iustifie Where you would snatch at an advauntage about Aarons line my meaning was that they of Aaron were only for Priests their bretheren of Leui only for Leuites But you passe this and you set your self in earnest to proue vs all conuicted in conscience aboute our Hyerarchie and ceremonies So that here you auouch openly that third generall poinct which I obserued in my very beginning aboue pag. 3. for the which you haue this Reason Haue not wee the scriptures as much as the Apostate Isralites had Or did not Christ as fully and plainly sett downe our ministerie and worship in the Gospell as Moses in the Law I aunswere this is true as touching the word it selfe In the Gospell we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word it selfe as the Iewes were in Moses But it is not yet so playne for our vnderstanding and vse Why Because wee haue had a discontinuance of the “ The Pastors of the Churches since haue had many corruptions mixed in their callings they haue not bene pure and simple euer since or at least wee cannot proue it otherwise by any recordes now extant simple offices of Pastours Teachers and Elders for the space of a Thousand Three hundreth or a Thousand Four hundreth Yeares and a continuance of the Prelacie all this while hetherto Also for that many auncient and late learned and Godly Christians haue beleued it at least cōuenient if not necessary in the Church And they haue expounded the Scriptures so that they carry no small ambiguity in this matter in infinite Thousands iudgement Thus it hath pleased God in his prouidence to suffer this mistaking amongest Christians thus longe and thus vniuersally Whereby it commeth to passe that infinite Thousand consciences are not easely conuicted though they bee mistaken in this case With the Iewes it was not so in this matter that we talke of As Moses and the Prophets were most plain that Ierusalem must be the onlie place of solemne worship Arons line the onely Priests no Calues nor any visible kinde of Image or meanes to worship God in So also they constantly and perpetually practized that course euen from Moses till the Apostacie of Ieroboam When any sqared from this course these were not onely rebuked expreslie by Gods voyce in his Prophets from time to time but also the obstinate were most fearfully smitten with Gods miraculous hand from heauen So that for any to offend in these poinctes as Ieroboam did It could not possible bee but in presumptuous rebellion with a high hand against God and with a conuicted seared conscience Which I say cannot with any shew of sence be said of many Thousand Christians in this case touching the Praelacie c. Further you vrge * these Reasons That this cause hath bene made manifest to the consciences of men Pag. 53. yea to the Parliament of late times You say well to the consciences of men but not to the consciences of all men or the most men throughout the land Yea or to the most of them that know and feare God according to the religion now mainteyned This is the very question If you meane so that all mens consciences are conuicted in this matter All men surely will either pitty your simplicitie or laugh at your folly I pray you Maister Iohnson consider your selfe you were a true Christian longe before you fell into this separation Yea moreouer you were learned yea you knew and acknowledged these very corruptions a great while and yet condemned vs not Nay you condemned the separation earnestly I pray you is it not possible that numbers who see not so farre as you did then should still condemne your separation and yet be true Christians as you acknowledge that your selfe then was meipso teste That which you ad of persecuting vnto bandes exile and death to proue our vtter abolishing from Christ generally It is a toy Pag. ibid. First if you were meerely innocent yet this could not make vs worse then the Iewes in Christes time who for all that they persecuted yet were they not wholly falne from God Secondly you suffer indeed more thē you need if that you would but acknowledge the grace of God with vs so farre as it is It is therefore not Christes Crosse in that regard but your owne that you beare Finally let it bee noted if here in this your 6. Reason you bee not directly contrary to your self as I haue obserued in your 2. Reason Maister Iohnson his contrarietie proued betwene his 2. Reason and his 6. Reason Pag. 39. For you say here Pag. 48. That not the Samaritans but the Jewes were then by Christ counted the true worshippers of God heires of saluation Ioh. 4.22 But in your Second Reason Pag. 35. you say They that teach for doctrine mens precepts as there Christ saith the Iewes then did those in particuler are no true Christians nor their assemblies true Churches Math. 15.9 Therfore you inferre or else you pretend it that those perticuler Iewes were not then true worshippers nor their assemblies true Churchest which is a flat contradiction Or else what is But if you say you meane not this of the Iewes then you abuse the scripture and vs turning it cleane from them whom in your Reason you speake of and whom Christ therein expresly meaneth Maister IOHNSONS VII Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON VII IF the Spirit of God accompt them to bee departers from the faith and consequently no true Christians which though they hold other truthes of the Gospell yet forbid to marry commaund to abstaine srom meates which God hath created to bee receiued with thankesgiuing Then what doeth the Lord accompt of them which forbid the true Ministerie and worship of God and commaund a false and of them also which partake therein Which to be the estate of the Prelates and other Ministers and people of these assemblies appeareth not only by their practize and persecution but also by the booke of Articles heere alleadged as may be seene in the 35. and 36. Articles compared with their booke of Cannons set forth Anno 1571. and with the Articles lately set forth by the * Richard Eletcher Prelate of London that now is and inquired of in his visitation Anno 1595. As also by other their Articles Cannons Aduerticements Iniunctions c. which were longe heere to rehearse But the former is true 1. Tim. 4.1 2 3. Therefore c. H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 7. Reason THis your Seauenth Reason is They are departed from the faith that forbid to marry commaund to abstaine from lawfull meates Also this is worse then that viz. to forbid the true Ministerie and to commaunde a false which wee in England doe Ergo wee are departers from the faith I denie this Antecedent that is your Assumption with a distinction The Papistes * See Rhemi-Testa in Mat. 15.18 forbidding
directlie of the breach of the Second Commaundment ioyning togeather in the worship of the true God their inueÌ„tions with Gods ordinances I say it is most manifest that he speaketh not of the breach of the Second Commandement onely but also of the first wherein men haue their inuentions also The Prophet sheweth vers 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple againe whence he was departed for the abominable idolatries that had ben there committed before to shew that he would restore lerusalem and the Temple and worship of God againet He meaneth this literally of the returning of the Iewes after Babilons captiuitie and of the reedifying of the Temple and the appointing againe of Gods holy worship there Also spirituallie he may meane the erecting of the Christian Church wheÌ„ they should not fal to such impieties as the Iewes had done nowe in that time before for the which he had departed away from them Nowe if we aske what were those Idolatours in Ierusalem and in the Temple before Ezekiels time for the whiche the Lord forsooke them it is manifest in Ahas in Manasses and Amon and in the Kings after Iosiah That the Iewes idolatrie was verie Heathenish not onely against the Second but against the First Commandement also in ioyning the Heathen gods with the true God of Izraell in their Diuine seruice and worship Therefore this place of Ezekiell is as I say Not of the breach of the Second commandment onely simplie as our church corruptions are but ioinctlie touching the breach of the First also The verie same is that your Third scripture pag. 30. 2 Kings 17 33 34 40 41 of the Samaritans Idolatrie â— King 17. wherein because you are large I will deferr to explaine it till your Sixt Reason following where is a proper place for it 4 Lastlie in pag. 31. you agrauate the breach of the Second Commandment as being spirituall whordome c. But I would haue you to know Things may be mismatched too cruelly as well as too gentlie There is a sinne both wayes when things are not called by their proper and right names Is it true in some sence euery breach of the Second Commandement is spirituall whordome as euery wanton word euery light gesture and countenance euery immodest thought in a Woman is Adulterie yet who so shall angerlie and continuallie so call a woman whore harlot or baude that but thinketh or looketh or speaketh too vainly shall doe her great wronge and inâ—â—â—â—e the iust daunger of lawe Neither can shee nor ought shee in such case be diuorced as an Adulteresse ought And thus it appeareth 〈◊〉 still that you sinne again stabe Third Commaundment in misapplying of scriptures In the ende in pag. 31. where you saye To the proofe of your Assumption I answere neuer a worde which most of all required answere This I tell you that it is your fancie and not my meaning heere to answere to your Proposition First and then to your Assumption to say nothing Nay if you had not dreamed you might easilie haue perceyued that all my first wordes viz. where I say your speech here is vnproper c. are bent directly against your Assumption and the proofe thereof although at this time I expressed not those termes Secondly I shewe that your scriptures applyed to proue the Proposition are altogither vnfitt and intollerably abused if you meane them in that sence as your Assumption must be meant that is to say as they touch vs. This a verie childe might haue seene Maister Iohnson So that your marginall scoffe at my sound and schollerlike dealing doeth light on your self and bewrayeth eyther your deepe skill or your ouerflowing charitic As for the rest That I should iustifie our corruptions it is no part of my minde neither belongs it to our present cause so to doe Maister IOHNSONS II. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON II. THat which appointeth and ratifieth the worshipping of God in vaine That cannot make either true Christians or true Churches But the doctrine publikely professed and practized by law in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine Therefore c. Of the trueth of the Proposition none can doubt And the Assumption is thus proued That which appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God by the precepts of man That appoincteth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine This Christ affirmeth out of Esay the Prophet Mat. 15.9 compared with Esay 29.13 But the doctrine publiquely professed practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the worshipping of God by the precepts of man This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Article of the booke alleaged And by their booke of CoÌ„mon prayer their Fastes Feastes Holy dayes c which are executed by their Popish Courts and Officers All which are authorized by Law in England Therefore the doctrine publiquely professed and practized by lawe in England appointeth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine And consequently cannot make a particuler man a true Christian nor the assemblies so gathered together true Churches H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reason THis your Second Reason is This booke and others appoincteth and ratifieth the worshiping of God in vaine Ergo c. 1. This also hath answere in the third ExceptioÌ„ Pag 22. 2 Also noâ—e I pray you this Scripture Mat. 15. is verified of such as were theÌ„ of the true visible †Marke his open contrarietie with him self graunting this in Reas 6. Church with whom Christ and his Apostles both in Christes time and after his death did sometimes ioyne and comunicate This therefore maketh for vs and against you most notably F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Reason OVr Second Reason is as you see now what proposition doth he deny Truely none at all What defence bringeth he of their booke of coÌ„mon prayers and the particulers therein Of their Prelacie other Ministerie receiued from them according to their booke and Pontificall Of their Canons and Excommunications c. Surely none What then doth he answere Forsooth he referred vs to his anuswer before in the last exception Whether also we referre the Reader with this note that there he shall finde nothing either for aunswer of anie proposition of this argument or for defence of their false worship Praelacie Ministerie and Church gouernement called into question Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like answere And haue not these men thinke you good proofe for their present estate and Church constitution Which thus leaue it altogeather without defence euen when it most needeth and as it were beg geth their help and succor if they could affoard it anie But now hauing no aunswer to any parte of our argument yet hee bids vs note that this Scripture Mat. 15. here alleaged is verified of such as were then of the true visible Church with whom Christ himself and his Apostles both in Christs time and after his death
3 3 11. c. and 17 1 2 3 4 5. and 14.8 9 10 11. the spirituall Babilon notwithstanding any truthes she holdeth yet is so vnsanctifyed and abominable as shee is become a cage of all vncleane and hatefull birdes and that all her children and Marchants that will not departe out of her shall receyue of her plagues and damnation and drinke of the wine of Gods wrath yea of the pure wyne which is powred into the cup of his wrath and be tormented in fire and brimstone before the holy Angells and before the Lamb for euermore Loe here their fearfull estate which this man will needes accompt holy and acceptable before God H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 5. Reason IN this your defence of your Fifth Reason you mislike that J call it an absurd comparison Where you affirme that the golden vesses of the Jewes were as available to sanctifie the Babilonians as the truthes of the Gospell which wee hold are to sanctifie vs. In deed your owne wordes be holden and receiued in the spirituall Babilon By which termes you meane vs of England I trow But marke sir Is not this grosse sophistery againe Is not this childish vanitie open beggerie and crauing of that which is the whole question that is That our Churches are spirituall Babilon and as deepely infected in Babilonish impietie as those old Caldeans If they were so infected I graunt in deed your Reason would follow But seeing it is the question And seeing we professe our selues true Christians by those truthes of the Gospell which we hold and as by Gods grace we are indeed Say I not well that this is an absurd Comparison Yes Maister Iohnson it is a most * To match those outward vessells of no sanctity of them selues with our inward doctrins of saluation impious absurd sencelesse comparison void of common reason And it inwrappeth Maister Cranmer Maister Ridley c. within the same Iniurions Yea irreligious consequence likewise All that you haue of allusions and alluding betwene the Tipicall and spirituall Babilon are meere delusions and vaine cauils Proue vs first to be spirituall Babilon Or els you fight with your shadow So that still I say those Scriptures quoted of Dan. 5. c. As also all the rest here packed togeather in your Margen they are miserably and desperately abused according as I rightly referred you to my censure to your First Reason which for all your wordes you haue not refuted The very same I say of your other Two scriptures towards the end Pro. 9.17 c. Reu. 18.1 c. As for Ezek. 43.8 I answered it before †Pag. 34. in your First Reason Maister IOHNSONS VI. Reason against the former Assumption with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same REASON VI. THe Samaritans those counterfett children of Abraham Jsaack and Iacob did publiquelie professe that most excellent doctrine of the Messias to come the trueth of which doctrine howe powerful it was to saluation the Scriptures testifie yet doeth our Sauiour Christ repute them false worshippers of God because their worship was a mixt worship framed after the inventions of men and traditions of their Forefathers Therefore sayth Christ vnto them Yee worship that which ye knowe not we worship that which we knowe for saluation is of the Iewes By which wordes of Christ it plainely appeareth that although at that time some professed such truthes which otherwise were auaylable vnto saluatiō yet none that were false worshippers of God could truely challendge vnto them selues in such estate the benefite of those truthes but they onely which were the true Church and people of God to whom the Oracles of God were committed and to whom the Couenantes and seruice of God did appertayne such as were at that tyme not the Samaritans but the Jewes and they whiche helde the faith of the Iewes wherevppon not the Samaritanes but the Iewes were then by Christ accounted the true worshippers of GOD and heires of saluation John 4.22 compared with verse 20.25 29. and with 2. King 17 24. In the like manner the people of these Ecclesiasticall assemblies standing subiect to a counterfett Ministerie and worship of God being also commingled togeather of all sortes of people Though they professe some truthes which otherwise are auailable to saluation yet can not in such estate by the word of God he deemed true Christians or true Churches Neither can so standing challendge vnto them selues the benefit of those true doctrines which they professe because God hath not made his promise vnto anie false Church or worshippers of him neither committed vnto anie such his holy things to witt his word prayer Sacramentes Censures c. But he hath made his promise committed these things only to his true Church and people which worship him aright and yeeld obedidience to his Gospell keeping whatsoeuer he hath commaunded them Wherevpon it followeth that such people onely are true Christians and true churches of Christ to whom the promises holy things apperteyne and not to the people and Ecclesiasticall assemblies of England neither anie such abiding in false worship or false constitution of a church as is aforesaide H. JOCOB his 1. Reply to the 6. Reason THis your 6. Reason is The Samaritans beleeuing that Messias should come Iohn 4.25 were as neare saluation as we of England are But they were false worshippers for all that Ergo so are we for all our holy doctrines beleeued according to that Booke of Articles I deny the Proposition The Samaritans might knowe by hearsay and beleeue the Messias should come and Baalam did know it Nom. 24.17 and the Deuils doe now know and beleue Iam. 2.17 Yet none of these beleeued in him It followeth not therefore that they were as nigh saluation as wee of England In a worde there is a Reason manifest These Samaritans ioyned Heathenish Idols with the God of Israel 2. Ki. 17. which wholy destroyed the trueth in them though they did reteyne some memoriall amongst them of Messias to come Wherfore here take the Second Answer to the First Reason before * Pag. 25. But I will help them with an Obiection surely one fitter then all these Obiection The Isralites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethell serued not Pagan Idols but the true God after their own deuises which yet resembled the ordinances of Ierusalem 2. King 12.32 Amos. 4.4 Howbeit they were false worshippers only for their false Ministery and outward false worship for all that they beleeued in the God of Ierusalem otherwise rightly Ergo so are wee of England only for our false Ministerie and outward worship Answere To this wee aunswere also what additions of deuices and how grosse Idolatrie they held it appeareth not But surely it seemeth farre grosser and filthier then the worst is with vs But yet this appeareth cleerelie that the conscience of euery of them euen of the simpliest must needes be conuicted that Ierusalem was the only place and Arons line the
hearsay and yet not faithfully beleeue in the Messias You cannot bee ignorant that there is a great difference betweene an obscure rumor which some of them might receiue from their neighbour Iewes and yet not haue it constantly beleeued and held publiquely among them as their comon faith If thus the Samaritans beleeued the comming of Messiah they are in no coÌ„parison with vs we holde our most holy faith and doctrine by the worde professedly as the publique ordinance of our Churchs sheweth But furder let it be howsoeuer they held the comming of Messiah yet I answered The Samaritans ioyned Heathenish Idols with the God of Israell which wholly destroyed the trueth in them And this is the very truth indeed howsoeuer you will not yeld it For you say that they broke not the First commaundement they worshipped not the Jdols them selues nor sacrifised to theÌ„ c. This is proued apparantly false in the Text 2. Kings 17.29 30 31. 2. King 17. Enery nation made their Gods and put them in the houses of the high places which the Samaritans had made euery nation in their Citties wherein they dwelt For the men of Babel made Succoth-Benoth and the men of Cuth made Nergall and the men of Hamath made Ashima And the Auims made Nibhaz and Tartak and the Sepharuims burnt their children in the fyer to Adramelch Anammelech the Gods of Sepharuim Therfore they worshipped the Idols of the Heathen and sacrifised to them and accoumpted them to be Gods aswell as the God of Israell And so broke the First commandement and therefore they touch not vs in this question As the like I haue truely and well derlared before “ pag. 34. against your First Reason â—â— pag. 51. Your proofes that the Samaritans brake not the Firste commandment are nothing 1 That of Ezra 4.1.2 that they sought the Lord as the Jewes did c was their conterfet hypocrisie and false brag yea their diuelish conspiracie against the worship of the Iewes God Doe you beleeue their wordes here in this place that they are true indeed I graunt as I noted before out of 2. Kings 17. they had a mixed worship some thing of the Iewes God but very much and as by that Chapter seemeth most of the Heathens Gods 2. Secondly Pag. 51. where you say out of Iohn 4. That it is manifest there was no contention betweene the Jewes and the Samaritans whether * A bolde assertion only the true God was to be worshipped There appeareth no word of any such thing Our Sauiour indeed noteth vers 21. One difference betwene them that was but about the place of worshipping on occasion of the womans wordes But that there was no difference betwene them in the obseruing of the First Commandement he saith not The contrarie you saw before proued in 2. King 17.30.31.3 Thirdly you vrge my coÌ„fession That the Isralites vnder Ieroboam serued not Pagan Jdols but the true God after their owne deuices And you would proue it too by 2 King 17.28 32 33. Seeing the Samaritans worshipped after the manner of the nations that dwelt there before they came who were the Tenne tribes that Ieroboam drew away I aunswere First it is great shame that you make this my confession when I expresly bring it in as your Obiection whervnto I set mine answer Pag. 49. that the Idolatry vnder Ieroboam seemeth farre grosser and filthier then the worst is with vs which I make manifest by the scripture not only 1. King 12.21 where Ieroboam erected visible Idols and very filthy ones euen calues and brute beastes which if they were but to worship God by yet who would compare our Ecclesiasticall orders to them which * Viz. the generall state we professe are but indifferent thinges for order and comelinesse only Further I alleadged 2. Chro. 11.15 Where Ieroboam is said to appoinct Priestes for the high places for Deuils and for the Calues that he made So I confesse little to your aduantage Secondly if the Samaritans worshipped as they did indeed like the Tenne tribes before them then you are cleane gone For though IeroboaÌ„ at the First had not ioyned in the Heathenish Idolatry Yet Ahab did 1. King 16.32 33. and his Sonne Ahaziah had further Baalzebub the God of Ekron Yea the Isralites as they of Ierusalem afterwardes were Idolaters much a like 2. King 17.19 But wee read of the Iewes vnder Ahas 2 Chr. 28.23 and Manasses and Amon. 2 King 21. and 23.4 5 10 11.12 13. That they vsed the very Pagans Idolatrie Yea it is expressed 2. King 17.8 11 16 17. That these Tenne Tribes vsed the very same Therefore the Samaritans doing as these Isralites did Pag. 54. held such grosse idolatry as could by no meanes stand with the true seruing of God Finally as before is noted 2. King 17.29 30 31. doeth expresse this grosse Heathenish idolatrie of the Samaritans Surely it appeareth more grosse and worse then the Isralites before them And therefore you are greatly deceiued both here in the defence of your First Reason before Pag. 30. where you expreslie mainteine these Samaritans to holde no Heathenish Jdolatrie but onely to cleaue to the God of Jsraell in an outwarde deuised corrupt worship They acknowledged him I graunt but him only I denie as hath ben proued Further you affirme in your defence of your First Reason Pag. 30. That they professed the written lawe to be the rule both for their inward beliefe and outward manner of worship Where you would proue it For that the Apostate Israelites did so of whom Ezeck speaketh Zeck 43.8 First this followeth not because the Heathenish Samaritans were further from sinceritie then the naturall Israelites commonly Secondly Israell it selfe in this wretched Apostasie helde not the written law for their rule seeing professedlie they left this rule and did constantlie worship Calues and sacrifized at Dan and Bethel Thirdly Ezekiell sheweth euen there cap. 43.7.8 they kept not this rule but departed therefrom and that as appeareth professedly and constantly Which most of all is seene in Ahab Ahaziah Ahas Pag. 34. 55. Manasses and Amon as is before noted Wherfore in these your sayings Maister Iohnson you are intollerably too blame and foully deceaued As for example They professed that which they did in 2. Kinges 17.29 30 31. was that after the rule of the written Lawe Next you oppugne me for that I alleadged our Assemblies throughout England Pag. 52. haue not their consciences conuicted in the Hyerarchy and ceremonies you say if this were so is it any iust defence of your ministery worship estate c. I tell you it is a iust defence for our ministerie worship and estate to be as touching the substance and foundation of Christianitie sound and acceptable to God Refute it if you can I knowe it is no iust defence of our whole Ministery estate manner of worship which I neuer intended much lesse professed to