Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 11
Chap. 11. The Fift Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.
Fran. Iohnſon. AS the golden veſſels taken out of the Lords houſe, had and vſed in Babylō of the Caldeās, did not therefore make the Babyloniās true Iewes touching the faith: Nor their bankets wherein they vſed them, to be any of the Lords Feaſts (ſpoken of Leu. 23.) but they ſtill remained Babyloniſh people and banquets notwithſtanding.
So the truths of the Goſpel (veſſels as it were of the Lords houſe) holden and received in the ſpiritual Babilō (whereof that other was a type) do not make the people ſo ſtāding, to be true Chriſtiās, Neither their Miniſtery and cōſtitution to be Chriſts. But they ſtill remaine the people, Miniſtery, & cōſtitution of Babylon notwithſtāding. See the proofs hereof in Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared with Prov. 9.17.18. & Rev. 17.4.5. & 18.4. with 14.8.9.10.11.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 5. Reaſon. YOur Reaſon is this: The materiall veſſells of Ieruruſalem, were of the like power and vertue, to ſanctifie the Heathen Babilonians, As the holy christian doctrines in that Booke, are to ſanctifie vsus, that holde togeather with them ſome Popiſh ceremonies and orders as indifferent things:
But thoſe veſſels were not ſufficient to ſanctifie thoſe Babilonians.
Ergo, Neither theſe truths of the Goſpell can ſanctifie vsus.
An abſurd compariſon: The Propoſition is moſt falſe, and ſo the ſcriptures quoted (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. compared vvith Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 18.4. vvith 14.8.9.10.11.) are as idely and vainely applyed. See the Anſvver to the allegations in the Firſt Reaſon before.
FR. Iohnſon his Aunſvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 5. Reaſon. MY Reaſon is a compariſon between the Caldean and the Romiſh Babylon, alſo between the veſſels of the Lords houſe and the true doctrines of the Goſpell. Now this you ſay firſt is an abſurd compariſon. So belike (if your grave judgement might goe for good payment) the manifold alluſions which (in deſcribing the ſpirituall Babylon) the Spirit of God ♣ maketh to the materiall Babylon of the Caldeans are to bee accompted abſurd alluſions and compariſons. As alſo the often alluding and likening togeather the * holy things of the Law with the holy thinges of the Goſpell, and the † tranſgreſſions then with the tranſgreſſions now (which are ſo often vſed in the Scripture) are in your account abſurd alluſions & ſimilitudes. ♣ Rev. 17. & 18. & 19. chap. compared with Ierem. 50. & 51. chap. Eſay. 13. & 14. & 21. & 47. chap. * Eſay. 66.20.21. Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. & 10.2.3.4. Col. 2.11.12. Heb. 13.15.16. 1 Pet. 3.20.21. Rev. 15.3. & 21.10. &c. † 2 Tim. 3.8.9. 1 Cor. 10.6. &c. Heb. 12.16.17. Iude, verſ. 11. Rev. 2.14.20. & 20.8.9.
Secondly, you ſay the Propoſition is moſt falſe. But in deed it is moſt true, and moſt plainely taught in the fift of Daniel, Verſ. 1.2.3.4. & Lev. 23. chap. As was alleadged before when I firſt propounded the reaſon, wherevnto yet you have given no aunſwer. So ſoundly you defend your cauſe.
Thirdly you ſay, Theſe ſcriptures (Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. vvith Pro. 9.17.18. Revel. 17.4.5. & 18.4. & 14.8.9.10.11.) are idely and vainely applyed. But how do you ſhew this? Verie profoundly ſure. You bid vsus ſee the aunſvver to the allegations in the Firſt Reaſon: And this is all the proof you bring. Well: wee have ſeen your aunſwer to the allegations there, and find, Firſt, that the Scriptures here alleadged, are not ſo much as once mentioned there: Secondly, that your aunſwer to thoſe which are there, is moſt frivoulous and of no weight, but againſt your ſelf, as there is declared. Pag. 67. 68.
Laſtlie, in your propounding the Reaſon here, otherwiſe then I did myſelf (which is a thing very common, but nothing commendable in you) it ſeemeth, that being not able to aunſwer any part thereof, as I had ſet it downe, yet you thought to helpe your ſelf by this exception, that the materiall veſſells of Ieruſalem vvere not of like povver and vertue to ſanctifie the Heathen Babylonians, as the true doctrines received among the Spirituall Babylonians, are to ſanctifie them. But you ſhall finde (if you will conſider and compare togeather the Scriptures here alledged) that the golden veſſels being holy to the Lord, and taken out of his Temple, did aſmuch ſanctifie the Caldean Babylonians and their Feaſtes: As the holy doctrines (veſſels as it were of the Lords Temple) had amōg the ſpirituall Babylonians, doe ſanctifie them and their conſtitution: That is, neither of their eſtates and Aſſemblies, are ſanctified thereby at all.
For ſaith not the Lord, That the ſetting of mens poſtes and threſholds, (how much more of Babylons enormities) by his Poſtes and Threſholds, that is, by his truths and ordinances, is ſo far from ſanctifying, as it defyleth his holy name, yea is abomination in his ſight, and ſetteth a vvall between him and them that doe it? Ezech. 43.8. And ſaith not the Scripture againe, that the true doctrines in the falſe Church are among them as ſtollen vvaters and hid bread, which though they be ſvveet and pleaſant, yet there alſo the mouth is filled with gravell and the gueſtes of thoſe feaſts and Aſſemblies, are ſo far from being ſanctifyed by thoſe truthes in that eſtate, as they are before God, even dead men, and in the deapth of hell. Prov. 9.17.18. & 20.17.
To conclude this poinct, hath not an Angell from heaven proclaimed with a loude voice, that‡Rev. 18.1.2.3.4.11. &c & 17.1.2.3.4.5. & 14.8.9.10.11. the ſpirituall Babylon (notwithſtanding any truthes ſhe holdeth, yet) is ſo vnſanctifyed and abominable. as ſhee is become a cage of all vncleane and hatefull birdes; and that all her children & Marchants that will not depart out of her, ſhall receive of her plagues and damnation, and drink of the vvine of Gods vvrath, and be tormented in fire and brimſtone, before the holy Angells and before the Lamb for evermore? Loe here your fearfull eſtate, which you notwithſtanding will needes accompt holy and acceptable before God.
H. Iacob his 2 Reply to the 5. Reaſon. IN this your defence of your Fifth Reaſon, you miſlike that I call it an abſurd compariſon: Where you affirme that the golden veſſels of the Iewes were as available to ſanctify the Babilonians, as the truthes of the Goſpell which wee hold are to ſanctify vsus. In deed your ovvne vvordes be, holden and received in the ſpirituall Babylon. By which termes you meane vsus of England I trow. But marke ſir. Is not this groſſe Sophiſtry againe? Is not this childiſh vanity, open beggerie, and craving of that which is the whole queſtion? that is, That our Churches are ſpirituall Babylon, and as deepely infected in Babyloniſh impietie as thoſe old Caldeans. If they were ſo infected, I graunt in deed your Reaſon would follow: But ſeeing it is the queſtion, and ſeing we profeſſe our ſelves true Chriſtians by thoſe truths of the Goſpell which wee hold (and as by Gods grace wee are in deed) Say I not well, that this is an abſurd Compariſon? Yes Maiſter Iohnſon, it is a moſt†To match thoſe outvard veſſells, (of no ſanctity of themſelves) with our inward doctrines of ſalvation. impious, abſurd, and ſenceles compariſon, and void of common Reaſon: And it inwrappeth wrappeth Maiſter Cranmer, Maiſter Ridley, &c. within the ſame iniurious, you irreligious conſequence likewiſe.
All that you have of alluſions, and alluding, betweene the Typicall and ſpirituall Babylon, are meere deluſions, and vaine cavils. Prove vsus firſt to be ſpirituall Babylon: Or els you fight with your ſhadow.
So that ſtill I ſay, thoſe Scriptures quoted of Dan. 5. &c. As alſo all the reſt here packed togeather, they are miſerably and deſperately abuſed, according as I rightly referred you to my cenſure to your Firſt Reaſon: which for all your wordes, you have not refuted. The very ſame I ſay of your other two ſcriptures towards the end, Prov 9.17. &c. Rev. 18.1. &c. As for Ezech. 43.8. I anſwered it before†Pag. 71. in your Firſt Reaſon.
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 5. Reaſon. HAve you ſaid any thing here firſt (Mr Iacob) but denyed the Concluſion? If you have, ſhew it. If not, confeſſe your owne childiſh vanity and open beggery, &c. For which the name of Sophiſtry is to good, though otherwiſe it be bad ynough, and the cogniſance of all your Replies. Now that this you ſay is but the denyal of the Concluſion, thus I ſhew, That which I conclude towching your Churches is this, that they are not conſtitute according to the ordināce of Chriſt but according to the apoſtaſy of Antichriſt, that is, that your Churches in their eſtate are ſpirituall Babylon. This (I ſay) is that which I have concluded heretofore, and ſtill do throughout my Reaſons, Exceptions, Aunſwers: and now of purpoſe have I ſet it downe at the beginning of this treatiſe.Pag. 3. Your denying of this then, what is it els but the denyall of the Concluſion?
But this now being proved, you are driven (nill ye, will ye) plainely to graunt that in deed my Reaſon will follow. Well Mr Iacob, though it were long firſt, yet thus you yeeld now at length. Better late thrive, then never. Abide but by this, and I trow you will not now any longer ſtand member or Miniſter of your Aſſemblies in that eſtate, neyther condemne vsus any more for ſeparating from them.
Next, howſoever it were for the queſtion between vsus, yet the Propoſition of the Compariſon cannot but be true, which in your firſt Reply you ſaid was moſt falſe, and now you would paſſe by, becauſe you can ſay nothing againſt it. Yet mynd Mr Iacob, that in denying it you did there agayne give the lye to the holy Ghoſt, whoſe doctrine it is, in theſe Scriptures, Dan. 5.1.2.3.4. Levit. 23. chap. Prov. 9.17.18.
By all this then you may ſee, it is your owne dealing that is moſt impious, abſurd, ſenceleſſe &c. thus to ſtrive (as you have done) againſt ſo cleare a truth, and everie where in your Replyes to fight againſt God and his word. Which even here againe you ceaſe not to do, whiles you call ſuch alluſions and compariſons as the Scripture vſeth between the typicall and ſpirituall Babylon, meer deluſions and vayne cavils. How I matched together on the one hand, the veſſells of the Lords Temple and the truthes of the Goſpell; on the other, The Caldean and ſpirituall Babylon, may be ſeen in my former aunſwer. Which may ſuffice for any thing you ſay here, both your marginall note, and all the reſt.
I could tell you further (if it needed) that Babel in Engliſh is confuſion: And that ſuch is the eſtate of your Church, even a confuſion of all ſorts of people good and bad. Beſides that your tounges are divided and your language confounded (as it was in*Gen. 11.9. Babel of old) whiles the Prelates, the Reformiſts, your ſelf and the like (as Neuters between both) ſpeak ſome one thing, ſome another, towching your Hierarchy, worſhip, Canons, &c. ſome†The Prel. & Formal. that they are of God and to be kept and obeyed for conſcience ſake; ſome‡The Sekers of Reform. that they are of Antichriſt, and to be removed and witneſſed againſt vntounto death, though every haire of the head were a life; ſome♣Mr Iacob & the like. that they are neyther of God, neyther of Antichriſt, ſimply, fundamentally, indifferently, &c. And thus as men confounded in your ſelves (by the juſt judgement of God) your toungues are divided, you know not your ſelves what to make and account of theſe things, or one of another.
I could alſo put you in mind, that as the Caldean Babylon was, ſo the ſpirituall Babylon is, notorious for falſe worſhip towards God, and for perſecution of his people, keping them in thraldome and captivity.See M. Iacob… Repl. before, And that now the eſtate of your Church is ſuch (viz, worſhipping God after a falſe maner never preſcribed by himſelf, kept in ſubiection to your Antichriſtian Prelats, and perſecuting the people of God by priſonment, exile, death, &c.) it is ſo evident, as when you are called vponupon to ſhew warrāt for theſe among you, your vſuall aunſwer is no other but after this ſort:*Pag. 37. Let the State which mainteyneth theſe things, aunſwer for them; †Pag. 70.For my part, I never thought other but our Church corruptions are againſt the Secōd commaundement; “Pag. 72.It is no part of my mynd to iuſtify them; ♣Pag. 84.Our doctrine appointeth Gods worſhip by Mens precepts after a ſort; ‡Pag. 92.Our Hierarchy was never but nought; *Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 6. Reaſon following.I never intended, much leſſe profeſſed to iuſtify our whole Miniſtery, eſtate, and maner of worſhip; †His Replies to the 7. & 8 Reaſons.We depart from and deny the faith in our Miniſtery &c. but not totally, ſimply, fundamentally; ‡His 2. Reply to the 9. Reaſon.I liſt not to medle with them, I have no leaſure &c.
Now then Mr Iacob, ſay I not well that your Churches in this eſtate are ſpirituall Babylon? And have I not made a fit compariſon between it and the Caldean Babylon of old, between the doctrines of truth in the one and the holy veſſels in the other? If the compariſon be good, ſtrive no more againſt it, but yeeld to the truth, as you hauehave begun. If it be evill, convince it by Scripture whence I borrowed it, as the teſtimonyes I alledged declare. Vntill you do this (which will not be in haſt) know that the Scriptures here cited are fitly applyed to the purpoſe in hand. If you ſee it not; feare leaſt you be miſerably and deſperatly blynded. And take heed you do not ſtill runne on wilfully to deſtruction. Remember what is written in Eſa. 6.9.10. Mat. 13.14.15. Ioh. 12.37-43. Act. 28.25.26.27.
Towching the place of Ezech. 43.8. I have aunſwered in the handling of the firſt Reaſon. Pag. 80.
For Mr Cranmer, Mr Ridley, &c. I have alſo anſwered, Pag. 40. 41. You that do ſo often tell vsus of them, if you had but ſo much as how of any Scripture for your eſtate, is it like you would be ſilent therein? Nay ſure you would not ſpare much more to tell vsus of that agayne and agayne. And ſo let the Reader mynd it.