Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Title page 1 – To the reader
AN ANSWER TO MAISTER H. IACOB HIS DEFENCE of the Churches and Miniſtery of England.
By Francis Iohnſon an exile of IESVS CHRIST.
Though myne Adverſary write a Book againſt me, would I not beare it vponupon my ſhoulder, would I not bynde it for crovvnes vntounto me. Iob. 31.35.36.
Printed in the Yeare of our Lord. 1600.
The Title and inſcription of Mr Iacobs book (becauſe there is often relation vntounto it hereafter, both in the Preface, and in the Book it ſelff, therefore) I thought good here to inſert it at firſt. Thus it was, word for word, as followeth:
[A DEFENCE OF THE CHVRCHES AND Miniſtery of England.
Written in two Treatiſes, againſt the Reaſons and obiections of Mr Francis Iohnſon, and others of the ſeparation commonly called Browniſts.
Publiſhed, eſpecially, for the benefit of thoſe in theſe parts of the lovv Countries.
MIDDELBVRGH. By Richard Schilders, Printer to the States of Zealand. 1599.]
To the Chriſtian Reader, grace and peace from our Lord Ieſus Chriſt.
THere came out of late (good Reader) two books, from one Mayſter Henry Iacob, a Prieſt of the Orders of the Prelates. The firſt was agaynſt his Lord, Mr D. Bilſon, now Prelate of Wincheſter, concerning Chriſts ſuffrings and deſcending into Hell. The latter agaynſt me by name, and others like mynded, tovvching the Church and Miniſtery of England.
Now although the Prelates could not well be offended at him, for publiſhing the former agaynſt the doctrine of theyr Church, ſenig (*In K. Edvv tyme, about 50. Yeares ſynce. long before him) Mr Carlill a learned man had both publikly diſputed in Cambridge, and printed a book, agaynſt that error of Chriſts deſcenſion, and that with great approbation of the moſt godly and learned at that tyme: Yet belike fearing the worſt, and knowing the hatred of the Prelates how deadly it is, he did preſently after ſend forth his other book, in defence of the Churches and Miniſtery of England. So as whatſoever diſpleaſure his Lords the Prelates conceyved agaynſt him for the former, there was now ſome hope that they might ſooner be appeaſed vponupon view of the latter. Or howſoever it ſhould fall out, yet what like lyer way could he take, to make all ſure on his ſide, then by the firſt book to get the forward Preachers and profeſſors to take his part agaynſt the Prelates, and by the other to have both them and the Prelates themſelves to ſtand with him agaynſt vsus?
Yet I heare ſome of his owne coat give out, that he hath dealt very ſimply, in publiſhing ſo weak and raw a Treatiſe againſt vsus. And true it is in deed, that his Treatiſe is ſuch. In the publiſhing whereof, no wiſedome hath he ſhewed at all: vnles it be in this, that he hath thus let all the world ſee, that againſt the errors of the Church of England there is plenty of Scripture to be had and vrged, but not a jote to be found for defence of theyr VVorſhip, Miniſtery, conſtitution, &c. For (if you mynd it)†Yet I deny not but he hath ſcattered ſome errors alſo in that book. in his book againſt Bilſon, about the queſtion of Chriſts ſuffrings and deſcending into Hell, you ſhall ſee proof after proof readily brought from the word of God. And on the contrary, in his book againſt vsus, not onelyonly no ſuch proof, but in ſtead thereof, eyther his owne aſſertions and compariſons obtruded vntounto vsus as oracles: or the Names of Mr Cranmer, Mr Ridley, and other dead men, oppoſed to the word of the living God: or putting over his cauſe to the State to be defended, himſelf being not able to ſpeak one poore word in defence thereof, &c. Such is his latter book, and ſuch are the grounds of it. A very great and ſtraunge difference, between two books, ſet out by one and the ſame man, the one ſtraight after the other, and both of them in matter of Religion.
If I had firſt publiſhed theſe Replyes and Aunſwers which paſſed between vsus, no doubt but many would have had a prejudice thereof, and all would have thought I had done it purpoſely to ſhew the weaknes of that cauſe and falſehood of that Miniſtery, &c. But now when he, a member of that Church, yea a Miniſter of it, even a Prieſt of the Prelates creation, hath firſt publiſhed them: albeit the ſame thing be done, yet it is both without all prejudice, and pretended by him for defence of the Churches and Miniſtery of England.
Be it, that he hath not done it ſo well, as many would have it: yet it is the beſt he could. And what if he thought by this meanes, eyther to ſtirre vp ſome others more able herevnto. or at leaſt to ſhew his owne good will? Doubtles where there is want of ability, a mans good will is to be accepted. And why ſhould any then miſinterpret ſo good a meaning? If any of the Prelates or others of that Church like it not, they may learne by his example iff not to lay theyr hand on theyr mouth, yet to try if they can plead the cauſe any better. For worſe. I ſuppoſe they would be aſhamed to do it.
I had thought in this caſe I ſhould never have ſeen any more abſurd writing, then Mr Giffards and Bredvvels. But now to Mr Iacob may they well give place. And iff any can be found of all the Prieſts in England more ſenceleſſe then theſe, let ſuch for theyr worthynes (as ſtanderd bearers) be Prelates of theyr chiefeſt Seas. And as for Mr Iacob, ſeing he hath done his beſt, let all men be content to beare with his ſimplicity, who otherwiſe might well note his folly, for vndertaking iuſ how the defence of that, which yet in deed he leaveth altogether naked and helples.
By the title of his book, it ſeemeth he thought to carry away the ſimple Reader, who eyther could not or would not mynd what ſhould follow after it.
In the book it ſelf, he thinketh his plea to be very good, if he can ſay for the Miniſtery and other abominations of theyr Church, They are errors, but not fundamentall: ſinnes againſt the Second commandement, but not vtterly aboliſhing from Chriſt, &c. And this is the ſumme of his whole book. A plea which he counteth vnaunſwerable. Yet in deed no other, but ſuch as openeth a wide doore for all maner errors and ſinnes to be receyved and nouriſhed amonge them which themſelves ſhall preſume not to be fundamentall, &c. So that now theyr Church is ready (when they pleaſe) to entertayne agayne the offices of Abbats, Monks, Fryers, Nonnes, Cardinals &c. the doctrines and practiſe of Auricular confeſſion: Prayer in an vnknovven toungue: Prayer for the dead: Seven Sacraments: Holy vvater: holy aſhes, holy palmes, holy bread: Creame, ſpittle, oyle, and ſalt in Baptiſme: Conſubſtantiation: Deniall of the cup to the lay people: Denyall off vvarres and Magiſtracy in Chriſtians: Denyall of Mariage in Miniſters, &c. For theſe and many mo errors of the Papiſts, Lutherans, Anabaptiſts, it is like they hold not to be fundamentall, And therefore although theyr Church receyve them, yet is Mr Iacobs defence as ſound for them then, as it is now: Neyther may any for theſe or the like ſeparate from theyr Church, worſhip, or Miniſtery, if you will beleev him. Yet note, that for proof of this aſſertion, you muſt let them take day. For as yet they can ſhew you none.
And what now, if any of the errors which the Church of England at this day retayneth be fundamentall? What will Mr Iacob ſay to that? Then agayne he is at a flat Non plus, and all his book is not worth a ruſh, ſave that it yeelds vsus the cauſe, and graunts theyr Church to be a falſe Church, ād theyr people to be no true Chriſtiās in that eſtate. For this therefore ſee what is ſayd in the Treatiſe hereafter following, Pag. 22. 114. 147. 148.
What alſo if D. Bilſon ſhould aunſwer Mr Iacob. for that poynt of Chriſts deſcenſion into Hell, as he aunſwereth vsus for theyr Church corruptions, that though it be an error, yet it is not fundamentall, yea and that they in K. Edvvards dayes held it, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. Would Mr Iacob take this of his word, or think it a ſufficient warant for the holding thereoff, or bynd others to be likewiſe mynded &c.
But to let this paſſe, let Mr Iacob mynd well the eſtate and practiſe of theyr Church, but in ſuch particulars, as I have named hereafter, Pag. 63. 64. 65. and then let him aunſwer as before God, Are they lawfull, or vnlawfull? Are they of Chriſt, or Antichriſt? Of God or the Divell? Lead they to heaven. or hell? May they be found in the Word and Churches of God, or in the Popes Churches, Canons, Portuis, Pontificall? May they any maner way be approved and communicated withall, or are they not wholy and with deteſtation to be refuſed and abhorred?
For aunſwer hereof I will wayte, till Mr Iacob reply agayne. And in the meane tyme I will now aunſwer what he and his Prefacemaker have already publiſhed. Where firſt I deſier the Reader, in both of them, and in Bridges, Bancroft, Bilſon, Hooker, Sutcliff, and all ſuch writers of that Church, to mynd theſe three things.
1. That all theyr reaſoning and perſwaſions are no other, but ſuch as may lead men, eyther backe agayne to Popery, or the ready way to Atheiſme, or at leaſt to receyve whatſoever religion the Prince pleaſeth, ſo themſelues account it not to be fundamentall. Thus are they all blynd guydes: Thus do they all teach to continew in ſinne. Thus do they ſhut vp the kingdome of heaven before men, neyther entring in themſelues, nor ſuffring them that would enter, to come in.
2. That they do even ſet themſelues to carpe at the truth it ſelf, and at the mayntenance and practiſe thereoff. To which end they vſe they care not what objections, and abuſe they care not whom.
3. That they never do ſo much as offer to bring proof from the Scripture for theyr eſtate and practiſe. See the particulars afterward rehearſed, Pag. 63. 64. 65. And mynd iff there be any of them all, that in any book they have written▪ have brought warrant for them from the word of God. OnelyOnly D. VVhitgift made an aſſay for ſome of them: but he was ſo taken downe by Mr Cartvvright, as he was glad to lay downe the bucklers, which ſynce that tyme neyther himſelff nor any other durſt take vp. And now Sutcliffe himſelff can tell them, iff Mr Cartwright have the better hand of D. Whitgift, that then the Church of England is no true Church of Chriſt, and that there is iuſt cauſe to departe and ſeparate from it.Sut. Engl. b. Pag. 228.
Theſe things noted, I do now come to Mr Iacobs book: and firſt to the Preface, which his fellow and frend at a need hath prefixed before it. Where I will for more evidence of the truth and ſtopping of theyr mouths, firſt ſet downe his owne words (as I do alſo Mr Iacobs afterward in the book it ſelf) and then make aunſwer vntounto them. He that made or wrote the Preface, ſubſcribeth his Name thus, D. B. And thus he beginneth it:
The Publiſher to the Chriſtian Reader. Section. 1.
ABout Three Yeeres ſince, Maiſter Iacob having ſome ſpeach vvith certen of the ſeparation before mentioned, concerning their peremptory & vtter ſeparation from the Churches of England, vvas requeſted by them, briefly to ſett dovvn in vvriting, his Reaſon for defence of the ſaid Churches, And they vvould either yeild vntounto his proofes, or procure an anſvver vntounto the ſame. VVherevppon the Argument follovving this Preface, vvas ſet dovvne in vvriting by maiſter Iacob: vvhichwhich the ſaid parties did ſend to Maiſter Fr. Iohnſon, being then priſoner in the Clinke in Southvvark, vvho made an anſvver vntounto the ſame, conteyning 3. Exceptions and 9. Reaſons in denyall of the Aſſumption: vvherevnto Maiſter Iacob Replyed. Aftervvard Maiſter Iohnſon defended his ſayd Exceptions and Reaſons: And finally, Maiſter Iacob Replyed againe. As by the particulars themſelves appeareth.
The Aunſwer. Theſe two letters,Geuev. Scot. & Allobrog. Diſc. Pag. 7. D. B. I fynd to be ſet for Doctor Bancroft now Prelate of London in a * ſhameles book of his, not long ſynce ſparſed abroad. In which reſpect, as alſo conſidering many as godles things here agayne publiſhed, albeit ſome might think it were therefore to be aſcri…ed vntounto him, yet for other cauſes partly appearing in the book, partly knowen of the man, I thinck this Preface was not made by him: but rather by another”Daniel Buck D. B. a Scrivener of London, a man that hath turned his coat and forſaken the truth, as often as†Doct. Pern… D. P. the old turne coat did, if not alſo oftner. He it was, that by letters deſired of me, to aunſwer Mr Iacobs Argument, as here is ſaid: being himſelf at that tyme ſeparated from the falſe worſhip and Miniſtery of England, to which vomit he is now againe returned, wallowing in that …yer from which then he was waſhed. Then alſo he could ſay, himſelf thought Mr. Iacobs Argument was frivolous and of no waight, and that his deſier with ſome others was to have it anſwered for the ſtopping of Mr Iacobs mouth, who thought it vnaunſwerable.
Herevpon I made anſwer vntounto it: and as there was occaſion by Mr Iacobs doubled Replyes, have aunſwered agayne and agayne. I have alſo, for ſundry cauſes, conſulted with others therein: and namely, with Mr Henry Ainſvvorth Teacher of our Church, my workfellow to the kingdome of God, approved in Chriſt:At London. 1593. and Mr Daniel Studley another off our Elders, who hath given vp his life for the Name of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt: being firſt * ad…udged to death, afterward exiled, &c. And now vntounto thee, good Chriſtian Reader, I exhibit the whole Treatiſe (conteyning beſide that which was publiſhed before, my aunſwer alſo to Mr Iacobs ſecond and laſt Reply) that thou mayeſt try the matter by the word off God: and as it agreeth therewith, ſo to receyve it, and no further nor otherwiſe.