bringeth to cure it but it hath no other effect saue onely to manifest to vs so much the more that the soare of their Assemblies cannot be healed In our former answere we first tooke 3. Exceptions against them comparing together their profession and practise then we alleadged 9. Reasons directly concluding the falshood of the Assumption H. IACOB BEfore I examine this your answer I would desire you and all others to note that all your Exceptions and Reasons with your defence of them hereafter following doe consist of these three generall pointes 1. That euerie person in England holding our publik faith is no true Christian 2. That all the Christians and Churches in King Edwards time and namelie Maister Cramner M. Ridley M. Hooper M. Latimer M. Philpot M. Saunders M. Rogers M. Taylor c. were all lims of Antichrist and no true Christians 3. That euery soule in England is convicted in conscience that the Praelacie is vnlawfull and vntollerable The First of these is our maine question and the grounde of all our reasoning which you gainsay The Second though it be not expreslie spoken yet it is directlie euidently and vndeniably concluded by all euery of your arguments against vs. As in the seueralls hereafter we shal see The Third you are driuen vnto for defence of your former Assertion which else falleth to the grounde And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1.6 and 7. Reasons Nowe my desire is that all men would take notice of these your 3 Assertions and consider indifferentlie vvhether they proceede from an honest a sober or a Christian minde And you M. Iohnson if you list hereafter to say any more defende these 3. pointes directly and plainly that your ansvveres may be briefer and more certen then now they are Novve I come to the particular examination of your former answerere First you say You omitted the Proposition before not for the soundnes of it but only because you would see howe I meant it Why He that hath but halfe an eye may see the meaning of those vvordes where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of sence at all What fault finde you in it nowe Forsooth first a want in the Assumption then vntruethes both in the Proposition and Assumption of my Sillogisme There wanteth you say that I should expresse in the Assumptiō That our Assemblies be companies gathered togeather in the doctrines ordinances which we all by lawe publiquely professe and practise Who but a wrangler would not vnderstand that I meant so much Nay doe not my expresse wordes imply asmuch vvhen I say We by lavve publiquely professe and practise them Then are not our Assemblies vvhich are by lavv gathered together in this profession povver Fy for shame these are sencelesse cauilations But because vvhat in me lyeth I vvould not haue you any more to stumble at a strawe I haue to satisfie you vvithall Not that the Argumēt is vnsound without this addition But because the Reader may see howe you will play at a smal game rather then sit out vt aiunt novve added those words to the Assumption aforesaid in a contrarie letter which you desire viz. and our publike assemblies are therein gathered togeather Secondly you say that my proposition meaneth that what soeuer is held togeather and ioyned with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or a true Church Yet notwitstanding they are so to be reputed as if there were no such additions or comixtures O strange dealing in all my writing I haue no such worde no silable no letter sounding to that sence I haue directly contrary in my answere to your Fourth Reason as your self noteth there Yet yow M. Iohnson with out al shame in the view of the world doe Father on me this foule vntruth and most sencelesse errour in your first entrance Further where as it seemeth you reproue my Proposion requiring to to haue it set thus Whatsoeuer is sufficient to make a particuler man a true Christian and hath nothing added with it distroying the foundation of faith That is sufficient to make a company so gathered togither a true Church You must know Mr. Iohnson that that were an idle vaine addition for wheresoeuer there are any such things added distroying faith there whatsoeuer else seemeth sufficient indeed it is not sufficient to make a true Christian Wherefore nodum in scirpo quaeris this is to finde a knot in a rush Thus much concerning the trunes of my Proposition The Assumption examined by the Exceptions and Reasons following Lastly you come to deny my Assumption or rather to maintaine your denyall heretofore giuen Where first note that by denying my assumption yovv affirme the first generall poinct noted in this beginning That euery particuler person in England holding our publike faith here is not true Christian Which O Lorde who would not tremble to thinke on Euen that which this man aboue two yeares a goe affirmed and now againe aduisedly and wilfully defendeth I take heauen and earth to record this day whether this be not desperate madnes yea or no. But let vs examine your exceptions and reasons against my Assumption more particularly we shall see what stuffe it is Your first exception against the same is as followeth Maister Iohnsons I. Exception against the former Assumption with Maister Iacobs Replies to the same EXCEPTION I. FIrst let here be considered the 19. Article of that doctrine and booke which is alleaged by themselues for their defence and see if their profession and practize be not contrary one to an other Yea whether euen by their owne doctrine and confession conteyned in that booke it be not monifest that they haue not a true visible Church of Christ The words of the Article are these The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men in the which the pure word of God is preached Artic. 19. and the Sacraments be duely ministred according to Christs ordinance in all those things that of necessitie are requisite to the same These are their owne wordes and doctrine Now if they cannot proue their Assemblies to be such they may see that their own witnesses euen their own doctrine book alleadged giue verdict against thē If they can proue them to be such where and what are their proofes touching the particulers mentioned in this their owne discription of a visible Church of Christ H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 1. Excep THis his first Exception is the 19. Article of this very book which we alleage wherein a visible Church is discribed to be a Congregation where the pure word is preached and Sacramentes ministered according to all those thinges that of necessitie are requisite Now this discription he reiecteth not but our practise saith he is contrary and therefore we haue no true visible Churches nor Christians I answer wherin is it contrarie in what things that of necessite are requisite doth not all this Christian world see
A DEFENCE OF THE CHVRCHES AND MINISTERY OF ENGLANDE Written in two Treatises against the Reasons and Obiections of Maister FRANCIS IOHNSON and others of the separation commonly called BROWNISTS Published especially for the benefitt of those in these partes of the lowe Countries MIDDELBVRGH By Richard Schilders Printer to the States of Zealand 1599. THE PVBLISHER TO THE CHRISTIAN READER ABout Three Yeeres since Maister Iacob hauing some speach with certen of the separation before mentioned concerning their peremptory vtter separation frō the Churches of England was requested by them briefly to sétt down in wryting his Reason for defence of the said Churches And they would either yeild vnto his proofes or procure an answer vnto the same Wherevpon the Argument following this Preface was set downe in wryting by Maister Iacob which the said parties did send to Maister Fr. Iohnson being then prisoner in the Clinke in Southwark who made an answer vnto the same conteyning 3. Exceptions and 9. Reasons in denyall of the Assumption Wherevnto Maister Iacob Replyed Afterward Maister Iohnson defended his said Exceptions and Reasons And finally Maister Iacob Replyed againe As by the particulars themselues appeareth Now hauing weighed and considered with my selfe the great ignorance and errors wherewith those of the separation aforesaid are and haue bene lately carried awaye namely to affirme That all that stande members of the Churches of Englande are no true Christians nor in state of saluation And such like most vngodly sentences which would grieue any Christian soule once to thinke on much more to publish to the view of the world And weighing likewise withall the greate weakenes of manie Christians among vs who through want of experience or due consideration of things as they are may easelie by their delusions be drawne away into those errors with them I haue therefore Aswell in hope of reclaiming of the said parties from their said extremities which now I iudge the most of them for want of meanes see not As also for the staying of others from running into the same grieuous excesse with them now published this discourse to the view of the world which hath line buryed in the hands of some few Many being desirous of it who by reason of the largnes in wryting out of the same could not obteyne it Wherevnto I am so much the rather induced For that the Reasons herein by Maister Iacob alleadged haue by Gods blessing reclaymed many from their former errors and satisfied others who haue bene doubtfull and subiect to fall into the same In the examining of which Discourse I shall desire the Reader to obserue a few notes for his better proffiting in the same 1. And First among the rest to note this as a token of the strange and obstinate dealing of Maister Iohnson and others of them viz. That heretofore vntill such time as the Argument hereafter mentioned was framed aganst them they neuer denyed That the doctrine and profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that beleeued and obeyed them to be true Christians and in state of saluation But alwayes held professed and acknowledged the contrarie As by the publike confessions of themselues namely Maister Barrow Maister Penry and Maister Iohnson himselfe in this discourse mentioned in Pag. 81. appeareth But nowe they seing That if they should acknowledge the said Doctrines and profession to be sufficient to saluation That then this conclusion would of necessitie follow that those that hold and practize thē are a true * Which yet Maister Penry confessed see Pag. 82. Church And so their own former iudgements should be crossed Rather I say then they would be drawne to that They nowe stick not to deny their owne confessions which they thinke to be the saifest way for them and like vnnaturall children so vehemently hate contemne and dispise their mother who bare them nourished and brought them vp from whose brests they sucked that sweete milke of the meanes of euerlasting life and saluation if euer they had any tast of it at all Beeing notwithstanding not abashed nowe in a desperate manner in the hardnes of their heart to affirne * Which appeareth generally by denying the Assumption of Ma. Iacobs particularly in these pages 13. 62. 63. 64. That none by the doctrine of the Churches of England can be a true Christian or saued But that they all worship God in vaine Are abolished from Christ Are Babilonians Idolaters departers from the faith worse then Infidels And such like most vnchristian sentences making them all one with the Church of Rome c. Which impious affirmations would cause any Christian heart to lament and bleed for grief Whose vnchristian sentences and false and deceiptfull Reasons the very naming whereof were sufficient to refute them are most plainly taken awaye and cleane ouerthrowne by these brief Replies of Maister Iacob vnto euery of them vnto which I referre yow Onely this I adde with all which I would desire might be noted That if they continew in their former confessions That the doctrines and profession of the Churches of England are sufficient to saluation As they ought it being the very truth Then are they all in a most grieuous schisme in so peremptorily condempning and separating from such true Christians and Churches And if they deny it as they haue begonne to doe Then doe they runne headlong into an intollerable sinne and extremitie without all warrant of Gods word And besides giue iust occasion to be called fearfull * Which name they vniustly giue to those that iustly for this their extremity forsake their fellowship Apostates in so wholy falling and that aduisedly for aduantage sake as it seemeth plainely to appeare from so notable a truth which before they imbraced and acknowledged 2 Secondly I would desier the Reader not to be carried away with the multitude of corruptions from the Question or matter in hand viz. Whether the good doctrines of the Churches of England are sufficient to saluation in them that in simplicitie of heart beleeue and imbrace them notwithstanding the multitude of errors and corruptions which Maister Iohnson repeateth to the contrarie But to haue an especiall regard vnto the same Which is the maine poinct that hath and doeth altogeather deceiue them viz. To haue an eye to the corruptions in the Ministerie worship and gouernement of the Churches of England But neuer to looke vnto the nature and force of them whether simply of their owne nature they ouerthrow faith and Christianitie or whether they be held of obstinacy and a conuicted conscience or not Therefore I pray you marke and examine the errors which they reckon vp and I desire the same also of them for whose good especially I published this Treatise And after due consideration see if those errors are simplie of that nature which before we haue noted If they be not as Maister Iohnson nor all the men in the world shall euer be able to proue they are Then doe
they gett no aduantage by those errors to this purpose which they vrge them for although they were Thrice as many * Notwithstanding they are too many already more as they are Thus they may see how they haue all this while ben deceiued and are now to seeke a new for defence of their separation For I hope they will not say That euery error held in simplicitie by Christians doth cut them off from saluation in Christ Then should they condempne themselues vnlesse they hold Anabaptisticall perfection which surely though I thinke they hold it not simply in their consciences Yet in their practize by condempning others so peremtorily that iump not euen with them in euery poinct they come very neare it But let this passe wee see then That of necessitie the nature of the errors must be regarded Euery sinne is not a like Me thinkes then that they should affoard that fauour to others which they would haue others to offoard vnto them namely That as they would be accompted true Christians through their faith in Christ notwithstanding their errours which they must acknowledge * Psal 19.12 1. Cor. 13.9.12 are infinite manie in this life So they should accompt of others in the like case which euen common sence and humanitie would require them to graunt To impresse this thing a little better in their mindes I will a little turne my speech vnto them And I would pray them to call to minde the manie errors and corruptions which they beare with amonge themselues and lay them and the errors with vs togeather and they shall see their equalitie Some of you hold it vtterly and simply vnlawfull to sweare by a booke to proue a will take an administration or sue in the Ecclesiasticall Courts To shut vp your shops vpon Holly dayes and Festiuall dayes c. And that these are the inuentions of Antichrist c. And others of you hold these thinges altogeather lawfull and haue and doe put them in practise with manie other such like thinges which I could name But these shall suffice Now the thing which I would from hence note is this Can you among your selues beare with such weighty poinctes as these which you say are the inuentions traditions of Antichrist that man of sinne which in your accompt are the †I would you knew the marks of the Beast a little better marks of the Beast * Reu. 14. which who soeuer receiueth shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God and shal be tormented in Hell fier for euer And will not your stumackes serue you to beare with the Churches of England in the like or rather in farr lesser matters What equitie is there in this Surely you are for the most parte so wholly giuen and bend your wits and mindes so much to looke into the estate of other men other Churches to apply the scriptures to thē As you sildome or neuer look into your own estate or apply the scripturs to your selues But looke vnto it it will be your decay in th' end You may see thē by your own practize all errors are not alike But yet will some say Obiection are not all the scriptures and commaundements of God fundamentall and to be obeyed alike c. Answer Let such consider of this scripture 1. Cor. 3.12.15 amongst many other which plainly proueth that many errors so they be not of obstinacie may be built by a Christian vpon the fundation Christ Iesus and yet be a true Christian still For which see further Maister Iacobs answer in Pag. 88. Againe there are errors simply fundamentall which of their owne nature cleane abolish from Christ such are the errors of the Arians concerning the Deitie of Christ of the Anabaptists concerning his humanitie of the Papists concerning Iustification by workes praying to and trusting in Saincts and such like which directly raze the very foūdation But that any one or all of the errors in the Churches of England are of this force as you would seeme to hold by all your 9. Reasons is most impious and vngodly to affirme And as Maister Iacob very well noteth in his answer to euery one of them You thereby ouerthrow the Martirs in Queene Maries dayes from being Christians who held the very same corruptions in their ministerie worship c. which is now held in England But say you the Martirs saw no further Then you confesse against your selues that our errors doe not simply abolish from Christ as you euery where affirme most vngodly especially in defence of your 7. Reason But that if men in these things see no further they are in the same estate with the Martirs Now if you would haue your Reasons hould you must proue the Churches of England all conuicted in cōscience which I hope you will not goe about to doe Thus much concerning the nature of our errors whether they be of obstinacie or against the fundation directly Which is the Second note I desire to be obserued 3 Thirdly I would desire the Reader to obserue the wresting and misaplying of certen places of scripture which partly in this Treatise and also in other their wrytings they alleadge for their absolute and peremptory separation from the Churches of England which I haue thought not a misse here to sett downe that thereby the Reader and them selues vpon better consideration of the ende and scope of the holy Ghost in these places may see how they wrest and misapply them cleane contrary from the true and naturall sence thereof The scriptures which they alleadge for their separation are these Then the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men Gen. 6.2 Yee shall keepe therefore all mine ordinances and all my iudgments and doe them that the land whether I bring you to dwell therein spew you not out therefore shall ye bee holy vnto mee for I the Lord am holy and I haue separated you from other people that you should be mine Leu. 20.22.26 So the children of Israell which were come againe out of captiuitie and all such as had separated themselues vnto them from the filthines of the Heathen of the land to seeke the Lord God of Israell did eate c. Ezra 6.21 Departe departe yee goe out from thence and touch no vncleane thinge goe out of the middest of her be ye cleane that beare the vessels of the Lord Esa 52.11 Fly from the middest of Babell and departe out of the land of the Caldeans Ier. 50.8 And Fly out of the middest of Babell and deliuer euery man his soule from the fierce wrath of the Lorde Ier. 51.6.45 Come not yee to Gilgall neither goe ye vp to Bethauen Hos 4.15 Come to Bethell and transgresse and to Gilgall and multiply transgression c. Seeke not Bethellner enter into Gilgall and goe not to Beersheba Amos. 4.4.5 Saue your selues from this froward generation Act. 2.40 And when certen were hardned and disobeyed speaking euell of the way of god before the multitude
he departed from them and separated the discipels c. Act. 19.9 Therefore come out from among them and separate your selues saith the the Lorde and touch no vncleane thing and I will receiue you 2. Cor. 6.17 And I heard another voice from heauen saying goe out of her my people c. Reu. 18.4 These are the very mayne grounds on which their separation is builded which being duly weighed with the scope of the text you shall very easely finde that not one amongest them all will hold in proportion with this time nor beare the separation they gather froÌ„ them First because either they concerne such times and states as the people that liued in thâ—â—â— were professors of or subiect vnto open grosse Infidelitie either Heathen or AntichristiaÌ„ Idolatry not in some particuler customes outward ordinaÌ„ces but in the whole body and power of Heathen Antichristian religion such as could not possibly stand with true faith and religion at all Which can not be said of these times present standings without open vntruth 2 Or els because if they be not of that sort they affoard no such absolute separation at all but only froÌ„ wilful rebellious obstinate disobeyers euill speakers and from apparant grosse corruptions but not from the whole publike body of those Assemblies nor from the lawfull and good things vsed in such times and standings as haue not wholy swarued from the faith though there were diuers grieuous faults both in doctrine and practize suffered among them As by the example of the Iewish Churches in the times of the Prophets especially of Christ him selfe may plainly appeare The Euangelistes make mention in diuers places That they worshipped God in vaine teaching for doctrine mens preceptes They made their proselites the Children of Hell Two fold more then they were before They made the commaundements of God of none effect by their traditions Such as beleeued in Christ they excommunicated c. Yet were they a true Church notwithstanding these and many other grieuous enormities with whom Christ himself and his Apostles had communion and fellowship sometime in those good things that were among them And so might they with the Churches of England without iustifying or allowing these things which they see to be euill All which things doe more fully appeare in the conference it selfe as it followeth hereafter But vnto the examples of these Churches me thinkes I heare already that common answer and last refuge of theirs which is this Obiection Those Churches say they were in a true outward constitution And therfore were the true Churches of Christ notwithstanding those grosse errors which they held in other poincts of doctrine and practize But contrariwise say they the Churches of England haue a false outward constitution and therefore they are no true Churches of Christ notwithstanding their truthes of doctrine c. Answer So the outward constitution is the maine poinct on which they wholy depend and for which they wholy condempne the Churches of England from being true Christians in state of saluation Which I doubt not plainly to take away 1 And first concerning the constitution of the Iewish Churches If we should examine the same we should finde that it was as greatly altered and corrupted as is the constitution of the Churches of England Two high Priests hauing by simony crept in at once which was vnlawfull and contrarie to Gods ordinance notwithstanding their gloses in their other “ 9 Reasons writinges to allow them to be lawfull by * 2. Chron. 24.2.3 Zadok and Ahimelech and by “ 2. King 25.18 Seruiah the chief Prieste Zephaniah the Second which make against themselues For there was neuer but one high Priest as they confesse * Answere to Maister Hild. Pag. 50. Ergo not two as here were the rest were indeed inferior to him And yet amongst those there was a chiefty also who were called sometimes Second Priestes or Priestes of the Second order 2. King 23.4 and sometimes chief Priests Mat. 27.1 These scriptures being compared with those in the margin by them cited doe make it more plaine Now if the chief offices were so corrupted and altered through couetousnes as the Histories make mention It is not likely that the inferior offices did remaine sound but were asmuch or more altered The Priests generally being such couetous wicked persons their offices beeing very gainefull and besides they liuing vnder the authoritie of the Heathenish Romans who ruled ouer them All these things considered it is very likely that the offices outward constitution on which they so much depend were wholy altered from the right institution and therefore would make nothing for theÌ„ As for their allegation of Mat. 23.1 Where they say Christ testifieth that they had true offices by saying they satt in Moses chaire It will not help them any whit at all For Moses was no Priest as they were but a Magistrate and therefore Moses chaire must be vnderstood of some what else themselues * Maist. Barrow and Mai. Greenwood in diuers Letters and Treatises haue vnderstood it heretofore of Moses doctrine 2. Secondly to let their constitution passe which yet as I haue said would be found as badde or worse then ours wee will examine their corruptions in doctrine Wherein I would know of theÌ„ which are the greater sinnes of these two sorts viz. 1. A false and corrupt outward constitution 2. Or false and corrupt doctrines I thinke they will say the corrupt and false doctrines are the greater as they are indeed For that they doe wound fester and corrupt the very conscience and doe deceiue the hearers thereof Whereas the errors in the constitution of a Church especially in some circumstances as the errors with vs are and those of no small controuersie in matters also not fundamentall are nothing nere so hurtfull by howe much the Tithing of Mint Annis and Commin are of lesser force then the other weightier matters of the law Now from hence I Reason thus If the greater sinnes namely in doctrine doe not simply ouerthrow a companie of Christians from being a true Church Then much lesse will the lesser sinnes namely in the outward constitution c. But the false doctrines which are the greater sinnes themselues confesse by the example of the said Churches doe not Therefore neither will the lesser For the better explayning of this poinct I would pray them resolue me of this question What if a company of Arians Anabaptistes or Papistes shoud bee gathered and established in a true outward constitution and still reteyne their fundamentall errors before “ pag. 4. named Whether should their outward constitution make them a true Church yea 〈◊〉 no I thinke they will say no. Thus I hope then it appeareth That the outward constitution whether falty or true availeth nothing to the ouerthrowing or making of a true Church vnlesse other doctrines of the foundation either false or true doe concurre
vnto them Nay were they not therefore wholy to be separated from and left to the iudgement of God Num. 16. which ouertooke them and all that ioyned vnto them Yet was their error onely in matters of order and outward gouernement of the Church This may suffize to conuince the aduersaries vntrue assertions in this place To that of Maister Cranmer and Ridley c. is answered before For conclusion therefore this we adde concerning this poinct That all such assemblies and people as holde professe and practise as doth the Church of England these abominations following They can not by the word of God be esteemed in such estate trulie to holde Christ their Prophet Priest and King Towit The confusion of all sortes of people though neuer so wicked and their seed in the body of the Church The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then Iesus Christ also of Archdeacons Chancellors Commissaries Officials Priestes halfe Priestes Parsons Vicars Vagrant and Mercinarie Preachers c. The entrance into the Ministerie by an other way and by other Lord then Iesus Christ The executing of it vnder those strange Lords leauing it at their pleasure The preaching of the word administration of the Sacramentes and gouerning of the Church by vertue of the offices and callings afore said according to the Popish Canons and constitutions The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their Officialls The confounding of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall offices and authoritie in the Ministers of the Church The forbidding of Mariage at certen seasons The imposing and vsing of stinted deuised Liturgies The English Portuis taken out of the Popes latine word for worde saue that a fewe of the grosest thinges are left out yet keeping the same frame and order of Collectes Psalmes Lessons Pater nosters Pistles Gospels Versicles Respondes c. Appointing holy dayes to all Sainctes and Angels to the Virgin Marie Iohn Baptist Marke Luke and twelue Apostles seuerallie togeather with Fastes on the Eaues and on Ember dayes Fridayes Satterdayes Lent Prescribing the Ministers to pray ouer the dead ouer the Corne and Grasse at some seasons of the yeere and ouer Women at their Courching or purification Ioyninge them also to marie with the Ring which they make a sacramentall signe And to Baptise likewise with the signe of the Crosse with Godfathers and Godmothers with questions demanded of the infant that can not speake nor vnderstande Giuing power to Women to baptise And ordeyning that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling as when they receyue their maker and with change of the wordes of Christes institution taking in steed of them the wordes of the Popes Masse booke translated into English c. Finallie the vpholding of these and all such amongst them onely by carnall weapons of imprisonment death confiscation of goods banishment and such like The assemblies I say and people which holde professe and practize as doeth this Church of Englande the abominations afore said concerning the outward order and gouernement of the Church what soeuer truethes they holde besides yet can they not by the word of God be deemed truely to hold the Lord Iesus their Prophet Priest and King in such constitution of a church Neither therefore can they in this estate by the word of God be accounted true Christians nor the true constituted churches of Christ this is the question betweene vs and our aduersaries 7. Lastlie let the godlie and indifferent Reader iudge whether it will not followe vppon this answere in this place First that the a Contrarie to 1. Tim. 3.15 2. Tim. 3.16 Deut. 12.32 1. Corin. 4.6 Reu. 22.18 19 Scriptures are not sufficient for the building vp and guidance of the Church here on earth Secondlie that the b Contrarie to the 2. Tim. 3.17 with 1. Tim. 3.15 Pro. 2.1.9 Psal 119.105.13 men of God can not by the Scriptures be made absolute and fullie furnished to euery good worke Thidlie that c Contrarie to Col. 2.3 Heb. 3.1 2 3. Esay 32.22 Ephe. 4.11.12.13 1. Cor. 11. and 12. and 14. Rom. 12.3 4 5 6 7 8. Mat. 28.20.1 Tim. 6.13 14. Christ him selfe in whom the treasures of wisedome and knowledge are hid yet was so foolishe carelesse and vnfaithfull as hauing an house and kingdome which is his Church he hath not in his word appointed vnto it anie offices lawes and orders for the due gouerning and ordering thereof Finallie That the d Contrarie to the 2. Cor. 6.14 15 16. Psal 94.20 119.21.113.128 Reu. 9.1 2 3 and 14.9 10 11. Hierarchie Worship Sacramentes Traditions Canons and whatsoeuer constitutions of Antichrist concerning the outward orders and gouernement of the church being appointed by the Church and Magistrate are to be accounted Christes owne ordinances O shameles impietie Doubtles this is that same strange passion and meere desperatnes wherewith afterwarde vniustlie they charge vs which we will not prosecute as it deserueth but exhort them onely to take heede least that woe come vppon them whiche is written Woe vnto them that speake good of euill and euill of good which put darknes for light and light for darknes that put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter Woe vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes and prudent in their owne sight Esa 5.20.21 H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 2. Except IN this your defence of your secōd Exception it pitieth me to see your extreame folly which is the more miserable because it appeareth to be not of weaknes but of wilfulnes You would know of vs if we hold Christ to be our Prophet Priest and King and if we professe to obey him in his own ordinances and in no other I answered we doe constantly prosesse so and as we professe so wee practise But to make our profession practize in this poinct more manifest I noted how our stare meaneth Christ to be our Prophet Priest and King and how hee is to be obeyed viz. That the written word ought of necessitie to shew vs our inward and meare spirituall beleif obedience As for the outward Church order our state holdeth that it is arbitrary to bee appoincted and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magistrate And that the worde no where forbiddeth this libertie Where note in this explication two thinges First it is foule wrong to our Churches and to my wordes to say as you doe That they meane no outward orders at all be matters of faith or constant in the Scriptures Nay it was neuer doubted but to preach to pray to administer Sacraments c. though externall yet are perpetuall things and necessarie and vnchangable by the Scriptures My expresse wordes and our Churches meaning is That any reasonable kinde of Church gouernement and rites and orders are arbitrary and changeable no matters of faith nor written in the Scriptures And yet still Christ to be our only and absolute King Prophet neuerthelesse Whosoeuer doth
vrge vpon our Churches further or on my wordes doth slaunder and cauill and malitionsly depraue them and nothing else Secondly note in my explication that I iustifie not this opinion of our stare but I say Thus to beleeue and practize simply destroyeth no mans saluation in Christ which you denying generally and vehemently in your sixt answer You deny directly Maister Cranmer c. to haue held the foundation or to bee saued wherein you openly professe and proclaime that second generall poinct which in the beginning I charged you with That all Churches and Christians here in Kinge Edwards time and namely Maister Cranmer Ridley Latimer Hooper Philpot Saunders Rogers Tayler c. held not Christ their Prophet Priest and King and so consequently they were lims of Antichrist for they bare his marke euen to their deaths and no true Christians Alas to see how malice and preiudice hath blinded you Is there not greater cause for vs to cry say against you O shamelesse mouth ô vnchristian heart which termes you vainely charge vpon me Is this you that white the Toombs of those Martirs and yet in fine condempne them for no true Christians nor their Assemblies for Churches You adde a clause They that professe and practize as doth the Church of England c. If you meane hereby to put a difference betwene those good mens holding this opinion and our Churches nowe Yea betwene your owne lately and ours now speake out what is it Yow can imagine none but this Those good men Maister Cranmer Ridley c. and your selfe of late held these very same errors of the outward Church order which wee doe But they and you did it seemeth of simplicity we malitiously they of ignorance wee of plaine obstinacie and hauing a conuicted and seared conscience whereby they you might be true Christians for all these errors but we now cannot be so If this be your meaning then you graunt vs our Assumption against which all your dispute here is bent You graunt it I say That the whole doctrine as it is by law in England is sufficient to make a perticuler man a true Christian Secondly wee now erre not in these poincts of simplicitie but of wilfulnes and malice Say you so Speake that plaine then Our whole assemblies all and euery of our assemblies of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conscience Are you sure of this Doe you knowe euery mans heart and conscience so well If you doe then you say somwhat indeed But you are then neere as wise as God himselfe to know mens hearts so perfectly whose faces you neuer saw You will say you know diuers whom you dare say are conuicted in coÌ„science That is much also to affirme But if you doe that serueth not your turne vnlesse all be so conuicted Christ knew a great many in the Church of the Iewes yea of the learnedst and chiefest in authoritie that were conuicted in conscience that he was the Christ who blaspheamed in denying him And yet the Assemblies then where not conuicted they still were true Churches Wherefore in this saying if you say to the purpose you then affirme the Third generall poinct that I noted in you at the beginning of this my last Reply That euery soule in England is conuicted in conscience But here I maruell that you say Maister Hus and others of the holy Martirs did heare and say Masse till their dying day Also that others did acknowledge the Popes supremacie I aske you doe you meane that they held and vsed the Popish Masse according to all the abominations that are in it If you thinke so then surely neither Hus nor any of the rest were holy Martirs For therin are founde errors plainely fundamental which of them selues abolish from Christ They are not to be compared to our publike errours now in England The like I say of the Popes supremacy If you thinke any of the Martirs acknowledged it in the large and ample meaning therof as the Popish Doctors doe set it down Then verily neither were they any Martirs The booke of Acts and Monuments whither you send vs affirmeth not that they held these errours in the largest and grossest sort It may be therefore they held manie and greuious errors of ignorance both in the Popish Masse and in the supremacy which might neuerthelesse stand with Christ crucifyed And so they might be were holy Martirs But I affirme that according to the damnable grossenes of the very Papists they neither did nor could hold them Therefore in these instances you say nothing to vs nor against the question in hand Further you said before in the beginning of your desence of this Exception * Pag. 13. That Master Cranmer Ridley Latimer and the rest of the Martirs then neither had them selues nor ioyned in spirituall communion with such as had the Prelacy and Ministery now pleaded for Now I see you make no conscience of vntruthes yea you are bold to auouch open and known falsehoods Did not Maister Cranmer hold himselfe for Archbishop still and that hee was by the Pope vniustly and vnsufficiently deposed and by Queene Mary forcibly restreyned from it Did he euer repent of holding that Office till his death Also did not Ridley stand vpon his right to the Bishoprick of London though ready to die Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick yet he kept his Ministerie and neuer repented him of it Philpot neuer misliked hâ—s Arch-deaconry Yea when he refused bloudy Bonner Yer he appealed to his ordinary the Bishop of Winchester The like minde is to be seene in Bishop Farrar And generally whosoeuer were Ministers then of the Prelates ordination they neuer renounced it though they died Martirs Thus appeareth your bould vntruth in this behalfe Further in your Sixt answer Pag. 16. First you will not see what I meane in saying That these outward orders bee not of the foundation simply I meant not at all of the very * 1 Cor. 15.2 3 4. Rom. 4.25 1. Cor. 3.10 11 12 13 14. foundation neither are they Secondly you aske if our outward orders vnder Christ be not fundamentall aswell as the Iewes vnder the Law I answer neither were the Iewes outward orders of the very foundation without which they could not be saued Thirdly you aske how Corah c. differing from Moses and Aron only about the Priesthood and Ministerie were separated from and damned I answer not that the matter was fundamentall but the Manner was rebellious with consciences a thousand times conuicted and so donne with a high hand against God him selfe But now this considered How vainely doe you charge mee in your entrance into this Excep pa. 13. That I others of my minde goe about to iustifie these matters of order in controuersy by Cranmer Ridlies and Latimers example and their Congregations then For shame doe you not see the coÌ„trary that I call them errors I onely iustifie by their exaÌ„ple that these corruptions abolish vs not from Christ as
theirs did not And that I trust is sound Which thing also you might haue remembred if you had ben so charitable by that which I wrote in “ In the next treatise following of the cōparison of the Ministery with Mariage Ans to your first Reason another place Then in your first answer Pag. 14. Howe vainely doe yow aske vs for Scriptures to proue those orders seing I expresly called them errors The like in your Second wher you load vp Scriptures to disproue thē Also Thirdlie you charge an vnconscionable vntruth on mee if you meane this answere vnto me that I should graunt and cannot deny that all outward ceremonies and gouernement are arbitrary at mans pleasure I onelie said that our state holdeth that generall opinion Not that I my selfe held it If you meane them write to them and speake to them if you meane me you doe me foule iniurie Fourthly whether they are Popish shiftes or no let our state which mainteyneth these things answer you Your Fift is answered in the first poinct of my explication noted before pag. 19. To your Sixt in pag. 16. wee aunswered before in the Second poinct of my explication pag. 19. Your Seuenth in pag. 18. is also against the state of our Church and not against me Maister IOHNSONS 3. Exception against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same EXCEPTION 3. THirdlie let them shew by the Scriptures howe the 36. Article of their doctrine booke alleadged agreeth with the Gospell of Christ and true Christianitie The words of the Article are these as followeth The Booke of consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priestes and Deacons doth conteyne all thinges necessarie to such consecration and ordering neyther hath it any thing that of it selfe is superstitious or vngodly And therefore whosoeuer are consecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that booke we decree all such to be rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated and ordered Moreouer how it agreeth with the Gospell and true Christianitie That Apocripha bookes and the booke of Homilies be read in the church by the Ministers diligentlie and distinctlie As is in Art 6. and 35. of that doctrine and booke aforesaid H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 3. Excep YOur third Exception is this That the 36. Article of ordaining Bishops Priests and Deacons Also the reading of Apocripha bookes and Homelies in the Church agree not with true Christianitie Ergo the Assumption aboue is false that is the whole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not sufficient to make vs true Christians I answer you should haue said those poincts destroy vtterly true Christianity Ergo c. Else the Argument followeth not But then we deny flatly the Antecedent or first part of the reason But your Reason you will say shall goe as you haue put it Then marke these reasons euen as good as yours and all one An Ethiopian is white of his teeth therefore he is a white man A Swanne is black of his bill therefore a Swanne is black My brother hath an eye of glasse or he hath a wodden legge therfore my brother is no true man F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Excep OVr third Exception was this Whereas they referred vs to their booke of Artieles 1562. were quired that they should shew by the Scriptures how the 36. Article there mentioned which is of the booke of consecrating Archbiships and Bishops and of ordeyning Priests and Deacons And howe also the 6. and 35. Articles of that booke enioyning the Apocripha bookes and Homilies to bee read in the Church by the Ministers distinctlie and diligentlie Howe these J say doe agree with the Gospell of Christ and true Christianitis Now I pray you haue they shewed vs these things by the Scriptures as we desired nothing lesse First therefore marke this heere and euerie where also in their reasons and answeres that though wee call neuer so much to them for proofe and euidence from the Scriptures yet they neuer bring it but labour to put it off with other shiftes deuices of their owne As if our consciences were to be built vpon their fancies and not vppon the written worde of God But what doe they say to our demaund First they tell vs These thinges doe not vtterly destroy true Christianitie Secondly they graunt notwithstanding that they agree with it as blacke doeth with white that is they are cleane contrarie vnto it For this their similitudes doe import Nowe whereas they alleadge That these thinges destroy not true Christianitie We answere That euen that Hyerarchie worship constitution and gouernement which they professe and practize as appeareth by those and other their Articles and iniunctions in our former answere alleadged to which yet we haue receyued no aunswere being directly Antichristian doe * Nota vtterlie destroy true Christianitie so as the people and Churches so professing and practizing can not in that estate by the worde of God be iudged true Christians or the true constituted Churches of Christ. And touchinge the similitudes here vsed besides that which we haue noted before we adde moreouer that they are not against vs but against them selues in asmuch as comparing the doctrines of the Gospell which they professe with the whitenes of an Aethiopians teeth And their Antichristian Ministerie Worshop courtes and confusion of people with the blackenes of an Aethiopians body This and such like similitudes doe fitlie declare their estate And the approouing of the black constitution of their church Assemblies by some white doctrines of the Gospell which they professe Is euen as if they should reason thus An Aethiopian is white of his teeth therefore he is a white man A blacke Rauen is white of his bill Therefore a blacke Rauen is a white bird H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Exception YOur Third Exception is That the 16. Article of cōsecrating Bishops Priests and the 6. and 35. Artic of Apocripha and Homelies doe not agree with the Gospel What then Ergo our Churches profession and practize differ Most false For our Churches doe professe that these things doe agree with Gospell well enough Also their practise is thereafter Or doe you conclude Ergo our Churches holde not Christ to saluation In deede so I tooke your purpose at the first but nowe in plaine categoricall termes you auouch it That these things being directlie Antichristian doe vtterlie destroy true Christianitie So then Cranmer Ridley Latimer c. were verie Antichristes and no true Christians As before also I trowe you affirmed Surely this grosse and wicked absurditie I could not open better then by this similitude This man hath a wodden legge an eye of glasse his nose deformed adde if you will both his armes not naturall but framed to him of wood or what you will Ergo this is no true man Yes Sir for all this he is a true man For as much as all this concernes not the verie life and being of a man though
did somtime ioyne and cōmunicate This therfore he saith maketh for them and against vs most notably 1 But first let him tell vs if many “ As that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 c. Esa 1.11 12 13 14 15. Zeph. 1.12 1. Cor. 11.19 thinges which are verified sometimes of the members of a true Church may not also fitly be applyed and alleadged against a false Church and yet not iustifie their estate and constitution neither make for them but against them altogeather Otherwise he condemneth at once all the Martirs heretofore who vsually alleaged this * Mat. 15.9 very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church as him selfe cannot he ignorant Yet in his learning it seemeth the Papistes might well haue aunswered the Martirs againe that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true visible Church and therefore made for them and against the Martirs most notably 2 Secondly when he saith this Scripture is verified of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated Let him also tell vs whether he meaneth that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vaine traditions If he thinke they did that very “ Mat. 15.2 Chapter sheweth the contrary besides that the whole Scriptures testifie that Christ was altogeather free from sinne which hee could not haue bene if he had ioyned with them in those their inuentions If they did not as it is without all question then what doth this helpe those men who all of them ioyne and communicate with the false worship of these assemblies 3 Thirdly we aunswer that his note is not worth the noting being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand For first who knoweth not that in the Iewish Church the doctrine publiquely professed practised by their law did not appoinct or ratifie any of those vaine traditions but vtterly forbid them Wheras contrarily the very doctrine publiquely professed and practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the false worshiping of God by the inuentions of men Secondly those vaine traditions aforesaid were the personall sinnes of some particuler men in the Iewish Church not publiquely established by law nor generally receiued and practized in that Church * Luk. 1.5 6 8 9 10. 2.21 22 23 24 25 27.36 37 38 39 Mat. 15.7 8.4 and 15 2. Ioh. 10.34 Zachary and Elizabeth Simeon Anna Mary Ioseph and Christ himselfe and his Apostles with many others kept the ordinance of God giuen by the hande of Moses and obserued of that Church Neither did they ioyne or pollute them selues with that vaine worship aforesaid whereas in the church of England the false worship thereof deuised by men euen by that man of sinne is not the personall sinne of some particular men in it but is publikelie established by law and generally receyned and practised in these assemblies of all the members thereof So then this scripture maketh nothing for them but against them most notably Nowe whereas in the margent he wisheth the Reader to marke a contrarietie with our selues by comparing this and our 6. Reason together we also referre it to the Reader to iudge whether there be not euen an harmonie with this and a confirmation of it Hetherto of the defence of our second Reason H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reason TO this your defence of your Second Reason I say you haue answer in your last Exceptiō pag. 22. You aske what Propositiō I doe deny I answer I distinguish your Aflumption as being a fallacie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cōcluding a thing simply from that which is after a sort like vnto that Reason which I framed against you in Pag. 22. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glasse c Therefore hee is no true man Cranmer Ridley c. held asmuch as wee after mens precepts Ergo they worshiped in vaine Geneua holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper Ergo Geneua worshipeth God in vaine Euen so your Assumption runneth Our doctrine say you Pag. 35. appoincteth Gods worship by mens precepts This is false vnlesse you meane it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after a sort not simply For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worship by mens precepts nor the chiefest part of it as the preaching of the Gospell of life Sacramentes and Prayers c. So that it concludeth nothing in that sence Therefore here you play the false Sophister not the Christian and conscionable Disputer Thus you haue answer enough to this in the aunswer to your last Exception though you would not see it Further I noted Secondly * Pag. 35. That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a visible Church with whom Christ did communicate though they held also traditions of men Therfore it affirmeth nothing against vs. Is not this true Why then doe you not admit it We neuer denyed but this Scripture condemned our corruptions But this onely wee affirme it disanulleth not our Churches Euen as Christ here condempned the Iewes corrupt traditions but hee meant not thereby to disanull their Church Therefore all this is not against our purpose but not ably for vs as is before obserued 1. Concerning your First aunswer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applyed against false worshippers which are no true Church But it proueth not I say all them to whom it may bee applyed to bee no true Church Therefore you abuse it against vs Except you had first proued vs no true Church nor Christians which yet is in question 2. Where in your Second answere * Pag. 37. you say That this helpeth vs not except we say that Christ communicated with the Pharisies in these traditions like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now For shame leaue this folly I say againe I seeke not to iustifie our partaking in our traditions but I renounce it in sobrietie asmuch as you yea better then you doe Yet I say this place shall admit those who doe in simplicitie partake of them to be true Christians neuerthelesse like as it admitteth the Iewes then 3. In your Third aunswer “ Pag. ibid. You deny that those Jewish traditions of wasshings c. were with them receiued generally or by Law in their Church Whereto I aunswer That they were generally receiued as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doeth testifie and that they were rebuked who vsed them not which is sufficient to make it their Churches doctrine practize though no expresse law commaunded it But I suppose verse 5. where they say Why walkest thou not after the tradition of the Elders he meaneth the ordinances of their Forefathers which were to them as lawes besides the lawe of Moses What else is their Thalmud which is till this daye euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie and the Alcoran of Turky Some also vnderstand this of the ordinances of the Elders that is their
present Gouernours and then doubtlesse it was lawe And though Zachary Elizabeth Symeon Anna Mary Ioseph Christ and his Apostles did not actuallie ioyne in these corruptions yet they were generall no doubt and by lawe neuer the lesse and a number of the Iewes simply vsed them yet fell not from God as †The Sixe waterpots of the Iewishe purifyings Iohn 2.6 Therefore your Replies here are most vaine and false Lastlie in pag. 37. you will not confesse your contrarietie that is to saye betweene this your Second Reason and certen wordes in your Sixt Reason But the greater is your sinne to doe euill and defende it too Here in this Reason pag. 35. you would haue this scripture Mat. 15. to be meant against such vaine worshippers that they become heereby no true Church Or els what doe you vrge it against vs But in your Sixt Reason following you say That the Iewes euen nowe when these words were applyed to them were the true worshippers of God Are not these contrarie I pray you then reconcile them Maister IOHNSONS III. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON III. IF the whole doctrine as it is publiquely professed and practized by law in Englande be not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian that should with all submit vnto Circumcision Then much lesse is it able to make him a true Christian that togeather with it submitteth vnto a false Ministerie Worship and Gouernement of the Church deuised by man euen the man of sinne But the first is true Therefore also the latter The consequence of the Proposition is good because Circumcision was once the holy ordinance and appointment of God himselfe to his Church and people whereas the Ministerie worship and gouernement aforesaid neuer was so but is mans deuice in religion euen Antichrist that capitall enemie of Iesus Christ. The Assumption is proued Gal. 5.2.3.4 where the Apostle speaketh of them that helde not onely such truethes of the Gospell as are in that booke of Articles but more then those Yet if they should with all submitt vnto circumcision he sayth they were abolished from Christ Christ would prosit them nothing H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reason THis your Third Reason is from the more to the lesse negatiuelie to this effect A Galatian vsing Circumcision is a likelier Christian then one of our English holding the Hierarchy and other traditions But A Galatian is a false Christian Ergo An English professor is much more We answer We denie the Assumption Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies true Churches Gal. 1.2 Therefore this Reason is nought If he obiect The Apostle saith such are abolished from Christ That is in deed some amongst them as helde Moses ceremonies necessarie absolutelie to saluation as Act. 15.1 And that †Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 iustification was by the morall workes of the law Nowe the Churches of Galatia generallie were not such but held the sauing faith sound doubtles though manie amongest them were tainted with that infection by reason of some mischeuous teachers that were crept in and too well interteyned among them Howbeit with the Church Communion was kept And therefore so with vs you ought to deale If you say we are worse Christians then those grofest Galatians It is vtterlie false proue it if you can and it must drawe in Maister Cranmer c. with vs also If you say there are manie amongst vs as bad or worse then those worst Galatians you may say it but proue it you cannot Also if it were so yet this disagraceth it destroyeth not the Church like as hath bin said of the Galatians F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reason TO this our Third Reason His First answer is That he denyeth the Assumption which is asmuch in plaine termes as if he had giuen the holy Ghost the lye who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it Gal. 5.2 3 4. As in the proofe of the Assumption we shewed before But for the more euidence of the trueth we will set downe the proofe of the Assumption in a Sillogisme thus If a Galatian submitt to Circumcision though he hold all the truthes of the Gospell professed in England withall yet be notwithstandinge abolished from Christ and falne from grace Then is he not in this estate a true Christian. But the former is true as the Apostle testifieth Gal. 5.2 3 4. Therefore also the latter Next he answereth That the Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies Churches Gal. 1.3 Therefore sayeth he this reason is nought But he may not thus runne away with the matter and deceyue himselfe and his simple fauourers The question is not whether anie Galatians were true Christians or any of their Assemblies true churches For who euer doubted of that But this is the question Whether a Galatian holding all the truethes of the Gospell nowe professed in Englande and withall submit to Circumcision were in that estate a true christian Or putting the case that there were whole Assemblies consisting of such Whether those assemblies then in that case were by Gods worde to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and saith no This man saith yea Nowe whether of these two we shall beleeue let all men iudge But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the assemblies of the Galatians true churches Gal. 1.2 This man sheweth the reason him selfe the light of the trueth is so cleare and manifest There were but some of the Galatians sayth he that were infected with this error of Circumcision True in deed say we of such onely is the suppositiō made in the case afore said But the churches of Galatia sayth he generally were not such but held the sauing faith sound which also is most true they being set in the way and order of Christ Iesus and therefore though there sprang vp some heretikes and schismatikes amongest them which is the “ 1 Cor. 11.19 Actes 20.30 lott and triall of the true churches of God in all ages yet was there not cause to breake the Communion with those assemblies but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Christ and to * Gal. 5.12 1 Cor. 5.7 11 13. cutt off and cast out such troublesome leauen from amongst thē Now this being duely weighed it is nothing for but altogeather against the hauing of communion with the assemblies of this Lande which are not set in the way and order of Iesus Christ as were those churches of Galatia but in the Apostasie and confusion of Antichrist as hath ben at large declared before in the defence of the former Reasons where also that of Maister Cranmer Ridley c. is answered H. IACOB his II. Reply to the 3. Reason TO this your Defence of your Third Reason I answer First it is too impudent a cauillation That you charge me to giue the H. Ghost the lye in denying your Assumption I meant
not your Assumption but that which I had made briefer conteyning the effect of yours This was the Assumption denyed by me But a Galatian is a false christian As he that hath but halfe an eye may see Secondly to cease needles strife I deny therefore your Proposition Though a Galatian * that is So holding it as the worst did or els this is a sophisticall Equi uocation holding circumcision cannot bee a true Christian yet an English Christian holding the Hyerarchie c. may The Reason of this denyall I gaue you then but that you would not see it Namelie because such Galatians held Iustification by the works and ceremonies of the Law Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 Act. 15.1 Like the Papistes who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the same and so doe erre Fundamentally But our Churches and state hold not the Hyerarchie so but only as an indifferent thing in it selfe This blasphemous opinion of Circumcision maketh it infinitelie worse though once it was ordeined of God then our indifferent opinion of the Hyerarchie though in deed it were neuer but nought Thirdlie and lastlie you haue no where cleared Maister Cranmer Ridley Latimer the rest of those holy Martirs from being abolished from Christ if the Hyerarchie be simply worse then Circumcision so hold as those Galatians did hold Gal. 5.2 3 4 5. Maister IOHNSONS IIII. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON IIII. THe doctrines of faith conteyned in that Booke alleadged would not make him a true Christian who holding them should also still executs or ioyne vnto the Ministerie of Mahomet that open Antichrist and enemie of Jesus Christ 2. Cor. 6.14 c. Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian that holding them yet doth still execute or ioyne vnto the Ministerie and worship of the man of sinne the couert Antichrist and enemie of Iesus Christ. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reason THis your 4. Reason is Mahomets Ministerie and Antichristes Ministerie are both bad alike But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Mahomets Ministerie Ergo the good doctrines of that booke cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Antichristes Ministerie which thing we in England doe I deny neither the Proposition nor Assumption And yet the Argument is too bad It is a fallacie of Equiuocation as wee call it Wee must therefore distinguish Mahomets Ministerie and Antichrists Ministerie haue a doubtfull meaning If you meane the whole function and exercise of publique worship performed in Mahomets or Antichristes assemblies that is in the Turkish or Popish Churches The I graunt your whole argument is * Both are nought alike as touching abolishing vs from Christ true But that we doe so in England which comes in the conclusion Or that any Christian amongst vs thinketh so That I vtterlie deny And thus indeed that Scripture alleadged 2. Cor. 6.14 is rightly vnderstood But if you meane by Ministerie the outward manner of calling to the Ministerie som outward ceremonies vsed by Mahomet or the Pope Then I flatly and absolutely deny your Assumption and your Scripture is answered before in the First Reason For I affirme and it is manifest That such errors being ioyned with the good doctrines of that our Booke doe not destroy faith and true Christianitie As before was shewed in the Second Exception F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reason HEre the light of the trueth doeth so dazell the Answerers eyes as he freelie confesseth he can not denie any whit of our Reason And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad But why so There is hee sayth an equiuocation in it and therefore he will distinguish But First wee tell him there is no equiuocation at all in the words but they are al plain to him that hath a single eye and will vnderstand the trueth Therefore his distinction heere is idle friuolous Yet see also betweene what things he doeth distinguish Forsooth betwene the whole function and exercise of publique worship perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies and betwene the outward maner of calling to their Ministery and the outward ceremonies vsed amongest them An absurd distinction touching the matter in hande For first who knoweth not that these latter are of the very same nature with the former Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false Anticristian accursed before God aswell as the rest of their worship and seruice Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for these then for the other Secondly who seeth not that the argument here is not of whatsoeuer thing is vsed among the Turkes and Papistes but of the Ministerie and worship which they haue deuised and executed As in particular of the publique offices of Ministerie retey ned among them of their maner of calling and entrance into them of their administration of them of their stinted imposed Liturgie their ecclesiasticall gouernement cannons proceedings c. All which in the church of England are taken out of * Reu. 17.4 5 2. Thes 2.3 4 7 8 9 10 11 12. that golden cuppe of abominations whereby Antichrist That man of sinne hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken as may appeare by cōparing their Pontificalls Canons and constitutions togeather If this man will needes be otherwise minded then let him proue the particulars aforesaide by the Testament of Jesus Christ. Furthermore also marke here that he graunteth the doctrine of faith conteyned in their booke of Articles cannot make him a true Christian that holdinge them doth withall receiue and ioyne vnto the publike worship perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies This he saith he graunteth as most true Wherevpon it followeth euen by his owne confession First that such thingh then may be ioyned with the doctrines of faith receiued among them as they in such estate cannot be deemed true Christians or true Churches Neither the truthes which they holde be auaylable to them Secondlie that therefore the Proposition of his First and mayne Argument is not generall but admitteth limitation so his greatest defence is of no weight as before is shewed in the beginning in our answere to that Proposition Thirdlie that his answere to our Seconde Exception before alleadged is of no force howsoeuer heere and euery where he referre vs to it For which also we referre the Reader to that which is saide in that place in defence of the Exception aforesaid As also for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14 vnto that which is said concerning it in defence of our First Reason before alleadged H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reason IN this your defence of your 4. Reason you renewe your Sophistrie And that which is worse you wil not be tolde of it Is it because of the goodnes of your Reason that I denie no Proposition Nay it is for the badnes of it because all is nought all
3 3 11. c. and 17 1 2 3 4 5. and 14.8 9 10 11. the spirituall Babilon notwithstanding any truthes she holdeth yet is so vnsanctifyed and abominable as shee is become a cage of all vncleane and hatefull birdes and that all her children and Marchants that will not departe out of her shall receyue of her plagues and damnation and drinke of the wine of Gods wrath yea of the pure wyne which is powred into the cup of his wrath and be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy Angells and before the Lamb for euermore Loe here their fearfull estate which this man will needes accompt holy and acceptable before God H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 5. Reason IN this your defence of your Fifth Reason you mislike that J call it an absurd comparison Where you affirme that the golden vesses of the Jewes were as available to sanctifie the Babilonians as the truthes of the Gospell which wee hold are to sanctifie vs. In deed your owne wordes be holden and receiued in the spirituall Babilon By which termes you meane vs of England I trow But marke sir Is not this grosse sophistery againe Is not this childish vanitie open beggerie and crauing of that which is the whole question that is That our Churches are spirituall Babilon and as deepely infected in Babilonish impietie as those old Caldeans If they were so infected I graunt in deed your Reason would follow But seeing it is the question And seeing we professe our selues true Christians by those truthes of the Gospell which we hold and as by Gods grace we are indeed Say I not well that this is an absurd Comparison Yes Maister Iohnson it is a most * To match those outward vessells of no sanctity of them selues with our inward doctrins of saluation impious absurd sencelesse comparison void of common reason And it inwrappeth Maister Cranmer Maister Ridley c. within the same Iniurions Yea irreligious consequence likewise All that you haue of allusions and alluding betwene the Tipicall and spirituall Babilon are meere delusions and vaine cauils Proue vs first to be spirituall Babilon Or els you fight with your shadow So that still I say those Scriptures quoted of Dan. 5. c. As also all the rest here packed togeather in your Margen they are miserably and desperately abused according as I rightly referred you to my censure to your First Reason which for all your wordes you haue not refuted The very same I say of your other Two scriptures towards the end Pro. 9.17 c. Reu. 18.1 c. As for Ezek. 43.8 I answered it before †Pag. 34. in your First Reason Maister IOHNSONS VI. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON VI. THe Samaritans those counterfett children of Abraham Jsaack and Iacob did publiquelie professe that most excellent doctrine of the Messias to come the trueth of which doctrine howe powerful it was to saluation the Scriptures testifie yet doeth our Sauiour Christ repute them false worshippers of God because their worship was a mixt worship framed after the inventions of men and traditions of their Forefathers Therefore sayth Christ vnto them Yee worship that which ye knowe not we worship that which we knowe for saluation is of the Iewes By which wordes of Christ it plainely appeareth that although at that time some professed such truthes which otherwise were auaylable vnto saluatiō yet none that were false worshippers of God could truely challendge vnto them selues in such estate the benefite of those truthes but they onely which were the true Church and people of God to whom the Oracles of God were committed and to whom the Couenantes and seruice of God did appertayne such as were at that tyme not the Samaritans but the Jewes and they whiche helde the faith of the Iewes wherevppon not the Samaritanes but the Iewes were then by Christ accounted the true worshippers of GOD and heires of saluation John 4.22 compared with verse 20.25 29. and with 2. King 17 24. In the like manner the people of these Ecclesiasticall assemblies standing subiect to a counterfett Ministerie and worship of God being also commingled togeather of all sortes of people Though they professe some truthes which otherwise are auailable to saluation yet can not in such estate by the word of God he deemed true Christians or true Churches Neither can so standing challendge vnto them selues the benefit of those true doctrines which they professe because God hath not made his promise vnto anie false Church or worshippers of him neither committed vnto anie such his holy things to witt his word prayer Sacramentes Censures c. But he hath made his promise committed these things only to his true Church and people which worship him aright and yeeld obedidience to his Gospell keeping whatsoeuer he hath commaunded them Wherevpon it followeth that such people onely are true Christians and true churches of Christ to whom the promises holy things apperteyne and not to the people and Ecclesiasticall assemblies of England neither anie such abiding in false worship or false constitution of a church as is aforesaide H. JOCOB his 1. Reply to the 6. Reason THis your 6. Reason is The Samaritans beleeuing that Messias should come Iohn 4.25 were as neare saluation as we of England are But they were false worshippers for all that Ergo so are we for all our holy doctrines beleeued according to that Booke of Articles I deny the Proposition The Samaritans might knowe by hearsay and beleeue the Messias should come and Baalam did know it Nom. 24.17 and the Deuils doe now know and beleue Iam. 2.17 Yet none of these beleeued in him It followeth not therefore that they were as nigh saluation as wee of England In a worde there is a Reason manifest These Samaritans ioyned Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel 2. Ki. 17. which wholy destroyed the trueth in them though they did reteyne some memoriall amongst them of Messias to come Wherfore here take the Second Answer to the First Reason before * Pag. 25. But I will help them with an Obiection surely one fitter then all these Obiection The Isralites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethell serued not Pagan Idols but the true God after their own deuises which yet resembled the ordinances of Ierusalem 2. King 12.32 Amos. 4.4 Howbeit they were false worshippers only for their false Ministery and outward false worship for all that they beleeued in the God of Ierusalem otherwise rightly Ergo so are wee of England only for our false Ministerie and outward worship Answere To this wee aunswere also what additions of deuices and how grosse Idolatrie they held it appeareth not But surely it seemeth farre grosser and filthier then the worst is with vs But yet this appeareth cleerelie that the conscience of euery of them euen of the simpliest must needes be conuicted that Ierusalem was the only place and Arons line the
iustifie Where you would snatch at an advauntage about Aarons line my meaning was that they of Aaron were only for Priests their bretheren of Leui only for Leuites But you passe this and you set your self in earnest to proue vs all conuicted in conscience aboute our Hyerarchie and ceremonies So that here you auouch openly that third generall poinct which I obserued in my very beginning aboue pag. 3. for the which you haue this Reason Haue not wee the scriptures as much as the Apostate Isralites had Or did not Christ as fully and plainly sett downe our ministerie and worship in the Gospell as Moses in the Law I aunswere this is true as touching the word it selfe In the Gospell we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word it selfe as the Iewes were in Moses But it is not yet so playne for our vnderstanding and vse Why Because wee haue had a discontinuance of the “ The Pastors of the Churches since haue had many corruptions mixed in their callings they haue not bene pure and simple euer since or at least wee cannot proue it otherwise by any recordes now extant simple offices of Pastours Teachers and Elders for the space of a Thousand Three hundreth or a Thousand Four hundreth Yeares and a continuance of the Prelacie all this while hetherto Also for that many auncient and late learned and Godly Christians haue beleued it at least cōuenient if not necessary in the Church And they haue expounded the Scriptures so that they carry no small ambiguity in this matter in infinite Thousands iudgement Thus it hath pleased God in his prouidence to suffer this mistaking amongest Christians thus longe and thus vniuersally Whereby it commeth to passe that infinite Thousand consciences are not easely conuicted though they bee mistaken in this case With the Iewes it was not so in this matter that we talke of As Moses and the Prophets were most plain that Ierusalem must be the onlie place of solemne worship Arons line the onely Priests no Calues nor any visible kinde of Image or meanes to worship God in So also they constantly and perpetually practized that course euen from Moses till the Apostacie of Ieroboam When any sqared from this course these were not onely rebuked expreslie by Gods voyce in his Prophets from time to time but also the obstinate were most fearfully smitten with Gods miraculous hand from heauen So that for any to offend in these poinctes as Ieroboam did It could not possible bee but in presumptuous rebellion with a high hand against God and with a conuicted seared conscience Which I say cannot with any shew of sence be said of many Thousand Christians in this case touching the Praelacie c. Further you vrge * these Reasons That this cause hath bene made manifest to the consciences of men Pag. 53. yea to the Parliament of late times You say well to the consciences of men but not to the consciences of all men or the most men throughout the land Yea or to the most of them that know and feare God according to the religion now mainteyned This is the very question If you meane so that all mens consciences are conuicted in this matter All men surely will either pitty your simplicitie or laugh at your folly I pray you Maister Iohnson consider your selfe you were a true Christian longe before you fell into this separation Yea moreouer you were learned yea you knew and acknowledged these very corruptions a great while and yet condemned vs not Nay you condemned the separation earnestly I pray you is it not possible that numbers who see not so farre as you did then should still condemne your separation and yet be true Christians as you acknowledge that your selfe then was meipso teste That which you ad of persecuting vnto bandes exile and death to proue our vtter abolishing from Christ generally It is a toy Pag. ibid. First if you were meerely innocent yet this could not make vs worse then the Iewes in Christes time who for all that they persecuted yet were they not wholly falne from God Secondly you suffer indeed more thē you need if that you would but acknowledge the grace of God with vs so farre as it is It is therefore not Christes Crosse in that regard but your owne that you beare Finally let it bee noted if here in this your 6. Reason you bee not directly contrary to your self as I haue obserued in your 2. Reason Maister Iohnson his contrarietie proued betwene his 2. Reason and his 6. Reason Pag. 39. For you say here Pag. 48. That not the Samaritans but the Jewes were then by Christ counted the true worshippers of God heires of saluation Ioh. 4.22 But in your Second Reason Pag. 35. you say They that teach for doctrine mens precepts as there Christ saith the Iewes then did those in particuler are no true Christians nor their assemblies true Churches Math. 15.9 Therfore you inferre or else you pretend it that those perticuler Iewes were not then true worshippers nor their assemblies true Churchest which is a flat contradiction Or else what is But if you say you meane not this of the Iewes then you abuse the scripture and vs turning it cleane from them whom in your Reason you speake of and whom Christ therein expresly meaneth Maister IOHNSONS VII Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON VII IF the Spirit of God accompt them to bee departers from the faith and consequently no true Christians which though they hold other truthes of the Gospell yet forbid to marry commaund to abstaine srom meates which God hath created to bee receiued with thankesgiuing Then what doeth the Lord accompt of them which forbid the true Ministerie and worship of God and commaund a false and of them also which partake therein Which to be the estate of the Prelates and other Ministers and people of these assemblies appeareth not only by their practize and persecution but also by the booke of Articles heere alleadged as may be seene in the 35. and 36. Articles compared with their booke of Cannons set forth Anno 1571. and with the Articles lately set forth by the * Richard Eletcher Prelate of London that now is and inquired of in his visitation Anno 1595. As also by other their Articles Cannons Aduerticements Iniunctions c. which were longe heere to rehearse But the former is true 1. Tim. 4.1 2 3. Therefore c. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 7. Reason THis your Seauenth Reason is They are departed from the faith that forbid to marry commaund to abstaine from lawfull meates Also this is worse then that viz. to forbid the true Ministerie and to commaunde a false which wee in England doe Ergo wee are departers from the faith I denie this Antecedent that is your Assumption with a distinction The Papistes * See Rhemi-Testa in Mat. 15.18 forbidding
papistes religion which make them in their estate to be departers frō the faith and consequentlie false christians and false Churches If there be as he can not denie it then of what weight is his answer to defende the present constitution of these people and assemblies for whom he pleadeth seeing there are diuers other thinges besides these that doe and may cause that they may not be deemed true Christiās or true Churches in that estate Many a Seruetus Sabellius Arius the Anabaptistes c. heretikes heretofore haue and at this day doe reiect these three aforesaid are they therfore in their estate to be accounted true Christians or true Churches So then his manner of reasoning heere for their defence is as if the Adulterers to iustifie their course of life should alleadge thus We are noe 1. Blaspemers 2. no Persecutors 3. No Murtherers as such and such are therefore we departe not from the way of life but our estate and course of life is good and such as may be continued in But the scripture teacheth otherwise sayinge b Iam. 2.10.11 Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Lawe and yet fayleth in one poincte is guiltie of all For he that sayed Thou shalt not commit adulterie saied also Thou shalt not kill Nowe though thou doest no adultery yet if thou killest thou art a transgressour of the Lawe and contrariwise So that what soeuer sinnes the Adulterer be farre from yet as c Pro. 6.32 Salomon saith Hee that committeth adulterie with a woman fayleth in heart and destroyeth his owne soule The same is the case of all spirituall Adulterers likewise who what so euer sinnes they be farre from yet in the worship of God runne a d Num. 15.39 whoring after their owne inuentions e Pro. 5.20 embracing the bosomes of strange women f Reuel 17.4 drinking of their cup of fornications Thirdly let him shewe vs sufficient warrant frō the scriptures why setting these three aside the other popish Hyerarchie and abominations receyued amongst them can not bee iudged to make them in such estate departers from the faith and therfore false Christians and false Churches whatsoeuer truthes they should hold beside If he cannot as who seeth not that it can not be donne then by this also it appeareth that his answer◠here is of no force for defence of their estate but against it as we haue declared before g Num. 16.12 c. Corah Dathan Abyram and their partakers were farre from the Abominations of the Heathen they helde also al the poinctes of faith that Moses and Aaron held differing onely from them and departing only from the faith in a matter concerning the Priesthood whereof also they h verse the. 3. shewed their reasons why they were so perswaded yet will he not denie we suppose but that they departed from the faith and were in this estate neither to be accounted true Israelits nor their assemblies true Churches with which communion might be kept If he should the scripture it selfe would witnesse against him herein Numb 16.26 Nowe compare case with case and tyme with tyme and the estate of these people and Assemblies of England wil bee found farre more grieuous as we haue already shewed both in the defence of our Second Exception before and in i In the answer to Master Hildersam and in the 9. Reasons concerning not hearing the Ministers of these assembties other Treatises to which yet we haue receiued no answer To conclude this poinct if their Abominations in England were farre fewer then they are yet so longe as they reteyne that poysonfull leauen of their Hyerarchie and worship wee must tell them as the Scripture saith and experience teacheth That “ 2. Kings 4.39.40 a litle poyson bringeth death vnto the whole pot of pottage A * 1. Cor. 5.6 litle leauen leaueneth the whole lump And a “ Eccle. 10.1 few dead flyes cause the oynctment of the Apothecarie to stinke and putrifie Although indeed their abominations are not a few but swarme in aboundance amongst them some whereof wee haue rehearsed before in the defence of our First Reason where the Reader may take a view of them Now in the next place fearing belike that the euidence of the scripture we alleadged could not by these shiftes of his be auoyded but that still the reason deducted from thence stood strong against them as we haue shewed it doeth therefore he would haue vs now passe by them and not apply this scripture to them Nota. or their mother Church of Rome but vnderstand it of Martion the heretike and Tatianus of whom he saith that they absolutelie condemning mariage and certen meates might indeed euen therin wholie fall from the faith somewhat like to Baalam Iudas and those Apostate Israelites lately spoken of namely for hauing their consciences conuicted and seared with an whote iron And thus sayth he are they in no comparison with them of England Well But first if his former answer were of any weight it might be asked why then the followers of Martion and Tatianus might not likewise haue defended them thus said that their departure from the faith was but in some poincts not wholy from all Secondly we answer that if this scripture was verified as he graunteth in Martion and Tatianus for their condemning of mariage and meates then we must needes also thinke it verified in the Romishe whoore and her apostate children whiche are falne into the verie sinnes that are heere mentioned Teh Apostle mentioneth Martion and Tatianus no more then he doeth the whoorish Babilon and the children of her Fornication but comprehendeth heere all such who so euer they be as shall fall into this Apostasie Nowe moreouer if the “ 1. Tim. 4.1 2 3. wordes of this scripture be duely weighed either other scriptures or the estate of the Romish Harlott and her children compared therewith it wil be founde as liuely to describe these as either Martion or any other that euer were in the world First when the Apostle sayeth that this shal be in the latter tymes who seeth not that it doeth most directly poinct at the Romish whoore though we doubt not but Martion also and Tatianus which liued twelue hundreth yeares since or thereabouts may also be comprehended therein Secondly when it is saide they shall departe from the faith thereby signifying that once they held the faith howe plaine is this of the Romish harlot which in the “ Rom. 1.7 Apostles time was the beloued spouse of God and since is falne into Apostacy and become the Mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth as the * 2. Thes 2.3 and Reu. 17.1 2 3 4 5. scriptures in other places witnesseth Thirdly whē it is said they shall giue heede to spirits of errour and doctrines of Deuils how fitly agreeth this to the Romish Babilon which as the scripture els “ Reu. 18.2 where testifieth is become the habitation of Deuils
Apostle to be separated from neither can in that case by the word of God be deemed true Christians H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 9. Reason THis your last Reason is Separat frō thē that teach otherwise then the truth 1 Tim. 6 3 4 5. We holding those Articles doe teach diuerse thinges in the Hyerarchie c. that be otherwise then is truth Therefore we must be separated from and consequently we are no true Christians This is a falacy also Separate from such Ergo separate wholy See my 1. and 2. Reply afore to the third Exception also the Answer to the two last Reasons of all the 7. and 8. We graunt therefore so farr forth as we hold otherwise then trueth so farr separate from vs but not any farther at all not wholly or absolutly And so the Apostle heere meaneth Wherefore briefly Because you proue vs not wholy to deny the trueth nor fundamentally nor obstinatly peruersly and desperatly any parte thereof like those Iewes Act. 19.8 whom Paul separated from which he did not from all other Iewes Act. 13.14 and 16.3 and 21.23 24 26. and 3.1 Therefore you ought not wholy to separate from vs Neither to condemne vs wholy as abolished from Christ no more then Maister Cranmer and Ridley were with their Congregations in King Edwards time And thus our Assumption in the beginning standeth firme The doctrine in the booke of Articles is sufficient to make a true Christian The contrarie whereof is such a Paradox Conclusion as hath not bene heard of till this day All reformed Churches in Europe doe and haue alwayes held otherwise Themselues * Mai. Barrow Mai. Penry Mai. Iohnson heretofore haue acknowledged and professed it The holy Martirs that liued in King Edwardes dayes and died in Queene Maries dayes must bee otherwise cut of from Christ who were true Christians by vertue of this doctrine and the practice thereof or verily not at all But now it is wonder what extreame passion hath driuen them to this deniall Surely they see that it conuinceth flatly as indeed it doth their peremptorie separation And therefore rather then they would seeme to haue erred in so mayne poinct wee cannot but thinke that meere desperatnes hath driuen them to it Neuerthelesse all this we leaue to the Lorde with the iudgment thereof who hath the hearts of all men in his hand not only to search the seacrets but also to turne and dispose them euen as it pleaseth him F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 9. Reason VNto our Nineth Reason aforesaide he answereth That it is a Fallacy separate from such Ergo separate wholy But howe shewes he any fallacie to be in our Reason Hee bids vs see his answere aboue to our third Exception also his answeres to the two last Reasons of all Well we haue seene them and finde nothing there but against him self as there hath bene shewed So this Reason then as the rest also still standes vnanswered and stronge against them And that we may not doubt but him selfe also seeth it to be so how soeuer he seemeth to pleade to the contrarie before therefore nowe he graunteth it and so yeeldes vs the cause both in expresse wordes and by not defending the 17. poinctes of false doctrine wherewith they were charged neither their owne Cannons Articles Iniunctions c. alleadged against them In expresse wordes whē he sayth they graunt that so farr foorth as they holde otherwise then trueth so farre we may and ought to separat from them Loe here what the euidence of the trueth against which they haue struggeled so longe hath now at length drawne from them The trueth is mighty and preuayleth But he addeth that we must not separate from them any further then as before not wholy or absoluteiy and so saieth he the Apostle “ 1. Tim. 3.3 here meaneth Well but let vs here knowe what this mā him self meaneth hereby If he meane that we must not for their other defectiō forsake the truthes which they holde We answere that we doe it not as him selfe knoweth and in this sence also his meaning should come nothing neare the Apostles meaning Themselues say they haue separated from the Papists yet he neither ean nor will say that they haue forsaken the “ As that ther is a God that there is three persons in the Godhead that Iesus Christ is the Sauiour of the worlde that God made heauen and earth that there shal be a resurrection of the iust and vniust truthes which the papistes held notwithstanding that they haue made separation from them But if he meane that because of the truthes which they professe therefore we should not separate from them then First he contradicteth him selfe hauing graunted that we must separate from them so far foorth as they hold otherwise then trueth Secondly he condemneth their owne practze in their separation from the Papistes notwithstanding the truthes they professe Thirdly in this sence also his meaning should come nothing neare the Apostles meaning Thus therefore it is euident both that there is no fallacie in our reason but that it is plaine and forceable against them And moreouer that he hath directly in expresse wordes yeelded vs the cause and acknowledged our separation from their assemblies ministerie worship c. And as he doeth this in expresse wordes so also he sheweth it in deed in that he leaueth without all defence as vnlawfull and to be separated from their Ministerie Worship and Gouuernement Ecclesiasticall the 17. poincts of false doctrine obiected against them and their Canons Articles Iniunctions c. mentioned both here and more particularly in the First and Second Reasons going before Which thing we wish the Reader well to obserue And because we are fallen againe into mention of the 17. poinctes of false doctrine to the end that the Reader may yet more see the deceitfulnes of his dealing and insufficiencie of all his answeres heere and before therefore it shall not bee yrke some to sett downe here before the Readers those 17. poinctes of false doctrine aforesaide specially seeing they are but short They are these as followeth Poinctes of false doctrine deliuered and spread abroad by the Writings Sermons and practise of the forward Preachers of the Parish assemblies of England with answeres to the same 1 That though the open notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Sacramentes yet neither the Sacramentes nor the people that ioyne with them are defiled thereby Which doctrine is contrarie to the trueth of God in these scriptures 1 Cor. 10 17. Hag. 2.14 15. 1 Cor. 5.6 and 10.28 2 Cor. 6.15 18. Gal. 5.9 Mat. 18.8 9 15 16 17 18 19. Exod. 12.43 Leuit. 15.4 5 6 7 31. and 11.24 and 23 45 46. and 19.17 Num. 5.2 3. and 19.21 22. Iosua 11.12 Ezra 6.21.22 Ier. 3.1 2 That the planting or reforming of Christes Church must tarrie for the Ciuill magistrate and may not otherwise be brought in by the word spirite of God
before The notorious dissolute wicked some were reclaimed all vndertook another profession a new appearance of Christianitie And no doubt the like is to be thought of these as before I obserued touching the ignorant men Now all this was done not intollerablie doubtlesse though I graunt weakely corruptly And very like euen to your owne receiuing into your Church at this time nay more tollerable and more lawfull then yours who to furnish onely one congregation haue receiued many knowne bad men and very ignorant yea and still retaine men full of contention bitter strife 1 Cor. 3.3 In a word this I answer That which disanulleth not a Church gathered and settled That disanulleth it not in the gathering and beginning But such mixtures doe not disanull a Church gathered and setled as appeareth aboue in the scriptures quoted against the First AccusatioÌ„ Mat 23. Luke 2. c. Therfore such mixtures did not disanull our Churches then in their beginning Accusa ∣ tion 3 The Third Accusation is our Assemblies remayne in obedience to the false Antichristian officers c. Let this be our generall sinne yet there is diuersitie of sinnes All are not of like detestation before God nor of like coÌ„sequence against vs. I say not that any sinnes are veniall but I say All sinnes by their nature are mortal yet doe they not al alike abolish vs from Christ nor depriue vs of the glory of God Now this sinne of outward church orders is not of the most heynous nor extreamest disobedience There are sinnes against the * 1 Cor. 15.3 3. 4. RoÌ„ 4.25 1 Cor. 3.10 11 12 13 14. foundation and there are sinnes that stande with the foundation ibid. wherein men liuing and dying ignorantly without perticular repeÌ„tance may be saued Such were the sinnes of the Iewish church and estate in Christes time and after as “ Beza in Acts 15.20 some thinke euen till their Temple and Citie were destroyed though they did personally hate and persecute Christ Such also was the sinne of the auncient declyning Bishops Epiphanius Augustine Chrisostom Leo of Rome c. No lesse was in ours of late Cranmer Ridley Hooper c. in King Edward dayes and no greater is now in ours presently especially touching our Churches Ministers too generally If you say we are all conuicted nowe and sinne against our coÌ„scieÌ„ces as they did not in those times It is vtterly false a palpable vntrueth Whosoeuer knoweth any thing in our church estate generally must needs see it that this poinct touching the Hyerarchy is not acknowledged euen of ignoraÌ„ce in a thousand to one many holding not of the simplest this present gouernement to be th' only true right kinde but all men almost to be indifferent lawful very few indeed scarse to be found that see it to be meerly nought or as you terme it wicked intollerable And in King Edwards time whosoeuer considereth shall finde that the godly learned ProtestaÌ„ts then were not vtterly ignorant of this poinct of reformation and yet sinned not against their conscience in bearing with the times neither were abolished from Christ And surely touching the Iewes they were all generally more conuicted then that Iesus was the Christ then we are now that the Prelacie is of Antichrist yet they remayned a church stil because generally indeed they were not plainly conuicted Thus theÌ„ this our sinne is * See the 2. sortes of fundamental sinnes in the 2. Reply to your 7. Reason before pag. 48. no way fundamentall it destroyeth not faith Christianity in our whole assemblies Therfore they remaine Christian people still as I affirmed not all godles prophane as he vncharitably speaketh O beware of rash and hasty iudging euen of one brother Rom. 14.3 4 13. how much more of such so many whole assemblies professing Christ in EnglaÌ„d Woe be vnto him which curseth where God curseth not Num. 23.8 As also indeed that blesseth where God blesseth not We desire you not to blesse vs in our euil but we warne you not to curse vs in our good which indeed turneth vs not to any furtherance but to a great hinderance and stumbling block stopping vs froÌ„ that sinceritie which els we should dravve nearer vnto Blessed is he that iudgeth wisely that is without affection partialitie euen of him that is despised Better it is and more Christian like euen to offende in too much compassion and patience especially towardes so many hundreth thousands by whom we know nought saue good in this poinct then to offend in too much rigor and seueritie vniust anger Mat. 5. â—2 Howbeit this were not indeed to offend as hath bene aboue shewed And briefly in twoo words thus I conclude it farther that That faith religioÌ„ taught in the booke of Articles published 1562. maketh the people that beleeue and obey the same true Christians such as so liuing and dying may be saued But our Church doeth so holde that faith Therefore they are true Christians The Proposition onely is doubted I had thought none so desperate as to deny it but lately I vnderstand they haue denyed it Howbeit for answer I referre them partly to that which here hath bene said before and especiallie to that which is replied to their Answer in the former Treatise which being well weighed I doubt not but all indifferent and Christian mindes will acknowledge our publique church assemblies in England to be true Christians REASON II. F. Iohns SEcondly the Priest doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage without the married first giue their consent But the Prelats make Ministers without before the peoples consent Therefore the comparison holdeth not H. Iacob FIrst it is very vaine to make this any matter viz. the peoples coÌ„senting either before or after the Prelats ordeyning For whether before or after it is in nature and value all one They in their ignoraÌ„ce hauing respect only to the Prelats act And if it were so that the Priest should sometymes marie a couple the Maide being meerly enforced and denying consent yet not striuing nor resisting and a while after shall willingly agree and like Out of question there is now true wedlock betweene them Euen so the case is betwixt the Church and the Minister 2. But what will they except here against those Pastors amoÌ„gst vs that were first chosen by the people they first professing their consent and are after instituted inducted by the Praelat Many are thus called amongst vs the most haue the peoples consent euen togeather at their first inducting at least wise they haue soone after by the peoples submitting mainteyning them euen presently 3. Lastly in a word where he saith the Praelats make Ministers without and before the peoples consent We “ Beza in Act 14.23 Fenner against Bridges Pag. 148. affirme that they make not the Pastor at all indeed and in truth but only supposedly It is the Churches consent that maketh him
truly whether before or after the Bishop that skylleth not If any thinke Imposition of hands to be simplie necessarie to the being of a Minister that is also an error cannot be proued REASON III. F. Iohns THirdly the people cannot chuse their Minister vnlesse the Prelate either before or after make him Minister But a couple may chuse each other whether the Priest will giue his consent or no. Therefore c. H. Iacob 1 WE deny your saying the peole cannot chuse They can chuse They haue power in Christ as being Christians though they know not their right therein The ignorance of this simply doth not cut vs of from Christ nor from this holy priuiledge no more then the blind Papistes haue lost their right power of marrying togeather without a Priest because they are ignorant of it 2. Againe where he saieth But a couple may chuse each other whether the Priest will marry them or no Let him marke That we speake of blind Papists that thinke that the Priest is the whole absolute and necessarie marriage maker If he say euen such haue right and power to marry though they be farre from knowing it and farther from practizing Then let him graunt the like in chusing a Minister to our Christians for so the comparison importeth Els if he meane those words of others that be mē of knowledge Then he fighteth with his shadow he toucheth not our question REASON IIII. F. Iohns IF any that by the word of God are not capable of marrying togeather as brother sister c. doe notwithstanding consent to take each other for man and wife yet are they not therefore lawfull man and wife So if a people and some man that by the word of God cannot chuse one another as Pastor and Church in their estate such as now is in this land doe notwithstanding consent to take each other yet are they not therefore lawfull Pastor and Church H. Iacob THis is wholy presumed and from the Question also Like to the first Reason and hath the same answer as is made to the first accusation there He reasoneth against people not capable of a Pastor And vve speake of true Christians vvhich are alvvayes capable He doth ill therfore in comparing this action to mariage betvvene brother sister vvho indeed cannot marry Happely he may likelyer compare it to a couple that haue liued both of them vvantonly Aftervvards they marrie togeather and this marriage if selfe they vse not soberly nor temperatly Hovvbeit for all this I professe these tvvo are truly man and vvife notvvithstanding Novv euen so our Churches and Ministers c. REASON V. F. Iohns THe Priests ioyning of the parties doeth not make them man and wife at all but only the parties mutuall consent But contrarily in the present ecclesiasticall cōstitution of England the Prelats ordination maketh the minister and not the peoples choyse at all H. Iacob THe Second Proposition vve here flatly deny It is ansvvered in our last vvords against the 2. Reason REASON VI. F. Iohns IF a woman consent to a man that is another womans husband they are not therefore man and wife So if a people consent to a false Minister they are not therefore true Church and Minister H. Iacob THis is answered as before in the Fourth Reason It carrieth some likelyhood indeed and some reason against Pluralities but nothing any further REASON VII F. Iohns IF when a man and woman giue consent each to other the man doe afterwards giue his body to another and so commit adultery Then is the marriage knot broken So if after a people haue chosen a man to be their Minister hee giue himself to another a false Ministerie and so commit spirituall whoredome Then is the former knot broken H. Iacob THe taking of orders from a Praelate after consent giuen to a Miniter by a people is not like adultery in mariage especially whereboth Pastor and people are simply ignorant of that error Therefore that disanulleth not as adultery doth the wedlock So this Reason is much like to the last before and the answer not vnlike to that of the Fourth Reason likewise For That which at the First maketh not vncapable That same afterwards doeth not dissolue But this error maketh not christians vncapable at the first as there is shewed and in the Third chieflie Therefore neither can it dissolue afterwards the Couenant betweene the Pastor and the people This last Treatise hath remayned in their hands these Three yeeres and more vnanswered FINIS
light of conscience nature togeather wherewith a liuely sauing faith cannot possibly stand Now the Papists in this do departe from the faith also but that is only in some sorte or in parte because they forbid these things not absolutly but vnto some sometimes They that departe thus from the faith may bee true Christians notwithstanding yea they are certenly if they be no worse in any thing els albeit you deny it here most fondly without all sence To which end you most vnlearnedly and vngodly apply those scriptures Scriptures abused A litle leauen leueneth the lump A few dead flyes make the oyntment to stincke and a little poyson bringeth death Will you haue no tainte of euell in a Christian but it quencheth the life of God in vs needes Is it not possible your selues might hold some such errors and yet remayne true Christians notwithstanding Then if Papists were no worse but in those errors only they might be true Christians notwithstanding But Martion and Tatianus doe wholy departe from the faith not but that they beleued some truthes but in that they “ The same did Corah Da than and Abyram likewise See before in answer to the 2. Exception the a Reply presumptuously quenched the instinct of nature conscience as I haue said Here then it appeareth how wicked a sclaunder it is that you say I runne into the Papistes tents and fight with their weapons doe iump with the Remists annotations on 1. Tim. 4.1 2 3. Iudge now by this that I haue said whether I doe or no. And note that I saye that they be either Apostates or departers from the faith not onely who fall totally as you sclaunder me that I saye but also who fall fundamentally that is eyther the first way or second as I haue afore saide And so doe these grosse Heretikes whom you mention 1 Arius Seruetus Papistes c. 2. Martion Tatianus Iudas Corah Balaam the Apostate Israelites c. Thus then your questions and demaundes about the Papistes and their errors I passe by as more vayne then pertinent Onely note withall if this reason of yours were good it maketh Maister Cranmer Ridley c. to be departers from the faith no true Christians Maister IOHNSONS VIII Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON VIII IF the Apostle accoumpted them denyers of the faith and worse then infidels and consequently no true Christians who though they held other truthes of the Gospell yet prouide not for their household Then what will he accoumpt of them who though they professe some truthes of the Gospell yet are not true worshippers of God but execute or submit vnto a false ministerie worship and gouernment ecclesiasticall Which to be th' estate of the Ministerie and people of these assemblies appeareth as aforesaid But the first is true 1 Tim. 5.8 Therefore c. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 8. Reason THis your Eight Reason is thus much viz. Like as it is for a professor not to prouide for his houshold so is it to hold the Hierarchy c. But that is to deny the faith and to bee worse then an infidel Ergo so are we in England Those very answers to the last Reason doe fully and flatly satisfie this also Either against the Assumption namely that it is not meant simply of denying the faith nor * I meane Fundamentally as in the last Reason before I haue shewed wholy but in this poinct only Or els the propositiō as being meant of such as neglect their families against the light of their consciences and the manifest instinct of nature F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 8. Reason FOr answere of our said Eight Reason he referreth vs to those answers of his to the last Reason which he saith doth fully and flatly ' satisfie this also for the proposition and Assumption But this which he saith we haue in the defence of that Reason declared to be altogeather vntrue Therefore yet we haue receiued no answere either to that Reason or this That thus it standeth we referre the Reader for it vnto that which is said in defence of that Reason aforesaid wishing the Reader moreouer to obserue both there and here in his answer to the Reason following that the power of the truth so preuaileth against them as they cannot but graunt that they departe from and deny the faith in their ministerie worship and gouernement ecclesiasticall as appeareth in their Canons booke of Common prayer Articles Iniunctions persecutions c. All which beeing mentioned vnto them as proofes thereof in these seuerall reasons when now they should defend these particulers if they would maintaine their standing behold they are as mute as a fish therein and not that onely but in their aunswer to the next Reason following graunt vnto vs that in these things we may and ought to separate from them Which is directly to yeeld vs the cause Thus soundly they answer vs and dispute for themselues H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 8. Reason TO this your Eight Reason and defence thereof I aunswer as before If you take the Apostle to meane such neglecters of their houshold as deny the faith not Fundamentally nor against the instinct of nature but only against conuenient Christian prouidence and no otherwise Then I deny your Assumption If the Apostle meane of such as neglect their families against the light of confcience natures instinct then I deny the Proposition This I say because the Apostle may very well meane both these but in a diuerse measure and proportion of sinne but then this concerneth not vs Euen so as I haue said to your former Reason Note also if this were a true Reason it maketh Maister Cranmer c. denyers of the faith and no true Christians also For maintenance where of you haue here not one poore word at all Touching that you say we cannot deny but graunt that wee departe from and deny the faith in our Ministerie I haue told you how in my answer to your 7. Reason Also see my Replies to your 2. Exception Maister IOHNSONS IX Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON IX THey which teach othewise and consent not to the wholsome wordes of our Lord Iesus Christ and to the doctrine which is according to godlines are by the rule of the Apostle to be separated from and therefore cannot in that case by the word of God be deemed true Christians 1. Tim. 6.3.4 5. But that so it is with the ministers and people of these assembles in regarde of their ministerie worship and Church constitution appeareth by the Seauentene poincts of false doctrine c. which are already set down and by the proofes before alleadged out of their own cannons Articles Iniunctions c. Therefore the Ministers and people of these assemblies in regard of their ministerie worship and Church constitution are by the rule of the
them for the Praelacie against you and are vnanswered And yet will you say they are cōuicted and those infinite others depending on them I say conuicted aswell as those Iewes What if these speake euill of that which you hold for truth but they hold to be errors and schisme Are they all yea all the Land therefore abolished from Christ Might not all this at least be said of the whole estate of the Iewes in Christes time and after aswell yet they ceased not to bee Churches why then are you so partiall against vs Lastly you would shew Reasons why the Apostles wholy separated not from the Iewes Synagogues after Christ Act. 13.14 c. Which you will in no wise haue to serue vs. But alas for all your Exceptions against vs you haue neuer a reason but one and that is petitio principij That wee were neuer separated from the world nor set in the way order of Christ but in the confusion and defection of Antichrist whose Ministerie c. were neuer the ordinances of God c. This is but crauing the whole question And I haue refuted these quarelles in a short writing hereafter following about the comparison of the Ministerie with Mariage which yet you haue no leysure to answer this whole three yeares togeather and vpwarde And further you doe not shew any vtter and absolitte separation from the whole Church of the Iewes a great while after Christ but the contrarie is seene Act. 21.23 24 26. though from some one or two synagogues they separated after full experience of ther obstinate and malitious resistance of the truth which we deny not Touching the Conclusion IN the conclusion of my former Replie to proue your vtter separation from vs a Paradox First I alleadged all the reformed Churches For who knoweth not but they all hold Communion with vs as Churches of God yet you dare either deny this or vtterlie peruert it Yow tell vs of your Answers to Maister Cartwright and Maister Hildersham that are vnanswered If they by like to this your answer here verely they doe wisest in yeelding silence to such friuolus and wandring wordes Secondly I alleadged your selues to haue acknowledged heretofore That our publique doctrine allowed would and did make many of vs true Christians You too shamefully deny it And say you are for witnessing against it imprisoned banished c. Whereto I answere that if for these things you are troubled I know none can pittie you And because you say none of you euer acknowledged it I will therefore repeat your owne wordes Mr. BARROW in his last answer in writing to Mr. Gifford intituled A few obseruations to the reader of Mr. Giff last Reply Sect. 4. saith thus The next calumniations whereby Mr Gifford indeuoreth to bring vs into hatred with the whole Lande is That we condemne all the persons both men and women of England which are not of our minde and pluck them vp as tares wherein me thinkes he doeth vs open wrong if not against his owne cōscience yet against our expresse writings euery where c. Haue we not commended the faith of the Englishe Martirs deemed them saued notwithstanding the false offices and great corruptions in the worship they exercised not doubting but the mercy of God through their syncere faith to Iesus Christ extended and superabonnded aboue all their sinnes seene and vnseene And what nowe should let that we should not haue the same hope where the same pretious faith in synceritie simplicitie is found So that they neither neglect to search out the trueth nor despise the trueth when they see it c. Afterwards in the same Section The faithfull seruants of Christ denying the whole constitution and gouernment of this Church of England may iustlie deny the people whilest they remayne in that constitution to bee members of a true constituted Church yet hereby not condemne them with any such peremptory sentence as Maister Gifford suggesteth to cut them of from Gods election Nota. From Christ or from Christ Mr. PENRIE in his confession of faith published in writing a litle before his death saith thus The trueth of doctrine touching the holy Trinitie touching the Natures and Offices of Christe Justifying faith Sacramentes Eternall life and the rest established by her Maisties Lawes and professed by her selfe their Honors and such as haue knowledge in the Assemblies of this lande J acknowledge from my heart to be such as if J mainteyned not the vnitie and helde not the communion of the same doctrine with them in these poinctes J could not possibly be saued For out of the Communion of the true profession which her Maiestie hath established in these and the like truthes there is no hope of saluation left But ioyne notwithding with the publique worship in the assemblies of this Land I dare not for the former causes J doe moreouer willingly confesse That many both of the Teachers also of the Professors within these Parish assemblies haue so embraced this trueth of doctrine established and professed in this Land as the Lord of his infinite goodnes hath graūted thē the fauour to shew outwardly many tokens whereby in regard of the Lordes election I professe before men and Angells that I iudge them to be members of that body whereof the Sonne of God Christ Iesus is the head Onely herein the Lord be mercifull vnto them as to my self in regard of my sinnes That they are not vnder that outward forme of gouernement that Christ hath left c. And in his examination before Maister Fanshaw lately published by your selues in print he confesseth the Churches of England to be the true Churches of Christ. And what say you Maister Iohnson Haue you not affirmed this thing your selfe to me and to Maister Philips namely touching your owne selfe when you were of vs That then you doubted not but you were a true regenerate Christian. By vertue of what doctrine By extraordinarie reuelation Nay but by our publique doctrine of our Church when you stoode and continued a publique Minister of the same If you beleued so of your selfe and that truely what letteth but you may beleeue the like of many Thousands nowe Further where you say my applying of the Martirs is answered before Let the Reader iudge You shewe here that some of them misliked the Hyerarchie But it maketh stronger against you seeing for all that they them selues refused not to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians as Hoper Bale Bradford c. After where you say though the reformed Churches your selues and the Martirs haue thought otherwise then you nowe doe yet all this is no sound proofe against you Yes in deed that nowe you holde a Paradox those witnesses are sufficient for that wherevnto may be added the whole Churches iudgement and practize with all the auncient learned Fathers these 1300. or 1400. yeres Chrisostom Epiphanius Naziāzen Hyerom Austen Ambrose c. They all haue thought that vnder the
Prelacie and humane ceremonies men may be true Christians Then these witnesses are sufficient that your deniall hereof is a strange and vnusuall opinion that is a Paradox Finally to trie vs you propound a many of questions But I leaue all this superfluous stuffe to your selfe to be pondered First let vs cleare this present question and your Reasons here about Till then wee haue no leasure to meddle further The Lord of his mercy open your eyes to see your extremitie whereby you doe greatlie hinder not helpe the trueth which you would seeme to suffer for That you may indeed shewe your self as becometh a Christian Pastor not impossible to erre but no louer of error * Not a striueâ— for victorie but a loues of â—â—th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not regarding your own but the praise of Christ in all things AMEN FINIS A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE TRVENES OF A PASTORALL CALLING IN PASTORS MADE BY PRAELATES Against the Reasons and Obiections of Maister FRANCIS IOHNSON with others of the separation commonly called Brownistes 1599. An Argument shewing the trunes of a Pastorall calling in Pastors made by Prelates Taken from a familiar comparison gathered out of the confessions of Maister Iohnson and others of the separation aforesaid The Argument of Comparison is this AS a couple of ignorant people not contracting but meaning to marry and yet thinking that vnlesse a Priest marry them their marriage is nothing wheras indeed their publique accepting each of other maketh the marriage Now beeing married though “ As themselues hold vnlawfully by a Priest yet their marriage is true and lawfull notwithstanding EVen so a Christian people meaning to haue a sufficient man to their Pastor yet thinking that vnlesse a Prelate doe make him he is no Pastor at all neither can be theirs Notwithstanding he being made a Pastor though “ As they also doe acknowledge vnlawfully by the Prelate yet by their mutuall accepting and ioyning togeather hee is now verely a Pastor yea their Pastor true and lawfull H. IACOB Against the said Argument were brought Seauen Reasons by Maister Iohnson and others which doe hereafter follow togeather with Maister Iacobs Replies to the same REASON I. F. Iohns FIrst infidels idolaters prophane and godles persons may marry togeather with consent and choyse of each other notwithstanding their prophanenes and their marriadge is therein lawfull But it standeth not so with the choyse of Ministers in the Church For 1. prophane and godlesse persons such as these assemblies consist of 2. neuer rightly gathered togeather according to Gods holy ordinance 3. remayning in subiection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers courts consisting of all sorts of people c. are not capable of chusing or ioyning vnto a true Minister in this estate as infidels may marry in the same estate There fore the comparison will not hould neither is such choice of a Minister by such people lawfull But these assemblies consist of such people c. Ergo c. H. Iacob THe strength of this Reason standeth in these last wordes But these assemblies consist of such people 1. prophane godles persons 2. neuer rightly gathered togither according Gods ordinance 3. remayning in subiection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers courts Ergo c. These three accusations auaile nothing at all Accusa ∣ tion 1 The first Accusation is from our question for we speake of a Christian people but he of assemblies coÌ„sisting of prophane and godles persons If he say our assemblies all wholy are such That is false If he say some are Of them we speake not If he say in all euery one of our assemblies there are some yea many open prophane and godles persons 1. It is too bold a saying without knowledge to speak so of all 2. If it were true yet it were false to saye our assemblies consist of such or to thinke that whole companies of Christians by such commixtures are made vnholy prophane and godles which is contrary to these scriptures Mat. 23 2 3. Luke 2.21 22. 1.6 Act. 21.23 26. 1 Sam. 2.17 and cap. 1. verse 3.9 Reuel 2.20 21 and 3.1 4. 1 Cor. 3.3 Gal. 3.1 2. 4.11 16. and 5.4.9 Accusa ∣ tion 2 The second Accusation that our assemblies were neuer rightly gathered togeather at the first according to Gods ordinance I denie it especially touching many famous Congregations in the Land where the gospell was not vnknowen before the Queenes commaundiment came to vrge theÌ„ to receyue this doctrine And if the maner of receyuing it then in those hard and doubtfull times and hazardous beginnings were not so perfect nor so exact as should haue bene yet we may see by the example of “ 2 Chro. 30.17 18 19 20. Hezechias and * 2 Chro. 33.15 16 17. Manasses and †Zepha 1.4 5. and 3.1 Ier. 3.6 c. and 4.1 c. and 5.1 c. Iosias reformations That God imputeth it not to such godly and zealous restorers the pillers and ground of the trueth in those dayes If you say the vntaught people then suddenly receyuing the gospell by commandement not by hearing could not beleeue at the first though they professed and therefore at the firste were no true Christians nor Churches I answer 1. Though many receiued the Gospell for the commandements sake yet who can say That nowe they all generally wanted all knowledge and all faith The word then hauing bene in many places taught very many bookes scattered much conference daily consultations and disputations vsed and the blood of the Martirs hauing preached so loud and so lately before 2. It was not so sudden There was “ From Nouember the 17 till Midsomer following more then halfe a yeare for the people to heare learne and consider before the commandement came So that it can not be counted meere force and compulsioÌ„ that at the beginning of our Queenes reigne brought vs to the trueth 3 I would know They condemne not I hope all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate 2 Chro. 34.32 33. and 33.16 and 15.13 Seeing therefore the assemblies thus openly aduisedly submitted to the proclaimed trueth who seeth not but they coÌ„fessed therein their former errors and professed their present faith and vndertooke a newe life from that which before they led though happely not so formallie nor so perfectly as were to haue bene wished Obiection But they receiued all togeather Papistes Atheistes ignorant men all dissolute liuers into one communion and fellowship Answer Indeed all who after this aduizement and notice takeÌ„ submitted to receyued this doctrine these were all receyued in And therefore no open professed Papistes Athistes nor other Heretikes As for ignorant men it is not possible but many will scape among the rest in so great and so generall reformation of a publike state And so questionles it was in Hezechias Manasses and Iosias reformation 2. Chron. which we noted