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 't is 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 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 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 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 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 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
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 't is 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 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 't is 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 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 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 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