Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Reason 2
Maiſter IOHNSONS II. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON II.
THat which appointeth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God in vaine, That cannot make either true Chriſtians or true Churches.
But the doctrine publikely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. Therefore, &c.
Of the trueth of the Propoſition, none can doubt: And the Aſſumption is thus proued.
That which appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God by the precepts of man: That appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. This Chriſt affirmeth out of Eſay the Prophet, Mat. 15.9. compared with Eſay. 29.13.
But the doctrine publiquely profeſſed & practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God by the precepts of man. This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Article of the booke alleaged, And by their booke of Cōmon prayer, their Faſtes, Feaſtes Holy dayes, &c, which are executed by their Popiſh Courts and Officers. All which are authorized by Law in England.
Therefore the doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by lawe in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. And conſequently cannot make a particuler man a true Chriſtian, nor the aſſemblies ſo gathered together, true Churches.
H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reaſon.
THis your Second Reaſon is. This booke and others appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine, Ergo &c. 1. This alſo hath anſwere in the third Exceptiō Pag 22. 2 Alſo, no…e I pray you, this Scripture [Mat. 15.] is verified of ſuch as were thē of the true viſible †Marke his open contrarietie with him ſelf, graunting this in Reaſ. 6.Church, with whom Chriſt and his Apoſtles, both in Chriſtes time and after his death, did ſometimes ioyne and comunicate. This therefore maketh for vsus and againſt you moſt notably.
F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Reaſon.
OVr Second Reaſon is as you ſee: now what propoſition doth he deny? Truely none at all. What defence bringeth he of their booke of cōmon prayers, and the particulers therein: Of their Prelacie, & other Miniſterie receiued from them according to their booke and Pontificall: Of their Canons and Excommunications, &c. Surely none. What then doth he anſwere? Forſooth he referred vsus to his anuſwer before in the laſt exception. Whether alſo we referre the Reader with this note, that there he ſhall finde nothing, either for aunſwer of anie propoſition of this argument, or for defence of their falſe worſhip, Praelacie, Miniſterie, and Church gouernement called into question. Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like anſwere? And hauehave not theſe men (thinke you) good proofe for their preſent eſtate and Church conſtitution: Which thus leaue it altogeather without defence, euen when it moſt needeth, and as it were, beg geth their help and ſuccor, if they could affoard it anie. But now hauing no aunſwer to any parte of our argument, yet hee bids vsus note, that this Scripture (Mat. 15.) here alleaged, is verified of ſuch as were then of the true viſible Church, with whom Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles both in Chriſts time, and after his death, did ſomtime ioyne and cōmunicate. This therfore he ſaith maketh for them and againſt vsus moſt notably.
1 But firſt let him tell vsus: if many“As that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 &c. Eſa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Zeph. 1.12. 1. Cor. 11.19. thinges, which are verified ſometimes of the members of a true Church, may not alſo fitly be applyed, and alleadged againſt a falſe Church, and yet not iuſtifie their eſtate and conſtitution, neither make for them, but againſt them altogeather. Otherwiſe he condemneth at once all the Martirs heretofore, who vſually alleaged this*Mat. 15.9. very Scripture againſt the falſe worſhip of the Romiſh Church, as him ſelfe cannot he ignorant. Yet in his learning it ſeemeth the Papiſtes might well hauehave aunſwered the Martirs againe, that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true viſible Church, and therefore made for them, and againſt the Martirs moſt notably.
2 Secondly, when he ſaith, this Scripture is verified of ſuch as were of the true viſible Church with whom Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated: Let him alſo tell vsus, whether he meaneth that Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated with them in their vaine traditions. If he thinke they did, that very “Mat. 15.2.Chapter ſheweth the contrary: beſides that the whole Scriptures teſtifie, that Chriſt was altogeather free from ſinne, which hee could not hauehave bene, if he had ioyned with them in thoſe their inuentions. If they did not, (as it is without all question) then what doth this helpe thoſe men, who all of them ioyne and communicate with the falſe worſhip of theſe aſſemblies?
3 Thirdly, we aunſwer, that his note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpoſe for the queſtion in hand. For firſt, who knoweth not, that in the Iewiſh Church, the doctrine publiquely profeſſed & practiſed by their law, did not appoinct or ratifie any of thoſe vaine traditions, but vtterly forbid them? Wheras contrarily, the very doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appoincteth and ratifieth the falſe worſhiping of God by the inuentions of men: Secondly, thoſe vaine traditions aforeſaid, were the perſonall ſinnes of ſome particuler men in the Iewiſh Church not publiquely eſtabliſhed by law, nor generally receiued and practized in that Church:*Luk. 1.5, 6, 8, 9, 10. &. 2.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27.36, 37, 38, 39 Mat. 15.7. & 8.4. and 15, 2. Ioh. 10.34. Zachary and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, and Chriſt himſelfe, and his Apostles, with many others, kept the ordinance of God giuen by the hande of Moſes, and obſerued of that Church. Neither did they ioyne or pollute them ſelues with that vaine worſhip aforeſaid: whereas in the church of England, the falſe worſhip thereof deuiſed by men, euen by that man of ſinne, is not the perſonall ſinne of ſome particular men in it, but is publikelie establiſhed by law, and generally receyned and practiſed in theſe aſſemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this ſcripture maketh nothing for them, but against them most notably.
Nowe, whereas in the margent, he wiſheth the Reader to marke a contrarietie with our ſelues, by comparing this and our 6. Reaſon together: we alſo referre it to the Reader to iudge, whether there be not euen an harmonie with this, and a confirmation of it. Hetherto of the defence of our ſecond Reaſon.
H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reaſon.
TO this your defence of your Second Reaſon, I ſay, you hauehave anſwer in your laſt Exceptiō, pag. 22. You aſke what Propoſitiō I doe deny? I anſwer, I diſtinguiſh your Aflumption as being a fallacie called foreign: cōcluding a thing ſimply, from that which is after a ſort, like vntounto that Reaſon which I framed againſt you in Pag. 22. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glaſſe, &c, Therefore hee is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. held aſmuch as wee, after mens precepts: Ergo, they worſhiped in vaine. Geneua holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper. Ergo, Geneua worſhipeth God in vaine. Euen ſo your Aſſumption runneth. Our doctrine (ſay you Pag. 35.) appoincteth Gods worſhip by mens precepts. This is falſe, vnleſſe you meane it foreign, after a ſort, not ſimply. For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worſhip by mens precepts, nor the chiefeſt part of it: as the preaching of the Goſpell of life, Sacramentes, and Prayers, &c. So that it concludeth nothing in that ſence. Therefore here you play the falſe Sophiſter, not the Chriſtian and conſcionable Diſputer. Thus you hauehave anſwer enough to this in the aunſwer to your laſt Exception, though you would not ſee it.
Further I noted Secondly, *Pag. 35.That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a viſible Church, with whom Chriſt did communicate, though they held alſo traditions of men: Therfore it affirmeth nothing againſt vsus. Is not this true? Why then doe you not admit it? We neuer denyed, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this onelyonly wee affirme, it diſanulleth not our Churches: Euen as Chriſt here condempned the Iewes corrupt traditions, but hee meant not thereby to diſanull their Church. Therefore all this is not againſt our purpoſe, but not ably for vsus as is before obſerued.
1. Concerning your Firſt aunſwer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applyed againſt falſe worſhippers which are no true Church: But it proueth not I ſay, all them, to whom it may bee applyed, to bee no true Church: Therefore you abuſe it againſt vsus, Except you had firſt proued vsus no true Church nor Chriſtians, which yet is in queſtion.
2. Where in your Second anſwere *Pag. 37.you ſay That this helpeth vsus not, except we ſay that Christ communicated with the Phariſies in theſe traditions, like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now. For ſhame leaue this folly. I ſay againe, I ſeeke not to iuſtifie our partaking in our traditions, but I renounce it in ſobrietie aſmuch as you, yea better then you doe: Yet I ſay this place ſhall admit thoſe who doe in ſimplicitie partake of them, to be true Chriſtians neuertheleſſe, like as it admitteth the Iewes then.
3. In your Third aunſwer, “Pag. ibid.You deny that thoſe Jewiſh traditions of waſſhings, &c. were with them receiued generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I aunſwer, That they were generally receiued, as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verſe doeth teſtifie, and that they were rebuked who vſed them not: which is ſufficient to make it their Churches doctrine & practize, though no expreſſe law commaunded it. But I ſuppoſe verſe 5. where they ſay, [Why walkeſt thou not after the tradition of the Elders] he meaneth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as lawes, beſides the lawe of Moſes. What elſe is their Thalmud, which is till this daye, euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie, and the Alcoran of Turky. Some alſo vnderſtand this of the ordinances of the Elders, that is, their preſent Gouernours: and then doubtleſſe it was lawe. And though Zachary, Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, Christ and his Apostles, did not actuallie ioyne in theſe corruptions, yet they were generall no doubt, and by lawe neuer the leſſe, and a number of the Iewes ſimply vſed them, & yet fell not from God, as †The Sixe waterpots of the Iewiſhe purifyings.Iohn 2.6. Therefore your Replies here are moſt vaine and falſe.
Laſtlie, in pag. 37. you will not confeſſe your contrarietie, that is to ſaye, betweene this your Second Reaſon, and certen wordes in your Sixt Reaſon. But the greater is your ſinne, to doe euill, and defende it too. Here in this Reaſon pag. 35. you would hauehave this ſcripture Mat. 15. to be meant againſt ſuch vaine worſhippers, that they become heereby no true Church: (Or els what doe you vrge it againſt vsus?) But in your Sixt Reaſon following, you ſay, That the Iewes, euen nowe when theſe words were applyed to them, were the true worſhippers of God. Are not theſe contrarie, I pray you, then reconcile them.