Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 3
Chap. 3. M. IACOBS ARGVMENT, as it vvas firſt propounded and aunſwered.
VVHatſoeuer is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtiā & in ſtate of ſaluatiō; That is ſufficient to make a company ſo gathered togeather, to be a true Church.
But the whole doctrine,‡Book of Articles publiſhed Anno 1562. as it is profeſſed and publiquely practiſed by law in England, is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtian.
Therefore it is ſufficient to make the publique aſſemblies true Churches.
H. Iacob.
Fr. Iohnſon his Aunſwer. TO omit the Propoſition, vntill it better appeare by the defence of the Aſſumption how to take and vnderſtand it, we wil for the preſent only ſhew the weakenes of the Aſſumptiō: And this alſo the rather, becauſe they ſeeme wholy to depend vponupon it.
H. Iacob his Reply. THe Aūſvverer omitteth the Propoſitiō, for in deed it is moſt certain: But he denieth the Aſſumption, (vvhichwhich yet is as certaine alſo) That the doctrine in our booke of Articles is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian.
Fr. Iohnſon his 2. Aunſvver. IN the former aunſwer, I omitted the Propoſitiō, not becauſe of the certeinty of it (as the Replier dreameth) but till we might ſee by his defence of the Aſſumption how to take it, as then I noted. Now therefore (hauing ſeen in his reply the*This I vvrot vvhen I had ſeen Mr. Iacobs firſt Rep…e herafter follovving. vvhichwhich novv he hath ſecōded vvith another of like ſort. VVhether it be not ſo as here I ſay let the indifferent Reader vponupon tryall iudge. vnlearned and vnconſcionable pretences, by which he would ſeem to defend the Aſſumption, whē in deed he doth nothing elſe but caſt a miſt before the eyes of the ſimple): I giuegive him to vnderſtand, that the whole Argument is lame and faulty in eueryevery part.
The Propoſition is not abſolutely true, as now (by his defence of the Aſſumption) it appeareth he vnderſtandeth it. The Aſſumption is not only falſe, as was proued in the*My firſt aūſvver vvas the 3. Exceptiōs and 9. Reaſons, vvhichwhich here do follovv. former aūſwer, but alſo lacketh a foot whereon it ſhould goe, if it were perfect and entire.
For whereas in the Propoſition, mention is made not only of the making of a true Chriſtian, but alſo of a companie ſo gathered togeather: he ſhould in the Aſſumptiō (if he would hauehave had it ſound and perfect) not only hauehave aſſumed, that the doctrine &c. is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian: but hauehave added alſo, that their aſſemblies be companies ſo gathered together. Which being not done, both the Aſſumption wāteth one of the feet, and the Concluſion inferreth more then was in the premiſſes, and ſo the whole Syllogiſme is faultie and diſfigured.
Thus might we, without any further aunſwer, returne this Argumēt to the firſt framers of it, to be better faſhioned: Yet in hope to doe them good (by the bleſſing of God) we will more particularly lay open the weakenes of this Replie.
And firſt, where he ſaith the Propoſition is moſt certain, and yet in his defence of the Aſſumption, declareth that he ſo taketh it, as whatſoeuer amongſt them, be ioyntly togeather held, and ioyned with that which otherwiſe might make a true Chriſtian or true Church, yet notwithſtanding they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or commixtures: we aunſwer that in this ſence, the Propoſition neither is nor can be abſolutly true. For who knoweth not, that‡Gal. 5.2.4. ſuch things may be ioined with Chriſt, as do aboliſh from him? And again,†2 cor. 6.14.15.16.17. that Chriſt & Antichriſt cannot accord together? Either therefore the Propoſition is not general, but admitteth limitatiō, and thē is not the Argumēt good: Or if it be generall, without any limitation (ſo as whatſoeuer be added to or commingled with that which otherwiſe might make a true Chriſtiā or Church, yet it hindereth nothing at all) then is it not alway true: as may appeare by the former exceptions and many mo that might be alledged.
Next touching the Aſſumption, beſides that it is ſame, it is alſo vntrue as hath ben proued. Some balme in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, ſaue only to manifeſt ſo much the more, that the ſoare of their Aſſemblies cannot be healed. In our former aunſwer we firſt tooke 3. Exceptions againſt thē, comparing together their profeſſion and practiſe, then we alleadged 9. Reaſōs directly concluding the falſhood of the Aſſumption.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply. Before I examine this your aunſwer, I will deſire you and all others, to note that all your Ecceptions and Reaſons, with your defence of them, hereafter following, doe conſiſt of theſe three generall pointes.
1. That euerie perſon in England, holding our publique faith, is no true Chriſtian.
2. That all the Chriſtians & Churches in King Edwards time, & namely Maiſter Cranmer, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, &c. were all lims of Antichriſt, and no true Chaiſtians.
3. That eueryevery ſoule in England, is conuicted in conſcience, that the Praelācie is vnlawfull and vntolerable.
The Firſt of theſe, is our maine queſtion, and the ground of all our reaſoning: which you gainſay. The ſecond, though it be not expreſly ſpoken, yet it is directly, euidently, and vndeniably concluded, by all and eueryevery of your arguments againſt vsus. As in the ſeueralls hereafter we ſhal ſee. The third you are driuē vntounto, for defence of your former Aſſertion, which els falleth to the grounde. And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1. 6. and 7. Reaſons.
Now my deſire is, that all men would take notice of theſe your 3. Aſſertions, and conſider indifferently, whether they proceed from an honeſt, a ſober, or a Chriſtian minde. And you M. Iohnſon, if you liſt hereafter to ſay any more, defend theſe 3. pointes directly and plainly, that your aunſwers may be briefer, and more certain, then now they are.
And novv I come to the particular examination of your former aunſvver. Firſt you ſay, You omitted the Propoſitiō before, not for the ſoundnes of it, but only, becauſe you would ſee how I meant it. Why? He that hath but half an eie, may ſee the meaning of thoſe wordes, where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of ſence at all. What fault finde you in it now? Forſooth, firſt a want in Aſſumption, and then vntruthes, both in the Propoſition, and Aſſumption of my Sillogiſme. There vvanteth (you ſay) that I ſhould expreſſe in the Aſſumptiō. That our Aſſemblies be companies gatherd togeather in the doctrines & ordinances which we all by lawe publiquely profeſſe and practise. Who but a wrangler would not vnderſtand that I meant ſo much? Nay doe not my expreſſe wordes implie aſmuch: when I ſay, We by law publiquelie profeſſe and practiſe them? Then are not our Aſſemblies (which are by law) gathered together in this profeſſiō & power? Fy forſhame theſe are ſenceleſſe cauilations. But becauſe what in me lieth, I would not hauehave you any more to ſtumble at a ſtrawe,Not that the Argument is vnſound vvithout this addition: But becauſe the Reader may ſee hovv you vvil play at a ſmall game rather then ſit out, …a…unt. I hauehave to ſatiſfie you withall, now added thoſe wordes to the Aſſumption aforeſaid in a contrarie letter which you deſire, viz. and our publique aſſemblies are therein gathered together.
Secondly, you ſay, that my propoſition meaneth, that whatſoeuer is held togeather with that which otherwiſe might make a true Chriſtian or true Church: Yet notwithſtanding they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or commixtures. O ſtrange dealing: in all my writing I hauehave no ſuch word, no ſillable, no letter ſounding to that ſence. I hauehave directly contrarie, in my aunſwer to your fourth Reaſō, as your ſelf noteth there. Yet you M. Iohnſon, without all ſhame, in the view of the world, doe Father on me this foule vntruth, & moſt ſenceleſſe errour, in your firſt entrance.
Further, whereas it ſeemeth you reproue my Propoſition, requiring to to hauehave it ſet thus: Whatſoeuer is ſufficient to make a perticular man a true Chriſtian (and hath nothing added with it deſtroying the foundation of faith) That is ſufficient to make a companie ſo gathered together, a true Church.
You muſt know M. Iohnſon, that that were an idle & vaine addition: for whereſoeuer there are any ſuch things added deſtroying faith, there whatſoeuer els ſeemeth ſufficient, indeed it is not ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian. Wherefore nodum inſcirpo quaeris, this is to finde a knot in a ruſh. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Propoſition.
The Aſſūption examined by the Exceptions & Reaſons follovving.Laſtlie you come to deny my Aſſumption, or rather to maintaine your deniall heretofore giuen. Where firſt note that by denying my aſſumption, you affirme the firſt generall point noted in this beginning:
That euerie particular perſon in England, holding our publique faith here, is no true Chriſtian. Which (O Lorde) who would not tremble to think on? Euen that which this man aboue two yeates agoe affirmed, and novv againe aduiſedly and wilfully defendeth. I take Heauen and Earth to record this day, whether this be not deſperate madnes, yea or no. But let vsus examine your exceptions, and reaſōs againſt my Aſſumption more particularly, & wee ſhall ſee what ſtuffe it is. Your firſt exception againſt the ſame is as followeth.
Fr. Iohnſon his 3. Aun…wer. VVHat M. Iacob? Doth your mouth ſo runne ouer, as you could not but euē at firſt ſpeak vntruth and forge deceit? When your beginning is ſo bad, it is an ill token the end will not be very good. You would here father vpō me three things, which I neuer imagined, as they are by you collected. Therefore to cleare the truth and ſ…op your mouth, I will declare what my mind is and hath ben concerning them.
For the firſt, your wordes are, That euerie perſon in England, holding your publique faith, is no true Chriſtian. Touching this point, I mind the eſtate of your people two waies: The one concerning their ſeverall perſons conſidered a part from the conſtitution of your Church; the other concerning their eſtate and ſtanding in that conſtitution. Concerning the former of theſe, (that is, conſidering them apart from the conſtitution) I acknowledge that in diuers of them there appeareth ſuch knowledg and faith of the goſpel with the frutes thereof, as they may well be thought, in regard of Gods election in Chriſt, to be heires of ſaluation, and in that reſpect to be true Chriſtians: God pardoning vntounto them their ſtanding vnderunder Antichriſt, which they doe not ſee or mind. But withall, I feare leaſt many mo heretofore were pertakers of this grace, then be now ſince your Antichriſtian eſtate and the vnlawfulnes to abide therein hath bin diſcouered. Concerning the latter, (that is, in reſpect of their eſtate and ſtanding in that conſtitution of your Church) I am perſwaded whoſoeuer ſo ſtand holding your publique faith and multitude of Antichriſtian abhominations withall, they cannot by the word of God be iudged true Chriſtians, as touching their outward eſtate in that church of yours: but ſtand all ſubiect to wrath, God imputing this their ſinne vntounto them. And that all therefore who will be aſſured of Gods merciemercy and ſaluation, ought with ſpeed to goe out of your Church, it ſtill remaining in Antichriſtian eſtate.
To make this matter more plaine, take out of Iſraell an example in Abiiah the ſonne of Ieroboam. If you conſider him, as ſtanding with the reſt in that apoſtaſie and Church-conſtitution of Iſraell, he is ſubiect to like condemnation with them in that eſtate. But if you conſider him apart from it, as there is found in him ſome goodnes towards the Lord God of Iſraell, he may be counted a true Iſraelite finding mercy at the Lords hands. 1 King. 14.1.5.13. By this you may ſee what my mind in this firſt point is and alway hath ben. And if you doe marke, whereſoeuer I ſpeak of the members of your Church to be vnderunder wrath, in Antichriſtian eſtate, no true Chriſtians, or iointly together no true Churches, or the like: I ſpeake it ſtill with this caution, in reſpect of ſuch eſtate or conſtitution as they ſtand in vnderunder Antichriſt. To which end you may euerie where in my aunſwers minde theſe and the like clauſes, In that eſtate, In that conſtitution, In reſpect of the Miniſterie and conſtitution of the Church, Being ſubiect to Antichriſt, Being ſo conſidered, Being Antichriſtian, and other of like ſorte.
For the ſecond your words are, That all the Chriſtians and Churches in King Edvvards tyme, and namely M. Cranmer. M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Tailor, &c. vvere all lims of Antichriſt and no true Chriſtians. Now as touching this matter, although you may eaſily ſee what my minde is by that I hauehave ſaid concerning the other going before: yet for this in particular, know alſo that I am thus minded, viz. That al the chriſtians and churches in King Edwards time, and namely M. Cranmer, M. Ridley, &c. ſtood as touching the outward conſtitution of that church in Antichriſtian eſtate: Yet conſidering the merciemercy of God vntounto thē, and their faithfulnes in thoſe things which in that time of ignorance were reuealed, inaſmuch as afterward they loued not their liues vntounto death, but in many waightie pointes reſiſted vntounto blood ſtriuing againſt Antichriſt, I hold them in this reſpect true Chriſtians, and now to be at reſt with the Lord.
And tell me your ſelf M. Iacob, whether you iudge not thus of Arnoldus de villa noua, Iohannes de rupe ſciſſa, Iohn Wicleff, Iohn Hus, Ierome of Prage, Sauanarola, Dominicus, Silueſter, Thorpe, Swinderby, Bilney, &c. the faithfull witneſſes of Chriſt in their ſeuerall ages, and therefore in this reſpect true Chriſtians: whereas yet notwithſtanding as touching their miniſterie and Church-conſtitution wherein they were, they ſtood in Antichriſtian eſtate, ſome of them being Friers, ſome popiſh Prieſts, ſome ſaying Maſſe, ſome communicating in it, &c. vntill the day they were martyred and put to death.
For the third, your wordes are, That euerie ſoule in England, is conuicted in conſciēce, that the Prelacie is vnlawfull & vntolerable. Touching this likewiſe, I neuer did nor can affirme as you hauehave ſet downe. Only this I know and affirme, for the generall ſtate of the Land, that a greater light is riſen vntounto them in theſe daies, but they louelove darknes more then light: Alſo, that many times and ſundry waies hath ben ſhewed and convinced vntounto them, that the Prelacie, Prieſthood, Leiturgy &c. are Antichriſtian, and therefore vnlawful and vntolerable: Finally, that the *VVitneſſe their Acts in Parlament againſt vsus. Their preſēt eſtate, practiſe, &c.vniuerſal face of the Realme hath refuſed the truth by vsus profeſſed, and retaineth ſtill the Antichriſtian abhominations aforeſaid. For which I feare their iudgment will be the heauier. Ioh. 3.19 and 15.22. Act. 13.45.46.
This is that which I hauehave bin and am perſwaded touching theſe particulars. The latter branch of the firſt of theſe, is our maine queſtion, and the ground of all our reaſoning: which I hauehave proued by many arguments both from the word of God and your owne mens writings. VntoUnto which M. Iacob you hauehave not giuen one word of ſound aunſwer in all your booke, but continually fly from the point in queſtion: as knowing (I feare) in your ſelf, that there can be no iuſt defence of your Churches eſtate in this behalf. And touching all three, your ſelf could not but know that my iudgment therein was as I hauehave declared: you and I hauehave ſo oftē had ſpeach together thereabout. Yet behold to make the truth of God and my defence thereof more odious to the world, and ſo to preiudice your Readers iudgment, you hauehave here at firſt vniuſtly and falſly fathered vponupon me theſe three aſſertions, being not able to ſhew them in my words or writings any where. Remember you not, how the enemies of Gods grace delt of old with the Apoſtles,Rom. 3.8. blaming them (vniuſtly) as if they had taught, vve ſhould doe euil that good might come thereof. Or mind you, how the Papiſts, Anabaptiſts, and the like doe at this day charge vsus (though falſly) that vve make God the author of ſin, whiles we maintaine againſt them the truth touching Predeſtination, Freewill &c. In like manner deale you with me.See Mat. 26 60.61. vvith Ioh. 2 19.21. Act. 6.13.14. And thus at firſt you become a falſe witnes, both in peruerting the ſence of my words, and in altering, diminiſhing, and adding vntounto them. Euerie of which you know is to beare falſe teſtimony, not only againſt me, but in this caſe euen againſt the truth it ſelf.
That all men take notice both of theſe poſitions, and of our dealing therein, I alſo am content and deſirous. My aunſwers (I confeſſe) are ſomewhat long, partly becauſe I would make the truth manifeſt euen to the moſt ſimple, partly for that I would more fully diſcouer your manifold ſhifts and leaue you no ſtatting hole any where. In your replies (which may well be pinned vp in a narrow roome, ſeeing they hauehave nothing of waight in them) I deſire more ſound and vpright dealing, together with demonſtration of your cauſe from the Scripture. That I hauehave cauſe thus to deſire, theſe three points following (which I wiſh the Reader to obſerue in your Replies) will teſtifie.
Firſt that you being to proue your cauſe and Argument,Three things to be noted by the Reader in Mr Iacobs Replyes. neuer proceed (though you be ſtill called vponupon) to make due proof thereof, but put ouer all proof vntounto me: and buſie your ſelfe in aunſwering (after your faſhion) the Exceptions and Reaſons I brought againſt your Argument.
Secondly, that in aunſwering my Reaſons and Exceptions (finding them all to heauy) you neuer directly refute them as they were propoū ded: but ſome times leaue moſt waightie points in them wholy vnaunſwered; ſomtimes labour to waſh your hāds of the matter, and to turne ouer the plea from your ſelfe that hauehave vndertakē it, to the ſtate of your Church on whom you leaue it; ſomtimes tranſforme them into other ſhapes framed by your ſelf, and ſo aunſwer not me, but fight with your owne ſhadow: and thus euerie foot yeeld the cauſe by neceſſary conſequence.
Thirdly that in ſteed of Gods word (which is very rare with you in all this diſpute) you preſſe vsus with the authoritie of Man: neuer going about to approue your Church-eſtate by the Scriptures (which onelyonly muſt end this controuerſie) but alway leading vsus to the view and errors of the Martyrs. For let it be minded, whether eueryevery of your Replies hauehave not this for their foundation and vnderſong, M. Cranmer M. Ridley, &c. as if for our faith and worſhip of God, we ſhould turne from the liuing God to dead men,Eſa. 8.20. from the law and teſtimony of the Lord, to the opinions and aberrations of Man. I might beſides wiſh the Reader to mind the vnſauerie ſalt of your raiſing and reprochfull ſpeaches ſcattered throughout your book: but I omit it.
And now I come to the particular examination of this Replie of yours.
You ſay, He that hath but half an eye, may ſee the meaning of the vvordes of your Propoſition &c. Well Mr. Iacob: then your ſelf hauing two eyes might eaſily ſee, I omitted the Propoſition, not for the darknes or doubtfulnes of the words, but becauſe it yet appeared not how your ſelf vnderſtood them: whether ſo, as you make the Propoſition general, admitting no exception: or particular and to be reſtrained. And why do you not yet tel vsus how you take it? Are you afraid to ſay either the one or the other? either that it is general, or that it is particular?
If you make it general admitting no limitation, then is your Propoſition falſe,Page. 5. as I ſhowed in my laſt aunſwer, which you cannot gaineſay. If it be particular, then is your Syllogiſme a meer Sophiſme, your Argument of no moment, neither in any Mood or Figure. How think you Mr. Iacob? Is not your reaſon very ſound and Clerklike? But you perhaps with two eyes ſee not ſo much as others may with half an eye.
Touching the Aſſumption (to follow your words in order) I ſhowed that wheras in the Propoſition you ſpake of a companie ſo gathered togeather, you ſhould for your purpoſe hauehave aſſumed that your Aſſemblies be companies ſo gathered. And tel me, ought you not ſo to hauehave don, ſeeing you make but one Syllogiſme? If you ought, is it vvrangling to ſhew what is wanting in your Reaſon? If you ought not, why hauehave you now made an addition to your Aſſumption which was not before? Is it becauſe I ſhould not ſtumble at a ſtraw? or is it not becauſe the Argument is vnſound without it, though you note the contrarie in the margent? If it be ſound without this, why doe you not ſo proue it? If it be not, why doe you not confeſſe it? Nay, why are you both ſo conceited in your ſelf, and ſo deſirous to blind your Reader, as when the fault is ſhewed you, yet you wil not onelyonly not accknowledg it, but lay the blame vponupon him that would draw you to ſee it? This in deed is not to ſtumble at a ſtraw, but wilfully to fall downe, when you might be holpen vp. Now although you be vnworthy of any further help: Yet becauſe I I would hauehave you ſee it, I wil once againe labour to make it plaine vntounto you, if I can beat it into your head.
You make but one Syllogiſme, and in it you conclude your publique Aſſemblies to be true Churches. Now you know (I ſuppoſe) that alwaies in a good Argument, whatſoeuer is in the Concluſion, muſt needes be in one of the premiſſes before. But in yours it is not ſo. Your concluſion is of your publique aſſemblies, and yet you neuer ſpake of them before in either of the premiſſes. Can you by this perceive how extremely faulty and vnſound your Argument is.
But you think to help your ſelf by ſaying, you meant ſo much. Sure you are neare driuen M. Iacob. For what wrangler could not ſo help out any matter? Yet here you ſtay not. Euen your words (you ſay) imply as much. And do they indeed? Tell me then, whether here you include and defend all the publique Aſſemblies of the Land as they now ſtand, or but ſome of them? whether thoſe, that hauehave dumbe Miniſters, aſwell as thoſe that hauehave Preachers? whether thoſe that hauehave non reſidents, aſwell as thoſe, that hauehave their Incumbents? whether the Cathedral Churches aſwell as the Pariſhes? For all theſe are by Law Churches among you: the Cathedrall, the Pariſhionall, thoſe that hauehave non reſidents, or humbe dogs, with fower Sermons a yeare, Pluralities, &c.
Then tell me, whether all theſe Aſſemblies of yours be companies by Lavv gathered together in that profeſſion & practiſe, wherof you ſpeak? Beſides, where the words in your Propoſition were of companies ſo gathered together &c. and you in your addition to the Aſſumption hauehave in ſteed thereof, companies gathered together in the doctrines &c. why are you ſo vnconſtant and fearefull in your words? why do you not keep the ſame termes? why made you not the addition, as was ſhowed you it ought to hauehave ben? Did you think, that then I would and might the more call vponupon you for proof thereof? That belike was the matter. For in deed I do and muſt needs ſo much the more cal for it. And how will you ever prove it, that your Aſſemblies are companies ſo gathered together, that is, by a free voluntary profeſſion of the truths among you (*Act. 2.41. & 11.24. Pſal. 110.3. Eſa. 44.5. 2 Cor. 6.17.18. and 9.13. Zach. 8.21 23. 1 Theſ. 1.6. ſuch as is in true CHRIſtians, and in the manner of gathering eueryevery true Church): when as you are by Lavv compelled ſo to profeſſe, or rather to ſubmit to that profeſſion? Yea and by compulſion of Lavv are gathered not only in and vntounto thoſe truths, but in and to Antichriſtian errors, which cannot ſtand therewithall? I pray you M. Iacob iuſtifie by the Scriptures ſuch profeſſion to be that which is in true Chriſtians, and ſuch gathering to be that which is in true Churches.
Next, where you charge me with ſtrange dealing for ſaying, your vvriting declared that you ſo took the Propoſition as vvhatſoeuer ‡Theſe vvords (among them) Mr. Iacob leaueth out.among you be iointly together held & ioyned vvith that vvhichwhich othervviſe might make a true Chriſtian or true Church, yet notvvithſtanding you are ſo to be reputed as if there vvere no ſuch additions or commixtures: Firſt, ſpeak plainely whether you doe ſo take your Propoſition, or not. Whatſoeuer you aunſwer, it will be againſt your ſelf and manifeſt the weaknes of your Argument, as I hauehave declared a litle before. Secondly, why wrote you not all my words, but left out ſom of them? was it becauſe you thought that would hauehave cleared me of ſtrange dealing, and left it vpō your own head? Thirdly, where you ſay, in all your vvriting you hauehave no ſuch vvord, no ſyllable, no letter, ſounding to that ſence: Lift vp your eares Mr Iacob, and tel me how theſe wordes of yours do ſound in your hearing,†M Iacobs 1. Reply to the 1. Reaſon follovving. Chriſt and ſome outward ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt are joined together among vsus, vvhichwhich things yet vve think to be Chriſts ovvne. Againe, The ‡His 1. Reply to the 4. Reaſon f…llovving.outvvard manner of calling to the Miniſtery and ſome outvvard ceremonies vſed by Mahomet and the Pope, doe not deſtroy faith & true Chriſtianity. And yet more plainely, when you ſay,*His 1. Reply to the 7. Reaſon folloing The Papiſts forbidding of mariage and meats, if they had done no vvorſe, doth not make them departers from the faith totally. No more could their Hierarchy and ceremonies ſimply: Neither doe theſe things make vsus the Proteſtants to be ſuch. Theſe and many mo you hauehave in your firſt Reply, beſides an hundred the like in the ſecond, not only ſounding to that ſence, but directly and neceſſarily implying it. And whereas you have ſometimes the contrary (as I noted*His 1. Reply to the 4 Reaſon follovving. els where:) that doth but ſo much the more ſhew your inconſtancy and contradiction of your ſelf. Shall I therefore now turne vponupon you your owne words and ſay, O ſtrange dealing: vvithout all ſhame, in the vievv of the vvorld, to father on me this foule vntruth &c.
Yet I am glad M. Iacob, the truth prevaileth ſo much with you, nill ye will ye, as you are driuen to confeſſe, that this aſſertion is a foule vntruth and ſenceles errour. For herevpon it followeth, firſt that your Propoſition is not generall, and therefore your whole Argument faulty and to no purpoſe at al for the queſtion in hand: ſecondly, that of neceſſity there ſhould be ſome clauſe ānexed to your Propoſition touching the Antichriſtian abhominations among you, if you would hauehave your Reaſon good for the eſtate of your Churches. But you account ſuch addition would be idle and vaine. I eaſily beleeue, you are ſo minded. But why (I pray you) thinke you ſo? Is it becauſe you did not at firſt mind it, or becauſe now you ſee it would diſcouer to euerie man the vanitie of your Reaſon? Howſoeuer, it muſt be expreſſed. And if your ſelf either know not how to doe it, or be vnwilling, I will ſhow it. Mark now therfore.
Hovv Mr Iacobs Argument ſhould be propounded.Whatſoeuer is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtian and in ſtate of ſaluation: that is ſufficient to make a company ſo gathered together to be a true Church of Chriſt, though they retaine vvithall in their conſtitution the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confuſion of Antichriſt.
But the vvhole doctrine, as it is publikly *Book of Articles publiſhed Anno 1562profeſſed and practiſed by Lavv in England, is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtian and in ſtate of ſaluatiō: And the publik Aſſemblyes of England are in their eſtate companyes ſo gathered together.
Therefore it is alſo ſufficient to make the publik Aſſemblyes of England true Churches of Chriſt, though they retaine vvithall in their conſtitution the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confuſion of Antichriſt.
Or thus rather:
If the vvhole doctrine, as it is publikly profeſſed and practiſed by Lavv in England, be ſufficient to make a particular man ſtanding member of that Church which retaineth the Hierarchy, Leiturgy, and confuſion of Antichriſt, yet notvvithſtanding to be a true Chriſtian and in ſtate of ſaluation as tovvching his eſtate and ſtanding in that Church: then is it alſo ſufficient to make a company ſo gathered together, and conſequently the Church of England to be a true Church of Chriſt as towching the eſtate and conſtitution thereof.
But the former (ſay you) is true.
Therefore alſo the latter
But the former (ſay I) is falſe.
Therefore alſo the latter.
Thus M. Iacob, ſhould your Argument be framed in right forme of reaſoning, for the eſtate of your Church, and for the queſtion between vsus. Which now being done, who is ſo ſimple as cannot plainely ſee the falſhood of both the Propoſitions in the former, and of the Aſſumption in the latter, and conſequently the vanity of your Reaſon every way. If you ſtill hold otherwiſe, then muſt we ſtill call vponupon you for proof. Bare ſaying will not ſerue, we looke for due proof. Mind further, that (now as your caſe ſtandeth) you are to approve the eſtate of your Church and the members thereof, not only as they retaine the abominatiōs of Antichriſt, but as they withſtand alſo the contrary truth and way of Chriſt, which hath ben a long time made known and offered vntounto them. Otherwiſe he that hath but half an eye may ſee you defēd not the preſent eſtate of the Churches of England, as the title of your book pretendeth.
In that you ſay, whereſoeuer there are any things added deſtroying faith there whatſoeuer els ſeemeth ſufficient, in deed is not ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian: you are againe miſtaken. There may be in the conſtitution of a Church, things added deſtroying faith, and yet ſo much truth be held and taught as to ſome particular men (cōſidered apart from the conſtitution) is ſufficient to make them true Chriſtians and in ſtate of ſaluation, the other being not imputed vntounto them by the Lord. Thus I doubt not hath*Thus hauehave I ſpoken to you Mr Iacob many tymes: Yet ſee hovv you hauehave novv dealt vvith me contrary to your knovvledg. God ſaued ſome in the moſt popiſh Churches, and many mo in yours, from time to time. Yet notwithſtanding this doth not iuſtifie the eſtate either of their or of your Church, neither doth it warrant any to abide therein. But it argueth partly the riches of Gods merciemercy, partlie the greatnes of his power, who as at firſt he brought light out of darknes, ſo in the worſt times and euen in the darke kingdome of Antichriſt ſaueth them that are his. But of this, beſides that already ſpoken, there will be occaſion to ſpeak more‡In the handling of the ſecond Exception and 7. Reaſon folloing. hereafter.
Your bad dealing about the firſt & reſt of the general points aboue named I hauehave declared before. In deed your ſelf may tremble to think thereon, as on your Antichriſtian eſtate alſo in that Church: You I ſay, M. Iacob, who cannot be ignorant of both theſe things: howſoever you hauehave adviſedly, if not alſo vvilfully now written otherwiſe. Mind therefore if you hauehave not here took heauen and earth to record againſt your ſelf: and whether this be not deſperate madnes, yea or no. But let vsus proceed to your Replies vponupon the Exceptions and Reaſons heretofore alledged againſt your Aſſumption. And let the Reader mind without partialitie (as before God) which of vsus hauehave the truth: and accordingly let him walke in all good conſcience before God and men.