Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Reason 9 – Argument 2
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 vsus, but not any farther at all: not wholly, or abſolutly. And ſo the Apoſtle heere meaneth. Wherefore briefly: Becauſe you proue vsus 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 vsus, Neither to condemne vsus wholy as aboliſhed from Chriſt, no more then Maiſter Cranmer and Ridley were with their Congregations in King Edwards time. And 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 hauehave alwayes held otherwiſe. Themſelues*Mai. Barrow. Mai. Penry. Mai. Iohnſon. heretofore hauehave 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 hauehave 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.
VNtoUnto 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 vsus ſee his anſwere aboue to our third Exception, alſo his anſweres to the two last Reaſons of all. Well we hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave ſeparated from the Papists: yet he neither ean nor will ſay, that they hauehave forſaken the“As that ther is a God: that there, is three perſons in the Godhead: that Ieſus Chriſt is the Sauiour of ye 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 hauehave 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 vsus 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 hauehave 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. 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 vntounto 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 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 giuegive the titles of Chriſt Jeſus vntounto theſe ſonnes of men, and his mortall enemies, to call them their Arch and Lord Biſhops, 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 vsus 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 vntounto thoſe Jewes, are they not therefore to be ſeparated from? So in deed he would conclude in this place, But then let him tell vsus, if Corah, Dathan and Abiram, the Apostate Jewes vnderunder 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, giuegive 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 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 vntounto 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 hauehave 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 hauehave declared at large in“In ye 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 hauehave acknowledged and profeſſed it, (to wit their general Aſſumption aforeſaid to be true) he is alſo deceyued therein: we hauehave 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 vponupon vsus for this verie cauſe. In deed we hauehave acknowledged and doe acknowledge, that they profeſſe diuers excellent truthes, but 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 vsus (that we know of) did once acknowledge. And therfore till he ſhew vsus the contrarie, we must needes thinke that he falſely burtheneth vsus all, and specially ſuch of vsus, 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 wt 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 vponupon the Reuelation,*Bale in his booke called The Image of both churches vponupon Reu. 13.1. and 17.3. affirmeth moreouer, That the names of Blasphemy written vponupon 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 vponupon 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, is both to agree to ſuch decrees, traditions, lawes, constitutions, actes, and proclamations, as they vnderunder thoſe titles, hauehave made, onelyonly 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 giuegive counſell or ayde to it, to mainteyne it by learning, to minister in it, to execute vnderunder it, to accuſe, puniſhe, and put to death for it, or to thinke it lawfull and godly, with ſuch like.
And“Ibid. vponupon Reuel. 16.12. afterward vponupon 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 hauehave many of theſe waters bene dried vp in the ſuppreſſion of the monaſteries, prioryes, couents, and Friers houſes, yet are not all thinges brought vntounto 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 vsus 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 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 hauehave 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 vntounto 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 hauehave by his last Testament geuen vntounto 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 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 eueryevery 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 vntounto 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 vntounto, 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 vntounto 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.
VntoUnto 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 vponupon vsus ſome ſtrange paſſion, yea and meere deſperatnes, for ſeparating from them, and anſwering of them as we hauehave 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 hauehave 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 giuegive eueryevery 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 vntounto 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, EueryEvery one of your Reaſons, I ſay eueryevery 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 ye 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, hauehave 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 hauehave 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 ſo to acknowledge vsus, as you will anſwer vntounto God: All which you may doe, and yet touch no parte of our Eccleſiaſticall corruptions at all, to giuegive allowance vntounto 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 hauehave 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 vsus, 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 hauehave I to doe with them? I liſt not to meddle at this prſent, but with that which wee hauehave 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 hauehave brought nothing worth the hearing, as we hauehave ſeene.
After, you would proue vsus 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 hauehave 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 vsus?
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 hauehave to ſerue vsus. But alas for all your Exceptions againſt vsus, you hauehave 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 hauehave refuted theſe quarelles in a ſhort writing (hereafter following) about the compariſon of the Miniſterie with Mariage, which yet you hauehave 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 vsus a Paradox: Firſt I alleadged all the reformed Churches: For who knoweth not, but they all hold Communion with vsus as Churches of God? yet you dare either deny this, or vtterlie peruert it. Yow tell vsus 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 hauehave acknowledged heretofore, That our publique doctrine allowed, would and did make many of vsus 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 vsus 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 vsus open wrong, if not against his owne cōſcience, yet against our expreſſe writings eueryevery where, &c. HaueHave 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 hauehave 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 hauehave 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, hauehave 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. OnelyOnly herein the Lord be mercifull vntounto them, (as to my ſelf in regard of my ſinnes:) That they are not vnderunder 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? HaueHave you not affirmed this thing your ſelfe, to me, and to Maiſter Philips, namely touching your owne ſelfe, when you were of vsus, 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, hauehave thought otherwiſe then you nowe doe: yet all this is no 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 hauehave thought, that vnderunder 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 vsus, you propound a many of queſtions. But I leaue all this ſuperfluous ſtuffe to your ſelfe to be pondered. Firſt let vsus cleare this preſent queſtion, and your Reaſons here about: Till then, wee hauehave 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.foreign, not regarding your own, but the praiſe of Chriſt in all things. AMEN.
FINIS.
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 hauehave 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.