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
therewith And thus their Obiection of the Iewish constitution is I trust fully answered So that still their peremptory separation and condempning of the Churches of England for some outward corruptions temayneth still a grieuous sinne vpon their heades for which without harty repentance they shall one day answer before God which will be too heauie a burthen for them to beare Lastly concerning our corruptions As we cannot iustifie them to be no corruptions but must needes acknowledge that there are many yet remaining in our land which were left by that man of sinne are as thornes vnto our sides Iudg. 2.3 which we hope God will in time abolish So dare we not runne into your extremities to condempne our Churches for such corruptions but waight the appoincted time of God for the redresse thereof Yet in the meane time so longe as those most excellent truthes and doctrines of saluation for which God make vs thankfull are still reteyned and held as soundly as by any Church vpon the face of the earth the other errors not simply ouerthrowing the same beeing not held of obstinacy and being also for the most parte of great controuersie and disputation amonge the learned So long I say communion in things lawfull is to be kept with them as before is noted in the example of other Churches Otherwise it will come to passe by reason of the * Mat. 25.13 to 23. diuersitie in opinions and iudgmentes which by the corruption of our nature we remaine in in this tabernacle as hath “ Leu. 4. Psal 19.12 bene in all ages and * 1 Cor. 13.9 12. shal be so long as this life of imperfection indureth that no communion can euer bee had with any Church liuing no nor any one Christian with another Which to affirme were most absurd and vngodly These obseruations beeing considered I doubt not but the Lorde will adde a blessing to this worke That such as are simple hearted and haue exceeded in eagernesse of zeale may see their extremitie in so rashly and vnaduisedly separating from and condempning the Churches of England sometimes their Nurses and Mothers as before is noted Whereby God may haue the glory and themselues the comforte euen the saluation of their soules through Christ D. B. AN ARGVMENT PROVING THAT the Churches of England are the true Churches of God VVHatsoeuer is sufficient to make a particuler man a true Christian and in state of saluation That is sufficient to make a companie so gathered togeather to bee a true Church BVt the whole doctrine as it is publiquelie * Booke of Articles published Anno 1562. professed and practized by law in England is sufficient to make a particuler man a true Christian and in state of saluation * See further for these words in Pag. 3. and our publique Assemblies are therein gathered togeather THerefore it is sufficient to make the publique Assemblies true Churches H. IACOB Against the Assumption of the said Argument Mr Iohnson made 3. Exceptions and 9. Reasons which hereafter follow in order Together with Mr Iacobs Replies vnto the same But before we come to the examination of the saide Assumption let vs see first what he saith against the Proposition Fr. IOHNSON TO omitt the Proposition vntill it better appeare by their defence of the Assumption how to take and vnderstand it we will for the present only shewe the weakenes of the Assumption and this also the rather because they seeme wholy to depend vpon it H. IACOB THe answerer omitteth the Proposition for in deed it is most certen But he denyeth the Assumption which yet is as certen also That the doctrine in our booke of Articles is sufficient to make a true Christian Fr. IOHNSON In our former answere to this argument we omitted the proposition not because of the certentie of it euery way as the Replier dreameth but vntill we might see by his defence of the †The Assumption is examined and maintained Pag. 4. assumption how to take it as thē we noted Nowe therefore hauing seene in his reply the vnlearned vngodly and vnconscionable pretences by which he would seeme to defende the Assumption when in deed he doth nothing else but cast a miste before the eyes of the simple we giue him to vnderstand that the whole argument is lame and faultie in euery parte thereof The Proposition is not absolutelie true as it appeareth he vnderstandeth it by his defence of the Assumption The Assumption is not only false as we proued in our former answer but also lacketh a foote whereon it should goe if it were perfect and entier For whereas in the Proposition mention is made not only of the making of a true Christian but also of a companie so gathered together he should in the Assumption if he would haue had it sound and perfect not onely haue assumed that the doctrine c. is sufficient to make a true Christian but haue added also that their assemblies be cōpanies so gathered togither Which being not done both the Assumption wanteth one of the feete and the conclusion inserreth more then was in the premisses and so the whole silogisme is faultie and disfigured Thus might we without any further answer returne this argument to the first framers of it to be better fashioned Yet in hope that they may bee brought through the blessing of God to receiue the loue of the trueth that they may be saued and with their giftes no more to plead for and deck the whore of Babilon to help forward the building beautifying of Sion we will more particularly lay open to them the weaknes of this his reply And first whereas he affirmeth that the Proposition is most certen yet in his defence of the Assumption he declareth that he so taketh it as whatsoeuer amongst them be iointly togeather held and ioyned with that which otherwise might make a ture Christian or a true Church yet notwithstanding they are so to be reputed as if there were no such additions or commixtures we answere that in this sence the Proposition neither is nor can be absolutely true as it ought to be if they would haue their argument good For who knoweth not that such “ Gal. 5.2.4 things may bee ioined with Christ as abolish from Christ. And againe †2. Cor. 6.14 25. that Christ and Antichrist can not accord togither Either therefore the Proposition is not generall but admitteth limitations and then is not the Argument good Or if it bee generall without any limitation so as whatsoeuer be added too or cōmingled with that which otherwise might make a true Christian or a true Church yet it hindreth nothing at all Thē is it not absolutely true in such vnderstanding as may appeare by the former exceptions diuers other that might be alleadged Next touching the Assumption besides that it is lame as before is shewed it is also vntrue as in our former answer appeareth Some balme in deed this man
directlie of the breach of the Second Commaundment ioyning togeather in the worship of the true God their inueÌ„tions with Gods ordinances I say it is most manifest that he speaketh not of the breach of the Second Commandement onely but also of the first wherein men haue their inuentions also The Prophet sheweth vers 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple againe whence he was departed for the abominable idolatries that had ben there committed before to shew that he would restore lerusalem and the Temple and worship of God againet He meaneth this literally of the returning of the Iewes after Babilons captiuitie and of the reedifying of the Temple and the appointing againe of Gods holy worship there Also spirituallie he may meane the erecting of the Christian Church wheÌ„ they should not fal to such impieties as the Iewes had done nowe in that time before for the which he had departed away from them Nowe if we aske what were those Idolatours in Ierusalem and in the Temple before Ezekiels time for the whiche the Lord forsooke them it is manifest in Ahas in Manasses and Amon and in the Kings after Iosiah That the Iewes idolatrie was verie Heathenish not onely against the Second but against the First Commandement also in ioyning the Heathen gods with the true God of Izraell in their Diuine seruice and worship Therefore this place of Ezekiell is as I say Not of the breach of the Second commandment onely simplie as our church corruptions are but ioinctlie touching the breach of the First also The verie same is that your Third scripture pag. 30. 2 Kings 17 33 34 40 41 of the Samaritans Idolatrie â— King 17. wherein because you are large I will deferr to explaine it till your Sixt Reason following where is a proper place for it 4 Lastlie in pag. 31. you agrauate the breach of the Second Commandment as being spirituall whordome c. But I would haue you to know Things may be mismatched too cruelly as well as too gentlie There is a sinne both wayes when things are not called by their proper and right names Is it true in some sence euery breach of the Second Commandement is spirituall whordome as euery wanton word euery light gesture and countenance euery immodest thought in a Woman is Adulterie yet who so shall angerlie and continuallie so call a woman whore harlot or baude that but thinketh or looketh or speaketh too vainly shall doe her great wronge and inâ—â—â—â—e the iust daunger of lawe Neither can shee nor ought shee in such case be diuorced as an Adulteresse ought And thus it appeareth 〈◊〉 still that you sinne again stabe Third Commaundment in misapplying of scriptures In the ende in pag. 31. where you saye To the proofe of your Assumption I answere neuer a worde which most of all required answere This I tell you that it is your fancie and not my meaning heere to answere to your Proposition First and then to your Assumption to say nothing Nay if you had not dreamed you might easilie haue perceyued that all my first wordes viz. where I say your speech here is vnproper c. are bent directly against your Assumption and the proofe thereof although at this time I expressed not those termes Secondly I shewe that your scriptures applyed to proue the Proposition are altogither vnfitt and intollerably abused if you meane them in that sence as your Assumption must be meant that is to say as they touch vs. This a verie childe might haue seene Maister Iohnson So that your marginall scoffe at my sound and schollerlike dealing doeth light on your self and bewrayeth eyther your deepe skill or your ouerflowing charitic As for the rest That I should iustifie our corruptions it is no part of my minde neither belongs it to our present cause so to doe Maister IOHNSONS II. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON II. THat which appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vaine That cannot make either true Christians or true Churches But the doctrine publikely professed and practized by law in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine Therefore c. Of the trueth of the Proposition none can doubt And the Assumption is thus proued That which appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God by the precepts of man That appoincteth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine This Christ affirmeth out of Esay the Prophet Mat. 15.9 compared with Esay 29.13 But the doctrine publiquely professed practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Article of the booke alleaged And by their booke of CoÌ„mon prayer their Fastes Feastes Holy dayes c which are executed by their Popish Courts and Officers All which are authorized by Law in England Therefore the doctrine publiquely professed and practized by lawe in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine And consequently cannot make a particuler man a true Christian nor the assemblies so gathered together true Churches H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reason THis your Second Reason is This booke and others appoincteth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine Ergo c. 1. This also hath answere in the third ExceptioÌ„ Pag 22. 2 Also noâ—e I pray you this Scripture Mat. 15. is verified of such as were theÌ„ of the true visible †Marke his open contrarietie with him self graunting this in Reas 6. Church with whom Christ and his Apostles both in Christes time and after his death did sometimes ioyne and comunicate This therefore maketh for vs and against you most notably F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Reason OVr Second Reason is as you see now what proposition doth he deny Truely none at all What defence bringeth he of their booke of coÌ„mon prayers and the particulers therein Of their Prelacie other Ministerie receiued from them according to their booke and Pontificall Of their Canons and Excommunications c. Surely none What then doth he answere Forsooth he referred vs to his anuswer before in the last exception Whether also we referre the Reader with this note that there he shall finde nothing either for aunswer of anie proposition of this argument or for defence of their false worship Praelacie Ministerie and Church gouernement called into question Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like answere And haue not these men thinke you good proofe for their present estate and Church constitution Which thus leaue it altogeather without defence euen when it most needeth and as it were beg geth their help and succor if they could affoard it anie But now hauing no aunswer to any parte of our argument yet hee bids vs note that this Scripture Mat. 15. here alleaged is verified of such as were then of the true visible Church with whom Christ himself and his Apostles both in Christs time and after his death
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
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
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
these be most vnnaturall additions and very manie The like doe I affirme of these externall corruptions in the Church Which my sentences you goe not about to refute but onelie with wordes with bare yea and nay and no more Mr Iohnsons I. REASON against the former Assumption with Mr Iacobs Replies to the same Hauing before noted 3. Exceptions out of their doctrine and booke alleadged we nowe proceede to shewe the weakenes of their Assumption aforesaid by these 9. Reasons following REASON I. THat which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather can not make a true Christian 2 Cor. 6.14 15 16. with Ezech. 43.8 and 2. Kings 17.33 34 40 41. Bvt that doth the doctrine and booke alleadged as may be seene by comparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest And furthermore it appeareth both by their profession which is to be seene in their booke of Cannons set foorth anno 1571. and in other their Articles Jniunctions Aduertisements c. published at other tymes and by their practize also which is to be seene in their Ministerie Worship and Church gouernement euen to this day Therefore c. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Reason THis your first Reason is thus That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather can not make a true Christian But that doth this Booke Ergo c. I say you must mende your vnproper speache that Christ and Antichrist is there ioyned togeather you meane Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist then so speake and say not Christ and Antichrist simply Which things yet we thinke to be Christes own as we * Pag. 12. 18. 19. shewed in the Second Exception before Therefore this reason is answered as the last Exception before The Swanne is blacke of his bill Ergo the Swan is blacke and my brother hath a wodden legge Therfore my brother is a wodden man So here this booke ioyneth Christ and some orders of Antichrist Therefore it ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather which are most fonde conclusions Furthermore the scriptures alleadged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek 43. 2. Kings 17. are wholy mismatched the ioyning there forbidden is vnto such idolatrie as can not stande by any meanes with Christian faith and breaketh most directlie the First commandment Our transgression your selues do iudge to be but against the Second and such as hath stood and may stand togeather with true faith as in Maister Cranmer c. * Namely the Idolaters in those places spoken of They did not so much as professe the written lawe to be their rule neither for outwarde orders nor their inward doctrines of faith But your selues knowe we professe and practise that namely so as is shewed before in the Seconde “ Pag. 11. 1. 18. Exception Therfore to applie those scriptures in this vnto vs is your great sinne euen against the third Commaundment which is your common custome as all doe see and pitie viz. To take the name of God in vaine by misusing his worde F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Reason HIs answere here is First concerning the Proposition of this reason then concerning the Assumption Concerning the Proposition First he saith Our speach is vnproper that Christ and Antichrist is there amongst them ioyned togeather Secondly he taketh vpō him to expound our words and meaning to be thus Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist To this we answere First that it is meete that we not he expound our owne meaning whiche togeather with the proprietie of the speech will afterwards appeare in our defence of the Assumption against his answere thereto His answere therefore concerning the Assumption is this First That the things among them which we charg to be of Antichrist they thinke to be Christes owne For proofe whereof here ferreth vs to his answere to our Second exception going before whether also we referre the Reader for answere to him againe Secondly forgetting him selfe he graunteth that in deed they be orders of Antichrist yet that they are but as the blacknes of the Swannes bill to the rest of the body Well then by his owne confession they are of Antichrist and therefore not Christes owne as before he saide and laboured to prooue Thus at once both he contradicteth him selfe and ouerthroweth that which he answered * Pag. 1◠before to our Second exception This were sufficient to manifest their deceiptfull and euill dealing But that it may more fullie appeare specially seeing bee would dazell the peoples eyes with these mincing wordes of some outward ceremonies orders of Antichrist comparing them with the blacknes of the swans bill as if they were but a fewe and of small moment Therefore will we reckon vp some of their Antichristian enormities and abhominations for it vere infinite to nomber them all And then let the Reader iudge of his inswere and their estate whether it be not more like the blacke Rauen with a white bill then the white Swanne with a blacke Sorie we are that we should thus trouble the Reader or our selues specially considering that alreadie we haue mencioned diuers of the particulars following But seeing we are constreyned herevnto by their slie and colourable answere in this place therefore can we not but doe it for the clearer manifestation of the trueth better discouering of their deceiptfulnes In which respects we intreate the Reader also to take in good parte and duely to weigh the repetition and recapitulation following Antichristian abominations yet reteyned in England 1 The cōfusion of al sortes of people in the bodye of their Church euen the most polluted and their seede beeing members thereof 2 The offices and callinges of Arch L. Bishops 3 Lord Bishops 4 Suffragans 5 Prelates Chauncellours 6 Deanes 7 Subdeanes 8 Prebendaries 9 Cannons 10 Petty cannons 11 Chaunters 12 Virgerers 13 Pistlers 14 Gospellers 15 Queristers men and boyes 16 Organistes 17 Organ Flowers 18 Arch deacons 19 Subdeacons 20 Deacons or half priests 21 Priestes 22 Parsons 23 Vicars 24 Curates 25 Vagrant Mercinarie Preachers 26 Churchwardens 27 Clerkes and Sexions 28 Chaplaynes 29 Doctors of Diuinitie 30 Bachelours of Diuini 31 Doctors and 32 Proctors in the Prelates courtes 33 Commissaries 34 Officialls 35 Registers 36 Summoners with the rest of that Antichristian and viperous generation 37 Their Ministration of the word Sacramentes gouernment of their church by voriue of the offices aforesaid 38 The titles of Primate Metropolitane Lordes grace Lordship c. ascribed to the Prelates 39 The inferior Prelates swearing obedience to the Metropoliticall seas of Cāturburie York 40 The inferiour Ministers when they enter into the Ministerie promising obedience to the prelats their ordināces and when they are inducted to benefices confirminge it with their oath 41 The Deacons and Priests presentations to a Lorde Bishoppe by an Archdeacon 42 Their receyuing of orders of the Prelates or their Suffraganes 43 Their Pontificall or Booke of consecratinge Bishops and of ordering Priestes Deacons taken
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
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
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
in the mouthes of his weakest seruantes except they haue authoritie from earthlie Princes Which doctrine is against the Kinglie power of Christ and these scriptures Mat 28.18 Actes 3.23 1 Cor. 1. 27. Psal 2.6 9 10 12. Esai 9.6 7. Zach. 4.6 and 6.12.23 Dan. 2.44 and 7.27 and 9.25 Mich. 5.7 Mat. 28.20 1 Cor. 14.27 with 1 Thes 4.8 Phil. 2.6 12. 1 Tim. 6.13 14.15 Rene. 1.5 and 14.12 and 17.14 19 16. and 20.4 3 That the true visible Church of Christ is not a separated companie of righteouse men and women from the Jdolaters and open wicked of the world but may consist of all sortes of people good bad Which doctrine is contrarie to the paterne of Christs Church throughout all the scriptures Gen. 4.26 with 6.2 Exod. 4.22 23. Leuit. 10.10 and 20.24 25 26 Psal 24.3 4. Ezra 6.21 2 Chron. 11.13 16. Nehem. 10.28 Eze. 22.26 with 44.23 Zeph. 3.4 Mat. 3.10 12. Act. 2.40 41 42. and 19.9 Rom. 12.1 8. 2 Cor. 6.17 18. 1 Pet. 2.9 10. Reu. 14.9 12. and 18.4 and 21.27 and 22.14 15. c. 4 That they may mainteyne this error of their confused order and mixture of all sortes of persons togeather they peruert the Parable of the tares Mat. 13.24 teaching that all are the Church Which doctrine is against the trueth of the scriptures yea against our Sauiours owne interpretation in the 38. verse who teacheth that by the field is meant not the Church but the world in which his Church is milatāt And as therin there is the good seede the righteous the Children of the Kingdome So there are also tares hipocrites the childrē of the wicked who as they are often espied in this life by the righteous seruauntes of God so shall they in that great day be perfectlie seuered from the godly by the Angels of God verse 38.43 This their doctrine also is against the heauenlie orders mentioned Matt. 18.8 9 15 16 17. 1 Corint 1.26.29 Actes 2.40.41 47. and 5.26 27 28. and 19 9. and 5.4 7. 2 Cor. 6.17 18. Leuit. 18.29 1 Tim. 6.5 2 Iohn verse 6.11 Reuel 2. and 3. and 14.9.12 and 18.4 and 20.4 5 That the people may tollerate and ioyne with open iniquitie in the Church vntill by the Magistrate it be redressed which doctrine is contrary to these riptures 2 Cor. 10.4 5. Mat. 28.21 Acts. 2.40 3.23 and 4.19 and 9.26 and 19.9 1 Tim. 5.22 Deu. 5.32 6 That the guiftes of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a sufficient and lawfull calling to the ministerie c. Which doctrine is both false and Anabaptisticall contrarie to the scriptures Heb. 5.4 Rom 12.6 7 8. Leuit. 22.25 Ezek. 44.8 9 c. Num. 1.51 and 3.10 38 and 16.40 and 18.2 3 4. Act. 1.20.26 and 14.23 and 13.2.3 7 That the Church may yeelde obedience vnto other lawes cannons and traditions officers and offices then God hath prescribed in his Conenant Which doctrine is contrarie to Gen. 49.10 Mal. 6.24 Iohn 10 4 5. Ren. 14.4 and 22 18 19. Heb. 3 1 c 8 That the Church may read other mens wordes vppon a booke and offer them vp to God as their owne prayers and sacrifices in the publique Assemblies Which doctrine is contrarie to the scriptures Esai 29.13 14. Rom. 8.26 1 Cor. 14.15 Mat. 6.6.9 and 15.9 Mar. 7.7 Ephe. 4.7 8. 1 Pet. 2.5 9 That it is lawfull to ioyne with the Ministerie of dumb and Jdoll Priests and to receiue the Sacramentes at their handes Which doctrine is contrarie to Mal. 15.14 and 7.19 and 24.24 25. Iohn 10.1.5 Num. 16 5 9 24 26 39 40 c. 1 Tim 6.5.2 Iohn verse 6.11 10 That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ to cease preaching forsake his flock at the Commaundement of a Lord Bishop Which doctrine is contrarie to 1 Cor. 9.16 Esay 62.4 6 7. Ier. 48.10 Zach. 11.17 Iohn 10.11 12 13. Actes 4.18 19 20 and 5.29 Amos 7.12 13 14 15. 2 Tim. 4.2 11 That the Church of Christ hath not alwayes power to binde and loose to receiue in and to cast out by the Keyes of the Kingdome Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 18.17 18. Psal 149.9 1 Cor. 5.4 5.12 Num. 5 2 3. 12 That it is lawfull for the people of God to heare notorious false prophetes in their Ministerie Which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 18.15 Mat. 17.5 and 7.15.2 John verse 10.11 1 Cor. 10.18 Gala. 1 8 9. Reuel 14 9 10 11. and 18.4 John 10.96 13 That it is the Church and house of God the body and kingdome of Christ where he reigneth not by his own Ordinances Officers but the highest Ecclesiasticall authoritie is in the handes of strange Lordes and Antichristian Prelates who also gouerne by Romishe Cannons and not according to the lawes of Christes Testament Which doctrine and practise is condemned by Luke 19.14 27. Iohn 15.14 Rom. 6.16 Luke 22.25 26. 1 Pet. 3.2 Thes 2 3.4 Iohn 3.35.36 Reuel 9.3 and 14.9.10.11 and 19.14.15 14 That there may be a prescript Leiturgie and sett fourme of seruice in the Church framed by man which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 5.8 Esai 29.13 14. Mat. 15.9 and 7.6.7 Gal. 3.15 Iohn 4.24 Rom. 8.26.27 Ephe. 4.7.8 15 That an Antichristian Prelate notwithstanding his dignitie as it is called spirituall may be a Ciuill Magistrate and obeyed of the people as their lawfull gouernour Which doctrine is contrarie to Rom. 13.1 c. Mat. 20.25 26. Mar. 10.42 43. Luke 22.25 26. Reuel 14.9 10 11. and 17.18 16 That men may giue the titles of Christ Jesus vnto these sonnes of men and his mortall enemies to call them their Arch and Lord Bishops Reuerend Fathers c. Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 23 8 9 10. Esai 42.8 and 48.11 Pro. 17.15 and 24.24 Esai 5.20 2 Cor. 6.14.17 17 That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ to be mainteyned in his ministerie by the goods of wicked and vnbeleeuers by Iewish and Popishe tythes and offeringes Which doctrine is contrarie to Prou. 27.26 27. 1 Cor. 9.13 14. Phil. 4.10.18 Gal. 6.6 Rom. 15.27 Heb. 7.12 These are the 17 poinctes which were mentioned before in the proofe of this reason which the aduersarie hath left altogeather vnanswered as he hath done also their owne Cannons Articles and Iniunctions which are to be seene in their printed bookes And thus is he driuen againe againe whether he will or not to yeeld vs the cause That which he addeth in the next place of their not wholy denying the trueth nor fundamentally nor obstinately peruerslie and desperatlie any parte thereof is answered before in the defence of our second Exception and of our sixt and seauenth Reasons Nowe when he next saith That they are not herein like those Iewes Act. 19.9 whom Paule separated from which he did not from all other Iewes Actes 13.14 and 16 3 and 21 23 24 26. and 3.1 Firste wee aske What if they be not in all respectes like vnto those
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