so alledged against the Papists Vnto which you can say nothing Besides also the Iewes being a true Church and yet their worship vnto many of them by their traditions proving to be in vaine it followeth more strongly against the false Church and her abominations which are far mo and of another nature then those in Iewry Thus should you apply it to your selves Lastlie minde that now you are driven to saie you never denied but this Scripture condemneth your corruptions So by your owne confessiō your worship of God is in vayne No part of it is free from your corruptions Let such then ioine with you therein as have pleasure in vaine worship 2 Thes 2.12 vvith Exod. 20.5 Christ never communicated in any such but rebuked it and all them that worshipped God in such maner even this Scripture being witnes Therefore it maketh notablie against you and for vs as is before observed 1. In your Replie to the first point of my Aunsvver next following you can not saie a word against it Yet will you not yeeld Still you would have me graunt that which I denie and you should prove viz That in your estate you are a true Church c. The contrarie whereof I have proved ‡ Pag. 3. 12. 16. 22. 33. 59. 60. 61. 63. c. before Therefore is it not yet in question 2. To the second you yeeld with shame enough though your follie be so great as you see it not For first you neither do nor can aunswer but against your selves to that which I asked concerning Christ and his Apostles vvhether they communicated in those traditions of the Ieevves or not If by your silence you consent that they did not as in deed the truth is then by their exāple are we also bound not to partake in yours If you saie they did then you both blaspheme Christ making him a sinner and give the holy Ghost the lie who in †Mat. 15.2.13.14 this verie Chapter testifies the contrarie Thus whatsoever you shall aunswer it maketh against you excedinglie And because you answer not it importeth that you yeeld So also doth that most plainlie which here you speak for your self You saie you seek not to iustify your partaking in your traditions c. Yes Mr Iacob you seek it but you are ashamed to professe it Els why condemne you vs for not partaking therein I know you will say as is in the Preface of your book that your minde is we should partake with you in your lavvfull things not in your traditions But for shame leave this follie None can ioyne with any of your Churches or Ministerie but they must needs partake with your Antichristian traditions Shew the contrarie in any Minister or Church of the Land and we yeeld Otherwise what do you but yeeld The renouncing you speak of is in word not in work You renounce evill with your lippes but approve it in your deeds And thus is verified vpon you that which Christ out of the Prophet spake in the †Mat. 15.8 place aforesaid This people dravveth neare vnto me vvith their mouth and honoreth me vvith the lippes but their heart is far from me And where you speak of such as do in simplicity partake of your traditions to be true Christians nevertheles Albeit in your constitution they can not by the word of God so be counted Pag. 3. 7. 16. 33. 63. c. as hath ben proved yet I pray tell vs what then you think of those that partake with your traditions not of simplicity but as your self do that is knowing them to be against the Second Commaundement of Antichrist vaine vvorshipp never but nought c. 3. In the third point of my aunsvver I noted two differences between your case and the Iewes the first towching the Law it self the second towching the observation of it For the Lavv I shewed that the ordinance of God given by Moses even the written word being the Law of that Church it did not appoint but forbid those traditions Yours contrarilie For the observation I shewed that the traditions were not generallie observed of all the members of that Church as yours be Both these I proved by the Scripture Luk. 1 5-10 2.21 c. Mat. 5.17 8.4 15.2 Ioh. 10.34 Where marke in Iohn those words of Christ to the Iewes In your Law speaking of the written word Now vnto this so plaine evidence you aunswer nothing at all to the purpose For the former you seem at first to yeeld that these traditions were not commaunded by the Law of that Church But yet being so generally received and they rebuked who vsed them not you count it to be as good Which I denie Then you would prove these to be the Law of that Church because they are called †Mar. 7.5 the Traditions of the Elders But even by this appeareth that they were not the Law of that Church but a Tradition received from hand to hand from their forefathers Which therefore bound not anie neither were observed by all as it is with you Neither was their case then as the Iewes is now with their Thalmud or as the Turks with their Alcoran neither as the Papists or yours with the Canon Law If it had ben such then could they not have ben a true Church And to vnderstand this to be the ordinance of their present Governours as to serve your turne you could be content is altogeather without ground It is both against the common vse of the word Tradition here vrged and against the true meaning of the word Elders in this place Mat. 5 21.27.33 which plainelie appeareth by another word vsed in Mat. 5. in such sence as this is here and in stead thereof signifying Them of old tyme or the like For the latter that is the observation you would prove out of * Mar. 7.3 Mark that they were generally received If you meane they were received of very many but not of all you speak nothing against that which I said If you meane they were received of all among them as the words seem to sound then you misvnderstand and misalledge that Scripture I will shew it by a like speach vsed also by Mark in another place where he saith all the countrey of Iudea and they of Ierusalem came out to Iohn †Mar. 1.5 and vvere all baptised of him c. Now by the word All in this place he meaneth onely a great many and not everie one as the word might seem to import For that all were not baptised of him is evident both by “ Mat. 21.32 Luk. 7.30 other Scriptures and by this reason that if all Iudea and Ierusalem had ben baptized of him then had they all confessed their sinnes and become disciples Which all men know was far otherwise Likewise in this place although he saie All the Ievves because they were many yet even in the ‡ Mar. 7.2 next verse going before he saieth the
in such case as Ieroboams was who altered but the outward ordinances of the Church as taking them to be things arbitrary at the pleasure of man Some of them I doubt not wil think you do them foule iniurie And if anie be done vnto you it is done by your self I say no more In the fourth likewise who is it of your owne Church that will not think you offer yet more iniurie both to the State and your self To the State in that you make them maintainers of Popish shifts To your self in that thus you bewray you are at a Non plus and yet yeeld not to the truth Did not your self in your first Replie vse these as good and soūd reasons And now they are convinced to be Popish have not a word to speak in defence of them but put vs over to the State for an aūswer Babell is sore wounded when all her best Physitians do thus give her over For the fift you referre vs to the first point of your explication before Which is aunswered For the sixt you referre vs to the second Which also is aunswered Neither is there any thing of waight in either of the places whither you send vs for aunswer of the particulars here conteined Let others mind if you will not what I said in the fifth and sixth aunswer before and see if your explications have any thing against them to any purpose The seventh you confesse to be against the state of your Church This I wish the Reader to marke And then having minded what I aunswered in the * pag. 34 seaventh place let him consider how wofull the estate of your Church is But now M. Iacob why defēd you not your Church seeing this is against the verie state of it by your owne confessiō Is not your book called A defence of the Churches and Ministery of England Why do you not then performe what the title of your book doth promise A worthie Champion sure you are to defend a Church that leave it thus in extream miserie without anie succour at all At first you seemed as if you would strike all downe afore you in defence of your Churches and Ministerie Now lo you can be content to leave them on the plaine field to shift for themselves so your self may have hope to scape by running away Before you told vs of the defence of your Churches Now you think it inough to say It is against the state of our Church and not against me Yet tell vs Mr. Iacob are you not a member of that Church And is not that then which is against the state of your Church also against you Otherwise it must needs be that your Church hath a strange estate or that you are a straunge member thereof Can the hand or eye say I am not of the bodie Or that which is against the state of the bodie yet is not against me Yet such is your aunswer as sencelesse as absurd Besides that thus whiles you think to pull your owne neck out of the collar you plunge both your self and your Church deeper in And note withall Howsoever you and such like disagree from the state of your Church in anie thing yet in this you can all agree well ynough to conspire against Christ and against his Church But so it hath ben of old Manasseh * Esa 9.20 21. and Ephraim though they were each against other were both against Iudah The Pharises and Sadducees though adversaries one to another yet ‡ Mat. 2◠15.23 Act. 5.17 handed togeather both of them against the Lord Iesus Hitherto of the seaven particulars I obiected Which all of them remaine vntaken away And thus far of the second exception and your Replies against it In which I have staied the longer because the discussing hereof will more plainelie and without all question end the controversie between vs. Chap. 6. The third Exception against Mr. Iacobs Assumption aforseid Fr. Iohnson Thirdly shew by Scripture how the 36. Article of your doctrine and book alledged agreeth with the Gospell of Christ and true Christianitie The wordes of the Article are these as followeth The Book of consecration of Archbishops and Bishops and ordering of Priests and Deacons doth conteine all things necessary to such consecration and ordering neither hath it any thing that of it self is superstitious or vngodly And therefore whosoever are consecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that book we decree all such to be rightly orderly and lawfully consecrated and ordered Also how it agreeth with the Gospell and true Christianitie That the Apocrypha books and Homilies are enioined to be read in the Church by the Ministers diligently and distinctly As may be seen in Art 6 and 35. of that doctrine and book 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 Apocrypha bookes and Homilies in the Church agree not with true Christianitie Ergo the Assumption aboue is false that is the vvhole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not sufficient to make vs true Christians I aunsvver you should have said those poincts destroy vtterly true Christianity Ergo c. Els the Argument follovveth not But then vve denie flatly the Antecedent or first part of the Reason But your Reason you vvill say shall goe as you have put it Then marke these reasons even as good as yours and all one An Ethiopian is vvhite of his teeth therefore he is a vvhite man A Svvanne is black of his bill Fr. Io. therefore a Svvann is black * Note that Mr. Iacob hath added this since he received aunswer to the former It was not in the copy before Such also are almost all his notes in the Margent and some alteration in his Replies specially in his first Reply to the Seaventh Reason following Let the Reader observe this dealing My Brother hath an eye of glasse or he hath a vvodden legge therefore my brother is no true man Fr. Ioh. his Aunswer to Mr. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 3. Excep VVHat the third Exception is you see Have you now as was before required of you shewed these things by the Scriptures Not at all First then marke that although wee call neuer so much for proof and evidence from the Scripture yet you neuer bring it but labour to put it off with other shifts and deuices As if our consciences were to be built vpō your fancies and not vpō the written word of God But what do you say to our demaund First you tell vs these thinges do not vtterly destroy true Christianitie Next you graunt notwithstanding that they agree with it as black doeth with white that is they are cleane contrarie vnto it For this your similitudes doe import Where you alledge That these things destroy not true Christianity we answer that euen that Hierarchy worship cōstitution and gouernement which you professe and practise as appeareth
you for these things is such as damnatory sentence may be threatned against them take you heed Mr. Iacob that God being it not vpon your head for one if you proceed in those sinnes still as hitherto you have done And let your disciple D. B. that Apostate take heed of it for another and likewise all the rest whomsoever you meane to be of those some you speak of It is the word of God that doth and must judge both now and in the great day Ioh. 12.48 Psal 149.9 2 Chrō 19.6 1 Cor. 5.3.4.12.13 The judgement that is done according vnto it by whomsoever it be is not mans but the Lords Your hearts and consciences I leave them to the Lord. It is your constitution and practise I speake of and of the sundrie meanes of knowledge and conviction in these things vouchsafed to you which the Martyrs in former times had not This you knew I doubt not though you would not see it because you know not how to aunswer it And thus the two differences between you and the Martyrs excepted against do both of them stand firme against you But why say you nothing at all to the other differences which in the same places I noted aswell as these Can you not bring so much as colour of exception against them Why then do you not yeeld vnto them Or will you that we take your silence for a consent Also why aunswer you not that obiection when I said ‡ Pag. 67. you might thus justify the callings and estate of the Monks Fryers c. and the having of spirituall communion vvith them because divers such have ben Martyrs giving their lives for the truth they saw vvho never doubted of the lawfulnes of their callngs and estate Do you therefore hold their offices and functiōs to be lawfull Or will you deny that this hath ben the case of such If you do then I alledge for proof Eckhardus a Dominican fryer Thomas Rhedonensis a Carmelite frier Henry Voes Iohn Esch William Neel Doctor Cacalla Augustine friers Ioannes Mollius a gray frier Ierome Savonarola Dominicus Siluester c. All of them being Fryers and Monks yet Martyrs of Iesus faithfullie witnessing the truth which they saw even vnto death Act. Monum 5. edit Pag. 387. 613. 672. 799. 829. 850. 854. 4. For the fourth point it is so very playne and pregnant as you can say nothing against it but refer vs to that you have said before which I have shewed to be nothing at all to the purpose So it remaineth firme against you And so also do the reasons mentioned 2 Cor. 6.14 c. Against which you neither have said nor can say any thing to serve your turne Say but yourself and speak plainly whether that general clause Towch no vncleane thing include not both your and all other abominations of Antichrist breaking the second commandement One of your selves “ Triall of Subscriptiō Pag. 7. alledging this scripture but against the ceremonies reteined in your Church reasoneth thus from it and ānexeth that note in the Margent which I have here set downe withall †2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17 This forbiddeth the vvhole corruptiō in religiō of heathen or Antichrist although principally their false doctrin What communion saith he hath the light of the word vvith the darknes of mans inventions What concord hath Christ our Saviour vvith Belial the Antichrist of Rome And vvhere greement hath the Temple of God vvhich is our selves vvith Idols of humane traditions Wherefore ♣ Rev. 18.2.3.4 come out of Babylon that is the confusion or confused vvorship and gouernment of Rome and tovvch no vncleane thing These are his words Now tell me I pray you is this Scripture and reason strong against your ceremonies And is it not much more against your confusion Leiturgie Hierarchie c. which are meerly the inventions of man even of Antichrist that man of sinne Or will you be like the Papists also in this to limit the bounds of the Scripture that it may be applied no further nor othervvise but as pleaseth you That the place of Ezechiel is directly of the breach of the Second commaundement Ezec. 43.8 is as cleare as the Sunne at noone day Beside the reasons which I alledged before those so many clauses My thres holds theirs My posts and theirs Me and them Myne holy Name with their abominations these I say so many concurring in this one verse make it without all question that he speaketh directly of ioyning their inventions with Gods ordinances in the worship of the true God Which is the direct breach of the Second not of the First cōmandement The First is directlie towching Gods inward worship as to have love trust feare him onely as God c. The Secōd is directlie of outward worship For Images and bowing downe to them “ Exo. 20.4.5 there mentioned are outward things If this distinction be not observed the first and second cōmaundement will be confounded as the Papists whom you follow would have it But if it be observed it confoundeth both you and them M. Iacob and all your vayne pretences By this also it is evident that the Idolatrie of Ahas Manasses Amon c. whereof you speak was directlie against the Second cōmādement Ahaz to give an instance in one of the grossest is said to have * 2 Chrō 28 23. sacrificed to the Gods of Damascus because he †2 King 16 10-15 made an altar like the altar of Damascus though yet notwithstanding he offered thereon to the true God both such offerings and at such seasons as the Lord had appointed His sinne then was against the Second commandement directlie in that he made and vsed another altar then God had prescribed But your ignorance of the Scripture-phrase deceiveth you For when you read that Ahaz Manasses or others sacrificed to the Gods of the Nations you vnderstand that they worshipped some other then the true God against the First cōmandement whereas the Scripture meaneth they worshipped the true God after the … er as those nations served their Idols and so brake the Second cōmaundement You may see it in that example of Ahaz before and most plainly in Deut. 12.30.31.32 And likewise if Naaman worshipping God had bowed downe before the Idoll in Rimmons Temple but in heart honored the God of Israell he had broken the Secōd not the First cōmandement and might be said to have worshipped the Idoll Rimmon 2 King 5.17.18 The reason of all these is because God accounteth them to be served whose ordinances are observed and himself not to be had as God when his true vvorship is not had Now so must we esteeme things and so the Scripture speaketh not as men judge but as God esteemeth Minde this well Mr. Iacob for your worship of Antichrist But of these things more hereafter when wee come to speak of the third Scripture 2 King 17. in the sixt Reason following 2 King 17.
c. Esa 1.11.12.13.14.15 Zeph 1.12 1 Cor. 11.19 many things which are verifyed sometymes of the members of a true Church may not also fitly be applyed and alleadged against a false Church and yet not iustify their estate and constitution neither make for them but against them altogeather Otherwise you condemne at once all the Martyrs heretofore who vsually alleadged this †Mat. 15.9 very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church as as your self cannot be ignorant Yet in your learning it seemeth the Papists might well have aunswered the Martyrs againe that this Scripture was verifyed of them that were of the true visible Church and therefore made for them and against the Martyrs most notably 2 Secondly when you say This Scripture is verifyed of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles communicated tell vp whether you meane that Christ and his Apostles communicated with them in their vaine traditioÌ„s or no. If you think they did that very Chapter sheweth the contrary besides that the whole Scriptures testify that Christ was altogeather free from sinne Mat. 15.2 which he could not have bene if he had ioyned with them in those their inventions If they did not as it is without all question then what doth this helpe you who do all of you ioyne and coÌ„mmunicate with the faâ—se worship of your Assemblyes 3 Thirdly I answer that your note is not worth the noting being nothing at all to the purpose for the question in hand For first who knoweth not that â—e the Iewish Church the doctrine publiquely professed and practised by their Law did not appoint or ratifie any of those vaine traditions but vtterlie forbid them Wheras contrarilie the verie doctrine publiquelie professed and practised by law in England appointeth and ratifieth the false worshipping of God by the inventions of men Secondlie those vaine traditions aforesaid were the personall sinnes of some particuler men in the Iewish Church not publiquelie established by law nor generallie received and practised in that Church ‡ Luk. 1.5.6 8.9.10 2.21.22.23.24.25.27.36.37.38.39.41.46 Mat. 5.17 8.4 15.2 Ioh. 10.34 Zachary and Elizabeth Symeon Anna Mary Ioseph Christ himself and his Apostles with manie others kept the ordinance of God given by the hande of Moses and observed of that Church Neither did they ioyne or pollute themselves with that vaine worship aforesaid whereas in the Church of England the false worship thereof devised by men even by that man of sinne is not the personall sinne of some particular men in it but is publiquelie established by law and generallie received and practised in your assemblies of all the members thereof So then this scripture maketh nothing for you but against you most notably Now whereas in the margent you wish the Reader to marke an open contrariety comparing this and the Sixt Reason togeather we do also referre it to the Reader to iudge whether there be not even an harmonie with this and a direct confirmation of it H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2 Reason TO this your defence of your Second Reason I say you have aunswer in your last Exception page 57. You aske what proposition I do deny I answer I distinguish your assuÌ„ptioÌ„ as being a fallacie called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 concluding a thing simply from that which is after a sort like vnto that Reason which I framed against you in pag. 57. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glasse c. Therefore he is no true man Cranmer Ridley c. held asmuch as wee aftet mens precepts Ergo they worshipped in vaine Geneva holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper Ergo Geneva worshippeth God in vaine Euen so your Assumption runneth Our doctrine say you Pag. 82. 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 Chistian and conscionable Disputer Thus you have ansvver enough to this in the ansvver to your last Exception though you vvould not see it * Pag. 82. Further I noted Secondly That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a visible Church vvith vvhom Christ did coÌ„municate though they held also traditions of men Therefore it affirmeth nothing against vs. Is not this true Why then do you not admit it We never denyed but this Scripture condemned our corruptions But this onely vvee affirme it disanulleth not our Churches Euen as Christ here condemneth the Ievves corrupt traditions but hee meant not there by 〈…〉 their Church Therefore all this is not against our purpose but notably for vs is before observed 1. Concerning your First ansvver in Pag. 83. I knovv this Scripture may be applyed against false vvorshippers vvhich are no true Church But it proueth not I say all them to vvhom it may bee applyed to bee no true Church Therefore you abuse it against vs Except you had first proved vs no true Church nor Christians vvhich yet is in question 2. Where in your Second answere * pag. 83. you say That this helpeth vs not except we say that Christ communicateed with the Pharisies in these traditions like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now For shame leave this folly I say againe I seke not to iustify our partaking in our traditions but I renounce it in sobrietie asmuch as you yea better then you do Yet I say this place shall admit those vvho doe in simplicitie partake of them to be true Christians neverthelesse like as it admitteth the Ievves then 3. In your Third aunsvver “ pag. 83. 84 You deny that those Iewish traditions of washing c. were with them received generally or by Law in their Church Whereto I aunsvver That they vvere generally received as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doeth testify and that they vvere rebuked vvho vsed rhem not vvhich is sufficient to make it their Churches doctrine practize though no expresse law coÌ„manded it But I suppose verse 5. where they say why walkest thou not after the traditions of the Elders he meaneth the ordinances of their Forefathers which were to them as lawes besides the lawe of Moses What els is their Thalmud which is till this day 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 lavv And though Zachary Elizabeth Symeon Anna Mary Ioseph Christ and his Apostles did not actually ioyne in these corruptions yet they vvere generall no doubt and by lavv never the lesse and a number of the Ievves simply vsed them and yet fell not from God