Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 10
CHAP. 10. The fourth Reaſon againſt M. Iacobs Aſſumptiō aforeſaid.
Fr. Iohnſon. THe doctrines of faith conteined in that Book alledged, would not make him a true Chriſtian who holding them, ſhould alſo ſtill execute or joyne vntounto the Miniſtery of Mahomet, that open Antichriſt and enemie of Ieſus Chriſt. 2 Cor. 6.14. &c.
Therefore neither can they make him a true Chriſtian, that holding them, yet doth ſtill execute or joine vntounto the Miniſtery and worſhip of the man of ſinne, the covert Antichriſt and enemie of Ieſus Chriſt.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 4. Reaſon. THis your 4. Reaſō is, Mahomets Ministery and Antichrists Ministery are both bad alike. But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot ſave a man that ioineth alſo to Mahomets Ministery.
Ergo, the good doctrines of that booke cannot ſave a man that ioineth alſo to Antichrists Ministery: which thing we in England doe.
I deny neither the Propoſition, nor Aſſumption: And yet the Argument is too bad. It is a fallacie of Equivocation, as we call it: Wee muſt therefore diſtinguiſh: Mahomets Miniſterie, and Antichrists Miniſterie, have a doubtfull meaning. If you meane, the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip performed in Mahomets or Antichrists aſſemblies, that is in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Churches: Then I graunt your whole Argument is*Both are nought alike as touching abol…ſhing vsus from Christ. true. But that wee doe ſo in England, (which comes in the Cōcluſiō) Or that any Chriſtiā amongſt vsus thinketh ſo: That I vtterly deny. And thus indeed, that Scripture alleadged 2 Cor. 6.14. is rightly vnderſtood. But if you meane by Miniſterie, the outward manner of calling to the Miniſterie, and ſome outward ceremonies, vſed by Mahomet or the Pope: Then I flatly and abſolutly deny your Aſſumption, and your Scripture is anſwered before in the Firſt Reaſon. For I affirme, and it is manifeſt: That ſuch errors being ioined with the good doctrines of that our Book, doe not deſtroy faith, and true Chriſtianitie, as before was ſhewed in the Second Exception.
Fr. Iohnſon his Anſwer to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 4. Reaſon. Here (Mr Iacob) the light of the trueth doeth ſo dazell your eyes, as you freely confeſſe you cannot deny any whit of the Reaſon. And yet forſooth the Argument is too bad. But why ſo? There is (you ſay) an Equivocation in it, and therefore you will diſtinguiſh. I anſwer, There is no equivocation at all in the words: they are all plaine, to him that hath a ſingle eye and will vnderſtand the trueth. Therefore your diſtinction here is idle and frivolous.
Yet let vsus ſee between what things you do diſtinguiſh: It is between the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip performed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies, and between the outward maner of calling to their Miniſtery and the outward ceremonies vſed amongeſt them. An abſurd diſtinction towching the matter in hand. For firſt, who knoweth not, that theſe latter are of the very ſame nature with the former? Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Antichriſtian, and accurſed before God, aſwell as the reſt of their woſhip and ſervice? Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for theſe then for the other?
Secondly, who ſeeth not, that the Argument here is not of whatſoever thing vſed among the Turkes and Papiſts, but of the Miniſterie and worſhip which they have deviſed and executed? As in particular, of the publique offices of Miniſtery reteined among them; of their maner of calling and entrance into them; of their adminiſtration of them; of their ſtinted impoſed Liturgie; their eccleſiaſticall governement, Canons, proceedings, &c. All which in the Church of England are taken out of*Rev. 17.4.5. 2 Theſ. 2.3.4.7.8.9.10.11.12. that golden cup of abominations, wherewith Antichriſt that man of ſinne hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken. As may appeare by comparing their Pontificals, Canons, and conſtitutions togeather. If you will needes be otherwiſe minded, then prove the particulars aforeſaide, by the Teſtament of Chriſt.
And marke here that you graunt, the doctrine of faith conteined in your booke of Articles cannot make him a true Chriſtian, who holding them doth withall receive and ioyne vntounto the publike worſhip performed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies. This you ſay you graunt as moſt true. Wherevpō it followeth (even by your owne confeſſion) 1. That ſuch things may be ioined with the doctrines of faith receiued among you, as in ſuch eſtate you cannot be deemed true Chriſtians, or true Churches; Neither the truths which you hold, be avayleable vntounto you. 2. That therefore the Propoſition of your firſt and maine Argument, is not generall, but admittet limitation: and ſo your greateſt defence is of no weight, as is ſhewed † before. 3. That your anſwer to the Second Exception is of no force, howſoever here and every where you refer vsus to it.Pag 5. For which alſo we refer the Reader, to what is ſaid in that place, in defence of that Exception: And for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. vntounto that which is ſaid concerning it in defence of the Firſt Reaſon. Pag. 67.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 4. Reaſon IN this your defence of your 4. Reaſon, you renew your Sophiſtrie, and that which is worſe, you will not be told of it. Is it becauſe of the goodnes of your Reaſon that I deny no Propoſition? Nay, it is for the badnes of it: becauſe all is nought, all deceitfull and ſophiſticall. Therefore I muſt diſtinguiſh euen ſo ſtill as I did before, and my diſtinction is good, cleerelie diſcouering all your fraude. What ſay you againſt it: Firſt (you ſay) Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Antichristian and accurſed, aſwell as the rest of their worſhip & ſeruice? Aſwell? Forſooth, I trow not, (that is, not as much). Their inwarde impietie and falſe faith againſt Chriſt, the onelyonly all-ſufficient Sauiour, is farre more accurſed and diueliſh then their bare outward orders, ſeparated from the reſt of their faith. But whoſoeuer ioyneth ſimply, and indifferently, either to Turkiſh, ot Popiſh Aſſemblies, doeth ioyne vvith their vvhole and vvorſt abominations, vvhichwhich hauehave no communion or coherence vvith Chriſt in deed, Neither can vve alſo, if vve ioyne therein. The caſe is not like, vvhen vve reteyne and vſe, ſome of their outvvarde orders in our Aſſemblies.
And here you note that I graunt Some thinge may be ioyned vntounto our Christian faith in England, which would vtterly destroy it. Moſt true, And here I note your moſt vnchriſtian and falſe dealing vvith me, in affirming othervviſe of me, As I have expreſſed in the beginning, about the taking of my Firſt maine Propoſition there. Which ſee further in pag. 6.
Laſtlie, my reference to the anſvvere of your Firſt Reaſon, is a fit and full Refutation of you here, Neither is your Defence any thing againſt it, as there appeareth. Alſo this your Reaſon includeth Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley: &c. to be no true Chriſtians neither, as hath bene often alleadged.
FR. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 4 Reaſon. SOphiſticall diſtinctions (all men know) are the woonted refuges of bad cauſes. That yours is ſuch, I ſhewed before. Now as it was, ſo you leave it ſtill, even idle and frivolous. It was between the whole function and exerciſe of publik worſhip performed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſē blies; and between the outvvard calling to the Miniſtery and ceremonies among them. The firſt thing I brought againſt it was this, Who knoweth not that theſe latter are of the very ſame nature vvith the former? Now this you paſſe by, like a ſmooth Prieſt, as if you ſaw it not. And that which followeth after, you ſay is the firſt of my anſwer. Look againe, duplicate page duplicate page and ſee if you ſpeak truth: and leave this dealing.
Yet what ſay you now to that which I aſked next, vvhether the one vvere not asvvell as the other falſe Antichriſtian and accurſed? Your anſwer is, they are not aſvvell, that is not aſmuch. But is not this meer Sophiſtry? Is not Antichriſts forbidding of Meats and Mariage aſvvell Antichriſtiā and accurſed, as his Maſſe, Supremacy, Iuſtificatiō by works &c. Yet in the“Mr Iacobs Replyes to the 7. Reaſon. ſeventh Reaſon following you ſay, they are not aſmuch. Doth not he that ſtealeth but one horſe, ſteale aſvvell horſefleſh, as he that ſtealeth five of ſix, though he ſteale not as much? When you ſay in the ſixt Reaſon†Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reaſō. The Samaritans accompted the Idols of the Heathen to be Gods aſvvell as the God of Iſrael, do you meane that they counted them as much? Or if Mr Iacob be deemed a learned man aſvvell as Mr Cartvvright, ſhall we think it aſmuch? By your leave, I deny it. Aſvvell (properly taken) reſpects the quality of a thing; Aſmuch the quantity. Yet ſo, you confound them as all one. Thus traveling with a diſtinction, you have brought forth confuſion.
Pag. 95. 96. 97.Further where your words and myne were before [of the reſt of their vvorſhip and ſervice] now you change them into theſe [their invvard impiety and falſe faith againſt Chriſt]. Belike you ſee your cauſe to be very bad, when you will not keep eyther my words or your owne, but chaunge them every foot as you do. But now if after all this chopping and chaunging I graunt all this which you ſay, what are you the nearer? Be it (as you ſay) that the one of theſe is more accurſed and diveliſh then the other (as all ſinnes are not equall but one more grievous then another): yet evē this maketh againſt you, and thus you give the cauſe. For now you can not deny but they are both of them accurſed and diveliſh, though the one more, the other leſſe. Can you then as you ſtand in that conſtitution which is accurſed and diveliſh yet be reputed for true Chriſtians and true Churches? If the Papiſts for to juſtify their outward conſtitution, ſhould thus alledge, That the Turks invvard impiety or vvhole publik vvorſhip vvere more accurſed and diveliſh then that outvvard conſtitution of theirs, would this any whit help them? Nay, ſhould they not thus yeeld their owne caſe to be accurſed and diveliſh, though the other to be more? Behold then how well you defend your Church, and how cūningly you yeeld the cauſe.
Where in the next place I aſked, if God in his vvord hath given any cō maundement more for the latter (mentioned before) then for the other: Pag. 96.At this you are as mute as a fiſh: you have not a word to ſpeak for your ſelf. Now ſeing Gods word approveth neyther but condemneth both, ſeing alſo both of them are of Antichriſt that ſonne of perdition, is it not evidēt that they are of the ſame nature, and that the one aſvvell as the other is falſe, Antichriſtian, and accurſed before God? It ſkilleth not then for the queſtion in hand, whether of them be more or leſſe. They that have the leaſt of Gods curſe, will fynd it heavy ynough: howſoever you flatter your ſelf and ſpeak peace to others, when there is no peace.
To the ſecond point by which I ſhewed your diſtinction to be idle and frivolous, you anſwer not a word neyther. Vnles it be that you yeeld to it, in thoſe words, where you confeſſe you retayne & vſe ſome of their outward orders in your Aſſemblyes. For if you meane it of the particulars†Pag. 96. there mentioned, then you yeeld vntounto it (except you had ſhewed by the word of God, that having communion with Antichriſt in thoſe things, yet you are notwithſtanding to be judged in this conſtitution true Chriſtians and true Churches: which hitherto you have not done, neither ever will). If you meane it not of them, then you keep not the point: and beſides you muſt prove the contrary to that I have ſaid. Which you never go about.
For the note I gave, you graunt it is moſt true, that ſuch things may be joined with the doctrines of faith received among you, as will vtterly deſtroy it, or (to keep the words of my aunſwer, which you love not to do) that in ſuch eſtate you can not be deemed true Chriſtians or true Churches; neither the truths which you hold, be avayleable vntounto you. Thus all the defence you bring of your Church proves to be quite nothing in the end. For hereby is evident (as heretofore I noted) that your Propoſition is not generall; that both it and the Aſſumption are lame and vnperfect; and ſo your whole Argument faulty, and nothing els but meer Sophiſtry. Your vnchriſtiā and falſe charge reſts vpō your owne head: as is proved already in the handling of your Propoſition. For which ſee, Pag. 11. 12. 13.
Laſtly your reference is nothing els but a refuge whither ſtill you fly to hide your ſelf, when you can no longer ſtand in defence of your Church. What you aunſwered to the firſt Reaſon, is there taken away. Now to ſhut vp all, you ſing againe the Cuckoes note, your old vnderunder ſong, Mr Crā mer, Ridley, &c. Towching whom I have ſhewed before,Pag 40. 41. how they may he counted true Chriſtiās, and yet your eſtate be Antichriſtiā nevertheles.