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
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
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
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