I Cannot forbid my self to wonder , Sect. 1 that an Author by some esteemed so irrefragable , a book which gives such cause of triumph to the Adversary , and obtains a Commendam from many Protestants , should yet lie open to so many and so plain exceptions , such as , if all advantages were taken , would stretch an Answer into many Volums ; for to return our Antagonists words upon him , I protest that not one period can I find that is extraordinary , not one instance but I will undertake to shew , that it is either very impertinent , ushered in with disadvantages to the truth , or open forgery ; or lastly , such as hath frequently received a full and satisfactory answer from others heretofore .

And are we not come to a fine pass , Sect. 2 when such a Pamphlet can be esteemed a demonstration of the Problem ? when to transcribe , a Bellarmine should I say ? or rather the objection of a Field and Hammond , should be esteemed sufficient proofs of the Popes Supremacy ? ( as if we had not been able to transcribe their Answers ) when that which may sufficiently be answered by the meanest Son of the Church of England shall be thought sufficient to load her with the guilt of Schism , to unchurch her , and pronounce the sentence of damnation upon all her members .

IN this third Chapter , You begin with a bold assertion , Sect. 1 Defen . Eccl. Ang. c. 15. and again c. 18. s . 3. Ecclesia illius temporis ( ad 600. annos ) sola nostra est ; nihil omnino ab ea vel decretum vel receptum pro sidei dogmate quod non est nostrum : vide quae sequuntur . Demonst. of the Problem in fine . Defence of the way , c. 43. F. Ap to his third Book . That Bishop Jewel and the Doctor are singular in the matter of challenging the concurrence of Antiquity for themselves , and imputing Novelty to the Catholick Church ; 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 provocation 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 without 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 Catholick , 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 continued a true Orthodox and Protestant Church , and that the devisers 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. Baxter insults over you in this matter , and tells you There was never such a creature as a Papist known in all the world till 600. Safe Rel. p. 175. 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 ; P. 118.119 . that Popery is a Fardel of new Doctrines unknown to the first Churches . And again let any Papist living bring out their cause to the tryal of Antiquity , and let them that are of the most antient Church and Religion carry the cause ; yea further , he desires no better recreation then to entertain a dispute about it with any Papist that will undertake their cause : I hope you will take up the Cudgels .

To pass over your impertinent Citation of Beza , Sect. 2 Melancthon , p. 17. &c. persons that are strangers to us ( 1. ) You malitiously accuse our Church for leaving out these words in the Roman office , V. Be mindful of thy Congregation , ( O Lord ) R. Which thou didst possess from the beginning . 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 , V. Fiat pax in virtute tua . R. Et abundatia in turribus tuis . That they had rather the English Church should have no Prayers , then that she should pray for the peace and prosperity 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 conformed 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 convictions 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 Innovation , betwixt the Purgation of a Church from its superstitions , 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 P. 19. invocation 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 manner argue that M. C. had not the confidence to defend traditions 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 P. 309 , &c. and when the Doctor had most truly said that you never have shewed that Iota in which we have left the yet uncorrupted or primitive Church or the four first general Councils , you are put into a passion , and call this most palpable and notorious truth a shameless boast . And then you send us to Simon Vogorius , Ibid. as if we could not send you to twenty Authors 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 . Pag 3 12● 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 Luthers 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 sure the Doctor never dreamt of ; but the Carbonaria fides , you so often speak of ; and whereas he saith that the Popish Religion is a patcht coverlet of the fathers errours sown together ( viz. Origen , Tertullian , &c. ) See the fragments of old Heresies , out of which he proves Pope●y to have risen , and with which to symbolize ; To. 2. p. 800. 2 Thes. 3. is it not perfectly ridiculous hence to conclude that we deserted Antiquity in deserting 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 , Antichrist began to raign in St. Pauls days , that the Mystery of iniquity did then work ? 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. P. 310. Hammond should contract his challenge to three hundred years ; when as he himself hath twice considered this Calumny , P. 142. ( 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 unimaginable that any thing should be so per saltum conveyed to us from the Apostles , P. 141. 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 : C●● . S. 4. 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 , 〈◊〉 . 28. p. 2●7 . that we offer to be tryed by all the Antient Councils and Fathers of the Church for four hundred years , and somewhat 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 extorted a confession from the mouths and pens of a world of the most Learned Writers , 〈◊〉 . 5. that antiquity declares it self for the Roman Church ; and for proof of this , you refer us to the Protestants Apology , the triple cord , with an &c. Pag. 313. 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 . Add to this Dr. James his confutation of Romish Superstitions by their own testimonies . Dr. Feilds Appendix , &c. De usu patrum l. 1. c. 4. Excogitato commento persaepe negamus & comm dum iis sensum affingimus . Answ. 1. Sure you are not such a stranger in England , as to be ignorant , that your Catholick Apology hath been answered by the Reverend Bishop Morton , in folio , and the Antiquity of our Religion shewed from many thousand Confessions of the Roman Doctors ; and must not you then be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 , De usu Patrum l. 1. c. 4. Def. Ecc. Ang. c. 13. s . 10. Index Belgicus . yea and prohibitions of the Antient Fathers , of which tho learned Dally , Chrakanthorp , and others afford sufficient instances : let us but see a little how one single Index expurgatorius 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 , Impium per solam fidem justificat deus ; Vt 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 justificatum ; 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 Antiquity to be against you , then that you use all means imaginable to conceal it from us , or make it speak what you know it doth not ?