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 your 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 quarrelsome 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 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 determine 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 met with any.

Answ.-Why, that was hard indeed; but I must tell you, that these queries, though they were printed, yet went abroad so privately, as if they were more afraid, 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 Catholic bishops; it follows inevitably, that Roman Catholic 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 it is more than their enemies can do. But I do not see how this answer destroys it; for if those whom you call Roman Catholic bishops can give good orders, then were the 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 Catholic bishops. Well, but you say, if we pretend to derive our holy orders from Christ and his Apostles, by the hands of Roman Catholic 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 for coming through their hands, yet the Roman Catholic 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 Catholic 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 road of reasoning, that surely you have some logic 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 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 trial 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 Catholic 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: untie this knot, or confess that Cranmer, Luther, Calvin, Socinus, &c. made themselves judges, witnesses, and accusers.

Answ. Here again we are at a loss for want of your private logic 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 doctrines 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 doctrines, and that by the same authority which requires every one to prove all things, and hold fast that which is good. And much more may bishops, and other spiritual guides, 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 ailed you to tie an invisible knot, and then to bid us untie it. As for Socinus, we are no more bound to answer for his (or any other man's) errors, because he holds many truths with us against you, than we are bound to answer for yours, because we hold some truth with you against him.

Sect. 9. Quer. But the 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 and notorious errors, in the taking away 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 it is 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 if these things you do well to make queries upon them; but it should have been done modestly, and without pretending to dispute of things in which you are so very unskilful.

Sect. 10. Quer.-Moreover it is 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 it is evident, that almost all the English bishops (Cranmer and two or three more excepted) were utterly against the pretended Reformation.

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, it is 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 Catholic 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 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 ourselves, 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 heretics (themselves being judges) will escape condemnation. And farther, let the reader take notice, that all Presbyterians are wont to urge this very instance in their own defence against the Church of England, to wit, that they have left only the errors and corruptions 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 Catholic faith: I answer in short, that all usurpers 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 another Church. Nor ought it to be esteemed any prejudice against using such a plea, when there is cause for it, that others may use it when there is none. For otherwise it is 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 unto 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 suppose you will not deny but the plea in their mouths was a very just and sufficient plea.

I

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 it 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 had been corrupted throughout the whole world before Cranmer'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 worse; none, I doubt, perfect; but that there was one worst of all, so very bad, that Peter Waldo needed not any 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 approves, I have told you my mind once already.