Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Reason 3
Maiſter IOHNSONS III. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON III.
IF the whole doctrine, as it is publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in Englande, be not ſufficient to make a Galatian a true Chriſtian, that ſhould with all ſubmit vntounto Circumciſion: Then much leſſe, is it able to make him a true Christian, that togeather with it, ſubmitteth vntounto a falſe Ministerie, Worſhip, and Gouernement, of the Church deuiſed by man, euen the man of ſinne. But the first is true: Therefore alſo the latter.
The conſequence of the Propoſition is good, becauſe Circumciſion was once the holy ordinance, and appointment of God himſelfe to his Church and people, whereas the Ministerie, worſhip, and gouernement aforeſaid, neuer was ſo, but is mans deuice in religion, euen Antichrist, that capitall enemie of Ieſus Christ.
The Aſſumption is proued Gal. 5.2.3.4. where the Apostle ſpeaketh of them that helde, not onelyonly ſuch truethes of the Gospell, as are in that booke of Articles, but more then thoſe: Yet if they ſhould with all ſubmitt vntounto circumciſion, he ſayth, they were aboliſhed from Chriſt, Christ would proſit them nothing.
H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reaſon.
THis your Third Reaſon is from the more to the leſſe negatiuelie to this effect, A Galatian vſing Circumciſion, is a likelier Christian, then one of our Engliſh holding the Hierarchy and other traditions: But A Galatian is a falſe Christian, Ergo, An Engliſh profeſſor is much more.
We anſwer, We denie the Aſſumption: Galatians were then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies true Churches, Gal. 1.2. Therefore this Reaſon is nought. If he obiect, The Apostle ſaith, ſuch are aboliſhed from Chriſt. That is in deed ſome amongſt them, as helde Moſes ceremonies, neceſſarie abſolutelie to ſaluation, as Act. 15.1. And that †Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4.iuſtification was by the morall workes of the law. Nowe the Churches of Galatia generallie were not ſuch, but held the ſauing faith ſound doubtles, though manie amongeſt them were tainted with that infection, by reaſon of ſome miſcheuous teachers that were crept in, and too well interteyned among them. Howbeit, with the Church, Communion was kept, And therefore, ſo with vsus you ought to deale. If you ſay, we are worſe Chriſtians then thoſe grofeſt Galatians, It is vtterlie falſe: proue it if you can, and it muſt drawe in Maiſter Cranmer, &c. with vsus alſo. If you ſay, there are manie amongſt vsus as bad, or worſe then thoſe worſt Galatians, you may ſay it, but proue it, you cannot. Alſo, if it were ſo, yet this diſagraceth, it deſtroyeth not the Church, like as hath bin ſaid of the Galatians.
F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reaſon.
TO this our Third Reaſon, His First anſwer is, That he denyeth the Aſſumption: which is aſmuch in plaine termes, as if he had giuen the holy Ghost the lye, who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4. As in the proofe of the Aſſumption we ſhewed before. But for the more euidence of the trueth, we will ſet downe the proofe of the Aſſumption in a Sillogiſme, thus:
If a Galatian ſubmitt to Circumciſion, though he hold all the truthes of the Gospell profeſſed in England withall, yet be notwithstandinge aboliſhed from Christ, and falne from grace, Then is he not in this estate a true Christian.
But the former is true, as the Apostle testifieth, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4.
Therefore alſo the latter.
Next he anſwereth, That the Galatians were then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies, Churches, Gal. 1.3. Therefore (ſayeth he) this reaſon is nought. But he may not thus runne away with the matter and deceyue himſelfe and his ſimple fauourers. The question is not, whether anie Galatians were true Christians, or any of their Aſſemblies, true churches. For who euer doubted of that? But this is the question: Whether a Galatian holding all the truethes of the Gospell nowe profeſſed in Englande, and withall ſubmit to Circumciſion, were in that estate a true chriſtian Or putting the caſe that there were whole Aſſemblies conſisting of ſuch: Whether thoſe aſſemblies then in that caſe were by Gods worde to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and ſaith, no: This man ſaith, yea. Nowe whether of theſe two we ſhall beleeue, let all men iudge. But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the aſſemblies of the Galatians true churches? Gal. 1.2. This man ſheweth the reaſon him ſelfe, the light of the trueth is ſo cleare and manifest. There were but ſome of the Galatians (ſayth he) that were infected with this error of Circumciſion. True in deed (ſay we) & of ſuch onelyonly is the ſuppoſitiō made in the caſe afore ſaid: But the churches of Galatia (ſayth he) generally were not ſuch, but held the ſauing faith ſound: which alſo is most true, they being ſet in the way and order of Christ Ieſus: and therefore though there ſprang vp ſome heretikes and ſchiſmatikes amongest them (which is the“1 Cor. 11.19 Actes 20.30. lott and triall of the true churches of God in all ages) yet was there not cauſe to breake the Communion with thoſe aſſemblies, but to proceed with them in the faith, and order of Christ, and to*Gal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7, 11, 13. cutt off and cast out ſuch troubleſome leauen from amongſt thē. Now this being duely weighed, it is nothing for, but altogeather against, the hauing of communion, with the aſſemblies of this Lande, which are not ſet in the way and order of Ieſus Christ, (as were thoſe churches of Galatia) but in the Apostaſie and confuſion of Antichrist, as hath ben at large declared before, in the defence of the former Reaſons, where alſo that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c. is anſwered.
H. IACOB his II. Reply to the 3. Reaſon.
TO this your Defence of your Third Reaſon, I anſwer. Firſt it is too impudent a cauillation "That you charge me to giuegive the H. Ghost the lye, in denying your Aſſumption. I meant not your Aſſumption, but that which I had made briefer, conteyning the effect of yours. This was the Aſſumption denyed by me, But a Galatian is a falſe christian. As he that hath but halfe an eye may ſee.
Secondly, to ceaſe needles ſtrife. I deny therefore your Propoſition. Though a Galatian *that is, So holding it, as ye worſt did, or els this is a ſophiſticall Equi uocation.holding circumciſion, cannot bee a true Chriſtian, yet an Engliſh Chriſtian holding the Hyerarchie &c. may. The Reaſon of this denyall I gaue you then, but that you would not ſee it: Namelie, becauſe ſuch Galatians, held Iuſtification by the works, and ceremonies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papiſtes, who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the ſame, and ſo doe erre Fundamentally. But our Churches and ſtate, hold not the Hyerarchie ſo, but only as an indifferent thing in it ſelfe. This blaſphemous opinion of Circumciſion, maketh it infinitelie worſe, (though once it was ordeined of God) then our indifferent opinion of the Hyerarchie, though in deed it were neuer but nought.
Thirdlie and laſtlie, you hauehave no where cleared Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, & the reſt of thoſe holy Martirs, from being aboliſhed from Chriſt, if the Hyerarchie be ſimply worſe then Circumciſion, ſo hold as thoſe Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4, 5.