Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 14
Chap 14. The Eight Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumptiō afoerſaid.
Fr. Iohnſon. IF the Apoſtle account them denyers of the faith, and worſe then Infidels, and conſequently no true Chriſtians, who (though they doe hold other truthes of the Goſpell, yet) provide not for their houſehold: Then how are ſuch to be accounted, who (though they profeſſe ſome truthes of the Goſpell, yet) are not true worſhippers of God, but execute or ſubmit vntounto a falſe Miniſtery, vvorſhip, & governement eccleſiaſticall? (Which to be th'eſtate of the Miniſtery and people of the Church of England, appeareth as aforeſaid, in their Canōs, Articles, Book of Cōmon prayer, &c.)
But the firſt is true. 1 Tim. 5.8. Therefore &c.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 8. Reaſon. THis your Eight Reaſon is thus much: viz. Like as it is for a profeſſor, not to provide for his houſhold: ſo is it to hold the Hierarchy &c. But that is to deny the faith, and to be worſe then an infidell. Ergo ſo are we in England.
Thoſe very anſwers to the laſt Reaſon, do fully and flattly ſatiſfy this alſo: Eyther againſt the Aſſumption, namely that it is not meant ſimply of denying the faith, nor‡I meane Fū damentally, as in the last Reaſ. before I have ſhewed. wholy, but in this poinct onelyonly: Or els the Propoſition, as being meant of ſuch, as neglect their families againſt the light of their conſciences, and the manifeſt inſtinct of nature.
Er. Iohnſon his Anſvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 8. Reaſon. FOr aunſwer of this Reaſon, you refer vsus (both for Propoſition and Aſſumption) to your anſwer to the laſt Reaſon. But there I have proved thoſe your aunſwers to be vntrue. Therefore yet we have no aunſwer either to that Reaſon, or this.
(As for your new meaning, now (and not before) noted here in the margent, although it help you no more then the other, yet tell me in your next, where you learned thus to confound things that differ ſo much one from another. For now your Reply to both theſe Reaſons is ſuch, as if wholy and fundamentally were all one. Or els what have you ſaid? But this (Mr Iacob) is to confound, not to diſtinguiſh, as you pretended before, Pag. 135. 142. Men may erre fundamentally in ſome points of the faith, who yet erre not wholy in all.Pag. 92. 136. 142. The Papiſts at this day (you confeſſe † your ſelf,) do erre fundamentally in ſome things, as in Iuſtification by works, the Popes ſupremacy, the Maſſe, &c. Will you therefore ſay, they erre wholy in all? Do they not, howſoever they erre otherwiſe, yet notwithſtanding hold alſo theſe and manie other truths, viz, That there is but one God, and three perſons in the Godhead; That he made heaven and earth and all other things, and that of nothing; That the Sonne (not the Father, or holy Ghoſt) took fleſh of the Virgin Mary; That the bodyes of the dead ſhall riſe againe at the laſt day, &c. Likewiſe for the Corinthians and Galathians of old,Pag. 28. 92 of whom alſo you cō feſſe that they erred fundamentally in ſome points, as about the Reſurrection, Circumciſion, &c Shall we therefore think that they held not anie one point of truth, but erred wholy in all? The Scripture it ſelf doth witnes the contrary: as may be ſeen throughout the Epiſtles ſent to thoſe Churches. How ſenceleſſe then and confuſed is this your new coyned meaning? Towching which I thought to adde thus much here, beſides that which I ſpake concerning it in the laſt Reaſon before.)
Let the Reader moreover obſerve, that both there, and here, and in your Reply to the Reaſon following, the power of the truth ſo prevaileth againſt you, as you cannot but graunt, you depart from and deny the faith, in your Miniſtery worſhip and governement eccleſiaſticall: As appeareth in your Canons, book of Common prayer, Articles, Iniunctiōs, perſecution, &c. All which beeing mentioned as proofes thereof, in theſe ſeverall reaſons: when now they ſhould be defended, if you would maintaine your ſtanding, behold you are as mute as a fiſh therein. And not that onelyonly, but in your Reply to the next Reaſon following,Pag. 156. you graunt that in theſe things we may and ought to ſeparate from you. Which is directlie to yeeld vsus the cauſe: Thus ſoundlie you anſwer vsus, and diſpute for your ſelves.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 8. Reaſon. TO this your Eight Reaſon and defence thereof, I aunſwer as before: if you take the Apoſtle to meane, ſuch neglecters of their houſhold as deny the faith, not Fundamentally nor againſt the inſtinct of nature, but only againſt conuenient Chriſtian providence, and no othervviſe: then I deny your Aſſumption. If the Apoſtle meane of ſuch, as neglect their families againſt the light of conſcience, and natures inſtinct, then I deny the Propoſition. This I ſay, becauſe the Apoſtle may very well meane both theſe, but in diverſe meaſure and proportion of ſinne: but then this concerneth not vsus, Even ſo as I have ſaid to your former Reaſon. Note alſo, if this were a true Reaſon, it maketh Maiſter Cranmer, &c. denyers of the faith, and not true Chriſtians alſo. For maintenance whereof, you have here not one poore vvord at all.
Tovvching that you ſay we cannot deny, but graunt, that we departe from and deny the faith in our Ministery: I have told you hovv, in my anſvver to your 7. Reaſon, Alſo ſee my Replyes to your 2. Exception.
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 8. Reaſon. NOw that all your ſhifts fayle, you come with Ifs and Ands, If the Apoſtle meane this, and If he meane that &c. As if the Apoſtles * words were not playne,1 Tim. 5.8. ſo as the meaning may eaſily be diſcerned of anie that is not wilfullie blynd. Read and mynd in all ſuch caſes and Scriptures that which is written, Prov. 8.9. with Act. 28.26.27.
But you ſay the Apoſtle may very well meane, both ſuch as neglect their houſhold againſt convenient Chriſtian providence, and ſuch as do it againſt the light of conſcience and natures inſtinct. If the firſt, then you deny the Aſſumption, that is, the Apoſtles owne ſaying. And thus againe you give the holy Ghoſt the lye. If the latter, then you deny the Propoſition. And then you muſt prove, that thus they do it. For who knoweth not, that ſuch will not (for this caſe, any more then you for yours) confeſſe that they do it againſt light of conſcience &c. Nay will they not ſay, as ſtiflie as you, that this concerneth not them? And moreover is not that alſo which is light in one mans conſcience, often darke in another mans by one meanes or other?
See it in an example. One of your profeſſors in London runneth to all your Sermons and Lectures from place to place throughout the City, every day and every houre. By this meanes he neglecteth his familie. You tell him he doth it againſt light of conſcience and natures inſtinct. He denyes it, and ſaith he doth it not ſo, but as being perſwaded in his conſcience that he muſt firſt ſeek the kingdome of God, and that then all outward things ſhalbe caſt to him and his. Herevpon (in a blynd zeale) he doth, as aforeſaid. Now tell me, Is not this man notwithſtanding within compaſſe of the Apoſtles rule here ſpoken of? Yet will he ſtand againſt it for his caſe, as ſtiffe as you for yours: yea and alledge for himſelf more colour and ſhow of Reaſon, then you do or can for your Hierarchy &c. So then both the Propoſition and Aſſumption ſtand firme againſt you, and therefore alſo the whole Reaſon.
Now here againe, being loth (belike) to give them any reſt, you call for Mr Cranmer &c. As if they were your Pages, to wayte at your heeles on every call, and to ſerve your turne at every need, whether they will or not. Never were poore men in all the world (I think) made ſuch a ſtale. But they ſerve you accordingly. They let you commaund, and go without. For every where you commaund their names, and yet alway go without their fellowſhip. As I have ſhewed before in particular: Pag. 40. 41.
Towching your graunt, let the Reader note here againe, that you yeeld, you depart from and deny the faith in your Miniſtery &c. You ſay, you have before told vsus how. But what you have ſaid before is there aunſwered and taken away. And beſides, for vsus it is ſufficient, that it is done. Look you vntounto it, how you do it. It may be, ſome of you do it of ignorance; ſome of knowledge againſt the light of your owne conſciēces; ſome for feare of men; ſome for love of the world; ſome of contention, or vaine glory; ſome for their profit, pleaſure, eaſe, honour, quyetnes, or the like. Thus I deny not but in the maner of doing, there may be among you in theſe reſpects a divers meaſure and proportion of ſinne. But this concerneth not vsus; but your ſelves to look vntounto: and that greatlie.