Answer to Mr Jacobs Defense of the Churches and Ministry of England, Religious treatise 1 · Chapter 9
Chap. 9. The third Reaſon againſt Mr Iacobs Aſſumption aforeſaid.
Fran. Iohnſon. IF the whoſe doctrine, as it is publiquelie profeſſed and practized by Law in England, be not ſufficient to make a Galatian a true Chriſtian, that ſhould with all ſubmit vntounto Circumciſion: Then much leſſe, is it able to make him a true Chriſtian, that together with it, ſubmitteth vntounto a falſe Miniſterie, Worſhip, and Governement of the Church deviſed by man, even the man of ſinne. But the firſt is true: Therefore alſo the latter.
The conſequence of the Propoſition is good, becauſe Circumciſion was once the holie ordinance, and appointment of God himſelf to his Church and people, whereas the Miniſterie, Worſhip, and Governement aforeſaid, never was ſo, but is mans device in religion, even Antichriſts, that capitall enemie of Ieſus Chriſt.
The Aſſumption is proved Gal 5.2.3.4. where the Apoſtle ſpeaketh of them that held, not onelie ſuch trueths of the Goſpell, as are in that book of Articles, but more then thoſe: Yet if they ſhould withall ſubmit to Circumciſion, he ſaith, they vvere aboliſhed from Chriſt, Chriſt vvould profit them nothing.
H. Iacob his firſt Reply to the 3. Reaſon. THis your Third Reaſon is from the more to the leſſe negatiuely to this effect, A Galatian vſing Circumciſion, is a likelier Christian, then one of our Engl…ſh holding the Hierarchy and other traditions: But a Galatian is a falſe Christian, Ergo, An Engliſh profeſſor is much more.
We anſvver, We denie the Aſſumption: Galatians vvere then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies true Churches, Gal. 1.2. Therefore this Reaſon is nought. If you obiect, The Apostle ſaith, ſuch are aboliſhed from Christ. That is in deed ſome amongſt them, as held Moſes ceremonies, neceſſarie abſolutlie to ſalvation, as Act. 15.1. And that†Gal. 5.3 4.5 Rom. 10.3.4 Iuſtification vvas by the morall vvorkes of the lavv. Novv the Churches of Galatia generallie vvere not ſuch, but held the ſaving faith ſound doubtles, though manie amngeſt them vvere tainred vvith that infection, by reaſon of ſome miſcheuous teachers that vvere crept in, and too vvell interteined among them. Hovvbeit, vvith the Church, Communion vvas kept, and therefore, ſo vvith vsus you ought to deale. If you ſay vve are vvorſe Chriſtians then thoſe groſeſt Galatians, It is vtterly falſe: prove it if you can, and it muſt dravve in Maiſter Cranmer, &c. vvith vsus alſo. If you ſay, there are many amongſt vsus as bad, or vvorſe then thoſe vvorſt Galatians, you may ſay it, but prove it, you cannot. Alſo, if it vvere ſo, yet this diſgraceth, it deſtroyeth not the Church, like as hath ben ſayd of the Galatians.
Fr. Io. his Anſvver to Mr Iacobs 1. Reply to the 3. Reaſon. YOur firſt anſwer is, that you deny the Aſſumption. Which in plaine termes is aſmuch, as if you had given the holy Ghoſt the lye, who by the Apoſtle Paule affirmeth it, Gal. 5.2.3.4. As in the proof of the Aſſumption was ſhewed before. But for the more evidence of the truth, I will ſet this downe in a Syllogiſme, thus:
If a Galatian ſubmitting to Circumciſion, though he hold all the truths of the Goſpell profeſſed in Englād withall, yet be notwithſtanding aboliſhed from Chriſt, and falne from grace, Then is he not in this eſtate a true Chriſtian.
But the former is true, as the Apoſtle teſtifieth, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4.
Therefore alſo the latter. And yet the former you deny, that is the Aſſumption. Therefore you give the lie to the holy Ghoſt, who affirmeth it.
Next you aunſwer, that the Galatians vvere then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies, Churches, Gal 1.2. Therefore (ſay you) this Reaſon is nought. But you may not thus runne away with the matter and deceive your ſelf and your ſimple favourers. The queſtion is not, Whether any Galatians vvere true Chriſtians, or any of their Aſſemblies, true Churches. For who ever doubted of that? But this is the queſtion, Whether a Galatian holding all the truths of the Goſpell novv profeſſed in England, and vvithall ſubmitting to Circūciſiō; vvere in that eſtate a true Chriſtian. Or putting the caſe that there were whole Aſſemblies conſiſting of ſuch: Whether thoſe Aſſē blies then in that caſe were by Gods word to be deemed the true Churches of Chriſt. The Apoſtle teſtifieth and ſaith No: You ſay, Yea. Now whether of you two it is meet wee beleeve, let all men iudge.
But what is it then (will you ſay) that the Apoſtle termeth the aſſemblies of the Galatians true Churches? Gal. 1.2. You ſhew the reaſon your ſelfe, the light of the truth is ſo cleare and manifeſt: There were but ſome of the Galatians that were infected with this error of Circumciſion. True in deed, and of ſuch onelie is the ſuppoſition made in the caſe aforeſaid.
But the Churches of Galatia generally were not ſuch, but held the ſaving faith ſound: This alſo is moſt true: they being ſet in the way and order of Chriſt. And therefore although there ſprang vp ſome heretikes and ſchiſmatikes among them (which is the†1 Cor. 11.19. Act. 20.30. lot and triall of the Church of God in all ages) yet was there not cauſe to break Communion with thoſe Aſſemblies, but to proceed with them in the faith and order of Chriſt, and to‡Gal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7.11.13. cut off and caſt out ſuch troubleſome leauen from among them.
Now this being duelie weighed, it is nothing for but altogeather againſt the having of communion with the Aſſēblies of this Land, which are not ſet in the way and order of Ieſus Chriſt, (as were thoſe Churches of Galatia) but in the Apoſtaſie and confuſion of Antichriſt, as hath ben at large declared before, in the defence of the former Reaſons, where alſo that of Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. is anſwered.
H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Reaſon. TO this your Defence of your Third Reaſon, I anſwer. Firſt it is too impudent a cavillation “ That you charge me to giuegive the H. Ghost the lye, in denying your Aſſumption. I meant not your Aſſumption, but that which I had made briefer, conteining the effect of yours. This was the Aſſumption denyed by me, But a Galatian is a falſe Christian. As he that hath but halfe an eye may ſee.
Secondly, to ceaſe needles ſtrife, I deny therefore your Propoſition. Though a Galatian‡that is, so holding it as the worst did or els this is a ſophisticall aequiuocatiō holding Circumciſion, cannot be a true Chriſtian, yet an Engliſh Chriſtian holding the Hierarchye &c. may. The Reaſon of this denyall I gave you then, but that you would not ſee it: Namelie, becauſe ſuch Galatians, held Iuſtification by the workes, and ceremonies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papiſts, who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the ſame, and ſo doe erre Fundamentally. But our Churches and ſtate, hold not the Hierarchye ſo, but onelyonly as an indifferent thing in it ſelf. This blaſphemous opinion of Circumciſion, maketh it infinitelie worſe (though once it was ordeined of God) then our indifferent opinion of the Hierarchye, though in deed it were never but nought.
Thirdlie and laſtlie, you have no where cleared Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, and the reſt of thoſe holy Martyrs, from being aboliſhed frō Chriſt, if the Hyerarchie be ſimply worſe then Circumciſion, ſo held as thoſe Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2.3.4.5.
Fr. Iohnſon his Anſwer to Mr Iacobs 2. Reply to the 3. Reaſon. IS it of ſimplicity, or of impudency, or of both (Mr Iacob) that thus you do write? Your ſimplicity is more then Dunſicall, to ſay you denyed not my Aſſumption, but one of your owne. For with whom I pray you, do you diſpute? With your ſelf, or with me? Your impudency is to ſhamefull, not onelyonly to give the holy Ghoſt the lye, but when it is ſhewed you, yet not to acknowledge it.
Therefore to hide it (if poſſibly you could) you ſay when you denyed the Aſſumption, you meant not myne, but one of your owne made briefer &c. Yet even thus appeareth, that you can not ſay otherwiſe but to deny my Aſſumption (which I proved by Scripture) were to give the holy Ghoſt the lye. Now that you did it before, your owne words here againe will teſtify againſt you. For you ſay, Your Aſſumption made briefer, conteyneth the effect of myne. Then in denying your owne, it muſt needs be that you denyed myne in deed and effect, and ſo now by your owne confeſſion it is true (as I ſaid) that you gave the lye to the holy Ghoſt, who by Paul affirmeth it. Gal. 5.2.4.
Simple Sir Prieſt, Had you no more wit nor better defence, then to aunſwer thus as he that hath but halfe an eye may ſee you do nothing els but impudently cavill? Is this the Chriſtian and conſcionable diſputing you ſpeak of? Or is it the deep and Cler klike ſkill in argumentation which every where you will beare vsus in hand is lockt vp in the cheſt of your breſt? Content your ſelf (Mr Iacob) to keep hereafter within your line, and ſtrive no longer againſt the truth, but for it.
Secondly you ſay, to ceaſe needles ſtrife you deny the Propoſition. But if your former denyall of the Aſſumption was good, why do you not ſtand to it? If it were evill, why do you not confeſſe it? If your mynd be in deed to ceaſe needles ſtrife, then ſhew it in deed, not in word onelyonly. The Propoſition (which now vponupon better adviſement you chuſe to deny) I have proved before. Againſt it you except,Pag. 90. that although a Galatian holding Circumciſion cannot be a true Chriſtian, yet an Engliſh Chriſtian holding the Hierarchy &c. may. But you ſhould ſay thus Mr Iacob, if you aunſwer me, He that ſubmitteth to a falſe Miniſtery, worſhip, and gouernemēt of the Church deviſed by Antichriſt the man of ſinne, &c. is a true Chriſtian in that eſtate. For theſe were the words I vſed in my Argument and proof thereof. But you delight to aunſwer your owne words and Arguments, not myne. Yet why prove you not then from the Scripture that which you ſay towching Antichriſts Hierarchy &c. Will you have vsus beleev it on your bare word?
Mynd alſo that now you confeſſe, the whole doctrine, as it is publikly profeſſed and practiſed by Law in England, is not ſufficient to make a Galatian a true Chriſtian that ſhould with all ſubmit to Circumciſion, which once was Gods owne ordinance. Had I not cauſe then (think you) to deny the Aſſumption of your mayne Argument? Yea and to put you in mynd of the defects and lamenes both of your Propoſition and Aſſumption▪
And where you ſay, the Galatians could not be true Chriſtians, becauſe they held Iuſtification by the works and ceremonies of the Law, like the Papiſts who by their ceremoniall and morall works do hold the ſame, and ſo do erre Fundamentally: Whereas your Churches and State (you ſay) hold not the Hierarchy ſo, but onelyonly as an indifferent thing in it ſelf. 1. Firſt what ſay you to the†Damianus a Goes, de fide, Religione, et moribus Aethiopion. Pag. 63. &c. Ethiopian Churches which togeather with the Goſpell hold and vſe at this day the ceremonies of the Law, Circumciſion, &c. onelyonly as things indifferent: and therefore condemne not the Churches which vſe them not at all? Are they in this conſtitution by the word of God now to be judged true Chriſtians and true Churches? Or may not any ſeparate from people ſo walking, to keep the faith of Ieſus without ſuch commixtion? By your marginall note, it ſeemeth you are ſo mynded. Let vsus have your reaſons and proof in your next Reply.
2. Or how will you prove for your Churches that it is as you ſay, viz, that you hold as a thing indifferent your Hierarchy &c. Do you not ſee that ſuch as hold and walke otherwiſe, are impriſonned, baniſhed, cō demned, killed among you? Is this to hold things as indifferent? What then (I pray you) may be your holding of the other poynts of Religion among you which you count not indifferent?
3. And what ſay you to your forbidding of Meats and Mariage at certayne tymes: which the Apoſtle calleth Doctrines of Devills? Doth your Church hold them as things indifferent? Or will not this prove a blaſphemous opinion, even in your owne judgement?
4. Mynd withall how the Diſpenſations given by your Prelates for eating of fleſh in tymes forbidden, runne ſtil among you as they did and do among the Papiſts, with this clauſe, fana conſcientia, that is, with a ſafe conſcience; and your Excommunications with this clauſe Ad ſalutem anio…e, that is, for the ſalvation of the ſoule. Doth not this ſhew that your Churches hold not theſe things as you pretend, but agree with the Papiſts therein? Or hold you matters of conſcience and ſalvation for things indifferent?
5. Likewiſe for your Miniſtery, and book of common prayer &c. hold you them as matters indifferent, or as neceſſarie for the ſervice of God and ſalvation of your ſoules?
6. And what ſay you to the blaſphemy, magik, errors, lyes, in the Apocrypha books retained among you for the ſervice of God? Count you them alſo for indifferent things?
6. Finally, towching the Popiſh opinion of works (whereof you ſpeak) know you not how they hold that their works merit not for the work ſake, but for Chriſts, being dyed with his blood? Yet (notwithſtanding this colour) the point being well conſidered, it doth highly diſhonour Chriſt and derogate from his office of ſole Mediation. In like maner the Hierarchy &c. that is, the governement, worſhip, confuſion, and Miniſtery of Antichriſt retained among you (whatſoever you pretend for them, yet) being duly weighed, do as towching your Church conſtitutiō, aboliſh the governement and Mediatiō of Chriſt: except you could prove him to be Mediatour of another Teſtament then his owne. Behold what your Indifferent opiniō will prove, when it comes to be throughly ſcanned. As you like it, you may hold it ſtill.
To end this point, let the Reader note (and not forget it) how your ſelf do here in playne termes confeſſe, that your Hierarchy (that is, your Churches governement, Miniſtery, &c.) was never but nought. This ſuites yll with the title of your book, and gives ſmall encouragement for any to ſerve God by ſuch Miniſtery, worſhip, &c.
For Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. Pag. 40.41.I have cleared them before frō your haſty cenſure. Now onelyonly let the Reader obſerved how this is alway the foot of your ſong, Mr Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer &c. As if their errors were better warrant for you, then Gods word for vsus.