Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Exception 1
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 hauehave 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) giuegive verdict againſt thē. If they can 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave; if you can, what, and where, be your proofes? let me ſee them: Or els I your Tenaunt will hauehave it: This were goodly dealing, were it not, and very lawfull. Euen ſo doe you, aſking proofes of vsus for that which we poſſeſſe, and hauehave poſſeſſed before you made any queſtion about it, nay you your ſelues, held parte of this poſſeſſion of vsus and with vsus, till yeſterday, when you began firſt to lay claime in this ſorte to the whole. Now your reaſon is, let vsus proue it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or els you will not acknowledge vsus any longer: ſee I pray you your owne equity. If this ſuffice not to make you deſiſt, I leaue it to the Iudges to giuegive 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 vsus 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. OnelyOnly becauſe this is their owne profeſsion, and wee ſee their practiſe is contrary vntounto 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, hauehave they according to the particulers of that deſcription, iuſtified their Church-aſſemblies? nothing leſſe. Let this therefore be first obſerued. But what then hauehave 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 eueryevery 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 vponupon 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, vntounto 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 Maſſe booke, full of all abominations, as“Admonitiō to the Parlament, ſecond treatis. themſelues hauehave publiſhed heretofore.
Theſe things we hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave not yet done, and ſeing their practice is contrarie to their profeſſion, as now (at their requeſt) we hauehave 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 hauehave vſurped, or otherwiſe made a falſe clame neuer ſo long, to a piece of lād or other poſſeſſion: may they not iuſtly be called vponupon 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 vsus 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 vsus euidence for thoſe, from the Apoſtles writinges, if they deny their claime to bee ſuch, as wee hauehave 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 vsus 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 vntounto 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. OnelyOnly 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave elſwhere in this Booke ſufficiently proued and ſhewed againſt you. That which you bring of D. Whitgift and other writers amongſt vsus of the prophaneſſe of many in our aſſemblies, you depraue their meaninges vtterlie: for though they graunt verie many ſuch to be amongſt vsus, 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 onelyonly 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 doth the Article meane, that in a viſible church, eueryevery iot & title, both of our profeſſiō & practize, muſt needs be out of the pure word. They knew that eueryevery viſible Church might & did erre in ſomewhat. OnelyOnly 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 hauehave often aunſwered you, albeit they hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave omitted (ſay you.) True in wordes I hauehave, but in ſence I expreſſe them all and eueryevery 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, hauehave I not herein conteyned and ſignified all theſe your exceptions, and that accordinge to the meaning of the Article? If I hauehave (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 hauehave omitted nothing materiall in that Article. Yea let this be here noted, that in all this you hauehave 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 hauehave held poſſeſſion, and my auneſtors before my time out of minde, indeed the King laying claime to it, hee may call 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 vsus and now are gone out from vsus, to put vsus 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 vponupon me: Except firſt you doe ſhew, that theſe corruptions all or any of them, abſolutely in their own nature doe aboliſh vsus all cleane from Chriſt, & make vsus 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 vsus that is neceſſary to the being of a Church ſimply, nor to the being of a true Miniſtery or Sacraments: But onelyonly to their well and conuenient being. How honeſt then are you to falſifie your own witneſſes ſo openly?