We willingly yield this to be one of your truths, that no truth can sanctify error; that one heresy makes a heretic: but learn, withal, that every error doth not pollute all truths; that there is hay and stubble, which may burn, yet both the foundation stand and the builder be saved. Such is ours, at the worst: why do you condemn, where God will save?

No Scripture is more worne with your tongues and pens, than that of the leaven; 1 Cor. v. 6. If you would compare Christ's leaven with Paul's, you should satisfy yourself. Christ says, The kingdom of heaven is as leaven; Matt. xiii. 33: Paul says, a gross sin is leaven: both leavens the whole lump: neither may be taken precisely, but in resemblance; "not of equality," as he said. well, but of quality." For, notwithstanding the leaven of the Kingdom, some part, you grant, is unsanctified: so, notwithstanding the leaven of Sin, some, which have striven against it to their utmost, are not sowered. The leavening, in both places, must extend ouly to whom it is intended: the subjects of regeneration, in the one; the partners of sin, in the other. So our Saviour saith, Ye are the salt of the earth: yet too much of the earth is unseasoned. The truth of the effect, must be regarded in these speeches ; not the quantity. It was enough for St. Paul to shew them by this similitude, that gross sins, where they are tolerated, have a power to infect others; whether it be, as Jerome interprets it †, by ill example, or by procurement of judgments: and, thereupon, the incestuous must be cast out. All this tends to the excommunicating of the evil; not to the separating of the good. Did ever Paul say, "If the incestuous be not cast out, separate from the Church " Shew us this, and we are yours; else, it is a shame for you, that you

are not ours.

If Antichrist hold many truths, and we but many, we must needs be proud of your praises. We hold all his truths; and have shewed you, how we hate all his forgeries, no less than you

hate us.

Yet the mystery of iniquity is still spun in the Church of England; but with a finer thread:-so fine, that the very eyes of your malice cannot see it: yet none of our least motes have escaped you.

Thanks be to our good God, we have the great mystery of godli ness (1 Tim. iii. 16.) so fairly and happily spun amongst us, as all, but you, bless God with us, and for us. As soon shall you find charity and peace in your English Church, as heresy in our Church of

England.

* M. Bredwell.

+ Hieron. In hoc ignoratis, quia malo exemplo possunt plurimi interire? Sed et per unius delictum in omnem populum Judæorum iram Dei legimus ad

venisse.

SECT. 29.

Whether our Prelacy be Antichristian.

Sep. "Where, say you, are those proud towers of their Universal Hierarchy One, in Lambeth; another, in Fulham: and, wheresoever a Pontifical Prelate is, or his Chancellor, Commissary, or other Subordinate, there is a Tower of Babel unruinated. To this end, I desire to know of you, whether the office of Archbishops, Bishops, and the rest of that rank, were not parts of that accursed Hierarchy, in Queen Mary's days; and members of that Man of Sin. If they were then as shoulders and arms under that head the Pope, and over the inferior members; and have now the same Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction derived and continued upon them, whereof they were possessed in the time of Popery, as it is plain they have by the first Parliament of Queen Elizabeth; why are they not still members of that body, though the head, the Pope, be cut off?"

To the particular instances: I ask, Where are the proud towers of their Universal Hierarchy? You answer roundly, "One, in Lambeth; another, in Fulham, &c." What, Universal? Did ever any of our Prelates challenge all the world as his Diocese? Is this simplicity, or malice? If your Pastor tell us *, that as well a world as a province, let me return it: if he may be Pastor over a parlour-full, why not of a city? and if of a city, why not of a nation?

But these you will prove unruinated Towers of that Babel:-You ask, therefore, whether the office of Archbishops, Bishops, and the rest of that rank, were not, in Queen Mary's days, parts of that accursed Hierarchy, and members of that Man of Sin:-Doubtless they were. Who can deny it?

But now, say you, they have the same Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction continued:-This is your miserable sophistry. Those Popish Archbishops, and Bishops, and Clergy were members of Antichrist, not as Church-Governors, but as Popish. While they swore subjection to him, while they defended him, while they worshipped him above all that is called God and extorted this homage from others, how could they be other, but limbs of that Man of Sin? Shall others, therefore, which defy him, resist, trample upon him, spend their lives and labours in oppugnation of him, be necessarily in the same case, because in the same room?

Let me help your Anabaptists with a sound argument. The princes, peers, and magistrates of the land, in Queen Mary's days, were shoulders and arms of Antichrist: their calling is still the same; therefore now they are such.

*Seven. Argu. First Answ. Counterpois.

Your Master Smith, upon no other ground, disclaimeth infants' baptism; crying out, that this is the main relic of Antichristianism *.

But see how, like a wise master, you confute yourself. They are still members of the body, though the head, the Pope, be cut off:The head is Antichrist; therefore, the body, without the head, is no part of Antichrist. He, that is without the Head, Christ, is no member of Christ: so, contrarily.

I hear you say, the very jurisdiction and office is here Antichristian; not the abuse:-What! in them, and not in all Bishops since, and in the Apostles' times? Alas, who are you, that you should oppose all Churches and times? Ignorance of Church-Story, and not distinguishing betwixt substances and appendances, personal abuses and callings, hath led you to this error.

Yet, since you have reckoned up so many Popes, let me help you with more. Was there not one in Lambeth, when Doctor Cranmer was there? One in Fulham, when Ridley was there? One in Worcester, when Latimer was there? One at Winchester, when Philpot was there? We will go higher: was not Hilarius, at Arles; Paulinus, at Nola; Primasius, at Utica; Eucherius, at Lyons; Cyril, at Alexandria; Chrysostom, at Constantinople; Augustin, at Hippo; Ambrose, at Milan? What should I be infinite? Was not Cyprian, at Carthage; Evodius, and, after him, Ignatius ‡, in St. John's time, at Antioch; Polycarpus, at Smyrna; Philip, at Cæsarea; James, and Simeon, and Cleophas, at Jerusalem; and, by much consent of Antiquity §, Titus in Crete, Timothy at Ephesus,

Mark at Alexandria ?

Yea, to be short, was there not, every where, in all ages, an allowed Superiority of Church-Governors under this title? Look into the frequent subscriptions of all Councils, and their Canons: look into the registers of all times; and find yourself answered.

Let Reverend Calvin be our advocate: I would desire no other words to confute you, but his. He shall tell you, that, even in the Primitive Church, the Presbyters chose one out of their number in every city, whom they titled their Bishop, lest dissention should arise from equality.

Let Hemingius teach you, that this was the practice of the purest Church.

Thus it was ever: and, if princes have pleased to annex either large maintenances, or stiles of higher dignity and respect unto these, do their additions annihilate them? Hath their double honour made void their callings? why, more than extreme neediness? If Aristotle would not allow a Priest to be a tradesman **, yet Paul

* Character of the Beast against R. Clifton.

+ Archdeacon.

Beatissimus Papa, passim in Epist. Ignat. ad Trallian. Euseb. 1. iii.
Ex Euseb. Hier. Catalog. Scrip. Epiphanio, &c.

Calv. Inst. 1. iv. Hieron. Evagrio.

Heming. Potest. Eccl. clas. 3. c. 10. Hinc Ecclesia purior, secuta tempora Apostolorum, fecit alios Patriarchas, quorum erat curare ut Episcopi cujusque dioceseos ritè eligerentur, ut suum munus Episcopi singuli probè administrarent, &c. ** Arist. Pol. 7.

could yield to homely tent-making: if your Elders grow rich or noble, do they cease to be, or begin to be unlawful *?

But in how many volumes hath this point been fully discussed! I list not to glean, after their full carts.

SECT. 30.

The Judgment and Practice of other Reformed Churches. Sep." And so do all the Reformed Churches in the world, of whose testimony you boast so loud, renounce the Prelacy of England; as part of that Pseudo-Clergy and Antichristian Hierarchy, derived from Rome.'

FROM your own verdict, you descend to the testimonies of all Reformed Churches.

I blush to see so wilful a slander fall from the pen of a Christian; That all Reformed Churches renounce our Prelacy as Antichristian: what one hath done it? Yea, what one foreign Divine of note hath not given to our Clergy the right-hand of fellowship?

So far is it from this, that J. Alasco was the allowed Bishop of our first Reformed strangers in this land; so far, that, when your Doctor found himself urged, by M. Spr., with a cloud of witnesses for our Church and Ministry, as Bucer, Martyr, Fagius, Alasco, Calvin, Beza, Bullinger, Gualter, Simler, Zanchius, Junius, Rollocus, and others, he had nothing to say for himself; but, "Though you come against us with horsemen and chariots, yet we will remember the name of the Lord our God;" Ps. xx. 7 and turns it off with the accusation of a Popish plea, and reference to the practice of the Reformed t.

And if, therefore, they have so renounced it, because their practice receives it not; why, like a true make-bait, do you not say, that our Churches have so renounced their government?

These sisters have learned to differ; and yet to love and reverence each other: and, in these cases, to enjoy their own forms, without prescription of necessity or censure.

Let Reverend Beza be the trumpet of all the rest: who tells yout, that the Reformed English Churches continue, upheld by the authority of Bishops and Archbishops; that they have had men of that rank, both famous Martyrs, and worthy Pastors and Doctors: and, lastly, congratulates this blessing to our Church.

Or, let Hemingius tell you the judgment of the Danish Church. Judicat cæteros Ministros &c. "It judgeth," saith he §, "that other

* Potentia divitiarum et paupertatis humilitas, vel humiliorem vel inferiorem Episcopum non facit. Hieron. Evagr.

† Answ. Counterp. Third Consid.

Bez. de Ministr. Evang. c. 18. Cited also by D. Down. p. 29.

§ Heming. Judicat cæteros Ministros suis Episcopis obtemperare debere. Potest. Ecc. c. 10.

Ministers should obey their Bishops, in all things, which make to the edification of the Church, &c.'

But what do I oppose any to his nameless "all?” His own silence confutes him enough, in my silence.

SECT. 31.

Our Synod's determination of things indifferent.

Sep.-"Infallibility of Judgment. It seems, the Sacred (so called) Synod assumeth little less unto herself in her determinations: otherwise, how durst she decree so absolutely, as she doth, touching things reputed indifferent, viz. that all men, in all places, must submit unto them, without exception or limitation? Except she could infallibly determine, that these her ceremonies, thus absolutely imposed, should edify all men at all times, how durst she thus impose them? To exact obedience in and unto them, whether they offend or offend not, whether they edify or destroy, were intolerable presumption."

THERE was never a more idle and beggarly cavil, than your next *. Your Christian reader must needs think you hard driven for quarrels, when you are fain to fetch the Pope's infallibility out of our Synod, whose flat decree it was of old; That even General Councils may err, and have erred.

But wherein doth our Sacred Synod assume this infallibility, in her determinations? Wherefore is a Synod, if not to determine?

But of things reputed indifferent?-What else are subject to the constitutions of men? Good and evil are, either directly or by necessary sequel, ordered by God: these are above human power. What have men to do, if not with things indifferent? All necessary things are determined by God; indifferent, by men from God, which are as so many particulars, extracts from the generals of God. "These things," saith learned Calvin, "are indifferent, and in the power of the Church." Either you must allow the Church this, or nothing +.

But these decrees are absolute:-What laws can be without a command? The law, that ties not, is no law: no more than that, saith Austin, which ties us to evil.

But for all men, and all times?-How for all? For none, I hope, but our own. And why not for them?

But without exception and limitation :-Do not thus wrong our Church. Our late Archbishop, if it were not piacular for you to read ought of his, could have taught you in his public writings §,

* Article 21. + Obligatio, sire coercione, nulla. Reg. Jur.
Non jura dicenda sunt, &c. De Civit. lib. xix.

Answ. to the Admon. p. 279. cited also by D. Sparkes, p. 14.