❧ A short Reply unto the last printed books of Henry Barrow and john Greenwood, the chief ringleaders of our Donatists in England: Wherein is laid open their gross ignorance, and foul errors: upon which their whole building is founded.  
By George Gyfford, Minister of God's holy word, in Maldon.  
Imprinted at London by Thomas Orwin, for Toby Cook: and are to be sold at the tigers head, in Paul's Churchyard. 1591.   

To the Reader.  
THere were (good Christian Reader) four heinous accusations laid against the Church of England, for which the accusers have condemned her, & all her public assemblies, as most wicked Antichristian Idolatrons synagogues of Satan. I showed how falsely they do accuse, and how presumptuously against God they do condemn: And that indeed they are the very same with the ancient Donatists. They have replied and published in print their defence, but their books are intercepted: yet some few have escaped, and are dispersed among their fellows. Wherefore I hold it needful to publish some answer, not dealing with every error and absurdity, (for that would ask the travail of some years) but only with the chief grounds of their Schism. In this, I trust every simple man that hath a Christian heart, shall see the effectual power of Satan, when he turneth himself into the likeness of an Angel of light, to seduce ignorant men, which are lifted up in their minds, with opinion of their knowledge: For being men unlearned (only some little froth excepted, I speak thus because they pervert that little which they have read in other means writings, in sundry points) yet as if they were sent from heaven with revelations, or as great Apostles, they take upon them to confute, and control, and condemn all Churches, and all the most worthy Instruments which GOD hath raised up in these last times. For know this (good Reader) that the four accusations which they have brought against the Church of England, to condemn her, ●●● also (though with some differences) brought against all Churches in Europe, and that in express words in these their last books. For the prescript forms of prayers, which all the Reformed Churches do use, they condemn as most horrible and 〈◊〉 blasphemy. The people (they say) are profane multitudes. They say, that in all Europe, & in all these known parts of the world there is no minister of Christ. The government by Elderships, they condemn as a most proud thing, as being without any warrant of God's word. Do but readeover these few things which I have noted out of their booke● and judge how fit they be for such a work as they have taken in hand, & whether it be like that GOD hath sent them, even as it were Moses and Aaron, to conduct his people out of Egypt, from under the bondage of Pharaoh, for so they take it; as appeareth by their own words, speaking of those which cleave unto them. Many they see by God's mighty hand (say they) escaped, and marching with the banner of the Gospel displayed, before all the enchanters of Egypt, and Pharaoh his troops, pag. 5. of the Epistle. And if it seem lost time to stand upon such gross things: yet take this profit, as to see how needful it is not to be high minded▪ and presumptuously bold in God's matters, but to fear and tremble with Humility.   

To Master Barrow, and Master Greenwood.  
YE complain much of hard dealing offered you, and say ye are blasphemed with odious terms. And if ye do err, your desire is to be reduced by a Christian manner. It is certain when men are clean aw●ye in simplicity, & the matter toucheth but themselves, they are to be dealt withal without seeking their disgrace: But when they be public and notorious seducers, defacing Christ's Ministers, and many poor sheep of Christ are in hazard to be spoiled. They that take it to be uncharitable dealing, to disclose, and to paint out such seducers in their colours, and to disgrace them utterly, to the end that the simple may not be spoiled by them as a pray, do want some judgement. For as it is Christian charity in the Shepherds to deal meekly with the sheep, so is it high treachery and unfaithful dealing to Christ and his Church, when the Wolf doth come in sheeps clothing, not to pluck it off, and to let the sheep see that he is a Wolf. Why else did our Saviour call the pharisees, hypocrites, Serpents and generations of Vipers? Why said S. Paul of the false Apostles, beware of dogs? Ye have drawn many into an outrageous presumption against God and his people, flat contrary to the rules of his holy word, as shall appear in the discourse. Ye haverent out of the hearts of many, all reverence and love towards the preachers of the Gospel, and led them into such a presumptuous opinion of their own understanding, that if they become not heretics, yet experience doth teach, that many of them grow into irreligious profaneness. Master Barrow and Master Greenwood, I do not know your persons, and I protest unto ye, there is no private thing hath moved me to seek your disgrace, but indeed the care of Christ's sheep. And let it appear by the things which follow whether I have done ye any wrong.   

A short Reply unto the last printed Books of Henry Barrow and john Greenwood, the chief ringleaders of our Donatists in England.  
I Did lay to your charge (M Barrow and Master Greenwood) a matter very heinous and detestable; yea, most odious in the sight of every good man, as namely intolerable pride, presumption, and wicked intrusion into God's office, for that ye utterly condemn and abandon, all our assemblies, as haynousty, faulty, and so wilfully obstinate, in such principal transgressions, as that they have forfeited the covenant and are separated from the faith and communion of Christ. I set down reasons from God's word to convince ye in this, that if it pleased God ye might repent for this savage cruelty, by which ye endeavour to rend and tear up all the Lords tender plants: If not, yet that others might see, & tremble at your inordinate and outrageous boldness.  
Unto this ye have replied; stiffly affirming, and labouring to maintain, that ye have rightly condemned and cast forth our assemblies as most wicked Antichristian Synagogues. Adding moreover, that ye lie in prison as Christ's poor afflicted servants, the Lords witnesses against us, that your bonds and sufferings are glorious, and that I as a wicked false Prophet, and as a marked servant of Antichrist, have uncharitably, reviled ye, both for those former words, as also that I that term you Donatists; Schismatics, etc.  
If ye be Christ's servants, and have justly accused, condemned, and cast forth, doing no more that Christ hath sent ye for, and authorised ye to do, then have I unchristianly and as a false Prophet indeed, reviled ye and your glorious sufferings. But then take this withal by the way, that the Donatists in old time, and the Annabaptists of late days, were Christ's poor afflicted servants, & God's witnesses, & that the Churches and their ministers did unchristianly revile them and their glorious sufferings. For I have given ye none other terms than the Churches gave them: And if in the chief points of Donatisme ye be not full Donatists, and so hold sundry points of Annabaptisme, being fallen into their tents and as outrageously fight against all Churches, and with the same weapons that they did, and with as blind fury condemning them, as those other, let me be accounted for no better indeed than a lying Prophet.  
Your words are many, and great are your outcries, but let us see how well ye defend and clear yourselves by them, from this most wicked intrusion into God's office. I set down first against ye, that he doth wickedly and proudly thrust himself into God's office, which taketh upon him to judge and condemn any one man to be no true Christian, which holding the place and dignity of a brother in God's Church and professing the faith sound, studieth to please God, for the common errors and frailties unto which even the most perfect are subject, because the holy scriptures speaking of the regenerate, have these sayings: We know but in part, 1. Cor. 13. who understandeth his errors. Psal. 19 And in many things we sin all. I am. 3. Then how much more intolerable is their wicked presumption and intrusion into God's office, which take upon them utterly to condemn as quite separate from Christ all the assemblies in a kingdom, which professing the Gospel, have many particular members in them, that earnestly endeavour to please God, and are not spotted with any gross errors or notorious offences?  
Then further do I allege, that as a brother hath his place and dignity in a Christian assembly, so our Church of England hath her place and dignity among all the godly Churches: which for the faith that she doth together with them publicly profess, and sincerely in all the principles and grounds of the holy Christian religion, do not only allow her the place, but also do regard and love her, giving unto her the dignity of a sister, yea even of a mother in Israel, because she hath not been barren, but hath brought forth many dear children to God, and not a few of them crowned with martyrdom. Ye have not (Master Barrow) answered one word unto all this, but have with deep silence slipped past it.  
But ye say, He that is in his conscience convinced of errors and doth persist in them, is wilfully obstinate, and so evidently declareth that he hath no faith. And in this case ye say is the Church of England, it holdeth errors and is convinced in them, and yet persisteth to defend and teach the same, and therefore it is quite separated from Christ.  
Against this I set down, that a brother offending, is not to be judged so wilfully obstinate, as that he is to be cast forth and condemned to be but as an heathen, because he is convinced of his sin and error by private admonitions, and doth persist, but when the admonition and censure of the Church is despised. For our Saviour saith not, If he will not hear thee count him as an heathen, or if thou take one or two with thee, and ●e will not hear them: But if he will not hear the Church, then let him be unto thee as an heathen. Math. 18. This ye have not answered, for ye can show no place in God's word, where this power is given to private men, but only to the Church. And yet persist in this most horrible intrusion, forgetting the precept, Judge not that ye be not judged, Math 7. and he that condemneth his brother, condemneth the law: and thou condemnest the law, thou art not an observer of the law, but a judge. jam. 4. vers. 11. And therefore we must hear enter into a larger discourse about it. I will first s●t down that which ye bring to maintain your doing.  
We doubt not (say you) neither ever thought, but the best Church, that consisteth of mortal men may fall, either of negligence or ignorance into grievous offences and dangerous errors: yea we doubt not but that some famous Churches and Christians may fall into such errors, as he termeth fundamental: the holding whereof should utterly subvert the faith. As in the Church of Corinth, Galatia, and Asia, there were etc. But this we hold withal, that no true Church or Christian will maintain any sin or error, when it is evidently showed and convinced unto them by the word of God, etc. To your second charge we answer, that we have learned to put difference, betwixt error and heresy. All good men (as is said) do and may err, but no good man will defend or persist in his error, when it is showed and convinced unto him. Obstinacy joined unto error after it is duly convinced, maketh heresy. Further, we say that any error, being obstinately holden and taught, after it is duly reproved and convinced unto him maketh an heretic, and heresy in that party, or in that congregation that so holdeth and teacheth it, doth separate from the faith and communion of Christ. Wherefore we can but wonder at your ignorance who stand for a teacher in your Church, and yet hold some errors obstinately held and taught against the truth of GOD, not to be heresies, or (at the least) not to be fundamental. etc.  
In these words (Master Barrow) which I doubt not, ye will acknowledge, lieth the whole defence and clearing of yourselves from that wicked and presumptuous intrusion into God's office, which I have laid to your charge. I am sure (that in your imagination) ye utter in them most divine & undoubted principles, or else how could ye bring in your conclusion of such wonder at mine ignorance, standing for a Teacher in our Church? Then must we stand and wonder each at other: for I do indeed greatly wonder to see how strong the illusions of Satan be, when he is turned into the likeness of an Angel of light, that such men as you (taking upon ye, not to stand as teachers in some particular Churches, but to control all Churches, and all the learned teachers that have been since the Apostles, as if ye were sent from heaven with special knowledge above all others) should in so few words bewray so much confused palpable ignorance, and absurd errors. In very deed under this stream of words lieth one of the chief rocks upon which ye are run, and against which ye cause many a simple soul to dash with great hazard, leading them into the same wicked presumption against God, which yourselves are fallen into. The reader shall see plainly, that here is no clearing yourselves from that foul intrusion into God's office, unless the heaping up of errors may be deemed clearing. I will begin first with the difference which (ye say) ye have learned to put betwixt error and heresy. The only difference which ye make is the obstinate persisting in it, and teaching it, after it is convinced unto him that erreth. Which is nothing else indeed but confusedly in stead of putting difference betwixt error and beresie, to note the difference betwixt a man that erreth in simplicity, and an heretic. In deed because S. Paul saith, That an heretic is perverted and sinneth condemned of himself. Tit. 3. And that such cause offences and divisions contrary to the wholesome doctrine which we have learned. Rom. 16. We hold them not heretics unless they be convinced, and obstinately despise the judgement of God, and the judgement of the Church, convincing them by the light of the word, and seek to pervert others and to draw them into their faction. But will it hereupon follow that no error is of itself an heresy, unless it light into such a man as obstinately will hold and teach it? Or that every error (even the least) by obstinacy of man joined with it, becometh heresy? Then you say thus in effect, every error is an heresy, no error is an heresy. This (Master Barrow) is your deep skill which ye boast of that ye have learned: for if the man put the difference by his obstinacy, it must needs be so. Then let me ask ye where ye have learned y● to deny the unity of the Godhead, is not an heresy, or the trinity of persons in the same, or to deny that Christ is God, or that he is man, unless the man that erreth in them be convinced and found obstinate? Are not these and such like, heresies in themselves, although the men that err in them be not convincement hold them ignorantly? Again, show us where ye have ●●●rned, that every error, even to the least, being in an heretic becometh an heresy. Thus may the reader see how confusedly ye have put that to distinguish errors, which doth but distinguish between the men that do err.  
In the next place, where you say, that the error must be duly convinced unto the conscience of the man that erreth, before he can be so wilfully obstinate, as doth separate him from the faith and from the communion of Christ: ye speak some truth, but ye speak ye know not what. For it ye could see, it is so far from clearing ye, from presumptuous intrusion into God's office, that it utterly overthroweth ye; and your former words and somewhat which ye writ elsewhere in this book being laid with it, becometh a very snare for to hold ye. Ye have accused the Church of England, condemned, and cast her forth for wilful obstinacy, as quite separated from Christ; now let us see how duly ye have convinced out whole Church all the assemblies, and all the particular members in the same, and found them heretics. First remember your own words in this place; that ye doubt not, neither ever thought, but that the best Church which consisteth of mortal men, may fall either of negligence or ignorance, into grievous offences and dangerous errors, and that some famous Churches and Christians may fall into such errors, as I term fundamental etc.  
Touching the faults which you charge the Church of England withal in our worship, in our people, in our Ministry and government Ecclesiastical, albeit in the whole course of your writings your speeches be marvelous excessive, yet in the 180, 181, 182. pages of this your book against me, ye plainly confess them to be such as right excellent Christians have ignorantly erred and died in. For speaking of those which suffered death for religion in our Church, ye call them godly Martyrs, saying; that ye doubt not of their happy and blessed estate, all their sins, and these false offices and ministry which they executed in their ignorance among the rest, being forgiven them. These be your own words (Master Barrow) which I have set down. You acknowledge them to be godly blessed Martyrs, they erred (you say) in these things, but of simplicity through ignorance. If those principal men were ignorant in these matters, then is it no marvel if all the rest in the land were ignorant in them, which embraced the Gospel. Upon this it followeth, that the Church of England was or might be a true Church, until such time as she was duly convinced of ●er errors and found obstinate. And if she hath not been duly convinced, and found in such wilful obstinacy, as doth quite separate from the faith, and from the communion of Christ, then is she still or may be the true Church having (it may be for aught that you know, and there is no likelihood to the contrary) many thousands in her, which are ready to shed their blood for the holy Gospel of Christ. And then how wicked, and how accursed is your presumption in condemning her utterly?  
Nay (say you) but she is convinced and all your assemblies, and found so wilfully obstinate in maintaining her errors even against her knowledge, that she hath forfeited the covenant, and is separated from the communion of Christ.  
This is your bare accusation, you may not carry away the matter so (for then indeed ye may easily clear yourselves from wicked intrusion into God's office) but we must examine (〈◊〉 ye grant there must be a due convincing) first what it 〈…〉 be duly convinced, then, when, and by whom she hath been ●● such sort, or so duly convinced as ye charge her, and yet found obstinate. This is the rule, that one brother offending is not to lose the dignity and place of a Christian, and to be reputed as an heathen, until such time as he be convinced by the Church, and found so obstinate that he doth despise her judgement and authority. This is the only due convincing, and here is the only power to east fo●rth as heathen, a man in some offence convinced. And shall not a Church have as great privilege as a man? Is it not more then absurd, to say, one man cannot be cast forth as an heathen for obstinacy in some offence against private admonitions, but whole Churches may? All the true Churches have convinced the Church of Rome, and condemned her as obstinate, not in some light offences, in which true Christians may err, but as most blasphemous and Idolatrous against the principles of faith and grounds of Religion, teaching that no Christian man ought to join with her. But what Churches are they which have convinced the Church of England of such errors, and found her so obstinate, that they have condemned her and willed all men to forsake her? O▪ M. Barrow, you shall find that all the godly Churches are so far from this, that contrariwise they acknowledge her for a sister. Look then again upon your horrible presumption, and see who hath given you such power above and against all Churches? If ye mind obstinately to persist in your evil without warrant, and even against this manifest word of God, (being much better ye should fall down and bewail your ungodly ways, and seek for pardon) ye have no way to shift or to colour your wickedness but this, that men may be convinced of error by particular persons, and that so hath the Church of England been duly convinced. It is out of all doubt that men which err may ●e convinced by any particular persons whatsoever, for it is the power and light of God's word only which convinceth: but that which maketh men to be cast forth as heathen for obstinacy when they are convinced, is not (as I have showed) obstinacy against private admonitions, but the despising the judgement and power of the Church when she hath convinced and reproved. So that your passage is here again stopped, and ye are cut off: but yet I will follow ye in this, yielding this scope, to see when or who they be of particular persons which have duly convinced the Church of England and all her assemblies of such errors. First for the martyrs in our Church, ye have set them upon the shore safely landed, out of all danger of wilful obstinacy: for pag. 181. thus ye writ.  
These godly martyrs, so lately escaped out of the smoky furnace of the popish Church, could not so clearly discern, and suddenly enter into the heavenly, and beautiful order of a true established Church. And those godly men being so unexpert, and unexercised in his heavenly work, never having long lived in, seen or heard of any orderly communion of Saints, any true established Church upon the earth of so many hundredth years, never since the general defection of Antichrist, no marvel, (I say) if they erred in setting up the frame. But what then should we persist in their errors? especially should we reject the true pattern of Christ's Testament, etc.  
Thus far be your words Master Barrow, in which the reader may see, that ye have (as I say) landed those godly men out of all dangers, which set up the frame of our Church, because they did (as you say) nay they could see no better: But our Church now can not be excused, because she hath rejected the heavenly pattern being brought. Indeed I am of this mind (to answer your words as they lie) that right excellent men come short in some things about the ordering of God's Church, and especially at the beginning, because time is a teacher: But those men were not so blind as you make them, or so unexpert in the heavenly work. Many of them lived long after they came out of popery. They did read the scriptures, both for other points of doctrine and for the government, and all the ancient histories of the Church, and (in my judgement) might have b●en able in those days, after twenty years' separation from popery, to see as much as some in these days that have been but four or fine years from the Bowling Alleys. Again, I am of this mind, that when any error in the Church appeareth, it ought (if it can be brought to pass) to be reform: And that they do grievously sin which reject the truth against their knowledge and conscience to the damage of God's people, but there lieth the matter how you can prove that our Church is convinced. We must see who they be that have laid this pattern which ye speak of before her, which was not laid before those blessed martyrs, and convinced here let us come to the matter. In some Ceremonies, and▪ in the manner of government, our Church doth differ from other Churches: Those Churches (indeed) have showed their reasons, why they use not such ceremonies and government: but yet they condemn not our Church, for not being persuaded by them: for they do know that in some matters of controversy, it falleth out often, that men may think they have truth and be deceived, also that the truth may be showed, and yet men that err not convinced in their conscience unto whom it is showed. This is your great ignorance (Master Barrow) which imagine that so soon as a truth is showed in any matter, the party that erreth is by and by convinced in his conscience. There were thousands in the Church of jerusalem, Act. 21. which erred grossly about the retaining the ceremonial law, and the holy Apostles were driven to bear with them, when they could not persuade them from it, and that many years. And who can convince errors like the blessed Apostles? And you must consider here further, that even those marryrs in our Church whom you so fully clear, had the same pattern laid before them then, which our Church hath had laid before her since: for they did know that there was another form of government used at Geneva, and in some other places, and they did not only read their writings which showed the reasons for the same, but also some of them, as Bishop Hooper, and Archdeacon Philpot, were travailers even to that end and purpose, and lived in some & did see, if not all, ye some number of the reformed Churches beyond the seas. Moreover, the rest of the martyrs had here among them out of divers reformed Churches, as Peter Martyr, Bucer, Fagius, Alasco, and others. How ignorantly then, and how falsely Master Barrow, do ye affirm that those godly martyrs, had never lived in, seen, nor heard, of any orderly communion of Saints, any true established Church? If those martyrs, had the very same pattern laid before them which hath been laid since before our Church, and were not convinced? Peradunture you will say, it was nothing so fully and so clearly brought and laid it before the martyrs as it hath been laid before our Church. Then if I demand here, who they be that have more fully and more clearly laid this pattern before our Church, and thus convinced her; whether yourselves alone, or partly yourselves and partly others. I suppose, ye will take it but in part unto yourselves: let us then begin with these other, and then come to you. The Church of England at the first (as you confess) set up the frame as they were persuaded in conscience to be very right and agreeable to God's word. Since that there hath risen controversy at home about some Ceremonies and observations, and about the government. Reasons and allegations have been brought, to show that there be hurtful things amiss in both: and many are persuaded. But now the visible Church of England, the prince and all those which excercise the chief power therein have stood and do stand resolute, that the ceremonies and observations are agreeable to God's word, or at the least not contrary, but tolerable; and that government is such as is by God's word most fit and profitable for our Church. They stand upon their reasons and allegations for this: And many thousands in the land. both men and women which profess the Gospel and faith of Christ; either know not what the things in controversy, or, if they do know them, yet are persuaded that our worship and government are right. Tell me then M. Barrow (seeing ye confess the martyrs were not convinced) how you know for certainty that all these are convinced in their conscience (because matters have been more fully opened) and so continue wilfully obstinate against the known truth? Hath God given you some special revelation, or do ye know the secrets of all men's hearts? You see by the Church in jerusalem that men may ignorantly remain still in error, if the blessed Apostles themselves should lay down matter against the same unto them. But to convince you, I may reason from your own words, for Master Barrow, if that be true which you hold, touching government ecclesiastical (which is the chief matter in question) the Church of England cannot be convinced by that which either our own or men of other Churches have set forth. We have been persuaded that the government ecclesiastical ought to be by one of these two, that is to say, either by Bishops or by presbyteries, and you condemn both. The government by Bishops ye term Antichristian: And of those which stand for a government by Presbyteries thus you writ pag. 189. of your other book.  
These men would bring in a new adulterate forged government in show, or rather in despite of Christ's blessed government, which they in their pride, rashness, ignorance and sensuality of their fleshly hearts, most miserably innon●ate corrupt and pervert. Also in the pag. 166. you term it a devilish forgery. In this book against me you call it a presumptuous 〈…〉, ye say it hath no ground in the word of God but utterly subverteth the whole order and communion of the Church, etc. pag. 79.  
Is it so Master Barrow, then how hath our Church been convinced in conscience, by those which bring no warrant of God's word for that which they would set up? being undoubtedly persuaded (as I have said) that one of the two ought to be, (a third as yet not having been showed) how have they (I say by your speech) been so duly convinced? And further it may be said, which is of great force against ye, that if all the learned men in other Churches, and those in our Church which stand for the government by presbyteries, have erre● so grofely as you accuse them, why may not they that maintain the other government err also of ignorance? Master Barrow, these poor shifts will not defend ye before God, but that ye have intruded into his seat, unless you have surer ground that all be convinced. For what if some should be convinced in some matters, yet when they protest the contrary, who can judge them but God? And now seeing it hath not been done by these, therefore it resteth only upon yourselves, let us come to see what you have done. It cannot be but you have convinced all, you have opened so many matters. Yea but before your matters came to the sight and knowledge of the thousand man, (I might say almost to the sight of any) ye had abandoned and condemned all without any order. What a convincing is this? And when they be come abroad (I mean your writings) though not unto the hands of all, nor yet of the greater part, we must upon your bare word, contrary to our own knowledge, admit many foul and false accusations, we must upon your warrant allow many fantastical opinions, we must condemn all the Churches, and justify the Donatists and Annabaptists, or else we cannot he by you convinced. Your outrageous dealing being such, as almost hath not been seen, (which shall appear by laying open somewhat of your books) and your gross errors with palpable ignorance to be wondered at even of the unlearned, how shall we think that God hath sent ye as it were great Apostles, to convince and to refor me all? You say Christ hath sent ye, but in very deed Satan in the likeness of an Angel of light hath most miserably seduced ye. Ye say often that many in our Church have been and are persuaded that there be many faults; and ●or not these then sin against their conscience in as much as they join still with it? Master Barrow it is a foul heretical opinion to hold that a man may not join with that Church which holdeth and maintaineth some faults and errors. Did the holy Apostles refuse to join with the multitude in jerusalem, which held the Ceremonies? Doth not S. Paul labour in divers places to join them together in peace, which in some matters held and continued in divers judgement? Read the Rom. 14. and 15. for this point. Thus much might suffice to show your horrible and inexcusable presumption, contrary to the rules of God's word, in condemning as quite separated from Christ, the whole Church in the land, all particular assemblies, and all several persons both young and old, men and women in the same, whom yet ye have never seen, much less admonished and convinced, but that your words which yet remain untouched (I mean of those which I set down) do draw me further.  
There be three things yet remaining in your former words, in which ye err foully, whereby all men shall see, how far off ye are from making any just defence of your ungodly presumption. And yourselves shall know (if the Lord open your hearts) that it is but a thick covering of darkness and ignorance ●nder which ye lie shrouded, and (as ye imagine) shielded from the sin, and from the danger of intrusion into God's office, when ye condemn as heathen and infidels all our assemblies. The first of the three and the second also are in these words, when ye say; and heresy in that man, or in that congregation thatso holdeth & teacheth it doth separate from the faith. etc. Thus ye reason. If a man be in an error, and be duly convinced, and found obstinate, so that he obstinately persist in and teach his error, even against his conscience, we may safely judge that man to have no faith, nor communion with Christ. The same is to be said of a congregation, and so of the whole Church of England, and of all the assemblies therein, and of all particular members of the same being all in one estate, and condition, that is to say, duly convinced, and found obstinate. How far we may proceed in judging a man void of faith, for obstinacy, we shall see in the▪ next place● here I begin with, and note how blindly and how absurdly in your consequence of being convinced, ye compare a Church and one man together. For a man erring, and his error reproved, either the whole man is convinced, and is obstinate, or else the whole man erreth still in iguorance. But it is far otherwise in a visible Church, because in it, there be sundry sorts of members, which may not be all folded up together 〈◊〉 one sentence. For look upon the visible Church of Israel at such time as our Saviour was borne & lived upon the earth, and we shall see there were in it excellent godly ones, as the blessed Virgin, the Father and mother of john the Baptist, Anna the prophetess, old simeon, and many others. There were heaps of ignorant people called the lost sheep of the house of Israel: Math. 10. And there were the Scribes and pharisees, which held and taught obstinately, very wicked errors. It is hereby manifest, that sometime it cometh to pass, that in a visible Church there be which maintain some errors, and it may be some of them convinced in their conscience (which yet is known for the most part but to God) there be that err of ignorance and simplicity, and there be that difallow the errors. Now what warrant is there to wrap up all ●hefe together under the same condemnation, and to say they be all separated from the faith and from the Communion of Christ?  
The second error of the three is to be observed in this, that you say, obstinacy joined with error in a man convinced thereof in his conscience, doth separate from the faith, and from the communion of Christ. Which, to serve your turn against all our assemblies, must stand as I have before set it down. I take it for an undoubted truth, that there is no sound faith in that man which proudly and with a full contempt of God and his truth doth obstinately even convinced in his conscience, hold and teach an error. But yet (Master Barrow) if you will stand to maintain that your speech, you must shake hands with Novatus: for there be, as of other sins, the remnants yea foul remnants, of obstinacy and contempt of God and his truth, in all the regenerate and sanctified. Whereupon it cometh to pass, that as godly men do fall into sundry known sins, and willingly according to the flesh, yea sometime into the grosser, and do continue in them: which cannot be but with some wilful obstinacy and contempt against God. As for examples, we have Samson that lived in fornication, David that did commit adultery and murder, Solomon that fell into Idolatry. These did know they sinned, and Nathan told David, Thou hast despised the Lord, Thou hast despised the word of the Lord. And also as it falleth out in some that have faith, that they fall into foul actions, and the remnants of obstinacy & wilful contempt are so strong in them, and the work of grace lieth in them as it were so buried, that they not only despise private admonitions, but also for a time the judgement and public censure of the Church. As for example, the man which took his mother in law to be his wife, in the Church of Corinth. He did know even by the light of nature that it was a foul sin. And though the Church neglected to cast him forth, yet many no doubt did blame him. Notwithstanding, he continued so obstinate, that when Saint Paul had decreed his excommunication, he was cast forth. This man in the time of his obstinacy had faith and was in Christ: as it appeareth by his repentance in the second Epistle, where Saint Paul willeth to receive him in again. Even so it cometh to pass in men regenerate, who erring in some opinions, which being reproved by the word of God, yet the remnants of obstinacy and froward contempt do make them either unwilling to see any thing against that which they have once holden and maintained, or if they do see, yet they will not yield. Now, as it is an hard thing for us to find and know certainly that a man is convinced of an error in his conscience, (especially when it falleth out in lighter matters which are not see clearly disenssed by the word) though another man see it (as he thinketh) plainly: so also is it most ungodly and without any warrant of God's word, to say (when one indeed is convinced and doth not yield) this man is separated from the faith and from the communion of Christ. For if great ●e●●nants of wilful obstinacy, cannot be in him that hath faith, than he that wittingly and willingly (according to the flesh) falleth into a gross sin, is by and by separated from the communion of Christ. For if such contempt and wilful rebellion against God may stand one month, or one year with faith, what reason is there but that a man regenerate may lie in such security sundry years, until the Lord drive him out of it: For God, as a father, doth chastise his children for their wilful obstinacy, contempt, and rebellion, and bringeth them to repentance in his good time. Ye will say, if they repent, than ye acknowledge them to be in Christ, but while they repent not, how can a man be blamed for saying they have no faith? You must know (Master Barrow) that a man is not in Christ because he doth repent, but he repenteth because he is in Christ. For the beginning and proceeding of repentance is all from Christ crucified, and only unto those that be in him. Rom. 6. 1. Pet. 4. 1, 2. Again, do not you know that he which is once heightened and hath embraced the faith, if he sin such a sin as doth separate him from the faith, and from the communion of Christ, he can never be restored again by repentance? Then seeing there is no man but sinneth willingly, and continueth with some obstinacy in sundry things, how can you maintain this▪ that every wilful obstinacy in error doth separate from the faith, and from the communion of Christ, but that you must with Novatus, cut all the regenerate from the hope of repentance, seeing all do transgress of knowledge?  
Your third error is in denying the distinction of errors fundamental and not fundamental, where ye call it a papistical distinction, and gather many absurdities, most foolishly in very deed, and not so much as to be repeated, because they arise from your ignorance: for tell me Master▪ Barrow, Christ being the foundation, upon which all the faithful as living stones are built, and grow together into a holy Temple: are there not errors, which if a man hold never so ignorantly he is not in Christ, he holdeth not the foundation so long as he erreth in them, he is not coupled with the living stones to make one building? And on the contrary, b● there not errors which the faithful do err in, and be in Christ? This you cannot deny, (unless you will maintain the heresy of perfection in the regenerate, but you say that with wilful obstinacy, the least error ca●●eth a man out of Christ. Alas poor man, may not a child see your folly? When ye confess there be errors, that a man may err and die in, and yet hold Christ the foundation, and so be saved: is it not as much as to say there be errors that are not fundamental? If a man be convinced in them, and hold them so obstinately, that he be thereby separated from Christ; It is not any of those errors which have separated him (which ye confess he may err in, and yet have faith) but his wicked obstinacy and contempt, in holding and teaching them against his conscience. Now therefore Master Barrow, and Master Greenewod, l●● all those things together which I have noted touching your confused ignorance, errors, and absurdities, and see whether ye have brought any thing to clear yourselves from the fearful and odious, yea most accursed presumption, by which ye take upon ye to abandon and forsake, as utterly separated from the faith, and from the Communion of Christ, all the assemblies of the Church of England, and all the particular members of the same, then a thick covering of darkness, which the bright countenance of the great judge will pierce through and scatter. Ye lie in prison, not as Christ's poor afflicted servants, but for this grievous and outrageous sin, which no flesh is able to defend or mitigate, and for sundry other abuses, as shall appear by your books. I said that the fearful end of one Boltom, about twenty years past, would not be forgotten. You have heard (as you say, pag. 208) that he revolted and became a conformable member of our Church, and so fell into that fearful estate. Seek better information Master Barrow, seeing the example may touch ye, for the truth is, he did for the same causes that you do, utterly coudemne the whole Church of England, and was with sundry other separated from it. And (as it is constantly affirmed) he was an elder in their secret Church, and ofterward falling into deep despair, he could not be recovered, but did hang himself. The mat●er which pressed him so sore was this, that be had judged and condemned men better than himself. Look ye therefore unto it in time, and seek repentance before the terror of God break forth upon ye, and that it be to late, for it is evident unto all that have any true light in them, that your offence herein can have no excuse or colour: bear not yourselves upon other things in your books, for it shall●ppeare, that where ye think yourselves most divine, there Satan hath most deeply deluded ye, glory not of any sufferings▪ unless ye will have those also to glory which are bound in bedlion.  
Having thus finished about wilful obstinacy, we come now to the four principal accusations, which ye bring against our Church.  
The first is that we worship God after a false manner: our worship being made of the invention of man, even of that man of sin, erroneous, and imposed upon us. And here came the book of common prayer into question. I did draw your accusation into a syllogism: and you accuse me to be so full of legiet d● main, that ye had need to look to my fingers, for ye say I have left out certain of your words, as namely these (wilfully obstinate, and imposed.) Touthing these words, wilfully obstinate, look Master Barrow in the fourth and fift pages of my book, and see whether I did not answer them where you have expressly set them down; look also upon your own book now printed▪ and you shall find, that both in the accusation you have omitted these words (wilfully abstinate) and also passed by mine answer unto them. Now when these two, that is, the omitting the words, and passing by the answer unto them do concur, here is a great show of legier du main on your part, and yet you would lay it upon me, that have not given the least suspicion thereof. And for the word imposed▪ you say I leave it out, and put etc. in the place thereof. I do indeed setdowne etc., for these words, erroneous and imposed upon them, but do I leave them out in handling the matter? Look in the tenth page, and see whether I do not charge ye with an Annabaptisticall freedom (which ye are not able to avoid) for this word imposed? Master Barrow look upon them, learn modesty, and blush, if not for conscience, yet that these things must now lie open to the view of the world.  
And for the book of common Prayer, although the question between us, was not whether there be faults in it, but whether it ●e (as you term it) a great pregnant Idol, full of heresies, blasphemies & a bominations? whether there be any heresies in it? And whether the best part of it be none other but a piece of swine's flesh, an abomination to the Lord? Yet you charge me as flying the trial by the word of God: when I stand to justify by the word of God, that in deed there is neither Idolatry, heresy, nor blasphemy in it, much less that it is full of them, or the best part an abomination. For in mine answers and defence, I do not undertake▪ to clear it of all faults (having no occasion to meddle in that controversy) but to show that there are no such faults, but that both the faithful people of God have and mayerre in, & also even christian governors and teachers, which are to reform the church, & that if any do see and be persuaded that they be corruptions and faults, yet not of that quality or degree, as that they may for the same separate themselves from the fellowship of those which art otherwise minded: this is the thing which I have taken upon me to defend. And if you (Master Barrow) will not become a rank heretic, (as if it please God you shall not) to maintain this opinion, that we may not join in that worship, where we find any imperfections and errors holden, and not reform: why do you with wonderment cry out, that this so large an exception of imperfections, is the odd and only exception that ever you heard of. And do you in very deed Master Barrow think that no such exception is to be made, but that where any error doth appear in the worship, a man is to separate himself? Nay you will say when it is reproved and continued in, and not reform, than a man is to forsake that Church as utterly fallen from the covenant of God. For they be obstinate and deny reformation.  
Tell me then, what if those that be to reform, be persuaded it is no error? What if a great part of the multitude be so persuaded, that it is no fault, and so be of diverse minds? Will you deem that you have more skill to convince them, than the Apostles had? Or will you refuse to join, as the Apostles did join with the Church in jerusalem, that held and continued in a gross error? Do you not see how by this your doctrine, you open the door as wide unto all Schismatics, as ever did the Donatists or the Annabaptists, seeing there will ever be errors, and some that cannot be made to see them? Will you not see how you contrary Saint Paul directly, who in whole chapters almost (as I have noted before) doth labour nothing else but to persuade the Christians that held divers opinions touching some things in God's worship, yet to join together? Rom. 14. and 15. what a multitude of words, with your accustomed revilings and slanders have you here heaped up? But I will deal only with that which is not answered already.  
You charged our Church with Romish fasts. I charged you with fal●e accusing: because the Church of Rome, most wickedly against the Cross of Christ, placeth the worship of God, and the merit of eternal life in fasting, which doctrine our Church utterly condemneth. You labour to show faults in our fasts, what is that now to the purpose? And so in divers other things, is this the question between us?  
You charge us with idol feasts, as if we worshipped Saints and Angels. I told you it is a stark lie, and so I must affirm, our Church utterly condemning all that most blasphemous doctrine of popery, touching the meditation of Saints or Angels: here again you deal but even as in the former, you must not still so boldly slander, but prove that the days are kept in honour of the Saints and Angels. And so for the naming of the Churches. I know Saint Luke did not in any respect honour Mars: and so did not contrary to that which David professeth, saying he would not take the names in his mouth: you may see by his example, how David is to be understood, not of the very naming, but of the naming with some honour, for a man may name them either in detestation, or as Saint Luke doth only to make distinction.  
Then come tithes and oblations: here in deed Master Barrow you bid me look whether this error be not fundamental, being obstinately held, and bring for your reason, that they which revive any part of the ceremonial law are bound to the whole law, and so are (as Paul saith to the Galathians) abolished from Christ. Truly Master Barrow, the more I read of your writings, the more I pity your blindness.  
I could not have been persuaded, that you were so exceeding ignorant, taking upon you to control all Churches, and far to excel all the most learned divines: neither could it enter into my thought, that any would so boldly abuse the holy Scriptures, to seduce and subvert the minds of simple men. I do here also entreat the reader to be atte●tiue a little▪ and to see upon what foundation you do build a great part of your doings. For here to prove the paying of tithes an error fundamental, and utterly to separate from Christ being obstinately held: you allege the words of Saint Paul, Galath. 5. I testify again unto every man which is circumcised, that he is deptor to keep the whole law: ye are abolished from Christ, etc. Let me first ask ye then, were the fathers which were circumcised in the time of the law, abolished from Christ, and fa●●en from grace? You will say no, for circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of faith, Rom. 4. Then it must needs be granted that Saint Paul doth not speak here of circumcision in the right use, for which God did ordain it, for so it was not contrary unto Christ, albeit the retaining of it after Christ come, was an error. Also let me ask ye further, do you think that Saint Paul was contrary to himself, when he circumcised Timothy, Acts 16. ver. 3. Or after that, when he would with those which had a vow be purified, and offer an oblation according to the law? Act. 21. 26. will you say that Saint Paul and Timothy became debtors to keep the whole law? Or that they were abolished from Christ? It is horror to admit any thought that way, or once to make doubt of such a matter▪ Neither would james and the other Apostles have suffered or tolerated the Church in jerusalem, in that which doth abolish from Christ. Whereupon it followeth of necessity, that Saint Paul here to the Galathians, doth not speak simply of the ceremony of circumcision: but as it was urged with the doctrine of the false Apostles, which was this, that circumcision was a necessary part of God's worship, and that men could not be saved unless they were circumcised: for so did the false Apostles urge it, as ye may see, Act. 15. 1. placing righteousness and the merit of eternalllife in it, for against that Saint Paul speaketh here to the Galathians, saying, as many as are justified by the law, are abolished from Christ, & fallenfrom grace. Here is the thing then, that the false Apostles did join the law and Christ together for justification: and Saint Paul testifieth and denounceth, that he which is circumcised with such a mind, as to be justified in part thereby, he is debtor to keep the whole law, which is not possible for any flesh, and therefore he shall stand under the curse. Moreover he is abolished from Christ, and fallen from grace, because the justification by grace, and the justification by the law, are so contrary, that they cannot be joined together: he that will hold any thing of the one, must forego the other. This being the thing which Saint Paul speaketh of the Galathians, and not the very ceremonies which both he and Timothy did sometime observe, nor yet the error of the Church of jerusalem, which was not to place the worship of God and righteousness in them (which the holy Apostles would never have borne withal, seeing it overthroweth the faith of Christ) mark well Master barrow (or if you will be wilful let others mark) how foolishly, and yet with what furious terror, ye thunder out the abolishing from Chrst, for paying tithes, and for the observation of some ceremonies, in which, if there be a fault, it is so far from that which the false Apostles went about to seduce the Galathians in, that it cometh short of the error of the Church of jerusalem. For the Church of England (as all men may see) doth condemn fully and absolutely, not only that doctrine of the false Apostles, and of the Church of Rome, touching justification or merit of words, but also teacheth the whole law of ceremonies was to cease, now Christ being come. Cease therefore Master Barrow this foolish rage, and labour not to seduce the people, deceiving, and being deceived, as the blessed Apostle speaketh. Ye observe days and times, months, and years (saith Saint Paul to the Galathians) I am afraid of ye, lest I have laboured among ye in vain. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit ye nothing.  
The Church of England (say you) observeth days and times, as Easter, Whitsonday, etc. and payethtithes, and observeth other ceremonies, therefore Christ can profit ye nothing, ye are abolished from Christ, ye are fallen from the covenant of grace, in as much as ye obstinately hold and continue in them.  
Is it not much to be lamented, that after so many years preaching of the Gospel, much people should lie open to be fpoyled by such poor silly stuff as this, and be led away by such more than sottish ignorance? Cannot men see that the who●e matter lieth in the divers ends of observation? The false apostles, the Church in jerusalem, Paul and Timothy, do observe the self same things, that is Circumcision and other ceremonies of the law: The false Apostles are abolished from Christ, as they urge and observe them: The Church of jerusalem is not abolished from Christ, but yet erreth grossly, Saint Paul and Timothy sin not at all thereby. What is the reason of this difference, but that as ye may see, the false Apostles observed and urged the ceremonies as meritorious for justification, and therefore the Epistle to the Galathians is spent in declaring the righteousness by faith, and overthrowing the righteousness by the law. The Church in jerusalem observed the ceremonies not placing righteousness in them, but to the end that God had ordained them, to shadow out heavenly things, being ignorant in this that they were ordained but unto the time of correction, as the holy Ghost speaketh, Hebr. 9 And therefore in that Epistle to the Hebrues there is no charging or blaming of them, touching the matter of justification, but only a reducing of them from that foresaid error in which they did stick ●● long. When Saint Paul speaketh of observing the ceremonies, which was but at sometimes, as occasion fell out, 〈◊〉 so far from deeming it a fault, that he reckoneth it among his virtues: and saith, to those that are under the law, I became as if I were under the law, that I might win those that are under the law. 1. Cor. 9 The Synagogue of Antichrist in more heinous and detestable manner than the false Apostles, against the Cross of Christ, even against the righteousness by faith in his blood, observe days and times, and a number of ceremonies of their own invention, by which they seek remission of 〈…〉 and the merit of eternalllife. Our Church doth renounce and accurse all such doctrine, neither do we maintain any judaisme. And touching the paying of tithes, (that I may conclude this point) if I say there might be somewhat moral in it, though it were annexed to the Levitical Priesthood, I do not see how you shall be able to disprove the same.  
In the visitation of the sick, there is a form of absolution set down. Thus you (Master Barrow) writ against it: Let the Reader understand, that nothing can be more popish and blasphemousthen it is: wherein a sacrilegious priest taketh upon him, by the authority committed unto him, to absolve the sick from all his sins. Hath any mortal man power to forgive sins? Or is it not the office of God alone? Hath the priest power to forgive all sins, such as are not made unto him? what horrible blasphemy is this? to him that hath power to forgive all sins, to him we may make our prayers and supplications, him only may we worship. Hath the greatest minister of the Church any more power to retain or lose the sin of the least member, than the said member hath to bind or loose his sin? Doth not this rule of our Saviour Christ, as well extend unto him as unto the least in the Church, If thy brother sin against thee, rebuke him, and if he repent, forgive him? Luke. 17. 3. Hath not the Church▪ power to reprove and cast out their Pastor if he deserve? Is not all this binding and losing done by the word of God, and not by any power or excellency of man? Hath not the word of God the like power and effect against sin in the mouth of the least of God's servants, as in the mouth of the greatest? Let this collect then (whereby the priest in their liturgy by the power committed to him absolveth the sick of all his sins) remain one witness (among many other) of their popery, and until more come of most high blasphemy.  
Thus far be your words Master Barrow. Then this absolution (you say) nothing can be more popish or blasphemous, you cry out at it as horrible blasphemy: And will have this collect remain as one witness of most high blasphemy. If it be so, I have done you great wrong by charging you as false accusers: But in very deed while you go about to make the Reader understano that nothing can be more popish or blasphemous, yea, that it is horrible and most high blasphemy, you bewray so dark ignorance and confusion, as I think we may term deep & horrible, as shall appear by the reasons you bring. But now for this absolution, take this by the way, that I do not undertake to dispute upon, or to justify every circumstance thereof, as namely the undiscreet and unskilful dealing of some that may practise it; but only deal about the substance of the matter itself, against which your reasons are brought, to prove it to be popery and blasphemy.  
You ask first, Hath any mortal man power to forgive sins? or whether it be not God's office alone? Why Master Barrow, will you deny that mortal men have power to forgive sins? doth not our Saviour Christ say unto his Apostles, Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained? joh. 20. ver. 23. Dare you contradict the flat testimony of the scripture? And for your other question, it is most certain, and the contrary cannot be held without blasphemy and sacrilege, that God only hath power and authority to forgive sins, if we respect the author of forgiveness: And men do but in his name, and from him as ministers, bring the same unto us. If we respect the thing i● self, it is peculiar unto the most high God: but the ministry is his hand, by which he reacheth it forth unto us, and therefore they bringing the message and word of reconciliation, are adorned with this title, that they forgive, and retain sins: yet ● is but instrumental. It is most undoubted that God alone doth begethiss Children by the immortal seed of his word: And yet Saint Paul saith to the Corinthians, that he was their Father, and that he begat them. All this is but ministerial, God is rob of no honour.  
You demand, whether the priest hath power to forgive all sins, such as are not made unto him? I answer that the minister of the Gospel, is the minister of reconciliation, (I mean to bring it) and hath power to forgive all sins annexed to his ministry, or rather it is the fruit and effect and power of his ministry, in delivering the promises. You seem to speak of forgiving of trespasses which are done against ourselves, which declareth also your want of skill: as namely that you know not what this is, whose sins ye shall forgive, they that are forgiven. We may make our prayers unto him, & worship him only, that hath power to forgive all sins. This is true, if we look to the author of this grace, which is God alone: But not when we look to those which are but ministers, and the earthen vessels in which this treasure is brought.  
You ask, whether the greatest minister in the Church, hathanie more power to retain or lose the sin of the least member, than the said member hath to bind or loose his sins? And then you bring certain reasons to prove that he hath not any more power than the least member. Is it not a strange thing (Master Barrow) that such gear should come from you? will you take away the whole efficacy and power of the ministry which Christ hath ordained? By the ministers of the Gospel (as I said before) God sendeth the word of reconciliation, they be his hand, by which he doth reach it forth unto us: when they preach the glad tidings, or deliver the promise of free pardon unto all that shall believe in Christ crucified, and deliver the seals of the doctrine, even Baptism and the holy Supper: God doth accompany the ministration of these things, by his spirit, & so doth ratify the same. For which cause the ministry of the Gospel is called the ministry of the spirit. 2. Cor. 3. The spirit of the Lord giveth us our freedom by losing the bonds of our sins, when through faith we lay hold of the promise. And he that believeth not is still bound. Then when Christ saith, Whose sins ye shall forgive, they are forgiven, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained. This is the sense, that to those whom God doth send (publishing the Gospel, and setting to the seals in those which embrace it, and so bringing free pardon of sins) he doth communicate this honour which belongeth to himself, that they are said to forgive sins.  
As I said before, he giveth away nothing herein from himself, because it is not given unto them as to the authors of the pardon, but as to the instruments and ministers, by whom he doth reach it forth, as by his hand, and by whose ministry he doth ratify the same unto us. Likewise when they denounce judgement against the impenitent, he doth confirm it. What do you tell us then of that rule of admonishing and pardoning? Luk. 17. These be things differing. It is also very true that the power of binding and losing is wholly from the word, not depending upon the excellency of any man: and that the dignity and power of the word (if we respect it in itself) is all one, out of whose mouth so ever. But yet (Master Barrow) you should know●, that it is God's ordinance and good pleasure, to give a special operation and power unto it by the ministry. Baptism doth seal up the forgiveness of our sins, and hath he not ordained, that this seal shallbe set to by the ministry? I would you saw how ●old your ignorance hath made you, even against God's ordinance, as to give no more efficacy unto the word in the mouth of the mo●t excellent minister, then in the mouth of any true Christian.  
Your other demand is to no purpose, seeing nothing do●th bind or loose, but only the word, and the binding or losing by men, is no more, but when men by authority from God, in a ministry which he doth ratify, pronounce remission of sins or judgement, rightly according to the word, as the word pronounceth. Shall we then believe, that every true Christian hath the same and equal power of binding and losing that Paul or Peter had? You say so, and would prove it, and not only have here set down your blind reasons, but in your other book (which you entitle a brief discovery of the false Church) and in the page 124. You say that by the place john 20. we cannot prove this power of binding and losing to be given only to the Apostles, there being many disciples both men and women in the place when Christ gave it. This appearing indeed of our Saviour was the same day at night in which he rose from the dead, as the Evangelists do expressly declare. It is plain also by S. Luke 24. 33. that there were some other with the Apostles when he appeared unto them. But yet (Master Barrow) consider the place well, and if there be any forehead remaining, it will make you blush a little at your own bold speech, when you say that to challenge the power of binding and losing, as given or annexed to the ministry, by these words, whose sins ye remit, etc. is by an old worthless title. For was the Commission of the Apostleship given unto all that were there, both men and women? Because you say; There were both men and women there besides the Apostles, and that he gave the power of binding and losing unto them all alike: and said unto them all, whose sins ye shall remit, they are remitted▪ etc.  
Mark all his words together. Again, Peace be with ye, as the father hath sent me, so I send you. And when he had said this, he breathed upon them, and said, receive the holy Ghost. Whose sins ye shall remit, they are remitted, and whose sins ye shall retain, they are retained. Did he say to all there present, yea even to the women, as the father hath sent me, so I send you? I pray ye whether sent he the women upon that message upon which he was sent by the father? These former words are only to the Apostles upon whom he layeth the charge, or the embassage which his father had committed unto him. As Paul 2. Cor. 5. declareth that the Apostles were Ambassadors from GOD in Christ's stead. If you will shame then to say that Christ laid the charge which the father committed to him upon the women (as you say there were some women there, and it is not unlike) or if you dare not affirm that the women are sent upon this embassage to be Apostles, which is in these former words, as the father sent me, so I send you, how dare you say the latter words are spoken unto all? For to those only he saith, receive the holy Ghost: whose sins ye shall remit, they are remitted. To whom he had said, As the father hath sent me so I send you. And tell me Master Barrow, is there not some part of this power of losing or remitting sins by the Sacraments? I mean, do● not the Sacraments effectually seal unto us the remission of sins? And is that power committed to any but Ministers? Hath God given a power to the Ministers above other to set to the seals, and no power above others in delivering the word of the covenant which is sealed? It is no marvel that you dare go about to overthrow all the power of the Ministry of the Gospel (which Saint Paul setteth forth to be so glorious, 2. Cor. 3.) in affirming that the greatest Minister hath no more power to bind the least member, than the said member hath to bind him: when you are thus grossly ignorant, as to affirm that our Saviour spoke those words unto women, Whose sins ye shall forgive. etc. joh. 20. and see not that God hath ratified a power of delivering the word and Sacraments by a ministry, which he useth as his hand reached forth unto us. They that will further and more fully see into this wicked error of yours, must look upon that which the learned have written against the Swinckfeldians, about the same.  
And now (Master Barrow) to come to the very point indeed that is in controversy between you and me. I wished that you were as weary of lying and slandering, as you should be in seeking until you should find one blasphemy or heresy in all the Collects of the book: and therefore you have here gathered together a whole pack. You tell me first, that I have in remembrance the Collect wherein the Priest by the authority committed unto him, doth absolve the sick of all his sins. Indeed you told us that this is most high blasphemy, and that nothing can be more popish. But learn you Master Barrow, by the Scripture, and remember that God hath given a power to the ministry of the Gospel to forgive sins. The power indeed is but ministerial, and so the book itself declareth, where it saith: He hath given power and commandment to his ministers, to declare and pronounce to his people being penitent, the absolution and remission of their sins. Other power in the minister to forgive sins then this, the book alloweth none. How the Pope doth challenge this power to himself as head, and how from him it must be derived unto all Ministers, how far also he hath extended it, and how horribly and blasphemously he hath abused it, I will not stand to show.  
Then next, you say, I must not forget the two Collects said over our dead brother. The one in which we say that God of his mercy hath taken away the soul of our brother, etc. This is not meant but where the party dieth in the profession of the faith and repentance, nor yet absolutely to pronounce him saved, but in a charitable manner of speech to judge of him as he professed. I do not take it the meaning of the book, that it should be uttered of such as make no profession of the holy faith, (for why then should he be called a brother?) or upon whom God doth show his fearful judgement, if it be otherwise, it may be a fault, but not blasphemy.  
The other is, that we pray for the soul of our brother departed: where we say, that we with this our brother and all other departed in the true faith, may have our perfect consummation and bliss both in body and soul. Prayer for the dead is a gross error, but yet not simply in itself an heresy, or blasphemy, and our Church doth utterly condemn it as a gross error. And therefore Master Barrow, you do still but belie the book, which directeth herein to pray only for ourselves living, and not for the dead. For if the mention of receiving bliss with that brother departed, were to pray for him, than should it be meant that we would also pray for the souls of Abraham, Isaac and jaakob, of the Prophets and Apostles, because they are included, in these words, with all other departed in the true faith.  
In the third place you are so kind, that as you say, to help my memory a little further, you will me to consider better of that glorious Anthem which we say at our Communion, that we with Angels and Archangels and all the company of heaven lawd and magnify. etc. Here you will not demand how we remaining in the flesh, can have such familiar conversation with those heavenly Soldiers, that together with them we can praise God. You will not demand, (that is, you do in a fine retoricall sort demand it) but the fineness of this rhetoric will not cover the sottishness of your ignorance. For albeit men in earth have not familiar conversation with Angels, yet they praise God together with them, in as much as both men and Angels do lawd and magnify him. And therefore the Prophet Psal. 103. calling upon all things to praise the Lord, joineth the Angels, saying: Praise the Lord ye Angels which are strong in power. Read also for this, the first chapter of the Revel verl. 12, 13, 14. Then you will not press us with papistical speculations of making degrees of Angels and Archangels. etc. In very deed you cannot but with falsehood press our Church with that. But you demand how many Archangels we read of and find in the Scriptures, and whether we know of any more heads of Angels than Christ himself?  
We know and constantly profess that there is but one head of Angels which is Christ. And we condemn the popish curiosity in searching into the degrees and orders of Angels, which is not learned out of the holy Scriptures, but from that counterfeit Dionysius Areopagita. And if that Michael the Archangel which strove with the devil about the body of Moses, and durst not give railing sentence were Christ: yet S. Paul speaketh of an Archangel besides Christ, when he saith: The Lord himself shall come down from heaven with the voice of the Archangel, and with the trump of God. 1. Thess. 4. vers. 16. What blasphemy then (Master Barrow) is there in the book, which speaketh but as the Scripture, and you may see plainly that, to be a chief Angel, or an Archangel, is not to be the head of Angels? The sainctifying the flood jordain, and all other waters to the mystical washing away of sin, is none other way to be taken, then to say that bread and wine are sanctified to represent the body and blood of Christ. All the creatures of God are sanctified to our use, as the blessed Apostle speaketh.  
Touching Michael and all Angels, we do not worship Angels, nor yet make Christ a creature. You say that in the Litany, there is prayer for all that travail by sea or by land, for all that be sick, for all sick persons: therefore we pray for God's enemies, for the breach of all order, and destruction both of Church and common wealth. This is but a vain collection, when prayer is intended for such as are prayed for, that they may be turned from their evil. Also when this word all is used, it goeth with this restraint, all that belong unto God, for so is Saint Paul to be also restrayved unto all sorts of men which belong unto God, when he willeth to pray for all men. 1. Tim. 2.  
You demand where we learn to pray against lightning and thunder, tempest, plague, famine, battle, etc. when there is no present fear or danger thereof?  
Then it seemeth by your words that we may entreat the Lord to turn away none of his grievous and fearful plagues, but when they be upon us? We see there are ever anon some which are stricken with thunder: and when the clap is past, it is too late to pray for them. Again, the prayers of the Church are for all the true members thereof wheresoever: and if we ourselves be not in this present need, yet others are, and we may be, if God turn not a way his displeasure: these prayers are not to restrain the Lord the use of his creatures, or that he should not by them destroy his enemies, these be no sound collections. Unless you will argue thus, the Lord afflicteth his Church by persecutions, by famine and pestilence, etc. for their good, and for the glory of his own name: therefore the church ought not to pray to be delivered from those things. We are willed to be always ready for death, and sudden death cannot prevent any one of the faithful I do confess. But yet we esteem it a great comfort & a great blessing for sundry respects to be warned before, when we shall departed out of this world, and a thing which we covet, and I see no reason why we may not, for such respects crave it of the Lord. You would make men believe that we conjure Christ by his incarnation, by his nativity, baptism, fasting and temptation, by his agony and bloody sweat, by his Cross and passion, etc. When we pray to be delivered by them, hath not our Saviour dotte these things for our deliverance? And did he not deliver us by them? What blasphemy, heresy, or conjuration is there then in this prayer, as to say deliver us by thy precious death and passion? You ask where we learned to pray for our forefather's offences? I answer that we read that the Lord will visit the sins of the Fathers upon the Children: and therefore we desire the Lord not to remember the sins of the forefathers, to bring punishment upon us. It is a blind collection when any gather hereby that we pray for the dead, that their sins may be forgiven them. These then be the blasphemies and heresies which you Master Barrow do accuse the book of, to show that you did not lie and slander: but how well you have acquit yourself, let all those judge which have any sobriety. And now touching this that you did affirm the best part of the book to be but as a piece of swine's flesh, and abomination to the Lord: you go about to defend your wicked speech by the abuse, which I told you before could be none answer: for the things are holy in themselves, although conjurers and Papists abuse them never so much. Touching the Lord's Prayer, we deal about it in the question of read prayer. For the articles of the faith, you would know what proof by Scripture we can make for that blasphemous Article, that Christ descended into hell? Also in your other book page 76. these be your words: Their forged patchery, commonly called the Apostles Creed or Symbol, Athanasius Creed, the Nycen Creed. Let the world judge what cause you have to glory in your sufferings: and whether ye be not liker Rabsaka, (who boasted also that God sent him against jerusalem) than any of the holy Martyrs of Christ. Is there any Christian ear but will abhor this beastly speech, when you term the Articles of our faith, a forged patchery? And do you not I say, even as a very Rabsaka most wickedly reproach all Churches, both of old and in these days. Athanasius creed, which is the Nycen Créed is drawn from the word? It is the sum of the most glorious faith, concerning the blessed Trinity, and some other Articles, which all true Churches and Christians have ever professed, and do profess. And for the Apostles creed, if it were not in the time of the Apostles, yet was it presently after, that confession or procession of the faith, which every one of years made, which was admitted to receive the holy baptism.  
It is every part drawn expressly but of the sacred writings of the Prophets and Apostles. And for that one article of Christ's descending into hell, it is not blasphemous, nor yet hath in it any error, unless it be misunderstoote. The Papists are very gross in it, and fabulous, touching his descending to fetch out the sovies of the pacriarches. Others do hold that our Saviour in soul after his passion descended into hell, though to no such purpose: this is not blasphemy nor heresy. The place of Scripture which seemeth to warrant that his soul descended into hell, is in Psalm 16. Thou shalt not leave my soul in hell, neither shalt thou suffer thine holy one to see corruption. Scheol doth signify both hell and the grave, and in this place (say they which hold that his soul descended) it must needs be taken for hell, because the soul goeth not into the grave. Yet because Nephesh may be diversely taken, as it is used sundry times in Moses for the dead body, as also that it doth signify the vital spirit, and so it is no absurdity to say after a manner of speech, that the life is shut up in the grave so long as the body remaineth there: hereupon some do expound these words, he descended into hell, to be no more but thus, he went down into the grave. And whereas the order of the articles seemeth to overthrow this exposition, because it is said, he was dead, buried, and descended into hell: they expound this clause, (he was buried) he was inbaulmed, as it is said when the woman powered the precious ointment upon him, that she did it to bury him, Matth. 26. Nicodemus brought Mirre and Aloes: this dressing of the dead body, say they, was of the jews called burial: and the putting into the grave, descending into hell. Others do take it, that descending into hell is meant, that he remained in the state of the dead. Others that in his soul while he was upon the Cross, he suffered the torments of hell, as it is most certain he did. Now Master Barrow, seeing the words be in the Scripture (thou shalt not leave my soul in hell) and the matter resteth only upon the exposition, what immodest and intemporate heat, or rather furious outrage is this, to cry out of a blasphemous article, and to term the articles of our faith, our forged patchery?  
Also for singing of Psalms, I will note here unto the reader, your foul profane speeches: in page 180. thus you writ. Hear would not be forgotten also the sweet psalmodical harmony of the Vultures, Crows, Gleads, Owls, Geese, of the Leopards, Bears, Wolves, Dogs, Foxes, Swine, Goats, (pardon me, for thus the holy Ghost termeth and likeneth the profane multitudes assembled in the false Church) all these together with one accord symphony and harmony, sing some pleasant Ballad, or else unto David's melodious harp some Psalm in rhyme (I say not rhythm now or meeter) well concinnate to the ear (though never a whit to the sense, purpose, or true use of the Psalm) before the sermon, to stir up the spirit of their worthy priest or preachers: who being rapt and ravished with this harmony goes to his gear, inform above said, where his mouth distills, and his lips drop such old parables, such premeditat and well studied and chosen sentences, as shall displease no party, unless he be of too suspicious a nature.  
Your own words Master Barrow, which I have set down, do show themselves so ungodly and profane unto every Christian mind, yea unto every one which hath but a spark of human civility and modesty left in him, that I need not to say much: for albeit our Saviour called the Scribes and pharisees, which were sworn enemies unto the Gospel, and sought by their counterfeit holiness to seduce others, generations of vipers and serpents Herod that fox, and Saint Paul, called the false Apostles dogs: yet is it no excuse or colour, for your profane impiety, against all degrees and sorts, both of men and women, which are no such enemies, but love and embrace the Gospel, when you give them the names of those vile beasts and birds: and especially when as this your most vile reproach, reacheth not alone unto all the assemblies in England, but also unto all the holy Churches which have embraced & profess the glorious Gospel. For all the Churches have the Psalms in meeter, which they sing in their public assemblies, and their prescribed liturgies, which ye make so horrible. Moreover, the people in other Churches, you make to be but profane multitudes, as in the assemblies of England, as we shall afterward see where you charge master Caluine at Geneva, that with ignorance and rashness, and disorderly proceedings, he at the first ●ash made no scruple to receive all the whole state, even all the profane ignorant people, into the bosom of the church, which you term a confuse rout, etc. A pernicious example unto all Europe: whom then have you called Wolves, Foxes, Dogs, Owls, & c? Your tongues are your own, who is Lord over ye? Psalm. 12. Your sufferings are for Christ, so are theirs which lie bound in bedlam. I do not doubt but that in sundry places the Psalms in M●tremisse of the strict sense, & so no doubt do their Psalms in any Church, but yet there is nothing in them unholy, or disagreeing from the truth. All the knowledge which you have is wholly from the writings, expositions, and translations of those whom you cerine Owls, Vultures, Dogs, Foxes, etc. For take away the translations of the Bible, and what could you haues●n: And where had you the direction unto the sight of those things which you hold in truth, but from the writings of others: Would you make us believe that you had found them out of yourselves? In deed your unsound and crazed principles, upon which you ground are your own, and nothing else. And yet as if you had all knowledge in the fountains of the holy Scriptures, and knew a right sense and scope in them, which none besides yourselves have attained unto, you reprehend the Psalms as well concinnate to the ear, but nothing to the sense, and also the preachers, as not rightly deu●●ing the word. If you had showed some one Psalm for in example, first in laying open the native sense (wherein yet for all your great brags, you must trust Tremellius, because some one word wrong translated may carry the sense another way) and then how the meeter hath wholly swerved from the same, it had been somewhat. If you have any true grammar sense of the Psalms (for that is it which we esteem as the ground of truth) or of the rest of the Scriptures, which you have not from such Owls and Foxes, as Master Tremellious, Beza, and other translators, we would be glad to know it. But remember what is said of some, that they are swelling waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame: what greater shame and discredit can there be then for men to fall into such insolency and swelling, that being grossly ignorant, & having no knowledge but through the helps ministered by others, yet take upon them as if they weresent from heaven, as the only men that have sée●e the true light? This is no excessive speech, seeing y●●●●er●● in many things condemn all Churches and their learnedst reachers▪ ●e● the reader considet of the profaneness and falsehood of your other speeches, of the preacher going to his gear and not offending any, and such like. I do not know Master Barrow, what your former conversation hath bée●: but by your speeches ● man would judge that you had spent your time▪ rather in the societies of ●arding and dicing, then in the ●c●●●l● of Christ, here therefore I conclude that with ignorance, falsehood and profane impiety, ye accuse our worship to be blasphemous and Idolatrous. Thus much for the first transgression, now to the second.  
The second is that the profane ungodly multitudes without exception of any one person, are with us received into, and retained in the bosom and body of our Church.  
In your preamble Master Barrow you do but babble, and that upon your own surmises, contrary to my plain words, and whether against your conscience look you; for I do not allow evil ministers, nor their admitting of open notorious sinners unto the table of the Lord. And when I said the Church of Englang doth not allow the same, I speak of the established public order by the consent of the whole land, which is both for the godliness of the ministers, & repelling the notorious offenders from the Sacrament.  
Moreover, we do not at any hand allow your arguments, which are drawn from the principles of Donatisine, as namely that we must separate ourselves where we see any serve from their duty, and offend.  
The reason which you brought to prove this second transgression (as you said) at once, I reduced into form of Syllogism thus: where all are received in by baptism, and no power to cast forth any by excommunication, there all the profane multitudes are without exception of any one person received into, & retained in the bosom and body of the Church. But in the Church of England all are received in by Baptism, and no power to cast forth any by excommunication. Therefore in the Church of England all the profane multitudes without the exception of any one person, are received into and retained in the bosom and body of the Church.  
Here you complain and that grievonsly, that I did frame this argument after mine own conceit, as I might best deal withal, and then did proceed to confute you. The falsification which you charge me so sore withal is, that I have put in a new minor proposition: as namely the whole body of the Church of England, for the particular asseblies. It is a strange case to see the wit of some man, what great 〈…〉 ●hee can contrive, if men will give credit. He that is 〈◊〉 whether it be bysome one assembly which 〈◊〉 ●ower, or by the whole body of a Church in a kingdom, is ●●e not cast forth? Did not Esra with the Princes and Elders of Israel, publish a Proclamation, that he that should not come up to jerusalem within three days, should be separated from the congregation of the multitude that came out of captivity? Esra. 10. ver. 8. this was excommunication. Moreover, where you said, that the Parson and his parish hath not the power to cast forth any by excommunication. I did not let this pass, but told you, that it is not meet that the Parson and his parish should have this power to excommunicate, unless it be such a parish as hath the consistory of Pastors and Elders. I gave you the example of the Church of Geneva, where every several flock hath a Pastor: but yet these Pastors and their flocks have not the power to excommunicate. Why do not you then, (if you will answer) prove by the word of God, that every particular flock in a kingdom or region, is of necessity for the being of a Church to have this power whole and several by itself. I take it you shall never be able to prove that it ought to be, much less shall you be able to prove them to be no true Churches, which have not in every several congregation established the power of excommunication. For touching excommunication, there be Churches which are true Churches of Christ, which have it not, nor judge it needful. Master Beza in his book against Erastus pag. 2. saith: that he was charged by some, to esteem them to be no Churches which wanted excommunication, or such a Presbytery: which was unjustly laid to his charge, as he saith, the perpetual conviction of him and those Churches; did sufficiently witness. You have more work in hand here Master Barrow, than you be wait of: For if you had proved that the Church of England hath no power to excommunicate, yet there remaineth a further thing which is not so easy as you take it to be convinced, namely that it is no true Church of Christ which hath no excommunication. All Churches are against you in this point, and the light of the truth will be as strong against you, as it hath been against the Annabaptists.  
Here you make the challenge anew, and say: If I would vouchsafe to take mine adversaries with me into the field, and give them leave to bring and to use their own weapons. I answer, that for all your outcries, yet there hath been no one weapon taken from ye, nor yet cut shorter. That special weapon which you now have drawn and burnished, wherein you repose your trust, is this.  
Where all the profane and ungodly are received into, and retained in the Church as members thereof, there cannot be said the true established Church of Christ. But in the Church of England all the profane multitudes & ungodly of the land were received into, & are retained in their Church as members thereof. Therefore the Church of England in this estate cannot be said the true established Church of Christ.  
You do here conclude a new question, for there may be a true Church of Christ, and yet not in all things rightly or truly established. Again, there be four terminie in this your Syllogism: because this clause (all the profane & ungodly) is taken more largely in the mayor, than it is in the minor, or else your mayor is false also, & the scriptures which you quote falsely applied. It is certain that God did separate his Church from the Heathen Nations that did not call upon his name. Such were not compelled to enter. But if you look upon the Church of Israel, the Nation of the jews, which had the covenant, when they fell into Idolatry and horrible impietyes, you shall see that all the godly Kings of juda that reformed and restored the true worship of God, compelled all to the same. Do you read that the Idolaters or their seed, (which still after a sort professed the God of Abraham, and had the seal of the covenant upon them) were cast forth? You may see in the Prophet Sophonie, that in the days of the godly King josias, many of those Idolaters did turn, but feignedly for fear of punishment, and secretly worshipped Idols. The nation of England did profess jesus Christ, and were all sealed with the seal of the covenant, but yet overwhelmed generally in Idolatry and many horrible sins: Our Noble Queen Elizabeth placed by God upon the Regal throne, compelleth them all being her subjects, according to their vow in Baptism to renounce Idolatry, and to embrace the holy faith and Religion of Christ, appointing sharp penalties for such as shall obstinately persist either in Idolatry or other horrible sins. Now tell me Master Barrow, what doth she herein other than the godly kings of juda did? She receiveth not in nor compelleth Turks, jews, or heathen, but only such as are Christians by profession. And therefore you may see that if you will have your mayor proposition agree with the Scriptures, it must needs be taken more largely than your minor. And thus you are come forth into the field with your choice weapon which deceivethye utterly. But yet here to make some face of true zeal, you reckon up a number of horrible sins. Indeed God requireth that all his servants should utterly abhor and condemn such vices and speak against them, but he alloweth not any to take occasion thereby to condemn his Church. Such vices abound, but yet there are many thousands which cannot ●e charged with any one foul vice, whose conversation in the profession of the true faith, is & hath been with much more sobriety and modesty than yours, (Master Barrow) unless your time passed have been better spent then the present. And when God shall open your eyes, & his terror shall be uponye, ye shall know that I have not by the devil blasphemed ye, but showed by God's word, that you have with horrible presumption and intrusion into God's judgement seat, and with most savage cruelty sought to rend up and to tear the Lords tender plants.  
In the next place cometh the Baptizing the Children of profane men which profess Christ, and remain in the Church. Here Master Barrow you are in a wonderful displeasure, and can not satisfy yourself with all the variety of odious terms which you do even foam out. The heresy which I have uttered about this matter is so foul (as you take it) that after many extreme words, you say you may by the direct warrant of God's word hold me and mine ordinary most heinous falsefiers, and corrupters of the whole law and word of God, most blasphemous and pervitions false Prophets. A man would think at the reading of these words, that the whole Church were on fire, especially if I should repeat but the one half of your speeches, but that we know Master Barrow it is but your fashion: If it please God he may give you some spark of modesty. But touching the matter itself, I did affirm that the children of profane men which remain in the Church professing Christ, whether they be close hypoerites or openly wicked in conversation, do belong to the covenannt & are to be baptised, so that the Church take care for their instruction and education in the true faith. Your cavils here about verbal confession (which God alone can judge) about parish assemblies (which are members of a Church, though every one by itself severally hath not the full power, and so to becalled a Church) about express contrariety, error and sacrilege (in my proposition as you say) are not worth the mention. Touching the Scriptures which I allege to prove that the interest in the covenant doth not depend upon the sincere faith or godliness of the next parents, youcrie out of so many errors, mischines, and blasphemies, that you doubt not (as you say) to pronounce and reject these doctrines of this false Prophet most blasphemous and devilish.  
But now if it be true which I say and prove, against whom have you powered forth your poison? And what bring you to disprove it; But that then all the world is within the Church holy, all being sprung within far less than a thousand generations of many faithful, and lineally come from the Patriarch Noah? And that then ought the Israelites under the law to have circumcised all their captive Canaanites and heathen that came into their power. Then ought the Church now to baptise all the seed even of the most wicked and ungodly, whether Turks, Papists, Idolaters, etc.  
You are out of the way Master Barrow, and the faster you run, the further: for you should remember that I spoke of the seed of such profane men as remain in the Church and profess Christ, and are sealed with the seal of the Covenant. Will you make no difference between those which were or are without the Church ●ncircumcised, or unbaptized, not professing the God of Abraham, or the faith of Christ, and those which were or be in the Church, circumcised or baptised, professing the the God of Abraham and the faith of Christ? The Canaanites and other heathen, if they forsook false Gods, and embraced the religion of the true God, were circumcised: & so may the Turks and heathen be baptised at this day. But while they are without and blaspheme and renounce Christ, what hath the Church to do with their children, which are not under her government and power to bring up? The Church is to take care that all those children may be instructed in the faith, and guided in the way of godliness, which she admitteth unto baptism. For the places of Scripture, where I said that the covenant with Abraham was made thus, I will be thy God, and the God of thy seed, and that to a thousand generations, Exod. 20. And that because of this S. Peter calleth all the jews in general, the children of the Prophets and of the covenant. Act. 3. 25. and Paul, Rom. 9 4 For which respect they are called holy, Rom. 11. And the children of Idolaters among them are called Gods children, Ezech. 16. The whole nation of the jews, a very few men excepted, did at sundry times very grievously sin against the Lord, and the greater part of those never returned by true repentance, but yet remained in the profession of the God of Abraham, and were circumcised. If the covenant had been disannulled to their seed, how could Saint Peter say, they were the children of the Covenant? Or how could Saint Paul say, that theirs was the adoption and the Covenant? If none were outwardly to stand under the Covenant but the elect, how should this have been spoken? Or if the Covenant had been disannulled by their father's sins? Unto this (Master Barrow) you have made none answer at all. But you take occasion at that which I allege out of Exod. 20. to make some colour or show of matter, and say that I wittingly suppress the next words of the sentence, which are these; of them that love me and keep my commandments, which show to whom this covenant is made and belongeth, and the condition on our part. And you require that I should ●he● one plate through the whole Scripture, where the Lords Covenant is made unto us without this condition, and then you say I may peradventure clear myself, and mine ordinary for publishing this wicked and devilish heresy, so directly contrary to the whole Scriptures in more than a thousand places. Thus it is your pleasure (Master Barrow) even in your deep ignorance, and that in the grounds of Religion, to impugn the stableness of God's covenant made unto his people. It is a thing indeed which any godly mind may with horror tremble at, when with such fury you term it a devilish heresy, which is indeed that doctrine of grace delivered in the Scriptures, whereby the glory of the Lord is most highly magnified. It is certain that the Covenant or promise of God doth not profit any, unless they receive it, as the holy Ghost speaketh, mixed with faith. Heb. 4. 2. Then where true faith is, there is sanctification, there is obedience according to the measure of that faith greater or less.  
Hereupon it followeth, that as God is become their God, so they are become his people, and this is required on our part. But now to infer upon this, that the stableness of God's covenant dependeth upon this condition, if we keep his commandments, and that a man, yea a whole Church doth forfeit the covenant (as your phrase is) if they show rebellion, is most wicked. For what is more manifest than this, that if it had been so, the covenant had been forfeited almost unto all Israel, and that very often, for they oftentimes rebelled against God most grievously, and broke promise on their part. The complaints of the Prophets are many: sundry Psalms do set it forth: the book of the judges declareth how oft they rebelled and fell unto foul Idolatry, and how oft he plagued them, and humbled them by delivering them into the hands of heathen Kings. You will say they rebelled, but repent. And in the days of every godly judge, and godly King were the visible Church. But in the times of their defection when they committed Idolatry, you say they were not the visible Church. Yea you allege testimonies of Scripture, to prove that in their defection they were not the Lord's people: as Deuteronom. 32. 19 Micha. 2. 7, 8, 9, Amos. 8. 2. Ezech. 16. Alas Master Barrow, would any man look for such matter at their hands that had but even read over the Bible? It is declared by Moses, that God chose them to be his people not for their own righteousness, but of free mercy, and made his covenant with them. Likewise it is most certain that he continued his faith towards them, not for that they kept covenant with him, (for they often rebelled) but for his own names sake.  
To say that they forfeited the Covenant by transgressing his commandments, and recovered it again by repentance, and so to be now out now in, is (that I may say no worse) most foolishly spoken. For they did not enter again into a covenant which was lost because they repent, but contrariwise they repent because they were in the covenant. That is, because he had sworn unto them to be their God, he not only brought them down by afflictions, chastising them as a father, but gave them the graces of repentance. This is showed Psalm. 106. where the Prophet having set forth their manifold rebellions, and the plagues wherewith he plagued them, he saith: When they were brought down by affliction, he looked to their distress and heard their cry. And remembered for them his covenant: and repent for the multitude of his mercies. The Lord saith also, He foreknew them to be an hard people: that their neck was as a bar of iron, and their forehead of brass, and that they would deal unfaithfully. Esay. 48. vers. 4. 8. Yet he saith, I will be long suffering for my name's sake, and for my praise, I will refrain mine anger towards thee, that I may not cut thee off. vers. 9 It were too long to repeat all the Scriptures where the Lord pronounceth that he chose them for his own names sake, that they dealt unfaithfully, and yet he kept them as his people, and forgave their iniquities even for himself. You will say, that God's covenant was to the elect among them, but the rest were not under the covenant, nor the visible Church. This is your grievous blindness, that you cannot see that many stand outwardly under the covenant, and are the visible Church, which yet receive no benefit thereby, being wicked even void of faith. And for this cause although the great swarm of the Israelites were wicked reprobates, and (as the Prophet saith) but a remnant saved, yet for their outward profession the whole Nation was ever said to stand under the covenant. Otherwise how could it be said, That Christ came among his own, and his own received him not? joh. 1. How could these wicked infidels be called his own, in any other respect, but that they stood outwardly under the covenant, and were the visible Church? And therefore when the body of that people should stand no longer under the covenant, to be the visible Church, but (as our Saviour saith) the kingdom of God should be taken from them. Math. 21. The Lord (to show that he had still kept his covenant with them, even until that time in which they now break off themselves, and that he had given their mother no bill of divorce) asketh, where the bill of divorce of their mother is, by which he had put her away? Esay. 50. vers. 1. The ten Tribes which fell from the house of David, and worshipped Idols, were yet in some sort even the whole body of them under the Covenant, and were so far the visible Church: for otherwise how should the Lord be called their God? For when Benhadab made war against Achab, and took the foil, and his servants counseled him to enterprise the war again, and to fight with them in the valleys, saying: That the God of Israel was the God of the mountains, the Lord took it against himself, and gave them the overthrow the second time. 1. King. 20. Achazias K. of Israel being sick upon a fall he had taken, sent his messengers to inquire of Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Elias the Prophet is sent to meet them, and to say, Is it not because there is no God in Israel, that you go to inquire of Baalzebub, the God of Ekron? 2. King. 1.  
Now, for the places which you allege that they became not his people, you do but pervert them. For the song Deuteron. 32. vers. 5. If you will understand it so as you here apply it, how should they after be called his people and his servants in the same song? vers. 36. The brevity and the placing of the words in that sentence do make it dark. This is the sense, That the perverse generation corrupt themselves by their own vice, which is not of his children. For the holiness of God's children is from him; but when they transgress and corrupt themselves, it is from their own vice. And he calleth all the whole people his sons and daughters, not in respect of some former estate, (as you vainly imagine; seeing that very few of them were his sons and daughters indeed in their best estate) but in respect that they stood outwardly under his covenant, and professed his name. And that the Lord saith, Yesterday which was my people, is risen as an enemy. Mich. 2. vers. 8. is not to show that they were now quite removed and cast off by the Lord from being under his covenant, though the multitude were the Church but in name; but their hostility among themselves, both in juda and Israel. The end which God said was come to his people Amos. 8. is meant of their subversion and captivity. Will you say that they were never after nor no longer God's people? If you dare not say this, why do you allege that place? You would have me show some place in the Scriptures where God maketh his covenaut without this condition, that they shall be his people and obey him.  
That is not the question Master Barrow, but this, whether, when men break covenant and promise with God by disobeying him, whose covenant yet they challenge, his covenant be broken and abrogated towards them? And for this I showed you the plain Scripture, Psalm. 89. where the Lord saith: If they should for sake his law, he would visit their offences or defections with the rod▪ but he will not disannul his mercy towards them, nor falsify his faith. That he will not profane his covenant, nor alter the thing which is gone out of his lips. Master Barrow, what can be more express than this, to show the stableness of God's sovenant dependeth not upon our obedience, or upon that condition which you speak of, and say the covenant standeth no longer than they stand obedient? Why did you not answer this place, but require still to have that showed which is plainly showed you before? Solomon on his part broke covenant with God, will you say he did forfeit the covenant? I conclude therefore with the saying of Saint Paul, where he speaketh of the jews what preferment they had above other. What if some of them were unfaithful, shall their unbelief make the faith of God of none effect? God for bid. Yea let God be true, and every man a liar. Rom. 4. Cease therefore Master Barrow to hang the stableness of God's covenant upon the obedience of man, and do not so perversely reason against the truth in affirming that the covenant of God was disannulled toward the jews, not to stand as the visible Church, before such time as they had rejected Christ.  
The next thing is that I say either we are within the covenant from our Aucestors, and have the seal thereof, even Baptism, or else yourselves are without Baptism, and so must either with the Catabaptists rebaptize, or else hold the covenant without a seal. Neither of these you will do, and yet stand in it that we have no true Church nor true Sacraments. This therefore is your answer.  
The Israelites in their Schism, and the jews in their Apostasy, still had and used Circumcision. This Circumcision was no true Sacrament unto them, neither sealed the Lords covenant unto them in that estate. Yet was this circumcision true Circumcision, concerning the outward cutting; and was upon their repentance and return, neither defaced nor reiterate, but they were restored to the Temple, and received to the passover. In like manner in this general Apostasy and defection from the Gospel, the Baptism continued in these Apostatical and false Churches, cannot in this estate thus administered, be said a true Sacrament or seal of God's covenant unto them. Yet concerning the outward washing, it is true Baptism, the outward action need not, and ought not to be again repeated, after the abuse thereof in the false Church is purged away by true repentance.  
Thus far be your words Master Barrow. Alas poor creatures, how much is your siely blindness to be pitied, that can set down things so directly contrary at the same instant, & yet espieit not? for you say that Circumcision in their Apostasy was no true Sacrament unto them, neither sealed the lords covenant unto them in that estate. And yet (you say) it was true Circumcision concerning the outward cutting. Likewise you say that Baptism in the popery cannot be said a true Sacrament or seal of God's covenant unto them. And yet concerning the outward washing ye confess it true Baptism. Is not this all one, as if a man should say, it is the true sacrament and seal of God's covenant; it is no true Sacrament nor seal of God's covenant? I pray you M. Barrow, is not the outward washing the whole Baptism, and the whole seal of God's covenant? Was not the outward cutting the whole circumcision, and the whole seal of God's covenant? And if the outward washing be the whole Sacrament, and the whole seal of God's covenant, as indeed with the word it is: (for the inward grace is no part of the Sacrament, but we may say that this inward grace is the thing represented and sealed by the Sacrament) Then when you say, concerning the outward washing it is true Baptism: do you not affirm the whole Sacrament and so the whole seal of God's covenant to be true? But you say, it is no true seal unto them in their Apostasy, or it doth not seal God's Covenant unto them in that estate, but when the abuse thereof is purged away by true repentance. What absurd speeches be these▪ can a man devife more gross folly? the outward true Sacrament, is the true seal of God's covenant, even unto those which be hypocrites, and utterly void of faith, which have it. For if we shall say it is no true Sacrament, or no seal of God's covenant, or that it doth not seal God's covenant, but unto those which have the inward grace, the efficacy and fruit thereof: then was it sometimes no true Sacrament which the Apostles themselves did administer, because there were some unto whom they did administer both the holy Baptism and the Lords Supper, which had not the inward grace. And if the Sacraments be not the true seals of God's Covenant, even unto those which have no fruit thereby; how should the receivers which are utterly unworthy, be guilty of the body and blood of our Lord? Also when a man doth receive Baptism which is always the seal of God's covenant, and is void of faith, and receiveth it at their hands which do mix it with sundry additions and corruptions, and after cometh unto true faith, he himself is purged by his faith, and hath the use of that seal which he had before, but without fruit, we cannot say as you do, but with most wicked and foul absurdity, that the Sacrament itself was a false Sacrament, and now through saith is purged and became a true Sacrament. That which is the Lords doth stand in itself pure and undefiled, even when corruptions be added. The Wheat in itself is as pure lying among the Chaff, as when it is purged from the Chaff. The gold and silver in themselves be as pure when the rust is upon them, as when it is scoured off. If a thing in the mixture of corruptions have not a true being, ye cannot by purging bring it to have a true being. And when you say that concerning the outward washing it is true Baptism ministered in popery, which is as much as I have showed, as to say it is a true sacrament concerning the whole (because the outward washing is the whole, and therefore all that john the Baptist taketh to himself is this, I baptise ye with water). Do you not acknowledge a ministry in popery? Will you say it is concerning the outward washing true Baptism, by whomsoever it be done? Nay, you say where there is no true ministry there is no true Sacrament. Then where there is no part of a true ministry, there is no part of a true Sacrament.  
In your other book Master Barrow, which you term a brief discovery of the false Church, from the 102. page, unto 121. you make a large discourse about this point, taking upon you to be a stickeler, between Master Doctor Some, and the Scholar of Oxenford, writing against him in defence of Master Penrie. There you lay about you with your woodknife upon both parties. Master Doctor Some holding the Baptism administered in the popery to be true Baptism, alleging that Master Caluine held so, as in deed all the Churches, and all the most excellent and worthy lights, which God hath raised up in these last times do hold the same with sound reasons from the Scripture, you scoffingly term him a great Clerk, and say, that in certain marginal notes added to his book, this inconvenience was moved unto his further consideration, how he would avoid the blow of flat Schism? Also you say he was friendly advised to spare this deep divinity, derived from Master Caluine and others of this time, left h●e should open such a gap to the Papists, as neither the Church of England nor Geneva, nor any other that hold this opinion shall ever be able to shut, for if it be true Baptism delivered in the Church of Rome, then will it follow that the Popish priests be true ministers. And then may the seal of the covenant be given to open Idolaters, then doth God's covenant of peace belong to the Babylonish harlot, then hath Christ many bodies, or else cannot three so divers Churches, as the Church of Rome, the Church of England, the Church of Geneva, all or any two of them (I will not say any one) be true Churches. Then he may be an husband where his wives rule. Infinite other absurdities would then prove lawful. And let me add yet this unto the rest: if the Baptism of the Church of Rome be a true Sacrament, then have they one true Sacrament, and another false. Thus you wound the one party, that is Master Doctor Some. Then touching the Scholar of Oxenford, he is blamed for that he allegeth for his patron Master Doctor Fulke, to prove that the Baptism administered in popery, is no true Baptism. And he is set to countervail Master Caluin, as his equal in all learning. Grievous absurdities you show in deed, which must needs follow from the opinion of the foresaid Scholar. Touching the comparison between Master Fulke and Master Caluine, for my part I am not so learned, as that I can bring a full measure to measure them justly withal. I know not what might slip from Doctor Fulke, in any part of his writings, upon some occasion which may seem as though he favoured that opinion: but this I know, that sundry times craving his judgement in that matter, he held it to be true Baptism which hath been administered in the popery. And what a thing is this Master Barrow, that when you have a long time taken on, you yield the whole matter unto Master Doctor Some. For what hath he said more, then that it was and is true Baptism touching the outward washing? Doth he ever say that all which had the true s●ale, had also the inward grace? And for warding the blow of flat schism: it is a very weak blow. The Romish Antichrist usurped an unjust power and tyranny, and brought in many most wicked abominations, cannot the Churches cast him forth, with his inventious, but they commit Schism? Can any thing be more frivolous? Are all several kingdoms tied unto Rome, or shall we be tied to join where there be some remnants of a Church, with Idolatry? And concerning the rest, yourself do in effect now confess, that some part of Christ's ministry remaineth in the popery, when you say that their Baptism concerning the outward washing, is true Baptism. And moreover what should be, we dispute not, but this proveth that the true seal of God's covenant is given to open Idolaters. For the seal is the same in itself, but the Idolater hath not the fruit of it, until he come to true faith. And so your next absurdities fall off themselves, seeing the having of the true seal (that is the outward washing in Baptism) doth not make the papists true Christians, nor prove that God's covenant of peace and love, doth belong to the Romish harlot: so many among them as come to true faith, receive that use of the seal. All this I say doth follow upon your own confession, who build with the one hand, and break down with the other. But it passeth all the rest, that then Christ must needs have divers several bodies, or else he cannot stand an head to three so divers Churches, as the Church of Rome, the Church of England, and the Church of Geneva. Why Master Barrow, you will not deny but that to the elect in the Church of Rome Christ is the head. And this is further to be noted, that when we speak of a visible Church, we speak not of men alone, but of God's ordinances. And so touching the holy Sacrament of Baptism in the Church of Rome, and so much of the truth as remaineth, Christ is the Author of them, and so standeth the head of his own, he is not the head of the Apostasy, or to the wicked inventions. So then in all Churches Christ is the Author and head of that which is his ordinance, and of those which belong unto him. What blasphemies are then hereby allowed? And if the Papists have quite ouerthown the one Sacrament, by turning it from a Sacrament, into a Sacrifice propitiatory, what reason is it therefore to say Baptism is overthrown? We must yet a little further deal about the Church of Rome, because you make all our people to be but as heathen without the covenant, and not rightly entered to become a visible Church: but all received in at the sound of her majesties trumpet. I say our people stood under the covenant before, as a part of the visible Church; and that our sovereign Queen did not compel those which before were not under the covenant, to become the church, but by her regal power given unto her of God, banished the usurped power of Antichrist, abolished Idolatry, and compelled her people, having received the seal of the covenant and professing Christ, to receive also the true doctrine. This was not to begin a Church, but to reform a Church: hereupon it falleth out in question, whether the Church of Rome were the visible Church of Christ in time of Idolatry. It is usually said, that the Church is in the papacy, but the papacy is not the Church: I said we may rather say (to speak more plainly) the papacy was in the Church, because Antichrist who brought in all the papacy, erected his throne in the Church. You begin with this Master Barrow, and say that I hold it not enough to affirm with the learned divines, that the invisible Church of God is in the papacy, as in all other places of the world, because God hath his elect there, and in all other places: but to be singular, I have inverted the proposition, and say that the papacy is in the Church. O Master Barrow, it is your bold ignorance as in all other matters? Who be those learned divines, that when they say the Church is in the papacy, but the papacy is not the Church, do mean no more but that there be God's Elect, as in other places of the world? If you have any modesty, bring forth some one learned divine which is of that judgement. I did like rather to say the papacy is in the Church, then to say the Church is in the papacy, because I see divers do mistake it, as though it were only meant, that in the papacy there are Gods Elect and no further, that is no outward visible Church in any respect. I do not differ any jot in the speech from the sense which Master Caluine and others do give: for when I say the papacy is in the church, but the papacy is not the church: by the papacy we must needs understand that usurped tyranny of the Pope and his Clergy, with all their abominable inventions. By the Church we may not understand only God's Elect, but also so much of God's ordinances as remain, not only in the points of doctrine, and public profession of the name of Christ, but also in the holy Baptism, the seal of the covenant which all have, and may so far be called the visible Church. That the papacy should invade the visible Church, remain in it, and not utterly or quite destroy it, I did allege that Saint Paul saith, Antichrist should sit in God's Temple.  
Now let us see whether this be not the meaning of the most learned divines, when they say the Church is in the papacy. Master Caluine handleth this point in the fourth book of his Institutions, Chap. 2. section 11. 12. Which book though it be in our language, yet is it little read and studied of our people, as the weakness and readiness of many to be seduced by heretics and Schismatics doth evidently declare. I will set down his words for such as have not the book. But yet as of old time (saith Master Caluine) among the jews there remained certain peculiar prerogatives of the Church, so do we not at this day take from the papists, those steps of the Church which God would have to remain among them notwithstanding the dissipation. God had once made his covenant with those jews, that same covenant did continue upholden by the stableness of itself, as it were wrestling against their impiety, rather than kept of them. Such therefore is the certainty and constancy of God's goodness, that there remained the covenant of the Lord, neither could his faith given, be made void by their unfaithfulness, neither could circumcision be so profaned by their impure hands, but that it was still the true sign and Sacrament of his covenant. Whereupon the Lord called the Children which were borne unto them, his sons, Ezech. 16. which nothing at all pertained unto him, but by a special blessing. So when he hath left his covenant in France, Italy, Germany, Spain, England: since these Provinces have been oppressed with the tyranny of Antichrist, yet that his Covenant might remain inviolable, he first there preserved Baptism, the testimony of his covenant, which being consecrate with his own mouth, retaineth her own force, notwithstanding the ungodliness of man: then furthermore he hath by his providence brought to pass, that there should other remnants also remain, lest the Church should utterly perish. And as oftentimes buildings are so pulled down, that the foundations and ruins remain, so he hath not suffered his Church to be subverted by Antichrist, even from the foundation, or to be laid even with the ground (howsoever to punish men's ingratitude, which had despised his word, he hath suffered horrible shaking and dissipation to chance) but even after the laying waist, he would have the building remain, half pulled down. Whereas therefore we will not simply grant to the Papists the title of the Church, we do not therefore deny that there be Churches among them: but only we contend about the true and lawful ordering of the Church, which is required both in the Communion of the holy things, which are the signs of the profession, & also of doctrine most chiefly. Daniel and Paul foretold that Antichrist should sit in the Temple of God: among us we account the Bishop of Rome the Captain and standard bearer of that wicked and abominable Kingdom. That his seat is placed in the Temple of God, thereby is meant that his Kingdom shall be such, as may abolish neither the name of Christ nor of the Church. Hereby therefore it is manifest, that we deny not but that there remain Churches also under his tyranny: but yet such as he hath profaned with sacrilegious impiety: such as he hath afflicted with outrageous dominion: such as he hath corrupted and almost killed with evil and deadly doctrines, as it were with poisoned drinks: in which Christ lieth half buried, the Gospel overwhelmed, godliness expelled, the worship of God almost abolished: furthermore in which all things are so confused and out of order, that there appeareth the face of Babylon, rather than of the holy city of God. Briefly, I say they be Churches, in as much as the Lord doth there marvelously preserve the remnants of his people, howsoever miserably dispersed and scattered: and in as much as there remain some badges or seals of the Church, and these especially, whose efficacy neither the craft of the devil, nor the wickedness of men can destroy: but on the other side, because those notes or marks are blotted out, which we ought chiefly to respect in this controversy, I say that every one of their assemblies, and the whole body wanteth the lawful form of a Church,  
Thus far be Master Calvin's words: tell me now Master Barrow, is Master Caluine to be accounted among the learned Divines? Doth he say the Church is in the papacy, that is no more but that the Elect are among them, as in other places of the World? Look also what I have said touching this whole matter which he doth not here say, yea even from that which is in Ezechiel 16. Where you ask, who but this perverse fellow (speaking of me) could thus stumble and cavil at those words, my sons and my daughters, & c? But if it be not plain enough which Master Caluine saith in this which I have recited, to prove that you would bear the simple in hand, that the learned Divines are of another mind, and yet understand not their mind: I will add a little more out of the same Author. In his Epistle 404. thus he writeth, Quòd ecclesiae reliquias manner in papatu dico, non restringo ad electos qui illic dispersi sunt: sed ruinas dissipatae ecclesiae illic extare intelligo. Ac ne mihilongis rationibus disputandum sit, nos pauli autoritate contentos esse decet, qui Antichristum in temple deisessurum pronuntiat, quamquam & hoc rationibus satis validis me probasse puto, ecelesiam, licet semiruptam, imo silubet, diruptam, ac deformem, aliquam tamen manner in papatu. In that I say the remnants of the Church remain in the papacy, I do not restrain it to the Elect which are dispersed there: but I mean that the ruins of a dispersed Church are extant among them. And that I may not dispute the matter with reasons at large, it becometh us to be content and satisfied with the authority of Paul, which pronounceth that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God. Albeit I suppose I have proved this with reasons strong enough, that there remaineth nevertheless some Church in the papacy, although half broken down, or if you will, broken down, and deformed. Also Master Beza, Epistle 81. page 356. For the remnants of the Church in the papacy is of the same mind, affirming that there remain not only Gods Elect, but also the Sacrament of Baptism, and sundry points of sound doctrine.  
Now let us see what horrible blasphemies you say will follow of this that I say, Antichrist should sit in the Church, and yet the same remain still the visible Church, so far forth as Master Calvin's words and Master Bezaes' do import. For when you will needs have it that God hath given me up into a reprobate sense, the matter toucheth not me so much, as Master Caluine and Beza and many other most worthy men which so expound it. Nay, if God open your eyes you shall see whether you do not like Rabsaka reproach the Lord God who hath uttered it by his Apostle. The first is this: If Antichrist may be said to sit, reign and remain in the Church of God, than Christ is not made heir and Lord of all, and set as King upon Mount Zion. A worthy collection is it not? because God in righteous judgement for the punishment of those that received not the love of the truth, giveth power unto: Satan and Antichrist to seduce the multitude in the visible Church, Christ is not heir of all things, nor reigneth as K. upon Mount Zion. Will you say, if the devil have a kingdom in the world, Christ is not Lord of the whole world? Mount Zion may be used for the visible Church, but most properly for the invisible which is the Communion of Saints, of which are none but the elect. Satan and Antichrist are not able to pluck one of these out of his hand, he reigneth over them and in them. Moreover, he reigneth over the whole visible Church and over the whole world (for he is ascended, and filleth all things) so that Satan, Antichrist and all Tyrants, can proceed no further than his will.  
The next is: If Antichrist sit in the Church, than Christ is either cast out of his house made subject unto Antichrist, or else divideth with him. Christ is not cast out of his house nor made subject, (these be most frivolous and fantastical imaginations) but in his most high and sovereign power he useth Antichrist and Satan as the instruments of his wrath, not utterly to raze and destroy his Temple, but miserably to afflict the chosen, and so seduce the reprobate, even all wicked hypocrites which are in the visible Church. I know not what you will understand by dividing, but the devil may in some sense be said to divide with God, in that he receiveth one part unto damnation.  
The third is: If Antichrist sit in the church, than the church of Christ may remain subject unto and be governed by Antichrist. Here we must distinguish. First, the visible Church consiseth of men, and of God's ordinances. The men are of two sorts, the elect and the reprobate. He exerciseth a savage tyranny, and oppresseth the elect whom yet he cannot bring into his subjection, to make them hang their faith upon him, or his laws. For God did miraculously preserve a remnant in the popery, which were not utterly poisoned. He corrupteth the laws and ordinances of Christ, but yet had not power given him to destroy all. His full dominion is over the reprobate, which receive his mark and worship him.  
The fourth is: If Antichrist sit in the Church, than the Church is subject unto two heads, and Christ then is not the only head. This is fully answered in the former: for his tyranny and usurpation doth not make him head, but unto those whose head Christ is not, more than by hypocritical profession of his name.  
The fift is: If Antichrist in the Church, than antichrist's ministers and marked servants may be brought into and set over the Church of God, & then is not Christ's ministry which he hath ordained in his Gospel and his Church, permanent unto the world's end, but variable at the will of man, and then may the Church of God cast out Christ's ministry, and receive Antichrists.  
This is also most frivolous: for as Antichrist did almost destroy all, but yet not all, in other things, so in the ministry: for the ministry of Christ was not utterly destroyed. Again, the Church if you understand Gods true people, did not this: but Antichrist did it.  
The sixth is: That if antichrist's laws may be brought and set up, and remain in the Church, than Christ is not the only Prophet and law giver, and then may the Church be built upon another foundation then upon God's word. Christ is the only true Prophet, whose laws only are wholesome. Antichrist hath usurped a power to make laws and to set them up in the Church. The elect, though some of them for a time have gone a stray and followed Antichrist, until it pleased GOD to open their eyes: and many of them holding Christ have been infected and stained with sundry errors of Antichrist, yet their salvation being only through faith, it cannot be said that they were built upon any other foundation then that which the Prophets and Apostles have laid. The reprobate which have worshipped the beast, though in respect that having been borne under the Christian profession, and had the true seal of the Covenant, and professed the name of Christ, they might be the visible Church, or of the visible Church, yet they were not built upon Christ unto salvation, but upon the laws of Antichrist unto destruction.  
The seventh is, That if all antichrist's abominations, heresies and Idolatries may be brought into and remain in the Church of God, than no blasphemy, heresy, Apostasy, or any thing that man can commit or devise, can break the covenant. If the faith of God might be made of none effect by the unfaithfulness of men, it were a woeful case. The covenant of God is founded upon free grace. The Lord would not (even because of his Covenant) suffer the devil and Antichrist utterly to deface his Temple: but preserved the holy seed, preserved some of his ordinances, yea so far, that in some sort the Covenant was not disannulled to the very reprobate, but that outwardly they stood under it in their Apostasy: and it might be said of them (though indeed they were no true Children) as Saint Paul saith of the rebellious jews, theirs is the Covenant and the Adoption.  
The eight is, That if those that worship the beast and his Image may be said to be in the Church, and their seed outwardly within the Covenant, than the most abominable and execrable in this estate may be said members of Christ, washed and purged with his blood, sanctified and led by his spirit in assurance of salvation, for none can be said to be within the Church but the members of the Church. And whosoever we may affirm to be within the Church, those (so long as they continue in that estate) we are also to judge assuredly saved, for any thing to us revealed or known to the contrary. These ●re things easily spoken by such as are bold to utter whatsoever they imagine. The Prophets complained that the great multitude both of juda, and the ten Tribes were rebels, and that the Lord had but a remnant among them: show when that multitude of open wicked ones, and their seed were cast out from being the visible Church, & then show when they were received in again. For both these you must do, because the whole nation when Christ came were the children of the Covenant, & it is said that Christ came among his own, and his own received him not. You must prove that the Scribes and pharisees, the high Priests and all the Capital enemies of our Saviour Christ were deemed undoubtedly saved even when they showed their enmity against him. For they were then in the Church. They could not sit in Moses chair and not be in the Church. The Uineyard was not taken from those wicked husbandmen which had slain the servants, until they had slain the son and heir himself. These things are so manifest by the Scriptures Master Barrow, that if it shall not please God to open your eyes to see your palpable gross ignorauce, and bold presumption, yet others may see and tremble lest God give them over also, for the pride of their hearts.  
Whereas I said that the Apostasy is in the Church but not the Church: you think it strange repugnancy. Yet indeed there is none, as may appear by that which I have set down before, and should appear unto you, if your mind were not so deeply infected with the principles of Donatisme. You run still upon this Rock, that because none ought to be in the Church, but such as appear godly, therefore no open Idolaters can be said to be in the visible Church, to stand outwardly, and their seed in any respect, under the covenant. I have plainly proved the contrary. What ought to be, is one thing: and what hath been or what is, is another. To your other question I answer, that it is no Schism to departed from the Church of Rome, although in some respects they were the visible Church. This matter Master Barrow, hath been as thoroughly pursued by the Papists as ever you or any Donatist shall be able, and such answer they have received from the Churches that have made separation from them, as that they have no cause to glory. The ten Tribes remained still in some sort the visible Church, and under the Covenant, as I have proved before, but yet they were not such a true Church as men might join withal in their worship: and therefore when jeroboam had set up the golden Calves, the Levites departed from them and went to jerusalem, 2. Chron, 11. 23. 14. Then you come to expound how this may be taken that Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of God. And first as you take it his sitting in the Temple of God, may be understood as in regard that he took his original before he was revealed. Let any simple man look upon the words of Saint Paul, and see whether he speak of any such close sitting. Then that he should sit where sometimes the true Churches have been, which he should so destroy and waste, as there should be no shape or steps of any of them left upon the earth: as it was foretold, Matth. 24, 29. Revel. 6. 14. See what two places Master Barrow hath found to prove Antichrist should utterly destroy the visible Church. These be the words: And immediately after the oppression of those days the Sun shall be darkened, & the Moon shall not give her light, and the stars shall fall from heaven, and the powers of heaven shall be shaken. This is▪ spoken of Christ's coming to judgement, and is meant indeed of the Sun, the Moon and stars themselves: and therefore most foolishly concluded, that Antichrist shall utterly destroy the visible Church. And for the place in the Revelation, The heaven departed away as a book that is rolled up, you may even as well conclude, that the whole Church in the world utterly failed, as to say therefore Antichrist utterly defaced the visible Church. And if you will have the matter tried by so dark a place, your light had need to be great. But your pretiest reasons of all are yet behind. Antichrist shall be lifted up above all that is called God, this can not be done by any Minister in the Church, seeing every soul must be subject. They say it will weary an old body to follow a Child up and down all day that can new go. I am sure it will weary any man to follow you Master Barrow in all your trifles. God commandeth every soul shall submit itself unto the higher powers: doth it here upon follow that if a king usurp that which belongeth to God, they must therein ●●ay him so long as he remaineth their king? Also when it is said, that he is God, you say what blasphemy will not ensue, if this should be literally taken? It may as well be enforced (say you) by this place, that Antichrist is God, as that the place where he reigneth is the Temple of God. You will not have this place expounded literally, and then what shall we make of it, or how shall we find Antichrist: May he not be the Turk or some other: If the Papists could prove the which you speak, but with some little show, how much would they glory? For grant them a mystical sense of these words, and they will carry it whither they list. To exalt himself above all that is called God, is literally spoken, and literally fulfilled, when the Pope exalteth himself above all Kings and Emperors which are called Gods. So that he shall sit as God in the Temple of God, showing himself that he is God. What blasphemy is it which will ensue if these words be all construed literally after the Grammatical sense? The words do not import that he shall be God indeed, but that he shall take that to himself which belongeth to the most high God. The thing which deceiveth you Master Barrow, is in the word, showing, for every thing that a show is made of, is not so in truth. There is a true show and there is a false show, when one doth arrogate that to himself, and b●ast of it, which belongeth not unto him. As Antichrist usurping not only an earthly dignity, but even the high power and authority of God, is therefore said to show himself to be God.  
And now whereas I stand upon this, that the Church of England was a true Church of God before popery, and that in popery it stood a member or part of the universal visible Church (foe far as the remnants of Christ's Church remained not utterly defaced by Antichrist) & that the casting out of Antichrist and his laws, and usurped power is not the beginning, but the restoring and repairing, or recovering a Church from miserable desolation. And as josias and other godly kings of juda by terror of punishment drove Idolaters which outwardly stood under the Covenant being circumcised, from false worship unto the laws of God: so Queen Elizabeth hath done with her subjects being baptised, and thereby bound to renounce false worship, and to embrace the holy doctrine of the Covenant.  
Here you say that to make my conclusion follow, I must prove, and make evident demonstration by Scripture that the Church of England was rightly gathered unto, and established in that holy faith and order which Christ hath left unto his Church in universal and particular, according to the rules and examples in his Testament. Next, that they fell not away from this holy faith in the time of popery, and that now they continue and faithfully walk in the same faith and order. If I had done this, you say I had powerfully convinced and stopped the mouths of all Schismatics for ever. I see you can make your mach wisely Master Barrow. I must make evident demonstration by the Scriptures: of what? of that which was not mentioned by the Scriptures. For there is no particular mention of planting the faith of Christ in England. If we show it out of ancient records, then do I not sa●ilfie your desire at all. Again it must be showed by the Scriptures, that the Church of England received orderly the faith and order of Christ, not only in general, but in every particular. This is a surer knot than the former. And me thinks you should be a little more kind, for the honour of your country: not that any honour is to be rendered against truth, but whereas you confess that a true Church may err in divers things, so that it be not convinced & sin obstinately. If the planters of the faith and discipline of Christ in England did err it some things (which yet you know not) how can you tell but that they did it in simplicity? we see that in ancient times, and of late days GOD hath had many Children in England which have been begotten and nourished up in the land, and have acknowledged her their mother. And we are sure hereupon that God hath put his covenant of mercy in England, and planted a true Church: And therefore if you deal rightly, you must prove against us. I have showed that popery did not utterly destroy the visible Church. And there be at this day multitudes that so walk in the holy faith, that no man is able to accuse them. And therefore if either all, or the most part of Schismatics were not obstinate cavillers, their mouths might be stopped for ever. Thus much might fuffice against that you affirm our people never had any entrance to be under the covenant, and so to stand the visible Church, but to be as heaps of profane heathen: but that your matter reacheth further than against the assemblies in England, condemning other Churches which profess the holy Gospel. And lest some may think that in this point I charge ye but by some hard collection in so horrible presumption, as to condemn all Christian Churches, I will recite the words which you have set down in your other book, pag. 33. where after long discourse against the reasons which Master Caluine useth both out of the old and new Testament, to prove that neither the worship itself, nor the faithful are defiled by the company of the open wicked, you speak thus.  
This and such like detestable stuff, hath Master Caluine in his ignorance, partly to confute that damnable sect of Annabaptists, which fantastically dream unto themselves a Church without spot in this life, and for every transgression that ariseth are ready to leave & forsake the fellowship of the Church, without due and orderly reproof. Partly also is this stuff brought to defend his own rash and disorderly proceed at Geneva, whilst he at the first dash made no scruple to receive all the whole state, even all the profane ignorant people into the bosom of the Church, to administer the Sacraments unto them: which confuse rout could not fit with Christ's heavenly government, neither could it by any means agree unto them in this estate. But that monstrous disorders and heinous enormities daily ensued thereof, whereby this their Church became a just reproach unto all men, even to those wicked Heretics, yea that which is worse, and more to be lamented, it became a miserable precedent, and pernicious example even unto all Europe, to fall into the like transgression: as the confused estate of all those regions (where the Gospel is thus disorderly taught) declareth.  
Let the Reader here consider (Master Barrow) what a worthy Champion you ●re become for the Papists, for Heretics and Schismatics, against all the Churches which profess the Gospel, and against all their teachers. What was Master Caluine to be regarded, if he were so ignorant, so rash, and so disorderly in his doings? How miserable was his case, that he must be so pernicious an example to the ruin of many? What is or what hath the Church of Geneva been, and together with the assemblies of England, all Churches in Europe, but heaps of profane multitudes, no better then heathen or dogs, if your words be true? True Christ they have none, for they fit not his government, nor his government them (as you say). But Master Barrow, as the Churches and their ministers have been able & have justly defended themselves (though not from all faults, because there is no Church so pure) against the wisest and learnedst reviling Rabsakaes, the Heretics and schismatics: so must you think that they shall be able to withstand two or three which are so ignorant in some grounds of religion, as that their books are a bundle, or rather a dunghill of absurdities. Whom shall you ever persuade that hath any true light, that your knowledge so far passeth the learned of all Churches? Were it not honour enough for ye to triumph over the ministers of the Church of England, whom so often in disdain you term learned Priests, but ye must be general conquetors, like Alexander the great? Feign you would seem to be far from the Annabaptists, but how near you are unto them, even in their tents, all that have skill do see. Well then to conclude this point, he that will find a true Church with which he may join himself, he must not seek it in the public assemblies either in England, Scotland, Geneva, or any region of Europe, (for by your judgement they be all profane heaps) but he must seek the fellowship, and join with the Donatists of England.  
Now to the second part of the assumption, where you say, that the Church of England hath power to cast forth none by excommunication. I am of the mind that Christ hath given such a power to his Church, and also do take it that the Church of England is not boyd thereof. But you condemn all excommunication which is not executed by an Eldership, and the people of every particular assembly. If excommunication be only to be so executed; then how could Esra with the Elders and Princes of Israel publish an excommunication general against every one that should not within three days come up to jerusalem? Esra. 10. vers. 8. And where do you prove that excommunication is to be executed upon any, but for contumacy and contempt of the Church? Do you hold that a man which doth repent him for his adultery, these, heresy, or such like, and is cast down in sorrow, is yet to be delivered up to Satan? If not, why do you upbraid, that there is none cast forth among us, but for contumacy?  
In the next place you take upon you to confute and cut down four false expositions, as you say, of Math. 18. vers. 17. Tell the Church. The first sort take the word Church, for the Pope: the second for the Archbishops and Bishops, which exercise this power for the whole Church: the third for the company of the Elders apart from the people, which they call the Consistory: the fourth are they which would have the people excommunicate without the Elders.  
The two first sorts (that is the Pope and the Bishops) do depend (you say) upon one line, and build their pre-eminence upon the promise made to the Apostle Peter, Math. 16. vers. 18. 19 where the keys of the kingdom of heaven are given him. And upon the Apostle Paul his example, who delivered Hymeneus and Alexander unto Satan, Timoth. 5. 10. You are so learned and skilful (Master Barrow) yea so trusty and true, that we must hold them for Oracles that do proceed out of your mouth, although indeed they be never so false, as shall appear. Touching the place in Mat. 16. for the keys given unto Peter, it is agreed upon by all parts that there is a power given to be exercised in the Church. The disagreement is chief about this, to whom it is given. The Pope with his adherents saith, it was given only unto Peter and his successors. He saith further, that Peter was Bishop of Rome, that there is his chair, and that this power is annexed to that chair, and so the Pope alone is to have it, and from him all other are to participate which shall exercise any part of it in the Church. The Bishops of the church of England, and they that maintain the government by presbyteries do both alike condemn that challenge of the Pope, as an usurpation. Both parts affirming, that although our Saviour do speak only to Peter, saying; to thee I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven: yet he giveth him nothing but that which he gave unto the other Apostles. This they prove by joh. 20. where he breathed upon them, and said jointly to them all; As the father sent me, so I send you, and whose sins ye shall forgive they are forgiven, etc. With what face can you say then (Master Barrow) that the Bishops and the Pope depend upon one line, and build their pre-eminence upon that promise made unto Peter? You might truelier have said, that the Bishops and presbyteries depend upon one line for their pre-eminence, not only for that they expound those places, Math. 16. and joh. 20. alike, but also that the Bishops challenge none other power then the presbyteries do. For the controversy between the Bishops and the presbyteries, is whether of them by God's word, & for the benefit of the Church are to exercise that power which Christ hath left unto her. The one side doth affirm that by God's word the execution of this her power doth belong to the Bishops, as being most properly the Apostles successors: and therefore do hold that the Church of England hath done right in reserving this power unto them. The Churches which hold the other government, do affirm, that when our Saviour saith, tell the Church, it is not meant, tell the Bishop or those which are joined with them: but tell the Church, is tell the Consistory, which consisteth of Pastors, Teachers, and Elders chosen from among the people. This Consistory (say they) is to have and to exercise that power and jurisdiction which the Bishops do hold. Now (Master Barrow) as you say, the government thus by the Bishops is popish, so you grievously condemn the Consistory: affirming that it is irregular, that it hath no ground or warrant in God's word, but utterly subverteth all order, and openeth a wide gap unto all licentiousness. etc.  
Then come the fourth sort which expound these words (tell the church) wrong. And those are they which say tell the church, is tell the congregation of people without the Elders. Here you show some skill also to confute: which is but to fight with your own shadow, for this fourth sort (I think) have never been heard of, but among yourselves. And in deed your heavenly pattern (whatsoever ye speak of pastors, teachers, and Elders) is nothing else but an heap of people, without any of these officers. For was it ever heard of among men, that there be offices, in which there is no power or authority at all annexed unto the officers which execute them, not even in the things wherein their offices consist, above those which have not the same offices? For if it be true which you say, that the greatest minister hath no more power to bind or lose the sins of the least member, than the said member hath to bind or lose his. Or if Christ speak to all, even to the women, john 20. whose sins ye forgive, they are forgiven, etc. If the word have no more efficacy to work faith delivered by the ministry, or the Sacrament to seal the promises have no more power delivered by a minister, then when the same word is uttered, and those Sacraments delivered by any man or by any woman, or if every young man, yea every maid (which is of the assembly) have equal power with any to excommunicate, we would see wherein the power of any of your officers consisteth: where all or every one have equal power, there all are officers: where all are officers, we may say that in deed none are public officers. This is Master Barrowes heavenly pattern, by which he hath convinced all our Churches, and found them so obstinate for rejecting it, that they be quite separate from Christ. Master Barrow will say he spoke not of the Sacraments, for he faith a minister only is to deliver them. And I say one part of the power of losing is by the Sacraments, in as much as they seal our faith.  
The power of discipline exercised by the presbytory, as it is in the Churches of France, Scotland, Geneva, the Low Countries, etc. you most grievously condemn: the reader shall see your own words, in your other book page 189. and 190. thus you speak. These men in stead of this gross Antichristian government, etc. would bring in a new adulterate forged government in show, or rather in despite of Christ's blessed government, which they in their pride, rashness, ignorance, and ensualitie of their fleshly hearts, most miserably, iunovate, corrupt and pervert, etc. Also page 166. you term Classical and Provincial synods and counsels, a devilish forgery. Here you say the fault and pride of the Elders is intolerable. Also (you say) that many were the reasons, and more the inconveniences that might be alleged against this presumptuous irregular consistory, which hath no ground in the word of God but utterly subverteth, destroyeth and corrupteth the whole order and Communion of the Churches, openeth a wide gap unto all licentiousness, and prophannes of manners, etc. Thus the Church of England is no Church of Christ, because of their government by Bishops. In other places where the government is by presbytreies', not only the people (by your sentence) are profane multitudes, but their ministers proud, rash, ignorant, and in the sensuality of their fleshly hearts, have corrupted Christ's government, & in despite thereof have set up a devilish forgery, and open the gap unto all profaneness, etc. O Master Barrow, what reproaches are these against all churches and their ministers? I must needs tell you again, that there is not any which hath any spark of Christian modesty, but will say God hath not sent ye, your sufferings are not to be gloried in, you are but Rabasaka, that thus reproach the church of Christ. What Schismatics have gone beyond ye? Now followeth the suspension from the Sacraments. You must understand, that all your frivolous cavils about this, and all your reproaches reach not alone unto the Church of England, but unto all the reform Churches which practise a suspension. Master Beza in his book against Erastus, page 10. showeth the use and practise of it, not only in their Church, but in the ancient Churches. Also page 124. he proveth it by the example of Moses sister, and of those which were restrained a whole month from eating the passover: these ceased not in the mean time to be accounted members of the congregation. When the repentance is not thoroughly testified, or the rest stand in need of some terror, as well as the party that hath offended, then is there use of suspension.  
To prove that neither the worship of God, nor yet the godly are polluted by the open wicked that communicate with them in the same, and that the covenant of God is in no wise thereby disannulled, I alleged first the ancient Church for example, under the conduct of Moses in the wilderness, in which there were heaps of wicked rebels, and so in the time of jesay, jeremy, and other of the Prophets, whose complaints are grievous: for it is manifest that few godly ones among swarms of wicked did worship together in the Temple. Here Master Barrow your caviles are more than slender: first that our Churches were never true Churches, and therefore no comparison between ours and them. Touching this I have spoken before. Then next you say that in the times of wicked Kings, when Idolatry was set up in juda, the godly did not communicate with the wicked, which is most true, but the wicked did Communicate with the godly in Gods true worship, in the days of godly Kings. And for the time of Moses, you say those wicked rebels were of the common wealth, but not of the Church, and would have me prove that they were admitted to the Tabernacle or public worship. If they were not of the Church still in outward account, how were their children all received? Or where read you of any family among them, which was of the common wealth, and not of the Church? There is no show of such a matter. Again Saint Paul 1. Cor. 10. showeth that they did all communicate in the Sacraments. They did all eat the same spiritual meat, and drunke● the same spiritual drunk. What can be more clear than this? If men would not wickedly cavile against the holy Ghost.  
Then next for the time that our Saviour lived upon the earth, in what miserable estate was the Church? The most of the teachers very corrupt, both in doctrine and manners Very few of the people did in deed fear God, and yet came all on heaps to the Temple together with the godly. Unto this you answer that at the birth of our Saviour, and unto such time as they opposed themselves against him, things were in meetly good case. Would any man that were not passed all care what he saith, make such an answer? Did those grievous sects of the Scribes and pharisees rise of a sudden? Or did the high Priest by due course come to the office? Or were the open wicked separated, where such wicked men bare sway? And if they had not of some long time before, brought in their own traditions, how could they have called them the traditions of their Fathers. Math. 15? Mark 7. And when the pharisees, and Saducees, the Priests & Elders rejected and withstood our Saviour, they, (you say) then ceased to be the visible Church, and that our Saviour did separate himself and his Disciples from them.  
What should one say unto you Master Barrow, are you even bend to gainsay the manifest word of Christ? The Scribes and pharisees did sit in Moses chair, Matth. 23. Was Moses Chair out of the visible Church? And what can be more plain than that our Saviour willeth the people to hear them? For otherwise how should he command them to observe and do all things which they should say: but after their works he would not have them do? At this you set up your throat and cry out; What execrable blasphemy and horrible heresies doth this wretched man run into. &c.? Doth he not hereby make our Saviour Christ guilty of the open breach of God's laws, and the destruction of all the people? Indeed that were most horrible and damnable blasphemy, and he should be a most vile and wretched man, that should make our Saviour guilty of the breach of any law of God. And if you had but the true knowledge of some godly child of fourteen years of age, you should plainly see that our Saviour did command them indeed to hear the Scribes and pharisees expounding the law and the Prophets, and that therein he is not guilty at all of the open breach of God's laws: but indeed if he therein committed any offence, it was but against the principles of Donatisme and Annabaptisme, which Satan under the show of an Angel of light, hath bewitched men withal, and which you have settled in your mind in stead of God's laws. For would you make us believe that the pharisees and Doctors of the law were even of a sudden become nought? Christ himself when he was twelve years old sat among them in the Temple, & did hear them and propound questions unto them, Luk. 2. And when he preached, his custom was to go into the synagogue upon the Sabbath, and to read and expound the Scriptures. Luk. 4, But let us see what you allege to prove that he did not mean that men should hear them.  
You demand, if God do not in all places where he commandeth to hear true Prophets, forbidden to hear false Prophets? What then Master Barrow, how blind are you? Do you not know that our Saviour by mentioning their sitting in Moses Chair, doth bind the auditors to receive their doctrine so far as it was the true doctrine of Moses and the Prophets? He doth hear the false Prophet which heareth and receiveth false doctrine. So far as the pharisees set forth the truth, so far they were to be heard, and their Doctrine as our Saviour willeth, was to be followed. But men were to take heed of their Levine, that is of their false doctrine and human traditions. Our Saviour doth not at all approve their open wickedness, when he willeth them to follow that true Doctrine which they should deliver out of Moses, and not to follow their works. The Priests and teachers ought indeed to be holy, but it hath fallen out far otherwise, and that many times in God's Church. And now if it were an abuse that some of these Scribes and pharisees which did teach, were not Levites, but of some other Tribe, as Paul was of Benjamin: yet there were greater abuses about the high Priest, & the rest and begun long before that time: & yet the whole Church and our saviour himself so long as he did live as a private man, frequented the Temple and public, worship and heard them expound the Scriptures. Therefore Master Barrow, albeit you exclaim in this sort, these blasphemies doth this wicked man publish, his ordinary and all the Clergy in England suffer them to pass in print: yet neither you nor all the Donatists and Annabaptists under heaven, shall ever be able with all your shifts to wring this place from us, which indeed overturneth all the chief grounds and principles of your sect. Be ashamed therefore to oppose yourselves so wickedly against the clear doctrine of Christ, and cease to imagine absurdities, which are but from your blind mistaking. Again we see that our Saviour healing a man that had the Leprosy, commanded him, saying, go show thyself unto the Priest, and offer that gift which Moses hath commanded for a testimony unto them, Math. 8. 4. Also he sendeth ten Lepers at once to show themselves to the Priests, Luk. 17. 14. which were also to offer according to the law. And this was not long before he suffered. You do very fond imagine, the if the Priests, the Scribes and pharisees and Saducees, and the multitude which clave unto them were the visible Church, than were there two Churches, unless we will deny that our Saviour & his Disciples were the Church. For at the time they were all in the same visible Church even those open wicked and the good. Our Saviour doth reprehend them and layeth open their wickedness, to the end that men might beware and not be seduced and kept from truth by them. But why are they not cast forth? The Prophets in old time did sharply reprehend the wicked of all sorts in the Church, but they had not the ordinary power to execute the censure of excommunication, no more had our Saviour himself.  
There be divers testimonies and examples of the holy scriptures which I alleged to prove this thing which you knit up short, but in your other book you deal in them at large. And because Master Caluine hath written strongly and plentifully in these matters against the Annabaptists, and such as most wickedly did condemn the Churches in his time, you take upon you to confute him, as if he were the author of these things, and you term us his wretched disciples. Whereas in very deed M. Caluine followeth but the steps of the ancient writers, Augustine and the rest against the Catharists and Donatists. And you lighting into their Tents, set very freshly upon the work even as a chief Captain, to repair and fortify the ruins of that ancient Catharisme and Donatisme, and yet can bring nothing which they brought not.  
Touching the reformation by Princes, which compel their subjects that profess Christ, and have the seal of the covenant, to forsake Idolatry, and to embrace the holy word and Sacraments, I have spoken before: and therefore I come to the 17. page of your book, where you writ after this sort: The next shifts these Balaamities have for the aministring unto, and Communicating with, and retaining the profane in the bosom of their church: are certain arguments drawn by Master Caluine, from Matth. 13. against the Annabaptists, comparing the church to a corn field, where the good seed, and the bad grow together, to a net, and in Matth. 3. To a floor where the corn and the chaffelye together.  
In deed Master Barrow these were special places which the ancient Fathers stood upon against the Donatists, and Master Caluine against the Annabaptists, and which we in as great right urge against you and your sect. If we be Balaamites, than what was Master Caluine, what was Augustine and all the rest? Against whom have you powered forth your railings? Take heed it be not against our Lord jesus himself, being against his express word: for let us see how you can avoid these places. Touching the parable of the seed, you oppose (as you say) against Master Caluine and his Disciples, first the interpretation of our Saviour himself: who saith not that the field is the Church, but the field is the world. And so the good seed and the bad are together in the world, but not in the Church. And then you show an absurdity of flat contradiction of the holy Scriptures which would follow, if we take it that the good seed and the bad should grow together in the Church. The contradiction is this, there is power and commandment given to the Church to cast forth the open wicked, and here he bids let them alone. Therefore this let them alone, let them grow together until the harvest, must needs be expounded let them alone, and let them grow together in the world, but not in the Church.  
In deed your exposition Master Barrow, is the very same which the Donatists made, and obstinately stood upon. The field is the world, our Saviour hath said it, the truth hath said it, accursed be he that shall gainsay it: but to gather from hence, that the good seed and the bad shall not be together in the church but in the world, is directly to overthrow the whole parable. For first, what is it which is resembled or likened? The words are plain, it is the Kingdom of Heaven. The Kingdom of Heaven saith he is like, etc. What is it which is here called the Kingdom of Heaven, is the world so called? Who dare say so? It is the Church, in which there is the Gospel of the Kingdom, and in which Christ doth reign. If our Saviour had meant to sec forth, and to resemble the state of the world by the good seed and the bad mingled together (as he saith) the enemy did sow the tars, ana mes● tou sitou, in the midst or among the wheat, and that they grew up together, or to say look how in a field good seed and bad grow together, so in the world good men and bad: it could not then be said, the Kingdom of Heaven is like, but the state of the world is like. Was it ever heard of, that a man would expound a parable, that is a similitude, and exclude that which is resembled by the similitude? For if the good seed and the bad, sown and growing together in the field, do not resemble and set forth the state of the visible church, while it is also in the field, that is to say in this world, mingled of good and bad men, show what there is in the whole parable, whereunto the Kingdom of Heaven is likened. Moreover in the exposition of the parable our Saviour saith, as the tars are gathered and burned, so shall it be in the end of this world, the son of man shall send his Angels, which shall gather out of his Kingdom all offences, and those which work iniquity, etc. If they shall be gathered out of his Kingdom, which is his Church (peculiarly so called, though he be Lord of Heaven and earth) then are they until the end of the world in his Church. I doubt not Master Barrow, but that simple men, yea poor Children (looking upon this parable, and considering what it is likened, and how Christ doth expound it) shall be able to see what a spirit of giddiness God hath in judgement cast upon ye, for the loftiness of your minds. And now for that absurdity of flat cóntradiction in the Scriptures, which you imagine, if we expound it that the good and the bad shall be mingled in the church, so long as it is in the field. There is no such thing, as I will show by as great an absurdity which will follow of that sense which you give, for speaking of the wicked in the Church, if he should say let them alone, it would overthrow the censures Ecclesiastical which are expressly commanded: then speaking of the wicked in the world, and saying let them alone, let them grow together, lest ye pluck up the wheat, it should overthrow the power of Kings and rulers, in putting evil doers to death, which is expressly commanded: for I trust Master Barrow ye will not deny Christian Kings to be one part of the servants of the master of the house. Then whereas you reason thus, the power of excommunication which is given to the Church, and which the Church is commanded to execute, may not be overthrown: but if Christ will to let the tars grow in the Church, he forbiddeth to execute that power, and so●t is overthrown, therefore he doth not speak of open wickedness in the Church, but in the world.  
I will reason against your exposition thus. The power which God hath given unto the civil Magistrates to put murderers and other wicked malefactors to death, is not to be overthrown: but if Christ will men to let the wicked ones in the world alone, & will have them grow to the harvest, lest in plucking them up they destroy the wheat, he taketh away that power from the Magistrates. Therefore this parable must not be taken of the good and the bad together in the world. And mark how he saith not, let them alone, because it belongeth not unto ye, but let them alone lest ye pluck up the wheat. What then? shall we neither take it of the Church nor of the world, because of an absurdity which seemeth to follow on either side? Of the world indeed it cannot be taken, as I have showed before, because he saith, not the world is like, but the kingdom of heaven is like, but of the Church it is said, that as the good seed and the bad are sown and grow together until harvest in the man's field, so the good and bad men are mixed in the Church so long as it remaineth in the world. How then for these words, let them alone, let them grow unto the harvest? It is plain (if we will avoid absurdities on both sides) that our Saviour doth not here meddle either with the Civil or Ecclesiastical power, but as it is the manner in parables to utter some sayings which are only to show some point of doctrine, & not to be taken strictly according to the letter. As for example, when our Saviour would show in that place Luk. 16. which is partly a parable, that such as cannot be brought to repentance by hearing Moses and the Prophets, will not repent if one should rise from the dead: to bring in this doctrine, the damned soul is said to entreat Abraham that he would send Lazarus unto his father's house to warn his brethren, lest they should come into that place. Shall we think that damned souls have such a care that others may repent and be saved? Nay, as I said, it is only to bring in a doctrine. What is the doctrine then which our Saviour doth bring in by these words, let them alone, let them grow together unto the harvest? This it is, that when the Christian Princes have done what they can in reforming the Church, and put the wicked malefactors to death: and when the censures ecclesiastical be most diligently and wisely executed, yet will there be heaps of ungodly ones in the Church, and that seeing it cannot be avoided, men are not to make Schisms, and so to rend up the wheat, but meekly to expect the harvest when the full separation shall be made. Be not therefore (Master Barrow) so absurd, as by an imagined absurdity, to overthrow the doctrine of a parable so clearly expressed.  
The next place to prove that the open wicked shall always be mixed with the good in the Church is the parable of the draw ●et out of the same chapter. You say this is granted to be understood of the planted Church. Who are they which granted this? Indeed the Donatists granted this, and it is some gentleness that you will grant so much. For if in this parable the kingdom of heaven be the visible Church, which is compared to the net which draweth together good and bad: why is not the kingdom of heaven in the former parable, also the Church, and so the estate thereof likened while it is in the field, unto the wheat and the tars growing together? You say the evil fishes are not open sinners but hypocrites, and so said the Donatists. And I marvel you show no reason for it, seeing the devil did suggest this frivolous show of reason unto the Donatists, that hypocrites are very fitly resembled by fishes in the net under the water, which the fisher men cannot see until the net be drawn to land. This I have answered in my former book. There is no doubt but that close hypocrites which outwardly appear holy, are one great part of those evil fishes which the net of the Gospel draweth together: but to exclude all the rest, there is no reason.  
The place in Math. 3. He shall purge his floor and gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn the chaff with unquenchable fire, doth manifestly show, that as the corn and chaff for a time lie upon the floor, so the good and the bad lie mingled together in the visible Church. Here you make an exposition of your own, and then take on grievously that Christ's Church should be compared to such a floor as the chaff and the corn lie together. And ask what the Church than differeth from the world? It is certain that both the civil and ecclesiastical power ought to be employed with all diligence and care that may be to purge the Church: that albeit the floor cannot be clean rid of the chaff, yet it may be rid so far as men are able. That is not the question: but when these duties of men have been neglected, and that there he heaps of chaff in which the grains of corn do lie covered, whether it be not still the visible Church? It is a most clear case that in the Church of Israel, which at that time was the visible Church, there were very great heaps of chaff, and very few grains of good corn in comparison of the whole multitude. john Baptist threateneth eternal judgement unto those hypocrites, wicked and faithless people, showing that the place they held in the Church for a time should nothing help, seeing the Lord will fan them out like chaff, which for a time lieth with the corn, but defileth not the corn, nor cannot turn it into chaff. You think you have great hold that he speaketh of separating the chaff from the corn: but answer this one question, was it not his floor, that is his visible Church out of which he would purge the chaff? Doth he make it his floor by purging it, or was it his floor before it was purged? The words are clear, he shall purge his floor, etc. whether the open wicked pollute the holy things of God, or the conscience of the faithful which do communicate with them, I refer the reader to those things which I have noted between the ancient Churches and the Donatists, where every thing hath been as strongly urged by those Donatists, as you are able, or any of your sect. Seeing then in your second accusation your grounds and reasons are flat Donatisme, & that in your blind fury you condemn all Churches both of ancient time, and in these days, most deeply reviling and railing at all the most excellent instruments which God hath raised up unto his Church, what remaineth, but to warn simple men to take heed they be not seduced by you? Thus much for the second, now to the third accusation.  
The third accusation is, that we have a false Antichristian ministry imposed, etc.  
IN your former writings, where ye came to deal about our ministry, ye were in a great displeasure (having made so great a challenge) for that I did intercept this business from the hands of the learned, unto whom (ye say) it did by many rights more nearly appertain then unto me. I made answer to this, that in very deed it is no reason, that such as you should be encountered by men of great learning: because in all your doings, ye are so full of false accusations, so rash, so presumptuously bold in pouring forth without any discretion, whatsoever lighteth into your brain: ye are so miserably ignorant, so full of foul errors, being altogether unlearned (this only excepted, that ye have scraped some things out of other men's writings, which yet ye pervert) that all wise men, both of learned and unlearned, do plainly see, it is but mad frenzy, by which ye are led. For let the things which I have noted out of these your last books witness unto all, I will not say the learned (for what should they spend time about them) but to all the Artificers and husbandmen which have any sound knowledge, whether I have in this charged ye with more than is true.  
Ye would bear the Reader in hand, that the learned men do abstain from dealing with ye, because they know our cause is bad, and that it is better therefore it should be raked up, then appear the worse by the handling.  
Ye said moreover, that if I have consulted with my learned Brethren, they would have given me counsel not to write, but to deal in the pulpit, where it may be without controlment: lest the foulness of things should appear.  
To one part of this I made answer, that whereas ye do imagine that all the learned are afraid ye would be too hard for them, if they should deal with ye, and therefore they do not nor dare not meddle, it is nothing so. But as one among the beasts (ye know of whom it is said) had gotten a lions skin upon him, and went about and frayed all the simpler beasts: until one more subtle, whether he espied the long ears, or whether he heard him bray (which is nothing like the roaring of a Lion) made answer, that otherwise indeed, he should have been scared as well as the rest. For you coming with a most terrible outcry against our Church, ye will needs have us think the Lion roareth. Let not the Reader suppose that I speak this upon mine own conceit: for in the fourth page of the Epistle of your other book, which ye call A brief discovery of the false Church, ye have set it down so yourselves. Ye would not have those dreadful things which ye denounce less feared, because they are pronounced by a frail man: but would have us all know that the Lion roareth, and that the Lion roareth not in the Forest if no prey be present. Doubtless your voice hath been terrible, and especially at the first you scared many of the simpler sort, which took it to be the roaring of a Lion: But ye must understand that the learned even at the first did discern the voice not to be the roaring of a Lion, but the braying of him that put on the lions skin. Therefore ye are much deceived in thinking they all fear and tremble at it. They see plainly that it is but mad frenzy, and so they disdain to deal with it. And for mine own part, if I did not see what havoc the Donatists made, how many the Annabaptists seduced, and how weak much of our people are, I should count it great folly to give you any answer.  
And now, whereas I did require if there be any spark of modesty left in ye, to make some colourable show, that the learned would council not to deal in these matters, which they know can not be defended, but by the discussing will become more odious: thus ye make answer. That these preachers had taken this course (say you) among themselves, we know certainly, by a letter that two of the chief of them sent unto us, denying that conference which they had before promised, because we denied their Church and ministry. After that, two of them being procured to our prison, denied to deal with us concerning those exceptions we made against their church and ministry, alleging that they were forbidden by their brethren to deal with us in those matters. To be short, what else can with any probability be conjectured to be the hindrance of the first company of preachers, that at the first sent unto us to know the causes of our dislike, promising to assent, or to show unto us the causes why they could not, that they upon the sight of that little paper, (wherein we set down unto them the causes of our separation from these parish assemblies, as also what we purposed in our own assemblies) never as yet could be drawn to make any answer in writing or conference, if not that they perceived, that they were neither able to defend their estate, neither yet had faith to leave it for fear of persecution and danger.  
Who can now doubt but that Master Barrow and Master Greenewood be honest simple dealing men? Who can say they have slandered the learned, or that they have uttered any thing rashly, when they now affirm that they did for certainty know that the preachers had taken such a course among themselves, and allege such proof for the certainty hereof, as no man needeth to doubt of the matter. For will any man be so impudent as to lie, and to publish it to those which do know he doth jye? I have heard Master Barrow, by such as have dealt with ye, that ye make no conscience of lying, and now it falleth out so here: for one of those which came to the prison, coming to the fight of your book, hath set down in the margin that ye make a most shameless lie. It may be in this ye will stand upon your Pantofles, it is but your yea, and his nay. But for the letter you speak of which the other two whom ye name, sent unto ye: I have talked with them both, to know why they denied conference, and what they had written. They say they denied conference with ye, only because ye denied them to be Christians, to pray with them, and that ye denied all the preachers in the land to be Christians and all those which join with them: not hoping that ye could take any fruit by their writings which would not yield to receive any fruit or comfort by their prayers. I take it Master Barrow you have the letter. If you have it, show it unto some honest man that may speak for you and defend ye, not to be past shame in forging such a sense. If ye have it not, I can let ye have the perfect copy of it, and will let any friend ye have see it. They are so far off in the letter from giving the least suspicion that they doubt of our Church and ministry, as that they pronounce it your heathenish opinion, whereby ye deny us to be Christians. What preachers sent unto ye I know not, but that they refrained to have conference with ye, perceiving upon the sight of your little paper (as ye say) that they could not defend their estate, do ye indeed think still, that they took it to be the roaring of a Lion? could they not discern (think ye) between rudere and rugire?  
Your multitudes, and armies of words (being but vain ●anglings) I will pass by, and come directly to the substance of the matter. And because our ministry is ordained by Bishops (which is by one part of their government) your third and fourth accusation, shall be handled jointly, as it were under one.  
In page 104. Ye wonder (as ye say) that in this flourishing estate of our Church, which overfloweth with so great learning, aboundeth with so many writers, that not one of them should undertake to prove the ministry of their Church directly by the rules of God's word, in their office, entrance, administration, and maintenance.  
These may very well be some of those swelling words of banitie, which Saint Peter speaketh of, for who (if he know not before the vain insolency of Master Barrow and his fellow) reading this wonder, would not judge them to be men very deeply read? Have they not read over (think ye) all the learned writers of this age, wondering that there is not one among them all, that hath undertaken to prove our ministry directly by the rules of God's word? Is it not pity that there be no more learned writers, that these men might search them also, to have this point handled? If you have now done wondering Master Barrow, give us leave a little to wonder. The Papists denying that the churches which have rejected popery have any ministry, and requiring proof thereof, many learned writers, both of other Churches, and of our own nation, have undertaken this matter, and have so directly proved our ministry by the rules of God's word, as that the Papists have no cause to glory. Now there be two things here which we may wonder at: the one how it should be possible, that such swelling insolency could be found in the hearts of men grossly ignorant, as that having read almost nothing, and understanding less by sundry degrees, yet openly vaunt, as if they had read all, and could find no such matter. The other how men of so contrary disposition, should use the very same weapon against the Church, for this is one weapon of the Papists, and now in your hands, Ye have no ministry of Christ.  
If the reader shall here think that I grate too hard upon Master Barrow, who directeth his speech but against the ministry of our Church: the matter is far otherwise, as I will make it appear: for first he denieth the ministry of all Churches in express words: affirming that there is no ministry in all Europe, nor in all these known parts of the world. Secondly, we are to note, that although the reformed Churches do differ, sundry of them each from others, in the manner of the calling and ordination of ministers, yet the defence which the learned writers do make, is generally for the ministry of all those Churches (as well for the ministry of the Church of England, as of others) which have forsaken Antichrist, and preach the Gospel. Therefore Master Barrow, read all the learned writers which have stood to maintain against the Papists, that Master Luther, Master Caluine, Master Bucer, Martyr & the rest, were ministers of Christ, and seeing ye will needs fight against God and his truth, try your strength, and see how ye can gratify the Church of Rome, in overthrowing that which all her learnedest patrons are not able to shake more than they be able to shake or remove a mountain.  
The ministry of our Church is not (you say) the ministry of the Gospel, or the ministry of Christ, but the ministry of Antichrist, coming in the life and power of the beast. Your reason is that we are the children of the Bishops, & the Bishops are the creatures of the Pope.  
Against this I did allege, that the popish Bishops have their consecration and power from the Pope, they swear obedience unto him, to maintain his dignity, religion, laws, and ceremonies. And also with him do exercise a power over the faith and conscience of men. But the Bishops of the Church of England, have not their ordination, consecration, or power from the Pope, but from our Church which hath renounced Antichrist. The Bishops of England, acknowledge no subjection to the Pope, but by anoath, have renounced his usurped power and tyranny. The Bishops of England are not ordained to uphold and maintain the religion or laws of Antichrist, but quite contrary they promise and profess, to advance the Gospel of jesus Christ, etc. They usurp not a Lordship over the faith and conscience of men.  
Let us see now what ye bring against this, It helpeth not our Bishops (ye say) any thing, that they have broken their faith and Schismed from the Pope, & renounced his yoke, even his usurped power and tyranny, seeing they usurp and retain (if not the same) yet as Antichristian and enormous a power as the Pope, exercising their authority and commandments contrary unto, and above all laws, both of God and of their prince, page 113.  
If it be thus our case is hard: but Master Barrow remember the old Proverb, a liar needeth to have a good memory, for in page 181. and 182, you have quite forgotten what ye had set down here, for there ye do affirm, that the Bishops which died for the Gospel were godly blessed Martyrs, of whose happy and blessed estate ye do not doubt. Your reason is, for that they were not convinced, but did exercise that power ignorantly.  
I pray ye tell me Master barrow, could they be godly and had but broken their faith and Schismed from the Pope? Can they be godly men, exercising as Antichristian and enormous a power as the Pope? Yea could they be true thristians, exercising their commandments and power, contrary unto, and above all laws both of God and man? Or could ignorance excuse them in these matters? Then tell us why the Pope might not be a good Christian also, before he was convinced? Which way doth the wheel turn now Master Barrow? Ye can never be able to bring both ends together in these, ye must either condemn those Martyrs, or else make the government by Bishops, not such as you set it forth: well let us proceed. Here now we must lay open what power the Pope doth exercise, and what power the Bishops in our Church do exercise, to see if it be the same, or the like. Also whether the Bishops do exercise any power, but that which Christ hath given to his Church, to be exercised by men, that is either by Bishops, or Presbyteries. Touching the Pope, he hath usurped power over the whole word of God, affirming that the holy scriptures have no authority (as they say unto us) no certainty for the sense, no life, but as he doth give unto them. And for this cause he doth take upon him to expound them as he will, contrary to the grammar sense. He doth take upon him to dispense with all, and to abrogate express laws of God. And further he taketh upon him to make laws of his own, to bind the faith and conscience of all men, even as the articles of our faith do bind, or the express doctrine of the sacred Scriptures. He doth usurp in sundry things of so high nature, apperteming peculiarly to God, as that he showeth himself as God.  
The power which the Bishops of our Church do exercise, is first, in examining, approving and ordaining ministers and authorizing them to preach the Gospel. Secondly, it is in this, that they are to see the orders of the Church, for the public administration duly observed, and so they have power to excommunicate, suspend and deprive, etc. such as shall transgress either against doctrine, order, or in manners. Touching laws, they have not power to make any one, not even in things meet indiff rent, neither have they power to abrogate, or to take away any one that is made, and by the public authority of our Church established: they can give no commandments of their own. That Christ hath given power to ordain ministers, and to execute the censures Ecclesiastical, you do not call into question: the controversy is but, by whom this power should be executed, whether by Bishops or by Presbyters. If there be an error in the execution of it by Bishops, or if there be a fault in the execution by Elders, this fault or error doth not destroy the power itself, nor yet maketh it Antichristian, as ruling over the faith and conscience.  
I know Master Barrow, that ye will here take great exception, and say that the chief thing is yet behind. For as ye charge the presbyteries most heinously, in that they take upon them to decree and ordain Canons and constitutions, unto which they enjoin obedience in the people: so the Bishops execute the laws and Canons which have been ordained by men (though not by themselves) the matter is all one. Is not this to exercise Lordship and dominion over men's faith and conscience? About this than must be our special question, whether Christ hath given such a power unto the Church, as to make laws or Cannons in external matters, which we call things indifferent? And whether the urging men to keep them, be not to take away Christian liberty, and so to rule over the faith and conscience? I know this question is hard to be discussed, to make every simple man understand the matter. You (Master Barrow and Master Greenwood) are most blind in it. I wish the reader to observe, because it is one main rock upon which ye are run. And cry out what ye can, that I like a marked servant of Antichrist, like a graceless man, that hath his conscience seared with a hot Iron, do change ye wrongfully: yet it shall be evident, that by seeking an Annabaptisticall freedom, ye do abridge the power of the Christian Magistrate, and of the Church.  
To come therefore unto the matter: that which S. james saith must first stand sure, namely, That there is one lawgiver which is able to save and to destroy. jam. 4. vers. 12. Hereupon it is most sure that God alone hath Lordship over the conscience of man to bind the faith and conscience. For look what God hath by his law commanded to be done, it is good, it is holy: no King, nor the whole Church can make any part of it evil, or command it not to be done. Look what God hath forbidden to be done, that same is evil and unholy; no King, nor yet the whole Church can make it good and holy, or command it to be done. I say further, that the law of God is so absolutely perfect, that there is no righteousness for men, but it is therein contained: neither is there any unrighteousness, but it is therein forbidden. Wherefore they which take upon them to make laws to bind the conscience either by abrogating or by adding, commit most high and blasphemous sacrilege, of which the whole popery is to be condemued. But now there are certain middle actions, and things, which we call indifferent, because if we simply respect them in themselves, or in their own nature, they be neither good nor evil. In these consisteth one part of Christian liberty to use or not to use with knowledge and discretion. Now if we respect the very nature of these things, no Prince or church can change it, as to make them to become necessarily good, or necessarily evil in themselves to the conscience. And therefore, touch not, taste not, handle not, Coloss. 2. vers. 21. making the outward indifferent things unclean to the conscience, is to usurp an Antichristian power over the conscience even against God. Also to make those external things to be of necessity to the conscience, is to lay a yoke of bondage: and against this we are willed to stand fast in the freedom wherewith Christ hath made us free. Gal 5. vers. 1. Hitherto (Master Barrow) I think ye will agree with me. But now touching the external use of these things, either for Princes to make politic laws to command the use or to restrain the use of them, or for the Church to make Cannons and constitutions to command or restrain the use as shall serve for order and comeliness, therein lieth our disagreement, and therein ye plead for your Annabaptisticall freedom, and confusion, I mean that ataxia, or overthrow of all order.  
First, ye call it a subtle distinction which Master Caluine useth, of the external or civil Court, and the Court of conscience, in your discovery pag. 88 And you say Master Caluine having very truly set down, that it is heinous presumption in any mortal man to restrain or make laws of such things as the Lord hath left in liberty: he strait way (lest he should keep back civil Magistrates from receiving the Gospel) inventeth a politic distinction, betwixt the civil court, and the court of conscience: saying, that this outward court respecteth men only, and bindeth not the conscience of the doer, the other concerneth matters belonging unto God, and therefore bindeth the conscience. Thus hath he both lost and entangled himself, and utterly overthrown all his former doctrine. pag. 93. In pag. 247. of this book against me, Master Greenwood saith, that Master Caluin would but divide the soul and the body in civil causes, but I would go a note further.  
Thus far be your words. How shall Master Caluine do that is thus set upon by such great divines, which have so pursued him that he hath lost himself, and they have snared him in his own words? Alas poor souls, I cannot but lament with pity to see your blindness, for I know this is of mere ignorance, that ye cannot understand Master Caluine in a doctrine which yet is clear by the Scriptures. Ye say he invented this politic distinction of the civil court and the court of conscience, lest he should keep Princes back from the Gospel. Then by your own words it doth follow, that if it be proved that Princes have power in such matters to make laws, ye do foully abridge their sacred power by denying it. And for that Master Greenwood saith I go a note further than M. Caluine, it is his ignorance: for let him read well the fourth book of his institutions, and he shall find he holdeth this distinction not only in civil causes, but in ecclesiastical canons. And now to the matter. I would I were able though in never so rude speech, to lay it so open as that a child might understand. I will do the best I can: and I will come unto it by degrees. Ye cannot see how there should be such a distinction of an external action to respect men, and not to bind the conscience before God: Mark well and see. There be sundry sorts of cloth of sundry colours, and there be sundry fashions of garments. I am a minister of the Gospel, I have by me a yellow gown, a green hat, white hose, a tawny coat, I do for some need secretly where no man seethe me, use them: my conscience is not polluted by them, I sin not. But now I come with these garments into the public assembly, I sin grievously. What is the reason of this? It is because the garments themselves, the colours or fashions which were before God to the conscience of man indifferent, are now altered and become not indifferent to the conscience before God? In no wise. For between God and the conscience, they remain as they did. But now the whole matter lieth in this: it is uncomely and offensive before men. Who cannot here see the distinction between the civil court, that is for the action before men: and the court of conscience before God? Will ye say because it is evil for a man to do thus before men, therefore it is evil to his conscience before God, even for the very doing, not respecting men? Might I not allege a thousand things of this nature, which I may do and no sin between God and my conscience, but the sin cometh by the sight and view of men? Now when the sight and view of men doth restrain me from doing them openly, the freedom of my conscience in them is not taken away before God, or my conscience is not bound by them before God: but I am restrained in the external use of them before men, because they be not expedient; they be lawful, but not comely. We see how Saint Paul speaketh about this matter, 1, Cor. 10 ver. 23. 24. All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful, but all things do not edify. This is meant only of things indifferent, for all which are in their own nature evil, be unlawful, and all things simply good are expedient: and do edify. Then we see by this there are things which are lawful unto our conscience before God, and in which our concsience retaineth still her freedom before God, even when we are restrained the outward use before men. This we may see further in the same Chapter, eat what is set before ye, ask no question for conscience. But if any say this was offered to Idols, eat not of it for conscience. Conscience I say, not thine, but of that other. When he saith not thine, doth he not show his conscience remaineth free before God, even when he is restrained before men? And when he saith, All things are lawful, but I will not be brought under the power of any thing: 1. Cor. 6. vers. 12. doth he not show it is some bondage, if a man have not freedom to refrain the use of a thing lawful? This is one step towards our matter: But what is this for making laws either politic or ecclesiastical to enjoin men to do that which God hath left free, or to restrain the use of the creatures which he hath granted liberty to use? This is your main reason Master Barrow. I have already showed that he which shall enjoin or restrain, to lay it upon the conscience before God, committeth high sacrilege: But the use of things may be enjoined or restrained in respect of men, as shall be profitable or unprofitable, comely, or uncomely, etc. A good part of a kingdom doth consist of Cappers. The people are given all to wear Hats, and by this means those subjects do fall into poverty. The Prince maketh a law, that all his subjects shall at certain times not wear Hats, but caps. If the subject shall now stand up & say, to wear an Hat or a Cap is free before God, and seeing God hath given me freedom of conscience to use or not to use, no mortal creature hath power to bind my conscience. Will not the Prince make answer, thou foolish man, I do not bind thy conscience in the thing before God, but I enjoin it as a thing expedient and profitable to my common wealth? It is free for a man to eat any kind of meat. The Prince doth see it profitable that some kinds of meat should be spared, and therefore doth make a law that at some times men shall abstain from the same. The Subjects shall make answer, GOD hath given us freedom of conscience to eat, no power can bind our conscience from it, GOD hath made it lawful and free. Will not the Prince make answer and say: ye Annabaptists do ye not know that there be many things lawful and free to the conscience before God, which yet are not expedient among men? I do not restrain ye to take away the freedom of your conscience in it before God: but it is profitable to my kingdom. It is free for a man that hath grounds to sow or to graze: but if men be given wholly to grazing, and corn wax dear, and the Prince maketh a law that whosoever occupieth such a quantity of ground, shall blow thus many acres, doth he now bind the conscience, or only seek the public profit?  
There he thousands of such like matters Master Barrow: and therefore consider how foully ye do abridge the power of Princes, to the overthrow of Common wealths, in denying them authority to make permanent laws, in things indifferent. But ye make one objection more which is of some show: and that is that prince's laws are to be obeyed for conscience: out of which a man may reason thus: seeing none can make laws to bind the conscience but God: and no law but in things good or evil can bind the conscience, and not in things indifferent, for that were to bind where God hath left free: therefore Princes have no power to make laws in things indifferent. To answer this in such sort as a simple man may see the falsehood of it, is somewhat hard: but I will do the best I can. I say therefore I am bound for conscience to obey the Prince's laws, and yet the Prince's laws of themselves, do not bind my conscience. It is an honest, a good, and profitable thing, when the Prince maketh a law and restraineth the use of some things outwardly, which the conscience hath freedom in inwardly before God, when it is for a public good. Now I am bound to further a public good, it is a great sin to show contempt against the Prince whom God commandeth me to obey: in these respects than I am bound even for conscience to keep the laws. The nature of the things indifferent is not altered before God unto my conscience by that restraint of law: neither yet the use is taken from me, when and where it may be without contempt of my Prince, without offence to men, and without hindering a public good or commodity. They that speak in words of Art, do say that Prince's laws do not bind the conscience haplôs, but cata ti: not simply by themselves, but for some respect, or by somewhat which cometh as a medium: which is as I have before showed. Take an example, put case some dying of clothes should be harmful to the Common wealth, as to die in blue: I am a Dyer, this restraint doth not make the very dying in blue itself unclean to my conscience before God, and so bind my conscience: but if I die in blue contemning the power, & so give a public offence, and hinder a common profit, I do sin, God doth forbid these things, and they do bind the conscience.  
Now to come to the laws Ecclesiastical, which M. Greenwood saith is to go a note further. The Church (as in our Country the Prince, the Nobility, and Commons assembled in Parliament) do agree upon some laws in things indifferent for comeliness and order, and edification in God's worship: as in some other places the Presbyteries, with the consent of the christian Magistrates. This (say you) is to bind the conscience. Well, let us see your reasons. If (say you) they bind not the conscience, why should men be excommunicate and delivered up to Satan, for violating such ceremonies and orders as bind not the conscience? This seemeth unto you a thing most absurd: but mark a little. The Prince's laws (as I have showed) do not bind the conscience, but yet he that with contempt of the Prince, to a public evil example, and harm of the Common wealth doth break the laws, is guilty of great sin, and if he stand in it worthy to be excommunicate. Even so he that violateth a lawful rule or ceremony of the Church in matters indifferent, which are not laid upon him to bind his conscience before God, but for order and comeliness before men, though his conscience touching the things themselves is not bound before God, yet in showing any contempt against the public authority of the church, & in giving an offence, by bringing in uncomeliness or disorder, he sinneth, & if he persist obstinately is to be excommunicate. Tell me M. Greenwood, is it not a thing between God and a man's conscience free to wear a gown of green cloth, were it not in regard of comeliness among men? The Church than taketh order that no Minister shall come into the public assembly to preach in a green gown, & he doth it; is he not to be reproved as for a great sin, & if he stand obstinately in it to be cast forth? But you say all these things must be left to the discretion of the Minister. So ye may also take away the power of making laws in matters simply evil: for every man hath not love or care. And now whereas I have showed by the example of the holy Apostles Act. 15. who decreed that the Gentiles should abstain from blood and from strangled, that the Church hath power to decree in things indifferent, orders for edification: let us see what a learned answer you (M. Greenwood) have found out. First, you say I have overthrown myself by setting down that the holy Ghost and the Apostles did this, because these were the master builders, and were to make laws, etc. Alas poor man, doth the holy Ghost ever make law or the Apostles in things indifferent, as eating blood or strangled, to change the nature of the things, or to bind a man's conscience before God, so that he might not secretly where it might never be known to the weak jews? Then ye see there may be laws made (the holy Ghost by the rules of the Scriptures guiding the Pastors) in things indifferent, which bind not the conscience. But (say you) they do not enjoin it as a law, but tell them they shall do well if they observe these things, by no necessity enforced, pag. 251. Then it seemeth they might have eat blood and strangled and given offence to the weak jews and not have done evil. That which seemeth good to the holy Ghost for them to observe, they may if it seem not good to them, not observe. How absurd is this? And if ye mark well what S. james saith, Act. 21. vers. 25. you shall see it was not left arbitrary, so long as there might offence grow thereby. Well, if the Church then have power to make such decrees to avoid public offence and disorder; what if the Church err and appoint some orders and Ceremonies which are hurtful? This error and fault of the Church is not in that high offence of binding the conscience, which indeed is Antichristian, but in missing what is most comely, most without offence, and fittest for edification. The Church of Christ is so precious a thing, and the souls of men to be regarded with such sender compassion, that all Christian governors and guides ought to be careful, not only, not to lay any yoke upon the conscience, but even to redress the least error that may breed or work any harm touching comeliness and order. To end this point, Master Barrow, until you can show wherein any power is usurped and exercised over the faith and conscience, we must needs take all that ye have here set down, to be but your lavish speech.  
Now touching those reasons which I brought to prove the ministry of our Churches, to be the ministry of Christ. The first is this, they have the calling of the Church. What sound stuff ye have brought to warrant your most ungodly presumption, in condemning the Church of England, as also all Churches in Europe, let the reader judge. Also that the Churches do in some things differ about the manner of calling and ordaining ministers, how you or any other by this can prove all to be void, would be seen.  
Then next the ministry of the Church of England is the ministry of reconciliation: bringing no doctrine, but the doctrine of the holy Scriptures. Here ye cavil foolishly, that although they exercise an office, yet they having no true calling, do it but as private men. Luther and Caluine and all the rest which have preached the Gospel in these times, ye confess in some small measure, according to that little which they did see (nothing comparable to that you have attained) have uttered the truth: but yet as private men. Here besides your wicked barking against the ministry of all Churches, which God hath ratified: your ignorance is to be noted in this, that you do not know, that if a man enter not rightly into a public office, yet the office itself is not destroyed: as if a King have but usurped the crown, yet he is a King while he be deposed. It is more than foolish that ye say, we have a liturgy or prescript form of prayer, therefore we bring other doctrine besides the Scriptures.  
Thirdly, the ministry of the Church of England doth bring men to faith, there being joined with it the effectual power and blessing of the holy Ghost, etc. In answering this Master Barrow, ye fall into your former stinking puddle, into which ye draw many a rash ignorant man. I mean ye utterly deny with the ungodly Swinckfeldians, all the whole efficacy, power and blessing, which God hath annexed unto the ministry of the Gospel. Here is a great patch set on to help the Papists, how by this also ye say, they may reason to prove their ministry and Church to be such, as they that separate themselves must needs be Schismatics. Why Master Barrow, do you not know that as God made a promise to his Church to the end of the world, and hath given gifts & a ministry, to continue even to the world's end, to build it, for Saint Paul saith, this ministry is given, until we all meet together in the unity of faith, which cannot be, until the last day, that the whole number be accomplished. Ephes. 4. 13. So he hath always reserved not only some ministry in the popery, but also in all times some godly ministers? How little help this bringeth to the Papists, or all those sound points or doctrine that remained and do remain among them to prove that the Churches which have forsaken them are but Schismatics, or that the Churches should not cast forth the usurped power of Antichrist, I think children might be made to see and understand, for although they hold sundry points of the faith, yet they quite subvert the holy faith. And whereas the Apostleship and ministry of Saint Paul being called into question, he useth this reason unto those which had received the faith and power of the holy Ghost by his ministry, If I be not an Apostle unto others, yet am I unto you: I said the same is to be made the defence of the ministry of the Churches at this day, unto all such as by the public preaching of the word, and administration of the Sacraments are called unto an assured faith and comfort in God, and unto unfeigned repentance. For let all these judge whether there be no efficacy & power, in the public administration of the word and Sacraments, more than from the mouth of any private person. Unto this you answer is too foul and beastly: for ye say it w●l fit the Papists against us: and then I say it might fit the false Apostles against S. Paul. For if the Papists can or may as well say, though we be no ministers of Christ unto other, yet unto you that feel the comfort and power of our doctrine and joy in it, we are ministers of Christ. Then might the false Apostles in like manner have risen up against S. Paul, and spoken the same unto those which delighted to hear them. Is there no difference between that power of the Gospel, that assurance of faith, of peace and joy in the holy Ghost, and of unfeigned fear of God, and repentance which it worketh: and that blind zeal, and comfort which heretics and Papists have in false doctrine and superstition? Will ye confound all? When ye pronounce that there is no such faith nor repentance, nor joy in the holy Ghost, nor peace of conscience wrought in the hearts of any by the ministry of our Church: how far above the clouds doth your swelling blind pride, lift up her hands? Let all such as have felt the effectual calling of God, bear witness in this matter.  
In the fourth, I alleged that the Martyrs which suffered in the days of Queen Marie, were moved and brought to faith & repentance, at the preaching of Master Latimer, Taylor, Hoper, Bradford, and others. Your reply is, that this reason standeth upon popish and Annabaptisticall grounds. For popis●●● done allege, 〈…〉 as▪ many martyrs his predecessors Let me then ask this question? when it is confessed that they were holy martyrs, & died for the true faith, will it not follow, if the Pope could prove that the Church of Rome had held still that holy faith, that it should be the true Church? We hold the same faith with the holy Martyrs. The motions ye say at our preachings are but the illusions of Satan, and this is the cause that you account the reason to be Annabaptisticall. God is highly to be blessed, who hath so ratified the effectual power of the ministry of his word in the hearts of many thousands, both: in this land and in other countries with such assurance and constancy of faith, that the whole power of Satan out of the mouths of papists, Annabaptists, schismatics, and frantic persons, is not able to bring it into doubt. Lastly, I did advise men to be somewhat moved with the judgement of other Churches. This (you say) is an old popish reason. M. Barrow it is not popish at all unto such as shall consider that the Churches with these principal instruments which God raiseth up as lights, do discuss matters by the Scriptures: men are to seek for the truth at their hands. But I must tell ye it is the trick of all rank heretics and schismatics to despise the judgement of the Churches. Shall we think that a few ignorant rash men have received such light from God, as all the most noble instruments raised up, have not? Thus ye have answered no one reason which I brought, but only with vain, yea more than vain cavils.  
The foul reproachful speeches, which ye use to deface all the ministers of Christ's Gospel, both of other Churches, & of the Church of England, are so many, and that in sundry places of your books, but specially in your Discovery, from pag. 140. unto pag. 187. that he that will search all that is written of the Catharists, the Donatists & Annabaptists, and sundry heretics, shall not be able to find the like, for the slanderous presumption, & proud contempt. The preaching of the Gospel it sell, in our church ye do most profanely blaspheme, in saying, that there with, as with a goodly embroidered coverlet and fine shéets of Egypt, we cover jesabels' bed, & hide all our fornications. When ye say it as a sweet whistle & as a charm, yea when ye term it the whores scarves to cover her shame, pag. 141▪ Also where as in many places of this land, but chief when the Spaniards came to invade, there were fasts, & the word of God preached in some places by two, in some by 3. ministers: this ye call a stage play. pag. 97. Ye say ye are no Donatists nor Schismatics, & out of that which I have written to show that ye are full Donatists, ye gather sundry dissimilitudes betwixt yourselves and them. Ye might perhaps by diligence find out some other things in which ye are not like them: as it may be they did wear blue caps, or green cloaks, which ye do not. The truth is you do agree with them in the sum & substance of all that foulest things, which ye cannot deny: at least if ye come behind them in any one point, ye are before them in two other for it. To follow ye in all points where in ye err tither with them, or with some other as wicked, would be over tedious: only I note these and set them down together.  
1 First that ye do most presumptuously against the express rules of God's word, intrude yourselves into the Lord's office, in taking upon ye to condemn the whole Church of England, as separated from Christ, refut page 23.  
2 That ye condemn all the Churches in Europe which profess the Gospel, that their people are but heaps of profane men. dise. page 33. That their worship is blasphemous Idolatry, in as much as they have liturgies, which is (as ye say) to have another Gospel, another Testament, Refut. page 244. That there is no ministry of the Gospel in all Europe, Disc. page 104. that the government of all Churches is false and wicked, Refut. page 74. 75. Discou. page 189. 190.  
3 That ye confound errors and heresies, as to make all errors, heresies being convinced to his conscience that erreth & held, and to make none to be heresies, unless he be convinced that erreth, Refu. page. 24.  
4 That with Novatus the wicked heretic, ye take away all hope of salvation from those which offend of knowledge willingly, in as much as ye make every obstinate persisting in the least error, to separate from the faith & Communion of Christ pa. 24.  
5 That ye deny the distinction of errors fundamental and not fund amentall, calling it popish. Refut. page 26.  
6 That ye judge of the whole Church to be convinced in conscience as of one man, page 24.  
7 That ye hold it a due convincing, not only of particular persons, but also of whole Churches, and such as doth cast them forth as heathen, so soon as any private man doth reprove the least error, & they forthwith do not reform the same. page 24.  
8 That ye condemn all without exception, both learned and unlearned, men and women young and old, which profess the Gospel in public assemblies, upon false accusations, without admonition, & in matters wherein if there be errors, yet excellent godly men have erred in them finally, even by your own confession. Refut. page 180.  
9 That ye say the best part of the book of common prayer is no better than a piece of swine's flesh, and abomination to the Lord. Refut page 48.  
10 That ye say the greatest minister hath no more power to bind or loose the least member, than the said member hath to bind or loose him: and so with the Swinckfeldians, destroy the whole power of the ministry. page 37.  
11 That ye speak so profanely of singing of Psalms, and so dishonourably of Christian people. Discou. page 180.  
12 That most offensively and profanely, ye term the articles of our faith, our forged patchery. Discou. page 76.  
13 That ye deny men are to join in that worship, where any errors whatsoever do appear, and are not reform, and so open a most wide gap unto all Schisms. Refut page 27.  
14 That you are so grossly ignorant how the false Apostles urged circumcision, and so from the words of S. Paul to the Galathians affirm that paying tithes, or the observing any times as it is in our church, is an error fundamental. Refut. pa. 36  
15. That ye judge them to be no true Churches which have not excommunication. pag. 54. 73.  
16 That ye deny baptism to the children of open sinners, which yet remain in the Church. Refut. pag. 58. 59  
17 That ye make the stableness of God's covenant towards his Church to depend upon the works of men. Refut. pag. 60.  
18 That ye hold circumcision among the ten tribes, or in juda in time of Idolatry, was no true seal of the covenant, & yet ye say that concerning the outward cutting it was true circumcision: the like ye say of baptism administered in popery. Ref. pag. 64.  
19 That in your Disc. from pag. 16. to pag. 45. and Refut. pag. 97. ye take upon ye to confute almost all which M Caluive hath written against the Donatists & Annabaptists, holding that the prayers and Sacraments, & the consciences of all that communicate together are defiled, where any open sinners are admitted.  
20 That ye deny the distinction of the external court, & the court of conscience: & so take away the power of the civil magistrate, & the power of the Church in making laws, in things indifferent, taking upon ye to confute M. Cal. Disc. pa 94. 95.  
21 That ye condemn Logic, Rhetoric and other liberal Artes. Refut. pag 117.  
22 That ye would have all authors (the bible only excepted) cast aside in the study of divinity. Disc. pag. 146.  
23 That ye wickedly blaspheme the operation & motions of God's spirit in the hearts of men at the preaching of the gospel, as if they were but the illusions of the devil. Disco. pa. 141. 156  
24 That ye speak so reproachfully of all the most excellent learned divines which God hath raised up in all Churches, condemning them of pride, ignorance, rashness, sensuality, etc. Disco. from pag. 140. unto pag. 191.  
25 That ye still stand to maintain, that private men may assemble and erect a Church with all the offices & officers. Refut. pag. 191.  
26 That ye affirm there be no true ministers any where to be found upon earth, nor yet any extraordinary ministers to be looked for, & therefore mere private men are (as ye say) to erect and establish the Church Refut pag. 196.  
27 That ye affirm these private men are not to stay for the Prince Refut. pag. 196.  
28 That ye maintain that no fault is to be tolerated in the church: but if any private man do espy a fault and reprove it, if they will not amend it he is to forsake that church. This is your whole practice.  
I will not stand to lay open every particular but upon these conclude, that seeing ye hold so many foul errors, and with such outrage in your dealing, God hath not sent ye, nor set ye a work, more than he sent the Donatists and Annabaptists, but Satan hath seduced ye, & ye labour to seduce others. And if it please God I beseech him for his sons sake to open your eyes, and to give ye some spark of wa●●●orepent. Amen.  
FINIS.