Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Part
Fr. IOHNSON.
TO omitt the Propoſition, vntill it better appeare by their defence of the Aſſumption how to take and vnderſtand it, we will for the preſent only ſhewe the weakenes of the Aſſumption: and this alſo the rather, becauſe they ſeeme wholy to depend vponupon it.
H. IACOB.
THe anſwerer omitteth the Propoſition, for in deed it is moſt certen: But he denyeth the Aſſumption, (which yet is as certen alſo), That the doctrine in our booke of Articles is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian.
Fr. IOHNSON.
In our former anſwere to this argument, we omitted the propoſition, not becauſe of the certentie of it eueryevery way (as the Replier dreameth) but vntill we might ſee by his defence of the †The Aſſumption is examined and maintained Pag. 4.aſſumption how to take it, as thē we noted. Nowe therefore (hauing ſeene in his reply the vnlearned, vngodly, and vnconſcionable pretences, by which he would ſeeme to defende the Aſſumption, when in deed he doth nothing elſe but caſt a miſte before the eyes of the ſimple): we giuegive him to vnderſtand, that the whole argument is lame and faultie in eueryevery parte thereof. The Propoſition is not abſolutelie true, as it appeareth he vnderſtandeth it, by his defence of the Aſſumption. The Aſſumption is not only falſe, as we proued in our former anſwer, but alſo lacketh a foote whereon it ſhould goe, if it were perfect and entier.
For whereas in the Propoſition, mention is made, not only of the making of a true Chriſtian, but alſo of a companie ſo gathered together: he ſhould (in the Aſſumption, if he would hauehave had it ſound and perfect) not onelyonly hauehave aſſumed, that the doctrine &c. is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian: but hauehave added alſo, that their aſſemblies be cōpanies ſo gathered togither. Which being not done, both the Aſſumption wanteth one of the feete, and the concluſion inſerreth more then was in the premiſſes, and ſo the whole ſilogiſme is faultie and diſfigured.
Thus might we, without any further anſwer, returne this argument to the firſt framers of it, to be better faſhioned: Yet in hope, that they may bee brought (through the bleſſing of God) to receiue the louelove of the trueth, that they may be ſaued, and with their giftes no more to plead for, and deck the whore of Babilon, & to help forward the building & beautifying of Sion, we will more particularly lay open to them, the weaknes of this his reply.
And first, whereas he affirmeth, that the Propoſition is moſt certen, & yet in his defence of the Aſſumption, he declareth, that he ſo taketh it, as whatſoeuer amongſt them, be iointly togeather held, and ioyned with that, which otherwiſe might make a ture Chriſtian, or a true Church: yet notwithſtanding, they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or commixtures: we anſwere that in this ſence, the Propoſition neither is, nor can be abſolutely true, as it ought to be, if they would hauehave their argument good. For who knoweth not, that ſuch “Gal. 5.2.4.things may bee ioined with Chriſt, as aboliſh from Christ. And againe, †2. Cor. 6.14, 25.that Chriſt and Antichriſt can not accord togither. Either therefore the Propoſition is not generall, but admitteth limitations, and then is not the Argument good: Or if it bee generall, without any limitation, ſo as whatſoeuer be added too (or cōmingled with) that which otherwiſe might make a true Christian, or a true Church, yet it hindreth nothing at all: Thē is it not abſolutely true in ſuch vnderſtanding, as may appeare by the former exceptions, & diuers other that might be alleadged.
Next touching the Aſſumption, beſides that it is lame, as before is ſhewed, it is alſo vntrue, as in our former anſwer appeareth. Some balme in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, ſaue onelyonly to manifest to vsus ſo much the more, that the ſoare of their Aſſemblies cannot be healed. In our former anſwere, we first tooke 3. Exceptions againſt them, comparing together their profeſſion and practiſe, then we alleadged 9. Reaſons, directly concluding the falſhood of the Aſſumption.
H. IACOB.
BEfore I examine this your anſwer, I would deſire you, and all others, to note, that all your Exceptions and Reaſons, with your defence of them, hereafter following, doe conſiſt of theſe three generall pointes.
1. That euerie perſon in England, holding our publik faith, is no true Chriſtian.
2. That all the Chriſtians and Churches in King Edwards time, and namelie Maiſter Cramner, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Taylor, &c. were all lims of Antichriſt, and no true Chriſtians.
3. That eueryevery ſoule in England, is convicted in conſcience, that the Praelacie is vnlawfull and vntollerable.
The Firſt of theſe, is our maine queſtion, and the grounde of all our reaſoning, which you gainſay. The Second, though it be not expreſlie ſpoken, yet it is directlie, euidently, and vndeniably concluded, by all & eueryevery of your arguments againſt vsus. As in the ſeueralls hereafter we ſhal ſee. The Third, you are driuen vntounto, for defence of your former Aſſertion, which elſe falleth to the grounde. And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1.6. and 7. Reaſons.
Nowe my deſire is, that all men would take notice of theſe your 3: Aſſertions, and conſider indifferentlie, vvhether they proceede from an honeſt, a ſober, or a Chriſtian minde. And you M. Iohnſon, if you liſt hereafter to ſay any more, defende theſe 3. pointes directly and plainly, that your anſvveres may be briefer, and more certen, then now they are.
Novve I come to the particular examination of your former anſwerere.
Firſt you ſay, You omitted the Propoſition before, not for the ſoundnes of it, but only, becauſe you would ſee howe I meant it. Why? He that hath but halfe an eye, may ſee the meaning of thoſe vvordes, where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of ſence at all. What fault finde you in it nowe? Forſooth, firſt a want in the Aſſumption, & then vntruethes, both in the Propoſition, and Aſſumption of my Sillogiſme. There wanteth (you ſay) that I ſhould expreſſe in the Aſſumptiō, That our Aſſemblies be companies gathered togeather in the doctrines & ordinances which we all by lawe publiquely profeſſe and practiſe. Who but a wrangler would not vnderſtand that I meant ſo much? Nay doe not my expreſſe wordes imply aſmuch: vvhen I ſay, We by lavve publiquely profeſſe and practiſe them? Then are not our Aſſemblies (vvhichwhich are by lavv) gathered together in this profeſſion & povver? Fy for ſhame, theſe are ſenceleſſe cauilations. But becauſe vvhat in me lyeth, I vvould not hauehave you any more to ſtumble at a ſtrawe, I hauehave to ſatisfie you vvithall,Not that the Argumēt is vnſound without this addition: But becauſe ye Reader may ſee howe you will play at a ſmal game rather then ſit out, vt aiunt. novve added thoſe words to the Aſſumption aforeſaid in a contrarie letter which you deſire, viz. and our publike aſſemblies are therein gathered togeather.
Secondly, you ſay, that my propoſition meaneth, that what ſoeuer is held togeather and ioyned, with that which otherwiſe might make a true Chriſtian, or a true Church: Yet notwitſtanding they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or comixtures. O ſtrange dealing: in all my writing I hauehave no ſuch worde, no ſilable, no letter, ſounding to that ſence I hauehave directly contrary, in my anſwere to your Fourth Reaſon, as your ſelf noteth there. Yet yow M. Iohnſon, with out al ſhame, in the view of the world, doe Father on me this foule vntruth, and moſt ſenceleſſe errour, in your firſt entrance.
Further, where as it ſeemeth you reproue my Propoſion, requiring to to hauehave it ſet thus: Whatſoeuer is ſufficient to make a particuler man a true Chriſtian (and hath nothing added with it diſtroying the foundation of faith) That is ſufficient to make a company ſo gathered togither, a true Church.
You muſt know Mr. Iohnſon, that that were an idle & vaine addition: for whereſoeuer there are any ſuch things added diſtroying faith, there whatſoeuer elſe ſeemeth ſufficient, indeed it is not ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian. Wherefore nodum in ſcirpo quaeris, this is to finde a knot in a ruſh. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Propoſition.
The Aſſumption examined by the Exceptions and Reaſons followingLaſtly you come to deny my Aſſumption, or rather to maintaine your denyall heretofore giuen. Where firſt note that by denying my aſſumption, yovv affirme the firſt generall poinct noted in this beginning.
That eueryevery particuler perſon in England, holding our publike faith here, is not true Chriſtian. Which (O Lorde) who would not tremble to thinke on? Euen that which this man aboue two yeares a goe affirmed, and now againe aduiſedly and wilfully defendeth. I take heauen and earth to record this day, whether this be not deſperate madnes, yea or no. But let vsus examine your exceptions, and reaſons againſt my Aſſumption more particularly, & we ſhall ſee what ſtuffe it is. Your firſt exception againſt the ſame is as followeth.