Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Reason 4
Maiſter IOHNSONS IIII. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON IIII.
THe doctrines of faith conteyned in that Booke alleadged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, ſhould alſo ſtill executs or ioyne vntounto the Ministerie of Mahomet, that open Antichrist and enemie of Jeſus Chriſt. 2. Cor. 6.14, &c.
Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian, that holding them, yet doth ſtill execute or ioyne vntounto, the Ministerie and worſhip of the man of ſinne, the couert Antichrist and enemie of Ieſus Christ.
H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reaſon.
THis your 4. Reaſon is Mahomets Miniſterie and Antichriſtes Miniſterie are both bad alike.
But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot ſaue a man that ioyneth alſo to Mahomets Ministerie.
Ergo, the good doctrines of that booke cannot ſaue a man that ioyneth alſo to Antichristes Ministerie: which thing we in England doe.
I deny neither the Propoſition, nor Aſſumption: And yet the Argument is too bad. It is a fallacie of Equiuocation, as wee call it: Wee muſt therefore diſtinguiſh: Mahomets Miniſterie, and Antichriſts Miniſterie, hauehave a doubtfull meaning. If you meane, the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip performed in Mahomets or Antichriſtes aſſemblies, that is, in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Churches: The I graunt your whole argument is *Both are nought alike as touching aboliſhing vsus from Chriſt.true. But that we doe ſo in England, (which comes in the concluſion,) Or that any Chriſtian amongſt vsus thinketh ſo: That I vtterlie deny. And thus indeed, that Scripture alleadged 2. Cor. 6.14. is rightly vnderſtood. But if you meane by Miniſterie, the outward manner of calling to the Miniſterie, & ſom outward ceremonies, vſed by Mahomet, or the Pope: Then I flatly and abſolutely deny your Aſſumption, and your Scripture is anſwered before in the Firſt Reaſon. For I affirme, and it is manifeſt: That ſuch errors being ioyned with the good doctrines of that our Booke, doe not deſtroy faith, and true Chriſtianitie, As before was ſhewed in the Second Exception.
F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reaſon.
HEre the light of the trueth doeth ſo dazell the Anſwerers eyes, as he freelie confeſſeth he can not denie any whit of our Reaſon. And yet forſooth the Argument is too bad. But why ſo? There is (hee ſayth) an equiuocation in it, and therefore he will diſtinguiſh. But First wee tell him, there is no equiuocation at all in the words, but they are al plain, to him that hath a ſingle eye, and will vnderstand the trueth. Therefore his diſtinction heere is idle & friuolous. Yet ſee alſo betweene what things he doeth distinguiſh? Forſooth betwene the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip perfourmed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies, and betwene the outward maner of calling to their Miniſtery, and the outward ceremonies vſed amongeſt them.
An abſurd distinction touching the matter in hande: For first, who knoweth not, that theſe latter are of the very ſame nature with the former: Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Anticristian, & accurſed before God, aſwell as the rest of their worſhip and ſeruice? Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for theſe then for the other? Secondly, who ſeeth not, that the argument here, is not of whatſoeuer thing is vſed among the Turkes and Papistes, but of the Ministerie and worſhip which they hauehave deuiſed and executed: As in particular, of the publique offices of Ministerie retey ned among them, of their maner of calling, and entrance into them: of their administration of them: of their ſtinted impoſed Liturgie: their eccleſiasticall gouernement, cannons, proceedings, &c. All which in the church of England are taken out of*Reu. 17.4, 5 2. Theſ. 2.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. that golden cuppe of abominations, whereby Antichrist, That man of ſinne, hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken: as may appeare by cō paring their Pontificalls, Canons, and constitutions togeather. If this man will needes be otherwiſe minded, then let him proue the particulars aforeſaide, by the Testament of Jeſus Christ.
Furthermore alſo, marke here, that he graunteth, the doctrine of faith conteyned in their booke of Articles, cannot make him a true Chriſtian, that holdinge them, doth withall receiue and ioyne vntounto the publike worſhip, perfourmed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies. This he ſaith he graunteth as moſt true, Wherevpon it followeth, euen by his owne confeſſion: Firſt, that ſuch thingh then may be ioyned with the doctrines of faith receiued among them, as they in ſuch eſtate cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, Neither the truthes which they holde, be auaylable to them. Secondlie, that therefore the Propoſition of his First and mayne Argument, is not generall, but admitteth limitation, & ſo his greatest defence is of no weight, as before is ſhewed in the beginning, in our anſwere to that Propoſition. Thirdlie, that his anſwere to our Seconde Exception before alleadged, is of no force, howſoeuer heere and eueryevery where he referre vsus to it. For which alſo we referre the Reader, to that which is ſaide in that place, in defence of the Exception aforeſaid, As alſo for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. vntounto that which is ſaid concerning it in defence of our First Reaſon before alleadged.
H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reaſon.
IN this your defence of your 4. Reaſon, you renewe your Sophiſtrie; And that which is worſe, you wil not be tolde of it. Is it becauſe of the goodnes of your Reaſon that I denie no Propoſition? Nay, it is for the badnes of it: becauſe all is nought, all deceiptfull and ſophiſticall. Therefore I muſt diſtinguiſh euen ſo ſtill as I did before, and my diſtinction is good, cleerelie diſcouering all your fraude. What ſay you againſt it: Firſt (you ſay) Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Antichriſtian and accurſed, aſwell as the reſt of their worſhip & ſeruice? Aſwell? Forſooth, I trow not, (that is, not as much). Their inwarde impietie and falſe faith againſt Chriſt, the onelyonly all-ſufficient Sauiour, is farre more accurſed, and diueliſh then their bare outward orders, ſeparated from the reſt of their faith. But whoſoeuer ioyneth ſimply, and indifferently, either to Thukiſh, or Popiſh Aſſemblies, doeth ioyne with their whole, and worſt abominations, which hauehave no communion or coherence with Chriſt in deede, Neither can we alſo, if we ioyne therein. The caſe is not like, when we reteyne and vſe, ſome of their outwarde orders in our Aſſemblies.
And here you note that I graunt, Some thinge may be ioyned vntounto our Chriſtian faith in England, which would vtterly deſtroy it. Moſt true, And here I note your moſt vncriſtian and falſe dealing with me, in affirming otherwiſe of me, As I hauehave expreſſed in the beginning, about the taking of my Firſt maine Propoſition there. Which ſee further in pag. 4.
Laſtlie, my reference to the anſwere of your Firſt Reaſon, is a fit and full Refutation of you here, Neither is your Defence any thing againſt it, as there appeareth. Alſo this your Reaſon includeth Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. to be no true Chriſtians neither, as hath bene often alleadged.