an Argument and yet this is the utmost that I say that the supposed necessity of an infallible Judge does not prove that there is such a Judge but only that there ought to be one and I must conclude no more from it and does this overthrow the use of Reason to conclude no more from an Argument than the Argument will prove whatever any man apprehends necessary to be sure he is mightily inclined to believe but whoever will believe like a reasonable creature must have good evidence for what he believes and yet that we believe it necessary is no evidence that it is not that God will not do what is necessary to be done but because that may not be necessary which we vainly and presumptuously imagine to be so which is the very reason I assign for it in the words immediately following Indeed this is a very fallacious way of reasoning because what we may call useful convenient necessary may not be so in itself and we have reason to believe it is not so if God have not appointed what we think so useful convenient or necessary which is a truer and more modest way of reasoning than to conclude that God has appointed such a Iudge when no such thing appears only because we think it so useful and necessary that God ought to do it Which is not to excuse a bad Saying with a good one as the Jesuite pretends in answer to the Footman Preservat Consider p. 36. but to justifie a good Saying with a good Reason But if it were such blasphemy in Alphonsus to say that he thought he could have ordered some things better than God did at the first Creation let the Jesuite consider what it is to mend what God has done in the work of our Redemption upon a meer supposition that it may be mended for Popery is nothing else but a mending or more properly speaking a corrupting the Gospel of Christ with a blasphemous opinion of mending it And I think to say that God has done what there is no other proof he has done but only that we think he ought to have done it is to say that God ought to have done what it does not appear he has done and if not to be and not to appear be the same in this case then this is equivalent to saying that God ought to have done what he has not done And this I hope is sufficient for the Vindication of those Principles which are pretended to overthrow the Use of Common Sense and Reason SECT II. The Principles pretended to make void all Faith vindicated HE begins with proving the Protestant Faith not to be a Divine Faith because it is not a certain one which if it were true is like proving a man not to live because he is weak for if there be as much certainty as is absolutely necessary to the essence of Faith it may be a true Faith though weak as a weak man is alive still and Faith receives its denomination of Divine or Humane Faith not from the Certainty or Uncertainty of it but from the Authority on which it rests a Divine Authority makes a Divine Faith Humane Authority an Humane Faith and both these may be either certain or uncertain or to speak properly strong or weak so that to prove that the Protestant Faith is not Divine because it is not Certain is like disproving the Essential Properties by Changeable Accidents that a Man is not a reasonable Creature because he is not strong for there is no more necessary connexion between Faith being Divine and being Strong or Certain than between Reason and Bodily Strength a weak Man may be a reasonable Creature and a weak Faith may be Divine if it be founded on a Divine Authority But I wish the Jesuite had told us what that degree of Certainty is which makes a Faith Divine whether any thing less than the certainty of Infallibility can do it for this used to be the old Argument that our Faith is not Divine nor Certain because it is not infallible but if they will abate any thing of Infallibility we will vie all other degrees of Certainty with them and that he very fairly quitted before when he owned and proved that there could be no more than Moral Evidence for the Infallibility of their Church and then I am sure they can have no more than a Moral Evidence for the rest of their Faith which is all founded upon their Churches Infallibility Well having proved that our Faith cannot be Divine because it is not certain he next undertakes to prove that our Faith is not certain because we cannot have an Act of Faith of any One Article till our Rule of Faith proposes it i. e. till we know certainly what Scripture teaches of it not by any one Text but by comparing all the Texts that speak of that Subject Very well we cannot believe any thing upon the Authority of Scripture which is our Rule of Faith till we know that it is in Scripture wisely observed and we grant it Let us see what follows 1. Then a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ 2. That all those he owns for such were really written by inspired Pens The second we accept of but there is no need to submit to his first Condition That a Protestant must certainly know that he hath all the Books of Holy Writ that is he must be able to prove that there never were any other Books written by the Apostles or other inspired Men but what we receive into our Canon of Scripture which is to prove a negative which is always thought unreasonable and at this distance from the Apostolick Age is impossible but whenever the Church of Rome will prove this of their Canon of Scripture we will prove it of ours In the mean time it is sufficient that we reject no Books which have been always acknowledged by the Universal Church and that the Books we receive have been received for inspired Writings by the Universal Church and if ever there were any other Books written by the Apostles or Evangelists which are now lost we have reason to believe that the Church does not need them but has a perfect Rule of Faith and Manners without them for the Divine Providence would never permit that the Church should want any necessary part of the Rule of Faith. He proceeds 3 ly And since the Letter kills that he understands the true sense of each Text which relates to the Object of that Act of Faith. 4ly That he remember them all so as comparing them to see which is the clearer to expound the obscurer and what is the result of them all for any one he understands not or hath forgotten may possibly be that one that must expound the rest he cannot have one Act of Faith. Now not to take notice of his ridiculous not to say blasphemous misapplication of Scripture in that Parenthesis the Letter kills by
not then they know before hand that the evidence of Scripture alone is not sufficient to convince a Protestant who rejects an infallible Judge and then it is a sensless thing for them to attempt the proof of such Doctrines by Scripure Good Catholicks are satisfied with the Authority of the Church and Hereticks who reject such an infallible Authority cannot be confuted and convinced by meer Scripture 3. I ask again Whether the evidence of Reason in expounding Scripture be a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith if it be then Protestants who disown an Infallible Judge may have a true Divine Faith without the Infallibility of the Church and then we may be true Believers without being Roman-Catholicks and I should be glad to hear that out of the mouth of a Iesuite for there is good use to be made of such a confession if Scripture as expounded by Reason without an Infallible Judge is not a sufficient Foundation for a Divine Faith then to what end does their disputing with Protestants from Scripture serve if this cannot make them true Believers 4. I ask once more Whether the belief of the Scriptures themselves must not be resolved into the Authority of the Church whether any man can believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God without it if they cannot and I would be glad to hear the Iesuite say they can then I am sure the Scripture is no proof of any thing without the Churches Authority and it is an absurd thing for those who think so to dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church From hence I think it evidently appears that the Authority of the Scriptures and the Authority of the Church are not two distinct Arguments in the Church of Rome for then I grant they might use either way of proof and dispute from Scripture against those who deny the Authority of the Church but if the Authority of the Scripture as to us is resolved into the Authority of the Church then the Scripture alone is no Argument but the Authority of the Church is all Whereforedo you believe the Scripture Because the Church tells me it is the Word of God Wherefore do you believe this to be the sense of Scripture Because the Church so expounds it Is not this the true Resolution of the Roman Faith Is this Misrepresenting too But if it be the truth does not every man see that as to us the Scripture has no Authority no sense but from the Church and therefore can prove nothing separated from the Authority of the Church If they allow of any Proofs from Scripture separated from the Authority of the Church then whether they will or no they must allow of the Protestant Resolution of Faith that is to resolve my Faith into the Authority of the Scriptures as expounded with the best reason and judgment I have in the careful use of all such means as are necessary for the understanding that Holy Book now if they will allow this to be a good Resolution of Faith we will allow of all their Scripture-proofs and give them leave to make us Converts to the Church of Rome by Scripture if they can but if they do allow of this then we Protestants are in a very good way already as to the Resolution of our Faith and so that Controversie is at an end and if they will not allow this then they confess that Scripture-proofs of themselves are not good for if they were we might certainly resolve our Faith as Protestants do immediately into the Authority of Scripture And thus much for Iohn and William and the Infallible Guide if Iohn has any Reasons independent on the Authority of his Guide he may then try his skill upon William who rejects his Guide but if all his other Reasons are resolved into the Authority of his Guide and are no good Reasons without it then he may spare his Reasons till he has made William submit to his Guide And this is the case between the Scripture and the Church in the Church of Rome the Scripture wholly depends both for its Authority and Interpretation on the Authority of the Church and therefore can signifie nothing and prove nothing but what the Church makes it signifie and prove The Scriptures may be supposed to be the Word of God and to have some sense antecedent to the Churches Authority but no man can know this without the Church and therefore as to us both the Authority and Interpretation of the Scripture depends upon the Authority of the Church and is no Argument to prove any thing by itself But I cannot pass on without taking notice of a pleasant Answer the Iesuite gives to a very substantial Argument of the Footman To prove that at least some Doctrines of the Church of Rome by their own confession cannot be proved by Scripture without the Authority of the Church he shews that Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal do confess that Transubstantiation is not founded upon any necessary Scripture-proofs but on the Authority of the Church for the Scripture might and that very reasonably too be expounded to another sense had not the Church determined otherwise Now what does the Iesuite say to this 1. He prevericates like a Iesuite in repeating the Argument That the Words of Scripture brought in proof of Transubstantiation might be taken in a different sense from that which the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered and that had not the Church ever taught that sense one might believe otherwise for all the letter of Scripture for the Authors alledged by the Footman do not say as the Iesuite makes them that the Catholick Church hath ever received and delivered that sense of Transubstantiation which the Church of Rome now teaches but Tonstal expresly declares the contrary in the words there cited That it was free for all men till the Council of Lateran to follow their own conjectures as concerning the manner of the Presence Which supposes that this Doctrine was never determined by the Church till the Council of Lateran and therefore not ever received and delivered and taught by the Catholick Church 2. In a Parenthesis he adds how truly this is said of the Catholick Divines that they did affirm this it belongs not to my present purpose very truly said it is not to his purpose but very much against it but if he means that he was not concerned to know whether these passages are truly cited from these Authors it seems he is not concerned to defend his Argument for that is very much concerned in it it is a plain confession he had nothing to say and therefore would not be concerned about it and will our Learned Iesuite confess that he is so ignorant as not to know that this was said by Petrus de Alliaco Scotus and Tonstal or will he so easily give up such men as these and let the ingenious Footman run away with them and his Argument together 3.
which St. Paul understands the Law which he calls the Letter or an External Administration and the Ministration of Death and of Condemnation in distinction from the Gospel which is the Ministration of the Spirit and the Ministration of Righteousness 2 Cor. 3.6 7 8 9. but our learned Jesuite understands it of the Letter of the Gospel as distinguished from the Sense of it which is such a distinction as no men of sense ever thought of till the Church of Rome found it necessary to distinguish the Letter and the Words of Scripture from the Sense of it and to separate them too which they have effectually done but yet how the Letters which are very innocent things in all other Books should be such killing things in Scripture is worthy of the Wit and Learning of a Jesuite to unriddle But I say to let this pass I grant a Protestant must understand the true sense of Scripture which must be done by venturing to understand the killing Letter of it before he can know much less believe what the Scripture teaches but that they should understand and remember every place of Scripture which relates to such a Subject I see no reason for if we have one or two or more plain and express places for it it is enough at least for ordinary Christians and a great deal more than the Church of Rome has for any of her new Articles of Faith. For we are sure what is plainly and expresly said in one place cannot be contradicted by another and therefore if I had no more than that one plain Text Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve I should think it a sufficient Proof against the Worship of Saints and Angels though there were no other Text in the Bible against it Now whatever Papists say for we desire to hear them prove as well as say this is so far from being impossible to any or almost any man that every considering Protestant has sufficient assurance of all this to found a Divine Faith on Well but what says Dr. Sherlock to give Protestants any certainty Truly not one word for that was not my business to shew what positive certainty Protestants have but to shew upon what vain pretences Papists charge the Protestant Faith with uncertainty And 1. I observe that could they prove the Protestant Faith uncertain this is no sufficient reason to turn Papists because Protestants are uncertain does this prove the Church of Rome to be infallible because the Church of England is fallible must certainty be necessarily found amongst them because it is not found with us is Thomas an honest man because John is a knave Yes he says if the stolen goods were found with John an honest Iury he conceives would bring Thomas in not guilty And if Protestant Uncertainty and Popish Infallibility were to be decided by an honest Popish Jury we might guess pretty near at their Verdict But he says there is a true Faith and consequently a certain Rule of Faith. Protestants on one side chuse one Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures for we have no other Rule Catholicks another therefore not the Holy Scriptures for that is the Protestant Rule but here he ignorantly misrepresents his own Church for the Church of Rome does own the Scriptures to be the Rule of Faith though not a compleat and perfect Rule but the dispute between Protestants and Papists is not so much about the Rule as about the Judge but he seems not to understand this distinction between the Rule and the Judge of Faith. But now for his conceiving I conceive then that if the Protestant Rule be proved uncertain that is the Holy Scriptures 't is plain the Catholick Rule must be the certain one But when the Scriptures are proved uncertain I fear there will be no Rule at all But however his Argument is so far true that if he could prove that there are but two Rules that one is false and the other true then when he has proved one to be false I grant without any more disputing that the other is true but now though there can be but one true Rule there may be a great many false ones and then both the Rules in competition may be false and uncertain In the Preservat Consider â— 38. he endeavours to salve this and now does not put the question about two Rules of Faith for that he says we are agreed on That the Scriptures are the Word of God that if we understood the full extent of its sense and meaning there would never be Error or Heresie amongst us Which shews that as I observed before he did not understand the difference between a Rule of Faith and a Guide or Expositor till some wiser mâ—n had told him of it Well now the thing in question is by what method we ought to come to that knowledge as far as it is necessary to a Christian. And I say that all the methods are reduced to these two heads that we are guided to the certain knowledge of what God hath revealed either by a knowledge communicated to each of us or by a knowledge communicated only to Guides appointed to direct the rest What he means by this communicated knowledge I cannot tell for we think the Scriptures may be understood without either publick or private Enthusiasms as all other Books are to be understood by considering the use and signification of words the scope and design of the place and by comparing one Text with another and the like Thus the Guides of the Church must understand Scripture and by their assistance thus private Christians may understand Scripture This all Mankind confess to be one way of understanding Scripture the same way that all men use to understand any Writing nay the only natural way that we know of No says the Church of Rome there is another possible way for God to direct the Guides the Pope of Rome or General Council by an infallible Spirit in expounding Scripture right say I this is possible indeed for God can do it if he pleases but it does not follow this is any way at all till it appears that God has revealed that he will take this way so that before there can be any competition between these two ways of expounding Scriptures it must be proved that there are two ways the Protestant way is acknowledged by all Mankind for Nature teaches no other way of understanding Books whether of Humane or Divine Composition that there is such a way as the Popish Method must be proved by Revelation for it depends wholly upon the Will of God and therefore can be proved only by Revelation now to make a competition between two ways of expounding Scripture before it is proved there are two ways is ridiculous and much more ridiculous to prove the certainty of the unknown and unproved way from the uncertainty of the known way if they can prove the Protestant way of expounding Scripture which is the
they be contâ—ite and absolved again they are restored to a state of Grace again and so toties quoties Now such Penitents as are sorry for their sins but do not reform them are condemned to Hell 〈◊〉 the Protestant Church and only to Purgatory in the Church of Rome and therefore the First is no Calumny The Second is That Indulgencies may be bought for Money this is no Calumny as I have already shewn or avail a Soul undisposed to receive the benefit of them through want of contrition the guilt of sin not being before remitted This I never said and therefore is no Calumny of mine The third That Masses said for any Soul in Purgatory avail such as during life have not deserved and merited that mercy This I take to be nonsense according to the Doctrines of their own Church For certainly those Souls who have merited to get into Purgatory have merit enough to receive the benefit of Masses Another Gospel-Motive to Holiness are the Examples of Good Men but in the Church of Rome the extraordinary Vertues of great and meritorious Saints are not so much for imitation as for a stock of Merits The more Saints they have the less need is there for other men to be Saints unless they have a mind to it because there is a greater treasure of Merits to relieve those who have none of their own and if one man can merit for twenty there is no need there should be above one in twenty good Here he quibbles upon the different acceptation of Merit as it relates to a reward or as it expiates the punishment of sin In the first sense he says Merit is personal not communicative but if it be communicative in the second sense that one man may be delivered from punishments by the Merits of another and if it be not there is an end of the gainful trade of Indulgencies that is sufficient to my Argument and will satisfie most sinners who are not concerned about degrees of glory if they can escape punishment Lastly I shewed that the Gospel-Means and Instruments of Holiness do not escape much better in the Church of Rome among others I instanced in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper which besides those supernatural conveyances of Grace which are annexed to it by our Saviour's Institution is a great Moral Instrument of Holiness but in the Church of Rome this admirable Sacrament is turned into a dumb shew which no body can be edified with or into a sacrifice for the living and the dead which expiates sin and serves instead of a holy life Here he says there are three crying Calumnies 1. That the Sacrament among them is nothing but a shew or a sacrifice whereas they very often receive it and did I say the Sacrament was never received in the Church of Rome 2. That they require the practice of no Vertue to the receiving the Sacrament whereas they require the Sacrament of Penance to prepare for the Eucharist But I spoke of those Vertues which were to be exercised in receiving which there are not such advantages for in the Church of Rome where the Office is not understood and the mind diverted with a thousand insignificant Ceremonies 3. That our exposing the blessed Sacrament is a dumb shew and so we assist at holy Mass. And whether it be or no let those judge who have seen the Ceremony How much the Sacrifice of the Mass encourages Vertue we have already seen I doubt not but our Jesuite can give as good an Answer to this Vindication as he did to the Preservative and I as little doubt but he will unless Mr. Needham's Name to the License may be my security for he has threatned it shall be to him a sufficient Note and Character of a Book not worth the Reading much less the Censuring where-ever he sees that Reverend Person has opened it the Press and I commend him for it for he has had very ill success with such Books of late but though I never grudge my pains in answering an Adversary who gives occasion for any useful and material Discourse for I desire whatever I say should be sifted to the very bottom and am as ready to own any Error I am convinced of as to vindicate the Truth yet it is very irksom to be forced to write a great Book meerly to rescue my words from the injuries of a perverse Comment which has been my present Task Thus any Book may be answered by a man who has wit or ignorance enough to pervert it and such Answers may be easily answered again by men who have nothing else to do but if this trade grow too common they must be very idle people indeed who will find time to read them And therefore to prevent such an impertinent trouble for the future before I take leave of my Adversary I will venture to give him a little good Advice which may stand him in stead against the next time 1. That he would be more modest and sparing in his Title-page not to paint it so formidable as to make it ridiculous it is a little too much to talk of Principles which destroy all right use of Reason Scripture Fathers Councils undermine Divine Faith and abuse Moral Honesty Or Forty malicious Culumnies and forged untruths besides several Fanatical Principles which destroy all Church Discipline and oppose Christ's Divine Authority If such things be proved against any Book I assure you it is very terrible though there be nothing of it in the Title but the World has been so long deceived with Titles that commonly the more the Title promises the less they expect in the Book Some cry it is a Mountebank's Bill otheâ—s the Man raves and if curiosity tempts any to look any farther the disappointment they meet with provokes their scorn or indignation The bare name of an Answer to a Book which is commonly known and approved is a sufficient invitation to all men to read it but it is a very impolitick thing to prejudice the Readers by a frightful Title 2. That he would not think he has confuted a Book by picking out some sayings which he thinks very inconvenient and obnoxious but in which the main Arguâ—ent of the Book is not concerned this is the case in many passages he has objected against the Preservative for though there is never a one but what is very defensible and what I have defended yet there are many that if they could not be defended the main Argument of the Book is never the worse This is as vain as to think to kill a man by launâ—hing a Sore while all his Vitals are sound and untoucht 3. That he would not boast of confuting a Book without bearing up fairly to any one Argument in it I know in his Postscript he says that he omitted nothing in Answer to the First part of the Preservative that even pretended to the appearance of an Argument that all the rest which he did not answer in his
Imprimatur Liber cui Titulus A Vindication of both Parts of the Preservative against Popery c. Guil. Needham R. R. in Christo P. ac D.D. Wilhelmo Archie pisc Cant. Ã Sacr. Domest Iuly 4. 1688. A VINDICATION OF Both PARTS OF THE Preservative AGAINST POPERY IN ANSWER TO THE CAVILS OF LEWIS SABRAN Jesuit By WILLIAM SHERLOCK D. D. Master of the Temple LONDON Printed for William Rogers at the Sun over against St. Dunstan's Church in Fleetstreet 1688. TO THE READER I Must confess F. Lewis Sabran of the Society of Jesus as he writes himself has all the good Qualities belonging to his Order excepting that Learning which some of his Order have formerly had but he is excusable for that because of late that has been the least of their care but what they want in Learning they make up in Confidence and Noise which is a nearer conformity to the temper and spirit of their first Founder When I first saw his Sheet which he wrote against the First Part of the Preservative I read it over and laid it aside as I thought it deserved for I easily perceived that he could not or would not understand the plainest sense and I saw nothing he had objected which could impose upon the most unlearned Protestant and I had no mind to engage with a Man who has not Vnderstanding enough to be Confuted But the honest Footman thought fit to call him to an account and I believe all impartial Men thought the Footman had the better of him and yet the Jesuite had an honourable occasion to retreat had his Wit served him to take it for no Man would have expected that a Jesuite should have encountered a Footman but here his Courage out-ran his Wit as it often happens to Knights Errant in their bold Adventures I do intend as little as possibly I can to concern my self in the Dispute between the Jesuite and the Footman the Footman is able to Defend himself and I e'en quake for the Jesuite for fear he should but having a little leisure at present I will spare some few hours to Vindicate the Preservative from this Jesuite's Cavils for it will appear that they are no better As for those many good words he has bestowed on me I take them for Complements on course and to be plain with him they are all lost upon me for when I have Reason and Truth on my sidâ— I am perfectly insensible of all the Sportings of Wit and Satyr for there are no Iests bite but those that are true I do not intend to pursue this Jesuite in all his rambling Excursions but shall keep close to my business to Vindicate The Preservative and that in as few words as I can and this will come into a very narrow compass for he has as little to say as ever man had if you keep him out of his Common-place Disputes but if you suffer him to draw you into those beaten Roads there is no end of him for he has the Confidence of a Jesuite to repeat all the old baffled Arguments without blushing I confess I am a little ashamed to meddle with so trifling an Adversary and know not how I shall Answer it to the Ingenious Gentlemen of the Temple to whom he so often Appeals against the Master for spending my time so ill unless his Character of a Jesuite will plead my excuse which has been a formidable Name in former Ages and if this will do I have a very honourable and a very easie Task of it an Adversary to encounter with the glorious Character of a Jesuite but without the Sense of a Footman A VINDICATION OF THE FIRST PART OF THE Preservative THE Charge against me is very formidable that I advance such Principles in the Preservative as make void the use of Reason Faith Fathers Councils Scripture and Moral Honesty if he had said less he might sooner have been believed or might have proved it better when such wild and extravagant Accusations confute themselves but Iesuits commonly spoil all by over-doing Let us examine particulars SECT I. The Principles which are pretended to overthrow all right Vse of Common Sense Vindicated THE first instance of this nature is that I Charge Catholicks with this great Crime that they will not allow the reading Heretical Books and prove my Charge because God not only allows but requires it The Paragraph he refers to is in p. 3. of the Preservative in these words Men of weak judgments and who are not skilled in the Laws of Disputation may easily be imposed on by cunning Sophisters and such as lie in wait to deceive the Church of Rome is very sensible of this and therefore will not suffer her People to dispute their Religion or to read Heretical Books nay not so much as to look into the Bible it self but though we allow all this to our People as that which God not only allows but requires c. from hence he charges me with saying that God not only allows but requires People to read Heretical Books But the honest Footman plainly told him what the meaning of Heretical Books was that I spoke the Language of their Church which calls all Books Heretical which are not of the Roman stamp and this is all that I meant by it as every honest Reader would see Does not he use the very same way of speaking himself in the same Paragraph when he retorts this Crime upon us that we use all endeavours to hinder our Flocks from hearing Catholick Sermons and reading Catholick Books for are any Christians so absurd as to forbid People to hear Catholick Sermons and to read Catholick Books No sure not what they think Catholick and why may not I use Heretical as well as he use Catholick in the sense of the Church of Rome by Heretical meaning such Books as the Church of Rome calls Heretical as by Catholick he means such Books as the Church of Rome calls Catholick for they are both equally Heretical and Catholick But he complains in the Preservative Considered p. 4. That he had asked three very material Questions and the Footman had not vouchsafed an Answer to them and I believe the Footman was in the right for they deserved none But let us hear them This says he seemed to me extravagant not to say impious and to all those who have inherited from St. Paul that Faith to which he exacts so firm and unwavering an adherency that if an Angel from Heaven should teach us any thing in opposition to it we ought not to mind him or return him any other Answer than Anathema How can said I this positive certainty stand with an obligation of reading Heretical Books which oppose that Faith to frame by them and settle a judgment But now if these Heretical Books do not oppose that Faith which was Preached by St. Paul I hope there was no need of answering this Question and if the Catholick Books do I would desire him to
Answer the Question and if there be a Dispute depending which of them contradicts St. Paul's Doctrine I would desire him to tell me How we shall know which of them does it without examining them When we know these Books which contradict St Paul's Doctrine we will reject them with an Anathema and for that reason we reject the Council of Trent whose Authority we think to be inferior to an Angels and that shews that we do not think rejecting and yet reading such Books to make void common Sense for though we reject the Council of Trent yet we read it as they find to their cost His next Question or else I cannot make three of them is By what Text doth God deliver this Injunction viz of reading Heretical Books which in his Sense of Heretical Books is a very senseless Question for no man pretends that God commands us to read Books which we know to be Heretical though a man who is inquiring after Truth must read such Books as the several divided Sects of Christians may call Heretical But his killing Question is to come I asked further How standing to the first Principles of Common Sense a Church which declares all men bound to judge for themselves could countenance Laws which exact of Dissenters that they stand not to that their Iudgment but comply against it and that constrain their liberty of judging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments c. which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such But what is this to reading Heretical Books Is there any Law in the Church of England thus to punish men for reading Heretical Books There is we know in the Church of Rome where besides other Heretical Books to have and to read the Bible in the vulgar Tongue without License which is rarely granted and ought not to be at all brings a man in danger of the Inquisition which one word signifies more than any man can tell but he who has felt it witness the late account of the Inquisition of Goa Well but to allow a liberty of Judging and not to suffer men to stand to their Judgment is contrary to Common Sense It is so but who gives a liberty of Judging and forbids men to stand to their own Judgment I am sure the Church of England accounts any man a Knave who contradicts his own Judgment and Conscience There is no Inquisition for mens private Opinions no ransacking Consciences in the Church of England as we know where there is Yes We constrain this liberty of Iudging by the dread of Excommunications Sequestrations Imprisonments Exclusion from the chiefest Properties of free born Subjects even by Hanging and Quartering which is to make it Death not to act against a strict Duty of Conscience acknowledged by the Persecutors to be such It is a blessed time for these Jesuits who like that no body should be able to Persecute but themselves to rail at Persecution but let that pass It seems then it is contrary to Common Sense to allow a liberty of Judging and to deny a liberty of Practice for God suppose to allow men to choose their Religion and to Damn them if they choose wrong That is to say a Natural liberty of Judgment and by the same reason the Natural liberty of Will is inconsistent with all Government in Church and State If this were so it would indeed make Persecution as he calls it in a free-judging Church very absurd but it is very reconcileable to Common Sense for a Church which denies this liberty of Judging to Persecute too and this justifies the Persecutions of the Church of Rome Let Protestants here see if such Jesuits could rule the Roast what it will cost them to part with their liberty of Judging they loose their Argument against Persecution for an Infallible Church which will not suffer men to Judge may with good Reason Persecute them if they do that all men who like Liberty of Conscience are concerned to oppose Popery which it seems is the only Religion that can make it reasonable to Persecute nay which makes it unreasonable not to Persecute for it is as much against Common Sense for a Church which denies a liberty of Judging to allow a liberty of Conscience as for a Church to deny Liberty of Conscience which allows a liberty of Judging Thus far the Preservative is safe and let his following Harangue against the liberty of Judging shift for it self that is not my business at present His next Quarrel is that Preser p. 4 5. I advise Protestants not to dispute with Papists till they disown Infallibility I own the charge and repeat it again that it is a ridiculous thing to dispute with Papists till they renounce Infallibility as that is opposed to a lâ—berty of Judging for so the whole Sentence runs Here then let our Protestant fix his Foot and not stir an inch till they disown Infallibility and confess that every man must Iudge for himself in Matters of Religion according to the Proofs that are offered to him This the Jesuit either designedly concealed or did not understand though it is the whole design of that Discourse For the plain state of the Case is this The Church of Rome pretends to be Infallible and upon this pretence she requires us to submit to her Authority and to receive all the Doctrines she teaches upon her bare Word without Examination for we must not Judge for our selves but learn from an Infallible Church Now I say it is a ridiculous thing for such men to pretend to Dispuâ—e with us about Religion when they will not allow that we can judge what is true or false for it is to no purpose to Dispute unless we can Judge and therefore a Protestant before he Disputes with them ought to exact this Confession from them that every man must Judge for himself and ought not to be over-ruled by the pretended Infallible Authority of the Church against his own Sense and Reason and this is to make them disown Infallibility as far as that is Matter of Controversie between us and the Church of Rome to disown Infallibility as that is opposed to a liberty of Judging If it be absurd to Dispute with a man who denies me a liberty of Judging then I must make him allow me this liberty before I Dispute and then he must disown the over-ruling Authority of an Infallible Judge which is a contradiction to such a Liberty By this time I suppose he sees to what little purpose his Objections are that to require such a disowning of Infallibility is to say 'T is impossible to convince a man that in Reason he ought to submit his Iudgment to any other though Infallible No Sir but 't is to say that I cannot make use of my Reason in any thing till I am delivered from the Usurping Authority of such an Infallible Judge who will not suffer me to use my
other reason but to justifie the absurdities and contradictions of Transubstantiation As for the making void the use of Fathers and Councils to unlearned men it is the thing I designed and I am very glad if I have done it but as for learned men they may make such use of them still as such Writings are designed for not to make them the Rule of Faith but either to learn what was the Doctrine and Practice of the Church in their days or what their private Opinions were or how they expounded Scripture and the like that I call it squabling about the sense of Fathers if the expression be undecent it is owing to himself and some such late Scriblers whose Disputes have been nothing else but Squables But I cannot blame him that he is so angry that I direct the Protestant to inquire Whether such Books were written by that Father whose Name it bears for he knows such an inquiry has very lately cost him dear I was going to say a blush but that is impossible If such Questions as I ask cannot be answered to the satisfaction of learned men they are of no more use to them than they are to the unlearned who cannot answer them themselves and want the Learning which is necessary to make them capable of a satisfactory Answer and this is all the Answer I shall return to this Charge His next Charge is a dreadful one Such Principles as make void all use of Civil Charity and Moral Iustice to our Neighbours He lays it in the very last Section of the Preservative Concerning Protestant Mis-representations of Popery Wherein I shewed how vain and silly this charge was and he has not one word to say in defence of it Among other things I observed that these men who complain so much of Mis-representing endeavour to make the Doctrines of the Church of Rome look as like Protestant Doctrines as ever they can as if there were little or no difference between them The truth is the chief Mystery in this late Trade of Representing and Mis-representing is no more but this to joyn a Protestant Faith with Popish Practices to believe as Protestants do and to do as Papists do This I gave some few instances of out of the Representer and shewed that their Faith as he Represented it came very near and in some cases was the very same with the Protestant Faith but their Practice was Popish How is this contrary to Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He says it is this When a man 's exterior Actions are naturally capable of a good and pious meaning and he ever and clearly declares that it is his yet to fasten upon him another opposite design and meaning But how does this concern me who fasten no meaning at all upon their Actions but only barely relate what they profess to believe and what they practice He instances in two and let all the World judge who makes void Civil Charity and Moral Honesty He or I. To insinuate says he that a Catholick thinks the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ he tells you that he says Ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster whereas all that I say is He the Papist Represented believes it damnable to think the Virgin Mary more powerful in Heaven than Christ which is Protestant Doctrine But yet he prays to her oftner than either to God or Christ says ten Ave-Maries for one Pater Noster which is a Popish Devotion Is here any breach of Moral Honesty in this is not all this true do I put any sense or interpretation upon this action I believe all men will think that this does more than insinuate what a belief they have of the power of the Virgin and this the Jesuite was sensible of and therefore says that I insinuate it but I will leave it as I did at first to what judgment all indifferent men will make of it In the next place he says I charge the Catholicks with worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist Hear my words again He believes it unlawful to commit Idolatry and most damnable to worship any Breaden God which is spoke like a Protestant but yet he pays Divine Adoration to the Sacrament which is done like a Papist Here is nothing about worshipping the visible Species in the Eucharist but whatever is the Sacrament they worship and must do so by the Doctrine of their Church if they can make a Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ without the visible Species then according to their Doctrine they need not worship the visible Species if they can't they must for they must adore the Sacrament and if the Sacrament should prove to be Bread and Wine not the natural Body and Blood of Christ and it is strange if it should not then I need not tell them what they worship But those matters have been debated often enough of late He concludes with an advice to Protestants urging the Argument against Scriptures which I had before done against Fathers Amongst Christians there is not one in an hundred thousand who understand all Scripture and it is morally impossible they should and therefore certainly there must be an easier and shorter way to understand Christian Religion than this or else the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians are out of possibility of Salvation I grant every word of it to be true if understanding all Scripture as he puts it were necessary to Salvation but the only easier and shorter way is to understand so much of the Scripture as is necessary to Salvation and let him when he pleases if he dare venture the Blasphemy of it prove that this is morally impossible to the generality of Mankind even of profest Christians A VINDICATION OF THE SECOND PART OF THE Preservative against POPERY HEre our Jesuite gives me a great many hard Words but nothing of Argument He talks tragically of Calumnies and Misrepresentations how much he proves of it unless a bold Accusation must pass for a Proof I dare leave to every ordinary Reader who will compare my Book with his He is much off of his byass here for I did not dispute directly against any Popish Doctrines but used such collateral Arguments as are very evident and convincing to ordinary Readers but so much out of the road that the Jesuite could find nothing in his Common-place Book about it and therefore does not pretend to answer any one Section of my Book but yet out of every Section he picks some single Sayings and if he meets with an Argument that he cannot answer he takes some few words of it and calls it Calumny and Misrepresentation the only way I have to write such an Answer to him as may be fit to be read is to give a short Abstract of each Section of my Book and to take notice where those Passages come in which he calls Calumnies and Misrepresentations SECT I. Concerning Idolatry I Shewed the great Design of our Saviour was more perfectly to
And here the Jesuite finds another Misrepresentation that by the Incarnation God is visibly represented to us in our nature but the Papists not contented with this contrary to the design of God made man make and adore other Images of God. Here he has concealed what my Argument was but the thing is true that though God gave us a visible Image of himself to cure the Idolatry of Image-Worship yet this is still retained and practised in the Church of Rome In summing up this Argument I said Since it was one main design of Christ's appearance to root out Idolatry is it credible that the Worship of Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary the Worship of Images and Reliques as it is practised in the Church of Rome should be any part of the Christian Worship or allowed by the Gospel of our Saviour if Creature-Worship and Image-Worship were so offensive to God here is the Worship of Creatures and Images still and therefore all the visible Idolatry that ever was practised in the World before This is another of his Misrepresentations but very true No understanding Papist that has any modesty can deny that they worship Creatures and Images for that they should be worshipped is determined by their own Councils now if there be any salvo to deliver the Church of Rome from the guilt of Idolatry in worshipping Creatures and Images when the Heathens were Idolaters for doing it yet here is the visible Worship of Creatures and Images that is all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens This was my Argument to shew how improbable it was that Christ who came to extirpate all Idolatry should still allow the external and visible Worship of Creatures which if it be not Idolatry yet is all that was visible in the Idolatry of the Heathens and it had better become him to have answered this Argument than to have called it a Misrepresentation I observed farther That the great difference the Papists can pretend between their Worship of Saints and Images and what the Heathens did whereby to excuse themselves from Idolatry notwithstanding they worship Creatures and Images as the Heathens did is that they have better Notions of the Worship of Saints and Angels and Images than the Heathens had but I said whether they had or no would be hard to prove The Pagan Philosophers made the same Apologies for their Worship of Angels and Daemons and Images which the learned Papists now make and whether unlearned Papists have not as gross Notions about the Worship of their Saints and Images as the unlearned Heathens had is very doubtful and has been very much suspected by learned Romanists themselves This he puts down for another Misrepresentation though all learned men know it to be true Had he ever read Origen against Celsus he would have known that that Philosopher had taught the Roman Doctors how to defend the Worship of Saints and Images and that the Father had confuted them long since and had he looked into Vives upon St. Aust. de Civitate Dei he would have found that learned Man make nâ— great difference between unlearned Christians and Heathens as to thâ—se mâ—tters to name no more at present I added Can we think that Christ who came to make a more perfect reformation should only change their Country-Gods into Saints and Angels and the Virgin Mary and give new Names to their Statues and Images This he calls a Misrepresentation too tho' it neither represents nor misrepresents any body that I know of but only argues what Christ was likely to do For had Christ only forbad the Worship of Pagan Gods and set up the Worship of Saints it had not been to extirpate Creature-Worship but only to change those particular Creatures who were to be Objects of Worship and instead of the Images of Iupiter and Bacchus to set up Images to Saints Thus I have considered the Misrepresentations charged upon the first Section of the Preservative as for his own representation of the Faith and Practice of the Catholicks as to their Worship I am not concerned with it There are a great many late Treatises wherein those Matters are fully debated Such as The Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome truly represented The Object of Religious Worship The Answer to Papists protesting against Protestant Popery The late Answers to M. de Meaux and his Vindicator and a Book which this Jesuite has some reason to know The Primitive Fathers no Papists And to these I refer my Reader who needs any farther satisfaction SECT II. Concerning the great Love of God to Mankind c. HE has found but six Misrepresentations and Calumnies in this Section which is pretty moderate and some few Arguments against Purgatory and our recourse to Saints for their Prayers which he says he has collected not one omitted but when I read them over I could not find any one of them I confess it is a very dull and troublesom task to answer him for he transcribes several Passages out of my Book without representing their connexion with what goes before or what follows or without telling what their fault is or offering one word to confute them that whoever will but take the pains to put every Sentence into its proper place will need no other answer And this I shall do as briefly as I can Having shewn what great assurance the Gospel of our Saviour gives us of the love of God to sinners I came to shew how irreconcilable the Doctrine of Purgatory and the Invocation of Saints and Angels as our Mediators with God is with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love and that Security it gives us of Pardon through the Merits and Intercession of Christ. 1. The Doctrine of Purgatory where the Punishments are as severe as in Hell itself only of a less continuance and yet they may last some thousand Years unless their Friends or the Priests be more merciful to them This I said was a barbarous Doctrine and so inconsistent with the Gospel-Account of God's Love that it is not reconcilable with any Notion of Love and Goodness you may call it Iustice you may call it Vengeance if you please but Love it is not These words he cites as an Argument against Purgatory without representing on what it is founded viz. that glorious discovery of God's love to sinners in the Gospel of Christ now if to damn men whose sins are pardoned for a thousand or two thousand Years for so long sure a man may lie in Purgatory or else the Pope is a great Cheat for selling Pardons for ten and twenty thousand Years if no man be in danger of lying one thousand Years in Purgatory I say if this be not reconcilable with the Gospel-Notion of God's Love then Purgatory can be no Gospel-Doctrine This Argument he never mentions and never pretends to answer in his Catholick Doctrine of Purgatory He says the Doctrine of Purgatory is God's Iustice tempered with Infinite Mercy but I
Worship that God must be worshipped as a meer Spirit but that the nature of the Christian Religion will not admit of such an external Worship And yet if he can tell me how this Stipulation or Covenant can be made betwixt God and us by interior Graces without some visible covenanting Rite how the Christian Church which is a visible Society distinguished from the rest of the World by a visible Covenant can be thus visibly incorporated by interior invisible Graces I will confess then that there had been no need had Christ so pleased of any visible Sacraments He adds upon whatever account that interior Covenant but we speak of an external visible Covenant which requires visible Pledges and Seals requires a visible sensible Mark and our actual Communion with Christ another all the Communications of God's Graces to us all our return of Worship and Adoration will equally admit of sensible Signs and Rites Let us apply this then to those Instances I gave of this external Worship and see whether there be the same reason for that as there is for some visible signs of a visible Covenant The same reason and necessity for instance of some external Rites to expiate sin now the Gospel declares there is no expiation of sin but the Blood of Christ that there is of Gospel-Sacraments to apply the expiation of Christ's Death to us The same necessity of external Washings and Purifications distinction of Meats c. Now the Gospel has put an end to all legal Uncleanness as there is of Baptism to wash away our Sins or of the Lord's Supper to strengthen and refresh our Souls by a Spiritual feeding on the Body and Blood of Christ the same external holiness of Places to sanctifie our Worship now God has declared that he has no symbolical Presence on Earth the same necessity of material and inanimate receptacles and conveyances of Divine Graces and Vertues the same necessity of an external and ceremonial Righteousness which is such a contradiction to the whole design of the Gospel as there is of the Gospel-Sacraments to receive us into Covenant and to convey the Blessings of the Covenant to us As for external Acts and Circumstances of Worship and Adoration I allowed the necessity of them under the Gospel but these are very different things from external religious Rites and if he knows no reason why the conveyances of Grace should rather be confined to the two Gospel-Sacraments then to Holy Water or Agnus Dei's or the Reliques of Saints or such other Popish Inventions I will tell him one because the Spirit of Grace is the Spirit of Christ and derives his influences only to the mystical body of Christ all our Graces are the immediate influxes of the Divine Spirit and nothing can intitle us to the Graces of the Spirit but being Members of Christ's Body and there are no visible Sacraments of Union to Christ but Baptism and the Lord's Supper and therefore no visible Rites of conveying the Graces of the Divine Spirit to us but these Again As our Spiritual Life consists in our Union to Christ so this Union makes us New Creatures for he that is in Christ is a New Creature Now there are but two things necessary to a New Creature a new birth and a constant supply of nourishment for its increase and growth Baptism is our Regeneration or New Birth whereby we are incorporated into Christ's Mystical Body and receive the first Communications of a Divine Life from the Holy Spirit the Lord's Supper is the constant Food and Nourishment of our Souls wherein we receive fresh supplies of Grace as our Natural Bodies do new Spirits from the Meat we eat Now let any man tell me what more is necessary to a New Creature than to be born and to be nourished by fresh supplies of Grace till it grow up to a perfect man in Christ Jesus all this is done for us by Baptism and the Lord's Supper and if all Divine Grace must be derived to us from our Union to Christ as the Members of his Body nothing can be more congruous than that the Sacraments of our Union to Christ should be the only visible and external Rites of conveying all supernatural Grace to us so that unless Holy Water and Relicks c. be new Sacraments of our Union to Christ they can be no Gospel conveyances of Grace and by the way whoever well considers this will think it little less than a demonstration that there can be but two Gospel Sacraments because there are no other visible Rites of uniting us to Christ and consequently of conveying supernatural Grace to us which is the Notion of a Sacrament But to proceed I came to apply this Discourse to Popish Worship to see how consistent it is with that Reformation Christ had made of the Worship of God under the Gospel And I observed in general that whoever only considers the vast number of Rites and Ceremonies in the Church of Rome must conclude it as Ritual and Ceremonial a Religion as Judaism itself the Ceremonies are as many more obscure unintelligible and useless more severe and intolerable than the Iewish Yoke itself which St. Peter tells the Iews neither they nor their Fathers were able to bear The first part he has nothing to say to and by his silence confesses it to be true and that is proof enough that it is no Christian Worship But he will by no means allow that they are as severe and as intolerable as the Iewish Yoke this he calls a Mis-representation and looks about to see what it should be that is so intolerable he suspects I mean their Fasts in Lent or on Fridays and Saturdays but he is much mistaken I know all these are very easie and gentle things in the Church of Rome or that Prayer and Almsdeeds may be these terrible things And here he comes pretty near the matter for I look upon it very intolerable to say over so many Prayers and Masses every day without understanding one word they say which is the daily Task of many thousand Priests who understand no more what they say than the People do To part with their real Estates many times to the great damage of their Families out of a blind Devotion to deliver their Souls from the imaginary Flames of Purgatory which they call Almsdeeds to whip and macerate their Bodies if they be so blindly devout with severe Fasts for men may fast severely in the Church of Rome if they please with long Watchings hard Lodging tedious and expensive Pilgrimages not to cure but to expiate their sins He says If the Ceremonies used in the Liturgy he should have said in their mass-Mass-Book and Rituals and Breviaries be a burden surely the Clergy or Religious must feel the weight of it yet I am sure not one ever owned it Is he sure of this Has he confessed all the Nuns and Monks but if they have not owned it Have they never felt it neither Will
single sheet was only swelled up with words but void of Sense and Reason A strange Tympany this poor Preservative was sick of that when the wordy swelling was taken down that and the Answer too could be reduced to a single sheet But the Prefacer he says should have pointed at some pretended proofs which he slighted to expose or have praised him for not wearying his Readers with a dull prolixity But the Prefacer pointed him to the Book and that was enough unless he would have had him transcribe the Book again and concluded every entire Argument with this is not Answered by the Iesuite For I know not any one paragraph that he has pretended to answer though some single sayings he has nibled at and little pieces of Argument as appears from this Vindication and that so dully too that there was no need of more prolixity to tire his Readers Our Author little thinks how he exposes his Reputation among our people by such vain brags as these They can find a great many Arguments which he has not medled with and therefore conclude the Jesuite to be very blind or very impudent in pretending to have answered all he could find or which it may be is the truth of the case that he was not trusted to read the Preservative but had some sayings picked out for him to answer and he mistook them for the whole 4 ly That when he talks big of Calumnies and Misrepresentation he woulâ— not only say but prove them to be so that is that I attribute any Doctrines to them which are not taught by their own Councils and Doctors or impute such Practices to them as they are not guilty of for this Cry of Misrepresenting is grown so familiar now and that Charge has been so often bafled of late that our People will not take his Word for it nor allow every Argument he cannot Answer to pass for a Misrepresentation 5 ly I would advise him to have a care that he do not Confute his own Church while he is zealous to Confute his Adversary this often happens and has done so to him in this very Dispute especially in his Talk of Moral Infallibility which has effectually given up the Roman pretences to Infallibility as I have shewn above 6 ly If he resolves to Write again I desire him to take but any one Chapter or Section in the Preservative and try his skill on it not to pick out a single Saying or two but to Answer the whole Series of Argumentâ— as they lie there and if he can make any work of it I promise him a very grave and modest Reply But if he skips about from one Page to another and only hunts for Calumnies and Misrepresentations as he calls them which he first artificially makes by changing Words and Periods and joyning Sentences which have no relation to each other and then triumphs over his own Creatures I shall leave him to be answered and chastized by any Footman who pleases to undertake him and I wish the next may not be so much his Over-match as the first was I have taken no Notice of his Postscript in Answer to the Preface to the Protestant Footman's Defence of the Preservative That Author is able to Answer for himself if he thinks fit but I presume he looks upon that Dispute as at an end if Disputes must ever have an end for when all is said that a Cause 〈◊〉 bear and the same Arguments and the same Answers come to be repeated over again it is time then for a modest man to have done and to leave the World to judge unless Disputing be only an Art of Scolding where the last Word is thought the Victory THE END Books Printed for and are to be Sold by W. Rogers Bp Wilkins his Fifteen Sermons Octavo Dr. Wallis of the Necessity of Regeneration In Two Sermons to the University of Oxford Quarto His Defence of the Royal Society and the Philosophical Transactions particularly those of Iuly 1670. In Answer to the Cavils of Dr. William Holder Quarto The Necessity Dignity and Duty of Gospel-Ministers discoursed of before the University of Cambridge By Tho. Hodges B.D. Quarto The Peaceable Christian. A Sermon Quarto Price 3 d. A Treatise of Marriage with a Defence of the 32 d Article of the Church of England viz. Bishops Priests and Deacons are not commanded by God's Law either to Vow the State of Single Life or to Abstain from Marriage c. By Tho Hodges B. D. Octavo History of the Affairs of Europe in this present Age but more particularly of the Republick of Venice By Battista Nani Cavalier of St. Mark. Fol. Sterry's Freedom of the Will. Folio Light in the Waâ— to Paradise with other Occasionals By Dudley the 2 d late Lord North. Octavo Molins of the Muscles with Sir Charles Scarborough's Syllabus Musculorum Octavo A Collection of Letters of Gallantry Twelves Leonard's Reports in Four Parts The Second Edition Folio Bulstrode's Reports in Three Parts the Second Edition Corrected with the Addition of Thousands of References 1688. Fol. The Compleat Clark containing the best Forms of all sorts of Presidents for Conveyances and Assurances and other Instruments now in Use and Practice Quarto Sir Simon Degges Parsons Counsellor with the Law of Tithes and Tithing In Two Books The Fourth Edition Octavo An Answer to the Bishop of Condom now of Meaux his Exposition of the Catholick Faith c. wherein the Doctrine of the Church of Rome is Detected and that of the Church of England Expressed from the Publick Acts of both Churches To which are added Reflections on his Pastoral Letter THE Doctrines and Practices of the Church of Rome â—ruly Represenâ—ed in Answer to a Book intituled A Papist Misrepresented and Represented c. Quarto Third Edition An Answer to a Discourse intituled Papists protesting against Protestant Popery being a Vindication of Papists not Misrepresented by Protestants And containing a particular Examination of Monsieur de Meaux late Bishop of Condom his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of Rome in the Articles of Invocation of Saints Worship of Images occasioned by that Discourse Quarto Second Edition An Answer to the Amicable Accommodation of the Differences between the Representer and the Answerer Quarto A View of the 〈◊〉 â—ontroversie between the Representer and the Answerer with an 〈◊〉 to the Representer's last Reply in which are â—id open some of the Methods by which Protestants are Misreprensented by Papists Quarto The Doctrine of the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scriptâ—â—â—â—eason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the 〈◊〉 Part Wherein an Answer is given to the late Proofs of the Antiquity of Transubstantiation in the Books called Consensus Veterum and Nubes Testiuâ— c. Quarto The Doctrine â—f the Trinity and Transubstantiation compared as to Scripture Reason and Tradition in a new Dialogue between a Protestant and a Papist the Second Part Wherein the
Dâ—â—â—rine of the Trinity is shewed to bâ—â—greeable to Scripture and Reason â—nd Transubstantiation repugnant to both Quarto An Answer to the Eighth Chapter of the Representer's Second Part in the first Dialogue between him and his Lay-Friend Of the Authority of Councils and the Rule of Faith. By a Person of Quality With an Answer to the Eight Theses laid down for the Tryal of the English Refâ—â—mation in a Boâ—k that came lately from Oxford Sermons and Discourses some of which never before Printed The Third Volume By the Reverend Dr. Tillotson Dean of Canterbury 8 o. A Manual for a Christian Souldier Written by Erasmus and Translated into English. Twelves A new and easie Method to learn to Sing by Book whereby one who hath a good Voice and Ear may without other help learn to Sing true by Notes Design'd chiefly for and applied to the promoting of Psalmody and furnished with Variety of Psalm-Tunes in Parts with Directions for that kind of Singing Octavo A Book of Cyphers or Letters Reverst being a Work very pleasant and useful as well for Gentlemen 〈◊〉 all sorts of Artificers Engravers 〈…〉 Price 〈…〉 〈…〉 Communion in the 〈…〉 of Câ—â—terbury In Octavo 〈…〉 〈◊〉 agâ—â—nst Transubstantiation In Octavo Price 3 â— The State of the Church of Rome when the Reformation began as it appears by the Advices given to Paul III. and Iulius III. by Creatures of their Own. With a Preface leading to the matter of the Book 4 o. A Letter to a Friend Reflecting on some 〈◊〉 in a Letter to the D. of P. in Answer to the Arguing Part of 〈…〉 to Mr. G. The Reflecter's Defence of his Letter to a Friâ—nd against the 〈◊〉 Assaults of Mr. I. S. in his second Catholic Letter In 〈◊〉 Dialogue 4 o. A Discourse concerning the Nature of Idolatâ—â— in which 〈◊〉 Bishop of Oxford's true and only Notion of Idolatâ—â— Considered 〈◊〉 Confuted 4 o. The Protestant Resolv'd or a Discourse â—hewing the â—â—â—easonableness of his Turning Roman Catholick for Salvation Second 〈◊〉 8 o. The Absolute impâ—â—â—â—â—ility of Transubstantiation demonstrated 4 o. The Practical Believer or the Articles of the Apostles Creed Drawn out to form a True Christian's Heart and Practice In two Parts 4 o. A Sermon Preached at the Funeral of the Reverend Benj. Calamy D.D. and late Minister of St. Lawrence-Iury Lond Ian. 7th 1685 6. 4 o. A Vindication of some Protestant Principles of Church-Unity and Catholick Communion from the Charge of Agreement with the Church of Rome In Answer to a late Pâ—â—â—phlet Intituled An Agreement 〈…〉 Church of England and the Church of Rome evinced from the 〈…〉 of her Sons with their Brethren the Dissenters 2d Edition A 〈…〉 against Popery being some Plain Directions to Unlearne◠〈…〉 to Dispute with Romish Priests The First 〈◊〉 The Fourth 〈…〉 Tâ—â— Second Part of the Preservativâ—â—gainst Popery shewing how contrary Popery is to the True Ends of the Christian Religion Fitted for the Instruction of Unlearnâ—â— Protestants The Second Editioâ— A Discourse concerning the Nature Unity and Communiâ—â—â—◠〈…〉 Catholick Church wherein 〈…〉 Controversies 〈…〉 the Church are briefly and plaiâ—â—y 〈…〉 The First Part. These Five last by 〈…〉 D. D. Master 〈…〉 Answer to Preservative p. 4. Ibid. Answer p. 4. Answer p. 4. Answer p. 4. Preserv p. 9. Answer to Pres. p. 4. Preservative Considered p. 11. Preservative Part â— p. 11. Answer to Preser p. 5. Defence of Prâ—s p. 7. Preservat Consider p. 13. A Discourse concâ—rning the Nature and Vnity of the Catholick Church Answ. to Preserv p. 6. Preserv Part 1. p. 44 45. Answer to Preseâ—v p. 6. Preservat p. 79. Preserv p. 80. Answer p. 7. Preservat Considered p. 40. Preserv Considered p. 42. Pres. p. 72. Answer p. 2. 4 Matth. 10. Preserv Consid p. 61. Preserv Consid p. 68. Ibid. p. 70. Ibid. p. 70. 2 Cor. 4.18 11 John 25 26. Preserv Consid p. 86. P. 80. P. 80. Ibid. Pag. 19. Pag. 79. Pag. 81. Pag. 79. Pag. 85. Ibid. Pag. 81. P. 87. Pag. 87. Pag. 77. Pag. 82. Pag. 78. Pag. 79. Pag. 78. Pag. 82. Pag. 83.