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

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

Chap. 5. The ſecond Exception againſt Mr. Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſayd.

Fran. Iohnſon. SEcondly, tell vsus whether you hold and profeſſe Ieſus Chriſt to be the Prophet, Prieſt and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his owne ordinance only, and in no other. And if you do, then ſhew vsus how your practiſe agreeth with this profeſſion.

H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. TO this ſecond Exception That Chriſt is our Prophet, Prieſt, and King, I aunſwere: The Booke of Articles, our Miniſters now, and Congregations generally, do hold and profeſſe the ſame (our practiſe being anſwerable likewiſe therevnto) euen as before time Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and ſuch like, with their Congregations did then: viz. That Chriſt is our Prophet, Prieſt and King, and to be obeyed in his owne ordinances onelyonly & in no other. This I ſay we generally profeſſe and practiſe.

Hovvbeit this note vvith all, vve hold Chriſts ordinance to be of tvvo ſorts, writtē or vnwrittē, the firſt neceſſary, the ſecōd arbitrary. The firſt touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the invvard opinion only, ſuch as theſe, The doctrine of God, his Nature, his Perſons, his Properties, of the Meſſias Chriſt Ieſus, of Iuſtification, of Sanctification, of the Reſurrectiō &c. Wherein ſtandeth the†1 Cor. 3.12.13. foundation of ſaving faith. All theſe muſt be in the vvritten vvord or els to be none of Chriſtes. The ſecond touching outvvard orders in the Church, vvhichwhich are truely called and counted Chriſtes ovvne alſo, although particularly deuiſed and appointed by the Church, vvhom Chriſt hath authoriſed therevnto, euen as it ſhall be thought moſt fit and profitable for the preſēt times, places and perſons: ſuch vve hold all outvvard gouernement and ceremonies to be, becauſe they be not ſimply of the foundation, neither written, nor certen, nor perpetuall, but at the arbitrarie appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate, and yet to be Chriſtes ovvne neuertheleſſe, vvho hath left this libertie for the Church to vſe. Thus vve hold and thus vve practiſe, and vve are perſvvaded no Scripture to be againſt all this, but rather for it. I ſpeak novv concerning our Miniſters and Congregations generally; that is our publique Church ſtate. If you ſay, but there are divers amongſt vsus that thinke othervviſe, I aunſvver, But this is the generall eſtate both of our Miniſters and Churches, hovvſoever one or tvvo amongſt hūdreths or thouſands may thinke othervviſe, ſhevv the contrary if you can. And our Churches, they certenly muſt be deemed after their generall eſtate and conſtitution, not as one or tvvo men thinke. If you ſay, this generall opinion and practiſe is an error. Therfore they obey not Chriſts ordinances in truth herein, though they thinke they do. I aunſvver, let it be ſo, it is novv“An error, though not fundamentall. the error of their iudgment, as it vvas in Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Not pregnaunt rebellion and diſobedience to Chriſt, not a convicted or ſeared conſcience, ſo that their other“1 Cor. 3.1….15. truthes of the foundation are not fruſtrat, nor Chriſt made to none effect in them. And this is all our queſtion, whether they remaine Christians ſtill for all theſe faultes, yea or no.

F. Io. his Aunſvver to M. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 2. Excep. IN this Exception we demaunded firſt, if you held Ieſus Chriſt to be the Prophet, Prieſt, and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his owne ordinance only and in no other; then, how your practiſe agreeth with this profeſſion. One would have thought it had ben needfull (if you could) to have cleared this poinct by the Scriptures, and from thence to have proved your Miniſtery, worſhip, Church gouernement, &c. (which are called jn queſtion) to be no other then the Lord Ieſus Chriſt, that Prophet, Prieſt and King of his Church hath in his Teſtament given and appointed therevnto. But this you have not done. And let the Reader note it. But what then do you ſay?

Firſt you tell vsus, That touching this poinct, your profeſſion and practiſe now is ſo as before time it vvas vvith M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and their Cōgregations. But what of this? Can the perſons or age of theſe whom you name, nay can any perſon or ages preiudice the truth? Were not they ſubiect to error at all? Or muſt their errors bind vsus? Did not Iohn Hus (that champion of Chriſt) and others alſo of the Martyrs in former times, ſay and heare Maſſe, even to their dying day,See their hiſtoryes in the Acts and Monuments not ſeeing the abominations thereof? And did not divers of them acknowledge, ſome the Popes calling and Supremacy, ſome 7 Sacraments, ſome Purgatory, ſome Auricular confeſſion, & ſuch like greeuous errors? And yet notwithſtāding dyed conſtantly for the truthes they ſaw, ſome for one, and ſome for another, as God made manifeſt vntounto them. But may we now therefore ſo profeſſe, and practiſe in theſe things as they did? Or if we ſhould, were their ignorance and errors a ſufficient defence for vsus? Yet thus would you beare vsus in hand.

Furthermore tell vsus, if M. Latimer and others did not forſake the Prelacy and functions they had before time received? And Maiſter Ridley at his death repent that he had ben ſo earneſt for the remnants of Popery in his time retained? Beſides, who knoweth not that when M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. died Martyrs for the truth of Chriſt, they neither had them ſelves, nor ioyned in ſpirituall communion with ſuch as had the Prelacy and Miniſtery now pleaded for? And not that onelyonly, but were members of that perſecuted Church in Queene Maries dayes, which was ſeperated from the reſt of the Land as from the world, and ioyned in covenaunt by voluntary profeſſion, to obey the truth of Chriſt, and to witnes againſt the abominations of Antichriſt. As they alſo did vntounto death in the truth they ſaw, though otherwiſe (being but as it were in the twylight of the Goſpell) they had their wants and errors.

Yet who is ſo blind or beſotted, as not to ſee that their errors may not be our rules, neither can be our warrant: but rather that we ought after their example, faithfully to ſtand in and for whatſoever trueth God revealeth vntounto vsus by his word? And that otherwiſe thoſe holy Martyrs ſhall riſe in iudgment againſt all ſuch, as either withhould the trueth in vnrighteouſneſſe, or in any reſpect refuſe to walke therein.

Finally, ſeeing GOD hath given vsus“Pſal. 119.105.128. Gal. 1.8.9. & 6.16. Deut. 12.32. Rev. 22.18.19.20. his vvord to be the light of our feete, and rule of our liues and religion: What meane you to lead vsus from it, to the aberrations of any men whatſoever? Should not‡Eſa. 8.19. all people enquier at God, or would you have vsus go from the liuing to the dead? From God and his word, to men and their errors? This doubtleſſe is that wherevnto you would bring vsus, and whereby you miſlead your favorites: as will yet further appeare by that which followeth. For what ſay you next?

Secondly, you tell vsus, and wiſh it to be noted (as we alſo do) That Chriſtes ordinances be of two ſortes, either written or vnwritten: the firſt neceſſarie; the ſecond arbitrary: the firſt touching doctrine, that is touching faith and the inward opinion onelyonly, Theſe (ſay you) are writtten; The ſecond touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward governement and ceremonies: Theſe (you ſay) are not written, but arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magistrate. Thus (you ſay) you hold and practiſe, and thinke no Scripture is againſt it.

For aunſwer hereof, Firſt we aſke what Scripture you have for it?

Secōdly, we alledg againſt it, theſe Scriptures, and the like. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5. &c. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. &c. & 6. chap. & 14.23. & 15. chap. & 19.9. & 20.7.17.28. Rom. 12.6.7.8. Ephe. 4.11.12. 1 Theſ. 5.12.13.14. Phil. 1.1.5. Heb. 3.1.2.3. & 13.17. Iam. 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1.2.3.4. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. & …. & 11. & 12. & 14. Chap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6.1.6. 2 Theſ. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18.15.16.17. & 28.18.19.20.

Thirdly let it be obſerved, that your ſelf here graunt and cannot deny, but all the outvvard gouernement and ceremonies of your Church, are invented and arbitrary at the pleaſure of man, and not vvritten in the vvord of God. Wherevpon it followeth, that they are none of Chriſtes, and therefore not to be ioyned to at all.

Fourthly, ſee how neare you are driven that are glad to run back into the Papiſts tentes, where yet you know there is no ſuccour. Before you pleaded poſſeſſion time out of mind: now you tell vsus of ordināces vnwritten &c. Are not theſe meere popiſh ſhiftes, even the old worne arguments of Antiquity and Vnvvritten verities, ſo often and ſo much ſtood vponupon by the Papiſts? Alas that you ſhould plead to be true Chriſtians, and yet thus openly take part with Antichriſt? What ſhall we ſay to theſe things? Surely God is iuſt and wil verifie his word, That they which receiue not the louelove of the trueth, 2 Theſ. 2.10.11.12.that they may be ſaued, he vvill ſend them ſtrong deluſion, to beleeue lyes, that they may be damned.

Fifthly, you make the ordinances touching outward gouernement and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither vvritten at all. This is very ſtrange divinity: And thus I ſhew it. It is an ordinance not only concerning the inward, but alſo the outward governemēt of the Church, that Chriſt is Lord and King thereof: Is it therefore no matter of faith? It concerneth the outward governemēt, vvhether the Pope be (vnderunder Chriſt) head of the Church or no: Doth it not therefore concerne faith? Publique prayer, preaching of the vvord, and hearing of it preached, adminiſtration and receiuing of the Sacraments, are matters cōcerning the outward gouernement and orders of the Church: Doe they not therefore touch fayth? Admonition and excommunication concerne alſo the outward governement of the Church: Do they not therefore concerne faith? Finally, by this Divinitie, the Sacraments of Baptiſme and of the Lords ſupper, being Ceremonies, ſhall with you be no matters of faith at all.

Yet here you ſtay not, but adde moreover, That the outward orders, gouernement, and ceremonies of the Church, be arbitrarie at the appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate, not vvritten nor certaine &c. Wherevpon it followeth, that it is not certen nor taught in the Scriptures, but arbitrarie at the Churches and Magiſtrates pleaſure: Whether Chriſt, or the Pope of Rome, or Canterbury, be head and Archbiſhop of the Church of God? 2. Whether Iewes onelyonly of the Tribe of Leui, may now miniſter the holy things of God in his Church? 3. Whether Chriſt hath given any giftes, and ſet any Offices in his Church for the Miniſtery and guidance thereof: 4. Whether prayer muſt be in a knowen or vnknowen toung: 5. Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and honored: 6. Whether the Church may excomunitate: 7. Whether the Popes or any other Prelates excommunicatiō be to be regarded: 8. Whether there be two, or three, or ſeauen Sacraments: 9. Whether the Paſſeouer, Circumciſion and other Ceremonies and Sacrifices of the Lavv, be now to be vſed: 10. Whether the Heatheniſh ſacrifices and vvorſhip be to be ioyned withall: 11. Whether creame, oyle, ſalt, ſpittle, croſſing and coniuring, may be vſed in Baptiſme: 12. Whether the bread onelyonly and not the cup, is to be given to the lay people (as you cal them) 13. Whether holy water, holy aſhes, holy palmes and ſuch like, be of the holy things of the Church: 14. Whether the Iewiſh and the Popiſh Veſtments, Faſts, and holy dayes are to be obſerved. And a thouſand ſuch like, which are all of them, concerning the outward orders, gouernement and ceremonies of the Church. By your Diuinitie, theſe and infinite ſuch like, are vnvvritten and vncerten, but left onelyonly to the pleaſure of the Church and Magiſtrate.

Yea if it pleaſe you, the Princes and ciuill Magiſtrates may them ſelues be the publique Miniſters of the vvord, Sacraments, and Cenſures of the Church: 2. Any that will may without a calling take vponupon him to be a publque Officer in the Church: 3. Women may baptiſe, or adminiſter the Lords ſupper: 4. The Iewiſh, Romiſh, or Heatheniſh Prieſthood may be retained: 5. Auricular confeſſiō may be vſed: 6. The Keyes of the kingdome of heauen may be appropriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Prelate of Canterbury, or any other whōſoever: 7. The Prelates and their Officials excōmunications do bind in heaven: 8. The Apocryphall books and Decretall epiſtles are Canonicall ſcriptures: 9. The Popes Portuis and the Engliſh book of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawfull worſhip of God: 10. The Prelates and Prieſtes are the true and lawfull Miniſters of God: 11. Orders, Penaunce, Extreame vnction, Matrimony, &c. are the Sacramentes of the Church: 12. Surplus, Cope, Cap, Tippet, Rotchet, &c. are ornaments of the Miniſtery. Finally, all ragges and trumperies of the Romiſh religion, are good and lawfull, if it pleaſe the Church and Magiſtrate. For why: They concerne the outward gouernement, orders and ceremonies of the Church: And touching them (you ſay) Chriſt hath left no ordinances written, certen, not perpetuall, but left them at the arbitrary appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate. Is not this ſtrange Diuinity?

Yet you ſtay not here neither, but as men that have bent their tongues like bowes for lyes, you feare not to adde further, that when the Church and Magiſtrate appointeth any ordinances (whether theſe or any other) touching the outward gouernement and ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them Chriſtes owne, who hath left this liberty to the Church for to vſe. O ſhameles mouth. O vnchriſtian hart. Can any Papiſt or Atheiſt ſay more? Or can any deſire a more euident proof then this, that you and your Aſſemblies thus holding, profeſſing and practiſing (as here your ſelf affirme) cannot in this eſtate by the word of God, be deemed true Chriſtians and Churches?

Sixtly, you do yet further ſeek ſhifts and would colour the matter, by pretending That the things which concerne outward gouernement and ceremonies, are not of the foundation ſimply. But this will help you no more then the other. For firſt we aſke, are they of the foundation at all, though not ſimply? If they be, then ſeing they are not written, nor certen, nor perpetuall (as here by you is affirmed) it will follow that neither the whole foundation is written, certen, or perpetuall, neither the Apoſtles were faithfull and ſkilfull maiſter builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this word (ſimply) added, as if you granted they were of the foundation, though not ſimply.

Secondly we aſke, whether the outward gouernement and ceremonies ordained by Chriſt for his Church vnderunder the Goſpell, be not of the foundation, aſmuch as the outward gouernemēt and ceremonies appointed by Moſes for the Church vnderunder the Law? Or if they be, whether they are not as faithfully ſet downe by Chriſt, as the other were by Moſes, and as carefully to be obſerved by vsus, as the other were by the Iewes: or rather more, inaſmuch as*Heb. 3.2.3. Chriſt the Sonne is worthy of more glory and honour then Moſes the ſeruant.

Thirdly we aſke, what fundamentall poinctes Moſes and Aaron with the reſt of the Iewes ioyning with them held, that‡Num. 16. chap. Corach, Dathan, Abiram, and their cōpanions held not: differing frō them and erring onelyonly touching the Prieſthood and Miniſtery, which concerned the outvvard orders and gouernemēt of the Church. Was therefore Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companie in that eſtate the true Iſraell of God? Or were not the other truthes they held, by this meanes fruſtrate and of none effect vntounto thē? Nay, were they not therefore vvholy to be ſeparated from, and left to the iudgment of God, which overtook them and all that ioyned vntounto them? Yet was their error onelyonly in matters of order and outvvard gouernement of the Church. This may ſerve to convince your vntrue aſſertions in this place. To that of Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c is aunſwered before.

For concluſion I adde concerning this poinct, That all ſuch aſſemblies and people, as hold profeſſe and practiſe (as doth the Church of England) theſe abominations following: can not by the word of God, be eſteemed in ſuch eſtate truely to holde Chriſt, their Prophet, Prieſt & King: viz. 1. The confuſion of all ſortes of people (though never ſo wicked) and their ſeed in the body of the Church: 2. The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then Ieſus Chriſt: alſo of Archdeacons, Prieſtes, halfe Prieſtes, Parſons, Vicars, &c. 3. The entrance into the Miniſtery by another way, and other Lords, then Ieſus Chriſt: 4. The executing of it vnderunder theſe ſtrange Lords, and leaving it at their pleaſure: 5. The preaching of the word, adminiſtration of the Sacraments, and governing of the Church, by vertue of the offices and callings aforeſayd, and according to the Popiſh Canons and conſtitutions: 6. The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their Officialls: 7. The confounding of Civill and Eccleſiaſticall offices and authority in the Miniſters of the Church: 8. The forbidding of Mariage at certen ſeaſons: 9. The impoſing and vſing of ſtinted deuiſed Leiturgies: The Engliſh Portuis, taken out of the Popes Latine one, word for word, (ſaue that a few of the groſeſt things are left out) yet keeping the ſame frame and order of Collects, Pſalmes, Leſſons, Pater noſters, Piſtles, Goſpels, Perſicles, Reſpondes, &c. 10. Appointing holy daies to all Sainctes and Angels, to the Virgin Mary, Iohn Baptiſt, Mark, Luke, and twelue Apoſtles ſeverally: 11. togeather with Faſtes on the Evens and on Ember dayes, Fridayes, Saturdayes, and Lent: 12. Preſcribing the Miniſters to pray over the dead, over the Corne and Graſſe at ſome ſeaſon of the yeare, and over Women at their Churching or purification: 13. Enioyning them to marry with the King, which they make a ſacramentall ſigne: 14. And to Baptiſe with the ſigne of the Croſſe; with Godfathers and Godmothers; with queſtions demaunded of the infant that cannot ſpeake nor vnderſtand: 15. Giving power to Womē to baptiſe: 16. And ordaining that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they received their maker; and with change of the words of Chriſtes inſtitution, taking in ſteed of them the wordes of the Popes Maſſe book, tranſlated into Engliſh, &c. Finally, the vpholding of theſe and all ſuch amongſt them onelyonly by carnall weapons, of impriſonment, death, confiſcation of goods, bāniſhmen, and ſuch like. The Aſſemblies and people (I ſay) which hold profeſſe and practiſe (as doeth this Church of England) the abominations aforeſayd (concerning the outward order and gouernment of the Church) whatſoever trueths they hold beſides, yet can they not by the word of God be deemed truely to hold the Lord Ieſus, their Prophet, Prieſt & King, in ſuch conſtitution of a Church. Neither therefore can they in this eſtate by the vvord of God be accounted true Chriſtians, nor the true conſtituted Churches of Chriſt. And this is all the queſtion between vsus.

7. Laſtly, let the godly and indifferent Reader iudge, whether it will not follow vponupon your aunſwer in this place: Firſt, that the Scriptures are not ſufficient for the building vp and guidance of the Church here on earth. Which is contary to 1 Tim. 3.15. 2 Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1 Cor, 4.6. Rev. 22.18.19.

Secondly, that the man of God can not by the Scriptures be made abſolute and fully furniſhed to eueryevery good worke. Which is contrary to 2 Tim. 3.17. 1 Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Pſal. 119.105.113.

Thirdly, that Chriſt himſelfe (in vvhome the treaſures of vviſdome and knovvledge are hid, yet) was ſo fooliſh careleſſe and vnfaithfull, as having an houſe and kingdome (which is his Church) he hath not in his word appointed vntounto it any Offices, Lawes, and Orders, for the due governing and ordering thereof. Which is contrary to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1.2.3. Eſay. 33.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. Rom. 12.3.4.5.6.7.8. Mat. 28.20. 1 Tim. 6.13.14.15.

Finally, that the Hierachy, Worſhip, Sacramēts, Traditions, Canons, and vvhatſoeuer conſtitutions of Antichriſt (concerning the outvvard orders and gouernement of the Church) being appointed by the Church and Magiſtrate, are to be accounted Chriſtes ovvne. (Which is contrary to 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. Pſa. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Rev. 9.1.2.3. & 14.9: 11.)

O ſhameles impietie. This doubtles is that ſtrange paſſion and meere deſperatenes, wherewith you do hereafter vniuſtly charge vsus: which we will not here proſecute as it deſerveth: but exhort you onelyonly to take heed leaſt that vvo come vponupon you which is written: VVoe vntounto them that ſpeake good of euill, and euill of good: which put darkenes for light, and light for darknes: that put bitter for ſweet and ſweet for bitter. VVo vntounto them that are wiſe in their owne eyes, and prudent in their owne ſight. Eſay. 5.20.21.

H. Iacob his 2 Reply to the 2. Excep. IN this your defence of your ſecond Exception, it pittieth me to ſee your extreame folly: which is the more miſerable, becauſe it appeareth to be not of weaknes, but of wilfulnes. You would know of vsus if we hold Chriſt to be out Prophet, Prieſt and King, & if we profeſſe to obey him in his ordinances & in no other. I anſvvered vve do cōſtantly profeſſe ſo, & as vve profeſſe ſo vve practiſe. But to make our profeſſion and practiſe in this poinct more manifeſt, I noted hovv our ſtate meaneth Chriſt to be our Prophet, Prieſt, and King, and hovv he is to be obeyed: viz. That the vvritten vvord ought of neceſſity to ſhevv vsus our invvard and meer ſpirituall beleif and obedience. As for the outvvard Church order, our ſtate holdeth that it is arbitrary to be appoincted and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magiſtrate, And that the worde no vvhere forbiddeth this libertie: Where note in this explication tvvo thinges.

Firſt, it is foule vvrong to our Churches and to my vvordes, to ſay as you do, That they meane, no outward orders at all, be matters of faith, or constant in the Scriptures. Nay it vvas neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray, to adminiſter Sacraments &c. though external, yet are perpetuall things and neceſſarie and vnchangeable by the Scriptures. My expreſſe vvords, and our Churches meaning is, That any reaſonable kinde of Church-gouernement, and rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures; And yet ſtill Chriſt to be our onelyonly, and abſolute King and Prophet neuertheleſſe. Whoſoeuer doth vrge vponupon our Churches further, or on my wordes; doth ſlaunder and cauill, and malitiouſly depraue them and nothing elſe.

Secondly, note in my explication, that I iuſtifie not this opinion of our ſtate, but I ſay, Thus to beleeue and practiſe, ſimply, deſtroyeth no mans ſaluation in Chriſt, which you denying generally and vehemently in your ſixt aunſvver, you deny directly Maiſter Cranmer &c. to hauehave held the foundation, or to be ſaued: vvherein, you openly profeſſe and proclaime, that ſecond generall poinct vvhichwhich in the beginning I charged you vvith: That all Churches and Chriſtians here in King Edvvards time, and namely Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Philpot, Saunders, Rogers, Tailor, &c. held not Chriſt their Prophet, Prieſt and King, and ſo conſequently they vvere lims of Antichriſt (for they bare his marke euen to their deaths) and no true Chriſtians. Alas to ſee hovv malice and preiudice hath blinded you. Is there not greater cauſe for vsus to cry and ſay againſt you, O ſhameleſſe mouth, O vnchriſtian hart, vvhichwhich termes, you vainely charge vponupon me? Is this you that white the Toombs of thoſe Martirs, & yet in fine, condempne them for no true Chriſtians, nor their Aſſemblies for Churches?

You adde a clauſe, They that profeſſe and practiſe as doth the Church of England, &c. If you meane hereby to put a difference betwene thoſe good mens holding this opinion, and our Churches now, Yea betwene your owne lately, and ours novv, ſpeake out vvhat is it? You can imagine none but this. Thoſe good men Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. and your ſelfe of late, held theſe very ſame errors of the outvvard Church order vvhichwhich vve do: But they and you, did (it ſeemeth) of ſimplicity, vve malitiouſly, they of ignorance, vve of plaine obſtinacy, and hauing a convicted and ſeared conſcience: vvhereby, they and you might be true Chriſtians for all theſe errors, but vve novv cannot be ſo. If this be your meaning, then you graunt vsus our Aſſumption, againſt vvhichwhich all your diſpute here is bent. You graunt it I ſay, That the whole doctrine, as it is by law in England, is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtian. Secondly we now erre not in theſe poincts of ſimplicity, but of wilfulnes and malice.

Say you ſo? Speake that plaine then. Our whole aſſemblies? all and eueryevery of our aſſemblies? of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conſcience? Are you ſure of this? Doe you know eueryevery mans hart and conſcience ſo well? If you do, then you ſay ſomwhat indeed. But you are then neere as wiſe as God himſelfe, to know mens hearts ſo perfectly, whoſe faces you neuer ſaw; You will ſay, you know diuers, whome you dare ſay are convicted in conſcience. That is much alſo to affirme. But if you do, that ſerueth not your turne, vnleſſe all be ſo conuicted. Chriſt knew a great many in the Church of the Iewes yea of the learnedſt and cheifeſt in authority, that were conuicted in conſcience, that he was the Chriſt, who blaſphemed in denying him, and yet the Aſſēblies then were not conuicted, they ſtill were true Churches. Wherefore in this ſaying, if you ſay to the purpoſe, you then affirme the Third generall poinct that I noted in you at the beginning of this my laſt Replie: That eueryevery ſoule in England is conuicted in conſcience.

But here I maruaile that you ſay, Maiſter Hus and other of the holy Martirs did heare and ſay Maſſe till their dying day, Alſo that others did acknowledg the Popes ſupremacie. I aſke you, do you meane that they held and vſed the Popiſh Maſſe, according to all the abominations that are in it? If you thinke ſo, then ſurely neither Hus nor any of the reſt, were holy Martirs. For therein are found errors plainly fundamentall, which of themſelues aboliſh from Chriſt; They are not to be compared to our publique errors now in England, The like I ſay of the Popes ſupremacy. If you thinke any of the Martirs acknowledged it in the large and ample meaning thereof, as the Popiſh Doctors do ſet it downe; Then verily neither were they any Martirs. The book of Acts and Monuments whither you ſend vsus, affirmeth not that they held theſe errors in the largeſt and groſſeſt ſort. It may be therefore they held many and greeuous errors of ignorance, both in the Popiſh Maſſe & in the ſupremacy, which might neuertheleſſe ſtand with Chriſt crucified, And ſo they might be and were holy Martirs: But I affirme, that according to the damnable groſſenes of the very Papiſts, they neither did nor could hold them. Therefore in theſe inſtances you ſay nothing to vsus, nor againſt the queſtion in hand.

Further, you ſayd before in the beginning of your defence of this Exception,“pag. 29. That Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and the reſt of the Martirs then, neither had themſelues, nor ioyned in ſpirituall communion, with ſuch as had the Prelacy, and Miniſtery now pleaded for. Now I ſee you make no conſcience of vntruthes, yea you are bold to auouch open and knowne falſhoods. Did not Maiſter Cranmer hold him ſelfe for Archbiſhop ſtill, and that he vvas by the Pope vniuſtly and vnſufficiently depoſed, and by Queene Mary forcibly reſtreined from it? Did he euer repent of holding that Office till his death? Alſo did not Ridley ſtand vponupon his right to the Biſhopricke of London though ready to dye? Latimer though he renounced his Biſhoprick, yet he kept his Miniſtery, and neuer repented him of it. Philpot neuer miſliked his Archdeaconry: Yea vvhen he refuſed bloudy Bonner, yet he appealed to his ordinary the Biſhop of Wincheſter. The like minde is to be ſeene in Biſhop Farrar. And generally vvhoſoeuer vvere Miniſters then of the Prelates ordination, they neuer renounced it, though they dyed Martirs. Thus appeareth your bold vntruth in this behalfe.

Further in your Sixt anſvver Pag 32. Firſt you vvill not ſee vvhat I meane in ſaying, That theſe outvvard orders be not of the foundation ſimply: I meant, not at all of the very‡1 Cor. 15.2 3.4. Rom. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10.11.12.13.14 foundation, neither are they. Secondly you aske if our outward orders vnderunder Christ be not fundamentall aſwell as the Iewes vnderunder the Law, I aunſvver, neither vvere the Ievves outvvard orders of the very foundation, vvithout vvhichwhich they could not be ſaued. Thirdly you aske how Corah &c. differing from Moſes and Aaron only about the Prieſthood and Miniſtery, were ſeparated from, and damned. I annſvver, not that the matter vvas fundamentall, but the manner vvas rebellious, vvith conſciences a thouſand times conuicted, and ſo donne vvith a high hand againſt God himſelfe.

But novv this conſidered, Hovv vainely doe you charge me in your entrance into this Exception pa. 29. That I and others of my mind, goe about to iustifie theſe matters of order in controuerſie, by Cranmer, Ridleys and Latimers example, and their congregations then. For ſhame do you not ſee the contrary, that I call them errors. I onelyonly iuſtifie by their example that theſe corruptions aboliſh vsus not from Chriſt, as theirs did not, And that I truſt is ſound. Which thing alſo you might hauehave remembred, if you had ben ſo charitable, by that vvhichwhich I vvrot in*In the next treati…e follovving, of the compariſon of the Miniſtery vvith Mariage. Aunſ. to your firſt Reaſon. another place.

Then in your firſt aunſvver, Pag 30. Hovv vainely do you aske vsus for Scriptures to proue theſe orders, ſeeing I expreſlie called them errors.

The like in your Second, vvhere you load vp Scriptures to diſproue them.

Alſo thirdly, you charge an vnconſcionable vntruth on me (if you meane this aunſvver vntounto me) that I ſhould graunt and cannot deny, that all outward ceremonies & gouernement, are arbitrary at mans pleaſure. I only ſaid that our ſtate holdeth that generall opinion, Not that I my ſelfe held it. If you meane them, vvrite to thē, and ſpeake to them: if you meane me, you do me foule iniury.

Fourthly, whether they are Popiſh ſhiftes or no, let our ſtate, vvhichwhich maintaineth theſe things, aunſvver you.

Your Fift is aunſvvered in the firſt poinct of my explication noted before pag 35. To your Sixt in pag 32. vve aunſvvered before in the Second poinct of my explication pag 35.

Your ſeuenth in pag 34. is alſo againſt the ſtate of our Church, and not againſt me.

Fr: Io. his Aunſwer to M. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 2. Excep. PItie not me, but pitie your ſelf (Mr. Iacob) and your Churches eſtate. Your ſelf, who are miſerably weak, and yet fooliſhly wilfull: as all may ſee by this Reply. Your Churches eſtate, which is ſuch, as by the word of God cannot be approved to have Chriſt your Prophet, Prieſt, and King

Therefore ſtill you tell vsus, your Church holdeth Chriſt to hauehave left written what is needfull for your inward and meer ſpirituall belief and obediē ce: but that for the outward Church-order, he hath not ſo done, but left it arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated agayne at the liking of the Churche and Magiſtrate. As if Chriſt had aboliſhed the*Exod. 20.4.5.6. ſecond cōmādement, which directly concerneth the outward worſhip and order of the Church, as the‡Exod. 20.3. firſt doth our inward and ſpiritual belief. Or as if the Scripture did not every where teach that“Col. 2.3.5.8.19-23. Eſa. 33.22. Heb. 3.1.2.3. 2 Ioh ver. 9. Epiſt. to Timoth. Tit. Cor. &c. he hath fully furniſhed the Church, not onelyonly for inward faith; but alſo for outward order and obediēce. Eyther therefore you muſt approve the outward order and worſhip of your Church to be ordeined by Chriſt in his word: or els you have not him for your Prophet, Prieſt, and King, in that eſtate. Chuſe which you will.

The liberty you ſpeak of, is nothing els but a cloke of licenciouſnes, or in deed meer Antichriſtian ſlavery, howſoeuer you account it liberty. That the word of God forbiddeth it, I have ſhowed both here and in my*Pag. 30 former anſwer, againſt which you can ſay nothing. Now therefore when this will not ſerue the turne, you begin to cōment and make notes vponupon your owne explication, that is, to ſeek new ſhifts and euaſions. Which yet are to no purpoſe at all, except againſt your ſelf and your Church.

For the firſt, you ſay it is foule wrong to your Churches and to your words, to ſay, That they meane no outward orders at all be matters of faith or conſtant in the Scriptures. If it be any wrong, it is done by your ſelf. Are not theſe your owne words, towching your Churches opinion in your‡Pag. 28. former Reply, We hold Chriſts ordinance to be of two ſorts, written or vnwritten: the firſt neceſſary, the ſecond arbitrary, the firſt touching doctrine, that is, towching faith and the inward opinion onelyonly &c. the ſecond towching outvvard orders in the Church, vvhichwhich are truly accounted Chriſts ovvne, though particularly deuiſed by the Churche: ſuch vve hold all outvvard gouernement and ceremonies, becauſe they be not ſimply of the foundation, neyther vvritten, nor certaine, nor perpetuall &c. How ſay you to theſe words, All outvvard gouernement and ceremonies? Are they not your owne? And is it not your Churches opinion, by your owne ſaying? Have I then gathered or written otherwiſe, then your ſelf affirme your Church holdeth? If I hauehave, then lay your words and myne together, and let them ſpeak for both. If not, let the Reader iudge whether you hauehave not done me foule vvrong, and (if there be any to your CHVR…ch) whether your ſelf have not committed it. Quitte your ſelf of it, as well as you can.

Beſides, you forget your ſelf wondrouſly, and ſpeak things contradictory. For now ſpeaking of your Churches opinion and your owne words, you ſay, it vvas neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray, to adminiſter Sacraments &c. though externall, yet are perpetuall things and neceſſary and vnchangeable by the Scriptures. Yet before you told vsus your Church holdeth all outvvard gouernement, ceremonies, orders to be vnvvritten, vncertaine, not perpetuall, but arbitrary to be appointed and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magiſtrate. Eyther there fore to preach, to pray, to adminiſter Sacraments &c. are not outward, neyther concerning the governement, ceremonies, nor orders of the Church: or els without queſtion you‡Mendatem oportet eſſe memo…em. forget your ſelf ſtraungely, and ſpeak daggers, which runne into your owne bowels.

But to take that which now the euidence of the truth hath wrung frō you: ſeing to preach, to pray, to adminiſter Sacraments, though externall, yet are perpetuall neceſſary and vnchangeable by the Scriptures, you muſt eyther from the Scriptures ſhow that you hauehave theſe according to Chriſts ordinance, or els yeeld that your practiſe is contrary to the profeſſing of Chriſt for your Prophet Prieſt and King, to be obeyed in his ovvne ordinance onelyonly and no other: And conſequently that the Aſſū ption of your mayne Reaſon is falſe. Which is to yeeld the cauſe.

And mynd withall, that*Eph. 4.11. and 6.18. Rom. 12.7.8. 1 Cor. 11. & 12. & 14. c. 1 Tim. 3.15. & 5.17.8.6.13.14. Mat. 2….19.20. 1 Pet. 5.1-4. Heb. 3.1.2.3 Chriſts ordinance is not onelyonly for theſe things to be done, but for the offices wherein, and the manner whereby they are to be performed. If you wil not beleev me nor the Scriptures alledged, yet heare your owne men what they teach in this poynt. Mr. Cartvvright ſaith,“T. C. firſt, Rep. pag. 83 God hath not onelyonly ordeyned that the vvord ſhould be preached, but hath ordeined alſo in vvhat order and by vvhom it ſhould be preached. And againe ſpeaking of the Iewes Church he ſaith, as it vvas not lavvfull to bring in any ſtrange doctrine: ſo vvas it not lavvfull to teach the true doctrine vnderunder the name of any other function then vvas inſtituted by God.

The Admonitions, Counterpoyſon, Demonſtration, and many other your writings affirme the ſame both for preaching and Sacraments and other points of the outward order and governemēt of the Church. And now I remember my ſelf, your ſelf have confeſſed it‡Pag. 19 before in playne termes, when you graunt it is Chriſts ordinance to have a true Paſtor to a faithfull people: and would have vsus beleev that it is falſe to ſay, you preach in ſtraunge functions, or have not the Sacraments duly miniſtred, etc. I hope therefore in your next we ſhal have proof, not that you have Preaching, Prayer, Sacraments (which we know the Papiſts alſo and Anabaptiſts hauehave) but that you have them in thoſe offices, and after that maner, which Chriſt hath ordeined.

Now where you ſay, your expreſſe vvords and Churches meaning is that Any reaſonable kind of Church gouernement, rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor vvritten in the Scriptures: And yet ſtill Chriſt to be your onelyonly and abſolute King & Prophet neuertheles. For anſwer hereof, beſides that already brought, I will ſay no more to this Popiſh aſſertion but onelyonly inferre herevpon as followeth:

But the Church-governement, rites, and orders which Chriſt in his Tteſtament hath ordeyned vnchangeably, are a reaſonable kinde of Church-gouernement, rites, and orders:

Therefore theſe ſo vnchangeably ordeined by Chriſt, yet (by your owne expreſſe words and your Churches meaning) are arbitrary and chā geable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures. And yet (forſooth) Chriſt is ſtill your onelyonly and abſolute King and Prophet neuertheles. Let vsus now ſee Mr. Iacob, what aunſwer you will make herevnto, without ſclandering, cavilling, and malitious depraving.

The ſecond note in your explication is, that you ſay, you juſtifie not the aforeſayd opinion of your State. But how then do your book and the title of it agree? Nay how do your ſelfe and that title agree, when you wil not defend that which is the very point of the cōtrouerſie between your Churches and vsus? Was there euer a more abſurd defence heard of? But now leaving your Church in the briers, yet ſpeak for your ſelf. How do you Mr. Iacob hold Chriſt your Prophet Prieſt and King, when ſeeing your Church to erre in ſo many and ſo waightie pointes, and that ſo as you can not iuſtifie: yet you hauehave not all this time admoniſhed them, and by due order either brought them to repentance, or left them as obſtinate in ſinne and wilfully diſobeying the voice of Chriſt?

Where you ſay, that thus to beleev and practiſe (as your Church doth) ſimply, deſtroyeth no mans ſaluatiō in Chriſt: you take that for graunted, which you ſhould proue. Beſides that the Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and others may ſay as much for other outward things among them. Yea no doubt but Ieroboam him ſelf and his Prieſts and people ſaid likewiſe, that for Ieruſalē to be the place, and the ſonnes of Aaron the Prieſtes and ſuch like, theſe were outward things, and not to obſerue them or to beleev otherwiſe then Iudah did concerning them, ſimply, deſtroied no mans ſaluation in Chriſt. Was this therefore a ſound defence of their apoſtaſie? Or might any vnderunder ſuch pretence have continued and joined with them therein?

Of your ſecond generall point, and ſo of Mr. Cranmer Ridley, &c. I hauehave ſpoken before. But now becauſe you bid me ſpeak out what difference I put between your Churches and the Martyrs, as alſo between you and my ſelf holding theſe things of late with you: hearken, and I will tell you againe. Firſt for the Martyrs in former times, mark theſe differences.

Differences betvveene the Martirs and Church of Engl.1. Greater light of the truth is now come into the world, then was in thoſe daies: but you louelove darkenes rather then light. For ſtill you walk in darknes. Ioh. 3.19. Epheſ. 5.11.

2. They witneſſed againſt the abominations of Antichriſt (then called in queſtion) to the loſſe of their libertie and lives: Your Church doth not ſo againſt the remnants of Poperie (now cōtroverted) but do either openly defend them, or fearefully ſubmit vntounto them.

3. They conſiſted not of ſwarmes of Atheiſts, adulterers, drunkards and all ſorts of people good and bad, even knowen wicked ones, mixed together in one body: as your Church doth.

4. Such of them as were Miniſters were degraded from their Antichriſtian functions: ſo are not yours.

5. They died not members of Antichriſts Church, nor for any error they held, but for the truth: You ſtil remaine members of Antichiſtian Churches, both withſtanding the truth and maintaining errors.

6. They were and died members of a true viſible Church (viz: that perſecuted Church in Queen Maries daies) which was ſeparated from the reſt of the Land as from the world, and ioyned together in fellowſhip of the Goſpell by voluntary ſubmiſſion therevnto: though in that time of ignorance they had their wants and errors. You continew members of a falſe conſtituted Church, vnſeparated from the world, yeelding ſubiection to Antichriſtian enormityes, againſt the ordinances of Ieſus Chriſt.

7. They refuſed not the truth offred, neyther reſiſted thoſe that did iuſtly reprove theyr errors: but your Church doth both, as appeareth by your continuall practiſe, and by the books and Acts of Parliament made openly and with authority againſt vsus for witneſſing the truth.

8. Your Prelats, Prieſts, and people (that is, your Churches) in your eſtate, are no Martyrs, but children of them which killed the Martyrs, and do at this day fill vp the meaſure of your forefathers, perſecuting to death ſuch as hauehave the teſtimony of Ieſus. This did not the Martyrs.

Are not you then the men that white the toombes of the Martyrs which were in former tymes: and yet your ſelves impriſon, baniſh, and kill the witneſſes of Ieſus that are among you at this day? Take heed you hearden not your hearts, but tremble at your fearefull eſtate, and pleaſe not your ſelues in vnrighteouſnes (by the error of any) neither bleſſe your ſelves ſtill in iniquitie. Hitherto of the difference between the Martyrs and your Churches.

Now for my ſelf, I confeſſe (as I did*Pag. 8. before of the Martyrs) that whiles I was Miniſter and member of your Church in that conſtitution, I ſtood in Antichriſtian eſtate. Yet doubt I not, but euen then, being of the elect of God, I was partaker through faith of the mercy of God in Chriſt to ſaluation. And this I hope is the caſe of divers among you. But for my ſelf, I hauehave now the more aſſurance, in that God hath both drawen me out of that Antichriſtian eſtate, giuing me to ſee and to forſake it, and hath planted me in his true Church and houſehold giuing me to receiue his truth in much affliction with ioy of the holy Ghoſt. 1 Theſ. 1.6.

But as for you in your eſtate, beſides that yet you are not members of any true viſible Church, you do moreover abide in groſſe confuſion, falſe Miniſtery, Antichriſtian worſhip, and other abominations, by the word of God already diſcovered. Now whiles you thus remaine, you cannot in that eſtate approve your ſelves to have the promiſe of ſaluation, whereof by the word of God you can be aſſured, vntill you depart out†Rev. 18.4.5 Act. 2.40.47. Micah. 2.10. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. Ephe. 2.12.19. of that Babylō, and ſave your ſelues from that froward generatiō: being alſo by the Lord added to his true Church. Which mercy I hope God daily doth and will vouchſafe many among you, belonging to his election.

Thus you ſee, how notwithſtanding any thing we eyther do or can acknowledge touching the Martyrs or ourſelves heretofore, yet ſtill we affirme and prove your eſtate to be Antichriſtiā. So far are we frō graunting your Aſſumption, as here you fancy with your ſelf.

Your vaine queſtions, Whether your whole aſſemblyes; all and every of your aſſemblyes? erre of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conſcience? whether we know the heart and conſcience of men, &c. How fond and friuolous are they? All of you erre by your owne graunt. Whether any of you do it with a convicted conſcience, let God iudge who knoweth the heart. Your ſelf it ſeemeth deny not this to be the caſe of ſome among you. Howſoever, ſeeing you confeſſe that you erre, why do you and the reſt being ſo perſwaded ſtil abide in error? Is it becauſe you†Ioh. 3.19. love darknes more then light? Or becauſe‡Act. 28.26 27. when you ſee, yet you wink with your eyes, leaſt you ſhould convert to the Lord, and be healed? If you would not leaue ſuch as you imagine ſee it not: how wil you ever know whether they that refuſe, do ſee it, or not? And why have you not al this time made it knowen to them, and donne what lyeth in you to draw them from error? Or having done it, and finding them obſtinate in evill, yea perſecuters of the truth revealed: why have you not (after the‡Act. 2.40.41. & 13.45.46.51. & 18.6. and 19.9. & 28.24. &c. example of the Apoſtles) ſeparated from ſuch and taught others to do the like? Above all, why plead you for their eſtate to be good, warrantable, in the way of ſalvation, notwithſtanding their errors and abominations? Is not this to dawbe with vntempered morter? Is it not to propheſie peace to the wicked, and to promiſe them life? to ſow pillowes vnderunder their elbowes, and to ſtrengthen their hands in evill, that they ſhould not returne from their wicked way? Ier. 23.16.17. Ezech. 13. Chap. Mal. 2.17.

Where you ſay, if we knew ſome convicted in conſcience, yet it ſerueth not our turne, vnles all be ſo conuicted: ſure you mind not what you ſpeak. Did Chriſt ever give ſuch a rule to his Church? Or ſhould there ever be Church ſeparated from the world, if this courſe were kept? Beſides, what meane you by all being convicted? Whether all in a houſe, or all in a towne, or all in a kingdome, or all in the world? Whether all of echſer, men and women; of all ages, yong and old; of all eſtates, hy and low, rich and poore, bond and free, &c. What alſo by being convicted? Whether when ſufficient is ſhowed to convince men, though they ſee it not? or when they ſee it, yet acknowledg it not? or when they ſee and acknowledg it, yet notwithſtanding perſiſt in their former eſtate? or if vntounto all theſe they adde the perſecuting alſo of ſuch as do convince them?

Now when you have ſhowed, how your ſelf vnderſtand, and how we are to walke in theſe, according to the Scriptures, from point to point: then applie herevnto your example of Chriſt here alledged, and ſee if you do not abuſe it. Mind withall, that if you ſay, Chriſt knew this as he was God, you ſpeak nothing to the queſtion, which is how men muſt walk toward men. If you ſay, he knew it as he vvas man, then muſt you prove, 1. that theſe Iewes were convicted in conſcience that he was the Chriſt, and yet denied and blaſphemed him: 2. that Chriſt knew this as he was man: 3. that ſtill he joyned in ſpirituall communion with them thus convicted: 4. that the eſtate of your Miniſters and people is ſuch as theirs was then, as touching a true Miniſterie and conſtitution of the Church: 5. that the ſame rules and proceeding is to be vſed toward your Church and members thereof (afore they can be ſeparated from) that was to be vſed toward that Church and People at that time.

Mind alſo, that the Apoſtles preaching to the Iewes, though they knew not who were convicted in conſcience, who not: yet*Act. 2. et 13. et 17. et 18. et 19. chap vponupon their refuſall of the truth offred, did ſeparate from all where they were. And ſo Chriſt before had required them to do. Mat. 10.14.

Finally mind, that mens conſciences are blind, ignorant, corrupt, and the heart of man deceitful and wicked above all things. Who can know it, but the Lord only which ſearcheth the heart and trieth the reines, to give every man according to his waies, according to the fruit of his works? Ier. 17.9.10.

It is erroneous therefore (to hold as you do) that we may not ſeparate, till we know all to be convicted in their conſcience. If this were to be done, then neither ſeparation from any people, neither any true Churches ſhould ever be vponupon the earth: becauſe ſuch conviction can never be either knowen of men, or had in the world. It doth and muſt ſuffice vsus, that the truth on the one hand, and the errors on the other be made knowen and convicted, that is, be layd open and proved from the word of God, by the teſtimonie of his ſervants: and that we ſee men by words or workes refuſe the truth and imbrace error, and ſo judg themſelves vnworthy of euerlaſting life.

Thus for your Churches (M. Iacob) it ſufficeth vsus, that in your Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confuſion of people, they be proved the daughters of Babylon that mother of whoredomes. Out of which God hath†Rev. 18.4. & 17.5. vve Ezec. 16.44. charged all his people (without exception or delay) preſently for to depart. If you or any other will not obey this commaundement of God, but will ſtill partake in the ſinnes of your worſhip and Miniſtery: what is it to vsus? We muſt follow Chriſt,*Heb. 5.9. who is made author of ſaluation to ſuch onelyonly as obey him. Neither may we†Ier. 15.19. returne vntounto you, but we muſt waite till God bring you to vsus, and make you partakers of the ſame grace in Chriſt.

Of your third generall point (here idly mentioned and abſurdly gathered) I have ſpoken before. Pag. 8.

Next inſtead of aunſwering, you fall a marveling: becauſe I ſay, Mr. Hus and other of the holy Martyrs did heare and ſay Maſſe to their dying day, and ſome of them alſo acknowledg the Popes ſupremacy. But why do you not alſo marvell, that I ſayd divers of them acknowledged, ſome the Popes calling, ſome 7 Sacraments, ſome Purgatory, ſome Auricular confeſſion, and ſuch like grieuous errors? For theſe I ioyned with the other, and of them you ſpeak not a word. Belike you thinke they may ſtand with the Goſpell wel inough: and if your Church had retained or now ſhould reſume them againe, you would judg of them as of the other corruptions remaining among you.

Yet mind withall, 1. that thus you make a way for mo popiſh enormities to be mainteined and to prevaile apace in your Church, as“Hovv ſay you to thoſe Popiſh doctrines novv ſpreading among you, of Chriſtes ſoule deſcē ding into Hel. of freevvill &c. beginneth alredy very faſt. 2. And that you can no better nor otherwiſe defend your preſent Church-eſtate, then you could, if it alſo retayned ſeven Sacraments, Purgatory, Auricular confeſſion, &c. Let the Reader obſerve this. And beware you in time, leaſt a wo come vponupon you for ſuch halting and pleading for Baall.

Now for your marvelling at me for ſaying thus of Mr. Hus and other the Martyrs: I aſke you, Saith not the book of Acts and Monuments the ſame? yea, ſay not the Martyrs thus much of themſelves? Why do you not then marvell alſo at them? For theſe particulars it were needles to go through all the hiſtorie of the Martyrs: ſpecially ſeeing they are ſo plainly noted in their ſtories, and every where among you the books are in your hands. Yet becauſe Mr. Hus is here ſpoken of by name, and you are not far frō raſing him out of the nūber of the Martyrs: I will firſt note ſome particulars concerning him, and then cleare him and the reſt from your raſh condemnation.

In the hiſtorie of the Martyrs before mentioned, we find that Iohn Hus vntounto his death held, 1.†Act. and Monu. edit. 5. pag. 561. ſeven Sacramēts; 2.‡Ibid. pag. 581. a. 584. b the Popes office, and the authority of the Church of Rome; 3.“Ibid. p. 566 b. et 574. Auricular cōfeſſion to Prieſts, and was himſelf (a little before his death) confeſſed and abſolved by a Monke; 4.*Ibid. p. 577 a. et 581. a. ſaid Maſſe himſelf; 5.†Ibid. p. 546 held that the ſubſtance of the bread was altered into the body of Chriſt, and that Chriſts body which was borne of the virgin Mary, is really and totally in the Sacrament of the Altar; with other the like popiſh opinions. Now you (Mr. Iacob) ſticke not vponupon ſome of theſe to inferre, that then ſurely neither Hus nor any of the reſt that ſo held and did, vvere holy Martyrs. Your reaſon is, becauſe therein are found errors plainely fundamētall vvhichwhich of them ſelues aboliſh from Chriſt. Among which no doubt but you reckon the Maſſe and tranſubſtantiation ſpecially.

Thus hauehave you cleane put out Maiſter Hus and other the ſervants of Chriſt (faithfull in that which they ſaw) from being any longer in the Catalogue of the Martyrs, or accounted true Chriſtians. May I not then iuſtly returne vponupon your ſelf your owne ſaying, Is this you that vvhite the toombes of the Martyrs, and yet in fine condemne them for no true Chriſtians, for no holy Martyrs?

But you ſay, the book of Acts and Monuments vvhither I ſend you, affirmeth, not that they held theſe errors in the largeſt and groſſeſt ſort. Let the book it ſelf ſpeak for vsus both. In the end of Iohn Hus his ſtorie, thus it ſaith,*Act and Mon. edi…. 5. p. 581. … He neither denied their popiſh tranſubſtantion; neither ſpake againſt the authority of the Church of Rome, if it vvere vvell governed; nor yet the 7. Sacraments; and alſo ſayd Maſſe himſelf; and almoſt in all their popiſh opinions vvas a Papiſt vvith them. Thus hath that book, word for word. What ſay you now vntounto it? What think you of theſe particulars? and of that concluſion, that not onelyonly in theſe but almoſt in all their opinions He vvas a Papiſt vvith them?

Againe in the ſame book, Hierom of Prage (another Martyr) ſpeaking of Iohn Hus ſaith,‡Ibid. pag. 584. b. he never maintained any doctrine againſt the Church of Rome, but onelyonly ſpake againſt their naughty life. To which purpoſe may be minded alſo, that the Huſſites in Bohemia (ſo called to this day for following Iohn Hus) are for trauſubſtantiation and moſt of the popiſh errors and worſhip, as groſſe as the Papiſts themſelves.

And (to give an inſtance of our owne countreymen) the ſame hiſtory ſpeaking of Thomas Bilney who was burnt at Norwich, hath thus, *Ibid. pa. 921. b.As touching the Maſſe and Sacrament of the Altar, as he never varyed frō himſelf, ſo he never differed therein frō the moſt groſſeſt Catholicks. Mark theſe words, he differed not therein from the moſt groſſeſt. How now will this and your ſpeach agree, who bluſh not to ſay, that the book of Acts and Monuments affirmeth not that they held theſe errors in the largeſt and groſſeſt ſort?

Beſides this bold vntruth of yours, let the Reader mind, how plainely you inſinuate, that if your Church had the Maſſe and the Popes ſupremacy, ſo it were not in the largeſt and groſſeſt ſort, you could defend their caſe aſwell then as you do now, by bearing the world in hand, that theſe things might ſtand vvith Chriſt crucified, &c. Let the Reader mind and remember it. I ſay no more.

It remaineth that now I cleare M. Hus and the reſt of the Martyrs from your raſh cenſure. You judge, if any of them held any errors that be fundamentall, they are no holy Martyrs, but aboliſhed from Chriſt. This I denie. And you to proue it, ſhould from the Scriptures have ſhowed firſt, what it is to be fundamētall or of the foundation: then, that whoſoever holdeth ſuch error is aboliſhed from Chriſt. But you have done neither. I know that here and everie where you give vsus your bare word, and obtrude vntounto vsus your owne fancies. But your words are no Oracles, nor your fācies rules for any to follow. Handle theſe things therefore more ſoundly in your next. And what you ſpeak, ſpeak it frō the word of God. In the meane time for better clearing of the truth and Martyrs, I will ſhow you my mind: being ready notwithſtanding to heare any that can ſhow better from the word of God. And ſo I pray you take this and all my writings.

Firſt, the word foundation is vſed in the ſcripture, and therefore is of vsus to be conſidered divers waies. One is, in reſpect of God and his election;Of the foundation, and fundamental points. or of his Church and people called and ſanctified in Chriſt. 2. Tim. 2.19. Pſal. 87. Pro. 10.25. Another is, in reſpect of the onelyonly ground of all true faith and Churches, which is Ieſus Chriſt; or of the firſt principles and ſpeciall heads of Chriſtian religion. Mat. 16.15.16.17.18. 1 Cor. 3.11. Eſa. 26.16. 1 Pet. 2.6. with Heb. 6.1.2. A third is, in reſpect of the Apoſtles and Prophets doctrine concerning Chriſt; or of our receiving it and building therevpon. Epheſ. 2.20. Rev. 21.14. 1 Cor. 3.10-15. 1 Pet. 2.7.8. Luk. 6.48.49.

Now which way ſoever you take it, there is no queſtion but the Martyrs, although they erred (through ignorance of that time) in ſome waightie points of Chriſts Religion (which you call fundamentall) yet were notwithſtanding holy Martyrs. For touching the firſt of the exceptions aforeſaid, Gods foundation remained ſure and ſealed vntounto them; ſo as the Lord knew them to be his, and they alſo were ſanctified both to witnes vntounto death the truth then called in queſtion, and to depart from the contrarie iniquitie. Touching the ſecond and third, they both beleeved in Ieſus Chriſt, as it pleaſed God to reveale him in their age by the doctrine of the Prophets and Apoſtles; and they built firmely therevpon (not ſtumbling at the word and diſobeying it, as is the manner of moſt now a daies, but) obeying and holding it forth vntounto death. So as when the ſtormes and floods of perſecution beat vponupon them, they were not ſhaken from the truth they teſtified, but remained conſtant to the end: even when the politick Statutes of Princes; the ſubtill arguments of the learned; the earneſt perſwaſion of their friends; the great loſſe of their goods, liberty, eſtimation in the world; finally the moſt cruell vſage and tirannie of the Adverſaries; as it were ſo many waves and tempeſts, ſtronglie aſſailed to drive them a contrarie courſe. Thus were they faithfull to God, and loved not their lives vntounto death as their Martyrdome proclaimeth to all the world: howſoever you could be content it ſeemeth (for any the more advantage to your ſelves) to lay their honour in the duſt.

Secondly in this queſtion we are to diſcerne, betweeen the errors them ſelves, and between the perſons that hold them. The errours may in their nature be fundamentall (as you ſpeak:) and yet the perſons erring therein (of ignorance, not ſtriving againſt the light revealed, but indevoring to walk faithfully in the truth they ſee) may through Gods merciemercy in Chriſt be ſaved. For example, ſome of the Corinthians that denied*1 Cor. 15.12 the reſurrection of the body, and ſome of the Galatians that erred about“Gal. 4.9.10.21. & 5.2.3.10. and 6.12.13.15. Circumciſion & the Law, although the errors were in their owne nature fundamentall (as you will not deme,) yet might they that dyed in them, before Paules epiſtles came to thoſe Churches thereabout, be ſaved of God: As we*1 Cor. 11.30.31.32. read that ſome were dead and chaſtiſed of God aabout their abuſe of the Sacrament, yet not condemned with the world.

Likewiſe of Abijah the ſonne of Ieroboam that made Iſraell to ſinne, the‡1 King. 14.1.13. Scripture recordeth that God ſhewed him merciemercy, becauſe in him was found ſome goodnes toward the Lord God of Iſraell. Where marke thoſe words, ſome goodnes. By which appeareth, that although he were as the reſt in that generall apoſtaſie of Iſraell (which your ſelf account fundamētal) yet having ſome goodnes in him towards the Lord, he found merciemercy at his hands.

Furthermore at this day, concerning the errors of the Lutherans about cōſubſtantiation and the perſon of Chriſt; of the Anabaptiſts about Chriſts humanitie, and denying Baptiſme to the ſeed of the faithfull; of the Papiſtes about trāſubſtantiation, the Popes ſupremacie, &c. I ſuppoſe that you will graunt both that theſe errors be fundamentall (as touching the nature of the errors thēſelves) and that yet notwithſtāding God ſaveth ſome Lutherās, Anabaptiſts, Papiſts, erring in the points aforeſaid.

If you denie it, let vsus have a ſound aunſwer to that profeſſion of the Papiſts touching Chriſts Mediation, which by themſelves is mentioned in their Annotations vponupon the new Teſtament: where they profeſſe that they hold*Rhem… Annot. vponupon 1 Tim. 2.5. Chriſt by nature to be truely both God and man, to be that one eternall Prieſt and Redeemer, which by his ſacrifice and death vponupon the croſſe hath reconciled vsus to God and payed his bloud as a ful and ſufficient raunſome for all our ſinnes, himſelf without need of any redemption, never ſubiect to poſſibility of ſinning: againe, to be the ſingular Advocate and Patrone of mankind, that by himſelf alone and by his owne merites procureth all grace and mercy to mankind in the ſight of his Father, none making any interceſſion for him, nor giuing any grace of force to his prayers but he to all: none aſking or obteyning eyther grace in this life, or glory in the next, but by him. This doe even the Papiſts profeſſe: which you are well to mind. Now though with it they hold divers fundamentall errors (as in that and other their writings may be ſeen) by which the multitude of them is turned out of the way of truth and ſalvation: yet doubt I not but by this faith God hath ſaved ſome of them (and mo at the firſt creping in of that Churches apoſtaſie, then ſince) who in ſimplicity ſo beleev as is here ſet downe, never hearing of the other opinions to be errors, nor withſtanding any truth revealed vntounto them. Now of the Lutherās and Anabaptiſts I hope ſo much the better, as they hold mo truths and fewer errors then the Papiſts.

But to let thoſe alone, what ſay you to ſuch of the Fathers of the Greek Church, as held Freewill, an errour which‡D. VVhi…. book pa. 83. your ſelves teach and have publiſhed to be fundamentall and of it ſelf damnable? Or rather what ſay you to the Iſraelites in Egypt, who though they were*Exod. 4.22.23. Gods church, yet ſinned in points (by your owne account) fundamentall, even with ‡Ezech. 20.6.7.9.the Idols of Egypt? Will you ſay, they were all condemned?

Either therefore we muſt diſcerne between the errors themſelves, what they are in their owne nature, being ſo conſidered; and between the perſons holding them of ignorance and weaknes, what mercy God may ſhew them in Chriſt: or els you will cōdemne all of every Church whereſoever any fundamentall errors have crept in, being through ignorance generallie received: and ſo inwrap the Martyrs in like condemnation with their perſecutors. To give inſtance but of Iohn Hus, it cannot be denied but he and they who martyred him, agreed both in one touching the Maſſe, tranſubſtantiation &c. Yet was Hus a faithfull witnes of Chriſt in the truth he ſaw, and his adverſaries vaſſals of Antichriſt that ſonne of perdition.

This (I truſt) will ſuffice for the preſent to cleare the Martyrs of that vniuſt condemnation which you inſinuate againſt them. Now vponupon this occaſion note alſo, that not onelyonly ſome who erre in fundamē tall points, may be ſaved, as is proved alreadie: but‡1 Cor. 6.9.10. ſome who erre not in any fundamentall point (as you take it) yet ſhall periſh notwithſtanding. But of this ſee more hereafter in the handling of the 7. Reaſon following.

Further where I ſaid, that when Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. dyed Martyrs for the truth of Chriſt, they neither had themſelves nor joyned in communion with ſuch as had the Prelacy and Miniſterie now pleaded for: You inſult greatly, as if I ſpake knowen falſhoods. But ſtay a while Maiſter Iacob: and ſee if it be not your ſelf that make no conſcience of vntruths. Firſt, why‡Pag. 36. left you out thoſe wordes of mine, when they dyed? Did you perceive that theſe words make the caſe plaine, and witnes the truth with me againſt your aſſertion? Or know you not that all the Martyrs then, were firſt excōmunicate out of that Church, and (if they were Miniſters) degraded alſo from their Miniſterie, afore they were put to death? Muſt it not needs then be true which I ſayd, that when they dyed, they neither had nor ioyned in communion with ſuch as had the Prelacy and Miniſtery now pleaded for? Yea, ſay not the Martyrs themſelves and the book of Acts and Monumēts as much? To name but one, Laurence Saunders, when the Biſhop of London had diſgraded him, ſaid vntounto him,‡Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1301. …. I thank God, I am none of your Church. And this was the caſe of them al, being likewiſe dealt with, as that book witneſſeth.

Your Exception, that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley ſtood vponupon their right to their Biſhopricks, is of no waight againſt that I ſayd. It is not vnknowen, that men do often ſtand againſt the vniuſt dealing of their adverſaries, in ſuch things as notwithſtanding they are willing inough to leave. Whether it were ſo or not with them, God knoweth. Of this I am ſure, that where I ſpake of their not hauing, you do in your Reply in ſteed thereof ſpeak of renouncing. And ſo you change my ſpeach: Which is not good (though it be your vſuall) dealing. But yet by this appeareth that you can prove no vntruth in my ſpeach, howſoever you pretend and would gladly do it. For if you could, what needed you ſo alter and pervert the ſence of my wordes? And for my ſelf, if I had meant that Mr. Cranmer and Mr. Ridley had renounced (as you pretend) I could have joyned them with others in the ſentence going before where I ſpake of Mr. Latimers forſaking his Prelacy: which your ſelf do here confeſſe to be true. Beſides, I ſpake of the time when they dyed Martyrs, you of the time before that.

But now what will you ſay to Mr. Ridley, who (as the*Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 1604. a. ſtorie witneſſeth) at his degradation being bid to put on the ſurplus, refuſed to do it: and when they did put it vponupon him with“This vvas, becauſe he had ben a popiſh prieſt al the trinckets appertaining to the Maſſe, did vehemently inv…y againſt the Romiſh Biſhop and all that fooliſh apparell, calling him Antichriſt, and the apparell fooliſh and abominable, yea to fond for a vice in a play? This giveth more evidence of renouncing, then of approving thoſe things which before time he had liked to much. Yet I denie not, but even then he might be ignorant of the vnlawfulnes of the Prelacy, as ſince that time God hath revealed it by his word: and by that meanes (it may be) did like and ſtand for it more, then otherwiſe he either ought or would have done.

But you ſay, whoſoever were Miniſters then of the Prelates ordination, they never renounced it, though they dyed Maryrs. If this were true and of waight, you might by the ſame reaſon as well plead for the Romiſh Prieſts at this day as for your owne. You know that very many of the Martyrs were popiſh Prieſts. And if there were no other proof, even their degradation from that Prieſthood doth teſtifie it. You might alſo thus plead for retaining and allowing of Monks and Fryars, becauſe ſome of them have died Martyrs, and yet not renounced their callings and functions. This I alledged‡In the aunſvver to your 1. Replie to the 1 Reaſō follovving. heretofore: but you cannot yet finde any leaſure to aunſwer it.

Yet now for that you ſpeak here, what will you ſay to†Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 934. a. ſuch as being degraded of their Miniſterie received from the Prelates, thanked God that they were delivered from the malignāt Church of Antichriſt. Did they not by this and ſuch like ſpeach and cariage, noted in their ſtories, declare how willingly they left both that Church, Miniſtery, worſhip, and whatſoever belonged thereto? Although through ignorance of the time they ſaw not ſome things, wherein ſince their daies God hath given a greater light.

To end this point then, howſoever it be for their renouncing, certaine it is (as their ſtories ſhow) that ſuch of them as had receved Miniſterie from the Prelates, were before their death not only excommunicate (as were the reſt of the Martyrs) but degraded alſo from the functions and Miniſterie they had received. So as it cannot but be, as I ſaid, that when they dyed Martyrs they neither had nor ioyned with the Prelacy and Miniſtery now pleaded for. See the*Act. and Mon. edit. 5. p. 895. b. 934. a. 1361. b. 1385. a. 1604. a. ſtorie in the degrading of Richard Bayfield, Henry Foreſt, Mr. Saunders, Mr. Tailor, Mr. Ridley, &c. Thus the bold vntruth wherewith you charge me falſly, is returned iuſtly vponupon your owne head.

Next after this which was in the beginning of my defence (as your ſelf have noted) you come to the ſixt point of my aunſvver, paſſing by the other things which come between. Is this to reply ſoundly? Is this your worthy Confutation which your followers judge vnaunſwerable? What (I pray) may be the cauſe why you ſnatch thus here a peece and there a peece, and proſecute not my aunſwer in order from point to point, as I gave it? Is it becauſe I handle things diſorderly, or paſſe by any thing in your Reply vnaunſwered? If I do, ſhow it. But in deed, is it not becauſe you are not able to reply againſt my aunſwer, as it is given: and therefore are glad to lay hold, ſometimes of one thing, ſometimes of another, as you think you can beſt deale with; that ſo you may trouble the Reader, and ſeeme to ſay ſome thing, when in deed you ſay nothing at all? Let the Reader but well mind this Reply of yours, and then judge if ever he ſaw anie thing more raw, frivolous, cō fuſed, abſurd. Yet ſuch as it is, let vsus ſee now what you ſay to that point of my aunſwer whereof you ſpeake next.

Firſt you tell vsus, that where you ſaid before, the outward orders of the Church be not of the foundation ſimply, you meant, not at all of the verie foundation. I ſee your meaning now Mr. Iacob, which before I neither did nor could. Sure you had need make a Commentarie vponupon your Replie, if you expound your words euerie where, as you do here. But now that you have told vsus your meaning, will you ſtand vntounto it? Do you indeed by not ſimply meane not at all? Then marke what ſtraūg aſſertions lurke in your writing, which before we could not perceiue. In one place you ſay*Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 7. Reaſō following., The Papiſts forbidding of marriage and meates, if they had done no worſe, doth not make them departers from the faith: that is, not totally or (as you have it in the Margent) not fundamentally, not ſimply: And then you adde, No more could their Hierarchy and ceremonies ſimply. Now by your owne expoſition, your meaning is, that none of theſe make them departers from the faith at all. For by not ſimply, you ſay you meane not at all. Thus you teach moſt ſhamefull falſe doctrine, and make the holy Ghoſt a liar, who even“1 Tim. 4.1.3. for theſe things ſaith, they do depart from the faith. Againe you ſay,‡Your 1. Reply to the 1. Reaſon following. The doctrine, Canons, Articles, Iniunctions, and practiſe of your Church do not ioyne togeather Chriſt and Antichriſt ſimply: that is, not at all, by this your new coined meaning. And yet in the ſame place you confeſſe, they ioyne togeather Chriſt and ſome outward ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt. It is falſe then, that they ioyne not Chriſt and Antichriſt at all, as by this interpretation muſt be your meaning. And even here a little before, you ſaid †Pag. 35.to beleeue & practiſe as your Church doth, for your Church-gouernemēt rites and orders, ſimply deſtroyeth no mans ſaluation in Chriſt: that is, by this expoſition, not at all. But your Church ſo beleeveth and practiſeth theſe things, as is derogatorie both to the office of Chriſt, the faithfulnes of the Apoſtles, and the perfection of the Scriptures; and ſuch as do not ſo beleeve and practiſe, but witnes the truth againſt them, they impriſon, baniſh, kill, and thus become guiltie of innocent bloud. Yet you are bold to bleſſe your ſelf, your whole Church, and greateſt perſecuters, in all theſe miſchiefs: affirming that thus to beleev and practiſe, deſtroieth not at all any mans ſalvation in Chriſt. For when you ſay, not ſimply, you will have vsus vnderſtand your meaning to be not at all. Yea you take it ill, becauſe I will not ſee this to be your meaning. But now I doubt you will be more grieved, becauſe I ſee it ſo well. Yet it were better Mr. Iacob, if in time you were grieved at your ſelf, for vſing ſuch vngodly eluſions to turne away the truth. See you not what peſriferous doctrine your Reply by this meanes yeelds eueryevery where? Marvell not at it. It is juſt with God to make your owne pen the publiſher of your owne follie and impietie, ſeeing you will needs plead for Antichriſt againſt the cleare light.

But let vsus come to examine the point it ſelf. You ſay, the outward orders of the Church are not at all of the verie foundation. What ſay you then to that which is written Heb. 6.1.2. Doth not the Apoſtle, ſpeaking there†Heb. 6.1.2 of his laying the foundation, mention in particular, the doctrine of Baptiſmes; and laying on of hands; beſides repentance from dead vvorks, and conſequently from mens traditions in Gods worſhip? How ſay you? Do not theſe concerne the outward orders of the Church? And doth not the Apoſtle reckon them with the reſt there named in his laying of the foundation? I could alſo put you in mind, how it concerneth the Churches outward governemēt, vvhether the Pope be head of the church or Chriſt only: whether Circumciſion be now to be obſerved, or not, &c. But theſe and the like I have mentioned before, and you I ſuppoſe will aunſwer them at leaſure.

Now where you quote ſome Scriptures in the margent, See alſo for this, in the Preface: Section, 3.it is to generall for your purpoſe. You muſt prove your aſſertion by them. Which yet you do not. When you goe about it, ſay if there be not of the foundation, not only the particulars in*1 Cor. 15 2.3.4. Rom. 4.25. 1 Cor. 3.10, 11 12, 13, 14. theſe Scriptures expreſſed, but many other alſo here compriſed, though not named in particular. As for exā ple, 1. that there is a God, and but one; 2. that there are three perſons, the Father, the Sonne, and the holy Ghoſt; 3. that the Sonne, not the Father or holy Ghoſt, tooke vntounto him our fleſh; 4. that the true God alone muſt be worſhipped, and that onelyonly according to his word, and no otherwiſe; 5. that Chriſt as head and King of his Church hath given offices and ordinances for the work of the Miniſterie, which are to continew to the end of the world; 6. that he is to be obeyed therein vponupon paine of damnation, and no other to be received; 7. that we muſt not only profeſſe in word but practiſe indeed the commaūdements of Chriſt, whatſoever perſecution follow thereon, &c. Tell vsus (I ſay) whether theſe and the like, which other places of the word lead vsus vntounto, be not both of the foundation, and compriſed in the Scriptures quoted by your ſelf? How idly then and abſurdly do you cite them here?

To give an inſtance, doth not the Apoſtle from the death of Chriſt (mentioned in theſe Scriptures) deduce in other places the neceſſity of our dying from the ordinances of the world, from the traditions of men, from voluntarie religion, finally from all dead works whatſoever, which he reckneth vp as a fundamentall point in that place to the Hebrewes before alledged? Yea doth†Col. 2.8.18.19.20. &c. he not from hence prove, that we cannot hold Chriſt the head, and increaſe with the increaſing of God, if we will togeather with him retaine the traditions and precepts of men for the ſeruice of God? And are then no outward Church-orders of the foundation at all? We will look for your proof and aunſwer hereof in your next.

In the ſecond place I propounded two queſtions, vponupon comparing togeather Moſes and Chriſt. You aunſwer not one worde to the latter. And in the former, you kepe not my words (which is a thing to commō with you) knowing belike that the weaknes of your aunſwer would then the more readily have ben ſeen. My queſtion was, vvhether the outvvard gouernement and ceremonies ordeined by Chriſt for his Church vnderunder the Goſpell, be not of the foundation, as much as the outvvard governement and ceremonies appointed by Moſes for the Church vnderunder the Lavv? Your aunſwer is, Neither vvere the Ievves outvvard orders of the very foundation, vvithout vvhichwhich they could not be ſaved. But ſpeak out man, were they of the foundation at all, or not? And when you have told vsus this, then know for your learning (beſides that alreadie ſpoken touching the foundation) that the outvvard orders, that is, the outward ordinances, ceremonies, and gouernement, which God preſcribed to the Iewes, were vntounto them ſo of the foundation and neceſſarie to be obſerved, as‡Deut. 27.26. curſe and death was threatned to all that brake them. Yea, ſevere puniſhment even vntounto death was executed vponupon the tranſgreſſors of ſuch things as ſeemed but ſmall: Levit. 10.1.2. 1 Sam. 6.19. and 2 Sam. 6.6.7. 2 Chron. 26.16.19. Now theſe things are written for our inſtruction, to admoniſh vsus vponupon whome the ends of the world are come. If yet notwithſtanding you and your Church will preſume otherwiſe, be it at your perill. Our ſoules ſhall not enter into your ſecret.

The third queſtion here was about Corah and his complices. Wherein in you deale as with the former, not keping mine owne words. It may be you thought by this meanes to hide the vanity of your aūſwer. Howſoever, al the aunſwer you give to the ſeverall branches of it, is only this, that they were ſeparated from and damned, not that the matter vvas fundamental, but that the manner vvas rebellious, vvith conſciences a thouſād times convicted, and ſo done vvith an high hand againſt God himſelf. But how prove you this which you ſay? And why aunſwer you not to the ſeverall points of the queſtion, in order as they were propounded? It may be you will do this in your next. Then in the meane time know that even the matter wherein they ſinned was fundamentall, if we conſider it thus: Their ſinne was, that not being Prieſts they would offer incenſe to God. Now the Priehſtood and offering vp of incenſe led them as it were by the hand to the Prieſthood and Interceſſion of Chriſt. Either therefore, you muſt denie Chriſts Prieſthood and Interceſſion to be of the foundation, or els you muſt graunt they ſinned in a matter in this reſpect fundamentall, that is, being thus conſidered. Yet it was (you ſee) touching the Prieſthood and Minjſterie, which concerne the outward orders and governement of the Church. Thus al your defence falleth to the ground.

Touching the manner alſo, Corah and his complices had pretence for them ſelves aſwell as your Prelates and Prieſts now have. Read and mind well what great reaſons they pretend, Numb. 16.Num. 16.2.3 And ſee if you can ſhew any greater, yea or any the like for your ſelves. Then ſpeak, whether that conſidered, it be not as hard for you to affirme them ſo convicted in conſcience, as for vsus to affirme it of you in England. And now that I mind it, let me aſke of you (Mr. Iacob) in this caſe, as you†Pag. 36. erewhile did of me in your owne. Did their whole aſſemblies ſinne thus? all and every of their aſſemblies? of wilfulnes and of a convicted conſciēce? Are you ſure of this? Do you know every mans hart and conſcience ſo vvel? If you do, then you ſay ſomevvhat indeed. But you are then neere as vviſe as God himſelfe, to knovv mens hearts ſo perfectly, vvhoſe faces you never ſavv. &c. How like you now your owne manner of reaſoning? Is it not verie proper think you, and to great purpoſe?

But perhaps you will ſay, the Scripture ſpeakes aſmuch as you do concerning them. If it do, why ſhew you not the places? Why prove you it not from thence? Nay then, what ſay you Mr. Iacob, to the litle children which periſhed in that cōdemnation, as the*Num. 16.27.32. Scripture there witneſſeth? Will you ſay that they in that action were ſo rebellious (as you ſpeake of) with conſciences a thouſand times convicted? Or will you now confeſſe your Reply to be of no waight at all, ſave againſt your ſelf?

To which end I wiſh both your ſelf and the Reader to note (for a concluſion) that here you graunt, even for outvvard orders of the Church, when men ſee the truth in their conſciences and yet ſtand againſt it, the eſtate of ſuch to be damnable. It is high time then for you M. Iacob and for D. B. who made the preface to your book, and for all ſuch whoſe conſciences are convicted of the Antichriſtianitie of your Prelates and the reſt of your abominations (as divers times in this book your ſelf accknowledge:) it is high time, I ſay, for you and all ſuch to be warned by Corahs deſtruction. And we now have as good warrant (by your owne graunt) to ſeparate from you and all ſuch, as the Iſraelites had from Corah and his companie. Except peradventure you thinke the Miniſterie and ordinances of Chriſt to be of leſſe moment then thoſe of Moſes, or Chriſt the Sonne to be worthy leſſe honour then Moſes the ſervant. But ſee more yet hereof in the 6. Reaſon following.

After this you turne back to ſomewhat handled in the entrance of this Exception. Thus you runne in and out, a man cannot tell where to have you. For the point you ſpeak of I leave it to the Reader to iudge, comparing your writing and mine togeather, whether I have not iuſtly charged you, for going about to iuſtifie your eſtate by the example of Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Now I am glad to ſee you acknowledge the matters controverted betweene vsus to be your errours. For by this it followeth, that you ſee the contrarie truth, which diſcovereth theſe to be errours. And then your ſelf (I truſt) will not denie but that you are bound vtterlie to forſake theſe, and to walke in the truth revealed vntounto you: vnles you had rather erre with Antichriſt to deſtruction, then follow Chriſt to ſalvation.

But you truſt it is ſound, to iuſtifie by the example of the Martyrs, that theſe corruptions aboliſh not you from Chriſt, as theirs did not them. Nay Mr. Iacob, it is very vnſound for you or any the like to reaſon thus. For beſides the many differences betwene you and the Martyrs alreadie declared: tell me your ſelf, if the Huſſites (ſo called) ſhould at this day reaſon after this manner, viz. Although we retaine the Maſſe, tranſubſtantiation, ſeven Sacraments, Auricular confeſſion, and ſuch like, yet theſe corruptions aboliſh vsus not from Chriſt, any more then they did Iohn Hus and the other Martyrs that held and vſed them: If (I ſay) they ſhould now reaſon thus for themſelves, would not your ſelf ſay, their reaſon were vnſound?

But further, if the Martyrs you ſpeak of had ſeen theſe things to be errors, and continewed in them, purſued thoſe that reproved them, and againſt the knowen truth ſought to have dawbed vp their erroneous building, as you Mr. Iacob and the like among you do at this day: we could not then have ſo eſteemed them as now we do. This therefore will help you nothing at all. We have better hope in this reſpect of ſuch in England, as to this day have not diſcerned the Antichriſtian abominations among you, then of you and the like ſtrugling Phariſees: for whome we feare it will be harder in the day of iudgment, then for them.

At length you come to look at my ſeverall aūſwers. To look at them, I ſay. For finding them all to heavie to lift, you leave them as you found them, that is, firme and ſtrong againſt your Churches eſtate. For the firſt, you would in it deceaue the Reader, thus. In your former Replie to this Exception, you ſaid,*Pag. 28. you held Chriſts ordinances to be of two ſorts, written or vnvvritten, the firſt neceſſary, the ſecond arbitrary, &c. and that you thought no Scripture vvas againſt this, but rather for it. In my aunſwer herevnto, firſt I aſked,‡Pag. 30. vvhat Scripture you had for this: that is, for this opinion of yours touching Chriſts ordinances. Now ſo, beſides that you bring no Scripture for it, you would make the Reader beleev, that I aſked for Scriptures, to approve thoſe orders vvhichwhich you expreſly called errors. But who ſeeth not that I demaunded Scripture, for that opinion of your Church, againſt which you were perſwaded there was not any? And how then will thoſe two ſtand together, vnles you would have vsus thinke you are ſo ſottiſh, as to beleeve there is no Scriptures againſt errors?

The like follie and evill dealing you ſhew againe in your Reply to the ſecond. When you ſaid, you thought no Scripture vvas againſt your foreſayd opinion of Chriſts ordinances, but rather for it: was it not meet, that of ſo many as are againſt it, I ſhould at leaſt mention ſome? Now it had ben your part either to have renoūced that falſe opinion, with acknowledgment that the Scripture is againſt it, or els to have aunſwered the Scriptures by me alleadged. But I eaſily beleev they load you, and are to heavie for you to beare or withſtand.

I… your Reply to the third, let all men iudge if you deale not exceeding vnconſcionably. Are not theſe your owne words which you vſe in your firſt Reply to this Exceptio…,‡Before, in pag. 28. This we generally profeſſe and practiſe; We hold Chriſts ordināces to be of two ſorts; Such we hold all outward governement and ceremonies to be; Thus we hold, and thus we practiſe, &c. When you do ſo often ſay, We profeſſe, We hold, We practiſe, Will not the Reader vnderſtand your ſelf to be one with the reſt that do ſo hold, profeſſe, and practiſe? Againe when you ſay (Thus we practiſe) is it your meaning that the State doth practiſe thus, but not your ſelf? How is it then, that you preach by vertue of your Prieſthood receyued from the Prelates? that you are ſilent at their pleaſure? that you appeare before them at their Courts and appoyntment? that you adminiſter and receive the Sacraments with them according to their book, &c.

Or if your meaning be in theſe words (thus we practiſe) to include your ſelf with the reſt, why ſhould we not alſo take you to be included in the other when you ſay, thus we hold, thus we profeſſe, &c. Would you have vsus think, that in theſe things your iudgement is one, and your practtſe another? Fy of ſuch halting. Howſoeuer you blind the eyes of men, be ſure God is not mocked. He ſeeth and will bring vponupon you that wretched hypocriſy, if you ſtill perſiſt.

Further it is to be mynded, that now you diſclayme your Churches opinion towching Chriſts ordinances, and conſequently towching his Prophecy, Prieſthood, Kingdome, as he is there receyved. Why can you not then endure, that we ſhould do likewiſe? Or how is it that you have pleaded for it all this tyme, and now leave it without help when it needeth moſt? But by this is evident that your Churches eſtate is a‡Mat. 12.25 Kingdome divided againſt it ſelf, and therefore ruinous, not like long to endure. The ſtate holdeth one thing, you another, a third ſort agrees with neither. Babylon†Rev. 16.19. the great city, when it is readie to fall, ſhall be devided in three parts. To conclude, by this opinion and practiſe you make your ſtate to ſtand in ſuch caſe as Ieroboams was, who altered but the outward ordinances of the Church, as taking them to be things arbitrary at the pleaſure of man. Some of them (I doubt not) wil think you do them foule iniurie. And if anie be done vntounto you, it is done by your ſelf. I ſay no more.

In the fourth likewiſe, who is it of your owne Church that will not think you offer yet more iniurie both to the State and your ſelf? To the State, in that you make them maintainers of Popiſh ſhifts. To your ſelf, in that thus you bewray you are at a Non plus, and yet yeeld not to the truth. Did not your ſelf in your firſt Replie vſe theſe as good and ſoūd reaſons? And now they are convinced to be Popiſh, have not a word to ſpeak in defence of them, but put vsus over to the State for an aūſwer? Babell is ſore wounded, when all her beſt Phyſitians do thus give her over.

For the fift, you referre vsus to the firſt point of your explication before. Which is aunſwered.

For the ſixt, you referre vsus to the ſecond. Which alſo is aunſwered. Neither is there any thing of waight in either of the places whither you ſend vsus, for aunſwer of the particulars here conteined. Let others mind (if you will not) what I ſaid in the fifth and ſixth aunſwer before, and ſee if your explications have any thing againſt them to any purpoſe.

The ſeventh you confeſſe to be againſt the ſtate of your Church. This I wiſh the Reader to marke. And then having minded what I aunſwered in the*pag. 34 ſeaventh place, let him conſider how wofull the eſtate of your Church is. But now M. Iacob, why defēd you not your Church, ſeeing this is againſt the verie ſtate of it, by your owne confeſſiō? Is not your book called, A defence of the Churches and Miniſtery of England? Why do you not then performe what the title of your book doth promiſe? A worthie Champion ſure you are to defend a Church, that leave it thus in extream miſerie without anie ſuccour at all. At firſt you ſeemed as if you would ſtrike all downe afore you, in defence of your Churches and Miniſterie. Now lo, you can be content to leave them on the plaine field to ſhift for themſelves, ſo your ſelf may have hope to ſcape by running away. Before you told vsus of the defence of your Churches, Now you think it inough to ſay, It is againſt the ſtate of our Church, and not againſt me.

Yet tell vsus Mr. Iacob, are you not a member of that Church? And is not that then which is againſt the ſtate of your Church, alſo againſt you? Otherwiſe it muſt needs be, that your Church hath a ſtrange eſtate, or that you are a ſtraunge member thereof. Can the hand or eye ſay, I am not of the bodie? Or, that which is againſt the ſtate of the bodie, yet is not againſt me? Yet ſuch is your aunſwer, as ſenceleſſe, as abſurd. Beſides that thus whiles you think to pull your owne neck out of the collar, you plunge both your ſelf and your Church deeper in.

And note withall: Howſoever you and ſuch like diſagree from the ſtate of your Church in anie thing, yet in this you can all agree well ynough, to conſpire againſt Chriſt and againſt his Church. But ſo it hath ben of old. Manaſſeh*Eſa. 9.20 21. and Ephraim (though they were each againſt other) were both againſt Iudah. The Phariſes and Sadducees (though adverſaries one to another, yet)‡Mat. 2….15.23. Act. 5.17 handed togeather both of them againſt the Lord Ieſus.

Hitherto of the ſeaven particulars I obiected. Which all of them remaine vntaken away. And thus far of the ſecond exception and your Replies againſt it. In which I have ſtaied the longer, becauſe the diſcuſſing hereof will more plainelie and without all queſtion end the controverſie between vsus.

Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 5

p. 28Chap. 5. The ſecond Exception againſt Mr. Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſayd.

Chap. 5. The ſecond Exception againſt Mr. Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſayd.