London: Henry Hills, 1687. Disbound, title, text. This pamphlet, almost written in the form of a play, outlines a debate between Peter Gooden and Edward Stillingfleet & William Clagett. It is interesting to see that Gooden was anonymously described as a Lay-gentleman. Although not a Jesuit, he was certainly a "seminary priest". The title and first couple of leaves are detached, the title has been cropped loose in the bottom margin with a slight loss to the date. The text has light browning throughout, the last page is a little darkened and slightly marked. Gooden, Peter (1643–1694), Roman Catholic priest. educated at Lisbon. He spent the end of Charles's reign at Aldcliffe Hall and set up a school here. Under James II he was made chaplain to the Duke of Berwick's Regiment, but after the revolution he returned to Aldcliffe. He had frequent conferences with Anglicans. 'No man', says Dodd, 'was better qualified to come off with reputation in a personal conference' as 'he was naturally bold and intrepid, had a strong voice, a ready utterance, and generally made choice of such topics as afforded him matter to display his eloquence.' (DNB). [1] - 40 pp. WING G1099

London: Ezerel Tonge, 1678. A disbound tract / pamphlet. no covers. Advertisement for further works published by Tonge. Title and 22 pages. A Protestant pamphlet denouncing the Romish Church for their "Rebellious Doctrines". Tonge claimed in the adverts that he was to have been killed following the Popish plot for publishing anti-Catholic books. The first leaf [adverts] is partially detached and has some grubby marks on the blank side. The title has an ink annotation (showing Morton's authorship). The text is loosely bound together, has some foxing, and has been cropped with a slight loss to some of the running titles. Ezerel (Israel) Tonge was one of the informants of the Popish plot. He was a Church of England Divine, and virulent anti-Catholic, who met and was influenced by Titus Oates. He arranged with Oates to "discover" his original narrative. Although he had a reputation for madness, and was sidelined as a witness early on in the history of the Popish plot, [iv], 1-22 pp.e was seemingly (if naively) honest in his belief in Oates lies. He was granted a pension by the King. Wing M2839 [iv], 1-22 pp.