Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 6
Chap. 6. The third Exception againſt Mr. Iacobs Aſſumption aforſeid.
Fr. Iohnſon. Thirdly, ſhew by Scripture, how the 36. Article of your doctrine and book alledged, agreeth with the Goſpell of Chriſt and true Chriſtianitie. The wordes of the Article are theſe as followeth:
The Book of conſecration of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and ordering of Prieſts and Deacons, doth conteine all things neceſſary to ſuch conſecration and ordering, neither hath it any thing that of it ſelf is ſuperſtitious or vngodly And therefore whoſoever are conſecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that book: we decree all ſuch to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully conſecrated and ordered.
Alſo how it agreeth with the Goſpell and true Chriſtianitie, That the Apocrypha books and Homilies are enioined to be read in the Church by the Miniſters diligently and diſtinctly. As may be ſeen in Art. 6 and 35. of that doctrine and book aforeſaid.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the 3. Excep. YOur third Exception is this. That the 36. Article of ordaining Biſhops, Priests and Deacons: Alſo the reading of Apocrypha bookes and Homilies in the Church, agree not with true Chriſtianitie: Ergo, the Aſſumption aboue is falſe, that is the vvhole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not ſufficient, to make vsus true Chriſtians.
I aunſvver, you ſhould have ſaid, thoſe poincts deſtroy vtterly true Chriſtianity Ergo, &c. Els the Argument follovveth not: But then vve denie flatly the Antecedent or firſt part of the Reaſon. But your Reaſon you vvill ſay ſhall goe as you have put it. Then marke theſe reaſons even as good as yours and all one. An Ethiopian is vvhite of his teeth, therefore he is a vvhite man. A Svvanne is black of his bill,Fr. Io. therefore a Svvann is black.*Note, that Mr. Iacob hath added this, ſince he received aunſwer to the former. It was not in the copy before. Such alſo are almost all his notes in the Margent, and ſome alteration in his Replies, ſpecially in his first Reply to the Seaventh Reaſon following, Let the Reader obſerve this dealing. My Brother hath an eye of glaſſe, or he hath a vvodden legge, therefore my brother is no true man.
Fr. Ioh. his Aunſwer to Mr. Iacobs 1. Reply to the 3. Excep. VVHat the third Exception is, you ſee. Have you now (as was before required of you) ſhewed theſe things by the Scriptures? Not at all. Firſt then marke, that although wee call neuer ſo much for proof and evidence from the Scripture, yet you neuer bring it, but labour to put it off with other ſhifts and deuices: As if our conſciences were to be built vpō your fancies, and not vpō the written word of God.
But what do you ſay to our demaund? Firſt you tell vsus, theſe thinges do not vtterly deſtroy true Chriſtianitie. Next, you graunt notwithſtanding, that they agree with it as black doeth with white, that is, they are cleane contrarie vntounto it: For this your ſimilitudes doe import.
Where you alledge, That theſe things deſtroy not true Chriſtianity, we anſwer, that euen that Hierarchy, worſhip, cōſtitution, and gouernement, which you profeſſe and practiſe (as appeareth by thoſe and other your Articles and Iniunctions in our former anſwer alleadged, to which yet we hauehave receyued no aunſwer) being directly Antichriſtian, doe vtterlie deſtroy true Chriſtianitie, ſo as the people and Churches ſo profeſſing and practiſing, can not*Nota. in that eſtate by the word of God be iudged true Chriſtians, or the true conſtituted Churches of Chriſt.
Your ſimilitudes, are not againſt vsus but againſt your ſelues, in aſmuch as cōparing the doctrines of the Goſpel which you profeſſe, with the whitenes of an Aethiopians teeth; and your Antichriſtian Miniſterie, worſhip, Courtes, and cōfuſion of people, with the blacknes of an Aethiopians body: this and ſuch like ſimilitudes doe fitly declare your eſtate. And the approving of your Churches black conſtitution by ſome white doctrines of the Goſpel profeſſed among you, is as if you ſhould reaſon thus, An Aethiopian is white of his teeth, there fore he is a white man: A blacke Rauen is white of her bill: therefore a blacke Rauen is a white bi…d.
Now when you had received this aunſwer, and ſaw theſe compariſōs turned vponupon your ſelf, then you deviſed another, being not able to maintaine the former. And this laſt you have publiſhed in your printed book as if it had ben in your written coppie which I aunſwered: where it was not at all. The abuſe is great not to me only, but to the Reader: inaſmuch as theſe things were by you ſo publiſhed, as if your laſt compariſon neither were nor could be aunſwered. Let the Reader note this maner of dealing for ſuch as it is.
The ſimilitude now added to the reſt, is this: My brother hath an eye of glaſſe, or he hath a woodden legge, therefore my brother is no true man. I aunſwer, that after your woonted maner you take for graunted that which you ſhould prove: viz, that your Church in that conſtitution is as a man with an eye of glaſſe or woodden legge. This I denie to be your caſe. Prove it ſo to be, if you can. The Scripture deſcribeth the falſe Church in their conſtitution (ſpecially touching the Miniſterie) not vnderunder the ſimilitude of men vvith woodden legges, or the like: but vnderunder the ſimilitude of‡Rev. 9.7.8.9.10. & 13.11. & 19.20 Locuſts, whoſe forme is like vntounto horſes prepared to battell, with crovvnes on their head like gold, vvith faces of men, heare of vvomen, teeth of Lyons, habergions of yron, vvings like charets, tayles of ſcorpions, and ſtings in them to hurt vvithall.
Now I would know of you Mr. Iacob, whether theſe be men with woodden legges, or monſters with mens faces. In like manner, whether the Churches which in their conſtitution (chiefly of Miniſterie) do reſemble theſe, be like to men with ſome defects, or to beaſts with ſome reſemblance of men. Either therefore muſt you p…ove the conſtitution of your Church to be a true one, as the man you ſpeake on is (which all may ſee you cannot do) or this compariſon fitteth not your turne. We muſt mind and beleev what the Scripture teacheth, not what you would beare vsus in hand without any proof.
But it may be you would be vnderſtood of the man of ſinne, ſpoken of 2 Theſ. 2. or of the whoriſh woman, mentioned in the Revelation.2 Theſ. 2.3. Rev. 17.1. If that be your meaning, it is againſt your ſelf, and ſo applie it. If you meane otherwiſe, it fitteth not your caſe, as I ſhewed before. And thus the compariſon applied to your eſtate, is woodden, that is, abſurd; and glaſſie, that is, brittle, ſuch as will not bide a blow.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply to the 3. Excep. YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of conſecrating Biſhops and Prieſtes, and the 6. and 35. Article of Apocripha and Homilies, doe not agree with the Goſpell.
What then? Ergo, our Churches profeſſion and practiſe differ. Moſt falſe: For our Churches doe profeſſe, that theſe things doe agree vvith the Goſpell vvell enough: Alſo their practiſe is thereafter. Or doe you conclude, Ergo our Churches holde not Chriſt to ſaluation. In deede ſo I tooke your purpoſe at the firſt: but novve in plaine categoricall termes you auouch it; That theſe things being directly Antichriſtian, doe vtterly destroy true Chriſtianity. So then Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. were verie Antichriſts, and no true Chriſtians. As before alſo, I trowe, you affirmed.
Surely, this groſſe and wicked abſurditie, I could not open better then by this ſimilitude: This man hath a wodden legge, an eye of glaſſe, his noſe deformed, adde alſo if you will, both his armes not naturall, but framed to him of wood or what you will: Ergo this is no true man. Yes Sir, for all this he is a true man. For as much as all this concernes not the very life and being of a man, though theſe be moſt vnnaturall additions, and verie many. The like doe I affirme of theſe externall corruptions in the Church: Which my ſentences you goe not about to refute, but onelyonly with words, with bare yea, and nay, and no more.
Fr. Iohnſon his aunſwer to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 3. Exception. YEt ſuffer me, that I may ſpeak, and when I have ſpoken, mocke on. You ſay, your Churches profeſſe that the conſecrating of Biſhops and Prieſts, & the 6. & 35. Articles of Apocrypha books and Homilies, do agree with the Goſpel well ynough: and that your practiſe is thereafter. Marke now what followeth herevpon. The Apocrypha books (to ſpeak firſt of them) have*Iudith 9.2.3.4. compared with Gen. 49.5.6.7. Ester Apocrypha 12.5. with Ester Canonicall 6.3. & Est. Apocr. 15.9.10. with Ester Canon. 5.2. Eccleſiasticus 46.20. with Eſa. 57.2. Eccleſ. 12.7. contradiction to the Scriptures, ‡Tob. 6.6.7.8. & 8.2.3. with 3.7.8.magik, “1 Tob. 12.12.15. compared with 1 Tim. 2.5.blaſphemy, †Eſdras. 14.21.22.23. &c. 2 Mach. 2.4-8. Tobit. 5.11.12.13. with 12.15. 1 Machab. 6.4.8.9.16. with 2 Machab. 1.13-16. and 9.1.5.7.9.28.29.fables, ♣2 Machab. 12.44.45. & 14.41.42. Eccleſiastic. 46.20. & 48.10.errors, &c. Therfore your Church (by your owne confeſſion) profeſſeth all theſe to agree with the Goſpell well ynough, & practiſeth thereafter. A verie Chriſtian profeſſiō and practiſe in deed, well beſeeming the daughters of Babylon that mother of all abomination.
The like may be ſaid of your blaſphemies in the book according to which you conſecrate Prelates and ordeine Prieſts: receiving other Lordbiſhops & Prieſts (in office of Miniſtery) beſides Ieſus Chriſt, to whō this*1 Cor. 12.5. Eph. 4.5.11.12. Heb. 7.23.24. 1 Pet. 5.4. honour doth onelyonly belōg. And not that only, but ordeining your Prieſts with further blaſphemy, when the Prelats ſay to every of you kneeling at their feet to be ordained, Receive the holy ghoſts whoſe ſinnes thou doeſt forgive, they are forgiven: & whoſe ſins thou doſt retaine, they are retained.
Theſe things being ſo (to omit manie other that might be alleadged out of thoſe and the reſt of your books) how can we but think, as we do, of the eſtate of your Church? Would you have vsus beleev, that Magik, lyes, blaſphemy, contradiction to the Scriptures agree with the Goſpell well ynough? or that they deſtroy not true Chriſtianitie? I meane, ſo as I expreſſed in my former aunſwer: that is, ſo as the people and Churches thus profeſſing and practiſing, cannot by the word of God be iudged in that eſtate true Chriſtians or true conſtituted Churches of Chriſt. And more yet, when withall there be found manie abominations directly Antichriſtian, yea and blaſphemous as I have noted of your Hierarchy, worſhip, &c. Will you make Chriſt and Antichriſt accord togeather? It*2 Cor. 6.14. cannot be. If you will not receive it, then prove by Gods word either that theſe things are not directly Antichriſtian, nor blaſphemous; or that being ſo, yet they do not vtterly deſtroy true Chriſtianitie, ſo as before is declared. For Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. is aunſwered alreadie. Pag. 8. & 40.
The groſſe abſurdity of your compariſon of a man with a woodden leg & the like, referred to your eſtate, I have ſhowed in the end of my former aunſwer. Againſt which if you can ſay any thing, let vsus have it in your next Reply. And remember withall, that the body of your Church beſides the ſhamefull confuſion it ſtandeth in, hath a number of mōſtrous and deformed heads, on whoſe foreheads are written†Rev. 17.8. with 14.11 names of blaſphemy (viz: your Archbiſhops, Lordbiſhops, Prieſts &c.) Which by the confeſſion of the beſt among you were never borne in Sion, but in Babylon, by deſcent the ſonnes of Anak and Nimrod, mightie hunters …f Gods people, as their eſtate and practiſe in all ages even vntounto this day doth teſtifie.
Theſe and other abominations heretofore mentioned, you would ſtill conceale, and in ſteed thereof take for graunted, that your Church in her conſtitution is as a body which hath the life & being of a man, not of a beaſt. Now this you know we deny, and you ſhould prove. But that you let alone as being all to hard. And I perceive alreadie that rather then you will do it, you will leave your woodden legg to ſhift for it ſelf, as you have left your Aethiopians teeth and Swannes bill.
Let the Reader judge, whether of vsus it is, that goeth about to refute onelyonly with words, with bare Yea & Nay, and no more. And hitherto of the three Excepttons gathered out of your owne doctrine, againſt the A…ſumption of your maine Argument. Now follow ſome other Reaſons brought againſt the ſame, with your Replies and my Aunſwers therevnto.