Page  9

CHAP. III.

IN this third Chapter, You begin with a bold assertion, [Sect. 1] *

whereas we persist in Bishop Jewels challenge unanimously, and are rather willing to enlarge it, then contract it. Dr. Crackentborp doth not only tell you, That Bishop Jewels pro∣vocation was most just, but reitterates it himself, and adds, that albeit this worthy Prelate (the Chariots of our Israel and the Horsemen thereof) is now in Heaven, yet hath he left behind him in the Camp of the Lord many Valiant men who dare with∣out the least fear provoke all your Philistines and Goliahs to the like Battel. Yea further, that he would not be very bold or rash, qui numerum istum plusquam duplicet: which is consonant to that of Mr. Perkins, No Apostle, no holy Father, no sound Ca∣tholick, for 1200. years after Christ, did ever hold or profess that Doctrine of all the principles and grounds of Religion, that is now taught by the Church of Rome, and authorized by the Councel of Trent. Dr. White you know riseth up to 800. years, and Dr. Fields Appendix clearly proves that the Latine or West Church in which the Pope Tyrannized, was and continu∣ed a true Orthodox and Protestant Church, and that the devi∣sers and maintainers of Romish errours and superstitious abuses were only a faction in the same, at the time when Luther, not without the applause of all good men, published his propositions against the prophane abuse of Papal indulgences. Yea Mr. Bax∣ter Page  10insults over you in this matter, and tells you There was ne∣ver such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. * years after the birth of Christ; we confidently affirm (saith he elsewhere) and challenge all the Papists in the world to dispute the point with us; * that Popery is a Fardel of new Do∣ctrines unknown to the first Churches. And again let any Pa∣pist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity, and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion car∣ry the cause; yea further, he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will under∣take their cause: I hope you will take up the Cudgels.

To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza, [Sect. 2] Melanc∣thon, * &c. persons that are strangers to us (1.) You maliti∣ously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office,

Because say You apparently, the Church from the beginning could not be ours: Yea You add We had rather no Prayers at all should be made for the Church, then for that which was from the beginning.

Answ. This is a very uncharitable surmise, and it might as well have been concluded, that because the first Reformers have left out the words immediately ensuing,

That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers, then that she should pray for the peace and prosperi∣ty of the Church Catholick. (2.) The surmise is the more uncharitable in that our first Reformers so solemnly profess they rejected nothing but your innovations and superstitions; and that the Religion they had chosen was everywhere con∣formed to the primitive Purity; how unreasonable is it upon such pittiful surmises to conclude that all these Reformers should be such gross and notorious Hypocrites? and should so solemnly profess what was so great a contradiction to the con∣victions of their conscience? (3.) Yet had it been purposely left out by them least it should be offensive to some weak people, not able to distinguish betwixt a Reformation, and an Page  11Innovation, betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its super∣stitions, and the introducing of a new Religion; would it have deserved such Sinister Constructions, or have been blame worthy?

You tell us Bishop Jewel had not the confidence to reckon in his Catalogue, as novelties, the infallibility of the Church, [Sect. 3] * in∣vocation of Saints, purgatory, prayer for the dead, celibacy of the Clergy, or Sacrifice of the Mass.

Answ. You are still weak in your deductions (to let pass your mistake of the sacrifice of the Mass, which was one of the Novelties he charged you with) may I not in like man∣ner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend tra∣ditions not mentioned in Scripture, as necessary to salvation, and to be embraced with equal authority to the Word of God, nor the Trent Canon of Scripture, because he declined the doing of it?

In your twentieth Chapter You renew the discourse of Antiquity, [Sect. 4] * and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet un∣corrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils, you are put into a passion, and call this most palpable and no∣torious truth a shameless boast. And then you send us to Simon Vogorius, * as if we could not send you to twenty Au∣thors that have answered, and bafled, what ever he or others of your party can alledge; You send us to your Chapter of the Celibacy of Priests, to view your forgeries there. * Again You cite such concessions of men (some of which are meer strangers to us) as that no rational man can think you did believe them to be pertinent; for what if Luther saith there was never any one pure Council, but either added something to the faith, or substracted, must we be accountable for all Lu∣thers words? (2.) How will you evince that he speaks of such things as are matters of dispute betwixt us? or that we esteem these things to be additions or substractions which he did? and what if D. Whitaker assert that to believe by the testimony of the Church, is the plain Heresie of the Papists, did ever any Protestant say otherwise? do not the Fathers require us to believe them upon the sole authority of Scripture reason, or tradition, handed down from the Apostles? which to be Page  12sure the Doctor never dreamt of; but the Carbonaria fides, you so often speak of; and whereas he saith that the Popish

* is it not perfectly ri∣diculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in de∣serting these errours? And again, to what end do you cite Dr. Willet speaking of your supposed Antiquity? is that a confession that Antiquity is Yours! then must he confess, that all the Doctrines which you maintain are reall truths, because by you they are supposed to be so; What if he tell us from Scripture, did he speak of your Papal Supremacy! then evidently did the Apostle also, for to his sentence he refers; did he not! then is you citation still impertinent; Again, is it not a wonder that you should so confidently tell us that Dr. * Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years; when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny, * (1.) in his reply, where he tels us that it was nowhere intimated in that treatise, that we were not ready to stand to the fourth age, but only that the three first ages, and four general Councils, were competent witnesses of the Apostolical Doctrines, and traditions, it being unimagi∣nable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles, * as to leap over those three Centuries next to them without leaving any footstep discernable among them; the like we have in his Schism disarmed: * and yet these things so manifestly disclaimed, must be still objected without the least regard of ingenuity or truth. And when Bishop Laud tells you, * that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years, and some∣what further, doth he not give you scope enough? if you cannot find any of your doctrines, received by the Church of God, as Articles of faith, or necessary to be believed within that time, is it not a shrewd sign, that they were not traditions received from Christ or his Apostles?

At last you tell us that evident truth on your side hath ex∣torted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers, * that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church; and for proof of this, you refer us to the Page  13Protestants Apology, the triple cord, with an &c. * at the end of it, and then please your self in this extraordinary advantage, and infer that we are properly condemned by our own consciences. * Answ. 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England, as to be ignorant, that your Catholick Apology hath been answer∣ed by the Reverend Bishop Morton, in folio, and the Anti∣quity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessi∣ons of the Roman Doctors; and must not you then be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 by your own argument? nay let a man consult your Indices expurgatorii, how many thousand sentences of your own Authors, will he find condemned, and ordered to be expunged, only because the evidence of truth forceth them to speak like Protestants? Yea the Authors of the Belgian Index stick not to confess (as Mr. Dally hath it) That when we oppose unto them in disputation, the errors (as they are pleased to call them) of the Antient Catholicks, they do either extenuate, or excuse them, or very frequently find out some artifice, or invention to deny them, or feign some sense that they may commodiously put upon them; and therefore they will afford the like ingenuity to Bertram (albeit it would not much trouble them were he out of the world) and having expunged some of the most evident places against them, will let him pass thus gelt (as they have done many other writings of antient Catholicks) into the world, that so hereticks may not object that they burn and prohibit Antiquity when it makes against them: Yea to pass over your additions to, detractions from, * yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers, of which tho learned Dally, Chrakanthorp, and others afford sufficient in∣stances: let us but see a little how one single Index expurga∣torius hath dealt with the Indexes of the Fathers in that very point of Justification, in which you would have us confess Antiquity to be our adversary: Out of the Index of St. Austin must be expunged Fides sola justificat; Opera et si non justificent, sunt tamen ad salutem necessaria: out of the Index of St. Chry. sost. Fide sola hominem justificari; salutem esse ex sola gratia, non ex eporibus: out of Hilary's, Fides sola justificat (albeit they be his very words) out of Ambrose, Impius per solam fidem justificatur apud deum? Abraham non ex operibus legis, sed sola fide justificatum vident: out of the Index of St. Jerom, Page  14Impium per solam fidem justificat deus; Ʋt Abrahae, ita omnibus qui ex gentibus credunt, sola fides ad justitiam reputatur: out of St. Basils, Hae• est perfecta gloriatio apud deum, quando non ob justitiam suam quis se jactat, sed novit quidem seipsum verae justitiae indignum esse, sola autem fide in Christum justifica∣tum; with other passages of the like import, which evidently speak the mind (if not the words) of the text it self: what can more clearly evidence that you sufficiently know Anti∣quity to be against you, then that you use all means imagin∣able to conceal it from us, or make it speak what you know it doth not?

In the same Section, [Sect. 6] You tell us that the citations and arguments the Doctor useth, * have been produced 100 times; whither this be so or no, I am sure the same may be evi∣denced of all that you have produced against him.

You go on and say, [Sect. 7] That he did well to fix a distinct mea∣sure of time after which only whatever doctrines are broached, * ought in his opinion to be esteemed Novelties, viz. The time of the Apostles and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively.

Ans. This is an evident untruth; but yet it was necessary to be told in the Proeme, or else every citation of your book would have been impertinent, nor would you have been able to have found any thing, which could have been nicknamed an Answer to Dr. Pierce. What other ground Mr. C. had to infinuate this palpable untruth, is not imaginable; the Do∣ctor upon this account defies this Antagonist, and rejoyces to find that his Sermon cannot be confuted without the Artifice of more falshoods than he hath pages; but surely the Doctor must have somewhat whence this saying of Mr. C. takes its rise, it being not imaginable that even a Papist (though impudent enough to do it) should be so imprudent as to fasten this upon the Doctor without the least shew of evidence. Ans. Assuredly there is nothing in the Doctors Sermon from whence it can tolerably be argued. Indeed the Doctor saith, They ever complain we have left their Church, but never shew us that Iota, as to which we have left the Word of God, or the Apostles, or the yet uncorrupted and Primitive Church, or the four first General Councils; now I Page  15hope to say, We have not left the Doctrine of the four first General Councils or deserted them; is not to say, That from after the time of their convention, all novelties must be dated; then could not Socinianisme, Anabaptisme, Presby∣terianisme, be esteemed novelties by the Doctor; for he ac∣knowledgeth them to have been within the time of these four Councils; nor was our Authour ignorant of this; for speaking of the appeal of Dr. Hammond to the three first Centuries or the four General Councils, he thus paraphraseth it: * Where by submission to the four first General Councils, he means only to the bare decisions of these Councils in matters of faith, not obliging himself also to the authority of those Fathers who flou∣rished in the time of these four Councils and sate in them.

He goes on and tells us, [Sect. 8] That the Doctor did this (which he never did) not out of a voluntary liberality, * but because an Act of Parliament obligeth him; wherein it is said, that such persons to whom Queen Elizabeth should give authority to execute any jurisdiction spiritual, should not judge any matter or cause to be Heresie, but only such as heretofore hath been determined to be Heresie by the Authority of Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils; which Argument runs thus; If no person authorized by Queen Elizabeth to execute any spiri∣tual jurisdiction, must adjudge any matters to be Heresie, which were not determined to be so by the first four General Councils, then is Dr. Pierce obliged to fix the times of the Apostles, and so downward till the fourth General Council inclusively, as that distinct measure of time, after which Only whatever Dctrines are broached, ought in his opinion to be esteemed novelties: But; verum prius; ergo. Truly Sir, you your self when you wrote it, might think the inference valid, but no man else now can.

He comes next to propound some questions (the shrewdest way of arguing when dexterously managed) And the first brings the Doctor to this great absurdity, to acknowledge, [Sect. 9] * with the rest of his fellow-Protestants, that Scripture alone is the rule of Faith.

The second, to acknowledge what we generally do, that no Authority on earth obligeth to internal assent: shrewd con∣clusions ushered in with a train of blunt Dilemmas.

Page  16

Your third Question shall be considered in Answering the twelfth Section of your last Chapter.

Fourthly, He askes What answer the Doctor will make to God for abusing Scripture? * Ans. He will plead not guilty.

But how can that be, [object.] when he pretends to prove the law∣fulness of the English Reformation,

[reply.] Rep. The Doctor will have little cause to fear his doom if no better plea can be brought against him: for (I pray you tell me) doth he not either confront the evidence of Scripture against you (as in the doctrine of the Popes Supremacy, and Tran∣substantiation, and Communion in one kind, forbidding Marriage) or the intent of the Apostles, or rather of God himself (as in the restraint of Scripture from the Vulgar) or Thirdly, tell you expresly that you oppose the verdict of Gods Word (as in the matter of Divorces, and Prayers in an unknown tongue.) Secondly, When you confess that the things defined by your Councils are only such as were alwayes matters of faith, * and conveyed to us by the general pra∣ctice of the Church, is it not enough to shew our innocency, in not accepting them for such, because ab initio non fuit sic? especially, when (thirdly) you know we hold, that in all matters of faith, 'tis all one with us to be praeter Scripturam, and to be contra; * but you ridiculously add, That he should have cited such Scriptures as these, "S. Peter & his Successors never had, nor ought to have any Supremacy of jurisdiction, &c. Which here I bind my self to do, when you can make it appear that the Doctor was obliged to do so, or that the Scripture anywhere saith, That the Trent Councils definitions are to be received as a rule of Faith, The body of Christ is transub∣stantiated, Tis unlawful to give the Scriptures to Lay-men to peruse, The English Church is guilty of formal Schisme, and such like stuff which you pretend to deduce from Scri∣pture.

Lastly, [Sect. 10]

Answ. Presbyterians cry out of Innovations by Bi∣shops, Page  17the Greek Church and the reformed condemn the Romanist as an Innovator; the Arrians, the Nicene Fathers; therefore it cannot reasonably be thought that any of these are Innovators by Mr. C.