Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Reason 1 – Reason 7
REASON. I.
F. Iohnſ.
FIrst, infidels, idolaters, prophane and godles perſons, may marry togeather, with conſent, and choyſe of each other, notwithstanding their prophanenes, and their marriadge is therein lawfull. But it ſtandeth not ſo with the choyſe of Miniſters in the Church, For 1. prophane and godleſſe perſons (ſuch as theſe aſſemblies conſist of) 2. neuer rightly gathered togeather according to Gods holy ordinance, 3. remayning in ſubiection and bondage to their falſe and Antichriſtian officers & courts, conſiſting of all ſorts of people, &c. are not capable of chuſing, or ioyning vntounto a true Minister in this eſtate (as infidels may marry in the ſame eſtate). There fore the compariſon will not hould, neither is ſuch choice of a Minister by ſuch people lawfull.
But theſe aſſemblies conſiſt of ſuch people, &c. Ergo, &c.
H. Iacob
THe ſtrength of this Reaſon ſtandeth in theſe laſt wordes: But theſe aſſemblies conſist of ſuch people, 1. prophane & godles perſons, 2. neuer rightly gathered togither according Gods ordinance, 3. remayning in ſubiection and bondage to their falſe and Antichristian officers & courts: Ergo, &c. Theſe three accuſations auaile nothing at all.
Accuſa∣tion. 1 The firſt Accuſation is from our queſtion, for we ſpeake of a Christian people, but he, of aſſemblies cōſiſting of prophane and godles perſons. If he ſay, our aſſemblies all & wholy are ſuch: That is falſe. If he ſay, ſome are: Of them we ſpeake not. If he ſay in all & eueryevery one of our aſſemblies there are ſome, yea many open prophane and godles perſons. 1. It is too bold a ſaying, & without knowledge to ſpeak ſo of all. 2. If it were true, yet it were falſe to ſaye, our aſſemblies conſiſt of ſuch, or to thinke that whole companies of Chriſtians by ſuch commixtures are made vnholy, prophane, and godles: which is contrary to theſe ſcriptures, Mat. 23, 2, 3. Luke 2.21, 22. & 1.6. Act. 21.23, 26. 1 Sam. 2.17. and cap. 1. verſe 3.9. Reuel. 2.20, 21, and 3.1, 4. 1 Cor. 3.3. Gal. 3.1, 2. & 4.11, 16. and 5.4.9.
Accuſa∣tion. 2 The ſecond Accuſation [that our aſſemblies were neuer rightly gathered togeather at the first according to Gods ordinance.] I denie it: eſpecially touching many famous Congregations in the Land, where the goſpell was not vnknowen before the Queenes commaundiment came to vrge thē to receyue this doctrine. And if the maner of receyuing it then, in thoſe hard and doubtfull times and hazardous beginnings, were not ſo perfect nor ſo exact, as ſhould hauehave bene, yet we may ſee by the example of“2 Chro. 30.17, 18, 19, 20. Hezechias, and*2 Chro. 33.15, 16, 17. Manaſſes, and†Zepha. 1.4, 5. and 3.1. Ier. 3.6. &c. and 4.1. &c. and 5.1. &c. Ioſias reformations, That God imputeth it not to ſuch godly and zealous reſtorers, the pillers and ground of the trueth in thoſe dayes. If you ſay, the vntaught people then ſuddenly receyuing the goſpell by commandement, not by hearing, could not beleeue at the firſt, though they profeſſed, and therefore at the firſte were no true Chriſtians nor Churches? I anſwer, 1. Though many receiued the Goſpell for the commandements ſake, yet who can ſay, That nowe they all generally wanted all knowledge, and all faith? The word then hauing bene in many places taught, very many bookes ſcattered, much conference, daily conſultations and diſputations vſed, and the blood of the Martirs hauing preached ſo loud, and ſo lately before. 2. It was not ſo ſudden. There was“From Nouember the 17 till Midſomer following. more then halfe a yeare, for the people to heare, learne, and conſider, before the commandement came. So that it can not be counted meere force and compulſiō, that at the beginning of our Queenes reigne, brought vsus to the trueth? 3 I would know, They condemne not (I hope) all reformation commanded and compelled by the Magiſtrate, 2 Chro. 34.32, 33. and 33.16. and 15.13. Seeing therefore, the aſſemblies thus openly, & aduiſedly, ſubmitted to the proclaimed trueth, who ſeeth not, but they cōfeſſed therein their former errors, and profeſſed their preſent faith, and vndertooke a newe life from that which before they led, though happely not ſo formallie, nor ſo perfectly as were to hauehave bene wiſhed.
Obiection. But they receiued all togeather, Papistes, Atheiſtes, ignorant men, & all diſſolute liuers, into one communion and fellowſhip.
Anſwer. Indeed all, who after this aduizement and notice takē, ſubmitted to & receyued this doctrine, theſe were all receyued in. And therefore no open profeſſed Papiſtes, Athiſtes, nor other Heretikes. As for ignorant men, it is not poſſible but many will ſcape among the reſt, in ſo great and ſo generall reformation of a publike ſtate. And ſo queſtionles it was in Hezechias, Manaſſes, and Ioſias reformation. 2. Chron. which we noted before. The notorious, diſſolute, & wicked, ſome were reclaimed, all vndertook another profeſſion, & a new appearance of Chriſtianitie. And no doubt the like is to be thought of theſe, as before I obſerued touching the ignorant men. Now all this was done, not intollerablie doubtleſſe, though I graunt weakely & corruptly, And very like euen to your owne receiuing into your Church at this time: nay more tollerable and more lawfull then yours: who to furniſh onelyonly one congregation, hauehave receiued many knowne bad men, and very ignorant: yea and ſtill retaine men full of contention, & bitter ſtrife, 1 Cor. 3.3. In a word this I anſwer:
That which diſanulleth not a Church gathered and ſettled, That diſanulleth it not in the gathering and beginning.
But ſuch mixtures doe not diſanull a Church gathered and ſetled, as appeareth aboue in the ſcriptures quoted againſt the Firſt Accuſatiō, Mat 23. Luke 2. &c.
Therfore ſuch mixtures did not diſanull our Churches then in their beginning.
Accuſa∣tion. 3 The Third Accuſation is, [our Aſſemblies remayne in obedience to the falſe Antichriſtian officers, &c.] Let this be our generall ſinne: yet there is diuerſitie of ſinnes. All are not of like deteſtation before God, nor of like cōſequence againſt vsus. I ſay not that any ſinnes are veniall: but I ſay, All ſinnes by their nature are mortal, yet doe they not al alike aboliſh vsus from Chriſt, nor depriue vsus of the glory of God. Now this ſinne of outward church orders is not of the moſt heynous, nor extreameſt diſobedience. There are ſinnes againſt the*1 Cor. 15.3, 3. 4. Rō. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14. foundation, and there are ſinnes that ſtande with the foundation: ibid. "wherein men liuing and dying ignorantly without perticular repētance, may be ſaued. Such were the ſinnes of the Iewiſh church and eſtate in Chriſtes time, and after, as“Beza in Acts 15.20. ſome thinke, euen till their Temple and Citie were deſtroyed, though they did perſonally hate and perſecute Chriſt. Such alſo was the ſinne of the auncient declyning Biſhops, Epiphanius, Auguſtine, Chriſostom, Leo of Rome, &c. No leſſe was in ours of late Cranmer, Ridley, Hooper, &c. in King Edward dayes: and no greater is now in ours preſently, eſpecially touching our Churches. & Miniſters too, generally. If you ſay, we are all conuicted nowe, and ſinne againſt our cōſciēces, as they did not in thoſe times: It is vtterly falſe, & a palpable vntrueth. Whoſoeuer knoweth any thing in our church eſtate generally, muſt needs ſee it, that this poinct touching the Hyerarchy, is not acknowledged euen of ignorāce in a thouſand to one: many holding (& not of the ſimpleſt) this preſent gouernement to be th'only true & right kinde: but all men almoſt, to be indifferent, & lawful: very few indeed, & ſcarſe to be found, yt ſee it to be meerly nought, or as you terme it, wicked & intollerable. And in King Edwards time, whoſoeuer conſidereth, ſhall finde, that the godly learned Proteſtāts then, were not vtterly ignorant of this poinct of reformation, and yet ſinned not againſt their conſcience in bearing with the times, neither were aboliſhed from Chriſt. And ſurely touching the Iewes, they were all generally more conuicted then, that Ieſus was the Chriſt, then we are now, that the Prelacie is of Antichriſt: & yet they remayned a church ſtil, becauſe generally indeed, they were not plainly conuicted. Thus thē this our ſinne is*See the 2. ſortes of fundamental ſinnes, in the 2. Reply to your 7. Reaſon before, pag. 48. no way fundamentall, it deſtroyeth not faith & Chriſtianity in our whole aſſemblies: Therfore they remaine Chriſtian people ſtill, as I affirmed: not all godles & prophane, as he vncharitably ſpeaketh. O beware of raſh and haſty iudging, euen of one brother, Rom. 14.3, 4, 13. how much more of ſuch & ſo many whole aſſemblies profeſſing Chriſt in Englād? Woe be vntounto him which curſeth, where God curſeth not, Num. 23.8. As alſo indeed that bleſſeth, where God bleſſeth not. We deſire you not to bleſſe vsus in our euil, but we warne you, not to curſe vsus in our good: which indeed turneth vsus not to any furtherance, but to a great hinderance and ſtumbling block, ſtopping vsus frō that ſinceritie which els we ſhould dravve nearer vntounto. Bleſſed is he that iudgeth wiſely (that is without affection & partialitie) euen of him that is deſpiſed. Better it is and more Chriſtian like, euen to offende in too much compaſſion and patience (eſpecially towardes ſo many hundreth thouſands, by whom we know nought ſaue good in this poinct) then to offend in too much rigor, and ſeueritie, & vniuſt anger, Mat. 5.…2. Howbeit this were not indeed to offend, as hath bene aboue ſhewed. And briefly in twoo words, thus I conclude it farther, that.
That faith & religiō taught in the booke of Articles publiſhed 1562. maketh the people that beleeue and obey the ſame, true Chriſtians: ſuch as ſo liuing and dying may be ſaued.
But our Church doeth ſo holde that faith,
Therefore they are true Chriſtians.
The Propoſition onelyonly is doubted. I had thought none ſo deſperate as to deny it: but lately I vnderſtand, they hauehave denyed it. Howbeit for anſwer, I referre them, partly to that which here hath bene ſaid before, and eſpeciallie to that which is replied to their Anſwer in the former Treatiſe: which being well weighed, I doubt not but all indifferent, and Chriſtian mindes will acknowledge, our publique church aſſemblies in England to be true Chriſtians.
REASON. II.
F. Iohnſ.
SEcondly the Prieſt doth not celebrate or pronounce any marriage without the married firſt giuegive their conſent.
But the Prelats make Miniſters without & before the peoples conſent.
Therefore the compariſon holdeth not.
H. Iacob
FIrſt it is very vaine to make this any matter, viz. the peoples cōſenting either before or after the Prelats ordeyning. For whether before or after, it is in nature and value all one: They in their ignorāce hauing reſpect only to the Prelats act. And if it were ſo, that the Prieſt ſhould ſometymes marie a couple, the Maide being meerly enforced, and denying conſent, yet not ſtriuing nor reſiſting: and a while after ſhall willingly agree and like: Out of queſtion there is now true wedlock betweene them. Euen ſo the caſe is betwixt the Church and the Miniſter. 2. But what will they except here againſt thoſe Paſtors amōgſt vsus, that were firſt choſen by the people, they firſt profeſſing their conſent, and are after inſtituted & inducted by the Praelat. Many are thus called amongſt vsus: & the moſt hauehave the peoples conſent euen togeather at their firſt inducting: at leaſt wiſe they hauehave ſoone after, by the peoples ſubmitting & mainteyning them euen preſently. 3. Laſtly in a word, where he ſaith "the Praelats make Miniſters without and before the peoples conſent. We“Beza in Act 14.23. Fenner againſt Bridges, Pag. 148. affirme, that they make not the Paſtor at all indeed and in truth; but only ſuppoſedly. It is the Churches conſent that maketh him truly, whether before or after the Biſhop, that ſkylleth not. If any thinke Impoſition of hands to be ſimplie neceſſarie to the being of a Miniſter: that is alſo an error, & cannot be proued.
REASON. III.
F. Iohnſ.
THirdly the people cannot chuſe their Miniſter vnleſſe the Prelate either before or after make him Miniſter.
But a couple may chuſe each other whether the Prieſt will giuegive his conſent or no. Therefore, &c.
H. Iacob
1 WE deny your ſaying, the peole cannot chuſe. They can chuſe, They hauehave power in Chriſt, as being Chriſtians, though they know not their right therein. The ignorance of this ſimply, doth not cut vsus of from Chriſt, nor from this holy priuiledge: no more then the blind Papiſtes hauehave loſt their right & power of marrying togeather without a Prieſt, becauſe they are ignorant of it. 2. Againe where he ſaieth, But a couple may chuſe each other whether the Prieſt will marry them or no: Let him marke: That we ſpeake of blind Papiſts that thinke that the Prieſt is the whole abſolute and neceſſarie marriage maker. If he ſay, euen ſuch hauehave right and power to marry, though they be farre from knowing it, and farther from practizing; Then let him graunt the like in chuſing a Miniſter, to our Chriſtians: for ſo the compariſon importeth, Els if he meane thoſe words of others that be mē of knowledge, Then he fighteth with his ſhadow: he toucheth not our queſtion.
REASON. IIII.
F. Iohnſ.
IF any that by the word of God are not capable of marrying togeather (as brother & ſiſter, &c.) doe notwithſtanding conſent to take each other for man and wife: yet are they not therefore lawfull man and wife.
So if a people and ſome man that by the word of God cannot chuſe one another as Paſtor and Church in their eſtate (ſuch as now is in this land) doe notwithſtanding conſent to take each other: yet are they not therefore lawfull Paſtor and Church.
H. Iacob
THis is wholy preſumed and from the Queſtion alſo. Like to the firſt Reaſon, and hath the ſame anſwer as is made to the firſt accuſation there. He reaſoneth againſt people not capable of a Paſtor; And vve ſpeake of true Chriſtians vvhichwhich are alvvayes capable. He doth ill therfore in comparing this action to mariage betvvene brother & ſiſter; vvho indeed cannot marry. Happely he may likelyer compare it to a couple that hauehave liued both of them vvantonly: Aftervvards they marrie togeather, and this marriage if ſelfe they vſe not ſoberly, nor temperatly. Hovvbeit for all this, I profeſſe theſe tvvo are truly man and vvife notvvithſtanding: Novv euen ſo our Churches and Miniſters, &c.
REASON. V.
F. Iohnſ.
THe Prieſts ioyning of the parties doeth not make them man and wife at all, but only the parties mutuall conſent.
But contrarily, in the preſent eccleſiaſticall cōſtitution of England, the Prelats ordination maketh the miniſter, and not the peoples choyſe at all.
H. Iacob
THe Second Propoſition vve here flatly deny. It is anſvvered in our laſt vvords againſt the 2. Reaſon.
REASON. VI.
F. Iohnſ.
IF a woman conſent to a man that is another womans huſband, they are not therefore man and wife.
So if a people conſent to a falſe Miniſter, they are not therefore true Church and Miniſter.
H. Iacob
THis is anſwered as before in the Fourth Reaſon. It carrieth ſome likelyhood indeed, and ſome reaſon againſt Pluralities, but nothing any further.
REASON. VII.
F. Iohnſ.
IF when a man and woman giuegive conſent each to other, the man doe afterwards giuegive his body to another, and ſo commit adultery: Then is the marriage knot broken.
So, if after a people hauehave choſen a man to be their Miniſter, hee giuegive himſelf to another & a falſe Miniſterie, and ſo commit ſpirituall whoredome: Then is the former knot broken.
H. Iacob
THe taking of orders from a Praelate, after conſent giuen to a Miniter by a people, is not like adultery in mariage: eſpecially whereboth Paſtor and people are ſimply ignorant of that error. Therefore that diſanulleth not, as adultery doth the wedlock. So this Reaſon is much like to the laſt before, and the anſwer not vnlike to that of the Fourth Reaſon likewiſe. For
That which at the Firſt maketh not vncapable: That ſame afterwards doeth not diſſolue.
But this error maketh not chriſtians vncapable at the firſt: as there is ſhewed, and in the Third chieflie:
Therefore neither can it diſſolue afterwards the Couenant betweene the Paſtor and the people.
This last Treatiſe, hath remayned in their hands, theſe Three yeeres and more, vnanſwered.
FINIS.
End of the text · Henry Jacob, Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England (1599)