A defence of the churches and ministery of Englande Written in two treatises, against the reasons and obiections of Maister Francis Iohnson, and others of the separation commonly called Brownists. Published, especially, for the benefitt of those in these partes of the lowe Countries.

Againſt the Aſſumption of the ſaid Argument, Mr Iohnſon made 3. Exceptions and 9. Reaſons, which hereafter follow in order: Together with Mr Iacobs Replies vnto the ſame. But before we come to the examination of the ſaide Aſſumption, let vs ſee firſt what he ſaith againſt the Propoſition.

Fr. IOHNSON.

TO omitt the Propoſition, vntill it better appeare by their defence of the Aſſumption how to take and vnderſtand it, we will for the preſent only ſhewe the weakenes of the Aſſumption: and this alſo the rather, becauſe they ſeeme wholy to depend vpon it.

H. IACOB.

THe anſwerer omitteth the Propoſition, for in deed it is moſt certen: But he denyeth the Aſſumption, (which yet is as certen alſo), That the doctrine in our booke of Articles is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian.

Fr. IOHNSON.

In our former anſwere to this argument, we omitted the propoſition, not becauſe of the certentie of it euery way (as the Replier dreameth) but vntill we might ſee by his defence of the The Aſſumption is examined and maintained Pag. 4. aſſumption how to take it, as thē we noted. Nowe therefore (hauing ſeene in his reply the vnlearned, vngodly, and vnconſcionable pretences, by which he would ſeeme to defende the Aſſumption, when in deed he doth nothing elſe but caſt a miſte before the eyes of the ſimple): we giue him to vnderſtand, that the whole argument is lame and faultie in euery parte thereof. The Propoſition is not abſolutelie true, as it appeareth he vnderſtandeth it, by his defence of the Aſſumption. The Aſſumption is not only falſe, as we proued in our former anſwer, but alſo lacketh a foote whereon it ſhould goe, if it were perfect and entier.

For whereas in the Propoſition, mention is made, not only of the making of a true Chriſtian, but alſo of a companie ſo gathered together: he ſhould (in the Aſſumption, if he would haue had it ſound and perfect) not onely haue aſſumed, that the doctrine &c. is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian: but haue added alſo, that their aſſemblies be cōpanies ſo gathered togither. Which being not done, both the Aſſumption wanteth one of the feete, and the concluſion inſerreth more then was in the premiſſes, and ſo the whole ſilogiſme is faultie and diſfigured.

Thus might we, without any further anſwer, returne this argument to the firſt framers of it, to be better faſhioned: Yet in hope, that they may bee brought (through the bleſſing of God) to receiue the loue of the trueth, that they may be ſaued, and with their giftes no more to plead for, and deck the whore of Babilon, & to help forward the building & beautifying of Sion, we will more particularly lay open to them, the weaknes of this his reply.

And first, whereas he affirmeth, that the Propoſition is moſt certen, & yet in his defence of the Aſſumption, he declareth, that he ſo taketh it, as whatſoeuer amongſt them, be iointly togeather held, and ioyned with that, which otherwiſe might make a ture Chriſtian, or a true Church: yet notwithſtanding, they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or commixtures: we anſwere that in this ſence, the Propoſition neither is, nor can be abſolutely true, as it ought to be, if they would haue their argument good. For who knoweth not, that ſuch Gal. 5.2.4. things may bee ioined with Chriſt, as aboliſh from Christ. And againe, 2. Cor. 6.14, 25. that Chriſt and Antichriſt can not accord togither. Either therefore the Propoſition is not generall, but admitteth limitations, and then is not the Argument good: Or if it bee generall, without any limitation, ſo as whatſoeuer be added too (or cōmingled with) that which otherwiſe might make a true Christian, or a true Church, yet it hindreth nothing at all: Thē is it not abſolutely true in ſuch vnderſtanding, as may appeare by the former exceptions, & diuers other that might be alleadged.

Next touching the Aſſumption, beſides that it is lame, as before is ſhewed, it is alſo vntrue, as in our former anſwer appeareth. Some balme in deed this man bringeth to cure it: but it hath no other effect, ſaue onely to manifest to vs ſo much the more, that the ſoare of their Aſſemblies cannot be healed. In our former anſwere, we first tooke 3. Exceptions againſt them, comparing together their profeſſion and practiſe, then we alleadged 9. Reaſons, directly concluding the falſhood of the Aſſumption.

H. IACOB.

BEfore I examine this your anſwer, I would deſire you, and all others, to note, that all your Exceptions and Reaſons, with your defence of them, hereafter following, doe conſiſt of theſe three generall pointes. 1. That euerie perſon in England, holding our publik faith, is no true Chriſtian. 2. That all the Chriſtians and Churches in King Edwards time, and namelie Maiſter Cramner, M. Ridley, M. Hooper, M. Latimer, M. Philpot, M. Saunders, M. Rogers, M. Taylor, &c. were all lims of Antichriſt, and no true Chriſtians. 3. That euery ſoule in England, is convicted in conſcience, that the Praelacie is vnlawfull and vntollerable.

The Firſt of theſe, is our maine queſtion, and the grounde of all our reaſoning, which you gainſay. The Second, though it be not expreſlie ſpoken, yet it is directlie, euidently, and vndeniably concluded, by all & euery of your arguments againſt vs. As in the ſeueralls hereafter we ſhal ſee. The Third, you are driuen vnto, for defence of your former Aſſertion, which elſe falleth to the grounde. And this you affirme flatly in your defence of your 1.6. and 7. Reaſons.

Nowe my deſire is, that all men would take notice of theſe your 3: Aſſertions, and conſider indifferentlie, vvhether they proceede from an honeſt, a ſober, or a Chriſtian minde. And you M. Iohnſon, if you liſt hereafter to ſay any more, defende theſe 3. pointes directly and plainly, that your anſvveres may be briefer, and more certen, then now they are.

Novve I come to the particular examination of your former anſwerere.

Firſt you ſay, You omitted the Propoſition before, not for the ſoundnes of it, but only, becauſe you would ſee howe I meant it. Why? He that hath but halfe an eye, may ſee the meaning of thoſe vvordes, where is no darknes nor doubtfulnes of ſence at all. What fault finde you in it nowe? Forſooth, firſt a want in the Aſſumption, & then vntruethes, both in the Propoſition, and Aſſumption of my Sillogiſme. There wanteth (you ſay) that I ſhould expreſſe in the Aſſumptiō, That our Aſſemblies be companies gathered 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 imply aſmuch: vvhen I ſay, We by lavve publiquely profeſſe and practiſe them? Then are not our Aſſemblies (vvhich are by lavv) gathered together in this profeſſion & povver? Fy for ſhame, theſe are ſenceleſſe cauilations. But becauſe vvhat in me lyeth, I vvould not haue you any more to ſtumble at a ſtrawe, I haue to ſatisfie you vvithall,Not that the Argumēt is vnſound without this addition: But becauſe ye Reader may ſee howe you will play at a ſmal game rather then ſit out, vt aiunt. novve added thoſe words to the Aſſumption aforeſaid in a contrarie letter which you deſire, viz. and our publike aſſemblies are therein gathered togeather.

Secondly, you ſay, that my propoſition meaneth, that what ſoeuer is held togeather and ioyned, with that which otherwiſe might make a true Chriſtian, or a true Church: Yet notwitſtanding they are ſo to be reputed, as if there were no ſuch additions or comixtures. O ſtrange dealing: in all my writing I haue no ſuch worde, no ſilable, no letter, ſounding to that ſence I haue directly contrary, in my anſwere to your Fourth Reaſon, as your ſelf noteth there. Yet yow M. Iohnſon, with out al ſhame, in the view of the world, doe Father on me this foule vntruth, and moſt ſenceleſſe errour, in your firſt entrance.

Further, where as it ſeemeth you reproue my Propoſion, requiring to to haue it ſet thus: Whatſoeuer is ſufficient to make a particuler man a true Chriſtian (and hath nothing added with it diſtroying the foundation of faith) That is ſufficient to make a company ſo gathered togither, a true Church.

You muſt know Mr. Iohnſon, that that were an idle & vaine addition: for whereſoeuer there are any ſuch things added diſtroying faith, there whatſoeuer elſe ſeemeth ſufficient, indeed it is not ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian. Wherefore nodum in ſcirpo quaeris, this is to finde a knot in a ruſh. Thus much concerning the trunes of my Propoſition.

The Aſſumption examined by the Exceptions and Reaſons following Laſtly you come to deny my Aſſumption, or rather to maintaine your denyall heretofore giuen. Where firſt note that by denying my aſſumption, yovv affirme the firſt generall poinct noted in this beginning.

That euery particuler perſon in England, holding our publike faith here, is not true Chriſtian. Which (O Lorde) who would not tremble to thinke on? Euen that which this man aboue two yeares a goe affirmed, and now 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 vs examine your exceptions, and reaſons againſt my Aſſumption more particularly, & we ſhall ſee what ſtuffe it is. Your firſt exception againſt the ſame is as followeth.

Maiſter Iohnſons I. Exception againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter Iacobs Replies to the ſame. EXCEPTION. I.

FIrſt let here be conſidered the 19. Article of that doctrine and booke, which is alleaged by themſelues for their defence, and ſee if their profeſsion and practize be not contrary one to an other: Yea whether euen by their owne doctrine and confeſsion, conteyned in that booke, it be not monifeſt, that they haue not a true viſible Church of Chriſt.

The words of the Article are theſe.

The viſible Church of Chriſt is a Congregation of faithfull men, in the which the pure word of God is preached, Artic. 19. and the Sacraments be duely miniſtred, according to Chriſts ordinance, in all thoſe things, that of neceſſitie are requiſite to the ſame.

Theſe are their owne wordes and doctrine: Now if they cannot proue their Aſſemblies to be ſuch, they may ſee that their own witneſſes, (euen their own doctrine & book alleadged) giue verdict againſt thē. If they can proue them to be ſuch: where and what are their proofes, touching the particulers, mentioned in this their owne diſcription of a viſible Church of Chriſt.

H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 1. Excep.

THis his firſt Exception, is the 19. Article of this very book which we alleage, wherein a viſible Church is diſcribed to be a Congregation, where the pure word is preached, and Sacramentes miniſtered, according to all thoſe thinges, that of neceſſitie are requiſite. Now this diſcription, he reiecteth not, but our practiſe (ſaith he) is contrary: and therefore we haue no true viſible Churches, nor Chriſtians.

I anſwer: wherin is it contrarie? in what things that of neceſſite are requiſite? doth not all this Chriſtian world ſee & confeſſe, that our publike practiſe, is agreable to our profeſſion in that booke? Nay (ſaith he) but proue you your aſſemblies to be ſuch, and if you can proue them, where and what are your proofs? if you do not, you are confuted. A worthy confutacion ſure, & very Clercklike: As if my Tenaunt ſhould deny me rent for my houſe & land, yea and go to law with me for the fee ſimple, which he hath holden in ferme of me theſe 40. yeares and I haue hetherto, quietlie enioyed from my Aunceſtours, time out of minde: Now he ſuing me at law, for that which I thus poſſeſſe, faith, proue your right to this land which you haue; if you can, what, and where, be your proofes? let me ſee them: Or els I your Tenaunt will haue it: This were goodly dealing, were it not, and very lawfull. Euen ſo doe you, aſking proofes of vs for that which we poſſeſſe, and haue poſſeſſed before you made any queſtion about it, nay you your ſelues, held parte of this poſſeſſion of vs and with vs, till yeſterday, when you began firſt to lay claime in this ſorte to the whole. Now your reaſon is, let vs proue it to be ours, where be our proofs? Or els you will not acknowledge vs any longer: ſee I pray you your owne equity. If this ſuffice not to make you deſiſt, I leaue it to the Iudges to giue ſentence.

Secondly note further: Our Article ſaith, A Church is where the word is preached, & Sacraments miniſtred according to all things that of neceſſitie are requiſite. Where we plainly inſinuate, that many errors may be added, & truthes wanting in a viſible Church: but nothing which is abſolutely neceſſary: Now, what doth our practize, in Preaching, or Sacraments, want, that is abſolutely neceſſarie, without which, there cannot be any true preaching or Sacraments at all, ſhew it vs becauſe we ſee it not our ſelues I aſſure you; vntill then, your firſt reaſon hath no reaſon in it.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Excep.

HOw fit or vnfit the ſaid diſcription of a viſible Church (mentioned in the 19. Article of the ſaid book) is, we neither did, nor doe examine. Onely becauſe this is their owne profeſsion, and wee ſee their practiſe is contrary vnto it, we did therfore from hence take our firſt exception, requiring of them, to ſhew their aſſemblies to be ſuch, or els to know, that their own diſcription, is a witnes againſt themſelues.

Now in their reply, haue they according to the particulers of that deſcription, iuſtified their Church-aſſemblies? nothing leſſe. Let this therefore be first obſerued. But what then haue they donne? Surely this. Firſt pretending as if they repeated our exception, and their owne diſcription, they leaue out diuers perticulers, of ſpeciall moment there expreſſed, as firſt, where the viſible Church is diſcribed, to bee a congregation of faithfull men, they leaue out theſe wordes (of faithfull men) belike knowing that their Congregations, which are holds of all foule ſpirits, and cages of euery vncleane and hatefull bird,Reuel. 18.2. cannot therefore iuſtly bee accoumpted congregations of faithfull men. Secondly, where the deſcription ſpeaketh, that the Sacraments be duely miniſtered: they leaue out the word (duely:) becauſe it croſſeth their womens Baptiſme, priuate Communion, receiuing of the moſt prophane and their ſeede, &c. Laſtly, where in the deſcription it is reqaired, both for preaching the pure word and due adminiſtration of the Sacraments, that they be donne according to Chriſtes ordinance: they leaue out altogither theſe words (according to Chriſtes ordinance:) belike becauſe this clauſe quite ouerthroweth both their Antichriſtian Prelacy, from which all the inferior Miniſters amongſt them receiue power and authoritie to preach, and miniſter the Sacramentes, and their Prieſthood and Deaconery, wherein they all administer, and their ſtinted impoſed prayers, exhortations, croſſes on the forehead, queſtiones to the infantes, vſe of the ſame wordes in Engliſh in ministering the Lords ſupper, which the papiſts vſed and ſtill vſe in Latine, not reteyning the words of Chriſts inſtitution, and ſuch like.

Now thus hauing left out ſuch perticulers as were of ſpetiall moment againſt them, they next demaund wherein their practize is contrary to their profeſſion, and diſcription of a viſible Church, in what things that of neceſſitie are requiſite? We aunſwere, in all the particulers of that deſcription aforeſaid.

For firste, their Church-aſſemblies, are not congregations of faithfull men, but a confuſion of all manner of people though neuer ſo wicked and prophane. TheD. Whithg laſt booke, pag. 176. and 178. Prelates and Formalistes affirme, that their Church is full of Atheistes, Papistes, Idolaters, Drunkards, Whoremōgers, & ſuch like. TheSermon on Rom. 12. pag. 65. and 66. Demonſtratiō in the preface. forward Preachers likewiſe auerre, that in their church are ſwarmes of Atheists, Idolators, Papiſtes, erronious & hereticall ſectaries, Witches, Charmers, Sorcerers, Murtherers, Theeues, Adulterers, Lyers, &c. Finally, that a mā may be any thing amongst thē, ſauing a ſound Christian. Theſe things being ſo, as both their estate and writings beare witneſſe: let themſelues iudge, whether their Aſſemblies can be accounted Congregations of faithfull men, or no: which is the first poinct of the deſcription aforeſaid.

Secondly, in the ſame deſcription is required, That the pure worde of God be preached, according to Chriſtes ordinance. But amongst them, are allowed beſides the word of God, the Apocripha bookes: and in ſtead of preaching the worde, the reading of Homilies: as may appeare in that booke of Articles alleadged by themſelues. Yet who knoweth not, that in thoſe bookes, are diuers vntruthes, errors, contradictions, blaſphemies, and ſuch like? So farre are they from being the pure word of God, or agreeing therewith. Moreouer, when and where the worde is preached among them, it is done by vertue of a falſe office and calling, neuer appointed by Christ. And the Ministers that preach it, doe in their constitution ſtand alwayes ſubiect, to be ſilenced, ſuspended, excommunicated, and degraded by the Prelates and Ordinaries, to whom (when they are made Priestes,) they promiſe, and (when they enter vpon a benefice) they ſweare, Canonicall obedience. Neither are they ſuffered any further to preach the word, and trueth of God, then agreeth with the Articles, Iniunctions, aduerticements, and caueats, in that behalfe prouided. If any preach the worde of God anie further, they are ſubiect to be ſilenced, baniſhed, & put to death. That theſe things accord with the ordinance of Chriſt, or with their owne deſcription of a viſible Church, we ſuppoſe themſelues will not for ſhame affirme it.

Laſtlie, in their deſcription it is required, That the Sacramentes bee duely miniſtred, according to the ordinance of Chriſt, in all things, that of neceſſitie are requiſite to the ſame. Nowe by the ordinance of Christ, in the adminiſtration of the Sacramentes, there are neceſſarilie required 1. A lawfull Miniſter. 2. A lawfull people. And thirdly, A lawfull adminiſtration, according to the Testament of Chriſt: In all which, their practize is conerarie to the ordinance of Christ, and their own deſcription aforeſaid. Their Miniſters all of them are either Prelates, Prieſtes, or Deacons (which amongſt them is a ſtep to the Prieſthood:) none of which Chriſt hath ordeyned in his Testament for the worke of his ministerie. Their people are not ſeparated from the world, but ſtande in confuſion with it, and in ſubiection to the Antichristian Prelates and Prelacie:See Iohn. 15.19. & 17.14.16. 1. Iohn. 4.5, 6 Act. 2.40. and 19.9. Reuel. 18.4. & 14.9. And therefore can not be deemed a true church of God, & the people of Chriſt, vnto whom in ſuch estate the Sacraments (which are ſeales of the couenant of grace) doe apperteyne, and may be adminiſtred. Finally, their administration is acçording to the inuentions and precepts of man, with ſtinted prayers, exhortations, Epiſtles and Gospels: and beſides thoſe in Baptiſme, croſſing on the forehead, & queſtions to the infant: in the Lords ſupper, tranſlating, and vſing out of the Maſſe booke, other wordes then the wordes of Christes inſtitution, and ſuch like, as may bee ſeene at large in their booke of common prayer, which is picked and culled out of the Maſſe booke, full of all abominations, asAdmonitiō to the Parlament, ſecond treatis. themſelues haue publiſhed heretofore.

Theſe things we haue ben forced thus to mention at large, both becauſe they twice demaund (as if they knewe not themſelues) wherein their practiſe is contrarie to that deſcription aforeſaid: and becauſe they bluſh not to affirme, that all the Chriſtian world ſeeth and confeſſeth their practize to be aggreeable to their profeeſſion in that booke. Whereas the contrarie is most true.

Touching which, what themſelues haue heretofore written to the contrarie: See in the Admonitions to the Parleament, Replyes of T. C. againſt D. Whitguift, Demonſtration of Diſcipline, &c, And what the reformed Churches profeſſe to the contrarie: ſee in the Frenche, Belgicke, and Heluetian Churches, and in the Harmonie of cōfeſſions, Sect. 10. & 11. which would be too long to ſet downe at large in this place: Neither is it needfull, ſeeing it is moſt euident in the books and places alleadged, whether we referre the Reader.

Thus alſo it appeared, what iust cauſe wee had, to put them to proue their aſſemblies, to be ſuch, as themſelues diſcribe viſible Churches to bee: Which, ſeing they haue not yet done, and ſeing their practice is contrarie to their profeſſion, as now (at their requeſt) we haue ſhewed in the perticulers aforeſaid: If they ſtill bee minded as before, wee doe alſo ſtill aſke, where and what are their proofes, touching the perticulers mentioned in their owne deſcription of a viſible Church.

Their ſimilitude of a Landlord and Tennaunt, is againſt themſelues, ſo wortthy and Clercklike is their reply. If any haue vſurped, or otherwiſe made a falſe clame neuer ſo long, to a piece of lād or other poſſeſſion: may they not iuſtly be called vpon to ſhew their title & bring fourth their euidence? Let the Iudges giuē ſentence. If I deny their clame and title to be ſuch, let him ſhew their euidence from the Apoſtles writinges: Let vs from thence ſee their euidence for the offices of Archbs., Lordbs., Suffraganas, Archdeacons, Chauncelers, Commiſſaries, Officials, Priests, Parſons, Ʋicars, Cnraets, &c: For their entrance into their Offices, according to their Cannons, and Booke of ordering Prieſtes and Deacons, and of conſecrating Archbiſhops and Biſhops: For their administration by their ſtinted impoſed Liturgy, and by their Popiſh Cannons, Officers and proceedings: For their Churching of women, praying ouer the dead, Holydayes to Saints and Angels, Fastes on their Eaues, &c. For their maintenance by Tythes, Chriſomes, Offerings, &c. For their confuſed communion of all ſortes of people, though neuer ſo wicked, in the body of their Church, &c. Let them (I ſay) ſhewe vs euidence for thoſe, from the Apoſtles writinges, if they deny their claime to bee ſuch, as wee haue noted. Otherwiſe if theyIſay. 8.20. ſpeake not according to this word, it is becauſe there is no light in them, neither any right to that they challendge.

Where they ſay, vve held part of their poſſeſſion vvith thē heretofore: If they meane, that we with them receiued the beastes marke, and drunke of the cup of Babels abominations, we deny it not: but acknowledge Gods mercy, that paſſing ouer our ſinnes, hath giuen vs grace and ſtrength at hisReue. 18.4. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18 Actes. 2.4. commaundement, to forſake that way of Antichrist, and to come out of that ſpirituall Babilon, to ſaluation of our ſoules, which mercy wee wiſh alſo vnto theſe men, that ſo being ſaued from this froward generatiō, they may become the ſonnes and daughters of the Lord almighty in Chriſt our Sauiour.

Touching their Article, Preaching, Sacraments, Miniſtration, &c. enough is ſaid before. Onely where they ſay, they ſee not themſelues wherin they faile, touching Preaching or Sacramēts, in things neceſſary, It is too impudent vntruth, as theirAdmonition to the Parliament: T. C. his replies in defence thereof: Demonſtratiō of diſcipline. Declaration & defence of Eccleſiaſtical diſcipline, &c. former writtings doe and will alwayes testifie to their faces, which wee will not ſtand here to relate. That ſhall ſuffice which we haue touched before, which till it bee aunſwered, it will be found that our firſt exception hath both reaſon and weight in it whatſoeuerthey doe or can pretend to the contrarie.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 1. Excep.

HEre is much adoe to no purpoſe. You obſerue 4. pointes in our Article omitted by mee, vvherein our practize is contrarie to our profeſſion. Firſte, our Article requireth a viſible Church to bee an aſſembly of faithfull men: But our aſſemblies (ſay you) are not ſo. This is falſe, they are ſo, you ſhall neuer proue in vs the contrarie, more then appeareth was in the Church of the Iewes, both Auncient and in the time of Chriſt, And yet they then were the true Church: As I haue elſwhere in this Booke ſufficiently proued and ſhewed againſt you. That which you bring of D. Whitgift and other writers amongſt vs of the prophaneſſe of many in our aſſemblies, you depraue their meaninges vtterlie: for though they graunt verie many ſuch to be amongſt vs, yet they ſay not, that all our aſſemblies are ſuch, nor our whole aſſemblies: Neither denie they our aſſemblies to be companies of faithfull men, or vtterly to be ſeparated from: Nay, the contrarie doe they: euen that onely they ought to be reformed. Therefore you too groſſely abuſe them.

Secondly, The Article requireth the pure worde of God to be preached. But (ſay you) the Apocrypha books, & reading of Homilies, & other errors are allowed in our practize: Yea ſurely & in our profeſſiō too as your ſelfe obſerueth in the book of Artic. yet then our profeſſion & practiſe differ not, as you charg our Churches. But theſe poinctes are not the pure word of God: Neither doth the Article meane, that in a viſible church, euery iot & title, both of our profeſſiō & practize, muſt needs be out of the pure word. They knew that euery viſible Church might & did erre in ſomewhat. Onely it meaneth, that a viſible Church might not erre in any poinct, that of neceſſitie is requiſite, as their wordes expreſſe. It reſteth then that you ſhew, that the pure word is not preached in our aſſemblies by law, ſufficiently to ſaluation: which yet you doe not, nor can doe. Therefore you ſay nothing. For, I for my part know well, that our Churches faile from the pure word in ſundrie leſſer points, which though they be errours, yet are they not Fundamentall, neither doe they in their ovvne nature aboliſh from Chriſt.

Thirdlie, the Article hath according to Chriſtes ordinance: But you ſaye, that we preach in ſtrange and falſe functions, ſuch as are not Christes ordinances. This is falſe too, Our ordinarie Preachers are true Paſtours, as touching the ſubſtance of Paſtorall calling, as I haue often aunſwered you, albeit they haue a wrong ordination from the Prelacie. See my defence of this poinct, as alſo of that concerning the confuſion of our people, in my other writing long ſince deliuered to you, touching the In my aunſwer to the 1. reaſon of that treatiſe following in the end of this booke. comparing of the condition of a Miniſterie with Mariadge. Now this ordinance of Chriſt to haue a true Paſtor to a faithfull people, is ſufficient for the being of a true Church, though not for the perfection of it. Contrarie to the which, you haue nothing but words.

Laſtlie, the Article requireth due adminiſtration of Sacraments: But our practize (ſay you) herein is not due or intier, becauſe there concurre diuers corruptions withall: as ſtinted prayers, exhortations, Epistles, Goſpels, & Croſſing in Baptiſme, &c. I anſwere: all theſe ſimplie of them ſelues doe not aboliſhe our Sacraments. If you thinke they doe, ſay ſo, and you ſhalbe refuted. If nay, Then this very Article ſignifieth ſo much, That corruptions and faultes might be in the Sacraments, but nothing amiſſe that of neceſſitie is requiſite.

Novve, all theſe 4. poinctes I haue omitted (ſay you.) True in wordes I haue, but in ſence I expreſſe them all and euery one, when for breuities ſake, I comprehended all in this generall clauſe of this Article, according to all that is of neceſſitie requiſite. How ſay you, haue I not herein conteyned and ſignified all theſe your exceptions, and that accordinge to the meaning of the Article? If I haue (as it is moſt true) then doe you vnconſcionablie abuſe me, in ſaying, I pretended to repeate our deſcription in the Article, and yet leaue out diuers perticulars of ſpeciall moment. And let this therefore be firſt obſerued, I haue omitted nothing materiall in that Article. Yea let this be here noted, that in all this you haue moſte fondlie abuſed your penne and tounge. Yet will you ſtill demaund how our practiſe agreeth with our profeſſion in that 19. Article? Still I anſwer you with that ſimilitude of a fooliſh and importinate Tēnaunt againſt his Landlord. If I haue held poſſeſſion, and my auneſtors before my time out of minde, indeed the King laying claime to it, hee may call for my euidence, becauſe Time preſcribeth not againſt the Prince. nullum tempus occurrit Regi, But againſt my fellow ſubiects, poſſeſſion & inheritance (ſo longe without interruption) is of it ſelfe euidence in lawe good enough, except the plaintif can bring better to the contrary. Therefore it were abſurd and ſenceleſſe before any Iudge in England, for a Tenaunt to put ſuch a Landlord to ſhew his euidence in ſuch a caſe. Euen ſo, as abſurd it is for you, ſeeing at firſt you were of vs and now are gone out from vs, to put vs to proue our ſelues to be ſuch as heretofore you neuer doubted of. If now you doubt and contradict it, ſhew you your reaſon as better euidence, or els all men wil condempne your folly.

Where you put me to proue all our offices of the Hyerarchie, their ceremonies, &c. What needeth it? I neuer tooke it vpon me: Except firſt you doe ſhew, that theſe corruptions all or any of them, abſolutely in their own nature doe aboliſh vs all cleane from Chriſt, & make vs vnpoſſible to be ſaued, which vntill you doe, ſtill I ſay, I ſee not any peece of reaſon in all theſe your words.

And laſtly where you ſay, it is an impudent vntruth, that I ſay we ſee not, that any thing neceſſarie is wanting in our Church, And to this end you quote to conuince me, The Admonition. T. C. his Replies, Demonſtration, Declaration, and the Defence of Diſcipline, &c. This is indeed too bold an vntrueth, & a wilfull peruerting of your allegations. None of all theſe doe graunt any thing to be wanting with vs that is neceſſary to the being of a Church ſimply, nor to the being of a true Miniſtery or Sacraments: But onely to their well and conuenient being. How honeſt then are you to falſifie your own witneſſes ſo openly?

Maiſter Iohnſons 2. Exception againſt the former Aſſumption, with Maiſter Iacobs Replies to the ſame. EXCEPTION 2.

SEcondly let them tell vs, whether they hold & profeſſe Ieſus Christ to be the Prophet, Prieſt and King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinance onely, and in no other. And if they doe, then let them ſhew vs how their practize agreeth with this profeſſion.

H. JACOB his 1. Reply to the 2. Excep.

TO this Second Exception That Chriſt is our Prophet Prieſt, & King, I aunſwere: The booke of Articles, our Miniſters now, and Congregations generally, doe hold and profeſſe the ſame (our practize being anſwerable likewiſe thervnto) euen as before time Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley Latimer, and ſuch like, with their Congregations did then: viz. That Chriſt is our Prophet, Prieſt and King, and to be obeyed in his own ordinances onely and in no other. This I ſay we generally profeſſe and practize. Howbeit this note with all, we hold Chriſts ordinance to be of two ſortes, written or vnwritten, the firſt neceſſary, the ſecond arbitrary, The firſte touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion only, ſuch as theſe, The doctrine of God, his Nature, his Perſons, his Properties, of the Meſſias Chriſt Ieſus, of Iuſtification, of Sanctification, of the Reſurection, &c. Wherein ſtandeth the 1. Cor. 3.12.23. foundation of ſauing faith. All theſe muſt be in the writen word or els to bee none of Chriſtes. The ſecond touching outward orders in the Church, which are truly called & accounted Chriſts own alſo, although particularly deuiſed and appoincted by the Church, whom Chriſt hath authorized therevnto, euen as it ſhalbe thought moſt fit and profitable for the preſent times, places and perſons: ſuch we hold all outward gouernement and ceremonies to bee, becauſe they be not ſimply of the foundation, neither written, nor certen, nor perpetuall, but at the arbitrarie appoinctment of the Church and Magiſtrate, and yet to be Chriſtes owne neuertheleſſe, who hath left this libertie for the Church to vſe; Thus we hold and thus we practiſe, and wee are perſwaded no Scripture to be againſt all this, but rather for it. I ſpeake now concerning our Miniſters and Congregations generally; that is our publike Church ſtate. If yow ſay, but there are diuers amongeſt vs that thinke otherwiſe, I anſwere, But this is the generall eſtate both of our Miniſters and Churches, howſoeuer one or two amongeſt hundreths or thouſands may thinke otherwiſe, ſhew the contrary if you can. And our Churches, they certenly muſt bee deemed after their generall eſtate and conſtitution, not as one or two men thinke. If you ſay, this generall opinion and practize is an error, Therefore they obey not Chriſts ordinances in truth herein, though they thinke they doe. I anſwere, let it be ſo, it is nowAn error, though not foundamētall. the error of their iudgment, as it was in Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. Not pregnaunt rebellion and diſobedience to Chriſte, not a conuicted or ſeared conſcience, ſo that their other 1. Cor. 3.12 15. truthes of the foundation are not fruſtrat, nor Chriſt made to none effect in thē. And this is all our queſtiō, Whether they remaine Chriſtians ſtill for all theſe faultes, yea, or no.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Excep.

COncerning our Second Exception, it was propounded by way of demaund, requiring that they would ſhewe vs, if they held Jeſus Christ to be the Prophet, Priest, & King of his Church, to be obeyed in his own ordinances onely and in no other, howe then their practize agreeth with this profeſſion. One would haue thought that here it had bene good and needfull (if they could) to haue cleared this poinct by the Scriptures and the Testament of Christ, and from thence to haue manifested, that their Ministerie, worſhip, ministration, gouernement, &c. which are called in queſtiō, are no other then the Lord Ieſus Christ, (that Prophet, Prieſt and King of his Church) hath in his Testament giuen and appointed therevnto. And haue they not done this? Surely no. What then doe they ſay? First they tell vs, That touching this poinct, their profeſſion and practize nowe is ſo as before time it was with M. Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer and their Cogregations. But what of this? Can the perſons or age of thes whom he nameth, nay can anie perſon or ages preiudice the trueth? Were not they ſubiect to error at all? or must their errors binde vs: Did not Iohn Hus (that worthy champion of Christ) and others alſo of the Martyrs in former times, ſay and heare Maſſe, euen to their dying day, not ſeeing the abomin ations thereof? And did not diuers of thē acknowledge, ſome the Popes calling and Supremacie, ſome 7. Sacramentes, ſome Purgatorie, ſome Auricular confeſſion, and ſuch like greeuous errours, &c, And yet notwithstanding dyed moſt constantly for the truethes which they ſawe and testified, ſome for one, and ſome for another, as God manifested the trueth vnto them: As may be ſeene at large in their ſeueral Hiſtories in the Actes and Monumentes, whether wee referre the Reader. But may we nowe ſo profeſſe and practize in theſe things as they did? Or if we ſhould, were their ignorance and errours a ſufficient defence for vs? yet thus would this man beare vs in hande. But moreouer, let him tell vs, if Maister Latimer and others, did not forſake the Prelacie and functions they had before-time receyued? And Maister Ridley at his death repent that he had bene ſo earnest for the remnantes of Poperie in his time retayned? Beſides alſo, who knoweth not, that when Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. dyed Martyrs for the trueth of Christ, they neither had them ſelues, nor ioyned in ſpirituall communion with ſuch as had the Prelacie and Maniſterie nowe pleaded for? And not that onely, but were alſo members of that perſecuted church in Queene Maries dayes, which was ſeparated from the rest of the Lande, as from the world, and ioyned in couenaunt, by voluntarie profeſſion, to obey the trueth of Christ, and to witnes against the abominations of Antichrist, As they alſo did euen vnto death, in the trueth which they ſawe, though otherwiſe being but as it were in the twylight of the Gospell they had their wantes and errors. Yet who is ſo blinde or beſotted, as not to ſee that their errours may not bee our rules, neither can be our warrant, but rather that we ought after their example, faithfully to ſtand, in, and for, what ſo euer trueth God reuealeth vnto vs by his word, And that otherwiſe, thoſe holy Martyrs ſhould riſe in iudgement against all ſuch, as either withhould the trueth in vnrighteouſneſſe, or in any reſpect refuſe to walke therein. Finally, ſeeing GOD hath giuen vs his worde, to be the light of our feete, and rule of our liues and religion: What meane theſe men to lead vs from it, to the aberrations of any men whatſoeuer? Should not all people enquire at God, or would they haue vs goe from the liuing to the dead? From God and his worde to men and their errours? Doubtleſſe this is that whervnto they would bring vs, and whereby they miſlead their followers, as will yet further appeare by that which followeth. For what ſay they next?

Secondly, they tell vs, and they wiſhe it to bee noted, (as wee alſo doe) That Chriſtes ordinances be of two ſortes, either written or vnwritten: the firſt neceſſarie: the ſecond arbitrary: the firſt touching doctrine, that is, touching faith and the inward opinion onely: theſe (ſay they) are written: the ſecond touching outward orders in the Church, and all outward gōuernement, and ceremonies: Theſe, they ſay, are not written, but arbitrary at the appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate. Thus (they ſay) they hold and practiſe, and thinke no Scripture is againſt it.

In anſwere whereof, First we aſke what ſcripture they haue for this? Secondly, we alleadge against it, the ſcriptures1 Tim. 3.10 15. & 5. chap. & 6.13.14. Tit. 1.5, &c. Act. 1.3. & 2.40. &c. & 6. cap▪ & 14.23. & 15. cap. and 19.9. & 20.7.17.28 Rō. 12.6.7.8. Ephe 4 11.12. 1 Theſ. 5.12.13.14. Phil. 1.1.5. Heb. 3.1.2.3. & 13.17. Iam. 5.14. 1 Pet. 5.1.2.3. 1 Cor. 4.17. & 5. cap. & 9. cap & 11. cap. & 12. cap. & 14. cap. and 16.1.2. Gal. 6 1.6.2 Theſ. 3.6.12.14.15. Mat. 18 15.16 17. & 28.18.19.20. quoted in the margent, wherevnto manie other might be added. Thirdlie, let it be obſerued, that them ſelues here graunt and can not denie, but all the outwarde gouernement and ceremonies of their Church, are inuented and arbitrary at the pleaſure of man, and not written in the worde of God. Wherevpon it followeth, that they are none of Christes, and therefore not to be ioyned vnto in the worſhip of God, as afterwards more fully will appeare. Fourthlie, ſee howe neare they are driuen that are glad to runne backe into the Papistes tentes, where yet they knowe there is no ſuccour. Before they pleaded poſſeſſion time out of minde: nowe they tell vs of ordinances vnwritten, &c. are not theſe meere popiſh ſhiftes, euen the olde worne argumentes of antiquitie and vnwritten verities, ſo often and ſo much ſtoode vppon by the Papistes? Alas that theſe men ſhould plead to be true Christians, and yee thus openly take parte with Antichrist! What ſhall we ſay to theſe things? Surely God is iust and will verifie his word, where he ſaieth, "That they which receyue not the loue of the trueth, that they may bee ſaued, hee will ſende them ſtronge deluſions, to beleeue lyes, that they may bee damned. Fiftly, note howe he maketh the ordinances touching outwarde gouernement and ceremonies, to be no matters of faith, neither writtē at all. Surelie this is ſtrange diuinitie. It is an ordinance not onely concerning the inward, but alſo the outward gouernment of the Church, that Chriſt is Lord and King thereof: It is therefore no matter of faith? It cōcerneth the outward gouernment, whether the Pope be (vnder Christ) head of the church or no? Doeth it not therefore concerne faith? Publique prayer, preaching of the Word, and hearing of it preached, administration and receyuing of the Sacraments, are matters concerning the outward gouernement and orders of the Church: doe they not therefore touch faith? Admonition and exhortation concerne alſo the outwarde gouernement of the Church, doe they not therefore concerne faith? Finally, by this diuinitie, the Sacraments of Baptiſme and of the Lordes ſupper, being ceremonies, ſhalbe no matters of faith at all amongſt them.

But here they ſtay not, but adde moreouer, That the outward orders, gouernement, and ceremonies of the Church, bee arbitrarie at the appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate, and not certen nor written in the booke of God. Whervpon it followeth, that it is not certen nor taught in the ſcriptures, but arbitrarie at the Churches & Magistrates pleaſure: Whether Christ, or the Pope of Rome or of Cāterburie, be head and Archbiſhop of the Church of God: Whether Jewes onely of the tribe of Leui, may nowe minister the holy things of God in his Church: Whether Christ haue giuen any giftes, and ſet any offices in his Church for the Ministerie and guidance thereof: Whether prayer must bee in a knowne or vnknowne tounge: Whether the teaching and ruling Elders be to be had and honored: Whether the church may excommunicate: Whether the Popes, or any other Prelates excommunication be to be regarded: Whether there be two, or three, or ſeauen Sacramentes: Whether the Paſſeouer, Circumciſion, and other ceremonies and ſacrifices of the Lawe, be now to be vſed: Whether the Heatheniſhe ſacrifices and worſhip be to bee ioyned withall: Whether creame, oyle, ſalt, ſpitle, croſſing and coniuring, be to be vſed in Baptiſme: Whether the bread onely and not the cup, is to bee giuen to the lay people (as they call them:) Whether holy water, holy aſhes, holy palmes and ſuch like, be of the holy things of the church: Whether the Iewiſh and Popiſh vestimentes, faſtes, and holy dayes are to be obſerued: and a thouſande ſuch like, which are all of them, concerning the outward orders, gouernement, and ceremonies of the Church. By theſe mens Diuinitie, theſe and infinite ſuch like, are vnwritten and vncerten, but left onely to the pleaſure of the Church and Magistrate. Moreouer, if it pleaſe them, the Princes and ciuill Magiſtrates may them ſelues be the publike ministers of the worde, Sacraments, and cenſures of the Church: any that will may without a calling take vpon him to bee a publique officer in the church: Women may baptiſe, or administer the Lords ſupper: The Jewiſhe, Romiſh, or Heatheniſh priesthood may be retayned: Auricular confeſſion may be vſed: The Keyes of the kingdome of heauen, may bee appropriated to the Pope of Rome, or the Prelate of Canterburie, or any other whom ſoeuer: The Prelates and their Officials excommunications do binde in heauen: The Apochriphall bookes and Decretall epistles are canonicall ſcriptures: The Papes Portuis and the Engliſh booke of prayer taken out of it, are the true and lawfull worſhip of God: The Prelates and Prieſtes are the true and lawfull Ministers of God: Orders, pennaunce, extreame vnction, matrimonie, &c. are the Sacramentes of the Church: Cap, Surplis, Cope, Tippit, Rotchet, &c. are ornamentes of the Miniſterie. Finally, all ragges and trumperies of the Romiſh religion, are good and lawfull, if it pleaſe the Church and Magistrate. For why? They concerne the outward gouernement, orders and ceremonies of the church: And touching them (ſay theſe men) Christ hath not left any ordinances written, certen, or perpetuall, but left them at the arbitrarie appointment of the Church and Magiſtrate. Is not this ſtraunge Diuinitie? Yet they ſtay not there neither, but as men that haue bent their tongues like bowes for lyes, they feare not to adde moreouer, that when the Church and Magiſtrate appointeth anie ordinances, (whether theſe or any other) touching the outward gouernement & ceremonies of the Church, we are to account them to be Chriſtes owne ordinances, who hath left this libertie to the Church for to vſe. O ſhameles mouth: O vnchristian hart: Can any Papist or Atheist ſay more? or can any deſire a more euident proof then this, that theſe men and aſſemblies thus holding, profeſſing, and practizing (as here them ſelues affirme) can not in this estate by the word of God, be deemed med true Christians and Churches. Sixtly, obſerue howe yet moreouer they ſeeke ſhiftes, & would colour the matter, pretending That the things which concerne outward gouernement and ceremonies, are not of the foundation ſimply. But this will helpe them no more then the other. For first we aſke, are they of the foundation at all, though not ſimply? If they be, then ſeeing they are not written, not certen, nor perpetuall (as heere is affirmed) it will followe, that neither the whole foundation is written certen, or perpetuall: neither the Apostles were faithfuull and ſkilſull maiſter builders in the laying thereof. If they be not, then why is this worde (ſimplie) added, as if they graunted that they were of the foundation, though not ſimplie as they ſpeake. Secondlie wee aſke, whether the outwarde gouernement and ceremonies ordeyned by Christ for his church vnder the Gospell, be not of the foundation, aſmuch as the outward gouernement and ceremonies appointed by Moſes for the Church vnder the law? Or if they be, whether they are not as faithfully ſett downe by Christ, as the other were by Moſes, and as carefully to be obſerued by vs, as the other were by the Jewes,Heb. 3.2.3. or rather much more, inaſmuch as Chriſt the Son is worthy more glorie and honour, then Moſes the ſeruant. Thirdlie we aſke, what foundamentall poinctes Moſes and Aaron with the rest of the Iewes ioyning with them, helde: that Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companions held not: Differing from them and erring only touching the Priesthood and Ministerie which concerned the outward orders & gouernement of the Church: was therefore Corah, Dathan, Abiram, and their companies in that estate the true Jſraell of God? Or were not the other truthes they helde by this meanes fruſtrate and of none effect vnto them? Nay, were they not therefore wholy to be ſeparated from, and left to the iudgement of God,Num. 16. which ouertooke them and all that ioyned vnto them? Yet was their error onely in matters of order and outward gouernement of the Church. This may ſuffize to conuince the aduerſaries vntrue aſſertions in this place. To that of Maiſter Cranmer and Ridley &c. is anſwered before.

For concluſion therefore, this we adde, concerning this poinct. That all ſuch aſſemblies and people, as holde, profeſſe, and practiſe, (as doth the Church of England) theſe abominations following: They can not by the word of God, be esteemed in ſuch eſtate trulie to holde Chriſt, their Prophet, Priest, and King: Towit, The confuſion of all ſortes of people (though neuer ſo wicked) and their ſeed in the body of the Church: The offices and callings of other Archb. and Lordb. then Ieſus Christ: alſo of Archdeacons, Chancellors, Commiſſaries, Officials, Prieſtes, halfe Prieſtes, Parſons, Ʋicars, Ʋagrant and Mercinarie Preachers, &c. The entrance into the Miniſterie by an other way, and by other Lord, then Ieſus Chriſt: The executing of it vnder thoſe ſtrange Lords, & leauing it at their pleaſure: The preaching of the word, administration of the Sacramentes, and gouerning of the Church, by vertue of the offices and callings afore ſaid, & according to the Popiſh Canons and constitutions: The power of Excommunication in the Prelates alone and their Officialls: The confounding of Ciuill and Eccleſiaſticall offices and authoritie in the Miniſters of the Church: The forbidding of Mariage at certen ſeaſons: The impoſing and vſing of ſtinted deuiſed Liturgies: The Engliſh Portuis, taken out of the Popes latine word for worde (ſaue that a fewe of the groſest thinges are left out) yet keeping the ſame frame and order of Collectes, Pſalmes, Leſſons, Pater nosters, Pistles, Gospels, Verſicles, Respondes, &c. Appointing holy dayes to all Sainctes and Angels, to the Virgin Marie, Iohn Baptist, Marke, Luke, and twelue Apostles ſeuerallie: togeather with Fastes on the Eaues and on Ember dayes, Fridayes, Satterdayes & Lent: Preſcribing the Ministers to pray ouer the dead, ouer the Corne and Graſſe at ſome ſeaſons of the yeere, and ouer Women at their Courching or purification: Ioyninge them alſo to marie with the Ring, which they make a ſacramentall ſigne: And to Baptiſe likewiſe with the ſigne of the Croſſe, with Godfathers and Godmothers, with queſtions demanded of the infant that can not ſpeake nor vnderſtande: Giuing power, to Women to baptiſe: And ordeyning that the other Sacrament of the Lords Supper be celebrated kneeling, as when they receyue their maker: and with change of the wordes of Chriſtes inſtitution, taking in ſteed of them, the wordes of the Popes Maſſe booke, tranſlated into Engliſh, &c. Finallie, the vpholding of theſe and all ſuch amongst them onely by carnall weapons, of impriſonment, death, confiſcation of goods, baniſhment, and ſuch like. The aſſemblies (I ſay) and people which holde, profeſſe, and practize (as doeth this Church of Englande) the abominations afore ſaid, concerning the outward order and gouernement of the Church, what ſoeuer truethes they holde beſides, yet can they not by the word of God, be deemed truely to hold the Lord Ieſus, their Prophet, Priest, and King, in ſuch constitution of a church. Neither therefore can they in this estate by the word of God be accounted true Christians, nor the true constituted churches of Christ: & this is the question betweene vs and our aduerſaries. 7. Lastlie, let the godlie and indifferent Reader! iudge, whether it will not followe vppon this anſwere in this place: First, that theContrarie to 1. Tim. 3.15. 2. Tim. 3.16. Deut. 12.32. 1. Corin. 4.6. Reu. 22.18, 19 Scriptures are not ſufficient for the building vp and guidance of the Church here on earth: Secondlie, that theContrarie to ye 2. Tim. 3.17 wt 1. Tim. 3.15. Pro. 2.1.9. Pſal. 119.105.13. men of God can not by the Scriptures be made abſolute and fullie furniſhed to euery good worke: Thidlie, thatContrarie to Col. 2.3. Heb. 3.1, 2, 3. Eſay. 32.22. Ephe. 4.11.12.13. 1. Cor. 11. and 12. and 14. Rom. 12.3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. Mat. 28.20.1. Tim. 6.13, 14. Christ him ſelfe in whom the treaſures of wiſedome and knowledge are hid, yet was ſo fooliſhe, careleſſe and vnfaithfull, as hauing an houſe and kingdome (which is his Church) he hath not in his word appointed vnto it, anie offices, lawes and orders, for the due gouerning and ordering thereof: Finallie, That theContrarie to the 2. Cor. 6.14, 15, 16. Pſal. 94.20. & 119.21.113.128. Reu. 9.1, 2, 3, and 14.9, 10, 11. Hierarchie, Worſhip, Sacramentes, Traditions, Canons, and whatſoeuer constitutions of Antichrist, concerning the outward orders and gouernement of the church, being appointed by the Church and Magistrate, are to be accounted Christes owne ordinances: O ſhameles impietie: Doubtles this is that ſame ſtrange paſſion, and meere desperatnes, wherewith afterwarde vniustlie they charge vs: which we will not proſecute, as it deſerueth, but exhort them onely, to take heede least that woe come vppon them whiche is written: Woe vnto them that ſpeake good of euill, and euill of good: which put darknes for light, and light for darknes: that put bitter for ſweet, and ſweet for bitter. Woe vnto them that are wiſe in their owne eyes, and prudent in their owne ſight, Eſa. 5.20.21.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 2. Except.

IN this your defence of your ſecōd Exception, it pitieth me to ſee your extreame folly: which is the more miſerable, becauſe it appeareth to be not of weaknes, but of wilfulnes. You would know of vs if we hold Chriſt to be our Prophet, Priest and King, and if we profeſſe to obey him in his own ordinances and in no other. I anſwered, we doe conſtantly proſeſſe ſo, and as we profeſſe ſo wee practiſe. But to make our profeſſion & practize in this poinct more manifeſt, I noted how our ſtare meaneth Chriſt to be our Prophet, Prieſt and King, and how hee is to be obeyed viz. That the written word ought of neceſſitie to ſhew vs our inward and meare ſpirituall beleif & obedience. As for the outward Church order, our ſtate holdeth that it is arbitrary to bee appoincted and abrogated againe at the liking of the Church and Magiſtrate, And that the worde no where forbiddeth this libertie: Where note in this explication two thinges.

Firſt, it is foule wrong to our Churches and to my wordes, to ſay as you doe, That they meane, no outward orders at all, be matters of faith, or conſtant in the Scriptures. Nay it was neuer doubted, but to preach, to pray to adminiſter Sacraments &c. though externall, yet are perpetuall things and neceſſarie and vnchangable by the Scriptures. My expreſſe wordes, and our Churches meaning is, That any reaſonable kinde of Church gouernement, and rites, and orders, are arbitrary and changeable, no matters of faith, nor written in the Scriptures; And yet ſtill Chriſt to be our only, and abſolute King & Prophet neuertheleſſe. Whoſoeuer doth vrge vpon our Churches further, or on my wordes; doth ſlaunder and cauill, and malitionſly depraue them and nothing elſe.

Secondly, note in my explication, that I iuſtifie not this opinion of our ſtare, but I ſay, Thus to beleeue and practize, ſimply, deſtroyeth no mans ſaluation in Chriſt, which you denying generally and vehemently, in your ſixt anſwer, You deny directly Maiſter Cranmer, &c. to haue held the foundation, or to bee ſaued: wherein, you openly profeſſe and proclaime, that ſecond generall poinct which in the beginning I charged you with: That all Churches and Chriſtians here in Kinge Edwards time, and namely Maister Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, Hooper, Philpot, Saunders, Rogers, Tayler. &c. held not Chriſt their Prophet, Prieſt and King, and ſo conſequently they were lims of Antichriſt (for they bare his marke euen to their deaths) and no true Chriſtians. Alas to ſee how malice and preiudice hath blinded you. Is there not greater cauſe for vs to cry & ſay againſt you, O ſhameleſſe mouth, ô vnchristian heart, which termes, you vainely charge vpon me? Is this you that white the Toombs of thoſe Martirs, and yet in fine, condempne them for no true Chriſtians, nor their Aſſemblies for Churches?

You adde a clauſe, They that profeſſe and practize as doth the Church of England, &c. If you meane hereby to put a difference, betwene thoſe good mens holding this opinion, and our Churches nowe. Yea betwene your owne lately, and ours now, ſpeake out, what is it? Yow can imagine none but this. Thoſe good men Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. and your ſelfe of late, held theſe very ſame errors of the outward Church order which wee doe; But they and you, did (it ſeemeth) of ſimplicity, we malitiouſly: they of ignorance, wee of plaine obſtinacie, and hauing a conuicted and ſeared conſcience: whereby, they & you might be true Chriſtians for all theſe errors, but we now cannot be ſo. If this be your meaning, then you graunt vs our Aſſumption, againſt which all your diſpute here is bent. You graunt it I ſay, That the whole doctrine, as it is by law in England, is ſufficient to make a perticuler man a true Chriſtian. Secondly wee now erre not in theſe poincts of ſimplicitie, but of wilfulnes and malice.

Say you ſo? Speake that plaine then. Our whole aſſemblies? all and euery of our aſſemblies? of wilfulnes and of a conuicted conſcience? Are you ſure of this? Doe you knowe euery mans heart and conſcience ſo well? If you doe, then you ſay ſomwhat indeed. But you are then neere as wiſe as God himſelfe, to know mens hearts ſo perfectly, whoſe faces you neuer ſaw; You will ſay, you know diuers, whom you dare ſay are conuicted in cōſcience. That is much alſo to affirme. But if you doe, that ſerueth not your turne, vnleſſe all be ſo conuicted. Chriſt knew a great many in the Church of the Iewes, yea of the learnedſt and chiefeſt in authoritie, that were conuicted in conſcience, that he was the Chriſt, who blaſpheamed in denying him, And yet the Aſſemblies then where not conuicted, they ſtill were true Churches. Wherefore in this ſaying, if you ſay to the purpoſe, you then affirme the Third generall poinct that I noted in you at the beginning of this my laſt Reply: That euery ſoule in England is conuicted in conſcience.

But here I maruell that you ſay, Maister Hus and others of the holy Martirs did heare and ſay Maſſe till their dying day, Alſo that others did acknowledge the Popes ſupremacie. I aſke you, doe you meane that they held and vſed the Popiſh Maſſe, according to all the abominations that are in it? If you thinke ſo, then ſurely neither Hus, nor any of the reſt, were holy Martirs. For therin are founde errors plainely fundamental, which of them ſelues aboliſh from Chriſt; They are not to be compared to our publike errours now in England, The like I ſay of the Popes ſupremacy. If you thinke any of the Martirs acknowledged it in the large and ample meaning therof, as the Popiſh Doctors doe ſet it down; Then verily neither were they any Martirs. The booke of Acts and Monuments whither you ſend vs, affirmeth not that they held theſe errours in the largeſt and groſſeſt ſort. It may be therefore they held manie and greuious errors of ignorance, both in the Popiſh Maſſe and in the ſupremacy, which might neuertheleſſe ſtand with Chriſt crucifyed, And ſo they might be & were holy Martirs: But I affirme, that according to the damnable groſſenes of the very Papiſts, they neither did nor could hold them. Therefore in theſe inſtances you ſay nothing to vs, nor againſt the queſtion in hand.

Further, you ſaid before in the beginning of your deſence of this Exception, Pag. 13. That Master Cranmer Ridley, Latimer and the reſt of the Martirs then, neither had them ſelues, nor ioyned in ſpirituall communion, with ſuch as had the Prelacy, and Ministery now pleaded for. Now I ſee you make no conſcience of vntruthes, yea you are bold to auouch open and known falſehoods. Did not Maiſter Cranmer hold himſelfe for Archbiſhop ſtill, and that hee was by the Pope vniuſtly and vnſufficiently depoſed, and by Queene Mary forcibly reſtreyned from it? Did he euer repent of holding that Office till his death? Alſo did not Ridley ſtand vpon his right to the Biſhoprick of London though ready to die? Latimer though he renounced his Biſhoprick, yet he kept his Miniſterie, and neuer repented him of it. Philpot neuer miſliked h • s Arch-deaconry: Yea when he refuſed bloudy Bonner, Yer he appealed to his ordinary the Biſhop of Wincheſter. The like minde is to be ſeene in Biſhop Farrar. And generally whoſoeuer were Miniſters then of the Prelates ordination, they neuer renounced it, though they died Martirs. Thus appeareth your bould vntruth in this behalfe.

Further in your Sixt anſwer Pag. 16. Firſt you will not ſee what I meane in ſaying, That theſe outward orders bee not of the foundation ſimply: I meant, not at all of the very 1 Cor. 15.2, 3, 4. Rom. 4.25. 1. Cor. 3.10, 11, 12, 13, 14. foundation, neither are they. Secondly you aske if our outward orders vnder Chriſt be not fundamentall aſwell as the Iewes vnder the Law, I anſwer, neither were the Iewes outward orders of the very foundation, without which they could not be ſaued. Thirdly you aske how Corah, &c. differing from Moſes and Aron only about the Prieſthood and Miniſterie, were ſeparated from, and damned. I anſwer, not that the matter was fundamentall, but the Manner was rebellious, with conſciences a thouſand times conuicted, and ſo donne with a high hand againſt God him ſelfe.

But now this conſidered, How vainely doe you charge mee in your entrance into this Excep. pa. 13. That I & others of my minde, goe about to iustifie theſe matters of order in controuerſy by Cranmer, Ridlies and Latimers example, and their Congregations then. For ſhame doe you not ſee the cōtrary, that I call them errors. I onely iuſtifie by their exāple that theſe corruptions aboliſh vs not from Chriſt, as theirs did not, And that I truſt is ſound. Which thing alſo you might haue remembred, if you had ben ſo charitable, by that which I wrote in In the next treatiſe following, of the cō pariſon of the Miniſtery with Mariage: Anſ. to your firſt Reaſon. another place.

Then in your firſt anſwer, Pag. 14. Howe vainely doe yow aske vs for Scriptures to proue thoſe orders, ſeing I expreſly called them errors.

The like in your Second, wher you load vp Scriptures to diſproue thē.

Alſo Thirdlie, you charge an vnconſcionable vntruth on mee (if you meane this anſwere vnto me) that I ſhould graunt and cannot deny, that all outward ceremonies and gouernement, are arbitrary at mans pleaſure: I onelie ſaid, that our ſtate holdeth that generall opinion, Not that I my ſelfe held it, If you meane them, write to them, and ſpeake to them, if you meane me, you doe me foule iniurie.

Fourthly, whether they are Popiſh ſhiftes or no, let our ſtate, which mainteyneth theſe things, anſwer you.

Your Fift is anſwered in ye firſt poinct of my explication noted before. pag. 19. To your Sixt in pag. 16. wee aunſwered before in the Second poinct of my explication pag. 19.

Your Seuenth in pag. 18. is alſo againſt the ſtate of our Church, and not againſt me.

Maiſter IOHNSONS 3. Exception againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. EXCEPTION 3.

THirdlie, let them ſhew by the Scriptures, howe the 36. Article of their doctrine & booke alleadged, agreeth with the Goſpell of Chriſt and true Christianitie.

The words of the Article are theſe as followeth. The Booke of conſecrating of Archbiſhops and Biſhops, and ordering of Prieſtes and Deacons, doth conteyne all thinges neceſſarie to ſuch conſecration and ordering, neyther hath it any thing that of it ſelfe is ſuperſtitious or vngodly. And therefore whoſoeuer are conſecrated or ordered according to the Rytes of that booke, we decree all ſuch to be rightly, orderly, and lawfully conſecrated and ordered.

Moreouer, how it agreeth with the Gospell and true Christianitie, That Apocripha bookes and the booke of Homilies, be read in the church by the Ministers diligentlie and distinctlie. As is in Art. 6. and 35. of that doctrine and booke 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 Apocripha bookes and Homelies in the Church, agree not with true Chriſtianitie: Ergo, the Aſſumption aboue is falſe, that is, the whole doctrine of that booke of Articles is not ſufficient, to make vs true Christians.

I anſwer, you ſhould haue ſaid, thoſe poincts deſtroy vtterly true Chriſtianity, Ergo, &c. Elſe the Argument followeth not: But then we deny flatly the Antecedent or firſt part of the reaſon. But your Reaſon you will ſay ſhall goe as you haue put it. Then marke theſe reaſons euen as good as yours and all one. An Ethiopian is white of his teeth, therefore he is a white man. A Swanne is black of his bill, therefore a Swanne is black. My brother hath an eye of glaſſe, or he hath a wodden legge, therfore my brother is no true man.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Excep.

OVr third Exception was this. Whereas they referred vs to their booke of Artieles 1562. were quired that they ſhould ſhew by the Scriptures how the 36. Article there mentioned, which is of the booke of conſecrating Archbiſhips and Biſhops, and of ordeyning Prieſts and Deacons: And howe alſo the 6. and 35. Articles of that booke, enioyning the Apocripha bookes and Homilies, to bee read in the Church by the Miniſters diſtinctlie and diligentlie. Howe theſe, J ſay, doe agree with the Goſpell of Chriſt, and true Chriſtianitis.

Now I pray you, haue they ſhewed vs theſe things by the Scriptures, as we deſired: nothing leſſe. First therefore marke this heere and euerie where alſo in their reaſons and anſweres, that though wee call neuer ſo much to them for proofe and euidence from the Scriptures, yet they neuer bring it, but labour to put it off with other ſhiftes & deuices of their owne: As if our conſciences were to be built vpon their fancies, and not vppon the written worde of God. But what doe they ſay to our demaund? First they tell vs, Theſe thinges doe not vtterly deſtroy true Chriſtianitie. Secondly, they graunt notwithstanding, that they agree with it as blacke doeth with white, that is, they are cleane contrarie vnto it: For this their ſimilitudes doe import. Nowe whereas they alleadge, That theſe thinges deſtroy not true Chriſtianitie, We anſwere, That euen that Hyerarchie, worſhip, constitution, and gouernement, which they profeſſe and practize (as appeareth by thoſe and other their Articles and iniunctions in our former anſwere alleadged, to which yet we haue receyued no aunſwere) being directly Antichristian, doeNota vtterlie deſtroy true Chriſtianitie. ſo as the people and Churches ſo profeſſing and practizing, can not in that eſtate by the worde of God be iudged true Christians, or the true constituted Churches of Christ. And touchinge the ſimilitudes here vſed, beſides that which we haue noted before, we adde moreouer, that they are not against vs, but againſt them ſelues, in aſmuch as comparing the doctrines of the Goſpell, which they profeſſe, with the whitenes of an Aethiopians teeth: And their Antichristian Ministerie, Worſhop, courtes, and confuſion of people, with the blackenes of an Aethiopians body. This and ſuch like ſimilitudes doe fitlie declare their estate. And the approouing of the black constitution of their church Aſſemblies, by ſome white doctrines of the Gospell which they profeſſe: Is euen as if they ſhould reaſon thus: An Aethiopian is white of his teeth: therefore he is a white man. A blacke Rauen is white of his bill: Therefore a blacke Rauen is a white bird.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 3. Exception.

YOur Third Exception is, That the 16. Article of cōſecrating Biſhops & Prieſts, and the 6. and 35. Artic of Apocripha and Homelies, doe not agree with the Goſpel. What then? Ergo, our Churches profeſſion and practize differ. Moſt falſe: For our Churches doe profeſſe, that theſe things doe agree with Goſpell well 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 nowe in plaine categoricall termes you auouch it, That theſe things being directlie Antichristian, doe vtterlie destroy true Christianitie. So then Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, &c. were verie Antichriſtes, 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 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 verie life and being of a man, though theſe be moſt vnnaturall additions, and very manie, The like doe I affirme of theſe externall corruptions in the Church: Which my ſentences you goe not about to refute, but onelie with wordes, with bare yea, and nay, and no more.

Mr Iohnſons I. REASON againſt the former Aſſumption: with Mr Iacobs Replies to the ſame.

Hauing before noted 3. Exceptions out of their doctrine and booke alleadged: we nowe proceede to ſhewe the weakenes of their Aſſumption aforeſaid, by theſe. 9. Reaſons following.

REASON I.

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.

Bvt that doth the doctrine and booke alleadged, as may be ſeene by comparing the 35. and 36. Articles with the rest. And furthermore it appeareth both by their profeſſion, which is to be ſeene in their booke of Cannons ſet foorth anno 1571. and in other their Articles, Jniunctions, Aduertiſements, &c. publiſhed at other tymes, and by their practize alſo, which is to be ſeene in their Ministerie, Worſhip, and Church gouernement euen to this day:

Therefore, &c.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 1. Reaſon.

THis your firſt Reaſon is thus: That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togeather, can not make a true Christian: But that doth this Booke, Ergo, &c.

I ſay you muſt mende your vnproper ſpeache, that Chriſt and Antichriſt is there ioyned togeather, you meane Chriſt, and ſome outward ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt: then ſo ſpeake, and ſay not Chriſt and Antichriſt ſimply. Which things yet we thinke to be Chriſtes own, as we Pag. 12. 18. 19. ſhewed in the Second Exception before. Therefore, this reaſon is anſwered as the laſt Exception before. The Swanne is blacke of his bill, Ergo, the Swan is blacke, and my brother hath a wodden legge: Therfore my brother is a wodden man. So here this booke ioyneth Chriſt and ſome orders of Antichriſt: Therefore it ioyneth Chriſt and Antichriſt togeather, which are moſt fonde concluſions.

Furthermore, the ſcriptures alleadged 2 Cor. 6. Ezek 43. 2. Kings 17. are wholy miſmatched, the ioyning there forbidden, is vnto ſuch idolatrie, as can not ſtande by any meanes with Chriſtian faith, and breaketh moſt directlie the Firſt commandment: Our tranſgreſſion your ſelues do iudge to be but againſt the Second, and ſuch as hath ſtood and may ſtand togeather with true faith as in Maiſter Cranmer, &c. Namely, the Idolaters in thoſe places ſpoken of. They did not ſo much as profeſſe the written lawe to be their rule, neither for outwarde orders, nor their inward doctrines of faith. But your ſelues knowe, we profeſſe and practiſe that, namely, ſo as is ſhewed before in the Seconde Pag. 11. 1. 18. Exception. Therfore to applie thoſe ſcriptures in this vnto vs, is your great ſinne euen againſt the third Commaundment, which is your common cuſtome, as all doe ſee and pitie, viz. To take the name of God in vaine, by miſuſing his worde.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 1. Reaſon.

HIs anſwere here is First concerning the Propoſition of this reaſon, then concerning the Aſſumption: Concerning the Propoſition: First he ſaith, Our ſpeach is vnproper, that Chriſt and Antichriſt is there amongſt them ioyned togeather. Secondly, he taketh vpō him to expound our words and meaning to be thus, Chriſt and ſome outward ceremonies and orders of Antichriſt. To this we anſwere: First, that it is meete that we (not he) expound our owne meaning, whiche togeather with the proprietie of the ſpeech, will afterwards appeare in our defence of the Aſſumption against his anſwere thereto. His anſwere therefore concerning the Aſſumption is this: First, That the things among them which we charg to be of Antichriſt, they thinke to be Chriſtes owne: For proofe whereof, here ferreth vs to his anſwere to our Second exception going before, whether alſo we referre the Reader for anſwere to him againe. Secondly, forgetting him ſelfe, he graunteth that in deed they be orders of Antichriſt: yet that they are but as the blacknes of the Swannes bill to the reſt of the body. Well then by his owne confeſſion they are of Antichrist, and therefore not Christes owne, as before he ſaide and laboured to prooue. Thus at once both he contradicteth him ſelfe, and ouerthroweth that which he anſweredPag. 1 • . before to our Second exception.

This were ſufficient to manifest their deceiptfull and euill dealing: But that it may more fullie appeare, ſpecially ſeeing bee would dazell the peoples eyes with theſe mincing wordes (of ſome outward ceremonies & orders of Antichriſt, comparing them with the blacknes of the ſwans bill as if they were but a fewe, and of ſmall moment, Therefore will we reckon vp ſome of their Antichristian enormities and abhominations (for it vere infinite to nomber them all): And then let the Reader iudge of his inſwere and their estate, whether it be not more like the blacke Rauen with a white bill, then the white Swanne with a blacke. Sorie we are that we ſhould thus trouble the Reader, or our ſelues: ſpecially conſidering that alreadie we haue mencioned diuers of the particulars following: But ſeeing we are constreyned herevnto by their ſlie and colourable anſwere in this place, therefore can we not but doe it, for the clearer manifestation of the trueth, & better diſcouering of their deceiptfulnes. In which respects we intreate the Reader alſo, to take in good parte, and duely to weigh the repetition and recapitulation following.

Antichriſtian abominations yet reteyned in England. 1 The cōfuſion of al ſortes of people in the bodye of their Church, euen the moſt polluted and their ſeede beeing members thereof. 2 The offices and callinges of Arch L. Biſhops. 3 Lord Biſhops. 4 Suffragans. 5 Prelates Chauncellours 6 Deanes 7 Subdeanes 8 Prebendaries 9 Cannons 10 Petty cannons 11 Chaunters 12 Virgerers 13 Pistlers 14 Goſpellers 15 Queristers men and boyes 16 Organiſtes 17 Organ Flowers 18 Arch deacons 19 Subdeacons 20 Deacons, or half prieſts 21 Priestes 22 Parſons 23 Vicars 24 Curates 25 Vagrant & Mercinarie Preachers 26 Churchwardens 27 Clerkes and Sexions 28 Chaplaynes 29 Doctors of Diuinitie 30 Bachelours of Diuini. 31 Doctors and 32 Proctors in the Prelates courtes 33 Commiſſaries 34 Officialls 35 Registers 36 Summoners with the rest of that Antichriſtian and viperous generation 37 Their Miniſtration of the word, Sacramentes, & gouernment of their church by voriue of the offices aforeſaid 38 The titles of Primate, Metropolitane, Lordes grace, Lordſhip, &c. aſcribed to the Prelates. 39 The inferior Prelates ſwearing obedience to the Metropoliticall ſeas of Cāturburie & York. 40 The inferiour Miniſters when they enter into the Miniſterie promiſing obedience to the prelats their ordināces: and when they are inducted to benefices, confirminge it with their oath 41 The Deacons and Prieſts preſentations to a Lorde Biſhoppe by an Archdeacon 42 Their receyuing of orders of the Prelates, or their Suffraganes 43 Their Pontificall, or Booke of conſecratinge Biſhops, and of ordering Prieſtes & Deacons, taken out of the Popes Pō tificall, where their abuſe of ſcripture to that ende their Collects, Pistles &c. may be ſcone 44 Their making and being made Priestes, with blaſphemie, the Prelates ſaying to them whom they make Priestes, Receiue the Holie Ghoſte, whoſe ſinnes ye forgiue, they are forgiuen, &c. 45 Their confoundinge of Ciuill and Eccleſiaſticall offices and authoritie in Eccleſiasticall perſons 46 Their reteyning and vſing in their publike worſhippe, the Apocrypha Bookes, whiche haue in them diuers errours, vntruethes, blaſphemies, & contradiction to the canonicall ſcriptures 47 Their ſtinted prayers, and Leitourgie, taken out of the Popes Maſſe booke, with the ſame order of Pſalmes, Leſſons, Collectes, Pater Noſters, Pistles, Goſpels, Verſicles, Reſponds, &c. 48 The Croſſe in Baptiſme 49 The Hallowed Ponte, Queſtions to the Infants at Baptiſme 50 The Godfathers and Godmothers promiſinge that the childe doeth beleeue, forſake the Deuill and all his workes, &c. 51 Weomans baptizinge of children: which main teyneth that hereſie, that the children are damned, which dye vnbaptiſed. 52 Their howſelinge of the ſicke, and Miniſtring the communion to one alone 53 The Ministring it, not with the wordes of Christes inſtitution, but with other taken out of the Popes Portuis 54 Their ſelling that Sacrament for two pence, to all commers 55 The receyuing of it kneeling, which maketh it an Idoll, and nouriſheth that hereſie of receyuinge their maker, of worſhipping it, &c. 56 Their Ring in Mariadge, making it a Sacrament all ſigne, and Mariadge an Eccleſiaſticall action: thereby nouriſhinge the Popiſhe hereſie, that Matrimonie is a Sacrament 57 Their praying ouer the dead, makinge it alſo a parte of the Ministers duetie, and nouriſhinge the hereſie of prayer for the dend 58 Their churching or purifying of Women, then alſo abuſing that Scripture, The Sunne ſhall not burne them by day, nor the Moone by night 59 Their Gang weeke, and prayinge then ouer the corne and graſſe 60 Their forbidding of mariage in Gang weeke, in Aduent, in Lent, and on all the Ember dayes: which the Apoſtle calleth a doctrine of Deuils, 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. 61 Their Sainctes, Angells, and Apostles dayes, with their preſcript ſeruice 62 Their fastes, and abſtayning from fleſhe on their Eaues, on Frydayes, Saturdayes, Ember dayes, and all Lent through 63 Their diſpenſations from the Prelates courts of Faculties, to eat fleſhe at theſe tymes: Which diſpenſations alſo haue this wholeſome caluſe in them, ſana conſcientia, (that is, with a ſafe conſcience:) plainelie ſhewing, that they make it a matter of conſcience. This is another doctrine of Deuills, noted in the ſcripture before alleadged 1 Tim. 4. 64 Their Diſpenſations in like manner to marry in the tymes among thē forbidden, which are noted before 65 Lycenſes from the ſame authoritie, to marrie in places exempt 66 Diſpenſations alſo from thence for Boyes and ignoraunt fooles to haue benefices 67 Diſpenſations likewiſe for Nonreſidents 68 For hauing Two, Three Foure, or more benifices, euen tor, quot, that is to ſaye, as manie as a man will haue and can gette. 69 Tollerations 70 Patronages of, and preſentatiō to benefices with buying and ſelling of aduouſons 71 Their inſtitutions into benefices by the Prelates, their Inductions, Proxes, &c. 72 Their ſuſpenſations, abſolutions, degradations, depriuations, &c. 73 The Prelates Chauncellours, and Commiſſaries courtes, hauing power to excommunicate alone, & to abſolue 74 Their penance in a white ſheete 75 Their commutation of penance and abſoluing one man for another 76 The Prelates confirmation, or Biſhoping of children, to aſſure thē of Gods fauour, by a ſigne of mans deuiſing 77 The ſtanding at the Goſpell 78 The putting off the cap, and making a legge when the worde Ieſus is read 79 The ring of peales at burials 80 Beadmen at buriah, & hyred Mourners in mourning apparell 81 The hanging & mourning of churches & heerſes with black at burials 82 Their abſoluinge the dead, dying excommunicate, before they can haue (as they ſay) chriſtia buriall 83 The Idoll Temles. 84 The Popiſh veſtiments, as Rochet, Horned cap, Tippet, the Surpliſe in pariſhe Churches, & Cope in cathedral churches 85 The viſitations of their Lord Biſhops and Archdeacans 86 The Prelates, Lordlie dominion, reuenues and retinew 87 The Priestes maintetenance by Tithes, Chriſmes offrings, &c. 88 The othes ex officio in their eccleſiaſticall courts, making men ſweare to accuſe them ſelues 89 The Church Wardens othe to preſent to the Prelates, all the offences, faultes and defaults committed in their Pariſhes, againſt thir Articles and Iniunctions. 90 The Prelates rulinge of the Church by the Popes curſed canon lawe 91 Finally, their impriſonning, baniſhing, ſuch as renounce and witnes againſt theſe abominations a foreſaid, and the reſt yet retayned among them.

Thus being constreyned, we haue repeated and reckoned vp diuers of the Antichristian enormities ſtill remayning & practiſed in their church: By which the Reader may better ſee and iudge, both of the ſleightnes of their anſwere in this place, and of the blacke constitution of their church. As alſo comparing theſe and the booke by him alleadged togeather, it may hence appeare that our speach is proper; and fitlie declaring their estate, when we ſaide they ioyne Christ and Antichrist togeather: And therfore his anſwere in this place to be friuolous and of no weight.

Next he commeth to the proofe of our 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 we proued by theſe Scriptures, was this.

That which ioyneth Christ and Antichrist togither, can not make a true Christian.

Nowe let euen the aduerſaries them ſelues iudge, Whether theſe Scriptures doe not ſo euidentlie proue this Propoſition, as none can denie it, but ſuch as are Wilfully blinded, and ſtriue againſt the light of their owne cōſciences But what ſaith he of theſe ſcriptures here alleadged? Forſooth That they are wholy miſmatched. And why ſo? Becauſe the ioyninge there forbidden, is vnto ſuch Idolatrie, as can not ſtande by any meanes with Chriſtian faith, and breaketh moſt directlie the Firſt commandement: whereas their tranſgreſſion is but againſt the Seconde, and may ſtande with true faith, as he ſuppoſeth in Cranmer, &c. First, this anſwere of his, concerneth our Aſſumption, whereas thoſe ſcriptures were the profe of the Propoſition. But to let this paſſe, let vs conſider the anſwere it ſelfe, howe worthy and clerk like it is. Theſe ſcriptures (he ſaith) forbid ioyning to ſuch Idolatrie, as can not ſtande with Chriſtian faith, and breaketh moſt directlie the Firſt commaundement. 1. Jf this were ſo, what then? Doe they not therfore forbid ioyning to Antichristian idolatrie, and that falſe worſhip which breaketh the ſecond cōmaundement? 2: Secondlie, he can not denie, but as we iudge of their way and estate, ſo it is a tranſgreſſion against the Second commaundement. Nowe, Samuell ſaith, Rebellion is as the ſinne of witchcraft, and tranſgreſsion is wickednes & idolatry.1 Sam. 19. See then what advantage he getteth by his owne anſwere? 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 ſeconde. To that of Maister Cranmer, &c, is alreadie anſwered in pag. 13. wherevnto may bee added, that their caſe nowe, is nothing ſo as theirs was then: both for that they ſuffered to death for the trueth which they ſawe, And becauſe the things nowe controuerted, were not then ſo called into question and conuinced against them by the ſcriptures, as nowe they haue ben against theſe: neither were then by them ſo reſisted and perſecuted as they are by theſe men now adayes, euen vnto bandes, banniſhment, and death it ſelfe: Otherwiſe we might iustifie the callings and eſtate of the Monkes and Fryars, and of the most Popiſh Prieſtes and Prelates, and the hauing communion with them in that estate, becauſe diuers ſuch haue ben Martirs, and layd downe their liues for the trueth which they ſawe, who yet neuer doubted of the lawfulnes of their callings and estate in this behalfe, which then were not ſo called into queſtion, nor convinced by the ſcriptures, to bee vnlawfull, as ſince they haue bene. 4. Fourthlie, as there is a double Jdolatrie and falſe worſhip the one against the First commaundement when any haue others beſides the true God for their God: the other against the Second commaundment, when anie hauing the true God for their God, yet worſhip him not as hee hath commaunded, but after the inventions and preſcriptions of men: So alſo theſe ſcriptures alleadged, and the whole courſe of the word of God, condempneth the ioyning and hauing fellowſhip with either of theſe, aſwell this which is againſt the Second commaundement, as that whiche is againſt the Firſt. See the Reaſons alleadged by the Apostle:2 Cor. 6.14. &c. Are they not ſtronge and weightie against ioyning togeather righteouſnes and vnrighteouſnes, light and darkneſſe, Christ and Beliall, whether it be in the breach of the Firſt or Second commaundement? Saieth not the Lord there, That his Church is his Temple, in which he dwelleth and Walketh, and therefore requireth of them that they be his people, his ſonnes and daughters, ſeparated from the world, and touching no vncleane thing: whether it be of Antichrist against the Second, or of the Heathen against the Firſt commaundement?Ezech. 43.8. And touching the place of Ezekiell, who ſeeth not, that he ſpeaketh directlie of the breach of the Second commandement, in ioyning togeather in the worſhip of the true God, their threſholdes with Gods threſholds, and their poſtes with Gods poſtes, that is, their inuentions with Gods ordinances: which though it bee done to the name and for the ſeruice of the true God, yet ſayth the Prophet, Jt is abomination in the ſight of God, and they that doe ſo worſhip him, ſet a wall betweene God & them ſelues, and defyle his holy Name with their abominations. Loe here the vſe and fruict of ioyning togeather the inuentions of men (chieflie of Antichrist that man of ſinne) with the ordinances of God in his worſhipp and ſeruice. As Maister Iacob and his complices like this, ſo let them holde on in pleading for it, and practizing of it. The third place alleadged, is out of 2 King. 17. where alſo it is most plaine,2 King. 17. that the ſcripture ſpeaketh of the breach of the Second cōmaundement. For there is ſet down that the Samaritans worſpipped the Verſ. 28.32 41. ſame God, and after, Verſ. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40. the ſame manner that the Iſraelites of the Tenne Tribes did, that were carryed from thence: That is, they worſhipped theVerſ. 28.32 41. true God, butVerſ. 26.27, 29, 33, 34, 40. not as hee had commaunded, but by hauing Images of ſundrie ſortes, by whiche they thought God was repreſented, asExod. 32, 4. of olde 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 appeare, by cōparing togeather with this chapter, theſe ſcriptures following, to which we referre the Reader, Ezra 4.1, 2. with Exod. 20.4, 5, 6. and 32.1, 4, 5, 6. Jug. 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 Ezekiell likewiſe may appeare, howe falſe it is, that hee further ſaith, They did not ſo much as profeſſe the written law to be their rule, neither for outwarde order, nor their inwarde doctrines of faith. Jf this were ſo, howe could it bee true, which Ezechiell ſayeth of them, of whom he ſpeaketh, that they ſet their poſtes and threſhalls by Gods postes 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 the Lord God of the Iewes, offering vnto him burnt offringes, and meate offringes, and peace offringes? Or howe came it, that they ſtill vſed circumciſion, and weyted for the Meſſias to come, as he was promiſed in the writen worde of God: yea knowing alſo and beleeuing, not onely that the Meſſias would come which is called Christ, but alſo that when he came he would tell them all things? The corinthian infidels in deed, as the rest of the Heathen, knewe not the true God, nor his written worde. But it was not ſo with the Samaritanes or Tenne tribes of Jſraell fallen from Judah, as is euident by the ſcriptures and reaſons before alleadged. To that which he next addeth to their profeſſiō & practiſe, Referring vs to his anſwere in pag. 11, 12, 18 to our Second Exception going before, wee haue there anſwered alreadie, pag. 12. 13. and will not therfore repeate it.

Onely this we adde moreouer, That ſeeing the publique constitution of their Aſſemblies, and estate of their Ministers & people therein, is a moſt impious tranſgreſſion of the Second commandement, which the Lord himſelfe callethNum. 15.39 Reue. 11.8. & 17.1, 2, 3, 4. spirituall whoredome against him, yea grieuous iniquitie and hatred of him, threatningExod. 20. to viſit it vpon the Fathers and children ſo remayning, to the Third and Fourth generation: Therefore both by it are the truthes which they profeſſe, made frustrate vnto thē in this eſtate. Neither will it helpe them to pretend that it is their error in iudgement, (For what abomination is there that might not thus be coloured?) But ſeeing their publike profeſſion & practize is (at the best) a ioyning of Chriſt and Antichrist togeather, as hath bene ſhewed before, therefore neither can they by the worde of God be deemed in this estate, to bee true Christians, on true constituted Churches. And the Scriptures applyed to proue this conſequent, are fitlie alleadged, as hath bene ſeene. Falſly therefore it is, that he ſayth, We ſinned againſt the Third commaundement, in the application of the ſcriptures aforeſaid. That is their owne common cuſtome, and lamentable ſinne, to breake the Third commaundement, in taking the name of God in vaine, not onely by falſifying and peruerting the ſcriptures, but alſo by their Ministration of the Word, Sacramentes, and Gouernment of the Church, by vertue of ſuch offices and callings as Christ neuer appointed in his worde therevnto, but were first deuiſed, and ſtill are reteyned by Antichrist, that ſonne of perdition. Hitherto of his anſwere concerning the proofe of our Propoſition.

To the proofe of our Aſſumption, heMarke this his ſounde and Scholerlike d • alinge in this place and afterwards. anſwereth not a worde: which yet most of all required anſwere, if he would in deede ſoundlie defende their estate, as he pretendeth. That their profeſſion and practiſe ioyneth Chriſt & Antichrist togeather, we ſhewed in pag. 28 &c. by their Articles, Canons, Iniunctions, Aduertiſements, &c. publiſhed at ſundry times, & by their preſent Ministerie, Worſhip, and Church-gouernement, according therevnto. If this be not ſo, why bringes he not warraunt, for theſe particulers from the Teſtament of Chriſt, and ſo take away the proofe of our Aſumption? Jf this be ſo (as by his ſilence he graunteth and wee are ſure he cannot ſhew the contrarie by the Scriptures) then our Aſſumption ſtandeth firme, and conſequently in this conſtitution, they cannot be accounted true Chriſtians, nor their Aſſemblies ſo gathered, true conſtituted Churches.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply vnto the 1. Reaſon.

1 IN this your defence of your firſt Reaſon, you would first of all faſten on me a contradiction, for gráunting, that our Church corruptions are from Antichriſt, which againſt your Second Exception, J ſaid wee holde to be Chriſts owne, viz. Becauſe we hold, Chriſt hath giuen his Church that libertie to deuiſe them. Alas it pittieth mee to ſee your ſimplicitie, or it greueth me for your malice; who could not ſee, that there I ſpake in the perſon of our whole Church and ſtate, See Pag. 12. 18. 19. and ſhewed what they held: And here I ſpeake as I thought my ſelfe. This is a ſilly contradiction.

2. Then you ſay, Pag. 25. I dazell the peoples eyes, in ſaying ſome outward orders and ceremoines are from Antichriſt as if they were but a few and of ſmall moment. Therefore you are content to recken them vp full tediouſly God knoweth euen 91. in number: numero Deus impare gaudet. And what of all theſe; will you ſaye therefore, That whoſoeuer holdeth theſe, cannot holde Chriſt vnto ſaluation. And ſo Mr. Cranmer and the reſt of the Martirs were damned. But if not: Then I ſaye againe, Theſe ſome, theſe 91. are too few and too ſlight, and of too ſmall momēt of them ſelues and of their owne nature to aboliſhe vs from Chriſt. This ought you to haue proued, which you neuer doe, but ſtill your ſpeech is moſt falſe and not vnproper onely, that wee ioyne Christ and Antichriſt togeather: As in the maimed mā before Pag. 25. noted, there is not life & death ioyned togeather, but liuing things and dead things are, and yet the man aliue and a true man.

3. Then 2 cor. 14. &c Eze. 43.8. • King. 17.33, 34, 40, 41. you will iuſtify your applying the ſcriptures which I ſaid were miſmatched & were meant againſt the Idolatry of the Firſt commandment, not againſt the Idolatry of the Second only, and meerelie, 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: which they doe proue by the ſimple holding of thoſe Heatheniſh Idolatries, whereof they ſpeake. To this you reply in Foure points. (1) Jf theſe places bee meant of Heatheniſh Idolatry, which could neuer ſtand with Gods truth togeather: Yet they forbid all other corruptions against the Second commaundement alſo. That I neuer denyed to be true after a ſort. Theſe places indeed doe forbid the breach of the Second, cō maundement, but not principally, directly and of purpoſe, nor in that meaſure or fulnes. But their immediat purpoſe is againſt the Heatheniſh Idolatry breaking the Firſt commaundement. So that they forbid the breach of the Second commaundemēt, conſequently and proportionatly, but not in that full manner as they doe the Firſt, They forbid the Firſt ſo as that they ſhew there is no communion with God, whilſt men ioyne in ſuch Idolaty: they ſimply forbid the Second, but deny not al communion with God to whom ſoeuer erreth therein. (2) To your Secōd Reply I ſay, make much of it, for my parte, I neuer thought other but our church corruptions are againſt the Second commaundement: your ſecond ſcripture here applied, is of Saul,I. Sam. 1 • . a preſumptuous and wilfull offendour: if you make our whole Churches ſo, your ſinne is the greater. (3) Thirdlie, if you meane, anie of Antichriſtes Idolatrie and falſe worſhip, and namelie this in queſtion (the outward corrupt orders and ceremonies onely and no more) doeth aboliſh vs from Chriſt, and that this can not ſtande togeather with true faith, like as the Pagans idolatrie againſt the Firſt commaundement, can not. Then I denie it vtterlie, you haue no proofe in the world for it. And this inwrappeth Maſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. in the ſame courſe. Your excuſe here pag. 29. That Cranmer, Ridley, &c. forſooke all the corruptions they ſawe. This belongeth to manie Thouſands in England nowe, no leſſe then to them: yea ſurelie there are infinite, that knowe not ſo much of the corruptions, as thoſe learned men did, which yet are not ignoraunt of redemption by Chriſt, &c. Yea your ſelfe Maiſter Iohnſon, though a man of learning, yea knowing our corruptions, and miſliking them a long time before you forſooke vs, yet I thinke you ſtood not aboliſhed from Chriſt all that while. I pray bee ſo good to poore men, as you may: yea to vs nowe alſo, aſwell as to your ſelfe and them in thoſe times. Where you ſay, pag. 29. That ſince that time we are conuicted by the ſcriptures. If you meane ſome fewe, that here and there you could pick out; and doe ſinne ſtill, ſpeake to them, threaten them: throwe out your damnatorie ſentence againſt them, But ſmite not all whoſoeuer comes neare you: Beware howe you iudge, leaſt you be iudged: The heart belongeth to God, therefore cenſure not euerie mans conſcience too haſtilie. 4 Fourthlie, you would prooue in your Third Exception before noted, pag. 29. That both the breach of the Firſt commaundement, and of the Second alſo, is forbidden: I haue tolde you before, pag. 32, 33. howe it is true, and howe not: Nothing at all to ſerue your turne.

That which you ſay, pag. 30. touching your firſt ſcripture, 2. Cor. 6.14. 2 Cor. 6.14 &c. in that ſence and maner as I ſuide, is true, and not otherwiſe. That which of your Second ſcripture (Ezek. 43.8) pag. ibid. you ſay, Ezek. 43. • . Who ſeeth not but it ſpeaketh directlie of the breach of the Second Commaundment, ioyning togeather in the worſhip of the true God their inuētions with Gods ordinances, I ſay it is moſt manifeſt, that he ſpeaketh not of the breach of the Second Commandement onely, but alſo of the firſt, wherein men haue their inuentions alſo. The Prophet ſheweth verſ. 4. and 7. That God returned to his Temple againe, whence he was departed for the abominable idolatries that had ben there committed before, to ſhew that he would reſtore leruſalem, and the Temple, and worſhip of God againet He meaneth this literally, of the returning of the Iewes after Babilons captiuitie, and of the reedifying of the Temple, and the appointing againe of Gods holy worſhip there: Alſo ſpirituallie he may meane, the erecting of the Chriſtian Church whē they ſhould not fal to ſuch impieties as the Iewes had done nowe in that time before, for the which 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, and Amon: and in the Kings after Ioſiah, That the Iewes idolatrie was verie Heatheniſh, not onely againſt the Second, but againſt the Firſt Commandement alſo, in ioyning the Heathen gods with the true God of Izraell in their Diuine ſeruice and worſhip: Therefore this place of Ezekiell, is (as I ſay) Not of the breach of the Second commandment onely & ſimplie, as our church corruptions are, but ioinctlie touching the breach of the Firſt alſo. The verie ſame is that your Third ſcripture pag. 30. 2 Kings 17, 33, 34, 40, 41 of the Samaritans Idolatrie, • King. 17. wherein becauſe you are large, I will deferr to explaine it till your Sixt Reaſon following: where is a proper place for it.

4 Laſtlie, in pag. 31. you agrauate the breach of the Second Commandment, as being ſpirituall whordome, &c. But I would haue you to know: Things may be miſmatched too cruelly, as well as too gentlie. There is a ſinne both wayes, when things are not called by their proper and right names. Is it true in ſome ſence, euery breach of the Second Commandement, is ſpirituall whordome, as euery wanton word, euery light geſture and countenance, euery immodeſt thought in a Woman, is Adulterie: yet who ſo ſhall angerlie and continuallie ſo call a woman whore, harlot, or baude, that but thinketh, or looketh, or ſpeaketh too vainly, ſhall doe her great wronge, and in •••• e the iuſt daunger of lawe. Neither can ſhee, nor ought ſhee, in ſuch caſe, be diuorced, as an Adultereſſe ought. And thus it appeareth 〈◊〉 ſtill, that you ſinne again ſtabe Third Commaundment in miſapplying of ſcriptures.

In the ende in pag. 31. where you ſaye. To the proofe of your Aſſumption I anſwere neuer a worde, which most of all required anſwere. This I tell you, that it is your fancie and not my meaning heere, to anſwere to your Propoſition. Firſt, and then to your Aſſumption to ſay nothing. Nay, if you had not dreamed, you might eaſilie haue perceyued that all my firſt wordes (viz. where I ſay your ſpeech here is vnproper &c.) are bent directly againſt your Aſſumption and the proofe thereof. although at this time I expreſſed not thoſe termes. Secondly, I ſhewe, 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 vs. This, a verie childe might haue ſeene, Maiſter Iohnſon. So that your marginall ſcoffe at my ſound and ſchollerlike dealing. doeth light on your ſelf, and bewrayeth eyther your deepe ſkill or your ouerflowing charitic. As for the reſt, That I ſhould iuſtifie our corruptions, it is no part of my minde, neither belongs it to our preſent cauſe ſo to doe.

Maiſter IOHNSONS II. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON II.

THat which appointeth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God in vaine, That cannot make either true Chriſtians or true Churches.

But the doctrine publikely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. Therefore, &c.

Of the trueth of the Propoſition, none can doubt: And the Aſſumption is thus proued.

That which appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God by the precepts of man: That appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. This Chriſt affirmeth out of Eſay the Prophet, Mat. 15.9. compared with Eſay. 29.13.

But the doctrine publiquely profeſſed & practized by law in England appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhipping of God by the precepts of man. This appeareth by the 35. and 36. Article of the booke alleaged, And by their booke of Cōmon prayer, their Faſtes, Feaſtes Holy dayes, &c, which are executed by their Popiſh Courts and Officers. All which are authorized by Law in England.

Therefore the doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by lawe in England, appointeth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine. And conſequently cannot make a particuler man a true Chriſtian, nor the aſſemblies ſo gathered together, true Churches.

H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 2. Reaſon.

THis your Second Reaſon is. This booke and others appoincteth and ratifieth the worſhiping of God in vaine, Ergo &c. 1. This alſo hath anſwere in the third Exceptiō Pag 22. 2 Alſo, no • e I pray you, this Scripture [Mat. 15.] is verified of ſuch as were thē of the true viſible Marke his open contrarietie with him ſelf, graunting this in Reaſ. 6. Church, with whom Chriſt and his Apoſtles, both in Chriſtes time and after his death, did ſometimes ioyne and comunicate. This therefore maketh for vs and againſt you moſt notably.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 2. Reaſon.

OVr Second Reaſon is as you ſee: now what propoſition doth he deny? Truely none at all. What defence bringeth he of their booke of cōmon prayers, and the particulers therein: Of their Prelacie, & other Miniſterie receiued from them according to their booke and Pontificall: Of their Canons and Excommunications, &c. Surely none. What then doth he anſwere? Forſooth he referred vs to his anuſwer before in the laſt exception. Whether alſo we referre the Reader with this note, that there he ſhall finde nothing, either for aunſwer of anie propoſition of this argument, or for defence of their falſe worſhip, Praelacie, Miniſterie, and Church gouernement called into question. Is not this then a worthie and Clerck like anſwere? And haue not theſe men (thinke you) good proofe for their preſent eſtate and Church conſtitution: Which thus leaue it altogeather without defence, euen when it moſt needeth, and as it were, beg geth their help and ſuccor, if they could affoard it anie. But now hauing no aunſwer to any parte of our argument, yet hee bids vs note, that this Scripture (Mat. 15.) here alleaged, is verified of ſuch as were then of the true viſible Church, with whom Chriſt himſelf and his Apoſtles both in Chriſts time, and after his death, did ſomtime ioyne and cōmunicate. This therfore he ſaith maketh for them and againſt vs moſt notably.

1 But firſt let him tell vs: if manyAs that of Leu 10. Num. 16.1 &c. Eſa. 1.11, 12, 13, 14, 15. Zeph. 1.12. 1. Cor. 11.19. thinges, which are verified ſometimes of the members of a true Church, may not alſo fitly be applyed, and alleadged againſt a falſe Church, and yet not iuſtifie their eſtate and conſtitution, neither make for them, but againſt them altogeather. Otherwiſe he condemneth at once all the Martirs heretofore, who vſually alleaged thisMat. 15.9. very Scripture againſt the falſe worſhip of the Romiſh Church, as him ſelfe cannot he ignorant. Yet in his learning it ſeemeth the Papiſtes might well haue aunſwered the Martirs againe, that this Scripture was verified of them that were of the true viſible Church, and therefore made for them, and againſt the Martirs moſt notably.

2 Secondly, when he ſaith, this Scripture is verified of ſuch as were of the true viſible Church with whom Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated: Let him alſo tell vs, whether he meaneth that Chriſt and his Apoſtles communicated with them in their vaine traditions. If he thinke they did, that very Mat. 15.2. Chapter ſheweth the contrary: beſides that the whole Scriptures teſtifie, that Chriſt was altogeather free from ſinne, which hee could not haue bene, if he had ioyned with them in thoſe their inuentions. If they did not, (as it is without all question) then what doth this helpe thoſe men, who all of them ioyne and communicate with the falſe worſhip of theſe aſſemblies?

3 Thirdly, we aunſwer, that his note is not worth the noting, being nothing at all to the purpoſe for the queſtion in hand. For firſt, who knoweth not, that in the Iewiſh Church, the doctrine publiquely profeſſed & practiſed by their law, did not appoinct or ratifie any of thoſe vaine traditions, but vtterly forbid them? Wheras contrarily, the very doctrine publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in England, appoincteth and ratifieth the falſe worſhiping of God by the inuentions of men: Secondly, thoſe vaine traditions aforeſaid, were the perſonall ſinnes of ſome particuler men in the Iewiſh Church not publiquely eſtabliſhed by law, nor generally receiued and practized in that Church:Luk. 1.5, 6, 8, 9, 10. &. 2.21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 27.36, 37, 38, 39 Mat. 15.7. & 8.4. and 15, 2. Ioh. 10.34. Zachary and Elizabeth, Simeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, and Chriſt himſelfe, and his Apostles, with many others, kept the ordinance of God giuen by the hande of Moſes, and obſerued of that Church. Neither did they ioyne or pollute them ſelues with that vaine worſhip aforeſaid: whereas in the church of England, the falſe worſhip thereof deuiſed by men, euen by that man of ſinne, is not the perſonall ſinne of ſome particular men in it, but is publikelie establiſhed by law, and generally receyned and practiſed in theſe aſſemblies, of all the members thereof. So then this ſcripture maketh nothing for them, but against them most notably.

Nowe, whereas in the margent, he wiſheth the Reader to marke a contrarietie with our ſelues, by comparing this and our 6. Reaſon together: we alſo referre it to the Reader to iudge, whether there be not euen an harmonie with this, and a confirmation of it. Hetherto of the defence of our ſecond Reaſon.

H. IACOB his 2 Reply to the 2. Reaſon.

TO this your defence of your Second Reaſon, I ſay, you haue anſwer in your laſt Exceptiō, pag. 22. You aſke what Propoſitiō I doe deny? I anſwer, I diſtinguiſh your Aflumption as being a fallacie called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 : cōcluding a thing ſimply, from that which is after a ſort, like vnto that Reaſon which I framed againſt you in Pag. 22. A man hath a woodden legg an eye of glaſſe, &c, Therefore hee is no true man. Cranmer, Ridley, &c. held aſmuch as wee, after mens precepts: Ergo, they worſhiped in vaine. Geneua holdeth her wafer cakes in the Supper. Ergo, Geneua worſhipeth God in vaine. Euen ſo your Aſſumption runneth. Our doctrine (ſay you Pag. 35.) appoincteth Gods worſhip by mens precepts. This is falſe, vnleſſe you meane it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , after a ſort, not ſimply. For our doctrine appoincteth not all Gods worſhip by mens precepts, nor the chiefeſt part of it: as the preaching of the Goſpell of life, Sacramentes, and Prayers, &c. So that it concludeth nothing in that ſence. Therefore here you play the falſe Sophiſter, not the Chriſtian and conſcionable Diſputer. Thus you haue anſwer enough to this in the aunſwer to your laſt Exception, though you would not ſee it.

Further I noted Secondly, Pag. 35. That this your Scripture of Mat. 15. Yeeldeth the offenders to be of a viſible Church, with whom Chriſt did communicate, though they held alſo traditions of men: Therfore it affirmeth nothing againſt vs. Is not this true? Why then doe you not admit it? We neuer denyed, but this Scripture condemned our corruptions: But this onely wee affirme, it diſanulleth not our Churches: Euen as Chriſt here condempned the Iewes corrupt traditions, but hee meant not thereby to diſanull their Church. Therefore all this is not againſt our purpoſe, but not ably for vs as is before obſerued.

1. Concerning your Firſt aunſwer in Pag. 36. I know this Scripture may be applyed againſt falſe worſhippers which are no true Church: But it proueth not I ſay, all them, to whom it may bee applyed, to bee no true Church: Therefore you abuſe it againſt vs, Except you had firſt proued vs no true Church nor Chriſtians, which yet is in queſtion.

2. Where in your Second anſwere Pag. 37. you ſay That this helpeth vs not, except we ſay that Christ communicated with the Phariſies in theſe traditions, like as wee doe in the vaine traditions now. For ſhame leaue this folly. I ſay againe, I ſeeke not to iuſtifie our partaking in our traditions, but I renounce it in ſobrietie aſmuch as you, yea better then you doe: Yet I ſay this place ſhall admit thoſe who doe in ſimplicitie partake of them, to be true Chriſtians neuertheleſſe, like as it admitteth the Iewes then.

3. In your Third aunſwer, Pag. ibid. You deny that thoſe Jewiſh traditions of waſſhings, &c. were with them receiued generally, or by Law in their Church. Whereto I aunſwer, That they were generally receiued, as Marke in his 7. Chapter and 3. verſe doeth teſtifie, and that they were rebuked who vſed them not: which is ſufficient to make it their Churches doctrine & practize, though no expreſſe law commaunded it. But I ſuppoſe verſe 5. where they ſay, [Why walkeſt thou not after the tradition of the Elders] he meaneth, the ordinances of their Forefathers, which were to them as lawes, beſides the lawe of Moſes. What elſe is their Thalmud, which is till this daye, euen like to the Canon lawe of Poperie, and the Alcoran of Turky. Some alſo vnderſtand this of the ordinances of the Elders, that is, their preſent Gouernours: and then doubtleſſe it was lawe. And though Zachary, Elizabeth, Symeon, Anna, Mary, Ioſeph, Christ and his Apostles, did not actuallie ioyne in theſe corruptions, yet they were generall no doubt, and by lawe neuer the leſſe, and a number of the Iewes ſimply vſed them, & yet fell not from God, as The Sixe waterpots of the Iewiſhe purifyings. Iohn 2.6. Therefore your Replies here are moſt vaine and falſe.

Laſtlie, in pag. 37. you will not confeſſe your contrarietie, that is to ſaye, betweene this your Second Reaſon, and certen wordes in your Sixt Reaſon. But the greater is your ſinne, to doe euill, and defende it too. Here in this Reaſon pag. 35. you would haue this ſcripture Mat. 15. to be meant againſt ſuch vaine worſhippers, that they become heereby no true Church: (Or els what doe you vrge it againſt vs?) But in your Sixt Reaſon following, you ſay, That the Iewes, euen nowe when theſe words were applyed to them, were the true worſhippers of God. Are not theſe contrarie, I pray you, then reconcile them.

Maiſter IOHNSONS III. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON III.

IF the whole doctrine, as it is publiquely profeſſed and practized by law in Englande, be not ſufficient to make a Galatian a true Chriſtian, that ſhould with all ſubmit vnto Circumciſion: Then much leſſe, is it able to make him a true Christian, that togeather with it, ſubmitteth vnto a falſe Ministerie, Worſhip, and Gouernement, of the Church deuiſed by man, euen 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 holy ordinance, and appointment of God himſelfe to his Church and people, whereas the Ministerie, worſhip, and gouernement aforeſaid, neuer was ſo, but is mans deuice in religion, euen Antichrist, that capitall enemie of Ieſus Christ.

The Aſſumption is proued Gal. 5.2.3.4. where the Apostle ſpeaketh of them that helde, not onely ſuch truethes of the Gospell, as are in that booke of Articles, but more then thoſe: Yet if they ſhould with all ſubmitt vnto circumciſion, he ſayth, they were aboliſhed from Chriſt, Christ would proſit them nothing.

H. IACOB his I. Reply to the 3. Reaſon.

THis your Third Reaſon is from the more to the leſſe negatiuelie to this effect, A Galatian vſing Circumciſion, is a likelier Christian, then one of our Engliſh holding the Hierarchy and other traditions: But A Galatian is a falſe Christian, Ergo, An Engliſh profeſſor is much more.

We anſwer, We denie the Aſſumption: Galatians were then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies true Churches, Gal. 1.2. Therefore this Reaſon is nought. If he obiect, The Apostle ſaith, ſuch are aboliſhed from Chriſt. That is in deed ſome amongſt them, as helde Moſes ceremonies, neceſſarie abſolutelie to ſaluation, as Act. 15.1. And that Gal. 5.3.4.5 Rom. 10.3.4. iuſtification was by the morall workes of the law. Nowe the Churches of Galatia generallie were not ſuch, but held the ſauing faith ſound doubtles, though manie amongeſt them were tainted with that infection, by reaſon of ſome miſcheuous teachers that were crept in, and too well interteyned among them. Howbeit, with the Church, Communion was kept, And therefore, ſo with vs you ought to deale. If you ſay, we are worſe Chriſtians then thoſe grofeſt Galatians, It is vtterlie falſe: proue it if you can, and it muſt drawe in Maiſter Cranmer, &c. with vs alſo. If you ſay, there are manie amongſt vs as bad, or worſe then thoſe worſt Galatians, you may ſay it, but proue it, you cannot. Alſo, if it were ſo, yet this diſagraceth, it deſtroyeth not the Church, like as hath bin ſaid of the Galatians.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 3. Reaſon.

TO this our Third Reaſon, His First anſwer is, That he denyeth the Aſſumption: which is aſmuch in plaine termes, as if he had giuen the holy Ghost the lye, who by the Apostle Paule affirmeth it, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4. As in the proofe of the Aſſumption we ſhewed before. But for the more euidence of the trueth, we will ſet downe the proofe of the Aſſumption in a Sillogiſme, thus:

If a Galatian ſubmitt to Circumciſion, though he hold all the truthes of the Gospell profeſſed in England withall, yet be notwithstandinge 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.

Next he anſwereth, That the Galatians were then true Chriſtians, and their Aſſemblies, Churches, Gal. 1.3. Therefore (ſayeth he) this reaſon is nought. But he may not thus runne away with the matter and deceyue himſelfe and his ſimple fauourers. The question is not, whether anie Galatians were true Christians, or any of their Aſſemblies, true churches. For who euer doubted of that? But this is the question: Whether a Galatian holding all the truethes of the Gospell nowe profeſſed in Englande, and withall ſubmit to Circumciſion, were in that estate a true chriſtian Or putting the caſe that there were whole Aſſemblies conſisting of ſuch: Whether thoſe aſſemblies then in that caſe were by Gods worde to be deemed the true churches of Christ. The Apostle testifieth and ſaith, no: This man ſaith, yea. Nowe whether of theſe two we ſhall beleeue, let all men iudge. But what is it then that the Apostle termeth the aſſemblies of the Galatians true churches? Gal. 1.2. This man ſheweth the reaſon him ſelfe, the light of the trueth is ſo cleare and manifest. There were but ſome of the Galatians (ſayth he) that were infected with this error of Circumciſion. True in deed (ſay we) & of ſuch onely is the ſuppoſitiō made in the caſe afore ſaid: But the churches of Galatia (ſayth he) generally were not ſuch, but held the ſauing faith ſound: which alſo is most true, they being ſet in the way and order of Christ Ieſus: and therefore though there ſprang vp ſome heretikes and ſchiſmatikes amongest them (which is the1 Cor. 11.19 Actes 20.30. lott and triall of the true churches of God in all ages) yet was there not cauſe to breake the Communion with thoſe aſſemblies, but to proceed with them in the faith, and order of Christ, and toGal. 5.12. 1 Cor. 5.7, 11, 13. cutt off and cast out ſuch troubleſome leauen from amongſt thē. Now this being duely weighed, it is nothing for, but altogeather against, the hauing of communion, with the aſſemblies of this Lande, 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 II. Reply to the 3. Reaſon.

TO this your Defence of your Third Reaſon, I anſwer. Firſt it is too impudent a cauillation "That you charge me to giue the H. Ghost the lye, in denying your Aſſumption. I meant not your Aſſumption, but that which I had made briefer, conteyning 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 ye worſt did, or els this is a ſophiſticall Equi uocation. holding circumciſion, cannot bee a true Chriſtian, yet an Engliſh Chriſtian holding the Hyerarchie &c. may. The Reaſon of this denyall I gaue you then, but that you would not ſee it: Namelie, becauſe ſuch Galatians, held Iuſtification by the works, and ceremonies of the Law. Gal. 5.3.4.5. Rom. 10.3.4. Act. 15.1. Like the Papiſtes, who by their ceremoniall and morall workes doe hold the ſame, and ſo doe erre Fundamentally. But our Churches and ſtate, hold not the Hyerarchie ſo, but only as an indifferent thing in it ſelfe. This blaſphemous opinion of Circumciſion, maketh it infinitelie worſe, (though once it was ordeined of God) then our indifferent opinion of the Hyerarchie, though in deed it were neuer but nought.

Thirdlie and laſtlie, you haue no where cleared Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, Latimer, & the reſt of thoſe holy Martirs, from being aboliſhed from Chriſt, if the Hyerarchie be ſimply worſe then Circumciſion, ſo hold as thoſe Galatians did hold, Gal. 5.2, 3, 4, 5.

Maiſter IOHNSONS IIII. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON IIII.

THe doctrines of faith conteyned in that Booke alleadged, would not make him a true Christian who holding them, ſhould alſo ſtill executs or ioyne vnto the Ministerie of Mahomet, that open Antichrist and enemie of Jeſus Chriſt. 2. Cor. 6.14, &c.

Therefore neither can they make him a true Christian, that holding them, yet doth ſtill execute or ioyne vnto, the Ministerie and worſhip of the man of ſinne, the couert Antichrist and enemie of Ieſus Christ.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 4. Reaſon.

THis your 4. Reaſon is Mahomets Miniſterie and Antichriſtes Miniſterie are both bad alike.

But the good doctrines of our booke of Articles cannot ſaue a man that ioyneth alſo to Mahomets Ministerie.

Ergo, the good doctrines of that booke cannot ſaue a man that ioyneth alſo to Antichristes Ministerie: which thing we in England doe.

I deny neither the Propoſition, nor Aſſumption: And yet the Argument is too bad. It is a fallacie of Equiuocation, as wee call it: Wee muſt therefore diſtinguiſh: Mahomets Miniſterie, and Antichriſts Miniſterie, haue a doubtfull meaning. If you meane, the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip performed in Mahomets or Antichriſtes aſſemblies, that is, in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Churches: The I graunt your whole argument is Both are nought alike as touching aboliſhing vs from Chriſt. true. But that we doe ſo in England, (which comes in the concluſion,) Or that any Chriſtian amongſt vs thinketh ſo: That I vtterlie deny. And thus indeed, that Scripture alleadged 2. Cor. 6.14. is rightly vnderſtood. But if you meane by Miniſterie, the outward manner of calling to the Miniſterie, & ſom outward ceremonies, vſed by Mahomet, or the Pope: Then I flatly and abſolutely deny your Aſſumption, and your Scripture is anſwered before in the Firſt Reaſon. For I affirme, and it is manifeſt: That ſuch errors being ioyned with the good doctrines of that our Booke, doe not deſtroy faith, and true Chriſtianitie, As before was ſhewed in the Second Exception.

F. JOHNSON his Defence of his 4. Reaſon.

HEre the light of the trueth doeth ſo dazell the Anſwerers eyes, as he freelie confeſſeth he can not denie any whit of our Reaſon. And yet forſooth the Argument is too bad. But why ſo? There is (hee ſayth) an equiuocation in it, and therefore he will diſtinguiſh. But First wee tell him, there is no equiuocation at all in the words, but they are al plain, to him that hath a ſingle eye, and will vnderstand the trueth. Therefore his diſtinction heere is idle & friuolous. Yet ſee alſo betweene what things he doeth distinguiſh? Forſooth betwene the whole function and exerciſe of publique worſhip perfourmed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies, and betwene the outward maner of calling to their Miniſtery, and the outward ceremonies vſed amongeſt them.

An abſurd distinction touching the matter in hande: For first, who knoweth not, that theſe latter are of the very ſame nature with the former: Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Anticristian, & accurſed before God, aſwell as the rest of their worſhip and ſeruice? Or hath God in his worde giuen any commaundement more for theſe then for the other? Secondly, who ſeeth not, that the argument here, is not of whatſoeuer thing is vſed among the Turkes and Papistes, but of the Ministerie and worſhip which they haue deuiſed and executed: As in particular, of the publique offices of Ministerie retey ned among them, of their maner of calling, and entrance into them: of their administration of them: of their ſtinted impoſed Liturgie: their eccleſiasticall gouernement, cannons, proceedings, &c. All which in the church of England are taken out ofReu. 17.4, 5 2. Theſ. 2.3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. that golden cuppe of abominations, whereby Antichrist, That man of ſinne, hath made the Nations of the earth to be drunken: as may appeare by cō paring their Pontificalls, Canons, and constitutions togeather. If this man will needes be otherwiſe minded, then let him proue the particulars aforeſaide, by the Testament of Jeſus Christ.

Furthermore alſo, marke here, that he graunteth, the doctrine of faith conteyned in their booke of Articles, cannot make him a true Chriſtian, that holdinge them, doth withall receiue and ioyne vnto the publike worſhip, perfourmed in the Turkiſh or Popiſh Aſſemblies. This he ſaith he graunteth as moſt true, Wherevpon it followeth, euen by his owne confeſſion: Firſt, that ſuch thingh then may be ioyned with the doctrines of faith receiued among them, as they in ſuch eſtate cannot be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, Neither the truthes which they holde, be auaylable to them. Secondlie, that therefore the Propoſition of his First and mayne Argument, is not generall, but admitteth limitation, & ſo his greatest defence is of no weight, as before is ſhewed in the beginning, in our anſwere to that Propoſition. Thirdlie, that his anſwere to our Seconde Exception before alleadged, is of no force, howſoeuer heere and euery where he referre vs to it. For which alſo we referre the Reader, to that which is ſaide in that place, in defence of the Exception aforeſaid, As alſo for the allegation of 2 Cor. 6.14. vnto that which is ſaid concerning it in defence of our First Reaſon before alleadged.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 4. Reaſon.

IN this your defence of your 4. Reaſon, you renewe your Sophiſtrie; And that which is worſe, you wil not be tolde of it. Is it becauſe of the goodnes of your Reaſon that I denie no Propoſition? Nay, it is for the badnes of it: becauſe all is nought, all deceiptfull and ſophiſticall. Therefore I muſt diſtinguiſh euen ſo ſtill as I did before, and my diſtinction is good, cleerelie diſcouering all your fraude. What ſay you againſt it: Firſt (you ſay) Are not their outward callings and ceremonies falſe, Antichriſtian and accurſed, aſwell as the reſt of their worſhip & ſeruice? Aſwell? Forſooth, I trow not, (that is, not as much). Their inwarde impietie and falſe faith againſt Chriſt, the onely all-ſufficient Sauiour, is farre more accurſed, and diueliſh then their bare outward orders, ſeparated from the reſt of their faith. But whoſoeuer ioyneth ſimply, and indifferently, either to Thukiſh, or Popiſh Aſſemblies, doeth ioyne with their whole, and worſt abominations, which haue no communion or coherence with Chriſt in deede, Neither can we alſo, if we ioyne therein. The caſe is not like, when we reteyne and vſe, ſome of their outwarde orders in our Aſſemblies.

And here you note that I graunt, Some thinge may be ioyned vnto our Chriſtian faith in England, which would vtterly deſtroy it. Moſt true, And here I note your moſt vncriſtian and falſe dealing with me, in affirming otherwiſe of me, As I haue expreſſed in the beginning, about the taking of my Firſt maine Propoſition there. Which ſee further in pag. 4.

Laſtlie, my reference to the anſwere of your Firſt Reaſon, is a fit and full Refutation of you here, Neither is your Defence any thing againſt it, as there appeareth. Alſo this your Reaſon includeth Maiſter Cranmer, Ridley, &c. to be no true Chriſtians neither, as hath bene often alleadged.

Maiſter IOHNSONS V. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON V.

AS the golden veſſels taken out of the Lords houſe, and had & vſed in Babilon of the Caldeans, did not therefore make the Babilonians true Iewes touching the faith: Nor their banquets wherin they vſed them, to be anie of the Lords Feastes (ſpoken of Leuit. 23.) but they ſtill remayned Babiloniſh people and banquets notwithſtanding:

So the truthes of the Gospell (veſſels as it were of the Lords houſe) holden and receyued in the ſpirituall Babilon (whereof that other was a type) doe not make the people ſo ſtanding, to be true Christians, Neither their Miniſtery and conſtitution to be Chriſtes appoincted in his Teſtament: But they ſtill remaine the people, Miniſtery, and conſtitution, of Babilon notwithstanding. See the proofes hereof in Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Prou. 9.17, 18. and Reuel. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10.11.

H. JACOB his 1. Replie to the 5. Reaſon.

Your Reaſon is this.

THe materiall veſſells of Ieruſalem, were of the like power and vertue, to ſanctifie the Heathen Babilonians, As the holy chriſtian doctrines in that Booke, are to ſanctifie vs, that holde togeather with them ſome Popiſh ceremonies and orders as indifferent things:

But thoſe veſſells were not ſufficient to ſanctifie thoſe Babilonians, Ergo, Neither theſe truthes of the Goſpell can ſanctifie vs.

An abſurd compariſon: The Propoſition is moſt falſe, and ſo the ſcriptures quoted (Dau. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Rom. 17.4, 5. and 18.4. with 14.8, 9, 10, 11.) are as idely and vainely applied. See the Anſwere to the allegations in the Firſt Reaſon before.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 5. Reaſon.

THis he ſayth, is an abſurd compariſon. So belike (if his graue iudgment might goe for good payment) the manifold alluſions which (in deſcribing the ſpirituall Babilon, the Spirit of GodReu. 17.18. and 15. compared wt Iere. 50.51. Cap. Iſay. 13. & 14. and 21. & 47. maketh to-the materiall Babilō of the Caldeans) were to bee accompted abſurd alluſions and compariſons. As alſo the often alluding, and likening togeather, the Iſa. 66.20.21 Zach. 14.20.21. 1 Cor. 5.7.8. and 10.2, 3, 4. Col. 2.1.12 He. 13.15, 16.1. Pet. 3.20.21 Reu. 15.3. and 21.20, &c. holy things of the Lawe, with the holy thinges of the Gospell, and the2. Tim. 3.8.9.1. Cor. 10.6, &c. Heb. 12 16.17. Iude verſ. 11. Reu. 2.14.20. and 20.8, 9. tranſgreſſions then with the tranſgreſſions now, which are ſo often vſed in the Scripture: Are in his account abſurd alluſions and ſimilitudes. Secondlie, he ſayth the Propoſition is moſt falſe. Which we anſwer is most true and most plainely taught and declared in the fift of Daniels propheſie, verſ. 1, 2, 3, 4. and Leuit. 23. as we alleadged before, when we first propounded the reaſon, Wherevnto we yet haue receyued no aunſwere. So ſoundly he defendeth his cauſe.

Thirdly he ſaith, The ſcriptures quoted (Dan. 5.1, 2, 3, 4. compared with Pro. 9.17, 18. Reuel. 17.4, 5, & 18, 4. and 14, 8, 9, 10, 11.) are idely and vainely applyed. But howe ſhewes he this to be ſo as he ſaith? Verie profondlie, I warrant you. For he bids vs ſee the anſwere to the allegations in the Firſt Reaſon: And this is all the proofe he bringes. Well: wee haue ſeene his anſwere to the allegations there, and finde: Firſt, that thoſe ſcriptures here alleadged, are not ſo much as once mencioned there. Secondlie that his anſwere to the allegations there ſet downe, is moſt friuoulous and of no weight, but against him ſelfe, as there we haue declared.

Lastlie, in his propounding of our Reaſon otherwiſe then we had done (which in deede is a thing verie ordinarie, though nothing commendable in them) it ſeemeth, that being not able to anſwer anie parte of our Reaſon, as we had ſet it downe, yet he thought to helpe him ſelf by this exception, that the Materiall veſſells of Ieruſalem were not of the like power and vertue to ſanctifie the Heathen Babilonians, as the true doctrines receyued among the ſpirituall Babilonians, are to ſanctifie them. But hee ſhall finde, if he will conſider and compare togeather the Scriptures heere alleadged, that the golden veſſells being holy to the Lorde, and taken out of his Temple, did aſmuch ſanctifie the Caldean Babilonians and their Feastes: As the holy doctrines (veſſels as it were of the Lordes Temple) had among the spirituall Babilonians, doe ſanctifie them and their conſtitution, That is, neither of their Estates and Aſſemblies are ſanctified thereby at all. For ſaith not the Lorde,Eze. 43.8. That the ſetting of mens postes and threſholds, (howe much more of Babilons enormities) by his Postes & Threſholdes, that is by his truthes and ordinances, is ſo farre from ſanctifying, as it defileth his holy Name, yea is abomination in his fight, and ſetteth a wall betweene him and them that doe it? Saith not the ſcripture alſo,Prou. 9.17, 18. &, 20.17. that the true doctrines in the falſe church are amonge them as ſtollen waters and hid bread, which though they be ſweete & pleaſaunt, yet there alſo is the mouth filled with grauell, and the guestes of thoſe feastes and aſſemblies, are ſo farre frō being ſanctified by thoſe truthes in that eſtate, as they are before God euen dead men, and in the deapth of hell.

To conclude this poinct, hath not an Angell from heauen proclaimed it with a loude voice, thatReu. 18, 1, 2, 3, 3, 11. &c. and 17, 1, 2, 3 4, 5. and, 14.8, 9, 10, 11. the spirituall Babilon, (notwithſtanding any truthes ſhe holdeth yet) is ſo vnſanctifyed and abominable, as ſhee is become a cage of all vncleane and hatefull birdes, and that all her children and Marchants that will not departe out of her, ſhall receyue of her plagues and damnation, and drinke of the wine of Gods wrath, yea of the pure wyne, which is powred into the cup of his wrath, and be tormented in fire and brimſtone, before the holy Angells and before the Lamb for euermore. Loe here their fearfull eſtate, which this man will needes accompt holy and acceptable before God.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 5. Reaſon.

IN this your defence of your Fifth Reaſon, you miſlike that J call it an abſurd compariſon: Where you affirme that the golden veſſes of the Jewes were as available to ſanctifie the Babilonians, as the truthes of the Goſpell which wee hold are to ſanctifie vs. In deed your owne wordes be, holden and receiued in the ſpirituall Babilon. By which termes you meane vs of England I trow. But marke ſir. Is not this groſſe ſophiſtery againe? Is not this childiſh vanitie, open beggerie, and crauing of that which is the whole queſtion? that is, That our Churches are ſpirituall Babilon, and as deepely infected in Babiloniſh impietie as thoſe old Caldeans. If they were ſo infected, I graunt in deed your Reaſon would follow: But ſeeing it is the queſtion, And ſeeing we profeſſe our ſelues true Chriſtians by thoſe truthes of the Goſpell which we hold (and as by Gods grace we are indeed) Say I not well, that this is an abſurd Compariſon? Yes Maiſter Iohnſon, it is a moſt To match thoſe outward veſſells, (of no ſanctity of them ſelues) with our inward doctrins, of ſaluation. impious, abſurd, & ſenceleſſe compariſon, & void of common reaſon: And it inwrappeth Maiſter Cranmer, Maiſter Ridley, &c. within the ſame Iniurions, Yea irreligious conſequence likewiſe.

All that you haue of alluſions, and alluding, betwene the Tipicall and ſpirituall Babilon, are meere deluſions, and vaine cauils. Proue vs firſt to be ſpirituall Babilon: Or els you fight with your ſhadow.

So that ſtill I ſay, thoſe Scriptures quoted of Dan. 5. &c. As alſo all the reſt here packed togeather in your Margen, they are miſerably and deſperately abuſed, according as I rightly referred you to my cenſure to your Firſt Reaſon: which for all your wordes, you haue not refuted. The very ſame I ſay of your other Two ſcriptures towards the end, Pro. 9.17. &c. Reu. 18.1. &c. As for Ezek. 43.8. I anſwered it before Pag. 34. in your Firſt Reaſon.

Maiſter IOHNSONS VI. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON VI.

THe Samaritans (thoſe counterfett children of Abraham, Jſaack and Iacob) did publiquelie profeſſe that most excellent doctrine of the Meſſias to come: (the trueth of which doctrine howe powerful it was to ſaluation, the Scriptures testifie): yet doeth our Sauiour Chriſt repute them falſe worſhippers of God, becauſe their worſhip was a mixt worſhip, framed after the inventions of men, and traditions of their Forefathers: Therefore ſayth Chriſt vnto them: Yee worſhip that which ye knowe not, we worſhip that which we knowe, for ſaluation is of the Iewes. By which wordes of Chriſt it plainely appeareth, that (although at that time, ſome profeſſed ſuch truthes which otherwiſe were auaylable vnto ſaluatiō) yet none that were falſe worſhippers of God, could truely challendge vnto them ſelues in ſuch estate, the benefite of thoſe truthes, but they onely which were the true Church and people of God, to whom the Oracles of God were committed, and to whom the Couenantes and ſeruice of God did appertayne, ſuch as were at that tyme, (not the Samaritans) but the Jewes, and they whiche helde the faith of the Iewes: wherevppon (not the Samaritanes) but the Iewes, were then by Christ accounted the true worſhippers of GOD, and heires of ſaluation, John 4.22. compared with verſe 20.25, 29. and with 2. King. 17, 24.

In the like manner, the people of theſe Eccleſiasticall aſſemblies, ſtanding ſubiect to a counterfett Ministerie and worſhip of God, (being alſo commingled togeather of all ſortes of people:) Though they profeſſe ſome truthes which otherwiſe are auailable to ſaluation, yet can not in ſuch estate by the word of God, he deemed true Christians or true Churches: Neither can, ſo ſtanding, challendge vnto them ſelues the benefit of thoſe true doctrines which they profeſſe, becauſe God hath not made his promiſe vnto anie falſe Church or worſhippers of him: neither committed vnto anie ſuch his holy things, to witt, his word, prayer, Sacramentes, Cenſures, &c. But he hath made his promiſe, & committed theſe things only to his true Church and people, which worſhip him aright, and yeeld obedidience to his Gospell, keeping whatſoeuer he hath commaunded them: Wherevpon it followeth, that ſuch people onely are true Christians, and true churches of Christ, to whom the promiſes & holy things apperteyne, and not to the people and Eccleſiasticall aſſemblies of England, neither anie ſuch, abiding in falſe worſhip or falſe constitution of a church, as is aforeſaide.

H. JOCOB his 1. Reply to the 6. Reaſon.

THis your 6. Reaſon is, The Samaritans (beleeuing that Meſſias ſhould come, Iohn. 4.25.) were as neare ſaluation as we of England are. But they were falſe worſhippers for all that. Ergo, ſo are we, for all our holy doctrines beleeued according to that Booke of Articles.

I deny the Propoſition. The Samaritans, might knowe by hearſay and beleeue, the Meſſias ſhould come, and Baalam did know it, Nom. 24.17. and the Deuils doe now know and beleue, Iam. 2.17. Yet none of theſe beleeued [in] him. It followeth not therefore, that they were as nigh ſaluation as wee of England. In a worde, there is a Reaſon manifeſt. Theſe Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idols with the God of Iſrael. 2. Ki. 17. which wholy deſtroyed the trueth in them, though they did reteyne ſome memoriall amongſt them of Meſſias to come. Wherfore here take the Second Anſwer to the Firſt Reaſon before.Pag. 25. But I will help them with an Obiection, ſurely one fitter then all theſe.

Obiection: The Iſralites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and Bethell ſerued not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their own deuiſes, which yet reſembled the ordinances of Ieruſalem 2. King. 12.32. Amos. 4.4. Howbeit they were falſe worſhippers, only for their falſe Miniſtery and outward falſe worſhip, for all that they beleeued in the God of Ieruſalem otherwiſe rightly.

Ergo, ſo are wee of England only for our falſe Miniſterie and outward worſhip.

Anſwere. To this wee aunſwere alſo, what additions of deuices, and how groſſe Idolatrie they held, it appeareth not: But ſurely it ſeemeth farre groſſer, and filthier then the worſt is with vs: But yet this appeareth cleerelie, that the conſcience of euery of them, euen of the ſimplieſt, muſt needes be conuicted, that Ieruſalem was the only place, and Arons line the only Prieſts (My meaning was the Leuits were not of Aarons line, but ye Prieſts only. & Leuits.) Therfore they could not be indeed true worſhippers, nor within the couenant, nor neere to ſaluation, when they all openly rebelled, and forſooke them deſperatly, whom the Lord had ſo expreſly choſen. Now our aſſemblies throughout England haue not their conſciences ſo conuicted in the Hyerarchie and Ceremonies. Ergo, wee may be in the coueuant, which they were not, for all our corruptions.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 6. Reaſon.

THis our 6. Reaſon, he neither propounded as we did, nor aunſwereth directlie, and ſoundlie vnto anie part of it. But that the nakednes of his anſwere, and light of the trueth may better appeare, we will propound the Reaſon more ſhortlie in a Sillogiſme, thus.

The people and aſſemblies, whoſe Eccleſiasticall constitution is ſuch as to them in that estate the Couenantes, holy things, and ſeruice of God doe not apperteyne, they can not in ſuch constitution by the worde of God be deemed true Christians or true Churches, whatſoeuer truthe they profeſſe beſides.

But ſuch is the Eccleſiasticall constitution of the people and aſſemblies of Englande, as vnto them in that estate the Couenauntes, holy things, & ſeruice of God doe not apperteyne.

Therefore the people and Aſſemblies of England, can not in that conſtitution, by the word of God, be deemed true Christians, or true Churches, whatſoeuer truthes they profeſſe beſides.

The Propoſition none will denie, The Aſſumption is proued thus.

The people and Aſſemblies whoſe Eccleſiasticall conſtitution is ſuch, as they worſhip God after a falſe manner, neuer appointed by him ſelf, nor approued in his word: their constitution is ſuch, as vnto them in that eſtate, the couenaunts, holy things, and ſeruice of God doe not apperteyne.

But ſuch is the Eccleſiaſticall conſtitution of the people and Aſſemblies of England, as they worſhip God after a falſe manner, neuer appointed by him ſelfe, nor approued in his word.

Therefore the Eccleſiasticall conſtitution of the people and Aſſemblies of Englande, is ſuch as vnto them in that eſtate, the Couenaunts, holie things, and ſeruice of God, doe not apperteyne.

The Propoſition was proued by the example of the Samaritans, and Chriſtes ſpeach and ſentence of them in ſuch eſtate, Ioh. 4. and 2 King. 17 Whervnto he anſwereth nothing to anie purpoſe, ſaue that, what he ſaith, is againſt him ſelfe. For where he graunteth That the Samaritans, and Balaam knewe and beleeued the Meſſias ſhould come, yea and that the Deuills knowe and beleeue there is a God, and that Ieſus is the Chriſt, the holy one of God. Who ſeeth not, that moſt excellent truthes may be acknowledged, and yet they which ſo profeſſe, be not therefore in their eſtate true Chriſtians or true Churches, to whom the Couenauntes, holie things and ſeruice of God apperteyne? Where next he ſaith, The Samaritans beleeued not in the Meſſias, it will be heard for him to prooue it, ſeeing he taketh beleefe in Christ ſo, as it is had in the spirituall Babylon and her daughters, and ſeeing alſo the Samaritans profeſſed and beleened, not onely that the Meſſiah ſhould come, but euen he which is called Christ, & that when he came, he would declare vnto them all things. Jn ſo much as when Jeſus was come, & had spoken but to a woman of Samaria, the ſcripture witneſſeth, that manie of the Samaritans of that citie beleeued in him for the ſaying of the woman, which testified, he hath tolde me all thinges that euer I did, Ioan 4.25, 26, 29, 30, 39. Thirdly, where he ſaith, The Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idolls with the God of Iſraell, which wholy deſtroyed the trueth in them which they held. By this againe it is euident, euen in his owne confeſſion, Both that ſuch things may be ioyned with the doctrines of trueth, as in that estate, they which profeſſe thoſe truthes, can not be iudged true Christians, or true churches, to whom the promiſes and holy things of God doe belong: And that therefore alſo, the See further for the anſwer of this in Pag. 4. Propoſition of his principall and maine Argument first propounded, is not generall, but of neceſſitie admitteth limitations: So as then his maine defence falleth to the ground, as alreadie we haue noted both in the beginning of this writing, in the anſwere to that Propoſition afore ſaide: and againe in the defence of our Fourth Reaſon a little before. Moreouer, in that he ſayeth, the Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idols with the God of Iſraell. (2. King. 17.) If he meane, that they worſhipped the Idols them ſelues,2. King. 17. ſacrificing to them, and accompting them to be Gods as well as the God of Iſraell, and ſo brake the First commaundement, as before he affirmed in his anſwere to our First Reaſon: then we take it, that here againe hee is deceyued, as there we haue ſhewed. The ſcripture ſaieth, Pag. 30. they worſhipped & ſacrifized to the Lord God of Iſraell. So as their ſinne was againſt the Second commaundement, in that worſhipping the true God, they did it in, and by thoſe Images, as alſo by other deuices of their owne, and traditions of their predeceſſours. That this was their estate and ſinne, beſides that it appeareth in that chapter alleadged, it is alſo most plainlie ſett downe, first by them ſelues, in that booke of Ezra,Ezra. 4.1, 2. where they ſpeake vnto the Iewes of the captiuitie that builded the Temple, ſaying:

We will buylde with you, for wee ſeeke the Lord your God as ye doe, and we haue ſacrificed vnto him ſince the tyme of Eſar Haddon King of Aſſhur, which brought vs vp hither. Then alſo betweene Christ and the woman of Samaria, Joh. 4. where it is manifest, that the Ioh. 4.20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 29, 30. contention betweene the Iewes and the Samaritans, was not whether onely the true God was to be worſhipped, but both of them agreeing in that, whether the ſolemne place of his worſhip was in Ieruſalem, or in the mount of Samaria, &c. Lastlie, by this mans owne confeſſion, when he ſayth in this place, Pag 49. that the Iſraelites vnder Ieroboam at Dan and B • thel, ſerued not Pagan Idolls, but the true God after their owne deuices. For the ſcripture testifieth, 2. King. 17.28, 32, 33. that the Samaritans worſhipped the ſame God, and after the ſame maner that the Nations did which were caried from thence. Nowe the nations that were carryed from thence, were the tenns Tribes that fel away from Iudah to Ieroboam: which likewiſe feared 1. King. 12.27, 28, 29, 30, 31. wt 2. King. 17.32, 33, 40, 41. the Lord & ſerued their Jmages, that is, God in and by their Images as nowe alſo the Samaritans did that were come in their ſteede. Hetherto of his anſwere, which may ſeeme to concerne the Propoſition of the latter Sillogiſme.

The Aſſumption was ſhewed by this, that theſe aſſemblies being commingled togeather of all ſortes of people, they haue alſo for the worſhip of God among them, a counterfett Ministerie and ſeruice, deuiſed by mans which he rightlie vnderstandeth, as we alſo doe, of their Hierarchie, and other abominations (before rehearſed) which deceiptfully heare againe he would ſmother vp vnder the name of ceremonies. Touching which flight of his, ſufficient is ſaid before in the handling of our First Reaſon. But what nowe ſaith he here, concerning the Aſſumption or proofe of it? Doeth he denie it? No. What then doeth he ſay for their counterfet Hierarchie, worſhip, &c. Surely nothing but this, That their Aſſemblies in England haue not their conſciences conuicted in theſe, as the people vnder Ieroboam, could not but haue their conſciences conuicted then, touching their worſhip and Prieſthood. But first, if this were ſo: is this anie iuſt defence of their Ministerie, worſhip, or estate, that they yet ſee them not to be vnlawfull, as it could not be, but they vnder Ieroboam ſaw theirs to be? If this were a ſufficient reaſon, might not the groſſest Papist plead likewiſe for their Miniſterie, worſhip, and eſtate, as alſo the Vſurers, extortioners, and perſecutors, for them ſelues and their wickednes? By this reaſon, God ſhould not haue ſent Lyons among the Samaritans, becauſe 2. King. 17.26. yet, they knewe not the maner of worſhipping the God of Jſraell, neither had their conſciences conuicted therein. But Christ hath taught vs otherwiſe, Luk. 12.48. that euen that ſeruaunt, which knoweth not his Maiſters will, and yet committeth things worthy of ſtripes, ſhalbe beaten, though with fewer stripes, then he that knoweth and doeth it not. And euen of thoſe Jſraelites aforeſaide the Lord him ſelfe testifieth Hoſ. 4.6. that they were deſtroyed for lacke of knowledge. So then neither can this peoples ignoraunce (which he pleadeth) be a ſufficient defence for their estate. Or if it could, yet it ſeemeth they of Iſraell aforeſaid, might aſwell haue alleadged for them ſelues, ſeeing the Lorde witneſſeth of them Hoſ. 4.1. that there was no knowledge of God in the lande. And thus the obiectiō alſo here brought by him ſelfe, remayneth ſtill vnaunſwered. Nowe where hee ſayeth, that Aarons Line were the only Prieſts and Leuites, hee is alſo miſtaken herein, In deede Aarons Line onely were the Priestes, but the Leuites were generallie of the Tribe of Leuie, though not of Aarons lyne. But to let this paſſe: We would knowe of him a ſufficient reaſon, why the true worſhip and ministerie appointed by Chriſt in his Testament, ſhould not be aſwell knowne vnto them in theſe dayes, as in the defection of Iſraell? He ſayth They could not but knowe, that Ieruſalem was the only place, and Aarons lyne the onely Prieſtes. Haue not theſe the ſcripture aſmuch as the other had? Or hath not Chriſt Heb. 3.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. the Sonne, bene as faithfull in the houſe of God, and as plainly ſet downe his will for his true worſhip and Miniſterie in the time of the Gospell, as Moſes the ſeruant was and did for the time of the Law? Yea and haue not Witnes the publike Treatiſes, Sermons, Admonitions, Complaintes, Supplications, & Demonſtrations, to the Parliamēt, beſides ye bandes and ſufferings of many in this behalf. theſe by the word bene made manifeſt to the conſciences of men in theſe dayes? And euen to the high Court of Parliament, repreſenting the whole body of the Land as the other were to the Iſraelites in the time of their defection? Finally, doeth not this Land ſtand in as open rebellion against, and forſaking of the true Miniſterie, worſhip, and order, appoincted by Chriſt to his church nowe, as the other did then, (if not more open and greeuous) not onely for the cauſes aforeſaide, but becauſe alſo they haue Witnes the Pōtifical, Portuis, Canons & Conſtitution of the Popiſh, & their aſſemblies, cōpared togeather. receyued and ſtill reteyne a falſe ministerie, worſhip, and confuſion of the man of ſinne, that ſonne of perdition, and capitall enimie of the Lord Ieſus Christ? And yet moreouer, least they ſhould lacke anie thing of the other, and not euery way farre exceed them, doe alſo Witnes their Actions, Statutes, &c. perſecute vnto bandes, exile, & death, ſuch as beare witnes to the trueth of Christ, against their abominations aforeſaide. By this then it appeareth, that the aduerſarie heere, neither hath iustified their estate in respect of the Apostate Iſraelites, nor anſwered the obiection which him ſelfe framed against their preſent conſtitution: which therfore we will here ſet downe as he propounded it.

The Obiection was this.

The Iſraelises vnder Jeroboam at Dan and Bethell ſerued not Pagan Idols, but the true God after their owne deuiſes, which yet reſembled the ordinances at Ieruſalem. 1. King. 12.32. Amos 4.4. How be it they were falſe worſhippers, only for their falſe miniſtery, & outward falſe worſhip, for all that they beleeued in the God of Ieruſalem rightly. Therefore ſo theſe of England, onely for their falſe Miniſterie and outward worſhip.

This is his owne Obiection and Reaſon, vnto which hee hath giuen no ſufficient aunſwere, as before hath bene ſhewed. So that it ſtill remayneth vpon himſelfe as a teſtimonie againſt their preſent eſtate. This we neither did, nor needed to propound, as a ſeuerall Reaſon, amongſt thoſe which we ſet down, becauſe it is of like nature with thoſe wee mentioned amongeſt ours in the Second and Sixt Reaſons before alleadged.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 6. Reaſon.

IN this your defence of your 6. Reaſon you ſay, That the Propoſition of your laſt ſillogiſme, (They that worſhip God after a falſe manner, pag. 50. are are no true Chriſtans) is proued by the example of the Samaritans, and that I anſwer nothing againſt it.

Firſt I ſay, there you ſophiſticate againe. And it ſeemeth you can doe nothing elſe in argumentation. For your Propoſition is Aequiuocall and ambiguous. If you meane they that worſhip God after a falſe manner, that is totally, or els Fundamentally. Then I cleerely graunt it, and that the Samaritans doe proue the ſame, ſeeing they erred Fundamentally. But your Aſſumption touching vs, is then vtterly falſe. You bring not a ſillable or one letter, to proue either of theſe Two againſt vs, in all your writing, neither can you, but bare begging of the controuerſie which is infinite ofte. If you meane in your Propoſition, They that ſerue God after a falſe maner, that is, in part, not Wholly nor Fundamentally, As namely in the Hyerarchy and externall ceremonies as Cranmer, &c. Then I ſay and avouch confidentlie in the preſence of God, that ſuch may be true Chriſtians, though vnperfect in many things. Yea infinite, ſuch haue bene, are, and may bee hereafter, true Chriſtians. The contrarie whereof, is no leſſe then horrible blaſphemie againſt God and his Saincts, wherfore your Propoſition, is ſhewed to be againe ſophiſticall, as alſo thoſe were in your Third Exception, and Firſt and Second Reaſons.

Secondly where you ſay, the Samaritans proue it, and I ſay nothing againſt it. Marke you. Firſt I ſaid, the Samaritans might knowe by hearſay, and yet not faithfully beleeue [in] the Meſſias. You cannot bee ignorant, that there is a great difference betweene an obſcure rumor, which ſome of them might receiue from their neighbour Iewes, and yet not haue it conſtantly beleeued, and held publiquely among them, as their comon faith. If thus the Samaritans beleeued the comming of Meſsiah, they are in no cōpariſon with vs, we holde our moſt holy faith and doctrine by the worde profeſſedly, as the publique ordinance of our Churchs ſheweth. But furder let it be howſoeuer they held the comming of Meſsiah, yet I anſwered, The Samaritans ioyned Heatheniſh Idols with the God of Iſraell which wholly deſtroyed the trueth in them. And this is the very truth indeed, howſoeuer you will not yeld it. For you ſay, that they broke not the Firſt commaundement, they worſhipped not the Jdols them ſelues, nor ſacrifiſed to thē, &c. This is proued apparantly falſe in the Text 2. Kings. 17.29, 30, 31.2. King. 17. Enery nation made their Gods and put them in the houſes of the high places which the Samaritans had made, euery nation in their Citties wherein they dwelt. For the men of Babel made Succoth-Benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nergall, and the men of Hamath made Aſhima. And the Auims made Nibhaz and Tartak, and the Sepharuims burnt their children in the fyer to Adramelch & Anammelech the Gods of Sepharuim: Therfore they worſhipped the Idols of the Heathen, and ſacrifiſed to them, and accoumpted them to be Gods aſwell as the God of Iſraell. And ſo broke the Firſt commandement, and therefore they touch not vs in this queſtion, As the like I haue truely and well derlared before,pag. 34. againſt your Firſt Reaſon. •• pag. 51. Your proofes, that the Samaritans brake not the Firste commandment are nothing. (1) That of Ezra. 4.1.2. that they ſought the Lord as the Jewes did, &c, was their conterfet hypocriſie and falſe brag, yea their diueliſh conſpiracie againſt the worſhip of the Iewes God. Doe you beleeue their wordes here in this place, that they are true indeed? I graunt as I noted before out of 2. Kings 17. they had a mixed worſhip, ſome thing of the Iewes God, but very much and (as by that Chapter ſeemeth) moſt of the Heathens Gods. 2. Secondly,Pag. 51. where you ſay out of Iohn. 4. That it is manifeſt, there was no contention betweene the Jewes and the Samaritans, whether A bolde aſſertion. only the true God was to be worſhipped. There appeareth no word of any ſuch thing, Our Sauiour indeed noteth verſ. 21. One difference betwene them, that was, but about the place of worſhipping on occaſion of the womans wordes: But that there was no difference betwene them in the obſeruing of the Firſt Commandement, he ſaith not. The contrarie you ſaw before proued in 2. King. 17.30.31.3. Thirdly you vrge my cōfeſſion, That the Iſralites vnder Ieroboam ſerued not Pagan Jdols but the true God after their owne deuices. And you would proue it too, by 2, King. 17.28, 32, 33. Seeing the Samaritans worſhipped after the manner of the nations that dwelt there before they came, who were the Tenne tribes that Ieroboam drew away. I aunſwere, Firſt it is great ſhame, that you make this my confeſſion, when I expreſly bring it in, as your Obiection, whervnto I ſet mine anſwer,Pag. 49. that the Idolatry vnder Ieroboam ſeemeth farre groſſer and filthier then the worſt is with vs, which I make manifeſt by the ſcripture, not only 1. King. 12.21. where Ieroboam erected viſible Idols, and very filthy ones, euen calues and brute beaſtes: which if they were but to worſhip God by, yet who would compare our Eccleſiaſticall orders to them, whichViz. the generall ſtate. we profeſſe are but indifferent thinges, for order and comelineſſe only. Further I alleadged 2. Chro. 11.15. Where Ieroboam is ſaid to appoinct Prieſtes, for the high places, for Deuils, and for the Calues that he made. So I confeſſe little to your aduantage. Secondly, if the Samaritans worſhipped (as they did indeed) like the Tenne tribes before them, then you are cleane gone. For though Ieroboā at the Firſt had not ioyned in ye Heatheniſh Idolatry. Yet Ahab did 1. King. 16.32, 33. and his Sonne Ahaziah had further Baalzebub the God of Ekron. Yea the Iſralites, as they of Ieruſalem afterwardes, were Idolaters much a like 2. King. 17.19. But wee read of the Iewes vnder Ahas 2 Chr. 28.23. and Manaſſes and Amon. 2 King. 21. and 23.4, 5, 10, 11.12, 13. That they vſed the very Pagans Idolatrie. Yea it is expreſſed, 2. King. 17.8, 11, 16, 17. That theſe Tenne Tribes vſed the very ſame. Therefore the Samaritans doing as theſe Iſralites did,Pag. 54. held ſuch groſſe idolatry as could by no meanes ſtand with the true ſeruing of God. Finally as before is noted 2. King. 17.29, 30, 31. doeth expreſſe this groſſe Heatheniſh idolatrie of the Samaritans. Surely it appeareth more groſſe and worſe then the Iſralites before them. And therefore you are greatly deceiued both here & in the defence of your Firſt Reaſon before:Pag. 30. where you expreſlie mainteine theſe Samaritans to holde no Heatheniſh Jdolatrie, but onely to cleaue to the God of Jſraell in an outwarde deuiſed corrupt worſhip. They acknowledged him, I graunt, but him only I denie, as hath ben proued.

Further you affirme in your defence of your Firſt Reaſon,Pag. 30. That they profeſſed the written lawe to be the rule, both for their inward beliefe, and outward manner of worſhip. Where you would proue it For that the Apostate Iſraelites did ſo of whom Ezeck. speaketh. Zeck. 43.8. Firſt this followeth not, becauſe the Heatheniſh Samaritans were further from ſinceritie, then the naturall Iſraelites commonly. Secondly, Iſraell it ſelfe in this wretched Apoſtaſie, helde not the written law for their rule, ſeeing profeſſedlie they left this rule, and did conſtantlie worſhip Calues, and ſacrifized at Dan and Bethel. Thirdly, Ezekiell ſheweth, euen there, cap. 43.7.8. they kept not this rule, but departed therefrom, and that as appeareth profeſſedly, and conſtantly. Which moſt of all is ſeene in Ahab, Ahaziah, Ahas,Pag. 34. 55. Manaſſes, and Amon, as is before noted. Wherfore in theſe your ſayings Maiſter Iohnſon, you are intollerably too blame and foully deceaued. As for example, They profeſſed that which they did in 2. Kinges. 17.29, 30, 31. was that after the rule of the written Lawe?

Next you oppugne me, for that I alleadged our Aſſemblies throughout England,Pag. 52. haue not their conſciences conuicted in the Hyerarchy and ceremonies, you ſay "if this were ſo, is it any iuſt defence of your miniſtery, worſhip, eſtate, &c. I tell you it is a iuſt defence for our miniſterie worſhip, and eſtate to be as touching the ſubstance and foundation of Chriſtianitie, ſound and acceptable to God. Refute it if you can. I knowe it is no iuſt defence of our whole Miniſtery, eſtate, & manner of worſhip, which I neuer intended, much leſſe profeſſed to iuſtifie.

Where you would ſnatch at an advauntage about Aarons line, my meaning was, that they of Aaron were only for Prieſts, & their bretheren of Leui, only for Leuites.

But you paſſe this, and you ſet your ſelf in earneſt, to proue vs all conuicted in conſcience aboute our Hyerarchie and ceremonies. So that here you auouch openly, that third generall poinct which I obſerued in my very beginning aboue,pag. 3. for the which you haue this Reaſon. Haue not wee the ſcriptures as much as the Apoſtate Iſralites had? Or did not Chriſt as fully and plainly ſett downe our miniſterie and worſhip in the Goſpell, as Moſes in the Law? I aunſwere, this is true, as touching the word it ſelfe. In the Goſpell we are taught as plainly and as fully for the word it ſelfe, as the Iewes were in Moſes: But it is not yet ſo playne for our vnderſtanding and vſe. Why? Becauſe wee haue had a diſcontinuance of theThe Paſtors of ye Churches ſince, haue had many corruptions mixed in their callings, they haue not bene pure and ſimple euer ſince: or at leaſt wee cannot proue it otherwiſe, by any recordes now extant. ſimple offices of Paſtours, Teachers and Elders for the ſpace of a Thouſand Three hundreth, or a Thouſand Four hundreth Yeares, and a continuance of the Prelacie all this while hetherto. Alſo, for that many auncient, and late learned, and Godly Chriſtians, haue beleued it, at leaſt cōuenient, if not neceſſary in the Church. And they haue expounded the Scriptures ſo, that they carry no ſmall ambiguity in this matter, in infinite Thouſands iudgement. Thus it hath pleaſed God in his prouidence, to ſuffer this miſtaking amongeſt Chriſtians, thus longe, and thus vniuerſally. Whereby it commeth to paſſe, that infinite Thouſand conſciences are not eaſely conuicted, though they bee miſtaken in this caſe. With the Iewes it was not ſo in this matter that we talke of. As Moſes and the Prophets were moſt plain, that Ieruſalem muſt be the onlie place of ſolemne worſhip, Arons line the onely Prieſts, no Calues, nor any viſible kinde of Image or meanes to worſhip God in: So alſo they conſtantly and perpetually practized that courſe, euen from Moſes till the Apoſtacie of Ieroboam. When any ſqared from this courſe, theſe were not onely rebuked expreſlie by Gods voyce in his Prophets, from time to time: but alſo the obſtinate, were moſt fearfully ſmitten with Gods miraculous hand from heauen. So that for any to offend in theſe poinctes as Ieroboam did, It could not poſſible bee but in preſumptuous rebellion, with a high hand againſt God, and with a conuicted & ſeared conſcience. Which I ſay cannot with any ſhew of ſence, be ſaid of many Thouſand Chriſtians in this caſe touching the Praelacie, &c.

Further you vrge * theſe Reaſons That this cauſe hath bene made manifest to the conſciences of men, Pag. 53. yea to the Parliament of late times. You ſay well to the conſciences of men: but not to the conſciences of all men, or the moſt men throughout the land. Yea or to the moſt of them that know and feare God, according to the religion now mainteyned, This is the very queſtion. If you meane ſo, that all mens conſciences are conuicted in this matter, All men ſurely will either pitty your ſimplicitie, or laugh at your folly. I pray you Maiſter Iohnſon, conſider your ſelfe, you were a true Chriſtian, longe before you fell into this ſeparation. Yea moreouer you were learned, yea you knew and acknowledged theſe very corruptions a great while, and yet condemned vs not, Nay you condemned the ſeparation earneſtly. I pray you is it not poſſible that numbers, who ſee not ſo farre as you did then, ſhould ſtill condemne your ſeparation, and yet be true Chriſtians, as you acknowledge that your ſelfe then was? meipſo teſte.

That which you ad "of perſecuting vnto bandes, exile and death to proue our vtter aboliſhing from Chriſt generally: It is a toy.Pag. ibid. Firſt if you were meerely innocent, yet this could not make vs worſe then the Iewes in Chriſtes time: who for all that they perſecuted, yet were they not wholly falne from God. Secondly you ſuffer indeed more thē you need, if that you would but acknowledge the grace of God with vs ſo farre as it is. It is therefore not Chriſtes Croſſe in that regard, but your owne that you beare.

Finally let it bee noted, if here in this your 6. Reaſon you bee not directly contrary to your ſelf, as I haue obſerued in your 2. Reaſon:Maiſter Iohnſon his contrarietie proued betwene his 2. Reaſon and his 6. Reaſon. Pag. 39. For you ſay here, Pag. 48. That not the Samaritans, but the Jewes, were then by Chriſt counted the true worſhippers of God, & heires of ſaluation, Ioh. 4.22. But in your Second Reaſon, Pag. 35. you ſay: They that teach for doctrine mens precepts, as there Chriſt ſaith the Iewes then did, thoſe in particuler are no true Christians, nor their aſſemblies true Churches. Math. 15.9. Therfore you inferre, (or elſe you pretend it) that thoſe perticuler Iewes were not then true worſhippers, nor their aſſemblies true Churchest which is a flat contradiction, Or elſe what is. But if you ſay you meane not this of the Iewes, then you abuſe the ſcripture and vs, turning it cleane from them, whom in your Reaſon you ſpeake of, and whom Chriſt therein expreſly meaneth.

Maiſter IOHNSONS VII. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON VII.

IF the Spirit of God accompt them to bee departers from the faith (and conſequently no true Christians) which though they hold other truthes of the Goſpell, yet forbid to marry, & commaund to abſtaine ſrom meates, which God hath created to bee receiued with thankeſgiuing: Then what doeth the Lord accompt of them which forbid the true Ministerie and worſhip of God, and commaund a falſe: and of them alſo which partake therein? Which to be the eſtate of the Prelates, and other Ministers and people of theſe aſſemblies, appeareth, not only by their practize and perſecution, but alſo by the booke of Articles heere alleadged, as may be ſeene in the 35. and 36. Articles, compared with their booke of Cannons, ſet forth, Anno 1571. and with the Articles lately ſet forth by theRichard Eletcher. Prelate of London, that now is, and inquired of in his viſitation Anno 1595. As alſo by other their Articles, Cannons, Aduerticements, Iniunctions, &c. which were longe heere to rehearſe.

But the former is true, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. Therefore, &c.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 7. Reaſon.

THis your Seauenth Reaſon is: They are departed from the faith, that forbid to marry, & commaund to abſtaine from lawfull meates. Alſo this is worſe, then that: viz. to forbid the true Ministerie and to commaunde a falſe: which wee in England doe. Ergo wee are departers from the faith.

I denie this Antecedent, that is your Aſſumption, with a diſtinction. The Papiſtes See Rhemi-Teſta. in Mat. 15.18. forbidding of Mariage and of meates, if they had done no worſe, doeth not make them departers from the faith: that is, notOr not fundamētally, not ſimply, which words I think fitter to bee here, vſed, as in my next Reply is further declared. totally. No more could their Hyerarchie and ceremonies ſimply: Neither doe theſe thinges make vs (the Proteſtants) to be ſuch. The Papiſtes fall from Chriſt That is fundamentally, & ſimply: ſee in the 2. Anſwer following. wholy in other poincts, (namely 1. The Papall ſupreamacy. 2. The ſacrifice of the Maſſe. 3. Iuſtification by workes: Which bleſſed bee God wee are farre from. Therfore the Apoſtle in ſaying, They departed from the faith, meaneth, in Viz. in abſtayning from Mariage and meates. theſe poincts they erred or departed from the faith, but not abſolutlie & wholie. 2. Further more touching your Propoſition, if you vnderſtand Paul, of Martion the Haeretike, and Tatianus, who did abſolutly condemne Marriage and certen meates, they euen therein might wholie fall from the faith, I meane ſomewhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and thoſe Apoſtate Iſraelites lately ſpoken of, Pag. 49. 57. namely for hauing their cōſciences conuicted, and ſeared with a whot iron. And thus are they in no compariſon with vs of England, nor with the Papiſtes neither, if they had erred in nothing elſe.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 7. Reaſon.

HEre the aduerſarie being not able with any colour to denie the conſequēt, of our Reasō neither to iustifie their preſent Miniſterie, worſhip Cannons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c. (which yet he must doe, & ſtill we call for it, if he will iustifie their preſent estate): yet being desperate ſure, for els he would neuer haue done it, he feareth not to gaineſay the Aſſumption, that is, the very wordes and testimonie of the ſcripture it ſelfe, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. The Apostle ſayth, that they which forbidde Mariage & Meates, are departers from the faith, This man ſayth no. Nowe, whether of theſe ſhall we beleeue? But what colour hath this man for his deniall? Forſooth this: That they which doe ſo, doe not departe from the faith totally, and that the Apoſtles meaning is, that in theſe poincts they departe from the faith, but not abſolutely and wholy. So by this mans conceite, none may be accounted departers from the faith, that depart only in ſome poinctes, but they which doe it totally from all. And thus then may no heretikes or Antichristes that euer haue bene, or ſhalbe in the worlde, be iudged departers frō the faith, becauſe they departe from it but in ſome poinctes, and not abſolutely from all. Thus in one word hath he iustified at once the Arians, Nestorians, Sabellians, Papistes, Familistes, Anabaptistes, and whom not? becauſe they departe but in ſome, not wholy from all poinctes of faith. Js it not great pitie that Antichrist hath ſo long wanted this ſtour Champion, that can thus in one worde, iustifie his forbidding of meates and mariage, yea and his most detestable Hyerarchie, and ſuperstitions? Nowe by this mans learning, all the Martirs & writers heretofore, that by euidence of this ſcripture cōuicted the Synagogues of Antichrist to haue departed from the faith, and therefore ſeparated from them: were vtterly deceyued. Nay and the Apostles them ſelues were wholy mistaken, when ſpeaking of Antichristes church and Religion, they call it a2. Theſ. 2.7. misterie of iniquitie,1. Tim. 4.2. ſpeaking lies through hypocriſie, 2. Pet. 2.1. priuely bringing in damnable hereſies, and hauing aTim. 3.4. ſhewe of godlines, but denying the power thereof, And Johns eyes alſo it ſeemeth were not matches, when he ſaith,Reue. 17.5. he ſawe in the whores forehead, (that is in Antichristes church and Religion) a name written, A myſterie, great Babylon, the mother of whoredomes, and abhominations of the earth. For we would knowe of this deepe Clerke, howe Antichristes church and religion ſhould iustlie be accounted a mysterie of iniquitie, and truely be ſaide, to ſpeake Lies in hypocriſie, alſo priuely to bring in Damnable hereſies, and to haue a Shew of godlines: if they did abſolutely & wholy departe from the faith, and not onely from ſome pointes thereof? But ouer and aboue all, it ſeemeth by this reaſon, that not onely the Apostles were mistaken, in giuing vs ſure markes howe to knowe falſe teachers and falſe religions, 1 Tim. 1.2, 3. 2 Pet. 2.1. 2 Theſ. 2.7. 2 Tim. 3.4. Reuel. 17.5. But alſo Christ him ſelfe, when he ſaide,Mat. 7.15. Beware of falſe Prophetes, which come to you in ſheepes clothing, but inwardlie are rauening wolues. And againeMat. 2.23.24. Jf any ſhall ſay vnto you, Loe, here is Christ, or there, beleue it not: For there ſhall ariſe falſe christes and falſe prophets, and ſhall ſhew great ſignes and wonders, ſo that (if it were poſſible) they ſhould deceyue the very elect. Nowe if they ſhould totally departe from the faith, what ſheepes clothing, J pray you, ſhould they haue to come in? Or howe ſhould either them ſelues be ſaid to come in the name of Christ, affirming their Religion to be Christes, and ſhewing ſignes and wonders to drawe men therevnto: Or the elect to be in ſuch vnspeakeable daunger to be deceyued by them? This might ſuffice to ſhewe the falſehood and impietie of his anſwere: But we will note a fewe things moe therein. It being graunted him, that the popiſh forbidding of mariage and meates, if they were not worſe, doeth not make them departers from the faith totally: yet let him tell vs, if holding neuer ſo manie truthes beſides,See in Bales Votaries, Acts and monumēts &c. what abominable filthines the forbidding of mariage, and what ſuperſtitiō the forbidding of meates, hath wrought in the kingdome of Antichriſt. yet forbidding theſe, they could by the word of God truely be ſaide in that estateWhat man fearing God durſt once opē his mouth for ſuch Diuelilh doctrines and eſtate. to holde the faith of Christ, and to be true Christians. If they could not (as the Apostle "teſtifieth) then is this anſwere in this respect alſo nothing to the purpoſe, but against him ſelfe, both for the popiſh forbidding of meates and marriages, and for the Engliſh Hyerarchie, and other abominations amongst them receyued from the Papistes, which vnder colour of this anſwere heere he would defend. Againe, where he ſaith, That the Papiſtes fall frō Chriſt in other poinctes beſides the aforeſaid, Namely, 1 The Papall ſupremacie. 2. The ſacrifice of the Maſſe. 3. Iuſtification by workes: which Englande nowe is farre from. Let him tell vs: First, whether in this ſence the Papiſtes can for theſe be ſaid to departe from the faith totally? If they can not, then what weight is there in this for defence of their estate, that the Papiſtes could not alſo alleadge for them ſelues, to witt, that in theſe poinctes they departe from the faith, but not abſolutely and wholy. Secondly, let him tell vs, whether there are not other poinctes but theſe three in the papiſtes religion, which make them in their eſtate to be departers frō the faith, and conſequentlie falſe chriſtians and falſe Churches? If there be (as he can not denie it) then of what weight is his anſwer to defende the preſent conſtitution of theſe people and aſſemblies (for whom he pleadeth) ſeeing there are diuers other thinges beſides theſe, that doe and may cauſe, that they may not be deemed true Chriſtiās or true Churches in that eſtate.

ManySeruetus, Sabellius, Arius, the Anabaptiſtes, &c. heretikes heretofore haue, and at this day doe reiect theſe three aforeſaid, are they therfore in their eſtate to be accounted true Chriſtians or true Churches? So then, his manner of reaſoning heere for their defence, is, as if the Adulterers, to iuſtifie their courſe of life, ſhould alleadge thus: We are noe 1. Blaſpemers, 2. no Perſecutors, 3. No Murtherers, as ſuch and ſuch are: therefore we departe not from the way of life, but our eſtate and courſe of life is good, and ſuch as may be continued in. But the ſcripture teacheth otherwiſe, ſayinge:Iam. 2.10.11. Whoſoeuer ſhall keepe the whole Lawe, and yet fayleth in one poincte, is guiltie of all. For he that ſayed, Thou ſhalt not commit adulterie, ſaied alſo, Thou ſhalt not kill. Nowe, though thou doeſt no adultery, yet if thou killeſt, thou art a tranſgreſſour of the Lawe: and contrariwiſe. So that what ſoeuer ſinnes the Adulterer be farre from, yet (asPro. 6.32. Salomon ſaith) Hee that committeth adulterie with a woman, fayleth in heart, and deſtroyeth his owne ſoule. The ſame is the caſe of all ſpirituall Adulterers likewiſe: who (what ſo euer ſinnes they be farre from) yet in the worſhip of God, runne aNum. 15.39. whoring after their owne inuentions,Pro. 5.20. embracing the boſomes of ſtrange women, &Reuel. 17.4. drinking of their cup of fornications. Thirdly, let him ſhewe vs ſufficient warrant frō the ſcriptures, why (ſetting theſe three aſide) the other popiſh Hyerarchie and abominations receyued amongst them, can not bee iudged to make them in ſuch estate, departers from the faith, and therfore falſe Christians and falſe Churches, whatſoeuer truthes they ſhould hold beſide. If he cannot (as who ſeeth not, that it can not be donne?) then by this alſo it appeareth, that his anſwer • here is of no force for defence of their eſtate, but againſt it, as we haue declared before.

Num. 16.12. &c. Corah, Dathan, Abyram, and their partakers, were farre from the Abominations of the Heathen, they helde alſo al the poinctes of faith, that Moſes and Aaron held, differing onely from them, and departing only from the faith, in a matter concerning the Prieſthood, whereof alſo theyverſe the. 3. ſhewed their reaſons why they were ſo perſwaded: yet will he not denie, we ſuppoſe, but that they departed from the faith, and were in this eſtate neither to be accounted true Iſraelits, nor their aſſemblies true Churches, with which communion might be kept. If he ſhould, the ſcripture it ſelfe would witneſſe againſt him herein, Numb. 16.26. Nowe compare caſe with caſe, and tyme with tyme, and the eſtate of theſe people and Aſſemblies of England, wilbee found farre more grieuous, as we haue already ſhewed both in the defence of our Second Exception before, and inIn the anſwer to Maſter Hilderſam, and in the 9. Reaſons concerning not hearing the Miniſters of theſe aſſembties. other Treatiſes to which yet we haue receiued no anſwer.

To conclude this poinct, if their Abominations in England were farre fewer then they are, yet ſo longe as they reteyne that poyſonfull leauen of their Hyerarchie and worſhip, wee must tell them as the Scripture ſaith, and experience teacheth: That2. Kings. 4.39.40. a litle poyſon bringeth death vnto the whole pot of pottage. A1. Cor. 5.6. litle leauen leaueneth the whole lump. And aEccle. 10.1. few dead flyes cauſe the oynctment of the Apothecarie to stinke and putrifie. Although indeed their abominations are not a few, but ſwarme in aboundance amongſt them, ſome whereof wee haue rehearſed before in the defence of our First Reaſon, where the Reader may take a view of them.

Now in the next place, fearing belike that the euidence of the ſcripture we alleadged, could not by theſe ſhiftes of his be auoyded, but that still the reaſon deducted from thence ſtood ſtrong against them, as we haue ſhewed it doeth: therefore he would haue vs now paſſe by them, and not apply this ſcripture to them,Nota. or their mother Church of Rome, but vnderstand it of Martion the heretike, and Tatianus, of whom he ſaith, that they abſolutelie condemning mariage and certen meates, might indeed euen therin wholie fall from the faith, ſomewhat like to Baalam, Iudas, and thoſe Apoſtate Iſraelites lately ſpoken of, namely for hauing their conſciences conuicted and ſeared with an whote iron: And thus (ſayth he) are they in no compariſon with them of England: Well, But first if his former anſwer were of any weight, it might be asked, why then the followers of Martion and Tatianus, might not likewiſe haue defended them thus, & ſaid, that their departure from the faith, was but in ſome poincts, not wholy from all? Secondly we anſwer, that if this ſcripture was verified as he graunteth) in Martion and Tatianus, for their condemning of mariage and meates, then we must needes alſo thinke it verified in the Romiſhe whoore, and her apoſtate children, whiche are falne into the verie ſinnes, that are heere mentioned. Teh Apostle mentioneth Martion and Tatianus, no more then he doeth the whooriſh Babilon, and the children of her Fornication: but comprehendeth heere all ſuch who ſo euer they be, as ſhall fall into this Apostaſie.

Nowe moreouer, if the1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. wordes of this ſcripture be duely weighed, & either other ſcriptures, or the estate of the Romiſh Harlott and her children compared therewith, it wilbe founde as liuely to deſcribe theſe, as either Martion or any other that euer were in the world. First when the Apostle ſayeth, that this ſhalbe in the latter tymes, who ſeeth not that it doeth moſt directly poinct at the Romiſh whoore, though we doubt not, but Martion alſo and Tatianus, which liued twelue hundreth yeares ſince, or thereabouts, may alſo be comprehended therein. Secondly, when it is ſaide, they ſhall departe from the faith, thereby ſignifying that once they held the faith, howe plaine is this of the Romiſh harlot, which in theRom. 1.7. Apoſtles time was the beloued ſpouſe of God, and ſince is falne into Apoſtacy, and become the Mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth, as the2. Theſ. 2.3. and Reu. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. ſcriptures in other places witneſſeth. Thirdly, whē it is ſaid, they ſhall giue heede to ſpirits of errour, and doctrines of Deuils, how fitly agreeth this to the Romiſh Babilon which (as the ſcripture elsReu. 18.2. where teſtifieth) is become the habitation of Deuils, and the hold of all foule ſpirits? Fourthly when it is ſaid, they ſhall ſpeake lies through hypocriſie (not to recken vp the infinite particulars that might be alleadged for proof hereof) how fitly doth this deſcribe the Religion and practiſe of the man of ſinne (the Romiſh Antichriſt) which the ſcripture2. Theſ. 2.7. els where calleth a miſtery of iniquitie: as pretending to be with and for Chriſt, and to draw men vnto him, when indeed it is oppoſed againſt and exalted aboue the Lord Ieſus Christ, and all his holy ordinances. Fiftly, when it is ſaid, they ſhall haue their conſciences ſeared with an whote iron, how true is this found vpon the throane of the Beaſt, & his Kingdome, concerning which, the ſcripture alſo teſtifieth inReu. 16.10.11. another place that when the vials of Gods wrath ſhalbe powred out vpon them, and they conuinced of their impieties and obominations, they ſhalbe ſo farre from acknowledging and forſaking thē, as they ſhal gnaw their tōgues for ſorrow, & rather thē they wil forſak their wickednes, ſhallLet their raylinges, ſlaunders, edictes, articles, iniunctions, finallie their continuall oppoſitions and madnes againſt ye truth and people of God, be witneſſes of all this. fight againſt God and his truth, blaſpheaming the God of heauen for their paines & for their ſores, & not repenting of their workes. Lo here a ſeared conſcience in the beaſtes kingdome. Finally, when the Spirit of God here giueth two particular inſtances of his apoſtacie. 1. The forbidding of Mariage, 2. And the cōmaunding to abſtaine from meates, which God hath created to be receiued with thankeſgiuing. How directly doeth he in both theſe, as it were with the finger, poinct at the Romiſh Babilon and her daughters? Jn the one, that is, the forbidding of mariage, when as the Romiſh Babilon forbiddeth it to Prieſts, Friers, Nunnes, and ſuch like, and the Engliſh her daughter, to fellowes of Colleges, and prentiſes, and both of them, to all men and women in Lent, Aduent, Rogation weeke, &c. Jn the other, that is, the forbidding of meates created of God to bee receiued with thankeſgiuing, when as both of them, commaund to abſtaine from fleſh, on their ſaincts eues, Emberdayes, Lent, Fridayes, and Satterdayes, throughout the yeare.

Thus then we haue ſhewed that this ſcripture (which hee would turne ouer to Martion and Tatianus) doth moſt fitly agree vnto, and most plainly deſcribe the Romiſh Apoſtacy, whether wee apply it to their preſent eſtate, or compare this and other ſcriptures togeather, ſpeaking of the ſame Apoſtacy and defection. By this alſo which hath bone ſaid, it may appeare, that as he ſaith of Martion and Tatianus, that they might be ſaid wholy to fall from the faith ſomewhat like to Balaam, Iudas, and thoſe apostate Iſraelites lately spoken of, namely for hauing their conſciences conuicted and ſeared with an whot iron: So alſo it is verified, and may be ſaid of the Romiſh Babilon and her daughters. Touching which poinct of their conuicted conſciences, as alſo of the Apostate Iſraelites in particuler, compared with them of Englande, ſee moreouer what is ſaide before in defence of the ſixt Reaſon at the end thereof.

Now if ſeeing the euidence of this1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. ſcripture, ſo full & plaine againſt them (as hath bene declared) he would except, that ſo it is in the Romiſh Church, but not in theirs of Englande: First by this meanes he would ouerthrowe his owne anſwere here, which hath denied it, of the popiſh forbidding of meates and marriages, and would turne it ouer from them to Martion and Tatianus: Secondly, this would not hinder but that the conſequent of our Propoſition and the Aſſumption alſo were good, and therefore the Argument ſtrong and of force. Thirdly, the particulars before mentioned, (being founde in their Church of Englande) will testifie it alſo, to be verified of them. Lastlie, although many of the abominations of the whoores cup of Babilon be nowe cast out of England, (for which alſo we prayſe God) yet ſo long as they reteyne the Hyerarchie,Reue. 17.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Stinted Leyturgie, confuſion of people, Canons, Excommunications, &c. deriued vnto them from that mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth, wee must needes beleeue and alleadge against them the ſcripture and common prouerbe which ſayth?Ezek. 16.44. As is the Mother, So is the Daughter. And hetherto of the defence of this reaſon.

Nowe moreouer lett it heere be obſerued, howe theſe men, to defende their estate, are glad to runne into the Papistes Tentes, and to take vpp their worne & rustie weapons, which haue bene of no force to defend them ſelues, but haue bene often & iustly turned into their owne bowels. Read theRhemes notations vpon 1. Tim. 4.3. Reames Annotations vpon this place (1. Tim. 4.) and ſee if theſe men heere would not auoyde the euidence of this ſcripture againſt them, by the very ſame ſhift and anſwer, by which the detestable Ieſuites there would turne it from their mother of Rome, that is, by posting it ouer from them ſelues to Martion and Tatianus. Read it, and note it well.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 7. Reaſon.

TO this your defence of your Seuenth Reaſon, I ſay, Though euery where you are very vnreaſonable, yet no where you ſeeme more vnconſcionable and wilfull then here.

Firſt, doe I ſay No to the Apoſtles Yea, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. That they who forbid Mariage and Meates doe fall from the faith. Doe I ſay noe? Is this your conſcience? Say I not expreſly, They doe in theſe points departe from the faith, A ſtrange vntrueth. but not abſolutly and wholy.

Secondly, doeth it follow by my words, as you affirme, That none departe from the faith but thoſe that departe totally, wholy, and abſolutely, whereby all the vildeſt Heretikes ſhould be iustified, as Arrians, Nestorians, Anabatiſts, &c. Doe I ſay ſo? Is this alſo your conſcience? Againe doe I ſay, The text doth not reproue all the Papiſts in their forbidding of Mariage and Meates, but only Martion and Tatianus of old? Doe I ſay any ſuch thing? Nay, ſay I not expreſlie the contrarie? Are you then a man of conſcience? Doe you ſuffer for conſcience? Know therefore that this I ſay, and my wordes before doe import ſo much. That whoſoeuer doe forbid mariage or meates, doe depart from the faith. But note: ſome doe more, ſome leſſe. There are ſome that doe ſimply and fundamentally, and others in ſome ſorte. Men departe from the faith Simply and Fundamentally two wayes. Firſt they which doe erre in ſuch maine poincts as doe vtterly aboliſh vs from Chriſt and deſtroy the Foūdation: thus doe Arrians, Manichees, Seruetus, Papiſtes, &c. Secondly, ſuch as holding the Foundation in doctrine ſound, doe deſperatly profeſſe and teach ſome what els, againſt the manifeſt light that is in them: ſo Martion and Tatianus, doe Fundamentally and ſimply fall from the faith, becauſe they ſimply forbid thoſe good ordinances of God, Marriage and Meates, euen againſt the light of conſcience & nature: togeather wherewith, a liuely ſauing faith cannot poſſibly ſtand. Now the Papiſts in this do departe from the faith alſo, but that is only in ſome ſorte or in parte: becauſe they forbid theſe things (not abſolutly, but) vnto ſome, & ſometimes. They that departe thus from the faith, may bee true Chriſtians notwithſtanding, yea they are certenly, if they be no worſe in any thing els, albeit you deny it here moſt fondly & without all ſence. To which end you moſt vnlearnedly and vngodly apply thoſe ſcriptures, Scriptures abuſed. A litle leauen leueneth the lump, A few dead flyes make the oyntment to ſtincke, and a little poyſon bringeth death. Will you haue no tainte of euell in a Chriſtian, but it quencheth the life of God in vs needes? Is it not poſſible your ſelues might hold ſome ſuch errors, and yet remayne true Chriſtians notwithſtanding? Then if Papiſts were no worſe but in thoſe errors only, they might be true Chriſtians notwithſtanding. But Martion and Tatianus doe wholy departe from the faith, not but that they beleued ſome truthes: but in that they The ſame did Corah, Da than and Abyram likewiſe See before in anſwer to ye 2. Exception, ye a Reply. preſumptuouſly quenched the inſtinct of nature & conſcience, as I haue ſaid. Here then it appeareth how wicked a ſclaunder it is that you ſay, I runne into the Papiſtes tents, and fight with their weapons, & doe iump with the Remiſts annotations on, 1. Tim. 4.1, 2, 3. Iudge now by this that I haue ſaid, whether I doe or no.

And note, that I ſaye, that they be either Apoſtates or departers from the faith, not onely who fall totally, as you ſclaunder me that I ſaye: but alſo who fall fundamentally, that is, eyther the firſt way or ſecond, as I haue afore ſaide. And ſo doe theſe groſſe Heretikes whom you mention, 1 Arius, Seruetus, Papiſtes, &c. 2. Martion, Tatianus, Iudas, Corah, Balaam, the Apoſtate Iſraelites, &c. Thus then your queſtions and demaundes about the Papiſtes and their errors, I paſſe by, as more vayne, then pertinent. Onely note withall, if this reaſon of yours were good, it maketh Maiſter Cranmer. Ridley, &c. to be departers from the faith, & no true Chriſtians.

Maiſter IOHNSONS VIII. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON VIII.

IF the Apoſtle accoumpted them denyers of the faith and worſe then infidels (and conſequently no true Chriſtians) who (though they held other truthes of the Gospell yet) prouide not for their houſehold: Then what will he accoumpt of them, who (though they profeſſe ſome truthes of the Goſpell, yet) are not true worſhippers of God, but execute or ſubmit vnto a falſe ministerie, worſhip, and gouernment eccleſiasticall: Which to be th' eſtate of the Miniſterie and people of theſe aſſemblies, appeareth as aforeſaid.

But the firſt is true 1, Tim. 5.8. Therefore, &c.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 8. Reaſon.

THis your Eight Reaſon is thus much: viz. Like as it is for a profeſſor, not to prouide for his houſhold ſo is it to hold the Hierarchy, &c. But that is to deny the faith, and to bee worſe then an infidel. Ergo ſo are we in England.

Thoſe very anſwers to the laſt Reaſon, doe fully and flatly ſatisfie this alſo: Either againſt the Aſſumption, (namely that it is not meant ſimply of denying the faith, nor I meane Fundamentally, as in the laſt Reaſon before I haue ſhewed. wholy, but in this poinct only: Or els the propoſitiō, as being meant of ſuch, as neglect their families againſt the light of their conſciences, and the manifeſt inſtinct of nature.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 8. Reaſon.

FOr anſwere of our ſaid Eight Reaſon, he referreth vs to thoſe anſwers of his, to the laſt Reaſon, which he ſaith doth fully and flatly' ſatisfie this alſo, for the propoſition and Aſſumption. But this which he ſaith, we haue in the defence of that Reaſon, declared to be altogeather vntrue: Therefore yet we haue receiued no anſwere, either to that Reaſon, or this. That thus it ſtandeth we referre the Reader for it vnto that which is ſaid in defence of that Reaſon aforeſaid: wiſhing the Reader moreouer to obſerue, both there and here in his anſwer to the Reaſon following, that the power of the truth ſo preuaileth against them, as they cannot but graunt, that they departe from and deny the faith, in their miniſterie, worſhip and gouernement eccleſiaſticall, as appeareth in their Canons, booke of Common prayer, Articles, Iniunctions, perſecutions, &c. All which beeing mentioned vnto them as proofes thereof, in theſe ſeuerall reaſons: when now they ſhould defend theſe particulers, if they would maintaine their ſtanding, behold they are as mute as a fiſh therein: and not that onely, but in their aunſwer to the next Reaſon following, graunt vnto vs, that in theſe things we may and ought to ſeparate from them. Which is directly to yeeld vs the cauſe: Thus ſoundly they anſwer vs, and diſpute for themſelues.

H. JACOB his 2. Reply to the 8. Reaſon.

TO this your Eight Reaſon and defence thereof, I aunſwer as before: If you take the Apoſtle to meane, ſuch neglecters of their houſhold as deny the faith, not Fundamentally nor againſt the inſtinct of nature, but only againſt conuenient Chriſtian prouidence, and no otherwiſe: Then I deny your Aſſumption. If the Apoſtle meane of ſuch, as neglect their families againſt the light of confcience, & natures inſtinct, then I deny the Propoſition. This I ſay, becauſe the Apoſtle may very well meane both theſe, but in a diuerſe meaſure and proportion of ſinne: but then this concerneth not vs, Euen ſo as I haue ſaid to your former Reaſon. Note alſo, if this were a true Reaſon, it maketh Maiſter Cranmer, &c. denyers of the faith, and no true Chriſtians alſo. For maintenance where of, you haue here not one poore word at all.

Touching that you ſay we cannot deny, but graunt, that wee departe from and deny the faith in our Miniſterie. I haue told you how, in my anſwer to your 7. Reaſon, Alſo ſee my Replies to your 2. Exception.

Maiſter IOHNSONS IX. Reaſon againſt the former Aſſumption: with Maiſter IACOBS Replies to the ſame. REASON IX.

THey which teach othewiſe and conſent not to the wholſome wordes of our Lord Ieſus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godlines, are by the rule of the Apoſtle to be ſeparated from, and therefore cannot in that caſe by the word of God be deemed true Chriſtians, 1. Tim. 6.3.4, 5.

But that ſo it is with the miniſters and people of theſe aſſembles, in regarde of their miniſterie, worſhip, and Church conſtitution, appeareth by the Seauentene poincts of falſe doctrine, &c. which are already ſet down, and by the proofes before alleadged out of their own cannons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c.

Therefore the Miniſters and people of theſe aſſemblies, in regard of their miniſterie, worſhip, and Church conſtitution, are by the rule of the Apostle to be ſeparated from, neither can in that caſe by the word of God be deemed true Chriſtians.

H. IACOB his 1. Reply to the 9. Reaſon.

THis your laſt Reaſon is Separat frō thē that teach otherwiſe then the truth: 1 Tim. 6, 3, 4, 5. We holding thoſe Articles, doe teach diuerſe thinges in the Hyerarchie &c. that be otherwiſe then is truth. Therefore we muſt be ſeparated from, and conſequently we are no true Christians.

This is a falacy alſo Separate from ſuch, Ergo ſeparate wholy. See my 1. and 2. Reply afore to the third Exception, alſo the Anſwer to the two laſt Reaſons of all, the 7. and 8. We graunt therefore, ſo farr forth as we hold otherwiſe then trueth, ſo farr ſeparate from vs, but not any farther at all: not wholly, or abſolutly. And ſo the Apoſtle heere meaneth. Wherefore briefly: Becauſe you proue vs not wholy to deny the trueth, nor fundamentally, nor obſtinatly, peruerſly, and deſperatly any parte thereof, like thoſe Iewes Act. 19.8. whom Paul ſeparated from, which he did not from all other Iewes, Act. 13.14. and 16.3. and 21.23, 24, 26. and 3.1. Therefore you ought not wholy to ſeparate from vs, Neither to condemne vs wholy as aboliſhed from Chriſt, no more then Maiſter Cranmer and Ridley were with their Congregations in King Edwards time. And thus our Aſſumption in the beginning, ſtandeth firme, The doctrine in the booke of Articles, is ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian.

The contrarie whereof, is ſuch a Paradox,Concluſion. as hath not bene heard of till this day: All reformed Churches in Europe doe and haue alwayes held otherwiſe. ThemſeluesMai. Barrow. Mai. Penry. Mai. Iohnſon. heretofore haue acknowledged and profeſſed it. The holy Martirs that liued in King Edwardes dayes, and died in Queene Maries dayes, muſt bee otherwiſe cut of from Chriſt, who were true Chriſtians by vertue of this doctrine and the practice thereof, or verily not at all. But now it is wonder, what extreame paſſion hath driuen them to this deniall. Surely they ſee that it conuinceth flatly (as indeed it doth,) their peremptorie ſeparation: And therefore, rather then they would ſeeme to haue erred in ſo mayne poinct: wee cannot but thinke that meere deſperatnes, hath driuen them to it. Neuertheleſſe, all this we leaue to the Lorde, with the iudgment thereof, who hath the hearts of all men in his hand: not only to ſearch the ſeacrets; but alſo to turne and diſpoſe them, euen as it pleaſeth him.

F. IOHNSON his Defence of his 9. Reaſon.

VNto our Nineth Reaſon aforeſaide, he anſwereth: That it is a Fallacy: ſeparate from ſuch: Ergo ſeparate wholy. But howe ſhewes he any fallacie to be in our Reaſon? Hee bids vs ſee his anſwere aboue to our third Exception, alſo his anſweres to the two last Reaſons of all. Well we haue ſeene them, and finde nothing there but againſt him ſelf, as there hath bene ſhewed. So this Reaſon then, as the rest alſo, ſtill ſtandes vnanſwered, and ſtronge against them. And that we may not doubt, but him ſelfe alſo ſeeth it to be ſo, how ſoeuer he ſeemeth to pleade to the contrarie before: therefore nowe he graunteth it (and ſo yeeldes vs the cauſe) both in expreſſe wordes, and by not defending the 17. poinctes of falſe doctrine, wherewith they were charged, neither their owne Cannons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c. alleadged against them. In expreſſe wordes, whē he ſayth, they graunt, that ſo farr foorth as they holde otherwiſe then trueth, ſo farre we may and ought to ſeparat from them. Loe here what the euidence of the trueth (against which they haue ſtruggeled ſo longe) hath now at length drawne from them. The trueth is mighty, and preuayleth. But he addeth, that we muſt not ſeparate from them any further, then as before: not wholy or abſoluteiy: and ſo ſaieth he, the Apoſtle 1. Tim. 3.3. here meaneth. Well, but let vs here knowe what this mā him ſelf meaneth hereby: If he meane that we muſt not for their other defectiō forſake the truthes which they holde. We anſwere that we doe it not, as him ſelfe knoweth: and in this ſence alſo his meaning ſhould come nothing neare the Apostles meaning. Themſelues ſay they haue ſeparated from the Papists: yet he neither ean nor will ſay, that they haue forſaken theAs that ther is a God: that there, is three perſons in the Godhead: that Ieſus Chriſt is the Sauiour of ye worlde: that God made heauen and earth: that there ſhalbe a reſurrection of the iuſt and vniuſt. truthes which the papistes held, notwithstanding that they haue made ſeparation from them. But if he meane, that becauſe of the truthes which they profeſſe, therefore we ſhould not ſeparate from them: then First he contradicteth him ſelfe, hauing graunted that we muſt ſeparate from them, ſo far foorth as they hold otherwiſe then trueth. Secondly, he condemneth their owne practze in their ſeparation from the Papistes, notwithſtanding the truthes they profeſſe. Thirdly, in this ſence alſo his meaning ſhould come nothing neare the Apoſtles meaning. Thus therefore it is euident, both that there is no fallacie in our reaſon, but that it is plaine and forceable against them: And moreouer, that he hath directly in expreſſe wordes yeelded vs the cauſe, and acknowledged our ſeparation from their aſſemblies, ministerie, worſhip, &c. And as he doeth this in expreſſe wordes, ſo alſo he ſheweth it in deed, in that he leaueth without all defence (as vnlawfull and to be ſeparated from) their Miniſterie, Worſhip, and Gouuernement Eccleſiaſticall, the 17. poincts of falſe doctrine obiected againſt them, and their Canons, Articles, Iniunctions, &c. mentioned both here, and more particularly in the Firſt and Second Reaſons going before: Which thing we wiſh the Reader well to obſerue. And becauſe we are fallen againe into mention of the 17. poinctes of falſe doctrine, to the end that the Reader may yet more ſee the deceitfulnes of his dealing and inſufficiencie of all his anſweres heere and before: therefore it ſhall not bee yrke ſome to ſett downe here before the Readers, thoſe 17. poinctes of falſe doctrine aforeſaide, specially ſeeing they are but ſhort. They are theſe as followeth.

Poinctes of falſe doctrine deliuered and ſpread abroad by the Writings, Sermons, and practiſe of the forward Preachers of the Pariſh aſſemblies of England: with anſweres to the ſame. 1 That though the open notorious obstinate offenders be partakers of the Sacramentes, yet neither the: Sacramentes, nor the people that ioyne with them, are defiled thereby. Which doctrine is contrarie to the trueth of God in theſe ſcriptures, 1 Cor. 10, 17. Hag. 2.14, 15. 1 Cor. 5.6. and 10.28 2 Cor. 6.15, 18. Gal. 5.9. Mat. 18.8, 9, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19. Exod. 12.43. Leuit. 15.4, 5, 6, 7, 31. and 11.24. and 23, 45, 46. and 19.17. Num. 5.2, 3. and 19.21, 22. Ioſua 11.12. Ezra 6.21.22. Ier. 3.1. 2 That the planting or reforming of Christes Church must tarrie for the Ciuill magistrate, and may not otherwiſe be brought in by the word & ſpirite of God in the mouthes of his weakest ſeruantes, except they haue authoritie from earthlie Princes: Which doctrine is againſt the Kinglie power of Chriſt, and theſe ſcriptures, Mat, 28.18. Actes 3.23. 1 Cor. 1. 27. Pſal. 2.6, 9, 10, 12. Eſai 9.6, 7. Zach. 4.6. and 6.12.23. Dan. 2.44. and 7.27. and 9.25. Mich. 5.7. Mat. 28.20. 1 Cor. 14.27. with 1 Theſ. 4.8. Phil. 2.6, 12. 1 Tim. 6.13, 14.15. Rene. 1.5. and 14.12. and 17.14. & 19 16. and 20.4. 3 That the true viſible Church of Christ is not a ſeparated companie of righteouſe men and women, from the Jdolaters and open wicked of the world, but may conſist of all ſortes of people good & bad: Which doctrine is contrarie to the paterne of Chriſts Church, throughout all the ſcriptures. Gen. 4.26. with 6.2. Exod. 4.22, 23. Leuit. 10.10. and 20.24, 25, 26 Pſal. 24.3, 4. Ezra 6.21. 2 Chron. 11.13, 16. Nehem. 10.28. Eze. 22.26. with 44.23. Zeph. 3.4. Mat. 3.10, 12. Act. 2.40, 41, 42. and 19.9. Rom. 12.1, 8. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. 1 Pet. 2.9, 10. Reu. 14.9, 12. and 18.4. and 21.27 and 22.14, 15. &c. 4 That they may mainteyne this error of their confuſed order and mixture of all ſortes of perſons togeather, they peruert the Parable of the tares, Mat. 13.24. teaching that all are the Church: Which doctrine is againſt the trueth of the ſcriptures, yea againſt our Sauiours owne interpretation in the 38. verſe, who teacheth, that by the field is meant (not the Church) but the world, in which his Church is milatāt. And as therin there is the good ſeede, the righteous, the Children of the Kingdome: So there are alſo tares, hipocrites, the childrē of the wicked, who as they are often eſpied in this life, by the righteous ſeruauntes of God, ſo ſhall they in that great day be perfectlie ſeuered from the godly by the Angels of God, verſe 38.43. This their doctrine alſo is againſt the heauenlie orders mentioned, Matt. 18.8, 9, 15, 16, 17. 1 Corint. 1.26.29. Actes 2.40.41, 47. and 5.26, 27, 28. and 19, 9. and 5.4, 7. 2 Cor. 6.17, 18. Leuit. 18.29. 1 Tim. 6.5. 2 Iohn verſe 6.11. Reuel. 2. and 3. and 14.9.12 and 18.4. and 20.4. 5 That the people may tollerate and ioyne with open iniquitie in the Church, vntill by the Magistrate it be redreſſed: which doctrine is contrary to theſe riptures, 2 Cor. 10.4, 5. Mat. 28.21. Acts. 2.40. & 3.23. and 4.19. and 9.26. and 19.9. 1 Tim. 5.22. Deu. 5.32. 6 That the guiftes of interpretation and application of the Scriptures are a ſufficient and lawfull calling to the miniſterie, &c. Which doctrine is both falſe and Anabaptiſticall, contrarie to the ſcriptures, Heb. 5.4. Rom 12.6, 7, 8. Leuit. 22.25. Ezek. 44.8, 9, &c. Num. 1.51. and 3.10, 38 and 16.40. and 18.2 3, 4. Act. 1.20.26. and 14.23. and 13.2.3. 7 That the Church may yeelde obedience vnto other lawes, cannons, and traditions, officers and offices, then God hath preſcribed in his Conenant. Which doctrine is contrarie to Gen. 49.10. Mal. 6.24. Iohn 10, 4, 5. Ren. 14.4. and 22, 18, 19. Heb. 3, 1, &c: 8 That the Church may read other mens wordes vppon a booke, and offer them vp to God as their owne prayers and ſacrifices in the publique Aſſemblies: Which doctrine is contrarie to the ſcriptures, Eſai 29.13, 14. Rom. 8.26. 1 Cor. 14.15. Mat. 6.6.9. and 15.9. Mar. 7.7. Ephe. 4.7, 8. 1 Pet. 2.5. 9 That it is lawfull to ioyne with the Ministerie of dumb and Jdoll Priests, and to receiue the Sacramentes at their handes: Which doctrine is contrarie to, Mal. 15.14. and 7.19. and 24.24, 25. Iohn. 10.1.5. Num. 16, 5, 9, 24, 26, 39, 40, &c. 1 Tim 6.5.2. Iohn verſe 6.11 10 That it is lawfull for a Miniſter of Chriſt, to ceaſe preaching, & forſake his flock, at the Commaundement of a Lord Biſhop: Which doctrine is contrarie to, 1 Cor. 9.16. Eſay 62.4, 6, 7. Ier. 48.10. Zach. 11.17. Iohn 10.11, 12, 13. Actes 4.18, 19, 20, and 5.29. Amos 7.12, 13, 14, 15. 2 Tim. 4.2. 11 That the Church of Chriſt hath not alwayes power to binde and looſe, to receiue in, and to cast out by the Keyes of the Kingdome: Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 18.17, 18. Pſal. 149.9. 1 Cor. 5.4, 5.12, Num. 5, 2, 3. 12 That it is lawfull for the people of God to heare notorious falſe prophetes in their Ministerie: Which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 18.15. Mat. 17.5. and 7.15.2 John verſe 10.11. 1 Cor. 10.18. Gala. 1, 8, 9. Reuel. 14 9, 10, 11. and 18.4. John 10.96. 13 That it is the Church and houſe of God, the body and kingdome of Christ, where he reigneth not by his own Ordinances & Officers, but the highest Eccleſiasticall authoritie is in the handes of ſtrange Lordes, and Antichristian Prelates, who alſo gouerne by Romiſhe Cannons, and not according to the lawes of Christes Testament: Which doctrine and practiſe is condemned by Luke 19.14, 27. Iohn 15.14. Rom. 6.16. Luke 22.25, 26. 1 Pet. 3.2 Theſ. 2 3.4. Iohn 3.35.36. Reuel. 9.3. and 14.9.10.11 and 19.14.15. 14 That there may be a preſcript Leiturgie and ſett fourme of ſeruice in the Church, framed by man: which doctrine is contrarie to Deut. 5.8. Eſai 29.13, 14. Mat. 15.9. and 7.6.7. Gal. 3.15. Iohn 4.24. Rom. 8.26.27. Ephe. 4.7.8. 15 That an Antichriſtian Prelate, notwithſtanding his dignitie (as it is called) ſpirituall, may be a Ciuill Magiſtrate, and obeyed of the people as their lawfull gouernour, Which doctrine is contrarie to Rom. 13.1, &c. Mat. 20.25, 26. Mar. 10.42, 43. Luke 22.25, 26. Reuel. 14.9, 10, 11. and 17.18. 16 That men may giue the titles of Chriſt Jeſus vnto theſe ſonnes of men, and his mortall enemies, to call them their Arch and Lord Biſhops, Reuerend Fathers, &c. Which doctrine is contrarie to Mat. 23, 8, 9, 10. Eſai 42.8. and 48.11. Pro. 17.15. and 24.24. Eſai 5.20. 2 Cor. 6.14.17. 17 That it is lawfull for a Minister of Christ to be mainteyned in his ministerie, by the goods of wicked and vnbeleeuers, by Iewiſh and Popiſhe tythes and offeringes: Which doctrine is contrarie to Prou. 27.26, 27. 1 Cor. 9.13, 14. Phil. 4.10.18. Gal. 6.6. Rom. 15.27. Heb. 7.12.

Theſe are the 17 poinctes which were mentioned before in the proofe of this reaſon: which the aduerſarie hath left altogeather vnanſwered, as he hath done alſo their owne Cannons, Articles, and Iniunctions: which are to be ſeene in their printed bookes. And thus is he driuen againe & againe whether he will or not, to yeeld vs the cauſe.

That which he addeth in the next place, of their not wholy denying the trueth, nor fundamentally, nor obſtinately, peruerſlie, and deſperatlie any parte thereof, is anſwered before in the defence of our ſecond Exception, and of our ſixt and ſeauenth Reaſons.

Nowe, when he next ſaith, That they are not herein like thoſe Iewes (Act. 19.9.) whom Paule ſeparated from, which he did not from all other Iewes, Actes 13.14. and 16, 3: and 21, 23, 24, 26. and 3.1. Firste wee aſke, What if they be not in all reſpectes like vnto thoſe Jewes, are they not therefore to be ſeparated from? So in deed he would conclude in this place, But then let him tell vs, if Corah, Dathan and Abiram, the Apostate Jewes vnder Ieroboam, the Corinthians, Papistes, &c: might not alleadge ſome particular exception, wherein they were not like to thoſe Iewes, Act. 19. Might not therefore ſeparatiō be made from theſe? The ſcripture teacheth otherwiſe, Numb. 16.25, 26. 2 Chrō. 11.14. 2 Cor. 6.17, Reu. 18.4 Secondly, cōſider the place it ſelfe (Act. 19.9.) & cōpare it with their eſtate & practiſe in England, & ſee if there be not now as great and iust cauſe to ſeparate from thē, as frō the other. Are not theſe now hardned againſt the trueth? Let their writings against it, their impriſonning, baniſhing, and killing, for it, giue euidence. Doe they not diſobey it? Let their constitution and practize be witneſſe. Speake they not euill of the way of God before the multitude? Let the Sermons of their Ministers in the pulpit, & the speaches of the Prelates in their Courtes, beare record: Therefore ſaith thatActes 19.9. Actes 2.40. Scripture (Actes 19) they are to be departed and ſeparated from. Wherevnto alſo may be added in this caſe that which Peter ſaith Act. 2 Saue your ſelues from this froward generation. Thidly were he obiecteth That Paule did not ſeparate frō all the other Iewes, as he did from theſe, Acts 19. and ſheweth it by Act. 13.14. and 16.3. & 21, 23, 24▪ 26. & 3.1 we anſwer, that the Apostles had good and iust cauſe ſo to doe. For first the JewesRom. 9.4. Leuit. 20.22, 24, 26. Luk. 1.6.8. &c. were the people of God, ſeparated from the world, and ſet in the true waand order of God. Secondly,Luke 24.47. Act. 1.8. and 13.46. Christ commaunded the Apostles, when he ſent them to preach his Gospell, throughout the worlde, that they ſhould first preach it to the Iewes. Thirdlie, the Iewes ministerie & ceremonies being the ordinances of God him ſelfe, and giuen in writing by Moſes the man of God,Act. 15.21. and 21.30, 21 22, 23, 24, 25. Heb. 8.5, 13. & 9.1, &c. were therefore nowe, when they ſhould ceaſe, to be buried with honor. Theſe things conſidered, we ſee the Apostles had iust cauſe ſo to doe, as they did in thoſe places mentioned: But what is this to the aſſemblies of England, which neuer yet were ſeparated from the world, nor ſet in the way and order of Christ, but ſtande in theReue. 13.16, 17. and 18 2. 2 The. 2.3, 4, 8 confuſion and defection of Antichrist, whoſe ministerie alſo and worſhippe, were neuer the ordinances of God, ButReue. 17.2, 4 and 18.3. and 9.3. &c. taken out of the whores Cup of Babilon, for which likewiſe God neuer gaue Comaundement to goe vnto them, but toReue. 18.4. with 17.9. 1 Tim. 6, 3, 5. departe from them, as being daughters of the greate Babilon that mother of whoredomes and abominations of the earth. Againe euen from thoſe Iewes, notwithſtanding the reaſons aforeſaid, yet when they put from them the trueth, and would not receyue it, the Apoſtles departed and ſeparated thē ſelues, yea and ſhooke off the dust of their feete against them, teaching others to doe ſo likewiſe, Actes 13.46, 51. and 18.6. & 28, 25, 26, 27, 28. and 20.40. and 19.8, 9.

To that of Maister Cranmer, Ridley, &c is anſwered before. And hetherto of their generall Aſſumption, which was this: That the whole doctrine as it is profeſſed and publiquely practiſed by lawe in Englande, is ſufficient to make a particular man a true Chriſtian. Which wee haue ſhewed to be vntrue, both by the Exceptions and Reaſons aforeſaid, which ſtill ſtande firme against them, as is manifest by this our defence.

Touching the concluſion:

And now let the godly Reader (trying all things by the word of trueth) iudge, whether we or they holde Paradoxes.

Touching that he ſaith of the reformed Churches, he is deceyued, if he thinke they allowe their preſent estate and church constitution. Both their publique profeſſion and practiſe witneſſe the contrarie: as wee haue declared at large inIn ye anſwers of Ma. Carthwrights reaſons: of Maiſt. Hilderſams letter, &c. other treatiſes, which yet remayne vnanſwered, wherevnto we referre the Reader in this behalfe.

Where he ſayth, That we our ſelues heretofore haue acknowledged and profeſſed it, (to wit their general Aſſumption aforeſaid to be true) he is alſo deceyued therein: we haue alwayYou maie ſpeake it with ſhame enough teſtified the contrarie, both by our profeſſion and practiſe, and were and are therefore cast into priſon, appoincted to exile, and put to death: beſides many other iniuries & grieuances inflicted vpon vs for this verie cauſe. In deed we haue acknowledged and doe acknowledge, that they profeſſe diuers excellent truthes, but that the whole doctrine, as it is publiquelie profeſſed and practized by law in England, doeth make them in that estate true Christians, neuer anie of vs (that we know of) did once acknowledge. And therfore till he ſhew vs the contrarie, we must needes thinke that he falſely burtheneth vs all, and specially ſuch of vs, as he hath mentioned here in particular.

To that which he next addeth of the Martirs in Queene Maries dayes is anſwered already in the defence of our Seconde Exception and First Reaſon, wherevnto may be added for more euidēce of the trueth, the particular speaches & testimonies of the holy Martirs them ſelues, both then and in former tymes.

As of Maister Bradford, whoActes & monuments 2. vo. in his conference wt Peter Henth. speaking of the dayes before Queene Marie) ſaide, The tyme was, when the Pope was out of England, but not all popery. And moreouer,In his firſte ſpeach with D. Harpsfielde, Archdeacon. That the ſcripture knoweth not any difference betweene Biſhops and Ministers, which men call Priestes. And that the ſcripture speaking of Biſhops, can not be vnderstood of Biſhops that minister not, but lord it.

Alſo of Maister Hooper, who held andHooper on the eight commandment. publiſhed, that a Biſhop ſhould be Biſhop but of one Citie: and that till the Magistrates bring them to this poinct, it ſhalbe as poſſible to heare a Biſhop wade, godly and ſimply through the ſcripture in caſe of Religion, as to driue a Cammell through the eye of a needle. And agayne he ſayth: The primitiue Church had not ſuch Biſhops as be nowe a dayes. And againe, What blindneſſe (ſayth he) is there befell in the world, that can not ſee this palpable yll, that our Mother the holy Church had at the beginning, ſuch Biſhops, as did preach many godly Sermons in leſſe time then our Biſhops horſes bee a brideling.

And John Bale, an exile for the testimonie of Jeſu, writing vpon the Reuelation,Bale in his booke called The Image of both churches vpon Reu. 13.1. and 17.3. affirmeth moreouer, That the names of Blasphemy written vpon the Beastes head (Reuel. 13. and 17.) are none other then the proud glittering titles, wherewith they garniſh their vſurped authoritie, to make it ſeeme glorious to the worlde, hauing within them conteyned the great misterie of iniquitie. What other els (ſaith he alſo) is Pope, Cardinall, Metropolitan, Primate, Archbiſhop, Diocean, Archdeacon, Officiall, Chauncelour, Commiſſarie, Deane, Prebend, Parſons, Vicar, and ſuch like, but very names of blasphemie? For offices they are not appointed by the holy Ghost, nor yet once mentioned in the ſcriptures. This Iohn Bale held and publiſhed. Then which, what can be more full and euident against them?

And againe writing vpon the 14. chapter of the Reuelation,In Image of both churches vpō Reu. 14.9 he hath theſe wordes:

To receyue the beastes marke in their foreheads & hands, is both to agree to ſuch decrees, traditions, lawes, constitutions, actes, and proclamations, as they vnder thoſe titles, haue made, onely for their own couetouſnes and pompe, and neither for the glorie of God, nor yet for the right maintenance of the Christian cōmon wealth: And alſo to be ſworn to the ſame, to ſubſcribe to it, to giue counſell or ayde to it, to mainteyne it by learning, to minister in it, to execute vnder it, to accuſe, puniſhe, and put to death for it, or to thinke it lawfull and godly, with ſuch like.

AndIbid. vpon Reuel. 16.12. afterward vpon the 16. of the Reuelation, expounding the drying vp of the waters of Euphrates to be this, That the welthy Popes poſſeſſions "and pleaſurs of the Clergy (their falſe feates once known) are and "ſhalbe cleerly taken away from them: He ſaith Moreouer, InMarke alſo by this of what time & eſtate hee ſpeaketh: euen of ſuch, when the Goſpell was preached, the Monaſteries ſuppreſſed. England by the Goſpell preaching haue many of theſe waters bene dried vp in the ſuppreſſion of the monaſteries, prioryes, couents, and Friers houſes, yet are not all thinges brought vnto Chriſts cleare inſtitution. A cincere Chriſtian-order cannot yet be ſeene there. And a great cauſe why. For all is not yet dried vp there. The Biſhops reigne ſtill in aſmuch vaine glorious pompe, and with as many Heatheniſh obſeruations, as euer they did, As cruelly harted and as bloody minded are they yet, as euer they were afore. "No miſchiefe vnſought to holde in the waters. Marke howeHe meaneth the Prelates of theſe Seas. Winchester, "Durham, Yorke, London, and Lyncolne, worke (let vs alſo now adde Canterburie) with ſuch other pleaſantlie dispoſed Euphratynes: But be of good comfort, & pray in the meane time. For the holy Ghost promiſeth heere, that they ſhall wither away withall that the heauenly Father hath not planted. All which generation will the Lords breth cōſume, &c.

Likewiſe may be ſhewed by the testimonie of others in former tymes, as of Iohn Wickliffe, whoActes & Monumen. 4. edi. 1. vol. pa. 150. helde and affirmed: That Archbiſhops, Biſhops, Archdeacons, Officialls, Deanes, Cannons, were diſciples of Antichrist.

In like manner of William Swinderby, whoIbid. pag. 36.8. b. ſaid that what Pope, Cardinal, Biſhop, Prelate or Prieſt, in manner of liuing, or teachching, or lawes making, contrarie to Chriſts liuing & his lawes, or any other ground put in ruling of the Church of Chriſt, but by Chriſt and his lawes, is very Antichriſt, aduerſarie to Ieſus Chriſt and his Apoſtles.

Alſo Syr John old Caſtle Lord Cobham whoIbid. pag. 5621 b. & 563. held & affirmed, that the Biſhops, Prieſtes, Prelates, and Monkes, were the body of the great "Antichriſt: And that the poſſeſſions and Lordſhips of the Clergy, were the "venime of Iudas ſhed into the Church.

Likewiſe IohnIbid. pag. 639. b: Cladon burnt in Smithfield, held & profeſſed, that the Archbiſhops, & Biſhops, ſpeaking indifferently, are the ſeates of the beaſt Antichrist, when he ſitteth in them and reigneth aboue other people in the darke Calues of errors and hereſies. Moreouer that the Biſhops licence for a mā to preach the worde of God, is the true character of the beaſt, that is, Antichrist.

Finally WilliamIn his treatiſes called the obedience of a chriſtian man, and the pracsiſe of Prelats. Tindall and IohnIn his Preface before his Antytheſis betweene Chriſt and the Pope. Frith, held and publiſſed, That Archb. Lordb. Archdeacons, Deanes, Officialls, Parſons, Vicars, and the reſt of that ſort, are the diſciples of Antichriſt, yea very Antichriſtes themſelues.

Theſe are the ſpeeches and teſtimonies of the holy Martirs in former ages, whereunto diuerſe other ſuch like might bee added. But theſe may ſuffice for the matter in hand. And now compare with theſe thinges alleadged, the publique profeſſion & practiſe of England euen as it is by law at this day, and ſee whether their own proofes bee not ſo many witniſſes againſt themſelues. But if it were ſo, that the reformed Churches, wee our ſelues, and the Martirs of former time, had geuen allowance of their preſent eſtate & Church conſtitution, what would this help thē, when all the word of God condemneth thē, as we haue ſhewed in our Reaſons aforeſaid & defence therof. Whereunto (if they will still iuſtifie their eſtate) wee require direct anſwer from poinct to poinct, and that from the ſcriptures, which only can ſtabliſh the conſcince.

Now furthermore, that the truth it ſelfe, and their estate may better appeare what it is, as alſo that they may not turne away or obſcure the truth by their ſubtill ſhiftes and euaſions, as their manner is: we will therefore propound vnto them a few questions concerning the poinctes now in controuerſie in this land, deſiring their playne and ſincere anſwers, thereunto by the word of God, as they will anſwer him in his great day.

The queſtions are theſe. 1 Whether the Lord Ieſus Christ haue by his last Testament geuen vnto and ſet in his Church ſufficient ordinary 1. Offices, with their 2. Callings, 3. Workes, and 4. Maintenance for the adminiſtration of his holy things, and for the ſufficient ordinary inſtruction, guidance and ſeruice of his Church to the end of the world, or no. 2 Whether the Offices of Pastors, Teachers, Elders, Deacons, and helpers, be thoſe offices appincted by Christ in his laſt Testament as aforeſaid.. Or whether the preſent eccleſiaſticall Offices of Archbiſhops, Lordbiſhops, Suffragans, Deanes, Prebendaries, Cannons, Petticannos, Gospellers, Pistlers, Ʋirgirers Queriſters, Organ-players, Prieſts, Deacons or, halfe Prieſtes, Archdeacons, Doctors of diuinitie, Batchelers of diuinity, Chaplyns or Houſe-prieſtes, Commiſſaries, Officialls, Procters, Apparitors; Parſons, Ʋicars, Curates, Ʋagrant or Mercinary preachers, Churchwardens, Sidemen, Clerkes, Sextons, and the rest now had in theſe Cathedrall and pariſhionall aſſemblies be thoſe offices appoincted by Christ in his last Teſtament as is aforeſaid, or no. 3 Whether the Callinges and entraunce into theſe Eccleſiasticall offices last aforeſaid, their Administration, and Maintenance, nowe had and receiued in England, be the manner of calling, administration, & maintenaunce which Christ hath appoincted for the offices of his church aboue named, or no. 4 Whether euery true viſible church of Christ be not a company of people called and ſeparated out from the world by the worde of God, and ioyned togeather in fellowſhip of the Gospell, by voluntary profeſſion of the faith and obedince of Christ? And whether the preſent eccleſiaſticall aſſemblies of this Land be ſuch: or no. 5 Whether the Sacraments (beeing ſeales of the righteouſnes which is by faith) may be deliuered to any other then to the faithfull and their ſeed, or in any other miniſtery and manner then is appoincted by Ieſus Chriſt the Apoſtle and high Prieſt of our profeſſion? And whether they bee not otherwiſe adminiſtred in the Cathedrall and pariſhionall aſſemblies of England at this day. 6 Whether their booke of Common prayer with the Feaſtes, Faſts, and Holy dayes, ſtinted prayers, and Leiturgy preſcribed therein, and vſed in theſe aſſemblies, be the true worſhip of God commaunded in his word, or the deuiſe or inuention of man, for Gods worſhip and ſeruice. 7 Whether all people and Churches without exception bee not bound in Religion, only to receiue and ſubmit vnto that ministerie, worſhip, and order, which Chriſt as Lord and King, hath giuen and appoyncted to his Church? Or whether in Religion, any may receiue or ioyne vnto, another miniſtery, worſhip and order deuiſed by man, for the ſeruice of God? And conſequently, whether they which ioyne to the preſent eccleſiaſticall miniſterie, worſhip, and order of theſe cathedrall and pariſhionall aſſemblies, can bee aſſured by the word of God, that they ioyne vnto the former appoincted by Chriſt, and not to the latter deuiſed by man, euen the man of ſinne, for the worſhip and ſeruice of God.

Vnto theſe queſtions and the particulers thereof, for the cauſes aforeſaid, we deſire their direct anſwer, with proofes of their anſwers from the ſcriptures, according to which word if they ſpeake not as wee ſaid before, ſo we ſay againe, with theEſa. 8.20. Prophet Eſay: It is becauſe there is no light in them.

And now to conclude, whereas this man being not able to anſwer our Reaſons (as hath bene declared) yet would in the ende of his writting, faſten vpon vs ſome ſtrange paſſion, yea and meere deſperatnes, for ſeparating from them, and anſwering of them as we haue done. We leaue it the godly and diſcrete Reader to iudge by that which hath bene ſaid on both parts, whether it bee not themſelues which are taken with a ſtrange paſſion, and driuen there unto by meere deſperatnes, when as to mainteyne their estate they will haue the ſcriptures to fall, (as hath beneSee the anſwer to our ſecond Exceptiō and 7. Reaſon, &c. ſeene in their anſweres before,) yea and exalt the Church, and Magiſtrate aboue Chriſt himſelfe, euen fleſh and blood aboue God, bleſſed for euer. But for this and oll their vnrighteous dealing againſt the truth and people of God, we leaue them to the Lord, who ſearcheth the hearts, & tryeth the raynes, euen to giue euery man according to his wayes, and according to the frute of his workes. That is, to them that by continuance in weldoing ſeeke glorie, and honor, and immortalitie, eternall life: But vnto them that are contentious: and diſobey the trueth, and obey vnrighteouſnes, indignation, and wrath, Jer. 17.10. with Rom. 2.6, 7, 8.

H. IACOB his 2. Reply to the 9. Reaſon.

IN this your defence of the laſt Reaſon, you miſlike that I ſay it is a fallacy: and you ſay I ſhew none. Marke what I ſay, Euery one of your Reaſons, I ſay euery one, is a very proper fallacy, and an artificiall parte of Sophiſterie, as by my ſeuerall anſwers to them may appeare. Your Firſt Reaſon is called in ye ſcholes Fallacia ab co quod eſt ſecandum quid ad ſimpliciter: prouing a thing to be ſimply, by that which is but after a ſort. The Second is the very ſame. The Thirde Fallacia aequinocationis, A fallacie of Ambiguity. The Fourth is the very ſame. The Fift is petitio principij, a begging of the queſtion. The Sixth the very ſame fallacie that was in the Firſt and Second Reaſons. The Seauenth, Eight, and Ninth, haue all the Fallacy of Equiuocation, and if you will, the ſame with that, in your Firſt, Second and Sixt Reaſons, alſo.

Further, where you ſay, that here I graunt you the cauſe, it is very abſurd. The Apoſtle 1 Tim. 6.3, 4, 5. ſaying, ſeparate frō ſuch, hath a two fould ſence, Either ſuch as teach otherwiſe then the trueth fundamentally, and then ſeparate wholly: Or not fundamentally, but erring only in poincts leſſe then the foundation: and theiſe diuerſely alſo, Either preſumptuouſly obſtinately, and of a deſparate conſcience: and then if that apeate, ſeparate from ſuch wholly: Or els, erring in ſimplicitie and of ouerſight, and former preiudice, from ſuch, ſeparate not wholly, but only from the very error or errors, in no wiſe from their Chriſtian communion and ſocietie, ſeeing theiſe are true Chriſtians.

Seing therefore our corruptions of the Praelacie, and Ceremonies, be of theſe latter ſort: which thing hetherto, you haue not nor cannot ouerthrowe, (and withall you muſt vtterly ouerthrowe Maiſt. Cranmer and the reſt of the Martirs their Chriſtianitie likewiſe): Therefore wee in England, by the grace of God, are ſtill true Chriſtians: and you ought ſo to acknowledge vs, as you will anſwer vnto God: All which you may doe, and yet touch no parte of our Eccleſiaſticall corruptions at all, to giue allowance vnto them: And in all this, there is no contradiction with my ſelfe, it is but your diſtempered conceipt, that ſeemeth contrarie. Neither is our abſolute departure from the Papiſts, hereby anie whit impeached. Wee haue iuſtlie forſaken them cleane, becauſe by their very profeſſion & doctrine, wee cannot eſteeme them true Chriſtians, neither in caſe of ſaluation, while they ſo remaine, but indeed very Antichriſtes, as the ſcripture proueth. Which thing alſo if you ſay of vs, you ſay falſlie: it is our preſent queſtion, and you doe not proue it, nor euer can doe.

As for your. 17. poincts of falſe doctrine, which you moſt falſly lay to our chardge, what haue I to doe with them? I liſt not to meddle at this prſent, but with that which wee haue in hand, namely to iuſtifie, that our publike booke of Articles of Religion (ſo farre forth as that it erreth not fundamentally, As it doth not.) conteyneth ſufficient to make a true Chriſtian: Againſt the which, hetherto you haue brought nothing worth the hearing, as we haue ſeene.

After, you would proue vs to be like thoſe Iewes Act. 19.9, whom Paul ſeparated from: But without all good reaſon. They were not ſo many but they were caſely certified of the truth that Paul preached: but how infinitly many moe are there in this land, that know nothing of this controuerſie. 2. Secondly Paul was better able to conuince them by the ſcriptures, and did more effectually, and apparantly, then you doe (or can) our whole Realme. 3. Thirdly how many learned are there in this lande, that haue many probable and ſeeming reaſons, and alleadge them, & publiſh them for the Praelacie againſt you: and are vnanſwered. And yet will you ſay they are cōuicted, and thoſe infinite others depending on them? I ſay conuicted aſwell as thoſe Iewes? What if theſe ſpeake euill of that which you hold for truth, but they hold to be errors and ſchiſme? Are they all, yea all the Land therefore aboliſhed from Chriſt? Might not all this at leaſt, be ſaid of the whole eſtate of the Iewes in Chriſtes time, and after aſwell, yet they ceaſed not to bee Churches? why then are you ſo partiall againſt vs?

Laſtly, you would ſhew Reaſons why the Apoſtles wholy ſeparated not from the Iewes Synagogues after Christ, Act. 13.14. &c. Which you will in no wiſe haue to ſerue vs. But alas for all your Exceptions againſt vs, you haue neuer a reaſon but one, and that is petitio principij, That wee were neuer ſeparated from the world, nor ſet in the way & order of Chriſt, but in the confuſion and defection of Antichrist, whoſe Ministerie, &c. were neuer the ordinances of God, &c. This is but crauing the whole queſtion. And I haue refuted theſe quarelles in a ſhort writing (hereafter following) about the compariſon of the Miniſterie with Mariage, which yet you haue no leyſure to anſwer, this whole three yeares togeather, and vpwarde.

And further you doe not ſhew any vtter and abſolitte ſeparation from the whole Church of the Iewes a great while after Chriſt: but the contrarie is ſeene Act. 21.23, 24, 26. though from ſome one or two ſynagogues they ſeparated after full experience of ther obſtinate and malitious reſiſtance of the truth, which we deny not.

Touching the Concluſion.

IN the concluſion of my former Replie, to proue your vtter ſeparation from vs a Paradox: Firſt I alleadged all the reformed Churches: For who knoweth not, but they all hold Communion with vs as Churches of God? yet you dare either deny this, or vtterlie peruert it. Yow tell vs of your Anſwers to Maiſter Cartwright and Maiſter Hilderſham that are vnanſwered. If they by like to this your anſwer here, verely they doe wiſeſt in yeelding ſilence to ſuch friuolus and wandring wordes.

Secondly I alleadged your ſelues to haue acknowledged heretofore, That our publique doctrine allowed, would and did make many of vs true Chriſtians. You too ſhamefully deny it. And ſay you are for witneſſing against it, impriſoned, baniſhed, &c. Whereto I anſwere, that if for theſe things you are troubled, I know none can pittie you. And becauſe you ſay none of you euer acknowledged it, I will therefore repeat your owne wordes.

Mr. BARROW (in his laſt anſwer in writing to Mr. Gifford, intituled, A few obſeruations to the reader of Mr. Giff laſt Reply: Sect. 4.) ſaith thus:

The next calumniations whereby Mr Gifford indeuoreth to bring vs into hatred with the whole. Lande, is, That we condemne all the perſons both men and women of England, which are not of our minde, and pluck them vp as tares: wherein me thinkes he doeth vs open wrong, if not against his owne cōſcience, yet against our expreſſe writings euery where, &c. Haue we not commended the faith of the Engliſhe Martirs, & deemed them ſaued, notwithstanding the falſe offices and great corruptions, in the worſhip they exerciſed, not doubting but the mercy of God, through their ſyncere faith to Ieſus Christ extended and ſuperabonnded aboue all their ſinnes ſeene and vnſeene. And what nowe ſhould let, that we ſhould not haue the ſame hope, where the ſame pretious faith in ſynceritie & ſimplicitie is found? So that they neither neglect to ſearch out the trueth, nor despiſe the trueth when they ſee it, &c.

Afterwards in the ſame Section.

The faithfull ſeruants of Chriſt (denying the whole conſtitution and gouernment of this Church of England) may iuſtlie deny the people whileſt they remayne in that constitution to bee members of a true conſtituted Church, yet hereby not condemne them with any ſuch peremptory ſentence as Maiſter Gifford ſuggesteth, to cut them of from Gods election,Nota. From Chriſt. or from Chriſt.

Mr. PENRIE (in his confeſſion of faith, publiſhed in writing a litle before his death,) ſaith thus.

The trueth of doctrine touching the holy Trinitie, touching the Natures and Offices of Christe, Justifying faith, Sacramentes, Eternall life, and the rest, establiſhed by her Maisties Lawes, and profeſſed by her ſelfe, their Honors, and ſuch as haue knowledge in the Aſſemblies of this lande: J acknowledge from my heart to be ſuch, as if J mainteyned not the vnitie, and helde not the communion, of the ſame doctrine with them in theſe poinctes, J could not poſſibly be ſaued: For out of the Communion of the true profeſſion, which her Maieſtie hath eſtabliſhed in theſe and the like truthes, there is no hope of ſaluation left: But ioyne notwithding with the publique worſhip in the aſſemblies of this Land, I dare not, for the former cauſes.

J doe moreouer willingly confeſſe, That many, both of the Teachers, & alſo of the Profeſſors within theſe Pariſh aſſemblies, haue ſo embraced this trueth of doctrine, establiſhed and profeſſed in this Land, as the Lord of his infinite goodnes, hath graūted thē the fauour, to ſhew outwardly, many tokens, whereby (in regard of the Lordes election) I profeſſe before men and Angells, that I iudge them to be members of that body whereof the Sonne of God Chriſt Ieſus is the head. Onely herein the Lord be mercifull vnto them, (as to my ſelf in regard of my ſinnes:) That they are not vnder that outward forme of gouernement that Chriſt hath left, &c.

And in his examination before Maister Fanſhaw, lately publiſhed by your ſelues in print, he confeſſeth the Churches of England to be the true Churches of Christ.

And what ſay you, Maiſter Iohnſon? Haue you not affirmed this thing your ſelfe, to me, and to Maiſter Philips, namely touching your owne ſelfe, when you were of vs, That then you doubted not, but you were a true regenerate Christian. By vertue of what doctrine? By extraordinarie reuelation? Nay, but by our publique doctrine of our Church, when you ſtoode and continued a publique Miniſter of the ſame. If you beleued ſo of your ſelfe, (and that truely) what letteth but you may beleeue the like of many Thouſands nowe?

Further where you ſay, my applying of the Martirs, is anſwered before. Let the Reader iudge. You ſhewe here, that ſome of them miſliked the Hyerarchie. But it maketh ſtronger againſt you, ſeeing for all that, they them ſelues refuſed not to communicate, and partake with them then, as true Chriſtians: as Hoper, Bale, Bradford, &c.

After where you ſay: though the reformed Churches, your ſelues, and the Martirs, haue thought otherwiſe then you nowe doe: yet all this is no ſound proofe against you. Yes in deed, that nowe you holde a Paradox, thoſe witneſſes are ſufficient for that: wherevnto may be added, the whole Churches iudgement and practize, with all the auncient learned Fathers theſe 1300. or 1400. yeres Chriſoſtom. Epiphanius, Naziāzen. Hyerom. Auſten. Ambroſe, &c. They all haue thought, that vnder the Prelacie, and humane ceremonies, men may be true Chriſtians. Then theſe witneſſes are ſufficient, that your deniall hereof, is a ſtrange and vnuſuall opinion, that is, a Paradox.

Finally to trie vs, you propound a many of queſtions. But I leaue all this ſuperfluous ſtuffe to your ſelfe to be pondered. Firſt let vs cleare this preſent queſtion, and your Reaſons here about: Till then, wee haue no leaſure to meddle further. The Lord of his mercy open your eyes to ſee your extremitie, whereby you doe greatlie hinder, not helpe the trueth, which you would ſeeme to ſuffer for. That you may indeed ſhewe your ſelf as becometh a Chriſtian Paſtor, not impoſſible to erre, but no louer of error Not a ſtriue • for victorie, but a loues of •• th. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 , not regarding your own, but the praiſe of Chriſt in all things. AMEN.

FINIS.