present Gouernours and then doubtlesse it was lawe And though Zachary Elizabeth Symeon Anna Mary Ioseph Christ and his Apostles did not actuallie ioyne in these corruptions yet they were generall no doubt and by lawe neuer the lesse and a number of the Iewes simply vsed them yet fell not from God as †The Sixe waterpots of the Iewishe purifyings Iohn 2.6 Therefore your Replies here are most vaine and false Lastlie in pag. 37. you will not confesse your contrarietie that is to saye betweene this your Second Reason and certen wordes in your Sixt Reason But the greater is your sinne to doe euill and defende it too Here in this Reason pag. 35. you would haue this scripture Mat. 15. to be meant against such vaine worshippers that they become heereby no true Church Or els what doe you vrge it against vs But in your Sixt Reason following you say That the Iewes euen nowe when these words were applyed to them were the true worshippers of God Are not these contrarie I pray you then reconcile them Maister IOHNSONS III. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON III. IF the whole doctrine as it is publiquely professed and practized by law in Englande be not sufficient to make a Galatian a true Christian that should with all submit vnto Circumcision Then much lesse is it able to make him a true Christian that togeather with it submitteth vnto a false Ministerie Worship and Gouernement of the Church deuised by man euen the man of sinne But the first is true Therefore also the latter The consequence of the Proposition is good because Circumcision was once the holy ordinance and appointment of God himselfe to his Church and people whereas the Ministerie worship and gouernement aforesaid neuer was so but is mans deuice in religion euen Antichrist that capitall enemie of Iesus Christ. The Assumption is proued Gal. 5.2.3.4 where the Apostle speaketh of them that helde not onely such truethes of the Gospell as are in that booke of Articles but more then those Yet if they should with all submitt vnto circumcision he sayth they were abolished from Christ Christ would prosit them nothing H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reason THis your Third Reason is from the more to the lesse negatiuelie to this effect A Galatian vsing Circumcision is a likelier Christian then one of our English holding the Hierarchy and other traditions But A Galatian is a false Christian Ergo An English professor is much more We answer We denie the Assumption Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies true Churches Gal. 1.2 Therefore this Reason is nought If he obiect The Apostle saith such are abolished from Christ That is in deed some amongst them as helde Moses ceremonies necessarie absolutelie to saluation as Act. 15.1 And that †Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 iustification was by the morall workes of the law Nowe the Churches of Galatia generallie were not such but held the sauing faith sound doubtles though manie amongest them were tainted with that infection by reason of some mischeuous teachers that were crept in and too well interteyned among them Howbeit with the Church Communion was kept And therefore so with vs you ought to deale If you say we are worse Christians then those grofest Galatians It is vtterlie false proue it if you can and it must drawe in Maister Cranmer c. with vs also If you say there are manie amongst vs as bad or worse then those worst Galatians you may say it but proue it you cannot Also if it were so yet this disagraceth it destroyeth not the Church like as hath bin said of the Galatians F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reason TO this our Third Reason His First answer is That he denyeth the Assumption which is asmuch in plaine termes as if he had giuen the holy Ghost the lye who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it Gal. 5.2 3 4. As in the proofe of the Assumption we shewed before But for the more euidence of the trueth we will set downe the proofe of the Assumption in a Sillogisme thus If a Galatian submitt to Circumcision though he hold all the truthes of the Gospell professed in England withall yet be notwithstandinge abolished from Christ and falne from grace Then is he not in this estate a true Christian. But the former is true as the Apostle testifieth Gal. 5.2 3 4. Therefore also the latter Next he answereth That the Galatians were then true Christians and their Assemblies Churches Gal. 1.3 Therefore sayeth he this reason is nought But he may not thus runne away with the matter and deceyue himselfe and his simple fauourers The question is not whether anie Galatians were true Christians or any of their Assemblies true churches For who euer doubted of that But this is the question Whether a Galatian holding all the truethes of the Gospell nowe professed in Englande and withall submit to Circumcision were in that estate a true christian Or putting the case that there were whole Assemblies consisting of such Whether those assemblies then in that case were by Gods worde to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and saith no This man saith yea Nowe whether of these two we shall beleeue let all men iudge But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the assemblies of the Galatians true churches Gal. 1.2 This man sheweth the reason him selfe the light of the trueth is so cleare and manifest There were but some of the Galatians sayth he that were infected with this error of Circumcision True in deed say we of such onely is the suppositiō made in the case afore said But the churches of Galatia sayth he generally were not such but held the sauing faith sound which also is most true they being set in the way and order of Christ Iesus and therefore though there sprang vp some heretikes and schismatikes amongest them which is the “ 1 Cor. 11.19 Actes 20.30 lott and triall of the true churches of God in all ages yet was there not cause to breake the Communion with those assemblies but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Christ and to * Gal. 5.12 1 Cor. 5.7 11 13. cutt off and cast out such troublesome leauen from amongst thē Now this being duely weighed it is nothing for but altogeather against the hauing of communion with the assemblies of this Lande which are not set in the way and order of Iesus Christ as were those churches of Galatia but in the Apostasie and confusion of Antichrist as hath ben at large declared before in the defence of the former Reasons where also that of Maister Cranmer Ridley c. is answered H. IACOB his II. Reply to the 3. Reason TO this your Defence of your Third Reason I answer First it is too impudent a cauillation That you charge me to giue the H. Ghost the lye in denying your Assumption I meant
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
Christ be not a company of people called and separated out from the world by the worde of God and ioyned togeather in fellowship of the Gospell by voluntary profession of the faith and obedince of Christ And whether the present ecclesiasticall assemblies of this Land be such or no. 5 Whether the Sacraments beeing seales of the righteousnes which is by faith may be deliuered to any other then to the faithfull and their seed or in any other ministery and manner then is appoincted by Iesus Christ the Apostle and high Priest of our profession And whether they bee not otherwise administred in the Cathedrall and parishionall assemblies of England at this day 6 Whether their booke of Common prayer with the Feastes Fasts and Holy dayes stinted prayers and Leiturgy prescribed therein and vsed in these assemblies be the true worship of God commaunded in his word or the deuise or inuention of man for Gods worship and seruice 7 Whether all people and Churches without exception bee not bound in Religion only to receiue and submit vnto that ministerie worship and order which Christ as Lord and King hath giuen and appoyncted to his Church Or whether in Religion any may receiue or ioyne vnto another ministery worship and order deuised by man for the seruice of God And consequently whether they which ioyne to the present ecclesiasticall ministerie worship and order of these cathedrall and parishionall assemblies can bee assured by the word of God that they ioyne vnto the former appoincted by Christ and not to the latter deuised by man euen the man of sinne for the worship and seruice of God Vnto these questions and the particulers thereof for the causes aforesaid we desire their direct answer with proofes of their answers from the scriptures according to which word if they speake not as wee said before so we say againe with the “ Esa 8.20 Prophet Esay It is because there is no light in them And now to conclude whereas this man being not able to answer our Reasons as hath bene declared yet would in the ende of his writting fasten vpon vs some strange passion yea and meere desperatnes for separating from them and answering of them as we haue done We leaue it the godly and discrete Reader to iudge by that which hath bene said on both parts whether it bee not themselues which are taken with a strange passion and driuen there unto by meere desperatnes when as to mainteyne their estate they will haue the scriptures to fall as hath bene * See the answer to our second Exceptiō and 7. Reason c. seene in their answeres before yea and exalt the Church and Magistrate aboue Christ himselfe euen flesh and blood aboue God blessed for euer But for this and oll their vnrighteous dealing against the truth and people of God we leaue them to the Lord who searcheth the hearts tryeth the raynes euen to giue euery man according to his wayes and according to the frute of his workes That is to them that by continuance in weldoing seeke glorie and honor and immortalitie eternall life But vnto them that are contentious and disobey the trueth and obey vnrighteousnes indignation and wrath Jer. 17.10 with Rom. 2.6 7 8. H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 9. Reason IN this your defence of the last Reason you mislike that I say it is a fallacy and you say I shew none Marke what I say Euery one of your Reasons I say euery one is a very proper fallacy and an artificiall parte of Sophisterie as by my seuerall answers to them may appeare Your First Reason is called in the scholes Fallacia ab co quod est secandum quid ad simpliciter prouing a thing to be simply by that which is but after a sort The Second is the very same The Thirde Fallacia aequinocationis A fallacie of Ambiguity The Fourth is the very same The Fift is petitio principij a begging of the question The Sixth the very same fallacie that was in the First and Second Reasons The Seauenth Eight and Ninth haue all the Fallacy of Equiuocation and if you will the same with that in your First Second and Sixt Reasons also Further where you say that here I graunt you the cause it is very absurd The Apostle 1 Tim. 6.3 4 5. saying separate frō such hath a two fould sence Either such as teach otherwise then the trueth fundamentally and then separate wholly Or not fundamentally but erring only in poincts lesse then the foundation and theise diuersely also Either presumptuously obstinately and of a desparate conscience and then if that apeate separate from such wholly Or els erring in simplicitie and of ouersight and former preiudice from such separate not wholly but only from the very error or errors in no wise from their Christian communion and societie seeing theise are true Christians Seing therefore our corruptions of the Praelacie and Ceremonies be of these latter sort which thing hetherto you haue not nor cannot ouerthrowe and withall you must vtterly ouerthrowe Maist Cranmer and the rest of the Martirs their Christianitie likewise Therefore wee in England by the grace of God are still true Christians and you ought so to acknowledge vs as you will answer vnto God All which you may doe and yet touch no parte of our Ecclesiasticall corruptions at all to giue allowance vnto them And in all this there is no contradiction with my selfe it is but your distempered conceipt that seemeth contrarie Neither is our absolute departure from the Papists hereby anie whit impeached Wee haue iustlie forsaken them cleane because by their very profession doctrine wee cannot esteeme them true Christians neither in case of saluation while they so remaine but indeed very Antichristes as the scripture proueth Which thing also if you say of vs you say falslie it is our present question and you doe not proue it nor euer can doe As for your 17. poincts of false doctrine which you most falsly lay to our chardge what haue I to doe with them I list not to meddle at this prsent but with that which wee haue in hand namely to iustifie that our publike booke of Articles of Religion so farre forth as that it erreth not fundamentally As it doth not conteyneth sufficient to make a true Christian Against the which hetherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing as we haue seene After you would proue vs to be like those Iewes Act. 19.9 whom Paul separated from But without all good reason They were not so many but they were casely certified of the truth that Paul preached but how infinitly many moe are there in this land that know nothing of this controuersie 2. Secondly Paul was better able to conuince them by the scriptures and did more effectually and apparantly then you doe or can our whole Realme 3. Thirdly how many learned are there in this lande that haue many probable and seeming reasons and alleadge them publish
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
Prelacie and humane ceremonies men may be true Christians Then these witnesses are sufficient that your deniall hereof is a strange and vnusuall opinion that is a Paradox Finally to trie vs you propound a many of questions But I leaue all this superfluous stuffe to your selfe to be pondered First let vs cleare this present question and your Reasons here about Till then wee haue no leasure to meddle further The Lord of his mercy open your eyes to see your extremitie whereby you doe greatlie hinder not helpe the trueth which you would seeme to suffer for That you may indeed shewe your self as becometh a Christian Pastor not impossible to erre but no louer of error * Not a striueâ— for victorie but a loues of â—â—th 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not regarding your own but the praise of Christ in all things AMEN FINIS A SHORT TREATISE CONCERNING THE TRVENES OF A PASTORALL CALLING IN PASTORS MADE BY PRAELATES Against the Reasons and Obiections of Maister FRANCIS IOHNSON with others of the separation commonly called Brownistes 1599. An Argument shewing the trunes of a Pastorall calling in Pastors made by Prelates Taken from a familiar comparison gathered out of the confessions of Maister Iohnson and others of the separation aforesaid The Argument of Comparison is this AS a couple of ignorant people not contracting but meaning to marry and yet thinking that vnlesse a Priest marry them their marriage is nothing wheras indeed their publique accepting each of other maketh the marriage Now beeing married though “ As themselues hold vnlawfully by a Priest yet their marriage is true and lawfull notwithstanding EVen so a Christian people meaning to haue a sufficient man to their Pastor yet thinking that vnlesse a Prelate doe make him he is no Pastor at all neither can be theirs Notwithstanding he being made a Pastor though “ As they also doe acknowledge vnlawfully by the Prelate yet by their mutuall accepting and ioyning togeather hee is now verely a Pastor yea their Pastor true and lawfull H. IACOB Against the said Argument were brought Seauen Reasons by Maister Iohnson and others which doe hereafter follow togeather with Maister Iacobs Replies to the same REASON I. F. Iohns FIrst infidels idolaters prophane and godles persons may marry togeather with consent and choyse of each other notwithstanding their prophanenes and their marriadge is therein lawfull But it standeth not so with the choyse of Ministers in the Church For 1. prophane and godlesse persons such as these assemblies consist of 2. neuer rightly gathered togeather according to Gods holy ordinance 3. remayning in subiection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers courts consisting of all sorts of people c. are not capable of chusing or ioyning vnto a true Minister in this estate as infidels may marry in the same estate There fore the comparison will not hould neither is such choice of a Minister by such people lawfull But these assemblies consist of such people c. Ergo c. H. Iacob THe strength of this Reason standeth in these last wordes But these assemblies consist of such people 1. prophane godles persons 2. neuer rightly gathered togither according Gods ordinance 3. remayning in subiection and bondage to their false and Antichristian officers courts Ergo c. These three accusations auaile nothing at all Accusa ∣ tion 1 The first Accusation is from our question for we speake of a Christian people but he of assemblies coÌ„sisting of prophane and godles persons If he say our assemblies all wholy are such That is false If he say some are Of them we speake not If he say in all euery one of our assemblies there are some yea many open prophane and godles persons 1. It is too bold a saying without knowledge to speak so of all 2. If it were true yet it were false to saye our assemblies consist of such or to thinke that whole companies of Christians by such commixtures are made vnholy prophane and godles which is contrary to these scriptures Mat. 23 2 3. Luke 2.21 22. 1.6 Act. 21.23 26. 1 Sam. 2.17 and cap. 1. verse 3.9 Reuel 2.20 21 and 3.1 4. 1 Cor. 3.3 Gal. 3.1 2. 4.11 16. and 5.4.9 Accusa ∣ tion 2 The second Accusation that our assemblies were neuer rightly gathered togeather at the first according to Gods ordinance I denie it especially touching many famous Congregations in the Land where the gospell was not vnknowen before the Queenes commaundiment came to vrge theÌ„ to receyue this doctrine And if the maner of receyuing it then in those hard and doubtfull times and hazardous beginnings were not so perfect nor so exact as should haue bene yet we may see by the example of “ 2 Chro. 30.17 18 19 20. Hezechias and * 2 Chro. 33.15 16 17. Manasses and †Zepha 1.4 5. and 3.1 Ier. 3.6 c. and 4.1 c. and 5.1 c. Iosias reformations That God imputeth it not to such godly and zealous restorers the pillers and ground of the trueth in those dayes If you say the vntaught people then suddenly receyuing the gospell by commandement not by hearing could not beleeue at the first though they professed and therefore at the firste were no true Christians nor Churches I answer 1. Though many receiued the Gospell for the commandements sake yet who can say That nowe they all generally wanted all knowledge and all faith The word then hauing bene in many places taught very many bookes scattered much conference daily consultations and disputations vsed and the blood of the Martirs hauing preached so loud and so lately before 2. It was not so sudden There was “ From Nouember the 17 till Midsomer following more then halfe a yeare for the people to heare learne and consider before the commandement came So that it can not be counted meere force and compulsioÌ„ that at the beginning of our Queenes reigne brought vs to the trueth 3 I would know They condemne not I hope all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magistrate 2 Chro. 34.32 33. and 33.16 and 15.13 Seeing therefore the assemblies thus openly aduisedly submitted to the proclaimed trueth who seeth not but they coÌ„fessed therein their former errors and professed their present faith and vndertooke a newe life from that which before they led though happely not so formallie nor so perfectly as were to haue bene wished Obiection But they receiued all togeather Papistes Atheistes ignorant men all dissolute liuers into one communion and fellowship Answer Indeed all who after this aduizement and notice takeÌ„ submitted to receyued this doctrine these were all receyued in And therefore no open professed Papistes Athistes nor other Heretikes As for ignorant men it is not possible but many will scape among the rest in so great and so generall reformation of a publike state And so questionles it was in Hezechias Manasses and Iosias reformation 2. Chron. which we noted