Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 13
Chap. 13. The ſeventh Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.
Fr. Iohnſon. If the Spirit of God account them to be departers from the faith (and conſequentlie no true Chriſtians) who though they hold other truthes of the Goſpell, yet forbid to marry, and commaund to abſteine from meats, vvhichwhich God hath created to be received vvith thankeſgiving: Then ſuch account muſt needs be made of the eſtate of the Church of England, which not onelie both theſe things, but withall forbiddeth the true Miniſterie and worſhip of God, and commaundeth a falſe: Whoſe Miniſters and people alſo do all of them partake therein. (For proof whereof, beſides their practiſe of theſe, and perſecution of the truth, ſee their owne Canons, Articles, Statutes, Iniunctions, &c.)
But the former is true, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Therefore &c.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 7. Reaſon.…, 1…. THis yout ſeaventh Reaſon is: They are departed from the faith, that forbid to marry and commaund to abstayne from lawfull meates: Alſo this is worſe, then that: viz. to forbid the true Ministery and to commaunde a falſe: which we in England doe. Ergo we are departers from the faith.
(I deny this Antecedēt, that is your Aſsumptiō with a diſtinctiō.) The Papists†See …h…, Teſtam. in Mat. 15.18. Fr. Io. See D. Fulke… anſwer therevnto. forbidding of mariage & meals, if they had don no worſe doth not make them departers frō the ſaith (that is, not)“or not fū damentally, not ſimply, vvhichwhich vvord…s I think …itter to bee here vſed, as in my next Reply is further declard. totally. No more could their Hyerarchie and ceremonies ſimply: Neither doe theſe things make vsus, the Proteſtants, to be ſuch. The Papiſtes fall from Chriſt (‡That is fundamētally, & ſimply: ſee in the 2. Reply follovving. wholy) in other poincts, namely 1. The Papall ſupremacy. 2. The ſacrifice of the Maſſe. 3. Iustification by workes: Which bleſſed bee God wee are farre from. Therfore the Apoſtle in ſaying, They departed from the faith, meaneth, in*vid. in abſtayning frō Mariage and meetes. theſe poincts they (erred or) departed from the faith, but not abſolutly and wholy. 2. Furthermore (touching your Propoſition) if you vnderſtand Paul, of Martion the Heretike, and Tatianus, who did abſolutly condemne Mariage and certen meats, they even therein might vvholy fall frō the faith, (I meane) ſomwhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and thoſe Apoſtate Iſraelites“Pag. 105.112. lately ſpoken of, namely for having their conſciences convicted, and ſeared with a whot iron. And thus are they in no compariſon with vsus of Englād (nor with the Papiſtes neither, if they had erred in nothing elſe).
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 7. Reaſon. HEre, being not able with any colour to deny the conſequent of the Propoſition, neither to juſtify your preſent Miniſtery, worſhip, Canons, Articles, Iniunctiōs, &c. (which you muſt do Mr Iacob, and ſtill we call for it, if you will juſtify your preſent eſtate): yet being deſperate ſure, for els you would never have done it, you feare not to gainſay the Aſſumption, that is the very words and teſtimony of the Scripture it ſelf, 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. The Apoſtle ſaith, that they which forbidd Mariage and Meats, are departed from the faith. You ſay, No. Now whether (I pray you) ſhall we beleev. You, or the Apoſtle?
But what colour have you for your deniall? This forſooth: That they which doe ſo, do not depart from the faith totally, and that the Apoſtles meaning is, that in theſe poincts they depart from the faith, but not abſolutly and wholy. So by your conceit, none may be accounted departers from the faith, that depart onelie in ſome poincts, but they which doe it totally from all. And thus may no heretikes or Antichriſts that euer hauehave bene, or ſhalbe in the world, be iudged departers frō the faith, becauſe they depart from it but in ſome poincts, and not abſolutly from all. Thus have you juſtified at once the Arians, Neſtorians, Sabellians, Papiſts, Familiſtes, Anabaptiſtes, and whom not? becauſe they depart but in ſome, not wholy from all poincts of faith. Is it not great pitie that Antichriſt hath ſo long wanted ſuch a ſtout Champion, as can thus in one word juſtify his forbidding of meates and mariage, yea and his moſt deteſtable Hierarchie and ſuperſtitions withall?
By your learning (Mr Iacob) all the Martyrs and writers heretofore, which by evidēce of this Scripture convicted the Synagoges of Antichriſt to have departed from the faith, and therefore ſeparated from them, were vtterly deceived: Yea and the Apoſtles themſelves were wholy miſtaken, when they call Antichriſts Church and Religion♣2 Theſ. 2.7. a myſterie of iniquitie; which ‡1 Tim. 4.2.ſpeaketh lies through hypocriſy; *2 Pet. ….1.prively bringing in dānable hereſies; and ‡ hauing a ſhew of godlines, but denying the power thereof: And Iohns eyes, it ſeemeth, were not matches,2 Tim. 3.4 when he ſaw in the whores forehead (that is in Antichriſts Church and Religion) a name written, A myſtery, great Babylon, the mother of vvhoredomes, and abhominations of the earth. Rev. 17.5. For now I would know of you who are ſo deep a Clerke, how Antichriſts Church and Religion ſhould iuſtly be accounted a myſtery of iniquitie, and truely be ſaid to ſpeak Lies in hypocriſy, alſo prively to bring in Damnable hereſies, and to hauehave a Shevv of godlines: if they did abſolutly and vvholy departe from the faith, and not onelie frō ſome points thereof?
But over and above all, it ſeemeth by this reaſon, that not onelie the Apoſtles were miſtaken, in giuing vsus markes how to know falſe teachers and falſe religions: But alſo Chriſt himſelfe when he ſaid,”Mat. 7.15. Bevvare of falſe Prophetes, vvhichwhich come to you in ſheepes clothing, but invvardly are ravening vvolves. And againe†Mat. 24.23.24. If any ſhall ſay vntounto you, Loe, here is Chriſt, or there, beleeve it not. For there ſhall ariſe falſe Chriſts and falſe Prophets, and ſhall ſhevv great ſignes and vvonders, ſo that (if it vvere poſſible) they ſhould deceive the very elect. Now if they ſhould totally depart frō the faith, what ſheepes clothing (I pray you) ſhould they have to come in? Or how ſhould either themſelves be ſaid to come in the name of Chriſt, affirming their Religion to be Chriſts, and ſhewing ſignes and wonders to draw men therevnto: Or the elect be in ſuch vnſpeakable danger to be deceived by them? This might ſuffice to ſhew the falſehood and impietie of your anſwer. But yet I will note a few things mo therein.
Firſt it being graunted, that the popiſh forbidding of Mariage and meats, ſo they were no worſe, doth not make them depaxters frō the faith totally: yet tell vsus, if holding never ſo manie truthes beſides, and yet forbidding theſe, they could by the word of God truely be ſaid in that eſtate to hold the faith of Chriſt, and to be true Chriſtians? 1 Tim. 4.1.3.If they could not (as the Apoſtle * teſtifieth) then is your anſwer in this reſpect alſo nothing to the purpoſe, but againſt your ſelf, both for the popiſh forbidding of meats and mariage, and for the Engliſh Hierarchy and other abominations among you received from the Papiſtes, which vnderunder colour of this anſwer you would defend.
Next, ſee in Bales Votaries, and in the Acts and monuments &c. what abominable filthines the forbidding of mariage, and what fowle ſuperſtition the forbidding of meats, hath wrought in the kingdome of Antichriſt: And tell me then, what man fearing God durſt once open his mouth for ſuch diveliſh doctrines and eſtate.
Againe, where you ſay, The Papiſts fall from Chriſt in other poincts beſides the aforſaid, Namely, 1. The Papall ſupremacie. 2. The ſacrifice of the Maſſe. 3. Iuſtification by vvorkes: vvhichwhich England novv is far from: Tell vsus firſt, whether in this ſence the Papiſts can for theſe be ſaid to depart from the faith totally? If they can not, what weight is there in this for defēce of your eſtate, that the Papiſts could not alledge for themſelves, viz, that in theſe poincts, they depart from the faith, but not abſolutly and wholy.
Secondly tell vsus, whether there are no other poincts but theſe three in the Papiſts Religion, which make them in their eſtate to be departers from the faith, and conſequentlie falſe Chriſtians and falſe Churches? If there be (as you can not deny) of what weight then is your anſwer to defend the preſent conſtitution of your people and aſſemblies, ſeeing there are divers other things beſides theſe, that do and may cauſe, that you can not be deemed true Chriſtians or true Churches in that eſtate. Many“Servetus, Sabellius, Arius the Anabaptistes, &c. heretikes heretofore have, and at this day do reject theſe three aforſaid: Are they therefore in their eſtate to be accounted true Chreſtians or true Churches?
Thirdly your manner of reaſoning heer for your defence, is as if the Adulterers, to juſtify their courſe of life, ſhould alledge thus, We are (1) no Blaſphemers (2) no Perſecutors (3) no Murtherers, as ſuch and ſuch are: therefore we depart not from the way of life, but our eſtate and courſe of life is good, and ſuch as may be continued in. Yet the Scripture ſayth,*Iam. 2.10.11. whoſoever ſhall keep the vvhole Lavv, and yet faileth in one poinct, is guiltie of all. For he that ſayed, Thou ſhalt not commit adulterie, ſaied alſo, Thou ſhalt not kill. Novv, though thou doeſt no adultery, yet if thou killeſt, thou art a tranſgreſſour of the Lavv: and contrariwiſe. So that whatſoever ſinnes the Adulterer be far from, yet (as Salomon ſaith) cō mitting adultery vvith a vvoman, he fayleth in heart and deſtroyeth his owne ſoule. Prov. 6.32. The ſame is the caſe of all ſpirituall Adulterers: who (whatſoever ſinnes they be farre from) yet in the worſhip of God runne a vvhoring after their owne inventions, embracing the boſomes of ſtrange vvomen, and drinking on their cup of fornications. Num. 15.39. vvith Prov. 5.20. and Rev. 17.4. Ier. 4.18.
Fourthly ſhew vsus ſufficient warrant from the Scriptures, why (ſetting theſe three aſide) the Hierarchy and other popiſh abominations received among you, can not be judged to make you in ſuch eſtate departers from the faith, and therefore falſe Chriſtians and falſe Churches, whatſoever truthes you hold beſides.Num. 16.1.2. &c. Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their partakers, were far from the Abominations of the Heathen; they held alſo the poincts of faith that Moſes and Aaron held, differing onelie from them (and departing onelyonly from the faith) in a matter concerning the Prieſthood, whereof notwithſtanding they*verſ. 3. ſhewed their reaſons why they were ſo perſwaded. Yet will you not deny (I trow) but they departed from the faith, and were in this eſtate neither to be accounted true Iſraelits, nor their aſſemblies true Churches, with which communion might be kept. If you ſhould, the Scripture is witneſſe againſt you, Num. 16.26. Now compare caſe with caſe, and tyme with tyme, and you ſhall find the eſtate of your people and Aſſemblies to be far more grievous. As hath ben ſhewed alreadie in the Second Exception before, and in other Treatiſes to which we have yet received no anſwer. viz, The anſvver to Maiſter A.H. & The 9. Reaſons concerning not hearing the Miniſters of theſe aſſemblies of England.
To conclude this poinct, if your Abominations in England were farre fewer then they are, yet ſo long as you reteine that poiſonfull leaven of your Hierarchy and vvorſhip, we muſt tell you as the Scripture ſaith, and experience teacheth, That ”2. King. 4.39.40.a little poiſon bringeth death vntounto the whole pot of potage, A 1 Cor. 5.6.litle leaven leaveneth the vvhole lump, And Eccl. 10.1.a fevv dead flyes cauſe the oynctemēt of the Apothecarie to ſtinke and putrifie. Although indeed your abominations are not a few, but ſwarme in abundance among you. Some whereof ſee before, Pag. 63. &c.
In the next place (fearing belike that the evidence of“1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. this Scripture could not by theſe ſhiftes of yours be avoided, but that ſtill the reaſon deduced from thence is of force againſt you, now you would have vsus paſſe by you and not to apply it vntounto you or your mother Church of Rome, but to vnderſtand it of Martion and Tatianus, of whom you ſay, that they abſolutely condemning mariage and certen meats, might indeed even therein vvholy fall from the faith, ſomevvhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and thoſe Apoſtate Iſraelites lately ſpoken of, namely for having their conſciences conuicted and ſeared vvith an hote iron: And thus (ſay you) are they in no compariſon vvith you of Englād. But firſt if your former anſwer were of anie weight, it might be aſked why the followers of Martion and Tatianus might not likewiſe have defended them thus and ſaid, that their departure from the faith, vvas but in ſome poincts, not vvholy from all?
Secondly, if this ſcripture was verifyed (as you graunt) in Martiō and Tatianus, for their condemning of mariage and meats, then we muſt needs think it verified alſo in the Romiſhe vvhore and her apoſtate childrē, which are falne into the very ſame ſinnes that are heer mentioned. The Apoſtle nameth Martion and Tatianus, no more then he doeth the whoriſh Babylon and the children of her fornication: but comprehendeth heer all ſuch (who ſo ever they be) as ſhall fall into this Apoſtaſie.
And further, if the wordes of this ſcripture be duly weighed, and either other ſcriptures or the eſtate of the Romiſh harlot and her children cō pared therewith, it will be found as lively to deſcribe theſe as either Martion or any other that ever were in the world. 1. Firſt when the Apoſtle ſayth, that this ſhalbe in the latter tymes, who ſeeth not that it doeth moſt directlie point at the Romiſh Whore? (Though we doubt not but Martiō and Tatianus, who lived 1400. yeares ſince or thereabout, may alſo be cō prehended therein.)
2. Secondlie when it is ſaid, they ſhall departe from the faith, thereby ſignifying that once they held the faith, how playne is this of the Romiſh harlot, which in the†Rom. 1.7. Apoſtles time was the ſpouſe of God, and ſince is falne into Apoſtaſy, and become the Mother of vvhoredomes and abominations of the earth. 2. Theſ. 2.3. and Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5.
3. Thirdlie when it is ſaid, they ſhall give heed to ſpirits of errour, and doctrines of Divels, how fitly agreeth this to the Romiſh Babylon which (as the ſcripture els where teſtifies) is become the habitation of Divels, & hold of all ſoule ſpirits? Rev. 18.2.
4. Fourthlie when it is ſaid, they ſhall ſpeake lyes through hypocriſy (not to reckon vp the infinite particulars that might be alleadged for proof hereof) how fitlie doth this deſcribe the Religion and practiſe of the man of ſinne (the Romiſh Antichriſt) which the Scripture alſo calleth “ a myſtery of iniquity: as pretending to be with and for Chriſt, and to draw men vntounto him, when indeed it is oppoſed againſt and exalted above the Lord Ieſus, and all his holy ordinances. 2 Theſ. 2.4.7.
5. Fiftlie when it is ſaid, they ſhall have their conſciences ſeared vvith an hote iron, how true is this found vponupon the throne of the Beaſt and his Kingdome, concerning which the ſcripture alſo teſtifieth †, that vvhen the vials of Gods vvrath ſhalbe povvred out vponupon them, and they conuinced of their jmpieties and abominations, they ſhalbe ſo farre from acknowledging and forſaking them, as they ſhall gnavv their tongues for ſorrovv, and rather thē they will forſake their wickednes, ſhall fight againſt God and his truth,‡Let their raylings, ſlā ders, Edicts, Articles, iniunctions, finally their cō tinuall oppoſitiōs & madnes against the truth & people of God be witneſses of all this. blaſpheming the God of heaven for their paines & for their ſores, and not repenting of their vvorkes. Rev. 16.10.11. Lo here a ſeared cōſcience in the Beaſtes kingdome.
6. Finallie, when the Spirit of God giveth here two particular inſtances of this apoſtaſy, 1. The forbidding of mariage, 2. And the commaunding to abſteine from meats, vvhichwhich God hath created to be received vvith thankeſgiuing: How directlie doeth he in both theſe, as it were with the finger point at the Romiſh Babylon and her daughters? In the one, that is, the forbidding of Mariage, when as the Romiſh Babylon forbiddeth it to Prieſts, Friers, Nunnes, and ſuch like; and the Engliſh her daughter, to fellowes of Colleges, and prētiſes; and both theſe Churches to all men and women in Lent, Advent, Rogation vveek, &c. In the other, that is, the forbidding of meats, when they forbid the eating of fleſh, on Fridayes, Saturdayes, Emberdayes, Lent, Saints eves, &c.
Thus you ſee this Scripture (which you would turne over to Martion and Tatianus) doth moſt fitlie agree vntounto, and moſt plainlie deſcribe the Romiſh Apoſtaſy, whether we apply it therevnto, or compare this and other ſcriptures togeather ſpeaking of the ſame Apoſtaſy and defection. By this alſo may appeare, that as you ſay of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be ſaid wholy to fall from the faith, ſomwhat like to Balaam, Iudas, & thoſe apoſtate Iſraelites lately ſpoken of, namely for having their cō ſciences conuicted and ſeared with an hote iron: So may be ſaid alſo of the Romiſh Babylon and her daughters. Touching which point, ſee moreover what is ſaid before in the ſixt Reaſon. (Neyther will your marginall additions, nor your new clauſes in the Reply it ſelf, help eyther you or the Papiſts any whit. They are all as fooliſh, and as contradictorie to the Apoſtles expreſſe words, as be thoſe which you vſed before. So the ſame anſwer may ſerve them all ſtill. And whereas in the margent you refer vsus to your next Reply follovving, thither alſo do I refer you for aunſwer of whatſoever you can there alledge. In the meane tyme let the Reader mynd here, that both all your marginall notes, and ſuch clauſes alſo in this Reply of yours as are now included in a parentheſis, be newly added in your printed book, and were not before in your written copy which I aunſwered. Your ſelf belike do now ſee the folly and inſufficiency of your former pretended diſtinctions and excuſes. This by the way I thought now to adde, by reaſon of theſe your new additiōs.)
Now if ſeeing the evidence of this Scripture ſo full and plaine againſt your ſelves, you would therefore except,1 Tim. 4.1.2.3 that in deed in the Romiſh Church it is ſo, but not in yours of England: Firſt by this meanes you ſhould overthrow your owne anſwer here, who have denied it of the popiſh forbidding of meats and mariage, and would turne it over from them to Martion and Tatianus: Yea and feare not now againe to give the holy Ghoſt the lye, when you pretend that the very Papiſts themſelves, if they erred in nothing els, have not their conſciences convicted nor ſeared with an hote iron, which yet the Apoſtle affirmeth expreſſely of all ſuch. 1 Tim. 4.2.3. Secōdlie, this would not hinder but that the conſequent of the Propoſition, and the Aſſumption are good, and therefore the Argument ſtrong and of force. Thirdlie, the particulars before mentioned, being found in your Church of England, will teſtifie it alſo to be verified of you. Laſtly, although many of the abominations of the “ vvhores cup of Babylon be now caſt out of England (for which we prayſe God) yet ſo long as you reteine the Hierarchy, Leiturgie, confuſion of people, Canons, Rev. 17.1.2.3.4.5.Excommunications &c. derived vntounto you from that mother of vvhoredomes and abominations of the earth, we muſt needs beleeve and alleadge againſt you the Scripture and common proverbe which ſaith, As is the mother, ſo is the daughter. Ezech. 16.44.
For a concluſion let it heer be obſerved, how to defend your eſtate you are glad to runne into the Papiſts Tentes, and to take vp their worne and ruſtie weapons, which have ben of no force to defend themſelves, but have often and juſtly ben turned into their owne bowels.Rhemes Annot. vponupon 1 Tim. 4.3. Read the † Rhemes Annotations vponupon this place, and ſee if heer you would not avoyd the evidence of this Scripture againſt you, by the verie ſame ſhift and anſwer, as the wretched Ieſuites there would turne it from their mother of Rome, that is, by poſting it over from themſelves to Martion and Tatianus. Read it and note it well.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 7. Reaſon. TO this your defence of your Seuenth Reaſon, I ſay, Though eueryevery where you are very vnreaſonable, yet no where you ſeeme more vnconſcionable and wilfull then here.A strange vntrueth.
Firſt, doe I ſay No to the Apoſtles Yea, 1. Tim. 4.1.2.3. That they who forbid Mariage and Meates doe fall from the faith. Doe I ſay noe? Is this your conſcience? Say I not expreſly, They doe in theſe points departe from the faith, but not Abſolutly and wholy.
Secondly, doeth it follow by my words, as you affirme, That none departe from the faith but thoſe that departe totally, wholy, and abſolutely, whereby all the vildest Heretikes ſhould be iustified, as Arrians, Nestorians, Anabaptists, &c. Doe I ſay ſo? Is this alſo your conſcience? Againe doe I ſay, The text doth not reproue all the Papists in their forbidding of Mariage and Meates, but only Martion and Tatianus of old? Doe I ſay any ſuch thing? Nay, ſay I not expreſlie the contrarie? Are you then a man of conſcience? Doe you ſuffer for conſcience? Know therefore that this I ſay, and my wordes before doe import ſo much. That whoſoever doe forbid mariage or meates, doe depart from the faith. But note: ſome doe more, ſome leſſe. There are ſome that doe ſimply and fundamentally, and others in ſome ſorte. Men departe from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two wayes. Firſt they which doe erre in ſuch maine poincts as doe vtterly aboliſh vsus from Chriſt and deſtroy the Foūdation: thus doe Arrians, Manichees, Seruetus, Papiſtes, &c. Secondly, ſuch as holding the Foundation in doctrine ſound, doe deſperatly profeſſe and teach ſome what els, againſt the manifeſt light that is in them: ſo Martion and Tatianus, doe Fundamentally and ſimply fall from the faith, becauſe they ſimply forbid thoſe good ordinances of God, Marriage and Meates euen againſt the light of conſcience & nature: togeather wherewith, a liuely ſaving faith cannot poſſibly ſtand. Now the Papiſts in this do departe from the faith alſo, but that is only in ſome ſorte or in parte: becauſe they forbid theſe things (not abſolutly, but) vntounto ſome, & ſometimes. They that depart thus from the faith, may bee true Chriſtians notwithſtanding, yea they are certenly, if they be no worſe in any thing els, albeit you deny it here moſt fondly & without all ſence. To which end you moſt vnlernedly and vngodly apply thoſe ſcriptures, A litle leauen leueneth the lump, A few dead flyes make the oyntment to stinke, Scriptures abuſed.and a litle poyſon bringeth death. Will you hauehave no tainte of euil in a Chriſtian but it quencheth the life of God in vsus needes? Is it not poſſible your ſelves might hold ſome ſuch errors, & yet remayne true Chriſtians notwithſtanding? Then if Papiſts vvere no vvorſe but in thoſe errors only they might be true Chriſtians notwithſtanding. But Martion and Tatianus doe wholy departe from the faith, not but that they beleued ſome truthes: but in that they”The ſame did Corah, Dathan and Abiram likewiſe. See before in āſwer to the 2. Exception, the 2. Reply. preſumptuouſly quenched the inſtinct of nature & conſcience, as I hauehave ſaid. Here then it appeareth how wicked a ſclaunder it is that you ſay, I runne into the Papistes tents, and fight with their weapons, & doe iump with the Remists annotations, on 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. Iudge now by this that I hauehave ſaid, whether I doe or no.
And note, that I ſave, that they be either Apoſtates or departers from the faith, not onelyonly who fall totally, as you ſclaunder me that I ſaye: but alſo who fall fundameneally, that is, eyther the firſt way or ſecond, as I hauehave afore ſaide. And ſo doe theſe groſſe Heretikes whom you mention, 1 Arius, Servetus Papiſts &c. 2. Martion, Tatianus, Iudas, Corah, Balaam, the Apoſtate Iſraelites &c. Thus then your queſtions and demaundes about the Papiſts & their errors, I paſſe by, as more vaine, then pertinent. Onelie note vvithall, if this reaſon of yours vvere good, it maketh Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. to be departers from the faith, and no true Chriſtians.
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſvver to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 7. Reaſon. LEt others iudge (Mr Iacob) whether in your ſelf this be not in deed found true and vndenyable, which you do vainelie charge me withall, Though every vvhere you are very vnreaſonable, yet no vvhere more vnconſcionable and vvilfull then here.
You have contradicted the Apoſtle, and yet have neither conſcience nor will to acknowledge it, no not when it is told you. I proved my Aſſumption by the Apoſtles Yea, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Your denyall thereof then muſt needs be as much, as to ſay No to his Yea. Neither is there anie help for it in your vaine additions of totally, ſimply, fundamentally, abſolutely &c. They are rather ſo many witneſſes againſt your ſelf: as anie men of vnderſtanding may and will diſcerne.Pag. 136. &c But for this ſee further in my former aunſwer. Againſt which you cannot ſay a word, but in ſtead of replying fall to plaine railing.
For the concluſions I gathered from your words, about Departers from the faith, the Papiſts, and other Hereticks: let the iudgement be the Readers, whether they follow not neceſſarilie vponupon your erroneous and moſt abſurd aſſertions and diſtinctions. Yea ſee both for them, and for your contradiction of the Apoſtle, if even here where you ſeek to colour and avoide them, you fall not into them againe. Here you would hauehave me know that this you ſay, That whoſoever do forbid mariage and meats, do depart from the faith. Well: I heare you ſay ſo. But a while after I heare you ſay this too,Pag. 142. If Papiſts were no worſe but in theſe errors onelyonly, they might be true Chriſtians notwithſtanding. A moſt falſe and hereticall aſſertion. As if the doctrines of Divels were not bad ynough to make them Antichriſtians? Or as if they could both be true Chriſtians, and yet depart from the faith of Chriſt, give heed to ſpirits of error, mainteine doctrines of Divels &c. All which they do, even in theſe errors, as the Apoſtle ſaith expreſſelie 1 Tim. 4.1.3. Now then do you not thus ſtill both contradict the Apoſtle, and forget your ſelf? Will not the concluſions alſo which I gathered from your words, ſtill follow herevpon? And who then is it Mr Iacob, that ſpeaketh ſtraunge vntruth, and is vnreaſonable, vnconſcionable, wilful, &c.
Yet mynd further, Whoſoever (ſay you) do forbid mariage and meats, they do depart from the faith. But both the Papiſts Church and yours (ſay I) do forbid mariage and meats. Therefore both the Papiſts Church and yours do depart from the faith. What part of this Reaſon now do you deny? The Propoſition or firſt part is the*1 Tim. 4.1.3 Apoſtles ſaying, and now at length yeelded vntounto by yourſelf. The Aſſumption or ſecond part is the eſtate and practiſe both of your Church and the Papiſts: As I have proved before, and you have left vnaunſwered, being not able to ſpeake one word in defence eyther of their Church or your owne. The Concluſion or laſt part then is and muſt needs be true. This all men know, that know any thing in ſound reaſoning. And yet behold, to ſhew your ſelf a notable Dunſe, you ſhame not to trie about the Concluſiō, yea and to deny it, whiles you ſay, they are true Chriſtians notwithſtanding. Which is as much as if you ſhould ſay, they do not depart from the faith notwithſtanding. And what is this els, but to deny the Concluſion? Lo here your Clerklike ſkill in Argumentation, your Chriſtian and conſcionable diſputing.
But you note that in departing from the faith, ſome do it more, ſome leſſe. What then? They that do it leaſt, do they it not to much? Becauſe your caſe or the Papiſts is not worſe then the Iewes, Turks, Arrians, Manichees &c. is it not therefore bad ynough? Yet thus you reaſon, There are that depart from the faith more then wee and the Papiſts. Be it ſo. What will you conclude thereby? That the Papiſts caſe and yours is therefore good ynough?1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. or that you are not within compaſſe of ‡ this Scripture? Or not ſubiect to wrath in and for ſuch eſtate of your Church? If this be your meaning, ſpeak it out plainelie, and fumble not ſtill in the mouth as you do. But then note for your learning:*Mat. 11.20-24. Chorazin, Bethſaida, Capernaum, had more great works of God done among them, then Tyrus, Sidon, or Sodom had. Yet theſe who had leſſe, periſhed notwithſtanding in the wrath of God. To what purpoſe then do you reaſon in this maner? I will ſhew you a better way. Either iuſtify (by the word of God) your eſtate, that in it you depart not from the faith: or els yeeld to the truth, which all may ſee ſo dazels your eyes, as you can not go on, but are driuen to a flat Non plus.
Where you ſay, Men depart from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two wayes: Although I might yeeld to both, and your caſe be never the better: yet you muſt prove, firſt that the Scripture teacheth this diſtinctiō of yours. For els what waight is there in it? 2. Prove that there are no mo nor other wayes of ſuch departing but theſe two. Els your diviſion is vnperfect. 3. Shew that ſuch may be found as holding the foundation in doctrine ſound, yet do deſperatly profeſſe and teach ſomewhat els againſt the manifeſt light that is in them. Which is one of the wayes you ſpeak of, and for example of it you bring Martion and Tatianus. But in theſe you prove it not: neither (I think) will you prove it by any other in haſt. For is it poſſible that anie ſhould both hold the foundation in doctrine ſound, and yet deſperatlie profeſſe and teach ſomewhat els againſt the manifeſt light that is in them? If this be not a Paradoxe, what is? 4. Yet mynd that now you graunt, Men may hold the Foundation in doctrine ſound, and yet erre fundamentally other wayes. Thus you are quite gone Mr Iacob. For heretofore you bare vsus in hand, that you erre not fundamentally, ſo long as you hold the foundation in doctrine ſound. (Pag. 28. 91. 92. 109. 111.) This alſo was the ground of your maine Argument, from your book of Articles. Which now your ſelf have overthrowen. 5. Your diſtinction and acception of Fundamētall errors here and every where is ſuch, as whoſoever hold them, are vtterly aboliſhed from Chriſt, and cannot poſſibly have a lively ſaving faith vvithall. This you muſt prove by the word of God, if you will have it receyved. Your words and diſtinctions (without ſuch proof) cannot ſettle the conſcience. I have ſhewed before that ſome of the Martyrs dyed in ſuch errors, as your ſelf account Fundamentall. Pag 44. &c. Shall we therefore ſay (as here you teach) that they were vtterlie aboliſhed from Chriſt, and could not poſſiblie have a lively ſaving faith withall? God forbid.
(1) Some may erre in fundamentall points, and yet through the mercy of God in Chriſt be ſaved: failing therein of ignorance, and not ſtriving againſt the light of truth, but laboring to walk faithfully with God in that he hath revealed vntounto them. For proof hereof I have‡Pag. 44. 45. 46. before alledged, not onelie the example of divers Martyrs, but ſuch alſo in the Churches of Corinth and Galatia, as before they receyved admonition and better inſtruction, dyed in their errors which†pag. 28. 92. you acknowledge to be fundamentall: And the like among the Iſraelites that dyed in Egypt,“Ioſ. 24.14. Ezech. 20.5.7 where they had and vſed Idols, which♣pag. 105. 109. your ſelf eſteem to be a fundamentall ſinne, wholy deſtroying the truth in them that do ſo. Yet dare I not ſay but ſome of theſe might be ſaved, by the mercy and in the truth of God which they embraced notwithſtanding: and namelie ſuch who erred and dyed, before that admonition came to them, as did to the reſt, whereof we read, Ezech 20.5.7. 1 Cor. 15. Gal. 5. chap.
Much more may and ought we to think thus of Terah Abrahams father (of whom Chriſt came according to the fleſh): Gen. 11.27. vvith Ioſ 24.2.14.15. Not to ſpeak of Haran, Bethuel, Rachel, and the like then, who did all of them ſerve the Lord by Idols. Yea though it had ben ſo, that Rachel had dyed before (as ſhe did preſentlie after) that cō maundement given by Iacob to his houſhold and to all that were with him, for putting away the ſtraunge Gods or Idols that were among them. Gen. 35.2.3.4.16.18. vvith Gen. 31.16.19.30.34. & 24.4.15.50. & 11.27.28. Ioſ. 24.2.14.15.23.24. So far am I from being of your mynd, who think the truth wholy deſtroied in all ſuch as have ſerved Idols, or held any other fundamentall errors.
Conſider alſo the Aethiopian Churches, which retaine many of Moſes ceremonyes and of the groſſe points of Popery: And the Greek Churches, erring greatlie of old about Freewill, and ſynce that tyme about the Perſon and proceeding of the holy Ghoſt, beſides other very great errors among them. Not to ſpeak of the Lutherans, holding (with other errors) that of Conſubſtantiation, which by neceſſarie conſequence overthroweth Chriſts humane nature, and therefore is fundamentall in your owne account. Will you now ſay, that none of theſe can have a lively ſaving faith? I dare not be of your mynd. I hope and am perſwaded otherwiſe. Nay even for the Papiſts and others of whom you ſpeak; I dare not with you, ſay peremptorilie of them all, from the firſt ariſing of their errors, they are vtterly aboliſhed from Chriſt. My reaſon I ſhewed before out of the Papiſts owne doctrine. To which I refer you, with this note:Pag. 47. that as on the one hand I acknowledge*Exo. 33.19 Rom. 9.15. God ſheweth mercy to whom he will; ſo on the other hand I am perſwaded (neither can I ſee otherwiſe by the word of God, but) whoſoever liveth and dyeth a Papiſt and member of that Church of Antichriſt, in the knowledge, profeſſion, and maintenance of that Religion, in the parts thereof, can not of vsus be eſteemed to live and dy in the ſtate of ſalvation. (And this I ſpeak as of all ſuch generallie, ſo ſpeciallie of them which have lived ſynce the height and clearer manifeſtation of that apoſtaſy.) 2 Theſ. 2.3-12. Rev. 13.8.11. & 17. & 18. & 19. chap. Such alſo take I to be the caſe of the Anabaptiſts, Arrians, and the like, departing from true Churches, and being once cō victed. Tit. 3.10 Heb. 10.25.38. 1 Ioh. 2.19. Iud. ver. 19.
This being noted, I could now further alledge, againſt your peremptory cōdemnation of all ſuch as have held any fundamentall errors, that even your ſelves, yea the chiefeſt pillars of your Church, are of a contrary judgement herein. And for proof I could cite D. Whitgift (now your great Archb.) in his ‡ laſt book againſt Mr Cartvvright. pag. 83.But becauſe where ſound judgement is needfull in queſtion of Religion, his teſtimony is but of ſmall valew, I will not ſtand vponupon it: but refer you rather to Mr Iewell, a Prelate alſo, yet a man otherwiſe worthy to be reverented both for his ſuffrings in Q. Maryes dayes, and for his gifts and labours employed in defence of ſundry points of the truth againſt the Papiſts. This Mr Iewell alledging the examples of Papias, Apollinarius, Victorinus, Tertullianus, Iewels defēce of the Apology. Pag. 337. 338.Lactantius, and others in former tymes, confeſſeth that both they defended the hereſy of the Chiliaſtae which ſaid, that Chriſt after the generall iudgement ſhould dwell here a thouſand yeares together vpō the earth: and yet notwithſtanding were godly, and worthy members of the Church of God. So alſo he thought of Irenaeus, though he held beſides the former hereſy, this alſoIbid. that Man at the beginning, when he was firſt created, was vnperfect. And of Hilary, who affirmed both that‡Ibid. pag. 353. Chriſt received not fleſh, of the bleſſed Virgin, and that the fleſh of Chriſt was impaſſible and could feel no grief. Alſo of the Picardes, concerning whom when Harding the Papiſt objected,†Iewels Rep. to Harding. Pag. 119. that ſometyme they pulled out their eye and caſt it frō them: he aunſwereth, it was an error of ſimplicity, if they did it, much like the error of Origen and others who ghelded themſelves for the Kindome of heaven. Which two laſt things, of the Picards and Origen, it may be you include in your ſecond ſort of fundamentall errors, and the other before in your firſt: and ſo account them all without ſaving faith, and vtterly aboliſhed from Chriſt. Yet you ſee, the chief governors of your Church, are otherwiſe minded. Yea and your Church it ſelf: for Mr Iewels books were publiſhed with conſent and ſpeciall priuiledge thereof. Note this well.
(2) Some againe who erre not in any f…ndamentall point (as you diſtinguiſh) yet no doubt ſhall periſh and be condemned. As, for not relieving the poore and people of God; for not yeelding obedience to Chriſt, but fearing of man more then God; for want of ſanctification; for hypocriſy, contention, wicked life &c. Mat. 25.41-46. Ioh. 3.36. Mat. 23. chap. Rom. 2.8. 1 Theſ. 4.3-6. Epheſ. 5.3-6. Gal. 5.19.20.21. Neither can you be ignorant but that“Deut. 27.26 Rom. 6.23. Ezec. 18.10.11 Iam. 2.10. curſe and death by the Law of God is threatned to all ſinne, even to the leaſt. Yea and that the very infants, through originall ſinne alone, are ſubiect herevnto. Rom. 5.14. 1 Cor. 7.14.
For your defence then it is not ſufficient, though it were graunted, that you hold the Foundation, and erre not in any fundamentall point. Your perſiſting in falſe worſhip and diſobeying the ordinance of Chriſt (howſoever you conſider it) ſufficeth to make your eſtate vnlawfull, and ſubiect to condemnation, God imputing it vntounto you. Thus at once all your building and defence of your Church falleth to the ground.
But yet (that you deceive not your ſelf nor your Reader in this point anie more) mynd if your Church do not alſo hold and mainteine ſundry Fundamentall errors, againſt the true faith of Chriſt. For example,Fundamentall errors in the Churche of England.
1. Your ſelf ſay before,*pag. 28. 35. that your Church holdeth all outward gouernement and ceremonyes to be vnwritten and vncertayne, but at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate &c. That this is a fundamentall error appeareth thus, 1. It doth wholie take away and annihilate the Second commaundement. 2. It maketh Chriſt the Sonne inferior to Moſes the ſervant. 3. It vpholdeth theſe and the like fundamentall errors, viz, That it is not written nor certaine, but at the Churches and Magiſtrates pleaſure, Whether the Pope be to be head of the Church, or Chriſt onelie; Whether now we may retayne the Prieſthood of Levi, the Paſſeover, Circunciſion &c. For theſe concerne the outward gouernement and ceremonies of the Church.
2. Your Church holdeth that Chriſt in his ſoule deſcended into Hell. Which I hauehave ſhewed † before to be your Churches opinion.Pag. 116. And who knoweth not, that Whitgift P. of Canterbury, Bilſon P. of Wincheſter, Chaderton P. of Lincolne, with other the pillers of your Church, do thus hold and mainteine? And that it is Fundamentall, your ſelf I ſuppoſe will not denie. See but your owne book againſt D. Bilſon, about this queſtion: Pag. 92. 127. 133. 148. 156. 162. 165. 174.
3. Your Churches Miniſtery, worſhip, confuſion, and governement are ſuch, as they profane and diſanull Chriſts office of Mediation, that is, of his Prophecy, Prieſthood, and Kingdome. That this is Fundamentall, againſt the true faith of Chriſt, theſe Scriptures prove, Deut. 18.18.19. Heb. 3.1-6. Mat. 6.24. Luk. 10.27. Rom. 6.16. Col. 2.8.19.20.21.22.23. 2 Theſ. 1.8. & 2.3.12. Ioh. 3.36. Ier. 4.18. That your Churches cō ſtitution is ſuch, I have proved in another treatiſe both by the Scriptures and your owne writings. viz: In a treatiſe of the Miniſtery of the Church of England. Pag 30-35.
4. Your Church forbiddeth Mariage & Meats. Of which the Apoſtle ſaith expreſſely, it is a departing from the faith of Chriſt: and therefore Fundamentall. See 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. Col. 2.8-23. And before, Pag. 137. 140.
5. Your Church perſiſteth (and perſecuteth ſuch as refuſe) to worſhip the beaſt and his image, or to receyve his marke in the forhead or hand. That this bringeth damnation, and is Fundamentall againſt the cōmandements of God and faith of Ieſus, ſee Rev. 14.9.10.11.12. & 17.1-6. & 18.2.3.4.5. 2. Theſ. 2.3-12. Exod. 20 4.5. That it is your caſe, appeareth by your Hierarchy, Leitourgy, confuſion of people, Courts, Canons, Diſpenſations, Licences, Suſpenſions, Excommunications &c. practiſed, mainteined, and yeelded vntounto, by your Church, Miniſters, and people, framed alſo according to the image and faſhion of the Romiſh Apoſtaſy: Which your ſelves confeſſe to be that Beaſt, ſpoken of in the Revelation.
6. Together with theſe, remember alſo the particulars which I noted before concerning this point. Pag. 22. 31. 60. 63. 73. 94. 103. 114. 122.. 126. 129. 133. In which places you may mynd divers the like, with further proof thereof. And ſo for the preſent let this ſuffice, till we ſee what your next Reply can bring againſt it.
The Scriptures alledged againſt you, what man of conſcience knowing your eſtate, durſt ever open his mouth to ſay they were abuſed or miſapplyed? When the Corinthians did but neglect to excommunicate one wicked man from among them, the Apoſtle fitlie alledged this ſaying, A little leaven leaveneth the whole lumpe. 1 Cor. 5.6.How is it then abuſed when we applie it to your eſtate, which ſwarmeth with ſo manie knowen wicked men, and yet hath not the power of Chriſt to caſt out any one from among you? That I ſay nothing of the other infinite corruptions among you towched before. Pag. 63. &c.
But in deed if theſe Scriptures be in anie reſpect not fitlie applyed, it is in this that your corruptiōs are ſo many and ſo abominable as you had need of far ſharper coraſives and other more deadfull ſentences of Scripture to be applyed to your eſtate. Such as theſe be, If any man worſhip the Beaſt and his image, and receive his marke in his forhead or on his hand, the ſame ſhall drink of the vvine of the vvrath of God &c. Rev. 14.9.10.11. They that receive not the love of the truth that they might be ſaved, God vvill ſend them ſtrong deluſion to beleeve lyes, that they may be damned &c. 2 Theſ. 2.10 11.12. He that obeyeth not the Sonne ſhall not ſee life, but the vvrath of God abideth on him. Ioh. 3.36. To them that are contentious, and diſobey the truth, and obey vnrighteouſnes: ſhalbe indignation and vvrath, tribulation and anguiſh vponupon the ſoule of every man that doth evill. Rom. 2.8.9. Thoſe myne ennemyes (ſaith Chriſt) vvhichwhich vvould not that I ſhould reigne over them, bring hither and ſlay them before me. Luk. 19.27. I proteſt to every man that heareth the vvords of this book, if any man ſhall adde vntounto theſe things, God ſhall adde vntounto him the plagues that are writtē in this book. And if any man ſhall diminiſh of the words of the book of this prophecy, God ſhall take away his part out of the book of life &c. Rev. 22.18.19.
And marke theſe clauſes well, If any man vvorſhip, If any man adde, If any man take away, The ſoule of every man, I proteſt to every man, &c. None is excepted. Let everie man therefore mynd your eſtate, betymes to deliver his ſoule from the fierce wrath of God. Your eſtate (I ſay) wherein there are ſo manie things added, and ſo manie things taken away from the ordinance of Chriſt. And thoſe alſo, marks of the Beaſt, even a multitude of abominations, derived from Antichriſt, that ſonne of perdition.
And will you yet perſwade men, that this is but ſome taint of evill in a Chriſtian? Can you put no difference between the ſinnes and infirmityes of Chriſtians walking in the faith, and the impietyes of Antichriſt and doctrines of Divels making departure from it? Know you not that even†Luk. 22.24 Rom. 7.23. Gal. 2.11.12.13.14. Iam. 3 2. 1 Ioh. 1.8.10. the Apoſtles themſelves were ſubiect to the former, and yet were wholy free from the latter? Or are you growen ſo preſumptuous againſt the holy Ghoſt, as what it directlie teacheth to be*1 Tim. 4.1.3 Rev. 17.4.5. 2 Theſ. 2.3. doctrines of Divels; fornications and abominations of the vvhore of Babylon; Apoſtaſy of Antichriſt the man of ſinne: that you dare ſay, is but as the taint of evill in a Chriſtiā? Belike you would have vsus ſee this very Prophecy fulfilled in your ſelf, viz, that you are led vvith the Spirit of error, and have your conſcience ſeared vvith an hote iron. 1 Tim. 4.1.2. Otherwiſe how could you thus lewdly ſpeak lyes in hypocriſy, if you were guided by the ſpirit of truth, and made any conſcience of that you ſay?
But yet further to ſhew that you have gotten the very habit of falſhood you ſhame not to call that a vvicked ſclaunder which all the world may ſee is moſt true. For proof whereof compare but your Replyes here, with the Ieſuites Notes vponupon 1 Tim. 4. Thus they write,Rhem. Te…. on 1 Tim. 4. firſt in their marginall notes, We ſee plainly by theſe vvords ſuch abſtinence onelyonly to be diſallovved, as condemneth the creatures of God to be naught by nature and creation. Then in their Annotations following they labour to prove that here the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of the Manichees, Encratites, Marcioniſts &c. Towching whom they ſay, They thought that Mariage vvas of Sathan, and cō demned divers creatures, as things by nature and creation polluted and abominable. And then they adde, Lo theſe vvere the Hereticks and their hereſyes vvhichwhich S. Paul here prophecyeth of that forbid mariage and meats, as you have heard &c. Theſe are their owne words. And thus they labour in vaine (as D. Fulk in his aunſwer tels them) to poſt over the crime from themſelves to the old Hereticks, vvho vvith as good reaſon might poſt it of from one to another, the Manichees to the Tacianiſts, and the Tacianiſts to the Manichees &c.
Now let the Reader well mynd your Replyes in this place, and compare them with this dealing of the Papiſts: and then let him judge how you are ſclandered with a matter of truth, when I ſayd you runne into the Papiſts tents, and fight vvith their vveapons, to ſhift of the evidence of this Scripture againſt you, by poſting it over from your ſelves to the Hereticks of old, Martion, Tatianus &c. But thus in deed you do ſtill ſhew your braſen forhead and ſeared conſcience.
Towching Corah, Dathan, Abiram &c. beſides that I have aunſwered to your Reply in the Second exception (Pag. 53.) I have alſo purpoſely in many particulars compared their caſe and yours together, in the Sixt Reaſon: Pag. 130. Which if you can, you may refute in your next: or by ſilence give place to the truth.
Where I proved by ſundry other Scriptures, compared with this to Timothy,Pag. 139. 140 that the Romiſh harlot and her children are here properly and ſpecially deciphered, you aunſwer not one word vntounto it. Nay you are ſo turned out of all your ſhifts, as even now when you would ſhift it of to Martion and Tacianus, you giuegive more evidēce that it reſteth on your owne heads, rather then on theirs. And this I prove by comparing together your ſaying here, with the Apoſtles there. You ſay here that Martion and Tatianus did Fundamentally fall from the faith, becauſe they ſimply forbad thoſe good ordinances of God, Mariage and meats, even againſt the light of conſcience and nature, preſumptuouſly quenching the inſtinct thereof. Now if this were ſo Mr Iacob, then (by your owne ſaying) they did not ſpeak falſehood in hypocriſy, but in open and preſumptuous blaſphemie. Whereas the Apoſtle noteth ſuch expreſſelie, as ſpeak lyes in hypocriſy. 1 Tim. 4.2.3.
And ſuch in very deed I proved your caſe and the Papiſts to be, in my former aunſwer. Pag. 137. &c. Againſt which you can bring nothing at all. Yet you bluſh not to ſay you paſſe by my pueſtions and demaunds about the Papiſts and their errors, as more vayne then pertinent. Whereas in deed the truth is, that the queſtions and reaſons do ſo nearly concerne both the Papiſts and your ſelves, as you dare not medle with them. Otherwiſe if you could, you ſhould at leaſt not onelyonly have ſaid, but ſome way proued them to be vaine. But this labour it may be your reſerve to your next Reply. If ſo, then examine them in particular, and ſhew the vanity of them from point to point. Els know they are ſo pertinēt, as here againe you are brought to a playne Non plus.
And becauſe in my former aunſwer I did but brieflie towch that point of your ſpeaking lyes through hypocriſy, I will for further evidence of this Scripture againſt you, mention here ſome few particulars mo. 1. It cannot be denyed but you worſhip God by a Service book taken out of the Popes portuis, and by many other the inventions af men: Yet you pretend that you worſhip God in ſpirit and truth according to his word. A lye in hypocriſy. 2. Your Churches, Miniſters, and people, ſtand ſubiect to other Archbiſhops and Lordbiſhops then Ieſus Chriſt, and to their Courts, Canons, Excommunications, &c. Yet you beare men in hād that you receive Chriſt only as Lord and King of the Church, and obey his Lawes and ordinances. Another lye in hypocriſy. 3. Your Hierarchy and whole Miniſtery from the higheſt Archbiſhop to the loweſt Prieſt, is Antichriſtian in you offices, entrance, adminiſtration, maintenance: Yet who knoweth not that in all theſe you perſwade the world you are the Miniſters of Ieſus Chriſt? Falſehood in hypocriſy. 4. You ſtill, baniſh, and impriſon vsus becauſe we ſeparate from your Antichriſtian eſtate, and endevour to keep the faith and ordinance of Chriſt: Yet you give out that we ſuffer more then we need, that we are iuſtlie puniſhed as ennemyes to the State, as Schiſmaticks, Hereticks, ſeditious &c. Another lye in hypocriſy. 5. Finallie, even the truths which you teach and profeſſe, what are they els in your eſtate but the ſheeps clothing of your wolviſh Hierarchy and Prieſthood, by meanes whereof you deceive and devoure the more? Lo here a taſt of your ſpeaking lyes in hypocriſy; and if you will alſo of your conſciences burnt vvith an hote yron.
Beſides theſe in your Church, note alſo in your ſelf in particular, how even here you do ſclaunder me, and yet pretend that it is I which ſclaunder you. Neither ſufficeth it you in this one place to do it once, as I ſhewed before: Pag. 149. But here againe you will needs double it, that we might the better note this propertie in your ſelf, which yet you ſhame not falſely to lay vponupon me. And becauſe you will not ſeem to want colour for it, you pretend this, that I ſay the words of your firſt Reply imported ſuch onelyonly to depart from the faith, as fall from it totally: To depart from the faith (I ſay) ſo, as in that eſtate they cannot by the word of God be eſtemed true Chriſtians.Reaſon. 7. Pag. 135. For this was the point which I proved, and you denyed. Now towching this matter the caſe is ſo verie plaine, as I neither need nor will do anie more (for your conviction therein) but ſet downe your owne words, as they were at firſt, and then with a note concerning your dealing ſynce, leave the iudgement thereof to the Reader: when he ſhall have compared together the words of your Reply and of my Aunſvver. Neither of which you love to keep vntounto.
For your words then, thus it was: When againſt your Church I had proved by the Apoſtles teſtimonie, that foraſmuch as all ſuch depart from the faith, as forbid Mariage and Meats: therefore alſo your Church ſo doth, vvhichwhich not only forbiddeth theſe things, & the true Miniſtery & vvorſhip of God vvithall, but alſo commaundeth a falſe, &c. You did then anſwer thus, word for word, The Popiſh forbidding of Mariage and of Meats, if they vvere no vvorſe, doth not make them departers from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy & ceremonies ſimply: Neither do they make vsus (the Proteſtans) to be ſuch. The Papiſts fall from Chriſt in other points, namely, The Papall ſupremacy &c. Theſe were your words then. The other clauſes which now you have annexed in the Margent and Reply it ſelf (though they help you no whit neither, yet) were they added ſynce you receyved my Anſwer: as I noted before, Pag. 141. Let the Reader mynd this: And withall, theſe two things, 1. That now you note in the margent both “ here and in the Eight Reaſon following,Pag. 136. that you think the vvord fundamentally fitter to be here vſed, then the word totally. And why fitter, I pray you, but becauſe this word totally implyeth that directlie which I inferred therevpon in my Anſwer, Pag. 136. &c. 2. That whereas you did at firſt annexe a clauſe concerning the Apoſtles meaning that in theſe points they depart from the faith, not abſolutly and vvholy this alſo is ſo far from helping you, as it maketh altogether againſt you, howſoever you would perſwade otherwiſe in this your latter Reply (both in the beginning and end thereof.) Pag. 141. 142. Which will yet more fully appeare even to the moſt ſimple, whenſoever you ſhall anſwer the particular queſtiōs and obiectiōs, which I propounded in my former Anſwer, concerning the Papiſts and your ſelves. For which cauſe alſo it may be, you were the more willing to paſſe by them, being in deed afrayd and vnable to deale with them.
But to let this paſſe, let others now iudge (by that which hath ben ſaid) on whom the ſclaunder lyeth. And note you by the way, that it is the common woont of ſclaunderers, to impute that to others vnderunder ſome pretence or other, which in very deed they do themſelves, yea and that often with an impudent forehead.
Of vour vaine diſtinction of fundamentall errors, and of the neceſſitie which lyeth vponupon you to anſwer the particulars which I obiected about the Papiſts and your ſelves, I have ſpoken ‡ here before. If it ſtop not your mouth (as I ſuppoſe it will) yet let it teach you at leaſt to take heed,pag. 144. &c. that your next Replie be leſſe vaine, and more pertinent, then theſe former have ben.
In the laſt place (when all other ſhifts fayle) you would hale in againe, to help at a dead lift, thoſe good but dead men, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, &c. whom you do neuer linne calling vponupon, as if you would give them no reſt, till you had brought them vp even from the dead, to beare witneſſe on your ſide. But I have ſhewed before ſo great differēce between your caſe and theirs, as they can not help you at all. And now I tell you further as Chriſt hath ſaid of old,Luk. 16.31. If you heare not Moſes and the Prophets, neyther would you be perſwaded, though one roſe frō the dead againe.
All theſe things conſidered, I hope in your next you will either by the word of God iuſtify, that you depart not from the faith, in your leitourgy, Hierarchy, confuſion of people, forbidding of Meats and Mariage, perſecuon of the truth &c. or els yeeld, that in ſuch eſtate you do in deed depart frō the faith, and therefore cannot therein by the word of God be eſtemed true Chriſtians.