Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Exception 2
Maiſter Iohnſons 2. Exception againſt the former Aſſumption, with Maiſter Iacobs Replies to the ſame. EXCEPTION 2.
SEcondly let them tell vsus, whether they hold & profeſſe Ieſus Christ to be the Prophet, Prieſt and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinance onelyonly, and in no other. And if they doe, then let them ſhew vsus 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 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 onelyonly 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 vsus 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 vsus, if they held Jeſus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, & King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinances onelyonly and in no other, howe then their practize agreeth with this profeſſion. One would hauehave thought that here it had bene good and needfull (if they could) to hauehave cleared this poinct by the Scriptures and the Testament of Christ, and from thence to hauehave manifested, that their Ministerie, worſhip, ministration, gouernement, &c. which are called 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 hauehave they not done this? Surely no. What then doe they ſay? First they tell vsus, 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 vsus: 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 vntounto 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 vsus? yet thus would this man beare vsus in hande. But moreouer, let him tell vsus, 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 onelyonly, 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 vntounto 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 vntounto vsus 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 vsus his worde, to be the light of our feete, and rule of our liues and religion: What meane theſe men to lead vsus from it, to the aberrations of any men whatſoeuer? Should not all people enquire at God, or would they hauehave vsus 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 vsus, and whereby they miſlead their followers, as will yet further appeare by that which followeth. For what ſay they next?
Secondly, they tell vsus, 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 onelyonly: 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.
In anſwere whereof, First we aſke what ſcripture they hauehave for this? 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. 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 vntounto in the worſhip of God, as afterwards more fully will appeare. 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 vsus 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 louelove of the trueth, that they may bee ſaued, hee will ſende them ſtronge deluſions, to beleeue lyes, that they may bee damned. 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 onelyonly 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 (vnderunder 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 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 onelyonly of the tribe of Leui, may nowe minister the holy things of God in his Church: Whether Christ hauehave 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 onelyonly 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 onelyonly 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 vponupon 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: 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 hauehave 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. 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 vnderunder the Gospell, be not of the foundation, aſmuch as the outward gouernement and ceremonies appointed by Moſes for the Church vnderunder 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 vsus, 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 other truthes they helde by this meanes fruſtrate and of none effect vntounto 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 vntounto them? Yet was their error onelyonly 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 vnderunder 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 the Popes Maſſe booke, tranſlated into Engliſh, &c. Finallie, the vpholding of theſe and all ſuch amongst them onelyonly 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 vsus and our aduerſaries. 7. Lastlie, let the godlie and indifferent Reader! iudge, whether it will not followe vppon this anſwere in this place: First, that theaContrarie 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 thebContrarie to ye 2. Tim. 3.17 wt 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 eueryevery good worke: Thidlie, thatcContrarie 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 vntounto it, anie offices, lawes and orders, for the due gouerning and ordering thereof: Finallie, That thedContrarie 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 vsus: which we will not proſecute, as it deſerueth, but exhort them onelyonly, to take heede least that woe come vppon them whiche is written: Woe vntounto 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 vntounto 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 vsus 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 vsus our inward and 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 vponupon 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 hauehave 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 vsus to cry & ſay againſt you, O ſhameleſſe mouth, ô vnchristian heart, which termes, you vainely charge vponupon 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, then you graunt vsus 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 eueryevery of our aſſemblies? of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conſcience? Are you ſure of this? Doe you knowe eueryevery 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 eueryevery 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 vsus, 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 vsus, 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 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 vponupon 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 vnderunder Chriſt be not fundamentall aſwell as the Iewes vnderunder 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 onelyonly iuſtifie by their exāple that theſe corruptions aboliſh vsus not from Chriſt, as theirs did not, And that I truſt is ſound. Which thing alſo you might hauehave 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.
Then in your firſt anſwer, Pag. 14. Howe vainely doe yow aske vsus for Scriptures to proue thoſe orders, ſeing I expreſly called them errors.
The like in your Second, wher you load vp Scriptures to diſproue thē.
Alſo Thirdlie, you charge an vnconſcionable vntruth on mee (if you meane this anſwere vntounto 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.
Fourthly, whether they are Popiſh ſhiftes or no, let our ſtate, which mainteyneth theſe things, anſwer you.
Your Fift is anſwered in ye firſt poinct of my explication noted before. pag. 19. 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.