to give himself to this Secret Idolatry let him be accursed for that he hath forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ the Son of God and hath betaken himself to Idolatry The Compiler hath still another Observation to be examined which is as good as either of the other two It is That this Practice of Invocation of Saints is own'd to have taken root in many places even before that Council of Nice I will not accuse him here of a willful Falshood it is meerly because he knew not when that Council was held that makes him write at this extravagant Rate I do not own that Invocation of Saints took root either before or within a hundred Years after that Council and the very first Instance of any Addresses in Orations or otherwise made to the Saints that any of the Romish Writers are able to produce comes not within forty Years of that Council so that our Compiler is a very unlucky Man at these Chronology businesses and should not have ventured so rashly to croud so many false and such ridiculous things into so small a compass and tho' perhaps I shall have no Thanks for my good Intentions yet could I but in the least suspect that he and I should have any further Controversie about these things rather than he should go on in this blundering blindfold manner I would be at the Expence of presenting him with a Chronology-Table that so no more Paper may be spent in correcting or exposing his Mistakes in Chronology I intreat him to consider of it and not to venture at such things any more except he is sure of an Adversary just as wise as himself and that hath just as much Knowledge in Chronology and Antiquity as himself then indeed he may write on as he has done here couragiously without the fear of being discovered and they two may serve only to make diversion for their Readers The next Chapter in my Book is about Reliques and here the Compiler takes me up very quick and says that I retire within the Three first Centuries but for the Fourth and Fifth that I dare not put the Cause about Reliques upon their Verdict And is not this very pleasant Matter Suppose I had retired which I did not for the Disproof of the Worship of Reliques within the Three first Centuries and durst not stand to the Verdict of the Fourth or Fifth Century does not he himself remember that the Design of his Nubes Testium was to shew that the Fathers of the first five hundred years did teach and practice what the Church of Rome at present doth And did not he pretend there to the Tradition of the First Five Centuries How then should I have betray'd or hurt my pretences to the same Ages had I retired within the Three First Centuries and disprov'd him as to those Centuries When a Man at Law pretends to have five hundred years Prescription to the Toll for Example of some great Fair doth not his Adversary sufficiently ruin his five hundred years Prescription if he can make it appear that for three of the five hundred years there was no Fair at all kept at that place and therefore no Toll paid there The Case betwixt me and my Adversary as set down by himself is the very same and yet I must not be allowed to ruine his first five hundred years Prescription tho' I could prove that there was no enquiry after much less any worship of Reliques for three of those five hundred years This is a very hard Case however the Compiler writes as if he fear'd no Colours nor that any body would dare to take up the Pen against him But I must bring him to a better consideration of these things and inform
pray'd for them in a State of Comfort Joy and Tranquillity if our Compiler be not convinced also by what I have proved here that there is really no more agreement betwixt their Purgatory in the Church of Rome and the State of Bliss and Comfort of the Primitive Fathers than there is between Light and Darkness betwixt Torment and Pleasure I must tell him that I will never have any further to do with an Adversary that is obstinate and resolute not to be overcome and therefore resolved not to be persuaded I question not but this account of Purgatory that I have given from such unquestionable Authority in their Church will no little discompose the Compiler not only because it will ruine all he contended for about Purgatory in his Vindication but for a nearer concern because it shews that the Compiler in giving such a contrary account of Purgatory in his Vindication either did not know the Doctrine of his own Church about Purgatory or did dissemble it the first of which makes him unable the second unfit to write about these things since Ignorance or Insincerity are singly sufficient Bars against any Man's gaining Credit that will notwithstanding set up for a Writer Notwithstanding that which I have already demonstrated about the Romish Purgatory's Inconsistency with any Opinions of the Primitive Fathers touching the State of the Faithful deceased ought justly to supersede all further Controversie with the Compiler about Purgatory yet since he offers something further in Defence of himself and his Church I will consider it briefly He says the Primitive Fathers did believe three States of Men gone off the Stage of this World and that the middle State to wit of them who were neither very bad nor very good did suffer Temporal Punishment after their Death in order to their thorough Purgation We enquire therefore from what Fathers he proves this his Stock is small and S. Austin is his only Author for all this whom of all the Primitive Fathers he ought least to have insisted upon since S. Austin is on every side and is in for almost every of the different Opinions about the State of the Dead as I could easily shew here were it worth while We grant S. Austin did talk of three States of Men after this Life but must tell our Compiler withal that S. Austin was the First Father that begun this Distinction and therefore it ought to be of no consideration herein especially since it apparently contradicts the Doctrines of the Elder Fathers who did look upon the Dead in the two Conditions only of Good Men who were carried into Abraham's Bosom and Wicked Men who were hurried into the Place of Torments This I made sufficiently apparent in my Answer to the Nubes Testium particularly from S. Chrysostom whose Third Homily upon the Epistle to the Philippians doth evidently divide the Dead into Two States only the Righteous whom he makes to go immediately after they have left this world to God and to be possessed of Crowns and eternal Rest and the Wicked whom he places among the Damned and looks upon their Judgments alike irreversible But as S. Austin first talkt of Three Conditions of Men after Death so we own that he talkt of Temporal Pains after this Life for the middle Condition of those departed Souls yet all this will do the Church of Rome no Service for her Pargatory since S. Austin is not only so very doubtful about any such Temporal Pains after this Life which plainly shews it then to have been no Doctrine of the Catholick Church but his Temporal Pains are wholly different from those of the Romish Purgatory It is impossible to express any thing more doubtfully than he did this Enchiridion ad Laurentium c. 69. That there may be such a thing speaking of this his Notion about Temporal Pains for some after this Life is not incredible and whether it be so or no it may be questioned and either be found out or lye conceal'd And is not this a pleasant Account of that thing for which the Church of Rome pretends to the Tradition of the Catholick Church and told the Greeks at the Council of Florence that she had this Doctrine delivered to her from hand to hand successively from S. Peter and S. Paul. But these Temporal Pains S. Austin here spoke of are wholly different from those of the Romish Purgatory that the Pains of the Romish Purgatory are by Fire I have just now proved whereas S. Austin's are no more as is apparent from the preceding Chapter than an intense Grief with which Men are afflicted or burnt for the loss of those things which they o Salvus est quidem sic tamen quasi per ignem Quia urit eum rerum dolor quas dilexerat amissarum Idem ibid. c. 68. loved very much here on Earth The last Argument our Compiler hath for his Purgatory which is rather insinuated than urg'd barefac'd is That since it is allowed the Fathers did pray for the Dead it must be only for them who want Relief and are in Purgation and neither for them who are in Heaven nor for them who are in Hell for the former of which they are needless and for the other fruitless And this is what F. Alexandre our Compiler's Master does speak out plainly But to ruine this Conclusion I will prove these two things That the Fathers did pray for those they believed to be in Heaven and That secondly they prayed for those in Hell. For the Proof of my first I will make use of our Compiler's help who brings in S. Ambrose praying for the Soul of the Emperour Theodosius in his Nubes Testium and will I suppose still yield it me that the Father did pray for the Emperour's Soul. Now that S. Ambrose did at the same time believe that that Emperour's Soul was in Heaven is evident beyond contradiction since he does in the same Oration expresly affirm that the Emperour's Soul was then placed in the Heavenly Jerusalem which all People own to be Heaven it self I could prove further from the ancient Liturgies that the Prayers of the Church were made for the best of Men for the Martyrs themselves whom they of the Church of Rome suppose to be in Heaven but I need not stay to do it however I will to take notice of that Evasion which S. Austin hath taught them who looking upon it as an absurd thing to pray for the Martyrs who were fitter to pray for us and yet finding the Liturgies of the Church directly practising it had no other way to answer the Practice of the Church but by saying as our Compiler quotes him that the Prayers of the Church when put up for such as Martyrs were Thanksgivings but for others were a Propitiation which with all Reverence towards S. Austin is a Fineness of too bold and too groundless a Nature since had the Church intended only to praise God for the Martyrs I question not but
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