Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England — Francis Johnson

Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England · Francis Johnson

Chap. 12. The Sixt Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.

Fr. Io. THe Samaritans (thoſe counterfeit children of Abraham Iſaak and Iacob) did publiquely profeſſe that moſt excellent doctrine of the Meſſias to come (the truth of which doctrine how powerfull it was to ſalvation the Scriptures teſtify). Yet doeth our Saviour Chriſt repute them falſe worſhippers of God, becauſe their worſhip was a mixt one, framed after the inuentions of men and traditions of their Forefathers. Therefore ſaith Chriſt vntounto them, Ye worſhip that which ye know not, we worſhip that which we knowe, for ſalvation is of the Iewes. By which appeareth, 1. That although the Samaritans profeſſed this ſaving truth, yet (being falſe worſhippers of God) they could not truly challendge vntounto themſelves in ſuch eſtate, the benefite thereof. 2. That the Iewes and they which held their faith, being then the true Church and people of God, to whom his Oracles were committed, and to whom his Couenantes and ſervice did appertayne, Chriſt therefore accounted the Iewes (and not the Samaritans) to be the true worſhippers of God and heires of ſalvation. Iohn. 4.22. compared with ver. 20.25.29. and with 2 King. 17.24. &c.

In like maner, the people of theſe Eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies ſtāding ſubiect to a counterfeit Miniſtery and worſhip, (being alſo commingled togeather of all ſortes of people:) Though they profeſſe ſome truthes which otherwiſe are available to ſalvation, yet can not in ſuch eſtate by the word of God be deemed true Chriſtians or true Churches. Neither can (ſo ſtanding) challendge vntounto themſelves the benefit of thoſe true doctrines which they profeſſe: becauſe God hath not made his promiſe vntounto any falſe Church or worſhippers of him: neither committed vntounto any ſuch (but onelyonly to his true Church and worſhippers) his ſervice and holy things of his word, prayer, Sacraments, Cenſures, &c.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 6. Reaſon. THis your Sixt Reaſon is, The Samaritans (beleeving that Meſſias ſhould come, Iohn 4.25.) were as neere ſalvation as we of England are. But they were falſe worſhippers for all that. Ergo, ſo are we, for all our holy doctrines beleeved according to that Book of Articles.

I deny the propoſition. The Samaritans might know by hearſay and beleeve, the Meſſias ſhould come, and Balaam did know it, Nomb. 24.17. and the Divels doe now knovv and beleeve, Iam. 2.17. Yet none of theſe beleeved [in] him. It follovveth not therefore, that they vvere as nigh ſalvation as vve of England. In a vvord, there is a Reaſon manifeſt. Theſe Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idols vvith the God of Iſrael. 2 Ki…g. 17. Which vvholy deſtroyed the truth in them, though they did reteyne ſome memoriall amongſt them of Meſſias to come.Pag. 62 Wherefore here take the Second Anſvver to the Firſt Reaſon before. But I vvill help you vvith an Obiection, ſurely one fitter then all theſe.

The Iſraelites vnderunder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethell ſerved not Pagan Idols, Obiection. but the true God after their ovvn deuiſes, vvhichwhich yet reſembled the ordinances of Ieruſalem. 2 King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. Hovvbeit they were falſe worſhippers, onelyonly for their falſe Miniſtery and outward falſe worſhip, for all that they beleeued in the God of Ieruſalem otherwiſe rightly.

Ergo, ſo are wee of England only fot our falſe Miniſterie and outvvard vvorſhip.

To this vvee aunſvvere alſo, vvhat additions of deuices, Anſvver. and hovv groſſe Idolatrie they held, it appeareth not: But ſurely it ſeemeth farre groſſer, and filthier then the vvorſt is vvith vsus: But yet this appeareth cleerly that the conſcience of eueryevery of them, euen of the ſimplieſt, muſt needes be conuicted, that Ieruſalem vvas the only place, and‡My meaning vvas, the Levites vvere not of Aarons line, but the Priſts onelyonly. Aarons line the only Prieſts & Leuits. Therfore they could not be indeed true vvorſhippers, nor vvithin the couenant, nor neere to ſaluation, vvhen they all openly rebelled, and forſooke them deſperatly, vvhom the Lord had ſo expreſly choſen. Novv our aſſemblies throughout Englād hauehave not their conſciences ſo conuicted in the Hyerarchie and Ceremonies. Ergo, vvee may be in the couenant, vvhichwhich they vvere not, for all our corruptions.

Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 6. Reaſon. THis Reaſon (as the reſt) you neyther propound as we did, nor make aunſwer directly and ſoundly to any part thereof. Now that the nakednes of your anſwer, and light of the truth may better appeare, we will propound the Reaſon more plainlie in a Syllogiſme, thus.

The people and aſſemblies, whoſe Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution is ſuch as to them in that eſtate the Covenantes, holy things, and ſervice of God do not appertayne, they can not in ſuch conſtitution by the word of God be deemed true Chriſtians or true Churches, whatſoever truthes they profeſſe beſides.

But ſuch is the Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution of the people and aſſēblies of England, as vntounto them in that eſtate the Covenauntes, holy things, and ſervice of God do not apperteyne.

Therefore the people and Aſſemblies of England, can not in that cō ſtitution, by the word of God, be deemed true Chriſtians or true Churches, whatſoever truthes they profeſſe beſides.

The Propoſition none will deny. The Aſſumption is proved thus:

The people and Aſſemblies whoſe Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution is ſuch, as they worſhip God after a falſe maner, never appointed by himſelf, nor approved in his word: their conſtitution is ſuch, as vntounto them in that eſtate, the covenaunts, holy things, and ſervice of God do not apperteine.

But ſuch is the Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution of the people and Aſſēblies of England, as they worſhip God after a falſe maner, never appointed by himſelf, nor approved in his word.

Therefore the Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution of the people and Aſſemblies of England is ſuch, as vntounto them in that eſtate, the Couenaunts, holy things, and ſervice of God, do not apperteyne.

The Propoſition was proved by the example of the Samaritans, and by Chriſts ſpeach concerning them in ſuch eſtate, Ioh. 4. & 2 King. 17. wherevnto you anſwer nothing to any purpoſe, ſave that what you ſay, is againſt your ſelf. For where you graunt, That the Samaritans, and Balaam knew and beleeved the Meſſias ſhould come, yea and that the Divels know & beleev there is a God, and that Ieſus is the Chriſt, the holy one of God: Who ſeeth not, that moſt excellent truthes may be acknowledged, and yet they which ſo profeſſe, be not therfore in their eſtate true Chriſtians or true Churches, to whom the Couenauntes, holy things and ſervice of God do apperteine?

And where next you ſay, The Samaritans beleeved not in the Meſſias, it will be heard for you to proove it, ſeeing you take beleefe in Chriſt ſo, as it is had in the ſpirituall Babylon and her daguhters; and ſeeing alſo the Samaritans profeſſed and beleeved, not onelyonly that the Meſſias ſhould come, but even he which is called Chriſt, and that when he came he would declare vntounto them all things. In ſo much as when Ieſus was come, and had ſpoken but to a woman of Samaria, the Scripture witneſſeth, that many of the Samaritans of that city beleved [in him] for the ſaying of the woman which teſtifyed, he hath tolde me all things that ever I did. Iohn 4.25.26.29.30.39.

Thirdly where you ſay, The Samaritans ioined Heathniſh Idols with the God of Iſraell, whih wholy deſtroyed the trueth in them: By this againe it is evident, even in your owne confeſſion, both that ſuch things may be ioyned with the doctrines of trueth, as (in that eſtate) they which profeſſe thoſe truthes, can not be iudged true Chriſtians or true Churches, to whom the promiſes and holy things of God do belong; and that therefore alſo, the Propoſition of your principall and maine Argument is not generall, but of neceſſitie admitteth limitation. So then your maine defence falleth to the ground. Of which ſee further Pag. 5. &c.

Moreover, in that you ſay, The Samaritans ioyned Heathniſh Idols with the God of Iſraell (2 King. 17.) If you meane, that they worſhipped the Idols themſelves,… King. 17. ſacrifycing to them, and accompting them to be Gods as well as the God of Iſraell, and ſo brake the Firſt cōmaundemēt, as before you affirmed in your anſwer to the Firſt Reaſon: then I take it, that here againe you are deceived. The ſcripture ſayeth they worſhipped and ſacrifized to the Lord God of Iſraell. So as their ſinne was againſt the Second commaundement, in that worſhipping the true God,See before, Pag. 67. 68. they did it in, and by thoſe Images, as alſo by other devices of their owne and traditions of their predeceſſours.

That this was their caſe (beſides that it appeareth in the chapter alledged) it is moſt plainly teſtifyed, 1. Firſt by themſelves, in the book of Ezra, where they ſpeak to the Iewes of the captivitie, that builded the Temple, ſaying:*Ezra. 4.1.2 We will build with you, for vve ſeek the Lord your God as ye do, and we have ſacrifyced vntounto him ſince the tyme of Eſar Haddon King of Aſhur, which brought vsus vp hither. 2. Secondly, by the ſpeach that was between Chriſt and the woman of Samaria, Ioh. 4. where it is manifeſt, the“Ioh. 4.20.21 22.23.24.25.29.30. contention between the Iewes and the Samaritans, was not whether onelyonly the true God vvas to be vvorſhipped, but (both of them agreeing in that) vvhether the ſolemne place of his vvorſhip vvas in Ieruſalem, or in the mount of Samaria, &c. 3. Laſtly, by your owne confeſſion, when‡Pag. 105. you ſay the Iſraelites vnderunder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel, ſerved not Pagan Idols but the true God after their ovvne devices. For the Samaritans (as the†2 King. 17.28.32.33. Scripture teſtifyeth) worſhipped the ſame God, and after the ſame maner that the Nations did vvhichwhich vvere caried from thence. Now the nations thence carried, were the tenne Tribes of Iſrael that fel away from Iudah to Ieroboam. Who likewiſe♣1 King. 12.27.28.29.30.31. with 2 King. 17.32.33.40.41. feared the Lord and ſerved their Images, that is, God in and by their Images: As now alſo the Samaritans did that were come in their ſtead. Hitherto of your anſwer which ſeemeth to concerne the Propoſition of the latter Syllogiſme.

The Aſſumption was ſhewed by this, that your Aſſemblies being commingled togeather of all ſortes of people, you have alſo for your vvorſhip of God, a counterfeit Miniſtery and ſervice, deviſed by man: This you do rightly vnderſtand (as we meane it) of your Hierarchie and other abominations before rehearſed.Pag. 63. &c. Which deceiptfully here againe you would ſmother vp vnderunder the name of ceremonies. Touching which ſleight of yours, ſufficient is ſaid before in the handling of the Firſt Reaſon.

But what ſay you now cōcerning the Aſſumption or proof of it? Do you deny it? Not ſo. What then do you ſay for your counterfet Hierarchie, vvorſhip, &c. Not a word but this, That your aſſemblies in England have not their conſciences conuicted in theſe, as the people vnderunder Ieroboam could not but have their conſciences convicted then, touching their vvorſhip and Prieſthood. But firſt if this were ſo, is it any juſt defence of your Miniſtery, vvorſhip, or eſtate, that yet you ſee them not to to be vnlawfull, as it could not be but they vnderunder Ieroboam ſaw theirs to be? If this were a ſufficient reaſon, might not the groſſeſt Papiſts plead likewiſe for their Miniſtery, worſhip, and eſtate: as alſo the Vſurers, extortioners, and perſecutors, for themſelves and their wickednes? And by this reaſon, God ſhould not have ſent Lyons among the Samaritans, 2 King. 17.26.becauſe yet they knew not the maner of worſhipping the God of Iſraell, neither had their conſciences convicted therein.

But Chriſt hath taught vsus otherwiſe,†Luk 12.48. that even that ſervant, vvhichwhich knovveth not his Maiſters vvill, and yet committeth things vvorthy of ſtripes, ſhalbe beaten, though vvith fevver ſtripes, then he that knovveth and doeth it not. And of thoſe Iſraelites aforeſaid the Lord himſelf teſtifieth“Hoſ. 4.6. that they vvere deſtroyed for lack of knovvledge. So then your peoples ignoraunce (which you plead) can be no ſufficient defence for your eſtate. Or if it could, yet it ſeemeth they of Iſraell might aſwell have alleadged it for thēſelves, ſeeing the Lord witneſſeth of them*Hoſ. 4.1. that there vvas no knovvledge of God in the land. And thus the Obiection alſo here brought by your ſelf, remayneth ſtill vnaunſwered.

Where you ſay, Aarons Line vvere the onelyonly Prieſts and Levites, you are alſo miſtaken therein. In deed Aarons Line onelyonly was the Prieſts, but the Levites were generally of the Tribe of Levi, though not of Aarons line.

But to let this paſſe: We would know a ſufficient reaſon, why the true vvorſhip and Miniſtery appointed by Chriſt in his Teſtament, ſhould not be aſwell knowne vntounto you in theſe dayes, as in the defection of Iſraell? You ſay, They could not but knovve that Ieruſalem vvas the onelyonly place, & Aarons line the onelyonly Prieſts. Well then: Have not you the Scriptures aſmuch as they had? Or hath not♣Heb. 3.1.2.3.4.5.6. Chriſt the ſonne ben as faithfull in the houſe of God, and as plainly ſet downe his will for his true worſhip and Miniſtery in the tyme of the Goſpell, as Moſes the ſervant was and did for the tyme of the Law? Yea and have not*VVitnes the publik Treatiſes, Sermons, Admonitions, Cōplaintes, Supplicatiōs & Demonſtrations, to the Parliament, beſide the bandes & ſufferings of many in this behalfe. theſe by the word ben made manifeſt to the conſciences of men in theſe daies, and even to the high Court of Parliament, repreſenting the whole body of the land: as the other were to the Iſraelites in the tyme of their defection? Finally doeth not this Land ſtand in as open rebellion againſt, and forſaking of the true Miniſtery, worſhip, and order appoincted by Chriſt to his Church now, as they did then (if not more open and greevous) not onelyonly for the cauſes aforſaid, but becauſe you have alſo†VVitnes the Pontifical, Porruis, Canons, and Conſtitutiō of the popiſh & your aſſemblies, compared together. received and ſtill reteine a falſe Miniſtery, worſhip, and confuſion of the Man of ſinne, that ſonne of perdition, and capitall enemie of the Lord Ieſus Chriſt? And yet moreover leaſt you ſhould be behind them in any thing, and not every way farre exceed them, do alſo‡VVitnes your priſons gallovves Statutes & c perſecute vntounto bandes, exile, and death, ſuch as beare witnes to the truth of Chriſt, againſt your abominations.

By this then is manifeſt, that you have neither iuſtifyed your eſtate in reſpect of the Apoſtate Iſraelites, nor anſwered the Obiection “pag. 105.here framed by your ſelf againſt your preſent conſtitution. So that it alſo ſtill remaineth vponupon you as a teſtimony againſt your preſent eſtate. We indeed neyther did nor needed propound it, as a ſeverall Reaſon amōg thoſe we ſet downe, becauſe it is of like nature with thoſe which we have already mentioned in the Second and Sixt Reaſons here before alleadged. Pag. 82. and 104.

H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 6. Reaſon. IN this your defence of your 6. Reaſon you ſay, That the Propoſition of your last ſyllogiſme, [They that worſhip God after a falſe manner, Pag. 106.are no true Christians] is proved by the example of the Samaritans, and that I anſwer nothing against it.

Firſt I ſay there you ſophiſticate againe. And it ſeemeth you can doe nothing elſe in argumentation. For your Propoſition is aequivocall and ambiguous. If you meane they that vvorſhip God after a falſe manner, that is totally or els Fundamentally. Then I cleerely graunt it, and that the Samaritans doe prove the ſame, ſeeing they erred Fundamentally. But your Aſſumption touching vsus, is then vtterly falſe. You bring not a ſyllable or one letter, to prove either of theſe tvvo againſt vsus, in all your writing, neyther can you, but bare begging of the controverſie which is infinite ofte. If you meane in your Propoſition, They that ſerve God after a falſe maner, that is, in part, not wholly nor Fundamentally, As namely in the Hierarchy and externall ceremonies as Cranmer &c. Then I ſay and a vouch confidently in the preſence of God, that ſuch may be true Chriſtians, though vnperfect in many things. Yea infinite, ſuch have ben, are, and may be hereafter, true Chriſtians. The contrarie whereof, is no leſſe then horrible blaſphemy againſt God and his Saincts, wherefore your Propoſition is ſhewed to be againe ſophiſticall, as alſo thoſe were in your Third Exception, & Firſt and Second Reaſons.

Secondly where you ſay, the Samaritans prove it, & I ſay nothing against it. Marke you. Firſt I ſaid, the Samaritans might knowe by hearſay, and yet not faithfully beleeve [in] the Meſſias. You cannot be ignorant, that there is a great difference between an obſcure rumor, which ſome of them might receiue from their neighbour Iewes, and yet not hauehave it conſtantly beleeued, and held publiquely among them, as their cōmon faith. If thus the Samaritans beleeued the comming of Meſsiah, they are in no cōpariſon with vsus, we holde our moſt holy faith and doctrine by the worde profeſſedly, as the publique ordinance of our Churchs ſheweth. But furder let it be howſoeuer they held the comming of Meſsiah, yet I anſwered, The Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idols wih the God of Iſraell which wholly deſtroyed the trueth in them. And this is the very truth indeed, howſoeuer you vvill not yeld it. For you ſay, that they broke not the First commaundement, they worſhipped not the Idols themſelues, nor ſacrifiſed to them, &c. This is proued apparantly falſe in the Text. 2 kings. 17.29, 30, 31. Every nation made their Gods and put them in the houſes of the high places which the Samaritans had made, eueryevery nation in their Citties wherein they dwelt. 2 King. 17.For the men of Babel made Succoth-Benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergall and the men of Hamath made Aſhima. And the Auims made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharuims burnt their children in the fyer to Adramdech & Anammelech the Gods of Sepharuim: Therefore they vvorſhipped the Idols of the Heathen and ſacrifized to them, and accompted them to be Gods aſvvell as the God of Iſraell. And ſo broke the Firſt commandement, and therefore they touch not vsus in this queſtion, As the like I†pag. 71. hauehave truely and vvell declared before, againſt your Firſt Reaſon. Your proofes,‡pag. 107. that the Samaritans brake not the First commandement are nothing. (1) That of Ezra. 4.1.2. that they ſought the Lord as the Iewes did &c. vvas their counterfeit hypocriſy and falſe brag, yea their diveliſh cōſpiracy againſt the worſhip of the Ievves God. Do you beleve their vvordes here in this place, that they are true indeed? I graunt as I noted before out of 2 Kings 17. they had a mixed vvorſhip, ſomething of the Ievves God, but very much and (as by the Chapter ſeemeth) moſt of the Heathens Gods.

Pag. 107.2. Secondly, vvhere you ſay out of Iohn. 4. That it is manifest, there was no contention between the Iewes and the Samaritans, whether onelyonly the true God was to be worſhipped. There appeareth † no vvord of any ſuch thing.A bold aſſertion. Our Sauiour indeed noteth verſ. 21. One difference betvvene them, that vvas, but about the place of vvorſhipping on occaſion of the vvomans vvordes: But that there vvas no difference betvvene them in the obſerving of the Firſt commandement, he ſaith not. The contrary you ſavv before proved in 2. King. 17.30.31.

3. Thirdly you vrge my confeſſion, That the Iſraelites vnderunder Ieroboam ſerved not Pagan Idols but the true God after their owne devices. And you would prove it too, by 2 King. 17.28.32.33. Seeing the Samaritans worſhipped after the manner of the nations that dwelt there before they came, who were the Tenne tribes that Ieroboam drew away. I aunſvvere, Firſt it is great ſhame, that you make this my confeſſion, vvhen I expreſſely bring it in as your Obiection,Pag. 105. vvherevnto I ſet myne anſvver, that the Idolatry vnderunder Ieroboam ſeemeth farre groſſer anb filthier then the vvorſt is vvith vsus, vvhichwhich I make manifeſt by the ſcripture, not onelyonly 1. King. 12.28. vvhere Ieroboam erected viſible Idols, and very filthy ones, even calues and brute beaſts: vvhichwhich if they vvere but to vvorſhip God by, yet vvho vvould compare our Eccleſiaſticall orders to them, which♣… viz. the generall state. we profeſſe are but indifferent things, for order and comelineſſe onelyonly. Further I alledge 2 Chron. 11.15. where Ieroboam is ſaid to appoinct Prieſts, for the high places, for Divels, and for the Calves that he had made. So I confeſſe little to your aduantage. Secondly, if the Samaritans worſhipped (as they did indeed) like the Tenne tribes before them, then you are cleane gone. For though Ieroboam at the Firſt had not ioined in the Heatheniſh Idolatry, Yet Ahab did 1 King. 16.32.33. and his Sonne Ahaziah had further Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Yea the Iſraelites, as they of Ieruſalem afterwards, were Idolaters much alike 2 King. 17.19. But wee read of the Ievves vnderunder Ahas 2 Chro. 28.23. and Manaſſes and Amon. 2 King. 21. and 23.4.5.10.11.12.13. That they vſed the very Pagans Idolatrie. Yea it is expreſſed, 2 King 17.8.11.16.17. That theſe Ten Tribes vſed the very ſame. Therefore the Samaritans doing as the Iſraelites did, held ſuch groſſe Idolatry as could by no meanes ſtand with the true ſeruing of God. Finally as before is noted 2 King. 17.29.30.31. doeth expreſſe this groſſe Heatheniſh Idolatrie of the Samaritans.Pag. 109. Surely it appeareth more groſſe and worſe then the Iſraelites before them. And therefore you are greatly deceived both here and in the defence of your Firſt Reaſō before:Pag. 67.68. where you expreſlie mainteine theſe Samaritans to holde no Heathniſh Idolatrie but onelyonly to cleave to the God of Iſraell in an outward deviſed corrupt worſhip. They acknowledged him I graunt, but him only I deny, as hath ben proved.

Pag. 68.Further you affirme in your defence of your Firſt Reaſon, That they profeſſed the written law to be the rule, both for their inward beliefe, and outward manner of worſhip. Where you vvould prove it For that the Apostate Iſraelites did ſo of whom Ezeck ſpeaketh. Ezek. 43.8.Firſt this followeth not, becauſe the Heathniſh Samaritans vvere further from ſincerity, then the naturall Iſraelites commonly. Secondly, Iſraell it ſelfe in this vvretched Apoſtaſie, helde not the vvritten lavv for their rule, ſeeing profeſſedly they left this rule, and did conſtantlie vvorſhip Calves, and ſacrifized at Dan and Bethel. Thirdly, Ezechiell ſhevveth, euen there, cap. 43.7.8. they kept not this rule, but departed therefrom, and that as appeareth profeſſedly, and conſtantly. Which moſt of all is ſcene in Ahab, Ahaziah, Ahas, Manaſſes, and Amon, as is before noted.Pag. 71.110 Wherefore in theſe your ſayings Maiſter Iohnſon, you are intollerably too blame and foully deceaued. As for example, They profeſſed that vvhichwhich they did in 2 Kinges. 17.29.30.31. vvas that after the rule of the vvritten Lavv?

Next you oppugne me, for that I alleadged our Aſſemblies throughout England, hauehave not their conſciences conuicted in the Hierarchy and ceremonies, you ſay" If this were ſo, is it any iust defence of your Ministery, worſhip, Pag. 107.estate &c. I tell you it is a iuſt defence for our Miniſterie, vvorſhip, and eſtate to be as touching the ſubstance and foundation of Chriſtianitie, ſound and acceptable to God. Refute it if you can. I know it is no iuſt defence of our vvhole Miniſtery, eſtate, and manner of vvorſhip, vvhichwhich I neuer intended, much leſſe profeſſed to iuſtifie.

Where you vvould ſnatch at an aduantage about Aarons line, my meaning vvas, that they of Aaron were only for Prieſts, and their brethren of Leui, only for Leuites.

But you paſſe this, and you ſet your ſelf in earneſt, to prove vsus all conuicted in conſcience about our Hyerarchy and ceremonies. So that here you auouch openly,Pag. 5. that third generall poinct which I obſerued in my very beginning aboue, for the which you hauehave this Reaſon. Have not wee the ſcriptures as much as the Apostate Iſralites had? Or did not Christ as fully and plainly ſett downe our Ministery and worſhip in the Goſpell, as Moſes in the Law? I aunſwer, this is true, as touching the word it ſelf. In the Goſpell we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word it ſelf, as the Iewes were in Moſes: But it is not yet ſo plaine for our vnderſtanding and vſe. Why? Becauſe wee hauehave had a diſcontinuance of the‡The Paſtors of the Churches ſince, have had many corruptions mixed in their callings, they have not ben pure & ſimple ever ſince or at laſt vve cannot prove it othervviſe, by any records novv extant. ſimple offices of Paſtours, Teachers and Elders for the ſpace of a Thouſand Three hundreth, or a Thouſand Four hundreth Yeares, and a continuance of the Prelacie all this while hetherto. Alſo, for that many auncient, and late learned, and Godly Chriſtians, hauehave beleeued it, at leaſt conuenient, if not neceſſary in the Church. And they hauehave expounded the Scriptures ſo that they carry no ſmall ambiguity in this matter, in infinite Thouſands iudgement. Thus it hath pleaſed God in his prouidence, to ſuffer this miſtaking amongeſt Chriſtians, thus longe, & thus vniuerſally. Whereby it commeth to paſſe, that infinite Thouſand conſciences are not eaſely conuicted, though they bee miſtaken in this caſe. With the Iewes it vvas not ſo in this matter that vve talke of. As Moſes and the Prophets vvere moſt plain, that Ieruſalem muſt be the onlie place of ſolemne worſhip, Arons line the onelyonly Prieſts, no Calues, nor any viſible kinde of Image or meanes to worſhip God in: So alſo they conſtantly and perpetually practized that courſe, euen from Moſes till the Apoſtacie of Ieroboam. When any ſqared from this courſe, theſe vvere not onelyonly rebuked expreſlie by Gods voyce in his Prophets, from time to time: but alſo the obſtinate, vvere moſt fearfully ſmitten vvith Gods miraculous hand from heauen. So that for any to offend in theſe poinctes as Ieroboam did, it could not poſſible bee but in preſumptuous rebellion, vvith a high hand againſt God, and vvith a conuicted & ſeared conſcience. Which I ſay cannot vvith any ſhevv of ſence, be ſaid of many Thouſand Chriſtians in this caſe touching the Praelacie, &c.

Further you vrge theſe Reaſons, That this cauſe hath bene made manifest to the conſciences of men, pag. 108.yea to the Parliament of late times. You ſay vvell to the conſciences of men: but not to the conſciences of all men, or the moſt men throughout the land. Yea or the moſt of them that knovv and feare God, according to the religion novv mainteyned, This is the very queſtion. If you meane ſo, that all mens cōſciences are cōuicted in this matter, all men ſurely vvill either pitty your ſimplicitie, or laugh at your folly. I pray you Maiſter Iohnſon, conſider your ſelfe, you vvere a true Chriſtian, longe before you fell into this ſeparation. Yea moreouer you vvere learned, yea you knevv and acknovvledged theſe very corruptions a great while, and yet condemned vsus not, Nay you condemned the ſeparation earneſtly. I pray you is it not poſſible that numbers, who ſee not ſo farre as you did then, ſhould ſtill cōdemne your ſeparation, & yet be true Chriſtiās, as you acknowledg that your ſelf then vvas? meipſo teste.

That which you adde*pag. ibid. of perſecuting vntounto bandes exile and death, to proue our vtter aboliſhing from Chriſt generally: It is a toy. Firſt if you were meerely innocent, yet this could not make vsus worſe then the Iewes in Chrſtes time: who for all that they perſecuted, yet were they not wholly falne from God. Secondly you ſuffer indeed more then you need,H. …a. if that you would but acknowledge the grace of God with vsus ſo farre as it is. It is therefore not Chriſtes Croſſe in that regard, but your owne that you beare.

Finally let it bee noted, if†M. Iohnſon his contrariety proved b…tvvene his 2. Reaſon & his 6. reaſon. Fr. Io. Not proved, but pretended. See my Anſwer here following. here in this your 6. Reaſon you bee not directly contraty to your ſelf, as I hue obſerued in your 2. Reaſon: Pag. 85. For you ſay here, Pag. 104. That not the Samaritans, but the Iewes, were then by Christ counted the true worſhippers of God, & heires of ſaluation, Ioh. 4.22. But in your Second Reaſon, Pag. 82. you ſay: They that teach for doctrine mens precepts, as ‡Mat. 15.9.there Christ ſaith the Iewes then did, thoſe in particuler are no true Christians, nor their aſſemblies true Churches. Therfore you inferre, (or elſe you pretend it) that thoſe particuler Ievves were not then true vvorſhippers, nor their Aſſembles true Churches: vvhichwhich is a flat contradiction, Or elſe what is. But if you meane not this of the Ievves, then you abuſe the ſcripture and vsus, turning it cleane from them, vvhom in your Reaſon you ſpeake of, and vvhom Chriſt therein expreſly meaneth.

Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to M. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reaſon. MAny ſuch things (Mr Iacob) I have often heard: Yet God forbid, that I ſhould juſtify you or your eſtate. He that juſtifyeth the vvicked, and he that cōdemneth the juſt, even they both are abomination to the Lord. Therefore dare I not eyther juſtify your Churches wicked eſtate and perſecution,Prov. 17.15. or condemne the righteous ſervants of God which witnes the truth againſt you. But you Mr Iacob have done both, in this Reply of yours: the abomination whereof will further appeare in the diſcuſſing of the particulers hereafter.

Words in deed you have ynough, as thinking belike that at leaſt you have ſome ſhow on your ſide: but they are all to no purpoſe, ſave againſt your ſelves. I will now examine them from point to point.

Firſt for the Reaſon it ſelf, the Propoſition of the firſt Syllogiſme being ſo cleare as you can with no colour deny it, you come therefore to the latter. Where you pretend firſt to ſet it downe, and then to aunſwer it. Yet in deed you do neither. Thus firſt you ſet it downe; They that vvorſhip God after a falſe manner, are no true Chriſtians. But put on your ſpectacles, or (if you pleaſe) your eye of glaſſe, and trye agayne if you can read any better. He that hath but the halfe eye you ſpeake of ſometymes, may ſee I propounded it thus,Pag. 106. The people and Aſſemblies whoſe eccleſiaſticall conſtitution is ſuch as they worſhip God after a falſe maner, never appointed by himſelf nor approved in his word: their conſtitution is ſuch as vntounto them in that eſtate the couenants, holy things, and ſeruice of God do not appertaine. This you ſee is the latter Propoſition; Why then did you not thus propound it? Why do you ſtill tranſforme my words and Arguments into others of your owne? Is it becauſe you can find no aunſwer to them, as I have propounded them? Or becauſe men ſhould ſee in deed that to be in your ſelf, which you do vainly obiect vntounto me, viz, That you do ſophiſticate, and can do nothing els in argumentation?

Towching your anſwer to the Propoſition, If you had kept my words, what needed (I pray you) this vaine diſtinction of yours? Speciallie where there is no ambiguitie at all? Was there ever any profeſſing to worſhip the true God in Chriſt that did worſhip him after a falſe maner totally, that is, in all the particulars of their worſhip? Look to the Ethiopian Churches, to the Papiſts, to anie other falſe worſhippers of God profeſſing Chriſt: and ſee if their caſe be ſuch. Do they not hold and preach much truth? Do they not baytize in the name of the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt? &c. If you ſay, where the conſtitution of a Church eſtabliſheth a falſe worſhip of God never preſcribed by himſelf, there though they ſeem to have ſome good things, yet by reaſō of ſuch conſtitution and practiſe their whole worſhip is falſe before God totally: then ſay I alſo your caſe is ſuch, and therefore ſo of vsus to be eſteemed. Thus if there be any thing in your pretended diſtinction, it is againſt your ſelf.

But you have another clauſe in it, of worſhipping God after a falſe maner fundamentally. This you ſay you do not in the Hierarchy and externall ceremonies: and therefore you auouch confidently that ſuch may be true Chriſtians, and that the contrarie hereof is no leſſe then blaſphemy &c. 1. Firſt Mr Iacob this is but your bare affirmation, without any warrāt produced from the Scripture. 2. Secondly you ſay, ſuch may be true Chriſtians: whereas for the point in hand you ſhould have ſaid, all ſuch as towching the Church-conſtitution wherein they ſtand are true Chriſtians. If you thus affirme, prove it by the word of God. If you cannot, it will appeare to be blaſphemy rather in your ſelf ſo to affirme, then in others to deny it. Remember, it is‡Of this ſee Before, Pag. 7. 8. one thing for men to ſay, ſuch may be accounted true Chriſtians (being conſidered apart from the Church conſtitution wherein they ſtand); and another to ſay, ſuch as towching their Chur-conſtitution are to be accounted true Chriſtians. 3. Thirdly ſet the Reader mynd, how vnderunder the terme of externall ceremonies, you would ſtill hide the impiety of your falſe worſhip, and moſt filthy heap of your Antichriſtian abominations. 4. Fourthly, ſet you downe by the word of God what is fundamentall: and ſee if I prove not the Antichriſtian errors among you to be ſuch. They ſubvert Chriſts office; they are doctrines of Diuels; Col. 2.8. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3 Rev. 14.9-12. 2 Theſ. 2.3-12marks of the Beaſt; lyes and vnrighteouſnes of Antichriſt; the myſtery of iniquity; the apoſtaſy of the ſonne of perdition &c. Conſider now with your ſelf, what will follow herevpon. 5. Fiftly although your errors were not fundamentall, yet for the Propoſition it ſkilleth not, ſo as your conſtitution be ſuch as is there ſpoken of. Eyther therefore muſt you prove your conſtitution to be otherwiſe, or els both the Propoſition and the Aſſumption ſtand firme againſt you: as I have proved for both. 6. For Mr Cranmer &c. (whoſe errors you oppoſe more vntounto vsus then any word of God) I have aunſwered alreadie, and ſhewed how their caſe and yours is not alike. Pag 40. 41. Beſides that I doubt not but ſome erring in fundamentall points (as divers of the Martyrs have done) may yet be partakers of ſalvation. Of which point ſee more in the ſecond Exception*Pa. 44. &c before, and the“The anſwer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 7. Reaſō. next Reaſon hereafter following. 7. Laſtly, concerning your confident auouch in the preſence of God, know you not that the Fryers and Monks for their callings, and all falſe worſhippers for their ſervice of God, will auouch as much and as confidently as you do here? Yea and alledge that it is no leſſe then horrible blaſphemy againſt God and his Saints, to ſay the contrarie? Is this therefore of any waight for their defence? No more then for yours. To turne your owne words then vponupon your ſelf, you bring not a ſyllable or one letter in all your writing, neither can you, for warrant of your eſtate, neither againſt that I have ſaid to the contrary, but bare begging of the controverſie which is infinite often, and meer ſophiſticall dealing everie where rife throughout your Replies. Of the third Exception and firſt and ſecond Reaſons enough is ſaid before in the handling of them. All the Sophiſtry you have, will not prove them ſophiſticall. If you think good, you may trie your ſkill once againe. Yet remember how you are foyled alreadie, and know that ſtill you ſhall fynde the light of the truth to ſhine and the power thereof to prevaile againſt you, as alway it hath and will againſt all adverſaries whōſoever.

For the Samaritans (whoſe example proveth the Propoſition) I noted firſt, that moſt excellent truths may be acknowledged, and yet they which ſo profeſſe not be in their eſtate true Chriſtians or true Churches, to whom appertaine the couenants &c. This you paſſe by, as if you ſaw it not. Belike that your Reader might the leſſe mind it. Next I required proof for that you ſaid, The Samaritans beleued not in the Meſſias. Now in ſtead of proof you bring vsus, it might be, if it were ſo, let it be howſoever &c. But Ifs and Ands cannot be received for proof. Speciallie when ſuch evidence is ſhewed for their faith in the Meſſiah, as may be ſeen in Ioh. 4.25.26.29.30.39.

Where you ſay, you hold your faith and doctrine by the word profeſſedly, as the publik ordinance of your Church ſheweth: I neither heare you prove it, nor ſee the ordinance of your Church ſhew it. The contrarie I have declared before, and occaſion there will be to ſpeake of it againe. In the meane tyme tell me, whether you hold by the word profeſſedly your faith and doctrine towching the Hierarchy, the forbidding of meats and mariage, and the other particulars mentioned before, Pag. 63. &c.

Tell me alſo whether your Churches faith and doctrine, for Chriſts deſcenſion into Hell, be held by the word profeſſedly among you, viz, That Chriſts ſoule went downe into Hell, whiles his body lay in the grave. I know (Mr Iacob) for your part you will not ſticke to ſay, your Churches doctrine is not thus. For ſo I remember you have aunſwered D. Bilſon now Prelate of Wincheſter ‡ in a treatiſe which you wrote againſt him concerning this point. But how do you ſhew it in that book of yours?H.I. his treatiſe of Christs ſuffrings & deſcending into Hell. Pag. 172. 173 Thus forſooth. The Articles of the Synod holden in K. Edwards tyme have thus, As Chriſt dyed for vsus and was buried, ſo alſo it is to be beleeved that he went downe into Hell. For his body lay in the grave vntill the Reſurrection, but his ſpirit gone out from it was with the Spirits which were deteined in priſon or in Hell, and preached vntounto them, as the place of Peter teſtifyeth. But your Synod holden ſynce in the yeare 1562. you ſay correcteth it, and hath thus onelyonly, As Chriſt dyed for vsus and was buried, ſo we are to beleve alſo that he deſcended into Hell: Which you tranſlate thus, that he went vntounto the Dead. The reſt following in the Article of the former Synod, your latter doth not mention. Herevpon you gather thus. It repeateth and ratifyeth part of the foreſaid Article in expreſſe words: but part of it, euen *Not all.all and every whit that conteineth this doctrine expreſſly of Chriſts going down to the Hell of the damned, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it caſteth away. Therefore you conclude, that the publik ſentence of your Churches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the ſame, is againſt this opinion of Chriſts deſcending into Hell.

But in earneſt (Mr Iacob) do you think this reaſon is good? Then for your learning marke this which followeth, as good as yours and all one. The Letany ♣See the Books of Cō mon Prayer & Ordering Priests &c. printed in K. Edw. tyme.in K. Edwards tyme ran thus, From the tyranny of the Biſhop of Rome and all his deteſtable enormityes, good Lord deliver vsus. But your Letany ſynce in this Queens tyme correcteth it, not mentioning this clauſe at all. It repeateth and ratifyeth part of that Letany in expreſſe words; but part of it, even all and every whit of the clauſe aforſaid concerning the Biſhop of Rome and his enormityes to be prayed againſt, it cutteth of, it putteth out, it caſteth away. Look in all your books of Common prayer now publiſhed, and you ſhall fynd it as I ſay. Therefore by your Logick it will follow, that the publik ſentence of your Churches, yea the Law of the Land confirming the ſame, is againſt this, that any ſhould pray to be delivered from the Biſhop of Rome and all his dereſtable enormityes. If you will have your reaſon go for currant, then let this alſo go with it hand in hand.

Now becauſe you would here perſuade vsus, that the publik ordinance of your Church ſheweth you hold your faith and doctrine by the word profeſſedly, I will further prove vntounto you that it is the faith (or in deed an hereſy) of your Church, that Chriſts ſoule went downe into Hell, while his body was in the grave. Firſt the third Article of‡Book of Artic. publiſhed 1562. your faith agreed vponupon in the yeare 1562. hath this title, Of the going downe of Chriſt into Hell. Then the words of the Article follow thus, As Chriſt dyed for vsus and was buryed, ſo alſo it is to be beleeved that he went downe into Hell. Your tranſlating and chaunging of the words of the Article otherwiſe then they do themſelves (as I noted before) ſheweth not their meaning, but your perverting thereof. I omit, that in your aunſwer to D. Bilſon you ſet not the words of the Article of K. Edwards tyme in Engliſh at all. Belike you ſaw, it would ſooner have diſcovered your fraude. Secondly M. Nowell in his†On the Artic. of the Creed, He deſcended into Hel. Catechiſme ſaith as much as your Article doth. And this Catechiſme is authoriſed in an whole*Syn. Lond. Anno. 1571. Synod, and cōmāded to be taught throughout the Land. Thirdly (to put the matter out of all doubt) the ſinging Pſalmes printed with priviledge and authoriſed to be ſung in all your Churches♣In the Pſal. beginning thus, All my belief and cō fidence &c. have it expreſſely, thus,

And ſo he dyed in the fleſh, but quickned in the ſpirit:

His body then was buried, as is our vſe and right.

His ſpirit did after this deſcend, into the lower parts:

To them that long in darknes were, the true light of their harts.

Note alſo that the title of this Pſalme is, The 12. Articles of Christian faith. Is not this then your Churches expreſſe faith and doctrine? Yea, is not that alſo expreſſed here, which in the Article in K. Edwards tyme was mentioned? How badly then and ſophiſtically do you plead about your Churches faith and ordinance herein? Towching which (I meane, the ordinance of your Church) you may ſee D. Bilſon hath the better of you: though otherwiſe, by the word of God, it is plaine he hath the worſe, and ſtandeth in a deteſtable error, both againſt all proportion of faith, and againſt the expreſſe evidence of theſe Scriptures, Luk. 23.46. with Pſal. 31.5. Ioh. 19.30. Luk. 23.43. with 2 Cor. 12.2.4. & Rev. 2.7. & 3.21. Heb. 12.23. Col. 2.14.15. Eph. 4.8.9.10. 1 Pet. 3.18.19.20. 2 Cor. 13.4. Pſal. 16.8.9.10.11. with Gen. 5.24. & 37.35. 2 King. 2.1.11. Eccleſ. 12.7. Act. 7.59. Luk. 16.26.

But tell me now Mr Iacob, what power of Chriſt your Church hath, and in whoſe hands it is to excommunicate D. Bilſon for teaching and mainteining this or any other falſe doctrine a mong you? Your ſelf are a member of that Church together with him: You hauehave written againſt him, and by the word of God convinced him. He notwithſtanding perſiſteth, and leaveneth others as much as he can. Now if you be the Church of Chriſt (as you would beare vsus in hand) why do you not proceed with him by the†Mat. 18.17 1 Cor. 5.4.5.6.7.11.12.13. rule and power of Chriſt? Or if your Church hauehave not that power of Chriſt (as all may ſee), why do you not confeſſe it to be none of Chriſts? Even by this then (if you note it well) you may perceive what your Churches faith and ordinance is. Not to ſpeak here, of other moſt erroneous doctrines and filthy abominations mainteined among you.

In the third place, I proved the Samaritans ſinne to be againſt the ſecond commaundement, inaſmuch as worſhipping the true God, they did it in and by the Images they framed. Now your aunſwer is, that they worſhipped the Idols of the Heathen, and ſacrificed to them, and accompted them to be Gods aſwell as the God of Iſrael, and ſo brake the firſt commaundement. And to prove this aſſertion of yours true, and myne falſe, you alledge 2 King. 17.29.30.31. Where it is ſaid, Every nation made their Gods &c. But are you no better divine, then ſo Mr Iacob? Are you a teacher in this light of the Goſpell, and vnderſtand not yet this phraſe of Scripture? Know you not that the Lord “ accounteth them to be made and worſhipped as Gods, whoſe ordinances, Images, Altars, places, Miniſteryes, rites, ceremonies &c. are kept and obſerved: though it be for his worſhip and ſervice? Or mynd you not that†2 King. 17.29.30.31. theſe and the like ſpeaches in the Scripture are ſacramentall? (“ Deut. 12.30.31. Iudg. 17. chap. 2 King. 16.10-16. with 2 Chron. 28.23. 2 King. 17.7.8. &c. Hoſ. 2.16. Ezec. 14.3.4.5. &c. & 20.39.40. Exo. 32.4.5.)

When the‡Exod. 32.4. Iewes and♣1 King. 12.28. Ieroboam ſaid of their golden calves, Theſe be thy Gods ô Iſraell, which brought thee out of the Land of Egypt: Do you think they meant thoſe golden Idols now made by them ſelves, were in deed the God of Iſraell that brought them out of Egypt? Or do you not thus vnderſtand it, that they made and vſed thoſe only for ſignes and repreſentations of that God? That this was their purpoſe, appeareth both by the * occaſion of making them, and by their‡Exod. 32.4. vſe of them being made, wheras ſtill they intended their feaſts and worſhip before them and by them, to be to Iehovah the true God. (* Exod. 32.1. 1 King. 12.26.27.28.‡Exod. 32.4. Exod. 32.5. 1 King. 12.28.32.33. with Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.22.23. & 8.14. Micah. 6.6.7.)

The ſame may be ſeen in Michahs example of mount Ephraim, and in his mother, Iudg. 17. In her, that when ſhe made a graven Image, even then ſhe prayed to Iehovah the true God, and dedicated to him the ſilver whereof ſhe made that Image. Iudg. 17.2.3.4. †Iudg. 17.5.10.In Michah himſelf, that he‡Exod. 32.4. made an Ephod and Teraphim, and had an houſe of Gods, and took firſt one of his owne ſonnes, then a Levite for his Prieſt: Yet by all theſe intended the worſhip onelie of the true God. As appeareth both by his owne ſpeach,Iudg. 17.13. when he † ſaid, Now I know that the Lord (Iehovah, not Idols) will be good vntounto me, ſeeing I hauehave a Levite to my Prieſt: and by the hiſtorie following, Iudg. 18.5.6.

Yea of the Samaritans themſelves (of whom the queſtion is) when they had made their Gods and put them in the houſes of the hy places, the Scripture here cited by your ſelf ſaith, Thus they feared [Iehovah] the Lord, and appointed out Prieſts &c. 2 King. 17.32.

The words then (when it is ſaid, they made Gods &c.) are not literallie to be taken, but ſacramentallie, attributing that in phraſe of ſpeach to the ſigne, which in deed is peculiar to the thing ſignified. And this maner of ſpeaking is vſuall throughout the Scripture, both towching the true and falſe worſhip of God. The Altar which Iacob ſet vp at Shechem he called, the mighty God of Iſraell. Geneſ. 33.20. Gedeon called the Altar he made, the Lord of peace. Iudg. 6.24. The Arke is called, the Lords ſtrength and beauty Pſal. 78.61. The bread in the Lords ſupper is called, the body of Chriſt. Mat. 26.26. And manie the like ſpeaches in the Scripture are everie where to be found. Now as theſe in the true, ſo the other before in falſe worſhip of God, are ſacramentall ſpeaches. When it is ſaid then, that†2 King. 17.29.30.31 every nation made their Gods &c. the meaning is, they made Idols or Images for the repreſentatiō of God, by them to be put in mind of him and ſo to worſhip him.

Mind further, that the Scripture relating the ſinne of the Samaritans vſeth the verie ſame words and like phraſe of ſpeach as is in the ſecond commaundement: It ſaith, they made them Gods, that is, Images (as it is expounded,2 King. 17 29.33.41. verſ. 41.) and ſerved them. Which are the words alſo of that commaundement. Exod. 20.4.5. And note that whereas the firſt commaundement is directlie of Gods inward worſhip, viz, to love, truſt, feare him &c. The Second is of outward, as the verie termes of making, of Images, of bowing to them &c. which are things outward, do ſpecifie. This being noted, it giveth light for the true vnderſtanding of both theſe commaundements (which will otherwiſe be cō founded,Pag. 80. as I have ſhewed ‡ els where) and proveth the ſinne of the Samaritans directlie to have ben the breach of the Second, not of the Firſt.

Now let vsus come to the proofs alleadged in the former anſwer, and to your Replie here made againſt them. 1. By that of Ezra it is evidēt, † they ſacrificed to the Lord God of Iſraell. Ezra. 4.1.2The words of the Text are ſo plaine, as cannot be withſtood. Neither is it anie thing to the queſtiō in hand, that in hypocriſy they conſpired againſt the building of the Temple, and ſo againſt the true worſhip of God. When your ſelf or anie other amōg you do by counterfet hypocriſy and falſe brags ſet your ſelves againſt the ſynceritie and obſervation of Chriſts ordinauce (and ſo againſt the true worſhip of God) will it follow, that therefore your falſe worſhip is to ſome other then the true God; and not againſt the Second, but the Firſt commaundement?

2 That the cōtention betwen the Iewes and Samaritās was not, whether the true God onelyonly was to be worſhipped, but in what place & maner, is ſo cleare by Ioh 4. as it muſt needs be a bold aſſertion of yours to denie it. Doth not the woman of Samaria acknowledge Chriſt to be‡Ioh. 4.19 a Prohet of the true God whom ſhe worſhipped? Is not the queſtion and ſpeach between them of this onelie,†ver. 20.21.24. Where and How God muſt be worſhipped? Now if the controverſy had ben of the Perſon (whether the true God onelie or Idols alſo were to be worſhipped) to what purpoſe had it ben to contend about the Place, when as yet there had not ben agreement about the Perſon? Why did not ſhe, taking him to be a Prophet, inquire aſwell Whom as Where we are to worſhip? Nay why did ſhe not aſke this firſt and ſpeciallie? To what end was it for her to alledge the example of*Ibid. verſ. 12.20. Iacob and the Fathers, for the place, if they had not worſhipped the ſame God that Iacob and the Fathers did? Or was it ever heard, that any people but ſuch as worſhipped the true God onelyonly, did know and look for the Meſſiah to come, ſpoken of by the Prophets, as the Samaritans did? Ioh. 4.25.28.29.30.38.39.40.41.42. Likewiſe in†Ibid. verſ. 21-24. Chriſts ſpeach and inſtruction of that Samaritane woman, how plaine is it that the controverſie was as before I have noted? What commaundement (I pray you) doth the place and maner of Gods worſhip properlie concerne? Is it not the Second? Or would Chriſt (think you) inſtruct her ſo carefullie about the Second, and omit the controverſies of the Firſt (being the moſt waightie) if therein they had differed? The caſe is ſo cleare, as if you have your eies in your head, you can not but ſee it. Therefore will I ſpend no more tyme to confute you in it. Your miſvnderſtā ding and miſalledging of 2 King. 17. I have alſo diſcovered here a little before.

3. Your owne confeſſion I did and will ſtill alledge, vntill you do as plainelie revoke it, as you did at firſt affirme it. I denie not but you brought the whole Reaſon in as our Obiection. Yet that point of the Iſraelites worſhip vnderunder Ieroboam and other clauſes of the Obiection, any may ſee you ſet them downe, as being true alſo in your owne judgement. Otherwiſe how ſaid you, that it is fitter then all our Reaſons? Pag. 105.Or how did you acknowledge that their worſhip reſembled the ordinances at Ieruſalem? And to what end els did you confirme it by thoſe two Scriptures, 1 King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. A ſhame then it is and great ſhame for you Mr Iacob, at firſt to confeſſe the truth, and now when you ſee what followes vponupon it againſt you, to draw back againe. But to cleare the point from all your double dealing, I aſke, Is it not true, that the Iſraelites vnderunder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethel ſerved not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their owne devices &c. Is it not true alſo, that the Samaritās coming after them ſo feared and ſerved the Lord, as thoſe Iſraelites before had done? If you denie either of theſe, ſee here the proof of both from the word of God: Of the firſt towching the Iſraelites, in theſe Scriptures, Hoſ. 2.16. Amos. 5.21.22.23. & 8.14. 1 Kin. 12.27. & 21.29. Of the latter towching the Samaritans in theſe, 2. King. 17.28.32.33.41. Ezra. 4.1. 2. Ioh. 4.19.20.25.26.29.30. Both theſe then being true, who ſeeth not that their ſinne was directlie againſt the Second commaundement, as yours alſo is, by your owne confeſſion? Pag. 70. 71.

But you ſay Ieroboams ſeemeth far groſſer and filthier then the worſt is with you. You ſay, it ſeemeth. You ſay not, it was. But be it that it were ſo, what would it availe for the queſtion in hand? Doth ſuch anſwer anie whit help the Papiſts when they alledg it? Your ſelf do here a little after in this Replie jnſinuate as if the Idolatry of Ieroboam was not at firſt ſo ill,Pag. 110 as afterward Achabs was and Manaſſes &c. If it were ſo, was this anie defence of Ieroboams eſtate: ſeeing he notwithſtā ding ſtood in tranſgreſſion of the Second commaundement, though the other might exceed him in groſſenes or otherwiſe?

Now for the compariſon between yours and Ieroboams, you tell vsus he * erected viſible Idols, 1 Kin. 12.28and very filthy ones, even calves and brute beaſts. The ſame you might alledge of the Iſraelites with Aaron: Exod. 32.4. whoſe ſinne notwithſtanding was directlie againſt the Second commandement, as you confeſſe yours alſo is. Beſides (Mr Iacob) have not you and your Church too your viſible Idols? What els (I pray you) are your Service book; your books of Canons and Homilies; your Book of ordering Prieſts and Prelates taken out of the Popes pontificall; your Idoll-ſhepheards,Zach. 11.17 even the Prelates and Prieſts themſelves: ſuch as to whom (for any ſound knowledge they have in themſelves, or good inſtruction they give or receive of others) may fitly be applied that ſaying of the Prophet concerning Idols, They have a mouth and ſpeak not, they have eyes and ſee not, Pſal. 115.5.6.they have eares and heare not &c.

Where in the next place (to leſſen your ſinne in reſpect of Ieroboās) you ſay you profeſſe your Eccleſiaſticall orders to be but indifferent things, for order and comelines onelyonly: how abſurd againe and ſhameles is your pretence? Do you in deed profeſſe that your Book of common prayer with the other aforſaid are but indifferēt things, for order and comelines only? If ſo, then are they not the true worſhip and ſervice of God, commāded in his word, to be obſerved of his Church. For that is not an indifferent thing, but ſtraitlie enjoined to be kept without ſpot or chaunge vntill the appearing of our Lord Ieſus. Exod. 20.4.5.6. 1 Tim. 6.13.14. Col. 2.8.22.23. Rev. 22.18.19. Againe, do you profeſſe the confuſion of all maner people in the body of your Church, to be an indifferent thing, for order and comelines onelyonly? If ſo, then you might aſwell tell vsus, you profeſſe darkenes to be light, diſorder and confuſion to be order and comelines &c. Or do you profeſſe that your Archbiſhops and other Prelates and Prieſts, with their offices and callings taken out of the cup of Babylon; your forbidding of meats and mariage (called by the Apoſtle, doctrines of Divels); your retaining the Apocrypha Books in your publik worſhip,Pag 63. &c which have many lyes and great blaſphemy in them: Do you (I ſay) profeſſe that theſe with the reſt of your abominations ‡ before rehearſed, are but indifferent things, onelyonly for order and comelines? And is this in deed the profeſſion of your generall State, as ‡ here you note in the margent? Then ſure you are not far behind Ieroboam: Pag. 110.if not far worſe in ſome reſpects. And by this it is evident (to note it by the way) that your generall State is conuinced of great impietie: inaſmuch as (howſoever it ſtood for the controverſy otherwiſe, yet) none can be ſo groſſe as to deny, but thus far you are convinced that theſe are not indifferent things &c. You had need alſo look well about you, what to aunſwer for ſpeaking in ſuch maner of your generall State.

Now for Ieroboam, what will you ſay if he alſo held this, as the chief and mayne thing, ♣ that the true God, who is infinite and every where preſent, be worſhipped: but whether at Ieruſalem or at Dan; Ioſeph. Antiq. Iud. lib. 8. cap. 3.whether in Salomons Temple, or at the Calves▪ which he had now made; whether by the Levites, or by others conſecrated to that ſervice &c. that theſe and the like he accounted and vſed as indifferent things, as might ſeem beſt to ſerve for the opportunity of their dwelling, for that eſtate &c. See Ioſephus Antiquityes, if he do not teſtify thus much concerning him: affirming further, that by theſe meanes he deceyved the people and drew them from the true worſhip of God: which in the end was the cauſe of their vtter ruine. Lo here the fruit and yſſue of ſuch pretences.

Further you alledge 2 Chron. 11.15. Where Ieroboam is ſaid to appoint Prieſts for the high places, and for Divels, and for the Calves he had made. So have you alſo appointed Prieſts (ſuch as God never ordeined) and that for your high places and Calves, that is, for your Idols Temples and Service, the places and maner of your publik worſhip to this day. Of which three points, viz, your Prieſthood, Idoll-temples, A treatiſe of the Ministery of the Church of England.and falſe worſhip, I have written in another treatiſe, to which I refer you.

Where it is ſaid, Ieroboā appointed Prieſts for Divels, you are to know (if already you do not) that this is ſpoken myſtically, in reſpect of Gods account, and as it was in deed, not that Ieroboam and the people did ſo think and eſteem it themſelves. And that you may have leſſe preiudice of this which I ſay, heare it of Peter Martyr who writeth thus of it: Ieroboam and his complices ſaid, they worſhipped not the Calves, but Iehovah in that figure & viſible ſigne: but the Scripture in the Chronicles witneſſeth their imagination to be fruſtrate, becauſe in deed they did that ſervice not to Iehovah, but to Divels. P.M. Lo. com. p. 1130. Epiſt. ad Eccleſ. peregrin. Lond. I will alſo help you to vnderſtand this point by a like example, to which I ſuppoſe you will yeeld. The Papiſts in Gods account are worſhippers of Divels, Rev. 9.20. Yet in their owne judgement they do not ſo, but pretend to worſhip God himſelf. Even ſo it was with Ieroboam.

Further for the more clearing of this matter, ſee what it is in deed thus to worſhip Divels: And heare it of Mr Iunius, whoſe judgement (I know) in this caſe you will judge leſſe partiall. He in his notes vponupon Lev. 17.7. ſaith thus, Men ſacrifice to Divels, if they ſacrifice eyther in other place or after other rite and maner then the Lord hath preſcribed: See Deut. 32.17. & 1 Cor. 10.20. And this he ſheweth was the ſinne of the Iewes, both in Egypt, and in the wildernes: firſt by Exod. 32. chapter: then by‡Lev. 17.7. this verſe, where the word (hereafter, or, no more) is vſed; and laſtly by Stephens teſtimony, Act. 7.42. Ieroboam then worſhipped Divels (not in his owne purpoſe and judgement, but in Gods account) becauſe his worſhip of God was in other place and after other maner then the Lord had apppointed.

Now ſeing you graunt this here to be true of Ieroboam, how will you denie it either for the Papiſts (from whom you have borrowed your worſhip) or for your ſelves, the children of their fornications? And that you may ſee, it is a thing needfull to be mynded in your Church-conſtitution, note for your ſelves, that*1 Tim. 4.1.3. the erroneous doctrines of Antichriſt are by the Lord accounted and in the Scripture called doctrines of Divels; †Rev. 9.20.the worſhip of Antichriſt, the worſhip of Divels; ♣Rev. 16.13.14.the Miniſters of Antichriſt, the ſpirits of Divels; ‡Rev. 18.2.the confuſion of all prophane people and abomination in the body of Antichriſts Church and religion, the habitation of Divels &c. Either therefore you muſt approve your Church-conſtitution to be ſuch, as it reteineth not the erroneous doctrines, worſhip, Miniſtery, and confuſion of people brought in by Antichriſt; but the truth & way of Chriſt preſcribed to his Church: or els you ſee by evidence of Scripture, how like your caſe is to Ieroboams alſo in this reſpect. Not that you do ſo eſteem it (any more then he did) but that God doth ſo account of you and of all ſuch Churches whoſe conſtitution is to worſhip him otherwiſe then himſelf hath ordeined: howſoever your devices may reſē ble his ordinances,Pag. 105. as * you confeſſe Ieroboams alſo did. (1 King. 12.32. 33. Amos. 4.4.5. & 5.21.22, 23.) So you confeſſe ynough againſt your ſelf.

Next you alledge the examples of Ahab; Ahaziah; the Iewes vnderunder Ahaz, Manaſſes, and Amon, to whom the Iſraelites were like in Idolatry: alſo the Ten tribes: and finally the Samaritans themſelves. Theſe examples and the Scriptures cited about them, ſpeak of Baall and like Idols, and their Altars, houſes, Prieſts, &c. Now I have proved ‡ before that in and by theſe Idols and their appurtenances,Pag. 117. &c. they intended the worſhip of the Lord God himſelf. And yet further by theſe teſtimonyes of Scripture it is moſt plaine, viz. Hoſ. 2, 16. Micah. 6.6.7. 1 King. 21.28.29. and 22.12.24. Exod. 32.1.4.5. Iudg. 17.2.3.5.13. and 18.5.6.17.18.19.20. Amos. 5 21.22.23. Yea in the Scriptures which ‡ here your ſelf alledge, they are ſaid to worſhip after the faſhion of the Heathen (though it was to the true God) becauſe they ſacrificed in their hy places: Pag. 110.or on the Altars and before the Idols, eyther of the Heathen or their owne, ſet vp for the repreſentation and ſervice of God. Finally none of theſe Scriptures do ſhew, that the Samaritans did ſo worſhip the Idols of the Heathen, as accounting them to be in deed Gods aſwell as the God of Iſraell. Which is your aſſertion. So it is your ſelf Mr Iacob, that are cleane gone.

Your perventing of my words I omit. But now what will you ſay, if the caſe of the very Pagans Idolatry be not ſo cleare as you take it, for the worſhipping of the Idols themſelves, and eſteeming them to be ſo many ſeverall Gods? Auguſtine ſaith the Pagan Doctors defend their many Gods to be but*August. de Civit. Dei. lib. 4. cap. 11. one and the ſame Iupiter, that is, one God: of whom the ♣ Poet ſayth, He is throughout all the earth, the ſea, and the heaven. Virgil. 4. GeoAgaine, he teſtifyes that they themſelves did thus aunſwer him:‡Aug. Ibid. cap. 24. What, Should we beleev that our forefathers were ſo exceding fooliſh, as to think Bacchus, Ceres, Pan, and the like, were Gods? Nay they beleeved onelyonly one God: whoſe name becauſe they knew not, therefore did they honour his gifts & functios vnderunder divers names &c. Plato a Pagan himſelf, in one of his Epiſtles ſaith thus, Hereby you ſhall know whether I write in good earneſt, Plato Epist. 13. ad Dion.or not. If in earneſt, I begin my letters with the onelyonly one God: If otherwiſe, with many. Yea Phocylides an heathen Poet could ſay,Phocylides. foreign, There is but onelyonly one God, wiſe powerfull and very happy. And Epictetus a Stoick, thus, It is before all things to be learned, that there is but one God: that he ruleth all things: Epictetus apud Arriā.that he provideth for all: that whatſoever we do, ſpeak, or think, nothing can be hid from him: that we ſhould worſhip him as our Creator and Father, and the onelyonly authour of our felicity: And that if vve call vponupon God aright, vvee ſhalbe advertiſed of the beſt things by his Angels at his cōmaundement. Calvin alſo ſaith, the prophane men thought not to dravv the onelyonly God frō his heavenly throne, vvhen they feyned to themſelves many Gods: Calv. in Hoſ. 2.17.but reſerving a ſupreme Godhead over all, they vvould have Patrones, vvhom to vſe for obteyning grace and favour of the moſt high God. And by Plato himſelf it appeareth they took the Angels for ſuch, whom he calleth foreign,Plato in Epinom. e… in Cratylo. Spirits: and therefore thought they were to be honoured, foreign, as being the meanes of “or, prayſe-worthy.proſperous interceſſion or proceding. Whom therefore they vſed as helps for better acceſſe vntounto God, as now do the Papiſts their many interceſſors, who yet hold there is but one God. Thus they thought of God, and of his gifts, works, Angels, &c.

Then for the Pagans vſe of their Idols or Images, Calvin (writing againſt ſuch men as in excuſe of their Idolatry pretend,Calv. Inst. lib 1. ca. 11. ſe. 9. 1… they account not the Images to be Gods) ſheweth that neither did the Ievves think their Calfe to be God, nor the Heathen their Images: but that as the Papiſts novv, ſo the Heathen and Ievves then, vvere perſvvaded they vvorſhipped God in and by thoſe Images. Thus writeth Calvin. Then which what can be more full and pregnant againſt you? And Plutarch recordeth that Numa Pompilius (a Pagan) forbad the Romanes to think that Gods Image had eyther the likenes of Man or the forme of any creature. Plutar. in vita Numae.Neither vvas there before vvith them (ſaith he) any Image or repreſentation of God eyther painted or fayned: but in the firſt hundred and ſeventy yeares they built in deed Temples and erected holy Chappels, but conſecrated no Image at all: Even as if it vvere deteſtable to reſemble better things to vvorſe, and becauſe God can not othervviſe be perceived but in the mynd and vnderſtāding. And yet further, Plutarch alſo in an other place hath to this effect, that the Sunne, Plutar. de Iſid. et Oſyrid.the Moone, the Heaven &c. are not to be vvorſhipped; that they in deed are but looking glaſſes vvherein may be ſeen the vvorkmanſhip of God that adorneth the vvhole vvorld: And that the vvorld is no other thing but his Temple. Yea moreover (towching both theſe points now treated of) that the ſeverall nations have not their ſeverall Gods, ſo as vve ſhould think the Grecians have theirs, the Barbarians theirs, the Northerne people theirs, the Southerne theirs: But like as the Sunne, the Moone, the Heaven, the Earth, the Sea, are common to all, yet are called by ſeverall names of ſeverall people; ſo likevviſe that one divine Spirit, which framed this whole world & vvhoſe providence is over it all, yet hath ſeverall honours, and ſeverall names, attributed vntounto him, according to the lawes of ſeveral natiōs &c. Behold then what the Pagans themſelves do teſtify. Albeit I neither doubt nor deny but ſome among them (ſpeciallie in later tymes) were far more groſſe then others: even as now we may ſee in the Papiſts a great difference, among themſelves, both for their judgement and practiſe, in their Idolatry. Yet notwithſtanding by the teſtimonies aforſaid you may ſee, you had need cleare this point even for the Heathen, far orherwiſe then yet you have done. To which purpoſe I might yet alledge manie mo teſtimonies out of other Writers, which I will not ſtand to relate. OnelyOnly, to take away all ſcruple,Arnob. cōtra Gentes. lib. 6. take this withall, That Arnobius writeth the Heathen themſelves ſaid, they vvorſhipped not the Stones (or ſtony Idols) but the preſence of God exhibited at thoſe Images. Thus you ſee what the writers of all ſorts, Chriſtian and Heathen, teſtifie cōcerning this matter.

I could now alledge from the Scripture alſo, that the Apoſtle Paull affirmeth of the Gentils,Rom. 1.21.22.23. they knevv God, yet glorifyed him not as God, but turned the glory of the incorruptible God to the ſimilitude of the Image of corruptible man &c. Againe where he ſaith†1 Cor. 10.20 vvhat the Genttils ſacrifice, they ſacrifice to Divels, and not vntounto God, it appeareth they thought thē ſelves that they ſacrificed to God, when as indeed (before the Lord) it was to Divels. As alreadie the like hath ben ſhewed in Ieroboams and Antichriſts worſhip. Otherwiſe if the Heathen themſelves had profeſſed their ſervice to divels and not vntounto God, what needed the Apoſtle have ben ſo earneſt in affirming it, and in perſuading the Church of Corinth therein? Why did he not alſo vrge the Heathens owne profeſſion againſt them? Yea, what pretence any maner way could the beleeving Corinthians have had, to be partakers with the Idolaters in their Feaſts and Temples, if they had profeſſedly appointed them to Divels, and not vntounto God? Further we read that in Athens (a chief City of the Heathen) Paul found an Altar wherein was written,Act. 17.23. VntoUnto the vnknovven God. Wherevpon he reaſoned thus with them, Whom ye ignorantly vvorſhip, him ſhew I vntounto you. God that made the vvorld and all things therein &c. Now you will not deny but Paul preached vntounto them the only true God. And Paul himſelf teſtifyes, he preached the ſame God whom they did worſhip before (though ignorantlie): and of whom their owne Poets ſaid, * We are his generation. Then which what can be more plaine?Act. 17.2…. ex Arato.

Finallie conſider, that an Idoll or Image is not the thing itſelf which is intended, but a repreſentation or likenes thereof. So as even this very terme of calling them Idols or Images, ſheweth that they took not any of them to be God, but all of them to be types or reſemblances of him.T. C. Rep. 1. Pag. 42. & Rep. 2. pag. 184. &c. I could here alſo put you in mynd how Mr Cartwright hath ſet D. Whitgift at a Non plus in this very point: ſo as you might well have learned by your Archbiſhops foile, to have laid your hand vponupon your mouth.

But to leave this, I conclude by that which hath ben ſaid, that whether we mynd the nature of the word Idoll, or the teſtimony of all kind of writers, or the Scriptures themſelves: the matter is far otherwiſe and nothing ſo cleare for the very Pagans Idolary as you pretend, viz, that they ſhould worſhip the Idols themſelves, and take them to be ſo many ſeverall Gods. How much les may we admit it to have ben the caſe of the Iſraelites, yea or of the Samaritans, as you would perſwade vsus? Your ſelf then Mr Iacob are greatlie deceived both here and in your Rtplie to the firſt Reaſon before: Where I proved that which I ſaid, ſo as you are not able to take it away. In deed “ there you referred vsus hither,Pag. 71. as to the proper place for it: yet here now you bring nothing of waight more then before, either for the point it ſelf, or for the Scriptures which there I alledged. See them, Pag. 68. And Let the Reader note it.

Where you ſay I affirme, that they profeſſed the vvritten Lavv to be the rule, both for their invvard belief, and outvvard maner of vvorſhip: Shew in what words I affirme this? In what ſentence? In what clauſe? Set downe my words, and conſider your owne dealing. In deed the falſhood of that which you ſaid concerning this point, I ſhewed both by other Scriptures (which you paſſe over without any Replie vntounto them at all) and by Ezech. 43.8. Now againſt this you except,Ezech. 43.8. firſt That the Samaritans vvere further from ſyncerity then the Iſraelites commō ly. VntoUnto which I oppoſe both the Scriptures-teſtimonie, and your owne confeſſion. The teſtimony of Scripture, in that which is written 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. which ſheweth both their eſtates herein to have ben alike. Your confeſſion,Pag. 110. who graunted here a litle before that the Samaritās did in deed vvorſhip like the Ten tribes of Iſraell that vvere before them. Thus ſtill you forget your ſelf.

Secondly you except, that Iſraell it ſelf in this apoſtaſy held not the vvritten Lavv for their rule, ſeing profeſſedly they left this rule, and did conſtantly vvorſhip Calues, and ſacrificed at Dan and Bethel. This being grā ted, yet you both contradict and condemne your ſelf. Your contradictiō is, that here you ſay Iſrael it ſelf held not the written Law for their rule; and yet in the very next ſentence before preferred them afore the Samaritās in this reſpect: Or els you ſpeake nothing to the purpoſe. Your condemnation of your eſtate is, that by this reaſon of yours, neither doth your Church hold the written Law for your rule: ſeing you have as profeſſedlie (as they) left this rule, and do as conſtantly worſhip according to your Sevice beaſt taken out of the Popes porruis, and by your Prieſts and Prelates, vnlawfull as the Calves and Prieſts of Ieroboam. Not to ſpeak of your Idoll Temples, a breach of the ſecond commaundement, as Dan and Bethel were. Beſides, although the Iſraelites in their apoſtaſy left the written Law of God (as you alſo have done in yours) yet did they not in word profeſſe ſo to do (anie more then you) but contrarily: As I proved before out of Ioſephus, Peter Martyr, and the Scripture it ſelf.

Thirdly you except, that Ezechiel ſheweth even here, cap. 43.7.8. they kept not this rule, but departed therefrom, and that as appeareth profeſſedly and conſtantly &c. But marke how both here and before you chaunge the queſtion: which is not whether they kept this rule, but whether they profeſſed to keep it, ſo as they did. I ſhewed that the joining of Gods Threſholds and their ovvne togeather, did argue their profeſſion in word, but breach in deed. Their profeſſion in word, whiles they pretended to retaine Gods threſholds: their breach in deed, whiles they added their ovvne withall. To make the caſe more plaine, ſee it in your owne eſtate. Do not you profeſſe in word the written Law to be your rule? Yet do you not alſo break it in deed, whiles you joine your treſholds with Gods, that is, your invenciōs with his ordinances? To the examples of Ahab, Ahaziah &c. Pag. 122.is aunſwered before. Apply therefore to your ſelf Mr Iacob the intolerable blame and foule error whereof you ſpeak. As for example, you profeſſe the forbidding of meats and mariage at certaine tymes: the worſhip preſcribed in your Service-book and other the like, by read prayer; deviſed Homilyes: Saints dayes: Communion to one alone: women to baptize: Miniſtery of Prieſts, and Prelates: Apocrypha; and the reſt before mē tioned, Pag. 63. &c. Are theſe after the rule of the written Law?

Next followed the Aſſumption to be aunſwered: which was this. Such is the eccleſiaſticall conſtitution of the people and Aſſemblyes of England as they worſhip God after a falſe maner, Pag. 106.never appointed by him ſelf nor allowed in his vvord. This was proved by your confuſion of People, counterfet Miniſtery, Service &c. Now neyther this Aſſumption nor proof thereof, did or do you denie. So here againe you yeeld the cauſe. And whereas you were told of hiding the fowle heap of your Abominations vnderunder the terme of Ceremonies, you neither denie it nor amend it, but do ſtill vſe the ſame fraude. Mind it and amend it hereafter.

Now where you ſay, it is a iuſt defence of your Miniſtery, vvorſhip, & eſtate to be as tovvching the ſubſtance and foundation of Chriſtianity ſound and acceptable to God, if your Aſſemblies throughout the Land have not their conſciences convicted therein: You may bluſh for ſhame to ſpeak ſo ſenceleſſlie. If you meane, that your Miniſterie, worſhip, and eſtate is not in truth of the ſubſtance and foundation of Chriſtianitie, then by your owne words you ſtand in a ſtraunge and fearfull eſtate: beſides that you ſpeak not to the point in hand, and ſo there is in your ſpeach no ſence at all. Or if you meane, that howſoever your Miniſtery, worſhip, and eſtate be, whether approved of God or not, whether Antichriſtian or whatſoever els, yet your Church-conſtitution is for ſubſtance and foundation of Chriſtianitie ſound and acceptable to God: then is your ſpeach againe moſt ſenceles and abſurd. For how is it poſſible, that your Miniſterie, worſhip, and eſtate ſhould be condemned by God, Antichriſtian, or the like: and yet your Church-conſtitution either have the ſubſtance and foundation of Chriſtianitie, or be in ſuch a way ſound and acceptable to God? To be diſallowed of God, and to be acceptable to him, are contraries. Finally, howſoever your meaning be, yet ſtill your ſpeach is ſenceles and vntrue. For*Luk. 12.47.48. Hoſ. 4.1-6. 2 Theſ. 1.8. Rev. 14.9.10.11. ſinne is ſinne before God, and ſo to be eſtemed of vsus, though not ſo grievous before, as after conviccion. And mens conſciences often are convinced, when they will not acknowledge it, but withſtand the truth notwithſtanding.‡Eſa. 6.9.10. Act. 14.2. & 28.23-27. Ier. 17.9.10 For both which ſee the Scriptures here quoted: Which refute your aſſertion ſufficientlie. Beſides that you have without all ſence fancyed to your ſelf ſuch a maner of conviction, as cannot eyther be knowen or expected. Of which point I have ſpoken before. Pag 42.43.

How ſtraunge is it alſo that you ſay next, you knovv this is no iuſt defence of your vvhole Miniſtery, eſtate, and maner of vvorſhip, vvhichwhich you never intended (you ſay) much leſſe profeſſed to iuſtify? How agrees this with the title of your book which you call, A defence of the Churches and Miniſtery of England? Or will you ſeem to plead for that which you know can not be iuſtifyed? Or will you have vsus admit of an vnjuſt defence? For your ſelf confeſſe this is not a iuſt one. Or is the Office, Entrance, Adminiſtration, and Maintenance of ſome of your Miniſters lawfull, of others vnlawful? and ſo likewiſe ſome parts of your eſtate and worſhip? For you ſay here, this defends not the vvhole. Deale plainelie then Mr Iacob, and ſhew which you hold lawfull, which vnlawfull, and your proof of both. So will appeare (I doubt not) even by your ſelf, both that our ſeparation is juſt and of neceſſity to be made from your Miniſtery, vvorſhip &c. and that your defence of them is moſt ſilly and ſenceles.

That which you ſpeak of Aarons line, I ſaid before was a miſtaking: now I ſay, it is a groſſe error. And you may be aſhamed thus to hide it, whenas you ſhould rather acknowledge it, when it is ſhewed you. As for the meaning,Pag. 105. which you have now coined and newlie added in the margent, your words will not beare it. Let others judge. Thus the defence you make for your ſelf is as abſurd, as that which you make for your Church.

After this you are earneſt to perſwade vsus, that the vvord of God (though it be as plaine and full in it ſelf, yet) is not ſo plaine for our vnderſtanding & vſe novv, as it vvas for the Ievves vnderunder the Lavv. An aſſertion moſt falſe, moſt impious, ſuch as the very Papiſts (I think) would be aſhamed of. Was it ever heard afore, that the Goſpell of Chriſt ſhould be more obſcure for our vnderſtanding and vſe now, then the Law of Moſes was for the Iewes then? Was not Chriſt (think you) as willing, as able, as carefull to explane it for our vnderſtanding and vſe, as Moſes was for theirs? Or doth not Chriſt give his Spirit to his people now, aſwel as he did then? Or hath he taken away thoſe dimme ſhadowes and ceremonies, to bring now a cloud of darkenes in ſtead thereof? Or is it falſe which the Prophets foretold and the Apoſtles teſtify to be accompliſhed, for abundance of knowledge and vnderſtāding in the tyme of the Goſpell, far above that which was in the tyme of the Law? Compare together theſe Scriptures following, and ſee if the contrary to that you ſay be not moſt true. Eſa. 11.9. Ier. 31.33.34. with 2 Cor. 3. cap. & 4.3.4. Heb. 8.10.11. Ioel. 2.28.29. vvith Act. 2.17.18. Hab. 2.2. 2 Pet. 1.19. 1 Ioh. 5.20. Rev. 1.3. & 22.18.19.

But you pretend three reaſons of this your aſſertion. So alſo did Saul of his action, 1 Sam. 13.11.12. Neither was Ieroboam himſelf without colour for his deviſed worſhip, as I noted before. But this is the auncient cloke of ſinne, with which it hath ben woont alway to hide it ſelf, even from the tyme of our firſt parents. Gen. 3.6.12.13. And tell me your ſelf, If pretences would ſerve, what Schiſmatickes, Hereticks, Apoſtates, factious or contentious men ever was there, that had not ſtore of ſuch, ſo both deceiuing others and being deceived themſelves?

Yet let vsus now examine yours. You pretend (1) diſcontinuance a long ſeaſon of the ſimple offices of Paſtors, Teachers, Elders, and continuance of the Prelacy all that vvhile. So might Iſraell have alledged, 2. Chron. 15.3. Had it therefore ben of waight? And this pretence might far better ſerve the Papiſt, then it can you who confeſſe Rome to be Babylon, and know that your Prelacy, Prieſthood, and worſhip came from thence, not from Ieruſalem. Beſides how will you prove this cō tinuance and diſcontinuance to have ben ſo manie thouſand yeares, as you ſpeak of? Yet if it were, the word of God is ſtill as plaine to diſcover error, as it was at firſt to reveale the truth.

You pretend alſo (2) the opinion of many auncient and late learned godly Chriſtiās: and (3) their expoſitiō of the Scriptures ſo as herein they cary ambiguity, in infinite Thouſands iudgment. To both which I anſwer: 1. That great antiquity was alledged by the Samaritans, Ezra. 4.2. Ioh. 4.20. and is alſo by the Papiſts at this day for their Prelacy, Prieſthood, worſhip, and other their errors of Purgatory, Maſſe, Prayer for the dead, mixing water and wine in the Cup, Iuſtification by works, Extreme vnction, Tranſubſtantiation &c. And the Scriptures too are ſo expoū ded, as they carry no ſmall ambiguity in theſe points, in the judgement of infinite Thouſands.Pag. 44. 45. 2. I have alſo ſhewed before, how even ſome of the Martyrs, learned and godly Chriſtians, held divers of theſe popiſh errors vntounto death: And therefore doubtles ſo took and expounded the Scriptures as vpholding them. 3. And be ſure whenſoeuer you bring the many auncient and late learned and godly Chriſtians (you ſpeak of) for your aſſertion, that as many ſuch, if not far mo, both auncient and new may he brought to the contrary. And what then are you the nearer? 4. But in deed I deny this which you ſay. There is not teſtimony from ſuch antiquity as you ſpeak of, for your Prelacy and the reſt of your abominations before rehearſed: Pag. 63. &c. If you can therefore, ſhew it in your next. And mynd (as for the reſt, ſo) for the Prelacy in particular, that you ſhew it to be ſuch as yours, in office, entrance, adminiſtration, maintenance, &c. For although ♣ the myſtery of iniquity began to work betimes, yet it was both withheld a while from being revealed,2 Theſ. 2.3.6 7.8. with Rev. 13.11. and coming vp out of the earth, it appeared and was exalted, not all at once, but by degrees. So as it was a long ſeaſon in this riſing of Antichriſt, ere the Prelacy came to that height, which now it hath with you and in Rome the mother thereof. Search, and ſee if it be not thus. And in the meane tyme (becauſe I know you hauehave a prejudice of whatſoever I ſay) heare a litle what Mr Cartwright (one of your ſelves) hath written of your Prelacy againſt D. Whitgift now Archb. of Canterbury. Our Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Archdeacons &c. (ſaith he) beſides the names have almoſt nothing common vvith thoſe of elder tymes. Againe, If thoſe Biſhops vvere alive, they vvould not knovv ech other. For that they vvould think ours Princes, and ours would eſteeme them as hedge Prieſts, not vvorthy of their acquaintance or fellovvſhip. T. C. firſt Rep. Pag. 124. &c. and his 2. Rep. Pag. 660. And in the ſame place comparing them togeather, he ſheweth vnanſwerably in many particulars how farre they differ the one from the other. So as your Archbiſhop in this poynt alſo hath ever ſince ben at a Non plus. Now if you pleaſe, you may take your Archbiſhops quarrell in hand, and ſtrive with as good ſucceſſe, as he, for theſe and the reſt of your Romiſh traditions. 5. Finallie, remember on the one hand how our grandmother Eue, at the firſt entring of ſinne into the world, inſinuated ambiguity in the word of God, which yet in deed was moſt cleare and plaine: Gen. 3.3. with Gen. 2.17. And mynd well on the other hand, if at this day the Papiſts themſelves bring not greater ſhow of Scripture for their groſſeſt hereſies of“Iam. 2.21.24.25. Dan. 4.24. Mat. 25 35.36. Iuſtification by works,†Mat. 26.26. Ioh. 6.51.53. Trā ſubſtantiation,“Iam. 5.14. Extreem vnction,*1 Tim. 3.15 Ioh. 14.26. & 16.13. Impoſſibilitie of the Church to erre &c. then you or any other either have brought or can bring for your Prelacy and other impietyes before mentioned. Shall we therefore conclude as you do, that they are not eaſily convicted, though they be miſtaken in theſe things, God having ſo diſpoſed in his providence to ſuffer this among Chriſtians, ſo long and ſo vniverſally? God forbid.

Or ſhall we think, that Ieroboam and the Iewes (of whō you ſpeak) had not their pretences and excuſes, aſwell as you and the Papiſts? I have ſhewed before that they had. Beſides alſo, as Moſes and the Prophets were plaine againſt their corruptions, ſo are both they and the Apoſtles as playne againſt yours. As for example, that there ſhould be no forbidding of meats or mariage; no read or ſtinted prayer; no mens inventions to worſhip God by; no Prieſts in office of Miniſtery, neither any Lord Biſhops, but Chriſt onelyonly; no baptizing by women; no Idoll Temples, no Apocrypha books, or preſcribed Homilyes, for the worſhip of God; no Popes Canon Lavv, or Prelates decrees, to rule the Church by &c. Compare now with theſe, the Calves, Images, Prieſts, and places, whereof you ſpeak: and ſee if the word of God condemne not the one aſwell as the other. Mind alſo how againſt theſe, Gods voice hath ſounded in your eares by the teſtimony of his ſeruants, from tyme to tyme: and how his hand hath fearfully ſmitten you with hardnes of heart, and given you over to falſe worſhip and perſecution of the truth, beſides all other impietyes raigning among you. Then which what greater judgement can there be in this life?

Conſider alſo the example of Corah and his companions, whom the earth ſwallowed vp, and fyer devoured from heaven: Num. 16. chap. & 26.9.10. Whoſe caſe although it be handled and compared with yours in the Second Exception before (Pag. 33. 52. 55. 3.): yet becauſe of the childiſh excuſes which you ſhame not ſtill to plead vnderunder pretence of vvant of conviction, darkenes of the vvord vntounto you &c. and becauſe‡Before, Pag. 37. your ſelf alſo do judge their caſe to be moſt wretched and altogeather inexcuſable, therefore will I here againe put you in mynd to conſider well with your ſelves and to examine by the word of God, whether your ſinne may not be eſteemed in ſome reſpects greater then theirs. 1. The Office and function which they vſurped was a true one (Numb. 16.10) Yours falſe. 2. The things which they took and offred were ſuch as God had cōmanded (verſ. 18.) Yours, ſuch as man preſcribeth. 3. The people to whom they would adminiſter, were a true Church (verſ. 2.3.) Yours a falſe. 4. The reaſons which they alledged, divers of them, were more ſeeming-good, then any you bring. (verſ. 3.14.) 5. They thought they did well and as was meet (verſ 3.13.14.18.19.) You, at leaſt manie of you, know and have profeſſed that your Miniſtery and worſhip is Antichriſtian, and therefore evill and abominable. 6. They had not the written word, ſo as you have. (verſ. 5.7.9.10.28. &c. & Lev. 8. & 9. chap. wiih Heb. 1.1.2. & 2.2.3.) 7. They ſinned in one thing (verſ. 10.): You in an hundred. 8. They were twiſe or thrice admoniſhed and reproved (verſ. 4.5.8. &c.) You ten tymes. 9. They ſtood vp againſt Moſes and Aaron (verſ. 3) You againſt Ieſus Chriſt. 10. They, as they pretended, for the liberty and ſervice of the Iſrael of God (verſ. 3.13.) You (as your ſelves do know and acknowledge many of you) for *Rev. 13.16. & 17.4.5.6. & 18.3.the ſlaverie and abominations of the Whore of Babylon. Of which ſee before, Pag. 63. &c. Now your caſe being thus Mr Iacob, it is high tyme for you to lay it to heart, and to look vntounto it betymes. Or if you will not, yet let ſuch among you as feare God and tremble at his word, be warned by this example of Corah and his partakers, that they do with ſpeed depart from the tents of ſuch vngodlie men, and that they towch nothing of yours, leaſt they periſh in all your ſinnes. Numb. 16.26. with Rev. 18.4.

Neither need you or anie among you flatter your ſelves in this (as it ſeemeth you do) that the puniſhements of ſinne are not now vnderunder the Goſpell ſo outward and miraculous with Gods hand from heaven, as they were then vnderunder the Law. For firſt this argueth the more clearenes of the word now revealed (as leſſe needing ſuch outward work to be joined withall for help thereof). Which is contrary to that you ſpake before of greater darkenes in the word for our vnderſtanding and vſe now, then for theirs then. Secondly, the judgements that then came vponupon them, were for enſamples, and are written to admoniſh vsus, vponupon whom the ends of the world are come. 1 Cor. 10.11. with Num. 26.10. Thirdly, even ſince the tyme of the Goſpell there are ſome examples in the Scripture (though not ſo manie as in the tyme of the Law) of Gods miraculous hand ſmiting both†Act. 5.1-11 hypocrites in the Church, and‡Act. 13.6-11 oppugners of the truth without. Which ſhould teach all men to take heed to their wayes, aſwell as if there were a thouſand mo beſides. Not to ſpeak here of ſuch examples, as the Elcleſiaſticall ſtoryes in all ages, older ond later, do abundantlie afford. Fourthlie, the leſſe outward puniſhment is now in this life brought vponupon Idolaters, perſecutors, deſpiſers of the truth &c. the greater is reſerved for them in the world to come. Els the Papiſts and the moſt prophane might pretend this for themſelves, aſwell as you. And yet too,In the yeare, 1593. &c. take heed you forget not * the great plague and famine by which God hath pleaded againſt England alreadie. Neither do you know what other judgement he hath in ſtore for you even in this life, if you ſtill perſiſt in your Antichriſtian eſtate, and will not be reclaymed. Finally, for full aunſwer of all you ſay here, read and mynd well that which is written, Eccleſ. 8.11.12.13. & 9.1.2.3. & 12.13.14.

Towching the eſtate of Ieroboam and the Iſraelites compared with yours, I have ſpoken ynough before.Pag. 110. &c. I wiſh your caſe were not in divers reſpects worſe then theirs.

Where I ſaid, this cauſe hath ben made manifeſt to the conſciences of men, to the high Court of Parliament &c. you graunt in this I ſay well. If ſo, then your ſelf have done ill in reſiſting it ſo long. But now it is well you yeeld it at length. Yet behold, as if you feared to yeeld to much to the truth at once, you do by and by except, that it is not made manifeſt to the conſciences of all men, or the moſt, no not of them that know and feare God among you &c. 1. If it be not, where is the fault? In the maner of conviction, or in your ſelves? That it is not in the conviction, your ſelf teſtify, ſeing you graunt it is ſuch, as thereby to ſome mens conſciēces the cauſe is made manifeſt. Why then ſhould it not be likewiſe to the reſt, if your owne blyndnes or wilfulnes (through the juſt judgement of God) were not the hindrance?

When Paul at Rome teſtifyed to the Iewes the kingdome of God &c. ſome were perſwaded with the things that were ſpoken, but ſome beleeved not, Act. 28.24.25. &c. Had it now ben any exception of waight to have ſaid as you do here, it is made manifeſt to the conſciences of ſome, but not of all &c. Nay the Apoſtle ſo reſts, telling ſuch as were not perſwaded, that this came to paſſe through their owne wilfull blindnes and hardnes of heart, by the juſt hand of God vponupon them, And to this end he alledged againſt them that ſaying of Eſay the Prophet, Eſay. 6.9.10. Which you in this caſe of yours may fitlie alſo applie vntounto your ſelues.

2. Further you can not deny but it hath to the Parliament ben made manifeſt. Now that being gathered out of all the parts of the Land, and repreſenting the whole body thereof (as I noted in my former aunſwer) by this is evident that the whole body of the Land have had it manifeſted vntounto them.Exod 3.16.18. Deut. 21.2.6.7.8. 2 Sam. 5.1.3 1 Chron. 13.1 2.4. & 28.1. 2. Act. 28.17. And this in ſuch caſes is ſufficient, yea the beſt courſe that can be taken, for the generall State. Of which the queſtion is. (In the place before alledged, we fynd that Paul judged it the beſt courſe, and ſufficient, to call together but the chief of the Iewes, and to teſtify his cauſe vntounto them. Act. 28.17. &c.) And otherwiſe how will you prove the Religion now mainteined among you to be the profeſſion and conſent of the whole Land? Do all and every one that is member of your Aſſemblies ſo profeſſe? Nay do they ſo much as know what it or anie Religion is? As then it ſtands for your profeſſion, ſo muſt it for your conviction, that what is done by or to the Parliament, it is reputed as done by or to the whole Land.

3. The books alſo that are publiſhed, and our teſtimony otherwiſe, not onelyonly by word and practiſe of vsus all, but (as is come to paſſe in many) even by death, exiſe, impriſonment, &c. are offred to all alike, and knowen ſo to be throughout the Land. If anie then be ignorant or vnconvinced, it lyeth vpō themſelves, who either beleev not what they know, or might know further if they would.Ier. 9.6. But we may feare it is with you (as Ieremy ſaid) that in deceit you refuſe to know the Lord and his truth. Beware therefore, leaſt that come vponupon you, which is ſpoken of in the Prophets, Behold ye deſpiſers, and wonder, and vaniſh away: for I worke a worke in your dayes, a worke which ye will not beleev, if any declare it vntounto you. Hab. 1.5. with Act. 13.40.41.

4. Finallie, can you give vsus a rule or inſtance of ſuch conuiction as you inſinuate? Would you have vsus go to all your pariſhes and Aſſemblies one after another, yea to every Prelate and Prieſt, man and womā, old and young, high and low, bond and free, throughout the Land, and conuince them in particular? If you meane ſo, all men ſurelie will eyther pitty your ſimplicity, or laugh at your follie. I omit that the Papiſts might thus plead, as you do. And that ſo much the more, as they bring more ſhow of Scripture,Pag. 129. then you. More ſhow (I ſay) as before I noted. For otherwiſe I know both they and you pervert the Scriptures to mainteine your errors. I wiſh it be not to your deſtruction. Conſider theſe things Mr Iacob, and returne a ſounder aunſwer, or els learne to lay your hand on your mouth.

To that which you vrge next concerning my ſelf, I have aunſwered alreadie. Pag. 41. But that which I vrged next to you, viz, your forſaking the true miniſtery, Pag. 108.worſhip, and order appointed by Chriſt (as the Iſraelites alſo did); and your retayning a falſe Miniſtery, vvorſhip, and confuſion of Antichriſt &c. This you paſſe by, and aunſwer not a word vntounto it.

Then where I alledged, that you vvere not behind, but rather exceeded the Iſraelites, in perſecuting vntounto bands, baniſhment and death, ſuch as beare vvitnes to the truth of Chriſt &c. To this you aunſwer, It is a toy. Thus firſt you make ‡ a mocke of ſinne, and ſo carry your ſelf as if you had ben Chapleine to Boner, Bancroft, Gardiner, Whitgift, or ſome ſuch Caiphas. Pro. 14.9By this alſo you teſtifie, that not onelie the Prelates and Formaliſts (as ſome would beare vsus in hand) but even the Reformiſts among whom you reckon your ſelf, have your hands in our blood, conſenting vntounto and approving that which is done againſt vsus. Further you do thus become like the Scribes and Phariſees, hypocrites, vpō whom Chriſt pronounced a moſt heavy Wo, Mat. 23.29-35.for that whiles they builded the tombes of the Prophets ſlaine by their Fathers, themſelves did kill and perſecute the witneſſes of Chriſt ſent vntounto them. And yet they bleſſed themſelues in their evill, even as you do. Behold to what height of impiety you are come, and in how fearfull eſtate you remaine.

But yet you comfort your ſelves with two things: 1. that this can not make you worſe then the Iewes in Chriſts tyme, who for all that they perſecuted, yet were not wholy fallen from God. O moſt wofull eſtate: Though yet your caſe be worſe then theirs, inaſmuch as their Church was in a true conſtitution, yours in a falſe:Mat. 21.…3 &c. Act. 2. & 13. & 17. chap. & 19.8.9. And therefore they to be admoniſhed (which was done by Chriſt and his Apoſtles) afore anie were required to ſeparate and ſave themſelves from that froward generation. Whereas the rule and commaundement concerning your and all falſe Churches is, forthwith to go out frō ſuch and to witnes the truth againſt them. (Rev. 18.4.5.6. & 12.17. & 14.12. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Phil. 1.28.29. Hoſ. 4.15. Amos. 5.5.6. Micah. 2.10.) And thus far your eſtate is worſe then theirs, ſo as both other account is to be made of it, and other maner of walking to be vſed toward it. But ſuppoſe you were both alike in this, yet moſt miſerable is your caſe, when for your perſecution you are driven to plead the example of the Iewes, 1 Theſ. 2.15.16. Mat. 23.33.34.35.† who both killed the Lord Ieſus and their owne Prophets; and did by perſecution drive away the Church and Apoſtles of Chriſt; and brought vponupon themſelves all the righteous bloodſhed vpō the earth frō the beginning of the world; and had the kingdome of God taken from them; neither could eſcape the damnation of hell, wrath being come vponupon them to the vtmoſt: as both Chriſt and his Apoſtles teſtifyed againſt them. How wofull then and miſerable is your caſe, though it be no vvorſe then theirs?

2. The ſecond thing is, that you ſay we ſuffer more then we need, if we would but acknowledge the grace of God with you ſo far as it is: & that therefore it is not Chriſts croſſe in that regard, but our owne that we beare. 1. But what if the Iewes or Papiſts did or ſhould ſay thus much vntounto them they perſecuted? Were it of anie moment? Nay did not Boner and other of the Papiſts often ſo ſpeak to the Martyrs? 2. What think you alſo of the ſuffrings of Mr Vdall; Mr Cartvvright, Mr Fenner, Mr Dearing, Mr Merbury &c. Did they ſuffer more then they needed? Or di… they not acknowledge the grace of God with you ſo far as it is? Or was it not Chriſts croſſe, but their owne that they bare? 3. Tell vsus next what grace of God is with you, which we acknowledge not ſo far as it is? Hold you anie truth of doctrine, which we hold not? Or reject you anie errors, which we reject not? Approve you anie way of righteouſnes, which we approve not? Or refuſe you anie evill, which we refuſe not? If thus we do not, convince vsus by the Scripture†2 Tim. 3.16.17. which is profitable to theſe vſes, that the man of God may be abſolute being fully furniſhed to everie good work. But if we do thus (as by the grace of God we do) then your ſpeach againſt vsus is vntrue, and your perſecution of vsus vnjuſt. 4. Shew withall in what particulars we ſuffer more then we need. 5. And prove that the things we ſuffer for, are not good but evill: Being carefull alwaie that your proofs be from the word of God, which onelie is the rule of truth. 6. Finallie we teſtify in all good conſcience before God and men, that we ſuffer onelie for bearing witnes to the truth of Chriſt, againſt the abominations of Antithriſt. And this the Confeſſion of our faith alreadie publiſhed in Engliſh, Dutch, and Latin, doth and will teſtifie to the ages preſent and to come. As alſo our other writings, Examinations, Aunſwers, Conferences &c. For which you have alreadie condemned and put to death divers of vsus, and others you have impriſonned, impoveriſhed, baniſhed &c. It is then Chriſt his croſſe, which we beare, through his grace. And you are become fighters againſt God, and perſecuters of Chriſt in his members. Yea even this writing of yours proclaimeth, that you are now alreadie become drunken with the blood of the Saints, and with the blood of the Martyrs of Ieſus. Els could you never have pleaded ſo wickedlie, nor bleſſed your ſelves ſo fooliſhlie, as you do. But we will leave you and our cauſe vntounto God, who judgeth righteous judgement, and will give every man according to his works. When he maketh inquiſitiō for blood, he will remember all that you have done vntounto vsus, and will not forget the complaint of the poore. Therefore will wee wayte on him and ſay no more, but with Zechariah (when he was put to death)‡2 Chron. 24.22. The Lord look vponupon it and requier it.

In the laſt place you vrge againe that there is contrariety betvveen my ſpeach here, and in the ſecond Reaſon before. (1) But I pray you tell me, Saith not the Scripture both the things that are ſpoken in theſe two places? Read we not for the one, that Chriſt accounted the Iewes, not the Samaritans, the true worſhippers of God. Ioh 4.22. &c. And for the other, that Chriſt notwithſtanding ſaid to ſome of the Iewes,Ma…. 15.9. they vvorſhipped God in vaine, teaching doctrines mens precepts. Mat. 15.9. How ſay you Mr Iacob, is the Scripture therefore contrarie to it ſelf? Or were Chriſts ſpeaches contrarie the one to the other?Pag. 83. (2) Beſides, are you ſo dull as you can not conceive (no not when it is told you) that the ſinnes and corruptiōs of the mēbers of a true Church, may fitlie be alledged againſt whole falſe Churches: and yet neither condemne the true conſtitution of that Church wherein the one ſtand, nor juſtifie the falſe conſtitution of the other? (3) Yea, know you not that a Church in true conſtitution jointlie conſidered may be ſaid to be true vvorſhippers of God &c. and yet ſome, yea manie of that Church be ſaid alſo through their owne default in other reſpect to vvorſhip God in vaine, or to be tainted with Idolatry, or the like? And yet no contradiction be implyed in ſo ſaying. Seing you cannot vnderſtand it in Chriſts words concerning the Ievves, ſee if you can perceive it in Pauls to the Corinthians. When he ſpeaketh to the whole Church jointlie conſidered, he commendeth them for keping his ordināces, and acknowledgeth they call on the Name of the Lord Ieſus. 1 Cor. 1.2. & 11.2. But when he ſpeaketh in reſpect of ſome that ſate and eat of the ſacrifices in the Idol-temples, he biddeth them fly from Idolatry, and telleth them they cannot be partakers of the Lords table and of the table of Divels. 1 Cor. 10.14.21. & 8.10. Yet is he not contrarie to himſelf for all this. Mynd withall what I aunſwerd before concerning this point, in the Second reaſon. Pag 90. And ſo againe I leave it to the Reader to judge whether the contrariety you ſpeak of be not in deed an harmony, and that therefore you abuſe both the Scripture and vsus.

Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 12

p. 104Chap. 12. The Sixt Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.

Chap. 12. The Sixt Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.