Sect. 1 Quer. ‘THe Church of England is either the whole Catholick Church, or a Member thereof; If a Member only, Name me that Church or Congregation, under the Sun, whose Sacraments and Liturgy she embraces, unless she have cut her self off form the rest of the Body.’

Answ. If the Church of Rome were spread over the Face of the whole Earth, excepting here in England, and nothing would serve, but we or they must be the Catholick Church, Reason would re­quire that the Church of England should be so, which is the better, and not the Church of Rome, which would be but the bigger Church. But we pretend not to be the Catholick Church, because we neither need, nor ought to boast beyond Truth. The Sacraments we embrace are received by All Christian Churches in the World, and no Church ought to receive any more. We embrace the Li­turgies of the other Reformed Churches, and use our own, as they use their own, and embrace ours. We [Page 4] embrace all that honest Chistians can embrace in the Liturgies of the Ʋnreformed, and we reject the rest. We have not cut our selves off from the rest of the Body, but the Church of Rome has done so, because she is resolved to be All or Nothing.

Sect. 2 Quer. ‘Does she allow the Sacraments of Luthe­rans or Calvinists?’

Answ. She allows and administers the same Sa­craments, that Lutherans and Calvinists do, not because they are Sacraments celebrated by them, or by any others; but because they are Sacraments instituted by Christ.

Sect. 3 Quer. ‘From whence was Cranmer, that first Pa­triarch, or Reformer of the Church of England sent? Who gave him Authority to preach his Reformed Gospel? Was it just or honest for him to rise up against the Church of Rome by vertue of a Commission from her received? And if so, I pray inform me, whether a Bishop or Minister fallen from the Church of England, may not also take upon him to Preach against the Church of England, by pretence of the Orders received from her hands?’

Answ. Cranmer was immediately sent by the Bi­shops that Ordained and Consecrated him, Origi­nally by Christ, who left that Power in the Church, by which they did so: So far therefore as he was the First Reformer of the Church of England, he did what became his Mission, better than if he had gone on to maintain False Doctrins, as the Patri­arch of Rome did. That he was the First Reformer was not his fault, but theirs, who went before him in that great Station, and should have done the same thing, but did it not. The Gospel which he preached, was not the Gospel of Man, and there­fore [Page 5]not his own, but the Gospel of Christ. Nor was it properly a Reformed Gospel which he preached, since the Gospel of Christ is in all Ages one and the same. But if because he reformed the Professi­on of the Church in some things, which were no part of the Gospel, though they were pretended to be so, he must be said to have preached a Reformed Gospel; neither was he to blame for that, whose Duty it was to cast Errors out of the Church, but they only were to blame, who had been so careless and treacherous, as to let them in. He did rise up against the Church of Rome, when he arose a­gainst the Corruptions of that Church, which had obtained in England; unless the Church of Rome cannot subsist without such notorious Errors, as he rose up against. He was not her Enemy, unless he became so by telling her the Truth. Nor is it true that he receiv'd his Commission from Rome, though he receiv'd it by the hands of Bishops, that were in servitude to that See: For his Commission had been every whit as good, if they had not been subject to the Roman Bishop, as they ought not to have been. But since his Obligation to Christ, from whom he received his Commission by their hands, was in­finitely greater than to them, it was just and honest in him to rise up against those Unchristian Doctrins and Practices which they maintained; and no less justifiable then to have risen up against the Arian Heresie, if he had received his Orders from Arian Bishops. And if ever the Church of England should fall into the like Corruptions again, (which God forbid) those Bishops and Ministers that have received Orders from her hands, and who in dis­charge thereof take upon them to preach (not against the Church of England, but) against the wicked [Page 6]Doctrines and Practices of the Church; those Bi­shops, &c. I say, will do not only what they may, but what they ought to do, and for the doing of which, they shall be rewarded at the last day by the Great Bishop and Shepherd of Souls, by whose Authority and Command they so did.

Sect. 4 Quer. ‘Whether want of Mission be not an Error in the Foundation of any Church? It being Theft and Robbery (as our Saviour hath taught us) not to enter by the Door into the Sheepfold.’

Answ. That Cranmer did, or that our Pastors now do want Mission, is Falshood insinuated by this Query: Their Mission has been more Canonical than that of many of your Popes has been. But for once to Answer directly to an Impertinent Question. The want of such Mission does not destroy the Be­ing, or as you call it, the Foundation of a Church. Nor is that the Door of which our Saviour spake in Joh. X. since in the needs of the Church Good Shep­herd may come into the Fold without Canonical Mis­sion, and it has on the other side too often happened, that Thieves and Robbers have come into the Fold by it, who came not but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy.

Sect. 5 Quer. ‘Whether Cranmer entred by the Parlia­ment Door, or by the Gate of the Scriptures? But this latter is the Old Song of Hereticks and Secta­ries, perpetually boasting of Scripture. I demand therefore, Does not the Bible admit of various In­terpretations? Whence of necessity some Judge is to be assigned to determin which is the true Inter­pretation, unless your Inclinations be to wrangle to all Eternity.’

Answ. To the first of these profound Interroga­tions, I Answer thus; That if Cranmer entred by [Page 7]the Parliament Door, 'tis a Door at which you, who­ever you are, would be glad to enter too, provided you could get in, without first passing the Gate of the Scriptures, which you shut up against men, for ye neither go in yourselves, neither suffer ye them that are entring to go in. For your saying, That Scripture is the old Song of Hereticks and Secretaries, &c. I know not whether it betrays more ignorance or profane­ness. The Scriptures (if they must be so called) were the Old Song of the Good Old Fathers of the Church; and the Old Song of the Old Hereticks and Sectaries was Tradition, Tradition, unwritten Tradition, the taking up of which Song, is that that gives you some Title to Antiquity.

To your Second Interrogatiory, I Answer, That if by admitting various Interpretations, you mean, that the words of the Bible are not so plain as to exclude all possibility of various Interpretations, and perveting them to a wrong sence, 'tis then a very idle Demand, Whether the Bible does not admit of various Interpretations? For I defie your Judge whom you speak of presently after, be he Man or Men, to put words so together, that it shall be im­possible to pervert them to a wrong meaning. But if you mean, that upon a fair Construction of the Words of the Bible, they admit various Interpreta­tions: I Answer, That in some places they do, and in others they do not admit more than one, which is therefore undoubtedly the true one. But for you consequence, that of necessity some Judge is to be assigned, &c. I beg your pardon that I do not see it, unless of necessity Men must be either so wanton and quarrelsom as to wrangle to all eternity about the meaning of words which may be diversly expound­ed without any harm done; or so perverse, as to [Page 8]cavil at a Text which has but one plain meaning. If you find yourselves given this way, you indeed ought to have a Judge assigned for you, and more than One. You should have one Judge assigned whose constant business it should be to determin the true Interpretation of all other Scriptures, but those that speak of him, to keep you from wrangling about them: And you would need another Extraordinary Judge to assign the Ordinary Judge, from those Texts that mention him, and a Third to assign the Second; and so on, till you come to a Judge for whose Credit you must take his own Word, that ye may not wrangle about a Judge to all Eternity.

Sect. 6 Quer. ‘To these Queries I have often desired an Answer, but never yet met with any.’

Answ. Why, that was hard indeed; but I must tell you, that these Queries, tho' they were Prin­ted, yet went abroad so privately, as if they were more affraid, than desirous to meet with an Answer. Whether you ever met with an Answer, I cannot say; perhaps you have not, and, it may be, you will never own that you have. But let us go on.

Sect. 7 Quer. ‘If you pretend (as many do) that Cran­mer and his Associates derived their Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles by the Hands of Ro­man Catholick Bishops, it follows inevitably that Roman Catholick Bishops did also receive their Or­ders from Christ and his Apostles, and consequently are therefore to be heard. By this Answer, the Protestants seem to me to destroy their own Cause.’

Answ. If they destroy their own Cause, you are to give them thanks; for 'tis more than their Ene­mies can do. But I do not see how this Answer de­stroys it; for if those whom you call Roman Catho­lick Bishops can give good Orders, then were the [Page 9]Orders of Cranmer and his Associates good. It is enough for us, that they had their Orders from Bishops: And as we contend that their Orders were never the better, so we willingly grant that they were never the worse for being conferred by those whom you must needs style Roman Catholick Bi­shops. Well; but you say, If we pretend to derive our Holy Orders from Christ and his Apostles, by the hands of Roman Catholick Bishops, it follows inevi­tably that these also did receive their Orders from Christ and his Apostles. So that though our Orders are never the worse from coming through their hands, yet the Roman Catholick Bishops themselves are in a better case for our granting it; since their Orders must therefore by our Confession be from Christ and his Apostles. Very well; and if your Doctrine be true, it will, I think, be found that Judas received his Orders from Christ too, when Christ said to him and to the rest, Hoc Facite. Perhaps you will say, that those were not Bishops Orders. To go on with you therefore; What follows from Roman Catholick Bishops, having recei­ved their Orders from Christ? Why therefore they are true Bishops, and to be heard. Undoubtedly; But what then? Therefore Protestants seem to destroy their own Cause. This is so much out of the Com­mon Rode of Reasoning, that surely you have some Logick by yourself, which the World yet never saw; and therefore you would do very well to let us have it, if ever it should come into your head to Query again. Not to have heard you, had been un­reasonable, I confess, and this, whether your Bi­shops were True or not. But we have heard them over and over, and this, although they have said the same thing, over and over again. You may also [Page 10]perceive that I have read (which may serve instead of hearing) yourself too, whom I fancy to be no Bishop; and this I assure you not without some tryal of my own Patience, to read such rambling and unedifying things as you have here brought to­gether.

Sect. 8 Quer. ‘But you will say perhaps, that Roman Catholick Bishops did receive their Orders, not their Doctrine, from Christ and his Apostles. Very good: I would fain know then, by whose Autho­rity the First Reformers rose up against the Do­ctrine of the Church of Rome; Unty this Knot, or Confess that Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, Soci­nis, &c. made themselves Judges, Witnesses, and Accusers.’

Answ. Here again we are at a loss for want of your private Logick; for why Judges, Witnesses and Accusers should come in here, no Man alive, it may be, knows but yourself, and perhaps not you neither. To so much as I understand, I am content to An­swer. True Bishops then may Preach False Do­ctrine, and against your Bishops we have terrible Evidence; that those Doctrins of theirs which we reject, are so far from being received from Christ, that many of them are contrary to what we have received from him. Now every Christian not only may, but ought to reject such Doctrins, and that by the same Authority which requires every one to prove all things, and to hold fast that which is good. And much more may Bishops, and other Spiritual Guids, rise up against them. Nay, by their Orders and Station in the Church, they have not only Au­thority so to do, but it will be severely required of them if they do it not. I know not what ayl'd you to tye an invisible Knot, and then to bid us unty it. [Page 11]As for Socinus, we are no more bound to Answer for his (or any other Mans) Errors, because he holds many Truths with us against you, than we are bound to answer for yours, because we hold some Truths with you against him.

Sect. 9 Quer. ‘But more Common Answer is, That every National Church may Reform itself. Be it so: Then it follows, Scotland may Reform itself to Calvinism, Saxony to Lutheranism, &c.’

Answ. And so you leave us to gather the rest in this manner, but Scotland ought not to reform to Calvinism, Saxony to Lutheranism, and therefore a National Church may not reform itself. Which is as much as to say, That because the National Churches which reformed themselves, did not all of them agree in every Point of Doctrine and Di­scipline with one another, therefore they ought not to have reformed the most manifest Abuses notorious Errors, in the taking a way of which they all agreed. If you intended to insinuate that we Confess some defects in this or that National Church, since they reformed, your Argument is just such another as this, Because the National Churches in reforming themselves, did not do every good thing which they might, therefore they ought not to have done the Good which they did. You may, Sir, observe if you please, that the Au­thority of any National Church to reform itself, does not imply it to be an Indifferent thing, how she proceeds in doing it. Nor does it follow, that because 'tis possible for a National Church to use Authority in this Matter, better or worse, there­fore she has no Authority at all in it. If you are Ignorant of these things, you do well to make Queries upon them, but it should have been done [Page 12]modestly, and without pretending to dispute of things in which you are so very unskilful.

Quer. ‘Moreover 'tis false, that the Change of Religion was made here in England, by Vote of the National Church or Clergy of England. No, no, but by the giddiness of a Few, during the Minority of Edward VI. being then a Child of Ten years old. Read the Annals of those Times (even Fox himself) where 'tis evident that almost all the English Bishops ( Cranmer and two or three more excepted) were utterly against the pretended Reformation.’

Sect. 10 Answ. If the Reformation were not a Pretended only, but a Real Reformation, and if all the English Bishops almost were against it, the more to blame they, but the Reformation was not the less necessary. Truth is to be followed with a Few, if they are but Few that follow it; but thou shalt not follow a Mul­titude to do evil. It is better to be in the right with a Young King, though he be but a Child, than to be in the wrong with an Old Pope. But for what you say, That the Change of Religion in Eng­land was made by the Giddiness of a Few, 'tis noto­riously False, for they were but few in Comparison that opposed it; and it was so generally received that Fire and Faggot in the next Reign was not able to destroy it.

Sect. 11 Quer. ‘Yet let us suppose, but not grant Reli­gion to have been Reformed here, by the major part of the English Clergy: I understand not how it may be lawful for the Church of England, being in Actual Communion with the Catholick Church, to separate itself from the rest of the Body.’

Answ. She has not separated herself from the rest of the Body, though she has not now for some time [Page 13]been in Actual Conjunction with one part of it, and that the most corrupted part of all the Rest; the true Reason whereof is, that you will have no Com­munion with us, but we must pay for it at the price of our Souls. If to reform our selves, be to separate from your Church, look you to that, who have it seems made both these things to be in effect the same thing, by your hating to be Reformed. We for our parts are amazed, that Men who talk so much for Unity of Communion, will not do that for the sake of Unity, which ought to be done, though Discord and Separation would certainly follow upon it.

Sect. 12 ‘ Quer. If you say, this was not done by Fault of the English Church, but of the Church of Rome, ob­truding on the World her Errors and Corrupti­ons: I answer in short, That all Hereticks (them­selves being Judges) will escape Condemnation. And father, let the Reader take notice, that all Presbyterians are wont to urge this very Instance in their own defence against the Church Eng­land, to wit, that they have left only the Errors and Corruption of the English Church.’

Answ. If you say, this was not done by Fault of the Roman Church, but of the Church of England, refusing to submit to the Supreme Pastor, and re­jecting the Catholick Faith: I answer in short, That All Ʋsurpers and Deceivers (themselves being Judges) will escape Condemnation. And farther, let the Reader take notice, that though this Plea of forsaking the Errors of a Church, lies in the middle to be taken up by every one that separates from a Church, yet one may take it up with very good reason against one Church, while another lays hold on it, without any just cause for so doing against [Page 14]another Church. Nor ought it to be esteemed any prejudice against using such a Plea, when there is Cause for it, that others may using when there is none. For otherwise 'tis impossible that the Inno­cent should ever make a good Plea for themselves, since they that are guilty may, if they can but speak, take the same Words into their Mouths. When the two Apostles said to the Council, Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken anto you more than unto God, judge ye, they might have been told, that this was no more than what every Deceiver might say. And yet I suppose you will not deny, but the Plea in their Mouths, was a very just and sufficient Plea.

Sect. 13 Quer. ‘Whether the true Service of God had been corrupted throughout the whole World be­fore Cranmer's Rise; If not, tell me in what Pro­vince of the Earth did exist? Whether among the Waldenses? But I am ignorant from whence Peter Waldo, the Merchant of Lyons received his Mission. Nor do I know whether his Sacraments are approved by the Church of England.’

Answ. The whole World is a very wide place, and the Query is a very Impertinent Query; For whe­ther the true Service of God bad been corrupted through­out the whole World before Cramner's Rise, or not; one thing we are sure of, that it was most vilely corrupted here, and therefore that there was cry­ing need to have it Reformed. But if you long to have a more positive Answer to the Question, first go and learn that every Corruption in the Service of God does not destroy the Truth, though it lessens the Purity of it, and that every Defect does not deserve to be called a Corruption; that as to this Matter some Churches were better, and others [Page 15]worse, none I doubt perfect, but that there was one worst of all, so very bad that Peter Waldo needed not anny Mission to declare against the Corruptions of it. Learn these things as you ought to do, a­gainst the next time, and, if you intend to go on in this way, then you shall hear farther from me. Concerning the Sacraments which the Church of England appears, I have told you my mind once already.

Sect. 14 Quer. ‘Whether at this day there be no Pure and Apostolical Service of God in the World, ex­cept that established by Law in England and Ire­alnd? Whether it be lawful for the People of England to invent a Church to themselves, divided from all the rest of the Christian World? By what Authority do they censure the Sacraments and Rites of the Roman Church?’

Answ. For an Answer to the first part of the Query, I send you back but to the last Query of all, where you may find it. As to the second, I say 'tis not lawful for the people of England, or for any other People to invent a Church, by which you mean, I should think, to invent a New Religion, New Doctrins, Worships and Governments. But what came into your Head to ask this Question, I am not able to imagin, since our people have Invent­ed no New Church, but only retrieved the Old: Whilst you all people have been the best at this Invention, and by Inventing a New Creed, and New Objects of Worship, and New Sacraments, and a New Head of the Catholick Church, have effectually divided yourselves from all the rest of the Christian World, that stick to the Old Religion, and will have none of your Inventions. 2. I must ac­quaint you, that the two former Branches of this [Page 16] Query seem to me to make up a kind of Nonsence between them, for in the first you suppose that we pretend to have a pure Apostolical Service amongst: us, and in the second, that we must needs grant our Church to be one of our own Invention. Now we might take it ill to have Questions put upon us, as if we were such Ninnies, as to pretend to an Apo­stolical Service, and yet to grant that we our selves were the Inventors of it. 3. Take all together, and the most I can make is this, that you lay great weight upon your Presumption, that by our Service we stand divided from the rest of the Christian World: which I have already told you is notori­ously false. But for your better Instructions, I shall add, that if indeed we only had a Pure and Apo­stolical Service, and yet upon the account of our Service, no other Christians would Communicate with us; the rest of the Christian World ought to be ashamed of it, but we not at all. By the run of your Queries, you seem to be ignorant of one of the plainest things in the World, which therefore I do again commend to your Consideration, viz. that Truth is the same, and changes not, whether they be many or few that profess it; and that our Religion stands not in a multitude of Pretenders, but in a Holy Doctrin, and a Holy Practice, which all ought to follow, even when the most do not. As for the third Branch of this Query, By what Au­thority, &c? it comes in as if you could never ask it often enough: But if I have not given you a sufficient Answer, pray do you try to give a better, if you can, to this. By what Authority do you cen­sure the Sacraments and Rites of the English Church?

Quer. ‘Whether Cranmer was the first Arch-Bishop of the Church of England? The reason of my doubt is this, because Archbiships of Canter­bury, for nine preceeding Ages were all Roman Catholicks? If he was the first, he wanted Episco­pal Succession, because being the first of his Sect he succeeded to none. Then how could he be a law­ful Pastor, who had neither Succession, Mission, nor Miracles to recommend his New Doctrin? I say New, and strange at that time, and for many Ages before.’

Sect. 15 Answ. He that affirms there were Roman Catho­lick Archbishops of Canterbury, for Nine Ages before Cranmer, and yet makes a doubt whether Cranmer were the first Archbishop of Canterbury or not, shall doubt on for me. If indeed Cranmer was the first Archbishop of Canterbury then, as you say, he wanted Episcopal Succession (in the See of Canterbury) that is, he had no Bishops that were his Predecessors in that See, because he was the first; and I am very glad, that you don't doubt of that too: And yet I think there is as much reason to doubt of that, as of the other. But then you are come to an end of the first doubt presently, for now you do not doubt but Cranmer was the first Archbishop, (tho' there were Archbishops for Nine Ages before him) and wanted Episcopal Succession. I suppose you do not care to stand doubting long upon a Matter; But in the name of sence how can this be? Why, Because being the first of his Sect he succeeded none. Notably spoken! and all is now as plain as can be. Be­cause Cranmer was the First of his Sect in the See of Canterbury: Therefore he was also the First of his Order, for if there were no Archbishop of his Sect before him, without all doubt there were no Archbi­shops [Page 18]before him at all: And yet there were too, there­fore I begin to doubt this will prove but a bad busi­ness at last. However, Sir, I give you many thanks for your Argument, such as it is; for the distincti­on which it proceeds upon, we have been tugging for this hundred and fifty years, and you at last have very civilly yielded it to us. For in plain Eng­lish you would prove that Cranmer wanted Episco­pal Succession, because he wanted Doctrinal Succession, he was, say you, the First of his Sect, and therefore he succeeded to none: And again, How could he be a lawful Pastor, who had neither Succession, &c. to re­commend his New Doctrin. Now tho' I can by no means grant that want of Doctrinal Succession, im­plies the want of Episcopal Succession, nor will you neither, when you have taken something to clear your Brain; yet I do very thankfully acknowledge that to make a Good Pastor, there ought not to be an Episcopal Succession only, but a Doctrinal Suc­cession also. Now Cranmer, we say, received his Orders from the Bishops of his Age, and his Epis­copal Succession from his immediate Predecessor in the See of Canterbury, and so upward. Thus far now we are very well. But then for his Doctrin, for which you would make him the First of his Sect, he took a far better course than, as you would have had him, to receive it for good, and all from his immediate Predecessors, for it was possible, and up­on trial he found it certainly true, that his Prede­cessors had made a failure in Successon of Doctrin, and innovated against the Antient Faith and Wor­ship of the Christian Church. He therefore went to the Records of the Primitive Church, and to the Scriptures which are the most Antient of all, and the only Infallible Rule of Faith; by which he [Page 19]found, and so may you (if you have Grace to do it) that some of those Bishops, whom you speak of, that went before him had miserably failed of carrying on the Succession of True Doctrin. Now I will be content in this Matter to make you the Judge, that if they are not lawful Pastors, who want succession of Doctrin, whether the unlawful ones be those who broke the Succession of it at first, or those that restored it afterwards. And because I will not tye you too severely to your own words, I will abate the word lawful, and suffer you to put Good Pastors instead of it. For I think that Orders and Regularity of Episcopal Succession, will suf­fice to make them lawful Bishops, who for corrupt­ing the Doctrin of the Church, shall not be allow­ed to be Good ones. I have one word more to say, and then you shall speak. You have heard, I per­ceive, from some of your Friends, that the Arch­bishops of Canterbury for Nine Ages before Cranmer, were Roman Chtholicks. Now their meaning was that all the Archbishops of Canterbury, even from the time of Gregory the Great, that sent Austin hi­ther were just such believers as those whom you now call Roman Catholicks: But tho' you know not these Matters, and, it may be, not they neither, yet I can assure you, that very many of your Doctrins and Practices are not only different from, but con­trary to what was believed, and done in Pope Gre­gories days; which you shall find made out very clearly to your hands, in the Vindication of the Answer to some late Paper, p. 72. &c. So that there has been sad tampering with Christianity since his time, and when first the Archbishops of Canterbury be­came your Roman Catholicks, they themselves inter­rupted the Succession of Primitive and Antient Do­ctrin. [Page 20]Take good notice of the place I refer you to, in that excellent Book now mentioned, and if you improve by it, as you ought, I may direct you here­after where to find that the Corrupt Doctrins of your Church were of a much later date, than for you to talk as you do of Nine Ages before Cranmer.

Sect. 16 Quer. ‘Whether that be a True Church that wants Lawful Pastors? And whether Pastors not Lawful and True, can be said to have true Sacra­ments? If not, then is it not better to Communi­cate under One Kind with Catholicks, than under No Kind with Reformers?’

Answ. But if we have Lawful and True Pastors, as, for any thing that you have hitherto said, nay that you or any of your Party can say, we are sure that we have; then this Query comes in too soon: And therefore at present the Question stands thus; Whether it is not better to Communicate under Both kinds with the Real Catholicks, than under One Kind only, with the Pretended Ones? But if you think fit to Renew the Query, I would advise you to Mend it a little against the next time; and not by any means to question the Validity of our Sacraments so crudely as you do, for you will find that your own Church does not presume to Baptize those over again, which go from us to you: And it were not amiss if you would tell us more distinctly, what you mean by Lawful Pastors; whether you oppose them only to such of the Validity, of whose Orders we have no good assurance; or who also came into their Cures by Simony, or who are Schis­matical Pastors, and the like, for these can hardly be said to be Lawful Pastors. Make your Query plain, and I have a plain Answer for you, which perhaps you little think of.

Sect. 17 Quer. ‘Whether the XXXIX Articles of the Church of England be Articles of Faith, yea or no? If not, then no body is bound to believe them under pain of Damnation. If they be, then hath the Church of England invented New Articles of Faith besides those XII instituted by Christ and his Apostles.’

Answ. In Return to this Query, I shall deal as plainly with you as you could wish. Many of the Articles of the Church of England, are Doctrins opposed to the Errors and Innovations, which your Church holds for Articles of Faith. Now, as to these Doctrins, we do not Esteem them in the same rank with the Articles of Faith, because they are not at all times necessary to be propounded to all in order to their Salvation; but they are necessary to be taught the Faithful in these Parts of Christen­dom, to secure them from the Contagion of those Errors you have brought into the Church. For instance, if you had not set up the Doctrine and Practice of Praying to the Saints, there had been no need at all of a Determination of this Church a­gainst it; nor had it been necessary to instruct our People, that the Saints are not to be Prayed unto. Had not Your Church invented the Article of Tran­substantiation, Ours had not opposed a contrary Ar­ticle to it. Now as to the Doctrine of these and the like Articles of our Church, we do not say, that it is in itself Necessary, but only Profitable. But it is necessary for us to Teach it, because, as you have ordered Matters, to be Ignorant thereof is very Dangerous, the contrary Errors being Damnable. For you are strangely mistaken, if you think that no Error is damnable, but the direct denial of some Truth which is always necessary to be propounded [Page 22]to all, that is of an Article of Faith strictly and properly so called. And I can assure you, that the best Divines of your own Church are of another mind. There is therefore no room left for your Second Supposition, That if they be Articles of Faith, then hath the Church of England invented New Arti­cles of Faith, &c. But I wonder not a little at the boldness of your Inference, while with no better colour for it, you would draw us in to be suspected of that which yourselves are so notoriously guilty of, i. e. of making New Articles of Faith. For had not you done so, we should have had no occasion to Oppose your Inventions so vigorously as we have done, nor you any colour to Insinuate as if we had added to the Creed. I would fain know of you, that if False Doctrins which do not directly con­tradict the Articles of the Creed, should be thrust into the Creed by one part of the Church, whether another should be afraid to contradict them, for fear of being accused of adding the contrary Propo­sitions to the Creed too; though it be evident that they do it not, but only take care to keep the Old Faith pure from New Doctrines, and the Minds of the Faithful uncorrupted with False Doctrines? If you should think fit to say so, I must then ask you, Whether Ten Thousand Foolish and False, nay and Dangerous Opinions, might not by some or others be tack'd to the Ancient Creeds, and yet the rest of the Christian World should not dare to determine precisely against them. And yet I must tell you, That if you have not capacity enough to distinguish between rejecting Errors on the one side, and adding to the Articles of the Creed on the other, I have a Question to offer you, which will go near to spoil your Query, and this it is. If you [Page 23]will needs call our Articles, Additions to the Common Articles of the Christian Faith; whether it be not somewhat worse to add notorious and dangerous Er­rors to the Creed, than to add plain and profitable, and as the case may be, necessary Truths to it?

Sect. 18 Quer. ‘Whether the Reformed Religion may not be divided and sub-divided into Endless Reforma­tions.’

Answ. The Turks have taken much notice of the Divisions of Christians. Do you therefore go and Answer a Turk putting this Query; Whether the Christian Religion may not be divided and sub-divi­ded into Endless Religions? And then I will Answer this wise Query of yours, if you be not from that time able to Answer it yourself. But if you should have but little concern for Christianity, yet surely you have a great deal for Popery. Therefore I ex­pect your Answer to this other Query; Whether the Sence of the Council of Trent may not be divided and sub-divided into endless Expositions and Representations? Tell me this, and I also will tell you, whether the Reformed Religion, &c.

Sect. 19 Quer. ‘Whether in the matter of the Eucharist, the Argument drawn from our Senses, be not fal­lible? The Reason of this Question, is, because the Serpents deceiv'd our first Parents, by per­suading them to believe their own Eyes, rather than the Word of God. As that, they should eat of the Tree of Knowledge, because it was fair to the Eye. Now if Mankind should be so deceived by their Sight, Pray whence should their other Senses deserve more Credit?’

Answ. And was not the Fruit of that Tree fair to the Eye? How then did their Sight deceive our First Parents? Would any one that had but read [Page 24] Gen. 3.4, 5. say that the Serpent deceiv'd our First Parents, by persuading them to believe their own Eyes? Be so just to yourself, as to believe your own for once, and read the words, And the Serpent said unto the Woman, Ye shall not surely die, For God doth know, that in the day that ye eat thereof, then your Eyes shall be opened; and ye shall be as Gods, knowing Good and Evil. Now I take this to be a persuading them to believe something which they did not see, and not (as you say) to believe their own Eyes. And their Credulity as to this unseen Effect, was that which prevailed with them to their ruin. Remember therefore, if you please, that our First Parents were deceiv'd, by giving an easie assent to a confident Boaster, and bold Promiser of Super­natural Effects, and from expecting more from such Assurances, than what they could have been led to by the most full Information of their Senses: Remember this, I say, and then apply it to the Eucharist, as you shall see convenient. Read the Text again, and then tell me why you say that the Serpent deceiv'd them by persuading them to believe their own Eyes, rather than the Word of God? and why you give this Instance of it, as if it were his Ar­gument: That they should eat of the tree of know­ledge, Because it was fair to the eye? The truth is, the Serpent set up his own glorious Promises against the Threatnings of the Almighty; and in this we know he has been well imitated. And if he had not wrought more upon them by their Hopes and Credulity, than by Evidence of Sense (for tho' they saw that the Fruit was pleasant to the Eyes, we have no reason to think they would have tasted it, had they not been deluded with the Expecta­tion of being as Gods) his Attemps of deceiving [Page 25]might have been as vain as yours are in this Query.

Quer. ‘Whether the Church of England be not Changeable, according to the various Inclinations of English Parliaments.’

Sect. 20 Answ. Changeable? as how I pray? for this one word Changeable, splits the Query into I know not how many Queries, unless you had told us as to what the Church of England may or may not be Changed, according to the Will of English Parlia­ments. For Instance, the Church of England, is at present the Church Established by Law, and if you ask whether the Church of England, with respect to Legal Establishment, be not Changeable, according to the various Inclinations of English Parliaments, inclu­ding, as I hope you do, the Pleasure of the Sove­reign, then without all doubt English Parliaments may Change the Church of England, but we hope they will not do it. But if by Changing the Church of England, you mean, that Parliaments can make the Religion professed by the Church of England, to become a False Religion, when their Inclinations are once varied from us, then I tell you, that the Church of England is not Changeable by English Par­liaments, nor by all the Powers upon Earth: For this Matter is fixed to their hands, and can never be unfixed to the end of the World. And I do wil­lingly acknowledge, that the Religion of the Church of Rome is in this respect every whit as Unchangea­ble as Ours; that is to say, that Part of it which contradicts Ours, is False to day, and all the Parlia­ments in the World cannot make it. True to mor­row. If this Answer should offend you, I pray do not blame me, but thank yourself for put­ting the Query, which no doubt pleased you very [Page 26]much. But the Answer, let me tell you, is a good one. We of this Church depend upon King and Parliament for the Legal Establishment of our Re­ligion, but not for the Truth of it; the former there­fore is Changeable, because Men are so; but the latter is not so, because God Changeth not. Thus we render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are Gods. And it were well, if you would do so too.

Sect. 21 Quer. ‘Whether the Spirit of Calvin denying, and that of Luther affirming, a Corporal Presence of Christ in the Sacrament, be the same Spirit? If not, then both cannot be of God.’

Answ. This again is so ambiguous and deceitful, that one would think you had learn'd to frame your Queries, after the pattern of the Famous Apollo's Answers. Here therefore I must fall to Distinguish­ing as fast as I can, and Answer as warily, as if some great Matter depended upon it. In the first place then, I well remember, that this word Spi­rit sometimes signifies Doctrin, and if the meaning of the Question be, whether Calvin's Doctrin against, and Luther's for a Corporal Presence, be the same? I Answer positively and resolutely, that they are not the same; and finally I grant, that those Two contrary Doctrins cannot both be of God. Secondly, By this word Spirit, we do sometimes understand the Disposition and Temper of a Man's Mind; and then if the meaning of the Query be, whether Calvin and Luther, one of whom denied, and the other main­tained a Corporal Presence of Christ, &c. whether I say both these Men were for all this endued with the same qualities that make up the Character of a good Man, whether they had the same Spirit of Sincerity, and Piety, and Charity, and the like; then according [Page 27]to this Notion, I Answer, That I verily believe they bad both the same Spirit, notwithstanding that dif­ference, and consequently, that the Spirit of the one as well as of the other, was of God. Thirdly and Lastly, This word Spirit is sometimes used to signi­fie a Persuasion concerning some Doctrin, proceed­ing from the immediate Inspiration whether of the Good or the Evil Spirit. And if the Question goes upon this meaning, 'tis an Impertinent Question; for Luther and Calvin did not pretend to teach Doctrine from Immediate Imspiration, but to Prove their Doctrine by the Scriptures. But if you only meant to make some advantage to yourself from these two Mens disagreeing in a Matter which we must con­fess to be of Moment; I only desire you to turn the Tables, and to Answer these Queries: Whether the Spirit of the Jesuites, who say that the Pope is above a General Council, and the Spirit of the Sorbon, utterly denying it, be the same Spirit? Whether the Spirit of Thomas Aquinas, affirming that the same Honour is to be given to the Image, that is due to the Person represented by it, or the Spirit of the Bishop of Meaux, denying it, be the same Spirit? And not to be tedious, Whether the Spirit of Innocent III. and his Lateran Council, and of I know not how many more Popes, and of Cardinal Perron, and many more Cardinals, affirming that Heretical Kings may and ought to be Deposed, and the Spirit of our English Representer and those for whom he undertakes, who all deny it, be the same Spirit. If not, then both cannot be of God.

Sect. 22 Quer. ‘Was not John Calvin a most impudent Creature, in assuming to himself the Office of Reforming the World, being but a Young Man of Twenty five or Twenty six years of Age, and [Page 28]without all pretence of Miracles, a thing which Christ himself undertook not under Thirty years of Age?’

Answ. I think indeed Geneva may pass for the World, by the same Figure that the Church of Rome goes for the Catholick Church. When the World groans for a Reformation, I do not see where lies the Impudence of trying, by good Doctrine and Ex­ample, to Reform that Part of it where one lives, unless it lies in being Impudently and Bravely Good, which is sometimes necessary to give a check to Impudence in that which is Bad. If he be a Young Man that takes this upon himself, he is the more to be commended: And if he can fairly carry the Reformation beyond his own Countrey, this is still more commendable; and if he could Reform the whole World, then I say, for that which you call Impudence, Generations to come ought to rise up to his Name, and call it Blessed. You ought not, I tell you to despise John Calvin's Youth, as one of your Great Ones did Luther's Meanness, who hear­ing the Auspurg Confession read, said to his Confi­dent, That these things indeed were True, but it was not to be endured that a pitiful Monk should Reform the World. But if nothing else will satisfie you, but it must be Impudence in a Young Man to think of Reforming the place where he lives, yet at least do not represent him as a most impudent Crea­ture; for, as I take it, there are a long row of Popes from Formosus downwards, who, if your own Hi­storians are to be credited, shall compare with John Calvin in this point, not of Reforming the World, but the other, and shall get the better of him by much. And amongst these, there is one John XI. Son to Sergius III. one of his Predecessors, who was some­thing [Page 29]less modest than John Calvin, in as, much as being yet but a Boy, he took upon himself to be Head of the Catholick Church, which our John, I dare say, would never have accepted any time of his life. Indeed, the young Pope was thus far to be excused, that he was put into the Chair by Merocia, who though she was not Sergius's Wife, was yet John's Mother. For Donna Olympia was not the first of her Quality, that swayed all at Rome.

Sect. 23 Quer. ‘Whether from the Womb of the Refor­mation have not issued all those Slaughters, Rapines, Tumults, Plundering of Churches, Schisms and Civil Wars, which broke out in the year 1641.’

Answ. No truly, for since the Reformation, the Church of England hath lent neither Principles, nor Examples, nor Counsels, nor Arms, nor Men, nor Money to carry on Rebellions or Rapines. The World saw that she stuck by her Royal Master to to the last; And if you say, that it was her Interest to do so then, I hope you will grant that she has at other times given Proof of a higher Principle; Nor can you without rubbing your Forehead question the strictness of her Loyalty, who begin (some of you) to laugh at her for it. I hope you will not say that the Irish Rebellion, which broke the ice for all, those Slaughters, Rapines, &c. which you men­tion, to come after it; that that issued too from the womb of the Reformation. I think this Query had better rest, least when the Mother of that Off-spring is agreed upon, we should be tempted to inquire who was the Father of it.

Sect. 24 Quer. ‘Whether Africa produces more variety of Monsters, than Britain does Fanaticks, where [Page 30]every Man may read and interpret the Scriptures according to his own Judgment of Discretion.’

Answ. I know pretty well what Fanaticks Bri­tain has produced, but what variety of Monsters Africa produces, I cannot well say; the surest way to be satisfied, is to go thither your self, for Authors are not agreed. But if by Fanaticks you mean False pretenders to Inspiration, you may take your comparison nearer home, where 'tis as much as a Mans or Womans life is worth to have the Scriptures to read. In short, Britain has Fanaticks, but the British Church does what she can to reclaim them, which she thinks ought nor to be tried by setting up an Inquisition for some of 'em, and cannot be done by making Saints of others of 'em. You un­derstand, I suppose, and therefore go on.

Sect. 25 Quer. ‘Whether Queen Elizabeth born of Ann Bolen, Queen Catharine yet living, can be thought Legitimate?’

Answ. Without all Question she can be thought Legitimate; for I find that I think so, and I know many who say so, that do not use to say one thing and think another.

Sect. 26 Quer. ‘How admirable was the Wisdom of Hen­ry the Eighth by expelling one Pope of Rome, to raise up infinite Popes of his own Subjects.’

Answ. Not very admirable, I confess, if it were so; for we had even too much of One Pope of Rome before, as the Complaints, and the Laws of our Ancestors can well witness. But how did he raise up infinite Popes of his own Subjects? Were there so many Heads of the Catholick Church raised by him in his own Dominions? Or did every Body think himself Infallible, when once they depended upon his Holiness no longer? When you design a witty [Page 31] Query, take care, whilst you live, that there be some Sence, and a little Truth at the bottom, and in one Word, that it be not like this, which is a meer Bub­ble, and turns to nothing.

Sect. 27 Quer. ‘By whose Authority did he Divorce his Virtuous Wife Queen Catharine? His own or a Foreign? If by his own, why may not other Kings also put away their Wives at their pleasure? If Mary his Daughter by Queen Catharine was Legi­mate Heiress of the Kingdom, then Elizabeth was not, because it was not lawful for King Henry to have two Wives at once.’

Answ. I doubt not but Queen Catharine was a Vertuous Wife; but under favour, since you will needs be medling with these Matters, you should have put your Question either with more honesty, or with more skill; and instead of asking, By whose Authority he divorced his Virtuous Wife, you should have asked by what Authority he divorced his Brothers Wife. For there lay the point; and here I must tell you, that after that Question, whe­ther the Pope had Power to dispense with that Marriage, had been debated and determined in the Negative by the most famous Universities of Eu­rope; for you an unskilful Querist to ask by what Authority the King did, as he did, shews that you have spent your time to little purpose, and are to be admonished to bestow it better for the future. As for your other difficulty, how Mary and Eliza­beth could be both Legitimate: I Answer, that the Legitimacy of Elizabeth is plain, supposing the Marriage of Queen Catharine to King Henry to be void; but yet Mary the Child of that Marriage was not Illegitimate, because the Marriage was made without Fraud. But if one or other of them [Page 30] [...] [Page 31] [...] [Page 32]must necessarily be Illegitimate, pray look you to the consequence, who, I suppose, apprehend some great Matter, to depend upon this Dispute. For my own part, these kind of Queries seem to be very impertinent, for if Queen Mary was Illegitimate, our Religion is not one jot the truer for it, and if she was Legitimate, neither is it the worse. But there is a time to answer Questions that are none of the wisest.

Sect. 28 Quer. ‘If that Religion be Sacred that is establish­ed by Law, why did Queen Elizabeth destroy the Catholick Religion Established by so many Acts of Parliament?’

Answ. It seems then that what you call the Ca­tholick Religion may be destroyed. And yet these Queries are publish'd with Allowance. Your Supe­riors surely can instruct you, that to destroy the Legal Establishment of a Religion is one thing, and to destroy the Religion is another. But they saw that if you had expressed the former, the Query had looked so ridiculously, that it had been a shame to let it go. For all the Sacredness that Human Law can give to a Religion, is a legal Sacredness, and no more, or if you please, a legal Establishment. And so this is the English of your Quaere. If that Reli­gion has a legal Establishment, that's established by Law, why did the Queen destroy the legal Establish­ment of the Catholick Religion, which was of estalibshed by so many Laws? In my opinion it had been much better to Query thus like a plain man; If the Catho­lick Religion was established by so many Laws, why did Queen Elizabeth unestablish it by Law again. And now having brought your Query to this Form: I Answer, that yours is not the Catholick Religion, and it was pity that it should have that Sacredness [Page 33]which the Law gave it, because it had no Sacred­ness of its own to deserve it; and therefore it was a very good Law that took away the other Sacred­ness from it. If you think this Answer not to be full enough, you may pick out somerhing more in Answ. to Sect. 20. whither I refer you.

Sect. 29 Quer. ‘Queen Elizabeth expelled fourteen Catho­lick Bishops from their Sees, for refusing the Oath of Supremacy. But how could they swear her to be Head or Supreme Governor of the Church, when they could not swear she was Head of this Kingdom?’

Answ. I think truly Fourteen Bishops were de­prived in the beginning of Queen Elizabeth's Reign, and that for not taking the Oath of Supremacy. But take this along with you too, that most of these Bishops, if not All, had taken the very same Oath before, and some of 'em assisted at the framing of it. So that one would think, that their refusing to take the same Oath under Elizabeth, was as much as to deny her to be Head of the Kingdom, as you say; which all modest Men must grant to have been a sufficient cause for their Deprivation. But yet as tender as Princes are of their Titles, it is to be remembred to her immortal Credit, that she did not serve them as her Predecessor did Cranmer, Latimer, Ridley and Hooper, but used them in all other respects with great gentleness. What their true reasons were for refusing the Oath of Supremacy, I shall not go about to Divine. But as for you, who will needs have it to be this, in part at least; that they could not swear she was Head of the Kingdom: Thus far you are to be commended, that you have chosen a more modest expression of your Malice, than that impudent Writer did, who told [Page 34]us the other day, that she was a known Bastard. But in the Calumny, I perceive, you are both a­greed: And heark ye, Gentlemen, I do in behalf of the dead Queen, and of that Age, which univer­sally acknowledge her Title, defie you both to make good your teproach, and fix the Title of Ca­lumniators upon you both, if you neither can justi­fie it, nor will publickly retract it.

Sect. 30 Quer. ‘Did not Cranmer, and his Reforming As­sociates steal their Liturgy out of the Roman Missal, Ritual and Breviary.’

Answ. Or rather did not you steal this Query from the Dissenters? Sure I am, that hitherto it has been theirs, saving only the rudeness of the expression, which you have added to it. Go to them, and they can furnish you with an abundant Answer to this terrible Objection. But if something must be said here; our Liturgy, if it must be stolen, looks as if it were stolen not out of your Roman, but the Old Gallican Missal, which once was ours, and there­fore it was not stolen, but now every Body has his own again. But if we had taken your Roman Mis­sal, Ritual and Breviary only, and compiled our Li­turgy out of them, yet we took nothing of your pe­culiar Goods from them, but only what every part of the Catholick Church has as much right to, as your selves; and as for that which is peculiarly and properly your own there, we have left it entirely to you, and much good may it do you.

Sect. 31 Quer. ‘Are not Protestants bound by their Dath de Supremacy to obey the King as Supreme Governor, as well in all spiritual or Ecclesiastical Things or Causes, as Temporal? What mean they by these words, As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes, &c. But that Protestants are sworn to [Page 35]yield to the King all manner of Obedience, both Civil and Religious? Are they not obliged there­fore according to the Oath to become Catholicks with a Catholick King, Calvinists with a Calvinist King, Arians with an Arian? I say, according to this Oath, because the Kings Majesty is the only Su­preme Governor, (under Christ) as well in all Spiritual as Temporal Causes: which words con­fess in the King a Spiritual as well as Civil Juris­diction. But whence does his Spiritual Jurisdicti­on appear without the Power of the Keys?’

Answ. You have been as often told, what we mean by these words, As well in all Spiritual as Temporal Things or Causes, as you have asked the Question; but you would never take notice of the Answer, nor make any exception to it; and yet 'tis an even wager, that the next set of Queries, which you intend to astonish us with, brings this over again. But once more you are desired to take notice of the meaning of our Church, where 'tis most plainly expressed, viz. in Artic. 37. Title, Of Civil Magistrates. The Kings Majesty hath the chief Power in the Realm of England, and other his Domi­nions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of the Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Ci­vil in all Causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be subject to any foreign Jurisdiction. Where we attribute to the King's Majesty the chief Government, by which Titles we understand the Minds of some stan­derous folks to be offended, we give not to our Princes the ministring either of Gods Word, or of the Sacra­ments, the which thing the Injunctions set forth by Elizabeth our Queen, do most plainly testisie, but that only Prerogative which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in Holy Scripture by God [Page 36] himself, that is, that they should Rule all Estates and Degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the Civil Sword the stubborn and Evil Doers. You see then our Church acknowledges the King to be Supreme Governor in all Causes, and over all Persons Ecclesiastical, viz. that no Quality in the Church, nor cause of the Church exempts a Sub­ject from the Secular Laws, and the Sword of Ju­stice; which may be very true, as it undoubtedly is, and yet all manner of Obedience in Religious Mat­ters shall not presently become due to the King. For when Sovereigns require their Subjects to do things contrary to true Religion, if their Subjects give but one manner of Obedience to their Laws, which goes with us under the name of Passive Obedience, it saves at once their acknowledgment of the So­vereigns Supremacy over them, and Gods Supre­macy over All. So that we are not obliged by our Oath to become Calvinists with a Calvinist King, nor Arians with an Arian King, nor Roman Catholicks with such a King; nor, in a word, to be of the Kings Religion, but to submit to his Authority, let his Religion be what it will. In short, let the Persons or the Causes be what they will, out Church acknow­ledgeth the King to be Supreme Governor in his Dominions, he only having the Civil Sword. But now as for you, that make the Pope the Head of the Catholick Church, and Union to him neces­sary to your being a Member of it, who laugh at us for that dependence which our Ecclesiasticks have upon the King, and depend in effect for all the benefits of Christianity, upon your Ecclesiasti­cal Union to the Pope, which is something more than the Article recognizes of our Sovereigns; you, [Page 37]I say, would do well to tell us how you can avoid being Arians with a Pope Liberius, or Monothelites with a Pope Honorius, or No Image-Worshippers with a Pope Gregory I. or Image-Worshippers with a Pope Adrian I.

Sect. 32 Quer. ‘You will say, the King is to be Obeyed, so far as we may by the Laws of God, and the Kingdom. Be it so, then it follows, that the King is not Supreme Governor under Christ, but the Laws of God and the Kingdom.’

Answ. To this silly Stuff, I oppose a little plain Sense. That the Laws of the Kingdom are not to be opposed to the Supremacy of the King, whose Laws they are. That the King is our Supreme Go­vernor under God, but that we know of no Supreme Governor that is to be Obeyed absolutely, without any Limitation whatsoever, but God himself.

Sect. 33 Quer. ‘What if Controversies rise between the King and his Subjects about the True Sense of Scripture, Who shall be Judge? The Private Spi­rit or not? Hence, If am not mistaken, came the Rise of our late Civil Wars.’

Answ. I dare say you are the first that ever found out the want of a Judge betwixt King and People, to be the Rise of the late Civil Wars. 'Tis pity the Observation should be lost, for 'tis a notable one, and would mend the History of those Times not a little. But pray who should that Judge be, to de­termine the True Sense of Scripture between the King and his Subjects? The Pope without doubt. And so we are gotten into the old Circle again. For if they must take the Judgement of the Pope at a ven­ture, then any Man may be agreed upon to be the Judge, and he will serve the turn as well as the Pope: But if God has made the Pope Judge, that [Page 38]indeed is another case. But how shall we know it? By the Scripture? Who then must be Judge of the True Sense of Scripture, with reference to the Que­stion? The Pope says 'tis a plain case on his side. But it may be, neither the King says it, nor his Sub­jects. Who therefore must be the Judge between the King and the Pope, or between his Subjects and the Pope? Not the private Spirit, for the World, for thence come Wars. So that the Pope must be Judge, because the Scripture says so, and the Scripture says so, because the Pope must Judge. Now if instead of Pope you put in Council, you will find the Circle go as round with one, as t'other. Nor do I see how you can avoid it, but by running out into the long line, of a Judge upon a Judge, without end, which I gave you some warning of before. To Conclude, When you have tired yourselves with these frivolous Expedients for the Ending of Controversies, do what you can, you will find it best to come to that which you disgrace under the Name of a Private Spirit; the Good use whereof is that which must do the business. Men must be Honest, and hearken to Instruction, and love Truth, and remember that the Day of Judg­ment is coming: This you cannot deny to be the Duty of All. And if you and every Body else could be brought to it, then about plain Things there would be no Controversie at all; and those about Points that are indeed difficult, might do a great deal of Good, but would be sure to do no Hurt at all, either to the Church, or to the World.

Sect. 34 Quer. ‘Why did so many Noble Men under Ed­ward VI. and Queen Elizabeth, so readily Embrace the Reformation? Was't for Conscience sake, or the Lucre Church-Lands?’

Answ. The Noblemen under those Princes, were generally for Wisdom, Fortitude and Manners, a Glory to their Age and Nation: But now they are dead and gone, and it will be time enough to know the Secret into which you are inquisitive, when the Day of Judgment comes; and till then I can be con­tentedly Ignorant, whether it be for Conscience sake, or the Lucre of Church-Lands, that you wrote these Queries.

Sect. 35 Quer. ‘Why do Englishmen (so desirous of Novel­ties) hate Popery? Perhaps because Popery is no Novelty?’

Answ. If you are an Englisman, methinks 'tis no good sign of the Religion you are of, that it has inspir'd you with the scorn and hatred of your own Countrymen to that degree, as to spend a reproach upon them, which all the World sees there is not the least appearance of Cause for. Friend, you took no little care to hedge in this Abuse, when you were fain to turn Answerer to your own Query, to com­pass it to your mind. But as your Anger had been less, so your Wit had been more, to have let alone both Question and Answer, for there is that in them to clear us from your Reproach. You say we hate Popery, because 'tis no Novelty: And yet neither we, nor our Fathers, nor our Grandfathers, have professed or practised Popery, and therefore in spite of your heart, Popery must be a Novelty to us; who consequently, if we may be Judged of by this Instance, are not so desirous of Novelties. But if you had given us leave to Answer your Question, Why we are not in love with Popery? I should have Answer'd to this purpose, That it is not so far a Novelty neither, but tho' we are Strangers to the Profession of it, yet we have so true an Idea of the [Page 40]Doctrines and Practices of your Church, that your­selves are not able to deceive us into another.

Sect. 36 Quer. ‘The Church of England is either Fallible or Infallible; it Fallible (as is confest by all) then is she not sounded upon a Rock, because she may deceive and be deceived.’

Answ. After all the exquisite Discourses that have been published upon this Subject: It is — (what shall I call it?) to think that such a pitiful Argument as this, is worth a Thought. Try, if you please, this knotty piece of work upon your own dear self, for no other Answer you shall have from me. You, Sir, are either Fallible or Infallible; if Fallible (as I humbly conceive you are) then you are not founded upon a Rock, because you may deceive and be deceived. But this Argument thus turned upon yourself, is, now I look upon it again, a monstrous dull one I confess; and that for proving you not to be built upon a Rock, because you may be deceived, when 'tis so notorious, that thou art all over actual­ly deceived, as thy lamentable Papet shews thee to be. There is indeed a little life in that other part of the Argument, that you may deceive, for perhaps that is not very much more than possible; so that I think this little pains I have taken, might have been spared, for I dare say there are very few whom You and your Queries will be able to deceive.

Sect. 37 Quer. ‘Whether Cardinal Wolsey did wisely by Demolishing Monasteries to Found Colleges? The reason of this doubt, is, because the Tree of Know­ledge was not the Tree of Life.’

Answ. So, so, Monasteries were the Tree of Life, and Colleges are the Tree of Knowledge. Very neat and witty I promise you: Hence forward we shall not want a Text to prove that Ignorance is the [Page 41]Mother of Devotion. If Erasmus had not happened upon something like this, in his Emcomium Moriae, by my consent it should have been written upon your Tomb-stone; Here lies the Author of this Query, Whether Cardinal Wolsey, &c. But what have we to do with Cardinal Wolsey? Or rather, What have you to do to say any thing against him? Was it a small matter for you to trample upon the Ashes of Cranmer, that nothing will now serve you but to pirk over Wolsey's too? I have taken your size, Sir, and must needs put you in mind, that in you 'tis want of Manners, almost to Talk of Arch­bishops and Cardinals; when you but Think of such Great Men as Wolsey and Cranmer, the one a Cadinal of the Roman Church, the other an Arch­bishop of Canterbury, Men indeed of different Reli­gions, but both of extraordinary Abilities, as well as high Station: I say, when you but hear them, or such as they mentioned, you should presently reflect upon your own little self, and not dare to open your Mouth, till Persons of much meaner Rank come into Discourse.

Sect. 39 Quer. ‘Is there not wanting in the Church of England a more Correct Translation of the Bible?’

Answ. I warrant, you expect that I should say I or No to this Query presently. But in such a case a wise and honest Man must have the putting of the Question. In few words, I do by no means deny that the English Translation can be more Correct than it is: After the exactest care, 'tis likely there will be some defect in so great a Work. But this we say, that we need not a better Translation than it is, and in particular, that for the Skill and Fide­lity that is shewn in it, we will compare at any [Page 42]time with the Vulgar Latin. And therefore where­as you add,

Sect. 39 Quer. ‘That many material Errors are found in our present English Bible, tending to Schism and Liberty of the Flesh.’

Answ. I Answer, That you are very much mi­staken to say so, which I will first shew against your Instances, and then leave the Reader to say what other Name your importunity in this place de­serves.

The First Instance you refer to, is Gal. 5.17. For the Flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the Flesh, and these are contrary one to the other, so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. Now I suppose the material Error in this Transla­tion, lies in these words, so that ye cannot do, which you would say ought to have been, so that ye do not. [...]. To this I Answer, That the words † will bear both Versions, tho' I confess the latter seems to me to be more Grammatical. The Reason, I conceive, why our Translators chose the former, was, that the following Verse seems to imply that in this Verse the Apostle speaks of those that are led by the Flesh; who in that state cannot do the things which their Conscience prompts them to. Now this I say is so far from being a material Error, tending to Liberty of the Flesh, that 'tis no Error at all; unless St. Paul was mistaken when he said, The carnal mind is en­mity against God, for it is not subject to the Law of God, neither indeed can be. So then they that are in the Flesh, cannot please God, Rom. 8.7, 8.

‘The next is, Dan. 4.24. where the Prophet speaks thus to King Nebuchadnezzar; Quamobrem Rex consilium meum placeat tibi, & peccata tua Elecmosynis redime & Iniquitates tuas misericordiis Pauperum. [Page 43]Which Text the present English Translation thus renders vitiously enough; Wherefore, O King, break off thy Sins by righteousness, and thine Iniqui­ties by shewing Mercy to the Poor. Whereas it ought to have been translated, Redeem thy Sins by Alms­deeds, and thine Iniquities by shewing Mercy to the Poor.’

But suppose it should have been translated Re­deem, rather than Break off; Where is the material Error? Where is the tendency to Schism, or liberty of the Flesh? Surely if Righteousness and Alms­deeds will Redeem Sins, they are not further from doing it, by Breaking them off. I should rather think that our Translation, if we consider the difference, presses the necessity of Universal Reformation some­thing more than the other, because it will not suffer a Man to fancy that he may keep some of his Sins now he knows how to redeem them, viz. by Alms­deeds, and shewing Mercy to the Poor; but teaches him that he has no other way to escape, but by breaking off his former sins, and doing all the good things that are contrary to the evils he has done; which doubtless was the meaning of Daniel's Ex­hortation. And now after all, it was pitifully done of you to Examine our Translation by your Vulgar Latin, the Authority whereof in these Critical Dis­putes, you know we deny. And it was done ac­cording to your Wisdom too, for the truth of the Matter is, that our Translation is right, and yours is wrong: for though the Caldee † word signifies to Redeem, when 'tis applied to Persons, [...] as Psal. 136.4. Thou hast redeemed us; yet when Things are spoken of, it signifies to divide, or to break them off. So it is taken Gen 27.40. Thou shalt break his yoke from of thy neck. and Exod. 32.2, 24. and else­where [Page 44]In a Word, The Vulgar Interpreter was so far from shewing his Skill here, that he blun­der'd manifestly; and it must be a very favourable Construction of his Translation, that can secure it from the Charge of False Doctrine, viz. That a Man can Redeem himself from the Justice of God.

‘Again, You say, How are St. Paul's Words to the Corinthians mis-render'd, 1 Cor. 7.9. Quod si non se continent nubant. But if they cannot contain, let them marry; where this Word ( cannot) not being found in the Greek, was devised in Favour of the Flesh.’

That is to say, in Favour of Marriage. Now this Objection does but shew your want of Skill, and the little honesty of those that helped you to it; for assure yourself, that although there is not a di­stinct Word in the Greek for cannot, yet the force of it is discernible enough to those that understand these things, [...]. in that one Greek † word, of which our Translators made two English ones; and were obliged so to do, because we have not one that ex­presses it sufficiently. It signifies to have the Command or Power over ones self, which your Se continere. Latine does better express, than if we had rendred your Latine word for word; If they do not contain themselves. For, not to contain, does in our Language and way of speaking, fall short even of the Latin Phrase, and much more of the Greek, and therefore to make True Translation, it was needful to say cannot con­tain. And if the Force of the Word did not lead your Masters to this Construction, yet at least the scope of the place might have done it. For a very little consideration had been sufficient to have seen, that the Apostle did not mean to give this counsel of Marrying to those only that had been guilty of [Page 45]actual Incontinence, but to those also that could not due their own desires. And that he speaks here, of a Power, that all have not, is evident also from vers. 7. For I would that all men were even as I my self; but every one hath his proper Gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. The Truth is, if there be a defect in any part of our Translati­on of these passages, 'tis in vers. 5. where the Translators put Incontinency to answer the Greek word, [...]. for as Dr. Hammond has observed the English there does not reach the Original, so well as the English [ cannot contain] (which you have learn't to Cavil at) reaches it here. But now, Sir, Why must this word [ cannot] be said to be devised by us in favour of the Flesh? For neither was it devised; nor, if it were, does the sence which it gives the Place, provide chiefly for Marriage, but rather by that for the avoiding of heinous Sin, as any one, I think, might see, unless he believes Fornication to be more tolerable in sorce people than Matrimony. The end of St. Paul's counsel in this place, is visibly the same with that of his advice, vers. 5. for which he gives this Reason, That Satan tempt you not, [...], which I would thus Paraphrase, By the unruliness of your desires. Get your Masters to do it better; but mark what I say, if this be well, as I am reasonably assured it is; it will be in vain any longer to cavil at the Translation of the place under debate. And now let us go on.

‘Likewise the words of Christ, Matth. 19.11. are corrupted in favour of the Flesh, Non omnes capiunt verbum istud sed quibus datum est. All men ( cannot) receive this saying, but such to whom it is given. It ought to be; All Men do not receive this saying.’

But notwithstanding your vulgar Latin, our Translation is already, as it ought to be: For the Greek word [...] Capax sum. does not only signifie to receive, but as frequently to be capable of receiving. And there is this reason for translating it so in this place, because in the very next verse our Saviour speaking of the same Matter, expresly says, He that is able to receive it, let him receive it. Now I should think that this at least implies that some cannot re­ceive it; and yet as forward a Man as you are, I suppose you will hardly say, our Saviour put in the word [ [...]. Able] in favour of the Flesh.

‘Also the words of Job, chap. 7. and many other Texts, especially, Exod. 20.4. in hatred of the Picture of our Saviour, Non facies tibi sculptile: which word sculptile is by the Seventy Interpre­ters Translated Idol, as indeed it ought to be, be­cause God did not forbid Images but Idols.’

As for Job 7.1. it is rendred without the least liberty of Paraphrase, and word for word, ex­cepting only the addition of the necessary expletives to express an Interrogation in English. But what do I trouble my self to find out some colour of a Fault, when you set me to seek one? The place concerns no manner of Controvssie between us. And I am apt to think that you borrowed it out of a Book that was false printed, and then had not judgment enough to correct it.

At last we have, it seems, corrupted, Exod. 20.4. by putting the words Graven Image, in the Second Commandment, for is not that it you would have? And pray why should we not do so, since not only the Hebrew, [...] but even your own Vulgar has the same; which you here confess to be, Non facies tibi sculptile. For what is a Graven Thing here, but a [Page 47]Graven Image? Oh, but this word Sculptile is by the Seventy Interpreters translated Idol. Thou hast a lucky Brain: Belike then, the Seventy had the Vurgar Latin before them, and followed it in this place. To what purpose is it to spend time upon such stuff as this? Look, Sir, this is the short of the Business, the Septuagints Translation is Good, and the Vulgar Translation is Good; and that because it will hold good to the Worlds end, that Graven Images, or any likenesses whatever, that are worship­ed, are Idols, not excepting the Picture of our Sa­viour, if we had it; which I do not say, in hatred of the Picture of our Saviour, unless I must needs hate every thing which I do not worship. But I know no necessity of that; for I am far enough from worshipping your own self, and yet I cannot find in my heart to hate you: But I wish you well, and shall therefore give you a little good advice.

Do not for the future, as I hinted to you before, meddle with Kings or Queens, Cardinals, Archbi­hops, or Noblemen, for they are Persons too high for you; nor with the Septuagint, or the com­paring of Originals and Translations, as I add now; for these are things too high for you too. And for the same Reason, meddle no more between Churches, trouble your Head no more about Questi­ons, relating to Holy Orders, Mission, Succession, and the Power of Reformation; Give not your self to Controversies, and, above all things, write no more Queries. And if this distemper be once cured, I'll not despair, but that your Ingenuity may direct you to an Imployment more suitable to your capaci­ty, so that you may be able to give a tolerable Ac­count of the Time.

Farewel.