A DEFENCE OF THE CHV …

A DEFENCE OF THE CHVRCHES AND MINISTERY OF ENGLANDE.

Written in two Treatises, against the Reasons and Obiections of Maister FRANCIS IOHNSON, and others of the separation commonly called BROWNISTS.

Published, especially, for the benefitt of those in these partes of the lowe Countries.

MIDDELBVRGH, By Richard Schilders, Printer to the States of Zealand, 1599.

THE PVBLISHER TO THE CHRISTIAN READER.

ABout Three Yeeres since, Maister Iacob hauing some speach with certen of the separation before mentioned, concerning their peremptory & vtter separation frō the Churches of England, was requested by them, briefly to sétt down in wryting, his Reason for defence of the said Churches, And they would either yeild vnto his proofes, or procure an answer vnto the same. Wherevpon, the Argument following this Preface, was set downe in wryting by Maister Iacob: which the said parties did send to Maister Fr. Iohnson, being then prisoner in the Clinke in Southwark, who made an answer vnto the same, conteyning 3. Exceptions and 9. Reasons in denyall of the Assumption: Wherevnto Maister Iacob Replyed. Afterward Maister Iohnson defended his said Exceptions and Reasons: And finally, Maister Iacob Replyed againe. As by the particulars themselues appeareth.

Now hauing weighed and considered with my selfe, the great ignorance and errors, wherewith those of the separation aforesaid, are and haue bene lately carried awaye: namely, to affirme, That all that stande members of the Churches of Englande, are no true Christians, nor in state of saluation, And such like most vngodly sentences, which would grieue any Christian soule once to thinke on, much more to publish to the view of the world: And weighing likewise withall, the greate weakenes of manie Chri­stians among vs, who (through want of experience, or due consideration of things as they are) may ease­lie by their delusions be drawne away into those errors with them: I haue therefore: (Aswell in hope of reclaiming of the said parties from their said extremities, (which now I iudge the most of them, for want of meanes see not:) As also for the staying of others from running into the same grieuous excesse with them) now published this discourse to the view of the world, which hath line buryed in the hands of some few. Many being desirous of it, who by reason of the largnes in wryting out of the same could not obteyne it: Wherevnto I am so much the rather induced, For that the Reasons herein by Maister Iacob alleadged, haue (by Gods blessing) reclaymed many from their former errors, and satisfied others, who haue bene doubtfull, and subiect to fall into the same.

In the examining of which Discourse, I shall desire the Reader to obserue a few notes for his better proffiting in the same.

1. And First, (among the rest) to note this, as a token of the strange and obstinate dealing of Maister Iohnson and others of them, viz. That heretofore, (vntill such time as the Argument hereafter mentio­ned, was framed aganst them,) they neuer denyed, That the doctrine and profession of the Churches of England, was sufficient to make those that beleeued and obeyed them, to be true Christians, and in state of saluation: But alwayes held, professed and acknowledged the contrarie: As by the publike confessi­ons of themselues, namely Maister Barrow, Maister Penry, and Maister Iohnson himselfe, in this dis­course mentioned in Pag. 81. appeareth: But nowe, they seing; That if they should acknowledge the said Doctrines and profession, to be sufficient to saluation: That then this conclusion would of necessitie follow, that those that hold and practize thē, are a true Which yet Maister Penry confessed, see Pag. 82. Church, And so their own former iudgements should be crossed. Rather I say then they would be drawne to that, They nowe stick not to deny their owne confessions (which they thinke to be the saifest way for them,) and like vnnaturall children, so vehemently hate, contemne, and dispise their mother who bare them, nourished, and brought them vp: from whose brests they sucked that sweete milke of the meanes of euerlasting life and saluation, (if euer they had any tast of it at all.) Beeing notwithstanding, not abashed nowe in a desperate manner, in the hardnes of their heart, to affirne: Which appeareth, generally by denying the Assumption of Ma. Iacobs, & particularly in these pages 13. 62. 63. 64. That none by the doctrine of the Churches of England, can be a true Christian, or saued: But that they all worship God in vaine, Are abolished from Christ, Are Babiloni­ans, Idolaters, departers from the faith, worse then Infidels; And such like most vnchristian sentences, making them all one with the Church of Rome, &c. Which impious affirmations, would cause any Christian heart to lament and bleed for grief; Whose vnchristian sentences, and false and deceiptfull Reasons, (the very naming whereof were sufficient to refute them,) are most plainly taken awaye, and cleane ouerthrowne, by these brief Replies of Maister Iacob vnto euery of them, vnto which I re­ferre yow. Onely this I adde with all, which I would desire might be noted: That if they conti­new in their former confessions, That the doctrines and profession of the Churches of England are suffi­cient to saluation; (As they ought, it being the very truth) Then are they all in a most grieuous schisme, in so peremptorily condempning, and separating, from such true Christians and Churches. And if they deny it: (as they haue begonne to doe:) Then doe they runne headlong, into an intollerable sinne and extremitie, without all warrant of Gods word: And besides giue iust occasion to be called fearfull Which name they vniustly giue to those, that iustly for this their ex­tremity forsake their fellowship Apo­states, in so wholy falling (and that aduisedly, for aduantage sake, as it seemeth plainely to appeare) from so notable a truth which before they imbraced, and acknowledged.

2 Secondly, I would desier the Reader not to be carried away with the multitude of corruptions, from the Question or matter in hand, (viz. Whether the good doctrines of the Churches of England are sufficient to saluation in them that in simplicitie of heart beleeue and imbrace them, notwithstanding the multitude of errors and corruptions which Maister Iohnson repeateth to the contrarie:) But to haue an especiall regard vnto the same. Which is the maine poinct that hath and doeth altogeather deceiue them, viz. To haue an eye to the corruptions in the Ministerie, worship, and gouernement of the Chur­ches of England: But neuer to looke vnto the nature and force of them, whether simply of their owne nature, they ouerthrow faith and Christianitie, or whether they be held of obstinacy and a conuicted conscience, or not. Therefore I pray you marke and examine the errors which they reckon vp, (and I desire the same also of them, for whose good especially I published this Treatise.) And after due consi­deration, see if those errors are simplie of that nature which before we haue noted. If they be not, (as Maister Iohnson nor all the men in the world, shall euer be able to proue they are:) Then doe they gett no aduantage by those errors, to this purpose which they vrge them for, although they were Thrice as many Notwithstan­ding they are too many al­ready. more as they are. Thus they may see how they haue all this while ben deceiued, and are now to seeke a new for defence of their separation. For I hope they will not say, That euery error, held in sim­plicitie by Christians, doth cut them off from saluation in Christ; Then should they condempne them­selues, vnlesse they hold Anabaptisticall perfection, which surely though I thinke they hold it not sim­ply in their consciences; Yet in their practize (by condempning others so peremtorily; that iump not euen with them in euery poinct) they come very neare it: But let this passe; wee see then, That of necessitie, the nature of the errors must be regarded, Euery sinne is not a like. Me thinkes then, that they should affoard that fauour to others, which they would haue others to offoard vnto them: namely, That as they would be accompted true Christians, through their faith in Christ, notwithstanding their errours (which they must acknowledge Psal. 19.12 1. Cor. 13.9.12 are infinite manie in this life.) So they should accompt of others in the like case: which euen common sence and humanitie would require them to graunt.

To impresse this thing a little better in their mindes, I will a little turne my speech vnto them. And I would pray them, to call to minde the manie errors and corruptions which they beare with amonge themselues, and lay them and the errors with vs togeather, and they shall see their equalitie.

Some of you, hold it vtterly and simply vnlawfull, to sweare by a booke, to proue a will, take an admi­nistration or sue in the Ecclesiasticall Courts: To shut vp your shops vpon Holly dayes and Festiuall dayes, &c. And that these are the inuentions of Antichrist, &c. And others of you, hold these thinges altogeather lawfull, and haue and doe put them in practise, with manie other such like thinges which I could name. But these shall suffice.

Now the thing which I would from hence note is this. Can you among your selues beare with such weighty poinctes as these, which you say are the inuentions & traditions of Antichrist that man of sinne, which (in your accompt) are the I would you knew the marks of the Beast a little better. marks of the Beast, Reu. 14. which who soeuer receiueth, shall drinke of the wine of the wrath of God, and shalbe tormented in Hell fier for euer? And will not your stumackes serue you, to beare with the Churches of England, in the like, or rather in farr lesser matters? What equi­tie is there in this? Surely you are (for the most parte) so wholly giuen, and bend your wits and mindes so much, to looke into the estate of other men & other Churches, & to apply the scriptures to thē: As you sildome or neuer look into your own estate, or apply the scripturs to your selues: But looke vnto it, it will be your decay in th'end. You may see thē by your own practize all errors are not alike: But yet, will some say, Obiection. are not all the scriptures and commaundements of God fundamentall, and to be obeyed alike? &c.

Answer. Let such consider of this scripture 1. Cor. 3.12.15. amongst many other: which plainly proueth, that many errors (so they be not of obstinacie) may be built by a Christian vpon the fundation Christ Iesus, and yet be a true Christian still: For which see further Maister Iacobs answer in Pag. 88. Againe there are errors simply fundamentall, which of their owne nature cleane abolish from Christ; such are the er­rors of the Arians concerning the Deitie of Christ: of the Anabaptists concerning his humanitie: of the Papists concerning Iustification by workes, praying to, and trusting in Saincts, and such like, which directly raze the very foūdation. But that any one, or all, of the errors in the Churches of England are of this force (as you would seeme to hold by all your 9. Reasons) is most impious and vngodly to affirme: And as Maister Iacob very well noteth in his answer to euery one of them: You thereby ouerthrow the Martirs in Queene Maries dayes, from being Christians, who held the very same corruptions in their ministerie, worship, &c. which is now held in England: But say you, the Martirs saw no further. Then you confesse against your selues, that our errors doe not simply abolish from Christ (as you euery where affirme most vngodly, especially in defence of your 7. Reason.) But that if men in these things see no fur­ther, they are in the same estate with the Martirs. Now if you would haue your Reasons hould, you must proue the Churches of England all conuicted in cōscience, which I hope you will not goe about to doe.

Thus much concerning the nature of our errors, whether they be of obstinacie, or against the fundati­on directly: Which is the Second note I desire to be obserued.

3 Thirdly, I would desire the Reader to obserue, the wresting and misaplying of certen places of [Page 5]scripture, which (partly in this Treatise, and also in other their wrytings) they alleadge for their absolute and peremptory separation from the Churches of England: which I haue thought not a misse here to sett downe, that thereby the Reader (and them selues, vpon better consideration of the ende and scope of the holy Ghost in these places) may see, how they wrest and misapply them, cleane contrary from the true and naturall sence thereof.

The scriptures which they alleadge for their separation, are these.

Then the sonnes of God saw the daughters of men. Gen. 6.2.
Yee shall keepe therefore all mine ordinances and all my iudgments and doe them, that the land whether I bring you to dwell therein spew you not out, therefore shall ye bee holy vnto mee, for I the Lord am holy, and I haue separated you from other people, that you should be mine. Leu. 20.22.26.
So the children of Israell which were come againe out of captiuitie, and all such as had separated them­selues vnto them from the filthines of the Heathen of the land, to seeke the Lord God of Israell, did eate, &c. Ezra. 6.21.
Departe, departe yee, goe out from thence, and touch no vncleane thinge, goe out of the middest of her, be ye cleane that beare the vessels of the Lord Esa. 52.11.
Fly from the middest of Babell, and departe out of the land of the Caldeans. Ier. 50.8. And Fly out of the middest of Babell and deliuer euery man his soule from the fierce wrath of the Lorde. Ier. 51.6.45
Come not yee to Gilgall, neither goe ye vp to Bethauen. Hos. 4.15.
Come to Bethell and transgresse, and to Gilgall and multiply transgression, &c. Seeke not Bethellner enter into Gilgall, and goe not to Beersheba. Amos. 4.4.5.
Saue your selues from this froward generation. Act. 2.40.
And when certen were hardned and disobeyed speaking euell of the way of god before the multitude, he departed from them and separated the discipels, &c. Act. 19.9.
Therefore come out from among them, and separate your selues saith the the Lorde, and touch no vn­cleane thing, and I will receiue you. 2. Cor. 6.17.
And I heard another voice from heauen, saying, goe out of her my people, &c. Reu. 18.4.

These are the very mayne grounds, on which their separation is builded, which being duly weighed with the scope of the text, you shall very easely finde, that not one amongest them all, will hold in pro­portion with this time, nor beare the separation they gather frō them. First because either they concerne such times and states as the people that liued in th [...]; were professors of, or subiect vnto, open grosse Infi­delitie, & either Heathen or Antichristiā Idolatry, not in some particuler customes & outward ordināces, but in the whole body and power of Heathen & Antichristian religion, such as could not possibly stand with true faith and religion at all: Which can not be said of these times & present standings, without open vntruth. 2 Or els because if they be not of that sort, they affoard no such absolute separation at all, but only frō wilful, rebellious, & obstinate disobeyers, & euill speakers, and from apparant grosse corruptions, but not from the whole publike body of those Assemblies, nor from the lawfull and good things vsed in such times and standings, as haue not wholy swarued from the faith, though there were diuers grieuous faults, both in doctrine and practize, suffered among them. As by the example of the Iewish Churches in the times of the Prophets, especially of Christ him selfe, may plainly appeare. The Euangelistes make mention in diuers places, That they worshipped God in vaine, teaching for doctrine mens preceptes. They made their proselites the Children of Hell Two fold more then they were before. They made the commaundements of God of none effect by their traditions. Such as beleeued in Christ they excommunicated, &c. Yet were they a true Church, notwithstanding these, and many other grieuous enormities: with whom Christ himself and his Apostles, had communion and fellowship, sometime in those good things that were among them. And so might they with the Churches of England, without iustifying or allow­ing these things, which they see to be euill. All which things doe more fully appeare in the conference it selfe, as it followeth hereafter.

But vnto the examples of these Churches, me thinkes I heare already that common answer and last refuge of theirs: which is this. Obiection▪ Those Churches (say they) were in a true outward constitution, And therfore were the true Churches of Christ, notwithstanding those grosse errors which they held in other poincts of doctrine and practize: But contrariwise (say they) the Churches of England haue a false outward con­stitution, and therefore they are no true Churches of Christ, notwithstanding their truthes of doctrine, &c.

Answer. So the outward constitution is the maine poinct on which they wholy depend, and for which, they wholy condempne the Churches of England from being true Christians & in state of saluation: Which I doubt not plainly to take away. 1 And first concerning the constitution of the Iewish Churches. If we should examine the same, we should finde that it was as greatly altered and corrupted, as is the constitution of the Churches of England. Two high Priests hauing by simony crept in at once, which was vnlawfull, and contrarie to Gods ordinance, (notwithstanding their gloses in their other 9 Reasons. wri­tinges, to allow them to be lawfull by 2. Chron. 24.2.3. Zadok and Ahimelech, and by 2. King 25.18. Seruiah the chief Prieste, & Zephaniah the Second: which make against themselues:) For there was neuer but one high Priest, as [Page 6]they confesse Answere to Maister Hild. Pag. 50. (Ergo not two as here were) the rest were indeed inferior to him: And yet amongst those, there was a chiefty also, who were called, sometimes Second Priestes, or Priestes of the Second order▪ 2. King. 23.4. and sometimes chief Priests, Mat. 27.1. These scriptures being compared with those in the margin by them cited, doe make it more plaine. Now, if the chief offices, were so corrupted and altered through couetousnes, as the Histories make mention: It is not likely, that the inferior offices did remaine sound, but were asmuch or more altered: The Priests (generally) being such couetous wicked persons, their offices beeing very gainefull: and besides they liuing vnder the authoritie of the Heathe­nish Romans, who ruled ouer them. All these things considered, it is very likely that y e offices & outward constitution (on which they so much depend) were wholy altered from the right institution, and there­fore would make nothing for thē. As for their allegation of Mat. 23.1. Where they say, Christ testifieth that they had true offices, by saying they satt in Moses chaire: It will not help them, any whit at all. For Moses was no Priest, as they were, but a Magistrate: and therefore Moses chaire must be vnderstood of some what else: & themselues Maist. Bar­row and Mai. Greenwood, in diuers Letters and Treatises. haue vnderstood it heretofore, of Moses doctrine. 2. Secondly (to let their constitution passe, which yet as I haue said, would be found as badde or worse then ours) wee will examine their corruptions in doctrine: Wherein I would know of thē, which are the greater sinnes, of these two sorts, viz.

  • 1. A false and corrupt outward constitution:
  • 2. Or false and corrupt doctrines.

I thinke they will say, the corrupt and false doctrines are the greater, as they are indeed: For that they, doe wound, fester and corrupt the very conscience, and doe deceiue the hearers thereof, Whereas the errors in the constitution of a Church, (especially in some circumstances (as the errors with vs are) and those of no small controuersie, in matters also not fundamentall) are nothing nere so hurtfull: by howe much the Tithing of Mint, Annis, and Commin, are of lesser force then the other weightier matters of the law. Now from hence, I Reason thus.

If the greater sinnes (namely in doctrine) doe not simply ouerthrow a companie of Christians, from being a true Church: Then much lesse will the lesser sinnes (namely in the outward constitution, &c.)

But the false doctrines (which are the greater sinnes) themselues confesse by the example of the said, Churches doe not. Therefore neither will the lesser.

For the better explayning of this poinct, I would pray them resolue me of this question. What if a company of Arians, Anabaptistes. or Papistes, shoud bee gathered and established in a true outward constitution, and still reteyne their fundamentall errors before pag. 4. named: Whether should their outward constitution make them a true Church, yea [...] no? I thinke they will say no. Thus I hope then it appeareth, That the outward constitution whether falty or true, availeth nothing to the ouer­throwing or making of a true Church, vnlesse other doctrines of the foundation, either false or true, doe concurre therewith. And thus their Obiection of the Iewish constitution, is (I trust) fully answered: So that still their peremptory separation and condempning of the Churches of England, for some outward corruptions, temayneth still a grieuous sinne vpon their heades: for which (without harty repentance) they shall one day answer before God, which will be too heauie a burthen for them to beare.

Lastly, concerning our corruptions: As we cannot iustifie them to be no corruptions, (but must needes acknowledge, that there are many yet remaining in our land, which were left by that man of sinne & are as thornes vnto our sides, Iudg. 2.3. which we hope God will in time abolish): So dare we not runne into your extremities, to condempne our Churches for such corruptions, but waight the appoincted time of God for the redresse thereof. Yet in the meane time, so longe as those most excellent truthes and doctrines of saluation, (for which God make vs thankfull) are still reteyned and held, as soundly as by any Church vpon the face of the earth (the other errors not simply ouerthrowing the same, beeing not held of ob­stinacy, and being also for the most parte, of great controuersie and disputation amonge the learned:) So long I say, communion in things lawfull, is to be kept with them, as before is noted in the example of other Churches: Otherwise, it will come to passe, (by reason of the Mat. 25.13. to 23. diuersitie in opinions and iudg­mentes which by the corruption of our nature we remaine in, in this tabernacle, as hath Leu. 4. Psal. 19.12. bene in all ages, and 1 Cor. 13.9, 12. shalbe, 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, M r Iohnson made 3. Exceptions and 9. Reasons, which hereafter follow in order: Together with M r 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. [Page 2]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 bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, saue onely to manifest to vs so much the more, that the soare of their Assemblies can­not be healed. In our former answere, we first tooke 3. Exceptions against them, comparing together their profession and practise, then we alleadged 9. Reasons, directly concluding the falshood of the Assumption.

H. IACOB.

BEfore I examine this your answer, I would desire you, and all others, to note, that all your Exceptions and Reasons, with your defence of them, hereafter following, doe consist of these three generall pointes.

  • 1. That euerie person in England, holding our publik faith, is no true Christian.
  • 2. That all the Christians and Churches in King Edwards [Page 3]time, and namelie Maister Cramner, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Lati­mer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Taylor, &c. were all lims of Antichrist, and no true Christians.
  • 3. That euery soule in England, is convicted in conscience, that the Praelacie is vnlawfull and vntollerable.

The First of these, is our maine question, and the grounde of all our reasoning, which you gainsay. The Second, though it be not expreslie spoken, yet it is directlie, euidently, and vndeniably concluded, by all & euery of your arguments against vs. As in the seueralls hereafter we shal see. The Third, you are driuen vnto, for defence of your former Asser­tion, which else falleth to the grounde. And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1.6. and 7. Reasons.

Nowe my desire is, that all men would take notice of these your 3: Assertions, and consider indifferentlie, vvhether they proceede from an honest, a sober, or a Christian minde. And you M. Iohnson, if you list hereafter to say any more, defende these 3. pointes directly and plainly, that your ansvveres may be briefer, and more certen, then now they are.

Novve I come to the particular examination of your former answerere.

First you say, You omitted the Proposition before, not for the sound­nes of it, but only, because you would see howe I meant it. Why? He that hath but halfe an eye, may see the meaning of those vvordes, where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of sence at all. What fault finde you in it nowe? Forsooth, first a want in the Assumption, & then vntruethes, both in the Proposition, and Assumption of my Sillogisme. There wanteth (you say) that I should expresse in the Assumptiō, That our Assemblies be companies gathered togeather in the doctrines & ordinances which we all by lawe publiquely professe and practise. Who but a wrangler would not vnderstand that I meant so much? Nay doe not my expresse wordes imply asmuch: vvhen I say, We by lavve publiquely professe and prac­tise them? Then are not our Assemblies (vvhich are by lavv) gathered together in this profession & povver? Fy for shame, these are sencelesse cauilations. But because vvhat in me lyeth, I vvould not haue you any more to stumble at a strawe, I haue to satisfie you vvithall, Not that the Argumēt is vn­sound without this addition: But because y e Reader may see howe you will play at a smal game ra­ther then sit out, vt aiunt. novve added those words to the Assumption aforesaid in a contrarie letter which you desire, viz. and our publike assemblies are therein gathered togeather.

Secondly, you say, that my proposition meaneth, that what soeuer is held togeather and ioyned, with that which otherwise might make a true Christian, or a true Church: Yet notwitstanding they are so to be reputed, as if there were no such additions or comixtures. O strange dealing: in all my writing I haue no such worde, no silable, no letter, sounding to that sence I haue directly contrary, in my answere to your Fourth Rea­son, [Page 4]as your self noteth there. Yet yow M. Iohnson, with out al shame, in the view of the world, doe Father on me this foule vntruth, and most sencelesse errour, in your first entrance.

Further, where as it seemeth you reproue my Proposion, requiring to to haue it set thus: Whatsoeuer is sufficient to make a particuler man a true Christian (and hath nothing added with it distroying the foundation of faith) That is sufficient to make a company so gathered togither, a true Church.

You must know M r. Iohnson, that that were an idle & vaine addition: for wheresoeuer there are any such things added distroying faith, there whatsoeuer else seemeth sufficient, indeed it is not sufficient to make a true Christian. Wherefore nodum in scirpo quaeris, this is to finde a knot in a rush. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Proposition.

The Assump­tion examined by the Excep­tions and Rea­sons following Lastly you come to deny my Assumption, or rather to maintaine your denyall heretofore giuen. Where first note that by denying my assum­ption, yovv affirme the first generall poinct noted in this beginning.

That euery particuler person in England, holding our publike faith here, is not true Christian. Which (O Lorde) who would not tremble to thinke on? Euen that which this man aboue two yeares a goe affirmed, and now againe aduisedly and wilfully defendeth. I take hea­uen and earth to record this day, whether this be not desperate madnes, yea or no. But let vs examine your exceptions, and reasons against my Assumption more particularly, & we shall see what stuffe it is. Your first exception against the same is as followeth.

Maister Iohnsons I. Exception against the former Assumption: with Maister Iacobs Replies to the same. EXCEPTION. I.

FIrst let here be considered the 19. Article of that doctrine and booke, which is alleaged by themselues for their defence, and see if their profession and practize be not contrary one to an other: Yea whether euen by their owne doctrine and confession, conteyned in that booke, it be not monifest, that they haue not a true visible Church of Christ.

The words of the Article are these.

The visible Church of Christ is a Congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, Artic. 19. and the Sacraments be duely ministred, according to Christs ordinance, in all those things, that of necessitie are requisite to the same.

These are their owne wordes and doctrine: Now if they cannot proue their Assemblies to be such, they may see that their own witnesses, (euen their own doctrine & book alleadged) giue verdict against thē. If they can [Page 5]proue them to be such: where and what are their proofes, touching the par­ticulers, mentioned in this their owne discription of a visible Church of Christ.

H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 1. Excep.

THis his first Exception, is the 19. Article of this very book which we alleage, wherein a visible Church is discribed to be a Congregation, where the pure word is preached, and Sacramentes ministered, according to all those thinges, that of necessitie are requisite. Now this discription, he reiecteth not, but our practise (saith he) is con­trary: and therefore we haue no true visible Churches, nor Christians.

I answer: wherin is it contrarie? in what things that of necessite are re­quisite? doth not all this Christian world see & confesse, that our publike practise, is agreable to our profession in that booke? Nay (saith he) but proue you your assemblies to be such, and if you can proue them, where and what are your proofs? if you do not, you are confuted. A worthy confuta­cion sure, & very Clercklike: As if my Tenaunt should deny me rent for my house & land, yea and go to law with me for the fee simple, which he hath holden in ferme of me these 40. yeares and I haue hetherto, quiet­lie enioyed from my Auncestours, time out of minde: Now he suing me at law, for that which I thus possesse, faith, proue your right to this land which you haue; if you can, what, and where, be your proofes? let me see them: Or els I your Tenaunt will haue it: This were goodly dealing, were it not, and very lawfull. Euen so doe you, asking proofes of vs for that which we possesse, and haue possessed before you made any question a­bout it, nay you your selues, held parte of this possession of vs and with vs, till yesterday, when you began first to lay claime in this sorte to the whole. Now your reason is, let vs proue it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or els you will not acknowledge vs any longer: see I pray you your owne equity. If this suffice not to make you desist, I leaue it to the Iudges to giue sentence.

Secondly note further: Our Article saith, A Church is where the word is preached, & Sacraments ministred according to all things that of necessitie are requisite. Where we plain­ly insinuate, that many errors may be added, & truthes wanting in a visi­ble Church: but nothing which is absolutely necessary: Now, what doth our practize, in Preaching, or Sacraments, want, that is absolutely neces­sarie, without which, there cannot be any true preaching or Sacraments at all, shew it vs because we see it not our selues I assure you; vntill then, your first reason hath no reason in it.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Excep.

HOw fit or vnfit the said discription of a visible Church (mentioned in the 19. Article of the said book) is, we neither did, nor doe examine. Onely because this is their owne profession, and wee see their practise is contrary vnto it, we did therfore from hence take our first exception, re­quiring of them, to shew their assemblies to be such, or els to know, that their own discription, is a witnes against themselues.

Now in their reply, haue they according to the particulers of that de­scription, iustified their Church-assemblies? nothing lesse. Let this there­fore be first obserued. But what then haue they donne? Surely this. First pretending as if they repeated our exception, and their owne discription, they leaue out diuers perticulers, of speciall moment there expressed, as first, where the visible Church is discribed, to bee a congregation of faith­full men, they leaue out these wordes (of faithfull men) belike knowing that their Congregations, which are holds of all foule spirits, and cages of euery vncleane and hatefull bird, Reuel. 18.2. cannot therefore iustly bee accoumpted congregations of faithfull men. Secondly, where the description speaketh, that the Sacraments be duely ministered: they leaue out the word (duely:) because it crosseth their womens Baptisme, priuate Communion, receiuing of the most prophane and their seede, &c. Lastly, where in the description it is reqaired, both for preaching the pure word and due administration of the Sacraments, that they be donne according to Christes ordinance: they leaue out altogither these words (according to Christes ordinance:) belike because this clause quite ouerthroweth both their Antichristian Prelacy, from which all the inferior Ministers amongst them receiue power and authoritie to preach, and minister the Sacramentes, and their Priesthood and Deaconery, wherein they all administer, and their stinted imposed prayers, exhortations, crosses on the forehead, questiones to the infantes, vse of the same wordes in English in ministering the Lords supper, which the papists vsed and still vse in Latine, not reteyning the words of Christs institution, and such like.

Now thus hauing left out such perticulers as were of spetiall moment against them, they next demaund wherein their practize is contrary to their profession, and discription of a visible Church, in what things that of necessitie are requisite? We aunswere, in all the particulers of that de­scription aforesaid.

For firste, their Church-assemblies, are not congregations of faithfull men, but a confusion of all manner of people though neuer so wicked and prophane. The D. Whithg last booke, pag. 176. and 178. Prelates and Formalistes affirme, that their Church is full of Atheistes, Papistes, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whoremōgers, & such like. The Sermon on Rom. 12. pag. 65. and 66. Demonstratiō in the preface. forward Preachers likewise auerre, that in their church are swarmes of Atheists, Idolators, Papistes, erronious & hereticall sectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murtherers, Theeues, Adulterers, Ly­ers, &c. Finally, that a mā may be any thing amongst thē, sauing a sound Christian. These things being so, as both their estate and writings beare witnesse: let themselues iudge, whether their Assemblies can be accoun­ted Congregations of faithfull men, or no: which is the first poinct of the description aforesaid.

Secondly, in the same description is required, That the pure worde of God be preached, according to Christes ordinance. But amongst them, are allowed besides the word of God, the Apocripha bookes: and in stead of preaching the worde, the reading of Homilies: as may appeare in that booke of Articles alleadged by themselues. Yet who knoweth not, that in those bookes, are diuers vntruthes, errors, contradictions, blasphemies, and such like? So farre are they from being the pure word of God, or agreeing therewith. Moreouer, when and where the worde is preached among them, it is done by vertue of a false office and calling, neuer appointed by Christ. And the Ministers that preach it, doe in their constitution stand alwayes subiect, to be silenced, suspended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when they are made Priestes,) they promise, and (when they enter vpon a benefice) they sweare, Canoni­call obedience. Neither are they suffered any further to preach the word, and trueth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Iniunctions, aduertice­ments, and caueats, in that behalfe prouided. If any preach the worde of God anie further, they are subiect to be silenced, banished, & put to death. That these things accord with the ordinance of Christ, or with their owne description of a visible Church, we suppose themselues will not for shame affirme it.

Lastlie, in their description it is required, That the Sacramentes bee duely ministred, according to the ordinance of Christ, in all things, that of necessitie are requisite to the same. Nowe by the ordinance of Christ, in the administration of the Sacramentes, there are necessarilie required 1. A lawfull Minister. 2. A lawfull people. And thirdly, A lawfull administration, according to the Testament of Christ: In all which, their practize is conerarie to the ordinance of Christ, and their own description aforesaid. Their Ministers all of them are either Prelates, Priestes, or Deacons (which amongst them is a step to the Priesthood:) none of which Christ hath ordeyned in his Testament for the worke of his ministerie. Their people are not separated from the world, but stande in confusion with it, and in subiection to the Antichristian Prelates and Prelacie: See Iohn. 15.19. & 17.14.16. 1. Iohn. 4.5, 6 Act. 2.40. and 19.9. Reuel. 18.4. & 14.9. And therefore can not be deemed a true church of God, & the people of Christ, vnto whom in such estate the Sacraments (which are seales of the coue­nant of grace) doe apperteyne, and may be administred. Finally, their administration is acçording to the inuentions and precepts of man, with stinted prayers, exhortations, Epistles and Gospels: and besides those in Baptisme, crossing on the forehead, & questions to the infant: in the Lords supper, translating, and vsing out of the Masse booke, other wordes then the wordes of Christes institution, and such like, as may bee seene at large in their booke of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the [Page 8]Masse booke, full of all abominations, as Admonitiō to the Parla­ment, second treatis. themselues haue published heretofore.

These things we haue ben forced thus to mention at large, both because they twice demaund (as if they knewe not themselues) wherein their pra­ctise is contrarie to that description aforesaid: and because they blush not to affirme, that all the Christian world seeth and confesseth their practize to be aggreeable to their profeession in that booke. Whereas the contrarie is most true.

Touching which, what themselues haue heretofore written to the con­trarie: See in the Admonitions to the Parleament, Replyes of T. C. against D. Whitguift, Demonstration of Discipline, &c, And what the reformed Churches professe to the contrarie: see in the Frenche, Belgicke, and Hel­uetian Churches, and in the Harmonie of cōfessions, Sect. 10. & 11. which would be too long to set downe at large in this place: Neither is it needfull, seeing it is most euident in the books and places alleadged, whether we re­ferre the Reader.

Thus also it appeared, what iust cause wee had, to put them to proue their assemblies, to be such, as themselues discribe visible Churches to bee: Which, seing they haue not yet done, and seing their practice is contrarie to their profession, as now (at their request) we haue shewed in the perticu­lers aforesaid: If they still bee minded as before, wee doe also still aske, where and what are their proofes, touching the perticulers mentioned in their owne description of a visible Church.

Their similitude of a Landlord and Tennaunt, is against themselues, so wortthy and Clercklike is their reply. If any haue vsurped, or other­wise made a false clame neuer so long, to a piece of lād or other possession: may they not iustly be called vpon to shew their title & bring fourth their euidence? Let the Iudges giuē sentence. If I deny their clame and title to be such, let him shew their euidence from the Apostles writinges: Let vs from thence see their euidence for the offices of Archbs., Lordbs., Suffra­ganas, Archdeacons, Chauncelers, Commissaries, Officials, Priests, Par­sons, Ʋicars, Cnraets, &c: For their entrance into their Offices, according to their Cannons, and Booke of ordering Priestes and Deacons, and of consecrating Archbishops and Bishops: For their administration by their stinted imposed Liturgy, and by their Popish Cannons, Officers and pro­ceedings: For their Churching of women, praying ouer the dead, Holy­dayes to Saints and Angels, Fastes on their Eaues, &c. For their main­tenance by Tythes, Chrisomes, Offerings, &c. For their confused commu­nion of all sortes of people, though neuer so wicked, in the body of their Church, &c. Let them (I say) shewe vs euidence for those, from the Apo­stles [Page 9]writinges, if they deny their claime to bee such, as wee haue noted. Otherwise if they Isay. 8.20. speake not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, neither any right to that they challendge.

Where they say, vve held part of their possession vvith thē heretofore: If they meane, that we with them receiued the beastes marke, and drunke of the cup of Babels abominations, we deny it not: but acknowledge Gods mercy, that passing ouer our sinnes, hath giuen vs grace and strength at his Reue. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18 Actes. 2.4. commaundement, to forsake that way of Antichrist, and to come out of that spirituall Babilon, to saluation of our soules, which mercy wee wish also vnto these men, that so being saued from this froward generatiō, they may become the sonnes and daughters of the Lord almighty in Christ our Sauiour.

Touching their Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Ministration, &c. enough is said before. Onely where they say, they see not themselues wherin they faile, touching Preaching or Sacramēts, in things necessary, It is too impudent vntruth, as their Admonition to the Parlia­ment: T. C. his replies in de­fence thereof: Demonstratiō of discipline. Declaration & defence of Ec­clesiastical dis­cipline, &c. former writtings doe and will alwayes testifie to their faces, which wee will not stand here to relate. That shall suffice which we haue touched before, which till it bee aunswered, it will be found that our first exception hath both reason and weight in it what­soeuerthey doe or can pretend to the contrarie.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 1. Excep.

HEre is much adoe to no purpose. You obserue 4. pointes in our Ar­ticle omitted by mee, vvherein our practize is contrarie to our profession. Firste, our Article requireth a visible Church to bee an assembly of faithfull men: But our assemblies (say you) are not so. This is false, they are so, you shall neuer proue in vs the contrarie, more then appea­reth was in the Church of the Iewes, both Auncient and in the time of Christ, And yet they then were the true Church: As I haue elswhere in this Booke sufficiently proued and shewed against you. That which you bring of D. Whitgift and other writers amongst vs of the prophanesse of many in our assemblies, you depraue their meaninges vtterlie: for though they graunt verie many such to be amongst vs, yet they say not, that all our assemblies are such, nor our whole assemblies: Neither denie they our assemblies to be companies of faithfull men, or vtterly to be se­parated from: Nay, the contrarie doe they: euen that onely they ought to be reformed. Therefore you too grossely abuse them.

Secondly, The Article requireth the pure worde of God to be preached. But (say you) the Apocrypha books, & reading of Homilies, & other errors are allowed in our practize: Yea surely & in our professiō too as your selfe obserueth in the book of Artic. yet then our profession & practise differ not, as you charg our Churches. But these poinctes are not the pure word of God: Neither [Page 10]doth the Article meane, that in a visible church, euery iot & title, both of our professiō & practize, must needs be out of the pure word. They knew that euery visible Church might & did erre in somewhat. Onely it mea­neth, that a visible Church might not erre in any poinct, that of necessi­tie is requisite, as their wordes expresse. It resteth then that you shew, that the pure word is not preached in our assemblies by law, sufficiently to saluation: which yet you doe not, nor can doe. Therefore you say no­thing. For, I for my part know well, that our Churches faile from the pure word in sundrie lesser points, which though they be errours, yet are they not Fundamentall, neither doe they in their ovvne nature abolish from Christ.

Thirdlie, the Article hath according to Christes ordinance: But you saye, that we preach in strange and false functions, such as are not Christes ordi­nances. This is false too, Our ordinarie Preachers are true Pastours, as touching the substance of Pastorall calling, as I haue often aunswered you, albeit they haue a wrong ordination from the Prelacie. See my de­fence of this poinct, as also of that concerning the confusion of our peo­ple, in my other writing long since deliuered to you, touching the In my aun­swer to the 1. reason of that treatise follow­ing in the end of this booke. com­paring of the condition of a Ministerie with Mariadge. Now this ordi­nance of Christ to haue a true Pastor to a faithfull people, is sufficient for the being of a true Church, though not for the perfection of it. Contra­rie to the which, you haue nothing but words.

Lastlie, the Article requireth due administration of Sacraments: But our practize (say you) herein is not due or intier, because there concurre diuers corru­ptions withall: as stinted prayers, exhortations, Epistles, Gospels, & Cros­sing in Baptisme, &c. I answere: all these simplie of them selues doe not abolishe our Sacraments. If you thinke they doe, say so, and you shalbe refuted. If nay, Then this very Article signifieth so much, That corrup­tions and faultes might be in the Sacraments, but nothing amisse that of necessitie is requisite.

Novve, all these 4. poinctes I haue omitted (say you.) True in wordes I haue, but in sence I expresse them all and euery one, when for breui­ties sake, I comprehended all in this generall clause of this Article, according to all that is of necessitie requisite. How say you, haue I not herein contey­ned and signified all these your exceptions, and that accordinge to the meaning of the Article? If I haue (as it is most true) then doe you vncon­scionablie abuse me, in saying, I pretended to repeate our description in the Article, and yet leaue out diuers perticulars of speciall moment. And let this therefore be first obserued, I haue omitted nothing materiall in that Article. Yea let this be here noted, that in all this you haue moste fondlie abused your penne and tounge. Yet will you still demaund how our practise agreeth with our profession in that 19. Article? Still I answer you with that similitude of a foolish and importinate Tēnaunt against his Landlord. If I haue held possession, and my aunestors before my time out of minde, indeed the King laying claime to it, hee may call [Page 11]for my euidence, because Time pre­scribeth not a­gainst the Prince. nullum tempus occurrit Regi, But against my fellow subiects, possession & inheritance (so longe without interruption) is of it selfe euidence in lawe good enough, except the plaintif can bring better to the contrary. Therefore it were absurd and sencelesse before any Iudge in England, for a Tenaunt to put such a Landlord to shew his euidence in such a case. Euen so, as absurd it is for you, seeing at first you were of vs and now are gone out from vs, to put vs to proue our selues to be such as heretofore you neuer doubted of. If now you doubt and con­tradict it, shew you your reason as better euidence, or els all men wil con­dempne your folly.

Where you put me to proue all our offices of the Hyerarchie, their cere­monies, &c. What needeth it? I neuer tooke it vpon me: Except first you doe shew, that these corruptions all or any of them, absolutely in their own nature doe abolish vs all cleane from Christ, & make vs vnpossible to be saued, which vntill you doe, still I say, I see not any peece of rea­son in all these your words.

And lastly where you say, it is an impudent vntruth, that I say we see not, that any thing necessarie is wanting in our Church, And to this end you quote to conuince me, The Admonition. T. C. his Replies, Demon­stration, Declaration, and the Defence of Discipline, &c. This is indeed too bold an vntrueth, & a wilfull peruerting of your allegations. None of all these doe graunt any thing to be wanting with vs that is necessary to the being of a Church simply, nor to the being of a true Ministery or Sacraments: But onely to their well and conuenient being. How honest then are you to falsifie your own witnesses so openly?

Maister Iohnsons 2. Exception against the former Assumption, with Maister Iacobs Replies to the same. EXCEPTION 2.

SEcondly let them tell vs, whether they hold & professe Iesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinance onely, and in no other. And if they doe, then let them shew vs how their practize agreeth with this profession.

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep.

TO this Second Exception That Christ is our Prophet Priest, & King, I aunswere: The booke of Articles, our Ministers now, and Congre­gations generally, doe hold and professe the same (our practize be­ing [Page 12]answerable likewise thervnto) euen as before time Maister Cranmer, Ridley Latimer, and such like, with their Congregations did then: viz. That Christ is our Prophet, Priest and King, and to be obeyed in his own ordinances onely and in no other. This I say we generally professe and practize. Howbeit this note with all, we hold Christs ordinance to be of two sortes, written or vnwritten, the first necessary, the second arbitrary, The firste touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion only, such as these, The doctrine of God, his Nature, his Persons, his Proper­ties, of the Messias Christ Iesus, of Iustification, of Sanctification, of the Resurection, &c. Wherein standeth the 1. Cor. 3.12.23. foundation of sauing faith. All these must be in the writen word or els to bee none of Christes. The se­cond touching outward orders in the Church, which are truly called & accounted Christs own also, although particularly deuised and appoin­cted by the Church, whom Christ hath authorized therevnto, euen as it shalbe thought most fit and profitable for the present times, places and persons: such we hold all outward gouernement and ceremonies to bee, because they be not simply of the foundation, neither written, nor certen, nor per­petuall, but at the arbitrarie appoinctment of the Church and Magistrate, and yet to be Christes owne neuerthelesse, who hath left this libertie for the Church to vse; Thus we hold and thus we practise, and wee are per­swaded no Scripture to be against all this, but rather for it. I speake now concerning our Ministers and Congregations generally; that is our pu­blike Church state. If yow say, but there are diuers amongest vs that thinke otherwise, I answere, But this is the generall estate both of our Ministers and Churches, howsoeuer one or two amongest hundreths or thousands may thinke otherwise, shew the contrary if you can. And our Churches, they certenly must bee deemed after their generall estate and constitution, not as one or two men thinke. If you say, this generall opi­nion and practize is an error, Therefore they obey not Christs ordinances in truth herein, though they thinke they doe. I answere, let it be so, it is now An error, though not foundamētall. the error of their iudgment, as it was in Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Not pregnaunt rebellion and disobedience to Christe, not a conuicted or seared conscience, so that their other 1. Cor. 3.12 15. truthes of the foundation are not frustrat, nor Christ made to none effect in thē. And this is all our questiō, Whether they remaine Christians still for all these faultes, yea, or no.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Excep.

COncerning our Second Exception, it was propounded by way of de­maund, requiring that they would shewe vs, if they held Jesus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, & King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinances onely and in no other, howe then their practize agreeth with this profession. One would haue thought that here it had bene good and needfull (if they could) to haue cleared this poinct by the Scriptures and the Testament of Christ, and from thence to haue manifested, that their Ministerie, worship, ministration, gouernement, &c. which are called [Page 13]in questiō, are no other then the Lord Iesus Christ, (that Prophet, Priest and King of his Church) hath in his Testament giuen and appointed therevnto. And haue they not done this? Surely no. What then doe they say? First they tell vs, That touching this poinct, their profession and practize nowe is so as before time it was with M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and their Cogregations. But what of this? Can the persons or age of thes whom he nameth, nay can anie person or ages preiudice the trueth? Were not they subiect to error at all? or must their errors binde vs: Did not Iohn Hus (that worthy champion of Christ) and others also of the Mar­tyrs in former times, say and heare Masse, euen to their dying day, not seeing the abomin ations thereof? And did not diuers of thē acknowledge, some the Popes calling and Supremacie, some 7. Sacramentes, some Pur­gatorie, some Auricular confession, and such like greeuous errours, &c, And yet notwithstanding dyed most constantly for the truethes which they sawe and testified, some for one, and some for another, as God mani­fested the trueth vnto them: As may be seene at large in their seueral Hi­stories in the Actes and Monumentes, whether wee referre the Reader. But may we nowe so professe and practize in these things as they did? Or if we should, were their ignorance and errours a sufficient defence for vs? yet thus would this man beare vs in hande. But moreouer, let him tell vs, if Maister Latimer and others, did not forsake the Prelacie and functi­ons they had before-time receyued? And Maister Ridley at his death re­pent that he had bene so earnest for the remnantes of Poperie in his time retayned? Besides also, who knoweth not, that when Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. dyed Martyrs for the trueth of Christ, they neither had them selues, nor ioyned in spirituall communion with such as had the Prelacie and Manisterie nowe pleaded for? And not that onely, but were also members of that persecuted church in Queene Maries dayes, which was separated from the rest of the Lande, as from the world, and ioyned in couenaunt, by voluntarie profession, to obey the trueth of Christ, and to witnes against the abominations of Antichrist, As they also did euen vnto death, in the trueth which they sawe, though otherwise being but as it were in the twylight of the Gospell they had their wantes and errors. Yet who is so blinde or besotted, as not to see that their errours may not bee our rules, neither can be our warrant, but rather that we ought after their ex­ample, faithfully to stand, in, and for, what so euer trueth God reuealeth vnto vs by his word, And that otherwise, those holy Martyrs should rise in iudgement against all such, as either withhould the trueth in vnrighte­ousnesse, or in any respect refuse to walke therein. Finally, seeing GOD hath giuen vs his worde, to be the light of our feete, and rule of our liues and religion: What meane these men to lead vs from it, to the aberrations [Page 14]of any men whatsoeuer? Should not all people enquire at God, or would they haue vs goe from the liuing to the dead? From God and his worde to men and their errours? Doubtlesse this is that whervnto they would bring vs, and whereby they mislead their followers, as will yet further appeare by that which followeth. For what say they next?

Secondly, they tell vs, and they wishe it to bee noted, (as wee also doe) That Christes ordinances be of two sortes, either written or vnwritten: the first necessarie: the second arbitrary: the first touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion onely: these (say they) are writ­ten: the second touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward gōuernement, and ceremonies: These, they say, are not written, but arbi­trary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Thus (they say) they hold and practise, and thinke no Scripture is against it.

1 In answere whereof, First we aske what scripture they haue for this? 2 Secondly, we alleadge against it, the scriptures 1 Tim. 3.10 15. & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5, &c. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. &c. & 6. cap▪ & 14.23. & 15. cap. and 19.9. & 20.7.17.28 Rō. 12.6.7.8. Ephe 4 11.12. 1 Thes. 5.12.13.14. Phil. 1.1.5. Heb. 3.1.2.3. & 13.17. Iam. 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1.2.3. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. cap. & 9. cap & 11. cap. & 12. cap. & 14. cap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6 1.6.2 Thes. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18 15.16 17. & 28.18.19.20. quoted in the margent, wherevnto manie other might be added. 3 Thirdlie, let it be obserued, that them selues here graunt and can not denie, but all the outwarde gouerne­ment and ceremonies of their Church, are inuented and arbitrary at the pleasure of man, and not written in the worde of God. Wherevpon it fol­loweth, that they are none of Christes, and therefore not to be ioyned vnto in the worship of God, as afterwards more fully will appeare. 4 Fourthlie, see howe neare they are driuen that are glad to runne backe into the Papistes tentes, where yet they knowe there is no succour. Before they pleaded pos­session time out of minde: nowe they tell vs of ordinances vnwritten, &c. are not these meere popish shiftes, euen the olde worne argumentes of an­tiquitie and vnwritten verities, so often and so much stoode vppon by the Papistes? Alas that these men should plead to be true Christians, and yee thus openly take parte with Antichrist! What shall we say to these things? Surely God is iust and will verifie his word, where he saieth, "That they which receyue not the loue of the trueth, that they may bee saued, hee will sende them stronge delusions, to beleeue lyes, that they may bee damned. 5 Fiftly, note howe he maketh the ordinances touching outwarde gouerne­ment and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither writtē at all. Sure­lie this is strange diuinitie. It is an ordinance not onely concerning the in­ward, but also the outward gouernment of the Church, that Christ is Lord and King thereof: It is therefore no matter of faith? It cōcerneth the out­ward gouernment, whether the Pope be (vnder Christ) head of the church or no? Doeth it not therefore concerne faith? Publique prayer, preaching of the Word, and hearing of it preached, administration and receyuing of the Sacraments, are matters concerning the outward gouernement and or­ders of the Church: doe they not therefore touch faith? Admonition and exhortation concerne also the outwarde gouernement of the Church, doe [Page 15]they not therefore concerne faith? Finally, by this diuinitie, the Sacraments of Baptisme and of the Lordes supper, being ceremonies, shalbe no matters of faith at all amongst them.

But here they stay not, but adde moreouer, That the outward orders, gouernement, and ceremonies of the Church, bee arbitrarie at the ap­pointment of the Church and Magistrate, and not certen nor written in the booke of God. Whervpon it followeth, that it is not certen nor taught in the scriptures, but arbitrarie at the Churches & Magistrates pleasure: Whether Christ, or the Pope of Rome or of Cāterburie, be head and Arch­bishop of the Church of God: Whether Jewes onely of the tribe of Leui, may nowe minister the holy things of God in his Church: Whether Christ haue giuen any giftes, and set any offices in his Church for the Ministe­rie and guidance thereof: Whether prayer must bee in a knowne or vn­knowne tounge: Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and honored: Whether the church may excommunicate: Whether the Popes, or any other Prelates excommunication be to be regarded: Whether there be two, or three, or seauen Sacramentes: Whether the Passeouer, Circum­cision, and other ceremonies and sacrifices of the Lawe, be now to be vsed: Whether the Heathenishe sacrifices and worship be to bee ioyned withall: Whether creame, oyle, salt, spitle, crossing and coniuring, be to be vsed in Baptisme: Whether the bread onely and not the cup, is to bee giuen to the lay people (as they call them:) Whether holy water, holy ashes, holy palmes and such like, be of the holy things of the church: Whether the Iewish and Popish vestimentes, fastes, and holy dayes are to be obserued: and a thou­sande such like, which are all of them, concerning the outward orders, go­uernement, and ceremonies of the Church. By these mens Diuinitie, these and infinite such like, are vnwritten and vncerten, but left onely to the pleasure of the Church and Magistrate. Moreouer, if it please them, the Princes and ciuill Magistrates may them selues be the publike mi­nisters of the worde, Sacraments, and censures of the Church: any that will may without a calling take vpon him to bee a publique officer in the church: Women may baptise, or administer the Lords supper: The Jew­ishe, Romish, or Heathenish priesthood may be retayned: Auricular con­fession may be vsed: The Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, may bee ap­propriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Prelate of Canterburie, or any o­ther whom soeuer: The Prelates and their Officials excommunications do binde in heauen: The Apochriphall bookes and Decretall epistles are canonicall scriptures: The Papes Portuis and the English booke of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawfull worship of God: The Prelates and Priestes are the true and lawfull Ministers of God: Orders, pennaunce, extreame vnction, matrimonie, &c. are the Sacramentes of the Church: [Page 16]Cap, Surplis, Cope, Tippit, Rotchet, &c. are ornamentes of the Mini­sterie. Finally, all ragges and trumperies of the Romish religion, are good and lawfull, if it please the Church and Magistrate. For why? They concerne the outward gouernement, orders and ceremonies of the church: And touching them (say these men) Christ hath not left any ordinances written, certen, or perpetuall, but left them at the arbitrarie appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Is not this straunge Diuinitie? Yet they stay not there neither, but as men that haue bent their tongues like bowes for lyes, they feare not to adde moreouer, that when the Church and Ma­gistrate appointeth anie ordinances, (whether these or any other) touching the outward gouernement & ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them to be Christes owne ordinances, who hath left this libertie to the Church for to vse. O shameles mouth: O vnchristian hart: Can any Pa­pist or Atheist say more? or can any desire a more euident proof then this, that these men and assemblies thus holding, professing, and practizing (as here them selues affirme) can not in this estate by the word of God, be dee­med med true Christians and Churches. 6 Sixtly, obserue howe yet moreouer they seeke shiftes, & would colour the matter, pretending That the things which concerne outward gouernement and ceremonies, are not of the foundation simply. But this will helpe them no more then the other. For first we aske, are they of the foundation at all, though not simply? If they be, then seeing they are not written, not certen, nor perpetuall (as heere is affirmed) it will followe, that neither the whole foundation is written cer­ten, or perpetuall: neither the Apostles were faithfuull and skilsull mai­ster builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this worde (simplie) added, as if they graunted that they were of the foundation, though not simplie as they speake. Secondlie wee aske, whether the out­warde gouernement and ceremonies ordeyned by Christ for his church vn­der the Gospell, be not of the foundation, asmuch as the outward gouerne­ment and ceremonies appointed by Moses for the Church vnder the law? Or if they be, whether they are not as faithfully sett downe by Christ, as the other were by Moses, and as carefully to be obserued by vs, as the other were by the Jewes, Heb. 3.2.3. or rather much more, inasmuch as Christ the Son is worthy more glorie and honour, then Moses the seruant. Thirdlie we aske, what foundamentall poinctes Moses and Aaron with the rest of the Iewes ioyning with them, helde: that Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companions held not: Differing from them and erring only touching the Priesthood and Ministerie which concerned the outward orders & gouernement of the Church: was therefore Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companies in that estate the true Jsraell of God? Or were not the [Page 17]other truthes they helde by this meanes frustrate and of none effect vnto them? Nay, were they not therefore wholy to be separated from, and left to the iudgement of God, Num. 16. which ouertooke them and all that ioyned vnto them? Yet was their error onely in matters of order and outward gouerne­ment of the Church. This may suffize to conuince the aduersaries vntrue assertions in this place. To that of Maister Cranmer and Ridley &c. is answered before.

For conclusion therefore, this we adde, concerning this poinct. That all such assemblies and people, as holde, professe, and practise, (as doth the Church of England) these abominations following: They can not by the word of God, be esteemed in such estate trulie to holde Christ, their Pro­phet, Priest, and King: Towit, The confusion of all sortes of people (though neuer so wicked) and their seed in the body of the Church: The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then Iesus Christ: also of Archdea­cons, Chancellors, Commissaries, Officials, Priestes, halfe Priestes, Par­sons, Ʋicars, Ʋagrant and Mercinarie Preachers, &c. The entrance in­to the Ministerie by an other way, and by other Lord, then Iesus Christ: The executing of it vnder those strange Lords, & leauing it at their plea­sure: The preaching of the word, administration of the Sacramentes, and gouerning of the Church, by vertue of the offices and callings afore said, & according to the Popish Canons and constitutions: The power of Excom­munication in the Prelates alone and their Officialls: The confounding of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall offices and authoritie in the Ministers of the Church: The forbidding of Mariage at certen seasons: The imposing and vsing of stinted deuised Liturgies: The English Portuis, taken out of the Popes latine word for worde (saue that a fewe of the grosest thinges are left out) yet keeping the same frame and order of Collectes, Psalmes, Les­sons, Pater nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Versicles, Respondes, &c. Ap­pointing holy dayes to all Sainctes and Angels, to the Virgin Marie, Iohn Baptist, Marke, Luke, and twelue Apostles seuerallie: togeather with Fastes on the Eaues and on Ember dayes, Fridayes, Satterdayes & Lent: Prescribing the Ministers to pray ouer the dead, ouer the Corne and Grasse at some seasons of the yeere, and ouer Women at their Courching or purification: Ioyninge them also to marie with the Ring, which they make a sacramentall signe: And to Baptise likewise with the signe of the Crosse, with Godfathers and Godmothers, with questions demanded of the infant that can not speake nor vnderstande: Giuing power, to Women to baptise: And ordeyning that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they receyue their maker: and with change of the wordes of Christes institution, taking in steed of them, the wordes of [Page 18]the Popes Masse booke, translated into English, &c. Finallie, the vphol­ding of these and all such amongst them onely by carnall weapons, of im­prisonment, death, confiscation of goods, banishment, and such like. The assemblies (I say) and people which holde, professe, and practize (as doeth this Church of Englande) the abominations afore said, concerning the out­ward order and gouernement of the Church, what soeuer truethes they holde besides, yet can they not by the word of God, be deemed truely to hold the Lord Iesus, their Prophet, Priest, and King, in such constitution of a church. Neither therefore can they in this estate by the word of God be accounted true Christians, nor the true constituted churches of Christ: & this is the question betweene vs and our aduersaries. 7 7. Lastlie, let the godlie and indifferent Reader! iudge, whether it will not followe vppon this answere in this place: First, that the Contrarie to 1. Tim. 3.15. 2. Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1. Corin. 4.6. Reu. 22.18, 19 Scriptures are not sufficient for the building vp and guidance of the Church here on earth: Secondlie, that the Contrarie to y e 2. Tim. 3.17 w t 1. Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Psal. 119.105.13. men of God can not by the Scriptures be made absolute and fullie furni­shed to euery good worke: Thidlie, that Contrarie to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1, 2, 3. Esay. 32.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1. Cor. 11. and 12. and 14. Rom. 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Mat. 28.20.1. Tim. 6.13, 14. Christ him selfe in whom the treasures of wisedome and knowledge are hid, yet was so foolishe, carelesse and vnfaithfull, as hauing an house and kingdome (which is his Church) he hath not in his word appointed vnto it, anie offices, lawes and orders, for the due gouerning and ordering thereof: Finallie, That the Contrarie to the 2. Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Psal. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Reu. 9.1, 2, 3, and 14.9, 10, 11. Hierarchie, Worship, Sacramentes, Traditions, Canons, and whatsoeuer constituti­ons of Antichrist, concerning the outward orders and gouernement of the church, being appointed by the Church and Magistrate, are to be accoun­ted Christes owne ordinances: O shameles impietie: Doubtles this is that same strange passion, and meere desperatnes, wherewith afterwarde vn­iustlie they charge vs: which we will not prosecute, as it deserueth, but ex­hort them onely, to take heede least that woe come vppon them whiche is written: Woe vnto them that speake good of euill, and euill of good: which put darknes for light, and light for darknes: that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter. Woe vnto them that are wise in their owne eyes, and prudent in their owne sight, Esa. 5.20.21.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 2. Except.

IN this your defence of your secōd Exception, it pitieth me to see your extreame folly: which is the more miserable, because it appeareth to be not of weaknes, but of wilfulnes. You would know of vs if we hold Christ to be our Prophet, Priest and King, and if we professe to obey him in his own ordinances and in no other. I answered, we doe constantly pro­sesse so, and as we professe so wee practise. But to make our profession & practize in this poinct more manifest, I noted how our stare meaneth Christ to be our Prophet, Priest and King, and how hee is to be obeyed viz. That the written word ought of necessitie to shew vs our inward and [Page 19]meare spirituall beleif & obedience. As for the outward Church order, our state holdeth that it is arbitrary to bee appoincted and abrogated a­gaine at the liking of the Church and Magistrate, And that the worde no where forbiddeth this libertie: Where note in this explication two thinges.

First, it is foule wrong to our Churches and to my wordes, to say as you doe, That they meane, no outward orders at all, be matters of faith, or constant in the Scriptures. Nay it was neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray to administer Sacraments &c. though externall, yet are perpetuall things and necessarie and vnchangable by the Scriptures. My expresse wordes, and our Churches meaning is, That any reasonable kinde of Church gouernement, and rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changea­ble, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures; And yet still Christ to be our only, and absolute King & Prophet neuerthelesse. Whosoeuer doth vrge vpon our Churches further, or on my wordes; doth slaunder and cauill, and malitionsly depraue them and nothing else.

Secondly, note in my explication, that I iustifie not this opinion of our stare, but I say, Thus to beleeue and practize, simply, destroyeth no mans saluation in Christ, which you denying generally and vehemently, in your sixt answer, You deny directly Maister Cranmer, &c. to haue held the foundation, or to bee saued: wherein, you openly professe and pro­claime, that second generall poinct which in the beginning I charged you with: That all Churches and Christians here in Kinge Edwards time, and namely Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Philpot, Saunders, Rogers, Tayler. &c. held not Christ their Prophet, Priest and King, and so consequently they were lims of Antichrist (for they bare his marke euen to their deaths) and no true Christians. Alas to see how malice and preiudice hath blinded you. Is there not greater cause for vs to cry & say against you, O shame­lesse mouth, ô vnchristian heart, which termes, you vainely charge vpon me? Is this you that white the Toombs of those Martirs, and yet in fine, condempne them for no true Christians, nor their Assemblies for Churches?

You adde a clause, They that professe and practize as doth the Church of England, &c. If you meane hereby to put a difference, betwene those good mens holding this opinion, and our Churches nowe. Yea betwene your owne lately, and ours now, speake out, what is it? Yow can imagine none but this. Those good men Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. and your selfe of late, held these very same errors of the outward Church order which wee doe; But they and you, did (it seemeth) of simplicity, we ma­litiously: they of ignorance, wee of plaine obstinacie, and hauing a con­uicted and seared conscience: whereby, they & you might be true Chri­stians for all these errors, but we now cannot be so. If this be your mea­ning, [Page 20]then you graunt vs our Assumption, against which all your dispute here is bent. You graunt it I say, That the whole doctrine, as it is by law in England, is sufficient to make a perticuler man a true Christian. Se­condly wee now erre not in these poincts of simplicitie, but of wilfulnes and malice.

Say you so? Speake that plaine then. Our whole assemblies? all and euery of our assemblies? of wilfulnes and of a conuicted consci­ence? Are you sure of this? Doe you knowe euery mans heart and con­science so well? If you doe, then you say somwhat indeed. But you are then neere as wise as God himselfe, to know mens hearts so perfectly, whose faces you neuer saw; You will say, you know diuers, whom you dare say are conuicted in cōscience. That is much also to affirme. But if you doe, that serueth not your turne, vnlesse all be so conuicted. Christ knew a great many in the Church of the Iewes, yea of the learnedst and chiefest in authoritie, that were conuicted in conscience, that he was the Christ, who blaspheamed in denying him, And yet the Assemblies then where not conuicted, they still were true Churches. Wherefore in this saying, if you say to the purpose, you then affirme the Third generall poinct that I noted in you at the beginning of this my last Reply: That euery soule in England is conuicted in conscience.

But here I maruell that you say, Maister Hus and others of the holy Martirs did heare and say Masse till their dying day, Also that others did acknowledge the Popes supremacie. I aske you, doe you meane that they held and vsed the Popish Masse, according to all the abominations that are in it? If you thinke so, then surely neither Hus, nor any of the rest, were holy Martirs. For therin are founde errors plainely fundamen­tal, which of them selues abolish from Christ; They are not to be compa­red to our publike errours now in England, The like I say of the Popes supremacy. If you thinke any of the Martirs acknowledged it in the large and ample meaning therof, as the Popish Doctors doe set it down; Then verily neither were they any Martirs. The booke of Acts and Mo­numents whither you send vs, affirmeth not that they held these errours in the largest and grossest sort. It may be therefore they held manie and greuious errors of ignorance, both in the Popish Masse and in the supre­macy, which might neuerthelesse stand with Christ crucifyed, And so they might be & were holy Martirs: But I affirme, that according to the damnable grossenes of the very Papists, they neither did nor could hold them. Therefore in these instances you say nothing to vs, nor against the question in hand.

Further, you said before in the beginning of your desence of this Exception, Pag. 13. That Master Cranmer Ridley, Latimer and the rest of the Martirs then, neither had them selues, nor ioyned in spirituall commu­nion, with such as had the Prelacy, and Ministery now pleaded for. Now I see you make no conscience of vntruthes, yea you are bold to auouch open and known falsehoods. Did not Maister Cranmer hold him­selfe for Archbishop still, and that hee was by the Pope vniustly and vn­sufficiently [Page 21]deposed, and by Queene Mary forcibly restreyned from it? Did he euer repent of holding that Office till his death? Also did not Ridley stand vpon his right to the Bishoprick of London though ready to die? Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick, yet he kept his Mini­sterie, and neuer repented him of it. Philpot neuer misliked h [...]s Arch-dea­conry: Yea when he refused bloudy Bonner, Yer he appealed to his ordi­nary the Bishop of Winchester. The like minde is to be seene in Bishop Farrar. And generally whosoeuer were Ministers then of the Prelates or­dination, they neuer renounced it, though they died Martirs. Thus ap­peareth your bould vntruth in this behalfe.

Further in your Sixt answer Pag. 16. First you will not see what I meane in saying, That these outward orders bee not of the foundation simply: I meant, not at all of the very 1 Cor. 15.2, 3, 4. Rom. 4.25. 1. Cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. foundation, neither are they. Secondly you aske if our outward orders vnder Christ be not fundamentall aswell as the Iewes vnder the Law, I answer, neither were the Iewes outward orders of the very foundation, without which they could not be saued. Thirdly you aske how Corah, &c. differing from Moses and Aron only about the Priesthood and Ministerie, were separated from, and damned. I answer, not that the matter was fundamentall, but the Manner was rebellious, with consciences a thousand times conuicted, and so donne with a high hand against God him selfe.

But now this considered, How vainely doe you charge mee in your entrance into this Excep. pa. 13. That I & others of my minde, goe about to iustifie these matters of order in controuersy by Cranmer, Ridlies and Latimers example, and their Congregations then. For shame doe you not see the cōtrary, that I call them errors. I onely iustifie by their exāple that these corruptions abolish vs not from Christ, as theirs did not, And that I trust is sound. Which thing also you might haue remembred, if you had ben so charitable, by that which I wrote in In the next treatise follow­ing, of the cō ­parison of the Ministery with Mariage: Ans. to your first Reason. another place.

1 Then in your first answer, Pag. 14. Howe vainely doe yow aske vs for Scriptures to proue those orders, seing I expresly called them errors.

2 The like in your Second, wher you load vp Scriptures to disproue thē.

3 Also Thirdlie, you charge an vnconscionable vntruth on mee (if you meane this answere vnto me) that I should graunt and cannot deny, that all outward ceremonies and gouernement, are arbitrary at mans plea­sure: I onelie said, that our state holdeth that generall opinion, Not that I my selfe held it, If you meane them, write to them, and speake to them, if you meane me, you doe me foule iniurie.

4 Fourthly, whether they are Popish shiftes or no, let our state, which mainteyneth these things, answer you.

5 Your Fift is answered in y e first poinct of my explication noted before. pag. 19. 6 To your Sixt in pag. 16. wee aunswered before in the Second poinct of my explication pag. 19.

Your Seuenth in pag. 18. is also against the state of our Church, and not against me.

Maister IOHNSONS 3. Exception against the former Assumption: with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same. EXCEPTION 3.

THirdlie, let them shew by the Scriptures, howe the 36. Article of their doctrine & booke alleadged, agreeth with the Gospell of Christ and true Christianitie.

The words of the Article are these as followeth. The Booke of consecrating of Archbishops and Bishops, and ordering of Priestes and Deacons, doth conteyne all thinges necessarie to such consecration and ordering, neyther hath it any thing that of it selfe is superstitious or vngodly. And therefore whosoeuer are consecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that booke, we decree all such to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully consecrated and ordered.

Moreouer, how it agreeth with the Gospell and true Christianitie, That Apocripha bookes and the booke of Homilies, be read in the church by the Ministers diligentlie and distinctlie. As is in Art. 6. and 35. of that doctrine and booke aforesaid.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 3. Excep.

YOur third Exception is this. That the 36. Article of ordaining Bishops, Priests and Deacons. Also the reading of Apocripha bookes and Homelies in the Church, agree not with true Christianitie: Ergo, the Assumption aboue is false, that is, the whole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not sufficient, to make vs true Christians.

I answer, you should haue said, those poincts destroy vtterly true Chri­stianity, Ergo, &c. Else the Argument followeth not: But then we deny flatly the Antecedent or first part of the reason. But your Reason you will say shall goe as you haue put it. Then marke these reasons euen as good as yours and all one. An Ethiopian is white of his teeth, therefore he is a white man. A Swanne is black of his bill, therefore a Swanne is black. My brother hath an eye of glasse, or he hath a wodden legge, ther­fore my brother is no true man.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Excep.

OVr third Exception was this. Whereas they referred vs to their booke of Artieles 1562. were quired that they should shew by the Scriptures how the 36. Article there mentioned, which is of the booke of consecrating Archbiships and Bishops, and of ordeyning Priests and Dea­cons: And howe also the 6. and 35. Articles of that booke, enioyning the Apocripha bookes and Homilies, to bee read in the Church by the Mini­sters distinctlie and diligentlie. Howe these, J say, doe agree with the Go­spell of Christ, and true Christianitis.

Now I pray you, haue they shewed vs these things by the Scriptures, as we desired: nothing lesse. First therefore marke this heere and euerie where also in their reasons and answeres, that though wee call neuer so much to them for proofe and euidence from the Scriptures, yet they neuer bring it, but labour to put it off with other shiftes & deuices of their owne: As if our consciences were to be built vpon their fancies, and not vppon the written worde of God. But what doe they say to our demaund? First they tell vs, These thinges doe not vtterly destroy true Christianitie. Secondly, they graunt notwithstanding, that they agree with it as blacke doeth with white, that is, they are cleane contrarie vnto it: For this their similitudes doe import. Nowe whereas they alleadge, That these thinges destroy not true Christianitie, We answere, That euen that Hyerarchie, worship, constitution, and gouernement, which they professe and practize (as appeareth by those and other their Articles and iniunctions in our former answere alleadged, to which yet we haue receyued no aunswere) being directly Antichristian, doe Nota vtterlie destroy true Christianitie. so as the people and Churches so professing and practizing, can not in that estate by the worde of God be iudged true Christians, or the true constituted Churches of Christ. And touchinge the similitudes here vsed, besides that which we haue noted before, we adde moreouer, that they are not a­gainst vs, but against them selues, in asmuch as comparing the doctrines of the Gospell, which they professe, with the whitenes of an Aethiopians teeth: And their Antichristian Ministerie, Worshop, courtes, and confu­sion of people, with the blackenes of an Aethiopians body. This and such like similitudes doe fitlie declare their estate. And the approouing of the black constitution of their church Assemblies, by some white doctrines of the Gospell which they professe: Is euen as if they should reason thus: An Aethiopian is white of his teeth: therefore he is a white man. A blacke Rauen is white of his bill: Therefore a blacke Rauen is a white bird.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Exception.

YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of cōsecrating Bishops & Priests, and the 6. and 35. Artic of Apocripha and Homelies, doe not agree with the Gospel. What then? Ergo, our Churches profession and practize differ. Most false: For our Churches doe professe, that these things doe agree with Gospell well enough: Also their practise is thereafter, Or doe you con­clude, Ergo our Churches holde not Christ to saluation. In deede so I tooke your purpose at the first: but nowe in plaine categoricall termes you auouch it, That these things being directlie Antichristian, doe vt­terlie destroy true Christianitie. So then Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. were verie Antichristes, and no true Christians. As before also, I trowe, you affirmed.

Surely, this grosse and wicked absurditie, I could not open better then by this similitude: This man hath a wodden legge, an eye of glasse, his nose deformed, adde if you will, both his armes not naturall, but framed to him of wood or what you will: Ergo this is no true man. Yes Sir, for all this he is a true man. For as much as all this concernes not the verie life and being of a man, though these be most vnnaturall additions, and very manie, The like doe I affirme of these externall corruptions in the Church: Which my sentences you goe not about to refute, but onelie with wordes, with bare yea, and nay, and no more.

M r Iohnsons I. REASON against the former Assumption: with M r Iacobs Replies to the same.

Hauing before noted 3. Exceptions out of their doctrine and booke alleadged: we nowe proceede to shewe the weakenes of their As­sumption aforesaid, by these. 9. Reasons following.

REASON I.

THat which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, can not make a true Christian, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. with Ezech. 43.8. and 2. Kings 17.33, 34, 40, 41.

Bvt that doth the doctrine and booke alleadged, as may be seene by com­paring the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest. And furthermore it ap­peareth both by their profession, which is to be seene in their booke of Can­nons set foorth anno 1571. and in other their Articles, Jniunctions, Ad­uertisements, &c. published at other tymes, and by their practize also, which is to be seene in their Ministerie, Worship, and Church gouerne­ment euen to this day:

Therefore, &c.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Reason.

THis your first Reason is thus: That which ioyneth Christ and An­tichrist togeather, can not make a true Christian: But that doth this Booke, Ergo, &c.

I say you must mende your vnproper speache, that Christ and Anti­christ is there ioyned togeather, you meane Christ, and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist: then so speake, and say not Christ and Antichrist simply. Which things yet we thinke to be Christes own, [Page 25]as we Pag. 12. 18. 19. shewed in the Second Exception before. Therefore, this reason is answered as the last Exception before. The Swanne is blacke of his bill, Ergo, the Swan is blacke, and my brother hath a wodden legge: Therfore my brother is a wodden man. So here this booke ioyneth Christ and some orders of Antichrist: Therefore it ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, which are most fonde conclusions.

Furthermore, the scriptures alleadged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek 43. 2. Kings 17. are wholy mismatched, the ioyning there forbidden, is vnto such idola­trie, as can not stande by any meanes with Christian faith, and breaketh most directlie the First commandment: Our transgression your selues do iudge to be but against the Second, and such as hath stood and may stand togeather with true faith as in Maister Cranmer, &c. Namely, the Idolaters in those places spoken of. They did not so much as professe the written lawe to be their rule, neither for outwarde orders, nor their inward doctrines of faith. But your selues knowe, we professe and practise that, namely, so as is shewed before in the Seconde Pag. 11. 1. 18. Exception. Therfore to applie those scriptures in this vnto vs, is your great sinne euen against the third Commaundment, which is your com­mon custome, as all doe see and pitie, viz. To take the name of God in vaine, by misusing his worde.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Reason.

HIs answere here is First concerning the Proposition of this reason, then concerning the Assumption: Concerning the Proposition: First 1 he saith, Our speach is vnproper, that Christ and Antichrist is there a­mongst them ioyned togeather. Secondly, he taketh vpō him to expound our words and meaning to be thus, Christ and some outward ceremonies and orders of Antichrist. To this we answere: First, that it is meete that we (not he) expound our owne meaning, whiche togeather with the pro­prietie of the speech, will afterwards appeare in our defence of the Assum­ption against his answere thereto. His answere therefore concerning the Assumption is this: First, That the things among them which we charg to be of Antichrist, they thinke to be Christes owne: For proofe whereof, here ferreth vs to his answere to our Second exception going before, whe­ther also we referre the Reader for answere to him againe. Secondly, for­getting him selfe, he graunteth that in deed they be orders of Antichrist: yet that they are but as the blacknes of the Swannes bill to the rest of the body. Well then by his owne confession they are of Antichrist, and there­fore not Christes owne, as before he saide and laboured to prooue. Thus at once both he contradicteth him selfe, and ouerthroweth that which he an­swered Pag. 1 [...]. before to our Second exception.

This were sufficient to manifest their deceiptfull and euill dealing: But that it may more fullie appeare, specially seeing bee would dazell the peo­ples 2 eyes with these mincing wordes ( of some outward ceremonies & or­ders [Page 26]of Antichrist, comparing them with the blacknes of the swans bill as if they were but a fewe, and of small moment, Therefore will we rec­kon vp some of their Antichristian enormities and abhominations (for it vere infinite to nomber them all): And then let the Reader iudge of his inswere and their estate, whether it be not more like the blacke Rauen with a white bill, then the white Swanne with a blacke. Sorie we are that we should thus trouble the Reader, or our selues: specially considering that alreadie we haue mencioned diuers of the particulars following: But see­ing we are constreyned herevnto by their slie and colourable answere in this place, therefore can we not but doe it, for the clearer manifestation of the trueth, & better discouering of their deceiptfulnes. In which respects we intreate the Reader also, to take in good parte, and duely to weigh the repetition and recapitulation following.

Antichristian abominations yet reteyned in England.
  • 1 The cōfusion of al sortes of people in the bodye of their Church, euen the most polluted and their seede beeing members thereof.
  • 2 The offices and callinges of Arch L. Bishops.
  • 3 Lord Bishops.
  • 4 Suffragans.
  • 5 Prelates Chauncellours
  • 6 Deanes
  • 7 Subdeanes
  • 8 Prebendaries
  • 9 Cannons
  • 10 Petty cannons
  • 11 Chaunters
  • 12 Virgerers
  • 13 Pistlers
  • 14 Gospellers
  • 15 Queristers men and boyes
  • 16 Organistes
  • 17 Organ Flowers
  • 18 Arch deacons
  • 19 Subdeacons
  • 20 Deacons, or half priests
  • 21 Priestes
  • 22 Parsons
  • 23 Vicars
  • 24 Curates
  • 25 Vagrant & Mercina­rie Preachers
  • 26 Churchwardens
  • 27 Clerkes and Sexions
  • 28 Chaplaynes
  • 29 Doctors of Diuinitie
  • 30 Bachelours of Diuini.
  • 31 Doctors and
  • 32 Proctors in the Pre­lates courtes
  • 33 Commissaries
  • 34 Officialls
  • 35 Registers
  • 36 Summoners with the rest of that Antichri­stian and viperous generation
  • 37 Their Ministration of the word, Sacramentes, & gouernment of their church by voriue of the offices aforesaid
  • 38 The titles of Primate, Metropolitane, Lordes grace, Lordship, &c. a­scribed to the Prelates.
  • 39 The inferior Prelates swearing obedience to the Metropoliticall seas of Cāturburie & York.
  • 40 The inferiour Mini­sters when they enter into the Ministerie pro­mising obedience to the prelats their ordināces: and when they are in­ducted to benefices, con­firminge it with their oath
  • 41 The Deacons and Priests presentations to a Lorde Bishoppe by an Archdeacon
  • 42 Their receyuing of or­ders of the Prelates, or their Suffraganes
  • 43 Their Pontificall, or Booke of consecratinge Bishops, and of ordering Priestes & Deacons, ta­ken out of the Popes Pō ­tificall, where their a­buse of scripture to that [Page 27]ende their Collects, Pistles &c. may be scone
  • 44 Their making and be­ing made Priestes, with blasphemie, the Prelates saying to them whom they make Priestes, Receiue the Holie Ghoste, whose sinnes ye for­giue, they are forgi­uen, &c.
  • 45 Their confoundinge of Ciuill and Ecclesiasticall offices and authoritie in Ecclesiasticall persons
  • 46 Their reteyning and v­sing in their publike wor­shippe, the Apocrypha Bookes, whiche haue in them diuers errours, vn­truethes, blasphemies, & contradiction to the cano­nicall scriptures
  • 47 Their stinted prayers, and Leitourgie, taken out of the Popes Masse booke, with the same order of Psalmes, Lessons, Col­lectes, Pater Nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Versi­cles, Responds, &c.
  • 48 The Crosse in Bap­tisme
  • 49 The Hallowed Ponte, Questions to the Infants at Baptisme
  • 50 The Godfathers and Godmothers promisinge that the childe doeth be­leeue, forsake the Deuill and all his workes, &c.
  • 51 Weomans baptizinge of children: which main teyneth that heresie, that the children are damned, which dye vnbaptised.
  • 52 Their howselinge of the sicke, and Ministring the communion to one a­lone
  • 53 The Ministring it, not with the wordes of Christes institution, but with other taken out of the Popes Portuis
  • 54 Their selling that Sa­crament for two pence, to all commers
  • 55 The receyuing of it knee­ling, which maketh it an Idoll, and nourisheth that heresie of receyuinge their maker, of worshipping it, &c.
  • 56 Their Ring in Mari­adge, making it a Sacra­ment all signe, and Mari­adge an Ecclesiasticall ac­tion: thereby nourishinge the Popishe heresie, that Matrimonie is a Sacra­ment
  • 57 Their praying ouer the dead, makinge it also a parte of the Ministers duetie, and nourishinge the heresie of prayer for the dend
  • 58 Their churching or pu­rifying of Women, then also abusing that Scrip­ture, The Sunne shall not burne them by day, nor the Moone by night
  • 59 Their Gang weeke, and prayinge then ouer the corne and grasse
  • 60 Their forbidding of ma­riage in Gang weeke, in Aduent, in Lent, and on all the Ember dayes: which the Apostle calleth a doctrine of Deuils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3.
  • 61 Their Sainctes, Angells, and Apostles dayes, with their prescript seruice
  • 62 Their fastes, and ab­stayning from fleshe on their Eaues, on Frydayes, Saturdayes, Ember dayes, and all Lent through
  • 63 Their dispensations from the Prelates courts of Faculties, to eat fleshe at these tymes: Which dispensations also haue this wholesome caluse in them, sana conscien­tia, (that is, with a safe conscience:) plainelie shewing, that they make it a matter of conscience. This is another doctrine of Deuills, noted in the scripture before allead­ged 1 Tim. 4.
  • 64 Their Dispensations in like manner to marry in the tymes among thē for­bidden, which are noted before
  • 65 Lycenses from the same authoritie, to marrie in places exempt
  • 66 Dispensations also from thence for Boyes and ig­noraunt fooles to haue benefices
  • 67 Dispensations likewise for Nonresidents
  • 68 For hauing Two, Three Foure, or more benifices, euen tor, quot, that is to saye, as manie as a man will haue and can gette.
  • [Page 28]69 Tollerations
  • 70 Patronages of, and pre­sentatiō to benefices with buying and selling of ad­uousons
  • 71 Their institutions into benefices by the Prelates, their Inductions, Pro­xes, &c.
  • 72 Their suspensations, ab­solutions, degradations, depriuations, &c.
  • 73 The Prelates Chauncel­lours, and Commissaries courtes, hauing power to excommunicate alone, & to absolue
  • 74 Their penance in a white sheete
  • 75 Their commutation of penance and absoluing one man for another
  • 76 The Prelates confirma­tion, or Bishoping of chil­dren, to assure thē of Gods fauour, by a signe of mans deuising
  • 77 The standing at the Gospell
  • 78 The putting off the cap, and making a legge when the worde Iesus is read
  • 79 The ring of peales at burials
  • 80 Beadmen at buriah, & hyred Mourners in mour­ning apparell
  • 81 The hanging & mour­ning of churches & heer­ses with black at burials
  • 82 Their absoluinge the dead, dying excommuni­cate, before they can haue (as they say) christia bu­riall
  • 83 The Idoll Temles.
  • 84 The Popish vestiments, as Rochet, Horned cap, Tippet, the Surplise in parishe Churches, & Cope in cathedral churches
  • 85 The visitations of their Lord Bishops and Arch­deacans
  • 86 The Prelates, Lordlie dominion, reuenues and retinew
  • 87 The Priestes mainte­tenance by Tithes, Chris­mes offrings, &c.
  • 88 The othes ex officio in their ecclesiasticall courts, making men sweare to accuse them selues
  • 89 The Church Wardens othe to present to the Pre­lates, all the offences, faultes and defaults com­mitted in their Parishes, against thir Articles and Iniunctions.
  • 90 The Prelates rulinge of the Church by the Popes cursed canon lawe
  • 91 Finally, their imprison­ning, banishing, such as renounce and witnes a­gainst these abominations a foresaid, and the rest yet retayned among them.

Thus being constreyned, we haue repeated and reckoned vp diuers of the Antichristian enormities still remayning & practised in their church: By which the Reader may better see and iudge, both of the sleightnes of their answere in this place, and of the blacke constitution of their church. As also comparing these and the booke by him alleadged togeather, it may hence appeare that our speach is proper; and fitlie declaring their estate, when we saide they ioyne Christ and Antichrist togeather: And therfore his answere in this place to be friuolous and of no weight.

3 Next he commeth to the proofe of our Proposition, which was confir­med by these scriptures, 2 Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. with Ezek. 43.8. & 2 King, 17 33, 34, 40, 41. The Proposition which we proued by these Scriptures, was this.

That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togither, can not make a true Christian.

Nowe let euen the aduersaries them selues iudge, Whether these Scri­ptures doe not so euidentlie proue this Proposition, as none can denie it, but [Page 29]such as are Wilfully blinded, and striue against the light of their owne cōsciences But what saith he of these scriptures here alleadged? Forsooth That they are wholy mismatched. And why so? Because the ioyninge there forbidden, is vnto such Idolatrie, as can not stande by any meanes with Christian faith, and breaketh most directlie the First commande­ment: whereas their transgression is but against the Seconde, and may stande with true faith, as he supposeth in Cranmer, &c. First, this an­swere of his, concerneth our Assumption, whereas those scriptures were the profe of the Proposition. But to let this passe, let vs consider the an­swere it selfe, howe worthy and clerk like it is. These scriptures (he saith) forbid ioyning to such Idolatrie, as can not stande with Christian faith, and breaketh most directlie the First commaundement. 1. Jf this were so, what then? Doe they not therfore forbid ioyning to Antichristian ido­latrie, and that false worship which breaketh the second cōmaundement? 2: Secondlie, he can not denie, but as we iudge of their way and estate, so it is a transgression against the Second commaundement. Nowe, Samuell saith, Rebellion is as the sinne of witchcraft, and transgression is wickednes & idolatry. 1 Sam. 19. See then what advantage he getteth by his owne answere? 3. Thirdly, as the Pagans Idolatrie breaking the First commaundement, cannot stand with true christian faith, so neither can the idolatrie and false worship of Antichrist breaking the seconde. To that of Maister Cranmer, &c, is alreadie answered in pag. 13. wherevnto may bee added, that their case nowe, is nothing so as theirs was then: both for that they suffered to death for the trueth which they sawe, And because the things nowe controuer­ted, were not then so called into question and conuinced against them by the scriptures, as nowe they haue ben against these: neither were then by them so resisted and persecuted as they are by these men now adayes, euen vnto bandes, bannishment, and death it selfe: Otherwise we might iusti­fie the callings and estate of the Monkes and Fryars, and of the most Po­pish Priestes and Prelates, and the hauing communion with them in that estate, because diuers such haue ben Martirs, and layd downe their liues for the trueth which they sawe, who yet neuer doubted of the lawfulnes of their callings and estate in this behalfe, which then were not so called into question, nor convinced by the scriptures, to bee vnlawfull, as since they haue bene. 4. Fourthlie, as there is a double Jdolatrie and false worship the one against the First commaundement when any haue others besides the true God for their God: the other against the Second commaundment, when anie hauing the true God for their God, yet worship him not as hee hath commaunded, but after the inventions and prescriptions of men: So also these scriptures alleadged, and the whole course of the word of God, condempneth the ioyning and hauing fellowship with either of these, as­well [Page 30]this which is against the Second commaundement, as that whiche is against the First. See the Reasons alleadged by the Apostle: 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. Are they not stronge and weightie against ioyning togeather righteousnes and vn­righteousnes, light and darknesse, Christ and Beliall, whether it be in the breach of the First or Second commaundement? Saieth not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth and Walketh, and therefore requireth of them that they be his people, his sonnes and daugh­ters, separated from the world, and touching no vncleane thing: whether it be of Antichrist against the Second, or of the Heathen against the First commaundement? Ezech. 43.8. And touching the place of Ezekiell, who seeth not, that he speaketh directlie of the breach of the Second commandement, in ioyning togeather in the worship of the true God, their thresholdes with Gods thresholds, and their postes with Gods postes, that is, their inuenti­ons with Gods ordinances: which though it bee done to the name and for the seruice of the true God, yet sayth the Prophet, Jt is abomination in the sight of God, and they that doe so worship him, set a wall betweene God & them selues, and defyle his holy Name with their abominations. Loe here the vse and fruict of ioyning togeather the inuentions of men (chieflie of Antichrist that man of sinne) with the ordinances of God in his worshipp and seruice. As Maister Iacob and his complices like this, so let them holde on in pleading for it, and practizing of it. The third place allead­ged, is out of 2 King. 17. where also it is most plaine, 2 King. 17. that the scripture speaketh of the breach of the Second cōmaundement. For there is set down that the Samaritans worspipped the Vers. 28.32 41. same God, and after, Vers. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40. the same manner that the Israelites of the Tenne Tribes did, that were carryed from thence: That is, they worshipped the Vers. 28.32 41. true God, but Vers. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40. not as hee had commaunded, but by hauing Images of sundrie sortes, by whiche they thought God was represented, as Exod. 32, 4. of olde they thought of the calfe that Aaron made, and by other inuentions deuised by the Israelites in their de­fection, and ioyned to Gods ordinances for the worship and seruice of him. That this was the sinne of those Samaritans against the Second comman­dement, will appeare, by cōparing togeather with this chapter, these scrip­tures following, to which we referre the Reader, Ezra 4.1, 2. with Exod. 20.4, 5, 6. and 32.1, 4, 5, 6. Jug. 17.2, 3, 4, 5, 13 Ezek 20.39. Hosea 2.16. Amos 5.21, 22, 23. & 8.14. 1 Kings 12.27. and 18.21. and 21.29. and 22.12, 24. Esay 10.11. Iohn 4.19, 20, 25, 26, 29, 30. By these also, as by that of Ezekiell likewise may appeare, howe false it is, that hee fur­ther saith, They did not so much as professe the written law to be their rule, neither for outwarde order, nor their inwarde doctrines of faith. Jf this were so, howe could it bee true, which Ezechiell sayeth of them, of [Page 31]whom he speaketh, that they set their postes and threshalls by Gods postes and Treshalls, that is, their inuentions by Gods ordinances. Howe also was it that the Samaritans, spoken of 2 King. 17. sacrificed to the true God, euen the Lord God of the Iewes, offering vnto him burnt offringes, and meate offringes, and peace offringes? Or howe came it, that they still vsed circumcision, and weyted for the Messias to come, as he was promi­sed in the writen worde of God: yea knowing also and beleeuing, not onely that the Messias would come which is called Christ, but also that when he came he would tell them all things? The corinthian infidels in deed, as the rest of the Heathen, knewe not the true God, nor his written worde. But it was not so with the Samaritanes or Tenne tribes of Jsraell fallen from Judah, as is euident by the scriptures and reasons before alleadged. To that which he next addeth to their professiō & practise, Referring vs to his answere in pag. 11, 12, 18 to our Second Exception going before, wee haue there answered alreadie, pag. 12. 13. and will not therfore repeate it.

Onely this we adde moreouer, That seeing the publique constitution of 4 their Assemblies, and estate of their Ministers & people therein, is a most impious transgression of the Second commandement, which the Lord him­selfe calleth Num. 15.39 Reue. 11.8. & 17.1, 2, 3, 4. spirituall whoredome against him, yea grieuous iniquitie and hatred of him, threatning Exod. 20. to visit it vpon the Fathers and children so remayning, to the Third and Fourth generation: Therefore both by it are the truthes which they professe, made frustrate vnto thē in this estate. Neither will it helpe them to pretend that it is their error in iudgement, (For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured?) But see­ing their publike profession & practize is (at the best) a ioyning of Christ and Antichrist togeather, as hath bene shewed before, therefore neither can they by the worde of God be deemed in this estate, to bee true Christi­ans, on true constituted Churches. And the Scriptures applyed to proue this consequent, are fitlie alleadged, as hath bene seene. Falsly therefore it is, that he sayth, We sinned against the Third commaundement, in the application of the scriptures aforesaid. That is their owne common cu­stome, and lamentable sinne, to breake the Third commaundement, in ta­king the name of God in vaine, not onely by falsifying and peruerting the scriptures, but also by their Ministration of the Word, Sacramentes, and Gouernment of the Church, by vertue of such offices and callings as Christ neuer appointed in his worde therevnto, but were first deuised, and still are reteyned by Antichrist, that sonne of perdition. Hitherto of his an­swere concerning the proofe of our Proposition.

To the proofe of our Assumption, he Marke this his sounde and Scholerlike d [...]alinge in this place and afterwards. answereth not a worde: which yet most of all required answere, if he would in deede soundlie defende [Page 32]their estate, as he pretendeth. That their profession and practise ioyneth Christ & Antichrist togeather, we shewed in pag. 28 &c. by their Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Aduertisements, &c. published at sundry times, & by their present Ministerie, Worship, and Church-gouernement, accor­ding therevnto. If this be not so, why bringes he not warraunt, for these particulers from the Testament of Christ, and so take away the proofe of our Asumption? Jf this be so (as by his silence he graunteth and wee are sure he cannot shew the contrarie by the Scriptures) then our Assumpti­on standeth firme, and consequently in this constitution, they cannot be ac­counted true Christians, nor their Assemblies so gathered, true constituted Churches.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply vnto the 1. Reason.

1 IN this your defence of your first Reason, you would first of all fasten on me a contradiction, for gráunting, that our Church corrup­tions are from Antichrist, which against your Second Exception, J said wee holde to be Christs owne, viz. Because we hold, Christ hath giuen his Church that libertie to deuise them. Alas it pittieth mee to see your sim­plicitie, or it greueth me for your malice; who could not see, that there I spake in the person of our whole Church and state, See Pag. 12. 18. 19. and shewed what they held: And here I speake as I thought my selfe. This is a silly con­tradiction.

2. Then you say, Pag. 25. I dazell the peoples eyes, in saying some out­ward orders and ceremoines are from Antichrist as if they were but a few and of small moment. Therefore you are content to recken them vp full tediously God knoweth euen 91. in number: numero Deus impare gaudet. And what of all these; will you saye therefore, That whosoeuer holdeth these, cannot holde Christ vnto saluation. And so Mr. Cranmer and the rest of the Martirs were damned. But if not: Then I saye againe, These some, these 91. are too few and too slight, and of too small momēt of them selues and of their owne nature to abolishe vs from Christ. This ought you to haue proued, which you neuer doe, but still your speech is most false and not vnproper onely, that wee ioyne Christ and Antichrist togeather: As in the maimed mā before Pag. 25. noted, there is not life & death ioyned togeather, but liuing things and dead things are, and yet the man aliue and a true man.

3. Then 2 cor. 14. &c Eze. 43.8. [...] King. 17.33, 34, 40, 41. you will iustify your applying the scriptures which I said were mismatched & were meant against the Idolatry of the First command­ment, not against the Idolatry of the Second only, and meerelie, as our Church orders in question are. Therefore these scriptures cannot inferre any abolishing from Christ by simple holding of the corruptions in our Church: which they doe proue by the simple holding of those Heathe­nish Idolatries, whereof they speake. To this you reply in Foure points. [Page 33](1) Jf these places bee meant of Heathenish Idolatry, which could neuer stand with Gods truth togeather: Yet they forbid all other corruptions a­gainst the Second commaundement also. That I neuer denyed to be true after a sort. These places indeed doe forbid the breach of the Second, cō ­maundement, but not principally, directly and of purpose, nor in that measure or fulnes. But their immediat purpose is against the Heathenish Idolatry breaking the First commaundement. So that they forbid the breach of the Second commaundemēt, consequently and proportionat­ly, but not in that full manner as they doe the First, They forbid the First so as that they shew there is no communion with God, whilst men ioyne in such Idolaty: they simply forbid the Second, but deny not al commu­nion with God to whom soeuer erreth therein. (2) To your Secōd Reply I say, make much of it, for my parte, I neuer thought other but our church corruptions are against the Second commaundement: your se­cond scripture here applied, is of Saul, I. Sam. 1 [...]. a presumptuous and wilfull offen­dour: if you make our whole Churches so, your sinne is the greater. (3) Thirdlie, if you meane, anie of Antichristes Idolatrie and false wor­ship, and namelie this in question (the outward corrupt orders and cere­monies onely and no more) doeth abolish vs from Christ, and that this can not stande togeather with true faith, like as the Pagans idolatrie a­gainst the First commaundement, can not. Then I denie it vtterlie, you haue no proofe in the world for it. And this inwrappeth Master Cranmer, Ridley, &c. in the same course. Your excuse here pag. 29. That Cranmer, Ridley, &c. forsooke all the corruptions they sawe. This belongeth to ma­nie Thousands in England nowe, no lesse then to them: yea surelie there are infinite, that knowe not so much of the corruptions, as those learned men did, which yet are not ignoraunt of redemption by Christ, &c. Yea your selfe Maister Iohnson, though a man of learning, yea knowing our corruptions, and misliking them a long time before you forsooke vs, yet I thinke you stood not abolished from Christ all that while. I pray bee so good to poore men, as you may: yea to vs nowe also, aswell as to your selfe and them in those times. Where you say, pag. 29. That since that time we are conuicted by the scriptures. If you meane some fewe, that here and there you could pick out; and doe sinne still, speake to them, threaten them: throwe out your damnatorie sentence against them, But smite not all whosoeuer comes neare you: Beware howe you iudge, least you be iudged: The heart belongeth to God, therefore censure not euerie mans conscience too hastilie. 4 Fourthlie, you would prooue in your Third Exception before noted, pag. 29. That both the breach of the First commaundement, and of the Second also, is forbidden: I haue tolde you before, pag. 32, 33. howe it is true, and howe not: Nothing at all to serue your turne.

That which you say, pag. 30. touching your first scripture, 2. Cor. 6.14. 2 Cor. 6.14 &c. in that sence and maner as I suide, is true, and not otherwise. That [Page 34]which of your Second scripture (Ezek. 43.8) pag. ibid. you say, Ezek. 43. [...]. Who seeth not but it speaketh directlie of the breach of the Second Commaundment, ioyning togeather in the worship of the true God their inuētions 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 whē 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, [...] 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 in [...]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 [Page 35]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 Cōmon 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 Exceptiō Pag 22. 2 Also, no [...]e I pray you, this Scrip­ture [Mat. 15.] is verified of such as were thē 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 cōmon 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, did somtime ioyne and cōmunicate. This ther­fore he saith maketh for them and against vs most notably.

1 But first let him tell vs: if many As that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 &c. Esa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Zeph. 1.12. 1. Cor. 11.19. thinges, which are verified some­times of the members of a true Church, may not also fitly be applyed, and alleadged against a false Church, and yet not iustifie their estate and con­stitution, neither make for them, but against them altogeather. Otherwise he condemneth at once all the Martirs heretofore, who vsually alleaged this Mat. 15.9. very Scripture against the false worship of the Romish Church, as him selfe cannot he ignorant. Yet in his learning it seemeth the Papistes might well haue aunswered the Martirs againe, that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true visible Church, and therefore made for them, and against the Martirs most notably.

2 Secondly, when he saith, this Scripture is verified of such as were of the true visible Church with whom Christ and his Apostles commu­nicated: Let him also tell vs, whether he meaneth that Christ and his Apo­stles [Page 37]communicated with them in their vaine traditions. If he thinke they did, that very Mat. 15.2. Chapter sheweth the contrary: besides that the whole Scrip­tures testifie, that Christ was altogeather free from sinne, which hee could not haue bene, if he had ioyned with them in those their inuentions. If they did not, (as it is without all question) then what doth this helpe those men, who all of them ioyne and communicate with the false worship of these assemblies?

3 Thirdly, we aunswer, that his note is not worth the noting, being no­thing at all to the purpose for the question in hand. For first, who knoweth not, that in the Iewish Church, the doctrine publiquely professed & practi­sed by their law, did not appoinct or ratifie any of those vaine traditions, but vtterly forbid them? Wheras contrarily, the very doctrine publiquely professed and practized by law in England, appoincteth and ratifieth the false worshiping of God by the inuentions of men: Secondly, those vaine traditions aforesaid, were the personall sinnes of some particuler men in the Iewish Church not publiquely established by law, nor generally receiued and practized in that Church: Luk. 1.5, 6, 8, 9, 10. &. 2.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27.36, 37, 38, 39 Mat. 15.7. & 8.4. and 15, 2. Ioh. 10.34. Zachary and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Mary, Ioseph, and Christ himselfe, and his Apostles, with many others, kept the ordinance of God giuen by the hande of Moses, and obserued of that Church. Neither did they ioyne or pollute them selues with that vaine worship aforesaid: whereas in the church of England, the false wor­ship thereof deuised by men, euen by that man of sinne, is not the personall sinne of some particular men in it, but is publikelie established by law, and generally receyned and practised in these assemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this scripture maketh nothing for them, but against them most notably.

Nowe, whereas in the margent, he wisheth the Reader to marke a contrarietie with our selues, by comparing this and our 6. Reason toge­ther: we also referre it to the Reader to iudge, whether there be not euen an harmonie with this, and a confirmation of it. Hetherto of the defence of our second Reason.

H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reason.

TO this your defence of your Second Reason, I say, you haue answer in your last Exceptiō, pag. 22. You aske what Propositiō I doe deny? I answer, I distinguish your Aflumption as being a fallacie called [...]: cōcluding a thing simply, from that which is after a sort, like vnto that Reason which I framed against you in Pag. 22. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glasse, &c, Therefore hee is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. held asmuch as wee, after mens precepts: Ergo, [Page 38]they worshiped in vaine. Geneua holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper. Ergo, Geneua worshipeth God in vaine. Euen so your Assumption run­neth. Our doctrine (say you Pag. 35.) appoincteth Gods worship by mens precepts. This is false, vnlesse you meane it [...], after a sort, not sim­ply. For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worship by mens pre­cepts, nor the chiefest part of it: as the preaching of the Gospell of life, Sacramentes, and Prayers, &c. So that it concludeth nothing in that sence. Therefore here you play the false Sophister, not the Christian and conscionable Disputer. Thus you haue answer enough to this in the aunswer to your last Exception, though you would not see it.

Further I noted Secondly, Pag. 35. That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeel­deth the offenders to be of a visible Church, with whom Christ did com­municate, though they held also traditions of men: Therfore it affirmeth nothing against vs. Is not this true? Why then doe you not admit it? We neuer denyed, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this onely wee affirme, it disanulleth not our Churches: Euen as Christ here condempned the Iewes corrupt traditions, but hee meant not thereby to disanull their Church. Therefore all this is not against our purpose, but not ably for vs as is before obserued.

1. Concerning your First aunswer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applyed against false worshippers which are no true Church: But it proueth not I say, all them, to whom it may bee applyed, to bee no true Church: Therefore you abuse it against vs, Except you had first proued vs no true Church nor Christians, which yet is in question.

2. Where in your Second answere Pag. 37. you say That this helpeth vs not, ex­cept we say that Christ communicated with the Pharisies in these traditi­ons, like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now. For shame leaue this folly. I say againe, I seeke not to iustifie our partaking in our traditions, but I renounce it in sobrietie asmuch as you, yea better then you doe: Yet I say this place shall admit those who doe in simplicitie partake of them, to be true Christians neuerthelesse, like as it admitteth the Iewes then.

3. In your Third aunswer, Pag. ibid. You deny that those Jewish traditions of was­shings, &c. were with them receiued generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I aunswer, That they were generally receiued, as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verse doeth testifie, and that they were rebuked who vsed them not: which is sufficient to make it their Churches doctrine & practize, though no expresse law commaunded it. But I suppose verse 5. where they say, [Why walkest thou not after the tradition of the Elders] he mea­neth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as lawes, besides the lawe of Moses. What else is their Thalmud, which is till this daye, euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie, and the Alcoran of Turky. Some also vnderstand this of the ordinances of the Elders, that is, their 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 [Page 39]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, [Page 40]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 [Page 41]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 not your Assumption, but that which I had made briefer, conteyning the effect of yours. This was the Assumption denyed by me, But a Galatian is a false christian. As he that hath but halfe an eye may see.

Secondly, to cease needles strife. I deny therefore your Proposition. Though a Galatian that is, So holding it, as y e worst did, or els this is a so­phisticall Equi uocation. holding circumcision, cannot bee a true Christian, yet an English Christian holding the Hyerarchie &c. may. The Reason of this denyall I gaue you then, but that you would not see it: Name­lie, because such Galatians, held Iustification by the works, and ceremo­nies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papistes, who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the same, and so doe erre Fundamentally. But our Churches and state, hold not the Hye­rarchie so, but only as an indifferent thing in it selfe. This blasphemous opinion of Circumcision, maketh it infinitelie worse, (though once it [Page 42]was ordeined of God) then our indifferent opinion of the Hyerarchie, though in deed it were neuer but nought.

Thirdlie and lastlie, you haue no where cleared Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, & the rest of those holy Martirs, from being abolished from Christ, if the Hyerarchie be simply worse then Circumcision, so hold as those Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4, 5.

Maister IOHNSONS IIII. Reason against the former Assumption: with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same. REASON IIII.

THe doctrines of faith conteyned in that Booke alleadged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, should also still executs or ioyne vnto the Ministerie of Mahomet, that open Antichrist and enemie of Jesus Christ. 2. Cor. 6.14, &c.

Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian, that holding them, yet doth still execute or ioyne vnto, the Ministerie and worship of the man of sinne, the couert Antichrist and enemie of Iesus Christ.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reason.

THis your 4. Reason is Mahomets Ministerie and Antichristes Ministerie are both bad alike.

But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Mahomets Ministerie.

Ergo, the good doctrines of that booke cannot saue a man that ioyneth also to Antichristes Ministerie: which thing we in England doe.

I deny neither the Proposition, nor Assumption: And yet the Argu­ment is too bad. It is a fallacie of Equiuocation, as wee call it: Wee must therefore distinguish: Mahomets Ministerie, and Antichrists Ministerie, haue a doubtfull meaning. If you meane, the whole function and exercise of publique worship performed in Mahomets or Antichristes assemblies, that is, in the Turkish or Popish Churches: The I graunt your whole argu­ment is Both are nought alike as touching abolishing vs from Christ. true. But that we doe so in England, (which comes in the con­clusion,) Or that any Christian amongst vs thinketh so: That I vtterlie deny. And thus indeed, that Scripture alleadged 2. Cor. 6.14. is rightly vnderstood. But if you meane by Ministerie, the outward manner of calling to the Ministerie, & som outward ceremonies, vsed by Mahomet, [Page 43]or the Pope: Then I flatly and absolutely deny your Assumption, and your Scripture is answered before in the First Reason. For I affirme, and it is manifest: That such errors being ioyned with the good doctrines of that our Booke, doe not destroy faith, and true Christianitie, As before was shewed in the Second Exception.

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reason.

HEre the light of the trueth doeth so dazell the Answerers eyes, as he freelie confesseth he can not denie any whit of our Reason. And yet forsooth the Argument is too bad. But why so? There is (hee sayth) an equiuocation in it, and therefore he will distinguish. But First wee 1 tell him, there is no equiuocation at all in the words, but they are al plain, to him that hath a single eye, and will vnderstand the trueth. Therefore his distinction heere is idle & friuolous. Yet see also betweene what things he doeth distinguish? Forsooth betwene the whole function and exercise of publique worship perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies, and betwene the outward maner of calling to their Ministery, and the outward ceremonies vsed amongest them.

An absurd distinction touching the matter in hande: For first, who knoweth not, that these latter are of the very same nature with the former: Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false, Anticristian, & ac­cursed before God, aswell as the rest of their worship and seruice? Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for these then for the other? Secondly, who seeth not, that the argument here, is not of whatsoe­uer thing is vsed among the Turkes and Papistes, but of the Ministerie and worship which they haue deuised and executed: As in particular, of the publique offices of Ministerie retey ned among them, of their maner of calling, and entrance into them: of their administration of them: of their stinted imposed Liturgie: their ecclesiasticall gouernement, cannons, pro­ceedings, &c. All which in the church of England are taken out of Reu. 17.4, 5 2. Thes. 2.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. that golden cuppe of abominations, whereby Antichrist, That man of sinne, hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken: as may appeare by cō ­paring their Pontificalls, Canons, and constitutions togeather. If this man will needes be otherwise minded, then let him proue the particulars afore­saide, by the Testament of Jesus Christ.

Furthermore also, marke here, that he graunteth, the doctrine of faith 2 conteyned in their booke of Articles, cannot make him a true Christian, that holdinge them, doth withall receiue and ioyne vnto the publike worship, perfourmed in the Turkish or Popish Assemblies. This he saith he graunteth as most true, Wherevpon it followeth, euen by his owne confession: First, that such thingh then may be ioyned with the doctrines of [Page 44]faith receiued among them, as they in such estate cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, Neither the truthes which they holde, be a­uaylable to them. Secondlie, that therefore the Proposition of his First and mayne Argument, is not generall, but admitteth limitation, & so his grea­test defence is of no weight, as before is shewed in the beginning, in our an­swere to that Proposition. Thirdlie, that his answere to our Seconde Ex­ception before alleadged, is of no force, howsoeuer heere and euery where he referre vs to it. For which also we referre the Reader, to that which is saide in that place, in defence of the Exception aforesaid, As also for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. vnto that which is said concerning it in defence of our First Reason before alleadged.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reason.

1 IN this your defence of your 4. Reason, you renewe your Sophistrie; And that which is worse, you wil not be tolde of it. Is it because of the goodnes of your Reason that I denie no Proposition? Nay, it is for the badnes of it: because all is nought, all deceiptfull and sophisticall. Therefore I must distinguish euen so still as I did before, and my distinc­tion is good, cleerelie discouering all your fraude. What say you against it: First (you say) Are not their outward callings and ceremonies false, Antichristian and accursed, aswell as the rest of their worship & seruice? Aswell? Forsooth, I trow not, (that is, not as much). Their inwarde im­pietie and false faith against Christ, the onely all-sufficient Sauiour, is farre more accursed, and diuelish then their bare outward orders, sepa­rated from the rest of their faith. But whosoeuer ioyneth simply, and in­differently, either to Thukish, or Popish Assemblies, doeth ioyne with their whole, and worst abominations, which haue no communion or cohe­rence with Christ in deede, Neither can we also, if we ioyne therein. The case is not like, when we reteyne and vse, some of their outwarde orders in our Assemblies.

2 And here you note that I graunt, Some thinge may be ioyned vnto our Christian faith in England, which would vtterly destroy it. Most true, And here I note your most vncristian and false dealing with me, in affir­ming otherwise of me, As I haue expressed in the beginning, about the taking of my First maine Proposition there. Which see further in pag. 4.

Lastlie, my reference to the answere of your First Reason, is a fit and full Refutation of you here, Neither is your Defence any thing against it, as there appeareth. Also this your Reason includeth Maister Cran­mer, Ridley, &c. to be no true Christians neither, as hath bene often al­leadged.

Maister IOHNSONS V. Reason against the former Assumption: with Maister IACOBS Replies to the same. REASON V.

AS the golden vessels taken out of the Lords house, and had & vsed in Babilon of the Caldeans, did not therefore make the Babiloni­ans true Iewes touching the faith: Nor their banquets wherin they vsed them, to be anie of the Lords Feastes (spoken of Leuit. 23.) but they still remayned Babilonish people and banquets notwithstanding:

So the truthes of the Gospell (vessels as it were of the Lords house) hol­den and receyued in the spirituall Babilon (whereof that other was a type) doe not make the people so standing, to be true Christians, Neither their Ministery and constitution to be Christes appoincted in his Testament: But they still remaine the people, Ministery, and constitution, of Babilon notwithstanding. See the proofes hereof in Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Prou. 9.17, 18. and Reuel. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10.11.

H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 5. Reason.

Your Reason is this.

THe materiall vessells of Ierusalem, were of the like power and ver­tue, to sanctifie the Heathen Babilonians, As the holy christian do­ctrines in that Booke, are to sanctifie vs, that holde togeather with them some Popish ceremonies and orders as indifferent things:

But those vessells were not sufficient to sanctifie those Babilonians, Ergo, Neither these truthes of the Gospell can sanctifie vs.

An absurd comparison: The Proposition is most false, and so the scri­ptures quoted (Dau. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Rom. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10, 11.) are as idely and vainely applied. See the Answere to the allegations in the First Reason before.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 5. Reason.

THis he sayth, is an absurd comparison. So belike (if his graue iudg­ment might goe for good payment) the manifold allusions which (in describing the spirituall Babilon, the Spirit of God Reu. 17.18. and 15. com­pared w t Iere. 50.51. Cap. Isay. 13. & 14. and 21. & 47. maketh to-the mate­riall Babilō of the Caldeans) were to bee accompted absurd allusions and comparisons. As also the often alluding, and likening togeather, the [Page 46] Isa. 66.20.21 Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. and 10.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.1.12 He. 13.15, 16.1. Pet. 3.20.21 Reu. 15.3. and 21.20, &c. holy things of the Lawe, with the holy thinges of the Gospell, and the 2. Tim. 3.8.9.1. Cor. 10.6, &c. Heb. 12 16.17. Iude vers. 11. Reu. 2.14.20. and 20.8, 9. transgressions then with the transgressions now, which are so often vsed in the Scripture: Are in his account absurd allusions and similitudes. Se­condlie, he sayth the Proposition is most false. Which we answer is most true and most plainely taught and declared in the fift of Daniels prophe­sie, vers. 1, 2, 3, 4. and Leuit. 23. as we alleadged before, when we first pro­pounded the reason, Wherevnto we yet haue receyued no aunswere. So soundly he defendeth his cause.

Thirdly he saith, The scriptures quoted (Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Reuel. 17.4, 5, & 18, 4. and 14, 8, 9, 10, 11.) are idely and vainely applyed. But howe shewes he this to be so as he saith? Verie profondlie, I warrant you. For he bids vs see the answere to the allegati­ons in the First Reason: And this is all the proofe he bringes. Well: wee haue seene his answere to the allegations there, and finde: First, that those scriptures here alleadged, are not so much as once mencioned there. Se­condlie that his answere to the allegations there set downe, is most friuou­lous and of no weight, but against him selfe, as there we haue declared.

Lastlie, in his propounding of our Reason otherwise then we had done (which in deede is a thing verie ordinarie, though nothing commendable in them) it seemeth, that being not able to answer anie parte of our Rea­son, as we had set it downe, yet he thought to helpe him self by this excep­tion, that the Materiall vessells of Ierusalem were not of the like power and vertue to sanctifie the Heathen Babilonians, as the true doctrines re­ceyued among the spirituall Babilonians, are to sanctifie them. But hee shall finde, if he will consider and compare togeather the Scriptures heere alleadged, that the golden vessells being holy to the Lorde, and taken out of his Temple, did asmuch sanctifie the Caldean Babilonians and their Feastes: As the holy doctrines (vessels as it were of the Lordes Temple) had among the spirituall Babilonians, doe sanctifie them and their con­stitution, That is, neither of their Estates and Assemblies are sanctified thereby at all. For saith not the Lorde, Eze. 43.8. That the setting of mens postes and thresholds, (howe much more of Babilons enormities) by his Postes & Thresholdes, that is by his truthes and ordinances, is so farre from sancti­fying, as it defileth his holy Name, yea is abomination in his fight, and setteth a wall betweene him and them that doe it? Saith not the scripture also, Prou. 9.17, 18. &, 20.17. that the true doctrines in the false church are amonge them as stollen waters and hid bread, which though they be sweete & pleasaunt, yet there also is the mouth filled with grauell, and the guestes of those feastes and assemblies, are so farre frō being sanctified by those truthes in that estate, as they are before God euen dead men, and in the deapth of hell.

To conclude this poinct, hath not an Angell from heauen proclaimed it with a loude voice, that Reu. 18, 1, 2, 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 [Page 49]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 only Priests ( My meaning was the Leuits were not of A­arons line, but y e Priests only. & Leuits.) Therfore they could not be indeed true worshippers, nor within the couenant, nor neere to saluation, when they all openly rebelled, and forsooke them desperatly, whom the Lord had so expresly chosen. Now our assemblies throughout England haue not their con­sciences so conuicted in the Hyerarchie and Ceremonies. Ergo, wee may be in the coueuant, which they were not, for all our corruptions.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 6. Reason.

THis our 6. Reason, he neither propounded as we did, nor aunswereth directlie, and soundlie vnto anie part of it. But that the nakednes of [Page 50]his answere, and light of the trueth may better appeare, we will propound the Reason more shortlie in a Sillogisme, thus.

The people and assemblies, whose Ecclesiasticall constitution is such as to them in that estate the Couenantes, holy things, and seruice of God doe not apperteyne, they can not in such constitution by the worde of God be deemed true Christians or true Churches, whatsoeuer truthe they pro­fesse besides.

But such is the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and assemblies of Englande, as vnto them in that estate the Couenauntes, holy things, & seruice of God doe not apperteyne.

Therefore the people and Assemblies of England, can not in that con­stitution, by the word of God, be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, whatsoeuer truthes they professe besides.

The Proposition none will denie,
The Assumption is proued thus.

The people and Assemblies whose Ecclesiasticall constitution is such, as they worship God after a false manner, neuer appointed by him self, nor approued in his word: their constitution is such, as vnto them in that e­state, the couenaunts, holy things, and seruice of God doe not apperteyne.

But such is the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and Assemblies of England, as they worship God after a false manner, neuer appointed by him selfe, nor approued in his word.

Therefore the Ecclesiasticall constitution of the people and Assem­blies of Englande, is such as vnto them in that estate, the Couenaunts, ho­lie things, and seruice of God, doe not apperteyne.

The Proposition was proued by the example of the Samaritans, and Christes speach and sentence of them in such estate, Ioh. 4. and 2 King. 17 Whervnto he answereth nothing to anie purpose, saue that, what he saith, is against him selfe. For where he graunteth That the Samaritans, and Balaam knewe and beleeued the Messias should come, yea and that the Deuills knowe and beleeue there is a God, and that Iesus is the Christ, the holy one of God. Who seeth not, that most excellent truthes may be acknowledged, and yet they which so professe, be not therefore in their e­state true Christians or true Churches, to whom the Couenauntes, holie things and seruice of God apperteyne? Where next he saith, The Samari­tans beleeued not in the Messias, it will be heard for him to prooue it, see­ing he taketh beleefe in Christ so, as it is had in the spirituall Babylon and her daughters, and seeing also the Samaritans professed and beleened, not onely that the Messiah should come, but euen he which is called Christ, & that when he came, he would declare vnto them all things. Jn so much as [Page 51]when Jesus was come, & had spoken but to a woman of Samaria, the scri­pture witnesseth, that manie of the Samaritans of that citie beleeued in him for the saying of the woman, which testified, he hath tolde me all thinges that euer I did, Ioan 4.25, 26, 29, 30, 39. Thirdly, where he saith, The Samaritans ioy­ned Heathenish Idolls with the God of Israell, which wholy destroyed the trueth in them which they held. By this againe it is euident, euen in his owne confession, Both that such things may be ioyned with the do­ctrines of trueth, as in that estate, they which professe those truthes, can not be iudged true Christians, or true churches, to whom the promises and holy things of God doe belong: And that therefore also, the See further for the answer of this in Pag. 4. Proposition of his principall and maine Argument first propounded, is not generall, but of necessitie admitteth limitations: So as then his maine defence falleth to the ground, as alreadie we haue noted both in the beginning of this wri­ting, in the answere to that Proposition afore saide: and againe in the de­fence of our Fourth Reason a little before. Moreouer, in that he sayeth, the Samaritans ioyned Heathenish Idols with the God of Israell. (2. King. 17.) If he meane, that they worshipped the Idols them selues, 2. King. 17. sa­crificing to them, and accompting them to be Gods as well as the God of Israell, and so brake the First commaundement, as before he affirmed in his answere to our First Reason: then we take it, that here againe hee is deceyued, as there we haue shewed. The scripture saieth, Pag. 30. they worshipped & sacrifized to the Lord God of Israell. So as their sinne was against the Second commaundement, in that worshipping the true God, they did it in, and by those Images, as also by other deuices of their owne, and traditions of their predecessours. That this was their estate and sinne, besides that it appeareth in that chapter alleadged, it is also most plainlie sett downe, first by them selues, in that booke of Ezra, Ezra. 4.1, 2. where they speake vnto the Iewes of the captiuitie that builded the Temple, saying:

We will buylde with you, for wee seeke the Lord your God as ye doe, and we haue sacrificed vnto him since the tyme of Esar Haddon King of Asshur, which brought vs vp hither. Then also be­tweene Christ and the woman of Samaria, Joh. 4. where it is manifest, that the Ioh. 4.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30. contention betweene the Iewes and the Samaritans, was not whether onely the true God was to be worshipped, but both of them agree­ing in that, whether the solemne place of his worship was in Ierusalem, or in the mount of Samaria, &c. Lastlie, by this mans owne confession, when he sayth in this place, Pag 49. that the Israelites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and B [...] ­thel, serued not Pagan Idolls, but the true God after their owne deuices. For the scripture testifieth, 2. King. 17.28, 32, 33. that the Samaritans worshipped the same God, and after the same maner that the Nations did which were caried from thence. Nowe the nations that were carryed from thence, were the tenns Tribes that fel away from Iudah to Ieroboam: which likewise fea­red [Page 52] 1. King. 12.27, 28, 29, 30, 31. w t 2. King. 17.32, 33, 40, 41. the Lord & serued their Jmages, that is, God in and by their Images as nowe also the Samaritans did that were come in their steede. Hetherto of his answere, which may seeme to concerne the Proposition of the latter Sillogisme.

The Assumption was shewed by this, that these assemblies being com­mingled togeather of all sortes of people, they haue also for the worship of God among them, a counterfett Ministerie and seruice, deuised by mans which he rightlie vnderstandeth, as we also doe, of their Hierarchie, and other abominations (before rehearsed) which deceiptfully heare againe he would smother vp vnder the name of ceremonies. Touching which flight of his, sufficient is said before in the handling of our First Reason. But what nowe saith he here, concerning the Assumption or proofe of it? Doeth he denie it? No. What then doeth he say for their counterfet Hie­rarchie, worship, &c. Surely nothing but this, That their Assemblies in England haue not their consciences conuicted in these, as the people vn­der Ieroboam, could not but haue their consciences conuicted then, touching their worship and Priesthood. But first, if this were so: is this anie iust defence of their Ministerie, worship, or estate, that they yet see them not to be vnlawfull, as it could not be, but they vnder Ieroboam saw theirs to be? If this were a sufficient reason, might not the grossest Papist plead likewise for their Ministerie, worship, and estate, as also the Vsu­rers, extortioners, and persecutors, for them selues and their wickednes? By this reason, God should not haue sent Lyons among the Samaritans, be­cause 2. King. 17.26. yet, they knewe not the maner of worshipping the God of Jsraell, neither had their consciences conuicted therein. But Christ hath taught vs otherwise, Luk. 12.48. that euen that seruaunt, which knoweth not his Maisters will, and yet committeth things worthy of stripes, shalbe beaten, though with fewer stripes, then he that knoweth and doeth it not. And euen of those Jsraelites aforesaide the Lord him selfe testifieth Hos. 4.6. that they were destroyed for lacke of knowledge. So then neither can this peoples igno­raunce (which he pleadeth) be a sufficient defence for their estate. Or if it could, yet it seemeth they of Israell aforesaid, might aswell haue allead­ged for them selues, seeing the Lorde witnesseth of them Hos. 4.1. that there was no knowledge of God in the lande. And thus the obiectiō also here brought by him selfe, remayneth still vnaunswered. Nowe where hee sayeth, that Aarons Line were the only Priests and Leuites, hee is also mistaken herein, In deede Aarons Line onely were the Priestes, but the Leuites were generallie of the Tribe of Leuie, though not of Aarons lyne. But to let this passe: We would knowe of him a sufficient reason, why the true worship and ministerie appointed by Christ in his Testament, should not be aswell knowne vnto them in these dayes, as in the defection of Israell? [Page 53]He sayth They could not but knowe, that Ierusalem was the only place, and Aarons lyne the onely Priestes. Haue not these the scripture asmuch as the other had? Or hath not Christ Heb. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. the Sonne, bene as faithfull in the house of God, and as plainly set downe his will for his true worship and Ministerie in the time of the Gospell, as Moses the seruant was and did for the time of the Law? Yea and haue not Witnes the publike Trea­tises, Sermons, Admonitions, Complaintes, Supplications, & Demonstra­tions, to the Parliamēt, be­sides y e bandes and sufferings of many in this behalf. these by the word bene made manifest to the consciences of men in these dayes? And euen to the high Court of Parliament, representing the whole body of the Land as the other were to the Israelites in the time of their defection? Finally, doeth not this Land stand in as open rebellion against, and forsaking of the true Mini­sterie, worship, and order, appoincted by Christ to his church nowe, as the o­ther did then, (if not more open and greeuous) not onely for the causes a­foresaide, but because also they haue Witnes the Pōtifical, Por­tuis, Canons & Constitution of the Popish, & their assem­blies, cōpared togeather. receyued and still reteyne a false ministerie, worship, and confusion of the man of sinne, that sonne of per­dition, and capitall enimie of the Lord Iesus Christ? And yet moreouer, least they should lacke anie thing of the other, and not euery way farre ex­ceed them, doe also Witnes their Actions, Sta­tutes, &c. persecute vnto bandes, exile, & death, such as beare witnes to the trueth of Christ, against their abominations aforesaide. By this then it appeareth, that the aduersarie heere, neither hath iustified their estate in respect of the Apostate Israelites, nor answered the obiec­tion which him selfe framed against their present constitution: which ther­fore we will here set downe as he propounded it.

The Obiection was this.

The Israelises vnder Jeroboam at Dan and Bethell serued not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their owne deuises, which yet resembled the ordinances at Ierusalem. 1. King. 12.32. Amos 4.4. How be it they were false worshippers, only for their false ministery, & outward false worship, for all that they beleeued in the God of Ierusalem rightly. Therefore so these of England, onely for their false Ministerie and outward worship.

This is his owne Obiection and Reason, vnto which hee hath giuen no sufficient aunswere, as before hath bene shewed. So that it still remayneth vpon himselfe as a testimonie against their present estate. This we neither did, nor needed to propound, as a seuerall Reason, amongst those which we set down, because it is of like nature with those wee mentioned amongest ours in the Second and Sixt Reasons before alleadged.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 6. Reason.

IN this your defence of your 6. Reason you say, That the Proposition of your last sillogisme, (They that worship God after a false manner, pag. 50. are are no true Christans) is proued by the example of the Samaritans, and [Page 54]that I answer nothing against it.

First I say, there you sophisticate againe. And it seemeth you can doe nothing else in argumentation. For your Proposition is Aequiuocall and ambiguous. If you meane they that worship God after a false manner, that is totally, or els Fundamentally. Then I cleerely graunt it, and that the Samaritans doe proue the same, seeing they erred Fundamentally. But your As­sumption touching vs, is then vtterly false. You bring not a sillable or one letter, to proue either of these Two against vs, in all your writing, neither can you, but bare begging of the controuersie which is infinite ofte. If you meane in your Proposition, They that serue God after a false maner, that is, in part, not Wholly nor Fundamentally, As namely in the Hyerarchy and externall ceremonies as Cranmer, &c. Then I say and avouch confident­lie in the presence of God, that such may be true Christians, though vn­perfect in many things. Yea infinite, such haue bene, are, and may bee hereafter, true Christians. The contrarie whereof, is no lesse then horri­ble blasphemie against God and his Saincts, wherfore your Proposition, is shewed to be againe sophisticall, as also those were in your Third Ex­ception, and First and Second Reasons.

Secondly where you say, the Samaritans proue it, and I say nothing against it. Marke you. First I said, the Samaritans might knowe by 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 cōparison 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 thē, &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. [...] 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 [Page 55]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 cōfession, 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 Ieroboā at the First had not ioyned in y e 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 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 y e 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 [Page 57]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 [Page 58]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 of Mariage and of meates, if they had done no worse, doeth not make them departers from the faith: that is, not Or not fun­damētally, not simply, which words I think fitter to bee here, vsed, as in my next Reply is fur­ther declared. to­tally. No more could their Hyerarchie and ceremonies simply: Neither doe these thinges make vs (the Protestants) to be such. The Papistes fall [Page 59]from Christ That is fun­damentally, & simply: see in the 2. Answer following. wholy in other poincts, (namely

  • 1. The Papall supreamacy.
  • 2. The sacrifice of the Masse.
  • 3. Iustification by workes:

Which blessed bee God wee are farre from. Therfore the Apostle in saying, They departed from the faith, meaneth, in Viz. in ab­stayning from Mariage and meates. these poincts they erred or departed from the faith, but not absolutlie & wholie. 2. Further more touching your Proposition, if you vnderstand Paul, of Martion the Haeretike, and Tatianus, who did absolutly con­demne Marriage and certen meates, they euen therein might wholie fall from the faith, I meane somewhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and those Apo­state Israelites lately spoken of, Pag. 49. 57. namely for hauing their cōsciences con­uicted, and seared with a whot iron. And thus are they in no comparison with vs of England, nor with the Papistes neither, if they had erred in nothing else.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 7. Reason.

HEre the aduersarie being not able with any colour to denie the conse­quēt, of our Reasō neither to iustifie their present Ministerie, worship Cannons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c. (which yet he must doe, & still we call for it, if he will iustifie their present estate): yet being desperate sure, for els he would neuer haue done it, he feareth not to gainesay the Assump­tion, that is, the very wordes and testimonie of the scripture it selfe, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. The Apostle sayth, that they which forbidde Mariage & Meates, are departers from the faith, This man sayth no. Nowe, whe­ther of these shall we beleeue? But what colour hath this man for his de­niall? Forsooth this: That they which doe so, doe not departe from the faith totally, and that the Apostles meaning is, that in these poincts they departe from the faith, but not absolutely and wholy. So by this mans conceite, none may be accounted departers from the faith, that depart only in some poinctes, but they which doe it totally from all. And thus then may no heretikes or Antichristes that euer haue bene, or shalbe in the worlde, be iudged departers frō the faith, because they departe from it but in some poinctes, and not absolutely from all. Thus in one word hath he iustified at once the Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Papistes, Familistes, Ana­baptistes, and whom not? because they departe but in some, not wholy from all poinctes of faith. Js it not great pitie that Antichrist hath so long wanted this stour Champion, that can thus in one worde, iustifie his for­bidding of meates and mariage, yea and his most detestable Hyerarchie, and superstitions? Nowe by this mans learning, all the Martirs & wri­ters heretofore, that by euidence of this scripture cōuicted the Synagogues of Antichrist to haue departed from the faith, and therefore separated from them: were vtterly deceyued. Nay and the Apostles them selues were wholy mistaken, when speaking of Antichristes church and Reli­gion, they call it a 2. Thes. 2.7. misterie of iniquitie, 1. Tim. 4.2. speaking lies through hypocrisie, [Page 60] 2. Pet. 2.1. priuely bringing in damnable heresies, and hauing a Tim. 3.4. shewe of godlines, but denying the power thereof, And Johns eyes also it seemeth were not matches, when he saith, Reue. 17.5. he sawe in the whores forehead, (that is in An­tichristes church and Religion) a name written, A mysterie, great Baby­lon, the mother of whoredomes, and abhominations of the earth. For we would knowe of this deepe Clerke, howe Antichristes church and religion should iustlie be accounted a mysterie of iniquitie, and truely be saide, to speake Lies in hypocrisie, also priuely to bring in Damnable he­resies, and to haue a Shew of godlines: if they did absolutely & wholy de­parte from the faith, and not onely from some pointes thereof? But ouer and aboue all, it seemeth by this reason, that not onely the Apostles were mistaken, in giuing vs sure markes howe to knowe false teachers and false religions, 1 Tim. 1.2, 3. 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Thes. 2.7. 2 Tim. 3.4. Reuel. 17.5. But also Christ him selfe, when he saide, Mat. 7.15. Beware of false Prophetes, which come to you in sheepes clothing, but inwardlie are rauening wolues. And againe Mat. 2.23.24. Jf any shall say vnto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, beleue it not: For there shall arise false christes and false prophets, and shall shew great signes and wonders, so that (if it were possible) they should deceyue the very elect. Nowe if they should totally departe from the faith, what sheepes clothing, J pray you, should they haue to come in? Or howe should either them selues be said to come in the name of Christ, affirming their Religion to be Christes, and shewing signes and wonders to drawe men therevnto: Or the elect to be in such vnspeakeable daunger to be deceyued by them? This might suffice to shewe the falsehood and impietie of his an­swere: But we will note a fewe things moe therein. It being graunted him, that the popish forbidding of mariage and meates, if they were not worse, doeth not make them departers from the faith totally: yet let him tell vs, if holding neuer so manie truthes besides, See in Bales Votaries, Acts and monumēts &c. what abo­minable filthi­nes the forbid­ding of mari­age, and what superstitiō the forbidding of meates, hath wrought in the kingdome of Antichrist. yet forbidding these, they could by the word of God truely be saide in that estate What man fearing God durst once opē his mouth for such Diuelilh doctrines and estate. to holde the faith of Christ, and to be true Christians. If they could not (as the Apostle "te­stifieth) then is this answere in this respect also nothing to the purpose, but against him selfe, both for the popish forbidding of meates and marriages, and for the English Hyerarchie, and other abominations amongst them receyued from the Papistes, which vnder colour of this answere heere he would defend. Againe, where he saith, That the Papistes fall frō Christ in other poinctes besides the aforesaid, Namely, 1 The Papall suprema­cie. 2. The sacrifice of the Masse. 3. Iustification by workes: which En­glande nowe is farre from. Let him tell vs: First, whether in this sence the Papistes can for these be said to departe from the faith totally? If they can not, then what weight is there in this for defence of their estate, that the Papistes could not also alleadge for them selues, to witt, that in these [Page 61]poinctes they departe from the faith, but not absolutely and wholy. Se­condly, let him tell vs, whether there are not other poinctes but these three in the papistes religion, which make them in their estate to be departers frō the faith, and consequentlie false christians and false Churches? If there be (as he can not denie it) then of what weight is his answer to defende the present constitution of these people and assemblies (for whom he pleadeth) seeing there are diuers other thinges besides these, that doe and may cause, that they may not be deemed true Christiās or true Churches in that estate.

Many Seruetus, Sa­bellius, Arius, the Anabap­tistes, &c. heretikes heretofore haue, and at this day doe reiect these three aforesaid, are they therfore in their estate to be accounted true Chri­stians or true Churches? So then, his manner of reasoning heere for their defence, is, as if the Adulterers, to iustifie their course of life, should al­leadge thus: We are noe 1. Blaspemers, 2. no Persecutors, 3. No Mur­therers, as such and such are: therefore we departe not from the way of life, but our estate and course of life is good, and such as may be continued in. But the scripture teacheth otherwise, sayinge: Iam. 2.10.11. Whosoeuer shall keepe the whole Lawe, and yet fayleth in one poincte, is guiltie of all. For he that sayed, Thou shalt not commit adulterie, saied also, Thou shalt not kill. Nowe, though thou doest no adultery, yet if thou killest, thou art a transgressour of the Lawe: and contrariwise. So that what soeuer sinnes the Adulterer be farre from, yet (as Pro. 6.32. Salomon saith) Hee that committeth adulterie with a woman, fayleth in heart, and destroyeth his owne soule. The same is the case of all spirituall Adulterers likewise: who (what so e­uer sinnes they be farre from) yet in the worship of God, runne a Num. 15.39. whoring after their owne inuentions, Pro. 5.20. embracing the bosomes of strange women, & Reuel. 17.4. drinking of their cup of fornications. Thirdly, let him shewe vs suffi­cient warrant frō the scriptures, why (setting these three aside) the other popish Hyerarchie and abominations receyued amongst them, can not bee iudged to make them in such estate, departers from the faith, and therfore false Christians and false Churches, whatsoeuer truthes they should hold beside. If he cannot (as who seeth not, that it can not be donne?) then by this also it appeareth, that his answer [...] here is of no force for defence of their estate, but against it, as we haue declared before.

Num. 16.12. &c. Corah, Dathan, Abyram, and their partakers, were farre from the Abominations of the Heathen, they helde also al the poinctes of faith, that Moses and Aaron held, differing onely from them, and departing only from the faith, in a matter concerning the Priesthood, whereof also they verse the. 3. shewed their reasons why they were so perswaded: yet will he not denie, we suppose, but that they departed from the faith, and were in this estate neither to be accounted true Israelits, nor their assemblies true Churches, with which communion might be kept. If he should, the scripture it selfe would witnesse against him herein, Numb. 16.26. Nowe compare case [Page 62]with case, and tyme with tyme, and the estate of these people and Assem­blies of England, wilbee found farre more grieuous, as we haue already shewed both in the defence of our Second Exception before, and in In the answer to Master Hil­dersam, and in the 9. Reasons concerning not hearing the Ministers of these assemb­ties. other Treatises to which yet we haue receiued no answer.

To conclude this poinct, if their Abominations in England were farre fewer then they are, yet so longe as they reteyne that poysonfull leauen of their Hyerarchie and worship, wee must tell them as the Scripture saith, and experience teacheth: That 2. Kings. 4.39.40. a litle poyson bringeth death vnto the whole pot of pottage. A 1. Cor. 5.6. litle leauen leaueneth the whole lump. And a Eccle. 10.1. few dead flyes cause the oynctment of the Apothecarie to stinke and putrifie. Although indeed their abominations are not a few, but swarme in aboundance amongst them, some whereof wee haue rehearsed before in the defence of our First Reason, where the Reader may take a view of them.

Now in the next place, fearing belike that the euidence of the scripture we alleadged, could not by these shiftes of his be auoyded, but that still the reason deducted from thence stood strong against them, as we haue shewed it doeth: therefore he would haue vs now passe by them, and not apply this scripture to them, Nota. or their mother Church of Rome, but vnderstand it of Martion the heretike, and Tatianus, of whom he saith, that they abso­lutelie condemning mariage and certen meates, might indeed euen ther­in wholie fall from the faith, somewhat like to Baalam, Iudas, and those Apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for hauing their con­sciences conuicted and seared with an whote iron: And thus (sayth he) are they in no comparison with them of England: Well, But first if his former answer were of any weight, it might be asked, why then the follow­ers of Martion and Tatianus, might not likewise haue defended them thus, & said, that their departure from the faith, was but in some poincts, not wholy from all? Secondly we answer, that if this scripture was verified as he graunteth) in Martion and Tatianus, for their condemning of ma­riage and meates, then we must needes also thinke it verified in the Ro­mishe whoore, and her apostate children, whiche are falne into the verie sinnes, that are heere mentioned. Teh Apostle mentioneth Martion and Tatianus, no more then he doeth the whoorish Babilon, and the chil­dren of her Fornication: but comprehendeth heere all such who so euer they be, as shall fall into this Apostasie.

Nowe moreouer, if the 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. wordes of this scripture be duely weighed, & either other scriptures, or the estate of the Romish Harlott and her chil­dren compared therewith, it wilbe founde as liuely to describe these, as ei­ther Martion or any other that euer were in the world. First when the Apostle sayeth, that this shalbe in the latter tymes, who seeth not that it [Page 63]doeth most directly poinct at the Romish whoore, though we doubt not, but Martion also and Tatianus, which liued twelue hundreth yeares since, or thereabouts, may also be comprehended therein. Secondly, when it is saide, they shall departe from the faith, thereby signifying that once they held the faith, howe plaine is this of the Romish harlot, which in the Rom. 1.7. A­postles time was the beloued spouse of God, and since is falne into Apo­stacy, and become the Mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth, as the 2. Thes. 2.3. and Reu. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. scriptures in other places witnesseth. Thirdly, whē it is said, they shall giue heede to spirits of errour, and doctrines of Deuils, how fitly agreeth this to the Romish Babilon which (as the scripture els Reu. 18.2. where testifieth) is become the habitation of Deuils, and the hold of all foule spirits? Fourthly when it is said, they shall speake lies through hypocrisie (not to recken vp the infinite particulars that might be alleadged for proof hereof) how fitly doth this describe the Religion and practise of the man of sinne (the Romish Antichrist) which the scripture 2. Thes. 2.7. els where calleth a mistery of iniquitie: as pretending to be with and for Christ, and to draw men vnto him, when indeed it is opposed against and exalted aboue the Lord Iesus Christ, and all his holy ordinances. Fiftly, when it is said, they shall haue their consciences seared with an whote iron, how true is this found vpon the throane of the Beast, & his Kingdome, concerning which, the scripture also testifieth in Reu. 16.10.11. another place that when the vials of Gods wrath shalbe powred out vpon them, and they conuinced of their impieties and obominations, they shalbe so farre from acknowledging and forsaking thē, as they shal gnaw their tōgues for sorrow, & rather thē they wil forsak their wickednes, shall Let their ray­linges, slaun­ders, edictes, articles, iniun­ctions, finallie their continu­all oppositions and madnes against y e truth and people of God, be wit­nesses of all this. fight against God and his truth, blaspheaming the God of heauen for their paines & for their sores, & not repenting of their workes. Lo here a seared conscience in the beastes kingdome. Finally, when the Spirit of God here giueth two particular instances of his apo­stacie. 1. The forbidding of Mariage, 2. And the cōmaunding to abstaine from meates, which God hath created to be receiued with thankesgiuing. How directly doeth he in both these, as it were with the finger, poinct at the Romish Babilon and her daughters? Jn the one, that is, the forbidding of mariage, when as the Romish Babilon forbiddeth it to Priests, Friers, Nunnes, and such like, and the English her daughter, to fellowes of Col­leges, and prentises, and both of them, to all men and women in Lent, Ad­uent, Rogation weeke, &c. Jn the other, that is, the forbidding of meates created of God to bee receiued with thankesgiuing, when as both of them, commaund to abstaine from flesh, on their saincts eues, Emberdayes, Lent, Fridayes, and Satterdayes, throughout the yeare.

Thus then we haue shewed that this scripture (which hee would turne [Page 64]ouer to Martion and Tatianus) doth most fitly agree vnto, and most plainly describe the Romish Apostacy, whether wee apply it to their pre­sent estate, or compare this and other scriptures togeather, speaking of the same Apostacy and defection. By this also which hath bone said, it may appeare, that as he saith of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be said wholy to fall from the faith somewhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and those apostate Israelites lately spoken of, namely for hauing their consci­ences conuicted and seared with an whot iron: So also it is verified, and may be said of the Romish Babilon and her daughters. Touching which poinct of their conuicted consciences, as also of the Apostate Israelites in particuler, compared with them of Englande, see moreouer what is saide before in defence of the sixt Reason at the end thereof.

Now if seeing the euidence of this 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. scripture, so full & plaine against them (as hath bene declared) he would except, that so it is in the Romish Church, but not in theirs of Englande: First by this meanes he would o­uerthrowe his owne answere here, which hath denied it, of the popish for­bidding of meates and marriages, and would turne it ouer from them to Martion and Tatianus: Secondly, this would not hinder but that the consequent of our Proposition and the Assumption also were good, and therefore the Argument strong and of force. Thirdly, the particulars be­fore mentioned, (being founde in their Church of Englande) will testifie it also, to be verified of them. Lastlie, although many of the abominations of the whoores cup of Babilon be nowe cast out of England, (for which al­so we prayse God) yet so long as they reteyne the Hyerarchie, Reue. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Stinted Ley­turgie, confusion of people, Canons, Excommunications, &c. deriued vnto them from that mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth, wee must needes beleeue and alleadge against them the scripture and common prouerbe which sayth? Ezek. 16.44. As is the Mother, So is the Daughter. And he­therto of the defence of this reason.

Nowe moreouer lett it heere be obserued, howe these men, to defende their estate, are glad to runne into the Papistes Tentes, and to take vpp their worne & rustie weapons, which haue bene of no force to defend them selues, but haue bene often & iustly turned into their owne bowels. Read the Rhemes no­tations vpon 1. Tim. 4.3. Reames Annotations vpon this place (1. Tim. 4.) and see if these men heere would not auoyde the euidence of this scripture against them, by the very same shift and answer, by which the detestable Iesuites there would turne it from their mother of Rome, that is, by posting it ouer from them selues to Martion and Tatianus. Read it, and note it well.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 7. Reason.

TO this your defence of your Seuenth Reason, I say, Though euery where you are very vnreasonable, yet no where you seeme more vnconscionable and wilfull then here.

First, doe I say No to the Apostles Yea, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. That they who for­bid Mariage and Meates doe fall from the faith. Doe I say noe? Is this your conscience? Say I not expresly, They doe in these points departe from the faith, A strange vn­trueth. but not absolutly and wholy.

Secondly, doeth it follow by my words, as you affirme, That none de­parte from the faith but those that departe totally, wholy, and absolutely, whereby all the vildest Heretikes should be iustified, as Arrians, Nesto­rians, Anabatists, &c. Doe I say so? Is this also your conscience? Againe doe I say, The text doth not reproue all the Papists in their forbidding of Mariage and Meates, but only Martion and Tatianus of old? Doe I say any such thing? Nay, say I not expreslie the contrarie? Are you then a man of conscience? Doe you suffer for conscience? Know therefore that this I say, and my wordes before doe import so much. That whosoeuer doe forbid mariage or meates, doe depart from the faith. But note: some doe more, some lesse. There are some that doe simply and fundamental­ly, and others in some sorte. Men departe from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two wayes. First they which doe erre in such maine poincts as doe vtterly abolish vs from Christ and destroy the Foūdation: thus doe Arrians, Manichees, Seruetus, Papistes, &c. Secondly, such as holding the Foundation in doctrine sound, doe desperatly professe and teach some what els, against the manifest light that is in them: so Marti­on and Tatianus, doe Fundamentally and simply fall from the faith, be­cause they simply forbid those good ordinances of God, Marriage and Meates, euen against the light of conscience & nature: togeather where­with, a liuely sauing faith cannot possibly stand. Now the Papists in this do departe from the faith also, but that is only in some sorte or in parte: because they forbid these things (not absolutly, but) vnto some, & some­times. They that departe thus from the faith, may bee true Christians notwithstanding, yea they are certenly, if they be no worse in any thing els, albeit you deny it here most fondly & without all sence. To which end you most vnlearnedly and vngodly apply those scriptures, Scriptures abused. A litle leauen leueneth the lump, A few dead flyes make the oyntment to stincke, and a little poyson bringeth death. Will you haue no tainte of euell in a Christian, but it quencheth the life of God in vs needes? Is it not possible your selues might hold some such errors, and yet remayne true Christi­ans notwithstanding? Then if Papists were no worse but in those errors only, they might be true Christians notwithstanding. But Martion and Tatianus doe wholy departe from the faith, not but that they beleued some truthes: but in that they The same did Corah, Da than and Aby­ram likewise See before in answer to y e 2. Exception, y e a Reply. presumptuously quenched the instinct of nature & conscience, as I haue said. Here then it appeareth how wicked [Page 66]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, [Page 67]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 [Page 69]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: [Page 70]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 y e worlde: that God made heauen and earth: that there shalbe 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 in the mouthes of his weakest seruantes, except they haue authoritie from earthlie Princes: Which doctrine is against the Kinglie power of Christ, and these scriptures, Mat, 28.18. Actes 3.23. 1 Cor. 1. [Page 71]27. Psal. 2.6, 9, 10, 12. Esai 9.6, 7. Zach. 4.6. and 6.12.23. Dan. 2.44. and 7.27. and 9.25. Mich. 5.7. Mat. 28.20. 1 Cor. 14.27. with 1 Thes. 4.8. Phil. 2.6, 12. 1 Tim. 6.13, 14.15. Rene. 1.5. and 14.12. and 17.14. & 19 16. and 20.4.
  • 3 That the true visible Church of Christ is not a separated companie of righteouse men and women, from the Jdolaters and open wicked of the world, but may consist of all sortes of people good & bad: Which doctrine is contrarie to the paterne of Christs Church, throughout all the scrip­tures. Gen. 4.26. with 6.2. Exod. 4.22, 23. Leuit. 10.10. and 20.24, 25, 26 Psal. 24.3, 4. Ezra 6.21. 2 Chron. 11.13, 16. Nehem. 10.28. Eze. 22.26. with 44.23. Zeph. 3.4. Mat. 3.10, 12. Act. 2.40, 41, 42. and 19.9. Rom. 12.1, 8. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. 1 Pet. 2.9, 10. Reu. 14.9, 12. and 18.4. and 21.27 and 22.14, 15. &c.
  • 4 That they may mainteyne this error of their confused order and mixture of all sortes of persons togeather, they peruert the Parable of the tares, Mat. 13.24. teaching that all are the Church: Which doctrine is a­gainst the trueth of the scriptures, yea against our Sauiours owne inter­pretation in the 38. verse, who teacheth, that by the field is meant (not the Church) but the world, in which his Church is milatāt. And as ther­in there is the good seede, the righteous, the Children of the Kingdome: So there are also tares, hipocrites, the childrē of the wicked, who as they are often espied in this life, by the righteous seruauntes of God, so shall they in that great day be perfectlie seuered from the godly by the An­gels of God, verse 38.43. This their doctrine also is against the heauen­lie orders mentioned, Matt. 18.8, 9, 15, 16, 17. 1 Corint. 1.26.29. Actes 2.40.41, 47. and 5.26, 27, 28. and 19, 9. and 5.4, 7. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. Leuit. 18.29. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Iohn verse 6.11. Reuel. 2. and 3. and 14.9.12 and 18.4. and 20.4.
  • 5 That the people may tollerate and ioyne with open iniquitie in the Church, vntill by the Magistrate it be redressed: which doctrine is con­trary to these riptures, 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. Mat. 28.21. Acts. 2.40. & 3.23. and 4.19. and 9.26. and 19.9. 1 Tim. 5.22. Deu. 5.32.
  • 6 That the guiftes of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a sufficient and lawfull calling to the ministerie, &c. Which doctrine is both false and Anabaptisticall, contrarie to the scriptures, Heb. 5.4. Rom 12.6, 7, 8. Leuit. 22.25. Ezek. 44.8, 9, &c. Num. 1.51. and 3.10, 38 and 16.40. and 18.2 3, 4. Act. 1.20.26. and 14.23. and 13.2.3.
  • 7 That the Church may yeelde obedience vnto other lawes, cannons, and traditions, officers and offices, then God hath prescribed in his Co­nenant. Which doctrine is contrarie to Gen. 49.10. Mal. 6.24. Iohn 10, 4, 5. Ren. 14.4. and 22, 18, 19. Heb. 3, 1, &c:
  • 8 That the Church may read other mens wordes vppon a booke, and [Page 72]offer them vp to God as their owne prayers and sacrifices in the publique Assemblies: Which doctrine is contrarie to the scriptures, Esai 29.13, 14. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. Mat. 6.6.9. and 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Ephe. 4.7, 8. 1 Pet. 2.5.
  • 9 That it is lawfull to ioyne with the Ministerie of dumb and Jdoll Priests, and to receiue the Sacramentes at their handes: Which doctrine is contrarie to, Mal. 15.14. and 7.19. and 24.24, 25. Iohn. 10.1.5. Num. 16, 5, 9, 24, 26, 39, 40, &c. 1 Tim 6.5.2. Iohn verse 6.11
  • 10 That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ, to cease preaching, & for­sake his flock, at the Commaundement of a Lord Bishop: Which doctrine is contrarie to, 1 Cor. 9.16. Esay 62.4, 6, 7. Ier. 48.10. Zach. 11.17. Iohn 10.11, 12, 13. Actes 4.18, 19, 20, and 5.29. Amos 7.12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Tim. 4.2.
  • 11 That the Church of Christ hath not alwayes power to binde and loose, to receiue in, and to cast out by the Keyes of the Kingdome: Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 18.17, 18. Psal. 149.9. 1 Cor. 5.4, 5.12, Num. 5, 2, 3.
  • 12 That it is lawfull for the people of God to heare notorious false prophetes in their Ministerie: Which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 18.15. Mat. 17.5. and 7.15.2 John verse 10.11. 1 Cor. 10.18. Gala. 1, 8, 9. Reuel. 14 9, 10, 11. and 18.4. John 10.96.
  • 13 That it is the Church and house of God, the body and kingdome of Christ, where he reigneth not by his own Ordinances & Officers, but the highest Ecclesiasticall authoritie is in the handes of strange Lordes, and Antichristian Prelates, who also gouerne by Romishe Cannons, and not according to the lawes of Christes Testament: Which doctrine and pra­ctise is condemned by Luke 19.14, 27. Iohn 15.14. Rom. 6.16. Luke 22.25, 26. 1 Pet. 3.2 Thes. 2 3.4. Iohn 3.35.36. Reuel. 9.3. and 14.9.10.11 and 19.14.15.
  • 14 That there may be a prescript Leiturgie and sett fourme of ser­uice in the Church, framed by man: which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 5.8. Esai 29.13, 14. Mat. 15.9. and 7.6.7. Gal. 3.15. Iohn 4.24. Rom. 8.26.27. Ephe. 4.7.8.
  • 15 That an Antichristian Prelate, notwithstanding his dignitie (as it is called) spirituall, may be a Ciuill Magistrate, and obeyed of the people as their lawfull gouernour, Which doctrine is contrarie to Rom. 13.1, &c. Mat. 20.25, 26. Mar. 10.42, 43. Luke 22.25, 26. Reuel. 14.9, 10, 11. and 17.18.
  • 16 That men may giue the titles of Christ Jesus vnto these sonnes of men, and his mortall enemies, to call them their Arch and Lord Bishops, [Page 73]Reuerend Fathers, &c. Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 23, 8, 9, 10. Esai 42.8. and 48.11. Pro. 17.15. and 24.24. Esai 5.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.17.
  • 17 That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ to be mainteyned in his ministerie, by the goods of wicked and vnbeleeuers, by Iewish and Po­pishe tythes and offeringes: Which doctrine is contrarie to Prou. 27.26, 27. 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Phil. 4.10.18. Gal. 6.6. Rom. 15.27. Heb. 7.12.

These are the 17 poinctes which were mentioned before in the proofe of this reason: which the aduersarie hath left altogeather vnanswered, as he hath done also their owne Cannons, Articles, and Iniunctions: which are to be seene in their printed bookes. And thus is he driuen againe & againe whether he will or not, to yeeld vs the cause.

That which he addeth in the next place, of their not wholy denying the trueth, nor fundamentally, nor obstinately, peruerslie, and desperat­lie any parte thereof, is answered before in the defence of our second Ex­ception, and of our sixt and seauenth Reasons.

Nowe, when he next saith, That they are not herein like those Iewes (Act. 19.9.) whom Paule separated from, which he did not from all o­ther Iewes, Actes 13.14. and 16, 3: and 21, 23, 24, 26. and 3.1. Firste wee aske, What if they be not in all respectes like vnto those Jewes, are they not therefore to be separated from? So in deed he would conclude in this place, But then let him tell vs, if Corah, Dathan and Abiram, the Apostate Jewes vnder Ieroboam, the Corinthians, Papistes, &c: might not alleadge some particular exception, wherein they were not like to those Iewes, Act. 19. Might not therefore separatiō be made from these? The scripture tea­cheth otherwise, Numb. 16.25, 26. 2 Chrō. 11.14. 2 Cor. 6.17, Reu. 18.4 Secondly, cōsider the place it selfe (Act. 19.9.) & cōpare it with their estate & practise in England, & see if there be not now as great and iust cause to separate from thē, as frō the other. Are not these now hardned against the trueth? Let their writings against it, their imprisonning, banishing, and killing, for it, giue euidence. Doe they not disobey it? Let their consti­tution and practize be witnesse. Speake they not euill of the way of God before the multitude? Let the Sermons of their Ministers in the pulpit, & the speaches of the Prelates in their Courtes, beare record: Therefore saith that Actes 19.9. Actes 2.40. Scripture (Actes 19) they are to be departed and separated from. Wherevnto also may be added in this case that which Peter saith Act. 2 Saue your selues from this froward generation. Thidly were he obiecteth That Paule did not separate frō all the other Iewes, as he did from these, Acts 19. and sheweth it by Act. 13.14. and 16.3. & 21, 23, 24▪ 26. & 3.1 we answer, that the Apostles had good and iust cause so to doe. For first the Jewes Rom. 9.4. Leuit. 20.22, 24, 26. Luk. 1.6.8. &c. were the people of God, separated from the world, and set in [Page 74]the true waand order of God. Secondly, Luke 24.47. Act. 1.8. and 13.46. Christ commaunded the Apo­stles, when he sent them to preach his Gospell, throughout the worlde, that they should first preach it to the Iewes. Thirdlie, the Iewes ministerie & ceremonies being the ordinances of God him selfe, and giuen in writing by Moses the man of God, Act. 15.21. and 21.30, 21 22, 23, 24, 25. Heb. 8.5, 13. & 9.1, &c. were therefore nowe, when they should cease, to be buried with honor. These things considered, we see the Apostles had iust cause so to doe, as they did in those places mentioned: But what is this to the assemblies of England, which neuer yet were separated from the world, nor set in the way and order of Christ, but stande in the Reue. 13.16, 17. and 18 2. 2 The. 2.3, 4, 8 con­fusion and defection of Antichrist, whose ministerie also and worshippe, were neuer the ordinances of God, But Reue. 17.2, 4 and 18.3. and 9.3. &c. taken out of the whores Cup of Babilon, for which likewise God neuer gaue Comaundement to goe vnto them, but to Reue. 18.4. with 17.9. 1 Tim. 6, 3, 5. departe from them, as being daughters of the greate Babilon that mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth. Againe euen from those Iewes, notwithstanding the reasons aforesaid, yet when they put from them the trueth, and would not receyue it, the Apostles departed and separated thē selues, yea and shooke off the dust of their feete against them, teaching others to doe so likewise, Actes 13.46, 51. and 18.6. & 28, 25, 26, 27, 28. and 20.40. and 19.8, 9.

To that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c is answered before. And he­therto of their generall Assumption, which was this: That the whole do­ctrine as it is professed and publiquely practised by lawe in Englande, is sufficient to make a particular man a true Christian. Which wee haue shewed to be vntrue, both by the Exceptions and Reasons aforesaid, which still stande firme against them, as is manifest by this our defence.

Touching the conclusion:

And now let the godly Reader (trying all things by the word of trueth) iudge, whether we or they holde Paradoxes.

Touching that he saith of the reformed Churches, he is deceyued, if he thinke they allowe their present estate and church constitution. Both their publique profession and practise witnesse the contrarie: as wee haue declared at large in In y e answers of Ma. Carth­wrights rea­sons: of Maist. Hildersams letter, &c. other treatises, which yet remayne vnanswered, wherevnto we referre the Reader in this behalfe.

Where he sayth, That we our selues heretofore haue acknowledged and professed it, (to wit their general Assumption aforesaid to be true) he is also deceyued therein: we haue alway You maie speake it with shame enough testified the contrarie, both by our profession and practise, and were and are therefore cast into prison, appoincted to exile, and put to death: besides many other iniuries & grie­uances inflicted vpon vs for this verie cause. In deed we haue acknowled­ged and doe acknowledge, that they professe diuers excellent truthes, but [Page 75]that the whole doctrine, as it is publiquelie professed and practized by law in England, doeth make them in that estate true Christians, neuer anie of vs (that we know of) did once acknowledge. And therfore till he shew vs the contrarie, we must needes thinke that he falsely burtheneth vs all, and specially such of vs, as he hath mentioned here in particular.

To that which he next addeth of the Martirs in Queene Maries dayes is answered already in the defence of our Seconde Exception and First Reason, wherevnto may be added for more euidēce of the trueth, the par­ticular speaches & testimonies of the holy Martirs them selues, both then and in former tymes.

As of Maister Bradford, who Actes & mo­numents 2. vo. in his confe­rence w t Peter Henth. speaking of the dayes before Queene Marie) saide, The tyme was, when the Pope was out of England, but not all popery. And moreouer, In his firste speach with D. Harpsfielde, Archdeacon. That the scripture knoweth not any diffe­rence betweene Bishops and Ministers, which men call Priestes. And that the scripture speaking of Bishops, can not be vnderstood of Bishops that minister not, but lord it.

Also of Maister Hooper, who held and Hooper on the eight com­mandment. published, that a Bishop should be Bishop but of one Citie: and that till the Magistrates bring them to this poinct, it shalbe as possible to heare a Bishop wade, godly and simply through the scripture in case of Religion, as to driue a Cammell through the eye of a needle. And agayne he sayth: ‘The primitiue Church had not such Bishops as be nowe a dayes.’ And againe, ‘What blindnesse (sayth he) is there befell in the world, that can not see this palpable yll, that our Mother the holy Church had at the beginning, such Bishops, as did preach many godly Sermons in lesse time then our Bishops horses bee a brideling.’

And John Bale, an exile for the testimonie of Jesu, writing vpon the Reuelation, Bale in his booke called The Image of both churches vpon Reu. 13.1. and 17.3. affirmeth moreouer, ‘That the names of Blasphemy written vpon the Beastes head (Reuel. 13. and 17.) are none other then the proud glittering titles, wherewith they garnish their vsurped authoritie, to make it seeme glorious to the worlde, hauing within them conteyned the great misterie of iniquitie. What other els (saith he also) is Pope, Cardinall, Metropolitan, Primate, Archbishop, Diocean, Archdeacon, Officiall, Chauncelour, Commissarie, Deane, Prebend, Parsons, Vicar, and such like, but very names of blasphemie? For offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost, nor yet once mentioned in the scriptures. This Iohn Bale held and published. Then which, what can be more full and euident a­gainst them?’

And againe writing vpon the 14. chapter of the Reuelation, In Image of both churches vpō Reu. 14.9 he hath these wordes:

To receyue the beastes marke in their foreheads & hands, [Page 76]is both to agree to such decrees, traditions, lawes, constitutions, actes, and proclamations, as they vnder those titles, haue made, onely for their own couetousnes and pompe, and neither for the glorie of God, nor yet for the right maintenance of the Christian cōmon wealth: And also to be sworn to the same, to subscribe to it, to giue counsell or ayde to it, to mainteyne it by learning, to minister in it, to execute vnder it, to accuse, punishe, and put to death for it, or to thinke it lawfull and godly, with such like.

And Ibid. vpon Reuel. 16.12. afterward vpon the 16. of the Reuelation, expounding the dry­ing vp of the waters of Euphrates to be this, That the welthy Popes pos­sessions "and pleasurs of the Clergy (their false feates once known) are and "shalbe cleerly taken away from them: He saith Moreouer, In Marke also by this of what time & estate hee speaketh: euen of such, when the Go­spell was prea­ched, the Mo­nasteries sup­pressed. England by the Gospell preaching haue many of these waters bene dried vp in the suppression of the monasteries, prioryes, couents, and Friers houses, yet are not all thinges brought vnto Christs cleare institution. A cincere Christi­an-order cannot yet be seene there. And a great cause why. For all is not yet dried vp there. The Bishops reigne still in asmuch vaine glorious pompe, and with as many Heathenish obseruations, as euer they did, As cruelly harted and as bloody minded are they yet, as euer they were afore. "No mischiefe vnsought to holde in the waters. Marke howe He meaneth the Prelates of these Seas. Win­chester, "Durham, Yorke, London, and Lyncolne, worke (let vs also now adde Canterburie) with such other pleasantlie disposed Euphratynes: But be of good comfort, & pray in the meane time. For the holy Ghost promi­seth heere, that they shall wither away withall that the heauenly Father hath not planted. All which generation will the Lords breth cōsume, &c.

Likewise may be shewed by the testimonie of others in former tymes, as of Iohn Wickliffe, who Actes & Mo­numen. 4. edi. 1. vol. pa. 150. helde and affirmed: That Archbishops, Bishops, Archdeacons, Officialls, Deanes, Cannons, were disciples of Antichrist.

In like manner of William Swinderby, who Ibid. pag. 36.8. b. said that what Pope, Cardinal, Bishop, Prelate or Priest, in manner of liuing, or teachching, or lawes making, contrarie to Christs liuing & his lawes, or any other ground put in ruling of the Church of Christ, but by Christ and his lawes, is very Antichrist, aduersarie to Iesus Christ and his Apostles.

Also Syr John old Castle Lord Cobham who Ibid. pag. 5621 b. & 563. held & affirmed, that the Bishops, Priestes, Prelates, and Monkes, were the body of the great "Antichrist: And that the possessions and Lordships of the Clergy, were the "venime of Iudas shed into the Church.

Likewise Iohn Ibid. pag. 639. b: Cladon burnt in Smithfield, held & professed, that the Archbishops, & Bishops, speaking indifferently, are the seates of the beast Antichrist, when he sitteth in them and reigneth aboue other people in the darke Calues of errors and heresies. Moreouer that the Bishops licence [Page 77]for a mā to preach the worde of God, is the true character of the beast, that is, Antichrist.

Finally William In his trea­tises called the obedience of a christian man, and the prac­sise of Prelats. Tindall and Iohn In his Pre­face before his Antythesis be­tweene Christ and the Pope. Frith, held and publissed, That Archb. Lordb. Archdeacons, Deanes, Officialls, Parsons, Vicars, and the rest of that sort, are the disciples of Antichrist, yea very Antichristes themselues.

These are the speeches and testimonies of the holy Martirs in former ages, whereunto diuerse other such like might bee added. But these may suffice for the matter in hand. And now compare with these thinges al­leadged, the publique profession & practise of England euen as it is by law at this day, and see whether their own proofes bee not so many witnisses a­gainst themselues. But if it were so, that the reformed Churches, wee our selues, and the Martirs of former time, had geuen allowance of their pre­sent estate & Church constitution, what would this help thē, when all the word of God condemneth thē, as we haue shewed in our Reasons aforesaid & defence therof. Whereunto (if they will still iustifie their estate) wee re­quire direct answer from poinct to poinct, and that from the scriptures, which only can stablish the conscince.

Now furthermore, that the truth it selfe, and their estate may better appeare what it is, as also that they may not turne away or obscure the truth by their subtill shiftes and euasions, as their manner is: we will there­fore propound vnto them a few questions concerning the poinctes now in controuersie in this land, desiring their playne and sincere answers, there­unto by the word of God, as they will answer him in his great day.

The questions are these.
  • 1 Whether the Lord Iesus Christ haue by his last Testament geuen vnto and set in his Church sufficient ordinary 1. Offices, with their 2. Cal­lings, 3. Workes, and 4. Maintenance for the administration of his holy things, and for the sufficient ordinary instruction, guidance and seruice of his Church to the end of the world, or no.
  • 2 Whether the Offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, and helpers, be those offices appincted by Christ in his last Testament as afore­said.. Or whether the present ecclesiasticall Offices of Archbishops, Lord­bishops, Suffragans, Deanes, Prebendaries, Cannons, Petticannos, Gospel­lers, Pistlers, Ʋirgirers Queristers, Organ-players, Priests, Deacons or, halfe Priestes, Archdeacons, Doctors of diuinitie, Batchelers of diuinity, Chaplyns or House-priestes, Commissaries, Officialls, Procters, Appari­tors; Parsons, Ʋicars, Curates, Ʋagrant or Mercinary preachers, Church­wardens, Sidemen, Clerkes, Sextons, and the rest now had in these Cathe­drall [Page 78]and parishionall assemblies be those offices appoincted by Christ in his last Testament as is aforesaid, or no.
  • 3 Whether the Callinges and entraunce into these Ecclesiasticall offices last aforesaid, their Administration, and Maintenance, nowe had and receiued in England, be the manner of calling, administration, & maintenaunce which Christ hath appoincted for the offices of his church aboue named, or no.
  • 4 Whether euery true visible church of 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 [Page 79]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 y e 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 [Page 80]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 them for the Praelacie against you: and are vnanswered. And yet will you say they are cōuicted, and those infinite others depen­ding on them? I say conuicted aswell as those Iewes? What if these speake euill of that which you hold for truth, but they hold to be errors and schisme? Are they all, yea all the Land therefore abolished from Christ? Might not all this at least, be said of the whole estate of the Iewes in Christes time, and after aswell, yet they ceased not to bee Churches? why then are you so partiall against vs?

Lastly, you would shew Reasons why the Apostles wholy separated not from the Iewes Synagogues after Christ, Act. 13.14. &c. Which you will in no wise haue to serue vs. But alas for all your Exceptions against vs, you haue neuer a reason but one, and that is petitio principij, That wee were neuer separated from the world, nor set in the way & order of Christ, but in the confusion and defection of Antichrist, whose Ministerie, &c. were neuer the ordinances of God, &c. This is but crauing the whole question. And I haue refuted these quarelles in a short writing (hereaf­ter following) about the comparison of the Ministerie with Mariage, which yet you haue no leysure to answer, this whole three yeares togea­ther, and vpwarde.

And further you doe not shew any vtter and absolitte separation from the whole Church of the Iewes a great while after Christ: but the con­trarie is seene Act. 21.23, 24, 26. though from some one or two synago­gues they separated after full experience of ther obstinate and malitious resistance of the truth, which we deny not.

Touching the Conclusion.

IN the conclusion of my former Replie, to proue your vtter separation from vs a Paradox: First I alleadged all the reformed Churches: For who knoweth not, but they all hold Communion with vs as Churches of God? yet you dare either deny this, or vtterlie peruert it. Yow tell vs of your Answers to Maister Cartwright and Maister Hildersham that are vnanswered. If they by like to this your answer here, verely they doe wisest in yeelding silence to such friuolus and wandring wordes.

Secondly I alleadged your selues to haue acknowledged heretofore, That our publique doctrine allowed, would and did make many of vs true Christians. You too shamefully deny it. And say you are for witnes­sing against it, imprisoned, banished, &c. Whereto I answere, that if for these things you are troubled, I know none can pittie you. And because you say none of you euer acknowledged it, I will therefore repeat your owne wordes.

Mr. BARROW (in his last answer in writing to Mr. Gif­ford, intituled, A few obseruations to the reader of Mr. Giff last Reply: Sect. 4.) saith thus:

The next calumniations whereby Mr Gifford indeuoreth to bring vs into hatred with the whole. Lande, is, That we condemne all the per­sons both men and women of England, which are not of our minde, and pluck them vp as tares: wherein me thinkes he doeth vs open wrong, if not against his owne cōscience, yet against our expresse writings euery where, &c. Haue we not commended the faith of the Englishe Martirs, & dee­med them saued, notwithstanding the false offices and great corruptions, in the worship they exercised, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their syncere faith to Iesus Christ extended and superabonnded aboue all their sinnes seene and vnseene. And what nowe should let, that we should not haue the same hope, where the same pretious faith in synceritie & sim­plicitie is found? So that they neither neglect to search out the trueth, nor despise the trueth when they see it, &c.

Afterwards in the same Section.

The faithfull seruants of Christ (denying the whole constitution and gouernment of this Church of England) may iustlie deny the people whilest they remayne in that constitution to bee members of a true constituted Church, yet hereby not condemne them with any such peremptory sentence as Maister Gifford suggesteth, to cut them of from Gods election, Nota. From Christ. or from Christ.

Mr. PENRIE (in his confession of faith, published in writing a litle before his death,) saith thus.

The trueth of doctrine touching the holy Trinitie, touching the Na­tures and Offices of Christe, Justifying faith, Sacramentes, Eternall life, and the rest, established by her Maisties Lawes, and professed by her selfe, their Honors, and such as haue knowledge in the Assemblies of this lande: J acknowledge from my heart to be such, as if J mainteyned not the vnitie, and helde not the communion, of the same doctrine with them in these poinctes, J could not possibly be saued: For out of the Com­munion of the true profession, which her Maiestie hath established in these and the like truthes, there is no hope of saluation left: But ioyne notwith­ding with the publique worship in the assemblies of this Land, I dare not, for the former causes.

J doe moreouer willingly confesse, That many, both of the Teachers, & also of the Professors within these Parish assemblies, haue so embraced this trueth of doctrine, established and professed in this Land, as the Lord of his infinite goodnes, hath graūted thē the fauour, to shew outwardly, many tokens, whereby (in regard of the Lordes election) I professe before men and Angells, that I iudge them to be members of that body where­of the Sonne of God Christ Iesus is the head. Onely herein the Lord be mercifull vnto them, (as to my self in regard of my sinnes:) That they are not vnder that outward forme of gouernement that Christ hath left, &c.

And in his examination before Maister Fanshaw, lately published by your selues in print, he confesseth the Churches of England to be the true Churches of Christ.

And what say you, Maister Iohnson? Haue you not affirmed this thing your selfe, to me, and to Maister Philips, namely touching your owne selfe, when you were of vs, That then you doubted not, but you were a true regenerate Christian. By vertue of what doctrine? By extraordina­rie reuelation? Nay, but by our publique doctrine of our Church, when you stoode and continued a publique Minister of the same. If you bele­ued so of your selfe, (and that truely) what letteth but you may beleeue the like of many Thousands nowe?

Further where you say, my applying of the Martirs, is answered before. Let the Reader iudge. You shewe here, that some of them misliked the Hyerarchie. But it maketh stronger against you, seeing for all that, they them selues refused not to communicate, and partake with them then, as true Christians: as Hoper, Bale, Bradford, &c.

After where you say: though the reformed Churches, your selues, and the Martirs, haue thought otherwise then you nowe doe: yet all this is no [Page 83]sound proofe against you. Yes in deed, that nowe you holde a Paradox, those witnesses are sufficient for that: wherevnto may be added, the whole Churches iudgement and practize, with all the auncient learned Fathers these 1300. or 1400. yeres Chrisostom. Epiphanius, Naziāzen. Hyerom. Austen. Ambrose, &c. They all haue thought, that vnder the 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 striue [...] for victorie, but a loues of [...]th. [...], not re­garding your own, but the praise of Christ in all things. AMEN.

FINIS.
A SHORT TREATISE CON …

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 cōsisting 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 thē to receyue this doctrine. And if the maner of receyuing it then, in those hard and doubtfull times and hazardous beginnings, were not [Page 89]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 compulsiō, 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 cōfessed 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 takē, 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 before. The notorious, dissolute, & wicked, some were reclaimed, all vn­dertook another profession, & a new appearance of Christianitie. And no doubt the like is to be thought of these, as before I obserued touch­ing the ignorant men. Now all this was done, not intollerablie doubt­lesse, though I graunt weakely & corruptly, And very like euen to your owne receiuing into your Church at this time: nay more tollerable and more lawfull then yours: who to furnish onely one congregation, haue receiued many knowne bad men, and very ignorant: yea and still retaine men full of contention, & bitter strife, 1 Cor. 3.3. In a word this I answer:

That which disanulleth not a Church gathered and settled, That disanulleth it not in the gathering and beginning.

But such mixtures doe not disanull a Church gathered and setled, as appeareth aboue in the scriptures quoted against the First Accusatiō, Mat 23. Luke 2. &c.

Therfore such mixtures did not disanull our Churches then in their beginning.

Accusa∣tion. 3 The Third Accusation is, [our Assemblies remayne in obedience to the false Antichristian officers, &c.] Let this be our generall sinne: yet there is diuersitie of sinnes. All are not of like detestation before God, nor of like cōsequence against vs. I say not that any sinnes are veniall: but I say, All sinnes by their nature are mortal, yet doe they not al alike abolish vs from Christ, nor depriue vs of the glory of God. Now this sinne of out­ward church orders is not of the most heynous, nor extreamest disobe­dience. There are sinnes against the 1 Cor. 15.3, 3. 4. Rō. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14. foundation, and there are sinnes that stande with the foundation: ibid. "wherein men liuing and dying ignorantly without perticular repētance, may be saued. Such were the sinnes of the Iewish church and estate in Christes time, and after, as Beza in Acts 15.20. some thinke, e­uen till their Temple and Citie were destroyed, though they did perso­nally hate and persecute Christ. Such also was the sinne of the auncient declyning Bishops, Epiphanius, Augustine, Chrisostom, Leo of Rome, &c. No lesse was in ours of late Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c. in King Edward dayes: and no greater is now in ours presently, especially touching our Churches. & Ministers too, generally. If you say, we are all conuicted nowe, and sinne against our cōsciēces, as they did not in those times: It is vtterly false, & a palpable vntrueth. Whosoeuer knoweth any thing in our church estate generally, must needs see it, that this poinct touching the Hyerarchy, is not acknowledged euen of ignorāce in a thousand to one: many holding (& not of the simplest) this present gouernement to be th'only true & right kinde: but all men almost, to be indifferent, & lawful: very few indeed, & scarse to be found, y t see it to be meerly nought, or as you terme it, wicked & intollerable. And in King Edwards time, whosoeuer considereth, shall finde, that the godly learned Protestāts then, were not vtterly ignorant of this poinct of reformation, and yet sinned not against their conscience in bearing with the times, neither were abolished from Christ. And surely touching the Iewes, they were all generally more conuicted then, that Iesus was the Christ, then we are now, that the Prelacie is of Antichrist: & yet they remayned a church stil, because generally indeed, they were not plainly conuicted. Thus thē this our sinne is See the 2. sortes of fundamental sinnes, in the 2. Reply to your 7. Reason before, pag. 48. no way fundamentall, it de­stroyeth not faith & Christianity in our whole assemblies: Therfore they remaine Christian people still, as I affirmed: not all godles & prophane, as he vncharitably speaketh. O beware of rash and hasty iudging, euen of one brother, Rom. 14.3, 4, 13. how much more of such & so many whole assemblies professing Christ in Englād? Woe be vnto him which curseth, where God curseth not, Num. 23.8. As also indeed that blesseth, where God blesseth not. We desire you not to blesse vs in our euil, but we warne you, not to curse vs in our good: which indeed turneth vs not to any fur­therance, but to a great hinderance and stumbling block, stopping vs frō that sinceritie which els we should dravve nearer vnto. Blessed is he that iudgeth wisely (that is without affection & partialitie) euen of him that is despised. Better it is and more Christian like, euen to offende in too much compassion and patience (especially towardes so many hundreth thousands, by whom we know nought saue good in this poinct) then to [Page 89]offend in too much rigor, and seueritie, & vniust anger, Mat. 5. [...]2. How­beit this were not indeed to offend, as hath bene aboue shewed. And briefly in twoo words, thus I conclude it farther, that.

That faith & religiō taught in the booke of Articles published 1562. maketh the people that beleeue and obey the same, true Christians: such as so liuing and dying may be saued.

But our Church doeth so holde that faith,

Therefore they are true Christians.

The Proposition onely is doubted. I had thought none so desperate as to deny it: but lately I vnderstand, they haue denyed it. Howbeit for an­swer, I referre them, partly to that which here hath bene said before, and especiallie to that which is replied to their Answer in the former Trea­tise: which being well weighed, I doubt not but all indifferent, and Christian mindes will acknowledge, our publique church assemblies in England to be true Christians.

REASON. II.
F. Iohns.

SEcondly the Priest doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage with­out the married first giue their consent.

But the Prelats make Ministers without & before the peoples consent.

Therefore the comparison holdeth not.

H. Iacob

FIrst it is very vaine to make this any matter, viz. the peoples cōsenting either before or after the Prelats ordeyning. For whether before or after, it is in nature and value all one: They in their ignorāce hauing respect only to the Prelats act. And if it were so, that the Priest should sometymes marie a couple, the Maide being meerly enforced, and denying consent, yet not striuing nor resisting: and a while after shall willingly agree and like: Out of question there is now true wedlock betweene them. Euen so the case is betwixt the Church and the Minister. 2. But what will they except here against those Pastors amōgst vs, that were first chosen by the people, they first professing their consent, and are after instituted & in­ducted by the Praelat. Many are thus called amongst vs: & the most haue the peoples consent euen togeather at their first inducting: at least wise they haue soone after, by the peoples submitting & mainteyning them euen presently. 3. Lastly in a word, where he saith "the Praelats make Mini­sters without and before the peoples consent. We Beza in Act 14.23. Fenner against Bridges, Pag. 148. affirme, that they make not the Pastor at all indeed and in truth; but only supposedly. It is the Chur­ches consent that maketh him truly, whether before or after the Bishop, that skylleth not. If any thinke Imposition of hands to be simplie neces­sarie to the being of a Minister: that is also an error, & cannot be proued.

REASON. III.
F. Iohns.

THirdly the people cannot chuse their Minister vnlesse the Prelate either before or after make him Minister.

But a couple may chuse each other whether the Priest will giue his con­sent or no. Therefore, &c.

H. Iacob

1 WE deny your saying, the peole cannot chuse. They can chuse, They haue power in Christ, as being Christians, though they know not their right therein. The ignorance of this simply, doth not cut vs of from Christ, nor from this holy priuiledge: no more then the blind Papistes haue lost their right & power of marrying togea­ther without a Priest, because they are ignorant of it. 2. Againe where he saieth, But a couple may chuse each other whether the Priest will marry them or no: Let him marke: That we speake of blind Papists that thinke that the Priest is the whole absolute and necessarie marriage maker. If he say, euen such haue right and power to marry, though they be farre from knowing it, and farther from practizing; Then let him graunt the like in chusing a Minister, to our Christians: for so the comparison im­porteth, Els if he meane those words of others that be mē of knowledge, Then he fighteth with his shadow: he toucheth not our question.

REASON. IIII.
F. Iohns.

IF any that by the word of God are not capable of marrying togeather (as brother & sister, &c.) doe notwithstanding consent to take each other for man and wife: yet are they not therefore lawfull man and wife.

So if a people and some man that by the word of God cannot chuse one another as Pastor and Church in their estate (such as now is in this land) doe notwithstanding consent to take each other: yet are they not therefore lawfull Pastor and Church.

H. Iacob

THis is wholy presumed and from the Question also. Like to the first Reason, and hath the same answer as is made to the first accusation there. He reasoneth against people not capable of a Pastor; And vve speake of true Christians vvhich are alvvayes capable. He doth ill therfore in comparing this action to mariage betvvene brother & sister; vvho indeed cannot marry. Happely he may likelyer compare it to a couple that haue liued both of them vvantonly: Aftervvards they mar­rie togeather, and this marriage if selfe they vse not soberly, nor tempe­ratly. Hovvbeit for all this, I professe these tvvo are truly man and vvife notvvithstanding: Novv euen so our Churches and Ministers, &c.

REASON. V.
F. Iohns.

THe Priests ioyning of the parties doeth not make them man and wife at all, but only the parties mutuall consent.

But contrarily, in the present ecclesiasticall cōstitution of England, the Prelats ordination maketh the minister, and not the peoples choyse at all.

H. Iacob

THe Second Proposition vve here flatly deny. It is ansvvered in our last vvords against the 2. Reason.

REASON. VI.
F. Iohns.

IF a woman consent to a man that is another womans husband, they are not therefore man and wife.

So if a people consent to a false Minister, they are not therefore true Church and Minister.

H. Iacob

THis is answered as before in the Fourth Reason. It carrieth some likelyhood indeed, and some reason against Pluralities, but nothing any further.

REASON. VII.
F. Iohns.

IF when a man and woman giue consent each to other, the man doe af­terwards giue his body to another, and so commit adultery: Then is the marriage knot broken.

So, if after a people haue chosen a man to be their Minister, hee giue himself to another & a false Ministerie, and so commit spirituall whore­dome: Then is the former knot broken.

H. Iacob

THe taking of orders from a Praelate, after consent giuen to a Mini­ter by a people, is not like adultery in mariage: especially whereboth Pastor and people are simply ignorant of that error. Therefore that disanulleth not, as adultery doth the wedlock. So this Reason is much like to the last before, and the answer not vnlike to that of the Fourth Reason likewise. For

That which at the First maketh not vncapable: That same after­wards doeth not dissolue.

But this error maketh not christians vncapable at the first: as there is shewed, and in the Third chieflie:

Therefore neither can it dissolue afterwards the Couenant be­tweene the Pastor and the people.

This last Treatise, hath remayned in their hands, these Three yeeres and more, vnanswered.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.