Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 7
Chap. 7. The firſt Reaſon againſt Mr. Iacobs former Aſſumption.
Fr. Iohnſon. THat which ioyneth Chriſt and Antichriſt togeather, can not make a true Chriſtian. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. with Ezech. 43.8. and 2 Kings 17.33.34.40.41.
But that doth the whole doctrine as it is publikly profeſſed and practiſed by law in Englād. As may be ſeen, 1. By the Book alledged cōparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the reſt. 2. By your profeſſion, to be ſeen likewiſe in your other books of Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Advertiſements: &c. 3. By your practiſe, as witneſſeth your Miniſtery, Leitourgy, and Church-gouernement, even to this day.
Therefore, &c.
H. Iacob his 1. Reply to the firſt Reaſon. THis your firſt Reaſon is thus: That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, cannot make a true Christian: But that doth our Booke, &c. Ergo.
I ſay you muſt mende your vnproper ſpeach, that Chriſt and Antichriſt is there ioyned togeather: you meane Chriſt and ſome outvvard ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt: then ſo ſpeake, and ſay not Chriſt and Antichriſt ſimply. Which things yet we thinke to be Chriſts owne, as wee‡Pag. 28.35 ſhewed in the Second Exception before. Therefore, this reaſon is aunſvvered as the laſt Exception before. The Svvanne is blacke of his bill, Ergo, the Svvan is blacke, and my brother hath a vvodden legge: Therefore my brother is a vvodden man. So here this booke ioyneth Chriſt and ſome orders of Antichriſt: Therefore it ioyneth Chriſt and Antichriſt togeather, vvhichwhich are moſt fonde concluſions.
Furthermore, the Scriptures alleadged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek. 43. 2 Kings 17. are vvholy miſmatched: the ioyning there forbidden, is vntounto ſuch idolatrie, as can not ſtande by any meanes vvith Chriſtian faith, and breaketh moſt directly the Firſt commaundement: Our tranſgreſſion your ſelves doe iudge to be but againſt the Second, and ſuch as hath ſtood and may ſtand togeather vvith true faith, as in M. Cranmer &c.*Namely, the Idolaters in theſe places ſpoken of. They did not ſo much as profeſſe the vvritten Lavv to be their rule, neither for outvvard orders, nor their invvard doctrines of faith. But your ſelves knovv, vve profeſſe and practiſe that, namely, ſo as is ſhevved before in the‡Pag. 28.35. Seconde Exception. Therefore to apply thoſe Scriptures in this vntounto vsus, is your great ſinne euen againſt the third Commaundement, vwhich is your common cuſtome, as all doe ſee and pittie, viz. To take the name of God in vaine, by mifuſing his worde.
Fr. Iohſon his aunſvver to Mr. Iacobs 1. Replie to the 1. Reaſon. YOur anſwer is firſt concerning the Propoſition, then concerning the Aſſumption. For the Propoſitiō you ſay, the ſpeach is vnproper that Chriſt & Antichriſt is among you ioyned togeather. Then you take vponupon you to expound our meaning to be thus, Chriſt and ſome outvvard ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt. To this we anſwer, Firſt, that the ſpeach is fit and proper: Secondly, that it is meete that we (not you) expound our owne meaning: Which togeather with the proprietie of the ſpeach, will now appear in that which followeth.
Concerning the Aſſumptiō, firſt you ſay, the things amōg you which we charge to be of Antichriſt, you think to be Chriſts ovvne: for proof whereof, you refer vsus to your Reply to the Second exception before, whither alſo we refer your ſelf and the Reader for anſwer againe. Then forgetting your ſelf you graūt that in deed they be orders of Anticriſt: yet that they are but as the blacknes of the Swannes bill to the reſt of the body. So by you owne confeſſion they are of Antichriſt, and therefore not Chriſtes owne, as†Pag. 28. before you ſaid and laboured to prooue. Thus at once you both contradict your ſelf, and ouerthrow that which you anſwered before to the Second exception.
This were ſufficient to manifeſt your deceitfull and euill dealing. But that it may more fullie appeare, ſpecially ſeing you would dazell the peoples eyes with theſe mincing wordes [of ſome outvvard ceremonies & orders of Antichriſt] comparing them with the blacknes of the Swans bill, as if they were but a few, and of ſmall moment: therefore will wee reckon vp ſome of them (for it were infinite to nūber them all). By which the Reader may better ſee and iudge both of the ſleightnes of your aunſwer, and of the black conſtitution of your Church.
Sory we are that we ſhould thus trouble the Reader, or our ſelues: ſpecially conſidering that alreadie we hauehave mentioned diuers of them. But ſeeing we are here conſtreyned vntounto it by your ſlie and colourable anſwer, therefore can we not but doe it, for the clearer manifeſtation of the trueth, and better diſcouering of your deceipt. In which reſpects we entreat the Reader to take in good part, and duely to weigh the rehearſall following.
Antichriſtian abominations yet reteyned in England.
1. The cōfuſion of all ſorts of people in the body of the Church, even the moſt profane and their ſeed, being members thereof.
2. The retaining and vſing in their publique worſhip the Apocrypha books, which have in thē much error, vntruth, blaſphemie, Magick, & contradiction to the Canonicall Scriptures.
3. Their ſtinted prayers and Leiturgie, taken out of the Maſſe Book: with the ſame order of Pſalmes, Leſſons, Collects, Pater noſters, Epiſtles, Goſpels, Verſicles, Reſpondes &c.
4. The forbidding of Marriage, in Lent, Advent, Ember daies, Rogation week &c. Which the Apoſtle calleth a Doctrine of divels. 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3.
5. Forbidding of meats, as of fleſh to be eatē in Lent, Ember daies, Saints Evens, Frydayes and Saturdayes throughout the yeare. Another doctrine of divels noted in the ſcripture aforeſaid. 1 Tim. 4.1.3.
6. The oath ex officio in the Eccleſiaſticall courts, making men ſweare to accuſe themſelves.
7. Their Pontificall, or booke of conſecrating Biſhops and of ordeining Prieſts and Deacons, taken out of the Popes Pontifical.Antichriſt corruptions yet had in the Church of England.
8. Their intolerable abuſe of the word of God therein.
9. Their making and being made Prieſts, with blaſphemie, the Prelates ſaying to everie one of them, whom they make Prieſts, Receiue the holy Ghoſt, vvhoſe ſinnes thou doeſt forgive, they are forgiven &c. And they that are made Prieſts, then humbly kneeling vponupon their knees at the Prelates feet.
10. Their confounding of civil and Eccleſiaſtical offices and authoritie in Eccleſiaſticall perſons.
11. The offices & callings of Archbiſhops.
12. Lord-Biſhops.
13. Suffraganes.
14. Prieſts.
15. Half Prieſtes, or Deacons, as they call them.
16. Subdeacons.
17. Archdeacons.
18. Parſons.
19. Vicars.
20. Curates.
21. Vagrant and Mercenary Preachers.
22. Church-wardens.
23. Chauncellors to the Prelates.
24. Deanes.
25. Subdeanes.
26. Prebendaries.
27. Canons and Peticanons.
28. Chaunters and Virgerers.
29. Epiſtlers and Goſplers.
30. Queriſters, men and boyes.
31. Organ-players and blowers.
32. Clerks and Sertous.
33. Chapleines and Houſe-prieſts
34. Doctors of Divinitie.
35. Bachelours of Diuinitie.
36. Doctors of the Arches.
37. Proctours in the Prelates courtes.
38. Commiſſaries.
39. Officials.
40. Regiſters.
41. Summoners, with the reſt of that Antichriſtian and viperous generation.
42. Their Miniſtration of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-governement, by vertue of the officer aforeſaid.
43. The titles of Primate, Metropolitane, Lords grace, Lordſhip &c. aſcribed to the Prelates.
44. The inferior Prelates ſwearing obedience to the Metropolitā Seas of Canterbury and York.
45. The inferiour Miniſters, whē they enter into the Miniſterie, promiſing obedience to the Prelates their Ordinaries: and whē they are inducted to Benefices, confirming it with their oath of Canonicall obedience.
46. The preſētatiō of the Prieſts and Deacons to the Prelate by the Archdeacon, when they are made Miniſters.
47. Their receiving of Orders at the hands of the Prelates or their Suffraganes.
48. The Prelates Confirmation or Biſhoping of childrē, to aſſure them of Gods favour, by a ſigne of mans deviſing. Which is to malte a new Sacrament.
49. The Croſſe in Baptiſme: of like nature.
50. The hallowed Font.
51. Queſtions at Baptiſme to the infants, that can neyther ſpeak nor vnderſtand.
52. Godfathers & Godmothers. Their promiſing that the child doth beleev, forſake the Divell and all his workes, &c.
53. Womens baptiſing of childrē. Which mainteyneth that hereſy That the Children are damned, which dy vnbaptiſed.
54. Their houſſing of the ſicke, & miniſtring the Communion to one alone.
55. Their giuing it for two pence, to all commers.
56. Their miniſtering of it, not with the words of Chriſts inſtitution, but with other taken out of the Popes Portuis.
57. The receiving of it kneeling: Which teacheth ſtill to make it an Idoll, and nouriſheth that popiſh hereſy of worſhipping it, receiving their maker &c.
58. The King in mariage, making it a Sacramētall ſigne, & mariage an Eccleſiaſticall action: thereby nouriſhing the Popiſh hereſy, that Matrimony is a Sacrament.
59. Their Churching or purifying of women. Which ſauoreth of Iudaiſme.
60. The ſtanding at the Goſpell reading. The putting of the cap, and making a legge when the word (Ieſus) is read.
61. Their Saints, Angels, and Apoſtles dayes. With their faſts and preſcript ſervice.
62. The Gang-week, praying then over the corne and graſſe, &c.
63. Their praying over the dead, at buriall. So nouriſhing the Popiſh error of prayer for the dead.
64. Buriall, and the ſolemnizatiō of mariage, &c. made part of the Miniſters duty.
65. Their abſolving the dead, dying excommunicate, before they can have (as they call it) Chriſtian-buriall.
66. The ring of peales at burials.
67. Beadmen at burials, and hyred Mourners in mourning apparell.
68. The hanging of Churches and heerſes with black (to help forward theyr popiſh ſhow off mourning) at burials.
69. The Idol Temples, retayned & vſed for the worſhip of God.
70. The popiſh veſtments: as Rotchet, Square-cappe, Tippet, S…rplus in Pariſh-Churches, and Coap in Cathedrall.
71. The viſitations of theyr Lord-Biſhops and Archdeacons.
72. The Court of Facultyes. From w…eace are had diſpenſations, Licences, Tolerations, &c.
73 Diſpenſations to eat fleſh at theyr tymes forbidden. Which diſpēſatiōs alſo hauehave this clauſe [ſana conſcientia, that is, with a ſafe conſcience]: plainely ſhewing, that they make it a matter of conſcience.
74. Diſpēſatiōs likewiſe to marty in theyr tymes forbidden.
75. Licences from the Prelates to marry in places exempt. By meanes of which diſpenſations ād Licences is mainteyned that wicked practiſe, that many are maryed without their Parents knowledge or conſent. Yea many oftē ſtollen frō theyr frends, and ſo marryed.
76. Diſpenſations for boyes and ignorant fooles to hauehave Benefices, and charge of ſoules.
77. Diſpenſations for Non-reſidents.
78. And plurality of benefices: As the having of two, three, fower, or mo: even tot quot, as many as a man will hauehave and can get.
79. Patronages of, and preſentations to Benefices, with buying and ſelling of advowſons.
80. Theyr Iuſtitutions, Inductions, Prories, &c.
81. The Prelates, Chauncelours, Cōmiſſaryes, Officials courts, &c.
82. Their power to excommunicate alone, and likewiſe to abſolve.
83. Theyr Penance in a white ſheet.
84. Theyr commutation of Penance, and abſolving one man for another.
85. Theyr Suſpenſions, Deprivations, Degradations. &c.
86. The Prelates Lordly dominion, revenewes, and retinew.
87. The Prieſts maintenance by Tithes, Chriſmes, Offerings. &c.
88. The Popes accurſed Canon Law.
89. And the Prelates like Articles, Canons, Injunctions, &c. from tyme to tyme newly deviſed and publiſhed for the Lawes & ruling of theyr Church, according vntounto them.
90. The Church-wardens oath, to preſent to the Prelates and theyr Courts, all the offences faults and defaults committed in their Pariſhes againſt the foreſayd Articles, &c.
91. Finally, the impriſoning, baniſhing, and killing of ſuch as renounce or witnes againſt theſe abominations aforeſayd, and the reſt yet retayned among them.
Thus being conſtreyned, we hauehave reckoned vp divers Antichriſtian enormityes, ſtill remayning in your Church. Now let the Reader iudge of your aunſwer, how fond it is: and of your eſtate, whether it be not more like the blacke Raven with a white bill, then the white Swan vvith a black; and liker†Rev. 9.7. & 13.…. a beaſt with a mans face, then a man with a woodden legge. By this alſo appeareth, that the ſpeach is not vnproper (as you except) but pertinent and proper, fitly declaring your eſtate, when I ſaid you ioyne Chriſt and Antichriſt together. And therefore your aunſwer here is frivolous and of no weight.
Next, you come to the proof of the Propoſition, which was confirmed by theſe ſcriptures. 2 Cor. 6.14.15.16. with Ezek. 43.8. & 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41. The Propoſition which I proued by theſe Scriptures, was this: That vvhichwhich ioyneth Chriſt and Antichriſt together, can not make a true Chriſtian. Nowe let all men iudge, Whether theſe Scriptures doe not ſo evidentlie proue this Propoſition, as none can denie it, but ſuch as are wilfully blinded, and ſtriue againſt the light of theyr owne conſciences.
But what ſay you to them? Forſooth that they are wholy miſmatched. And why ſo? Becauſe the ioyning there forbidden, is vntounto ſuch Idolatrie, as can nor ſtand by any meanes with Chriſtian faith and breaketh moſt directlie the Firſt cōmandement: whereas your tranſgreſſion is but againſt the Second, and may ſtand with true faith, as was in Cranmer, &c. Firſt, this anſwer of yours concerneth the Aſſumptiō, whereas thoſe ſcriptures were the proof of the Propoſition. But to let this paſſe, let vsus conſider the anſwer it ſelf: Theſe Scriptures (ſay you) forbid ioyning to ſuch Idolatrie, as cannot ſtand with Chriſtian faith, and breaketh moſt directlie the Firſt commaundement. 1. If this were ſo, what then, Doe they not therfore forbid ioyning to Antichriſtian idolatrie, and that falſe worſhip which breaketh the ſecond commandement?
2. Secondly, you cannot deny, but as we iudge of your way and eſtate, ſo it is a tranſgreſſion againſt the Second commaundement. Now Samuell ſaith,… Sam. 15.23. Rebellion is as the ſinne of vvitchcraft, and tranſgreſſion is vvickednes & Idolatry. See then what aduantage you get by your owne anſwer.
3. Thirdly, as the Pagans Idolatrie breaking the Firſt commaundement, cannot ſtand with true chriſtian faith, ſo neither can the idolatrie and falſe worſhip of Antichriſt breaking the Second. To that of Maiſter Cranmer, &c. is alreadie anſwered. Wherevnto alſo may be added, that your caſe now, is nothing ſo as theirs was then: both for that they ſuffered to death for the trueth they ſawe; and becauſe the things now controverted, were not then ſo called in queſtion and convinced by the ſcriptures, as now they hauehave ben: neither were then by them ſo reſiſted and perſecuted as they are by you now adayes, even to hands, banniſhment, and death it ſelf. Otherwiſe we might iuſtifie the callings and eſtate of the Monks & Fryars, and of the moſt Popiſh Prieſts and Prelates, and the having of communion with them in that eſtate, becauſe diuers ſuch hauehave ben Martyrs, and layd downe their lives for the trueth they faw, who yet neuer doubted of the lawfulnes of their callings and eſtate in this behalf.
4 Fourthly, as there is a double Idolatrie and falſe worſhip, the one againſt the Firſt commandement, when any hauehave others beſides the true God for their God; the other againſt the Second commuandment when any having the true God for their God, yet worſhip him not as he hath commaunded, but after the inventions and preſcriptions of men: So the ſcriptures alleadged, and the whole courſe of the word of God, condemyne ioyning and having fellowſhip with either of theſe, aſwell this which is againſt the Second commaundement, as that which is againſt the Firſt. See the Reaſons alleadged by the Apoſtle, 2 Cor. 6. Are they not ſtrong and weightie againſt ioyning togeather righteouſnes & vnrighieouſnes, light & darknes, Chriſt & Beliall, †2 Cor. 6.14. &c.whether it be in the breach of the Firſt or Second commaundement? Sayeth not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth & walketh: and therefore requireth of them, that they be his people; that they be his ſonnes and daughters; that they be ſeparated from the world; that they touch no vncleane thing, whether it be of Antichriſt, or of the Heathen or whomſoever breaking the law of God?
And touching the place of Ezekiel, who ſeeth not,Ezec. 43.8. that he ſpeaketh directlie of the breach of the Second commandement, for ioyning togeather in the worſhip of the true God their threſholdes with Gods threſholds, and their poſtes with Gods poſtes, that is, their inventions with Gods ordinances? which though it bee done to the name and for the ſeruice of the true God, yet as the Prophet ſayth, It is abominations in the ſight of God, and they that doe ſo worſhip him, put a wall between God and themſelves and defile his holy Name with their abominations. Loe here the vſe and fruit of ioyning togeather the inventions of men (chieflie of Antichriſt that man of ſinne) with the ordināces of God in his worſhip and ſeruice. As you and your complices Maiſter Iacob like this, ſo may you hold on in pleading for it, and practiſing of it.
The third place is out of 2 King. 17. where it is moſt plaine, that the ſcripture ſpeaketh of the breach of the Second cōmaundement. For there we read that the Samaritans worſhipped the*2 King. 17 28.32.41. ſame God, and after the ſame†verſ. 26.27 29.33.34.40. maner that the Iſraelites of the Ten Tribes did, that were carryed from thence: That is, they worſhipped the true God, but not as hee had commaunded, but by hauing Images of ſundrie ſortes, by which they thought God was repreſented, as†Exod. 32.4. of old they thought of the calfe that Aaron made, and by other inuentions deuiſed by the Iſraelites in their defection, and ioyned to Gods ordinances for the worſhip and ſeruice of him. That this was the ſinne of thoſe Samaritans againſt the Second commandement, will appear by comparing togeather with this chapter, theſe ſcriptures following, to which we refer the Reader, Ezra 4.1.2. with Exod. 20.4.5.6. and 32.1.4.5.6. Iudg. 17.2.3.4.5.13. Ezek. 20.39. Hoſea. 2.16. Amos. 5.21.22.23. & 8.14.1. Kings. 12.27. and 18.21. and 21.29. and 22.12.24. Eſay. 10, 11. Iohn. 4.19.20.25.26.29.30.
By theſe alſo, as by that of Ezekiel may appear, how falſe it is, that you ſay further, They did not ſo much as profeſſe the written lavv to be their rule, neyther for outvvard order, nor their invvard doctrines of faith. If this were ſo, howe could it bee true, which Ezechiell ſayeth of thou of whom he ſpeaketh,*Ezech. 43.8. that they ſet their poſts and threſhalls by Gods poſts and Treſhalls, that is, their inuentions by Gods ordinances. Howe alſo was it that the Samaritans (ſpoken of 2. King. 17.) ſacrificed to the true God, euen “Ezra. 4.2.the Lord God of the Iewes, offering vntounto him burnt offrings and meat offringes, and peace offringes? Or howe came it, they ſtill vſed Circumciſion, and wayted for the Meſſiah to come, as he was promiſed in the writen word of God? yea knowing alſo and beleeuing, not only that the Meſſiah ſhould come which is called Chriſt, Ioh. 4.25.but alſo that when he came he would tel them al things? The Corinthian infidels in deed, as the reſt of the Heathen, knew not the true God by his writtē word. But ſo it was not with the Samaritanes or Tenne tribes fallen from Iudah: as is euident by the ſcriptures and reaſons before alleadged. To that which you ſpeak of your profeſſion and practiſe, referring vsus to your anſwer to the Second Exception going before, I hauehave there anſwered it.
OnelyOnly this I adde here, That ſeing it cannot in truth be denyed but the publique conſtitution of your Aſſemblies, and eſtate of your Miniſters and people therin, is a moſt impious tranſgreſſiō of the Second cō mādemēt, which the Lord himſelf calleth“Nūb. 15.39 Revel. 11.8. & 17.1.2.3.4.5. ſpiritual whoredome againſt him, yea grieuous iniquitie and hatred of him, threatning alſo to ‡Exod. 20.5.viſit it vponupon the Fathers and children ſo remayning, to the Third and Fourth generation: Therefore by it are the truthes you profeſſe, made fruſtrate vntounto you in this eſtate. Neither will it help you to pretend that it is your error in iudgement. For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured? And further ſeeing your publik profeſſiō and practize is (at the beſt) a ioyning of Chriſt & Antichriſt togeather, as hath bene ſhewed, therefore can you not by the word of God be deemed in this eſtate to bee true Chriſtians or true conſtituted Churches: And the Scriptures applyed to proue this conſequent, are fitlie alleadged.
Falſe therefore it is, that you ſay we ſinned againſt the Third commaundement, in the application of the Scriptures aforeſaid. That is your owne common cuſtome and lamentable ſinne, to break this commaundement by taking Gods name in vaine, not onelyonly in falſifying and peruerting the Scriptures for your turne, but in your adminiſtration alſo of the Word, Sacraments, & Church-gouernment, by vertue of ſuch offices & callings as Chriſt neuer appointed, but were firſt deviſed and are reteined by Antichriſt. Hitherto of your anſwer cōcerning the proof of the Propoſitiō.
To the proof of the Aſſumption, you†Let the Reader therfore mynde in Mr Iacob this his ſound and Scholler-like dealing. anſwer not a word:Fr. Io. which yet moſt of all required anſwer, if you would in deed ſoundlie defend your eſtate, as you pretend. That your profeſſion and practiſe ioyneth Chriſt & Antichriſt togeather, I ſhewed by your Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Aduertiſements, &c. & by your preſent Miniſtery, Worſhip, & Church-gouernement according therevnto. If it be not ſo, why bring you not warrant for theſe from the Teſtament of Chriſt, and ſo take away the proof of the Aſſumption? If it be ſo (as by your ſilence you graunt, and we are ſure by the Scriptures the contrary cannot be ſhowed) then the Aſſumption ſtandeth firme: and conſequently in this conſtitution you cannot be accounted true Chriſtians, nor your Aſſemblies (ſo gathered) true conſtituted Churches.
H. Iacob his 2. Reply vntounto the 1. Reaſon. IN this your defence of your firſt Reaſon, you would firſt of all faſten on me a contradiction, for graunting, that our Church corruptions are from Antichriſt, which againſt your Second Exception, I ſayd we holde to be Chriſtes owne, viz. Becauſe we hold, Chriſt hath giuen his Church that libertie to deuiſe them. Alas it pittieth me to ſee your ſimplicity, or it greeueth me for your malice; vvho could not ſee, that there*See Pag. 28. 35. I ſpake in the perſon of our vvhole Church and ſtate, and ſhevved vvhat they held: And here I ſpeak as I thought my ſelfe. This is a ſilly contradiction.
Then you ſay, Pag. 62. I dazell the peoples eyes, in ſaying ſome outward orders and ceremonies are from Antichriſt as if they were but few and of ſmall moment. Therefore you are content to recken them vp full tediouſly God knovveth euen 91. in number: numero Deus impare gaudet. And vvhat of all theſe? vvill you ſay therefore, that vvhoſoeuer holdeth theſe, cannot hold Chriſt vntounto ſaluation. And ſo Mr. Cranmer and the reſt of the Martyrs vvere damned. But if not: Then I ſay againe, Theſe ſome, theſe 91. are too few and too ſlight, and of too ſmall moment of themſelues and of their owne nature to aboliſh vsus from Chriſt. This ought you to hauehave proved, which you never do, but ſtill your ſpeach is moſt falſe, and not vnproper onelyonly, that we ioyne Christ and Antichrist togeather: As in the maimed man before‡Pag. 57. 62. noted, there is not life and death ioyned togeather, but living things and dead things are, and yet the man aliue and a true man.
Then you will iuſtifie your applying the ‡2 Cor, 6.14. &c. Eze. 43.8. 2 King. 17.33.34.40.41Scriptures which I ſayd were miſmatched and were meant againſt the Idolatry of the Firſt commandement, not againſt the Idolatry of the Second onelyonly, and meerlye, as our Church orders in queſtion are. Therefore theſe Scriptures cannot inferre any aboliſhing from Chriſt by ſimple holding of the corruptions in our Church: vvhichwhich they doe proue by the ſimple holding of thoſe Heatheniſh Idolatries, vvhereof they ſpeake. To this you reply in Foure points. (1) If theſe places bee meant of Heatheniſh Idolatrie, which could never ſtand with Gods truth togeather: Yet they forbid all other corruptions against the Second commaundement alſo. That I neuer denied to be true after a ſort. Theſe places indeede do forbid the breach of the Secōd commaundement, but not principally, directly and of purpoſe, nor in that meaſure of fulnes. But their immediate purpoſe is againſt the Heatheniſh Idolatry breaking the Firſt commaundement. So that they forbidde the breach of the Second commaundement, conſequently and proportionately, but not in that full manner as they doe the Firſt, They forbid the Firſt ſo as that they ſhew there is no cōmunion vvith God, vvhilſt men ioyne in ſuch Idolatry: they ſimply forbid the Second, but deny not all communion vvith God to vvhome ſoever erreth therein.
(2) To your Second Reply I ſay, make much of it: for my parte, I neuer thought other but our church corruptions are againſt the Second commaū dement:1 Sam. 15. Your ſecond Scripture here applyed, is of Saull, a preſumptuous and vvilfull offendour: if you make our vvhole Churches ſo, your ſinne is the greater.
(3) Thirdly, if you meane, any of Antichriſts Idolatrie and falſe vvorſhip, and namely this in queſtion (the outward corrupt orders and ceremonies onelyonly and no more) doth aboliſh vsus from Chriſt, and that this can not ſtand togeather with true faith, like as the Pagans idolatrie againſt the Firſt commaundement, cannot. Then I deny it vtterly, you hauehave no proofe in the world for it. And this inwrappeth Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. in the ſame courſe. Your excuſe here in Pag. 67. That Cranmer, Ridley, &c. forſooke all the corruptions they ſaw. This belongeth to many Thouſands in England now, no leſſe then to them: Yea ſurely there are infinite, that know not ſo much of the corruptions, as thoſe learned men did, which yet are not ignoraunt of redēption by Chriſt, &c. Yea your ſelf Maiſter Iohnſon, though a man of learning, yea knowing our corruptions, and miſliking them a long time before you forſooke vsus, yet I think you ſtood not aboliſhed from Chriſt all that while. I pray be ſo good to poore men as you may: yea to vsus now alſo, aſwel as to your ſelf and them in thoſe times. Where you ſay in Pag. 67. That ſince that time we are convicted by the Scriptures. If you meane ſome fevve, that here and there you could pick out, and do ſinne ſtill, ſpeake to them, threaten them: throvv out your damnatory ſentence againſt them, But ſmite not all whoſoever comes neare you: Beware how you iudge, leaſt you be iudged: The heart belongeth to God, therefore cenſure not every mans conſcience too haſtily.
(4) Fourthly, you vvould prove in your Third Exception before noted, Pag. 67. That both the breach of the firſt cōmaundment, and of the Second alſo, is forbidden: I have told you before, Pag. 69. 70. hovv it is true, and hovv not: Nothing at all to ſerue your turne.2 Cor. 6.14. That vvhichwhich you ſay, Pag. 67. touching your firſt Scripture, 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. in that ſence and manner as I ſayd, it is true, and not othervviſe.
That vvhichwhich of your Second Scripture (Ezek. 43.8.) Pag. Ibid. you ſay, VVho ſeeth not but it ſpeaketh directly of the breach of the Second Cōmaundement, ioyning together in the worſhip of the true God their inventions with Gods ordinances. Ezec. 43.8…I ſay it is moſt manifeſt, that he ſpeaketh not of the breach of the Second cōmandment onelyonly, but alſo of the firſt, wherin men hauehave their inventiōs alſo. The Prophet ſheweth verſ. 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple againe, vvhence he vvas departed for the abominable idolatries that had ben there cōmitted before, to ſhevv that he vvould reſtore Ieruſalem, and the Temple, and vvorſhip of God againe: He meaneth this literally, of the returning of the Iewes after Babylons captiuity, and of the reedifying of the Temple, and the appointing againe of Gods holy vvorſhip there: Alſo ſpiritually he may meane, the erecting of the Chriſtian Church vvhen they ſhould not fall to ſuch impieties as the Ievves had done novv in that time before, for the vvhichwhich he had departed away from them. Nowe if we aſke, what were thoſe Idolatours in Ieruſalem and in the Temple before Ezekiels time, for the whiche the Lord forſooke them: it is manifeſt in Ahas, in Manaſſes, & Amon: and in the Kings after Ioſiah, That the Iewes idolatrie was verie Heatheniſh, not onelyonly againſt the Second, but againſt the Firſt commandment alſo, in ioyning the Heathen gods with the true God of Iſraell in their Diuine ſeruice and Worſhip: Therefore this place of Ezekiell, is (as I ſay) not of the breach of the Second commandement onelyonly & ſimplie, as our church corruptions are, but ioinctlie touching the breach of the Firſt alſo.
The very ſame is that your third ſcripture pag. 67. 2 Kings 17.33.34.40.41. of the Samaritans Idolatrie, wherein becauſe you are large,2 King. 17. I vvill deferre to explaine it till your Sixt Reaſon follovving: vvhere is a proper place for it.
Laſtlie, in pag. 68. you agrauate the breach of the Second Commandment: as being ſpirituall whordome, &c. But I would hauehave you to knovv: Things may be miſmatched to cruelly, aſvvell as too gently. There is a ſinne both vvayes, vvhen things are not called by their proper and right names. It is true in ſome ſence, eueryevery breach of the Secōd cōmandment, is ſpiritual vvhordome, as eueryevery vvanton vvord, eueryevery light geſture & countenance, eueryevery immodeſt thought in a Woman, is Adulterie: yet vvho ſo ſhall angerlie & continuallie ſo call a Woman vvhore, harlot, or bande, that but thinketh, or looketh, or ſpeaketh too vainly, ſhall doe her great vvrong, & incurre the iuſt daūger of lavv. Neither can ſhe, nor ought ſhee, in ſuch caſe, be diuorced, as an Adultereſſe ought. And thus it appeareth true ſtill, that you ſinne againſt the Third Commaundement in miſapplying of Scriptures.
In the ende in pag. 69. vvhere you ſay, To the proofe of your Aſſumption I anſwere never a word, which moſt of all required anſwere. This I tell you, that it is your fancie and not my meaning heere, to anſvver to your Propoſition firſt, and then to your Aſſumptiō to ſay nothing. Nay, if you had not dreamed, you might eaſily hauehave perceived that all my firſt words (viz. where I ſay your ſpeach here is vnproper &c.) are bent directly againſt your Aſſumptiō & the proof thereof, although at this time I expreſſed not thoſe termes, Secondly, I ſhevv, that your ſcriptures applyed to proue the Propoſition are altogither vnfitt, and intollerably abuſed, if you meane them in that ſence as your Aſſumption muſt be meant, that is to ſay, as they touch vsus. This, a verie childe might hauehave ſeene Maiſter Iohnſon. So that your marginall ſcoffe at my ſound and ſcholler-like dealing doeth light on your ſelf, and bewrayeth eyther your deepe ſkil or your ouerflowing charitie. As for the reſt, that I ſhould iustifie our corruption, it is no part of my minde, neither belongs it to our preſent cauſe ſo to doe.
Fr. Io. his Aunſvver to Mr. Iacobs 2. Reply to the 1. Reaſon. IN deed you are the people that hauehave ſkill, and wiſdome muſt dy with you. Yet let vsus a litle examine this your wiſe handling of the matter. Being taken here with manifeſt contradiction, you ſay, you ſpake the one in the perſon of your whole Church and State, the other in your owne. If it were ſo, yet thus you yeeld both that there is contradiction in your ſpeach, and that in ſtead of defending your Church you are driuen your ſelf to contradict it. And who can give the cauſe more cunningly? Even your ſelfe (Mr Iacob) are drawen now at length to confeſſe you do the ſame thing we do, that is, contradict the aſſertion of your Church towching Chriſts ordinances.
Now albeit this were ynough to ſhow the ſimplicity and weaknes of your defence, yet ſtill I vrge the contradiction to be yours. And I proue it, becauſe in the†Pag. 28. firſt place your words are, we hold, we practiſe, &c. and in the “ latter, we thinck, vve ſhevved, &c. For who will otherwiſe iudge,*Pag. 61. but this word (We) includeth your ſelf for one among the reſt? Agayne, when in the firſt place you ſay [thus we practiſe], and in the latter [we ſhevved before], and both theſe are true of your ſelf, who could exclude you from being one of the number in both the places?
Further, it is here to be noted, how playnely you affirme theſe two things agayne, 1. That your Church-corruptions are from Antichriſt: 2. That yet your Church holds them to be Chriſts owne. A moſt ſilly, abſurd, and godles defence of a Church, as ever was ſeen.
That it is tedious vntounto you to have your corruptions reckned vp, it is no marvell. Yet if they be ſo odious, as it grieue you to heare them but named: why doth it not more affect you to practiſe them, to partake in and with them, and ſo to increaſe your ſinnes and iudgement before the Lord? Heretofore when you preached againſt them, and ſued to the Parliament to hauehave them remoued, it was a pleaſure to you and all the Reformiſts, to name them, to print them, to make your pulpits ring of thē and every where to cry out againſt them as moſt filthy and abominable. Then if any reckned vp“Admon to the Parl. Miles Monopodius. The R…giſur &c. above an hundred of them together, one after another, they were nothing tedious, but very welcome. Now to mention or heare but ſome of them, is altogether yrkſome. A very great and ſtraūge alteration: yet in deed not to be marveled at, if it be well mynded. For then you ſeemed to ſeek and ſtand for the truth, now you reſiſt and ſtrive againſt it: then you would profeſſe Chriſt againſt the Prelates, now you do hand your ſelues with them againſt him.
And yet behold, in all theſe evils you bleſſe your ſelves and them to…. For what els is this that you ſay, theſe multitude of Antichriſtian abominations aboliſh vsus not from Chriſt? Is it not as if you ſayd,‡Deut 29.19. We ſhall have peace though we walk according to the ſtubbernes of our hearts? Alas Mr Iacob▪ that you ſhould come to this height of impiety, thus to bleſſe and pleaſe your ſelves in the vnrighteouſnes of Antichriſt, that ſome of perdition: then which, what greater iudgement could hauehave come vponupon you? 2 Theſ. 2, 12. This is not to break and teach to break one of the leaſt commaundements, but many of the greateſt. Mat. 5.19.
Now vnlike are you and ſuch other falſe Prophets of the Beaſt, which ſay, theſe are to fevv, to ſleight, of to ſmall moment &c. How vnlike (I ſay) are you to the Prophets of God and Martyrs of Ieſus, who did alway cry out and witneſſe againſt the leaſt Idolatry they ſaw amōg the people? They did not ſow pillowes vnderunder their elbowes, as you do: but denounced the judgements of God againſt them, and refuſed to partake in their iniquitie. So do not you. But this belike is your following of Chriſt, this is your obedience of faith, even to plead for Antichriſt and to do the works of darknes and abomination, and yet to ſay with your hypocriticall forefathers, Is not the Lord among vsus? No evill can come vntounto vsus. Micah. 30 11.
Yet you would have vsus bele…, that you go not about to dazell the peoples eyes &c. Yes Mr. Iacob, you do it and proceed in it daily from evill to worſe. But flatter your ſelues and them, towching the conſtitution of your Church, as long as you will, with your lying words, of Chriſt, of fayth, Ierem. 7.4.&c. like as the Iewes amidſt all their impieties ſtill vaunted of the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord &c. yet this remaineth vponupon your heads notwithſtanding, that theſe abominations of Antichriſt retained among you, do of themſelues and of their owne natur… aboliſh your Aſſemblies from being the Churches of Chriſt, or holding his faith in that conſtitution and practiſe. This I hauehave proved†Pag. 3.16.60.63. &c. before: wherein if you reſt not, you may reply againe. Or if you deſier more evidence, ſee theſe Scriptures, 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. 2 Theſ. 2-12. Col. 2.8.20.21.22.23. Pſal. 119.21. Epheſ. 5.11. 1 Ioh. 4.3. and 2 Ioh. ver. 9.10.11. Rev. 13.11. and 14.9.10.11. and 17.1-6. and 18. and 19. chap. and 22.18: 19.
And for mans record, ſee Mr Beza who is as playne, as playne may be. In an epiſtle written in the yeare, 1566. to Mr Grindall then Biſhop of Lord …, concerning the preſent eſtate of the Church of England, thus he ſaith: If thoſe things be true, Bez. Epist. 8.vvhichwhich I think hauehave not likely hood of truth, viz, that the Metropolitans retaine in vſe thoſe moſt filthy abuſes, then which the Church of Antichriſt hath not any thing more intolerable, namely pluralityes of benefices, licences of non-reſidency, licences to marry and eat fleſh, and other the like: this vvere certainely, vvhichwhich I ſpeak with horrour, not a corruption of Chriſtianity, but a manifeſt defection from Chriſt: and therefore they not to be condemned, but prayſed rather, vvhichwhich ſhould oppoſe themſelues to ſuch endevours. Theſe are his words. Where note, 1. That the things are moſt true and riſe among you, which he thought were not ſo much as likely. 2. That he ſpeaketh but of fower or five of your corruptions, and yet ſayth they are a manifeſt apoſtaſy and departure frō Chriſt, yea ſuch as he affirmeth he ſpeaketh not without horrour.
How miſerable then is the eſtate of your Church, which hath not onelyonly theſe fower or five, but even an huge maſſe and endles multitude beſides? And how fearfull is the caſe of you all, who will yet notwithſtanding ſtill abide in that Church, and therefore cannot but partake in her ſinnes,Rev. 13.4. and be ſubject to her plagues? Moſt of all, what an heavy Wo hangeth ouer your head (Mr Iacob) who feare not yet ſo boldly to affirme, that theſe ſome, theſe 91. are to fevv and to ſleight, and of to ſmall moment, of themſelues & of their owne nature to aboliſh you from Chriſt? Is not this to ſtrengthen the hands of the wicked, that he ſhould not returne from his wicked way, by promiſing him life? Is it not to ſay vntounto him, Thou art righteous: every one that doth evill, is good in the ſight of the Lord, and he deliteth in them? Yea is it not to pleaſe your ſelves in vnrighteouſnes to condemnation? Ezech. 13.22. Mal. 2.17. 2 Theſ. 2.12.
Then alſo why proue you not that which you ſay? You heare beſide the Scriptures before alledged, that Mr Beza ſpeaking but of fower or five of your abominations, ſayth they are a manifeſt defection from Chriſt. Now I ſuppoſe you will not deny, but manifeſt defection from Chriſt doth of it ſelf and of it owne nature aboliſh from Chriſt. Beſides if it be true of fower or five of your corruptiōs, how much more of your 91. yea of your hundreds? Specially when to the retayning of them you hauehave now a long tyme added perſecution againſt the truth for the maintenance of them.
Or what will you aunſwer to your ſelf (Mr Iacob) who hauehave here confeſſed them to be*Pag. 37. errors, and †Pag. …1.69orders of Antichriſt, ‡Pa. 70.71.ſinnes againſt the Second commaundement, &c. Every ſinne (you know) doth of it ſelf and of it owne nature make ſubject to the curſe. Deut. 27.26. Pſal. 119.21. Rom. 6.23. So if there were no other thing, yet even by your owne confeſſion, the curſe of God hangeth ouer your heads. And how wofull then is your eſtate? Mynd withall, that when your ſelf can not deny but your corruptions are of Antichriſt, and it is certayne that Antichriſts Church even through the corruptions of their conſtitution is aboliſhed from being Chriſts, you had need cleare this poynt well, or els you leaue your Church in a miſerable taking euen in this behalf. Help it now, if you can. Your ſtale obiection and abuſe of Mr Cranmer and the reſt of the Martyrs, is aunſwered before, Pag. 8. 40. 41.
That the ſpeach is both true and proper when I ſay, you ioyne Chriſt and Antichriſt together, I need not further prove, ſeing your ſelf can not deny but all the abominations of Antichriſt before rehearſed, with many mo,Pag. 63. &c. are ſtill retayned in your Church. And tell me Mr Iacob, May not I aſwell ſay, you hauehave not Chriſt but ſome truths of Chriſt, as you ſay, you hauehave not Antichriſt but ſome corruptions of Antichriſt? Or if I ſay ſo, will you then graunt that the ſpeach is proper?
Your compariſon of a white Swan with a black bill, I perceyve you can not defend. Therefore you leave it, and betake your ſelf to another of a maymed man vvith a vvoodden legg: Which yet fitteth not your eſtate neyther, as may be ſeen before, Pag. 59. 61. You muſt put the caſe of a deformed boaſt, vvith the likenes of a mans face, womans heare, lyons teeth, Rev. 9.7-2.horſes body, &c. And then may all ſee plainely, that although this have the likenes of ſome parts of a man, yet it is not therefore a true mā, but a monſtrous beaſt notwithſtanding. Yea although you ioyne your dead woodden legge to the foreſayd living parts thereof, yet ſtill it is no other but as it was, even a very beaſt. That it liveth, will nothing help you: for beaſts have their life, aſwell as men hauehave theirs. And you will not deny (I ſuppoſe) but Antichriſt the man of ſinne hath now lived and …aged, as a fierce and cruell beaſt, by the ſpace of many hundred yeares,2 Theſ. 2.3. Rev. 13.11. one after another. If your compariſon then be meant of this beaſtly man (as to pleaſure you withall, I will not deny but it may very well) yet ſtill your woodden leg will help it to go for no other but as it is, a mā of ſinne and a monſtrous beaſt.
Next, you come to the Scriptures by which I proved the Propoſition, and pretend as if you would make a direct aunſwer, and yet in deed do nothing leſſe. Aunſwer me therefore in your next, Whether do thoſe Scriptures proue the Propoſition, or not? If they do, why do you not graunt it? If they do not, why do you not ſay ſo, and ſhew it? And tell we, why you handle them, as if they had ben brought to prove the Aſſumption: and yet in deed leave vntowched that which was brought for the proof thereof? Such ignorant and double dealing, yll beſeemeth a man profeſſing ſo deep ſkill and ſyncerity, as you do. Yet leaſt you pleaſe your ſelf therein any longer, I will note the folly and falſehood of your aunſwer in the particulars.
1. To the firſt, you ſay, you neuer denyed it to be true after a ſort. Now that which there I ſayd was this,‡Pag. 66. that theſe Scriptures forbid ioyning to Antichriſtian Idolatry, and that falſe worſhip vvhichwhich breaketh the ſecond commaundement. And ſuch even†Pag. 70. here you graunt your Church corruptions to be. So by your owne confeſſion, theſe Scriptures forbid to joyne vntounto them. Expound your (after a ſort) as you pleaſe: and alter my words after your manner, as you think good. All will not help. Sure I am you do thus giuegive the cauſe. For thoſe Scriptures forbid not to ioyne to the true worſhip and Churches of God.
And all your mineſing ſpeaches, when you ſay they forbid the breach of the Second commaundement, but not principally, directly, of purpoſe &c. what are they but ſo many teſtimonyes of your miſerable halting and deceitfull dealing? For if it were as you ſay, were it not ynough to make you deteſt thoſe ſinnes, and never to partake with them any more? Hath not God to the Second cōmaundement annexed this ſevere threatning,‡Exod. 20.5 I a…ielours God, vvill viſit this iniquity &c. Doubtles God foreſaw how the breach of this cōmaundement would be finally regarded and leſſened among men profeſſing the true God: and therefore here annexed the threatning after the Secōd, not after the Firſt going before.
And tell me further, if you could not th… plead for the popiſh Orders, confeſſion to Prieſts, extreme Vnction, prayer in an vnknovven toungue, Purgatory &c. To end this point then, I ſay againe (as I have ſhewed†pag. 67. 68 alreadie) that the immediate purpoſe of“Ezec. 43.8. 2 King. 17.32. &c. two of theſe places is aagainſt the falſe worſhip which breaketh the Secōd cōmaundement, proving ſuch worſhip and worſhippers to be reiected of God: And the reaſons vſed in the*2 Cor. 6.14. &c. third Scripture, are aſwell againſt the breach of the Secōd, as the Firſt, convincing every ſuch eſtate (againſt whether commaundement ſoever it be) to be in that caſe as cannot ſtand and accord with Chriſt and his Church. The Scripture it ſelf, and the arguments deduced from thence in my former aunſwer, are ſo evident as I need not bring any further proof, vnles you brought other maner Reply againſt them, then yet you do.
2. For the ſecond, you bid me make much of it. Therefore to pleaſure you I meane ſo to do. To begin withall, here you ſay directlie, you never thought other but that your Church corruptions are againſt the Second cō maundement. And did you never think other in deed? How is it then that you plead for your Churches retaining and practiſing of them, yea holding of them to be Chriſts owne: that is, holding the tranſgreſſions of the Second commaundement to be Chriſts ordinances?
More ſpeciallie for your owne part, how is it that you were made Deacon or Prieſt of the Prelates? Or being made in ignorance (as many be) that yet knowing theſe things ſince, you will ſtill execute thoſe offices vnderunder them, And ſubmit to their Iniunctions, Canons, Articles, &c. Yea even to this day partake with all the Antichiſtian filth and corruption of your Church, which you know to be againſt the Law of God? Have you for gotten or do you not regard the‡E…o. 20.5. heavy ſentence an…ered to the Second cōmaundement? Or is it onelyonly againſt ſome, and not againſt all the tranſgreſſions thereof? Or will it take hold of others, and ſhall you ſtaye free?
Howſoever your ſelf ſeem careles what you ſay or do, yet let others mynd their fearfull eſtate in that Church, which retaineth ſuch a multitude of Antichriſtian corruptions (here graunted by your ſelf to be) againſt the Second commaundement: the breach whereof God hath threatned to puniſh moſt ſeverely.
And let it be obſerved, that you who have taken vponupon you the defence of your Churches and Miniſtery, yet cannot deny that to be your eſtate. Behold then to what iſſue your Defence is come in the end. And now that you ſee hovv much I have made of this point at your requeſt: forget not to thank me for it in your next Reply.
The Scripture here alledged, you would turne away from your ſelves by ſaying, it is of Saul a preſumptuous offender; 1 Sam. 15.23But that Scripture is not for Saul onelyonly, but for“1 Cor. 10.11 Rom. 15.4. others likewiſe. And how will you ſhew that Saul was a more preſumptuous and wilfull offender, then your ſelf and your Church, Nay how will you ſhew that his ſinne was meerly of preſumption and wilfulnes? The Scripture mentioneth two other cauſe… alledged by himſelf,‡1 Sam. 15.15 an intent to ſacrifice to the Lord; and†verſ. 24. feare of the people … and your Church can hardly yeeld like reaſons for your ſelv…s. …et if you could they … not ſ…nd before God, as this Scripture witneſſeth.
Your clauſe, of making your whole Churches ſo, importeth that you take the caſe of ſome (the … not of all) among you to be as Sauls was. Then take you heed Mr. Iacob, and the reſt of like iudgement and practiſe as you …re. What I think of your whole Churches as towching their conſtitution, I have often ſhewed before.
3. For the third, I meane it of the Antichriſtian abominations remayning among you, and the like. Neither could you be ignorant hereof, ſeing I had a litle♣Pag. 63.64.65. before reckned vp ſo many of them in particular. But you would not ſeem to know it, becauſe you can not prove the contrarie againſt it. For proof of my aſſertion I alledg theſe Scriptures Exod. 20. … compared with 1 Tim. 4.1.2.3. & 6.3.4.5. Col. 2.8. Revel. 1….…0.10.11. with ver. 4. & ver. 12. & Revel. 17.1-6. with Hoſ. 2.2. & Prou. 6.27, 28.32. & 7.22.23.27. & 9.13-18. 2 Theſ. 23-12. 2 Ioh. verſ. 9.10.11.
Your inwrapping of Mr. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. I have vnfolded before. Pag. 8.41. Of all the reaſons and differences which I named concerning you and them, you picke out but one or two, and the reſt you paſſe by. Now of them which you except againſt, the firſt is, that they ſuffred to death for the truth they ſaw. Which my words you have altered thus that they for ſeeke all the corruptions they ſaw. But beſide the alteration your anſwer alſo is to be noted. I alledged: hat the Martyrs ſuffred to death for the truth they ſaw: you anſwer, this belongeth to many thouſands in England, no leſſe then to them. Can you now iuſtifie either your dealing or your anſwer? Or can you ſhew ſeme hundreds of your Church in ſtead of your manie thouſands?
For myne owne part, if you had thouſands of ſuch, I wiſh they were many millions. But I feare that the contrarie of your ſpeach is to true: viz, that there are many thouſands in England ſo far from ſuffring death for the truth they ſee (like thoſe Martyrs) as they will not … impriſōment, banniſhement, loſſe of goods or the like, for that truth which they do not onelyonly ſee, but which themſelues have heretofore profeſſed, preached, ſued for to the Parliament &c. So far are they from for …al…ing all the corruption they ſee (that I may vſe your owne words). Yea who can think otherwiſe by their eſtate and practiſe, but if a Que… Mary came againe which God for did) the … of the Land would … as the Prince beleveth and be ready to receive againe the points of Poperie now reiected, as it was heretofore after King Edwards deceaſe?
Marke, that I ſpeake of the face of the Land generally, not of ever it particular perſon therein. Of divers among you I have better hope, as I have ſhewed before. pag. 7. Yet for your generall ſtate (as the queſtiō is) who can ſay but you are readie to receive any religion, or any thing in religion, to go forward or backward, even as pleaſeth the Prince, and beſt fitteth your turne, for avoiding of trouble, and enioying your eaſe, wealth, ſafety, &c. And where then be the many thouſāds you ſpeak of? Or may wee think this is to forſake corruption and hold forth the truth, as the Martyrs did? Nay Mr. Iacob, it is far from it. And this you may note as a great difference between your eſtate and the Martyrs, and ioyne it to the other mentioned before. pag. 40.41.
Now where you ſay, there are infinite of your Church that know not ſo much of the corruptions, as thoſe learned men did, which yet are not ignorant of redemption by Chriſt &c. How ſhew you this to be true? Although if it be, it is no great commendation to your Church, conſidering what meanes of further knowledg God hath vouchſafed ſince that tyme. But of this point I will not ſtand ſo much. I aunſwer, that to make your compariſon hold, you muſt compare with thoſe learned men, the learned among you; and with the vnlearned then, the vnlearned of yours now. So ſhall your ſelf and others ſee how vntrue your ſpeach is. Although I doubt not but even many of the vnlearned among you who have knowledge of redemption by Chriſt, know alſo more of the corruptions aforeſaid, then thoſe learned men did. Towching that you ſpeak of my ſelf, I have aunſwered before. Pag. 41.
The ſecond thing you except againſt concerning the Martyrs, is that I ſaid, the things now controverted were not then ſo called in queſtion and cō vinced againſt them by the Scriptures, as now they hauehave ben againſt you. So I ſayd. Now ſpeak you, were they, or not? If they were, ſhew it. If not, yeeld it. But you would have me to meane this, towching ſome few among you, and not of all. If it were but ſo, yet then the thing is done more ſynce, then in thoſe daies.
But in deed the calling in queſtion and conviction of theſe things, hath not ben onelyonly to ſome few, as you would perſwade. The Admonitions have ben to the whole Parliament, which are as the body of the whole Land, and gathered from all the quarters thereof. Your preaching likewiſe againſt thoſe corruptions hath gone throughout the whole Realme. So have your books written and printed againſt them. Finally, our teſtimony by word, writing, impriſomnent, exile, death, is knowen throughout the Land. Why then would you have me ſpeak this of ſome few, that here and there might be picked out?
And whereas you cannot deny but the caſe of ſome among you for theſe things is ſuch as damnatory ſentence may be threatned againſt them: take you heed Mr. Iacob that God being it not vponupon your head for one, if you proceed in thoſe ſinnes ſtill as hitherto you have done. And let your diſciple D. B. that Apoſtate take heed of it for another: and likewiſe all the reſt whomſoever you meane to be of thoſe ſome you ſpeak of.
It is the word of God that doth and muſt judge both now and in the great day.Ioh. 12.48. Pſal. 149.9. 2 Chrō. 19.6. 1 Cor. 5.3.4.12.13. The judgement that is done according vntounto it (by whomſoever it be) is not mans but the Lords. Your hearts and conſciences, I leave them to the Lord. It is your conſtitution and practiſe I ſpeake of, and of the ſundrie meanes of knowledge and conviction in theſe things vouchſafed to you, which the Martyrs in former times had not. This you knew (I doubt not) though you would not ſee it, becauſe you know not how to aunſwer it.
And thus the two differences between you and the Martyrs excepted againſt, do both of them ſtand firme againſt you. But why ſay you nothing at all to the other differences which in the ſame places I noted aſwell as theſe? Can you not bring ſo much as colour of exception againſt them? Why then do you not yeeld vntounto them? Or will you that we take your ſilence for a conſent?
Alſo, why aunſwer you not that obiection when I ſaid‡Pag. 67. you might thus juſtify the callings and eſtate of the Monks, Fryers, &c. and the having of ſpirituall communion vvith them: becauſe divers ſuch have ben Martyrs, giving their lives for the truth they ſaw, vvho never doubted of the lawfulnes of their callngs and eſtate? Do you therefore hold their offices and functiōs to be lawfull? Or will you deny, that this hath ben the caſe of ſuch? If you do, then I alledge for proof, Eckhardus a Dominican fryer; Thomas Rhedonenſis a Carmelite frier; Henry Voes, Iohn Eſch, William Neel, Doctor Cacalla, Auguſtine friers; Ioannes Mollius a gray frier; Ierome Savonarola, Dominicus, Silueſter, &c. All of them being Fryers and Monks, yet Martyrs of Ieſus, faithfullie witneſſing the truth which they ſaw even vntounto death. Act. & Monum. 5. edit. Pag. 387. 613. 672. 799. 829. 850. 854.
4. For the fourth point, it is ſo very playne and pregnant as you can ſay nothing againſt it, but refer vsus to that you have ſaid before: which I have ſhewed to be nothing at all to the purpoſe. So it remaineth firme againſt you. And ſo alſo do the reaſons mentioned, 2 Cor. 6.14. &c. Againſt which you neither have ſaid nor can ſay any thing to ſerve your turne. Say but yourſelf (and ſpeak plainly) whether that general clauſe [Towch no vncleane thing] include not both your and all other abominations of Antichriſt breaking the ſecond commandement?
One of your ſelves“Triall of Subſcriptiō: Pag. 7. alledging this ſcripture but againſt the ceremonies reteined in your Church, reaſoneth thus from it, and ānexeth that note in the Margent which I have here ſet downe withall:†2 Cor. 6.14.15.16.17. This forbiddeth the vvhole corruptiō in religiō of heathen or Antichriſt, although principally their falſe doctrin. What communion (ſaith he) hath the light of the word, vvith the darknes of mans inventions? What concord hath Chriſt our Saviour, vvith Belial, the Antichriſt of Rome? And vvhere greement hath the Temple of God (vvhichwhich is our ſelves) vvith Idols of humane traditions? Wherefore ♣Rev. 18.2.3.4.come out of Babylon (that is, the confuſion, or confuſed vvorſhip and gouernment of Rome) and tovvch no vncleane thing. Theſe are his words. Now tell me, I pray you, is this Scripture and reaſon ſtrong againſt your ceremonies? And is it not much more againſt your confuſion, Leiturgie, Hierarchie &c. which are meerly the inventions of man, even of Antichriſt, that man of ſinne? Or will you be like the Papiſts alſo in this, to limit the bounds of the Scripture, that it may be applied no further, nor othervviſe, but as pleaſeth you?
That the place of Ezechiel is directly of the breach of the Second commaundement, Ezec. 43.8.is as cleare as the Sunne at noone day. Beſide the reaſons which I alledged before, thoſe ſo many clauſes (My threſ holds & theirs; My poſts and theirs; Me and them; Myne holy Name with their abominations) theſe, I ſay, ſo many concurring in this one verſe, make it without all queſtion, that he ſpeaketh directly of ioyning their inventions with Gods ordinances in the worſhip of the true God. Which is the direct breach of the Second, not of the Firſt, cōmandement.
The Firſt is directlie towching Gods inward worſhip, as to have, love, truſt, feare him onelyonly as God, &c. The Secōd is directlie of outward worſhip: For Images and bowing downe to them (“Exo. 20.4.5 there mentioned) are outward things. If this diſtinction be not obſerved, the firſt and ſecond cōmaundement will be confounded: as the Papiſts (whom you follow) would have it. But if it be obſerved, it confoundeth both you and them (M. Iacob) and all your vayne pretences.
By this alſo it is evident, that the Idolatrie of Ahas, Manaſſes, Amon &c. whereof you ſpeak, was directlie againſt the Second cōmādement. Ahaz (to give an inſtance in one of the groſſeſt) is ſaid to have*2 Chrō. 28 23. ſacrificed to the Gods of Damaſcus: becauſe he†2 King. 16.10-15. made an altar like the altar of Damaſcus: though yet notwithſtanding he offered thereon to the true God, both ſuch offerings and at ſuch ſeaſons, as the Lord had appointed. His ſinne then was againſt the Second commandement directlie, in that he made and vſed another altar then God had preſcribed.
But your ignorance of the Scripture-phraſe deceiveth you. For when you read that Ahaz, Manaſſes, or others ſacrificed to the Gods of the Nations, you vnderſtand that they worſhipped ſome other then the true God againſt the Firſt cōmandement▪ whereas the Scripture meaneth they worſhipped the true God after the …er as thoſe nations ſerved their Idols, and ſo brake the Second cōmaundement. You may ſee it in that example of Ahaz before: and moſt plainly in Deut. 12.30.31.32. And likewiſe if Naaman worſhipping God, had bowed downe before the Idoll in Rimmons Temple, but in heart honored the God of Iſraell, he had broken the Secōd, not the Firſt cōmandement: and might be ſaid to have worſhipped the Idoll Rimmon. 2 King. 5.17.18.
The reaſon of all theſe is becauſe God accounteth them to be ſerved, whoſe ordinances are obſerved: and himſelf not to be had as God, when his true vvorſhip is not had. Now ſo muſt we eſteeme things, and ſo the Scripture ſpeaketh (not as men judge, but) as God eſteemeth. Minde this well Mr. Iacob, for your worſhip of Antichriſt.
But of theſe things more hereafter, when wee come to ſpeak of the third Scripture (2 King. 17.) in the ſixt Reaſon following,2 King. 17. whither you refer vsus for it: though there the Reader ſhall finde you aunſwer not the ſeverall Scriptures here alledged for proof of it. In the meane time let this be noted, that here againe you graunt your Church corruptions are againſt the Second commaundement. Therefore may none that feare God and will be aſſured to eſcape his wrath, bow downe vntounto them. Exod. 20.5.6. Deut. 5.9.10. and 6.10.11. and 28.15.16. &c. Pſal. 106.29.
Next, where I ſpeak of your breach of the ſecond cōmaundement, as being ſpirituall whoredome: you except againſt it, as if I miſmatched things otherwiſe then they are in deed. But how can that be, ſeing the Scriptures ‡Pag. 68.there alledged prove that which I ſaid? Or will you ſay your caſe is not ſpirituall whoredome, which God in that commaundement hath ſtraitlie forbidden and ſeverelie threatned to puniſh?
This then being ſo, it is your ſelf Mr Iacob, that miſmatch things otherwiſe then in deed they are. For your caſe is not as you would pretend by your ſimilitude, like a wanton word, a light geſture or contenaunce, or an immodeſt thought of a woman. But I will tell you what it is like: Even as when a woman vnfaithfull to her huſband, is found to commit filthynes with other men, after whom ſhe goeth a whoring. Now ſuch a one (whatſoever ſmooth ſpeach, countenance, or excuſe ſhe pretend, yet) is in deed an whore, and for this cauſe to be divorced.
That your caſe is ſuch, your going a whoring after Antichriſt (whoſe ordinances, Hierarchie, worſhip, confuſion &c. are retained among you) teſtifies to your faces. Fitly therefore do we applie the Scriptures againſt you: and your ſelves it is that ſinne againſt the Third commaundement in miſapplying of them, as I ſhewed ſufficientlie in my former anſwer, againſt which you can ſay nothing.
To the proof of the Aſſumption you yeeld now at length. Neither can I otherwiſe thinke of your aunſwer, ſeing I have proved my ſpeach to be proper, and the Scriptures fitly alledged: and, you refuſe to iuſtify your owne Articles and eſtate. Yet leaſt you ſhould againe cavill and delude the Reader, I aſke you, Have I not concluded the queſtion in a Syllogiſme? Why then do you not aunſwer directlie to ſome part of it? Have I not proved the Propoſition by Scripture, and the Aſſumption by your owne Writings and practiſe? The Concluſion then muſt needs be true, vnles one of the Propoſitions could be diſproved: which you are ſo far from, as you never go about to do it.
The marginall note then is no ſcoffe, but a iuſt reproof of your ignorance: which in deed deſerveth much more. But I ſpare you: and leave it to others to iudge, whether you do any thing els in all you ſay, but winde in and out, to hide the truth and blinde the Reader, if you could. The Scriptures which I alledged for proof of the Propoſition, you handle as if I had brought them for proof of the Aſſumption. Who is it now (think you) that is in a dreame? Agayne, your owne Books, profeſſion, and practiſe, by which I proved the Aſſumption, you towch not at all. Nay you ſay plainely, it is no part of your mynd to iuſtify them. Whether it be for that you ſee, they can not poſſibly be iuſtifyed, or becauſe you want ſkill in your ſelf or charity towards your Church for the doing of it, let others inquire. Sure I am that thus you give the cauſe. For this belongs directly vntounto it, as all may ſee that have any vnderſtanding, and your ſelf (I ſuppoſe) will not deny, when you have called your wits a litle better togeather.