<!DOCTYPE ETS PUBLIC "-//UMDLPS//DTD EEBOPROOF 2.0//EN">
<ETS>
<TEMPHEAD>
<REVDESCR>
<CHANGE>
<DATE>03-08-07</DATE>
<RESPSTMT>
<NAME>Mona Logarbo</NAME>
<RESP>MURP</RESP>
</RESPSTMT>
<ITEM>*Added TEMPHEAD, checked ID, and added TYPEs to DIVs in order to validate. 
*Checked for GROUP tags.
*Proofed title page(s). 
--Removed ABBR from title page.
*Checked ^s. 
*Checked I / J.
*Checked oe for ae ligatures.
*Reviewed structure. 
*Checked placement and completeness of PBs. 
*Checked for duplicate pages.
*Checked for missing pages.
*Checked spacing of foreign GAPs.
*Checked for damage GAPs, #s, @s, mdash;, --s, <ABBR>Esq</ABBR>, frac;, and UNCLEARs. 
--Replaced 'deg;' entity with '^o'.
*Corrected $s by inserting the appropriate character(s) and / or GAP DESC(s). 
*Checked for amp;cs with incorrect spacing.
*Checked for OPENERs, SALUTEs, CLOSERs, DATEs, DATELINEs, SIGNEDs, BYLINEs, TRAILERs, ARGUMENTs, EPIGRAPHs, etc. 
*Checked for TABLEs and LISTs.
*Checked for LBs. 
*Checked for startqs, endqs and Qs. 
*Checked proofsheets and made corrections. 
DONE 03-08-07.</ITEM>
</CHANGE>
</REVDESCR>
</TEMPHEAD>
<EEBO>
<IDG S="marc" R="UM" ID="A71235">
<STC T="W">W1568</STC>
<BIBNO T="oclc">12336537</BIBNO>
<VID>39357</VID>
</IDG>
<TEXT LANG="eng">
<FRONT>
<DIV1 TYPE="title page">
<PB REF="1">
<PB REF="1">
<P>THE
PAMPHLET
ENTITULED,
Speculum Eccle&s;ia&s;ticum,
OR AN
ECCLESIASTICAL PROSPECTIVE-GLASS,
CONSIDERED,
In its Fal&s;e
REASONINGS
AND
QUOTATIONS.</P>
<P><HI>LONDON:</HI>
Printed for <HI>Ric. Chi&s;well,</HI> at the <HI>Ro&s;e</HI> and <HI>Crown</HI> in
St. <HI>Paul</HI>'s Church-Yard. MDCLXXXVIII.</P>
</DIV1>
<DIV1 TYPE="imprimatur">
<PB REF="2">
<P>IMPRIMATUR,
Hic Liber cui Titulus, [The <HI>Speculum Eccle&s;ia&s;ticum,</HI> &amp;c.
Con&s;idered, <HI>&amp;c.]</HI></P>
<CLOSER><DATE>Oct. 24. 1687.</DATE>
<SIGNED><HI>Hen. Maurice</HI> R^m^o^. in Chri&s;to
P. D. Wilhelmo Archiep.
Cant. a Sacris.</SIGNED></CLOSER>
</DIV1>
</FRONT>
<BODY>
<DIV1 TYPE="text">
<PB N="47" REF="2">
<HEAD>THE
PAMPHLET
ENTITULED,
SPECULUM ECCLESIASTICUM:
OR, AN
Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Pro&s;pective-Gla&s;s, &amp;c.</HEAD>
<P>THere can be no greater Argument of a baf|fled
and erroneous Cau&s;e, than when the
A&s;&s;ertors of it are forced to maintain it
with manife&s;t Impo&s;tures. The Religion
of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> is in great mea|&s;ure
owing to Legends and Forged Writings: With the
fir&s;t they deluded the vulgar; and with the &s;econd, cir|cumvented
the wi&s;er part of mankind. The U&s;urpa|tion
of the See of <HI>Rome</HI> was never &s;ubmitted to, nor its
Primacy believed in the <HI>We&s;t,</HI> till the &s;purious Decre|tals
of <HI>I&s;idore Mercator</HI> were univer&s;ally received by a
blind and ignorant Age, and believed to be the genuine
Decrees of Ancient Popes. No &s;ooner did Learning
begin to flouri&s;h in the la&s;t Age, but the&s;e Phanta&s;ms
di&s;appeared, were decried, and di&s;owned by all learned
and ingenuous men. To produce them anew upon the
&s;tage, and urge the Authority of them in this learned
<PB N="48" REF="3">
age, can be no other than the la&s;t efforts of a de&s;pairing
and dying Cau&s;e, which wanteth both Rea&s;on and Truth
to uphold it. To recur to the&s;e Forgeries, after the
fal&s;ene&s;s and folly of them hath been detected and de|mon&s;trated
by learned men of both Communions; is
an invincible Argument, that the Doctrine of the
Church of <HI>Rome</HI> was at fir&s;t founded on them, and can|not
now be maintain'd without them.</P>
<P>It may ju&s;tly be wondred, that men who&s;e office and
de&s;ign it is to uphold the Cau&s;e of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI>
and per&s;wade others of the truth of it, &s;hould make u&s;e
of &s;uch artifices, as will infallibly, when di&s;covered,
make all &s;ober men &s;u&s;pect her Cau&s;e of fal&s;ene&s;s, and
accu&s;e her Agents of di&s;hone&s;ty. Yet this hath been
lately done by &s;ome Gentlemen of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI>
in a little Pamphlet, called <HI>Speculum Eccle&s;ia&s;ticum,</HI> or an
<HI>Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Pro&s;pective-Gla&s;s;</HI> wherein all the Ancient
Forgeries of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> are reproduced, and
alledged as undoubted Te&s;timonies of Antiquity. An
Impo&s;ture &s;o gro&s;s and palpable, that if unadvi&s;edly
committed, the Ignorance of this Author mu&s;t be de|plorable;
if voluntarily, his Fraud mu&s;t be dete&s;table.
Such mi&s;erable delu&s;ions are unfitly calculated for our
Age, and can &s;erve for no other end, than for what
they were at fir&s;t invented, to amu&s;e Children, and &s;e|duce
weak people.</P>
<P>The Author divideth his <HI>Pro&s;pective-Gla&s;s</HI> into eight
Parts or Columes; and in them undertaketh to prove
the Doctrines of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> from Scripture,
and the Te&s;timonies of the Fathers of the Church for
the fir&s;t 500 years. The proofs of Scripture I &s;hall not
con&s;ider, becau&s;e they are either wholly impertinent, or
have been often an&s;wered by the Writers of our Church;
and upon the Te&s;timonies of Antiquity, I will only make
<PB N="49" REF="3">
&s;ome few Ob&s;ervations: For &s;o idle a Paper de&s;erves not
a &s;trict and &s;evere An&s;wer.</P>
<P>The fir&s;t <HI>Column</HI> of our Adver&s;ary treateth of the
Churches continued Succe&s;&s;ion, and the tradition of all
Chri&s;tian Doctrines through all Ages of the Church.
This might well have been &s;pared, and concerns no more
the Church of <HI>R<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">me,</HI> than it doth any other particular
Church. In the Church of <HI>England</HI> we have a Succe&s;&s;i|on
of Bi&s;hops continued down from the Apo&s;tolick times
to this day. The nomination or particular enumera|tion
of them, is neither nece&s;&s;ary nor u&s;eful. None will
deny the Churches of <HI>Ephe&s;us, Smyrna,</HI> and <HI>Philadelphia</HI>
to have enjoyed a continued Series of Bi&s;hops from the
Apo&s;tles times; yet are the names of the far greater
part of them unknown. Neither is the Succe&s;&s;ion of
the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI> certain and undoubted. The im|mediate
Succe&s;&s;ors of St. <HI>Peter</HI> are at this day unknown.
<HI>Linus</HI> mo&s;t probably died before him. <HI>Cletus</HI> and <HI>Ana|cletus</HI>
were mo&s;t certainly the &s;ame per&s;on. In &s;ucceed|ing
Ages many great and long Schi&s;ms happened, where|in
two, and &s;ometimes three Popes together pretended
to the Papal Chair, who&s;e right was &s;o dubious and un|certain,
that <HI>Wernerus Rolluinck</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Fa&s;cic. Temp.</NOTE> profe&s;&s;eth, mo&s;t learn|ed
and con&s;cientious men could not di&s;cern to which
party they ought to adhere. And at this day, the
<HI>French</HI> and <HI>Italian</HI> Writers agree not in compo&s;ing a
Catalogue of Popes; the fir&s;t placing divers among the
Popes, which the &s;econd reject as Antipopes. No other
eminent See of the Catholick Church hath &s;uffered the&s;e
divi&s;ions: So that the Succe&s;&s;ion of the Bi&s;hops of <HI>Rome</HI>
is more doubtful and uncertain than any other Succe&s;&s;ion
of Bi&s;hops in the World. St. <HI>Irenaeus</HI> indeed, St. <HI>Au|gu&s;tin,</HI>
and <HI>Optatus,</HI> alledged by this Writer, di&s;puting
again&s;t the Hereticks, object to th<GAP DESC="illegible" EXTENT="1 letter">m that they are up|&s;tarts,
<PB N="50" REF="4">
men of ye&s;terday, who could not deduce their
Succe&s;&s;ion from the Apo&s;tles; whereas their Catholicks
had a vi&s;ible Succe&s;&s;ion of Bi&s;hops pre&s;iding in their
Churches from the Apo&s;tles times: and to prove this,
produce the Succe&s;&s;ion of <HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hops, not as of &s;o
many Heads of the Univer&s;al Church, but as of the Bi|&s;hops
of the mo&s;t eminent See of the We&s;tern Church.
For the force of their Argument lay not in the particular
Succe&s;&s;ion of the <HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hops, but in the &s;everal Suc|ce&s;&s;ions
of all the Catholick Bi&s;hops of the Univer&s;al
Church; of which they produced that of <HI>Rome</HI> as an
example. This appears plainly from the words of <HI>Ire|naeus,</HI>
who prefixeth this Preface to his Catalogue of
<HI>Roman</HI> Bi&s;hops: <HI>Seeing it is too much to reckon up the
Succe&s;&s;ion of all Churches, I will instante only in that
of</HI> Rome: As for Succe&s;&s;ion of Doctrine, we may with
far greater ju&s;tice claim that, than do our Adver&s;aries.
For the Church of <HI>England</HI> admitteth, receiveth, and
believeth all Doctrines which have been univer&s;ally
taught and delivered down by all Churches in all Ages;
and propo&s;eth none to her Children as nece&s;&s;ary to be be|lieved,
which have not that univer&s;al te&s;timony: Where|as
the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> commandeth &s;everal Doctrines to
be believed upon pain of <HI>Anathema,</HI> which were unknown
to Antiquity, and are at this day denied by the greater
part of Chri&s;tians.</P>
<P>The Fourth <HI>Column</HI> of the Unity of the Church, is
of the &s;ame &s;tamp. We, no le&s;s firmly, than our Ad|ver&s;aries,
believe the <HI>Catholick Church to be one:</HI> We
willingly allow that there is no hope of Salvation out of
the Pale of that Church, and have always a&s;&s;erted Schi&s;m
to be a damnable &s;in. But that the particular Church
of <HI>Rome,</HI> or in Communion with the See of <HI>Rome,</HI> is
that Univer&s;al Church; that a &s;mall and corrupt mem|ber
<PB N="51" REF="4">
of it is the whole; and that all Churches not Com|municating
with the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI> are Schi&s;matical;
this we neither believe, nor can our Adver&s;aries prove:
Certainly all the te&s;timonies here alledged in&s;inuate no
&s;uch thing. But if Schi&s;m be &s;o great a &s;in, if wilful
and unnece&s;&s;ary Separation from any part of the Catho|lick
Church be damnable; What &s;hall we &s;ay of tho&s;e
per&s;ons, who&s;e office and employment it is to promote
and foment this Schi&s;m, and draw the Members of the
Church of <HI>England</HI> into an unlawful &s;eparation from her?
To accu&s;e the Church of <HI>England</HI> of Schi&s;m or Separa|tion
from the <HI>Papi&s;ts,</HI> is to go contrary to &s;en&s;e and
rea&s;on: For 'tis notorious to the whole World, that all
the Subjects of <HI>England</HI> communicated with our Church
till the 10th year of Queen <HI>Elizabeth;</HI> when upon the
Pope's prohibition, a &s;mall party flew off into &s;eparate
A&s;&s;emblies, who have &s;ince continued their &s;eparate
Meetings under the name of <HI>Roman Catholicks.</HI> And
&s;hall the Church of <HI>England</HI> be &s;aid to have &s;eparated
from tho&s;e men? This cannot be &s;aid with any colour
of Truth. That Papal prohibition began the Schi&s;m,
which till then had no exi&s;tence. For the Church of
<HI>England</HI> never did by any judicial act forbid her Chil|dren
to Communicate with the Catholick Churches be|yond
Sea; nor require of her Communicants the belief
of any point denied by them, or disbelief of any point
maintained by them.</P>
<P>The third <HI>Column,</HI> of the Churches Infallibility, is
of the &s;ame nature, and equal impertinence. We believe
there ever was &s;ince the time of Chri&s;t, and &s;hall be to
the end of the World, a Church, or collection of men,
believing all things nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation. But that this
Church is no other than the particular Church of <HI>Rome;</HI>
and that to the belief of all nece&s;&s;ary Articles, &s;ome
<PB N="52" REF="5">
fal&s;e and erroneous Opinions never was, nor &s;hall be in|termixed;
we do not believe, and it never can be pro|ved.
Now all the Te&s;timonies alledged by our Author
amounts to no more than this, That the Church of Chri&s;t
is indefectible, ever did and always &s;hall exi&s;t. That
the whole Faith of Chri&s;t is always taught and pre&s;erved
in it; and that in her Bo&s;om Salvation may ever be
found and obtained: But all this doth no more concern
The Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> than it doth the Church of <HI>Eng|land.</HI>
Our Author indeed alledgeth Three pa&s;&s;ages,
wherein the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> is particularly mentioned:
The fir&s;t is a Complement of St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s to Pope <HI>Corne|lius,</HI>
That to St. <HI>Peter</HI>'s Chair Infidelity cannot have ac|ce&s;s.<NOTE PLACE="marg">Perfidia.</NOTE>
This hath been oftentimes an&s;wered by our Di|vines,
and is indeed a meer Compliment, or at mo&s;t, a
declaration of his expectations grounded upon the pro|&s;pect
of a Learned and Orthodox Clergy, which then
pre&s;ided in the See of <HI>Rome.</HI> Be&s;ides infinite places of
the Ancients might be produced, wherein they be&s;tow
no le&s;s Encomiums upon particular Churches, which by
the confe&s;&s;ion of our Adver&s;aries not only may, but
have actually fallen from the Faith. Thus St. <HI>Ignatius</HI>
&s;aith,<NOTE PLACE="marg">Epi&s;t. ad <HI>E|phe&s;.</HI></NOTE> the Church of <HI>Ephe&s;us was prede&s;tinated before all
Ages, to continue for ever in a permanent and unchangeable
glory.</HI> An expre&s;&s;ion which infinitely &s;urpa&s;&s;eth St. <HI>Cy|prians</HI>
Compliment. The Second pa&s;&s;age is taken from
<HI>Victor Viten&s;is,</HI> whom our Author ignorantly calls <HI>&V;ti|cen&s;is,</HI>
where <HI>Eugenius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage</HI> being urged
by the <HI>Arian</HI> Tyrant <HI>Hunnericus</HI> to give an account of
his Faith, de&s;ired leave to &s;end to all his Fellow Bi&s;hops
in the whole Catholick Church that they might meet in
a General Council, particularly to the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Rome,</HI>
who was the mo&s;t eminent Bi&s;hop of the We&s;tern Church
and fir&s;t Patriarch of the World. For no General Coun|cil
<PB N="53" REF="5">
could be held without the pre&s;ence of all the Patri|archs
either by them&s;elves, or by their Legates. That
<HI>Eugenius</HI> de&s;ired not the pre&s;ence or advice of the Pope
for any belief of his Infallibility, is manife&s;t from what
<HI>Victor</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De Per&s;ecut. Vandal. l. 2.</NOTE> immediately &s;ubjoins, that <HI>Eugenius</HI> &s;aid this,
not becau&s;e there were wanting men in <HI>Africa,</HI> who
were able to refute the objections of the <HI>Arians,</HI> and vin|dicate
the Catholick Cau&s;e: But that &s;uch Bi&s;hops might
be drawn into <HI>Africa,</HI> as feared not the threats and vio|lence
of <HI>Hunnericus,</HI> being none of his natural Subjects.
The third is a pa&s;&s;age of St. <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Hieru&s;alem</HI> in his
Apology again&s;t <HI>Ru&s;inus,</HI> that <HI>the Roman Faith, com|mended
by the Apo&s;tles, cannot be changed.</HI> Of this
Apology I &s;hall &s;peak &s;omewhat hereafter: To the
words alledged, I need only &s;ay, our Adver&s;aries can
never prove that unchangeable Faith, which the Apo&s;tle
commended, to be the Faith of the pre&s;ent Church of
<HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>Thus have we proved three of our Authors <HI>eight
Columns</HI> to be wholly trifling and impertinent; I will next
ob&s;erve his ignorance and mi&s;takes of Chronology. St.
<HI>Cyprian</HI> is by him placed before <HI>Origen;</HI> when as the
latter was a famous Writer of the Church long before
the fir&s;t was converted to the Faith. <HI>Gregory Ny&s;&s;en</HI> and
St. <HI>Hierom</HI> are ranked before <HI>Athana&s;ius;</HI> who was a Bi|&s;hop
before either of the other were born. <HI>Tertullian</HI>
before <HI>Theophilus Antiochenus,</HI> who was a Bi&s;hop near
Twenty five years before the other was made Prie&s;t.
<HI>Victor Viten&s;is</HI> placed in the beginning of the 4th Age,
who lived in the end of the 5th. But our hone&s;t Au|thor,
becau&s;e he writ of a Per&s;ecution, thought he mu&s;t
nece&s;&s;arily mean an Heathen Per&s;ecution, and therefore
&s;et him before <HI>Lactantius.</HI> In the &s;ame manner he pla|ceth
St. <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Alexandria</HI> before St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom;</HI> and St.
<PB N="54" REF="6">
<HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> before St. <HI>Athana&s;ius.</HI> But Chronology is not
the bu&s;ine&s;s of our Author. Let us next view his Cri|tici&s;m:
where we &s;hall find all the Fables and Forgeries
of Ancient and latter times adapted and produced by
him.</P>
<P>I begin with the Decretals of the Ancient Popes; out
of which he cites the Epi&s;tles of St. <HI>Clemens, Anacletus,</HI>
and <HI>Pius.</HI> It were &s;uperfluous to re&s;ume an Argument
&s;o often cleared, and to prove the&s;e Epi&s;tles to be &s;pu|rious,
if we had not to deal with a generation of men,
who&s;e either ignorance or effrontery requireth it. This
hath been often confe&s;&s;ed, and at large demon&s;trated by
Learned Writers of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> but more fully
by the Reformed Divines: In&s;omuch that it is long
&s;ince become a received and undoubted opinion among
all the learned men of both Communions. And indeed
the thing is manife&s;t beyond all contradiction; For no
Pope, Father, or Writer, before the 9th Age ever made
mention of them. The Vulgar Ver&s;ion of the Bible is
con&s;tantly u&s;ed in them, which was not compo&s;ed till
the beginning of the fifth Age. They are almo&s;t wholly
made up of an infinite number of pa&s;&s;ages &s;toln from
the Writings, Canons and Con&s;titutions of Authors,
Councils, Popes and Emperors, who lived between the
Third and the Ninth Age. They are neither adapted to
the genius, nor nece&s;&s;ities of tho&s;e times: Frequently they
oppo&s;e Here&s;ies, which began not till the 4th Age. Are
full of ridiculous Anachroni&s;ms, barbarous Phra&s;es, and
fooli&s;h Soleci&s;ms, which tho&s;e fir&s;t and purer Ages could
not be guilty of. La&s;tly, they mention many points of
Di&s;cipline and Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Terms, which were un|known
to the three fir&s;t Ages, and not introduced till
&s;ome Ages after. Not only the fal&s;ity of the&s;e <HI>Decre|tals</HI>
is apparent and confe&s;&s;ed; but their Author and
<PB N="55" REF="6">
age can be a&s;&s;igned. They were fir&s;t publi&s;hed to the
World by <HI>Riculphus Bi&s;hop of Mentz,</HI> who received them
from <HI>I&s;idore Mercator</HI> in the beginning of the <HI>Ninth Age.
Bellarmin, Baronius, Perron,</HI> and <HI>Petavius</HI> acknowledg
them to be dubious, and dare not defend them. But
latter Criticks of the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> openly confe&s;s
them to be &s;purious. Thus <HI>Labbe</HI> and <HI>Co&s;&s;art</HI> in their
Collection of Councils, affix a note of fal&s;ity to every
one of them: And particularly give this Cen&s;ure of mo&s;t
of them: That <HI>they are e&s;teemed &s;uppo&s;ititious by learned
Catholicks. Baluzius</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">A prefat. ad Reginon.</NOTE> gives an account of their Original,
progre&s;s and reception in the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church: And
<HI>Du Pin</HI> affirmeth, <HI>They are rejected with a common con|&s;ent.</HI></P>
<P>The &s;purious Writings of <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the <HI>Areopagite,</HI>
come next to be con&s;idered: Which forgery our Au|thor
&s;o fully believeth, that he ever placeth them im|mediately
after the Holy Scriptures. That they belong
not to the <HI>Areopagite</HI> is manife&s;t from the univer&s;al &s;i|lence
of the ancients, till the Sixth Age: The &s;ubtile
argumentation and elaborate &s;tile of them far different
from the &s;implicity of the Apo&s;tolick times. They
were writ in the flouri&s;hing e&s;tate of the Church; and
therefore make no mention of Martyrs or Per&s;ecutions;
but rather frequently oppo&s;e the Here&s;ie of <HI>Arius.</HI> The
Author of them cites the <HI>Apocalyp&s;e</HI> of St. <HI>John,</HI> and
<HI>Ignatius</HI> his Epi&s;tles, particularly that to the <HI>Romans,</HI>
written ju&s;t before his Martyrdom in the year 107. long
after the <HI>Areopagites</HI> death. I might add, that he
mentions many Ceremonies not introduced into the
Church till the <HI>Fourth Age;</HI> &s;peaks of the Order of
<HI>Monks,</HI> and cites St. <HI>Clemens</HI> of <HI>Alexandria.</HI> But I need
not in&s;i&s;t any longer upon a thing &s;o evident. The
fal&s;ity of the&s;e Writings is confe&s;&s;ed, and demon&s;trated
<PB N="56" REF="7">
by <HI>Petavius, Morinus, Launoy, Oudin, Du Pin,</HI> and many
other learned Authors of the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P>The Commentaries of <HI>Theophilus Bi&s;hop of Antioch</HI> up|on
the Go&s;pels, are mo&s;t certainly the product of a
<HI>Latin</HI> Writer, and therefore &s;purious. Such Commen|taries
were indeed anciently extant under <HI>Theophilus</HI> his
name; but were rejected by St. <HI>Hierom</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">De Script. Eccl. cap. 25.</NOTE> as &s;uppo&s;ititi|ous.
As for tho&s;e we now have, they were forged af|ter
St. <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s time. For the Author tran&s;cribes a
pa&s;&s;age out of <HI>Cyprian</HI>'s &s;ixth, Epi&s;tle to <HI>Magnus.</HI> Upon
which account, <HI>Labbe</HI> and <HI>Du Pin</HI> do e&s;teem this Work
to be &s;purious. The Oration of St. <HI>Hippolitus</HI> the
<HI>Con&s;ummation of the World,</HI> is of the &s;ame &s;tamp, as
appears from the barbarous &s;tile, childi&s;h expre&s;&s;ions,
and fooli&s;h Fables, which may be found in it. For which
rea&s;ons <HI>Du Pin</HI> &s;aith, It is very uncertain, and may be
ju&s;tly call'd in que&s;tion.</P>
<P>But to what mi&s;erable &s;hifts is our Author reduced,
when he citeth the Epi&s;tle of St. <HI>Athana&s;ius to Pope Fe|lix;</HI>
an Epi&s;tle forged by <HI>I&s;idore Mercator,</HI> together with
the <HI>Decretals,</HI> and almo&s;t wholly patch't up out of the
Acts of the <HI>Lateran Council</HI> under Pope <HI>Martin,</HI> in the year
649: And wherein <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> tells <HI>Faelix;</HI> that he had
been ordained Bi&s;hop at <HI>Rome</HI> by his &s;acred hands;
whereas the true <HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> was ordained at <HI>Alexan|dria</HI>
more than Forty years before <HI>Faelix</HI> was made
Pope. <HI>Binius</HI> acknowledgeth it to be &s;purious, and <HI>Labbe</HI>
<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Concil. Tom. II. p. 844.</NOTE> gives this &s;cornful cen&s;ure of it 
<Q>Ad malas Mercatoris
merces has ineptae farraginis qui&s;quilias. <HI>Baronius,</HI>
aliique eruditi viri ablegant;</Q> 
which I will not tran&s;late,
le&s;t I &s;hould be thought to rail, in&s;tead of confuting.</P>
<P>However, to alledge a &s;purious Writing, may be only
a matter of artifice to impo&s;e upon an unwary Reader:
But to cite the undoubted Work of one Author, under
<PB N="57" REF="7">
the name of another, to whom it was never before at|tributed,
can be no other than gro&s;s ignorance. Our
Author citeth St. <HI>Hierom</HI>'s Third Apology again&s;t <HI>Ruf|finus</HI>
under the name of St. <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Hieru&s;alem,</HI> who
was dead many years before the name of <HI>Ruffinus</HI> was
known, or this Apology written. Whether this was a
matter of de&s;ign, that the Reader might never be able
to con&s;ult the place, our Author can be&s;t tell. Cer|tainly
the pa&s;&s;age is infinitely trifling and impertinent.
For St. <HI>Hierom</HI> accu&s;ing <HI>Ruffinus</HI> of a forgery in publi&s;h|ing
at <HI>Rome</HI> an Apology for <HI>Origen,</HI> under the name of
<HI>Pamphilus</HI> the <HI>Martyr,</HI> tells him he had mi&s;t of his de&s;ign;
For the <HI>Romans</HI> did not believe it to be the Work of that
Martyr: And then adds, that the <HI>Roman</HI> Faith, commended
by the Apo&s;tle, could not be impo&s;ed upon by &s;uch tricks.
This is a piece of flattery, which even no &s;ober <HI>Papi&s;t</HI> will
allow to be &s;trictly true. For all grant that the whole
Church may be deceived in judging a matter of fact;
&s;uch is, whether this or that Author writ &s;uch a Trea|ti&s;e.
And the Church of <HI>Rome</HI> hath been actually de|luded
by many Impo&s;tures of this nature, as the Spuri|ous
<HI>Decretals of I&s;idore Mercator,</HI> which &s;he received
and u&s;ed as genuine for many Ages. But not to depart
from this very in&s;tance, St. <HI>Hierom</HI> hath &s;ufficiently re|futed
his own words by impo&s;ing upon the <HI>Romans,</HI> in
per&s;wading them that this Apology, tran&s;lated and
publi&s;hed by <HI>Ruffinus,</HI> was not the work of <HI>Pamphilus,</HI>
but of <HI>Eu&s;ebius.</HI> For it truly belonged to the former.
<HI>Eu&s;ebius</HI> indeed added Five Books to it. But tho&s;e were
not tran&s;lated by <HI>Ruffinus.</HI></P>
<P>That the Book <HI>de Caena Domini</HI> &s;hould in this Age be
cited under the name of <HI>Cyprian,</HI> may be ju&s;tly ad|mired;
when it is not only confe&s;&s;ed by all to be &s;pu|rious,
but the true Author of it is known, <HI>Arnoldus</HI> Ab|bot
<PB N="58" REF="8">
of <HI>Bonvalle</HI> in <HI>France,</HI> in the Twelth Age. To him
do <HI>Raynaudus, Labbe, Oudin, Du Pin,</HI> and almo&s;t all
Manu&s;cript Copies a&s;cribe it.</P>
<P>St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI>'s Work of <HI>the Sacraments</HI> hath been call'd
in que&s;tion by many great and learned men of the Re|formed
Churches. If it &s;hould be allowed in the main to
belong to St. <HI>Ambro&s;e;</HI> they mu&s;t, however, grant that
it hath been mi&s;erably interpolated and corrupted by
latter hands. For <HI>Bertram</HI> citeth &s;everal places out of
it, which cannot now be found in it. But if this be du|bious,
it is mo&s;t certain that the Sermons of St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI>
are &s;purious: Being no other than a Collection of the
Sermons of &s;everal Authors, &s;ome more, others le&s;s
ancient. This <HI>Bellarmin</HI> and <HI>Labbe</HI> acknowledg. Ma|ny
of them may be found among the Sermons of <HI>Maxi|mus
Taurinen&s;is,</HI> and particularly that of St. <HI>Peter</HI> and
<HI>Paul,</HI> cited by our Author. The books <HI>de Paenitentia,
Petrus Soto</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">In&s;titut. Sacerd. tit. de nece&s;&s;. Confe&s;. Lect. 2.</NOTE> maintains to be &s;purious; and &s;ome
learned men have &s;ub&s;cribed to his Opinion. In
like manner <HI>Era&s;mus</HI> contends that the Homilies of
<HI>Origen</HI> upon the <HI>P&s;alms</HI> are &s;purious, and <HI>Bellarmin</HI>
placeth them among the dubious Writings. But in
the&s;e Two la&s;t Ca&s;es, nothing certain can be deter|mined.</P>
<P>The books <HI>de Vi&s;itatione Infirmorum,</HI> cited by our
Author, under the name of St. <HI>Augu&s;tin, Bellarmin</HI> and
<HI>Labbe</HI> confe&s;s to be &s;purious. That they are &s;o, need
no other argument than the fooli&s;h arguments and bar|barous
&s;tile of them, unworthy of the judgment and
learning of St. <HI>Augu&s;tin. Era&s;mus</HI> giveth this Cen&s;ure
of them, <HI>The work of a prating Fellow, who had neither
Wit nor Learning. What &s;hame or rea&s;on have tho&s;e per|&s;ons
left, who obtrude &s;uch Writings to us under the name
of</HI> Augu&s;tin? Our Author refers us to the Second book
<PB N="59" REF="8">
of this Treati&s;e for a proof of Sacerdotal confe&s;&s;ion.
There indeed we may find this Confe&s;&s;ion commended,
advi&s;ed and enjoyned (which is al&s;o done by the Church
of <HI>England)</HI> but in the mean while the nece&s;&s;ity of it
di&s;owned, and the &s;ufficiency of a private confe&s;&s;ion to
God acknowledged. For the Author blaming &s;ome
per&s;ons who dehorted men from Sacerdotal confe&s;&s;ion,
&s;aith, Let not the &s;uper&s;tition of the&s;e Dreamers &s;educe
you, which confirmeth &s;inners in their re&s;olutions of not
confe&s;&s;ing to a Prie&s;t, <HI>Quia &s;alvat Sacerdote incon&s;ulto
ad Deum peccatorum confe&s;&s;io: Becau&s;e confe&s;&s;ion of &s;ins to
God without con&s;ulting any Prie&s;t, is &s;ufficient to Salvation:</HI>
Where he plainly allows the truth of this propo&s;ition,
but blames the ill application of it. But becau&s;e our
Author refers us to this &s;purious Treati&s;e;<NOTE PLACE="marg">O extermi|nanda cordis caecatio. O perditionis animarum oc|ca&s;io. l. 2. c. 8.</NOTE> I would de&s;ire
him to turn one Page farther, where he will find the
Doctrine of doing any Penance after Death, and con&s;e|quently
of Purgatory, called <HI>a dete&s;table blindne&s;s of
heart, and occa&s;ion of the de&s;truction of Souls.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Quae&s;tiones ad Graecos,</HI> cited by our Author un|der
the name of St. <HI>Ju&s;tin Martyr,</HI> are on all &s;ides con|fe&s;&s;ed
to be &s;uppo&s;ititious, particularly by <HI>Bellarmin,
Labbe,</HI> and <HI>Du Pin.</HI> The ju&s;tice of this Cen&s;ure is
evidently evinced from the frequent mention therein,
made of the <HI>Manichees,</HI> who were not heard of till
more than a Hundred years after <HI>Ju&s;tin</HI>'s death. The
Lamentation of <HI>Origen</HI> is the trifling product of &s;ome
fooli&s;h <HI>Latin</HI> Writer; and therefore ju&s;tly rejected as
&s;purious by <HI>Bellarmin, Baronius,</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Ad an. 252.</NOTE> <HI>Labbe, Huetius,</HI>
and <HI>Du Pin.</HI> I might add, that it was formerly con|demned
by Pope <HI>Gela&s;ius,</HI> if his Decretal were not equally
&s;purious. However, that excu&s;eth not our Author;
&s;ince that Decretal is univer&s;ally received by all the
Writers of the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI></P>
<P><PB N="60" REF="9">
Our Author citeth, <HI>Two Fragments of</HI> Eu&s;ebius <HI>Alex|andrinus</HI>
out of <HI>Jodocus Coccius.</HI> But we have great
rea&s;on to believe, that they are not genuine. For <HI>Eu&s;e|bius
Cae&s;arien&s;is</HI><NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. Eccl. l. 7. c. 2.</NOTE> in mentioning <HI>Eu&s;ebius Alexandri|nus,</HI>
&s;peaks not one word of his Writings; which that ac|curate.
Hi&s;torian would by no means have omitted,
if there had heen any known in his time. No one
of the Ancients make the lea&s;t mention of &s;uch a
Writer: Nor was he ever heard of till <HI>Coccius</HI> and <HI>Tur|rain</HI>
produced &s;ome fragments out of his Homilies. As
for <HI>Coccius,</HI> he had not skill enough in this kind to pa&s;s
a critical judgment upon the Writings of the ancients:
and <HI>Turrain</HI> cannot be &s;ecurely tru&s;ted. For all the
World knows with how great violence he maintained the
Apo&s;tolick Canons and Con&s;titutions to be genuine: A
po&s;ition which none but fools and mad men can be|lieve.</P>
<P>The <HI>Arabick Canons</HI> of the fir&s;t Council of <HI>Nice,</HI> are a
no le&s;s fooli&s;h than evident forgery of latter times. All
the <HI>Greek</HI> and <HI>Latin</HI> Copies give us no more than
XX. Canons of that Council. <HI>Gela&s;ius Cyzicenus</HI> &s;aith
<NOTE N="b" PLACE="marg">Hi&s;t. Con. Nic. l. 2. c. 30.</NOTE> no more were made. The <HI>African</HI> Bi&s;hops &s;ending
into the Ea&s;t for true and correct Copies of them, receive
from <HI>Atticus</HI> of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI> and <HI>Cyril</HI> of <HI>Alexandria</HI> no
more than XX. and the&s;e LXXX. <HI>Arabick</HI> Canons were
never heard of till brought out of the Ea&s;t in the la&s;t
Age by the Legates &s;ent by <HI>Pius</HI> IV. to the Patriarch of
<HI>Alexandria</HI> to invite him to the Council of <HI>Trent.</HI> But
I need not u&s;e many arguments. They &s;ufficiently
betray them&s;elves by the frequent mention of Names,
Rites, and Cu&s;toms which obtained not in the Church
till after the Council of <HI>Nice.</HI> I will in&s;tance only in
their &s;everal Con&s;titutions, about Mona&s;teries, Monks
and Nuns, as that they be &s;haved, and u&s;e a di&s;tinct ha|bit
<PB N="61" REF="9">
from the re&s;t of mankind; cu&s;toms which were not
known till &s;ome Ages after. And that we may not &s;eem
&s;ingular in making this Cen&s;ure, the Learned <HI>Abraham Ec|chellen&s;is</HI>
<NOTE N="c" PLACE="marg">Prefat. ad Ver&s;ion.</NOTE> confe&s;&s;eth, That many of them were forged,
others changed, and all accommodated by the &s;everal
Sects of the <HI>Ea&s;t</HI> to their &s;everal Ages and Per&s;wa&s;ions.</P>
<P>The &s;incerity of our Author de&s;erveth next to be con|&s;idered,
which I fear would be found very &s;mall if I had
time and lei&s;ure to compare all his Citations with the
Originals. Tho&s;e few which I have compared, give me
a ju&s;t &s;u&s;picion of his fraudulent dealing in the re&s;t, and
may rea&s;onably create the &s;ame prejudice in all his Rea|ders.
I will produce a few In&s;tances. In the Fifth Co|lumn
he citeth the&s;e words of <HI>Irenaeus</HI> (a), <HI>How can
they be a&s;&s;ured the Bread is made the Body of our Lord?</HI>
In the Original it is <HI>e&s;&s;e Corpus &s;uum,</HI> where he hath
Tran&s;lated <HI>e&s;&s;e</HI> to be <HI>made.</HI> A few lines after he produ|ceth
a pa&s;&s;age of <HI>Tertullian,</HI> which no man in his right
wits could ever have alledged for Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation:
For the intire &s;entence is one of the mo&s;t pregnant Te|&s;timonies
of all Antiquity, again&s;t that mon&s;trous opini|on;
the words are the&s;e <HI><NOTE N="d" PLACE="marg">L. 4. c. 57.</NOTE>, The Bread taken and di|&s;tributed
to his Di&s;ciples,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">(<HI>e</HI>) Adv. Mar|cion. l. 4. c. 40.</NOTE> <HI>he made his Body, by &s;aying, This
is my Body, that is, the Figure of my Body.</HI> Our Author
hath cut off the latter part, and given us only the fir&s;t
words of this Pa&s;&s;age. What name ought ju&s;tly to be gi|ven
to this Artifice, let others judg; but certainly none
can call it &s;incerity. The corruption of <HI>Ju&s;tin</HI> Martyr in
the 7th Column is no le&s;s gro&s;s and evident; where our
Author citeth the&s;e words out of his Second Apology:
<HI>We wor&s;hip them</HI> (the good Angels) <HI>both by words and
deeds, even as we our &s;elves have been taught and in&s;truct|ed.</HI>
The <HI>Greek</HI> words are the&s;e, <GAP DESC="foreign">;
<HI>honour|ing
them both in word and deed; and freely teaching every
<PB N="62" REF="10">
one who de&s;ireth to learn tho&s;e things wherein we been
in&s;tructed.</HI> A little before, he had cited <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> the
<HI>Areopagite,</HI> for Prayers to the departed Saints, where he
wilfully mi&s;takes that Writers meaning; and what the
Counterfeit <HI>Diony&s;ius</HI> &s;peaks of the Prayers of our pious
Fellow-Chri&s;tians here on Earth, applieth to Prayers
made to departed Saints; and not only &s;o, but fal&s;ifieth
his words in more than one place; the pa&s;&s;age is this<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">De Eccle&s;ia&s;t. Hierarch. c. 7.</NOTE>;
<GAP DESC="foreign">,&mdash;<GAP DESC="foreign">.
<HI>This I affirm con&s;onantly to the Scripture;
That the prayers of holy men are very u&s;eful in this life, this
way. If any one de&s;iring the Divine Graces, and be well
di&s;po&s;ed for the reception of them, &s;hall (as being con&s;cious
of his own unworthine&s;s) come to &s;ome holy man, and de&s;ire
him to a&s;&s;i&s;t him, and pray together with him, he &s;hall re|ceive
hence the greate&s;t benefit.</HI> The words thus ju&s;tly
Tran&s;lated, do neither favour nor relate to Prayers to
the Dead. In the &s;ame Column he hath produced &s;ome
words of St. <HI>Chry&s;o&s;tom</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Orat. de <HI>SS.</HI> Bernic. &amp; Pro&s;doce.</NOTE>, with no more ingenuity; for
he tran&s;lates <GAP DESC="foreign">, <HI>Let us pray to them;</HI> indeed
the word <GAP DESC="foreign"> follows, <HI>Let us de&s;ire them,</HI> (which yet
our Author after his wonted manner exaggerates, <HI>Let us
heartily be&s;eech them):</HI> But that this was a meer rheto|rical
Flight, may be demon&s;trated beyond all doubt; for
in the immediately foregoing &s;entence he &s;peaks much
greater things of their dead Reliques, and Repo&s;itories;
to which yet even our Author will grant that Prayers
are not in a &s;trict and proper &s;en&s;e to be addre&s;&s;ed:
<HI>In this Fire of Devotion,</HI> &s;aith he, <HI>let us fall down to their
Reliques; let us embrace their Repo&s;itories; for even the
Repo&s;itories of Martyrs have great Virtue, as the Bones
of Martyrs have great Force.</HI> The&s;e Rhetorical Apo|&s;trophes
are frequent to all Orators, and ought
<PB N="63" REF="10">
not to be drawn into Dogmatical Propo&s;itions.</P>
<P>I return now to con&s;ider our Authors <HI>Columns</HI> &s;epa|rately.
The Second is about the Primacy of the Pope,
and con&s;i&s;ts of &s;ome Te&s;timonies of the Fathers, which
abating the &s;purious ones, in&s;inuate no more than that
St. <HI>Peter</HI> was Prince or Fir&s;t of the Apo&s;tles, the Founda|tion
upon which the Church was built, and the Keeper of
the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven; all this we rea|dily
acknowledg: None ever denied a Primacy of Or|der
to St. <HI>Peter;</HI> the Scripture a&s;&s;ures us that the Apo|&s;tles
were all Foundations of the Church; and our Savi|our
committed the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven to
them all: If any of the&s;e Te&s;timonies &s;eem to attribute
&s;omewhat greater and more eminent to St. <HI>Peter,</HI> we
are to con&s;ider that Orators &s;eldom contain them&s;elves
within the &s;evere bounds of truth, when they &s;et them|&s;elves
to make an Encomium of any. The Ancients
&s;peak no le&s;s things of St. <HI>Paul,</HI> and attribute to him no
le&s;s &s;welling Titles, as might ea&s;ily be proved, if our in|tended
brevity would permit it. I will produce only
&s;ome pa&s;&s;ages of St. <HI>Chry&s;ostom</HI><NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Hom. in Rom. xvi. 3. in ter|ra mot. &amp; Laz. in Paulum, &amp;c.</NOTE>, who calls him <HI>The
Tongue of the World, the Light of the Churches, the Foun|dation
of Faith, the Pillar and Ground of Truth, the Ve&s;|&s;el
of Election, the Temple of God, the Mouth of Christ, the
Harp of the Holy Gho&s;t, the Doctor of the World, the
Teacher of Divine Opinions, the Schoolma&s;ter of the World,
upon whom the eyes of the whole World were cast, and upon
whom the care of all the Churches in the World depended;
to who&s;e Government God had committed the whole World,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg">Hom. ad eos qui &s;candali|zati &s;unt Hom. de e&s;emos. &amp; collat.</NOTE>
<HI>to whom the whole World was committed, and all the
Churches under the Sun, who governed all the Churches,
People, Nations and Cities of the Earth, to whom none can
be equalled,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>who had the Primacy, greater than all others;
to</HI> Michael <HI>was committed the Government of the Jews,
but to Paul, the Earth, the Sea, both the habitable, and
<PB N="64" REF="11">
inhabitable World, the Illuminator of the World, the great|est
of all Men, who alone po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed all the perfections of the
other Patriarchs, Apostles, Saints and Martyrs, who is ad|mired
and honoured beyond all the other Apostles. None of
them was greater than him,</HI><NOTE PLACE="marg"><GAP DESC="foreign">.</NOTE> <HI>yea none was equal to him.</HI> I am
confident no pa&s;&s;ages can be found in all Antiquity in
favour of St. <HI>Peter,</HI> which can equal the&s;e produced out
of one Author in favour of St. <HI>Paul.</HI> The mo&s;t expre&s;s
pa&s;&s;age which our Author alledgeth, is that of <HI>Tertullian</HI><NOTE N="&dagger;" PLACE="marg">Lib. de Pudic.</NOTE>,
where he is &s;uppo&s;ed to call the Pope <HI>Chief Pastor, Bi|&s;hop
of Bi&s;hops, and Ble&s;&s;ed Pope.</HI> But alas! all the&s;e
are Ironical Expre&s;&s;ions, directed to, not the Pope, but
the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Carthage,</HI> as hath been invincibly proved by
a Learned Man<NOTE N="*" PLACE="marg">Alix. Di&s;&s;ert. de Script. Tertul. p. 70.</NOTE>, now of our Church. The more expre&s;s
Te&s;timonies which remain, are only the fir&s;t and the la&s;t
of this Column: The fir&s;t our Author thought &s;o con|&s;iderable,
that he cho&s;e again&s;t his u&s;ual cu&s;tom to give
it us in <HI>Latin:</HI> It is part of the In&s;cription of St. <HI>Igna|tius</HI>'s
Epi&s;tle to the <HI>Romans,</HI> wherein he calls them <HI>the
&s;anctified and illuminated Church, which pre&s;ides in the
Country of the Romans.</HI> The&s;e in&s;criptions of Epi&s;tles
were according to the Cu&s;tom of the Ea&s;tern Nations,
filled with great and &s;welling Titles, of which unhappi|ly
this to the <HI>Romans</HI> was one of the mo&s;t mode&s;t; for
he be&s;tows far greater Titles upon other Churches in
&s;ome of his Epi&s;tles, and particularly calls the Church of
the <HI>Philadelphians</HI> <GAP DESC="foreign"> <HI>rai&s;ed to the utmost pitch
of perfection;</HI> as for the word illuminated, it is a Title
which the Ancient Chri&s;tians be&s;towed upon all Bapti|zed
Per&s;ons, whom they called <GAP DESC="foreign"> and <GAP DESC="foreign">, as
Bapti&s;m was commonly called <GAP DESC="foreign">. And then for
pre&s;iding in the Countrey of the <HI>Romans,</HI> every parti|cular
Epi&s;copal See pre&s;ideth in her own Dioce&s;s; and
therefore <HI>Ignatius</HI> doth not &s;ay, which pre&s;ideth in the
whole World, but <HI>which pre&s;ideth in the Province of</HI>
<PB N="65" REF="11">
Rome. The la&s;t Te&s;timony is taken from <HI>Socrates</HI>
and <HI>Sizomen</HI> atte&s;ting that the Ea&s;tern Synods were not
valid, unle&s;s confirmed by the Pope; that he had a
peculiar Priviledge of re&s;toring Bi&s;hops unju&s;tly de|po&s;ed,
and that to him belonged the care of all the
Churches. But fir&s;t, neither of the Hi&s;torians affirm,
That the Pope had any &s;uch priviledge which was not
common to the other Patriarch. For it was the con|&s;tant
cu&s;tom of the Ancient Church, that in all emer|gent
occa&s;ions of the Church, the Patriarchs &s;hould in|terpo&s;e
their judgments, as being more peculiarly
obliged to it, by that eminent &s;tation which they
held among other Bi&s;hops: Not that the judgment of
every one was authoritative, or immediately put in ex|ecution
(for their judgments were oft-times contrary) but
they thereby only declared what they thought ju&s;t and
Canonical, which if it was not performed, they with
the Bi&s;hops &s;ubject to them, u&s;ed to deny communion
to the other party. Be&s;ides, there was a particular rea|&s;on
in the ca&s;e mentioned by the&s;e Hi&s;torians. For
<HI>Athana&s;ius</HI> being depo&s;ed by the <HI>Arians,</HI> both Catholicks
and <HI>Arians</HI> had &s;ubmitted the Arbitration of the whole
cau&s;e to Pope <HI>Julius.</HI> As for the confirmation of Councils;
no Council could be General, till approved by all the Patri|archs;
&amp; therefore if a Synod were held in the Ea&s;t, where|in
the <HI>Roman</HI> Patriarchs was pre&s;ent, neither by him&s;elf,
nor by his Legates; no wonder if the Decrees of it obliged
not the We&s;tern Patriarchate, till confirmed by the Pope.
For no more did the We&s;tern Synods oblige the Ea&s;tern
Churches, till confirmed by the Ea&s;tern Patriarchs.</P>
<P>The <HI>Fifth <HI>Column</HI></HI> treateth of <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation,</HI> where|in
mo&s;t of the Te&s;timonies produced by our Author, &s;ay no
more than that the Euchari&s;tical elements after Con&s;ecra|tion
are the Body and Blood of our Lord. This we al&s;o a&s;|&s;ert
and believe; but then the que&s;tion remaineth &s;till, in
<PB N="66" REF="12">
what &s;en&s;e they are the body and blood of Chri&s;t; of the
remaining citations the mo&s;t expre&s;s are tho&s;e of <HI>Ju&s;t in
Martyr,</HI> St. <HI>Ambro&s;e,</HI> and St. <HI>Augu&s;tin.</HI> The fir&s;t even
in the words cited by our Author affirms, That our
Fle&s;h and Blood are nouri&s;hed by the Euchari&s;tical ele|ments;
and therefore could not believe Tran&s;ub&s;tantia|tion.
The Second indeed &s;aith<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">De initan|dis, cap. 9.</NOTE> that a preternatural
change is made in the elements after Con&s;ecration, and
the Bread then becomes the Body of Chri&s;t, which was
born of the Virgin <HI>Mary,</HI> was crucified and buried. But
that he means his typical not natural body, is manife&s;t
from the beginning of this Chapter, where he compares
this heavenly food to <HI>Manna,</HI> or the Bread of Angels;
and prefers it becau&s;e that is &s;ubject to corruption, if
it be kept from day to day; but this is free from cor|ruption,
which who&s;oever religiou&s;ly ta&s;ts, cannot &s;uffer
corruption. From which words, Three &s;everal Arguments
of a typical &s;en&s;e may be formed. For fir&s;t, as Manna was
not truly, but typically the Bread of Angels: So neither is
the con&s;ecrated Bread truly, but typically the Body of
Chri&s;t. Secondly, The con&s;ecrated elements are as to the
matter of them &s;ubject to corruption: And therefore St.
<HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> believed not the matter of them, but only what
they repre&s;ented, to be the body of Chri&s;t. Thirdly, He af|firms
this incorruptible Body of Chri&s;t to be received on|ly
by the Religious communicant: Whereas if <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tan|tiation,</HI>
be true, it is equally received by the mo&s;t Irreligious
per&s;on. St. <HI>Augu&s;tin</HI> in the place<NOTE N="a" PLACE="marg">Comm. in P&s;al. 33.</NOTE> cited by our Author ex|pre&s;ly
denieth all natural pre&s;ence. His words are the&s;e,
<HI>When our Lord Je&s;us Chri&s;t &s;poke of his Body, He &s;aid, Who&s;o|ever
eateth not my fle&s;h, and drinketh not my blood, &s;hall not
have eternal Life: For my fle&s;h is meat indeed, and my
blood is drink indeed. His Di&s;ciples, who followed him,
were afraid, and &s;candalized at that &s;peech, and not truly
under&s;tanding it, thought that our Lord &s;poke &s;omewhat
<PB N="67" REF="12">
har&s;h, as if they were to eat that fle&s;h, and drink that
blood, which they &s;aw. They could not bear this; as if they
had &s;aid, How can this be? Error, ignorance and folly
had po&s;&s;e&s;&s;ed them:</HI> Where he goes on to &s;hew that this
aver&s;ion of the Apo&s;tles proceeded from a mi&s;apprehen|&s;ion
of our Lord's meaning; as if he intended to give them
his natural fle&s;h and blood to eat:<NOTE PLACE="marg">Sacramenta praedicabat.</NOTE> <HI>Whereas our Lord knew
what he meant; he &s;poke of Sacraments,</HI> or a &s;acramental pre|&s;ence.
This pa&s;&s;age &s;ufficiently explains the following
Clau&s;e cited by our Author, unle&s;s we can &s;uppo&s;e St. <HI>Au|gu&s;tin</HI>
in this ob&s;cure &s;entence to have contradicted the
Doctrine by him plainly delivered in the precedent Words.</P>
<P><HI>The Sixth <HI>Column</HI></HI> corncerns <HI>Sacramental Confe&s;&s;ion,</HI>
Prie&s;tly Ab&s;olution and Penance; and in all re&s;pects is
wholly impertinent; as may appear by the&s;e few con&s;i|derations.
Fir&s;t, Then the Church of <HI>England</HI> retain|eth
and advi&s;eth to her Children Confe&s;&s;ion, Ab&s;olution
and Penance; But then &s;he maketh not the fir&s;t ab&s;o|lutely
nece&s;&s;ary to Salvation; nor the Second a judicial,
but only declaratory act; nor the Third properly &s;atis|factory
for &s;ins: Nor do any of the Te&s;timonies produ|ced
by our Author, prove the&s;e po&s;itions. Secondly,
The Confe&s;&s;ion u&s;ed in the ancient Church was not Au|ricular,
but publick; not lodged in the brea&s;t of the
Prie&s;t, but made before the whole Congregation. And
when afterwards about the time of the <HI>Decian</HI> Per&s;ecution
the&s;e confe&s;&s;ions became &s;o numerous, that the Church
could not hear them all, a <HI>Paenitentiarius</HI> was cho&s;en
out of the Presbyters to receive them, he did not
keep them &s;ecret to him&s;elf, but only pa&s;s judgment
which were fit to be made known to the whole Church,
and to be performed in the publick Congregation, and
which not. 3. Ab&s;olution of the Prie&s;t was not be|lieved
to be judicial or authoritative, and immediately
to ab&s;olve before God, but only declaratory of the
<PB N="68" REF="13">
promi&s;es of pardon made by God to all penitent &s;inners,
and to have no other nece&s;&s;ary effect, than the re&s;toring
of the penitents to the peace of the Church. This may
be proved by that very pa&s;&s;age of St. <HI>Hierom,</HI> which our
Author citeth, where he compareth the Prie&s;tly ab&s;olution,
to the clean&s;ing of Lepers by the Prie&s;ts under the old
Law; a compari&s;on very frequent with the Fathers. For as
the <HI>Jewi&s;h</HI> Prie&s;ts made not the Lepers clean, but only de|clared
them &s;o to be, and &s;uppo&s;ed them to be clean before
their declaration; otherwi&s;e the declaration would not in
the lea&s;t have contributed to their clean&s;ing: So a &s;acerdotal
Ab&s;olution remits not the guilt of &s;ins, but &s;uppo&s;eth them
to have been before remitted by God, and declareth &s;o to
be; otherwi&s;e the ab&s;olution of a Prie&s;t will avail the &s;inner
nothing, nor &s;et him right in the Court of Heaven. 4. Pe|nance
in the ancient Church was chiefly intended, not as
a &s;atisfaction to God for the violation of his Laws, but
as a &s;atisfaction to the Church, for the &s;candal given to
others, and reproach drawn upon the whole Church
by the former crimes or irregular practice of the peni|tents:
And therefore was ever augmented or relaxed
according to the various exigencies or nece&s;&s;ities of
times. 5. In the ancient Church, Penance ever preceded
Ab&s;olution, and was the means of obtaining it: Whereas
in the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> the Penitent is fir&s;t ab&s;olv'd,
and then &s;ome &s;ub&s;equent Penance is impo&s;ed on him:
Which takes away the very nature of Penance, Confe&s;|&s;ion
and Ab&s;olution, as they were u&s;ed and de&s;igned
the ancient Chri&s;tians; and tends only to the intere&s;ts of
the Prie&s;t, and delu&s;ion of private &s;ouls.</P>
<P>The <HI>Seventh <HI>Column</HI></HI> undertaketh to prove the law|fulne&s;s
of <HI>Invocation or Prayer to Saints,</HI> and that they
pray for us: the latter we need not deny; but main|tain,
that that will not warrant the former. So that
when all the &s;purious Te&s;timonies, tho&s;e which we have
<PB N="69" REF="13">
already an&s;wered, and tho&s;e which prove only that the
departed Saints pray for us, be expunged; there remain
no more than one of St. <HI>Ambro&s;e</HI> (for that of St. <HI>Hierom</HI>
is a plain hi&s;torical Apo&s;trophe) and one of <HI>Theodoret.</HI>
As for the fir&s;t, I might ju&s;tly oppo&s;e the authority
of &s;ome learned men, who maintain this Book <HI>de Viduis,</HI>
whence the pa&s;&s;age is taken, to be &s;uppo&s;ititious. But
I will content my &s;elf to &s;ay, That our Author hath
fal&s;ely tran&s;lated the place, by rendring <HI>Ob&s;ecrandi &s;unt
Angeli pro nobis, ut,</HI> &amp;c. <HI>Ob&s;ecrandi &s;unt Martyres, We are to
de&s;ire the a&s;&s;i&s;tance of the Angels; we are to pray to the Mar|tyrs:</HI>
Whereas the words do not in the lea&s;t in&s;inuate an
Exhortation of Prayer to be made to them by us; but
only a wi&s;h, that they would pray for us, and that we
&s;hould gratefully accept their charitable kindne&s;s in &s;o do|ing.
The Pa&s;&s;age<NOTE N="&Verbar;" PLACE="marg">De curand. affect. Graec. Orat. 8.</NOTE> of <HI>Theodoret,</HI> as cited by our Author,
is a plain forgery. For <HI>Theodoret</HI> &s;peaks not one Syllable
of praying to the Martys; and what our Author tran|&s;lates,
<HI>be&s;eech them as Holy men to intercede to God for
them,</HI> is no more in the <HI>Greek</HI> than this, <GAP DESC="foreign">.
<HI>We honour, or reverence them as holy men.</HI></P>
<P><HI>The la&s;t <HI>Column</HI></HI> treateth of <HI>Purgatory,</HI> and Prayer for
the dead. The fir&s;t we believe to be a Fable, and to have no
ground, either in Scripture or Antiquity. The &s;econd our
Church doth not condemn, only hath prudently omitted
it in the publick Service, becau&s;e it is a thing dubious in it
&s;elf, and not approved by Scripture. The u&s;e of it in the
Ancient Church, doth not in the lea&s;t prove the belief of
Purgatory. For they anciently prayed for all Saints de|parted
what&s;oever, even for the ble&s;&s;ed Virgin, Apo&s;tles,
Martyrs and Confe&s;&s;ors; and their Prayers re&s;pected not
alleviation of freedom from any internal Puni&s;hment,
but only the day of Judgment, that God would ha&s;ten it;
and when that comes, receive all departed Souls into the
beatifical Vi&s;ion, which they generally believed was
<PB N="70" REF="14">
not be&s;towed to the departed Saints till the day of
Judgment. That Purgatory was anciently believed,
our Author's Te&s;timonies do in no wi&s;e prove. Some
of them indeed mention a purging Fire; But that Fire
was not to exi&s;t till the Day of Judgment, when all
Souls were to pa&s;s through it, and to continue a &s;horter
or longer time in it, according to their greater or le&s;&s;er
Purity. No intermediate puni&s;hment between Death
and Judgment was believed, be&s;ides the delay of Re|&s;urrection;
if that can properly be called a puni&s;hment.</P>
<P>There remains only to con&s;ider our Author's Cata|logue
of general Councils: Wherein he hath committed
many gro&s;s, and, as I fear, wilful mi&s;takes. He makes
Pope <HI>Sylve&s;ter</HI> pre&s;ide over the Council of <HI>Nice;</HI> but <HI>Eu&s;e|bius</HI>
and <HI>Socrates,</HI> whom he citeth, &s;ay no &s;uch thing. <HI>Baro|nius</HI>
indeed &s;aith it: but all the World knows the contrary.
For <HI>Ho&s;ius</HI> Bi&s;hop of <HI>Corduba</HI> pre&s;ided, and &s;ub&s;cribed in
his own name before the Legates of Pope <HI>Sylve&s;ter.</HI> That
<HI>Dama&s;us</HI> pre&s;ided over the fir&s;t Council of <HI>Con&s;tantinople,</HI>
is &s;o egregiou&s;ly fal&s;e; that that Council was both be|gun
and ended without &s;o much as the knowledg of the
Pope, or any other We&s;tern Bi&s;hops. That <HI>Cyril</HI> Pa|triarch
of <HI>Alexandria,</HI> not Pope <HI>Cele&s;tin,</HI> pre&s;ided over
the Council of <HI>Ephe&s;us,</HI> is manife&s;t from the Acts of
that Council, from the Commi&s;&s;ion given to him by
the Emperor for that purpo&s;e, and from all the Hi&s;to|rians
of tho&s;e times. <HI>Cyril</HI> indeed acted for Pope <HI>Ce|le&s;tin,</HI>
but not as pre&s;ident, but as one Fellow-Bi&s;hop
manageth the Proxy of another here in <HI>Eng|land,</HI>
in the Hou&s;e of Lords. In the Council of <HI>Chal|cedon</HI>
Pope <HI>Leo</HI>'s Legates were &s;o far from pre&s;iding,
that all the Canons of the Council were made in their
ab&s;ence, and not only without, but again&s;t their con&s;ent.
For when the Legates in the next Se&s;&s;ion prote&s;ted again&s;t
the Canons, they were over-ruled by the Council and
<PB N="71" REF="14">
forced to &s;ubmit. That Pope <HI>Vigilius</HI> pre&s;ided over the
Fifth General Gouucil, or Second of <HI>Constantinople,</HI> is &s;o
impudent a Fal&s;hood, that it might with equal rea&s;on be
pretended that <HI>Luther</HI> or <HI>Calvin</HI> pre&s;ided over the Coun|cil
of <HI>Trent:</HI> For <HI>Vigilius</HI> who was then at <HI>Constantino|ple,</HI>
gathered an oppo&s;ite Convention of <HI>Western</HI> Bi|&s;hops,
wherein publi&s;hing a long Con&s;titution or Decree
in favour of the <HI>Tria Capitula,</HI> he concludes with a &s;e|vere
Cen&s;ure and Condemnation of all who &s;hould here|after
Write, Teach, or Propo&s;e any thing contrary to
his Decree, which he knew was then in doing in the
General Council. The Popes Con&s;titution was read in
the Council, and notwith&s;tanding it was Decreed, <HI>Can.</HI>
12, 13, 14. That who&s;oever defended the <HI>Tria Capitula,</HI>
or even did not Anathematize them, &s;hould be him&s;elf
Anathematiz'd. After the Conclu&s;ion of the Council, and
not till then, <HI>Vigilius</HI> &s;ubmitted, and writing an Epi&s;tle to
<HI>Eutychius</HI> Patriarch of <HI>Constantinople,</HI> who had pre&s;ided
over the Council, profe&s;&s;eth he was now very &s;orry that by
the in&s;tigation of the Devil he had di&s;&s;ented from the
Council, and in contempt of brotherly Charity had openly
di&s;agreed from them, and contended with them; that
now he was convinced of his Errors, and therefore re|tracting
his former actions, ratified and &s;ubmitted to the
Decrees of the Council. In the Seventh General Coun|cil
our Author reckoning up the Hereticks condemned
by it, as <HI>Paulus, Sergius, Cyrus, Theodo&s;ius,</HI> comes off with
an <HI>&amp;c.</HI> the meaning of which may ea&s;ily be di&s;covered;
for this <HI>&amp;c.</HI> was invented to &s;ave the reputation of Pope
<HI>Honorius,</HI> who together with the re&s;t was Anathemati|zed
by the Council as a notorious and pe&s;tilent Heretick.
The Second <HI>Council</HI> of <HI>Nice</HI> was formerly denied to be
General by <HI>Theodorus Studites,</HI> altho a great Patron
of Image-Wor&s;hip; and was condemned in the &s;ame age
by the great Council of <HI>Francfort.</HI> The Fourth Council of
<PB N="72" REF="15">
<HI>Constantinople</HI> in the Year 869 was ever accounted a
Schi&s;matical Conventicle by the <HI>Greek</HI> Church. All the
following Councils were confined to the <HI>West,</HI> and want|ed
both the Pre&s;ence and Suffrage of the <HI>Eastern</HI> Pa|triarchs,
and con&s;equently were not Oecumenical: Ma|ny
of them are not at this day univer&s;ally received in the
Church of <HI>Rome;</HI> and others are rejected and condemned
by the <HI>Gallican</HI> Church, as the Fir&s;t Second, Third, and
Fourth of <HI>Lateran,</HI> Fir&s;t, and Second of <HI>Lyons,</HI> as to the
Con&s;titutions and Canons injurious to the Civil Right of
Princes: The Councils of <HI>Florence,</HI> and Fifth of <HI>Lateran,</HI>
are wholly rejected by her, and the Council of <HI>Trent</HI> but
in part received: Our Author pretendeth, that in the
Council of <HI>Florence</HI> the <HI>Greeks</HI> were united to the
Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and &s;ub&s;cribed the Union. If a forced
compliance of a few Bi&s;hops compelled by the threats
and force of their Emperor can be call'd an union, this
was indeed one: But many of them &s;ub&s;cribed for fear
of Death, and mo&s;t for fear of &s;tarving, as <HI>Sylvester Sgu|ropulus</HI>
an Eye-witne&s;s a&s;&s;ureth us; and all of them when
returning home, were &s;o dete&s;ted and hated by their
Country-men, that they were e&s;teemed wor&s;e than Infi|dels,
and not permitted to be buried in holy Ground.</P>
<P>I might make &s;ome farther Ob&s;ervations upou our Au|thors
Paper, as why he left that of <HI>Constance</HI> out of the
number of <HI>General Councils,</HI> and yet afterwards pro|duced
its Authority; how di&s;agreeing the forms of Re|cantation,
pre&s;cribed to <HI>Berengarius,</HI> are to the pre&s;ent
Belief of the Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> and how little the Te&s;ti|monies
produced by him in favour of Apo&s;tolical Tradi|tions,
concern the <HI>Romi&s;h</HI> Doctrine of Traditions. But
what I have already &s;aid, is enough to &s;hew that there
is a Generation of men in the World, who adding a pro|found
Ignorance to a fal&s;e Zeal, fear not to &s;acrifice all
con&s;iderations of Shame and Hone&s;ty, of Truth and
Rea&s;on, to a pre&s;ent Intere&s;t, and the poor advantage of
a &s;hort-liv'd Impo&s;ture.</P>
<TRAILER>FINIS.</TRAILER>
</DIV1>
</BODY>
<BACK>
<DIV1 TYPE="publisher's advertisement">
<PB REF="15">
<HEAD>Books lately Printed for Richard Chi&s;well.</HEAD>
<P>A Di&s;&s;ertation concerning the Government of the <HI>Ancient Church;</HI> more pra|ticularly
of the Encroachments of the <HI>Bi&s;hops of Rome</HI> upon other <HI>Sees,</HI>
By <HI>WILLIAM CAVE,</HI> D. D. <HI>8vo.</HI></P>
<P>An An&s;wer to Mr. <HI>Serjeant</HI>'s [Sure Footing in Chri&s;tianity] concerning the Rule
of Faith. With &s;ome other Di&s;cour&s;es. By <HI>WILLIAM FALKNER,</HI> D. D. 4^o.</P>
<P>A Vindication of the Ordinations of the <HI>Church of England;</HI> in An&s;wer to a Pa|per
written by one of the <HI>Church of Rome,</HI> to prove the Nullity of our Orders.
By <HI>GILBERT B&V;RNET,</HI> D. D. <HI>8vo.</HI></P>
<P>An Abridgment of the Hi&s;tory of the Reformation of the <HI>Church of England.</HI>
By <HI>GILB B&V;RNET,</HI> D. D. <HI>8vo.</HI></P>
<P>The APOLOGY of the <HI>Church of England;</HI> and an Epi&s;tle to one Signior
<HI>Scipio,</HI> a <HI>Venetian</HI> Gentleman, concerning the Council of <HI>Trent.</HI> Written both
In Latin, by the Right Reverend Father in God, <HI>JOHN JEWEL</HI> Lord Bi&s;hop of
<HI>Salisbury;</HI> Made Engli&s;h by a Per&s;on of Quality. To which is added, The Life
of the &s;aid Bi&s;hop; Collected and written by the &s;ame Hand, <HI>8vo.</HI></P>
<P>The Life of <HI>WILLIAM BEDEL,</HI> D. D. Bi&s;hop of <HI>Kilmore</HI> in <HI>Ireland,</HI> Toge|ther
with <HI>Certain Letters</HI> which pa&s;&s;ed betwixt him and <HI>James Wedde&s;worth</HI> (a
late Pen&s;ioner of the Holy Inqui&s;ition of <HI>Sevil)</HI> in Matter of Religion, concern|ing
the General Motives to the <HI>Roman Obedience. 8vo.</HI></P>
<P>The Decree made at <HI>ROME</HI> the Second of <HI>March,</HI> 1679. condemning &s;ome
Opinions of the <HI>Je&s;uits,</HI> and other <HI>Ca&s;ui&s;ts.</HI> 4^o.</P>
<P>A Di&s;cour&s;e concerning the Nece&s;&s;ity of Reformation, with re&s;pect to the Er|rors
and Corruptions of the <HI>Church of Rome.</HI> 4^o. Fir&s;t and Second Parts.</P>
<P>A Di&s;cour&s;e concerning the Celebration of Divine Service in an Unknown
Tongue. 4^o.</P>
<P>A Papi&s;t not Mi&s;repre&s;ented by Prote&s;tants. Being a Reply to the Reflections
upon the An&s;wer to [A Papi&s;t Mi&s;repre&s;ented and Repre&s;ented] 4^o.</P>
<P>An Expo&s;ition of the Doctrine of the <HI>Church of England,</HI> in the &s;everal Articles
propo&s;ed by the late BISHOP of <HI>CONDOM,</HI> [in his Expo&s;ition of the Do|ctrine
of the <HI>Catholick Church]</HI> 4^o.</P>
<P>A Defence of the Expo&s;ition of the Doctrine of the <HI>Church of England;</HI> again&s;t
the Exceptions of Mon&s;. <HI>de Meaux,</HI> late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Condom,</HI> and his Vindicator, 4^o.</P>
<P>A <HI>CATECHISM</HI> explaining the Doctrine and Practices of the <HI>Church of
Rome.</HI> With an An&s;wer thereunto. By a <HI>Prote&s;tant</HI> of the <HI>Church of England 8vo.</HI></P>
<P>A Papi&s;t Repre&s;ented and not Mi&s;repre&s;ented, being an An&s;wer to the Fir&s;t,
Second, Fifth and Sixth Sheets of the Second Part of the [Papi&s;t Mi&s;repre&s;ented
and Repre&s;ented]; and for a further Vindication of the <HI>CATECHISM,</HI> truly
repre&s;enting the Doctrines and Practices of the <HI>Church of Rome.</HI> 4^o.</P>
<P>The <HI>Lay-Chri&s;tian</HI>'s Obligation to read the Holy Scriptures. 4^o.</P>
<P><HI>The</HI> Plain Man<HI>'s Reply to the</HI> Catholick Mi&s;&s;ionaries. 24^o.</P>
<P>An An&s;wer to <HI>THREE PAPERS</HI> lately printed, concerning the Autho|rity
of the <HI>Catholick Church</HI> in Matters of Faith, and the Reformation of the
<HI>Church of England.</HI> 4^o.</P>
<P>A Vindication of the An&s;wer to THREE PAPERS concerning the
Unity and Authority of the <HI>Catholick Church,</HI> and the Reformation of the <HI>Church
of England.</HI> 4^o.</P>
<P><PB REF="16">
Mr. <HI>Chillingworth's</HI> Book, called <HI>[The Religion of Prote&s;tants a &s;afe way to
Salvation]</HI> made more generally u&s;eful by omitting Per&s;onal Conte&s;ts, but
in&s;erting what&s;oever concerns the common Cau&s;e of <HI>Prote&s;tants,</HI> or defends
the <HI>Church of England,</HI> with an exact Table of Contents; and an Addition of
&s;ome gennine Pieces of Mr. <HI>Chillingworth</HI>'s never before printed, <HI>viz.</HI> again&s;t the
<HI>Infallibility</HI> of the <HI>Roman</HI> Church, <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation, Tradition,</HI> &amp;c. And an Ac|count
of what moved the Author to turn Papi&s;t, with his Confutation of the
&s;aid Motives.</P>
<P>The Pillar and Ground of Truth. A Treati&s;e &s;hewing that the <HI>Roman Church</HI>
fal&s;ly claims to be <HI>That Church,</HI> and the Pillar of <HI>That Truth,</HI> mentioned by
S. <HI>Paul</HI> in his fir&s;t Epi&s;tle to <HI>Timothy, Chap. 3. Ver&s; 15. 4to.</HI></P>
<P>The Peoples Right to read the Holy Scripture A&s;&s;erted <HI>4to.</HI></P>
<P>A Short Summary of the principal Controver&s;ies between the Church of <HI>Eng|land</HI>
and the Church of <HI>Rome;</HI> being a Vindication of &s;everal Prote&s;tant Do|ctrines,
in An&s;wer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, <HI>[Prote&s;tancy de&s;titute of Scrip|ture
Proofs.] 4to.</HI></P>
<P>Two Di&s;cour&s;es; Of Purgatory, and Prayers for the Dead.</P>
<P>An An&s;wer to a Late Pamphlet, Intituled, [The Judgment and Doctrine of the
Clergy of the Church of <HI>England</HI> concerning one Special Branch of the King's
Prerogative, viz. <HI>In di&s;pen&s;ing with the Penal Laws.] 4to.</HI></P>
<P>The <HI>Notes</HI> of the <HI>Church,</HI> as laid down by Cardinal <HI>Bellarmin,</HI> examined and
confuted. <HI>4to.</HI></P>
<P><HI>Preparation for Death:</HI> Being a Letter &s;ent to a young Gentlewoman in <HI>France,</HI>
in a dangerous Di&s;temper of which &s;he died.</P>
<P>The Difference between the <HI>Church of England</HI> and the <HI>Church of Rome,</HI> in
oppo&s;ition to a late Book, Intituled, <HI>An Agreement between the Church of</HI> England
<HI>and Church of</HI> Rome.</P>
<P>A <HI>PRIVATE PRAYER</HI> to be u&s;ed in Difficult Times.</P>
<P>A True Account of a Conference held about Religion at <HI>London, Sept.</HI> 29.
1687. between <HI>A. Pulton,</HI> Je&s;uit, and <HI>Tho. Teni&s;on,</HI> D. D. ss al&s;o of that which
led to it, and followed after it. <HI>4to.</HI></P>
<P>The Vindication of <HI>A. Cre&s;&s;ener,</HI> Schoolma&s;ter in <HI>Long-Acre,</HI> from the A&s;per|&s;ions
of <HI>A. Pulton,</HI> Je&s;uit, Schoolma&s;ter in the <HI>Savoy,</HI> together with &s;ome Account
of his Di&s;cour&s;e with Mr. <HI>Meredith.</HI></P>
<P>A Di&s;cour&s;e &s;hewing that Prote&s;tants are on the &s;afer &s;ide, notwith&s;tanding
the uncharitable Judgment of their Adver&s;aries; and that <HI>Their Religion</HI> is the
&s;ure&s;t Way to Heaven. <HI>4to.</HI></P>
<P>Six Conferences concerning the <HI>Euchari&s;t,</HI> wherein is &s;hewed, that the Do|ctrine
of <HI>Tran&s;ub&s;tantiation</HI> overthrows the Proofs of Chri&s;tian Religion.</P>
<P>A Di&s;cour&s;e concerning the Pretended Sacrament of <HI>Extreme &V;nction,</HI> with
an Account of the occa&s;ions and beginnings of it in the <HI>We&s;tern</HI> Church. In three
Parts; With a Letter to the Vindicator of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Condom.</HI></P>
<P><PB REF="16">
The Pamphlet entituled, <HI>Speculum Eccle&s;ia&s;ticum,</HI> or an Eccle&s;ia&s;tical Pro|&s;pective-Gla&s;s,
con&s;idered, in its Fal&s;e Rea&s;onings and Quotations. There are
added, by way of Preface, two further An&s;wers, the Fir&s;t, to the Defender of the
<HI>Speculum;</HI> the Second to the Half-&s;heet again&s;t the <HI>Six Conferences.</HI></P>
<DIV2 TYPE="part">
<HEAD>In the Pre&s;s.</HEAD>
<P>A <HI>Second Defence</HI> of the Expo&s;ition of the Doctrine of the Church of <HI>Eng|land,</HI>
again&s;t the new Exceptions of <HI>Mon&s;. de Meaux,</HI> late Bi&s;hop of <HI>Condom,</HI>
and his Vindicator. The FIRST PART, in which the Account that has
been given of the Bi&s;hop of <HI>Meaux</HI>'s Expo&s;ition, is fully Vindicated; the Di|&s;tinction
of Old and New Popery <HI>Hi&s;torically</HI> a&s;&s;erted, and the Doctrine of the
Church of <HI>Rome,</HI> in Point of <HI>Image-wor&s;hip,</HI> more particularly con&s;idered. 4^o.</P>
<P>The Incurable Sceptici&s;m of the Church of <HI>Rome.</HI> By the Auther of the
<HI>[Six Conferences concerning the Euchari&s;t.]</HI> 4^o.</P>
</DIV2>
</DIV1>
</BACK>
</TEXT>
</EEBO>
</ETS>
