Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Exception 3
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 vsus true Christians.
I anſwer, you ſhould hauehave 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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, hauehave they ſhewed vsus 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 vponupon their fancies, and not vppon the written worde of God. But what doe they ſay to our demaund? First they tell vsus, 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave noted before, we adde moreouer, that they are not against vsus, 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.