Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 4
Chap. 4. The firſt Exception againſt the Aſſumption aforeſaid.
Fr. Iohnſon. FIrſt conſider the 19. Article of that doctrine and Book, which by your ſelf is alleadged for your defence, and ſee by it if your profeſſion and practize be not contrary one to an other: Yea ſee if it be not manifeſt euen by it, that you hauehave not a true viſible Church of Chriſt.
The words of the Article are theſe. Artic. 19.The viſible Church of Chriſt is a Congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure vvord of God is preached, and the Sacraments be duely miniſtred, according to Chriſts ordinance, in all thoſe things that of neceſſity are requiſite to the ſame.
Theſe are your owne words and doctrine: Now if you cannot prooue your Aſſemblies to be ſuch, you may ſee your own witneſſes (euen your owne doctrine and book) giuegive verdict againſt you. If you can prooue them to be ſuch: where and what are your proofes, touching the particulars, mentioned in this your owne deſcription of a viſible Church?
H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Excep. THis your firſt Exception, is the 19. Article of this very book vvhichwhich vvee alleadge, vvherein a viſible Church is deſcribed to be a Congregation, where the pure word is preached, and Sacraments miniſtred, according to all thoſe things, that of neceſſitie are requiſite. Novv this deſcription, you reiect not, but our practiſe (ſay you) is contrary: and therefore vve hauehave no true viſible Churches, nor Chriſtians.
I anſvver: vvherein is it contrarie? in vvhat things that of neceſſitie are requiſite? doth not all this Chriſtian vvorld ſee and confeſſe, that our publique practiſe, is agreeable to our profeſſion in that book? Nay (ſay you) but proue you your aſſemblies to be ſuch, and if you can proue them, where and what are your proofs? if you doe not, you are confuted. A vvorthy confutation ſure, and very Clerklike: As if my Tenaunt ſhould denie me rent for my houſe and land, yea and goe to Lavv vvith me for the fee ſimple, vvhichwhich he hath holden in ferme of me theſe 40. yeares: and I hauehave hetherto, quietly enioyed from my Aunceſtors, time out of minde. Novv he ſuing me at lavv, for that vvhichwhich I thus poſſeſſe, ſaith, proue your right to this land, vvhichwhich you hauehave; if you can, vvhat, and vvhere be your proofes? let me ſee them: Or els I your Tenaunt vvill hauehave it: This vvere goodly dealing, vvere it not, and very lavvfull. Euē ſo doe you, aſking proofes of vsus for that vvhichwhich vve poſſeſſe, & hauehave poſſeſſed before you made any queſtion about it, nay you your ſelues, held part of this poſſeſſion of vsus and vvith vsus, till yeſterday, vvhen you began firſt to lay claime in this ſorte to the vvhole. Novv your reaſon is, let vsus prooue it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or els you will not accknowledg vsus any longer: ſee I pray you your owne equity. If this ſuffice not to make you deſiſt, I leaue it to the Iudges to giuegive ſentence.
Secondly note further: Our Article ſaith, A Church is where the word is preached, and Sacraments ministred according to all things that of neceſſitie are requiſite. Where vve… plainly inſinuate, that many errours may be added, and truthes wanting in a viſible Church: but nothing which is abſolutely neceſſarie: Now, what doth our practize, in Preaching, or Sacraments, want, that is abſolutely neceſſarie, without which, there cannot be any true preaching or Sacraments at all, ſhevv it vsus becauſe vve ſee it not our ſelues I aſſure you: vntil then, your firſt reaſon hath no reaſon in it.
Fr. Io. his Aunſvver to M. Iacobs 1. Reply vponupon the 1. Excep. HOw fit or vnfit the deſcription is, I neither did, nor doe examine. OnelyOnly becauſe it is your owne profeſſion, and your practiſe is cōtrary vntounto it, I did from hence take the firſt Exception, requiring of you to proue your Aſſemblies to be ſuch, or els to know that your owne doctrine, is a witnes againſt your ſelues. Now in your Reply, hauehave you according to the particulers of that deſcription, iuſtified your Church aſſemblies? Nothing leſſe. Let this therefore be firſt obſerued. But what then hauehave you done?
Firſt pretending as if you repeated our exception, and your owne deſcription, you leaue out diuers particulers, of ſpeciall moment, there expreſſed. As firſt, where the viſible Church is deſcribed to be a congregation of faithfull men, you leaue out theſe wordes (of faithfull men) belike knowing that your Congregations, which are holds of all foule ſpirits, and cages of eueryevery vncleane and hatefull bird,Reuel. 18.2 cannot therefore iuſtly be accounted congregations of faithfull men. Secondly, where the deſcription ſpeaketh of the Sacraments to be duely miniſtred, you / leaue out this word (duely): becauſe it croſſeth your womens Baptiſme, priuate Communion, receiuing of the moſt prophane and their ſeed among you, &c. Laſtly, where in the deſcription it is required, both for preaching the pure word and due adminiſtration of the Sacraments, that they be don according to Chriſtes ordinance: you leaue out theſe words (according to Chriſtes ordinance): belike becauſe this clauſe quite overthroweth both your Antichriſtian Prelacy, from whih al the inferior Miniſters among you receiue power and authority to preach and miniſter the Sacramēts; and your Preiſthood and Deaconry, wherein you all adminiſter; and your ſtinted impoſed prayers, exhortations, croſſes in the forehead, queſtions to Infantes, vſe of the ſame wordes in Engliſh in miniſtring the Lords Supper, which the Papiſts vſed and ſtill vſe in Latine, not retaining the words of Chriſtes inſtitution: and ſuch like.
Thus hauing left out ſuch particulers as were of ſpeciall moment againſt you, yet you demaund vvherein your paactize is contrary to your profeſſion, and deſcription of a viſible Church, in vvhat things that of neceſſitie are requiſite? We aunſwer, in all the particulers of that deſcription aforeſayd. For firſt, your Church-aſſemblies, are not congregations of faithfull men, but a confuſion of all manner of people though neuer ſo wicked and prophane. The‡D. VV…i…g booke pag, 176. and 178 Prelates and Formaliſts affirm, that your Church is full of Atheiſtes, Papiſtes, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whoremongers, and ſuch like. The*Sermon on Rom. 12 pag. 65. and 66. Demonſtration: in the preface. forward Preachers likewiſe, that in your Church are ſvvarmes of Atheiſts, Idolaters, Papiſts, erronious and heretical Sectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murtherers, Theeues, Adulterers, Lyars, &c. Finally, that a man may be any thing among you ſauing a ſound Chriſtian. Theſe things being ſo, as both your eſtate and writings beare witnes: iudge your ſelues, whether your Aſſemblies can be accounted Congregations of faithfull men, or no: which is the firſt point of the deſcription aforeſaid.
Secondly, in the ſame deſcription is required, That the pure vvord of God be preached, according to Chriſtes ordinance. But with you are allowed beſides the word of God, the Apocrypha books: and in ſteed of preching the word, the reading of Homilies: as may appeare in that‡Book of Articles publiſhed Anno 1502. book of Articles alledged by your ſelf. Yet who knoweth not, that in thoſe bookes are diuers vntruths, errors, contradictions, blaſphemies, and ſuch like? So farre are they from being the pure word of God, or agreeing therewith. Moreouer, when and where the word is preached among you, it is done by vertue of a falſe office and calling, never appointed by Chriſt. And the Miniſters that preach it, do in your conſtitution alway ſtand ſubiect to be ſilenced, ſuſpended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when you are made Prieſts, you promiſe, and (when you enter vponupon a benefice) you ſweare, Canonicall obedience. Neither are you ſuffered any further to preach the word, and truth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Iniūetiōs, Aduerticements and Caueates, in that behalf prouided. If any preach the word of God any further, they are ſubiect to be ſilēced, baniſhed and put to death. That theſe things accord with the ordināce of Chriſt, or with your owne deſcription of a viſible Church, I ſuppoſe your ſelf will not for ſhame affirme it.
Laſtly in your deſcription it is required, That the Sacramentes be duely miniſtred, according to the ordinance of Chriſt, in all things that of neceſſity are requiſite to the ſame. Now by the ordinance of Chriſt, in the adminiſtration of the Sacraments, there are neceſſarily required, 1. A lawfull Miniſter; 2. A lawfull people; 3. A lawfull adminiſtratiō, according to the Teſtament of Chriſt: In al which your practiſe is contrary to the ordinance of Chriſt, and your owne deſcription aforeſayd. Your Miniſters all of them are either Prelates, Prieſtes, or Deacons (which among you is a ſtep to the Prieſthood): none of which Chriſt hath ordeyned in his Teſtament for the work of his Miniſterie. Your people are not ſeparated from the world,See Iohn 15.19. & 17.14 1…. but ſtand in confuſion with it, and in ſubiection to the Antichriſtian Prelates and Prelacie: and therefore cannot be deemed a true Church of God and the people of Chriſt, vntounto whome in ſuch eſtate the Sacramēts (which are ſeales of the couenant of grace) doe apperteine, and may be adminiſtred.1 Iob. 4 ….5 Act 2 40. and 19 9. Rev. 18.4. and 14.9. Finally your adminiſtration is according to the inventions and precepts of men, with ſ…inted prayers, exhortations, Epiſtles and Goſpels: and beſides theſe, in Baptiſme, croſſing on the forehead, and queſtions to the infant: in the Lords ſupper, tranſlating and vſing out of the Maſſe book, other words thē the words of Chriſtes inſtitution: and ſuch like, as may be ſeen at large in your book of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the Maſſe book, full of abominations, as*Admonition to the Parlament. your ſelues hauehave confeſſed heretofore.
Theſe things we hauehave ben forced thus to mention at large, both becauſe you twiſe demaund (as if you knew not your ſelves) wherein your practiſe is contrarie to that deſcription aforeſaid: and becauſe you bluſh not to affirme, that all the Chriſtiā world ſeeth and confeſſeth your practiſe to be agreable to your profeſſion in that book. Whereas the contrarie is moſt true. Touching which, what your ſelues hauehave heretofore written to the contrarie, See in the Admonitions to the Parliament, Replies of T. C. againſt D. Whitgiſt, Demonſtration of Diſcipline, &c. And what the reformed Churches profeſſe to the contrarie, ſee in the French, Belgicke, and Heluetian Churches, in the Harmonie of confeſſions, Sēct. 10.11.
Thus alſo appeareth what iuſt cauſe we had, to put you to proue your aſſemblies, to be ſuch, as your ſelues deſcribe viſible Churches to bee. Which ſeeing you hauehave not yet done, and ſeeing your practiſe is contrary to your profeſſion, as now (at your requeſt) we hauehave ſhewed in the particulars aforeſayd: If you ſtill be minded as before, we do alſo ſtill aſke, where and what are your proofes, touching the particulars mentioned in your owne deſcription of a viſible Church?
Your ſimilitude of a Landlord and Tenaunt, is againſt your ſelues: ſo worthy and Clerklike is your Reply. If any hauehave vſurped, or otherwiſe made a falſe claime never ſo long, to a peece of land or other poſſeſſion: may they not iuſtly be called vpō to ſhew their title and bring forth their euidence? Let the Iudges giuegive ſentence.
If you deny your claime to be ſuch, ſhew your euidence from the Apoſtles writings: Let vsus frō thence ſee your evidence for the offices of Archbs, Lord bs, Archdeacons, Prieſts, Parſōs, Vicars, &c. For your entrance into theſe offices; according to your Canons, and book of ordering Prieſts, &c. For your adminiſtration by your ſcinted impoſed Leiturgy, and by your Popiſh Canons, Officers, proceedings, &c. For your maintenance by Tythes, Chriſomes, Offerings, &c. For your confuſed communion of all ſortes of people, though never ſo wicked, in the body of your Church, &c. Let vsus (I ſay) ſee evidence for theſe, from the Apoſtles writings, if you denie your claime to be ſuch, as we hauehave noted. Otherwiſe if you ſpeake not according to this word,‡Eſay. 8.…. it is becauſe there is no light in you, neither any right to that you challendge.
Where you ſay, vve held part of your poſſeſſiō vvith you hertofore: If you meane, that we with you receiued the beaſtes mark and drunke of the cup of Babels abominations, we deny it not: but acknowledg Gods mercy, that paſſing ouer our ſinnes, hath giuen vsus grace and ſtrength“Rev 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Act. 2.40. at his cō maundement to forſake that way of Antichriſt, and to come out of that ſpirituall Babylon, to the ſaluation of our ſoules. Which mercy we wiſh alſo to you, that being ſaued from that froward generation, you may become the ſonnes and daughters of the Lord almighty.
Touching your Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Miniſtratiō, &c: Ynough is ſaid before. OnelyOnly where you ſay, you ſee not your ſelues vvherein you faile, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things neceſſary, It is too impudent vntruth, as your‡Admonitiō to the Parlament. T. C. his replies in defēce thereof. Demō ſtration of diſcipline. Defence of Eccleſiaſticall diſcipline, &c. former writings doe and will alwaies teſtifie to your face, which we will not ſtand here to relate. That ſhall ſuffice which we hauehave touched before: which till it be aunſwered, the Exception hath both reaſon and weight in it, whatſoever you doe or can pretend to the contrary.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 1. Excep. HEre is much adoe to no purpoſe. You obſerue 4. pointes in our Article omitted by me, wherein our practiſe is contrarie to our profeſſion. Firſt, our Article requireth a viſible Church to be an aſſemblie of faithfull men: But our oſſemblies (ſay you) are not ſo. This is falſe, they are ſo: you ſhall neuer proue in vsus the contrary, more then appeareth was in the Church of the Iewes, both Auncient and in the time of Chriſt, and yet they than were the true Church: As I hauehave elſwhere in this book ſufficiently proued and ſhewed againſt you. That which you bring of D. VVhitgift and other writers amongſt vsus of the prophaneſſe of many in our aſſemblies, you depraue their meaninges vtterly: for though they graunt very many ſuch to be amongſt vsus, yet they ſay not, that all our aſſemblies are ſuch, nor our whole aſſemblies: Neither denie they our aſſemblies to be companies of faithfull men, or vtterly to be ſeparated from: Nay, the contrary do they: euen that onelyonly they ought to be reformed. Therefore you too groſly abuſe them.
Secondly, The Article requireth the pure word of God to be preached. But (ſay you) the Apocrypha books, and reading of Homilies, and other errors are allowed in our practiſe: Yea ſurely and in our profeſſion too: as your ſelf obſerueth in the book of Artic. yet then our profeſſion & practiſe differ not, as you charg our Churches. But theſe pointes are not the pure word of God: Neither doth the Article meane, that in a viſible Church, eueryevery iot and title, both of our profeſſion and practiſe, muſt needs be out of the pure word. They knew that eueryevery viſible Church might and did erre in ſomewhat: OnelyOnly it meaneth, that a viſible Church might not erre in any poinct, that of neceſſity is requiſite, as their words expreſſe. It reſteth then that you ſhew, that the pure word is not preached in our aſſemblies by law, ſufficiently to ſalvation: which yet you do not, nor can doe. Therefore you ſay nothing. For, I for my part knovv wel, that our Churches faile from the pure word in ſundry leſſer points, which though they be errors, yet are they not Fundamentall, neither doe they in their owne nature aboliſh from Chriſt.
Thirdly, the Article hath, according to Christes ordinance: But you ſay, that we preach in ſtrange and falſe functions, ſuch as are not Christes ordinances. This is falſe too, Our ordinary Preachers are true Paſtours, as touching the ſubſtance of Paſtorall calling, as I hauehave often aunſwered you, albeit they hauehave a wrong ordination from the Prelacie. See my defence of this poinct, as alſo of that concerning the confuſion of our people, in my other vvriting long ſince deliuered to you, touching the*In my avnſvver to the 1. reaſon of that treatiſe follovving in the e…de of this book. comparing of the condition of a Miniſterie vvith Mariadge. Novv this ordinance of Chriſt, to hauehave a true Paſtor to a faithfull people, is ſufficient for the being of a true Church, though not for the perfection of it. Contrary to the vvhichwhich, you hauehave nothing but vvords.
Laſtly, the Article requireth (due adminiſtration of Sacraments:) But our practize (ſay you) herein is not due or in…ier, becauſe there concurre diuers corruptions withall: as …inted prayers, exhortations, Epistles, Goſpels, & croſſing in Baptiſme, &c. I aunſvver: all theſe ſimply of them ſelues do not aboliſh our Sacraments. If you think they do, ſay ſo, and you ſhall be refuted. If nay, then this verie Article ſignifieth ſo much, That corruptions and faults might be in the Sacraments, but nothing amiſſe that of neceſſitie is requiſite.
Novv, all theſe 4. poinctes I hauehave omitted (ſay you.) True: in vvords I hauehave, but in ſence I expreſſe them all and euerie one, vvhen for breuities ſake, I comprehended all in this generall clauſe of this Article, according to all that is of neceſſitie requiſite. Hovv ſay you, hauehave I not herein contained and ſignified all theſe your exceptions, and that according to the meaning of the Article? If I hauehave (as it is moſt true) then doe you vnconſcionably abuſe me, in ſaying, I pretended to repeate our deſcription in the Article, and yet leaue out diuers particulars of ſpeciall moment. And let this therefore be firſt obſerued, I hauehave omitted nothing materiall in that Article. Yea let this be here noted, that in all this you hauehave moſt fondly abuſed yout penne and tounge.
Yet vyill you ſtill demaund how our practiſe agreeth with our profeſſion in that 19. Article? Still I annſvver you vvith that ſimilitude of a fooliſh and importunate Tenaunt againſt his Landlord. If I hauehave held poſſeſſion, and my aunceſtors before me time out of minde, indeed rhe King laying claime to it, he may call for my euidence, becauſe‡Time preſcribeth not againſt the Prince. nullum tempus occurrit Regi, But againſt my fellovv ſubiects, poſſeſſion & inheritance (ſo long vvithout interruption) is of it ſelf euidence in lavv good inough, except the plaintif can bring better to the cō trary. Therefore it vvere abſurd and ſenceleſſe before any Iudge in England, for a Tenaunt to put ſuch a Landlord to ſhevv his euidence in ſuch a caſe. Euen ſo as abſurd it is for you, ſeeing at firſt you vvere of vsus and novv are gone out from vsus, to put vsus to proue our ſelues to be ſuch as heretofore you neuer doubted of. If now you doubt and contradict it, ſhew you your reaſon as better euidence, or els all men wil condempne your folly.
VVhere you put me to proue all our offices of the Hyerarchie, their ceremonies &c. What needeth it? I neuer tooke it vponupon me: Except you doe ſhew, that theſe corruptions all or any of them abſolutely in their owne nature do aboliſh vsus al cleane from Chriſt, & make vsus vnpoſſible to be ſaued, which vntill you doe, ſtill I ſay, I ſee not any peece of reaſon in all your words.
And Laſtly where you ſay, it is an impudent vntruth, that I ſay we ſee not, that anything neceſſarie is wanting in our Church, And to this end you quote to conuince me, The Admonition. T. C. his Replies, Demonſtration, Declaration, and the Defence of Diſcipline, &c. This is indeed too bold an vntruth, & a wilfull peruerting of all your allegations. None of all theſe do gtaunt any thing to be wanting with vsus that is neceſſarie to the being of a Church ſimply, nor to the being of a true Miniſtery or Sacraments: But onelyonly to their vvell and conuenient being. Hovv honeſt then are you to falſifie your ovvne vvitneſſes ſo openly?
Fr. Io. his Aunſvver to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply vponupon the 1. Excep. I HaueHave often heard ſuch things, M. Iacob. Yet they are but words of wynd. And now belike you tell vsus here aforehand, what we are to look for in this and the reſt of your Replies following, even much adoe to no purpoſe. Firſt where your Article deſcribeth a viſible Church to be a Cō gregation of faithfull men: you ſay, yours are ſo. I did and do denie it. Now therefore muſt you proue it, who made the firſt Argument, and ſtill continew to reply. If you know not this, you know little or nothing either of the rules or of the vſe of ſound reaſoning. Let any that hauehave knowledg, judge. Secondly, whereas you would I ſhould proue the contrary (although in putting this over to me you manifeſt your owne ignorance and weaknes, yet) know that both“Mr. Barrovves Refutation of M. Giff…rd. The Diſcouery. The Conferences publiſhed &c. others of vsus and†In the aunſvvers to M. A. H. to M. T. C. to M. VV. Smith, and to your ſelf. my ſelf hauehave done it ſundrie times; and taken away the obiections drawen from the corruptions in the Ievviſh or any other Churches. VntoUnto which who is there of you that ever gave vsus ſound aunſwer? Thirdly, I take the whole Land to witnes againſt you, that it is moſt falſe which here you are not aſhamed with ſuch boldnes to affirme, viz. that your Church-aſſemblies are Congregations of faithfull men. But by this may all men ſee you make no conſcience what you affirme or denie, ſo you may ſeeme to ſay ſomewhat. Fourthly, your owne men of all ſorts confeſſe it to be as I have ſaid and ſhewed in my former aunſwer. VntoUnto which I might adde an hundred mo teſtimonies of theirs, if the caſe were not as cleare as the Sunne at noone day.
But you ſay, I depraue their meanings vtterly. Why ſo, I pray you? Becauſe they ſay not, that all your Aſſemblies are ſuch, nor your vvhole Aſſemblies, though they graunt very many ſuch to be among you: that is, manie of your Church to be Atheiſts, Papiſts, Drunkards, Whoremongers, Thieves, Murtherers, Witches, &c. Alas M. Iacob, it pittieth me to ſee your extreame follie and evill conſcience. Your follie, that ſee not how both they and you giuegive the cauſe in this graunt: and therby alſo teſtifie that I do not at all deprave their meanings. Is it poſſible, that your Church-aſſemblies ſhould be full of ſuch knowen vngodly perſons, and yet be Congregations of faithful men? It never entred into my thought, much leſſe did I ever ſay it, that your whole Aſſemblies are ſuch. I know and willingly accknowledg many of your Church not to be ſo: for which I praiſe God. (Alwaies I except your publike worſhip and Idolatrie, wherein all, even the beſt among you, are inwrapped.) This I ſaid, that your Aſſemblies are not congregations of faithful men, but a confuſion of all manner of people, though never ſo vvicked. And this you ſee do your owne men teſtifie.
Adde herevnto, that both they and your ſelf graunt your Aſſemblies herein ought to be reformed. If they be already Congregations of faithfull men, what reformation would you hauehave in this behalf? But if their eſtate herein be ſuch, as they ought to be reformed: why are you ſo ſhamles and fooliſh, thus to ſpeake as you do in all this matter? Beſides your folly, you bewray an evill conſcience, in aſmuch as you denie that thing, the light whereof doth ſo ſhine in your conſcience, as even whiles you would ſhift it of, you are conſtrained to acknowledg it whether you will or not.
Where you ſpeak of your owne men, that they deny not your Aſſemblies to be companies of faithfull men, or vtterly to be ſeperated from: it is to no purpoſe at all ſaue againſt your ſelfe. For firſt, though they ſpeak it not in theſe very ſyllables, yet the thing it ſelf neceſſarily followeth vponupon their words. It is without queſtion that the heathen Poets did themſelues worſhip Idols: yet notwithſtanding ſometimes they ſo ſpake in their writings, as Paull doth*Act. 17.28.29. from thence conclude that not Idols but the true God onelyonly is to be worſhipped. Had it now ben of waight, for any of them to have alleadged againſt the Apoſtle, that theit Poets did not deny Idols to be worſhipped? Yet you think it ſufficient, to withſtand the truth with any ſuch pretence. Let this once ſpoken, ſerve for aunſwer to all your reproches wherewith you burden me many times for the collections which I deduce neceſſarily from your owne and other mens writings. Secondly, you are to know that it is not materiall againſt me, whatſoever your men doe graunt or denie. But againſt you it is, who abide in the ſame Miniſterie and of the ſame Church with them. For that which you ſpeak of the Church of the Iewes both auncient and in the time of Chriſt, referring vsus to another place hereafter in this book for proof of your compariſon, look you there alſo for aunſwer therevnto. And hitherto of the firſt point of your Article and profeſſion differing from your practiſe and conſtitution.
For the ſecond, if you profeſſe to preach the pure vvord of God (as this Article requireth) and yet againe both in profeſſion and practiſe (as here you acknowledg) preach the impure and lying writings of Men, ſuch as be the Apocrypha books and your Homilies: what is or can be more contrarie? If your Article meane othervviſe (as you pretend) it is full of deceit. Neither ſhall any ever know what your profeſſion is, if your Articles doe thus croſſe one another, and your practiſe alſo agree with the worſt.
But to cleare this point, I aunſwer furthermore: 1. that it is a point of neceſſitie requiſite, that Gods vvord onelyonly be taught. For which ſee theſe Scriptures, Deut. 4.2. and 12.32. Pſal. 119.113. Prov. 30.5.6. Eſa. 8.20. and 59.21. Ier. 23: 16.28. Ioh. 5.39. Col. 3.16. 1 Tim. 6.3.4.5. and 2 Tim. 3.16.17. Gal. 1.8.9. Rev. 22.18.19. Thus by your owne expoſition of this Article, the Aſſumption of your maine Argument falleth, and your Churches remaine in falſe conſtitution: which is the queſtion betweene vsus.See the third Exception follovving, In the aunſvver to Mr, Iacobs 2. Reply. 2. The Apocrypha books maintained in the Church (which you ſay is both your profeſſion and practiſe) overthroweth the truth of Chriſtian religion, and bringeth in Iudaiſme, Popery, Atheiſme, and what not? 3. Even in the Church of Rome where theſe books alſo are received, yet withal the pure word is ſo preached among them by Law, as no doubt to ſome is ſufficient co ſalvation. For proof whereof ſee the Rhemes Teſtament, in their note vponupon 1 Tim. 2.5. Yet this hindreth not but that their Church maintaineth falſe doctrine (as in that place alſo may be ſeen) and ſtandeth in falſe conſtitution. Neither therefore can this help you. It reſteth then that you ſhow, the pure worde only to be preached among you by Lavv, and that alſo according to Chriſtes ordinance. which yet you doe not, neither can doe. And therefore it is your ſelf that ſay nothing: but that you both profeſſe & practiſe errors.
Now it is well, the truth ſo ſhineth in your heart, as you confeſſe your Churches faile from the pure vvord in ſundry leſſer points. Yet I pray you reckon vp theſe points in particular, that by the worde of God it may be ſeen whether they be leſſer or greater then you would beare vsus in hand. Then tell vsus, in whoſe power it is in your Church, to redreſſe them. Alſo, why they are not redreſſed, ſeeing you know them, and hauehave‡Rev. 2.16.17. & 3.3. Mat. 18.15.16.17.20. 1 Cor. 5.4.5 Lev. 4.13. 2 Cor. 10.4.5.6. rules given by Chriſt for ſuch caſes, if your Churches be his? Laſtly, why you for (your part) abide in knowen errors, and keepe not the truth and commaundements of Chriſt?
As touching that you ſay, though they be errors, yet they are not fundamentall, neither doe in their owne nature aboliſh from Chriſt: the fit place of handling this point followeth in the ſecond Exception and ſeventh Reaſon, to which places I referre it. Yet in the meane time, becauſe here we are treating of the Apocrypha books, tell me whether in retaining them, you retaine not ſuch errors as your ſelf account fundamentall &c. For example, the book of Tobit teacheth that†Tob. 12.12.15. Angels doe preſent and bring to memory our prayers before the Lord. Now this honour (you know) is peculiar to Chriſt, who“1 Tim. 2.5. onelyonly is the Mediator of Interceſſion. That Apocrypha doctrine therefore is blaſphemous, and an error (in your ſence as I take it) fundamentall. Adde herevnto that*2 Mach. 12.43.44.45. offring vp of a ſinne offring to God for the dead, to make reconciliation for them thereby, ſpoken of in the book of Machabees: And according to your ſecond ſence of fundamentall, that‡2 Machab. 14.41.42. commending of vvilfull murther, taught in the ſame book of Machabees. Not to ſpeak of the Magick in the“Iob. 6.6. book of To bit, for healing any that is troubled with a Divell or evill ſpirit, by a perfume made of a fiſhes heart and liuer. Theſe ſweet doctrines with other the like do thoſe books affoord. But it ſkils not, ſo long as with a bold face notwithſtanding you can beare it out and ſay ſtill, your errors are not fundamentall, &c. Is this your conſcience, Mr. Iacob? Will you thus ſtill plead for Baall?
But to proceed, in the third place you ſpeak of thoſe words, (according to Chriſts ordinance. Where firſt marke, that theſe words in your Article are to be referred to all the particulars going before. So as to maintaine your Argument, you muſt proue your Aſſemblies to be ſo gathered, the pure vvord ſo preached, anh the Sacraments ſo adminiſtred among you, as Chriſt hath ordeined. Thus might you more perſwade vsus, and defend your ſelues better, in one half ſheet of paper, then in a thouſand ſuch frivolous pamphlets as you ſparſe abroad, to no purpoſe at all, except it be to lay open your owne nakednes ſo much the more.
Whereas I alledged, that vvhen and vvhere the vvorde is preached among you, it is done by vertue of a falſe office and calling, never appointed by Chriſt: this you ſay is falſe too. Often have I heard you ſay ſo, but never could I heare you proue it. To help you therefore, I will ſhow you the way how to doe it, if any ſuch thing could be. And that is thus: firſt, ſyncerely (as before God) to reckon vp all the offices of Miniſtery which your Church by Law enjoyeth; and then to note the Scriptures which teach that Chriſt ordained thoſe offices in his Church: ſecondly, to ſhow the manner of entrance into your ſeverall offices preſcribed by Law; and then, to name the places of Scripture where ſuch calling is appointed by Chriſt. This you ſee is a plaine and ready way (touching theſe two points) to ſtabliſh the conſcience and to confound your adverſaries, not with ſhow of words, but with ſubſtance of matter. I hope it will do you ſome pleaſure Mr. Iacob, that I hauehave ſhowed you ſo good a way. All the thanks I aſke for it is, that you would walk vprightly in it.
Now if you liſt not take the paines, or find the way all to hard, for your Archbs, Lordbs, Archdeacons, Parſons, Vicars, Stipendaries, and the reſt of your Prieſts and Deacons: yet at leaſt for your ſelf ſhow it in defence of your owne office and calling, firſt when you were made Prieſt and Deacō by the Prelates; and thē when you became an Houſe-Prieſt in the countrey, and ſince a Mercenary-Prieſt in the citty. Now (I heare) your Lords the Prelates hauehave commaunded you ſilence, and you as an obedient childe of ſuch reverend Fathers do readily ſubmit to their Antichriſtian authority. Yet let this be no excuſe to put of the clearing of the former matter: but ſeeing you hauehave ſo much the more leaſure, do it the more ſoundly and ſpeedily. Doubtles it would give great light in this caſe.
Next you ſay, your ordinarie Preachers are true Paſtors, as touching the ſubſtance of Paſtorall calling: but whom meane you by ordinary Preachers &c. Your Prelates (I remember) are by Law your Ordinaries. Doe you meane it of them? your treatiſe ſhewes it not. Tell vsus then who they be of whom you ſpeak: 1. whether all or ſome onelyonly of your Preachers: 2. whether you have any extraordinarie Preachers that have ſome other office: 3. what you judge, of thoſe that are not in the number of the ordinary Preachers you ſpeak of, whether they alſo be true Paſtors: 4. what you account (according to the Scripture) the ſubſtance of the Paſtorall calling, whereof you ſpeak. All theſe points you ſee muſt be cleared, afore we can vnderſtand what you ſpeak, or whereof you affirme. So myſticall, or rather in deed ſo fearefull and deceitfull is your manner of ſpeach.
Touching the queſtion, what is ſubſtantiall in the Miniſtery (if you put it over to me to declare, as your manner is) I have already ſhowed my judgment and reaſons in†A treatiſe of the Miniſt. of the Churches of Engl. p. 83. 84. 85. another treatiſe. Which you may either refute, or approue your Miniſtery according to thoſe particulars, or (if you can do neither of theſe) yeeld to the truth againſt which you have ſo long ſtrugled in vaine. In vaine, I ſay: for proof whereof marke what followeth next in your Reply.
Your ſelf confeſſe that even the Preachers for whome you plead, have a wrong ordination from the Prelacy. Thus your owne mouth (M. Iacob) is witnes againſt your ſelf, that al your labour is in vaine. Shall I yet make it more plaine vntounto you? Marke then. Your maine defence is from‡See before, pag 3. and 6. the doctrine of your Church, as it is publiquely profeſſed and practiſed by Lavv. Now your Law admitteth no other ordination, but that of the Prelacy. And this your ſelf here confeſſe is vvrong. In what caſe now your Miniſtery ſtandeth, let others judge. And take you heed, you pleaſe not your ſelf any longer in ſuch vnrighteouſnes. The“2 The. 2.12 end thereof is fearefull. But beſides this eſtate of your Miniſtery, you confeſſe here alſo for the body of your Church, that you have a confuſion of people: that is (in deed, though you ſpeak it not in word) a ſpirituall Babylon. For Babel, is in Engliſh, confuſion. Thus both for Miniſtery and people, you give the cauſe, having wearied your ſelf in the defence of Babylon all in vaine. Which is and will be the fruit of your and all other mens labours in this caſe. So the*Ier. 51.58.64. Scripture hath foretold.
Your other writing,‡See the next treatiſe follovving at the end of this. touching the comparing of the condition of a Miniſtery vvith Mariage, long ſince deliuered, was alſo long ſince aunſwered. VntoUnto which I have not yet received any Reply: not ſo much as words, which is the moſt I look for from you at any time.
Where next you graunt, it is Chriſts ordinance, to hauehave a true Paſtor, to a faithfull people: hold you there, M. Iacob, and you overthrow at once all your Churches and Miniſtery. For you neither have proued, neither ever will, that ſo you have. Begging of the queſtion (though you vſe it never ſo often) is nothing but words, not any proof at all.
After this you come to that clauſe of your Article, which requireth due adminiſtration of the Sacraments according to Chriſts ordinance. Firſt mynd, that divers other particulars were related (wherein you faile) beſides thoſe you have here mentioned. See them in my‡Before. Pag 15. 16. 17. former aunſwer. Now if the corruptions of the Iewes*Mal. 1.6.7.8.12.13. Amos. 4.4.5. Eſa. 1.12.13. polluted the table of the Lord and made their oblations to be in vaine; yea, if the abuſes in Corinth about the Sacrament made that‡1 Cor. 11.20. it was not the eating of the Lords ſupper: what then ſhal be thought of the heynous abominations of Antichriſt retained among you in the Sacraments? Your diſtinction of ſimply aboliſhing is but leaven of your owne, borrowed from your Prelates, and by them from the Papiſts. We plainely affirme that your abuſes and corruptions are ſuch, as the Sacraments among you are not duely adminiſtred according to Chriſts ordinance; and that it cannot be ſhowed by the word of God that they ſeale vp Gods covenant of grace to your Church and the members thereof in that eſtate. Now ſee that (according to your promiſe) you refute this. And prove that notwithſtanding all your corruptions mentioned, yet Chriſt acknowledgeth your Sacramēts for his: alſo, that the good things and ordinances of Chriſt wanting among you, are not of neceſſitie requiſite. In the meane time know, that none can partake in the adminiſtration of your Sacraments, but they muſt needs withall partake in your ſinnes before rehearſed. Which the Lord hath moſt ſtraitly forbidden: Rev. 18.4. and 14.9.10.11. Exod. 20.4.5. Pſal. 119.21. Mal. 1.7.8.13.14. 2 Cor. 6.17. Amos. 4.4.5. and 5.5. Epheſ. 5.11.
The particulars of your Article, you ſay, you omitted for breuities ſake. Let others beleev you that will: for mine owne part, I neither do nor can beleev it. You have here taken paines to write an whole book, and in it a multitude of words to no purpoſe. Is it likely then, that for brevity ſake you would omit the moſt ſpeciall points of the Article, which may be written in a line or two at the moſt? Nay M. Iacob, theſe clauſes (of faithfull men; duely; according to Chriſts ordinance) are ſo ful and pregnant againſt you, as you thouht it no wiſdome to mention them at all: but rather in ſilence to bury them vnderunder ſome generall terme, or (as your ſelf ſpeak) to comprehend them in a generall clauſe. This in deed was the beſt way to darken the truth and help your ſelf, if any way you could. But any that mind your manner of dealing may eaſily ſee, that if theſe clauſes had made but a tenth part ſo much for you, as they are fully againſt you: then you would have ben ſo far from omitting thē, as we ſhould have had them noted downe in greater letters then the reſt.
For your Article it ſelf, if the meaning of it were to comprehend thoſe points in your generall clauſe: why then did it ſo particularly mention them beſides? Were the framers of your Article ſo ignorant or careleſſe (think you) as in a brief deſcriptiō of ſuch a waighty matter, they would commit ſo many vaine and needles tantologies? Nay rather they judged all theſe particulars abſolutely needfull: ſpecially, that Chriſts ordinance be had and obſerved, and that alſo in all things of neceſſitie requiſite. How ſay you, is not this the meaning of the Article? How fondly then and how vnconſcionably have you abuſed not onelyonly your pen and tounge, but even your Church and book of Articles, whereon you ſeeme for to rely? How juſt cauſe alſo have I then ſtill to demaund, where and what your proofes be, touching the particulars of your owne deſcription of a viſible Church?
Your parable of a Landlord and a Tenaunt, beſides that it is popiſh and againſt your ſelues (as hath ben ſhewed) it is alſo falſe. You have not had poſſeſſion time out of minde, as you pretend. It is but yeſterday ſince this your Samaritane and miſceline religion began, viz; ſince King Henry the eight. Now alſo Chriſt the King and Lord of his Church doth by his ſervants lay claime to his owne right, and diſclaimeth your falſe worſhip and Miniſterie. So your owne ſaying is againſt your ſelf, Nullum tempus occurrit Regi, No time doth preiudice the King. If you plead your right by any more auncient date, as from Chriſt and his Apoſtles, the evidence may ſoone be ſhewed from their writings. If you doe it not, all men of wiſdome will not onelyonly condemne your folly, who take vponupon you the defence of ſo bad a cauſe, but will alſo perceive the impietie of your Churches eſtate, for which no warrant can be ſhewed frō Apoſtolik writ.
For our going out from among you, when before we had held part of poſſeſſion with you, I brought warrant from the worde of God: which you touch not at all.
That it lieth vponupon you, yea and that your ſelf have taken it vponupon you, to approve your Hierarchy, Leiturgy, confuſion of people &c. appeareth not onelyonly by the title of your book, which is called A defence of the Churches and Miniſtery of England: but by reaſon alſo that you began the firſt Argument and continew to replie. Wherevpon you are bound to proue what is denied or in this caſe put vntounto you to be proved. We then in aunſwer to your Argument noting the falſhood of your Hierarchy, worſhip, &c. it is your part now to approve them by the word of God, or to convince that they aboliſh not your conſtitution from being Chriſts. If you cannot doe this, confeſſe it, and give glory to God. That your caſe is thus, hath ben often ſhewed by vsus, both in other writings and in theſe aunſwers to your ſelf. And of this point there will be occaſion afterward to ſpeak againe.
Touching the impudent vntruth wherewith you were charged, firſt you ſayd, your ſelves ſee not wherein you faile, touching Preaching or Sacraments, in things neceſſary. I alledged your owne men, as witneſſes to convince you therein, The Admonition, T. C. his replies, the Demonſtration, &c. Now you aunſwer that none of all theſe do graunt any thing to be wanting vvith you that is neceſſary to the being of a Church ſimply, nor to the being of a true Miniſtery or Sacraments: but onelyonly to their vvell and convenient being. By which bold aſſertion of yours, you both prove and perſiſt in the impudent vntruth laid to your charge. For hearken now, and you ſhall heare themſelves teſtifie thus much.
The firſt Admonition in the Preface ſayeth thus, In a fevv vvordes to ſpeake vvhat vve meane, Either muſt vve have a right Miniſtery of God,Admonitiō to the Parliam. firſt and ſecond. and a right government of his Church according to the Scriptures ſet vp (both vvhichwhich vve lack) or els there can be no right Religion, nor yet for contempt thereof can Gods plagues be from vsus any vvhile differred. And againe in the treatiſe it ſelf are theſe words, We in England are not yet come to the outvvard face of a Church agreable to Gods vvord. Or as it is written in the margent of divers of thoſe books, we are ſcarce come to the outvvard face of a Church &c. Take which of theſe you pleaſe: the beſt is bad ynough.
Touching the Miniſterie in particular, the ſame book and men ſay thus, We have an Antichriſtian Hierarchy and a popiſh ordering of Miniſters ſtrange from the vvord of God and the vſe of all vvel reformed Churches in the vvorld. And further, Although ſome truth be taught by ſome Preachers, yet no Preacher may vvithout daunger of the Lavves, vtter all the truth compriſed in the booke of God.
Then touching the Sacraments, thus they write, The Sacraments are vvickedly mangled and prophaned. Alſo, In the primitive Churches they adminiſtred the Sacrament ſimply as they received it from the Lord, vve ſinfully mixed vvith mans inventions and deviſes. Yea they charge the Prelates, that they doe ſuperſtitiouſly and vvickedly inſtitute a nevv Sacrament (vvhichwhich is proper to Chriſt onelyonly) marking the child in the forehead vvith a Croſſe, in token that hereafter he ſhall not be aſhamed to confeſſe the faith of Chriſt.
And of your book of cōmon prayer, according to which your Sacraments and other divine ſervice is adminiſtred, thus alſo they write, we muſt needes ſay that this book is an vnperfit book, culled and picked out of the Popiſh dunghill the Maſſe book, full of all abominations.
To conclude withall, thus they teſtifie concerning theſe things controverted betweene them and the Prelates, Neyther is the controverſy betvvixt them and vsus as they vvould beare the vvorld in hand, for a cap a tippet or a ſurplus, but for greater matters concerning a true Miniſtery and Regiment of the Church according to the vvord. Which things once eſtabliſhed, the other melt away of thēſelues. Being (once eſtabliſhed) ſay they. Therefore yet they did not account they had them. And whereof ſpeak they? All may ſee, of a true Miniſtery and Regiment of the Church.
Now ſpeak your ſelf, Mr. Iacob. Do not theſe men teſtifie to your face, that you have avouched a bold and impudent vntruth, wilfully ſtriving againſt the cleare light? Yet I have cited but a few, and thoſe onelyonly out of the Admonitions to the Parliament. Out of which and the reſt of their writings I might alledge a thouſand mo, to convince you herein. But that would be too tedious. And theſe (I doubt not) will cleare the point, and ſuffice any that are indifferent and godly minded. For your ſelf, I ſay no more but wiſh you had not verified the Orators ſaying, He that once paſſeth the bounds of modeſtie, becomes impudent out of meaſure. Hitherto of the firſt Exception.